A BILL to amend and reenact § 15.2-2119.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to public utilities; discounted water and sewer fees; Town of Bowling Green.
HB844 amends Virginia Code § 15.2-2119.2, which authorizes certain localities to create discounted water and sewer fee programs for low-income, elderly, or disabled customers. The bill specifically adds the Town of Bowling Green to the list of localities that may, by ordinance, establish criteria for providing these discounts.
Under current law, the authority applies to the City of Richmond and to any locality that owns a water and sewer system and has a population density of 200 persons per square mile or less, as well as the Towns of Altavista and Louisa. HB844 would expand that list to include Bowling Green, giving the town the same discretionary authority to adopt a local utility discount program if it chooses.
The bill would have a narrow but direct effect on state law by amending a single statute governing local public utility fee relief. It does not mandate discounts statewide; instead, it extends optional authority to Bowling Green to create discounted water and sewer charges for qualifying low-income, elderly, or disabled residents. The practical impact would be limited to the Town of Bowling Green and any customers who meet locally adopted eligibility criteria.
The available legislative record suggests the bill was not controversial in committee, but it also did not advance: it was stricken from the docket by the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns by a 21-0 vote. That vote indicates unanimous committee support for removing it from consideration at that stage, though no transcript is available to show whether the action reflected agreement with the policy, procedural concerns, or a decision to defer the issue.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The only identifiable issue is the bill’s highly localized scope—extending authority to one town rather than creating a broader statewide policy—which may have limited debate. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded floor votes, there is no evidence of opposition from particular stakeholders, but the bill’s disposition suggests the committee chose not to move it forward.