Ordinance passes first reading, 5-4; will return Nov. 18 for final vote

Silver Birch Living of Kokomo offers a full spectrum of personalized services to help older adults maintain their independence in a supportive, caring environment. For more information, visit Silver Birch of Kokomo online.

(Editor’s note: The is the final story detailing the debate over a proposed $10 trash fee that would be assessed on Kokomo residents. In the interest of providing all council members fair representation on the matter, this story is longer than usual.)

The people had their say. The mayor gave his sales pitch. But it was the Kokomo Common Council that held the responsibility of voting for or against a proposed $120 trash fee on Oct. 28.

Once the public hearing on the measure was concluded, the council convened its regular meeting to consider the ordinance. Councilman Tom Miklik, the sponsor of the ordinance read the legislation into the record.

If passed, the $10 trash fee will be assessed on residential dwellings and billed through the city wastewater billing system, beginning in January 2025. There will be a $5 discount for residents over age 65, for the blind and disabled, and for disabled veterans and their surviving spouses. All of these discounts mirror the property tax deductions offered by the State of Indiana. Also, the discounts do not stack. Only one discount will be granted to a given property. A claim for this discount must be filed with the Howard County Auditor.

Each residential dwelling will have a choice of trash totes. They will either receive two 95-gallon trash totes or one trash tote and one recycling tote, also measuring 95 gallons.

Councilman Dave Capshaw opened the council's discussion with a few questions, first asking about Mayor Tyler Moore's suggestion that residents could opt out of trash collection.

"They asked a question about opting out, and I wasn't clear on the answer," said Capshaw. "Is that going to be an option? And what about housing that no one resides in? How will they handle something like that?"

Capshaw also asked about how billing would be completed for residents that aren't billed for wastewater processing.

Councilman Tom Miklik acknowledged that the questions were legitimate, but no answers followed. Capshaw followed by asking if the ordinance could be heard again prior to budget hearings in 2025 if it was defeated now.

Again, no answer was provided.

Councilman Bob Stevenson made a clear statement of opposition to the fee, due to the timing and handling of the issue.

"I just have a real problem with this, because I think it circumvents the budget process," said Stevenson. "We sat in budget hearings, and no one told us about this. I wasn't aware of it until last Wednesday (Oct. 23)."

Councilman Jeff Plough also was quite vocal in his opposition.

"I really didn't appreciate the lack of transparency or communication concerning it," said Plough. "It makes us on the council who are receiving these calls seem unprofessional and ineffective.

"I found out about this ordinance from a county resident who contacted me to ask what did I know about it. I didn't know anything about it. I didn't know it was even being considered. I couldn't answer any of the questions the individual posed to me."

Plough stated that he has attempted to educate himself on the ordinance since that time, and he was particularly dismayed with other council members who suggested he should have investigated the matter on his own rather than be provided the information by the city.

"This is not a popular ordinance that that we're looking at," said Plough. "I'd say, due to the sensitive nature of this topic, all of us should have been briefed on it. We shouldn't have to be investigating information about the ordinance on our own. That should be provided to us."

Plough also expressed his belief that the city administration should have disclosed its intent of adding a fee during the budget process.

"Nothing was shared about the need at that time when we talked to the department head (Street Superintendent Clint Van Natter) that's responsible for this particular area.

"We did ask him, 'Do you have everything you need?' And the response was, 'No, I'm good.'"

Plough wrapped up his statements by warning that a fee is another word for a tax. However, fees have a tendency to be raised.

The ordinance's language, though not explicit, does include a sentence under the heading "Effective Date" that states, "This ordinance shall remain in effect until amended or repealed by the Common Council."

During Mayor Moore's testimony before the council, he stated that the fee could not be raised without coming before the council again.

Councilman Tony Stewart also voiced displeasure with the lack of transparency and communication from the mayor and certain council members.

"I can take a lot of information and make some quick decisions, but I need to have the information," said Stewart. "I don't have to be privy to everything, but I do have to make sure that if residents ask me something, I can answer and answer it correctly."

And, as a resident who was annexed into the city in 2012, Stewart shared the view of some residents that they were given assurances that have turned out to be false.

"I was one of the ones who was annexed, and we were promised we wouldn't have to pay for trash," said Stewart. "So, I have a problem with that, not that I want to stop the city from moving forward with what it has to do."

Stewart also called out Van Natter for not expressing his department's needs during the budget hearings, and he called upon the mayor to rescind the fee ordinance and bring it back to the council during budget hearings next year.

"Let's wait until next time and do it," said Stewart. "And then, don't do us like that. Don't do me like that and expect me not to respond in a way that you insulted my intelligence."

Councilman Greg Davis spent his time apologizing for the administration and expressing his support for the ordinance.

"I appreciate the mayor admitting that this thing wasn't rolled out very well, and I think all of us would agree to that," said Davis. "I wish that had been different. I think he does too.

"What I hope happens in this meeting is that that we step aside and get rid of self and decide what's in the best interest of the city."

Davis asked if anyone had hit a pothole recently, as he had. The statement was offered as illustration that the city needs additional funding, presumably suggesting the street department doesn't have the funds to fill potholes.

"I sit in those budgetary meetings," said Davis. "Every department has their budgets cut every single year. They don't get what they want because the money's just not there.

"This isn't a slush fund that the mayor or anyone will go use just to buy things. We can free up $3 million and do some other things that are much-needed in this city."

During his comments, an audience member gave Davis a "thumbs down" gesture, which incensed the councilman and prompted a response, defending his right to an opinion. He later apologized for the lack of decorum. He also had to quickly clarify that he did not suggest that councilmen opposing the ordinance didn't have the city's best interests at heart.

Councilman Matt Grecu also expressed support for the fee, noting that Kokomo is nearly alone in not charging for trash service, and that the fee would allow the city to devote tax dollars to other needs.

"It's a small fee to be able to do good things in the community to make it better for us," said Grecu. "None of us like to pay more for anything. That's just not something people get excited about. But we also want to see a better Kokomo."

Councilwoman Crystal Sanburn admitted that she simply hasn't had enough time to consider the measure fully due to the short notice. Her support of the ordinance was clearly conditional upon learning more.

"There's never a good time to raise fees," said Sanburn. "I'd like to be able to vote on this on a first reading, and then really take my time talking to a lot of people. I want to be a good steward of what we are given."

Councilman Miklik measured his words about the city's budgeting process.

"We take what we're given and we make it work," said Miklik. "But what it doesn't do is tell us what we can afford tomorrow, next week, next year.

"We have a fire department that needs new fire stations, and the taxpayers are going to have to pay for that somehow. How are we going to do that? I'm not saying this money's going to do that. I'm just saying the $3 million that may go to the street department or fire department or police department, those are things that we as council members have to project out in the future, and we need to support the mayor and administration on how we're going to do it."

Miklik acknowledged that no one sees an additional fee as good, but he asserted that the fee proposed for Kokomo is a bargain when compared to other communities.

"When I look at the 39 other cities in the central Indiana that have trash fees, and five of them are contracted, let me tell you we got it good," said Miklik.

The councilman then offered flattery to the mayor and defended his move to add a trash fee.

"I've heard every mayor and administration bring this subject up, and our mayor has been the only one with the intestinal fortitude to tackle this and put it out in public space," said Miklik.

It should be noted that Miklik has served as a councilman under just two mayors: Tyler Moore and Greg Goodnight.

Council president Ray Collins commented on the ordinance, first by complimenting his fellow council members for their efforts to improve the community. He then echoed Sanburn by qualifying his vote, advancing the legislation to a second reading to allow for more input.

"My vote reflects giving an honest opportunity to hear what the administration has to say and the citizens," said Collins.

In a rare moment, Corbin King, the council's attorney, was given the floor. He vociferously encouraged the public to return to the council meeting on Nov. 18 for the ordinance's second and final reading.

"Sometimes we vote, and then they leave, and I never see them back here on the second reading," said King. "I encourage everyone to come back at second reading, because you've already heard on the council, there's going to be some no votes.

"They do want to talk to you. They do want to talk to the administration. They do want to do what's right for Kokomo. Let's just give them a chance. But you guys gotta come back.

"They have not made up their mind. You have the ability to do something. You have a voice, but you've got to keep coming. You can't give up after this."

With that, the question was called, and the vote was taken. The trash fee ordinance passed on first reading with a 5-4 vote. Councilmen Stewart, Plough, Stevenson, and Capshaw were the dissenting votes.

The proposed trash fee ordinance will be heard again on Mon., Nov. 18, at 6 p.m. in the council chamber at City Hall.