Oppose the proposed per property fee of up to $10,000 to fund the Melrose drinking water interconnect project
The proposed decision to charge Wynfield residents a fee of up to $10,000 per property to fund the Melrose Drinking Water Interconnect project is deeply troubling. At no time did our neighbourhood request to be connected to the regional water pipeline. We were not engaged in the decision made by the municipality, and we were told that the project costs were approved by the council and would be funded through the water capital reserved fund. It is both unfair and procedurally improper to now shift this financial burden on to homeowners. The integrity of our community’s financial decisions is paramount. When council decisions are made such as the original funding plan through the Water Capital Reserve Fund they are based on thorough consideration and due process. Altering this plan, disrupts that integrity and betrays the trust of residents like myself who rely on predictable and fair governance. Furthermore, shifting the burden to residents does not hold the municipality accountable for the mismanagement of project timelines and budget. The economic impact of this significant fee to our families cannot be understated. For many a $10,000 expense -even spread out overtime- is not feasible, could lead to severe financial strain, and impact property values. This approach threatens the financial security of countless families, including mine, particularly during these times of economic uncertainty. Transferring the financial responsibility directly to residents is not the solution. Constituents urge the city council to reconsider this proposed funding change and respect the initial agreement that was approved. Ensuring accountability and financial planning is essential for the ongoing trust and prosperity of our community. Join me in opposing this per property fee. Please sign this petition to make your voice heard and to demand accountability and integrity in city council decisions concerning community funding.
14 Comments
$10,000 per household for seniors and young families especially would be a real burden. We oppose this per household levy.
Well water was preferred. We were not apart of this discussion and will be affected greatly We do not have the funds for this.
How much in annual savings / reduced risk for the municipality is there because of the switch over? Seems to me the reduced risk alone has a value.
It’s not fair to pay the amount,as a taxpayer we are paying a lot to the government and to the city as property tax .so the additional cost is too much burden for the people,especially retirees
We urge council to reconsider this proposal. It's both unreasonable and unfair to residents to impose any charges. They will create significant and disproportionate financial hardship for many in our community. The project was approved to be funded through reserve funds and there is no reason or justification to change that decision now.
40 Wynfield lane Oppose this after the fact fee. Did not ask for water improvement.
It is not appropriate to request any amount of money from individuals who were not involved in the budgeting, execution, decision making nor governance of an infrastructure project that we have to assume went significantly over budget. We were advised this overage is putting a strain on the ability to ‘fund other critical water capital projects’. I would suggest these other projects not be initiated if there is inadequate funding - just as this project should not have started without a proper budget and contingency planning. In 23 years of living in Melrose there has been no issue with the well water and the most recent water audit report shows 100% audit compliance. We did not ask for this change and it was not urgent. As such, Melrose residents should definitely not be held accountable to pay for this situation. Apart from the fundamental logical inconsistency, it also feels very offside to expect residents would be able to source an extra $10,000 to spend in such a way. This proposed option has created a lot of personal stress and added work for many residents, and should not have been proposed at all. I hope Council members will understand and be in agreement.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Oppose the proposed per property fee of up to $10,000 to fund the Melrose drinking water interconnect project
The proposed decision to charge Wynfield residents a fee of up to $10,000 per property to fund the Melrose Drinking Water Interconnect project is deeply troubling. At no time did our neighbourhood request to be connected to the regional water pipeline. We were not engaged in the decision made by the municipality, and we were told that the project costs were approved by the council and would be funded through the water capital reserved fund. It is both unfair and procedurally improper to now shift this financial burden on to homeowners. The integrity of our community’s financial decisions is paramount. When council decisions are made such as the original funding plan through the Water Capital Reserve Fund they are based on thorough consideration and due process. Altering this plan, disrupts that integrity and betrays the trust of residents like myself who rely on predictable and fair governance. Furthermore, shifting the burden to residents does not hold the municipality accountable for the mismanagement of project timelines and budget. The economic impact of this significant fee to our families cannot be understated. For many a $10,000 expense -even spread out overtime- is not feasible, could lead to severe financial strain, and impact property values. This approach threatens the financial security of countless families, including mine, particularly during these times of economic uncertainty. Transferring the financial responsibility directly to residents is not the solution. Constituents urge the city council to reconsider this proposed funding change and respect the initial agreement that was approved. Ensuring accountability and financial planning is essential for the ongoing trust and prosperity of our community. Join me in opposing this per property fee. Please sign this petition to make your voice heard and to demand accountability and integrity in city council decisions concerning community funding.
14 Comments
Never asked for new water system, this was decided by Middlesex County council, and was to come out of reserve water fund. Unfair to impose fee after the fact.
$10,000 per household for seniors and young families especially would be a real burden. We oppose this per household levy.
Well water was preferred. We were not apart of this discussion and will be affected greatly We do not have the funds for this.
How much in annual savings / reduced risk for the municipality is there because of the switch over? Seems to me the reduced risk alone has a value.
It’s not fair to pay the amount,as a taxpayer we are paying a lot to the government and to the city as property tax .so the additional cost is too much burden for the people,especially retirees
We urge council to reconsider this proposal. It's both unreasonable and unfair to residents to impose any charges. They will create significant and disproportionate financial hardship for many in our community. The project was approved to be funded through reserve funds and there is no reason or justification to change that decision now.
40 Wynfield lane Oppose this after the fact fee. Did not ask for water improvement.
It is not appropriate to request any amount of money from individuals who were not involved in the budgeting, execution, decision making nor governance of an infrastructure project that we have to assume went significantly over budget. We were advised this overage is putting a strain on the ability to ‘fund other critical water capital projects’. I would suggest these other projects not be initiated if there is inadequate funding - just as this project should not have started without a proper budget and contingency planning. In 23 years of living in Melrose there has been no issue with the well water and the most recent water audit report shows 100% audit compliance. We did not ask for this change and it was not urgent. As such, Melrose residents should definitely not be held accountable to pay for this situation. Apart from the fundamental logical inconsistency, it also feels very offside to expect residents would be able to source an extra $10,000 to spend in such a way. This proposed option has created a lot of personal stress and added work for many residents, and should not have been proposed at all. I hope Council members will understand and be in agreement.
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 100 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
Never asked for new water system, this was decided by Middlesex County council, and was to come out of reserve water fund. Unfair to impose fee after the fact.