## Table 0 ##
Generally, our manufacturing facilities are adequate to meet our existing in-house production needs.
We continue to invest in our plant sites to maintain viable operations and to add capacity as necessary to meet business imperatives.
Most of our manufacturing plants also serve as distribution centers.
In addition, we operate distribution centers around the world, most of which are leased, and utilize third party logistics service providers to facilitate the distribution of our products and services.
At year end 2016 Ecolab’s corporate headquarters was comprised of three adjacent multi-storied buildings located in downtown St.  Paul, Minnesota.
The main 19-story building was constructed to our specifications and is leased through June 30, 2018.
The second building is leased through 2019.
The Company intends to vacate the current leased buildings in 2018.
The third building is owned.
Ecolab acquired the 17-story North Tower from The Travelers Indemnity Company in downtown St.  Paul, Minnesota on August 4, 2015.
This building became the corporate headquarters in 2017.
A 90 acre campus in Eagan, Minnesota is owned and provides for future growth.
The Eagan facility houses a significant research and development center, a data center and training facilities as well as several of our administrative functions.
We also have a significant business presence in Naperville, Illinois, where our Water and Paper operating segment maintain their principal administrative offices and research center.
As discussed in Part II, Item 8, Note 6, “Debt and Interest” of this Form 10-K, the Company acquired the beneficial interest in the trust owning these facilities during 2015.
Our Energy operating segment maintains administrative and research facilities in Sugar Land, Texas and additional research facilities in Fresno, Texas.
In December 2013, we announced the construction of a new 133,000 square-foot headquarters building adjacent to the existing Sugar Land operations which was completed in early 2016 and renovation of the existing 45,000 square-foot research facilities in Sugar Land.
Significant regional administrative and/or research facilities are located in Leiden, Netherlands, Campinas, Brazil, and Pune, India, which we own, and in Monheim, Germany, Singapore, Shanghai, China, and Zurich, Switzerland, which we lease.
We also have a network of small leased sales offices in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in other parts of the world.
Item 3.
Legal Proceedings.
Discussion of legal proceedings is incorporated by reference from Part II, Item 8, Note 15, “Commitments and Contingencies,” of this Form 10-K and should be considered an integral part of Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings.
” Other environmental-related legal proceedings are discussed at Part I, Item 1(c) above, under the heading “Environmental and Regulatory Considerations” and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 4.
Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
Belgian Tax Matter Belgian Tax Matter In January 2012, the Company received a €23,789 assessment from the Belgian tax authority related to its year ended December 31, 2008, asserting that the Company had understated its Belgian taxable income for that year.
The Company filed a formal protest in the first quarter of 2012 refuting the Belgian tax authority¡¯s position.
The Belgian tax authority set aside the assessment in the third quarter of 2012 and refunded all related deposits, including interest income of €1,583 earned on such deposits.
However, on October 23, 2012, the Belgian tax authority notified the Company of its intent to increase the Company¡¯s taxable income for the year ended December 31, 2008 under a revised theory.
On December 28, 2012, the Belgian tax authority issued assessments for the years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009, in the amounts of €46,135 and €35,567, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest.
The Company filed a formal protest during the first quarter of 2013 relating to the new assessments.
In September 2013, the Belgian tax authority denied the Company¡¯s protests, and the Company has brought these two years before the Court of First Appeal in Bruges.
In December 2013, the Belgian tax authority issued additional assessments related to the years ended December 31, 2006, 2007, and 2010, in the amounts of €38,817, €39,635, and €43,117, respectively, including penalties, but excluding interest.
The Company filed formal protests during the first quarter of 2014, refuting the Belgian tax authority¡¯s position for each of the years assessed.
In the quarter ended June 28, 2014, the Company received a formal assessment for the year ended December 31, 2008, totaling €30,131, against which the Company also submitted its formal protest.
All 4 additional years have been brought before the Court of First Appeal in November 2014.
In January of 2015, the Company met with the Court of First Appeal in Bruges, Belgium and agreed with the Belgium tax authorities to consolidate and argue the issues regarding the years 2005 and 2009, and apply the ruling to all of the open years (to the extent there are no additional facts/procedural arguments in the other years).
In May 2017, the statute of limitation was extended to include the calendar year 2011.
On January 27, 2016, the Court of First Appeal in Bruges, Belgium ruled in favor of the Company with respect to the calendar years ending December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2009.
On March 9, 2016, the Belgian tax authority lodged its Notification of Appeal with the Ghent Court of Appeal.
The Company disagrees with the views of the Belgian tax authority on this matter and will persist in its vigorous defense.
Nevertheless, on May 24, 2016, the tax collector representing the Belgian tax authorities imposed a lien on the Company¡¯s properties in Wielsbeke (Ooigemstraat and Breestraat), Oostrozebeke (Ingelmunstersteenweg) and Desselgem (Waregemstraat) included in the Flooring ROW segment.
The purpose of the lien is to provide security for payment should the Belgian tax authority prevail on its appeal.
The lien does not interfere with the Company¡¯s operations at these properties.
Note 13.
Commitments and Contingencies The Company is obligated under various operating leases for office and manufacturing space, machinery, and equipment.
Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable capital and operating leases (with initial or remaining lease terms in excess of one year) as of December 31 are as follows:
## Table 1 ##
Rental expense under operating leases was $145,176, $125,103 and $116,633 in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
The Company had approximately $56,267 and $941 in standby letters of credit for various insurance contracts and commitments to foreign vendors as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively that expire within two years.
The Company is involved in litigation from time to time in the regular course of its business.
Except as noted below and in Note 12¡ªIncome Taxes, Belgian Tax Matter, there are no material legal proceedings pending or known by the Company to be contemplated to which the Company is a party or to which any of its property is subject.
Alabama Municipal Litigation In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the ¡°Gadsden Water Board¡±) filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing perfluorinated compounds, including the Company.
On October 26, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent joinder.
The Gadsden Water Board filed a motion to remand the case back to the state court, and the defendants opposed the Gadsden Water Board¡¯s motion.
The federal court granted Gadsden Water Board¡¯s motion for remand.
On October 24, 2017, the Company appealed the federal court¡¯s determination that co-defendant Industrial Chemicals, Inc.  (¡°ICI¡±) was properly joined as a party to the case.
On February 22, 2018, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
ICI¡¯s presence in the case deprives the federal court of jurisdiction over the case.
In May, 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the ¡°Centre Water Board¡±) filed a very similar complaint to the Gadsden Water Board complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County.
On June 19, 2017, the defendants removed this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, again alleging diversity of citizenship and fraudulent
Contractual Obligations The following table presents payments due by period for long-term contractual obligations as of December 31, 2007:
## Table 2 ##
(1) Excludes short-term liabilities, other policyholder funds, taxes and short-term debt as these are not long-term and/or not contractual in nature.
Also excludes obligations under our pension and other postretirement benefit plans as benefit payments will be made under a funded plan and will not require company contributions or payments within a five-year period.
In addition, separate account liabilities are excluded.
Separate account liabilities represent the fair market value of funds that are separately administered by us.
Generally, the separate account contract owner, rather than us, bears the investment risk of these funds.
The separate account liabilities are legally segregated and are not subject to claims that arise out of any other business of ours.
Net deposits, net investment income and realized and unrealized capital gains and losses on the separate accounts are not reflected in the consolidated statement of operations.
The separate account obligations will be fully funded by cash flows from the separate account assets.
(2) Includes GICs, funding agreements, individual fixed annuities, universal life insurance and other investment-type contracts.
See Item 8.
‘‘Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 11, Insurance Liabilities’’ for additional information.
Amounts included in the contractholder funds line item reflect estimated cash payments to be made to policyholders.
The sum of the cash outflows shown for all years in the table exceeds the corresponding liability amount included in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007.
The liability amount in our consolidated financial statements reflects estimated cash payments to policyholders, assumptions with regard to the timing of cash payments and discounting for interest.
(3) Amounts included in the future policy benefits and claims line item reflect estimated cash payments to be made to policyholders.
The sum of the cash outflows shown for all years in the table exceeds the corresponding liability amount included in our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007.
The liability amount in our consolidated financial statements reflects estimated cash payments to policyholders, reductions for expected future premiums, assumptions with regard to the timing of cash payments and discounting for interest.
(4) For long term debt information, see Item 8.
‘‘Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 12, Debt’’.
(5) Amounts included in the certificates of deposit line item reflect estimated cash payments to be made, including expected interest payments.
Certificates of deposit are reported as other liabilities on our consolidated statement of financial position.
(6) Other long-term liabilities include other liabilities reflected in the consolidated statement of financial position that are contractual, non-cancelable and long-term in nature.
This line item excludes accruals and short-term items in the amount of $3,072.4 million.
(7) As a lessee, we lease office space, data processing equipment and office furniture and equipment under various operating leases.
(8) Purchase obligations include material contracts where we have a non-cancelable commitment to purchase goods and services in addition to commitments to originate loans and purchase investments.

Tables referenced above, in order (Table 0 first):
<table><tr><td>Location</td><td>ApproximateSize (Sq. Ft.)</td><td>Segment</td><td>MajorityOwned orLeased</td></tr><tr><td>Hamilton, NEW ZEALAND</td><td>96,000</td><td>Global Institutional, Global Industrial</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Calgary, Alberta, CANADA</td><td>94,000</td><td>Global Energy</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Kwinana, AUSTRALIA</td><td>87,000</td><td>Global Institutional, Global Industrial</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Revesby, AUSTRALIA</td><td>87,000</td><td>Global Institutional, Global Industrial</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Yangsan, KOREA</td><td>85,000</td><td>Global Energy, Global Industrial</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Cisterna, ITALY</td><td>80,000</td><td>Global Industrial</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Rovigo, ITALY</td><td>77,000</td><td>Global Institutional</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Cuautitlan, MEXICO</td><td>76,000</td><td>Global Institutional, Global Industrial</td><td>Owned</td></tr><tr><td>Barueri, BRAZIL</td><td>75,000</td><td>Global Institutional, Global Industrial</td><td>Leased</td></tr><tr><td>Mullingar, IRELAND</td><td>74,000</td><td>Global Institutional, Global Industrial</td><td>Leased</td></tr><tr><td>Mosta, MALTA</td><td>73,000</td><td>Global Institutional</td><td>Leased</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Capital</td><td>Operating</td><td>Total FuturePayments</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>$1,433</td><td>115,736</td><td>117,169</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>1,094</td><td>91,226</td><td>92,320</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>769</td><td>70,146</td><td>70,915</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>597</td><td>47,356</td><td>47,953</td></tr><tr><td>2022</td><td>590</td><td>26,927</td><td>27,517</td></tr><tr><td>Thereafter</td><td>3,954</td><td>39,615</td><td>43,569</td></tr><tr><td>Total payments</td><td>8,437</td><td>391,006</td><td>399,443</td></tr><tr><td>Less amount representing interest</td><td>1,510</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Present value of capitalized lease payments</td><td>$6,927</td><td></td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td colspan="4"> Payments due in year ending</td></tr><tr><td> Contractual Obligations-1 </td><td> Total Payments</td><td> 2008</td><td> 2009-2010</td><td> 2011-2012</td><td> 2013 and thereafter</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td colspan="5"><i>(in millions) </i> </td></tr><tr><td>Contractholder funds-2</td><td>$59,012.9</td><td>$7,448.6</td><td>$13,563.8</td><td>$9,774.6</td><td>$28,225.9</td></tr><tr><td>Future policy benefits and claims-3</td><td>39,089.0</td><td>2,045.8</td><td>3,410.0</td><td>3,272.3</td><td>30,360.9</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt-4</td><td>1,398.8</td><td>83.4</td><td>482.6</td><td>105.5</td><td>727.3</td></tr><tr><td>Certificates of deposit-5</td><td>1,069.0</td><td>610.5</td><td>389.0</td><td>64.4</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>Other long-term liabilities-6</td><td>926.5</td><td>677.0</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>249.5</td></tr><tr><td>Capital leases</td><td>11.3</td><td>5.4</td><td>5.5</td><td>0.4</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term debt interest</td><td>1,431.7</td><td>94.0</td><td>125.9</td><td>95.9</td><td>1,115.9</td></tr><tr><td>Operating leases-7</td><td>197.9</td><td>51.8</td><td>76.9</td><td>37.1</td><td>32.1</td></tr><tr><td>Purchase obligations-8</td><td>597.2</td><td>541.4</td><td>43.2</td><td>12.6</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Total contractual obligations</td><td>$103,734.3</td><td>$11,557.9</td><td>$18,096.9</td><td>$13,362.8</td><td>$60,716.7</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the average value of Certificates of deposit-5 in 2008, 2009-2010,2011-2012? (in million)
Answer: 354.633
Reasoning program: add(610.5,389), add(#0,64.4), divide(#1,const_3)