Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

East Norriton supervisors authorize solicitor to oppose Aqua sewer rate increase

East Norriton Township Board of Supervisors · June 25, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The East Norriton Board of Supervisors voted to authorize the township solicitor to formally oppose Aqua Pennsylvania’s proposed sewer rate increase before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and to pursue further legal action if necessary.

The East Norriton Township Board of Supervisors voted Jan. 25 to authorize the township solicitor to oppose a proposed sewer rate increase filed by Aqua Pennsylvania at the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC). Township Manager stated the authorization makes East Norriton one of many municipalities joining the formal PUC process to oppose the utility’s request.

The move follows repeated public complaints at the meeting from residents who said recent sewer-related charges had risen substantially. Resident Eugene said his charges had increased “62%,” and urged township officials to act. Township Manager told the board the township is already a party to litigation with Aqua over previous rate matters and that this vote would authorize the solicitor to represent residents’ interests before the PUC in the new filing.

Manager described the PUC process as a technical hearing where utilities must justify rate requests and a consumer advocate and intervening municipalities may present opposing evidence. He said East Norriton has coordinated with state legislators and other municipalities and would return to the board for authorization of additional legal steps if the PUC approves the increase.

Board members asked questions about whether state funding or congressional action might offset local impacts; the manager said some state legislative measures are being discussed but stressed the PUC process is the immediate procedural route. After discussion, the board moved and seconded the authorization; the motion carried on an oral voice vote.

The board’s action does not itself guarantee outcomes at the PUC; it authorizes legal representation to file oppositions and participate in hearings. The township manager said staff and the solicitor will update residents and seek to contact affected homeowners directly when appropriate.

Next steps: the solicitor will file the township’s formal opposition at the PUC; the manager said the board will consider additional legal steps if the commission approves the rate request.