12.a. Fifteenth 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. Fifteenth 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]

ALL RIGHT. THANK

YOU. >> THANK

YOU. >> MOVING ON.

OLD BUSINESS. 15TH READING OF ORDINANCE D-2762- 25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, CHAPTER AND ARTICLE 5, SECTIONS 8- 37, 8- 47, AND 8- 48 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE.

WE WERE HOLDING ON BECAUSE OF A PARKING STUDY.

DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATE ON HOW THE PARKING STUDY WAS GOING?

>> WELL, I KIND OF DO. I DON'T.

I FINALLY BROKE DOWN AND ASKED WHERE IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS DUE IN JUNE? I BELIEVE? AND THE RESPONSE I GOT WAS A LITTLE CONCERNING. BUT IT IS BEING TALKED THROUGH, FURTHER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.

I'M NOT SURE, MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT.

>> MR. PRESIDENT? ALL I KNOW IS OUR ENGINEERS HAD EYES ON IT JUST RECENTLY. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET. IT'S NOT FINAL. THEY'RE MOVING TOWARD -- I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT IS IN THE RIGHT FORMAT OR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SEE. I INVESTMENT SEEN IT YET.

>> IT'S JUST FORMATTING AT THIS

POINT? >> I DON'T KNOW.

I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET SO IT'S NOT FINAL.

>> ALL RIGHT. THAT REMAINS IN THE LAND USE SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE. MOVING ON TO ORDINARY D-2772-25.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA. THIS ITEM REMAINS IN THE

[12.c. Third 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. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.c. Third 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. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

FINANCE, UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE. WE HAVE THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE DID HAVE 2779-25. THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, FIXING SALARIES OF APPOINTED OFFICERS FOR THE YEAR 2025.

SPONSOR IS COUNCILLOR TAYLOR. THIS RETURNS FROM THE FINANCE, UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE.

>> AFTER MONTHS OF DISCUSSION WITH ZACK, OUR HR DIRECTOR AND SO FORTH, AND SOME FEEDBACK FROM CITY EMPLOYEES, THE 2025 SALARY RESOLUTION IS BEING RETURNED BACK TO THE FULL COUNCIL WITH THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. THIS RETURN TO THE COUNCIL WITH THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION UNANIMOUSLY. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AMONG THE COUNCIL? WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

A SECOND? WE MAKE THE MOTIONS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. MOVE TO APPROVE.

THEY CAN YOU CAN VOTE YES OR NO. I NEED A SECOND OR WE CAN'T MAKE A MOTION. SECOND.

[01:05:01]

WE MOVE TO APPROVE ON A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

YES. >> CAN YOU CALL FOR MORE DISCUSSION, PLEASE?

>> ABSOLUTELY I CAN.

>> SO HAS ANYBODY HEARD FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON AN ALTERNATIVE? IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER? WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF VOTING THIS DOWN? I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE

DISCUSSION. >> ALL RIGHT.

DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT?

>> THANK YOU. ZACK JACKSON, CFO AND CONTROLLER. THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO FINANCE COMMITTEE LAST WEEK FUNDAMENTALLY MADE TWO CHANGES. ONE WAS CLEANING UP THE LIST OFOF POSITIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF POSITIONS THAT ARE NO LONGER USED, AS WELL AS POSITIONS WITH OUTDATE TITLES THAT WERE BEING CLEANED UP. THAT WAS PART OF THIS PROCESS, THE PROJECT.

THE OTHER WAS, REVAMPING THE SALARY GRADE AND STEP SYSTEM, AND KIND OF MORPHING THAT INTO A SALARY RANGE SYSTEM. WITH A WE'VE PROPOSED AS THE 2026 SALARY ORDINANCE TAKES THE SAME TITLES BEING FROM POSED IN THE 2025 THAT DID NOT MAKE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE. IT TAKES THOSE TITLES.

IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE CHANGES ON RANGES AND GRADES, ANY OF THAT.

IT KEEPS IT ALL AS IT STANDS, AN EXISTING LAW, BUT DOES INCREASE THE RANGES BY 3% IN THE 2026 ORDINANCE SO AS TO DO THE COLA THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. SO THERE WERE A FEW EMPLOYEES. I THINK THERE WERE FIVE THAT NEEDED TO BE ADJUSTED REGARDLESS OF THIS.

>> EIGHT. DO WE HAVE A PLAN TO ADJUST THAT IF THIS DOES NOT PASS?

>> THE PLAN WAS THE ORDINANCE THAT COUNCIL, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE DID NOT PASS LAST WEEK. IT MOVED UP PEOPLE AND CLEANED UP TITLES WHERE APPROPRIATE.

>> SO COUNCILLOR?

>> I SENT AN EMAIL TO YOU ASKING IF WE COULD DEAL WITH THOSE.

THERE WERE EIGHT THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS NOT BEING PAID APPROPRIATELY.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> BEING TITLED AND BEING PAID APPROPRIATELY.

I ASKED, YOU'LL HAVE TO REFRSH MY MEMORY.

>> I REMINDED YOU THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE SHOT DOWN THE PROPOSAL THAT FIXED THAT PROBLEM.

>> SO IS THE ADMINISTRATION WILLING TO BRING BACK SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER? THAT INCLUDES THOSE EIGHT?

>> THE 2026 SALARY ORDINANCE FIXES TITLES, FIXES THOSE EIGHT.

BUT I DID NOT MAKE ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO TRY TO FIX THE 2025

ORDINANCE. >> AND THESE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE, THERE WAS A COMMITMENT THAT SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN IN JULY FOR THEM? IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SALARY STUDY AND POSITION REVIEW SINCE I WAS BROUGHT ON BOARD LAST YEAR. WE ORIGINALLY WERE AIMING FOR, IN JULY, BROUGHT IT TO COUNCIL IN AUGUST. INSTEAD.

EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN INCREASE WERE NOTIFIED THAT THAT WAS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL.

>> I HAVE QUESTIONS, TOO. I GUESS MY FRUSTRATION IS, IF THESE EMPLOYEES TALKED ABOUT THEIR PAY NOT BEING FAIR TO THE MARKET OR SOMETHING, WE NEEDED TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT THERE. IF PROMISES WERE MADE IN JULY, TO TIE THAT TO AN OVERALL, WE HAVE TO CHANGE ALL THE TITLES AND DO THIS AND THAT OR WE WON'T FIX IT FOR THESE EIGHT PEOPLE.

IF I WERE ONE OF THEM, I WOULD BE VERY FRUSTRATED THAT MY SITUATION IS NOW TIED TO SO MANY OTHERS.

TO THAT COMMENT, MAYBE THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH THAT SEPARATELY.

>> SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, THAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN AMENDED THAT THEY WERE TAKEN CARE OF AT THAT TIME BUT IT WAS

[01:10:03]

NEGATIVELY VOTED ON AT THAT.

THAT'S THE POINT HERE. WE CAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, YOU CAN AMEND THAT TONIGHT TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE OR WE CAN START WITH A WHOLE NEW ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THE OTHER EIGHT. RIGHT NOW TO DO IT IN THE 2026 ORDINANCE, IT DOESN'T. IF THE BACK.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE COULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEGATIVELY, NEGATIVE -- SORRY.

THANK YOU. FROM FINANCE.

WE COULD AMEND THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT, VOTE ON IT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> I THINK ONE CONCERN IF WE WERE TO AMEND THE EXISTING ORDINANCE IS THE TITLE CHANGES.

WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND ALL OF THEM BACK TO PREVIOUS, OR ACCEPT THEM NOW, WHICH I THINK WE WANTED TO HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT FOR 2026.

IN ORDER TO GET THOSE EIGHT. SO MAYBE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE MIGHT BE CLEANER. I'M JUST WONDERING.

COUNCILLOR?

>> I THINK A SEPARATE ORDINANCE SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE WAY TO BEGIN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE SO WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED MORE CLEARLY SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX AND WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE, POTENTIALLY, AND DON'T WANT TO TOUCH. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT AND IT THINK ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY.

>> COUNCILLOR SNYDER?

>> WHAT WAS THE -- ALL RIGHT. I KNOW, YOU STARTED WORKING ON THIS A LONG TIME AGO. WHEN DID THESE EMPLOYEES GET INFORMED THAT THEY MIGHT GET, THEY WOULD GET A BOOST, AND WHAT WAS THE EXPECTATION SAID FOR WHEN THEY COULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE IT.

>> I'M GOING TO LOOK BACK AT MY COLLEAGUES. CORRECT ME IF I GET THIS WRONG, I BELIEVE SOMEWHERE IN THE LAST WEEK OF AUGUST IS WHENEVER THE LETTERS -- I WANT TO SAY IT WAS APPROXIMATELY THE LAST WEEK OF AUGUST.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DEADLINE MENTIONED IN THERE, OR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, OTHER THAN --

>> WELL, I'M LESS CONCERNED WITH THE LEGALESE. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTATION OF THE EMPLOYEES. IF IT WAS THE LAST WEEK OF AUGUST, I'M SURE IT WAS EXPLAINED PER COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. THE NEXT MEETING WOULD HAVE BEEN, MAYBE BY THE LAST PAYCHECK IN SEPTEMBER THEY MIGHT HAVE REALIZED THE RAISE. SO IF WE DO A NEW ORDINANCE, THEN IS THAT WHAT WE WOULD GOGO BACK? WE WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT FROM THEN ON? IF THERE WAS AN EXPECTATION SET.

LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

>> I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE ANSWER. I CAN FACT- CHECK MY DATA.

>> EITHER COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? YOU'RE GOING TO BRING US ANOTHER ORDINANCE, HOPEFULLY FOR OUR NEXT MEETING?

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S JUST THE NEW TITLES AND SALARIES FOR THE, FOR THOSE EIGHT THAT LEAVE EVERYBODY ELSE, ALL THE OTHER TITLE CHANGES AS

IS. >> COUNCILLOR TAYLOR?

>> YEAH. I THINK ZACH IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY THESE EMPLOYEES WERE GETTING AN INCREASE, JUST LIKE US, WHEN YOU GET A PROMOTION TO A NEW TITLE, YOUR SALARY WAS INCREASING. I THINK THAT'S HOW THEY WERE TYING THOSE EIGHT INCREASES, TO THE NEW

SALARIES. >> MY PHONE JUST CAME THROUGH.

AUGUST 6TH WAS THE DATE THE LETTERS WENT OUT.

SO KOISOR SNYDER, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EARLIER THAN SEPTEMBER.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? WE'LL HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SOAKED THIS ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US.

>> DO YOU WANT TO -- IN THE ORDINANCE, IT WILL SET THE EFFECTIVE DATE AS WELL.

>> YEAH. WE CAN MAKE AN EFFECTIVE

DATE. >> ANY OTHER?

>> THAT DATE WAS JULY 1ST FROM THE LETTER THAT I READ.

IS THAT CORRECT? WOULD JULY 1ST BE THE DATE?

>> JULY 1ST WAS WHENEVER WE WERE CONCEPTUALIZING THIS PLAN LAST YEAR AS FAR AS WHEN WE WERE AIMING FOR, AND KIND OF OUR TARGET DATE FOR BEING DONE WITH OUR ANALYSIS AND BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL.

SORRY. I STAND CORRECTED.

THE LETTER DID SAY EFFECTIVE

[01:15:01]

JULY 1ST. YEAH.

>> ANY OTHER?

>> SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS.

WHEN WE VOTED THIS DOWN, ZACH, YOU WERE THERE.

I SENT AN EMAIL SAYING, HEY, WHAT CAN WE DO? OR CAN WE DO THIS? AND THE ANSWER MUST HAVE BEEN, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

>> I THINK I GAVE TWO OPTIONS. ONE WAS THE ORDINANCE THAT, THE 2025 SALARY ORDINANCE THAT WAS --

>> THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE. I PUT THAT INTO, DID TWO THINGS.

IT CLEANS UP TITLES AND IT CHANGED THE PAY STRUCTURE, IF YOU WILL. ONE OPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST TO DO THE TITLE PIECE AND NOT ADDRESS THE SALARY RANGES AND THINGS.

THAT WAS ONE. THE OTHER WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE 2026 SALARY ORDINANCE.

>> SO I GUESS THE POINT IS, THERE IS A THIRD OPTION.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. I'M A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THAT WE WOULDN'T FIGURE OUT A WAY THE TAKE CARE OF EIGHT EMPLOYEES.

I REMEMBER WHEN I SENT THAT OUT, I RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM COUNCILMEMBERS. I COPIED YOU, THOR MANY, COLE, AND MY COLLEAGUES. I'M JUST A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED IN THAT.

>> I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE WAS AN OVERALL HIERARCHY BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE. AS WE NOW DO SOME ONE- OFFS, WE CONTINUE TO BASTARDIZE THIS. IF WE RETIRE THIS PERSON BECAUSE OF THE PAY CHANGE, TO CHANGE THE PAY, NOW WE'VE CREATED ANOTHER ISSUE OVER HERE WITH SOMEBODY ELSE SIMILARLY TITLED. OR THIS WAS CREATED WHERE YOU GO FROM HYPOTHETICALLY, PLANNER ONE TO PLANNER TWO AND NOW WE'VE SKEWED SOME OF THESE THINGS.

I WILL DO MY BEST BUT I'M NOT SURE IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNWIND JUST EIGHT POSITIONS.

>> COULD I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? SO THAT THERE'S FULL UNDERSTANDING, AND I HAVE ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS, COULD WE HAVE A MEETING, WHOEVER WANTS TO COME, AS LONG AS WE'RE WITHIN OPEN DOOR, COULD WE HAVE A MEETING WITH WHOEVER NEEDS TO BE PRESENT SO I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK, OR SHOULD WORK?

>> COUNCILLOR LOCKE?

>> I WANT TO SAY THINKING ABOUT THIS, WE MADE A SIMILAR CHANGE EARLIER THIS YEAR FOR LEADERSHIP.

AND I UNDERSTAND REBUILDING THE HIERARCHY.

THE TOP CHELON IS NOBODY ABOVE. I THINK TREATING THESE EMPLOYEES WHERE YU WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS IN THE MIDDLE, WHERE IF THEY DESERVE THIS RACE AND YOU'VE ADDRESSED IT THROUGH THE PROCESS, LET MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.

AS WE COME BACK AND LOOK AT THIS HOLISTICALLY FOR 2026, WHICH IT WILL BE BROUGHT UP TONIGHT, USE THIS AS PART OF THE STORY AS TOTO WHY THESE CHANGES MATTER.

I THINK THERE'S ROOM AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS, TO FIGURE OUT THE PATH FORWARD.

A BEAUTIFUL THING THAT HAPPENED THROUGH THIS IS WE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BRING THE EMPLOYEES INTO THE CONVERSATION. THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO SAY WHY THIS WORKS AND HOW IT WORKS WHICH WILL PUT US IN A BETTER SPOT.

I DON'T WANT A CLOSED VACUUM THOUGHT PROCESS.

IT IS IN THE MIDDLE AND IT IS SQUISHY AND IT MAY HARMFUL ANY DIFFERENT THAN EARLIER. IT TRICKLED DOWN, IMPACTED EVERYBODY THE SAME WAY THAT THOSE OTHERS THAT MIGHT FEEL WEIRD ABOUT THIS NOW FELT. THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR IT.

AND I THINK IN SOME WAY, THAT CONCEPT OF USING THING TO PROVE, AS A TOOL TO SAY WHY THIS MAY MATTER AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE FOR 2026 IS VALID IF THE WORK YOU PUT INTO IT HAS A POSITIVE IMPACT FOR AT LEAST THESE EIGHT PEOPLE TO START. THAT'S MY TAKE ON WHERE WE

ARE. >> COUNCILLOR SNYDER?

>> APOLOGIES AGAIN, IGNORANCE. YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. WE HAVE DONE THIS FOR OTHERS BEFORE. BUT IT WAS LIKE THE THIRD WEEK OF JANUARY. IT WASN'T LIKE A BIG GAP.

HOW DOES AN EMPLOYEE THEN GET, IS IT ONE LUMP SUM? ROLLED INTO SEVERAL CHECKS? HOW DOES THAT -- YEAH.

>> IDEALLY, IF THERE WAS NO BACK PAY, THEN THE NEXT PAYCHECK WOULD REFLECT THAT. ASSUMING EVERYTHING GOES AS WE

[01:20:09]

DISCUSS TONIGHT, THE NEXT PAYCHECK WOULD BE PRORATED TO MAKE UP FOR THOSE DAYS GOING BACK TO JULY 1ST.

>> WELL, I APPRECIATE IT. AS WE CONTINUE WITH OUR BUDGET DISCUSSION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PRESENTED WITH ALL OR NOTHING OPTIONS.

I KNOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT TITLING WHEN WE GET TO THE 2026 DISCUSSION. IT BECOMES DIFFICULT AS A PRESIDENT IF IT'S, YOU ACCEPT ALL OF IT OR NONE OF IT. THERE IS OFTEN A THIRD OPTION THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED.

THAT BEING SAID, ON THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY CONVERSATION BEFORE WE VOTE IN IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.

AND IT WAS MADE TO APPROVE. THAT'S HOW THE MOTION WAS MADE.

>> I THINK IT TOOK ME A SECOND, TOO.

[12.d. Third 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. Item is in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee. (Meeting date 10/6/25)]

ALL RIGHT. THAT IS REJECTED 8-0.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON.

THIRD READING -- NO. THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE D-2780-25. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 1, THIS RETURNS FROM THE FINANCE AND RULES COMMITTEE. COUNCILLOR

TAYLOR. >> THANK YOU.

YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM BENJAMIN, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE CITY, THAT SHOWS HOW THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED IN COMMITTEE TODAY.

IN PARTICULAR, THE DIRECTOR WANTED THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION HEARING DATE SO THE PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO BRING IN PROOF THAT THEY HAD PROPERLY NOTICED IT AND THAT NOTICE HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL KNEW THAT THERE WAS PROOF OF THE PUBLICATION PRIOR TO THE AD TAKING ACTION ON A CHANGE AND ZONING MATTER.

THAT WAS PRIMARILY THE ONLY CHANGE.

BENJAMIN, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO NOTE IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE EARLIER TODAY?

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REFLECT THOSE CHANGES.

I CAN PUT IT. I HAVE THEM HERE.

>> HE'S PUTTING SOMETHING UP TO PROJECT ON THE SCREEN.

>> ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEPKEEP SOME OF THE OLD LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD.

BASICALLY, IT WILL STATE THAT IT WILL REMAIN THE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE GIVEN WITHIN INDIANA LAW WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE DOWN BELOW AS WELL. IN CONFORMANCE OF INDIANA LAW.

THAT WAY IFIF WE CHANGES RELATED TO REQUIREMENTS, WE'LL BE WELL VESTED.

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT BELOW.

IT IS AT LEAST TWO BUSINESS DAYS. ALL RIGHT. TWO BUSINESS DAYS.

SO THOSE ARE THE TWO CHANGES. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

>> SO FIRST, I'LL OPEN DISCUSSION.

FIRST, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND AND VOTE ON THAT BEFORE ANY MOTION TO ACT.

>> THIS IS VERSION A. IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

AND THEN YOU WOULD ACT ON IT AS AMENDED.

>> QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAINED A MOTION TO AMEND. THIS IS TO VOTE TO AMEND IT.

WE ARE ACTING ON THE AMENDED MOTION. WE CAN IF WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND. MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT PASSES. ALL RIGHT.

[01:25:02]

IN THE SAME EMAIL, BENJAMIN SENT UPDATES TO THE NEXT ONE

[12.e. Third 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. Item is in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee. (Meeting date 10/6/25)]

WE'RE ABOUT TO ACT ON. THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE D-2781-25. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITIOF CARMEL, INDIANA, SPONSORS ARE COUNCILLORS TAYLOR, AASEN AND WORRELL.

>> THANK YOU. THIS WAS AMENDED FIRST AND THEN BROUGHT BACK WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.

THE FIRST ITEM IS TO ADDRESS THE DOUBLE PARKING IN ONE SPOT WHICH WAS ALREADY PART OF IT AS IT WAS BROUGHT TOWARD THAT. DURING FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCILMAN, IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE QUESTION.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHY THOSE REMAIN TODAY IN FINANCE.

>>. >> SURE, IN JULY I SENT THETHE ENTIRE COUNCIL MY DESIRE TO CHANGE THE PARKING ZONE IN SOUTHWEST. I RECEIVED NO PUSHBACK ON THAT.

THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE DELIVERY VEHICLES, MULTIPLE DELIVERY VEHICLES THROUGHOUT THE DAY THAT ARE BLOCKING ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS' DRIVEWAY. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED FROM THERE OVER THE WEEKEND SO THEY CAN'T GET OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY. WITH COUNCILLOR TAYLOR ALLOWING ME, I WAS ABLE TO ADD THIS TO GET TWO 15- MINUTE PARKING ZONES, LOADING AND UNLOADING ZONES THAT WILL BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SECOND STREET SOUTHWEST, AND THEY'LL BE AT THE FAR EAST END, ABUTTING IT.

>> ANYTHING TO ADD?

>> THE LANGUAGE IS JUST HERE. THERE IS ORDINANCE RELATED TO PARKING. WE'VE ADDED A NEW SECTION SO WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF LAND USE. A NEW DIVISION.

AS THEY FACE ON THE SECOND STREET

SOUTHWEST. >> IS THE TYPO STILL IN THERE? WE TALKED GOING THE TYPO. IT IS WEST.

THERE WAS ANOTHER TYPO. IT IS WRITTEN CORRECTLY.

AND WE DO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER.

I FORGOT TO MENTION IT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE WOULD FIRST HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION TO ACT.

>> MOVE TO AMEND.

>> ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.

WE'RE NOW ACTING ON THE AMENDED VERSION. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION TO SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'RE GETTING SOME STUFF DONE. THERE YOU GO.

NEXT WE HAVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D-2784-25.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA.

SPONSORS ARE MINAAR AND TAYLOR.

[13.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2785-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Appropriations for the 2026 Budget; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder, Taylor and Aasen.]

>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON.

IF WE HAVE ANYONE HERE, WE'VE GOT ONE THIS EVENING.

FROM THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 2026 BUDGET.

SPONSORS ARE SNYDER, TAYLOR AND AASEN.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE? ALL RIGHT.

ZACH, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE A PRESENTATION BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> HAPPY TO DO SO.

[01:31:42]

>>> IF YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DEJA VU, SO DO I.

THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS WE HAD BEFORE.

I WANT TO GO THROUGH THE HIGH POINTS AGAIN.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND FORECAST AGAIN.

THE UPDATED BUDGET ESTIMATES. CLOSE THE LOOP ON SOME SAVINGS AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS WE'VE MADE TO THE BUDGET AND THEN PASS IT OVER TO THE MAYOR FOR CLOSING REMARKS. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN IT COME TO OUR GENERAL FUND REVENUES FOR 2026, OUR FORECAST HAS NOT CHANGED. WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT 144.

265 MILLION. IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW YOU'RE COMPARING TO 2025 THE SAY WHETHER THAT IS A DECREASE OR INCREASE.

I THINK IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE TO CALL IT FLAT.

THERE'S SOME NOISE ABOUT SOME REVENUE THAT'S USED TO COME IN ONE BUCKET AND NOW COME IN ANOTHER.

SOME ARE DECLINING BUT OVERALL, IT IS FLAT REVENUE. THAT'S COMPARED TO GROWTH THAT WE WERE EXPECTING FOR 2026. WE'VE PROPOSED A BUDGET THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE TO FUND OUR OPERATIONS FOR 2026. WE HAVE SPENDING THAT DOES NOT EXCEED OUR AVAILABLE REVENUES FOR 2026.

WE'VE CONTINUED TO FUND AND PRIORITIZE ESSENTIAL SERVICES SUCH AS PUBLIC SAFETY, ARTS, PARKS, AND CONTINUE TO INVEST IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE'VE PROVIDED OUR TEAM WITH A 3% SALARY INCREASE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NO COLA FOR THE MAYOR AND SENIOR LEADERSHIP.

AND THEN ALSO, WE'VE CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN OUR HEALTHY RESERVED THAT TOTAL 15% OF OUR COMBINED BALANCES AND THAT INCLUDES 10% IN THE CITY'S RAINY DAY FUND.

THE MAIN WAY THAT WE GOT TO A POINT OF HAVING A BALANCED BUDGET WAS USING SOME ONE- TIME MONEY DOLLARS THAT COUNCIL HAD APPROPRIATED THIS YEAR FOR OPERATIONS THAT WERE UNDERSPENT. WE'VE USED THOSE TO EITHER PAYPAY OFF OR TO ENCUMBER ALL FUTURE PAYMENTS OR MULTIPLE CAPITAL LEASES. ALSO WITH THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE REVENUES, WE'VE USED THE DOLLARS THAT CAME IN THIS YEAR THAT HAVEHAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO BUY DOWN OUR OPERATING COSTS. THE SAME CONCEPT ON CAPITAL LEASES, EQUIPMENT LEASES FOR THE FUTURE.

AND THOSE THINGS HAVE BOUGHT DOWN OUR OPERATING COSTS IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS BUDGET WORK.

AS THE NEXT SLIDE TALKS ABOUT, THERE ARE SEVERAL POSITIONS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING NOT FUNDING IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. SOME OF THOSE ARE FILLED.

SOME ARE UNFILLED. AND THEN TRYING TO FINDFIND CONCEPT OF DOING MORE WITH LESS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE SAME OR BETTER TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO IN TERMS OF THE DEPARTMENT CHANGES, AND YOU'VE SEEN THIS LIST BEFORE, JUST GOING THROUGH

[01:35:01]

WHERE WE'VE REDUCED POSITIONS IN THIS BUDGET, SO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, STREET DEPARTMENT, BOTH HAVE POSITIONS THAT WOULD BE ELIMINATED. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS THREE THAT WOULD BE ELIMINATED. POLICE DEPARTMENT ELIMINATED ONE EARLIER THIS YEAR. IT WOULDN'T BE FILL NEXT YEAR.

THE MAYOR IS PROPOSING NOT FILLING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR NEXT YEAR. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A PUBLIC SAFETY QUARTERMASTER PLAN THAT ALLOWS US TO REDUCE ONE POSITION AT THE MANAGERS DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS ELIMINATE. THERE ARE TWO CURRENTLY VACANT POSITIONS AT DOCS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING NOT FILLING FOR NEXT YEAR. AND THEN MORE ON THE IDEA OF SERVICE DELIVERY INNOVATION, LOOKING AT PROVIDING UTILITY LOCATE SERVICES IN A MORE EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL MANNER. TODAY WE HAD THREE DEPARTMENTS IN THAT SPACE AND WE'RE MOVING TOWARD HAVING ONE DEPARTMENT HANDLE THAT FOR THE ENTIRE CITY.

OUR ORIGINAL BUDGET PROPOSAL HAD CONCEPTUALIZED THIS.

CARMEL NONPROFIT, AS WE SPOKE ABOUT AT OUR LAST MEETING.

WE ARE DELAYING THAT PROPOSED SHIFT.

TELL DOLLARS THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY MOVED OUT OF MAC BUDGET. WE HAVE UNDONE THAT.

THOSE DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SHIFTED BACK TO MAC, ALBEIT AT A SLIGHTLY HIGHER COST THAN THE EXPERIENCE CARMEL GRANT WAS FUNDED AT. SO THE REAL NUMBER FOR THE BUDGET, THE GENERAL FUND, THE GRAND TOTAL FOR THE GENERAL FUND PROPOSED FOR NEXT YEAR IS 144.263.

THAT'S ABOUT $1,700 LESS THAN THE REVENUE THAT WE'RE FORECASTING FOR NEXT YEAR.

TO PUT THAT INTO CONTEXT, HOW THEY ARE FARING 2025, 2026, THE LINE, NOT QUITE THE MIDDLE, MAYBE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE WAY DOWN SHOWS THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE INCREASING AND THOSE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE DECREASING.

I'LL JUST MENTION THAT CORPORATION COUNCIL PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN BELOW THAT LINE.

WE DID DO AN INCREASE FROM TWO OF THE ATTORNEYS THIS YEAR AND THAT COST CARRIED OVER INTO NEXT YEAR.

IT DID INCREASE THEIR FUNDING. THE BIGGEST CHANGES ON HERE, OBVIOUSLY, COMING. IN BOTTOM THIRD OF THE SLIDE.

I'LL POINT OUT THE FOOTNOTE THERE ON ART SUPPORT AND OPERATIONS.

ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE AN ALMOST 20% DECREASE HERE, THE BULK OF THAT IS ACTUALLY CHANGING WHERE WE PAY THOSE EXPENSES FROM.

WHETHER MOVING IT TO THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE. AT A FUND OR USING CAPITAL LEASES. BUT AGAIN, OVERALL, COMPARED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS THAT WERE PASSED FOR 2025, THE 2026 APPROPRIATIONS ARE . 2% HIGHER. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL, GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET HAS BEEN, THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS MADE FOR 2025, THE ACTUAL PROPOSED SPENDING FOR 2026 IS LOWER THAN 2025. ALSO, ON THE TOPPING OF ARTS SUPPORT AND OPERATIONS, JUST DIVIDING UP. YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THE PROPOSED DECREASE IN THE ARTS SUPPORT AREA IS 3. 1%, WHEREAS THE OPERATIONS SUPPORT IS 64.5%.

AGAIN, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE NOTES, MOST OF THOSE ARE PAYING FOR THING SEPARATE, OR IN A DIFFERENT MANNER, AND NOT A TRUE REDUCTION. MOVING ON TO THE SURPLUS STATEMENT, AGAIN, THIS IS THE SAME DOCUMENT THAT IT WE SHARED WHEN THE MAYOR AND I PRESENTED THE REVISED BUDGET NUMBERS BACK ON THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER, AGAIN, JUST THE WAY I LOOK AT

[01:40:01]

THIS. YOU SEE THE ANNUAL SURPLUS/DEFICIT LINE ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE WAY DOWN.

I THINK OF THIS AS EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT REFLECTS CURRENT YEAR ACTIVITY, AND EVERYTHING BELOW THAT REFLECTS ONE- TIME USES OF DOLLARS OR ONE- TIME COMING INTO IT. WHAT I'M PROJECTING THIS YEAR IS THAT WE'LL ACHIEVE AN ANNUAL SURPLUS OF ABOUT $1200. THAT ASSUMES REVERSIONS OF ABOUT 1.5. MEANING THEY WOULD OUTSPEND ABOUT BY 1. 5 MILLION. AND THEN THE OVERALL SURPLUS FOR NEXT YEAR WOULD BE CLOSER TO $1,700. BUT AGAIN, JUST DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FORECAST OF REVENUES FOR 2026. THE 144.265.

THE APPROPRIATIONS BEING PROPOSED.

LASTLY, I'LL NOTE THE BOTTOM LINES LOOK AT THOSE COMBINED BALANCES. BASED UPON THE PRO POST SAID BUDGET, WE WOULD BE AT THAT 10% EXPECTATION, THE RAINY DAY FUND.

WE WOULD BE DOING BETTER THAN THE 15% TARGET OVERALL RESERVE BALANCE AT 17.6. THE OTHER TWO OPERATING FUNDS BEING APPROPRIATED, OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS BEING FUNDED ARE FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT.

YOU CAN SEE THOSE DEPARTMENTS HERE, OVERALL ARE SEEING, THE 14. 6% REDUCTION IN THE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST BY ENGINEERING. AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE ARE COMING FROM THE FACT THAT WE'RE TAKING CAPITAL LEASES THAT WE WERE EXPECTING TO PAY FOR FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. TO FULLY PAY IT OFF.

ON THE TOPIC OF INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAD 4. 5 COMING FROM THE MVH. FROM THE STREET FUND WHICH HAS VERY SIMILAR RULES, AND THEN ALSO, THE WHEEL TAX AND SURTAX FUNDS FOR A COMBINED $8. 5 MILLION. THIS IS LITERALLY THE SAME SLADE THAT I SHOWED AT OUR LAST PRESENTATION AS WELL ON 9/23. ON THE BANDING CAPACITY, THE CERTIFIED NUMBER WAS $285 MILLION LOWER THAN WHAT ORIGINALLY CAME OUT FROM THE KINS WE DID NOT NEED TO TAKE ON ANY ADDITIONAL DEBT AND THERE ARE A FEW OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT TAKING THAT ON.

SO RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL PLAN NED IN THE BUDGET. WE WOULD NEED TO APPROPRIATE RATE THE ANNUAL AND GIVEN THAT WE COULD ONLY DO IT ONE TIME.

THE REST OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED ARE LAID OUT HERE. WE'VE TRIED TO GROUP THEM ACCORDING TO JUST TOPICAL AREA. I'M HAPPY TO GET IN THE WEEDS ON ANY ONE OF THOSE THAT YOU WANT TO.

I'LL NOTE FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THEY ARE GENERALLY PUT INTO THESE FUNDS. THAT'S NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE ACROSS THE BOARD BUT AGAIN, THE PLANNED APPROPRIATIONS, PROPOSED SPENDING WOULD BE $241.

THE REMAINING 97 MILLIONMILLION CHANGE COMING FROM THESE GENERAL FUNDS. WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER.

>> THANK YOU. IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHY YOU'RE PRESENTING THIS AGAIN, THIS MAY BE SOME PEOPLE'S FIRST TIME HEARING THE BUDGET.

IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD SOME BASIS OF FACT HERE.

I BELIEVE GOOD GOVERNMENT BEGINS WITH TRUSTING GOVERNMENT ENOUGH TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT CHALLENGES AND WORK TOGETHER FOR

[01:45:01]

BIG SOLUTIONS TO MEAT THEM. THAT'S WORKING WITH YOU AND WITH THEM. WE'RE NAVIGATING REAL FISCAL HEAD WINDS. I HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE WITH THAT CREATIVITY AND CONFIDENCE, WE'LL RISE TO MEET THEM. CONTINUING TO DUE THINGS THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE THEM MIGHT FEEL COMFORTABLE BUT IT DOESN'T PREPARE US FOR THE FUTURE. IN TIME OF CHANGE, LEADERSHIP IS CLARITY AND A PLAN TO INNOVATE. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTIONS SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED. I TRUST THE PEOPLE OF CARMEL AND OUR CITY TEAM TO FACE THIS MOMENT HEAD ON WITH TRANSPARENCY AND RESOLVE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE DONE.

SEEING THESE CHALLENGES ON THE HORIZON, I'M SO PROUD OF OUR TEAM THAT WORKED SO HARD IN 2025 TO BE CAREFUL WITH EVERY DOLLAR.

THAT EFFORT RESULTED IN A 5. 2 UNDERSPEND.

THOSE SAVINGS DEMONSTRATE STEWARDSHIP AND FORWARD PLANNING. THIS BUDGET FOCUSES ON WHAT MATTERS MOST. PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS, ARTS, AND OF COURSE, GIVING OUR HARD WORKING MEMBERS 3% COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT RAISES.

EVERY DEPARTMENT CONTRIBUTED TO MAKING THIS WORK SOME THROUGH COST SAVINGS. OTHERS BY FINDING NEW WAYS.

WHILE WE HOME TO LAUNCH INITIATIVES LIKE EXPERIENCE CARMEL AND EXPAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS SOONER, WE CLOSE TO PAUSE THOSE PROJECTS.

THAT REFLECTS OUR WILLINGNESS TO COLLABORATE.

WE CAN'T FUND EVERY WISH OR WANT OR EVEN EVERY NEED AND THAT'S TRUE IN EVERY HOUSEHOLD OR BUSINESS. WE DO FULLY FOND THIS RESPONSIBLE, BALANCED BUDGET THAT WILL KEEP CARMEL ONE OF THE MOST AD MARRIED CITIES IN AMERICA.

CHANGE, IS NEVER EASY. AND WE'VE HAD TO MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS WHEN IT COME TO NEW EMPLOYEES AND OTHER FUNDING ISSUES.

AND IT IS UNCOMFORTABLE TO HEAR THAT OUR EMPLOYEES ARE UNCERTAIN OR UPSET. LEADERSHIP MEANS HELPING PEOPLE MOVE THROUGH CHANGE. IF WE WANT TO HE SAID COO WINNING, WE MUST KEEP EVOLVING. WE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO FEEDBACK. I HOPE YOU SEE IT AS A GENUINE STEP TOWARD COLLABORATION. CARMEL EXPECTED, THEY CARE MORE ABOUT WHO GETS CREDIT.

THIS BUDGET GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD TOGETHER, TO GOVERN WITH DISMR. INAND VISION, AND TO CONTINUE BUILDING THE COMMUNITY THAT GIVES US THE VERY BEST OF WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN BE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALISM AND WILL THE COMMITMENT YOU BRING TO THIS PROCESS.

TO OUR RESIDENTS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TRUST, YOUR ENGAGEMENT AND YOUR PRIDE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. WE WILL HAVE COUNCIL COMMENTS.

I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO SIGN UP AHEAD OF TIME.

IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M.

PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM.

YOU GET THREE MINUTES JUST LIKE THE BLUE CARDS DO.

GREEN MEANS START TALKING. YELLOW MEANS 30 SECONDS LEFT.

AND THEN IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO TALK, START MOVING UP SO WE KNOW YOU'LL BE NEXT IN LINE.

>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO STAND BEFORE YOU.

I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE CARMEL FIREFIGHTERS UNION.

I REPRESENT THE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF CARMEL.

I RISE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE 2026 FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET AS PROPOSED. I WANT TO COMMEND YOU GUYS.

BOTH PARTIES, THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL FOR WORKING THROUGH THE CHALLENGES OF S EVERY A 1 AND AS WE JUST SAW, WITH ZACK'S PRESENT RAGS, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD THE HIGHEST INCREASE AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE ITEMS IN THAT BUDGET THAT I FEEL ARE IMPORTANT FOR OUR FIREFIGHTERS. ONE IS THAT IS TRAINING FOR OUR FIREFIGHTERS. WE HAVE 15 TO 20 FIREFIGHTERS RETIRING NEXT YEAR. AND THAT TRAINS, TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP OUR YOUNG FIREFIGHTERS, WILL BECOME YOUNG OFFICERS. WHICH THEY ARE THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT OF OUR DEPARTMENT, IF YOU WILL.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE LEADING YOUNG FIREFIGHTERS.

SO TO DEVELOP THOSE FIREFIGHTERS, IT WILL TAKE MONEY. WE NEED TO TRAIN THEM.

SECONDLY, HIRING 25 FIREFIGHTERS.

[01:50:02]

LIKE I AM, WE HAVE 15 TO 20 FIREFIGHTERS.

AND THAT IS, OF WHO WE KNOW. WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO NOTICE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT WE'RE RETIRING. WE CAN WALK IN AND RETIRE THAT DAY IF WE WANT TO. MOST FOLKS HAVE NOTIFIED THE DEPARTMENT, BUT IT COULD BE OTHER PEOPLE THAT RETIRE JANUARY 1ST.

AND THEN LASTLY, THE CHIEF, I BELIEVE HE DOUBLED THE MENTAL HEALTH LINE ITEM. IF NOT, IT'S CLOSE TO BEING DOUBLED. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT SECTION IN OUR BUDGET AND SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN UNDERFUNDED AND OVERUSED THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

AND OUR PEOPLE SEE A LOT OF OF THINGS. AND WE'VE PENSIONED OFF FIVE PEOPLE IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF FOR MENTAL HEALTH, AND WE NEED TO REALLY FOCUS ON THAT AND GET OUR PEOPLE THE HELP THAT THEY NEED TO DEAL WITH THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE SEEING AND DEALING WITH ON A DAILY BASIS.

I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR YOUR SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL, THE SAME FOR YOUR SUPPORT, AND SEEING THIS BUDGET THROUGH.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OPPORTUNITIES, I SEE SOMEONE MOVING TO THE PODIUM.

WE'LL WAIT FOR HIM TO REACH THERE.

>> CARMEL RESIDENT AND CITY EMPLOYEE. I REALLY HATE TO THINK THIS WAY.

WE HAVE TWO TEAMS HERE. WE HAVE SWORN AND WE HAVE CIVILIAN. AND I'M SURE THAT I SPEAK FOR, HOPEFULLY THE MAJORITY OF THE CIVILIANS HERE. I CAME FROM THE SWORN BACKGROUND. I JUST FEEL THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THE PAY GOT, THE PAY RAISE.

WHAT SWORN GOT AND WHAT CIVILIAN

GOT. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> BENJAMIN. I HAVE A QUESTION.

IF I WERE TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, DOES THAT MEAN THAT PEOPLE COULD COMMENT AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE REACH THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA? OR DO I NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> I THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT AT THE SAME TIME, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS HELD OVER, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS PROPERLY NOTED. I RECOMMEND, IT IS AN UNUSUAL STAT. I WOULD RECOMMEND CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING BASED ON THE NOTICE

REQUIREMENT. >> ANY OBJECTION TO JUST CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? PEOPLE COULD COMMENT IN THE BLUE CARD SECTION. OKAY.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M.

AND I WILL OPEN IT UP TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.

COUNCILLOR LOCKE.

>> JUSTJUST THIS, BEFORE WE GET INTO DETAILS.

WE CAN GO BACK TO THE AGENDA SLIDE. A FEW CLERICAL THINGS AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS. ONE OF THEM, ON THIS SLIDE I WROTE, FROM YOUR REMARKS, ABOUT 5.2 UNDERSPENT IN 2025.

THAT IS ESTIMATED AMOUNT FOR THIS YEAR? IS THAT WHAT WE USE TO DRAW DOWN THE OBLIGATION? THANK YOU. ON THE NEXT SLIDE, GENERAL FUND REVENUE FORECAST. FOR ESTIMATED 2025, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE ON THE FINAL SHEET.

AND THIS DIFFERENCE ON THE 147 IS THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. YOU'RE COMPARING IT TO THIS, I BELIEVE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO, AND I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF CHANGING A REVENUE FORECAST. YOU LIVE WITH IT OR YOU DON'T.

THIS WAS A CHANGE IN LAW. I FELT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TOTO MARK THAT. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO.

>> IS THAT PART OF THE 5. 2 MILLION, THE HOLDOVER OF WHAT WAS GENERAL FUND BEFORE THE RULE CHANGED UNDER FOOD AND BEVERAGE.

>> YES.

>> SO ON THE RED SLIDE. HOW DO WE REDUCE THE BUDGET GAP?

[01:55:06]

YOU SPENT SOME INFORMATION, HOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THIS, THE 2026 DEBT PAYMENT. WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW AND WHAT THOSE ARE AND HOW WE ASSESS THEM. THEY'RE ALL OVER THE THE PLACE.

THIS MAY BE SOMETHING AS WE GO FORWARD THROUGH THE NEXT FEW WEEKS OF UNDERSTANDING HOW WE'RE DOING THAT.

STRATEGICALLY LOOKING AT WHICH ONE OF THOSE MAKES SENSE TO PAY DOWN OR NOT PAY DOWN BASED ON EVEN THE INVESTMENT RETURNS WE CAN KEEP IF WE KEEP THE MONEY IN THE ACCOUNT.

MORE DATA ON THAT WOULD BE GREAT BASED ON THAT.

>> YEAH. HAPPY TO GET IN THE WEEDS THERE WITH YOU. THERE WERE ONLY A FEW MOVING THROUGH ON LITERALLY PAYING OFF. THEY WERE BETWEEN 6 AND 7%.

WE'RE SEEING MORE LIKE 4. 5% ON OUR RATES RIGHT NOW.

BOTH IN TERMS OF THE INTEREST RATE WE'RE GETTING AT THE BANK, AS WELL AS OUR CASH, AS WELL AS THE INTEREST RATE WE'RE PAYING ON NEW CAPITAL LEASES. SOME OF THESE CAPITAL LEASES WERE AT SUCH LOW INTEREST RATES. LIKE 2%, THAT WE'RE NOT PAYING THEM OFF BECAUSE IT DOES MAKE MORE SENSE TO CONTINUE TO GET THE INTEREST REVENUE.

BUT WHERE IT WOULD BE FULLY ENCUMBERING ALL THE FUTURE PAYMENTS. SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE DOLLARS, INVESTMENTS IN THE MEANTIME.

>> CLARIFICATION, THE GOAL WITH THAT ONE TIME, WE'LL ALLOCATE ENOUGH TO MAKE FUTURE PAYMENTS ON LOANS. SO IN FUTURE YEARS, AS WE GET TIGHTER, IT SHIFTS MORE.

WE'LL HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THIS OVERAGE THIS YEAR FOR FUTURE PAYMENTS AND FUTURE BUDGETS AS NECESSARY AS WELL.

>> I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

ASSUMING THAT I DO, WE'VE TAKEN THESE CAPITAL LEASES.

SOME OF THEM HAVE ONE OR TWO YEARS LEFT.

SOME OF THEM HAVE FIVE OR SIX YEARS LEFT.

REGARDLESS, THE ONES THAT WE WERE TOUCHING, WE SET ASIDE ALL FUTURE PAYMENTS.

WE JUST KICKED THE CAN DOWN A YEAR.

>> THE IDEA THAT WE'RE USING THIS IN A ONE- TIME SUSTAINABLE WAY, TO PAY LEASE OBLIGATIONS IS JUST THE PRUDENT PROCESS. HAVING THAT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, JUST FULLY WRAPPED UP .

ON THE FEWER PERSON HE WILL LINE ON THIS PAGE.

AS TO WHERE WE WERE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, IT MIGHT STILL BE SOME WE NEED TO TWEAK ON IT. AS A RESULT, MARKETING STILL HAS FOUR FOR NEXT YEAR. WE SHIFTED THAT BACK.

THE NUMBER OF HEAD COUNT, I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THAT IS THE OVERLAP OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BASED ON WHAT WE JUST HEARD.

WE WOULD LOVE TO JUST HONE IN ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FINANCIALLY AS WE MOVE FORWARD. FINDING THOSE SAVINGS WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

>> I'LL VERIFY. BEYOND THE ADDITIONAL FUNDED POSITIONS FOR FIRE, I THINK A SEPTEMBER SNAP SHOT PROBABLY TO REFLECT THAT COLLEGE KIDS AND OTHER SUMMER HELP HAVE GONE BACK TO WORK AND OUR SYSTEM, BETWEEN PART TIME VERSUS FULL TIME, SO I THINK THAT'S THE CURRENT SNAP SHOT DOES NOT REFLECT PART- TIME PEOPLE, OR SUMMER HELP IN THOSE BEING FILLED POSITIONS.

>> THAT'S ALL MYMY OVERAVERAGE, VERY PROCEDURAL, VERY BORING. I WANTED TO START THERE BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THIS BUDGET THAT IS INTERESTING TO ME, WE'RE LOOKING AT DOINGDOING THE RIGHT WAY.

I WANT TO APPLAUD SOME OF THE CREATIVE MECHANISMS. WE'RE IN A SPOT WHERE WE CAN DO SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY BEING MOVED BELOW THE LINE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GENERAL FUND REVENUE, ALL OF THAT DOWN TO 1100, 2,000, THERE'S ANOTHER 90 SOME MILLION THAT IS BEING APPROPRIATE RATED TO AND THROUGH OTHER FUNDS OUT THERE.

I THINK IT PUTS US IN A POSITION TO GET THROUGH.

WE TALK ABOUT THIS YEAR. WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT

[02:00:02]

IT THROUGH THE LENS OF WHAT THIS SETS US UP NEXT YEAR.

WE'RE PUTTING OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THOSE THINGS THAT MATTER, LIKE GAZEBOS AND OTHER THINGS, BUT WE'RE PUTTING EVERYBODY IN A POSITION WHERE WE UNDERSTAND THAT ONE- TIME MONEY MAY NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

THAT BEING SAID, IF THERE IS TURNOVER AND THINGS, WE'LL FIND WAYS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AS GOVERNMENTS DO.

WITH THIS BEING SO TIGHT, I THINK IT IS REALLY, REALLY IMPERATIVE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE BACK END OF WHAT WE'RE SPENDING ON TO GET TO WHERE IT FEELS COMFORTABLE. I'M

DONE. >> ALL RIGHT.

COUNCILLOR SNYDER AND THEN POINT TO ME IF YOU WANT TO GET IN

LINE. >> ALL RIGHT.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE RESPONSIVENESS FROM YOU HAS BEEN, AT LEAST ON MY QUESTIONS, HAS BEEN PHENOMENAL.

I APPRECIATE IT. WE JUST GOT ALL THE UPDATED PROGRAM SHEETS. YOU TURN THAT AROUND IN A DAY.

THANK YOU. THAT SAID, I HAVE A MILLION QUESTIONS. I WILL BE EMAILING THEM BUT I WANT TO HIT SOME OF THE HIGH- LEVEL ONES.

WHY DID CRC'S LEGAL FEES DROP SO SUBSTANTIALLY? IN FACT, TO ZERO. WHO IS NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACTS, WHO IS SERVICING THEM WHEN THEY'VE RELIED ON LEGAL. I CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE.

INTERRUPT ME IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER OR SOMETHING.

I HAVE, I ASSUME, A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.

THE BIG ONE IS, I HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME ACCEPTING SUCHSUCH LARGE NUMBER FOR SUCH A BROAD LABEL. SO THE $663,227 IS FOR EVENTS.

I REALLY THINK IT NEEDS BROKEN OUT. WHAT EVENTS? WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING? A, THAT WOULD MAKE US UNDERSTAND THE COST OF EVENTS A LITTLE BETTER, AND THEN WHERE ARE WE HAVING TO LEAN ON THE MOST FOR RESOURCES? THAT'S JUST A BIG NUMBER TO ACCEPT WITH A BROAD CATEGORY. THE QUESTION ABOUT VIDEO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOCATED, 24,000, SPENT $14,000.

IN 2025, WE BUDGETED $15 AND WE'VE SPENT $88.

THEN YOU WANT MORE MONEY FOR IT THIS YEAR.

IN '26. WHERE IS ALL THE EQUIPMENT? WHY DON'T WE JUST BUY IT IF WE NEED IT? THERE'S PLENTY OF MONEY LEFT. A QUESTION ON GENERAL INSURANCE, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN, I WANT TO EXPLAIN MOSTLY TOTO ELSE, THIS IS NO FAULT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR ZAC OR ANYTHING ELSE.

THIS IS YOUR TIME TO SHINE. IT IS A VERY CUMBERSOME -- IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION. TODAY, I WENT THROUGH 36,000 LINES FOR ONE THING. AND THEN IT TAKES YOU DOWN SOME OTHER RABBIT HOLE WHICH IS WHY I HAVE MORE AND MORE QUESTIONS AS WE GET DEEPER AND DEEPER.

GENERAL INSURANCE, FOR INSTANCE, I WAS WONDERING WHY IT DOUBLED. THEN I REALIZED, OR WAS INFORMED, IT WAS A DATA ENTRY ISSUE.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT ENDS.

>> SO TO CLARIFY, AGAIN, A SHORTFALL IN OUR EXISTING ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING SYSTEM IS THE -- JUST HOW THE DATA APPEARS.

THE AMOUNT FOR GENERAL INSURANCE, WHICH IS I BELIEVE, APPROXIMATELY 2. 4 MILLION IN THE BUDGET, WHEN WE MOVE THAT FOR THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND MOVED IT TO THE FAD AND BEVERAGE TAX, IT WAS PUT IN AS A NEW AND A BASE NUMBER. WE REALLY DON'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THOSE THE WAY BUDGETS HAVE BEEN BUILT HERE. BUT WASN'T ROLLING UP IN A

[02:05:02]

TOTAL TO DOUBLE COUNT.

IT WAS JUST DOUBLE COUNTING ON THAT.

IT'S BEEN TAKEN OUT. SO WE'RE NOT PAYING THE INSURANCE OUT OF FAD AND BEVERAGE.

INSTEAD, THIS IS HAPPENING. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, WHILE FOOD AND BEVERAGE IS LEVELLED OFF, IT COULD BE A VOLATILE FUND TO BE FUNDING INSURANCE OUT OF.

HOPE IT HAPPENS AND THEN SALES DROP.

I DON'T KNOW. IT IS JUST -- FUNDAMENTALLY, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

THAT CAN BE USED FOR ANYTHING. BUT IS THAT, ARE THERE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT? GENERALLY SPEAKING, IS THAT COMMON PRACTICE?

>> I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I WOULD SAY IT IS COMMON PRACTICE, WHEN I LOOK AT OTHER COMMUNITIES.

THEIR FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX WAS USUALLY ADAPTED FOR A MUCH MORE SPECIFIC PURPOSE. HOURS WAS ESSENTIAL LY, IT CAN BE USED FOR ANY CITY GOVERNMENT.

IN TERMS OF THE RELIABILITY OF THIS REVENUE SOURCE, I APPRECIATE THAT CONCERN. I WOULD SAY THAT IS WHY YOU PAY ME TO KIND OF MAKE SURE I'M WATCHING THESE THINGS.

AND AS POTENTIALLY ISSUES MIGHT COME UP THAT WE COULD ADDRESS THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. YOU MAY HAVE THE SAME ISSUE IF WE WERE STILL PAYING IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND IN TERMS OF, WE AREN'T HITTING THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX ESTIMATE.

WE'RE NOT HITTING THAT. IT IS JUST AS RELIABLE AS THAT OTHER NONFIXED CHAIR OF THE GENERAL FUND AND PROPERTY TAXES. POINT WELL TAKEN AND I INTEND TO KEEP AN EYE ON IT TO MAKE SURE.

>> SO NOW I'LL MOVE TO THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE FUND.

IN THE BUDGET MEETING, IT WOULD PAY FOR INSURANCE AND ENERGY CENTER. I'M SHOWING THAT THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE FUND AT $7. 5 MILLION, BUT IF IT ONLY TAKES IN, AND YOU EXPLAINED SOME OF THIS. I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY AGREE. UNDERSPENDING THIS YEAR, TO ME THIS PUTS THE 2026 BUDGET IN A DEFICIT. WE COLLECTED THIS MONEY. WE SHOULD HAVE APPROPRIATED THIS PROBABLY TO THE FUND UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE LGM.

HAD WE PUT IT IN, IT WOULD HAVE AUTOMATICALLY MOVED OVER. WE'RE NOT MOVING THINGS AROUND.

SAY WE'RE UNDERSPENDING THIS YEAR.

WE'LL NEED TO MAKE A TRANSFER OF FUNDS. IF THIS IS THE ROUTE WE'RE GOING, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TRANSFERRING THE FUNDS, PLUS THE ISSUE IT WOULD HAVE ACCRUED.

>> IF I CAN CLARIFY. THERE IS NOT A PROPOSED TRANSFER. I'M INSTRUCTED BY LAW TO PUT THESE DOLLARS IN THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX FUND BASED ONON TAX CHANGE THIS YEAR. WE CLEANED UP THE ERROR THAT CAME UPON US MID YEAR BY CORRECTLY NOW DEPOSITING THOSE DOLLARS IN THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX FUND. BY LAW, THEY'RE FORBIDDEN BEING IN THE

FUND. >> I WILL JUST TAKE A PEEK AT 2-127 WHICH TALKS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE INTEREST.

>> THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

>> THEN I'VE GOT IN THE FOOD ANDAND CONSULTING FEES FOR $180,000. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS FOR.

>> I'LL DOUBLE-CHECK.

>> OKAY. THEN WE GET INTO WHERE I STARTED TO HAVE LIKE A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM. AND IT'S NOT, BEGINNING AGAIN, IT'S NOT INHERENT BECAUSE OF THIS,

[02:10:05]

BUT WE'VE GOT UNDER 502 3990. THERE'S $38 MILLION THAT HAS BEEN SPENT THIS YEAR. THAT IS ACROSS A BUNCH OF DARLTS. IT HAPPENED IN 2024, TOO.

30 SOME MILLION WAS SPENT IN 2025 THIS YEAR.

IT WAS NEVER BUDGETED ACCORDING TO THE SPREAD SHEET YOU SENT.

>> I'LL DOUBLE-CHECK.

>> I'LL SHOW YOU SO YOU KNOW EXACTLY.

THEN CONSULTING FEES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.

SO THEN I GO TO THE CHECK REGISTRY. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MONEY WAS SPENT IN SOME OF THESE THINGS. AGAIN, TO REITERATE, NOT AN ISSUE CREATED HERE BUT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE ARE ALMOST 70,000 LINES OF CHECKS WRITTEN ATTRIBUTED TO FUND OTHER EXPENSES. AND MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT ALL THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ATTRIBUTE IT TO.

BUT FOR ANYBODY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- SORRY, 70,000 LINE, WHO SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY IS, AND THEY GOT PARTICIPATE, YOU LOOK AT IT. OVER IF -- 70,000 LINES.

I MADE A NOTE HERE. AND I'LL USE A FRIENDLY FIRM THAT WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

BUT FOR INSTANCE, AMERICAN STRUCTURE POINT.

WE KNOW THEY'RE ENGINEERING. I KNOW THEY'RE ENGINEERING.

THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. IT WON'T MAKE SENSE TO ANYBODY ELSE THAT IS LOOKING TO SEE WHAT THESE FUNDS WERE FOR. AND THEN THERE IS NO WAY TO ACTUALLY EASILY, WITHOUT THEM JUMPING INTO LASER FISH, TWO YEARS AGO, YOU HEARD MAY ISSUES WITH THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FIX IS.

ALSO, I CAN'T FIND, 6-12. THERE IS A BUNCH BUT THEN I CAN'T FIND IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT FUND ACTUALLY IS.

>> 612, I KNOW IT IS ONE OF THEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE UTILITIES.

AND ALSO, I WAS THINKING ON THAT, 5023990 THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE SPENDING THAT IS NOT AGAINST A BUDGET.

>> YOU SAY THAT'S LIKELY OUR HEALTH INSURANCE DOLLARS GOING OUT? COUNCIL APPROPRIATES THOSE DOLLARS IN THE PERSONAL SERVICES LINES WHERE IT IS THEN USED TO EITHER FUND EMPLOYEES' PAYCHECKS AND A PORTION OF PREMIUMS COME OUT OF THERE, OR THE PREMIUMS THE CITY PAYS DIRECTLY.

I THINK ANY EXPENSE ACCOUNT STARTING WITH A FIVE HAPPENS TO BE MORE OF AN INDIANA FUND TYPE OF EXPENSE. I'LL DOUBLE- CHECK AND CONFIRM.

>> THEN THE OTHER EXPENSES THING.

AND I DON'T WANT TO CALL THESE OUT. THE MAJORITY OF THESE ARE LINERS.

THERE ARE A BUNCH OF CHECKS. THAT SEEMS ODD.

AND I'M CURIOUS WHY ALL THESETHESE INDIVIDUALS GOT A $100 CHECK. THEN FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS FACILITY COVERED BY THE CITY, $60,000, THE RESTROOM, WHAT RESTROOM IS THAT THAT GOT $60,000?

>> I WANT TO CONFIRM BUT THE CITY DOES PAY FOR THE RESTROOMS IN THE DARKINGTON TO BE USED AT DIFFERENT TIMES DURING THE YEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, DURING --

>> OKAY.

>> I WANT TO SAY IT IS RELATED TO THAT BUT I NEED TO CONFIRM.

>> AND THEN WHENEVER THERE'S SOMETHING THAT REPRESENTS

[02:15:04]

REIMBURSABLES, A WAY TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE, FOR INSTANCE, IN THAT SAME FUND IS 1.7.

REIMBURSABLES AND DRAPERY CLEANING.

I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS. OTHER PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS.

A LOT OF LITTLE ONES IN BETWEEN BUT MY GENERAL SENTIMENT, AND I KNOW, SHAWN, HE SAID HE SUPPORTS THIS BUDGET. BUT 25 FIREMEN, I WAS INVOLVING IN BUILDING THAT TRAINING CENTER. IT WILL BE HARD TO GEAR UP.

IF THERE IS ONE FEMALE IN THE RECRUITING CLASS, IT WILL EITHER BE VERY AWKWARD FOR HER OR EVERYONE WON'T FIT.

SO MY QUESTION IS, WE'VE NEVER SAID NO TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. I'M NOT SO SURE WE'RE GOING TO GET TO 25 PEOPLE. THAT'S A DIFFICULT, THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE.

WE HAVE A MASS RETIREMENT. WE WILL OBVIOUSLY FIX THE PROBLEM. BUT TYING UP, THAT'S A LOT OF DOLLARS IF WE TAKE OUT FIRE DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARKS, THE PAY ROLL IS ABOUT $18 MILLION WHICH TO ME, GOING OUT ON A LIMB HERE, I DON'T WANT TO BE PERSECUTED. ANOTHER 2% INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD IS ONLY ABOUT $400,000. WHEN I LOOK AT SOME OF THESE EXPENSES, VERSUS WHAT WE CAN DO FIX THE MORALE, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE $400,000 IS WORTH A LOT OF, SEVERAL OTHER THINGS.

AND A LOT OF THOSE, I'LL EMAIL YOU. I DID WANT TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT HELPING OUT THE NONSWORN. ANOTHER 2% ON TOP OF THE 3, IF YOU DID 5% AT ONCE, IT WOULD BE LESS. IT SEEMS TO ME, WE MIGHT BE SPENDING SOME MONEY ON, IF WE PUT MONEY INTO OUR EMPLOYEES FIRST, WE MAY HAVE A LITTLE MORE PEP IN OUR STEP.

>> I HAVE TO JUMP TO SOMETHING. THERE IS SOMETHING COUNCILMEMBER SNYDER MENTIONED.

>> ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION. AND I THINK YOU WERE ALLUDING AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTER REPLACEMENTS. IF WE DON'T GO AS AGGRESSIVELY ON THAT NEW NUMBER, OKAY, YEAH, WE WOULD SPEND LESS ON THE PAGES PART. THEN WE WOULD NEED TO SHIFT JUST AS MUCH OVER TO THE OVERTIME.

>> TO MAKE FURTHER CONVERSATION, I'M NOT CONVINCED.

>> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY BUT FOR THE SAKE OF FREEING UP SOME

MONEY. >> I WANTED TO ASK QUICKLY, MATT MENTIONED THE ERP WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE BROUGHT THIS UP.

YOU'VE SENT AN EMAIL TO COUNCIL WITH AN OVERVIEW OF IT.

I THINK IT IS DATED SEPTEMBER 11TH.

BOTH THERE AND IN AN ATTACHED ORDINANCE.

FOR THOSE SOFTWARE SYSTEM THAT INTEGRATES. ON THIS YOU HAD AN ORDINANCE ATTACHED TO CREATE A NONREVERTING FUND.

>> I'M LOOKING FOR COUNCIL'S SUPPORT OR DIRECTION.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF IDEAS. ONE WOULD BE TO CASH FUND IT.

ONE WOULD BE TO ESSENTIALLY BORROW AT NO OR LOW INTEREST. BUT AGAIN, I FEEL I HAVE TO CONVINCE YOU OF THE NEED TO FIGURE IT OUT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS PUBLICLY BECAUSE IT IS PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS.

WE CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATION IN THIS SEPTEMBER 11TH DOCUMENT THAT YOU SENT OVER. THE TWO THINGS THAT YOU POINTED OUT, $2 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

$2 MILLION FOR THE ONE- TIME IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF UP TO $2 MILLION. THIS WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL TO

[02:20:04]

VOTE FOR THAT. THE THE SECOND IS LOW- INTEREST FINANCING THAT COULD YOU SPREAD OVER TEN YEARS. I ASSUME THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR YOU TO DO THAT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO IN HERE, IN THIS DOCUMENT, YOU TALK ABOUT ONGOING COSTS, $400,000 ANNUALLY.

THAT COULD VARY. AND THAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A VENDOR ON BOARD BY JANUARY 1ST, 2026, TO ACHIEVE A 2027 GO LIVE IN THE SYSTEM.

WHICH MEANS SOME OF THESE UP FRONT COSTS WOULD BE, IF THE COUNCIL WAS OPEN TO IT, PAID INTO THE FUND, 426, TO START REIMPLEMENTING IT AND IT WOULD GO LIVE. THAT $400,000 THAT WOULD BE THE ONGOING EXPENSES, SEPARATE FROM THE $2 MILLION, IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE $2 MILLION. TO SAY THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATIONS PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE EXACTLY RIGHT. AS WE TALKED TO SOME OF THE VENDORS, I BELIEVE THE ANNUAL, ACTUAL COSTS OF THE ANNUAL LICENSE WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK OF $250,000. THAT'LL WOULD GREATLY DEPEND UPON THE NUMBER OF MODULES OR COMPONENTS THAT WE WOULD USE.

SO WHETHER THAT WOULD BE, IS IT JUST ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING? ALSO PAY ROLL? IS IT ALSO TIME MANAGEMENT?

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT? >> SO SAY IT VARIES FROM $250,000 TO $400,000 FOR COSTS SEPARATE FROM THE $2 MILLION TO IMPLEMENT IT. IN MY MIND, IF WE DID NOT GET 2 MILLION, THEN I WOULD MANAGE THE LICENSING TO $250 SO THAT THE EXTRA $150 A YEAR ON THAT 400 WOULD COVER IT OVER TEN

YEARS. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT WOULD. ONE OF YOUR PROPOSALS IS TO TAKE $2 MILLION OUT OF GENERAL FUNDS FOR SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US YET?

>> WHEN WE TALKED LAST WEEK, I WAS ASKING WHETHER COUNCIL WOULD MORE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF CASH FUNDING VERSUS THE IDEA OF

BORROWING. >> ME PERSONALLY, I SPEAK FOR MYSELF, LET ALONE HOW WE PAY FOR IT. WHETHER WE DO IT $2 MILLION AS OPPOSED TO SPREADING IT OUT.

BEFORE THAT, LET FIGURE OUT, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

THE $400,000. BACK TO THE ONGOING COSTS.

THAT DOESN'T COME OUT OF THE 2 MILLION. WHERE DOES THIS $450.

I LOOKED IN THE BUDGETS. WHERE IS THAT GOING?

>> ANY LICENSING COSTS PROBABLY WOULDN'T START UNTIL 2027 WHEN WE GO LIVE WITH THIS SYSTEM.

>> DID YOU MENTION THAT THERE WOULD BE A PERSON HIRED SOLELY TO HELP IMPLEMENT THIS?

>> THIS AS WELL AS OTHER -- THERE ARE NO, WHAT I'LL CALL IMPLEMENTERS IN OUR I.T.

DEPARTMENT. WHENEVER WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS MULTIFACTOR AUTHENTICATION.

WE HAVE NOBODY TO DO IMPLEMENTATION. SO IT WAS FUNDED LAST YEAR THAT YOU WOULD HOPE TO FUND THIS

YEAR. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

DON'T WANT TO FILL THE POSITION UNTIL I KNOW COUNCIL IS SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ERP.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF US TO DEBATE. ABOUT WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO $2 MILLION OUT OF THE FUNDS OR FINANCE IT OVER $2 MILLION.

SO THERE IS NOTHING IN FRONT OF ME.

[02:25:05]

>> I THINK WE WANT TO HAVE LESS CONVERSATIONS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND MORE IN PUBLIC. THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT IN PUBLIC ABOUT AN IRP. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.

I'M WILLING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION. I WANT TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION HERE AND NOT NECESSARILY, LET'S GET EVERYONE'S SUPPORT BEFORE WE DECIDE TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

YOU CAN PUT THINGS IN COMMITTEE THAT'S DIDN'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE WITH IT.

SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT DAMNED IF WE DO, DAMNED IF WE DON'T.

IF WE BRING A BIG PROPOSAL, YOU SAY WHERE'S THE COLLABORATION AND THE FEEDBACK. WE BRING WHAT YOU WE'VE DONE SO FAR WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE, THAT WAS THE PROPOSAL. THIS IS NOT A 2026 ITEM.

SO SEND IT TO FINANCE. HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING AND TALK ABOUT IT. THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE.

WE'RE OPEN TO THAT CONVERSATION.

THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR TO US WORK TOGETHER IN SELECTING VENDORS. TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER.

>> COUNCIL --

>> THIS IS NOT A 2026 ITEM. IT DOESN'T REFLECT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THE AGENDA BEING TALKED ABOUT.

SO IF YOU WANT SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, THAT'S FINE. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE BUDGET.

>> I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WERE COSTS IN 2026 THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WOULD BE.

AS WE'RE DECIDING TO APPROVE A BUDGET FOR 2026, IF THERE ARE ITEMS RELATED TO AN ITEM WE HAVEN'T APPROVED YET -- -

>> THE $2 MILLION IS NOT IN THE

BUDGET. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S THE $400,000 ANNUALLY HAPPEN IN 2026. THE ONLY WOULD BE $80,000 PER PERSON TO DODO THIS.

ALL RIGHT. WE CAN PICK THAT UP LATER.

>> I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THAT ABOUT THE ERP. WE WERE TALKING.

YOU AND I HAD SOME EMAILS BACK AND FORTH.

I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO KNOW, WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION PIECE, ARE YOU GOING TO DO AN RFI? RFQ FOR THAT?

>> SO THERE ARE TWO WAYS THAT I THINK ABOUT THIS.

ONE IS CHOOSING THE RIGHT SYSTEM.

AND THE OTHER IS CHOOSING THE RIGHT PARTNER, MY CHOICE WOULD NOT BE TO DO A TRUE RFP FOR THE SELECTION OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF. I WANT TO BASE THAT UPON THE DEMOS, THE PRICING THAT THEY GIVE US, WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.

AND BECAUSE WE'RE SEARCHING FOR A SERVICE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO PUT OUT NECESSARILY. WHEN IT COMES TO SELECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION PARTNER, THAT IS WHERE, THE $2 MILLION IS IN MY MIND PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1 AND 1. 5 FOR THAT PARTNER.

TELL OTHER IS JUST TO HELP PREPARE OURSELVES IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTING PROCESSES, CLEANING UP YEARS OF ACCOUNTING DATA AND PERSONNEL DATA THAT IS NOT CLEAN. ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRANSFERRING CLEAN DATA IN.

I'VE HEDGED THAT A LITTLE IN THAT $2 MILLION TOTAL.

>> IF YOU WANT TO PIVOT --

>> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM COUNCILLOR AASEN'S FRUSTRATION. JUST HAVING THINGS DONE AFTER WE'VE EXPRESSED MAYBE SOME NON-INTEREST. I THINK YOU'RE COMING FROM A PLACE OF CAUTION. BUT TO YOUR POINT, THE MAYOR'S POINT, DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T SAY ANYTHING RIGHT NOW THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOUL LANGUAGE.

I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT IT.

[02:30:01]

I HAD TO GOOGLE WHAT THE LETTERS STOOD FOR. WHAT I DO APPRECIATE IS THAT IT WASN'T JUST DROPPED. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE PAPER, I THINK. SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

SOCIAL MEDIA. YOU HAD THIS IDEA A COUPLECOUPLE MONTHS AGO, YOU SOFTLY THREW IT OUT.

OUR IGNORANCE DOESN'T HELP YOU. I'M SURE THERE ARE PEOPLE MUCH SMARTER THAN I THAT DEAL WITH THIS A LOT MORE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THOUGH THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING WAS PUTTING TOGETHER THE STEERING COMMITTEE, I WOULD SAY, MAYBE DO THAT. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET ANSWERS UP HERE. WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IN A COUNCIL MEETING. AND THE OTHER THING, I'M VERY HUNG UP ON THIS ONGOING FEE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS REPLACING. AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ITIT TONIGHT. BUT THE SOONER THAT YOU CAN MAYBE GATHER SOME PEOPLE, IT I MENTIONED RYAN BECAUSE HE THIS STUFF.

TO GET ON A STEERING COMMITTEE AND START TALKING ABOUT IT, THE SOONER WE'LL BE MORE COMFORTABLE AND LESS ON EDGE ABOUT, IT WILL HAPPEN WHETHER WE WANT IT TO OR NOT. THEN WE CAN LOOK AT A FUNDING SOLUTION IF IT IS WARRANTED OR IF WE UNDERSTAND IT.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY, I DID SEND EIGHT QUESTIONS TO ZAC.

A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED WERE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED IN MY EMAIL. I'M HAPPY TO PASS THAT ALONG TO YOU.

>> IF I CAN JUST, FOR THE PUBLIC WATCHING, THAT HAS NEVER HEARD OF AN ERP BEFORE, THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF YOU GOING INTO A GROCERY STORE TODAY AND THEY DON'T HAVE UPC SCANDALERS. ÚIT IS STILL THE PRICE TAG ON THERE AND SOMEBODY AT THE REGISTER MANUALLY ENTERING IN THE PRICE AS YOU GO THROUGH CHECKOUT EVERY TIME. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT WE'RE STILL USING FOR YOU ACCOUNTING AND PERSONNEL THINGS IN THE CITY. WE HAVE PAPER PROCESS THAT'S GO FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. WE RELY ON DATA BASES. THERE'S SO MUCH THAT WE COULD BE DOING MORE EFFICIENTLY. PROBABLY EVEN CHEAPER ONCE WE END SOME OTHER CONTRACTS BY GOING TO A MORE EFFICIENT

SYSTEM. >> I APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF A STEERING COMMITTEE, I DON'T WANT -- $2 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY AT A TIME THAT WE ARE LAYING OFF EMPLOYEES.

EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HIRED. THEY ARE EMPLOYEES THAT COULD BE LET GO THIS YEAR. WE'RE SEEING CUTS TO AMENITIES THAT PEOPLE HOLD DEAR. TOLD, WE ARE BROKE.

THE MESSAGE I HEARD FROM YOU. WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THINGS TO FUND, YOU SAID WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY. SO $2 MILLION AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS DECISION BASED ON QUESTIONS THAT I GET TO ASK DIRECTLY.

I WON'T GIVE THAT OFF TO A STEERING COMMITTEE.

IT COULD BE GREAT FOR IMPLEMENTING IT AND FOR COMING ONE THE IDEAS.

AND I APPRECIATE WE'VE SENT EMAILS AND TALKED ABOUT IT.

$2 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY SHOULD BE TALKED ABOUT PUBLICLY. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD START TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH BOTH THINGS AT THE SAME TIME.

YOU CAN HAVE A STEERING COMMITTEE AND PUBLICLY NOTICE THEM. SO WE CAN HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS --

>> ARE ALL THE COUNCILLORS ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE?

>> YOU COULD HAVE ONE, YOU CAN HAVE NINE.

SO WE WANT TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

WE BROUGHT IT UP AND WE PROVIDED THE WHITE PAPER.

HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT?

>> MY ORIGINAL QUESTION --

[02:37:39]

>> FOR STEERING COMMITTEE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT HAS IMPACT ON HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL RUN, BECAUSE IN 15, 20 YEARS, WE WILL TALK ABOUT ACCESS DATABASE THEN. YOU KNEW THE KID ON THE FRONT OF THE BOAT, DOING THAT DANCE, THAT EVERYBODY SAW A WHILE AGO, THERE WAS A KID DOING A BOAT RACE. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND. HE WAS DOING THIS AWESOME DANCE ON THE BOAT IS MOVING, HE IS UP ON THE FRONT, HE HAS PERFECT KNEE MOVEMENTS TO KEEP RHYTHM FOR EVERYBODY. HAPPY TO PLAY THAT ROLE ON YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE. GO CHECK THAT OUT IF YOU ARE BORED AND YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO LAUGH AT FOR A

COUPLE SECONDS. >> ON, WELL, SO, I DID WANT TO ASK ABOUT FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX, 7 1/2 MILLION. I AM GETTING CONFUSED ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE ON ONE PAGE , WE ARE 3.7, AND UP THERE I SEE THE 7 1/2, SO CAN I THINK OF THAT 7 1/2 AS BEING -- WHILE IT CAN'T GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND, IT IS BEING USED

FOR GENERAL PURPOSES? >> THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. I WOULD ALSO JUST CLARIFY THAT OF THAT TOTAL 7.5, HALF OF THAT IS ONE TIME MONEY THAT CAME IN THIS YEAR THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATED, AND THE OTHER HALF IS NEW MONEY THAT I AM ASSUMING THEY WILL BRING IN NEXT YEAR. THE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NOT BEING FILLED, I'M GOING TO GO QUICK BECAUSE I KNOW IT IS GETTING LATE, AND IF WE NEED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN PRIVATE, I WILL BE OPEN TO THAT AS WELL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT POSITION IN THE STREET DEPARTMENT IS BEING REDUCED OR

ELIMINATED. >> I PREFER TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IN PRIVATE.

THERE .

[02:40:03]

>> FINE. I DO WANT TO ASK THOUGH, HOW MANY OF THESE OUT OF THE -- I HAD IT ADDED UP, BUT OF THESE 15 POSITIONS, HOW MANY OF

THEM ARE ACTUALLY FILLED? >> SO, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE POSITION IS BILLED, THE STREET DEPARTMENT POSITION IS FILLED, THERE ARE TWO REMAINING LEFT IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD BE OUTSOURCED, ONE HAS LEFT THE ORGANIZATION BEFORE THIS DECISION WAS MADE. AND THAT IS IT.

>> FOUR TOTAL. OKAY, THANK YOU. I WILL WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW FOR

THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS. >> COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR?

>> I JUST HAD A COUPLE STATEMENTS AND THE QUESTION. SO, AIM PRODUCED SOME DETAILED INFORMATION ON SENATE INAUDIBLE ], AND I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THE THINGS WE ARE GOING TO BE FACING IN THE FUTURE. IT'S STARTING TO AFFECT OUR BUDGET THIS YEAR, TO SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT OUR BUDGET NEXT YEAR, THAT LIST COULD MAYBE BE A LOT LONGER NEXT YEAR. JUST IN THIS YEAR ALONE, FOR THE 2026 BUDGET, THE SUPPLEMENTAL HOMESTEAD DEDUCTION WAS CURRENTLY AT 35%. OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR '26, THAT SUPPLEMENTAL DEDUCTION HAS INCREASED 43% GRADE IT WILL THEN GO TO 48% IN 2027 , ENDING AT 66.7% SUPPLEMENTAL PROPERTY TAX DEDUCTION BY 2031. WE ARE VERY BLESSED THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE ENOUGH REVENUE FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET THAT OUR VALUE INCREASED BY 10%, WHICH EQUATED TO A CERTIFIED NET ASSESSED VALUE GROWTH OF AROUND 3.4%, JUST BARELY OUT STRIPPING THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THOSE ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL DEDUCTIONS. THIS BUDGET CONVERSATIONS IN OUR GENERAL FUND AND THE GREAT THINGS THAT WE LOVE ABOUT CARMEL AND THE GREAT PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR CARMEL ARE GOING TO BE A COMMON MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT. WE ARE NOT ALONE IN WHAT EVERYBODY IS FACING IN THE REST OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, WE CANNOT BE BLIND TO IT THERE IS VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS. THEY EVEN PROVIDED A NICE ASSESSED VALUE DEDUCTION TO MULTI FAMILY APARTMENTS, THAT INCREASES UP TO 36% OF THE ASSESSED VALUE BY 2031. THERE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO BUY FIRE TRUCKS, THERE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO FUND POSITIONS, THERE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE LAYING OFF SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PEOPLE.

WE DON'T CONTINUE TO SEE AT LEAST A 10% GROSS ASSESSED VALUE INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR, WE WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS MONEY NEXT YEAR THAN WE DO THIS YEAR, SO THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING TO GET MUCH, MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. SO, WE HAVE TO LIVE IN THE REALITY OF WHAT WE ARE FACING FOR PROPERTY TAX REFORM.

THAT DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT WE ARE RECEIVING THIS YEAR AND LOCAL INCOME TAX DUE TO LOCAL LEGISLATION SHIFTING SOME OF THAT TO THE CITY OF FISHERS. WE ARE IN A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION, OUR REVENUE IS FLAT WHAT IS THE LAST TIME THE REVENUE HAS BEEN FLAT FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL RELATED TO GENERAL FUND REVENUE? I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. SO, I KNOW EVERYBODY HAS THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM THAT THEY WANT TO FUND. AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE NON-SWORN STAFF. WE BROUGHT POLICE AND FIRE UP TO WHERE THEY NEEDED TO BE BASED ON THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE INDIANA STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO HIRE AND FILL THOSE POSITIONS. THERE ARE UNFILLED POSITIONS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THERE ARE UNFILLED POSITIONS IN THE CARMEL FIRE DEPARTMENT. PUBLIC SAFETY IS NUMBER ONE. I'M SURE WE INTENDED TO GIVE A MUCH BIGGER INCREASE TO THE REST OF THE ADMINISTRATION , TO THE REST OF THE STAFF, BUT WE COULD NOT FORESEE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION. SO, THIS IS NOT AN US VERSUS THEM, THIS IS THE REALITIES THAT WE ARE ALL DEALING WITH, BASED ON THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF OUR CONTROL. OUR DEBT PAYMENTS ALONE ARE $19,475,000 ANNUALLY OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND HERE. AS COUNSELOR SNYDER POINTED OUT, THAT COVERS THE WHOLE ENTIRE SALARY FOR EVERYBODY BESIDES SWORN OFFICERS AND PARKS AT THE CITY OF CARMEL. WE ARE PROVIDING NO CONTRIBUTION TO OUR RAINY DAY FUND. THE REASON WHY I HAVE ASKED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS ABOUT

[02:45:05]

GENERAL FUND BALANCES AND RAINY DAY FUND BALANCES IS TO WONDER, COULD WE PAY FOR SOME OF THESE POSITIONS OR COULD WE PAY FOR A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING THIS YEAR FROM OUR RAINY DAY FUND OR OUR GENERAL FUND CASH BALANCES, AND LET ME READ SOMETHING DIRECTLY FROM THE READING. ALTHOUGH THE CITY'S RESERVES ARE STRONG AS A PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET, THEY PROVIDE SOMEWHAT LESS CUSHION RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF CARMEL'S ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES. SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT IF WE DON'T PRESERVE OUR RAINY DAY FUNDS OR WE TAKE ON MORE DEBT WITHOUT INCREASING OUR RESERVES, THAT WILL AFFECT OUR BOND RATING, AND THEN WHEN WE NEED TO GO SPEND MONEY TO BUILD STATION 47 OR TO REPLACE -- OR TO REPLACE A ROUNDABOUT OR TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE COST OF FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. WE ARE IN A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION. SO, I THINK I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PUBLIC -- ANYBODY WITH QUESTIONS, THERE IS A GREAT RESOURCE ON AIM, ACCELERATE THE MUNICIPALITY'S WEBSITE, THAT GOES OVER THESE IMPACTS OF SENATE WORLD ACT 1.

THIS IS NOT TO MENTION HOW THOSE IMPACTS WILL RELATE TO LOCAL INCOME TAXES, DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT LOCAL UNITS ARE ABLE TO SET THEIR OWN RATES OR NOT. CURRENTLY SET FOR THE BUDGET YEAR OF '28 POINT MY QUESTION IS THAT THE BUDGET ORDER , UM, BUDGET FORM 4 -- BECAUSE I HAVE AN INTEREST OF MAINTAINING OUR TAX RATE -- BUDGET FORM 4 LISTS AN ADOPTED TAX RATE OF .8303 PER $100 OF VALUE. I DO SEE THAT WE HAVE A RATE CAP RESOLUTION TO CAP OUR RATE AT 7783, IS THAT CORRECT? SO, MY QUESTION IS IS THAT OUR ADOPTED LEVY IS AT $.83 PER 100, BUT OUR RATE CAP ORDINANCE RESOLUTION IS AT $.77 PER 100, SO WHEN THAT IS SENT TO DL GF , KNOWING THAT WE HAVE A RATE CAP RESOLUTION THAT CAPS OUR TAX RATE AT $.77, WHAT IS GOING TO BE HIT? BECAUSE IT IS NOT BEING TAKEN FROM THE DEBT SERVICE LEVEES, SO WHAT IS GOING TO DECREASE IN OUR REVENUE COLLECTED WITH THAT DIFFERENCE IN PROPERTY TAX RATE?

>> COUNSELOR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU.

>> IT IS SO, ON BUDGET REFORM, YOU'VE GOT THE ADOPTED TAX RATE OF .8303, OKAY? SO, THAT IS OUR ADOPTED CITY CIVIL PROPERTY TAX RATE, RIGHT? BUT WE ARE PASSING THE RATE CAP RESOLUTION FOR $.77, SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THERE. AND , UM, ABOUT $.16 PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUE, SO HOW IS THAT RECONCILED WHEN BUDGET 4 IS SUBMITTED, IF THIS WAS TO BE PASSED BY THE COUNCIL, HOW IS THAT RECONCILED BY DLGF DEPENDING ON WHAT ACTUAL LEVY

REROUTE RECEIVE? >> LET ME -- I HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, LET ME FOLLOW UP. BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE PASS A RATE CAP RESOLUTION AT $.77 AND IT DIRECTS THE DLGF TO DISTRIBUTE THE FUNDS AS THEY SEE FIT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE GOING TO SERVICE DEBT FIRST BECAUSE THAT IS ACQUIRED BY OUR CREDITORS, AND THEN DISTRIBUTE THE REMAINING TAX RATES BETWEEN GENERAL FUND , MPH , CCD , SO THEY WILL TAKE IT FROM

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE RIGHT PERCENTAGE AMOUNTS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I GIVE YOU THE RIGHT ANSWER BUT

>> I'M JUST CONCERNED WE ARE SUBMITTING A HIGHER TAX RATE ON OUR BUDGET FORM BY PASSING A RESOLUTION THAT HAS A FIXED

LOWER TAX RATE. >> I AM POSITIVE IT IS SOMETHING TO DO WITH

RIGHT ANSWER. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? THIS WILL STAY AT THE DAIS , THAT IS WHAT WE USUALLY DO, AND IT WILL BE REVISITED AT

[14.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2792-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Designating the Klingensmith-Pettiner Farmstead Historic District Located at 14420 Cherry Tree Road; Sponsor: Councilor Worrell]

A LATER MEETING. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON, NEW BUSINESS. FIRST READING, ORDINANCE D 2792-25 , AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY, CLAIMING THAT FUNSTON HISTORIC DISTRICT

[02:50:02]

LOCATED AT 14420 CHERRY TREE ROAD SPONSORS COUNSELOR WORRELL,

IS THAT A MOTION TO INTRODUCE? >> OF COURSE. ALL RIGHT. THIS DESIGNATES A HISTORIC DISTRICT CONSISTING OF THE FARMSTEAD PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14420 CHERRY TREE ROAD. I WOULD ASK THE PRESIDENT TO HOLD THIS BECAUSE THE KEY COMPONENT OF THIS WAS UNABLE TO MAKE THIS ONE AND THE NEXT ONE FOR THE WILKINSON HALL

HOUSE PROPERTY. >> OKAY, SO I WILL JUST HOLD THIS AT THE DAIS, AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT MEETING, MARK WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS SCHEDULED TO BE HERE, SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. MOVING ON TO THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-2788-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, FIXING SALARIES OF APPOINTED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CARMEL CITY COURT FOR THE

YEAR 2036. >> DESIGNATES A HISTORIC DISTRICT CONSISTING OF THE WILKINSON HALL HOUSE,

[14.c. First Reading of Ordinance D-2787-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Vacating the Southern Portion of the Public Way Known as South Street within the D.W. Kinzer Subdivision; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen]

INAUDIBLE ]. >> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL BE HOLDING THIS AS WELL FOR THE NEXT MEETING. THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D 2787 -25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, VACATED THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WAY KNOWN AS SOUTH STREET WITHIN THE DW KINZER SUBDIVISION. SPONSOR IS COUNSELOR AASEN. THE PETITION TO VACATE WAS AT OUR LAST MEETING. THIS IS TO TAKE ACTION NOW. ANY QUESTIONS OR UPDATES ON THAT? AND SORRY TO DO THINGS SO QUICKLY, BUT IF SO, I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT, YOU GO TO BED.

FIRST, THE RULES FIRST? MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES? ALL RIGHT, VOTES TO SUSPEND THE RULES. CAN WE -- SORRY, PULLED A FAST ONE ON JESSICA, WE ARE MOVING SO FAST. ALL RIGHT, SUSPEND THE RULES, SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE NOW. ALL RIGHT, WE CAN NOW ACT ON THIS ORDINANCE. DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

[14.d. First Reading of Ordinance D-2788-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing Salaries of Appointed Officers and Employees of the Carmel City Court for the Year 2026; Sponsor: Councilor Taylor.]

WE ARE GOING TOO FAST FOR YOU, SO I AM SORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT UP IS FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-2788-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, FIXING SALARIES OF APPOINTED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CARMEL CITY COURT FOR THE YEAR 2026. SPONSOR IS COUNSELOR TAYLOR. DO I HAVE A MOTION? COUNSELOR TAYLOR, WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> ESTABLISHES THE 2026 MAXIMUM SALARIES FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE

CARMEL CITY COURT. >> POINDEXTER IS NOT IN ATTENDANCE, I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH HIM , IF YOU

[14.e. First Reading of Ordinance D-2789-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing Salaries of Appointed Deputies and Employees of the Carmel City Clerk for the Year 2026; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Minnaar, Joshi and Taylor.]

MAKE SURE HE IS HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING, THAT IS WHAT I WILL DO.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT MOVING ON TO FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-2789-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, FIXING SALARIES OF APPOINTED DEPUTIES AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CARMEL CITY CLERK FOR THE YEAR 2026.

SPONSORS ARE COUNCILOR MIN R, JOE SHE , AND TAYLOR.

>> WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. ESTABLISHES 2026 MAXIMUM SALARIES FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CARMEL CITY CLERK.

>> UM, JAKE WAS HERE, IS HE STILL HERE? IF SO, -- IF HE IS IN THE HALLWAY -- HE IS HERE, LET'S GET HIM SO WE DON'T HAVE TO INVITE HIM BACK TO ANOTHER MEETING. OKAY. WE WILL WAIT A SECOND. THIS WAY HE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK ON THE 20TH.

ALL RIGHT. JACOB, YOU ARE UP TO TALK ABOUT YOUR SALARIES FOR

2026. >>

>> GOOD EVENING, SORRY FOR THE DELAY THERE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. I AM NOT CHANGING ANY TITLES. I TRIED TO MAKE SALARIES SIMILAR AND IN LINE WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, SO, I DON'T REALLY

>> QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? JACOB, I KNOW THERE WAS TALK --

[02:55:04]

THE VIDEO RECORDING, WAS THAT MOVED INTO YOUR BUDGET?

>> UM, IT IS REMAINING IN MAC -- ACCOUNT. WITH THAT CONCEPT SHIFTING BACK TO THE CITY, I DIDN'T FEEL A NEED TO ADD THAT TO MY BUDGET. IF THINGS CHANGE AGAIN, I AM HAPPY TO CONTINUE

THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THOUGH. >> OKAY, QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? ALL RIGHT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ORDINANCE.

>> I WOULD MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT, WE CAN ACT ON THIS THIS EVENING, DO I HAVE A

MOTION TO APPROVE? >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE VOTE. COUNCILOR SNYDER, YOU SAID YOU HAD A QUESTION?

>> YOU SAID YOU ARE LINED UP WITH THE MAYOR, WHAT DID THAT

MEAN? >> YEAH, GOOD QUESTION, SO, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE NEXT ITEM OR TWO DOWN, SO WE HAVE STEPS IN GRADES RIGHT NOW, SO WHAT I DID IS I WENT AND FOUND THE GRADES WHERE MY STAFF WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THEY WERE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ORDINANCE AND I LINED UP THOSE MAXIMUM SALARIES WITH WHAT IS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

>> SO, TO BE CLEAR, YOUR SALARY IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, SAME FOR THE JUDGES, THAT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE THAT IS COMING UP LATER ON.

>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT I STOP? >> YOU.

>> MY SALARIES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ORDINANCE. SORRY, I

MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. >> SO, YOU MATCHED UP TO MAKE

SURE THAT -- >> YEAH, SO I TRIED TO FIND THE GRADE 9, GRADE 11 IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, TO THE MAXIMUM SALARY THEY HAD IN THERE, BUT IT WITH MINE

>> AND THAT WILL REFLECT DIRECTLY THE STOCK COMPENSATION THAT YOU THINK IS NECESSARY FOR YOUR STAFF.

>> AND I THINK THIS IS ALSO -- JUST TO BRING UP A POINT, THIS IS ANOTHER WAY WE CAN ADDRESS -- WE ARE OBVIOUSLY ADDRESSING AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE ISSUE OR AN INDIVIDUAL STAFF POSITION ON THE DAIS, SO IT IS NOT THAT WE CAN'T DO THESE THINGS AT TIMES.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THE CONVERSATION WE

HAD EARLIER. >> I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF ECHO THAT, LIKE -- AND SAY NOW THAT WE HAVE THE CLERK IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE, HOW GRATEFUL WE ARE, I AM -- YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE IS A HERO OF CITY GOVERNMENT, THEY DO SO MANY RANDOM WEIRD THINGS, INCLUDING DEALING WITH LASER FISH MORE THAN ANYBODY ON THE PLANET IN A WAY THAT ADVOCATING FOR YOURSELVES AND BEING UP HERE WITH US, BUT ALSO KIND OF RUNNING BACK END OF THIS MACHINE THAT IS BIZARRE . I'M GRATEFUL FOR THAT. SO, THANK YOU FOR ADVOCATING FOR EACH OTHER AND FOR COMING FORWARD AND FOR JACOB SHOWING UP AND BEING IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. SORRY, I WAS IN THE BACK OFFICE THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT, I THINK SOME HAVE ALREADY STARTED VOTING, SO CONTINUE TO VOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, WHETHER TO PASS THIS.

[14.f. First Reading of Ordinance D-2790-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing Salaries of Appointed Officers and Employees of the City of Carmel, Indiana, for the Year 2026; Sponsor: Councilor Taylor.]

ALL RIGHT, THIS PASSES 8-0 POINT THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE DE- 2790 -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, INDIANA FOR THE YEAR 2026. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR TAYLOR, DO

I HAVE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE? >> SO MOVED.

SYNOPSIS? >> ESTABLISHES THE 2026 SALARIES FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

>> ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO HOLD US AT THE DAIS TONIGHT, SO AS NOT TO TAKE A VOTE ON IT THIS EVENING, BUT ZACH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE A VERY BRIEF TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN -- IN THE SALARY ORDINANCE FOR THE EMPLOYEES?

>> YEAH, SO THIS VERSION DOES ESSENTIALLY TAKE WHAT WAS BUILT ON IN THE 2025 PROPOSED SALARY ORDINANCE THAT DID NOT PASS, IT TAKES THOSE UPDATED TITLES AND APPLIES THE 3% COLA TO THE MAXIMUM OF THOSE RANGES, BUT DOES NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO OVERHAUL THE STAFF AND GRADE SYSTEM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT IS JUST UPDATED TITLES PLUS THE 3% COLA AND SOME OTHER MINOR

CLEANUP -- >> COUNCILMEMBER, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU IN A SECOND, SO --

>> WELL, SO IN THIS ITEM, I WAS GOING TO ASK WHETHER WE SHOULD SEND THIS TO FINANCE, IF YOU COULD HAVE A MEETING, OR WHETHER WE SHOULD HOLD IT AT THE DAIS? I APOLOGIZE. JUST HOLD IT? OKAY.

[03:00:03]

SO, WE WILL HOLD THIS AT THE DAIS.

>> LOOK OVER THERE AND I WILL HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

>> I'M SORRY, JUST IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO, WE WILL HAVE CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT

>> MR. PRESIDENT, IF I CAN -- I BELIEVE, JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, STATE LAW PROVIDES THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY NOVEMBER 1ST OF THE SALARY ORDINANCE EVERY YEAR, SO JUST

[14.g. First Reading of Ordinance D-2791-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Fixing Salaries of Elected Officials of the City of Carmel, Indiana, for the Year 2026; Sponsor: Councilor Taylor.]

PUT THAT ON YOUR RADAR AS FAR AS --

>> THANK YOU, THAT IS HELP ALL INFORMATION. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT IS BEING HELD, WE ARE MOVING ONTO FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE DE--2791-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, FIXING SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA FOR THE YEAR 2026. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR TAYLOR, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE? ALL RIGHT, WHO HAS IT IN FRONT OF THEM? COUNCILMEMBER JOSHI, WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS? I SAW A SHEET OF PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU, SO I THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE -- COUNCILOR SNYDER, WOULD YOU READ THE

SYNOPSIS? >> ESTABLISHES 2026 SALARIES FOR

CARMEL'S ELECTED OFFICIALS. >> ZACH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO

PRESENT? >> YEAH, THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WROTE THE SALARY ORDINANCE LAST YEAR FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, I THOUGHT WE HAD HOPEFULLY KIND OF FIXED SOMETHING , SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TWEAK IT AGAIN. BUT KIND OF TWO THINGS CHANGED. LAST YEAR, WE TRIED TO MEMORIALIZE THE CONCEPT THAT WHATEVER THE COLA WAS FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, THAT WOULD BE BROADLY GIVEN, THAT SAME PERCENTAGE WOULD BE GIVEN TO ELECTED OFFICIALS. AT THAT TIME, DID NOT KIND OF CONTEMPLATE THE BUDGET WOES THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE FACING THIS YEAR, NOR A SITUATION WHERE WE WOULDN'T BE GIVING 100% ACROSS-THE-BOARD FOR ALL CIVILIAN , AN INCREASE, SO, THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED BASICALLY SAYS, HEY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS THAT WERE CREATED LAST YEAR, THIS IS HOW WE WANT TO APPROACH IT FOR 2026 . AS NOTED, THE MAYOR -- THE CITY JUDGE AND THE CITY CLERK HAVE NOT REQUESTED A COLA , SO, THEIR NUMBERS IN THIS ORDINANCE REMAIN FLAT AT THE 2025 AMOUNT , BASED UPON THE BUDGET REQUEST . THAT COUNCIL SUBMITTED. I DID INCLUDE THE 3% INCREASE ON COUNCIL. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. AND I WILL JUST ADD, IT CONTEMPLATES THEM KIND OF REVERTING BACK TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE SETTING UP AS

THE NORMAL POLICY AFTER 2026. >>

SNYDER? >> IF NO CHANGES WERE MADE, WHAT

WE NEED AN ORDINANCE? >> UM, I THINK -- YEAH, MAYOR MENTIONED AS FAR AS ACCEPTING, I WOULD SAY THE DEPARTMENTS WERE THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, THE COURT, THE CLERK, THOSE DEPARTMENTS, IF YOU WILL, HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY FUNDED FOR NEXT YEAR TO PROVIDE THOSE 3%, SO, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO BE RESOLVED IF THIS ORDINANCE DID NOT PASS, AND THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS EXCEPTED THOSE INCREASES.

>> BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS SETTING THE 2026 SALARIES, RIGHT? SO, WE STILL HAVE TO DO ANNUALLY, EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. BENJAMIN, IF YOU WANT TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. YOU HAVE TO ANNUALLY SET THE SALARIES?

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS -- I THOUGHT OURS -- MAYBE I AM MISINTERPRETING THE ORDINANCE, BUT I THOUGHT OURS WAS AUTOMATICALLY TIED WITHOUT -- SO THAT WE NEVER HAD TO DO THIS AGAIN.

WE PASSED LAST YEAR, AND I KNOW YOU HEARD SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. WE MADE REQUESTS, THE CORPORATION COUNCIL DENIED THE REQUEST FROM COUNCIL FOR CERTAIN LANGUAGE IN THIS ORDINANCE. THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT I HAD, SO, BECAUSE WHAT WE WROTE IN 2025 IS THE FOLLOWING METHODOLOGY SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE THE SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR ALL YEARS AFTER 2025, AND IT LISTS THE JUDGE , CLERK, AND CITY

[03:05:01]

COUNCIL, AND SAYS THE MAYOR CAN -- IT ONLY MENTIONS THE MAYOR, IT DOES NOT MENTION ANY OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS, IT SAYS THAT THE MAYOR CAN FORGO THAT BY AND SEPARATE ORDINANCE BY COUNCIL.

SO, I BROUGHT UP THE POINT, DO WE NEED TO GO BACK AND AMEND WHAT WE PASSED LAST YEAR? IS THAT STILL IN EFFECT? I WAS TOLD THAT WE COULD WRITE INTO THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE PAUSING PREVIOUSLY PASSED LAWS, BUT NOT UNDOING IT. BENJAMIN, IS THAT -- TYPICALLY HOW YOU WOULD WRITE THOSE THINGS?

>> SO, MY INTERPRETATION MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE TYPE OF ORDINANCE, RIGHT? WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH A SALARY ORDINANCE, YOU'RE DEALING WITH IT FOR A SPECIFIC YEAR, SO I WOULD GO AS FAR AS TO SAY THAT YOU DON'T BIND THE NEXT YEAR BEYOND THAT EACH SALARY ORDINANCE STANDS ALONE, AND SO, THE 2025 ORDINANCE WHICH PASSED IN 2024 STANDS ALONE FOR 2025. AND SO, TO THE EXTENT YOU WISH TO BIND ON A FUTURE MATCH, WHICH SHOULD BE TIED TO A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE, NOT AN ORDINANCE WHICH IN EFFECT REPLACES THE ORDINANCE OF 2025 , BUT IN 2026, SO, OTHERWISE, TO THE EXTENT YOU ARE BINDING YOURSELF, YOU WOULD BE BINDING YOURSELF ON THE NUMBERS THAT ARE

PUT IN PLACE IN 2025. >> BUT YOU GUYS ADVISED US ON THIS LANGUAGE THAT WE PASSED A YEAR AGO. ARE YOU TELLING ME NOW THAT THAT LANGUAGE WHICH WAS ADVISED BY THE CITY IS NO LONGER

VALID? >> I THINK THAT SOMETIMES WHEN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OCCUR, IT CAN ALLOW FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT, TO SECURE UP, AND YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY ANTICIPATE EVERY SITUATION THAT WOULD OCCUR, AND CERTAINLY THE SITUATION WE ARE IN NOW. SO, WHY WASN'T THAT TOLD WAS LAST YEAR

WHEN WE PASSED THIS LANGUAGE? >> I THINK IT IS JUST A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION. I THINK YOU COULD LOOK TO THIS -- YOU HAVE AN INTERPRETATION HERE WHICH HAS THE LANGUAGE INSIDE THE ORDINANCE THAT FORGOES WHAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE. AND I THINK THAT IS ACCEPTABLE AS WELL. BUT I DO THINK -- MY OPINION, I THINK THAT EACH SALARY ORDINANCE STANDS ALONE FOR THE YEAR IN

WHICH IT WAS ENACTED. >> CAN I CLARIFY?

>> LET ME GO TO COUNCILOR MINNAAR FIRST, IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IF WE WANTED TO MAKE THIS PERPETUAL, WE SHOULD HAVE IT OUTSIDE OF THE SALARY ORDINANCE ALTOGETHER, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. I THINK THIS TYPE OF MATTER CAN BE ADDRESSED IN A FEW WAYS. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO AVOID SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE

ADDRESSED IN CITY CODE. >> I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT I WILL GO TO OTHER COUNCILORS, COUNCILOR SNYDER FIRST.

>> I THINK WHAT'S FRUSTRATING IS THE WHOLE PREMISE, THE WHOLE EXPLANATION, THE WHOLE REASON WE DID THIS ORDINANCE WAS TO REMOVE THE POLITICS FROM INCREASES. WE DID THAT, SO THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS NEVER -- NEVER COULD PLAY POLITICS BY BEING ALTRUISTIC , EVEN THOUGH IT IS A MEANINGLESS NUMBER. IN COMPARISON TO THE BUDGET. BUT THAT -- I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ALONG WITH THIS ENTIRE ORDINANCE IF WE HADN'T BEEN ADVISED THAT THIS WAS THE WAY TO TAKE POLITICS OUT ELECTED OFFICIALS JUST DOING A COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE, AND THAT WE NEVER HAD TO TOUCH IT AGAIN, THEN NOBODY WOULD BE CRITICIZING ELECTED OFFICIALS OF ANY PARTY AT ANY TIME IN ANY OFFICE. IT WAS SET, IT WAS DONE. AND NOW WHAT I AM HEARING IS IT'S NOT. AND THAT IS VERY FRUSTRATING, BECAUSE NOW THERE IS A HEADLINE IN THE PAPER THAT WE ARE TAKING THE CITY'S MONEY WHEN MONEY IS TIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS $6500, BUT REALLY IT'S BECAUSE OUT OF PRINCIPLE, WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE THAT WE THOUGHT TOOK CARE OF THE POLITICS AND COLA FOR GOOD, AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK MY FRUSTRATION IS.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD POINT OUT, TOO, IS AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU NEVER CAME TO ME AND ASKED WHAT THE COLA WAS FOR NEXT YEAR. HE LOOKED AT A BUDGET THAT WAS PREPARED BY COUNCILOR SNYDER, AND IN HIS DEFENSE, HE BUDGETED FOR THE 3%, BECAUSE UNLIKE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS AS A GROUP, NINE PEOPLE HAVE TO VOTE ON WHAT OUR SALARIES WILL BE, WHETHER WE TAKE A COLA OR NOT. MAC CAN'T UNILATERALLY -- COUNCILOR SNYDER CAN'T SAY WE ARE NOT TAKING THE COLA, WE ARE

[03:10:02]

TAKING THE COLA. SO, WE PUT THE 3% IN, UNDERSTANDING THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD. YOU TOOK THAT WITHOUT CALLING US, AND SAID I GUESS THE COUNCIL IS TAKING THE COLA. WE HAD NO DISCUSSIONS PUBLICLY ABOUT THIS, BUT YOU WENT AHEAD AND PUT IT IN

THERE. >> YOUR EMAIL SAID I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL.

>> WHAT PROPOSAL? >> THE BUDGET THAT WAS EMAILED.

I SUPPORTED MATT'S BUDGET. THAT BUDGETED FOR IN HIS THE COLA WAS DECIDED ON THE COUNCIL. THERE WAS -- AS YOU KNOW, EVERY LINE ITEM FOR PAYROLL IS NOT BROKEN OUT PERSON BY PERSON, SALARY BY SALARY, IT IS A LUMP SUM TO COVER ALL OF THOSE EXPENSES.

>> THE WAGES PART WAS INCREASED BY 3%.

>> YES, BUT WE TOOK NO ACTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE WOULD TAKE. AND THERE ARE NO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS SAYING, HEY, WE TALK ALL THE TIME, HEY, ARE YOU GUYS TAKING THE COLA OR NOT? THANKS AGAIN, THE PROPOSED BUDGET INCREASED WAGES PORTION , LIKE 3%.

>> OKAY. COUNCILOR LOCK? >> SO, LESSON, POLITICAL THINGS ARE POLITICAL REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU TRY TO FIX THEM IN THE PROCESS. LIKE THIS THING THAT WE TRIED TO SET LAST YEAR NAÏVELY, SOME WAY OF TRYING TO TAKE THIS OUT -- MAYBE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. AND I RELISH THE 3% RAISE TO THE TINY BABY SALARIES THAT THE CITY COUNSELORS GET, VERY COOL, HAPPY TO GIVE IT UP. BUT LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THIS BEING A DISCUSSION OF LISTENING TOGETHER, I THINK MATTERS, AND THE GOAL HERE WAS TO MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT WAS REPEATABLE, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS EXACT CONVERSATION. THIS YEAR, ANY YEAR, EVER AGAIN, UNTIL ANOTHER COUNCILOR DECIDED LET'S DO THAT. WE ARE THE NEXT YEAR DOING IT AGAIN IN A MORE POLITICAL WAY WITH A MORE POLITICAL PROCESS AND SOCIAL MEDIA, REAL JOY. SO, I WONDER LIKE PROCESS LIES, AGAIN, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, WELL, LET'S APPROPRIATE IT, SO THAT EVERYBODY GETS A RAISE, THEN WE GO BACK TO WHAT IT IS AND MAYBE GET TOGETHER TO DO THAT OR WHATEVER. SO, I SAY THAT BECAUSE THIS ISSUE IS SO ARBITRARY. AND IT IS SO -- IT'S $6500, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK IN THE BUDGET AND COVER

-- >> ALL NINE.

>> OF THE GAZEBO OR SOMETHING ELSE OR THE ERP, ONCE WE STEER THAT BAD BOY DOWN THE ROAD OF GETTING IT DONE. BUT LIKE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN ON THIS ISSUE , UM, MAYBE WE JUST DON'T EVEN TRY TO FIX IT AND WE JUST DECIDE IF PEOPLE GET RAISES OR NOT ON ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WE TAKE WHATEVER THAT MEANS, BUT WE'VE GOT TO STOP LIKE FIGHTING ABOUT IT ARBITRARILY BECAUSE IT IS LITERALLY THE LEAST IMPORTANT THING IN THE BUDGET OVERALL, UNLESS IT'S NOT, AND IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON, FEEL FREE TO VOTE ON THAT ISSUE SPECIFICALLY, BUT I SAY THAT BECAUSE I FROM A FRUSTRATION STANDPOINT HAVE NO APPETITE FOR THIS SPECIFIC ARGUMENT, DISCUSSION, OR PROCESS , AND WHATEVER EVERYBODY ELSE DECIDES TO DO, I AM HAPPY TO FORGO OR NOT OR GO WHAT EVER IS COMING THROUGH ON THIS LINE ITEM. BUT THEN IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT, YOUR EFFORTS TO LAST YEAR, WHICH IS HOW SALARY ORDINANCES WORK, AND THAT IS THE END OF IT, WE NEVER HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN, MAYBE WE JUST REVERT IT FOREVER AND THIS IS NEVER SOMETHING WE EVER TALK

ABOUT EVER AGAIN. >> COUNCILOR JOSHI.

>> I THINK THE FRUSTRATION IS OBVIOUSLY WITH THE INTENT. THE INTENT WAS TO DO THIS TO TAKE THE POLITICS OUT OF IT. WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE THIS CLEAR, CLEAN, SIMPLE, BECAUSE IT IS A INAUDIBLE ] AMOUNT OF MONEY. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, I WOULD JUST PUT IT IN TERMS FOR MYSELF, FOR MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, WHEN I WAS WORKING IN 1991 AS A RESIDENT, DOING SLAVE WAGES, MAKING MORE THAN THAN I AM NOW, SO CLEARLY THIS IS NOT ANY KIND OF REAL SUM OF MONEY THAT ANYBODY THINKS IS REAL. WE ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY. WE DO THIS TO GET A SALARY, BUT WE THEN GET TREATED AS IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF BIG CONVERSATION TO BE HAD AND USE IT AS A WEDGE BETWEEN PEOPLE , WHO IS GOING TO BE SO NICE THAT THEY WILL GIVE UP THEIR SALARY? IT ALSO DISCOURAGES PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF ENCOURAGEMENT TO VOLUNTEER IN THE FUTURE FOR THESE POSITIONS. I'M GRATEFUL THAT I AM NOT IN THAT POSITION TO HAVE THAT AN ISSUE, THERE MAY BE PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY, WISH TO SERVE, WISH TO BE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND COULD ACTUALLY DO WITH A LITTLE BIT OF THAT SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND I THINK IT

[03:15:01]

DISCOURAGES PEOPLE FROM DOING THIS. AND SO, THAT IS JUST ALL I

WANTED TO SAY ABOUT IT. >> BENJAMIN?

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT IS PASSED THIS YEAR, IT'S JUST THAT AS IT STANDS, THE SALARY ORDINANCE IS SOMETHING THAT IS CHANGEABLE , RIGHT? THAT IS JUST THE NATURE OF THE SALARY ORDINANCE. SO, TO THE EXTENT YOU WISH TO AVOID THOSE LEVELS OF CHANGE, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD TO BE PUT IT UNDER CITY CODE. IF I CAN, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE MY CAP OFF AS A CITY ATTORNEY AND SAY AS A CITY EMPLOYEE , THERE IS A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE HERE. YOU CAN LOOK AS POLITICAL ANEUVERING TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE C IT THAT WAY, BUT I WANT TO SAY AS AN EMPLOYEE, THERE IS SOMETHING TO SAY WHERE MY EMPLOYER, MY HEAD -- MY BOSS IS DECIDING TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THAT, AT A DIFFICULT TIME. SO, I'M JUST SAYING THERE ARE TWO POINTS TO VIEW HERE, NOT JUST POLITICS, BUT AN EMPLOYEE MORALE STANDPOINT, WHICH HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE STATUS AS WELL.

>> SO, TWO THINGS, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, IT'S LIKE $500 PER CITY COUNCIL OR A YEAR, CORRECT ME ON THAT AMOUNT. I AM HAPPY TO NOT TAKE IT. MY FRUSTRATION IS NOT ABOUT THAT, MY FRUSTRATION IS TWO THINGS. WE WERE ADVISED ON LANGUAGE IN AN ORDINANCE LAST YEAR, AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING WE REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE WRITTEN IT THAT WAY, WE SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

WE'VE GOT TO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN TRUST SO THAT IS FRUSTRATING, I THINK WE WASTED OUR TIME LAST YEAR DISCUSSING THIS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. AND TWO, ZACH, I WISH YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED US WHETHER TEXT, THE QUESTION WAS NEVER ASKED.

>> SO, WHENEVER I SENT YOU THE DRAFT OF THIS LAST WEEK, I MISSED YOUR RESPONSE SAYING -- WHEN I TOLD YOU THAT I HAD THE 3% DRAFTED THIS WAY, YOU DID NOT GIVE ME ANY FEEDBACK THAT THAT

IS NOT WHAT YOU WANTED. >> ON THE ORDINANCE?

>> ON THE AMOUNT FOR ANY ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY. I TOLD YOU, I KEPT THE THREE FLAT AND INCREASED THE CITY COUNCIL BASED

UPON THE BUDGET , AND -- >> I THINK OUR CONVERSATION STALLED AND I SAW IT ON THE AGENDA. SO I THINK YOU FOUND SOMEONE ELSE TO SPONSOR IT AND MOVE FORWARD, WHICH IS FINE.

>> NOT A MAYOR? >> I WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE

THINGS. >> THE CLERK, THE JUDGE, AND MYSELF ALL HAVE EMPLOYEES. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THEM, WE ARE ASKING THEM TO MAKE DIFFICULT CHANGES, WHETHER IT BE BUDGET ITEMS WITHIN THEIR BUDGET OR SOMETHING ELSE THEY FELT IMPORTANT THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE BUDGET, WE WERE TAKING A PERSONAL SACRIFICE. I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS, I DON'T KNOW CITY COUNCIL WAS HERE AT THE TIME, BUT WE HAD BEFORE CITY COUNCILORS NOT TAKING RAISES THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS, IT WAS ALSO AT A TIME WHEN WE EASILY HAVE THE DOLLARS TO DO IT. THIS IS A DIFFERENT CASE HERE. WE HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY .

IT WAS DIFFERENT TIMES, DIFFERENT DAYS. DO WHAT YOU LIKE WITH THIS ORDINANCE, BUT I THINK WHAT THE JUDGE AND I WERE TRYING TO SAY IS WE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE A RAISE, WE WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF LEADERSHIP HERE AT A TOUGH TIME.

>> COUNCILOR LOCKE? >> I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN BUT IT IS KIND OF FUN TO TALK ABOUT. BENJAMIN, I DO WANT TO SAY, THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE. SUPER HELPFUL TO THE CONVERSATION. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH LEADERSHIP . DROPPED THE ORDINANCE THE WAY YOU WANTED TO BE DRAFTED, LEADERSHIP ON THIS.

IF THERE IS A STRATEGIC REASON TO DO THAT TO HELP SUPPORT THE EMPLOYEE'S, WE WILL FIGHT TO BE A PART OF THAT. 5-4, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP, BUT LET'S BE IN THAT TOGETHER COLLABORATIVELY BECAUSE THAT IS AN IMPORTANT THING. WE ARE PART TIME. WE ARE READING DOCUMENTS, LOOKING AT STUFF, YOU WANT TO WRITE IT, WHETHER WE TAKE A TOUR YOU GUYS TAKE IT OR WE DON'T TAKE IT, AND LET'S BRING IT BACK AND LET'S DO THAT

TOGETHER. THAT IS MY TAKE. >> ALREADY. THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS AN ORDINANCE -- DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON IT IS SMART DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACT ON THIS

[03:20:02]

THIS EVENING? NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS THIS EVENING? THEN WE WILL HOLD US AT THE DAIS AND

[14.h. Resolution CC-10-06-25-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds within the Finance Department Budget (#1701); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder, Joshi and Taylor]

CONTINUE DISCUSSION FOR THE NEXT MEETING. SO, MOVING ON, RESOLUTION CC -10-06-25-01, RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITHIN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT BUDGET . TO HAVE A MOTION TO

INTRODUCE? >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, COUNCILOR SNYDER, WHEN YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> THIS TRANSFER IS $150,000 WITHIN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT

BUDGET. >> ALL RIGHT, ZACH?

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SO, THE TRANSFER HERE TODAY WITH SOME AVAILABLE DOLLARS IN OUR GENERAL INSURANCE LINE WITHIN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO A CONTRACT CONSULTING A LINE ITEM.

ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE IS WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME LONG-TERM PLANS FOR THE ENERGY CENTER. THAT INCLUDES DEFINITELY ADDING SOME BACKUP CHILLER CAPACITY, POTENTIAL REDUNDANCY, AND ALSO ADDRESSING THE AGING BOILERS. JUST TO STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT, THE ENERGY CENTER I BELIEVE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED THE SAME TIME AS THE PALLADIUM, SO 2010, 2011. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT DID NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH CHILLED WATER FOR THE NEEDS OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE LOOP. AND A FEW YEARS LATER, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE ICE RINK, A SECOND CHILLER WAS ADDED, AND REALLY, IT WAS KIND OF -- WE ARE USING A CHILLER FOR BOTH CREATING ICE , AS WELL AS SUBSIDIZING, IF YOU WILL, KIND OF OUR CHILLED AIR FOR OUR BUILDINGS ON THE LOOP, AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT THAT SECOND CHILLER WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO PROVIDE BOTH PURPOSES. YOU ADD ON TO THAT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A CHILLING TOWER --

>> IT IS AN INVESTIGATION TO SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR CENTER AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO FIX IT.

>> YOU GUYS PAY ME BY THE HOUR, SO --

>> COUNSELOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A RESOLUTION, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT, THIS PASSES. FINAL ITEM

[14.i. Resolution CC-10-06-25-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, To Limit the Rate for Taxes Payable in 2026 and Authorize Necessary Temporary Borrowing Among City Funds; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder, Taylor and Aasen]

OF THE NIGHT, CC-10-06-25-02, RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, TO LIMIT THE RATE FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 2026 AND AUTHORIZED NECESSARY TEMPORARY BORROWING AMONG CITY FUNDS. SPONSORS ARE SNYDER, TAYLOR, AND AASEN.

COUNCILOR SNYDER, WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> I AM SORRY, I WILL RESTART. A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE CITY 2026 PROPERTY TAX RATE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 0.7783 , WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE 2025 RATE. AND RECOMMENDING HOW THE DLGF SHOULD ALLOCATE THE 2026 PROPERTY TAX LEVY AMOUNT CITY FUNDS. EXCUSE

ME. UM, >> ALL RIGHT, SO, ZACH, I KNOW COUNCILOR TAYLOR HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THIS EARLIER.

>> YET, THIS IS A SIMPLE RESOLUTION THAT JUST REALLY STATES OUR INTENTIONS WITH DLGF, BUT NOTING THE OUTSTANDING QUESTION, I WOULD BE FINE HOLDING THIS UNTIL THE NEXT

MEETING. >> UM, THIS IS GOING TO OVERRIDE BUDGET FORM 4. MY QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION IS WHAT REVENUE DECLINES WHEN WE SET THE RATE AT $.77 VERSUS $.80?

>> YEAH, IT IS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT CAP FUND, BUT I CAN COME BACK WITH A MORE INTELLIGENT ANSWER FOR YOU.

>> THEN I AM VERY SUPPORTIVE OF A RATE CAP CREDIT RESOLUTION TO

FIX OUR TAX RATE FOR 2026. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS, KNOWING THAT WE WILL HOLD IT?

>> JUST FOR CONTEXT, WHAT IS THE FINAL ASSESSED VALUE?

>> 12.404 BILLION , DOWN FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WAS

12.689 BILLION. >> COUNCILOR, IT'S IN THIS