Hey, I'm doing well.

How are you?

I will now call to order the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee to order for Tuesday, September 23rd.

We'll begin with introductions of my colleagues on the first row.

Thank you, Madam Leader.

Derek Cahill, District 23.

Thank you, Madam Leader.

Michael Paul Hart, District 20.

Thank you, Madam Leader.

Brian Mowray, District 25.

Thank you, Madam Leader Brienne Delaney, District 2.

Ron Gibson, District 8.

Thank you, Madam Leader.

Kristen Jones, District 18.

Thank you, Madam Leader Nick Roberts, is your four.

Thank you, Madam Leader LeWar Robinson, District 1.

Thank you, Counselors.

My name is Maggie Lewis, District 5.

The first item on our agenda this evening is proposal number 239.

Madam Director.

Hi, uh Abby Brands, Director of BNS.

Um, so we brought this proposal before the body um, I want to say August 18th, whenever we introduced our budget proposal and we talked through it a bit and provided detail on that day.

We mentioned um that because we had to provide the information so early, there were still ongoing conversations with counselors and board members.

Um our board did unanimously pass um their portion of it on August 28th, but there were a few amendment items that um we'll be introducing this evening.

Thank you, Madam Director.

Other questions uh regarding the uh proposal, proposal two thirty-nine.

Counselor Delaney.

Could you clarify what you meant by you're gonna be showing us different fees?

Like where I'm I'm a little confused at what you're doing.

So um if you'll recall, there was kind of three groups about how the fees shook out, right?

So zoning was specific to ordinance, that was just for the counselor's purview.

Um drainage fees, stormwater fees, flood, uh right-of-way fees.

I know I'm missing something.

Uh those were specific to the board, and so they're not codified in ordinance, and then the third group were the predominantly building permit fees, and there was overlap where the board has jurisdiction over it, but at some time those were codified in ordinance as well, and so they had to be approved by both bodies.

So you guys are approving zoning and what the board has codified.

The board has approved their own kind of set of the other fees that aren't codified in ordinance and then has approved those building permit fees.

So I'm not there's uh we're bringing forward an amendment, which I'll discuss in greater detail.

Um, but not speaking to any other specific changes.

I just want to follow.

I don't want to start like jump the gun and start talking about and so what you're speaking to right now is the pro is just the portion of it.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, do you want either counselor Hart?

Yep, go ahead.

Take a seat.

All right, Madam Chair, members of the this committee.

I've got uh a motion to amend in front of you, um, not to supersede anything that uh director brands has, but uh just to add in addition to uh you've got that and you've got a letter uh in front of you as well from TEGs go.

And I just want to give you a little bit of context of why I'm bringing this amendment in front of you this evening.

So I I had the pleasure of working with Director Brands for a long time when I found out that the new tow facility uh for the police impound was coming to District 20 uh earlier this year.

So uh she and I worked together on that project, and um ultimately um I let her know that I'd like to meet with the organization who was gonna be operating there.

That way I could build a relationship with them.

So I went in uh and that's TEGSCO over here on the on the letter, and uh met with Frank who signed this letter down at the bottom, and just started talking about you know community and things of that nature, and just kind of put them in my my phone in case anything tow related come up, I would have uh a subject matter expert to go to.

Uh fast forward a few months, and then I started getting these emails about non-consensual tow.

And I had never heard about it, and I wanted to learn more.

So uh before responding to the person who was emailing me, uh, I actually reached out to Frank who's the individual who wrote this letter.

And we went and had lunch, and I said, Frank, tell me about this thing.

Uh we're getting this request at the council.

Is this a serious thing?

Do I need to pay attention to it?

Are they asking too much?

You know, what's going on with this?

And he said, No, no, no, here.

And he explained the situation to me and basically explain the history of why there is code in our municipal code uh for uh non-consensual tow and the separation between police impound tow, and a lot of that had to do with um predatory practices of um towing uh actually under Mayor Ballard.

And at that time uh the council was then put in charge of setting the the tow fees and a handful of other rules that put a lot of uh requirements under the non-consensual tow folks.

Um so with that, and and I was talking to Frank, and basically the request that was coming to me is that uh the folks who are operating non-consensual tow wanted to raise their rates because of a couple reasons.

Uh one that they hadn't been uh raised in uh 14 years after they've been originally set under uh the Ballard administration, and um they wanted to be they've had like everybody else, their rates go up, their costs go up, their salaries go up, the supplies go up, um, their cost of doing business has rised, uh, but the amount they charge to do their business uh has stayed the same.

And so that was the request.

And so I went back to Director Brands and and I started you know kind of floating some ideas past her.

Uh the first idea that I I floated around was tying it to uh the CPI and then getting us as a council out of the responsibility for having to come back and adjust this uh this tow fee pretty much at a time that was ever whenever it was going to happen.

I don't think it's something that we would ever want to necessarily have to go do.

So I was looking to tie it to something that was going to naturally increase over time.

And the CPI idea kind of faded away quickly, and it was suggested well, um, and it wasn't necessarily from Director Brands, but the suggestion that may have came from one of the the tow operators, or it may have came from Frank, I can't remember.

But uh the fact of the matter is the the idea is what the amendment is, right?

That we tie uh the fee rate that is in our municipal code for non-consensual towing, we tie it to the same rate that we have for the police impound uh towing fees, uh, which is at this rate 180 dollars currently for the tow fee and $30 for the storage.

Uh the amendment also then indicates that any time the tow contract is updated, that the fees for the non-consensual tow would be updated as well, thus alleviating the council from ever having to come back uh and and raise these rates.

They are tied to something that uh essentially BNS has responsibility for raising.

So uh unbeknownst to me, I didn't find out about this letter until this afternoon, or would I shared it with you sooner, uh, but Frank called me when he found out that there was uh an amendment that I was making and wrote this letter, and there's just a few highlights in it.

Um I know it's you can't read it all right now, but um he's essentially saying in this letter that uh rates do need to go up, that TESCO does operate in all the the national brands Chicago, Nashville, Memphis, Dallas, San Francisco, and that the fees that are being suggested that match the uh IMPD tow are are at the top of a bell curve or essentially at the the national average uh and that at the bottom here he writes that it's vital for cities to have a strong, fully trained, fully equipped, fully insured, fully available tow network in order to keep uh roads clear and safe and people and officers stay safe by clearing the tow sites quickly, thus reducing secondary accidents.

So ultimately, um the organization that's running our police uh impound and that's been selected by the city of Indianapolis is uh supportive of this.

Um I uh and I don't want to put um any words in director brand's mouth and 100% you know up to the chairwoman if she wants her to speak, but uh I don't think there was any necessarily any objection there uh on on tying it to this rate.

And so I've got this proposal in front of you uh this evening that you see everything underlined in yellow, which does exactly what I mentioned.

It ties the non-consensual tow fees and only touches the fees to what the rate is in uh the contract that BNS set up earlier this year uh or renewed earlier this year, and uh those dollar amounts were there named, and then uh there is a strike through line, uh and that's really just to make sure that there's no duplicative and and how the updates are made.

Uh the strike through line is that the license administrator uh may review or adjust the fee limitations provided in the section by the promulgation of the regulation.

Essentially uh removing that uh make sure that the contract value stays as what's going to set the the fees, uh that they're not arbitrarily changed up or down by an administrator and BNS.

And so uh with that uh Madam Chair, uh ISO move.

The motion may properly move in second.

Are there comments or questions regarding the amendment?

Councilor Gibson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I guess um we're in a season where where we uh inflation is everywhere, and and I've had conversations as well, and and and it indicated clearly that I didn't believe was the appropriate time to increase uh toll fees uh primarily on on those who are probably in distress to begin with, uh, and maybe can't even afford the 150 dollars.

So I I'm not so sure this is the right timing to increase fees now on the public in terms of toll fees, and I would encourage my cli uh my colleagues to to vote against it.

Additional comments, counselor Hart.

Yeah, you know, Madam Chair, and that's precisely why I'm trying to tie this to uh something that uh ultimately is what the city is already negotiated as an acceptable rate.

Um there's never going to be a good time for us to do this as a council.

It's never gonna be uh a time that that we're gonna be want to go out there and adjust it.

What makes this time unique is that we are we are literally here talking about changing fees uh for zoning and permitting, and we're adjusting fees today.

So of all the times that it makes it most fitting is now.

And then and the folks that are gonna be charged.

I mean, um a lot of the times it's been explained to me that these are are stolen vehicles, and it's even in this letter that many of the times the the recovery are are stolen vehicles or vehicles that are just dropped off in these locations.

And there's a long process that these folks have to go through.

Uh they have to actually go into the the property owner's facility, get their permission, wait, I think 96 hours or longer before they come back and get an approval.

They don't just go in there and snag them.

So there's um there's process and procedure that's in the the larger section of this code that that makes it acceptable.

But but based on the fact that we're updating fees for other things right now, this is the most appropriate time we're probably ever gonna see.

Counselor Gibson and Councillor Delaney.

Well, the fees that we increase in for the city, those fees actually benefit the people of Indianapolis.

The fees that you're proposing for to increase on the tolls and benefit a particular company.

And I don't see how it's reasonable to put that burden on the people of Indianapolis.

And when most of again, most people getting their car tolled are probably pretty distressed to begin with.

And uh making it even more difficult to get their only means of transportation doesn't seem like it'd be reasonable in my opinion.

I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

Counselor Delaney.

Um I have two questions.

One was could I I read the letter while you were talking about introducing your amendment and given um my colleague's comment saying that the fees are going to the companies.

I I get my initial question for you was can you summarize why we need to do this?

It but getting his comment, what I'm getting is that we need to do it because the companies want to make sure that they're able to as they put in here, keeping the fees fair to ensure the citizens' vehicles are being properly maintained by an insured um by insured tow trucks and the drivers are trained.

Um is that why we're doing that?

I I don't know.

If could you explain that a little bit more?

Yeah, what was compelling to me is that one, the opportunity of the time, timing was was was just opportune that we're already adjusting fees, but secondly, why we're doing it for them is um you know, as a small business owner myself, right?

You know, I've been in the hair business which seen the 17 years, we've owned a business eight years.

Um if we're unable to increase um our cost over that eight year period of time, uh the people that work for me won't have a job, right?

And some of these people that are here today are folks that work for these companies that um are real everyday people that their jobs depend on on this just as much.

Um and the bigger and the other piece of it is that you know I I don't need to believe that we as a council should be setting fees, period.

Uh and I think that the most fair way to accomplish uh making sure that these are adjusted in some fashion is tying them to something that uh is regularly adjusted, which is the tow uh contract with the the police impound that BNS set, right?

That the mayor's office set.

So you know, all those things combined uh are the reasons why uh we're doing this, and they're at year 14.

If we keep kicking the can and we get to year 20, I mean we're affecting real people's lives, and this is on both sides, right?

It's it's the folks that get towed, but it's also the people that work there.

These are this is uh a service that you know it's something that has to be done in the city, and you know, we have the burden of responsibility right now, but right now we can have we have the opportunity to where the timing is right to tie it to something that is going to be updated periodically and make sure that the system um operates more smoothly.

Councilor Delaney, did you have a second question?

I did.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

I am interested in knowing from the director if she's still here, why these were not included in the big package of fee increases.

Thank you.

Yeah, happy to explain.

Um so there's for to simplify to oversimplify for the sake of time, there's three kinds of toes, right?

So there's non-consensual and consensual, and the non-consensual bucket, you would have city tows, right?

Abandoned vehicles, IMPD tows, things like that.

You would also have these non-consensual toes, and then you have consensual toes, which are like my car is broke down in front of my house.

Please come get it and take it to a mechanic.

These non-consensual private property toes, what they are are like you've parked at a Qdoba overnight and they call in and they say tow this car out of my parking lot, or you're parked in a um apartment complex and you don't have the right tags.

So they have contracts with several companies where they'll come and have them towed.

These fees are not fees that I assess.

They are not fees that I collect, they are not penalties I assess or collect.

These are specific uh regulatory fees to ensure that um these companies are charging the same across the board and a um lower amount, I would I would say.

Um so they were set by council in order to regulate this industry, they are not specific to my fees or what we do.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh leader Maori.

Thank you, Madam Leader.

Uh I find this this proposal interesting because I think we've had a lot of conversation lately of parity and pay with the prosecutor's office and the public defender.

And to me, this proposal seems to put the towing agent, the towing companies in parity with what we're paying the IMPD contract, and then it sets it to a point where we don't have to reconsider this again because then whenever I PD goes up or down, uh this contract does the same, and it's it keeps in parity with IMPD.

You know, I I would argue too that while we are we are considering raising fees for other things for BNS, I would argue that I don't believe that actually helps any of the citizens because I would think it increases their ultimate costs in the the be able to build a home or you know make a make changes to their home.

However, that that is something we have considered is needed because we are so far behind in how long it's been since we've updated these fees.

Uh I look forward to hearing from some of the folks here tonight about the fee adjustments because I you know we we've set these fees, and I you know, I don't I wasn't a part of the obviously the conversation of what what number we land on, but you know, I think there is a there is room for improvement in our fees because we we've for far too long haven't addressed this, and uh this could just be another thing that gets kicked down the down the road with these towing fees is but and we can uh we can avoid that through this proposal by putting it in parity and tying it with IMPD, and then that way we don't have to come back to this ever again.

So I would encourage us to be in support of this tonight.

That way we know we can show that we're we're doing the right thing.

And I'm also curious too of if we have anybody here, maybe counselor Hart, you know, but what are some of the cities around us charging for these non-consensual tows, or is that or do they have it tied to their police contracts, or how does that work?

We're we're gonna uh move forward with the public testimony, and then if there's someone that can speak to that when they come forward, then we'll do that, or if someone from the city would like to respond to that question.

But at this point, uh Madam Clerk, if you would read your statement and then open the floor up for comments regarding the amendment on the floor.

Thank you, madam chair.

Before we open to the public, before we open the floor to public comments, we would like to remind committee members and the public of a few ground rules.

So everyone can have a fair chance to speak and be heard.

It is important that we each observe the following rules.

First, each speaker will be limited to two minutes.

Second, any public comments must reasonably relate to the agenda item under consideration.

Third, speakers who stray from the item under consideration or become unduly repetitious, may be asked to move on to their next point or conclude their comments.

Finally, attendees who cause disruptions that prevent the committee from proceeding through tonight's agenda in a reasonably efficient manner will be removed.

Please remember that some types of threatening speech or incitement to violence are not protected by the first amendment at all.

We will deal with those issues if they come up, but we don't think they will.

And now, madam chair, if a committee member asks for consent to adopt these rules, we can proceed to public comments.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

If you would read the first couple of names, and then again if there's someone that will that speak that can respond to Leader Maori's question, that would be great.

Thank you.

We have one name, John Kiss Kissel.

Yes, but I I've done proposal 239, which is not this on the amendment.

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to the amendment on the floor?

We'll come back to you, Mr.

John.

Is anyone wishes to speak to the amendment that is on the floor?

I would like to come forward here and just state your name.

And again, if there's anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak to the amendment on the floor, feel free to make your way to the front.

Good evening.

My name is J.R.

Cook.

I own Cook's Towing Service in Indianapolis.

Um and some of what's not being discussed, I guess, is the cost of well, obviously the cost of our equipment insurance in the past 14 years, you know, since COVID, you know, everybody knows the cost of labor went through the roof.

And to for us to keep up with it, we our guys is probably almost making double what they made.

Uh non-consensual tows isn't my only business.

I do other work, but I almost would like to say it's the losing side of my business because I I have to have auctions to get rid of the salvage that no one picks up.

You know, we we pick these cars up.

A lot of them's not worth, you know, we have salvage buyers, of course, buying, but it doesn't cover the cost of what we do.

We put signs up or required to do.

Uh we tag we try to help clean the city up.

Um, but that again, that's not the only part of my business, but I would like to say at this point, without an increase, it is the losing part, but I'd like to continue paying.

I've had to pay more to my drivers, my dispatchers since COVID.

Um and equipment costs is ridiculous.

And of course, the insurance just chases it.

Um I would like to see y'all vote to get us an increase, at least match with auto return or the new company.

I guess it's took over out of return, the city's toes.

I'd appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else interested in speaking on the amendment on the floor?

Good evening.

Yes, Ms.

Uh, my name is Cindy King.

Um, I am one of the owners of Indy Towing Service Inc., DBA Pro Tow.

Uh, we have been in business 47 years, and we have done the non-consensual towing for the last uh we're in our 13th year.

Um the price, the price of everything is JR stated has gone up.

I pay more for my trucks.

I try to keep new equipment out there.

I pay more insurance, more in gas, obviously.

Those of you that have your own business, you know those prices, those all of those expenses are up.

And yet non-consensual towing is probably 95% of our business.

I employ 30 people at 30th and Fall Creek, and several of them, my key people are here with me tonight.

This amendment would directly impact their lives, and it would help me to uh ensure that my business continues and I'm able to reinvest in it.

And we are 47 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Additional comments from anyone in the audience, yes, ma'am.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name's Amber.

I'm with JR Services and Recovery.

Um, I I also wanted to point out that we're required to send letters out to every impound that comes into our lot.

The price of the the post stamps and to do ADD as required to send out these notifications to the owner, letting them know that we have possession of the vehicle, that the vehicle will be gone to auction if they don't pick it up.

Saying that we're going to get a price increase, whether it's the records that we're pulling is going to be increased on what they're charging us for per record, or whether the letters that we're sending out is going to be increased per letter that we send out.

So that's also affecting us as well.

So if we were able to tie the rates in with IMPD, it would help us out a lot on the rates that we are required to do by the state.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Hello, everybody, how are you?

My name is James.

I own Last Chance Wrecker.

We've done a lot of work, you know, with the city for a lot of years.

My quick point to it is yes, we do need an increase.

Realistically, it's only $30.

It's not a huge dollar.

But for those of us that do a larger volume in this, such as Indy Towing does, and the expenses that they have, we're trying to help fight for those particular reasons.

We all have a niche in the things that we do.

We're not asking for catastrophic dollars when all of our fees are constantly going up three and fourfold.

So in a fairness, I also can't speak on any other state.

I've not heard if we are in line with Cincinnati or Chicago or anything like that.

Um, but it is definitely a fee that would help offset some of the costs that we're all fighting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Peter Maori.

I just want to make sure uh on my question it was clear that I wasn't necessarily referencing like Chicago or Cincinnati or Columbus, Ohio.

I was talking more if any of you folks do for anything for like Greenwood, Fishers, um, Shelbyville, anywhere around the kind of the donut area here, if we have any experience there with their fees look like.

I guess I could um just come for it.

Just we we've been doing this for like eight years trying to make some headway, and um uh probably five years ago.

Um Charles Ask you sent me some information, and I did get on the phone and call.

And um it's I don't know if in some of the cities, and it uh it well when you uh Carmel Fishers, I believe they their prices are very their police tow prices, um, are very similar to auto return.

Um their non-consensual is 200.

What I do in Marion County for 150.

Um a lot of surrounding counties do not have a non-consensual ordinance, so it's so it's kind of I do the 150 or the 200, depending on how far away it is for us and the gas that it takes and the time that my driver has to spend to go there further.

Um when you get into the bigger cities, so it's not really like Greenfield and Southport because they don't have non-consensuals, and if they do that, well they don't, the ones I've checked.

Um, and if they do like Carmel, it's 200.

Um, but the larger cities, I went Cincinnati, Chicago, I think I did um Springfield, Illinois.

They tend to, it's all one thing.

Their city tower does this towing.

Okay, so it's not like they have a whole nother ordinance or uh towers who do it.

The towers that I would call, yes, we do the city towing, and I said, Well, what about private properties?

Yeah, we do that too.

Well, what do you charge?

The same.

So sometimes they were a little annoyed with me, but I was really trying to dig, and there wasn't a lot of information that you know.

I told them who I was, what I did, where I was located, and they're like, Yeah, no, it's all the same.

Just like, okay, is that answer your question?

So, and all those rates were up and down, but the toe might be 124, but the storage might be 50.

The tow might be 175, the storage might be 25.

So they were pricing it, you know, the storage would be automatic where I have to wait 24 hours in Marion County.

So I did my the research I could as best I could on what they were willing to share.

And it just didn't seem like outside of Indianapolis, there was even a non-consensual ordinance that anyone could share with me, send to me, or use in my with my question.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Counselor Delaney.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I think this question is probably for Council Pierce.

As I read the amendment, um, it states there's an actual value, so it says the 180 dollars.

To me, the the way I read that, that negates the tie to the IMPD amount, the way it's read.

Uh and the way I'm reading it, I would say okay, it has to stay at 180 because we're saying almost saying because that's IMPD, and I don't read it as tying it to IMPD.

So I think in Councilor Hart, correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that the numbers came from the IMPD contract.

So the 180 and the 40 came from the new contract.

But that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying this says 180 as established under the police ordered contract.

It doesn't say the maximum fee shall be equal to the amount established under the city's towing contract.

It just says we're setting it as 180 because it's in the towing contract, not we want it to stay flush with IMPD.

No.

I counselor Hart.

Yeah, Counselor Delaney, Councilor, uh, Madam Chair.

Um the next sentence says any subsequent adjustment to such contracted maximum towing fee will automatically apply to the maximum permitted under this subsection.

So I mean that the second sentence is what updates is.

Okay.

I just respectfully disagree.

So thank you, though.

Thank you, Councillor.

Counselor Cahill.

Thank you, madam chair.

The uh could we get clarification?

There was a comment made about uh the salvage situation, just how the math works on that.

So if if a car goes to salvage is and the rate moves, is I I guess what I'm trying to understand is somebody comes in the cargoes to auction.

Is the person buying it getting just a better deal because the money stays in their pocket versus the tow company?

How does that work?

So, counselor, that's a a great question.

Unless there's like one speaker or somebody from maybe the city, I I don't want us to do a QA with the individuals in the in the audience, right?

And so I'm not sure if there's a industry rep that could speak to your questions.

Again, this is one of the reasons why I requested that we not have this amendment tonight because we haven't had an opportunity to socialize it.

We haven't had the opportunity to ask the industry experts their thoughts on this, and so again, without having adequate time to have these conversations.

I'm concerned that depending on who comes up to the mic, what the response is, and I don't want to hold them to uh answer that may or may not be uh what the rest of their colleagues agree on.

Like I just don't want to set folks up like that tonight.

So again, if there's someone that maybe can speak for the industry standards, or if somebody from the city can.

Again, I don't want yeah, yes, sir.

And again, just briefly, so briefly.

Again, hi folks.

We won't hold you to Tony with Hannah's record service.

And I am in the scrap recycling business as well.

Um, you're asking about the uh salvage vehicles, average car uh after they go through auction, which is roughly 45 days, the car would be worth somewhere around 400 right now.

Thank you.

Is that answer counselor does that?

I'm sorry.

Yeah, thank you.

Yep.

Leader Maury.

Thank you, madam chair.

I uh I understand Councillor Delaney's um hesitation on the where it says 180 because it I could see where it gets a little confusing as to that seems like it's setting a dollar amount that would be then set in ordinance.

Then I also understand where then adjust the contract to say it shall automatically update.

Um I I do want to say thank you to the lady that stepped up to answer my question too.

And it sounds to me like for the cities that do have the non-consensual, like Carmel you mentioned, uh it sounds like we're still gonna be under that that dollar amount and it's still be reasonable and then also in parity with IMPD.

Uh it sounds like we're still gonna be under that that dollar amount and still be reasonable and then also in parity with IMPD.

So I'm open to suggestions on it, but I I think that uh I would like to follow Councillor Hart's lead on this, and uh if we do go through with a vote, I certainly would uh vote for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leader Maori.

So there's a the motion been properly moved and seconded.

Second, all those in favor of the amendment on the floor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign.

No, no.

The motion fails.

Um at this point, I would ask uh Madam Director if she would come up and walk us through her amendment.

All right, thank you, madam chair.

Um, as I mentioned, the uh amendment that I bring forward tonight uh was specific to conversations both with board members and with counselors.

Um excuse me, sorry.

Um so I will just uh walk through kind of section by section here.

It's just a couple things.

Um the first is specific to accelerated plan review fees.

Um so we wanted to take this opportunity to have a broader conversation about this topic.

Um and our board agreed that there needed to be more thought put into how we communicate this service and the expectations we set.

Uh only one of the accelerated review fees is actually codified in ordinance, the others live elsewhere.

And so the board's intent would be to uh strike this and to build out a comprehensive policy that covers all accelerated review fees.

Um we're talking about maybe applying a different framework, so it's accelerated for a certain amount amount of time if it's a 50-story hotel versus a Costco, that kind of thing.

Um so the intent is a policy would be drafted before the end of the year that would build out a better framework.

We're gonna renegotiate the third party contracts next spring, and so that will also help inform a new set of accelerated review timelines with our vendors, and so the board would then bring uh a revised policy after those contracts are set.

So it seems like a simple strike, but it's actually a much more involved process to make sure we get to a much more um realistic fee and something that people that makes sense as far as expectations go.

The next thing is related to accelerated inspections.

So, as I mentioned, um as I mentioned previously, we are not touching accelerated inspections for residential, these are specific to commercial, and in talking to board members about it, um they felt like this was a good start in capturing um the disruption that can be led from accelerated inspection requests, um, but it didn't fully qualify the difference and the breadth.

So, as I you know, my earlier example, a accelerated inspection of a Costco is gonna be very different than an accelerated inspection of a very large hotel.

And so adding this um qualifier for hours ensures that there is an average amount for an average inspection, but for those that are truly um disrupting an inspector's schedule, potentially a supervisor schedule, etc.

We're capturing that with an hourly rate.

The third change is building permit fees for local nonprofit affordable housing projects.

Um this is related to our nonprofit partners.

Affordable housing across Marion County is a focus of not only of this administration but also this council body.

And our CDC partners are doing monumental work to help fill those gaps.

And so there's already carve outs for nonprofits when it comes to ILP zoning permits, and so this is um mirroring the language that is elsewhere in the ordinance and the policy piece allows us to have a little bit of flexibility to make sure we aren't creating loopholes and that we're also identifying everybody who should receive this kind of benefit.

Um and then the final change is the easiest one.

Um it is uh making sure that we that these go into effect January 1st.

I think in a panic of making sure I got all of the other numbers right, I missed the date.

So just making sure that it goes effect then.

Thank you so much, and thank you for walking us through that.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh, can someone make a motion?

Counselor Jones.

Thank you, madam leader.

I move to amend proposal number 239, 2025 by deleting the language in section one that is double stricken through, adding the double line and changing the effective date to January 1st, 2026.

And madam leader, I still move second.

The motion are probably moved and second.

Questions, comments regarding the amendment on the floor.

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to the amendment on the floor?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Those opposed, same sign.

The motion carries.

Any other uh comments regarding proposal number two thirty-nine?

CNN, I entertain a motion on the proposal as amended.

Is there a second?

Motion been probably moved and second.

Sorry, I'm sorry.

I think there was someone from the audience that wanted to speak to this question.

I thought I said that, but oh I yeah, I'm sure I said that, but come on.

I didn't know if the director was willing to speak first.

It's all good, Mr.

John Fireway Floyd or Speaker.

Okay.

Uh Madam Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your time today and give me a chance to speak about proposal 239.

My name is John Kissle, and I represent the 550 companies who are members of the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis baggy.

Uh the department is the department is proposing a increase in fees uh for a two 2500 square foot house, for instance, um going from 400 uh from 434 dollars to approximately uh the 1,050 dollars or about 150 42 percent increase.

I'd like to walk you through who would be impacted by this, just so you get a sense.

Um, some facts about home building.

Forty percent of new homes are purchased by first-time home buyers.

Uh for each thousand dollars, the price of a home increases 550 working families will lose their ability to buy a home in the market.

In this instance, this will be result in approximately 350 working families in Marion County losing their ability to buy a home.

The term we use is priced out of the market.

Regulatory requirements add approximately 25 percent so the price of a new a new single family home, and this proposal will increase that burden.

Um in response to increasing fees, builders are building smaller, they're building on smaller lots, just finding ways to try to meet the the demand and the needs of of the public at this point in time at a time when high housing and access accessibility and affordability are a front of mind for officials and leaders.

This increase sends the wrong message to families both hoping to buy a home and those looking to move to our area.

It is difficult to understand why some for our members to understand why some fees unrelated to home building with much larger spread differences between the current fee and the actual cost are not being increased.

That was quick two minutes.

It really is.

You can see another few more seconds in terms of the example an event um an event an event permit for 2500 people has current cost of 268 dollars.

According to the study, it would cost 10,306 dollars.

Um the anal states that any fees that are put forward have to have a rational relationship between the fee and the service provided.

In this instance, we're not sure how this how that jives with anything.

We don't deny what the that the what the what the that there is a need for a fee increase.

We see that as a possibility.

We recognize that as the as the the um as the director has said in media that these fee increases are not consistent with other communities.

However, this is that was a conscious decision of people before us in this uh either in council or in other decision makers.

Um in conclusion, I guess uh the benefits of housing, neighborhood stability, jobs, increased taxes, all contribute to and make a vibrant community possible.

These type of regulatory barrier barriers will limit future development by reducing the pool of working families who will qualify to buy a home.

The end of the day, if it's reasonable for us to talk as is it reasonable for us to talk as community about the critical need to increase housing accessibility and affordability while simultaneous, considering both a large increase in the resident for residential site and for the for rental properties.

Increasing the inventory of new single family and multifamily housing is important.

Um bagging is 550 members, member companies do not and cannot support any proposal that increases fees for single family homes and rental properties.

These increases negatively impact the ability of working families to buy a new home and find a reasonably priced rental.

Thank you for your time and service.

Thank you.

Again, I apologize if I rush the the audience.

If there's anyone else that would like to speak to the proposal on the floor, here's your opportunity to do so.

Okay.

So there is a motion and a second.

It was it was second.

There's a motion and second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Those opposed, same sign.

The motion carries.

The next item on our agenda is a review and of the of the 2026 um, I take that back of the 2026 budget.

Madam CFO, are you sharing any information regarding the review?

Or is there the controller here?

Wow.

The deputy controller is here.

Okay.

Deputy controller.

Any question, Councilor, regarding our portion of the Metropolitan and Development uh portion of the budget?

Questions for the Deputy Controller.

Yeah, Councilor Gibson.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair.

No question.

I believe that the budget is uh reasonable and in line and encourage us to support it.

Additional questions, comments regarding the Metropolitan Development portion of the 2026 budget.

Is there anyone in the audience?

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to proposal number 259?

Again, it adopts the annual budget of the city of Indianapolis, Marion County, the Metropolitan Development Committee portion only.

Questions, comments, questions, comments from counselors.

Seeing that I entertain a motion.

Councilor Roberts.

Madam Chair, move you send proposal 259 to the full council to do pass recommendation.

The motion been properly moved and second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, same sign.

The motion carries.

Seeing no other business before this committee, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

So the hope is more than a summit.

We are adjourned.