Your Water and Sewer Bills Are Set to Rise in 2027. Here’s What East Brunswick’s Council Advanced Monday

East Brunswick residents will likely pay more for water and sewer service starting Jan. 1, 2027.

At its Nov. 9 meeting, the Township Council introduced two ordinances that raise water and sewer rates. Water rates are set for each year through 2031; sewer rates are set for 2027 and 2028. Neither ordinance is final. Both return for a public hearing and a final vote on Monday, Nov. 23, at 7:30 p.m.

The council also approved a new four-year contract with the township’s police union, introduced the salary ordinances that put it into effect, and moved $923,000 between accounts in the 2026 municipal budget. That transfer includes an extra $200,000 for legal services. A resident asked publicly what the legal money is for, and no official answered that question on the record.

The council also signed off on another partial transfer of the Vermella redevelopment’s PILOT agreement, from one developer company to a new one under the same owners. It was approved with little explanation. No one at the meeting mentioned how much the project pays.

The meeting ran about an hour. All five council members were present.

What happens to your water bill

The water ordinance (Ordinance 26-32) sets the quarterly meter fee and the charge for each 1,000 gallons used, year by year through 2031.

For the smallest meters (5/8-inch, 3/4-inch and 1-inch), which most homes have:

*Today’s rates are those currently billed. The 2027–2031 figures come from the ordinance in the council’s agenda packet.

In 2027 the small-meter fee stays at $44. The increase that year is in the consumption rate, which is about 9% higher than today. The meter fee then rises a dollar or two a year, reaching $50 a quarter in 2031. By 2031 the consumption rate would be about 23% higher than today.

The ordinance says the township’s water utility has “absorbed three rate increases from Middlesex Water Company” since 2020, along with the higher cost of capital improvements to the water system.

What officials said it will cost you. When a council member pressed for “real numbers” for an average household, Dan Lysak, the township’s director of public works, water and sewer, said a home with a 1-inch or smaller meter using about 18,000 gallons a quarter would pay $9.72 more per quarter for water, or roughly $40 a year. He put the combined increase for water and sewer at roughly $60 a year (51:25).

Eyes on EB checked that figure against the rate tables, and it holds up. At 18,000 gallons, the 54-cent increase per 1,000 gallons comes to exactly $9.72 a quarter. The meter fee doesn’t change in 2027. The bill would grow again each year after that, as both the consumption rate and the meter fee keep rising through 2031.

What happens to your sewer bill

The sewer ordinance (Ordinance 26-33) raises the flat residential sewer charge from $320 a year to $340 a year in 2027, or $85 a quarter. In 2028 it rises to $87 a quarter.

Administrator Joseph Criscuolo said residents now pay $80 a quarter. He said that is still well below neighboring towns. He cited $140 a quarter in the town where he lives and $170 in South Brunswick (48:02). Eyes on EB has not independently verified the neighboring-town figures.

For commercial customers, the ordinance sets a charge for flow above 12,000 gallons a quarter at $2.30 per 1,000 gallons in 2027 and $2.40 in 2028. It sets a high-strength surcharge at $4.00 and $4.25.

Why officials say rates have to rise

Criscuolo gave the council a long explanation of the increases (43:05). He pointed to:

• Middlesex Water Company increases. The township buys its water from Middlesex Water, which he said has raised its rates three times since East Brunswick last raised its own. He said Middlesex Water’s cost is “the lion’s share” of the water budget. He also cited new PFAS treatment equipment on the line that supplies East Brunswick. He said Lysak has testified before the state Board of Public Utilities on the supplier’s rate requests.
• Route 18 water main. He said the township’s share of replacing the water line along Route 18 was in the millions of dollars. The township bonded for that work and for service-line replacement.
• Lead and galvanized service lines. The township is still replacing them.
• Sewer treatment costs. East Brunswick’s sewage is pumped down Route 18 to the Middlesex County Utilities Authority plant in Sayreville. The township pays for treatment based on volume and on what the wastewater contains.
• Aging infrastructure. He said the township is reaching the end of the service life of 50-year-old lines. It recently replaced a sewer pump station on Old Stage Road.

Criscuolo said a rate consultant had recommended raising sewer fees two years ago. The township held off because new connection fees from residential developments covered the gap.

A council member stressed that the water and sewer utilities are run as separate, self-funding operations, outside the general municipal budget. Their costs are paid by ratepayers, not by property taxes. The member also said the utilities need “healthy balances in fund balance” to handle emergencies without borrowing.

Lysak encouraged residents who have galvanized or possible lead service lines, or who need a meter replaced, to contact the utility. He said the township will replace those lines.

All five council members voted to introduce the water ordinance. The sewer ordinance was also introduced. Four “yes” votes are clearly audible; the council president’s vote is not audible in the recording.

A resident’s questions, and what went unanswered

During public comment, Zahid Mahmood of Tall Oaks Drive focused on transparency around the rate changes (23:20).

Mahmood said he understood that costs rise over time. But he said residents deserve to know why increases are needed and how they were calculated. He asked:

• Notification. Have residents been told about the proposed increases directly, through a utility-bill insert or a mailing, beyond the legal notice?
• Clarity. He said the ordinance documents were hard to follow. The redlining suggested that unmarked text was unchanged, but whole rate tables had been replaced. He asked for a side-by-side comparison of current rates, proposed rates, effective dates and percentage increases.
• Reserves. Citing the township’s 2025 audited financial statements, he said both utilities ended 2025 with multimillion-dollar operating fund balances and with revenues exceeding expenditures. He also noted that the 2026 utility budgets anticipate using surplus. He asked how those balances were factored into the new rates.
• What’s driving it. For water, how much of the increase comes from Middlesex Water and how much from the township’s own operating and capital needs? For sewer, which specific costs justify the change?
• Legal spending. What changed since the budget was adopted to require an extra $200,000 for legal services? Is it tied to litigation, a particular matter or a contract?

Officials did not respond during public comment. Afterward, Criscuolo’s explanation and Lysak’s dollar estimates addressed part of what Mahmood asked: the drivers of the increase and the cost to a typical household. Criscuolo noted that Mahmood had left the meeting by then.

Several of Mahmood’s questions were not answered on the record:

• whether ratepayers will be notified directly;
• how the utilities’ fund balances were weighed;
• how much of the water increase comes from Middlesex Water;
• what the extra $200,000 in legal spending is for.

Council President Dana Zimbicki said the rate ordinances would be discussed further at the Nov. 23 public hearing, and that residents who need more information should ask for it (36:21).

The $923,000 budget transfer

Under state law, towns may move money between budget lines in the last two months of the fiscal year. The money comes from accounts with more than they need and goes to accounts that are running short. The transfer needs a two-thirds vote of the full council.

Resolution 26-323 moves $923,000 within the township’s main operating fund, the Current Fund. It passed 5–0 (37:03). It was described from the dais only in general terms, as moving money “from one account label to another.” No member discussed individual lines before the vote.

Where the money comes from (largest amounts):

• Police salaries and wages: $225,000
• Salary adjustment account: $150,000
• Engineering salaries and wages: $145,000
• Compensated absences: $100,000
• DPW administration salaries: $85,000
• Parks salaries: $70,000

Where it goes (largest amounts):

• Capital improvements: $300,000
• Legal services, other expenses: $200,000
• Street lighting: $113,000
• DPW recycling salaries: $85,000
• Planning Board, other expenses: $40,000
• Daisy (Camp Daisy) salaries: $40,000

Smaller transfers also moved money within the water, parking and pool utility budgets.

A year-end transfer does not raise the total budget or the tax levy. It does show where spending ran above or below plan. Here, salary lines came in under budget, while legal costs, street lighting and capital needs ran over.

Police contracts approved; salary ordinances introduced

As part of the consent agenda, the council approved a collective bargaining agreement with the Policemen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) Local 145 covering Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2029 (Resolution 26-324). The previous contract expired at the end of 2025. Township Attorney Anthony Iacocca noted a typo for the record: the resolution says “BPA” where it should say “PBA.”

The council then introduced two salary ordinances, both retroactive to Jan. 1, 2026:

• Ordinance 26-31 (PBA Local 145). Top-step police officer pay rises from $144,939 in 2026 to $149,650 in 2027, $154,513 in 2028 and $159,535 in 2029. That is 3.25% a year. For officers hired since 2019, each step on the salary guide rises 6.6% in 2027 and 3.25% in 2028 and in 2029.
• Ordinance 26-30 (Superior Officers Association, SOA 145A). Raises are about 4% to 4.8% in 2027 and 2028 and 3.5% in 2029. Sergeants go from $154,906 in 2026 to $175,265 in 2029. Deputy chiefs go from $203,113 to $228,456.

Both ordinances also require officers who retire with township health coverage to contribute 1.5% of their annual pension toward premiums until they and their spouses are eligible for Medicare.

The agenda packet does not include the 2025 salaries, so it doesn’t show how much the 2026 pay rose over the year before. The township has not released a total cost for either contract.

Votes (40:36):

• Ordinance 26-30 (superior officers): 4 yes; Councilwoman Dana Consoli-Winston abstained.
• Ordinance 26-31 (PBA): 4 yes (Councilmen Dinesh Behal, Kevin McEvoy and Jim Wendell, and Council President Zimbicki); Consoli-Winston abstained.
• No reason for either abstention was given on the recording.

One council member thanked the mayor, the administrator, the township’s lawyers and the police for what the member called long negotiations on both contracts.

Two other salary ordinances were pulled. At the start of the meeting, Criscuolo removed from the agenda Ordinances 26-27 and 26-28. They set 2027 pay for employees in the United Services Workers Union Local 255 (formerly the MEA) and in the Professional Managers Association, executive staff and confidential employees. No reason was given.

A third salary ordinance, 26-29, sets 2027 pay for temporary, part-time and seasonal workers. It was introduced 4–0, with Zimbicki abstaining.

Vermella: another piece of the PILOT deal moves to a new developer company

The council approved Resolution 26-336 and introduced Ordinance 26-34. Both deal with the Vermella redevelopment on Route 18 and its long-term tax agreement. Under that agreement, the developer makes payments in lieu of taxes, known as a PILOT, instead of paying conventional property taxes.

What was said in the room and what the documents establish are two different things, so we report them separately.

What was said at the meeting

All of the Vermella discussion came from Township Attorney Anthony Iacocca, during his report (16:09).

He said Resolution 26-336 “authorizes the partial assignment of a financial agreement between East Brunswick Development and the township,” and that “there’s also a corresponding ordinance which authorizes the same partial assignment.”

“As you may recall, there is a financial agreement between the township and East Brunswick Development LLC as to Vermella,” Iacocca said. “The state statute and these agreements allow the developer to transfer part of the financial agreements when they obtain loan financing when they’re building out.”

He described this as a repeat of a step the council took a year ago:

“Last year when Vermella was doing residential building A, the township authorized a partial assignment with regard to a single purpose entity that the developer formed which was known as East Brunswick Development 3. Tonight we have a similar partial assignment … to a new single purpose entity. It’s from Vermella and it’s called East Brunswick Development 2, and this is for the financing of residential building B.” (16:53)

Council President Dana Zimbicki asked only for the item numbers, and Iacocca gave them: Ordinance 26-34 and Resolution 26-336 (17:43).

That was the entire discussion. During the rest of the meeting:

• No one discussed PILOT money. No one mentioned how much Vermella pays or will pay the township, and no PILOT payment amounts or revenue figures were mentioned at all.
• No one discussed who gets the money. There was no mention of how PILOT revenue is split among the township, the county or the school district.
• No one asked questions. No council member asked about the assignment or the existing PILOT arrangement, and no member of the public commented on Vermella.
• No other officials spoke on it. Mayor Brad Cohen and Administrator Joseph Criscuolo said nothing about Vermella.

The resolution passed 5–0 as part of the consent agenda, with no separate discussion (39:36).

When the ordinance came up later, Zimbicki introduced it as the ordinance Iacocca had described “for the easements.” That mixed it up with two unrelated easement resolutions, and the clerk corrected it to “partial assignment” (58:25). The clerk then read the title, and the ordinance was introduced 5–0 without discussion (59:07). It returns for a public hearing and final vote on Nov. 23.

What the documents show

The agenda packet includes the two-party agreement being approved, called a “Partial Assignment and Assumption of Financial Agreement.” Here is what it does, in plain terms:

• Who is involved. The original developer company, EB Development Urban Renewal LLC, hands its rights and duties under the PILOT agreement for one parcel to a new company, EB Development II Urban Renewal LLC. The township consents. Both companies list the same address, 570 Commerce Boulevard in Carlstadt, and the signature blocks name Edward Russo as manager of both. The documents say the new company is “commonly owned and controlled by the same parties.”
• Which land. The land is a portion of Block 26.01, Lot 12.02, which the documents say is still to be subdivided.
• What gets built. The agreement describes the project on this parcel as “the townhome Project.” That doesn’t match Iacocca’s description of “residential building B.” See “Open questions” below.
• The deal’s terms don’t change. The new company must “assume and abide by all terms and conditions” of the existing financial agreement and redevelopment agreement. Neither the resolution nor the ordinance contains any dollar figures, or changes any payment formula, tax rate or term.
• A separate PILOT start date. The parcel becomes its own “phase,” with an annual service charge start date “separate and apart from the remainder of the Project.” The annual service charge is the PILOT payment. So the clock for PILOT payments on these units runs separately, and the new company is billed as its own entity.
• Defaults are separated. If one company defaults on its obligations, that is not a default by the other. In practical terms, the township would have to enforce payment against each company separately.
• Fees are divided. The new company pays the administrative fee for its parcel, and the original developer still owes the “Supplemental Administration Fee” for the overall project.
• It can be transferred again without a vote. The new company may later merge with, or transfer the parcel to, the owner of an adjacent lot “for which the consent of the Township shall not be required,” as long as the new owner is also a qualified urban renewal entity.

So does this change the township’s PILOT revenue? Nothing in the documents changes what is owed. The agreement moves existing obligations for one parcel from one developer company to another, under the same owners. The practical changes are about who pays, when that parcel’s payments start and how the township would collect if something went wrong, not how much.

The documents don’t state what Vermella currently pays, what it is projected to pay, or how the payments are shared. That information was not presented on Monday.

Background (not discussed Monday)

This is not the first change to the Vermella agreement. Township records show that in November 2025 the council adopted two Vermella ordinances:

• Ordinance 25-37, an “Amended and Restated Financial Agreement” with EB Development Urban Renewal LLC and EB Development III Urban Renewal LLC;
• Ordinance 25-38, the partial assignment to EB Development III that Iacocca referred to. Those records describe EB Development III’s parcel as townhome property.

Open questions

Eyes on EB will look for answers to these before the Nov. 23 hearing:

• Is the EB Development II parcel townhomes, as the agreement says, or “residential building B,” as described from the dais?
• Monday’s documents cite the original financial agreement “dated May 13, 2021.” They do not mention the amended and restated agreement adopted in 2025. Which version governs this parcel?
• The ordinance’s title names “EB Development III,” but its text and the attached agreement name EB Development II. Will the title be corrected before adoption?
• The resolution approved Monday already authorizes the mayor to sign the assignment, while the matching ordinance won’t be adopted until Nov. 23. What does each approval do?
• When does the PILOT start for this parcel, and what are the projected annual payments?

Safe Routes to School grant for Hatikvah intersection

As part of the consent agenda, the council authorized a $478,000 grant application to NJDOT and the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe Routes to School program (Resolution 26-331). The money would pay for pedestrian improvements at the intersection by the Hatikvah School.

This only authorizes the township to apply. It is not an award, and no project has been designed or scheduled. The resolution does not say whether the township must contribute matching money.

Other actions

All of the following passed 5–0 as part of the consent agenda unless noted:

• Tabled: amphitheater design change order (Resolution 26-325). This item would have increased Suburban Consulting Engineers’ contract for the Community Arts Center amphitheater design from $84,785 to $86,615. A council member asked to hold it until the township engineer can explain the change and why all bids on the project were rejected (37:46). The motion to table passed 4–1, with McEvoy voting no. The item is expected back Nov. 23.
• Plumbing contract: two years, up to $200,000, to Robert Griggs Plumbing & Heating (Resolution 26-332).
• Liquor license transfer: Jersey Fine Wines’ retail license to LiquorCave KVS LLC, doing business as Liquor Cave (Resolution 26-326).
• Grants added to the budget: $32,165.01 from the national opioid settlement and $3,907.78 for Middlesex County’s Operation Blue Care Helping Hands (Resolutions 26-327 and 26-328). The council also accepted a $23,469 grant for a Municipal Alliance strategic plan (Resolution 26-335).
• Easements at 15 Kerschner Lane and 10 Tracy Drive. Iacocca said these are routine conditions of Planning Board subdivision approvals (Resolutions 26-333 and 26-334).
• Appointment: Maryjo Phillips to the Commission on Aging (Resolution 26-330).
• Bill list: $4,561,273.49 (Resolution 26-337).

Other public comments

Kevin Sexton: election remarks from the dais, and a call for nonpartisan elections

Resident Kevin Sexton spoke for about three and a half minutes (28:57). He said this election cycle, “both in these chambers and online, has felt different.”

He criticized several things:

• The challengers. He called it “highly irregular” that council candidates running against the incumbents used council meetings “as a platform to present their positions.” He added, “I also wonder why they felt they had to. Why were there no candidate forums or debates as there have been in past years?”
• The Democratic chairman. He said the chairman of the East Brunswick Democratic Organization had used the public podium “to deliver what felt like a planned rebuttal to those candidates.”
• A council member’s appeal from the dais:

“Imagine my surprise when, while listening to last week’s meeting, I heard an elected council person speaking from the dais in their official capacity ask residents to go out and support the incumbent ticket. I would welcome the Township Attorney’s position on this, but in my opinion this request was at best a lapse in judgment and at worst a potential violation of established ethics standards. Using an official position to seek an electoral advantage is not what this dais is meant for.” (29:42)

Sexton did not name the council member. The council’s previous meeting was on Oct. 26, two weeks earlier, not the week before. According to the township’s EBTV recording of that meeting, Councilman Jim Wendell, then a candidate for re-election, asked residents from the dais to support himself and his running mates, Councilman Kevin McEvoy and Councilwoman Dana Consoli-Winston (Oct. 26 video, 1:29:00).

No official responded to Sexton, and Township Attorney Anthony Iacocca did not offer a position.

Eyes on EB is actively investigating the claims raised by Kevin Sexton concerning Councilman Jim Wendell’s election-related remarks at a previous council meeting. We are reviewing the relevant statements and applicable rules before reaching any conclusions. Sexton’s description of the remarks as a “potential violation” is his opinion. Eyes on EB has made no finding that any law or ethics rule was broken.

Sexton then asked the council to look into switching East Brunswick from partisan to nonpartisan municipal elections, and to put the question to voters (30:19). “The issues facing our town, overdevelopment, property taxes, open space preservation and public safety, are not inherently Democratic or Republican issues. They are East Brunswick issues,” he said. He noted that state law lets municipalities change how their officials are elected, and that many New Jersey towns already hold nonpartisan elections. “I would rather see candidates run on their policies rather than their parties.”

The council did not respond to the proposal.

Leaf pickup and a dangerous intersection

A resident named Tom asked about the leaf pickup schedule (32:48). Officials said crews began Nov. 1 and move from section to section. The township website shows which section is next. Exact dates can’t be given because crews don’t know in advance how many leaves each area has.

Tom also described near-misses with drivers running red lights at Racetrack Road, Deerfield Road and Summerhill Road, and speeding on Summerhill Road. He said someone was killed at that intersection last year.

Board of Education talks

Zimbicki reported that council and Board of Education leaders have met to set an agenda of topics for future joint meetings and to decide who from each side should attend (21:44). A date for the next meeting is expected to be set this week.

After the election

It was the council’s first meeting since the Nov. 3 election. Mayor Brad Cohen and Councilman Behal congratulated McEvoy, Wendell and Consoli-Winston on their re-election. Criscuolo and Township Clerk Tamar Lawful reminded candidates that township code requires political signs to be removed within five days after the election.

What’s next

The council meets next on Monday, Nov. 23, at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Courtroom. Final votes and public hearings are scheduled on:

• the water and sewer rate ordinances (26-32 and 26-33);
• the police and superior officer salary ordinances (26-30 and 26-31);
• the part-time and seasonal pay ordinance (26-29);
• the Vermella ordinance (26-34).

Residents may comment on each ordinance during its public hearing.

Eyes on EB reviewed the Township’s 168-page agenda packet and the EBTV recording of the meeting. Votes are reported from the recording; the official minutes have not yet been released. Time stamps link to the meeting video.