HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 124B - Formal Submission of Supplemental InformationEXHIBIT MSD 124B
Metropolitan $1. Lie
Sewer District
2350 Market Strad
Si' aLta, tin 6:31741
Shona: 314158.52W
ray.i;'11141,am
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 22, 2015
TO: Mr. Eric Schneider, MSD Rate Commission Secretary
FROM: Susan M. Myers, MSD General Counsel
RE: Formal Submission of Supplemental Information
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) respectively submits the Supplemental
Information as requested by the Rate Commission during the June 17, 2015 Technical
Conference.
Included are:
1. Memo: Technical Conference Inquiry Regarding Independent Hauled
Waste Station
2. MSD Ordinance No. 12789, adopted December 11, 2008; specifically
a. Section 10 - Property not subject to Stormwater User Charge
b. Section 22 - Appeals
c. Section 27 - Credit Policy
3. Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Questions regarding this submittal should be directed to myself at (314) 768-6366, or Ms.
Theresa Bellville, Assistant Director of Finance at (314) 768-6229.
enclosures
June 19, 2015
Memo To: MSD Rate Commission
From: MSD
Re: Technical Conference Inquiry Regarding Independent Hauled Waste Station
During the June 17, 2015 Rate Commission Technical Conference, the Commission had
several questions regarding the above referenced item that staff was unable to answer at that
time. Below we have provided a brief summary of information regarding this inquiry:
Merrell Brothers, Inc. — St. Louis Disposal is a nationwide waste handling company that offers
"disposal solutions for biosolids, septage, greywater, leachate, food by-products, and other non-
hazardous wastes." It currently has 11 divisions. The company entered the St. Louis market in
December 2010, and is located at 6400 McKissock Ave., St. Louis, MO 63147.
This location receives various liquid wastestreams, pretreats and dewaters the wastestreams,
and discharges the wastewater to MSD collection system. Pretreatment consists of settling,
solids precipitation, and pH adjustment. Pretreatment/dewatered solids are hauled off as solid
waste.
Merrell Brothers' St. Louis location also renders oil/grease (thermal processes separate the
oil/grease from water) and recycles it for pickup and reuse. Approximately 2 tanker truck loads
of brown oil (for fuel) are sent out per month, and 1 load of yellow oil (food grade) is sent out per
month. Tanker size is typically 6,000 gallons. Some brown oil is also recycled internally to fuel
the thermal processes. The separated water is discharged to MSD.
The brown oil is sold for the production of bio-diesel which is regulated by the EPA at the federal
level. The used cooking (yellow) oil is used for both bio-diesel and animal feed. All animal feed
ingredients, including UCO, are regulated by the FDA at the federal level.
Merrell Brothers is regulated by MSD under a site -specific Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Permit, as well as MSD Sewer Use Ordinance No. 12559. The company is prohibited from
accepting any wastestreams that would cause it to be regulated under EPA's Centralized Waste
Treatment Point Source Category (40 CFR 437). In addition to requiring Merrell Brothers to
operate under a discharge permit, MSD inspects the facility at least once per year, and samples
its wastewater discharge at least four times per year.
ORDINANCE NO. 12789
AN ORDINANCE repealing and superseding Ordinance No. 12560, adopted December
13, 2007, and enacting a new ordinance in lieu thereof which establishes a new schedule of
Stormwater User Charges.
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, a body corporate, Municipal
Corporation and political subdivision of the State of Missouri (herein called the "District"), was
established as a metropolitan sewer district under the provisions of Section 30 of Article VI of
the Constitution of the State of Missouri, pursuant to a Plan adopted by the voters of St. Louis
City and St. Louis County at a special election held on Tuesday, February 9, 1954 (the "Plan");
and
WHEREAS, the Plan established the District in the interest of the public health and for
the purpose of providing adequate sewer and drainage facilities within the boundaries of the
District; and
WHEREAS, the Plan empowers the District with jurisdiction, control, possession and
supervision of sewer and drainage systems and facilities as may be placed under the District's
jurisdiction in the manner provided in the Plan; to maintain, operate, reconstruct and improve the
same as a comprehensive sewer and drainage system; to make additions, betterments and
extensions thereto; to protect the public health and welfare by preventing or abating the pollution
of water; and to have all the rights, privileges and jurisdiction necessary or proper for carrying
such powers into execution; and
WHEREAS, the stormwater system within the District consists of man made facilities
and structures and natural water courses used for collecting and conducting stormwater to,
through and from drainage areas to the points of final outlet including, but not limited to, sewers,
pipes, inlets, conduits and appurtenant features, canals, creeks, channels, catch basins, ditches,
streams, gulches, gullies, flumes, culverts, siphons, retention or detention basins, dams, flood
walls, levies, and pumping stations (the "Stormwater System"); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 65 adopted by the Board of Trustees of the District on
May 21, 1956, the District accepted the maintenance and operation of the portion of the
Stormwater System theretofore operated and maintained by the municipalities, sewer districts
and other public agencies within the boundaries of the District established under the original Plan
(the "Original Area"); and
WHEREAS, a special election was held on May 10, 1977 pursuant to which additional
areas were annexed to the District (the "Annexed Area"); and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1494 adopted by the Board of Trustees of the District on
April 27, 1977, the District established a policy regarding the Stormwater System in the Annexed
Area which provided that the District would not assume immediate control of the Stormwater
System in the Annexed Area, but would provide planning services and work with local
municipal authorities and other organizations and groups to coordinate stormwater and drainage
programs where such services were requested; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 7691 adopted by the Board of Trustees of the District on
February 22, 1989, the District established a policy effective April 1, 1989, to regulate the
construction, alteration and reconstruction of all stormwater and drainage facilities within the
District and undertake the operation and maintenance of those portions of the Stormwater
System accepted for dedication by the District within the boundaries of the entire District to the
extent of available funds for such purposes; and
WHEREAS, the District's Plan authorizes the Board to establish by ordinance charges to
be collected from all the real property served by the sewer facilities of the District, whether
public or private, such charges to be based upon any classifications or sub -classifications which
the Board may determine to be fair and reasonable, and to prescribe the manner in which and
time at which such charges are to be paid; and
WHEREAS, the District currently levies an ad valorem property tax at the rate of zero
cents per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all property located in the Original Area
for the purpose of operating and maintaining the Stormwater System in such area(the "Existing
Stormwater Tax"); and
WHEREAS, the District's ability to provide for "Basic Service" of the Stormwater
System relies solely on the impervious surface area charge as recommended by the Rate
Commission Reports dated August 13, 2007 and March 21, 2008; and
WHEREAS, 85% of the stormwater complaints received by the District over the last 10
years can be addressed by providing a fully funded "Basic Service" of the Stormwater System;
and
WHEREAS, the District desires to provide for improvements to the "Enhanced Service"
of the Stormwater System as part of a District -wide Stormwater User Charge; and
WHEREAS, the District is subject to the provisions of the federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (commonly referred to as the Federal Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C.
§ 1251, et seq. (the "Federal Clean Water Act"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and
WHEREAS, there are continuing and growing threats to the public health, safety and
welfare of the District and its residents created by stormwater, including flooding, erosion, water
pollution, creation of pest breeding areas, traffic hazards caused by flooding, etc.; and
WHEREAS, the District has made a preliminary assessment of the needs for Stormwater
Service in the District and has estimated the cost of providing such Stonnwater Service, as
reflected in the Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Proposals dated March 2, 2007 and January 18,
2008; and
2
WHEREAS, owners or users of improved property within the District, whether public or
private, are served by and benefit from the Stonnwater System in that the manmade impervious
surface on such improved property contributes to stormwater runoff which occurs from such
property, beyond the amount which would occur if such property were undeveloped and in its
natural state; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a Stormwater User Charge based on the area of
manmade impervious surface of property is an accepted rate methodology for Stormwater
Service and such impervious charges have been imposed by numerous public stormwater
systems throughout the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Charter Change Elections held on November 7, 2000 included the
addition of a Rate Commission to review proposed rates and changes; and
WHEREAS said Commission issued reports dated August 13, 2007 and March 21, 2008
that recommended the use of an impervious charge as being fair and equitable to raise funds for
both Basic and Enhanced Stormwater Service; and
WHEREAS, the Board hereby finds and determines that the establishment of a
Stormwater User Charge, as herein provided, to be collected from owners or users of improved
property within the District, whether public or private, with the measure of such Stormwater
Service to be determined based on the area of manmade impervious surface of such property, is
fair and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the Board further finds and determines that all owners and users of
improved property within the District, whether public or private, use the Stormwater System and
will be benefited by the District's delivery of Stormwater Service and that the measure of such
use and benefit to be determined based on the square footage of manmade impervious surface of
such property, as herein provided, is fair and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the Stormwater User Charges bear a substantial relationship to and are
designed to cover the costs of providing Stormwater Service, as herein provided and the
revenues to be derived from such Stormwater User Charges will be set aside in a separate fund
and used for the purposes of providing Stormwater Service in the District, as herein provided;
and
WHEREAS, in connection with the establishment of the Stormwater User Charges as
herein provided, the District no longer collects an ad valorem property tax to be used for the
purpose of providing "Basic Service" or "Enhanced Service" to the Stonnwater System; and
WHEREAS, the Board does hereby find and determine that the adoption of this
Ordinance is in the public interest of the District and its residents, will further the public
purposes of the District, and is desirable and necessary in furtherance of the public health, safety
and welfare of the District and its residents.
3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT:
Section One. Definitions of Words and Terms. In addition to words and terms defined
elsewhere in this Ordinance, the following words and terms as used in this Ordinance shall have
the following meanings, unless some other meaning is plainly intended.
"Area" means the square footage measurement of Property.
"Basic Service" means the planning and regulating of the Stormwater System, and
the operation, maintenance, repair, and improvement of those parts of the
Stormwater System as described in Appendix I.
"Board" means the Board of Trustees of the District.
"Dedicated Stormwater Facilities" means those portions of the Stormwater
System which have been accepted for dedication by the District as provided in
Section Three of this Ordinance.
"District" means The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District.
"Enhanced Service" shall mean any stormwater related service not described
under "Basic Service".
"Impervious Surface" means those portions of Property which have been altered
from its natural state by the addition to or construction thereon of any hard
surfaced area which prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil in the
manner and to the extent that such water entered the soil under natural conditions
pre-existent to development, or which causes water to run off the surface in
greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow than was present under natural
conditions pre-existent to development, including, but not limited to, rooftops,
asphalt or concrete sidewalks, paving, driveways and parking lots, walkways,
patio areas, storage areas, and gravel, oiled macadam or other surfaces which
similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns of real property in its
natural state, subject to such exemptions as provided in Section Ten hereof.
"Owner or Owners" means both the owner or owners of record of Property as set
forth in the records of the office of the respective Recorders of Deeds for the City
of St. Louis or for St. Louis County, Missouri.
"Person" means any individual, firm, proprietorship, partnership, company,
municipality, state, federal or local governmental entity, association, society,
corporation, group, or other entity.
"Property" means a lot or parcel of real estate, whether public or private, which is
Served by the Stormwater System.
4
"Runoff" means that part of rainfall which is not absorbed, transpired, evaporated
or left in surface depressions; and which then flows controlled or uncontrolled
into a part of the Stormwater System.
"Served" or "Service" means Property which contributes to Stormwater Runoff
which is drained through the Stormwater System as a result of the addition to or
construction upon such Property of Impervious Surface, and the level or quantity
ofsuch service is reasonably and fairly measured by the Area of Impervious
Surface of such Property.
"Stormwater"
means any water or drainage resulting from precipitation which
may or may not be mixed with an accumulation of dirt, soil, and other debris or
substances collected from the surfaces on which such precipitation falls or flows.
"Stormwater Design Standards" means the most current published edition of
"Rules and Regulations and Engineering Design Requirements for Sanitary
Sewerage and Stormwater Drainage Facilities" and "Standard Construction
Specifications for Sewers and Drainage Facilities" as ratified and approved from
time to time by the Board.
"Stormwater Facility" or "Stormwater Facilities" means various drainage works
that may include sewers, pipes, inlets, conduits, manholes, energy dissipation
structures, channels, outlets, retention/detention basins, and other st7rucinral
components.
"Stormwater Service" means all activities described under "Basic Service" and
"Enhanced Service".
"Stormwater System" means all man-made facilities, structures, and natural
Watercourses used for collecting and conducting Stormwater to, through, and
from drainage areas to the points of final outlet including, but not limited to, any
and all of the following: sewers, pipes, inlets, conduits and appurtenant features,
canals, creeks, channels, catch basins, ditches, streams, rivers, gulches, gullies,
flumes, culverts, siphons, retention or detention basins, dams, floodwalls, levees,
and pumping stations.
"Stormwater User Charges" means the charges imposed by the District pursuant
to this Ordinance.
"Unimproved Real Estate" means real property unaltered by the construction or
addition to such Property by man of any Impervious Surface of any kind which
changes the hydrology of such property from its natural state.
"User" means the occupant or Owner of Property, or any Person Served by the
Stormwater System.
Section Two. Establishment of Stormwater User Charges. There are hereby ratified,
confirmed and established Stormwater User Charges to be imposed on all Property Served by the
Stonnwater System within the District, whether public or private, based on the square footage of
Impervious Surface of such Property as herein provided.
Section Three. Dedication of Stormwater Facilities. The District will accept for
dedication all existing or newly constructed Stormwater Facilities as provided by this Section.
The Executive Director shall accept the dedication of an existing Stormwater Facility to the
District's Stormwater Systems, provided that the District's final inspection report made prior to the
acceptance of dedication confirms that such facility is located in public rights -of -way or
easements granted to and accepted by the District and which is not encroached upon, is intended
for public use, and meets the District's current policy on Stormwater maintenance as provided in
Section Four of this Ordinance.
Upon completion of construction of new Stormwater Facilities for which plans are received,
reviewed and approved by the District after April 1, 1989, the Stormwater Facilities shall be
dedicated to the District and the Executive Director shall accept the dedication of such
Stormwater Facilities to the District's Stormwater System, provided that the facilities have been
constructed in accordance with the approved plans, the District's final inspection reports made
prior to the acceptance of dedication confirm that the facilities meet the Stormwater Desinn
Standards, and the facilities meet the District's current policy on Stormwater maintenance as
provided in Section Four of this Ordinance.
Section Four. Maintenance of Dedicated Stormwater Facilities. The District shall
maintain all Dedicated Stormwater Facilities pursuant to policies established from time to time
by resolution of the Board to prioritize the use of monies for "Basic Service" from Stormwater
User Charges and other available funds to meet the greatest needs in furtherance of the public
health, safety and welfare and in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act. To the extent of
available funds the District shall establish a program of maintenance of Dedicated Stormwater
Facilities in accordance with the District's then current Stormwater Maintenance Policy. The
Board hereby adopts the Stormwater Maintenance Policy attached hereto as Appendix I.
Section Five. Private Stormwater Facilities. The Owner shall be responsible for
Stormwater Facilities located on private property where runoff will principally be collected
within that property and for all other Stormwater Facilities not maintained by the District per
Appendix I. The Owner shall clean and maintain the facility or channel as required to ensure
proper operation as required by law or regulation. Where Dedicated Stonnwater Facilities are in
easements, the Owner of the Property is responsible for maintenance of such easements
including lawn mowing, litter pick-up, pest control, removal of blockages and encroachments,
etc. The Owner shall place no structures or plantings that interfere with the Stormwater Facility
or its operation and maintenance.
Section Six. Rules and Regulations. In order to accomplish the purpose of this Ordinance
to protect the Stormwater System within the District, to secure the best results from the
construction, operation, and maintenance thereof, and to prevent damage and misuse of any of
6
the Drainage Facilities, improvements, or properties within the District, the Executive Director
may make and enforce rules and regulations that are necessary and reasonable:
(1) To prescribe the manner in which storm sewers, ditches, channels, and
other Stormwater Facilities are to be designed, installed, adjusted, used,
altered, maintained, replaced, or otherwise changed.
(2) To prescribe the manner in which Stormwater Facilities are operated.
(3) To facilitate the enforcement of this Ordinance.
(4) To protect the Stormwater System, and to prescribe the manner of its use
by any public or private person, firm, or corporation.
(5)
To protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section Seven. Permits and Plan Review. All plans and designs for all Stormwater
Facilities within the boundaries of the District shall be submitted for approval, revision or
rejection by the District pursuant to the Plan, applicable Ordinances and the District Stormwater
Design Standards. Except as preempted or otherwise delegated by EPA or MDNR, the District
shall provide all stormwater plan and design review, permit control and construction inspection.
Section Eight. Stormwater User Charge Policy. -Stormwater User Charges will be
imposed on all Property Served by the Stormwater System within the District, whether public or
private, based on the square footage of Impervious Surface of such Property.
Section Nine. Stormwater User Charges. Beginning with the Effective Date of this
Ordinance, the District shall impose the following Stornwater User Charges: See Appendix II
Section Ten. Property Not Subject to Stormwater User Charges. The following types of
Property shall not be charged a Stormwater User Charge:
(1) Streets, roads, alleys, and right-of-way used for roadway purposes serving
more than one property, and adjoining sidewalks dedicated or available for
general public use;
(2) Federal, State, county and municipal highways and highway right-of-way
used for roadway purposes;
(3) Railroad and light rail tracks, roadbeds, yards and related rights -of -way;
(4) Airport runways and taxiways.
Section Eleven. Determination of Area_ of Impervious Surface. The District shall
determine the Area of Impervious Surface of each Property rounded to the nearest 100 square
7
feet, by estimation, calculation and computation of the Impervious Surface using aerial
photography or photogrammetry. An Owner of Property who considers the determination by the
District of the Impervious Surface of such Owner's Property to be inaccurate or erroneous may
provide other evidence satisfactory to the District of the Area of Impervious Surface of such
Property. The District shall have the power to enter on any Property for the purposes of
determining the Area of Impervious Surface of such Property and for the purpose of carrying out
this Ordinance.
Section Twelve. Billing. All bills for Stormwater User Charges shall be prepared by the
District and shall be issued monthly for services provided in the preceding month. The issuance
of any monthly bill may be delayed by the District for good cause.
The Stonnwater User Charges shall be billed to the Owner of the Property or to the Person billed
by the District for Stormwater User Charges for such Property. Such Stormwater User Charges
shall also constitute a personal obligation of both the Owner and any User of the Property
regardless of to whom the bill for Stormwater User Charges is sent and shall constitute a charge
and a lien against the Property served.
For the District's convenience, all Stormwater User Charges may be combined with any other
charges of the District, and all such charges may be billed together. In the event of a change in
Owner or TTser of Property during a billing period, application may be made to the Director of
Finance of the District for a refund or prorating of Stormwater User Charges for such billing
period.
Section Thirteen. Charge for Late Payments. If any Stormwater User Charges billed are
not paid by the due date indicated on any bill rendered, then an additional late payment charge
equal to one and one-half percent (1-112%) per month or 18% per annum of the amount of the
bill rendered is hereby imposed for each month or portion thereof that the bill remains unpaid
beyond the due date, until such time as a lien is recorded against the Property Served pursuant to
Section Fourteen hereof.
Section Fourteen. Stormwater User Charges Constitute a Lien. The Stormwater User
Charges shall constitute a lien upon the Property Served on the date a bill is rendered for
Stormwater Service, and said lien shall have the same priority as taxes levied for state and
county purposes. The District may cause a notice of lien for non-payment of such charges to be
filed in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds within and for the City of St. Louis or St. Louis
County, depending upon where such Property Served is located. Such notice of lien shall state
the amount of the delinquent Stormwater User Charges, and shall adequately describe the
Property against which such lien is asserted. A copy of such notice of lien shall be mailed to the
Owner of the Property at the last address on file with the District and the fxiing of such notice in
the Office of the Recorder of Deeds may be deferred as a matter of grace for not more than thirty
(30) days from the mailing date. All Stormwater User Charges that remain unpaid shall bear
interest at a rate not to exceed the lower of eighteen percent (18%) per annum or the maximum
legal rate from the time a notice of lien is filed with the appropriate recorder of deeds as herein
prescribed, until such time as the account is closed.
8
After such notice of lien is filed of record, the fees of the Recorder for filing and releasing said
lien shall also be payable to the District as a prerequisite to releasing said lien.
Section Fifteen. Termination of Service for Nonpayment. When any Stormwater User
Charge has not been paid and has been delinquent for a period in excess of three months, the
District is authorized to order the water supply to be shut off for the Property for which the
Stormwater User Charge is delinquent or to remove or close any sewer connections, or both,
until payment of the delinquent charge together with the reasonable costs involved in shutting off
and turning on the water, or closing and reopening the sewer connection, as the case may be,
have been paid.
When any Stormwater User Charge has not been paid and has been delinquent for more than
fifteen days after the due date, then the District may refuse to issue to the Owner and/or User a
permit to connect any other Property owned or controlled by said Owner and/or User to the
Wastewater System or Stormwater System; or may refuse to review any plans submitted by or on
behalf of such Owner and/or User, or issue any permits requested by or on behalf of such Owner
and/or User; or refuse to act on any easement vacation request by or on behalf of such Owner
and/or User; or refuse to contract for any purpose with or accept Wastewater or Stormwater from
any such Owner and/or User.
Section Sixteen. Remedies. Whenever any charge is unpaid after ninety days from the
date the bill for such charges was rendered, then the amount overdue may be collected by any or
all of three procedures:
(a) by assignment to a collection agency; or
(b) by suit or other proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction; or
(c) by enforcement of the lien provided herein.
The District shall have the power to sue any Owner and/or User, jointly and severally, in a civil
action to recover delinquent charges plus the late payment charge and interest on the delinquent
bill, plus all costs incurred by the District in connection with the filing and enforcement of such
lien and the prosecution and collection of such charges including court costs, fees for transcript
judgments, special process servers, credit reports, video reports, sewer and/or water shutoff
costs, other related fees, and reasonable attomey's fees to be fixed by the court.
Section Seventeen. False Information It shall be unlawful for any Person to furnish any
false report or information to the District which would tend to reduce Stormwater User Charges
imposed by the District.
Section Eighteen. Violation of Ordinance Any Person violating any of the provisions of
this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished
by a fine of not less than $50.00 nor more than $500.00, and each day's violation shall constitute
a separate offense. The imposition of such penalty shall in no way restrict or deprive the District
9
of its right to pursue any other remedy it may have for the collection of any delinquent bill for
Stormwater User Charges.
Section Nineteen. Stormwater User Charge Review. The Board shall regularly review the
Stormwater Service needs of the District and Stormwater User Charges, usually as part of a Rate
Proposal from the Rate Commission, to assure the appropriateness of the Stormwater User
Charges.
Section Twenty. Notice of Rates and impervious Area. All Owners of Property Served by
the Stormwater System shall be notified at the time of a rate increase as to:
(a) the rate schedule in effect; and
(b) the Impervious Surface Area of such Owner's Property.
In addition, all Owners of Property Served by the Stormwater System shall be notified of any
change in the Impervious Surface Area of such Owner's Property for purposes of calculating the
Stormwater User Charges billed to such Property.
Section Twenty -One. Anolication of Revenues. All revenues billed and collected from
Stormwater User Charges sball be segregated, credited and deposited into a Stormwater Revenue
Fund established and maintained by the Director of Finance of the District, and shall be used
solely to pay for the costs of providing Stormwater Service.
Section Twenty -Two Appeals. Any Person who considers the Stormwater User Charges
billed to such Person pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance to be illegal, inaccurate or
erroneous, whether to the Impervious Surface Area calculated or as to whether or not a credit
should be applied may request a review thereof by the Director of Finance or his designate. The
results of any appeal received prior to July 1, 2009 will apply to all Stormwater User Charges
billed from April 1, 2008 to date. The results of any appeal received on or after July I, 2009 shall
be applied starting on the date of receipt of the appeal by the District. The determination by the
Director of Finance may be appealed by such Person to the Executive Director, by written notice
of appeal feted with the Director of Finance within thirty (30) days of his determination. The
determination by the Executive Director shall be considered a final order of the District.
Section Twenty -Three. Judicial Review. Any Person or Persons jointly or severally
aggrieved by any final order of the Executive Director of the District may seek judicial review of
such decision pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 12.110 of the District's Plan.
Section Twenty -Four. Adjustment Review Committee. A committee, to be known as the
Adjustment Review Committee (ARC), is hereby established and shall meet, at minimum, once a
month to conduct its business. The ARC shall be comprised of the voting members which are the
District's Director of Finance, Assistant Director of Finance, the Secretary -Treasurer, and
General Counsel. Non -voting members are the Accounts Receivable Manager and Audit
Administrator.
10
For purposes of Sections Twenty -Two and Twenty -Seven of this Ordinance the following terms
as used in this Ordinance shall have the following meanings, unless some other meaning is
plainly intended.
Adjustment any change in billing resulting from errors and/or changes in
circumstances.
Write-off an uncollectible amount due the District according to State or Federal
Statute or as determined by majority approval of the ARC.
Settlement agreement between the customer and the District to alleviate all or part
of a delinquent condition.
On a monthly basis, the ARC shall review and properly record in the minutes all prior monthly
billing adjustments as approved and presented by the Accounts Receivable Manager. These
billing adjustments may result from but are not limited to; misapplied payment, miscalculation
of impervious Surface Area, incorrect determination of impervious/pervious area, transfer of
balance due to bankruptcy notice, new occupant, bank encoding error, or water back-up.
All write-offs or settlements of accounts shall require a majority of the ARC voting members to
meet and discuss before approval. No write-off or settlement in excess of Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00) and less than Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) shall be effective
unless reviewed and approved by three (3) out of the four (4) voting members of the ARC. Any
write-off or settlement greater than Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) shall require
Finance Committee approval or ratification. The suspension of these rules may occur when a
time constraint exists and a decision must be made before the next scheduled meeting, or a
situation existsfrom, but not limited to; foreclosure, sheriff or county tax sale, Land
Reutilization Authority, Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority, or discharged
bankruptcy. In these instances, no settlements or write-offs in excess of Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000.00) shall be effective unless reviewed and approved by three (3) out of four (4) voting
members of the ARC on an individual basis or at a special meeting as requested by any of the
ARC members. All such instances will be reported at the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the ARC and recorded in the minutes.
ARC activity will be reported to the Board's Finance Committee on a monthly basis.
The committee shall perform any other such duties relating to billing and collection policies.
Such duties shall be reported to the Executive Director and Board of Trustees.
Section Twenty -Five. Severability. The Board hereby declares that if any section, part,
sentence or clause of this Ordinance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remainder
of this Ordinance, the Board hereby declaring that it would have enacted the remainder of this
Ordinance without regard to that part hereof that may be held invalid.
Section Twenty -Six. Prior Ordinances. This Ordinance shall take the place of and
supersede the provisions of all prior ordinances relating to the same subject matter which are
herewith inconsistent. This Ordinance shall not be so construed as to relieve any Person from the
payment of any fee or charge which is due and payable under the provisions of any prior
11
ordinance, nor to bar the collection of same by any and all of the means provided for in said prior
ordinance. Thus Ordinance shall not be so construed as to relieve any Person from any penalty
heretofore incurred by the violation of any prior ordinance nor to bar the prosecution of any such
violation in the manner provided therein.
Section Twenty -Seven. Credit Policy.
Credits may be applied for, per the appeals process described in Section Twenty Two, under the
following conditions:
(1) A property drains internally resulting in no stormwater runoff to the
Stormwater System outside of the property. In this case, a 50% credit will
be applied.
(2)
(3)
A property drains directly to the Mississippi, Missouri, or Meramec Rivers
without the use of the Stormwater System. In this case, a 50% credit will
be applied.
All or portions of the Stormwater System, as agreed to and at the sole
discretion of the District, are maintained by another entity under
agreement with the District. In this case, the credit will be based on a
calculation of the remaining Stormwater Service being provided by the
District.
Section Twenty -Eight. Effective Date. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be effective
from and after the date of its passage.
The foregoing Ordnance was adopted December 11, 2008.
12
APPENDIX I
THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF POLICY
FOR
MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER SEWER SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES
The provisions for adequate drainage in the Metropolitan St. Louis area are necessary to preserve
and promote the general health, welfare, and economic well being of the region. Stormwater
drainage is a regional feature that affects all governmental jurisdictions and all parcels of
property. This characteristic of drainage makes it necessary to formolste a program that includes
public and private involvement both from the master planning of new improvements and the
costs associated with operation, maintenance, and replacement of existing improvements.
The cost of providing Basic and Enhanced Services for the Stormwater System is directly
affected by the impervious area on each customer's property. The user charge provides the funds
needed to provide planning, regulation, and the operation, maintenance, and replacement of the
Stormwater System in accordance with the current policy on Stormwater System Maintenance
(Basic Service). It also provides funding for operation, maintenance, replacement, and
improvement to those parts of the Stormwater System not included in the current policy on
Stormwater System Maintenance (Enhanced Service).
Any sormwater sewer system or facility or part thereof located in a public right-of-way or
easement which is encroached upon will not be maintained, repaired, or replaced until the
encroachment is removed by the property owner at the property owner's expense or the property
owner receives District approval of the encroachment.
The following summarizes the District's current policy on Stormwater System Maintenance.
A. Unimproved Channels
The District will remove debris, trees, brush, and weeds that significantly obstruct the
flow in the channels. Priority will be given to blockages that are in evidence and/or
reported causing major flooding.
B. Improved Channels
The District will remove debris, trees, brush, silt, and weeds that significantly obstruct
the flow in the channel. The structural integrity of the channel bottoms and sides shall be
maintained.
C. Storm Sewers (Enclosed Systems)
The District will clean and maintain all public storm sewers (enclosed systems) that have
been dedicated to and accepted by the District for operation and maintenance.
D. Road Culverts and Bridges
The District will not maintain road culverts and/or bridges. This responsibility belongs to
the agency or individual that has jurisdiction over the roadway. The District will maintain
a road culvert which was installed by the District as an integral part of the storm sewer
system.
E. Driveway Culverts
The District will not maintain any driveway culverts.
F Missouri State Highway Department
The District will not maintain any storm sewers located on State Highway right-of-way,
unless they are an integral part of an accepted storm system.
G. Road Inlets
The District does maintain road inlets on systems dedicated and accepted by the District.
H. Trench Drains
The District does not maintain trench drains.
I. Roadside Ditches or Gutters
The District will not maintain roadside ditches or gutters. This responsibility belongs to
the agency or individual that has jurisdiction over the roadway.
J. Bars Over Inlets
The District does not allow bars, grating, screens, or any other obstructions to flow to be
placed in front of inlets or pipe openings.
K. Weeds
The District only cuts weeds on property owned by the District. The District does not cut
weeds on easements.
2
L. Swales
Yard swales will not be maintained by the District.
M. Fences
The District will maintain fences along improved stormwater channels that were installed
in the concrete sides of the channel or installed by the District as an integral part of an
improvement.
N. Retention and Detention Basins
The District does not maintain retention or detention basins.
4. Sink Holes
The District shall not maintain sink holes, but will maintain the structures over the sink
hole if it is a public system.
In the event a dispute arises as to whether a particular storinwater sewer system or facility or any
part thereof should be ram. u toned, repaired, or replaced by the District pursuant to this policy,
the decision of the Executive Director shall be final. Any person or persons jointly or severally
aggrieved by such decision may appeal such decision in the manner provided for in Section
12.110 of the District's plan.
3
STORM -WATER USER CHARGES
ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN MSD BOUNDARIES:
(Per month/per User Account)
Monthly Charge
(per 100 square feet iompervious surrce area)
APPENDIX 11
Charge through Charge beginning
December 31. 200$ Jan/myy 3o.g9,
$0.12 $0.14
Western Kentucky University
Stormwater Utility Survey
2014
ww61,11114114
�'.
VVESTEI N
KENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY
C. Warren Campbell, Ph.D., P.E., CFM
Randel Dymond, Ph.D., P.E.
Kandace Kea
Amanda Dritschel
loft
Cover
The cover flood picture was taken near Bowling Green, Kentucky in May, 2010.
Dedicated to the memory of Cecil Campbell (1926 - 2014). Rest in peace, Pop
?op. We miss you.
ii
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Preface to the 2014 Survey
There have been two major sea changes in our survey in the past year. First, I have been working with Dr.
Randel Dymond at Virginia Tech and two of his graduate students, Kandace Kea and Amanda Dritschel.
Under Dr. Dymond's guidance, Kandace and Amanda have done an amazing job of filling out and verifying
the database. Their hard work and many phone calls have provided data that have been missing for some
time. The Virginia Tech team have also put the database into a form that is useful for research. They also
provided the updated GIS. I am indebted to them for their hard work and creative rearrangement of the
data. Watch the literature for these names. They are doing some significant work using the new,
improved information.
The second change is that we are including Canadian stormwater utilities in our database thanks to a
request and data infusion from Mike Gregory, Senior Water Resources Engineer for AECOM in Kitchener,
Ontario. So far, the Canadian data we have comes strictly from Mike. Thank you, Mike.
There has been another change here at WKU in 2014. We now have the only U.S. 4-year degree in
floodplain management. It is a Bachelor's of Interdisciplinary Studies with a concentration in Floodplain
Management. We have received great support from the Association of State Floodplain Managers, with
15,000 members, the largest U.S. organization dedicated to floodplain management. We have operated
under the "build it and they will come" philosophy. We have the program so now we need the students.
For more information, contact me at warren.campbell@wku.edu.
Warren Campbell
Bowling Green, Kentucky
December 21, 2014
iii
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Methods
The main goal of this survey is to iaentity as many U.S. Stormwater Utilities (SWUs) as possible. Because
many stormwater professionals do not have the time to respond to questionnaires, our primary method
of identification was Internet searches, although many phone calls were made this year. We searched on
key terms such as "stormwater utility", "stormwater fee", and "drainage fee". We scoured on-line
municipal codes such as Municode, AmLegal, Sterling, LexisNexis, and others. We searched through many
city web sites trying to find utilities. Though we have more confidence in our database than in the past
because of the work of Virginia Tech, the data primarily comes from Internet sources and is prone to
errors. We hope the readers of this document will help us correct them. This year our Virginia Tech team
also phoned nearly 100 cities to find missing data and we believe their scrub of the data has improved our
quality control. However, it is difficult to keep up with fee changes in nearly 1500 utilities, so if you
discover errors in our data please contact me at warren.campbellwku.edu or dvmond@vt.edu,
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors. They are not official opinions of
Western Kentucky University, Virginia Tech, their administrations, or of any other individuals associated
in any way with either University. The authors are engineers so that any opinions expressed should not
in any way be construed by any individual or organization as sound legal advice. The use or misuse of
any of the data and information provided herein is the sole responsibility of the user and is not the
responsibility of Western Kentucky University, Virginia Tech, their employees, students, or of any
organization associated with the Universities.
iv
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This year our database was scrubbed and put into a more useful form by a research team at Virginia Tech.
That team is Professor Randel Dymond and his graduate students Kandace Kea and Amanda Dritschel.
Their contribution to this document has been invaluable.
Since 2007, the majority of the SWUs in this survey were identified by our undergraduate students who
are listed below. I am very proud of the fact that 48 of my students have passed the CFM exam. When I
came to Kentucky in 2004, I was the 7th CFM in the state. There are 11 states with fewer than 47 CFMs so
we are making a contribution to floodplain management. Students contributing to the 2013 Survey were:
Jordon Begley
Walker Bruns
Clayton Cook
Aaron Dockery
Gabriel Goncalves de Godoy
Chris Heil
Eathan Johnson
Carson Joyce
Zach Neihof
Ashley Penrod
Tyler Sweetland
Kirk Thomas
Dylan Ward
Rory Watson, CFM
Doug Woodson, CFM
Students participating in the 2012 survey were:
Benjamin Bell, CFM
Jeremy Brown, CFM
Will Spaulding, CFM
Justin Wallace, CFM
Since the 2012 survey is built on the foundation of our earlier surveys, it is important to recognize
contributors from previous years. Students contributing to the 2011 survey were:
Daniel Douglas
Allison Gee
Emily Kinslow, CFM
Lacie Lawson
Kendall McClenny, CFM
Kory McDonald
Daniel Skees, CFM
Brian Vincent, CFM
Jason Walker
Russ Whatley, CFM
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Students contributing to the 2010 Survey were:
Alex Krumenacher, CFM
Nick Lawhon, CFM
Austin Shields, CFM
Adam Disselkamp, CFM
Kenneth Marshall
Wesley Poynter, CFM
Tyler Williams, CFM
Students contributing to the 2009 survey were:
Brittany Griggs
Lisa Heartsill, CFM
Spenser Noffsinger, CFM
Pat Stevens
Tony Stylianides, CFM
Scott Wolfe, CFM
These students contributed to the 2008 survey:
Darren Back, CFM
Robert Dillingham, CFM
James Edmunds
Scott Embry, CFM
Clint Ervin
Catie Gay, CFM
Sean O'Bryan, CFM
Casey Pedigo
Broc Porter
Kelly Stolt, CFM
Ben Webster, CFM
vi
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
These students contributed to the 2007 survey.
Jon Allen
Karla Andrew, CFM
Eric Broomfield, CFM
Kevin Collignon, CFM
Heath Crawford, CFM
Adam Evans
Cody Humble
Steve Hupper, CFM
Christine Morgan, CFM
Jeremy Rodgers, CFM
Matt Stone, CFM
Kyle Turpin, CFM
Kal Vencill, CFM
The author is grateful to all of these students who have participated in the survey over the past years.
They have worked diligently at a somewhat tedious job, but one that should have taught them something
about stormwater financing, municipal codes, and websites.
We are also indebted to AM EC for sharing their list of stormwater utilities with us. In 2008, Scott Embry
had the foresight to ask them for it and they obliged. We continue to have a good relationship with AMEC.
I am also wish to thank the Environmental Finance Center of the University of North Carolina which
provided data on several North Carolina and Georgia stormwater utilities (Environmental Finance Center,
2013).
We thankTricia Harper for proofreading this document. Any remaining errors and typos occurred because
we overwhelmed her with them. These errors are the responsibility of the author.
Several companies publish municipal and county codes which serve as a source for much of our data. We
are particularly indebted to the Municipal Code Corporation, American Legal Publishing Corporation, Lexis
Nexis, and Sterling Codifiers, Inc.
vii
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Introduction
We have been able to identify almost 1500 stormwater utilities nationwide and in Canada. There are now
5 states with 100 or more stormwater utilities (SWUs) and Ohio with 99. Forty states and DC have at least
one SWU. This year we are including Canadian SWUs. Figure 1 shows U.S. stormwater utilities by location.
As Figure 2 shows, one of the very disappointing aspects of the SWU map is that Louisiana and Mississippi
have missed a golden opportunity to encourage stormwater utilities. Eight years after Hurricane Katrina,
neither of the hardest hit states has farmed a SWU as far as we can tell. Also, none of the states hardest
hit by Hurricane Sandy (NY, NJ, and CT) have a stormwater utility that we could identify. We know that
New York has no stormwater utilities (Bill Nechamen, NY State NFIP Coordinator: personal
communication, 2013). One of the stumbling blocks to creating stormwater utilities is clear state law
permitting them. We strongly recommend that these states move to create that clear statutory authority
for all categories of cities and towns, for counties, for sewer districts, and for watershed conservancy
districts. Doing so does not create a single SWU, but it makes it easier for local governments who wish to
secure adequate funding for flood mitigation projects to do so.
One community official said, "We are too small to have a stormwater utility." The smallest community
with a stormwater utility that we have found is Indian Creek Village, Florida with a 2010 census population
of 88 (no, this is not a misprint). The largest community is Los Angeles with a population exceeding
3,000,000. The average SWU community population is about 73,900 and the median is 19,200. No
community is too small nor too large to have a stormwater utility.
At some point, this survey will become unnecessary as every community will have some appropriate
stormwater funding mechanism. When will this occur? We have identified almost 1500 SWUs, and as
this is written about 22,098 communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
(FEMA's Community Status Book: https://www.fema.gov/cis/nation.pdf). This survey will be necessary
for some years to come.
In this survey, we continue our look at challenges to stormwater utilities. These challenges include court
challenges, political challenges (repeal), opinions of state Attorneys General, and attempts to change state
constitutions. We will address these in some detail.
Finally, I have looked at a funding mechanism widely used in Minnesota and in a few SWUs outside
Minnesota. The Residential Equivalent Factor or REF calculates runoff from residential property and then
determines the runoff from other property categories and charges them accordingly.
The Data
Part of our raw data is contained in the Table in Appendix A. As this is written, our survey contains data
almost 1500 stormwater utilities (SWUs) located in 40 states and the District of Columbia (Figure 1). Based
on our current find rate and the number of new SWUs the Minnesota State Auditor's report (Otto, 2011),
my best guess would be that there are between 1800 and 2000 SWUs in the U.S. More are being formed
all the time and we are aware of several that will form within the next few months. Figure 2 shows the
number of stormwater utilities by state. At least 5 states have more than 100 SWUs. Ohio lost the
1
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District SWU at least temporarily. The adverse ruling of a lower court is
being appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. For now, we were able to find 99 Ohio SWUs.
Nationwide, the average monthly single family residential fee was $4.79, the standard deviation was
$3.34, and the median fee was $4.00. Most fees go up over time reflecting an increase in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI). Some communities actually tie the monthly fee to the CPI. However, several
communities have reduced their fees.
Fees ranged from zero up to $35 per month. Figure 3 shows the spatial distribution of monthly fees. As
has been observed in previous surveys, no state has all high fees. Even states with the higher fees also
have utilities with much lower fees. The range of fee amounts probably reflects stormwater needs and
local political realities.
SWUs 2014
Figure 1. U.S. stormwater utilities (SWUs)
The most widely used method of funding is the ERU system. An Equivalent Residential Unit is usually the
average impervious area on a single family residential parcel, although some communities define it as the
average of all residential parcels. Fees for non-residential properties are proportional to the ratio of the
parcel impervious area to the ERU. For the ERUs identified in our survey, the mean was 3138 square feet
impervious with a standard deviation of 2654 square feet. We were able to find ERUs for 710 utilities
2
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
(Figure 4). It is important to have a good estimate of the ERU because an inaccurate ERU means that
someone is paying a disproportionate amount which could increase legal exposure (Campbell [2010]).
Figure 4 shows the distribution of communities using ERUs. The chart includes communities that did not
calculate a real ERU, that is, the average impervious area of residential properties. The figure includes
those cities like Arvada, Colorado which has measured the impervious area of every single parcel in the
city and fees are based on the amount of impervious area. That is, there is a different fee for every
property in town. Usually most parcels in a community are residential parcels and these may all have a
single fee or may be divided into a few tiers. This simplifies the administration of the utility.
As with the fees, there is no discernible spatial pattern of ERUs. Presumably, larger ERUs imply more
affluent areas or residential parcels with larger homes. However, this may not always be the case. An
ERU that is larger than the actual average single family impervious area means that non-residential
properties will pay less than their fair share of the SWU annual revenue and residential customers will pay
more (Campbell j2010]).
SWU Numbers by State
Figure 2. Number of stormwater utilities by state
3
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Monthly Fees 2014
0
SWUs 2014
L4onthly =aa
O it .
o $1.01-i2
o
0 S.
0 3£-01-ii]0
*
52901-5 5.00
CV -
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of monthly stormwater fees
4
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
ERUs 2014
ER U
o 10Q1 -2flOP
O 2041 - MOO
0 c•i .
• 10001 - , :..
Figure 4. Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs)
Figure 5 shows those communities that use some variant of the Residential Equivalent Factor (REF)
system. In these communities, an effort is made to consider the amount of runoff from different land
uses. A REF of 1 usually corresponds to the average runoff from residential parcels of a given size for a
designated storm. For example, Columbia Heights, Minnesota designates a 2 inch rainfall and an SCS
hydrologic soil group B for its REF. Single family residential properties will have a REF of 1 in this system
and commercial properties a REF of 4.23. This means that a commercial property will pay 4.23 times as
much as a residential property of the same size. The next section will present more information on the
REF system. As Campbell (2010) showed, tier systems can be manipulated to benefit one group of
another, or they can also be set up fairly. The same is true of REF systems.
5
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) Systems
We found 125 communities that use the Residential Equivalence Factor fee system (Figure 5). REF systems
come in many different forms. Some are based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
method of calculating runoff. The NRCS estimate of runoff Q in inches is given by the following equation.
Q- (P-Ip)2
P+0.8•S
P = rainfall (inches)
S 1000
10 (inches) (1)
CN
IQ = 0.2 • S (inches)
CN —runoff curve number (dimensionless)
REFs 2014
Figure 5. Communities implementing the Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) method of fee setting.
In Equation 1, S is the probable maximum storage after runoff begins. Ia is the initial abstraction, the
amount of rain that must fall before runoff begins. The runoff curve number CN depends on soil type
6
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
and land use. The NRCS divides soils up into four hydrologic soil groups, A, B, C, and D. Type A soils are
comprised of larger particles like sand and gravel so that rainfall soaks into the ground (infiltrates) quickly
in these soils. Type B soils have somewhat slower infiltration, C slower still, and type D soils, usually
comprised of silts and clays have very slow infiltration so that more surface runoff occurs. Runoff curve
numbers range from 0 to 100 in theory, but in practice range from 30 to 98. A curve number of 98 is
appropriate for parking lots and streets. A curve number of 30 corresponds to brushy land in type A soils.
The more hard surface a parcel has, the higher its curve number and the greater the runoff. For a given
land use, a type A soil will have the least surface runoff and lowest curve number and type D soils the
most.
A 'A -acre residential parcel in type B soil has a runoff curve number of 75. A commercial parcel in type B
soil typically has a curve number of 92. All of these factors play into the calculation of the REF for a
particular community. Like an ERU system, residential parcels are often charged a single fee. Consider
West Saint Paul, Minnesota. Table 1 gives the total number of REFs for each land use.
Table 1. REFs for West Saint Paul, Minnesota
Lard Use
REFs
Single Family Residential
4690
Other Residential
1550
Public, semi-public land
740
Commercial
2000
Industrial
620
Total
9600
Suppose West St. Paul needed to raise $350,000 per year for its stormwater program. Then the monthly
base fee for 1 REF would $350,000/(12.9600) = $3.04. This is the correct way to set a fee. Some
communities make the mistake of working in the other direction. They determine the fee that is politically
feasible and collect as much as they can. Usually the amount is less than needed for the program.
Expectations are not met and political resistance develops. This creates legal and political exposure for
the utility.
Another issue for the REF system is the rainfall to use. In Minnesota, the rainfall amount used to
determine the REF ranges from at least 1.61 to 5.96 inches when the rainfall is specified. For some
communities including Hanover and Red Wing, the average annual runoff is used. While calculating the
average annual runoff is more tedious, it may be the fairest way to set up a REF fee system. The most
common storm used in Minnesota is the 1-year (presumably 24-hr storm). However Savage specifies the
5-yr, 2-hr storm (Savage Municipal Code), Tonka Bay (Tonka Bav Municipal Code) and Wayzata the 10-yr,
3Y-hr storm (Wayzata Municipal Code Chapter 406) , and Madison the 100-yr, 24-hr storm(Madison
Municipal Code 54.01 (3)). Other communities specify a given rainfall, typically 2-inches. The rainfall
amount chosen seems arbitrary and has a significant impact on fee amounts paid by property owners.
Figure 6 shows the implications of rainfall choice. It shows the ratio of REFs for industrial and commercial
properties to the number of REFs for a typical residential property of the same acreage. It is easy to show
that as P --> co each curve asymptotes to 1. If a rainfall of co is chosen, then all properties pay the same,
that is, it corresponds to a flat fee. As P — Ia for a residential property, the REF value for both industrial
and commercial properties approaches co. In the range Ia <P<co, the curve is monotonically
decreasing. This means that a larger value of P will favor industrial and commercial property owners
while a small value of P will favor residential property owners.
7
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
To illustrate, suppose that in our hypothetical REF system, all residential properties are charged at the
single REF rate and suppose we have 10,000 residential REFs. This number is fixed at the number of
residential parcels (10,000). Suppose that the remainder of the REFs are tied up in commercial parcels
and the number of these REFs depends on the choice of precipitation amount. At the same time, we wish
to raise $1,000,000 per year for our utility. If we choose a rainfall amount of 2 inches, the commercial
REF is 3.25 times that of a residential REF. If we choose a rainfall amount of 3.5 inches, the commercial
REF falls to a 2.02 ratio. By this simple change we have reduced the number of commercial REFs to 62 %
of what they would be for a standard rainfall of 2 inches. Suppose at 2 inches, we have 5,000 commercial
REFs for a total of 15,000 REFs. Then the monthly base fee for 1 REF would be $1,000,000/(12 . 15,000) =
$ 5.56.
REFs(CN = 88 or 92)/REFs(CN = 75)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0
2.0 4.0 6.0 s.n 10.0
Rainfall (in)
Figure 6. Implications of using different rainfall amounts in REF systems for commercial (CN = 92) and
industrial (CN = 88) properties.
CN = 92
CN = 88
Now suppose that a standard rainfall of 3.5 inches is chosen. The commercial REFs drop from 5,000 to
3,119 and the total number of REFs drop to 10,000 + 3,119 =13,119. Now the monthly base fee becomes
$1,000,000/(12. 13,119) = $6.35. In the first case, the total annual contribution of residential properties
is $5.56. 10,000. 12 = $667,200 or about 2/3 of the total annual revenue. In the 2"d case, residential
properties contribute $798,000 of the total or almost 80 percent of the total revenue.
The bottom line is that a larger rainfall amount favors commercial properties and a smaller amount favors
residential properties. This is a formula ripe for political manipulation. Any amount chosen does not
8
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
represent the amount of runoff produced in general. Therefore, the rainfall amount chosen is arbitrary,
and its selection is highly political.
A better approach is the use of the mean annual runoff when this is possible. This is less arbitrary and it
represents the amount of direct runoff for each storm. For Bowling Green, Kentucky daily rainfall totals
for 1952 to 1987 and from 2010 to 2012 show that the average annual rainfall was about 49 inches, the
median about 48 inches, and the standard deviation 9 inches. The annual rainfall ranged from about 28
inches to 77 inches, so the maximum rainfall was 2.75 times the minimum for the period. This wide
variation is why more than one year of data should be used to determine runoff. Figure 7 is a cumulative
plot of the ratios of runoff from industrial parcels to a residential parcel of the same acreage, and of a
commercial parcel to a residential parcel. The runoff estimated daily using Equation 1 is accumulated
over the years for each land use. Eventually, the REF estimate for Bowling Green approached a value of
about 3 for industrial parcels and 4.5 for commercial parcels. Using this approach, the industrial REF was
3.09 times the residential REF and the commercial REF ratio was 4.50. There is no arbitrariness in this
approach. These values represent the ratio of runoff accumulated over many years for industrial and
commercial properties relative to that for a residential property. These numbers say that on average an
acre of commercial property produces 4.50 times the amount of runoff from 1 acre of residential property.
The owner of the commercial property would pay accordingly. The fee for a 1-acre commercial property
would have a fee 4.5 times as great as for an acre of residential property.
4
•
w •
••
•
* ®• •••
Cg
W 3
0
•
•••.••
1 • 1
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 ; [st iR?k 2000 2010 2£20
• REF 88 • REF 92
Figure 7. Cumulative values of REFs for industrial and commercial properties in Bowling Green
9
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Looking at the Bowling Green case in another way, what value of precipitation for a single rainfall would
give the closest value of REF for commercial and industrial properties accumulated over the years? Using
equation 1, the best fit value of P that best approximated the accumulated industrial and commercial REFs
was about 1.58 inches of rainfall. So a single rainfall of 1.58 inches would give an industrial REF close to
3.09 and a commercial REF close to 4.50.
To better understand these results, the same analysis with 29 years of rainfall data from Escondido,
California in San Diego County gave the average annual rainfall as 13.7 inches, the median, 12.6 inches,
and the standard deviation 6.1 inches. The annual rainfall ranged from 2.26 inches to 30.9 inches for a
ratio of 13.7. This wide variability also indicates that several years of data are needed to establish the
industrial and commercial REFs. See Figure 8 below.
25
20
15
5
0
Year
REF 88 • i•ti`F 9!
Figure 8. Cumulative estimate of REFs for industrial and commercial properties in Escondido
In Escondido, an acre of industrial property generates on average 3.67 times more runoff than an acre of
residential property, while an acre of commercial property generates 5.55 times as much as a residential
acre. The corresponding single rainfall event was 1.67 inches. It is remarkable that the rainfall from two
very different climate regimes has rainfall equivalents to the average annual runoff that is within 0.1 inch.
This begs the question "would we get the same result in an even drier climate?" To answer it, the same
analysis was applied to Las Vegas.
10
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
For the 61 years from 1952 — 2012, the mean annual rainfall in Las Vegas was 4.16 inches, the median
3.99 inches, and the standard deviation 2.02 inches. The annual rainfall ranged from 0.56 inches to 9.88
inches for a ratio of almost 18. Unfortunately, it appears that using the runoff ratios even for 61 years
does not allow the REFs to be determined. Figure 9 demonstrates this clearly as the accumulated REFs
never arrive at a nearly constant value.
20
i
16
14
to
LI. el
CC
8
6
2
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 19$4) 1990 2000 2010 2020
- REF88 iik-9
Figure 9. Accumulated REFs for Las Vegas, Nevada
•
•
•s�
• •
a•
•
+•••■
a
•#
•a
•
a•
• #•a R• •+
444444
■•a •
Ra•
•
At least in moister climates, using values of standard rainfall as high as 2 inches will favor non-residential
customers.
As might be expected, calculating REFs from a single year of rainfall data would tend to favor non-
residential customers in a year of unusually heavy precipitation and residential customers during a
drought year. Figure 10 based on Escondido data illustrates this. The x-axis is annual rainfall and the y-
axis REFs calculated from each year of data. The best fit curves show the tendency for lower rainfall to
increase industrial and commercial single year REF values. Also, by comparing accumulated REF values
from Bowling Green and Escondido, we might expect that commercial and industrial customers of a REF
fee system will do better in wetter climates while residential customers do better in dryer climates.
Looking at the Las Vegas data, the upward trend in the data depicted in Figure 9 also suggests the same
conclusion.
11
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
35
30
25
N
it 20
R
Jis
10
5
0
•.
y = 5Z.8841C"."1"
R2 = 0.4009
•
•
•
• . -
a pa
x
y = 24.508x
R2 = 0.4002
0 5
Annual Rainfall (inches)
REF 88 REF 9Power (REF fa%rj
Figure 11. Variation of 1-year REFs with precipitation for the year
35
There are many ways to politically manipulate a REF system. I chose a Y acre residential lot with type B
soil as the residential parcel. Suppose that the average residential property is in an NRCS type B soil but
the community decides to use a type C soil to determine REFs. Doing so will benefit non-residential
properties. Figure 11 captures this effect. Alternatively, suppose that the community decided to use a
smaller residential lot as the basis for determining REFs. A smaller lot has a higher runoff curve number
for the same soil type. A higher curve number means more runoff. Then the REFs for nonresidential
properties go down favoring industrial and commercial customers. Conversely, if a larger residential lot
size is used as the basis for determining REFs, then residential customers benefit.
12
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
10
8
7
IA
5
'.i
2
1
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 S,r70
Precipitation (inches)
E Comm ---C Comm
Figure 11. Variation of REFs with NRCS soil type
3.00 10.00
Summarizing, selecting any rainfall amount is completely arbitrary in fee setting for the REF system and
subject to political manipulation. Politics will always enter into the selection of a standard rainfall amount,
lot size, or soil type and will result in legal exposure for the utility. By contrast, using the mean annual
rainfall/direct runoff when enough rainfall data exists requires more initial effort, but creates a nexus
between the amount of runoff produced on average and the fees paid. This should result in less legal
exposure for the utility. Use of many years of rainfall data to determine REFs for nonresidential properties
does not appear to work well for communities in very dry climates like Las Vegas.
Other Fee Systems
Last year we divided fee systems into 14 broad categories. These categories are given in Table A-1.
Besides ERU, REF, tier systems (for more information on these, see Campbell, 2010), and flat fees, there
are some fairly unique and creative ideas. For example, several communities base fees on the number
and size of water meters. Warren County, Kentucky is one of these. At first glance, this may not seem to
make sense, but if you consider that many communities base sanitary sewer fees on the amount of water
used, then it begins to make sense, especially if the fee is used primarily to support water quality
improvement. Other communities like Northbrook, Illinois base the stormwater fee on the amount of
water used.
13
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Georgetown, South Carolina uses a slight variation on the water meter method. The fee for residential
properties is activated by the presence of a water meter or an electric meter.
West Richland, Washington uses another very creative way of setting fees for non-residential properties.
The non-residential fee is based on the number of parking spaces. This is one way to encourage businesses
to use larger parking spaces to enable people to get in and out of their cars. There also appears to be a
nexus between stormwater produced and fees. This approach also encourages property owners to share
parking and reduce total impervious area. For example, a church and adjacent library could share parking
since they are open at different hours.
Some communities use an Intensity Development Factor which bases fees on the percent of impervious
area. Sometimes, these are difficult to distinguish from REF systems. Another system specifies different
fees for different zoning categories. These, too are difficult to distinguish from REF systems.
Classifying fee systems into broad categories is difficult because even within one category, there are wide
variations in practices. For example, some communities assess a flat administrative fee and then add a
fee based on ERUs, REFs, or some other fee system. These are combinations of flat fee and other systems.
In these cases, the category is chosen as the non -flat fee system.
Challenges to Stormwater Utilities
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District was challenged successfully in court and the District plans to
appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. In the interim, they can no longer collect fees. It is not clear why the
District cannot enact a utility in a state that has at least 99 other utilities. Utilities are a state and local
function so that the highest court to decide the issue is the Ohio Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in Idaho the state Supreme Court found against the Lewiston SWU, and since this utility was
similar to ones set up in Nampa and Pocatella, these communities decided to repeal their utilities.
Despite these setbacks, stormwater utilities continue to be enacted, and in most cases, upheld when
challenged in court.
Analysis
In a previous survey, we attempted to address the question of why utilities form freely in some states, but
not in others. The one obstacle we have identified is lack of clear statutory authority. A clear state law is
helpful to the formation of utilities. Within the last 10 years we have seen two catastrophic events,
Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The states most affected by these two hurricanes have failed to enact any
stormwater utilities yet. It would seem that the states of Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey,
and New York have missed a window of opportunity. Political support would be strongest following major
floods, the only 100 percent effective floodplain outreach. It is hard to understand why these states would
not give clear authority to enact a stormwater utility if the communities wanted to. A state law is not a
new tax. Leave it to the communities to decide if they want one or not.
In New Jersey, we are told that Governor Christie would not support such a law. This is a state with a
Republican governor that has voted Democratic in the last four Presidential elections. There appears to
be little or no influence on SWU formation based on red state — blue state inclinations. We see states
14
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
with more than 100 SWUs that have voted Democratic in the past four Presidential elections and we see
Texas with more than 100 that has voted Republican in the last four elections.
Another obvious conclusion from the figure is that utilities tend to cluster. After one city develops a utility,
surrounding suburbs and communities see the benefits and form their own. This is particularly obvious
in the Minneapolis -St. Paul area and in other major metropolitan areas such as Dallas -Fort Worth,
Indianapolis, and Atlanta (Griffin).
However, utility formation can be inhibited by state laws. For example, the Birmingham, Alabama
Stormwater Management Authority utility was created in 1995, yet it has not sparked the formation of
utilities in surrounding communities. One reason for this is that the state law enabling this utility applies
only to class 1 municipalities. In Alabama, there is only one class 1 municipality. This shows the
importance of states providing legal authority for stormwater utilities. Several communities withdrew
from the Stormwater Management Authority and this led to its collapse. This utility was underfunded
and participant communities decided they could do a better job with their water quality than the
Authority. It was recently repealed.
15
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Summary
The current survey contains 1491 U.S. SWUs and 19 Canadian SWUs. However, twelve of the American
utilities have been repealed so that the survey only contains data on 1479 of these. Five states: Florida,
Minnesota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin now have more than 100 stormwater utilities while Ohio
stands at 99. Nationally, the median monthly fee is $4.00 and for those communities using the Equivalent
Residential Unit (ERU) system, the median ERU is 2842 square feet impervious.
The Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) system based on a given storm or a given amount of rainfall is
arbitrary and subject to political whim and the base fee can be manipulated in many ways by choosing
the standard rainfall amount, the standard residential lot size, or by choosing the hydrologic soil group.
By contrast, the use of average annual runoff to set REFs appears to be a consistent method of fee setting
when enough years of rainfall data are available to get a steady value of runoff for different land uses.
For very dry climates of which Las Vegas is typical, it is difficult to calculate reliable values of the REF. Only
a few REF communities use the annual runoff to set fees.
The transformation from a SWU-hostile state to a SWU-friendly state should begin with clear statutory
authority for each city, county, and even watersheds. Professional organizations such as the state
stormwater association or the state American Public Works Association chapter should be involved to
provide support, encouragement, and information to communities interested in forming a stormwater
utility. For Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York the time to create clear statutory authority is now
while Hurricane Sandy is fresh in everyone's minds.
There is no correlation between red state - blue state tendencies and the number of stormwater utilities
in a state. Other than clear statutory authority, we do not currently understand why SWUs from freely in
some states and not others. This is an area for future research. A clear understanding of factors affecting
SWU formation within states might allow the development of conditions more conducive to the formation
of SWUs.
16
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Appendix Al. Stormwater Utility Metadata
Code I Meaning
E ERU
F Fixed Rate
T Tier System
R Residential Equivalence Factor (or similar)
D Two Level (Residential/Cornmercial)
stem Residential/Commercial)
Y
Existence of Utility/Fee Verified*
Fee per Parcel Area
Repealed
Water Meter
U Unique Fee**
JU By Water Usage
17
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Appendix A2. U.S. Stormwater Utilities
04, C.ommur i
Year
ft=} Monthl lee Created Po Li
Jefferson County Stormwater
1 Management Authority
AL
D
$0.42
1995
662.047
2 Mobile
3 Hot Springs
4 Flagstaff
5 Mesa
6 Oro Valley
AL
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
F $3.00
D $3.00
T 1500 $0.00
F $7.32
E 5000 $2.90
2009
2008
2003
2006
2008
195,111
35,680
68,667
462,821
41,627
7 Peoria
AZ
$0.00
1995
154.065
8 Albany
CA
F
$3.47
1992
18.539
9 Arcata
CA
E 2500 $1.96
2001
17.231
10 Berkeley
11 Burlingame
12 Carlsbad
CA
CA
CA
R
S
F
$10.48
$1.95
1991
2009
1994
112,580
28,806
106,000
13 Carmel
CA
E 4000 $8.77
2001
15.677
14 Chino
CA
T
$8.96
1989
77,983
15 Citrus Heights
CA R
1997
83.301
16 Contra Costa County
CA
E 5,000 $2.50
2012
1, 041.274
17 Davis
CA S
$4.83
2012
65.622
18 Del Mar
CA
F
$8.66
2009
4,161
19 Dixon
CA
F
$3.77
18.351
20 El Paso de Robles
21 Elk Grove
22 Escalon
CA
VV
$0.00
24,297
CA S
$7.28 2004 153.015
CA T
$0.00 1993 7,132
23 Escondido
CA V
$2.10 1994 143.911
24 Folsom
25 Fortuna
CA V
CA V
$0.00 1990 72,203
$0.55 1993 11,926
1
. III ., IMENEWED
26 Galt CA F $2.43 2002 23,647
27 Grover Beach CA F $4.64 13,275
28 Hollister CA V $0.00 34.928
29 Larkspur CA E 3,000 $0.00 1995 11,926
30 Los Angeles CA R $1.92 1993 3,792,621
31 Millbrae CA V $0.00 20,532
32 Modesto CA F $3.23 2004 201,165
33 Monterey CA F $5.44 1997 27,810
34 Oceanside CA F $1.00 2002 167,086
2002 163,924
36 Palo Alto CA T 2,500 $11.99 1990 64,403
37 Pinole CA F $2.92 1979 18,390
38 Poway CA V $4.36 47,811
39 Rancho Cordova CA E 3,500 $5.54 1996 64,776
40 Rancho Palos Verdes CA E 3,804 $7.17 2005 41,643
41 Redding CA T 43,560 $1.32 1993 89,861
42 Richmond CA V $0.00 103,701
43 Sacramento CA A $11.31 466,488
44 Sacramento County CA F $5.85 1995 1,400,949
45 Salinas CA V $0.00 150,441
46 San Bruno CA S $4.20 1993 41,114
47 San Carlos CA T $0.00 1994 28,755
48 San Clemente CA T $5.00 1993 63,522
1990 1,307,402
50 San Jose CA T $0.00 1982 945,942
$1.77 2001 83,781
52 San Ramon CA F $1.92 1993 73,333
$0.00 1.784.642
.IM onthl Fee
Year
Created , Populatilayu'
35 Ontario
CA R
49 San Diego
CA W $0.95
51 San Marcos
CA F
53 Santa Clara County
CA V
2
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
54 Santa Clarita
55 Santa Cruz
56 Santa Monica
57 Santa Rosa
58 South San Francisco
59 Stockton
60 Tracy
61 Vallejo
62 Vista
ERU i Year
(fF) Mont Foe Created Po • Motion
CA
CA T 43,560
CA R
CA F
CA V
CA E 2,347
CA E 3,140
CA F
CA F
$2.00
$1.77
$3.00
$1.96
$0.00
$2.10
$1.20
$1.97
$1.80
1994
1994
1995
1996
1994
176,320
59,946
89,736
167,815
63,632
291,707
84,266
115,942
93,834
63 Woodland
CA T $0.00 55.468
64 Adams County
CO S $1.67 2013 469,193
65 Arvada
CO S $4.17 2002 106,433
66 Aurora CO E 2,500 $6.42 2002 345,803
67 Berthoud CO F $3.75 1989.5,105
68 Boulder CO R $7.69 1983 310,048
69 Brighton CO T $0.00 2011 35.719
70 Canon City CO S $5.46 2004 16,318
71 Castle Rock CO E 3,255 $6.65 2002 48,231
72 Colorado Springs CO - $0.00 2005 416,427
73 Deriver CO T $7.38 1980 649,495
74 Englewood CO S $1.39 30,255
75 Erie CO A
76 Evans CO A $4.08 1998 18,537
$5.00 2003 19.723
77 Federal Heights
CO S $3.15 2001 11.973
78 Firestone CO T $0.00 2009 11,175
79 Fort Collins CO R $14.26 1986 152,061
80 Fountain CO V $0.00 25,846
81 Frederick CO A $6.23 2008 10,196
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
3
82 Golden
CO
F
$3.20
1997
19,393
83 Greeley
CO
R
$5.24
2002
96,539
84 Idaho Springs
CO V
85 LaFayette
CO F
86 Lakewood
$0.00
$4.27
CO E 2,250 $1.98
2006
2007
1998
1,717
24,453
147,214
87 Larimer County
CO T
$0.00
315,988
88 Littleton CO A $2.00 1986 44,275
89 Longmont CO S $13.05 1984 89,919
90 Louisville CO E 3,500 $2.00 2007 19,588
91 Loveland CO T $9.10 1987 71,334
92 Northglenn CO D 43,560 $2.00 2004 37,499
93 Parker CO E 4,000 $6.00 1999 48,608
94 Pueblo CO S $2.40 2003 108,249
95 Sheridan CO D $3.00 2005 5,874
Southeast Metro Stormwater
96 Authority CO T $0.00 2006
97 Westminster CO T $3.00 2001 110,945
98 Windsor CO R $3.98 2003 20,422
99 Woodland Park
CO D $2.00 1994 7,153
100 Washington DC T $0.00 601,723
101 Lewes DE F $5.00 2010 2,747
102 Wilmington DE T 789 $0.00 2006 71,305
103 Alachua County FL V $0.00 1996 243,574
104 Altamonte Springs FL E 2,492 $6.75 1989 41,496
105 Anna Maria FL E 2,254 $3.75 2008 1,503
106 Apopka FL T $0.00 2002 41,542
107 Atlantic Beach FL E 1,790 $8.39 1991 12,655
108 Auburndale FL F $0.75 13,675
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
5
109 Aventura FL E 1,548 $2.50 1997 36,610
110 Bartow FL E 2,520 $3.75 2005 17,501
111 Bay County FL D $3.33 2005 169,856
112 Bay Harbor Islands FL E 1,548 $5.00 1996 5,762
113 Belle Glade FL V $0.00 1998 17,667
114 Belle Isle FL E 4,087 $4.00 2005 6,111
115 Belleair FL E 5,459 $11.92 2012
116 Boca Raton FL E 2,837 $3.11 1993 85,329
117 Boynton Beach FL E 1,937 $5.00 1993 68,996
118 Bradenton FL F $4.50 1996 50,193
119 Bradenton Beach FL F $9.58 2004 1,187
120 Brevard County FL E 2,500 $3.00 1990 543,566
121 Callaway FL F $1.00 1991 14,493
122 Cape Canaveral FL T 2,074 $5.00 2003 9,916
123 Cape Coral FL A $3.00 2004 157,476
124 Casselberry FL E 2,304 $7.00 1993 26,387
125 Charlotte County FL F $2.50 1991 160,511
126 Clearwater FL E 1,830 $14.15 1990 107,784
127 Clermont FL E 3,154 $5.00 1990 29,126
128 Cocoa FL E 2,166 $4.50 1992 17,147
129 Cocoa Beach FL E 2,900 $6.00 2003 11,235
130 Coconut Creek FL E 2,070 $2.65 2004 53,915
131 Collier County FL V $0.00 1991 328,134
132 Coral Gables FL E 2,346 $6.70 1993 47,783
133 Daytona Beach FL E 1,661 $8.67 2004 61,028
134 De Land FL E 3,100 $7.83 2009 27,041
135 DeBary FL E 2,560 $7.00 2005 19,324
136 Delray Beach FL E 2,502 $5.33 1990 61,209
5
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
137 Deltona
138 Doral
139 Dundee
140 Dunedin
141 Eagle Lake
142 Edgewater
143 El Portal
144 Eustis
145 Fernandina Beach
146 Florida City
147 Fort Lauderdale
148 Fort Meade
149 Fort Myers
150 Fort Pierce
151 Fort Walton Beach
152 Frostproof
153 Fruitland Park
154 Gainesville
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
3,484 $6.34 1996 85,219
E 1,548 $4.00 2005 46,789
E 4,749 $1.20 2003 3,764
E 1,708 $9.30 2007 35,354
D $4.00 2007 2,283
E 2,027 $8.00 2004 20,761
E 1,548 $3.00 2,380
D 2,187 $6.00 1997 18,805
F $4.00 2012 11,705
E 1,250 $2.50 2000 11,511
T $0.00 1992 168,528
T $4.25 1990 5,696
E 500 $0.96 2009 63,512
E 2,186 $4.50 2005 41,993
E 3,200 $3.00 1990 19,793
F $3.00 1997 3,030
F $2.00 2005 4,132
E 2,300 $8.56 1988 125,326
155 Golden Beach
FL E 8,000 $35.00 1993 940
156 Grant-Valkaria FL E 2,500 $3.00 2008 3,851
157 Gulf Breeze FL E 4,450 $4.50 2006 5,870
158 Gulfport FL E 2,300 $3.21 1995 12,041
159 Haines City FL T $4.50 2002 20,807
160 Hallandale Beach FL E 958 $3.35 1980 37,800
161 Hernando County FL - $0.00 2003 173,094
162 Hialeah FL E 1,664 $2.50 1998 229,969
163 Hialeah Gardens FL E 1,267 $2.00 1996 19,297
164 Hillsborough County FL V $1.00 1989 1,267,775
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
6
165 Holly Hill
FL E 2,050 $6.00 1997 11,663
166 Hollywood FL E 2,250 $3.22 1993 143,357
167 Homestead FL E 2,000 $3.37 1992 61,940
168 Indian Creek Village FL E 1,548 $4.00 1999 88
169 Indian Harbor Beach FL E 2,500 $3.00 8,228
170 Jacksonville FL T $0.00 2007 827,908
171 Jacksonville Beach FL E 1,541 $5.00 1990 21,523
172 Jupiter FL E 2,651 $4.37 1994 55,911
173 Key Biscayne FL E 1,083 $7.50 1993 12,637
174 Key West FL E 1,400 $7.35 2001 24,909
175 Kissimmee FL E 2,404 $7.38 1989 61,346
176 Lake Alfred FL T $2.00 1999 5,077
177 Lake Mary FL E 4,576 $4.00 13,900
178 Lake Worth FL E 1,748 $5.80 1993 35,306
179 Lakeland FL E 5,000 $6.00 1999 98,589
180 Largo FL E 2,257 $5.32 1989 77,723
181 Lauderdale Lakes FL E 2,133 $4.57 1997 33,191
182 Lauderdale -by -the -Sea FL E 4,472 $3.50 2004 6,168
183 Lauderhill FL T $0.00 68,117
184 Leesburg FL E 2,000 $6.00 1994 20,390
185 Leon County FL E 2,723 $1.67 1991
186 Longwood FL E 2,898 $6.00 13,745
187 Madeira Beach FL E 1,249 $5.00 4,267
188 Maitland FL E 2,532 $7.25 16,076
189 Malabar FL E 2,500 $3.00 1992 2,758
190 Manatee County FL V $0.00 1991 327,142
277,971
191 Marathon
FL E 4,769 $10.00 2005 8,387
192 Margate
FL E 2,382 $3.57 1993 54,270
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
ill WIEN
193 Marion County
194 Martin County
Fee • ERU Year
State T e ftw : .M4nthi Fee Created I Pt,: lation•
FL
FL
E
E
2,275
$1.25
3,428 $0.00
2009
332,529
147,495
195 Medley
FL E 1,487 $3.00
1991
857
196 Melbourne FL E 2,500 $3.00 1999 76,095
197 Melbourne Beach FL E 2,500 $3.00 2000 3,102
198 Miami Beach FL E 791 $9.06 1996 89,840
199 Miami Gardens FL E 1,800 $4.00 2006 109,680
200 Miami Shores FL E 2,466 $3.75 2000 10,720
201 Miami Springs FL F $3.67 1993 14,129
202 Miami -Dade County FL E 1,548 $4.00 2004 408,750
203 Milton FL V $0.00 2008 8,984
204 Minneola FL E 3,050 $4.00 2001 9,531
124,302
206 Mount Dora FL E 2,500 $5.00 12,534
207
208 Naples FL E 1,934 $12.39 1994 19,939
205 Miramar
FL F $5.00 1998
Mulberry
FL E 3,250 $4.00 3.867
209 Neptune Beach
FL E 3,164 $3.00
2002 7,090
210 New Port Richey FL E 2,629 $3.36 2001 14,961
211 New Smyrna Beach FL E 1,818 $7.00 1995 22,481
212 Niceville FL T 7,500 $4.51 2004 12,941
$7.72 1994 7,305
214 North Lauderdale FL E 2,138 $3.00 1995 41,782
215 North Miami FL E 1,760 $4.93 1998 60,143
216 North Miami Beach FL E 1,800 $4.50 1992 42,504
217 North Redington Beach FL E 1,687 $0.00 1,418
218 Oakland Park FL E 1,507 $6.00 1989 42,126
213 North Bay Village
FL D 2,415
219 Ocala
FL E 1.948 $5.00
220 Ocoee
1988 56,517
FL E 2,054 $7.00 36.320
8
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Fee I ERU Year
T ■e ( } ...dnthi F Created , Po Walton
2,550 $3.00 1998 13,618
FL E 1,548 $1.90 15,579
1,169,107
FL E 2,000 $9.99 1989 243,195
1996
221 Oldsmar
FL E
222 Opa-Locka
223 Orange County
224 Orlando
225 Ormond Beach
226 Oviedo
FL
V
$0.00
FL E 3,000 $8.00 1987
38.153
FL E 2,464 $7.00 1993 33,528
103,227
FL E 3,432 $8.00 2004 76,499
227 Palm Bay
FL E 4,602 $4.47 1991
228 Palm Coast
229 Palmetto
FL T $0.00 1999 12.774
230 Panama City FL V $0.00 1991 36,686
FL E 2,890 $3.92 2007 466,457
232 Pembroke Park FL E 1,548 $6.25 1996 6,214
233 Pensacola FL E 2,998 $5.70
234 Pinecrest FL E 1,548 $4.00 2002 18,657
231 Pasco County
2001 52.197
235
Pinellas County
FL E 2,339 $9.67 2013 929.048
236 Plant City FL E 2,280 $5.50 2004 35,817
FL E 4,489 $2.50 2012 86,524
238 Polk City FL T $1.50 2003 1,580
237 Plantation
239 Polk County FL $0.00 2012 609.492
240 Pompano Beach FL E 2,880 $3.00 1997 78,191
3,050 $8.25 1993 45,823
242 Port Saint Lucie FL T $0.00 1988 88,769
1,539
244 Riviera Beach FL E 1,920 $4.50 2003 29,884
245 Rockledge FL E 2,922 $3.75 2000 20,170
246 Royal Palm Beach FL E 2,723 $4.00 2012 31,864
247 FL E 1,865 $7.25 16,884
248 Saint Cloud FL E 2,664 $6.35 2007 20.074
241 Port Orange
FL E
243 Redington Beach
FL F $7.50
Safety Harbor
9
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
.1 IIME
Saint Johns County
Saint Pete Beach
Saint Petersburg
Sanford
Sarasota County
Satellite Beach
Sebastian
South Daytona
South Miami
Stuart
Sunny Isles Beach
Sunrise
Surfside
Sweetwater
Tallahassee
Tamarac
Tampa
Tarpon Springs
Tavares
Tequesta
Titusville
Treasure Island
Umatilla
Venice
Volusia County
West Melbourne
West Miami
West Palm Beach
Yea
Month) Fes .Created
FL E 3,000 $6.50
FL E 3,813 $3.69
FL E 2,719 $6.84
FL E 2,126 $7.63
FL E 3,153 $7.55
FL E 3,000 $5.42
FL E 3,285 $4.00
FL E 2,000 $9.00
FL E 1,865 $3.00
FL E 3,707 $3.95
FL E 1,548 $4.00
FL E 1,884 $6.82
FL E 1,040 $10.70
FL E 1,548 $4.00
FL E 1,990 $7.95
FL E 1,830 $9.58
FL E 3,310 $3.00
FL E 1,945 $5.65
FL E 3,000 $4.50
FL E 2,507 $7.13
FL R $6.62
FL E 1,513 $4.74
FL E 3,000 $4.00
FL R
FL E 2,775 $6.00
FL E 2,500 $3.00
FL E 1,400 $2.50
FL E 2,171 $8.48
1994
1989
1991
1989
1997
2001
1989
2000
2000
1999
1997
1998
2000
1986
1993
2003
1992
1990
1994
2008
1995
1992
1992
1996
P= =.. latiou.
123,135
9,391
248,232
38,291
325,957
10,109
20,339
13,177
10,741
14,633
15,315
85,779
4,909
14,226
150,624
55,588
303,447
21,003
14,248
5,273
40,670
7,450
2,896
17,764
443,343
9,824
5,863
82,103
10
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Comrnunit
Fee: ERU
State T e {fl2
Year
reated
277 West Park
FL
E
1,351
$3.50
2012
14,609
278 Wilton Manors
279 Winter Garden
280 Winter Haven
281 Winter Park
282 Winter Springs
FL E 3,460 $4.37
FL E 4,077 $5.13
FL F $3.00
FL E 2,324 $11.56
FL E 2,123 $5.50
1992
2006
1998
1992
12,697
14,351
26,487
24,090
31,666
283 Albany
284 Americus GA E 3,000 $4.00
285 Athens - Clarke County GA R $3.50
286 Atlanta GA $0.00
GA E 2,700 $2.50 2014 77,431
2010
2004
17,103
101,489
416,474
287 Auburn
GA T $0.00 2011 6,900
288 Austell GA F $1.00 5,200
289 Avondale Estates GA E 2,900 $5.00 2004 2,995
290 Barrow County GA E 3,478 $1.50 2008 46,144
291 Braselton
GA E 3,478 $1.50 1,206
292 Camilla
GA E 3,360 $4.00 2010 5,669
293 Canton
GA E 2,000 $2.65 7,709
294 Cartersville
GA E 3,000 $3.75 15,925
295 Chamblee
GA E 3,000 $4.00 2004 9,552
296 Clayton County GA E 2,950 $3.75 2006 236,517
297 College Park GA E 3,523 $3.00 2007 20,382
298 Columbia County GA E 100 $0.09 1999 89,288
299 Conyers
GA T $0.00 2002 10,689
300 Covington GA E 2,600 $3.00 2005 13,226
301 Decatur
GA E 2,900 $6.25 1999 18,147
302 DeKalb County GA E 3,000 $4.00 2003 665,865
303 Doraville GA E 3,000 $4.00 2005 9,862
304 Douglasville-Douglas County GA E 2,543 $4.00 2003 92,174
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
305 Duluth GA E 2,654 $3.00
306 Dunwoody GA E 3,000 $5.75
2011
2009
22,122
46,267
307 Evans
GA E 100 $0.09
17,727
308 Fairburn
309 Fayette County
310 Fayetteville
311 Garden City
312 Gilmer County
GA T 3,300 $4.08 2005
GA E 1,000 $0.35 2011
GA E 3,800 $2.95 2004
GA E 3,000 $4.75 2008
GA V $0.00
5,464
107,784
11,148
11,289
23456
313 Griffin
GA E 2,200 $4.79 1998 23,451
314 Gwinnett County GA E 100 $2.46 2006 588,448
315 Henry County GA E 4,780 $3.32 2006 119,341
316 Hinesville GA E 2,635 $5.86 30,392
317 Holly Springs GA E 2,700 $4.00 2009 3,195
318 Kennesaw GA D 1,000 $5.00 30,990
319 Lawrenceville GA V $0.00 2007 29,258
320 Loganville GA E 3,000 $4.00 5,435
321 McDonough GA E 3,000 $3.30 8,493
322 Norcross GA E 100 $2.17 8,410
323 Peachtree City
GA E 4,600 $3.95 31.580
324 Perry GA F $2.00 2012 14,215
325
326 Rockdale County GA E 3,420 $3.39 2005 70,111
327 Roswell GA 7 $0.00 79,334
328 Smyrna GA E 3,900 $2.45 2007 40,999
329 Snellville GA E 3,800 $3.10 2008 19,983
330 Stockbridge GA E 2,000 $4.97 2004 9,853
331 Stone Mountain GA E 3,000 $0.00 7,145
332 Sugar Hill GA E 1,000 $1.50 2008 16,725
Powder Springs
GA E 2,840 $3.79 2012 13,940
12
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
IR
S • imp
" '
aim-� ru•
333 Union City GA E 2,800 $4.00
334 Valdosta GA T 3,704 $0.00
335 Warner Robbins GA T $0.00
336 Woodstock GA E 2,700 $4.20
337 Ackley IA F $3.00
338 Adel IA E 3,000 $3.00
Year
seated Populatl-
2013
2006
2006
2006
20,501
43,724
48,804
10,050
1,665
4,563
339 Alburnett
IA F $1.50 2012 673
340 Algona
IA T
$3.00
5,741
341 Altoona
IA E 4,000 $5.00 2010 10,345
342 Ames
IA T $0.00 1994 50,731
343 Ankeny
IA D 4,000 $5.50 45,582
344 Asbury IA F $4.00 4357
345 Belle Plaine IA F $4.00 2,537
346 Bellevue IA F $5.00 2191
347 Belmond IA F $4.00 2009 2,376
348 Bettendorf IA E 2,500 $2.70 2003 32,445
349 Bondurant IA E 2,450 $3.25 2010 3,860
350 Boone IA E 3,000 $2.00 12,633
351 Brooklyn
IA F $2.00 1468
352 Buffalo IA F $2.00 1,270
353 Burlington IA E 25,000 $2.00 26,839
354 Carroll IA E 2,500 $3.00 10,103
355 Cedar Falls
IA F $3.00 2006 36.145
356 Cedar Rapids IA F $4.78 126,326
357 Centerville IA F $3.00 2008 5,513
358 Charles City IA F $4.00 2008 7,812
359 Cherokee IA F $3.00 2004 5,369
360 Clarinda IA F $2.00 2006 5,690
13
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
361 Clarion
362 Clear Lake
363 Clive
364 Conrad
365 Coralville
366 Creston
Corn munit
Fee ERU Year
State T pe ftx ,.. nthl Fey Created , Pe ulalion
IA T $0.00 2011 2,850
IA T $0.00
IA E 3,667 $5.60
IA F $4.00
IA E 3,440 $2.00 2005
IA V $0.00
8,161
2005
15,000
2008
1,108
18,907
7,597
367 Dallas Center
IA F
$4.00
1623
368 Davenport IA E 2,600 $2.42 2004 98,359
369 De Witt IA T $2.75 5,049
370 Deloit IA V $0.00 264
371 Des Moines IA E 2,349 $10.95
372 Dubuque IA E 2,917 $5.98 2003 57,686
373 Farnhamville IA V $0.00 420
374 Forest City IA F $5.00 4,362
375 Fort Dodge IA E 2,533 $3.00 2007 26,309
376 Garnavillo IA T $0.00 745
377 Garner IA V $0.00 2,922
378 Grimes IA A $5.25 2012 8,378
9218
380 Guttenberg IA F $1.50 2010 1,987
1995 206,599
379 Grinnell
IA E 3250 $2.74
381 Hancock
IA V $0.00 207
382 Hiawatha
IA F $1.50 2000 6.694
383 Hillsboro
IA V $0.00 205
384 Indianola
IA E 3,400 $2.00 2011 12,998
385 Iowa City
IA D 3,129 $3.00 2004 67.831
386 Johnston IA E 4,000 $5.05 2012 17,278
387 Kalona IA F $3.00
388 Kelley IA T $0.00 300
2010 2,363
14
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
11-7
389 Lake City
390 Lake Mills
391 Laurens
392 Le Mars
393 Mallard
394 Marengo
395 Marion
396 Marshalltown
397 Mason City
398 Milford
399 Nevada
400 Norwalk
401 Odebolt
402 Ogden
403 Oskaloosa
404 Perry
405 Postville
406 Reinbeck
407 Rolfe
408 Sac City
409 Sioux Center
410 Sioux City
411 Slater
412 Solon
413 State Center
414 Storm Lake
415 Urbandale
416 Victor
Fee ERU
State I T pe. itt'1
IA F
IA T
IA F
IA D
IA V
IA F
IA D
IA F
IA F
IA F
IA F
IA F
IA F
IA F
IA E
IA F
IA F
IA T
IA D
IA F
IA T
IA V
IA D
IA
IA T
IA E
IA E
IA V
$1.00
$0.00
$3.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.50
2,791 $3.50
$2.16
$1.00
$3.00
$5.25
$7.50
$1.00
$3.00
2,750 $2.00
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$3.00
$3.00
$2.00
$0.00
$3.00
$0.50
$5.08
2,750 $4.00
3,200 $2.00
$0.00
Meat
Created
"'WIN
2005 1,727
2,100
1258
2008 9,826
298
2,535
2,011
26,009
29,172
2012 2,954
6,658
8,821
2004 1,153
2,044
10,938
2004 7,633
2007 2,273
2008 1,751
2012 584
2,368
2007 6,327
1990 85,013
1,306
2,173
1,349
10,076
2010 40,311
952
15
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
417
418
419
420
421
422
Waterloo
Waukee
Wellman
West Des Moines
Windsor Heights
Woodward
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
F $2.50
E 2,973 $4.25
F $2.76
E 4,000 $4.25
Q 1,000 $5.25
F $3.00
2009
2006
2012
68,406
5,126
1,408
46,403
4,805
1,200
423 Coeur D'Alene
ID E 3,000 $4.00 2004 34,514
424 Lewiston ID $0.00 2008 31,794
425 Nampa ID $0.00 2010 51,867
426 Pocatello ID $0.00 51,466
427 Aurora IL F $3.45 1998 170,617
428 Bloomington IL T $0.00 2004 70,970
429 Champaign IL T 1,000 $0.00 2012 81,055
430 Decatur IL E 4,500 $3.67 2014 75,407
431 Downer's Grove IL T 3,300 $0.00 2012 48,163
432 East Moline IL T 2,200 $0.00 2009 20,333
433 Freeport IL
434 Highland Park IL E 2,765 $6.00 31,614
435 Hoffman Estates IL T 3,300 $0.00 2013 51,895
436 Matteson IL D 4,000 $7.00 2013 19,147
437 Moline IL T $1.94 2000 42,916
438 Morton IL E 3,300 $4.88 2005 15,757
439 Normal IL E 3,200 $4.60 2006 45,386
440 Northbrook IL W $1.00 33,170
441 Palatine IL F $6.13 2012
442 Rantoul IL F $3.43 2001 12,857
443 Richton Park IL D $4.66 12,533
444 Rock Island IL T 2,800 $0.00 2002 39,020
T
$0.00 25,638
16
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
445 Rolling Meadows
446 Tinley Park
3,604 $3.71 2001 23,682
W $1.99 1983 56,703
447 Urbana
IL E 3,100
$4.94
2012
41.250
448 Winetka
449
450 Anderson IN E 2,500 $3.50 2002 59,734
451 Angola IN F $2.08 7,344
452 Bargersville IN E 2,350 $9.46 2005 2,120
453 Batesville IN T $2.00 2005 6,033
454 Berne IN T $0.00 4,114
455 Bloomington IN R $2.70 1998 69,291
456 Brownsburg IN E 2900 $5.00 2006 14,520
457 Cedar Lake 1N E 2903 $5.00 2006 9,279
458 Centerville IN E 3536 $8.50 2,624
459 Chandler IN F
460 Chesterton IN D 3,585 $6.10 11,139
IL E 3,400 $21.83 2014
12,370
Albany
IN F
$12.40
2,368
$4,00 2004 3.500
461 Cicero
IN V $0.00 4.303
462 Clarksville
IN E 2,527 $2.95 2004 21,400
463 Connersville
IN E 2,662 $5.15 15.411
464 Crawfordsville IN V $6.00 15,243
465 Crown Point IN D $6.00 19,806
466 Cumberland IN F $5.20 2007 5,500
467 Danville IN E 3,700 $0.00 6,418
468 Delaware County IN T $0.00 97,322
469 Dyer IN E 4,343 $6.00 1991 13,895
470 Elkhart County IN E 3,600 $1.25 2,008
471 Farmersburg IN V $0.00 1,107
472 Fishers IN E 3,318 $4.95 79,127
17
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
WO 11111111E1111fil
473 Floyd County
474
475
476
477
478
Fort Wayne
Fortville
Franklin
Goshen
Greendale
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
ERU Year i
rt-' Monthly Fee.
E 3,700
$3.25
E 2,500 $3.65
ID $8.00
T $5.00
E 2,800 $1.25
E 3,000 $4.39
Created I P+ i ula
2007
2009
70.823
255,824
3,444
23,712
29,383
4,296
479 Greenfield
IN
E 2,250 $2.00
2005
14,600
480 Greenwood
481 Griffith
482 Highland
483 Howard County
484 Indianapolis/Marion County
485 Jasper
486 Jeffersonville
487 Lafayette
488 Lake County
489 Lake Station
490 Lebanon
IN
IN
IN
E 2,800 $5.00
F $7.50
T $8.69
2012
2005
51,584
17,334
64,322
IN
F
$2.50
84,964
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
E 2,800 $1.25
E 5,000 $3.96
E 2,500 $3.50
E 3,200 $5.00
F $3.30
F $8.33
E 3,000 $4.75
2001
2003
2009
791,926
12,100
27,362
56,397
484,564
12,572
491 Leo Cedarville
IN
V
$0.00
492 Logansport
IN
T
$7.47
15,259
2,782
19,684
493 Marion
IN
F
$5.00
2001
31,320
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
McCordsville
Merrillville
Middletown
Monroe County
Muncie
Munster
New Albany
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
E 2,250
E 2,784
D
E
F
F
E
$7.50
$5.00
$6.00
5,200 $2.93
$3.60
$10.00
2,500 $4.17
2005
2009
2011
2005
2005
1,134
32,147
2,357
137,974
70,087
22,346
37,603
18
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
501 New Castle
502 New Haven
503 North Manchester
504 Ossian
505
506 Pittsboro
IN
F
Year
Month! Feo I Created
$6.00
IN E 2,534 $5.35
IN E 2,650 $3.45
IN F $8.00 2005
E 3,497 $4.00
IN F $3.50
Peru
IN
1994
17,780
12,406
5,932
2,943
12,994
1,588
507 Plainfield
IN E 3,000 $8.34
18,396
508 Plymouth IN E 12,000 $2.05 9,840
509 Richmond IN D 2,980 $6.00 39,124
510 Shelbyville IN F $6.00 17,951
511 Valparaiso IN T $0.00 1998 27,428
512 Vincennes IN E 2,800 $3.00 18,701
513 Warrick County IN E 3,100 $5.00 2006 52,383
514 Washington IN E 2,558 $3,00 2004 11,380
515 West Layfayette IN E 3,200 $8.00 2013 30,419
516 Westfield IN T $2.75 2008 9,293
517 Whiteland IN E 3,704 $7.50 2010 4,169
518 Winfield IN E 4,343 $6.00 2010 4,530
519 Yorktown IN E 2,500 $2.00 4,785
520 Zionsville IN E 4,400 $3.86 2010 24,159
521 Abilene KS T $0.00 1999 6,844
522 Andover KS T $0.00 2005 6,698
523 Arkansas City KS D $3.00 1993 11,963
524 Bonner Springs KS D $2.50 7,093
525 Caldwell
KS D $1.00 1.043
526 Coffeyville KS D $3.50 2006 10,387
527 Derby KS E 2,233 $3.00 2012 22,158
528 Dodge City KS T $0,00 2009 25.176
19
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
PPP in i..„:,,,,MilillIMI: WI
529 El Dorado KS E 2,314
530 Eudora KS F
531 Fairway KS E 3,200
532 Garden City KS T
KS E 3,369
534 Hiawatha KS D
535 Hutchinson KS T
536 Junction City KS T $0.00
537 Kansas City KS F $4.50
538 Lawrence KS E 2,366 $4.00
533 Hays
Year
Monthly Fee Created
$3.00
$2.25
$5.00
$1.50
$3.62
$4.00
2008
2007
2011
2009
$2.00
539 Lenexa
540 Manhattan
541
542 Mission Hills
543 Olathe
544 Ottawa
545 Overland Park
546 Paola
1997
KS
E 2,750 $7.50
2000
KS
T
$4.42
1992
12,057
4,307
3,952
26,658
20,013
3,417
40,787
18,886
146,453
80,098
40,238
44,831
Mission
KS
E 2,600 $19.00
2004
9.727
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
T
A
E 2,600
E 2,485
F
547 Parsons
KS
D
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
Pittsburg
Prairie Village
Shawnee
Topeka
Valley Center
Wichita
Winfield
KS E 3,106
$0.00
$5.45
$4.00
$2.00
$3.00
$2.50
$3.56
KS
S
$0.04
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
E 2,773
T 2,018
T
E 2,139
D
$4.00
$4.25
$5.00
$2.00
$2.00
2012
2012
2001
2008
2003
2008
2004
1996
2008
1991
555 Danville
KY
E 3,813 $3.36
2007
556 Glasgow
KY
T
$0.00
2012
3,498
114,662
12,620
149,080
5,602
11,514
19,243
21,447
47,996
122,377
4,883
344,284
11,900
15,385
14.059
20
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
" P I M W N W
5 5 7
5 5 8
5 5 9
5 6 0
5 6 1
5 6 2
5 6 3
5 6 4
5 6 5
5 6 6
5 6 7
5 6 8
5 6 9
5 7 0
5 7 1
5 7 2
5 7 3
5 7 4
5 7 5
5 7 6
5 7 7
5 7 8
5 7 9
5 8 0
5 8 1
5 8 2
5 8 3
5 8 4
H e n d e r s o n K Y E
H o p k i n s v i l l e
L e x i n g t o n / F a y e t t e C o u n t y
L o u i s v i l l e / J e f f e r s o n C o .
M u r r a y
O l d h a m C o u n t y
R a d c l i f f
S a n i t a t i o n D i s t r i c t 9
W a r r e n C o u n t y
C h i c o p e e
F a l l R i v e r
G l o u c e s t e r
N e w t o n
N o r t h a m p t o n
R e a d i n g
K Y E
K Y E
K Y E
K Y Q'
K Y E
K Y
K Y
K Y
M A
M A
M A
M A
M A
M A
E
E
D
E 2 , 0 0 0
E 2 , 8 0 0
F
D
F
D
E R U Y e a r
( f t ' . M o n t h ' F e e
C r e a t e d P o ' u l a t i o n
3 , 0 0 0
3 , 3 5 0
2 , 5 0 0
2 , 5 0 0
3 , 0 0 0 $ 1 . 5 0
6 , 0 0 0
2 , 8 0 0 $ 4 . 5 0
2 , 6 0 0
$ 0 . 0 0
$ 3 . 0 0
$ 4 . 5 4
$ 7 . 2 8
$ 3 . 9 1
$ 5 . 0 4
$ 4 . 0 0
$ 8 . 3 3
$ 1 1 . 6 7
$ 4 . 4 2
3 , 1 0 0 $ 2 . 0 8
$ 5 . 0 0
3 , 2 1 0 $ 3 . 3 3
W e s t f i e l d
M A F
$ 0 . 0 0
A n n a p o l i s
A n n e A r u n d e l C o u n t y
B a l t i m o r e
B a l t i m o r e C o u n t y
B e r l i n
C e n t r e v i l l e
C h a r l e s C o u n t y
E l l i c o t t C i t y
F r e d e r i c k
F r e d e r i c k C o u n t y
H a r f o r d C o u n t y
H o w a r d C o u n t y
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
M D
T
T
E
E
D
E
F
2 , 7 4 0
1 , 0 5 0
2 , 0 0 0
2 , 1 0 0
3 , 2 0 0
D 1 , 0 0 0
F
D 5 0 0
E 3 , 0 0 0
$ 3 . 3 3
$ 0 . 0 0
$ 6 . 0 0
$ 5 . 7 5
$ 4 . 1 6
$ 2 . 5 0
$ 0 . 0 0
$ 3 . 7 5
$ 0 . 0 0
$ 0 . 0 1
$ 0 . 0 0
$ 7 . 5 0
1 9 9 8
2 0 0 6
2 0 0 9
1 9 8 7
2 0 0 4
2 0 0 8
2 0 0 3
1 9 9 8
2 0 0 7
1 9 9 8
2 0 0 8
2 0 1 1
2 0 0 6
2 0 1 4
2 0 0 6
2 0 1 0
2 0 0 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 3
2 7 , 3 7 3
3 0 , 0 8 9
2 6 0 , 5 1 2
6 9 3 , 6 0 4
1 4 , 9 5 0
4 0 , 5 0 2
2 1 , 9 6 1
3 2 6 , 0 7 1
4 3 , 2 2 6
5 4 , 6 5 3
9 1 , 9 3 8
3 0 , 2 7 3
8 3 , 8 2 9
2 8 , 5 9 2
2 4 , 1 4 5
4 1 , 0 9 4
3 5 , 8 3 8
5 4 4 , 4 0 3
6 1 9 , 4 9 3
8 0 9 , 6 4 1
4 , 4 9 1
4 , 3 3 4
1 2 0 , 5 4 6
6 5 , 8 3 4
2 3 6 , 7 4 5
2 4 6 , 8 4 9
2 9 3 . 1 4 2
2 1
W e s t e r n K e n t u c k y U n i v e r s i t y S t o r m w a t e r U t i l i t y S u r v e y 2 0 1 4
Fee ERU Year
tate IT •e - l (ft: -Months Fee - rested
585 Montgomery County MD E 2 40B S7.37 21x32 R71
2,465
2,330
586 Prince George's County MD E
587 Rockville MD E
588 Silver Spring MD
589 Takoma Park MD E 1,228
590 Augusta ME E 2,700
591 Bangor ME E 3,000
592 Lewiston ME D
593 Long Creek Watershed ME A
594 Adrian MI
595 Ann Arbor MI T
596 Berkley MI E 2,600
597 Detroit MI T
598 Jackson MI D 2,125
599 Lansing MI V
600 Marquette MI T
601
$1.74
$8.30
$0.00
$4.58
$7.54
$1.83
$4.17
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.18
$0.00
$7.05
$0.00
$0.00
2013
2007
871,233
47,388
76,540
1996 17,299
18,560
2012 33,011
2006 35,690
2010
2012 21,122
1980 114,024
2001 15,531
1979 951,270
2011 36,316
1995 119,128
19,661
New Baltimore
MI ID $2.00 2005 7.405
602 Albert Lea MN V $0.00 2005 17,967
603 Alexandria MN T 43,560 $3.00 2005 8,820
604 Andover MN R $2.84 2003 30,222
605 Anoka MN R 43,560 $2.95 2003 18,076
606 Apple Valley MN R $5.15 1988 45,527
607 Arden Hills MN R 43,560 $4.49 1993 9,642
608 Ashby MN R $4.00 2005 444
609 Austin MN A $4,00 2003 24,834
610 Baxter MN S $2.63 2006 7,642
611 Belle Plaine MN F $3.12 1999 6,792
612 Bemidji MN T $6.44 13.657
22
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
11111
613 Bird Island
614 Blaine
dCpmmunit
Fee
State I Type
MN
MN
F
R
ERU
ifrll
D
Year
_ee Created 1 Po ■ ulati.
$5.00 2007 1.027
$1.75
2007
57,584
615 Bloomington
MN
R
$5.72
1988
84,057
616 Brainerd
617
618 Brooklyn Park
MN R
$3.00 2002
13,646
Brooklyn Center
MN
$14.48 1991 30,529
MN
R
$2.93 2002 76,853
619 Browerville MN F
$6.00
788
620 Buffalo
MN R
$5.00 1986 15,665
621 Burnsville
MN R
$6.78 2012 60,828
622 Byron
MN R
$3.00 2008
623 Cambridge
MN R $4.58 2000 8,209
624 Cannon Falls MN R $2.00 2009 4,086
625 Carver MN T $0.00 2004 3,790
626 Centerville MN S $4.33 1997 3,818
627
628 Chanhassen MN T $9.66 2007 23,358
$6.00 2005 4,953
630 Cloquet MN E 4,312 $4.00 2011 12,148
1999 19,632
632 Coon Rapids MN R $3.47 2002 61,904
Champlin
MN R $2.75 2008 23,418
629 Circle Pines
MN F
631 Columbia Heights
MN R $3.25
633
Cottage Grove
MN R 43,560 $4.00 2001 35,052
634 Crystal MN R $3.90 1991 22,463
635 Dassel MN T $0.00 2001 1,467
636 Deephaven MN F $5.00 1994 3,693
637 Delano MN R $5.00 5,541
638 Detroit Lakes MN R $3.95 8,641
639 Duluth MN E 1,708 $6.08 1998 86,227
640 Dundas MN F $3.00 1,371
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
641 Eagan
642 Eden Prairie
643 Edina
644 Elko -New Market
645 Excelsior
646 Eyota
647 Fairfax
648 Fairmont
Fee ERU . Year
T . e fftl Monthl Fee G: :. rented
MN R $3.17 1990 64,765
MN R $8.00 1993 61,657
MN R $7.63 1985 48,620
MN R $7.16 2000 4,194
MN R $9.34 1999 2,219
MN F $2.00 1,998
MN R $12.50 1995 1,218
MN R 1987 10,589
5,381
650 Faribault MN E 3,500 $3.50 2001 23,450
651 Farmington MN R $3.50 1989 21,267
652 Fergus Falls MN T $0.00 13,125
653 Forest Lake MN R $2.67 2008 18,619
654 Frazee MN R $1.00 2005 1,360
649 Falcon Heights
MN R $3.25 1986
655 Fridley
MN R $4.91 1985 27.398
656 Glencoe MN R 1993 5,598
657 Glyndon MN F $9.50 2007 1,413
658 Golden Valley MN T $0.00 1992 20,655
659 Grand Rapids MN T $0.00 2004 10,862
660 Hanover MN R $8.50 2,980
2010 22,359
662 Hopkins MN R $5.00 1989 17,837
$3.43 2001 14,093
664 Inver Grove Heights MN R $1.72 2007 34,157
661 Hastings
MN R $2.12
663 Hutchinson
MN R
665 Jordan
MN R
666 Kasson
$6.04 1995 5.583
MN R $7.15 5,978
667 Kenyon
MN R $7.28 1.817
668 Lake Elmo
MN T $0.00 2003 8,177
24
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
11
669 Lakeville
670 Lauderdale
671 Little Falls
672 Long Lake
673 Loretto
674 Madison
675 Mahtomedi
676 Mankato
677 Maple Lake
678 Maple Plain
679 Maplewood
680 Marshall
681 Mayer
682 Medina
683 Mendota Heights
684 Minneapolis
685 Minnetonka
686 Minnetonka Beach
687 Minnetrista
688 Montrose
689 Moorhead
690 Mora
691 Mound
692 Mounds View
693 New Brighton
694 New Hope
695 New Prague
696 Newport
Fee I ERU
Quani _ State - T e , (fi) M0
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
R
R $2.50
R
R $3.60 1999
R $11.00 2003
R $11.25 2002
R $4.79 2001
A $3.25
D $1.00
T $0.00 2005
R $7.26 2003
R $4.25 2003
R $2.00 2005
R $2.66 2008
A $2.42 1992
E 1,530 $11.42 2005
F $5.76 2003
F $2.67 2011
F $6.17 2004
F $3.00 2000
F $10.21 2005
F $1.25 2005
R $8.98 2001
T $0.00 1993
R 43,560 $4.40 1994
D $6.30 1991
R $5.00 1992
R $4.25
tor
ee . Cre
$2.33
1994
1994
56,443
2,408
8,349
1,792
658
1,540
7,775
39,528
2,08F
1,792
38,472
13,700
1,780
4,963
11,168
387,753
50,435
539
6,474
2,887
38,566
3,556
9,180
12,305
21,715
20,616
7,401
3,481
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Fee ERU -
tate Type . ltt')
1.,
697 North Branch MN R $4.90 2008 10,131
698 North Mankato MN A $3.25 13,437
699 North Saint Paul MN T $0.00 1990 11,601
700 Northfield MN R $4.94 1986 20,084
701 Norwood Young America MN R $4.65 2003 3,611
702 Oak Park Heights MN T $0.00 1999 4,389
703 Oakdale MN R $1.67 2002 27,743
704 Olivia MN T $0.00 2,449
705 Orono MN R $5.28 2001 7,543
706 Osakis MN T $0.00 1,746
707 Osseo MN R $11.02 2007 2,463
708 Otsego MN T $0.00 2009 13,761
709 Park Rapids MN R $2.00 2010 3,686
710 Pierz MN R 43,560 $3.50 1,394
$5.00 2001 71,561
712 Preston MN V $0.00 2001 1,325
713 Princeton MN R $1.89 2008 4,676
714 Prior Lake MN A $13.25 1993 23,261
715 Ramsey MN R $3.43 2000 18,510
716 Red Wing MN R $10.00 16,116
717 Redwood Falls MN R $7.16 2003 5,459
718 Richfield MN R $4.01 1985 34,439
14,123
720 Rochester MN R $3.18 2003 85,806
721 Rogers MN S $3.72 2002 3,588
722 Rosemount MN T $0.00 1992 14,619
723 Roseville MN R $3.90 1984 33,690
724 Saint Anthony MN R $19.43 1993 8,226
711 Plymouth
MN R
719 Robbinsdale
MN R $7.80 1985
26
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
l
725 Saint Bonilacius
726 Saint Charles
727 Saint Cloud
728 Saint Joseph
Fee ' ERU
tate T ■e (ft2�
MN
MN
MN
MN
F
T
R
R
$5.00
$0.00
Year
Fee reated
2004
2006
1,873
3,735
$1.00
2003
59,107
$3.70
6,646
729 Saint Louis Park
MN R
$5.87 2000 44,126
730 Saint Michael MN R $2.00 2003 9,099
731 Saint Paul MN R $6.87 1986 287,151
732 Saint Paul Park MN R $2.83 2007 5,070
733 Saint Peter MN R $7.50 2004 9,747
734 Sandstone MN R $1.50 2008 2,849
735 Sartell MN D $6.00 14,445
736 Sauk Rapids MN R $2.25 2010 11,957
737 Savage MN R $6.42 1994 27,292
738 Shafer MN R $1.50 2003 383
739 Shakopee MN R $2.29 1985 20,568
740 Shoreview MN R $7.09 1991 25,924
741 Shorewood
MN R $6.05 1993 7,400
742 South Saint Paul
MN R $3.11 2010 20,167
South Washington Watershed
743 District
MN F $7.41 2010
744 Spring Valley MN F $5.00 2,479
745 Stacy MN R $3.50 2003 1,456
746 Stewartville MN R $4.50 2001 5,916
747 Stillwater MN R $1.50 1996 15,143
748 Thief River Falls MN R $2.50 8,410
749 Tonka Bay MN R $3.50 1993 1,547
750 Twin Valley MN D $4.50 821
751 Two Harbors MN E 1,718 $1.50 1999 3,613
27
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
752 Vadnais Heights
Vadnais Lake Water
753 Management Organization
754 Victoria
755 Waconia
756 Watertown
757 Waverly
758 Wayzata
759 West Saint Paul
760 White Bear Township
MN
R
MN
F
$3.47
$2.20
MN R $4.33 1997
MN F $7.00 1992
MN F $3.00 1993
MN D $3.50 2003
MN R $5.15 1991
MN R $3.08 2005
MN E 4,000 $2.00 1992
1992
2007
12,526
4,025
6,814
3,029
1,089
4,113
19,405
11,293
761 Winona
MN R 2003 27,069
762 Woodbury
MN F $5.79 1992 46,463
763 Worthington
MN R $4.74 2004 11,283
764 Wyoming MN R $0.67 1997 7,716
765 Arnold MO E 1,750 $3.00 2005 21,013
766 Columbia - Boone County MO T $1.15 1993 115,276
767 Kansas City MO E 500 $0.50 1992 463,202
768 Saint Louis MO F $4.20 2008 318,069
769 Billings
MT F $2.69 89,847
770 Bozeman
MT M $1.75 2012 38,025
771 Great Falls
MT F $7,26 1989 56,690
772 Helena MT E 10,000 $1.84 1988 25,780
773 Poison MT F $8.00 2009 4,041
774 Whitefish MT E 2,400 $16.67 2006 5,032
775 Archdale NC E 3,163 $5.00 11,415
776 Asheville NC E 2,442 $4.00 2004 84,458
777 Atlantic
NC F $4.00 1,495
778 Belmont
NC E 2,500 $3.00
10,076
28
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
et .-,
779 Bessemer City NC F $2.07
780 Burlington NC F $3.00
781 Butner NC F $2.50
782 Carolina Beach NC E 2,000 $9.00 2002
783 Chapel Hill NC T $0.00 2004
784 Charlotte NC T $7.89 1994
2005
5,398
44,917
7,598
4,701
48,715
695,454
785 Clemmons NC E 3,952 $5.00 1993 13.827
786 Concord
NC E 3,120 $4.30 2005 79,066
787 Cornelius
NC T 43,560 $0.00
11.969
788 Cramerton NC T $0.00 4,165
$0.00 2012 4,129
790 Cumberland County NC E 2,266 $1.00 1995 302,963
791
792 Davidson NC T 43,560 $0.00 7,139
793
794 Elizabeth City NC D $3.00 2006 18.683
789 Creedmoor
NC T
Dallas
NC E 2,500 $1.85 3.402
Durham
NC T 2,400 $0.00 1997 228.330
795 Elon
NC F $2.00 9.419
796 Fayetteville NC E 2,266 $3.50 2004 200,564
797 Forsythe County NC T 43,560 $0.00 2006 306,067
798 Gastonia NC E 2,650 $2.75 2001 71,741
799 Graham NC F $1.00
800 Granville County NC T $0.00 2012 59,976
1994 269,666
802 Greenville NC E 2,000 $3.85 84,554
803 High Point NC E 2,588 $2.00 104,371
804 Hope Mills NC D 2,266 $4.00 2007 15,176
805 Huntersville NC T 43,560 $0.00 24,960
806 Indian Trail NC T 1,984 $0.00 2007 11.905
14,153
801 Greensboro
NC E 2,543 $2.70
29
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
807 Jacksonville NC E 2,850 $5.00 2006 66,715
808 Kannapolis NC T 3,250 $0.00 36,910
809 Kernersville NC E 2,980 $3.29 2006 23,123
810 Kinston NC E 3,059 $4.00 2008 22,346
2,012
812 Lake Park NC T $0.00 3,422
813 Landis NC D $5.00 3,121
814 Lowell NC V $0.00 2,662
815 Lumberton NC T $4.25 1997 21,542
816 Matthews NC T 43,560 $0.00 22,127
817 Mecklenburg County NC T 43,560 $0.00 695,454
818 Mint Hill NC T 43,560 $0.00 14,922
819 Monroe NC T 2,618 $0.00 2008 32,797
820 Morrisville NC E 2,800 $1.92 2012 19,184
821 Mount Holly NC E $2.50 13,656
822 Nags Head NC F $2.00 2,757
823 New Bern NC E 3,100 $2.10 2012 29,524
824 Oak Island NC D $1.75 6,783
825 Oxford NC E 2,500 $2.00 8,338
826 Person County NC V $0.00 2013
827 Pineville NC T 43,560 $0.00 3,449
828 Plymouth NC F $3.00 3,878
829 Raleigh NC T $4.00 2004 416,468
830 Ranlo NC E 2,650 $2.75 3,434
831 Rocky Mount NC E 2,519 $4.25 2003 57,477
832 Spring Lake NC D 2,266 $2.75 11,964
833 Stallings NC E 2,060 $2.12 2007 13,831
834 Stem NC T $0.00 463
811 Kure Beach
NC F
$8.71.
30
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
IF lir 1
835 Thomasville NC F $1.00 26,729
836 Wallace NC E 2,400 $2.25 3,880
837 Washington NC T $0.00 2002 9,744
838 Whitakers NC F $3.25 744
839 Wilmington NC E 2,500 $6.83 2004 106,476
840 Wilson NC E 2,585 $2.94 2002 49,167
841
842 Winterville NC E 2,000 $2.00 2007 9,269
843 Wrightsville Beach NC T $0.00 2,593
844 Zebulon NC T $0.00 4,433
845 Bismarck ND F $2.60 55,532
846 Grand Forks ND F $2.90 1988 49,321
847 Minot ND F $2.60
848 Omaha NE $0.64
849 Sante Fe
850 Carson City NV F $4.38 2003 52,457
851 Sparks NV D $8.32 66,346
852 Ada OH T $0.00 2004 5,952
853 Amberley OH R $6.25 2003 3,585
854 Ashland OH E 3,052 $3.50 2006 20,367
855 Ashville OH E 2530 $3.00 2006 4120
856 Barberton OH E 8,668 $5.00 2006 26,455
857 Bellefontaine OH E 2,400 $3.75 2001 13,322
858 Broadview Heights OH E 4,000 $4.00 2007 19,247
859 Brunswick OH E 3,500 $4.95 2011 34,441
860 Bucyrus OH E 2,506 $4.00 2000 12,253
861 Butler County OH E 4,000 $1.08 2004 369,999
862 Campbell OH T $3.00 2007 8,235
r..
Fee ERU Year
T pe (tt2l Month! ! Fee , Created
Winston-Salem
NC T 43,560 $0.00
185.776
1998 36,567
NM T $3.00 2003 62.203
31
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
or • 11M1 INIREP
863 Canal Winchester
OH
E
3,001
$3.30
2010
7,191
864 Canfield
865 Celina
866 Chillicothe
867 Cincinnati
868 Columbus
869 Cortland
870 Coshocton
871 Cuyahoga Falls
872 Dayton
Deerfield Regional
873 Stormwater District
874 Delaware
875 Findlay
876 Forest Park
OH E 3,050 $3.00
OH E 3,083 $2.00
OH F $1.00
OH T $3.54
OH E 2,000 $4.60
OH F $1.50
OH D $0.25
OH E 3,000 $3.00
OH F $5.03
OH
OH
E 3,407
E 2,773
OH T
OH
F
1992
2008
1997
1984
1994
2007
2010
1992
1997
7,464
10,406
21,955
296,223
797,434
7,069
11,231
49,473
142,148
$1.92 2006
$2.50
$3.00
$3.00
1998
1999
1988
35,541
41,202
19,463
877 Fostoria
OH R
$6.79 2006
13,411
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
Franklin
Gahanna
Galion
Gambier
Greenville
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
E
E
E
T
E
2,611
3,064
2,650
3,000
2,800
$3.50
$4.33 2004
$3.00 2001
$0.00
$2.95 2007
11,771
32,636
10,416
2,396
13,189
Groveport
OH E 2,760 $2.00 2008
5,363
Hamilton
Hamilton County
Harrison
OH E 2,536 $3.60 2002
OH V $0.00
OH R $4.00 2007
887 Hilliard
OH E 2,000 $2.35 2009
888 Hubbard
OH
T
$3.00 2007
62,795
800,362
9,871
28,435
8,284
889 Huber Heights
OH E 3,431 $2.00 2002
38.278
32
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
890 Hudson OH $0.00 22,182
891 Ironton OH W $2.50 2005 11,211
892 Kent OH E 1,963 $2.30 2001 28,935
893 Lake County OH E 3,050 $2.50 2003
894 Lancaster OH E 2,600 $2.64 2004 39,026
$3.50 2403 20,242
OH E 5,000 $1.50 2004 4,784
OH E 2,600 $0.00 38,693
OH E 2,766 $4.00 9,896
OH T $0.00 2005 9,186
OH E 2,500 $4.50 2003 12,082
OH F $2.00 2007 1,148
OH E 5,500 $4.06 2011 440,005
OH E 2,778 $4.16 1997 36,689
OH E 2,700 $2.75 2004 22,288
OH F $3.71 2001 31,039
OH T $0.00 2010 32,106
OH E 2,716 $2.25 2003 26,822
OH E 2,814 $3.25 2005 48,962
2004 6,768
910 Monroe OH D $3.00 2003 12,509
911 Monroeville OH E 4,200 $0.00 2009 1,400
912 Montpelier OH T $0.00 1986 4,067
229,885
895 Lebanon
OH E 2,615
896 Lexington
897 Lima
898 London
899 Louisville
900 Loveland
901 Lowellville
902 Lucas County
903 Marion
904 Marysville
905 Mason
906 Massillon
907 Medina
908 Middletown
909 Milford
OH E 2,400 $5.50
Muskingum Watershed
913 Conservancy District
OH E 3,300 $1.00
2,000,000
914 New Lexington OH F $2.25 2005 4,689
915 New London OH T $4.00 2005 2,455
916 Newark OH E 2,600 $6.50 2005 47,790
33
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Northeast Ohio Regional
917 Sewer District
918 Northwood
919 Norwalk
920 Oak Harbor
921 Painesville
922 Pickerington
923 Piqua
924 Poland
925 Ravenna
926 Reynoldsburg
927 Sebring
928 Sheffield
929 Sheffield Lake
930 Sidney
931 Silver Lake
932 Spencerville
933 Springboro
934 Springfield
935 Stow
936 Struthers
937 Tallmadge
938 Toledo
939 Trenton
940 Trotwood
941 Troy
942 Union
943 Upper Arlington
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
$0.00
E 2,500 $3.16
E 3,800 $1.35
E 4,200 $13.00
E 2,500 $2.75
E 2,530 $4.50
E 5,400 $5.70
E 2,500 $3.50
E 2,750 $3.00
E 2,530 $2.00
D $3.00
E 2,500 $3.50
E 2,275 $4.85
E 2,752 $1.00
F $3.00
V $0.00
D $3.00
T $1.30
E 3,060 $3.00
E 3,500 $3.50
E 3,000 $2.00
E 2,500 $3.80
E 3,000 $0.30
E 4,020 $4.00
E 3,000 $4.65
T $4.00
F $3.75
2010
2001 5,265
2011 16,977
2007 2,758
2002 19,549
2001 18,408
2009 20,592
2010 2537
2007 11,739
1996 36,293
4,391
2004 3,986
1999 9,145
1994 21,178
2003 2,510
2008 2,218
2003 17,588
2011 60,333
34,711
2007 10,640
17,473
1999 286,038
2003 11,931
2,455
2007 25,143
1987 6,448
1991 34,223
34
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Year
- Creai cf
PopulatimV
944 Vandalia OH E 4,431 $2.00 2004 15,317
OH F $4.50 2005 21,683
946 Wapakoneta OH T $0.00 1994 9,843
947 Warren OH E 648 $2.92 41,358
948 Wellington OH E 2,900 $3.50 2010 4,806
949 Wooster OH E 3,050 $5.75 1985 26,139
950 Wyoming OH V $0.00 2011 8,398
951 Xenia OH T $2.50 25,925
952 Zanesville OH D $1.36 1987 25,531
953 Bixby OK E 2,650 $4.00 21,137
954 Broken Arrow OK E 2,650 $4.77 2002 100,073
955 Catoosa OK D $2.50 7,226
956 Choctaw OK F $3.00 2005 11,364
957 Edmond OK E 4,860 $3.00 1994 82,963
958 Enid OK E 5,000 $4.13 2009 49,451
959 Jenks OK F $2.00 2002 17,130
960 Lawton OK F $0.75 98,177
961 Miami OK E 43,560 $2.00 13,577
962 Midwest City OK T $0.00 55,427
963 Muskogee OK D 2,650 $2.00 2005 39,231
964 Oklahoma City OK M $5.53 1995 591,967
965 Owasso OK E 3,000 $3.00 29,854
966 Ponca City OK D $2.25 25,168
967 Sand Springs OK E 2,650 $5.00 19,140
968 Sapulpa OK D 2,650 $4.15 20,691
969 Stillwater OK E 5,000 $1.00 1997 46,048
970 Tahlequah OK D $2.00 16,021
971 Tulsa OK E 2,650 $5.43 1986 396,466
945 Wadsworth
35
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
11,
972 Adair Village OR F $2.50
973 Ashland OR T 1,000 $4.40
974 Beaverton OR E 2,640 $8.75
975 Bend OR E 3,800 $4.00
976 Cannon Beach OR F $4.49
977 Central Point OR E 3,000 $6.50
978 Clackamas County OR E 2,500 $4.00
979 Clatskanie OR SS $2.50
980 Corvallis OR E 2,750 $6.27
Year
Created
1994
1989
2007
1996
2005
1999
1977
843
20,232
91,625
77,905
1,695
17,308
380,207
1,738
54,674
981 Cottage Grove
OR E 2,650 $3.37
9,734
982 Dundee OR D 1,000 $0.00 1997 3,188
983 Estacada OR F $5.95 1998 2,725
984 Eugene OR T 1,000 $0.00 1994 156,929
985 Fairview OR F $8.78 1994 8,920
986 Florence OR T $0.00 2005 8,466
987 Forest Grove OR E 2,640 $7.75 1990 21,083
988 Forest Park OR V $0.00
989 Gresham
OR E 2,500 $9.84 1994 105,594
990 Hillsboro OR E 2,640 $6.25 70,186
991 I-lood River OR M $0,00 2006 7,167
992 Hubbard OR F $0.00 3,173
993 Independence
OR E 3,250 $7.41 2011 8,650
994 Jackson County
OR E 3,000 $0.00 2004 181,269
995 Keizer
OR E 3,000 $5.37 2007 32,203
996 Lake Oswego OR E 3,030 $11.76 1992 35,278
997 Lebanon OR T $3.09 2010 12,950
998 Medford OR E 3,730 $7.71 1994 63,154
999 Milwaukie OR T $0.00 1994 20,490
36
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
', ornrnuri
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
Newberg
Newport
Ontario
Oregon City
Philomath
Portland
Redmond
Reedsport
Roseburg
Saint Helens
Salem
Sandy
Scappoose
Sheridan
Springfield
Sweet Home
Talent
Tigard
Troutdale
Tualatin
Washington County
West Linn
Wilsonville
Jonestown
Lancaster
Meadville
Mount Lebanon
Philadelphia
• Fee i ERU
tat 7 = (1t9
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
E 2,877 $7.30
F $6.80
F $1.16
R $9.05
T $1.50
T $0.00
F $5.81
E 3,000 $0.00
E 3,000 $5.00
E 2,500 $10.95
T 3,000 $0.00
E 2,750 $3.00
E 2,750 $0.00
E 3,000 $3.50
T $0.00
E 3,200 $1.00
F $1.41
E 2,640 $6.75
E 2,700 $4.27
E 2,640 $6.75
E 2,640 $6.75
E 2,914 $5.58
E 2,750 $5.25
E 3,100 $6.67
T $0.00
E 2,660 $7.50
E 2,400 $8.00
F $13.48
2003 18,064
9,968
10,985
1993 25,754
1999 3,838
1977 593,820
2013 27,873
4,378
21,790
2003 12,905
2010 156,244
2001 9,677
6,599
6,165
59,695
2007 9,035
2000 6,115
49,011
16,244
26,558
540,410
25,392
19,715
2012 1,931
2012 13,616
2011 33,137
1,536,471
37
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Fee ERU 1 Year
OOP WPM T e ftt 1 Month Fee Created :._...._
1028 Radnor Township PA T 1,500 $0.00 31,531
1029 Aiken County SC F $2.00 160,682
1030 Anderson SC F $4.00 2007 26,871
1031 Beaufort SC E 4,906 $8.75 12,534
1032 Beaufort County SC E 4,906 $4.17 2005 164,684
1033 Bluffton SC E 4,906
1034 Charleston SC E 2,200 $6.00 1994 122,689
1035 Charleston County SC F $3.00 2006 330,833
1036 Columbia SC E 2,454 $6.80 2002 130,591
$8.17 2001 12,734
1037 Conway
SC E 2,700 $5.25 2003 17,513
1038 Dorchester County SC E 3,735 $3.73 2002 140,892
1039 Easley SC E 5,000 $2.00 2003 20,058
1040 Florence SC E 2,500 $3.50 1981 37,326
1041 Folly Beach
SC F $3.00 2007 2,675
1042 Georgetown SC M $2.00 1993 8,950
1043 Georgetown County SC E 3,770 $4.33 2007 55,797
1044 Greenville SC E 2,389 $5.77 1995 56,002
1045 Greenville County
SC D 2,466 $1.85 402,000
1046 Greer
SC E 2,500 $1.80 2002 16,843
1047 Hartsville
SC F $4.00 2008 7,556
1048 Hilton Head Island
SC E 4,906 $9.06 2001 33,862
1049 Horry County
SC F $2.45 2000 196,629
1050 Isle of Palms
SC R $3.00 2007 4,133
1051 Mount Pleasant
SC D $2.50 47,609
1052 Myrtle Beach SC E 5,000 $3.50 1999 22,759
1053 North Augusta SC F $4.00 2002 17,574
1054 North Charleston SC E 2,900 $3.00 2003 79,641
1055 North Myrtle Beach SC E 3,500 $6.00 2005 14,118
38
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1056 Port Royal SC E 4,906 $4.17
1057 Rock Hill SC F $3.08
1058 Spartanburg SC E 2,000 $2.50
1059
1060 Summerville SC F $4.00 44,783
1061 Sumter SC D $2.50 2011 40,526
1062 Sumter County SC T $1.25 2010 107,460
1063 Tega Cay SC E 3,500 $8.00 7,773
1064 Aberdeen SD V $0.00 2005 26,297
1065 Brookings SD V $0.00 1996 22,228
1066 Sioux Falls SD V $0.00 1982 156,592
1067 Alcoa TN D $4.00 2008 8,570
1068 Chattanooga TN E $9.60 1993 171,279
1069 Collierville TN F $2.25 44,324
1070 Dyersburg TN E 1,500 $1.00 2012 17,043
1071 Franklin TN E 3,350 $3.65 2004 66,280
1072 Germantown TN T $0.00 2010 39,161
1073 Goodlettsville TN D 2,900 $3.67 2012 16,176
1074 Hamilton County TN D 3,500 $3.00 11,530
1075 Johnson City TN T 3,315 $0.00 2007 63,815
1076 Kingsport TN E 3,794 $3.50 2011 49,232
1077 La Vergne TN E 3,181 $3.50 2005 33,389
1078 Maryville TN E 2,400 $3.97 2003 27,646
1079 Memphis TN E 3,147 $4.02 2006 652,050
1080 Millington TN E 3,000 $2.50 2006 10,257
1081 Morristown TN E 2,400 $2.50 2008 29,374
1082 Murfreesboro TN E 3,470 $3.25 2007 100,575
1083 Nashville/Davidson County TN T $0.00 2009 635,475
2010
10,790
67,423
37,334
Sullivan's island
SC R
$3.00 2007
1,911
39
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
No - Comm wrsit
Fee ' ERU Year
. State T • e fl Monthl Fee Created Po.:.lation
1084 Shelby County
1085 Signal Mountain
1086 Smyrna
TN
TN
TN
D $1.50
E 3,960 $3.30
E 3,543 $3.65
2009
2002
2008
1087 Spring Hill
TN
E 3,412 $3.50
2009
1088 Tullahoma
TN
V
$0.00
282,141
7,655
25,569
29,735
17,994
1089 Abilene
TX S
$2.45
2003
118,117
1090 Addison
1091 Allen
1092 Amarillo
TX
TX
TX
T 1,000 $0.00
F
2012
$3.00
1993
E 2,800 $2.51
2011
13,056
76,600
193,675
1093 Arlington
TX
E 2,800 $4.25
1994
373,698
1094 Austin
TX E 1,763 $9.20
$3.00
TX E 1,979 $1.50
1095 Azle
TX
E 1,500
1096 Baytown
1097
1098 Belton
2003
2000
2004
820,611
11,170
73,322
Bedford
TX E 2,727 $3.50
2002
48.043
TX
T
$0.00
2007
18,486
1099 Benbrook
TX E 3,186 $6.50
2007
21,715
1100 Bexar County
TX
T
$0.00
2008
145,336
1101 Bryan
TX
F
$2.80
1997
77,321
1102 Burkburnett
TX
E 3,500 $1.50
2007
10,740
1103 Cibolo
TX
E 2,889 $4.00
15.853
1104 Cleburne
TX
T
1105 College Station
TX
F
1106 Colleyville
1107 Colony
1108 Converse
TX
TX
TX
T
E 3,406
T
$0.00
29,681
$3.50
95,142
$0.00
1993
23,328
$2.50
2008
37,653
$2.43
2010
18,643
1109 Coppell
TX
T
$0.00
2004
39.462
1110 Corinth
1111 Corpus Christi
TX
TX
E 3,900 $6.00
V $0.00
2009
20,662
307,953
40
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
NNW " 1
1112 Crowley TX
1113 Dallas TX
1114 De Soto TX
1115 Deer Park TX
1116 Denton TX
1117 Dickinson TX
1118 Eagle Pass TX
1119 El Paso TX
1120 Euless TX
1121 Fairview TX
1122 Flower Mound TX
1123 Forest Hill TX
1124 Fort Worth TX
1 125 Fredericksburg TX
1126 Frisco TX
1127 Gainesville TX
1128 Galveston TX
1129 Garland TX
1130 Georgetown TX
1131 Glenn Heights TX
1132 Grand Prairie TX
1133 Grapevine TX
1134 Haltom City TX
1 135 Harker Heights TX
1136 Hewitt TX
1137 Highland Village TX
1138 Houston TX
1139 Hurst TX
S $2.00 2011 13,131
T $0.00 1,223,229
T $0.00 2001 50,045
E 4,250 $1.32 2012 32,706
T $0.00 2002 117,187
F $4.00 2001 18,967
D $3.00 2003 26,807
T 2,000 $0.00 2007 665,568
T $0.00 1990 52,443
F $5.75 8,000
F $4.14 2003 65,851
T $0.00 2013 12,355
T 2,600 $5.40 2006 686,850
F $1.00 1996 8,911
F $2.00 2009 33,714
E 1,895 $3.68 1993 16,569
D 43,560 $7.00 47,743
F $2.88 1991 224,750
E 2,808 $5.25 45,342
T $0.00 2009 11,511
S $3.76 1993 161,550
F $4.00 48,583
D $6.19 2004 40,811
T $6.00 2002 26,026
T $0.00 2009 13,588
E 1,000 $1.20 2006 15,738
E 1,875 $5.00 2010 1,953,631
E 3,342 $4.00 2009 36,273
41
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1140 Irving
1141 Jacinto City
1142 Keller
1143 Kennedale
1144 Killeen
1145 Kingsville
1146 La Marque
1147 Lancaster
1148 Laredo
1149 Leon Valley
1150 Little Elm
1151 Live Oak
1152 Lockhart
1153 Lubbock
1154 Mansfield
1155 McKinney
1156 Mesquite
1157
1158 Mount Vernon
1159 New Braunfels
1160 North Richland Hills
1161 Plano
1162 Portland
1163 Prosper
1164 Richardson
1165 Richland Hills
1166 River Oaks
1167 Round Rock
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
Mission TX
F
V
E
E
A
E
V
F
T
T
E
E
D
D
F
E
D
F
TX F
TX E
TX T
TX T
TX F
TX E
TX E
TX D
TX S
TX E
$3.00
$0.00
3,731 $8.00
2,800 $6.00
$6.00
2.425 $1.25
$0.00
$7.97
$6.50
$0.00
3,687 $3.35
3,007 $5.50
$2.00
$14.00
$3.50
2,343 $2.75
100 $3.50
$2.50
$3.00
2,690 $4.59
43,560 $0.00
$0.00
$3.00
10,000 $1.85
3,571 $3.75
$10.50
$4.00
2.900 54.75
205,600
9,870
37,700
2010 7,284
2001 102,003
2012 26,322
2002 14,194
36,236
215,484
2009 11,020
2011 25,797
2009 12,471
2001 14,238
1993 212,365
56,368
112,000
136,750
77,058
2010 2,286
2000 36,494
64,050
255,700
18,500
2008 9,613
2011 99,223
1993 8,300
2012 7,597
2010 105,000
2003
2002
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
42
Community
Fee ERU
State I T ,e fl= Month' Fee
1168 Rowlett
1169 Saginaw
1170 San Angelo
1171 San Antonio
1172 San Marcos
1173 Schertz
1174 Sealy
1175 Selma
1176 Southlake
1177 Stephenville
1178 Sunset Valley
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
Year
Created Population
D $5.50 2002 54,869
F $3.00 2005 18,950
T $0.00 2009 91,880
T $0.00 1997 1,306,900
T 2,250 $0.00 1999 53,205
F $3.80 32,160
F $2.00 2004 6,374
E 3433 $4.12 2010 5,046
E 1,000 $8.00 2006 26,224
T 6,000 $0.00 2002 17,050
E 3,350 $4.00 919
$1.00 2010 16,106
1179 Taylor
TX E 2,500
1180 Temple TX T $0.00 54,514
1181 Terrell TX F $1.00 2011 16,112
1182 The Colony TX F $2.50 40,206
7,832
1184 Tyler TX R 101,106
1185 Universal City TX T $0.00 2004 16,569
1186 University Park TX T $0.00 24,182
1183 Trophy Club
TX F $6.00
1187 Watagua
TX F $12.00 24,150
1188 Weatherford TX E 3300 $4.50 25,557
1189
1190 White Settlement TX F $4.62 2005 16,116
1191
1192 Alpine City UT F $5.00 9,821
Webster
TX D $0.81 2009 10.613
Wichita Falls
TX E 3,500 $3,55 2000 104,197
1 193 Bountiful City
UT E 3,828 $0.00 41.301
1194 Cedar Hills UT E 2,900 $8.71 1998 10,066
1195 Centerville UT E 3,600 $4.00 2007 14,585
43
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1196 Draper City UT
1197 Eagle Mountain UT
1198 Elk Ridge UT
1199 Farmington UT
1200 Layton UT
1201 Lindon UT
1202 Logan UT
1203 Midvale UT
1204 Moab UT
1205 Murray UT
1206 Nibley City UT
1207 North Logan UT
1208 North Ogden UT
1209 Ogden UT
1210 Orem UT
1211 Payson UT
1212 Provo UT
1213 Riverdale UT
1214 Riverton UT
1215 Salt Lake City UT
1216 Sandy UT
1217 Santa Clara UT
1218 South Jordan UT
1219 Spanish Fork UT
1220 Springville UT
1221 Sunset City UT
1222 Taylorsville UT
1223
3,000 $4.00 2001 25,220
E 2,500 $4.00 2010 2,157
F $3.00 1,838
E 4,083 $7.00 2003 12,081
T $4.60 1997 58,474
F $5.47 8,363
E 3,000 $5.50 2005 42,670
E 3,000 $7.62 2004 27,029
E 3,000 $2.00 4,779
E 3,400 $4.05 2006 46,558
F $6.25 2,045
E 4,700 $4.00 2007 6,163
V $0.00 1987 15,026
E 1,500 $7.38 77,226
E 2,700 $4.75 1996 84,324
E 2,700 $5.43 16,748
E 3,200 $4.63 105,166
E 2,600 $2.20 2005 7,656
E 2,744 $7.00 2010 25,011
E 2,500 $4.49 1991 181,743
E 2,816 $6.00 88,418
E 3,500 $9.25 2004 4,630
E 4,752 $8.50 2011 55,934
E 3,956 $6.42 20,246
E 3,800 $3.96 2007 25,998
E 9,000 $2.00 2012 5,213
E 3,800 $4.00 2007 58,620
68,336
West Jordan
UT E 10,890 $4.02 2011
44
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
IP .,
1224 West Point UT E 2,500 $4.00 2010 6,033
1225 West Valley City UT E 2,830 $4.00 2001 108,869
1226 Woods Cross UT E 3,000 $3.00 2004 6,419
1227 Arlington County VA E 2,762 $2.17 189,453
1228 Blacksburg VA E 3,300 $6.00 2014 42,620
1229 Charlottesville VA E 500 $1.20 2013 43,511
1230 Chesapeake VA E 2,112 $7.35 1992 222,209
1231 Colonial Heights VA E 2,656 $2.00 16,897
1232 Falls Church VA E 200 $1.50 2013 12,332
1233 Hampton VA E 2,429 $6.99 1994 146,437
1234 James City County VA E 3,235 $4.90 2007 48,102
1235 Lynchburg VA T 2,672 $0.00 2012 76,504
1236 Manassas Park VA E 2,500 $2.97 2010 6,734
1237 Newport News VA E 1,777 $9.75 1993 180,150
1238 Norfolk VA E 2,000 $10.24 1996 234,403
1239 Petersburg VA E 2,116 $3.75 2013 32,420
1240 Portsmouth VA E 1,877 $9.25 1995 100,565
1241 Prince William County VA T 1,000 $0.00 1994 280,813
1242 Richmond VA T 1,425 $3.75 2009 197,790
1243
1244 Stafford County VA V $0.00
Roanoke
VA E 500 $0.30 2013 97.032
1245 Staunton
VA T $0.00 23.853
1246 Suffolk VA E 3,200 $3.95 2006 63,677
1247 Virginia Beach VA E 2,269 $12.99 1993 425,257
1248 Burlington VT T 1,000 $0.00 2009 38,889
1249 South Burlington VT T 2,700 $5.94 2005 15,814
1250 Aberdeen WA F $6.69 1999 16,835
1251 Algona WA F $5.50 2004 2,460
45
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1252 Anacortes WA E 2,000 $5.00 1999 15,941
1253 Arlington WA E 6,000 $6.89 2006 18,154
1254 Asotin County WA E 3,700 $6.00 2010 21,933
1255 Auburn WA T 2,600 $0.00 1991 71,517
1256 Bainbridge Island WA E 3,000 $12.23 23,262
1257 Battle Ground WA F $7.50 1982 17,893
1258 Bellevue WA F $5.10 1974 124,798
1259 Bellingham WA T $0.00 2001 81,862
1260 Black Diamond WA E 3,000 $16.00 2008 4,273
1261 Blaine WA E 2,000 $4.37 1999 4,684
1262 Bonney Lake WA E 2,600 $14.00 1997 17,579
1263 Bothell WA T $12.42 1994 34,055
1264 Bremerton WA E 2,500 $9.83 1994 39,051
1265 Brier WA E 2,000 $6.50 1999 6,165
1266 Buckley WA E 8,000 $19.10 1992 4,354
1267 Burien WA T $11.42 2008 33,977
1268 Burlington WA E 2,400 $6.07 1994 8,474
1269 Camas WA E 3,218 $9.71 1989 19,712
1270 Castle Rock WA T $0.00 1,982
1271 Centralia WA E 3,000 $6.00 2004 16,432
1272 Chehalis WA E 3,000 $7.95 1992 7,299
1273 Chelan County WA E 4,600 $5.50 2008 73,477
1274 Clark County WA E 3,500 $2.75 1980 433,418
1275 Des Moines WA T 3,450 $0.00 1990 30,258
1276 Douglas County WA E 2,750 $3.75 1998 38,971
1277 Duvall WA F $18.18 1981 6,828
1278 East Wenatchee WA E 2,750 $2.92 1999 13,375
1279 Edgewood WA T $0.00 1996 9,499
46
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
'
Edmonds
Ellensburg
Everett
Federal Way
Ferndale
Fite
Friday Harbor
Gig Harbor
Hoquiam
Iiwaco
Issaquah
Fee I ERU Year
State : T .e ift1 Month' Fee Created Populatitin
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
E
E
E
T
E 10,000
F
E
E
E
T
E
$12.35 1998 40,215
$6.06 2009 18,468
$13.06 2004 104,295
$6.59 1990 91,085
$11.00 2006 11,564
$2.88 2004 9,281
2,000 $12.70 1993 1,989
2,200 $12.14 1984 7,208
2,500 $9.83 2005 8,696
$0.00 2011 936
2,000 $14.08 1988 31,037
29,924
3,000
3,900
900
1291 Jefferson County
WA E 3,000 $0.00
1292 Kelso WA T $7.12 1993 11,934
$5.46 76,224
1294 Kent WA E 2,500 $12.22 1992 120,916
1295 King County WA T $0.00 1986 1,969,722
1296 Kirkland WA E 2,600 $15.60 45,054
1297 Kitsap County WA E 4,200 $5.82 1994 231,969
1298 La Conner WA E 2,100 $15.08 2002 785
1299 Lacey WA T $8.03 1986 31,226
1300 Lake Forest Park WA T $0.00 1990 13,142
1301 Lake Stevens WA T $0.00 1997 6,361
1302 Liberty Lake WA E 3,160 $10.00 2003 4,660
1303 Longview WA F $7.97 1999 34,660
1304 Lynden WA D $6.73 9,020
1305 Lynnwood WA E 2,900 $20.20 1991 33,847
1306 Marysville WA E 3,200 $10.82 1999 25,315
1307 Mason County WA V $0.00 2008 49,405
1293 Kennewick
WA V
47
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
) !, [JI
1308 Mercer island
1309 Mill Creek
1310 Milton
Fee ERU 1 Year
T. ._::_ _ Ifk'i l Fee- Created
WA
WA
WA
E
E
E
1311 Monroe
WA E
1312 Montesano
3,471
3,000
2,800
$30.64
$0.00
$12.75
1995
2001
22,036
11,525
5,795
2,500 $10.50 1996
17,304
WA E 3,000 $2.49 1999 3,312
1313 Moses Lake
WA T $5.30 14,953
1314 Mountlake Terrace WA E 2,282 $10.69 1999 20,362
1315 Mukilteo WA E 2,500 $7.85 1988 18,019
1316 Normandy Park WA E 3,100 $16.00 2003 6,392
1317 North Bend WA E 2,920 $12.36
1318 Oak Harbor WA E 3,300 $7.70 1997 22,075
2001 4,746
1319 Ocean Shores
WA F
$3.54 1980 5,569
1320 Olympia WA T $0.00 1986 46,478
1321 Omak WA T $0.00 1984 4,845
1322 Orting WA T $0.00 1997 6,746
1323 Pacific
WA E 2,500 $13.00 1999 6,737
1324 Pierce County WA T $8.89 1991 807,904
1325 Port Angeles WA E 4,000 $12.00 2003 19,154
1326 Port Orchard WA E 3,000 $7.00 2008 11,144
1327 Port Townsend
WA E 3,000 $6.59 1987 9.113
1328 Poulsbo WA E 3,000 $10.57 1999 9.200
1329
1330 Puyallup WA E 2,800 $22.01 37,022
1988 54,144
1332 Renton WA T $0.00 1987 92,812
1333 Richland WA E 3,000 $3.85 1998 48,058
1334 San Juan County WA T $0.00 2006 15,844
1335 Seatac WA V $0.00 1992 26,909
Pullman
WA E 3,500 $7.00 2009 29.799
1331 Redmond
WA R
48
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
41" WIEU 1111,111EI
1336 Seattle WA T $26.58
1337 Sedro-Woolley WA E 10,000 $5.40
1338 Shelton WA T $0.00
1339 Skagit County WA T $0.00
1340 Snohomish WA E 2,500 $2.09
1341 Snoqualmie WA E 2,600 $4.00
1342 Spokane WA D 43,560 $3.84
1343 Spokane County WA E 3,160 $1.75
1344 Steilacoom WA E 2,500 $14.58
1345 Sultan WA E 4,519 $9.53
1346 Sumas WA T $1.50
1347 Sumner WA E 2,400 $2.50
1348 Sunnyside WA A $34.39
1349 Tacoma WA E 500 $17.82
1350 Thurston County WA T $0.00
1351 Toppenish WA E 2,000 $1.00
1352 Tukwilla WA T $9.83
1353 Tumwater WA E 3,250 $7.15
1354 University Place WA T $0.00
1355 Vancouver WA E 2,500 $7.10
1356 Walla Walla WA E 5,000 $6.90
1357 Wenatchee WA E 3,000 $7.05
1358 West Richland WA T $0.00
1359 Woodinville WA T $7.26
1360 Woodway WA T $0.00
1361 Yakima WA E 3,600 $3.58
1362 Yelm WA T $2.50
1363 r*n�wr
WI
1987 602,778
2007 10,540
1995 8,442
1994 102,979
2004 9,098
1997 1,631
2005 195,629
1993 417,939
1994 6,049
4,183
2005 1,265
8,504
13,905
1984 193,556
2002 207,355
1991 8,946
1989 17,181
1987 12,698
1995 29,933
1994 157,493
1999 30,945
1995 27,856
2006 8,358
1993 9,194
1,307
2004 71,845
1999 3,289
E 3,663 $7.00 zUUt3 14,126
49
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
.J.
Fee
State T pa
ERU - Year
(ft9 . f nth' Fee Created
1364 Altoona WI T 43,560 $3.00 2007 6,789
1365 Appleton WI E 2,368 $12.92 1995 73,243
1366 Ashwaubenon WI F $4.17 2012 16,973
1367 Baraboo WI E 2,379 $4.10 2005 1,828
1368 Barron WI E 10,850 $2.00 2005 3,425
1369 Bayside
WI E 5,269 $8.33 2009 4,411
1370 Beaver Dam WI E 2,637 $4.05 2009 16,243
1371 Bellevue
1372 Beloit WI E 3,347 $3.00 2006 36,913
Brookfield (Town of, not City
of) WI V $0.00 6,390
1374 Brown Deer WI E 3,257 $7.66 2004 12,061
WI E 3,221 $4.00 2002 14,742
1373
1375 Butler
WI E 3,032 $5.50 1999 1.846
1376 Cambridge WI D 43,560 $2.33 2005 1,101
1377 Chetek WI F $2.25 2005 2,222
1378 Chippewa Falls WI F $3.00 2005 13,738
1379 Cudahy WI E 2,700 $5.00 2001 18,359
1380 De Forest WI E 2,900 $5.00 2005 9,085
1381 De Pere
WI E 3,861
$5.17 2003 20,560
1382 Delafield WI E 1,000 $2.42 2004 7,100
1383 Denmark WI F
1384 Durand WI E 3,300 $3.00 2010 1,968
1997 66,623
1386 Elm Grove WI E 4,660 $5.46 2004 5,947
1387 Fitchburg (city) WI E 3,700 $6.50 2002 25,665
1388 Fitchburg (rural) WI E 3,700 $3.24 2002 4,000
$4.00 2007 2,148
1385 Eau Claire
WI E 3,000 $6.92
1389 Fort Atkinson
WI E 3,096 $2.82 2009 12.407
1390 Fox Point
WI T 2,988 $0.00 2009 6.734
50
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1391 Franklin
1392 Gamer's Creek Watershed
1393 Glendale
1394 Grand Chute
1395 Grantsburg
1396 Green Bay
1397 Greendale
1398 Greenfield
1399 Greenville
1400 Hales Corners
1401 Harrison
1402 Hobart
1403 Holmen
1404 Howard
1405 Hudson
1406 Janesville
1407 Jefferson
1408 Kaukauna
1409 Kenosha
1410 Kimberly
1411 La Crosse
1412 Lake Delton
1413 Lancaster
1414 Lawrence
1415 Ledgeview
1416 Lisbon
1417 Little Chute
1418 Madison
WI E 2,964 $3.00
WI E 3,623 $8.00
WI E 3,200 $3.50
WI E 3,283 $8.32
WI F $1.50
WI E 3,000 $5.31
WI E 3,941 $6.50
WI E 3,630 $4.15
WI E 4,510 $5.42
WI E 3952 $0.75
WI F $8.00
WI E 4,000 $6.00
WI E 3,550 $4.08
WI E 3,301 $3.67
WI E 2,890 $2.50
WI E 3,200 $3.31
WI E 3,220 $3.33
WI E 2,944 $5.50
WI E 2,477 $5.00
WI E 3,350 $9.17
WI E 2,841 $4.49
WI E 1,685 $1.50
WI E 2,400 $2.00
WI V $0.00
WI E 5,800 $3.33
WI E 6,642 $3.33
WI E 2,752 $8.00
WI R $1.20
35,620
12,935
18,392
1,397
105,809
14,117
36,903
6,844
7,730
5,800
6,254
9,081
17,602
12,719
63,479
7,997
12,983
2007 99,738
2006 6,508
2011 51,719
1993 1,982
2008 3,868
2012 3,075
2010 3,363
2007 1,020
1998 10,514
2001 236,901
1998
1996
1997
2004
2004
2004
2009
1999
2008
1998
2007
2007
2005
2012
2003
51
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
Manitowoc
Marinette
Marshfield
Mazomanie
McFarland
Menasha
Menomonee Falls
Menomonie
Milton
Milwaukee
Monona
Monroe
Mount Pleasant
Mukwonago
Neenah
New Berlin
New Glarus
New Richmond
North Fond du Lac
Oak Creek
Onalaska (City)
Onalaska (Town)
Oshkosh
Outagamie County
Palmyra
Pewaukee
Pleasant Prairie
Poynette
WI
WI
WI
WI
W1
WI
Wl
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
E
F
E
E
E
V
E
E
E
F
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
l=
E
E
E
3,167
3,105
3,639
3,456
2,980
3,000
4,081
1,610
2,728
3,000
3,000
3,138
4,000
3,000
12,632
3,123
2,964
3,888
3,709
2,817
8,000
2010
2,000
3,550
$6.00
$0.00
$5.50
$0.00
$7.06
$6.25
$0.00
$3.00
$5.24
$5.38
$5.00
$5.00
$0.00
$4.17
$7.00
$5.00
$4.85
$2.39
$4.67
$4.67
$4.97
$2.00
$8.97
$0.00
$9.39
$10.00
$1.25
$4.17
2007
2009
2004
2013
2007
2009
2008
2009
2006
2004
2006
1998
2006
2003
2001
2009
2004
2007
2009
2005
2003
2010
2006
2006
34,053
10,943
19,220
1,652
7,937
17,442
35,704
14,937
5,538
597,867
7,658
10,843
26,601
8,519
25,501
39,584
2,111
8,375
5,014
34,451
17,736
5,600
66,083
177,913
2,911
13,195
19,719
2,266
52
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Fee
41. F State T 1�0_
1447 Prairie du Sac WI E 43,560 $3.62
1448 Racine WI E 2,844 $6.00
2004
3,231
78.860
1449 Raymond
WI
S
$0.00
2007
3,516
1450 Reedsburg
1451
1452 Rice Lake
WI E 3,024 $3.83
Rhinelander
W1 E
WI F
2008
8,594
3,305 $1.08 2012
7,756
$4.89 2011 8,438
1453 River Falls
WI F $3.14 1998 14.889
1454 Saint Francis
WI E 2,500 $4.00 2001 9,365
1455 Salem
WI E 3,000 $5.00 2010 9.871
1456 Scott WI E 4,250 $3.75 3,712
1457 Sheboygan WI E 2,215 $3.00 2001 50,792
1458 Shorewood Hills WI E 2,941 $0.00 2007 1,732
1459 Silver Lake WI E 3,870 $0.00 2008 2,497
1460 Slinger WI E 4,300 $3.33 2007 5,068
1461 South Milwaukee WI E 2,964 $3.00 21,256
1462 Stevens Point WI E 3,364 $4.90 26,748
1463 Stoughton
1464 Sturtevant WI V $0.00 2008 6,941
1465 Sun Prairie WI E 3,468 $7.50 2003 29,364
1466 Superior WI E 1,907 $5.90 2004 27,368
1467 Sussex WI E 3,897 $5.00 2005 10,518
1468 Two Rivers WI E 3,015 $0.00 2014 11,716
1469 Union Grove WI E 4 000 $7.24 2009 4,884
1470 Vernon WI E 6,904 $2.67 2006 7,227
1471 Verona WI E 2,842 $4.42 2009 10,619
1472 Washburn WI F $4.00 2005 2,280
1473 Watertown WI E 2,900 $6.33 2005 22,824
1474 Waupun WI E 3,204 $8.00 2005 11.340
WI E 3,105 $3.75 2012 12.817
53
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
1475 Wauwatosa
1476 West Allis
State
WI
WI
Ye ar
I Fee Created
2,174 $6.56 1999 47,271
E 1,827 $6.43 1997 61,254
1,956 $3.00 2003 4,142
WI E 2,400 $1.33 2007 4,837
WI E 3,338 $3.98 2004 14,904
WI E 3,850 $4.08 2007 14,769
WI E 3,857 $8.80 2008 1,717
WI E 2,620 $2.33 2008 18,217
WV D 1,000 $3.75 2007 17,606
WV D 1,000 $5.50 2006 18,737
1,000 $1.50 2005 6,359
WV D 1,000 $4.00 2,498
WV D 1,000 $5.88 2011 31,000
WV D $5.00 2010 8,887
$5.00 2003 7,713
WV V $0.00 2011 10,973
WV F $4.00 2010 10,686
1477 West Milwaukee
WI
E
1478 West Salem
1479 Weston
1480 Whitewater
1481 Wind Point
1482 Wisconsin Rapids
1483 Beckley
1484 Fairmont
1485
1486 Milton
1487 Morgantown
1488 Moundsville
1489
1490 Saint Albans
1491 Vienna
Hurricane
WV D
Oak Hill
WV D
54
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
Appendix A3. Canadian Stormwater Utilities
N0, C ommunit . Province
1 Halifax
2 London
3 Aurora
4 Saint Thomas
5 Kitchener
6 Waterloo
7 Richmond Hill
8 Regina
9 Saskatoon
10 Calgary
11 Edmonton
12 Saint Albert
13 Strathcona County
14 Pitt Meadows
15 Richmond
16 West Vancouver
17 Surrey
18 White Rock
19 Langley
NS
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
SA
SA
AL
AL
AL
AL
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
Fee T pe
ERU
pnshI Fee
E 1 $2.78
T $13.78
T $4.78
T $7.39
T $10.17
$5.39
D $ 3.97
T $13.20
E 256 $4.40
M $9.20
$7.00
T $15.72
F $2.00
$6.50
T $10,80
T $12.82
i7 $16.75
$19 00
Year Created Po, elation
2013
1996
1998
2000
2011
2011
2013
2001
2012
1994
2003
2003
2007
2009
297,943
366,151
53,203
37,905
219,153
98,780
185,541
193,100
261,000
1,096,833
812,201
61,466
92,490
17,736
190,473
44,000
468,251
19,339
25,081
55
Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014
References
Black and Veatch (2014). "2014 Stormwater Utility Survey," 24 pp.
Campbell, C. Warren (2013). "The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2011,"
www.wku.edu/swusurvev, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Campbell, C. Warren (2012). "The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2011,"
www.wku.eduJswusurvev, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Campbell, C. Warren (2011). "The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2011,"
www.wku.edu/swusurvev, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Campbell, C. Warren (2010). "The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2010,"
www.wku.edu/swusurvev, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Campbell, C. Warren (2009). "The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2009,"
www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Campbell, C. Warren, and Back, A. Darren (2008). "The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility
Survey 2008," www.wku.edu/swusurvev, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Campbell, C. Warren (2007). "The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2007,"
www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
England, Kate, New England Survey: http://kate-eneland.com/new-eneland-stormwater-utilities/#1ink5
Environmental Finance Center (2013). University of North Carolina, http://efc.unc.edu/index.html.
Otto, Rebecca (2011). "Minnesota City Finances: 2010 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt," Office of the
State Auditor, St. Paul, Minnesota, 312 pp.
Wisconsin APWA Chapter (2010). "WI Stormwater User Charge Information,"
http://wisconsin.apwa.net/chapters/wsconsin/documents/SUMatrixAPWA%285%29.pdf, 1 p.
56