Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Question About the Wastewater Issues

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    44

    Default Question About the Wastewater Issues

    Yesterday's Town Crier had an article which discussed the extremely large bills that users of the Wastewater Treatment Facility in the center of town have received. The article indicated that someone said that the Town Center (Twenty Wayland) is responsible for 86% of the use of the facility, but has only been billed for 60%, thus presumably resulting in other users, both commercial and residential, subsidizing Town Center's use of the facility. I am wondering if anyone is familiar enough with this situation to be able to answer a few questions that I have.

    1. Is this accurate? I am hoping that the answer is "no."
    2. If it is accurate, does anyone know how this happened?
    3. Is this problem related in any way to the issues raised in the Wastewater lawsuit brought by Twenty Wayland that recently resulted in a judgment against the Town in excess of $1 Million?
    4. If it's accurate, would it be legal for Twenty Wayland to pay less than its share of usage even if there is some sort of an agreement between the Town and Twenty Wayland? I am not familiar with the laws regulating enterprise fund activities, but it would be surprising to me if a result such as that reported in the Crier would be permissible.

    Any light that can be shed on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Lawrie,

    There are quite a few documents, a deposition, and a chronology of the Wastewater issues, posted on WaylandTransparency - http://www.waylandtransparency.com/wastewater.php .
    Hope this helps.
    - John
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1

    Default

    The answer is no. The 1999 Memorandum of Agreement states 20W shall pay their pro-rata share and they have a right to 45,000 gpd. At issue is the calculation of pro-rata share. If you add up all the “Design Capacity” on the system it comes to 76,000 gpd. Some users are suggesting 20W be calculated using the discharge limitation of 52,000 gpd (NPDES Permit) and everyone else be charged based on 76,000 gpd. The suggested way of calculating the pro-rata share is totally understandable given the size of the bills – they are very large. Ultimately, that solution would be short lived as 20W will likely take the Commission to court and claim they are being treated differently than every other user on the system which defies the concept of a pro-rata share. The cost of defending that matter in court would be borne by the users and only exacerbate an already bad situation with respect to costs. There are other solutions the Board of Selectman and the Commission will be exploring in the coming months based on a common treatment of every user on the system. I would encourage you to watch the WayCam videos of the past few Waste Water meetings where this issue has been discussed at length. It is a very complicated issue, to say the least.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Thank you.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •