Correspondence between

1 know you've had enough email traffic on this, but for what it’s worth, Daddow thinks the number will be lower as a result of GM removing themselves from the system.

Don’t disagree but we’re too far along now to change numbers. So, we'll use the $12M and as the year progresses we'll track it.

| agree with Dennis... Consistent with what I think we (Wayne & |) said at the DEQ meeting yesterday... the county drain commission has more knowledge & experience running a water system than we (Treasury) do. That is why we were trying to get some outside verification. We were not able to get an outside engineering firm engaged due to the timeframe. Our fallback was Jeff Wright - the drain commissioner. He calculated $13.2mm. We did a ‘back of the envelope’ analysis of $10.5mm late last week. That was based off an email we rec’d from Dennis that summarized the DWSD/City proposal. We were not a part of the $12mm calculation that is in the ‘public’ realm now. | believe that was a result of a meeting DEQ/Dan had with the City earlier this week. John indicated yesterday he would recommend/prefer to err on the side of caution for the amount requested from the legislature. Plus, keep in mind whatever number you choose assumes completion of KWA in June. If the project slips a month (& it very well could given it is a major capital project) the cost of the reconnect is going to go up a $1mm+ per month. If it is possible | would recommend using the $13.2mm (hoping the project will be done as scheduled) given the county is in the best position to make that estimate. We don’t have any info that would contradict that number.

| would say we need to add the $1.2 difference from somewhere. | suggest we hold on to the idea of the bottle deposit escrow as we can easily take $1m droit if need t. Sent from my iPhone