Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Utility Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lock Haven water authority disputes council claim of 30‑day transfer deadline
Summary
A representative of the Lock Haven Water Authority told council members that a resolution reported in the press and attributed a 30‑day deadline was unsigned and that the authority did not receive a signed transfer agreement until February 2025, disputing claims that it had delayed a planned transfer of assets to the city.
A representative of the Lock Haven Water Authority told the Lock Haven City Council on Feb. 25 that press coverage and language used at a prior council meeting misstated the authority’s actions and created unnecessary animosity.
The authority representative said an unsigned copy of a November 25, 2024, resolution circulated in the news contained no 30‑day deadline and that neither the authority nor its solicitor had received a signed copy. "None of this is true," the authority representative said of the news reporting and of assertions that authority members had "dragged their feet." He said the authority’s solicitor received a draft transfer agreement from the city in September 2024 but received the latest draft only in February 2025 along with a new resolution that does contain a 30‑day provision.
The representative said the authority has not resisted a city takeover of water assets and that the authority recognizes the city's legal ability to assume control, but added that the authority lacked clear guidance and had not been provided an actionable timeline by city staff or council. He also described a complex chain of written communications among solicitors, counsel and managers that, in his view, hindered direct, face‑to‑face problem solving.
Council members and members of the public responded with questions about whether a 30‑day deadline had been communicated in writing; one council member said she had seen a paper indicating a 30‑day requirement but had not brought it to the meeting. The authority representative urged renewed direct meetings — including reactivating the committee formed to discuss consolidation of the two water systems — and offered to meet to resolve outstanding coordination points.
The authority representative also described outstanding Public Utility Commission (PUC) filing costs that had been advanced and partially reimbursed, and he said specifics of reimbursements were unclear in some correspondence. He said a city response to a December 11 letter provided little information and warned that continued friction would make cooperation harder.
Why it matters: The transfer of water system assets affects operations, pending PUC filings and the allocation of substantial costs related to system consolidation. Council members said they want clearer, more frequent direct communication and suggested re‑establishing the transition committee to set meeting dates and move toward resolution.
The record indicates the matter remains under discussion; the authority representative requested clearer, direct engagement rather than public accusations while the authority awaits a signed transfer agreement and more explicit guidance on any statutory or resolution deadlines.
