Boone County moves to modify regional sewer district, approves management contract pending fund transfer

A consultant presented a plan to modify an existing Boone County sewer district and the commissioners voted to move forward with a management contract with BCS, contingent on county counsel transferring funds.

Lauren Vergazi, a consultant who said she prepared a proposal to form a regional sewer district, told commissioners the county already has a district — which she described as the "Boone County Sugar Creek Sewage Management District" — but that its service area covered a single parcel and it had no board, customers or infrastructure. "This is gonna take less time than what we originally thought," Vergazi said, adding the work would include drafting a petition to modify the district, defining service areas, and creating bylaws and board trainings.

The nut graf: Commissioners were presented with a step-by-step approach — petition to IDEM to modify the existing district, appoint trustees, run public outreach and eventually pursue engineering and infrastructure work — intended to allow the county to serve development near the State Road 47/65 interchange and to control utility provision and growth there.

Vergazi said the work scope would include public relations, coordination with the health department and GIS mapping, mailings to potentially affected property owners and negotiation of any interlocal agreements a town might want. She recommended forming a board, then providing workshops on fiduciary duties, bylaws, meetings and rate-setting under "Indiana code, 13-26," which she cited as the law that governs regional sewer districts' powers and duties. "A lot of sewer district boards ... don't understand what a sewer district does," she said, noting training and post-workshop support would be part of the contract.

Commissioners discussed how trustees are appointed under the district's current formation order. Vergazi said the existing order calls for a three-member board with appointments by a township trustee's office, one by the commissioners and one by the council; a petition to modify could propose a five-member board or a different appointment arrangement, but that change would require a hearing. One commissioner said it made sense to use the current three-member structure to move faster. Another asked about the proposed fee schedule in the management contract; Vergazi described the firm’s billing as milestone-based (for example, "50% at start of project" for certain items) rather than hourly.

Action: Commissioner motioned to move forward with the management contract with BCS, with the motion made contingent on counsel transferring funds; the motion was seconded and carried.

Discussion notes: Vergazi described potential long-term uses beyond development at the interchange, including septic-elimination projects and sewering unserved communities; she emphasized that rates will differ by project type and that mapping and communication are essential to avoid misinformation.

Ending: Commissioners approved moving ahead with the BCS management contract subject to counsel transferring funds and asked staff to continue coordination with IDEM and other stakeholders as the petition and board-development steps proceed.