Keith McLaughlin, Finance DirectorColorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority

Water and Wastewater Rates: Is a Gap Coming

Your Way?

STATE OF COLORADO SRF PROGRAMSSRF STATISTICS

SRF Rate Covenant Average1:2009:  246%; 2010:  280%; Percent Change:  13.8%

SRF Borrower Reserves1:Percent Change from 2009‐2010:  ‐22.7%

Total Revenue excluding Tap Fees1:Percent Change from 2009‐2010:  7.6%

Total Tap Fees/Total Revenue1:2009:  5.9%; 2010:  4.4%; Percent Change:  ‐26.1%

Percent of Borrowers Out of Compliance1:Rate Covenant:   Percent Change:  ‐33.3%O&M Reserve:  Percent Change:  ‐15.4%

STATE STATISTICSTotal Colorado Taxable Assessed Value2:

Percent Change from 2009‐2010:  ‐5.3%Total Colorado Property Tax Revenue2:

Percent Change from 2009‐2010:  ‐0.3%Footnotes:1. Based on Borrowers submitting both 2009 and 2010 CAFRs.2. Information gathered from the Department of Local Affairs Database.

Track & Monitor IssuesFinancial AuditsPortfolio MonitoringVulnerability AssessmentLate Payments

Financial AuditsCollected Annually:  Quarterly or monthly 

financial statement requirements in some casesSingle Audit:  Subrecipent monitoring

Additional Bonds Test:  1.10 vs. 1.20Rate Covenant 

Prior to execution and annuallyTR‐OE/DS = 1.10

O & M Reserve RequirementCA‐CL = OE x.25

Rate Stabilization FundNotwithstanding anything contained above, amounts deposited in a rate stabilizationaccount shall not be deemed Revenues (as defined in paragraph (4) of this Exhibit A to thisLoan Agreement) in the calendar year deposited and amounts withdrawn from the ratestabilization account shall be deemed Revenues (as defined in paragraph (4) of this ExhibitA to this Loan Agreement) in the year withdrawn.

Rate StudyIn the event that Revenues collected during a fiscal year are not sufficient to meet therequirements set forth in the Rate Covenant contained in paragraph 5. of Exhibit A of thisLoan Agreement, the Governmental Agency shall, within 90 days of the end of such FiscalYear, cause an independent firm of accountants or consulting engineers, to prepare a ratestudy for the purpose of recommending a schedule of rates, fees and charges for the use ofthe System which in the opinion of the firm conducting the study will be sufficient toprovide Revenues to be collected in the next succeeding Fiscal Year which will providecompliance with the Rate Covenant described in paragraph (5) of Exhibit A of this LoanAgreement. Such a study shall be delivered to the Authority and the Trustee. TheGovernmental Agency shall within six months of receipt of such study, adopt rates, fees andcharges for the use of the System, based upon the recommendations contained in suchstudy, which provide compliance with said Rate Covenant.

Financial Audits Cont. 

Portfolio Monitoring

Celebrities of Maryland

Vulnerability AssessmentBORROWER 2008 YOY Chg 2009 YOY Chg 2010

Late Loan Payments past 3 

yearsLate Audits MHI Population 

Cash Reserves/ Debt

Tap Fees/ Total Revenue TOTAL SCORE

Arriba, Town of NA NA NA NA 57% 27,292     215 7% 0%Bethune, Town of 124% -22% 97% 15% 111% Yes 52,188 221 260% 0%Black Hawk-Central City San District 146% -11% 130% -12% 114% 60,000 755 833% 0%Boone, Town of 155% -2% 152% -89% 17% 3 27,813 324 136% 0%Boone, Town of 155% -2% 152% -89% 17% 1 27,813 324 136% 0%Broomfield, City of 252% -67% 84% 9% 91% 1 76,240 55,861 558% 24%Buena Vista Sanitation District 126% 20% 152% -27% 111% 1 39,727 2,317 617% 7%Byers Water & Sanitation District 130% 29% 167% -38% 103% 62,759 582% 6%Cherokee Metropolitan District 211% 25% 264% -76% 64% Yes 56,570 44,863 222% 13%Colorado City Metropolitan District 84% -63% 31% 198% 92% Yes 40,805 44,863 61% 6%Cucharas Sanitation & Water District 167% -13% 145% -27% 107% 2 Yes 31,136 6,912 -69% 2%Cucharas Sanitation & Water District 167% -13% 145% -27% 107% 2 Yes 31,136 6,912 -69% 2%Denver SE Suburban Water & San District 154% -6% 144% -62% 55% 99,522 10,323 190% 18%Denver SE Suburban Water & San District 154% -6% 144% -62% 55% 99,522 10,323 190% 18%Eaton, Town of 116% -7% 108% 5% 113% 4 56,424     4,197 23% 4%Eaton, Town of 86% 5% 90% -7% 84% 4 56,424     4,197 119% 6%Empire, Town of 104% -47% 55% 73% 95% 4 Yes 45,179 371 -70% 0%Englewood, City of 111% -5% 106% -24% 81% 1 42,451 33,895 46% 1%Englewood, City of 111% -5% 106% -24% 81% 1 42,451 33,895 46% 1%Englewood, City of 111% -5% 106% -24% 81% 1 42,451 33,895 46% 1%Fairplay, Town of (Loan #1) see #2 136% 57% 213% -59% 88% Yes 50,982 679 94% 0%Fairplay, Town of (Loan #1) see #2 136% 57% 213% -59% 88% Yes 50,982 679 94% 0%Fort Lupton, City of 68% 146% 168% -56% 74% 50,145 7,804 -136% 0%Fort Lupton, City of 68% 146% 168% -56% 74% 50,145 7,804 -136% 0%Fort Lupton, City of 150% 1% 152% -21% 120% 50,145 7,804 -95% 0%Fort Morgan, City of 145% -26% 108% 15% 124% 2 Yes 43,917 10,762 639% 16%Garden Valley WSD 228% -64% 83% 75% 145% Yes 56,570 690 -3%Georgetown, Town of NA NA NA NA 123% Yes 64,872 1,066 88% 1%Granby Sanitation District 276% -40% 166% -29% 118% 57,600 2,432 785% 4%Kremmling Sanitation District 71% -485% -273% 145% 122% 56,010 1,693 961% 0%

Coverage

Unwritten Collection and Compliance Techniques

CONTACT INFORMATION

Keith McLaughlinFinance Director

303-830-1550, ext. 22kmclaughlin@cwrpda.com