12.a. Third Reading of Ordinance D-2762-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 5, Sections 8-37, 8-47, and 8-48 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. Remains in the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.

[12.a. Third Reading of Ordinance D-2762-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 5, Sections 8-37, 8-47, and 8-48 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. Remains in the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO OLD BUSINESS, THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE D 37 265. CITY COUNCIL OF CARMEL INDIANA AMENDING CHAPTERS 837, 847 AND 838 OF THE DERMAL CITY CODE. COUNSELORS AUSTIN, THIS REMAINS IN THE

[12.b. Resolution CC-02-03-25-07; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Recommending Consideration of an Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance for the City and Referring the Same to the Carmel Plan Commission for Recommendation; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen, Snyder and Taylor. Remains in the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE. RESOLUTION CC 0203 2507, RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA, RECOMMENDED CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED OF ELEMENT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY, REFERRING THE CARMEL PLAN CONSIDERATION FOR RECOMMENDATION. THE SPONSORS ARE COUNSELORS AUSTIN, SNYDER, AND TAYLOR. THIS REMAINS IN LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE.

DID YOU WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THAT?

>> I CAN. LEGAL HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THIS QUITE CLOSELY WITH RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. WE FEEL THAT WE CAN NOW START MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE AS IT PERTAINS TO GROUP HOMES WHAT LAND-USE IS WORKING ON, AS WELL AS THE CITY LEGAL AND CITY STAFF, WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO, MAKING IT AS SECURE AND AS SAFE AS IT COULD POSSIBLY BE FOR OUR BUSINESS.

[12.c. Resolution CC-02-17-25-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Expressing Interest in the Purchase of Certain Properties Valued at Over $25,000.00 and Associated with City Improvement Projects; Sponsor: Councilor Taylor. Returns from the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

>> THAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING?

>> THAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA THIS WEDNESDAY.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>> MOVING ON TO RESOLUTION CC 02 17 3501, RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA EXPRESSING INTEREST IN THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES VALUED AT OVER $25,000 IN ASSOCIATION WITH CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. CASLER TAYLOR, THIS RETURNS FROM THE LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE.

>> THIS RESOLUTION CAME BACK WITH A UNANIMOUS NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. BUT NOT NEGATIVE AS IN THE INTENT WASN'T GOOD, JUST IN THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED IN THE SHEER SIZE OF IT. WE HAVE A VERY PRODUCTIVE LAND-USE, FOR THESE KINDS OF LAND REQUISITIONS MOVING FORWARD, SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE CITY IS TAKING SOME 200 HOUSES FROM PEOPLE WITHOUT THEM KNOWING. SO, A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION , LOOKING AT PUTTING A SUNSET CLAUSE IN THEIR. LEGAL COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE COUNCILS COUNSEL . HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO PROMOTE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION TO PASS TONIGHT. BEFORE I MOVE IT I WANT TO STATE IT, AND THAT WOULD BE, REMOVING EVERY PROPERTY FROM THE LIST EXCEPT FOR, AND WITH PERMISSION TO MOVE FOR THAT ACTUALLY IN ITS FIVE PARCELS AND PROPERTIES. I WOULD GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT

MOTION . >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION AND WE CAN CONSIDER WHETHER TO SECOND?

>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE -- EXCUSE ME, WE WOULD AMEND RESOLUTION CC 021725201 , TO REMOVE ALL PROPERTIES LISTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 4255 EAST SMOKEY RAILROAD, WHICH IS A HOUSE AT 106 AND LAKESHORE DRIVE, WHERE THE HOMEOWNERS ARE FULLY AWARE AND ACCEPTING AND FRANKLY, HAPPY, THAT THE CITY IS TAKING THEIR HOUSE. THAT IS TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, THERE. I SAID THAT INCORRECTLY, I'M SORRY. 4255 EAST SMOKEY RAILROAD IS THE NOW ABANDONED POOL AREA. THAT IS BEING ACQUIRED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE ROUNDABOUT, AND FOR A FUTURE PARK THAT WHEN WE KNOW IS BEING TAKEN AS A PROPERTY AS A WHOLE.

THE OTHER ONE IS AT 106 AND LAKESHORE DRIVE, THAT IS ONE OF 592 LAKESHORE DRIVE. THOSE HOMEOWNERS ARE AWARE OF THIS COMING . AND THEN, WE HAVE GOT ZERO OLD MERIDIAN STREET THAT

[00:15:04]

962049.00 , THAT ONE IS A PIECE OF LAND BEHIND -- AT THE INTERSECTION OF GRAND BOULEVARD AND OLD MERIDIAN . THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY ON LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL TRAILHEAD. THE OTHER PROPERTY IS THE PARCEL WE KNOW AS NEXT-DOOR TO THE VFW. ALSO DOES NOT HAVE AN ADDRESS, PARCEL 160920404 AND 169 24.8.00. THAT IS TO MAKE WAY FOR THE CITY TO LOOK AT ACQUIRING THAT, FOR BOTH THE VETERANS TRAIL EXPANSION, AND -- MOTION CLOSED.

>> BEFORE WE HAVE CONVERSATION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OPEN UP THE CONVERSATION ON THE AMENDMENT. CASLER GREEN?

>> COUNSELOR SNYDER, COULD YOU ASK LYNETTE ONE MORE TIME? HE SAID, EXCEPT FOR THOSE FIVE PROPERTIES, --

>> THE REASON IS, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SUNSET CLAUSE BUT THESE DO NOT NEED A SUNSET CLAUSE, BECAUSE THE ACT IS TAKING THE LAND AS TOTAL. THESE FOUR ARE ONES THAT HAVE ACTIVE AND CLEARED PLANS ALREADY. THE OTHER ONES DO NOT HAVE PULMONARY LINE WORKED ON YET. SPEAKING WITH THE CITY ENGINEER DURING LAND-USE, THE DESIRE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PRELIMINARY LINE WORK, JUST TO SEE HOW MANY PROPERTIES WILL REALLY BE AFFECTED, SO THAT WE AS A COUNSEL BODY AND AS A CITY, CITY STAFF CAN MAYBE GET AHEAD OF THIS, BEFORE THE LIST OF PROPERTIES COMES TO US , PROPERTY OWNERS CAN GET A HEADS UP , HEY, WE MIGHT NEED THREE FEET OF YOUR LAND. SO, THEY DON'T SEE THEIR ADDRESS AND THINK MY GOSH, MY HOUSE HAS BLOWN AWAY. THAT IS WHAT ALL THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE KIND OF A BLANKET LIST OF MAYBE COULD NEED. THESE ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED FOR ACTIVE PROJECTS.

>> SO, EVERYTHING EXCEPT THOSE FIVE PROPERTIES CAN BE PURCHASED

FOR MORE THAN 25,000 . >> COULD NOT BE PURCHASED.

>> EXCUSE ME. OKAY. >> JUST SO I CAN CLARIFY THIS, WE WILL MOVE AHEAD WITH THESE FIVE PROPERTIES AS IS. THE OTHER PROPERTIES, NOT MOVING AHEAD AT THIS MOMENT, COULD COME BACK AT A LATER DATE WITH DIFFERENT LANGUAGE , SUNSET CLAUSE AND MORE SPECIFICS ON THE PROPERTY, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS THE INTENT, YES. >> OKAY.

>> COUNSELOR SNYDER, I THINK THIS IS REALLY A GOOD CHANGE, BUT I AM WONDERING IF THE ENGINEERING TEAM WHO MIGHT BE USED TO WORKING IN A CERTAIN WAY BEFORE, DOES THE ENGINEERING TEAM UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS , YOU ARE TRYING TO GET IN FRONT OF IT? IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE, THERE USED TO JUST BE A LONG LIST OF PROPERTIES THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO TAKE, YOUR COMMITTEE IS REALLY FOCUSED ON, LET'S ONLY DEAL WITH WHAT WE NEED AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME IN ORDER TO NOT STRING ALONG HOMEOWNERS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, AND I FEEL -- OH, GO

AHEAD. >> GOOD EVENING, JEREMY CASHMAN, CHIEF STRUCTURAL OFFICER. COUNSELOR SNYDER AND I SPOKE REGARDING THIS. THIS IS REALLY, WHAT WE BROUGHT YOU BEFORE WAS WHAT WE HAD DONE ON NUMEROUS OTHER BOND PROJECTS, THE COUNCIL WOULD PRODUCE , COUNSEL WOULD APPROVE A SET OF PROJECTS OF ALL THE PARCELS THAT WE THINK WE MIGHT NEED FOR THE PROJECTS.

THAT WOULD EITHER NEED IT RIGHT AWAY, OR MAYBE PURCHASING EASEMENT TO MAKE SOME DRAINAGE WORK. WHEN WE DID KEYSTONE PARKWAY, THERE WAS A BIG THING THAT WE HAD, LIKE 250 PARCELS ON THERE, SO AGAIN, CHANGING THE WAY THAT WE ARE DOING THINGS NOW. SO, WHAT WE WILL DO GOING FORWARD , AS WE DEVELOP SOME OF THE NEW BOND PROJECTS THAT COUNCIL APPROVED, WE WILL BRING, PROBABLY A GROUPING OF THEM, I WOULD SAY, ONCE WE GET SOME PRELIMINARY LINE WORKED ON, THAT WE HAVE MORE DETAILS FOR WHEN THE NEXT RESOLUTION COMES TO CITY COUNCIL, AND WE WILL SEE SOME PRELIMINARY LINE WORK ON WHAT THE PROJECT LOOKS LIKE, WHERE THE MULTIUSE PATHWAY WILL GO, WHERE THE ROUNDABOUTS WILL GO . THAT WAY, YOUR CONSTITUENTS WILL KNOW MORE DETAILS. THERE IS

[00:20:07]

MORE TRANSPARENCY, REALLY. >> COUNSELOR TAYLOR?

>> THE ZERO OLD MERIDIAN STREET BEHIND THE EMMA TW?

>> YES. >> IS A BUILDING OWNED BY THE

SAME OWNER AS THE DEVELOPMENT? >> YES.

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CARMEL BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION ALSO PASSED AN AMENDMENT OF INTEREST TO ACQUIRE

THE PROPERTY AS WELL? >> SINCE WE ARE WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH PARKS, WE WENT AHEAD AND BROUGHT IT FORWARD. WE ARE WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT .

>> I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS MOVING FORWARD. I AM WONDERING WHY WE ARE STILL PASSING THE RESOLUTION? PER OUR LAST

DISCUSSION. >> SINCE THEY WERE IN NEGOTIATION, WE JUST BROUGHT IT FORWARD IN CASE THERE WERE SOME CHANGES. WE CAN FURTHER OUR DISCUSSION WITH PARKS.

>> THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE OF IT ON THE AMENDMENT NOW? LET'S VOTE. PASSES 9-0. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS AS A WHOLE? ALL RIGHT. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. PLEASE NOTE.

[13.a. First Reading of Ordinance Z-696-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Jackson’s Grant Village (Phase II) Planned Unit Development District and Amending the Jackson’s Grant Village PUD (Ordinance Z-653-20; Sponsor: Councilor Minnaar.]

THAT PASSES 9-0. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE TONIGHT, FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE Z, 696 25, ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNTS ESTABLISH INJECTION GRANT VILLAGE PHASE TWO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND AMENDING THE JACKSON'S GRAND VILLAGE PD ORDINANCE Z SIX 520, SPONSOR IS COUNSELOR MINNAAR. BEFORE WE OPEN. SECOND? OKAY.

>> WITH THE LAW FIRM OF NELSON AFRICAN BURGER, WE REPRESENT HOMES BUT MCKENZIE AS WELL AS DOUG WAGNER WITH REPUBLIC DEVELOPMENT. MCKENZIES REZONE APPLICATION SEEKS TO REZONE HERE, RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO THE JACKSON'S GRAND VILLAGE PHASE TWO POD. SUBJECT 1.6 ACRES IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY THE JACKSON'S GRAND VILLAGE , PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND IS ADJACENT TO AND ABUTTING 160 STREET. THE REASON FOR THE REZONE TO INCORPORATE THAT SPACE, TODAY JACKSON'S GRAND VILLAGE SHOWN HERE WITH FENWAY HOME ON IT, THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD WRAP THIS INTO THE AREA, THE BLUE RECTANGLE'S ARE DEFINED'S TOWNHOMES AND THOSE TOWNHOMES BEING PROPOSED FOR THE SITE ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION TODAY. ANTICIPATED VALUES ARE 1.2 MILLION, THIS WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION EARLIER THIS YEAR, AND RECEIVED A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL. WITH THAT, I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:45 P.M. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:25 P.M. . NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PROJECT, DO WE WANT TO SEND THIS TO COMMITTEE, OR ACT ON THIS PROJECT? WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL TONIGHT?

>> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES.

>> SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND SECOND. PLEASE NOTE. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ACTING ON THIS, THIS EVENING. DO I HEAR

A MOTION? >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? PLEASE

NOTE. THIS PASSES 9-0. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

[13.b. First Reading of Ordinance D-2761-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of Funds from the City Law Enforcement Aid Fund #910; Sponsor: Councilor Worrell.]

>> MOVING ON. FOR A FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D 2761-25.

THE ORDINANCE OF COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING ADDITIONAL PREPARATION OF FUNDING FROM THE CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUNDS , SPONSOR

IS COUNSELOR WORRELL . >> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. ICY

[00:25:01]

CHIEF STERLING. WE HAVE TAKEN PREVIOUS ACTION ON THIS BEFORE, BUT I WILL LET CHIEF STERLING GO AHEAD AND FILL IN , MOVE TO

INTRODUCE. >> ALL RIGHT, AND THEN WHAT I

SAID. >> CHIEF STERLING?

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL FOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

EATING AT THIS ORDINANCE, TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO COVER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUNDING, AS COUNSELOR WORRELL MENTIONED.

LAST YEAR I CAME TO YOU TO ASK TO OPEN UP THIS ACCOUNT FOR FORFEITURES ON THE POLICE SIDE, SO THAT WE COULD BEGIN TO USE THE FUND, THIS IS THE FIRST AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS BECOME AVAILABLE TO US, SO AT THIS POINT WE WOULD LIKE TO

APPROPRIATE THAT ACCORDINGLY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? COUNSEL?

>> JUST TO REFRESH THE PROCESS FOR THIS, THE MONEY IS TAKEN IN TO OUR ACCOUNTS THROUGH THE GRANT FUND AND APPROPRIATED HERE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT MECHANISM?

>> I CAN CLARIFY THEIR. SO, HISTORICALLY, THERE HAS JUST BEEN ONE FUND SET UP FOR THE DRUG FORFEITURE , SEIZURE RELATED DOLLARS . THE GRANT FUND IS NOT INVOLVED, THERE, BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE PUT TWO DIFFERENT TYPES FORFEITURES AND SEIZURES, NOT ONLY THE DRUG MONEY BUT ALSO THE OTHER TYPES OF SEIZURES THAT THEY HAVE . I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS JANUARY OR DECEMBER, WE CREATED A SEPARATE FUND AND PULLED THOSE DOLLARS OVER WHICH IS JUST THE APPROPRIATION, BUT, THEY DO JUST GET REVENUES DEPOSITED HERE , THE SPENDING HAPPENS HERE, THE GRANT FUND IS NOT TOUCHED IN THE PROCESS.

>> PERFECT. AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, AS WE SEE THIS MOVING FORWARD, WITH REVENUES GENERATED INTO THIS FUND THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL TO APPROPRIATE FOR SPECIFIC USES

EVERY TIME AS THE INTAKE OCCURS? >> YES, THERE COULD BE MIDYEAR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS, BUT FOR THE MOST PART WE WILL PROBABLY WORK IT IN WITH THE BUDGET BILL THAT WE DO WITH THE

ORIGINAL FUND. >> THANK YOU.

>> COUNSELOR MINNAAR? ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THIS AMOUNT THAT YOU HAVE HERE IS $287,155.99? ALL RIGHT.

WELL, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING UP AT 6:29 P.M. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR, OR AGAINST, CAN APPROACH THE PODIUM. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:29 P.M. DO YOU HAVE ANY MOTIONS

FROM THE COUNCIL? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT. MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES, PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 9-0. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? MOVE TO APPROVE. PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES ENORMOUSLY.

[13.c. First Reading of Ordinance D-2764-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of One Hundred Eight Thousand Dollars from the General Fund (#101) into the Office of Corporation Counsel Budget (#1180); Sponsor: Councilor Taylor]

NEXTEP -- THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D 2764-25, ORDINANCE OF THE COMMCARMEL, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION AT $108,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND, 101 INTO THE OFFICE OF COUNSEL BUDGET 1180, SPONSOR IS COUNSELOR TAYLOR. MOTION TO

INTRODUCE? >> SO MOVED.

>> COUNSELOR, READ THE SYNOPSIS? >> THIS ORDINANCE APPROPRIATE 108,000 TO SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS APPROVED ORDINANCE D-2763-25 FOR ADJUSTED COMPENSATION FOR THE OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL.

>> ALL RIGHT. A FEW WORDS? >> THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT.

>> AS COUNSELOR TAYLOR JUST MENTIONED, THIS IS THE RESULT OF CHANGES TO THE SALARY ORDINANCE. I THINK AT THE FEBRUARY 3RD MEETING, ESSENTIALLY WILL INCREASE THE SALARY FOR TWO ATTORNEYS, THIS PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE LAW DEPARTMENT, THROUGH THE REST OF THE CALENDAR YEAR TO COVER THE COST OF SALARIES AND FICA, AS WELL AS DISABILITIES AND WORKERS COMP IS ALSO FACTORED IN THEIR. 108 GETS THEM THROUGH THE REST OF THE YEAR FOR SALARY INCREASES. ALONG WITH OTHER INCURRED COSTS THAT GO ALONG THEIR.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? SEEN HIM, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:31 P.M. , ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:31 P.M. DO I HAVE ANY MOTIONS FROM

THE COUNCIL ON THIS ORDINANCE? >> SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY PASSED

[00:30:02]

A PREVIOUS ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE SALARY RESOLUTION, I MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ACT ON THIS, THIS EVENING.

>> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE HAVE A MOTION .

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

[13.d. First Reading of Ordinance D-2765-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of $1,067,420.00 from the General Fund (#101) to the City Property Maintenance Budget (#1206); Sponsor: Councilor Taylor]

>> THAT PASSES 9-0. MOVING ON. WE HAVE HEARING D, THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D, 2765-25, ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF 1,067,000 $420 FROM THE GENERAL FUND, 101, TO THE CITY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1206. SPONSORS COUNSELOR

TAYLOR. >> MOVED INTRODUCE.

>> COUNSEL TAYLOR, PLEASE READ THE SYNOPSIS.

>> THIS ORDINANCE APPROPRIATE 1,067,000 $420 , TO SUPPORT

STREET REPAVIN COST. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SO REALLY, THIS ORDINANCE, IS ATTEMPTING TO KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. COMING OUT OF BUDGET SESSION, IF YOU WILL, COUNSEL PAST THE ORDINANCES THAT CREATED THE WHEEL TAX AND SERVE TAX AND UNFORTUNATELY AFTER THAT WE REALIZED THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A SEPTEMBER 1ST PASSAGE CUTOFF DATE. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW AS WE GOT CLOSER TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, I WOULD LOOK FOR DOLLARS APPROPRIATED LAST FISCAL YEAR THAT WERE NOT SPENT, THAT WE COULD CONSIDER TWO RE-APPROPRIATE, THIS YEAR, TO MEET THAT . AGAIN, I KEPT CALLING 3.6 MILLION, IT WAS TECHNICALLY 3.5 , WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS MOVING THE FIRST 1 MILLION CITY $7420, WHICH WOULD LEAVE 2.5 MILLION LEFT , FOR ANOTHER DAY , TO DO THE REST OF THAT APPROPRIATIONS, TO GET TO THE FULL 3.6 MILLION. THE REASON WE ARE ASKING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, JUST UNDER 1.1 MILLION NOW IS BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT AT ONE POINT LAST YEAR, WHERE A TRUCK HIT THE OVERPASS ON 106TH STREET AND KEYSTONE, AND ESSENTIALLY DID ABOUT $1 MILLION WORTH OF DAMAGE TO THAT OVERPASS. WE HAVE WORKED WITH INSURANCE, TO GET THIS RESOLVED. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE TO MAKE THE REPAIRS FIRST AND BEAR THE COST OF THOSE, AND THEN WE WILL BE REIMBURSED. FOR US TO BEAR THOSE COSTS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO FIRST HAVE THE APPROPRIATIONS SET BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IF THEY START SPENDING THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT ROOM IN THE APPROPRIATION, TO IMPOSE THE $1 MILLION WORTH OF EXPENSES . THIS GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO SPEND AGAINST $1 MILLION FOR THESE REPAIRS, ONCE THEY GET REIMBURSED, THAT WILL GO BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO MAKE THIS WHOLE, WHICH WOULD RESTORE THE $1.1 MILLION FOR THE ORIGINAL INTENT, IF YOU WILL, THE REPAVING, AND THEN AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD WE WILL COME BACK TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE

REMAINING 2.5 MILLION. >> COUNSELOR JOE SHE, DID YOU

HAVE A QUESTION? >> I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE PROCESS , TO ENSURE THAT WE RECOVER THE MONEY FROM

THE INSURANCE? >> OUR LEGAL OFFICE HAS WORKED WITH OUR BROKER, AS WELL AS WITH TRAVELERS , OUR INSURANCE. THERE IS EVERY EXPECTATION THAT ONCE THE WORK IS COMPLETED, WHICH WILL PROBABLY TAKE 30 TO 60 DAYS FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO BE RECEIVED, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE EVERY INDICATION THAT WE WILL BE REIMBURSED, AND FRANKLY IF WE DON'T, WE WOULD BE IN A GOOD POSITION TO GO AFTER THEM LEGALLY, BUT THERE IS EVERY EXPECTATION THAT WE WILL BE REIMBURSED THE FULL COST.

>> BUT WE WILL PURSUE THAT FURTHER IF WE ARE NOT?

>> YES. >> THIS IS NOT GOING TO END UP BEING SOMETHING WHERE WE COME BACK AND RECITE NOW WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IF YOU MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> COUNSELOR TAYLOR, THEN

SNYDER. >> A COUPLE QUESTIONS, AND THEN , YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS TONIGHT, WE

[00:35:03]

WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT, BUT, HAS THE CLAIM

BEEN APPROVED >> I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT . I AM NOT SURE, TECHNICALLY, IF THIS IS THE CLAIM GETS APPROVED AFTER WE FINISH THE WORK, AND FILE FOR REIMBURSEMENT, I KNOW THE WORK HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED YET. I'M ASSUMING THE ANSWER IS NO, BUT PROBABLY A TECHNICAL ANSWER, THERE, REGARDING DEFINITIONS. I AM NOT REALLY SURE OF.

>> THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION TO THE COUNCIL, AFTER THINKING ABOUT THIS AND REVIEWING IT COMING TONIGHT, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO SEE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE CLARIFYING THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM INSURANCE DOES GO THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND.

>> I CAN TELL YOU, COUNSELOR, BY POLICY WE DO THAT. WERE EVER THE INSURANCE -- WHEREVER IT WAS PAID FOR , THAT IS WHERE IT WILL

BE DEPOSITED. >> COUNSELOR SNYDER?

>> MR. CASHMAN ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS BRIDGE ? DOES THIS ALSO INCLUDE REMEDIES TO FIX THE ISSUE THAT -- THE REASON WHY IT IS BEING HIT?

>> YES. WE HAVE DONE , THIS BRIDGE HAS BEEN HIT BEFORE. THE FIRST TIME IT GOT HIT IT WAS AN OVERSIZED LOAD PERMITTED BY THE STATE OF THE REVENUE . SO, THERE WAS AN OVERSIZED LOAD . SINCE THIS IS THE SECOND TIME, I THINK THIS IS A SMALL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT BOUNCED, WE ARE ACTUALLY MODIFYING THE BRIDGE BEAM ELEVATIONS ON THE FINAL TWO BEAMS . SO, WE WILL RAISE THEM BY 3 INCHES, BECAUSE WHEN THEY ARE GETTING HIT, THEY ARE ONLY GETTING HIT BY LIKE HALF AN INCH. SO, WE ARE HOPING THAT LONG-TERM THIS WILL HELP WITH THAT AS WELL.

>> DO YOU -- IS THE BRIDGE IN ANY SORT OF CRITICAL FAILURE OR

UNSAFE TO USE? >> AS IT CURRENTLY SITS, IT IS NOT. WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT WANT VEHICLES DRIVING ON THAT PORTION. THE SUPPORT OF THE DEAD LOAD OF THE BRIDGE IS NOT AN ISSUE, IT'S JUST THAT LONG-TERM WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REPLACE THE BEAMS, BECAUSE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THE BOTTOM STRANDS BEING MISSED, BUT, BRIDGES ARE DESIGNED WITH A LEVEL OF SAFETY TO THEM SO IT IS NOT ANYTHING WE ARE MISSING.

>> IS THE REPAIR ALREADY DESIGNED?

>> THE REPAIR IS ALREADY DESIGNED AND BID. IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BID TWICE. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STREETS DEPARTMENT, WE BID THE PROJECT AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, CONTRACTING FUNDING FROM LAST YEAR, UNFORTUNATELY, THE TIME WINDOW WE WERE TRYING TO RECEIVE THE BIDS, THE STATE WAS ALSO BIDDING A BUNCH OF DESIGN BUILD BRIDGE PROJECTS, SO, OUR COST ON THE FIRST WAS VERY EXPENSIVE. ONCE WE FOUND THAT OUT WE BID IT AGAIN. I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY $700,000 LESS THAN COST, JUST BY HAVING A LARGER POOL OF BIDDERS. SO WE FEEL LIKE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE A VERY GOOD PRICE. I DON'T THINK THE COST IS GOING TO GO DOWN IF WE WERE TO WAIT. AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE AN ACTIVE TIME WINDOW NOW, WHERE BY LAW, WE HAVE 60 DAYS THAT WE CAN HOLD A BITTER TO THEIR PRICE . BUT, ALSO, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET THE BRIDGE REPAIRED THIS SUMMER, SO THAT WAY, IT IS TAKEN CARE OF IN ADVANCE OF ANY OTHER PROJECTS.

>> SO, MY FINAL QUESTION WOULD BE FOR YOU AND ZACH, JOINTLY. I THINK THE QUESTION ABOUT PROOF THAT WE ARE BEING REIMBURSED IS A GOOD ONE. I ALSO THINK THAT COUNSELOR TAYLOR'S REQUEST FOR WHERE THE MONEY GOES IS PRETTY SIMPLE TO GET THAT IN THERE.

MILEAGES TO CONCERN , HERE, IS THAT IF WE WORK ON THE BRIDGE IN THE SUMMER, WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED DURATION?

>> PROBABLY AT LEAST 90 DAYS. >> SAY WE START IN JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, FOR POTENTIAL FINAL COMPLETION A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER THAT , THEN WE FILE FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND WE ARE NOT

[00:40:02]

ACTUALLY GETTING THE MONEY UNTIL THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR . AT ANOTHER THAT IS A PROBLEM OR NOT BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS AS FAR AS REIMBURSEMENT GOES. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANY QUESTIONS, COUNSELOR

GREEN? >> ONE QUESTION AND ONE STATEMENT. AS FAR AS THE TIMING OF KEYSTONE AND 106, 106 WILL HAVE A BUNCH OF THINGS BEING DONE, THE WESTVILLE BRIDGE LINE, THAT ROUNDABOUT , AND THEN THE WORK ON 31 COMING OFF OF 465.

THERE WILL BE A LOT OF REROUTING, TRAFFIC , IS THAT BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE TIMING OF THE PROJECT? AND WILL WHEN A SIXTH AND KEYSTONE, WILL TRAFFIC BE

TEMPORARILY DIVERTED? >> WE HAVE TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I BELIEVE WE ARE MAINTAINING TRAFFIC ON THE BRIDGE WHILE IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE MAIN THING IS THESE LAST TWO BRIDGE BEAMS , WE CUT A PORTION OF THE DECK OUT, TAKE THE BEAMS OUT AND PUT MORE BEAMS IN PLACE, SO, THERE WOULD BE SOME MINOR CLOSURES ON KEYSTONE, PROBABLY IN THE OVERNIGHT TIMEFRAME , BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET IT DONE THIS SUMMER, THAT WAY WHEN A SIXTH AND WESTFIELD PUBLIC IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, IT IS DONE AND THAT WAY WE ARE READY TO GO NEXT YEAR WHEN WE START 106 AND LAKESHORE DRIVE. THERE IS ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THE BEEN GETTING HIT, WHEN THE BRIDGE WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, THE ARE DESIGNED TO THE LEGAL HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, SO THESE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF LOCATIONS WHERE A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HAS COME UNTETHERED .

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON THE RECORD AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE GOTTEN EMAILS FROM PEOPLE IN THOSE AREAS ALWAYS ASKING ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHY THERE HAVE BEEN ORANGE CONES OUT THERE ON SOME OF THE SIDEWALKS THAT HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING THROUGH RIDING BIKES BECAUSE OF THE ORANGE CONES, SO WHEN THE WORK WAS

GOING TO BE DONE. >> YEAH, WE DID START RECEIVING THOSE, THAT IS WHY WE ACTUALLY HAD A SIGN PLACED ON THE BRIDGE JUST TO GIVE A BIT OF EXTRA MEDICATION.

>> THANK YOU. >> COUNSELOR WORLD?

>> MINA SIMPLE. WHEN I HEARD ZACH TALKING ABOUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GETTING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PERSON THAT DID THE DAMAGE, NOT OUR INSURANCE COMPANY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. FOR ANYONE WHO

MIGHT BE LISTENING. >> THAT IS CORRECT. I'M NOT SURE IF WE WILL RECEIVE IT THROUGH OUR INSURANCE COMPANY , THEY WILL PLAY A MIDDLEMAN ROLE, BUT IT WOULD BE THERE INSURANCE

REPAYING US, NOT OUR INSURANCE. >> COUNSELOR LOCKE?

>> FIRST , JUST A REINVIGORATION OF COUNSELOR'S QUESTION, WONDERING, FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT OF THE REIMBURSEMENT WILL COME BACK UNTIL NEXT YEAR, IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES ON YOUR

END, HOW THAT WILL WORK. >> NO REAL ISSUES, BECAUSE WE HAVE CAP , WE WOULD BE APPROPRIATING CASH TO THIS FUND, SO THERE IS NO ISSUE OF IT BEING THE END OF THE YEAR, EVEN IF, E- FOR SOME REASON, AMBER SMITH DID NOT COME IN THIS YEAR. IT IS POSITIVE FROM A CASH STANDPOINT, THAT IS THE ONLY REAL ISSUE.

>> OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION IS JUST MORE PROCEDURAL, AS WE LOOK AT INTO HOW THE LINE ITEM WAS CHOSEN FOR THIS. I SEE IT AS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE WHICH IS A NEW CATEGORY AS OPPOSED TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT, AND THERE WAS NO APPROPRIATION FOR THIS LINE ITEM IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, WONDERING WHY THIS ONE, WHETHER WAS A PROCEDURAL PROCESS THAT PUTS THIS IN A POSITION TO BE

THERE ? >> YES. STREET DEPARTMENT IS , IN THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IT LOOKS LIKE TWO DEPARTMENT. THEY RECEIVE THE APPROPRIATION TO STREET DEPARTMENT AND THEN THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION IS THAT CITY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE LINE. SINCE THIS IS COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND SOURCE, WE ARE KEEPING IT IN THAT GENERAL FUND SOURCE THAT THEY ACCESS THE CITY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AS OPPOSED TO CO-MINGLING FUNDING .

>> OKAY, JUST MOVING FORWARD AS WE LOOK AT THOSE NEXT APPROPRIATIONS, THEY WILL BE TO THIS FUND UNDER CITY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE TO MAKE UP THE SHORTFALL?

>> YEAH, THE 3.6, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WOULD MAKE THAT UP, THIS

IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO DO IT. >> PERFECT. MY FINAL QUESTION IS MORE OF A HOLISTIC DISCUSSION, AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITION OF ATTACKS, THE ADDITION OF THE $3.5 MILLION COMING IN , WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING THE SHORTFALL THAT WE HAVE HAD, AS A CITY, LOOKING AT THE NEED FOR REPAVING, OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, WE SPOKE ABOUT THERE BEING A NEED OF 10 MILLION ISSUED TO

[00:45:02]

KEEP UP WITH PACE, KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT A STUDY IN PROCESS, THAT'S AN OLD NUMBER AND MAYBE AN OLD PROCESS, BASED ON A LESS SOPHISTICATED UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PAYMENT WOULD BE, WITH 1 MILLION OF THIS BEING A WRITE OFF OF THE 3.5 MILLION IN, TO FIX THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, IT DOESN'T REALLY HIT THAT LONGITUDINAL NEED FOR THE REPAVING AS WE LOOK TO MAKE THAT TAX FROM AN APPROPRIATIONS STANDPOINT, JUST WONDERING, AS YOU ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND FUTURE POTENTIAL PROJECTS, HAVING THIS BE AN EMERGENCY PROJECT TO FIX, BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF THE APPROPRIATION , AND THE GOAL THERE WAS 2+ UP THAT REPAVING EFFORT, CITYWIDE, I WOULD LOVE JUST THOUGHTS, THERE, IF YOU BUILD THAT IN, AS YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT, AS THE YEAR GOES ON TO STRATEGICALLY THINK ABOUT HOW, AGAIN, THE GOAL IS TO PLUS UP THE ROADS THAT NEED TO BE PAVED, IF THERE IS A NEED FOR EXTRA MONEY FOR EMERGENCIES LIKE THIS ONE. THAT THE CONVERSATION SHOULD BE INDEPENDENTLY VETTED

AND VERIFIED IN THE FRAMEWORK. >> I WILL JUST ADD, COUNSELOR, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE KIND OF A -- I WOULD CALL IT A PERFECT STORM BUT A FEW THINGS COMING UP THIS YEAR, ONE, YOU HAVE A BRIDGE BEING HIT, WHICH NORMALLY A LOT OF OUR INSURANCE THINGS WE GO AHEAD AND FIX, AND THEN NO BIG DEAL, WE DON'T HAVE THE CHECK QUITE YET, WE CAN TEMPORARILY ABSORB THIS, WITH A MILLION-DOLLAR IMPACT, WEIRD IS NOT IN A POSITION TO ABSORB IT.

I THINK, REGARDING THE LARGER ISSUE OF 3.5 OR 3.6 MILLION, THE OTHER HALF OF THIS PERFECT STORM IS KIND OF, WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY RIGHT NOW, WHERE WILL WE BE WITH PROPERTY TAXES AND LOCAL TAXES, I THINK IF THIS WAS A MORE NORMAL YEAR, YOU HAVE SEEN US COME OUT OF THE GATE ASKING FOR THIS 3.6, SAYING IT IS READY TO GO IF YOU ARE READY TO APPROPRIATE IT. I THINK RIGHT NOW, WE SLOW WALK SOME OF THESE THINGS A LITTLE BIT, TO SEE HOW WE FAIR. YOU KNOW, TALKING WITH JEREMY, LET'S SAY THAT WE GET TO MAY 1ST, WITHOUT A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO OUR FINANCES IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THERE ARE STILL WINDOWS TO GET THOSE DOLLARS UNDER CONTRACT THIS YEAR. IF WE ARE MOVING INTO THE MAY TIMEFRAME , BUT AGAIN RIGHT NOW, IT IS MORE LIKE, LET'S DO THE MILLION, 1.1, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO PROCEED WITH HOLDING OFF ON

THE REMAINDER. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE THERE ARE TWO THINGS GOING ON WITH THIS ORDINANCE. WE HAVE THE BRIDGE, THAT, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE PRETTY STRONG ASSURANCES THAT WE WILL BE REIMBURSED, BUT EVEN IF IT WEREN'T, WE NEED TO FIX IT BUT WE NEED TO FIX THIS BRIDGE AND I FULLY SUPPORT THAT. THEN, IN THE MEMO SENT ABOUT THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES SAID ONCE WE ARE RESTORED THE APPROPRIATION, IT WILL GO INTO CITY PAVING, WAS THE INTENT, IS

THAT CORRECT? >> THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THIS, IF YOU WILL, LEFT OVER MONEY , TAKING ON APPROPRIATED MONEY FROM THE GENRAL FUND, AND WE HAD 3.576 MILLION THAT WE ARE SHORT. WE ARE GETTING 1 MILLION OF THAT BACK , TO ADDRESS THREE THINGS THAT WE HAD IN OUR BUDGET, BUT BECAUSE OF THE WHEEL TAX WE NEEDED RESTORED. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, COUNSELOR TAYLOR, IS YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WHEN THE MONEY IS REPAID, THAT IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND, WHERE YOU WERE SAYING IT CAME FROM ORIGINALLY, ON APPROPRIATED MONEY, OR DO YOU MEAN IT GOES TO THE STREET DEPARTMENT FOR REPAVING?

>> MY INTENTION WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO WHERE IT CAME FROM ORIGINALLY, AND THEN, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS NEEDED FOR STREET REPAVING, THOSE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS ARE BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL AS NEEDED.

>> OKAY. SO, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THAT IS HOW WE AMEND IT, THEN WE WOULD JUST BE DEALING WITH THE BRIDGE, AND THEN THE TALK OF HOW WE MAKE THE STREET DEPARTMENT WHOLE WOULD BE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD COME TO US AT A LATER DATE, PRESUMABLY AFTER WE HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE ON THE STATEHOUSE?

>> IF I CAN CLARIFY, WHEN IT COMES TO INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS, THIS IS AN AREA WHERE INDIANA LAW GIVES US A BIT MORE FLEX ABILITY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON THAT FLEX ABILITY. BASICALLY, AS WE ARE GETTING INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS, OR REFUNDS, THINGS LIKE THAT, LAW ALLOWS US TO TRUE UP THE APPROPRIATION, IF YOU WILL. WE COULD DEPOSIT THIS

[00:50:01]

IN SUCH A WAY WHERE IT IS A REFUND OF EXPENSE, IF YOU WILL .

SO, WE ARE NOT REALIZING IT AS REVENUE, IT IS JUST EVAPORATING THAT EXPENSE AND FREEING UP MORE APPROPRIATIONS SPACE TO SPEND THOSE DOLLARS ON PAVING , BUT IF THE PREFERENCE OF COUNSEL IS TO JUST DEPOSIT THE REVENUE, AND NOT AUTOMATICALLY APPROPRIATE IT, SAVING THAT FOR COUNSEL TO REAPPROPRIATED THAT, PLUS THE OTHER 2.5, THAT'LL JUST BE DEPOSITED AS REVENUE, THERE.

>> COUNSELOR SNYDER? AND THEN COUNSELOR BLACK.

>> WHERE ARE WE ? WHEN DID YOU ACCEPT THE BID?

>> WE HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE BID. JANUARY 23RD WE OPEN IT, SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR ABOUT IF THERE IS A LOT OF TIMELINESS OR GIVING SOME GRACE ON HOW TO GET EVERYTHING APPROPRIATED, WITH THE FUNDS IN PLACE.

>> THAT 60 DAY WINDOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT STARTED IN

JANUARY? >> YES.

>> THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HAGAN, IF HE DOES NOT MIND.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL. >> THANK YOU, SIR. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE NOT POSITIVE NEWS, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT , YOU MENTIONED IN THE PAST WE JUST FIX THINGS, I THINK ONE OF YOUR INITIATIVES HAS BEEN SEEKING MORE MONEY TO RECLAIM , HOW HAS THAT WORKED OUT SINCE YOU HAVE TAKEN OVER?

>> YEAH. IF YOU WERE NOT AWARE 11 TIMES IN THE PAST, WE WENT AFTER DAMAGED PROPERTY ASSETS OF THE CITY, SO I AM GUESSING SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO WE HAD HER START AS A FULL-TIME ADMINISTERED OF ASSISTANT, MAINLY HER ROLE IS GETTING IN CLAIMS AND PURSUING , LAST YEAR I THINK WE CLERKED 300 AND -- OVER 300,000 IN REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE. DUE TO ACCIDENTS AND DIFFERENT THINGS. THIS IS A BIT OF A DIFFERENCE.

LAST YEAR, WE HAD TO WAIT BECAUSE WE HAD TO GET DESIGNS FOR THE STRUCTURE POINT SO WE DID NOT GET TO BED UNTIL DECEMBER. I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY $1 MILLION TO RECOVER IT. THAT CAME IN AT LIKE 1.5 MILLION. SO WE SWITCHED, TIED THAT $1 MILLION TO PAVING. SO WE DID NOT LOSE THAT FUN FOR PAVING. AND THEN THE BIDS CAME IN SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER . $600,000 LOWER.

>> HEAVY EXECUTED A PAVING CONTRACT AT WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT?

>> 6.9 AND SOME CHANGE. >> DO YOU HAVE THAT MONEY

FUNDED? >> YES. IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE'S 5 MILLION IN REPAVING, ALLOCATED ROUGHLY OVER 400,000 IN GENERAL FUND, FOR STREET REPAVING AND THEN ENGINEERING HAD A LITTLE OVER 500,000 ON LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS. IF YOU RECALL. THAT ONLY COMES UP TO 5.9 MILLION, SO I TOOK ALL OF MY CONCRETE ROADWAY LINE ITEM, PLUS ALL OF OUR 750,000 IN ROAD PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE, AND A FEW OTHER SERVICES TO GET TO THE 6.9. WE COULD DO THE 8.5 IF WE GET THE FUNDING? IF NOT, WE PROBABLY CANNOT GET IT IN, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO REBID, WE CAN CARRY THAT OVER ON CONTRACT, SO THE 20% OVER ADDITIONAL PAVING ON THAT CONTRACT, AND THEN HAVE ENOUGH SIDE WORK FOR ADDITIONAL PAVING THINGS. WE CAN DO THAT PRETTY EASILY. THAT HAS BEEN HOW WE APPROACH THAT.

>> THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON RECOVERING MORE MONEY. THAT'S IMPORTANT AND I THINK IT'S A BIG POSITIVE.

>> COUNSELOR? >> MY QUESTION PIGGYBACKS ON THAT. FOR THE SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION HERE TONIGHT, THAT CONTRACT HOLDS TRUE BASED ON THE APPROPRIATION RECEIVED, SO WE ARE NOT IN A BUCKET WHERE WE NEED THIS APPROPRIATION TO MEET A CONTRACTUAL ALICIA NEAVES ARTIE SET UP?

>> THERE IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, FOR THE BRIDGE REPAIR, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING IN MY BUDGET ANYWHERE TO

[00:55:03]

COVER THAT ADDITIONAL MILLION DOLLARS.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 6.9 MILLION THAT IS ALREADY UNDER

CONTRACT . >> RIGHT.

>> WITH ANY OF THE 1 MILLION APPROVED TONIGHT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 6.9 THAT IS ALREADY APPROPRIATED?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. THE FOLLOW-UP ON THAT WITHOUT THIS APPROPRIATION, BRIDGE REPAIR CANNOT GO BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN

THE BUDGET. >> THERE IS NO APPROPRIATION SPACE TO TEMPORARILY ABSORB THAT UNTIL INSURANCE PAYS US BACK.

>> THEN ONE PROCEDURAL QUESTION, WHEN DID THE BRIDGE GET HIT? I

NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF THAT. >> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, IT WAS SPRING OF 2024? IT TOOK ROUGHLY -- IT TOOK A WHILE TO GET THE DESIGNS DONE . WE WENT TO BID TO SAY THE FIRST WEEK OF DECEMBER , BUT IT TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS TO GET THE DESIGNS DONE.

IT WAS PRETTY INTENSIVE . >> COUNSELOR TAYLOR?

>> DID I HEAR CORRECTLY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE FUNDING BY SHIFTING FOR REPAVING , ROADWORK MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION, % YOU HAVE ZERO FUNDING FOR THIS YEAR?

>> CORRECT? >> THEN MY SECOND QUESTION I GUESS IS FOR ANYONE, DOES THE INSURANCE PAYOUT, WILL THAT COVER SOFT COSTS ARE ONLY THE HARD COSTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTING THE IMPROVEMENT. DESIGN COSTS.

>> WHEN WE TURN IN THE CLAIM IT WILL HAVE THE WHOLE DESIGN CONTRACT FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET. THAT WILL HAVE ALL OF MY STAFF TIME AND HOURS SPENT ON SCENE CLEANUP, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT GETS CALCULATED AND TURNED IN . THE ONLY THING WE ARE A BIT UNCERTAIN ON FOR LEGAL IS WITH THE UPPER LIMIT IS.

>> THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE CLAIMS QUESTION, TOO, BECAUSE I FIGURED WE HAD NOT YET FILED THE CLAIM SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT TO FILE THE CLAIM UNTIL WE EXECUTED THE BID AND HAVE THE FINAL DESIGN CONTRACTS PAID OUT. SO, THAT GIVES SOME CLARITY THERE. I THINK , JUST SO EVERYONE COUNSEL KNOWS WHAT I WILL DO IS MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES, BUT I AM GOING TO, THEN, MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE , TO DIRECT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE INSURANCE FUNDS TO THE GENERAL FUND. JUST TO BE CLEAR BUT WHEN THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS I

COULD PROBABLY MAKE A MOTION. >> MY GUESS IS THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS GOT PAID OUT OF MBH, TALKING ABOUT STAFF TIME.

>> MAYBE IT IS JUST ORIGIN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE MOST OF THAT WOULD GO BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND PART OF IT.

>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT? YOU HAVE PAID FOR CERTAIN PARTS OF THE SOFT COST .

>> WE WOULD HAVE THAT ALL SEPARATED CONTRACT FOR DESIGN IF IT CAME IN TO 1206, THAT WOULD BE TAGGED .

>> WILL THERE BE AN UPPER LIMIT? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A SCENARIO WHERE THERE IS NOT A CHANGE ORDER ON THIS JOB. SO, WE HAVE GOT A BID, BUT SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THERE WILL BE SOMETHING THAT INCREASES THE COST AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WILL WE RECOVER ALL OF THAT, OR IS THERE THIS UPPER LIMIT? I AM OKAY MOVING THROUGH THIS, I JUST -- MAYBE I NEED A BETTER EDUCATION TO HOW THIS CLAIMS PROCESS WORKS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET STUCK APPROPRIATING X AMOUNT AND IT COMES IN WITH $300,000 MORE. THAT'S MY CONCERN.

>> WE ARE CAPPED AT 20% ON CHANE ORDERS ANYWAY. I CAN ABSORB THAT CURRENTLY ON THAT AMOUNT, AS FAR AS THE UPPER LIMIT ON THE INSURANCE CLAIM , MY BELIEF WOULD BE IF THERE IS A CAP LEGAL WOULD PURSUE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING .

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE I OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL BE OPENING IT AT 7:01 P.M. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. AND SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:01 P.M. DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS ON THE

ORDINANCE? >> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES

[01:00:01]

AND ACT THIS EVENING. >> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ACT THIS EVENING. PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE CAN ACT THIS EVENING. ANY OTHER MOTIONS?

>> MOTION TO AMEND WITH THE FOLLOWING , THAT ALL EXPENDED FUNDS , ONCE REIMBURSED BY INSURANCE WILL BE RETURNED TO THE FUNDS FROM WHICH THE MONIES ORIGINATED.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION IS AMENDED ON THE SCREEN. PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE PRESUMABLY MAKE A FINAL MOTION? ALL RIGHT.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED. >> PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 9-0.

[14.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2767-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 4, Section 2-96 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Snyder]

THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-2767-25, AND ORDINANCE ON THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, ATTEMPTING AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2-96 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE. SPONSOR IS COUNSELORS TAYLOR AND SNYDER. THE MOTION? COUNSELOR SNYDER,

WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS? >> AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE REGULATING THE AMBULANCE CAPITAL FUND.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT ON IT?

>> I WOULD. IN THE ORDINANCE THAT HAS COME BACK, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN DONE. I WOULD LIKE THIS TO GO TO FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. WHILE IT IS AN OPEN ORDINANCE TECHNICALLY BEING DISCUSSED, THERE'S NOTHING THAT I TAKE AN ISSUE WITH, I WOULD LIKE TO DIVE INTO ITEM 68 THROUGH 75 WHICH ARE THE RATES CARMEL CHARGES, WHICH ARE THE LOWEST RATES IN THE STATE AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IS PRUDENT. I WOULD LIKE A CONVERSATION WITH FINANCE, AND CHIEF THACKER ABOUT THAT. LINE ITEM 117 IS A SUMMATION OF WHAT COMES BEFORE IT, WHICH TALKS ABOUT , IF IT IS NOT CANONICALLY VIABLE TO COLLECT . ONE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT THIS COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO TAKE CARE OF ITS CITIZENS AND NEVER CAUSES ANY FEAR OF ANYBODY TO DIAL 911. WHAT THIS LINE REPRESENTS, TO ME, AS SOMEBODY WHO IS VERY ACTIVE WITH HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS, AND THE AMBULANCE FUND, IF SOMEBODY MADE A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE, MADE THE CREDIBLE ARGUMENT THAT THEY COULDN'T PAY , WE DID NOT HOUND THEM. AND, I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO TREAT PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY. SO, BOLSTERING THAT. LINE ITEM 120 SAYS THE ANNUAL PRESENTATION TO THE BTW OF ALL WRITE-OFFS BE MADE, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT. SO, PROBABLY THAT SHOULD START HAPPENING, OR BE DONE AWAY WITH. AND THEN ALSO, WITH RESTORING THE AMBULANCE FUND WITH EXPANSION , SHOULD THE COMMITTEE AND OTHERS THINK IT NECESSARY, TO WHAT THIS FUND WAS SET UP TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR. I HAVE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ABOUT THIS, I GOT A GREAT EDUCATION ON MEDICAL BUILDING FROM DR. JOSIE , VERY IN-DEPTH.