The URL can be used to link to this page

CCR1990295COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO RESOLUTION #295-90 RESOLUTION RATIFYING ADDENDUM TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL. COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MUSKEGO AND MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT RESOLVED by the City of Muskego that the attached Addendum to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between City of Muskego and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Muskego and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is hereby ratified and that Wayne G. Salentine, Mayor, City of Eiuskego, is authorized to execute the Addendum to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between the City of Muskego and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. Dated this 19th day of December, 1990. CITY OF MUSKEGO Wade G. Salentine, Mayor ATTEST : nda, Clerk INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT between City of Muskeg9 and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 9 ARTICLE I 0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.11 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1 .. 27 1.28 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.29 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38 DEFINITIONS Actual Ability of the DlstriCt4S Systan As Affected Municipalitles Constructed Aad Operated to Treat 4 ........... 4 Agreement .................. 4 Average Daily Base plow ........... 4 Base Flow Adjustment Factor ......... 4 Capacity Allocation ............. 5 Capital Cost Contribution .......... 5 ClosingDate ................. 5 Commercial Users ............... 5 Commission .................. 6 Connection Point ............... 6 Cost Recovery Procedures Manual ....... 6 Discharge Factor ............... 6 District's Design Capacity .......... 7 District Rules and Regulations ........ 7 Distrlct Sewerage System ........... 7 District SSES ................ 8 Domestic Wastewater ............. Equivalent Residential Unit 8 8 8 Infiltration Industrial Users Infiltration/Inflow 9 ............. 9 Inflow .................... 9 Maximum Peak Daily Flow ........... Maximum Peak Hourly Flow 10 Operation and Maintenance charge 10 Opinions of Municipality's cou~sel 10 Opinion of the District's Counsel 11 Process Wastewater 11 Residential Unit 11 Residential User 11 Sewer Extension Request 11 ........... 11 Tax Exempt Financing ............. 12 TSS ..................... Water Pollution Abatement Progrm 12 12 ..... BOD ..................... 5 Capacity Factor ............... 5 District ................... 7 ......... ............... ................. ........... ....... ...... ...... .............. ................ ............... ...... ARTICLE I1 CAPITAL COST CONTRIBUTION 2.1 Contribution ................. 2.2 Contributions by Affected Muaicipallties 13 13 ... . i- Table of Contents Pa_qe ARTICLE I11 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.33 3.14 CAPACITY AND E'UTURE CAPITAL COSTS capacity Allocation .......... capacity Reallocation ......... utilization of Capacity Allocation ... Method to Determine Utilization of Capacity Allocation ......... Determination of Available Capacity Factors ............... Flow Measurements ........... Annual Report of Capacity Utilization Capacity Utilization Procedure-Sewer Continued Use Future Capital Costs .... ; ..... Payment for Future capital Improvements Negotfations Cancerning Additional Late Charges/Refunds Peak Flow Limitations ......... ...... and Conveyance Limitations ............. ............. CoMeCtiOIS ........... Capacity rillocation ......... ... 14 ... 14 ... 16 ... 17 ... 20 ... 22 ... 23 ... 24 ... 26 ... 26 ... so ... 37 ... 38 ... 39 ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRIWTIES 4.1 corporate Organization ............ 4.2 Authorization; Enforceability 42 4.3 No violation or Conflict 42 4.4 District Representations. 43 4.5 Municipality Representations 44 ......... 44 ........ ........... ........... ARTICLE V INDEMNIFICATION POR CLAIMS OF THIRD PARTIES 5 . i District . s Indemnity .............. 45 5.2 micipality's Indemnity ........... 5.3 Procedure for Indemnification with 45 Respect to Third Party Claims ....... 46 5.0 Set-off ................... 47 ARTICLE VI CLAIMS BFTWEFN THE PARTIES 6.1 Mutual Responsibility ............ 6.2 Procedure €or Claims by District or 40 Municipality ................. 48 6.3 AmOUtOfClaim ............... 49 '0 -11- "" .. " . " . ."., " ., ............. - .... ". .. .^ ... " " "" . ^. ... Table of Contents Page ARTICLE VI11 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT l% OBLIGATIONS OF THE MUNICIPALIW 8.1 Litigation .................. 8.3 Approval of Tax Exempt Financing ....... 8.2 Deliveries by the District at Closing .... ARTICLE IX CONDITIONS PRE(=EDENT TO OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISTRIm ARTICLE X 9.1 Deliveries by the Municipality at c10sillg .................. 9.2 Ratification ................. 10.1 10.3 10.2 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 ARTICLE XI 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.5 11.4 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 FUTURE DISTRICI' AND MUNICIPALITY RELATIONSHIP Joining the District ............. Option to Born Entity of Municipalities District: Rules and Regulations Service Area Boundaries ........... Autonomy ................... Post-Ratification Legislative and Litigation Activities ........... Operation an8 Maintenance Charges Dispute Resolution ........ ... .............. ...... MISCELLANEOUS Entire Agreement; Amendment . Counterparts; Headings .... Severability ......... No Rellence .......... Non-Ratification ....... Refund of Capital Contribution Governing 'Law closing ASSig-t .......... Notices ........... ............ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 51 51 52 54 55 56 56 56 56 60 60 60 64 65 66 65 67 67 67 68 69 70 71 -iii- " ". . ... ._ """ 0 a 0 * Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS Net Local Costs - WPM Contribution and Capacity Allocation Map District Capacity Allocation Affected Municipalities1 Peak plow Limitations/ Connection Point Peak Flow Limitations Opinions of nunicipality OpFDion of District Computation of Interest Percentage of Euture capital Costs Exhibit 10: Refund Provision Computation -iv- INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT INTERGOVE~AL, COOPERATION AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 1990 by and between the MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT, a InUniCipal Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with prin- cipal offices at 260 West Seeboth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (hereinafter the "District"), and CITY OF MUSKEG0 , a munici- pal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin with principal offices at P. 0. Box 903, Muskeqo, WI 53150 (hereinafter the "Municipality"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the District owns and operates a sewerage system for collection, treatment and disposal of all sewage and drainage of the sewerage service area, including collection, transmission and disposal of stomwater and groundwater and the abatement of com- bined sewer overflows; WHEREAS, the District undertook, in 1977, a major capital improvement project Intended to enhance and preserve the District's sewage treatment system; WHEREAS, the Municipality is located outside of the District's legal boundary but [wholly or partially] within the District's service area; -1- WHEREAS, the Municipality has the duty to provide for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage generated within its legal boundary but does not have the capital facilities to pro- vide for treatment and disposal of sewage generated in those areas set forth on Exhibit 3; WHEREAS, the Municipality has utilized and desires to con- tinue to utilize the District’s sewerage system for the purpose of transmission, treatment and disposal of the Municipality’s sewage; WHEREAS, the Municipality desires to share in the capital costs of the project so that sewerage treatment services can be provided by the District for the Municipality; WHeREAS, the District and the Municipality are entering into this Agreement in cooperation for the joint governmental purpose of providing sewerage treatment services to property owners and citizens within their respective boundaries; WHEREAS, since 1983 the Municipality and the District have been involved in litigation over the allocation of capital costs of the project; and WHEREAS, as a precondition toward settlement of the litiga- tion. a contribution toward capital costs was reached through compromise; -2- NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to SS66.898 and 66.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties contained herein and the mutual benefits to be desired from this Agreement, the parties hereto agree as follows: -3- ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1.1 Actual Ability of the District's System AS Constructed And Operated to Treat. "Actual Ability of the District's System AS Constructed and Operated to Treat" shall mean the capability of the District's system as constructed and as operated to collect, transport, store, pump, process and dispose of sewage and drainage. 1.2 A€fected Municipalities. "Affected Municipalitiesn or "Municipality" shall mean one of the following incor- porated Municipalities: the Cities of Brookfield, Mequon, Muskego, New Berlin and the Villages of Butler, Elm Grove, Germantown, Menomonee Falls and Thiensville. Only those Municipalities that ratify and approve this Agreement can be Affected Municipalities. 1.3 Aqreement. "Agreement" shall mean this document together with the Exhibits attached hereto. 1.4 Average Daily Base Flow. "Average Daily Base Flow" shall mean the wastewater generated by a Municipality, excluding all inflow and infiltration, over a calendar year and divided by the number of days in the year. 1.5 Base Flow Adjustment Factor. "Base Flow Adjustment Factor" shall mean an assumed use of base flow of 1.00 million gallons per day over and above any base flow utilized or vacant land allocations. -4- 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 BOD. "BOD" shall mean biochemical oxygen demand, as defined in the 17th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Capacity Allocation. "Capacity Allocation" shall mean the right to discharge capacity factors to the District's system up to the limits set forth in this Agreement. Capacity Factor. "Capacity Factor" shall mean the para- meters of the Capacity Allocation expressed in three factors: average daily base flow, daily BOD, and daily TSS . Capital Cost Contribution. "Capital Cost Contribution" or "Contribution" shall mean the payment made to the District by each of the Affected Municipalities repre- senting their contribution toward the costs of the District's capital projects set forth on Exhibit 1. The term may also be used, from time to time in the context of the Agreement, to reference the aggregate contribu- tions made by all Affected Municipalities. Closins Date. "Closing Date" shall mean 6 months following execution of this Agreement, or such other date as the parties may mutually agree to in writing. Commercial Users. "Commercial Users" shall mean any users not otherwise defined as residential or industrial. Within the class of commercial users there shall be three subclasses: - -5- . . . . . . . . a. Discharge certified Commercial Users. "Discharge Certified Commercial Users" shall mean commercial users that have reported their discharge factors to the DlStriCt and have attested to their accuracy. b. waste Strength Certified Users. -waste Strength Certified users" shall mean commercial users that have reported their wastewater strengths to the District and have attested to their accuracy. c. Non-Certified commercial Users. "Non-Certified Commercial Users. shall mean commercial users that have not certified their discharge factors or wastewater strengths to the District. 1.12 Comission. aCOmmissionn shall mean the governing body of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District created under s66.882, Wis. Stats., as amended. 1.13 Connection Point. Tonnection Point" shall mean those points where the District's sewerage system connects to the Municipality's sewer system. 1.14 Cost Recovery Procedures Manual. "Cost Recovery Procedures Manual" shall mean the District publication, as amended, setting forth specific policies and proce- dures for the implementation of the user charge program, including user charge rates. 1.15 Discharge Factor. "Discharge factor. shall mean the ratio of wastewater discharged to total water consumed by a User from all sources. Domestic Discharge Factor I. shall mean the ratio of domestic wastewater discharged to total water consumed. Process Waste Discharge Factor shall mean the ratio of process wastewater discharged to total water consumed. 1.16 District. "District" shall mean the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District created under 566.882, Wis. Stats., as amended. 1.17 District's Design Capacity. "District's Design Capacity" shall mean the planned ability of the District's sewerage system to treat sewage and drainage; usually expressed as flow rates, pollutant treatment ability or solids utilization/disposal ability. It is different than and distinct from the actual ability of the District's sewerage systems to treat sewage and drainage usually expressed as flow rates, pollutant treatment ability or solids utilization/disposal ability. 1.18 District Rules and Regulations. "District Rules and Regulations" shall mean the rules and regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to 566.902, wis. Stats., as amended. 1.19 District Seweraqe System. "District Sewerage System" shall mean the system of structures, devices, equipment, appurtenances, real estate and personal property owned by the District pursuant to its authority under S66.88 to 66.918, Wis. Stats., as amended, related to water quality. -7- 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 District SSES. "District SSES" shall mean the systema- tic detailed Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study undertaken by the District to determine infiltration/inflow sources and methods of rehabilitation. Domestic Wastewater. "Domestic Wastewater" shall mean the water and water-carried wastes from residences, business buildings, institutions or industrial estab- lishments generated by personal activities (from sources such as kitchens, bathrooms, lavatories, and toilets). Strength characteristics of this wastewater shall be deemed to be equal to those of the "equivalent residen- tial unit" unless, in the case of a commercial user, strength characteristics are determined to be different by the completion of a waste strength certification form. Domestic wastewater does not include process wastewater from industrial establishments, infiltration or inflow. Equivalent Residential Unit. "Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)" shall mean the average daily discharge of domestic wastewater per person from a residential unit. An ERU shall be defined as 67 gallons per person per day of average daily base flow at 310 mg./l. BOD, 370 rng.11. TSS. Industrial Users. "Industrial Users" shall mean any users described by the SIC Divisions and codes listed in Appendix A of Chapter 17 of the District's Rules and -8- Regulations that discharge process wastewater. Within this class of system users, there shall be three subclasses : a. Discharge Certified Industrial Users. 'Discharge Certified Industrial Usersm shall mean industrial users that have reported their discharge factors to the District and attested to their accuracy. b. Waste Strenqth Certified Industrial Users. "Waste Strength certified Industrial Usersm shall mean Fndus- trial usem that have reported their wastewater strengths to the District and have attested to their accuracy. c. >Non-Certified Industrial Users. "Non-Certified Industrial Usersm shall mean industrial users that have not certified their discharge factors or wastewater 0 strengths to the District. 1.24 Infiltration. 'Infiltrationa shall mean water entering a sewer system, including sewer service COMeCtiOnS, from the ground, through such means as, but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Infiltration does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow. 1.25 Infiltration/Inflow. nInfiltration/Inflown shall mean the total quantity of water from both infiltration and .inflow without distinguishing the source. 1.26 Inflow. "Inflowm shall mean the water discharged into a sewer system, includhg service connections, from such -9- sources as, but not limited to, roof leaders, cellar, yard, and area drains, foundation drains, sump pumps, cooling towers, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters, or drainage. Inflow does not include, and is distinguised from infiltration. 1.27 Maximum Peak Daily Flow. "Maximum Peak Daily Flow" shall mean the volume of base flow, infiltration and inflow passing a point in the sewer system over any con- tinuous 24 hours which is permissible under this contract. 1.28 Maximum Peak Hourly Flow. "Maximum Peak Hourly Flow" shall mean the volume of base flow, infiltration and inflow, passing a point in the sewer system over any continuous 60 minutes which is permissible under this Agreement. 1.29 Operation and Maintenance Charqe. nOperation and Maintenance Charge" shall mean charges developed pur- suant to Chapter 17 of the MMSD Rules and Regulations and the current Cost Recovery Procedures Manual appli- cable for the year in question for the recovery of operation and maintenance expenses. -10- a 1-30 Opinions of Municipality's Counsel. "Opinions of Municipality's Counsel" shall mean the opinion of Mulcahy E. Wherry. S.C., and other legal counsel of Municipality, in the respective form of Exhibit 6 attached hereto. 1.31 Opinion of the District's Counsel. "Opinion of the District's Counsel" shall mean the opinion of the District's general counsel in the form of Exhibit I attached hereto. 1.32 Process Wastewater. "Process Wastewater" shall mean any wastewater, other than domestic wastewater and infiltra- tion and inflow, discharged to the sewerage system. 1.33 Residential Unit. "Residential Unit" shall mean any existing residence that is served, or any proposed residence that will be served, by an existing sewer as evidenced by a sewer extension approved by the District or a sewer extension request submitted for review and approval by the District. Residential Unit permits up to 4 residences per structure. 1.34 Residential User. "Residential User" shall mean any occupant of a private residence. 1.35 Sewer Extension Request. "Sewer Extension Request" shall mean the letters, plans and specifications, and forms, including Department of Natural Resources form 3400-59, that are submitted to District for its approval of sewer plans as provided for in the Wisconsin Statutes and the MMSD Rules and Regulations. -11- 1.36 Tax Exempt Financing. "Tax Exempt Financing" shall mean 0 an obligation as to which nationally recognized bond counsel issues an opinion that the interest paid on the obligation may be excluded from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 1.37 - TSS. "TSS" shall mean Total Suspended Solids as defined in the 17th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 1.38 Water Pollution Abatement Program. "Water Pollution Abatement Program" or "WPAP" shall mean the program of the District consisting of the planning, design and construction projects set forth on Exhibit 1. -12- ARTICLE I1 CAPITAL COST CONTRIBUTION 2.1 Contribution. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, at Closing, the Municipality agrees to contribute to the District's capital cost program in accordance with Section 2.2. The Municipality's Contribution shall constitute its proportionate share of the District's capital projects set forth on Exhibit 1. The District and the Municipality acknowledge and agree that the Municipality's Contribution is being made to effectuate the joint governmental purposes set forth in this Agreement including, but not limited to, providing for the collection, transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage generated within the District's ultimate sewer service area. 2.2 Contributions by Affected Municipalities. The total Contributions payable by the Affected Municipalities to the District €or the capital projects set forth in Exhibit 1 shall be One Hundred Twenty Million and no/100 Dollars ($120,000,000). The Contributions required under this Agreement shall be allocated .to each of the Affected Municipalities as shown on column 1 of Exhibit 2. -13- ARTICLE I11 3.1 Capacity Allocation. The District hereby agrees to provide the following total amounts of Capacity Allocation to the Affected Municipalities for the term of this AgreetTient in amounts not to exceed the following: Average Daily Base Flow 21,893,860 gals. Average Daily BOD Loading 56,604 IbS. Average Daily TSS Loading 67,560 Ibs. The Capacity Allocation shall be initially allocated to each of the Affected Munlclpalities a5 shown on Column 2 of Exhibit 2. 3.2 Capacity Reallocation. TO the extent that a Municipal- ity has not utilized all of its Capacity Allocation pursuant to Sections 3.5 and 3.8, the Uunlcipality may reallocate any part of its unutllized capacity Allocation to other Affected Uunicipalities in any manner and on any terms and conditions mutually agreeable to any transferee Municipality and transferor Muaicipality within the Affected Hunlcipalities. Prior to the reallocation of any Capacity Allocation the transferee Municipality shall apply the District on District provided forms, or in any other mwer mutually agreed to by the parties, for approval of the props& reallocation. The District shall provide in a timely mwer all information reasonably requested by the transferee uunicipality to enable it to complete such application. The District shall have 45 days after receipt of the application to review and approve or reject in writing such reallocation. If the District rejects the application, the written rejection will indicate the reasons for rejection and the way, if any, the proposed realloca- tion must be changed for approval. In the event the District's approval or rejection has not been made within such period, the proposed reallocation will be deemed to have been approved. The District shall approve the reallocation if it con- tains : a. All information reasonably requested by the District concerning the proposed reallocation: and b. Information demonstrating that after reallocation the total Capacity Allocation of Average Daily Base Flow, BOD and TSS allocated to all Affected Municipalities will not be exceeded. If the application for reallocation is approved, the transferee Municipality shall then provide the District with documentation of transfer on mutually agreed forms. Transferee Municipality shall have access to such approved reallocated Capacity Allocation on the fifteenth (15th) day following the District's receipt of documentation of transfer. The Agreement between the District and the trans- feree and transferor Municipalities, as amended, will be deemed amended by the replacement of the Capacity Allocations contained in this Agreement, as amended, with the addition or subtraction -15- e 0 of the Capacity Allocation contained in the transferee Municipality's approved application after receipt by the District of the documentation of sale. 3.3 Utilization of Capacity Allocation. The District and the Municipality agree that the Municipality has the right to use the amounts of the Capacity Allocation, plus or minus any reallocation of Capacity Allocation to Municipality pursuant to Section 3.2 herein, under the terms of this Agreement. The allo- cated Capacity Allocation and the Maximum Peak Hourly and Maximum Peak Daily Flow limits are not intended to be a percentage of the District's Design Capacity or of the Actual Ability of the District's System as Constructed and Operated to Treat sewage and drainage. when the Capacity Allocation utilized by the Municipality, as determined by Section 3.5 of this Agreement, exceeds 85% of the sum of the Capacity Allocation originally allocated to Municipality, plus or minus any reallocation of Capacity Allocation to Municipality, the District shall send written notification of the fact to the Municipality. When the Capacity Allocation utilized by Municipality exceeds 95% of the originally allocated Capacity Allocation, plus or minus any reallocated Capacity Allocation, the District shall again send written notice of that fact to the Municipality. '0 -16- The parties acknowledge that infiltration and inflow reduction is not available as a means of staying within Capacity e Allocation. Infiltration and inflow and the Capacity Allocation are not related. If for any reason the Municipality exceeds Its origi- nally allocated Capacity Allocation, plus or minus any reallo- cated Capacity Allocation, the Municipality shall Immediately undertake its best efforts to eliminate any excess use. I I If the excess utilization is not eliminated within 90 days after written notice thereof by the District, the District may enforce the Capacity Allocation herein by any lawful means. 3.4 Method to Determine Utilization of Capacity Allocation. The District will determine utilization of Capacity Allocation allocated to the Affected Municipalities by summing base flow for residential, commercial and industrial utilization using the methodology set forth in paragraphs a, through I., plus a base flow adjustment factor of 1.00 mgd, plus the base flow calcula- tion for vacant land using the methodology set forth in paragraph j : a. Residential Users. The residential utilization of capacity shall be calculated as the number of Residential Units multiplied by the Municipal Occupancy Factor multiplied by mu. -17- b. Municipal occupancy Factor. For purposes of this Agreement, the Municipal Occupancy Factor shall be 3.1 people per household for 3 bedroom apartments or single family homes, 2.5 people per household €or 2 bedroom apartments and 1.5 people per household for 1 bedroom and studio apartments. c. Non-Certified Commercial Users. The capacity units for a Non-Certified Commercial User shall be: (1) Flow, gallons = Average Daily Base Flow (Gallons) as established by the District's user charge system. (2) BOD, lbs. = (Flow/1,000,000) x 310 mg./l x 8.34 (3) TSS, lbs. = (Flow/1,000,000) x 370 mg./l x 8.34 d. Discharge Certified Commercial Users. The capacity units for a Discharge Certified Commercial User shall be: ) Flow, gallons = Average Daily Base Flow (Gallons) as reduced by applicable discharge factors. ) BOD, lbs. = (FlOw/1.000,000) X 310 mg./l X 8.34 ) TSS, lbs. = (Flow/1,000,000) x 370 mg./l x 8.34 e. Wastestrength Certified Commercial Users. The capacity units for a Wastestrength Certified Commercial User shall be: (1) Flow, gallons = Average Daily Base Flow (Gallons) as reduced by applicable discharge factors. BOD, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) as reduced by applicable discharge factors) x (certified discharge strength in mg/l BOD) x 0.34. TSS, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) as reduced by applicable discharge factors) x (certified discharge strength in mg/l TSS) x 0.34. -18- f. Non-certified Industrial Users. The capacity units for a Non-Certified Industrial User shall be: (1) Flow, Gallons = Average Daily Base Flow as established by the District's user charge system. (2) BOD, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD)) x (Typical process wastestrength or domestic wastestrength, whichever is higher) x 0.34. (3) TSS, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD)) x (typical process wastestrength or domestic wastestrength, whichever is higher) x 8.34. g. Discharge Certified Industrial Users. The capacity units for a Discharge Certified Industrial user shall be: Flow, gallons = Average Daily Base Flow (gallons as reduced by applicable discharge factors) . BOD, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) reduced by applicable discharge factors) x (typical process wastestrength in mg/l BOD or domestic wastestrength, whichever is higher) x 0.34. TSS, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) as reduced by applicable discharge factors) x domestic wastestrength, whichever is higher) x (typical process wastestrength in mg/l TSS or 8.34. Any connection dedicated to domestic waste will be treated as residential. h. Wastestrength Certified Industrial User. The capa- city units for a Discharge Certified Industrial user shall be: (1) Flow, gallons = Average Daily Base Flow factors. (Gallons) as reduced by applicable discharge (2) BOD, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) as reduced by applicable discharge factors) x (certified discharge strength in mg/l BOD) x 0.34. -19- (3) TSS, lbs. = (Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) as reduced by applicable discharge factors x (certified discharge strength in mg/l TSS) x 8.34. i. The Municipality shall submit all data reasonably requested by District to determine the consumption of Capacity Allocation including but not limited to: The number of Residential Units currently in existence. Total water consumption for Non-Certified Commercial Users. Individual water consumption for each Certified Commercial and Industrial Users. Acres of industrial development connected to sewer. Acres of commercial development connected to sewer. This data shall be submitted to District in accordance with the schedules and procedures published in the Cost Recovery Procedures Manual. j. Added to the utilization of Capacity Factors shall be the Capacity Factors allocated to vacant but served or to be served parcels. The criteria to be applied to the vacant parcels shall be the same for residential and multi-family parcels as per Section 3.4.a. and b. Commercial lands shall be allocated 1,000 gallons per day per acre at 310 mg/l BOD and 370 mg/l TSS, with industrial lands allocated 2,000 gallons per acre per day at the same BOD and TSS loadings as commercial lands. 3.5 Determination of Available Capacity Factors. The District will determine the amount of unconsumed Capacity Factors -20- available to Municipality by subtracting from the total amount of each Capacity Factor allocated to Municipality (plus or minus any transfer of Capacity Factors from other Affected Municipalities pursuant to section 3.2) the sum of base flow for residential, commercial and industrial utilization using the methodology set forth in Section 3.4.a. through i., plus a base flow adjustment factor of 1.00 mgd, plus the base flow calculation for vacant land using the methodology set forth in Section 3.4.j. a. After January 1, 1990, upon District approval of a sewer extension request by Municipality, the District will deduct the amount of each Capacity Factor for all residential, conuner- cia1 and industrial development which could be directly connected to the sewer being extended. within 90 days after execution of this Agreement, the Municipality shall furnish to the District, for its review and approval, a complete inventory in a mutually agreeable format of pre-1990 vacant or approved but served or to be served parcels within their service area. Capacity Allocation for these parcels shall then be computed according to Section 3.4. b. If existing sewered areas are redeveloped or existing users substantially change their amount of flow or loadings discharged, the change will be added to or subtracted from the Municipality's Capacity Allocation. -21- 3.6 Flow Measurements. a. The peak hourly and peak daily flow of sewage from the Municipality shall be measured at sewage gauging Stations which shall be installed by the District, at the Districtrs expense, at the point within the Municipality where the Municipality's system is connected to the District's facilities. The District shall make the electronic metering data available for each individual metering Site and shall include sufficient cabinet space for the Muaicipality to install its own telemetering equlpment. All Operation and Maintenance costs ai these facilities shall be paid for by the District. b. Monitoring Accuracy Assurance: (1) Meter Calibration: District metering devices shall be calibrated, and adjusted if needed, consistent with the man~facturer~s recommendations. Calibration6 and adjustments shall be performed only by qualified District employees or agents. The Municipality shall have advance notice of calibra- tions and written notice of calibration results and adjustments to meters at its conaectian points as identified in Exhibit 5. (2) Check Meters: The Municipality may install parallel or "check" flow. meters at its discretion. ~y damage to the District gauging equipment shall be cornpeasat& for in ~~11 by the Municipality. All costs aaeociated with such check meters shall be borne by the Municipality. -22- c. The Municipality shall have the right to make an independent inspection of the District flow meters, or to have an independent company check the metering equipment at any time; provided, however, no such inspection shall be made unless the Municipality shall first give the District two (2) working days' notice of its intent to have the inspection made. All reasonable costs and expenses of the Municipality's inspection shall be borne by the District if the meters are found to be inaccurate for the measurement of peak flow as defined by the manufacturer. 3.7 Annual Report of Capacity Utilization and Convevance Limitations. a. On or before November 1 of each year, the District shall prepare and submit to the Municipality an annual uniform report containing: (1) The average daily base flow, average daily BOD loading and average daily TSS loading Capacity Allocations (a) for each Municipality as amended by any reallocations approved for access by the Municipality pursuant to Section 3.2 herein; and (b) designed for the District. (2) The average daily base flows, average daily BOD loadings and average daily TSS loadings utilized during the past calendar year by (a) each Affected Municipality pursuant to Section 3.4 herein; and (b) the District. -23- (3) A summary of any available data concerning peak flows resulting from major storms during the prior Year at each comection point (a) ln the Affected Hunicipallkies: and (b) in the District. (4) The maxlmum hour and maximum day conveyance capacity of the District's interceptor system. peak daily hydraulic, BOD and TSS capacity of the wastewater treatment faci- lities ad the storage capacity of the in-line tUnnelS, as designed. b. The data provided by the District and the provision by the District of the data described in a(ll(b). a(2)(b), a(3)(b) and a(4) above, are intended solely as a courtesy to the Municipality, to spare the Municipality the cost of making annual public information requests and may not be relied upon by the Municipality for any other purpose. c. The data provided by the Distrlct and the provision by the District of the data described in (1) above, does not in any way imply any obligation on the part of the District to sell or provide to the Municipallty anything, including but not limited by enumeration, additional Capacity Allocation or addi- tional peak flows. d. The District agrees to provide to the Municipality the District's 1989 Capacity Allocation data for the Affected Municipalities by November 1, 1990. 3.8 Capacity Utilization Procedure-Sewer Connections. utilize the Capacity Factors allocated under this Agreemat, the 0 '0 Municipality shall make application on forms provided by the District or in any other manner mutually agreed to by the parties. The application forms may request information reasonably required by the District to consider and process the application. The District shall provide in a timely manner all information reason- ably requested by the Municipality to enable it to complete such application. The District shall have 45 days after receipt of the application to review and approve or reject in writing such capacity utilization. If the District rejects the application, the written rejection will indicate the reasons for rejection and the way, if any, the proposed capacity utilization must be changed for approval. In the event the District's approval or rejection has not been made within such period, the proposed capacity utilization will be deemed to have been approved. The District shall approve the capacity utilization application provided: a. The proposed utilization is within the amount of Capacity Factors originally allocated under Section 3.1 herein, including any reallocation to or from the Municipality pursuant to Section 3.2; b. The proposed utilization is consistent with all applicable federal and state law: The approval of a capacity utilization application constitutes approval by the District for the Municipality to con- nect its local sanitary sewers proposed in the application to the District's system. The District shall use the methods, analysis -25- and procedures set forth in Section 3.4 and Section 3.5 for all determinations relating to capacity utilization calculations required to evaluate any capacity utilization application. 3.9 Continued Use. The District will provide on an uninter- rupted and continuous basis the Capacity Allocation within the peak flow limits as provided in this Agreement. Municipality's use of the Capacity Allocation provided in this Agreement will not be interrupted, except for reasons beyond the District's reasonable direction and control, such as acts of God, damage by third parties, war, insurrection, strike, or work stoppage, and other forces majeure; any restriction of the Affected Municipalities use of Capacity Allocation due to any such acts or events as listed above shall be prorated to all impacted users of the District's system to the extent that such proration is reasonable and practical. 3.10 Future Capital Costs. a. The District and the Municipality agree that, as the District incurs total net local costs (total costs less total grants) for construction planned as part of the WPM that are higher than the total estimated net local costs, as shown in Exhibit 1, or incurs total net local costs for construction not planned but necessary to complete the WPAP, the District will submit an invoice for the Municipality's share of incurred excess net local costs pursuant to Section 3.11 of this Agreement. The determination of total net local costs exceeding the estimated -26- total net local costs in Exhibit 1 shall be made on an aggregate basis of a11 wp~p projects rather than on an individual project basis. b. The District and the Municipality further agree that, apart from the projects planned as part of the WPM', if (i) the District incurs additional capital costs to be funded through the capital budget in order to preserve, repair or main- tain any part of the District's capital assets or (ii) the District, pursuant to its lawful authority, undertakes additional capital projects or modifies any part of the District's System, the District will submit an invoice €or the Municipality's share of the incurred total net local costs pursuant to Section 3.11 Of this Agreement. The Municipality shall not pay tha District for any capital projects related to expansion of the District's Design Capacity except as provided in Section 3.1O.c. of this Agreement. For purposes of this Article, expansion of the District's Design Capacity shall occur only when a new project, outside of those listed in Exhibit 1, results in an increase to the District's ability to treat base flow, or Influent lbs. of BOD, or influent lbs. of TSS, or Maximum peak Daily plms, or Maximum Peak Hourly Flows, or to store gallons of Maximum peak Daily Flow in order to remain in cmpliance with then current state or federal regulatory requirements or which enables the District to Comply with any higher standards established by the Commission. Examples of non-expansion of the District's Design Capacity are, without limitation: i. Additional solids-handling capacity associated with required tertiary treatment would not be expansion of the District's Design Capacity. ii. Additional interceptors to pick up flows from unsewered areas or to provide €or additional conveyance are not expansions of the District's Design Capacity. c. Except as provided in Section 3.10.d. of this Agreement. the nunicipality's share of additional capital costs shall remain as stated in Section 3.10.a. and b. of this Agreement unless the District expands its Design Capacity. In cases where Design Capacity expands, the Municipality and the District will negotiate a change in the share of costs to be paid by the Municipality or such revised share of costs shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution mechanism in Section 10.7 of this Agreement. The share of the percentage shall remain as set.forth in Section 9.10.a. and b. of this Agrement until a change has been negotiated or has been finally resolved .in the dispute resolution mechanism. d. The percentage of future capital coet payments by the Municipality to the District under this Section 3.10 for the year 2006 and beyond shall be renegotiated as herein provided. The Municipality and the District shall canunence negotiations on Or about January 2. 2005, to agree upon a mutually acceptable percatage of future capital cost payments. ~11 other provisions provisions of this Agreement, including all remaining areas of Section 3.10, shall remain in full force and effect during this process and thereafter. In the event the Municipality and the District are unable to reach an agreement by midnight, December 31, 2005, both parties may take whatever action is necessary to bring the dispute before the Public Service Commission. The parties agree that the Public Service Commission shall have jurisdiction of the dispute. The Municipality agrees that while the matter is pending before the Public Service commission it shall pay charges at the rate in effect for the preceding year. There shall be no penalties or interest accruing id the event the rate determined by the Public Service Commission is an increase over the pre- ceding year, 2005. The Order of the Public Service Commission shall be retroactive to January 1, of the year in question. If the PSC should set an annual percentage rate for the balance of the debt at a rate higher than 15.17% set for the year of 2005, the Municipality shall have sixty (60) days from the effective date of the PSC order within which to elect to pre- pay the remaining principal balance at the 2005 rate of 15.17%. If the Municipality elects to prepay its respective share of the debt, it shall prepay the balance within six (6) months of the exercise of the option to prepay. -29- 3.11 payment for Future Capital Improvements. a. In order to provide the Municipality with advance notice of charges, the District will submit a copy of its pro- posed capital budget to the Municipality not less than 30 days prior to adoption of the budget in the year preceding the budget year. The District will also at that time submit reasonable, detailed and written explanations of proposed capital costs in the budget year, which may be invoiced to the Municipality as defined in Section 3.11.c. of this Agreement. The information will include the following: (1) Pursuant to Section 3.10.8. of this Agrement, total net local costs of the WPAP expected to be expensed through the budget year which are in excess of the amounts set forth in Exhibit 1: (a) List of WPAP projects from Exhibit 1 by their six-digit alphanumeric project identification numbers; (b) List of costs expected to be expensed; (C) List of grant or other contributions in aid of construction dollars expected to be earn&; (d) The total of (b) above less (c) above is compared to the total net local cost in Exhibit 1. The dif- ference represents either the excess or the shortage of total net local costs when CQmPared to the original estimate for the WPAP in Exhibit 1. -30- (2) Total net local costs pursuant to Section 3.10.b. of this Agreement expected to be spent in the budget year are comprised of the ZOllOwing: (a) Expected costs during the budget year for non-WPAP capital projects under Section 3.10.b. Of this Agreement, identified by increased Design Capacity and non- increased Design Capacity cost elements: (b) Expected grants or other contributions in aid of construction earned for capital projects under section 3.lO.b. of this Agreement. (3) Expected subsidized loans and expected MMSD debt proceeds to be utilized and applied in financing budget year project costs under Section 3.10.a. and b. a€ this Agreement. (4) Expected principal or interest due in the budget year and In each succeeding year until the debt is repaid for: (a) Any and all subsidized loans for projects under Section 3.10.a. and b. of this Agreement that were or are expected to be made prior to the budget year. (b) My and all other MXSD debt for projects under Section 3.10.a. and b. of this Agreement that were or are expected to be issued prior to the budget year. (5) Expected principal or interest due in the budget year and in each SuCCeeding year until the debt is repaid for: (a under Section 3.10.a. to be made during the (b Any and all subsidized loans for projects and b. of this Agreement that are expected budget year. Any and all other MMSD debt for projects under Section 3.10.a. and b. of this Agreement that are expected to be issued during the budget year. (6) Principal or interest due in the budget year for all subsidized loans made to finance the WPM project esti- mated net local costs as shown in Exhibit 1: b. The District will notify the Municipality of the Municipality's expected share of the budget costs not more than 15 days after adoption of the District's capital budget and budget financing. c. It is the intent of the parties that the Municipality's share of principal or interest payments made by the District under this Article of the Agreement will be paid by the Municipality in the same year in which the District makes the principal or interest payments except in the first year of a new issue on which the District makes a principal or interest payment. In the case of the principal or interest payment for the first year of a new issue, the Municipality's share of the principal or interest payments will be made in the year after t payment is made by the District. It is also the intent of the ;he parties that the Municipality's share of direct cash spending for projects under this Article of the Agreement will be paid by the Municipality in the year after the District makes the direct cash spending. -32- The District will submit an invoice for the Municipality's share pursuant to Exhibit 9 for non-increased .Design Capacity budget year costs pursuant to Section 3.10 of this Agreement, which includes the Municipality's share of prin- cipal or interest on subsidized loans and other debt, to the Municipality on or before April 1 of each year succeeding the budget year or upon completion of the District's annual financial audit for that year, whichever is later. The Municipality's share of non-increased Design Capacity budget year costs pursuant to Section 3.10 of this Agreement shall be comprised of and determined as follows: (1) Net local costs - cash financing: (a) Net local costs as determined under Section 3.1l.a.(l)(d) and 3.11.a.(2)(a and (b) of this Agreement; less (b) Proceeds from subsidized loans and District issued debt applied to incurred costs pursuant to 3.11.a.(3) of this Agreement. The results of this computation shall repre- sent the cash financing costs of which the Municipality shall be obligated for a percen- tage pursuant to Exhibit 9. (2) Net local costs - debt financing excluding subsidized loans in Section 3.11.c.(3): -33- (3 (a) Principal or interest charges pursuant to Section 3.11.a.(4) of this Agreement which are payable in the same year the invoice is made; plus (b) Principal or interest charges pursuant to Section 3.11.a.(5) of this Agreement paid in the prior year. The percentage share applied to principal and interest charges will be the percentage shown on Exhibit 9 which relates to the year in which the debt service payments are made. ) Subsidized Loans: The Municipality's share of principal or interest charges on subsidized loans pursuant to Section 3.11.a.(6) of this Agreement shall be the sum of (I) an amount equal to 11.59 of the principal or interest on the amount of subsidized loans up to $230.940 million and (11) an amount equal to the per- centage shown in Exhibit 9 of the principal or interest on subsidized loans above $230.940 million. The Municipality, at its option, may prepay to the District the remaining pr incurred by the District incurred by the District Sections 3.11.a.(4) and ( incipal share of any outstanding debt on its behalf or debt expected to be on the Municipality's behalf under 5) of this Agreement. The determination -34- of the Municipality's share of the above mentioned outstanding debt will be calculated using the percentage listed in Exhibit 9 for the year in which the Municipality prepays its obligation. Upon such prepayment, the Municipality's obligation to make current or future principal or interest payments on the above- mentioned debt shall cease. The Municipality's share of any interest due on existing debt shall be calculated to the date of prepayment and added to the prepayment amount. The Municipality shall notify the District of its intention to exercise its option to prepay the Municipality's share of outstanding debt no later than March 1 of the year in which the invoice is to be rendered. d. The Municipality recognizes that the District may incur and pay costs in advance of payment by the Municipality. Therefore, the Municipality shall pay an additional financing charge based on the calculation method outlined in Exhibit 0. Such additional finance cha&e shall be included on the District's annual invoice rendered to the Municipality. e. The invoice will be due and payable to the District within thirty (30) days of the invoice date but not prior to May 1 of the year in which the invoice is sent. Payment shall be made in cash, check or wire transfer in lawful money of the United States of America. f. The District and the Municipality recognize that the District's capital budgets may contain projects, project spending and incurred costs that are greater than those amounts under this Agreement. The Municipality recognizes that the -35- District has the right to finance the District‘s Capital budget in any legal manner that it chooses and that ProJect-by-project computation of cash financing, debt flnancing and allocation Of non-grat contributions in aid of construction, such as earned interest, is unnecessary. Consistent with this, the District and the Municipality agree that the pro rata mixture or share Of cash financing, debt financing and non-grant contributions in aid of construction that is used to determine incurred costs for this Article shall be the same as what the District shall have . experienced for all capital projects during the year for which the invoice pursuant to section 3.11.c. of this Agreement is sub- mitted. g. The District and the Municipality recognize that, as of the date of this Agreement, time for notification to the Municipality of the 1990 budget year total net local lncurred costs and other information has passed. In order to avoid a gap In costs payable by the Municipality for 1990 expenditures -der Section 3.lO.a. and b. of this Agreement, the District agrees to provide notificetion to the Municipality under Section 3.11.a. and b. of this Agreement within thirty (so) days of the date of this Agreement. The District will submit an Invoice to the Municipdity for these costs on or before April 1, 1991, in ConfOWCe with Section 3.ll.C. Of ais Agreement. The District further acknowledges and agrees that if the City of Huskego, Village of GtXmantOWn Or the Village of Thiwsville have already paid their respective 1990 capital cost payments to the District -36- and if any one of them ratify this Agreement, the ratifying Municipality shall receive a refund of its respective 1990 capi- tal cost payment from the District with- 30 days after the Closing Date. 3.12 Late CbarqesIRefunds. a. payments received after the due date of May 1 will include a late payment, simple interest charge equal to 1.5% Of the unpaid balance per month, prorated to the date of PaPent. NO action or proceeding to contest the invoiced amount may be brought and no defense against an action to collect such amount may be maintained until at least 85% of the amount has been paid in full. ~ny amount ordered refunded to the Muaicipality by the dispute resolution mechanism shall be due the Municipality, together with simple interest on the amount of the overcharge equal to 1.5% of the refund balance per month from the date when the monies were received by the District. My unpaid balance ordered due the District by the dispute resolution mechanism shall be due to the District, together with simple interest on the amount due equal to 1.59 of the amount due per month from the date when the original invoice was due and owing. b. The Municipality and the District recognize that the amounts per Exhibit 1 may be less than or may exceed the amounts in Exhibit 1 upon completion of WPM. In order to deter- mine the refund due to the Municipality or the payment due to the -37- District the calculation per Exhibit 10 must be completed. Such refund or payment per Exhibit 10 shall be determmed within three (3) months from final draw on subsidized loans, plus Simple interest thereon measured from the date of payment Under this Agrement pursuant to Article I1 to the date Of the Papent or refund but not later than nay 1, of the year succeeding deter- mination. Interest shall be equal to the average annual rate for funds invested in the State of Wisconsin Local Government Investment pool or successor pool thereof. Any payment or refund not settled as of the due date shall bear simple interest egual to 1.58 per month o€ the payment or refund amount plus acCumu- lated interest as of the due date. c. Notwithstanding Sections 3.12.a. and b. of this Agreement, in the event the District has not been awarded or received subsidized loans totallng 6230.940 million when the WPAP attains a net local cost of $1,162,201,000, any principal or lnterest on additional subsidized loans up to 6230.940 million applicable to the net local cost of $1,162,201,000 will be invoiced to the micipalities at 11.58 and not at the annual percentage set forth in Exhibit 9. 3.13 NWOtiatiOnS Concerning Additional Capacity Allocation. a. The District and the Municipality agree that nothing in this Agreement prohibits the District and the micipality from entering into negotiations concernbg addi- tional Capacity Allocation. -3a- b. Negotiations between the District and the Municipality concerning additional Capacity Allocation will begin after either party's delivery of a written request to commence negotiations to the other party. c. If no agreement concerning additional Capacity Allocation is reached within forty-five (45) days after the start of negotiations: (1) The District and the Municipality may mutually agree to continue negotiations for an additional ninety (90) days: or (2) The Municipality may develop a plan for alter- nate sewage treatment facilities, including identification of a cost-effective sewer service area to support such facilities. d. If the Municipality proceeds to develop a plan for alternate sewage treatment facilities, the Municipality may request assistance from District in obtaining data and other information pertaining to the development of the alternate faci- lity. District will supply any reasonably available data and other information for such purpose. 3.14 Peak Flow Limitations. The District and the Municipality agree that a peak flow-restricting device will be placed within the Municipality at each connection point between the District's system and the Municipality. This device shall operate in a manner so as to limit the peak flow entering the District to that set forth in Exhibit 5. The peak flow limitation shall not be affected by any -39- reallocations of Capacity AllOCatiOnS pursuant to this Agreement. The device shall be adjusted, or if necessary replaced, to imple- ment different limits on peak flow entering the District in the event that the District and the Municipality agree on different limits on peak flow entering the District. The District will pay for the device, or any replacement thereof, and will be respon- sible for its operation and maintenance. Maximum Peak Hourly Flow and Maximum Peak Daily Flow limits may be reallocated among the Affected Municipalities with the prior written consent of the District. Consent shall not be unreasonably withheld so long as the net impact of the reduction in peak flow and increase in peak flow shall not increase the peak flow in the District's system at any connection point. It is reasonable for the District to withhold consent even if the District's system is hydraulically capable of handling the peak reallocation if the proposed reallocation results in a net increase in peak flow in the District's system at any connection point. It is reasonable for the District to withhold consent even if future use of the District's system by Milwaukee County communities will not be restricted by the proposed reallocation if the proposed reallocation results in a net increase in peak flow in the District's system at any connection point. The Municipality may not apply to increase peak flow to a connection point upstream from the connection point from which It is being reallocated. The Municipality shall, with six (6) -40- months written notice to the District, maintain the right to reallocate peak flow back to the original amounts contained in Exhibit 5. -41- ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 4.1 Corporate Organization. a. The District represents and warrants to the Municipality that the District is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and has the full corporate power and authority to carry on its governmental functions and to allocate the Capacity Allocation to Municipality pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. b. The Municipality represents and warrants to t District that Municipality is a municipal corporation duly :he organized, validly existing in good standing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and has full corporate power to receive the Capacity Allocation from the District pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 4.2 Authorization; Enforceability. a. The District represents and warrants to the Municipality that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other documents and instruments required by the District to carry out the Closing of this Agreement are within the corporate powers of the District and, as of the Closing Date, have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action by the Commission. This Agreement and the other documents and instruments hereby required will be, when executed and delivered by the District, the valid and binding obligations of the -42- District, enforceable against the District in accordance with their terms. b. The Municipality represents and warrants to the District that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other documents and instruments required by the Municipality to carry out the Closing of this Agreement are within the corporate powers of the Municipality and, as of the Closing Date, have been duly authorized and approved by its (Village Board/Common Council). Subject to Section 8.3, this Agreement and the other documents and instruments hereby required will be, when executed and delivered by the Municipality, the valid and binding obligations of the Municipality, enforceable against the Municipality in accordance with their terms. 4.3 NO Violation or Conflict. a. The District represents and warrants to the Municipality that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions intended hereby will not on the Closing Date conflict with, violate, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under any law, regulation, judgment, order or decree or any contract or agreement to which the District is a party or by which it is bound. b. The Municipality represents and warrants to the District that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions intended hereby will not on the Closing Date conflict with, violate, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under any law, -43- regulation, judgment, order or decree or any contract or agreement to which the Municipality is a party or by which it is bound. 4.4 District Representations. The District hereby repre- sents and warrants to the Municipality that: a. Representations. All representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements made in this Agreement are true and correct in all material respects. b. Capital Projects. Exhibit 1 contains a complete and accurate list of the District capital projects (including good faith estimates of individual project amounts and good faith estimates of total grant financing) as approved by the District. c. Capacity. The District has the capability to satisfy the Municipality's Capacity Allocation as set forth in this Agreement. 4.5 Municipality Representations. The Municipality hereby represents and warrants to the District that all representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements made in this Agreement are true and correct in all material respects. -44- ARTICLE V INDEMNIFICATION FOR CLAIMS OF THIRD PARTIES 5.1 District's Indemnity. The District agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Municipality from and after the execution of this Agreement against any claim, action or proceeding by third parties for any and all damage, liability or loss suffered by the Municipality (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and any other costs and expenses incidental to the defense or settlement of any claim) (hereinafter referred to as "Indemnification Claim") arising out of, resulting from or relating to: a. Any and all liabilities or obligations of the District that are not specifically assumed by the Municipality under the terms of this Agreement; b. Any product liability, personal injury or property damage claims related to the District's operation and maintenance of its sewerage system or the construction of its capital pro- j ects. 5.2 Municipality's Indemnity. The Municipality agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the District against any claim, action or proceeding by third parties for any and all damage, liability or loss suffered by the District (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and any other costs and expenses incidental to the defense or settlement of any claim) (hereinafter referred to as "Indemnification Claim") from claims by third parties arising out of or resulting from any product -45- r' liability, personal injury or property damage claims related to the Municipality's operation and maintenance of its local sewer system or the Municipality's constructian of the local Swer system capital projects, including as to operation, maintenance and construction, any limitations on Maximum Hourly Peak Flow and Maximum Daily Peak Flow allowed pursuant to this Agrement. 5.3 Procedure €or Indemniflcatlon with Respect to Third party Clam. In the event that the District or the Municipality shall seek indemnification hereunder from the other with respect to any Indemnification Claim, the party seeking indemnification shall give prompt written notice of the Indemnification Claim, stating the nature aad basis of said Indemnification Claim and the amount thereof to the extent known. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, the party from whom indemnification is sought shall (1) satisfy the Indemnification Claim, (2) elect at its expense to assume the good faith defense of such Indemnification Claim using counsel acceptable to the indemnified party or using the indemnifying party's staff counsel, or (3) set forth in writing any dispute with respect to such Indemnification Claim; provided, however, that the indemnified party shall have the right to participate, at its own expense, using cousel of its choice. in all proceedings and settlement discussions (if any) with respect to any Indemnification Claim. If the party frM\ whom indemnification is sought shall dispute such Indemnification claim, no amount shall be payable with respect to such IndeIIInifiCatiOn Claim Until such dispute shall have been c 0 0 resolved by the dispute resolution mechanism set forth in Section 10.7 of this Agreement. In connection with any Indemnification Claim, the parties shall cooperate with each other and provide each other with access to relevant books and records in their possession. 5.4 Set-off. Any right of the Municipality to be indemni- fied by the District for any Indemnification Claim may be enforced by the Municipality against any payment to be made by the Municipality to the District under or pursuant to this . Agreement by means of set-off or reduction if, and only if, the third party has obtained a judgment, order or settlement against the Municipality. -47- ARTICLE VI CLAIMS BETWEEN THE PARTIES 6.1 Mutual Responsibility. After the execution of this Agreement, the District and the Municipality agree to be respon- sible to each other for, and shall fully compensate and pay to each other, any and all damage, liability or loss suffered by the party seeking recovery under this Article (hereinafter referred to as "claim") as a result of, arising out of or relating to: a. my inaccuracy in or breach of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement made by the District or the Municipality, respectively, in this Agreement: and b. Any failure of the District or the Municipality, respectively, to perform or observe any term, provision or cove- nant of this Agreement. 6.2 Procedure for Claims by District or Municipality. In the event that the District or the Municipality shall seek recov- ery hereunder from the other with respect to any Claim, the party seeking recovery shall give prompt written notice of the Claim to the party from whom recovery is sought, stating the nature and basis of said Claim and the amount thereof to the extent known. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, the party from whom recovery is sought shall either pay the amount of such Claim or set forth in writing any dispute with respect to such Claim. If the party from whom recovery is sought shall dispute such Claim, no amounts shall be payable with respect to such Claim until a judgment shall have been rendered by a court of -48- competent jurisdiction, a final arbitration award shall have been issued, or a decision shall have been rendered by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission ("PSC"). Any Claim of either party may be enforced by the party seeking recovery against the party from whom recovery is sought by means of set-off or reduction if, and only if, a judgment shall have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, a final arbitration award shall have been issued or a decision shall have been rendered by the PSC. 6.3 Amount of Claim. The parties shall not be permitted to recover from each other under this Article and shall have no liability hereunder for any Claim unless the aggregate amount of such Claim in any five (5) calendar year period exceeds $50,000 (annually adjusted by Consumer Price Index - Urban for the Milwaukee Metropolitan area), in which case the party required to make payment will be liable for all such Claims in excess of $50,000 from the first dollar. This $50,000 limitation shall not apply to any Claim arising out of fraud or misrepresentation of a party. -49- ARTICLE VI1 SURVIVAL All representations, warranties, agreements and covenants contained in this Agreement, shall survive (and not be affected in any respect by) the Closing of this transaction and any reorganization of either party, for the life of this Agreement. -50- ARTICLE VI11 CONDITIONS PRE-ENT To OBLIGATIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITY 0 The obligations of the Municipality to effect the trans- actions contemplated under this Agreement shall be subject to the following express conditions precedent: 8.1 Litigation. The District shall not initiate any appeal and shall waive all rights to appeal the jury verdict and deci- sion of the Court, the Order for Judgment dated February IS, 1990 and the Judgment entered Fa the Circuit Court in an8 €or Waukesha County, Wisconsin, in Case No. 83-(3-296 on March 6, 1990 and waives any and all rights to appeal any and all orders, decisions or judgments heretofore rendered or entered Fa khat action at any time during the litigation proceedings. The District will further withdraw or terminate any and all petitions before the PSC Involving the Affected Municipalities and request that the PSC and other pending Petitioners withdraw or tennlnate their petitions involving the Affected Municipalities or the District's capital cost recovery method. 8.2 Deliveries by the District at Closing. At dosing, the District shall deliver to the Uunicipality the following do-- mats, each having been properly executed and dated as of the Closing Date: a. A certificate from the Conrmi~sion~s Secretary setting forth reSOlUtiOnS adopted by the Conrmisslon, authorizing the execution, delivery and performance of this Agrement ad all agreements relating hereto and all other actions necessary or advisable for the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby. b. A certificate of the District, dated as of the Closing Date, warranting to the Municipality that the representa- tions and warranties made by the District in this Agreement are true and correct as of the Closing Date. c. A certificate of the District, dated as of the Closing, representing and warranting to the Municipality that, the District has performed and complied with all of its obligations under this Agreement prior to or on the Closing Date. d. A copy of a letter, on District letterhead, to the court of competent jurisdiction, waiving the District's rights to appeal any and all orders, decisions and judgments entered into the case styled City of Brookfield v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Seweraqe District, Case No. 83-CV-296. e. The written opinion letter of the District's coun- sel, dated as of the Closing Date, addressed to the Municipality as set forth in Exhibit 7. 8.3 Approval of Tax Exempt Financing. The Municipality shall have obtained, within six (6) months from the execution of this Agreement, the necessary financing through municipal bonds or notes, revenue bonds, loans from the State of Wisconsin (including but not limited to the Clean Water md) or any other method or means of tax-exempt financing. The Municipality's inability to obtain tax-exempt financing from any of the above sources within six (6) months from the execution of this -52- Agreement shall terminate this Agreement and all Of the parties' obligations under this Agreement shall thereupon cease and become null and void. -53- ARTICLE IX CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISTRICT The obligations of the District to effect the transactions contemplated in this Agreement shall be subject to the following express conditions precedent: 9.1 Deliveries by the Municipality at Closing. The Municipality shall have delivered to the District, in addition to the payment required pursuant to Section 2.2. of this Agreement, the following documents, each having been properly executed and dated as of the Closing Date: a. A certificate executed by the Clerk of the Municipality setting forth the resolutions adopted by its (Village Board/Common Council) authorizing the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and all agreements relating hereto and all other action necessary or advisable for the consummation of transactions contemplated hereby. b. A certificate of the Municipality, dated the Closing Date, warranting to the District that the representations and warranties made by the Municipality in this Agreement are true and correct as of the Closing Date. c. The written opinion letters dated as of the Closing Date of Mulcahy & Wherry, S.C., and the respective City or village attorney for the Municipality, addressed to the District and in respective forms in Exhibit 6. -54- I 9.2 Ratification. The District and the (Village Board/ Common Council) of the Municipality shall have taken the 0 necessary action to duly authorize and approve this Agreement by midnight, April 12, 1990. -55- ARTICLE X FUTURE DISTRICT AND MUNICIPALITY RELATIONSHIP 10.1 Joining the District. The Municipality hereby waives and relinquishes any and all rights it may have pursuant to 566.888, wis. Stats., to become a municipality within the District. 10.2 District Rules and Requlations. The Municipality agrees to comply with the District's rules and regulations. The District agrees not to enforce against the Municipality any rules or regulations that violate the specific terms of this Agreement. The District will not enforce rules and regulations against the Municipality in an arbitrary manner. It is understood that District rules and regulations required by federal or state law, but in conflict with this Agreement, will be enforced and will not constitute a violation of this Agreement. 10.3 Option to Form Entity of Municipalities. The Municipality shall have the right to form an organization under s66.30, wis. Stats., with other Affected Municipalities for the purpose of implementing and representing the Affected Municipalities' rights and interests under this Agreement. 10.4 Service Area Boundaries. a. The Municipality shall have the right to use its Capacity Allocation Only within its service area boundary. -56- b. The service area boundary shall be the boundary described in Exhibit 3, unless modified pursuant to Section 10.4.c. herein. c. To revise the Municipality's service area boundary, the Municipality shall apply to the District, on District- provided forms or in any other manner mutually agreed to by the parties, for approval of the proposed revision. The District shall provide in a timely manner all information reasonably requested by the Municipality to enable it to complete such .application. The District shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of the application to review and approve or reject it in writing. If the District rejects the application, the written rejection will indicate the reasons for rejection and the way, if any, in which the proposed revision must be changed for approval. In the event that the District's approval or rejection has not been made within such 90-day period, the proposed revision will be deemed to have been approved. The District shall approve the revision if the application contains: (1) All information reasonably requested by the District concerning the proposed revision; and (2) Information demonstrating that the proposed revision of the service area boundary is: -57- (a) either (1) immediately contiguous to, or (ii) contains not only the parcel seeking service but also all land between the parcel and the existing service area boundary; and (b) limited to the actual area to be serviced by a sewer extension currently being applied for: and (c) inside the District's ultimate service area as described in Exhibit 3: d. In the case of Section 10.4.c.(2)(a), above: (1) the boundaries of the addition shall be deter- mined, unless mutually agreed to by the parties, by drawing two lines perpendicular to the existing service area boundary line and then drawing a third line that is perpendicular to and con- nects the first two lines (so as to include, in the case of Section 10.4.c.(2)(a)(ii) above, all of the area of the parcel seeking service): and (2) a neighborhood plan for the additional area shall be developed and the resulting development shall irmnedi- ately be charged against the Municipality's remaining Capacity Allocation, provided that, In the case of Section 10.4.c.(2)(a)(ii) above, the area between the parcel seeking service and the existing service area boundary line shall have not less than three ERUs per acre and provided further that when plans are submitted in the future for actual development the Capacity Allocation shall be adjusted to reflect actual service: -50- e. If the application for revision of Municipality's service area boundary is approved, the Municipality shall then provide the District with a metes-and-bounds description of the revised service area boundary and documentation of the revision on a mutually agreed map. The Municipality shall have access to such approved revised service area boundary on the fifteenth (15th) day following the District's receipt of the map. This Agreement will be deemed amended by the replacement of the then current service area boundary described in Exhibit 3 by the addition or subtraction of the revised ser- vice area boundary contained in the Municipality's approved application after receipt by the District of the map. f. The District's ultimate service area boundary defined in Exhibit 3 may not be changed without the prior written approval of the District and the Municipality. g. The District and Affected Municipalities agree to submit the map of the service area, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, agreed to on March 6, 1990 and approved in writing on March 9, 1990 by the negotiating teams of the District and the Affected Municipalities, to Kurt Bauer, Executive Director, SEWRPC, for him to translate said map into a larger scale map for inclusion in the contract. Within six (6) months following execution of this Agreement by both parties, the Affected Municipalities shall submit to the District for its review and approval a legal description of the sewer service area prepared by a registered land surveyor. -59- e a 0 a 10.5 Autonomy. The parties hereto recognize that they have certain inherent rights of local automony and control granted under the constitution and statutes of the State of Wisconsin. 10.6 Post-Ratification Legislative and Litigation Activities. The Municipality and the District agree that upon ratification, they will mutu.ally and singly do the following: a. Refrain from causing to introduce or advance any legislation or litigation to abrogate this Agreement: b. Oppose any pending legislation that would abrogate or substantially adversely affect any material provision in this Agreement: c. Oppose any litigation seeking to abrogate, delay, impair, or in any other manner interfere with the successful closing of this Agreement: and d. Meet with the leadership of the State Senate and Assembly and with the Governor to urge their restraint from introducing or advancing any legislation, the purpose of which is to abrogate or substantially adversely affect any material provi- sion hereof and to explain this Agreement and the new spirit of cooperation upon which it is based. 10.7 Dispute Resolution. a. Discussion Prior to Dispute Resolution. At least thirty (30) days prior to initiating dispute resolution to enforce this Agreement, the party contemplating such dispute resolution shall so notify in writing the other party and request a meeting to discuss and resolve the matter in contention. The party -60- receiving such notification shall make itself available at reasonable times and places for such discussions and attempted resolution. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as requiring either party to revise its position or make any con- cession. b. Public Service Commission. Any disputes arising out of Section 10.8 of this Agreement are within the jurisdiction of the PSC and it is expressly agreed that such disputes shall be adjudicated with the PSC pursuant to state law. my amount ordered refunded to the Municipality by the Psc, or as affirmed or modified on appeal, shall be due the Municipality together with a refund interest charge equal to 115% of the current rate for funds invested in the State of Wisconsin Local Government Investment Pool, or successor pool thereof per month from the date the original invoice was due and owing. Any amounts due the District resulting from a PSC decision, or as affirmed or modified on appeal, shall be due the District together with a late payment rate equal to 110% of the rate for funds invested in the State of Wisconsin Local Government Investment Pool or successor pool thereof per month from the date the original invoice was due and owing. c. Arbitration. Arbitration shall be the dispute mechanism for any unresolved dispute arising out of, resulting from or relating to the following Sections of this Agreement: 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 3.6; 3.7; 3.8; 3.9; 3.10; 3.11; 3.12; 4.1; 4.2; 4.3; 4.4.b. & c.; 10.3; 10.4; 10.6; 11.2 and 11.8. -61- a a Either party may request arbitration by notifying the other party in writing. The written notice shall contain an explanation of the nature and extent of the dispute and include a listing of the areas of the agreement which have been violated. If within thirty (30) days of the written request for arbitration by either party this dispute has not been resolved, the dispute may be submitted to arbitration upon the application of one of the parties, which shall commence within thirty (30) days after submission. The arbitration process shall be determined by a three (3) person arbitration panel. The panel will be selected from a list provided by the Center for Public Resources, Inc. (“CPR’) by the following process: CPR shall submit a list of seven (7) proposed arbitrators. The party seeking the arbitra- tion shall strike one (1); the other party shall then strike one (1); the parties will then alternate the strikes until three (3) proposed arbitrators remain; the remaining three (3) arbitrators shall be the panel. Prior to the striking of pro- posed arbitrators, the parties shall prepare an agreed statement identifying the parties and any significant witnesses. This statement will be submitted to all seven (7) proposed arbitrators to determine whether they suffer any apparent appearance of bias in favor of or against either party. Within fifteen (15) days of notification of their selection to the three (3) arbitrators, the -62- arbitration proceeding shall be commenced; provided however, the parties may mutually agree to extend the time for commencing the proceedings. The written award of the arbitration panel shall require a minimum of two votes and the award shall be limited to interpreting this Agreement. The arbitration panel shall not add to, delete from or modify the expressed terms of this Agreement. The award shall be enforceable in the courts of the State of Wisconsin. The party that does not prevail in the arbitration shall pay the cost of the arbitration including the fees of the arbitrators. The parties will pay their own attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and out of pocket expenses. Other than is provided herein, the arbitration process shall be governed by the rules of the CPR. d. Litigation. All disputes under this Agreement not controlled by Sections 10.7.b. or c. of this Agreement, including but not limited to, any disputes concerning the District's Rules, shall be decided by courts of competent jurisdiction. It is the intent of the parties that unless a dispute is set forth in Section 10.7.c., it shall not be decided by arbitration. The question of whether a dispute is subject to the arbitration pro- cess of this Agreement shall be decided by courts of competent jurisdiction. Notice of objections to arbitrability shall be given prior to the arbitration hearing. -63- e. Set-off. Any award decided by the dispute resolu- tion mechanism in favor of the Municipality may be enforced by the Municipality against any payment to be made by the Municipality to the District under or pursuant to this Agreement by means of set-off or reduction. f. Specific performance. without limiting the remedies available to either party, the Municipality and the District agree that the right to Capacity Allocation is unique. There is no adequate remedy at law for the damages that the Municipality may sustain for failure of the District to provide the Capacity Allocation contemplated by this Agreement and, accordingly, the Municipality shall be entitled, at its option, to the remedy of the specific performance to force the delivery of the Capacity Allocation by the District to the Municipality pursuant to this Agreement. Either party shall also be entitled, at its option, to the remedy of specific performance to enforce any of the other provisions of this Agreement. 10.8 Operation and Maintenance Charges. Operation and main- tenance charges shall be assessed and collected uniformly throughout the District's service area pursuant to Chapter 17 of the District's Rules and Regulations and any amendments thereto. Copies of the annual Operation and Maintenance Budget and Annual Report shall be sent to the Municipality within seven (7) days after receipt thereof by the Commission. -64- ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS 11.1 Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement and the documents referred to herein and to be delivered pursuant hereto constitute the entire Agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter therein, and supersede all prior and contem- poraneous agreements, understandings, associations and discus- sions of the parties, whether oral or written, and there are no warranties, representations or other agreements between the parties in connection with the subject matter hereof, except as specifically set forth herein. No amendment, supplement, modifi- cation, waiver or termination of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and approved by the parties to be bound thereby. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed or constitute a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement, whether or not similar, nor shall such waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided. 11.2 Assiqnment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Municipality shall have the right to assign all or any portion of its rights to the Capacity Allocation under Section 3.2 of this Agreement and to assign all or any portion of the obligations for future capital costs under this Agreement, provided that: -65- a. The assignee shall be an Affected Municipality or an entity composed solely of one or more Affected Municipalities; b. The assignor Municipality shall remain liable to the District in the event of default by the assignee Municipality (or any successor.assignee municipality) on any Of its obliga- tions for future capital costs: c. The Municipality shall give the District written notification of such proposed assignment; and d. If the District objects in writing within . thirty (30) days to the proposed assignment as a violation of this Agreement, the assignment shall not take effect until after the dispute has been resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution mechanism. 11.3 Notices. All communications or notices required or per- mitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given at the earlier of the date when actually delivered to an individual party or to an officer of the corpor- ate party or when deposited ia the united States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows, unless and until either of such parties notifies the other in accordance with this Section of a change of address: If to the District: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 West Seeboth Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 Attn: Conrmission secretary -66- If to the Municipality: City of Muskeoo P. 0. Box 903 Muskeoo. WI 53150 with a copy to the legal counsel of the Municipality's choice. 11.4 Counterparts; Headinqs. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an origi- nal, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same agreement. The table of contents and article and sec- tion headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part hereof. 11.5 Severability. Except for Articles I1 and 111, if any provision, clause, or part of this Agreement, or the application thereof under certain circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provi- sion, clause or part under other circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. If Articles 11 or 111 or any substantial portion thereof, is held invalid, this Agreement shall be null and void. 11.6 No Reliance. Except for any assignees permitted by Section 11.2 of this Agreement: a. No third party is entitled to rely on any of the representations, warranties and agreements of the Municipality and the District contained in this Agreement. -67- ._ . b. The micipality and the District asrne no liability to any third party because of any reliWce on Wy representations, warranties and agreements Of the District and the Municipality contained in this Agreement. 11.7 Non-Ratification. In the event any Municipality fails to approve and ratify this Agrement, Sections 2.2, 3.1, 3.11 and 3.14 shall be modified as follows: a. The total amount of Contribution pursuant to Section 2.2 of this Agreement. for those Municipalities that approved and ratified this Agreement shall be reduced by an amount calculated by multiplying the capacity Allocation shown on Exhibit 4 for the non-ratifying Municipalities times 65.48 per gallon per day of base flow capacity. The reallocation of that reduced amount shall .b agreed to among the ratifying Municipalities and submitted to the District prior to the Closing Date. The reallocated Contribution shall be Set forth in Exhibit 2A which shall be substituted for Exhibit 2. b. The total amounts of capacity Allocation pursuant to Section 3.1 of this Agreement shall be reduced by the amounts allocated to the non-ratifying Municipalities on Exhibit 4 ad the remaining Capacity Allocation shall be reallocated to the ratifying Municipalities. The reallocation of that reducd Capacity Allocation shall be agreed to among the ratifying Municipalities and subnitted to the District prior to the closing Date. The reallocated Capacity Allocations shall be Set forth in Exhibit 2A which shall be substituted for Exhibit 2. c. The base percentages of future capital costs set forth in Exhibit 9 for those Municipalities that approved and ratified this Agreement shall be recalculated by dividing each Municipalities' share of capacity as shown in Exhibit 2A by the total amount of Capacity Allocation for the ratifying Municipalities on that Exhibit. This percentage shall also be used to determine a Municipality's share of subsidized interest loans and future costs per Section 3.11. d. In the event one or more of the Municipalities does not ratify this Agreement, the peak flow limitations set forth in Exhibit 5 shall be applied to the ratifying Municipalities pursuant to Section 3.14 at the boundary of the ratifying com- muni t y. 11.8 Refund of Capital Contribution. If for any reason legal proceedings are commenced by a third party, and Articles I1 or I11 of this Agreement are declared to be null and void by a final court order, and the District thereafter refuses to give the Municipality further capacity utilization within the Municipality's Capacity Allocation provided for in this Agreement as a result thereof, then the District will refund to the Municipality the amount of the pro rata share of the Municipality's capital contribution represented by the differen- tial between daily base flow utilized by the Municipality and the daily base flow capacity within the Municipality's Capacity Allocation (the "daily base flow differential"). Daily base flow shall be calculated at 310 mg/l of BOD and 370 mg/l of TSS for -69- all Capacity Allocation and reallocation computations. The amount of the refund shall be determined by multiplying the daily base flow differential times $5.48 per gallon per day of base flow capacity, plus a proportionate share of subsidized loan payments, cost overruns and non-WPAP cost that has been paid to date. In determining the daily base flow differential, the District will treat reallocation of daily base flow to other Municipalities as having been utilized by the Municipality. The District will not be liable for any interest on any refunded amount. 11.9 Closing. The Closing of the transactions pursuant to this Agreement shall take place at the offices of the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 11.10 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of Wisconsin. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. MUNICIPALITY DISTRICT By : By : WITNESS : WITNESS : -71- ADDENDUM TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MUSKEG0 AND WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter an Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein in its entirety as if fully set forth herein except for those provisions that are specifically amended, deleted or otherwise changed by that Addendum in which instance the Addendum.shal1 control; and WHEREAS, in order to enter said certain amendments to the Agreement wh Addendum are necessary. Agreement at this time, ich are contained in this NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration acknowledged by both parties, it is hereby agreed that said agreement is amended in the following respects: 1. Article I, Section 1.2 is amended to delete the last sentence of said definition and add in its place the following: "Only those Municipalities that ratify and approve this Agreement or a Similar Agreement can be Affected Municipalities." The remainder of said Section 1.2 remains unchanged. 2. Article I, definitions is amended by adding the following definition: "1.351 Similar Agreement. 'Similar Agreement' shall mean an agreement similar in all major respects to this Agreement 1 in which the parties to the Similar Agreement stipulate to be bound by most or all of the provisions of this Agreement." 3. Article I, Section 1.5 is amended to delete "1.00" and add in its place "0.103149". 4. Article 11, Section 2.2 shall be amended by adding the following at the end of said paragraph: "In addition to the Contribution listed for the City of Muskego, the City shall pay the District interest on the amount listed in Column 1 at the rate of 8.25% from October 12, 1990 to the date of Closing. The District will credit to the City of Muskego the capital payment made on the 14th day of May, 1990 and any capital cost payment for 1991, if made, towards the closing payment together with interest at the rate of 8.25% from the date 0 of payment to the Closing Date." 5. Article 111, Section 3.4 shall be amended as follows: "1.00 mgd" is deleted and "0.103149 mgd" is added. 6. Article 111, Section 3.5 shall be amended as follows: "1.00 mgd" is deleted and "0.103149 mgd" is added. 7. Article 111, Section 3.11(9) the last sentence is amended to read as follows: "The District and the Municipality recognize that, as of the date of this Agreement, time for notification to the Municipality of the 1990 and 1991 budget years total net local 2 0 incurred costs and other information has passed. In order to avoid a gap in costs payable by the Municipality for 1990 and 1991 expenditures under Section 3.10.a. and b. of this Agreement, the District agrees to provide notification to the Municipality under Section 3.11.a. and b. of this Agreement within thirty (30) days of the date of this Agreement. The District will submit an invoice to the Municipality for these costs for 1990 on or before April 1, 1991, and €or these costs €or 1991 on or before April 1, 1992, in con€ormance with Section 3.11.c. of this Agreement. However, the payment to be invoiced on April 1, 1991 shall not be due prior to closing, even if contrary language appears in the Agreement. 'I 8. Article VIII, Section 8.1, is deleted and replaced with 0 the following: "8.1 Litigation. After the closing, the District will dismiss Muskego from the District's pending appeal of the judgment heretofore ordered in the Circuit Court in and for Waukesha, Wisconsin, Case No. 83-CV-296 on March 6, 1990. Muskego will stipulate to vacate the order and judgment and dismiss all claims it has against the District in that matter. The District waives no rights with respect to that judgment or any other order, decision or judgments in that action affecting any other party to that action. After the closing, Muskego will also dismiss its cross-appeal of that Judgment. 3 0 After ratification by both parties, the District will request the dismissal of any and all petitions, claims, cross- claims or counterclaims on file in the proceeding currently pending before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin ("PSC"), Docket No. 9308-SR-100, to the extent that they pertain to Muskego, and will endeavor to obtain the complete dismissal of Muskego from those proceedings. The District waives no rights with respect to any petitions, claims, cross-claims, counterclaims or other pleadings before the PSC to the extent that they pertain to any party other than Muskego. After ratification by both parties, Muskego will also withdraw or request the dismissal of any and all petitions, claims, cross- claims or counterclaims brought on behalf of Muskego in the proceeding pending before the PSC. The District and Muskego's inability to obtain a full dismissal of Muskego from the pending PSC proceedings within one (1) month from the execution of this Agreement shall terminate this Agreement and all of the parties' obligations under this Agreement shall thereupon cease and become null and void." 0 In the event an order on the merits in the proceeding before the PSC is entered by the Commission before the dismissal of Muskego from these proceedings, the District and Muskego will endeavor to obtain a complete dismissal of Muskego from that 4 order. The District and Muskego's inability to obtain a full dismissal of Muskego from such an order within one month of the execution of this Agreement shall terminate this Agreement and all of the parties obligations under this Agreement shall thereupon cease and become nuil and void. 9. Article VIII, Section 8.2(d) is hereby deleted. 10. Article IX, Section 9.l(c) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: "c. The written opinion letter dated as of the Closing Date of the City Attorney €or the Municipality addressed to the District and in the respective form in Exhibit 6." 11. Article IX, Section 9.2 is amended to delete the words "April 12, 1990" and add the words "the 20th day of December, 0 1990". 12. Article XI, Section 11.1 is amended to add the following at the end of said section: "This Agreement, upon ratification, execution and Closing, is the successor to and replaces the agreement entered into between the District and the Municipality on the 19th day of May, 1983. The Agreement of May 19, 1983, upon ratification, execution and Closing of this Agreement, is null and void including, but not limited to, any provisions thereof requiring the District to make any payments to Muskego." All other provisions of section 11.1 remain unchanged. 5 13. ~rticle XI, Section 11.7 is deleted in its entirety. 14. Exhibit 2 is deleted and replaced with Exhibit 2-MU as attached hereto and incorporated herein in its entirety as if fully set forth herein. 15. Exhibit 4 is deleted in its entirety. 16. Exhibit 5 is deleted and replaced with Exhibit 5-MU as attached hereto and incorporated herein in its entirety as if €ully set forth herein. is amended to delete the opinion letter from 17. Exhibit 6 Mulcahy & Wherry. 18. Exhibit 8 attached hereto and fully set forth here is deleted and replaced with Exhibit 8-MU as incorporated herein in is entirety as if in. 19. Exhibit 9 is deleted and replaced with Exhibit 9 - MU as attached hereto and incorporated herein in its entirety as if fully set forth herein. 20. Exhibit 10 is deleted and replaced with Exhibit 10 - MU as attached hereto and incorporated herein in its entirety as if €ully set forth herein. 21. The base or unsigned Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between the City of Muskego and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, appended hereto, is incorporated herein in its entirety as i€ fully set forth herein, except for those provision thereof that are specifically amended by this Addendum in which instance the amendment shall control. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Addendum to Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between City of Muskego and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District to be duly executed this & day of December, 1990. MUNICIPALITY DISTRICT / WITNESS: 5000 7 NET LOW COSTS - WATER POUUTION ABATEkEXT NILNAUKEE I(ETROP0LITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN TROWSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER COlFll COlKll $2 COlXll $1,543 COlF21 $2,802 $15 COlP21 COlX21 51,810 COlP22 $411 COlX22 $100 $31 FACILITIES PLANNING $6,714 C1 OAl1 ClOIll $5,264 c1 ov11 $65 5467 ADVANCED FACILITIES PLANNING $5,796 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS ”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””~”””””””~ $4,885 $1,824 $4,338 S1,458 *. 0 C22Dll C22Gll C22 J11 C22Lll C2291? C22R11 c22s1: C22Y 15 c222;: CT-314 COLLECTOR SYSTW. C2 6C11 C2631? C26Gi: C2 651 1 C26Lll C2 691 1 C2 6R11 C26Sil C26YIl C262i1 C26Gi2 CT-5/6 COLLECTOR SYSYTEM C28Cll C28D11 $4,211 $182 $118 $20 $9 $13 $447 $34 $29 $2,615 $2,446 $5,063 $662 SO $15,204 $206 523 $308 $12 $663 563 $82 $2,212 $19,495 $10,995 $8,500 $943 $6 aE ILWAlTKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL PROJECT IDENTIFIER COSTS AnAPD COSTS C28G11 C28Jll ....................................... $12,853 5300 C28Lll C28Q11 C28Rll C28Sll C28Yll C28Zll C28G14 C2 8R14 C28S14 C28214 C28C15 C28G15 C28R15 C28S15 CT-7 COLLECTOR SYSTEM C29Cll C29Gll C29Dll C29Jll C29Lll C29Q11 C2 9R11 C2 9S11 C29Yll C29211 C29G13 C29Rl3 C29S13 C29213 C29G14 C2 9R14 C29S14 C29214 CT-8 COLLECTOR SYSTEM _"_ $34 S 61 $899 $48 $106 57,336 $77 $7 $350 $150 $451 $2,464 $10 $230 $66 $26,397 $13,116 $13,281 SO $671 $13,532 $262 S 32 $29 $1,242 $15 SllO $78 $2,431 $166 $1 $8 95 $76 $188 $6 $4 9 $19,783 $8,618 $11,165 ~ MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT .wr NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGM DECEMBER 31, 1989 IBIT 1 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER """"-"""---"-"--"""--"""""""""""""""""~""""" PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS C33C12 C33D12 C33G12 C33L12 C33J12 C33912 C33R12 C33S12 C33Y12 C33212 NS-12 COLLECTOR SYSTEM C41Cll C41Dll C41Gll ~ ~~~ C41Jll a41Q11 C41Lll C41Rll C41Sll C41Yll C41Zll C41G13 C41R13 C41S13 041213 C41G14 C41S14 C41Rl4 C41214 C41G15 C41R15 C41S15 C41215 C41G16 C41R16 C41S16 C41216 $2 $4,959 $206 $78 $10 $27 $10 $367 $18 $81 $5,758 $2,975 $2,324 $1 549,054 $605 $16 $298 $4,650 $29 $207 $807 $3,532 $23 $153 $648 $3,916 $16 $564 $133 $6,135 $799 $1 $28 $5,533 $0 5 622 $146 $2,783 KK-LM SYSTEM $80,240 $42,690 $37,550 510,809 $24 $30 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM ) EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31. 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER .-."""I COSTS C42L11 C42911 C42Rll C42Sll C42Yll C42Zll C42C12 C42G12 C42R12 C42S12 C42212 C42C13 C42G13 C42R13 C42S13 C42213 C42C14 C42G14 C42R14 C42S14 C42214 ~ ~"""""_""""""""""""""""""""" $19 5188 c7n 5574 572 569 $3,353 $719 53 $148 S 64 5136 $1 $111 $2 52 $2,532 $0 $170 $15 553 "1 KK-1 COLLECTOR SYSTEM $19,792 $10,879 50,913 a MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER C44Gll C44Jll $8,320 C44Lll $29 C44Qll $9 C4 4R11 $191 C44Sll $1,027 $1 6 C44Yll C44Zll $109 C44G12 $170 $3,088 C44R12 C44S12 $6 C44212 $482 C44G13 $61 C44R13 $2,918 C44.513 $0 C44213 $419 560 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS ....................................... C92Dll C92Gll C92 J11 C92Lll C92Q11 C92Rll C92Sll C92Yll C92Zll $549 517,454 $0 $4,380 $11 $1 $27 $342 $10 $68 $90 . .. NS-5 COLLECTOR SYSTEM 54,929 C93Cll C93Gll C93Jll C93Lll C93Qll C93Rll C93S11 C93Yll C93211 NS-6 COLLECTOR SYSTEM $3'495 $1 97 $12 SO $9 $21 $439 $154 $7 9 $4,406 $573 $343 $17,111 $163 $152 54,166 $4,254 - MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 'NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER ........................................ PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS $9,421 $239 C94Gll C94 J11 C94Lll C94Qll C94Rll C94Sll C94Yll C942ll C94G12 C94R12 C94S12 C94212 $22 $214 SO $736 S 63 $5,379 $116 $8 $468 $104 NS-7 COLLECTOR SYSTEM $11,343 $6,212 $11,131 e95Dll C95Cll C95Gll C95Jll C95Lll C95Qll C95Rll C95Sil C95Yll C95Zll C95G12 C95R12 C95S12 C95212 C95Y12 NS-8 COLXCTOR SYSTEM $1 $10,334 $485 $240 $27 $19 $1,366 $42 $193 $81 $3,617 $397 517 $66 $1 $16,886 $9,073 $1,013 -~ MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT 'EXHIBIT 1 !IET LOW COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROW DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER C96Cll C96Dll C96Gll C96Jll C96Lll C96Qll C96R11 C96Sll C96Yll C96211 C96G15 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS ......................................................... 54 C96R15 C96S15 C96215 C96C21 C96G21 ,c96R21 e96S21 . C96221 C96C22 C96G22 C96R22 C96S22 C96222 NS-9/10 COLLECTOR SYSTEM C99G00 CSO ALLOWANCES FOR CONTRACT CHANGES COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW IlOPll 110x11 INTERCEPTOR FACILITY PLAN I28Gll 128311 I28Lll $35,870 $393 $1,130 $313 $54 $2,185 $37 $191 $233 $2,080 $218 54 $166 $21,176 SO $6 $1,594 $169 $29 $4,482 $70 $249 $88 $71,541 $37,044 $34,497 $8,128 $8,128 $0 $8,128 $329,725 $154,098 $175,627 $148 $8 $156 $120 $36 $1,608 so 59 .~ I28Rll . MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXXIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31. 1989 .NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER """--""""""-"""""""""""""""""""~""""""""-~ PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS ALLERTON AVENUE RELIEF I30Dll I30All I30Fll 130111 I30Lll I30Pll 130x11 I30Vll I30P12 I30Yll I30P13 130021 I30L21 .::E I30542 I30L42 I30Y42 INLINE FACILITY PLAN h AFP I31Gli I31Dll 131L11 I31Qll I31Rll I31Sll I31Yll 131211 $1,903 Sf, 173 $1,682 $41 $1 S 637 54,001 $609 $120 $313 $154 $30 525 $3 $503 $4 $593 $77 $3 $14,055 $4,609 $499 $4 $53 $3 $367 $310 $21 $1,227 57,443 S. 6TH STREET INTERCEPTOR $5,866 53,633 $676 $6,612 $2,233 0 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - UATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31. 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS I32Dll 132Jll I32Lll I32Qll I32Yll 132G12 I32Rl2 I32S12 132212 SOUTH SHORE 135Cll I35Dll I35Fll I35Gll I35Rll 135611 I35Tll I35Yll I35211 135C12 i35612 135R12 135512 I35212 I35C13 i35G13 135R13 I35S13 I35213 I35G14 135x14 13.5414 I35214 i35C21 I35G21 I35R21 I35S21 I35D22 FORCE MAIN $416 $0 $66 $9 $3,692 573 $127 $10 $204 $4,605 $29 $4,128 $46,870 $1 $217 $104 $864 $3,792 $178 $201 $69 $828 $5,821 $43 $735 $41 $10 57 $6,1i6 $699 $22 $46 $4,602 $9 $721 5161 5323 $3,461 $1,144 &E ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) I35222 I35U27 I35227 I35G31 $481 $229 eqr 7n9 $182 I35R31 I35S31 V*&, I"& $30 COCI I35231 I35G32 I35R32 I35S32 """ 704a $213 54,325 $290 ($1) I35R35 I3SS35 135235 I35G61 135R61 I35261 II 52 CROSSTOWN MAIN $145,664 $88,057 $57,607 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT &MIBIT 1 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER I36Cll SO PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS """"""""""--"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I36Dll I36Gll ~. . ~~ ~ I36Zll I36Lll I36Rll 136411 I36Sll I36Yll I36G12 136211 I36512 I36Rl2 I36S12 I36Y12 I36212 ! &36R13 36G13 136513 136213 136C14 I36D14 I3 6G14 I36L14 I3 6R14 I36S14 I36Y14 136214 I36215 I36421 I36422 136432 I36933 I36G51 I36C51 I36R51 136551 136251 I36G52 I36R52 I36S52 136252 I3 6G5 3 e36R.53 136.553 $3,108 $110,517 $885 $849 s 99 $142 Sar 969 5171 $340 $28,590 $18 $346 $2,668 so $ai $7,676 $390 $375 $241 $2 $31 $3,591 $98 $7 $11 $13 $162 SO $81 $36 so SO $9,296 $2 $997 $16 $8,851 $127 $1 $703 $7,322 $117 $675 SO &LWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I36253 I36G54 I36RS4 136.554 136254 I3 6G5 5 I36R55 I36555 136255 I36G56 136R56 136556 136256 I36G59 I36R59 36259 I36R61 I36261 I36G62 I36R32 I36S62 I36262 I36C63 I36G63 I36R63 I36S63 136263 NORTHSHORE MAIN $6,032 $92 SO $616 $5,697 $88 $943 SO $91 175 $71 $842 $0 56,521 5 62 $5 $805 $95 SO $7,134 $102 $193 $105 $0 $3,128 $565 $1 $51 ($1) $241,218 $81,451 $153,761 @k€IIBIT 1 ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POUUTION ABATEMENT PROW DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL Amm COSTS I37Cll I37Dll I37Gll I37Jll I37Lll I37Qll I37R11 I37Sll I37Yll 137211 I37E12 I37G12 I37R12 ~~ ~~~ I37S12 137212 I37C13 I37213 I37E14 I37R14 ~. ~ I37S14 137214 i37E15 137R15 137S15 I37215 I37R16 I37S16 I37216 I37R17 137.517 I37217 137U18 137218 137C21 137D21 I37G21 137921 I37R21 137,521 $2,433 $45 $10,340 $60 $22 $42 $31 $113 $43 $3 $1,660 $8,055 $24 $801 $431 $592 SO $25 $1,149 $72 $504 $1 $13 $224 $6 $1 $18 $5 $1 $71 $5 $1 $33 $450 $5 $30 $564 $0 $9,382 $498 $55 9 SO $206 $3 $133 .MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL PROJFST IDENTIFIER COSTS AWARD COSTS I37291 5127 INLINE PUMP STATION $38,181 528,630 $10,151 ....................................... I39Dll I39Gll I39Lll 139Rll 139511 139211 I39Yll FAIRMOUNT AVENUE INTERCEPTOR I40Lll I41Gll 141Lll I41Rll I41Sll I41Y11 141211 $146 51,223 533 so 525 $229 $15 51,671 $6 50 $6 $563 $18 $5 S 64 538 553 I INDIAN CREEK PARKWAY $741 5934 so $415 5737 56 $326 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 'EXHIBIT 1 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 3ROJECT IDENTIFIER ------------------"""""~""""""""" I45Dll I45Fll I45Gll I45Kll I45Lll I45Pll I45R11 145x11 145Yll I45G21 I45211 I45L21 I45Rz1 14.5521 145'121 I45221 I45D31 I45G31 I45L31 I45R31 I45S31 I45Y31 I45231 145D41 I45G41 145L41 I45R4 1 I45S41 I45Y41 I45241 145G42 i45L42 145R42 145Y42 i45242 I45D51 I45G51 145L51 145951 145R51 I45S51 I45T51 PROJECTED COSTS $571 SO 54,564 $96 $187 576 $6 $73 $0 $49 $7,358 $230 $9 $1, 091 $69 $62 5785 $11,040 SO $11 $1,092 $57 $77 $1,608 $12,913 $8 $34 $2,123 $100 5187 $13,931 SO $14 516 $165 $415 $1,365 ($8) $29 $13 $319 SO $16 $40 $12 145x61 AWARD GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS ,"""""""""""" aMILWAUICEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" NORTHFAST SIDE RELIEF SEWER SYSTEM S60,803 536,846 523,957 146x11 51 MEQUON-THIENSVILLE CONNECTION 51 $0 $1 I47Pll 147x11 $10.5 54 NORTHRIDGE S189 $137 $52 e MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) I48211 NORTH SIDE HIGH LEVEL RELIEF I5OGil 150311 I50Rll I50Lll I50Xll I50Sll I50Yll 150211 150x12 GERMANTOWN CONNECTION I51Fll I51Gll I51Pll I5 1R11 $26,921 $6,057 $0 $8 $34 5245 $6 $187 5125 $5 $6,667 $82 $3,083 $27 5480 $18 $50 517,607 $1,172 59,314 $5,495 0 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATPlENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER I51Zll IflP13 MENOMONEE FALLS-GZRMANTOWN INTERCEPTOR 53.831 $2,675 $1,156 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""-""- $88 53 I52Dll I52Lll I52Gll 152Rll I52Sll I52Yll I52Zll -TON AVENUE INTERCEPTOR 153.511 I53Yll I53Zll SILVER SPRING INTRCEPTOR $6,989 $441 513 $3 $513 $41 $349 $8,349 $4,711 53,63 8 $208 $1,491 522 $5 $11 $233 $1,970 $1,163 $807 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - UATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL PROJECT IDENTIFIER COSTS AWARD COSTS I60All I60Dll $169 I60Gll 51,890 $649 160111 160Lll $0 160Pll $1 16041 1 $193 160Rll $39 525 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 160Sll I60Tll I60V11 160x1 1 160Yll 160211 I60G21 I60H21 a I60N21 I60R21 I60W21 160221 UNDERWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR I62Gll I62Jll 16251 1 162911 162171 1 I62Sll 162Yll 162211 MCCARTY PA I7 OAl1 I70Dll I70Gll 170111 I70Lll 170411 170Rll I70Sll RELIEF SEWER ~" $709 $102 $24 $43 $0 $1,683 $38 $64 $27 $230 53 SO 55,889 $3,278 $15 $17 $49 sa $24 $91 $1.51 $3,633 $354 $2,002 $775 $272 SO $20 $510 $1,020 $79 $99 $4 $3,945 $1,944 52,2 23 $1, 410 @NF,T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS PROJECTED COSTS OF DOLLARS) Awm GIVLNT NET LOCAL COSTS ................................................... I70Yll I70211 I70G12 I70R12 170G13 I70R13 I70G21 I70H7.1 542 $142 $1,105 $21 $580 . " $937 $5 $57 I70N21 ~ I70R21 I70W21 170221 $31 $10 $174 $1 ROOT RIVER INTER(3EPTOR $8,240 $4,928 I72Fll 172Sll 172x11 172211 $5,083 $171 $611 $18 $90 $72 HALES CORNERS INTERCEPTOR $6,045 $4,395 $3.312 $1,650 e= ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT XHIBIT 1 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PRoGRAn DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) ISTS "" 173Gll I73Jll I73Lll 173Rll I73Sll 173x11 I73Yll 173211 I73G13 I73R13 ~ ~~~~ ~" ~ I73S13 I73213 $373 $28 $1 $4 $5 $0 $13 $453 $55 $39 $5 $26 NEW BERLIN CONNECTON $1,048 j J""" MUSKEGO 175Dll 175Gll I75Jll I75Lll I75Pll i75Qll 175Rll I75Sll 175x11 175Yll I75211 175312 175L12 17.5412 I75Y12 I75261 NEANDNW FRANKLIN MUSKEGO INTERCEPTOR I76Gll I76Lll I7 6R11 $9 $9 $1,402 $106 $45 $54 $259 so $16 $169 $18 $55 $26 $2 $5 $4 $169 $1 $688 SO $2,331 $1,439 $1,336 $7 $8 $18 $200 $86 $360 $9 $892 . @AT LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 19.99 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER "~"""""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""" PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS CLEVELAND AVE. RELIEF $1,655 $1,138 $517 177Gll I77Lll I77Yll NATIONAL AVENUE RELIEF 18ODll I80Fll I80Gll I80Ll1 I80Pll 180x11 180x11 I8OYll 180211 180G12 IBOR12 I80212 FRANKLIN NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR Ieocul e80511 I81Gll I81Jll I81Lll I81Pll I8?R11 181x11 I81Yll 181211 MITCHELL FIELD $585 $1 $63 $649 $411 $1,379 50 $168 $5 $19 $30 $190 $10 5142 $40 $829 $8 SO $0 $649 1 $3,231 $1, e73 $1,358 $1,778 $0 $148 59 57 552 50 $126 $2,120 S103 S2,017 b= MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATR4F,NT PROGRAM PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOUARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """-"--""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" I82Dll I82Fll I82Gll I82Lll I82Pll I82Qll I82Rll I82Sll 102x11 I82Yll I82211 ~~~~~ $184 SO $1,404 $3 $89 $24 $35 $125 SO $21 $123 OAK CREEK NORTH I83Pll 183x11 PY VISTA I84Gll I84J11 I84Lll I84Qll 184Rli I84Sll 184Y11 184211 52,008 $1,140 $77 $0 $77 $1,261 SO $1 $12 $1 $81 $84 $19 MARTHA WASHINGTON RELIEF $1,416 I85Lll I85Yll $1 $3 HAHLEY ROAD CONNECTION $4 I86Gll I86L11 I86Rll I86Sll 186x11 186Yll I86211 I86G12 $2,160 $21 $7 $1 $19 $223 $1,790 $331 $1 $48 $858 $0 $868 $29 $618 $4 &E 'IILMAWE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PRDGRAn PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOUARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL Awm COSTS --"""---""-----"""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"- SOUTH 60TH ST. INTEXCEPTOR $4,559 53,131 $1,428 187x11 $0 S. 35TH. STREET RELIEF $0 $0 $0 I88Gll I I88Lll 188Rll 188x11 I88Yll I I88211 $531 55 $13 $4 $42 $99 ! SOUTH 43RD STREET RELIEF $694 5483 $211 I99G00 OWANCE FOR CONTRACT CHANGES 532,913 532,913 50 532,913 INTERCEPTOR AND RELIEF SEWERS $640,038 $312,014 $321,964 0 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOW COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER JOlFll JOlEll 5831 5129 JOlHl1 JOlGll 51,259 JOlNl1 5112 "." - 5135 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOW COSTS ............................................................ Awm COSTS JUlYll JOlWll JO 1x1 1 JOlF12 J01E12 JO 1G12 J01K12 JO 1El3 JOlX12 JO 1F13 JOlP13 JOlP15 JOlXlS JO 1F2 0 zo 1x2 0 JONES ISLAND FACILITY PLAN J02Fll J02Pll J02X11 JONES ISLAND FILTERS 6 DRYERS Cl OAl1 JlOIll JlOVl1 JlOF21 JlOI21 J1 OK2 1 J10132 J1 OX2 1 J10K32 JlOV32 ADVANCED FACILITIES PLANNING $1,553 5237 $114 $104 5232 $2,898 526 so $217 $9 564 50 $24 $149 56 5148 so 5110 58, 366 53,402 5127 so 52 5129 $52 53,367 5215 $0 $210 56 5184 5284 538 51 54 54,317 52,547 54, a84 577 51, 770 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAH EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31. 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER .................................................... PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS J20Dll J20Lll J20Yll J20L12 J20D12 J20Y12 J20D13 J20L13 J20Y13 J20L21 J20D21 J20Y21 J20D31 520531 J20L31 0 J20Y31 J20L32 - 520'132 J20 54 1 J20L41 J20Y41 Z2OJ42 J20L42 J20D51 J20Y51 JONES ISLAND DESIGN 5.5, 142 $152 510 $69 57 $4 $39 so $4 $6,975 539 5167 Sll, 629 5273 $102 $682 $41 $223 5352 5126 so 5510 $5 5 92 522 526,665 so $26,665 e KILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRREI EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER -"""-----"---"-""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""" 531C11 J31Gll J31Rll 531511 531211 53 1R13 J31S13 J31R14 J31S14 531214 J31C15 53 1U15 531215 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AICARD COSTS 511 517,946 5151 $1,442 $191 52 529 517 523 52 50 $19 52 SIPHONS $19,835 511,097 @J32H21 J32G21 J32N2 1 532R21 532S21 532221 J32W21 532R22 532S22 332222 532P.2 3 J32S23 532223 532D24 Z32R24 J32S24 532224 J32U25 ~ ~~ $15,692 5558 5286 5512 $1,108 s1,559 533 $1 513 so $122 517 $98 551 $345 $183 5235 $63 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT $20,936 $12,566 J33Ell J33Gll J33Rll J332ll 533C31 533G31 53 3R3 1 J33N31 $415 $722 (51) $0 $20,775 $10 $655 546 $2,730 $0,370 *k,T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRRn ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS J33S31 533W31 533231 J33S33 J33R33 533233 J33R34 J33S34 J33234 J33C35 J33R35 J33U35 533235 $1,628 $324 $60 $1 $63 $3 $15 $47 518 $0 $11 51 $3 PRIMAAY CLARIFIERS $24,804 $18,625 WlGll J4 1Hl1 54 1N11 54 1R11 541511 J41Wll 541211 541S12 J41R13 J41S13 541213 EAST PLANT AERATION BASIN REHAB 518,195 $219 550 5511 $56 $550 $27 528 51 530 $2 $19,669 512,990 $6,179 $6,679 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWE3AGE DISTRICT *WIBIT 1 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PRON DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER ................................................... J42Cll PROJECTED GRRNT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS J42Ei1 J42Dll J42Gll J42Lll J42R11 J42Sll J42Yll J42211 J42E12 J42R12 J42C13 J42R13 J42S13 J42213 J42S14 542214 042U16 342216 542017 542217 542291 W. PLANT REHAB.6 NEW E. PLANT CLARIFIERS J43Ell J43Hll J43Nll J43Rll 54 3W11 543511 543211 J43R13 J43S13 J43S14 543214 RAS-WAS PUMP STATION h LAB J44Gll J44Sll J44Yll J43Gli $1,051 51,006 $56,700 $2,871 $4 $1 579 $3 $1,047 531 $1 $666 SO 54,302 51,500 $121 $9 5 93 $141 $29 $99 $1,000 570,754 557,430 $13,324 $10,371 $589 $400 5263 $867 $51 $994 $101 $73 $1 $10 SO $13,720 $8,675 $3,707 $468 $325 $216 $13 $5,045 %3T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GFC+NT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS E. 6 W. PLANT GWERY REHAB. $4,129 $0 54,729 J45Dll J45Gll J45Lll J45Rll J45Sll J45Yll 545211 J45U12 545212 54.51313 545213 J45U14 $15,585 $814 $20 $0 $1,476 $7 $1,055 $15 SO $56 $18 $53 $625 $26 E. PLANT CLARIFIERS REHAB. $19,150 J47Cll J47Lll J47Dll J47011 J47Rll J47Sll J47Yll J47Zll J47U12 547212 Z47U13 J47U14 547213 547214 547291 $2 $486 $3,915 $12 $515 $5 $112 $16 $53 so $49 514 $52 $59 $52 $0 $19,750 PROCESS AIR COMPRESSOR $5,462 $2,443 $3,019 e MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM XHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER J51C21 J5 102 1 J5 1G2 1 5.51021 JSlR21 J51S21 JSlW21 551221 5.5 1E2 2 JSlP.22 551522 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """""~~~~~"""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" i JSlD31 J.5 1F3 1 JS 1G3 1 JS 1K3 1 JSlL31 JS 1IU 1 J51S31 JS 1x3 1 I J51Y31 $31 $3 $10,936 $6,777 $3,117 $250 $3,341 $105 $3,880 $17 $106 $8,525 5194,600 $704 $164 5283 s 95 $12,671 $118 $202 $796 5109 $7,847 & YILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWAPD COSTS 3 1L3 2 J5 1R3 2 J51S32 J51Y32 3.51232 J51D33 JS 1L3 3 J51Y33 551233 J51D34 J51L35 55 1U3 6 551236 J51U37 551237 55 1U3 8 -""--""""""""""""""""""""""""~""""""""""" $2 $106 $70 so $83 $113 $1 $4 SO $142 $23 $1,631 $24 54,367 $6,240 548 $230 $299 $11 51,092 $20 $101 $126 $296 $510 $70 $52 $151 $19 $254 $35 $89 $156 522,302 $64 e;::; $143 31239 55 1R5 1 Z51G6i J5 1R6 1 J51S61 31261 J51U65 251265 J51U66 551266 551'567 Z.51267 J51U68 J51U69 ~751263 J51G71 55 1x7 1 551263 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PR XHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJFCT IDENTIFIER ................................................. J51271 J51D72 J51R72 J51Y72 J51D73 J5 1G7 3 J51S73 551273 J5 1C7 4 J5 1D7 4 JSlS74 3.51274 J51D75 J51L75 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS $350 $14 $161 $3 $1,009 $13,012 $152 $120 $0 $1,215 $162 $26 $34 en 55 1R7 5 J51S75 J51Y75 551291 551R92 551292 551293 ~~~" SLUDGE THICKENING AND DEWATERING J61Ell J61G11 J61Hll J61Nll 56iW11 J61Rll 561211 CHEMICAL UNLOADING FACILITY J62Cll J62Gll 562H11 J62N11 562011 J62Rll J62Sll *" $5 $181 $4 $2 $19 $99 $563 $1,466 $99 5318,209 $436 $1,391 S 64 $101 $0 $322 $6 $2,320 $0 $20,297 $271 $2,641 $144 $2,556 $241 $884 $271 $182,048 5935 $136,161 $1,385 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 EXHIBIT 1 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER J62Glt ..................................................... J62R12 J62Slt J62W12 362212 J62G13 J62R13 J62S13 562213 J62R14 J62S14 J62C15 J62U15 562215 J62U16 562216 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS $2,944 $127 $513 $23 $45 $7,327 $71 $374 539 $0 $31 $4 $142 $1 $54 $ 67 so $3 $12 $10 $5 $153 $3 ezz $26 J62R18 J62S18 J62218 J62Rl9 J62S19 56221 9 $8, 843 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABAT- PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """-"""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" J63Cll J63Dll J63Gll J63Lll J63Rll J63Sll J63Yll 563211 J63U12 563212 J63U13 563213 J63U14 563214 363291 $0 $951 $5,096 $0 $35 $469 $17 $114 $107 $15 $ 60 $10 $26 $52 $127 &AER SYSTEM J71Dll J71Gll 371L11 J71Rll 571511 J71Yll 571211 Z71G12 571012 571S12 J71212 571213 571214 371616 571216 57 1G2 1 J71H21 57 1N2 1 371x21 571.521 571w21 $7, oas $241 $1 $743 $17 $4 $20 $3 $1,209 $40 $309 $63 524 513 $121 $13 $397 $24 $31 $0 $29 SAKl $2,555 $12 $1 $33 $45 59 54,952 $2,133 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 @,T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER J71S24 571R24 J71W24 571224 PROJECTED GWT NET LOCAL COSTS ....................................................... AWARD COSTS $4 $143 $545 " J71G7 " _" cl llSZ7 571227 571R28 J71S28 571228 J71S29 ~ > SITEWORK 572Gll J72R11 - J72c12 > OPERATIONS BUILDING $1 $4 $7,327 $3,362 $5,281 $100 $265 $259 $0 $5,905 54,920 53,965 s 985 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 0 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER J73Cll ..................................................... J73Dll J73Gll J73Lll PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS $0 $408 $1,965 513 J73Rll J73Sll J73Yll 513211 573214 J73G21 J73L21 J73R21 ) 1 J73s21 573Y21 573221 J73223 .;;E; J73R41 J73S41 J73Y41 573241 57 3G5 1 MAINTENANCE BUILDING 574Rll J74Sll J74Wll 574211 J74S12 574R12 574W12 J74212 J74U14 574214 J74S16 J74C17 J74R17 574S17 574217 J74L21 574S21 J74P.21 $12 $13 $66 $129 $14 56 :, 802 $33 . ~~ $0 $816 5519 $196 $0 so $839 $7 $11 $44 $90 $1,866 $70 $19,907 $321 SO $810 $11 $2,981 $21 $3,235 $187 571 $54 $7 $0 $290 $2 $27 54 $14 $2 $3,096 $16,811 0 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWN COSTS ---------------""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""" J74W21 J74Y21 574221 574W31 J74R99 J74w99 INSTRUMENTATION 6 CONTROLS 575411 575221 J75G31 575R31 575Y31 575231 " J75T41 575T42 I HARBOR COMMISSION $230 $6 $15 $3,769 $3 56,151 518,271 $7,359 $10,912 $3,691 $69 56 $0 $5 56 7- 5 605 $50 $4.432 5053 53,579 0 " NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROm MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER HARBOR COMMISSION PROJECTED GRANT NET LOW COSTS AWARD COSTS .................................................... $4,432 $853 $3.579 J77Ell J77Gll 577511 J77Lll J77Qll 577511 577Rll 577Yli 577211 J77E12 577E14 J77E13 J77E15 577317 J77E16 1 J77E18 *,E1 9 J77E20 J77E21 J77G21 J77L21 J77P.21 577221 577'121 577E22 J77P.22 577E23 577224 "SD CENTRAL LABORATORY 58 9R10 589210 58 9R11 589211 ~78 9R12 58 9R13 589212 589213 58 9R14 589214 $6,042 $288 $8 $451 $1 $95 SO $210 $316 $190 S 92 $100 $29 $39 536 $202 $54 $38 $819 5797 $8 $14 $74 $138 5245 $63 $0 $2 $10,351 56,239 $100 $48 $157 $9 $74 $28 $69 $41 $132 $300 $108 $80 $4,112 '0 LWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31. 1989 EXHIBIT 1 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER ------------"--"""""""""""""""""""""""""""~""-" 589216 589217 $216 J89218 5228 J89219 5235 589220 $132 5126 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS "SO OPERATIONS DMSION SUPPORT $2,083 so $2,083 J90Rll J9OSll J90Tll J9OZll J90R12 J90S12 590212 J90R13 a;:;:: J9OR21 J9OS21 J90221 J90R31 J90.531 J90231 J90R32 J90R61 J90S61 590261 J90R63 590263 Z90271 J90R71 J90R91 J90R93 J90R94 J90R95 J90R96 J90R97 SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION $12 $521 $34 582 $2,378 $50 $108 $103 $143 $39 5628 58 543 5102 57 542 $17 (52) 5257 $48 $0 5346 5773 5375 51 5193 5175 5284 $211 so 56,918 $2,593 54,385 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS 1 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS ---""---"------"-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""~ J99G00 $13,154 ALLOWANCES FOR CONTRACT CHANGES $13,154 SO $13,154 JONES ISLAND $694,451 $302,706 $311,745 K70G09 K70L09 K70NO 9 ~~ ~ K70R09 K70W09 K70Y09 K70209 JONES ISLAND OTHER LOOFll LOOK12 LOOX12 LOOF13 LOOG13 ~~ ~ .~. LOOK13 LOOX13 LOOG14 LOOK14 LO OM1 4 LOOX14 LOOK13 LOOK16 LOOX15 LOOX16 LOOK17 LOOX17 LOCAL REHABILITATION 6 PROJECTS HOOF01 MOO JO 1 MOOJ02 MOOXOl MOOX02 MOOF03 MOOJ03 $330 $9 $337 $3 $97 $101 $36 $921 $10 $2,276 $17,300 $215 $122 $30 $419 $16 $41 $16 $2,370 $546 $34 $1,290 $125 $9 $43 $30 $6 $24.906 SO $4,354 5 60 SO SO $1,500 $1, 785 $16,739 $539 sa, 167 %T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAH ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER MOOX03 MOOJ04 MOOX04 MOOF08 MOOJ08 MOOX08 HOOF11 MOOJll MOOXll MOOJ14 MO OX1 4 $1,576 MOOFl6 5160 MOOJ16 so MOOX16 MOOF18 5164 MOOJl8 51 5975 MOO JZ 0 $173 MO OX2 0 51,152 MOOF22 5215 MOO322 so $1,042 MOOX22 MOOF24 5306 MOOJ24 so MOOX24 MOOF2 6 5218 MOOJ26 56 MOOX26 51,061 MOOF28 5201 M00;28 so MOOX28 $936 MOOF30 5360 MOO330 SO MOOX30 5240 MOOX32 5300 MOOX34 5264 MOOX36 5252 MOOX38 5168 MOOX40 5180 5192 GENERAL PROGRAM HANAGEMENT 524,249 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS """"""~"""""~""""""""""""""""""""""""""" so 5116 so 51 $2,240 $102 SO 51,386 sa1 SI, 338 *OOX18 5986 GkIT 1 LWAUICEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER MOlFOl MOlJOl MOlXOl M01F02 M01J02 M01X02 M01F03 M01J03 MO 1x0 3 M01F04 MOL704 MO 1x0 4 M01F08 M01J08 MO 1x0 8 MOlFll """"""""""_ M01J14 M01X14 M01F16 M01J16 MOlXl6 MO 1F18 MO lZl8 MO 1x1 8 M01J20 MO 1F2 0 M01F22 MO 1x2 0 M01X22 M01J22 MO 1F2 4 M01J24 MO 1x2 4 M01F2 6 MO 152 6 MO 1x2 6 M01F28 M01J28 MO 1x2 8 MO 1F3 0 ,"" """ ."_ ."_ ."" .- (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS ."~""""""""""""~""~"- $0 5-78 $0 so $630 $0 $298 so $1 $0 $124 $117 $12 52,293 $12 $1,234 $11 $53 $8 $1,531 $132 56 $1,674 s 97 $1,530 $17 $112 $19 $1,515 $106 $1,371 54 $111 56 51,214 $83 $1,165 $8 S 92 so $1,068 $96 $828 $0 $96 METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEHENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) M01F32 M01J32 M01X32 M01J34 M01J36 PROJECT IDENTIFIER ............................................. """_ PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS so $372 $108 $216 $132 PROGRAM P M02F01 M02 JO 1 M02X01 M02F02 MOZX02 MO2J02 M02F03 M02J03 e2XO3 OZF08 M02J08 M02X08 M02Fll M02 J11 M02X11 M02F14 X02 J14 M02X14 M02F16 M02 J16 M02X16 M02F18 M02Ji8 M02Xi 8 M02F20 M02X20 M02J20 M02F21 'WING 6 CONTROL $19,300 so $1,045 $30 I. 53,355 $50 $0 $5,094 $24 56,992 $1 $90 $36 $4,309 $358 $6 $3,730 so $388 53,026 $1 $1,008 52,361 $1,853 $124 51,579 $541 $8 31 e ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER M08J10 -----"---"-----""""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""" M08X10 M08Fll M08Jll M08Xll MO8F14 MO8J14 MO 8x1 4 M08F16 M08 ,716 M08X16 MO8Fl8 M08 J18 M08X18 M08F20 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS $361 $15 $0 $102 $36 $0 $231 $59 $73 $115 $157 $2 $148 $90 $4 @!E;; $110 $1 M08F24 MO 8x2 4 M08X25 MO 8F2 6 M08X26 MO 8F2 8 MO 8x2 8 M08F30 M08X30 M08F32 M08X32 M08E34 H08X34 M08F36 M08X36 M08C40 308F40 M08 34 0 308x40 M08F41 $107 53 $121 $9 $108 $159 $144 $204 $152 $218 $162 $231 $10 5123 $14 5129 $56 $37 $15 S 92 $112 SMALL BUSINESS 6 MINORITY INVOLVEMENT $4,300 6. YILWAUXEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATElWT PROGRAM PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOUU AWARD COSTS """""-""-""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""- M09F01 M09J01 MO 9x0 1 M09F02 M09J02 M09X02 M09J05 M09X05 M09F07 M09J07 M09X07 .MO 9 J11 M09F13 M09J13 MO 9x1 3 SO $66 $0 $0 $269 SO S 98 $0 $30 $120 $ 65 $9 $320 $21 $898 OMMUNITY INVOLVPIENT PROGRAM MlOFOl MlOPOl MlOXOl M10F02 M10P02 M10X02 M10F03 M10P03 M10X03 MlOFO8 M10X08 M10F42 M10X42 MlOF44 M10F45 M10F4 6 M10X4 6 M10X47 FACILITY PLAN COORDINATION MllFOl MllXOl MllJO2 $1,896 $7 525 54,397 $801 SO 5247 $39 so 5a9 $384 SO .. $22 51 $20 51 $0 $74 $31 $6,138 $2,448 $79 $41 $47 $0 $9 eE ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL PROJECT IDENTIFIER COSTS AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT 52,624 M12F01 M12K01 M12XO 1 INDUSTRIU PRETREATMENT Ml4FOl 5247 527 502 5356 5654 RISK h CLAIMS MANAGEUENT-MMSD 5654 M15F01 M15X01 M15X02 M15C03 M15F03 M15F21 550 so 51,728 SO 5974 51,241 5151 $69 54 .- ~ MMSD TRAINING 54,217 : MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATplENT PROW EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER M17F01 M17X01 M17F02 M17X02 M17FO3 M17X03 M17F04 Ml7X04 Ml7F05 M17X05 Ml7F06 M17XO 6 Ml7F07 M17X07 M17F08 M17X08 Ml7FO 9 Ml7XO 9 M17F 10 M17X10 M17Fll M17Xll PROJECTED GRANT NET LO= COSTS AWARD COSTS ~""""~~""~~"""""""~~"""""""""""""""""""""~" $293 $48 $124 $29 $236 $34 $15 $19 $168 $20 $16 $11 $125 $63 $96 $48 $105 $51 $112 $53 $120 $5 9 MMSD FUNDING COSTS M18J45 M18246 M18J47 PROGXAM MANAGEMENT-DEPA M19F18 M19X18 M19X20 M19F20 Ml9F22 M19X22 M19X24 M19F2 4 Ml9F26 M19X26 M19FZ8 $1,845 $121 $30 $0 $151 $3 $94 $2 6 211 $28 $159 $35 $178 $253 $235 $264 $252 $276 $264 '0 M19X2 8 M19F3 0 Ml9X30 MILWAWE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIa M02F22 """""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""""~" PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS CT nn-r M02X22 M02522 M02F24 M02524 M02X24 M02F26 M02526 MO 2x2 6 M02F28 M02528 M02X28 M02F30 M02530 M02X30 M02F32 .32;;; M02 53 4 M02X34 M02F36 M02 53 6 M02X3 6 M02X38 M02F38 M02F40 M02X40 ADMINISTRTIVE SUPPORT MO3F02 M03J02 M03X02 M03F04 M03504 M03X04 M03F09 M03509 M03X09 M03Fll M03Jll 1-1 Y" I $1,732 5532 $826 $1,812 $428 $846 $1,870 $900 $448 $1,680 $468 $2,208 $516 $492 $552 $852 $408 $588 $828 $396 $624 $816 $228 $660 $240 $696 $252 $58,995 $894 so $1 $1,276 $622 $27 $2 $3,123 $313 S 67 SO $3,465 $8 $266 M03F12 M03512 M03X12 e MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 EXHIBIT 1 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER M03F15 M03J15 M03X15 M03F17 M03J17 M03X17 M03F19 MO3J19 M03X19 M03F21 M03 52 1 MO 3x2 1 MO 3F2 3 M03523 M03X23 """""""""_ .:;:; M03X25 MO 3C2 7 M03F27 M03J27 MO 3x2 7 M03F29 M03J29 M03X29 M03F31 M03J31 M03X31 M03F33 M03J23 M03X33 M03F35 M03J35 M03X35 M03F37 M03J37 MO 3x3 7 M03F39 M03X39 M03J39 M03J41 0 M03 54 6 M03F46 "- ."_ PROJECTED GRANT COSTS AWARD I""""""""""""""""""""~ 58 $4,935 $167 $2,265 $26 $1,003 52,228 $149 $949 $162 $2,551 $846 $200 $2,816 5684 $400 $48 $2,918 $517 511 $1, i52 $2,828 5.586 $1,308 $2,532 $612 $1,308 $1,764 $1,380 $612 $876 $648 51,464 $528 $384 $1,560 $132 $348 $900 $144 $372 $156 $222 $3 NET LOCAL COSTS ."""""" MILWAUKEE HETROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGMM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS 1 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL PROJECT IDENTIFIER --"-------"--""""""""""""""""""""""""""~""""" CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $55,366 COSTS AWARD COSTS M04 JO 1 M04F03 M04 JO 3 M04X03 M04J04 M04F08 M04 JO 8 M04X08 M04Fll M04X11 M04Jll M04F14 M04J14 M04X14 e4516 M04F16 04x1 6 M04F18 MO4Xl8 M04 J18 M04F20 M04J20 M04X20 M04F22 MO 4x2 2 M04J22 M04C24 MO 4F2 4 M04J24 MO 4x2 4 M04C26 M04F2 6 MO 4x2 6 MO 4J2 6 M04F28 M04 52 8 MO 4x2 8 M04F30 M04J30 M04X30 M04F32 $8 $0 $1,092 $61 $0 $5 $1,095 $232 $731 $14 $268 $14 $801 $453 $034 $16 $439 $53 $144 $192 $213 $329 $1 90 $212 $258 $183 $157 $264 $168 $227 $95 $267 $233 5240 $168 $264 $240 $132 $180 $192 572 $192 ($1) .;$ ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEUERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAH PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" M04F34 M04X34 SO M04F36 $96 M04X3 6 $0 M04F30 5108 MO 4x3 8 so H04F40 $108 M04X40 50 5120 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION $11,959 M05F01 M05J01 MOSFO2 M05J02 M05X04 M05F09 M05Z09 M05XO 9 M05F12 M05J12 M05X12 M05Z15 M05J15 MO5F17 M05X15 M05J17 M05X17 MOSF13 M05Zl 9 M05X19 MOSF21 M05J21 $ 12 50 $0 $490 (51) 50 51,418 536 53,852 51 5114 53 52,680 5259 $2,533 533 5293 552 $4,288 5114 53,814 57 5401 $74 51,580 ar MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM XHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER MO5X21 .................................................. M05F23 $235 MOW23 $73 M05X23 $1,362 M05C25 $133 M05F25 $387 M05525 $1 MOSX25 $980 M05C27 $191 M05F27 $246 M05527 $116 MOSX27 St, 358 M05F29 $365 M05 52 9 $204 M05X29 $1,284 MOSF31 $372 M05J31 $36 $876 05F33 $444 M05 53 3 $36 MO 5x3 3 $864 M05F35 $348 M05 535 $12 MO 5x3 5 $936 M05F37 $156 MOSX37 $12 M05F39 $120 M05X39 $132 $12 PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS ENGINEERING SERVICES MO 650 1 M06F01 MO 6x0 1 CONSULTANT COORDINATION M08J01 MO8F02 MO8J02 MO8X02 MO8J06 M08F06 $33,344 $0 $210 SO $210 $4 $135 $0 $1 $5 $378 $7 SO 'NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAU MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOWSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AHARD COSTS -""""""--"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""- M19F32 M19X32 M19F34 M19X34 M19F3 6 M19X3 6 Ml9F38 Ml9X3 8 M19F4 0 Ml9X4 0 MMSD INTERNU AUDIT SERVICES M20X86 M2OX85 M20X87 'ZE M2OX89 M20F90 M20X90 %OF91 M20X91 M2OFq2 M20X92 M20F93 M20X93 M20F94 M20X94 CONSULTANT ACTIVITY REVIEW M25FO1 LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $300 $208 $312 $300 $336 $312 $340 $336 $372 $360 $5,442 $61 $15 $20 $19 $0 $38 $0 $36 $36 $0 $0 $36 $48 $0 $48 $0 $357 $255 $253 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROM DECEMBER 31, 1989 EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS GGNERAL MMSD/PMO SUPPORT (MULTI-ELEMENT) OOlFll OOlPll 001x1 1 001F12 001P12 001912 001x12 001F14 001x13 001F15 001K15 OOlXl5 001F16 001x16 SITE SELECTION STUDY OlOFll OlOKll OlOXll OlOPll 010F12 010Ki2 010F21 FACILITY PLAN ADDENDUM 6 ADV.FAC. PLAN. 030Dll 030Fll 030Gll 030 J11 030Kll 030Rll 030x11 030Yll 030211 030F12 030012 5231,658 546,242 $185,416 52 515 $1,530 550 $1,986 522 $416 58 516 58 515 59 513 so 57 $4 54.601 53,600 53 $259 $81 597 579 57 $0 $526 5169 55, 499 513 5646 $39 5162 570 5126 $1,544 $3 588 521 $499 1 $0 51,001 $526 .NF,T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM MILWA[IKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """""-"""---""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 030x13 030U14 030214 030F15 030x15 030F16 030x16 030F17 030917 030x17 $120 $88 513 $682 $154 521 $136 56 $150 $30 LANDFILL 031Dll 031Ell e31Yll 031211 031212 03lsli LANDFILL EQUIPMENT 050Dll 050Ell 050511 050Kll 050L11 050Rll 050Sil 050211 050D12 050E12 AGRI-LIFE HAULING VEHICLES $10,280 $55 52,822 5181 533 $38 $13 $3,142 $50 521 SO $9 $1 $1 $5 $29 5873 $989 5697 $0 $932 $9,583 $3,142 $57 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 @ EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 051Ell 051E12 05 1El5 051E22 051E23 $695 $378 $285 546 540 AGRI-LIFE APPLICATION VEHICLES 51,444 51,374 052C21 052G21 052L21 05292 1 052x1 052S21 052Y21 052221 052222 ! 'AGRT-LIFE VEHICLE STORAGE 072Dll 072Gi1 072Jll 072Lll 072911 072Rll 072Sll 072Yll 072211 072G13 072S13 07 2R13 072213 072614 07 2R14 072314 072214 072G15 072R15 072S15 072215 072G16 ~~~~ 072R16 51,689 $14 51 $1 $108 538 5116 517 54 $1,988 $1,298 $3,833 5466 $206 $130 $154 $199 5210 $6,471 $133 $253 $1,779 $261 $131 56 $2,502 5 62 $10 5154 $2,678 $123 5180 $20 $86 571 $1,568 570 4 5420 1 METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER ---"-----------"---"""""""""""""""""""""~""""""" 072617 07 2R17 52,697 072S17 59 072217 5214 072D31 5106 072331 5331 072631 5467 072431 $1,949 072R31 51.280 072S31 $29 072231 5549 072R32 $80 072S32 so 072C33 $7 072R33 51 072S33 so 072U34 $50 ' 072234 513 ' '072235 $48 072236 513 072U37 SO 072237 539 072U30 $39 5 62 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS INTERPLANT PIPELINE 099G000 ALLOWANCE FOR CONTRACT CHANGES OFFSITE SOLIDS POlFll POlPll POlXll SYSTEMS ANALYSIS PO9Fll PO9Jll P09Kll P09Lll 529,399 524,499 54,900 528 528 so 520 552,391 532,670 519,721 51,100 so 52 $1,102 5828 5274 53 so 5695 so 550 544 56 ON'!?,, LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEKENT PROGRAM MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRRNT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """""_"""""""""""""""""""~~~~ PO9211 PO9212 P09E13 P09F13 P09G13 P09L13 P09R13 P09W13 589 534 578 $446 $639 5730 554 e7n9 PO9X13 P09Y13 PO9213 P09E14 P09W14 P09G14 P09G15 $E;: P09W16 P09G17 Id"& 5 65 S46 5327 5175 5594 . ~~ $1,608 $1,097 5703 $2,332 5758 Sl. AnS P09W17 P09L21 PO9Y21 AREA WIDE FLOW MONITORING 512,909 51, 053 $11,856 ". ." 5496 $5 $32 e MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT XHIBIT 1 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAn DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER P20Dll P2OJll P20Lll P2OQll P20Rll P2OSll P20Wll P20Yll P2OZll P20Rl4 P20S14 P20Z14 P20R21 P20T21 P2OW21 P20R31 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""- $1,388 $24 $31 $6 $20 $1,310 5856 $5 9 $6 $2 5164 $2 $6 $19 $770 SO P20Z41 P20C51 P20051 P20R51 P20Z51 P20W61 s64i $3 $2,870 $125 $3 $2,648 $23 $8 $510 CSNTRAL CONTROL SYSTEM 511,502 $7,257 54,245 P21Dll P21Gll P21Rll P21Sll P21Tll P21Yll P21Zll $104 $36 $43 $5 $21 $3 $4 EMERGENCY POWER SOURCE $216 $100 $116 P24Eli P24Rll P24Yll TELEMETRY SYSTEM LINKS $25 $0 $1 $26 $15 $11 $25,755 59,253 $16,502 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT .eIBIT 1 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATPIENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOW AHARD COSTS ........................................ R61Dll R61Gll R61Rll R61Sll R61Yll R61Zll DIVERS R63Gll R63Lll R63Yll R63Rll R63Z11 ION STRUCTURE: MENOMONEE 6 KEEFE CDRRIE PARK (P64Gll R64Lll R64Rll R64Yll R64Z11 VETERRNS ADMINISTRATION R9OGil X90Lil R90Rll R90Xll R90Yll R90Zll R90G12 R90R12 R90Y12 R90Z12 R90G21 R90P.21 agozzl MISCELLANEOUS MIS REHABILITATION $401 588 $60 51 531 SO 5581 5277 5304 $121 53 52 531 531 5188 $23 5165 $257 $1 $35 $4 $28 $325 5193 5132 5183 $0 $3 so 526 $7 $75 $4 $6 $14 so $15 51 $334 5148 $186 $7,414 53,152 54,262 5562 $113 e ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT XHIBIT 1 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER RlOFll RlOKll RlOXll MIS REHAB EVALUATION 5968 5720 5240 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS -""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""- so 5915 553 RZODll RZOGll RZOLll R20Rll R20.511 R2OYll R2oz11 5243 $721 so so 593 5 92 56 81ST 6 WEST GRANT INTERCEPTOR 51,155 RZlSll RZlYll RZ1211 DIVERSION STRUCTURE: 35TH 6 MANITOBA RZ2Dll R22Gl1 RZ2R11 RZ2Sll R22Vil x22211 DIVERSION STRUCTURE: 84TH 6 WALKER N4Dll R34Ell R34G11 R34Rll R34Sll R34Yll R34Zll MANHOLE REIIABILTATION ' &Fll 5466 583 5410 s3 552 so 519 5567 $190 $91 335 53 5106 510 515 5750 589 5532 5295 519 551 so 518 523 $208 5273 5413 5 623 4 5258 5294 5337 *mT LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEWENT PROGRAM ILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOUARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS --""""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""- R35K11 R35Xll MIS INSPECTION 5411 $0 $411 5247 $75 R36Dll R36E11 R3 6G11 R36Lll R3 6R11 R36Sll R36Yll R36Zll R36G12 R36R12 R36212 @MIS REHABILITATION I1 R4 9G11 R4 9R11 R492ll 5214 $16 5181 $0 52 $0 $101 59 579 $12 $0 $614 5385 $146 $0 EMBER LANE $531 R52Gll R52Lll FL52R11 FL52Sll N2Yll R52211 5391 $0 565 $2 $40 $18 107TH STREET $524 $351 $0 $0 $257 $531 $524 -e #- ILWALTICEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL PROJECT IDENTIFIER S54Gll S54Hll $5,691 S54Jll $151 S54Nll $166 56 S54011 S54Rll $3,624 554511 $969 $56 S54Wll 554211 $1,211 S54R12 $110 S54S12 $1 S54212 $57 S54R13 $1 S54S13 $0 S54213 $95 $5 COSTS AWARD COSTS """"""""""""~"""""""""""""""""""""""""--- $12,143 $0,170 53,973 METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - UATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM - DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER S5 9G11 S59Jll SS 9R11 S59Sll SS 9w11 S59Zll PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS Awm COSTS ...................................... 51, 151 52 51 566 576 545 SOLIDS HANDLING 51,341 S61Gll S61011 S61Sll S61Rll S61Wll S61Zll S61S12 S61R12 a;E: S61S13 S61R13 54,779 53,275 5774 543 5783 5245 5115 53 56 SO 5107 50 5047 DISINFECTION 6 EFFLUENT PUMP STATION 510, 130 56,722 S70Gll S70Rll S70Sll S70Zll S70G21 S70L21 S70R21 S70Y21 S70Z21 LAKEFILL S71Gll S71Sll S71Rll S71Zll LANDSCAPPING e73Sll -373Rll 54,201 5138 57 547 5232 50 511 525 513 54,674 517 51 54 51 523 565 52,256 52,857 50 s494 53.408 51,817 523 c MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER S73Wll S73211 S73R13 S73S13 S73Z13 S13S14 S73C14 S73R99 s73w99 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL CCKT% AWARD COSTS "-"-----"--""""""""""""""""" $4,185 $59 <l I* $225 $8 $201 $4 $3 $1,715 INSTRUMENTATION h CONTROLS $8,722 $4,280 S74Dll S74Gll 574511 S74Lll s74zii S74212 S74G21 S74R21 S74S21 S74Y21 S74221 NON PROCESS BUILDING S80Gll S80Hll S80Nll S80Wll 1982 WISCONSIN FIJND PROJECTS $1,379 $115 $28 $19 $6 $170 $88 so so $2,453 $30 $145 $240 $158 $4,831 51, 523 $3,238 578 52,045 50 55,369 53,490 $4,442 $3,308 $1,879 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS """"""""""""""""""""~""""""""""""""""""~ SOlPll SOlXll SOlF12 SOlK12 SOlX12 S01F13 SOlF14 S01K14 SOlX14 FACILITY PLANING $4,739 $2,974 $1,765 $1,185 $82 $1 $1,470 $3 $1 s 94 $1,159 $69 SlOAll SlOIll SlOVll $2,250 $1 $174 ' &ANCED FACILITY PLANNING $2.425 $1,727 $698 LWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAn EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER --"------""-"""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""" S20Dll PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS SZCILII $696 e, ~ S20Yll S20D21 S20L21 S20Y21 S20D22 S20L22 S20Y22 S20D23 S20L23 S20Y23 S20D24 S20L24 S20L26 S20Y26 @E S20Y31 S20J41 S20542 S20L42 S20D52 S20L52 S20Y52 S20D53 S20Y61 S20D81 DESIGN S31Dll S31Gll S31Rll S31Sll S31Yll 531211 S31U12 S31212 S31U13 S31213 S31U15 031291 531215 +A $266 540 536 $1 $32 $1 $139 $9 55 $22 $5 $2 $19 $6,042 $146 $210 $22 $593 55 $917 527 $115 545 566 $43 538 $9,543 $3,160 56.303 $150 $928 so 524 $96 520 $5 $19 $0 524 $26 so $58 ~ILWALXEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEKENT PROGRAM EXXIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 PROJECT IDENTIFIER (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECTED COSTS GPANT NET LOCAL AWARD COSTS ....................................... FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE $1,350 $0 $1,350 S41Ell S41011 S41Gll S4 1R11 S41Sll S41Zll S41Wll S41Rl2 S41S12 S41212 S41C13 S41S13 CTRUCT S42Cll S42Dll S42Gll S42Jll S42Lll S42Rll S42Sll S42Zll SECONDARY CLARIFIERS S42U12 S42R13 S42212 S42213 S42U14 542214 PRIMARY SLUDGE SCREENING FACILITY $755 $7,066 $2,699 575 $1,006 $701 $99 $2 $47 $6 $22 $1 $12,479 $8 $334 $3,629 $21 $13 $03 $754 $99 $109 $0 $0 SO 573 $ 65 $5,188 $8,204 $3,421 54,275 $1,761 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT emIBIT 1 T LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEHENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER S50Dll -""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""- S5OJll S50Lll S50011 SSORll S50Sll S50Yll S5OZll S50D12 S50U13 S50213 S50C14 S50R14 S50S14 S50214 s5ou15 S50215 PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS $816 S 60 $17 $14,573 $112 $1,689 532 $142 522 $337 $56 so $1 $87 $5 S 65 $39 ',ST STAGE DEWATERING $18,053 $15,816 $2,237 S5lDll S51Gll S51Jll S51Sll S51Rll S51W11 S5lYll S51Zll S51U1.5 551215 S51U16 S51216 S51U17 551217 SSlZ91 SOLIDS STORAGE S53Ell S53Rll S53Sll 553211 IpURCHAsE CENTRIFUGES $372 514,181 $63 5167 $59 $259 $91 $826 $50 $33 $9 S 60 $0 578 $23 $16,279 $2,904 $5 $19 $0 so $16,279 $2,928 $2,115 $813 . MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT @EXHIBIT 1 iET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER -------------"--"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" S81Cll S81Gll S81Hll S81Rll S81Sll S81Wll S81Zll PROJECTED COSTS GRANT NET LOCAL AnAm COSTS $87 $4,749 $2 $32 $385 $138 $38 1983 WISCONSIN FUND PROJECTS 55,431 $3,920 S82Gll S82Hll S82011 S82Nll S82Rll S82Sll S82Wll S82R12 S82S12 S82Z12 S82C13 S82C14 S82S13 S82R14 S82U14 S82214 RAS/WAS/DAF THICXENING S89R10 S89210 S8 9R11 S89R12 S89214 589215 MMSD OPERATIONS DMSION SUPPORT S 90R11 S90Sll S9OZll S90R12 882211 52,752 $632 $6,520 $121 $1,166 $85 $2,844 $203 $2 $1 63 $4 SO S 64 $2 $1 $72 $18 $14,649 5150 $0 $149 $12 $144 $51 $506 $4 $606 $77 $153 $0 $48 $12,889 SO $1,511 $1,760 $506 &wAmE mTROPOLITm SEWERAGE DISTRICT NET LOCAL COSTS - WATER POLLUTION ABATPIWT PROGW EXHIBIT 1 DECEMBER 31, 1989 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) PROJECT IDENTIFIER PROJECTED GRANT NET LOCAL COSTS AWARD COSTS ....................................... S90Z63 S90R91 S90R92 S90R93 S90R94 S90R95 S90R96 SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION S99G00 ALLOWANCES FOR CONTRACT CHANGES SOUTH SHORE &T LOCAL COSTS OF WPAP TO BE USED IN DETERMINING EXCESS IN SECTION 3.10(a) TOTAL ESTIMATED SUBSIDIZED LOANS COSTS OF WPM BY MAJOR ELEMENT : COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW INTERCEPTOR AND RELIEF SEWERS JONES ISLAND JONES ISLAND OTHER ~~ ~ LOG REHABILITATION 6 PROJECTS GaEXERAZ. MMSD/PMO SUPPORT (MULTI-ELEMENT) OFFSITE SOLIDS HYDRAULICS AND CONTROLS MIS REHABILITATION SOUTH SHORE NET LOCAL COSTS OF WPAP TO BE USED IN DETERMING EXCESS IN SECTION 3.10(a) $431 $45 $201 $2 $196 $313 $224 52,300 $593 $1,707 $1,507 $1,507 SO $1,507 $212,587 $100,335 $112,252 $2,219,852 $1,057,651 $1,162,201 i" $230,940 $329,125 5154,098 $175,627 $640,038 $312,074 $327,964 $694,451 $921 $382,706 $311,745 $382 $539 $24,906 $16,739 $231,658 $46,242 $8,167 $185,416 $52,397 $25,755 $32,670 $19,727 $9,253 $16,502 $212,587 $7,414 $100,335 $3,152 $112,252 $4,262 $2,219,852 $1,057,651 $1,162,201 $230,940 "P TOTAL ESTIMATED SUBSIDIZED LOANS Exhibit 2 CONTRIBUTION AND CAPACTIY ALLOCATION Brookfield Butler IlmGIW.2 GermantoWn Menomonce Falls Mquon New Bcrlin Muskego ThiCawillC Exhibit 2 - MU CONTRIBUTION AND CAPACITYALLOCATION Municipality :mldield ;utler :h Grove ;emantown 4enornonec Falls 4uskego Iew Berlin hiensville 4equon ubtocal Column 1 Contribution 7,838855 lasc Flow Adjustment 6 'Otal 7,838855 Capacity AUocation Column 2 Base Flow BOD TSS (gaudaY) (Ib/day) (lb/day) zmm 5,572 6,650 z1ss.m 5,572 6,650 103.149 267 318 Qwtitia to be used in determination of available capacity factors (Article Ill Senion 35 as amended) 12/19/90 * 0 COMMUNITY Brookfield Butler Elm Grove Germantown Menomonee Falls Mequon Muskego New Berlin Thiensville TOTAL EXHIBIT 4 DISTRICT CAPACITY ALLOCATION BASE FLOW AVERAGE (mgd ) 2.070 0.741 0.374 2.259 5.543 1.380 3.440 5.848 0.239 21.894 (lbs/day) 5,352 967 1,916 5,840 14,331 8,894 15,119 3,568 618 56,605 BOD (lbs/day) TSS 6,388 2,287 1,154 6,971 17,105 10,615 18,046 4,258 738 67,562 Exhibit 5 Affected Municipalities Peak Flow Limitations Brookfield Butler Elm Grove 26-42 2dA 2d.F 2dD MSO3-06’ ”3-11 2dE 2dB Total I27 M”U I Total MS-03-06 254 Total Germantown MS”lO** Total Menornonee Falls MS-03-07 M-11 Mequoa Total MS04-09 MS”08*** 28-D u)-c Total Muskego MS-02-11** Total Includes Br Indus. ** Facility Plan Flows ***Matches Corrected MMSD Table Peak Hour Flow MGD 2.58 0.23 0.78 4.22 8.84 l.80 0.09 0.01 1855 036 w 0.11 L8l 1595 0.15 16.10 837 837 22.23 L12 233s 15.21 7.08 0.47 0.56 2332 1231 1231 Peak Day Flow MGD 193 0.14 0.49 3.18 5.86 1.22 0.06 0.01 12.89 029 LO7 0.09 1.45 1038 0.10 10.48 590 590 13.28 0.61 U.89 9.74 4.22 030 034 14.60 8.20 8.20 FLOW 3116l90 Exhibit 5 Affected Municipalities Peak Flow Ttations "SD community Gaune No. New Berlin DG03.06 27-B 27-C "2-10 "2-11 M"l3 Total 27-D ThiensviIle MS"O8 Total Totals Peak Hour Flow MGD 1136 0.86 1.13 0.76 3.88 0.16 0.67 18.82 4.79 4.79 127.42 Peak Day Flow MGD 7.21 057 0.72 0.48 234 0.12 034 1178 3.21 3.21 82.40 FLOW 3/16/90 Connection Point Peak Flow Emitations MMSD Gaue No. 26-c 26-A 26-F 26-D "3-06 26-E 26-B "3-11 127 "I3 Butler 25.B MS"l0 MSO3-07 MS04-09 "4-08 28-D 28-42 "2-11 Dc-Q3-06 27-B 274 MS"l0 "2-13 Totals 27-D Peak Hour FlowMGD 258 a23 a7a 422 24.79 292 0.09 a01 036 u4 all ais 837 2223 1521 11.87 0.47 056 w7 1l36 0.86 l.U 3.88 0.67 a76 127.42 1.93 0.14 0.49 3.18 16.24 183 0.06 0.01 0.29 1.07 0.09 0.10 590 13.28 9.74 7.43 030 034 832 7.21 057 0.72 0.48 234 034 82.40 Exhibit 5 - MU AFFECTED H(JNC1PALITIES PEAK FLOW LIMITATIONS MMSD PEAK FLOW COMMUNITY GAUGE NO. FLOW MGD FLOW MGD PEAK DAY Brookfield 26-C 26-F 26-A 26-D MS-03-06 MS-03-11 26-E 26-B Total Butler Elm Grove Germantown Menomonee Falls Mequon 127 MS-03-13 Total MS-03-06 25-8 Total MS-03-06 Total MS-03-07 MS-03-11 Total MS-04-09 MS-04-08 28-D 28-c Total Muskego New Berlin Thiensville *Facility Plan Flows MS-02-11* Total DC-03-06 21-E 27-D 21-c MS-02-10 MS-02-11 MS-02-13 Total MS-04-08 Total MTALS 12.31 12.31 - 8.20 8.20 12.31 8.20 MMSD Gauge No. 26-C 26-A 26-F 26-D MS-03-06 HS-03-11 26-E 26-8 MS-03-13 127 Butler 25-8 MS-03-10 MS-04-09 MS-03-07 MS-04-08 28-D 28-c MS-02-11 DC-03-06 27-8 27-C MS-02-10 27-D MS-02-13 CONNECTION POINT PEAK FLOW LIMITATIONS Peak Hour FLOW MGD FLOW MGD Peak Day 12.47 8.32 Totals 12.47* *Includes 0.16 peak Hour FLOW MGD and 0.12 Peak Day FLOW MGD from Non-Muskego Areas 8.32 0 4209L EXHIBIT 6 , 1990 Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 Eaat Seeboth Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Gentlemen: We have acted as COunSel for the Village of Butler (the "Municipalityn), in connection with the execution and delivery of Municipality and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement by and between the (the ~Di8tricta), dated April 10, 1990 (the 'Agreement"). Incidental thereto we have examlnsd such proceedings, documents and records as we deemed necessary to render this opinion. All of the terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. Based upon the foregoing, we are pleased to render to you out opinion, as required by Section 9.1 of the Agreement, as follows: nized, validly existing in good standing under the laws of the Capacity Allocation from the District pursuant to this Agreement. State of WisconsFn and has full corporate per to receive the 2. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and other documents and instments required by the Municipality to carry out the Closing of this Agreement are within the corporate powers of the Hunicipality and, as of the Closing Date, have been duly authorized end approved by its Village Board. subject to Section 8.3 of the Agreement. the Agreement and the other documents and instruments required thereby will be, when executed and delivered by the Municipality, the valid and binding obligations of the Municipality, enforce- able against the Municipality in accordance with their terms, except as llmited by bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws effecting the enforcement of creditors' rights and except to the extent that general principles of equity might affect the speci- fic enforcement of the Agreement or the other documents and instruments required thereby. 1. The Municipality is a municipal corporation duly orga- Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Page TWO , 1990 The opinions set forth above are predicated upon and subject to the following additional exceptions and limitations: Wisconsin. The opinions Set forth herein are limited to the laws 1. We are licensed to practice law only in the State of of the United States of America and to the laws of the State of Wisconsin. We have not made any review of, and we express no opinion as to. the laws and regulations of any other jurisdic- tion. 2. The opinions herein are limlted to the matters expressly beyond the matters expressly stated. We disclaim any obligation set forth herein and no opinion is implied or may be inferred to update this letter for events occurring after the date of this letter. or as a result of knowledge acquired by US after that date, including changes in any of the statutory or decisional law aiter the date of this letter. 3. his opinion is being delivered to you only for your use in connection with the Agreement, and may not be relied u n by any person other than you. This opinion may not be quote g. or used in whole OK in part for any other purpose and it, and any CQ ies, abstracts or portions thereof may not be delivered to any Q 4 er person without our prior written consent. very truly yours, EXIUBIT 7 , 1990 FLOW CorrPrmnities New Berlin ~lm Grove Brookfield Germantown uequon Menomonee Falls Muskego Thiensville Butler Gentlemen: We have acted as counsel for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin (the "District"), in COMBC- Cooperation Agreement by and between New Berlin, Blm Grove, tion with the execution and delivery of the Intergovernmental Brookfield, Gemantown, Menmonee Falls, Hequon, Muskego, Thiensville and Butler and the District dated as of April 10, proceedings, documents and records as we deemed necessary to 1990 (the "Agreement"). Incidental thereto we have examined such herein have the meanings assign& to them in the AgKeeI'nent. render this opinion. All of the terms not otherwise defined Based upon the foregoing, we are pleased to render to you our opinion, as required by Section 8.2 of the Agreement, as follows: good standing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and has 1. The District is duly organized, validly existing and in the full corporate power and authority to carry on its business and to allocate the Capacity Allocation to Municipality pursuant to this Agreement. 2. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and other documents and instruments required by the District to carry out the Closing of this Agreement are within the corporate powers of the District and, as of the Closing Date, have been duly authorized by all necessary action by the Comnission. This Agreement and the other documents and instru- ments hereby required will be, when executed and delivered by the enforceable against the District in accordance with their terms, District, the valid and binding obligations of the District. except as limited by bankruptcy, lnsolvency or similar laws extent that general principles of equity might affect the spe- affecting the enforcement of creditors' rlghts and except to the clfic enforcement of the Agreement or the other documents and instruments required thereby. FLOW Communities ~~. ~~ , 1990 Page Two The opinions set forth above are predicated upon and subject to the following additional exceptions and limitations: Wisconsin. The opinions set forth herein are limited to the laws 1. we are licensed to practice law only in the State of of the United States of America and to the laws of the State of Wisconsin. We have not made any review of, and we express no opinion as to, the laws and regulations of any other jurisdic- tion. set forth herein and no opinion is implied or may be inferred beyond the matters expressly stated. We disclaim any obligation to update this letter for events occurring after the date of this letter, or as a result of knowledge acquired by us after that date, including changes in any of the statutory or decisional law after the date of this letter. 2. The opinions herein are limited to the matters expressly I 3. This opinion is being delivered to you only for your use in connection with the Agreement, and may not be relied upon by any person other than you. This opinion may not be quoted or used in whole or in part for any other purpose and it, and any copies, abstracts or portions thereof may not be delivered to any ' other person without our prior written consent. ~ very truly yours, MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICP EXHIBIT 8 DISTRICT COMPUTATION OF INTEREST ON COSTS ADVANCED EY DISTRICT TO MUNICIPALITY (SECTION 3.11.d.) WPAP COST OVER RUNS Capital costs for WPAP incurred pursuant to Less : Section 3.11.a.(1)(b) $ xxx Earned grants and other contributions (3.11.a.(1)(c)) (xx) Debt financing on the above costs (3.11.a.(3)) 0 Net WPAP cost over runs NON-WPAP COSTS Capital costs for non-WPAP incurred pursuant to Less : Section 3.11.a.(2)(a) $ xxx Earned grants and other contributions (3.11.a.(2)(b)) (xx) Debt financing on the above costs (3.11.a.(3)) 0 Net non-WPAP costs PRINCIPAL, AND INTEREST PAYMENTS - NEW ISSUES Principal and interest incurred pursuant to Section 3.11.a.[S)[a) and (b). NET COSTS ADVANCED BY DISTRICT (Sum) AVERAGE NET COSTS ADVANCED (NET COSTS ABOVE DIVIDED BY 2) Average annual interest rate paid in the cost incurred year for funds invested in the State of Wisconsin Local Government Investment Pool or successor thereof Subtotal $ xxx xxx xxx - $ xxx c_ xxx ( times ) i% - xxx Pro-ration period (represents 6 months of the year incurred plus 4 months to the payment date) (times) 10/12 TOTAL, AMOUNT DUE TO DISTRICT s xxx INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITY'S SHARE PER EXHIBIT 9 ( times ) i% AMOUNT OWED BY MUNICIPALITY $ - EXHIEIT 8-MU District hputation of Interest on Capital Costs Advanced by District to Municipality (Section 3.1l.d.) EXCESS WPAP COSTS I Capital costs tor the WPAP incurred per Section 3.ll.a.(l)(b) Less Earned grants and other Contribution5 per Section 3.11.a.(I)<c) Debt Financing on the above costs per Section 3,Il.a.(3) Subtotal NON-WPAP COSTS Capital costs for non-WPAP projects incurred per Section 3.Ila.(2)(a) Less Earned grants and other contributions per Section S.lla.(2)(b) Debt financing on the above costs per Section 3.ll.a.(3) Subtotal PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS - NEW ISSUES Principal and interest incurred per Section 3.ll.a.(5)(a) and (b) 0 Net capital costs advanced by the District Average annual interest rate paid in the cost incurred year for funds Pool or successor thereof. invested in the State of Wisconsin Local Government Investment Subtotal Pro-ration period (represents 6 months 01 the year incurred plus 4 months to the payment date). Tota I Individual municipality's share per Exhibit 9 - MU multiplied by the applicable annual percentage per Exhibit 9 - MU. Amount owed by municipality IXXX ( IXXX) ( IXXX) - IXXX (IXXX) ( IXXX) IXXX IXXX IXXX (Times) 10/12 IXXX 4040 EXHIBIT 9 - MU PERCENTAGE OF FUTURE CAPITAL COSTS Annual escalating percentage used to calculate the combined share of costs of affected municipalities per 3.10.a., 3.10.b. and 3.11.c.(3): BUDGET YEAR 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE 11.50% 11.50 11.73 11.96 12.20 12.45 12.70 12.95 13.21 13.47 13.74 14.02 14.30 14.58 14.88 15.17 2006 and beyond To be negotiated per Section 3.10.d. of the Agreement The amount of costs to be invoiced to each Municipality shall be annual percentage. based on the percentage below multiplied by the above appropriate Brookfield % Menomonee Falls % Butler % Mequon % Elm Grove % Muskego 9.70 % Germantown % New Berlin % Thiensville % '0 4046 EXHIBIT 10 - MU REFUND PROVISION COMPUTATION - SECTION 3.12.b. Calculation of refund or payment per Section 3.12.b. of this Agreement: A. The amount of Net local costs per Exhibit 1 of $1,162,201,000 less actual net local costs (Do not enter number less than zero) $ Less : B. The amount of subsidized loans per Exhibit 1 of $230,940,000 less actual loans received $ Sum of (A) and (B): $ I€ the actual amount of subsidized loans per Exhibit 1 is less than $230,940,000 under B above and the sum of A and B above is positive, the amount due municipality shall be determined at Exhibit 9 - MU. 11.5% multiplied by the individual municipality's share per If the actual amount of subsidized loans per Exhibit 1 is greater amount due municipality shall be determined at 11.5% multiplied than $230,940,000, and the sum of a and B above is positive, the by the individual municipality's share per Exhibit 9 - MU. be computed at 11.5% multiplied by the individual municipality's If the sum of A and B is negative, the amount due District shall share per Exhibit 9 - MU. The accumulation of loans pursuant to the determination in B above and provisions of section 3.12.c. of this agreement shall stop when it has been determined that actual net local costs have exceeded $1,162,201,000. Upon such determination, the calculation of actual loan amounts received shall include the value of all loans prior to the determination that actual net local costs have exceeded $1,162,201,000. 4043 EXHIBIT 9 PERCENTAGE OF FUTURE CAPITAL COSTS , Annual percentage used to invoice Municipality's share of costs per 3.10.a., 3.10.b. and 3.11.c.(3): BUDGET YEAR 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ANNUAL PERCENTAGE 11.50% 11.50 11.73 11.96 12.20 12.45 12.70 12.95 I 98 13.21 0 99 2000 13.47 13.74 2001 14.02 2002 14.30 2003 2004 14.58 14.88 I 2005 15.17 2006 and beyond To be negotiated per Section 3.10.d. of the Agreement Except for Section 11.7 of this Agreement, the amount of costs to be invoiced to each Municipality per the above percentages and the amounts per Exhibit 8 shall be based on the percentages below: Brookfield % Menornonee Falls % I Butler % Mequon % Elm Grove % Muskego 9.70 % Germantown % New Berlin % Thiensville % EXHIBIT 10 REFUND PROVISION COMPUTATION - SECTION 3.12.b. Calculation of refund or payment per Section 3.12.b. of this Agreement: A. The amount of Net local costs per Exhibit 1 of $1,162,201,000 less actual net local costs (Do not enter number less than zero) $ Less : B. The amount of subsidized loans per Exhibit 1 of $230,940,000 less actual loans received $ Sum of (A) and (B): $ If the actual amount of subsidized loans per Exhibit 1 is less positive, the amount due Municipality shall be determined at than $230,940,000 under B above and the sum of A and B above is 11.5%. If the actual amount of subsidized loans per Exhibit 1 is greater than $230,940,000, and the sum of A and B above is positive, the amount due Municipality shall be determined at 11.5%. If the sum of A and B is negative, the amount due District shall be computed at 11.5%. The accumulation of loans pursuant to the determination In B above and provisions of Section 3.12.c. of this Agreement shall stop when it has been determined that actual net local costs have exceeded $1,162,201,000. Upon such determination, the calcula- tion of actual loan amounts received shall include the value of all loans prior to the determination that actual net local costs have exceeded $1,162,201,000. 0 December 17, 1990 CS90-136-12 Item CS5 On motion made by Commissioner Burke and seconded by Commissioner Vretenar the following resolution was presented: c RESOLUTION RATIFYING ADDENDUM TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MUSKEG0 AND MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT RESOLVED by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District that the attached Addendum to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between City of Muskego and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Muskego and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is hereby ratified and that Shelia I. Payton, Chair, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, is authorized to execute the Addendum to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between the City of 0 Muskego and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. The above resolution was adopted by the following vote: YES: Commissioners Payton, Baldwin, Bastian. Brundahl, Coleman, Burke, Elliott, Krug, and Vretenar. NO : None. NOTE: Commissioners Grzezinski and Pratt were excused. I, Fran AshleyJoraan Secretary of the Mllwaukw that the above le a true and correct copy of a Me;rcFol;.:;l Sewerage District do hereby certify resolufion adopted by Um Mllrwaukee Metropolltsn