The Saint Joseph County Regional Water and Sewer District on Nov. 6 reviewed a draft memorandum of understanding among the district, the city of Mishawaka and the county that would create regional water and sewer solutions for the eastern part of the county and allocate sewer capacity to the district for future development.

The MOU, provided in draft form to board members, describes an interim forced main from the Mishawaka area intended to serve a proposed Microsoft facility and nearby undeveloped land. The document, the board was told, would provide the district a connection and "an average daily capacity allowance of about 492,000 gallons" once the regional works are completed. The board was asked to consider the MOU's language, particularly paragraph 6, which spells out the proposed capacity allocation and related implementation steps.

Why it matters: the arrangement would link municipal infrastructure decisions, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) priorities and developer interests to how sewer capacity is assigned and used in northeastern Saint Joseph County. Board members were told the county would fund certain infrastructure projects using TIF revenues according to a waterfall: first the overpass, then regional sewer reimbursement. County staff estimated it could take about four to six years of development to reach the capacity needed to fund the larger buildout; the attorney for the district said immediate-service costs for the forced main would be "a few million dollars." The memorandum also signals that Mishawaka considers the capacity a "use it or lose it" proposition and could reallocate unused capacity.

Board members raised process and documentation questions: several asked to see Exhibits D and E (maps and the Lawson Fisher/LFA study) that the MOU references. The attorney present said those exhibits would be circulated digitally and encouraged members to supply edits; the board did not vote on the MOU at the meeting and was offered the option of a special meeting early the following week to act if members preferred.

Regulatory issues: participants noted the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) could scrutinize any settlement that creates areas served by a private utility surrounded by municipal service. One participant cautioned the OUCC "could slow this down," while another said derailment was unlikely; the board did not make a final determination on regulatory risk at the meeting.

Next steps: staff will distribute the MOU with Exhibits D and E (the maps and LFA study) and accept written comments. The board may call a special meeting to approve edits or to adopt the final MOU after members have reviewed the exhibits.

"This MOU is a massive step forward for the district," an attorney on the call said while urging members to review the exhibits and propose edits as needed.

The board heard the overview but took no formal action on the MOU at the Nov. 6 session.