By Sadie Hunter
After months of discussion, Noblesville mayor John Ditslear introduced his proposal for a trash and recycling fee to the new Noblesville Common Council at its first meeting of the year, Jan. 12.
The fee would appear on residents’ monthly sewage bill, totaling $10.57 each month per household, to begin July 1.
Even though the public hearing on the proposed ordinance won’t occur until the council’s next meeting on Jan. 26, five residents spoke during the public comments portion against the proposal, several citing the development of new parks and projects given tax abatements and other financial incentives as unnecessary.
Upon introducing the ordinance, Ditslear said, “Several years ago, we did talk about a fee very similar … because we knew that we were going to have property tax caps.
These costs are simply growing pains. We in the City of Noblesville have grown 110 percent in 15 years. When I became mayor in ’04, that budget was about $800,000. It’s now … $2.5 million dollars. We’ve lost $30 million dollars since the (property tax) caps have taken affect. For example, if someone’s paying $1,200 to property tax, we only get about a third of it. So, all we’re really doing here is, frankly, asking the public for a little help.”
City attorney Mike Howard said the fee will apply to all dwelling units with the exception of apartment complexes, who have their own, private contracts with trash removal companies.
New At-Large Councilor Mary Sue Rowland didn’t argue for or against the need for the proposed fee, but asked questions of Howard after his further explaining of the ordinance. Making note of a recent wastewater flier, she said the flier stated “the city has always paid for residents to have trash and recycling for free.”
Addressing Howard, Rowland said, “I guess my question is, if it’s free, then where does it come from?”
To which Howard responded, “Well, it’s paid for out of the general fund.”
“And who funds the general fund?” Rowland asked, hinting that the general fund is paid for by tax dollars.
“Essentially, you’re right,” Howard said in response. “It is paid for by the people’s property taxes, but I think the mayor very eloquently pointed out that with (property tax) caps, a $100,000 house pays $1,000 in property taxes. We get $300 of that, and $124 of that goes to trash. So who pays for police, fire, chuckholes, services?”
Rowland continued, citing concerns over due diligence of an ordinance that she said she believes is being rushed through a council with four new members who had, at that time, only been on the job for two weeks.
“Here’s my concern. We have, and I was told by the mayor, the reason we went to a second-class city was for greater representation for our citizens. Well, we have … broadened that representation,” Rowland said. “Very frankly, no one has asked me a single question concerning this ordinance, and I think that’s what I’m concerned about. You’re not allowing me my due diligence. We’re not allowing discussion in a forum where we can all speak. We have new members that have been on the job for two weeks. I think our timing is off, and I think our opportunity for discussion is off.”
In the 2016 calendar year, the council has tentatively planned to publicly retreat once each month for lengthier discussion on upcoming issues. The first retreat is set for 8:30 a.m. Jan. 23 in the second-floor conference room at city hall.
Rowland suggested at the council meeting that the ordinance be tabled until both the January and February retreats had taken place, giving ample time for discussion on the proposal.
But her motion died after public comments were given and the rest of the council (with the exception of At-Large Councilor Mark Boice, who was absent) agreed that if they each weren’t comfortable with the information available at the time of voting (the next meeting, 7 p.m. Jan. 26), the item could be continued or tabled to a later meeting.
City officials have said while the Jan. 23 retreat is open to the public, they will not be taking comments from the public, and that all public input should be reserved for the schedule public hearing at the Jan. 26 common council meeting.
