12.a. Fourteenth 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. Fourteenth 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. ]

QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU DIRECTOR MISSED SP. MOVING ONTO OLD BUSINESS, 14TH READING OF ORDINANCE D 2762 DEST 25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 8 47, SECTION 847 AND 8/48 OF CARMEL. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR

[12.b. Ninth Reading of Ordinance D-2772-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting a New Article 8 Under Chapter 2 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen, Ayers, Minnaar, Snyder and Worrell. Remains in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee. ]

AASEN. THIS REMAINS IN LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE .

READING OF ORDINANCE D-20 772 DEST 25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, ADOPTING A ARTICLE EIGHT CHAPTER 2 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE SPONSOR ARE AASEN, AYERS, MINNAAR, SNYDER AND WORRELL. THIS REMAINS IN FINANCE, UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE. UPDATE ON THIS ORDINANCE , DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH EXPERIENCE CARMEL I HAVE SUGGESTED THAT DISCUSSION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS IN THERE FOR A WHILE, SHOULD MAYBE BEGIN, SO AT SOME POINT I EXPECT THE

[12.c. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2778-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Issuance of Economic Development Tax Increment Revenue Bonds to Support the Rebar Old Meridian Project, and Authorizing and Approving Other Actions in Respect Thereto; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. Returns from the Land Use and Special Studies Committee. ]

FINANCE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THIS ORDINANCE . SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D-2778-25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING'S OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS TO SUPPORT THE REBAR OLD MERIDIAN PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROVING OF OTHER ACTIONS IN RESPECT THERETO. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR AASEN. THIS RETURNS FROM THE LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES

COMMITTEE. COUNCILOR SNYDER ? >> IT'S SECTION C

>> THANK YOU. THIS ORDINANCE AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPER TIF FUNDS BY THE CITY OF CARMEL TO FINANCE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT USED TO BE THE REBAR OLD MERIDIAN PROJECT AND IF I COULD JUST SEE THIS UP A LITTLE BIT SINCE IT'S NOT THAT OFTEN I GET EXCITED ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AT ALL, THIS PROJECT IS UNIQUELY SPECIAL. IT ADDS I BELIEVE ABOUT 200 APARTMENTS. THEY ARE ALL AGE RESTRICTED. THEY REQUIRE 80% AGE RESTRICTED, 55 AND UP. THE DEVELOPER SAID IT'S JUST ALL GOING TO BE THAT WAY. MORE IMPORTANT, WITHIN THE APARTMENT PIECE, WHAT THIS DOES IS IT TAKES A PIECE OF LAND AND ALLOWS A VETERAN'S PARK TO BE BUILT, SO OUR NEWEST PARK, CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PARK, DEPENDING ON WHETHER BEAR CREEK PARK ON THE

[00:40:01]

NORTHWEST SIDE WHERE THIS ONE GOES FIRST, TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

IN THE WAY THAT IT'S CONSTRUCTED IS I HAD PUSHED HARD FOR THE CITY TO BUY THE LAND AND WE ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS A LOT OF MONEY, A LOT OF YOUR MONEY TO SPEND ON A PARCEL OF LAND AND IF WE'VE DONE IT THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN MONEY TO BUILD THE BEAUTIFUL PARK, AND NOBODY WANTED THAT. HENRY WORKED HARD.

IT WAS THE FOURTH OR FIFTH ITERATION TO FIND THE RIGHT PARTNER, THE RIGHT FIT, AND THIS COMPANY CAME ALONG. HENRY DID HENRY WITH THEM AND WE GOT A REALLY COOL OPPORTUNITY THAT ALONG THE NEW VETERANS TRAIL THAT IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED, HAVE THIS BEAUTIFUL VETERANS PARK THAT WILL TRULY HAVE THE INPUT OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT SPECIFICALLY THE VETERANS IN ITS FULL DESIGN AND MAKEUP, INCLUDING A BEAUTIFUL ESPLANADE CONNECTING IT TO OLD MERIDIAN. IT WILL CONNECT TO THE ROSE INAUDIBLE ] DEVELOPMENT AND THE PUBLIC PLAZA THERE THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO MIDTOWN. THIS -- NONE OF THAT COULD HAPPEN IF THERE WASN'T A COMPROMISE AND ALLOWED SOME SORT OF DEVELOPMENT HERE, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU, HENRY, KNOWING MY NORMAL OPPOSITION TO ALL OF THIS STUFF, TO FIND SOMETHING THAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL IS COMFORTABLE WITH AND CAN BE PROUD OF, SO

THANK YOU. >> SO THIS ITEM RETURNS FROM THE LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE. THERE WAS SOME SUGGESTION EARLIER THAT THIS COULD GO TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AFTERWARDS. AFTER TALKING WITH THE FINANCE MEMBERS, MANY OF THEM SEEMED OKAY WITH TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME FINANCIAL QUESTIONS ASKED TO THE DAIS SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT AND THEN IF WE HAD TO SEND IT TO COMMITTEE, WE

WILL. DIRECTOR MISSED AT SKI. >> THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO SAY WE HAVE OUR FRIENDS FROM REBAR HERE TODAY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S WHAT COUNCILOR SNYDER JUST SAID.

IT'S A 100% TIF BOND. THIS IS A DEVELOPER TIF SO THERE'S NO RISK TO THE TAXPAYERS. THE PARKING IMPACT FEES FROM THIS PROJECT IS HELPING ACTUALLY TO GO TOWARDS THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S TWO ACTION ITEMS IN FRONT OF YOU. ONE IS APPROVING THE BONDS FOR THIS AND SECOND IS -- WHICH WE WILL HERE IN THE SECOND BUT WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST REFERENCE IT NOW, THE SECOND IS A LAND TRANSACTION SO THE WAY THIS WILL EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION IS THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ALREADY VOTED TO PURCHASE THIS LAND AND VOTED TO TRANSFER IT TO THE CITY OF CARMEL, SO THE SECOND THING IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE RESOLUTION TO ESSENTIALLY RECEIVE THE LAND, SO THE WAY THIS WOULD WORK FUNCTIONALLY IS THAT IF THIS COUNCIL APPROVES THE BONDS, WHICH IS THE FIRST THING IN FRONT OF YOU, THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO DESIGN THE PROJECT. WE ALREADY HAVE A MEETING ON THE BOOKS NEXT WEEK WITH CRC AND ENGINEERING , AND PARKS, AND THE DEVELOPER, TO ALL WORK THROUGH THE DRAINAGE THERE THAT'S A WATER FEATURE ON THE ARK BUT ASSUMING DEVELOPER TAKES THE NEXT 6 TO 9 MONTHS AND DOES DESIGN, AND GOES FOR ALL THE APPROVALS, AND ENOUGH APPROVALS THAT WOULD LET THE DEVELOPER'S LENDER ACTUALLY FUND THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN FOR THE PROJECT MEANING THE PROJECT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE SECOND THAT LENDERS FUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN, WE KNOW THE PROJECT IS HAPPENING, THAT'S WHAT WOULD CLOSE ON OUR PORTION OF THE LAND AS IS DEPICTED THERE, SO THAT WE ARE ONLY FUNDING ONCE WE KNOW THE DEAL IS MOVING FORWARD AND ONCE WE KNOW THE DEVELOPER IS BUILDING THE PARKING GARAGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE AND THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE .SO THAT IS HOW FUNCTIONALLY THIS DEAL WOULD BE PUT TOGETHER BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER BOND IN THE LAND TRANSFER. I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SQUEEZED EVERY DOLLAR OUT OF THIS DEVELOPER THAT THERE POSSIBLY IS. THAT IS MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION . BUT I AM HAPPY TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER COME UP HERE AS WELL AND ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THE DEVELOPERS HAVE ANY.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? ANY FT. HENRY OR THE DEVELOPER WHILE THEY ARE HERE? ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I DO. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE PICTURE OF THE PARK IS SIMPLY A PLACEHOLDER. THERE IS NO PRECONCEIVED NOTION. IT IS A COMPLETE BLANK SPACE. ALL WE DO KNOW IS THAT THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF WATER COMPONENT JUST FOR STORMWATER REASONS AND IN WILL

[00:45:04]

BE TIED TO A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL BLITZING WILL DESIGN THE PARK, WORKING WITH THE PARTNERS HERE.

>> SO WE HAD A ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IN LAND USE, AS WE HAVE MANY TIMES HAD ROBUST DISCUSSIONS. ONE OF THE TWO POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, FIRST OF ALL, THE VFW WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT, WHICH WAS IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE THEY ARE THE NEIGHBORS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE ONES THAT ARE MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED. THAT MEANS THAT VETERANS ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO BENEFIT FROM SOME OF THE AMENITIES AROUND THE PROPERTY AND PROJECT AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE POSSIBILITY THAT, AS HENRY SO DELICATELY PUT IT, SQUEEZING EVERY DOLLAR OUT OF THIS PROJECT, THERE WAS A HOPE THAT SOME OF THESE DEPARTMENTS COULD ALSO BE RESERVED OR PUT ASIDE WITH DISCOUNTED RATES PERHAPS FOR SOME OF OUR VETERANS IN THIS COMMUNITY, TO ACTUALLY GIVE BACK TO THOSE WHO GAVE SO MUCH TO US. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE ASKS WE HAD AND I JUST DID IT KNOW IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO

SPEAK TO THAT. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS TOM DICKEY. I'M CEO OF REBAR DEVELOP AND I SEE FAMILIAR FACES FROM LAST MONTH MEETING PLUS THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE MEETING.

THANKS FOR HAVING US BACK. WE HAD A REALLY NICE TO GOSHEN.

LAND-USE COMMITTEE, I WAS SO VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE COMMANDER AND WE LEFT THERE THINKING IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT AMENITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY BUT YOU ASK US TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID SO WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT. IT'S RELATIVELY EASY ASK FOR US BECAUSE IT BECOMES PART OF OUR MARKETING EARLY ON THAT THERE'S X NUMBER AND THERE'S DISCOUNT RATE WHICH THE ODDS THAT THIS WERE GOING TO FILL US UP WITH VETERANS IS NOT HIGH SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT IMPACTFUL FOR OUR PRO FORMA AND FOR OUR NUMBERS, SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M BEING SQUEEZED FOR THAT ASK. IT FEELS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY EASY THING FOR US TO DO AND WE SPENT SOME TIME WITH THE COMMANDER AFTER THE MEETING, AND WE INTEND TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND KEEP THAT GOING. YOU'LL SEE MORE OF A CONNECTION THEN SOME UNITS BEING SET ASIDE WITH A DISCOUNT. I THINK YOU'LL SEE MORE

COLLABORATION IN THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU

SO MUCH. >> COUNCILOR GREEN.

>> WHAT I HEARD IN THAT IS I'M GOING TO HAVE A PROJECT AGREEMENT THAT DOES SAY THAT THEY'RE SETTING A FEW IT'S ASIDE AND THAT WILL DO MORE ON TOP OF THAT. THAT'S WHAT I'M

HEARING. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILOR GREEN?

>> I WANTED TO THANK COUNCILOR SNYDER FOR ALL THE WORK HE'S DONE ON THIS PROJECT THAT'S GOING IN HERE RIGHT HERE IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE DEVIOUS ONE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO THAT KIND OF FELL APART SO I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE AND IT WAS FULLY VETTED AT LAND-USE AND I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY

>> WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

>> SO MU. >> ALL RIGHT, IF YOU ARE READY,

[12.d. Resolution CC-08-18-25-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing Certain Actions with Respect to the Acquisition of Certain Real Property by the City for Public Use and Matters Related Thereto; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. Returns from the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

PLEASE NOTE. ALL RIGHT. THIS PASSES. NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA IS RESOLUTION CC 0A 18 2501, RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO ACQUISITION OF THE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY THE CITY FOR PUBLIC USE AND MATTERS RELATED THERETO. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR AASEN. THIS RETURNS FROM THE LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE, DIRECTOR MISSED AT SKI. THIS IS THE

SECOND PART OF THIS. >> YEP. I GENERALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AGO. I DO WANT TO POINT ONE THING OUT FROM LAND-USE COMMITTEE. ONE OF THE THINGS DISCUSSED WAS ONCE THE CITY TAKES TITLE TO THIS LAND, MEANING WE KNOW THE PROJECT IS HAPPENING, IT IS BEEN TO THE CITY TO TRANSFER THIS LAND TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. I KNOW THAT SEARCY IS GOING TO WORK WITH SERGE TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS AS REQUESTED BY

COUNSEL. >> WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> SO MOVED. >> IF YOU ARE READY, PLEASE VOTE. THIS ALSO PASSES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> ALL RIGHT. SOME THINGS MOVED OFF OUR AGENDA. MOVING ON WE

[12.e. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2779-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing Salaries of Appointed Officers and Employees of the City of Carmel, for the Year 2025; Sponsor: Councilor Taylor. Remains in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

HAVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D SEVEN 789-25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF CARMEL, INDIANA, FIXING SALARIES OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA FOR THE YEAR 2025. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR TAYLOR. THIS REMAINS IN THE FINANCE, UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE. I THINK COUNCILOR GREEN, YOU'LL BE RUNNING THE MEETING ON WEDNESDAY AND THIS IS

[12.f. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2780-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 1, Section 3-44 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen and Taylor. Remains in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

[00:50:06]

PROBABLY THE PRIORITY FOR THAT MEETING.

>> THIS WILL BE THE PRIORITY FOR THAT MEETING.

>> OKAY, THEN MOVING ON WE HAVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D 2780-25, ORDINANCE IN THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 344 OF THE

[12.g. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2781-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 5, Sections 8-46 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor, Aasen and Worrell. Remains in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee. ]

CARMEL CITY CODE .SPONSOR COUNCILOR S AASEN ANN TAYLOR.

THIS REMAINS IN THE FINANCE AND RULES COMMITTEE. WE ALSO HAVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D 2781-25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 8.46 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE, SPONSOR IS

[12.h. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2782-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 3, Section 8-17 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen and Taylor. Tabled at the August 18, 2025 Council Meeting. ]

TAYLOR, AASEN AND WORRELL. THIS REMAINS IN THE FINANCE, UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE. FINALLY UNDER OLD BUSINESS WE HAVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D 2782-25 AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 8-17 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE. SPONSOR COUNCILOR'S AASEN ANN TAYLOR. THIS WAS TABLED AT THE AUGUST 18TH 2025 MEETING . NOW I WANT TO BRING THIS UP HERE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE DIRECTOR KEYS WHO CAN ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. I KNOW IN OUR LAST MEETING IT WAS A LONG MEETING AND IT WAS KIND OF FELT IT WAS BEST TO MAYBE TABLED THIS ITEM INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT AT 10:00 AT NIGHT, SO A COUPLE OPTIONS TONIGHT. I FEEL LIKE DIRECTOR PEASE CAN GIVE MAYBE A BETTER INTRODUCTION TONIGHT AND WE KIND OF HAD LAST TIME AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO TABLE THIS, DISCUSS WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD ACT ON THIS EVENING, OR THE OTHER OPTION WOULD SENDING IT TO COMMITTEE AND IF WE DO SEND IT TO COMMITTEE I WOULD SEND IT, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, COUNCILOR SNYDER, TO THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE JUST SO I CAN EVEN OUT THE COMMITTEE'S WORKLOADS .

LET'S HEAR FROM -- IS THAT ALL RIGHT --

>> YES AND IF IT DID IT WOULD BE DISCUSSED WEDNESDAY.

>> AWESOME. DIRECTOR PEASE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION. WE'LL ASK SOME QUESTIONS AND KIND OF DECIDE WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS

TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT INTRODUCTION, PRESIDENT AASEN. GOOD EVENING. I'M HAPPY TO INTRODUCE THIS ORDINANCE . GET THE POWERPOINT. SO CARMEL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ONE OF THE BEST PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THE COUNTRY.

CITY OF, ONE OF THE BEST CITIES IN THE COUNTRY, THE BEST CITY, SOMEBODY MIGHT YELL AT ME FOR NOT SAYING THE BEST CITY IN THE COUNTRY. TONIGHT I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT HOW THE BEST SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE CITY ARE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER ON AN EXCITING PROJECT AND I THINK YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO LIKE IT. SO THIS IS THE STATE OF OUR CURRENT SCHOOL ZONES .25 MILE AN HOUR, 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M.. AT THE TIME THAT WE MADE THAT WE TARGETED SIMPLICITY, SO THEY'RE ALL 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M., SO WE HAVE CONSISTENCY IN OUR RULE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME VARYING STYLING MORE TEXT IN THE SIGNAGE, OR OVERALL LOOK TO THE SIGNS, AS YOU CAN SEE. SO CARMEL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS MAKING AN UPGRADE TO THEIR SYSTEM. SO AT THAT TIME WE WANTED TO REVIEW SOME OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WAS GOING ON. THE FIRST THING WAS THAT TIME, 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M., TARGETING, IS THAT WHEN STUDENTS ARE THERE, IS THAT WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY ARRIVING AND LEAVING, SO WE LOOKED AT THOSE TIMES AND DO WE HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH COMPLIANCE LET ME KNEW OF AND DID DRIVERS GET THE MESSAGE BASED ON HOW THE SIGN IS SET UP WHEN THEY NEEDED TO SLOW DOWN? SO TO ADDRESS CONSISTENCY AND STYLE, THIS IS SORT OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. THIS NEW APPARATUS, WHICH AGAIN WE WANT TO REPLICATE SO IT'S THE SAME EVERYWHERE. YOU GET THAT SO IS 32 LOCATIONS. THEY'LL ALL BE THE SAME SO IT'S A BIG PROJECT. TRYING TO GO 2 FOR 2 ON POWERPOINT'S TODAY. SO YOU'LL SEE THIS ONE FLASHING IS DIFFERENT THAN THE TIMES BEFORE, SO WHY ARE WE TAKING A LOOK AT THAT? WHAT IF THE LIGHTS ONLY INDICATE WHEN THEY NEED TO? THE RULE BECOMES SORT OF SELF-EVIDENT. DRIVERS KNOW IMMEDIATELY. SCHOOL ZONES OR NOT SCHOOL ZONE VERSUS LOOKING AT THEIR CLOCK. STUDENT, NOT THAT THEY NEED TO KNOW IF IT'S A SCHOOL ZONE OR NOT, THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES BUT THEY SEE THE FLASHING, THEY KNOW WHETHER IT'S A SCHOOL ZONE OR NOT. IT FLEXIBLE SO IT PROVIDES POSSIBILITY. 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M., IF THERE'S ANY REASON THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED OR UPDATED IN THE FUTURE WITH THIS UPDATE. THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS.

IT DIDN'T BEFORE WHEN WE HAD THE 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M. SO DETAILS OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS IS SORT OF IN TWO PIECES, AND ORDINANCE AND NOT BOTH PIECES NEED TO HAPPEN SO THE FIRST ONE

[00:55:03]

IS CHANGING THAT 7:00 A.M. THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD SAY NOW AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE. EVEN UP THERE YOU CAN SEE IT'S A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER TO READ AND AGAIN THE ISN'T SELF-EVIDENT SO THAT'S JUST ONE PIECE. THE SECOND PIECE IS THE ACTUAL SCHEDULE ITSELF SO IT COULD BE 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M.

IN THE ORDINANCE YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, THOUGH, LOOKING TO TARGET WHEN THE STUDENTS ARE THERE AND MOST OF THEM WILL BE 7:00 A.M.

TO 6:00 P.M. ON THAT SCHEDULE. YOU'LL HAVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY AFTER 6:00 P.M. TO SERVE AS JUST A SLIGHT CHANGE THERE. SO ALONG WITH THAT ORDINANCE AND PASSAGE WE'RE GOING TO UPGRADE ALL THESE FLASHERS FOR A MORE MODERN NETWORK AND REMOTE CONTROL UNITS. IT'S A SOLAR PANEL THERE SO THAT PROTECTS AGAINST HITS TO CONDUITS OR POWER IF THE POWER WOULD GO OUT, FLASHERS WHICH ARE USED TO, THE SIGN IS ROUGHLY THE SAME BUT WITH THE WIND FLASHING AND SIGNIFICANT PIECE IS THIS RADAR FEEDBACK SIGN SO WE WILL BE ADDING THIS TO ALL OF THOSE UNITS AT ALL LOCATIONS. OUR DATA AND RESEARCH AS FAR AS THINGS THAT CAN HELP CONTROL SPEED BESIDES INFRASTRUCTURE ITSELF, AS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST TOOLS OR ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE TOOLS WE HAVE SO THIS WILL MAKE A REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE. WE'LL ALSO GET A LOT OF DATA FROM THESE RADAR FEEDBACK SIGNS SO IT WILL TELL US THE SPEEDS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. WE'LL GET REPORTS OF THAT AND THAT WILL BE REALLY RICH DATA WHICH WILL HELP US MAKE OTHER DECISIONS IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS THE TECHNOLOGY INSIDE THAT'S GOING TO HELP THE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY CAN SCHEDULE IT AND KNOW IF IT GOES DOWN, MONITOR THE SCHOOL ZONES.

THE CITY CAN ALSO MONITOR ALL OF THAT DATA LIFE. SO THAT'S SORT OF THE VISION OF WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. AGAIN THE GOAL IS SAFER FOR OUR KIDS, SAFER FOR THE PARENTS, SMARTER FOR DRIVER SO AGAIN, ONLY FLASHING WHEN IT MATTERS REALLY HIGHLIGHT THE ATTENTION TO WHEN THEY NEED TO SLOW THEIR SPEED. AND THEN SIMPLER FOR THE SCHOOLS AND MAINTAINING THEM AND MANAGING.

SO AGAIN IT'S A ALIGNING CARMEL'S WORLD-CLASS SCHOOLS WITH CARMEL'S WORLD-CLASS INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK YOU PUT THOSE TOGETHER AS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY MEANINGFUL FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND I THINK OUR COMMUNITY WILL

>> THANK YOU, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR COUNCILOR JOSIE AND

COUNCILOR WERE L. >> THE FIRST THING IS TRUE .

GREAT IDEA. I LOVE USING TECHNOLOGY SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. EITHER ON SPEEDING -- ISN'T THE SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT

25? >> YES.

>> SO THAT'S A SAMPLE? >> THIS IS A SAMPLE. PHOTOSHOP

THAT. YOU CAUGHT ME ON THE -- >> NOT THAT I'M PAYING ATTENTION OR ANYTHING BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEED IN SCHOOL ZONES SO ANYONE LISTENING, IT'S DON'T GO 20. AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DECIDE? WHERE DID WE LAND ON OURS? ARE YOU STICKING WITH 7:00

TO 7:00. >> THERE IS A TABLE RIGHT NOW, 7:00 TO 6:00 A.M. EXCEPT FOR ONE OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACTIVITY FROM 6:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. WE WORKED WITH THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS, CARMEL POLICE AND COORDINATED WITH THEM, WHERE THE KIDS THERE, WERE THEY NOT THERE. SOMEONE ASKED ME WHY DON'T WE JUST DO IT 24 HOURS? IT REALLY IS ITS EFFECT IN 24 HOURS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BRING ATTENTION TO IT WHEN YOU REALLY WANT IT TO SIMPLY USE IT TO BRING ATTENTION TO THE TIMES WANT TO TARGET. BUT AGAIN IT'S TWO PIECES. WE COULD KEEP IT AS IS, STATUS QUO, 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M. GET SOME DATA AND WITH THIS UPGRADE WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND UPDATE THE

SCHEDULE. >> I THINK THE COMMENTS I'M GOING TO MAKE JUST FOR THE PUBLIC IS THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT SAVING ANYONE FOR SECONDS TO GET THROUGH THE ZONE. IT'S NOT ABOUT SAVING TIME, LETTING YOU GO FASTER. IT REALLY IS ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND KNOWING WHEN TO SLOW DOWN BECAUSE THERE MIGHT THE CHILDREN PRESENT. THAT'S WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THIS AND I'M ALL IN. I DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR THIS ONE.

>> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> THAT'S OKAY. SO A FEW THING, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY MY CONCERN IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SAFETY OF CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY BEING THAT THAT'S MY WHEELHOUSE, BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TIMING ON ME THESE, BECAUSE I HEARD YOU SAY 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. NOW EXCEPT FOR ONE SCHOOL, WHICH SORT OF LEAVES A LITTLE BIT OF

[01:00:02]

GRAYNESS THERE FOR ME. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE NEED TO DROP DOWN TO 6:00 P.M. AT ALL, IF YOU JUST KEEP IT WHERE IT IS, I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WANT TO -- IT LOSES ITS EFFECTIVENESS SUPPOSEDLY BUT IF YOU'RE FLASHING IT DOESN'T LOSE ITS EFFECTIVENESS AT ALL BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FLASHING THAT TIRE TIME. THEN YOU WOULD BE VERY WELL INFORMED AS TO WHEN IT'S FLASHING AND ALSO WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. SO IN CASE THERE WAS AN AFTERSCHOOL ACTIVITY OR SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENING, IS IT THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE GOING TO SET THOSE FLASHERS? HOW IS IT GOING TO WORK?

>> SOUNDS LIKE TWO QUESTIONS THERE SO WHO IS GOING TO CONTROL IT. THE SCHEDULE IS THE SCHEDULE AS WE HAVE A. IT'S GOING TO BE FLASHING THOSE PEDALS ON SCHOOL DAYS. IS NOT ACTIVELY ON TODAY AND NOT TOMORROW. THE SCHOOL WILL HAVE THE SCHEDULE. WHAT THE SCHOOL DAYS ARE AND THOSE ARE THE DAYS THAT WILL FLASH FROM THOSE HOURS, 11 HOURS FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. THE REASON FOR THE 6:00 P.M. IS AGAIN THERE IS PSYCHOLOGY OF IT BASED ON TRUST.

THE COMMUNITY HAS TO TRUST THAT WE ARE BEING MEANINGFUL WITH THE HOURS THAT WE SET SO THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE. AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN HOUR DIFFERENCE. WE CAN DO ONE PART OF THIS ORDINANCE WITHOUT THE OTHER, LIKE I SAID, IF THAT 24 HOUR THING, IF THEY ARE FLASHING 24 HOURS ALL THE TIME THEY CAN ALWAYS SEE THEM BUT THEY DON'T TRUST WHEN THEY ARE THERE AND

PEOPLE HAVE LESS COMPLIANCE. >> I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DO IT 24 HOURS. WHAT I WAS WONDERING IS IF THERE WERE TO BE PARENT/TEACHER SCHOOL NIGHT, AFTER SCHOOL EVENT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD -- WOULD THE SCHOOL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO THEN SAY, HEY, WE NEED THIS FLASHING ON X DAY BECAUSE OF

THIS. >> SO THE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS WHAT IS, VEHEMENCE IS WRITTEN DOES NOT. THAT WOULDN'T BE A PART OF

IT. >> THEY DON'T HAVE DISCRETION.

THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT SCHEDULE.

>> >> COUNCILOR SNYDER.

>> THANK YOU. MY FRUSTRATION WITH THIS IS JUST REALLY ONE OF THEM IS ON THE BACK OF DR. JOSHI . BUT MORE SO IS THAT THIS IS A -- IT'S CALLED AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SPEED LIMITS FOR SCHOOL ZONES AND I THINK THAT'S RATHER DISINGENUOUS WHEN THIS IS A SIGN REPLACEMENT PROJECT THAT'S COSTING A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY. NOW I AM ALL FOR THAT AND IF THAT MAKES THOSE -- THOSE SIGNS MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFER, THAT'S GREAT AND WE SHOULD DO IT. BUT I DON'T LIKE THAT IT'S BEING SOLD AS A SPEED LIMIT THING, AND IF IT'S GOING TO BE A SPEED LIMIT THING THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SCHOOLS OR THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE CONTROL. LIKE WHY IS CITY HALL SPENDING TIME FOR SCHOOL EVENTS? BECAUSE I GREW UP, OBVIOUSLY, WITH A MOTHER THAT TAUGHT HER WHOLE CAREER. I KNOW HOW THINGS POP UP. THERE'S EVENTS THAT AREN'T POSTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, FOR THE WHOLE CALENDAR YEAR. THERE ARE SNOW DAYS. THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF THINGS. SO I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS BUT I WANT TO SUPPORT IT IN A MORE MEANINGFUL MANNER. ONE, PROBABLY WITHIN APPROPRIATION, BECAUSE IF YOU ALREADY HAVE THE MONEY I'M CURIOUS WHAT ISN'T GETTING PAID FOR, AND THEN TWO, WITH SOMETHING THAT DEFINES THAT THE'S WILL SET THEIR OWN TIMES OR THEY'LL BE FLASHING WHEN THEY NEED IT TO BE. THEN THERE IS A GREATER CONVERSATION OF -- BECAUSE ALMOST ALL OF THE SCHOOLS, IT DROPS FROM 30 MILES AN HOUR DOWN TO 25 MILES AN HOUR, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE, ONE IS 40, AND THAT'S PROBABLY A BIGGER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 40 MILE AN HOUR SPEED LIMIT, PERIOD. NOT THIS. SO SO I DON'T CARE IF IT GOES TO A COMMITTEE OR NOT. I WILL VOTE NO BUT NOT OUT OF LACK OF SUPPORT. IT'S BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE BETTER AND I KNOW IT CAN BE BETTER. AND I JUST DON'T THINK CITY HALL SHOULD BE SETTING SPEED LIMITS

FOR SCHOOLS. >> COUNCILOR GREEN.

>> HAVE WE GOTTEN THE FEEDBACK? YOU SAID THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS BUT THE CARMEL CLAY ADMINISTRATION OR PTO, HAVE WE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS?

>> WE WORKED WITH DR. OESTREICH AND SRO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL HIS CONSTITUENTS -- WE DON'T HOST THOSE CONVERSATIONSWITH THEM SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE ENGAGED WITH PTO BUT IT WAS MOSTLY THE PROFESSIONALS WHEN I TALKED TO THEM, WE TALKED ABOUT SROS, AFTER SCHOOL PEOPLE FROM PARKS, STUFF LIKE THAT.

>> I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY HAS THE ABILITY

[01:05:12]

OF ADDING SOME FLEXIBILITY BUT TODAY IT'S SEVEN TO SEVEN CITYWIDE. THERE'S NO THINKING. THERE'S NO SEVEN TO SEVEN VERSUS, YOU KNOW, TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT

BECOME A SAFETY ISSUE? >> I WOULD ONLY SUPPORT THIS WILL BE INVOLVED WITH THIS IF IT WAS THE ONE FLASHING ] -- THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M. I WAS A REAL ADVOCATE THAT TIME, I THOUGHT YOU COULD TRAIN EVERYBODY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SIGN ANYMORE BUT THERE'S PLENTY OF PEOPLE OUTSIDE CARMEL THAT ARE HERE, DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT IS SOME AMOUNT OF OUR POPULATION SO THEY

STILL ARE LOOKING AT THE TIME. >> I AGREE WITH YOU AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE WHEN FLASHING, SEE IT AND IT'S SELF-EVIDENT THAT THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ORIGINAL.

>> MY QUESTIONS ARE KIND OF TWOFOLD. ONE KIND OF ON THE FINANCIAL FRONT, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? I WOULD LOVE JUST A BREAKDOWN ON THE FINANCES OF WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

I WANT TO ECHO I LOVE THE IDEA OF MODERNIZING THE SYSTEM AND HAVING IT THE SOMETHING, INSTEAD OF CROSS, I LOVE GETTING THE DATA ON HOW FAST PEOPLE ARE GOING SO WE CAN KIND OF LOOK AT HOW WE ARE ENFORCING AND DOING IS WE HAVE TWO IN THE SCHOOL ZONES. BUT WOULD LOVE TO KNOW KIND OF WHAT THAT COST IS AND THEN THE SECOND WOULD BE BASED ON THE MODERNIZED TECHNOLOGY, WONDERING THE FLASHERS ARE NEW FOR SOME PLACES AND NOT FOR OTHERS, DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH ENERGY WE'LL BE SAVING. THIS IS CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE COMING OUT FOR A FUN TIDBIT BUT THE IDEA OF MAKING THESE SUSTAINABLE IN A WAY THAT THEY'RE HELPING KIND OF MEAT THIS INFRASTRUCTURE NEED WITHOUT BEING A DRAW ON ENERGY THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT

QUESTION. >> SO FIRST I THINK IF YOU TAKE THE WHOLE PACKAGE, 450,000 AND 450,000 IS BEING CONTRIBUTED TO CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY ARE BUYING THIS TECHNOLOGY AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THAT COST. THE SECOND ONE, ENERGY, IT'S GOING TO BE LESS ENERGY. PLUG-IN, WE HAVE VERY FEW SOLAR RIGHT NOW, JUST A FEW OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, MOST OF THEM ARE PLUGGED IN SO THIS IS SELF-SUSTAINING ENERGY THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOLAR, PUT IT IN A BATTERY SO IT'S NOTHING TO THE GRID, NO COAL, STRAIGHT OFF THE SUN. SHOULD BE A NET NEGATIVE

FOR THE COMMITTEE. >> AND I DO JUST ONE ITERATION.

WE WERE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO SET THESE TIMES TO THE DPW AND THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED SO I DO THINK THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THE IDEA OF TAKING THIS TO A BROADER APPROACH AND HOW WE ARE CREATING A BETTER, SAFER ENVIRONMENT ON OUR ROADS AROUND THIS BUT I DO THINK STARTING SOMEWHERE MAKES SENSE AND I DO THINK THIS PIECE OF THE EQUATION WHEN GOING THROUGH OUR CITY, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE MOVING IN AT EVERY BLOCK NORTH OF US IN PERPETUITY FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THAT ARE GOING TO DRIVE THROUGH OUR CITY TO GET TO THE CITY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK AT. IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF VISUAL TRIGGER LIKE A FLASHING BEACON THAT TELLS THEM WHEN THEY HAVE TWO SLOW DOWN AND TO PROTECT OUR KIDS.

>> COUNCILOR MINNAAR , COUNCILOR SMITH?

>> I HAD HEARD THAT SOME OF THE SIGNS ACTUALLY HAD TO BE MANUALLY TURNED ON AND TURNED OFF. IS THAT TRUE?

>> THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING EXACTLY RIGHT NOW FOR ALL THE SCHOOLS BUT IT PROBABLY IS TRUE.

YOU GO OUT TO THE BOX AND I THINK IT HAS A TIME CLOCK TO SET IT AND IF IT'S SET FOR 355 DAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHEN SCHOOL STARTS THEY SET IT. NOW IT'S REMOTELY CONTROLLED ON A COMPUTER. EASIER TO KNOW IF ONE IS DOWN OR NOT DOWN. WE DON'T GET A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT THEM NOT WORKING WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING, SO WE TRUST THE SCHOOL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THEM TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND DO A GOOD JOB BUT IT SHOULD BE A LOT EASIER FOR THEM.

>> I GO ALL MY OTHER COUNCILOR'S COMMENTS THAT I

WON'T DRIBBLE ON. >> COUNCILOR SNYDER?

>> SUNDAY. >> 100% WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS RUBBISH AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ON SOME OF THEM, SHANNON, AND THEIR INCANDESCENT BULBS, THESE ARE GOING TO BE L.E.D., MUCH BRIGHTER, SPLASHY OR. AGAIN, AWESOME IDEA SOLD AS A SPEED LIMIT THING. IT'S A SIGN REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND I WOULD MUCH MORE LOVE TO SEE -- I ALSO THINK THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF -- WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? I THINK THERE ARE THOSE -- SOME ARE BEING LEFT OUT. I'D MUCH RATHER SEE YOU TAKE THAT $450,000 AND PUT THAT INTO SOME SORT OF MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM

[01:10:03]

FOR ALL OF THE -- IT WOULD TAKE ME A MINUTE TO PULL UP THE DATA BUT SOMETHING LIKE 51 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES THAT AREN'T GETTING NEW SIGNS AND THEN SIMPLY ASK THE COUNCIL FOR THE APPROPRIATION OR OUT OF THE -- I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN ANYBODY'S MOUTH, OR OUT OF OUR PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT LINE ITEM AND WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME REWORKING OF SOME OF THIS STUFF WITH SOME ADDITIONAL MONIES BUT I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESCHOOLS, THE DAY CARES, THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS, ALL OF THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES THAT AREN'T GETTING THESE SO IF THERE WAS A WAY TO TAKE WHAT YOU ALREADY SPENT AND ALLOW THAT TO BE A MATCHING GRANT FOR THOSE THAT WERE INTERESTED IN MAYBE APPLYING TO PUT SOME OF THAT INCOME AND WE COULD JUST FUND THIS THING, THIS IS JUST AN IDEA I'M THROWING OUT ON THE TABLE BUT AGAIN IT'S A SIGN REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND I THINK THE SCHOOLS SHOULD HAVE CONTROL. YOU JUST SAID THEY MAINTAINED THEM SO WHY WOULDN'T THEY HAVE CONTROL OF THEM WHEN THEY ARE ON? I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT THAT IF THEY WERE FLASHING ALL THE TIME THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EFFECTIVENESS. I 100% AGREE SO KIND OF A LESS CONSISTENT THEY ARE FLASHING, THE MORE EFFECTIVE THEY WOULD BE, WOULD BE MY --

>> POTENTIALLY. >> WE GET A LOT OF DATA AND KIND OF FIGURED THAT ALL OUT. NOT A LOT OF DATA ON THESE TYPE OF THINGS FOR THESE DETAILED QUESTIONS WE ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THAT COULD HAVE THE EFFECT. THE RATER FEEDBACK SIGN IS GOING TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL EFFECT WE HAVE DATA ON THAT SO THE SCHOOL ZONES AND THE FLASHERS ARE PRETTY EFFECTIVE. FINES ARE DOUBLED. THAT'S KIND OF HOW THAT HAS AN EFFECT. THE RADAR FEEDBACK SIGN WORKS OFF OF SHAME. THAT'S HOW THEY WORK IN NEIGHBORHOODS AND EVERYWHERE ELSE. EVERYONE GETS TO SEE THE SPEED YOU ARE GOING AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE AN

EFFECT. >> ON THE RADAR BECAUSE WHEN I WAS THAT AGE WE TRIED TO MAXED THEM OUT. CAN TALK TO THE

IMPROVEMENTS? >> WOULD LOVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT BUT SOMEBODY FIGURED OUT THEY WERE DOING THAT AND HOW THEY CONTROL THEM NOW SO THEY ONLY GOT SO HIGH AND SAY STOP OR SOMETHING SO YOU CAN'T GET A 99 ON THEIR TRYING TO FLY BY BUT AGAIN I THINK THAT'S A QUADRUPLE EFFECT IN THE SCHOOLS AND THAT EVERYONE SEES THAT YOU ARE SPEEDING IN A SCHOOL ZONE, WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT SO I THINK IT WOULD HAVE A TREMENDOUS EFFECT ON THE SCHOOLS. THIS COULD BE THE LEADING EXAMPLE IN CARMEL PLAY SCHOOLS AND WE CAN FOLLOW SUIT WITH ALL THE PLACES SO THERE WERE THREE SCHOOLS HERE TO HAVE THESE SO THERE ARE THREE PRIVATE SCHOOLS WE'RE WORKING WITH AS WELL THAT COULD HAVE THESE. DAY CARES AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE SCHOOL BUT SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK INTO.

>> I WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND BECAUSE PEOPLE ASKED WHERE WE GOT WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS SO BACK IN JULY 17TH, MAY BE THAT WAS THE DATE THAT WE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE FROM YOU, DIRECTOR PEAS, AND YOU KNOW ON THE FIRST VERSION OF THIS ORDINANCE WE WERE GIVING OUR AUTHORITY AWAY AS A CITY COUNCIL TO SET SPEED LIMITS TO PUBLIC WORKS, YOU ACCEPT THEM. IN THIS THERE WAS AN ATTACHED TABLE OF WHAT THOSE SUGGESTED HOURS WOULD BE THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND I WON'T READ ALL OF THIS BUT IT WAS CARMEL ELEMENTARY UNTIL 5:30, HIGH SCHOOL UNTIL 5:30, YOU KNOW, CLAY CENTER UNTIL 4:30, CLAY MIDDLE SCHOOL UNTIL 7:00, CLAY COLLEGE UNTIL 5:30, SMOKEY ROAD UNTIL 6:00, CAL MEADOW UNTIL 6:00 SO THE KIND OF TIMES WHERE ALL OVER THE MAP WHICH I THOUGHT FIRST GLANCE THAT CREATED AN ISSUE OF LACK OF CONSISTENCY. I KNOW THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM IF YOU CAN JUST LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WHEN FLASHING, BUT I DO THINK THERE IS A BENEFIT FOR ME IS A MOTORIST THAT BEFORE I EVEN ENTER AN AREA I KIND OF GENERALLY KNOW, IS THIS A SCHOOL TIME THAT I NEED TO BE SLOWING DOWN. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL.

THE OTHER THING THAT IMMEDIATELY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION, MY DAUGHTER GOES TO ESC, THE AFTERSCHOOL CARE, IS THAT MANY OF THESE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WERE SPENDING BEFORE ESC WAS OVER AND IT ENDS AT 6:00 AT EVERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN OUR CITY, AND THIS IS AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM. PARENTS WHO HAVE TO WORK AND THEY ACTUALLY -- IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM, BY THE WAY, AND I ASKED DIRECTOR CLIFF SING OF THE PARTS DEPARTMENT, THEY MANAGE ESC, SO THEY WERE NOT CONSULTED IN THIS AND THEIR OFFICIAL POSITION, WHICH HE WROTE IN A LETTER TO COUNSEL AND STATED IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM UNTIL 6:00 P.M.

WITH THAT, I TALKED TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF OUR SCHOOL BOARD AND I TALKED TO SUPERINTENDENT OESTREICH. NONE OF THEM SEEM TO HAVE AN OPPOSITION IF WE KEPT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT 6:00 P.M. HIGH SCHOOL AND IT'LL SCHOOLS, I DIDN'T REALLY WHERE THEY SHOULD GO BUT I FELT CERTAIN THAT THE

[01:15:05]

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, BASED ON THE EXPERTISE OF OUR PARTS DEPARTMENT IN MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THIS NEEDED TO BE UNTIL 6:00. THESE ARE KIDS THAT ARE THE YOUNGEST AND HAVE THE MOST POSSIBILITY OF RUNNING INTO THE STREET. WITH THAT I TALKED TO MAYOR FINK, SAME KIND OF WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THIS, WHO IS DRIVING KIND OF THESE DECREASE IN THE HOURS OF OUR SPEED LIMITS, AND SHE URGED ME TO DECREASE THE HOURS OF THE SPEED LIMITS, SAYING THERE AREN'T KIDS AT GOALS AT THIS TIME, PLEASE DECREASE THE HOURS. I WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY TO SAY, LET'S JUST KEEP IT FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M. I JUST AGAIN, TRYING TO WORK WITH HER IN A PRODUCTIVE MANNER. I SAID I CAN'T SUPPORT ANYTHING LOWER THAN 6:00 P.M. FROM THERE SHE TOLD ME TO PASS ALONG TO YOU AND THE LEGAL, JUST CHANGE IT TO 6:00 P.M. AND THAT'S HOW THOSE HOURS WERE SET, BECAUSE FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS I SAID I WOULD NOT GO FOR SOMETHING ANY EARLIER THAN 6:00 P.M. AND I THINK OTHERS MAY HAVE SAID SIMILAR THINGS, THE PARKS DIRECTOR SAID THE SAME THING.

THAT'S KIND OF HOW THOSE HOURS WERE SET. IS THIS BASED ON ANY 1 SORT OF DATA THAT WE HAVE FROM THE SCHOOLS? WHEN I ASKED THEM IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THERE WAS ANY DATA THAT I WAS PROVIDED TO SAY THAT THIS IS WHY IT'S FOR: 30 AT ONE SCHOOL AND THIS IS WHY IT'S 6:30 AT ONE SCHOOL, THAT'S WHY IT'S 5:30 BUT WITH THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY WE CAN ACTUALLY GET SOME DATA SO THERE'S PROBABLY TWO PIECES OF DATA THAT WERE USED TO COME UP WITH THAT SO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RAN A REPORT OF HOW MANY TICKETS THEY WERE GIVING AND SORT OF LESS IN THE AFTERNOON OR IN THOSE EVENING TIMES BUT THE OTHER PIECE IS, IT WAS PRETTY INFORMAL OF JUST TALKING WITH THE SROS AND I WAS TOLD THAT THEY TALKED TO ESC. IT WAS HOW LONG ARE THE STUDENTS HERE, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHY THEY WERE ANSWERING THAT QUESTION BUT THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHEN ARE THE STUDENTS HERE AND SOMETIMES IT WAS MOST OF THE STUDENTS ARE GONE BY 5:30 AND THAT'S HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER. THOSE ARE TWO PIECES OF DATA BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DATA OUT THERE. IF WE COULD GET RADAR GUNS OUT THERE AND WE CAN GET ALL THAT DATA, WE'LL SEE, I CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY FROM 5:30 TO 6:00 P.M.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING 25 MILES AN HOUR, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING WHERE. OBVIOUSLY I CAN CONNECT WITH STEVE STIRLING AND WE CAN YOUR OUT HOW TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE GOING 20 FIVE POINT

>> OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL ON THIS? WHAT ARE WE THINKING WE WANT TO DO ON THIS? DO WE NEED TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AT COMMITTEE? DO WE NEED TO HOLD THIS OR DO WE THINK THAT WE ARE READY TO ACT? DON'T SPEAK ALL

AT ONCE. >> IF I COULD MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT, SO WE TARGETED THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR TO HAVE THESE IN, SO SCHOOL IS IN SESSION AND WE DON'T GET THIS OUT THERE. WE ALL AGREE THIS IS SAFER BUT IT'S NOT OUT THERE BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE WEEDS ON IT SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO PASS SOMETHING AND KNOW THAT WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE IT. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THIS IS WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THOSE TIMES SO --

>> I WOULD SAY WE ARE IN THE WEEDS BECAUSE THAT'S OUR JOB AND TO YOUR POINT, I THINK AS YOU SAID, IT'S NOW A DATA COLLECTION SIGN. IT HAS NOTHING SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH CHANGING

SPEED LIMITS. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO CAME UP

WITH THE TITLE? >> SOMEBODY DID AND THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS. I THINK WE CAN DO IT BETTER. I THINK WE CAN APPROPRIATE THE MONEY FOR THIS AND GIVE THOSE LESS FORTUNATE THAT ART, ON THE TEETH OF THE TAXPAYER, THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST GET IN ON THE PROGRAM TO MAKE OUR CHILDREN SAFER AT A REDUCED COST. I THINK WE CAN DO IT BETTER, HOWEVER, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT KNOWING WHERE I STAND, IS FINE AS WELL. I JUST KNOW WE CAN DO IT BETTER.

>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COUNCILOR GREEN?

>> WORST-CASE SCENARIO, WE ARE VOTING ON THIS TWO WEEKS FROM

NOW. >> NO, IT WOULD BE THREE WEEKS,

OCTOBER 6TH. >> YEAH BUT I'M GOOD WITH -- IT

DEPENDS. >> IT'S A LONG DAY. I'M GOOD WITH VOTING ON IT TODAY BUT IF WE CAN MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AND WE JUST POST THINGS, SEND IT TO LAND USE, POSTPONE THINGS THREE WEEKS AND HAVE IT COME OUT OF A BETTER PRODUCT, I'M GOOD WITH JUST SENDING IT TO LAND USE.

[01:20:06]

>> THERE'S ALSO THAT I DON'T WANT TO PUT IT ON THE SPOT BUT IF YOU FELT LIKE THIS COULD COME OUT OF THE BOND, THE PEDESTRIAN PIECE OF THE BOND, IT TAKES COUNSEL INITIATIVE TO CHANGE DEFINITION OF THAT SECTION. I'D BE OPEN TO THAT, KNOWING THAT IT WILL BE BACKFILLED BY REDISTRIBUTION OF SOME CANCELED ITEM OR A POSTPONED ITEM WITHIN THAT LIST. WHERE DID THE $450,000 JUST MAGIC REAPPEAR FROM? I GUESS THAT'S ANOTHER

QUESTION I HAVE . >> IT'S NOT MAGICALLY, THE CCI CCD LRS FUNDS THAT WE WENT THROUGH EARLIER, SO THAT'S THE

KIND OF THING. >> WHAT WOULD IT HAVE BEEN SPENT

ON IF THIS HADN'T -- >> CURB RAMPS IN FRONT OF SCHOOLS, SPEED HUMPS, THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COME UP

THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. >> A.D.A. COMPLIANCE?

>> SOMETIMES ADDED ONES, YEAH. >> MR. PRESIDENT.

>> YES COUNCILOR WORLD. >> I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US TO LOOK AT THIS PRAGMATICALLY. WE HAVE OUR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING STAFF. WE HAVE THE SCHOOL CORPORATION WEIGHING IN.

WE HAVE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND I'M WORRIED, IT FEELS TO ME LIKE WE'RE LETTING PERFECT STAND IN THE WAY OF GOOD, AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THAT I SEE THIS AS A BETTER WAY TO REGULATE SPEED IN A SCHOOL ZONE. I KNOW THAT I AM SOMETIMES AWARE OR UNAWARE AND A FLASHING LIGHT, TO ME, JUST SEEMS LIKE COMMON SENSE. WHETHER IT'S A SIGN ORDINANCE OR A SPEED ORDINANCE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DON'T REALLY CARE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO SOMETHING NOW AND MAKE AT LEAST OUR NINE SCHOOLS OR 11 SCHOOL IS, WHATEVER IT IS, IN MY OPINION, MORE SAFER. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY GO BACK AND LOOK AT COUNCILOR SNYDER'S IDEAS AS FAR AS ADDING MORE AND MAKING THIS A BIGGER PROJECT BUT EVERY TIME WE MAKE SOMETHING BIGGER IT TAKES 10 TIMES LONGER. SO I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST SEE US SEE IF WE CAN GET FIVE VOTES TO AT LEAST DO WHAT WE CAN DO NOW AND STILL DEAL WITH COUNCILOR SNYDER'S CONCERNS, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT HOLDING THIS UP. THAT'S JUST MY

OPINION. >> COUNCILOR SNYDER , I'M TRYING TO COMPROMISE HERE BECAUSE I DO KIND OF AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILOR WAR L IS SEEN, THIS IS SOMETHING WE CONNECT ON AN OCTOBER 6TH MEETING, I DON'T WANT TO SEND IT TO LAND USE AND

HAVE IT SIT THERE FOR MONTHS. >>

>> YOU GUYS ARE GOOD, YOU GUYS ARE PRETTY GOOD. I WAS JUST

ASKING. >> THIS IS A MATH PROBLEM AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE. DOES MY KID OP SCHOOL GET ONE?

>> WHAT SCHOOL DOES YOUR KID --

>> IT WAS ON THE LIST BUT WHAT ABOUT ON THE SAME SCHOOL ON THE

EAS SIDE? >> IT'S EVERY SCHOOL THAT LIMITS SO WE WOULD HAVE TO EXPAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WE HAVE TO FIRST FIND WHERE ALL THESE OTHER SCHOOLS SPEED LIMIT SIGNS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE SO THIS IS JUST ALL

THAT WE HAVE. >> WE'RE TALKING CODE, WHAT

SCHOOL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? >> OUR LADY. ALMOST EVERY CHURCH HAS SOME SORT OF EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL PROGRAM SO I THINK IT'S UNFAIR THAT OUR LADY THEN GETS THIS JUST BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAD ONE, BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE FIRST AND THEN OTHER CHURCHES THAT DON'T HAVE THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE EDUCATIONAL

COMPONENTS -- >> WE ADDED

EARLIER THIS YEAR. >> BECAUSE SOMEBODY LOBBIED HARD

FOR IT. >> BUT AGAIN IF THERE IS OTHER SCHOOL ZONES, WE PASS THIS NOW AND THEN OCTOBER 6TH HAVE ANOTHER SCHOOL ZONE, I'LL ADD IT AND YOU CAN BUY IT IF WE HAD THE MONEY, YOU CAN BUY IT AND ADD AND ADD AND ADD THESE OTHER

11 SCHOOLS RIGHT NOW. >> YOU HAVE THESE IN STOCK?

>> I HAVE A CONTRACT FOR THEM. I'M WAITING TO GET GO.

>> AND WHAT'S THE LEAD TIME? >> ONE MONTH. WE WANT TO GET THESE IN BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> AND INSTALL TIME? >> INSTALL TIME, ONE WEEK .

>> SO DELAYING IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE IN GETTING THEM IN BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> THREE WEEKS OF SCHOOL, YES. >> COUNCILOR LOCK ?

>> I WILL SAY THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS TOPIC OF THOROUGHNESS HAS COME UP TODAY IN A PROCESS WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING A SAFER ENVIRONMENT AND LIKE I HEAR IT, THE IDEA OF PRAGMATICALLY PUTTING 32 NEW SPEED SIGNS THAT WILL HELP THE MAJORITY OF THE SCHOOLS WITH THE ABILITY TO MOVE TOWARDS PERFECT AFTER THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME TODAY. I DO HAVE FINANCIAL CONCERNS, WHICH I THINK IS JUST SOMETHING WE CAN KIND OF HASH

[01:25:03]

OUT OR IF WE NEED TO FIND MORE MONEY WE WILL, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS TIME OF DOING THE BUDGET, BUT THIS HAS BEEN ON THE PBW AGENDA NOW FOR A MONTH AND A HALF AS GOING OUT FOR BID ITEM SO IT'S ALREADY MOVING,WHICH IS ANOTHER POINT OF IMMEDIATE CONSTERNATION. BUT I DO AGREE, I THINK THAT WHERE WE STAND WITH IT NOW, IT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH, THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE, THE WORK WE PUT INTO THIS, PUT IN A POSITION WE'RE MOVING TONIGHT TO GET 32 NEW SIGNS THAT WILL MAKE SAFER ENVIRONMENTS IN THOSE PLACES HAPPEN WITH THE INTENT TO SAY WE'RE NOT CLOSING THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE STATE LEGISLATURE. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE BUT WE CAN MAKE ITERATIVE CHANGES TO THIS AS WE GO FROM HERE. WE CAN SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WE CAN SEE IF THERE IS MORE. WE CAN FIND MORE MONEY KNOWING THERE IS MORE NEED. IF YOU'RE A DIFFERENT SCHOOL OR YOU'RE LOOKING TO CREATE SAFETY FOR YOUR STUDENTS, REACH OUT, SEND US ALL AN EMAIL AND WE'LL PUT YOU ON THE LIST. WE'LL MAKE SURE WE'RE MOVING TOWARD THAT AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE US A BETTER SYSTEM, BUT I DO THINK MOVING WHAT IS HERE TONIGHT FOR ME IS REASONABLE BECAUSE IT SETS A STAGE WHERE THIS IS A TOPIC WE ARE WORKING ON ARE MOVING TOWARDS AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING A PIN IN IT OR WAITING ON THAT FRONT. SPECIFICALLY IF YOU ALREADY HAVE IT IN YOUR BUDGET, YOU'RE MOVING IT BASED ON THE BUDGET FOR 2025 AS IT STANDS AND WE ALREADY HAVE A PROCEDURAL BID OUT AT THE DPW TO DO THIS WORK AND WAITING TO GO ON IT, I DO THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. IT IS A LITTLE FRUSTRATING TO PUT IT BEFORE ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED BUT THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SAFETY IN SCHOOL ZONES, AND AGAIN, THERE WAS RHETORIC AT THE BEGINNING, THIS CAME FROM THE IDEA OF IT'S ANNOYING TO HAVE TO SLOW DOWN IN SCHOOL ZONES SO WE ARE VERY METHODICAL. WE WHINE QUITE A BIT AND WE ARE STILL WHINING TONIGHT. OKAY, WE WILL WORK ON IT ANOTHER NIGHT BUT THE IDEA OF TAKING THOSE ITERATIVE STEPS, LOOKING AT THINGS, TALKING ABOUT THE DATA, FIGURING OUT A WAY TO IMPLEMENT THINGS THAT HAVE A BETTER GO FORWARD RESULT THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DO MORE GOOD FOR THE CITY AFTER THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO KIND OF MOVE NOW, EVEN IF IT GIVES US THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, A FASTER RETURN TO GET TO THOSE SECONDARY QUESTIONS IN A BETTER WAY THAN YOU'VE

ASKED, MR. SNYDER. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I DO THINK THAT IF WE CAN -- UNCOMFORTABLE WITH 6:00 P.M. ON ALL THESE. I JUST WAS QUESTIONING THE 7:00 P.M.

ONE BUT IF THAT'S BETTER FOR THAT SCHOOL AND THAT SCHOOL HAS WEIGHED IN ON THAT, AND YOU HAVE HAD SUBSTANTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, I KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY DECIDED. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BEING THE TIMING AT WHICH THESE FLASHERS GO OFF. THE DATA COLLECTION PIECE IS IMPORTANT. I AGREE WITH THAT AND I THINK TRYING TO PUT THIS IN PLACE, BECAUSE IT WILL INCREASE SAFETY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, I'M COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THAT DATA AND THEN REVISIT IT AND CONSIDER ALLOWING FOR MORE TIMES WHEN WE USE IT, NOT LESS, BUT MORE TIMES WHEN WE USE IT SO THAT IT INCREASES SAFETY.

>> THANKS, ANITA. WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I AGREE WITH YOU ON, 100%. THE OTHER PIECE THAT I AGREE WITH RYAN IS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL SCHOOLS IN OUR DISTRICT RIGHT NOW THAT DON'T HAVE FLASHING LIGHTS, ONE BEING BY MY HOUSE AND ANOTHER SCHOOL, I BELIEVE PRAIRIE TRACE HAS ONE EITHER SO IN THAT VEIN I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND TO RYAN'S POINT WE CAN CONTINUE LOOKING AT THIS AND BUILD UPON IT, WE CAN FIND THE MONEY TO DO

IT. >> SO YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 6:00 P.M. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING, JUST CLARIFYING, RIGHT? IT'S WHEN FLASHING. THERE IS NO

STATED TIME. >> NO STATED TIME BUT IT WILL

FLY FROM 7:00 TO 6:00. >> IT WILL NOT SAY THAT.

>> I DON'T WANT IT TO SAY THAT. I JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE DIDN'T GO TO A 5:34 4:30 OR AN ARBITRARY

TIME. >> WHEN THIS GETS THROUGH WILL YOU SENT ME THIS CONTRACT THAT YOU'RE READY TO PUSH THE BUTTON ON FOR ACQUISITION? BECAUSE I'M CURIOUS IF WE HAD 100 OF THEM, HOW MUCH IT WOULD DRIVE THE PRICE DOWN.

>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS EITHER BOUGHT 32 OF THEM.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW THAT >> I'D BE THRILLED TO BUY 100

OF THEM. >> AND WHO IS DOING THE INSTALL?

>> I THINK IT WAS MORE FIT CONSTRUCTION.

>> OKAY. >> MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D 2782-25.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY LAST DISCUSSION? WE'LL VOTE. GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

[01:30:08]

>> TOOK THE COWARD'S WAY OUT. >> IT'S OKAY. YOU'RE NOT A COWARD. IT PASSES , SEVEN YES, ONE ABSTAIN. JUST FOR THE RECORD, TOO, I DON'T EVER WANT TO STIFLE DEBATE SO I WAS OKAY WITH THREE MORE WEEKS BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE -- WE ARE GOOD. WE ARE MOVING ON.

>> JUST ONE LAST THING, IF THERE IS A MATERIAL CHANGE OTHER THAN THE ZERO TURNING INTO A FIVE ON THE SIGN THAT YOU SHOWED, IF THERE IS A DIFFERENTIATION OR DESIRE TO PUT ANYTHING ELSE ON, I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO HEAR IT AND SEE THAT, IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, WE JUST PUT UP SIGNS THAT WERE NOT APPROVED RECENTLY.

JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT THE SIGNS ARE WHAT WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK LIKE THAT. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY ROADSIGNS SO THEY'RE DIFFERENT BUT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COMES BACK THAT IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN TONIGHT, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THAT AHEAD OF TIME.

>> COUNCILOR MORELL ASTUTELY POINTED OUT IT WILL BE FIXED.

>> DOES SIGN? I'M NOT SURE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY OTHER --

>> I WILL GET THE PARTICULARS OF THAT, TOO.

>> IF YOU COULD BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT THAT SHALL NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SIGNAGE OTHER THAN --

>> I'LL GET THAT YOU. >> READING ON, WE'VE GOT SOME

[13.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2783-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving Additional Appropriation of Funds from the City Law Enforcement Aid Fund #910; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Worrell. ]

STUFF MOVING. THERE YOU GO. PUBLIC HEARINGS, FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D -2783-25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUND 910. SPONSORS ARE COUNSELORS TAYLOR

AND WORRELL . >> I MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

>> COUNCILOR WORRELL, WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> THIS ORDINANCE APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO COVER COSTS WITHIN THE CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUND NUMBER 910. WE ARE LOOKING AT $94,374 GOING FROM CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUND TO CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUND 910, LINE ITEM 446-7099. OTHER EQUIPMENT

94374. >> ALL RIGHT. CHIEF, WOULD YOU

LIKE TO PRESENT? >>

>> GOOD EVENING, DRAKE STERLING, CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THESE FUNDS IS TO PURCHASE CPD SHARE OF THE VEHICLE MITIGATION -- VEHICLE BARRIERS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS. I SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU IN THE LEAD UP TO THIS MEETING.

>> AND THERE'S ANOTHER UNDER NEW BUSINESS. WE HAVE SOME OTHER

ITEMS FOR THAT AS WELL. >> THAT IS A SEPARATE RESOLUTION. THAT IS TO PAY OFF CAPITAL

>> I WAS SAYING FOR THE STREET DEPARTMENT, IS THAT ITEM F UNDER

NEW BUSINESS? IS THAT CORRECT? >> THERE IS SOME OVERLAP THERE IN TERMS OF STREET DEPARTMENT'S PORTION OF THIS AS WELL AS STREET DEPARTMENT DOLLARS TO PAY OFF CAPITAL LEASES AS WELL.

>> WHEN WE REACH THAT ITEM IT WILL BE CONNECTED TO THIS. OKAY.

>> COUNCILOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM?

>> I DO. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> COUNCILOR SNYDER? >> CHIEF, I AM 100% SUPPORT THIS. THEY'RE SCARY LOOKING. I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE CAN DO BETTER. I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT FEELS LIKE THE WHITE HOUSE ANYMORE. WHERE THIS IS A NOTICEABLE AND SCARY VISUAL CUE, WHICH MAYBE IS THE INTENT BUT I -- ARE THERE OTHERS THAT DON'T LOOK SO, LIKE, INSTITUTIONAL? THIS IS HARD-CORE BASED ON WHAT YOU SENT US AND I AM CURIOUS IF ALSO THERE'S TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD -- MAYBE A LITTLE MORE PERMANENT THAT WE'VE HAD THE FAILED ONES OUT IN FRONT BETWEEN CARTER GREEN AND THE REFLECTION POND FOREVER THAT NEVER WORKED BUT THOSE ARE ALSO 20 YEARS OLD. I WAS WONDERING IF THERE ARE OTHER MEAN THESE ARE GREAT FOR SORT OF THOSE EMERGENCY THING. GOD, THEY SHOULD BE SCARY AND CATCH SOMEBODY OFF GUARD BUT FOR EVENTS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE WOULD ALSO BE USED FOR, IS THERE A LESS -- IS THERE A VERSION WHERE THE PUBLIC DOESN'T SAY, OH CRAP , SHOULD I EVEN BE HERE?

>> THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD DESIRE. I WILL SAY THAT

[01:35:02]

THIS PROJECT AND TO RESEARCH THESE ACTUALLY PRECLUDES MY TIME HERE. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT TRAVIS DAY BACK FROM STREET DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING ON SINCE AT LEAST 2023, TRYING TO GET. THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, TRIED TO STEP ON THE GAS WITH THIS THE BEST WE COULD AND SO THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME OUT OF BOTH STREETS. WE ALSO CONVENED A COMMITTEE WHICH INCLUDED LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE, ENGINEERING, STREETS, AND THIS WAS MOST DESIRABLE BECAUSE OF THE CRASH TEST RATING AND JUST AS A SOLUTION. IT'S ALSO INTERCHANGEABLE, INTEROPERABLE WITH ENA SYSTEMS. IT'S THE EXACT SAME SYSTEM. NOW THERE ARE SOME CATCHMENTS THAT COULD COME WITH THIS SYSTEM WHERE YOU PUT SOME SIGNAGE SO THAT COULD BE ANOTHER OPTION . I COULD SEND SOME OF THOSE TO YOU AFTERWARDS BUT THIS WAS THE PREFERRED OPTION AS FAR AS SAFETY AND SECURITY.

>> AND THANK YOU. I'VE KNOWN TRAVIS FOR 20 YEARS AND THIS IS WHAT HE'S THINKING. I NEVER CONNECT DID THAT THIS IS WHAT HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT, THAT THIS WAS IT. SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT SCARING THE PUBLIC, SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, ALTHOUGH IT DOES, IN THE FACT THAT THE FEELING OF -- THAT WE NEED IT IS ALARMING AND YOU GUYS DO SUCH A WONDERFUL JOB. I THINK THAT WHEN WE ARE USING THESE IT JUST NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT OUT OR AT LEAST TO YOUR POINT, IF THEY COULD BE DRESSED UP A LITTLE

BIT, AS WELL. >> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WE HAVE DEPLOYED EMA BECAUSE ENA HAS 10 OR 20 LANES OF CLOSURE INAUDIBLE ] EVENTS THIS YEAR. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY FEEDBACK, GOOD

OR BAD. >> EXCELLENT.

>> CHIEF, SO WE LITERALLY HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS. THERE'S A COUPLE OF PRACTICAL THINGS GOING ON WITH THESE. NUMBER ONE, RIGHT NOW WE USE A DUMP TRUCK OR SOME KIND OF VEHICLE, CARMEL FAST. WE ARE TRYING TO GET AROUND. WE GOT TO GET AN AMBULANCE IN, GOT TO FIND THE KEYS TO THE DUMP TRUCK. WE DID GO -- NOW THIS IS BEFORE ALL THE CHANGES BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO THESE. I ACTUALLY WANT THEM TO LOOK LIKE YOU SHOULD NOT TRY AND MESS WITH THEM. SO THAT WAS THE WHOLE CONCEPT YET IT WOULD STILL BE EASY FOR US TO QUICKLY TAKE IT DOWN SO WE CAN GET AN AMBULANCE IN, OR FRANKLY JUST MOVE IT SO CAN WE DO SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO. DRESSING THEM UP, WE CAN PROBABLY WRAP SOMETHING AROUND IT BUT WE DO HAVE TO MEET THEM, GOING INTO THE GROUND OR SOMETHING IS NOT SOMETHING I'M GOING TO BE THRILLED WITH IF THEY BREAK AND WHERE DO YOU PUT THEM, YOU KNOW EVERY FESTIVAL IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS WORKING ON

THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AT 7:39 P.M. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM, YOU KNOW, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. NOT SEEN ANYONE.

WE'LL CLOSE IT ALSO AT 7:39 P.M. I HEAR A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ACT ON THIS ORDINANCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

PLEASE NOTE. >> WE ARE ACTING ON THIS ORDINANCE. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND

[13.b. First Reading of Ordinance Z-701-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Ayers, Joshi, Minnaar and Snyder.]

VOTE. THIS PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT UP IS FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE Z 701 25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, SPONSOR COUNSELORS AASEN, JOSHI, MINNAAR AND SNYDER. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE?

>> MOVED TO INTRODUCE. >> COUNCILOR MINNAAR, WOULD YOU

READ THE SYNOPSIS? >> AMENDING RELATED TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOUNDATIONS AND GENERAL

PROVISIONS. >> GOOD EVENING, SERGEI GRICHUK, COOPERATION COUNCIL. THIS ITEM WAS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED IN LAND-USE COMMITTEE. IT'S PART OF A UGO UPDATE THAT ACTUALLY THIS ONE WAS THE VERY FIRST ITEM THAT THE LAND-USE LOOK THAT OVER A YEAR AGO AND RECEIVED A VERY LONG REVIEW, SECTION BY SECTION, ARTICLE BY ARTICLE SO IT FINALLY COMES IN ITS FINAL FORM BACK TO COUNSEL. YOU SENT IT TO BLANK IMAGING, WHICH THEY DID HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ON AUGUST 19TH, 2025. IT WAS CERTIFIED AND CERTIFICATION EXPIRES ON NOVEMBER 17TH, 2025 POINT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER NOW IS Z-701 BASH 25 BUT IT WAS ONLY ONE

[01:40:05]

CORRECTION MADE, WHICH IS A VERY SMALL CORRECTION ON LINE 91 FOR 93. IT RESERVES THE AGREEMENT TO THE TOWNSHIP BECAUSE ALL THE LAND IN CARMEL HAS BEEN INCORPORATED SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE UGO ORIGINALLY SO IT'S JUST A MINOR HOUSECLEANING CORRECTION. EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME. I WILL BE HAPPY TO GO LINE BY LINE BUT WE'VE DONE THAT THE VERY FIRST TIME BECAUSE IT WAS A COUNCIL INITIATED ORDINANCE. WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GO LINE BY LINE AGAIN. I'LL ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL? THIS LAND-USE, COUNSEL HAS CONSIDERED IT, WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BACK TO COUNSEL. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT 7:42 P.M. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. NOT SEEN ANYONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:42 P.M. DO I HAVE ANY KIND OF MOTION FOR THIS ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING?

>> I MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND VOTE ON THIS, THIS EVENING

POINT >> SECOND.

>> THE TO SUSPEND THE RULES. AND THIS PASSES AND THEN DO I HAVE A

MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> GO AHEAD AND PLEASE VOTE.

THIS PASSES. >> THANK YOU .

[13.c. Petition to Vacate a Public Way; 570 1st Ave. SE; Jamie Featherstone ]

>> THANK YOU. SERGEI, YOU MAY WANT TO HANG OUT THERE. I THINK THE NEXT ONE IS PROBABLY YOU. NEXT UP IS PETITION TO VACATE A PUBLIC WAY, 571 FIRST AVENUE SOUTHEAST. JAMIE FEATHERSTONE .

SERGEI, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR SOME COMMENTS ON

THIS? >> LET ME INTRODUCE IT FIRST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND. WE HAVE A PETITIONER HERE THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL AND PRESENTATION. THERE IS SOME BACKGROUND THAT YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, IF I CAN HAVE -- SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO BE VACATED IS THIS HIGHLIGHTED AREA OFF FIRST AVENUE SOUTHEAST, IN PARCELS 5/71 AVENUE SOUTHEAST AND 530 FIRST AVENUE SOUTHEAST.

THE 530 FIRST AVENUE SOUTHEAST PETITION FOR A PARTIAL PUBLICATION OF THAT ALLEY BACK IN 2017 AND IT WAS GRANTED IN 2017 BY ORDINANCE D DASH 2362-70. AT THE TIME, THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH, 570, WERE NOT INCLUDED. I'M NOT SURE WHY. IT WAS BEFORE MY TIME BUT REGARDLESS, ONLY HALF OF THE ALLEY WAS VACATED AND INCLUDED IN THE 530 PARCEL. YOU WOULD SEE THE 530 PARCEL WAS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER BECAUSE THE ALLEY USED TO BE RIGHT HERE. THAT PORTION WAS VACATED BACK IN 2017. NOW THE OWNERS OF 570 FIRST AVENUE SOUTHEAST ARE POSITIONING FOR VACATION OF THAT SECOND HALF OF THE ALLEY. EVERY PROPERTY SURROUNDING IT HAS BEEN EITHER VACATED, OR THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, THIS PARCEL HAS BEEN VACATED ALREADY. USED TO BE AN ALLEY THERE AND ALWAYS THE ROAD GOES WALNUT STREET, TURNS INTO FIRST AVENUE AND SO THERE'S NO WAY FOR THAT ALLEY TO BE UTILIZED ANYMORE AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED IT, RECOMMENDED FAVORABLE ACCOMMODATIONS. SO DID DPW AND NOW I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PETITIONER HERE. IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS BEING ASKED.

>> PETITIONER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE ANY COMMENTS.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL. PLEASURE. JEFF, YOU ARE WONDERFUL WITH CIVILITY AND I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING BUT POSITIVITY FROM YOU. THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY VACATED BACK IN 2017 I WASN'T FOR IT, OBVIOUSLY. BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED MOST OF THAT PROPERTY THROUGH A JUDGE IN A JUDGMENT SO THIS HAPPENED AND IT JUST TOOK A TOLL ON ME, AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANY FIGHT IN ME, AND I JUST GAVE UP AND KIND OF SAID, WHATEVER. SO HERE WE ARE. I'M JUST GOING TO ACCEPT THIS,

[01:45:05]

MOVE FORWARD, PUT IT IN GOD'S HANDS AND I JUST WANT TO LIVE THE REST OF MY LIFE AS LONG AS I CAN HERE ON FIRST AVENUE AND ENJOY MY TIME HERE. SO I GUESS THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAD TO

ADD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL OR SNYDER? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> CLARIFYING, THE CITY IS VACATING IT AND TRANSFERRING

OWNERSHIP TO YOU, CORRECT? >> WELL YES BUT A JUDGMENT HAD BEEN MADE BACK IN 2002 WITH THE PRIOR OWNERS, THAT IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM FOR TAKING CARE OF THE PROPERTY SINCE 1955.

>> NOW YOU'RE GETTING IT. PRESUMABLY YOU'VE BEEN TAKING

CARE OF IT, I ASSUME. >> SERGEI, I SEE, IS THERE SOME

CONFLICTING INFORMATION HERE? >> NOT CONFLICT IN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE. WE ARE TALKING

ABOUT -- >> YES, ABSOLUTELY, I'M SORRY

-- >> ONLY THE HALF OF THE ALLEY WAS VACATED IN 2017. SO I'M NOT SURE IF JUDGMENT IS CONCERNED BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST THE SECOND HALF BEEN VACATED, AS IT PROBABLY SHOULD'VE BEEN BECAUSE USUALLY THEY SPLIT THE TWO ADJOINING PARCELS. IT JUST WASN'T DONE IN 2017 BUT ESSENTIALLY CORRECTING A CLERICAL MISTAKE OF SORTS. I'M NOT SURE WHY THE 570 PARCEL WAS NOT INCLUDED ON THAT PETITION BUT IT WASN'T.

>> I'M SORRY, I HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THIS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT SO 570, OKAY, WAS THE PIECE ABOVE THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION VACATED TO 570 OR TO 530?

>> TO 530. >> 530.HALF AND NOW 570 IS

GETTING THE OTHER HALF. >> EXACTLY.

>> ARE YOU EXCITED ABOUT THIS? ARE YOU JUST -- YOU SEEM UPSET SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING SOMETHING.

>> I STILL LOST PROPERTY. I STILL LOST PROPERTY IN THIS DEAL. I WENT FROM BASICALLY TWO LOTS TO ONE LOT. THEY WENT FROM ONE LOT TO TWO LOTS. THE MAN CAME IN, SAW A DISCREPANCY. THE PROPERTY HAPPENED TO BE FOR SALE. HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. HE MOVED THE GARAGE. HE ENDED UP WITH TWO LOTS AND I LOST A BIG

PART OF MY PROPERTY. >> SO IT WAS SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS. YOU THINK YOU LOST THE NORTH PART OR THE SECOND PART?

>> YES, I LOST PROPERTY, BUT THE POINT IS THAT IT'S OVER WITH. I SHOULD MAYBE NEVER EVEN BROUGHT THIS UP TONIGHT BUT IT WAS A LAND ISSUE UNLIKE ANY THAT ANYONE HAD SEEN BEFORE. BUT I JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I RECEIVED THE ATTENTION ON THE ISSUE THAT I SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE IT'S ALL I HAVE. WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY I BOUGHT IT, TAKING CARE OF MY PARENTS AND THIS IS MY IRA. THIS IS ALL I HAVE TO FALL BACK ON AND I KNEW WHAT I WAS GOING TO POTENTIALLY GET, WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED PROBABLY AT LEAST $300,000. BUT YOU KNOW I JUST HOPE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN TO ANYONE ELSE IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S -- YOU

KNOW? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, SORRY THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED, FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH. IT'S A BIG BURDEN TO BEAR FOR AS LONG AS YOU DID, THINKING FROM 2002 TO 2017 THAT THAT WAS ALL YOURS AND IT BECAME NOT. I WOULD SAY IS WE GO INTO THINGS LIKE THIS, THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A THING THAT DOESN'T COME INTO COUNSEL VERY OFTEN BUT WHEN IT COMES, LIKE THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH AND YOUR GRACE, AND SAYING LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND MOVE ON WITH OUR LIVES ON IT, EVEN WITH ALL THAT STRESS, I THINK GIVES US CLARITY THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHEN WE ARE SPLITTING PARCELS AND SOMEBODY COMES WITH A REQUEST LIKE THIS, THAT THERE IS NOT AN OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT OR LIEN ON THAT WHERE OWNERSHIP HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN SOME OTHER CAPACITY. I COULD SEE HOW THIS COULD GET STICKY IF 15 YEARS GO BY, THERE IS A NEW OWNER, YOU MADE A CLAIM TO COME HERE AND RECEIVE WAS BEING KIND OF CREATED TONIGHT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON THAT TOP HALF

[01:50:03]

WITHOUT A FULL VALIDATION OF WHAT THE ACTUAL LEGAL STANDING TO THE LAND WAS. JUST A GOOD REMINDER IF WE DO MORE OF THESE MOVING FORWARD TO VERIFY THAT WE ARE CHECKING ON THOSE INTERESTS THAT MIGHT ALREADY EXIST, SO SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> THAT'S MOSTLY WHAT I JUST WANTED TO GET ACROSS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT , THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51 P.M. ANYONE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. SEE NOBODY, I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. I DON'T THINK WE EVEN

HAVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES. >> DON'T NEED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TODAY. THE ORDINANCE WILL BE BROUGHT AT THE NEXT MEETING SINCE THIS WAS JUST A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PETITION.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> SO MOVED.

>> ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND VOTE. AND THE ORDINANCE WILL COME TO US. I HOPE THAT WHILE THIS DOESN'T FIX THE WHOLE THING THAT THIS PROVIDES SOME IMPROVEMENT FOR YOUR SITUATION.

>> SERGEI, JUST FOR MY OWN EDUCATION, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS JUST SO I UNDERSTAND? ON A LAND ISSUE IS THERE A LEGAL REASON THE ORDINANCE HAS TO COME AFTER THE HEARING?

>> JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE RESULT OF A HEARING WOULD BE, OF A PETITION. WE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE GRANTED OR NOT GRANTED AND SO WE'LL BRING THE ORDINANCE AS A SECONDARY MATTER TO CONCLUDE IT AT THE NEXT MEETING AND YOU WILL

[14.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2777-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Vacating a Portion of the Public Way Known as Calvert Place; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen.]

SEE EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE NEW AGENDA.

>> AND SPEAKING OF THAT, MOVING ONTO NEW BUSINESS, OUR NEXT ITEM IS FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE B 2777-25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, VACATING A PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS CALVERT PLACE.

SPONSOR'S COUNCILOR AASEN. SERGEI, WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THE FIRST STEP OF THIS AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

>> EXACTLY, JUST A REMINDER IN COUNCILOR SNYDER, ANOTHER REASON WHY WE NEED TO BRING IT BACK IS BECAUSE WE NEED AN ACTUAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION . SO ONCE YOU APPROVE THE PETITION WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO YOU SO IT CAN ACTUALLY BE RECORDED. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PETITION THAT YOU ALREADY APPROVED LAST MEETING. THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS SO THIS WAS THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY ACT ON YOUR APPROVAL OF PETITION AS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILL BE RECORDED AND IT WILL BE FINALIZED WITH THE RECORDER'S OFFICE.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE.

>> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. WAITING FOR THE BUTTON.

THERE YOU GO. WE CAN NOW ACT ON THIS ORDINANCE THIS EVENING. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SECOND. PLEASE NOTE. ALL RIGHT. THIS PASSES.

[14.b. First Reading of Ordinance D-2784-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 4, Article 6 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor(s) Minnaar and Taylor. ]

NEXT UP IS FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D 2784 E- 25, AND ORDINANCE IN THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE SIX OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE.

SPONSORS ARE COUNSELORS MINORITY AND TAYLOR. DO I HAVE A MOTION,

WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS? >> ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CLARIFYING REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 6 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE RELATING TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING REGISTRATION AND PERMIT PROGRAM.

>> SERGEI, COULD YOU GIVE A LITTLE SYNOPSIS OF THIS?

>> SO LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND HOW THIS CAME ALONG. AS YOU KNOW, YOU PASS AN ORDINANCE ON THE RENTAL CAP, 10% RENTAL CAP FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. OUR DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS DOCS, AS WELL AS A AND ILLUSTRATION AND I BELIEVE SOMETIMES OCCASIONALLY RECEIVED A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORDINANCE, HOW IT WILL OPERATE, WHEN THE LEGACY DWELLINGS WILL KICK IN, WHEN CAN WE REGISTER, ET CETERA, SO AS OF RIGHT NOW DF CS IS WORKING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

THEY ARE -- WE CONTRACTED WITH A SOFTWARE PROVIDER THAT. THEY ARE TESTING THEM ALL RIGHT NOW SO IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO BEING ALMOST FULLY IMPLEMENTED. DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD CLARIFY FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT ORDINANCE DID NOT ADDRESS. YOU CONTEMPLATED THAT IT WILL POTENTIALLY MAY BE CHANGED AS WE RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC. WE HAVE RECEIVED QUITE A BIT OF FEEDBACK

[01:55:04]

SO THIS CLARIFIES CERTAIN THINGS AND JUST CLEANS UP CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE NOT DONE IN THE FIRST ORDINANCE SO I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GO KIND OF LINE BY LINE BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A FEW AMENDMENTS. SOME OF THEM ARE CLEANING UP AMEND ITS. SOME OF THEM ARE SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS THAT HOPEFULLY WILL MAKE THE ORDINANCE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.

>> PLEASE DO SPEND MORE TIME ON THE SUBSTANTIVE. THAT'S ALL

RIGHT. >> THE FIRST AMENDMENT COMES ONLINE 33 THROUGH 37 SO IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IN ORDER FOR IT TO RECEIVE A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING PERMIT AND TO REGISTER A BUILDING ACTUALLY HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WE RECEIVE THAT QUESTION QUITE OFTEN. WHAT IF I WOULD LIKE TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING IN THE FUTURE? CAN I REGISTER IT TODAY? AND THE ANSWER, AS FAR AS I WAS READING THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCES, NO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BUILDING THAT IS READY TO BE LET OR TO BE A RENTAL UNIT. AND EXCEPT FOR RENOVATION OR REPLACEMENT, THIS LANGUAGE WILL COME LATER AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY, AS WELL . AND ANOTHER IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION IS IN ORDER TO SEEK A PERMIT , THE OWNER MAY NOT CLAIM THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ON THAT PROPERTY, SO THAT'S A DEFINING FACTOR. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT FOR SOFTWARE, EASIER TO RECOGNIZE WHAT PROPERTIES ARE RENTAL UNITS, WHAT PROPERTIES ARE NOT. SO THAT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR, AS WELL, A CLARIFICATION POINT, RATHER. THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS PARTLY SUBSTANTIVE, PARTLY CLARIFICATION ON LINE 44. IT'S NOT THAT ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1ST 2026 OWNERS HAVE TO REGISTER. ITS PERIOD, ALL OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLINGS HAVE TO REGISTER. ITS LEGACY DWELLINGS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY JANUARY 1ST, 2026 DEADLINE AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT CLEAR. TO MAINTAIN LEGACY DWELLINGS THAT IS, ALL OWNERS OF LEGACY DWELLINGS MUST REGISTER SUCH DWELLINGS BY DECEMBER 31ST, 2025. AFTER DECEMBER 31ST, 2025, THE LEGACY DWELLING STATUS WILL EXPIRE FOR THOSE WISHING TO REGISTER NEW UNITS. SO THAT AMENDMENT CLARIFIES THAT. NEXT AMENDMENT IS ON LINE 59. AGAIN IT'S ADDITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL APPLICATION WHICH ADDS A APPLICATION WITH THE RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STUDIED AND READY TO BE LEFT FOR

OCCUPANCY. >> REFEREE:, SUBSECTION 8 ON LINE 61 ALSO BEEN AMENDED. IT REQUIRES AN AFFIRMATION UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT OWNERS, BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS HAS NOT BEEN CITED FOR VIOLATION OF ANY REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY CITY CODE. IT IS CURRENT ON ALL CITY OF CARMEL UTILITY INVOICES AND HAS NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MORE THAN THREE CIVIL CITATIONS OR CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHIN THE PRECEDING 24 MONTHS. SO AGAIN THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN HAD, HOW DO WE CONFIRM THAT THE OWNERS HAVE NOT BEEN CITED UNDER OUR CODE OR HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION UNDER PENALTIES OF BECAUSE OCCASIONALLY THAT INFORMATION CAN BE PRETTY COMPLICATED TO CHECK. ANOTHER CLARIFICATION IS ON LINE 84, IF OWNERSHIP CHANGES AFTER DECEMBER 31ST, 2025, A RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING LOSES ITS STATUS AS A LEGACY DWELLING. THAT WAS PROBABLY THE NUMBER ONE QUESTION THAT HE RECEIVED SO THIS CLARIFIES THAT IF ONE OF THE WAYS TO LOSE YOUR LEGACY STATUS IS TO CHANGE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING. OBVIOUSLY BEFORE DECEMBER 31ST, 2025, IT'S IRRELEVANT, BUT AFTER DECEMBER 31ST, 2025, THE LEGACY DWELLINGS THAT IS WILL BE LOST IF THE OWNERSHIP IS CHANGED.

[02:00:05]

8789 IS JUST A SMALL CLARIFICATION. IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIVE. 91, IT IS JUST A MISTAKE THERE WAS BEFORE. IT'S NOT HOME RENTAL DWELLING PERMITS, IT'S RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLINGS. IT JUST CORRECTS THAT. THE SECTIONS 98 THROUGH 108, IT JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT SHORTER AND REFERENCES AFFIRMATION AND INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN SECTION FOUR E- 501 WITHOUT A NEED TO SPELL THEM OUT AGAIN. SAME WITH SMALL CORRECTIONS THROUGH THE END OF THE PAGE. ANOTHER CORRECTION BEGINS ON LINE 124, GOES THROUGH LINE 130. WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A 10% CAP HAS BEEN IS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. NOT RECEIVING A PERMIT BUT THE TIME OF APPLICATION SO IT'S FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVED BASIS WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION. WE WILL CHECK WHETHER 10% CAP HAS BEEN.

ANOTHER SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE COMES -- SORRY, ONE MORE CORRECTION ON 129 130. WHEN A REGISTERED RENTAL DWELLING WITH A VALID PERMIT IS RENOVATED OR REBUILT, THE RENTAL PERMIT WILL REMAIN ACTIVE. WE RECEIVED THAT QUESTION A COUPLE OF TIMES AS WELL. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DISCONTINUE RENTING MY UNIT BUT I'M ACTUALLY RENOVATING IT OR EVEN REBUILDING IT? THE IDEA IS TO AVOID ANY SORT OF LIGHTED BUILDINGS, THE IDEA IS TO ENCOURAGE RENOVATION RENTAL DWELLING UNITS OR EVEN REBUILDING OF RENTAL DWELLING UNITS WITHOUT A FRIEND OF PERMIT SO THAT'S A CORRECTION THERE. ON LINE 132 THROUGH 135 IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIVE CORRECTION, INDIANA CODE ALLOWS FIVE DOLLARS REGISTRATION FEE ANNUALLY TO THE CHARGED FOR RUNNING OF A PROGRAM SO THAT WAS NOT DONE AT THE FIRST ORDINANCE, DOCS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REQUESTED THAT IT BE ADDED SO A FIVE DOLLAR REGISTRATION FEE, ANNUAL FEE FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING PERMIT IS ADDED. AGAIN IT IS THE LIMIT THAT INDIANA CODE ESTABLISHES SO WE CANNOT GO HIGHER IN THAT BUT ADDITIONALLY A LATE FEE OF UP TO $200 MAY BE CHARGED IF THE OWNER FAILS TO PAY THE ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF A RENEWAL DATES.

>> ANOTHER SMALL CORRECTION COMES FROM LINE 159 THROUGH 161, IT SAYS -- IT HAS TO DO WITH SERVICE OF PROCESS AND NOTICES, SO THE ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE CERTIFIED MAIL, HOWEVER UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES CERTIFIED MAIL IS NOT PICKED UP, AND IT GIVES THE D.O.C. AS DIRECTOR AND THE OPPORTUNITY IF IT HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK AS UNDELIVERABLE TO DELIVER NOTICE FOR PERSONAL SERVICE OF FIRST-CLASS MAIL WITH THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN THE REGISTRATION FORUM. REMEMBER THAT RENTAL UNITS OWNERS HAVE TO PROVIDE A REGISTRATION ON THE REGISTRATION FORM, WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE SERVED, CERTIFIED MAIL UNFORTUNATELY AS A LIMITATION, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO PICK IT UP AND SIGN FOR IT, SO IF THAT HAPPENS, THAT ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO USE OTHER MEANS OF SERVICE.

>> CAN I INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MINUTE? YEAH, SO, THANK YOU FOR GOING THROUGH SOME OF THESE CHANGES. SO, COUNSELOR SNYDER,

DO YOU WANT TO KIND OF -- >> YEAH, SO I GUESS I DIDN'T READ LINE BY LINE ON THESE EDITS BECAUSE I HADN'T MADE THE % ASSUMPTION, THEN WHAT CAUGHT MY WAY -- I WAS THESE SPONSORS, BUT THIS IS NOT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS SENT TO YOU. THIS HAS NO --

[02:05:05]

OUR LEGAL COUNCIL PUT TOGETHER AND SENT YOU AND ADAM SEND A FOLLOW-UP EMAIL THAT SAID, HEY, HERE IS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PUT TOGETHER AND IT WAS A ORDINANCE, IT WAS SENT TO YOU ON THE 14TH, AND THIS IS SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT. I'M CURIOUS, RICH ISN'T HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF, BUT WHAT CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH THE INITIAL AUTHOR.

>> JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THE ORDINANCE -- I THINK THE COUNSELORS HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, ABOUT AMENDING THE INITIAL RENTAL CAP ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE CONDOMINIUMS. I SENT THAT. SERGEI AND RICH, I SAID I KNOW THE MAYOR IS WORKING ON CHANGES AND WE TAKE THIS AND THE MAYOR'S CHANGES AND MAYBE GET THEM INTO ONE ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, BUT THIS APPEARS TO BE JUST THE CHANGES FROM THE CITY HALL AND NONE OF THE

CHANGES REQUESTED BY COUNCIL. >> SO, AGAIN, TO ADDRESS THE CONDOMINIUM ISSUE, WE DID TALK TO COUNSELOR MINNAAR, AS WELL AS COUNSELOR TAYLOR ON CONDOMINIUMS AND THEY WERE BOTH COMFORTABLE NOT INCLUDING IN THIS ROUND OF REVISIONS, SO THAT IS NOT INCLUDED, IT'S BECAUSE HE RECEIVED THE GREEN LIGHT NOT

TO. >> WHEN YOU SAY THIS ROUND, WAS IT -- COUNCIL MINNAAR, I JUST HAD AN UPDATED, DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT LATER, BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE HERE NOW, DID WE WANT TO LOOK AT IT OR WHAT DO WE THINK?

>> I'M SORRY, I WAS READING, ASK ME A QUESTION AGAIN.

>> IT WAS A KIND OF THE REQUEST OF YOU AND COUNSELOR TAYLOR, ARE WE STILL PURSUING THAT? IF SO, WOULD WE NOT WANT TO JUST INCLUDE IT AT THIS TIME WHAT WE HAVE THIS OPEN?

>> NO, YOU CAN'T. SERGEI CAN TELL YOU THERE ARE SOME LEGAL STATUTORY LAWS THAT WOULD -- IT IS JUST NOT FEASIBLE TO DO IT.

SO, AND THEN SOME REALLY GOOD LEGAL PRECEDENTS FOR IT.

>> I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND ALL THAT.

>> OH, YEAH, ABOUT THE OTHER -- >> I JUST WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THAT, TOO, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WHY THE CONDOMINIUMS CAN'T BE

-- >> OH, I'M SORRY. I WILL LET

SERGEI EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU. >> AND ANOTHER CLARIFICATION IS COUNSELOR SNYDER, I DID SEND THIS FINAL VERSION TO COUNSELOR MINNAAR AND COUNSELOR TAYLOR, I BELIEVE AT SOME TIME IN AUGUST.

SO, ALL THAT HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE TWO ORIGINAL SPONSORS, AS FAR AS CONDOMINIUM REGULATION , THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY WE DID NOT -- OUR DEPARTMENT MEETING THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT DID NOT RECOMMEND CONDOMINIUMS IN THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT . NUMBER ONE IS BECAUSE CONDOMINIUMS ARE REGULATED BY CONDOMINIUM ACT, IT IS IN INDIANA CODE. ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT REGULATE THE RENTAL CAPS, IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE -- IT HAS A LOT OF RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE BEING REGULATED IN THE CODE, INCLUDING THE OWNERSHIP, OWNERSHIP UNITS, OWNERSHIP OF LAND, OWNERSHIP OF COMMON AREAS, ET CETERA. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OWNERS, THE ASSOCIATION, AND INDIVIDUAL OWNERS , ET CETERA. SO, IN MANY WAYS, REGULATION OF CONDOMINIUMS DEFINE THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- THIS IS REALLY WHERE A LOGISTICAL ISSUE COMES IN, IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS DIVIDED BY THE TYPE OF SUBDIVISION ON THE PROPERTY UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF THE NEWER CONDOMINIUMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY HAVE MIXED UNITS.

THAT, THERE ARE MANY OTHERS. THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE DEFINE CONDOMINIUM UNITS. SO, IT WOULD BE NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE TO SEPARATE WHICH UNIT IS WHICH.

ANOTHER REASON NOT TO INCLUDE IT IS BECAUSE THE MINIMUM NUMBER FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD IS 10, AND FOR A LOT OF CONDOMINIUMS THAT DO NOT MEET THAT NUMBER. THERE ARE SOME THAT FOUR OF FIVE, ET CETERA. SO, SOME OF THE CONDOMINIUMS SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO CAP AT ALL, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO SMALL. AND

[02:10:02]

THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER LOGISTICAL ISSUES WITH SOFTWARE, HOW TO PICK IT UP, IT'S BETTER UP IN ALL THOSE REASONS NOT TO INCLUDE IT, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO IT MORE, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ROUND OF

CLARIFICATIONS. >> LET ME JUST SAY THIS TO YOU, MATT, AND TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL, I HAD NOT REALIZED THAT YOU GUYS DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THIS -- THIS DOCUMENT, SO I WILL FALL ON THE SWORD ON THIS ONE AND TELL YOU I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT SENDING IT TO YOU AND THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO READ IT, HOWVER, I'M JUST ASKING, ARE THERE THINGS IN THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE THAT YOU SEE ISSUES WITH SPECIFICALLY.

>> I WILL JUMP IN. THIS ORDINANCE HERE, IT FEELS VERY CLEAN AND I DON'T SEE VERY MANY INJECTIONS TO THIS, ALTHOUGH I COULD ALWAYS TAKE MORE TIME. MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS I HAD SOME COUNSELORS WHO FELT VERY STRONGLY ABOUT SOMETHING, AND IT MAY NOT EVEN BE MY ISSUE , AND IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THERE. I RAISED THE QUESTION OF IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, WOULD NOW BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME OR NOT?

>> I THINK -- IT FEELS LIKE IT IS TIME, TOO, FOR THIS TO GO BACK TO LAND USE, TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHAT WE HAVE RUN INTO TO BEGIN WITH. OBVIOUSLY, WHEN WE HAVE ASKED IT, THERE IS A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT IT COULD BE, WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE THERE HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN SOME FEEDBACK AND THINGS THAT NEED TO BE TWEAKED, WHICH I SEE AS I READ THROUGH IT, BUT THERE'S THE PROVISION UNDER STATUTE THAT KIND OF PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING THIS, YOU CAN'T CHARGE A FEE FOR A PERMIT, WHICH WAS THE REASON THERE WAS NOT ONE TO BEGIN WITH, SO I WOULD JUST -- REALLY AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE FULLY VETTED AGAIN, AND PROBABLY AT LAND USED TO GO KIND OF THROUGH THOSE THINGS, AND MAYBE FLESHING OUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE CONDOMINIUM PIECE IS CONCERNING IF WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO THIS WITH THE INTENT TO LIMIT RENTALS, THAT LEAVES A GLARING LOOPHOLE IN THE PROCESS. AND JUST EVEN A PROCEDURAL QUESTION, DO WE KNOW DOES THE LEGACY IS GET IN NOW? WE ARE CHANGING THE WAY IN WHICH TO SAY

-- >> YEAH, WE'RE STILL IN TESTING MODE. I DID SEE A PRESENTATION FOR THE SOFTWARE PROVIDER, AT THIS POINT I THINK IT HAS BEEN TWO WEEKS. BUT WE HOPE THAT WE WILL FINALIZE IT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

>> I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A DATE FOR YOU, BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY WORKING -- VERY DEEP INTO THE PROCESS.

>> I WOULD JUST VERIFY THAT ADDING A FEE ISN'T JUST A POISON PILL THAT AUTOMATICALLY KILLS THIS --

>> THE FEE IS DIRECTLY FROM INDIANA CODE THAT ALLOWS UP TO FIVE DOLLARS, IT LIMITS IT FOR REGISTRATION, RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM. THAT STATUTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CAP, JUST THE REGISTRATION PROGRAM, SO THIS IS WHERE --

>> I AM GOING TO SEND THIS TO LAND USE, BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID,

>> SURROGATE, 91 DAYS, I HAVE THOUGHT THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON ONE THING, AND THEN TONIGHT I FIND OUT WE ARE WORKING ON SOMETHING ELSE AND THAT FRUSTRATES ME. BUT IT DID GET ME TO START FILLING OUT THE LINK. I AM STARTING TO GET NERVOUS, THOUGH, THAT THE DECEMBER 31ST DATE IS APPROACHING FAST AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ARE GOING TO GET THIS OUT IN ITS FINAL FORM , AND I THINK THAT IS ONE THING WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT. SO, AND HERE'S A QUESTION, I'M FILLING OUT THIS PREREGISTRATION FORM.

WHERE DOES THAT GO? WILL I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE?

INAUDIBLE ] SOMETHING BACK? >> AS IN --

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> I DON'T KNOW THOSE DETAILS

YET. >> THE COMMUNITY IS BEING ASKED TO FILL OUT A FORM ONLINE, WHERE IS IT GOING? AND IS THAT ALL I

NEED TO DO? >> YES. YES. ADMINISTRATOR, I CAN ASK DIRECTOR HALL MEETING OR A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE D.O.C. TO UPDATE WHERE EXACTLY WE ARE IN THE PROCESS. MY INFORMATION IS A LITTLE BIT OBSOLETE ON THIS. BUT I KNOW THAT IT IS APPROACHING ITS COMPLETION. I AM NOT SURE IF WE ARE A COUPLE WEEKS AWAY, MAYBE A MONTH AWAY, BUT OUR HOPE IS THAT GENERAL PUBLIC WILL HAVE OVER A MONTH -- OVER TWO MONTHS TO SUMMIT REGISTRATION FOR LEGACY DWELLINGS. X MATS, IF I CAN CLARIFY, TOO, ONE OF THE THINGS

[02:15:02]

THAT DIRECTOR INAUDIBLE ] DOES ALL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE WORK, SO YOU SHOULD GET AN EMAIL BACK TO YOU THAT SAYS IT IS BEING RECEIVED, IT IS BEING PROCESSED, I DO KNOW THAT PIECE, IF THAT GIVES YOU

ANY CONSOLATION WHATSOEVER. >> WANTING ALSO TO CLARIFY , THESE ROUND OF AMENDMENTS, THEY WILL NOT STALL THE REGISTRATION PROGRAM ITSELF. SO, THE REGISTRATION PROGRAM IS STILL BEING IMPLEMENTED AND THIS IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT IT, SO ONCE IT IS OPERATIONAL, ONCE IT IS ONLINE, PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO START REGISTERING THE RENTAL UNITS, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS

IN THE PROCESS. >> AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT -- THIS PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN DOWN AS I READ THIS, IT SAYS ON THIS FORM, THERE IS NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. COMPLETION OF THIS PREREGISTRATION FORM WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO EASILY CONTACT YOU WHEN IT DOES OPEN. THE CITY IS CURRENTLY BUILDING A SYSTEM. IT WILL BE COMPLETED BEFORE DECEMBER 31ST, 2025. IT JUST SAYS THE SYSTEM WILL BE COMPLETED, IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BY THEN, SO IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE.

>> I WILL CONTACT THEM , MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, TO SEE IF WE CAN UPDATE THAT AS WELL. AGAIN, WE HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE AT LEAST A MONTH, IF NOT LONGER FOR RESIDENTS TO REGISTER THEIR UNITS. I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT DATE WHEN, THE SOFTWARE WILL BE OPERATIONAL, BUT HOPEFULLY SOON.

[14.c. First Reading of Ordinance D-2786-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 6, Article 5, Division VIII, Section 6-158(d)(7) of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Joshi. ]

THAT'S ALL RIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO SEND THIS TO LAND-USE COMMITTEE, AND MOVING ON, WE HAVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-2784-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 5, DIVISION VIII, SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR JOSHI. WOULD YOU READ THIS SYNOPSIS? X TO INCLUDE A NIGHT BEFORE THE DIWALI FESTIVAL OF

LIGHTS. >> DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN US?

>> YEAH, SO BASICALLY, AS MOST FESTIVALS ARE CELEBRATED IN THE WORLD, THERE IS USUALLY AN EVE OF THE FESTIVAL ON THE FESTIVAL EVE, NEW YEAR'S DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE, CHRISTMAS DAY. SAME THING, THERE IS WHAT WE CALL LITTLE DIWALI AND DIWALI. SO, IT IS THE NIGHT BEFORE SO MANY -- I HAD GOTTEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THAT EXTRA EVENING, KNOWING THAT DIWALI IS A FLOATING HOLIDAY AND DOESN'T ALWAYS ARRIVES ON THE WEEKENDS, IT IS ALWAYS PRESENTED SORT OF THIS ISSUE, BUT HAVING THAT EXTRA DAY ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO POTENTIALLY CELEBRATE ON THE WEEKEND. I DID HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF STARLING ON THIS, WHO WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT CHANGE AND DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WOULD INCREASE ANY ISSUES FOR HIS OFFICERS OR DEPARTMENT, AND I DID ALSO HAVE -- AND FULL TRANSPARENCY, A CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF FACTOR FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ABOUT OBVIOUSLY SAFETY OF FIREWORKS DURING THE SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER TIMEFRAME, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD SOME UNDERSTANDING OF IF THERE WAS SOME ISSUANCE OF A NOTIFICATION THAT IT WAS TO DRY OR UNSAFE TO SET OFF FIREWORKS, THAT THAT COULD ALSO BE PART OF THIS, WE COULD ADJUST IT TO THAT, BUT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALKED AOUT THIS COMPLETELY, SO WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THOSE ISSUES AND THEY WERE BOTH IN SUPPORT OF ADDING THIS ONE DAY TO THE ORDINANCE, SO THAT'S REALLY ALL THIS AMENDMENT DOES, IS ADD THE ONE DAY.

>> AND WE DO THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS?

>> NO, I THINK IF WE JUST SAY THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY OF DIWALI, IT DOESN'T THEN HAVE TO COME BACK YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER

YEAR, IT IS JUST ON THE -- YEAH. >> AWESOME, ANY QUESTIONS? YES I DO HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THAT, WE ACTUALLY ALREADY ALLOW FIREWORKS ON THE DAY OF DIWALI, SO AMENDMENT IS JUST ADDING THE DAY BEFORE DIWALI AT 5:00 P.M. TO

11:00 P.M. >> ALL RIGHT, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING.

>> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULE. RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION, THIS - PASSES. ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT, THIS PASSES. ALL

[14.d. Resolution CC-09-15-25-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds Within the Police Department Budget (#1110); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Worrell. ]

RIGHT, NEXT UP, WE HAVE RESOLUTION CC-09-15-25-01, A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET 1110, SPONSORS ARE COUNSELORS TAYLOR AND WORRELL.

WHEN YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS? >> YES, THIS IS A TRANSFER OF $87,000 WITHIN THE 2025 POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. WE WILL TAKE

[02:20:05]

THE 87,000 FROM LINE ITEM 411000 TO SPLIT IT UP INTO TWO. CARS AND TRUCKS WOULD BE 61,000. OTHER EQUIPMENT, 26,000. CHIEF?

ANY COMMENTS? >> NO, THAT IS THE REASON, AND CFO JACKSON HAS MORE INFO IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC

QUESTIONS. >> THIS IS PAYING OFF CAPITAL

LEASES EARLY. >> THAT'S RIGHT, THERE ARE THREE TRANSFERS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT THAT EITHER MOVE DOLLARS FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYING OFF CAPITAL LEASES. SOME WERE TECHNICALLY PAYING OFF -- ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE STREET DEPARTMENT, WE WERE PAYING THAT OFF BECAUSE WE WANT TO TRADE THAT ASSET IN ON SOMETHING THAT MEETS OUR NEEDS BETTER. SEVERAL OF THESE, THOUGH, WE ARE MOVING DOLLARS INTO PLACE, SO THAT WE CAN FULLY ENCUMBER THE LIFE OF THE ALL REMAINING PAYMENTS, BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE TO LITERALLY PAY IT OFF TODAY AS INTEREST RATE THAT WE ARE GETTING AT THE BANK IS HIGHER THAN THE INTEREST RATE ON THE E SPRINT

>> COUNCILOR SNYDER? >> JOHN, IN PRINCIPLE, ALL THESE MAKE SENSE. BUT MY ONLY QUESTION IS TIMING AS WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF REVIEWING ALL THE BUDGETS AND ARE MOVING MONEY AROUND, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, WE JUST EITHER DO THIS BEFORE THE BUDGET IS PRESENTED OR AFTER OUR BUDGET IS APPROVED. TO ELIMINATE

ONE MORE COG IN THE MACHINE. >> UNDERSTOOD, AND YOU ARE RIGHT. THESE FACILITATE THE NUMBERS THAT ARE IN THE BUDGET BY BUYING DOWN THE ONGOING APPROPRIATIONS USING ONE-TIME DOLLARS, BUT YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? THIS IS THE

RESOLUTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE. >> ALL RIGHT, THIS PASSES, THANK

[14.e. Resolution CC-09-15-25-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds Within the Engineering Department Budget (#2200); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Worrell. ]

YOU. NEXT UP IS RESOLUTION CC-09-15-25-02. A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITHIN THE STREET DEPARTMENT BUDGET, 2201, COUNSELOR WORRELL, WHEN YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> WE WILL GO FROM FULL-TIME REGULAR 60,000 INTO AUTOMOBILE

LEASE $60,000. >> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO

ADD, ZACH? >> SAME DESCRIPTION AS BEFORE.

ASK ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE. ALL

[14.f. Resolution CC-09-15-25-03; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds Within the Street Department Budget (#2201); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Worrell. ]

RIGHT, THIS PASSES. WE HAVE RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITHIN THE STREET DEPARTMENT BUDGET, 20 TO ONE, SPONSORS ARE COUNCILORS TAYLOR AND WORRELL, WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> IT IS ONE IS TRANSFERRED $394,000 WITHIN THE 2025 STREET DEPARTMENT BUDGET. WE ARE GOING FROM FULL-TIME REGULAR, $394,000 DOWN TO CARS AND TRUCKS, $394,000.

>> DOES ANY OF THIS GO TOWARDS THE BARRICADES, TOO?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. IN PART, THIS IS GOING TOWARDS THE HALF THAT IS OWED BY THE STREET DEPARTMENT FOR THE LOCAL

BARRICADES. >> SO, PART OF IT IS FOR BARRICADES, PART OF IT IS FOR PAYING OFF CAPITAL LEASES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT IS THE AMOUNT JUST FOR

THE BARRICADES? >> THE GRAND TOTAL FOR THE

BARRICADES WAS $360,000. >> OKAY, JUST DIVIDE THAT BY TWO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS RESOLUTION?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE. ALL

[14.g. Resolution CC-09-15-25-04; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Certain Central Designated Outdoor Refreshment Area’s Locations and Hours of Operation; Sponsor: Councilor Worrell. ]

RIGHT, THIS PASSES. NEXT UP IS RESOLUTION CC-09-15-25-04, A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CERTAIN CENTRAL DESIGNATED OUTDOOR REFRESHMENT AREA LOCATIONS AND HOURS OF OPERATIONS . SECOND AND READ THE

SYNOPSIS, COUNCILOR WORRELL >> A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CENTRAL DESIGNATED OUTDOOR REFRESHMENT AREA BY EXCLUDING CERTAIN LOCATIONS AND HOURS FROM THE AREA'S OPERATION I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE A CASE TO GIVE YOU COMFORT OF APPROVING THIS TONIGHT BUT I FULLY UNDERSTAND IT COULD GO TO COMMITTEE, BUT IN ESSENCE, IN THE DOOR TO COMMITTEE, WE HAVE DISCOVERED THERE IS A REAL CHALLENGE WITH NO ALCOHOL COMING INTO A SPECIFIC DOOR AREA FOR SPECIFIC EVENTS WHERE THERE IS A LEGITIMATE REASON TO HAVE OTHER ALCOHOL , LIKE CHRISTKINDLMARKET

[02:25:01]

WITH THEIR BOOTHS. WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? I'M GOING TO MISS IT. THE GAZEBO IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WE HAVE TRAINED EVERYONE TO BRING THEIR OWN ALCOHOL. THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO BUY ALCOHOL ON SITE. OF COURSE, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS THING WAS TO INCREASE SALES. SO, WE LEARNED THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY EXCLUDE THE DORA DISTRICT ON SPECIFIC TIMES FOR SPECIFIC REASONS, SO THIS IS OUTLINING FOR YOU CARTER GREEN, JANUARY 24TH -- OH, WINTER GAMES, THAT WAS THE OTHER ONE, WINTER GAMES AT THE ICE THING, WHEN WE DON'T -- WELL, WE HAVE THE CHRIS KENDALL -- THERE'S JUST NO ALCOHOL TO BUY THERE, SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. WINTER GAMES, GAZEBO CONCERTS, CHRISTKINDLMARKET. THIS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, IT WAS WELL VETTED, THERE WERE GOOD REASONS, AND IT JUST WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR OUR WONDERFUL POLICE DEPARTMENT TO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH DORA IN THOSE VERY SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE IT DOES NOT BENEFIT US.

>> WHEN YOU SAY PAST, THE DORA COMMITTEE --

>> THE DORA COMMITTEE. >> COUNCILOR SNYDER, PLEASE POINT TO ME IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY, WE SET UP A PROCESS THAT GAVE THIS COMMITTEE AUTHORITY , MEAN, YOU HAVE GOT THE COMMITTEE, YOUR COMMITTEE VETTED IT, MADE A RECOMMENDATION, THAT WAS THE PROCESS AND I AM COMFORTABLE

>> YEAH, I FILE A MOTION. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE IT AFTER THIS, BUT -- DORA MEETING WHEN YOU GUYS DISCUSSED THIS AND I THINK YOU PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT AND PROCESS INTO IT, SO I HAVE NO ISSUES

WITH THIS. >> YOU WATCHED THE MEETING? OH

MY GOSH BIT >> I WATCH THEM ALL. I WATCHED

BP WP >> THAT IS HER NETFLIX.

>> WE DON'T NEED TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR THIS, DO WE?