OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Rules and Public Policy Committee Meeting - November 25, 2025

City-County Council — Wednesday, November 26, 2025
BodyIndianapolis, Indiana
SessionCity-County Council
DateWednesday, November 26, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:01:30

Transcript — Verbatim
0:01

Good evening, everyone.

0:03

It is 5 30 p.m.

0:04

on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025.

0:07

Welcome to the Rules and Public Policy Committee meeting for the City County Council.

0:12

We're in the public assembly room.

0:14

We'll start our meeting this evening with uh introductions of our council in the first row, counselor leader Maori.

0:22

Thank you, Mr.

0:22

Chair.

0:23

Brian Mowray, District 25.

0:24

Thank you, Mr.

0:25

Chairman.

0:25

Paul and A, District 22.

0:27

Thank you, Mr.

0:28

Chair.

0:28

Allie Brown, District 10.

0:30

Thank you, Mr.

0:31

Chair Renee Allen, District 15.

0:33

Thank you, Chairman Andy Nielsen, District 14.

0:35

Maggie Lewis, District 5.

0:36

And I'm Lee Warrior Robinson, Chair of the Committee representing District 1.

0:40

We do have three items on agenda this evening.

0:43

And the first step is proposal 343, 2025, directs the rules and public policy committee to review and reprepare the report pertaining to the fiscal impact statement associated with the Marion County Public Defender Union Agreement with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local Union 481.

1:00

Who was speaking to this agenda will come forward, please and or state your name, please?

1:04

Hi.

1:05

Good evening.

1:05

My name is Jake McVay.

1:07

I'm deputy controller with the Office of Finance and Management.

1:11

Um proposal 343.

1:18

So as a reminder, municipal code section 291-6100.

1:23

Mr.

1:24

McBay, my going.

1:25

Is my microphone on?

1:26

It's on perfect.

1:27

Thank you.

1:32

So as a reminder, municipal code section 291-610 requires that the controller prepare and present a fiscal impact study before a union agreement can become fully effective and enforceable.

1:47

So negotiations with the union began last summer, and a tentative agreement was reached earlier this October, signed by both the union and the city.

1:57

This contract covers the attorneys and support staff of the public defender agency for uh fiscal years 2025 and 2026.

2:06

Uh salary adjustments for these employees were implemented as of the November 21st paycheck to be effective January 1st, 2025.

2:16

It was necessary to implement the contract when we did so that we can ensure the pay increases happened within this fiscal year.

2:31

So on this table uh shows the components of the contract that directly impact an employees paycheck that includes base salary uh seniority pay and the premium pay for certifications.

2:46

The union agreement sets base pay schedules for attorneys and support staff to be effective January 1st of this year, then a 3% increase to salaries as of January 1st, 2026.

3:01

This table breaks down the total pay components from the fiscal impact statement by attorney and support staff.

3:08

These numbers also include increases to PERF and other fringe benefits.

3:15

We used uh we based our calculations off of 223 current employees.

3:21

Uh that's 137 attorneys and 86 support staff.

3:25

The average increase for attorneys is 24.6 percent, and the average increase for support staff is 18.1%.

3:35

I do want to note that the total line from this table differs from the total line in the fiscal impact statement submitted to this committee.

3:44

Um, the difference is the estimated increases for student loan and professional fee reimbursements.

3:51

The student loan reimbursement uh in this contract mirrors the same reimbursement program offered by the prosecutor's office, and then this contract will also provide reimbursement for annual attorney, notary, social worker, uh, and interpreter registration licensing fees.

4:10

And then we base our estimates off of assumptions on which uh attorneys and support staff would be eligible for these reimbursements.

4:21

So, next I want to cover at a high level how we plan to fund this contract.

4:27

Um keep in mind that the financial proposals for this negotiation were tended tentatively agreed to based on projections of income and property tax growth prior to uh this year's legislative session and SEA 1.

4:44

So typically the full cost for the first year of a new new union contract is not included in the budget based on the timing of negotiations and budget development.

5:00

So OFM has addressed as addressed these first year union increases through uh fiscals at the end of the fiscal year.

5:07

So like the other new contracts that began January 1st of this year, the PDA's budget includes cost of living adjustments for these union positions, and this allowed OFM to get a portion of the funding into the budget.

5:22

The difference between the COLA and the contractual increases in 2025 is addressed in the year-end fiscal.

5:29

This was proposal 342 that was presented last Wednesday to the public safety and criminal justice committee.

5:53

So a portion of this contract is addressed through the budget and the cost of living adjustments.

5:59

The remaining costs will be funded by the 40% reimbursement, the public defender agency receives from the State Public Defender Commission and the uh and then the last component is the 2026 supplemental public safety income distribution, income tax distribution.

6:17

So at this point in time, OFM is confident that we will be able to fund these increases while affording or adhering to our own fund balance policies.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Alcohol Beverage Regulation█████████████████████████████████████████████48%
Public Engagement█████████████████████████27%
Procedural████████8%
Public Safety████████8%
Community Engagement█████5%
Budget Equity Analysis████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Rules and Public Policy Committee Meeting - November 25, 2025

The Rules and Public Policy Committee convened on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at 5:30 PM to review three agenda items. The committee addressed Proposal 343 regarding a fiscal impact statement for the Marion County Public Defender Union Agreement and heard detailed presentations from Councilor Andy Nielsen on Proposals 351 and 352, which establish a regulatory framework for and a specific designated outdoor refreshment area (DORA) in Irvington. The meeting concluded with amendments to the DORA proposals and unanimous approval to send both to the full council.

Consent Calendar

  • Proposal 343 (2025): The committee accepted the fiscal impact statement regarding the Marion County Public Defender Union Agreement with Local Union 481 without formal motion. Deputy Controller Jake McVay presented that the agreement covers fiscal years 2025 and 2026, providing an average salary increase of 24.6% for attorneys and 18.1% for support staff. Funding for the increases is secured through existing budget cost-of-living adjustments, a 40% reimbursement from the State Public Defender Commission, and 2026 supplemental income tax distributions.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Supportive Positions:

    • Business Owners and Representatives: Carrie Shea (reading for co-owner Jim Arnold), Derek Kendall, Carrie Yazelle (Dorrector of Irvington Halloween Festival), Lynne Carroll (Vice President of Irvington Development Organization), Kyla Thompson, and Neil Warner (owner of Strangebird) expressed full support. They argued the DORA would provide regulatory parity, streamline operations for events like Halloween and First Fridays, increase foot traffic, and that the neighborhood has a proven history of managing alcohol responsibly with no prior public intoxication issues. They emphasized trust in the local business community and cited the success of the Three-Way license precedent in Irvington.
    • Community Organizations: The Irvington Business Association, Historic Irvington Community Council, and Irvington Development Organization submitted letters of support, with representatives affirming they would not have advocated for the initiative without community trust.

  • Opposition and Concerns:

    • Timeliness and Notification: David Garriott, Reuben Flack, and Julie Slaughter argued the process was accelerated unfairly without adequate public notice or mailed flyers. They cited early November as the first time many residents were informed, contrasting this with zoning requirements for notices.
    • Safety and Enforcement: Reuben Flack and Julie Slaughter expressed strong opposition regarding crime and safety, noting existing neighborhood challenges including recent gunfire. They argued the proposal lacks a dedicated enforcement strategy, funding for IMPD officers, or a data-driven plan to mitigate risks. They described the DORA as lacking transparency and creating a "365-day unmanaged alcohol zone" if not properly restricted.
    • Scope and Impact: David Garriott and Julie Slaughter requested a 60-day delay to allow for proper community input and data collection regarding impact on property values and homeowners' insurance. Garriott specifically noted the original map included over 50% residential area, though he acknowledged the map was revised.
    • Dispute on Engagement: The committee noted a discrepancy between the Councilor's claim of 100% community support and the public comments. While Councilor Nielsen stated he received support from nearly 50 community leaders and 35 attendees at meetings (plus months of newsletter advertising), the public commenters asserted that most residents were unaware of the proposal until shortly before the meeting.

Discussion Items

  • Proposal 343 (Public Defender Contract): Deputy Controller McVay explained that the contract implements salary adjustments effective January 1, 2025 (retroactively applied to November payroll to align with the fiscal year), includes a 3% increase scheduled for January 1, 2026, and adds reimbursements for student loans and professional licensing fees. He clarified that the OFM budget currently covers a portion via COLA, with the remainder funded by state reimbursement and distribution.
  • Proposal 351 (DORA Framework): Councilor Nielsen presented the framework for all city DORAs. Key points included a limit of 16 oz beer, 12 oz wine, or 10 oz mixed drink per person in the public right-of-way; mandatory signage at exits and boundaries; prohibition on glass containers in the DORA (allowed in outdoor patios); and full cost coverage by the applicant. He emphasized no DORA is obligated to participate and that the goal is not a "bar crawl" scene.
  • Proposal 352 (Irvington DORA): Councilor Nielsen presented the specific location for the first Irvington DORA. The boundaries were narrowed from the original Halloween festival footprint to the specific business districts on Washington and Bona Avenues, connected by Audubon Road. He noted 46 other DORAs exist in Indiana and highlighted that the business community has committed to non-glass, non-plastic containers.
  • Amendments:
    • Amendment 1 to Proposal 351: Added language clarifying the applicant's responsibility for a sanitation plan and explicitly clarifying that glass containers are permitted in outdoor dining areas but not within the DORA itself.
    • Amendment 2 to Proposal 352: Updated the boundaries to reflect the revised map, updated signage language, corrected numbering errors, and formally codified the business community's commitment to using recyclable or compostable (non-glass, non-plastic, non-breakable) containers.

Key Outcomes

  • Votes:
    • Amendment to Proposal 351: Carried unanimously (7 Aye, 0 Nay).
    • Amendment to Proposal 352: Carried unanimously (7 Aye, 0 Nay).
    • Proposal 351: Passed as amended and recommended for full council approval (7 Aye, 0 Nay).
    • Proposal 352: Passed as amended and recommended for full council approval (7 Aye, 0 Nay).
  • Next Steps: Proposals 351 and 352 will be transmitted to the full City Council for consideration. Following council approval, the application will be submitted to the State Alcohol and Tobacco Commission (ATC). Upon ATC approval, the Department of Public Work will install signage and trash cans, and businesses will affix participation stickers to begin operations.
  • Directives: Councilor Nielsen expressed full commitment to accepting responsibility for the DORA's management and promised immediate action if safety issues arise.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. It is 5 30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 25th, 2025. Welcome to the Rules and Public Policy Committee meeting for the City County Council. We're in the public assembly room. We'll start our meeting this evening with uh introductions of our council in the first row, counselor leader Maori. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brian Mowray, District 25. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul and A, District 22. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Allie Brown, District 10. Thank you, Mr. Chair Renee Allen, District 15. Thank you, Chairman Andy Nielsen, District 14. Maggie Lewis, District 5. And I'm Lee Warrior Robinson, Chair of the Committee representing District 1. We do have three items on agenda this evening. And the first step is proposal 343, 2025, directs the rules and public policy committee to review and reprepare the report pertaining to the fiscal impact statement associated with the Marion County Public Defender Union Agreement with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local Union 481. Who was speaking to this agenda will come forward, please and or state your name, please? Hi. Good evening. My name is Jake McVay. I'm deputy controller with the Office of Finance and Management. Um proposal 343. So as a reminder, municipal code section 291-6100. Mr. McBay, my going. Is my microphone on? It's on perfect. Thank you. So as a reminder, municipal code section 291-610 requires that the controller prepare and present a fiscal impact study before a union agreement can become fully effective and enforceable. So negotiations with the union began last summer, and a tentative agreement was reached earlier this October, signed by both the union and the city. This contract covers the attorneys and support staff of the public defender agency for uh fiscal years 2025 and 2026. Uh salary adjustments for these employees were implemented as of the November 21st paycheck to be effective January 1st, 2025. It was necessary to implement the contract when we did so that we can ensure the pay increases happened within this fiscal year. So on this table uh shows the components of the contract that directly impact an employees paycheck that includes base salary uh seniority pay and the premium pay for certifications. The union agreement sets base pay schedules for attorneys and support staff to be effective January 1st of this year, then a 3% increase to salaries as of January 1st, 2026. This table breaks down the total pay components from the fiscal impact statement by attorney and support staff. These numbers also include increases to PERF and other fringe benefits. We used uh we based our calculations off of 223 current employees. Uh that's 137 attorneys and 86 support staff. The average increase for attorneys is 24.6 percent, and the average increase for support staff is 18.1%. I do want to note that the total line from this table differs from the total line in the fiscal impact statement submitted to this committee. Um, the difference is the estimated increases for student loan and professional fee reimbursements. The student loan reimbursement uh in this contract mirrors the same reimbursement program offered by the prosecutor's office, and then this contract will also provide reimbursement for annual attorney, notary, social worker, uh, and interpreter registration licensing fees. And then we base our estimates off of assumptions on which uh attorneys and support staff would be eligible for these reimbursements.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com