April 11, 2017

North Liberty City Council Regular Session

City Administrator Memo

City Council Memo for April 11, 2018 from the desk of Ryan C. Heiar

Consent Agenda Meetings & Events The following items are on the consent agenda and included in Tuesday, Apr 11 at 6:30p.m. your packet: City Council . City Council Minutes (03/28/17) Thursday, Apr 13 at 5:30p.m. . Claims IDOT/City of North Liberty . SRF Sponsored Water Quality Project, Pay Application Public Information Meeting #7, $183,357.13 (I380/Forevergreen Road . SRF Sponsored Water Quality Project, Change Order #3, Project) $1,147.18 Monday, Apr 17 at 4:30p.m. . Water Treatment Plant, Pay Application #6, $360,806.27 Joint Government Meeting . East Growth Area Utility Extensions, Change Order #8, $9,755.25 Monday, Apr 17 at 7:00p.m. . North Liberty Road Improvements, Pay Application #2, Library Board $21,103.06 Monday, Apr 17 at 6:00p.m. . Well Construction & Rehab, Pay Application #4, Candidate Forum - Library $351,396.45 . WWTP Expansion, Pay Application #19R, $408,381.92 Monday, Apr 24-Wednesday Apr 26 Legislative Trip to . Penn Street Project, Pay Application #1, $10,670.00 Washington DC (Mayor and City Administrator) Storm Water Utility Fee Tuesday, Apr 25 Tuesday’s agenda includes a discussion item regarding storm Special Election Day water fees. In January, during the FY 18 budget meetings, we discussed potentially raising our storm water fee, currently a $2 Tuesday, Apr 25 at 6:30p.m. City Council flat fee. Since that discussion, staff has research what other MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) cities in Iowa are charging. Included in your packet is a summary of those findings. In short, North Liberty’s fee is much lower and our billing

structure is different than most. Also included is a nationwide study on storm water fees and billing structures that was recently released. Interestingly, this study also confirms that North Liberty’s rate is well below the median and that our billing structure is in the minority.

The most commonly used billing structure is one where the City

Ryan C. Heiar, City Administrator [email protected] • office (319) 626-5700 • fax (319) 626-3288 • cell (319) 541-8404

published April 6, 2017 •page 1

determines an Equivalent Resident Unit (ERU) size and each residential home is billed that unit fee, while other non-residential uses are billed per ERU based on the square footage of impervious area (rooftops and parking lots). For example, if the City determines that the ERU is 3,000 square feet and the fee/ERU is set at $3, each 4single family homeowner’s monthly fee would be $3. A commercial business with a building footprint of 3,000 sq. ft. and a 30,000 sq. ft. parking lot, totaling 33,000 sq. ft. of impervious area would have a total monthly bill of $33 (see formula below). There are various other billing methods used, including a single flat fee like we currently use, a dual flat fee (residential and non-residential) and a flat fee based on the amount of impervious area (see City of Ames fees schedule in the attached document) to name a few.

Nonresidential formula: 33,000 sq. ft. of impervious area ÷ 3,000 sq. ft. (1 ERU) = 11 ERU’s 11ERU’s x $3 (fee/ERU) = $33

At Tuesday’s meeting, I’d like to discuss Summary of Project Storm Water Expenses our current fee and billing structure in more detail as well as the potential Storm Project % of increase of our fee and/or modification of Water Costs Project our current billing structure. Once we Costs determine what, if any changes the Penn Street, 2016 $2,400,000 $305,000 13% Council is interested exploring, we can Penn Street, 2017 $2,000,000 $415,000 21% invest more time in researching and NL Road /Dubuque Street, 2016 $4,900,000 $479,000 10% investigating said options and how those 965, Phase 3, 2018 $6,000,000 $639,000 11% options would impact residents and business owners. Moreover, I’d like to briefly address how new revenues could be allocated to infrastructure projects, resulting in having to borrow less money against the City’s debt service or TIF valuations, as well as other potential uses of funds. For your reference, above is a summary of recent project’s storm water expenses. The City recently hired a full time Stormwater Coordinator to meet the requirements of the City’s MS-4 Permit. The City has installed various stormwater management practices throughout the community that will require ongoing inspections, maintenance and improvements.

Lighting Ordinance You may recall that some time ago an amendment was drafted for lighting athletic fields associated with public facilities, but Council felt that the proposal needed to include specific criteria for consideration and the draft was not approved. We have now added several sections and the modified draft is included for your consideration.

Sign Ordinance We are recommending an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a maximum ground sign height of 24’ for industrial zoning districts. Recently we discovered that the current code does not specify the height, as it does in the other districts, but we have been using the 24’ dimension from commercial districts as a standard for many years.

published April 6, 2017 •page 2

Bond Sale Summary

2017A 2017 Borrowing Refunding $2,385,000 The agenda includes two resolutions NL Road/Dubuque Street Project $1,088,050 regarding two separate bond sales and loan East Growth Utilities Project $1,226,950 agreements. Bonds will be sold on April 11 Total $4,700,000 for the two issuances. The resolutions included in the packet will be updated by 2017C Bond Counsel when the details of the sale are Refunding $1,250,000 known. The proposed bond sale – scheduled Total $1,250,000 for April 11 - will include two refunding (aka $2,315,000 refinancing) projects as well as new money New Money Refunding $3,635,000 for recently completed projects. A breakdown Total Borrow $5,950,000 of the new and refunding bond sales is shown $192,000 in the figure to the right. Estimated Savings (Includes all 3 refundings)

Alternative Source Water Evaluation At the last City Council meeting, it was presented that an agreement for the Alternative Source Water Evaluation report required by the Iowa DNR would be on this agenda. Included in this packet is a Task Order with FOX Engineering that authorizes the engineering firm to undertake this project. The outcomes that will be included are listed on page two of the document. The cost to complete is $43,918. This cost would be included in the costs for the Water Improvements Projects.

published April 6, 2017 •page 3

Agenda

AGENDA

North Liberty City Council April 11, 2017 Regular Session 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers

1. Call to order

2. Roll call

3. Approval of the Agenda

4. Worksession – Stormwater Fees A. Discussion on Stormwater Fees

5. Consent Agenda A. City Council Minutes, Regular Session, March 28, 2017 B. Claims C. SRF Sponsored Water Quality Project, Pay Application Number 7, Metro Pavers, $183,357.13 D. SRF Sponsored Water Quality Project, Change Order Number 3, Metro Pavers, $1,147.18 E. Phase I Water System Improvements, Division 1 – Water Treatment Plant, Pay Application Number 6, Portzen Construction, Inc., $360,806.27 F. East Growth Area Water & Sewer Extensions, Change Order Number 8, Langman Construction Co., $9,755.25 G. North Liberty Road Improvements Project, Pay Application Number 2, $21,103.06 H. Phase I –Water System Improvements, Division III – Well Construction and Rehabilitation, Pay Application Number 4, Gingerich Well & Pump Service, $351,396.45 I. Phase II WWTP Improvements, Pay Application Number 19R, Tricon Construction Group, $408,381.92 J. Penn Street Project (STP-U-5557(620)—70-52), Pay Application Number 1, Streb Construction Co., Inc. $10,670.00

6. Public Comment

7. City Planner Report

City of North Liberty – 2017 Updated: April 6, 2017; 5:00 p.m. Page: 1 8. City Engineer Report

9. City Attorney Report

10. Assistant City Administrator Report

11. City Administrator Report

12. Mayor Report

13. Athletic Field Lighting Ordinance A. Public Hearing regarding proposed athletic field lighting ordinance B. Ordinance Number 2017-01, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 169, “Zoning Code – Development Regulations” of the North Liberty Code of Ordinances by Updating Section 169.12 for Certain Outdoor Sports Field Lighting

14. Sign Ordinance A. Public Hearing regarding the proposed sign ordinance update 15. First consideration of Ordinance Number 2017-02, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 173, “Zoning Code – Sign Regulations” of the North Liberty Code of Ordinances by Updating Section 173.08 Adding a Height Limitation for Ground Signs

16. 2017 Borrowing A. Resolution Number 2017-38, A Resolution authorizing and approving a Loan Agreement, authorizing the call of outstanding bonds, providing for the sale and issuance of General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A, and providing for the levy of taxes to pay the same B. Resolution Number 2017-39, A Resolution authorizing and approving a Loan Agreement, authorizing the call of outstanding bonds, providing for the sale and issuance and securing the payment of $1,215,000 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C

17. Alternative Water Source A. Resolution Number 2017-40, A Resolution approving the Task Order 3373-17A, between the City of North Liberty and FOX Engineering Associates, Inc. for services relating to alternative source water evaluation

18. Old Business

19. New Business

20. Adjournment

City of North Liberty – 2017 Updated: April 6, 2017; 5:00 p.m. Page: 2

Stormwater Rates Work Session

Tracey Mulcahey

From: Ryan Heiar Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 10:09 AM To: Annie Pollock ([email protected]); Annie Pollock; Brian Wayson; Alert Chris Hoffman; Terry Donahue; Jim Sayre Cc: Tracey Mulcahey; Kevin P. Trom; Tom Palmer Subject: storm water fees Attachments: North Liberty Storm Water Fee Study (MS4 cities, 2017).pdf; Western Kentucky University (2017).pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Good morning,

Next Tuesday’s agenda will include a discussion item regarding storm water fees. As you may recall, we discussed potentially raising our storm water fee, currently a $2 flat fee, during the FY 18 budget meetings. Since that discussion, staff has research what other MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) cities in Iowa are charging. Attached is a summary of those findings. In short, North Liberty’s fee is much lower and our billing structure is different than most. Also attached is a nationwide study on storm water fees and billing structures that was recently released. Interestingly, this study also confirms that North Liberty’s rate is well below the median and that our billing structure is in the minority.

The most commonly used billing structure is one where the City determines an Equivalent Resident Unit (ERU) size and each residential home is billed that unit fee, while other non‐residential uses are billed per ERU based on the square footage of impervious area (rooftops and parking lots). For example, if the City determines that the ERU is 3,000 square feet and the fee/ERU is set at $3, each single family homeowner’s monthly fee would be $3. A commercial business with a building footprint of 3,000 sq. ft. and a 30,000 sq. ft. parking lot, totaling 33,000 sq. ft. of impervious area would have a total monthly bill of $33 (see formula below). There are various other billing methods used, including a single flat fee like we currently use, a dual flat fee (residential and non‐residential) and a flat fee based on the amount of impervious area (see City of Ames fees schedule in the attached document) to name a few.

Nonresidential formula: 33,000 sq. ft. of impervious area ÷ 3,000 sq. ft. (1 ERU) = 11 ERU’s 11ERU’s x $3 (fee/ERU) = $33

At Tuesday’s meeting, I’d like to discuss our current fee and billing structure in more detail as well as the potential increase of our fee and/or modification of our current billing structure. Once we determine what, if any changes the Council is interested exploring, we can invest more time in researching and investigating said options and how those options would impact residents and business owners. Moreover, I’d like to briefly address how new revenues could be allocated to infrastructure projects, resulting in having to borrow less money against the City’s debt service or TIF valuations, as well as other potential uses of funds. For your reference, below is a summary of recent project’s storm water expenses:

Summary of Project Storm Water Expenses

Storm Project Water % of Costs Costs Project Penn Street, 2016 $2,400,000 $305,000 13% Penn Street, 2017 $2,000,000 $415,000 21%

1 NL Road /Dubuque Street, 2016 $4,900,000 $479,000 10% 965, Phase 3, 2018 $6,000,000 $639,000 11%

As storm water issues and regulations continue to become more costly, we must be prepared to address these challenges. Now is as good of a time as any to be taking a look at our billing structure and potential new revenue source for these ongoing expenses.

Thanks,

Ryan Heiar City Administrator City of North Liberty

319.626.5700 (P) 319.626.3288 (F) www.northlibertyiowa.org

2 Storm Water Rates, Revenues and Uses Comparison of MS4 Cities

Rates Annual Revenue/ City Population Residential Commercial/ Industrial Revenue Capita Revenue Uses Staffing, small system improvement projects, North Liberty 18,299 $2.00 FF $2.00 FF $198,000 $10.82 community grants, equipment, manhole repair Staffing, system improvement projects, training, Hiawatha 7,024 $2.75 FF $4.50 FF $135,000 $19.22 operational supplies & maintenance Cedar Falls 39,260 $3.00 FF $3.00 + 5.00/10,000 sf of impervious area $811,000 $20.66 Staffing, supplies, system improvement projects

Staffing, pump station maintenance & repair, system Coralville 18,907 $3.00 FF $3.00 + $0.75 x impervious sf/3,440 $417,000 $22.06 improvement projects, equipment

(1) Iowa City 67,862 $4.50 FF $4.50 + $2.00/eru $1,500,000 $22.10 Staffing, system improvement projects, community grants

Pleasant Hill 8,785 $3.00 FF $3.00/eru $215,000 $24.47 Staffing, system improvement projects

Asbury 4,357 $7.00 FF $7.00 FF $120,000 $27.54 Staffing, street sweeping, system improvement projects Staffing, equipment, operational expenses, system Ames 58,965 See Below See Below $1,700,000 $28.83 improvement projects Staffing, system improvement projects, community grants, (2) Marion 34,768 $3.33 FF $3.33 + $2.02/eru $1,050,000 $30.20 debt retirement Staffing, street sweeping, system improvement Marshalltown 27,552 $4.00 FF $4.00/eru $1,000,000 $36.30 projects, debt retirement Staffing, equipment, operational expenses, system (3) Cedar Rapids 126,326 $5.18/eru $5.18/eru $5,000,000 $39.58 improvement projects

(4) Norwalk 8,945 $7.50 FF $7.50 x impervious sf/3,000/2 $370,000 $41.36 Staffing, system improvement projects, equipment

Staffing, operations, system improvement projects, debt Bettendorf 35,505 $3.75/eru $3.75/eru $1,500,000 $42.25 retirement Staffing, supplies, system improvement projects, debt Ankeny 45,562 $5.50 FF $4.50/eru $1,980,000 $43.46 retirement

(5) Johnston 17,278 $5.55/eru $5.55/eru $776,000 $44.91 System improvement projects, community grants Staffing, street sweeping, system improvement Altoona 14,541 $5.00 FF $5.00/eru $700,000 $48.14 projects Staffing, street sweeper, system improvement Waukee 13,790 $5.75 FF $5.75/eru $729,000 $52.86 projects Staffing, paying back expenses occurred prior to fee being (6) Grimes 8,246 $6.38 FF $6.38/erl $450,000 $54.57 implemented

Urbandale 39,463 $4.00 FF $4.00/eru $2,200,000 $55.75 Staffing, system improvement projects, community grants

Clive 15,447 $6.58 FF $6.58/eru $900,000 $58.26 Staffing, system improvement projects

Windsor Heights 4,875 $5.25 FF $3.92 FF $313,000 $64.21 Staffing, system improvement projects, equipment

(1) $2.25/apartment unit City of Ames - Storm Water Utility Rates (2) Max charge for nonresidential unit is $156

(3) Rate is $0.1702/day/eru, which is equivalent to $5.18/eru Impervious Area (SF) Rate (4) Property must have storm water detention to divide total by 2 150 - 10,000 $4.95 (5) Max of 4 eru's for residential and 40 eru's for commercial 10,000.01 - 30,000 $9.90 (6) Max charge for nonresidential is 40 eru's; Apartments $2.50/unit; mobile homes $2.50/unit 30,000.01 - 90,000 $14.85

FF = flat fee eru = equivalent residential unit erl = equivalent residential lot eru and erl definitions vary between 2,500 and 4,000 sf Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

C. Warren Campbell, Ph.D., P.E., CFM Randel L. Dymond, Ph.D., P.E. Amanda Dritschel

i

Cover

The cover flood picture was taken in Borrego Springs, California on a debris flow that occurred in 2013.

ii Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Preface to the 2016 Survey

Over the last two years, I have worked with Dr. Randel Dymond at Virginia Tech and his graduate students, Kandace Kea (MSCE, 2015) and Amanda Dritschel (MSCE, 2016). Under Dr. Dymond’s guidance, Kandace and Amanda have done an amazing job of updating and verifying the database, and performing analyses. Kandace’s and Amanda’s work analyzing the database provides some significant insights that should be useful to communities wishing to form stormwater utilities. I highly recommend their MS theses which are cited in the references, as well as their upcoming Journal articles. I have used some of Amanda’s data display techniques in this survey. 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 and 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 have done some significant work using the new improved information.

As you may have realized, there was no 2015 survey. Since a lot of the work of locating stormwater utilities falls to my students, and since my floodplain management class is taught in the Fall, preparing a survey by the end of the year is very difficult. Therefore, I have delayed the publishing of this survey to this summer.

Warren Campbell Bowling Green, Kentucky June 15, 2016

iii Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Methods

The main goal of this survey is to identify as many U.S. and Canadian 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 several cities to find missing data and we believe has greatly improved our quality control. However, it is difficult to keep up with fee changes in nearly 1600 utilities, so if you discover errors in our data please contact me at [email protected].

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 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The last two years our database was scrubbed and put into a more useful form by a research team at Virginia Tech, including Dr. 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 49 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 12 states with fewer than 49 CFMs so we are making a contribution to floodplain management. Students contributing to the 2014 and 2016 Surveys were:

Cory Smith, CFM Megan Jones, CFM

Students participating in 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

v Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Daniel Skees, CFM Brian Vincent, CFM Jason Walker Russ Whatley, CFM

vi Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 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

vii Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 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 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.

I 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).

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.

viii Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Introduction

We have been able to identify almost 1600 stormwater utilities nationwide and in Canada. There are now 7 states with 100 or more stormwater utilities (SWUs). Thirty-nine states have one or more 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. Eleven years after Hurricane Katrina, neither of the hardest hit states has formed 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. It is strongly recommended 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 70,765 and the median is 18,390. 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 1600 U.S. SWUs, and as this is written, about 22,192 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.

The survey includes basic data on stormwater utilities. It also contains an analysis of the effect of different fee structures on homeowners, businesses, and industries. Recently, Dritschel (2016) has used land use data from two cities in Virginia to investigate the impact of different stormwater fee structures on residents and businesses. This study gives insights into who pays with different fee structures. Some of her methods along with Monte Carlo simulation have been applied here to evaluate the impact of different fee structures on communities with land use similar to Warren County, Kentucky.

The Data

Part of our raw data is contained in the Table in Appendix A. As this is written, our survey contains data from 1583 U.S. stormwater utilities (SWUs) located in 39 states and the District of Columbia (Figure 1) and 21 from Canada. Figure 1 includes all communities that could be identified who have formed stormwater utilities. However, some have since had utilities successfully challenged in court or have repealed ordinances that enacted the SWU. For example, Idaho currently has no SWUs that we could identify. One of those shown in Figure 1 was successfully challenged in court and the other SWU communities repealed theirs because theirs were set up in in a similar way.

1

Based on our current find rate, my best guess would be that there are between 2000 and 2500 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 current stormwater utilities by state. It does not include those that are no longer active. Iowa has also joined the 100 SWU club. At least 7 states have more than 100 SWUs.

Nationwide, the average monthly single family residential fee was $5.14, 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 $69.25 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.

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 median was 2900 square feet impervious. We were able to find ERUs for 739 utilities. 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 spatial distribution of community ERUs. The chart includes communities that did not calculate a real ERU, that is, the average impervious area of residential properties. 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.

2 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 1. U.S. stormwater utilities (SWUs)

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 [2010]).

3 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 2. Number of stormwater utilities by state

4 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of monthly residential stormwater fees

5 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 4. Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) in square feet

Kea (2015) showed that there are regional differences in the stormwater monthly fees. Figure 5 illustrates this for the 7 states with more than 100 SWUs. These states represent a wide range of locations, populations, political loyalties, and per capita incomes. The box plots clearly show that there are differences in fee amounts and ranges of fee amounts.

6 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 5. Monthly residential stormwater fees for states with more than 100 SWUs

Fee Systems

The most popular U.S. fee system is the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) system based on the average amount of impervious area for a single family residential parcel. We have been able to identify 739 ERU systems in the U.S.

The second most popular fee system in the U.S. is the flat fee. In a flat fee system, every parcel pays the same stormwater fee. We identified 231 communities with flat fee system. The next most popular fee system is the tier system which charges a single fee for a range of impervious area. We identified 228 communities with tier fees.

The Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) is a system that charges a fee based on the amount of runoff from a parcel compared to the runoff from a typical single family residential property. Often a standard storm is selected, for example, the 2-yr 24-hour storm. Campbell, et al. (2014) showed that this fee system will favor non-residential properties the greater the amount of standard storm rainfall and favors residential properties for smaller rainfall amounts. Runoff is usually calculated using either the SCS method or the rational method. The REF system is popular in Minnesota, but is used in communities in several other states. We were able to identify 138 REF system communities.

7 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 The dual fee system usually charges one fee for residential properties and a different single fee for non- residential properties. We were able to identify 105 dual fee communities. Other fee systems include a charge proportional to the gross parcel area (32 of these in the database). A few use other fee systems such as charging by the number and size of water meters and one even charges according to the number of parking spaces.

Dritschel (2016) analyzed who pays under the most common fee systems for two municipalities in Virginia. We used methods similar to hers with Monte Carlo simulation to analyze many communities with land use and development patterns similar to those of Warren County, Kentucky.

Analysis of Different Fee Systems

Warren County, Kentucky has a population of about 120,000. The county seat is Bowling Green where about half the population lives. The zoning ordinance for the county, defines the zoning districts given in Table 1. The column labeled Count provides the number of parcels in the county for each zoning district. For most zoning districts, the probability distribution of parcel areas is skewed to the right. For this reason, we decided to use the gamma probability density function (Equation 1) to fit the parcel areas for the county. In Equation 1,  is the gamma function and if  is an integer,     1  !. Full build out was assumed, that is, each parcel in the county was assumed to be developed as zoned.

x 1  f x;,  x 1  e  (1)   

In Table 1, the columns labeled alpha and beta provide the fitted values of and  for each zoning district. The column labeled Max Cover is the maximum impervious area cover allowed by the zoning ordinance. The column labeled Nominal provides the actual impervious area I used to calculate Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs). Table 1 does not give every zoning district defined in the zoning ordinance. For example, the General Flood District (F) is not included because the flood district is an overlay district that is superimposed on other districts. Also, there were only 4 Rural Residential (RR) parcels in the county totaling about 10 acres. There were too few properties to fit so these were not included in our simulations.

Even ignoring these two zoning districts, the table still has 21 zoning districts. We simulated several times the areas for parcels for each of the 21 zoning districts, calculated the number of ERUs or the number of parcels falling within a given range of impervious area (tier system). Once this was done, we combined all of the single family zoning districts into one category (single family), all of the multifamily residential, all industry, all commercial, and so on. Then we calculated the percent of the stormwater revenue paid by each zoning district. The goal was to look at the variability of the percent paid by each zoning category. By performing the simulations, we could effectively look at the percent paid for each zoning category for as many similar communities as we wanted. At the touch of a button, we could create another similar city and see how the amounts paid by each zoning category varied.

8 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Simulations

We used five different fee systems. All the fee systems collected the same annual revenue. The first used a system similar to Arvada, Colorado. The City of Arvada determined the amount of impervious area for every parcel in the city and charged a stormwater fee based on the amount of impervious area. We called this system ERU All.

The second system charged one ERU for each single family residential parcel. Other parcels paid according to their impervious area. We called this system ERU 1 Residential Tier. The third system is similar except that all Agricultural parcels were exempted from paying the fee. This system had one residential tier but agricultural parcels paid no stormwater fee.

The fourth system was a flat fee paid by each parcel. The number of parcels simulated for each zoning category was the same number as for Warren County. For example, Warren County has 16,627 parcels designated as agricultural (AG) so for each simulation we simulated 16,627 AG parcels. We simulated 198 CB parcels, 642 GB parcels and so on. Since we simulated the same number of parcels for each zoning category as there are in Warren County, the flat fee system does not change. Each parcel paid the same amount. Since the same number of parcels were simulated each time, the flat fee distribution of payments for residential, commercial, etc. did not change with each simulation.

The last system was the tier system. For the tier system, we chose a 10-tier fair system (Table 2) as defined by Campbell (2010). Campbell defined two fair tier systemse chose the one that minimized the percent deviation from the ERU fee (Equation 2).

2 Ftier  (2) 11  c IAmin c IAmax F c  B ERU

In Equation 2, Ftier is the fee for the given tier. IAmin and IAmax are the minimum and maximum impervious areas, respectively for the given tier. FB is the base monthly fee. For example, consider the tier fee for which IAmin 20,001 square feet and IAmax 50,000 square feet. Assume a base fee

FB $4.00 and an ERU 3,000 square feet.

The ERU fee at the lower end of the tier would be $26.67 and at the upper end would be $66.67.

Substituting into Equation 2, the tier fee Ftier $38.10. The maximum percent deviation from the ERU fee at each end of the tier would be about 43 percent.

9 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Table 1. Zoning Districts for Warren County, Kentucky Zoning Description Count alpha beta Max Cover Nominal AG Agricultural District 16627 0.297243 76.31356 25% 5% CB Central Business 198 0.377155 0.639159 100% 100% GB General Business 642 0.142116 16.4286 80% 80% HB Highway Business District 1383 0.079088 44.81293 90% 85% HI Heavy Industrial 402 0.403523 33.80784 90% 72% LI Light Industrial 870 0.260041 11.88148 90% 72% MHP Mobile Home Park 14 1.655181 13.0115 N/A 40% MHS Mobile Home Subdivision (?) 198 0.156193 5.463334 N/A 40% NB Neighborhood Business 148 0.376936 1.132514 70% 60% OP-C Office and Professional -Commercial 73 0.375342 1.408644 80% 70% OP-R Office and Professional - Residential 61 0.63957 1.537654 50% 40% P Public 165 0.37398 25.91608 90% 80% PUD Planned Unit Development 1047 0.11501 50.89808 N/A 30% R-E Residential Estate 4461 0.065518 40.93671 30% 15% RM-2 Two-Family Residential 2720 0.090752 6.732327 75% 60% RM-3 Townhouse/Multifamily Residential 4134 0.073511 11.76268 80% 65% RM-4 Multifamily Residential 3492 0.123054 7.845836 85% 70% RS-1A Single Family Residential 4667 0.147465 5.062674 40% 30% RS-1B Single Family Residential 486 0.101389 10.88372 50% 38% RS-1C Single Family Residential 867 0.134156 11.12164 60% 38% RS-1D Single Family Residential 775 0.110016 15.31541 70% 65%

Table 2. Ten Tier System Used to Calculate Annual Revenue

IAmin (sq ft) IAmax (sq ft) 1 1,000 1,001 2,000 2,001 5,000 10,001 10,000 10,001 20,000 20,001 50,000 50,001 100,000 100,001 200,000 200,001 500,000 500,001 No Limit

10 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Simulation Results and Analysis

Twenty-five simulations gave the results in Table 3. In this table, the cover for each zoning category is assumed to be fixed. For each fee system, the fee paid by a single family residential customer was determined. The table gives the minimum fee for the 25 simulations, the 25th percentile fee, the median fee, the 75th percentile fee, the interquartile range, the maximum of the 25 fees, the mean, and the standard deviation.

Table 3. Base Fee Results from 25 Simulations

Fee System Min 25% 50% 75% IQR Max Mean Stdev ERUs All $2.79 $2.88 $2.91 $2.94 $0.06 $3.01 $2.91 $0.05 ERUs 1 Res $2.90 $2.99 $3.02 $3.05 $0.06 $3.13 $3.02 $0.05 ERUs Ag Exempt $5.32 $5.54 $5.64 $5.72 $0.18 $6.04 $5.64 $0.16 Flat $38.38 $38.38 $38.38 $38.38 $0.00 $38.38 $38.38 $0.00 Tier $2.87 $2.91 $2.92 $2.94 $0.04 $2.97 $2.92 $0.03

Residential customers would suffer most from a flat fee system. The residential customer stormwater fee would be more than 10 times as much for a flat fee system as it would be for the ERU systems that don’t exempt agriculture. Exempting agriculture just about doubles the residential customer fee for ERU systems. This is not surprising because approximately 38 percent of the Warren County parcels are agricultural. The measures of dispersion, interquartile range and standard deviation are a few pennies except for the ERU system with agriculture exempted. They are only significant for ERUs exempting agriculture.

A second set of 25 simulations was done. In these simulations, we assumed that the coverage for each zoning category was normally distributed with the mean being the nominal coverage, and the standard deviation being 1/10 of the nominal coverage. Table 4 provides the results of these simulations.

Table 4. Summary of Simulations with Coverage Normally Distributed for Each Zoning Category

Fee System Min 25% 50% 75% Max IQR Mean Std Dev ERUs All $2.59 $2.81 $2.93 $3.04 $3.39 $0.23 $2.94 $0.19 ERUs 1 Res $2.68 $2.94 $3.03 $3.14 $3.51 $0.20 $3.05 $0.19 ERUs Ag Exempt $5.19 $5.59 $5.70 $5.98 $6.21 $0.39 $5.74 $0.27 Flat $38.38 $38.38 $38.38 $38.38 $38.38 $0.00 $38.38 $0.00 Tier $2.56 $2.85 $2.95 $3.07 $3.38 $0.22 $2.95 $0.20

The table shows that results are similar to the baseline simulation, but the measures of dispersion were increased significantly. Exempting agriculture almost doubles the median ERU fees. The flat fee system charges homeowners more than 10 times what any other system would charge.

Figure 6 gives some idea of the amount of variability in who pays when parcel areas are simulated from a gamma distribution. Figure 7 shows how the distribution of payments change when coverages are also

11 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 simulated. Unfortunately, a GIF does not animate in a Word or PDF document. However, GIFs are provided on the survey web site.

The difference in variability for the two sets of simulations is apparent when Figures 6 and 7 are compared. These figures constitute a sensitivity analysis. The two simulations represented in Figure 6 are difficult to distinguish, though minor differences can be seen. Figure 7 shows that choosing a coefficient of variation  COV  of only 10 percent makes a significant difference in the variability. This is easier to see in  the animated GIF figures on the WKU SWU Survey web site: http://www.wku.edu/engineering/civil/fpm/swusurvey/

Why do these simulations? When a community is considering setting up a stormwater utility a feasibility study is usually done. The community or the contractor has a clear need to know how much each stakeholder group will be paying. The results of this analysis has political implications. Secondly, when a feasibility study is done, it is useful to have an estimate of the accuracy of the analyses. This analysis indicates that the income and the division of cost is very sensitive to measurements of impervious area.

Residential Equivalent Factor System

Dritschel (2016) showed that the REF system payment division among land uses was similar to that for an ERU system. Campbell et al. (2014) showed that the REF system could be manipulated to favor residential or non-residential customers. This section expands on that theme using the Warren County data with the NRCS method of calculating runoff.

We applied the REF system using a 1/3 acre residential property in soil with hydrologic soil group B as our fee basis. Figure 8 shows the percent of payments for each land use category for different standard storms from 1 inch to 7 inches. Because the AG land use category dominates in Figure 8, we assumed that agricultural land was exempted and repeated the calculations in Figure 9.

From Figure 8, as the amount of rainfall chosen for the standard storm increases, the percent of the stormwater revenue paid by agriculture increases. From Figure 9, as the standard storm rainfall increases, the percent paid by land uses with runoff curve numbers higher than that for the standard residential parcel (CN = 72) decreases. As the standard storm rainfall decreases, the amount paid by residential property owners decreases. In general, for runoff curve numbers less than 72, the amount paid by properties in each land use category increases with precipitation. Figure 10 illustrates this clearly by plotting the runoff ratio for different curve numbers as a function of rainfall amount. From Figure 9, the amounts paid asymptotes to constant values as precipitation increases. As the rainfall increases, the total number of REFs approaches the total area of the county divided by 1/3 since our base single family residential lot is 1/3 acre. For a given land use category, the percentage of payment approaches 100 x the area of that category divided by the total area of the county. The greatest changes occur from 1 inch to 2 inches of rainfall.

12 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 6. Two simulations with zoning category covers fixed

13 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 7. Two simulations with normally distributed zoning coverages

14 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 8. REF payment percentages Including agricultural land

15 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 9. REF payment percentages with agricultural land exempted

16 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Figure 10. Ratio of Runoff for a Given Curve Number (CN) to That from a Parcel with CN = 72 Summary

The current survey contains 1583 U.S. SWUs and 21 Canadian SWUs. However, twelve of the American utilities have been repealed so that the survey only contains data on 1571 of these. Seven states: Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin now have more than 100 stormwater utilities. Nationally, the median monthly fee is $4.00.

Communities use many methods of setting stormwater fees. The most popular in the U.S. is the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) system. We identified 739 communities that use an ERU system in our 2016 database and the median ERU is 2900 square feet impervious. The next two most popular systems are the flat fee and tier systems. In a flat fee system, every parcel is charged a single fee. We identified 231 of these communities. In a tier system, several ranges of impervious area are chosen and a single fee is charged to parcels within a given range of impervious area. We identified 228 tier fee communities. The next most popular system is the Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) system which charges according to the amount of runoff from a standard storm. We found 138 REF communities. Dual fee communities charge one fee for residential properties, and another higher fee for commercial properties. We found 105 dual fee communities.

Monte Carlo simulations of land use and development patterns similar to those of Warren County, Kentucky indicate that residential customers would pay more than 10 times as much under a flat fee system as they would under an ERU system. In Warren County, parcels zoned for agriculture (AG)

17 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 constitute about 38 percent of the total number of parcels and most of the land area. Exempting agriculture would almost double the single family fee.

The simulations also showed the importance of accurately measuring impervious area in all systems but flat fee systems. Purely random variations in communities similar to Warren County showed only pennies differences in base stormwater fees. However, even small errors in measuring impervious areas were shown to have a significant impact on fee amounts and on the division of payments contributing to annual revenue.

The REF system can be manipulated to favor one group over another (Campbell et al [2014]). Figures that demonstrate this clearly for Warren County, Kentucky show that a fee system with a standard storm with less rainfall favors residential customers. A heavy rainfall standard storm favors non-residential customers.

References

Campbell, C. Warren (2014). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014,” www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Campbell, C. Warren (2013). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2013,” www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Campbell, C. Warren (2012). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2012,” www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Campbell, C. Warren (2011). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2011,” www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Campbell, C. Warren (2010). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2010,” www.wku.edu/swusurvey, 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/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Campbell, C. Warren (2007). “The Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2007,” www.wku.edu/swusurvey, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Dritschel, Amanda M. (2016). “The Impact of Different Stormwater Fee Types: A Case Study of Two Municipalities in Virginia,” MS Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA.

England, Kate, New England Survey: http://kate-england.com/new-england-stormwater-utilities/#link5

18 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Environmental Finance Center (2013). University of North Carolina, http://efc.unc.edu/index.html.

Kea, Kandace (2015). “An Analysis of Trends in U.S. Stormwater User Fee Systems,” MS Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA.

Otto, Rebecca (2011). “Minnesota City Finances: 2010 Revenues, Expenditures, and Debt,” Office of the State Auditor, St. Paul, Minnesota, 312 pp.

Warren County (2016). “Zoning ordinance,” http://www.warrenpc.org/zoning_ordinance/index.php, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Wisconsin APWA Chapter (2010). “WI Stormwater User Charge Information,” http://wisconsin.apwa.net/chapters/wisconsin/documents/SUMatrixAPWA%285%29.pdf, 1 p.

19 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Appendix A. Raw Data Tables

The following data tables provide the information collected on 1491 U.S. stormwater utilities and 19 Canadian ones. Note that ERUs in the Canadian SWUs are in square meters impervious. The key for the fee types is given below.

Code Meaning E ERU F Fixed Rate T Tier System R Residential Equivalence Factor (or similar) D Two Level System (Residential/Commercial) V Existence of Utility/Fee Verified* A Fee per Parcel Area - Repealed M Water Meter U Unique Fee** W By Water Usage

In Table A.1 below, the ERU is given in square feet impervious. The Fee is the monthly fee for a single family residential property. The column labeled Year is the year the SWU was created. The column labeled Pop provides our best estimate of the population served by the utility. The last column provides the best estimate of the annual revenue from the SWU.

20 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1 Anniston AL D $0.83 2014 2 Jefferson County, Unincorp. AL F 3 Mobile AL F $3.00 2009 195,111 4 Hot Springs AR D $3.00 2008 35,680 $671,500 5 Flagstaff AZ T 1500 $1.30 2003 68,667 $1,444,719 6 Mesa AZ F $7.32 2006 462,821 $10,606,284 7 Oro Valley AZ E 5000 $2.90 2008 41,627 $762,600 8 Peoria AZ - 1995 154,065 $798,700 9 Albany CA F $3.47 1992 18,539 10 Arcata CA E 2500 $1.95 2001 17,231 11 Berkeley CA R 1991 112,580 12 Burlingame CA A $10.48 2009 28,806 $2,500,000 13 Carlsbad CA F $1.95 1994 106,000 14 Carmel-by-the-Sea CA E 4000 $8.77 2001 15,677 15 Chino CA T $8.96 1989 77,983 $3,629,655 16 Citrus Heights CA R 1997 83,301 17 Contra Costa County CA E 5,000 $2.50 2012 1,041,274 18 Davis CA D $0.00 2012 65,622 19 Del Mar CA F $8.66 2009 4,161 20 Dixon CA F $3.77 18,351 21 El Paso de Robles CA V 24,297 22 Elk Grove CA A $7.28 2004 153,015 23 Escalon CA T 1993 7,132 24 Escondido CA V $2.10 1994 143,911 25 Folsom CA V 1990 72,203 26 Fortuna CA V $0.55 1993 11,926 27 Galt CA F $2.43 2002 23,647 28 Grover Beach CA F $4.64 13,275 29 Hollister CA V 34,928 30 Larkspur CA E 3,000 1995 11,926 $93,000

21

No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 31 Los Angeles CA R 1993 3,792,621 32 Millbrae CA V 20,532 33 Modesto CA F $3.23 2004 201,165 34 Monterey CA F $5.44 1997 27,810 35 Oceanside CA F $1.00 2002 167,086 36 Ontario CA R 2002 163,924 37 Palo Alto CA T 2,500 $12.30 1990 64,403 38 Pinole CA F $2.92 1979 18,390 $280,000 39 Poway CA V $4.36 47,811 40 Rancho Cordova CA E 3,500 $5.54 1996 64,776 41 Rancho Palos Verdes CA E 3,804 $7.17 2005 41,643 42 Redding CA T 43,560 $1.32 1993 89,861 43 Richmond CA V 103,701 44 Sacramento CA D 43,560 $11.31 466,488 45 Sacramento County CA F $5.85 1995 1,400,949 46 Salinas CA V 150,441 47 San Bruno CA A $4.20 1993 41,114 $542,300 48 San Carlos CA T 1994 28,755 49 San Clemente CA T 1993 63,522 50 San Diego CA W $0.95 1990 1,307,402 $5,700,000 51 San Jose CA T 1982 945,942 $32,504,256 52 San Marcos CA F $1.77 2001 83,781 53 San Ramon CA F $1.92 1993 73,333 54 Santa Clara County CA V 1,784,642 55 Santa Clarita CA F $2.00 1994 176,320 56 Santa Cruz CA T 43,560 $1.77 1994 59,946 $2,152,000 57 Santa Monica CA R 1995 89,736 $1,097,210 58 Santa Rosa CA F $1.96 1996 167,815 59 South San Francisco CA V 1994 63,632 60 Stockton CA E 2,347 $2.10 291,707

22 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 61 Tracy CA E 3,140 $1.20 84,266 62 Vallejo CA F $1.97 115,942 63 Vista CA F $1.80 93,834 64 Woodland CA T 55,468 65 Adams County CO A $1.67 2013 469,193 $2,032,626 66 Arvada CO A $4.17 2002 106,433 $3,100,000 67 Aurora CO E 2,500 $8.16 2002 345,803 68 Berthoud CO F $3.50 1989 5,105 69 Boulder CO R 1983 310,048 $5,301,116 70 Brighton CO T 2011 35,719 $234,000 71 Canon City CO A $5.46 2004 16,318 $964,698 72 Castle Rock CO E 3,255 $6.65 2002 48,231 $2,264,847 73 Colorado Springs CO - 2005 416,427 74 Denver CO T 1980 649,495 75 Englewood CO A $1.39 30,255 $316,244 76 Erie CO A 43,560 $5.00 2003 19,723 $401,146 77 Evans CO A 43,560 $4.08 1998 18,537 78 Federal Heights CO A $3.15 2001 11,973 $400,000 79 Firestone CO T 2009 11,175 $114,500 80 Fort Collins CO R 1986 152,061 $14,414,000 81 Fountain CO V 25,846 82 Frederick CO A 43,560 $6.23 2008 10,196 $405,000 83 Golden CO F $3.20 1997 19,393 $934,650 84 Greeley CO R 2002 96,539 $3,766,814 85 Idaho Springs CO V 2006 1,717 86 Lafayette CO F $4.27 2007 24,453 87 Lakewood CO D 2,250 $3.70 1998 147,214 $2,480,000 88 Larimer County CO T 315,988 89 Littleton CO A 43,560 $2.00 1986 44,275 $575,037 90 Longmont CO A $13.05 1984 89,919 $3,765,252

23 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 91 Louisville CO E 3,500 $2.00 2007 19,588 $514,700 92 Loveland CO T 1987 71,334 $4,601,940 93 Northglenn CO D 43,560 $2.00 2004 37,499 $430,000 94 Parker CO E 4,000 $6.00 1999 48,608 $1,769,200 95 Pueblo CO A $2.40 2003 108,249 $100,000 96 Sheridan CO D $3.00 2005 5,874 $71,500 97 Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority CO T 2006 $9,285,550 98 Westminster CO T $3.00 2001 110,945 $2,798,000 99 Windsor CO R 2003 20,422 $243,924 100 Woodland Park CO D $2.00 1994 7,153 101 Washington DC T 601,723 102 Lewes DE F $5.00 2010 2,747 103 Wilmington DE T 789 $4.95 2006 71,305 104 Alachua County FL V 1996 243,574 $895,000 105 Altamonte Springs FL E 2,492 $6.75 1989 41,496 106 Anna Maria FL E 2,254 $3.75 2008 1,503 107 Apopka FL T 2002 41,542 108 Atlantic Beach FL E 1,790 $8.39 1991 12,655 109 Auburndale FL F $0.75 13,675 $50,000 110 Aventura FL E 1,548 $2.50 1997 36,610 111 Bartow FL E 2,520 $3.75 2005 17,501 112 Bay County FL D $3.33 2005 169,856 $1,500,000 113 Bay Harbor Islands FL E 1,548 $5.00 1996 5,762 114 Belle Glade FL V 1998 17,667 115 Belle Isle FL E 4,087 $4.00 2005 6,111 116 Belleair FL E 5,459 $11.92 2012 117 Boca Raton FL E 2,837 $3.11 1993 85,329 118 Boynton Beach FL E 1,937 $5.00 1993 68,996 119 Bradenton FL F $4.50 1996 50,193 120 Bradenton Beach FL F $9.58 2004 1,187

24 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 121 Brevard County FL E 2,500 $3.00 1990 543,566 $3,000,000 122 Callaway FL F $1.00 1991 14,493 123 Cape Canaveral FL T 2,074 $5.00 2003 9,916 124 Cape Coral FL A 43,560 $3.00 2004 157,476 $10,420,542 125 Casselberry FL E 2,304 $7.00 1993 26,387 $2,235,439 126 Charlotte County FL F $2.50 1991 160,511 127 Clearwater FL E 1,830 $14.15 1990 107,784 $16,125,100 128 Clermont FL E 3,154 $5.00 1990 29,126 129 Cocoa FL E 2,166 $6.00 1992 17,147 130 Cocoa Beach FL E 2,900 $6.00 2003 11,235 131 Coconut Creek FL E 2,070 $2.65 2004 53,915 132 Collier County FL V 1991 328,134 $9,060,000 133 Coral Gables FL E 2,346 $6.70 1993 47,783 $3,058,044 134 Daytona Beach FL E 1,661 $8.67 2004 61,028 $9,785,395 135 De Land FL E 3,100 $7.83 2009 27,041 136 DeBary FL E 2,560 $7.00 2005 19,324 137 Delray Beach FL E 2,502 $5.33 1990 61,209 138 Deltona FL E 3,484 $6.34 1996 85,219 $3,035,369 139 Doral FL E 1,548 $4.00 2005 46,789 140 Dundee FL E 4,749 $1.20 2003 3,764 141 Dunedin FL E 1,708 $9.30 2007 35,354 142 Eagle Lake FL D $4.00 2007 2,283 143 Edgewater FL E 2,027 $8.00 2004 20,761 144 El Portal FL E 1,548 $3.00 2,380 145 Eustis FL D 2,187 $6.00 1997 18,805 146 Fernandina Beach FL F $4.00 2012 11,705 $156,000 147 Florida City FL E 1,250 $2.50 2000 11,511 148 Fort Lauderdale FL T 1992 168,528 149 Fort Meade FL T $4.25 1990 5,696 $139,000 150 Fort Myers FL E 500 $0.96 2009 63,512

25 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 151 Fort Pierce FL E 2,186 $4.50 2005 41,993 152 Fort Walton Beach FL E 3,200 $3.00 1990 19,793 $652,663 153 Frostproof FL F $3.00 1997 3,030 154 Fruitland Park FL F $2.00 2005 4,132 155 Gainesville FL E 2,300 $8.56 1988 125,326 156 Golden Beach FL E 8,000 $35.00 1993 940 157 Grant-Valkaria FL E 2,500 $3.00 2008 3,851 158 Gulf Breeze FL E 4,450 $4.50 2006 5,870 159 Gulfport FL E 2,300 $3.21 1995 12,041 160 Haines City FL T 2002 20,807 $180,000 161 Hallandale Beach FL E 958 $3.35 1980 37,800 162 Hernando County FL - 2003 173,094 163 Hialeah FL E 1,664 $2.50 1998 229,969 164 Hialeah Gardens FL E 1,267 $2.00 1996 19,297 165 Hillsborough County FL V 1989 1,267,775 $23,925,000 166 Holly Hill FL E 2,050 $6.00 1997 11,663 167 Hollywood FL E 2,250 $3.22 1993 143,357 168 Homestead FL E 2,000 $3.37 1992 61,940 169 Indian Creek Village FL E 1,548 $4.00 1999 88 170 Indian Harbor Beach FL E 2,500 $3.00 8,228 171 Jacksonville FL T 2007 827,908 172 Jacksonville Beach FL E 1,541 $5.00 1990 21,523 173 Jupiter FL E 2,651 $4.37 1994 55,911 174 Key Biscayne FL E 1,083 $7.50 1993 12,637 175 Key West FL E 1,400 $7.35 2001 24,909 176 Kissimmee FL E 2,404 $7.38 1989 61,346 177 Lake Alfred FL T $2.00 1999 5,077 178 Lake Mary FL E 4,576 $4.00 13,900 $275,500 179 Lake Worth FL E 1,748 $5.80 1993 35,306 180 Lakeland FL E 5,000 $6.00 1999 98,589 $4,400,000

26 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 181 Largo FL E 2,257 $5.32 1989 77,723 $3,436,598 182 Lauderdale Lakes FL E 2,133 $4.57 1997 33,191 183 Lauderdale-by-the-Sea FL E 4,472 $3.50 2004 6,168 184 Lauderhill FL M 68,117 185 Leesburg FL E 2,000 $6.00 1994 20,390 186 Leon County FL E 2,723 $1.67 1991 277,971 187 Longwood FL E 2,898 $6.00 13,745 188 Madeira Beach FL E 1,249 $5.00 4,267 189 Maitland FL E 2,532 $7.25 16,076 190 Malabar FL E 2,500 $3.00 1992 2,758 191 Manatee County FL V 1991 327,142 192 Marathon FL E 4,769 $10.00 2005 8,387 193 Margate FL E 2,382 $3.57 1993 54,270 194 Marion County FL E 2,275 $1.25 332,529 $3,696,468 195 Martin County FL E 3,428 2009 147,495 $7,200,000 196 Medley FL E 1,487 $3.00 1991 857 $1,800,000 197 Melbourne FL E 2,500 $3.00 1999 76,095 $750,000 198 Melbourne Beach FL E 2,500 $3.00 2000 3,102 199 Miami Beach FL E 791 $9.06 1996 89,840 $12,097,000 200 Miami Gardens FL E 1,800 $4.00 2006 109,680 201 Miami Shores FL E 2,466 $3.75 2000 10,720 202 Miami Springs FL F $3.67 1993 14,129 203 Miami-Dade County FL E 1,548 $4.00 2004 408,750 204 Milton FL V 2008 8,984 205 Minneola FL E 3,050 $4.00 2001 9,531 $226,302 206 Miramar FL F $5.00 1998 124,302 207 Mount Dora FL E 2,500 $5.00 12,534 208 Mulberry FL E 3,250 $4.00 3,867 209 Naples FL E 1,934 $12.39 1994 19,939 210 Neptune Beach FL E 3,164 $3.00 2002 7,090 $280,000

27 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 211 New Port Richey FL E 2,629 $3.36 2001 14,961 212 New Smyrna Beach FL E 1,818 $7.00 1995 22,481 213 Niceville FL T 7,500 $4.51 2004 12,941 214 North Bay Village FL D 2,415 $7.72 1994 7,305 215 North Lauderdale FL E 2,138 $3.00 1995 41,782 216 North Miami FL E 1,760 $4.93 1998 60,143 217 North Miami Beach FL E 1,800 $4.50 1992 42,504 218 North Redington Beach FL E 1,687 1,418 219 Oakland Park FL E 1,507 $6.00 1989 42,126 $2,800,000 220 Ocala FL E 1,948 $5.00 1988 56,517 221 Ocoee FL E 2,054 $7.00 36,320 222 Oldsmar FL E 2,550 $3.00 1998 13,618 223 Opa-Locka FL E 1,548 $1.90 15,579 224 Orange County FL V 1996 1,169,107 225 Orlando FL E 2,000 $9.99 1989 243,195 226 Ormond Beach FL E 3,000 $8.00 1987 38,153 227 Oviedo FL E 2,464 $7.00 1993 33,528 228 Palm Bay FL E 4,602 $4.47 1991 103,227 $3,500,000 229 Palm Coast FL E 3,432 $8.00 2004 76,499 $5,400,000 230 Palmetto FL T 1999 12,774 231 Panama City FL V 1991 36,686 232 Pasco County FL E 2,890 $3.92 2007 466,457 233 Pembroke Park FL E 1,548 $6.25 1996 6,214 234 Pensacola FL E 2,998 $5.70 2001 52,197 $2,631,250 235 Pinecrest FL E 1,548 $4.00 2002 18,657 236 Pinellas County FL E 2,339 $9.67 2013 929,048 237 Plant City FL E 2,280 $5.50 2004 35,817 238 Plantation FL E 4,489 $2.50 2012 86,524 $1,300,000 239 Polk City FL T $1.50 2003 1,580 240 Polk County FL - 2012 609,492

28 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 241 Pompano Beach FL E 2,880 $3.00 1997 78,191 242 Port Orange FL E 3,050 $8.25 1993 45,823 243 Port Saint Lucie FL T 1988 88,769 $19,335,600 244 Redington Beach FL F $7.50 1,539 245 Riviera Beach FL E 1,920 $4.50 2003 29,884 $500,000 246 Rockledge FL E 2,922 $4.25 2000 20,170 247 Royal Palm Beach FL E 2,723 $4.00 2012 31,864 248 Safety Harbor FL E 1,865 $7.25 16,884 249 Saint Cloud FL E 2,664 $6.35 2007 20,074 250 Saint Johns County FL E 3,000 $6.50 1994 123,135 251 Saint Pete Beach FL E 3,813 $3.69 9,391 252 Saint Petersburg FL E 2,719 $6.84 1989 248,232 $2,400,000 253 Sanford FL E 2,126 $7.63 1991 38,291 254 Sarasota County FL E 3,153 $7.55 1989 325,957 255 Satellite Beach FL E 3,000 $5.42 1997 10,109 $3,258,232 256 Sebastian FL E 3,285 $4.00 2001 20,339 $1,299,000 257 South Daytona FL E 2,000 $9.00 1989 13,177 258 South Miami FL E 1,865 $3.00 2000 10,741 259 Stuart FL E 3,707 $3.95 2000 14,633 $614,975 260 Sunny Isles Beach FL E 1,548 $4.00 1999 15,315 261 Sunrise FL E 1,884 $6.82 1997 85,779 $6,202,817 262 Surfside FL E 1,040 $10.70 1998 4,909 263 Sweetwater FL E 1,548 $4.00 2000 14,226 264 Tallahassee FL E 1,990 $7.95 1986 150,624 265 Tamarac FL E 1,830 $9.58 1993 55,588 266 Tampa FL E 3,310 $3.00 2003 303,447 267 Tarpon Springs FL E 1,945 $5.65 1992 21,003 268 Tavares FL E 3,000 $4.50 14,248 $684,490 269 Tequesta FL E 2,507 $7.13 5,273 270 Titusville FL R 11,000 $6.79 1990 40,670

29 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 271 Treasure Island FL E 1,513 $4.74 1994 7,450 272 Umatilla FL E 3,000 $4.00 2008 2,896 273 Venice FL R 1995 17,764 $1,533,957 274 Volusia County FL E 2,775 $6.00 1992 443,343 275 West Melbourne FL E 2,500 $3.00 1992 9,824 276 West Miami FL E 1,400 $2.50 1996 5,863 277 West Palm Beach FL E 2,171 $8.48 82,103 $6,830,000 278 West Park FL E 1,351 $3.50 2012 14,609 $315,000 279 Wilton Manors FL E 3,460 $4.37 1992 12,697 280 Winter Garden FL E 4,077 $5.13 2006 14,351 281 Winter Haven FL F $3.00 1998 26,487 282 Winter Park FL E 2,324 $11.56 24,090 283 Winter Springs FL E 2,123 $5.50 1992 31,666 284 Albany GA E 2,700 $2.50 2014 77,431 285 Americus GA E 3,000 $4.00 2010 17,103 $860,000 286 Athens - Clarke County GA R $3.50 2004 101,489 $3,400,000 287 Atlanta GA - 416,474 288 Auburn GA T 2011 6,900 289 Austell GA F $1.00 5,200 290 Avondale Estates GA E 2,900 $5.00 2004 2,995 291 Barrow County GA E 3,478 $1.50 2008 46,144 292 Braselton GA E 3,478 $1.50 1,206 293 Camilla GA E 3,360 $4.00 2010 5,669 294 Canton GA E 2,000 $2.65 7,709 295 Cartersville GA E 3,000 $3.75 15,925 296 Chamblee GA E 3,000 $4.00 2004 9,552 $677,715 297 Clayton County GA E 2,950 $3.75 2006 236,517 298 College Park GA E 3,523 $3.00 2007 20,382 299 Columbia County GA E 100 $0.09 1999 89,288 300 Conyers GA T 2002 10,689 $413,000

30 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 301 Covington GA E 2,600 $3.00 2005 13,226 302 Decatur GA E 2,900 $6.25 1999 18,147 303 DeKalb County GA E 3,000 $4.00 2003 665,865 304 Doraville GA E 3,000 $4.00 2005 9,862 $520,000 305 Douglasville-Douglas County GA E 2,543 $4.00 2003 92,174 $4,000,000 306 Duluth GA E 2,654 $3.00 2011 22,122 $837,836 307 Dunwoody GA E 3,000 $5.75 2009 46,267 308 East Point GA E 3,200 $9.15 309 Evans GA E 100 $0.09 17,727

310 Fairburn GA T 3,300 $4.08 2005 5,464 $450,000 311 Fayette County GA E 1,000 $0.35 2011 107,784 312 Fayetteville GA E 3,800 $2.95 2004 11,148 $500,000 313 Garden City GA E 3,000 $4.75 2008 11,289 314 Gilmer County GA V 23,456 315 Griffin GA E 2,200 $4.79 1998 23,451 $1,700,000 316 Gwinnett County GA E 100 $2.46 2006 588,448 317 Henry County GA E 4,780 $3.32 2006 119,341 318 Hinesville GA E 2,635 $5.86 30,392 319 Holly Springs GA E 2,700 $4.00 2009 3,195 320 Kennesaw GA D 1,000 $5.00 30,990 321 Lawrenceville GA D $4.20 2007 29,258 322 Loganville GA E 3,000 $4.00 5,435 323 McDonough GA E 3,000 $3.30 8,493 $500,000 324 Norcross GA E 100 $2.17 8,410 325 Peachtree City GA E 4,600 $3.95 31,580 326 Perry GA F $2.00 2012 14,215 327 Powder Springs GA E 2,840 $3.79 2012 13,940 328 Rockdale County GA E 3,420 $3.39 2005 70,111 329 Roswell GA T 79,334

31 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 330 Smyrna GA E 3,900 $2.45 2007 40,999 331 Snellville GA E 3,800 $3.10 2008 19,983 332 Statesboro GA E 3,200 $3.95 30 333 Stockbridge GA E 2,000 $1.31 2004 9,853 $466,000 334 Stone Mountain GA E 3,000 7,145 335 Sugar Hill GA E 1,000 $1.50 2008 16,725 336 Union City GA E 2,800 $4.00 2013 20,501 $734,301 337 Valdosta GA T 3,704 $2.50 2006 43,724 338 Warner Robbins GA E 3,000 $4.25 2006 48,804 339 Woodstock GA E 2,700 $4.20 2006 10,050 340 Ackley IA F $3.00 1,665 341 Adel IA E 3,000 $3.00 4,563 342 Alburnett IA F $1.50 2012 673 343 Algona IA T $3.00 5,741 344 Altoona IA E 4,000 $5.00 2010 10,345 345 Ames IA F $3.45 1994 50,731 346 Ankeny IA D 4,000 $5.50 45,582 347 Asbury IA F $4.00 4,357 348 Atlantic IA E 2000 $2.85 6,937 349 Aurelia IA F $1.00 1,036 350 Avoca IA E $2.50 1,506 351 Belle Plaine IA F $4.00 2,537 352 Bellevue IA F $5.00 2,191 353 Belmond IA F $4.00 2009 2,376 354 Bettendorf IA E 2,500 $2.70 2003 32,445 355 Bondurant IA E 2,450 $3.25 2010 3,860 356 Boone IA E 3,000 $2.00 12,633 357 Brooklyn IA F $2.00 1,468 358 Buffalo IA F $2.00 1,270 359 Burlington IA E 25,000 $2.00 26,839 $455,000

32 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 360 Carroll IA E 2,500 $3.00 10,103 361 Cedar Falls IA F $3.00 2006 36,145 $800,000 362 Cedar Rapids IA F $4.78 126,326 363 Centerville IA F $3.00 2008 5,513 $70,000 364 Charles City IA F $4.00 2008 7,812 365 Cherokee IA F $3.00 2004 5,369 366 Clarinda IA F $2.00 2006 5,690 367 Clarion IA T 2011 2,850 368 Clear Lake IA T $4.56 8,161 369 Clive IA E 3,667 $5.60 2005 15,000 370 Conrad IA F $4.00 2008 1,108 371 Coon Rapids IA F $2.00 1,305 372 Coralville IA E 3,440 $2.00 2005 18,907 373 Creston IA V 7,597 374 Dallas Center IA F $4.00 1,623 375 Davenport IA E 2,600 $2.42 2004 98,359 $2,500,000 376 Deloit IA V 264 377 Des Moines IA E 2,349 $10.95 1995 206,599 $13,763,000 378 DeWitt IA T $2.75 5,049 379 Dubuque IA E 2,917 $5.98 2003 57,686 380 Elkhart IA D $2.21 691 381 Ely IA F $2.00 1,766 382 Farnhamville IA V 420 383 Forest City IA F $5.00 4,362 384 Fort Dodge IA E 2,533 $3.00 2007 26,309 $500,000 385 Garnavillo IA T 745 386 Garner IA V 2,922 387 Grimes IA A 43,560 $5.25 2012 8,378 388 Grinnell IA E 3250 $2.74 9,218 389 Grundy Center IA D 3245 $3.00 2,706

33 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 390 Guttenberg IA F $1.50 2010 1,987 391 Hancock IA V 207 392 Hiawatha IA F $1.50 2000 6,694 393 Hills IA V 703 394 Hillsboro IA V 205 395 Indianola IA E 3,400 $2.00 2011 12,998 396 Iowa City IA D 3,129 $3.00 2004 67,831 397 Johnston IA E 4,000 $5.05 2012 17,278 398 Kalona IA F $3.00 2010 2,363 $40,000 399 Kelley IA T 300 400 Lake City IA F $1.00 2005 1,727 401 Lake Mills IA T 2,100 402 Laurens IA F $3.00 1,258 403 Le Mars IA D $7.00 2008 9,826 404 Mallard IA V 298 405 Mapleton IA V 1,224 406 Marengo IA F $1.50 2,535 407 Marion IA D 2,791 $3.50 2,011 $339,000 408 Marshalltown IA F $2.16 26,009 409 Mason City IA F $1.00 29,172 410 McGregor IA F $8.50 871 411 Milford IA F $3.00 2012 2,954 412 Nevada IA F $5.25 6,658 413 North Liberty IA F $2.00 15,000 414 Norwalk IA F $7.50 8,821 415 Odebolt IA F $1.00 2004 1,153 416 Ogden IA F $3.00 2,044 417 Olin IA F $1.00 698 418 Oskaloosa IA E 2,750 $2.00 10,938 $250,000 419 Perry IA F $3.00 2004 7,633

34 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 420 Pleasant Hill IA E 3,500 $3.00 9,082 421 Postville IA F $2.50 2007 2,273 422 Reinbeck IA T $2.00 2008 1,751 423 Ringsted IA V 422 424 Rock Valley IA V 2015 3,345 425 Rolfe IA D $3.00 2012 584 426 Sac City IA F $3.00 2,368 427 Sergeant Bluff IA R 1,000 4,326 $183,782 428 Sioux Center IA T $2.00 2007 6,327 429 Sioux City IA V 1990 85,013 430 Slater IA D $3.00 1,306 431 Solon IA F $0.50 2,173 432 State Center IA T $5.08 1,349 433 Storm Lake IA E 2,750 $4.00 10,076 434 Urbandale IA E 3,200 $2.00 2010 40,311 $500,000 435 Victor IA V 952 436 Waterloo IA F $2.50 2009 68,406 $1,720,000 437 Waukee IA E 2,973 $4.25 2006 5,126 438 Wellman IA F $2.75 2012 1,408 439 West Branch IA E 3,500 $2.25 2,326 $90,000 440 West Des Moines IA E 4,000 $4.25 46,403 441 Windsor Heights IA D 1,000 $5.25 4,805 442 Woodward IA F $3.00 1,200 443 Wyoming IA F $1.00 515 444 Coeur D'Alene ID E 3,000 $4.00 2004 34,514 445 Lewiston ID - 2008 31,794 $700,000 446 Nampa ID - 2010 51,867 447 Pocatello ID - 51,466 448 Aurora IL F $3.45 1998 170,617 $3,000,000 449 Bloomington IL T 2004 70,970 $2,760,000

35 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 450 Champaign IL T 1,000 $1.51 2012 81,055 $3,200,000 451 Decatur IL E 4,500 $3.00 2014 75,407 452 Downer's Grove IL T 3,300 $9.72 2012 48,163 $3,500,000 453 East Moline IL T 2,200 $2.61 2009 20,333 $350,000 454 Freeport IL T 25,638 $600,000 455 Highland Park IL E 2,765 $6.00 31,614 456 Hoffman Estates IL T 3,300 $2.00 2013 51,895 457 Matteson IL D 4,000 $7.00 2013 19,147 458 Moline IL T 2000 42,916 $1,800,000 459 Morton IL E 3,300 $4.88 2005 15,757 $900,000 460 Normal IL E 3,200 $4.60 2006 45,386 $1,730,000 461 Northbrook IL W $1.00 33,170 $1,200,000 462 Palatine IL F $6.13 2012 463 Rantoul IL F $3.43 2001 12,857 $572,250 464 Richton Park IL D $4.66 12,533 $500,000 465 Rock Island IL T 2,800 $3.95 2002 39,020 $1,600,000 466 Rolling Meadows IL E 3,604 $3.71 2001 23,682 $560,000 467 Tinley Park IL W $1.68 1983 56,703 $475,000 468 Urbana IL E 3,100 $4.94 2012 41,250 $1,141,000 469 Winetka IL E 3,400 $21.83 2014 12,370 470 Albany IN F $12.40 2,368 $190,637 471 Anderson IN E 2,500 $3.50 2002 59,734 $2,106,667 472 Angola IN F $2.08 7,344 $167,623 473 Bargersville IN E 2,350 $9.46 2005 2,120 $258,301 474 Batesville IN T $2.00 2005 6,033 $76,721 475 Beech Grove IN E 2,620 476 Berne IN T 4,114 $569,207 477 Bloomington IN R 1998 69,291 $1,362,231 478 Brownsburg IN E 2900 $5.00 2006 14,520 $1,249,094 479 Carmel IN E 4150 $4.95 2013 85,927

36 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 480 Cedar Lake IN E 2903 $5.00 2006 9,279 $398,249 481 Centerville IN E 3536 $8.50 2,624 482 Chandler IN F $4.00 2004 3,500 $105,367 483 Chesterton IN D 3,585 $6.10 11,139 $444,694 484 Cicero IN V 4,303 $88,649 485 Clarksville IN E 2,527 $2.95 2004 21,400 $1,017,246 486 Connersville IN E 2,662 $5.15 15,411 $799,615 487 Crawfordsville IN D $6.00 15,243 $480,544 488 Crown Point IN D $6.00 19,806 $1,037,243 489 Cumberland IN F $5.20 2007 5,500 $185,259 490 Danville IN E 3,700 6,418 $354,634 491 Delaware County IN T 48,682 $238,851 492 Dyer IN E 4,343 $6.00 1991 13,895 $1,037,243 493 Elkhart County IN E 3,600 $1.25 2,008 $96,421 494 Farmersburg IN V 1,107 $27,746 495 Fishers IN E 3,318 $4.95 79,127 496 Floyd County IN E 3,700 $3.25 2007 70,823 $1,072,563 497 Fort Wayne IN E 2,500 $3.65 255,824 $10,588,133 498 Fortville IN D $8.00 3,444 $277,648 499 Franklin IN T $5.00 2009 23,712 $523,292 500 Goshen IN E 2,800 $1.25 29,383 $344,964 501 Greendale IN E 3,000 $4.39 4,296 502 Greenfield IN E 2,250 $2.00 2005 14,600 $864,647 503 Greenwood IN E 2,800 $5.00 2012 51,584 $733,756 504 Griffith IN F $7.50 2005 17,334 $95,270 505 Highland IN T $8.69 64,322 506 Howard County IN F $2.50 84,964 $658,266 507 Indianapolis/Marion County IN E 2,800 $1.25 2001 791,926 $23,515,488 508 Jasper IN E 5,000 $3.96 2003 12,100 $354,228 509 Jeffersonville IN E 2,500 $3.50 27,362 $1,344,891

37 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 510 Lafayette IN E 3,200 $5.00 2009 56,397 $80,626 511 Lake County IN F $3.30 484,564 $8,837 512 Lake Station IN F $8.33 12,572 $542,202 513 Lebanon IN E 3,000 $4.75 15,259 $835,133 514 Leo Cedarville IN V 2,782 $127,883 515 Logansport IN T $7.47 19,684 $1,033,289 516 Marion IN F $5.00 2001 31,320 $1,030,244 517 McCordsville IN E 2,250 $7.50 2005 1,134 $208,104 518 Merrillville IN E 2,784 $5.00 2009 32,147 $59,414 519 Middletown IN D $6.00 2,357 $98,361 520 Monroe County IN E 5,200 $2.93 2011 137,974 $1,562,127 521 Muncie IN V 2005 70,087 $4,290,127 522 Munster IN F $10.00 22,346 523 New Albany IN E 2,500 $4.17 2005 37,603 $1,457,574 524 New Castle IN F $6.00 17,780 $572,455 525 New Haven IN E 2,534 $5.35 12,406 $914,955 526 North Manchester IN E 2,650 $3.45 1994 5,932 $209,178 527 Ossian IN F $8.00 2005 2,943 $167,296 528 Peru IN E 3,497 $4.00 12,994 $373,118 529 Pittsboro IN F $3.50 1,588 $57,847 530 Plainfield IN E 3,000 $8.34 18,396 531 Plymouth IN E 12,000 $2.05 9,840 $172,728 532 Richmond IN D 2,980 $6.00 39,124 $1,459,275 533 Seymour IN E 2,840 $4.00 534 Shelbyville IN F $6.00 17,951 $825,437 535 Valparaiso IN T 1998 27,428 $2,299,346 536 Vincennes IN E 2,800 $3.00 18,701 $644,726 537 Wabash IN E 3,675 10,666 538 Warrick County IN E 3,100 $5.00 2006 52,383 $1,293,987 539 Warsaw IN D 3,550 $2.95

38 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 540 Washington IN E 2,558 $3.00 2004 11,380 $414,686 541 West Layfayette IN E 3,200 $8.00 2013 30,419 542 Westfield IN T $2.75 2008 9,293 $414,686 543 Whiteland IN E 3,704 $7.50 2010 4,169 $210,924 544 Winfield IN E 4,343 $6.00 2010 4,530 $203,663 545 Yorktown IN E 2,500 $2.00 4,785 $41,517 546 Zionsville IN E 4,400 $3.86 2010 24,159 $620,783 547 Abilene KS T 1999 6,844 548 Andover KS T 2005 6,698 $101,368 549 Arkansas City KS D $3.00 1993 11,963 $192,000 550 Bonner Springs KS D $2.50 7,093 $90,000 551 Caldwell KS D $1.00 1,043 552 Coffeyville KS D $3.50 2006 10,387 $160,000 553 Derby KS E 2,233 $3.00 2012 22,158 $550,830 554 Dodge City KS T 2009 25,176 555 El Dorado KS E 2,314 $3.00 2008 12,057 556 Eudora KS F $2.25 2007 4,307 557 Fairway KS E 3,200 $5.00 3,952 558 Garden City KS T $1.50 26,658 559 Hays KS E 3,369 $3.62 2011 20,013 560 Hiawatha KS D $4.00 2009 3,417 561 Hutchinson KS T $2.00 40,787 $282,500 562 Junction City KS T 18,886 563 Kansas City KS F $4.50 146,453 564 Lawrence KS E 2,366 $4.00 1997 80,098 $2,950,113 565 Lenexa KS E 2,750 $7.50 2000 40,238 $4,802,460 566 Manhattan KS T $4.42 1992 44,831 567 Mission KS E 2,600 $19.00 2004 9,727 $2,080,000 568 Mission Hills KS T 2012 3,498 $500,000 569 Olathe KS A 20,000 $5.45 114,662 $3,511,290

39 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 570 Ottawa KS E 2,600 $4.00 2012 12,620 571 Overland Park KS E 2,485 $2.00 2001 149,080 $3,200,000 572 Paola KS F $3.00 5,602 573 Parsons KS D $2.50 2008 11,514 $154,503 574 Pittsburg KS E 3,106 $3.56 2003 19,243 $750,000 575 Prairie Village KS A $0.04 2008 21,447 $1,532,627 576 Shawnee KS E 2,773 $3.00 2004 64,680 $1,600,000 577 Topeka KS T 2,018 1996 122,377 578 Valley Center KS T $5.00 2008 4,883 579 Wamego KS D $2.00 580 Westwood KS V 581 Wichita KS E 2,139 $2.00 344,284 $5,515,000 582 Winfield KS D $2.00 1991 11,900 583 Danville KY E 3,813 $3.36 2007 15,385 584 Glasgow KY T 2012 14,059 $493,000 585 Henderson KY E 3,000 1998 27,373 586 Hopkinsville KY E 3,350 $3.00 2006 30,089 $1,108,128 587 Lexington/Fayette County KY E 2,500 $4.54 2009 260,512 588 Louisville/Jefferson Co. KY E 2,500 $7.28 1987 693,604 $17,100,000 589 Murray KY D 3,000 $1.50 2004 14,950 590 Oldham County KY E 6,000 $3.91 2008 40,502 $750,000 591 Radcliff KY E 2,800 $4.50 2003 21,961 $600,000 592 Sanitation District 1 KY E 2,600 $5.04 1998 326,071 593 Warren County KY D $4.00 2007 43,226 $1,000,000 594 Chicopee MA E 2,000 $8.33 1998 54,653 $1,000,000 595 Fall River MA E 2,800 $11.67 2008 91,938 $4,660,000 596 Gloucester MA F $4.42 2011 30,273 597 Newton MA D 3,100 $2.08 2006 83,829 $575,000 598 Northampton MA F $5.00 2014 28,592 $1,980,056 599 Reading MA D 3,210 $3.33 2006 24,145 $357,000

40 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 600 Westfield MA F 2010 41,094 $600,000 601 Annapolis MD T $3.33 2003 35,838 602 Anne Arundel County MD T 2,740 2013 544,403 603 Baltimore MD E 1,050 $6.00 2013 619,493 604 Baltimore County MD E 2,000 $5.75 2013 809,641 605 Berlin MD D 2,100 $4.16 2013 4,491 $570,000 606 Centreville MD E 3,200 $2.50 2013 4,334 607 Charles County MD F 120,546 608 Frederick MD E 1,000 $1.25 2013 609 Frederick County MD F $0.01 2013 236,745 $483 610 Gaithersburg MD E 500 $1.67 2015 611 Harford County MD D 500 $7.00 2013 246,849 $1,065,725 612 Howard County MD E 3,000 $7.50 2013 293,142 $18,000,000 613 Montgomery County MD E 2,406 $7.37 2002 873,341 614 Prince George's County MD E 2,465 $1.74 2013 871,233 $92,307,692 615 Rockville MD E 2,330 $8.30 2007 47,388 $2,200,000 616 Salisbury MD E 3,344 $1.67 2014 31,507 $598,500 617 Silver Spring MD - 76,540 618 Takoma Park MD E 1,228 $4.58 1996 17,299 $200,000 619 Augusta ME E 2,700 $7.54 18,560 620 Bangor ME E 3,000 $1.83 2012 33,011 621 Lewiston ME D 43,560 $4.17 2006 35,690 622 Long Creek Watershed ME D 12,000 $6.89 2010 $1,400,000 623 Portland ME E 1,200 $6.00 624 Adrian MI - 2012 21,122 625 Ann Arbor MI T 1980 114,024 $5,300,000 626 Berkley MI E 2,600 $5.18 2001 15,531 627 Chelsea MI A 628 Detroit MI T 1979 951,270 629 Jackson MI D 2,125 $7.05 2011 36,316 $800,000

41 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 630 Lansing MI V 1995 119,128 631 Marquette MI T 19,661 632 New Baltimore MI D 43,560 $2.00 2005 7,405 633 Albert Lea MN V 2005 17,967 634 Albertville MN V 7,044 $209,418 635 Alexandria MN T 43,560 $3.00 2005 8,820 636 Andover MN R 2003 30,222 $358,708 637 Annandale MN V 3,228 $27,046 638 Anoka MN R 43,560 $2.95 2003 18,076 $419,839 639 Apple Valley MN R 1988 45,527 $1,370,348 640 Arden Hills MN R 43,560 $4.49 1993 9,642 $532,531 641 Ashby MN R 2005 444 $11,135 642 Austin MN A 43,560 $4.00 2003 24,834 $423,091 643 Barnesville MN F $2.61 2,563 $29,081 644 Baxter MN A $2.63 2006 7,642 $243,100 645 Belle Plaine MN F $3.12 1999 6,792 646 Bemidji MN T $6.44 13,657 $1,086,338 647 Big Lake MN R $4.63 10,060 $198,040 648 Bird Island MN F $5.00 2007 1,027 $31,106 649 Blaine MN R 2007 57,584 $866,961 650 Blooming Prairie MN V 1,996 $22,224 651 Bloomington MN R 1988 84,057 $4,373,221 652 Brainerd MN R 2002 13,646 653 Brooklyn Center MN R 1991 30,529 $1,620,970 654 Brooklyn Park MN R 2002 76,853 $1,113,433 655 Browerville MN F $6.00 788 $19,633 656 Buffalo MN R 1986 15,665 657 Burnsville MN R 2012 60,828 $3,966,430 658 Byron MN R 2008 659 Cambridge MN R 2000 8,209 $285,593

42 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 660 Canby MN V 1,795 $121,304 661 Cannon Falls MN R 2009 4,086 $186,000 662 Carver MN T 2004 3,790 $127,389 663 Centerville MN A $4.33 1997 3,818 $75,719 664 Champlin MN R 2008 23,418 $585,580 665 Chanhassen MN T $9.66 2007 23,358 $571,288 666 Chaska MN R 23,770 $504,604 667 Chokio MN V 400 $30,907 668 Circle Pines MN F $6.00 2005 4,953 $123,546 669 Clarks Grove MN V 706 $4,690 670 Cloquet MN E 4,312 $4.00 2011 12,148 $245,170 671 Cologne MN V 1,519 $19,310 672 Columbia Heights MN R 1999 19,632 $349,964 673 Coon Rapids MN R $4.47 2002 61,904 $1,358,007 674 Cottage Grove MN R 43,560 $4.00 2001 35,052 675 Crosby MN R 2,386 $47,248 676 Crystal MN R 1991 22,463 $656,761 677 Dassel MN T 2001 1,467 $13,680 678 Deephaven MN F $5.00 1994 3,693 $84,993 679 Delano MN R 5,541 680 Detroit Lakes MN R 8,641 681 Duluth MN E 1,708 $6.08 1998 86,227 $4,632,541 682 Dundas MN R 1,371 $3,254 683 Eagan MN R 1990 64,765 $1,319,530 684 East Grand Forks MN R 8,601 $213,691 685 Eden Prairie MN R 1993 61,657 $1,054,077 686 Edina MN R 1985 48,620 687 Elko-New Market MN R 2000 4,194 $123,976 688 Excelsior MN R 1999 2,219 $127,402 689 Eyota MN F $2.00 1,998 $17,586

43 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 690 Fairfax MN R 1995 1,218 $106,097 691 Fairmont MN R 1987 10,589 $611,391 692 Falcon Heights MN R 1986 5,381 $123,585 693 Faribault MN E 3,500 $3.50 2001 23,450 $573,375 694 Farmington MN R 1989 21,267 $468,063 695 Fergus Falls MN T 13,125 $388,292 696 Forest Lake MN R 2008 18,619 697 Frazee MN R 2005 1,360 698 Fridley MN R 1985 27,398 $431,401 699 Gaylord MN R 2,275 $159,095 700 Glencoe MN R 1993 5,598 $114,560 701 Glyndon MN F $9.50 2007 1,413 $58,039 702 Golden Valley MN T 1992 20,655 $2,321,983 703 Grand Rapids MN T 2004 10,862 $507,541 704 Hamburg MN D $27.00 513 $15,902 705 Hanover MN R 2,980 $53,710 706 Harmony MN D $1.00 2009 1,020 $9,642 707 Hastings MN R 2010 22,359 $432,761 708 Hopkins MN R 1989 17,837 $805,251 709 Hutchinson MN R 2001 14,093 $569,336 710 Inver Grove Heights MN R 2007 34,157 711 Jordan MN R 1995 5,583 $175,900 712 Kasson MN R 5,978 $164,053 713 Kenyon MN R 1,817 $27,895 714 Lake City MN V 5,063 $81,958 715 Lake Elmo MN T 2003 8,177 $218,146 716 Lakeville MN R 1994 56,443 $662,863 717 Lamberton MN D $10.67 824 $14,468 718 Lauderdale MN R 1994 2,408 $56,439 719 Lexington MN D $2.50 2,049 $13,615

44 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 720 Lilydale MN V 623 $28,078 721 Lindstrom MN V 4,442 $46,847 722 Little Falls MN R 8,349 $76,939 723 Long Lake MN R 1999 1,792 $90,916 724 Loretto MN R 2003 658 $42,772 725 Luverne MN R $45.00 4,745 $86,745 726 Madison MN R 2002 1,540 $130,152 727 Mahnomen MN R 5,413 $2,895 728 Mahtomedi MN R 2001 7,775 729 Mankato MN A 43,560 $3.25 39,528 $1,269,232 730 Mantorville MN V 1,971 $16,435 731 Maple Lake MN D $1.00 2,088 $13,807 732 Maple Plain MN T 2005 1,792 $98,470 733 Mapleton MN V 1,756 $25,693 734 Maplewood MN R 2003 38,472 735 Marshall MN R 2003 13,700 $977,357 736 Mayer MN R 2005 1,780 $18,857 737 Medina MN R 2008 4,963 $129,901 738 Mendota Heights MN A 43,560 $2.42 1992 11,168 $276,602 739 Minneapolis MN E 1,530 $11.42 2005 387,753 $39,038,000 740 Minnetonka MN F $5.76 2003 50,435 $2,026,316 741 Minnetonka Beach MN F $2.67 2011 539 742 Minnetrista MN F $6.17 2004 6,474 $99,089 743 Montrose MN F $3.00 2000 2,887 $43,980 744 Moorhead MN F $10.21 2005 38,566 $2,065,908 745 Mora MN F $1.25 2005 3,556 746 Mound MN R 2001 9,180 $255,633 747 Mounds View MN T 1993 12,305 $289,619 748 New Brighton MN R 43,560 $4.40 1994 21,715 $702,237 749 New Hope MN D $6.30 1991 20,616 $1,186,073

45 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 750 New Prague MN R 1992 7,401 $200,490 751 Newport MN R 3,481 $19,473 752 North Branch MN R 2008 10,131 $311,436 753 North Monkato MN A $3.25 13,437 $326,086 754 North Saint Paul MN T 1990 11,601 $694,559 755 Northfield MN R 1986 20,084 $576,867 756 Norwood Young America MN R 2003 3,611 $66,855 757 Oak Park Heights MN T 1999 4,389 $79,934 758 Oakdale MN R 2002 27,743 759 Olivia MN T 2,449 $151,555 760 Orono MN R 2001 7,543 $252,706 761 Ortonville MN D $2.00 1,916 $13,554 762 Osakis MN T 1,746 763 Osseo MN R 2007 2,463 $50,687 764 Otsego MN T 2009 13,761 $72,081 765 Owatonna MN R 25,599 $339,905 766 Park Rapids MN R 2010 3,686 $28,777 767 Pierz MN R 43,560 $32.92 1,394 $38,771 768 Plymouth MN R 2001 71,561 769 Preston MN V 2001 1,325 $61,127 770 Princeton MN R 2008 4,676 $119,019 771 Prior Lake MN A 43,560 $13.25 1993 23,261 $508,850 772 Ramsey MN R 2000 18,510 $652,996 773 Red Wing MN R 16,116 $557,890 774 Redwood Falls MN R 2003 5,459 $211,290 775 Richfield MN R 1985 34,439 $1,662,530 776 Robbinsdale MN R 1985 14,123 $765,602 777 Rochester MN R 2003 85,806 $4,786,160 778 Rogers MN T 2002 3,588 $313,554 779 Rosemount MN T 1992 14,619 $987,051

46 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 780 Roseville MN R 1984 33,690 $928,157 781 Saint Anthony MN R 1993 8,226 782 Saint Bonifacius MN F $5.00 2004 1,873 $47,949 783 Saint Charles MN T 2006 3,735 $82,853 784 Saint Cloud MN R 2003 59,107 $1,080,700 785 Saint Joseph MN R 6,646 $100,093 786 Saint Louis Park MN R 2000 44,126 $1,852,729 787 Saint Michael MN R 2003 9,099 $142,532 788 Saint Paul MN R 1986 287,151 789 Saint Paul Park MN R 2007 5,070 790 Saint Peter MN R 2004 9,747 $700,000 791 Sandstone MN R 2008 2,849 $37,803 792 Sartell MN D $6.00 14,445 $242,440 793 Sauk Rapids MN R 2010 11,957 $174,549 794 Savage MN R 1994 27,292 $1,485,082 795 Shafer MN R 2003 383 $7,388 796 Shakopee MN R 1985 20,568 $995,855 797 Shoreview MN R 1991 25,924 $937,550 798 Shorewood MN R 1993 7,400 $209,432 799 South Saint Paul MN R 2010 20,167 $367,102 800 South Washington Watershed District MN F $7.41 2010 $3,475,949 801 Spring Valley MN F $5.00 2,479 $79,536 802 Stacy MN R 2003 1,456 $26,927 803 Starbuck MN V 1,302 $36,497 804 Stewart MN V 571 $93,308 805 Stewartville MN R 2001 5,916 $71,101 806 Stillwater MN R 1996 15,143 $493,807 807 Taylors Falls MN R $1.50 2003 976 $10,519 808 Thief River Falls MN R 8,410 $160,843 809 Tonka Bay MN R 1993 1,547 $24,164

47 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 810 Truman MN V 1,115 $25,392 811 Twin Valley MN D $4.50 821 $25,528 812 Two Harbors MN E 1,718 $1.50 1999 3,613 $135,091 813 Vadnais Heights MN R 1992 12,525 $405,000 814 Vadnais Lake Water Management Org MN F $2.20 2007 815 Victoria MN R 1997 4,025 $118,930 816 Waconia MN F $7.00 1992 6,814 $537,376 817 Walker MN V 941 $2,574 818 Walnut Grove MN V 871 $63,315 819 Watertown MN F $3.00 1993 3,029 $51,597 820 Waverly MN D $3.50 2003 1,089 $28,665 821 Wayzata MN R 1991 4,113 $226,226 822 West Concord MN V 782 $26,111 823 West Saint Paul MN R 2005 19,405 $355,200 824 White Bear Township MN E 4,000 $2.00 1992 11,293 825 Winnebago MN V 1,437 $28,593 826 Winona MN R 2003 27,069 $298,051 827 Woodbury MN F $5.79 1992 46,463 $1,719,000 828 Worthington MN R 2004 11,283 $497,442 829 Wyoming MN R 1997 7,716 $28,343 830 Arnold MO E 1,750 $3.00 2005 21,013 831 Columbia - Boone County MO T 1993 115,276 $33,970,000 832 Kansas City MO E 500 $0.50 1992 463,202 833 Saint Louis MO A $0.24 2008 318,069 $41,840,000 834 Billings MT F $2.69 89,847 835 Bozeman MT M $1.75 2012 38,025 836 Great Falls MT F $7.26 1989 56,690 $1,735,000 837 Helena MT E 10,000 $1.84 1988 25,780 $1,421,000 838 Polson MT F $8.00 2009 4,041 839 Whitefish MT E 2,400 $16.67 2006 5,032

48 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 840 Archdale NC E 3,163 $5.00 11,415 $468,372 841 Asheville NC E 2,442 $4.00 2004 84,458 $3,131,235 842 Atlantic NC F $4.00 1,495 $161,890 843 Belmont NC E 2,500 $3.00 10,076 $384,138 844 Bessemer City NC F $2.07 5,398 $63,467 845 Burlington NC F $3.00 2005 44,917 $452,431 846 Butner NC F $2.50 7,598 847 Carolina Beach NC E 2,000 $9.00 2002 4,701 $770,636 848 Chapel Hill NC T 2004 48,715 $1,841,152 849 Charlotte NC T 1994 695,454 $48,589,000 850 Clemmons NC E 3,952 $5.00 1993 13,827 $658,193 851 Concord NC E 3,120 $4.30 2005 79,066 $3,730,742 852 Cornelius NC T 43,560 $56.19 11,969 $370,000 853 Cramerton NC T 4,165 $71,246 854 Creedmoor NC T 2012 4,129 855 Cumberland County NC E 2,266 $1.00 1995 302,963 856 Dallas NC E 2,500 $1.85 3,402 857 Davidson NC T 43,560 $10.73 7,139 $294,619 858 Durham NC T 2,400 $6.75 1997 228,330 $10,892,409 859 Elizabeth City NC D $3.00 2006 18,683 $383,324 860 Elon NC F $2.00 9,419 861 Fayetteville NC E 2,266 $3.50 2004 200,564 $5,113,112 862 Forsythe County NC T 43,560 $69.25 2006 306,067 863 Gastonia NC E 2,650 $2.75 2001 71,741 $2,042,697 864 Graham NC F $1.00 14,153 $59,510 865 Granville County NC T 2012 59,976 $235,000 866 Greensboro NC E 2,543 $2.70 1994 269,666 $9,941,103 867 Greenville NC E 2,000 $3.85 84,554 $3,058,151 868 High Point NC E 2,588 $2.00 104,371 $2,446,993 869 Hope Mills NC D 2,266 $4.00 2007 15,176 $421,656

49 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 870 Huntersville NC T 43,560 $56.19 24,960 871 Indian Trail NC T 1,984 $2.70 2007 11,905 $1,062,316 872 Jacksonville NC E 2,850 $5.00 2006 66,715 $2,068,443 873 Kannapolis NC T 3,250 $5.20 36,910 $1,471,588 874 Kernersville NC E 2,980 $3.29 2006 23,123 $955,981 875 Kinston NC E 3,059 $4.00 2008 22,346 876 Kure Beach NC F $8.71 2,012 $171,901 877 Lake Park NC T 3,422 $40,110 878 Landis NC D $5.00 3,121 $91,448 879 Lowell NC V 2,662 880 Lumberton NC T $4.25 1997 21,542 $852,594 881 Matthews NC T 43,560 $56.19 22,127 882 Mecklenburg County NC T 43,560 $49.85 695,454 883 Mint Hill NC T 43,560 $56.19 14,922 884 Monroe NC T 2,618 $4.00 2008 32,797 $1,793,744 885 Mooresville NC E 2,700 $3.40 2014 34,887 $1,222,784 886 Morrisville NC E 2,800 $1.92 2012 19,184 $550,000 887 Mount Holly NC E $2.50 13,656 $231,925 888 Nags Head NC F $2.00 2,757 $113,252 889 New Bern NC E 3,100 $2.10 2012 29,524 $800,000 890 Oak Island NC D $1.75 6,783 $257,310 891 Oxford NC E 2,500 $2.00 8,338 $135,000 892 Person County NC V 2013 893 Pineville NC T 43,560 $56.19 3,449 894 Plymouth NC F $3.00 3,878 $55,449 895 Raleigh NC T 2004 416,468 $15,333,385 896 Ranlo NC E 2,650 $2.75 3,434 $57,903 897 Rocky Mount NC E 2,519 $4.25 2003 57,477 $3,352,106 898 Spring Lake NC D 2,266 $2.75 11,964 $262,517 899 Stallings NC E 2,060 $2.12 2007 13,831 $227,489

50 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 900 Stem NC T 463 901 Thomasville NC F $1.00 26,729 $131,845 902 Wallace NC E 2,400 $2.25 3,880 $97,281 903 Washington NC T 2002 9,744 $511,353 904 Whitakers NC F $3.25 744 905 Wilmington NC E 2,500 $6.83 2004 106,476 $7,040,417 906 Wilson NC E 2,585 $2.94 2002 49,167 $2,412,522 907 Winston-Salem NC T 43,560 $69.25 185,776 $10,108,165 908 Winterville NC E 2,000 $2.00 2007 9,269 $2,154 909 Wrightsville Beach NC T 2,593 910 Zebulon NC T 4,433 $97,489 911 Bismarck ND F $2.60 55,532 $638,000 912 Dickinson ND V 913 Grand Forks ND F $2.90 1988 49,321 914 Minot ND F $2.60 1998 36,567 915 Sante Fe NM T $3.00 2003 62,203 916 Carson City NV F $4.38 2003 52,457 $1,190,514 917 Sparks NV D $8.32 66,346 918 Ada OH T 2004 5,952 919 Amberley OH R 2003 3,585 920 Ashland OH E 3,052 $3.50 2006 20,367 921 Ashville OH E 2530 $3.00 2006 4,120 922 Barberton OH E 8,668 $5.00 2006 26,455 923 Bellefontaine OH E 2,400 $3.75 2001 13,322 924 Broadview Heights OH E 4,000 $4.00 2007 19,247 925 Brunswick OH E 3,500 $4.95 2011 34,441 926 Buckeye Lake OH E 2,700 2013 2,703 927 Bucyrus OH E 2,506 $4.00 2000 12,253 928 Butler County OH E 4,000 $1.08 2004 369,999 929 Campbell OH T $3.00 2007 8,235

51 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 930 Canal Winchester OH E 3,001 $3.30 2010 7,191 931 Canfield OH E 3,050 $3.00 1992 7,464 932 Celina OH E 3,083 $2.00 2008 10,406 933 Chillicothe OH F $1.00 1997 21,955 934 Cincinnati OH T 1984 296,223 935 Columbus OH E 2,000 $4.60 1994 797,434 936 Cortland OH F $1.50 2007 7,069 937 Coshocton OH D $0.25 2010 11,231 938 Cuyahoga Falls OH E 3,000 $3.00 1992 49,473 $600,000 939 Dayton OH F $5.03 1997 142,148 940 Deerfield Regional Stormwater District OH E 3,407 $1.92 2006 941 Delaware OH E 2,773 $2.50 1998 35,541 942 Elyria OH E 2,700 $4.33 943 Findlay OH T $3.00 1999 41,202 944 Forest Park OH F $3.00 1988 19,463 945 Fostoria OH R 2006 13,411 946 Franklin OH E 2,611 $3.50 11,771 $469,218 947 Gahanna OH E 3,064 $4.33 2004 32,636 948 Galion OH E 2,650 $3.00 2001 10,416 949 Gambier OH T 3,000 $4.00 2,396 950 Greenville OH E 2,800 $2.95 2007 13,189 951 Groveport OH E 2,760 $2.00 2008 5,363 952 Hamilton OH E 2,536 $3.60 2002 62,795 953 Hamilton County OH V 800,362 954 Harrison OH R 2007 9,871 955 Hilliard OH E 2,000 $2.35 2009 28,435 $647,915 956 Hubbard OH T $3.00 2007 8,284 957 Huber Heights OH E 3,431 $2.00 2002 38,278 958 Hudson OH - 22,182 959 Ironton OH W $2.50 2005 11,211

52 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 960 Kent OH E 1,963 $2.30 2001 28,935 961 Lake County OH E 3,050 $2.50 2003 229,885 962 Lancaster OH E 2,600 $2.64 2004 39,026 963 Lebanon OH E 2,615 $3.50 2003 20,242 964 Lexington OH E 5,000 $1.50 2004 4,784 965 Lima OH E 2,600 38,693 966 London OH E 2,766 $4.00 9,896 967 Lorain County (unincorporated areas) OH E 6,000 $1.50 968 Louisville OH T 2005 9,186 969 Loveland OH E 2,500 $4.50 2003 12,082 970 Lowellville OH F $2.00 2007 1,148 971 Lucas County OH E 5,500 $4.06 2011 440,005 972 Marion OH E 2,778 $4.16 1997 36,689 973 Marysville OH E 2,700 $2.75 2004 22,288 974 Mason OH F $3.71 2001 31,039 975 Massillon OH T 2010 32,106 976 Medina OH E 2,716 $2.25 2003 26,822 977 Middletown OH E 2,814 $3.25 2005 48,962 978 Milford OH E 2,400 $5.50 2004 6,768 979 Monroe OH D $3.00 2003 12,509 980 Monroeville OH E 4,200 2009 1,400 981 Montpelier OH T 1986 4,067 Muskingum Watershed Conservancy 982 District OH E 3,300 $1.00 2,000,000 $12,600,000 983 New Lexington OH F $2.25 2005 4,689 984 New London OH T $4.00 2005 2,455 985 Newark OH E 2,600 $6.50 2005 47,790 $2,728,438 986 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District OH - 2010 987 Northwood OH E 2,500 $3.16 2001 5,265 988 Norwalk OH E 3,800 $1.35 2011 16,977

53 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 989 Oak Harbor OH E 4,200 $13.00 2007 2,758 990 Oakwood OH E $6.00 2013 $260,000 991 Painesville OH E 2,500 $2.75 2002 19,549 992 Pickerington OH E 2,530 $4.50 2001 18,408 993 Piqua OH E 5,400 $5.70 2009 20,592 $70,000 994 Poland OH E 2,500 $3.50 2010 2,537 995 Ravenna OH E 2,750 $3.00 2007 11,739 996 Reynoldsburg OH E 2,530 $2.00 1996 36,293 997 Sebring OH D $3.00 4,391 998 Sheffield OH E 2,500 $3.50 2004 3,986 999 Sheffield Lake OH E 2,275 $4.85 1999 9,145 1000 Sidney OH E 2,752 $1.00 1994 21,178 1001 Silver Lake OH F $3.00 2003 2,510 1002 Spencerville OH V 2008 2,218 1003 Springboro OH D $3.00 2003 17,588 1004 Springfield OH T $1.30 2011 60,333 1005 Stow OH E 3,060 $3.00 34,711 1006 Struthers OH E 3,500 $3.50 2007 10,640 1007 Tallmadge OH E 3,000 $2.00 17,473 1008 Toledo OH E 2,500 $3.80 1999 286,038 1009 Trenton OH E 3,000 $0.30 2003 11,931 1010 Trotwood OH E 4,020 $4.00 2,455 1011 Troy OH E 3,000 $4.65 2007 25,143 $72,000 1012 Union OH T $4.00 1987 6,448 1013 Upper Arlington OH F $3.75 1991 34,223 1014 Vandalia OH E 4,431 $2.00 2004 15,317 1015 Wadsworth OH F $4.50 2005 21,683 1016 Wapakoneta OH T 1994 9,843 1017 Warren OH E 648 $2.92 41,358 1018 Wellington OH E 2,900 $3.50 2010 4,806

54 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1019 Wooster OH E 3,050 $5.75 1985 26,139 general 1020 Wyoming OH V fund 2011 8,398 1021 Xenia OH T $2.50 25,925 $340,317 1022 Zanesville OH D $1.36 1987 25,531 1023 Bixby OK E 2,650 $4.00 21,137 1024 Broken Arrow OK E 2,650 $4.77 2002 100,073 1025 Catoosa OK D $2.50 7,226 1026 Choctaw OK F $3.00 2005 11,364 1027 Edmond OK E 4,860 $3.00 1994 82,963 1028 Enid OK E 5,000 $4.13 2009 49,451 1029 Jenks OK F $2.00 2002 17,130 1030 Lawton OK F $0.75 98,177 1031 Miami OK E 43,560 $2.00 13,577 1032 Midwest City OK T 55,427 1033 Muskogee OK D 2,650 $2.00 2005 39,231 1034 Oklahoma City OK M $5.53 1995 591,967 1035 Owasso OK E 3,000 $3.00 29,854 1036 Ponca City OK D $2.25 25,168 1037 Sand Springs OK E 2,650 $5.00 19,140 1038 Sapulpa OK D 2,650 $4.15 20,691 1039 Stillwater OK E 5,000 $1.00 1997 46,048 1040 Tahlequah OK D $2.00 16,021 $10,000,000 1041 Tulsa OK E 2,650 $5.43 1986 396,466 1042 Adair Village OR F $2.50 843 1043 Ashland OR T 1,000 $4.40 1994 20,232 1044 Beaverton OR E 2,640 $8.75 1989 91,625 $1,500,000 1045 Bend OR E 3,800 $4.00 2007 77,905 1046 Cannon Beach OR F $4.49 1996 1,695 1047 Central Point OR E 3,000 $6.50 2005 17,308 $1,015,800

55 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1048 Clackamas County OR E 2,500 $4.00 380,207 1049 Clatskanie OR D $2.50 1999 1,738 $1,725,000 1050 Corvallis OR E 2,750 $6.27 1977 54,674 1051 Cottage Grove OR E 2,650 $5.15 1998 9,734 $274,040 1052 Dundee OR D 1,000 $1.67 1997 3,188 $125,000 1053 Estacada OR F $5.95 1998 2,725 $8,975,914 1054 Eugene OR T 1,000 $1.49 1994 156,929 1055 Fairview OR F $8.78 1994 8,920 1056 Florence OR T 2005 8,466 1057 Forest Grove OR E 2,640 $7.75 1990 21,083 1058 Forest Park OR V 1059 Gresham OR E 2,500 $9.84 1994 105,594 1060 Hillsboro OR E 2,640 $6.25 70,186 1061 Hood River OR M 2006 7,167 1062 Hubbard OR F 3,173 1063 Independence OR E 3,250 $7.41 2011 8,650 1064 Jackson County OR E 3,000 2004 181,269 1065 Keizer OR E 3,000 $5.37 2007 32,203 1066 Lake Oswego OR E 3,030 $11.76 1992 35,278 $370,000 1067 Lebanon OR T $3.09 2010 12,950 1068 Medford OR E 3,730 $7.71 1994 63,154 1069 Milwaukie OR T 1994 20,490 1070 Newberg OR E 2,877 $7.30 2003 18,064 1071 Newport OR F $6.80 9,968 1072 Ontario OR F $1.16 10,985 1073 Oregon City OR R 1993 25,754 1074 Philomath OR T $1.50 1999 3,838 1075 Portland OR T 1977 593,820 1076 Redmond OR F $5.81 2013 27,873 1077 Reedsport OR E 3,000 4,378

56 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1078 Roseburg OR E 3,000 $5.00 21,790 $900,979 1079 Saint Helens OR E 2,500 $10.95 2003 12,905 1080 Salem OR T 3,000 $4.89 2010 156,244 1081 Sandy OR E 2,750 $3.00 2001 9,677 1082 Scappoose OR E 2,750 6,599 1083 Sheridan OR E 3,000 $3.50 6,165 1084 Springfield OR T 59,695 $5,669,775 1085 Sweet Home OR E 3,200 $1.00 2007 9,035 1086 Talent OR F $1.41 2000 6,115 1087 Tigard OR E 2,640 $6.75 49,011 $2,408,916 1088 Troutdale OR E 2,700 $4.27 16,244 $231,038 1089 Tualatin OR E 2,640 $6.75 26,558 1090 Washington County OR E 2,640 $6.75 540,410 1091 West Linn OR E 2,914 $5.58 25,392 1092 Wilsonville OR E 2,750 $5.25 19,715 1093 Chambersburg PA V 1094 Jonestown PA E 3,100 $6.67 2012 1,931 1095 Lancaster PA T 2014 1096 Meadville PA E 2,660 $7.50 2012 13,616 $2,218,395 1097 Mount Lebanon PA E 2,400 $8.00 2011 33,137 1098 Philadelphia PA F $13.48 1,536,471 $655,000 1099 Radnor Township PA T 1,500 $2.42 31,531 1100 Aiken County SC F $2.00 160,682 1101 Anderson SC F $4.00 2007 26,871 1102 Beaufort SC E 4,906 $8.75 12,534 $4,700,000 1103 Beaufort County SC E 4,906 $4.17 2005 164,684 1104 Berkeley County SC D $3.50 2014 194,020 1105 Bluffton SC E 4,906 $8.17 2001 12,734 $6,336,000 1106 Charleston SC E 2,200 $6.00 1994 122,689 1107 Charleston County SC F $3.00 2006 235,015 $3,500,000

57 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1108 Clemson SC D $4.00 2015 14,276 1109 Columbia SC E 2,454 $6.80 2002 130,591 $888,000 1110 Conway SC E 2,700 $5.25 2003 17,513 1111 Dorchester County SC E 3,735 $3.73 2002 140,892 $300,000 1112 Easley SC E 5,000 $2.00 2003 20,058 1113 Florence SC E 2,500 $3.50 1981 37,326 1114 Folly Beach SC F $3.00 2007 2,675 1115 Fort Mill SC E 3,473 $6.00 1116 Georgetown SC M $2.00 1993 8,950 1117 Georgetown County SC E 3,770 $4.33 2007 55,797 $2,806,221 1118 Greenville SC E 2,389 $5.77 1995 56,002 1119 Greenville County SC D 2,466 $1.85 402,000 1120 Greer SC E 2,500 $1.80 2002 16,843 1121 Hartsville SC F $4.00 2008 7,556 1122 Hilton Head Island SC E 4,906 $9.06 2001 33,862 1123 Horry County SC F $2.45 2000 196,629 1124 Isle of Palms SC R 2007 4,133 1125 Mount Pleasant SC D $2.50 47,609 1126 Myrtle Beach SC E 5,000 $3.50 1999 22,759 $511,500 1127 North Augusta SC F $4.00 2002 17,574 $317,687 1128 North Charleston SC E 2,900 $3.00 2003 79,641 $1,985,000 1129 North Myrtle Beach SC E 3,500 $6.00 2005 14,118 1130 Port Royal SC E 4,906 $4.17 10,790 1131 Rock Hill SC F $3.08 67,423 1132 Spartanburg SC E 2,000 $2.50 2010 37,334 1133 Sullivan's Island SC R 2007 1,911 1134 Summerville SC F $4.00 44,783 1135 Sumter SC D $2.50 2011 40,526 1136 Sumter County SC T $1.25 2010 107,460 $365,680 1137 Tega Cay SC E 3,500 $8.00 7,773

58 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1138 Aberdeen SD V 2005 26,297 1139 Brookings SD V 1996 22,228 $5,000,000 1140 Rapid City SD R $0.00 1141 Sioux Falls SD V 1982 156,592 1142 Alcoa TN D $4.00 2008 8,570 $5,000,000 1143 Bristol TN T 2014 26,626 $562,000 1144 Chattanooga TN E $9.60 1993 171,279 $445,126,902 1145 Collierville TN F $2.25 44,324 1146 Dyersburg TN E 1,500 $1.00 2012 17,043 $1,400,000 1147 Franklin TN E 3,350 $3.65 2004 66,280 $55,100,000 1148 Germantown TN T 2010 39,161 1149 Goodlettsville TN D 2,900 $3.67 2012 16,176 $320,000 1150 Hamilton County TN D 3,500 $3.00 11,530 1151 Johnson City TN T 3,315 $3.00 2007 63,815 1152 Kingsport TN E 3,794 $3.50 2011 49,232 $1,550,900 1153 La Vergne TN E 3,181 $3.50 2005 33,389 1154 Maryville TN E 2,400 $3.97 2003 27,646 1155 Memphis TN E 3,147 $4.02 2006 652,050 1156 Millington TN E 3,000 $2.50 2006 10,257 $241,893 1157 Morristown TN E 2,400 $2.50 2008 29,374 $2,422,368 1158 Murfreesboro TN E 3,470 $3.25 2007 100,575 $2,501,900 1159 Nashville/Davidson County TN T 2009 635,475 $700,000 1160 Shelby County TN D $1.50 2009 282,141 1161 Signal Mountain TN E 3,960 $3.30 2002 7,655 $1,350,000 1162 Smyrna TN E 3,543 $3.65 2008 25,569 1163 Spring Hill TN E 3,412 $3.50 2009 29,735 1164 Springfield TN E 3,465 $2.00 1165 Tullahoma TN V $0.00 17,994 $1,465,540 1166 Abilene TX T $2.45 2003 118,117 $920,700 1167 Addison TX T 1,000 $2.75 2012 13,056

59 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1168 Allen TX F $3.00 1993 76,600 1169 Amarillo TX E 2,800 $2.51 2011 193,675 $4,565,500 1170 Arlington TX E 2,800 $4.25 1994 373,698 $51,283,000 1171 Austin TX E 1,763 $9.20 2003 820,611 $40,000,000 1172 Azle TX E 1,500 $3.00 2000 11,170 $514,000 1173 Baytown TX E 1,979 $1.50 2004 73,322 $1,346,200 1174 Bedford TX E 2,727 $3.50 2002 48,043 $300,000 1175 Belton TX T 2007 18,486 $932,536 1176 Benbrook TX E 3,186 $6.50 2007 21,715 1177 Bexar County TX T 2008 145,336 $840,000 1178 Bryan TX F $2.80 1997 77,321 $95,000 1179 Burkburnett TX E 3,500 $1.50 2007 10,740 1180 Cibolo TX E 2,889 $4.00 15,853 1181 Cleburne TX T 29,681 $1,236,800 1182 College Station TX F $3.50 95,142 $846,000 1183 Colleyville TX T 1993 23,328 1184 Colony TX E 3,406 $2.50 2008 37,653 1185 Converse TX T $2.43 2010 18,643 $225,000 1186 Coppell TX T 2004 39,462 $445,000 1187 Corinth TX E 3,900 $6.00 20,662 1188 Corpus Christi TX V 2009 307,953 1189 Crowley TX A $2.00 2011 13,131 $208,000 1190 Dallas TX T 1,223,229 $49,838,421 1191 De Soto TX T 2001 50,045 $1,922,509 1192 Deer Park TX E 4,250 $1.32 2012 32,706 1193 Denton TX T 2002 117,187 $3,500,000 1194 Dickinson TX F $4.00 2001 18,967 1195 Eagle Pass TX D $3.00 2003 26,807 $17,355,799 1196 El Paso TX T 2,000 $3.03 2007 665,568 $650,000 1197 Euless TX T 1990 52,443

60 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1198 Fairview TX F $5.75 8,000 $1,002,115 1199 Flower Mound TX F $4.14 2003 65,851 $28,065,024 1200 Forest Hill TX T 2013 12,355 1201 Fort Worth TX T 2,600 $5.40 2006 686,850 1202 Fredericksburg TX F $1.00 1996 8,911 1203 Frisco TX F $2.00 2009 33,714 1204 Gainesville TX E 1,895 $3.68 1993 16,569 $3,081,945 1205 Galveston TX D 43,560 $7.00 47,743 $546,380 1206 Garland TX F $2.88 1991 224,750 $1,848,558 1207 Georgetown TX E 2,808 $5.25 45,342 $2,982,699 1208 Glenn Heights TX T 2009 11,511 1209 Grand Prairie TX A $3.76 1993 161,550 $1,321,898 1210 Grapevine TX F $4.00 48,583 $1,264,000 1211 Haltom City TX D 43,560 $6.19 2004 40,811 1212 Harker Heights TX T $6.00 2002 26,026 1213 Hewitt TX T 2009 13,588 $384,000 1214 Highland Village TX E 1,000 $1.20 2006 15,738 1215 Houston TX E 1,875 $5.00 2010 1,953,631 1216 Hurst TX E 3,342 $4.00 2009 36,273 $4,176,000 1217 Irving TX F $3.00 2003 205,600 1218 Jacinto City TX V 2002 9,870 $874,500 1219 Keller TX E 3,731 $8.00 37,700 1220 Kennedale TX E 2,800 $6.00 2010 7,284 $2,653,013 1221 Killeen TX T 43,560 $6.00 2001 102,003 1222 Kingsville TX E 2,425 $1.25 2012 26,322 1223 La Marque TX V 2002 14,194 1224 Lancaster TX F $7.97 36,236 $4,663,200 1225 Laredo TX T $6.50 215,484 1226 Leon Valley TX T 2009 11,020 1227 Little Elm TX E 3,687 $3.35 2011 25,797

61 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1228 Live Oak TX E 3,007 $5.50 2009 12,471 1229 Lockhart TX D $2.00 2001 14,238 $7,414,982 1230 Lubbock TX T 1993 212,365 1231 Mansfield TX F $3.50 56,368 $1,590,000 1232 McKinney TX E 2,343 $2.75 112,000 $2,130,000 1233 Mesquite TX D 100 $3.50 136,750 1234 Mission TX F $2.50 77,058 1235 Mount Vernon TX F $3.00 2010 2,286 1236 New Braunfels TX E 2,690 $4.59 2000 36,494 $806,450 1237 North Richland Hills TX T 43,560 $15.41 64,050 $4,723,698 1238 Plano TX T 255,700 $5,184,230 1239 Portland TX F $3.00 18,500 1240 Prosper TX E 10,000 $1.85 2008 9,613 1241 Richardson TX E 3,571 $3.75 2011 99,223 $156,652 1242 Richland Hills TX D 43,560 $10.50 1993 8,300 1243 River Oaks TX A $4.00 2012 7,597 1244 Round Rock TX E 2,900 $4.75 2010 105,000 $975,788 1245 Rowlett TX D $5.50 2002 54,869 $400,000 1246 Saginaw TX F $3.00 2005 18,950 $2,900,000 1247 San Angelo TX T 2009 91,880 $34,807,822 1248 San Antonio TX T 1997 1,306,900 $1,222,680 1249 San Marcos TX T 2,250 $7.08 1999 53,205 $360,359 1250 Schertz TX F $3.80 32,160 $115,000 1251 Sealy TX F $2.00 2004 6,374 1252 Selma TX E 3433 $4.12 2010 5,046 $1,032,097 1253 Southlake TX E 1,000 $8.00 2006 26,224 $550,000 1254 Stephenville TX T 6,000 $3.00 2002 17,050 1255 Sunset Valley TX E 3,350 $4.00 919 1256 Taylor TX E 2,500 $1.00 2010 16,106 $645,100 1257 Temple TX T 54,514 $496,000

62 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1258 Terrell TX F $1.00 2011 16,112 1259 The Colony TX F $2.50 40,206 $112,300 1260 Trophy Club TX F $6.00 7,832 $1,267,954 1261 Tyler TX R 101,106 1262 Universal City TX T 2004 16,569 $500,200 1263 University Park TX T 24,182 $693,994 1264 Watagua TX F $12.00 24,150 1265 Weatherford TX E 3300 $4.50 25,557 $800,000 1266 Webster TX D 43,560 $0.81 2009 10,613 1267 White Settlement TX F $4.62 2005 16,116 $524,400 1268 Wichita Falls TX E 3,500 $3.55 2000 104,197 1269 Alpine City UT F $5.00 9,821 $150,000 1270 Bountiful City UT E 3,828 41,301 1271 Cedar Hills UT E 2,900 $8.71 1998 10,066 $230,500 1272 Centerville UT E 3,600 $4.00 2007 14,585 1273 Draper City UT E 3,000 $4.00 2001 25,220 $3,530,625 1274 Eagle Mountain UT E 2,500 $4.00 2010 2,157 1275 Elk Ridge UT F $3.00 1,838 1276 Farmington UT E 4,083 $7.00 2003 12,081 1277 Layton UT T $4.60 1997 58,474 1278 Lindon UT F $5.47 8,363 1279 Logan UT E 3,000 $5.50 2005 42,670 1280 Midvale UT E 3,000 $7.62 2004 27,029 $430,000 1281 Moab UT E 3,000 $2.00 4,779 1282 Murray UT E 3,400 $4.05 2006 46,558 1283 Nibley CIty UT F $6.25 2,045 $123,600 1284 North Logan UT E 4,700 $4.00 2007 6,163 1285 North Ogden UT V 1987 15,026 1286 Ogden UT E 1,500 $7.38 77,226 1287 Orem UT E 2,700 $4.75 1996 84,324

63 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1288 Payson UT E 2,700 $5.43 16,748 1289 Provo UT E 3,200 $4.63 105,166 1290 Riverdale UT E 2,600 $2.20 2005 7,656 $1,400,000 1291 Riverton UT E 2,744 $7.00 2010 25,011 $1,400,000 1292 Salt Lake City UT E 2,500 $4.49 1991 181,743 1293 Sandy UT E 2,816 $6.00 88,418 1294 Santa Clara UT E 3,500 $9.25 2004 4,630 1295 South Jordan UT E 4,752 $8.50 2011 55,934 $2,043,148 1296 Spanish Fork UT E 3,956 $6.42 20,246 1297 Springville UT E 3,800 $3.96 2007 25,998 1298 Sunset City UT E 9,000 $2.00 2012 5,213 $46,500 1299 Taylorsville UT E 3,800 $4.00 2007 58,620 1300 West Jordan UT E 10,890 $4.02 2011 68,336 1301 West Point UT E 2,500 $4.00 2010 6,033 $2,091,636 1302 West Valley City UT E 2,830 $4.00 2001 108,869 1303 Woods Cross UT E 3,000 $3.00 2004 6,419 1304 Arlington County VA E 2,762 $2.17 189,453 $6,200,000 1305 Blacksburg VA T 2014 42,620 1306 Charlottesville VA E 500 $1.20 2013 43,511 1307 Chesapeake VA E 2,112 $7.35 1992 222,209 $14,906,000 1308 Colonial Heights VA E 2,656 $2.00 16,897 $375,000 1309 Falls Church VA E 200 $1.50 2013 12,332 1310 Hampton VA E 2,429 $6.99 1994 146,437 $8,191,972 1311 Harrisonburg VA E 500 $0.88 2015 51,395 $1,788,100 1312 Hopewell VA F $4.00 2015 22,163 $731,000 1313 Isle of Wight County VA E 2,050 $6.00 2014 35,656 $1,638,173 1314 James City County VA E 3,235 $4.90 2007 48,102 $2,600,000 1315 Lynchburg VA T 2,672 $4.00 2012 76,504 1316 Manassas Park VA E 2,500 $2.97 2010 6,734 $8,500,000 1317 Newport News VA E 1,777 $9.75 1993 180,150 $10,600,000

64 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1318 Norfolk VA E 2,000 $10.24 1996 234,403 1319 Petersburg VA E 2,116 $3.75 2013 32,420 $1,400,000 1320 Portsmouth VA E 1,877 $9.25 1995 100,565 $4,600,000 1321 Prince William County VA T 1,000 $1.55 1994 280,813 1322 Richmond VA T 1,425 $3.75 2009 197,790 1323 Roanoke VA E 500 $0.90 2013 97,032 1324 Stafford County VA V 1325 Staunton VA T 23,853 $3,500,000 1326 Suffolk VA E 3,200 $3.95 2006 63,677 $15,000,000 1327 Virginia Beach VA E 2,269 $12.99 1993 425,257 1328 Waynesboro VA E 1,600 $3.42 2015 21,263 1329 Burlington VT T 1,000 $1.69 2009 38,889 $1,500,000 1330 South Burlington VT T 2,700 $5.94 2005 15,814 1331 Williston VT E 4,000 $4.25 2014 8,698 1332 Aberdeen WA F $6.69 1999 16,835 1333 Algona WA F $5.50 2004 2,460 1334 Anacortes WA E 2,000 $5.00 1999 15,941 1335 Arlington WA E 6,000 $6.89 2006 18,154 1336 Asotin County WA E 3,700 $6.00 2010 21,933 1337 Auburn WA T 2,600 1991 71,517 1338 Bainbridge Island WA E 3,000 $12.23 23,262 1339 Battle Ground WA F $7.50 1982 17,893 $22,164,456 1340 Bellevue WA F $5.10 1974 124,798 1341 Bellingham WA T 2001 81,862 $9,000,908 1342 Black Diamond WA E 3,000 $16.00 2008 4,273 1343 Blaine WA E 2,000 $4.37 1999 4,684 1344 Bonney Lake WA E 2,600 $14.00 1997 17,579 $1,659,913 1345 Bothell WA T $12.42 1994 34,055 $2,800,000 1346 Bremerton WA E 2,500 $9.83 1994 39,051 1347 Brier WA E 2,000 $6.50 1999 6,165 $221,991

65 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1348 Buckley WA E 8,000 $19.10 1992 4,354 1349 Burien WA T $11.42 2008 33,977 1350 Burlington WA E 2,400 $6.07 1994 8,474 1351 Camas WA E 3,218 $9.71 1989 19,712 1352 Castle Rock WA T 1,982 1353 Centralia WA E 3,000 $6.00 2004 16,432 1354 Chehalis WA E 3,000 $7.95 1992 7,299 1355 Chelan County WA E 4,600 $5.50 2008 73,477 1356 Clark County WA E 3,500 $2.75 1980 433,418 1357 Des Moines WA T 3,450 $14.24 1990 30,258 1358 Douglas County WA E 2,750 $3.75 1998 38,971 1359 DuPont WA F 1,900 $15.30 1360 Duvall WA F $18.18 1981 6,828 1361 East Wenatchee WA E 2,750 $2.92 1999 13,375 1362 Edgewood WA T 1996 9,499 1363 Edmonds WA E 3,000 $12.35 1998 40,215 1364 Ellensburg WA E 3,900 $6.06 2009 18,468 1365 Everett WA E 900 $13.06 2004 104,295 1366 Federal Way WA T $6.59 1990 91,085 1367 Ferndale WA E 10,000 $11.00 2006 11,564 1368 Fife WA F $2.88 2004 9,281 1369 Friday Harbor WA E 2,000 $12.70 1993 1,989 1370 Gig Harbor WA E 2,200 $12.14 1984 7,208 $234,575 1371 Hoquiam WA E 2,500 $9.83 2005 8,696 1372 Ilwaco WA T 2011 936 1373 Issaquah WA E 2,000 $14.08 1988 31,037 1374 Jefferson County WA E 3,000 29,924 1375 Kelso WA T $7.12 1993 11,934 1376 Kennewick WA V $5.46 76,224 1377 Kent WA E 2,500 $12.22 1992 120,916

66 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1378 King County WA T 1986 1,969,722 1379 Kirkland WA E 2,600 $15.60 45,054 $4,000,000 1380 Kitsap County WA E 4,200 $5.82 1994 231,969 $2,857,800 1381 La Conner WA E 2,100 $15.08 2002 785 1382 Lacey WA T $8.03 1986 31,226 $135,955 1383 Lake Forest Park WA T 1990 13,142 1384 Lake Stevens WA T 1997 6,361 $1,358,984 1385 Liberty Lake WA E 3,160 $10.00 2003 4,660 1386 Longview WA F $7.97 1999 34,660 $523,000 1387 Lynden WA D $6.73 9,020 1388 Lynnwood WA E 2,900 $20.20 1991 33,847 $1,700,000 1389 Marysville WA E 3,200 $10.82 1999 25,315 1390 Mason County WA V $0.00 2008 49,405 1391 Mercer Island WA E 3,471 $30.64 1995 22,036 1392 Mill Creek WA E 3,000 2001 11,525 1393 Milton WA E 2,800 $12.75 5,795 $1,121,833 1394 Monroe WA E 2,500 $10.50 1996 17,304 1395 Montesano WA E 3,000 $2.49 1999 3,312 1396 Moses Lake WA T $5.30 14,953 $1,334,000 1397 Mountlake Terrace WA E 2,282 $10.69 1999 20,362 1398 Mukilteo WA E 2,500 $7.85 1988 18,019 1399 Normandy Park WA E 3,100 $16.00 2003 6,392 1400 North Bend WA E 2,920 $12.36 2001 4,746 1401 Oak Harbor WA E 3,300 $7.70 1997 22,075 1402 Ocean Shores WA F $3.54 1980 5,569 $2,500,000 1403 Olympia WA T 1986 46,478 1404 Omak WA T 1984 4,845 1405 Orting WA T 1997 6,746 1406 Pacific WA E 2,500 $13.00 1999 6,737 1407 Pierce County WA T $8.89 1991 807,904

67 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1408 Port Angeles WA E 4,000 $12.00 2003 19,154 1409 Port Orchard WA E 3,000 $7.00 2008 11,144 1410 Port Townsend WA E 3,000 $6.59 1987 9,113 1411 Poulsbo WA E 3,000 $10.57 1999 9,200 1412 Pullman WA E 3,500 $7.00 2009 29,799 1413 Puyallup WA E 2,800 $22.01 37,022 1414 Redmond WA R 1988 54,144 $2,915,881 1415 Renton WA T 1987 92,812 1416 Richland WA E 3,000 $3.85 1998 48,058 $1,721,356 1417 San Juan County WA T 2006 15,844 1418 Seatac WA V 1992 26,909 1419 Seattle WA T 1987 602,778 $54,000,000 1420 Sedro-Woolley WA E 10,000 $5.40 2007 10,540 1421 Shelton WA T 1995 8,442 1422 Skagit County WA T 1994 102,979 1423 Snohomish WA E 2,500 $2.09 2004 9,098 1424 Snoqualmie WA E 2,600 $4.00 1997 1,631 1425 Spokane WA D 43,560 $3.84 2005 195,629 1426 Spokane County WA E 3,160 $1.75 1993 417,939 1427 Spokane Valley WA E 3,160 $1.75 1428 Stanwood WA V 1429 Steilacoom WA E 2,500 $14.58 1994 6,049 1430 Sultan WA E 4,519 $9.53 4,183 1431 Sumas WA T $1.50 2005 1,265 1432 Sumner WA E 2,400 $2.50 8,504 1433 Sunnyside WA A 43,560 $34.39 13,905 1434 Tacoma WA T 500 $17.82 1984 193,556 $21,000,000 1435 Thurston County WA T 2002 207,355 1436 Toppenish WA E 2,000 $1.00 1991 8,946 1437 Tukwilla WA T $9.83 1989 17,181

68 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1438 Tumwater WA E 3,250 $7.15 1987 12,698 $5,322,346 1439 University Place WA T 1995 29,933 1440 Vancouver WA E 2,500 $7.10 1994 157,493 1441 Walla Walla WA E 5,000 $6.90 1999 30,945 $777,500 1442 Walla Walla County WA E 5,000 $3.00 2010 59,844 1443 Wenatchee WA E 3,000 $7.05 1995 27,856 1444 West Richland WA T 2006 8,358 1445 Woodinville WA T $7.26 1993 9,194 1446 Woodway WA T 1,307 1447 Yakima WA E 3,600 $3.58 2004 71,845 1448 Yelm WA T $2.50 1999 3,289 1449 Allouez WI E 3,663 $7.00 2006 14,126 1450 Altoona WI T 43,560 $3.00 2007 6,789 1451 Antigo WI E 3,069 $3.52 2010 8,004 $410,968 1452 Appleton WI E 2,368 $12.92 1995 73,243 1453 Ashwaubenon WI F $4.17 2012 16,973 1454 Baraboo WI E 2,379 $4.10 2005 1,828 $635,126 1455 Barron WI E 10,850 $2.00 2005 3,425 1456 Bayside WI E 5,269 $8.33 2009 4,411 1457 Beaver Dam WI E 2,637 $4.05 2009 16,243 $779,000 1458 Bellevue WI E 3,221 $4.00 2002 14,742 1459 Beloit WI E 3,347 $3.00 2006 36,913 1460 Brookfield (Town of, not City of) WI V 6,390 1461 Brown Deer WI E 3,257 $7.66 2004 12,061 1462 Butler WI E 3,032 $5.50 1999 1,846 1463 Caledonia WI E 5,230 $5.44 24,737 $1,009,750 1464 Cambridge WI D 43,560 $2.33 2005 1,101 1465 Chetek WI F $2.25 2005 2,222 1466 Chippewa Falls WI F $3.00 2005 13,738 1467 Cudahy WI E 2,700 $5.00 2001 18,359 $1,037,435

69 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1468 De Forest WI E 2,900 $5.00 2005 9,085 1469 De Pere WI E 3,861 $5.17 2003 20,560 1470 Delafield WI E 1,000 $2.42 2004 7,100 1471 Denmark WI F $4.00 2007 2,148 1472 Durand WI E 3,300 $3.00 2010 1,968 1473 Eau Claire WI E 3,000 $6.92 1997 66,623 $495,558 1474 Elm Grove WI E 4,660 $5.46 2004 5,947 1475 Fitchburg (city) WI E 3,700 $6.50 2002 25,665 1476 Fitchburg (rural) WI E 3,700 $3.24 2002 4,000 1477 Fort Atkinson WI E 3,096 $2.82 2009 12,407 1478 Fox Point WI T 2,988 $10.56 2009 6,734 1479 Franklin WI E 2,964 $3.00 35,620 1480 Garner's Creek Watershed WI E 3,623 $8.00 1998 1481 Glendale WI E 3,200 $3.50 1996 12,935 1482 Grand Chute WI E 3,283 $8.32 1997 18,392 1483 Grantsburg WI F $1.50 2004 1,397 $4,000,000 1484 Green Bay WI E 3,000 $5.31 2004 105,809 1485 Greendale WI E 3,941 $6.50 2004 14,117 1486 Greenfield WI E 3,630 $4.15 2009 36,903 1487 Greenville WI E 4,510 $5.42 1999 6,844 1488 Hales Corners WI E 3952 $0.75 2008 7,730 1489 Harrison WI F $8.00 1998 5,800 $126,214 1490 Hobart WI E 4,000 $6.00 2007 6,254 1491 Holmen WI E 3,550 $4.08 2007 9,081 1492 Howard WI E 3,301 $3.67 2005 17,602 1493 Hudson WI E 2,890 $2.50 2012 12,719 1494 Janesville WI E 3,200 $3.31 2003 63,479 $300,700 1495 Jefferson WI E 3,220 $3.33 7,997 1496 Kaukauna WI E 2,944 $5.50 12,983 1497 Kenosha WI R 2,477 $1.19 2007 99,738

70 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1498 Kimberly WI E 3,350 $9.17 2006 6,508 1499 La Crosse WI E 2,841 $4.49 2011 51,719 1500 Lake Delton WI E 1,685 $1.50 1993 1,982 1501 Lancaster WI E 2,400 $2.00 2008 3,868 1502 Lawrence WI V 2012 3,075 1503 Ledgeview WI E 5,800 $3.33 2010 3,363 $126,207 1504 Lisbon WI E 6,642 $3.33 2007 1,020 $201,773 1505 Little Chute WI E 2,752 $8.00 1998 10,514 1506 Madison WI R 2001 236,901 1507 Manitowoc WI E 3,167 $6.00 2007 34,053 1508 Marinette WI E 3,105 2009 10,943 $1,400,000 1509 Marshfield WI F $5.50 2004 19,220 1510 Mazomanie WI E 3,639 2013 1,652 1511 McFarland WI E 3,456 $7.06 2007 7,937 $1,500,000 1512 Menasha WI E 2,980 $6.25 2009 17,442 1513 Menomonee Falls WI V 35,704 1514 Menomonie WI E 3,000 $3.00 2008 14,937 1515 Middleton WI V 1516 Milton WI E 4,081 $5.24 2009 5,538 1517 Milwaukee WI E 1,610 $5.38 2006 597,867 $25,720,339 1518 Monona WI F $5.00 2004 7,658 1519 Monroe WI E 2,728 $5.00 2006 10,843 $688,367 1520 Mount Pleasant WI E 3,000 1998 26,601 $1,115,634 1521 Mukwonago WI E 3,000 $4.17 2006 8,519 1522 Neenah WI E 3,138 $7.00 2003 25,501 1523 New Berlin WI E 4,000 $5.00 2001 39,584 1524 New Glarus WI E 3,000 $4.85 2009 2,111 1525 New Richmond WI E 12,632 $2.39 2004 8,375 1526 North Fond du Lac WI E 3,123 $4.67 2007 5,014 1527 Oak Creek WI E 2,964 $4.67 34,451

71 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1528 Onalaska (City) WI E 3,888 $4.97 2009 17,736 1529 Onalaska (Town) WI E 3,709 $2.00 2005 5,600 1530 Oshkosh WI E 2,817 $8.97 2003 66,083 $4,189,200 1531 Outagamie County WI E 8,000 177,913 1532 Palmyra WI F $9.39 2,911 1533 Pewaukee WI E 2010 $10.00 2010 13,195 1534 Pleasant Prairie WI E 2,000 $1.25 2006 19,719 1535 Poynette WI E 3,550 $4.17 2006 2,266 1536 Prairie du Sac WI E 43,560 $3.62 3,231 1537 Pulaski WI E 4,100 3,682 1538 Racine WI E 2,844 $6.00 2004 78,860 1539 Raymond WI A $0.00 2007 3,516 1540 Reedsburg WI E 3,024 $3.83 2008 8,594 1541 Rhinelander WI E 3,305 $1.08 2012 7,756 1542 Rice Lake WI F $4.89 2011 8,438 1543 River Falls WI F $3.14 1998 14,889 1544 Rochester WI E 4000 1545 Saint Francis WI E 2,500 $4.00 2001 9,365 1546 Salem WI E 3,000 $5.00 2010 9,871 $135,000 1547 Scott WI E 4,250 $3.75 3,712 1548 Sheboygan WI E 2,215 $3.00 2001 50,792 1549 Shorewood Hills WI E 2,941 2007 1,732 1550 Silver Lake WI E 3,870 2008 2,497 1551 Slinger WI E 4,300 $3.33 2007 5,068 1552 South Milwaukee WI E 2,964 $3.00 21,256 1553 Stevens Point WI E 3,364 $4.90 26,748 1554 Stoughton WI E 3,105 $3.75 2012 12,817 1555 Sturtevant WI V 2008 6,941 1556 Sun Prairie WI E 3,468 $7.50 2003 29,364 1557 Superior WI E 1,907 $5.90 2004 27,368

72 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 No. Community State Type ERU Fee Year Pop Ann. Rev. 1558 Sussex WI E 3,897 $5.00 2005 10,518 1559 Two Rivers WI E 3,015 2014 11,716 1560 Union Grove WI E 4,000 $7.24 2009 4,884 1561 Vernon WI E 6,904 $2.67 2006 7,227 1562 Verona WI E 2,842 $4.42 2009 10,619 1563 Washburn WI F $4.00 2005 2,280 1564 Watertown WI E 2,900 $6.33 2005 22,824 1565 Waupun WI E 3,204 $8.00 2005 11,340 1566 Wauwatosa WI E 2,174 $6.56 1999 47,271 1567 West Allis WI E 1,827 $6.43 1997 61,254 1568 West Milwaukee WI E 1,956 $3.00 2003 4,142 1569 West Salem WI E 2,400 $1.33 2007 4,837 1570 Weston WI E 3,338 $3.98 2004 14,904 1571 Whitefish Bay WI E 3,045 $8.33 1572 Whitewater WI E 3,850 $4.08 2007 14,769 $335,075 1573 Wind Point WI E 3,857 $8.80 2008 1,717 1574 Wisconsin Rapids WI E 2,620 $2.33 2008 18,217 1575 Beckley WV D 1,000 $3.75 2007 17,606 1576 Fairmont WV D 1,000 $5.50 2006 18,737 1577 Hurricane WV D 1,000 $1.50 2005 6,359 1578 Milton WV D 1,000 $4.00 2,498 1579 Morgantown WV D 1,000 $5.88 2011 31,000 $23,007,683 1580 Moundsville WV D $5.00 2010 8,887 1581 Oak Hill WV D $5.00 2003 7,713 1582 Saint Albans WV V 2011 10,973 1583 Vienna WV F $4.00 2010 10,686 $6,063,636

73 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016 Table A2. Canadian Stormwater Utilities (Data in this table provided by Mike Gregory, M.Sc., P.Eng., PE from AECOM)

No. Community Province Type ERU (m2) Monthly Fee Year Population 1 Halifax Nova Scotia E 1 $2.78 2013 297,943 2 London Ontario T $13.78 1996 366,151 3 Aurora Ontario T $4.78 1998 53,203 4 Saint Thomas Ontario T $7.39 2000 37,905 5 Kitchener Ontario T $10.17 2011 219,153 6 Mississauga Ontario E 267 $7.80 2015 713,445 7 Waterloo Ontario - $5.39 2011 98,780 8 Richmond Hill Ontario D $3.97 2013 185,541 9 Regina Saskatchewan T $13.20 2001 193,100 10 Saskatoon Saskatchewan E 256 $4.40 2012 261,000 11 Calgary Alberta M $9.20 1994 1,096,833 12 Edmonton Alberta - $7.00 2003 812,201 13 Saint Albert Alberta T $15.72 2003 61,466 14 Strathcona Alberta F $2.00 2007 92,490 County 15 Langley British Columbia - 25,081 16 Pitt Meadows British Columbia - $6.50 2009 17,736 17 Richmond British Columbia T $10.80 190,473 18 Surrey British Columbia D $16.75 468,251 19 Victoria British Columbia - 2015 78,055 20 West Vancouver British Columbia T $12.82 44,000 21 White Rock British Columbia - $19.00 19,339

74 Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016

Consent Agenda

Minutes

North Liberty City Council March 28, 2017 Regular Session

Call to order Mayor Terry Donahue called the March 28, 2017 Regular Session of the North Liberty City Council to order at 6:30 p.m. Councilors present: Chris Hoffman, Annie Pollock, and Brian Wayson; absent: Jim Sayre.

Others present: Ryan Heiar, Tracey Mulcahey, Scott Peterson, Kevin Trom, Dean Wheatley, Megan Benischek, Kate Moreland, Mark Nolte, Jessica Peckover, Dr. Rick Dobyns, Lance Clemsen, Ron Berg, Levi Kannedy and other interested parties.

Approval of the Agenda Hoffman moved, Wayson seconded to approve the agenda. The vote was all ayes. Agenda approved.

Consent Agenda Pollock moved, Hoffman seconded to approve the Consent Agenda including City Council Minutes from the Regular Session on March 14, 2017; City Council Minutes from the Special Session on March 16, 2017; the attached list of Claims; February Revenues; the Liquor License Renewal for Blue Bird Café, Class C Liquor License with Outdoor Service and Sunday Sales endorsements; Change Order Number 12 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Improvements Project to Tricon Construction Group in the amount of $34,477.33; Pay App Number 5r1 for the Phase I Water System Improvements Project – Division I Water Treatment Plant to Portzen Construction in the amount of $42,850.73; Change Order No. 2 for the SRF Sponsored Water Quality Project to Metro Pavers, Inc. in the amount of $242.08. After discussion, the vote was all ayes. Consent Agenda approved.

Public Comment No public comment was offered.

City Planner Report City Planner Dean Wheatley had no report tonight.

City Engineer Report

City of North Liberty – 2017 City Engineer Kevin Trom reported that the public information meeting for the Forevergreen Road utilities project. Shive-Hattery is assisting IDOT with utility coordination. Trom presented rough schedules for the IDOT improvements. Grading work will happen this year. The ramps will be constructed in the summer of 2018. Improvements on Forevergreen Road from Kansas to Covered Bridge Road will be let in July with construction starting in 2018. Forevergreen Road from Covered Bridge Road to Jones Boulevard 80% complete plans are due March 2018, let Summer 2018 and built 2019.

Gingerich had equipment issues with the well project and had to pull off of the job for a while. The preconstruction meeting for the raw water main project was held last week. The contractor plans to start work at the beginning of summer.

The Highway 965, Phase 3 Project survey work has started and should be completed by the end of the week. The design kickoff for the project will be held on Friday.

Tricon is about 88.5% complete with the Waste Water Treatment Plant expansion.

The contractor for the North Liberty Road Phase 2 Project has completed the tree clearing. After the utilities are moved, grading will begin. The community meeting regarding the project was well attended.

The Penn Street contract has been awarded. The preconstruction meeting is scheduled for next week.

The Water Storage & Maintenance and Brine Building award is on the agenda tonight.

The Centennial Park SRF Sponsored Project permeable pavers are almost complete. The final grade and seed will be done when the ground is dry enough. Two thirds of the light pole bases are installed. The concrete work should be complete in the next two weeks.

Council discussed the report with Trom.

City Attorney Report City Attorney Scott Peterson had no report but reminded Council that resolutions require three affirmative votes to pass.

Assistant City Administrator Report Assistant City Administrator Tracey Mulcahey reported the interviews for the Summer Lunch Coordinator are underway. Five windows at the Ranshaw House were recently shot out with a bb gun. Council discussed the report with Mulcahey.

City Administrator Report City Administrator Ryan Heiar reported that the INDR requirement for identifying alternative water supplies should be on the next agenda. Heiar reported on the rating call with Moody’s for the upcoming bond sales. He provided an update on the bond sales. The project open house is scheduled for March 29 at the library. Council discussed the report with Heiar.

Mayor Report Mayor Terry Donahue reported that he is tracking legislation. He reported on HF603, the eminent domain bill and SF399, voter elections. The MPOJC meeting is at North Liberty Council Chambers

City of North Liberty – 2017 Page: 2 tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. Highway 965, Phase 5 received the most points. Discussion on funding will occur tomorrow night.

ICAD Presentation Mark Nolte and Kate Moreland from ICAD presented the annual ICAD update.

Councilor Sayre arrived at 7:00 p.m.

Council discussed the ICAD presentation with Nolte and Moreland.

Crisis Intervention Training Presentation Dr. Rick Dobyns, Lance Clemsen, Jessica Peckover, Ron Berg, and Levi Kannedy presented information regarding the proposed Johnson County Crisis Intervention Training program.

Council discussed the CIT presentation. Mayor Donahue will represent the City on the board.

Azul Tequila Liquor License Heiar presented information regarding the Azul Tequila liquor license application.

Hoffman moved, Sayre seconded to not approve Azul Tequila’s Liquor License application. After discussion, the vote was all ayes. License denied.

Harvest Estates Developer’s Agreement Heiar presented information regarding the proposed developer’s agreement for Harvest Estates II Part Four.

Hoffman moved, Wayson seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-29, A Resolution approving the Developer’s Agreement between the City of North Liberty and Glynmor, LLC that establishes the terms and conditions under which Harvest Estates II Part Four will be developed in the City of North Liberty, Iowa. After discussion, the vote was: ayes – Pollock, Hoffman, Sayre, Wayson; nays – none. Motion carried.

2017 Borrowing Hoffman moved, Pollock seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-24, A Resolution approving the Engagement Letter between the City of North Liberty and Dorsey & Whitney LLP regarding bond counsel services for the 2017 Water Revenue Financing. The vote was: ayes – Wayson, Sayre, Hoffman, Pollock; nays – none. Motion carried.

At 8:02 p.m., Mayor Donahue opened the Public Hearing on Proposal to enter into a General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Loan Agreement. No oral or written comments were received. The public hearing was closed.

Pollock moved, Sayre seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-30, A Resolution taking additional action on General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Loan Agreement, setting date for the sale of General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A, authorizing the use of a preliminary official statement in connection therewith. The vote was: ayes - Sayre, Pollock, Wayson, Hoffman; nays – none. Motion carried.

City of North Liberty – 2017 Page: 3 At 8:03 p.m., Mayor Donahue opened the Public Hearing on Proposal to enter into a General Obligation Urban Renewal and Refunding Loan Agreement. No oral or written comments were received. The public hearing was closed.

Pollock moved, Hoffman seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-31, A Resolution taking additional action to enter into a General Obligation Urban Renewal and Refunding Loan Agreement, setting the date for the sale of General Obligation Urban Renewal and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017B and authorizing the use of a preliminary official statement in connection therewith. The vote was: ayes- Sayre, Pollock, Hoffman, Wayson; nays – none. Motion carried.

At 8:04 p.m., Mayor Donahue opened the Public Hearing on Proposal to Enter into a Water Revenue Refunding Loan Agreement. No oral or written comments were received. The public hearing was closed.

Wayson moved, Pollock seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-32, A Resolution taking additional action to enter into a Water Revenue Refunding Loan Agreement, setting the date for the sale of Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C and authorizing the use of a preliminary official statement in connection therewith. The vote was: ayes – Pollock, Hoffman, Sayre, Wayson; nays – none. Motion carried.

Brine Production and Water Equipment and Maintenance Facility Heiar presented information regarding the bids received. Council discussed the bids received and the engineer’s estimate.

Hoffman moved, Sayre seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-33, A Resolution accepting the bid and authorizing execution of the Contract for the Brine Production and Water Equipment and Maintenance Facility Project, North Liberty, Iowa. The vote was: ayes – Wayson, Sayre, Hoffman, Pollock; nays – none. Motion carried.

Ranshaw House Project Mulcahey presented information on the design agreement. Council discussed the agreement with Trom. Hoffman moved, Wayson seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-34, A Resolution approving the Services Agreement between the City of North Liberty and Shive-Hattery, Inc. for the Ranshaw House Project. After discussion, the vote was: ayes -Hoffman, Pollock, Wayson; nays – Sayre. Motion carried.

I-380/Forevergreen Road Project Agreements Peterson presented information on the agreements regarding the Interstate 380/Forevergreen Road Project. Council discussed the agreements.

Hoffman moved, Wayson seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-35, A Resolution approving the Right of Way Agreement for Primary Road Project between the Iowa Department of Transportation and the City of North Liberty, Iowa regarding the I-380 and Forevergreen Road Interchange Project (Agreement No. 2017-1-145). The vote was: ayes – Hoffman, Sayre, Wayson, Pollock; nays – none. Motion carried.

Hoffman moved, Sayre seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-36, A Resolution approving the Right of Way Agreement for Primary Road Project between the Iowa Department of Transportation and the City of North Liberty, Iowa regarding the I-380 and Forevergreen Road Interchange Project (Agreement No. U-2017-FGR-Easements). Hoffman moved, Sayre seconded to

City of North Liberty – 2017 Page: 4 amend paragraph 2.b striking the last two sentences. After discussion, the vote on the amendment was: ayes – Pollock, Wayson, Hoffman, Sayre; nays – none. Motion carried. The vote on the resolution was: ayes – Pollock, Wayson, Hoffman, Sayre; nays – none. Motion carried.

Wayson moved, Hoffman seconded to approve Resolution Number 2017-37, A Resolution approving the Easement Purchase Reimbursement Agreement between Linn County Rural Electric Cooperative, Midamerican Energy Company, South Slope Cooperative Communications, Mediacom, Qwest Corporation and the City of North Liberty, Iowa regarding the I-380 and Forevergreen Road Interchange Project. The vote was: ayes – Hoffman, Wayson, Sayre, Pollock; nays – none. Motion carried.

North Liberty Bus Service Council discussed what the Transit Committee should determine. Items for discussion include: • How to expand usage of the system and increase ridership. • Deliver a service that increases ridership at a more reasonable cost. • Linking into another system – i.e. providing service to Oakdale. • Consider a SEATs midday loop to get users to Coralville to get connected into the system. • Other options for transit other than this. Is the need truly there? • What can be done to provide the service outside of the city to get riders with no increase in costs? • Is there a need to make any requests for more members on the Committee?

Fireworks Bill SF489 Council discussed the proposed Fireworks Bill SF489 and whether the City would disallow the selling and or use of fireworks. Consensus was to hold on it.

Old Business Councilor Pollock requested adding a monitor on the podium.

New Business Councilor Wayson reported that EMA is hiring a Deputy Coordinator. They hope to have position filled in a few weeks. Tomorrow is Severe Weather Day barring poor weather conditions. Councilor Hoffman reported that the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau has converted to a Destination Marketing Organization.

Adjournment At 8:41 p.m., Mayor Donahue adjourned the meeting.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY

By: ______Terry Donahue, Mayor

Attest:

______Tracey Mulcahey, City Clerk

City of North Liberty – 2017 Page: 5

360,806.27

4-4-17

408,381.92

4/4/2017

Athletic Field Lighting Ordinance

Amendment to Design Standards Section of Zoning Ordinance (169.12) Better qualify requirements for certain outdoor sports field lighting 3/2017 I. Lighting Illumination Requirements. Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order to maintain adequate security while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or streets. Except for lighting of loading areas, service areas, and for architectural emphasis, floodlighting is prohibited. Lighting shall comply with the following requirements, except as specified in item 6. (1) Light fixtures 300 feet or less from a residential zone shall be mounted no higher than 25 feet. (2) Light fixtures greater than 300 feet from a residential zone shall be mounted no higher than 35 feet. (3) All lights greater than 2,000 lumens, both pole-mounted and wall- mounted, shall be equipped with cutoff shields, so that no light shines above the horizontal and no direct light falls beyond the property line. Light reflectors and refractors may be substituted for shields on ornamental and pedestrian light fixtures. (4) Light fixtures used to illuminate flags, statues, and objects mounted on a pole or pedestal shall use a narrow cone of light that does not extend beyond the illuminated object. (65) Illumination shall not exceed one foot-candle at property boundaries of multi-family, commercial, and industrial uses adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone, or a commercial zone in which residential uses are permitted.

(56) Outdoor recreational facilities permitted by conditional use may be exempt from the specific exterior lighting standards, provided the Board of Adjustment approves a lighting plan as part of the conditional use approval process. Outdoor sports fields and courts operated by the City or by a school district are exempt from the specific illumination requirements in this section, subject to approval by the City Council after review and recommendation of the Planning Commission, of a lighting plan that minimizes light impacts on adjacent property to the maximum extent technologically possible, and meets the following minimum requirements:

A Use of the lighting is restricted to those hours when the Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" recreational facility is in use, and lighting for said facilities shall be turned off by one hour after conclusion of the recreational activity. For facilities located in or adjacent to residential zones, lighting for said facilities shall be permitted after eleven o’clock P.M. only to conclude a scheduled event that was unable to conclude before that time due to unusual circumstances; and B. Illumination shall not exceed one foot-candle at the closest part of any principle structure on any adjacent lot. If no principle structure exists on adjacent platted lots, illumination shall not exceed one foot-candle at a distance of eight-five feet from the front lot line of the adjacent lot, so that illumination does not exceed one foot-candle at the closest part of a future principle structure on a lot with a 25 foot setback and a 60 foot deep principle structure; and C All lights greater than 2,000 lumens, both pole-mounted and wall- mounted, shall be equipped with cutoff shields, so that no light shines above the horizontal and no direct light falls beyond the closest part of any principle structure on any adjacent lot. If no principle structure exists on adjacent platted lots, illumination shall not fall beyond a distance of eight-five feet from the front lot line of the adjacent lot, so that illumination does not fall at the closest part of a future principle structure on a lot with a 25 foot setback and a 60 foot deep principle structure (6) Illumination shall not exceed one foot-candle at property boundaries of multi-family, commercial, and industrial uses adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone, or a commercial zone in which residential uses are permitted.

Ordinance No. 2017-01

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 169, “ZONING CODE – DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS” OF THE NORTH LIBERTY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY UPDATING SECTION 169.12 FOR CERTAIN OUTDOOR SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Chapter 169, "Zoning Code – Development Regulations," of the North Liberty Code of Ordinances (2015) is hereby amended by updating Section 169.12 to better qualify requirements for certain outdoor sports field lighting.

Amendment to Design Standards Section of Zoning Ordinance (169.12) I. Lighting Illumination Requirements. Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order to maintain adequate security while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or streets. Lighting shall comply with the following requirements, except as specified in item 6.

(1) Light fixtures 300 feet or less from a residential zone shall be mounted no higher than 25 feet. (2) Light fixtures greater than 300 feet from a residential zone shall be mounted no higher than 35 feet. (3) All lights greater than 2,000 lumens, both pole-mounted and wall-mounted, shall be equipped with cutoff shields, so that no light shines above the horizontal and no direct light falls beyond the property line. Light reflectors and refractors may be substituted for shields on ornamental and pedestrian light fixtures. (4) Light fixtures used to illuminate flags, statues, and objects mounted on a pole or pedestal shall use a narrow cone of light that does not extend beyond the illuminated object. (5) Illumination shall not exceed one foot-candle at property boundaries of multi-family, commercial, and industrial uses adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone, or a commercial zone in which residential uses are permitted.

(6) Outdoor recreational facilities permitted by conditional use may be exempt from the specific exterior lighting standards, provided the Board of Adjustment approves a lighting plan as part of the conditional use approval process. Outdoor sports fields and courts operated by the City or by a school district are exempt from the specific illumination requirements in this section, subject to approval by the City Council after review and recommendation of the Planning Commission, of a lighting plan that minimizes light impacts on adjacent property to the maximum extent technologically possible, and meets the following minimum requirements: A. Use of the lighting is restricted to those hours when the recreational facility is in use, and lighting for said facilities shall be turned off by one hour after conclusion of the recreational activity. For facilities located in or adjacent to residential zones, lighting for said facilities shall be permitted after eleven o’clock P. M. only to conclude a scheduled event that was unable to conclude before that time due to unusual circumstances; and B. Illumination shall not exceed one foot-candle at the closest part of any principle structure on any adjacent lot. If no principle structure exists on adjacent platted lots, illumination shall not exceed one foot-candle at a distance of eight-five feet from the front lot line of the adjacent lot, so that

City of North Liberty – 2017 Ordinance Number 2017-01 Page: 1 illumination does not exceed one foot-candle at the closest part of a future principle structure on a lot with a 25 foot setback and a 60 foot deep principle structure; and

C. All lights greater than 2,000 lumens, both pole-mounted and wall-mounted, shall be equipped with cutoff shields, so that no light shines above the horizontal and no direct light falls beyond the closest part of any principle structure on any adjacent lot. If no principle structure exists on adjacent platted lots, illumination shall not fall beyond a distance of eight-five feet from the front lot line of the adjacent lot, so that illumination does not fall at the closest part of a future principle structure on a lot with a 25 foot setback and a 60 foot deep principle structure.

SECTION 2. REPEALER. All Ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of this Ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. WHEN EFFECTIVE. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after its final passage, approval and publication as provided by law.

First reading on ______. Second reading on ______. Third and final reading on ______.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY: ATTEST:

______TERRY L. DONAHUE, MAYOR TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

I certify that the forgoing was published as Ordinance No. 2017-01 in the North Liberty Leader on the ___ day of ______, 2017.

______TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

City of North Liberty – 2017 Ordinance Number 2017-01 Page: 2

Sign Ordinance

Amendment to Sign Section of Zoning Ordinance Add height limitation to ground sign heights in industrial zones consistent with other zones 3/2017

173.08 SIGNS IN OFFICE/RESEARCH PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES. 1. Development Complexes/Multi-Tenant Buildings. Development complexes shall be permitted one ground sign per public street frontage. The maximum permitted sign area for each development complex sign shall be as provided within the applicable zoning district, plus 10 additional square feet per business, enterprise, institution or franchise within development complex, but not more than 50 percent of the base allowable sign area. 2. Building Identification Signs. One building identification sign for each building shall be permitted provided that no such sign shall exceed 25 square feet. 3. Business Signs. Each enterprise, institution, or business shall be permitted wall signs, one canopy sign per street frontage, and one ground sign per pubic street frontage, subject to the following maximum size requirements. Multiple businesses in the same building shall apportion façade length, building wall, and street frontage such that any maximum size requirement is not exceeded for a particular property. A. Maximum Wall Sign Area. The total area of wall signage shall not exceed three square feet for each lineal foot of building wall the sign is attached to when viewed in elevation, not to exceed 300 square feet. B. Maximum Ground Sign Area. One ground sign is permitted per street frontage. The surface area for each sign shall be one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet, except for development complexes as specified in section 173.08(1), and the height shall not exceed 24 feet. C. Canopy Sign Area and Dimensions. (1) The maximum allowable sign area shall be one square foot for each lineal foot of width of the canopy, awning, or similar structure from which the sign is attached, as measured perpendicular to the building wall. (2) The maximum allowable horizontal length of a canopy sign shall be equal to the width of the canopy, awning, or similar structure from which the sign is attached, as measured perpendicular to the building wall. (3) The minimum vertical clearance between the lower edge of a canopy or awning and the ground shall be eight feet.

Ordinance No. 2017-02

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 173, “ZONING CODE – SIGN REGULATIONS” OF THE NORTH LIBERTY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY UPDATING SECTION 173.08 ADDING A HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR GROUND SIGNS

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Chapter 173, "Zoning Code – Sign Regulations," of the North Liberty Code of Ordinances (2015) is hereby amended by deleting the existing Section 173.08 and adopting the revised Section 173.08 to establish a height limitation for ground signs in Industrial Zones.

173.08 SIGNS IN OFFICE/RESEARCH PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES. 1. Development Complexes/Multi-Tenant Buildings. Development complexes shall be permitted one ground sign per public street frontage. The maximum permitted sign area for each development complex sign shall be as provided within the applicable zoning district, plus 10 additional square feet per business, enterprise, institution or franchise within development complex, but not more than 50 percent of the base allowable sign area. 2. Building Identification Signs. One building identification sign for each building shall be permitted provided that no such sign shall exceed 25 square feet. 3. Business Signs. Each enterprise, institution, or business shall be permitted wall signs, one canopy sign per street frontage, and one ground sign per pubic street frontage, subject to the following maximum size requirements. Multiple businesses in the same building shall apportion façade length, building wall, and street frontage such that any maximum size requirement is not exceeded for a particular property. A. Maximum Wall Sign Area. The total area of wall signage shall not exceed three square feet for each lineal foot of building wall the sign is attached to when viewed in elevation, not to exceed 300 square feet. B. Maximum Ground Sign Area. One ground sign is permitted per street frontage. The surface area for each sign shall be one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage, not to exceed 100 square feet, except for development complexes as specified in section 173.08(1), and the height shall not exceed 24 feet. C. Canopy Sign Area and Dimensions.

1. The maximum allowable sign area shall be one square foot for each lineal foot of width of the canopy, awning, or similar structure from which the sign is attached, as measured perpendicular to the building wall. 2. The maximum allowable horizontal length of a canopy sign shall be equal to the width of the canopy, awning, or similar structure from which the sign is attached, as measured perpendicular to the building wall. 3. The minimum vertical clearance between the lower edge of a canopy or awning and the ground shall be eight feet.

SECTION 2. REPEALER. All Ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of this Ordinance shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 4. WHEN EFFECTIVE. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after its final passage, approval and publication as provided by law.

City of North Liberty – 2017 Ordinance Number 2017-02 Page: 1 First reading on ______. Second reading on ______. Third and final reading on ______.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY: ATTEST:

______TERRY L. DONAHUE, MAYOR TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

I certify that the forgoing was published as Ordinance No. 2017-02 in the North Liberty Leader on the ___ day of ______, 2017.

______TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

City of North Liberty – 2017 Ordinance Number 2017-02 Page: 2

2017 Borrowing

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

MINUTES TO AUTHORIZE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS

421033-66

North Liberty, Iowa

April 11, 2017

The City Council of the City of North Liberty, Iowa, met on April 11, 2017, at ______o’clock ___.m., at the ______, North Liberty, Iowa.

The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, and the roll was called showing the following Council Members present and absent:

Present:

Absent: .

This being the time and place fixed by the City Council for the consideration of bids for the purchase of General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A to be issued in evidence of the City’s obligation under a loan agreement, the Mayor announced that bids had been received and canvassed on behalf of the City at the time and place fixed therefore.

The results of the bids were then read and the substance of such bids was noted in the minutes, as follows:

Name and Address of Bidder Final Bid (interest cost)

%

After due consideration and discussion, Council Member ______introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Council Member ______. The Mayor put the question upon the adoption of said resolution, and the roll being called, the following Council Members voted:

Ayes:

Nays: .

Whereupon, the Mayor declared the resolution duly adopted as hereinafter set out.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 1

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

• • • •

At the conclusion of the meeting, and upon motion and vote, the City Council adjourned.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY: ATTEST:

______TERRY L. DONAHUE, MAYOR TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 2

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

Resolution No. 2017-38

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE CALL OF OUTSTANDING BONDS, PROVIDING FOR THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE AND REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017A, AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF TAXES TO PAY THE SAME

WHEREAS, the City of North Liberty (the “City”), in Johnson County, State of Iowa, previously issued its $1,940,000 General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2008B, dated June 30, 2008 (the “2008B Bonds”), a portion of which are currently outstanding, maturing on June 1 in each of the years and in such amounts and bearing interest at such rates as follows:

Principal Interest Year Amount Rate 2017 $245,000 3.75% 2018 $250,000 3.95%

WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution (the “2008B Bond Resolution”) authorizing the issuance of the 2008B Bonds, the City reserved the right to call the 2008B Bonds maturing in the years 2017 and 2018, inclusive, for optional early redemption on any date on or after June 1, 2016 (the “Callable 2008B Bonds”), subject to the provisions of the 2008B Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City previously issued its $2,425,000 General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2009A, dated May 27, 2009 (the “2009A Bonds”), a portion of which are currently outstanding, maturing on June 1 in each of the years and in such amounts and bearing interest at such rates as follows:

Principal Interest Principal Interest Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate 2017 $165,000 3.00% 2021 $190,000 4.00% 2018 $170,000 3.25% 2022 $200,000 4.05% 2019 $175,000 3.50% 2023 $205,000 4.10% 2020 $185,000 3.75% 2024 $215,000 4.15%

; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution (the “2009A Bond Resolution”) authorizing the issuance of the 2009A Bonds, the City reserved the right to call the 2009A Bonds maturing in the years 2017 through 2024, inclusive, for optional early redemption on any date on or after June 1, 2016 (the “Callable 2009A Bonds”), subject to the provisions of the 2009A Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City previously issued its $1,730,000 General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2010A, dated October 25, 2010 (the “2010A Bonds”), a portion of which

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 3

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

are currently outstanding, maturing on June 1 in each of the years and in such amounts and bearing interest at such rates as follows:

Principal Interest Rate Year Amount Per Annum 2017 $195,000 1.90% 2018 $200,000 2.20% 2019 $205,000 2.40% 2020 $210,000 2.60%

WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution (the “2010A Bond Resolution”) authorizing the issuance of the 2010A Bonds, the City reserved the right to call the 2010A Bonds maturing in the years 2018 through 2020, inclusive, for optional early redemption on any date on or after June 1, 2017 (the “Callable 2010A Bonds”), subject to the provisions of the 2010A Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City previously issued its $790,000 General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2011A, dated September 28, 2011 (the “2011A Bonds”), a portion of which are currently outstanding, maturing on June 1 in each of the years and in such amounts and bearing interest at such rates as follows:

Principal Interest Year Amount Rate Per Annum 2017 $90,000 1.40% 2018 $90,000 1.70% 2019 $90,000 2.00%

WHEREAS, pursuant to the resolution (the “2011A Bond Resolution”) authorizing the issuance of the 2011A Bonds, the City reserved the right to call the 2011A Bonds maturing in the years 2017 through 2019, inclusive, for optional early redemption on any date on or after June 1, 2016 (the “Callable 2011A Bonds”), subject to the provisions of the 2011A Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City heretofore proposed to enter into a General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”), pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.24A of the Code of Iowa, and to borrow money thereunder in a principal amount not to exceed $4,700,000 for the purpose of paying the costs, to that extent, of (1) constructing street, water system, storm water drainage, sanitary sewer system and sidewalk improvements (the “Projects”); and (2) current refunding the Callable 2008B Bonds, the Callable 2009A Bonds, the Callable 2010A Bonds and the Callable 2011A Bonds; and has published notice of the proposed action and has held a hearing thereon on March 28, 2017; and

WHEREAS, a Preliminary Official Statement (the “Draft Combined P.O.S.”) has been prepared to facilitate the sale of $4,550,000 General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “Bonds”) in evidence of the obligation of the City under the Loan Agreement; and

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 4

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

WHEREAS, the Draft Combined P.O.S. included details regarding the City’s proposed offering of General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A, but it has now been determined that each series of general obligation bonds should be sold under a separate offering document; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the modification and has approved of a separate offering document for the sale of the Bonds, to set the date for the sale of the Bonds and has authorized Independent Public Advisors, LLC (the “Financial Advisor”) to carry out such sale; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement of sale, bids for the purchase of the Bonds to be issued in evidence of the City’s obligation under the Loan Agreement were received and canvassed on behalf of the City; and

WHEREAS, upon final consideration of all bids, the bid of ______(the “Purchaser”), was the best, such bid proposing the lowest interest cost to the City; and

WHEREAS, the City has authorized the calling of the Callable 2008B Bonds, the Callable 2009A Bonds, the Callable 2010A Bonds, and the Callable 2011A Bonds (collectively hereinafter the “Callable Refunding Targets”) for early redemption on June 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”); and

WHEREAS, it is now necessary to make final provision for the approval of the Loan Agreement and to authorize the issuance of the Bonds;

NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of North Liberty, Iowa, as follows:

Section 1. The form of agreement of sale of the Bonds with the Purchaser is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to accept and execute the same for and on behalf of the City.

Section 2. The City shall enter into the Loan Agreement with the Purchaser in substantially the form as has been placed on file with the City Council, providing for a loan to the City in the principal amount of $4,550,000, for the purpose set forth in the preamble hereof.

The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to sign the Loan Agreement on behalf of the City, and the Loan Agreement is hereby approved.

Section 3. Bankers Trust Company, Des Moines, Iowa, as Registrar and Paying Agent for the Callable Refunding Targets, is hereby authorized to take all action necessary to call the Callable Refunding Targets for early redemption on the Redemption Date, and is further authorized and directed to give notice of such redemption by sending notice by electronic means to each of the registered owners of the Callable Refunding Targets to be redeemed at the addresses shown on the City’s registration books, not less than 30 days prior to the Redemption Date.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 5

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

Section 4. The Bonds, in the aggregate principal amount of $4,550,000, are hereby authorized to be issued in evidence of the City’s obligations under the Loan Agreement. The Bonds shall be dated April 27, 2017, shall be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof and shall mature on June 1 in each of the years, in the respective principal amounts, and bear interest at the respective rates as follows:

Principal Interest Rate Principal Interest Rate Year Amount Per Annum Year Amount Per Annum 2018 $720,000 ____% 2023 $435,000 ____% 2019 $705,000 ____% 2024 $450,000 ____% 2020 $625,000 ____% 2025 $245,000 ____% 2021 $425,000 ____% 2026 $250,000 ____% 2022 $435,000 ____% 2027 $260,000 ____%

Section 5. Bankers Trust Company, Des Moines, Iowa, is hereby designated as the Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds and may be hereinafter referred to as the “Registrar” or the “Paying Agent.” The City shall enter into an agreement (the “Registrar/Paying Agent Agreement”) with the Registrar, in substantially the form as has been placed on file with the Council; the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to sign the Registrar/Paying Agent Agreement on behalf of the City; and the Registrar/Paying Agent Agreement is hereby approved.

The City reserves the right to optionally prepay part or all of the principal of the Bonds maturing in the years 2025 to 2027, inclusive, prior to and in any order of maturity on June 1, 2024, or on any date thereafter upon terms of par and accrued interest. If less than all of the Bonds of any like maturity are to be redeemed, the particular part of those Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. The Bonds may be called in part in one or more units of $5,000.

If less than the entire principal amount of any Bond in a denomination of more than $5,000 is to be redeemed, the Registrar will issue and deliver to the registered owner thereof, upon surrender of such original Bond, a new Bond or Bonds, in any authorized denomination, in a total aggregate principal amount equal to the unredeemed balance of the original Bond. Notice of such redemption as aforesaid identifying the Bond or Bonds (or portion thereof) to be redeemed shall be sent by electronic means or by certified mail to the registered owners thereof at the addresses shown on the City’s registration books not less than 30 days prior to such redemption date. All of such Bonds as to which the City reserves and exercises the right of redemption and as to which notice as aforesaid shall have been given and for the redemption of which funds are duly provided, shall cease to bear interest on the redemption date.

Accrued interest on the Bonds shall be payable semiannually on the first day of June and December in each year, commencing December 1, 2017. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Payment of interest on the Bonds shall be made to the registered owners appearing on the registration books of the City at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month next preceding the interest payment date and shall be

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 6

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

paid to the registered owners at the addresses shown on such registration books. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America to the registered owners or their legal representatives upon presentation and surrender of the Bond or Bonds at the office of the Paying Agent.

The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City with the official manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and attested with the official manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk, and shall be fully registered Bonds without interest coupons. In case any officer whose signature or the facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Bonds, such signature or such facsimile signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.

The Bonds shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication thereon shall have been signed by the Registrar.

The Bonds shall be fully registered as to principal and interest in the names of the owners on the registration books of the City kept by the Registrar, and after such registration, payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon shall be made only to the registered owners or their legal representatives or assigns. Each Bond shall be transferable only upon the registration books of the City upon presentation to the Registrar, together with either a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar or the assignment form thereon completed and duly executed by the registered owner or the duly authorized attorney for such registered owner.

The record and identity of the owners of the Bonds shall be kept confidential as provided by Section 22.7 of the Code of Iowa.

Section 6. Notwithstanding anything above to the contrary, the Bonds shall be issued initially as Depository Bonds, with one fully registered Bond for each maturity date, in principal amounts equal to the amount of principal maturing on each such date, and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”). On original issue, the Bonds shall be deposited with DTC for the purpose of maintaining a book- entry system for recording the ownership interests of its participants and the transfer of those interests among its participants (the “Participants”). In the event that DTC determines not to continue to act as securities depository for the Bonds or the City determines not to continue the book-entry system for recording ownership interests in the Bonds with DTC, the City will discontinue the book-entry system with DTC. If the City does not select another qualified securities depository to replace DTC (or a successor depository) in order to continue a book- entry system, the City will register and deliver replacement Bonds in the form of fully registered certificates, in authorized denominations of $5,000 or integral multiples of $5,000, in accordance with instructions from Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. In the event that the City identifies a qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the City will register and deliver replacement Bonds, fully registered in the name of such depository, or its nominee, in the denominations as set forth above, as reduced from time to time prior to maturity in connection with redemptions or retirements by call or payment, and in such event, such depository will then maintain the book- entry system for recording ownership interests in the Bonds.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 7

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

Ownership interests in the Bonds may be purchased by or through Participants. Such Participants and the persons for whom they acquire interests in the Bonds as nominees will not receive certificated Bonds, but each such Participant will receive a credit balance in the records of DTC in the amount of such Participant’s interest in the Bonds, which will be confirmed in accordance with DTC’s standard procedures. Each such person for which a Participant has an interest in the Bonds, as nominee, may desire to make arrangements with such Participant to have all notices of redemption or other communications of the City to DTC, which may affect such person, forwarded in writing by such Participant and to have notification made of all interest payments. The City will have no responsibility or obligation to such Participants or the persons for whom they act as nominees with respect to payment to or providing of notice for such Participants or the persons for whom they act as nominees. As used herein, the term “Beneficial Owner” shall hereinafter be deemed to include the person for whom the Participant acquires an interest in the Bonds. DTC will receive payments from the City, to be remitted by DTC to the Participants for subsequent disbursement to the Beneficial Owners. The ownership interest of each Beneficial Owner in the Bonds will be recorded on the records of the Participants whose ownership interest will be recorded on a computerized book-entry system kept by DTC. When reference is made to any action which is required or permitted to be taken by the Beneficial Owners, such reference shall only relate to those permitted to act (by statute, regulation or otherwise) on behalf of such Beneficial Owners for such purposes. When notices are given, they shall be sent by the City to DTC, and DTC shall forward (or cause to be forwarded) the notices to the Participants so that the Participants can forward the same to the Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will receive written confirmations of their purchases from the Participants acting on behalf of the Beneficial Owners detailing the terms of the Bonds acquired. Transfers of ownership interests in the Bonds will be accomplished by book entries made by DTC and the Participants who act on behalf of the Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interest in the Bonds, except as specifically provided herein. Interest and principal will be paid when due by the City to DTC, then paid by DTC to the Participants and thereafter paid by the Participants to the Beneficial Owners. Section 7. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form:

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 8

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

(Form of Bond)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY

GENERAL OBLIGATION CORPORATE PURPOSE AND REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2017A

No. _____ $______

RATE MATURITY DATE BOND DATE CUSIP

____% June 1, ______April 27, 2017 ______

The City of North Liberty (the “City”), in Johnson County, State of Iowa, for value received, promises to pay on the maturity date of this Bond to

Cede & Co. New York, New York or registered assigns, the principal sum of

THOUSAND DOLLARS in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender of this Bond at the office of Bankers Trust Company, Des Moines, Iowa (hereinafter referred to as the “Registrar” or the “Paying Agent”), with interest on said sum, until paid, at the rate per annum specified above from the date of this Bond, or from the most recent interest payment date on which interest has been paid, on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing December 1, 2017, except as the provisions hereinafter set forth with respect to redemption prior to maturity may be or become applicable hereto. Interest on this Bond is payable to the registered owner appearing on the registration books of the City at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month next preceding the interest payment date, and shall be paid to the registered owner at the address shown on such registration books. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months.

This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been signed by the Registrar.

This Bond is one of a series of General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A (the “Bonds”) issued by the City to evidence its obligation under a certain loan agreement, dated as of April 27, 2017 (the “Loan Agreement”), entered into by the City for the purpose of paying the cost, to that extent, of (1) constructing street, water system, storm water drainage, sanitary sewer system and sidewalk improvements; and (2) current refunding the General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2008B, dated June 30, 2008, the General Obligation Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2009A, dated May 27, 2009, the General Obligation

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 9

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

Corporate Purpose Bonds, Series 2010A, dated October 25, 2010 and the General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2011A, dated September 28, 2011.

The Bonds are issued pursuant to and in strict compliance with the provisions of Chapters 76 and 384 of the Code of Iowa, 2017, and all other laws amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, and in conformity with a resolution of the City Council, adopted on April 11, 2017, authorizing and approving the Loan Agreement and providing for the issuance and securing the payment of the Bonds (the “Resolution”), and reference is hereby made to the Resolution and the Loan Agreement for a more complete statement as to the source of payment of the Bonds and the rights of the owners of the Bonds.

The City reserves the right to optionally prepay part or all of the principal of the Bonds maturing in the years 2025 to 2027, inclusive, prior to and in any order of maturity on June 1, 2024, or on any date thereafter upon terms of par and accrued interest. If less than all of the Bonds of any like maturity are to be redeemed, the particular part of those Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. The Bonds may be called in part in one or more units of $5,000.

If less than the entire principal amount of any Bond in a denomination of more than $5,000 is to be redeemed, the Registrar will issue and deliver to the registered owner thereof, upon surrender of such original Bond, a new Bond or Bonds, in any authorized denomination, in a total aggregate principal amount equal to the unredeemed balance of the original Bond. Notice of such redemption as aforesaid identifying the Bond or Bonds (or portion thereof) to be redeemed shall be sent by electronic means or by certified mail to the registered owners thereof at the addresses shown on the City’s registration books not less than 30 days prior to such redemption date. All of such Bonds as to which the City reserves and exercises the right of redemption and as to which notice as aforesaid shall have been given and for the redemption of which funds are duly provided, shall cease to bear interest on the redemption date.

This Bond is fully negotiable but shall be fully registered as to both principal and interest in the name of the owner on the books of the City in the office of the Registrar, after which no transfer shall be valid unless made on said books and then only upon presentation of this Bond to the Registrar, together with either a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar or the assignment form hereon completed and duly executed by the registered owner or the duly authorized attorney for such registered owner.

The City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent may deem and treat the registered owner hereof as the absolute owner for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal hereof, premium, if any, and interest due hereon and for all other purposes, and the City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary.

And It Is Hereby Certified and Recited that all acts, conditions and things required by the laws and Constitution of the State of Iowa, to exist, to be had, to be done or to be performed precedent to and in the issue of this Bond were and have been properly existent, had, done and performed in regular and due form and time; that provision has been made for the levy of a sufficient continuing annual tax on all the taxable property within the City for the payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond as the same will respectively become due; and that the total

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 10

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

indebtedness of the City, including this Bond, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitations.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City of North Liberty, Iowa, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed with the duly authorized facsimile signature of its Mayor and attested with the duly authorized facsimile signature of its City Clerk, as of April 27, 2017.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA

By (DO NOT SIGN) Mayor Attest:

(DO NOT SIGN) City Clerk

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 11

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

Registration Date: (Registration Date)

REGISTRAR’S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Resolution.

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY Des Moines, Iowa Registrar

By (Authorized Signature) Authorized Officer

ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common UTMA TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties (Custodian) JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of As Custodian for survivorship and not as tenants in (Minor) common under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act

(State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the list above.

ASSIGNMENT For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned assigns this Bond to

(Please print or type name and address of Assignee)

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

and does hereby irrevocably appoint ______, Attorney, to transfer this Bond on the books kept for registration thereof with full power of substitution.

Dated:

Signature guaranteed:

(Signature guarantee must be provided in accordance with the prevailing standards and procedures of the Registrar and Transfer Agent. Such standards and procedures may require signatures to be guaranteed by certain eligible guarantor institutions that participate in a recognized signature guarantee program.)

NOTICE: The signature to this Assignment must correspond with the name of the registered owner as it appears on this Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 12

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

Section 8. The Bonds shall be executed as herein provided as soon after the adoption of this resolution as may be possible, and thereupon they shall be delivered to the Registrar for registration, authentication and delivery to or on behalf of the Purchaser, upon receipt of the loan proceeds, including original issue premium (the “Loan Proceeds”), and all action heretofore taken in connection with the Loan Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.

A portion of the Loan Proceeds ($______) shall be retained by the Purchaser as underwriter’s discount.

A portion of the Loan Proceeds ($______) (the “Project Proceeds”) received from the sale of the Bonds plus the additional proceeds ($______) shall be deposited in a dedicated fund (the “Project Fund”), which is hereby created, to be used for the payment of (1) costs of planning, designing and constructing the Projects; (2) costs of issuing the Bonds; and (3) to the extent that Proceeds remain after the full payment of the costs set forth in (1) and (2), such Proceeds shall be transferred to the Debt Service Fund for the payment of interest on the Bonds.

The Loan Proceeds received as capitalized interest proceeds ($______) shall be deposited into the Debt Service Fund for payment of interest on the Bonds as the same becomes due.

The remainder of the net proceeds ($______) (the “Refunding Proceeds”) received from the sale of the Bonds shall be deposited into the Debt Service Fund and used to carry out the redemption of the Callable Refunding Targets on the Redemption Date.

The City shall keep a detailed and segregated accounting of the expenditure of, and investment earnings on, the Project Proceeds and the Refunding Proceeds to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, as hereinafter defined.

Section 9. For the purpose of providing for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due, there is hereby ordered levied on all the taxable property in the City the following direct annual tax for collection in each of the following fiscal years:

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______;

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______;

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______;

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______;

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______;

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 13

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2023, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______;

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______;

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______; and

For collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026, sufficient to produce the net annual sum of $______.

Section 10. A certified copy of this resolution shall be filed with the County Auditor of Johnson County, and the County Auditor is hereby instructed to enter for collection and assess the tax hereby authorized. When annually entering such taxes for collection, the County Auditor shall include the same as a part of the tax levy for Debt Service Fund purposes of the City and when collected, the proceeds of the taxes shall be converted into the Debt Service Fund of the City and set aside therein as a special account to be used solely and only for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds hereby authorized and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 76.4 of the Code of Iowa, each year while the Bonds remain outstanding and unpaid, any funds of the City which may lawfully be applied for such purpose may be appropriated, budgeted and, if received, used for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due, and if so appropriated, the taxes for any given fiscal year as provided for in Section 9 of this Resolution, shall be reduced by the amount of such alternate funds as have been appropriated for said purpose and evidenced in the City’s budget.

Section 11. The interest or principal and both of them falling due in any year or years shall, if necessary, be paid promptly from current funds on hand in advance of taxes levied and when the taxes shall have been collected, reimbursement shall be made to such current funds in the sum thus advanced.

Section 12. It is the intention of the City that interest on the Bonds be and remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations in effect with respect thereto (all of the foregoing herein referred to as the “Internal Revenue Code”). In furtherance thereof, the City covenants to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as they may from time to time be in effect or amended and further covenants to comply with the applicable future laws, regulations, published rulings and court decisions as may be necessary to insure that the interest on the Bonds will remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Any and all of the officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions as may be necessary to comply with the covenants herein contained.

The City hereby designates the Bonds as “Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations” as that term is used in Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 14

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

Section 13. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has promulgated certain amendments to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-12) (the “Rule”) that make it unlawful for an underwriter to participate in the primary offering of municipal securities in a principal amount of $1,000,000 or more unless, before submitting a bid or entering into a purchase contract for the bonds, an underwriter has reasonably determined that the issuer or an obligated person has undertaken in writing for the benefit of the bondholders to provide certain disclosure information to prescribed information repositories on a continuing basis or unless and to the extent the offering is exempt from the requirements of the Rule.

On the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Certificate pursuant to which the City will undertake to comply with the Rule. The City covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Any and all of the officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions as may be necessary to comply with the Rule and the Continuing Disclosure Certificate.

Section 14. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

Section 15. This resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its approval and adoption, as provided by law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 2017.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY: ATTEST:

______TERRY L. DONAHUE, MAYOR TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 15

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

ATTESTATION CERTIFICATE:

STATE OF IOWA COUNTY OF JOHNSON SS: CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY

I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of North Liberty, do hereby certify that as such City Clerk I have in my possession or have access to the complete corporate records of the City and of its Council and officers and that I have carefully compared the transcript hereto attached with those corporate records and that the transcript hereto attached is a true, correct and complete copy of all the corporate records in relation to the adoption of a resolution authorizing the call of bonds, authorizing a certain Loan Agreement and providing for the sale and issuance of $4,550,000 General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A of the City evidencing the City’s obligation under the Loan Agreement and that the transcript hereto attached contains a true, correct and complete statement of all the measures adopted and proceedings, acts and things had, done and performed up to the present time with respect thereto.

I further certify that no appeal has been taken to the District Court from the decision of the City Council to enter into the Loan Agreement, to issue the Bonds or to levy taxes to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds.

WITNESS MY HAND this ______day of ______, 2017.

TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 16

North Liberty / 421033-66 /Sale, Auth Call & Iss GO CP & Rfdg LA

COUNTY FILING CERTIFICATE:

STATE OF IOWA SS: JOHNSON COUNTY

I, the undersigned, County Auditor of Johnson County, in the State of Iowa, do hereby certify that on the ______day of ______, 2017, the City Clerk of the City of North Liberty filed in my office a certified copy of a resolution of such City shown to have been adopted by the City Council and approved by the Mayor thereof on April 11, 2017, entitled: “Resolution authorizing and approving a Loan Agreement, authorizing the call of outstanding bonds, providing for the sale and issuance of General Obligation Corporate Purpose and Refunding Bonds, Series 2017A, and providing for the levy of taxes to pay the same,” and that I have duly placed a copy of the resolution on file in my records.

I further certify that the taxes provided for in that resolution will in due time, manner and season be entered on the State and County tax lists of this County for collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018, and subsequent years as provided in the resolution.

WITNESS MY HAND this ______day of ______, 2017.

County Auditor

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-38 Page 17

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

MINUTES TO RECEIVE BIDS AND SELL BONDS, AUTHORIZE CALL OF BONDS AND PROVIDE FOR ISSUANCE OF WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS

421033-68 (Water Revenue)

North Liberty, Iowa

April 11, 2017

The City Council of the City of North Liberty, Iowa, met on April 11, 2017, at ______o’clock ___.m., at the ______, North Liberty, Iowa.

The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, and the roll was called showing the following members of the City Council present and absent:

Present:

Absent: .

This being the time and place fixed by the City Council for the consideration of bids for the purchase of the City’s Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C to be issued in evidence of the City’s obligation under a certain loan agreement, the Mayor announced that bids had been received and canvassed on behalf of the City at the time and place fixed therefore.

Whereupon, such bids were placed on file, and the substance of such bids was noted in the minutes, as follows:

Name and Address of Bidder Final Bid (interest cost)

After due consideration and discussion, Council Member ______introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Council Member ______. The Mayor put the question upon the adoption of said resolution, and the roll being called, the following Council Members voted:

Ayes:

Nays: .

Whereupon, the Mayor declared the resolution duly adopted, as hereinafter set out.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 1

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

Resolution No. 2017-39

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE CALL OF OUTSTANDING BONDS, PROVIDING FOR THE SALE AND ISSUANCE AND SECURING THE PAYMENT OF $1,215,000 WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2017C

WHEREAS, the City of North Liberty (the “City”), in Johnson County, State of Iowa, did heretofore establish a Municipal Waterworks System (the “Utility”) in and for the City which has continuously supplied water service in and to the City and its inhabitants since its establishment; and

WHEREAS, the management and control of the Utility are vested in the City Council (the “Council”) and no board of trustees exists for this purpose; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to a prior resolution (the “2008 Bond Resolution”) of the Council, the City has heretofore issued its Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2008D, dated September 15, 2008 (the “2008 Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $2,350,000, a portion of which remain outstanding, maturing on June 1 in each of the years, and in such amounts, and bearing interest at such rates as follows:

Principal Amount Interest Principal Amount Interest Year Rate Year Rate 2017 $165,000 4.00% 2021 $200,000 4.30% 2018 $175,000 4.10% 2022 $210,000 4.35% 2019 $180,000 4.20% 2023 $215,000 4.40% 2020 $190,000 4.25%

; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2008 Bond Resolution, the City reserved the right to call the 2008 Bonds maturing in the years 2017 to 2023 (the “Callable 2008 Bonds”), inclusive, for optional early redemption on June 1, 2016, or on any date thereafter on terms of par and accrued interest; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to a prior resolution (the “2012 Bond Resolution”) of the Council, the City has heretofore issued its Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012C, dated November 12, 2012 (the “2012 Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $1,575,000, a portion of which remain outstanding; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to a prior resolution (the “2014 Bond Resolution”) of the Council, the City has heretofore issued its Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2014B, dated April 23, 2014 (the “2014 Bonds”), in the aggregate principal amount of $1,210,000, a portion of which remain outstanding; and

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 2

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

WHEREAS, pursuant to a prior resolution (the “2017 Bond Resolution”) (collectively, the 2012 Bond Resolution, the 2014 Bond Resolution and the 2017 Bond Resolution shall be referred to hereinafter as the “Outstanding Bond Resolutions”) of the Council, the City has heretofore issued its Taxable Water Revenue Bond, SRF Series 2017, dated February 24, 2017 (the “2017 Bond”) (collectively, the 2012 Bonds, the 2017 Bonds and the 2017 Bond shall be referred to hereinafter as the “Outstanding Bonds”), in the maximum principal amount of $22,072,000, a portion of which remain outstanding; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to, and subject to the conditions of, the Outstanding Bond Resolutions authorizing the issuance of the Outstanding Bonds, the City reserved the right to issue additional obligations payable from the Net Revenues (as hereinafter defined) of the Utility and ranking on a parity with the Outstanding Bonds; and

WHEREAS, the City heretofore proposed to enter into a Water Revenue Refunding Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) in a principal amount not to exceed $1,250,000, pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.24A of the Code of Iowa, for the purpose of paying the cost, to that extent, of current refunding the Callable 2008 Bonds; and pursuant to law and duly published notice of the proposed action has held a hearing thereon on February 6, 2017; and

WHEREAS, a Preliminary Official Statement (the “P.O.S.”) has been prepared to facilitate the sale of Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C (the “Bonds”) to be issued in evidence of the obligation of the City under the Loan Agreement,, and the City Council has made provision for the approval of the P.O.S. and has approved its use by Independent Public Advisors, LLC (the “Financial Advisor”);

WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement of sale, bids for the purchase of $1,215,000 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C (the “Series 2017C Bonds”) to be issued in evidence of the City’s obligation under the Loan Agreement were received and canvassed on behalf of the City and the substance of such bids noted in the minutes; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement of sale, bids for the purchase of the Bonds to be issued in evidence of the City’s obligation under the Loan Agreement were received and canvassed on behalf of the City; and

WHEREAS, upon final consideration of all bids, the bid of ______(the “Purchaser”), is the best, such bid proposing the lowest interest cost to the City; and

WHEREAS, it is now necessary to authorize the calling of the Callable 2008 Bonds for early redemption on June 1, 2017 (the “Redemption Date”); and

WHEREAS, it is also now necessary to make final provision for the approval of the Loan Agreement and to authorize the issuance of the Bonds to the Purchaser;

NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of North Liberty, Iowa, as follows:

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 3

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

Section 1. The form of agreement of sale of the Bonds with the Purchaser is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to accept and execute the same for and on behalf of the City.

Section 2. Bankers Trust Company, Des Moines, Iowa, as Registrar and Paying Agent for the Callable 2008 Bonds, is hereby authorized to take all action necessary to call the Callable 2008 Bonds for redemption on the Redemption Date, and is further authorized and directed to give notice of such redemption by sending notice by electronic means to each of the registered owners of the Callable 2008 Bonds to be redeemed at the addresses shown on the City’s registration books, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the Redemption Date.

Section 3. It is hereby determined that the City shall enter into the Loan Agreement with the Purchaser in substantially the form attached hereto providing for a loan to the City in the amount of $1,215,000 for the purposes as set forth in the preamble hereof.

The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to sign the Loan Agreement on behalf of the City, and the Loan Agreement is hereby approved.

Section 4. The Bonds are hereby authorized to be issued in evidence of the obligation of the City under the Loan Agreement, in the total aggregate principal amount of $1,215,000, to be dated April 27, 2017, in the denomination of $5,000 each, or any integral multiple thereof, maturing on June 1 in each of the years, in the respective principal amounts and bearing interest at the respective rates, as follows:

Principal Interest Rate Principal Interest Rate Year Amount Per Annum Year Amount Per Annum 2018 $195,000 ____% 2021 $205,000 ____% 2019 $195,000 ____% 2022 $210,000 ____% 2020 $200,000 ____% 2023 $210,000 ____%

Section 5. Bankers Trust Company, Des Moines, Iowa, is hereby designated as the Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds and may be hereinafter referred to as the “Registrar” or the “Paying Agent.” The City shall enter into an agreement (the “Registrar/Paying Agent Agreement”) with the Registrar, in substantially the form as has been placed on file with the Council; the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to sign the Registrar/Paying Agent Agreement on behalf of the City; and the Registrar/Paying Agent Agreement is hereby approved.

The Bonds are not subject to redemption prior to maturity.

Accrued interest on the Bonds shall be payable semiannually on the first day of June and December in each year, commencing December 1, 2017. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months. Payment of interest on the Bonds shall be made to the registered owners appearing on the registration books of the City at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month next preceding the interest payment date and shall be

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 4

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

paid to the registered owners at the addresses shown on such registration books. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America to the registered owners or their legal representatives upon presentation and surrender of the Bond or Bonds at the office of the Paying Agent.

The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City with the official manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor and attested with the official manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk, and shall be fully registered Bonds without interest coupons. The issuance of the Bonds shall be recorded in the office of the City Treasurer, and the certificate on the back of each Bond shall be executed with the official manual or facsimile signature of the City Treasurer. In case any officer whose signature or the facsimile of whose signature appears on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of such Bonds, such signature or such facsimile signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery.

The Bonds shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication thereon shall have been signed by the Registrar.

All of the Bonds and the interest thereon, together with the Outstanding Bonds and any additional obligations as may be hereafter issued and outstanding from time to time ranking on a parity therewith under the conditions set forth herein (which additional obligations are hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Parity Obligations”), shall be payable solely from the Net Revenues of the Utility and the Sinking Fund hereinafter referred to, both of which are hereby pledged to the payment of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be a valid claim of the owners thereof only against said Net Revenues and Sinking Fund. None of the Bonds shall be a general obligation of the City, nor payable in any manner by taxation, and under no circumstances shall the City be in any manner liable by reason of the failure of the Net Revenues of the Utility to be sufficient for the payment in whole or in part of the Bonds and the interest thereon.

The Bonds shall be fully registered as to principal and interest in the names of the owners on the registration books of the City kept by the Registrar, and after such registration, payment of the principal and interest thereof shall be made only to the registered owners, their legal representatives or assigns. Each Bond shall be transferable only upon the registration books of the City upon presentation to the Registrar, together with either a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar or the assignment form thereon completed and duly executed by the registered owner or the duly authorized attorney for such registered owner.

The record and identity of the owners of the Bonds shall be kept confidential as provided by Section 22.7 of the Code of Iowa.

Section 6. Notwithstanding anything above to the contrary, the Bonds shall be issued initially as Depository Bonds, with one fully registered Bond for each maturity date, in principal amounts equal to the amount of principal maturing on each such date, and registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”). On original issue, the Bonds shall be deposited with DTC for the purpose of maintaining a book-entry system for recording the ownership interests of its participants and the transfer of those interests among its participants (the “Participants”). In the event that DTC determines not North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 5

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

to continue to act as securities depository for the Bonds or the City determines not to continue the book-entry system for recording ownership interests in the Bonds with DTC, the City will discontinue the book-entry system with DTC. If the City does not select another qualified securities depository to replace DTC (or a successor depository) in order to continue a book-entry system, the City will register and deliver replacement bonds in the form of fully registered certificates, in authorized denominations of $5,000 or integral multiples of $5,000, in accordance with instructions from Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. In the event that the City identifies a qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the City will register and deliver replacement bonds, fully registered in the name of such depository, or its nominee, in the denominations as set forth above, as reduced from time to time prior to maturity in connection with redemptions or retirements by call or payment, and in such event, such depository will then maintain the book-entry system for recording ownership interests in the Bonds. Ownership interest in the Bonds may be purchased by or through Participants. Such Participants and the persons for whom they acquire interests in the Bonds as nominees will not receive certificated Bonds, but each such Participant will receive a credit balance in the records of DTC in the amount of such Participant’s interest in the Bonds, which will be confirmed in accordance with DTC’s standard procedures. Each such person for which a Participant has an interest in the Bonds, as nominee, may desire to make arrangements with such Participant to have all notices of redemption or other communications of the City to DTC, which may affect such person, forwarded in writing by such Participant and to have notification made of all interest payments. The City will have no responsibility or obligation to such Participants or the persons for whom they act as nominees with respect to payment to or providing of notice for such Participants or the persons for whom they act as nominees. As used herein, the term “Beneficial Owner” shall hereinafter be deemed to include the person for whom the Participant acquires an interest in the Bonds. DTC will receive payments from the City, to be remitted by DTC to the Participants for subsequent disbursement to the Beneficial Owners. The ownership interest of each Beneficial Owner in the Bonds will be recorded on the records of the Participants whose ownership interest will be recorded on a computerized book-entry system kept by DTC. When reference is made to any action which is required or permitted to be taken by the Beneficial Owners, such reference shall only relate to those permitted to act (by statute, regulation or otherwise) on behalf of such Beneficial Owners for such purposes. When notices are given, they shall be sent by the City to DTC, and DTC shall forward (or cause to be forwarded) the notices to the Participants so that the Participants can forward the same to the Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will receive written confirmations of their purchases from the Participants acting on behalf of the Beneficial Owners detailing the terms of the Bonds acquired. Transfers of ownership interest in the Bonds will be accomplished by book entries made by DTC and the Participants who act on behalf of the Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in the Bonds, except as specifically

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 6

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

provided herein. Interest and principal will be paid when due by the City to DTC, then paid by DTC to the Participants and thereafter paid by the Participants to the Beneficial Owners. Section 7. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form:

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 7

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

(Form of Bond)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF IOWA COUNTY OF JOHNSON CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY

WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2017C

No. ______$______

RATE MATURITY DATE BOND DATE CUSIP

______% June 1, ______April 27, 2017 ______

The City of North Liberty (the “City”), in the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, for value received, promises to pay on the maturity date of this Bond to: Cede & Co. New York, NY

or registered assigns, the principal sum of

THOUSAND DOLLARS

in lawful money of the United States of America upon presentation and surrender of this Bond at the office of Bankers Trust Company, Des Moines, Iowa (hereinafter referred to as the “Registrar” or the “Paying Agent”), with interest on said sum, until paid, at the rate per annum specified above from the date of this Bond, or from the most recent interest payment date on which interest has been paid, on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing December 1, 2017, except as the provisions hereinafter set out with respect to redemption prior to maturity may be or become applicable hereto. Interest on this Bond is payable to the registered owner appearing on the registration books of the City at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month next preceding the interest payment date, and shall be paid to the registered owner at the address shown on such registration books. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months.

This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been signed by the Registrar.

This Bond is one of a series of Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C (the “Bonds”) issued by the City to evidence its obligation under a certain Loan Agreement, dated as of April 27, 2017 (the “Loan Agreement”), entered into by the City for the purpose of providing funds to pay costs of current refunding the outstanding balance of the City’s Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2008D, dated September 15, 2008.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 8

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

The Bonds are issued pursuant to and in strict compliance with the provisions of Chapter 384 of the Code of Iowa, 2017, and all other laws amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, and in conformity with a resolution of the City Council authorizing and approving the Loan Agreement and providing for the issuance and securing the payment of the Bonds (the “Resolution”), and reference is hereby made to the Resolution and the Loan Agreement for a more complete statement as to the source of payment of the Bonds and the rights of the owners of the Bonds.

The Bonds are not subject to redemption prior to maturity.

The Bonds are not general obligations of the City but, together with the City’s outstanding Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012C, dated November 12, 2012; Water Revenue Bond, Series 2014B, dated April 23, 2014; Taxable Water Revenue Bond, SRF Series 2017, dated February 24, 2017; and any additional obligations as may be hereafter issued and outstanding from time to time ranking on a parity therewith under the conditions set forth in the Resolution, are payable solely and only out of the future Net Revenues of the Municipal Waterworks System of the City, a sufficient portion of which has been ordered set aside and pledged for that purpose. This Bond is not payable in any manner by taxation, and under no circumstances shall the City be in any manner liable by reason of the failure of the said Net Revenues to be sufficient for the payment of this Bond and the interest hereon.

This Bond is fully negotiable but shall be fully registered as to both principal and interest in the name of the owner on the books of the City in the office of the Registrar, after which no transfer shall be valid unless made on said books and then only upon presentation of this Bond to the Registrar, together with either a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Registrar or the assignment form hereon completed and duly executed by the registered owner or the duly authorized attorney for such registered owner.

The City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent may deem and treat the registered owner hereof as the absolute owner for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal hereof, premium, if any, and interest due hereon and for all other purposes, and the City, the Registrar and the Paying Agent shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary.

And It Is Hereby Certified, Recited and Declared that all acts, conditions and things required to exist, happen and be performed precedent to and in the issuance of the Bonds have existed, have happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner, as required by law, and that the issuance of the Bonds does not exceed or violate any constitutional or statutory limitation or provision.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 9

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the City of North Liberty, Iowa, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed with the duly authorized facsimile signature of its Mayor and attested with the duly authorized facsimile signature of its City Clerk, all as of April 27, 2017.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA

By: (DO NOT SIGN) Mayor

Attest:

(DO NOT SIGN) City Clerk

Registration Date: (Closing Date)

REGISTRAR’S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION

This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Resolution.

BANKERS TRUST COMPANY Des Moines, Iowa Registrar

By: (Signature) Authorized Officer

STATE OF IOWA CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY SS: CITY TREASURER’S CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF JOHNSON

The original issuance of the Bonds, of which this Bond is a part, was duly and properly recorded in my office as of April 27, 2017.

(Facsimile Signature) City Treasurer, North Liberty, Iowa

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 10

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations, when used in this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN - as tenants in common UTM COM A TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties (Custodian) JT TEN - as joint tenants with As Custodian for right of survivorship and (Minor) not as tenants in common under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act

(State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the list above.

ASSIGNMENT For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned assigns this Bond to

(Please print or type name and address of Assignee)

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE

and does hereby irrevocably appoint ______, Attorney, to transfer this Bond on the books kept for registration thereof with full power of substitution. Dated: Signature guaranteed:

(Signature guarantee must be provided in accordance with the prevailing standards and procedures of the Registrar and Transfer Agent. Such standards and procedures may require signatures to be guaranteed by certain eligible guarantor institutions that participate in a recognized signature guarantee program.)

NOTICE: The signature to this Assignment must correspond with the name of the registered owner as it appears on this Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 11

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

Section 8. The Bonds shall be executed as herein provided as soon after the adoption of this resolution as may be possible and thereupon they shall be delivered to the Registrar for registration, authentication and delivery to the Lender, upon receipt of the loan proceeds (the “Loan Proceeds”), and all action heretofore taken in connection with the Loan Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.

The Loan Proceeds received from the sale of the Bonds shall be used to (1) carry out the refunding of the 2008 Bonds on the Redemption Date; and (2) pay costs of issuance of the Bonds, including the underwriter’s discount. To the extent that Loan Proceeds remain after the full payment of the costs set forth in (1) and (2) in the preceding sentence, such Loan Proceeds shall be used for the payment of interest on the Bonds. The City shall keep a detailed and segregated accounting of the expenditure of, and investment earnings on, the Loan Proceeds to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, as hereinafter defined.

Section 9. So long as any of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations are outstanding, the City shall continue to maintain the Utility in good condition, and the Utility shall continue to be operated in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost as a revenue producing undertaking. The City shall establish, impose, adjust and provide for the collection of rates to be charged to customers of the Utility, including the City, to produce gross revenues (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Gross Revenues”) at least sufficient to pay the expenses of operation and maintenance of the Utility, which shall include salaries, wages, cost of maintenance and operation, materials, supplies, insurance and all other items normally included under recognized accounting practices (but does not include allowances for depreciation in the valuation of physical property) (which such expenses are hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Operating Expenses”) and to leave a balance of net revenues (herein referred to as the “Net Revenues”) equal to at least 120% of the average annual installments of principal of and interest on all of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any other Parity Obligations outstanding from time to time, as the same become due, and to maintain a reasonable reserve for the payment of such principal and interest, as hereinafter provided.

Section 10. The provisions, covenants, undertakings and stipulations for the operation of the Utility and for the collection, application and use of the Gross Revenues and income from such operation, as set forth in the resolutions (the “Outstanding Bond Resolutions”) authorizing the issuance of the Outstanding Bonds (including without limitation the establishment and maintenance of the funds described therein) shall inure and appertain to the Bonds to the same extent and with like force and effect as if herein set out in full, except only insofar as the same may be inconsistent with this resolution. Such provisions, covenants, undertakings and stipulations shall remain in full force and effect for the benefit of the Purchaser and the Bonds in the event the Outstanding Bonds are paid in full or otherwise cease to be outstanding.

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to impair the rights vested in the Outstanding Bonds. The amounts herein required to be paid into the various funds hereafter named shall be inclusive of said payments required in respect to the Outstanding Bonds. The provisions of the Outstanding Bond Resolutions and the provisions of this resolution are to be construed whenever possible so that the same will not be in conflict. In the event such construction is not possible, the provisions of the resolution first adopted shall prevail until such

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 12

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

time as the obligations authorized by such resolution have been paid or otherwise satisfied as therein provided, at which time the provisions of this resolution shall again prevail.

Section 11. The provisions in and by the Outstanding Bond Resolutions whereby there has been created and is to be maintained a Water Revenue Fund are all hereby ratified and confirmed and after the issuance of the Bonds, the Gross Revenues of the Utility shall continue to be set aside into the City’s Water Revenue Fund. The Water Revenue Fund shall be used in maintaining and operating the Utility, and after payment of the Operating Expenses shall, to the extent hereinafter provided, be used to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Obligations, and to create and maintain the several separate funds hereinafter established.

A. Sinking Fund. The provisions in and by the Outstanding Bond Resolutions whereby there has been created and is to be maintained a Water Revenue Sinking Fund (herein referred to as the “Sinking Fund”), and for the payment into said fund from the Net Revenues of the Utility such portion thereof as will be sufficient to pay the interest on and principal of the Outstanding Bonds, are all hereby ratified and confirmed, and all such provisions shall inure and constitute the security for the payment of the interest on and principal of the Bonds hereby authorized as may be outstanding from time to time; provided, however that on the first day of each month of each year, the minimum amount to be set aside, in addition to the amounts required to be set aside in the Outstanding Bond Resolutions and paid into the Sinking Fund shall be not less than as follows:

Beginning on May 1, 2017 and continuing to and including November, 1, 2017, an amount equal to one-seventh (1/7th) of the installment of interest coming due on December 1, 2017. Thereafter, beginning on December 1, 2017 and continuing to final maturity, an amount equal to 1/6th of the installment of interest coming due on the next succeeding interest payment date on the then outstanding Bonds. In addition, commencing June 1, 2017, and continuing to final maturity, an amount equal to 1/12th of the installment of principal coming due on such Bonds on the next succeeding principal payment date until the full amount of such installment is on deposit in the Sinking Fund.

Money in the Sinking Fund shall be used solely for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Obligations as the same shall become due and payable. Whenever Parity Obligations are issued under the conditions and restrictions hereinafter set forth, provisions shall be made for additional payments to be made into the Sinking Fund for the purpose of paying the interest on and principal of such Parity Obligations.

If at any time there be a failure to pay into the Sinking Fund the full amount above stipulated, then an amount equivalent to the deficiency shall be paid into the Sinking Fund from the Net Revenues of the Utility as soon as available, and the same shall be in addition to the amount otherwise required to be so set apart and paid into the Sinking Fund.

No further payments need be made into the Sinking Fund when and so long as the amount therein is sufficient to retire all of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 13

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

Obligations then outstanding which are payable from the Sinking Fund and to pay all interest to become due thereon prior to such retirement, or if provision for such payment has been made.

All of such payments required to be made into the Sinking Fund shall be made in equal monthly installments on the first day of each month, except that when the first day of any month shall be a Sunday or legal holiday, then such payments shall be made on the next succeeding secular day.

B. Reserve Fund. The provisions in and by the Outstanding Bond Resolutions, whereby there has been created and is to be maintained a special fund to be known and designated as the Principal and Interest Reserve Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “Reserve Fund”) for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds and any Parity Obligations whenever for any reason funds on deposit on the Sinking Fund are insufficient, are all hereby ratified and confirmed. From and after the issuance of the Bonds, the required balance of the Reserve Fund (the “Required Reserve Fund Balance”) shall be as follows: (i) the initial balance in the Reserve Fund on April 27, 2017 shall be $______. Thereafter, to the extent that the 2012 Bonds are fully defeased or repaid in full, the Required Reserve Fund Balance shall be reduced by $______. Furthermore, to the extent that the 2014 Bonds are fully defeased or repaid in full, the Required Reserve Fund Balance shall be reduced by $______. Whenever the sum on deposit in the Reserve Fund has been reduced to less than the then-effective Required Reserve Fund Balance by the expenditure of all or a portion of the funds on deposit therein for any of the purposes specified herein, the City shall make monthly deposits into the Reserve Fund equal to 25% of the monthly deposits required to be made into the Sinking Fund, after first making such required deposits into the Sinking Fund, until the sum on deposit in the Reserve Fund has been restored to the Required Reserve Fund Balance.

All money credited to the Reserve Fund shall be used and is hereby pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds, the 2012 Bonds, the 2014 Bonds and any Parity Obligations (to the extent such Parity Obligations are secured by the Reserve Fund) whenever for any reason the funds on deposit in the Sinking Fund are insufficient to pay such principal and interest when due. If and to whatever extent Parity Obligations shall be issued under the conditions set forth in this resolution, and the terms of such Parity Obligations require the establishment and maintenance of a debt service reserve fund, provision shall be made to create and maintain a reasonable reserve therefor in an amount equal to the lesser of (a) the maximum principal and interest due in any Fiscal Year with respect to the series of Parity Obligations, (b) 125% of the average annual debt service payment with respect to the series of Parity Obligations or (c) 10% of the original principal amount of the series of Parity Obligations.. To the extent that the terms of future Parity Obligations do not require the establishment and maintenance of a debt service reserve fund relative to such Parity Obligations, then the City shall be under no obligation to make provision therefor beyond the ongoing maintenance of the Required Reserve Fund Balance set forth herein.

C. Surplus Fund. The provisions in and by the Outstanding Bond Resolutions, whereby there has been created and is to be maintained a “Surplus Fund” are hereby ratified and confirmed. From and after the issuance of the Bonds and so long as any of the

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 14

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or Parity Obligations remain outstanding, the Surplus Fund shall continue to be maintained, and there shall continue to be set apart and deposited therein all of the Net Revenues of the Utility remaining after first making the required payments into the Sinking Fund and the Reserve Fund, and after the Reserve Fund contains the Required Reserve Fund Balance. Funds on deposit in the Surplus Fund shall be transferred and credited to the Sinking Fund whenever necessary to prevent or remedy a default in the payment of the principal of or interest on the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Obligations or shall be transferred and credited to the Reserve Fund whenever any deficiency may exist in the Reserve Fund.

As long as the Sinking Fund and the Reserve Fund have the full amounts required to be deposited therein by this resolution, any balance in the Surplus Fund may be expended as the City Council, or such other duly constituted body as may then be charged with the operation of the Utility, may from time to time legally direct.

Section 12. All money held in any fund created or to be maintained under the terms of this resolution shall be deposited in lawful depositories of the City or invested in accordance with Chapters 12B and 12C of the Code of Iowa and continuously held and secured as provided by the laws of the State of Iowa relating to the depositing, securing, holding and investing of public funds. All interest received by the City as a result of investments under this section shall be deposited in or transferred to the Sinking Fund and used solely and only for the purposes specified herein for such fund.

Section 13. The City hereby covenants and agrees with the owner or owners of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Obligations, or any of them, that from time to time may be outstanding, that it will faithfully and punctually perform all duties with reference to the Utility required and provided by the Constitution and laws of the State of Iowa, that it will segregate the Gross Revenues of the Utility and make application thereof in accordance with the provisions of this resolution and that it will not sell, lease or in any manner dispose of the Utility or any part thereof, including any and all extensions and additions that may be made thereto, until all of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Obligations shall have been paid in full, both principal and interest, or unless and until provisions shall have been made for the payment of said Bonds, Outstanding Bonds and Parity Obligations and interest thereon in full; provided, however, that the City may dispose of any property which in the judgment of the City Council, or the duly constituted body as may then be charged with the operation of the Utility, is no longer useful or profitable in the operation of the Utility nor essential to the continued operation thereof and when the sale thereof will not operate to reduce the revenues to be derived from the operation of the Utility.

Section 14. Upon a breach or default of a term of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or Parity Obligations and this resolution, a proceeding may be brought in law or in equity by suit, action or mandamus to enforce and compel performance of the duties required under the terms of this resolution and Division V of Chapter 384 of the Code of Iowa or an action may be brought to obtain the appointment of a receiver to take possession of and operate the Utility and to perform the duties required by this resolution and Division V of Chapter 384 of the Code of Iowa.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 15

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

Section 15. The Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations shall not be entitled to priority or preference one over the other in the application of the Net Revenues of the Utility regardless of the time or times of the issuance of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations, it being the intention that there shall be no priority among the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or Parity Obligations, regardless of the fact that they may have been actually issued and delivered at different times. The City hereby covenants and agrees that so long as any of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations are outstanding and unpaid, no bonds or other obligations payable from the Net Revenues of the Utility will be issued except upon the basis of such bonds or obligations being subject to the priority and security for payment of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations then outstanding; provided, however, that the City reserves the right and privilege of issuing Parity Obligations in order to pay the cost of improvements and extensions to the Utility or for refunding any bonds or obligations payable from the Net Revenues of the Utility, but only if there shall have first been procured and filed with the City a statement of an independent auditor, independent financial consultant or a consulting engineer, not a regular employee of the City, reciting the opinion that the officially reported Net Revenues of the Utility for the last preceding fiscal year prior to the issuance of such Parity Obligations (with adjustments as hereinafter provided) were equal to at least 120% of the average amount of principal and interest that will become due in any subsequent year during the life of the Bonds and any then outstanding Parity Obligations for both the Bonds and any Parity Obligations then outstanding and the Parity Obligations then proposed to be issued.

The amount of Gross Revenues of the Utility may be adjusted for the purpose of the foregoing computations by an independent auditor, independent financial consultant or a consulting engineer not a regular employee of the City, so as to reflect any revision in the schedule of rates and charges being imposed at the time of the issuance of any such Parity Obligations.

Obligations issued to refund the Bonds or any Parity Obligations shall not be subject to the foregoing restrictions, provided the Bonds or Parity Obligations being refunded mature within three (3) months of the date of such refunding and no other funds are available to pay such maturing Bonds or Parity Obligations, and the issuance of the refunding obligations will not cause an increase in the annual debt service requirements during the life of any Bonds or Parity Obligations then outstanding which are not being refunded but otherwise any Parity Obligations shall only be issued subject to the restrictions of this resolution.

Section 16. The City agrees that so long as the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations remain outstanding, it will maintain insurance for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and any Parity Obligations on the insurable portions of the Utility of a kind and in an amount which usually would be carried by private companies or municipalities engaged in a similar type of business. The City will keep proper books of record and account, separate from all other records and accounts, showing the complete and correct entries of all transactions relating to the Utility, and the owners of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations shall have the right at all reasonable times to inspect the Utility and all records, accounts and data of the City relating thereto.

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 16

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

Section 17. The provisions of this resolution shall constitute a contract between the City and the owners of the Bonds, and after the issuance of the Bonds, no change, variation or alteration of any kind of the provisions of this resolution shall be made which will adversely affect the owners of the Bonds until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been paid in full, except as hereinafter provided.

The owners of a majority in principal amount of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Obligations at any time outstanding (not including in any case any obligations which may then be held or owned by or for the account of the City, but including such obligations as may be issued for the purpose of refunding any of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or Parity Obligations if such obligations shall not then be owned by the City) shall have the right from time to time to consent to and approve the adoption by the City of a resolution or resolutions modifying or amending any of the terms or provisions contained in this resolution; provided, however, that this resolution may not be so modified or amended in such manner as to:

(a) Make any change in the maturity or redemption terms of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations.

(b) Make any change in the rate of interest borne by any of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations.

(c) Reduce the amount of the principal payable on any Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations.

(d) Modify the terms of payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations, or any of them, or impose any conditions with respect to such payment.

(e) Affect the rights of the owners of less than all of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations then outstanding.

(f) Reduce the percentage of the principal amount of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or any Parity Obligations, the consent of the owners of which shall be required to effect a further modification.

Whenever the City shall propose to amend or modify this resolution under the provisions of this section, it shall (1) prior to the publication of the notice hereinafter provided for in (2), cause notice of the proposed amendment to be mailed to each of the owners of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Obligations at the addresses appearing on the registration books of the City and also to the Lender, and (2) cause notice of the proposed amendment to be published one time in a newspaper published and/or having a general circulation in the City of North Liberty, Iowa. Such notice shall briefly set forth the nature of the proposed amendment and shall state that a copy of the proposed amendatory resolution is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

If the owners of at least a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Obligations outstanding at the time of the adoption of such amendatory resolution shall have consented to and approved the adoption thereof as herein

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 17

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

provided, no owner of any Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds or Parity Obligations shall have any right or interest to object to the adoption of such amendatory resolution or to object to any of the terms or provisions therein contained or to the operation thereof or to enjoin or restrain the City from taking any action pursuant to the provisions thereof.

Any consent given by the owners of a Bond or Parity Obligation pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be irrevocable for a period of six (6) months from the date of such consent and shall be conclusive and binding upon all future owners of the same Bond or Parity Obligation during such period. Such consent may be revoked at any time after six (6) months from the date of such consent by the owner who gave such consent or by a successor in title, but such revocation shall not be effective if the owners of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, the Outstanding Bonds and Parity Obligations outstanding as in this section defined shall have, prior to the attempted revocation, consented to and approved the amendatory resolution referred to in such revocation.

The fact and date of the execution of any instrument under the provisions of this section may be proved by the certificate of any officer in any jurisdiction who by the laws thereof is authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds within such jurisdiction, that the persons signing such instrument acknowledged before him the execution thereof, or may be proved by an affidavit of a witness to such execution sworn to before such officer.

Section 18. It is the intention of the City that interest on the Bonds be and remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations in effect with respect thereto (all of the foregoing herein referred to as the “Internal Revenue Code”). In furtherance thereof the City covenants to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as they may from time to time be in effect or amended and further covenants to comply with applicable future laws, regulations, published rulings and court decisions as may be necessary to insure that the interest on the Bonds will remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Any and all of the officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions as may be necessary to comply with the covenants herein contained.

For the sole purpose of qualifying the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” pursuant to Section 265(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the City finds that $______(the “Deemed Designated Portion”) principal amount of the Bonds are “deemed designated” as “qualified tax exempt obligations” (and do not count against the City’s $10,000,000 limit for calendar year 2017) because (i) the Deemed Designated Portion is being issued to refund a like principal amount of the Callable 2008 Bonds, (ii) the Bonds have a maturity date (June 1, 2023) which is not later than the date (September 17, 2038) which is 30 years after the date (September 17, 2008) on which the Callable 2008 Bonds were issued, (iii) the Callable 2008 Bonds were issued as qualified tax-exempt obligations and (iv) the average maturity date of the Bonds is not later than the average maturity date of the Callable 2008 Bonds being refunded with the proceeds thereof. The City hereby designates the remaining principal amount of the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” and represents that the reasonably anticipated amount of “tax-exempt obligations” which will be issued by the City during the

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 18

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

current calendar year (other than the Deemed Designated Portion and other tax exempt obligations also qualifying for “deemed designated status”) will not exceed $10,000,000.

Section 19. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has promulgated certain amendments to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-12) (the “Rule”) that make it unlawful for an underwriter to participate in the primary offering of municipal securities in a principal amount of $1,000,000 or more unless, before submitting a bid or entering into a purchase contract for such securities, an underwriter has reasonably determined that the issuer or an obligated person has undertaken in writing for the benefit of the holders of such securities to provide certain disclosure information to prescribed information repositories on a continuing basis so long as such securities are outstanding.

On the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Certificate pursuant to which the City will undertake to comply with the Rule. The City covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Any and all of the officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions as may be necessary to comply with the Rule and the Continuing Disclosure Certificate.

Section 20. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall be held invalid, the invalidity of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution.

Section 21. All resolutions and orders or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this resolution are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed.

Section 22. This resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval, as provided by law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 2017.

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY: ATTEST:

______TERRY L. DONAHUE, MAYOR TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 19

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

STATE OF IOWA COUNTY OF JOHNSON SS: CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY

I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have in my possession or have access to the complete corporate records of the City and of its City Council and officers and that I have carefully compared the transcript hereto attached with the aforesaid corporate records and that the transcript hereto attached is a true, correct and complete copy of all the corporate records in relation to the authorization and approval of a certain Loan Agreement, authorizing the call of Bonds and the issuance of $1,215,000 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C of said City evidencing the City’s obligation under the Loan Agreement and that the transcript hereto attached contains a true, correct and complete statement of all the measures adopted and proceedings, acts and things had, done and performed up to the present time with respect thereto.

I further certify that no appeal has been taken to the District Court from the decision of the City Council to enter into the Loan Agreement or to issue the Bonds.

WITNESS MY HAND this ______day of ______, 2017.

TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 20

North Liberty/421033-68/ Sale, Auth Call & Iss Water Rev Rfdg

STATE OF IOWA COUNTY OF JOHNSON SS: CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY

I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of North Liberty, do hereby certify that the City did heretofore establish a Municipal Waterworks System (hereinafter referred to as the “Utility”) prior to January 1, 1961, that the management and control of the Utility are vested in the City Council of the City, and that no board of trustees exists which has any part of the control and management of such Utility.

I further certify that there is not pending or threatened any question or litigation whatsoever touching the establishment, improvement or operation of such Utility and that there are no bonds or other obligations of any kind now outstanding which are payable from or constitute a lien upon the revenues derived from the operation of such Utility, except for the City’s outstanding Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2008D, dated September 15, 2008, outstanding Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012C, dated November 12, 2012 and the $1,215,000 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2017C, dated April 30, 2017, currently being issued by the City.

WITNESS MY HAND this ______day of ______, 2017.

TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-39 Page 21

Alternative Water Source

Task Order No. 3373-17A

Task Order No. 3373-17A consisting of 4 pages. Task Order _____

In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Agreement between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services dated December 1, 2013 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows:

Specific Project Data

A. Title: Alternative Source Water Evaluation - North Liberty, Iowa

B. Description: The city is currently implementing the Phase I Water System Improvements project to meet the increasing water demands for the city’s growing population. As part of the permitting process for that project, IDNR has required that the city complete an evaluation of alternative water sources. The city currently gets its water supply from Jordan and Silurian wells within the city limits. Groundwater modeling conducted during the study phase of the Phase I project indicated these sources will be adequate to meet the 20 year planning needs for the community. Despite the modeling results, IDNR is requiring the city to evaluate alternative sources due to recent changes in regulations regarding available withdrawal from the Jordan aquifer. The alternative source evaluation will look at contingency plans if withdrawal from the Jordan aquifer is limited.

1. Services of Engineer - Services of Engineer for this Task Order No. 3373-17A shall be as per Exhibit A of the Master Agreement except as modified below (Paragraph and Sub-paragraph numbering below coincides with the particular Paragraph and Sub-paragraph numbering of Exhibit A of the Master Agreement for which modifications are hereby made):

Part 1 -- Basic Services

A1.01 Study and Report Phase – As per Exhibit A, but with the following additions or modifications::

A.4 The study phase will include evaluation of alternative sources as follows: a. Silurian Aquifer Evaluation – evaluate the Silurian aquifer in the area to the west and north, and the area to the east, of the city to determine the potential long term water production from the Silurian aquifer in these areas. 1. Using available geologic data in the Silurian study areas, evaluate the Silurian aquifer thickness. Calculate the top and bottom elevations of the aquifer. Update the Silurian aquifer grid surfaces if necessary. 2. Using available pump test data from the September 2015 study, and available specific capacity test data, estimate hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity values for the Silurian aquifer in the study areas. 3. Update the local scale groundwater flow model developed in September 2015 with the estimated hydraulic conductivity values from item 2. 4. Using the local scale groundwater flow model from item 3, optimize the number of potential Silurian wells, well spacing, and maximum long term well yields in the study area. 5. Develop planning level cost opinions for additional wells and raw water main. b. Alluvial Aquifer Evaluation – evaluate potential alluvial aquifer sources in the vicinity of North Liberty, particularly along the Iowa River south of the Coralville Reservoir spillway and northwest of the city.

Page 1 of 4 Pages Task Order 3373-17A Task Order No. 3373-17A

1. Using available geologic data and specific capacity test data, evaluate the sand and gravel thickness, transmissivity, and approximate water production in the alluvial aquifer along the Iowa River south of the Coralville Reservoir spillway and northwest of North Liberty. 2. Using the Cooper-Jacobs analytical solution, estimate the approximate drawdown and cone of depression for various pumping rates using the aquifer parameters from Item 1. Using the estimated drawdowns and cones of depression, estimate the potential alluvial well spacing for the study areas. 3. Estimate approximate water production for a potential alluvial well field. 4. Develop planning level cost opinions for wells, raw water transmission main, and additional treatment that may be required for an alluvial source water. c. Water Plant Waste Reduction and Recovery – all water treatment plants have some residuals (waste products of the water treatment process) that must be disposed of, which results in some water being wasted. There’s a potential for some of that water to be recovered, further treated, and used to reduce the raw water supply demand. For the new water treatment plant, those waste streams include: nanofiltration concentrate and well flush water. 1. Evaluate the potential to treat and recover a portion of the nanofiltration concentrate water to reduce the quantity of water that must be disposed of. 2. Evaluate the potential to recover the well flush water and blend it with the nanofiltration permeate to reduce the quantity of water that must be disposed of. 3. Develop planning level cost opinions for concentrate recovery and well flush water recovery and assess the economic viability of implementing these waste reduction measures. d. Water Re-Use – on a feasibility planning level, evaluate the potential to re-use the wastewater plant effluent for groundwater injection to minimize the need for additional ground water supply. 1. Evaluate additional treatment required to allow for groundwater injection. 2. Evaluate additional operational, monitoring, and implementation requirements for effluent re-use. 2. Discuss potential regulatory hurdles to implementing effluent re-use. 3. Develop feasibility plan level cost opinions for effluent re-use as a potential alternative to reducing groundwater useage. A.5 Prepare Alternative Water Supply Evaluation Report and submit to city for review. We will meet with city staff to review the draft report, and then make any necessary revisions prior to submitting the final report. A.6 One electronic copy of the draft report will be submitted within 90 days of authorization to proceed. A.7 One electronic copy of the final report will be submitted within 15 days of receipt of final comments.

A1.02 Preliminary Design Phase – Not included in this task order.

A1.03 Final Design Phase – Not included in this task order.

A1.04 Bidding or Negotiating Phase – Not included in this task order.

A1.05 Construction Phase – Not included in this task order.

A1.06 Commissioning and Post-Construction Phase – Not included in this task order.

Page 2 of 4 Pages Task Order 3373-17A Task Order No. 3373-17A

Part 2 -- Additional Services

A2.01 Additional Services Requiring Owner’s Authorization in Advance - As per Exhibit A of the Master Agreement, except for services specifically identified in this document as part of the Basic Services.

2. Owner's Responsibilities - Owner Responsibilities for this Task Order shall be as per Exhibit B of the Master Agreement and as modified below:

B.2.01. As per Exhibit B, but with the following additional responsibilities:

F. Owner shall arrange for Engineer and Engineer’s Consultants to access public and private properties for survey and other work that may be required for Engineer to perform services under this Task Order.

3. Times for Rendering Services - Phases of work shall be provided as follows:

Engineer and Owner are aware that there are factors outside the Engineer’s control that may affect the Engineer’s schedule for completing the services to be provided under this Agreement. The Engineer shall perform these services with reasonable diligence and expediency consistent with sound professional practices.

Phase Anticipated Completion Date Draft Report Deliver to Owner within 90 days of authorization to proceed Final Report Deliver to Owner within 15 days of receipt of final comments

4. Payments to Engineer for Services and Reimbursable Expenses

Payments to Engineer shall be in accordance with Exhibit C of the Master Agreement. Specifically, Owner shall pay Engineer for services as follows:

Fee Basis Amount Basic Services Study Phase Method A. Lump Sum $43,918 Additional Services To Be Determined, if needed Note: Method A Lump Sum fees noted above include appropriate amounts for direct expenses for each item.

5. Engineer’s Consultants:

(1) Iowa Geologic Survey – IIHR-Hydroscience and Engineering

6. Other Modifications to Master Agreement:

The term of the Master Agreement is hereby extended to the completion date of the work under this Task Order if that should extend beyond the current term of the Agreement.

7. Attachments - None

8. Documents Incorporated By Reference - None

Page 3 of 4 Pages Task Order 3373-17A

Resolution No. 2017-40

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TASK ORDER 3373-17A, BETWEEN THE CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY AND FOX ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR SERVICES RELATING TO ALTERNATIVE SOURCE WATER EVALUATION

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA:

WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an agreement with Fox Engineering for Water infrastructure improvements;

WHEREAS, FOX Engineering Associates, Inc. has presented Task Order 3373-17A, for the Phase 1, Water System Improvements Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Task Order presented by FOX Engineering Associates, Inc. is approved for services relating to the Water System Improvements Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Task Order 3373-17A, for Alternative Source Water Evaluation in the amount of $43,918, is approved for services relating to the Water System Improvements Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and ordered to execute the Task Order 3373-17A with said engineering firm for the project.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 2017

CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY: ATTEST:

______TERRY L. DONAHUE, MAYOR TRACEY MULCAHEY, CITY CLERK

North Liberty – 2017 Resolution Number 2017-40 Page 1

Additional Information

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Tom Palmer, Building Official CC: City Administrator Date: 4/4/2017

Re: Monthly Report

March Permit Report:

Eighty-six permits were issued in March with estimated construction value of $6,674,650.53. Thirteen permits were issued for single family dwelling units with a value of over 2.8 million dollars. Staff completed 404 inspections.

Certificate of Occupancy:

Six occupancy certificates were issued for new single-family dwelling units, five for residential remodel projects and five for commercial remodel projects. Eight businesses obtained zoning certificates. EMS Detergent Services, Ledi Family Restaurant, Iowa Stone Supply, Brick House OPS, U of I, Thompson Tires, Architectural Metal Folding and Adelita’s.

Rental/Code Enforcement:

Fifteen new rental permit applications were received in March. Eighty-three rental inspections were completed along with sixty-two code enforcement complaints were handled in March.

Staff Training:

Brandon Davis attended four day training program at the University of Wisconsin. The program was divided into two segments. The first two days the topic was how to manage code compliance programs and the last two days covered how to improve property maintenance code inspection skills. Brandon enjoyed the opportunity to meet with other agencies from across the country.

Department of Building Safety 319-626-5713 www.northlibertyiowa.org

March 2017 Monthly Permit Report

Code Permit Purpose Permits Construction Value Permit Fees Bldgs. Units Notes 1 New Single Family Dwelling 5 $1,524,705.00 $16,371.53 5 5 2 New Single Family Dwelling Attached 8 $1,280,000.00 $14,038.00 4 8 3 New Townhouse 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 4 New Multi-Family Housing 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 5 New Commercial 1 $1,250,000.00 $6,871.25 1 1 6 New Industrial 0 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 7 School 0 $0.00 $0.00 8 Residential Alteration 7 $104,940.00 $1,652.71 9 Residential Addition 1 $20,000.00 $321.25 10 Commercial Alteration 5 $312,000.00 $1,902.25 11 Commercial Addition 0 $0.00 $0.00 12 Industrial Alteration 0 $0.00 $0.00 13 Industrial Addition 0 $0.00 $0.00 14 Other 59 $2,183,005.53 $6,035.50 15 Public 0 $0.00 $0.00 Totals 86 $6,674,650.53 $47,192.49 10 14

SFD Attached are zero lot line units Townhouse are 3 or more units with shared side walls and have a rear yard area Inspections for the Month of March

1st SWPPP Commercial Final Commercial Rough‐In CSR Notice of Termination Erosion Non‐Compliance Notice Final Foundation Dampproffing Foundation Footings Foundation Wall Gas Service Release Grading MS4 Quarterly Erosion Control Other Permanent Electric Service Release Plumbing Below Concrete Floor Slab Post Footings Public Sidewalk Re‐inspection Rental Residentail Final Residentail Rough‐in Sewer & Water Sump Pump discharge Line Stormwater Quality Temporary Electrical Service Water Heater 0 20406080100120140

Total Inspections 404 Code Enforcement Report

03/01/2017 - 03/31/2017 Case Date Case # Complaint 3/1/2017 1858 outside storage, blocking fire lane, dumpster not enclosed 3/1/2017 1960 outside storage, garbage on property, security lights on building don't work, birds are going into vents that are not cleaned out, grass not maintained because of the outside storage 3/1/2017 1961 not maintaining pole sign on property 3/1/2017 1962 trailer parked on grass 3/1/2017 1963 illegal signs on property posted to dumpster enclosure 3/2/2017 1964 depositing refuse in solid waste containers without consent of such owner 3/2/2017 1965 depositing refuse in solid waste containers without consent of such owner 3/3/2017 1966 sidewalk has become a hazard and is unsafe 3/3/2017 1967 sidewalk has become a hazard and is unsafe 3/3/2017 1968 sidewalk has become a hazard and is unsafe 3/3/2017 1969 sidewalk has become a hazard and is unsafe 3/3/2017 1970 sidewalk has become a hazard and is unsafe 3/3/2017 1971 sidewalk has become a hazard and is unsafe 3/3/2017 1972 sidewalk has become a hazard and is unsafe 3/3/2017 1973 Work being done under his company name. 3/8/2017 1974 placement of FSBO signs 3/9/2017 1975 Modifying the plumbing system and remodeling the building without the required permit. 3/13/2017 1976 installed sump pump line without obtaining the required permit 3/13/2017 1977 renting without permit 3/13/2017 1978 renting without permit 3/13/2017 1979 renting without permit 3/14/2017 1980 possible storage and dumping chemicals outside 3/15/2017 1981 renting without permit 3/15/2017 1982 have allowed the unit to be occupied without having the required certificate of occupancy 3/15/2017 1983 dumpster on driveway for over 2 weeks 3/15/2017 1984 renting without permit 3/16/2017 1985 parking on landscaped area of lot

Page: 1 of 3 3/16/2017 1986 unattended trailer and boat in street 3/16/2017 1987 Water meter room is not a storage space 3/16/2017 1988 vehicle parked on grass 3/16/2017 1989 trailer parked on grass 3/16/2017 1990 vehicle parked on grass 3/16/2017 1991 vehicle parked on grass 3/16/2017 1992 vehicle parked on grass 3/17/2017 1993 accumulation of solid waste on property 3/17/2017 1994 vehicle parked on grass 3/17/2017 1995 illegal signs on property (roof) 3/21/2017 1996 renting without permit 3/21/2017 1997 390 Herky Street Annual Backflow Prevention Certification 3/21/2017 1998 390 Herky Street Annual Backflow Prevention Certification 3/21/2017 1999 Tenant occupying commercial space without a Zoning permit 3/22/2017 2000 accumulation of trash and lumber on property 3/27/2017 2001 illegal sign on property 3/27/2017 2002 outside storage of miscellaneous junk and debris 3/27/2017 2003 failing to provide Inspection Department access to perform the required housing code rental inspection 3/27/2017 2004 has not made the required corrections from the rental inspection in the specified time 3/27/2017 2005 accumulation of trash and lumber on property 3/27/2017 2006 accumulation of trash and lumber on property 3/27/2017 2007 fire doors are not working correctly which poses a fire risk to the occupants

3/28/2017 2008 dumpster not in the enclosure 3/28/2017 2009 No rental permit 3/30/2017 2010 dead, decayed, or dying trees on property 3/30/2017 2011 illegal sign on property 3/30/2017 2012 vehicle parked on grass 3/30/2017 2013 that junk has been allowed to accumulate on property 3/30/2017 2014 unattended trailer in street 3/31/2017 2015 renting without permit 3/31/2017 2016 renting without permit 3/31/2017 2017 renting without permit 3/31/2017 2018 Failure to maintain a valid rental permit

Page: 2 of 3 3/31/2017 2019 Failure to maintain a valid rental permit 3/31/2017 2020 renting without permit

Page: 3 of 3 North Liberty Fire Department 2017 Monthly/YTD Hour & Response Report

2017 North Liberty Fire Department Responses By Fire District Year Percent January February March April May June July August September October November December To Date To Date North Liberty 89 75 78 242 84.91% Madison Township 6 8 5 19 6.67% Penn Township 2 11 6 19 6.67% Mutual Aid 1 1 3 5 1.75% Total Responses 98 95 92 285

2017 North Liberty Fire Department Responses By Type of Incident Year Percent January February March April May June July August September October November December To Date To Date 100 - Fire 4 8 6 18 6.32% 200 - Over Pressure, Overheat 300 - EMS 46 45 48 139 48.77% 400 - Hazardous Condition 2 3 1 6 2.11% 500 - Service Call 6 4 3 13 4.56% 600 - Good Intent Call 22 25 20 67 23.51% 700 - False Alarm & False Call 18 9 14 41 14.39% 800 - Severe Weather 900 - Special Incident Type 1 1 0.35% Total Responses 98 95 92 285

2017 District Responses YTD 2017 Type of Incidents YTD (Rounded Percentage) (Rounded Percentage) 900 - Special 800 - Severe Incident Type, Mutual Aid Penn Township Weather, 0.00% 0.35% Madison 2% 7% 100 - Fire, Township 700 - False 6.32% 6% Alarm & False 200 - Over Call, 14.39% Pressure, Overheat, 0.00% 600 - Good Intent Call, North Liberty 23.51% 85%

500 - Service 300 - EMS, Call, 4.56% 400 - Hazardous 48.77% Condition, 2.11% 2017 Responses by Day of Week

Monday, 45

Tuesday, 37

Wednesday, 52

Thursday, 50

Friday, 28

Saturday, 27

Sunday, 46

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2017 Number of Responses by Hour of Day 25

20

15

10 Number of Incidents

5

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 2013 - 2017 Monthly Incident Response Comparison 140

120

100

80 Axis Title Axis 60

40

20

0 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2017 98 95 92 2016 98 87 101 97 72 84 85 86 92 106 106 123 2015 84 77 85 74 85 91 87 93 100 78 91 76 2014 81 61 72 90 79 93 86 100 84 84 82 71 2013 73 66 80 71 95 75 84 84 77 83 80 92 2017 North Liberty Fire Department Member Responses By Month Year Percent Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec To Date To Date Responses for Month 98 95 92 285 Barney, Mallory 17 13 18 48 16.84% Brumm, Ryan 11 14 10 35 12.28% Burleson, Lynn 18 8 16 42 14.74% Chiles, Branden 10 18 13 41 14.39% Coyle, Jim* 0 0 1 1 0.35% Dickerson, Matt 9 6 5 20 7.02% Dolezal, Dan 21 10 8 39 13.68% DuBay, Rob 0 0 0 0 0.00% Duncan, Robert 10 2 0 12 4.21% English, Joseph 45 43 29 117 41.05% Hardin, Bryan 12 13 14 39 13.68% Hofsommer, Greg 19 16 22 57 20.00% Jaeger, Jeff 30 23 19 72 25.26% Johnston, Mike 11 6 9 26 9.12% Kaduce, Michael 19 13 11 43 15.09% Keitel, Brad 15 11 4 30 10.53% Kelchen, Jessica 27 31 24 82 28.77% Kochanny, Chris 22 25 36 83 29.12% Kramer, Adam 12 8 7 27 9.47% Lundquist, Jonathan 19 10 12 41 14.39% McDonald, James 26 24 18 68 23.86% Messinger, Matt 10 6 16 32 11.23% Miller, Jordan 32 33 31 96 33.68% Moliterno, Brad 24 21 38 83 29.12% Newkirk, Richard 27 25 13 65 22.81% Place, Alexander 19 14 17 50 17.54% Ransom, Eric 22 16 8 46 16.14% Reasner, Richard 15 20 3 38 13.33% Rennekamp, Bryan 15 23 17 55 19.30% Rigdon, Zach 6 17 6 29 10.18% Ropp, Brian 41 34 19 94 32.98% Schmooke, Bill 14 12 12 38 13.33% Schoening, Austin 4 18 17 39 13.68% Schultz, Christine 8 12 11 31 10.88% Taylor, Ryan 14 10 14 38 13.33% Voparil, Craig 17 16 8 41 14.39% White, Geoffery 24 22 25 71 24.91% Wichmann, Megan 15 33 31 79 27.72% Williams, Justin 13 10 3 26 9.12% * Fire Dept. Chaplain 2017 - Top 5 Calls Made by Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 English 45 English 43 Moliterno 38

2 Ropp 41 Ropp 34 Kochanny 36

3 Miller 32 Miller 33 Miller 31 Wichmann Wichmann 4 Jaeger 30 Kelchen 31 English 29

5 Kelchen 27 Newkirk 25 White 25 Newkirk Kochanny

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1

2

3

4

5

2017 - Top 5 Calls Made by Year-To-Date 1 English 117 41.05% 2 Miller 96 33.68% 3 Ropp 94 32.98% 4 Kochanny 83 29.12% Moliterno 5 Kelchen 82 28.77% TO: City Administrator and City Council FROM: Jennie Garner, Library Director DATE: April 3, 2017, 2017 SUBJECT: March 2017 Library Monthly Report

At a Glance Door Count 15337 Computer Usage 2502 Database Use 2887 Meeting Room Use 877 Average Daily Library Visits

1400

1200 Sunday 1000 Monday

Tuesday 800 Wednesday Thursday 600 Friday Numberof Visitors 400 Saturday

200

0

Programming, Events and News

If you missed, it, check out our feature on KWWL that aired in March about our First Annual Waddle Walk on April 23: http://www.kwwl.com/category/130142/video-landing- page?clipId=13212173&autostart=true. A fund-raiser for our Read to the Bump initiative, this non-competitive 2K walk is for all community members and a fun Sunday activity for the whole family. Activities will include a storywalk, sidewalk chalk, bubbles and other early learning opportunities as you waddle your way through our 2K. Jennifer Jordebrek, our assistant director, was also interviewed on a live KWWL noon show. This event is being planned and implemented by a team of students as a project for an events class at the University of Iowa. Sign up today at www.eventbrite.com. We’re excited to have word getting out about this new program and the Womb Literacy services we offer.

Our FY16 Annual Report is available on our Website under the Information tab at the bottom of our website or you can access it here if you didn’t have an opportunity to take a look: http://www.northlibertylibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NLCL-FY16-community- report.pdf.

The lactation room is beginning to get some use and we’ve had great comments from patrons. In addition, our new ADA friendly workstations have been gaining in popularity. The large print keyboard and easy to read screens make it ideal for people with vision impairments and anyone who may find a hard-wired computer easier to use than the laptops we offer for check out. We were also able to add our two career stations to this table for easier access by those seeking a job. These computers were purchased a few years ago with a Technology Grant from the State Library of Iowa and offer people a longer block of time to do job searching, resume building and the like. They were previously available for check out at the circulation desk but we now have them out on the tables for patrons’ convenience.

Program Highlights:

Our adult reading area gets a lot of use and Monday Social Hour is definitely a popular time. Stop by the library Mondays at 10am for coffee, to read the paper or to just visit. You’ll find a lively group ready to greet you.

To: Mayor and City Council Parks and Recreation Commission City Administrator

From: Guy Goldsmith, Director of Parks, Building and Grounds

Date: April 3, 2017

Re: Monthly Report

We performed building maintenance as needed this month. All Park buildings are now in service for the season. The new restroom/concessions building at Penn Meadows Park is in great shape with no issues from the first annual winterization last fall.

We continue to pick up parks/trails trash receptacles and pet waste stations this past month.

We have performed equipment repairs as well as regular maintenance of equipment. All of the mowing and ground maintenance equipment is now ready for the season.

We have begun weekly maintenance of select ball field in preparation of evening and weekend ball field rentals.

We continue to purchase supplies for turf grass maintenance and have begun aerating and applying fertilizer. We continue to make progress on our many landscaping areas in preparation of the upcoming growing season.

On April 1st the North Liberty Youth Baseball/Softball league and the Parks Department participated in the annual ball field enhancement day. The weather was great and a lot was accomplished. I would like to thank everyone who helped out with the clean-up efforts.

The annual Muddy Creek and Bike Trail clean-up is scheduled for April 8th, 9:00am at the Rec Center north parking lot. The public is welcomed to help along with the Tree & Storm Water Board, City Staff, Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts.

Planning and preparation continue for the July 8th North Liberty Blues & BBQ celebration.

We conducted interviews for Seasonal Parks Maintenance Workers this past month. We are currently seeking 6 additional hires out of 12 positions available. North Liberty Police Monthly Report March 2017

Training:

• 2 Officers attended tactical medical training in Traffic Contacts 521 Davenport. (16 hours) Parking Contacts 77 • Officer attended monthly dive and bomb squad Vehicle Inspections 34 training (24 hours). Vehicle Unlocks 35 • 4 Officers attended the Crisis Intervention Training Crash Investigations 16 (CIT) in Johnson County at St Patrick’s Church. Public Assists 343 The plan will be for all officers in Johnson County Assist Other Agency 96 to attend this training. (160 hours). Crimes Against Persons Report 13 • Chief Venenga attended 8 hours of training in Des Crimes Against Property Report 36 Moines on lessons learned from the recent Line of Other Reports 39 Duty Deaths. (8 hours) Arrests 37 • We cost shared with our newest police chaplain to Warrants 8 send him to training in Newton. The presenters Alcohol/Narcotics Charges 21 are from the International Association of Police Crimes Against Persons Charges 5 Chaplain. (16 hours) Crimes Against Property Charges 2 • The investigator attended 3 days of training on Other Charges 15 Social media and open sources investigations in Animal Calls 29 Cedar Rapids. (24 hours) Total Calls for Service 1953 • Two officers attended Federal Grant funded *Total Calls for Service for the year 5655 training for Patrol Officers Response to Drugs at Camp Dodge in Johnson, Iowa. (64 hours) • An Officer attended the Iowa Narcotics Officer Conference in Polk County and received training on several different drug enforcement topics. (24 hours). • We also hosted Salvage Vehicle Inspector Training for the Iowa DOT. 2 Officers attended the training and were re-certified in the state. (6 hours) • The Lieutenant and Investigator attended training on human trafficking (16 hours)

Public Relations:

• Officers helped out with the annual NL optimist Pancake breakfast. They also collected donations for the NLPD K-9 program. • Officers attended the new business open house for the DiVentures. • An officer read Dr. Seuss books and conducted classes on Leadership and Bullying for elementary and junior high students. Several officers also attended the Dudes and Donuts before school program at North Bend. • Planning continues for Safety Village that will happen in June. To register please go to the city website to complete the brochure. This is for kids 5 and under to learn more about safety tips for home, school and public areas. • 2 Child Car Seat Safety Checks were completed by the technician. • Three department members attended the Good Neighbor meeting to discuss the potential for a new PD project and to get feedback from the community. The support for the project has been positive. • NL optimist donated $5000 to the K-9 fund. As of right now, we are at $52,690 raised for the program. We are over halfway to reaching our goal of $80K.

North Liberty Police Monthly Report Continuation --- March 2017

Equipment:

• We ordered two Trek Police Bikes from the company. An employee was previously employed there and got a great deal on them. These will be in addition to the two we currently utilize. • We are replacing 5 older Tasers because they are outside of the manufacturer’s warranty.

Enforcement:

• Officers worked special traffic enforcement projects through the GTSB grant mainly on weekends and for St. Patty’s Day. • Officers received 2 reports of criminal mischief in the area of Alydar for slashed vehicle tires. • Officers responded to 3 reports of doors kicked in on Copeland and E. Jefferson. The cases are still under investigation and nothing was reported as missing.

Department Admin:

• We are still compiling the numbers and events for the 2016 annual report. The yearly Uniform Crime Reporting numbers will be reported back to the department shortly. • We continue to work on new policies from Lexipol. 25 new policies were released this month to all members. • The Body-Worn Camera grant is ongoing and our policy review with a subject matter expert from the University of Arizona was completed. Once the policy is accepted, the funds will be released to purchase the equipment and software for more cameras and storage options. • We signed on for Target Solutions. This will be an online training platform and training record management system. It will take a few weeks to build our site and we will train the rest of the department on the use and functions of the software. • We had several news articles and reports about the size of our current police facility and future building needs of the department.

Respectfully Submitted by Chief Diane Venenga and Alisha Ruffcorn 4/5/2017

North Liberty Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Thursday, April 6, 2017 Proposal of Agenda

REGULAR MEETING: 7:00PM

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Approve minutes from meeting (s) of: Minutes from March 2 meeting.

2. Public Comments/Concerns: Open to public for comments and concerns; 5 minutes per person time limit.

3. Building & Grounds Report: Parks Monthly Report

4. Summer Activity Guide Recreation Activity Guide is out to public. Program registration started this week, programs offered May-August

5. Youth Baseball / Softball: NLYBS and Babe Ruth are parent-run organizations. Practices begin in May, Games follow.

6. Upcoming Events: Community Gardens April 7 – reserve plots for 2016 season plot holders April 14 – new interested plot holders Easter Egg Hunt April 8 Kayak Trip April 22; Register by April 15 Next Swim Lesson Session: Week of April 24

7. Aquatic Plan Review: Review document and bring concerns/ questions up for discussion in preparation of a joint meeting with city council.

8. Any new issues not on the agenda?

OLD BUSINESS:

1. Aquatic Feasibility Study / Plan: Joint Meeting on hold per City Administrator.

2. Recreation Monthly Report: Report included in packet summarizing the past month.

3. Any old business not on agenda?

CONCLUSION:

1. Next Meeting Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:00 PM Location: City Council Chambers at 1 Quail Creek Circle

2. Adjourn

North Liberty Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Thursday, March 2, 2017 Board Members Present: Jef Farland, Jami Maxson, Scott Stahmer, RaQuishia Harrington, Matthew Eckhardt, Jeff Kellbach Others Present: Shelly Simpson and Brian Motley Meeting called to order: 7:57 pm

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Approve minutes: Minutes from February 5 meeting approved.

2. Public Comments/Concerns: Beau Brown present to comment on Fox Run Park - limited structures, and broken equipment currently, and interested in upgrades. Current plan puts this park at priority 4. It is the only park with activities in the area, asking to advance plans to upgrade. Shelly will speak with Guy, have him respond to questions and concerns.

3. Building and Grounds Report: Guy unable to attend meeting, his report reviewed.

4. Youth Baseball/softball: NLYBS and Babe Ruth are parent run organizations that use the fields. Liberty HS has submitted requests for 9th grade field use for baseball and softball. Able to work out plan for baseball to use Babe Ruth field and softball to use American Legion field some nights.

5. Upcoming events: Optimist Pancake breakfast March 4 Next swim session Week of March 20 Spring Shed & Scavenger Hunt March 25 Easter Egg Hunt April 8

6. New Issues: Kites for Kids event is also taking place in North Liberty April 8, from 12-2, to try to advertise in conjunction with Easter Egg Hunt. Member of public has asked to look at increased lap swim availability. Will have them contact Ashley or Shelly with more specifics.

OLD BUSINESS: 1. Aquatic Feasibility Study: Still waiting to hear about joint meeting with City Council to discuss further.

2. Recreation Monthly Report: Busy with programming, April 3&4 is signup date for summer programs.

CONCLUSION:

1. Next Meeting Thursday April 6, 2016 at 7:00PM Location: City Council Chambers at 1 Quail Creek Circle

2. Adjourned at 7:25 pm

Minutes submitted by Jami Maxson

To: Park & Recreation Commission Board Members Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Shelly Simpson, Recreation Director Date: April 5, 2017 Re: Monthly Report – March 2017

Program Summaries – March Swim Lessons: Parent Tot: This session had 23 participants. Tadpoles: This session had 15 participants. Level 1: This session had 15 participants. Level 2: This session had 15 participants. Level 3: This session had 18 participants. Level 4: This session had 16 participants. Level 5: This session had 12 participants. Level 6: This session had 8 participants. Private Lessons: T This session had 27 participants. TH This session had 28 participants. Total participation; 177 participants

Pool Programs: Water Fitness: Early Bird Aqua Aerobics: 4 participants, plus drop-ins. Easy Does It: 1 participant, plus drop-ins. Water Resistance AM 1 participant, plus drop-ins. Aqua Boot Camp: 1 participant, plus drop-ins. Arthritis Foundation Aqua: 19 participants, plus drop-ins. Noodle Triathlon Workout: Drop-ins only. Rec Swim Team: 8 participants, took part in this month session.

No School Swim: March 14 – 9 participants March 16 – 6 participants

Lifeguard Class (March) No enrollment

Preschool: Kids Campsite: February = 1,017 participants Lucky Duck: Held on Tues & Thurs mornings, this session $ 83.00 collected Wiggle Worms: 6 participants, plus drop-ins Wiggle Together: 3 participants, plus drop-ins Stroller Strides: AM = Drop-ins only PM = 4 participants, plus drop-ins Kinder Club – Tues. 8 participants, plus drop-ins Maker Space (Mar 1) 1 participant, plus drop-ins. Pee Wee Baseball: AM classes had 23 participants; PM classes had 35 participants Spring Crafts: Canceled due to lack of enrollment

Youth Programs: Recsters BASP: AM = 17 participants; PM = 59 participants, totaling 76 participants March 1: 14 participants Spring Break: March 13 – 17 participants March 14 – 21 participants March 15 – 26 participants March 16 – 23 participants March 17 – 21 participants

Youth Sports: Tae Kwon Do M/TH: No participants this month Tae Kwon Do T/W: 12 participants, plus walk-ins Soccer Clinic (March 24): Grades K-2 – 15 participants; Grades 3-4 – no enrollment Outdoor Soccer: 65 participants

Adult Sports/Programs: Basketball: Package $125; Drop-in $210; totals $335.00 Pickleball: Package $240; Drop-in $454; totals $694.00 Volleyball: Package $ -0-; Drop-in $112; totals $112.00

Adult Basketball: 16 teams in B Division play. Co-ed Volleyball: 16 teams in B Division play.

Adult Fitness: Cardio Pump: 6 participants, plus drop-ins. Kickboxing PM: 2 participants, plus drop-ins. Boot Camp: 1 participant, plus drop-ins. Abs, Buttocks, Core: Drop-ins only. Lower Body Blast: Drop-ins only. Body Blast: 4 participants, plus drop-ins. Body Sculpt: Walk-ins only. Personal Training: This month totals: -0-

Senior Citizens: Senior Dining: March 3 = 16 participants March 10 = 13 participants March 17 = 17 participants March 24 = 15 participants March 31 = 19 participants Total for month: 80 participants

Special Events: NCJH Ski Trip: March 1 = 46 participants Optimist Pancake Breakfast: March 4 Great fundraiser for Optimist Club and great turnout.

ActiveNet Totals: Gross Income = $ 79,320.98

Residency Breakdown March 1-31, 2017 Package Residents Non-residents Total Track Package 90 40 130 vs. Feb = 125

Daily Fees March 1-31, 2017 Daily Weight 911 106 1,017 vs. Feb = 1,028 Senior Daily Weight 279 57 336 vs. Feb = 248 Sub Total 1,190 163 1,353 vs. Feb = 1,276 Pool March 1-31, 2017 Adult Youth/Seniors Total Daily Fees 628 548 1,176 vs. Feb = 992

Page 1 of 1 Apr 4, 2017 Net Revenue Report By Account Name 12:21 PM GL Account: Aquatic Programs/ Classes, Baseball/ Softball, Before/After School, Classes/Programs, Conf. Center Rental, Daily Pool Fees, Donations/ Misc., Field Rental, Gerdin CC Rental, Gym Rentals, League Fees, Membership, Park/ Special Event Fees, Pool Concessions, Pool Passes, Pool Programs, Pool Rentals, Rec. Rentals, Swim Lessons, Weight Fees Transaction Date/Time: From Mar 1, 2017 through Mar 31, 2017 Revenue Site: North Liberty Recreation Department Transaction Site: Internet Site - North Liberty Recreation Dept., North Liberty Recreation Department, Pool Other Information Total Refs/ Regular POS Total Total Total Credits/ Total Net Unpaid Paid Deferred POS Account Name Account # Sales + Sales +Deposits - Discount = Income - Paid-Outs - Expense = Revenue Amounts Amounts Revenue QTY Aquatic Programs/ $1,766.00 $937.00 $0.00 ($48.00) $2,655.00 ($24.00) $0.00 $2,631.00 $0.00 $2,631.00 $0.00 308 Aquatic Programs/ Classes Classes Before/After $56,145.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($765.00) $55,380.00 ($1,426.00) $0.00 $53,954.00 $0.00 $53,954. $0.00 Before/After School School 00 Classes/Programs $2,258.00 $1,823. $0.00 ($20.00) $4,061.50 ($527.27) $0.00 $3,534.23 $0.00 $3,534.23 $0.00 606 Classes/Programs 50 Daily Pool Fees $0.00 $5,048. $0.00 $0.00 $5,048.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,048.00 $0.00 $5,048.00 $0.00 157 Daily Pool Fees 00 0 Membership $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($1,085. ($1,085.59 $0.00 $0.00 ($1,085.59) $0.00 ($1,085. $0.00 Membership 59) ) 59) Pool Passes $4,986.47 $2.00 $0.00 ($183.00) $4,805.47 $0.00 $0.00 $4,805.47 $0.00 $4,805.47 $0.00 1 Pool Passes

Rec. Rentals $45.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $55.00 $0.00 $0.00 $55.00 $0.00 $55.00 $0.00 20 Rec. Rentals

Swim Lessons $792.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $792.50 ($974.00) $0.00 ($181.50) $0.00 ($181.50) $0.00 Swim Lessons

Weight Fees $8,131.37 $2,567. $0.00 $0.00 $10,698.37 ($138.00) $0.00 $10,560.37 $0.00 $10,560. $0.00 137 Weight Fees 00 37 0 Grand Total: $74,124.34 $10,387. $0.00 ($2,101.59 $82,410.25 ($3,089.27) $0.00 $79,320.98 $0.00 $79,320. $0.00 387 50 ) 98 5

* Linked account credits RS II To: Mayor and City Council

From: Michael Pentecost, Street Superintendent

Re: March 2017 Monthly Report

April 3, 2017

The following items took place in the month of March that involved the Streets Department.

• Locating of City Utilities (162 job tickets) ongoing • Continued animal control services (responded to 5 animal issues) • Cemetery plot locates ( 1 in total) • 1 Snow event requiring pre-wetting with salt brine along with sand and salting of roads during storm • Removal of snow equipment off half of the fleet • Removal of all of snow fence throughout the City • Removal of erosion control measures from North Liberty Rd 2016 project now that grass seeding has taken hold • Continued street department service and repair of equipment • Cut down 2 very large City trees on Stewart St and W Chestnut Ave for safety reasons • Maintenance of gravel roads and Highway 965 shoulder by grading and applying gravel • Emergency bunkers restocked with assets from JECC (pumps, sandbags, water purification units) • Warning sirens repair at 2 locations (St. Andrews unit and Quail Ridge unit) • Waste concrete hauled from shop to concrete recycling plant in Coralville • Various traffic sign repair from high winds during storm • Created bid spec sheets for new dump truck with snow equipment and sent to 2 venders • Training for staff a. Flagger Safety Training b. Extensive training for safe and proper operations of new vac/jet truck c. Backflow training and testing for safe cross-connections d. Region 6 meeting for area water operators • City wide street sweeping program began (2 dump truck loads hauled to landfill currently) • Jetted sewer mains in problematic areas (restaurants and factories) • Contractor installed sub-drain (about 700 ft.)along St. Andrews Dr. for residents to connect sump pump lines in to • Project meetings ongoing a. North Liberty Rd Neighborhood meeting at Grace Community Church b. Forevergreen Rd utility meeting c. Highway 965 phase 3 conceptual meeting • Street repair a. Cold patched potholes in area streets b. Storm box tile repair at multiple areas around town

• View of equipment after “final” snow from winter.

• Hollow base of tree that was approximately 55 feet tall and 6 feet at the base. Communications Department Report Submitted to the North Liberty City Council March 31, 2017 for the month of March 2017

Public Projects We held two public open houses for projects in March.

The first, on March 9, was focused on our North Liberty Road project, with invitations mailed directly to property owners adjacent to the project. While city and engineering staff had already worked directly with many, we wanted the opportunity to connect directly to residents, present a schedule once we had a contractor on board, and answer questions about the project. Turn out was good.

The second, on March 29, was our annual project open house. Turnout was about where it has been in years past, despite the rainy weather. Engineers and city staff offered information about water system improvements, Penn Street and North Liberty Road construction, I-380 and Forevergreen Road, the concept for a new police station and park improvements. This year we also adding information on the city’s capital improvements plan, which was helpful to give attendees a sense of future priorities.

As in the past we gave attendees the chance to signup for emails about project updates and solicited public comments. We received eight written comments at the open house; five of the comments were supportive of the NLPD’s need for a new space. Comments also requested we widen St. Andrews Drive along with the new trail, consider improvements to private Club House Road west of Highway 965, and offered support for roundabouts (they are “amazing”) and encouraged more to be added on Front Street.

North Liberty Police Department Staff planned for public outreach and information about the North Liberty Police Department’s future space needs. Jillian and Megan reached out to local media, Megan produced an animated timeline explaining the police department’s growth, and Jillian assembled a slide deck for the open house explaining the current facility’s inadequacies. The police department will be hosting tours in early April to help residents understand the needs.

Blues & BBQ We’ve met with our community planning committee in preparation to open registration in April in conjunction with other announcements. Food vendor applications are currently open and interest has been high. We’ve worked through some new branding options and are ready to roll that out in early April. Planning for our Friday night fundraiser is well underway but won’t be announced until later next month. We’re hoping to accommodate 500 in a prelude.

United Way Megan is working on a United Way of Johnson and Washington Counties promotional video in collaboration with staff from Iowa City and Coralville. She’s shot at North Liberty agencies with additional ones scheduled for April. The video should be completed by late May.

Another Episode Jillian has been preparing for the launch of the first season of our free community binge-watching series. On the third Thursday of May, June, July and August, we’ll host community member on the Community Center lawn. The first night will be season one of Parks and Recreation, with subsequent shows to be voted on by the public. Information is available at anotherepisode.org.

Communications Assistant We posted for a quarter-time communications assistant position on March 27, and hope to make an offer by late April or early May (start date in late May). We’re looking for someone eager to learn and contribute to our team, with some video interested and experience. We’ll also expect some event support and more.

Other We produced and submitted City Council and MPOJC meetings and the League of Women Voters of Johnson County forum to the Iowa City government and Coralville channels.

Staff represented the City of North Liberty at meetings of the following: the United Way of Johnson and Washington Counties campaign cabinet, Iowa City/Coralville Convention and Visitors’ Bureau partner advisory committee, Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce North Liberty steering committee.

Staff made appearances on KCJJ, KGAN and KCRG to promote city news. Staff helped prep presentations for Senior Dining and the Home Builders Association.

We sent news releases about project open houses, library compromised credit cards and more. The news item about credit card fraud drove the spike in website traffic in March, accounting for 23 percent of traffic this month.

Social media (Current month and preceding 12) Month Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Instagram net new likes reach (28 days) new follows impressions new follows March 2017 92 63,364 29 20,100 10 (911) February 2017 54 40,720 39 38,100 14 (901) January 2017 41 27,035 59 17,400 13 (887) December 2016 51 59,538 29 17,800 14 (874) November 2016 48 50,690 36 12,700 17 (860) October 2016 79 74,835 42 30,300 19 (843) September 2016 64 62,860 52 25,000 21 (824) August 2016 84 74,265 55 29,500 82 (803) July 2016 110 83,551 70 16,500 124 (721) June 2016 217 66,227 92 25,400 89 (597) May 2016 112 54,190 55 37,800 46 (508) April 2016 122 62,193 30 24,500 43 (462) March 2016 139 41,479 43 26,200 41 (419)

Website Statistics (Current month and preceding 12) Month Sessions Users Pageviews Pages/Session Avg. Session March 2017 27,434 21,552 47,673 1.74 0:59 February 2017 13,340 9,711 29,186 2.19 1:32 January 2017 15,482 10,918 35,254 2.28 1:33 December 2016 12,687 9,167 29,048 2.29 1:30 November 2016 13,679 9,930 28,603 2.09 1:25 October 2016 18,311 12,813 35,906 1.96 1:25 September 2016 14,139 10,256 30,028 2.12 1:30 August 2016 21,915 15,496 42,191 1.93 1:22 July 2016 21,164 15,123 40,525 1.91 1:22 June 2016 23,761 16,469 47,658 2.01 1:27 May 2016 19,917 14,231 39,812 2.00 1:22 April 2016 16,898 12,044 36,230 2.14 1:38 March 2016 19,400 14,590 37,648 1.94 1:18

Completed Shoots Title Requested By Date Shot Duration Preschool Story Time Library March 1 0:22 Parks and Recreation City Administration March 2 0:29 Social: NLFD controlled house burn Communications March 0:01 Planning and Zoning City Administration March 7 0:08 Preschool Story Time Library March 8 0:23 City Council City Administration March14 2:37 Preschool Story Time Library March 15 0:25 Library Board of Directors City Administration March 20 0:42 Preschool Story Time Library March 22 0:27 Social: Waddle Walk Promo Library March 23 0:01 City Council City Administration March 28 2:13 Social: NLPD timeline Communications March 28 0:01 Social: Another Episode Promo Communications March 29 0:01 Preschool Story Time Library March 29 0:28 Metropolitan Planning Organization City Administration March 30 1:08 Total shoots: 15 Duration of new video: 9.3 hours

Water Pollution Control Plant

Iowa TO: City Council, Mayor and City Administrator FROM: Dave Ramsey DATE: April 4, 2017 SUBJECT: March 2017 Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Report

1. All scheduled preventative maintenance at the plant and lift stations was completed. Staff stayed very busy with numerous operational jobs throughout the month.

2. This month’s staff safety meeting was on Personal Protection Equipment.

3. We held our 21th construction meeting on the WPCP Phase 2 expansion project. We are working with the general contractor and Fox Engineering on a daily basis to keep the project moving forward while trying our best to minimize change orders and related costs. Overall the project is going very well and is scheduled to be completed in approximately 128 days.

4. The EPA and the Iowa DNR requires a detailed yearly report be filed on all Biosolids activities throughout the calendar year. This year the EPA set up a new electronic submission form. Along with this new program came a large number of computer issues with the EPA system. During 2016 we land applied 2,542,920 gallons or 261.33 metric dry tons of Biosolids to local farm fields.

5. The new dewatering building has been operational since the first of the year. This process converts 2.5%-3% liquid solids to a 13%-17% dry cake solid. It is stored on site to further dry and then will be applied to farm fields. There are additional chemical costs to dewatering but also significantly reduced costs in hauling and applying the solids to farm fields.

6. I hired Anthony Tonarelli for our new Operator 1 position. Anthony has a Grade 1 IDNR Wastewater Certificate. He has completed internships at two other wastewater plants and was highly recommended by his references. Anthony is scheduled to start April 10th.

David Ramsey WPCP Supt. City of North Liberty 3 Quail Creek Circle Phone: 319-626-5738 PO Box 77 Fax: 319-626-5739 North Liberty, IA 52317 northlibertyiowa.org

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Greg Metternich, Water Superintendent

Re: Monthly Report

April 3, 2017

We read 8,134 radio reads last month that’s an increase of 10 accounts. We had to re-read approximately 58 accounts.

We delivered 188 shut off notices and shut off approximately 31 overdue accounts for non- payment last month.

In the month of March we treated a total of 52,411,000 gallons of water, our average daily flow was 1,691,000 gallons a day, and our maximum daily flow was 1,896,000 gallons. The total for the month was 3.69% higher than last March. We injected 14,724,000 gallons into the ASR well in March, which brings us to a total of about 25,000,000 gallons of injected water. We should be finished with the injection process at the end of April.

Gingrich has finished drilling the Jordan well. They had to stop drilling for about three weeks because of a mechanical breakdown, once the repairs were made it only took a couple of days to finish. The total depth of the new Jordan is 1,710 feet. Peerless finished the test pumping at both wells 3 and 4, that data was used to determine the size of the new pumps, the equipment has been ordered. The new pump for well 3 has about a twelve week led time.

Portzen has installed most of the underground piping at the new treatment plant site. The floor and footing has been poured in the pump room area. The tank company should start work on the ground storage tank later this month.

We have started installing new smart valves in conjunction with our meter change out program. These valves are able to be operated using the internet. We had several places where we had multiple meters but only one shut off, this was always a problem when one person wouldn’t pay their bill and we were not able to shut them off because it would shut off the entire building.

Water Superintendent

Greg Metternich

NORTH LIBERTY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes April 4, 2017

Roll Call Chair Ronda Detlefsen called the April 4, 2017 Regular Session of the North Liberty Planning Commission to order at 6:33 p.m. Commission members present: Jennifer Bleil, Ronda Detlefsen, Adam Gebhart, Kylie Pentecost and Patrick Staber; absent – Josh Covert and Jason Heisler. Others present: Dean Wheatley, Tracey Mulcahey, Scott Peterson, Kevin Trom, Megan Benischek and other interested parties.

Agenda Approval Bleil moved, Staber seconded to approve the agenda. The vote was all ayes. Agenda approved.

Interstate Power and Light Company Preliminary Plat Staff Presentation Wheatley presented the request of Interstate Power and Light Company to approve a preliminary plat for an electrical substation located on North Dubuque Street midway between W. Penn Street and 965. Staff recommends approval of the application.

Applicants Presentation Dan VanDervort, Project Manager for Alliant Energy was present and offered to answer questions on the application.

Public Comments No public comments were received.

Questions and Comments The Commission commented that the application is pretty straightforward.

Recommendation to the City Council Bleil moved, Gebhart seconded to recommend approval of Interstate Power and Light Company’s Preliminary Plat application to the City Council. The vote was: ayes – Gebhart, Staber, Pentecost, Detlefsen, Bleil; nays – none. Motion carried.

Proposed Venom Villas Addition Rezoning Staff Presentation Wheatley presented the request of Acie Earl to approve a rezoning for property located on North Jones Boulevard, between 236th Street and Eight Point Trail. (Proposed Venom Villas Addition) Staff does not recommend approval of the application.

Applicants Presentation Acie Earl, applicant, and Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, presented additional information regarding the application.

Public Comments No public comments were offered.

Questions and Comments The Commission discussed the application for rezoning including paving close to adjacent lot lines, sizes of property being amended, ownership of adjacent properties, new lot sizes, lot line changes, adjacent development, setting precedents, code compliance, and development of adjacent properties versus non developed land and ownership of some impacted units not owned by the applicant.

Recommendation to the City Council Gebhart moved, Detlefsen seconded to recommend denial to the City Council. The vote was: ayes – Staber, Detlefsen, Pentecost, Gebhart; nays – Bleil. Motion carried.

Zoning Ordinance Amendment Staff Presentation Wheatley presented the request of staff to consider an amendment correcting an oversight by adding a height limitation to ground signs in the Office Park and Industrial Districts consistent with that found in commercial districts, 24 feet.

Public Comments No public comments were offered.

Questions and Comments The Commission had no questions or comments.

Recommendation to the City Council Staber moved, Gebhart seconded to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment to the City Council. The vote was: ayes – Bleil, Pentecost, Detlefsen, Staber, Gebhart; nays – none. Motion carried.

Approval of Previous Minutes Bleil moved, Staber seconded to approve the minutes of the March 7, 2017 Commission meeting. The vote was all ayes. Minutes approved.

Old Business Wheatley provided an update on athletic field lighting amendment that will be on Council’s April 11 agenda.

New Business Wheatley reported that two cases coming back for next month with resubmittals of previous submissions.

Adjournment At 7:24 p.m., Gebhart moved, Bleil seconded to adjourn. All ayes. Meeting adjourned.