Kokomo council backs temporary local income tax increase to help fund Howard County jail

The Kokomo Common Council voted to adopt Resolution 28-51 on first action tonight, casting the city’s votes in favor of an ordinance being proposed to the Howard County Local Income Tax Council that would raise the county'wide public-safety local income tax by 0.4 percentage points for 2026 and 2027 to help finance the Howard County Jail Project.

The resolution followed a public hearing in which county advisers explained the proposal and more than a dozen residents asked questions or expressed concerns about transparency, the long-term cost to taxpayers, and alternatives to building a new jail. Max Adams, a lawyer with the firm Barnes & Thornburg representing Howard County, told the council the body was being asked to adopt a resolution so the countywide tax council could consider an ordinance increasing the public-safety local income tax. "The resolution before you is a resolution, voting in favor of an ordinance of the local income tax council of Howard County," Adams said (remarks at 741.66). Jason Simler, a municipal adviser with Baker Tilly, described the increase as a way to reduce future borrowing costs for the jail project.

Why this matters: County officials told the council a temporary increase would reduce the amount the county must borrow to build a jail required by a federal court order; without local action, they said federal or state intervention could force a more expensive solution that would still be paid by local taxpayers. Simler said the county's portion of the additional revenue would be about $3.3 million and the city's portion about $6.685 million for the two-year period, and that the increase would remain in effect only for 2026 and 2027, after which the local tax structure changes in 2028.

In the public hearing, residents pressed for more details and accountability. "So to raise funds, gotta raise taxes. Right?" asked Terry Roach of 900 E. Lorderman, seeking confirmation the change was an income tax on wages (public comment at 1103.35). Hannah Guillaume of 415 N. Wabash called for greater transparency about the reasons for the tax increase and about who is responsible for earlier decisions she said have driven up local taxes (public comment at 1292.755). Several speakers asked whether alternatives to a new jail had been fully considered: one attendee cited a DLZ study that he said estimated an expansion could cost $35 million to $40 million rather than a larger new project; county representatives said that the DLZ figures were dated and that updated estimates for expanding the existing facility were closer to $100 million.

County and city officials responded to questions about accountability and the tax process. Daryl Maple, who identified himself as a member of the county council, described the hours county leaders had spent reviewing options and said the county hired advisers and architects to address current needs and potential growth. He also explained that a 0.25 percentage-point county local income tax increase adopted earlier had been within county authority and did not require city approval; the current resolution is required because the proposed rate change is subject to the county'wide local income tax council (remarks at 2928.9348 and 2706.195). Officials reiterated that the ordinance presented to the county tax council would seek a 0.4 percentage-point increase and that the county and cities have representatives on the tax council.

Council action and next steps: Councilman Midland moved to adopt Resolution 28-51 and the council approved it (motion carried). The resolution authorizes Kokomo's votes on the proposed county ordinance; the local income tax council will consider the ordinance at a later meeting and the Howard County Council and Board of Commissioners have already adopted supporting resolutions. County officials said the county council will hold its own public hearing and vote next week. A county official told the audience the county council meets on the 28th at 4 p.m.

Points raised but not resolved: speakers asked for an accounting of corporate tax abatements and whether the city had enforced compliance where companies failed to meet job or investment commitments; Joe Russo cited Indiana Code 6-1.1-12.1-5.9 when urging review of abatement compliance before raising taxes. Residents also sought detail on who would be responsible for operations and long-term upkeep of any new jail and how the project would be sized to avoid another near-term replacement.

The council closed the public hearing and adopted Resolution 28-51; the county'level process and further votes remain required before any tax is implemented.