Superior council approves cooperative agreement with utility to replace lead service lines

The Superior City Council voted 10-0 to approve a cooperative agreement with Superior Water, Light and Power that makes the city the administrator of state grant/forgivable-loan funds to replace residential lead service lines and sets out who pays upfront costs and how reimbursement will be handled.

City officials said the agreement aims to let the city apply for and manage state funds for customer-side replacements while the utility applies separately for funding for the utility-owned portions of service lines. Mayor (name not specified) told the council the agreement “provides the local oversight that we have been looking for” and recommended adopting the contract to meet the EPA’s deadline for removing lead lines.

The agreement matters because the Environmental Protection Agency’s updated Lead and Copper Rule, finalized in October 2024, requires utilities to remove lead from distribution systems on an accelerated timeline, with a national compliance target cited by presenters that extends toward 2037. City staff and the utility said the cooperative approach gives residents a locally administered process to access forgivable loans for the customer-owned portion of service lines while the utility works to secure funding for the utility-owned sections.

Dawson Skandal, a representative of Superior Water, Light and Power, told the council the EPA rule is the impetus for the work and said the utility has already applied for state funds. “The EPA said its final lead and copper rule back in October 2024, which requires that all lead be removed from water systems across the nation by the year 2037,” Skandal said.

City staff described the finance flow in the agreement: the city will pay upfront to administer and complete customer-side replacements for homeowners who give written consent, and then the utility will reimburse the city from grant or forgivable-loan proceeds it receives from the state program. The council was told these state funds are structured as loan forgiveness (forgivable loans) and that some projects may not be fully covered by the program; in those cases, the city may legally apply other lawful funding sources to cover remaining costs.

Councilors pressed for details on cost exposure and long-term limits. One councilor cited a prior utility rate request and asked whether costs the utility incurs to replace the utility-owned portion of the line could lead to rate increases; a city official replied that those costs are subject to the utility’s rate-recovery process before the Public Service Commission and that grant funds cannot be passed to customers as rate items. The city official added that keeping overall project bids low through competitive procurement could reduce the portion the utility needs to recover in rates.

The council also asked whether the agreement would prevent the city from later requiring replacement of customer-owned lines by ordinance. The city representative said the agreement does not legally preclude the council from adopting an ordinance to compel replacement if it later chose to do so; in that case, performing such an ordinance would satisfy the agreement’s project-administration requirement.

The contract includes a mediation clause and standard survival provisions. City staff said that if either party fails to meet contract obligations and those failures cause the city demonstrable harm (for example, the loss of grant funds), the agreement provides for discussion, mediation and, if necessary, contractual remedies or court action.

A member of the public who identified themself during public comment called the current agreement the same language that had been voted down at a prior meeting in February and said they had submitted petitions in support of the legislation change that enabled the agreement. The public comment period was opened before the council vote; a resident said they hoped the council would approve the cooperative agreement unanimously.

The clerk called a roll call vote after a motion by Councilor Herrick and a second from Councilor Elms. The vote was 10 in favor, 0 against; the motion carried.

The council discussed next steps for program administration, including establishing a dedicated city fund for grant administration, preparing for competitive bidding for construction contracts, and deciding whether and when to pursue a city ordinance for mandatory replacement if homeowners decline voluntary replacement. City staff said the number of lead lines is finite and estimated a worst-case, no-grant city cost in the range of roughly $4 million to $6 million; with grant funding, staff estimated the city-level portion could be reduced into the low- to mid-single‑million range. Councilors and staff noted those estimates are approximate and depend on final bid prices and the amount of state funding awarded.

The council president and staff thanked negotiators and agency staff who assisted with the agreement and reminded councilors of an upcoming meeting the following evening.

Votes at a glance: Cooperative agreement with Superior Water, Light and Power — motion to approve carried by roll call vote, 10-0.