I put it right there.

That's what I heard.

That's where the music is.

Because I was there uh last week.

I did a call with I told him the developer.

Okay.

The playground park next to the store next to the area.

And then there's another $50,000 per year.

What's a non-profit?

And I don't know.

So I felt so bad after I guess it's like a little bit of a little bit of a lot of going on.

Oh, I can't say that.

Or uh, please, we've been legacy now.

Yeah, one data center.

Yeah, I'll be thankful.

Okay, the microphones are live.

Oh, you get to see you.

Good evening.

And welcome to our public works committee for June 11th, 2026.

And thank you to Pike Township for allowing us to come to your township and for Annette Johnson and the Pike Township Board for allowing us to crash into your uh your area.

We appreciate us for graciously welcoming us into your building.

We will begin with introductions of counselors to my left.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Um the honor is mine.

I am counselor Christa Wells, and I represent District 11, just south of here on the far west side.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Nick Roberts, District 4.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Ron Gibson, District 8.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Josh Bain, District 21.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Derek Cahill, District 23.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Mike Bill, District 24.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Brian Mowray, District 25.

Thank you, Madam Chair Jones and Boots, District 3, Washington Lawrence Townships.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Anything else in District 14.

And we have a few guest counselors that I would like to recognize as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Dr.

Carlos Perkins.

Welcome to my district.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We may have District 15.

Thank you.

And I am Kristen Jones, uh representing District 18.

Oh my goodness, where we have one more.

He's hiding, he's supposed to be in our road.

I have a slip out early.

I want to be non-disruptive, which I am not achieved.

And John Barth, our vice president of our council, as well.

Thank you so much.

I want to take care of a little bit of housekeeping before we start tonight for our committee meeting.

We will accept public comment on proposal 191 and 192.

But if you have come here tonight to make a comment or submit a request for a city concern or an issue, we have some staff who have clipboards that have name, address, phone, email, and a concern.

They will be happy to pass those around.

You can fill those out, and I personally will submit those to the mayor's action center for you tomorrow.

And I cannot guarantee a solution or resolution for you, but I will give you my word that I will advocate on your behalf and submit those to you since that you came out to our committee meeting this evening, and we're very happy that you're here.

But if that is the reason that you're here, I don't want you to have to sit through proposal 191 and 192.

As you can see, we have a crowd and it can be quite lengthy.

So if you if that's something that you want to do, just feel free to put your hand up.

One of our staff, our great staff members will come by, get the clipboard, you can fill it out, and you can get it back to them, and I will be more than happy to submit that on your behalf.

And somebody will contact you.

So thank you very much for being here this evening.

So with that, we will begin proposal number one ninety one, 2026, with the which authorizes the city acting through the Metropolitan Thoroughfare District of Marin County, a special taxing district, existing pursuant to IC 36-9-6.5 to issue a refunding bonds and the amount not to seed 1,021,000 15,000 to refund any portion of the district's outstanding Indy Roads Metropolitan Thoroughfare District Refund Bonds.

Series 2020 Fond B.

And approves and authorize other actions in restrospect there too.

And that was a mouthful.

So we have our expert here to explain what that is going to mean to us.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Joe Glass.

I'm the executive director and general counsel of the Indianapolis Bond Bank.

Okay, didn't you realize we were looking there?

Okay, so the proposal before you tonight, suppose 191, as the chair said, authorizes the issuance of bonds of the Metropolitan Therapy District in an amount up to 121.015 million dollars to refund existing uh Indy Roads debt.

Uh to provide a little bit of background.

Um, back in uh October of 2023, uh this committee endorsed at DPW's uh five-year capital plan, which called for the issuance of uh 90 million dollars uh to finance uh capital uh street infrastructure projects in May of 2024.

Uh the council um approved that 90 million dollar bond issuance.

We issued us um 50 million dollars in June of 20 uh 24 uh for projects um in that year and in 2025, and this uh year we plan to issue uh the final tranche of that 90 million uh 40 million dollars for capital projects um as laid out in uh TPW's capital improvement plan.

Uh that 40 million dollar bond issuance has already been approved.

Um but tonight we are here uh to discuss uh the proposed refunding bonds.

So the bonds uh would not uh under the resolution they would um not exceed 30 years, but they actually would uh the term of the bonds would not change, so um they were issued in 2020, so they would still um expire in 2040.

Uh the interest rate would not exceed seven uh seven percent, and we estimate um uh present value savings of about 1.9 million dollars.

So these this refunding is a little different.

Usually, when we refund bonds, they are callable under the bond adventure, and that's usually about after a 10-year period.

Uh these bonds are issued in 2020.

Obviously, it's only six years later.

Um, so this is what's called the tender refunding where we actually buy back individually from bondholders.

Um the circumstances in which this is beneficial is when um the we can get a discount at uh the price that the bonds were sold, but they're actually uh and we can pay a little more than what they're trading on the secondary market.

And so these bonds were issued in 2020, which um you know was in the wake of COVID, interest rates were very low, um, and so it's a situation where um we can save money and also provide savings to bondholders.

Um if 30 percent of uh uh if 30 percent of the outstanding 2020 bonds are tendered, um, we could receive uh uh savings of about 1.9 million dollars.

Um that is about a 5% savings, and it's the policy of the bond bank in the city to refinance when you can um achieve a savings of three percent.

So this is in line with uh the policy of the bond bank.

So the timeline we um went before the Board of Public Works uh yesterday um and held uh two public hearings obviously before you tonight.

Um plan to go before the full council at the July meeting, and we'll uh make our final stop at the bond bank board on July 20th, and then we plan to price and close in August.

Um, our uh bond counsel um Colin Cochran uh from Bozeman Kitty Nodes is here.

Um, our financial advisor is Sycamore Advisors, still working on an underwriter, but our trustee will be uh U.S.

Bank.

Happy to answer any questions of the committee.

Thank you, sir.

Any comments, questions from counselors?

Councilor Cahill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh thank you, Director.

Uh I've seen this uh coming up uh recently in some other local units.

So I think Hamilton County did something similar two weeks ago.

Is this our only uh bond or group of bonds under uh the Indianapolis uh bond bank?

Or is this part of we're we're gonna see several of these because of the shift in rates?

Is there more savings to come?

Yeah, so this is the first tender refunding that that we've done since I've been here, and I'm not sure if the bond bank had done it previously.

Um it's possible there could be other opportunities, and um, you know, we that's something that we monitor.

Um so uh we don't have any any set plans to do another tender refunding at this point, but it's it's certainly possible.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, thank you, Director, for your detailed report.

Um, on the 1.9 million dollar uh current estimated savings.

How's the current financial market impact that potentially?

I mean, is that certain or it could be jeopardized?

So it depends on when we end up pricing, you know, what the outstanding bonds are trading on the secondary market.

So if the value of those bonds goes up, um we it could be less if the five if the value of the bonds goes down, it could be more.

If we end up in a situation where we couldn't meet our three percent threshold, we just wouldn't go forward with the with the refunding.

Thank you.

Any other comments, questions from counselors?

Madam Clerk, anyone signed up to speak on proposal number 191?

Anyone in the public wishes to speak on proposal 1916?

Okay, I'll accept a motion.

So, Madam Chair, thank you.

It's been moved.

I'll accept a second.

It's been moved and seconded to send proposal number 191 2026 to the full council with the due pass recommendation.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Toast say nay.

The ayes have it.

Thank you very much.

Next up is proposal number 192 2026, which revises certain provisions of chapter 121 of the code to amend the counties excise and wheel taxes to add a new division entitled State and Local Road Funding.

Proposal number 192 is not up for a vote, but a presentation only.

An assistant majority leader Andy Nielsen will be leading us through this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And our I'm sorry, yeah.

Sorry, one more thing.

And our Madam CFO, uh, Candace.

And I would like to give our president Maggie Lewis a few moments before we begin.

Thank you, Madam Whipping.

Good evening, everyone.

I know I shouldn't do uh shout outs, but I'm gonna go ahead and attempt to acknowledge some very important people in our space today.

Um, starting with former trustee Lua Patton.

Thank you, Ms.

Patton, for being here uh this evening.

Our president and vice president at DPW.

Thank you all for being here and all the hard work that you do.

Pardon me each and every day.

Uh Mr.

President, if you want to wave so the people who see you of DPW, thank you for everything that you do for our community.

Also, I would like to acknowledge Pike Township board members.

If you would like to stand up, I saw Ms.

Perkins.

Yep, stand up so people can see y'all.

Thank you, thank you.

Ms.

Peterson, thank you.

And then finally, not certainly not least, uh, Madam Trustee Annette Johnson.

If you would like to rise, thank you so much for hosting us this evening.

And again, thank you to all of you for being here.

I do want to say a special thank you to our CFO, our chief of staff, um, for all of your efforts of getting us here, all the council staff for all of your efforts of getting us to this point today.

I also would like to thank the council leadership for their efforts, uh, Vice President Barth, who you saw stand up earlier, waved earlier, leader Evans, Majority Whip Jones, Assistant Leader Nielsen, who you will hear from today.

He has done a deep dive into this topic and looked at the numbers and can speak to all the options when it comes to this uh this potential tax increase.

So thank you, uh assistant leader Nielsen.

Also, thank you to the 13 members of the council who have signed on as sponsors of this proposal thus far.

I've said this multiple times, and I'll continue to say this.

No elected official wakes up and says, Let's raise taxes, or let's raise fees.

It's just not how we as elected officials start our day.

But with that said, this is where we're at.

The one topic that we hear about each and every day.

If we're going to get beat up on, if we're going to get calls, text messages, messages, it's about the infrastructure, it's about the roads, it's about the alleys, it's about our sidewalk.

So it's the one topic that we hear about each and every day.

Proposal number 192 establishes a long-term funding source for infrastructure and allows us to secure $50 million annually from the state of Indiana.

I will say this as well, over and over, $50 million gift, I'll do an airport.

That $50 million come with some restrictions.

And Councilor Nielsen will walk us through that.

But again, in order for us to uh take advantage of that $50 million grant from the state of Indiana, we have to act fast.

So again, we are not we are not married to anything.

We're only interested in finding a solution and a long-term source of funding that we can tap into that will take care of the infrastructure in our community.

If you have ideas, if you have concerns, and obviously you do because you showed up today, we want to hear from you.

If someone has a better plan, other ideas, let's talk about it.

But again, at the end of the day, we know we recognize that we have to do better.

Our community, our city deserve roads and sidewall that looks better than what we have currently, right?

So again, I ask you to give us a little bit of grace, but we're gonna listen to you.

We want to hear your ideas, and I do believe that collectively we will come up with an idea, we'll come up with a plan that ensures that we can tap into that $50 million and ensure that our infrastructure is better than it is today.

So again, thank you all for being here, Madam Whipp, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share a few words.

I look forward to the conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time today, Madam President.

Take it away, assistant majority of that.

Thank you, Chairwoman Jones, members of the Public Works Committee, community, uh, my colleagues, everyone for being here uh this evening for this important topic, and I thank the trustee and the pike township advisory board for welcoming us into your book.

So thank you.

All right, let's get started.

All right, next slide, please.

So, a real quick overview of what we're gonna talk about and discuss tonight.

Um, we're gonna take an evaluation of current infrastructure needs, current funding.

We're gonna really highlight really the number two is the why behind why we're here tonight, excuse me, what proposal 192 does and how it is, how it fits into a broader council plan that is an that is an honest uh reflection of where we are in the budget and where we need to go to address um the city's biggest concern.

Next slide, please.

So transportation affects everyone, and Indianapolis has a large transportation role.

Road conditions, residential streets, etc.

are regular concerns across Indianapolis.

While the city invests in infrastructure each year, maintaining a large network requires sustained and predictable funding as the state capital or regional hub, Indianapolis Roads support residents, commuters, visitors, freight, emergency service, public transit, and daily commerce across central Indiana to highlight infrastructure needs must be supported through a combination of recurring and one-time funding sources.

Occurring being funding that we're putting in the budget, and additional predictable funding will strengthen long-term project planning and delivery.

So if you've been following the conversation on infrastructure in the city of Indianapolis, you all shouldn't have probably heard about this idea of center lane miles versus lane miles.

I refer to the presentation as total lane miles mileage.

Historically, road funding formulas ride heavily on center lane mileage, which is the distance from one point to another, regardless of how many lanes a road has.

So, for example, uh in the state road funding formula, which we will get to here in a second, um, uh one-lane road in the middle nowhere of a county is compensated for a six-lane road in the middle of Indianapolis.

That approach does not fully reflect the maintenance needs of a city like ours, where many roads have multiple lanes and higher traffic volumes.

So we've kind of visually represented what that looks like.

But in perspective, if you measure the 88,444 total lane miles in the city, we are only compensated from the state through the road funding formula for about 40% of those miles.

So next slide, please.

So this is the Indiana transportation funding formula.

For fiscal year 2025, this is the most recently available publicly.

And as you can see, there's a lot going on here, but I'm going to take a couple minutes to try to really highlight how the city of Indianapolis really fits in here.

So all that yellow that you see, most of that yellow are things that everyone in this room pays.

When you fill up your gas tank, pay gas tax.

When you register your vehicle with the state, pay state excise tax.

If you drive a hybrid vehicle, we pay a fee for that.

If you drive an electric vehicle, you pay for that.

So all of those fees, all of those ways that we fund transportation gets put into this funding formula.

Those green boxes that you see, that's what actually comes to the city of Indianapolis, right?

That's where the city of Indianapolis has an opportunity or does excuse me, receive funding.

So that kind of that left side there, that is the community crossing grant program, which we'll talk about a little bit in a second.

As we go down to the lower kind of green that goes off, that is the motor vehicle highway account.

And if you keep following that across, you will see that counties and cities and towns receive those dollars based off of mileage base.

So I know it's hard to see right now, that mileage base, that's what I referenced to on the last slide.

So we get 65% of the county distribution that comes from that fund based off of that uh inaccurate way of providing road funding formula to the city.

If we move now over to the other side, the highway, road, and street fund, that other green kind of column that we go down, you'll see an additional trend, right?

Based off of population, there are different rules for different counties, but the prime primarily counties are compensated by center lane mileage over other factors.

So I know this is pretty complicated, we can spend some more time on it.

I would love to, but just really wanted to emphasize where the city of Indianapolis receives funding in this web.

Next slide, please.

We also have limited local options for road revenue.

So while the city county council can act within the options provided by state law, most major revenue sources require state actions to create, redirect, expand, or raise the amount that can be levied.

Several of the sources listed below exist today, but are dictated by statute to other or dedicated by statute to other purposes, not necessarily state and road funding.

So we talk a lot about the gas tax.

What's important about the gas tax is why we are seeing relief at the pump right now.

Everyone in this room is actually subsidizing that gas tax for people who go through our state from come to the state throughout the state.

As an example, I had some friends come in from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a few weeks ago, and they filled up their Honda pilot twice in the state of Indiana, and everyone in this room helps subsidize that.

So it's not that we don't feel the pay of the gas tax, but the suspension of the gas tax actually has a financial impact, yes, on capital projects at the expense of Hoosers.

Tolling, the state is currently evaluating totaling.

Again, we brought up these state vehicle user fees, so these are set and collected by the state, and they are passed through that web that we referenced on the last side.

Local government has no control over that.

The local vehicle user fees, the SURE tax and the wheel tax, which is why we're here tonight.

The parameters of those levies are set by the state.

They're collected when individuals register a vehicles and then are distributed to the state, the county auditor, which then goes to the city of Indianapolis.

So we don't set the parameters for what those look like, but as we are doing in proposal 192, we are available, we are able to set those rates.

I know in conversation as it relates to infrastructure.

Many members of the community have bringing have been bringing up the lottery.

So that is obviously set and collected by the state.

It traditionally had been used to fund infrastructure.

It's also been used to plug up the state cutting state excise rates, but it's primarily used to fund fund unfunded pension obligations for this for public employees.

Again, the city is not involved in that.

Other components like vehicle miles traveled, so being able to assess which vehicles are actually using the roads most frequently or a commuter tax, which is actually a payroll tax based on where you live and where you work.

Those are not authorized under state law.

Local government has no ability to implement those.

And then income taxes and property taxes, again, parameters set by state, but the city of Indianapolis sets those specific rates.

And important on income taxes, as everyone in this room probably knows, you pay income taxes where you live, not where you work.

So all this together is to emphasize the very limited options that we do have either available where we can pull levers and what is legally authorized by the state, and where some of the pressure points as a city like Indianapolis sees on a day-to-day basis on the roads that we all use.

So now looking closely at what everyone who registers a vehicle right now currently pays a vehicle user fee.

That user fee was adopted in local ordinance in 1992.

And proposal 192 updates an existing fee.

It does not create a new one.

So on one side, we kind of talk about this issue together as the wheel tax, but it's actually two separate rates.

You're gonna hear me say this a few times.

You only pay one or you pay the other.

So the SERT tax applies to passenger vehicles, lighter trailers, lighter trucks, and what they are based off of is 10% of that pre-1996 state excise tax rate.

So again, the lottery ratings were used to offset that side for the state when they cut those rates in half.

But they allowed the counties that had originally adopted these structures to allow those to move forward.

The county option wheel tax applies to heavier vehicles, including buses, heavier trailers, tractors, every year uh trucks.

So basically, to try to boil it down, passenger vehicles, trailers under 9,000 pounds and under, trucks under 11,000 pounds, everything else is subject to the wheel tax.

Again, you only pay one or the other.

The surtax rate must be applied uniformly to all vehicle classes.

So we are unable to tailor the SERTAX directly to a specific value of a vehicle, right?

We can't charge a vehicle maybe that is bought new at 100,000 dollars a different rate than a brand new vehicle at 25,000.

And those rates must be applied uniformly to all vehicle registrants.

We can't, for example, provide a different rate to seniors or those living on a fixed income or small businesses of a certain size.

Again, revenue is restricted by state law for road and street purposes only, and certain vehicles are exempt, which may make sense, like government vehicles, but are also vehicles used for religious purposes and funeral equipment.

And as I mentioned before, they are paid at the time of registration and renewal.

To kind of summarize the previous three slides, this is a snapshot of the current 2026 DBW budget, which includes 257 million dollars in transportation and infrastructure revenue, with the wheel tax serving as one of the set of several dedicated funding sources.

So again, in that web that we walked through a little bit, we talked about the motor vehicle highway account, the local road and street distributions, including the gas tax, and then this is where the current wheel tax revenues relate in proportion to the city budget.

So now as we move on to really why we are here, is the last few years, as every year I guess at the General Assembly is, but the past several years have been I think an exciting opportunity for the city of Indianapolis.

Because for years, city councilors, local leaders, and the administration, other stateholders have been working really closely with the General Assembly to advocate for road funding approach that better reflects Indianapolis' infrastructure responsibilities.

So in 2025, there was House Enrolled Act 1461, which set the stage for this $50 million state funding opportunity, provided it increased local capacity on the SERTAX and the wheel tax.

But really, we are now governed by Senate Enroll Act 179 from earlier this year, which revised a lot of the eligibility, the match timing, certification of rules.

But next year, both both uh pieces of code preserved that next year we are eligible for that $50 million.

And I want to make a quick note because in 2025, the state of Indiana also passed SEA1, which was an attempt to address the concerns stemming from rising property taxes, but has prompted municipalities, including ours to increasingly rely on income taxes and user fees and budget efficiencies.

In response, the city count the city county took measures during the 2026 budget process, including budget reductions, cost absorption, and the pursuit of ongoing efficiencies.

These efforts continue, but they alone will be unable to address our infrastructure needs.

So House Enroll Act 1461, as I mentioned, created the path for Indianapolis to receive $50 million in new funds annually and additional state road funding, subject to a required local match.

It also made an important change, which the to the community crossings matching grant program, so that hexagon from the slide a few ago, it reworked how that money is distributed to local government.

So first, local governments around the state are still eligible to receive a matching grant program, our matching grant from the state.

Then comes in this $50 million just for the consolidated city.

And then the third thing that the formula now does is it distributes the balance of all the money left.

So let's say that we don't use all the matching grant funds.

The state doesn't use all the matching grant funds.

It's all going to flow down here, subject to how the state puts money into a formula, and the distribution of those remaining dollars will be based off of total lane mileage instead of center lane mileage.

Emphasize that point because that is a substantial policy win for the city of Indianapolis, and will hopefully better reflect again, kind of the inaccurate way that we have been distributing road funding.

And then again, 1461 increase the capacity, which is the ability to tax, right, on the SERTAX and the wheel tax.

We talk about taxing capacity, it's not where we are going, it's what's authorized by state law.

Then as I mentioned this year, the legislature made a number of really big changes to everything I just said.

So it preserved the ability for the state for the city of Indianapolis to receive $50 million a year, subject to a local match, but a local match that requires that increases over time.

So next year, we have to match $50 million to get $50 million.

In 2028, we need to match, we need to provide $70 million to get $50 million, $80 million to $50, $90 to $50 million, $100 to $50, and 2031 and beyond.

The revenues that we do identify are able to carry over year from year.

The city must also notify the state compontroller, that's the state auditor, by December 31st of each year of the year prior to the distribution, that it can provide the match and identify where the funding is coming from.

Another important point, because we have to actually show the map, show where it's coming from, and I think emphasizes the point that we need a sustainable source and it needs to live in the budget.

The opportunity continues until the first year that Indianapolis cannot provide the required match.

I've been describing this or simply as there are no mulligans.

The first year that we are unable to make the match, unless there's a change in state law, we don't get that.

So we might match it in 27 and 28, maybe 29, we come up a little bit short.

We don't get to come back in 2030 and get that money.

And again, as I emphasized before, it maintained that the local match must be supported by new revenue.

So, if the match isn't certified, funding source identifies survey 31st, we obviously don't get that.

There's no $50 million transfer, and we may or may not be able to match the dollars again in the future.

And another piece, it's all or nothing, right?

So we don't, for example, next year, if we put up $25 million, it's not that we get $25 million, right?

It's zero or it's $50 million, subject to that escalating match requirement on the previous slide.

Okay.

So proposal $192 amends the revised code to update both the existing county vehicle surtax and the county wheel tax, two fees that the state requires to be adopted together.

Additionally, the proposal introduces new accountability measures mandating that the council receive revenue estimates by October the 1st every year, which conforms to state law, and that state match requirement that goes to the auditor, that needs to be provided to the city council as well, and we would tend to make that document public.

We want to be able to clearly show the community.

This is where the money is coming from.

This is how we are matching that so that the community and the state all have the certainty that we are leveraging this $50 million opportunity.

So that surtax, again, that's 10% of a outdated table, now goes to a $100 flat fee.

It is not increased by $100, it goes to $100.

And for the heavier vehicles, it goes from those mixed rates to $240.

Again, one vehicle pays one charge, either the SERTAX or the wheel tax, not both.

And again, the SERTAX must be applied uniformly to all vehicle classes.

And the rates must be applied uniformly to all registrants.

We can't target based on certain prices of vehicles, and we cannot provide carve-outs or other targeted relief to subpopulations of registrants.

Here we're just kind of uh summarizing that a little more concisely.

Again, owners of eligible vehicles registered in Marion County at the time of registration or renewal pay this fee.

The proposal is tied to vehicle registration.

Again, it's not a property tax, it's not an income tax.

And to really emphasize of those three tools we talked about at the beginning, this one tool must be used exclusively for roads.

It cannot be used for any other purpose.

Even if I wanted to use it for housing, we couldn't use it for housing as an example.

Even if we wanted to use it to build a fire station, we couldn't use this revenue to build a fire station.

So, the 192 is expected to generate a significant amount of revenue.

So, under this proposal, the city of Indianapolis is expected to receive an additional $70.95 million.

So again, we receive $15.7.

We're expected to receive an additional $70.70.95 million under both the surtax and the wheel tax.

Other municipalities in our county would be estimated to receive an additional $7.44 million.

So not only does the state have a formula, counties have a formula.

So when we pay our county surtax or wheel tax, depending on the vehicle classification, it gets put into its own formula that is then distributed to the city of Indianapolis and all of our excluded cities and included towns based on 60% of population based 60% on population and 40% on total lane mileage.

So all of these distributions to the excluded cities and include the towns do not require any action by any of the either councils or mayors or advisory boards or town managers, depending on how they're incorporated.

These are additional revenues that would go strictly straight straight to those local units of government without any additional action.

And again, what we are emphasizing though is that it reflects the estimated share of that additional revenue to the city.

All figures shown are planning estimates and may change based off of that annual collections.

And part of the reason we're really emphasizing the additional here, right, is that we need to identify new revenue, of which this is one tool to do so.

And as you heard in the previous proposal, many of our transportation bonds are already secured by existing wheel tax revenue.

So that is exactly why we are focused on this increase for those two reasons.

So what's at stake if no action is taken?

So doing nothing does not pause infrastructure means.

It would mean continuing to manage a large transportation network while risking new state funding and facing higher long-term maintenance costs without a certified match.

The $50 million annual transfer becomes unavailable, unavailable, excuse me, and future transfers are lost.

Delaying investment does not stop infrastructure from aging.

It can make future maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement more costly.

You know, many members, all members of this committee have heard several times that it's easier to maintain the roads when they're new than it is to let them fall to a point of disrepair.

Without additional dedicated road revenue, the city may need to make difficult trade-offs with basic services and other community priorities.

We have to have an honest conversation that if we don't do it via this method or a hybrid of this method, right, that we are going to be looking at the budget to potentially make some very painful cuts.

It also presents a credit risk.

So deferred maintenance and limited recurring revenue, again, recurring revenue, that's money that's in the budget, can create long-term financial risk, making future capital projects more expensive.

If you read any of the credit rating agencies evaluate either bonds or the financial health of the city of Indianapolis, the overarching thing across all four credit rating agencies is the biggest financial risk to the city of Indianapolis is the condition of our infrastructure.

It is the single biggest risk to our city.

So again, this proposal is one component of a broader infrastructure funding strategy.

The council plans to combine local revenue, new state funding, and other resources to support long-term investments in streets, alleys, and the transportation network.

And it's important to emphasize, important, excuse me, to emphasize that it's a plan.

It's a public accountability document so that future administrations, future counselors, whoever has the pleasure of serving in any of our capacities, can use it as least a guide and a public accountability document with our community to say this is where we're trying to go, and this is how we get there.

It rejects the status quo and says that the streets don't have to be this way.

So next slide, please.

Okay.

So the table below shows how the council plan combines additional local revenue, the state match, lane mileage distribution revenue, growth and budget efficiencies, i.e., right sizing budgets at agencies, making cuts where necessary to support a multi-year infrastructure plan.

So again, we use this, we're using this lingo, cumulative growth and budget efficiencies.

Again, we have existing property tax revenues, we have existing income tax revenues.

Those are where our most flexible source of funding comes from.

That does grow year over year.

But existing contracts, existing capital plans, they obviously are relying on some of that growth.

But we do believe that if we are going to the community and saying part of the solution to our infrastructure problem is asking residents to pay more, that we have to be committed to continuing to do the hard work of finding money through existing sources to put towards infrastructure.

As an example, just last year, even facing the first year of SB1 and those impacts to local government, we had to find $50 million in efficiencies, and we were able to find an additional $10 million to put towards infrastructure.

We anticipate that we plan on pulling that forward, excuse me, this year, and putting an additional 10 towards that, 10 in the next year, and 15 in the out years.

So that's what you're seeing in that first row.

That's the hard work of budgeting and looking agency requests and right sizing, addressing concerns, and addressing again the largest risk we have to the city of Indianapolis.

That second row, you'll see that 70.95 number.

That's that number we are projecting to raise in addition next year.

And the reason that you see that grow nominally, not that much over the out years, is because it's really difficult to model how the number of registrations in a county are going to change year over year.

So we do believe that directionally, or we do believe that it will increase over time.

But we're also saying that in order to reach that match in the out years, we have to continue to do the hard work in our budget, right sizing things and allocating resources in that way.

So that new local revenue number, that's the number that we are baselining against the state match.

Then comes in the state match.

Then the lane mileage distribution, that $4 million, that's an estimate from DPW last year.

So again, that formula we talked about a second ago.

Matching grant program $50 million to the state of Indiana.

The rest of that money goes through that better, more equitable uh funding formula that gets passed down to the city.

And then we plan on using that to actually fund projects that we're putting in the capital plan because unfortunately, many of those projects are not fully funded.

And what we also know, I think every single counselor here knows that oftentimes while addressing the thoroughfares are critically important to our city that residents are feeling the impact of not putting more dollars towards residential students, and we believe that to be a top priority.

We also don't have a dedicated revenue uh dedicated expenditure line for alleys, so for counselors who represent even like the old city of Indianapolis, alleys are a critical part of the transportation network, and there is currently no money in the budget for alleys.

So again, over the five-year period, we believe a conservative estimate is that an additional 856 million dollars will be spent on Indianapolis rigs.

So, council infrastructure plan supports the currently identified project program for 2027 through 2029, and then provides more than 200 million dollars annually in new permanent infrastructure funding beginning in 2031.

It will be when we are successful, the largest investment in infrastructure the city has seen so far on a permanent basis.

So recurring infrastructure needs are often supplemented through one-time fiscal actions, which can make long-term planning and project scheduling more challenging.

Providing a more predictable funding source for recurring infrastructure needs again in the budget, while preserving flexibility to address emerging priorities through the spring fiscal, etc.

and the annual budget process will allow us to again chip away at our infrastructure needs.

So with that, madam chair, about to wrap up.

We were in at the administration finance committee two evenings ago.

We're before this committee tonight, we will go to the rules and public policy committee next Tuesday for a similar conversation.

We are also actively working on ways to have some additional community, some additional community input, and this would go to the full council on July 6th for a final vote.

An important part of the timeline is in order to receive that new revenue next year, these changes need to be in local ordinance by September 1st of this year.

So with that, Chairwoman Jones, I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you all tonight and look forward to the public meeting.

So thank you.

All right, questions.

Thank you, Sister Majority Leader Nielsen, for that thorough presentation.

We appreciate your diligent work on that.

Questions, comments from my colleagues, counselor wells.

Thank you so much, madam chair.

Thank you again, Counselor Nielsen, for your presentation.

If I could, we're currently taxing with this real tax revenue at roughly 15.7 annually, and the idea is to move it to roughly 71.95 annually in perpetuity.

No, it would be it would be um 15.7 plus 70.95.

Yeah, right, and that's what make it makes the out years a little harder to estimate because based off the registration, just thank you.

Um madam chair, I think maybe to clarify the word match and what that means typically, um, like in grant writing.

If you have a grant match, you put forward a certain amount of money, you get the exact same amount back.

So can you clarify annually we only can get 50?

But we have an escalator.

So in 2031, we put forward 100 million, and the state will give us 50.

That is correct, yes.

Okay, um, so it's not really a true match, in my opinion, but that's not really a comp like a question for you.

You didn't make the language, but I just I think for people in the room, like it's a bit of a misnomer to say match, but I understand counselor Nielsen is using the legal legal language, and so um that is something that I marked in my notes, Madam Chair.

Um I will tell you my question is about costs not only to the city but also local units of government, and so forgive my ignorance, and you may not have this answer, but I know our school bus registration, police, fire apparatus, um, city and county um government owned vehicles.

Do those all of those vehicles apply to this new policy?

No, so all vehicles registered by state and local governments are exempt from the sur tax and the wheel tax, and as our school buses uh and equipment used by religious organizations.

So the budget impact for them is zero because of those exemptions.

Yeah, I mean, for the uh counselor wells the the impact is these local units of government would actually be receiving additional revenue.

Exactly.

I think that's yeah, that's a that's a big deal.

Okay, and then you said there are only three options for us to consider as a council vehicle user fees, income uh tax, or local income tax lit, we refer to it, and then property tax, which we know is already a burden.

Are those the three sources?

Yes, on the on the revenue side, those are the three with which we have specific levers that we can pull, with property tax probably being the most challenging to actually generate additional revenue from.

Thank you.

And I know like a lot of the surrounding counties are roughly like on par with us currently in that $40 range.

Is that true?

Do you know that offhand?

Was that part of the consideration?

Yes, so some of the Dota counties, we have a we have a mixture, like for example, uh, not far from here.

If you're in Avon, you would actually pay the municipal rate and the county rate, and so I believe that they are paying sixty dollars in total on their surtax.

Um, each each county and each municipality are kind of doing that differently, and the way that state law changed in order to get that matching grant program, that first part of CCMGs, community crossing matching grant, municipalities and counties have to adopt a wheel tax to be eligible for that piece.

So that's why you're seeing a lot of energy on this.

Um right now, for we we were we were obviously we didn't have to do that because we already had it on the books, but that's why you'll see a lot of you know, I just saw Terra Hode is working on that as well, so there's there's a lot of activity on this specific levy for other local units of government right now.

Thank you, Councilman.

I really appreciate that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Boots.

Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, Councillor Nielsen and CFO Harris for all the work you've done.

Couple questions.

First, um, any cut in budget or savings in the budget would not qualify or go toward a match to meet the definition of new revenue, is that correct?

No, it could, and that's exactly it could, it could.

So that's I think we're looking at what our options are, right?

And that's why um we absolutely need to be continue to do the hard work of of finding of finding efficiencies in the budget dedicating future growth to that purpose.

Um but because of what we're already seeing because of SP 1, and I'm not trying to belabor the point on SB1, it just has made it more challenging, right?

And we should continue to be looking at budgets and revising that, but really the the slack that is there in perspective, we have a 1.7 billion dollar budget, of which only about a half a billion dollars actually has the ability to be moved around for other purposes, right?

That can be taken away from police and fire and be used towards infrastructure, can be uh taken away towards maybe a housing investment to be able to be used towards infrastructure.

So we can do that, right?

And that's part of what the council plan is also doing, but there still is a pretty significant challenge in this growing match requirement, maybe is a better way of saying it.

Yeah, yeah.

And that's that's a good segue into my next question.

Some of my concern is can you put slide 180 back up, please?

When we look at the fee right now, if this were to be implemented, we would hit our seventh or 50 million dollar match in 27.

We'd also meet the uh match in 28 because it it doesn't show the escalator here, but we that's that's accurate, right?

Yes, explain, and in every out here as well, yeah.

But the match goes up or the escalator is 50, 70, there you go, 80, 90, and 100.

Correct?

Yes.

How if we're if the wheel tax is only going to raise roughly 71 million, that'll get us through 28.

Where is that extra 10, 20, 30 million coming to match that state escalating figure?

That's that line right above, right?

That's doing again that that's the point I was emphasizing that if that there is a hurdle in being able to get dispatch.

We believe that hurdle to be 70 million dollars, of which we owe it to the residents to continue to find those efficiencies in the budget as current revenues grow, continuing to dedicate those toward the match as well.

So it's it is a it is a it does get us to 2028, but the way we're funding it now is we actually are overfunding the match, but I don't think there's any lack of need of infrastructure in the city as well.

Sure, yeah.

So in 28, I'm sorry, 29, 30, and 31, we're gonna be relying on increased efficiencies, meaning cuts equals new revenue plus new revenue generated just by growth.

Correct.

Okay, yeah, and are we confident that is gonna be enough in those three years of our five-year plan to meet those numb meet those numbers?

Um if I could predict the future, I'd probably be making a lot more money.

But I I right that's so that's subject to the economy, that's subject to a number of factors, which is why we're trying to aggressively get to that match, right?

Because we don't know what the world's gonna be like at the end of 2028.

We could be who knows where the again, the economy we'll go, we could be.

Goodness, we could be in another pandemic, right?

I think this is such a big opportunity for the city of Indianapolis that we really need to be doing everything we can as soon as possible to be able to get that match because we don't want to get to 2030 and think, oh my gosh, now we're 15 million, 20 million dollars off of this match because there's been a dip in income tax receipts, there's been a dip dip in property tax assessments, right?

And now we have to make more harmful cuts inside the budget, okay.

Thank you.

Final questions.

Um, go to slide eight, please, just briefly.

Um just to make sure the numbers add up.

We talk about 257 million in transportation and infrastructure revenue, but these funding sources here only come to 206.5.

Thank you.

And I'm sure there's an answer to that question.

There is an answer for that.

So there's money from that we get from like grants through that are not included in this.

So these are major funds, but there is lots of other, like I said, we get money from the federal government, um, we get money put through the state.

That's not a part of this.

So that this is the major funds, and these are what are often associated with fees that the consumer or our constituents see.

And this is revenue being generated when receiving versus grants.

Right, so like part of like DPW budget, storm water comes out of there, solid waste comes out of there, which is our which is our you know our trash service, right?

That's our also fees that uh constituents pay.

And so this is just capturing this slide, isn't capture every source that makes up the 257, but it's just capturing the sources that our constituents are familiar with.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam.

Thank you, Madam CFO.

Leonard Maori.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, appreciate the presentation here this evening.

So a lot of work's gone into this, and I can appreciate that.

Well, I may not agree with it.

I do appreciate the work you put into it.

Thank you.

Um I'm curious on kind of feedback off counselor Wells earlier with asking who is included in the heavy vehicle fee.

Uh with someone like Indigo be included in that?

No.

Okay.

And then I'm also curious on this heavy vehicle number.

Have we done any kind of forecasting or looking at what the number of like trucking companies that are in Indianapolis?

Because we have one thing I've thought about since a lot we met a couple nights ago was, you know, we have a huge FedEx hub, a huge old mini hub.

Neither one of those are based here, so they don't have to pay any of that because they just come through the state.

Have we thought about how many like what that number looks like and what number?

Because one thing we heard, I think, from the gentleman here the other night was that a lot of these companies will change their residency to somewhere else.

You know, maybe a donut county even that does that's not gonna charge them this fee.

So that impact that I mean, because that's a real impact and a real a real possibility with this looking at doing this.

So that's not only that 240, but also potentially that 100 as well.

So someone moving their business completely out of this the county.

Uh that that leader Maury, that that's a that's a valid statement.

I think it's it's it's hard to also predict how that behavior would change.

Um what I what I would say that these are obviously the vehicles that are doing the most damage to the streets.

They have been paying since 1992 less than passenger vehicles have been paying.

And it do it to emphasize the again, and I gotta keep bringing SB1 up.

SB1 would provide extent essentially a complete elimination of property tax on all of these vehicles.

And in order to balance our books and meet our needs, right?

There is a shift across the state of Indiana to move towards income from M-Come taxes to these user fees, and that's that's just candidly what we are attempting to do here.

I can appreciate that.

And there I mean the fact of the day though is that it's not going to change the usage of how much they're tearing up the roads if they leave the county and that they go go register somewhere outside the county.

So I would like to know a better idea of how many are actually in the county right now that we could collect this from.

Uh because I frankly I don't I guess I'm I mean got I guess trucking companies uh or dump trucks and heavy vehicle equipment like that, but uh I'm curious how many of those types of companies do we have?

What what's that the total number of those those that would be collected from those trucks?

Yeah, so we we estimate that there are approximately 23,000 um vehicles or uh or equipment that are subject to the wheel tax, so across those classifications, across the heavy trucks, across the uh heavier trailers, etc.

So, like for example, uh yeah, there are approximately like 7,000 in the heavy truck category, approximately 9,000 in the heavy trailer category.

I think if I'm doing my mental math real quick, um so that's just a perspective of but yeah, so there are about 792,000 registrations that are subject to the surtax in the city of Indianapolis, not the excluded city portion, and then again another 23,000 who are sub that are subject to the wheel tax.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

You know, I I hate to see downtown when I see so many places that are you know for lease open, you know, open vacancies for b open business fronts, and I would hate to see even more when we look at some of the outside of the downtown area because of these uh companies that are with these heavy equipment vehicles leaving the county as well.

Yeah, and then that's a that's a real concern leader, and that's why I think we're we're really emphasizing that in a perfect world, we'd have a VMT system that it actually then wouldn't matter where your vehicle was registered.

Like we wouldn't even it wouldn't matter.

You could be registered in Monroe County and live in Irvington my way, right?

If you're able to do that, right?

But you would actually capture the usage um outside a system like that, um, without very very prescriptive state laws, which I you know, I'm all ears for companies couldn't have the ability to repatriate their their their vehicles to other counties.

That's absolutely that's an inherent risk under the current structure, and I don't think that that goes away under a new structure either.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Councilman Gibson.

Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you, Councilman Nilson, thank you, CFO, for being here.

And um, I want to say to uh Madam President and the third team members who signed on to uh this proposal.

Uh, this is a tough one.

Um, the tough one because you know, uh as any of our members as members of the council, more than anything, I get uh calls about infrastructure.

It's probably 99% of the calls I get more than anything is about infrastructure.

But inflation, high cost, everything's expensive right now.

And uh my constituency and and uh being working class and seniors, I don't know how they can afford this.

I don't know how I don't know how um they can take that hit, uh, increase of $100 more on their pro license fees or $240 heavy uh equipment.

I uh wonder if um Mayor Hawk said is got a good point uh where he believes that he he can come up with the $50 million new money and we'll get that additional hundred million dollars in twenty twenty-seven to start uh the process.

I noted that the law says that there's continued eligibility, meaning that um is it possible for us to maybe halt right now about increasing tax fees and and maybe consider this uh a subsequent year to get to this period of inflation and we guaranteed to have the 2020 27 funding based on Mayor Hogset's uh theories?

Um so I think first, um, just to be just to be recognized, Counselor Gibson.

Part of the reason our our streets look the way they do is because we haven't had the political courage to be honest about where we're at and where we need to go.

And that's not an indictment on one administration or one counselor.

I think there's never a good time for this kind of conversation.

I think the president outlined that very well in her opening remarks.

Um, but there's a lot on the line.

Getting a $50 million match investment grant.

How we would use it we can say it in a lot of ways, is is huge for the city.

It it's both a financial issue and a policy issue, and it's also a political issue.

I think it demonstrates the ability ability of the city of Indianapolis and the state house to work together on something, even when the control on both of those buildings may be different politically.

I think there is an inherent risk to the mayor's plan that we cannot tell the state at the end of this year that we have the money.

Um it's not to say that it isn't a idea, but I as we've as we've been processing the spring fiscal this past few this past week, we've heard this in admin and finance.

There was only 30 million dollars available for the supplemental 34 million dollars available for that distribution, of which 12 million dollars had to be used for annual operating expenses, and of which we had to put back at least seven million dollars to offset the loss to the capital plan due to the gas tax reduction.

So if we were to play this year out, there would not be enough money in the spring fiscal.

And so what we would be doing right now is we'd be amending the budget, and we would be making we would be making quick cuts in order to meet the match.

That's not a sustainable plan, and I think that that poses a series of cascading risks that I don't think that we're prepared for.

Um, you know, I do appreciate that he has said something, but I I just think that what we need is we need an honest conversation with our community about where we are, the opportunity that we have, and and ensuring that future councils and future administrations really have the ability to fully leverage this 50 million dollars.

I appreciate that, but uh you look at your your overall funding structure up to 2031, you really count on significantly the um a portion of budget efficiencies, and the mayor is already saying that that's part of the source of him coming up with the 2027 portion to get the 50 million dollar match and get the total 100 million dollars.

You know, I think when you look at you map out how you would use a budget efficiencies for the next five years.

You you go from thank you, you.

You go from 20 million uh in 2027 efficiency that you go all the way to 75 million in 2035, uh, twenty thirty to one for 75 million dollars in efficiencies.

Um I guess what I'm trying to say is it appears the mayor is it has a strategy that you also incorporate in the strategy here to increase the wheel tax.

I'm I'm just asking why can't we pause one year and see if the mayor's plan will work because if it's not successful, we won't get the money.

It's too inherently risky.

But but is it is can the stall the law says continued eligibility is there, meaning that if we don't get it this year, we can still try again for the next year.

No, you're saying it must be you saying it must be eligible.

If we do not match the money, we are ineligible for it.

But if we start at 2027 matching, we're okay.

Yes, yes, if we batch it in 27, we'd be eligible in 28, yes.

I just think I just want to emphasize those deadlines.

I just don't know how we can say um at the end of this year that money is available in an unknown distribution coming from the state.

I don't I don't know how our city is able to communicate with the state and say, here's where we have the money, here's where it's coming from, when we don't know until the first week of March how much money is coming from that source.

Doesn't mean it won't be there.

I hope it's there.

We should be using as much money as we can towards infrastructure, but we have a plan.

I think that that's looking one year at a time when the state is being very clear that they are looking at it five years and into the future.

So it's like incompatible use of I think strategies, and I I think it sends a weird signal to the state that we're also not serious about leveraging this, right?

Um, and so again, I think that this is a this is a multi-year plan that others can look to and make better, but it also ensures that we are not leaving that money on the table.

And I think that that is what's so critically important in this moment, um, and would ask other counselors to kind of think through that as well.

I appreciate that.

And um, I I guess what I'm saying is I think we should keep a variety of options on the table.

I think increasing taxes is it's gotta be the last one in this this current financial inflation environment.

Things are just too high right now, period.

Yeah, I don't know how how we afford it.

Especially if you've got if you've got a job paying living wage, and that's not even enough to survive, although I can't even imagine trying to pay you license fees on that.

So um I appreciate the dialogue and thank you for hearing.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you.

Counselor Dilke.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilman, for your comments.

Um you talked about indigo is exempt.

How about public and private schools?

They are, yes.

So she is yes, so school, so yes, a school buses.

Oh, sorry, Counselor Dope, I interrupt you, but yeah, um, school buses are exempt as well.

Okay, it's really all all um vehicles used for government purposes, it's probably a better way of putting a bow on that.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

So then just a clarification you've made the comment that um it's either the wheel tax or the excise tax, not both, but it's per vehicle, not per so.

If I technically own a passenger car that's eight thousand pounds, and I owe an RV, then I'm paying a hundred for the car and two forty for the R V.

In that example, yes.

Okay, yes.

And then another clarification.

So we hit we hit the 50 the first year, we hit the 50 the second year.

If we don't hit the 50, the third year, we're done.

We can't apply again in the next two years.

That's correct.

Yeah, yes, yeah, thank you, Counselor Douglas.

Council Roberts.

I just want to say thank you to Counselor Nielsen and our CFO and all the rest of our council team for doing this.

Um this is by far the number one ish I hear about on my uh tenure at council over the last two and a half years, and I wanted to mention something.

Actually, I did a survey of my district, my constituents through my newsletter and through social media and had people verify their addresses.

And interestingly, 80% of people that I asked in the survey supported this.

Um, and then that the number one point that was mentioned, which I think is a very strong point, is that the amount of people that have to replace their wheels and rims every winter exceeds the amount of 70-80 dollars that the average person would increase in this.

Um to me, this would be a generational mistake, not investing in our city's roads.

And I think one point that you mentioned a couple nights ago, too, I think is worth bearing, is if we don't do something substantial to increase our investment in our roads, I think we'll be looking back in 2040 or 2050 saying, Man, remember when our roads were so great in Indianapolis in 2026.

I don't think any of us are thinking that right now, right?

If we don't take this seriously, our roads are only gonna continue to deteriorate, and to me, the status quo has to be shaken up, and also to your point too.

There has to be cuts, right?

Like we have to get lean with our budget therapy budgets we tighten.

That's the reality of this, and we have to do that, but also again, make our investments.

If we say no to the state on this, I do think that'd be a real mistake.

And I think one of the things that we heard about the other night, too, people feel like the south side gets ignored, the west side gets ignored, the east side gets ignored.

Trust me, I'm on the north side, people like the north side gets ignored too, right?

Everybody thinks they're getting ignored.

But if we don't do something on this, we will continue to see disinvestment and disinvestment in every neighborhood.

So to me, this is something that I do think is the right thing to do, and I give you a lot of credit because it's taken a lot of work, and as you said, there's not an easy time to do this, but I do truly believe this is the right thing to do.

So thank you very much for all the work on this.

Thank you.

Leaner Mallory.

Yeah, uh, sorry, just real quick.

I uh I've heard a couple times, especially after the couple nights ago and tonight, uh, when you said we don't get a mulligan on this, we don't get a do over, so to speak.

But I've also heard you say that they may or may not come back if we don't meet the minimum requirement.

So it's getting confusing.

I would just encourage you in the these future presentations.

It's either one or the other, it's not we could come back, they could, they maybe not come back.

It's either they are or they aren't.

So I think just for the sake of everybody in here to know, like if we don't make it, we lose it, it's done, it's gone.

So if in year three we don't match that make that match, it's gone, it's done.

I because I've been kind of confused when I hear you say we may or may not if we don't make the match.

So just something to keep on.

No, I appreciate that, and I can tell you if we don't get the match, I think all of us will be over the state house trying to find a way of figuring it out.

That's the point I'm trying to emphasize.

But I appreciate the comment.

Please thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Kayham.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, I wanted to build on counselor Gibson's uh comment about the the mayor's plan because it frankly I think it the mayor has done all of us a real disservice because I personally believe that there we can get there through cuts.

I I do believe that actually.

But I asked in this committee in the budget hearing last year, why if the mayor was so confident that he could make $50 million in cuts under SB1's future projections and how difficult it was going to be, why did we only put $10 million more instead of the $50 that we were so confident we'd be able to do?

And we haven't seen a plan.

And I think that's and what what I do think is very frustrating is that the timing of this, we have to make a decision on this uh by a certain date to communicate as you indicated to the uh the uh state auditor of uh, or not I'm sorry, the state who do we're whoever was the auditor, uh but for to say if we are going to change our tax rates for the next year, but the challenge is that the mayor has set up a timeline that will not reveal his budget and what could or could not happen until after we have to vote on this, and that's really been a real disservice from the mayor's office on this because if he believes that he can find $50 million, and I I like I said, I actually believe that that can be done, but I think he owes it to everybody to show this is the $50 million I can come up with on January 1, 2027, not from what I've heard rumors of of potentially maybe 20 million or 30 million, and then with a spring fiscal, because as we saw just on Tuesday, that there are any number of things, and you've alluded to this, that we that is extra money, those fiscals are always extra money because of uh extra revenue that was not budgeted for that we did better, but we have had for years better years than we anticipated, but the it swings both ways.

Spring fiscals can be negative.

We can have to cut things and refund things because there's a recession or something out of really the city county council's control.

Some national uh economic condition could cause that.

And to to go into something that you point out that if we don't have the money with a possible future spring fiscal is a real gamble on top of all that.

Uh I so I think the mayor has really done all of us a disservice here, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Bain.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Counselor Nielsen, for the presentation echo leader Maori when he said uh you can tell a lot of work went into this, and I want you to know that's appreciated.

Um I always like to think of a tax increase or raising taxes as the government saying we know how to spend your money better than you do.

It's not um not to say we shouldn't have any taxes at all.

Obviously, we've always had taxes, and they're a necessary part of government.

But what was the process like to determine we need to raise taxes?

Did you go through the budget?

Did you go through every department, look for efficiencies, look for cuts, and just couldn't find anything, and therefore now we're here looking at raising taxes.

What was that process like?

Uh so you know, having worked on uh 2026 budget and right sizing a lot of unknowns in that in that process, right?

We were able to find that for those 50 million dollars in cuts, and we understand that what changes made with House Enrolled Act 1210 made the earlier this year that it could be e even more challenging.

Um, but I think to emphasize on the timeline, even the comments from counselor Cahill, we're we're at a point with which um our backs against the against the wall to really be able to do something, right?

And so again, with that escalating match, especially in twenty twenty-eight, um, that was that was generally the thinking, right?

It was that we have to be able to walk and chew gum, and if we get to the budget and we find that there's an extra fifty million dollars that we should be putting towards infrastructure, I would say we do both, right?

The need is so great.

I know you know this very well, you've worked on this for a long time.

The need is so great that we have to do both of those things, and that's why I hope that come 2031 that 855 million dollar number is half of what it is, right?

That we our infrastructure will be better off because of that, but we're in a a piece where what's the risk assessment that we want to take?

Do we want to hope that growth is there?

Do we want to hope that we can find those deep cuts that don't also put projects like new fire stations, providing new police cruisers and equipment, uh being able to invest in our parks, which are critical to the quality of life of residents in our county.

I think that some of those are false choices, right?

Um, so I just think that it's uh we're gonna have to do both, but the risk is so real and the opportunity is so large that I feel like we had to take action.

Okay, so I think there's probably an answer in there somewhere.

But you know, I see we have 20 million dollars in cuts for 2027.

Do you already have an idea of what those are?

Not exactly, and we have to see exactly we have to see where those uh where the growth is at where growth will actually be too, right?

And we won't know that until late July, maybe on August 10th.

Okay, so do you feel like you've done your due diligence going through the budget, going through every department, going through every line item fund to see where the cuts could be before we come forward asking for a tax increase, and I don't want to put one person, you on the hot seat, one point seven billion dollar budget, but your name's the first one on the proposal.

Absolutely.

And and I I appreciate the question because you know I'm very motivated by these issues.

Um, haven't right?

And I I think for uh that's that's what the budget process is absolutely for.

I think we have to accept that uh through other things that have been going on that we have to take a deeper look at how some of our agencies are being funded.

I think we can't ignore that reality, but again, when we find those efficiencies, I hope that that $20 million dollar number uh we can collect the votes necessary to be able to raise that number as well.

Okay, I I do appreciate the transparency there.

Um, I do want to flag it, I think maybe the timeline here is a little off where we do due diligence on our current budget after we raise taxes, and I feel like that's certainly something that we would want to do beforehand.

Couple things off the top of my head is we spent over a million dollars a year on a DEI office.

We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a glow-in-the-dark trail in a park.

Meanwhile, people are wrecking their axles and tires on our regular streets, and so I think that would be better use of our time.

Going back to the actual dollar amount, the 100 dollar and the 240 dollar, where did those numbers come from?

Just appreciate that question.

Um, so again, I think that the the 70 billion dollar, I was taking a closer look at the 70 million dollar in 2020.

That's really what it was, seeing that as um being able to get to that number would be able to set up uh future councils and administrations with the stability it needs to be able to get the match right.

We're gonna have an election.

I think there's a responsibility to make sure that those dollars are there for that.

Uh so when we were baselining to that number, then we said, okay, what are the vehicles that are doing the most damage to the roads?

Most of those heavier vehicles.

Um, and so max that rate to generate 5.9 million, and then the algebra from there.

So that's that's that's the plane.

Thank you.

Thank you, CFF.

Uh, that that was just out almost this algebraic equation.

Okay, and I do appreciate a pragmatic approach to infrastructure funding when it comes to semi-trailers.

I think they should pay a lot more than two hundred and forty dollars because you know, if you're raising passenger vehicles to one hundred dollars, a semi-trailer does a lot more than two point four times the damage that a passenger vehicle does.

So I think there's some nuance there.

I'm not someone that's just a no from the get-go.

I am a no when we have it then due diligence on the current spending to figure out where we um come up with this.

You know, there was a proposal introduced last year that I think showed how we can come up with two hundred and twenty-five million dollars.

Um can you you can can you confirm the general fund dollars can be used to fund roads?

Absolutely.

That's that's so again we have a we have a 1.7 billion dollar budget.

If you went to how property taxes are levied and collected, income taxes are levied and collected.

There are general purpose dollars that come from both of those.

The napkin math is that's about uh right under 600 million dollars.

Um that six hundred million dollars is also right now being used to subsidize other DPW operations, help buy police cruisers, build fire stations, fund parks, right?

So it's about a third of the budget is kind of the most flexible source, if you will.

Yeah, thank you.

I think that concludes my question.

Just one brief comment is that I don't feel like we're there yet, and I think the mayor has even come out and said publicly that this isn't necessary to come up with the match, it's not necessary to come up with the match and perpetuity I showed last year how you or the previous year how you can do that.

I think we're jumping the gun here on it, it's not necessary.

We're in uh already what I feel high tax, high interest rate, high cost economy right now.

Um I think there's a lot of things that we need to do before we ask residents of Indianapolis to continue to pay more when I I agree they do pay a disproportionate share in their infrastructure funding already due to road funding formulas.

And you know, when I went to the state house last year and advocated for this, and I'm not looking for credit for it, but I do just want to say I know what I'm talking about on this issue because the match was my idea, and uh the legislature decided to support that.

And I agree that it takes political courage, but we have to have the political courage to look at what we're spending already, and um, I I think the fact that we're saying that there's 20 million dollars, 30 million dollars, 45 million dollars that we can cut already, it shows that we have not been doing our due diligence over the past few years, and I think that's why um probably over the past three years, there's been some of us a lot more vocal about voting no on budgets.

Um yield my time back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Moss.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Council and I have a question about slide 11, where it cuts off at 2031 the amount of um dollars to be received by the city, that escalator.

Thank you so much.

Whoever magically did that.

Do you know offhand what the 2032 and 2030 $3 amounts would be that we would need to put forward?

That's in the so 2031 plus.

So it's it's 20 third, it's a hundred million dollars, excuse me, in 2031 in perpetuity.

So it flatlines forever.

That's correct.

Okay.

So we would have we to continue to put 100 in.

Thank you for have this 100k 50, 150, 100 50, 150.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well that's of algebra.

Um, I think you know, crumbling infrastructure aside, room for growth in fees.

I think that the very aggressive increase and the flat increase, unfortunately, flat taxes like that make this inequitable from the beginning.

I think it hurts small businesses, I think it hurts families and low-income individuals specifically.

What gives me a little bit of heartburn, a lot of bit of heartburn, and I'm a very liberal lady, is that we're overfunding the match, and um that seems a little irresponsible to me as a donor county.

We already sort of pay our fair share, as has been said before, and so um I represent a lot of those demographic individuals and families that I just represent that I just mentioned, and I feel um to support this um would be a disservice to them so aggressively.

I do agree with my colleagues in terms of time and lack of leadership, um, but I do agree with Mayor Hogsett on on this issue, and and some of my Republican colleagues as well.

What happens when the state can't afford to give us that $50 million?

I mean, or or decides to say no or change in a special session.

Um, this vote for this specific policy comes in a couple of weeks, and there are I believe already 13 authors, um, so it looks like it it's gonna pass um and won't be able to be refuted by the mayor.

So, madam chair, I just would encourage my constituents and and those around the city to really engage with us, city counselors, and let us know your opinions and and how we should vote um here in short order.

And as our our president said, amendments come through the people too, and we encourage that.

So thank you very much, madam chair.

Any other comments, questions from my colleagues?

All right, well, before we move, yes, madam president, do you have something?

I guess.

Yes, do you have anything that you would I would like to acknowledge uh counselor Jesse Brown who arrived with us?

Would you like to any of my colleagues um on the front row who would like to say something?

Thank you, colleagues, and I apologize for being uh very delayed.

Was that a four and a half hour Metropolitan Development Commission hearing examiner uh for the DC Blocks Data Center?

Thank you.

Um I have I'll have to admit I have not yet finished watching the admin and finance hearing, and I have not, of course, uh caught the part of this presentation for today.

And so forgive me if some of this is uh repetitive, but I did have a couple things.

Um, first I wanted to actually commend, well, first the first person to commend is Councillor Nielsen for taking leadership on this issue.

I think it's the right thing to do.

Uh secondly, though, I wanted to commend Councillor Bain for uh going to the State House to help get this $50 million match.

I think if anyone has not seen that the interview that he did with Rob Kendall, so two very conservative people, I would very strongly encourage uh everyone to watch it because I think that it makes a few things clear.

First is that two conservative Republicans are saying that yes, the state does underfund Marion County to the tune of at least 50 million dollars a year, and in the best possible world where we get that match, we're not getting reparations, right?

That means for decades, 50 million dollars has been stolen from the people of this county year over year by the Republican supermajority at our state house.

And so whatever we do, we should remember it in that context.

That is why, that is the only reason why we're in this position today.

That is called political oppression.

That is people taking our money, we are donor county, you know, we are funding other people's roads, and now we're in the position to make hard decisions to try to pay for our own roads.

So, yes, it is true that this new revenue could be existing revenue moved around.

All of you remember the difficult budget hearings we had last year, when there were 2% to 4% cuts across the board, except for our public safety organizations.

And if you'll remember in the Parks Committee meeting, we heard Director Crohn, and I hate to give her a hard time for this, but when I asked her what the $200,000 shortfall year over year for the Parks Department would look like to regular constituents, she said we will take crayons away from children because we can't afford it.

So to pretend that there are 50 million dollars in savings somewhere in this administration while we're taking crayons for children.

I think my hatred of our mayor is pretty well known, but even I don't think that that is a reasonable thing to believe right now.

It is obvious from all of my constituent feedback that I've received, what the right answer is here.

The donut counties around us get away with lower tax rates than we do.

And then they use our roads and don't pay us for it.

That again is political oppression.

The right thing to do would be to tax the rich or at least tax the people using our roads without paying for them.

Why can't we do that?

It's because the supermajority at the State House, it's the Republican Party has decided that's not within our power.

Of my constituents, about 70% of them who have responded to me about this issue have said, yes, it's a difficult thing to do, but I will pay more in taxes because you know they have had the same experiences I had.

I've lost two tires so far this year on Indianapolis streets.

And I ride my bike most of the time, so I'm barely ever in the car.

No comment about what that says about my driving ability, by the way.

But a little bit of it was luck, a little bit was uh my skill, sure.

But the last time I had to lose a tire, I drive an electric car.

That means I had to get it towed to a tire shop.

I had to then ride my bike down to the tire shop to catch up with it.

It took 24 hours to get my car back.

If I had to be at a shift job at retail, uh service work, I'd lose my job over that.

You don't have extra PTO to just pay for that.

And then I had a $210 bill for my new car for my new tire.

So that would be more than I would be paying in this new tax, and the pothole would still be there at the end of the day.

So 70% of my constituents who've responded have said, I hate it, but let's do it.

And yes, they have also said, our electric bill's going up, our you know, property tax bill is going up.

We our wages are not going up.

This is unfair.

But they still think that of the bad options in front of us, this is the best thing.

The other 30% have kept pushing for things, and they said, I don't believe you.

I think we should just uh illegally do a tax on the rich.

We should illegally create some more progressive structure.

Uh, and you know, I I tend to think that there might be something to that as well.

I think this is a complicated issue.

Nobody wants to raise taxes.

Nobody, none of us in this room, none of us uh who have who have emailed, called, sent me a message on the social media have extra money to spare, but I think we do ourselves a disservice when we have this debate that doesn't exist in the reality.

And the reality again is that we are being politically oppressed, our money is being stolen from us, and then we're being forced to make really tough decisions as a result.

So, whatever decision we make about this particular proposal, I hope people remember in November, and I hope people remember in every November moving forward, because we don't fix this other than by restoring democracy to the state.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

I don'm happy to thank you.

Councilor Allen.

You good?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Before we move on to public comment, I want to remind if anyone is here not for public comment for proposal 192, and you came tonight to submit a request or concern about a city issue or something that you wanted help with, we do have clipboards with contact information with your issue.

They're up here at the table.

We have staff who will help you with that form.

You can fill it out, return it back to the staff, and someone will submit it tomorrow for the to the mayor's action center.

And I personally will turn those in tomorrow to the mayor's action center.

If that's why you came tonight.

That way you don't have to sit through public comment.

Fill out the clipboard, return it to our lovely staff, and I personally will submit that to the mayor's action center tomorrow.

So we'll get that out of the way.

Thank you all for listening to the presentation for wonderful Madam CFO assistant majority leader Andy Nielsen and listening to our colleagues' questions, which was so insightful.

Thank you to our guest counselors and our madam president for coming as well.

Infrastructure obviously is so important.

You all took your time out from your busy life, your jobs from your families to come tonight.

So I appreciate that.

And we're gonna move, we want to hear your input, and that's why we moved it to the community.

So I'm gonna ask our madam clerk tonight to open it up.

She's gonna read a statement, and then we will call your names and you will come up to this podium.

We will give you two minutes to speak, and uh we're really excited to hear what you have tonight.

So thank you for coming.

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

So everyone can have a fair chance to speak to 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, maybe 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 recently efficient manner will be removed.

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

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

Now, Madam Chair, committee member asks for consent to adopt these rules.

You can proceed to public comments.

I'm gonna read the names that are on here, and there will be a time track over here.

Okay, um Jody Beach, Debbie Patterson, CJ, Cecil Joyner, Revan Lattimore, and then uh here's a sign-up seat if anyone else wants to do the door.

It wasn't, I think.

Or maybe look off first.

Come on up to the podium.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And please state your name and your zip code, please.

Uh Jody Beach 46217, formally a 218.

Thank you.

The electric bills didn't go up.

I gotta say that.

You're used to my bill's $53, $73 over winner.

I use 300 kilowatts.

Um, anyway, it feels like the government is is punishing citizens from failed policy.

So uh the housing or the house roads and transportation has 13 members.

Um House Bill 1185, uh 2024 and House Bill 1085 2025.

Um, Mr.

Moad, I believe is the one that sent that in, was killed by nine Republicans and believe it or not, four Democrats.

None of them voted to move it, they killed it.

They did that to you, they did that to us.

I'm sorry, but if this bill passes, you're gonna lose residents.

Now, you have most people have two cars in their household, a hundred bucks from people I talk to, cashier not on my way here, so that's she can't afford that.

You know, so it now said you're gonna cut that in half.

What happens if your 750 number gets cut in half?

You know, what happens if if most of these dump trucks that you're talking about taxing, they don't even live in our county, and I I can tell you the truth on that because that's one of the things we do.

So, uh $200 for a Tesla tires, that's pretty cheap, must have been used.

But the a lot of the tires I seem getting busted are are 40 and 50 profiles.

You got low-profile tires, you know.

So that they do, they break.

I can't attest to that.

I drive three miles to work and three miles home, so I don't want to live my life in a car.

I'd love to ride, I do ride my bicycle to work, but we don't have bike trail.

So I'm in favor of fixing our infrastructure.

I'm just not in favor of a hundred dollar tax on top of every other tax we're paying.

My property taxes magically went up two thousand dollars a year for what?

I don't have storm sewers, I don't have sidewalks, and neither do the rest of you.

This is not good.

Thank you, sir.

Who's next on the list?

I call it the dates.

Okay.

Debbie.

Debbie Patterson, Debbie Patterson.

She has never had a meeting to get to.

I think it's one.

Uh oh.

My name is Debbie Patterson, 46227.

Good evening, members of the council, and thank you for coming to the community again to have this discussion.

As I told my councilman, I do not envy any of you for the hard choices that you are about to make in the July full council meeting.

I would like to take just a minute to say I feel like it was quite an oversight over the years to have let this get to where it is today.

We've known for many years that the road repairs were necessary.

30 plus years is a long time.

If the rate schedule we are using now was put in place in 1992, and we are just now revisiting it.

I have to believe that there have been many conversations as to how funds for roads can be attained from back then and up until now.

The county road tax wheel tax was ten dollars to forty forty dollars for the heaviest of vehicles on our roads.

And now unfortunately, this lays in your laps.

My point today is that I just want to put my perspective on this.

I've lived in Indianapolis for 50 years, and by now I spend six months of the year out of state, so my contribution will only be used six months out of the year for me.

And we could register there for cheaper, but we choose not to.

Just around in round numbers, we own two vehicles, a fifth wheel, a boat with a trailer, a jet ski with a trailer, a motorcycle, utility trailer, and a dump truck.

That's eight plates.

Last year we paid two thousand two hundred dollars with the proposed increase of a thousand dollars.

We will pay three thousand two hundred dollars.

In proportion, I am 70 years old, and at this, and this is approximately two months of my social security benefits.

My point is, I'll pay my fair share because we enjoy the luxury of having these vehicles, recreational vehicles, etc.

But I think what you were asking for is more than my fair share.

I hope we can find ways for others to help with those improvements, although I do understand we need to do something.

Thank you.

Thank you, Debbie.

Thank you.

I'm CJ Noizu.

I uh live 4627.

I've got a boatload of cars, trucks, motorcycles, and uh, not by any means rich or anything.

Last year, calculated out 46% of my paycheck went to all federal, state, local.

And now you guys are asking for more money.

There's plenty of wasted crap in the budget.

Just indigo, I think is subsidized to the tune of 140 million dollars.

Not all through the state, but you want us to keep supporting this indigo stuff, and it's too it's subsidized 140 million bucks a year.

Same thing, we got bike trails and all this stuff.

Great, but at some point you gotta say we're out of money.

We can't keep just raising taxes and raising taxes and raising taxes.

For me, I think the increase would be like 800, 50, 900 bucks every year at least.

And I drive 15 20-year-old cars every day.

I don't have anything new, and I do that to save money on taxes.

And now you guys are asking for another no, no, and on top of that, I have an 05 RAM 3500 that would end up in the 250, 240 uh fee.

That thing leaves my driveway once, twice a month, maybe it barely gets driven on the road, and yet I'm gonna have to pay the fee anyway, even though it barely gets driven my motorcycle weighs like 600 pounds and you're telling me I got to charge it the same as my 3500 pound jaguar that's ridiculous I'm sorry this is a bad and this should categorically be a no we need to find money somewhere else we can't just keep raising money on the middle class it's not just the middle class that's gonna pay this but the city already has a massive problem with unregistered motor vehicles you think this is going to help the situation no they already can't afford to pay it so they're definitely not going to pay another hundred 250 bucks so thank you thank you CJ Cecil Good afternoon my name is Cecil Joyner my uh zip code is 4624 um I was at a meeting yesterday and the meeting I was at yesterday same thing talking about raising taxes and one thing I told them that I'm I'm not in favor of is being paying more taxes and I'm tired of seeing kids being pimped I'm a retired person I don't want to see me see any more money coming out of my pocket because you guys want to pimp us with taxes here taxes there we all taxed out you know there's other ways you guys can get money to make something happen the general is right to only end talking about how the government about this uh our governor is holding back money I have done some investigation on it I seen that and he's true and he's right but you guys need to find a way to make things better for us because the senior citizens we can't and in 2032 they're talking about taking 500 from our Social Security now just think I'm paying 200 more this year in state taxes and then y'all talking about another hundred dollars I got four cars that's 700 more for what?

And I've been trying to get my street streets in my neighborhood done completely over 20 years.

We can't get them done.

So I got a problem with that a paying any more taxes because certain areas can get things done certain areas not getting things done so if y'all gonna do it do it right do it fair without making us pay for everybody else that's all I got to say.

Thank you Mr.

Joyner Reverend Lattimore thank you and good evening Reverend David Lattimore 46268 I'm just gonna pick it back on what I've already heard we're gonna take a semi trailer and tax the save for a person who has a motorcycle or a senior citizen who has a wheelchair on the back of a vehicle that doesn't make any sense to me we already know that these companies will leave the city UPS FedEx in Memphis UPS and Atlanta we know it's gonna happen.

If we act like it's not gonna happen we know they're gonna register vehicles somewhere else the biggest thing that I want to complain about is that we constantly get our taxes raised over and over and over when is it going to stop?

You guys have the power to make a stop and it needs to stop today it does our HOA pays a security guy, police officer every year thousands of dollars to keep the sidewalks clear cars parked on the sidewalks parked cars parked on opposite side of the street just like in Detroit they get tickets for that and we should be able to use those same revenues in the city, so we don't have to keep raising everybody's taxes to keep the streets clear, sidewalks clear.

We had a young man almost get hit by a car because he rolled out in front of a vehicle that was blocking the sidewalk.

He almost got hit.

And that's the reason why we pay.

I think last year we paid $16,000 from the president of HOA for a police officer.

We can't keep sustaining that.

But we have to do something to keep our city streets safe.

And just like in Detroit, if you park blocking sidewalks, if you park on the opposite side of the street, look, we tax, we uh get people tickets downtown in Broad Ripple.

The rest of the city, we don't even care about it.

We don't even care.

You can park in the middle of the street, you can park backwards, you can block the alley, you can do whatever you want to do.

But if you go downtown and borrow, you get a ticket.

And that's another way to drive national revenue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert.

If you can hold the clock for just a second, I had a call out.

I'd like to, I wanted to appreciate all the taxpayers that are in the room.

It's gonna pay this bill, appreciate you.

Also appreciate Andy and the work that he does because he's done a phenomenal job at this.

This is what we've needed.

Our new president over there, she brought it up to the top, and we greatly appreciate it.

And we appreciate Councilman Bain's uh effort on this at the state level.

From the taxpayer's point of view, and you guys just need to hear this conversation, or this these facts.

In 2020, $36 billion in assessed value for Marion County, and 2025, it's 56 billion.

This year it's 60 billion.

That's a $2 billion increase in assessed value in one year.

SEA1 has nothing to do with this.

Well, I was involved in the 123 to protect these people out here.

We've worked on that for seven years.

The one thing they left out was the assessment.

Now I'm old school.

So I'll tell you the truth.

In 2010, they just ran it right past us and took out the assessment.

You get assessed, you get assessed, you get assessed.

Next year you get assessed, you get assessed, you get assessed.

To the tune of two billion dollars more for Marion County.

In that amount of time, you guys took a 250% increase in your salary.

That's not government from here.

That's government from behind that table, not here.

What makes it even worse is this is a broken system.

I can go to Marion County or I can go to Wayne County, Indiana.

They don't have crack, they don't have a busted, they don't have a pothole, nothing.

Drive it.

I'll invite you, I'll take you, I'll buy you a dinner.

That's a system that works.

This isn't working.

I have asked for 10 years for Southeastern to just have the cracks sealed.

Now I got chuck holes.

The system is broke no matter what you do, no matter what you do.

We have to come up with a new system.

Thank you, Mr.

Hager.

Paul Woods.

Uh Paul Woods 4627 acres of code.

Uh, couple things.

Um, if we're so sure that the mayor's plan will covers to what 2028 per se, you were saying roughly 27.

What's prohibiting us from the years after that seeking a bond as a backup in case the mayor can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and get this extra money.

That'll way the state shows that hey, we have a backup plan, a constituency plan that'll take care of the shortfall, uh, if he can.

The second uh thing I'm thinking about is uh every vehicle has to be registered within 60 days in Marion County.

Uh the council may look into uh a way to capture fees from all these heavy vehicles that want to take their vehicles in other state and come up with a formula or something and figure out how you can get that as a as an infraction or something along those lines and say, okay, if your vehicle's here more than 50% of the time, this is what we're gonna assess these vehicles, and if you don't pay it, and we catch you out when it's time out in the streets, and you get stopped, that infraction fee will be collected because that dump truck will be collected and towed.

And they'll pay that bill because they need a dump truck back as a backup way for all these people to want to skirt the system and click their vehicle in other states.

So this is something to consider a way to get some more revenue in.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Woods.

Mike Owens.

Hi, my name is Mike Olez 46212.

I am a well-documented non-resident of Marion County, but live about a mile and a half outside the city district.

And you know, sometimes I come down 82nd Street and uh and it's what one of these rural Marion County roads, but our solution to solving the big pothole there in half the road was to put a cone up.

Um, and uh last week I was visiting with my friend uh we were down at East 10th Street in front of the big the cool bagel shop right there and hella car problems was hanging out and kind of walking around and uh just saw a big like you're talking about the roads are crumbling.

Like you could like see the whole of the road and look down and see the storm pipe beneath it.

Uh last year I was over uh on Fall Creek and the bridge going over maybe it was 30th in the in the creek, and you can look down, you can see the the creek below.

And uh and so I just want to give a big thank you to the 13 city councillors who uh are showing bravery and leadership and trying to solve this problem.

And I feel a little, I live in a you know in a very uh a city-a state rep district that's about to flip uh from one party to the other, and uh I just feel like a lot of hypocrisy for the Republican side tonight because they are deeply connected to our state government and they've caused this problem.

So I feel like there's a lot of crocodile tiers when it comes to uh solving the problems of Marion County.

So please call up your city council, your state rep and your bosses and your people, your political party.

Uh tell them to do Marion County right and stop with a crocodile tears.

Uh and then as a uh as a non-resident, we're happy.

We gotta solve the problems of Central Indiana.

So thank you for the the 13 city counselors who are brave enough to put their name down and try to make this happen.

So uh thank you so much.

Thanks, Mike.

Taylor Fireston.

All right, good evening, Chairwoman Jones and committee members.

My name is Taylor Feierstein, and I'm the director of healthy communities with Indianapolis-based nonprofit Health by Design.

And before you this evening, representing our board of directors, staff, and coalition partners to testify in support of proposal 192.

Health by Design supports proposal 192, even as we note that state law restricts matching funds from being used for sidewalks, bike lanes, greenways, and trails.

Despite our disappointment with the state law's multimodal exclusions, we believe that graduated increases to the county option wheel tax remains the city county's best opportunity to leverage the state's $50 million commitment while identifying a sustainable local funding source to tackle deferred roadway maintenance and begin closing our long-standing road funding gap.

As Councillor Nielsen noted in his presentation, Marion County adopted its current wheel tax rates in 1992, and that fee schedule has remained unchanged ever since.

However, since 1992, Marion County has added hundreds of miles to its already 8,400 lane miles, which I have to say no other city pier comes even close.

So we have way overbuilt our roadways.

Freight and commuter traffic have increased, and vehicles on our streets have become larger and heavier.

These factors, plus a general lack of political will, have contributed to the current state of poor repair on our local streets and roads.

Our city has made a commitment to zero fatal or serious injury crashes by 2035.

We will not get there without substantial dedicated investments and the quality of our infrastructure.

We believe that it is imperative that city county officials pursue every available path to invest in safe connected streets that benefit residents and visitors alike.

In closing, I appeal for your support of proposal 192, a public commitment to strengthening our financial resolve, tackling deferred maintenance, and freeing up more resources to build a safer, healthier, more vibrant Indianapolis for all.

We commend city county counselors for facing this issue with the urgency it requires.

Thank you.

Thank you, Taylor.

Stephanie Johnson.

Good evening.

Didn't plan on speaking today, but was inspired.

So thank you all for all that you have done, the work that you've done.

I did want to say that as one who has built and invested in Indianapolis in countless ways as an architect, as a servant to our homeless neighbors, to public private, working with franchised and disenfranchised.

I must say, as a professional service provider, there is not a pat on the back for presenting well.

There's no pat on the back for calling an effort as doing the right thing.

This is real and it's not paper.

And professional services can oftentimes remove us from the reality of how things work and their weight effect.

It appears to be how we're approaching this.

Transactional versus transformative lack of communication, considering people over process, including organizations and entities, and how they are woven into this solution.

Step-by-step accountability and forensics versus forecasting.

So these big picture proposals can often lead gaping holes.

So proposals stop short, take us to the cliff, and then there's more work yet to be done.

So yes, we need to invest, and whatever is done needs to be done with a scalpel.

You can't predict the future.

Hearing about the trucks and all things that we know are providing wear and tear.

I'm not sure if we've considered creative community building solutions like dedicated commercial pathways, adopting highways, communicating and creating more community so that people will not leave.

Rather invest in the city.

Need to stop thinking that these variables discussed won't actually respond because every action does cause a reaction.

So just as an example, some people are on the verge of not driving, like I'm pretty sure there's people who are willing to take the very buses that are not going to then be charged anything.

So as a result, even how we live, deliveries versus personally going to the store.

Look at how your neighbors are living.

We need to open our eyes to see what this city is actually going to look like in 2031.

Need to connect the dots, and I'm counting on all you all to do the work, and that the state doesn't get to set the terms of political oppression, and we just say yes, MASA.

Enough with the Charlatan shenanigans.

There are no mulligans because that card has been pulled enough times historically.

It's been exhausted.

And so I ask that if you're going to serve, which I know is hard, please serve well.

Thank you, Tiffany.

Jacob Morales.

Hello, my name is Jacob Morales, Council District 13.

I'm here to support, uh support this proposal, and you know, thank the 13 counselors for showing bravery.

You know, my experience with Indianapolis Roads, just like everyone, is uh, you know, that they are garbage and our transportation system needs a lot of work.

Uh a lot of things need a lot of work and a lot more funding.

We have a lot of issues going on in our city right now that I would be very weary of taking a scalpel to just to lay some pavement.

Like, for example, I saw I saw an article in Indie Star, someone was calling to gut uh our arts program or even our public transportation uh to lay maybe a few miles of asphalt.

And like the things that give the city soul, like are the things that keep people housed, like our tenant advocacy programs.

These things need to be preserved and they shouldn't just be put into uh basically into the ground just to be crumbled by the next year.

Uh, we should be having dedicated sources of funds for our infrastructure, right?

Like, if we want to be a world-class city, we need to not only bridge the gap of our major infrastructure deficit, but we have to go beyond that, right?

I I I mean, I appreciate Councillor Wells' concern about you know that we're gonna be raising more funds uh than potentially necessary, but I I think that we, if we want to be a next level city, we need to be going beyond that to actually fund, not to just to get smooth roads, but get safe roads.

I'm uh heard vision zero mentioned.

Uh if we want to get to the point where we have you know safe livable streets, uh, we need to have dedicated sources of funding for that.

And I I just find it ironic that like if we're talking about cuts, why don't we make cuts to the sprawling development patterns that adds to our infrastructure liabilities that then you know now we have to pay more, like billions more in interstates to be able to funnel all this traffic where they need to go?

Uh let's let's make a better city and we need money to do that.

Thanks.

Thank you, Jacob.

So I'm gonna Anderson.

Good evening.

I spoke with someone in Andre Carson's department, and I was told that most of Mary County's taxes go outside of Marion County.

Now, if we bring some of our funds back to Marion County, we may not have to raise our taxes because we are supporting everyone else, and that's that's not good for us.

So we need to not fund other counties, let them fund themselves, and we fund Marion County because that's where we're paying the taxes.

So my question is how can this be done because raising taxes isn't good for people who are retired.

Because we're on fixed incomes.

I'm 74 years old, and raising my taxes isn't what I want you to do.

Thank you.

Thank you, George.

Morgan Bronson.

Hello, you all know my name, it is not Morgan Bronson, but uh Morgan is a constituent of mine who was not able to be here tonight, and she asked me to read her statement.

Um, pretend I'm shorter, different gender.

Hello, members of the council.

For the record, my name is Morgan Bronson.

I'm a district 13 resident and the former director of the Office of Sustainability, a division of DPW.

I'm submitting my public comment this evening in favor of proposal 192.

Proposal 192 is not perfect, but it is a necessary step towards solving a funding crisis that impacts every department in this city.

We all agree our roads need massive investment.

However, because that need is so overwhelming, it creates a trickle-down effect that starves other essential divisions of their funding.

The Office of Sustainability has borne the brunt of these constraints for years.

To give you a direct example, funding for no zone, our air quality awareness program was cut and entirely redirected to infrastructure projects.

Indiana already struggles with some of the worst pollution in the United States.

We cannot afford to strip away our environmental defenses to pay for street repairs.

By beginning to address the root of our infrastructure funding issues, proposal 192 protects the vital programs that make our city livable.

I asked for your support on this proposal tonight.

However, addressing this crisis requires a broader commitment to our residents.

I urge this council to create additional accessible opportunities for public comment.

Civic participation should not be a luxury reserved for those who can afford to take significant time out of their day to travel to an in-person meeting.

Finally, council action alone is not enough.

I am calling on the mayor to take bold action on this front.

Rather than simply telling us that proposals like this are not a good idea, we needed the mayor's office to step up as an active partner in solving the structural funding issue.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, was there anyone else?

Um, oh, I'm sorry, I apologize.

Hi, my name's Andrea, and I'm in uh Zip Code 46205.

I've heard so many great comments tonight.

You guys just all um everything you've said.

So I just want to add something that no one really else has addressed.

I watched you guys last year go through a process of uh before this was really really even revealed of um really introducing an idea of Bill bringing an MLS stadium to Indianapolis.

And I can't imagine what that cost, but I used to work in sports policy in Washington DC, and I knew the data truly revealed that when you invest in a major league ballpark in public financing, it actually is a net drag to the economy, and the the way that the data are written and publicly revealed is actually um incorrect to the true outcomes of that.

So I watched many of you guys vote against or join the mayor and overturning a great development that we had planned on the waterfront.

But I think I don't know if there was public funding in that, but then to see many, if not all of you guys join the mayor in um supporting something that was gonna take a lot of public infrastructure and a lot of public support and a lot of public funding, um, and now turn the tide on us as citizens and say, well, you know what I mean.

That's still in place, and I understand we're gonna take away some other resources, but we're gonna text you guys for what you guys should already be having.

It's just it just pains my heart and counselor main, I look at you.

I think you had the committee vote that you've overturned it.

Um, and I you know I'm I'm a Republican and I look at you, and I think I'm so sad that you did that.

And so, in relation to everything else that's been said tonight, I just would like you guys to take a really deep hard look at yourselves and look at what you think the mayor is going to commit funding to for the future.

And if it's an MLS stadium and you're gonna tax these people and you're gonna tax me, please really take a hard look and consider how can we help people that are gonna struggle that are never gonna go to an MLS stadium, never gonna participate in that we would uh take that off the table, maybe take that money and some of you suggest some other public financing that you can commit to this.

What are some more creative ways to do it?

I don't know where I stand on it, but everybody who's here tonight makes some great comments.

You guys have some opportunities, I think, to kind of look at your priorities.

Thanks.

I just got a small comment.

I lived here for 30 years, from Detroit, who have been to Detroit, but I've been in 30 years, and this is considered the capital of Indianapolis, and to see these streets, other count of capitals, Atlanta, into Phoenix.

I know it and Rome is so horrible to be in their capital.

What is going on here?

That is my concern.

And why can't whoever can vote to governor or downtown, like the other city does, other capital does, and make sure that capital goes great.

We got so many events here, and people gotta go out downtown.

Oh, if I got up the car, I'm gonna fail because the whole is downtown.

If you're gonna do anything, at least clean up downtown.

When people come in, thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else who would like to speak on proposal number 192, 2026?

Anyone else?

Okay, assistant majority leader.

Would you have any closing remarks?

You're good?

All right.

Well, again, from our council from our committee.

Madam President, would you like any closing remarks?

No, you can.

Would you like to?

I think that'll do it.

So good evening again.

My name is Maggie Lewis, and I do have the honor of serving as the president of the uh the other city county council, and I just want to close with a few few things just to just to clarify and help us level set.

One, thank you so much for showing up this evening.

Oftentimes we do not hear from our constituents until after the fact.

So the the simple fact that you all showed up, thank you so much.

Uh, we don't always have to agree, um, we don't have to uh be mean and nasty to each other just because we disagree on how to solve for a specific issue.

Obviously, there's different views on how do we solve for the poor infrastructure in our community, and there's not a nice way to say that.

Our roads are not acceptable.

However, at this time, we only have one plan, and so I said it before, and I'll continue to say it.

Show us a plan.

You do not get to just sit back and poke holes in the plan that 13 of us presented.

If you have ideas, show up.

Let's have a conversation about how do we fix the infrastructure.

We do not have a plan from the 25th floor.

The mayor is my friend.

I respect Mayor Hoxett, but we do not have a plan.

So my colleague, he left and said that the mayor's plan worked.

Well, I look forward to the day that we actually have a plan to respond to, but again, right now, we do not have a plan from the administration.

So we took it amongst ourselves to attempt to solve for the one issue that we hear about every single day.

I live over here.

When I go to Myers after the gym and my baseball cap, no makeup on.

The peeps are asking me, Maggie, what are you gonna do about the roads?

I hit the same potholes you guys do on 46th Street.

Six tires, three rooms later.

So again, we have to come together and figure out how do we solve for the poor infrastructure.

To my Republican colleagues, I agree that we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

We need to continue to look in the budget and see what things that we can cut.

But at this point, I am concerned that either we're gonna reduce services or increase revenue, right?

We have to have a real conversation about what the budget uh looks like and doesn't look like, and again, we have to be honest about what's in there last night.

We had conversations about cutting out services that helps black and brown kids on the regular basis.

That's not acceptable, right?

So let's be honest about what's in the budget and what's not in that budget.

Again, leadership is hard.

No politician, I'm a politician, I'm a lot of things, but I am a politician, right?

No politician wants to go on record raising taxes.

We know that y'all can vote us out of office, right?

But again, I don't hang my hat on being the president of the city county council.

I do not hang my hat on being a counselor, right?

I have to answer for every one of my actions, every one of my decisions.

I believe that this is the right path, right?

But again, I have to answer for that.

So I do not take this lightly.

I do not take this is important.

I have to answer for the decisions that I make as a city county counselor.

So your input is important to me.

It is important to all of us.

So again, we can disagree, but please come to the table with some solutions.

Help us solve for the poor infrastructure that we are up against.

And the last thing I want to say is I heard you all talk about this is not fair, why are we doing this?

Our hands are tied as members of the city county council.

We get our authority from the state of Indiana.

We talked about the other night that cut that elections have consequences.

Well, they do.

There's a super majority at the state house that have presented us with this gift, right?

With a whole bunch of restraints.

So not only do you need to have a conversation with us as members of the city county council, you need to go over to the other end of the market and ask them why do we continue to have to fight for infrastructure dollars?

The road formula is horrible.

We are the state capital, we deserve better.

But again, the only way we're gonna change that formula is to have a conversation with the folks at the state because we are not authorized to change the road formula.

So again, and I'm gonna I'm gonna I said say it all the time.

I'm gonna put myself on mute.

I encourage you to reach out to your member of the city county council.

I encourage I strongly encourage you to have a conversation with the folks of the state house.

I encourage you to reach out to the administration and ask them what is their long-term plan to ensure that we're not dodging potholes every other second.

So again, thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedules to join us.

I encourage you to continue the conversation.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.