BANGOR – Citing the need for more information Tuesday, a Bangor City Council committee tabled action on what to do about the more than $200,000 the city estimates it overcharged the town of Hampden for wastewater treatment over a 29-month period.

A meter installed in July 2001 in Hampden was improperly programmed – apparently one parameter in the complex system was off – and Hampden was assessed a higher flow rate from August 2001 until December 2003.

In negotiations with the city since this spring, Hampden has asked for repayment through reduced future payments it makes to the city over the course of 33 months.

In the spirit of being neighborly, and acknowledging that they’d want repayment if the situation was reversed, members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee indicated a willingness to continue to work with Hampden.

But councilors wanted more information, including further details about how the cost estimates were determined.

Just how much Hampden was overcharged will never be known, but both municipalities conducted their own reviews and came with estimates.

Brad Moore, superintendent of the Bangor Waste Water Treatment Plant, said Hampden’s calculations included some months where the flow was below the lowest flow levels Hampden had ever seen.

Bangor’s calculations compared months in the four years prior to the problem where the total flow into the plant was similar to the months in question and then used the percentage Hampden contributed

to the total in those months.

It was the uncertainty over the figures that concerned Councilor Gerry Palmer and prompted him to ask the city staff to provide more details for the committee’s next meeting in about two weeks.

“It would seem to me that this is anything but scientific as to how much has come and gone,” Palmer said.

Committee members also asked whether others had liability and if the 33-month proposed repayment plan could be extended to further spread out the burden.

Councilor Geoffrey Gratwick said he didn’t want to become entangled in a legal hassle, but wanted to know whether the company that installed the meter was being held accountable.

He said the company not only programmed it incorrectly, but failed to pick up on the mistake during subsequent yearly checks.

“We expect full service and I think we’ve gotten poor service from this particular person,” Gratwick said.