Evening and welcome to Monday, July 20th City Council meeting here at City Hall.

We'll call the meeting to order at 6 p.m.

First thing on the agenda or first thing on the agenda is our agenda approval.

Move for approval.

Second.

Next up is our invocation brought to us by Reverend Kara Speckerelli from St.

Christopher's Episcopal Church.

Holy one, known by many names and beyond all names.

We ask your blessings on the people here who have been called to lead the community in which we live and work and play.

Send down upon them the spirit of wisdom, charity, and justice that with steadfast purpose, they may faithfully serve in their offices to promote the well-being of all people.

Amen.

Thank you, Reverend.

Next up, our Deputy Mayor, Ms.

Annabelle is going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Any time.

Hi.

Excellent job, Annabelle.

Recognition of City Employees and Outstanding Citizens tonight, that is all of them.

Recognition of persons to address the council.

We have none.

Council and Maryland comments, observations, Mayor.

Good evening, City Councillors.

My name is Annabelle Ventries.

I just completed fifth grade at Prairie Chase Elementary School, and I will share tonight's deputy mayor report.

We had another great Carmel Fest this year.

Even with the hot weather and the quick storm on Saturday, people still came out to enjoy the festival.

The fireworks show was amazing, and we want to thank the Carmel Rotary for bringing this celebration to our city.

Thank you also to all the sponsors, vendors, volunteers, event planners, City of Carmel teams, and especially our community and visitors who make Carmel Fest so special every year.

On the same weekend, the third phase of the Monon was finished, and we celebrated with a ribbon cutting.

This new area is now open for everyone to enjoy.

It shows Carmel's dedication to art, culture, and being a great place for families.

We also hosted the 2026 Carmel Neighborhood Association Network Meeting.

This event helps neighborhood leaders learn about updated laws pertaining to HOAs and useful city resources.

Special thank yous go to Rich Taylor and Shannon Minar.

Our ideas of change initiative and resident surveys just finished its first phase.

Thank you to all the residents who voted and shared their ideas.

We reached the goal of having 1,462 of our community members participate.

The next phase will begin soon, which will help us continue to make decisions that support local businesses.

Finally, our next neighborhood pop-up event will be next Wednesday from 6 to 7 p.m.

in the Ashbrook neighborhood.

Come join us to learn more about city services, meet your city councillors in the mayor, and enjoy some music and ice cream with your neighbors.

Thank you.

You did a great job.

Appreciate that.

And appreciate also all that the city council members did for Carmel Fest.

I know many of you volunteer on the back.

You do a variety of different things that no one ever sees, and just attending and being present is super helpful, not to mention being a parade participant.

So it was hot and fun and wonderful to celebrate an amazing city.

Not only his birthday of 50 years as a city, but also America's 250th.

So thank you for being a part of that.

Also, for nearly 20 years, we've recognized the need of a seventh fire station.

Our firefighters who've been here for that long remind us of that every year when a budget comes forward.

We've not yet budgeted for another uh fire department.

Uh excuse me, fire station.

Uh as recently as of March 2025.

This council unanimously affirmed the expanding fire service capacity was our top priority, and I agree.

And now, with some additional lit funds that you'll hear about later on tonight in uh CFO Zach Jackson's presentation.

We have a real opportunity to turn that uh new station into reality.

Carmel's West Side still continues to expand, yet the passage of SCA1 is significantly a strain constrained our ability to build a new station using traditional methods.

A brand new facility is simply cost prohibitive currently under these restrictions.

However, we have identified a practical, fiscally responsible path forward that allows us to meet our public safety needs without compromising our commitment to high quality infrastructure.

The water distribution building at Maine and Shelbourne is a large facility with some underutilization, and our water department has taken immaculate care of this building.

By designing a portion of the building for a new fire station, we can keep the water distribution team largely in place while meeting the need for our seventh fire station.

This approach leverages a city asset we already have, reduces costs, and accelerates our timeline.

Most importantly, this location directly aligns with where the data shows our greatest need for additional fire services.

In 2025, our firefighters executed over 10,000 runs.

That includes EMS and a sharp increase from the 7,000 runs recorded in 2020, reflecting the steady growth of our community.

Our proposal is supported by analyses from the IAFF, which is the International Association of Firefighters, ISO, and our own city data fire run volumes.

Well, a little unconventional, this opportunity ensures we uphold Carmel Standard for Carmel fire stations.

It allows us to deliver for our residents in a responsible forward-thinking way.

What I'm proposing is that we dedicate the 5 million in lit funds, which means we're just not going to appropriate it.

In the initial as the initial investment to bring the station to life.

This allows us to look at our firefighters in the eyes and say for the first time in 20 years, we actually have a path forward to build the station, which is really really important for our west side residents and all residents in the city of Carmel, because as you know, we don't just stay in the district of the city that we reside in.

Additional funding opportunities and financing opportunities may emerge, but setting these dollars dollars aside now signals our firm collective commitment to delivering a much needed fire station for Carmel's West Side.

The seed funding, if you will, ensures we are ready to act and demonstrates that expanding public safety remains a priority we stand behind together.

So thank you very much.

Appreciate all that you do, and um appreciate your support for our fire department who needs extra resources and we want to deliver on for our Westsiders.

Thank you.

Any council comments moving on.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I mean, I I I think um I think this announcement of a of a really um necessary addition to our community should get a comment.

Uh mayor, congratulations.

This um we found out about this or heard about this as it's been you've been working on but got some details this afternoon finance, and one of the things that I find very refreshing is the creativity in um utilizing existing resources in order to get um the need met as quickly as possible for the west side of Carmel.

So I want to I want to give you a hoorah and um say way to go that I mean to the whole team who made that happen.

Great news, and I I hope it's celebrated in the community.

Thank you, Councillor Royal.

Anybody else?

Well, I think this is something we have all talked about for a long time, and the West Side obviously appreciates it, so I think anybody on the West Side knows that we do need that fire station.

It's been something we've been talked about forever.

All right, thank you.

Uh consent agenda approval of minutes from July 6th, 2026 regular meeting.

Move for approval.

Claims payroll in the amount of 4,736,077.

General claims 2,545,231 dollars and ninety cents.

Wire transfers 46 million two hundred forty thousand seven hundred eighty-nine dollars thirty-seven cents.

Move for approval.

Action on mayoral vetoes.

There are none.

Committee reports.

We're gonna add a third one in here.

Councilor Minar, can you give an update on housing?

Sure, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, so the mayor's advisory commission on housing met last week, or excuse me, week before last, and there we sat and discussed um all of the information that we've received from Opticos, which included a scan of our UDO.

It also did a um a look at what missing middle housing looks like and action.

So the right now at this point, we are literally just discussing our options and what we think is a good idea, what what good ideas are are good and what ideas are bad, and we're still in the middle of all those discussions.

So we do not have a scheduled meeting yet because there's some internal issues with scheduling, but as soon as we get that date, we will push it out to the public.

Not much more to add than that.

Thank you, Councilman.

Council Taylor, Finance.

Thank you, President Snyder.

We uh met today at 4 p.m.

to discuss two items.

One was uh from a request from engineering and Michael Klitzing, Park Director related um about the park bond or the 2024 infrastructure bond projects, and re with a request of some changes to those projects based on uh additional priorities that engineering and uh Michael had there is an opportunity, which um there'll be more details provided by Michael, an opportunity to acquire um 26 acres that are contiguous to Meadow Lark Park that's been on the um Carmel Clay Parks plan for uh for decades.

Um I remember discussing this in 2010 um and save it for green space rather than being redeveloped.

Um so we could we'll discuss that more.

Um there'll be an amendment uh uh amendment to the MOU that'll be prepared by Sergey and brought to the next meeting for everybody to review, but we can talk uh can connect with me for details or watch the meeting minutes.

The other item the other item we did uh was as we addressed ordinance 28 uh 36-26 stormwater fees.

Um that returns from uh finance committee with a negative recommendation um after presentation from uh corporation council on the on the process.

Thank you.

Oh uh sorry.

Next meeting is on August 3rd at 4 p.m.

We'll discuss the water and sewer bonds being proposed by utilities.

Thank you, Councillor Taylor.

Uh the um the MOU adjustment and what Michael's trying to do.

I guess my question is it's pretty I don't know if anybody's gonna have an objection to it.

And it might help his pursuit if we showed commitment sooner than later.

Do you want to just because all we need to do is move to acknowledge a change in the MOU.

Yeah.

So I can you we um we were I talked to Sergey about doing that, but since it wasn't on the agenda, um, he thought it might be best just to wait one meeting.

They're in there in the process uh tomorrow night is when they'll hold the resolution at the parks board to uh to purchase to investigate purchasing.

So we have plenty of time.

They'll still need to do the appraisals and so forth.

So we have plenty of time to wait till next meeting, if that's all right.

Thank you very much.

Councilor Joshi.

So our last meeting at land use, we discussed um the ordinance uh D 2795-25, which was um the use of uh public areas of City Hall.

We had a really great discussion, I think, with um members of the public who also weighed in on concerns that they had with being able to access City Hall in the history, which was really interestingly provided to us about the ability for them previously to access City Hall, which then changed.

Um those conversations are ongoing.

We also have gotten um some opinions from uh City Legal as well on how to perhaps look at this as a broader um capture, you know, kind of catch-all of how we um have public areas established, and so we are continuing to work on that in land use.

Our next meeting will be on a different day.

It is usually on Wednesdays, but just for the public, it is this week on Thursday, the 23rd, um at 530 at the same location in the Carmel Public Library.

Thank you.

And you're going back to Wednesdays after this week.

Um, yes, we will be going back to Wednesdays after this meeting.

Um, but this meeting is on Thursday.

Thank you, Dr.

Jones.

The mayor's pop-up is on Wednesday on the west side for full disclosure.

Um thank you very much.

And perhaps could you ask Michael Klitzing to send a broad synopsis because I think I think this is something we could knock out at the next meeting unless somebody wants to discuss it further in your committee.

But all right, other reports.

Thank you both, all three of you.

Thank you.

Uh Carmel Historic Preservation Commission.

Good evening.

Um first of all, I want to start off just thanking and recognizing the fact we have two of our commission members who joined us tonight.

Our chair Emily Ergott and Barry Simichen just to observe and to make sure you know who they are, and of course, vice versa.

So thank you guys for being here tonight.

I also just want to make a comment before I give the report for the Historic Preservation Commission.

I love this idea about the reuse of the water company building on the west side for the fire station.

And so I'll just also echo the uh kudos, I guess, for that.

I think it's just great and more sustainable, and that's what historic preservation is all about is rather than leveling things and generating new materials to build new stuff that we can use what we already have that has already been built.

So the fact that you're doing that, I think is to be applauded.

So like I said, not part of my report, but still a good thing.

So just very quickly to summarize some of the things we've been working on in the past couple of months, because if you recall, I reported to you in May, a month later than usual.

We did proceed with our spring round of our facade grant program, which will likely be our only round this year.

And I mentioned in our last meeting due to budget cuts, we have less money to be able to distribute to residents in the community for the facade grants.

But at their uh meeting last month, the commission approved funding eight of the ten eligible uh funding applications that we got to in the total amount of $30,000.

Uh we did a little bit of calculation today as to the amounts that applicants were also going to be matching the public money with, because I think the great thing about the facade grant program is it's a terrific public-private partnership.

Um so that is another $145,000 in private funds that will be matching the $30,000 that the city is putting forward.

Um the Historic Preservation Commission also reviewed an application for certificate of appropriateness for the Wilkinson Hull property.

If you recall, this is the one that Madden Air and Huber uh purchased, and you all designated as a protected property last October.

They are undergoing a restoration of the uh front facade and the front porch as a part of that project, which used to be historically the north elevation of the house was the front of the house.

Uh we all approach it now from the south, but uh so they are in the process of of doing that restoration now as we speak.

Um we did continue dialogue with the owners and others at the city related to the fate of the blue school building on East 106th Street uh to determine uh how that is all gonna play out, where the building is gonna land, um, and we hope it it will be uh a positive uh solution in the end.

Um we are continuing as I've reported in the past to work on the North Rangeline Road uh designation plan.

We expect that will come forward to the commission at their August meeting.

So uh that as I indicated at the last meeting would be at the uh end of summer.

Um we think where we are now in the research and the writing that should be ready uh next month, and then probably from there we'll schedule a meeting with property owners along um that in that area to make sure they're informed and we hear from them about what their concerns are.

A reminder this is what we're talking about for Rangeline Road is not a historic district designation, which would regulate demolition, new construction, and any changes to the exteriors of the property.

A conservation district is just demolition and new construction, is what they're looking at.

So any of those like, oh, we want to do something with our windows or put a new roof on, or that's not being looked at under a conservation district plan.

So it's sort of a lighter version of what we would typically do otherwise.

Um we speaking of rangeline road, we did go out with city staff and pay a site visit to a property at 520, North Rangeline Road, where there's been discussion of new construction on the vacant property next door, and then how is that going to affect the existing structure?

Fortunately, um that gentleman put that property up for sale, uh, the the residential property at 520, and so and it has since sold already.

So I can't speak to what its fate is as a result of that sale, but um it was good that now his plans of having to remove it are are not going to play out at this point.

Um, the staff uh completed the annual certified local government reporting that we do to the state historic preservation office on the activities of the preservation commission in the past two years, and uh got a a positive uh report back from them on that.

Um speaking of the use of this facility as well, we did complete in this last round um the relocation of our meetings into uh uh the caucus room next door, which is where the commission is now meeting, um, and at the request of city leadership.

Are there any questions?

Okay, terrific.

Thank you guys.

Mr.

Jackson.

No, you don't please don't make me make a Michael Clitzing reference.

Well, I also uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um members of the council.

I also appreciate that uh uh I'm not following Henry tonight, so that makes it a little bit uh easier too.

Uh so I'm uh Zach Jackson, CFO and controller.

I'm joined by uh Kirsten Haney, our assistant director.

Tonight we have three topics on the agenda.

Uh one is the uh review of quarter two revenues, uh second being the review of quarter two expenses, and then lastly, just a brief recap of our uh bond refunding that uh took place earlier this month.

Uh again, sorry for the small font size up here, but from a revenue perspective, we are uh eight million or ten point two percent over forecast after the first half of the year.

Uh there are three revenue categories that are driving up this number.

Uh as we've discussed in the past, uh we received that 1.1 million dollar insurance reimbursement for the Keystone uh overpass repairs.

Um this is a little complex, but uh uh while that revenue was deposited in the general fund, uh counselor uh council then transfer the cash over to the new public infrastructure insurance recovery fund.

So we count the revenue here, but we'll also when I put out the surplus statement later the year uh show that it comes out of the general fund over there.

So functionally uh a wash to the general fund.

Um secondly, uh supplemental lit came in 5.2 million higher than expected.

Um while the state certifies our uh lit distribution in the preceding August every year, uh they do not certify uh our supplemental lit uh during the process that we're writing the budget.

Um so we did not know this number coming into uh this year.

Uh bolstered by the state's uh income tax collections being higher than expected in their last quarter uh of uh it wouldn't be the count, it'd be the calendar year, October through December of 2025, uh different fiscal year than us.

Um but they received more than expected during that three-month period um, which uh on the on their lit collections, and so um as you may recall, the the state maintains a county trust for every uh county as part of their lit distributions.

They uh the state holds back 15 percent of that.

Uh in Hamilton County, they hold back 12.5 percent instead of the 15 to kind of make up for that Fisher's legislation from a few years ago.

They hold back 15% of the distribution, uh, but then once that pot gets filled up to more than 15% each year, uh that excess is what we receive.

And so that excess was just more than what we were we were expecting for this year.

So that's the 5.2 million uh right now that just flows directly to the uh uh the general fund balance.

Um and as the mayor noted, kind of uh reserving that aside for uh the fire station.

Uh lastly, property tax revenues were 900,000 better than expected, uh, but that's a timing issue.

Uh some people actually pay their property taxes their their November uh early, and so that's what is going on here.

I don't think we'll come in above what we were forecasting for the year.

We just got part of that money earlier than expected.

Uh moving on to spending, uh, after two quarters, we are 1.2% or 900,000 under forecast.

Uh that's for the general fund.

Uh MVH spending is 5.8% or 700,000 less than expected after two quarters.

Um thing I'll just note that the the numbers here uh don't reflect we probably will be coming back later this year.

Uh we we talked about it at the during budget development.

Um fire department is on track to use all of their overtime budget, so we'll need to do a uh an additional appropriation before the end of the year.

Uh and then lastly, here um just want to talk a little bit about our recent bond refunding.

Uh thank you for your support.

Uh I think I had to sign my name in like a hundred different pages for this.

I think the mayor maybe been 50 or something like that.

Usually you get a new car or house whenever you sign your name that much.

Um the overall savings were slightly better than we anticipated.

Uh we achieved 12.4 million of net present value savings compared to the uh 12.3 million, which was really kind of our our best case estimate.

Uh there was strong demand for our our bonds.

Um that's reflected by the 186 orders for uh more than four times as much debt as we were putting out.

There uh there were orders for about 581 million uh of debt of the uh 141 million of bonds that we put out.

So uh came in really strong there.

People know that we pay our bills and that uh we do what we're going to say we do.

Um just a reminder that we did not extend those maturity dates, and this refunding helps us lower our operating cost for uh 27 and 28 to the tune of four to five million each.

So that concludes our play remarks.

We're happy to take any questions.

Just to confirm too, I mean, usually the target of present value savings to justify as most public would know it as a refinance.

I mean, this is a straight dollar-for-dollar refinance in our world, we call it refunding, right?

Uh is a net preference value savings around 3%.

So to achieve the 7.89% is huge.

We're well over, yeah.

Um, also, I think it's important for the public to know that you already noted that you didn't extend maturity, but also we had previously had to keep uh debt interest reserve accounts that was cash from the bond proceeds that sat there.

Yep.

We couldn't uh we it was no benefit to us, it was a additional collateral for the creditors, and we were able to use those cash balances to pay down these debts when we refunded them.

So the principal balance actually declined.

That's correct.

Yeah, thank you.

Is now the proper time to ask about the R station, or is it another part of the agenda that's if the president's okay with it?

Yeah.

Okay, so that's okay.

So I mean I'm supportive, so don't take this question as anything but a support.

I'm very excited about it.

I just wanted to uh had a question about some of the future plans of it because you know, as I understood in the past, at least prior to you know SCA1, uh building the structure wasn't always what was holding us back, it was kind of the staffing and the the equipment.

So I don't expect you to have it all figured out, but what are our kind of thoughts there on how we can maybe proceed with some of that going forward?

Maybe take this for you.

Yeah, so so we are looking at the uh the public safety lit and how that will evolve the fire and EMS lit over the next few years and kind of timing this right so that we can have this ready to go when that might come online and help us to to fund the uh the additional people.

There's gonna be a couple of rough years, no matter where you look, you know, how you look at this.

Um but we felt like we just couldn't afford to wait two to four more years because the reality is what we've learned with the last couple years of state legislature is there is no certainty, except it's gonna be uncertain as far as long-range planning.

So we just felt we had to bite the bullet and move forward with it.

And the the police excuse me, the fire chief chief Thacker is here if you want to ask him any questions as well.

No, I I'm supportive of getting this ball rolling, and then we can work out some of the other obstacles kind of in the way, but um just wanted to make sure that keep us in the conversation as you maybe come up with solutions for uh equipment and staffing.

But um just wanted to make sure that keep us in the conversation as you maybe come up with solutions for uh equipment and staffing.

And I do want to add, uh, and I should have added my remarks uh now that I think about it.

But what we're looking at is if we can get this under construction, use a BOT method of procurement, get this under construction no later than July 1 to 27.

We can have it open July 1 to 28.

Have the firefighters hired January 1 of 28, gives them their six month training, so they're ready to go when the station's ready to go, give or take, right?

Uh so that means uh you know, really we don't have to add them to the budget for next year, but we will have to add them for 28.

It's 14 firefighters uh to staff that station and using a reserve uh apparatus for the engine that have to be there.

So there's a lot of work to do.

We'll have to see what our budget hits, you know, as far as we we have other opportunities, maybe different financing mechanisms, but we just want to get the planning, you know, the design and the planning underway, so we can put a firm date to shoot for on this.

But thank you.

Any other questions myself or again?

Fire chiefs here, if you have any questions for him as well.

We'll bring you a formal plan later.

I want to reiterate the the because things change occasionally, uh what I heard is a commitment to build this fire station and a commitment to hold the money and make sure it's funded.

Everything else can change.

I think the important thing is the connection.

And the commitment to hire the the men and women.

And the equipment and a commitment to hire the individuals and projects changed.

We I know that very well.

Obviously, Council Taylor deals with it all the time.

So I just don't want I don't want the takeaway to get mired down in the details of what part of a maintenance building is being repurposed.

It really the important thing is that we're we are moving forward finally, as others have said, uh, and the mayor's committed is expressed her commitment, and they've got a financial plan to fund it, how it manifests can change.

I just I just don't want the takeaway to be this is exactly what's happening if if things can change because as they do, but it I think um a new fire station by 2028 is an excellent goal, and and I'm very excited.

Add one more thing, please.

Uh additionally, because I touched on it, but I make sure we understand the opportunity to rethink and reimagine this space, also gives us opportunity to move the maintenance over to this campus, which we already have police and streets there, so having our fire maintenance there as well, then allows us to have more space at 106 and gray, where we can have expand our training capabilities, which is really needed over there as well.

So not only does it allow station 47, it gives us flexibility for our maintenance.

Hopefully, we can start find some efficiencies by having three or two apartments have maintenance on the same campus as well.

We're already doing that, you'll hear more in the budget presentation with streets and police.

Um, and then we'll have more space to expand our training capabilities.

So it's a kind of a triple win for us if you know, if and when we can pull this all together, which again, we're committed to shooting for the data I mentioned, and we're gonna learn a lot in the next few months with through design, and we'll definitely keep you in the loop.

I mean, just to um I don't know if some people don't realize how big this is because it's been talked about, not to reiterate what other people are saying, but to even go from in the past it was we would like to do this, and now you're saying we are committed for this date.

That is a huge deal.

Um, so I don't want that to get lost.

So uh I know there's still a lot of details to figure out, but the fact that a commitment has been made to do this uh is a huge step.

I'm still wrapping my head around the location, just still processing that, but what I do like about that is um Rich and I worked really hard on on getting the training and maintenance center built at 106 and gray, and when it was built, it was it was built to have additional training added on.

But if that can be done expanded without having to add on to it, I think all the more the better.

I know I mean I go over there semi-regularly just to look at it.

Um it was one of my first projects 15 years ago.

Um I think that's excellent.

So and since you've got your new training tower and the other things over there, I think that is a definite pro of repurposing the or remote relocating the maintenance.

Is there anything else about fire while we're on the subject?

Um question for you on the your income stream, you've got um, and this is a general knowledge question because I I don't fully understand it, but I did some inquiries at Carmel Fest just because I was thinking about it.

Um, under food and beverage, like a lot of all the vendors, a lot of the vendors, specifically two.

I asked, like, don't switch over their sales to Carmel.

I don't know what the mechanism is for that.

So there's a lot of I not a lot, but there's some missed revenue from mobile vendors that just keep their incorporation.

Yeah, I um so a couple thoughts there.

Uh one food and beverage tax historically has gone to the general fund starting last year.

We it now has to go into its own funds, so just make that point.

Um when it comes to whether you're talking food and beverage taxes, uh, even the wheel tax and SER tax.

I'm trying to think there was another one we were recently talking about.

Um well lit to an extent too.

Yeah, given that the state does not yet have their GIS capabilities perfected, those um you know, spots in the city where uh or or maybe the best example is you you uh you clearly somebody clearly lives in Westfield, but they have a Carmel mailing address, or somebody clearly lives uh in Carmel, but they have a Zionsville mailing address.

The state still does not know where exactly those people live, and that leads to uh revenues being disdributed in a way that that's not 100% accurate.

Um I'm not surprised that when it comes to some of these mobile folks that they aren't great at tracking down where those people are uh just because they're not even they're not great when it comes to the brick and mortar uh places.

But I but we are um kind of auditing that right now, and so I can get a little bit more information and and try to track that down.

Counselor Snyder bringing up that point, um, food trucks, which I'm happy we're seeing, you know, uh more food truck activity in certain areas like on uh North Range Line Road.

Um do we have any communication there?

Because they're they're paying taxes anyways we're gonna make sure that at least it's going to where it's sold.

Yeah, let me check into that and I'll get back to the group.

Okay.

Mr.

President.

Um this actually just recently came up in a meeting that Council Roar all and I were at with the Food Truck Friday folks.

And so we just started, and Zach, I haven't even had a chance to fill you in on this yet.

We just started kind of digging into what's the process for when a food truck out of Indianapolis or Kokomo comes to Carmel, and apparently there's some type of reporting that they have to be responsible for doing.

So when you said flipping over, I think it was a turn we use.

I I think that I I think what we heard is there's some responsibility on them their cells to do that.

And so I think that's something that I took as we have to learn a little bit more about this because we've been so we we just don't have food trucks very often, but we have the carnival folks, right?

Who do a circuit uh along the all these festivals?

Carmel's probably bad word festivals.

Uh so we're gonna look into that and try to learn more because I that was like kind of an aha for me when we had the conversation with the the food truck folks uh that this is something that we need to better understand.

And then when that you know, we do know every year we have to fight back and forth on the 146th Street Michigan Road corridor for dollars, Westfield Carmel, Zionsville, uh, because the state cannot do it.

So we're we're gonna little bit more, I'm happy to report back out.

So point is their point of sale system is gonna be the key there and their credit card processing, whoever their credit card processor is to properly set up and collect the fees.

So it's probably not only re depending on how if they use a point of sale system where they just use a register with a um credit card processor, most importantly, they got to get the data to their credit card processor so it can actually know to collect and where to send it.

If they're in central Indiana, though, any one of those already is getting the food and beverage tax extra one percent, right?

Um we they just have to identify that it's gotta go back to Carmel versus Greensburg or whatever.

So that I think that's that's a challenge.

So and then perhaps it's in an agreement if they're gonna be at Carmel Fest or if they're gonna be at food truck Fridays or Sundays or Tuesdays or whatever day they're there, uh, that they have to make sure they're gonna remit and we will periodically audit, which is what Zach's point was.

And I don't I don't think they do it maliciously.

I I've I've been it's it's work, I mean it's an extra step, especially if you're in a different community all the time trying to flip over to that community.

But a thousand dollars is a hundred bucks for us, and they're doing a lot more than a thousand dollars at Carmel Fest, and I I like the idea of maybe it's an agreement, but I'm also glad to hear you're working on it because it's um and it's it's it's definitely not an issue.

I mean, the they are paying the taxes, it's just where it is it being distributed appropriately.

Well, hopefully, since Charleston's has a Carmel address, but it's located in the city of Westfield every time I eat there, the money's coming here because I eat there often.

Yeah, there you go.

All right.

Anything else for Zach?

Thank you, sir.

On to old business A.

A 26 reading of ordinance D 2772-25.

Counselor Snyder, may I may I may we have a discussion related to this?

We don't mind.

Um, you know, we've had this Chris Kennelmarket investigation going on for some time.

You know, the proceeds we allocated towards this uh were spent in December.

It's now we're in the end of July.

Uh we don't have a report yet.

Um this really needs to get wrapped up.

Um the administration has provided all what they're going to provide to those uh to the law firm doing the investigation.

Um seeing such, I wanted to put a timeline to this just so we have a deadline to when this report needs to be um provided to the city, and if not, um they can just turn over the information they have to city legal.

Um my motion would be uh that they have until um uh October 20th or August 20th to finalize this report and uh submit the report to review the uh for city legal, and if they don't have it completed by then, then they need to turn over their findings of what they've done so far to city legal.

It's just been going on way too long.

We've allocated a significant amount of dollars to this, and we still don't have the report back.

So my motion is uh report is due to us by August 20th.

If no report is due, then then they need to turn over all of their findings and information they collected to city legal.

I would make one, if you don't mind, I have not really clarification, but just process um because I've I've I've had conversations with corporation council and our council, and because the council instigated it, it'll be the council you say turn over to city legal.

Is Sam here?

Um Corporation Council would like it to hit our council first and have them turn it over.

Yeah, it's fine.

Um I'm okay with amending it to saying our the city council's legal council before it goes to corporation council.

So that's my motion.

I'll second it.

Discussion.

Sure.

Um just to give everybody an update.

Um, and again, June 1st, we had this conversation, not with a motion, um, and I had said nobody had reached out uh for updates or asked any questions about it directly to me, which is totally everybody's prerogative and has been the whole time.

It is a committee of the whole, and you can reach out directly to the council as well that we have um asked um to do the investigation for us because we're all equals.

Um the idea of where we are, um, so I requested updates as we've gone.

Um they did receive a response from the city from city legal.

It was responded to them in the form of a single PDF, and they are working to come pull out and compile and make sure that all the documents are there.

Um I don't have any details past that um on what that looks like, but I did get an update today, because I ask on Mondays, um, to ensure that I knew where they stood.

Uh, they said they are working to decompile all of those to ensure that they got responses.

They said they said the response was timely, uh, but they are working to kind of break that down and look at it to verify uh what they need if there are other follow-up questions or things they need to do to ensure their investigation is done fully.

Um secondarily to that, um, I do want to remind all of us, um, the impetus of this was to look at and review the city's administration of the Chris Kinel market and our handling of that.

That includes the council.

Um, so one of the reasons and one of the roles I was put in is the wonderful of the nine of us put in the position to kind of manage this was to ensure that that was done as objectively and neutrally as possible.

Um I don't have any more information.

I've not asked for other information other than things that come up or sharing when an event like this happens on the dais that they should look at or add to the process.

Um so I don't even know and haven't seen the response that's come through.

I don't know how many pages it is.

I don't know what they requested other than seeing the initial uh thing that came through uh to do the request.

Um so I I am not certain, and part of that for me um is because I, as you all are as well, are under investigation uh based on the way that we pulled that together.

Uh so truly in the effort to keep this neutral to put them in the position to be able to pull the information to come to the right answer, um, have given them fairly clear authority to manage that process the way that they have seen necessary to come to the response that they require.

Um that being said, happy to ask about a timeline.

Um also happy to relay that this council, through a motion made and duly seconded, approved a timeline that puts them in a position to turn over what they have received.

Um that being said, based on the feedback I received about what that response looked like, uh, depending on pages.

I think Mr.

Green said 4,000 documents at the last meeting, which is the only information I have about how big that is.

Um I don't know how many pages that is.

And if they're trying to go through one PDF, uh two lawyers at a firm who are not still billing hours, they're billing them to the code, but can't be paid because of the contract we negotiated on the front end to do this contract for the sole amount of 125,000.

Um they may not be at a point to send anything back to us other than the records requests they received from the city.

So again, I'm happy to relay forward to them that we need to move faster.

Um I have done that um many times over the course of this investigation because I too would love to be out from under it personally, is the person put to help shepherd that and understand the heartburn, the timing, uh, the concerns on all of that.

Um but I also would love to just reiterate, as I said a second ago, um, that the right objective and result will serve us all better long term, in my opinion, will serve us all better in the long term uh than arbitrarily rushing something that they are not ready yet to produce.

So again, happy to take whatever feedback we put together, as this is a council of nine, um, and let them know what the will is.

What I heard is from you counselor Taylor, and I'm looking at you, Mayor.

Is the city is given as exhausted what they're gonna give.

There's no more to give.

Am I repeating what I heard correctly?

The only request that came through were for the administration.

There was no request that came through for city council emails or anything.

So unless there's another round, as you mentioned, you're under investigation too.

We've not got any received any requests for about city council involvement.

So unless that happens, we are done with the initial request.

Okay.

I think we're done.

I mean, I don't know.

Well, so and to clarify from the feedback, um, they the we received a timely production from the mayor's office.

Um, but it was produced in a manner and they're manually logging the documents.

Uh they are formulating their follow-up questions as they go, and we'll circle back with their their follow-up questions by next week.

This was last week.

Uh they had hit an internal deadline and said it would be they're working at their back off of that deadline and working on it presently.

So I think there may be some follow-up based on the response that was there, uh, which may include other things that they need to ask for, but that will be obviously more nuanced and very focused on the things that they presumed to find in what they asked for that they may not have seen to see if they exist or not.

So I think that there's likely still a process step that they are thinking about because they just received the initial request and are just going through it.

So again, happy to purvey whatever we decide.

I would recommend to let them run their process, but to maybe give them through even this conversation, which they will watch an understanding of how important it is to the city uh that this becomes top priority for them moving forward.

Mr.

Mr.

President, yeah.

Ryan, can you um tell me when did they when was the last I I can't remember when was the last ask for documents?

Do you know the date?

And was that I can't remember.

I may have let me look.

Okay.

Adam, did you have a comment?

Yeah.

Do you want to ask it while he's looking that up?

Sure.

Um I'm supportive of moving on with this and giving the 30 days.

Um I mean, I I remember I think it was unanimously every councillor voted yes.

We all probably had a different reason for voting for the investigation.

I can only speak for um for my reasons voting for it.

Um but the concerns that I had that led me to vote for the investigation have really been resolved.

Whether it's communication with the council, uh board makeups, um, you know, meeting with the new Chris Kindlemarket director.

Um I've been very impressed with how things have been proceeding with regards to the Chris Kindle Market and the city involvement.

So we all probably had some concerns that made us vote yes, and uh I can only speak to mine, but my concerns have been resolved.

So it's still helpful to read the report, but I don't know if there is going to be uh at least for my sense, any urgent action I would recommend because I feel like some of those actions have already been taken.

Um but I just speak for myself.

So I I would agree that at this point um moving forward would probably be the best course of action.

Uh the request went through on April 29th with a May 29th deadline.

Um, and then June 1st is when Councillor Green brought it up on the dais last time.

And then this is the second time since then that a counselor has asked a question or requested information about feedback on this.

Um I will say, um, and if I may respond, um, again, in attempting to steer this, um, when you shine a light in a room, uh, the things that are happening in the room go away, which is a beautiful part of government.

We be get to be a check and balance on behavior, we look at something, um, and we find out how to fix it.

Uh, that doesn't mean the issues that started the concern in the first place are gone.

Um, I do think it is important for me, um, and I would say for the public um that we finish this up appropriately, as it has taken a lot of the bandwidth, um, the energy for all of us.

Um, some of us in our first term on council, others in longer terms, um, the mayor in her first term as mayor.

This is not something that any of us necessarily wanted to be a part of in any capacity, other than there was a decision made to do this.

Um I struggle philosophically with the idea that because the issue no longer presents itself, uh, that we shouldn't finish the process that may have been integral in making the issues or helping support the issues moving towards a better point.

Um I also think it's important when we make a promise, uh, regardless of how concerned we are about what it might say on any end about any of us for any reason.

Um we should follow through because we are acting on behalf of the citizens of Carmel.

Um we're not acting on behalf of ourselves or our offices.

Uh we're acting as part of the city.

So again, I share that as caution as the chair of our city committee of the whole as we try to navigate what the right next steps are.

Um I agree, I think a faster timeline is better.

I would love to be able to go to Chris Kindle Market uh this year without being the chair of a secret or not secret on dais discussed investigation of it.

Um I like Christmas.

I don't need to be the Grinch that is potentially stealing it for all of us forever.

Um, but I do think it is highly, highly important to finish things that we start the right way.

So, Ryan, I I would follow up that question with simply asking, if you don't mind asking the attorneys, are they going to ask for another tranche of information?

Just so that we I mean, I just I don't think it's you know, it's not if this is gonna continue on, right?

Well, however this vote goes, it just seems like are we gonna get are they gonna ask us for another tronch of information?

Yeah, that's it just and I will say I do think they will have follow-up from what they received.

That's as they're going through it.

What they said was they are compiling the follow-up that they need to request as they go through.

But if that is an expedited timeline, the the council would like them to work on.

That is something I can communicate.

If they come back and say August 20th is impossible, we could always, as a council, move to give them the timeline that makes sense for them.

Um trying to be as pragmatic as possible, understanding that this was not something again asked of me before right now, and I'm trying to figure out how best to navigate it for all of us, knowing full well that there are many, many conversations that happen about things, specifically this between all of us, maybe everybody in the room at some point in time, uh, that may or may not be worthwhile.

Um, but we need to ensure that we do what we are doing appropriately.

So I guess that's kind of my final word, happy to go either way.

Um I would say if they did say that August 20th is not possible if this motion moves tonight, I would strongly advocate that we move to whatever timeline makes sense for them at the next one, and we can figure out what that looks like as a council together from there.

Uh here's my struggle.

Um this was approved.

I was still on spring break last year, April 2025.

I've read the billables completely and looked at who spoke about what.

Um I'm just concerned at how the process was managed.

Um the documents that they provided don't show you as the person who set the set the um scope and the direction of the investigation.

It lists another council member.

The this is this is uh they continued, though luckily we did have a lump sum.

There were sending they continued to send invoices, three invoices, after they had already expend expended the entire amount that we appropriated for the investigation.

Luckily to our clerk treasurer staff or our clerk's office staff, they caught it and originally put on one of the items on our on our claims and then had to rescind the other two.

So the these questions that could have been asked or could be investigated, they had plenty of time to do this.

And if they are not prepared by now, I'm very, very and they can't produce re this report by August 20th over how many months is that after since we began it.

I'm I'm very concerned about how this process has worked.

Um if they can't produce a report in 30 days from now, after over a year of looking at data, and then had to wait until April of this year after they realize we were out of money to then request information from the administration.

I'm just very concerned about this whole entire process.

They need to produce the report, they have the information that's been needed.

Uh to my knowledge, they haven't investigated any council member, um, which was you know, which councillor green wanted to make sure was included in the scope.

Um I stand by it.

They need they need to reproduce this report.

We need to move on.

Um, and let's have great Chris Kendall market in 2026.

So I'm neutral.

Well, you guys keep looking at each other.

What did you go ahead?

Oh wait, go ahead.

I just wanted to say that the last interview was conducted in January, I think.

So for what that's worth.

Who wants to talk?

So I I mean, for me, I I think the important thing is we use really important words when we started this process.

When we said that we were going to do this, it was the words integrity, transparency, promises made, complete thoroughness to the process.

And I feel like other than um understandable desire to um move this forward quickly, I I don't know how it changed the Chris Kindle market in the sense of we had a beautiful Kiris Kindle market in 2025.

So we will have a beautiful Chris Kindle market in 2026.

I think the community loves this event and continues to do this event.

I think the point of this was to look at process and to try to do it in a transparent, open way that was unbiased and unfiltered by any of the powers that be to steer that process.

And to me, that is important because when we use those words, they they are meaningful, and I think they are important to the public.

And so I I don't think any arbitrary date is necessarily the right or the wrong answer to this issue, but I do think that it's important that the process not um you know not get tainted by any other, you know, um um needs or desires or timelines that are to be met.

So that's all I will say on that.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, thank you.

Um I feel like I need to uh maybe just um provide a little bit of uh context as to uh going back to how this all got started.

Uh I obviously was the uh sponsor of this uh original resolution.

I think Mayor, you and I talked on the phone, and uh we worked out uh you know how this might go forward, there were some changes, but I but it and I'm not great at remembering you know the whole thing.

But bottom line is what I would like to say is that um the point that I made to Mayor Finkham was that this is an issue that was, in my opinion, beginning to divide our community.

And so I felt like if we just tackled it, got the information out there, here's what happened.

I think my words were then uh, you know, we can and I think I referred to the Hotel Carmichael investigation or uh research that was done and how that was presented.

We get everybody on the same page.

Here's what happened, we accept it, we learn from it, and we move on.

I feel like this has now gone too far, that it is actually not doing that.

Um I have no idea what will be in the report, but to now bring up a report these many, many, many months later, it's not about what happened and and can we all get on the same page and move forward?

We've already done that.

I think the community has demonstrated that we have done that excellently.

Whatever happened, um, we have a new executive director, we have a new board, we have a mayor that's supportive of the Chris Kennel market, we had a great event, and I think we're gonna have another great event.

I am going to support this 30-day timeline because I think it's gone too long.

And I think it's damaged what my at least original intent was to get everyone rowing in the same direction.

Now, if we're gonna start pointing fingers and it's way after the fact and it's irrelevant, very, very risky, in my opinion, that we do that to our community.

I'm gonna support uh 30 days or nothing, or however that was worded.

So I appreciate everybody's sentiment.

I totally understand, probably more than all of you, um, from the standpoint that this for me has served as a wedge, I think between me and all of you for the entire time it's been going on.

And I hate that.

I hate it for me.

Um I looked at a picture uh from 2023.

I got you know how your phone gives you a picture um of my son's face in 2023 and the joy he had about the fact that we were doing this.

Um and it brought me a lot of joy.

It's the most beautiful picture I've ever seen, maybe.

Um I share that with you, not to make an emotional plea.

I didn't mean to do that.

Um, but because these things are not easy, and yes, it's risky.

I want to reiterate that I think the risk to not doing something completely and correctly is bigger.

So when I sit up here and counselor Taylor, I hear your concerns on the way it's been managed, and Council Ruell, I I hear your concerns about the timeline.

Um we started with an affiliate review committee and we had open discussions, and those went pretty well to your original intent.

That was the negotiation, the the executive branch and the previous council members who knew how these things worked in the beginning of the process when the rest of us were still finding our feed.

Um we had to pivot based on that presentation and slide decks of information that just didn't sit right, that didn't fit the scope.

So we pivoted as a counsel and then asked to do an investigation as opposed to the affiliate review committee, which paused that.

So there was no outcome from the affiliate review, which we put very smart nonprofit people on with us as counselors and tried to get to the bottom of it, but it was replaced with this.

Um to get everybody, um, and including the executive branch and others in front of the people doing the investigation in a timely manner to build the scope.

And to your point, it was never my job to set the scope.

I was there to help shepherd the scope that was brought back to me by the lawyers that wrote a scope based on the feedback they received from all of you and others they sat with.

Um had we gone a different route, I probably would have ridden a narrower scope, but we didn't.

And to that end, um the idea of trying to direct a third-party investigation that is supposed to be neutral with feedback, even from me, is the person picked to help them navigate it, uh, never felt appropriate because again, at the end of it, we needed the information to be sound and just and fair, so that as we get to the end of where we were going, the right people are put in a position to not be implicated in something that maybe was just a hard process that hit weird times that became an investigation, and that others that had conversations or things that put us in those spots to begin with may be found out.

All of that for the purpose not to be risky to individuals, um, but to eliminate the risk of things that our city is doing being done in a way that is harming the efficacy of those events, those institutions, and the people that are a part of them.

When I go back to a I mean it it is not something that when you both pulled together the initial conversation was something that was a big discussion.

It came up here, we figured out where to go, and we started the process.

Um we moved in a direction based on I think feeling, um, based on an understanding of what we needed to see based on where people were put in some of the darkest moments of their professional and carmel lives uh to figure out what to do.

Um so again, I I fully understand it's uncomfortable.

It's no more uncomfortable for anybody on this council than it is for me.

Um I strongly again urge us to figure out, and again, if we move it tonight, I'm happy to make that conversation.

I'll bring back if we decide as a council not to do it, that we've moved on and that this Chris Kennel market is perfect, and that this action and the studies and things that we did on the front end fixed this potential loophole of issue that created the harm that has been created on the front end is closed forever.

Um that's the prerogative of this committee.

Um I just am not certain, again, is the president of this giving us direction that right now, um, at this point in time, a deadline that may not work for the investigators is the exact right call to make after talking about old business exhibit A for the first time in a month and a half, and really the first time to me from any of you in really almost any capacity since this thing began.

So appreciate again everything you've said.

We'll do what we need to do.

Um, but I am not in support of the deadline as it stands.

So I've heard a couple things that resonate.

Um Councilor Austin, you mentioned that we all probably had our own reasons for for doing this.

Um you make a compelling argument, Jeff.

You're your um the length of it and old emotions.

I I do think that part of the beauty of how long it's gone on is that the emotions have are gone.

I do think that's a good thing, or have subsided to a point where we can look at this objectively.

I have no idea what's going to be in this report.

I don't know what they are providing.

I don't have any clue what the investigation is.

I know for me, it's one singular item that I'm interested in that I I don't even know is in this report, or it was being asked or vetted.

Um but I would like to perhaps offer up a compromise to you.

I will say that.

Could I ask a clarifying question first?

So there's something that you want to be who set up the parameters of what will be in this report.

Who was that?

The attorneys we hired were tasked with setting up the scope of the investigation based on the premise that all nine of us had different thoughts on what that should be.

And that was the initial, if you go back and watch it, that was the initial discussion we had that nobody felt comfortable with any single person defining or deriving what it was because there were concerns of people taking sides then in figuring out process for information between the external parties and the internal parties.

So maybe I'll just get to my bottom line.

Is there a die?

Is that something in writing that someone has reviewed?

Maybe I reviewed it, I don't recall reviewing it, but is that somewhere around?

I don't know of any.

I don't know of any I'm I'm kind of addressing I think Ryan.

What would have been under Adam?

Yeah, I'm happy that so initially when it was first voted on, I think um we first voted for Ryan to be in charge of it, and then it was um suggested that he help uh recommend a law firm once the law firm was suggested.

Um I did have some conversation with them regarding uh scheduling and timeline uh saying, hey, have you talked to Ryan and just kind of those conversations?

Are you setting up meetings?

Are you because there was a uh desire like we said when we first passed this for this to be done quickly.

Uh but I don't I didn't have any conversation about the scope or what the investigation would cover.

Um I kind of tried not to um micromanage uh counselor Locke on that.

But I do want to say I know this is kind of you want a question answered?

I want to finish the question.

Seeing yeah, you go ahead, I'll say this later.

All right.

Um where I was going with this was uh right now and I I think for many of us if somebody said I need something in 30 days, that's that would be tough for me to turn around if I'm still compiling all this information.

But I I hear I hear what you're saying that why why did it take so long to even get that information?

Well, that that is what it is.

I'm also hearing that we're kind of done providing anything.

So they they they can ask questions, it doesn't it sounds like though like that would be fruitless.

There were many reasons for delays, and the reason why I have no idea what's in this is because every one of us were interviewed and kind of talked about what we wanted to see in it.

Um I know exactly when my interview was because it was exactly two months.

I was two months after uh Saturday, it's two months after my mom passed away because and I delayed I was the I was the slow down for the council.

I was the last person by the council because I frankly didn't want to deal with it at all.

I wasn't really in favor of it the beginning.

I came around because I understood, I listened.

Um, but uh I delayed the my interview by by a couple months.

So I guess what I would I would ask is maybe instead of 30 days, we we we give them 60 days a more reasonable timeline and be a little more to your point aggressive on what that what that means.

I just don't think somebody's gonna turn something around in 30 days.

I mean they should have I mean they should already have it virtually done.

Interviews were all done last year, besides you maybe say one in January.

Um they charged significant dollars just trying to schedule an interview with me, which I would didn't really have much of an intent to interview.

I understood what a type one supporting organization was.

I reviewed the bylaws.

I fully knew that the mayor had the ability to act uh under authority to make any changes to the board as she sees fit.

I've served on a number of these organizations before.

Um I wasn't here to discuss whether or not we should conduct this investigation in the first place.

Um I I want to I want to stick with the 30 days, and if for some reason they can't they can't complete that, we can come back and maybe discuss it again on August 3rd as to if they need additional time.

They've expended all the money as of December of last year.

Um they have all the data they need.

Um there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to complete this report in the next 30 days.

This isn't uh crime scene investigation.

This is um, and I was on, you know, I told many of this back then.

I felt like we were more investigating feelings than we were actually by laws and true operations and to true authority of the executive branch.

Um but I wasn't here when we had that discussion or when it was voted.

This is discussions with you guys privately afterwards.

I'm I want to stick with the 30 days.

Um if they can't if they can't complete it or have a compelling argument as to why they don't uh they need more than 30 days, and if this if this if my motion passes, uh there could be you know a motion on August 3rd to make a change.

All right, we have uh Mr.

President.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, just wanted to say.

Um from the beginning, I never wanted investigation.

I thought you know it was a complete waste of time.

Um however, I voted consistently for it because there's one person I really trust, and I still trust them, uh, to work through the process, and that was Counselor Locke.

You know, however, I do agree, it's just been a long time.

And a vote today kind of shows we're all ready to kind of move on.

And then if we revisit this 30 days and they're close, then we'll discuss it again 30 days.

But that's kind of where I'm at.

But what do you think?

What do you think we're gaining by having a formal vote?

They're gonna hear this, they're gonna see this.

I'm worried about precedent.

Something doesn't, I mean, for future anything.

We're just gonna say, hey, we'll just make a throw pull and arbitrary date out.

Like we we focus so much on this running through this process.

And I I agree.

I mean, the only time I've communicated with the law firm was in February, March.

I think I talked to you the same day I called them to try to expedite this, and I got the uh a lawyer answer.

We're working through it.

Um so I I don't I don't I just I don't see they're gonna see this.

We've made that we've made the statement everybody up here once this over.

I just don't know what a formal motion I don't know what we're actually doing.

We have no Mr.

President, yes, sir.

Um I don't know how everyone's gonna vote and how everyone feels.

Um this body is a living, breathing body with nine individuals who have a right to speak for what the body should do.

I think a vote tonight is very important, and I don't worry about precedent.

I worry about me having my right to vote the way I would like to see this go based on a motion that is before us, like any other piece of business.

This isn't about um controlling it.

I I just want to have my say.

I think it is and and Councilor Locke, um, and I'm I'm getting a second bite at the apple here, I'm just gonna take it.

But you know, you have um I know done everything that you um should have done, felt needed to be done.

To no fault of yours, I think we're now in a situation where I would like to have my opportunity to vote and make a difference.

So this is not personal.

This is absolutely just about um where I think we are today.

And I think I heard uh President Snyder say earlier today, things change, and boy, have they changed.

And I think they've changed for the better.

Um I'd like I I I want my chance to vote, Mr.

President.

But that's fine.

I'm not saying don't vote.

I'm you do know how everybody stands.

Every single person up here has said they want this over.

That's that's all I'm saying.

I don't know that I heard Counselor Joshi say that.

I don't I don't I just don't want to assume that.

That's I I will only speak for myself.

Okay, may I, Mr.

President, and then I'll be done.

Second by to the apple.

I agree with what uh counselor you green.

Thank you, Tony.

Uh Counselor Green.

I agree with uh Counselor Green.

And if we if we vote tonight to say yes, it's 30 days, then if we have to revisit it and the next meeting, so be it.

I I see nothing wrong with that.

I would agree with that 100%.

Just wanted you to know so I mean I'm ready to move forward.

Um when we originally voted on this, if I knew this was gonna take 14 months, I probably would not have voted for it.

Um but I do want to clarify.

I mean, part of the reason I like to move on to is not only do I think that they've had ample time to do an investigation, I don't think this is killing an investigation at all.

I think that again, 14 months was plenty of time.

Um but I also I see some of this how it what it how it affects the council, and I um I think it's become a distraction from the important work that we can do.

Um but I do want to be clear because I see that counselor um you know Locke um does take a lot of pride in this.

Me voting to move on as no reflection on um you uh and you have done a fantastic job, and um I I don't know.

I debate it makes me upset to see that if my vote would upset you, but I have to do what I think is right.

Well and for the record, thank you all for the compliments.

Everybody loves a good compliment.

Um I I don't objectively care how we vote.

Um I've given you my thought on it.

I think that in some way a vote for this tonight might be a positive tool uh to keep the ball rolling.

Again, if they say they can't or it's too much, um we'll I'll bring it back and we can talk about it again.

I I will say uh into Jeff your point.

I I will say into Jeff, your point, there was a request that they compiled on their letter head from all of the investigation uh discussions they had they sent forward.

Yeah, scope um, which was hashed out when we voted on it when um council green brought up to add the council.

The scope was set then.

The document request related to that scope was pulled together through then the investigation discussions that um council had with all of us, uh which was ultimately that that is I presume and well, I won't presume.

Um likely a document I can send to all of you.

Um I can definitely do that as we are all on the council if you'd like to see it, um, and go from there.

Um final process um point here.

Um we didn't sign up for this because it was going to be comfortable.

Um, and I would love it to be comfortable, and it'll be really fun to just giggle and do cool stuff all day.

But uh civilization is hard, it's been hard forever.

Um the experiment that we're on now uh for 250 years as a nation and 50 years as a city is something novel in the history of human primates on the planet.

Um we are governing ourselves.

Um I tend to stop by the state house every Monday morning and read the Gettysburg Address on the wall.

There's a plaque, and I this is the first time I've ever told anybody.

Um, and in like reality TV fashion, I'm telling everybody at once.

Um, but I read that every Monday I'm in the building.

Um today was a Monday.

I read it.

Um it reminds me of why I walk into that building every single day.

Um and then twice a month it reminds me why I walk into this one.

Uh because it's not about again ultimately what we do today.

We will be likely forgotten to the annals of history, like Grover Cleveland or other presidents that nobody remembers.

Um but our actions matter, and the way that we preserve and protect the things that we are doing here for each other matters more than anything, uh more than our relationships, more than our feelings, definitely more than anything we do to keep these seats longer than we sit in them today.

So I totally hundred percent appreciate all of you.

I appreciate your feedback.

I appreciate how you feel about this.

It did and has gone on way longer than necessary, but uh or not necessary.

It's gone on longer than I wish it had.

I wish it was over instantaneously before it began.

Um but here we are doing what we can do with every question, every discussion, every decision we make uh for the betterment of the future of this place, not for us for us now, but for the people that come after us, that little boy in that picture.

Um so thank you.

Thank you for the feedback.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk into a microphone way longer than I should ever be allowed to talk, but let's move forward the way we should together.

Well, usually that's me.

Um I I will say I I do know what everybody wants.

They want this over.

The only thing different is in what fashion.

And I I will say I have sideboard conversation with the mayor today.

I I I was talking about how, yeah, I'd love to have another NFL game and add it to the season, but what I don't like about that is then every other, you know, all the stats would have an asterisk by them.

And my only concern here is whatever is produced, which whatever is produced.

I just don't want there to be the asterisk.

Well, they rush it at the end.

By if it frankly, I doubt this has anything that is earth shattering at all.

That's my gut.

Um I don't I don't know that.

There's just supposition, but I I am concerned that there will be people somewhere that says, yeah, well, they rushed it at the end.

Um that's my concern.

Um but we have a motion and a second.

So let's vote.

Could could present could you restate that could you restate some place so we're all clear on that?

The motion, the motion is we we as a council move tonight that uh that we require the final report from Dentons doing the investigation surrounding the Chris Cundell market, um in within 30 days of the 20th of August.

We have that in our legal counsel's hand.

If they do not provide that without providing some justification as to why not, then they need to turn over all everything they have collected since the beginning to our legal council and the matters closed.

Did everybody hear that?

Did I restate that?

No.

Thank you.

Correction.

Didn't they say they turn it over to the council before the legal council?

The legals council's council.

Okay.

Whatever.

As long as we have it right.

Ted and ultimate.

That carries.

So we've made this public.

Ryan, can you send an email to Denton's with this action and copy the count the full counsel on that email?

Thank you.

Is that fair enough to everybody?

Did not know we were going to do this tonight.

But I'm glad we did.

I think this was healthy.

And Council Royal has said it's it's an issue, not a person, right?

Correct.

Okay.

B, that's sad to say.

We're only on B.

Uh that remains in finance, I believe.

I mean, excuse me, in land use, correct.

Uh C still in finance.

D, still in finance.

E return to the return.

Okay.

E has returned from finance.

Uh finance, utilities and rules committee with a unanimous negative recommendation.

It still remains in land use.

So Sergei may be a little opine on this, but the intent was to, you know, as I discussed earlier, um, this returns from finance because of procedurally how how it needs to go through the uh stormwater board first before it comes to us.

Um I requested from you either to pull it from land use, or I was gonna make a motion to pull it using Robert's rules.

Um I would personally I would like to have this acted on uh this evening.

And uh so president Snyder, you have a choice to pull it from land use, or I can make a motion to uh remove it from land use, which requires a uh five-member vote uh a true uh not just a quorum, a true majority of the council in order to return it from uh land use to the full council to act on it.

Did I get that correct, Sergey?

Thank you.

Uh I'm not gonna pull it.

Uh you can do the motion, but I I and mostly because we've told the public it's gonna that there's gonna be discussions about it, and I don't want to pull the rug out from under them.

But if you guys feel strongly about it, then certainly I would make the motion again.

It's an issue, not a person.

Mr.

President.

Um so just um the maybe compromise thing, because it's a land use and special studies committee, nothing precludes their committee from discussing an issue, whether there's an ordinance attached to it or not.

So whether the issue gets pulled or not, they you know the the chair of the committee could still discuss stormwater issues throughout the city, regardless whether there's an ordinance attached.

And that's what I suggested, uh president.

And I agree.

Are you are you but we need to well that was my question, is just um on a procedural point.

I want to understand so why first of all, what was the the issue regarding pulling the ordinance just to for the again?

I understand there were some questions about how it was presented process, so if we could just review that for the public briefly, and if we could also um ensure that I think the underlying premise of this was to discuss issues that um were coming forward out of concerns from constituents who we are all beholden to as their elected representatives.

So I would like to ensure that we can continue to have these discussions because they were obviously well attended.

There were many people that came out and spoke from all sides of the city, and I want to ensure that we can still have these conversations.

So I'm just trying to understand it from a procedural standpoint.

Um if somebody can help me.

The argument is that our ordinance, our stormwater ordinance reads, and it's statutorily, that a fee change has to come from the established stormwater body.

And in Carmel, that was the Board of Public Works.

Frankly, they really just need to have a hearing.

And then even if it's an empty hearing, it could come to us as is the way it's been explained to me legally.

But that that's that's the legal basis as to why initiating it from here.

Now I happen to disagree, but because I think we can keep this open regardless of anybody's opinions on what I put forth, our ordinance still needs to be amended, and I'm hoping just product of some housekeeping things, not anything to do with the topic of the day.

So I don't know why it seems like BPW would be bringing that up shortly now that they know that.

I think we have two different procedural approaches.

So I would rather get voted down, frankly.

I don't mind that.

Um I just want because I think there is there are things that have to happen to this ordinance no matter what, whether it has anything to do with what I wanted to see.

Um so at finance, it was um two items were primarily discussed a review of the uh solutions for Concord that was presented by Brad Pease and the administration discussing how raising stormwater fees aren't required at this time.

So a review of last Tuesday's meeting and finance committee uh number two was uh Sergei's presentation on how the how the process should work.

He did state though that the administration is going to be working on a new ordinance to make uh to certify the ERU at our current ERU rate because it's still the RERU rate is what they originally established, and then because of the COLA adjustments, that didn't set a new EREU rate each year.

So he'll make that change and also the COLA change in a uh brand new ordinance that'll be introduced to the Board of Public Works and Safety, the Stormwater Board, um, and then come to us as as a council.

So they they need some time to be able to notice that public hearing, uh draft that ordinance, and that's why from the finance committee's discussion is is let's just return this a negative recommendation.

We will get a full clean new ordinance that's initiated through the stormwater board, and then that will address the issues that we need to fix initially.

And then the administration did state that um because the coal is going to go away, uh, that the establishment of stormwater fees will be done each year during the budgetary process.

So there's um capital projects needs and a budgetary process that's assigned to when the stormwater fees are increased.

Um that was just the report from finance today.

I don't know if Sergey, if I missed anything or President Snyder.

I I think it would be helpful if Serge kind of explained, you know, for not just counselors who weren't didn't see the finance meeting, but for people in the public who didn't tune in and didn't kind of hear your explanation and and the rationale.

Good evening.

Uh Sergey Gurchuk and Office of Corporation Council, everything that was said about the ordinance is correct.

Our opinion that this ordinance is well simply premature and doesn't follow a process that been outlined in Indiana Code, specifically Indiana Code A-1.5-5-7B, and our own ordinance, which is uh city code sections 26261.

Uh both of those documents establish that it's a board of uh Department of Stormwater Management, which is BPW as uh uh President Schneider outlined, and that the process begins there.

It's it is clear from a statute, it's clear from my own ordinance.

Sergey can so you help you had a piece of paper that you put up on the screen for finance.

I think that would be helpful for the whole council.

Uh because you went through it very very methodically, and this is statute.

I'd like to see that if I could.

So if I can have, yeah, there we go.

So again, as I mentioned, it's clearly regulated by user fees and stormwater ordinance regulated by Indian Code 8-1.557B.

Um it is that section of the code is clear that it is the board, meaning the board of directors of Department of Stormwater Management, which is BPW per ordinance that may assess and collect the fees, conducts a public hearing, and then recommends it to council for approval.

Our ordinance, which is 6210 and 6 to 11, establishes that the board of directors of the Department of Stormwater Management is our BPW.

Um also from the same section of a code of city, uh no, sorry, not the city code, the uh state code, it is clear that it's a board's responsibility to establish the fees, not councils.

So the ordinance states that it's a council that establishes the fees, the state statute is clear that it's actually a board that establishes the fees and then recommends it by considering the factors outlined in subsection uh D, whereas um seven factors and plus some discretionary factors uh that's the board can use in adopting different schedule of fees.

So when we did um when we did it originally, we conduct the study to determine those and use some of those exact same factors as outlined here.

So that's how the process works.

And again, our own ordinance section six, ten, and six eleven um is says exactly exactly that.

And um for those reasons, I believe that the process just hasn't been followed correctly.

I think my recommendation would be to withdraw this ordinance entirely, not to have any procedural challenges potentially due to um process violations.

Um as um Council Varrell indicated, the well, maybe Council Taylor, the administration is working on doing that process in the correct order, so that ordinance will come to you in slightly different form, but very similar to what you will be considering or what was introduced rather.

And even that ordinance, it does say that the public hearing was held at the at the BPW level, it obviously hasn't.

So again, for those reasons, I think it would be much cleaner to start the process anew.

Uh I think council has that action started that process, and I think it's very positive thing.

So the final result will be what council intends or intended all along.

Um with administration feedback with with the Department of Stormwater Management properly conducting and using those factors and um eliminating the colour as you mentioned.

Thank you, Sergey.

That was exactly what I was looking for and understanding of for everyone in in the public and myself included.

I really appreciate that thorough explanation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

President.

Um a lot of this was initiated because of uh a lot of the concerns in one neighborhood.

I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Uh the um, and I really want to give councillor Snyder and Councillor Ayers um a lot of credit for shining a light on some of the concerns that neighbors have been dealing with for a very long time.

Um I think a lot of the solutions that we'll be coming to are can give credit to both these counselors for really shining a light on these issues.

Um but as I asked of the finance committee, um there was a plan proposed on um July 14th from the city to how to address some stormwater issues in the Concord Village neighborhood.

And I asked, I said, does this require any city council approval or denial?

Do we have any control over this?

And the answer we got from you know legal is that no, there is not.

There am I correct?

There may be some money moved around that you would be that we would have control over, but we don't approve or deny this project.

Yeah, so uh um yes, that's correct.

For as far as the ordinance goes, you do have a power of approval.

You're an approving buddy, you're not an initial initiating buddy.

So if if you feel as a body that the fees that's been introduced at uh BPW level are not correct, you can send it back.

So I'm not asked about the fee, I'm asking about the action taken to address stormwater in the neighborhood.

We don't approve or deny that, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Unless unless money needs to go from one line to another.

That would be the R really only control over that.

Um I asked, will you be proceeding?

And city engineers said yes, they're proceeding with that plan.

So I I I know that some of the people from the neighborhood aren't here tonight.

But it appears, you know, no city council control over this, that they that will be the plan that will be enacted to address stormwater in that neighborhood.

And that's coming from the city attorney and the city engineer.

So there's a lot of things outside of our control.

But what we can do as a city council is influence, and I really have to give a lot of credit to Councillor Snyder and Councillor Ayers for influencing even if we're not happy with the actions that are taken, uh, really getting that conversation started.

So thank you to both of you.

Thank you.

I also just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work.

I know you it's kind of your expertise, so I really do appreciate all your hard work in your communication with the constituents.

One of the disappointments I had was that this became all about one neighborhood.

But I'm not tonight's not the night to discuss this.

I mean, discuss this as a whole.

I mean, it but I I do think our job is to advocate.

Um I will always advocate for the residents of Carmel.

But where I I do take issue with one thing in your process.

And the big thing is there's no reason why.

Listen, I'm there are things that I claim to be an expert in.

Writing ordinances, not so much, as everybody has seen.

Um but the act of taking the cola and converting that to a dollar amount does not take BPW action.

I I disagree with you because it says, I mean, we know what the dollar amount is.

We're replacing a percentage with a dollar amount.

Period.

That is not an increase of rates, that is not a decrease of rates, that does not affect the rates.

So I I do think that is an action this council can take easily and simply.

It's not worth probably fighting about, but I I that is a point of contention, and I I do disagree with you on that.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Um I just wanted to say for the record on this one.

Um the process that the city has been running now for from what I can tell since 2023 on getting information, um, knocking doors, talking to, and then potentially long before that, from the people that live in this neighborhood and then other neighborhoods that have come up about issues in their neighborhood potentially caused by civic action or building around them, uh, or on the far northwest side, large developments going in next door that continue to mire the quagmire of mud around their retention ponds in weird ways.

Um what this has brought is the ability and a discussion point around stormwater that we had not necessarily heard of or talked about as a council before.

Um maybe it has come up over the years, obviously a stormwater fee was put in place at some point.

Um but I do want to echo the sentiment that that work of talking to and getting the feedback from the public needs to matter in all the decisions we're making.

Um and we are here at an inflection point on this one where because of the project size and shape that has been presented, it doesn't have to come back through the public process in any capacity to be done.

Um the right system.

Um but it's also uh a little concerning for me based on how much feedback we've gotten.

We received an email this morning with a picture of the storm drain from this weekend with rain.

I think that there is likely more conversations to be had specifically with the neighbors that this directly impacts um before we go full force into spending for projects that may or may not increase their quality of life.

Um I say that to Adam's point um to points we see many times made by people that are not in a position to make a determination on something uh that well it's not my thing, I don't have to do it.

Um I don't know, I can't help.

We we can um and I would urge all of us as we look at this to take counselor Wowell's statement earlier.

Sorry, I can't say you're R right tonight.

It's uh the and we we do discuss this as a as a group, and we make sure we move in the right direction.

Because I I do think more feedback will continue to come.

Um I do think that the plan is a great potential start to discuss what and what shouldn't be done to people's houses, neighborhoods, lives.

Um I do think that the plan is a great potential start to discuss what and what shouldn't be done to people's houses, neighborhoods, lives, um, and making sure we do that correctly without potential quickness or decision making that puts us in a position that a neighborhood that's been flooding for 19 years can probably wait for the right feedback specifically if that feedback is coming from them to shape it the way it should be.

So say that fully.

If it was my house, I would really want to be a part of that.

I would love to have those discussions.

Um I will advocate for that with my last breath into this microphone, hopefully for this evening.

Mr.

President, yeah, I just want to add, sorry.

Um another thing that was brought up, and and I know the director of engineering, um, Brad Pease isn't here right now, but one of the things he discussed, and it was uh based on the question from Council Ayers and Councillor Taylor, storm water fees, how how they're spent, how they've been spent, you know, what projects they've been spent on.

And it was helpful in the finance meeting.

Uh Brad kind of explained that um he's not here, but that's something that we could kind of go through, because that's been a question people have raised.

So one one more or three more breaths.

Um that would be a conversation that would be delightful to have here.

Um and I I will go back and watch the meeting was at four today, so I've not had time to watch what you guys got.

Um, but I think that that really is the impetus for the conversation.

I will also say for the record, as a lawyer and as a reviewer of things with Sergey on stuff like this, that procedurally the premise of this being in the wrong order is likely correct, um, and following the rule set for that is right.

I will say then that the idea of this being presented, um gave us the opportunity to talk about this.

It created town halls, it created uh attention to something that we had not talked about for 19 years, and a 90-page slide deck from the city that had never been seen before with ideas to fix it.

So that being said, again, the process tends to work when we put things in the light to figure out a path forward.

Um I would just really love us to maybe now that we're through the information gathering uh to take a step back, pause, look at the right way to do this for the people that we're impacting and make sure we're making the right decisions.

Um and that's a call to action to the executive branch because we can't do anything about it uh from up here except probably deappropriate money, which we will likely not do.

So I had an excellent conversation lengthy uh with the mayor about this.

There's certain things we're just gonna fundamentally be on opposite sides of.

Um I failed it really probably being as informative about the the grand or good I saw in this.

I it kind of got mired down into one neighborhood, but that happens uh to everybody's point.

Conversation has been started.

Um I I this will get killed, but I I will move to a move to approve.

If I can get a second, we can vote this off.

I mean, we are we are you are you it's still in land use, so are you that's if we're gonna kill the pull from land use.

I will pull it from land use and I move to approve the ordinance second second.

If we need a second, we can all vote no.

Or you guys who you can vote however you want to.

So you so you're calling for the question.

You just moved your own move this as president.

Is that correct?

Just to move it along.

Okay, all right.

Is that okay wrong?

He he moved to approve ordinance D-2836-26.

Technically, as the president, you're not supposed to.

All right, but somebody that's kind of what I was confused about.

I was trying to help you out.

And President uh President Snoder just pulled it, is that correct?

Just pull it from the Land U Send the Court.

So it's out of finance now.

Right.

It's out of it's out of finance.

I'll make the motion.

The motions are always made in the affirmative, whether you vote yes or no, so I make a motion to approve.

Or to act on this this evening.

Second.

The motion is to act on the this is the you do want to do that.

Okay.

Well, my horrible ordinance writing can be out of your guys' hair.

Don't say everything for you.

Um now to land use conversations about.

And then that way when something comes from BPW.

Thank you.

Anybody have any objection to that?

What are we on?

We are on around public hearing three.

All right.

First reading of ordinance D-2837.

TS There was wait, never mind.

Yeah, we're at 13A.

I just wanted to, yeah.

Nope.

There's always a good chance I've missed something.

Thank you.

First reading of ordinance D-2837-26, an ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, authorizing and approving additional appropriation from the motor vehicle highway fund MVH.

Sponsors Councillor Austin Taylor Warell.

Mood introduce.

Second.

Councilor Taylor, can you read the synopsis?

Please.

This ordinance appropriates funds to cover grant eligible expenses in the motor vehicle highway fund MVH number 201.

Mr.

Jackson.

So uh what's before you tonight is uh 651,000 additional appropriation for uh the street department uh from the motor vehicle highway account.

Uh 50,000 of this would be covering the speed humps that were passed uh for West Road and uh D-28-D-2813-26, and the remaining 61,000 uh makes up the shortfall that we talked about in my last quarterly report uh where our wheel tax revenue estimate was not performed correctly, and so functionally we're we're putting up this 61,000 to replace the revenue that will not materialize on the wheel tax.

Sur tax is still coming in like gangbusters, though.

Let's have the public hearing.

We'll open it at 752, and Mr.

Jackson will promptly move out of the way for any public members that want to.

I'm kidding, Zach.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing at 7.53.

Um we want to act just from a procedural standpoint, right?

You'll need if there was a motion to weigh the rules and act on it this evening.

Um since it requires a second ordinance, uh second reading, it would not need to go to committee if you didn't want to assign it commit to committee.

So the options are weigh the rules, act on it this evening, send it to committee, or just let it sit on the agenda for next meeting because it requires a second reading.

I can't move for anything.

What do you guys want to do?

I move that we act on this, suspend the rules and act on it this evening.

Thank you.

We are voting to act on it this evening.

If somebody could call the logical follow-up question.

Second.

There you go, Zach.

Where's that?

Oh, there you go, bud.

New business.

First reading of ordinance D-2839-26, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana, amending Carmel City Code Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-44, Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 3 58, and Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-40.

Excuse me.

Sponsors, Austin, Minar, Snyder, Taylor, Warrell.

This has to do with the use of micromobility and e-motor devices within the city of Carmel.

Um a much broader conversation about this.

I'm so proud of the work that we did for a year to wrap our heads around this and get an ordinance done.

Unfortunately, uh it hasn't worked.

Um Councillor Warell has um uh been working with uh a group of individuals specifically about the Monon and behaviors there.

Um there have been comp literally probably conversations with every counselor here about the efficacy of this.

I have had conversations with the mayor about what she would like to see in this.

She has made her position rather clear.

That's going to be her story to tell, though, or it'll be come out in committee.

In committee, we'll have the police talk about the challenges they have.

It has been outrageous.

I'm blown away, frankly.

So this is going to go to committee.

But is there council discussion?

Anybody?

Yes.

So I fully support this going to committee because I think there's a lot to discuss.

But there are two items here that I would love if they could be carved out.

I don't know if it's possible to carve out this evening.

If not, maybe the committee can send them back quickly.

But as I understand, there's two things that should be not controversial that maybe we could act on quickly, and that would be the ability to impound a device in certain circumstances and forfeiture if the device is used in relation to criminal activities.

Can we?

How can we do this?

I'm not sure if you can carve out a certain provision of an ordinance.

Can we amend the ordinance and approve that?

And then of course we can.

Yeah.

And then you could, yeah.

Yeah.

Everything else.

So it'll be a different ordinance central.

Can you introduce another ordinance?

We'll start talking about it.

Yeah, my only concern is since you're going to be amending an acting, you will miss a meeting until the new ordinance gets introduced, sent to committee, et cetera.

So you're a couple of weeks behind.

So that's my only concern.

A couple weeks behind on the rest of it, you mean if you will amend this ordinance just to include those two provisions, then I will need to introduce yet another ordinance.

So you'll have to wait two weeks, and then it will send to committee.

So you'll be behind.

Well, you can otherwise.

We know you would need feedback anyway should write a new ordinance.

You can I guess you can assign a subject.

They're not gonna I mean Council Warrell is gonna continue working with his groups and land users gonna continue working with the work it up.

Uh council uh President Schneider, if you assign a subject to committee, and we can start discussions there, and we'll catch up on the legal front.

But yes, you can amend again amend this particular ordinance, suspend the rule sections tonight, and we will introduce a brand new one and start discussing the topic because we already received some comments from parks as well.

So there's quite a few things to add, anyways.

Can some would somebody be open to amending this what's before us to include the two action items that the police desperately want ASAP?

I make a motion to um amend this ordinance to only include the provisions, um added provisions include the ability to impound a device in certain circumstances and forfeiture provision if the device is used in relation to criminal activity and all other additions be um removed from the ordinance discussion?

Yes, so um I have uh actually heard from the Carmel Police Department, um, and I think maybe we should just for the record, um if you want me to just I want to just also put out there the other things they've asked for.

But these two points that um Councilor Austin just uh talked about, uh they believe would be extremely helpful and would like to see that happen sooner than later.

And it's probably the most common um suggestion that I get from the public.

Why don't you just impound them?

Don't you guys have it in you know impounding powers?

And I say we will.

So uh so I would like to say, number one, uh, if we can do this, I you know I'm gonna vote for that, and I think it's a great point that counselor um Osin made.

But I also want to just also let you know what else they're asking for.

I thought they were gonna do a whole presentation, but it'll go to committee, no no problem.

But they want more specific language regarding the identification of the e-moto devices, and um, you know, you right now you can't tell the difference between unless you're you know you're very trained, and some of them are doing some things that make you think it's something that it's really not.

So uh however we're gonna you know put that uh language on the vehicle itself, and then the prohibitive behavior.

Wheelies, speeding, um, just reckless use of that is uh they believe if they can then just say, you know, we witnessed you doing something that you shouldn't have been doing as far as use of the monan.

And then also um if I can find my place here.

And then also if I can find my place here, they will also then do the fees enhancement and third offense mandatory court appearance and further increase fine, which would require parents, uh, which I think is really important, and then the impoundment, and um, and then they're looking at maybe just some other out-of-the-box ideas.

But the other thing I want to just say is the working group that I put together, we're we don't want to slow the process down.

We will keep um working on creative ideas in to enhance whatever this body does.

So I will say when my very productive and lengthy conversation with the mayor about this today, as I said, is very supportive.

One of the without getting into some some of the details, but one of the things she she mentioned, and I I fully support is we really need to look at their running.

I mean, they're running from the police.

I don't think they understand the gravity of that.

I don't that that I don't think it's computing.

You are fleeing from a police officer.

Can't forfeiture.

So one item I'd like to suggest is um Fort Wayne in Allen County has a pretty good ordinance, and it relies a lot heavily on Indiana state law where these electric motorcycles are actually motorcycles and required to be you must are you re you're required to be licensed, insured in order to drive one of those, period.

Um so if we can look at how Indiana state law applies to specifically electric motorcycles, it's the same thing with the gas-powered motorcycle.

You drive a dirt bike on the road as a teenager.

Why does it matter if it's electric powered or gas powered?

It must be licensed, uh vehicle registration, and you must be insured in order to ride that on anywhere.

Um so there might be some things that we can glean from Fort Wayne, Allen County.

Um Council Taylor, we actually do have some of that language already in the ordinance, but we can see if we can expand it.

And just full of a record, um so just everybody's clear, we are keeping section 7C and D that relates to for uh relates to impoundment with minors involved, and section eight A, and additional section C that deals with some also with impoundment and forfeiture of a device.

We have the motion and the question.

Any other discussion?

Okay.

Uh Ryan.

Sorry, I'm reading the code.

So I don't know what the rule is.

Give me two minutes.

Um I sure the motion carries in our vote to move to what I'm talking about to a man.

Two amendment, yeah.

Sorry, I will abstain.

Thank you.

So that carries you guys uh never fail to find interesting situations equipment.

Excuse me.

First reading of ordinance D 28.

Wait a second, we should suspend the rules.

I'm sorry, and act if you like.

Motion we make motion amendment move to suspend the rules and act on this this evening.

Second.

Move to approve.

Thank you.

Sir Sergey, when will that when will this become effective?

Umce it's published, it will be become uh effective.

And uh, Council Schneider, I assume that you send the subject.

First reading of ordinance D 284026.

This amends Article 4 the City Code to establish a non-reverting DOCS planning and development fund.

Move to introduce.

Usually Zach presents those, but this one is more of the legal requirement rather than the finance rather than the finance initiative.

As you know, the state has amended the state code recently and required that old development planning and zoning engineering fees would have to go to a special non-reverting fund in order to be used.

So this ordinance complies with the state code.

It creates two uh I I can address both of them if I may.

Please.

Uh both ordinances deal with the same subject matter.

One is for DOCS planning and development fees, the other is for uh engineering, planning and development fees.

It creates each ordinance creates a special non-reverting fund where all the fees will be going to.

Um that fund must start having those funds deposited to them by January 1st of the next year.

Right now it's a placeholder.

It funds can be deposited now, but they can go to general fund until such time.

I actually don't know what the finance plan is regarding that, but essentially that's what it does.

They cannot revert to general fund, and they can only be used for the purpose outlined in our ordinance in the state code.

If I may, I'll just add um and so as these get created, we will uh be kind of incorporating this into to budget development.

What you would see uh, for example, with the the first fund, DOCS, you know, that they get a lot of building permit revenue today.

Historically, that goes to the general fund.

We can no longer put that in the general fund, it will start going to this new fund.

The fees can't be higher than what it's the actual cost of regulating that environment.

So uh we will be budgeting for part of DOCS in the future out of this fund.

Uh I think we have less history on the uh engineering fees.

I think those are newer, but also same thing.

We'll come up with kind of an estimate there and plan for a portion of their department to be budgeted out of out of that new fund.

Um we have to do it.

So really the only discussion topic of discussion is the use of the funds.

Doesn't e even the use of a funds is outlined in the statute as well.

It's actually that's what I'm saying.

I mean that would be that's the only talking point is do we feel that the what's been laid out is for engineering excuse me for DOCS reimbursement and or engineering reimbursement is conforms with the use, and I I don't I mean beforehand it was going to the general fund, so I mean I I don't I don't know if there's anybody has any rules and entering into action tonight.

Second okay, we can act on it tonight.

We're acting on the DOCS one currently.

Move to approve, second carries.

First reading of ordinance D-2841-26, ordinance of the common council of the city of Carmel, Indiana, amending Article 4, Section 2-158 of the Carmel City Code, sponsors Minar Snyder, Taylor, Warrell.

Uh this does the same thing that the last one did, except for the engineering department and fees collected by them.

We would like to spend the rules.

Uh move to introduce second.

Motion introduced by Council Taylor, second by Councillor Awesome.

And move to suspend the rules and act on it this evening.

Second.

Move to approve.

Second.

Carries.

Hey, Zach.

Uh is there a reason why you would wait until January 1st or I think that it may beg the question in terms of uh these revenues as they as they start to come in now.

Um it would appear to me that we have the discretion until January 1st of where we deposit these revenues.

Uh shall they continue to go into the general fund until January 1st, or do we go ahead and start putting them in these new funds now?

I think uh you know, given that the general fund is likely to exceed target this year, and it probably makes a little bit of sense to have some seed money in those funds for next year.

So if we're appropriating uh one million and the revenues coming at 950,000, we don't have to cut back operations if we if we've carried over a little bit of revenue from this year to next year.

I don't know if I answered your well yes, you did.

And it doesn't it doesn't matter to me, it's purely a UN administration decision.

But I look I want to make sure we're clear there's not gonna be a million, likely not gonna be a million dollars in new fees generated.

I don't want No, no, no, no.

I'm saying uh of existing fee revenue will have to deposit it in the new fund.

But we have discretion.

I'm not gonna raise a million dollars in fees, probably but I just want to I don't want I just want to temper expectations there.

Thank you.

Uh agenda add-on items.

Other business announcements.

I I just have one.

Um council War I'll let a um a group meeting regarding some uh kind of regional parking issues um affecting some small businesses uh in the central corridor, uh Councillor Austin was there as well and a number of the stakeholders.

And I I thought that that was a very productive and and well-run meeting with uh a lot of um data.

So thank you, Council Well, for that.

Um after a few more meetings, you'll probably have something to report back to the group.

Yes.

Um anything else from anybody?

Just the uh pop-up to Wednesday in uh the Ashbrook neighborhood off of Shelburn.

Move to adjourn.