1. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services A Clean Water Agency Demand Charge Development Jason Willett, MCES Finance Director Presented to the Environment Committee April 28, 2009

2. 2 Proposed Demand Charge Development April-May 2009: — Council: Select Council member to lead task force — ES staff: Draft task force charter statement — ES staff: Identify task force membership concepts June 2009: — ES staff: Introduce to communities at customer forums

3. 3 Proposed Demand Charge Development July 2009: — Council: Invite communities to appoint representatives August 2009: — Council makes task force appointments September 2009: — Task force meeting #1 – Review charter and tentative schedule and agendas – Review prior I/I mitigation/programs – Review WRMPP and schedule for demand charge

4. 4 Proposed Demand Charge Development November 2009: — Task force meeting #2 – Review tech memo on other demand charge systems – Review cities’ progress under local government mitigation program – Review tech memo on MCES Interceptor Capacity Analysis to show where I/I goal non-compliance is an immediate issue – Discuss demand charge alternatives and schedule

5. 5 Proposed Demand Charge Development January 2010: — Task force meeting #3 – Continue discussions from meeting #2 – Present analysis and discuss demand charge alternatives March 2010: — Task force meeting #4 – Discuss potential recommendations May 2010: — Task force meeting #5 – Adopt recommendations – Environment Committee (EC): Discuss recommendations and alternatives

6. 6 Proposed Demand Charge Development June 2010: — Municipal customer forums: Discuss process and recommendation July 2010: — EC: Authorize public hearing September 2010: — ES staff: Conduct public hearing October 2010: — EC & Council: Adopt amendment to Water Resources Management Policy Plan

7. 7 Task Force Task force chair recommendation: — Council Member Polly Bowles Charter Statement: — Develop recommendation for the details of a demand charge for municipalities that continue to contribute excessive I/I to the metro disposal system — Review timing and other implementation factors for the new charge

8. 8 Task Force Appointment Criteria I.1/3: Communities historically without excess I/I (“dry”) 1/3: Communities that have materially solved I/I problem in last 5 years 1/3: Communities with significant remaining problems + Metrocities (AMM) representative

9. 9 Task Force Appointment Criteria II.Disciplines: Approx. ½ Finance and ½ Public Works/Utility representatives  No elected officials or city managers III.About half of the members from the communities represented on the prior I/I task force

10. 10 Community/ Organization Current Surcharge Community Satisfied Surcharge Community Non- excessive I/I 1. Bloomington*X 2. Brooklyn CenterX 3. FarmingtonX 4. Golden Valley*X 5. HastingsX 6. Inver Grove Heights*X 7. LakevilleX 8. MetroCities (AMM)*N/A 9. Minneapolis*X 10. New BrightonX 11. Oak Park Heights*X 12. St. AnthonyX 13. St. Paul*X * = Original 2002 Task Force Member