01/04/2026
Happy New Year from Mayor Pete...
Now let's talk about Storm Water!
I want to address posts circulating about Riverside’s stormwater utility, because several claims are factually incorrect or incomplete. That matters if we are going to have an honest and productive conversation.
First, some history.
Riverside—like every city in the United States—is subject to the Clean Water Act. Under this federal law, Riverside is regulated as a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) community and is legally required to manage stormwater, reduce polluted runoff, and demonstrate ongoing compliance.
These requirements are administered through the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and apply to small and mid-sized cities across the country. They are not optional local policies. Cities that fail to comply face enforcement actions, possible consent orders, fines, or court-ordered spending that removes local control altogether.
The Clean Water Act requires MS4 communities to:
• map and maintain stormwater infrastructure
• detect and eliminate illicit discharges
• control construction and post-construction runoff
• manage erosion and sediment
• conduct public education
• inspect, document, and report ongoing compliance
Although the framework has existed for decades, by the early 2010s, decades of deferred maintenance—combined with steadily expanding MS4 requirements—caught up with cities nationwide, including Riverside.
On March 10, 2003, the EPA required all Phase II MS4 communities, including cities under 50,000 residents, to submit permit applications and begin formal compliance under the Clean Water Act. From that point forward, stormwater management was no longer aspirational. It became a legal obligation.
-The professional analysis-
In response, Riverside did what responsible communities do when a problem can no longer be managed reactively: we ordered a professional analysis.
In 2014, the City Council commissioned a 204-page Stormwater Master Plan by AECOM, a nationally recognized engineering firm, to inventory Riverside’s stormwater system, assess its condition, quantify the maintenance backlog, and determine what it would actually take to comply with federal law on a sustainable basis.
That study was not guesswork and not political. It was the equivalent of a doctor’s diagnosis. It identified significant ongoing maintenance needs and a long-term capital backlog tied to aging infrastructure.
The Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) amount ultimately adopted by Council flows directly from that analysis.
Just as a doctor prescribes a dosage based on a patient’s condition—not their neighbor’s—Riverside’s ERU rate is based on our system’s documented needs, not someone else’s numbers or a statewide “average” that does not exist.
-Addressing the misconceptions-
First, the ERU system itself is often described accurately, but the conclusions drawn from it are not. Yes, impervious surfaces such as roofs and driveways are measured. That is not unique to Riverside. It is the EPA-accepted standard used across Ohio and the country because impervious surfaces generate runoff and transport pollutants. Flat fees ignore that reality and shift costs unfairly.
Second, the $7 ERU was not guessed, inflated, or invented by this Council. It is grounded in the 2014 AECOM analysis, which quantified required annual maintenance, federal compliance obligations, inspections, enforcement, and a documented infrastructure backlog.
Third, there is no “Ohio average ERU” and no EPA-recommended dollar amount. Neither the Ohio EPA nor the U.S. EPA publishes an average ERU or recommends a $2–$6 fee. What the EPA requires is a dedicated, sustainable funding source sufficient to meet MS4 permit obligations. Claims otherwise are incorrect.
Fourth, many of the city comparisons being circulated are incomplete or misleading. For example:
• Xenia is often cited at $4.75 per month, but that figure omits the separate $5 curb-and-gutter monthly utility fee that is listed to specifically support STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, making the effective Xenia monthly cost $9.75, which is higher than Riverside’s $7 ERU.
• Dayton uses a flat fee, which by design shifts costs away from higher-impact properties AND OVERCHARGES SMALLER PROPERTIES.
• Cities such as Lancaster ($9.25 and rising), Piqua ($7.21), Oakwood (~$10), Wilmington ($9.03), Cincinnati ($9–$12), Centerville(~$8.48), and Columbus (~$15.80) all charge more than Riverside.
Cherry-picking only the lowest flat-fee examples is not an honest comparison. It also ignores any ability by Riverside residents to mitigate the cost.
More importantly, Riverside’s rate is based on Riverside’s needs.
Fifth, stormwater revenue is legally restricted. It cannot be used for police, fire, payroll, or general government expenses. Every dollar must be spent on stormwater infrastructure, maintenance, and compliance with the Clean Water Act. Calling this a “money grab” ignores how stormwater utilities are legally structured.
Sixth, this did not “come out of nowhere.” Stormwater funding has been publicly discussed in Riverside for more than 15 years, with formal City Council actions and repeated coverage in the Dayton Daily News dating back to 2010. Since then, the Dayton Daily News has published nearly 20 separate articles documenting stormwater, flooding, and funding challenges in Riverside related to this Federal EPA requirement. This issue has been part of the public record for well over a decade and a half. Since I became Mayor in January 2020, the City Council has discussed the stormwater district 44 times in publicly noticed meetings:
• 2020: 4 times
• 2021: 3 times
• 2022: 11 times
• 2023: 8 times
• 2024: 6 times
• 2025: 12 times
Delaying action did not eliminate the requirement—it increased the backlog and the eventual cost.
-Finally, on motive-
The accusation that this is about greed or “stealing money” is flatly contradicted by my record.
In 2012, before I was Mayor, the City Council eliminated the income-tax credit for residents who work in another city, by Council vote, not a vote of the public. That was a money grab.
In 2021, I led the effort to restore the full credit, made the motion on the vote (seconded by Jesse Maxfield), supported a 10-year moratorium on taking it away again, and stated publicly—on the microphone—THAT VOTERS SHOULD RECALL ME IF I EVER BREAK THAT PROMISE.
You do not deliver tax relief, lock it in, and put your own job on the line if your goal is to squeeze residents.
Reasonable people can disagree about policy, and I respect that. City Council will have the opportunity to review this again as we seat our new members, and I welcome that discussion. I'm also open to alternative paths to compliance.
But disagreement should be based on complete information, accurate facts, and good faith, not partial comparisons or assumptions.
Happy New Year.
