Breslau residents will have to pay $14K after ‘failure’ from Woolwich Township
Posted Nov 21, 2025 05:19:28 AM.
Last Updated Nov 21, 2025 10:46:29 AM.
A group of residents in Breslau will have to pay $14,000 for water and sewer work that was completed nearly a decade ago, and received some relief from council after pleading their case.
The issue came before Township of Woolwich council on Tuesday, with residents asking that the township extend the Dec. 12 deadline to make payment, provide them with additional information on how this happened, and abandon a bylaw that was put in place earlier this year.
Councillor Evan Burgess put forward a motion that the township pay for its mistake, absorbing the more-than $300,000 cost of the water and sewer work completed nearly a decade ago instead of passing this cost along to the previously unaware homeowners.
The issue in question began back in 2014 when 77 per cent of homeowners living along Woolwich Street near the Schwaben Club agreed that they wanted the township to go ahead with construction that would extend water and sewer services to their homes.
In 2016, that work was completed, but the township entered litigation with the construction company, causing delays to the bills.
Since that time, six of the homes in that area have been sold, and the new homeowners were not made aware of these potential charges.
Then, in October, the Township of Woolwich approved Bylaw 39-2025, which reportedly put in place a bylaw to charge property owners the costs of municipal servicing work that benefits their properties. Shortly after, the homeowners along Woolwich Street received that $14,000 bill from the township.
“We should have indicated to residents that this was occurring, and that there still would be levy charges, and that was a failure on the township for sure, and we certainly need to apologize for that,” said Jared Puppe, director of infrastructure services for the Township of Woolwich at Tuesday’s meeting.
Councillor Burgess’ motion also looked to give those residents an extra six months to decide which method of payment they would prefer, whether it is the full $14,000 up-front or over 20 years.
“This is one of the only jobs where there is almost no consequences, and we just say ‘Oops, sorry, I’ll do better next time, but you still have to pay for it,'” said Burgess. “This needs to change. Staff need to be held accountable, and we need to cover our mistakes for the residents.”
Council ultimately decided to turn down part of Burgess’ motion; however, they did opt to give residents a six-month grace period for making a decision on how they wanted to pay. Council decided to remove any interest charges for residents who decided to opt for the 20-year payment plan.
In your community
