Villa Park board backs 50/50 cost-share up to $5,000 for residential lead service-line replacements, waives permit fees and offers 36-month repayment

The Village of Villa Park Board of Trustees on March 24 discussed a series of options to help residents replace lead and galvanized water service lines and signaled support for a cost-share program that will pay 50% of private-side replacement costs, capped at $5,000, with the village waiving permit fees and offering a 36-month, interest-free repayment plan.

Director of Public Works Michael Guerra presented the background, cost estimates and program options. Guerra said the village has been preparing inventories and test digs ahead of spring construction and that the village’s prior rate study and current reserves shape how much the village can cover. He told the board that private-side replacement cost averages used in the analysis are about $8,000 per service and that replacing 33 private services per year would cost roughly $264,000. Public-side exploratory digs were estimated at up to 600 services per year at about $300,000, producing a combined annual cost of roughly $562,000 under a full-replacement scenario.

Guerra said those estimates translate to an estimated utility impact of about $1.11 per 1,000 gallons or roughly $7 per month for a household using 6,000 gallons. He reviewed alternatives ranging from full village funding to various cost-share splits and recommended planning around a $5,000 cap for budgeting purposes while leaving the participation percentage (50/50, 70/30, etc.) to board policy.

Why it matters: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule on lead service lines and the village’s inventory requirements make replacement a policy priority; the board must balance public-health goals against water-fund reserves and other capital needs such as tower painting and street-related water-main projects.

Board direction and outcomes - The board rejected a proposal to fund 100% of private-side replacements (straw poll: failed). - The board approved a cap of $5,000 per service for a village participation program (straw poll: passed). - The board approved a 50/50 cost-share model with a $5,000 cap (straw poll: passed; roll-call recorded affirmative responses from Trustee O'Fano, Trustee Cordova, Trustee Corkery, Trustee Cozart, Trustee Patrick, Trustee Kumar and President Cazone). - The board approved making the program retroactive for up to three years for completed lead/galvanized replacements (straw poll: passed). - The board agreed to waive permit fees for lead/galvanized service-line replacements handled under the program. - The board endorsed offering a 36-month, 0% repayment option for residents participating through the village’s CIP-style payment plan.

Discussion highlights and clarifications - Guerra told the board that some unknowns remain on the private side — interior restoration (cutting slabs, drywall repairs) and buried runs can increase the actual cost for individual homes; that uncertainty is why the $8,000 average is an estimate, not a guarantee. - Trustees expressed differing priorities: some urged aggressive village funding to remove lead faster, while others argued for shared cost to limit impacts on water rates and staff workload. - Trustee Kumar said she preferred a model that avoids a broad percentage subsidy because of “moral hazard” concerns and recommended honoring recent privately completed replacements by reimbursing owners who replaced lines within a defined retrospective period. - Director Guerra confirmed the village is collecting an inventory for the EPA annual submission (April 15 deadline) and that Jackson-area construction has already surfaced at least one lead and one galvanized public-side service that will be replaced under project work.

Next steps Village staff will draft program guidelines reflecting board direction (50/50 up to $5,000; three-year retroactive reimbursement; permit fee waiver; 36-month zero-interest repayment option) and return the draft policy and budget implications for formal board adoption. Staff also will continue outreach, update the village website and GIS inventory, and pursue grant and loan opportunities to lower direct rate impacts.

Quotations - Director Michael Guerra: “What it looks like is if we anticipate, if the village sponsored 100% replacement, we would probably program the village through 10 zones…Looking at current bids, I took the average cost about $8,000.” (paraphrased from remarks during the board presentation.) - Trustee Kumar: “I personally am not in favor of a % because I think that would lead to a lot of moral hazard…But I am in favor of two things: either the 70% up to the $5,000, or 50% up to $5,000.”

Ending Staff will prepare a formal written program for a future meeting that incorporates the board’s direction and an estimated budget impact for 2025–26. The board asked that staff show where the proposed program funding would come from and how it would affect other planned water capital projects.