Welcome to the Monday, June 1st, Carmel Finance Utilities and Rules Committee.

We will call the meeting to order at 4 30 p.m.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss three items that are all related, all related ordinance D 2823-26, ordinance D 2824-26, and resolution CC05182605.

We have a presentation from our CFO, Zach Jackson.

Would you like to turn it over to you, sir?

Yeah, thank you, Counselor, and members of the committee.

Actually, I think two ordinances and a resolution before the committee tonight that are all related.

In essence, we're establishing a new fund, transferring dollars from the general fund balance over to there and then appropriating it.

Since this was in your packet at the last council meeting, there was kind of an email going around with kind of some confusion as far as which fund or funds we were talking about.

There are three funds that we're proposing right now, and so I thought it would be helpful just to kind of distinguish between the three funds in this presentation, and then also talk about some of the amendments that are being contemplated, I think, for the first one.

So essentially we have three funds that are in draft form right now.

The one that is before the committee is the city assets and repairs maintenance fund.

Actually, it's the city assets repairs and maintenance fund.

And I'll come back to that in a minute.

We also have proposed a capital projects fund, and then as I circulated last year, an ERP implementation fund.

In terms of the city assets repairs and maintenance fund, you know, talking to the mayor and council president, the intent there was to uh basically avoid that situation that we had with the street department where there was uh uh damage from a driver, uh we were needing to front the dollars ourselves to do the repair before insurance reimbursed us, and that created a situation where either needed to come to city council to get that uh almost 1.1 million appropriated first or ask the street department to absorb that within their current year appropriation.

The idea here is that we would take the uh the the almost 1.1 million that we got from that last insurance reimbursement, move it over to this uh new fund so that the next time there's one of these events uh we we wouldn't need to uh ask Street Department to absorb it or come to council quickly to ask for an appropriation, but there would be dollars already appropriated that we could spend against uh on this insurance claim and then reimburse uh when we got the money back from the insurance companies.

I think there is uh agreement on on that purpose.

Uh I think the the second one here probably needs some more discussion, and that was uh providing a funding source for unforeseen repairs.

And so in this instance, we're not necessarily talking about well, we wouldn't be talking about uh damage caused by a driver or something like that, but just a oh man, those cracks weren't there yesterday.

This needs repaired type of situation.

Um there was a proposal from the council president changed the name of this fund to the uh public infrastructure and insurance recovery fund, and as uh Benjamin will probably talk about in a few moments.

Uh we did publicly notice the the appropriation here under a different name, so just need to talk through kind of what it means each situation where we we go with the city assets repairs and maintenance fund or the public infrastructure insurance recovery fund.

Um other considerations, just the the way that it was uh drafted in that email, kind of implied that maybe uh the insurance reimbursement would always be for 100% of the project cost, and that was kind of the the case with this uh we spent a million seventy-four thousand on this bridge repair.

That's what we got reimbursed.

Uh but those reimbursements don't always include uh you know, we might have to eat the deductible first.

Uh they might value something and deduct uh the depreciated cost, so we'd get uh maybe not the full replacement cost but the current value.

Uh I think in this situation with the street department, we still absorb the design cost for the work.

Um then also what we're kind of proposing here.

Um then also what we're kind of proposing here, if there was willingness to allow us to do other unforeseen repairs uh that have popped up kind of since the the budget was developed and um wouldn't be eligible for for uh insurance reimbursement, uh you know, could could we proceed with those with um you know anything over any use over 50k we would be taking to uh to BPW for getting their approval on any such contracts.

Obviously, more discussion there.

Um on the capital projects fund, this is kind of where uh I I think the chair, myself, and um council president initially weren't on the same page, I think we are now.

But the idea with this fund was more as we're going to have large uh uh projects that we need to budget for uh the repair, the replacement, and and like the the example I'm working on right now, we we know we need to repair the uh HVAC unit at station 44.

The the estimates I've seen for that so far are between a million and 1.1 million for that HVAC.

Rather than perhaps budgeting for that within the fire department so it gets blurred with their other operating costs, the idea would be a fund like this, whether it's mid-year or through the budget, that council could appropriate dollars into this fund for uh approved capital projects that would be on our on our uh capital project uh capital asset list.

Uh and then lastly, the third fund we've been talking about for a while is the ERP implementation fund.

Uh the idea there is just to keep all of those costs separate from uh the finance department's operational cost, the IT department's operational costs.

Uh I've included language in that that would have anything left in that fund on December 31st uh 2028 would come back to the general fund, but but ultimately I'll be bringing a presentation on that to council on June 15th.

Uh with that said, Mr Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to go back to the city assets repairs and maintenance fund, and if it's okay with you, kind of have Benjamin talk through uh what could be potential issues there with how we've noticed that compared to the proposed edit to the name.

Yes, sir.

Questions?

Any questions for Zach based on what he's discussed so far before Benjamin?

Okay.

Floor is yours, sir.

Mr.

Milan, cooperation council.

So the the real only issue here is um we're creating a fund, and um we notice that fund with one title um never heard of before because it's a created newly to be created fund, only for that title to change after the notice has been issued after the public hearing has taken place, which took place at the last council meeting, to then change the name of the fund to have an ordinance creating a new fund, so you'll have a notice to a fund that doesn't exist and never existed with the ordinance creating a fun a new fund and the appropriation going into that fund.

The appearance of it is very messy, number one, and it probably carries with it a very small element of risk uh to the extent that someone wanted to challenge um the procedures were not followed.

So the recommendation is even though changes may be made to this fund and allocation within this fund that the name remain the same.

Um that can be changed at a later meeting.

It's just because you have the notice for that appropriation, and it is a newly created or not existing right now fund to be created out in the abundance of coalition.

My recommendation would be to keep the name the same.

The other changes uh fag aim, uh, so long as it remains in the same kind similar kind of form and not changing it from uh an A to a C, but we're keeping it in the same vein of what the purpose for the fund was, um, they're okay.

Questions for Benjamin?

All right, so you said the risk.

All right, so what's the the risk would be somebody disputes the you know that the fund wasn't created properly because of the notice was money, yeah, right.

It's being moved and it's being appropriated.

And if the person was successful with that, what would be how would that be remedied?

I I think it would probably invalidate and it would um funds to then go back.

And we just have to redo everything.

And and honestly, I mean, just from a transparency perspective, I mean if for proper record keeping here, the recommendation would be um to keep them the same.

As I said, it is the low risk here, but at the same time, you have a notice that went out and then you changed what that fund was after the notice and after the public hearing.

Is there a sense of urgency?

I mean, I mean, the obviously there's two ways to, you know, if we don't proceed and take the risk, we either pass the the fund as named and then change it, you know, 30 days from now or whatever.

Um could I that's that's how long is the notice required?

So the other thing is the sorry so go ahead.

The other thing, the names are very similar.

Yeah.

Right.

I mean, and the the name doesn't necessarily change the functionality of the the you could call the funds by numbers versus names, right?

I mean the the name doesn't necessarily change um anything, it's the substance of of the fund written forth in the ordinance.

So as a result, why change it at all if it doesn't have a functionality, a strong functionality in any way, shape, or form, and and my recommendation will be to avoid any level of risk.

Uh the alternative is as you suggest that you go ahead, pass it with the name as it currently is, as was noticed and as the public hearing took place, and then um in the same meeting, if you wish, after it's been off the ordinance being passed, add on uh an ordinance to amend it, or go ahead and do it at the next meeting.

Or the other choice would be to change the name, re-notice the appropriation and re-notice the ordinance.

Right.

Councilor Royal.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so no, I get I get the the um perception of us, you know, changing name and all that, and I I want to know part of that.

Um you know, either we don't vote on this or we vote it as um as uh advertised.

But but I'm trying to figure out there must be meetings that I don't know about because what is the big deal with the name, other than I'm I'm reading President Snyder's um email, and it seems to be about control or how the money is going to be used or what safeguards there are, you know, how we're actually putting this together and how the money is going to be used.

So I guess I want to hear um, you know, what what are what safeguards are there, what parameters, uh what's the mayor telling you how this should be used, and then I guess I'll weigh that with counselor Snyder's concerns.

But um I think first of all, the the having the fund is important, not only just in this process issue that we ran into, but maintenance is I'm walking around downtown Carmel, and there is there are maintenance issues we've got to address.

So help me understand who's not comfortable with how this money is going to be used or or how is it going to be used, that kind of thing.

Yeah.

Uh thank you for the the question there, Counselor.

Um, I I think this this started with a uh conversation between the mayor and council president uh uh largely on this the street department situation and how do we how do we prevent that in the future from bogging down street department operations?

Um and then kind of the assignment uh for me was to kind of go figure out the language.

I think there were some details that the the two of them maybe didn't get all the way in the weeds and talk through some of these other potential maintenance issues that you're talking about.

Um and that was where the the mayor was seeing you know we there could be something.

Excuse me, can I interrupt?

Yeah, so counselor or President Snyder just walked in.

So will you rephrase my question?

And that's the that's the question because he may want to weigh in.

Yep.

So uh the creation of this uh asset recovery fund, insurance recovery fund, I think started with a with a conversation between the council president and the mayor.

Um I I think there were probably some level of details that maybe weren't discussed there, and then whenever I tried to put pen to paper uh on this, the the mayor's request was that we also be able to use this for uh for repair needs that pop up mid-year that weren't foreseen prior, you know, foreseen prior uh part of budget development, something like that, but it needs popped up, maybe it's not something that that would be insurance related.

It's just that's that's broken all of a sudden that's cracked, we need to repair that.

foreseeing prior you know foreseen prior uh part of budget development something like that but it needs popped up maybe it's not something that that would be insurance related it's just that's that's broken all of a sudden that's cracked that we need to repair that and again rather than uh a a mid-year new appropriation or asking the street department to try to figure out how to absorb it uh could we use this fund for those purposes as well as as attempt at kind of a let me back up at the at the meeting uh on uh what our last last council meeting may 18th uh when I originally kind of uh showed this this language I think there was the the uh comment actually I I I uh I don't remember which uh it might have been counselor Locke was kind of saying like you know right now it looks like as the controller since the controller is responsible for this fund it sounds like Zach you you have all the the the control over this fund about how it would be used uh what we've tried to do is insert uh some language that would say yes it's only for the insurance recovery stuff but also if there are other repairs that need to be done non-insurance reimbursable uh if they're over 50,000 we can only do those if we take them to BPW first and then I probably and then no I've been there's two separate issues in my mind there is we get insurance reimbursements and how and but we have to fund the repairs before we get the insurance reimbursement and how do we have a how do we have money set aside to pay for those repairs before we're reimbursed and and to me that's and then to me that's separate from long-term capital asset management and planning and funding right and so that's why you're gonna see that's why the separate fund is proposed that should be funded annually outside I believe department budgets transparently and should track um the planned expenses each year that are identified in the capital asset management plan based on what mechanical systems what systems are at end of life and are expected to be replaced that year and to me those were two different things that got commingled in a conversation and that's why this is being presented today and my my opinion on this is as far as the committee is that I'll tell say my my opinion is is that we rename the fund exactly what to say what it's really for which is more in line with what counselor Snyder proposes the title we go ahead and re-notice the items we'll have all three of these at once they're done right the vernacular nomenclature is is correct and really defines what they're being used for and we do it transparently that way versus trying to address it agree but I do want to clarify how about um Zach's second example something breaks where is that where the and can the mayor with Zach whoever can they fix that now with this fund or not and the controls for that right who who makes that call and I don't want this to become a slush fund.

Yeah and and I'll say the the the language that we received from counselor Snyder we we've put that in the format of the of the ordinance that that doesn't create the extra ability that that I'm requesting but we have two versions one as counselor Snyder has requested and then another version uh with those uh edits that I'm mentioning okay so so I'm in favor of tabling this or whatever we need to do um that's this is Councillor Snyder thank you Mr Chairman thank you for the opportunity to speak on these um to your point Mr.

Chairman I remember when you and I had the first conversation about this and it was kind of you and I like yeah that's a great idea but what are you talking about?

And I was saying yeah you have a good idea but what are you talking about because I think we had taken the seed of something and you had gone a direction where your head was at and I'd gone the direction where my head was at and we've ended up with two independent things so I wholeheartedly support what you're saying and then the impetus for my concerns over this not being an insurance related casualty event is just my heartburn after years with the ambulance fund and seeing how that spiraled into something it I don't believe it was ever intended to be so I I'm I appreciative of the language rewrite I'm supportive of having the two two independent funds you meant you mentioned three funds and really I wanted to comment on the third one if this is the appropriate time.

Um and I've mentioned this uh to Zach, but I I'm not sure I'm in favor of this third fund.

And my reason is the this ERP is supposed to be generating efficiencies in government.

One of my fears is is if we set aside a separate fund just for this computer program and its operations, does that set a precedent where someone's every time the a mayor wants to do something?

Oh well, you can do it, but it has to be a separate fund.

And that's just a concern I have in general as far as efficiency of government.

Um I do believe you can code every expense without it being a separate fund.

Is that accurate?

Is that we we can code it, we don't have great way to track project or programs at the moment, but we we could isolate we could keep tabs of the cost separately, even if they're in the existing appropriations, yeah.

So I generally on the first two funds, I I support those who hardly appreciate it.

I do think that the long-term capital asset plan is critically important.

I think however much we budget for it and a the budget process should be tied to the plan that uh uh chairman and Zach and the administration have been working on, and and I do think that the insurance fund should be seated with this the recovery of the 1.1 million dollars thereabouts to help mitigate having to steal from other departments, it's primarily street department to move forward.

That's that's where I was coming from in my email.

Uh was detailed, but I count uh the chairman and I hadn't spoken yet, so I I was I didn't understand where he was coming from.

Uh now I completely do, and it makes perfect sense.

So I support two of them.

I'm not sure I love the third independent ERP fund just because of the precedent it sets.

Councilor Minor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, yeah, I agree with um the delineation of the two.

So I'm I'm totally on board with that, totally understand it.

And I think too, it's really important that um our public understands how and the why, what problem are we solving solving and why are we doing this?

And which I think the two of you coming up with these plans are just fantastic.

Um and I I'm really looking forward to how we decide to fund these projects.

Is it tied to the capital asset report that we get to Councillor Schneider's point, uh Council President Snyder's report, um comments.

I'm just very curious to see how this morphs.

Uh a percentage of a budget.

I know I'm getting way far ahead of myself here, but how do how do we go about doing that?

And I just want the public to be very aware of what we're doing and how it's going and the guardrails as well.

So thank you.

Thank you for all of that.

Um Counselor Group.

I just want to go back to Council Warell was asking.

Um yeah, I'm good with all the discussion of the three funds and all that in the future, but tonight it's just that first fund.

And I'm completely understand and I agree with it being used for kind of the insurance purposes, you know.

But again, what are the controls?

Who's making the call on anything else above and beyond that?

That that's where I want to come understand the more details.

So I th I thought a lot about a lot about this.

So the insurance, the insurance recovery fund, though it's non-reverting, um, should have controls because otherwise it would be done through a special appropriation in the general fund, right?

So we should have controls in place on how that is uh how those funds are used, because without the fund, we would are all we would be approving them through an appropriation, a special appropriation ordinance anyhow.

For the capital asset management fund that's going to track the capital asset plan, currently we're already approving those in our budget, but not approving how they're spent.

Fire department will dump in X hundreds of thousands of dollars not informed by anything, just normally what they've there's been no plan around that, right?

In their budget, right?

And other departments will do the same.

And then they're funding capital repairs out of that out of their budget that we approve annually.

If we do this, if we create this capital asset management fund and we fund it based upon the plan, we would be otherwise funding those dollars in the general in the general budget anyhow.

So I I see we control that fund based on the plan and based on the annual uh annual budgeting process, because we will budget monies just like we do for the certain times for the Rainy Day fund to go into this capital fund.

And so that's how the council controls that one.

And so that's how the council controls that one, we're tracking it between plan and spend from prior year and what was funded prior year.

So we have controls that way through the annual budgeting process.

And and I really appreciate that, but it was more about the controls for that first one.

Kind of the controls over the non-insurance grand.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it well, and and so again, the the format that I have on the screen right now is essentially it takes the original version that I it was up there, it keeps disappearing.

I'll try to talk at the same time.

So um so this is the original fund that I drafted, and then we've taken the the language from Councillor Snyder, use that to modify this.

It it does not do anything about that 50,000 threshold for other repairs.

This is exactly the way uh Councilor Snyder requested, with the exception of it keeps the original name so as to avoid any confusion about did did we publicly notice for a different fund.

Um right now, as this stands, and with the other two ordinances, they they transfer or those resolution that transfers over the million and change.

Going forward, just to be clear, uh uh state law already gives me the authority to appropriate insurance reimbursement as it comes in, and so I will be able to automatically as as dollars come back in through insurance reimbursement, that will be automatically uh appropriated.

In terms of the controls on the spending, right now, as it stands, I I think this is exactly the way Councilor Snyder intended it for control by council.

Um I would say though that in kind of section F we might need to talk about uh it we think more times than not the the cost of repairing a damaged asset is actually more than the insurance reimbursement, and so just kind of want to talk that through because there's an implication I think here that uh normally whatever we turn in is is equal to to what we get back.

Um counselor Snyder.

Thank you.

So uh I I don't disagree that the insurance is sometimes doesn't cover the whole project, and sometimes the project will include repairs outside of damage because it makes sense to while you're there while you're there to to do it.

And I I think my intent was you you could use this fund for those repairs singularly tied to this, and I I think I thought initially I thought like with council approval, but if it needs to be a percentage or something like to make it more streamlined, like I don't I don't have any version of that.

My concern was that there were just going to be things around the city that oh this needs fixed, let's use this fund.

That that was my concern.

Uh we need to repaint a statue or I don't know, but I really wanted this to be more focused on casually events that we were not planning for at all.

And I feel like some of the repairs around the city should be planned for just based on age and and whatnot.

I do have a question for you uh Rich.

I think with the long-term asset management, like that's really really important.

In fact, I think it for the longevity of the city, maybe one of the most important things we do.

How can we write this in a way so that future councils, even two years from now, let's say we're all gone.

That that plan is there a way to write in the ordinance that that plan is updated on a regular basis that it must be funded.

I just I don't want to do this and then have it undone because I do think how do we protect it a good plan like that?

You um it's it's a living document.

So did you guys end up acquiring a asset management software system or have you are you guys still looking at that?

Like parks.

I'm not sure that we're going down the route of a of a system, but we will have a dashboard and it's it's nearly done.

So in that um so repair uh roof replacement of city hall is done, then in the plan that then pushes that next expected expense with cost escalate a good dashboard, should say, okay, that's now removed from the plan, it's funded, then it pushes that expense out for the useful life of the roof, and then puts in a estimated budget number based on today's cost plus escalate escalation numbers, usually very conservative.

They do it like Michael does it, and then uh so you'll know then that you won't incur another related expense to city hall roof until year 2053 or whatever it ends up being, right?

And so I don't know how you can address that specifically in the ordinance verbiage.

Maybe Benjamin has some ideas, but we can talk, we can talk through that.

Um the good thing about that capital asset management plan is let's say staff came to us, the the administration came to us and said we expect based on our plan uh 1.5 million dollars to be spent next year on repairs, and come to find out in that plan they uh the the mechanical system at 44s didn't go bad this year like it expected, it's not gonna go bad until next year.

Um you will then know that you funded that in the previous year based on the plan, so you'd know that in the next budget year, excess dollars just like you'd appropriate for the rainy day fund, you would not need to appropriate those dollars then for that following year.

Um but uh how to memorialize it to tracks the plan.

Um we could put in there, right?

Put in their language that it the appropriations need to mirror the the plan expenses in the capital asset management plan, maybe, and then um I had another thought on that just escaped me.

Track the that tracks the plan, and you could name you could state in the ordinance that the plan needs to be updated like every uh uh a new a new uh assessment needs to be done every five years or something like that.

Is that paid out of that plan?

Is it paid out of that plan?

Yeah, paid out of that plan.

Yep.

And then if you could help educate me a little bit, because as I have read draft plans of other communities, um they can be volatile.

They I mean so how what happens when we get our plan back and it it just needs way more money than we're able to appropriate appropriate in this budget cycle.

How do you how do you how do you do how do you do that?

How do you manage that?

Do you just is it gonna be more over the next few years, or how does that you you prioritize it, and then at some point that you know you may have repairs or replacement that you aren't able to fund out of your annual rev out of your annual revenues, and you'll have to look at financing components of the project in future years.

And can this fund ever be used to pay debt service?

I guess this is all getting to that, because a concern would be this fund all of a sudden starts getting gobbled up and 90% of it's going to debt service and no longer.

I don't I don't think you I don't think you I don't I mean if we if we issued debt, it would have a tax levy and that would flow into the general fund, and that's where the debt service would be paid.

If we were using a property tax back, we'd probably have to put it in its own fund for that purpose and and all.

Um I yeah, I I don't know that it may not its own revenue source.

I I don't know that it makes sense to make debt service payments out of this, so nothing that couldn't be done, but I I don't think it's practical.

Yeah, I I have a fundamental concern with that as well.

If there's language that we could add to that, um I think that would be good.

But we're just talking about the maintenance.

This is all yeah, we're using something.

Some day, sorry, yeah, sorry, yeah.

We're talking about something not on the agenda, right?

That's correct.

Okay, I just want to be clear.

Sorry, Tony.

Oh no.

Is your organization assets repairs and oh I'm so sorry?

No, but I mean it's all related, and he and he did present them.

Yeah.

So my intention is my recommendation would be is that we name this this one that is on our agenda today, ordinance D-2823-20.

Is that the appropriation?

The creation of fund.

Uh 20 24 2024-26.

Is we name that fund more in line of what it's for, which is the name that President Snyder recommended.

We properly notice everything that's very clear.

We have the other two funds that will be on our agenda this evening.

Did they get yeah?

No, no, not yet.

So we'll have those other two funds that'll be presented at the next council meeting.

We address all these, we address all these at once after they've all been properly named.

We've been able to see all the red lines, everything before it's before we even act on any of these.

And we just hold this in committee until the other fund has been the other fund, capital asset management fund, the true capital asset management fund, has been presented to us, and then we move forward with all of them once we have a big picture and all the languages the way that we need it.

Mr.

Chairman, would you be would it be easier for this committee if when we got to this fund that's on the council agenda tonight?

And I you'll forgive me the rules, you may have to correct me on.

Can we add on the other two so that they can all go to committee at once?

So there's not a lag since they're all kind of can you just talk to them and then I can I think you've got the other funds on the agenda, they're not even on the technical ordinance.

I didn't know if we'd add on do an add-on this.

Yeah, we didn't notice.

You didn't notice them.

So, like land use though, you know, we can start discussing you know, you guys have discussed ordinances that have been originated at a committee before they came to council.

So we can just we can start working on that now and the time for the other fund ordinances to be properly noticed and on our next council.

And can you speak to that during committee reports that thank you, sir?

I'll just add the the one timing issue I I need to work through there.

It's 14 days uh uh public notice has to be posted for appropriations, and so today is the deadline for the meeting uh two weeks from now in terms of that that public notice.

Um I don't know if we technically can still publicly notice that today under the new name, so we may not have everything ready to go by that meeting on June 15th.

We we just need to do it right, and there's no urgency in the what in the use of these funds.

Um they're not going back to the street department as uh as proposed now.

So I I don't unless any any other council member has an urgent need or staff has an urgent need.

I don't know why we need to rush it and just do it right.

Yeah, we'll we'll see if we're ready for the June 15th, but if not, it'll be that uh that next meeting after that.

Benjamin.

If I may, just for procedural perspective here, the funds themselves don't need to be noticed, right?

The creation of the fund is the appropriation that needs to be noticed for the issue here is the you're uh noticing an appropriation for a fund that doesn't yet exist and then changing its name with in the and it you would be changing the name not only in this ordinance creating the fund, you'd be changing the name of the resolution transferring, you'd be changing the notice in the appropriation that then sends the money for uh into the budget line item.

So it just becomes very messy, but I will I will tell you procedurally, it makes sense to create the fund before you do any of that.

Procedurally, it makes sense.

There's nothing stopping uh this committee from hashing out the details of this fund that is currently which is the creation ordinance, right?

Um this evening, today, and creating the fund under the name you want it to be this evening, and and with the terms that you want that fund to have this evening.

That fund then comes into existence.

It doesn't have any any money, doesn't have anything inside it.

Um you could potentially at the same time do the transfer.

We would have to amend the the transfer side of things, that's okay because we're not appropriating.

The appropriation is where the notice is required.

That is when you're sending the money from that fund into the budget line item to be spent.

So there are two items that can be properly addressed if you chose to uh tonight and and to go through.

You can also hash out whatever you want in the in um the next council session for what the funds should be, what their name should be, what their purpose should be, um, even if we miss the the notice for the appropriation.

You have then successfully created the three funds, um, which in and of itself, quite frankly, is probably procedurally the cleanest way to do it anyway.

Otherwise, we're noticing to a fund that doesn't exist anyway, and then we're having a public hearing, which is why we have the unusual step of having the public hearing on an appropriation and then moving it into the new business where we then created the fund, transferred the money, and then appropriate it.

Okay, there's nothing stopping on that.

So that's so we could amend this ordinance this evening to change the name of the fund.

Not we're talking about the creation of the fund ordinance.

That's right.

And then review and recommend any changes to the language of the ordinance itself to address the concerns that we previously discussed.

And then bring the just the ordinance for the creation of the fund back this week.

You can bring it back, yeah.

So I think it's an important that we all um go through the amended language, and uh that Zach used from President Snyder's email to make the changes to the ordinance.

So let's go through that in detail then, so we're all on the same page there.

Yep.

So again, the the red here is what I had previously drafted in the and the green is uh the the new language uh being added here.

So we have uh uh section two-128, the non-reverting city assets repairs and maintenance fund, fund uh number 927, the non-reverting city assets repairs and maintenance fund 927 is established.

Any insurance proceeds, settlements, reimbursements, subrogation recoveries, or other amounts received by the city in connection with damage to city-owned public infrastructure assets shall shall be deposited into the city assets repairs and maintenance fund.

Uh B, uh the funds contained in the city assets repairs and maintenance fund shall be received and deposited therein from all lawful sources in accordance with public law.

C reads uh the funds contained in the city assets repairs and maintenance fund shall be used exclusively for the purpose of paying cost incurred by the city to repair, restore, replace, remediate, secure, or otherwise respond to damage to city-owned public infrastructure assets for which the city has submitted a claim for insurance coverage or reimbursement.

Prior to the expenditure of any funds from the city assets repairs and maintenance fund for a particular casualty event, uh the city shall prepare and submit to the applicable insurance carrier a statement, estimate, or other documentation setting forth the anticipated costs of repair, restoration, replacement, remediation, or related work associated with such casualty events.

Uh D says that the funds contained in the city asset repairs and maintenance fund shall be accounted for and maintained separate from all other city funds.

E reads uh the city repair city assets repairs and maintenance fund shall be administered by the controller.

F reads the total expenditures from the city assets repairs and maintenance fund relating to a particular uh casualty event shall not exceed the amount set forth in the statement estimate or other documentation submitted to the applicable insurance carrier, unless additional expenditures are approved by the common council by ordinance or additional appropriation in accordance with applicable law.

And then on the next page, uh public af uh public infrastructure assets is uh defined uh for the purpose of this section, it means uh fixed capital assets owned by the city and used for governmental or public purposes, including without limitation, streets, roads, bridges, sidewalks, trails, drainage systems, stormwater facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, non-temporary art installations, water utility facilities, traffic control devices, street lighting, parks infrastructure, public buildings, andor other similar uh permanent improvements to real property, but excluding vehicles, mobile equipment, inventory, supplies, and other personal property.

President Snyder.

I'm sorry, but this spun up a memory.

I I and I need a lawyer to obviously review this, which Benjamin has, but uh for the purposes of the comment I'm about to make.

Maybe you can help me understand what I intended and did not.

Intentionally chose the word respond in section uh see.

And when I the word respond in my head, I was thinking emergency management.

I was thinking tornado.

That's where like could this be a backstop?

And I think it was a train of thought, put that in there, and I was gonna come back to it, and then never came back to it.

So I don't know if respond is appropriate unless we want it to be appropriate.

And then the final section on the second page, I don't I really don't know if it's worth listing all of that out or not, because uh the I was just writing all of it trying to come up with all the things that were city and I I don't want to miss anything.

I know it says not limited to, but so my two things from from when this was written several weeks ago to today is the word respond I put in there thinking at the time, respond to emergencies, that we wouldn't know what the insurance claims were gonna be because you just can't move fast enough, but we know there's a crisis, and perhaps that's tied to a state of emergency declared by the mayor.

Um that's where my head was.

It doesn't have to be in there.

Um, and then I don't know about listing every single thing.

But I just wanted to know where my head was on this.

The words respond is broader, right?

I mean, the word respond um I mean, maybe you would incur related to costs, but you do have exclusively for the purpose of paying costs incurred by the city to repair, restore, replace, remediate, secure, or otherwise respond to, right?

That's the language that respond part there.

I think it's fine.

I mean, because you've got it for the purpose of paying costs prior.

So then it's just how they respond to that.

And I do want to um I'll address your second point.

Go ahead.

It was there.

Well, then could this committee then could this committee discuss whether a mayoral declaration of emergency would could front end before we're never we're never gonna be able to submit estimates during a tornado in in time that we need the money to fix things.

So would that be an exception if that's something you guys could discuss?

I I don't have an opinion either way.

I mean, I have an opinion, but it I think this is good.

I just don't know whether you want to get that deep in the weeds.

We at one point talked about an emergency management fund.

I don't think that's probably in the cards for a while.

Um just want that thought about if you wouldn't, if you would indulge me on that and in your future meetings.

Discussion.

Um I'm trying to think, you know, obviously under Indiana state law allows you under Indian state law related to procurement related to some kind of emergency um you're able to acquire things and foregoing some procurement rules.

Um what type of language, Benjamin, would you recommend to the committee?

So at the moment, you have it based upon documentation being submitted to the insurance carrier.

Right?

So they they can withdraw from the fund to the extent the the insurance um has been sent to to the carrier.

Uh potentially you could provide a time limit that withdraw from the funds so long as they are submitted to the carrier within a time limit.

Um so that way, in an emergency, you can withdraw and you can engage, but the claim will then be submitted as a later point.

Because then otherwise we're define trying to create a definition within the ordinance for an emergency.

Do we have an in currently in our code what defines an emergency based on any in a law for procurement reasons?

Yeah, I mean it's a declaration of emergency that meets it meets a standard set forth.

Um I mean, there are multiples, but um that's where the mayor would have to declare in a state of emergency.

And it's under statute already, so I wouldn't recommend including that.

I rather, I mean, to the extent that what you're wanting to do here is to make sure that you'll if we can take the bridge as an example, right?

The the bridge um was hit.

Uh it is not something that wasn't short.

It is something that we submitted a claim to the driver's insurance, right?

Which is why it took a longer period of time with with their delay.

When we reviewed it, the city determined that actually there's um costs beyond the scope of the repair of the bridge that we wanted to improve the bridge, right?

That that went beyond that.

So in this particular fund here, it appears to me that you would be seeking to limit um the money to be able to come from this fund to only that which would repair the bridge to its form as it existed prior, not necessarily to improve it at the the thousands that it would cost to make it into something beyond what it was when it was hit.

That appears to be because that would be what would be submitted to insurance.

We did not submit improvements to insurance, we submitted the dollar amount for the damage that was caused.

Anything on top of that they would have denied anyway.

So that that's kind of where we are, and I feel like that's where this uh this draft um is.

It it has so to the extent you're limited to what is submitted to insurance, but you want to allow um flexibility for an emergency situation, I would probably just put in there to be submitted to insurance within 15 days.

Um and that way you you have your invoices, you have the things that need to go, and then it would just need to be submitted.

You would have that level of flexibility.

Our team has the ability to put together an insurance claim and submit it to insurance in 15 days for something like this.

Well, this is uh a matter of submitting the invoices um to to insurance, which you would need the invoices to engage in the contract as well as to what work is going to be done.

So you could give it 30 days.

I mean, uh ultimately it needs to be submitted to my recommendation that you have it be submitted to insurance at some point in time.

What will typically happen in a situation like this is we will submit it to our insurance.

Our insurance will do a review and tell us whether or not it's covered or it or or not.

If it is not covered, they may assist us in the recovery of it with the external insurance to the extent um it is there.

Um the other aspect is um it's something where you we have a fountain and and and the fountain's been hit and it's been hit by a drunk driver who doesn't have insurance, or it's been hit by someone who has um hit and run, disappeared, and we don't know who they are.

Our insurance doesn't cover it.

We're a hundred thousand to repair it.

I mean, at which point we've submitted it to our insurance, um, but they're not going to reimburse us for that.

Uh you you're in a good situation in this instance.

The the difficulty that the street department had to go through and the amount of the bridge, which is a unique situation, has that uh that million dollars, which is the ability to be to draw from those types of situations in the future.

We do collect on smaller sums as well.

I mean, that the majority of this is gonna be work from from within the law department where where someone has struck a curb, struck a sign, struck a roundabout, and they have insurance, and if they don't pay, then we take them to court as well, and we and we seek reimbursement for the damages incurred there.

But um I I would be comfortable with having that extension of of time by which to submit it to the I guess I don't I didn't in no universe, I think that these estimates were going to be overly accurate.

And nor do I think I mean that's just not a possibility.

But if somebody hits a roundabout, our city engineer can look at that, look at what the linear foot of brick or you know, by unit pricing, put together a probable opinion of cost and submit that with the claim rather quickly.

I mean, in a day.

Um I sign a lot of probable opinion of costs.

I'm not held or bound to them, they are an opinion.

I think that's what I was I didn't want to delay repairs.

Or I didn't think that there should be any language that would delay beyond any sort of wanted evidence that there was something being submitted to the insurance company to prove it was an insurable casualty event to be repaired.

I just want to make sure that's not getting going to be overshadowed or complicated and not trying to take efficiency away from the administration.

Really, I was hoping to build in efficiency, make it faster, get repairs done faster without having to come to council for appropriations or taking from somebody.

So I guess I I don't know what the advantage is to that language versus just if city engineers submits an opinion of cost with an insurance claim, like that I believe is enough to trigger.

I mean, we we have a we currently have a competent city engineer.

I assume we will always have a competent city engineer.

Um would a 15 is submitted within to insurance within 15 days?

If that's what you guys think about that.

You mean uh 15 days within 15 days?

But they can spend the money so long as something is I don't know how we track that, but yeah.

I'm I'm just otherwise I'm not sure how we address the concern that the waiting addresses.

So can I just clarify?

So we're really not talking about emergency.

You're just trying to uh be efficient that we're not gonna wait around for some insurance claim to be approved or not in order to get the bridge fixed.

That's what we're trying to do here.

Okay.

Well, that's what we I mean.

So tell me Benjamin, what how did the bridge, how did this process work before, and what's the language we need to put in there to say we're gonna whether whether we get the reimbursement or not, we're gonna fix the bridge.

And it should be done with expedience, it should be done as soon as possible.

You know, 15 days or five days, I don't care.

Let's just get the bridge fixed.

If if it's a claim that most likely is well, no, it probably doesn't even matter whether it's going to get reimbursed or not because we still have to fix the bridge.

So I I don't get the link to these two.

I I agree.

And that that's why we're in such a unique position to do this because we have seed money that that no one else, no other community would have.

We have this seed money that if we have something and then it doesn't get reimbursed, we had this money.

I mean, we're very blessed in some way that we have this seed money that we can just knock it out.

Then if I'm hearing the committee in the discussion, then there's really no change to the fund besides changing the name, an amendment to change the name to the public infrastructure insurance recovery fund.

Yeah.

If there's if there's any other concerns about Zach's language that he presented, then does somebody have a motion to amend move to amend.

We have a motion to amend to rename this fund, the public insurance infrastructure insurance recovery fund.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Well, now we're just um we are just suggesting this to the council.

Correct.

Okay.

So Ms.

And this is specifically in which ordinance?

2326 or the name 2426, right?

2824-26.

But I think also, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, the language needs to be amended.

Exactly.

Yep.

So we have a motion to amend the the ordinance name.

We have a second.

We will vote on that amendment to recommend that, I guess.

Yeah, to recommend it.

Recommend that amendment.

Is there another amendment to incorporate Zach's uh language a motion to amend with Zach's language?

Move to amend.

We have a motion to amend the ordinance as discussed with Councillor Snyder and presented by Zach Jackson.

Do you have uh motion second by Tony?

Motion carries.

So we have the ordinance.

We're um and now we need a motion to recommend approval as amended to the full council.

Move to approve.

So back to positive recommendation back to the council.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

We have a motion by Shannon.

Just one clarifier.

Yes, sir.

Uh, but we are then going to notice this to the public.

Uh probably with the house until the no the appropriate appropriation ordinance is in a B.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

This isn't be renoticed.

And we'll have the fund created and just prepared for the funds to be transferred.

Uh we add a second by counselor green, a motion by Shannon.

Motion carries.

We will see send ordinance amended ordinance D-2824-26 that establishes the non-reverting public infrastructure insurance recovery fund back to the council is amended with with a positive recommendation from finance committee.

Do you want to have any further discussion about the other two funds that well just the the three items on the agenda tonight?

So A was the ordinance that appropriated the money.

I think we've said we're going to hold that until it's publicly noticed with the new name.

B you you just uh recommended to full council, and then C was the resolution that transferred uh 1 million seventy-four thousand eight hundred and forty-two dollars from the general fund into the fund that's now been named differently.

Do we want to um discuss whether um so as Benjamin stated we could make the transfer even though we hadn't made the appropriation?

Your appearance.

Yeah, the transfer, the transfer happens first.

So the transfer from the general fund into the newly created fund, you would just need to amend that resolution for the new name of the fund.

Uh no notes is required for that because it's not being appropriated for to be spent.

It still remains at that that higher level to be uh not yet put into a budget line item.

So the first action on resolution CC0518 2605 would be to amend the resolution to change the name from the city assets repair and maintenance fund to the public infrastructure insurance recovery fund.

Yes, so move.

Second motion by Tony, second by or motion by councilor green, second by council Royal discussion.

See none vote.

Motion carries, and then now there's um we need uh whether or not we want to send it back to the full council with a positive recommendation.

Is there a motion to send it back to the positive recommendation?

Motion by Councilor Green.

Do we have a second?

Second second by council Royal.

All right, motion carries.

Any other items we'd like to discuss this evening?

Seeing none, we will call the meeting adjourned at 5 32 p.m.