Editor,
I attended last week’s city council meeting and listened to the arguments on both sides of the trash fee debate. Here are some thoughts.
My biggest disappointment here is the timing of this proposal. We’ve heard for a year that 2016 was going to herald a new era in Noblesville city governance. We are now a Second-Class City – bigger council, more representation by new people with new ideas, more professional financial staff. Yet, these new people with new ideas are being asked, in their first few meetings in office, to implement a new tax (fee) without even having the opportunity bring new ideas to the table. It’s the same old proposal from years ago with nothing new to offer. There isn’t even a new initiative associated with it; they’re being asked to raise taxes just to keep the status quo.
I‘ve read the justifications for the fee, and I agree with the idea in principle: fees for service is the fairest way for people to pay for city services. Those who use it pay for it. The problem is, we’re already paying for trash pick-up. We decided long ago to use tax money for it. We’re now being asked to pay twice, once in taxes and again on our sewer bills.
I get it. It’s not meant to be revenue neutral. It’s meant to be a new tax.
Councilors O’Conner and Taylor make the point that “household growth has caused the cost of trash pick-up to double in the past 12 years.” That may be true, but every one of those new households is now paying taxes, which more than covers the cost of their trash pick-up. It’s built into our tax structure.
And, that’s an issue because our tax rate is already the second highest in the county. Take a close look at the tax table the county treasurer is required to publish each year. Noblesville’s city rate – leaving out schools, libraries, township and county taxes – is $1.20 for every $100 of taxable value. By comparison, Fishers’ rate is 62 cents, Carmel’s is 70 cents, and Westfield’s is 77 cents. You could make the point that that’s because our taxes pay for trash pick-up, but then I would ask that if we’re going to levy this fee, then let’s have some tax relief. But, that’s not part of the plan.
I don’t understand why our tax rate is twice as high as Fishers’. How can they run their city twice as efficiently as we do? That’s why we need some new ideas. Based on these figures, I’m not convinced we’re running the city as efficiently as we can. I think there are ways to save money that haven’t been uncovered. At last week’s council meeting one speaker noted that the mayor and department heads are still driving city cars home, and that we give very generous benefits to our elected officials. That doesn’t sound to me like we’ve made the tough decisions, yet the city is asking the taxpayers to dig deeper just to keep things going as they are.
And, the timing of this guarantees that any new ideas will come AFTER the council levies the new tax. And we all know that once government imposes a tax, it’s very hard to get rid of it.
It would be nice to look to city staff for some answers. The shift to a Second-Class City was supposed to raise the level of professionalism in city finances. But instead of new ideas and a higher skill level, we now have the same person who has been writing the budget all along running the city’s financial department. I like Mike Hendricks, and he may very well be a good manager, but I’m not aware that he has any financial training or credentials, and I don’t think we can depend on him to bring new ideas to the table.
The tax caps were instituted seven years ago. It’s hard to believe we are still blaming them for our troubles. They should have sent a message to city governments: get a handle on your expenses because the taxpayers are tired of constantly having to pony up more money. I don’t think we got the message because we’ve had plenty of time to adapt, but we’re still having trouble and blaming the caps. This is a creative way to tax people because it’s a fee, not a tax, so not subject the caps. I’d like to see some of that creativity used to save money instead of squeezing more out of the residents.
So, back to timing. I realize the strategy here is to get this done quickly so people will forget it by the time the next election rolls around. But, as Mary Sue Rowland said at last week’s council meeting, what’s the rush (other than political expediency)? Considering millions of dollars are at stake, is it really necessary to ramrod this through in the first month of this council’s existence? Why not spend a little time deliberating? Why not ask our new, expanded finance department for alternatives? Why not have this new council take a good, hard look at the budget and determine why our peer communities are so much more efficient than we are?
One last thought: property tax increases are nearly invisible because they are just higher numbers on a bill we pay twice a year. This one will be a line item on a bill we pay every month, a constant reminder of how our new, improved, expanded, more representative city council failed, in its very first month, to live up to its promise of new ideas, new initiatives and new energy in City Hall, and instead opted for the same old tired solutions.
Mike Corbett
Noblesville
