Grand Island requests $21.5 million to finish lead pipe replacements; council approves loan request and water‑rate ordinance after debate

City staff asked the Grand Island City Council on June 9 to pursue up to $21.5 million in state revolving loan funds to finish the city’s lead service‑line replacement program, and council approved the loan request and a water cost‑of‑service ordinance that phases rate increases to fund capital needs.

Ryan Schmidz, presenting the project update, said the city previously obtained a $4.5 million loan approved in 2023 and that contractors and city crews have vetted 895 services so far and found 532 with lead. He reported 244 services replaced to date (178 by the contracted firm Myers Construction and 66 by city crews) and said staff initially narrowed the inventory to about 3,000 potential services. "So far, we've discovered 895 services...532 were found to be lead," Schmidz said. He told council the city expects to process roughly 250 replacements per year under a full program and asked the council to authorize filing for $21.5 million; under program rules staff said only about $7.7 million of that would be repayable and the remainder could be forgivable, with repayable portions at 0% interest over 30–40 years.

Council members debated the scope and cost distribution. One council member urged attention to the public‑health rationale for replacing lead service lines, calling lead a "potent neurotoxin" that can cause irreversible damage, while others expressed concern about shifting costs to all ratepayers for what some viewed as property‑owner liabilities historically. Council discussion noted that the city assumed ownership of the service line out to the main a few years ago, which affects who pays for replacements.

Consultant John Kraky presented the cost‑of‑service analysis and recommended an initial series of increases—an illustrative 8% in the first year followed by similar increases—to avoid erosion of cash reserves and to fund capital priorities, including the lead program. Kraky said that, under the proposed plan, a benchmark residential customer (12 CCF usage) would see about a $1.94 increase in the first year; he also proposed simplifying volumetric blocks to focus conservation incentives on discretionary summer use.

Council members pressed staff on administrative cost drivers and usage declines; one councilor noted administrative costs had increased materially and that system usage is down, which compresses revenue. Despite concerns from several members and at least one announced ‘no’ vote on the upcoming ordinance, the council adopted the water‑rate ordinance and approved the loan request to pursue the $21.5 million authorization.

Next steps: staff will complete loan application materials and proceed with the rate ordinance implementation schedule described in the presentation.