I call this meeting of the Common Comp Carmel Common Council to order for Monday, October 6th.

First item on our agenda is agenda approval.

All right, please vote.

Our agenda is approved.

Giving the invocation tonight, we have Pastor Steve Lancaster from Northview Church.

Let's pray.

God, thank you for the opportunity to be standing here today.

Hi.

Thank you for the blessings which you have poured out over this city.

I thank you that we can live in a nation that's free to express our opinions, God, free to debate, free to uh discuss ideas, and free to praise you and recognize your sovereignty and the high value that you place on human life made in your image.

I pray for wisdom and discernment for these leaders here tonight, God, that decisions would not simply come from the experiences and knowledge they have acquired, but that discernment would come from your spirit as they humble themselves before you.

Remind those in positions of authority in our city, whether it's in government or businesses, churches or schools, that they are stewards of the authority you have entrusted to them, and all influence they have has been given by their creator.

Let us take seriously the charge you've placed on our lives, and let us remember that we will all stand before you someday to account for how we stewarded these positions.

Above all, Father, help us hold fast to the hope that comes only through Jesus Christ.

God, would you protect the families of these leaders here who are sacrificing just as much for their spouses and parents to be involved in this public service?

And pray that these leaders would first resolve to be the best spouse and parent that they can be.

Let them not show up here to make decisions for the community without first caring for their families, and help them to maintain the priorities that you've established in the sacred institutions of marriage and family.

God, would you bring unity to our city, to our nation, and to our world?

May the laws, ordinances, legislation, and ideas discussed in this room reflect the ethics of your kingdom.

And may our nation flourish as we humbly turn to you.

God, I pray that if there's anyone here today who does not have a personal relationship with you, Jesus, I pray that you would open their hearts and minds to recognize you as the one true God, as their Savior, as the way, the truth, and the life.

Help them to fully surrender themselves to you, Father.

We open this uh evening up to you, and God would you just bless our time here together.

In your name we pray.

Amen.

Thank you.

Uh, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'll get started.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And just a reproductive for which stands.

One nation under God, individual with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

All right.

Next on our agenda, we have recognition of uh we have recognition of city employees and outstanding citizens.

We have many but not on the agenda tonight.

Then recognition of persons who wish to address the council, otherwise known as the blue card section.

We've got a lot tonight, so I'm gonna run through a few rules and some updates kind of before you we get up there to speak.

Uh, first off, I'm gonna call your name when you go up to the podium.

I'm gonna push the button to speak.

You'll see green light goes out on, that means it's time to go.

You get three minutes.

And I do apologize for having to cut off at three minutes.

We've got a lot of speakers and a lot on our agenda tonight.

But when you see the yellow light, that means you've got about 30 seconds left.

Red means finish up the sentence.

Um we do reward brevity though, if you know, with your comments.

Um I see a lot of people here to speak about prime life enrichment, um, and some people have written in the 2026 budget.

There are two opportunities.

We please don't speak twice, but if you could either speak during the blue card section if you filled it out, if you did not fill out a blue card and would like to speak later in the agenda, the budget is a public hearing, which means at that point people who would like to comment on items on the budget can be welcomed up to speak at that time.

So you can speak at either moment.

Um just to know on this, this we're not entering to a dialogue at this time.

This is to hear from you.

After that, there'll be council and mayoral comments and observations.

So any the mayor or any counselors who wish to comment or respond to anything said, that would be the time to do so.

And one other thing, um, any form of demonstrations such as signs, clapping, cheering, booing, this is not allowed.

Uh, just so we can keep the meeting flowing on time.

So if you love a comment, awesome.

Do do quiet claps instead of actual claps.

So that being said, we are going to start off with Gary Wagner and then on deck, which means kind of move your way to second place, would be uh Marcia Clairbaugh.

I apologize in advance if I mispronounced someone's name.

Thank you, Adam.

Uh good evening, Mayor Finkham and members of the City Council.

On behalf of Prime Life Enrichment, thank you for the opportunity to speak at this meeting.

I joined Prime Life in November of 2018 and have served as its executive director for the past five years.

No position has been so rewarding, and in my opinion, no organization has been so valuable to a community as Prime Life Enrichment.

I also want to thank the city for its support of Prime Life over the past two years, including $40,000 in 2023, $100,000 early this year in January, and hopefully in the near future, the $50,000 originally approved in the 2025 budget.

This evening we look forward to 2026.

We are not here to ask for a handout, but to present our case for the value Prime Life adds to the community and how the city's support benefits not just Prime Life but also the city itself.

Simply put, we are the only nonprofit organization that delivers what are called the social determinants of health.

Such determinants can account for as much as 50% to 80% of health outcomes among seniors.

Key factors include physical and mental activity, nutrition, transportation, and socialization.

All four of these are at the heart of our programs and services that we provide to vulnerable seniors.

Why should this be important to the city?

First, given that seniors are the fastest growing demographic in Carmel.

If Prime Life was not here, it would fall on the city to provide and pay for the social determinants of health.

Second, if the city wishes to become recognized by AARP as a senior-friendly community, having a prime life in Carmel certainly increases the likelihood of attaining this objective.

Although our traditional funding sources have gone from 485,000 six years ago to under 180,000 now, we continue to grow.

We have over 700 members, and at least 70% of them are Carmel residents.

Our fleet of seven vans, soon to be nine thanks to Indigo, provides a thousand to thirteen hundred rides per month compared to three hundred to five hundred just a few years ago.

In closing, we are well aware of the property tax shortfall.

However, $50,000 is less than three one hundredths of one percent of the proposed general budget for 2026.

It seems a small price to pay given the camp given the dedicated the campaign promises to provide dedicated funding to Prime Life.

While such promises are not enforceable in a court of law, they will ring hollow in the court of public opinion if not kept.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And I apologize on this the time.

We just got to keep the same rules for everybody.

Marcia Clairbout, you are up next.

And on deck, Lisa Brooks.

Waiting for a green light so she gets her full three minutes.

Okay.

It has become a sad day to me that in this community, seniors are no longer respected.

I grew up in a household of four generations under one roof.

And I know the wisdom that comes from having all these wonderful minds and love shared.

From the day we are born, we get older.

But when we're younger, we want to be older, and when we're older, we want to be younger.

The fact is we cannot stop aging.

By the way, I'm a 76-year-old senior and president of the board at Prime Life Enrichment.

PLE is a great resource in this community.

And the members that are there love it, and that there's things there for them at every age and stage in their journey on life.

They are all thankful for Prime Life, and they all look forward to it being here for many years to come.

Keep in mind again that seniors are the fastest growing portion of the population in Hamilton County, and seniors are the least looked over, are the least looked at in the demographics of philanthropic dollars.

We are in the lowest 2% in all studies that I could find.

The narrative has been the same.

We need to do more with less.

Excuse me.

There is no more to be cut and still be prime life.

In the last election, all the candidates supported a dedicated sustainable funding for Prime Life.

I became my home in 1989, and I love it here, and I plan to be here till the Lord takes me home.

So I'm asking the city of Carmel at this time to follow through on their promises.

Carmel is the best small city in the United States, but can also be the best small city for seniors in the United States.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Next up is Lisa Brooks, and on deck is Lisa Brandt.

Hi, my name is Lisa Brooks, and I'm a physical water therapy and water aquatics teacher at Prime Life.

I'm contracted out to them to do that as part of my job in retirement.

I'm 69 years old.

And I really enjoy all the people that have come to my pool who look to me to help them to stay mobile and to stay fit as they continue to age as I continue to age as well.

Prime Life also offers a lot of other programs for seniors in the community that are just very important to them.

There's social connections, they have a library club, they have games, they have activities, they have social events that we you know we try to fund that people will sponsor.

We have educational opportunities to find out about things that you might want to know as a senior, such as estate planning or various other things that are important to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Lisa Brandt on deck, Angela Coven.

There you go.

Good evening.

I appreciate you guys taking the opportunity to listen to me speak this evening.

As a longtime Carmel resident and health care executive in this community and a small business owner, I spent my career modernizing healthcare organizations.

The kind of transformation doesn't happen overnight.

It takes long-term planning, thoughtful investment, and strong collaboration.

Takes vision, hard work, and collaboration of leaders.

Carmel is no different.

Our city has become one of the most admired communities in the country because leaders like yourself and residents work together with a shared vision.

We're now at a moment that calls for that same cooperative spirit.

The mayor and her team have presented a budget that keeps Carmel on solid fiscal footing while addressing real challenges from public safety and infrastructure to modernization and economic development.

I've been encouraged by the renewed focus on partnership, both from the police, the fire, and all of this team.

And also been impressed by the fiscal accountability under this administration.

But to keep moving forward, council and administration must pull in the same direction.

The public is watching and listening, and so are our youth.

And these are our future Carmel leaders.

They are shockingly surprised by the acts of the council publicly.

When government becomes divided, progress slows, and uncertainty ripples through every part of the organization, from employee morale to business confidence.

Carmel's reputation as a well-run, forward thinking city is one of our greatest assets.

We don't want our neighboring communities like Westfield and Fisher's to suppress us.

Preserving that requires teamwork, not tension.

I encourage you all to work together and pass this budget without necessary unnecessary drama or delay.

Let's model the professionalism and unity that has divine defined Carmel and keeps building a community that is built for huge dreams.

Thank you for this opportunity and appreciate being here.

Next up is Angela Coven.

On deck is Andrew Engels, good evening.

My name is Angela Coven.

I'm speaking on behalf of my dad, a Carmel resident and Prime Life member.

In 2019, we lost my mom, his wife of 51 years to cancer.

And while he was adjusting to his new life as a widow, we also learned he had entered end stage renal disease and needed to start dialysis three times a week.

Obviously, our family was extraordinarily concerned about not only his physical health but also the emotional toll all this was taking on him.

As a former instructor at Revel Fitness who operates out of Prime Life Enrichment, I was familiar with the services Prime Life provides to seniors in the community and encouraged my dad to become a member.

Since 2019, Prime Life has provided transportation to and from dialysis and a myriad of other medical appointments for my dad.

This service has been essential for our family as my brother, our spouses, and I all work full-time.

My dad also attends Prime Life on his days off from dialysis, enjoying lunch with his prime life friends, engaging in multiple activities, and even leads a Bible study for fellow Prime Life members.

Last year, we were notified that my dad's cognitive decline was to the point where medication was recommended.

Due to his renal disease and other health issues, he is not a candidate for either of the medications they typically prescribe.

However, the nurse asked, does he eat well?

Is he physically and socially active?

Does he participate participate in brain stimulating activities which can help combat the progression of dementia as much as the medications do?

I was able to answer yes to all of her questions due to his involvement of Prime Life Enrichment.

It is not an understatement to say Prime Life has changed my dad's life for the good in more ways than we could ever have imagined.

In fact, I would even go far enough to say it has saved him.

In 2023, my dad and I sat in a meeting similar to this to show our support for Prime Life Enrichment.

After that meeting, then candidates pledged their support as well, and we learned that $50,000 would be allocated to Prime Life in 2025 and in years to come.

We are devastated to learn these funds are not currently included in the 2026 budget.

Tonight I am sharing my dad's story, but please know there are countless more stories just like him that belong to other members of Prime Life.

I implore you to find a way to continue this essential sport, essential support to Prime Life Enrichment, whose staff go above and beyond to provide services to one of our most vulnerable vulnerable populations, the seniors of this community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Just a reminder, I'm not gonna scold anyone.

Yeah, exactly.

Next up is Andrew Ingall, and then on deck, uh Cynthia Kierak, if I said that right.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council, for this time.

I'm coming to you not as a member of Prime Life Enrichment, but I'm coming to you because for many years before my wife died, she went, it gave her a boost every time she went.

She made some friends, probably some of these people here probably knew her.

Um therefore I'm pushing for this financing to help them out.

I know Carmel is getting to the point where they're looking for more housing for people that are getting older.

Um several years ago, I went to a meeting at the uh Clay Township Center at 17th College, and I do believe you were the uh leading man, and I spoke then too.

I've seen what good it can do for her, what it did for Irene, and I'm sure many of uh these other people too.

She looked forward to going.

We did use the transportation they had because I still work.

Irene got to know some of the drivers and some of the other uh members too, and she enjoyed going.

Please put that in your thoughts to maybe do some funding to help this all out.

I know you're there a lot of a lot of other responsibilities too, but I think there's power in numbers, and as you can see, there's quite a few numbers.

Thank you both all very much.

Thank you.

Um, Cynthia, and then Pearl Pearl with you too.

Is that Pearl Cureck?

Right after whatever you started, they'll get the green light started.

You'll be you can just start talking.

Whatever you like, we'll get the green light going.

Thank you, uh Mayor Pinkham and City Council for letting us speak.

I'm Cindy Kirawak, and this is my 94-year-old mother-in-law, Pearl.

And the reason Prime Life is very important to me is because I would say I'm not the seniors that you're seeing here that go.

I am one where she has moved into my home because her father died.

My husband works as a physician, he's gone a lot.

I have three children here in Carmel, all have professions in this city.

We all pay taxes here, and we find this an opportunity that we can't find anywhere else.

And I am telling you, she will be going to North Carolina to the sisters for six months.

And the one thing she told me on our way here was the one thing she's gonna miss is PLE.

And the friendship she has here that she doesn't have in North Carolina, and you cannot find these places.

This is a premier city, that's the reason we moved here.

And I would find it very disappointing to see this go away.

Pearl, you get you get your own three minutes, Pearl.

Yeah, we don't need you know most of the things that I would have said have already been said.

But I just want to thank you and Prime Life for everything they've done for me.

I feel it is very important, not only physically, but also mentally.

We get stimulated by speakers, and of course we walk the track and do those exercises.

So, in order for seniors to stay an asset to this community, I ask for your help and your support so that we can exercise our brains as well as our bodies.

Thank you.

Next up is Beth uh Napik, and then on deck after that, Jan Hurlbutt.

There you go.

Okay.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Nine years ago, I didn't even know what Prime Life Enrichment was.

I didn't know where it was, I had no clue.

But I belong to Revel Fitness, which is a dance workout kind of an uh commu uh community is what we call it because we all love each other.

And Prime Is that better?

Okay, so um I belong to Revel Fitness, and Prime Life pretty much took us in.

We didn't have a building to exercise in and dance in.

And so we were able to come into their building, and let me tell you, it's amazing.

Every time you walk into that building, the love that you can feel, and we're not even there when they're all there.

But there's so much love.

There's a little shop up in front.

There's all the paintings and the artwork and things that the seniors are doing, and it's it's absolutely amazing.

So it's truly a home and a place of love.

And show seeing all these people out here and how much it means to them.

They're also working with us, and we dance and have fun and enjoy our time there, but they're also little guys, little swimmers that come in, and it's so much fun just hearing them laughing and all that.

So that facility is an important part of this community.

And I have been I was born here, bred here, raised here, had to move to Westfield a few years ago, but so but it is an important part, and it's a founding kind of a member of what we need in this community to help our elderly and like me, I'm there.

So we've got to keep the funding going.

We need this place.

It's an important, important, important place for our community.

So thank you.

Thank you, Jan Herlbutt.

You are next.

And then after Jan, Mark Jones, kind of make your way on deck.

Hi, I'm Jan Hurlbatt, and I'm responding to a recent news article.

Um I started work in the business world in the 70s back when misogyny was pervasive and openly hostile.

The mayor's complaint on behalf of one of her employees that using the term dialed up instead of dressed up rose to the level of misogyny made me laugh.

Given that hypersensitivity, it's comical that there is an example of institutionalized sexism on the city's own website.

This has bothered me a lot since I first read about it months ago, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring it to light.

And ironically, the director of marketing probably promoted it, and corporation council probably signed off on it.

Let me read excerpts from the city government website.

The inaugural She Leads conference, hosted by Mayor Finkham, features two empowering programs and one event.

For professional women, the half day segment includes a speaker, panel discussions, and networking.

For middle school girls, the evening program offers activities, career exploration, and mentorship.

I looked and looked and couldn't find a He Leads conference.

Can you imagine how this makes the male city employees feel?

Or the parents of middle school boys.

The existence of this administration supported female only conference seems like it would cause the male employees to feel like they are in a no-win position in a hostile work environment.

I wonder if any men have complained to HR or might they be afraid of repercussions.

And parenthetically, I'm appalled at the idea that women need to be empowered by other women and to order to lead.

If a woman feels their power needs to come from someone else, and they are only capable of collaborating with other women and not also with men, they are by definition too weak to lead.

Please stop demeaning women by implying that they are weaker than men and need extra cloistered help.

This conference is an actor anachronistic, discriminatory to men, and insulting to women.

Separating middle school students by gender in order to instruct is not concerning, but separating adults by gender is.

So counselors, if this is taxpayer funded, maybe you could specify that next year's conference should be for both men and women, or maybe move the money to prime life.

It is if it is budgeted.

And for the administration, before you start using terms like demeaning and hostile work environment, you should make sure you haven't created one.

Mark, you are up next.

And Matt Carroll, you can kind of get your way closer to the front when you're ready.

When I filled out my blue card, I didn't know what to write down, so I rolled down belonging.

You go to church once a week.

You go to the Bible study, you listen to the minister, and you have fellowship.

You come to Prime Life.

Many of us come every day.

And that is so different.

And everybody respects everybody else.

We have discussions, some of them uh let's say politically light.

And when somebody gets sick, and I can tell you from my own experience, people were calling me, how's Mark doing?

And they took me to a lot of places, and by golly, that's what makes this a real community.

It's just like like going to a class.

You go to this school class every every day of the week, you get to know people, and it's the same thing with prime life.

Thank you, Mark.

Uh Matt Carroll, you are next, and after that, uh Mary Wingnaw.

Can you guys hear me?

And I know what Zachidi feels like.

I played for Purdue, so maybe that landed or not.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Matt Carroll.

I played basketball at Purdue under Jean Katie and Matt Painter.

And I work in commercial real estate here in Carmel.

Both of these experiences taught me that real leadership isn't about being popular, it's about courage, teamwork, and putting the good of the whole above the comfort of the moment.

Carmel is in a city that became known across or is sorry, city that's become known across the country for excellence because of the vision, creativity, and hard work of so many people who have poured into it over the years.

That includes city staff, our business community, our arts organizations who have added heart and soul to our identity.

But growth always brings new challenges.

What made us successful ten years ago isn't necessarily what is what will sustain us for the next ten.

This is a moment that calls for unity, adaptability, and shared responsibility.

Change is uncomfortable, especially when it touches things we deeply value.

From my vantage point in real estate, I can tell you perception matters.

Companies, investors are watching how Carmel handles this this season.

They look for stability, collaboration, and disciplined leadership.

Division doesn't just hurt politics, it hurts opportunity.

But when a city shows it can work through tough conversations with professionalism and focus, it builds confidence in everyone watching.

Mayor Fincom has stepped up and has stepped up into the challenging role with courage and integrity.

She's made hard choices, not because they're easy, but because she believes in long-term health and sustainability of our city that deserves respect, even from those who might disagree.

So tonight I'd simply ask this council and everyone here to model what Carmel has always stood for, which is leadership, excellence, and unity.

Let's move forward with the understanding that while our perspectives may differ, our love for the city is the same.

Carmel has always been a winning city.

When the others look to as a model of what's possible.

Let's keep playing like a team.

Thank you for your time and continue to support for the city.

Next up is Mary Wignall, and then our final speaker tonight, Winnie Nessel.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm gonna make it short and sweet.

I'm here to support Prime Life.

I'm 87 years old.

I do water aerobics there, I play bridge there.

But the best thing about it is when I had surgery and had knees replaced, I was able to call them to drive.

My son's busy, my daughter's busy, and I've been independent all my life, and I called Prime Life and they filled in.

So they fill in for doctor's appointments, they take people to the grocery that have no way of getting there, they drive them back and forth so that they can be there to do things.

There's always something going on, and every head I see here.

There's a lot of white hair here.

But up here, there's gonna be white hair.

Trust me, you're all gonna be there.

So I hope that you join us in the support of Prime Life because it's very urgent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Winnie, you're the last one up for this part of the meeting.

I have never talked in a microphone before.

Um, I just wanted you to see that I can walk to gum and have my my facilities about me, and it's all because of prime life.

I've been going, I'm 88 years old, and I've been going there since I was 65.

I am in good shape because I exercise there.

They give wonderful classes, they do everything that helps people be strong and keep their mind alert.

And I do hope that you will all find it in your hearts to support us again because we certainly need and I think the community needs this to take care of their elderly.

And I can remember that what goes on.

So please remember us and keep us in your mind.

Thank you.

And as we wrap up our speakers, I want to do let you know, because you're a lot of you have referenced on your sheets 13A, the public hearing regarding the introduction of the 2026 budget.

The public hearing will open so if you at that point later on in the evening, if you'd like to stick around, it is another opportunity for those who haven't spoken to speak, even if you didn't fill out a blue card, if it's regarding anything with the 2026 budget.

I will let you know the 2026 budget was not going to get voted on tonight.

So there won't be any decision on that this evening, but it is another public opportunity if anyone who didn't sign up wants to speak.

We are going to move on to mayoral and council comments.

Traditionally the mayoral goes first and then council, and then after that, um, we are going to um to clear help people if they wanted to clear out, we'll have a little recess to help clear out the room quietly.

So we will uh start with Mayor Finkham with her comments for the evening.

Mine are going to be very brief.

I just want to say thank you for everyone presenting tonight or speaking tonight at the podium.

Uh, this is a perfect demonstration of a community that comes together to make Carmel keep Carmel the fantastic community that it is.

And I just want to thank everyone for being here and also thank the council for moving forward together with the budget, which we'll talk about later on.

All right, thank you.

Now we're opening up council comments, counselors, any who would council I'll let Councillor Manal go Mernard go first.

Thank you.

Actually, it's just more of a comment to uh Mary saying that someday we'll all have white hair.

Some of us just hide it really well already.

So that's all thank you for coming tonight.

I just really appreciate you all coming.

Thank you.

Counselor Taylor.

Just I did want to confirm for the Prime Life members, I did talk to Zach Jackson.

Um the mayor uh is having a the grant agreement in front of the Board of Public Works at the next meeting, and the $50,000 should be in the um claims for either the 20th or the third.

Is that correct, Zach?

Uh but that is only for the 20 uh 25 funding, so we'll discuss um 26 funding as we go through the budget.

But I wanted to make sure that the prime life members knew that uh the $50,000 for uh 2000 and this budget year is going to be paid out shortly.

Council comments.

Council Joshi.

Yeah, so just um two comments.

Obviously, the passion that comes through in our community is really important.

When I see that, it really heartens me.

It was hard not to clap.

I know I I violated the rules as a counselor myself because some of these comments are just so heartwarming.

Um I know that I often am seen as the pediatrician who advocates for children, but you've also heard very often that I've advocated for multi-generational interactions because I believe that children are enriched by the time that they spend with those people who are older than them and can share that wisdom, and that in return, those who are older are often enriched by the time that they can spend with those children.

So I think that it is important that we all work together as community and value every part of it.

The other thing I'm going to do since I have a room full of people is take the opportunity to invite everyone and my seniors to a fantastic Diwali celebration on October 18th, and I am doing that because I think it is important that we all come together and celebrate the beauty and the joy and the light and the goodness that is Carmel.

And so this is a celebration that does exactly that.

Counselor Locke.

I just want to procedurally say too, the 50,000s and the claims for tonight as well.

Is it 92925?

Just on the claims review process.

So that is moving.

Um I do just want to say like seeing this room full of people, seeing all of you here advocating for yourselves and for our community, uh, whether we agree or not, um, it it matters.

The decisions we make here have an impact on the future of our lives together.

Um, and that's something I firmly and fully stand for and believe.

Um I will never not ask questions I have to ask.

Um, I may ask them in different ways in the future, uh, but know full well that together, all of us in this room, um, including you who are sitting here advocating for things you care about are truly what this community is about.

So thank you for being here.

Thank you for your stories.

Thank you for sharing your love for this place that has meant so much to all of us.

Um and some of us are still learning how to show that love appropriately, um, and we will learn every single day uh and do it better next time.

But know full well that if something matters to you, if something is making your life better, um that it's probably making other people's lives, and we are here as long as we are here to advocate for you, for us, uh, for this world, um, to share that love.

So appreciate it more than I can say.

Uh thank you for being here.

Um we're sorry if you're going to another state for six months.

Please come back and be here with us because it's it's us that makes this place special.

So thank you.

Councillor World and then Counselor Snyder.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I wanted to just start out by thanking all of you from Prime Life for being here and um sharing some personal reasons why Prime Life is important to you.

And um trust me, I will be weighing those comments as we continue our discussions about the budget.

Now I would like to point out that um when they're uh just because we might disagree on portions of the budget, I don't consider it drama.

I consider it part of our job, and I'm addressing that to one of the speakers.

I think uh I just had a a very large summit in Carmel where we invited leaders from across the country to come to Carmel to talk about how to disagree better.

And so there uh and and that's something that I would the things that I learned in that collaboration is that we need to learn to disagree, have open, honest discussions without creating an enemy or destroying the relationship.

And I'll admit I'm not perfect, but it's something that I want to improve upon, and it's something that I think during this future, these future budget decisions, uh that's something that that I'm going to work on so that my comments are honest and they're fair, but there may be disagreement.

Um the thing that I'm weighing is the difference between the taxpayer and the resident, the lived experience of the resident.

And it's very easy for us to say we're going to cut and protect the taxpayer and put money in certain directions, but I want to be careful that we don't lose the fabric of our community, that the experiences we have, the quality of life, and the reason many people continue to tell me why they moved to Carmel, that that does not get lost in being efficient, uh, etc.

And I'll have more comments during the budget section, but I do want to assure you those that were brave enough to speak tonight, I appreciate it.

Your words did not go unheard, and I want to thank you for coming.

Counselor Schneider.

Hey.

So I love saying this room packed.

I wish it was this way.

Every single meeting, potentially not for reasons of concern, but reasons of joy, um, as you all know.

Lifelong resident of Carmel.

I've already won the lottery when I was born here.

And I don't have the luxury of having any other opinion than loving prime life, uh, because for 15 years I've had the privilege prior to council of welcoming you all uh to the township and hearing what you did the previous year, hearing the challenges, um, hearing what's what's good, what's bad, what needs help, um, and I've made the statement many times, I'll never not support you.

Um, I my my mother who who passed a couple months ago, um she did the lady that spoke about the swimming, uh Lisa Brooks.

It was the only place, not in Carmel, but anywhere, that somebody with an open trach could get any kind of therapy.

And the fact that you knew how to handle somebody with an open thing hole in their throat was beyond belief.

Um I will say that as we're talking about leadership, um I will always support funding prime life, but I also think we need to look at what are the things that make really addressing the challenges and how can we make it the most sustainable senior center in the state of Indiana, and I think that's one of the things that both the council and the administration can can work on along with you is as I said, I will always support giving whatever money you need.

And I think that's one of the things that both the council and the administration can work on along with you is as I said, I will always support giving whatever money you need.

But if there's a way to give you money and make you even better, which I don't know how that is because it's such an awesome family, but um I want to support that as well.

So I I think well you've got my commitment, you've always had it, and I think I can speak for everybody up here that the driving to a path of perpetual success is what's in everybody's best interest in this community.

Um so thank you all for coming.

I I I love it, I love hearing the voices.

Winnie, it's always a pleasure.

Um I could say that about many of you, but I've known Winnie the longest.

Um thank you.

I have a few comments that I would like to make.

Um we don't do we'll have another section of public comment if you'd like, if you haven't spoken yet.

Um as Gary Wagner pointed out, we're talking about something that is 0.03% of the budget.

Um in the grand scheme of our large budget for a city of over 100,000 people, it's not a lot of money.

You know, we spend more on consultants and uh and lawyers and things like that all the time every year.

Um but it makes a huge impact on the residents who've been here for decades.

Um I'm happy that we get to vote to appropriate the money in our claims tonight, but I'm disappointed because last year during our budget session, we debated funding for prime life enrichment as a council, and we came together and said this is something we wanted to fund.

And here we are in October, and the check is just now being issued.

And I don't know, I don't want to get into he said she said that there was some concern that they were told that the check would not be coming this year, that things had been changed.

So I want to make sure that when we make decisions, as we're looking at the 2026 budget, if we come together and say this is something that we want to fund in 2026, I want the check to be we we debated this and we talked as a council, um, and that's something that I would expect.

Um and I would support continued funding in 2026 because, like I said, in the grand scheme of things, it's not a lot of money out of our budget that makes a huge difference to the residents of Carmel.

Um along that line, there's another item I want to bring up that you may have read about in the newspaper that I think makes a big difference in the lives of many people, a very small amount of money that there's been some uncertainty about whether it will be paid in 2026, and that is the Carmel Gazibo concerts.

Um it's $15,000 a year that the city has provided.

Um again, not a lot of money, makes a big difference to them.

It's not their entire budget, they do fundraise with private donations, and if you can, please donate to that worthy cause because it's something that really brings, I think, vibrancy to our community.

But as you read in the paper or saw on the social media of Carmel Gazebo concerts, they don't know how much they'll be getting next year.

And so I looked at our city council, the city council budget, and I can't do I can do this on my own, but I won't.

I'm gonna hear the input of the rest of the council.

But I would like to, as a city council, to just pay that 15,000 as a sponsorship tonight if the city council says that is appropriate.

So we have the money.

Um I spoke to John Eaton, he's prepared to provide us an invoice so we can do that, and we'll just remove the uncertainty and ensure that there is money for the Carmel Gazibo concerts in 2026.

So I want to open that up to any discussion because I don't want to do this alone.

Any thoughts, Councillor Snyder?

Well, I I would I'm still unclear how the concern got out.

Um it's been an institution for since I was a kid.

Um so I don't know if it was like a misspeak.

I don't know if it was referring to something else.

I don't know, I don't know what happened, but one of the most iconic events that we have in the city should not be concerned that it won't go on.

That's that's my opinion.

I to kind to Jeff's point about taxpayer versus resident, I'm always gonna fight for the residential experience, like the people that live here, and and 50,000 is.

15 15,000 is by gonna try.

Um I trust that you've you've moved the money around appropriately, and if I I would support that, just getting it over with.

So to squash the concern.

Any other um questions or comment about that?

Just Councillor Warhoff.

Yeah, so um not to belabor this, but um I want to make sure that we are um you know that the that there is some path forward also.

I mean, this might be a way to um you know deal with it this year in 25 when we have funds, but in 26.

But uh to my earlier point, there are there are reasons that people move to Carmel, other than schools and roundabouts maybe.

Uh but it is uh quality of life, and that is what uh we have to really have some serious discussions about what are we willing to protect?

15 is pretty easy, uh 15,000.

But what are we willing to protect and fight for, which means something else because the mayor has said things are tight, which means something else has to go.

So I'm in full support of this, but I want to have really open, honest, forthright discussions when I ask about something or I or I insinuate that it's not a priority for me.

I just want to make sure I can say that without retribution, as long as I'm respectful and um and and I don't have any desire to harm or punish.

So and we had a great conversation today, Mayor.

Thank you for that.

Um so I I want to make sure we can have open, honest dialogue and discussions about the budget.

Any other questions?

Councillor Joshi.

Just one comment.

I know we've talked a couple of times up here.

I've heard it said the taxpayer and the resident, and I'm not sure that we're different oftentimes.

We are the taxpayers, and we are the residents, and so it is difficult to have these conversations when you're trying to make the taxpayer feel good about losing services that the residents don't feel good about.

So I I just think we need to be careful when we have these conversations to understand.

We're talking about us all together as a community when we pay the taxes and we get the benefits.

It's it's it's hard, but it's important.

Um so thank you for that.

Counselor Taylor.

Could I just clarify making my point?

That is the point I was trying to make.

Is there are two experiences?

So thank you.

I get it, but I think sometimes we talk about it in we we talk about it and saying, well, I'm going to you know cut taxes, I'm gonna cut benefit, I'm gonna cut this.

It means you're cutting services to somebody.

And so I just I I think sometimes we just lose that idea.

That's all.

Counselor Taylor.

So I was just doing some quick math on the city's share of health insurance benefits for the common council.

The total is 1261 seventy-two.

You divide by that by nine, it's fourteen thousand nineteen dollars.

Um I would be willing to not accept city health benefits next year, which means that $14,000 is freed up in the budget.

So that's an easy way to get it.

So that will help us if we want to talk about this for 26.

Yep.

And we've I met with Jessica.

We have the money for 2025 for the gazebo concert.

I know that I want to be official.

Can I do a vote just to make sure everyone's okay?

Is that all right, Jessica?

Okay, please vote.

What are we voting for?

Gazebo concert funding.

Yes, means I want to make sure.

Yes.

Out of our existing budget.

Give Jessica mean, I sprung it on her.

Okay.

Ready?

All right, we've got seven, yes, one abstain.

I'll get you the invoice for that.

Um other comments before we kind of move on.

Um I'm gonna call a five-minute recess because there's got to be clear out if you want to don't want to stick around, and then we'll continue on.

Back live on the mic.

All right.

We're calling the meeting back to order.

It's fun to use the gown.

So uh we're calling up next.

Uh other reports.

No, but before we move on to that, we have to do consent agenda.

Approval of minutes, September 15th, 2025, regular meeting, and claims, including payroll and the amount of 4,104,628 dollars and six cents.

General claims the amount of six million nine hundred and eighty-three thousand one hundred and eighty-eight dollars and seven cents, and purchase card 26,382 dollars, and retirement in the amount of 127,147.10 cents.

Do I have a motion?

Moved.

We have moved and seconded.

Please vote.

All right.

That passes unanimously.

Action on mayoral vetoes.

We have none.

Committee reports.

Finance utilities and rules committee.

Councillor Taylor.

Thank you, Councilor Austin.

On our 23rd meeting, we passed uh we passed a motion to return item D, Ordinance D 2779-25, the salary ordinance for 2025 back to the council with a negative recommendation.

Uh this today uh we uh addressed two items.

Uh ordinance D-2780-25.

Um that was amended and returned to the council with a positive recommendation uh related to the notice requirements between Plan Commission and whether or not the city city does it as council does it as well.

And then also we uh sent back ordinance D-278125 with a positive recommendation related with as amended um related to the public parking matters.

Thank you.

Next up, land use and special studies committee.

Counselor Snyder.

Hey, thank you.

Um we we've got a lot, but we got kind of a curveball with some amendments, um procedural amendments to the rental ordinance.

Um we've met with two of our city councils, councillors, um, about this, and procedurally, while all of the language is is good and accepted.

Um it's we didn't want to sit up here and make an amendment to an amendment of amendment.

So if you could send it back to us to get it into a final form to then send back.

Uh it did come out with a unanimously positive recommendation, and then uh some department heads had came up with some other language and legal had some procedural things.

Um we'd like to have it back to put it all into one one form instead of a bunch of piecemeal things to hash out up here.

When we get to that item, that's what I'll do.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on, other reports.

Carmel Redevelopment Commission monthly report.

Director Mustatsky.

Thank you, City Council.

Um, Henry Mosetsky, Carmel's redevelopment director.

Just gonna briefly fly through the activities of uh redevelopment for the last month.

Uh projects continue to go up.

Windsor continues to uh work on its first floor.

Um again, I always appreciate David Ryan at uh the Mac department because he uh he takes drone pictures better than anyone else, and so it's really nice to see um major progress happening on this site.

Uh lots of cool restaurants coming here at some point in about a year and a half, so looking forward to it.

Um Magnolia continues to be built out.

Civic Square condos are making um incredible uh incredible progress.

Um there's twenty-five of them, I think.

Tony said 19 are sold at this point.

So that's pretty great.

And if you've had a chance to walk by it and admire the the the brick work, the masonry work that's being put on there now.

It's gonna look really cool.

Uh Republic continues its uh headquarters construction and the new hotel around that garage that's moving forward.

Uh we continue working through Prescinium 3 in the background, and uh Icon continues its construction.

Now they're up to the second floor up against the plaza.

Um there's gonna be a public plaza there at Old Meridian Main Street, so uh our residents get to drive by that old meridian and main street roundabout and enjoy the uh the project going up and pretty soon they'll be hanging out.

Um probably watching the next uh swimming related championship, the city hosts on that big screen TV one day.

Uh great work happening along the ATT site redevelopment and Autolon Plaza should be fully enclosed by the end of the year.

Um lots of great work and again uh signature 55.

We've started uh started working through that project, had a big meeting uh week and a half ago with engineering and parks and the developers start working through the drainage and the park there.

Uh that concludes uh my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

We'll do counselor Minar, then Councillor Snyder.

Thank you, Director Mustetsky.

Um really quick question on the Windsor.

They've sold 19 out of 25 of the condominiums.

Is that civic square condos?

Sorry, yeah, sorry.

Um do we have a profit share with them on those prices?

Yes, we do.

We will have a profit share with them.

That usually gets true up at the very end when you uh when you're a developer and you sell condos, the bank takes everything until the very last few condos.

So that's probably after that is when the CRC comes in.

So hopefully at the end of this year we'll have some good responses on that.

Looking forward to it.

Are you ready, Henry?

It's been a while.

Yes, counselor.

Ready?

I have one you don't even need to answer.

Did you know that our next land use meeting is next when this coming Wednesday at 5 30 at the Carmel Library?

And we will not be having one following the council meeting on the 20th.

So the next land use meeting is this Wednesday at the library at 5 30.

I will note that, and so should everyone else.

Any other questions or comments?

And you're not going anywhere because you're next up on our agenda, correct?

The redevelopment authority.

Yes.

Uh I am here to uh speak on behalf of uh authority president Rob Bush.

Um back in 2015.

I was actually appointed to be the secretary for of the redevelopment authority as a citizen volunteer, and Rob Bush was the president back then.

So the authority hasn't met since 2024.

No new bond issuances, so no authority meeting.

That's the extent of that update.

All right.

Any other questions for about the redevelopment authority?

All right, thank you, Director Mistetsky.

Thank you.

Moving on.

Old business.

15th reading of ordinance D 2762 25, an ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, amending chapter 8, Article 5, sections 837, 847, and 848 of the Carmel City Code.

Sponsor is Councilor Austin.

This remains in the land use and special studies committee.

Um this is the parking uh issue that we were kind of holding on because of a parking study.

Counselor Snyder, do you have an update kind of how the parking study was going?

Well, I kind of do, I don't.

I I have I I finally broke down and asked where it was because it was due in June, I believe.

And I the response I got was a little concerning.

Um, but it is being talked through further administrative level.

I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what maybe you can speak to it.

I mr.

President.

Yes.

Uh all I know is our engineer has uh had had eyes on it, I think just recently, but I haven't seen it yet, so it's not final.

So they're moving toward.

I think they're trying to make sure it's in the right format or whatever they want to see it, but I haven't seen it yet.

Okay, so it's just formatting right now at this point.

I don't know.

I'm just I'm just like I don't know what they're they're looking at eyes on it, but I haven't seen it yet, so it's not final.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that remains in the land use and special studies committee.

Moving on to 10th reading of ordinance D 2772-25 and ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana adopting a new uh chart Article 8 under Chapter 2 of the Carmel City Code sponsor or councillors Austin, Ayers, Minar, Snyder, and World.

This uh item remains in the Finance Utilities and Rules Committee.

Uh we have third reading of ordinance D 2779-25, an ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, fixing salaries of appointed officers and employees of the city of Carmel, Indiana for the year 2020-25.

Sponsor is Councillor Taylor.

This returns from the Finance Utilities and Rules Committee.

Counselor Taylor.

After months discussion with uh Zach, um our HR director and so forth, um, and some feedback from city employees.

The 2025 uh salary resolution was is being returned back to the full council with a negative recommendation.

All right, so this returns the council with the negative recommendation unanimously.

Uh we have questions or discussion among the council.

This returning, we can entertain a motion.

Move to approve a second.

So we make the motions in the affirmative, move to approve, and then you can vote yes or no.

So but I need a second, or we can't make a motion.

Second.

So we have moved to approve and a second.

Please vote.

Yes.

Can you call for more discussion, please?

Absolutely I can.

Counselor Warall.

So has anybody heard from the administration on an alternative?

Is there uh something else we're gonna consider?

What are the ramifications of voting this down?

I think we need to have some more discussion uh from the council.

All right.

Uh Zach, did you want to address some of that?

Thank you, President.

Um Zach Jackson City uh uh CFO and controller.

Uh the ordinance that was presented to finance committee uh uh last week uh fundamentally made two changes.

One was cleaning up the list of positions uh that are out there, and so there are a lot of positions that were no longer used, as well as some positions with outdated titles that were being cleaned up.

That was part of this process or this project.

The other was uh revamping the um uh the salary uh grade and step system and kind of morphing that into a salary range system.

Um what we've proposed as part of the 2026 salary ordinance essentially takes those same titles that were being proposed in the 2025 that uh did not make it out of committee.

It takes those titles, it does not attempt to do anything with the the changes on ranges and grades, any of that keeps it all in as it stands in existing law uh but does increase the ranges by three percent in the 2026 ordinance so as to do the the COLA as that has been requested.

Questions about the 2025 ordinance?

Zach, I have a question.

So there were a few employees, I think there was five that um needed to be adjusted regardless of this.

Or would we have a eight?

Eight.

Thank you for that correction.

Do we have a plan to adjust that if this does not pass?

The the plan was the ordinance that council that finance committee did not pass last week.

It it cleaned up titles and moved up people where appropriate that did not pass.

So councilor were all okay.

So I sent an email uh to you, Zach, asking if we could deal with those.

So it my understanding is there are eight positions who are identified as not being paid appropriately.

Is that correct?

Uh not being titled appropriately and not being paid appropriately.

Okay.

And so I asked, well, could we deal with those separately?

You're gonna have to refresh my memory on the answer because I can't remember.

I I reminded you that the finance committee shot down the proposal that fixed that problem.

Okay.

So is the administration willing to bring back something else for us to consider that includes those eight?

The the 2026 salary ordinance fixes titles, fixes those eight.

Um but I did not make another uh attempt to try to fix the 2025 ordinance that and these are employees who were who were there was a commitment that something would happen in July for them, is that correct?

Uh we we had been talking about the the salary study and position review since uh since I was brought on board last year.

Um we originally were aiming for July, brought it to council in August instead.

Uh employees that uh would have received an increase were uh notified that that was subject to council approval.

So I want to and I know others have questions too.

I guess my frustration is if these employees were talked about their their pay kind of not being fair and for the market or something, we needed to make an adjustment there.

Council Burr says if promises were made in July to tie that to an overall, we have to change all the titles and do this and that, or else we're not gonna fix it for these eight people.

I mean, if I was one of them, I would be very frustrated that um my situation is now tied to so many others, and we the council to counselor were all's comment would like to maybe deal with that separately not speaking for Zach, but speaking for myself, that 2025 ordinance couldn't have been amended to make sure that those eight folks were taken care of at that time, but it was negatively voted down.

So that's the point we're trying to make here.

Right now it's not in the if to do it in the 2026 ordinance doesn't fix the back A.

Does that make sense?

Councilor Minor.

Okay, so I just want to be clear.

We could tonight make an amendment to the negatively negative recommendation.

Thank you.

From finance.

We could we could amend the ordinance tonight, vote on it, and then have these eight people taken care of.

I just want to be clear if that's what you're saying.

So I think one concern if we were to try to amend the existing ordinance is all the title changes, we would have to amend all of them back to previous or accept them now, which I think we wanted to have discussion about that for 2026 in order to get those eight.

So maybe a separate ordinance might be cleaner.

I'm just wondering what others' thoughts might be.

No, I I think a separate ordinance sounds like a reasonable way to begin to address this issue so that we can discuss what needs to be discussed you know more clearly so people understand exactly what we're trying to fix and what we also don't want to change potentially and don't want to touch.

So I think it's important to look at it and think about it differently.

Counselor Schneider What was the I know we started you you started working on this long time ago.

When do these employees get informed that they might get a uh they were gonna get a pay boost and what was the expectation set for when they could have expected to see that?

I guess I want to I want to know what yeah, I'm I'm gonna look back at my colleagues here to correct me if I get this wrong, but I believe uh last somewhere in the last week of August was whenever we the letters I I I want to say it was approximately the last week of of August.

I don't know that there was a uh a deadline mentioned in there or an effective date other than I guess my uh well and I'm less concerned with the the legalese, just what was the expectation of the employee?

So if it was the last week in August, then I'm sure it was explained like per council approval, so the next meeting would have been so maybe by the last paycheck in September they might have realized a raise.

Maybe I'm just that that that's so if we do a new ordinance, then is that what we would go back?

I mean, would we would we would take care of it from then on?

Because I want to make I mean if there was an expectation set and they were looking forward to it.

I I think that's a reasonable answer.

Maybe we can fact check my date, but I just any other comments from the council.

So you'll you're gonna bring us uh another ordinance uh hopefully for our next meeting.

And and and just to be clear, it's it's just the new titles and salaries for the for those eight, but leave everybody else all the other title changes as is.

Counselor Taylor.

Yeah, I think um Zach's trying to explain that the reason why these employees were getting an increase because just like us, when you get a promotion to a new title, your your salary was increasing.

So I think that's how they were tying those eight increases was to the new salaries.

Um my phone of friend just came through.

August 6th was the date that the the letters went out.

So yeah, uh counselor uh Snyder, maybe it might even be a little bit earlier than end of September.

Any other comments on that?

All right, so we'll have an ordinance on the next agenda, but we do have a motion and second on this ordinance in front of us.

Counselor Snyder, you want to just so in the ordinance though, it will it'll set this effective date as well.

Like just one yeah, we we can we can make an effective date.

Okay, thank you.

Any other counselorman are you?

Yeah, and that that that date was July 1st from the letter that I read according to is that is that correct?

Will July 1st be the date?

Um July 1st was whenever we were conceptualizing this this plan last year as far as when um we were aiming for and and uh kind of our target date for being done with our analysis and and bringing it to to council.

I don't know.

Um sorry.

No, I I stand corrected.

The the letter did say uh effective July 1st.

Yep.

Sorry.

Okay, just just any other counselor?

Any other counselor?

Anything else?

So I I I just want to make sure I understand this.

When we voted this down, Zach, you were there.

Um I sent an email saying, hey, what can we do or can we do this?

And the answer must have been we can't do anything.

I I I think I gave two options.

One was the the ordinance that um the the 2025 salary ordinance that was uh uh had the negative recommendation from finance committee.

Again, I I kind of in my mind put that into it did two things.

It cleaned up titles and it and it changed the the pay structure, if you will.

Um option would have been just to to do the the title piece and and not address the the salary ranges and things.

That was one.

The other would have been in the 2026 salary ordinance.

Okay.

So I guess the point I'm making is we're doing we're there's a third option.

That's what we're gonna do.

And I guess I just I'm kind of I'm a little bit surprised that we wouldn't figure out a way to take care of eight employees.

Um because I remember when I sent that out, I I received support from council members.

I copied you, the mayor, Nicole, and my colleagues.

I I'm just a little I'm a little disappointed in that.

Yeah, I I think part of the issue is that um the there was an overall hierarchy kind of being contemplated here.

And so as we now kind of do some one-offs, we we continue to bastardize a broken system and we continue there there might be now some issues where okay, if we proceed and retitle this person because of the the pay change to change their pay, um now we've created another issue over here with somebody else that's similarly titled, or uh this was created where it's you you go from hypothetically planner one to planner two, and now we've kind of skewed some of these things.

So um that I I will do my best, but I'm not sure it's possible to unwind just eight positions from a a could could I make a recommendation?

Could we so for it so that there's full understanding and I I have enough to be dangerous.

Could we have a meeting?

Whoever wants to come as long as we're within open door, we whatever.

Could we have a meeting with whoever needs to be present so I can understand how this is gonna work or should work.

Happy to Councillor Locke.

Yep.

Um I I do want to say like thinking about this not in a closed loop.

Like we made a similar change earlier this year for leadership.

And I understand, like if you're building a hierarchy, the the top echelon has nobody above, so it doesn't squish anything in the middle or change relationship.

But I I think treating these employees where you went through the process in the middle the same way where if they deserve this raise and you've addressed that through your process, let's make sure that happens.

Um then as we come back and look at this whole thing holistically for 2026, which it's gonna be a brought up tonight, use this as part of the story as to why these changes matter to next year's budget.

Like I I still think there's room as we talk about this to figure out that path forward.

I think the beautiful thing that's happened through this is we have uh been allowed to bring the employees into the conversation.

They've been able to kind of say why this works and how it works, which will put us in a better spot.

But I I don't want to close vacuum thought process on this, where these eight in the middle because they're in the middle and it's squishy and it may harm here is any different than what we did earlier this year when we changed pay for others, because that trickle down impacted everybody the same way that those others that might feel weird about this now felt.

So there is precedence for it.

And I do think in some way, like that concept of using this to prove and you as a tool to say why this may matter and what we're trying to change for 2026 is real and is valid, uh becomes an easier thing to sell if the work you put into it has a positive impact for at least these eight people to start.

So that's my take on where we are.

Counselor Schneider?

Apologies again, ignorance, but just how it because you bring up a good point.

We we we have done this for others before.

But it was like the third week of January, so it wasn't like a a big gap.

So how how does an employee then get is it one lump sum?

Does it get rolled into several checks?

How does that yeah?

I mean, ideally uh if if uh if there was no back pay, then the next paycheck would reflect that.

But uh but assuming everything kind of goes as plain as we're discussing here tonight, uh, in that situation that that next paycheck would uh uh be prorated to make up for those days uh you know going back to July 1st, hypothetically.

Well, I appreciate as we kind of continue on with our budget discussion.

I just want to make sure that we're not presented kind of with all or nothing options.

You know, I know we're gonna talk about um titling when we get into 2026 ordinance, and I I know it's hard to you say unravel it, but it becomes difficult as a council if it's you accept all of this or we do none of it, because you know, as counselor worrell points out, there's often a third option that can be considered as well.

That being said, um, on the ordinance in front of us, we have a motion and a second.

Any other conversation before we vote?

If not, please vote.

And it was made to approve, so you you would that's how the motion was made.

Council Romanity push again.

I think that it took me a second too.

All right.

That is rejected 80.

All right, moving on, third reading.

Uh uh, no third reading of ordinance D 2780-25, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana, amending chapter three, article one, section three forty-four of the Carmel City Code, sponsor counselors Austin and Taylor.

This item returns from the Finance Utilities and Rules Committee.

Counselor Taylor.

Thank you, Counselor Austin.

This um you would have received an email from Benjamin, legal counsel for the city that shows the um uh what was how the ordinance was amended in committee today.

In particular, um Director Hollandball wanted that uh the responsibility of such person to provide proof of the publication of the notice required in to the clerk at least two business days prior to the plan commission hearing date.

Um just so the petitioner was able to bring in proof that they had properly noticed it and that that notice had been provided to the city two days prior to the hearing, uh so the plan commission and council knew that the um that the uh that there was proof of the publication prior to the uh taking action on a change in zoning matter.

That was um the primarily the uh only change.

Benjamin, did you have anything else that you wanted to note that we discussed in finance committee earlier today?

Benjamin Legs, is it's any?

Um I would just like to reflect those changes.

I can put it I have them here, so they're seeing he's putting something up to project on the screen.

All right.

Okay.

So we're gonna keep some of the new languages the old language that we had that basically is gonna state that it's going to remain the notice requirement shall be given in conformance with Indiana law, which is what we already have uh down below as well in conformance with Indiana law.

That way, if we have changes that occur within Indiana Code related to notice requirements, we'll be um well vested in uh to be able to address those.

And then what we have here is the notice requirement below it is cannot see it.

Um it is at least uh two business days.

Can't see that either.

All right.

Um business days right here.

So those are the two, those are the two changes from what came to council and came back um proposed amendments to be voted on.

So first, you know, over discussion, but um first we would have to make a motion to amend and have that voted on before we would make any motion to act tonight.

Right.

Yes, this is version A that comes back from the finance committee, so it would be um a motion to approve version A, the motion to approve those amendments.

Um and then you would act on as amended.

Okay.

Um questions on the council.

If not, I would entertain a motion to amend.

Second.

All right.

Please vote on whether to amend it.

All right, we are acting on the amended votion.

We can if we have a motion second.

Second.

All right, it's moved and seconded.

Please vote.

All right, that passes.

All right, and in the same email, Benjamin also sent updates to the next one we're about to act on.

If you wanted to pull that up.

Third reading of ordinance D 2781-25, an ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, amending chapter 8, Article 5, Section 846 of the Carmel City Code.

Sponsors are Councillors Taylor, Austin, and Warell.

This item returns from the Finance Utilities and Rules Committee.

Councillor Taylor.

Thank you, Councillor Austin.

This um was amended first and then brought back with a positive recommendation.

The first item is to address the double parking in uh one spot, uh, which was already part of the the original part of the ordinance as it was brought forward.

This but during further discussion, um Councilor Well, if you just want to bring up the issue that you had noted, and then we if uh Benjamin, if you could come back up and uh show the amendments and we can talk through why those were made today in finance.

Sure.

Um back in July I sent the entire council uh my desire for a change to the parking on 2nd Street Southwest.

I received no um you know pushback on that.

The problem is that we have delivery vehicles, multiple delivery vehicles throughout the day that are blocking one of our residents' driveway if vehicle was just towed from there over the weekend, uh so they can't get out of their driveway.

So um with the uh with councillor Taylor's um uh be allowing me, he we I was able to add this to it to get two 15-minute parking zones uh 15-minute loading unloading zones that will be on the south side of 2nd Avenue South Second Street Southwest, and they'll be at the far east end or abutting Monon Boulevard.

I would appreciate your support on this.

All right.

The language is just here.

Um what we've done, there is an ordinance that is all is pending at land use as well related to parking.

Um we have added uh a new section, so we will not interfere um in any way, shape, or form with what is currently in front of land use.

It is a a new provision 22 of 837 that has the first two space to the south side of 2nd Street Southwest of Mohammed Boulevard.

Yes, yeah, that is the typo still in there.

We talked about the typo.

It's um west.

No, it's yeah, west of Monum Boulevard.

Yeah, there was another typo.

That's not it.

Yeah, that it's written correctly, thank you.

Okay, and we do have the support of uh city engineer, I forgot to mention.

Yes.

Any other questions or comments?

We would first have to make a motion to amend similar to the first before we make a motion to act.

Move to amend.

All right.

Any comments?

If not, please vote.

Councilor, or counselor Snyder, feel yeah.

Now we're now acting on the amended version.

Do we have any other questions or comments?

Or do I have a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion to second, please vote.

All right, that passes unanimously.

We're getting some stuff done.

There you go.

Uh next we have second reading of ordinance D 2784-25, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana, amending chapter four, article six of the Carmel City Code.

Sponsors are counselors Minar and Taylor.

As Councilor Snyder uh mentioned, we will be I will be sending this back to the land use and special studies committee.

All right.

Moving on, and if we have anyone here, we're gonna open up to public hearings.

We have one this evening, and that is first reading of ordinance D 2785-25, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana establishing the appropriations for the 2026 budget.

Sponsors are councillor Snyder, Taylor, and Austin.

Uh, do I have a motion to introduce?

All right.

Um Zach, do you want to give a presentation before we open the public hearing?

Yeah, happy to do so.

Let me get everything ready here.

Okay.

Do I have to extend my display because is that what it's doing?

Thanks.

All right.

Sorry about that.

Anything you want to go for?

Well, if you have a little bit of deja vu, so so do I.

There's a lot of details that we've we've talked about before, but just want to go through the the high points again.

Um tonight I want to talk through uh the general fund revenue forecast again, talk through the updated budget estimates, uh close the loop on some savings and other adjustments that we've made to the budget, and then uh uh pass it over to the mayor for some closing remarks.

First of all, when it comes to our general fund revenues for for twenty twenty-six, our forecast is not changed.

We're still looking at one hundred and forty-four point two six five million.

Uh that is uh i it kind of depends upon how you're comparing to to twenty twenty-five to say whether that's a decrease or increase.

I I think it's most appropriate just to call it flat because there's some noise there about some revenues that used to come in in one bucket and now come in another.

Um some aspects are declining, but overall I would say uh it it's it's flat revenue, but that's compared to growth that we were expecting for for twenty twenty-six.

Uh in regards to budget priorities, uh still the same.

Uh we we've proposed a budget that does not uh require a uh property tax increase in order to uh fund our operations for 2026.

Uh we have spending that does not exceed our available revenues for 2026.

We've continued to fund and prioritize essential services such as public safety, arts, parks, and also uh continuing to invest in our infrastructure.

Uh we've provided our team with a three percent salary increase, uh with the exception no colo for the mayor and senior leadership.

And then also we've continued to maintain our healthy reserves that total fifteen percent of our general fund combined balances, and that includes ten percent in the city's rainy day funding, uh the main way that we got uh uh to a point of having a balanced budget was using some one-time money uh uh uh dollars that we had that council had appropriated this year for operations uh that were underspent.

We've used those to uh to either pay off or to uh encumber all future payments for multiple capital leases.

Uh also with a change uh in state law on the food and beverage tax revenues.

We've used those dollars that came in this year but have not been appropriated to also uh buy down our operating costs.

Same kind of concept on on capital leases, equipment leases uh uh for the future.

And and those things have bought down our operating costs in order to make this budget work.

Uh as the next slide talks about uh there's uh several positions that uh we are proposing not funding in next year's budget.

Uh some of those are filled, some of those are unfilled.

And then also just trying to find uh uh you know the the concept of doing more with less, trying to innovate our service delivery um in in order to provide the same or or better services uh to the Carmel community.

So in terms of the department changes, and you've been council seen this list before, uh just going through where we've reduced uh positions in this budget, and so mayor's office, street department uh uh both have uh positions that are would be eliminated.

Fire department has three that would be eliminated.

Police department eliminated one earlier this year and wouldn't be filled next year.

Mayor is proposing not filling the executive director of economic development for next year.

Next year.

And then on more on the idea of service delivery innovation, looking at providing utility locate services in a in a more efficient and economical manner.

Essentially, today we had three departments in that space, and we're we're moving towards having one department handle that for the entire city.

Our original budget proposal had uh had conceptualized this uh experienced Carmel nonprofit, uh just as we spoke about uh at our last meeting, uh we have uh we are delaying that uh that that proposed shift of the dollars that we had uh originally kind of moved out of the MAC budget and as we were developing the budget over into the arts and support operations budget.

We have undone that those dollars have been shifted back to Mac, albeit at a uh at a slightly higher cost than uh the the uh experienced Carmel grant was funded at so the real numbers uh for the for the budget for the general fund uh you see on the screen here the grand total uh for the general fund proposed for next year is 144.263.

Uh that's about 1700 dollars less than the revenue that we're forecasting for next year.

Um to put that in more context, uh the next screen shows here how departments are faring uh 2025 to 2026.

Uh the line there in the uh not quite the middle, uh maybe about a third of the way down, uh, shows those departments that uh are increasing and and those departments that are are decreasing.

Um I'll just mention that corporation council probably would have been uh below that line, but we did do the uh an increase for for two of the attorneys earlier this year, and that cost uh carried over into next year did increase their their funding.

Um biggest changes on here, obviously uh come in that bottom third of the uh the slide.

I'll I'll point out um the footnote there on arts support and operations.

Um although it it looks like a a almost 20% decrease here, um the bulk of that is actually just changing uh where we pay those uh expenses from, whether moving it to the uh food and beverage tax fund or using capital leases.

But again, overall compared to the appropriations that were passed for 2025, the 2026 appropriations are two per or are 0.2 percent higher.

Um if you look at the actual uh given that the budget has been uh that there have been additional appropriations made for 2025, uh, the actual proposed spending for 2026 is lower than uh 2025.

Uh also on the topic of art support and operations, just wanted to kind of divide up what we see as the art support pieces from the operations standpoint.

And so you can see here that the uh proposed decrease uh in the arts support area is uh 3.1%, whereas the uh operations support is the 64.5 percent.

But again, as you can see in the notes there, most of those are really paying for things separate or in a different manner and not a true reduction.

Moving on to the surplus statement, uh, again, this is the same document that I think we shared when the mayor and I presented the uh revised uh budget numbers back on the 24th or 23rd of September.

Uh again, just the way I look at this, you see the annual surplus slash deficit line uh about two-thirds of the way down.

I think of this as everything above that reflects current year activity, and everything below that reflects one-time uses of dollars or one time dollars coming into the general fund.

And so what I'm projecting for this year is that we'll achieve a annual surplus of about 1,200.

That assumes reversions of about 1.5 million, meaning our departments would underspend their appropriations this year by about 1.5 million.

And then the overall surplus for next year would be closer to $1,700.

But again, just draw your attention to the forecast of revenues for 2026 is at $144.265, and the appropriations that are being proposed of $144.263.

Look at those combined balances, both general fund and rainy day fund get to the combined balances.

Based upon the proposed budget, we would be at uh basically right at that 10% uh expectation on the rainy day fund.

Um, and we would be doing better than the 15% target on overall uh reserve balances at 17.6.

Um the other two operating funds being appropriated or uh operating uh appropriations being funded are from the motor vehicle highway account.

You see those those departments here, engineering and street department.

Uh overall, we're seeing a reduction of 3.7% in the funding requested for the street department and a 14.6% reduction in the appropriations requested by engineering.

Uh again, a lot of these are coming from the facts that we are the fact that we're taking capital leases that we were expecting to pay for over a number of years, setting aside dollars now to fully encumber or pay off those in the future.

On the topic of infrastructure, just want to highlight the paving dollars that are in next year's budget.

Uh so we have 4.5 million coming from uh the MVH, a half million coming from the local road and street fund, which has very similar rules about use as the NVH, and then also the wheel tax and surtax funds totaling $3.5 million for a combined $8.5 million.

Uh this is literally the same slide that I I showed at our last presentation as well on 923.

Uh so I won't dwell too much here, but on the 2025 bonding capacity, uh the the recertified NAV brought uh number was uh 285 million uh lower than what originally came out from the county.

Uh we do not need to uh take on any additional debt if the goal was to maintain our property tax rates.

Um and then also there are a few other concerns about taking that on at this point in time.

So uh right now there is no uh additional planned borrowing being funded in the budget.

Uh we would need to appropriate uh uh the annual debt service payments or whatever, and and given that we would only be able to leverage 1.25 million one time.

There's nothing in the budget to uh to try to uh borrow with those dollars.

Um the rest of the funds appropriated in the city's budget are laid out here.

Uh we've tried to group them according to uh just kind of topical area.

Um happy to get in the weeds on any one of those that that you want to.

I'll I'll note um you know, for what it's worth, the non-reverting funds uh are largely dollars that are formerly general fund dollars that that were put into these funds.

Um that's not uh a hard and fast rule across the board, but but they for the most part don't have their own revenue sources, their their general fund dollars that are placed over there.

Uh but again the the planned appropriations, proposed spending for next year would be uh 241.656.

And so again, that's 144 coming from the general fund, uh, and then that remaining uh 97 million change coming from these these other funds.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the mayor.

Thank you, Zach.

Um if you're wondering why we presented this again.

There this may be some people's first time of hearing the budget presented, given it's a public hearing, so we want to make sure that they had uh some basis of fact here.

Um I believe that good government begins with trusting residents enough to tell them the truth about our challenges and working together on real solutions big enough to meet them, and that's working together with you and with them.

Carmel isn't in crisis, but like many growing cities, we're navigating real fiscal headwinds.

I have complete confidence that with creativity and collaboration will rise to meet them.

Continuing to do things the way they've always been done might feel comfortable, but it doesn't prepare us for the future.

And in times of change, leadership requires clarity and a willingness to innovate.

And the truth is that the landscape for local finances has shifted.

The Indiana General Assembly's actions this year significantly changed our revenue picture.

Our mission now is to adapt while maintaining the high standards our residents expect.

I trust the people of Carmel and our city team to face this moment head on with transparency and resolve.

That's exactly what we've done.

Seeing these challenges on the horizon, I'm so proud of our team that worked hard throughout 2025 to be careful with every dollar.

That effort resulted in a 5.2 million dollar underspend.

Those savings and the priorities reflected in the proposed budget, demonstrate continued disciplined stewardship and forward planning.

This budget focuses on what matters most: public safety, infrastructure, parks, and arts, and of course, giving a hardworking team members 3% cost of living adjustment raises.

Every department contributed to making this work, some through cost savings, others by finding new efficiencies.

In some areas, we seized opportunities to invest, in others, we delayed or adjusted plans to make sure our resources go where they're needed the most.

While we'd hope to launch initiatives like experienced Carmel and expand our economic development efforts sooner, we chose to pause those projects.

That decision reflects our willingness to collaborate and ensure everyone has time to come alongside as partners in this work.

We can't fund every wish or want or even every need, and that's true in any household or business.

But we do fully fund this responsible balanced budget that will keep Carmel one of the most admired cities in America.

I will admit, change is never easy.

And we've had to make difficult decisions when it comes to employees and other funding issues.

And it's uncomfortable here that some of our employees are upset or uncertain, as are some members of our community.

But leadership means helping people move through change, not away from it.

And if Carmel wants to keep winning, we must keep evolving.

Throughout this process, we listened carefully to feedback and made thoughtful adjustments, including reducing economic development spending well below pure cities based on council input.

I hope you see that as a genuine step for toward collaboration.

Carmel's residents expect their leaders to work together as a team committed to excellence.

They care less about who gets credit, more about whether their city keeps moving forward.

This budget gives us this opportunity to lead together, to govern with discipline and vision, and to continue building a community that reflects the very best of what local government can be.

And to our residents, thank you for your trust, your engagement, and your pride in this community.

And now together, let's show our city and the state what collaboration in Carmel can truly look like.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Because this is a public hearing, you do not need to sign up ahead of time.

If anyone in the audience would like to speak, I'll be open up the public hearing at 7.59 p.m.

Please make your way to the podium.

You get three minutes just like the blue cards do.

Green means start talking, yellow means 30 seconds left.

Red wrap it up.

And then if anyone else wants to talk, just start moving up towards the dais, so we'll know you'll be next in line.

Guess I'm the only one.

Good evening.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council, for this opportunity to stand before you.

My name is Sean Sutton.

I am the president of the Carmel Firefighters Union.

I represent the professional firefighters of Carmel, and I rise uh tonight in support of the 2026 fire department budget as proposed.

Um I want to commend you guys, both parties, uh, the mayor and the council for working through the challenges of SEA One.

And as we just saw uh with Zach's presentation, the the fire department had the highest increase, and I think it's important to uh kind of highlight a couple of items in that budget that I feel are important uh for our firefighters.

And one is that is training for our firefighters.

We have uh 15 to 20 firefighters retiring next year, and that training uh to be able to develop our young firefighters that are gonna become young officers, which the officers are the middle management of our department, if you will.

Um, you know, they're gonna be leading young firefighters.

So to develop those firefighters, it's gonna take money.

Uh we need to train them.

Um secondly, hiring 25 firefighters.

Um, like I said, we have 15 to 20 firefighters, and that's of who we know.

We're not required to notice the fire department that we're retiring.

We can walk in and retire that day if we want to.

Um most folks have uh notified the department, but there are could be other people that retire uh January 1st.

And then lastly, um the the chief, I believe he doubled the um mental health line item.

If not, it's close to being doubled.

But that's an important section in our budget, and something that's been underfunded and overused the last couple of years.

And you know, our our people see a lot of bad things, and we've pensioned off five people in the last year and a half for mental health, and um we need to really focus on that and and get our people the help that they need to deal with the things that they're seeing and dealing with on a daily basis.

So I want to thank the mayor um for your support for public safety and the fire department.

Uh I want to thank the council the same for your support and uh seeing this budget through.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um the opportunities I see someone move into the podium, we'll wait for him to reach there.

Jim Spelpring, Carmel resident and city employee.

Um I really hate to think this away, but it's we have two teams here.

We have sworn and we have civilian.

And I'm sure that I speak for hopefully majority of this civilian here.

I came from the sworn background.

We just feel that there's a difference in what the pay got pay raise, what Sworn got and what civilian got.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Um Benjamin, I have a question.

If I were to just leave the public hearing open, would that mean that I could people could comment again at the next meeting when we reach this item on the agenda?

Or do I need to close the public hearing?

I think I would recommend closing the public hearing based on the notice requirement, but at the same time to the extent that it is held over, we would just have to make sure that it's properly um noted.

But I would recommend, I think it's an unusual step.

I would recommend closing the public hearing at this meeting based on the notice requirement.

Any objection to just closing the public hearing then?

Because people can comment at the blue card section.

Okay.

Um with that being said, I will close the public hearing at 8 03 p.m.

And I will open it up to comments and questions from the city council.

Point to me who would like to council their lock.

And I've got some just kind of threshold about the um chart here before we get into details, and then I'll try to not ask details.

Um, but just if we can go back to the um agenda slide and then kind of work through.

I just had a few clarification things that I think will help set a foundation and then an understanding as we kind of talk about more that are worthwhile.

One of them on this slide, I wrote a note from your remarks, Mayor, about 5.2 million underspend in 2025.

Is that the that's the estimated amount of underspend for this year?

And then is that what we use to kind of draw down the lease obligations or correct?

Okay.

Um thank you.

The on the next slide, uh general fund revenue forecast.

Um, for estimated 2025, this number is different than the one in the final sheet.

And this difference on the 147 is the food and beverage tax, right?

That's correct.

Uh the uh you're comparing it to uh this, I believe, and yeah, the the only difference between these two, and and I don't love the idea of changing a revenue forecast mid either you live with it or you you don't.

Um but this was a change in law, and so I felt it would be prudent to go ahead and reflect that coming out of here.

But that is the difference between these two.

Perfect.

Yep.

Um, and I is that part of that 5.2 million that was referenced to hold it over of the what was general fund before the rule change in that food and beverage.

Yes, because we didn't spend that 3.7 million and we had the 1.5 million that is now shown in the revision.

Reversions, excuse me.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Um that one's an email.

So um on the red slide, the how do we reduce the budget gap.

This is one I sent, and you sent me some information and just for kind of how we're talking about the reduce of these debt payments, the 2026 debt payments.

Would love to have a better understanding of kind of how and what those are and how we kind of assess them.

They're kind of, as you said, all over the place.

We could keep if we kept the money in the account.

So more data on that would be great based on that.

Yeah, happy to get in the weeds there with you, Counselor.

I'll just high level though, I'll say there were there were only a few, I think three that were actually moving forward on pay, literally paying off.

Two of those were at uh much higher interest rates than today's market.

They were uh somewhere between like six and seven percent, whereas we're seeing um more like four and a half percent on our on our rates right now, both both in terms of the interest rate we're getting at the bank as well at on our cash, as well as the interest rate we're paying on on new capital leases.

Um of these capital leases were at such low interest rates, like two percent, that we're not paying them off because it does make more sense to to continue to get that uh interest revenue, but where you would be fully encumbering all of the future payments.

So we've got this funding source set aside.

We're just gonna make uh dollars on the uh investments in the meantime, but happy to get in the weeds.

Okay, yeah.

And then, yeah, clarification there.

So the goal with that one time we're going to allocate enough of it to make future payments on loans from this time.

So this in future years as we get tighter um as revenue kind of shifts more, we'll have taken care of those capital leases through an allocation of this overage this year for future payments in future budgets is necessary as well, right?

That I I I think I understand your question, and assuming that I do, yeah.

We we've we've taken um uh these capital leases, uh some of them have like one or two years left, some of them have uh five or six years left.

But regardless, we the ones that we were touching, we set aside all future payments, so it wouldn't be uh we've just kicked the can down the road a year or something.

Okay, and yeah, I guess that just for clarity for everybody too.

The idea of ensuring we're using this one-time money in a sustainable way, that way we're not having to find other one-time money in future years to pay lease obligations the prudent process.

So having just that understanding of what that looks like just fully wrapped up based on this one time money we were able to find is key.

Um the fewer personnel line item on this page.

Um ask for just kind of where we were and and what it looks like this year from an appropriation and got a chart back from you.

And there it might still be some we need to tweak on it.

Um, as an example, like marketing still has four for head count funded for next year, but we shifted that back.

Um the number of head count of as of September 25 is 593.

Um and the number of the headcount funded in 2026 is 649.

And I understand a lot of that is the overlap of the fire department based on what we just heard from the fire department say, but would love to just kind of hone in on what that looks like financially as we move forward and just ensure that we're telling that narrative right and finding those savings where they need to be.

And and my I'll verify for you, but my uh beyond the additional uh funded positions for for fire.

Um I I I think the the September snapshot probably does not uh starts to reflect that uh college kids and and other summer help have have gone back to work and and our system really doesn't differentiate between uh part-time versus full time, so I think that's the current snapshot does not reflect uh uh part-time people or summer help in in those uh being filled positions.

But fair fine.

Thank you.

Um that is all my overarching, obviously very procedural, very boring.

Um but I I wanted to start there because I think one of the things about this budget that's interesting to me is we're looking at ensuring that we're appropriating the things the right way.

Um I I do want to applaud some of those creative mechanisms based on the savings.

Like we're in a spot where we can do some of those things.

Um but there's a lot of money being moved below the line.

So when we talk about 144 million dollars of general fund revenue and trying to appropriate all of that down to 1,200 of float.

Um there's another 90 some million that is being appropriated to and through other funds that are out there.

Um and there's some creative things that have happened there that again I want to say are very like plaudible.

I think they put us in a position to get through, but what I want to make sure is as we talk about this year, we're really looking at it through the lens of what this sets us up for next year, um, knowing full well that we may get fixes from the state government, but we may not.

I'm insuring that we're putting ourselves in a position where we can continue to support those things that matter, like gazebos and other things, but we're putting um everybody in a position where we understand that that one-time money may never happen again.

Um that being said, if there's turnover and things, we'll find creative ways throughout the year as governments do to ensure that we've got there.

Um but with this being so tight, um I think it's really really imperative that we understand that back end of what we're spending on to get to a point where it feels comfortable to appropriate a budget that's 100% spent.

So I'm done.

Anyone else feel free to jump in?

Zach any uh all right.

Uh counselor Schneider, you're up next, and then point to me if you want to get in line.

Counselor Bernard.

All right, Zach.

Uh first and foremost the responsiveness from you has been at least on my questions and have has been phenomenal.

I appreciate it.

Um we just got we got the uh all the updated what are they called the program sheets.

Um I mean you turn that around in a day, thank you.

I uh that said, I've got a million questions.

Um and I you know this, I mean, I I will be emailing them, but I want to hit some of the high level ones.

Um some of these are kind of department specific, like why did the CRC's legal fees drop so substantially to zero?

Um who's negotiating their contracts, who's who who is servicing them when they've always kind of relied on legal um read you know, I can kind of go through some of these, interrupt me if you've got an answer though, or something.

I I have a as you can assume, a number of questions about the Mac department, but the the one, the big one, is I have a really hard time um accepting such a large number for such a broad label.

So the 663,227 that's for events, like I really think needs broken out.

Like what events, where is the money going?

I think that A would make us understand the cost of events a little better, and then like where are we having to lean them on the most for resources?

Because that's just a big number to accept as with a broad category.

Um the oh I had a question about uh video equipment.

We allocated in 2024 21,000 and spent 14,000.

In 2025, we budgeted 15,000 and we've spent 88 dollars, but then you want more money for it this year, or in 26.

So, like, where's all the equipment?

Why don't we just buying it?

If we need something, there's plenty of money left.

Um question on general insurance, and this may have been I want to explain mostly to everybody else, and this is no fault of the administration or Zach or anything else, and if there's ever been an argument for an ERP, this would be your time to shine.

It is a very cumbersome.

It's it's very difficult to find data.

You could be looking for one piece of information, and uh well today I went through 36,000 lines for one thing.

Um then it always takes you down some other rabbit hole, which is why I now have more and more questions as we get deeper and deeper.

But general insurance, for instance, uh I was wondering why it doubled, but then I realized or was informed that there was a data entry issue, but I don't know where the data entry issue ends.

Yeah, to clarify there, so um again, a a shortfall in in our existing accounting and budgeting system is the uh is just how the data appears.

Um the the amount for general insurance, which is uh I believe approximately 2.4 million in the in the budget, uh, was whenever we move that for the next year's budget as uh out of the general fund in the finance department and moved it over to the food and beverage tax.

Uh it it was put in as a new and a base number.

Um we really don't differentiate between those the way that budgets have been built here.

Um but it wasn't rolling up in a total uh to double count, it was just double counting on on that sheet.

And that's not what got submitted though.

I mean I correct.

Okay.

Um so we're now paying the insurance out of food and beverage, which you you said was happening, but it seems it seems like while food and beverage is leveled off, it's still kind of a could be a volatile fund to be funding insurance out of.

I mean, just COVID happens and all of a sudden sales drop.

And I don't know what the data was in 2019.

I have a hard enough time going back a year.

So um it's just I I I I guess fundamentally I don't have an issue with it because that that can be used for anything, but is that are there concerns about that generally speaking?

Is that common practice?

Yeah, I I I'm not sure whether I I would say it's common practice when I when I look at other communities, their their food and beverage tax was usually adopted for a much more specific purpose, whereas uh ours was essentially uh put in place and says it can be used for any any legal purpose of the city government or or something along those lines.

Um in terms of the reliability of this revenue source, um I I appreciate uh that concern.

I'd I'd say that's that's why you pay me to kind of make sure that I'm watching these things and as they as potentially issues might come up that we can address them as as soon as possible.

You you may very well have the same issue if we were still paying it out of the general fund in terms of um we we aren't hitting the food and beverage tax uh uh estimate that I put for this year.

We're not hitting the the building permit estimates that and again those traditionally gone to the general fund, but uh uh I I'd say it's just as reliable as that other uh non-fixed share of the general fund on the on lit and and property taxes.

Okay.

Um but but point well taken, and I intend to keep an eye on it just to make sure.

All right, so now we're gonna I'm gonna move to the food and beverage fund, which you in the budget meeting was going to pay for insurance and energy center.

Now I'm showing that the food and beverage fund at 7.5 million dollars, but if it only takes in, and I you explained some of this, but I want to get through.

I'm just I'm not sure I completely agree because under spending this year's general fund in an effort to get compliant.

To me, this puts our proposed 2026 budget in somewhat of a deficit.

We collected this money, we should have appropriated this probably to the non-reverting fund under the guidance of DLGF.

Had we put it in this fund, then it automatically holds over to next year.

We're not moving things around.

Um but instead we're intentionally underspending the general fund this year, then we'll need to make a transfer of funds.

And if this is the route we're going, I want to make sure that we're transferring the funds plus the interest that would have accrued had it been sitting dormant.

And if I can just clarify that point, um there is not a proposed transfer being contemplated.

My kind of interpretation is I am instructed by law to put these dollars in the food and beverage tax fund based upon the law change this year.

So uh essentially we we cleaned up the the error that came upon us in mid-year by uh by correctly now depositing those dollars in the food and beverage tax fund because by law they're forbidden from being in the general fund.

And I would okay, and I would just take a peek at 2-127 that talks specifically about the interest.

Yeah, um yeah, that that's a great point.

Then I've got uh somewhere in here, oh, in this in the food and beverage, you've got consulting fees for 180,000.

And I I don't know what that is for.

Uh I'll I'll double check and confirm, but it's related to the energy center, but I'll okay.

Um then we get into um where I started to have like a fundamental problem, and uh, it's not um again, I maybe this is not something that is inherent is because of this, but we've we've got in under 502 3990, there's hundreds of lines.

There's 38 million dollars that's been spent this year that wasn't budgeted.

So I don't understand, and that's across a bunch of departments.

Um so I'd like you to take a look at that.

I'm looking at it now.

I mean, and it happened in 2024 too.

There was no money budgeted, but 30 some million was spent, and in 2025 this year, we've already spent 38 million dollars that was never budgeted according to the spreadsheet you sent.

Okay.

Uh I'm uh I'll I'll double check.

I'll show you this for the meeting so you know exactly what I'm looking at.

Sure.

Um consulting fees and community service.

That's an easy one.

I'm gonna just hit the high ones here.

So then I go to the check registry, because now I'm trying to figure out what money was spent in some of these things.

And again, I just want to reiterate not an issue created here, but I need to understand why there are almost 70,000 lines of checks written attributed to the fund other expenses.

And I my assumption is that all these different categories don't have anything to attribute it to.

But for anybody that's trying to figure out 70,000 lines.

Let me find who somebody somebody is and why they got paid, and then you look at the fund, and it just says other expenses, and it's that way on over 70,000 lines.

So in fact, I made a note here, I skipped 31,000 lines to get to line 60,000 line.

Uh and I'm gonna use a friendly firm that won't won't have a problem with this, but for instance, like American structure point, we know they're an engineering firm.

I know they're an engineering firm, so like that makes sense to me.

But it's not gonna make sense to anybody else that's looking to see what these funds were for, and then there's no way to actually easily without then jumping into laser fish, which for two years you all have heard my issues with that.

Um so I and I don't know what the fix is there.

Um also uh I couldn't I can't find there's 612, there's a bunch of 612s, but then I can't find six twelve in the outside of the check registry.

So I don't know what that fund actually is.

Uh is it a fund six twelve yes, fund 612?

I'd have to double check, but I know it's it's one of them associated with the utilities.

Okay.

And also I was just thinking on that the uh that 502390 that you mentioned, the the spending that's not against a budget.

Um I'm gonna say that's likely our uh health insurance dollars going out because that's not technically a council appropriates those dollars whenever uh in into the uh personal services lines uh where it's then used to either fund uh employees' paychecks and a portion of premiums come out of there or the the premiums that the city pays directly.

I think any uh any expense account starting with a five happens to be uh kind of more of like an interfund type of expense.

Um so again it's it's spending against like anthem claims, things like that, but I'll I'll double check and confirm.

All right.

Then also on kind of the other expenses thing, and I I don't I don't want to call these out because the majority of these are minors, but there's a whole bunch of hundred dollar written checks, and that just seems odd.

I did uh and I curious why that all these individuals got a hundred dollar check.

Um then uh for the performing R and the uh facility use covered by city sixty thousand dollars for the restroom.

What restroom is that that costs sixty thousand dollars to I I would want to confirm, but uh the city does pay for the restrooms in the Tarkington uh to be used at different times during the year.

Uh for example during uh okay.

And I I want to say it's related to that, but I would need to confirm.

I I know we pay separately for that.

Um and then whenever there's something that references reimbursables, letting uh figure uh a way to see what those reimbursables are, for instance, in that same fund, it's 1.7 for reimbursables and drapery cleaning.

It's just odd that like drapery would be called out separately.

It just it just makes you wonder, and I'm gonna get through these quick because I'm sure other people have questions.

Um actually I'm there's a lot of little ones in between, but I want to my my general sentiment here is and I and I know Sean said he supports this budget, but 25 firemen.

I I you know is involved in building that training center.

It's gonna be hard to actually gear up, and if there's one female in a recruiting class, it's either gonna be very awkward for her, or everyone's not gonna fit.

Um so I guess my question is we've never said no to the fire department.

I I'm not so sure we're gonna get to 25 people.

That's a difficult, that's a lot of people.

If somebody we have a mass retirement, we will obviously fix the problem, but tying up even if we even if it was five less, four less, that's a lot of dollars.

And probably the only kind of if we take out fire department, police department, parks.

Our payroll is about 18 million, which to me, I'm going on them here, and I don't want to get persecuted, but another 400, I mean, another two percent increase across the board is only about 400,000.

So when I look at like some of these expenses versus what we could do to help fix the morale, it just doesn't seem to me like 400,000 is worth a lot of several other things.

And a lot of those other things I I'll email you because I'm not gonna get in all the weeds.

I did want to make that statement.

If we're looking at helping out the non-sworn without diminishing the sworn's role, another two percent on top of the three percent, and that's bad math, by the way, is 400,000.

I mean, if you did it at 5% at once, it would probably be less.

And I just it seems to me that there's a lot of other things here that we might be spending some money on.

If we put some money into our employees first, then we may have a little more PEP in our step and then can be productive on some of the things we want to accomplish.

My thoughts.

Thank you for all that time you have.

Oh, thank you.

We can come back to you too.

Hey, Councillor Manar, if sorry, I'm gonna jump in something because there's something Councillor Schneider mentioned, and we'll go there.

But could I offer just one quick clarification?

Go ahead.

And and that is just to and I and I think you were alluding as far as um the the number of of firefighter replacements, and that if we don't go as aggressively on that new number, um okay, yeah, we would spend less on the wages part, but then we would need to sh to shift just as much over to the um the overtime.

I think we're gonna do that.

I'd try to make further conversation about that because I'm not I'm not convinced of that math yet.

Okay, but and I and again don't take anything away if they ever needed those people 100%, we would we would do it.

But I for sake of freeing up some money, I thought it so I wanted to ask uh quickly, because Matt mentioned the ERP, which I think is the first time we brought this up in a public meeting.

We you sent uh an email to council with an overview of it.

I think it's dated here September 11th, both there and an attached ordinance.

Uh of course, for those ERP enterprise resource planning software system that integrates core businesses, just payroll, whatnot.

Um, you had an ordinance attached to create a non-reverting fund for an ERP.

Um that ordinance is not on our agenda, so I didn't know if that was planned to be on our agenda in the future.

No, I I'm I'm looking for council support or direction on on I I've got a couple different ideas of how to pay for this.

One would be to cash fund it, one would be to uh to to essentially borrow at no or low interest.

Um but again, I feel like I've got to convince you of the need for it first, and then we can figure out how to do that.

Okay, well, I mean I like to have those conversations publicly because it is public tax dollars, so you know, we can have that conversation in this September 11th document that you sent over.

Uh the two things that you pointed out that I'll mention here are two million appropriated from the general fund, so unappropriated dollars in the general fund, two million dollars for uh the one-time implementation costs of up to two million.

Um this would require council to vote for that.

I assume that doesn't include doesn't require council approval for you to do that.

Council would be required to to fund appropriations to support that going forward and uh but it wouldn't be a vote to say let's do the ERP if that's the option you ask.

That's correct.

So in here in this document you talk about ongoing costs to cost appropriately uh 400,000 dollars annually that could vary um and that you would like to have a vendor on board by January 1st 2026 to achieve a 2027 go live in the system which means that you would some of these upfront costs would be if the council was open to it paid into the fund 426 for you to start implementing this process and it would go live by the end of the year.

That 4 million 400 thousand dollars that would be the ongoing expenses separate from the two million it it it's an alternative that would include the the that could include the two million as well the explain that yeah so uh and again we're to say that we're in the middle of negotiations probably wouldn't be exactly right but but as we talk to some of the vendors um I believe the annual the the the actual cost of an uh annual license would be somewhere in the ballpark of 2500 but that would greatly depend upon the number of modules or components that we would use so whether that would be um is it just accounting and budgeting is it also payroll is it also time management is it also contract management so say it varies from you know 2500 to 400,000 for costs separate from the two million to implement it.

If it well what in in my mind if if if we did not get two million then I would manage the uh the licensing to 250 so that the uh extra 150 a year on that 400 would cover the actual implementation costs spread over 10 years.

Okay.

So I mean I don't know how much this is going to cost it sounds like we haven't decided on a provider yet before 2026 is up you one of your proposals to take two million dollars out of um unappropriate general funds to fund something that we don't have a proposal in front of us yet well I I when we when we talked last week Adam I I was asking whether council would more support the idea of cash funding versus the the idea of borrowing funds I haven't decided if we should do or me personally I speak to myself whether we should do it at all yet alone how we pay for it whether we do it two million dollars as opposed to spreading out before that let's figure out you know this is something that um we should be doing but the 400,000 I want to get back to the ongoing costs.

So does that come that doesn't come out of the two million so say the council were to you know approve two million dollars where does this 400 thousand or could be as low as 2500 I looked in the IT budget and looked in the HR budget where is that money?

Yeah we we have uh any ongoing licensing cost would probably not start until 2027 when we actually went live with the system.

But you've also mentioned to me that there would be a person hired solely to help implement this.

Correct that well this as well as other there there are no um what I'll call like implementers at in our IT department whenever we need to implement something even as simple as like multifactory you quoted a number of a new employee at $80,000 plus benefits.

That's what you said to me.

That's correct because we have nobody to do implementation.

So you would that new employee is that in the IT budget it yeah it was funded in there this year you didn't list it on any of the slides as an additional expense.

It it's not an it's already funded in the budget it in the budget for last year as well as the filled position at this time it is not.

Okay.

So it's a position that was vacant that was funded last year that you would hope to fund this year.

Correct.

Okay so that's but but but don't want to fund it until I know that don't want to fill the position until I know that council is supportive of moving forward with the ERP.

Okay well we don't have anything in front of us to debate because we don't have an ordinance to create the fund a proposal about whether you want to do two million out of the unappropriated funds or finance it over two million so um there's nothing I can debate with nothing in front of me.

Yeah I again I as I've said throughout this process I I wanted to start the conversation with council we desperately need an ERP system.

What I'm getting at is I think we want to have less conversations behind closed doors and more in public when it comes to this.

This has already been brought out there in public about an ERP.

This is a significant amount of money.

I'm willing to have the conversation, but I want to have the conversation here and not necessarily let's get everyone's support before we decide to put it on the agenda.

So that's I can't decide until I hear from the people.

Yes.

Then send it to Finance Committee.

I mean what am I sending into Finance Committee?

You have put other things in committees that you want to talk about that didn't have an ordinance with it.

So we are if you we're a little bit damned if we do, damned if we don't.

If we bring you a fully baked proposal, then you say where was the collaboration and the feedback.

We're bringing the idea what we have done so far, and so we want to talk about it with this in the ERP steering committee.

I mean, that's what that was the proposal was before.

This is not a 2026 item.

So send it to finance, have a special meeting and talk about it.

That is your um prerogative.

We're open to that conversation.

You can talk we as counselor Snyder said before, hey, this is a good opportunity for us to work together with in selecting vendors and what have you.

Let's tell us what you would prefer.

Council and again, this is not a 2026 item, it doesn't reflect this particular item that's on the agenda right now being talked about.

So if you want some time to think about it, that's fine.

This is not part of this budget.

I just want to understand if there were cost in 2026 that would be associated with this, it sounds like there would be.

So, you know, as we're deciding to approve a budget for 2026, if there are items in there related to an item we haven't approved yet, I'd just like to know what those dollars are.

But the so you're saying there's the 400,000 that annually for updating this would not happen in 26.

The only cost that in the 2026 budget would be 80,000 plus salary for a preserved person to do this.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

Um we can pick that up later.

Counselor Minard.

Actually, no, I I just want to follow up with a quick question about that anyway, um, about the ERP.

When we were talking, uh, you and I had some email emails back and forth.

Appreciate the feedback, really do.

Um with the implementation piece, are you sending out uh an are you gonna do an RFI or a RFQ for that?

Yeah, so there's there's kind of two ways to that I think about this.

One is choosing the right system, and then the other is choosing the right partner to help us implement the system.

My preference would not be to do an an RF, a true RFP for the selection of the system itself.

I want to base that upon the demos, the pricing that they give us, and just what makes the most sense.

When it comes to then, and and because it's it we're we're searching for a service that it's not something that we we have to put out for bid necessarily.

When it comes to selecting the implementation partner, and that is where um I I it the the two million is in my mind probably somewhere between one and one and a half for that uh partner, and the other is just to help prepare ourselves in terms of documenting processes, cleaning up years of accounting data and personnel data that's that's not clean, all of those things.

So we're we're transferring clean data in.

And so I've I've I've hedged that a little bit in that that two million total.

Um I've forgotten the original question with my ramble.

Um RFI, RFK.

Yeah, yeah.

So what I would want to do though is in terms of who our implementation partner is.

That is where um we need somebody who gets this project that has a history of implementing this and not just you know any mom and pop.

And so that's where I would absolutely go out to bid for that.

Okay, great.

And so I'll gonna pivot now.

You know, or do you want to follow up on that, Matt?

If you do, I I can act with you.

If you're going to something else, I'd like to jump in on that.

Yeah, go ahead.

And then I'll I'll go back.

I don't I I don't want to take anything away from Adam's counselor Austin's frustration.

Um I think this council is uh sensitive to having things just done after we've expressed maybe some non-interest.

So I I think that uh you're coming from a a place of caution.

But to your point and the mayor's point about damned if you do, damned if you don't, or I probably shouldn't say anything right now about that could be considered foul language.

Um but I the re I I don't know the first thing about ERP.

And I've I've admitted that.

I had to go I had to Google what the letter standard stood for.

What I do appreciate is that you've it wasn't just dropped.

Now I don't know there was an article in the paper, I think.

Something about it, maybe a release.

Social media.

And I would that ruffled my feathers a little bit, but it was I I like that you're coming to you you had this idea a couple months ago.

You softly threw it out.

Our ignorance doesn't help you.

I'm sure there are people up here much smarter than I that deal with this stuff a lot more.

Um that we we talked about in the last meeting was like was putting together this uh the not TAC committee, but steering committee.

I I I would say I just maybe do that because we're never gonna get answers up here.

We're never gonna it's never gonna be able to explain in a council meeting.

And the other thing, because I'm I'm very hung up on this this one, this ongoing annual fee, but I also have no idea what it's replacing.

So I like what fees does it replace that we're already paying.

And I don't want to get in to it tonight, but the sooner that you can maybe gather some people that and I I think I mentioned Ryan because he he knows this stuff, but um to get on a steering committee and start talking about it, I think the sooner we'll be more comfortable and less on edge about it's gonna happen whether we want it to or not.

And and and then once you then we can look at a funding solution if the if it's warranted or if we understand it.

Councillor Minard?

Well, I I just want to say I I did send I think eight questions to Zach, and I'm happy to forward that email on to all of you because a lot of the questions that you asked were some of the questions I asked in my email.

So I'm happy to pass that along to you.

Um if I could just you know, for for the the public watching that's never heard of an ERP before, uh I mean this would be the equivalent of you going into a grocery store today and and they don't have like UPC scanners.

They they you know, it's it's still the price tag on there and somebody at the register manually entering in the price as you go through checkout every time.

That's that's the equivalent of what we're still using for accounting and personnel things in the city.

We we we have paper processes that go from one place to another.

We rely on access databases.

There's just so much that we could be doing better more efficiently, uh probably even cheaper once we we end some other contracts by going to a more efficient system.

So one thing, and I just think of this too, is while I appreciate the idea of a steering committee.

I don't want a two million dollars of taxpayer money at a time that we are we are laying off employees, employees that are hired, in some positions will not be filled, but they're employees that will be let go this year.

We are seeing cuts to amenities that people hold dear.

We're told we are broke.

It was the message that I think I heard from you.

Uh we when I asked about things we could fund, you said we did not have the money.

Um these are things that people asked us, could we fund it?

We were sold we did not have the money.

Uh so two million dollars at this time.

I'm gonna make this decision based on questions that I get to ask directly.

I'm not gonna give that off to a steering committee.

The steering committee could be great for implementing it and for um coming up with the ideas, but I don't you know I think and I appreciate that we've sent emails, I appreciate that we've talked about it.

Two million dollars of taxpayer money should be talked about publicly.

And so that's why I think we should continue to start to have these conversations about this.

Mr.

President, you can accomplish both things at the same time.

You can have a steering committee and you can publicly notice them.

So we could have those conversations.

Are all the counselors on the steering committee?

That is up to the council to decide.

You could have one, you could have nine, and what there's only one we can still publicly notice these meetings.

So or just broadcast them it's not an either-or, we can make this happen.

Okay, so again, it's up to the council's desire on how you want to handle it.

We want to have the conversation, that's why we we brought it up earlier, and we also provided the white paper for you to look at.

So, how do you want to handle that?

Okay.

Yeah, my original question that I okay.

Um, so I want to talk about the arts funding if I could, you know, that's a little near and dear to my heart.

Um my recollection is that there was some underspend in the arts budget.

Am I correct on that?

Okay.

So did that money just revert back to the general fund then, I'm assuming.

Okay, and those dollars are now are now qualified to some before you answer that.

Well, I was gonna say that they've not reverted back yet.

They won't.

Well, okay.

So I guess I guess what I'd love to know is, you know, I know we're in a really big big budget crisis and we're, you know, we're we we have to make cuts and we've all talked about an ad nauseum.

But I wonder, I I'd be remiss if I didn't say this to you directly.

I'm wondering if whatever dollars are left in that that arts funding that we did not spend that we could make that budget whole or some of it whole, so that it gives because 20 26 is bad for budgeting.

We all know that.

But 27 is going to be worse.

This would give the art grant recipients at least a year to try and figure out, unless the state legislature does its best to make us whole, um, to figure out another funding source to cover those you know, those specific dollars.

And in so much as we're not funding the um we're taking a hundred thousand dollars from the um central Allied Solutions Center for Performing Arts.

There, set it.

Um I know I know you had to make tough decisions with that, Mayor, and I understand it too, but I just I'd be remiss if I didn't say it.

I would love to make them whole as well.

So just something to consider.

I would really love if there's just that amount of money left in the in that arts budget that's not been spent this year, if we could use that to those people.

So that's and uh bring that full circle.

The reason I asked the question on the 5.2 at the beginning, obviously we're not done not spending money in 2025 or spending money.

But is that arts that wasn't spent part of the 5.2 million calculation we've already built into the pay down of leases and other things that are there?

It it's it's a little bit more nuanced than that.

It'd have to I'd be happy to kind of provide you a better breakdown of how I think about it, but uh but I would say technically I've not counted that underspend towards that when I when I see that 1.5 million of underspend for this year that I've shown on the surplus statement.

Yep.

Um and and that goes to the broader question.

We obviously have a whole quarter left, 2025, where we will be spending, not spending, there will be changes in process.

There's more money in this than that is there, but the key again is thinking about this long term for 2026.

I do point of levity.

Um we don't haven't had a lot of those tonight.

Um, for steering committee on something like this, that's something that's so big that has generational impacts on how government will run because in 15, 20 years, whatever we implement now, they'll talk about like an access database then.

Um but you know that kid on the front of the boat doing that dance that everybody saw like a while ago.

It was like a few weeks ago, there was a kid doing like a boat race.

And if you haven't seen it, highly recommended.

Um but he's doing this awesome dance and the boat's moving, and he's up on the front, and he's got like perfect knee movements to keep with the boat, uh to keep rhythm for everybody.

Um happy to play that role on your steering committee if you pull together.

But go go check that out if you're bored.

Um, you're looking for something to laugh at for a couple seconds.

I think Councillor Rowell appointed me a while ago, and then we'll go counselor Taylor, that's all right.

I I forgot what I wanted to ask.

I'm sorry.

Um, so uh I I did want to ask about the food and beverage tax, seven and a half million.

Um I'm getting confused about that because in on one page we're you know, 3.7, then up there I see the seven and a half.

So can I think of that seven and a half as being while it can't go into the general fund, it's being used for general purposes.

That's exactly right.

I I would also just clarify that of that that total 7.5, half of that is is one-time money that came in this year that's not appropriated, and the other half is new money that I'm assuming we will bring in next year.

Okay.

Okay, got it.

Um then can you go to the um list you had of employees who are um or the the position I should say that are not being filled?

And I'm gonna go quick because I know it's getting late.

And if we need to have this conversation in private, I will uh be open to that as well.

But I would like to know what position in the street department is being reduced or eliminated.

I prefer prefer to have that position that conversation in private.

I guess really Larry Batakini specific people are positions there.

It isn't clearly spelled out.

How do we have that tomorrow?

Yeah, fine.

Um so now I do want to ask, though, how many of these are out of the, and I had it added up now.

I can't remember what the number was, but of these 15 positions, how many of them are actually filled with coming.

Uh so the mayor's office position is filled, the street department position is filled.

Uh, there's two remaining left in the fire department that will be outsourced.

One is it left to the organization before this decision was made.

Uh four total okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, I will wait till tomorrow for the rest of my questions.

Counselor Taylor.

I just had a couple statements and then a question.

So AIM produced a some detailed information on Senate Enrolled Act 1.

I think it's important for everybody to completely understand the things that we're gonna be facing in the future.

Um it's it's starting to affect our budget this year, it's gonna significantly affect our budget next year.

That list could maybe be a lot longer next year.

Just in this year alone for the 2026 budget, the supplemental homestead deduction was currently at 35%.

Our property tax revenue for 26.

That supplemental deduction is increased to 43%.

It'll then go to 48% in 2027, ending at 66.7% supplemental property tax deduction by 2031.

We are very blessed that in order to have the revenue for this year's budget that our assessed value increased, our gross assessed value increased by 10%, which equated to a certified net assessed value growth of around 3.4%, just barely outstripping the negative impact of those additional supplemental deductions.

These budget conversations in our general fund and the great things that we love about Carmel and the great people who work for Carmel are going to continue to be become more difficult and more difficult.

We are not alone in what everybody is facing in the rest of the state of Indiana.

We cannot be blind to it.

There's going to be very, very difficult decisions.

They even provided a nice assessed value deduction to multifamily apartments that increases up to 36% of the assessed value by 2031.

There are communities who are not able to buy fire trucks, there are communities who are not able to fund positions, there are communities that are laying off significantly more people.

If we don't continue to see at least a 10% gross assessed value increase year over year, we will have significantly less more money next year than we do this year.

So these conversations are going to get much much more difficult.

So we have to live in the reality of what we're facing from property tax reform.

That doesn't even include the negative impact we're receiving this year in local income tax due to legislation shifting some of that local income tax to the city of Fishers.

When's the last time has the revenue been flat for the City of Carmel related to general fund revenue?

I don't remember it.

So I know everybody has things that are important to them that they want to fund.

It's very difficult to hire and fill those positions.

The administration determined to give a much bigger increase to the rest of the staff, but we could not foresee what happened in the last legislative session.

So this is not an us versus them.

This is the realities that we're all dealing with based on things that are out of our control.

Our debt payments alone are 19,475,000 annually out of our out of our out of our general fund here.

As Councillor Schneider pointed out, that that covers the whole entire salary for everybody besides sworn officers and parks at the city of Carmel.

The reason why I've asked in previous meetings about general fund balances and rainy day fund balances is to wonder could we pay for some of these positions or could we pay for a lot of things that we're talking about cutting this year from our rating day fund or um or our general fund cash balances?

And let me read something directly from the rating agencies.

Although the city's reserves are very strong as a percentage of budget, they pre provide somewhat less cushion relative to the side of size of Carmel's annual debt service expenditures.

So what does that mean?

That means that if we if we don't preserve our rainy day funds or we take on more debt without increasing our reserves, that that if that will affect our bond rating aid bond ratings, and then when we need to go spend uh money to build station 47 or to replace or to replace a roundabout or to do something like that, the cost of funds are gonna be significantly higher.

We're in a very very difficult situation.

So I think I would suggest that the public, anybody with questions, there is a great resource on AIM, Accelerate Indian Municipalities website that goes over these impacts of Senate Enrolled Act 1.

Um, this is not to mention uh how those impacts will relate to local income taxes depending on whether or not local units are able to set their own rates or not.

It's currently set for the budget year of 28.

Um my question is that the budget order um budget form four.

Um because I have an interest of uh maintaining our tax rate.

Budget form four lists a adopted tax rate of uh 0.8303 per 100 of assessed value.

Um I do see that we have a uh rate cap resolution to cap our rate at uh 7783.

Is that correct?

So my question is is that um our dot our adopted lit levies at 83 cents per 100, but our rate cap ordinance resolution is at 77 cents per 100.

So when that is sent to DLGF, knowing that we have a rate cap resolution that caps our tax rate at 77 cents, what is going to be hit because it's not going to take it from the debt service levies.

So, what is going to decrease in our revenue collected with that difference in property tax rate?

Yeah, counselor, I want to make sure I understand your so on budget order form, you got the adopted tax rate of 0.8303.

Yep.

Okay, so that's our adopted civic city civil property tax rate, right?

But we're passing a rate cap resolution for 77 cents.

So there's a difference there.

And um about 16 cents per 100 assess value.

Yeah.

So how is that reconciled when it's budget form 4 is submitted if this was to be passed by the council?

How's that reconciled by DLGF depending on um what actually levy we receive?

Yeah, let me I don't have a good answer for you right now.

Let me follow up and because my understanding is we pass a rate cap resolution at 77 cents, and it directs the DLGF to distribute the funds as they see fit, which obviously they're going to service debt first because that's required by our creditors, and then distribute the distribute the remaining tax rates between general fund uh motor uh moth CCD.

So they'll take it from CUMCAP.

I I believe that's I mean that's the right percentage amount, but I just want to make sure I give you the right answer.

Yeah, that's what I'm I'm just concerned we're sit submitting a higher tax rate on our budget form but passing a resolution that has a uh fixed lower tax rate.

I'm positive that it's it's something to do with the CUMCAP, but I just need to make sure I give you the right answer.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the council?

This will stay at the dais.

It's not being as we usually do, and we'll be revisited at a later meeting.

Let's be able to conference.

All right, moving on.

New business.

First reading of ordinance D 2792-25, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana designated the Klingon Smith Pettiner Farmstead Historic District located at 14420 Cherry Tree Road.

Sponsor is Councilor Warrell.

Do I have a motion introduce?

Move to introduce.

Second.

Council Row to read the session.

Of course.

All right.

This is designates a historic district consisting of the Klingon Smith Pettner Farmstead property located at 14420 Cherry Tree Road.

I would ask the president to hold this because the key component of this is was unable to make this one and the next one for the Wilkinson Hallhouse property.

Okay.

So I will just hold this at the dais, and uh we will move on to and that in the next meeting.

Uh Mark Delassy with historic preservation is scheduled to be here, so he should be able to talk about that.

So moving on to first reading of ordinance D 2793-25 and ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana.

Designate the Wilkinson Hall House Historic District located at 2724 East Smokey Row.

Sponsor is Councillor Royal.

Do I have a motion to introduce?

Move to introduce.

Sorry.

All right, would you read the synopsis?

Designates a historic district consisting of the Wilkinson Hall House property located at 2724 East Smoky Row.

Alright, we will be holding this as well for the next meeting.

All right.

First reading of ordinance D 2787-25 and ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel Indiana vacating the southern portion of the public way known as South Street within D W Kinzer subdivision.

Sponsor is Councillor Austin.

This is the petition to vote.

The petition to vacate was at our last council meeting.

This is the ordinance to take the action now.

Do we need any other questions or updates on that?

I'm sorry to move things so quickly, but if so, I have a motion to approve.

Moved.

All right.

You can go ahead.

Uh first.

Do you do have to suspend the rules first?

Yes.

Motion to suspend the rules.

Someone second.

All right, vote to suspend the rules.

Can we?

Sorry, we we pulled a fast one on Jessica.

We're moving so fast.

All right, suspend the rules.

Should be able to vote now.

All right, we can now act on this ordinance.

Do I have a motion?

Second.

All right, go ahead and vote.

Jesse, we're going too fast for you, so I'm sorry about that.

All right.

So that that passes unanimously.

Next up is first reading ordinance D 2788-25, an ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel Indiana fixing salaries of appointed officers and employees for the Carmel City Court for the year 2026.

Sponsor is Councillor Taylor.

Do I have a motion introduced?

So moved.

All right.

Councilor Taylor, would you read the synopsis?

Establishes the 2026 maximum salaries for employees of the Carmel City Court.

Judge Coindexter is not in attendance.

I can follow with him.

Did you want to just hold off into it and make sure he's here at the next meeting?

That is what I will do.

All right.

Next moving on to first reading of ordinance D 2789-25, an ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel Indiana fixing salaries appointed duties and employees of the Carmel City Clerk for the year 2026.

Sponsors are counselors Minar, Joshi, and Taylor.

Do I have a motion to introduce?

Second.

Councilor Minar, would you read the synopsis?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Establishes 2026 maximum salaries for employees of the Carmel City Clerk.

Jacob was here.

Is he still here?

If so.

If he's in the hallway.

If he's here, let's let's get him so we don't have to invite him back to another meeting.

Yeah, I think he's in George.

Okay.

We'll wait a second.

This way if he doesn't have to come back on the 20th.

All right.

Jacob, you are up to talk about your salaries for 2026.

Good evening.

Sorry for the delay there.

Um you have questions.

I'm happy to answer them.

I've not changed any titles.

I've tried to make salaries similar and in line with the executive branch.

So I don't, it's really all I have to add.

Questions from the council?

Uh Jacob, I know there was talk.

The um video recording was that moved into your budget or or Mac.

Um it's remaining in Mac for now.

Um didn't with sort of that concept shifting back to the city, I didn't feel a need to add that to my budget.

If things change again, I'm happy to continue those conversations though.

Okay.

Questions for Jacob.

All right.

I would entertain a motion on this ordinance.

Um I would move to suspend the rules and vote on this tonight.

Second.

Second.

Motion is second, please vote.

All right, we can act on this this evening.

Do I have a motion to approve?

I can.

All right.

Um we have one class question for the vote.

Counselor Snyder, you had a question.

You said you lined up with excuse me.

When you said you're you lined up with the mayor, what did that mean?

I'm curious what that.

Yeah, good question.

So you'll s I don't know if it's the next item or two down.

So um, you know, we have steps and grades right now, right?

So what I did is I went and found the grades where my staff would have been if they were in the executive branch ordinance, and I lined up those maximum salaries with what is in the executive branch with mine.

So to be clear, your salary is not including this because you're an elected official.

The same for the judges.

That would be in the ordinance that is coming up later on our staff or are we talking about the other thing?

You oh well, my salary is in the elected officials ordinance.

So this is not in the one that's sorry, I misunderstood the question.

So you just you matched up to make sure that yeah.

So I tried to find you know the grade nine, grade 11s in the executive branch, took that maximum salary that they have in theirs and put it with mine on their appropriate grades.

And that made this reflect correctly the staff compensation that you think is necessary for your staff.

Yes.

Yes.

And I think this is also just to bring up a point.

This is another way where we can address, we're obviously addressing an individual employee issue or an individual staff position issue, you know, as a group on the dais.

So it's not that we can't do these things at times.

I just kind of wanted to say that because of the conversation we had earlier.

But I just wanted to kind of echo that, like and say now that we're the clerk in front of the microphone, like how grateful we are.

I am specifically, I don't know, speak for the rest of you and your relationship.

But the clerk's office is an unsetting administrative hero of city government.

They do so many random weird things, including dealing with laser fish more than anybody on the planet in a way that um advocating for yourselves and and being up here with us, but also kind of running back end of of this machine that is bizarre.

Uh grateful for that.

So thank you for even advocating for each other and for and for coming forward and and for Jacob uh showing up and being in front of the microphone tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, I was in the back office there.

All right.

I think some have already started voting, so continue to vote if you'd like to on whether to pass this.

All right, this passes 8-0.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh moving on.

First reading of ordinance D 2790-25, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana fixing salaries of appointed officers and employees of the City of Carmel, Indiana for the year 2026.

Sponsor is Councillor Taylor.

Do I have a motion introduced?

So move.

Second.

Councilor Taylor, would you read the synopsis?

Establishes the 2026 salaries for employees of the executive branch.

All right.

Um I am going to hold this at the day is tonight so as not to take a vote on it this evening.

But Zach, would you like to give a very brief talk about the differences between in this salary ordinance for the employees?

Yeah, so so this version does essentially take what was built on in the 2025 proposed salary ordinance that that did not pass.

It takes those updated titles and applies the 3% cola to the maximum of those ranges, but does not make any attempt to uh uh overhaul the step and grade system or anything like that.

It's it's just updated titles uh plus the the three percent cola and some other kind of minor cleanup of the case.

Councilor Taylor might have a question for you in a second.

So um well it so in this item do we I was gonna ask of whether we should send this to finance if you could have a meeting or whether we should um hold it at the dais.

I apologize.

I'm just holding just hold it.

Okay.

So we will hold this at the dais.

Uh and walk over there and we'll have another question.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm sorry.

I just didn't want to if you wanted to discuss it in finance if you did the 2025, I wanted to make sure we had that opportunity.

So we'll have continued discussion on this.

Mr.

President, if I can I I believe just for what it's worth, uh uh state law provides that uh it needs to be adopted by November 1st of the the salary ordinance every year, so just put that on your radar as far as budget.

Thank you.

That is helpful information to know.

All right.

Um so that is being held.

We're moving on to first reading of ordinance D 2791-25, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana, fixing salaries of elected officials of the City of Carmel, Indiana for the year 2026.

Sponsor is Councillor Taylor.

Do I have a motion to introduce?

Someone second.

All right.

Um who has it in front of them?

Counselor Joshi, would you read the synopsis?

I saw a sheet of paper in front of you, so I thought you would be counselor Snyder, would you read the synopsis?

Okay, establishes 2026 salaries for Carmel Carmel's elected officials.

Thank you.

Zach, would you like to present?

Yeah.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

And uh, you know, I when we wrote the salary ordinance uh last year for the elected officials.

Um I I thought we had hopefully kind of fixed something so that we wouldn't have to tweak it again.

Uh but kind of two two things changed.

And so again, last year we tried to memorialize the the concept that whatever the the COLA was for uh civilian employees, uh that would be broadly given that that same percentage would be given to elected officials.

Uh at that time did not contemplate uh you know the the budget woes that we were uh going to be facing this year, uh nor a situation where we wouldn't be giving uh uh 100 percent across the board for all civilian an increase.

And so uh the the ordinance as drafted uh basically says hey, uh notwithstanding the the provisions that were created last year, this is how we want to approach it for 2026.

Um as noted, the the mayor, uh the uh city judge and the city clerk uh have not requested a a uh cola uh so their numbers in this ordinance remain remain flat at the 2025 amount um based upon the the budget request uh that council submitted uh I did uh include the three percent uh increase on uh council.

Uh happy to take any questions.

It I'll just add it it it contemplates then kind of reverting back to the what we thought we were setting up as the the normal policy uh after 2026 Council Schneider if if no changes were made, would we need an ordinance I think yeah the mayor mentioned as far as accepting I I would say the the departments that uh or the the the mayor's office, the the court, the clerk, those de uh departments if you will have not been adequately funded for next year to provide those those three percent.

So uh that would be an issue that would need to be resolved if if this ordinance did not pass and those elected officials accepted the those increases.

But I believe this is for the setting the 2026 salaries, right?

So we still have to do it annually, even if there's no changes, is my understanding.

And Benjamin, if you want to correct me if I'm wrong, but we have to annually set this the salaries.

I thought it was I thought ours, maybe I'm misinterpreting the ordinance, but I thought ours is automatically tied.

Without so that we never had to do this again because it becomes a political issue.

I think so I have the ordinance that we passed last year, and I kind of I know you were some conversation about the language.

Um we made requests, the corporation council um denied the request from counsel for certain language in this ordinance, um at least the request that I hadn't.

So what we wrote in 2025 is the following methodology shall be deterred to determine the bi-week sales elected officials for all years after 2025.

Um and it lists the judge, clerk, and city council and says the mayor can and only mentions the mayor.

It does not mention any other elected officials.

But it says that the mayor can forego that by a separate ordinance by council.

So I brought up the point, do we need to go back and amend what we passed last year?

Is that still in effect?

I was told that we could write into this language that we are pausing previously passed laws but not undoing it.

Benjamin, could you is that you typically how you would write those things?

So my interpretation might be slightly different.

But this is a unique type of ordinance, right?

When you're dealing with the salary ordinance, you are dealing with it for a specific year.

So I would go as far as to say that you don't bind the next year beyond, that each salary ordinance stands alone.

And so that the 2025 um ordinance which was passed in 2024 stands alone for 2025.

And so to the extent you wish to bind on a on a f on a future matter, it should be tied to a different ordinance, not an ordinance which in effect replaces the ordinance of 2025 for um in 2026.

So otherwise, to the extent you're binding yourself, you would be binding yourself on the numbers that are put in place in 2025.

Um you guys advised us on this language that we passed a year ago.

Are you telling me now that that language which was advised by the city is no longer valid?

I I think that sometimes when certain situations occur, it can allow for an opportunity to revisit um to secure up and look you can't necessarily anticipate every situation that would occur, and certainly the situation we're in now is to be.

So why wasn't that told to us last year when we passed this language?

I think I think that it's just a matter of interpretation.

I think that you you could look to this um you have an interpretation here which has the language inside um the ordinance that foregoes what was already in place.

Um I think that's acceptable as well.

Um, but I I do think my opinion, I think that each each salary ordinance stands alone for the year in which is enacted.

Could I could I clarify a point there?

Well, let me go to Councilman Art first, if that's okay.

So in other words, what you're saying is if we wanted to make this perpetual, we should have it outside of the salary ordinance altogether.

Is that what you're saying?

That's what I'm that's what I'm hearing.

I I I think that this type of matter um can be addressed in in a few ways, but probably my recommendation would be to avoid uh situations like this.

It would be something that would be addressed and put in city code.

That uh council, I'm gonna add other questions, but I'll go to the counselors.

Counselor Snyder first, and then any I think what's frustrating is like the whole premise, the whole explanation, the whole reason we did this ordinance was to remove the politics from increases, and we did that so that elected officials never never could play politics by being altruistic, uh, even though it's a meaningless number in comparison to the budget, but that I don't think we would have gone along with this this entire ordinance if we hadn't been advised that this was the way to take politics out of elected officials, just doing a cost of living increase, and then we never had to touch it again, then nobody would be criticizing elected officials of any party at any time in any office.

It was set, it was done.

And now what I'm hearing is it's not, and that's very frustrating to me.

Because now it's a headline in the paper that we look like jackasses taking the city's money when money's tight, even though it's sixty-five hundred dollars.

But really, it's because out of principle, we passed an ordinance that we thought took care of the politics in COLA for good.

And that that's where I think my frustration is.

One thing I want to point out too.

So, you know, as council president, Zach, you never came to me and asked me what the COLA was for next year.

You looked at a budget that was prepared by Councillor Snyder, and in his defense, he budgeted for the three percent because unlike other elected officials, we have to make decisions as a group.

Nine people have to vote on what our salaries will be, whether we take a colour or not.

And we had this written in an ordinance.

Matt can't unilaterally, Councilor Snyder can't unit say we're not taking the cola, we are taking the cola.

So we put the three percent in, understanding that that would be a discussion that we had.

You took that without calling us and said, Oh, I guess the council is taking the colour.

We had no discussions publicly about this, but you went ahead and put it in there.

Your your email said I wholeheartedly support this proposal.

What proposal?

The budget that I was emailed.

I supported Matt's budget.

That did that budgeted for in case the cola was decided on to council.

There was, as you know, every line item for payroll is not broken out person by person, salary by salary.

It is a lump sum to cover all of those expenses.

The wages part was increased by three percent.

Yes, but we took no action about whether or not that would be what the council as a whole would take yet.

Did you and these there was no follow-up question saying, hey, we talk all the time.

Hey, are you guys taking the cola or not?

Again, the the proposed budget increased the wages portion for council by three percent.

Okay.

I explained that was just as a council.

So lesson.

Um political things are political regardless of how you try to fix them in a process here.

Like this thing that we tried to set last year naively in some way of trying to take this out of it, it maybe it's impossible to do.

Um I relish the three percent raise to the tiny baby salaries the city councillors get.

Very cool.

Happy to give it up.

Um but like that concept of this being a discussion of this thing together, I think matters.

And the goal here was to make it so that it was something that was repeatable so we didn't have this exact conversation this year, any year ever again, until another council and another mayor decided like let's do that.

Um here we are the next year doing it again in a more political way, with more political process and social media real joy.

Um so I wonder, like process wise, again, like we have the ability to say, well, no, let's appropriate it so that everybody gets that raise so that we go back to what it is and maybe work together to do that.

Um or whatever.

Um so I say that because this issue is so arbitrary.

Um, and it's so it's six thousand five hundred dollars, which we would love to get back in the budget and cover, you know, over for all nine count of the gazebo or of something else or or the ERP once we steer that bad boy down the road to getting it done.

Like but having this discussion again on this issue, um maybe we just don't even try to fix it and we just decide if people get raises or not on elected officials, and we take whatever that means.

But we got to stop like fighting about it arbitrarily because it is literally the least important thing in the budget overall.

Um, unless it's not, and if that's something you're gonna vote on, feel free to vote on that issue specifically.

But I I say that because I, from a frustration standpoint, have no appetite for this specific argument, discussion, or process, and whatever everybody else decides to do, I am happy to forego or not forgo whatever is coming through on this line item.

Flip end, if we don't approve it, it reverts to last year, um, which is how salary ordinances work, and that's the end of it.

We never have to talk about it again.

Maybe we just revert it forever, and this is never something we ever talk about ever again.

Counselor Joshi.

I think the frustration is obviously with the intent.

The intent was to do this again, as both counselors have said to take the politics out of it.

We were trying to make this clear, clean, simple, because it is a pickyon amount of money.

I mean, what we're talking about, I mean, I'll just put it in terms for myself for my own personal experience.

When I was working in 1991 as a resident doing slave wages, I'm making more then than I am now.

So clearly, this is not any kind of real sum of money that anybody thinks is real.

We're doing this because we care about our community.

We didn't do this to get a salary, but we then get treated as if this is uh, you know, some kind of big conversation to be have and use it as a as a wedge between people who's gonna be so nice that they'll give up their salary.

It also discourages people who might need a little bit of encouragement to volunteer in the future for these positions.

I'm grateful that I'm not in that position to um have that an issue, but there may be people in the future who care about their community, wish to serve, wish to you know be part of a city council, and could actually do with a little bit of that small amount of money.

And I think it discourages people from doing this.

Um so that's that's just all I wanted to say about it.

Taylor Benjamin.

I just want to make categorically clear.

There was nothing wrong with the ordinance that was passed last year, and there's nothing wrong with the ordinance that's passed this year.

It's just that as it stands, the um the salary ordinance is something that is changeable, right?

That is just the nature of the salary ordinance.

And so to the extent you wish to avoid those levels of change, my recommendation would be to put it under city code.

Um if I can, I would like to take my cap off as as city attorney and just as an employee say that there's a slight difference here that you it can be looked as political uh maneuvering to the extent that you're seeing it that way.

But I want to say as an employee, there is something to be said where my employer, my head, is deciding who's my boss is deciding to separate themselves from that um at a at a difficult time.

So I'm just saying there are two points to review here, not necessarily all politics, but also from an employee morale standpoint, which has been addressed from this dais as well.

So two two things.

One like it like you mentioned, it's like 500 something dollars per city councilor a year.

I can correct me on that amount.

You know, I'm happy to not take it.

My frustration isn't about that.

My frustration is two things.

One, we were advised on language in an ordinance last year, and now you're saying we really shouldn't have written it that way.

We should have written it a different way.

Uh we we've got to have you know language that we can trust.

So that's frustrating.

I think we wasted our time last year even discussing this, if this was what happened.

And two, um, Zach, I wish she would have asked us whether we were taking a colour would have been a two-second text.

Question was never asked.

So whenever I sent you the draft of this last week, I I missed your response saying that we and when I told you that we I had the three percent drafted this way, you did not give me any feedback that that's not what you wanted on the the ordinance on on the amount for any elected official's salary.

I told you I kept the three flat and increase the uh city council based upon the budget, and I I I think our conversation stalled and I saw it on the agenda.

So I guess you found someone else to sponsor it and move forward, which is fine.

Madam Mayor.

I want to address a couple things.

So uh as Benjamin kind of alluded to, the clerk, the judge, and myself all have employees.

That's unlike the city council.

And so we felt it was important to send a signal to them that while we're asking them to make difficult changes, whether it be a budget items within their budget, um, or something else they felt important that didn't make the budget, that we're we were taking a personal sacrifice.

I also want to address, and I don't know if the city council was here at the time, but when we had before we had city councillors not taking raises or cost of livings adjustments, it was also at a time when we easily had the dollars to do it.

This is a different case here.

Uh but we had we we had plenty of money for to that fund it.

So that was the political aspect we were talking about.

So I just want to point that out.

It was different times, different days.

Do what you like with this ordinance.

But um again, I think what the clerk judge and I were trying to say is to that we didn't want to take a raise, we want to take a little bit of a um we want to provide a little bit of leadership here and a tough time.

Castle a lot and I said I didn't want to talk about the silver again, but it's kind of fun to talk about.

But Benjamin, I do want to say thank you for sharing your personal perspective.

Um super helpful to the conversation.

I would like to ask executive branch leadership.

Draft the ordinance the way it should be drafted.

Like lead us on this.

Like there, there if if we don't want to take the raise, let's not take the race.

Hold us in that solidarity.

If there's a strategic reason to do that to help support the employees, we'll fight to be a part of that.

We might vote for five, five, four, whatever it ends up, but like let's let's be in that together collaboratively because that's an important thing.

The idea of this, we don't we're not in the building every day.

We're part-time.

Um we're reading documents, looking at stuff, having conversations we can to get information, but like write it however you want to write it, whether we take it or you guys take it or we don't take it.

Um, and let's bring it back and let's do that together.

That's my take.

All right.

Uh that being said, this is an ordinance.

Do we have any more questions or comments on it?

Um I have a motion to act on this this evening.

Nobody wants to make a motion to make a decision on this this evening.

Then we will hold this at the dais and continue the discussion for the next meeting.

So moving on, resolution CC 1006-2501.

A resolution of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana approving a transfer of funds within the finance department budget, uh fund 1701.

Sponsors are counselor Snyder, Joe Sheet and Taylor.

Do I have a motion introduced?

Second.

All right.

Um, Councilor Snyder, would you read the synopsis?

This uh transfers 150,000 within the finance department budget.

All right, Zach.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So the the transfer here today moves some available dollars in our uh general insurance line within the finance department uh to a contract or consulting line item.

Essentially, what we're trying to do here is uh we we need to come up with some long-term plans for the energy center.

Uh that includes uh uh definitely adding uh some backup uh uh chiller capacity, potentially uh redundancy, and also addressing um the uh the the aging boilers.

Uh just to step back for a moment.

The the energy center, I believe, was originally constructed at the same time as the palladium, so 2010-2011.

At that point in time, it did not produce enough chilled uh water for the needs of the buildings on the loop.

And uh a few years later, with the addition of the ice rink, a second chiller was added.

Um, and and really it was kind of a um you know you we're we're we're using a chiller for both uh creating ice as well as subsidizing, if you will, kind of our our chilled air for our our buildings on the loop, and it's something that that uh second chiller was never designed to provide both purposes.

You add on to that the fact that the uh we we have a chilling tower uh that was not constructing yet.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, man.

Yeah, but anyway we're gonna go.

It's an investigation to see what's wrong with our energy center and what we need to do to fix it.

Uh you guys pay me by the hour, so I uh do you don't.

All right, with that uh any counselor questions or comments on this.

All right.

This is a resolution.

I've entertained a motion.

So moved.

Second.

All right, please vote.

All right, this passes.

Fine light of the night, resolution CC 1006-2502, a resolution of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana to limit the rate for taxes payable in 2026 and authorize necessary temporary borrowing among city funds.

Sponsors are councillor Snyder, Taylor, and Austin.

Do we have a motion to reduce?

So moved.

All right, Councilor Snyder, retreat the synopsis.

I'm sorry, I'll restart.

A resolution uh resolution finding that the city 2026 property tax rate should not exceed 0.7783, which is the same as the 2025 rate.

And recommending how the DLGF should allocate the 2026 property tax levy amount, city amount to city funds, excuse me.

Um Zach, I know Councilor Taylor had a question about this earlier.

Yeah, in and uh this is a simple resolution that just really states our intentions with DLGF, but noting the outstanding question, I I would be fine uh holding this until uh the next meeting if that is.

Um this is going to override budget form four.

My question to the administration is is in what revenue declines when we set the rate at 77 cents versus 80 cents.

Yeah, I I it is something to do with that QCAP fund, but I need to come back with a more intelligent answer for you.

But I am all but I am very supportive of a rate cap credit resolution to fix our tax rate for 26.

Any questions or comments on this, knowing that we'll hold it?

Uh just for context, what is the um final assessed value?

12.404 billion uh down from what we originally thought, which was 12.689 billion.

Counselor, it's in this document as well.

Great, thanks.

I've rounded it in that one if you want me to get you down to the dollar.

All right, this will be held to the dais.

Item 15, agenda ad items.

We have none.

Other business, city council appointments, Chris Kindle Market Board.

We will hold that.

Announcements.

Anyone on the council have an announcement?

Councillor Snyder, did you uh counselor Taylor?

Uh Friday, October 10th, the community engagement day for seniors.

Uh our police department there will be teaching seniors about how to not be victim of scams.

We'll have our fire department there to talk about fall prevention and other community partners uh a whole day of seniors, including Bob Swaaney from the Carmel Clay Public Library, um, from 10 to 3 on Friday, October 10th at the Carmel Clay Public Library.

All right.

Anything else?

Yeah, Allison.

Uh Mayor and Zach, also um, you gave me these two documents.

Can you make sure the whole council gets them?

Uh these are let me come up and look at them just so I know which ones.

Yeah, they are first the end.

It's the Mac, the Mac breakdown and the uh arts uh breakdown.

All right, we'll send it on.

All right, with that, we are adjourned.