High-level summary

The meeting centered on stormwater funding and its impact on businesses and residents, including a potential 2026 implementation, calls for delay to 2027, and a proposed credit program. Members debated staffing, budget transparency, and public engagement, with several motions introduced and outcomes either pending or contingent on further input.

Key topics discussed (most important, with impacts on residents)

1) Stormwater fee implementation and non-residential impact (File 5.1; 2026 Budget Committee Recommendations to the Mayor) - The discussion focused on moving stormwater funding from property taxes to a fee in 2026, with a proposed 75% discount for non-residential properties and a $300,000 aggregate savings vs. taxes in year one. Quote: “Under the current four-year phase-in, they would pay 2.1 million in aggregate. So there's actually a savings of $300,000 for the non-res community.” - Public-interest angle: business community concerns about new costs and the design of any offsetting programs were central, with calls for more straightforward administration to avoid administrative burdens.

2) Deferral request to 2027 and stakeholder engagement (Public-deputation perspective) - A delegate urged pausing to deferral to 2027 and re-engage with stakeholders to ensure fairness and clarity. Quote: “On behalf of Oakville's business community, I urge you to support a deferral to 2027 and to re-engage with the people who help this community thrive.” - Implication for residents: delaying implementation could provide time to design fairer credit mechanisms and improve communications before costs are borne.

3) Staffing for stormwater implementation (FTEs) and timing (Operational detail) - The council discussed seven full-time equivalents to support the program, including roles like a manager and capital project leads. A key question: will all seven be hired and in place by 2026? Quote: “Could we have a bit more of a clarification on the roles of those seven and whether they'll all be hired and hit the 2026?” - Impact on residents: staffing decisions affect implementation speed, accuracy of charges, and administrative efficiency affecting taxpayer experience.

4) Tax assessment clarity and public communication (Tax and transparency) - Discussion on how tax costs are calculated and communicated to residents, including per-100k assessment figures. Quote from a participant: “I think it's important let everybody do their own calculating because honestly, I think everybody's pretty good at multiplying up to from 1 to 20 if you get a per 100 thousand.” - Another element: how stormwater costs interact with the tax levy and the desire to show transparent impact per assessment amount (e.g., “1.96%” vs higher combined totals). This topic emphasizes making tax information accessible and reduces confusion.

5) Public engagement and information dissemination (Public input and communication) - The meeting underscored opportunities for public input during consultations and the need for clear communication materials to help residents understand tax calculations and credit options. Public-facing materials and engagement opportunities were repeatedly highlighted, including prior Chamber input and ongoing consultations.

File numbers / bylaw references discussed

• File: 5.1 (2026 Budget Committee Recommendations to the Mayor)
• Appendix A referenced in discussions about budget materials
• File/Code reference: 52292603 (Parks growth vehicles and equipment project addition) discussed in a separate section
• Other budget/credit references discussed but not always given explicit file numbers in every segment

Opportunities for citizen input

• Public consultations and hearings are indicated as opportunities to provide input on stormwater fees, credits, and budget decisions. Notable public inputs include:
  • The Oakville Chamber of Commerce letter signed by 15 local business leaders outlining concerns about the stormwater tax.
  • Residents and business owners encouraged to participate in future consultations public meetings regarding the tax and its implementation.
• For ongoing input, participants were advised to engage during upcoming consultations and meetings; contact points are typically the city clerk’s office or the budget office as specified in the meeting materials (exact email addresses are not provided in the excerpts, but such contact information is typically announced at meetings and posted on the city’s official website).

Motions and outcomes

• Budget Committee / Oakville meeting (stormwater-related) 1) Motion to Implement Storm Water Tax in 2026

  • Outcome: Pending (discussion ongoing at this point). Follow-up: deferral to 2027 requested by business representatives; consideration of a streamlined credit program. 2) Motion to Hire Seven Full-Time Employees (FTEs) in 2026
  • Outcome: Pending (tied to the stormwater tax discussion). Follow-up: reevaluate necessity of positions and funding through existing means. 3) Motion to Develop a Credit Program for Storm Water Tax Relief
  • Outcome: Not formally proposed during the meeting but urged by the chamber as a necessary step before implementation.
  • Follow-up: Council to consider stakeholder-designed credit system.

• City Council Meeting (climate, parks, and budget portions) 1) Motion: Inclusion of Storm Water Fee in 2026 Budget

  • Outcome: Passed (proceeded with implementation and revenue allocation as outlined; discussion continues). Follow-up: Implement phased fee structure and credit considerations. 2) Motion: Adjustments to Tax Levy
  • Outcome: Passed (reflect changes in the 2026 operating budget). 3) Motion: Increase in Capital Levy
  • Outcome: Passed (additional funding to address capital program pressures). 4) Motion: Temporary Staffing for Municipal Enforcement
  • Outcome: Passed (temporary staffing funded). 5) Motion: Funding for Resiliency Improvement Projects
  • Outcome: Passed (funding allocated to 2026 and future projects).

• Other minor amendments (garden plots, appendices) were discussed as procedural motions in some sections and resulted in wording adjustments or information being received rather than formal approval.

Councillors present (representative list across sections)

Note: Multiple sections reference different meetings and participants. The following are the councillors most consistently named as present across the excerpts (non-exhaustive, focusing on those explicitly identified as councillors in the materials provided): - Chair Adams - Mayor Burton - Councillor Dak - Councillor Howlet - Councillor Null - Councillor Algar - Councillor Chisum - Councillor Duk - Councillor McNes (McNees) - Councillor Hatha - Councillor Dutk - Councillor McNise

Absent in the provided excerpts: Councillor Romeir (explicitly noted as absent in one section)

If you’d like, I can reorganize this into separate meeting-by-meeting sections (Budget Committee vs. Oakville City Council vs. other sections) or focus on a single meeting with all topics pulled together.