Board asks staff to include lead-line replacement, cation-exchange option in water-rate planning

At its Sept. 15, 2025 meeting the Village Board reviewed a recap of a Sept. 4 workshop on the village water system and indicated it wants staff to include full private lead-service-line replacement and a cation-exchange treatment option in future rate and policy work, Steve, a village staff member, said. The discussion covered who pays for private line replacement, options for removing radium from groundwater and the long-term viability of the village’s deep wells.

The matter matters because both replacement policy and treatment choices can affect utility rates and public-health protections. “The state law requires the state, the line to be replaced, but we’re paying for it,” Steve said, describing the board’s direction on replacement costs. He said the board’s understanding is that for the “60 to 80 homes” that may have private service lines the village will continue to pay the full cost to replace a disturbed private line, and that staff will present a formal policy that spells out restoration obligations.

On treatment, Steve said the village currently uses hydrous manganese oxide (HMO) to remove radium from groundwater and discussed cation exchange as an alternative. Cation exchange, which several neighboring towns use, produces softened water and may change taste and hardness; it also carries greater upfront and ongoing costs. Steve said the board estimated an additional upfront cost of about $1 million to $1.5 million as part of a full treatment-plant project (staff described the broader plant project as likely to exceed $10 million) and operational costs “anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 or so a year.” He said the board “looked like the majority of the board said push forward with cation,” meaning staff and consultants should include it in planning, not that the board had made a final selection.

Staff also summarized a review of alternate source-water options — including a connection to Aurora and surface-water sources such as the Fox River or Lake Michigan — conducted to test whether a different source would be more cost-effective than investing in the existing deep-well system. Steve said the board “seemed to move forward with staying on our current system,” which staff presently believes will remain viable through about 2050, and that the plan is to reassess the aquifer roughly every 10 years.

Next steps will be technical: staff said they will work with engineering consultant EEI to translate the board’s preferences into rate schedules and capital-prioritization scenarios and return those proposals to the board for a separate, detailed discussion. No formal ordinance or rate vote occurred at the meeting; staff will bring policy language and rate options back for the board to consider.