Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Westport Water Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mediator recommends settlement in Westport overdue water dispute; city water board asks council to accept terms
Summary
A third‑party mediator recommended Westport pay $293,000 to Fall River to settle disputed past due bills covering 2016–2021; the Watuppa Water Board presented the mediation result to the council and discussed a new intermunicipal agreement that would add interest and penalties and require commercial meters for flushing.
The Watuppa Water Board and city utilities officials told the City Council that a mediator recommended a compromise settlement of $293,000 to resolve a dispute with the town of Westport over alleged underpayments for water sold from 2016 through 2021.
Paul Furlan, administrator of community utilities, told councilors the water board hired an independent mediator after a years‑long dispute over credits for meter flushing and other adjustments. The two sides had produced markedly different calculations: Fall River said water recorded at the town line but not credited for end‑of‑line flushing totaled roughly $607,602.65 in payments received against a billed amount that the city calculates at about $900,000; Westport’s methodology, the mediator reported, produced a smaller net claim and the town asserted a $24,000 overpayment under its interpretation.
Furlan said the mediator’s letter recommended a “fair and reasonable compromise” and cited $293,000 as the settlement figure the mediator proposed. Jim Theriault, president of the Watuppa Water Board, told councilors the water board reviewed the mediator’s report and asked the council to accept presentation of the mediator’s determination and to allow the water board and city administration to move forward in negotiating a new intermunicipal agreement with clearer terms.
Councilors questioned the methodology and pressed for clarity on credits that Westport should have provided for flushing and on why the differences between the two sides’ calculations were so large. In response, officials said Westport’s earlier use of residential meters on hydrant flushes likely “overran” and damaged those meters; Westport has since switched to commercial‑grade ultrasonic meters for flushing and has been providing credits on a more regular basis.
Under the mediation timeline described by staff, Westport would make payment at the start of the next fiscal year; staff said the town had asked to pay in July 2025. The existing intermunicipal agreement expired in 2023 and the city expects to negotiate a replacement that would explicitly include late fees, interest and dispute‑resolution provisions. Officials emphasized that turning off water to a municipality would trigger public‑health and legal complications and is not a viable collection tactic.
Ending: The council did not adopt a binding settlement at the meeting; it received the water board presentation and asked staff to return with the finalized mediator report and draft intermunicipal agreement language for the council to review before any final execution.
