LEAD 6543 Module 3 Policy Options Analysis Against Explicit Criteria Example

Who Pays for the Private Side? Five Policy Options for Lead Line Replacement Compared on Six Criteria

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD6543: Policy and Governance

Module 3 Assignment

Instructor Name

August 4, 2031

Introduction

With the problem defined and the lines of authority mapped in earlier modules, Riverford's choice among policies can now be examined. About 28,000 lead lines must be replaced within roughly a decade under federal rules, at a cost near $310 million, about $112 million for the public side and $196 million for the private side. The central policy question is who pays for and authorizes replacement of the private side. This paper sets explicit criteria, describes five options, projects their outcomes, scores them and recommends one, following the step-by-step method that Bardach and Patashnik (2020) set out for policy analysis.

Criteria and Weights

Six criteria were set before options were scored, with weights reviewed by the proposed advisory board. Health protection, the number of full replacements completed and their speed, carries 30 percent. Equity, whether the most exposed and least able to pay are served early, carries 25 percent. Cost to ratepayers and the city carries 15 percent. Legal feasibility carries 10 percent, administrative feasibility 10 percent and political acceptability 10 percent. Weimer and Vining (2017) emphasized that analysts should make value judgments explicit through criteria and weights rather than hide them in the analysis, which allows others to disagree on transparent grounds.

Assumptions Common to All Options

All options assume the city replaces the public side at its own cost, as federal rules expect, and that the state loan program provides about $60 million in principal forgiveness over the decade, with low-interest loans for the remainder. Costs financed by the utility are assumed to be repaid over twenty years at about 2 percent through water rates, spread across about 105,000 accounts. Projected uptake rates for voluntary options draw on staff estimates informed by other cities' reported experience and are treated as uncertain.

Option A: Owners Pay the Private Side

Under Option A, the city replaces the public side and asks owners to pay for the private side, offering low-interest loans. The financed city cost is about $52 million after forgiveness, raising the average bill by about $2.50 a month. But staff estimate that only about 30 percent of owners would pay for the private side within ten years, concentrated in higher-income neighborhoods. Because partial replacement is discouraged, many lines would remain, the federal deadline would likely be missed and the poorest neighborhoods would keep the most lead.

Option B: Cost Sharing With Income Waivers

Under Option B, the city pays half of each private side, and owners below an income threshold pay nothing. Financed cost rises to about $150 million, adding about $7.30 a month to the average bill. Staff estimate uptake near 60 percent over ten years, higher among waiver-eligible owners. Landlords would face a cost of about $3,500 per line, which many may decline, leaving renters exposed. The option improves equity relative to Option A but still depends on owner consent and leaves many lines unreplaced.

Option C: Free Replacement Prioritized by Need

Under Option C, the city pays the full cost of private sides and adopts an ordinance requiring owners to permit replacement after notice, with replacement scheduled first in neighborhoods with the highest share of lead lines, young children and low incomes. Financed cost is about $250 million, adding about $12.10 a month to the average bill, with an income-based rate assistance program to protect low-income customers. Staff project near-complete replacement within ten years. Prioritizing by need rather than geography raises cost per line somewhat, since crews move between neighborhoods.

Option D: Free Replacement Block by Block

Option D uses the same funding and ordinance as Option C but replaces lines in geographic order to minimize cost and disruption, starting from the water plant outward. Total cost is about 5 percent lower than Option C because crews work continuously in one area. Completion within ten years is likely, but the order of replacement would not reflect exposure or need, so some of the most affected neighborhoods might wait years longer than under Option C.

Option E: Replacement Required at Sale

Under Option E, the city replaces the public side and requires owners to replace the private side before selling a property. The cost to the city is similar to Option A, and the requirement places the cost at a moment when owners have funds from the sale. But homes change hands slowly; with a turnover rate near 4 percent a year, only about a third of lines would be replaced in ten years, and long-held rentals would be largely untouched. Schneider and Ingram (1993) observed that policies often distribute burdens and benefits according to how target groups are socially constructed; this option effectively places the burden on sellers while leaving renters, a group with little political power, exposed.

The Scoring Matrix

Ratings ran from 1, poor, to 5, strong. Option C earned 5 on health and equity, 2 on cost, 4 on legal feasibility given the home rule advice, 3 on administrative feasibility and 3 on political acceptability, which weights out to 4.05. Option D's six scores were 5, 3, 2, 4, 4 and 3, totaling 3.65. Option B received 3, 3, 3, 5, 3 and 4, totaling 3.30. Option A received 2, 1, 5, 5, 4 and 3, totaling 2.80. Option E received 1, 1, 5, 4, 3 and 3, totaling 2.30. Option C ranks first, closely followed by Option D.

Sensitivity Checks

Because weights reflect judgments, the ranking was tested under alternatives. If cost is weighted 30 percent and equity 10 percent, a view a fiscally cautious council member might hold, Option C's lead narrows to 3.60 against 3.50 for Option D, while Option A climbs to 3.40 and Option B holds at 3.30. If uptake under Option B is higher than expected, say 75 percent, its score rises but stays below C and D. In every test, the two options with full public funding and an access ordinance still rank first and second, which suggests the key choice is between prioritizing by need and by geography, not whether to fund private sides publicly.

Recommendation

The analysis recommends Option C, free full replacement under an access ordinance, prioritized by need, with a hybrid feature: within each priority neighborhood, crews will work block by block to capture most of Option D's efficiency. Rate assistance will protect low-income customers from the average increase of about $12 a month. The recommendation rests on the weights stated, and the sensitivity checks show how narrow the margin becomes when cost dominates, so a council favoring cost could reasonably choose Option D instead, a choice the analysis makes visible rather than hides.

Conclusion

Five options for replacing Riverford's lead lines were compared against six weighted criteria set in advance. Voluntary approaches, whether owner-paid, cost-shared or triggered at sale, cost ratepayers less but leave many lines, especially in rental and low-income neighborhoods, unreplaced by the deadline. Full public funding with an access ordinance protects health and equity at a cost of about $12 a month for the average customer. Prioritizing by need, with block-by-block work within neighborhoods, best balances the criteria. The next paper will examine implementation and how values shape it.

References

Bardach, E., & Patashnik, E. M. (2020). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (6th ed.). CQ Press.

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044

Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (6th ed.). Routledge.