AN ACT relating to metropolitan sewer districts.
HB387 revises Kentucky law governing metropolitan sewer districts, primarily by updating how sewer rates and charges may be structured, how district revenues may be used, and how district boards are appointed and governed. The bill preserves the districts’ authority to set rates based on water consumption, fixtures, number of persons served, or other fair and reasonable classifications, while reaffirming that rates for residential property must remain uniform within the same classification. It also keeps in place the notice-and-objection process for rate changes and the requirement that rates generate enough revenue to cover debt service, operations, maintenance, renewals, and replacements.
The bill adds more explicit restrictions on district spending. It prohibits use of district funds for advertising except for recruitment or required/public service notices, personal vehicle use, bonus compensation except in limited circumstances approved by the local legislative body, club memberships, sponsorships, and other expenses deemed unnecessary for sewer service by the local legislative body. It also clarifies treatment of construction subdistrict charges and delinquency enforcement, including the ability to cut off sewer service and coordinate with water utilities to discontinue water service to delinquent users. On governance, HB387 expands and clarifies board composition rules, residency and age requirements, political-party balance, appointment authority for adjoining counties, removal procedures, compensation limits, and special rules for first-class cities, cooperative compacts, and consolidated local governments.
HB387 amends KRS 76.090 and KRS 76.030, affecting the financial management and board structure of metropolitan sewer districts in Kentucky. The bill would tighten statutory limits on how sewer district revenues may be spent, narrow permissible administrative and discretionary expenditures, and reinforce local oversight over rate schedules and certain board actions. It also revises appointment and eligibility rules for district board members, which could change representation and governance in districts serving first-class cities, counties, adjoining counties, and consolidated local governments.
The available voting history suggests the bill was broadly supported in the House, passing third reading 92-1 on March 5, 2025. No committee transcripts are provided, so there is no recorded discussion to indicate broader debate, but the near-unanimous vote implies general agreement with the bill’s goals of fiscal restraint and governance clarification. The lone dissent suggests at least one member had reservations, though the record here does not identify the specific concern.
The most likely points of contention are the new spending restrictions and the increased role of local legislative bodies in approving or limiting district expenditures, which may be viewed as reducing district autonomy. Board composition and appointment changes may also be disputed, especially where they alter representation among cities, counties, and adjoining counties or impose tighter residency, party-balance, and compensation rules. The bill’s authority to restrict spending on advertising, sponsorships, bonuses, and similar items could draw support from those seeking accountability but opposition from districts that view those tools as useful for operations, recruitment, or public outreach.