Appearing on the Bloomington city council’s May 17 meeting agenda, which was released after 5 p.m. on Friday, is a proposed new ordinance.
The ordinance was given a 32-word title: “Ordinance 23-11 – To Amend Title 6 of the Bloomington Municipal Code Entitled “Health and Sanitation” – Re: Updating and Harmonizing Chapters 4 and 5 of Title 6 of the Bloomington Municipal Code.”
At first glance, this title makes the proposed revision to the law seem innocuous.
However, buried inside this verbose yet opaque title is a major increase in the trash collection fees paid by residents—which is surely controversial.
When the trash collection fee for most of the residents who get the service is proposed to be increased by 75 percent, that should have a clear reflection in the ordinance title.
By choosing a title that obfuscates the actual content of the legislation, the first reading of the ordinance at Wednesday’s city council meeting will not provide residents with the transparency and honesty they deserve from their local government.
Updating and harmonizing Chapters 4 and 5 of Title 6 of the Bloomington Municipal Code just sounds like a necessary and benevolent action—perhaps a cleanup of outdated wording. The reality is that it will result in at least a 58-percent increase in trash collection fees. That’s the smallest percentage increase proposed for any of the three cart sizes.
For residents who use the largest cart size, the fee is proposed to increase by 95 percent—that’s basically a doubling of the monthly cart fee, from $18.52 to $36.19 per month.
The saving grace of the city council’s procedure for introducing a proposed ordinance is supposed to be the synopsis, which gets read aloud by the city clerk on the occasion of a first reading. Nothing else is allowed to happen at a Bloomington city council first reading, except for the reading of the title and synopsis—unless one councilmember wants to be brave enough to demand the reading of the entire ordinance.
The synopsis of the Ordinance 23-11, which is just six words longer than the title, reads like this:
This ordinance makes several changes to Title 6 of the BMC to bring the Title in line with changed local practice, to adjust service fees, to clarify references, and to harmonize current practices with the City Code.
The only clue that the ordinance might involve an increase in trash collection fees is the phrase “adjust service fees.” It’s commonplace for private corporate entities that are announcing rate increases to call them rate adjustments—a tawdry marketing ploy that is so common that it’s a cultural embarrassment. Residents deserve better from their local government.
It’s a shame the author of the synopsis did not see fit to increase the word count by just one, swapping in “trash collection” for “service.”
This brazen lack of transparency is unacceptable, especially when it comes to matters that directly impact a resident’s wallet.
Bloomington mayor John Hamilton’s administration has a responsibility to be honest and upfront about the purpose and effects of the ordinances that it puts in front of the city council. The city council has a responsibility to hold the administration accountable by demanding clear and transparent wording for the title and synopsis of an ordinance.
Residents should not be left to decipher the true meaning that lurks behind the title of an ordinance. It is the local government’s duty to provide clear and concise wording that accurately reflects the content of an ordinance.
By allowing vague and convoluted wording to serve as the initial formal announcement that a big trash collection rate increase will be considered by the council, the mayor and the council are doing a disservice to the community they are supposed to serve. Failure to complete a simple task like writing a clear ordinance title erodes trust and confidence in local government.
Do trash collection need to be increased? Probably so. That’s true even if the increase were intended to cover just the cost of curbside collection of trash—not including the cost of curbside recycling collection. The city’s curbside recycling collection program requires running additional, separate trucks, using additional drivers.
But the policy question in front of the city council is bigger than that kind of incremental increase. The size of the proposed increases looks consistent with an effort to ensure that trash cart fees also cover the cost of curbside recycling collection.
It has up to now been an intentional policy choice by the city of Bloomington to subsidize the cost of curbside recycling, by covering those costs with money from the city’s general fund.
The policy question for the city council is certainly worth asking: Should the city stop subsidizing the cost of curbside recycling?
Factoring into the mix for that policy choice is the fact that the city’s curbside waste collection—for trash and recycling—is provided only to buildings with four or fewer units.
Residents who live in larger buildings pay income taxes and indirect property taxes through their rent, which lands in the city’s general fund. Should those residents help subsidize the curbside recycling costs for the residents of smaller buildings? If that situation is determined to be inequitable, how should it be rectified?
Charging more to current curbside waste collection customers is just one way to achieve equity. Another path to equity would be to rethink how recyclables are collected. A possible solution would be to expand the service of systematic collection for recyclable materials to all residents—regardless of the size of the building where they live.
Another policy question raised by the proposed fee increase is whether the per-gallon cost for carts should be progressive across cart sizes.
Under the current fee structure, residents who opt for a bigger cart size already pay more per month than those who opt for a smaller cart size. The 35-gallon cart costs $6.51 per month compared to $18.52 for a 96-gallon cart. The cost per gallon for each cart size is similar—but not truly progressive, because the middle-sized cart is the least expensive per gallon. The mid-sized cart is also the most popular.
But the proposed new rate structure amplifies the difference in cost for different cart-sizes, by making the cost per gallon clearly progressive across cart size: 29 cents per gallon for 35-gallon carts; 32 cents per gallon for 64-gallon carts; and 38 cents per gallon for 96-gallon carts. That’s a policy choice that deserves thorough deliberation.
In conclusion, the opaque title for Ordinance 23-11 misleads residents about the actual effect of the proposed new law. The kind of substantive policy discussion that trash fee increases deserve is not helped by an ordinance title that doesn’t say what the ordinance is about.
The council should prioritize transparency and honesty in all their actions, especially when it comes to matters that directly impact how much residents pay for services. A more straightforward and honest title would have been “Ordinance 23-11 – To Increase Trash Collection Fees by at least 58 percent.”
To give residents the transparency they deserve, on Wednesday, the city council should vote at the start of their meeting to take Ordinance 23-11 off their agenda, with a request to the administration to revise the ordinance title and synopsis so that it’s clear what the ordinance is about.
| Container Size in Gallons | Bottom-end Price | Bottom-end % Increase over now | Top-end Price |
Top-end % Increase over now | Bottom-end $ per gallon | Top-end $ per gallon | |
| Current Price Range | 35 | $4.82 | NA | $6.51 | NA | .1377 | .186 |
| 64 | $8.60 | NA | $11.61 | NA | .1344 | .1814 | |
| 96 | $13.72 | NA | $18.52 | NA | .1429 | .1929 | |
| Proposed Price Range | 35 | $10.31 | 58.37% | $12.37 | 90.02% | .2946 | .3534 |
| 64 | $20.42 | 75.88% | $24.50 | 111.02% | .3191 | .3828 | |
| 96 | $36.19 | 95.41% | $43.43 | 134.50% | .377 | .4524 | |
[The color coding of the rows is meant to highlight the rank order of the cost per gallon: red is most expensive, yellow is the middle, and green is the least expensive.]
[Updated May 15, 2023 at 4:16 p.m. The city council has now issued a revised title to the ordinance. The new title reads: “TO AMEND TITLE 6 OF THE BLOOMINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “HEALTH AND SANITATION – Re: Updating and increasing fees for service and harmonizing Chapters 4 and 5 of Title 6 of the Bloomington Municipal Code”]
Agree.
The Inflation Reduction Act was a climate bill. The USA PATRIOT Act was a domestic spying bill (and the most contrived acronym in American history). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Does anything collected for recycling actually get recycled? My understanding is that the contract doesn’t require anything to be recycled nor the contractor who accepts the stuff to respond to information requests about what actually gets recycled.
To the extent that there was a market for recyclables it was China, and that market has apparently expired.
Is it time to end the charade?
Shades of David Grubb. The ordinance makes ten changes to Title 6 of the Bloomington Municipal Code, so I think the city can be excused for titling the ordinance a catch-all name since it’s more than just about raising trash cart fees. Perhaps all future ordinances shouldn’t be titled until Haskins tells the city what part of each ordinance makes him most upset.
Dave is absolutely right about the opaqueness of the proposed ordinance. Hiding a major fee increase in the current proposed ordinance is BS. The administration and council should have proposed two separate ordinances, one to clean up Title 6 and one to modify the fee structure. Pass the clean up ordinance first, then work on the fees. That way the clean up part doesn’t get caught up in what will likely be a contentious fee discussion.
The increase wasn’t hidden in the ordinance. Askins said it wasn’t apparent in the title.
What is the two tier pricing about? (bottom end/top end)
Hi John! I could have probably done a better job laying out how the price for each cart size is set—as a range (from low end to top end). The board of public works can then set the price as long as it is somewhere in the range.
Even very pale shades of David Grubb would still be an inapt comparison. I say good catch, Dave. My only quibble, and it could be because I am not a math major, is that Dave understates the percentage increase. A 58.37% increase on a $4.82 fee would get us only to $7.63 or so. A 100% increase, i.e., doubling the fee, would get us to only $9.64. Again assuming my math makes sense, this is actually more like 113.90% increase or a tad more. Even more reason for the ordinance to at least include the percentage increases in the synopsis.
Dave Askin seems to be basing the percentage increase of both the proposed ends on the actual current fee, which is at the current top-end. So to get $10.31 from the current $6.51 for the 35-gallon cart you’d have a 58.37% increase. I agree it would be more intuitive to give percentages for each end, but I’d also like to see the current fees (not just the current range) as well.
Hi, Bob! Yes, the percentage increases are based on the top end of the current range, which is also the current price. I should have made clear in the column that the current price is, in fact, the top end of the current range.
This is what corruption looks like. This is what decades of single party rule looks like.
The ordinance hasn’t even been discussed until the committee of the Whole. Until then , there is no discussion and no information. Committee of the Whole will allow for explanation, council questions, public comment, and council comment. It will be repeated at the Regular Session when a vote will be taken
There aren’t committee of the whole meetings on the council schedule. Only regular sessions. The legislation will be up for discussion at the following regular session.
Thank you
That “top end” price for a 96 gallon cart is almost DOUBLE what I pay for a private company to provide me with trash and recycling.
Same for me but then my private company and others serving my area don’t offer three sizes of carts. They offer only 96-gallon carts. So it’s not a fair comparison to City 96-gallon rates because the private companies are picking up lighter loads or fewer loads in their 96-gallon carts, which translate to lower costs from start to finish (number of trucks and workers, number of trips to landfill, landfill fees, . . .). Apples to oranges.
Here’s a suggestion for Dave Askins’ journalistic sleuthing. It would be incredibly interesting to track down exactly how often and how much all the various taxes and service fees have been increased during the Hamilton administration. Alternatively, one could simply calculate how much revenue the city has obtained from all taxes and fees on an average annual basis during the Hamilton administration, assuming one could even extract this information from the city. This would allow one to include city revenue from such things as parking fees. Then it would be interesting to compare that total to the total received by the city during the administrations of the three previous mayors, Mark Kruzan, John Fernandez, and Tomi Allison. One could of course adjust for inflation in making comparisons. I think the results of such an investigation would be eye-opening.
Liberal weasel words…this is a result of years of one-party rule…not only here, but at the State level as well. It’s bipartisan for sure. Government in general is completely dishonest, but unfortunately, we continue to tolerate it.
I’ve lived in half a dozen different cities. Bloomington has by far the worst trash collection service of any of them. The idea of paying more for it is maddening. A few questions I’d like to see answered:
1. Why does Bloomington truck all of its waste to Terra Haute? How much more does this cost, both financially and environmentally, compared to using a local landfill?
2. Everywhere else I’ve lived, you put out your trash in your own containers, the city picks it up. Simple. No special containers, no Dr. Seuss robot arms, no forms and fees for large item pickup. Does this system actually save the city money compared to a traditional system (i.e. a guy on the back of the truck and they pick up whatever?). Lots of extra upkeep and administrative costs and it likely encourages dumping of large items. Also great to get awaked at 5am once a week to the beep beep beep sound of the garbage truck backing up to perfectly align its robot arm.
3. Like every reasonable person, I’m pro-recycling in theory, but in practice recyclers have become increasingly picky about what waste they will actually recycle. Before we continue to subsidize a recycling program that was supposed to pay for itself it would be nice to know what percentage of material from recycling bins actually gets recycled. 50%? Then maybe it’s worth the cost. 5%? That money could be put to better use elsewhere.
As per discussion that took place during the recent candidate primary debates, the city should have its revenues and expenditures audited by an independent CPA firm and that report should be public knowledge. This is what nonprofit organizations do on an annual basis (and present to their donors) and it would be a healthy thing for government to do and share with their taxpayers.
For those with questions, there are memos attached to the ordinance which explain the increase as well as charts and tables along with the department budget. The link is in the beginning of the article
I would like to add one more fact. Many of us in the community have composted our food waste with Earthkeepers for many years. (https://www.earthkeeperscompost.com/) That has kept a large amount of food waste out of the waste cycle. It’s been a benefit to the community (less trash for the city to pick; better for the climate, etc…), yet we have paid for it out of pocket at $8/month per bin. Now, Earthkeepers has been forced to shut down due to various factors, including zoning issues with the County (which seems to be a separate and continuous issue that I hope BSquared can report on. The Commissioners are out of control).
Many of us will have to find alternative ways to compost large amounts of food or throw it into the trash. If the City could figure out a way to offer composting services, it would be a truly a sustainable option. Americans waste around 25 million tons of food each year, and 66% of that is sent straight to a landfill. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-food-waste-infographic.pdf. According to the UN around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food waste. This is not insignificant.
As a progressive, I don’t mind paying taxes and fees to the government for services. I believe it is the government’s duty to provide services to us as residents, and the most efficient and equitable way of doing that is to have the government collect fees and taxes in exchange for services. But I want to see that the services being provided truly are for the betterment of our community. I think that compost needs to be on the table in this discussion. I have no doubt that most of what is filling up the big bins (based on what I see overflowing my neighbors’ trash cans) is compostable and recyclable. Let’s up those fees and offer other options to dissuade people from throwing food waste and recyclables into the trash can.
Thanks.
Thanks
I am an Earthkeepers customer, too, although I take my compost to the bins at the recycling centers. I, too, am curious about the zoning decision that the county made that made this growing business decide to fold and what the MCSWD might do to continue this valuable service as Earthkeepers ceases to exist. I hope more Earthkeepers customers will speak up, too.
With regard to Earthkeepers food waste composting system, I suggest that folks take a look at their 2022 Benefits Report (download from https://www.earthkeeperscompost.com/about-us), which makes it clear that the business was growing. In fact, they were planning to build a second processing facility until, as they noted in their last email “Economic volatility from the past 3 years and a County zoning-change at our prospective 2nd facility have put a definitive end to our unique business model.”
It seems to me that there is a story worth exploring with Earthkeepers before they shut down in two weeks about the unexpected county zoning change. Their contact info is on their website.
“As a progressive…Let’s up those fees…”. If you want to pay more then no one is stopping you. But don’t try to bully other people into doing something just because you think it’s a good idea.
Great job uncovering this egregious obfuscation! Like you say, in this case it’s probably perfectly reasonable but why not call it what it is, a fee hike. I’m tired of political double talk using terms like “reform.”
I can’t remember what jive-speech they used to sell us six-plexuses in stable neighborhoods. Hold politicians feet to the fire till they explain in plain English what they’re proposing!
Yes, all zero of the six-plexes that went up in your neighborhood have really ruined the vibe for you im sure
I recently moved out of the city limits. I lived in Bloomington nearly eight years. When I was young we used to jokingly call Bloomington “Little San Francisco” Before I moved I looked around and realized it was living up to it’s old nick name. Homeless everywhere. Money diverted from city maintenance to ineffective social programs and hikes in fees of every kind. Useless bikes lanes that have less to do with bikes and more to due with choking automobile use. Think about it. The city will argue handicap accessibility while they close streets to seat customers of local restaurants. Are we to think it’s Ok to roll your wheelchair a block to get access to a business. I did what many people are thinking. Move away.
Hey Dave…. As a County resident facing possible annexation, and one used to taking my own household waste and recycling to one of the County sites, I view the entire cart pricing structure as extremely overpriced, bordering on gouging.
Are city residents compelled to use the city’s trash hauling service or can they opt-out by not renting ANY of the three carts and just deal with their garbage and recycling on their own, as County residents do?
Hi Ed! If you live in a building with four or fewer units, then you have to use the city’s curbside service. City code prohibits private waste haulers from providing service to buildings that are served by the city’s sanitation department.
The city code on that reads: “(j) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any unauthorized commercial enterprise to collect, obtain, possess, pick up or cause to be collected, obtained, possessed or picked up any refuse, solid waste, garbage or yard waste from places of residence on routes within the city limits that are served by the city sanitation division. Occasional removal of bulk trash associated with construction, moving, or seasonal cleaning does not require authorization other than for approval of placement of dumpsters within the right-of-way. The board of public works shall determine such authorization. Any and each such violation hereof from one or more locations shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this chapter.”
Thanks, but I’m not talking about using a private third-party service. I merely want to know if I would be compelled to pay the city for trash/recycling for my single family home. 🙂
Yes—they will give you a cart and charge you for it, even if you don’t use it.
There is no reasonable explanation for the City Sanitation Department to be charging more than what private collectors charge. A large container out in the country is going for $18-$26 depending on your trash collector. In the city you have population density, coupled with a legally enforce monopoly preventing any competition. Theoretically, the city should be able to do it cheaper. The city should consider putting the trash service out to bid.
Dave:
A shame…Yet another reason to consider relocation if annexed I suppose.
I handle my own trash and recycling. The County charges $15 for ten 33-gallon bags, my household uses one approximately every other week, so ten easily lasts 4 months. Recycling is free as long as we separate everything. And all the hauling is done by me.
Looks like I’ll be paying many many times more annually than the $45 I currently pay – and get nothing for it but the satisfaction of subsidizing Bloomington’s bloat.
Thanks for the clarification. 🙂
(risking a double-post, as my original question seems to have gone “poof”)
As a County resident who is facing possible annexation, are City residents obligated to use City trash hauling and recycling or can they opt-out by simply not choosing any of the three carts sizes?
Hi Ed! On my screen anyway, your original question is still posted, with an answer, which I will just paste here, too:
If you live in a building with four or fewer units, then you have to use the city’s curbside service. City code prohibits private waste haulers from providing service to buildings that are served by the city’s sanitation department.
The city code on that reads: “(j) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any unauthorized commercial enterprise to collect, obtain, possess, pick up or cause to be collected, obtained, possessed or picked up any refuse, solid waste, garbage or yard waste from places of residence on routes within the city limits that are served by the city sanitation division. Occasional removal of bulk trash associated with construction, moving, or seasonal cleaning does not require authorization other than for approval of placement of dumpsters within the right-of-way. The board of public works shall determine such authorization. Any and each such violation hereof from one or more locations shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this chapter.”
Can this thread be deleted, as my OP has now appeared and we’re discussing this redundantly? 🙂