Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hinsdale trustees begin debate over water-rate options and who pays to replace lead pipes
Summary
Trustees held a first reading on two water-rate options intended to raise roughly $1.25 million a year for water-system capital needs and to prepare for a state-mandated lead service‑line replacement program that the village estimates will cost about $6 million over 10 years.
Trustee Matt opened a first reading May 19 on proposed changes to Hinsdale’s water-rate structure aimed at making the water and sewer fund self-sufficient while covering upcoming capital projects and mandated lead service‑line replacements.
Matt presented two options: increase the infrastructure maintenance fee (IMF) from $15 to $30 and raise the variable portion of rates by 9.84%, or raise the IMF to $40 and increase the variable rate by 5.78%. "There's kind of a toggling if you will between the amount of the fixed fee increase versus the percentage increase in the water rates," Matt said, explaining the tradeoff between higher flat fees and higher volumetric charges.
Trustees discussed equity and affordability concerns, with several noting that a larger flat fee would hit smaller households and people on fixed incomes harder. One trustee said the flat fee is "more regressive" and warned it could disproportionately affect seniors. Another trustee said, "I would like to say that the village should just go and pay for the replacement of the 300 homes that have lead pipes," but also called that proposal difficult to justify given the small share of homeowners affected and the village’s fiscal constraints.
Officials described the lead-service-line program as a 10‑year mandate that will require replacing roughly 10% of the village’s lead pipes annually. The village's estimate for total lead‑line replacement is approximately $6,000,000 (about $600,000 per year). Trustees said the split reflected in the materials assumes roughly one-third of those costs are on the public side and two-thirds on the private side, and that the packet's pricing scenario currently assumes a 50% cost share for the private portion and the village paying the public portion.
Staff told the board that most grant programs and low‑interest loans the village researched would require the village to assume 100% of the costs to qualify, and that grant eligibility tends to favor communities with greater economic need. Trustees asked staff to assemble comparisons showing how neighboring communities are handling cost share and what percentage of properties in those towns have lead service pipes.
No vote was taken. The board moved the matter to a second reading and a final decision is expected at the June 9 meeting.
