Oppose the proposed per property fee of up to $10,000 to fund the Melrose drinking water interconnect project

40 Wynfield lane Oppose this after the fact fee. Did not ask for water improvement.

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.

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.

$10,000 per household for seniors and young families especially would be a real burden. We oppose this per household levy.

We are in agreement with this petition

54 Wynfield Lane

I agree that this fee is unjustified considering that we did not ask for this “improvement”.

This is not what was purposed or agreed to!

Well water was preferred. We were not apart of this discussion and will be affected greatly We do not have the funds for this.

Not acceptable

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.

This is an absolute abuse of power. More importantly, municipalities need to have more financial auditing and due diligence before proceeding with work if they cannot pay for it through our property taxes.