Correspondence between

Thank you. Who is setting the meeting. I need to send my availability. Getting tighter and tighter as we get close to D Day. Sent from my iPad

We are setting up a new revolving fund to enable some borrowing | think. | imagine any deal would require stringent terms on monthly payments. Sent from my iPad

i > Begin forwarded message: %

FYI —just received the attached letter on Flint. RJD

FYI — just received the attached letter on Flint. RJD

FYI — just received the attached letter on Flint. RJD

FY] -- just received the attached letter on Flint. RID

FYI — just received the attached letter on Flint. RJD

Rich - it takes two to negotiate and Flint representatives are not at the table. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid even considering this as an alternative course of action. Me - what I'd be doing is a dual track; if the local solution fails, I'd have the second option to fall back on. But, heh, that is just me. They are over 21, have been elected to represent their residents / commercial entities and therefore are responsible for their actions - to the same people who put them there. While I'd like to pick up a few percentage point reduction in the water rate increases for the retention of Flint, it would be short-term anyway. If we don't have a willing partner on that side, then it can only lead to further distractions from a DWSD management already stressed in dealing with the transition, normal business, and the new Financial Review Board / two policy boards that they are reporting to.

>> >> Rich - it takes two to negotiate and Flint representatives are not at the table. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid even considering this as an alternative course of action. Me - what I'd be doing is a dual track; if the local solution fails, I'd have the second option to fall back on. But, heh, that is just me. They are over 21, have been elected to represent 1 xxxEND_PAGE:treasury01_b27_4112_4389_213 their residents / commercial entities and therefore are responsible for their actions - to the same people who put them there. >> >> While I'd like to pick up a few percentage point reduction in the water rate increases for the retention of Flint, it would be short-term anyway. If we don't have a willing partner on that side, then it can only lead to further distractions

>>> >>> Rich - it takes two to negotiate and Flint representatives are not at the table. In fact, they are actively trying to avoid even considering this as an alternative course of action. Me - what I'd be doing is a dual track; if the local solution fails, I'd have the second option to fall back on. But, heh, that is just me. They are over 21, have been elected to represent their residents / commercial entities and therefore are responsible for their actions - to the same people who put them there. >>> >>> While I'd like to pick up a few percentage point reduction in the water rate increases for the retention of Flint, it would be short-term anyway. If we don't have a willing partner on that side, then it can only lead to further distractions from a DWSD management already stressed in dealing with the transition, normal business, and the new Financial Review Board / two policy boards that they are reporting to. >>>

Possibly but they have been a bit hard to reach apparently since they left the field. Nikki is interested. Let's see if | can connect with her. Trouble is 1am out tomorrow. Open Sunday and Monday though. Not sure what Veolia would do that Nilkki and Bart can't. Nowling liked the notion of helping Flint and lowering the rates for wholesale.

Nikki seems interested.

Should not have thought politically but financially in the first place. This is very doable. We need to chat. Rjd

FY -- instead of going to Sue M. | thought I'd go directly to folk who might provide a sensitivity analysis of sorts an the Flint return to DYWSD matter.

A resend in response to the separate email you sent out last night on the DWSD response. Given that they have already reduced the annual cost from the $12.5M range to $10.5M range — even as the DWSD Board of Water Commissioners is about to raise the rates substantially for the coming fiscal year — the offer to Flint was reduced. Frankly, this alone would excite the locals. So far | have been requested to speak at no less than five local units’ boards / councils and / or have working group sessions / meetings with City officials on DWSD. It is right now a very sensitive subject even as it has not gotten the media attention it will in the coming weeks. With the exception of a presentation | accepted no less than 4 months ago, | have turned them down or made arrangements to have DWSD — the folks actually in charge right now — to present. In the coming weeks, this is going to become the issue du jour. And, even as there were two courses of action on the use of a base (FY-2015 operating budget know ta have flaws or the tender offer projections representing a forecast revised for matters not addressed formally by the BOWC through budget amendments) remains an open issue. A recently discovered timing issue in the contracts (namely, that the ‘detailed rates’ had to be provided to the locals at least 30 days advance of approval — and why they didn’t know this in a contract they have been working on for eons is beyond me) may have resulted in the DWSD management determining the base outside even a public discussion of the BOWC or the Authority Board. The base issue is the cause of the range of the water rates being either 9% or 14% - and has a significant impact on the feasibility as described in the MOU. The more and more | learn, the less and less | want to know. 1 xxxEND_PAGE:treasury01_b27_4112_4389_153