The City of Milford will enter into an agreement with the Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to accept $2.7 million in funding to replace lead water lines in underserved areas in the town
At a recent meeting, Milford City Council authorized Mayor Todd Culotta to enter into an agreement with the Delaware Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to proceed with the issuance of a zero percent loan in the amount of $2,789,800. The loan proceeds must be used for lead pipe remediation in underserved communities in Milford. At the end of the project, the principal balance of the loan will be forgiven.
“This got delayed due to other funding projects in the state, so it threw it off a little bit. I’m not sure if they are following an original timeline, which would put us sometime at the beginning of this coming year, we can request an extension of that potentially worst case scenario,” James Puddicombe, City Engineer, said when asked if there was a timeline to complete the project. “The SRF does allow us to request extensions, so that would be our first course of action. They were pretty generous with it in our conversation at the meeting, and they were very in favor of this because of the high percentage of lead pipes in underserved community.”
Councilwoman Lori Connor asked if there were any obstacles that would delay the project. Puddicombe stated that property owners who are not interested in the replacement could lead to delays. City Manager Mark Whitfield pointed out that the lines would be replaced up from the street to the meter, but that if there was lead in the lines leading to the house, there was likely lead piping inside the home as well.
“From the waterline to the other side of the meter into the house is the property owner’s responsibility,” Culotta said. “This scenario, we would run that line and now, but before we even get that far, you have to go on somebody’s property to get to their meter.”
Whitfield reminded council that the city received $2 million in grant funding a few years ago to address this issue, but that funding had to be returned due to property owner resistance. According to the federal government, the city must replace lead piping to the building regardless of whose responsibility it is. This funding would make the replacements easier as there would be no cost to the property owner. Councilman Michael Stewart asked what liability would fall to the city should something go wrong after the lines were replaced.
“We would work with Mr. Rutt to create a waiver and have it signed,” Puddicombe said. “The contractor would also be required to have a warranty of some sort, likely 60 or 90 days.”
Puddicombe also explained the areas identified included streets that were already scheduled for repaving which meant the work could be done in in partnership with the streets department. Marabello asked why a property owner would refuse to have lead pipes replaced.
“I think the concern is, like my house, for example, it is elevated off the street. If you do this, you’re gonna not only go through the sidewalk, but also through the retaining wall around into my basement,” Culotta said. “Do I trust the city to put it all back the way it was out there? Those are legitimate concerns. We can say that’s fine, looks good to me. But then again, every house is a case by case scenario.”
Connor asked if there was a way to identify the 610 homes in advance as she was concerned half could be completed and the city might be left to pay back the loan for the other half if they did not agree to the remediation. Puddicombe explained they would reach out to all potential property owners to get an idea how many were willing to take advantage of the program. Councilwoman Madula Kalesis asked if the funds could be used for other projects.
“I think the state would have some hefty heartache over that,” Puddicombe said. “It really needs to be directed towards what is written in the grant, which would be focused on that lead remediation, the funds roll from the state from the federal government, so they would probably have little heartache over it:
Finance Director Lou Vitola explained that regardless of the timeline for the project, the city would repay any funds that were not forgiven within five years as any repayment over five years would need to go to referendum.
“Now this is highly likely going to finish as a 100% principal forgiveness loan, which is the state’s preferred terminology, to avoid strings that come with grants, but, ultimately, for us, it’s going to be treated as a grant,” Vitola said. “I just wanted to make that clear to council. That’s what the plan would be. It’d be a manageable amount within our operating budget so it’s not a concern or a major risk.”
Culotta also pointed out that this would be an issue facing homes built prior to 1970 which was predominantly downtown. He also explained that some of the homes may have had lines upgraded already.
“If I may, this seems like a wonderful way to address a health and safety issue, particularly for an underserved community,” Councilwoman Nadia Zychal said. “And at zero percent, I see no downside to this”
Council authorized Culotta to sign the agreement unanimously.
RELATED STORIES:
Share this Post