Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study: Preparing I‑69 interchange for development could cost about $10 million; county advised to build scalable utilities
Summary
BCS Management told Grant County commissioners the I‑69/Exit 252 site has strong transport and gas resources but lacks water and wastewater; consultants estimated $7.9M–$11.4M to ready the site and recommended on‑site, pay‑as‑you‑grow utility systems and community listening sessions.
Grant County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 20 heard a feasibility study recommending the county build scalable, county‑operated water and wastewater systems to prepare acreage near the I‑69 interchange (referred to in the study as Exit 252/25255) for economic development.
BCS Management presented transportation and utility findings, telling the board the site has “all that transportation access” — interstate, state routes and nearby freight rail — and a large natural‑gas feeder line that, the consultant said, “you could power a 50,000 person city with that site.” The study identified a key constraint: the absence of municipal water and wastewater at the site.
Consultants described four scenarios for sewage and water service. For wastewater, the report favors a county‑owned, on‑site modular treatment plant (movable bed film reactor) and shorter collection lines rather than running five miles to connect to nearby Gas City, a solution the report said could save roughly $3,000,000 compared with a long main. For water, options included connecting to Fairmount’s system (which would still require a water tower) or developing an on‑site well field and tower owned and operated by the county.
The high‑level cost estimate to make the site attractive to site selectors was given as $7.9 million–$11.4 million, with a midpoint of about $9.7 million. The consultants framed the preferred approach as “pay as you grow”: build modular systems the county controls so capacity can expand as demand materializes. They also recommended creating a regional utility structure (options described included a regional utility district) and pursuing an economic development area and tax‑increment financing to fund infrastructure and bond repayment.
The presenters urged immediate next steps if the county chooses to proceed: host listening sessions in nearby communities (the study named several towns for outreach), pursue proactive rezoning in anticipation of development, and begin structuring governance and financing for utility build‑out.
A member of the public asked whether the study is posted online; presenters said it was not yet posted but expected to be made available on the county’s website. Commissioners did not take final action on infrastructure funding at the meeting.
The study and the county’s next actions — listening sessions, rezoning decisions and financing choices — will determine whether the site can attract private investment and what public commitments will be required.
