NT.F-0009-2019

TECHNICAL NOTE TÉCNICA

Processes: ARSESP.Adm-0252-2018

Topic: Regulatory criteria for tariff recognition of transfers to municipal funds for basic sanitation.

Date: February 04, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Legal Basis ...... 3 3. Regulatory Limit ...... 7 4. Scope ...... 9 5. Allocation of Resources ...... 9 6. Minimum Regulatory Requirements ...... 10 7. Authorization of the Municipal Funds for Basic Sanitation ...... 10 8. Monitoring of Transfers and Use of Resources ...... 11 9. Control Mechanisms...... 12 10. Municipalities with Transfer Agreements or Tariffs Already Recognized ...... 13 Attachment I – Spending Already Settled in Program and Service Agreements ...... 14

- 1 -

NT.F-0009-2019

1. INTRODUCTION

The objective of this Technical Note is to present the criteria proposal to be established by Arsesp for the recognition of the transfers made to municipal sanitation funds (FMSB) in water and sewage tariffs.

The search for universalization implies in the widening of service coverages, which requires integrated actions between the granting authority and the service provider. This has been a challenge, both in the urban and the rural areas. In the urban area, specific actions are required in very densely populated or irregularly occupied areas, for example. In rural areas, actions in isolated regions are needed and which, in many cases, are not included in the area defined in the service agreement with the service providers.

In order to expand the infrastructure and operational facilities of water and sewage systems, certain investments and actions are required, in which the responsibility falls upon the municipalities and not directly upon the service providers. Examples include the removal of irregular houses from slums and precarious settlements, land regularization, channeling of streams and assistance to regions outside the concession area defined in the agreements.

Federal Law 11.445/2007, in the caput of Article 13, as amended by Provisional Measure 868/2018, authorized the creation of funds to provide funds for basic sanitation actions, namely:

Article 13. The Federation entities, alone or in public consortium, may establish funds to be used, among other resources, for payments of partial revenue for services, pursuant to the provisions of the respective basic sanitation plans and universalization of basic public sanitation services. (highlighted by us)

It is, therefore, a public policy instrument that aims at the universalization of basic sanitation services.

In this context, Arsesp decided to include, within the scope of Sabesp’s 2nd Regular Tariff Review, a financial component in the tariffs applied to all regions served by the provider, which corresponds to the transfer of funds to municipal sanitation funds (FMSB). This transfer is an incentive to the creation of municipal funds, in order to promote, at the municipal level, actions aimed at the universalization and continuity of services.

Currently, Sabesp makes financial transfers to certain municipalities due to contractual clauses agreed between Municipalities, the Government of the State of and Sabesp, and that establish the base of resources that are destined to the municipal funds for basic sanitation. Each agreement has a certain particularity regarding such transfer.

- 2 -

NT.F-0009-2019

Although the recognition of these transfers has originated in agreements signed between Sabesp and municipalities, Arsesp understands that the application of this mechanism can be extended to all municipalities regulated by Arsesp, including those not operated by Sabesp, such as the City of , served by BRK Ambiental Santa Gertrudes, and the City of Mairinque, served by Saneaqua Mairinque.

This practice is also adopted by ARSAE-MG for the transfers, by COPASA, to municipalities which have established funds. Resolution ARSAE-MG 110, dated June 28, 2018, which regulates this matter, and Technical Note GRT No. 08/2018 were used as reference documents for the preparation of this Technical Note.

In the case of Sabesp, the recognition of this methodology by Arsesp implies in a temporary cross- subsidization between municipalities, to the extent that all municipalities comply with the criteria established by Arsesp in order to institute the transfer of a certain percentage of operating income by Sabesp to the respective municipal fund.

2. LEGAL BASIS

Arsesp used the legal grounds set forth in this chapter as guidelines for the formulation of the criteria for recognizing transfers to the basic sanitation funds for water and sewage tariffs.

The institution of municipal sanitation funds, legally protected by Law 11.445/2007, in Article 13, as amended by Provisional Measure No. 868/2018, has the purpose of funding actions capable of guaranteeing universal access to basic sanitation services, guided by the terms contained in Municipal Sanitation Plans:

Article 13: The Federation entities, alone or in public consortium, may establish funds to be used, among other resources, for payments of partial revenue for services, pursuant to the provisions of the respective basic sanitation plans and universalization of basic public sanitation services.

- 3 -

NT.F-0009-2019

Paragraph 1. The resources of the funds referred to in the caput may be used as sources or guarantees in credit operations to finance the necessary investments for the universalization of basic public sanitation services.

Among the minimum criteria for the tariff recognition of a portion of the amounts to be transferred to the municipal sanitation funds, the Municipal Sanitation Plan requirements are legally supported in the caput of Article 13 of Law 11.445/2007 and must also observe the rules defined in Article 19 of the same law, as amended by Provisional Measure No. 868/2018:

Article 19. The provision of basic public sanitation services will observe a plan, which may be specific to each service, and must cover, at least:

I - a diagnosis of the situation and its impacts on living conditions, using sanitary, epidemiological, environmental and socioeconomic indicators methods that identify the causes of the detected deficiencies;

II - objectives and short, medium and long-term goals for the universalization of services, allowing gradual and progressive solutions and observing the compatibility with the other plans for the sector;

III - programs, projects and actions necessary to achieve the objectives and targets consistent with the respective multi-year plans and other related government plans, identifying possible funding sources;

IV - emergency and contingency actions;

V - mechanisms and procedures for the systematic assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the planned actions.

Arsesp is responsible for determining the revenue percentage of each municipality that will be considered in the tariff composition which are linked to transfers to the municipal funds since, under provisions of Law 11.445/2007, Article 22, item IV, as amended by Provisional Measure No. 868/2018, one of the objectives of the regulation is to define tariffs that ensure the financial and tariff reasonability balance of the agreements:

Article 22. The objectives of the regulation include:

- 4 -

NT.F-0009-2019

IV - to set tariffs that ensure both the financial and tariff reasonability balance of the agreements, through mechanisms that induce the efficiency and effectiveness of services and allowing the sharing of productivity gains with users.

In addition, the regulator has powers to issue rules regarding the regime, structure, and tariff levels, as well as the procedures and deadlines for its fixation, readjustment and revision, according to Law 11.445/2007, Article 23, item IV, as amended by Provisional Measure No. 868/2018:

Article 23. The regulatory body shall issue rules regarding the technical, economic and social dimensions of the services provided, which shall cover at least the following aspects:

Item IV: regime, structure and tariff levels, as well as the procedures and deadlines for their fixation, readjustment and revisions.

The Federal Constitution, according to Article 167, conditions the creation of funds, of any nature, to the previous legal authorization:

Article 167. It is prohibited:

(...) IX - the institution of funds, of any nature, without previous legal authorization;

The State Complementary Law 1.025/2007 attributes Arsesp with the power to regulate and inspect, including tariff-related issues, state-owned basic sanitation services and municipalities whose delegation was given to the State, preserving the municipality’s powers and prerogatives, pursuant to Article 10, item IV, and Article 11:

Article 10

Item IV: In compliance with the tariff guidelines defined by decree, establish tariffs and other forms of services, as well as carry out readjustments and revisions, with the purpose of ensuring both the financial and tariff reasonability balance of the services, through mechanisms that induce service efficiency and allowing the social appropriation of productivity gains.

- 5 -

NT.F-0009-2019

Article 11: Regarding the municipal-owned public sanitation services, ARSESP will exercise the function of inspector, controller and regulator, including tariff regulation, that are delegated to the State, including contracts prior to the entrance of Federal Law 11.107/2005 into force, in compliance with the provisions of this supplementary law and its regulations, the guidelines of national legislation and state legislation for basic sanitation, the delegation instrument and concession contracts agreed between the owner and the service provider.

Paragraph 1. The delegation instruments shall indicate the limits, performance and scope of ARSESP's activities, pursuant to Article 23, Paragraph 1, of Federal Law 11.445/2007, as well as the assets, facilities and equipment associated to ARSESP when the delegation also includes the provision of services.

Paragraph 2. The delegation of inspection, control and regulation powers may be given to the State, which will exercise them through ARSESP, even when the latter is not delegated to provide the services.

Federal Law 4.320/1964, which establishes the general norms of financial law for balance sheet budget elaboration and control by the Federal, State, Municipal governments, and the Federal District, provided for in Articles 71 to 74, when dealing with special funds, among other details, defining them as funds deriving from specific revenues to be used in specific objectives and services:

Article 71. A special fund is the product of specified revenues that, by law, are linked to the achievement of certain objectives or services, provided for the adoption of specific application rules.

Article 72. The application of budget revenues linked to special funds shall be made through appropriation entered in the Budget Law or in additional appropriations.

Article 73. Unless otherwise determined by law, the positive balance of the special fund established in the balance sheet shall be transferred as credit to the same fund in the following year.

Article 74. The law establishing a special fund may determine specific rules for control, provision and taking of accounts, without, however, eliciting the specific competence of the Court of Auditors or equivalent body.

- 6 -

NT.F-0009-2019

Federal Complementary Law 101/2000, which establishes norms for public finances for fiscal responsibility when dealing with budget execution and goal achievements, determines that resources must be used for the specific object, according to Article 8, Sole Paragraph:

Article 8, Sole Paragraph: The resources legally binding to a specific purpose will be used exclusively to attend to the object of such connection, even when exercising an activity that differs from such object.

In Technical Notes NT.F-0003-2018 and NT.F-0006-2018, which present, respectively, the methodology and results of Sabesp's 2nd Regular Tariff Review, a financial component was defined for tariffs that corresponds to the transfer of a portion of the municipalities’ direct revenues to carry out actions of the granting authority aiming for the universalization of services.

Considering the policy currently adopted by Sabesp along with the municipalities that engaged the Company for the provision of public services for water and sewage supply and, in view of the transfers to municipal funds, Arsesp recognizes the possibility of including a portion of this cost by means of a financial component to be considered in the tariff to be applied in all regions in which it provides potable water supply and sewage services. (NT.F-0003-2018, page 21)

Even if, to include this financial component as of the 2017-2020 tariff cycle, Arsesp has pre- established certain regulatory requirements to be met, such as the 4% regulatory limit of the municipality's revenue and the existence of a municipal fund, the detailed conditions to validate the tariff pass-through should be defined in a specific resolution.

The result of the study made by the Working Group, which was used for the creation of the draft of the resolution is presented throughout this Technical Note.

3. REGULATORY LIMIT

As previously mentioned, Sabesp already carries out transfers to certain municipalities, based on what was established in the program and service agreements, and each contract has a specific rule for determining the amount and frequency of the transfers.

Arsesp considered that it was necessary to establish a regulatory limit for the purpose of recognizing these transfers as a financial component within the tariffs, since, although they are optional for the service provider and the municipality, it is essential that reasonable tariffs are preserved.

Within the scope of the Sabesp’s 2nd Regular Tariff Review, the regulatory limit of 4% of the - 7 -

NT.F-0009-2019 municipality's operating revenue1 was determined for tariff pass throughs, in which the lowest amount between the percentage transferred and the 4% limit would be recognized. Should the service provider and the municipality decide to pass through amounts higher than 4% of the municipality's revenue, the surplus will not be recognized as a financial component in the tariffs and will be restricted to the municipality.

As mentioned in Technical Note NT.F-0006-2018 (page 30), the transferring of resources to the municipal sanitation fund (FMSB) was only contracted for the City of São Paulo. Accordingly, for the current tariff cycle (2017-2020), the percentage of 1.84% of Sabesp's required revenue was recognized, corresponding to an annual average of R$257.17 million (prices as of December/2016). If it were recognized, in the 2nd RTO, the 4% revenue limit of all municipalities operated by Sabesp, this amount would reach an annual average of R$572.73 million.

In order to assess the impact of FMSB's recognition on Sabesp's tariffs, two scenarios were simulated. In the first scenario, this financial component was excluded from the Discounted Cash Flow in order to obtain the water and sewage tariff in the absence of the transfer of resources. In the second scenario, the amount corresponding to the regulatory limit of 4% was included to determine what the value would be if all municipalities instituted their FMSB. In order to compare the amount to be paid by the user, the water and sewage bill was calculated for users in the residential category2 with consumption of 15 m³/month. The values obtained are shown below:

Table 1: Comparison among average water and sewage bills in the residential category, with consumption of 15 m³/month Water and Sewage Bill (R$) Region Difference With Without (R$) FMSB FMSB

Metropolitan Region of São Paulo 86.72 92.06 5.34 Baixada Santista, Litoral Norte and SP Countryside (except RR) 82.59 87.68 5.08 RV (except the city of Guararema where the Tariff used is RMSP-ML) 74.20 78.77 4.57

1 To establish the municipality’s operating income in the calculation of the financial component, revenues will be considered net of taxes. 2 Approximately 80% of the residential connections served by Sabesp consume up to 15 m³, according to the consumption histogram of 2016. - 8 -

NT.F-0009-2019

4. SCOPE As previously mentioned, although the recognition of the financial component on tariffs deriving from FMSB transfers within the scope of Sabesp's 2nd Regular Tariff Review, resulting from program and service agreements already signed between the service provider and some of the municipalities in which it operates, Arsesp understands that, as it refers to a measure that seeks to promote the universalization of services, it can be extended to all municipalities served by Sabesp, as well as to other municipalities regulated by Arsesp and operated by other concessionaires.

In summary, currently this method could be adopted for:

 All municipalities operated by Sabesp, regulated or not, since the tariff approved by Arsesp is applied to the entire region in which it operates.  The City of Santa Gertrudes, served by BRK Ambiental Santa Gertrudes.  The City of Mairinque, served by Saneaqua Mairinque S.A.

5. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES The funds transferred to the FMSB must be allocated to actions (works or services) that are under the responsibility of the granting authority and which are not part of the scope of activities offered by the service provider, delegated through program, services or concession agreements. In the case of water supply and sewage services, these actions under the responsibility of the granting authority, may be predecessors to the works to be performed by the service providers in order to enable its execution or they may be actions related to the regions not covered by the agreements, which in general are characterized by isolated systems and predominantly rural areas and that require the execution of alternative water and sewage supplies. Thus, it is expected that this provides resources to achieve the universalization of services in municipalities, both in areas under the responsibility of the service provider and in areas whose water and sewage systems must be provided by the Granting Authority. The resources may also be used to carry out actions or to execute works related to urban drainage and solid waste management services, which, according to Law 11.445, also includes basic sanitation services. The resources of the municipal sanitation fund may be used as guarantees in credit operations to finance the necessary investments for the universalization of basic public sanitation services, pursuant to Paragraph 1, Article 13, of Law 11.445, dated January 5, 2007.

- 9 -

NT.F-0009-2019 6. MINIMUM REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS For tariff recognition, the FMSB must be legally established by the owner of the services, who will specify the destination of the resources, necessarily including one or more services, as defined in item 5 of this Technical Note. The municipality must have an updated municipal funds for basic sanitation plans in force, pursuant to Law 11.445, Article 19, Paragraph 4, as amended by Provisional Measure No. 868/2018, as well as a service, program or concession agreement. The law that establishes the FMSB must define its management body, with social control mechanisms. This management body will have among its attributions the administration, approval of accounts and inspection of the allocation of resources, always with a social representative in its formation. The municipality must also specify the bank account linked exclusively to the FMSB to be used for the allocation of resources, thus enabling the monitoring of the transfers and their respective use.

7. AUTHORIZATION OF THE MUNICIPAL Fund FOR BASIC SANITATION (“FMSB”) The institution of municipal funds can be made at any time by the municipality, as provided in Article 13 of Federal Law 11,445. However, in order for the amounts passed through by the service provider to be recognized as a financial component in the tariff, it is necessary for the FMSB to meet the minimum regulatory requirements and to be enabled by Arsesp, according to the method presented below. Should it deem necessary, the Municipality may define additional controls to those established by the Agency for the establishment and monitoring of Municipal Sanitation Funds To enable the FMSB, the service provider must send the following documents to Arsesp:

- 10 -

NT.F-0009-2019

 Letter from the service holder requesting the authorization;  Letter from the service provider requesting the tariff recognition on the transfer to the municipal sanitation fund;  Official publication of the law establishing the municipal sanitation fund;  Official publication of the creation, operation and appointment of the members of the fund's managing body;  Statement of the FMSB's exclusive bank account for the authorization of credit transfers;  Copy of the corporate taxpayer’s number of the municipal sanitation fund;  Updated Municipal Basic Sanitation Plan in force;  Program, service or concession agreement.

The documents listed above will be analyzed by Arsesp, which will validate the institution of the respective municipal fund by means of a resolution by its Board of Directors on the percentage that will be used for tariff pass through. This act will be used as reference for calculating the amounts to be passed through to tariffs. The financial component to be passed on to tariffs will be calculated when the tariff reviews are carried out and, if any fund is created during the tariff cycle, the amounts transfers will be compensated at the end of the cycle, respecting the methodology defined in the respective tariff revision process. In the case of Sabesp, this system was established in the 2nd Regular Tariff Review, according to Technical Notes NT.F.0003-2018 and NT.F.0006-2018. For municipal funds established in the form of consortium, as provided in Law 11.445, the documentation for qualification should be sent by all participating municipalities. Arsesp will communicate the service provider, the municipality and the FMSB’s managing body on the result of the analysis of the authorization documents and will disclose on its website the list of municipalities with authorized FMSBs, including the transfer percentage approved. If a change or revocation in law concerning the municipal fund occurs, the Regulatory Agency must be notified within 15 days, under penalty of suspension of tariff related transfers.

8. MONITORING OF TRANSFERS AND USE OF RESOURCES

In order to allow Arsesp to monitor the use of resources recognized in the tariff pass through, municipalities must send the Agency, on an annual basis, a report containing the activities funded with the resources from the municipal fund related to the transfers made by the service provider, as well as the approval of the accounts issued by the fund’s manager.

- 11 -

NT.F-0009-2019

The service provider must register in specific accounting line the transfers made to the municipalities, always allowing their identification by municipality. In addition, the provider must send to Arsesp, on an annual basis, a report containing the amounts effectively transferred to the funds, segregated by municipality and obeying the periodicity of transfers agreed between the municipality and the provider, aiming at the calculation by the Agency of the amounts to be considered for calculation of the compensatory adjustment at the end of the tariff cycle. The service provider must register in a specific accounting line the transfers made to the municipalities, always allowing such transfers to be identified according to municipality. In addition, the service provider must send to Arsesp, on an annual basis, a report containing the amounts effectively transferred to the funds, with a breakdown by municipality and the transfer frequency agreed between the municipality and the service provider, allowing the Agency to calculate the amounts to be considered for the compensation adjustments at the end of the tariff cycle.

9. CONTROL MECHANISMS

The control mechanisms explained in this Technical Note were established to ensure the transfer of resources recognized in the tariffs to the FMSBs, as well as to verify their application towards actions aimed at the universalization of services. Arsesp is authorized to verify that the qualification requirements have been met, as well as to carry out inspections to confirm if the transfers are effectively being carried out. The Agency shall forward to the FMSB’s managing body all documents resulting from such inspections. Municipal management bodies of the FMSB stand out as an important instrument for social control. They will have the authority to set guidelines, monitor, manage and oversee the fund, with the participation of the population. It is worth clarifying that, in case of public spending, according to the Article 70 of the 1988 Federal Constitution, the FMSB are subject to two types of controls: internal and external, being understood that the internal control is exercised by the own entity or Granting Power, who will manage the use of resources under its responsibility, and the external control consists of budget and financial accounting executed by the Legislative Power, assisted by the Audit Courts, with the purpose of verifying administration probity, safekeeping and legal employment of public funds and compliance with fiscal laws. Additionally, pursuant to the principle of publicity, Arsesp will release on its website the list of Municipalities whose FMSB were authorized to operate and the percentage of transfers to be recognized. It should be highlighted that any divergences identified in the inspection processes, as well as non- compliance with the provisions of the resolution, may lead to the suspension, exclusion or alteration of the amounts related to the transfer of water and sewage tariffs.

- 12 -

NT.F-0009-2019 10. MUNICIPALITIES WITH TRANSFER AGREEMENTS OR TARIFFS ALREADY RECOGNIZED

Due to Sabesp's 2nd Regular Tariff Review, the Company informed in its Business Plan the municipalities that were already receiving transfers by the service provider, in compliance with the agreements established (see the list of municipalities in Attachment I). As previously explained in this Technical Note, Arsesp only recognized in tariffs the transfers effectively made to City of São Paulo, limited to 4% of revenues, since: (i) the municipality had an established Municipal Sanitation Fund and (ii) the resources are allocated for sanitation works. In view of the new rules defined by Arsesp, which is the object of this study, municipalities must undergo the necessary adaptations and submit the documents for the authorization process in order to receive transfers and have tariffs recognized. In the case of the City of São Paulo, which already has its transfers recognized, will be granted 180 days to adjust documentations, if necessary, and request the fund’s authorization so that transfers of tariff resources are maintained.

São Paulo, February 05, 2019

Camila Elena Muza Cruz Superintendent of Economic and Financial Analysis

Luiz Antonio de Oliveira Junior Specialist in Regulation and Supervision of Public Services

Thais Greger Tavares Regulatory Support Analyst

Regina Andrea Accorsi Lunardelli Advisor

Code for simple verification: 4d02923f80150a19. If a digital signature exists, this code will confirm its authenticity. Confirm at http://certifica.arsesp.sp.gov.br

- 13 -

NT.F-0009-2019

ATTACHMENT I

SPENDING ALREADY SETTLED IN PROGRAM AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS

- 14 -

NT.F-0009-2019

SPENDING IN MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND COASTLINE - FIXED - PRICES IN DECEMBER 2016 Municipality UN 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (until Sep)

Adamantina RB - - - 4,313,832.35 1,364,228.46 128,453.27 120,807.46 110,802.02 101,897.03 Adolfo RT - - - 172,553,29 - - - - - Alfredo Marcondes RB 113,130.12 ------Alumínio RM - - - - 6,550,410.52 - - - - Aparecida D'Oes te RT 75,825.09 ------Areiopolis RM - - - 215,691.62 - - - - - Auriflama RT - 168,671.38 ------Avare RT 8,425,009.88 ------Bastos RT - - - 2,156,916.17 - - - - - Bento de Abreu RT 84,250.10 ------Bocaina RM 1,348,001.58 ------ RM - - 11,193,645.85 - 6,821,142.30 - - - - Caçapava RV 15,165,017.78 ------Cajuru RG - - 1,686,713.76 765,778.61 763,604.18 153,136.55 153,065.75 75,930.32 76,306.77 Campos do Jordão RV 5,299,737.47 ------Capão Bonito RA 3,370,003.95 ------Emilianopolis RB 189,192.02 ------

Espirito Santo do Pinh RG - - 2,300,064.22 3,821,301.00 2,594,453.30 - - - 409,914.69

Estrela Doeste RT - - - - 1,091,382.77 - - - - Fartura RA - 391,384.81 ------Fernando Prestes RT - - - - 1,091,382.77 - - - - Fernandopolis RT 2,864,503.36 7,250,162.83 5,057,955.43 ------ RG 20,109,672.98 7,547,383.53 5,395,465.01 1,286,290.97 532,599.05 539,708.68 523,548.09 589,317.13 587,735.84 Glicério RT - - - - - 963,399.55 - - - Guariba RG - - - - 2,766,655.32 - - - - Indiaporã RT 421,250.49 ------

- 15 -

NT.F-0009-2019

SPENDING IN MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND COASTLINE - FIXED - PRICES IN DECEMBER 2016 Municipality UN 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (until Sep) Iperó RM ------1,018,970.34 Irapua RT - - 398,677.80 ------ RA - - - - 20,786,661.96 2,569,065.45 2,416,149,15 2,216,040.39 2,037,940.68 Itapeva RA - - - - 9,549,599.22 - - - - Itatiba RJ - - - - - 5,780,397.27 - - - Jales RT 3,808,104.47 3,156,848.67 1,502,708.62 ------Lorena RV 15,165,017.78 ------Magda RT - - 490,680.37 ------Mococa RG 6,740,007.90 6,692,223.46 2,970,589.06 ------Mombuca RJ 330,834.79 ------Monte Alto RT 8,425,009.88 ------Monte Aprazivel RT - - - 934,663.68 - - - - - Novo Horizonte RT 8,425,009.88 ------Os waldo Cruz RB - - 1,533,376.14 1,078,458.09 1,023,171.34 - - - - Palmares Paulista RT - - - 258,829.94 - - - - - Pederneiras RM - - - 4,313,832.35 - - - - - RV 26,960,031.61 ------Pirapozinho RB - - .- 1,926,845.12 900,390.78 - - - - Piratininga RT 589,750.69 ------Planalto RT 65,822.92 ------Platina RB - 46,001.28 ------Pongai RT - - 53,668.17 ------Presidente Epitácio RB - - - - 4,092,685.38 1,926,799.09 - - - Presidente Prudente RB - - - - - 37,485,849.08 31,189,490.91 8,864,161.55 2,097,049.67 Quatá RB - - 1,533,376.14 ------Riolãndia RT 1,516,501.78 363,872.33 365,043.48 361,035.14 362,561.56 362,932.22 - 362,747.41 363,175.94 Santa Ernestina RT - - - 431,383.23 - - - - - Santa Rosa de Viterbo RG - - 3,450,096.32 458,556.12 457,844.70 459,501.89 458,742.00 455,358.86 64,072.33 Santos RS ------27,700,504.86 28,744,771.13 São José do Campos RV 44,649,734.31 44,230,881.21 44,641,569.51 67,279,507.78 - 82,852,470.05 - - 79,422,701.34 São Luiz do Paraitinga RV 1,011,001.19 ------São Manuel RM 2,190,502.57 ------Sud Menucci RT - - - - 219,836.62 42,513.43 42,689.22 42,525.57 43,010.73 Tatui RM - - 12,267,009.15 2,875,888.23 - - - - - RM - - - - - 1,156,079.45 - - - Tupã RB 9,334,910.95 ------Valentim Gentil RT 223,228.08 ------Zacarias RT - - 490,680.37 ------16 -

NT.F-0009-2019

SPENDING IN MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS IN RMSP - FIXED - PRICES IN DECEMBER 2016 Municipality UN 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (until Sep)

Aruja ML - - - - 4,181,015.93 2,408,498.86 - - - MO ------Caieiras MN - - - - 16,234,318.67 7,645,900.54 - - - Cajamar MN - - - - 13,187,541.80 - - - 4,946,516.00 MO - - - 9,385,714.43 26,126,300.68 1,693,088.95 - - - Diadema MS ------57,383,542.24 27,971,505.76 28,509,426.16 MS - - - 12,599,299.97 11,953,401.66 - - - - Embu Guaçu MS - - - - - 8,991,729.09 - - - Ferras de Vasconcelos ML - - 8,106,629.83 7,189,720.58 - - - - - MN - - - - 17,787,215.97 8,378,378.37 - - 6,642,819.01 MN - - - - 27,284,569.20 12,845,327.27 - 4,470,731.87 6,113,822.04 MS - - - 11,503,552.93 - - - - - MO ------9,664,596.59 11,080,201.94 2,037,940.68 Mairiporã MN ------12,227,644.08 Ribeirão Pires MS - - - 21,510,291.34 - - - - - Rio Grande da Serra MS - - - 5,464,187.64 2,592,034.07 - - - - ML - - - - 21,276,033.73 11,000,906.50 - - - Taboão da Serra MO - - - - 27,301,674.06 8,991,729.09 8,456,522.01 - -

- 17 -

NT.F-0009-2019

SPENDING IN MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AND COASTLINE - VARIED - PRICES IN DECEMBER 2016 Municipality UN 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (until Sep)

Botucatu RM - - 568,129.85 1,793,087.20 1,538,517.74 1,879,766.18 1,728,907.34 1,937,518.95 1,428,971.00 Campos do Jordão RV ------Espírito Santo do Pinha RG - - - - - 82,289.92 101,697.75 100,862.83 60,719.23 Fernandopolis RT - - - 158,873.87 67,659.46 68,602.15 80,433.09 65,942.37 127,283.43 Guariba RG - - - - - 353,086.27 606,116.96 568,964.85 - Itapetininga RA ------458,416.11 209,732.39 221,031.08 Itatiba RJ ------393,170.15 504,136.44 - Mococa RG - - - 99,247.12 129,656.26 148,025.11 137,375.05 144,726.71 84,366.93 Novo Horizonte RT - 283,632.19 184,596.50 338,377.11 262,638.28 315,581.26 382,688.81 356,223.96 305,343.86 Pindamonhangaba RV 943,137.70 1,760,220.49 1,729,269.53 2,175,654.71 1,873,626.51 2,340,132.20 2,492,771.06 2,261,254.21 1,370,199.71 Santos RS ------362,826.20 1,029,573.57 São João da Boa Vista RG - - 345,611.62 614,637.90 471,224.63 582,511.85 530,355.76 465,244.36 325,115.58 São José do Campos RV - 7,875,479.73 8,721,775.16 10,462,426.85 9,155,859.15 11,628,362.03 10,303,616.28 10,071,281.04 6,203,835.80

Total 943,137.70 9,919,332.40 11,549,382.66 15,642,304.76 13,499,182.03 17,398,356.98 17,215,548.37 17,048,714.29 11,156,440.19

- 18 -

NT.F-0009-2019

SPENDING IN SÃO PAULO - VARIABLE - PRICES IN DECEMBER 2016 Municipalities UN 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (until Sep)

SÃO PAULO - - 159,698,703.67 318,503,871.62 340,596,580.22 357,414,997.88 313,440,549.48 294,557,580.92 290,920,213.19

- 19 -