Below is a summary of the discussion from the March 13, 2025 meeting, organized by key speakers and their main points. The meeting involved the MWRA (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority) Executive Committee and Advisory Board, discussing a letter from Reading resident Paul Silva regarding the fairness of entrance fees, particularly for the Town of Reading. – Our interpretation from being at the meeting was favorable with more research to be done, though reading this recap may hint otherwise. We requested the Zoom recording and will post the video when we hear back.
Meeting Overview
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025
Start Time: 10:15AM
Format: Hybrid (in-person and Zoom)
Summary of the Meeting
The executive committee meeting addressed a letter from Mr. Silva of Reading, MA, objecting to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) policy of waiving entrance fees for new communities, if nothing was done for Reading. Mr. Silva enthusiastically supported the 2022 waiving decision in general. Reading representatives argued that their town paid a disproportionately high entrance fee of $11 million compared to other communities and requested a refund, citing fairness and the impact on their high water rates. The committee reviewed the history of the entrance fee policy, which was based on capital costs and depreciation, and noted that a 2022 advisory board recommendation to waive fees for new entrants was supported by legal counsel’s opinion that refunds for past fees were not required. While Reading’s representatives pushed for reconsideration, committee members expressed hesitation about revisiting past decisions due to prior deliberations and potential broader implications. The meeting concluded with a directive for advisory board staff to collaborate with MWRA staff to gather more data on entrance fees paid by Reading and other communities, with plans to revisit the issue later. No formal decision was made.
Speakers and Their Contributions
- Mr. Richard Raiche (Executive Committee Chair):
- Provided background on the entrance fee waiver, referencing a letter from Mr. Silva and prior discussions.
- Explained that the advisory board recommended the waiver in 2022 after extensive analysis, including consultation with outside counsel who determined refunds were not legally required.
- Concluded by directing staff to work with MWRA to gather more data for future discussion.
- Mr. Matt Kraunelis (Reading Town Manager, Town Representative):
- Spoke on behalf of Reading, endorsing Mr. Silva’s letter and arguing that the town paid a disproportionately high entrance fee ($11 million) compared to others.
- Emphasized the unfairness of waiving fees for new entrants while Reading bore a significant burden, affecting their high water rates (third highest in the state).
- Urged the committee to reconsider and refund some or all of Reading’s entrance fee as a matter of “fundamental fairness.”
- Mr. Paul Silva (Reading Resident, Letter Author):
- Authored the letter objecting to the waiver policy, arguing that Reading overpaid based on actual water usage (608 million gallons annually vs. a projected 766.5 million gallons).
- Highlighted that the 2022 waiver decision mirrored conditions in 2008 when Reading joined (excess water capacity, profitability, and contamination issues), suggesting the policy should have been waived earlier, avoiding Reading’s high fee.
- Provided figures showing Reading paid $11 million of the $25 million total entrance fees collected from six communities, with Stoughton at $5.6 million as the next highest.
- Mr. Chris Haley (Reading Select Board Member):
- Supported the refund request, noting Reading overpaid by $2.248 million due to lower-than-projected water usage.
- Suggested a partial refund of at least this amount to ease the burden on water rates, which he noted were among the state’s highest (e.g., $12.97 per unit vs. Brookline’s $3).
- Ms. Melissa Murphy (Reading Select Board Member):
- Sought clarification on the $25 million in total entrance fees, questioning how Reading could account for $11 million of it across 60+ MWRA communities.
- Reinforced the fairness argument, suggesting this disparity warranted action.
- Mr. Michael Smith (Representative Brad Jones’ Office, Reading):
- Represented State Representative Jones, reiterating support for Reading’s refund request.
- Acknowledged no legal obligation existed but urged a fairness-based solution, such as refunding the $2.248 million over-payment cited by Mr. Haley.
- Mr. Dean (Executive Committee Member):
- Asked clarifying questions about whether entrance fees were fully paid or amortized, learning Reading paid its $11 million via debt in 2007, not amortized through MWRA.
- Questioned the broader impact of refunding all $25 million in past fees, noting it would alter the economics of the 2022 waiver decision.
- Mr. Pappastergion (Executive Committee Member):
- Requested specific data on the $25 million in entrance fees, including how much of Reading’s $11 million remained outstanding (answered as fully paid via debt).
- Emphasized needing more information on the implications of refunds across all communities, reserving further comment until data was available.
- Mr. McGee (Executive Committee Member):
- Recalled the robust, non-unanimous debate leading to the 2022 waiver, suggesting the process was thorough and deliberate.
- Noted Reading’s concerns were raised via email at the time but did not recall specifics, cautioning against reopening settled decisions.
- Mr. Newton (Executive Committee Member):
- Opposed rewriting history due to unintended consequences but was open to relief if Reading’s fee was miscalculated due to MWRA constraints.
- Suggested treating Reading’s case separately from the 2022 waiver and assessing all communities’ fees to avoid isolated action.
- Mr. Hersey (Executive Committee Member, Brookline):
- Stressed the need for more information, including legal input from MWRA counsel on current agreements, to determine viable actions.
Key Outcomes
- No Decision Made: The committee did not vote or commit to a refund, opting instead for further investigation.
- Data Collection Assigned: Advisory board and MWRA staff were tasked with compiling detailed entrance fee histories for Reading and other communities.
- Future Discussion Planned: The issue will be revisited once additional data is available, balancing Reading’s fairness claims against broader policy implications.
