OSWPCA: Sunshine / Clean Water Fund (CWF) Termination Application Exhibit A - 07Sep2013

Text facsimile

---------------------------> Joel R. Anderson

                             13 George Drive
                             Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
                             860 388-9858
                             oswpca.com / govtwork.org
                             7 September 2013
WPCA Chairman Elsa Payne
Old Saybrook Town Hall
302 Main St
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2369

Dear Chairman Payne:

Re EXHIBIT A accompanying WPCA's "Clean Water Fund Program Application Termination" letter.

"Box A. [ ] I accept Clean Water Funds .... "A 25% grant from the CWF and a matching 25% from the Town is applied to the cost of the upgrade, with the remaining 50% payable by the homeowner as a 20-year loan at 2%."

The Exhibit A language cited in the CWF Program Application Termination was not part of the Exhibit A language of the 02Apr2010 NOEL, nor the Exhibit A language of the 16Feb2012 FINAL WARNING.

Where does the "50% payable by the homeowner" come from?

Question 2 of the 11Aug09 referendum said that the Town would pay for design and construction. Question 2 didn't say that owners would pay 50%, or that the Town would pay 25%.

Aren't you worried by DPH Commissioner Mullen's 21Mar2012, "Your correspondence included a copy of Exhibit A (Application for Initial Investigation and Upgrade of Septic System...) and Form #1 from this Department's Technical Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems. In your letter you asked whether the Department approved Exhibit A as equivalent to Form #1 in accordance with Public Health Code Section 19-13- B103e (c) (2) (B). The answer to your question is no."

Why are property owners within the WWMD being asked to pay anything at all?

Why would anyone pay for a septic upgrade when the Town, by referendum, agreed to pay by overwhelming majority vote?

The decision to have a Wastewater Management District was made by qualified electors in a town-wide referendum, not by a referendum of property owners whose properties would be impacted by a Yes-vote. There's a difference between 'qualified electors,' and 'WWMD property owners.' Many of the latter were disqualifed as electors, leading to the Town now taxing without representation. It would be difficult to be more unconstitutional.

Aren't you worried that the new 04Sep2013 Application Termination, Exhibit A, Box A language is going to come back to bite you?

Where is the disclosure under "Termination" Exhibit A, Box A, that taking a CWF loan opens the door to a second assessment at the end of the WWMD upgrade project to pay all unallocated costs remaining; legal, engineering, and administrative?
                             Very truly yours,

                             Joel R. Anderson

N.B: a copy of this letter is posted to oswpca.com.
  Electronic and paper copies have been distributed
  to interested parties.