Consultant urges tighter enforcement, cameras and ordinance for solar construction road use

Pulaski County Commissioners on a regular meeting agenda heard a detailed presentation from Versus Engineering about monitoring and enforcing road-use agreements for on‑site solar construction, including the active Mammoth project and upcoming central and south sites.

Versus Engineering representative Jenny said the county’s existing road‑use agreement points to the Indiana Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (IMUTCD) and that on‑site construction must include signage for truck entrances and exits. The consultant said Mammoth had not posted required signage during a recent site check and that Versus is working with the county on an updated site map to be posted online and shared with emergency responders.

The firm recommended installing motion‑ and heat‑sensing trail cameras at key locations to document truck movements and capture potential route violations; the cameras would produce timestamped images that Versus would review and use to issue notices of breach of contract and fine letters payable to the county. Versus gave a contact email for reports: polascoisolarcompliance@vsengineering.com.

Versus described daily coordination with county staff and said the firm would seek to charge developers for monitoring and for replacement/repair of hardware if cameras are damaged. Jenny said her team has already met with three of four project developers (Mammoth, Moss Creek and Bottlebrush) and planned a kickoff meeting with Mayapple.

County Attorney Jacob said the county can pursue civil breach-of-contract claims and fine letters, but that sheriff’s deputies need a local ordinance to issue ticketable citations; absent such an ordinance, law enforcement lacks a statutory violation to cite. The sheriff and commissioners agreed that an ordinance would give law enforcement “teeth.” Jacob said he would draft an ordinance, circulate it to commissioners and the sheriff for review, and coordinate for practicality.

Highway Superintendent Gary Krueger and attendees pressed for assurance that developers carry bonds or performance assurances and that developers repair roads promptly. Versus described the process in the road‑use agreement: developers have a 30‑day period to fix flagged deficiencies, after which the county may contract for repairs and invoice the developer. Versus also said compliance monitoring invoices and economic development agreement payments have begun arriving to the county.

Public commenters and the sheriff urged faster enforcement tools and suggested a moratorium or clearer on‑the‑ground controls until agreements and maps are finalized. Commissioners discussed whether to limit year‑round (365‑day) construction windows in future negotiations; no formal change to existing road‑use agreements was made at the meeting.

The presentation closed with Jacob’s commitment to prepare an enforceable ordinance and circulate a draft to the board and sheriff for input.

Versus Engineering and county staff will continue daily coordination and map updates while the county considers an ordinance to support law enforcement citations and to collect fines for route violations.