Customer impact
Monthly bill equivalent
Quarterly bills are divided by three for budgeting. Charts use the account selected below; they do not determine the division’s revenue mix.
LCA • Five-year decision lab
Rate & capital planner 2027–2031
Explore customer bills, the published capital program, and the financial room to deliver it. Three reporting divisions. Explicit assumptions. Comparable scenarios.
Evidence through07 Nov 2026Interface 0.3 • Model 0.2.0Public data + declared planning assumptions
i
Independent planning example. The 2027 budget is approved; 2027 rates are treated as proposed at the evidence cutoff. This model supports analysis, with each division’s cash kept separate. See the model, source differences and assumptions → · Power BI companion (embed pending)
Loading the versioned public evidence…
Central planning estimate
Same account usage and tariff selection
USD / account
Financial resilience
Year-end unrestricted cash
Restricted cash is excluded. The policy line is the selected days-of-operating-cash target.
Follow the money
Sources, uses & capital funding
Cash inflows and outflows below use the same selected division and scenario as the bill and cash charts. Sources include borrowing; uses include debt payments. Opening reserves are shown in the bridge, separately from annual sources.
Annual cash sources
USD millionsExact source values · USD
Borrowing creates repayment obligations. Investment conversions release assets already held. Neither is new operating income.
Annual cash uses
USD millionsExact use values · USD
Debt service includes principal and interest in the supplied schedule. Capital spending and other capital payments remain separate.
Capital spending and identified funding
USD millionsFive-year borrowing, grants and remaining cash bridge · USD
Zero additional debt keeps planned borrowing. The control changes only additional draws. For the full-period cash identity, capital spending equals borrowing + grants + capital receipts + cash generated + investment conversions + opening less ending cash. Cash generated here deducts operating, lease, all debt service and other capital payments. A negative reserve draw means reserves build.
Each year pairs spending with identified borrowing, grants and capital receipts. This compares aggregate timing; it does not earmark a receipt to a project or certify approval or eligibility. Capital less identified funding may be supported by operating surplus or opening unrestricted reserves. Funding above capital is shown separately in the table.
Exact spending, funding and residual values · USD
Reconcile sources and uses to remaining cash · USD
Ending cash = opening cash + sources − uses. Read the chart definitions or the cash-movement definition. Full-precision rows drive every calculation; the exact-value tables round only for display to cents.
Fixed + usage + applicable add-ons
What makes up the bill?
No pooled cash between divisions
Five-year cash ledger
Coverage is a conservative planning proxy: customer + other operating + investment receipts, less operating cash expense and lease payments, divided by cash debt service. Capital receipts and grants are excluded. It is not the reported covenant calculation.
Decision notes & remaining obligations
Compare before adjusting
Suggested scenarios, with explicit settings
Select up to five scenarios to compare. Every preset is available for every division. Bills use the same selected account; cash and financing remain division-specific. No probabilities are assigned.
Monthly bill paths
Cash paths
“Published drivers” uses the approved-budget anchor and original expense growth, with detailed project capital. “Condensed capital table” additionally uses the lower City 2029 cash-table amount. Neither is labeled an adopted LCA cash forecast.
Adopted 2027–2031 program
The capital plan is the starting point
Detailed project schedules and administration total $361.312 million. The three condensed cash tables total $355.712 million. Both are preserved, with the source difference shown below.
Annual program by reporting division
Project schedules → division cash schedules
$5.6 million source conflict in City 2029. Detailed City water and wastewater projects plus allocated administration total $53.8195m; the condensed cash table shows $48.2195m. The wet-weather Phase 1 project includes $5.6m in 2029, but the source does not confirm why the cash table is lower. The central scenario includes the fuller project schedule; the alternative remains selectable.
Administration is allocated 25% to Suburban Water, 25% to Suburban Wastewater and 50% to City in the reconstructed bridge. It is already included in each division’s modeled capital and is not added twice. Capital overrun controls add costs; the optimizer does not remove projects.
Official capital plans · City project table printed p.51 / PDF p.55; City condensed cash table printed p.5 / PDF p.7. See the reconciliation.
2016–2025 public financial & operating history
Customer counts tell only part of the story
Customer units, gallons and dollars have different denominators. Industrial concentration matters even where residential accounts dominate. Published categories and geographic scope are retained.
Water service units & volume
2025 service-charge revenue
Water-volume trends by class
Index: 2016 = 100. Water sales, not wastewater billing or customer counts. The full source series is available in the versioned evidence file.
Operating cost history
Audited accrual operating expenses excluding depreciation/amortization. They are not cash payments or a pure inflation index. Central planning uses a judgmental 25% historical-trend weight; the published-driver scenario uses 0%.
City industrial units rise from 471 in 2024 to 959 in 2025 without a resolved classification explanation. Do not extrapolate that jump as customer growth. The public wastewater statements do not provide a complete residential/industrial billing-determinant split; the residual-revenue and industrial sensitivity assumptions stay editable.
Trace the inputs
Evidence, defaults & assumptions
Verified source amounts are kept separately from derived forecasts and scenario judgments. A planning default is the best-supported starting estimate available here, not an empirically established most-probable outcome.
Why these defaults?
2027 detailed cash bridge, all three divisions
Budget cash-flow schedule PDF p.16. Detailed City ending unrestricted cash is $53,947,019; the summary is $1 lower. The model follows the detailed schedule. The City $5.2m capital reclassification preserves total cash outflow; its project mapping is inferred.
Published cash versus calculated scenarios
City published ending cash does not fully roll forward from the condensed flow table: 2028–2031 residuals are −$547,148, −$567,501, −$588,616 and −$610,526. This model does not insert unexplained balancing entries.
Assumption register for the selected division
Primary sources & reproducible data
Normalized baseline JSON · Public extractions JSON · Tariff and rule research JSON · Data guide
Known rules + declared assumptions
Rules & agreements in the calculation
Applicability is resolved where the public record supports it. Remaining missing terms become explicit planning parameters; they do not lock the controls. Numerical feasibility and permission to adopt rates are separate conclusions.
City core-rate ceiling
The original lease specifies a nonnegative annual change based on the prior June annual change in CPI-U for the Northeast, not seasonally adjusted, plus a 2.5-point margin through 2032. Municipal agreements and permitted add-ons have separate treatment. The model checks a core-growth proxy and exposes an explicit amendment assumption for analysis.
Published volume rates include embedded pass-throughs that are not separately decomposed here, so this is a planning check rather than a certified invoice audit. The 2020 council approval and published implementation history were verified; the reviewed execution-copy file has blank signature fields.
A bridge to future internal data
ERP connections, safely mocked
Future controlled extracts can replace public proxies with billing determinants, project cash, debt schedules and reconciled general-ledger balances. This public site makes no ERP network request.
Munis / other ERP adapter contract
A small Suburban Water fixture demonstrates field mapping, duplicate checks, cash basis, currency and control-total reconciliation. Validation does not write to the planning model.
Production mapping to establish
| Domain | Needed fields | Decision it improves |
|---|---|---|
| Billing / utility system | Division, service, rate code, class, meter, EDUs, volume, billed fixed/usage/add-on revenue | Replace assumed exposure and fixed/variable shares |
| Munis general ledger | Fund, account, period, cash/accrual basis, restricted flag, reconciled balances | Comparable O&M and cash forecast |
| Projects / grants | Project ID, required scope, cash schedule, commitments, grant eligibility and draw timing | Resolve capital schedule and funding differences |
| Treasury / debt | Instrument, draw, principal, interest, covenant definition, maturity | Complete debt rollforward and legal coverage tests |
| Agreement register | Executed document, parties, effective dates, service allocation, billing formula | Replace contract and approval assumptions |
Aggregated extracts belong in a controlled environment. Do not upload customer identifiers, account-level bills, credentials or production data to this public demo. Integration guide.