COMMUNITY COMMENT – What you had to say about the proposed Stormwater Utility program

“This is an additional tax. There is no reason to create an additional bureaucracy to administer new tax. If you need more money than increase the tax rate for everyone. There is no additional need, this has been a municipal responsibility forever and everyone expects that you have included stormwater planning in every new development This is an expectation of municipal government. Reduce other expenses, if possible, become more efficient.”

“Municipal drains have helped increase these available farmland in Burford township especially. Regular maintenance will be less expensive than a major clean-out and cut back of overgrown trees. Some farmers are doing this on a regular basis and should rewarded for doing this type of maintenance. Please avoid costly fees on a per hectare basis that would impact farming.”

“Why isn’t this coming out of city taxes? The whole point of taxes is to pay for these types of things in the city infrastructure You mention it is to be fair and only have people pay that are going to benefit. Well, my taxes pay for sidewalks and roads that I don’t benefit from, as well as many other things. Sometimes you benefit and sometimes you don’t it’s a balance. But if you start making only some people pay for this, then I should be able to opt out of paying for other stuff I don’t benefit from ”

“I would feel more supportive of a stormwater management fee if it was clear that it would resolve the flooding issues on my property It is also misleading to have a survey that asks whether you support paying for service and then forcing the user to select how much they are willing to pay for that service from 3 options all of which are amounts of $10 or more (monthly), even when they say they didn’t support paying.”

“My only concern, having lived previously in a town that raised taxes to fund stormwater maintenance and then spent it elsewhere, is the accountability for the increase to be used as described to the taxpayer”

“No amount was selected in question 8 because the proposed funding model is not equitable. Many municipalities require rural property owners to contribute which in my view is the correct path I prefer such capital infrastructure projects be funded through an established mill rate. The charging of user fees is in my mind far from equitable and I do not appreciate or agree with the assumption that it is Nowhere in the presentation does it present a 10-year history of current costs for stormwater management. With the introduction of a user fee, the expectation is that taxes will go down by the appropriate amount I’m also concerned that much of the current shift in the province stands to threaten the current drainage act RSO 1990 and strip current conservation authorities of powers and governance of watershed management in favour of developers. Stormwater management is not just capital infrastructure projects, but rather point source solutions which the county should be supporting I’m afraid the assessment of properties becomes an unnecessary burden and administrative expense that we do not need. Keeping the mill rate to fund projects in my mind keeps our systems more efficient and accountable ”

Here’s a link to the full survey response report where you can find more comments from taxpayers