An Act to amend and reenact § 15.2-2119.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to public utilities; discounted water and sewer fees; Town of Hurt.
HB764 amends Virginia Code § 15.2-2119.2 to authorize the Town of Hurt, along with the City of Richmond, certain low-density localities that own water and sewer systems, and the Towns of Altavista and Louisa, to adopt ordinances establishing criteria for discounted water and sewer fees and charges. The discounts are intended for low-income, elderly, or disabled customers.
The bill does not require any locality to offer discounted rates; it simply expands the list of local governments that may choose to do so. In practical terms, it gives the Town of Hurt explicit statutory authority to create a local utility assistance program for qualifying residents if it decides to enact one.
The bill makes a targeted amendment to local-government authority under § 15.2-2119.2 of the Code of Virginia. Its effect is limited to adding the Town of Hurt to the set of localities permitted to establish discounted water and sewer fee programs for low-income, elderly, or disabled customers, while leaving the underlying discretionary nature of the program unchanged. The bill affects local water and sewer system operators and the residents who may qualify for reduced utility charges.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote debate, so there is no documented controversy or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s subject matter and final enactment suggest a generally favorable, noncontroversial approach focused on local flexibility and utility affordability for vulnerable residents. Its approval as chapter law indicates it advanced successfully through the legislative process.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. The only substantive policy choice in the bill is whether to extend optional discounted utility-fee authority to the Town of Hurt, and the text preserves local discretion rather than imposing a statewide mandate. If any concern existed, it would likely have centered on local revenue impacts or the scope of eligibility criteria, but those issues are not documented here.