Stiff opposition comes from people shorted services in annexation
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!
(Editor’s note: This article is part of a series, detailing the Kokomo Common Council’s first reading on Oct. 28 of a proposed $10 trash collection fee ordinance. Keep watching the Kokomo Lantern tomorrow, Oct. 30, for continuing coverage on this subject.)
Thousands of residents who were annexed into the City of Kokomo in 2012 still do not enjoy some of the services other citizens receive. Storm sewers and sanitary sewers weren’t extended. Fire hydrants weren’t installed. But they all receive trash disposal.
That makes the proposed $10 trash fee an even more bitter pill to swallow. While several citizens took to the microphone at the Kokomo Common Council meeting Oct. 28 to express their displeasure about the city’s proposed ordinance to create the fee, a few outlined the core items of opposition -- largely coming from the city's outer limits.
Flo Pogue lives in Holiday Hills on the city's southwest side and was annexed in 2012. She had nothing positive to say about the city's performance.
"We didn't want to be annexed, and we still don't," said Pogue. "However, the only thing that we got out of our annexation was a promise of trash. We were promised sewers. We were promised water. We were promised fire hydrants. We were promised storm sewers. We got nothing except streetlights and trash.
"Now you're back, wanting me to pay for that. I'm already paying taxes on all the other services we aren't getting. We are truly a forgotten suburb."
Pogue also wondered how billing would take place, as she does not receive a bill from the city for wastewater, which is the planned delivery vehicle for the fee.
"I really resent this," said Pogue. "Please reconsider. I think these are things that haven't been thought through."
Marla Hightower also said that trash service was the only benefit she received from being annexed. However, her property taxes tripled after being absorbed by the city. Despite not having city sewers, she received bills for the service.
"I was absolutely appalled at that," said Hightower. "What is the city giving me? Nothing. Well, I decided I wouldn't pay it. They put a lien on my house. So, I paid because I had to. Government forced me to do that. Now they're wanting me to pay for the trash again.
"One of my other questions is, there are some of us that are retired, but we go south for the winter for five months. Are we still going to be charged for trash pickup when we don't even use it for five months out of the year?"
Steve Hart owns several rental properties in Kokomo and is already concerned about the expense he has to cover when his tenants don't pay the city sanitation bill and incur late fees. He said he isn't in favor of an additional fee that could generate fines for his properties. He proposed an alternative.
"If we can't do it the way we're doing it now, get rid of the recycling," said Hart. "Just have locations where people can take their things to recycling, like you have now at certain locations. Cut the costs. Don't charge us more."
Mayor Tyler Moore attempted to address the concerns raised by citizens, jotting down notes as they aired their grievances. Hightower’s question about snowbirds still being billed wasn’t addressed, and the mayor didn’t address the possibility of eliminating recycling services altogether.
However, Moore acknowledged that the city has not extended services to the annexed areas, whether they were promoted or promised at the time of the action. He explained that the water utility is not controlled by the city but conceded that sanitary sewers and storm sewers were not installed.
"We continue to look at that and work through that," said Moore. "It is unfortunate that we haven't been able to provide those additional services."
Moore then turned to trash fee, confirming that the city's 2025 budget already has been passed and is awaiting state approval. Several citizens argued that the trash fee request outside of the budget process was unfair and the funding unneeded.
"If the proposal passes, that's additional fees, additional money, that can be directed to the street department," said Moore. "It would allow either the street department to work on additional services or equipment needs that they have, or, because it's in the general budget, it could help address additional needs from the fire department, the police department, the other departments that, through the budget process, had to cut items in order to meet the budget.
"This would be an additional opportunity to allow departments to provide service, replace equipment, and add personnel that they would need."
Knowing that some people will not be satisfied with his reasoning, Moore also broached the possibility of citizens opting out of municipal trash collection altogether.
"If individuals want to opt out of the city trash collection, and then try to contract with a private company, I guess we could consider that," said Moore. "But I have a feeling that, because of the amount that they would charge for that particular pickup, it's going to be a lot more expensive than just $10 a month."
Responding to an allegation that the fee would not stay at $10 for very long once enacted, Moore explained that any increase in the future could not be simply enacted without public comment.
"It does give the opportunity by amendment, so you'd have to go through this process again,' said Moore. "The city can't just come in and say we want to increase that fee to $15. This ordinance does not permit that. It would have to go through the public process again.
"And if you streamline services and costs are decreased such that there's the opportunity to reduce or drop the fee, that could be considered by the administration."