“Through discussions with friends, neighbours and members of the Munster Community Association (MCA) executive, I have heard a great deal of negative feedback regarding this comment sheet.” – Karen Westerlaken, Member of MCA Executive, and MCA representative on the Public Liaison Committee (PLC).

“Respondents, myself included, felt that the primary factors regarding the environment were not valid selection criteria because all the proposed solutions would be required to meet legislated standards designed to protect the environment (in any case).” – Karen Westerlaken, Member of MCA Executive, and MCA representative on the Public Liaison Committee (PLC).

“Not sure how land use section could be interpreted.” – LD, 45 Butterfield

“…this question concerns 2 completely separate issues! Therefore an answer could not be provided…” – JE, 23 Butterfield  

“Even with the additional information attached I found some of the evaluations a little confusing – especially under Natural Environment and Social Environment.” - GG, 26 Butterfield

“The comment sheet and additional information are overwhelmingly complex / too technical.” “…questioned the validity of the process.” “…response may lead to a solution that they do not actually desire.” “…how could the individuals using the criteria begin to even guess what we as individuals find aesthetically pleasing or distasteful (?)” “…many respondents, including ourselves, wanted the opportunity to choose or rank the proposed solutions based on an unbiased summary of their pros and cons.” - K & F W, 22 Otterburn)

“I feel this comment sheet is incomprehensible.” (Sheet was not filled in.) -CK, 11 Lakewood Dr.

“This comment sheet is very technically written and difficult to complete. I seriously question whether it can give you the information from our Hamlet that you are seeking.” - L.O, 18 Otterburn

“This form is incomprehensible.” - D&J F, 39 Dogwood

“I have concerns regarding both respondents’ interpretation of the comment sheet and the ultimate interpretation of their responses.”  - Frank & Karen Westerlaken, (Karen is a member of MCA Executive, and MCA representative on the Public Liaison Committee (PLC)

“I understand the alternatives better than I understand these questions! I would like to see the alternative plans and vote on them directly.” - Blaine Agnew, 36 Butterwick (President of the Munster Community Association.)

“Very poorly written survey and info sheet – get Angus Reid to write survey if you can’t do it in layman’s terms.”  - GG, 26 Butterwick

“Questions and wording on survey confusing, should be more direct and straight forward.” - G&C B, 3 Bayberry

“This sheet is somewhat difficult to understand. The wording should be simple.” -  GN, 49 Butterfield.

“Have not got a clue to what is being asked.” A & D M,  8 Butterwick

"Forget about expanding the Lagoons." -  KH - 38 Dogwood Dr.

“We would just like to see the lagoons gone.” ST –7783 Bleeks Rd. 

“On site treatment should be looked at for a plant facility and get rid of the lagoons. – KL, 44 Owlshead Rd.

“...removal of lagoons.” – WS, 7975 Franktown Rd.

“The Lagoons must go! They are an open sore on the face of Munster: They’re out-moded, failure prone, poorly managed ---and any expanded version will still continue to pollute.” – RB, 8082 Copeland Rd.

“Strongly desire a replacement for the lagoons and not an expansion of the lagoons.” – (Name cut off by copying)

“Lagoons are ‘old’ technology and as such, are bound to fail in future no matter how they are refurbished. Hence the selected solution/option must eliminate the need for lagoon cells.” - (name cut off by Copy)

“We lived in the Hamlet in the 70’s and the lagoons were supposed to be a temporary thing then. It’s time to get rid of them now!” – SM, 7905 Franktown Rd.

“We need a proper system put in, not an expansion of this hazardous lagoon. – JL, 21 Cobblestone Court.

(Elimination of Lagoons, Implied:)
“…Concern of smell. We have days now when the air quality is poor.

“…(Concern regarding) possible seepage of lagoon contents into surrounding land and wells. Thus creating more problems.” – G&C B, 3 Bayberry Lane.

(Elimination of Lagoons, Implied:)
“The fact that Munster is on a community well system means that extra attention must be given to groundwater quality and availability.” – BB, 4 Coolbrook Court. 

(Elimination of Lagoons, Implied:)
“…(It) is my concern being on well and septic that no contamination of the aquifer occur.” – (Name cut off by copying.)

“Given the length of time that the lagoons have been an issue, most residents would like the problem solved and forgotten.” K&F W, 22 Otterburn Ave.

“A new approach may be the best technical and economic alternative. It may also offer better capital cost…” R & S H – 24 Otterburn

“Do not want to be subject to any monthly or annual billing upon completion of system.” - S&MK 25 Butterfield Rd.

“While cost is always a factor, efficiency must be a priority.” – BB, 4 Coolbrook Cresc.

“Perhaps the most important consideration should be the safety of the system and the cost to Munster taxpayers after it is up and running. – GN, 49 Butterfield Dr.

“With the more modern technology available today there should be a way to accomplish these objectives at a cost, approximately equal to the original lagoon upgrade plan.”  - (Name cut off by copying.)

“We want to know how much it is going to cost, how effective the solution will be and if there will be room for growth. – D&J F, 39 DogwoodDr.