By Patrick Anderson
Staff writer
March 26, 2008 07:11 am SALEM — A Superior Court judge questioned Essex' reading of the contract that allows the town to connect to the Gloucester sewer system yesterday during the first hearing connected with the town's lawsuit against the city for alleged overcharges for sewage treatment. Judge Maureen Hogan, presiding in Essex County Superior Court in Salem in a proceeding on the town's request for a preliminary injunction to block payment of part of its latest sewer bill while the suit is being resolved, asked Town Attorney Gregg Corbo to explain a section of the contract that says the town should pay "the same rate paid by Gloucester residential users." Hogan said the language in the contract suggested that by joining the city sewer system, the town was "bound by the rate system." Hogan did not issue a decision on the injunction yesterday. Essex is asking the courts to award it $110,000 in damages from Gloucester, plus interest and legal expenses, for what it says the city has overcharged since it connected to the system. At the heart of the town's claim is an assertion that the connection agreement excludes it from paying for construction or facility improvements that benefit only the city. The town says charges to pay for the city's $40 million combined sewer overflow project — work intended to prevent stormwater runoff from overwhelming the sewer system and diverting wastewater into Gloucester Harbor — have sent the town's bills skyrocketing. The lawsuit cites passages in the municipal agreement outlining Essex' responsibilities to pay for improvements to parts of the system "affected by Essex effluent." Because capital improvements to the system not caused by or directly benefiting the town are not mentioned, the town contends, their costs should not be included in its bills. Gloucester has countered that these passages dealing with parts of the system affected by the town's use do not exclude Essex from paying for other capital costs. City officials have cited the passage mentioned by Hogan that says Essex should be charged like other residential ratepayers as evidence of the intent of the contract. Corbo, responding to Hogan's questions about the passage and whether it meant Essex should be treated like other ratepayers, said the language referred to maintenance and operating costs, not construction and capital improvements. "To ask Essex residents to bear such a heavy burden for something their selectmen didn't bargain for warrants injunctive relief," Corbo said. The injunction, if granted, would prevent Essex from having to immediately pay around $26,000 of a total $78,000 bill owed to the city town consultants have said is directly related to the overflow project. Gloucester Attorney Linda Lowe said the city would allow the town to not pay the bill until a ruling on the injunction is made.
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.