The Sellersburg Town Council discussed an NLC Service Line Warranty marketing agreement offered by HomeServe that would allow a third party to solicit town utility customers for optional coverage of interior plumbing and exterior service lines.

Council members heard a detailed description of the program and asked staff to invite the HomeServe representative back for a fuller presentation before taking action. The council did not sign an agreement at the meeting and there was no vote to adopt the program.

Why this matters: the program would allow HomeServe to market warranty plans to Sellersburg water and sewer customers and would require the town to provide customer contact information for marketing. A commercial revenue share is part of the arrangement; councilors raised questions about data sharing, claims limits and what, if any, town liability or customer confusion could follow.

Charlie Smith, speaking for town staff, described the program as “a third party program” that markets several optional plans to residents and “there is a rev share that gets paid back to the town,” he said. Smith summarized the three core offerings on the term sheet: an exterior water service line plan, an exterior sewer/septic plan and an interior plumbing plan. He said the exterior water plan is “$5.99 a month,” with an $8,500 per-call limit for exterior water and sewer coverage, and that interior plumbing costs “$15.99 a month” with a $3,000 per-call cap.

Council members pressed staff for details about data handling and the town’s role. Councilmember Randy (first name only in record) asked, “It sounds to me like this NLC by HomeServe is sourcing people's information such as address ... from the town. We're gonna provide them people's ... users information. Correct?” Smith confirmed that marketing requires customer outreach but emphasized there is no cost to the town to participate and that enrollment is voluntary for customers.

Several members said they appreciated the potential educational value but were concerned about automatic sharing of customer lists and the risk the town might be perceived as endorsing coverage levels. Councilmember Scott noted he liked “the education portion” but said he was “a little leery of selling or granting people's information from us automatically.”

Council direction and next steps: Council did not authorize the town to sign the marketing agreement at the meeting. Several council members asked staff to arrange for Mike Chambers (the vendor contact referenced in staff materials) to attend a future meeting and to provide a more comprehensive review of the contract, marketing practices, and sample customer materials. Staff agreed to invite the vendor back.

Context and detail: Smith said the program would use local contractors to perform work on subscriber claims and listed examples of coverage: lateral sewer separations where the homeowner is responsible, replacement of well service lines, coverage for freezing/thaw of water lines, and septic-line repairs. He also noted the program is already used by other Indiana utilities and by Louisville Water and Louisville MSD, per information provided to the council.

Council members asked for clarity on how any revenue share would be allocated within town accounts and whether customers could purchase individual plan components rather than a bundled package; Smith and other staff said purchases could be made individually and that revenue allocation would depend on which plans customers chose.

Ending: With questions remaining about data sharing, claim handling, vendor communications and allocation of any revenue, the council asked the vendor to return for a dedicated presentation before deciding whether to sign the marketing agreement.