Goshen council weighs phased environmental services fee to offset state tax-driven revenue losses

Mayor opened the July 10 Goshen City Council meeting to ask the city to consider “the possibility of adding [an] environmental services fee for our residents” as a way to respond to revenue impacts from recent state legislation. Amber Nielsen, a senior advisor with Baker Tilly, presented updated projections showing that changes from Senate Enrolled Act 1 (and follow-up legislation discussed in the presentation) will increase property-tax credits and alter local income tax buckets, putting pressure on the city’s general fund in coming years.

Nielsen said the consultant team modeled three fee components: the residential trash and recycling contract (the current Borden contract), brush and yard-waste collection, and the environmental services center contract and operations. Taken together, those costs produced an illustrative total cost near $2.8 million for 2027. Under the Baker Tilly illustration, a three-phase implementation would bill customers $7 a month in phase 1, $14.30 in phase 2 and $22.40 at full implementation (phase 3). Nielsen described administrative allowances, a 3% annual inflation assumption for contract costs, and an example hardship rate that the city could structure in addition to the regular fee.

The presentation explained why the city is considering a fee rather than property- or local-income-tax increases: state law changes will consolidate the city’s three local-income-tax buckets into a single municipal-services bucket beginning in 2029, and projected increases in property-tax credits (referred to during the presentation as circuit-breaker or similar credits) are expected to reduce property-tax revenue over the next several years. Nielsen emphasized the city retains discretion over whether to adopt a countywide opt-in local-income-tax approach or set a city-specific rate; the consultant’s model conservatively assumes continued pressure on the general fund and no material revenue growth beyond known inputs.

Council members raised practical and equity concerns in a lengthy Q&A. One council member said, “I see this fee being very regressive. Many of us can afford it. There are many people in our community that won't be able to,” urging the city to consider usage-based billing or hardship and senior reductions. Nielsen and other speakers responded that most private and municipal providers use fixed-route, fixed-cost models and that fully usage-based (by weight) billing is rare and operationally complex; she noted some municipalities offer reduced rates for seniors or income-eligible residents and recommended the council explore eligibility and administrative approaches if it moves forward.

Councilors also asked for a clearer breakdown of which costs on the consultant slides were trash versus recycling and whether smaller bin sizes or contract changes could create differentiated rates. Staff and the consultant said the current contract is based on a standard (96-gallon) bin and that contract language and vendor capabilities would determine whether smaller-bin pricing is feasible; the consultant suggested the issue could be addressed in the next procurement cycle.

Nielsen stressed the fee would be established as a separate enterprise-style fund and billed alongside water and sewer on monthly utility bills. Under the consultant illustration, the general fund would continue to subsidize a portion of service costs until the fee reached full implementation in 2029, at which point the environmental services fund would be expected to operate off fee revenue.

Council members asked the administration to return with follow-up materials before making a decision, including: a clearer trash-versus-recycling cost breakdown, a realistic list of potential cuts or other options if the fee is not adopted (what services or budgets would be reduced), and details on how hardship or senior discounts would be administered and funded. Amber Nielsen offered to provide updated calculations and contact information for follow-up.

The council did not vote on the fee at the July 10 meeting; the presentation closed with requests for additional data and next-step comparisons. The meeting adjourned with a plan for continued discussion and further information from the consultant and staff.