Public strongly opposes $10 charge, but measure passes first reading
This article is brought to you by Moore's Home Health and Medical Supply. For more than 69 years, Moore's Home Health has been Howard County's leading provider of assistive and adaptive home medical equipment and supplies. Call 765-454-5210 or visit Moore's at 608 W. Markland Ave. to let them help meet your healthcare needs!
The Kokomo Common Council knew it had a fight on its hands long before president Ray Collins (R-3rd) gaveled them into session on Sept. 8. Last November, the body heard and turned down a proposal for a $10 fee to be placed on refuse collection within the city.
When Mayor Tyler Moore informed them late last month of his intent to revive the proposal, it took little time for word to spread and tempers to flare throughout the community. On Monday night, the rancor came to a head as a room full of angry citizens demanded that the fee not be enacted.
The people were not heeded, at least on the ordinance’s first reading, as the proposed trash fee passed 7-1, with councilman Bob Stephenson (D-2nd) casting the only dissenting vote.
The ordinance, as read into the record by councilman Tom Miklik, would establish a $10 monthly fee on all residents on Kokomo receiving refuse removal services – approximately 21,000 homes, according to Kokomo Department of Development Wes Reed.
The ordinance allows for $5 monthly discounts for those aged 65 or over, the blind, and disabled veterans and their surviving spouses. It also allows those who earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty guidelines to seek a $5 discount. Applications for this discount would have to be submitted annually.
The fee would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026. However, the ordinance also includes an increase of the fee to $15, which would automatically go into effect on Jan. 1, 2028.
The council met in caucus prior to the meeting, at which time Collins explained to his contemporaries how he intended to conduct the meeting.
“I know there's a lot of people here about the trash ordinance, and the reason why we do have those public hearings is that's the opportunity for the public to be able to speak,” said Collins. “But when we go to the reading of the actual ordinance, we won't have public come up and talk during that because they've had their opportunity at the public hearing.”
Collins further established that Mayor Moore and Reed would be given time at the start of the hearing to offer the city’s justification for the fee. After this, residents were given two minutes to express their position on the matter.
“I want to give everybody a chance to say what they want to say,” said Collins. “What I don't want to hear is people coming up and just being repetitive and saying they don't like it. We've gotten emails, phone calls. We’ve been stopped everywhere. We are aware of people from last time that don't like it or want it, and we’ll take that into consideration.”
Once the public hearing began, it proceeded as Collins intended, with Moore stepping to the microphone first.
“I appreciate the council's willingness to consider this again,” said Moore. “A little over eight, nine months ago, we were here, and the information that was provided to you all, as well as the public, was inadequate at that time. I take responsibility for that.
“Since that time, we've all been well aware of the potential effects and challenges that the recently enacted SEA1 stands to the provide not just Kokomo but municipalities across the state. The legislature obviously is encouraging municipalities to find ways to make up for the potential shortfalls.
“We want to continue to provide the level of service to the citizens of Kokomo, and not only attract but retain the quality employees that we have in the city of Kokomo.”
Moore explained that personnel and equipment needs currently are most acute within the city’s street maintenance and refuse department, which handles trash collection. The mayor then stepped aside as Reed explained the financial picture facing the city.
“The first thing I want to really discuss is the burning question we all have: We already pay for this, so why are we being charged now?” said Reed.
Reed presented financial figures, explaining the property tax burden Kokomo residents currently shoulder; about $7.8 million annually. Of that, the City of Kokomo receives $4 million. It should be pointed out that Reed’s figures represent a very small percentage of revenue received annually by the city and do not encompass all property taxes or other revenue received.
“That funds all of our departments, not just trash pickup,” said Reed. “That leaves only $327,000 that actually goes into the refuse budget from our single-family homes.”
Using these figures, Reed contended that residents pay approximately $1.30 per month for trash collection. However, he also contended that it takes nearly $4.3 million per year to collect trash. The $10 monthly trash fee is expected to generate more than $2.5 million per year.
Speaking as if the trash collection service is not a service funded similarly to other services, Reed expressed the service as a burden to other services within the city.
“We have just frankly underfunded other departments to make sure that we can cover the bill,” said Reed. “With the impacts of SB1 and some other revenue shortfalls that we're looking towards in the future, that's simply just not sustainable.”
Reed then turned to the increased costs the city incurs, along with the property tax shortfall manufactured by the state legislature.
“One of the things that we all hear pretty regularly is that our streets aren't in great condition,” said Reed. “We have potholes that we need to get to. ‘Why aren't you getting to my street yet?’ The cost of asphalt has gone 15 percent in just four years. Expenses are going up faster than revenues are increasing. And we are looking over the next three years at about $6.6 million in revenue, and then that's consistently growing beyond that.”
Reed placed the blame on three features of SEA1. First, homeowners will receive a property tax credit of as much as $300 per year beginning Jan. 1. Reed claimed the city could absorb this loss.
The second change hit much harder. Businesses making $2 million of more per year will be fully exempted from paying business personal property taxes next year – funds that go directly to local government. The exemption currently is limited to businesses making less than $80,000.
The third change will be devastating to any Indiana community with significant industry. All equipment used by a company currently can be depreciated to 30 percent of its value, typically over a period of seven years. Still, the company pays property taxes on the equipment, though at a reduced rate.
SEA1 lowers the depreciation to zero.
“Basically, what that means is, as our factories swap out equipment and that depreciates down to zero, we lose all tax revenue from it,” said Reed. “That then impacts our ability to serve our community with services.”
Reed then turned to the members of AFSCME Local 2185 for support; the city’s unionized workers who perform trash collection among their many duties. The local currently is in negotiations with the city for a new, three-year contract.
“We knew we couldn't support the types of raises these folks deserve,” said Reed. “We couldn't support getting new equipment that these folks need. And so together, we came along to say, let's consider having the council revisit this trash fee so that we can retain our employees, so that we can attract better workers, and continue to move our community forward.”
Sources familiar with the negotiations have disclosed that the union was incentivized with the possibility of significantly higher pay increases for its members if it endorsed the city administration’s efforts to enact a trash fee.
As such, Patterson Day, regional staff representative for AFSCME 2185, stepped forward with a brief statement.
“I'm just here to represent the union in support of this ordinance,” said Day. “We were happy to work with the city to figure out some creative solutions to offset some of Senate Bill 1, and that's really it.”
Collins then opened the floor with the residents in attendance, none of whom were in support of what the city was trying to sell.
Resident Rick Emery was first to speak, and he proposed a fee for large item pick-up, which the city currently performs at no charge, rather than a trash fee.
Resident Hannah Guillaume-Wenger was next to speak. As a member of the Howard County Democratic Party's Operation Blue Horizon sub-committee, she addressed the politics of the ordinance. She pointed out that the shortfalls being experienced by local government across the state are due to the property tax revision enacted by the state legislature, which is controlled by a Republican supermajority.
"This is a Republican bill, and this board, all except one, are Republicans," said Guillaume-Wenger. "I don't want to have to pay because I didn't vote for that."
Guillaume-Wenger finished her protest by reading the children's book "This is Not My Hat," in which the main character knowingly steals a hat and tries to justify the theft.
Resident James Lindsay reframed the trash fee as another tax and pointed out that the projected revenue from the fee won’t cover the cost of trash collection.
“Sounds like you guys need to budget better,” said Lindsay. “You knew that you had property tax increases coming, yet you didn’t make allowances for it. Another argument that you have is that other cities have a fee for trash collection. We've never had a fee. We're not like other cities.”
Resident Joseph Kazlas spoke out against the measure, pointing out that the fee is assessed evenly across the board and does not take into account individual use of the trash service. As evidence to support his argument, he explained that he doesn't use the service every week.
"It seems to me like it's socialist," said Kazlas. "You guys are doing this across the board, instead of user based ... It's ridiculous. I can't believe you Republicans are even standing for it."
Other speakers echoed the usage argument, with one recommending the end of curbside recycling and another incensed because she spends five months of the year in another state, yet would be assessed a fee in her absence.
Resident Jack Chance, a presumptive candidate to run against Indiana Rep. Mike Karickhoff in 2026 as a Democrat, also strongly criticized the measure.
"Let's call this what it is," said Chance. "It is a backdoor tax. You can call it a fee, but for working families, is just another bill at a time when rent, groceries, and utilities are already breaking us.
"I hear this fee is supposed to fund union wage raises, and if that's true, then those raises must be guaranteed in writing before this ordinance is passed. Otherwise, it's nothing but another empty promise.
"We've been told our current model is not sustainable. But let's be clear, Republican leadership is not sustainable at the Statehouse. Their supermajority gutted local revenues with SB1 here in Kokomo. Republican leaders have handed out abatements, forgivable loans, and TIF deals to corporations and developments. They give tax breaks to the few and then turn around and raise bills on the rest of us.
"This is what Republican leadership delivers: broken promises, tax breaks for the powerful, and higher bills for working families. Don't balance this budget on our backs. Vote no on this trash fee."
Collins ended the public hearing soon after, and the council began its normal business. Near the end of the meeting the trash fee ordinance came up for a vote on first reading. Each council member was given an opportunity to speak, but only two took it.
Stephenson was the first and only council member to speak against the measure.
“I want everybody to know the city does need this money,” said Stephenson. “I realize that, and I appreciate the fact that this time the mayor gave us a heads up. I knew about this much earlier than I did the last time.
“This is a regressive tax. It's not going to hurt me to pay $10 a month, but there are people in my district that it will hurt. After talking to people all throughout my district, I could not find anybody that wants me to support this. So, I'm not going to.”
Council member Crystal Sanburn (R-6th) also spoke but provided no insight into her decision process. She only pleaded for mercy from residents.
I know this is a really tough thing for us all,” said Sanburn. “We need to figure out how we're going to make this shortfall up. Nobody wants a fee. Nobody wants to do anything like this. It's just it's very, very, very difficult. And I just ask for your grace. I ask for your understanding for how we're going to move forward in the city.”
The council voted for passage on first reading with Stephenson’s dissent outstanding. This represents a significant contrast from the council’s 2024 vote on the matter, which failed 5-4. One of the previous dissenters to the fee, Jeff Plough (R-4th), gave his justification for the vote after the session closed.
“The reason that I voted yes at this point is I'm still digging for more information,” said Plough. “The first reading is really just a formality. The second reading is the proof in the pudding as to whether it gets passed.”
The second and final reading on the trash fee ordinance will take place Mon., Sept. 29, at 6 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall.