Western Kentucky University
Stormwater Utility Survey
2010
C. Warren Campbell
i
Preface to the 2010 Survey
The WKU Survey appears to be gaining some traction in the stormwater community. It was cited in
hearings that led to the formation of the Oldham County, Kentucky SWU and in the feasibility study for a
stormwater utility in Newark, Delaware. This survey provides data on more than 1100 stormwater
utilities that support either flood mitigation or water quality efforts or both.
As a former local official, I began this survey to help my community develop a stormwater utility. The
goal of these surveys has always been to help communities develop stormwater utilities that will both
meet the needs of the community and withstand court challenges. However, this data is in the public
domain and is free to both proponents and opponents of stormwater utilities. As you use the data
herein, please keep this in mind. Also, keep in mind that I am an engineer and not a lawyer.
As the disclaimer below says, the methods used to obtain the data are prone to error. It is particularly
difficult to find data on SWUs in small communities that don’t have the resources to support a
comprehensive web page. I have made every effort to both scrub the data and keep it updated.
However, with more than 1100 SWUs currently this is a monumental task. If you are aware of mistakes
or omissions in the data, please contact me at 270-745-8988 or by email at warren.campbell@wku.edu.
If you use email, please put a clear subject in the email. I receive more than 100 emails a day, and if
there is not a recognizable subject line, I may miss your input. As always, thanks in advance for your
help.
Warren Campbell
Bowling Green, Kentucky
June 9, 2010
ii
DISCLAIMER
The main goal of this survey was to identify 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. We searched on key terms such as “stormwater utility”,
“stormwater fee”, and “drainage fee”. We scoured on-line municipal codes such as Municode, AmLegal,
LexisNexis, and others. We went through many city web sites trying to find utilities. The approach used
is prone to errors and we hope the readers of this document will help us correct them.
In some cases, it is difficult to tell whether the community has a stormwater utility or not. Some
communities have enacted the right to charge a stormwater user’s fee, but have not actually enacted a
fee. If the right to charge a recurring fee dedicated to stormwater was enacted, we counted it as a SWU.
When one of our students contacted a community official, she said they did not have a SWU but wished
they did. However, they did charge a stormwater fee of $ 0.55 per month. This raises the question of
the definition of a SWU. By our definition, a SWU is a funding approach requiring residents to pay a
recurring charge that supports community stormwater initiatives. The fee is dedicated to the
maintenance, design, construction, and administration of the stormwater system.
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author. They are not official opinions of
Western Kentucky University, its administration, nor of any other individuals associated in any way
with the University. The author is an engineer 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, its employees, students, or any organization associated with the
University.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As always, the hard work of this survey was done by dedicated students in my CE 300 Floodplain
Management class. 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
Since the 2010 survey is built on the foundation of our earlier surveys, it is important to recognize
contributors from previous years. 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
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
iv
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 AMEC 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.
We thank Tricia 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.
Finally, we have borrowed data from the other stormwater utility surveys cited in the references. In
some cases, we have updated data such as fees, and any mistakes should be considered primarily the
fault of the author of this document.
v
Introduction
As in the 2009 survey, Florida and Minnesota have more than 100 SWUs, but Washington has 99 (that
we were able to find) and Wisconsin has 95. Florida is approaching 200. Texas was the big gainer this
year going from 46 to 66 SWUs. Communities continue to form stormwater utilities with an increasing
emphasis on stormwater quality. However, with the flooding that occurred this year in Tennessee, I
expect to see the formation of more utilities there. Figure 1 shows the 2010 stormwater utilities by
location.
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 2000 census
population of 33 (no, this is not a misprint). The largest community is Los Angeles with a population
exceeding 3,000,000. No community is too small or too large to have a stormwater utility. The average
size of a SWU community is about 82,000.
As this is written, our survey contains data on 1112 stormwater utilities (SWUs) located in 38 states and
the District of Columbia. Based on our current find rate, my best guess would be that there are between
1200 and 1500 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 numbers of stormwater utilities by state.
For the 572 communities for which we were able to find Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), the
average was 3,000 square feet of impervious area and the median ERU was 2,700 sq ft. A community’s
ERU is the average area of hard surface of a single family residential property. It includes building
footprints, sidewalks, driveways, decks, etc.
The average monthly single family residential fee was $4.12 and the median fee was $3.50. 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. Several communities have reduced their fees.
1
Figure 1. U.S. stormwater utilities (SWUs)
2
Figure 2. Stormwater utilities by state
Recently, Mulcahy (2006) addressed the issue of effectiveness of a stormwater utility using a set of
metrics developed for that purpose. While one can argue with her choice of metrics, the idea of gauging
a SWU’s effectiveness quantitatively is a good one. The 2008 survey (Campbell and Back [2008])
addressed this qualitatively. A good stormwater utility in my opinion is one with the following
characteristics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Provides adequate funding to meet the legitimate stormwater needs of the community
Is fairly apportioned according to the amount of stormwater burden produced by a parcel
Has a fee system that is simple enough to be readily administered
Can stand up in court
Can withstand political challenges
Characteristic 1 is important but many community officials often feel pressure to enact a system of fees
they know will not meet community needs because of political considerations. When an inadequate fee
is enacted, expectations are often not met. Political support can evaporate and a SWU ordinance can be
repealed. A well-structured fee system will meet community needs and expectations and yet not be
excessive. The culture in some communities will support a stormwater fee more easily than in others.
Unfortunately, political realities or perceived realities often govern the setting of a fee. While it is
3
desirable to have elected officials show the character to set an appropriate fee, a politician who cannot
be re-elected will be unable to champion stormwater causes.
Failure to create a SWU ordinance with Characteristic 2 embedded can lead to legal exposure. At least
one community (Arvada, Colorado) calculates a different fee for every property based on the amount of
impervious area on the parcel. Because of the nexus between impervious area and the amount of
stormwater and contamination produced, this is a very fair way to assess a fee. However, problems of
billing complexity make this approach infeasible for many communities. For them, a fee system is a
compromise between fair apportionment and ease of administration. There is some conflict between
Characteristics 2 and 3.
Characteristic 4 is a question of great concern to every one of the stormwater utility communities.
There are many aspects of the ability to withstand a legal challenge, and these vary according to state
law. More information is provided in the following section.
Characteristic 5 is a rising concern and politicians and citizens in some communities are attempting to
repeal SWU ordinances. Strategies take at least three forms: 1) repeal of the ordinance, 2) creation of
ordinances or statutes that make it harder to enact a SWU, and 3) opposition to enabling legislation.
Some residents in Florida tried to pass a state law that required any new fee or tax to be voted on by the
citizens of the affected community. This would make it much more difficult and expensive to pass a
SWU since instead of educating a committee of prominent citizens, the education would have to be
extended to the whole community, many of whom are not inclined to listen to someone asking for
another fee.
Challenges to Stormwater Utilities
We have continued our search for SWUs challenged in court. These challenges can take several forms.
It may be the stormwater utility that challenges a state agency that believes the local government has
exceeded its authority by levying a fee on a state agency. Most of the challenges are by groups of
residents, businesses, school districts, and/or churches who do not wish to pay the fee.
Figure 3 shows the map of utilities challenged and the outcomes to date that we were able to identify.
Two of the stormwater utilities in Kentucky have been challenged and these were added to the map
from last year. The figure shows five SWUs that were struck down: Port Saint Lucie (Florida), Atlanta
(Georgia), Lansing (Michigan), Topeka (Kansas), and Salinas (California). Of these, Port Saint Lucie and
Topeka have ERU-based fee systems. Atlanta used a system based on parcel size. The fee systems of
Lansing and Salinas are not known. This survey provides ERUs for 572 utilities. At least two have been
successfully challenged in court. The map shows 29 SWUs that have faced court challenges. Of the 29,
21 were upheld, 3 are pending, and 5 were struck down. Of the 21 upheld, 14 used an ERU based
system, 4 used another system, and the fee system of the other 3 is unknown (by this survey).
4
The map of Figure 3 is by necessity simplified. For example, the classifications “upheld” or “struck
down” may not be clear. In the case of Durham, though the city had to refund some fees collected, the
court affirmed the use of an ERU system as a valid and fair method of assessing fees. So was the fee
upheld or struck down? I elected to show it on the map as upheld.
Usually, the people who are likely to challenge stormwater utilities come from one of the following
groups.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tax-exempt organizations
Residential home owners
Business owners
People on fixed income
State or Federal agencies
The grounds for these challenges are most often one of the following.
1. The fee is actually a tax.
a. Some states require that taxes be approved by the voters and this wasn’t.
b. Since it is a tax, tax-exempt organizations should not have to pay.
2. Some states require that a fee be voluntary. For example, you can choose to have electricity or
water service. If the fee is not voluntary, then it looks like a tax (see above). In some states, the
use of a credit system is very important. If no credit is given even if a parcel has constructed
stormwater measures that reduce outflow from the property significantly, a SWU can face legal
exposure.
3. The use of the fee exceeds the authority granted in state law.
4. The fee is not fairly apportioned according to burden placed on the stormwater system.
5. The City does not really need that much money to take care of stormwater needs.
Central to protecting a SWU from legal challenges is the apportionment of the fee. To be bulletproof in
court, there must be a nexus between the service provided and the fee. Also, allowing credit, that is, fee
reductions, for using stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) may be desirable in many states.
5
Figure 3. Stormwater utility court challenges and outcomes.
Analysis
Apportionment of the fee is critical for a stormwater utility. The fee should be perceived by the public
and by businesses as fair. Some SWUs are intended to support a community’s water quality initiatives
and permitting as a Phase I or Phase II community under EPA permitting requirements. The focus of
these SWUs is water quality rather than quantity. Some communities are funding water quality projects
under their utility so that the public can see some value coming from the fees they pay. Many residents
don’t feel they are getting anything from a stormwater utility if its only purpose is to do the paperwork
required for the city’s stormwater permit.
The best way to determine a fee is to identify the legitimate stormwater needs of the community and
set the fee accordingly. If the SWU revenue is used to address flooding and water quality, acceptable
uses of revenues should include the cost of design and construction of capital improvement projects,
maintenance of stormwater systems, salaries of staff, education and outreach, and administrative costs.
6
Once the legitimate needs of the community are identified, then the fee should be adjusted to provide
the needed revenue. If an ERU-based fee is used, the first step is to identify the ERU. A community may
not have the revenue initially to pay for this analysis. Some communities enact the SWU using general
guidelines or results from nearby, similar communities. Initial fees are set, and revenue is collected.
Then the community can contract for the needed work. It is a good idea to hire a company with
experience in setting up utilities to do this. These companies will normally use GIS information from the
community to estimate the ERU. For larger communities, this is normally done by generating a random
sample of single family residential properties and identifying the impervious surface on each parcel in
the sample. The average over the sample of parcels is the estimated ERU.
An accurate estimate of the ERU is very important. If the ERU estimate is too small, residential
customers will pay less than their fair share and nonresidential customers will pay more. If the estimate
is too large, nonresidential customers will pay less than their fair share and residential customers will
pay more. This was discussed in more detail in the 2009 Survey (Campbell, 2009). Figure 4 is a map of
ERUs for the U.S. The small dots indicate stormwater utilities that either use a method other than the
ERU method, or for which no ERU could be found.
Once the ERU is known, the next step is to determine the number of ERUs in the community. This
involves determining the impervious area of all non-residential properties or by sampling these
properties in each zoning category and then estimating the number of nonresidential ERUs. Once the
number of community ERUs is known, the fee can be set by dividing the required annual revenue by 12
to get the total monthly revenue. The total monthly revenue is divided by the number of community
ERUs to get the monthly base fee.
While the ERU system is widely used and accepted, some cities opt for other methods. At least one
community bases its SWU fee on water usage. Others base it on the number of water meters. While
these would bear some correlation to the amount of development, the relation to stormwater volume
produced seems less direct than for the ERU system. In Minnesota, the Residential Equivalence Factor is
popular. The volume of stormwater produced for a selected storm is determined for the average single
family residential property. The fee for other properties is related to the volume of runoff produced for
the given storm as compared to that for an average single family residential property. This approach
seems reasonable and usually produces a fee more closely related to stormwater quantity (flooding)
than the ERU method.
7
Figure 4. Distribution of monthly Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) across the U.S.
The other commonly used fee method is the tier system. In a tier system, a group of tiers are selected
based on the amount of impervious area. Within each tier a single monthly fee is assessed. It has a
simplicity advantage over the ERU system because parcels are divided into a few groups so that only a
few different fees are levied. As pointed out by Andy Reese (AMEC Environmental, personal
communication, 2010) an ERU system is just a tier system with an infinite number of tiers. For reasons
to be discussed, the tier system can have some disadvantages in terms of fairness for all property
owners. To understand this, consider the following example.
8
Tier System Example
Consider a hypothetical community that settles on a tier system. Assume that the actual ERU is 3,000
square feet impervious. However, the community settles on the residential and nonresidential tier
system given in the tables below. In the tables, Amin is the lower value of the impervious area for a
given tier and Amax is the upper value of impervious area for the tier. From the table, one inequity is
immediately obvious. A nonresidential property with 50,000 square feet of impervious area pays a
monthly fee of $64 whereas a property with 50,001 square feet of impervious area pays a fee of $128.
There are other inequities as well.
Residential
Amin
Amax
(sq ft imprv) (sq ft imprv)
0
2000
2001
4000
4001
6000
6000
∞
Fee
$2
$4
$6
$8
Nonresidential
Amin
Amax
Fee
(sq ft imprv) (sq ft imprv)
0
2,000
$4
2,001
5,000
$8
5,001
10,000
$16
10,001
20,000
$32
20,001
50,000
$64
50,001
100,000
$128
100,001
200,000
$256
200,001
500,000
$512
500,001
1,000,000 $1,024
1,000,001
∞
$2,048
If we assume that an ERU-based fee is perfectly fair, then we can plot the ERU-based fees and the tierbased fees as a function of parcel impervious surface. For non-residential properties, this is done in
Figure 5. From the figure, large homes with more than 6,000 square feet of impervious area will be
paying less than they would pay under an ERU-based system. Meanwhile for ranges of impervious area
where the red tier fee curve is above the blue ERU fee curve, the property owners or residents will be
paying more under a tier system than they would under an ERU system.
9
Figure 5. Comparison of the ERU-based fee and the tier-based fee
Figure 6 provides similar curves for nonresidential properties. At a glance, we can see who suffers under
a tier system. In any tier system, very large properties will always pay less than under an ERU system.
For the set of tiers of the hypothetical town, properties with more than 1,536,000 square feet
impervious will pay less than under an ERU system. A second observation is that parcels with less than
300,000 square feet impervious will be paying more under the tier system than under an ERU system as
would properties with between 1,000,001 and 1,536,000 square feet impervious.
From Figures 5 and 6, it is apparent that the more tiers, the closer the tier system can be made to the
ERU system. Figure 7 illustrates that within a given tier, the fee that gives the least deviation from the
ERU fee is the fee that is the average of the two ERU fees at the end points. In this sense, the tier fee
system of Figure 7 is the best for that set of tiers. To obtain the tier with the largest impervious area, we
have assumed that 2,000,000 square feet of impervious area is the largest that would be encountered in
the community.
For the “best” tier system, within each tier properties in the lower half of the tier will be assessed more
than the ERU based fee and the upper half of the tier will be assessed less. The residential tier fee
shows some ranges of impervious area that are being overcharged relative to an ERU-based fee.
However, many communities use only one residential tier and have not been challenged in court.
10
Figure 6. Comparison of ERU-based and tier-based fees for nonresidential properties
11
Figure 7. Plot of fee system giving the least deviation from the ERU fee within each tier
Figure 8 shows the distribution of single family monthly fees across the U.S. It shows that high fees do
not necessarily cluster in one area. States with SWUs charging high base fees also have SWUS with very
low base fees.
12
Figure 8. Distribution of stormwater utility fees across the U.S.
Figure 9 shows the growth in the number of SWUs by year. Local peaks in growth rate occur in 1993 and
in 2004. The peak in 1993 may be related to the Midwest flooding and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The
peak in 2004 shows growth in SWUs in smaller communities and is influenced by the effective date of
EPA Phase II rules. Figure 9 shows a decline in the rate of formation of SWUs in 2009. This may reflect a
leveling off of SWU formation following the flurry of formation caused by the EPA Phase II rules.
13
Figure 7. Stormwater utilities by year
Summary
The 2009 Survey (Campbell, 2009) identified 1022 stormwater utilities. This survey identified 1112.
Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have at least one stormwater utility. Two states (Florida
and Minnesota) now have more than 100 SWUs, Washington and Wisconsin will soon join the century
club if they haven’t already. Seven have more than 50, and 16 states have 20 or more stormwater
utilities. The peak in SWU formation in 2004 that was caused by EPA Phase II rules seems to have
passed and the formation rate appears to be returning to the rate observed between 1995 and 2000.
However, the growth in the number of stormwater utilities continues and today, our best guess is that
there are 1,200 to 1,500 stormwater utilities in the U.S. alone. Communities in Canada are also
beginning to form them, though these are not covered here.
Stormwater utilities continue to face legal and political challenges. Politicians are elected on the
promise of repealing the “rain tax.” SWUs are challenged in court by parties who assert the fee is a tax,
or that the fee is not fair, or for other reasons given here. An ideal stormwater utility has the following
characteristics:
14
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Provides adequate funding to meet the legitimate stormwater needs of the community
Is fairly apportioned according to the amount of stormwater burden produced by a parcel
Has a fee system that is simple enough to be readily administered
Can stand up in court
Can withstand political challenges
A strong factor determining the ability of stormwater utilities to withstand legal challenges is the fee
system. However, no fee system is a guarantee against legal challenges. The ERU system is considered
to be an equitable method of setting fees, yet Port Saint Lucie, Florida and Topeka, Kansas use ERU
systems and both were successfully challenged in court. At least fourteen other ERU system stormwater
utilities were challenged unsuccessfully in court. Any community interested in creating a stormwater
utility should give strong consideration to hiring a company with experience in this field.
References
Black and Veatch (2007). “2007 Stormwater Utility Survey,” 15 pp.
Black and Veatch (2005). “2005 Stormwater Utility Survey,” 10pp.
Campbell, C. Warren (2009). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2010,”
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/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Campbell, C. Warren (2007). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2007,”
www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.
Florida Stormwater Association (2008). “Summary of Legislative and TBRC Priorities,”
http://www.florida-stormwater.org/pdfs/LegisSum40408.pdf, 3pp.
Florida Stormwater Association (2005). “Stormwater Utilities Survey 2005,” Tallahassee, FL, 36pp.
Mulcahy, Laura Ann (2006). “The Effectiveness of Stormwater Utilities in Mitigating Stormwater Runoff
in the United States,” Environmental Studies MA Thesis, Brown University.
New England Environmental Finance Center (2005). “Stormwater Utility Fees: Considerations & Options
for Interlocal Stormwater Working Group (ISWG),”
http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/StormwaterUtilityFeeReport.pdf, 62 pp.
Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, No. 250PA97, SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA,
February 8, 1999, Heard in the Supreme Court , August 20, 1999.
Smith, Joshua (2006). “Stormwater Utilities in Geogia,”
http://www.law.uga.edu/landuseclinic/research/stormwater_utilities_2006_smith.pdf
15
Southeast Stormwater Association (2007). “2007 Southeast Stormwater Utility Survey,” Tallahassee, FL,
49pp.
16
Raw Data Tables
The following data tables provide the information collected on 1022 stormwater utilities.
Communities with an “x” in the ERU column use the tier or REF or another fee system so that no ERU is
used. The ERU column is blank when neither an ERU nor a determination can be made if an alternate
system was used.
17
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Community
Stormwater Management Authority
Mobile
Flagstaff
Mesa
Oro Valley
Peoria
Albany
Arcata
Berkeley
Burlingame
Carlsbad
Carmel
Chino
Citrus Heights
Contra Costa County
Davis
Del Mar
Dixon
Elk Grove
Escondido
Folsum
Fortuna
Galt
Hollister
Los Angeles
Modesto
Monterey
Oceanside
Ontario
Palo Alto
El Paso de Robles
State
AL
AL
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Pinole
CA
Poway
Rancho Palos Verdes
Richmond
Sacramento
Sacramento County
Salinas
San Bruno
San Diego
San Jose
San Marcos
Santa Clara County
Santa Clarita
Santa Cruz
Santa Monica
Santa Rosa
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
18
ERU
x
1500
x
5000
1
4000
5,000
x
Monthly Fee
$0.42
$3.00
$1.22
$1.50
$2.90
$0.75
$3.47
$1.96
$10.48
$1.95
$8.77
$5.54
$2.50
$4.83
$3.00
$3.77
$5.84
$2.10
$0.55
$2.43
$1.92
$5.44
$1.00
2,500
$10.55
3,804
$2.92
$4.36
$7.17
$11.31
$5.85
$3.85
$1.95
$4.53
$1.77
$2.00
$1.77
x
$1.96
No.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Community
South San Francisco
Stockton
Tracy
Vallejo
Vista
Woodland
Arapahoe County
Arvada
Aurora
Berthoud
Boulder
Canon City
Castle Rock
Colorado Springs
Denver
Englewood
Erie
Evans/Lasalle
Federal Heights
Firestone
Fort Collins
Fountain
Frederick
Golden
Greeley
Idaho Springs
LaFayette
Lakewood
Larimer County
Littleton
Longmont
Louisville
Loveland
Northglenn
Parker
Pueblo
Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority
Westminster
Windsor
Woodland Park
Washington
Wilmington
Alachua County
Altamonte Springs
Anna Maria
Apopka
Atlantic Beach
State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
DC
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
19
ERU
2,347
3,140
2,458
2,273
3,000
x
20,000
1,944
x
Monthly Fee
$2.10
$1.20
$1.97
$1.80
$0.48
$5.00
$4.30
$7.70
$2.50
$6.55
$4.00
$6.61
$6.00
$5.81
$1.39
$5.00
$3.71
$3.15
$14.26
2,500
x
x
3,738
x
x
1,000
2,492
2,254
x
1,790
$6.23
$3.20
$13.34
$4.27
$1.98
$6.90
$2.00
$7.13
$2.00
$10.39
$2.00
$6.00
$6.25
$6.90
$1.50
$3.98
$2.00
$2.57
$11.94
$5.75
$3.75
$2.08
$4.00
No.
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
Community
Auburndale
Aventura
Bartow
Bay County
Bay Harbor Islands
Belle Glade
Belle Isle
Boca Raton
Boynton Beach
Bradenton
Bradenton Beach
Brevard County
Callaway
Cape Canaveral
Cape Coral
Casselberry
Charlotte County
Clearwater
Clermont
Cocoa
Cocoa Beach
Coconut Creek
Collier County
Coral Gables
Daytona Beach
DeBary
De Land
Delray Beach
Deltona
Doral
Dundee
Dunedin
Eagle Lake
Edgewater
El Portal
Eustis
Florida City
Fort Lauderdale
Fort Meade
Fort Myers
Fort Pierce
Fort Walton Beach
Frostproof
Gainesville
Golden Beach
Grant-Valkaria
Griffin
State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
20
ERU
x
1,548
2,520
x
1,548
Monthly Fee
$0.75
$2.50
$3.75
$3.33
$5.00
4,087
2,837
1,937
1,700
$4.00
$2.90
$5.00
$2.50
$8.33
$3.00
x
2,500
2,074
10,000
2,309
x
1,830
3,154
2,166
2,900
2,070
2,428
1,661
2,560
4,900
2,502
3,484
1,548
1,708
2,027
1,548
2,187
1,250
x
x
$3.00
$6.25
$2.90
$3.00
$9.91
$3.00
$3.00
$6.00
$2.65
$3.50
$6.00
$7.00
$5.81
$5.33
$6.26
$4.00
$1.00
$6.00
$4.00
$6.00
$3.00
$3.00
$2.50
$2.90
$4.25
2,931
2,186
$4.50
2,300
8,000
2,500
2,200
$3.00
$6.95
$2.92
$3.00
$2.95
No.
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
Community
Gulf Breeze
Gulfport
Haines City
Hallandale Beach
Hernando County
Hialeah
Hialeah Gardens
Hillsborough County
Holly Hill
Hollywood
Homestead
Indian Creek Village
Indian Harbor Beach
Jacksonville
Jacksonville Beach
Jupiter
Key Biscayne
Key West
Kissimmee
Lake Alfred
Lake Mary
Lake Worth
Lakeland
Largo
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea
Lauderdale Lakes
Lauderhill
Leesburg
Leon County
Longwood
Madeira Beach
Maitland
Malabar
Manatee County
Marathon
Margate
Marion County
Martin County
Medley
Melbourne
Melbourne Beach
Miami Beach
Miami Gardens
Miami Shores
Miami Springs
Miami-Dade County
Milton
State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
21
ERU
4,450
2,300
1,935
958
Monthly Fee
$3.50
$2.87
$2.00
$2.50
1,664
1,267
1,800
2,050
2,250
2,000
$2.50
$2.00
$1.00
$3.00
$2.69
$3.18
2,500
3,100
1,541
2,651
1,083
1,400
2,404
$3.00
$5.00
$5.00
$4.37
$7.50
$7.05
$6.68
$2.00
$3.00
$5.80
$4.50
$3.57
$3.50
$4.57
$6.00
$4.00
$1.67
$6.00
$5.00
$7.25
$3.00
x
4,576
1,748
5,000
2,257
4,472
2,133
x
2,000
2,723
2,898
2,532
x
2,382
2,275
$5.00
$2.69
$1.25
1,487
2,500
2,500
791
$3.00
$1.80
$1.50
$3.25
1,435
$3.25
$3.67
$4.00
x
1,548
No.
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Community
Minneola
Miramar
Mount Dora
Mulberry
Naples
Neptune Beach
New Port Richey
New Smyrna Beach
Niceville
North Bay Village
North Lauderdale
North Miami
North Miami Beach
North Redington Beach
Oakland Park
Ocala
Ocoee
Oldsmar
Opa-Locka
Orange County
Orlando
Ormond Beach
Oviedo
Palm Bay
Palm Coast
Palmetto
Panama City
Pasco County
Pembroke Park
Pensacola
Pinecrest
Plant City
Polk City
Pompano Beach
Port Orange
Port Saint Lucie
Redington Beach
Riviera Beach
Rockledge
Safety Harbor
Saint Augustine
Saint Cloud
Saint Johns County
Saint Petersburg
Sanford
Sarasota
Sarasota County
State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
22
ERU
1,100
3,619
2,500
x
1,934
3,164
2,629
1,515
7,500
2,415
2,138
1,760
1,800
1,687
1,507
1,948
2,054
2,550
1,548
Monthly Fee
$2.00
$2.50
$3.50
$1.00
$11.84
$3.00
$3.36
$2.50
$2.65
$2.25
$3.00
$4.65
$4.50
2,000
3,000
2,464
$11.49
$5.00
$6.00
3,432
1,999
$6.00
$3.68
2,890
1,548
2,575
1,548
2,280
$3.92
$5.67
$4.40
$3.00
$4.00
$1.50
$3.00
$6.25
$10.25
$2.50
$4.50
$3.75
$3.50
$5.00
$6.35
x
2,880
3,050
2,280
1,920
2,922
1,865
2,000
2,664
2,719
2,126
3,153
$6.00
$4.00
$5.50
$3.00
$1.90
$6.85
$5.20
$7.55
$7.24
No.
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
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
277
278
279
280
281
282
Community
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
Wilton Manors
Winter Garden
Winter Haven
Winter Park
Winter Springs
Athens - Clarke County
Atlanta
Austell
Barrow County
Braselton
Canton
Cartersville
Chamblee
Clayton County
College Park
Columbia County
Conyers
Covington
Decatur
DeKalb County
Doraville
Douglasville-Douglas County
Evans
Fairburn
State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
23
ERU
3,000
2,324
2,123
2,682
Monthly Fee
$3.50
$4.00
$5.00
$3.00
$3.76
$2.50
$2.32
$2.50
$2.50
$6.93
$8.60
$3.00
$5.65
$3.00
$7.13
$5.71
$3.36
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$3.00
$2.50
$6.95
$3.50
$4.00
$2.68
$7.80
$5.50
$3.50
3,478
$1.00
$1.50
2,000
1,865
3,707
1,548
1,884
1,040
1,579
1,990
1,830
3,310
1,945
3,000
2,506
3,300
x
3,000
9,489
2,775
2,500
1,400
2,171
3,460
4,077
x
3,000
3,000
3,523
x
x
2,600
2,900
3,000
3,000
2,543
$3.75
$3.75
$3.00
$2.63
$3.33
$3.23
$5.00
$4.00
$4.00
$4.00
$3.50
No.
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
Community
Fayetteville
Garden City
Gilmer County
Griffin
Gwinnett County
Henry County
Hinesville
Lawrenceville
Loganville
McDonough
Norcross
Peachtree City
Rockdale County
Roswell
Smyrna
Snellville
Stockbridge
Stone Mountain
Sugar Hill
Valdosta
Warner Robbins
Woodstock
Ackley
Ames
Ankeny
Bettendorf
Boone
Buffalo
Burlington
Carroll
Cedar Falls
Cedar Rapids
Centerville
Clear Lake
Clive
Coralville
Davenport
De Witt
Des Moines
Dubuque
Forest City
Fort Dodge
Garner
Hiawatha
Iowa City
Marengo
Marshalltown
State
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
24
ERU
3,800
3,000
2,200
4,779
2,635
3,000
Monthly Fee
$2.95
$4.75
$4.28
$6.15
$3.32
$4.25
100
4,600
3,420
4,100
3,900
$4.00
$0.00
$5.43
$3.95
$3.39
$3.95
$2.20
2,000
$2.92
1,000
3,704
3,000
$3.00
$2.50
$3.25
$4.20
$2.60
4,000
2,500
3,000
x
25,000
x
x
3,667
x
2,600
2,349
2,917
2,533
3,129
$1.50
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$3.00
$3.00
$3.19
$3.00
$1.60
$3.25
$1.25
$1.60
$2.50
$7.29
$4.00
$5.00
$3.00
$1.00
$2.00
$1.50
$2.16
No.
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
Community
Mason City
Nevada
Oskaloosa
Perry
Sac City
Sioux City
State Center
Storm Lake
Waukee
West Des Moines
Windsor Heights
Coeur D'Alene
Lewiston
Pocatello
Aurora
Bloomington
East Moline
Highland Park
Moline
Morton
Normal
O'Fallon
Richton Park
Rock Island
Rolling Meadows
Tinley Park
Albany
Anderson
Bargersville
Batesville
Berne
Bloomington
Brownsburg
Cedar Lake
Centerville
Chandler
Chesterton
Cicero
Clarksville
Connersville
Crawfordsville
Crown Point
Cumberland
Dyer
Elkhart County
Fishers
Floyd County
State
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
ID
ID
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
25
ERU
2,750
x
2,750
2,973
4,000
3,000
4,000
x
1,000
2,200
x
3,300
3,200
3,650
x
2,800
3,604
Monthly Fee
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.00
$3.00
$3.00
$2.00
$2.75
$2.75
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$2.44
$3.45
$4.35
$2.33
$4.00
$3.75
$4.74
$4.60
$3.45
$5.63
$3.83
$2.76
x
2,500
x
2903
3,585
$12.40
$3.50
$9.46
$2.00
$10.00
$2.70
$5.00
$5.00
$8.50
$4.00
$5.00
$2.95
2,662
x
4,343
2,800
3,318
$6.00
$5.20
$6.00
$1.25
$4.95
$3.25
No.
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
Community
Fort Wayne
Fortville
Goshen
Greendale
Greenfield
Griffith
Highland
Indianapolis
Jasper
Jeffersonville
Lafayette
Lebanon
Logansport
Marion
McCordsville
Merrillville
Middletown
Muncie
Munster
New Albany
New Castle
New Haven
North Manchester
Peru
Plainfield
Plymouth
Richmond
Shelbyville
Valparaiso
Vincennes
Washington
Westfield
Yorktown
Andover
Arkansas City
Bonner Springs
Coffeyville
El Dorado
Eudora
Fairway
Hiawatha
Lawrence
Lenexa
Manhattan
Mission
Olathe
Overland Park
State
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
26
ERU
2,500
2,800
3,000
2,250
x
2,800
5,000
3,200
3,000
2,250
2,784
x
2,500
x
Monthly Fee
$3.65
$8.00
$1.25
$4.39
$2.00
$7.50
$6.43
$2.25
$2.00
$3.50
$4.00
$3.00
$5.00
$7.50
$5.00
$6.00
$0.95
$10.00
$3.17
$6.00
2,534
3,497
12,000
2,980
x
2,558
$4.00
$4.00
$2.05
$3.00
$6.00
$7.00
x
$3.00
$2.75
$2.00
x
x
$3.00
$2.50
$2.50
$3.00
2,314
3,200
x
2,366
2,485
2,485
$5.00
$4.00
$4.00
$5.00
$1.10
$4.00
$3.75
$2.00
No.
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
Community
Parsons
Pittsburg
Prairie Village
Shawnee
Topeka
Valley Center
Wichita
Winfield
Danville
Henderson
Hopkinsville
Lexington/Fayette County
Louisville/Jefferson Co.
Murray
Oldham County
Radcliff
Sanitation District 1
Warren County
Chicopee
Fall River
Newton
Reading
Annapolis
Charles County
Montgomery County
Rockville
Silver Spring
Takoma Park
Augusta
Lewiston
Orono
Ann Arbor
Berkley
Detroit
Lansing
Marquette
Albert Lea
Alexandria
Andover
Anoka
Apple Valley
Arden Hills
Ashby
Austin
Baxter
Belle Plaine
Bemidji
State
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
27
ERU
x
x
2,018
x
2,139
3,000
3,350
2,500
2,500
3,000
6,000
2,800
2,600
x
2,000
3,119
2,552
x
2,406
2,330
1,228
2,700
x
x
2,600
Monthly Fee
$1.00
$2.97
$9.50
$3.00
$3.62
$1.00
$2.00
$1.00
$1.50
$3.00
$4.32
$5.02
$1.50
$3.43
$4.00
$4.02
$4.00
$3.33
$2.08
$3.32
$1.83
$2.00
$1.06
$5.15
$3.93
$2.39
$3.44
$3.33
$3.43
$6.92
$3.35
$4.18
$2.50
$2.06
$1.76
$4.33
$3.20
x
x
x
x
3,700
$2.50
$2.10
$3.10
$6.26
No.
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
Community
Bird Island
Blaine
Bloomington
Brainerd
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Buffalo
Burnsville
Cambridge
Carver
Centerville
Champlin
Chanhassen
Circle Pines
Columbia Heights
Coon Rapids
Cottage Grove
Crystal
Deephaven
Delano
Duluth
Eagan
Eden Prairie
Edina
Elko-New Market
Excelsior
Fairmont
Falcon Heights
Faribault
Farmington
Fergus Falls
Forest Lake
Frazee
Fridley
Golden Valley
Grand Rapids
Hastings
Hopkins
Hutchinson
Jordan
Kasson
Lake Elmo
Lakeville
Lauderdale
Long Lake
Loretto
Madison
State
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
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
28
ERU
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Monthly Fee
$5.00
$1.75
$4.53
$4.78
$2.40
$6.28
$3.85
$3.33
$1.67
$2.50
$2.92
$3.00
$2.46
$3.30
$4.00
$3.10
$5.00
$3.75
$2.70
$1.00
$4.80
$4.50
$2.66
$3.25
x
x
x
$3.00
$4.00
$0.55
x
x
x
$1.12
$7.33
$5.35
$2.12
$5.00
$1.75
$3.09
x
x
$2.50
$5.25
$2.50
$3.60
$5.50
REF
No.
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
Community
Mahtomedi
Mankato
Maple Plain
Maplewood
Mayer
Medina
Mendota Heights
Minneapolis
Minnetonka
Minnetrista
Moorhead
Mora
Mound
Mounds View
New Brighton
New Hope
New Prague
North Saint Paul
Northfield
Norwood Young America
Oak Park Heights
Oakdale
Orono
Osakis
Osseo
Plymouth
Prior Lake
Ramsey
Red Wing
Richfield
Robbinsdale
Rochester
Rogers
Rosemount
Roseville
Saint Anthony
Saint Bonifacius
Saint Cloud
Saint Louis Park
Saint Michael
Saint Paul
Saint Paul Park
Saint Peter
Savage
Shakopee
Shoreview
Shorewood
State
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
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
29
ERU
x
x
x
x
x
x
1,530
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Monthly Fee
$3.51
$3.00
$2.97
$4.12
$0.67
$2.02
$1.67
$10.77
$5.10
$3.00
$1.25
$2.16
$2.75
$4.88
$6.11
$2.64
$5.35
$4.75
$1.00
$1.00
$1.67
$3.43
$1.00
$3.00
$5.00
$12.00
$2.60
$4.00
$3.30
$3.95
$3.00
$3.15
$3.94
$2.05
$4.33
$5.00
$2.10
$4.83
$2.00
$4.82
$2.67
$7.50
$6.42
$2.81
$3.63
$6.72
No.
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
Community
South Saint Paul
Stillwater
Thief River Falls
Tonka Bay
Vadnais Heights
Vadnais Lake Water Management
Organization
Victoria
Waconia
Watertown
Wayzata
West Saint Paul
White Bear Township
Woodbury
Worthington
Arnold
Columbia - Boone County
Kansas City
Saint Louis
Wentzville
Billings
Great Falls
Helena
Polson
Whitefish
Asheville
Bessemer City
Burlington
Carolina Beach
Chapel Hill
Charlotte
Clemmons
Concord
Cornelius
Cumberland County
Dallas
Davidson
Durham
Elizabeth City
Fayetteville
Forsythe County
Gastonia
Greensboro
Greenville
High Point
Hope Mills
Huntersville
Indian Trail
30
State
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
ERU
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1,750
x
3,000
2,350
10,000
x
2,442
x
x
500
2,000
2,613
3,952
3,120
2,613
2,266
Monthly Fee
$2.50
$1.50
$2.50
$1.13
$3.00
$2.20
$3.33
$5.47
$1.75
$3.33
$3.08
$2.00
$5.77
$3.00
$3.75
$1.15
$3.00
$0.24
$1.10
$2.69
$7.26
$1.84
$4.00
$2.34
$2.07
$2.00
2,266
$6.50
$8.25
$3.70
$4.30
$4.17
$1.00
$2.08
$2.81
$4.50
$3.00
$1.00
2,650
2,543
2,000
2,588
2,266
2,613
1,984
$2.75
$2.70
$5.70
$2.00
$3.00
$4.03
$4.24
x
2,613
2,400
x
No.
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
Community
Jacksonville
Kannapolis
Kernersville
Kinston
Lowell
Lumberton
Matthews
Mecklenburg County
Mint Hill
Monroe
Mount Holly
Oak Island
Oxford
Pineville
Raleigh
Rocky Mount
Spring Lake
Stallings
Washington
Whitakers
Wilmington
Wilson
Winston-Salem
Winterville
Wrightsville Beach
Bismarck
Grand Forks
Sante Fe
Carson City
Sparks
Ada
Amberly
Ashland
Barberton
Bellefontaine
Broadview Heights
Butler County
Canal Winchester
Celina
Chillicothe
Cincinnati
Columbus
Cuyahoga Falls
Dayton
Delaware
Forest Park
Gahanna
State
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
NM
NV
NV
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
31
ERU
2,850
3,250
2,980
3,059
x
2,613
2,613
2,613
2,618
x
x
2,368
2,613
2,260
2,519
2,266
x
x
Monthly Fee
$4.00
$4.00
$3.29
$4.00
$2.50
$4.03
$4.03
$4.03
$4.00
$2.50
$2.50
$2.00
$4.03
$4.00
$3.75
$2.50
x
$4.00
$3.25
$5.10
$2.94
$4.25
$2.00
$0.00
x
$2.90
x
$3.38
x
$1.50
2,500
2,585
x
2,000
3,052
8,668
2,400
4,000
4,000
3,083
2,000
3,000
x
2,773
3,064
$3.50
$5.00
$4.00
$1.08
$1.00
$2.00
$1.00
$2.70
$3.32
$2.00
$4.28
$2.50
$3.00
$3.42
No.
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
Community
Galion
Greenville
Hamilton
Hamilton County
Hudson
Ironton
Kent
Lake County
Lancaster
Lebanon
London
Loveland
Marion
Marysville
Mason
Medina
Middletown
Milford
Monroe
Montpelier
Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District
Newark
Painesville
Pickerington
Ravenna
Reynoldsburg
Sheffield
Sheffield Lake
Sidney
Spencerville
Stow
Tallmadge
Toledo
Trenton
Troy
Union
Upper Arlington
Wadsworth
Warren
Wooster
Zanesville
Broken Arrow
Choctaw
Edmond
Enid
Lawton
Muskogee
32
State
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
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
ERU
2,650
2,800
2,536
x
3,000
1,963
3,050
2,600
2,615
2,766
2,500
2,778
2,700
2,716
2,814
2,400
x
Monthly Fee
$3.00
$2.95
$5.50
$3.00
$14.55
$2.30
$0.80
$5.50
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$4.16
$2.75
$3.00
$2.25
$3.25
$5.50
$3.00
3,300
2,600
2,500
2,530
2,750
2,530
2,500
2,275
2,752
$1.00
$4.50
$2.75
$1.50
$3.00
$1.25
$2.50
$4.85
$0.83
3,060
$3.00
$2.00
$3.16
$2.60
$3.50
$3.00
$2.75
$4.50
$2.92
$4.80
2,500
x
3,000
x
648
2,650
4,860
5,000
$3.00
$3.00
$3.00
$1.00
$2.00
No.
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
Community
Oklahoma City
Sand Springs
Tulsa
Adair Village
Ashland
Beaverton
Bend
Cannon Beach
Central Point
Clackamas County
Clatskanie
Corvallis
Cottage Grove
Dundee
Estacada
Eugene
Fairview
Florence
Forest Grove
Forest Park
Gresham
Hillsboro
Hood River
Hubbard
Keizer
Lake Oswego
Medford
Milwaukie
Newberg
Ontario
Oregon City
Philomath
Portland
Reedsport
Roseburg
Saint Helens
Salem
Sandy
Scappoose
Sheridan
Springfield
Talent
Tigard
Troutdale
Tualatin
Washington County
West Linn
State
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
33
ERU
2,650
3,000
2,640
3,800
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,500
1,000
2,500
1,000
2,640
2,500
2,640
Monthly Fee
$4.00
$2.00
$4.63
$3.68
$6.00
$4.00
$3.50
$5.00
$2.50
$4.98
$3.20
$5.00
$5.15
$8.03
$6.42
$6.00
$4.00
2,194
$8.60
$4.00
$2.50
$4.25
$2.70
$6.64
$4.40
$9.15
$3.29
$1.16
$2.00
$0.75
$16.82
2,500
$3.35
$4.54
2,750
$3.00
x
3,000
3,030
3,000
2,706
2,877
2,500
x
x
$3.50
$8.63
$1.41
$4.00
$3.24
$4.00
2,914
$3.25
No.
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
Community
Wilsonville
Philadelphia
Aiken County
Anderson
Beaufort
Beaufort County
Bluffton
Charleston
Charleston County
Columbia
Conway
Dorchester County
Easley
Florence
Folly Beach
Georgetown
Georgetown County
Greenville
Greenville County
Greer
Hartsville
Hilton Head Island
Horry County
Mount Pleasant
Myrtle Beach
North Augusta
North Charleston
North Myrtle Beach
Port Royal
Rock Hill
Spartanburg County
Summerville
Tega Cay
Aberdeen
Brookings
Sioux Falls
Alcoa
Chattanooga
Collierville
Dyersburg
Franklin
Hamilton County
Johnson City
La Vergne
Maryville
Memphis
Millington
State
OR
PA
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SD
SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
34
ERU
2,750
2,500
x
4,906
4,906
4,906
2,200
2,454
2,700
14,520
5,000
2,500
x
3,770
2,389
2,466
2,500
x
5,000
x
x
3,500
4,906
x
x
x
Monthly Fee
$4.00
$9.12
$3.22
$4.00
$3.70
$4.17
$8.17
$6.00
$3.00
$3.95
$5.25
$2.43
$2.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.00
$4.33
$5.18
$1.80
$4.00
$6.94
$2.45
$1.50
$3.50
$4.00
$6.00
$4.17
$2.40
$4.00
$3.00
$8.00
x
x
x
1,500
3,350
3,500
3,315
3,181
2,400
3,147
3,000
$4.00
$3.00
$2.25
$1.00
$3.65
$3.00
$3.00
$3.50
$3.97
$2.18
$2.50
No.
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
Community
Morristown
Murfreesboro
Nashville/Davidson County
Signal Mountain
Smyrna
Spring Hill
Tullahoma
Abilene
Allen
Arlington
Austin
Azle
Baytown
Bedford
Belton
Benbrook
Bexar County
Bryan
Burkburnett
College Station
Colleyville
Colony
Coppell
Corinth
Corpus Christi
Dallas
Denton
El Paso
Euless
Fairview
Flower Mound
Fort Worth
Frisco
Gainesville
Garland
Georgetown
Grand Prairie
Grapevine
Haltom City
Highland Village
Houston
Hurst
Irving
Keller
Killeen
Laredo
Live Oak
State
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
35
ERU
2,400
3,470
x
x
3,543
3,412
x
x
2,800
x
1,500
1,979
2,727
Monthly Fee
$1.00
$3.25
$3.00
$2.50
$3.50
$0.00
$2.45
$2.75
$3.50
$7.15
$3.00
$1.71
$3.50
3,186
$6.50
$1.10
3,500
$1.50
3,406
$7.00
$2.50
3,900
$5.00
x
x
$3.65
2,000
x
x
2,600
x
1,895
$4.75
$2.50
$7.75
$3.90
$4.75
$2.00
$2.00
$2.40
$2.50
1,000
2,400
3,342
x
3,007
$4.89
$4.91
$2.00
$4.00
$2.16
$5.00
$2.25
$5.50
No.
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
Community
Lubbock
McKinney
Mesquite
New Braunfels
North Richland Hills
Plano
Portland
Richland Hills
Rowlett
Saginaw
San Angelo
San Antonio
San Marcos
Schertz
Sealy
Southlake
Stephenville
Temple
The Colony
Trophy Club
Tyler
Universal City
University Park
Watagua
White Settlement
Wichita Falls
Bountiful
Centerville
Draper
Elk Ridge
Farmington
Layton
Lindon
Logan
Midvale
Moab
Murray
Nibley
North Logan
North Ogden
Ogden
Orem
Payson
Provo
Riverdale
Salt Lake City
Sandy
State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
36
ERU
2,343
Monthly Fee
$4.99
$1.00
$3.00
x
x
$8.50
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$3.22
$3.21
x
x
x
6,000
x
$8.00
$3.00
$3.08
x
3,500
3,828
3,600
3,000
x
x
3,000
3,000
3,000
4,700
1,500
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,816
$1.75
$4.00
$4.00
$3.00
$6.00
$4.60
$3.75
$3.50
$3.25
$3.55
$4.00
$4.00
$2.14
$4.50
$5.00
$4.10
$3.00
$5.00
No.
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
Community
Santa Clara
Spanish Fork
Springville
Taylorsville
West Valley
Woods Cross
Arlington County
Chesapeake
Hampton
James City County
Loudoun County
Newport News
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Prince William County
Richmond
Staunton
Suffolk
Virginia Beach
Burlington
South Burlington
Aberdeen
Algona
Anacortes
Arlington
Auburn
Battle Ground
Bellevue
Bellingham
Black Diamond
Blaine
Bonney Lake
Bothell
Bremerton
Brier
Buckley
Burlington
Camas
Centralia
Chehalis
Chelan County
Clark County
Des Moines
Douglas County
Duvall
East Wenatchee
Edgewood
State
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
VT
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
37
ERU
3,500
3,800
3,500
3,800
2,830
3,000
2,762
2,112
2,429
3,235
2,059
1,777
2,000
1,877
2,059
1,425
2,600
3,200
2,269
1,000
2,700
x
x
2,000
6,000
2,600
3,000
Monthly Fee
$4.51
$3.00
$3.96
$4.00
$4.00
3,000
3,000
$14.00
$10.00
$4.16
$12.00
$6.46
$7.45
$3.00
$12.61
$3.10
$4.71
$6.00
$5.47
$5.50
$2.75
$6.82
$3.33
$16.92
$3.33
$3.33
2,600
x
8,000
3,218
3,000
4,600
2,400
2,750
x
2,750
x
$2.17
$2.55
$3.60
$4.90
$2.20
$3.10
$8.08
$6.50
$1.50
$5.83
$3.20
$3.95
$5.43
$4.50
$6.08
$4.75
$3.00
$3.45
$11.50
No.
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
Community
Edmonds
Ellensburg
Everett
Federal Way
Ferndale
Fife
Friday Harbor
Gig Harbor
Issaquah
Jefferson County
Kelso
Kennewick
Kent
King County
Kirkland
Kitsap County
Lacey
La Conner
Liberty Lake
Longview
Lynden
Lynnwood
Marysville
Mason County
Mercer Island
Mill Creek
Milton
Monroe
Montesano
Moses Lake
Mountlake Terrace
Mukilteo
Normandy Park
North Bend
Oak Harbor
Olympia
Orting
Pacific
Pierce County
Port Angeles
Port Orchard
Port Townsend
Pullman
Puyallup
Redmond
Renton
Richland
State
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
38
ERU
3,000
3,900
x
x
2,000
2,000
2,000
3,000
x
Monthly Fee
$7.78
$5.00
$11.00
$6.59
$4.06
$2.00
$10.25
$7.20
$14.08
$3.10
2,500
x
2,600
4,200
x
2,100
3,160
2,500
2,900
3,200
3,471
3,000
2,500
4,000
2,282
2,500
3,100
2,920
2,500
2,528
2,500
2,500
2,640
4,000
3,000
3,500
2,800
2,000
x
3,000
$9.25
$14.15
$4.78
$6.75
$11.55
$0.51
$2.25
$6.00
$4.25
$8.00
$0.00
$13.00
$15.50
$9.00
$2.00
$5.00
$5.83
$7.85
$10.00
$12.36
$7.70
$3.00
$9.00
$7.00
$6.67
$6.00
$7.20
$3.00
$10.24
$16.56
$5.72
$2.60
No.
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
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
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
Community
San Juan County
Seattle
Sedro-Woolley
Shelton
Skagit County
Snohomish
Snoqualmie
Spokane
Spokane County
Steilacoom
Sultan
Sunnyside
Sumner
Tacoma
Thurston County
Toppenish
Tukwilla
Tumwater
University Place
Vancouver
Walla Walla
Wenatchee
West Richland
Woodinville
Yakima
Yelm
Allouez
Altoona
Appleton
Baraboo
Barron
Bayside
Bellevue
Beloit
Brookfield (Town of, not City of)
Brown Deer
Butler
Cambridge
Chetek
Chippewa Falls
Cudahy
De Forest
Delafield
Denmark
De Pere
Eau Claire
Elm Grove
State
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
39
ERU
x
x
x
x
2,500
2,600
3,160
4,519
2,400
6,000
3,600
2,000
x
3,250
x
2,500
3,000
3,000
3,600
x
3,663
x
2,368
2,379
10,850
5,325
3,221
3,347
3,257
3,032
2,700
2,900
3,861
3,000
6,235
Monthly Fee
$2.19
$11.34
$8.50
$3.06
$3.25
$4.00
$1.75
$1.75
$13.75
$5.75
$2.50
$11.59
$1.67
$1.00
$7.08
$5.70
$6.00
$4.00
$3.77
$5.50
$2.80
$7.09
$4.17
$2.50
$6.50
$3.00
$9.07
$3.91
$2.00
$8.33
$4.00
$2.00
$7.65
$5.50
$2.33
$2.25
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$2.42
$4.00
$3.92
$5.17
$5.46
No.
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
Community
Fitchburg
Fort Atkinson
Fox Point
Franklin
Garner's Creek
Glendale
Grand Chute
Grantsburg
Green Bay
Greendale
Greenfield
Greenville
Hales Corners
Harrison
Hobart
Holmen
Howard
Janesville
Jefferson
Kaukauna
Kenosha
Kimberly
Lake Delton
Lancaster
Lisbon
Little Chute
Madison
Manitowoc
Marshfield
McFarland
Menasha
Menomonie
Milton
Milwaukee
Monona
Monroe
Mukwonago
Neenah
New Berlin
New Glarus
New Richmond
North Fond du Lac
Oak Creek
Onalaska
Oshkosh
Palmyra
Pleasant Prairie
State
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
40
ERU
3,700
3,096
2,988
2,964
3,623
2,609
3,283
3,000
3,941
3,630
4,510
4,000
3,550
3,301
3,200
3,220
2,944
2,477
3,350
1,685
3,400
6,642
2,752
x
3,167
3,456
4,177
3,000
4,081
1,610
x
2,728
3,000
3,138
4,000
3,000
12,632
3,123
2,964
x
2,817
Monthly Fee
$4.35
$2.33
$10.56
$3.00
$8.00
$3.50
$8.00
$1.50
$4.60
$6.50
$4.15
$5.00
$0.75
$8.00
$6.00
$4.08
$3.67
$2.28
$3.33
$2.08
$5.00
$9.17
$1.50
$2.00
$3.33
$8.00
$4.58
$6.00
$5.50
$3.90
$5.42
$2.67
$4.59
$6.85
$5.00
$5.00
$4.67
$5.00
$4.85
$2.39
$4.67
$3.00
$4.25
$4.07
$9.39
$1.25
No.
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
Community
Poynette
Racine
Raymond
Reedsburg
River Falls
Saint Francis
Salem
Sheboygan
Shorewood Hills
Silver Lake
Slinger
South Milwaukee
Sun Prairie
Superior
Sussex
Vernon
Washburn
Watertown
Waupun
Wauwatosa
West Allis
West Milwaukee
West Salem
Weston
Whitewater
Wind Point
Wisconsin Rapids
Beckley
Fairmont
Morgantown
Oak Hill
State
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WV
WV
WV
WV
41
ERU
3,550
2,844
Monthly Fee
$4.17
$6.00
3,024
$3.83
$3.14
$4.00
$5.00
$3.00
x
2,500
6,352
2,215
2,941
3,870
4,300
2,964
3,468
1,907
3,897
6,904
2,900
3,204
2,174
1,827
1,956
2,400
3,338
3,850
3,857
2,620
x
2,500
1,000
$3.33
$3.00
$5.00
$5.90
$5.00
$2.67
$4.00
$6.33
$3.00
$4.62
$5.26
$2.00
$3.98
$3.33
$2.33
$3.75
$5.50
$5.30
$2.50