Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6 <br /> <br />E. Comparison Yith overall system costs from the 1977 Annual Report, <br />Denver Water Dep~ent <br /> <br />1977 Expenses <br />1. Water supply, treatment, distribution <br />2. G&A <br />3. Employee Benefits <br />4. Customer Billing <br />5. Non-operating expenses <br /> <br />$/mg <br />125 <br />83 <br />31 <br />16 <br />17 <br /> <br />Total expense <br /> <br />272 <br /> <br />1977 Capital Costs <br />1. I&A <br /> <br />138 <br />200 <br /> <br />2. Surplus invested in improvements <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Total capital <br />Total costs equal total revenues of $610/mg. <br /> <br />For this comparison,consiclerthe 1983 (other years provide similar <br />illustrations), costs incurred for the 125 mgd Foothills addition (using <br />the average of the MC&SS alternatives less Aurora, under the alternative <br />assumptions instead of the CO~)s assumptions). <br /> <br />338 <br /> <br />1933 costs <br />1. I&A <br />2. OM&R <br /> <br />55 <br /> <br />17,533 <br /> <br />1,443 <br /> <br />I.\e <br /> <br />12,419 <br />3,675 <br /> <br />Aurora <br /> <br />2,562 <br />o <br /> <br />Average <br />13,697 <br /> <br />2,559 <br /> <br />1983 total 16,256 <br />The 1977 PW of this total is .705x16,256=11,460 Hhich is equivalent to <br />approximately $29~mg. If He assumed that a Foothills' plant Here <br />instantaineously available at the end of 1977, then lie see that a 24% <br />(125/520) capacity increase requires a 48% (292/610) revenue increase. <br />Thus, a Foothills addition is 2 times more costly than the existing <br />(1977) plant. It is actually considorably more than that \lith respect <br />to only Hater '~roatment. Thereforo, conservation measures do have <br />m03.::',Hrruble cost savings. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />I <br />,:' <br /> <br />00701 <br />