---------------------------> Joel R. Anderson
13 George Drive
Old Saybrook CT 06475-2636
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
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.