Oct 20, 2025 City Council Meeting

[00:00:01]

ANY LAST-MINUTE BLUE CARDS BEFORE YOU START THE MEETING?

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

THAT WILL BE LATER ON IN THE AGENDA WILL. WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE WILL CALL A LITTLE RECESS IF ANYONE WANTS TO GET PICTURES . YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED, BUT WELCOME TO STAY AROUND FOR

[2. AGENDA APPROVAL]

APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> SO MOVED.

>> PLEASE VOTE. THAT HAS PAST. INVOCATION TONIGHT IS REVEREND OF ST. CHRISTOPHER'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

>> THANK YOU. HOLY ONE, KNOWN BY MANY NAMES AND BEYOND ALL NAMES, WITH COMPASSION ON THE WHOLE HUMAN FAMILY , BREAK DOWN THE WALLS THAT SEPARATE US AND UNITE US IN BONDS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION . WORKING THROUGH OUR STRUGGLES TO ACCOMPLISH HER PURPOSES ON EARTH. WE ASK YOUR BLESSINGS ON ALL THOSE GATHERED HERE TONIGHT WHO HAVE BEEN CALLED TO LEAD THIS COMMUNITY IN WHICH WE LIVE AND WORK AND PLAY. GRANT US ALL THE WISDOM AND COURAGE TO KNOW AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND GOOD AND TRUE. THIS WE PRAY IN THE NAME OF THE ONE WHO HOLDS SACRED AND HOLY. AMEN.

>> THANK YOU. EVERYONE, PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON THE AGENDA

[5. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS]

>> GOOD EVENING . YOU KNOW, NORMALLY WHEN WE ARE RESPONDING OUT, NOT ALWAYS THE BEST THE SITUATIONS. AND SO, WHEN WE HAVE THOSE GOOD SITUATIONS, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO CELEBRATE THOSE. WE ARE DOING THAT TONIGHT. IF I COULD HAVE THE OFFICER COME FORWARD , NICOLE FROM HENDRICKS COUNTY 911, 341 THROUGH, ENGINE 341 CREW . COME ON UP FRONT HERE, PLEASE. EMS CHIEF ANDREW YOUNG. CITY CENTER DRIVE , 2:00 A.M. ON JUNE 27 WE WERE EXPECTING MOM AND BABY. WE DO HAVE A ONESIE FOR THEM IF THEY ARRIVE. JUNE 27, UP OXLEY 2:00 A.M., HUSBAND-AND-WIFE WERE TRYING DESPERATELY TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL BUT REALIZING THEY WOULD NOT MAKE IT ON TIME, PULLED OVER ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. IT ALWAYS STARTS WITH A 911 CALL. THIS IS NICOLE'S FIRST ASSISTANCE OF DELIVERY VIA PHONE. SHE TOOK THE CALL , AND THEY BASICALLY SAID, WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT. WE NEED SOME HELP. AND SO, CPD , CFD WERE DISPATCHED . THE FAMILY PULLED OVER AND OFFICER THOMAS WAS FIRST ON THE SCENE AND FOUND THE MOTHER STANDING BESIDE THE VEHICLE. WITH THE FATHER. AND DELIVERY WAS IMMINENT . THE BABY WAS CROWNING AT THAT POINT. THE OFFICER, THIS IS YOUR THIRD DELIVERY .

KNOW, MAYBE -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET YOU OR NOT. WELL DONE. YOU WERE READY TO GO. HE RESPONDS UP TO THE SCENE. IS GOT BLANKETS READY TO GO. HE ASSISTS WITH THE DELIVERY. THE ENGINE CREW FOLLOWED SHORTLY THEREAFTER. WE WERE ABLE TO ALLOW THE FATHER TO CUT THE CORD ALL ALONGSIDE THE ROAD , ALONGSIDE THE VEHICLE THERE. THEY DELIVERED A BABY GIRL.

STARTED CRYING. WAS HEALTHY. WE WERE ABLE TO TRANSPORT THEM TO THE HOSPITAL. SO WE MAY HAVE THIS PREHOSPITAL IN THE FIELD ME CALL THIS THE STORK AWARDS. THIS IS A STATE NECK AND RECOGNITION.

WE WILL PRESENT AWARDS TO THESE INDIVIDUALS HERE. WONDERFUL JOB , LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, OF BRINGING LIFE INTO THE WORLD SAFE AND SOUND HERE IN CARMEL.

[00:05:17]

>> CHIEF, PHOTOS OKAY? OKAY. >> WE'RE GOING TO DO A PHOTO.

>> OKAY.

>> GREAT JOB. >> STARTING THE MEETING OFF ON A GREAT NOTE. BY THE WAY, FOR THOSE HERE, I AM TOLD THEY ARE LOOKING IN TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THE AIR CONDITIONING A LITTLE BETTER. THEY ARE WORKING ON THAT. NEXT IS SWEARING-IN OF NEW CARMEL POLICE OFFICERS. CHIEF STERLING.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS WE HAVE A VERY EXCITING PRESENTATION, ALMOST THICK GUIDING AS THE LAST ONE WELCOMING THE FIVE NEWEST OFFICERS. THESE OFFICERS MADE IT THROUGH A RIGOROUS SCREENING PROCESS. OVER 300 APPLICATIONS. WE SCREENED THEM THROUGH EVERY WHICH WAY WE COULD. WE POKED AND PRODDED . WE LET THE DOCTORS DO THT. WE EVALUATED THEM. WE FEEL REALLY, REALLY GOOD ABOUT THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS WE HAVE HERE TODAY. I WILL TALK ABOUT EACH OF THEM REALLY QUICKLY. THEY ARE WELCOME TO BEGIN WALKING UP IF THEY WOULD LIKE. NATHANIEL FORDHAM GRADUATED FROM AVON HIGH SCHOOL AND JUST MOVE BACK TO INDIANA FROM ARIZONA. HE WORKED AS A SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTOR -- INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANT , A SERVER, AND ALSO INSTRUCTOR IN BRAZILIAN JUJITSU PRIOR TO THIS CAREER WITH CPD. JESUS GUTIERREZ COMES IN FOR TWO WAS FROM TSA. IS A BACHELORS DEGREE IN PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT, ASSOCIATE DEGREE IN CYBERSECURITY INFORMATICS, AND HE IS ALSO -- HAS ALSO SERVED IN THE ARMY WHEN IT IS 73RD AIRBORNE. ALEX GARCIA MOVED FROM INDIANA , MOVED TO INDIANA FROM PUERTO RICO WHEN HE WAS 16. HE IS A GRADUATE OF ZIONSVILLE HIGH SCHOOL AND WORKED IN THE AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY PRIOR TO HIS BEGINNING HERE WITH US AT CPD. CONNOR JACKSON IS A GRADUATE OF WEST ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY WITH A BACHELORS DEGREE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION. AND ELISE IS A GRADUATE OF MOORESVILLE HIGH SCHOOL AND WENT ON TO PLAY POSSIBLE FOR DAVENPORT UNIVERSITY AND UNIVERSITY AS A BRAND THAT FRANCIS AND EARNED A BACHELORS DEGREE IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. SHE IS ALSO WORKED AS A FITNESS INSTRUCTOR, SALES ASSOCIATE AND SERVER PRIOR TO HER TIME WITH CPD. INCREDIBLY EXCITED TO PRESENT THESE FIVE NEW OFFICERS TO YOU. THEY'RE GOING TO BE SHIPPED OFF TO THE INDIANA LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY HERE IN JANUARY TO START THEIR FORMAL TRAINING. WE WILL GET THEM BACK IN UNIFORM WHEN THEY GET BACK.

THEY WILL BE HITTING THE ROAD SOON.

>> REPEAT AFTER ME. I , STATE YOUR NAME, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA , AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY AND IMPARTIALLY DISCHARGE MY DUTIES AS A POLICE OFFICER OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY SO HELP ME GOD. WELCOME TO CARMEL.

[00:10:19]

[6. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL]

THIS IS THE PART OF THE AGENDA WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL AND LET US KNOW THEIR THOUGHTS ON ANY ISSUE , BUT THIS IS NOT A DIALOGUE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM IS FOR YOU TO INFORM US, THE COUNCIL HIM ABOUT YOUR VIEWS.

YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. WHEN YOU GET TO THE PODIUM, PUSHED THE BUTTON. THE LIGHT WILL TURN GREEN. YELLOW MEANS YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT, RED MEANS WRAP IT UP. WE TRY NOT TO BE TOO STRICT, BUT YOU KNOW, FINISHED THE SENTENCE. THERE IS NO CLAPPING, YELLING, ANY KIND OF DISPLAYS OF AUDIBLE NOISE FROM THE CROWD. WE WILL START WITH THE JACK FELDMAN SPEAKING ABOUT ORDINANCE 2795-25, AND THEN ON DECK WOULD BE RACHEL

BAILEY. >> -- WHENEVER YOU'RE READY TO GET STARTED.

>> I AM A CARMEL RESIDENT. I WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT ORDINANCE 2795-25 BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD BE DONE A DISSERVICE IF I DID NOT. I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO CATER TO AMERICANS , AND THERE IS A STEREOTYPE OR COMMON REFERENCE TO A 9-TO-5. I FEEL LIKE THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO PRESERVE THE ABILITY FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS A 9-TO-5 JOB TO ATTEND PUBLIC MEETINGS . I FEEL LIKE THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE NEED OF THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND PUBLIC MEETINGS IN CITY HALL AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES IS VERY ABLE TO ATTEND . I BELIEVE IF WE DID NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE, WE WILL SEE A BAD EFFECT FOR THE CITY. IT GIVES THE MAYORAL ADMINISTRATION, IN ADDITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, A BAD LOOK TO HAVE OUR PUBLIC SPACES NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS NOT A GREAT LOOK FOR A CITY THAT SERVES THE PUBLIC. IT IS NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE STRIVING TO DO, BUT GOOD IS A CITY THAT HAS PUBLIC MEETING TIMES AND PLACES THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC CITIZENS. I AM STRONGLY AGAINST THE CHANGE THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT PUT INTO EFFECT, AND I AM STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF KEEPING PUBLIC SPACES FOR THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENT AND ACCESSIBLE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, JACK. NEXT IS RACHEL BAILEY . AND THEN, JORDAN . YOU CAN GET READY TO BE NEXT.

>> RACHEL BAILEY SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 2796-25,

[00:15:14]

MOST ARE MIDDLE-AGE THAT SCHOOL-AGE KIDS, GENERALLY WITHOUT HELMETS. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE REQUIRED LICENSING FOR MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES A MANDATORY DRIVING EDUCATION FOR ANYONE UNDER THE AGE I HAVE TAUGHT MY KIDS HOW TO DRIVE . I CAN TELL YOU THOSE KIDS WHO ARE YOUNGER THAN 16 HAVE ZERO IDEA ABOUT BASIC ROAD SAFETY AND RIGHT OF WAYS LAWS UNTIL THEY HAVE COMPLETED DRIVER'S ED I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IN PLACE FOR THE YOUNGER RIDERS WE HAVE ON E-BIKES. I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO SEE THE POTENTIAL CREATION OF WALKING OR LOW-SPEED ZONES AROUND SCHOOLS. WE HAVE LOW-SPEED ZONES FOR CARS FIRST SCHOOL ZONES AND THE PRESIDENT IN THE ARTS AND DESIGN DISREPUTE I WOULD LIKE TO THAT -- I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO SEE POSTED SPEED LIMITS. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME PROPOSED , BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE PAINTED ON THE BIKE PATHS AND SUGGEST THAT POSSIBLY WE CAN HAVE AN EDUCATION FOR YOUNGER RIDERS WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE SCHOOL AND HAVE AN EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE

KIDS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> NEXT IS JORDAN, AFTER THAT,

MATTHEW. >> I AM A RESIDENT OF CARMEL . A MEMBER OF STRONG COUNT, A LOCAL NONPROFIT FOCUSED ON SAFE STREETS . I'M ALSO IN EVERYDAY CYCLISTS. I AM SPEAKING TODAY IN FAVOR OF THE MICRO MOBILITY ORDINANCE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT YET PERFECT. I WRITE IN ELECTRO ELECTRIC CARGO BIKES AND ALSO WALK AND RIDE ON THE MONON. THE ORDINANCE, AS I UNDERSTAND, STARTED AS A REACTION TO KIDS WRITING TOO FAST ON ELECTRIC , OR ESSENTIALLY DIRT BIKES. BUT IT IS GROWN TO ENCOMPASS, BASICALLY, WAS EVERY TYPE OF RIDER ON THE MULTIUSE PADS. THIS IS BECOMING A PROBLEM IN POPULARITY. TOO MANY PEOPLE COMPETING FOR TOO LITTLE SPACE. THIS IS A GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE, HONESTLY. I'M GLAD WE ARE WORKING TO SOLVE IT. THIS IS PROOF WE NEED MORE PATHS AND PLACES FOR EVERYONE TO WALK, ROLL AND RIDE WITHOUT A CAR. BIKES AND SCOOTERS GIVE CHILDREN FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE. IT GIVES THEM A REASON TO BE OUTSIDE IN THE REAL WORLD INTERACTING WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS INSTEAD OF INFINITELY SCROLLING SOCIAL MEDIA. EVERY KID ON THE PATH IS ONE LAST CAR ON THE ROAD, ONE LESS CAR TAKING UP PARKING SPACES, WOMAN'S CARD POSSIBLY GETTING IT REGRESSION COULD BE FAR WORSE THAN ANYTHING ON A BIKE. A FINE LINE BETWEEN ENCOURAGING SAFETY AND ENCOURAGING , AND DISCOURAGING PEOPLE FROM WRITING THAT AND WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR PUTTING IN THE WORK TO CREATE THIS ORDINANCE. HOPEFULLY, AFTER A FEW MORE CHANGES, WILL HELP IMPROVE SAFETY FOR EVERYONE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MATCH, YOU ARE UP AN EXPERT AFTER THAT, MIKE MACKENZIE FOR THE FINAL SPEAKER.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. I AM A RESIDENT OF CARMEL. I AM ALSO HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CARMEL FOP LODGE 185 TWO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF PASSING THE BUDGET AS IT CURRENTLY IS. A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO SAY. I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR KEEPING HER WORD AND HAVING HER TEAM WORK WITH, NOT ONLY, THE FOP, BUT -- POLICE DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATION ON PASSING A BUDGET THAT VALUES PUBLIC SAFETY AND VALUES THE COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY THAT THE CITIZENS OF CARMEL HAVE SAID THEY WANT. IT IS A MAJOR REASON FOR THEM LIVING HERE AND MOVING HERE. A LOT OF PEOPLE PUT A LOT OF HARD WORK, TIME AND EFFORT INTO THIS CITY PARTNERS, SAMANTHA, ZACH , FIRE, AND SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE FOP . WE HAVE TALKED TO YOU ALL . WE HAVE BEEN GOOD PARTNERS WITH YOU ALL. WE KNOW THAT YOU GUYS VALUE PUBLIC SAFETY. YOU HAVE DRIVEN THAT TO US TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

[00:20:01]

>> FINALLY, MIKE MACKENZIE. >> GOOD EVENING. DO I NEED TO PUSH ANYTHING? OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK. HAVE TO READ THIS OFF MY IPHONE, OTHERWISE I WILL RAMBLE. I LIVE IN THE HEART OF THE ARTS DISTRICT. I WORK AS CHIEF PILOT FOR A LOCAL AIRLINE. HAS TAKEN ALL OF THIS COUNTRY.

NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO, ONE THING IS CONSISTENT IS PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT CARMEL. OUR CITY HAS EARNED NATIONAL RECOGNITION BECAUSE LEADERS AND RESIDENTS HAVE CONSTANTLY WORK TOWARDS A COMMON GOAL, CREATING A VIBRANT, INNOVATIVE AND LIVABLE COMMUNITY. THAT KIND OF PROGRESS DOESN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT.

MAYOR HAS PROPOSED A BUDGET THAT FACES THE CHALLENGES HEAD-ON , ADDRESSING PUBLIC SAFETY, INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE, EMBRACING MODERNIZATIONS, SUPPORTING ECONOMIC GROWTH, ALL WHILE MAINTAINING FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. THAT IS NO SMALL FEAT. IT IS CLEAR IT IS AN EFFORT WITH PURPOSEAND DISCIPLINE. WHAT MATTERS NOW IS HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. TOGETHER WHEN LEADERSHIP IS UNITED, GOOD THINGS HAPPEN. WHEN IT ISN'T, MOMENTUM STALLS. DIVISION SLOWS PROGRESS AND CASTS UNCERTAINTY OVER EVERYTHING. FROM EMPLOYEE MORALE TO THE CONFIDENCE OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE HERE CURRENTLY AND WANT TO MOVE HERE, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. CARMEL HAS BUILT A REPUTATION AS A CITY THAT GETS THINGS DONE. A PLACE THAT BALANCES AMBITION WITH GOOD GOVERNANCE. THAT REPUTATION IS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE WORTH PROTECTING. I AM HERE TO SAY, LET'S FOCUS ON THE BIG PICTURE. LET'S PASS THIS BUDGET IN A WAY THAT REFLECTS CARMEL'S CORE VALUES. COLLABORATION, AND FORWARD THINKING. LET'S SHOW THAT EVEN IN MOMENTS OF DISAGREEMENT, WE KNOW HOW TO WORK FORWARD TOWARD SHARED GOALS. LIKE YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS COUNCIL AND MAY

[7. COUNCIL AND MAYORAL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS]

YOUR COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS. >> NONE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU

VERY MUCH. >> COUNCIL? SNYDER.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO ALL THE SPEAKERS. INTO JACK -- AND TO JACK. I WILL OUT YOUR AGE. I WANT TO SAY HOW MUCH HER INSIGHT IS APPRECIATED. HE IS AT ALMOST EVERY LAND-USE MEETING AND ASKS AMAZING QUESTIONS. TRIPS OF THE ATTORNEYS OCCASIONALLY. JUST REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST AND COMMENTS ALL THE TIME.

JORDAN . WE FIRST MET A YEAR AGO AT A MEETING I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW EXISTED . I SORT OF STUMBLED AND ON AT. MOST OF THOSE I ATTEND WITHIN A COUPLE WEEKS. YOURS HAS STAYED STRONG BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS, BUT THE INITIATIVES YOU, AND THE OTHERS IN THAT MEETING, YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ALMOST EVERY GOAL.

I AM VERY PROUD OF YOU. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> TIMES THAT. AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. NO SHUTTING ME UP TONIGHT. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT -- ONE OF THE BIG THINGS , AND SOME PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY HERE FOR TONIGHT, IS THE BUDGET.

I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE PROCESS A LITTLE BIT. THE MAYOR AND HER TEAM SPEND THE BETTER PART OF THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR FIGURING OUT WHAT THE NEXT YEAR AT THIS BUDGET IS GOING TO BE.

WE GET A DRAFT . WE COMMENT ON THE DRAFT. THE MAYOR PROVIDES SOMETHING SOMEWHAT REVISED . AND THEN, THERE IS A SUBMISSION TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BUDGET. AS SOON AS THAT IS SUBMITTED TO THEM, THAT IS KIND OF THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT THIS COUNCIL HAS TO WORK ON. ONCE WE HAVE THAT , THEN WE START REALLY DRILLING IN. I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF, NOT JUST TONIGHT, BUT IN EMAILS, PHONE CALLS. WE HAVE ALL HEARD AMAZING COMMENTS ABOUT WORKING TOGETHER. SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO EXPLAIN IS THERE ARE NINE OF US UP HERE. WE ARE VERY PASSIONATE INDIVIDUALS. I WOULD SAY I WEAR MY HEART ON MY SLEEVE. I AM VERY EMOTIONAL WHEN IT COMES TO MY HOMETOWN. SOMETIMES THAT TRANSLATES INTO

[00:25:06]

I'M A PASSIONATE INDIVIDUAL. MY MOTHER USED TO SAY I WAS A WONDERFUL CRISIS MANAGER BECAUSE IT IS THE LITTLE THINGS THAT GOT UNDER MY SKIN BUT THE BIG THINGS YOU TAKE IN STRIDE AND YOU STAY CALM AND YOUR HEART RATE STAYS CALM. I THINK THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE HAS DONE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. NO ONE HAS BEEN HAPPY WITH THE BUDGET OR THE LAST FEW WEEKS. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF NOISE SURROUNDING IT. BUT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUDGET HAS BEEN OUR PRIMARY FOCUS SINCE SEPTEMBER 1 WHEN IT WAS FIRST INTRODUCED TO US. I THINK THAT WHILE WE STILL DISAGREE ON SEVERAL THINGS, I'M HOPEFUL THAT TONIGHT, WE FIND A WAY TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WORKS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE.

[00:30:03]

WE WILL SET ANOTHER MEETING AND DO THIS AGAIN. WE ARE UP AGAINST A CLOCK. NOVEMBER 3RD IS THE HARD DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A BUDGET. I THINK WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH WE CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT SATISFIES MOST OF OUR DESIRES AND IS A BENEFIT TO THE PEOPLE OF CARMEL WHICH I KNOW IS WHAT EVERYONE AT THIS DAYOUS AND THE MAYOR WANT AT THE END. AS WE MOVE FORWARD THIS EVENING, THERE PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO BE BIG FIREWORKS. THERE WILL BE TOUGH QUESTIONS. AT THE END OF THE DAY , THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE DO AS A COUNCIL IS PROVIDE A BUDGET THAT SUSTAINS THE LIFE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S WHAT I KNOW IS IN THE HEARTS OF EVERYBODY UP HERE AND THE HEART OF THE ADMINISTRATION EVEN IF THE WAY WE APPROACH IT IS DIFFERENT. I WANTED TO STATE THAT. OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, THERE HAS BEEN A BUNCH OF CONTENTION BUT THAT'S ALL NOISE. THAT IS STUFF THAT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND. WHEN IT COMES TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND, WE AND THE STAFF KNOW HOW IT DIAL IT IN AND FOCUS ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT, THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMEMBER MINNAAR? >> THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THE BUDGET. MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK AND THE STAFF FOR TRYING TO GET THIS BUDGET TOGETHER. I WANTED TO FOCUS ON TWO THINGS. ONE, SINCE ANITA ISN'T HERE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS PUBLICLY THAT THE VOLLEY HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR THE 23RD, THURSDAY, 5:00, CORRECT? 500CHUCK TO 9:00. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO JACK. I ENJOY HIS COMMENTARY AND INSIGHT. YOU ARE A GREAT YOUNG MAN. I WANT T TO THANK MAY NEIGHBOR RACHEL WHO CAME TO SPEAK ON THE ORDINANCE AND HOW IMPORTANT T IT IS TO FOCUS OPSAFETY OF MULTIUSE PATHS. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO CAME TO SPEAK TONIGHT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS BUDGET PROCESS.

>> I ALSO WANT TO -- I WENT TO THE VOLLEY CELEBRATION. AND I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE PUT SO MUCH WORK INTO IT. I DID THANK THE ORGANIZERS AND THE MAYOR FOR MAKING SURE THEY CAN RESCHEDULE BECAUSE IT WAS -- EVEN WITH THE WEATHER BEING FORECAST THE WAY IT WAS, IT WAS HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THERE. I'M GLAD WE WERE ABLE TO RESCHEDULE. I WANT TO EXPLAIN ONE THING ON THE PROCESS. WE ARE RIGHT ON SCHEDULE IF THE BUDGET PASSES TONIGHT. THERE WAS NEVER A PLAN TO PASS A BUDGET T ANY EARLIER THAN TONIGHT ACCORDING TO THE PROCESS SET OUT FROM THE BEGINNING. I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE URGED US TO PASS A BUDGET. THERE WAS NEVER A PLAN TO DO IT BEFORE TONIGHT. BUT EVEN SO, WE ALSO TONIGHT WAS THE TARGET GOAL WITH THE IDEA THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PASS THE RIGHT BUDGET FOR THE PEOPLE OF CARMEL.

WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO DISCUSSIONS YET. I THINK COUNCILLOR SNYDER IS CORRECT THAT WE ARE CLOSE. IF FOR SOME REASON NOVEMBER # 3 RD, THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, THE LAST STATUTORY ALLOWED DATE AND THAT COULD -- WE ARE NOT BEHIND SCHEDULE WHEN IT COMES TO THAT AT ALL. WITH THAT SAID THOUGH,

[8. CONSENT AGENDA]

APPROVAL OF MINUTES, OCTOBER 6, 2025 REGULAR MEETING AND CLAIMS PAY ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF 4, 173, 752.78. GENERAL CLAIMS 3, 234, 535.67. AND WIRE TRANSFERS IN THE AMOUNT OF 3, 285, 444.84.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT THIS PASSES. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES. WE HAVE NONE.

COMMITTEE REPORTS, FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND RULES COMMITTEE?

[10.b. Land Use and Special Studies Committee ]

>> NOTHING TO REPORT. WE HAVE NOT HAD A MEETING SINCE OUR LAST

COUNCIL MEETING. >> LAND USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES

COMMITTEE? >> OKAY. IN OUR LAST MEETING, WE SENT BACK A FINAL VERSION OF THEAMENDMENTS TOTHE CLOAK IAL IAL CALLED. THAT WAS VETTED AND THANK YOU TO ALL WHO CAME TO EXPRESS OPINIONS. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A SINGLE PERSON WHO CAME AND SPOKE WHOSE INFLUENCE DIDN'T SHOW UP SOMEWHERE IN THE

[00:35:03]

YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING I REALLY LOVE. WE REALLY, REALLY INKRMG PEOPLE TO COME TO THE NEXT LAND USE MEETING WHICH WILL BE THE WEDNESDAY FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER 3RD MEETING. THAT WOULD BE THE 5TH AT THE LIBRARY AT 5:30. WE REALLY WANT TO GET THAT APPROVED BY THE END OF THE YEAR SO IT IS LOCKED, LOADED, READY TO GO FOR NEXT SPRING AND WE CAN HOPEFULLY CORRECT BEHAVIORS AND MAKE THE

[11.b. Carmel Historic Preservation Commission (Quarterly – January, April, July, October)]

COMMUNITY SAFER. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. MOVING ON TO OTHER REPORTS. WE HAVE TWO ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. FIRST IS CARMEL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MARK?

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS, PLEASED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND TO REPORT ON ACTIVITIES WITH THE CARMEL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR. THE FIRST THING I WILL MENTION IS WE HAD A VISIT AT THE COMMISSION MEETING FROM REPRESENTATIVES FROM ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH WHO CAME TO CHAT WITH US ABOUT THE BLUE SCHOOL.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHY IT IS CALLED THE BLUE SCHOOL BECAUSE IT IS NOT BLUE. BUT THE SCHOOL IS THE OLDEST HISTORIC STANDING SCHOOL IN THE CITY OF CARMEL. IT WAS BUILT IN 1903. THEY HAVE RECENTLY ACQUIRED THE SCHOOL FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ARE NOW LOOKING AT WHAT THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT OPTIONS ARE FOR WHAT THEY MIGHT USE IT FOR AND CAME TO CHAT WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF. I WENT OUT AND PAID A SITE VISIT TO THE BUILDING AND MET WITH COMMITTEE FROM THE CHURCH WHICH WAS A GREAT CONVERSATION. STAFF WENT OUT AND MET WITH SOME OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS WITH CARMEL CLAY PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT HAVE ACQUIRED THE SILAS MOFFITT HOUSE. SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW JESS LAWHEAD WHO LIVE IN THE PROPERTY ON RIVER ROAD. THE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE OLDEST RESIDENCES IN THE CITY OF CARMEL. IT'S FROM THE 1820S. INTERESTINGLY HAS A CONNECTION TO ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT LATER IN YOUR AGENDA IN TERMS OF DESIGNATION. BUT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WAS LOOKING FOR ASSISTANCE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR REHAB, FUNDING IDEAS, WAYS THEY ARE GOING TO ADDRESS REPURPOSING THAT AS PART OF TRAILS AND PARKS THAT ARE GOING TO FOLLOW A RIVER SIDE TRAIL THAT THEY ARE IN THE MIDST OF DEVELOPING. NEXT WE DID HAVE OUR SECOND-ROUND OF TWO IN THE YEAR OF OUR FACADE GRANT ROUND. WE SENT OUT LETTER TO EVERYBODY, WORKED WITH VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS ON THEIR APPLICATIONS, AND WE PRESENT THOSE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 11TH. THEY APPROVED GRANTS FOR ALL EIGHT OF THE ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS THAT TOTALED APPROXIMATELY $34,500. NEXT UP, GREAT NEWS I HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THIS HERE AND THERE OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST YEAR THAT WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN MARTIN MARIETTA, CARMEL CLAY PARKS DEPARTMENT AND TOM CROWLEY A PROPERTY OWNER WHO LIVES ON HAZELDLE. MARK MARIETTA IS EXPANDING THE QUARRY THAT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND THE WISEHOUSE WHICH IS A PRECIVIL WAR HOUSE WAS THREATENED WITH DEMILATION AS A RESULT OF THAT EXPANSION. WE WORKED WITH ALL THREE PARTIES ON THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY STRUCK TO ESSENTIALLY DONATE THE HOUSE TO MR. CROWLEY WHO DID RECENTLY IN SEPTEMBER MOVE THE HOUSE FROM ITS PROPERTY TO HIS PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NORTH, ENABLING MARTIN MARIETTA

[00:40:06]

>> QUESTIONS? >> COULD YOU TOUCH ON A LITTLE BIT THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS FOR NORTH RING?

>> WE ARE STILL DOING THE INFORMATION GATHERING. WE HAVE GONE OUT, SURVEYED ALL OF THE PROPERTIES, PUT BOUNDARIES TO WHAT THAT DISTRICT WOULD LOOK LIKE. NOW WE NEED TO AUTHOR THE DOCUMENT THAT ONCE A DRAFT IS COMPLETE, WE WILL START A PROCESS OF PULIC MEETINGS. SO I INVITE ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN SO THEY CAN HEAR WHAT LOCAL DESIGNATION PROCESS WILL LOCK LIKE AND HOW THAT IMPACTS THEM.

>> WE WILL GET INVITED AS WELL. >> OF COURSE.

>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILLOR SNYDER?

>> THANK YOU. COMMENT AND A QUESTION. ONE, BLUE SCHOOL, ORIGINALLY DELAWARE DOWNSHIP SCHOOL NUMBER 6 WAS THE BLUE SCHOOL BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST BUILDING IN THE COUNTY PAINTED BLUE. IT WAS SHORT LIVED BECAUSE THEN THE BLUE WOOD WAS REPLACED

WITH BRICK BUT THE NAME STUCK. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> MY OTHER QUESTION IS AND COUNCILLOR TAYLOR MAY HAVE ASKED YOU THIS BUT RECENTLY, A LAND OWNER HERE IN CARMEL HAD APPROACHED ME AND I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER IT WHO REALLY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THEIR PROPERTY FELL UNDER YOUR JURISDICTION. WHAT IS THAT PROCESS? IF SOMEBODY THINKS THEY HAVE A HISTORIC PROPERTY T, DO THEY JUST CALL YOU? WHAT'S THAT

PROCESS THERE? >> YEAH, I WOULD CERTAINLY SAY IF AN OWNER IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTION OF THEIR PROPERTY LONGTERM THAT THEY CAN REACH OUT TO THE COMMISSION. THEY CAN DO THAT THROUGH CITY HALL TO FINDE OUR CONTACT INFO. OR REACH OUT TO, I WORK FOR A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION CALLED INDIANA LANDMARKS. THEY CAN REACH OUT TO US AT OUR INDIANA HEADQUARTERS.

I WAS JUST OUT THIS AFTERNOON BEFORE MEETING WITH THE CITY PROPERTY OWNER WHO REACHED OUT TO US, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE SAME ONE ABOUT LONGTERM PROTECTION FOR THEIR PROPERTY.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WANT. IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN QUICKLY AND IT'S A PROCESS. BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY MORE THAN HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH ANY OWNER WHO IS INTERESTED IN TALKING.

[11.c. Audit Committee (Bi-annual – May, October) ]

>> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT UP IS THE AUDIT

COMMITTEE BIANNUAL REPORT. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M ONE OF THE AUDITORS FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL. WE HAVE RESULTS FOR THE AUDIT FOR 2024. SO AUDIT FOR FISCAL YEAR DECEMBER 31, 2024. IT WAS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. THE AUDIT COMMITTEE WAS HELD ON JULY 1, 2025 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS. ATTENDEES WERE STATE OF ACCOUNTS, ABBEY PARKER, THE FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CARMEL AND THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THE CITY RECEIVED AN UNMODIFIED OPINION ON ITS GAP BUSINESS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

THIS MEANS THAT THE AUDITOR CONCLUDED THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE PRESENTED FAIRLY IN ALL MATERIAL ASPECTS, AOC SECTION 700, I'M SORRY. THE CITY OF CARMEL ANNUAL COMPENSATION REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER # 1, 2023 MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE AWARDED THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING. THE CERTIFICATE OF

[00:45:02]

ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING LESS THAN $1 MILLION WILL NO LONGER BE SUBJECT TO SINGLE AUDIT. AS OF TODAY, THE CITY DOES NOT EXPECT A SINGLE AUDILE FOR THE YEAR ENDING IN DECEMBER 31, 2025. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SO MUCH. AS WE MOVE ONTO OLD BUSINESS, BEFORE WE PROCEED, I WANT TO THROW OUT AN IDEA IF SOMEONE WOULD MAYBE MAKE THE MOTION. THE BUDGET IS THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AJINDA THAT WE WOULD ACT ON. CONSIDERING WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE MARK WHO PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO SIT THROUGH THE ENTIRE BUDGET, PLUS WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS LATER IN THE AGENDA WHICH DEFINITELY TIE INTO THE BUDGET, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF YOU WANTED TO REORDER

THE AGENDA. >> I WOULD MOVE TO PLACE IDEM D AND PUT IT AFTER OR REPLACE ITEM J.

>> OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. THIS DOES REQUIRE A VOTE AND IT'S ON THE SCREEN.

WE ARE MOVING THE BUDGET TO THE LAST AND WE WILL DO THE OTHER STUFF FIRST. ALL RIGHT. THE SCREEN KIND OF MESSED UP BUT IT

[Items 12.a - 12.c]

>> YES, THANK YOU. SO THIS DID COME BACK. WE MADE SOME MOSTLY PROCEDURAL CHANGES THAT HAD TO DO WITH SOME DEPARTMENT REQUESTS FOR VARIOUS THINGS INCONSEQUENTIAL TO THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDER INDEPENDENCE BUT CORRECTED SOME LANGUAGE. THE THINGS IT WENT BACK TO PUTTING MORE TEETH IN H.O.A.'S ABILITY, AN H.O.A. HAS TO SIGN OFF THAT A HOME OWNER IS IN GOOD STANDING.

WE ALSO ADDED LANGUAGE THAT A HOME OWNER, AND AS BENJAMIN, I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK. THESE ARE ALL CHANGES WE ALL AGREED ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE ORDINANCE. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE WRONG

DETAILS. >> GOOD EVENING, BENJAMIN, ATTORNEY. A NUMBER OF CHANGES WERE MADE AT THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING. I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF I COULD ZOOM OUT SLIGHTLY. OKAY. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT WERE TO ALLOW AND YOU WILL SEE HERE ON LINE 44, TO CHANGE THE POSESSIVE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO BE READY TO LET TO COVER ALL AREAS OF THE CITY. WE HAVE SERP AREAS IN THE CITY THAT WE HAD SUCH AS HOME PLACE THAT MAY NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO THIS ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY THERE FOR THOSE TYPES OF AREAS OF THE CITY. ADDITIONALLY, CHANGES THAT CAME INTO PLACE AS WELL, THOSE ARE ON THE -- THIS IS WHERE SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT TO BE A PART OF THE REGISTRY. WE HAVE FROM LINE 78 GOING DOWN TO LINE 90, ADDITIONS IN THERE THAT WOULD MAKE IT SO

[00:50:03]

THERE MAY BE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES. PREVIOUSLY IT WAS $100 A DAY BUT IN CARMEL WE HAVE MANY TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL RENTALS AND IT MAY BE ECONOMICALLY PRUDENT FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE THE FINE AS OPPOSED TO BASED ON THE MONEY THAT MAY BE AT STAKE. SO HERE, IT PROVIDES THE NECESSARY DETERRENT IN PLACE. ADDITIONALLY, WHAT WE HAVE AND YOU WILL SEE THIS ON LINES 255, AND 253, AND 246, WE HAVE BROADENED THAT LANGUAGE SO THAT IT OPENS IT UP TO A CITY DESIGNATED ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RATHER THAN IT BEING IN JUST ONE DEPARTMENT. THAT BROADENS THAT TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND ANY LEVEL OF CODE ENFORCEMENT. AND THEN WHAT WE HAVE DONE , YOU WILL SEE HERE ON LINES 151 THROUGH TO 257, WE HAVE MADE IT SO THAT THERE IS AN APPEALABLE RIGHT AT BOTH THE DENIAL AND THE REVOCATION STAGES. SO THAT'S A RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY.

>> QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? BENJAMIN, I DON'T NODE A LONG ANSWER ON THIS BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU DID ASK ABOUT WHETHER CONDOS AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND IT'S CLEAR THAT

COULD NOT BE DONE? >> YEAH. THAT IS NOT OUR

RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME. >> OKAY. IF ANYONE WANTS MORE DETAIL, THERE IS A WHOLE LEGAL REASON ON THIS. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY. MOTION TO AMEND. PLEASE VOTE. WE ARE SAKTING ON THE AMENDED VERSION. DOWE HAVE A

MOTION? .A MOT ION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. OKAY, THIS PASSES. THANKS FOR THE HARD WORK. I KNOW WE HAD HAD TO GO BACK AND FORTH BUT I

[12.e. Second 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. Held at the dais at October 6, 2025 Council meeting.]

[00:55:02]

YOU WOULD LIKE. >> SO I'M PUTTING ON THE SCREEN A PLAN FOR THE FARM. I'M JOINED BY ROSE MARY PETNER WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND REQUESTED DESIGNATION. SHE SUPPORTS THE ORDINANCE. LET'S PUT THAT OUT THERE OFF THE TOP.

I WANT TO THANK COUNCILLOR JUAREZ FOR SPONSORING TONIGHT.

WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT. THE CLINGENSMITH FASHG FARM AS YOU SEE IT TODAY. I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT IS FOR DESIGNATION. THE PROPERTY WAS AT ONE TIME PART OF A LARGER FARM COMPLEX. OVER TIME AS THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD OFF, IT SORT OF CAME DOWN TO THE SIZE IT IS NOW. THE HOUSE THAT YOU SEE HERE, THE IMAGE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1913. THE BUNGALOW BY FRANK CLINGENSMITH A QUAKER MINISTER IN NOBLESVILLE JUST NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. BUT WHAT IN SOME WAYS REALLY INTRIGUED THE COMMISSION AND WHY THEY FELT IT SHOULD BE DESIGNATED IS THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST VESTIGES OF CARMEL'S AGRICULTURAL HISTORY. IT IS A HOUSE, BARN, CHICKEN COOP, SHEDS, AND OTHER OUT BUILDINGS, AN OUTHOUSE, THAT IMPORTANT STRUCTURE, THAT TOGETHER COMPRISE A GREAT PICTURE IF YOU WILL OR SNAP SHOT OF CARMEL'S PAST HISTORY FROM THIS PERIOD. SO THE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DID UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND THIS ONE FOR ADOPTION. AS A RESULT, WE WILL PASS THAT ALONG TO THE COUNCIL, THAT RECOMMENDATION. ROSE MARY, DO YOU WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS SINCE YOU WITH UP HERE?

>> TWO OR THREE. GOOD EVENING. I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF BY SAYING, FOLKS YOU ARE LOOKING AT ON THIS DAIS ARE SO IMPORTANT KEEPING THE CITY THE BEST SMALL CITY IN THE COUNTRY. THEY HAVE A BIG RESPONSIBILITY AND THEY ARE KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE THEIR IN T LECT AND EXPERIENCE AND THEIR TIME TO HELP US STAY NUMBER ONE.

WE OF COURSE HAVE A WONDERFUL MAYOR, SUE WHO ALSO CARES ABOUT THIS ALLOT. MY PART IN THIS IS I CONSIDER MYSELF SABIT OF A CARE TAKER FOR THE CLINGENSMITH FAMILY. WE WERE ONLY THE SECOND OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES AFTER THE CLINGENSMITH AND HOPEFULLY SOME DAY IT WILL GO BACK TO THE FAMILY. MY JOB IS TO PRESERVE IT. I HAVE DONE THE BEST I POSSIBLY COULD FOR THE LAST 35 YEARS. OCTOBER 5TH IS WHEN MY LATE HUSBAND ROBERT AND I MOVED IN. I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO LIVE THERE SINCE. THERE IS AN ACRE OF WOODS SURROUNDING LESS AN AN ACRE OF YARD. IT IS A BIG PROPERTY TO TAKE CARE OF BUT I LOVE DOING IT. I HAVE WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS, CLOSE AND DEAR FRIENDS MOVED IN THE SAME DAY.

IT HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL, STABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT IS A BEAUTIFUL LOCATION. AS MARK WAS SAYING, I DO BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT T TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO PRESERVE SOME PARTS OF THE PAST OF CARMEL. THE CLINGENSMITHS SETTLED THE PROPERTY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL, I BELIEVE IN 1854. SO WE ARE GOING ON 200 YEARS. I'M PRIVILEGED TO LIVE THERE. IT WOULD MEAN A LOT TO ME TO SEE THE DESIGNATION GIVEN OF IT BOGUE A HISTORIC DISTRICT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[01:00:01]

>> FIRST OFF, USUALLY PEOPLE AREN'T SO KIND TO US WHEN PEOPLE COME TO A COUNCIL MEETING.

>> I DID NOT PAY HER TO SAY THAT.

>> WHY DON'T WE STAY ON THE CLINGENSMITHS, COUNCILLOR SMIED

SNYDER HAS A QUESTION. >> IT LOOKS LIKE ONLY 7 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN EDGE OF ROAD AND PROPERTY LINE. SHOULD THE CITY WANT TO PUT A PATH THROUGH THERE, WOULD THIS

INHIBIT THAT IN ANY WAY? >> WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN FACED WITH THAT WHEN THE SUBDIVISION GOING IN BEHIND US WAS PUT IN SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND THE DECISION WAS MADE TO PUT WATER UP THE STREET BUT NOT TO PUT IN SEWER. ANYWAY, ONE WENT IN AND ONE WENT BEHIND US BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DESTROY THE TREES. AT 146TH STREET, IT IS HEAVILY TREED. THAT IS PART OF THE CHARM AND BEAUTY OF THE PLACE. THAT'S WHY I LIVE MOVED THERE BECAUSE I'M A SOUTHERN INDIANA GIRL AND I LOVE MY TREES. THEY DIDN'T CUT DOWN OUR TREES WHICH WAS REALLY NICE.

THAT WOULD BE THE MAIN HINDRANCE TO ANY FURTHER WIDENING OF THE

ROAD. >> I WOULD JUST SAY THE PRESERVATION PLAN INCLUDES A SECTION ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD INFRINGE ON THAT ABILITY. IT WOULD COME

TO THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW. >> COUNSEL COUNCILLOR?

>> I JUST WANT T TO SAY THANK YOU FOR TAKING SUCH GREAT CARE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR THINKING SUCH GREAT THINGS ABOUT THE CLINKENSMITHS. IT IS A BEAUTIFUL AREA. SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO HAVE THEIR PROPERTY DESIGNATED WITH THIS CLASSIFICATION. SO I'M THRILLED AND VERY HAPPY THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THAT AND EAGER TO DO THAT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILLOR MINNAAR?

>> I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE IT IS IN MY DISTRICT AND I DRIVE BY YOUR PROPERTY ALL THE TIME. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU

AS WELL. >> I WILL BE PUTTING UP THE ON

THE BARN AROUND CHRISTMAS TIME. >> AM I ALLOWED TO GO BACK

THERE? IS IT OKAY? THANK YOU. >> MARK, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE

ON THIS PROPERTY T? >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A

MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE MOVE AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THAT

[12.f. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2793-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Designating the Wilkinson-Hull House Historic District located at 2724 East Smoky Row; Sponsor: Councilor Worrell. Held at the dais at October 6, 2025 Council meeting. ]

ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP, WE ARE MOVING TO SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D DESIGNATING THE WILLENSON HALL HOUSE HISTORIC DISTRICT LOCATED EAST SMOKY ROW. SPONSOR IS COUNCILLOR WORRELL.

TAKE IT AWAY. >> FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND, YOU WILL KNOW THIS PROPERTY T. IT HAS A LONG HISTORY BEFORE THE COMMISSION. WE HAD IT UNDER INTERIM PROTECTION FOR MANY YEARS. THIS WENT THROUGH A CYCLE OF THREE DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS THAT AS THEY LOOK TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SMOKY ROW AND KEY STONE, FOR A WHILE IT LOOKED LIKE THIS WOULD BE SCRAPED. THE REASON IT IS UNDER INTERIM PROTECTION, THEY FELT IT WAS SO SIGNIFICANT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGE WHICH THIS IS ALMOST A YEAR OLD IMAGE AND IT LOOKS BETTER NOW. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE IMAGE, THE SINGLE STORY PORTION IS A LOG STRUCTURE WE BELIEVE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ABOUT 1835 BY THE SON OF WILLIAM WILKINSON. AND THEN IN THE 1850S, THEY ADDED ON THE BRICK PORTION TO THE LEFT.

ULTIMATELY, EPICONWHICH WAS THE COMPANY THAT DID MOVE FORWARD AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AROUND THE HOUSE DID DONATE THIS PROPERTY TO THE ORGANIZATION I WORK FOR, INDIANA LANDMARKS.

THEY SAID LOOK, THIS ISN'T OUR SPECIALTY, YOU GUYS CAN RUN WITH IT. WE MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE BUT SHORTLY AFTERWARDS, WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH MATT AND ERIN UBER WHO LIVE IN A HOUSE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY IN THE SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST. THEY EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN PURCHASING IT WHICH ULTIMATELY THEY DID AND HAVE BEEN INVESTING A LOT OF BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES IN THE

[01:05:03]

THEIR PROJECT. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. I WROTE SOME THINGS DOWN TO BE BRIEF. YOU HAVE A BIG AGENDA. WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDINANCE AND DESIGNATION OF THE WILKINS-HULL HOUSE AS HISTORIC DISTRICT. I WANT TO THANK MARK WHO YOU KNOW WELL. A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE AND A WONDERFUL ASSET TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY OF CARMEL AT LARGE AND COMMITMENT TO TOOLS AND RESOURCES AND EFFORTS REQUIRED TO FORWARD THE WORK OF PRESERVATION WHICH IS NOT EASY. THE COMMISSION TO PROTECT HISTORIC OR ARCHITEC CHARLIE WORTHY BUILDINGS, SITES, STREET SCAPES, SQUARES AND NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGNATED SIGNIFICANT WITHIN OUR CITY'S GREAT BOUNDARIES IS WORTHY OF PRAISE IS SUPPORT. THERE IS SOME REFERENCE THAT SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT THESE THINGS DESIGNATED. AND THERE IS NATURALLY SOME FEAR AND CONSTERNATION AROUND THESE KINDS OF THINGS BUT WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE, WHAT MARK AND THE COUNCIL HAS DONE IS THE RIGHT STEP TO MAKE THAT APEN, RIGHT? GIVING OUR COMMUNITY REASONS TO DO THIS BEYOND PRIDE IS WONDERFUL. I DIDN'T GROW UP HISTORIAN. I HAVE BEENEN CARMEL MY ADULT LIFE. LOVE THE PLACE BUT DIDN'T START WITH A LOVE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IT HAS BECOME THAT. PRESERVING FOUNDATION STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPING THE TOP CITIES, I KNOW YOU DO IT WELL X THANK YOU. MY WIFE IS HERE AND OUR DAUGHTERS, GEORGIA AND VEERA AND I HAVE TWO OLDER DAUGHTERS WHO COULDN'T MAKE IT, HAVE WORKED AND FEEL BLESSED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRESERVE THE AMAZING PROPERTY PROPERTY, AND MAKE STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO PROTECT HER AND BEGIN THE WORK TO REVITALIZE HER. AS MY WIFE WROTE ONE POINT T, SHE IS STANDING A LITTLE STRAIGHTER THESE DAYS. WE HAVE BEGUN THE PROCESS OF DRESSING HER BACK UP AND MAKING STRIDES THERE. OUR PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY IS THAT SHE WILL BE A PART OF OUR FAMILY'S HISTORY AS WELL AS CARMEL'S HISTORY AND AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS, PROTECTION LIKE THIS, MAKE SURE THAT APENS IN PERPETUITY. COME CHECK HER OUT AND IF YOU ARE INTO OLD BUILDINGS, HISTORY, I DON'T TELL IT AS WELL AS MARK DOES BUT WE HAVE THE PRESERVATION PLAN THAT HAS ALL IN IT. WE ARE THANKFUL FOR IT AND THE VISION TO GET THERE. WE ARE ALWAYS WELCOME TO CONNECT WITH PRESERVATION MINDED FOLKS TO KEEP THIS GOING BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT, RIGHT? IT IS LITTLE PIECES OF OUR HISTORY AND WHAT IS CARMEL. THEY ARE HARD TO PROTECT SOMETIMES. THEY ARE WORTH IT. THANK YOU ALL. THANK

YOU MAYOR. >> I WILL SAY THANK YOU BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME IN THE MAKING. I THINK I REMEMBER WRITING ABOUT THIS WHEN I WAS A REPORTER FOR THE CURRENT BACK IN JUNE 2017. SO THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED TO SEE FOR A LONG TIME AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING YOUR TIME AND INVESTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ANYONE ON THE

COUNCIL? COUNCILLOR SNYDER? >> SORRY FOR DRONING ON ABOUT SOME OF THES STUFF BUT THE HISTORY IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME. I HAVE SPENT THE NIGHT IN THIS HOUSE. HALL WHO LIVED THERE AND PASSED AWAY, USED TO BE ON MY CALENDAR, EITHER TODAY WAS HIS BIRTHDAY OR THE 16TH WAS HIS BIRTHDAY. I'M NOT FAST ENOUGH

[01:10:05]

SO TO THE HULLS AND WILKINSONS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> I WILL JUST ADD A QUICK STORY. FIRST, OUR HOUSE, LIKE WE ARE IN 2025 AND WE WALK UP A LITTLE PATH AND THEN WE ARE IN THE 1800S, WE ARE THAT CLOSE. I YELL OUT THE BACK DOOR IT IS TIME FOR DINNER AND MATT IS HOMESTEADING IN THE MIDDLE OF CARMEL DIGGING OUT WHATEVER. WE HAVE GREAT APPRECIATION FOR THE HULLS. MY CHILDREN WOULD EAT BREAKFAST AND THE LITTLE RED FOX WOULD LOOK IN THE WINDOWS AND THE DEER WOULD LOOK AT THE HUMANS. AND AT THANKSGIVING WE WOULD DRIVE OVER AND LEAVE LITTLE SUGARED PECANS OR CHEX MIX WITH A NOTE OF GRATITUDE FOR MR. HULL IN HIS FINAL YEARS, JUST THANK YOU FOR THIS. IT FEELS VERY PERFECT THAT MY HUSBAND'S MID LIFE CRISIS HAPPENS TO BE IN OUR BACKYARD AND THERE ARE ARE TIMES WHEN I'M TORN IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ON THAT. BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> MAYOR? >> I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY ADD, WHEN I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THROUGH THIS HOUSE MANY YEARS AGO, I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS COULD BE SAVED AT ALL, AT ALL. AND MARK AND HIS TEAM ASSURED US THAT ABSOLUTELY, THE BONES WERE RIGHT, THE HISTORY IS PURE BUT IT COULD BE SAVED. WE JUST KNEW IT WOULD TAKE A SPECIAL PERSON AND A SPECIAL FAMILY. THANK YOU FOR STEPPING UP FOR THAT. THANK YOU FOR SERVING ON THE COMMISSION. THERE IS NO ONE WITH A BETTER SET OF EYES WITH ONE LEG IN YESTERYEAR TO HELP US WITH THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR THAT AND THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AS FAR AS THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF IT BEING ABLE TO BE SAVED.

>> THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WE

CAN ANSWER FOR ANYONE? >> QUESTIONS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION?

>> I WOULD MOVE WE APPROVE THIS MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE. THIS PASSES.

THIS IS A GOOD STORY FOR THE MEDIA, A GOOD POSITIVE STORY

[12.g. Second 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. Held at the dais at October 6, 2025 Council meeting. ]

[01:15:05]

NOW FOR DISCUSSION. JUDGE? >> GOOD EVENING. I'M THE JUDGE.

THESE PEOPLE WORK FOR ME. I PROBABLY FOR THE LONGEST SERVING STAFF ACROSS THE BOARD. ONE EMPLOYEE WITH 27 YEARS, ONE WITH 33 YEARS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY COURTS. AND ONE MORE THAT IS MAXED OUT WITH 10 OR SO PLUS. SO THEY HAVE BEEN WITH ME ALONG TIME. THEY ALL ALL MAXED OUT STEP AND GRADE ALONG TIME AGO.

THEY COME TO WORK READY TO GO, HAVE FUN AT THEIR JOB AND THIS REFLECTS YOUR POSITION IN REGARDS TO THE BUDGET WITH BENEFITS, SALARIES, AND NOTHING MORE.

>> THIS IS HOW WE HAVE YOU HERE TO PRESENT T YOUR BUDGET. BUT

COUNSELOR MINNAAR? >> JUDGE, I JUST WANT T TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON ANOTHER GREAT BUDGET, NO SCRIMMER NOTES WHICH I WOULD PROUD TO SAY. I WANTED TO ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY, ZACH HAD MENTIONED IN THE LAST MEETING, I BELIEVE YOUR DEPARTMENT DID NOT ASK FOR ANY TYPES OF INCREASES, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> I WAS NOT HERE. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE OCTOBER 6TH MEETING. I WAS LISTENING WITH WRAPPED ATTENTION WHEN I HEARD MY NAME. I'M NORMALLY NOT HERE. I HEARD SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT SOMEBODY

CONSULTED WITH ME. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S NOT THE ITEM IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW, THOUGH?

>> NO, THAT'S WHAT SHE INQUIRED ABOUT, SORRY.

>> JUST TO KNOW. >> TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I HAD NOT BEEN CONSULTED ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE SALARY ORDERS. I DIDN'T APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF IT.

>> YOU WEREN'T CONSULTED ON LAEKTSED OFFICIALS SALARY

ORDINANCE. >> YES, SORRY.

>> COUNCILLOR GREEN? >> READY FOR MOTION. OKAY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THAT PASSES, THANK YOU SO

[12.h. Second 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. Held at the dais at October 6, 2025 Council meeting.]

MUCH. >> I'LL HANG AROUND.

>> MOVING ON SECOND READING OF ORDER DNS D-2790, FIXING SALARIES APPOINTED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL FOR THE YEAR 2026. SPONSOR IS COUNSELOR TAYLOR. THIS WAS HELD AT THE DAIS. ZACH, DID YOU WANT TO PRESENT?

>> HAPPY TO, THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. JUST AS A REMINDER, YOU HAVE TWO SALARY ORDINANCES FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES IPFRONT T OF YOU TONIGHT. YOU HAVE THE REDO OF THE '25. CAN I INTERRUPT YOU? THEY BOTH SAY 26

ON THE AGENDA. >> EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 2026.

>> SORRY. YOUR OTHER ITEM IS UNDER NEW BUSINESS.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> CONTINUE.

>> WITH THE 2026 SALARY ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU, I WANT TO HIT SOME OF THE FINER POINTS HERE. AND AGAIN, THIS ONE USES THE CLEANED UPTIGHT USED LAST YEAR BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE CITY'S STEP AND GRADE SYSTEM INTO A RANGE IF YOU WILL, RANGES. IT DOES A FEW OTHER THINGS. THESE ARE THE THINGS WHY THERE IS AN A VERSION NOW OF THIS. THERE WERE SOME CLEANUP ON THE BIWEEKLY PAY FOR SWORN. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF POSITIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE MOVED BECAUSE OF HAD WE PROCEEDED WITH THE 2025 ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY ASSUMED, THERE WERE SOME EMPLOYEES THAT WERE GOING TO MOVE. SINCE THOSE CHANGES AREN'T HAPPENING, WE PUT THEM BACK. THOSE WERE TWO EMPLOYEES THAT WERE GOING TO GO DOWN ONE GRADE. NOW THOSE SALARIES DON'T FIT WITHIN THOSE GRADES SO WE KEPT THEM AS IS. IT INCLUDES -- THERE ARE TWOO ORGS PROPOSED, ONE TR STREET DEPARTMENT AND ONE FOR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. IT REFLECTS THE TITLE IN HERE. REINSERTS THE TITLE OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR AND REMOVES THE PROPOSED NEW TITLE OF EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS COORDINATOR AS THE INCUMBENT'S

[01:20:04]

>> QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? DOES THIS STILL INCLUDE POSITIONS FOR CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD REMAIN

VACANT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THOSE ARE BOTH IN THAT FIRST GROUPING AT THE TOP.

>> OKAY. I KNOW FINANCE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED WHETHER THOSE SHOULD BE REMOVED OR NOT. QUESTIONS?

>> I WANT T TO JUST KIND OF SECOND THAT SENTIMENT. THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT LEAVING A FEW OF THESE POSITIONS AVAILABLE. BUT I'M ALSO NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR ON WHAT CAN YOU FUND THEM I GUESS? THE CONCERN IS THAT MAYBE THERE IS A WINDFALL AND THE STATE UNSCREWS UP SENATE BILL 1 AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WANT TO HIRE SOMEONE BUWE ARE NOT SOLD ON THE POSITION, IS THERE A CHECKS AND BALANCE THERE OR DOES IT NODE TO

BE REMOVED? >> NEITHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUFFICIENT APPROPRIATIONS TODAY TO FILL THOSE ESPECIALLY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. ENGINEERING IS WHERE THE CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER WAS LOCATED. THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT DOLLARS THERE. WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR MORE

DOLLARS TO FILL THAT POSITION. >> BUT YOU COULD INTERNALLY PROMOTE SOMEONE FOR INSTANCE THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE DOLLARS? I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE BUT I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER, FOR INSTANCE, THAT POSITION WAS A REALLY SMART MOVE. IT JUST DIDN'T WORK OUT. IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BECOME A POSITION AGAIN I THINK WOULD TAKE A LOT OF THOUGHT ON WHO THAT PERSON COULD POSSIBLY BE OR WHAT THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I WILL SPEAK FOR MYSELF, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE MAYOR IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHIEF, PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION. EVERY TIME SHE IS TRAVELLING, SHE IS DOING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SO I QUESTION THAT ROLE ALTOGETHER, I DO. THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. I WILL LEAVE IT OPEN TO ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO MAKE COMMENTS.

>> COUNCILLOR WORRELL? >> I THINK IT IS A SMARTER MOVE TO ELIMINATE THE OPEN POSITIONS AND THEN WE DEAL WITH IT. MY MEMORY OF THE CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER IS THAT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO NEW MAYOR COMING IN TO KEEP EVERYBODY ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION MIGHT BE THE WAY I WOULD DESCRIBE IT. SO, BASED ON OUTSIDE FORCES, I WILL PUT IT THAT WAY. SO THAT'S JUST MY RECOLLECTION OF IT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE POSITIONS EELIMINATED. IF YOU DECIDE YOU HAVE A CANDIDATE, I WOULD RATHER US HAVE OPEN DISCUSSION AND TAKE CARE OF IT ON ECONOMIC AND CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE ANY -- COUNCILLOR?

>> I WOULD MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO DO TITLE OR LINE BUT TITLE CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

>> A SECOND? >> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE ONCE IT IS POPPED UP ON YOUR SCREEN. INTEREST. THIS PASSES 7-2. WE ARE NOW ACTING WITH THE AMENDED VERSION. DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION?

COUNCILLOR TAYLOR? >> I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS ORDINANCE DID NOT -- THIS IS NOT THE ORDINANCE THAT CAME TO FINANCE. WHAT CAME TO FINANCE ORIGINALLY WAS THE 25 ORDINANCE.

[01:25:04]

SENT BACK WITH THE NEGATIVE. >> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

WHAT I MEANT WAS THAT YOU EXPRESSED INTEREST ABOUT 25 THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE REEFLECTED IN 26 AS WELL. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE? COUNCILLOR

LOCKE? >> I JUST HAVE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROCESS OF THIS ORDINANCE. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT KIND OF AS A GROUP OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST MONTH T OR SO. I UNDERSTAND KIND OF LIKE THE UTILITY OF THE WAY WE RESHAPED IT FROM HOW IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE, WHERE THE POSITIONS WERE UNDER THE DIVISIONS BUT THAT OLD PROCESS ALLOWED US TO KIND OF SEE WHERE THEY WERE IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE DIVISIONS AS THEY STAND. WHEREAS NOW THAT WE HAVE GONE TO THIS BROADER PLATFORM OF NORMALIZING THINGS ACROSS THOSE DIVISIONS INTO THE BUCKETS, IT IS HARDER TO SEE WHERE THINGS ARE LANDING OUT. I SHARE THAT NOT AS FEEDBACK ON SPECIFIC ONES THIS YEAR BUT MORE INFORMATION I REQUESTED ON THE BACK END TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE TO PERFECT IT IN THE FUTURE. IT FEELS LIKE IT DISENFRANCHISES LIKE, THE DIVISIONS THEMSELVES, THE DEPARTMENTS FROM THE POSITIONS THEY HAVE WHICH MAY ULTIMATELY BE EASIER FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE BUT CREATES A LOT OF ISSUE FOR TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT PART-TIME. AND IN A CAPACITY WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A BUNCH OF HOURS TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS.

SHARING THAT AS FEEDBACK. ON THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE, I KNOW THIS WAS DIFFERENT. WE WERE GETTING INTO A REVIEW OF SALARIES AND WHAT PEOPLE'S JOB TITLES SHOULD BE OR COULD BE UNDER A NEW SCOPE. I HOPE THE LEARNING LESSON FOR ALL OF US IS EVERYONE EARLIER, EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR THE CITY CARES ABOUT THE CITY OR THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE. IT IS A PUBLIC SERVICE RELATED INDUSTRY.

WE ARE HERE AS EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY, NOT BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST JOB WE COULD FIND BUT BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING WE CARE ABOUT. I WANT TO ECHO SENTIMENTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT WE MISSED THE BALL ON HEARING THE VOICES FIRST THIS TIME. I THINK WE CAME AROUND TO IT TO ENSURE THAT THE VOICES WERE THERE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WILL ADVOCATE. BUT AS WE LOOK AT CHANGESTHAT MAY COME TO THE ORDINANCE MID STREAM OR REVIEW WHAT JOBS ARE AGAIN, I WANT TO BE FULLY COG NIZANT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE.

>> COUNCILLOR TAYLOR? >> JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT REAL QUICKLY, AND FORM MY VOTE AGAINST THE AMENDMENT. IF WE HAD AN EMPLOYEE HERE TODAY WHO WAS SERVING AS CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER, I'M SURE WE WOULD STILL WANT THAT EMPLOYEE DOING THAT, THAT EMPLOYEE WAS WITH THE CITY DOING THAT JOB. I THINK THAT EMPLOYEE DID A GREAT JOB AS CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER.

WHEN WE LOOK TOWARDS LONGTERM CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AND REPLACEMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY, I THINK THAT POSITION WILL EVENTUALLY BE NEEDED OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT POSITION BECAUSE OF LONGTERM DEFERRED MAINTENANCE WE WILL FACE AS A CITY AND ADDITIONAL MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. I DO AGREE WITH COUNSELOR SNYDER DEVELOPMENT HEAD FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL IS THE MAYOR AND CHIEF OF STAFF AND HENRY, THE REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN I'M SPLIT ON THIS. I'M FINE WITH REMOVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUT I THINK AT SOME POINT, FUNDING WITH THE ABILITY TO FUND IT TO HAVE THE CHIEF INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICER WOULD BE A GOOD POSITION TO

MAINTAIN. >> COUNCILLOR TAYLOR? I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING. THE ONE THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT IT WON'T BE HARD TO SWITCH IT BACK. IF THE MAYOR WON'T BE IN 2026 AS SHE ABLY - INDICATED. SHE TOLD US PUBLICLY, SHE HAD NO PLAN TO FILL THE POSITION THIS YEAR. BUT WHEN WE SEE HOW THE BUDGET COULD HOPEFULLY IMPROVE IN '27 OR MAYBE NOT, WE COULD MAKE THAT MOVE AND IT WON'T BE HARD TO ADD THESE POSITIONS BACK IN. I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME CREDIT TOO. I HAVE BEEN TOUGH ON YOU IN SOME MEETINGS BUT YOU REALLY DID COUNCIL FEEDBACK INTO THIS AND PUT A LOT OF FEEDBACK INTO THIS SO I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AND GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT AND THIS IS AFTER CONSULTING WITH CORPORATION COUNSEL, THERE WAS AN A VERSION IN YOUR PACKET

[01:30:04]

AMENDED THE NONA VERSION. >> WE HAVEN'T VOTED. WE

AMENDED. CAN WE CLARIFY THAT? >> PERHAPS YOU INSERT VERSION A AS A WHOLE INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ALREADY INTRODUCED? LEGAL? WHICH VERSION, I WILL ASK THIS LATER WHICH VERSIONS WE ARE ACTING ON. I BELIEVE WE ARE WUSHING OFF OF A, SO DO WE NEED

TO MAKE THAT CHANGE? >> SAMANTHA KARNS, CORPORATION COUNSEL. I KNOW THERE WAS A FOOT NOTE BUT I WOULD VOTE ON VERSION A TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S THE VERSION WITH THE ADDITIONAL

AMENDMENTS. . >> WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> WE ALREADY VOTED ON IT. >> I KNOW.

>> IF WE ARE READY TO PASS THIS, I WILL MAKE A -- NO. WE HAVE ALREADY VOTED ON THE AMENDMENT. THE AMENDED VERSION OF 2795 INTO 2790-25A. INCLOUDING ALL OF THE CHANGES THERE IN A BUT THE AMENDED VERSION OF 207090-25 THAT WE JUST PASSED.

>> SECOND. >> DOES THAT WORK CONSIDERING

YOU KNOW OUR INTENT HERE? >> YES.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, PLEASE VOTE AGAIN.

>> THIS ONE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, OKAY. COUNSELOR SNYDER, DO YOU

WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> I JUST WANT TO, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE PLACE BUT I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION. THERE HAS BEEN TWO THINGS. ONE, URBAN FORESTER, AND THE JOB TITLE IS NOT IN HERE . I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT ROLE. I HAVE NO COMMENTARY ON WHO FILLS THE POSITION. I THINK THE TITLE

NEEDS TO BE PUT IN HERE. >> IT IS IN THERE ALREADY? WAS IT MOVED WITH THE CHANGES IN DOCS? I WANT TOMAKE SURE IT IS IN THE RIGHT SPOT, WHERE YOU THINK THE BEST SPOT FOR IT IS.

>> THE WAY THESE ARE LISTED OUT TO THE POINT EARLIER, IT IS AN INVENTORY OF POSITIONS NOT NECESSARILY BY DEPARTMENT. I THINK IN THAT REGARD, I WOULD HAVE TO PHONE A FRIEND AS FAR AS

-- I THINK THE SALARY -- >> IT IS LINE 208.

>> THANK YOU. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET THAT DEEP BUT I HEARD SOME COMMENTARY ON FORESTER, DOES THIS FIT THE BILL?

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY. I HAVE VERSION A, I HAVE THAT UNDERLINED 211. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME

DOCUMENT. >> I DON'T HAVE 211. 211 FOR ME

IS BOLD NUMBER. >> OKAY. SO I THINK THAT VERSION

SHOULD SAY A. >> IT'S IN THERE, SAME SALARY

AS BEFORE. >> IT'S BEFORE 279-025 AND

THEN-A, IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE? >> IT ONLY SAYS A ON THE COVER

SHOAT. >>

>> REGARDLESS OF WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE

[01:35:02]

>> COUNCILLOR WORRELL? >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND. SO WE ARE WORKING ON, LATER IN THE AGENDA, EIGHT POSITIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED TO BE UNDERPAID.

ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE AWARE OF ADDITIONAL?

>> I WANT TO SAY I'M NOT AN EXPERT ENTHIS AT ALL SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DECLARATIVE STATEMENT. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE SOME JOB ROLES THAT I HAVE WITNESSED, I SEE PEOPLE DOING, HERE, AND THEN I SEE THEM DOING EITHER IN THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY OR EVEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE I THINK JUST BECAUSE THE DESCRIPTION IS DIFFERENT THEY HAVE A HIGHER HOURLY WAGE. I CANNOT COMPARE OUR BENEFITS VERSUS -- I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THAT. I ALSO CAN'T, HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH AND SAID WELL, THIS EMPLOYEE WERE HERE, HOW MUCH OF HIS WAGE IS GOING TO AN ASSOCIATION OR X. BUT ON THE SURFACE JUST COMPARING BASE

[01:40:05]

BUT, I DON'T WANT TOMAKE THAT AS LIKE A HARD LINE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE COMPARISONS. JUST PURE HOURLY RATE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT FURTHER.

>> HAPPY TO DO THAT WITH YOU LATER ON.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS BUT FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT EVEN IF IT IS PASSED TONIGHT CAN BE AMENDED AT A LATER DATE IF WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO ADJUST SOME POSITIONS. ABSOLUTELY.

COUNCILLOR LOCKE? >> JUST TO KIND OF DOUBLE DOWN ON WHAT I SAID EARLIER BASED ON COUNCILLOR SNYDER'S -- ONE OF MY ISSUES AS WE LOOK AT THIS IS THERE ARE CLEAR PATHS TO PLUSSING UP PEOPLE'S SALARIES THAT WERE IN A SFIFK SUBSET OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY, WHERE IT BE DEPARTMENT OR INDUSTRY OR, LIKE, HOW CONNECTED THEY ARE TO THE ADMINISTRATION VERSUS OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. IN THAT SAME CARE, DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ADDED TO THE PROCESS FOR THE OPERATIONAL SIDE. I SAY THAT IS JUST BASED ON THE WAY THIS CAME THROUGH. IT'S THE WAY WE GOT FEEDBACK FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUR PEOPLE IN THAT. I SAY THAT WITH THE INTENT OF SAYING, LET'S ADVOCATE ACROSS PLATFORMS, NOT JUST IN THE SILO OF THE BUILDING BUT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE PLOWER STREETS OR WATERING FLOWERS, DON'T HAVE TIME TO BE IN A SPREAD SHEET BUILDING NARRATIVES, THEY ARE OUT IN THE CITY DOING THE BUSINESS, THE SAME WAY WE ADVOCATE FOR PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING.

>> I WANT TOLET THAT GO BUT KRISTIE AND THE HR DEPARTMENT HAVE MET WITH NUMEROUS PEOPLE, ANY TIME THEY HAD A COMPLAINT, DIDN'T MATTER WHAT SHIRT THEY WORE, WHAT HOURS THEY WORK. IF THEY HAD A CONCERN, THEY WOULD SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THE SALARY AND MARKET STUDY AND COMPARABLES. I BELIEVE OUR TEAM WORKED VERY HARD AS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONCERNS WERE AND ADDRESSING THOSE WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL THAT WANTED TO COME FORWARD. IF WOE WANT T TO DIG IN THAT LATER IN 2026, WE CAN DOTHAT. BUT I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK WE TREATED ONE CLASS DIFFERETLY BASED ON CONCERNS BECAUSE WE DID NOT.

>> I APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE HERE BUT KNOW THE REASON WE HAD TO ADVOCATE FOR IT UP HERE IS BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE FEELS COMFORTABLE COMING TO HR IN EVERY CAPACITY. WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT, THIS IS CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT. THIS IS ABOUT DOING THINGS BETTER EVERY TIME WE DO IT. AND PROBABLY INCLUDING CONVERSATIONS LIKE THES. BUT WE ARE ALL DOING THIS FRESH. THERE ARE PEOPLE DOING THIS A LONG TIME, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE COMFORTABLE OR NOT IS SOMETHING THAT -- HAD THEY BEEN COMFORTABLE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS INCLUDING THIS ONE TODAY. I HEAR YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT URTEAM HAS DONE BUT KNOW THAT YOUR TEAM IS BROADER THAN THE TEAM THAT IS IN THIS BUILDING. AND THAT THEY ARE OUT THERE WORKING EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR US, THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY TO MAKE THIS CITY WONDERFUL JUST AS YOUR TEAM IS DOING IN THE BUILDING. THIS IS SOMETHING INFEEL COMPELLED TO TALK ABOUT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL ISSUES WITH IT. LET'S DO BETTER. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. LET'S MAKE IT BETTER EVERY

TIME. >> I WOULD SAY THAT TOO. WE ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT WAYS TO IMPROVE THE COMMUNICATION AND MAKE THINGS BETTER. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T WANT THE TONE TO COME OFF AS DISMISSIVE OF ANY OF THE WORK THAT THE STAFF IS DOING. JUST BECAUSE WE MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON IMPROVEMENTS, DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE TRASHING THEIR WORK PERFORMANCE. THE HELPFUL DIALOGUE IS IMPORTANT.

COUNCILLOR MINNAAR? >> OKAY ADAM, I WILL BRING SOMETHING UP AND DON'T STOP ME THIS TIME.

>> IS IT ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE? >> SORT OF. I GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF. IT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME. I WANT TO BRING IT BACK UP TO THE URBAN FORESTRY POSITION. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT T TO NOTE, I HAVE SAID THIS PRIVATELY, PUBLICLY, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE POSITION ITSELF. ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IS WHAT THE $50,000 CONTRACT WOULD DO

[01:45:02]

>> WE STILL HAVE TWO URBAN FORESTERS ON STAFF. ONE IS RUNNING A CREW AND IS AVAILABLE AND SPENT A LOT OOF TIME DOING THAT. CONSULTING DOLLARS WILL BE ABLE FOR PLAN REVIEW.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE AN AMENDED VERSION THAT YOU CAN VOTE ON. IF SOMEONE MAKES THE

MOTION. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> SECONDED.

>> WE HAVE MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE. ALL

[12.i. Second 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. Held at the dais at October 6, 2025 Council meeting. ]

HAVE ANY CONVERSATION? >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION? COUNCILLOR LOCKE?

>> I'M BRINGING IT UP AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SO BIZARRE THAT WE ARE HERE AGAIN ON THIS ORDINANCE TALKING ABOUT THE 3% COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT WE APPROVED FOR EVERYONE AFTER WE TRIED TO FIX THE ISSUE. I'M DOING IT BECAUSE IF I DON'T ADVOCATE FOR THE TWO PEOPLE, THE JUDGE AND THE CLERK, FOR AN UNDERING THAT WE TRIED TO FIX THIS POLITICAL THING THAT IS A POLITICAL THING ACROSS ALL PLATFORMS OF GOVERNMENT, ARBITRARILY FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN IT'S A REASON, THAN NOBODY WILL ADVOCATE FOR THEM. THEY CAN'T ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR WELL. I THINK WE SHOULD ADD A 3% FOR THE JUDGE AND THE CLERK. BECAUSE WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO AS A BODY TOGETHER LAST YEAR. AND THEN WE MADE A DECISION NOT TO. IF THE CLERK DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THAT, WE WOULD DO THAT. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO STAND ON THE PRINCIPLE OF WHT WE TRIED TO DO WHICH IS REMOVE POLITICS FOR THIS DECISION FOR THOSE TWO

PEOPLE. >> I WILL JUMP IN ROLLY QUICK. I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS. MY POSITION ON THIS SHOULD BE IT REALLY SHOULD BE EVERYONE IS GETTING THE COLA OR NO ONE IS GETTING THE COLA. PERSONALLY, IF IT PASSES, AND RECEIVED COST OF LIVING INCREASE BECAUSE OF ALL OF THIS, LIKE COUNCILLOR LOCKE SAID, POLITICS, I'M JUST GOING TO DONATE THE EXTRA MONEY. I'M NOT GOING TO KEEP IT. I DON'T WANT TO HOLD BACK FROM ANY COUNCILLOR WHO SAYS THEY WANT TO VOTE FOR THE COLA. I THINK THE WHOLE THING HAS BEEN POLITICIZED. I'M JUST GOING TO

VOTE NO ON THIS TONIGHT. >> THEY PUT THEIR BUDGETS IN AT SO WE JUST PULLED A NUMBER THROUGH.

>> I UNDERSTAND. YOU CAN AMEND IT AND SAY MAXIMUM AND YOU DECIDE WHAT THE SALARIES ARE, YOU CAN AMEND IT TO CHANGE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO PAY AS IT SITS RIGHT

NOW. >> SO SAY THAT AGAIN?

>> FOR THE JUDGE, CLERK, AND MAYOR, THE SALARIES WERE SET AT THESE LEVELS IN THE BUDGET. WHAT YOU SEE HERE --.

>> I'M NOT PROPOSING ANY AMENDMENT.

>> I'M SAYING THERE ARE OPTIONS HERE BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT LOCKE ADDRESSED. WHAT THEY SET IN THE BUDGET. I JUST WANT TO

[01:50:07]

MAKE THAT CLEAR. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS. COUNCILLOR

TAYLOR? >> THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN LAST YEAR'S BIWEEKLY SALARY ORDINANCE FOR 2025 IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S COLA AMOUNT? IF WE REALIZE THAT IF WE VOTE THIS ORDINANCE DOWN, THAT IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING FOR THE EXECUTIVES BECAUSE THEIR BIWEEKLY SALARY WILL BE THE SAME AS IT WAS LAST YEAR. AND THE ONLY THING WE WOULD DO IS TAKE AWAY OUR COLA WHICH WE COULD CHOOSE TO AMEND THIS ORDINANCE SO THE COMMON COUNCIL BIWEEKLY SALARY DOES NOT INCLUDE A COLA.

SO THOSE ARE TWO ACTIONS THAT WE CAN DO BUT THEY ALL ACCOMPLISH

THE SAME THINGS. >> OR WE AMEND IT TO SAY

EVERYONE GETS THE SAME THING. >> JUST BECAUSE WE PUT SOMETHING IN A SALARY ORDINANCE AS A BIWEEKLY SALARY COZ NOT MEAN THAT'S THE SALARY THEY END UP GETTING PAID. WE CAN CHANGE THE BIWEEKLY SALARY FOR THE MAYOR, JUDGE, AND CLERK TO INCREASE IT 3% ON THE ORDINANCE BUT THEY CAN STILL SET IN THE BUDGET, UNLESS THEY GO AND CHANGE IT, WE CAN'T INCREASE THE BUDGET. WE CAN SET WHATEVER SALARY WE WANT IN THE ORDINANCE BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN

THAT'S WHAT THEY WILL GET PAID. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING YOU NODE TO CHANGE TO SAY MAXIMUM SALARY. THAT'S FINE. THE OTHERS SAY THAT. THIS JUST SAYS BIWEEKLY AS SPECIFIC. SO THAT'S

AN OPTION. >> WE COULD CHANGE THE MAYOR, JUDGE, CLERK, THAT INCLUDES COLA THIS YEAR, THEY COULD STILL CHOOSE BASED ON THEIR BUDGET TO NOT TAKE THAT. SO WE ARE ARGUING OVER THIS BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SET THE SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR, JUDGE, AND CITY CLERK BASED ON THE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED TODAY. AND EVEN IF WE APPROVEDA HIGHERER BUDGET THAT ALLOWED THE 3%, SHE COULD STILL CHOOSE AS THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO NOT GIVE

THOSE ITEMS. >> WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE?

>> THAT'S MY POINT. >> THANKS. I GOT A QUESTION. WE HAD A DISCUSSION LAST YEAR TRYING TO TAKE POLITICS OUT OF THE SALARY STUFF. AND MAYBE IT WAS JUST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL I RECALL TRYING TO MATCH IF THE CITY EMPLOYEES GET A 3%, COUNCIL GETS 3% SO THERE IS NO DISCUSSION AT ALL. DID WE DO

THAT LAST YEAR? >> YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO AVOID THESE TYPES OF DEBATES OR CONVERSATIONS IN THE FUTURE. I THINK WHERE THAT GOT KIND OF DERAILED IS WE DIDN'T ENVISION A BUDGET SO TIGHT THIS YEAR THAT WE WOULD CHOOSE NOT TO GIVE INCREASES TO THE MAYOR'S SENIOR STAFF AS WELL AS THE MAYOR NOT ACCEPTING ONE ON HER OWN. SO NOW WE ARE IN THIS PICKLE WHERE WE NEED TO FIGURE

OUT HOW TO PROCEED. >> I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY

MOTION. >> TO APPROVE?

>> BUT I WILL MOVE TO AMEND IT SO THAT THE MAXIMUM SALARIES REFLECT THE SAME COLA RAISE THAT EVERYONE IN THE CITY GETS FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS WHICH I BELIEVE WAS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND PASSED LAST YEAR. AND THEN IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENTS TO DO WHAT THEY WISH. BUT TO COUNCILLOR LOCKE'S POINT, MOST PEOPLE UP HERE, I DON'T WANT TO KEEP HAVING THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE TRIED TO ELIMINATE THIS ONCE. AND I DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THE GOOD INTENTIONS BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S -- THIS ISN'T FAIR TO THE FUTURE PEOPLE OF CARMEL, NOT FAIR TO THE JUDGE, NOT TEAR TO THE CLERK. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS CONSISTENT IN THE SPIRIT WE DID AND PUT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO LAST YEAR. THE MOTION IS TO AMEND IT TO INCREASE SO EVERYBODY IS GETTING THE SAME COLA ACROSS THE BOARD WITHIN CITY.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER? >> I WILL SECOND THAT BUT I WILL ALSO JUST ADD THAT IT IS THAT DESIRE THAT WE AS THE ELECTED BODY HERE ALIGN OURSELVES WITH THE EMPLOYEES. YOU MADE A POINT LAST TIME WHEN WE SPOKE THAT YOU FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SHOW

[01:55:04]

WOULD SECOND THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. COUNCILLOR TAYLOR, DID YOU GET THE MOTION? THAT'S OKAY. COUNCILLOR SNYDER MADE A MOTION TO MAKE IT ALL 3%, ALL OF THE POSITIONS. IT WAS SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JOSHI. ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS?

>> I HAVE DONE THING MATH TO TELL YOU THE UPDATED NUMBERS.

>> IS THAT REQUIRED TO MAKE THE MOTION?

READ THOSE. >> FOR THE MAYOR, WE WOULD STRIKE THE EXISTING NUMBER AND REPLACE IT WITH 70 # 2.07. FOR THE JUDGE, WE WOULD STRIKE THAT NUMBER AND REPLACE WITH 6, 187.27. AND FOR THE CITY CLERK, WE WOULD STRIKE THAT AND REPLACE

WITH 5185.12. >> OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THOSE NUMBERS IN THE AMENDMENT?

>> MOVED. >> SECONDED.

>> THOSE NUMBERS ARE REFLECTED IN THE AMENDMENT. PLEASE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND. THAT PASSES, 8-1. ANY CONVERSATION?

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THAT PASSES 8-1. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE

[12.j. 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. Held at the dais at October 6, 2025 Council meeting. ]

>> I SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO COUNCIL ON THE EIGHTH A COUPLE OF DAYS AFFTHE LAST MEETING CLARIFYING THE POINT THAT COUNCILLOR TAYLOR MENTIONED. THIS IS ONCE THE DUST SETTLES, THIS IS WHAT WE WERE AIMING FOR. HAP TEE TO RESCIND THIS.

>> YOUR POINT IS IF THERE IS A DELTA, THIS RATE CAP RESOLUTION CAPS OUR TAX RATE AT CURRENT TAX RATE.

>> AT THE 7783, CORRECT. >> MOVE TO APPROVE MAXIMUM TAX

RATE FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL. >> SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE . THIS PASSES 9-0.

WE HAVE THE FINAL ITEM. BUT I WILL CALL A 5 MINUTE RECESS FIRST

>>> ALL RIGHT, WE RESUME. YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION ON

[12.d. Second 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. Held at the dais at October 6, 2025 Council meeting. ]

LET ME INTRODUCE IT. IT'S THE SECOND ORDINANCE READING OF D-2785-25, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA.

>> LET ME INTERJECT 1 MOMENT TO SAY ZACH IS PRESENTING WHAT WE CALL A COMPROMISED PROPOSAL.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT FOR ANYONE OF US, BUT IT DOES MOVE THE BALL FORWARD AND WE HOPE TONE THE'S PRESENTATION -- I KNOW WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT WE CAN GET THIS PASSED THIS EVENING. THANK YOU FOR THIS.

>> IT'S A SHORT PRESENTATION. 4 SLIDES INCLUDING THE COVER SLIDE, SO THE PROPOSED CHANGES WE HAVE HERE, AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, BASED ON FEEDBACK WE HAVE RECEIVED ON THE DAYIOUS OR ON THE EMAILS WE RECEIVED. STARTING AT THE TOP HERE, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THERE WAS THE

[02:00:02]

SO WITH THE ARTS GRANTS, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS ADDING 110 GRAND TO THAT NUMBER THAT'S IN THE BUDGET TODAY THAT WOULD BRING IT UP TO THE AMOUNT WE HAVE SPENT THIS YEAR.

ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE ARE PROPOSING ADDING 50,000 TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN CITY HALL STAFFING SECURITY AFTER- HOURS OR ADDING SECURITY AFTER- HOURS, AND THEN ON STREET DEPARTMENT, AND IT'S THEIR GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION, WE WOULD BE ADDING TO THE CITY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, ADDING 115,000 FOR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTS AS WELL AS 100,000 FOR CONCRETE REPAIRS. THE NEXT SLIDE I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU PROBABLY DOESN'T ADD MUCH -- THAT DOESN'T HELP MUCH BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SEE WHAT HAS WENT UP AND WHAT HAS WENT DOWN IN THIS VERSION, BUT IT REFLECTS THE CHANGES THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED ON THE PRIOR PAGE.

IT MIGHT SHOW UP A LITTLE BETTER IF I GO TO THE SURPLUS STATEMENT HERE. THE ONLY CHANGE REFLECTED ON HERE, THE -- YOU GO BACK TO THIS PAGE WE'RE PROPOSING DECREASING THINGS BY A TOTAL OF 425, BUT THE ADDITIONS HERE ADD UP TO 375, SO A DIFFERENCE OF 50 GRAND. IF YOU WILL RECALL PREVIOUSLY I WAS CALCULATING THE ANNUAL SURPLUS AT 692, AND BY LOWERING THE PROPOSED APPROPRIATIONS BY 50 GRAND, THE NET OF THAT OTHER PAGE, WE WOULD NOW BE SITTING AT AN ANNUAL SURPLUS OF $51,692 BASED UPON THE ESTIMATED REVENUES AND OUR APPROPRIATIONS WITH THE MODIFICATIONS I JUST MENTIONED.

>> ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE KIND OF GET TO THE LINE-BY- LINE GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET, WHICH I ASSUME WE WILL DO SOME. DO THE COUNSELLORS WANT TO MAKE OVER ALL STAGES. COUNCILMEMBER GREEN?

>> I APPRECIATE ALL THE CHANGES YOU MADE, NOT JUST THE 2 OF YOU BUT ALL OF YOUR STAFF. THANKS.

COUNCILMEMBER SNYDER?

>> A GENERAL QUESTION AS WE GET INTO THIS, ZACH, ARE YOU ABLE TO BRING THAT BACK UP?

>> YEAH.

>> IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR ESTIMATED SURPLUS MEANS, BECAUSE I THINK FOR 2025, IT WAS LIKE A

[02:05:02]

MY QUESTION IS, YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH AND ARE YOU THINKING OTHERS ARE GOING TO OVERSHOOT AND THAT'S WHY SOME OF THE ONES THAT LOOK LIKE THERE WILL BE A

SURPLUS -- >> YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT COUNCILMEMBER SNYDER. I THINK THE REVERSIONS WILL PROBABLY COME IN SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN WHAT I AM SHOWING HERE, A 1.5 UNDER SPEND HERE, BUT I DON'T HAVE A GOOD GUESS AS TO HOW MUCH MORE THEY MIGHT BE. I DON'T THINK WE ARE TALKING MORE -- I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 2 MILLION MORE OF REVERSIONS.

>> THAT'S MORE THAN A THOUSAND.

>> SORRY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SURPLUS.

>> THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ON THE

SAME PAGE. >> THE TOP SECTION IS THE REVENUES AND THE NEXT SECTION WITH THE EXPENSES, WE HAVE THE BUDGET THAT WAS PASSED FOR THIS YEAR OF THE 140 -- 3.9, PLUS WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THAT. THE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS THIS YEAR, I THINK WE ARE ON TRACK TO UNDER SPEND THOSE APPROPRIATIONS, GIVE BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND PROBABLY IN THE BALLPARK OF 1. 5 TO 2 MILLION.

WITH THOSE I THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE AT A STRUCTURAL SURPLUS FOR THE YEAR OF ABOUT $1200.

SOME OF THE DRIVING FACTORS THERE ARE CHANGES TO STATE LAW THIS YEAR ON HOW WE CAN USE DEPOSIT OUR FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX DOLLARS.

SO THAT WAS PART OF MY -- THAT 3.8 MILLION WAS PART OF MY ORIGINAL FORECAST, BUT I DID BACK IT OUT JUST BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A LAW CHANGE. HAD THAT LAW NOT CHANGED THAT 3.8 MILLION WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GENERAL FUND AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT A MUCH HIGHER SURPLUS FOR THE YEAR.

>> SO REALLY IT'S A $5.2 MILLION SURPLUS, AND YOU ARE SAYING THERE COULD BE ANOTHER 500,000, AND WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVE A WHOLE OTHER QUARTER LEFT, ROUGHLY.

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THINGS.

FIRST OFF, THE CUTS YOU PRESENTED HERE AND THE ADDITIONS, THAT'S ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE PACKET WHICH WE CAN VOTE ON SO WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS OR WE HAVE TO ADOPT AN MENDED

VERSION? >> I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT AN AMENDED VERSION.

>> YOU WOULD PROPOSE WE WOULD ADOPT THAT VERSION BEFORE WE MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL CUTS?

>> SOUNDS GOOD.

>> OKAY. JUST A FEW THINGS THAT I KNOW THE COUNCIL EXPRESSED IN MEETINGS, PRIME LIFE ENRICHMENT.

MAYOR, YOU AND I DISCUSSED THAT. I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE PLAN AND WHAT IS THE PLAN TO CONTINUE FUNDING

THEM? >> WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A LOCAL NONPROFIT TO HELP FUND THEM FOR THAT GAP ANDPERHAPS MORE, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS AVAILABLE. WE CALLED THE NONPROFIT AND THEY SAID THIS IS THE TYPE OF STUFF THEY LIKE TO FUND, AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO HELP LOW INCOME SENIORS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THEY HAD A CONVERSATION THIS WEEK SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS LET'S SEE IF THAT GOES THROUGH, AND IF NOT WE WILL COME TO YOU WITH AN APPROPRIATION NEXT YEAR.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE -- YOU SAID TO ME TODAY YOU WILL PURSUE THIS OTHER FUNDING FIRST.

IF THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, THAT WE WILL FIND A WAY FROM THE CITY BUDGET TO GET THEM THE MONEY. BUT WE SAY THAT, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WHAT AMOUNT ARE WE TALKING? 50,000 LIKE WE SAID

BEFORE? >> THAT WAS THE ITEM WE DISCUSSED AND THAT'S WHAT WE FUNDED THEM THIS YEAR, AND THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

>> JUST WANT TO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD, PRIME LIFE WILL RECEIVE THE FUNDING 1 WAY OR THE OTHER.

>> THERE ARE OTHER CALLS WE MADE OUT TO NON- PROFITS, AND I THINK THAT OPPORTUNITY EXISTS, BUT PROBABLY COULD NOT GET IT IN A 2-WEEKS TIME.

>> I UNDERSTAND. YOU DID NOT HAVE -- PEOPLE BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE DAIS, THE FOERSTER --

>> YES, WE HAVE STAFF AT CITY STREETS AND A CONTRACT FOR $50,000 FOR THE LANDSCAPING PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE DOCS BUDGET. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW THAT GOES, AND I THINK IT WILL GO FINE, BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT MID YEAR.

[02:10:01]

>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT BOTH CUTS THAT WE, OF COURSE, CAN MAKE, ONCE WE HAVE THE VERSION WE WANT TO ACT ON TO MAKE, AND WHEN IT COMES TO ADDITIONS, TIME TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH THE MAYOR TO SEE ABOUT THAT.

>> YEAH, WITH THE 2 URBAN FOERSTERS WE DO HAVE IN THE STREET DEPARTMENT, WILL THERE BE A GUARANTEE SOMEBODY WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE -- SOMEBODY FROM THE PUBLIC CALLS AND INSPECTIONS NEED TO BE DONE OR HAD, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING THAT THE CURRENT POSITION HAS BEEN DOING JUST

CONCURRENTLY? >> WE HAVE 2 -- SORRY, DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. WE HAVE 2 OF THOSE FORESTERS CURRENTLY, YES, HIS DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR SAYS HE WILL HANDLE THOSE CALLS AND DO THAT MOVING

FORWARD. >>

OKAY. >> MAYOR, YOU AND I HAVE ALSO HAD THIS CONVERSATION. I APPRECIATE YOU TALKING TO ME ABOUT IT. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND MY CONCERN.

I BELIEVE THAT THE -- THAT 1 OF THE THINGS THAT HELPED TO KEEP CARMEL VERY UNIQUE WAS THE FACT WE PAID ATTENTION TO TREES, AND THE STREET TREE PROGRAM. I HAVE HAD COUNTLESS INTERACTIONS EITHER TREES WHERE THERE WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT IT OR WHAT KIND SHOULD BE PUT IN.

I THINK COUNCIL TAYLOR WAS WORKING ALONG KEYSTONE, SO THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT POSITION FOR ME. MY QUESTION IS BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING AND WHAT I LOOKED INTO FROM MY -- WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT DOES THE REMAINING URBAN FORESTER DO RIGHT NOW ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS?

>> HE'S HELPING ANSWER THOSE CALLS FROM THE PUBLIC AND ASSISTING OTHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT -- OR EXCUSE ME, IN THE ORGANIZATION, AND ALSO OVERSEEING THE URBAN FORESTRY

CREW? >> ISN'T HE OUT THERE -- HE'S ON A CREW FOR THE STREET

DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? >> HE IS THE FOREMAN IN URBAN FORESTER, YES.

>> DOES HE DO OTHER DUTIES BESIDES JUST TRIMMING TREES OR

IS THAT ALL HE DOES RIGHT NOW? >> NO, LIKE I SAID, HE SUPPORTS THE URBAN FORESTRY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.

DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ABOUT THIS ROLE?

>> THE OLD 1 OR THE NEW 1?

>> THE 1 THAT HAS OVERSEENOVERSEEN IT.

>> THAT'S WHAT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO DO YOU KNOW -- AND HE HAS AN EDUCATION IN FORESTRY?

>> WELL, OUR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR FEELS COMFORTABLE IN THE ROLE, IN SUPPORTING YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE PUBLIC AND THE CREW THAT WORKS WITH HIM.

>> WE WILL BE ABLE TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND SAY MEET ME AT BROKEN TREE ON EASTWOOD?

>> YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS ON CUTS OR ADDITIONS? COUNSELOR SNYDER?

>> WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS UNAPPROPRIATED, OR DEFUNDED, OR THE POSITION, I SHOULD SAY, IS DEFUNDED, IS IT DIFFERENT IN HR'S EYES -- THERE'S NO PERFORMANCE PLANS, NO REVIEWS, NO PROCESS, LIKE IF YOU WERE TRYING TO BUILD A CASE TO TERMINATE SOMEBODY THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN JUST SAYING, HEY, THIS POSITION IS NO LONGER BEING FUNDED, IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT?

>> IT IS, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO THE HR DIRECTOR OR LEGAL, THERE'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS.

IF THE JOB GOES AWAY, THOSE STEPS DO NOT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED.

>> OKAY. I WAS UNSURE AND DID NOT KNOW.

>> I GOT A QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL THIS UP. THE MAYOR TOLD ME PRIOR TO THIS, THERE WAS GOING TO BE MOVING AND CHANGES FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUDGET, AND COULD YOU GO OVER THAT AND PULL THAT UP TO SEE WHERE THOSE DOLLARS WERE AND WHERE THEY ARE

GOING? >> $80,000, AND $10,000 WAS FOR ECONOMIC TRAVEL, AND 2 WAS FOR

[02:15:01]

>> THEY ARE BEING MOVED FROM 1 DEPARTMENT TO

ANOTHER? >> IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING IT WAS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THAT DIDN'T EXIST ANYMORE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT, DO WE PUT IT IN FINANCE, AND CRC IS PICKING UP DEVELOPMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND CAN TAKE ON THAT CAST. MOVING IT FROM 1 POCKET TO ANOTHER, MR. PRESIDENT.

>> THERE WERE LINE ITEMS FROM ONE ZONE TO THE CHAMBER.

THOSE HAVE GONE AWAY.

? >> YES, THOSE CONTRACTS FROM THE SERVICE, AND IT'S JUST MEMBERSHIP FEES.

>> GOT IT. MEMBERSHIP FOR ONE ZONE.

AND THE TRAVEL, WHY WOULD WE TAKE 10 GRAND -- YOU HAVE TRAVEL BUDGETS AND CRC HAS A TRAVEL BUDGET, SO WHY WOULD WE TAKE TRAVEL FROM ANOTHER DIRECTOR WHO NO LONGER EXISTS AND PUT IT INTO THE CRC?

>> FEEDBACK FROM OTHERS AND DISCUSSIONS FROM THE DIAS, AND IT WASN'T CONCERN ABOUT THE COST, IN ACT, ONE POINT, COUNCILMEMBER SNYDER SAID WE EXPECTED THAT TO HAPPEN, AND SO WE MOVED IT TO CRC WHO IS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT BUSINESS.

>> OKAY.

>> I DO HAVE MONEY BUDGETED IN MY MONEY FOR ME, AND I HAVE A BUCKET LARGE ENOUGH FOR TEN PEOPLE TO GO ON A TRIP.

>> AS I TOLD YOU IN YOUR OFFICE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, I DIDN'T ACCEPT A TRIP THIS YEAR BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE TRYING TO SAVE DOLLARS. I'M TRYING TO CUT DOLLARS FROM THE BUDGET.

BACK INTO NOT BEING SPENT, - SO WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE TOOK THAT 10 GRAND AND JUST SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO

SPEND IT? >> OVERALL, IT'S NOT A BIG AMOUNT.

>> NO.

>> AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO USE ALL MY DOLLARS THIS YEAR FOR TRAVEL FOR THE SAME REASON, AND THAT DOESN'T CAUSE ME HEARTBURN.

>> THANKS.

>> COULD ALWAYS COME BACK TO YOU IF I FEEL --

>> YES.

>> REMEMBERING THIS CONVERSATION, THIS WAS MORE THAT, AGAIN, TO THE POINT, THE COMMENT EARLIER THAT WITHOUT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, THE PERSON THAT SERVES AS THE PRIMARY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR THE CITY WAS THE MAYOR, AND WHAT THE COMMENT WAS IS THAT A NUMBER OFOF TALKED ABOUT IT, WAS INCREASING TRAVEL FOR HER, NICK AND HENRY TO BE ABLE TO GO ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- RELATED TRAVEL ONLY, SINCE THERE WAS NOT AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ANYMORE AND WE WERE SAVING THOSE COSTS, AND THAT'S WHY UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

>> ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, TOO, AND SORRY TO BRING UP THINGS. PEOPLE TALK OVER THINGS WITH YOU AND COUNSELORS, AND JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET TOWARDS A VOTE ON A BUDGET.

TALK ABOUT THE REASONING FROM LEGAL TO GO FROM -- WHY WAS 125 CHOSEN? I KNOW, SAY SOME COUNSELLORS HAVE ASKED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE HOW SOME OF THAT OUTSIDE LEGAL FEES ARE BEING SPENT, SO IF YOU HAVE EXPLANATION YOU KIND OF WANT TO GIVE ON THAT?

>> FIRST, AGAIN, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS A COMPROMISE, AND THERE WAS A CONCERN OF DOLLARS GOING UP IN THAT BUCKET, AND THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT HOW IT IS BEING SPENT, AND WE PROVIDED REDACTED INVOICES THAT SHOWS THE LAW FIRM BUT DOESN'T SHOW THE STRATEGY BASICALLY AND WHAT THE LAW FIRMS ARE EXACTLY DOING, BECAUSE EXECUTIVE HAS A PRIVILEGE IN THAT AND I'M NOT WILLING TO WAIVE IT.

>> WE ARE GOING TO RESPECTFULLY HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THINGS. SOME OF THE OUTSIDE LEGAL THINGS WERE THEY RELATED TO THE AFFILIATE

COMMITTEE? >> I PRESUME SO.

>> WHY WOULD THAT BE PROTECTED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IF RYAN IS THE CHAIR OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE MAJORITY OF THE SEATS.

>> I WANT TO REFER TO OUR ATTORNEY SO I DON'T SPEAK WRONG IN NONLEGAL TERMS.

>> ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS WERE DONE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND PROVIDED FOR THE AFFILIATE REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THAT WOULD STILL EXIST FOR THE MAYOR. THE WORK, I THINK YOU HAVE

[02:20:03]

>> THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AFFILIATE REVIEW COMMITTEE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS EXECUTIVE, BUT IT WAS A COMMITTEE VOTED ON BY THIS BODY.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, AT THE VERY LEAST, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS CREATED BY THE BODY AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR, IT WAS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN THE TWO.

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU -- DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHT ON THE SKEW TY PRIVILEGE THING? MAYBE WE COULD JUST KIND OF -- IF YOU WANT TO COME UP ON THIS.

I HATE TO PUT YOU IN A POSITION.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME TO HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT, AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BY SHARING THE PRIVILEGE IT CAN BE WAIVED. I THINK IN THE EXECUTIVES --

>> EVEN FOR A JOINT COMMITTEE CREATED BY THE BOTH BODIES?

>> YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ROLES AS THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BODY AND YOU HAVE DIFFERENT GOALS. WHILE YOU MAY HAVE SOME ALIGNED INTEREST IN THE JOIN IT VENTURE, THE RESULT OF THOSE MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE THE SAME. SO I MEAN, THERE'S DEFINITELY A POTENTIAL. YOU ARE SEPARATE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. WHAT THE MAYOR SAYS TO HER ATTORNEY, SHE IS PROTECTED FOR THE SAME REASON WHAT YOU SAY TO ME YOU WANT PROTECTED. SO THEIR POSITION IS SINCE THE INTERESTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY ALIGNED, THEY EACH HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION WITH THEIR COUNSEL.

>> IS IT THE SAME PRIVILEGE?

>> WHEN SHE'S ACTING AS YOUR F1 ATTORNEY, YES, ABSOLUTELY.

>> HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN YOU ARE ACTING AS OUR ATTORNEY AND WHEN YOU ARE ACTING AS THE MAYOR'S

ATTORNEY? >> I THINK WHEN YOU ARE COMING TO OUR OFFICEOFFICE ASKING FOR A LEGAL OPINION ON THINGS, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THAT LEGAL OPINION IS SOMETHING THAT YOU AS A COUNCIL ARE REQUESTING AND NOT SOMETHING THE MAYOR IS REQUESTING, AND IN THOSE INSTANCES THAT IS YOUR PRIVILEGE, AND AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD BE THE ONE TO BE ABLE TO WAIVE THAT OR NOT.

WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. IT'S A HARD POSITION TO BE IN.

>> JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, JUST LET ME KNOW -- BECAUSE WHEN I SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY, I ASSUME THE ATTORNEY WILL NOT TELL SOMEBODY ELSE.

COUNCILMEMBER GREEN?

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE BUDGET AND NOT GET INTO LEGISLATIVE --

>> COUNSELOR GREEN, I BRING IT UP BECAUSE WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE OUTSIDE LEGAL FEES WERE SPENT ON, AND THAT'S WHY THE QUESTION IS BEING ASKED, SO WE HAD REDACTED DOCUMENTS GIVEN TO US, AND IT WAS TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WAS APPROPRIATE.

>> HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO SPEND ON LEGAL FEES FROM THE COUNCIL? RIGHT NOW WE HAVE $150,000 ALLOTTED TO DENTON FOR THE INVESTIGATION THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 100 PLUS DAYS, AND WE HAVE NO REPORTS AND HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH IS BEING

SPENT? >> THAT WAS A DO NOT EXCEED.

>> STILL, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AND NOBODY KNOWS HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT OR WHAT THE STATUS IS IN OVER 90 DAYS.

>> WERE THEY IN THE CLAIMS MEETINGS?

>> DETAILS?

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO GIVE THEM TO YOU.

>> SO THE 475,000 THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING, I BELIEVE THE YEAR TO DATE SPENT IS 261,000. IS THAT ACCURATE, ZACH? LET'S ASSUME IT'S WITHIN A MARGIN OF ERROR.

I THINK THERE'S THE --

>> IT'S 244 IS WHEN WE RAN THIS REPORT, AND THEN IT WAS 260 WHEN I RAN IT TODAY.

>> OKAY. SO I THINK THERE'S -- THERE'S TWO TRAINS OF THOUGHT HERE.

ONE, THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL KIND OF TAKE IT TO ZERO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AND THERE'S THEN THE -- WHAT IS THE RIGHT NUMBER BEYOND THAT, AND I THINK THAT -- I DON'T THINK ANYBODY

[02:25:05]

SO I THINK -- THERE WILL BE FURTHER -- WE'LL KEEP TALKING AND I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING ABOUT IT TONIGHT, PERHAPS NOT ABOUT PRIVILEGE, BUT WHAT IS THE INTENT. WE WANT TO TAKE IT TO ZERO AND MAKE IT A THING WHERE -- THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, EXCUSE ME, HAS TO COME TO US TO JUSTIFY WHAT THEY ARE SPENDING MONEY ON OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR, OR DO WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE'S GOOD CAUSE FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND FIND OUT WHAT THE REAL NUMBER IS, AND IF IT'S 475, OKAY, JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT THERE, OR IS IT SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN? WHILE I SIDE -- I WOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF, REALLY, GIVEN THAT FOR INSTANCE, A LAW FIRM HAS NOT SUBMITTED A BILL SINCE JANUARY AND THAT RAISES SOME QUESTIONS, AND I THINK PEOPLE HAVE GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT, I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S PRUDENT THAT EVERY TIME THEY NEED TO GO AND HIRE A LAWYER, THEY WILL COME TO THE COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT PROBABLY IS FOR REASONS THAT WE DON'T WANT PUBLIC.

I MEAN, WE TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, BUT THERE ARE LEGAL THINGS WE JUST CAN'T HAVE PUBLIC, SO -- I WOULDN'T WANT TO SLOW THAT PROCESS DOWN.

IF THERE'S A -- IF THERE'S SOMEWHERE WE CAN MEET IN THE MIDDLE, AND AT SOME POINT THERE HAS GOT TO BE A SOLUTION TO THE INVOICE THING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ONE WE WILL EVER AGREE ON, BUT IT'S GOING TO KEEP COMING TO A HEAD, AND CLEARLY, LIKE IT IS TONIGHT, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO MY COLLEAGUES IS, IS IT PRACTICAL TO ZERO THIS OUT, AND IT WAS PROPOSED AND THEY CAME BACK WITH A REDUCTION, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CONDUCT THE NORMAL BUSINESS OF LEGALING, LAWYERING.

I GUESS BEFORE WE CONTINUE, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU GOT TO THE 475, AND IF THERE'S 261 NOW, AND THERE'S TWO MONTHS LEFT, HOW DID WE GET TO 475 AND SEE IF WE ACCEPT THAT, AND THEN -- IF WE DON'T REACH SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT, THIS CONVERSATION IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN PERPETUITY, AND MAYBE THAT'S OKAY, BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO IMPACT THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUDGET NECESSARILY, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

>> COUNSELOR -- THE CORPORATION COUNSEL, ARE YOU GOING TO

RESPOND? >> IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I BELIEVE THE 475 WAS BUILT AS A COMPROMISE, AND WE HAD ADDITIONAL MONEY, $100,000 THIS YEAR, AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER WE WOULD GET THAT MONEY TO BE HONEST, AND I THINK WE CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT IT.

AS YOU KNOW, LAWYERS BILL IN AU REARS, AND WE ARE WAITING ON BILLS COMING IN, SO THERE'S MONEY WE HAVE SPENT BUT DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS SO IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE 260 WHATEVER. WE ALSO DO HAVE PREVIOUS YEARS INCUMBERED WITH VARIOUS LAW FIRMS THAT WE DO USE, AND THAT WON'T BE FOREVER. THAT WILL GET USED UP. THAT MONEY RIGHT NOW, I THINK, HAS HELPED ON SOME OF THE BIGGER PIECES OF LITIGATION THAT HAS SPANNED SEVERAL YEARS, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT MONEY WON'T ALWAYS EXIST. 475 IS A REASONABLE NUMBER AND SOMETHING WE CAN LIVE WITH AND ALLOWS US TO CONTINUE BUSINESS AND TO YOUR POINT, COME BACK AND NOT HOLDING THINGS UP ALONG THE WAY AND I APPRECIATE YOU NOTING THAT, AND THAT'S A REASONABLE NUMBER WE CAN LIVE WITH.

>> COUNSEL --

>> I THINK WE GOT THERE. THANK YOU, MS. KARNS, FOR CLARIFYING THAT. FOR ME TO GET BACK WITH COUNSELOR GREEN, AND GET BACK TO THE BUDGET, AND IF IT'S MID OCTOBER AND YOU SPENT 260, AND LAST YEAR YOU BUDGETED 5 AND THIS YEAR YOU WANTED 6, I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT ARE YOU ANTICIPATING AND WHY WOULD YOU WANT AN EXTRA 100,000? SEEMS LIKE WE'RE NOT

[02:30:01]

THE CASE? >> I DON'T THINK ANY FIRMS ARE HOLDING SOMETHING OUT OF THEIR NORMAL COURSE.

>> WHAT IS NORMAL COURSE?

>> GENERALLY IT'S A MONTHLY BILLING CYCLE.

>> OKAY.

>> I WOULD HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE LAST MONTHS WERE THAT WE RECEIVED. I DON'T PERCEIVE WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER $260,000 FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR, BUT WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER HUGE PIECE OF LITIGATION COME IN OR TORT COME IN, AND WE DON'T KNOW.

>> BUT I WOULD KNOW THAT. I WOULD EXPECT WHEN I LOOK AT CLAIMS THERE WOULD NOT BE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BUILDING, AND IN THAT CASE -- I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WILL BE MASSIVE BILLINGS COMING IN, AND WE WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR, OBVIOUSLY, AND I DON'T EXPECT THAT TO BE MASSIVELY, AND IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS, WE INCUMBERED WHAT WAS LEFT TO USE AS AN INSURANCE POLICY, IF YOU WILL.

>> I GUESS IF THERE WAS A MASSIVE TORT CLAIM, BECAUSE ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE REDACTED, AND WE WOULDN'T KNOW THAT'S WHAT IT WAS BEING SPENT ON, YOU KNOW?

>> I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE BILLS THAT YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND, YOU WOULD DEFINITELY GET THE TOPIC.

THAT'S GENERALLY AT THE TOP. THEY HAVE SEPARATE BILLS FOR EACH VARIOUS MATTER THEY ARE WORKING ON. I THINK YOU COULD UNDERSTAND FROM THAT TOPIC, PLUS PIECING TOGETHER WHAT'S IN THE REDACTED BILLS, GENERALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING, YOU JUST DON'T GET THE STRATEGY.

>> COUNSELOR JOSHI.

>> I'M TRYING TO PROCESS THIS AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO HELP ME WITH THIS. NORMAL COURSE IS FOR MOST LEGAL FIRMS TO BILL MONTHLY, AND WE HAVE TWO MONTHS LEFT IN THE BUDGET AND YOU ARE AT 260, AND YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAVE MONEY INCUMBERD PREVIOUSLY, AND COULD YOU GIVE US HOW MUCH THAT IS? HOW DOES THAT ADD UP TO 475? I AM HAVING A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THAT IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT ABOUT THE MONTHLY BILLING CYCLE?

>> I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE AMOUNT WE HAVE LEFT INCUMBERED OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> ZACH, DO YOU KNOW?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE-CHECK. WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO IS TRY AND CLARIFY TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT CONFUSING A FEW DIFFERENT PIECES HERE.

THE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR WAS THE HALF MILLION.

WE HAVE SPENT HALF OF THAT. THERE ARE CLAIMS THAT WILL COME IN AT SOME POINT, AND WE WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO INCUMBER THOSE THIS YEAR SO THAT WE ARE NOT USING NOW NEXT YEAR'S MONEY TO PAY FOR EXPENSES FOR THIS YEAR. IN ADDITION, WHILE WE HAVE BEEN AGGRESSIVE ON CLOSING POS AND -- NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT WE WILL HAVE FROM LEGAL FEES FROM YEAR TO YEAR, WE WERE NOT AS AGGRESSIVE ON THE LEGAL FEES AS FAR AS CLOSING OLD POS THERE, JUST SO WE HAVE A RELEASE VALVE IF WE NEED IT.

I THINK THE INCREASE FROM 500 TO 600,000 THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR NEXT YEAR WAS CONTEMPLATING THAT AT SOME POINT FIRMS ARE GOING TO BE RAISING RATES AND THAT WILL BE PASSED ON TO US.

I THINK WHAT OUR COMPROMISE IS LOOKS AT, YES, OUR SPENDING AS NOT OCCURRED AT THE LEVEL MAYBE WE EXPECTED THIS YEAR, SO I THINK WE COULD GET BY WITH ONLY 475 FOR NEXT YEAR. THERE PROBABLY WILL BE SOME ENCUMBRANCES COMING.

>> AGAIN, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH UNTIL OCTOBER.

WE ARE AT 260. ARE YOU TELLING ME WE HAVE 200,000 WE ARE EXPECTING TO COME IN AND WE'RE BILLING MONTHLY, AND I JUST DON'T --

>> I DON'T KNOW IF 200,000 IS EXPECTED TO COME -- I DON'T KNOW THE VOLUME EXPECTED TO COME IN, BUT BASED UPON THE EARLIER CONVERSATION, THERE'S AT LEAST ONE FIRM THAT HASN'T BUILD FOR A WHILE AND WE WILL GET SOME BILL THERE. WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING

[02:35:01]

>> COUNSELOR LOCKE?

>> SURE. FOR ME THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A MEDIUM HOT- BUTTON ISSUE, BUT NOT FOR THE REASONS THAT ANYBODY PROBABLY THINKS IT IS, OTHER THAN IF YOU WATCHED ENOUGH, YOU KNOW I AM A BUREAUCRAT THAT LOVES CHECKS AND BALANCES. THIS SEEMS TO BE A UNIQUE CATEGORY OF SPENDING WHERE THERE'S A SECONDARY LEGAL PREMISE THAT STOPS US FROM GETTING THE INFORMATION IN OUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS APPROPRIATOR OF THE CITY, THE INFORMATION OF WHAT MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON. I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE AN ISSUE OUT OF PRIVILEGE. FOR ME THE ISSUE IS THE APPROPRIATOR OF MONEY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A $144 MILLION BUDGET, BUT IT'S $209 MILLION IF YOU ADD ALL THE OTHER FUNDS. WE TALKED IN BOUT THINGS, AND FOR SOME REASON, THIS CATEGORY, AND THE REASON IS IS PRIVILEGE AND THIS SEPARATION MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO KNOW WHAT IS BEING SPENT, SO THAT MEANS THE CHECK AND BALANCE OF PULLING THE RECORD AND LOOKING AT IT AND SEEING THE INVOICE IS NOT ENOUGH FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS IS GOING. FOR ME, I ASK FOR THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND DIFFERENT FORUMS,S AND THE MAYOR AND I HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT WORKING OUT A COMPROMISE, WHICH I PROMISE TO CONTINUE TO DO, CIFICALLY ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A SUBSET THAT I HAVE CONFIDENCE WHERE I KNOW WHAT WE ARE APPROPRIATING YOUR MONEY TO.

I WILL FIGHT TO GET TO A POINTPOINT KNOW I'M FILLING MY OBLIGATION AS THE IDUCIARY DUTY, AND WHEN I SEE THE CUT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE OFFICE, COOL, AND WHAT I AM LOOKING AT FOR ME, IS SOME WAY WE CAN ASSURE WE KNOWKNOW THE SERVICES ARE BEING PURCHASED FOR, AND WE HAVE ATTORNEYS THAT WORK ALL DAY WITH THE CITY AS THEIR CLIENT, THEY CRUSH IT.

GOT A REALLY GOOD PIECE OF FEEDBACK ON THE LEGAL SIDE TODAY ABOUT CRITTERS AND YARDS, AND THEY ARE WONDERFUL AT THEIR JOBS. BUT WHEN WE NEED TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR SPECIFIC THINGS, IT'S A DIFFERENT MATTER. AND FOR ME, IF WE CAN'T SEE THE BILLS, AND I PRESUME THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PUT BEFORE US, THEN THE ONLY WAY TO DO A CHECK AND BALANCE ON IF THAT MONEY IS BEING SPENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A NARROWED SCOPE FOR AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE THAT ALLOWS US TO KNOW WITH A REASONABLE SECURITY THAT WHATEVER THAT IS IS BEING SPENT ON THE THING IT'S BEING SPENT ON. WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE VERY BROAD ENGAGEMENT LETTERS, WHICH ARE GREAT FOR ATTORNEYS. YOU GET A LOT OF THINGS OUT OF THEM. AGAIN, THIS IS A CITY WITH A SOPHISTICATED LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT SHOULD BE DOING A MAJORITY OF THE WORK FOR THE CITY.

WHEN WE OUTSOURCE IT OUTSIDE, WE START TO CHANGE THAT DYNAMIC AND WE GET INTO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHO HAS PRIVILEGE WHERE OR WHO IS DOING WHAT.

WE ARE TRYING TO ACT AS THE CITY IN ONE FORMAL CAPACITY, AND THAT'S MY BOTTOM LINE. MY RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE WOULD BE LET'S TALK, LET'S FIGURE OUT A PATH AND KEEP LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN GET -- MAYBE IT'S ME, BUT HOPEFULLY THEN THE REST OF US AS CITY COUNCILLORS ARE COMFORTABLE IN HOW WE ARE APPROPRIATING THAT MONEY. IF WE CAN FIND A PATH, LET'S DO IT. TONIGHT I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO TAKE THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND PUT THEM INTO THE BUDGET, LOOK AT IT, TAKE A WEEK, TWO WEEKS.

WE HAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 3RD. WE HAVE A MEETING THAT NIGHT.

LET'S TALK AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING, AND IF WE CAN'T I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO TAKE THIS TO ZERO, AND THEN FIGURE OUT ANOTHER PATH. IF THERE'S ANOTHER WAY THROUGH WHERE WE CAN BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE, THAT WE CAN HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO PERFORM OUR CHECK AND BALANCE ON A UNIQUE LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET WHERE WE CAN'T GET ALL THE INFORMATION. EVERY OTHER LINE ITEM WE HAVE COME INTO CONTACT WITH WE CAN GET. IT'S TRULY BECAUSE OF THIS LEGAL ISSUE THAT WE CAN'T FOR THIS ONE, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE

[02:40:01]

I SAY THAT, AND I KNOW I SAID RECOMMENDED OUT LOUD THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO PASS THE BUDGET TONIGHT.

I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH MOVEMENT HERE, THERE'S ENOUGH KIND OF SOLIDARITY BETWEEN THE SIDES BASED ON WHERE WE COME AND WHERE WE ARE TO TAKE WHAT WE WILL APPROVE AS AN AMENDMENT, AND PUT IT ON FAVOR AND LOOK AT IT AND DISCUSS MORE AND FIGURE OUT A PATH OF THINGS OUTSTANDING LIKE THIS SPECIFIC ITEM, WHICH MAY NOT BE SOLVED BY NOVEMBER 3RD, BUT HAS TO BE SOLVED SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW, AGAIN, AS A CITY, WE DON'T HAVE A CLASS OF SPENDING THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SECONDARY OVERSIGHT MECHANISM WITHIN A GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S MY BOTTOM LINE. THAT'S ONE VOTE OF EIGHT.

I JUST REALLY GRAPPLE WITH THAT, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT GOVERNMENT IS BUILT ON THE ABILITY OF KEEPING EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE AND THAT'S WHY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. TO ME IT'S SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE FOR US TO FIND A PATH FORWARD IF WE ARE GOING TO RELY ON THE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENT AND THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT SEE BILLS FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THEN LET'S FIND ANOTHER PATH TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE.

SO THE '24 BUDGET HAD LEGAL FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL SPENT 390. IF YOU ADD THAT OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES SPENT THAT YEAR, YOUR APPROACHING $412,000.

I HAD ANOTHER -- I TRAVEL THE STATE OF INDIANA AND WORK WITH MUNICIPALITIES ALL OVER THE STATE, AND HAVE GOTTEN TO KNOW TED WHO SERVES AS I ATTORNEY, AND I UNDERSTOOD THE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENT AND I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THE MAYOR HAS, AND I AGREE WITH IT.

IF I WAS A MAYOR, I WOULD WANT THAT PRIVILEGE.

I KNOW THE PREVIOUS MAYOR ENSURED HE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT PRIVILEGE. WORKING WITH -- THAT'S WHY I WAS AN ADVOCATE EARLY ON THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE THEIR ATTORNEY AS WELL AND PREPARE OUR OWN ORDINANCES, SO WHEN WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A CONFLICT THE CORPORATION COMMISSION MAY HAVE, WE CAN GO TO OUR OLD COUNSEL.

THE QUESTION IS FOR THE COUNSELLORS THAT SERVED PRIOR TO THIS TERM, DID THEY SHARE THEIR CONCERNS PREVIOUSLY? IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WITH THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE BILLS? I KNOW THE PREVIOUS MAYOR MAINTAINED PRIVILEGE.

THERE WAS -- YOU KNOW, WHEN WE CAME INTO OFFICE, THERE WAS THREE MAJOR LAWSUITS THAT GOT SETTLED THE FIRST YEAR, SO I MEAN, IS THIS A NORMAL OCCURRENCE WITH COUNSEL MEMBERS BEING CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE EXACT DETAILED LINE ITEMS PER EACH INVOICE THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHED USED? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

>> SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WERE COMING FROM PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ON THE COUNCIL LAST TERM,

THOUGH? >> I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF COUNCILMEMBER LOCKE UNDERSTOOD HOW YOU GUYS LOOKED AT IT PREVIOUSLY WORKING WITH ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE?

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR COUNSEL LOCKE TO --

>> I DON'T THINK IT WOULD, BECAUSE I DON'T CARE. THE CONTEXT IS WONDERFUL TO KNOW, BUT THIS IS A THING THAT I IN MY TEN YEARS OF GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED, AND IF THERE'S NO CHECK AND BALANCE, IT'S A PROBLEM. IT'S MAYBE A ME THING AND MAYBE A HILL THAT I WILL DIE ON FOREVER. THE CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT CAN BE RUN IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WAY, AND IF IT NEEDS TO BEBE CLOSED, THERE'S ANOTHER PROCESS TO LET US KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING, AND THAT'S A DRAMATIC CHANGE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF GOVERNMENT. I CAN GUARANTEE IF I WAS HERE ONON AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENT MAYOR AND THE SAME THING WAS GOING ON, I WOULD ASK THE SAME QUESTION. IF IT WAS WORST UNDER THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, HOLY MOLY --

>> WELL, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NEVER SAID YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH EACH OF YOUR BILLS AND RELIEVE YOUR PRIVILEGE OR WE WILL NOT FUND --

>> IT'S NOT A CONVERSATION WE ARE GOING TO HAVE HERE, BUT IT'S THE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENT BEFORE US TODAY.

I FIRMLY BELIEVE ININ GOVERNMENT FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT REASONS. I'M NOT EVEN SAYING OR INSINUATING THERE'S NOT A REASON TO SPEND THIS MONEY.

I JUST, IN MY CAPACITY AS A CITY COUNCILLOR WHOSE JOB IT IS

[02:45:08]

AND THAT PATH MAY END UP BEING LET'S REQUEST AN APPROPRIATION FOR THINGS MOVING FORWARD.

WHICH THE MONEY IS NOT GONE, IT SITS IN THE GENERAL FUND AND IS READY TO BE PICKED UP WHENNESS FOR WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR OUR INSIDE COUNSEL.

I GET THAT. THAT'S THE DIFFERENT THING THAN THE LEGAL WORK OF OUR CITY.

>> I WILL CALL ON COUNSELOR SNYDER NEXT, AND I BROUGHT IT UP SO WE COULD WORK THROUGH THESE THINGS.

COUNSELOR LOCKE, CAN WE TALK THROUGH THIS TONIGHT? IS THERE A WAY WE CAN -- IS IT SOMETHING YOU THINK WE NEED TO TAKE TIME TO THINK ON, OR IS THERE SOMETHING WE COULD DISCUSS IT AS A BODY AND COME TO A

DECISION -- >> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IF WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE IT TONIGHT, WE ZERO IT OUT AND TALK ABOUT IT LATER. IF WE ARE MOVING IT TONIGHT, WE STILL HAVE AN AMENDED VERSION THAT WILL COME BACK.

I DON'T WHY IT NEEDS TO MOVE TONIGHT IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TALKING ABOUT IT, AND WE HAVE THE BUDGET ON SEPTEMBER 1ST. WE HAD TO WORK ON IT TOGETHER AS A GROUP, AND WE DID THE JOB AS THE PROCESS WHERE WE WERE ALL COMFORTABLE AND THAT TOOK ANOTHER SUBSET OF WEEKS, ANDAND THERE THE FINAL VERSION -- I THINK IT WAS OCTOBER 3RD OR 4 TH, AND WE ARE WORKING ON 19 DAYS WITH BACK AND FORTH INFORMATION WITH DRAMATIC CHANGES, AND THE ADDITION OF THAT IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

I FEEL LIKE A WEEK OR TWO TO TAKE WHAT WE HAVE TONIGHT TOGETHER IN SOLIDARITY AND SAY, DO WE WANT TO CUT THOSE OR DO WE WANT TO MOVE THEM BACK? IS IT WORTH THE DISCUSSION THERE? IT'S NOT BAD.

FORCING THINGS THROUGH IN ONE NIGHT WHEN WE CAN SLEEP ON IT A COUPLE TIMES AND COLLABORATE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A BAD STEP TO ME, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 3RD TO DO IT.

>> COUNSELOR SNYDER?

>> YOU KNOW, ANY HILL YOU DIE ON, I WILL BURY YOU AND I HOPE YOU WOULD DO THE SAME FOR ME, AND I'M NOT GOING TO WITH DRAW MY SUPPORT FOR YOU ON THIS, BUT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS. IF THIS IS VOTED ON TONIGHT OR TOMORROW OR IN TWO WEEKS, WELL -- WELL, WHATEVER, I -- I WANT TO GET PAST IT TONIGHT, SO IF THERE'S A MOTION, THEN MOVE AND LET'S JUST VOTE ON IT SO THEN IT'S THERE AND WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT THING, BECAUSE I AM NOT CONFIDENT THAT NEXT MONDAY OR THE FOLLOWING MONDAY THE NEEDLE IS GOING TO MOVE AT ALL ON THE PRIVILEGE ARGUMENT.

SO IF -- IF IT DOESN'T, THEN WE ARE BACK IN THE SAME POSITION. IF -- AS I SAID, I WILL SUPPORT YOU, BUT I -- PROCESS WISE, THERE HAS TO BE A MOTION SO WE CAN MOVE ON. IF YOU WANT TO AMEND, LET'S PRESENT IT.

>> COUNSELOR SNYDER, I WANT TO JUMP IN QUICK ON THIS.

WHAT I WANT TO SEE IF FIRST A MOTION TO WORK ON THE AMENDED MOTION THAT ZACH PRESENTED TONIGHT SO WE CAN START THERE.

>> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO AT LEAST START WITH THAT VERSION. COUNSELOR WORRELL?

>> THIS IS A MINOR DETAIL. ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ARE WE MOVING 80 GRAND INSTEAD OF 7070

GRAND? >> LET'S DO THAT.

>> YEP. >> I AGREE.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION FIRST TO ACCEPT IT, AND THEN WE WILL DO ANOTHER MOTION IN A SECOND, AND LET'S VOTE ON THE AMENDED TO ACCEPT THIS VERSION OF THE AMENDED BUDGET. OKAY.

SO AT LEAST WE MADE THIS PROGRESS. DO WE HAVE --

>> LET ME -- SORRY. WE GOT THE VOTE.

[02:50:02]

DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION, COUNSELOR

WORRELL? >> THAT THE -- WAS IT 90 TURNS INTO 80 --

>> YOU WANT TO BACK UP?

>> 80 TO 70. THANK YOU.

>> A MOTION FOR 80 TO 70 FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. SO AT LEAST WE HAVE GOT SOME STEPS FORWARD. COUNSELOR LOCKE?

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ZERO OUT THE LEGAL LINE ITEM FOR THE CORPORATION OF COUNSEL LAW BUDGET.

>> SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO INAPPROPRIATE THE LEGAL LINE ITEM, SO IT'S UNAPPROPRIATED IN THE BUDGET FOR OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL.

>> CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION.

>> YES.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT YOU ARE -- THAT THIS IS A PROCESS TO HAVE BETTER CLARITY OF PROBABLY NOT EXACTLY WHY BUT HOW MUCH IS GOING OUT THE DOOR, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS WHERE THE MAYOR -- OR A CORPORATION COUNSEL CAN FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THE COUNCIL WILL BE FAIR AND RESPONSIVE AND THEY CAN GET THEIR NEEDS MET?

>> CAN I --

>> YEP. CORRECT. AND I WILL TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER. I WILL SAY I WILL WORK WITH YOU THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO FIGURE OUT A PATH, AND IF WE GET THERE, I WILL -- WHICH I DON'T DO, I WILL SPONSOR THE ORDINANCE/PROCESS TO ADD IT BACK IN, IN A WAY IF WE FIND THAT PATH. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A BUREAUCRATIC STEP AND HOW WE ENSURE THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE SPENT.

>> OR TO APPROPRIATE --

>> I WANT TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION AS WELL, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO DO MATH. IF WE ALREADY SPENT THAT, WHY DO WE NEED TO GO TO ZERO --

>> THE NEXT YEAR. >> YOU WERE JUST SAYING WE WOULDN'T START WITH WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW WE ARE GOING TO SPEND BUT YOU WOULD START TOTALLY

FRESH? >> YEAH, SO IN THEORY WE COULD DEAPPROPRIATE THE MONEY FOR THIS YEAR, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE OUT STANDING RELATIONSHIPS AND I THINK THAT COULD BE USED AS THE TEST CASE TO GET THROUGH A PROCESS THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT BEING SAID, IF WE GOT TO A POINT AND I COULD BE COMFORTABLE AND THE REST EIGHT OF YOU COULD ALSO BE COMFORTABLE, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO REAPPROPRIATE THE LINE ITEM AT A FUTURE DAY TO MAKE SURE THE WORK IS NOT BEING HELD UP BY THE CITY LEGAL

DEPARTMENT. >> TO CLARIFY TO THE PUBLIC, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CUTTING THIS MONEY AND UNAPPROPRIATING MONEY FROM THE BUDGET, WHEN IT'S UNAPPROPRIATED, THE MONEY IS STILL THERE BUT NOT FOR A LINE ITEM. THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY LATER ON TO MOVE THE MONEY BACK INTO THE LINE ITEM. THE MONEY, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATED TO THAT LINE ITEM, BUT THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO, WITH MORE CONVERSATION, MOVE THE MONEY BACK IN. PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT TO PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN'T DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST A LAWSUIT, SO I SUPPORT REASONABLE REQUEST TO MOVE IT BACK IN, AND I THINK LEAVING IT AT ZEROZERO WOULD FOOLISH, AND IT IS AN INAPPROPRIATION AND NOT A CUT.

>> COUNSELOR GREEN?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE USING THIS FOR THE MAYOR TO USE AS A EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS.

IF IT GETS VOTED DOWN, THEN A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT CAN BE PUT FORTH, AND FRANKLY, I THINK WE NEED TO FIND OUT HOW THIS GOES.

>> ANY OTHER CONVERSATION, OR --

>> JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I WANT TO REMIND COUNCIL, TO THE EXTENT YOU WOULD COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND ADD TO THIS, THE LEAD TIME FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL OR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION, WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING AT LEAST A MONTH OR SO IN TERMS OF NOTICE AND EVERYTHING, SO.

>> COUNSELOR TAYLOR?

>> YEAH, I'M OKAY IF WE WANT TO RIGHT SIZE THIS BUDGET.

I THINK IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO ELIMINATE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO REACT QUICKLY TO A CLAIM OR LEGAL CONCERN.

THIS IS NOT JUST ADDRESSING A LAWSUIT, THIS IS -- THESE ARE LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT POP UP THAT ARE ESPECIALLY LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT POP UP ON A REGULAR BASIS THAT OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL NEEDS TO BE ENGAGED AND QUICKLY.

[02:55:04]

I AM OKAY IF THERE'S AN AMOUNT WE WANT TO LOWER IT TO, BUT IF WE WANT TO ZERO OUT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DEFEND LEGALLY, I CAN'T COMPREHEND IT.

TO BE REASONABLE ABOUT IT, I MEAN, THE SIMPLE FACT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PRIVILEGE IS WE HAD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND INFORMATION LEFT THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE MIDDLE OF A LAWSUIT THAT CAME FORWARD AND THEN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS INCLUDED IN IT. I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST ELIMINATING THE PROFESSIONAL FEES FROM THIS LINE ITEM.

>> COUNSEL LOCKE, IT'S YOUR MOTION, WOULD YOU CONSIDER AMENDING IT TO 260?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. LET'S VOTE ON WHAT I SAID AND GO FROM THERE.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, TRYING TO BE PATIENT HERE. I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK WE HAVE A SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE HERE.

THE EXECUTIVE BY STATUTE OVERSEES -- THE EXECUTIVE OVERSEES IT, AND CORPORATION COUNSEL'S POWERS ARE TO RUN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND SELECT OUTSIDE COUNSEL. ALL OF YOU CAN DO YOUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE YOU GET BILLS AND THEY HAVE A TOPIC AND A LAW FIRM ON THEM AND YOU APPROVE THE CLAIMS. IT'S NOT YOUR ROLE AS A CITY COUNCILLOR TO APPROVE WHAT WORKS GOES ON THE OUTSIDE CLAIM, EVER, AND THAT'S THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WE HAVE HERE. I KNOW OUT OF BEING A GOOD STEWART OF DOLLARS, IT'S NOT YOUR ROLE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS PARTICULAR MOTION, AND I WANT TO GET THIS ON THE RECORD.

>> COUNSELOR LOCKE?

>> THIS IS WHY IT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATED TO ZERO AND THEN APPROVED AS INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT COMES THROUGH.

THERE'S NOT A WAY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PAYMENTS ARE FOR WITHOUT A CHECK AND BALANCE. I SAY THAT'S AN EXTREME PATH AND MAYBE THERE'S ONE IN THE MIDDLE, AND MAYBE THERE'S ONE THAT IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE, BUT HERE WE ARE HASHING THIS OUT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON FROM THE BILLS THAT WE GET ON THIS LINE ITEM.

WHICH MAKES IT VERY HARD FOR ME TO APPROPRIATE, SO I -- THERE -- ALL RIGHT.

THE MOTION IS ZERO --

>> WHY IS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES FOR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DIFFERENT?

>> BECAUSE I CAN ASK FOR THAT AND SEE WHAT IS ON THE BILLS?

>> LET'S MAKE SURE I CALL ON PEOPLE, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO GET TOO HEATED. WE ALL, YOU KNOW, COUNSELOR GREEN, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY

SOMETHING? >> OH, NO, I'M VOTING.

>> COUNSELOR LOCKE, I SUPPORT THE SENTIMENT OF THE MOTION -- I WILL VOTE NO, BECAUSE ZERO IS TOO MUCH. SO GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. THE

MOTION FAILS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE SAME LINE ITEM TO $350,000.

>> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

>> THAT PASSES, 7-2. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS.

>> WE HAD TO GET THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT. I KNOW SOME COUNSELLORS WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE BIG ITEMS AND PEOPLE WANT TO GO LINE BY LINE THROUGH SMALLER THINGS.

I KNOW IT'S PAINFUL BUT IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. WE ARE OPENED UP FOR CERTAIN LINES YOU WANT TO CALL OUT, OR EVEN QUESTIONS.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I WANT TO JUMP TO THE MAC DEPARTMENT.

I HAD IN THE SPREADSHEET WE SUBMITTED -- I PROPOSED ZEROING OUT THE EVENTS LINE ITEM. I HAVE SINCE -- NOT BECAUSE I HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE EVENTS BUT BECAUSE I WANTED TOTO -- I DIDN'T THINK $663,000 WHERE IT SAYS EVENTS WAS AN APPROPRIATE LINE ITEM. IN AN EMAIL WE GOT LAST THURSDAY, THERE WAS A SPREADSHEET THAT ANSWERED

[03:00:04]

ONCE THAT WAS - SENT TO ME, I RESPONDED, THIS IS EXCELLENT AND COULD WE GET A QUARTERLY UPDATE ON THAT SPREADSHEET TO SEE IF WHAT WE ARE FORECASTING ALIGNS WITH WHAT'S BEING SPENT, SO WE JUST KNOW IF THERE IS ANY ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE YEAR OVER YEAR, AND SO MY CONCERNS WITH THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM, MINE HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.

ANOTHER ONE IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT, I PROPOSE ZEROING OUT THE OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES. THAT WAS $94,000, BECAUSE I HAD CONCERNS THAT -- AND THAT IS FOR OUR LOBBYIST, PEOPLE THAT LOBBY, SAY LEGISLATORS IN CONGRESS ON OUR BEHALF, AND THERE WERE CONCERNS WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS BEARING ANY FRUIT, AND I DID GET A RESPONSE, AND IF YOU WOULD, TALK ABOUT A SHIFT THAT HAS MADE MADE THERE.

>> SURE, WE HAVE TWO LOBBYING FIRMS THT WORK FOR US, ONE FOR THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND THAT WAS -- BOAR, OLIVER BARRY IS OUR CHIEF LOBBYIST THERE, AND WE HAVE A FIRM OUT OF D.C. OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, I THINK SINCE MARCH, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH BARNES AND THORNBURG BECAUSE MORGAN DOES FEDERAL LOBBYING AND LIVES HERE IN CARMEL, AND SO I LIKE THAT SOMEBODY THAT LIVES HERE RATHER THAN ON THE HILL IS THINKING ABOUT CARMEL EVERY DAY.

>> THERE IS STILL THE -- AND I -- THIS IS AT THIS POINT NUMBERS. THERE'S STILL THE OVERALL COST OF EMPLOYEES IN THE MAC DEPARTMENT.

A SPREADSHEET WAS SENT OUT -- WAS IT LAST -- THAT SPREADSHEET, WHEN DID THAT COME OUT?

>> IT WAS A WEEK AGO, PROBABLY.

>> I DID NOT -- IT REALLY -- FOR ME, IT CREATED MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERED, SO I STILL HAVE -- THIS ISN'T -- THIS IS A STATEMENT. I STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN MAC, AND THE FOLLOW- UP IS ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE HAD ASKED FOR, DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR HIM TO GO TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR STAY IN MAC, AND I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR COLLEAGUES' THOUGHTS ON THAT. I HAVE THROWN IT OUT THERE, AND I STILL THINK MAC IS OVER FUNDED TO SOME EXTEND, BUT I THINK IT'S STILL BECAUSE I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT.

THAT'S MY LEAD IN TO ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT MAC, AND THEN IF WE COULD MOVE ON BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE IN MAC.

>> SO WHAT DID YOU PUT IN THE SPREADSHEET? THERE'S BEEN SO MANY NUMBERS THROWN AROUND.

WHAT DID YOU PUT IN THE SPREADSHEET FOR PERSONNEL FOR

MAC? >> WHAT

DID I? >> UH-HUH.

>> I THINK I PUT IN -- I THINK I HALVED IT.

THAT WAS NOT BASED IN FACT. MY THOUGHT PROCESS WAS AT THE TIME, HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES IT TAKE TO DO COMMUNICATION, WHICH IS A CRITICAL PART OF CITY -- WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH PEOPLE, BOTH THE FUN STUFF AND THE BAD STUFF. BEYOND THAT, I WAS HOPING -- AND MUCH LIKE COUNSELOR E, I WAS HOPING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE OTHER MAC PROCESS, THE OTHER EVENTS AND MARKETING PIECE, AND DOES THAT NEED TO BE DONE BY MAC OR IS EVENTS MAYBE STANDALONE OR COULD BE ATTACHED SOMEWHERE ELSE? BUT THEN I DID CATCH MYSELF A LITTLE BIT, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE UNILATERALLY BE RESETTING DEPARTMENTS, BUT THESE ARE QUESTIONS I HAD BECAUSE I DO THINK THE INITIAL KIND OF

[03:05:02]

>> YES, ONE EMPLOYEE IS MOVING, AND HE'S HELPING WITH MARKETING AND IS MOVING TO STREETS.

>> THAT'S JUST MY GENERAL COMMENT. I KNOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS A VASTLY DIFFERENT OPINION, AND THAT'S OKAY.

THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS, AND THAT'S JUST WHY I THOUGHT -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY I.

IT WAS A COLLECTIVE KIND OF NUMBER, BUT REDUCED THAT, AND MOSTLY TO START A CONVERSATION AND FIND OUT WHAT IS REALLY CRITICAL TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? COUNSELOR SNYDER, YOU ARE NOT MAKING A MOTION --

>> NO, I'M HAVING A CONVERSATION. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS THINK. WE TALKED ABOUT IT ONE-ON- ONE IN DIFFERENT AREAS, AND NOW WE ARE ALTOGETHER AND IT'S THE ONLY LEGAL FORUM WE HAVE.

>> I WILL TELL YOU, PART OF THE REASON I PUSHED BACK ON THE EXPERIENCE IN CARAMEL MEL WAS DOING A MARKETING JOB, AND YOU SAW NUMBERS ABOUT HOW THEY WERE CREATING COST SAVINGS, AND EVENTS WERE STILL GOING ON, SO I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD PUSH FOR A DRASTIC CHANGE IN YOU ON WE ARE RUNNING OUR EVENTS AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WHILE MAYBE I THOUGHT WE -- USING CONTRACTORS INSTEAD OF IN- HOUSE WAS A BETTER STRATEGY, NOW THAT YOU BROUGHT IT IN- HOUSE, I'M NOT ADVOCATING ADVOCATING GET RID OF THOSE PEOPLE, SO I WOULD SAY WE CONTINUE WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR AT LEAST THE TIME BEING.

MAYOR? >> WE HAVE AN EMPLOYEE ALSO MOVING TO UTILITIES, AND WE HAVE, AGAIN, WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER WITH THE CLERK, IT WORKS FOR BOTH. HELPS THE CLERK WITH MEETINGS ALSO, AND HELPS THE PROGRAM WITH THE TOWN PLAZA AND DIFFERENT EVENTS, THE MARKETING TEAM.

WE ALSO HAVE A FINANCIAL PERSON WHO DID THAT FANTASTIC SPREADSHEET THAT WILL ALSO BE HELPING OUT, SO YES, WE HAVE TAKEN COSTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SEEING THERE NOW. I KNOW WE HAVE A DESIGNER, AND PEOPLE ASSUME THEY ARE ONLY DOING ADS, AND EVERY SIGN WE ARE DOING, THAT PERSON TOUCHES THOSE, AND THE DECK HAS DEVELOPED, AND THERE'S OTHER WORK DONE BY THE INDIVIDUAL AS WELL.

WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN COSTS OUT OF THIS AS WELL.

>> I WANT TO SAY THE DATA ENTRY WAS DONE ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, AND I HAVE LEARNED A LOT MORE -- STILL NOT ALL THE WAY THERE, BUT, AGAIN, IF PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE CONTINUING TO REFINE THINGS, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO -- I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE, BUT I HAD IT IN THERE FROM WHEN I INITIAL GOT IT AND I WANTED TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE, AND YOU ARE STILL MAKING CHANGES AND I THINK THAT'S THE WHOLE GOAL.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD -- I BELIEVE THAT APPROPRIATION FOR 25 FOR THE MAC DEPARTMENT IS 4.

2 MILLION, AND WE HAVE ALREADY TRIMMED IT BY A THIRD.

IT'S NOW 2. 8 MILLION. WE'VE BEEN PRETTY AGGRESSIVE WITH THIS BUDGET ALREADY.

>> YEAH, MAYBE SHARE WITH US SO EVERYBODY IS COMFORTABLE, WHO MIGHT BE HANGING IN HERE WITH US, WHAT CAUSED THE DRASTIC SAVINGS IN MAC, AND I WANT TO CONFIRM HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT?

>> 18 EMPLOYEES? 16 EMPLOYEES?

>> I BELIEVE MAC -- I MIGHT NEED TO PHONE A FRIEND. I BELIEVE THE HEAD COUNT IS 15 OR 16. I THINK AS WE ORIGINALLY MOVED THIS OVER TO EXPERIENCE CARMEL, IT WAS GOING TO BE -- A PORTION OF THIS WAS GOING TO COSTLESS THAN IT DOES TODAY.

AS WE MOVED IT BACK IN, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING AS WELL AS TAKING A MORE CRITICAL EYE TO THE EXPENSES, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO -- IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO RESTORE THE BUDGET BACK TO THE FULL 4.2.

WE CAME BACK AT 2. 8, WHICH IS RIGHT AT A THIRD OFF

[03:10:05]

>> IF IT IS 16, FOUR OF THOSE ARE LEAVING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE?

>> YEAH, IN A BUCKET, IT'S FOUR LEAVING, FOUR COMES, EIGHT EVENTS IN MARKETING.

>> EIGHT EVENT MANAGERS?

>> EIGHT IN THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT.

THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR , DESIGN, VIDEOGRAPHER, AND THEN FOUR COMES AND FOUR GOES ELSEWHERE.

>> ANY OTHER LINE ITEMS? ANY OTHER? ALL RIGHT. SO YOU CAN KEEP GOING? IF YOU JUAN WANT TO SPARK A CONVERSATION, YOU GO AHEAD --

>> THIS IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL ONE OR ANYTHING, BUT THERE'S THE LINE ITEM FOR GRANTS, DONATIONS, $91,000. SHOULD THIS BE IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE? I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE A FEW STEPS REMOVED FROM YOU MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT DONATIONS, AND MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- IT'S ORGANIZATION DONATIONS. IT'S LINE ITEM 10161 --

>> THAT'S THE MAC DEPARTMENT?

>> YES. >> THEY WILL PRESENT A PLAN TO ME AND I WILL APPROVE IT.

>> UNILATERAL? >> CORRECT.

I'LL BE HONEST. I COULD GO ON FOR THE NEXT TWO HOURS, BUT IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE --

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION

ON? >> NO, BECAUSE MOST OF THESE ARE JUST --

>> QUESTIONS? >> CLARIFICATIONS.

>> YEAH.

>> AND MY THOUGHT WAS, AND I WOULD SAY MOST OF THEM HAVE ALREADY BEEN CLARIFIED. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE -- THE ONES I HAD MAJOR CUTS TO HAVE -- WELL, OKAY, MARKETING AND VIDEO EQUIPMENT AND I THOUGHT WE ALREADY BOUGHT THIS SO I HAD IT ZEROED OUT?

>> WE ONLY BOUGHT A DIGITAL CAMERA THIS YEAR, AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S DOLLARS BUDGETED FOR NEXT YEAR THAT ARE SMALL.

>> COMMISSION SUPPORT?

>> THAT'S SUPPORT FOR THE THREE COMMISSIONS, THE VETERAN'S COMMISSION, AND THE SENIOR AND DISABILITY ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND I BELIEVE IT'S $10,000 EACH FOR A TOTAL OF 30.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WE HAD IT AT 45 AND BROUGHT IT BACK DOWN.

>> THAT'S SUPPORT FOR THEM?

>> TO USE ON THEIR VISION.

>> FOR MARKET FOR MAC?

>> FOR THE COMMISSION CHAIRS, WHEN WE DECIDE WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT IS WORTHY OF, YOU KNOW, TAXPAYER DOLLARS BEING SPENT ON IT, SO WHETHER WE NEED SUPPORT FOR THE SENIOR SEMINAR OR WHETHER YOU ARE PROVIDING SERVICES FOR OUR COMMUNITY, THAT'S FOR YOUR DISCRETION.

>> THAT WOULD BE ONE, IF WE ARE OUT HERE MAKING REQUESTS, THAT'S ONE I WOULD MAKE AN INCREASE TO, AND GIVING TO VETERANS, THAT'S RIGHT OVER $9,000 FOR THE YEAR, AND I WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO BE CUT SHORT AND THAT WOULD BE AN A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS, AND THAT WOULD BE --

>> WHEN IT COMES TO ADDITIONAL FUNDS, WE CAN'T MAKE THAT

MOTION. >> I'M JUST ASKING.

>> HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> WOULD YOU LIKE IT BACK UP TO 45,000 FOR THE LINE ITEM,

SIR? >> THIS YEAR, EACH COMMISSION GOT --

>> I THINK YOU'VE ADDED THE LEGAL FEES APPROPRIATELY, AND AGAIN, LIKE ANYTHING ELSE, LIKE IF YOU NEED MORE DOLLARS YOU CAN COME BACK AND REQUEST.

>> THAT, AND MAYOR, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MAKE A MOTION ON --

>> I WOULD ADVISE YOU --

>> HOW DO WE MAKE A MOTION TO INCREASE? CAN WE DO THAT?

OKAY. THEN I WOULD . >> SECOND?

[03:15:07]

>> SECOND. >> ANY CONVERSATION? PLEASE VOTE

WHEN IT POPS UP. >> MATT , I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE SISTER CITY LINE ITEM.

>> GO AHEAD. >> MISTER PRESIDENT, THE SISTER CITY LINE ITEM IN MARKETING , IS THAT FOR THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE SISTER CITIES?

>> WE'VE CUT THAT BACK THIS YEAR, AS WELL.

>> ANY OF THE COUNSELORS WANT TO BRING UP ANY TOPICS? MAYOR, YOU AND I TALKED EARLIER AND I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP, TOO. WE TALKED ABOUT EXPLORING THE ERP IN 2026. WE HAVE A POSITION THAT IS VACANT AT THE MOMENT. IS THAT IN FINANCE OR IT? IT? SO, ARE YOU GOING TO FILL THAT RIGHT AWAY OR WAIT TO SEE WHAT COUNCIL

DOES WITH THE ERP? >> AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO MOVE ON THAT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO FILL THAT POSITION IF WE DON'T HAVE SUPPORT FROM COUNCIL TO INVEST THOSE DOLLARS. I THINK WE HAVE SOME TIME TO CONTINUE TALKING ABOUT IT TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> IT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL. IF YOU ARE GIVING ME YOUR WORD THAT WE WON'T FILL IT THAT I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO ON APPROPRIATE THE MONEY UNLESS OTHERS FEEL DIFFERENT?

>> IT'S NOWHERE-- YOU MEAN FOR THE POSITION?

>> YES, WE DON'T NEED TO UNAPPROPRIATE THE DOLLARS IF YOU ARE GIVING YOUR WORD THAT WE WON'T HIRE UNTIL WE MAKE A DECISION ON THE ERP. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? ARE WE GETTING CLOSE TO A MOTION ON A BUDGET? COUNCILMEMBER LOCKE, HOW DO YOU

FEEL? >> DITTO EVERYTHING I SAID

EARLIER. >> OKAY OR --

>> COMES NUMBER AYERS? >> DO WE NEED ANOTHER MEETING? IF THAT'S NO OTHER ASK LET'S ASK IT.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE BUDGET.

>> SECOND? >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AS AMENDED, WE'VE GOT ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE NEED THERE? CONVERSATION? ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT BEFORE WE

PASS IT? >> THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM. I'M HAPPY TO CLARIFY. COUNCIL REDUCED THE TRAVEL DOLLARS THAT WERE 10 GRAND IN THE CRC BUDGET THAT WAS REMOVED OUT . WE DID HAVE 475 IN THE BUDGET FOR LEGAL FEES WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 125,000, TWO $50,000 -- TO $150,000 AND THEN THE H FOR COMMITTEE SUPPORT. I JUST WANT TO SAY TO YOU, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK ON COUNCIL ON THIS AND TWO THINGS I WANT TO ESPECIALLY POINT OUT IS YOUR WILLINGNESS TO FUND -- COMMISSION AND PUTTING AN EXTRA $110,000 PLUS BACK INTO THE ARTS FUND WHICH I KNOW WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE ARTS COMMUNITY SO THANK YOU FOR MAKING THOSE CHANGES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND WE CAN VOTE. COUNCILMEMBER LOCKE? OKAY, THIS PASSES 9 - 0.

>> WE HAVE A BUDGET. >> THANK YOU ALL. I APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK YOU'VE SPENT OF THE LAST MANY, WHEN HE WEEKS -- MANY WEEKS AND I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND I WANT TO SAY THANKS. ALSO FOR PASSING THIS THIS EVENING BECAUSE THIS IS A STRESSOR FOR OUR EMPLOYEES AS WELL AND WAITING ANOTHER TWO WEEKS UNTIL THE VERY LAST MINUTE, IT TAKES A LOT OF STRESS

OFF OF THEM. >> I THINK THIS IS STILL EARLIER THAN WE DID LAST YEAR. COUNCILMEMBER SNYDER GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT IF THIS IS A GOOD BUDGET , EVERYBODY UP HERE AND THE MAYOR SHOULD FEEL DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE

[03:20:02]

THAT'S THE SIGN OF A GOOD NEGOTIATION. EVERYBODY LEAVES NOT FEELING LIKE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED SO IF PEOPLE ARE FEELING UPSET I THINK THAT'S A NORMAL REACTION AND IT'S ONE THAT SHOWS SUCCESS AND THAT WE ALL INVESTED A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND EXPENDED A WHOLE LOT OF EMOTIONAL CAPITAL FOR 300,000 LINES OF DATA ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DAIS AND WE JUST APPROVED A BUDGET FOR THE PEOPLE OF CARMEL FOR 2026 WHICH IS AN INCREDIBLE FEAT WHICH WE SHOULD BE EXCITED ABOUT. SO THE FEELING OF ACHINESS THAT MAYBE WE DIDN'T GET WHAT WE WANTED INDIVIDUALLY SHOULD BE TRUMPED BY THE FACT THAT THE GREATEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES NOW HAS A BUDGET AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

>> THANK YOU. I FIRST I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE WE WERE GOING BUT WHEN WE FINALLY GOT THERE, I APPRECIATE IT. COUNSELOR LOCKE?

>> AND I WANT TO FOR THE RECORD, FULLY AGREE. I AM A HUMAN THAT IS GOOFY AND LOVES JOY AND MAKES INFINITY JOKES , SO THIS CHARACTER YOU SEE UP HERE THAT GETS VITRIOLIC ABOUT THESE THINGS, THIS IS LIKE MY WORK PERSONA TO ENSURE THAT MY FIDUCIARY DUTIES ARE BEING MET. I AM EXCITED ABOUT THE THINGS THAT WE GET TO DO IN THIS CITY. WE HAD AMAZING THINGS TWO HOURS AGO AND WE ARE TAKING CARE OF HOMES FROM 1832 THAT GET TO EXIST INTO PERPETUITY WHERE IT'S GOOD TO LOOK FOX'S IN THE EYES APPARENTLY. THERE IS SO MUCH AMAZING STUFF IN THIS BUDGET, OUTSIDE OF THIS BUDGET, IN THE FUTURE OF THIS, TOGETHER.

THIS IS THE ONLY LEGAL PLATFORM WE HAVE TO HAVE THESE FIGHTS UNLESS IT'S ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATIONS. WE HAVE A LOT OF THOSE, TOO SO I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW AS YOU WATCH THIS, ALL OF IT IS ABOUT CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT. IF YOU READ THINGS IN THE PAPER, IT'S ALL ABOUT IMPROVEMENT ON ALL FRONTS. BUT TOGETHER WE DO BETTER. THE KEY IS JUST ENSURING MOVING FORWARD, I DO HOPE WE GET BACK NOW THAT WE ARE THROUGH THE BUDGET, TO SOME JOY. BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT. THIS IS A HARD SEASON WITH EVERYONE -- EVERYTHING GOING ON AT THE STATE LEVEL IN THE LOCAL LEVEL, EVERYWHERE. THIS IS STILL THE GREATEST PLACE IN THE WORLD TO LIVE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT I SATIATED ON MY NEEDS FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES WHICH I WILL FIGHT UNTIL I DIED TO GET THEM

CHECKED AND BALANCED. >> I KNOW THAT IT'S GETTING HOT

[13.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2794-25; 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 2025; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Worrell, Aasen and Taylor]

PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE NONE. NEW BUSINESS, FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D - 2794 - 5 FIXING SALARIES OF APPOINTED OFFICERS IN THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA FOR THE YEAR 2025. SPONSORS ARE COUNSELORS WORRELL , AASEN AND TAYLOR.

>> ESTABLISHES THE 2025 -- I ALMOST HATE TO SAY THIS. THE 2025 MAXIMUM SALARIES FOR EMPLOYEES AT THE EXECUTIVE

BRANCH. >> SACK?

>> ANYBODY HAVE DÉJÀ VU? THIS ONE, IT IS THE 2025. THIS COMES OUT OF THE WORK THAT WE DID ON THE SALARY STUDY , SOME OF THOSE CHANGES, THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE FAILED AT THE LAST MEETING SO THIS IS THE REVISION THAT COUNSELOR WORRELL REQUESTED .

ESSENTIALLY, THE ONLY THING THIS ONE DOES IS THOSE 8 EMPLOYEES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS NEEDING TO BE MOVED UP ONE GRADE , IT TAKES CARE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES . AS WE'VE DISCUSSED THE GOAL WOULD BE TO MAKE THESE PAY CHANGES RETROACTIVE BACK TO JULY 1 . SO IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO CLEAN UP ALL OF THE TITLES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE 2026. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE GRADE, JUST THOSE 8 POSITIONS. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ASKED FOR AT THE LAST MEETING. QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT. FIRST OF ALL THANKS TO HUMAN RESOURCES , NICOLE AND HER TEAM FOR DOING THE WORK. THAT ACTUALLY MADE ME FEEL PRETTY GOOD THAT THERE WERE ONLY 8 THAT WERE MESSED UP SO I'M GLAD WE FOUND IT, AND THE FACT THAT THE MAYOR, HER ADMINISTRATION, ZACH, WERE WILLING TO GO BACK AND FIX. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS CAN BE

[03:25:03]

EMPLOYEES. >> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE FIRST READING.

>> SUSPEND THE RULES. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES, PLEASE VOTE. WE ARE ACTING ON

THE ORDINANCE. ANY MOTION? >> NOW MOVED.

>> SECOND. YOU CAN VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THESE SCREENS ARE TRICKY.

[13.b. First Reading of Ordinance D-2795-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing Public Areas of City Hall; Sponsor: Councilor Snyder. ]

>> EXCUSE ME. THIS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES PUBLIC AREAS OF CITY HALL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE INTENT OF THIS IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.

THERE'S CONVERSATION ABOUT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES AND WHATEVER NOMENCLATURE WE WANT TO USE, THAT THE MAYOR CONTROLS BEING BROUGHT IN INTO BUSINESS HOURS.

THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO THAT, BUT ON TOP OF JUST SECURING THAT THE PEOPLE'S BUILDING REMAINS THE PEOPLE'S BUILDING. THIS IS WHAT I TALKED ABOUT AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

SOMETIMES WE GET TRAPPED IN ONES AND ZEROS AND SOMETIMES WE GO TO THE OTHER STREAM AND GET A MOTION. I AM VERY EMOTIONAL ABOUT THIS AND I SPENT 13 HOURS WRITING THIS ORDINANCE AND SENT IT TO OUR ATTORNEY WHO I AM PROUD TO SAY ONLY MADE A FEW CORRECTIONS. BUT THE INTENT OF THIS IS, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SEPARATION OF POWERS AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR CORPORATION TALK ABOUT OVERREACH AGAIN , I BELIEVE, AND OUR COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT IT IS CLEAR STATE STATUTE THAT CITY COUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASSETS OF THE CITY INCLUDING-- PROPERTY.

THE OPERATIONS WITHIN IS 100% THE MAYOR'S PREROGATIVE. I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT OUR CITY HALL REMAINS AVAILABLE FOR CITY BUSINESS AT ANY TIME , I THINK IT'S AS REASONABLE, THAT IT IS NEEDED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. NOW I AM HOPING TED CAN SAY THAT A LITTLE MORE ELOQUENTLY AND I DON'T THINK -- I WILL SAY PURELY BY WHAT THE MAYOR INTRODUCED IN HER BUDGET BY ADDING SECURITY , SHE TENDS TO AGREE TO SOME EXTENT WITH THIS , BUT I AM NOT SURE NOW . I STILL WANT THIS FOR PERPETUITY, FOR THE FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE, BUT IF THERE'S MORE WE CAN DO TO MASSAGE THIS I WILL NOT GET HUNG UP IF IT DOESN'T APPROVE TONIGHT. BUT IF YOU COULD AT LEAST DISCUSS WHAT WE'VE GOT.

>> SO YOU'VE EXPLAINED WHAT THIS DOES. BETTER? THANK YOU COUNSELOR SNYDER FOR PREPARING THIS ORDINANCE INITIALLY. I'VE ACTUALLY CIRCULATED AN AMENDED VERSION TO EVERYONE INCLUDING THE MAYOR AND THE CLERK AND CORPORATION COUNCIL . AS MISTER SNYDER SAID, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT CITY HALL IS OPEN AND THE PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS ARE OPEN WHEN PUBLIC BUSINESS OR CIVIC ACTIVITIES ARE BEING HELD. MY ADDITION GIVES A LITTLE MORE TEETH TO IT AND BASICALLY STATES THAT IF A COUNCIL OR A COMMITTEE OR AN AUTHORIZED BOARD OR A DEPARTMENT OR COMMISSION OF THE CITY SCHEDULES A MEETING, CITY HALL SHALL BE OPEN DURING THAT TIME AND IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN AN EXECUTIVE'S PURVIEW TO OPERATE THE BUILDING. IT IS NOT WITHIN EXECUTIVE PER YOU TO SCHEDULE BZA OR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. THOSE INDIVIDUALS FOR DETERMINATION. MY VISION WAS TO CLEAN THAT UP

[03:30:06]

>> I APPRECIATE THAT SAYING THAT IF IT NEEDS TO GO TO COMMITTEE IT CAN. IT IS ONE PAGE WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, SO IF I AM SUMMARIZING THIS CORRECTLY, THIS DOES NOT SAY THAT MEETINGS HAVE TO BE IN THE EVENING WERE DURING THE DAY. THAT IS STILL UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL BODIES THEMSELVES TO DECIDE. FOR EXAMPLE THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD VOTE TO MOVE THEIR MEETINGS IN THE EVENING AND THAT IS UP TO THE BODY BUT WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAYS WE WANT TO HAVE OUR MEETINGS AT NIGHT, ANY MAYOR, CAN'T LOCK THE DOORS AND SAY NO YOU CANNOT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. COUNSELOR WORRELL?

>> MAYBE THIS IS TO COUNSELOR SNYDER. THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DISCONTINUE USE OF THE CAUCUS ROOM FOR SAFETY AND MAYBE I SHOULD BE ASKING THE POLICE CHIEF BUT I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CAUCUS ROOM WITH TWO DOORS AND A HALLWAY AND THE LIBRARY WHERE YOU HOLD YOUR MEETINGS? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND, IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO INCLUDE CAUCUS ROOM. SOMEHOW WE BE ABLE TO UTILIZE A PERFECTLY GREAT MEETING ROOM AND ADDRESS

SECURITY? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE SECURITY ALTHOUGH I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. THIS DOES, I BELIEVE, CALLOUT-- OR AT LEAST THE ONE THAT I WROTE, CALLS OUT THE CAUCUS ROOM. THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON I WANTED TO MAY BE HESITATE ON THIS BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE REDEFINED AND THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT GO JUST BEYOND THE USAGE AND THE ROOM ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MAYBE THE CAUCUS ROOM GETS SOME OF THE DECORATIONS THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON JUST HAVEN'T BEEN PUT UP. MAYBE IT CAN GO THERE AND IT CAN BECOME

MORE OF A UTILIZED SPACE. >> MATT YOU ACTUALLY HAD WRITTEN A COMPANION RESOLUTION TONIGHT . WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS STATE THAT COUNCIL CAN DETERMINE BY RESOLUTION WHICH OF THOSE AREAS SHOULD REMAIN OPEN IN THE FUTURE SO CONSIDERING-- JUST THE ORDINANCE, IF THIS PASSES YOU CAN CONSIDER RESOLUTION.

>> IN SECTION 2 YOU TO FIND SOME OF THOSE PUBLIC AREAS, MEETING ROOMS NOT LOCATED OR CONNECTED. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S WRITTEN IN A WAY WHERE IT COULD INCLUDE THAT ALREADY, CORRECT?

>> YES, NOT AS SPECIFIC AS THE RESOLUTION.

>> MAYOR, YOU TALKED ABOUT , I KNOW THAT YOU PUT MONEY INTO SECURITY AND WHAT'S THE STRATEGY GOING FORWARD FOR SOME

OF THESE MEETINGS? >> WE HAVEN'T TOTALLY BAKED THAT. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING, BUT TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BEST PLAN IS. I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING THING THAT COUNCILMEMBER WORRELL ASKED. THE CAUCUS ROOM WHEN WE'VE HAD REALLY BUSY MEETINGS PEOPLE ARE PACKED IN , AND SOMETIMES THERE'S NOT EVEN SEPARATION BETWEEN PEOPLE AT THE TABLE AND SOMEONE STANDING BEHIND THEM. AND ALSO SOMETIMES THE STAIRWAY BEING BLOCKED, THE CHAIRS BEING IN THE HALLWAY. THE DISCUSSION WAS LET'S NOT HOLD THOSE KINDS OF MEETINGS THERE.

LET'S HOLD THEM IN CHAMBERS WHERE THERE IS MORE PROTECTIVE SITUATION HERE . BUT WE WANT TO HAVE AN ARMED OFFICER AVAILABLE IN THE BUILDING WHEN MEETINGS ARE OCCURRING. I THINK I MENTIONED IN AN EMAIL TO SOME IF NOT ALL OF YOU, I LEFT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. DARK OUTSIDE, MEETING WENT ON UP HERE, NO ONE IN THE LOBBY. IT WAS JUST NOT A SAVE SITUATION GIVEN TODAY'S CLIMATE AND ANYWHERE THERE IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL EVERYONE AROUND THEM IS AT A HIGHER RISK SO I FEEL THE FIRST AND FOREMOST ISSUE IS TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY AND THAT MEANS INSIDE CITY HALL, AS WELL.

WITH THE ADDITIOAL DOLLARS THAT WE MOVED OVER , THAT ALLOWS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF WHEN THE OFFICERS ARE AVAILABLE. I THINK THE PROCESS WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HERE IS THAT WE DO HAVE A PROCESS BY WHICH COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAN REQUEST USE OF THESE ROOMS JUST LIKE THEY CAN REQUEST MIDTOWN PLAZA OR CARTER GREEN OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CAREFUL ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AS WELL. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WANTING TO USE THE CAUCUS ROOM OR CITY HALL CHAMBERS GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THAT WOULD ALSO ALLOW US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SCHEDULE AN OFFICE ROOM. SO WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH A FEW OF THESE THINGS BUT THAT IS IN MY HEAD RIGHT NOW.

>> TO YOU HAVE OPPOSITION TO THIS ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US?

[03:35:02]

>> HOLY NOT, SOME DETAILS LIKE WE HAVE TO HAVE A DEFINED LEADER. I THINK WE ALL SHARE THE SAME SENTIMENT THAT WE WANT OUR COMMUNITY TO USE THIS. I DON'T WANT IT JUST OPEN WITHOUT SECURITY. IN AN ENVIRONMENT , REVENUE STRAINED ENVIRONMENT TRYING TO SAVE DOLLARS, I THINK IT WAS COUNSELOR TAYLOR WHO SAID MAYBE THERE ARE TIMES WE CAN HAVE ONE MEETING AT THE CAUCUS AND ONE HERE. I THINK WE WILL PROBABLY FIND A COUPLE OF THINGS ARE WE CAN SAVE WE SHOULD PROBABLY AMEND THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THIS THIS IS NOT FIT BUT WE MAY NOT KNOW THAT UNTIL WE GO

FORWARD. >> I FULLY FAVOR THE CONCEPT OF THE ORDINANCE AND MUCH OF WHAT COUNSELOR SNYDER SAID BUT I WILL BE VOTING TO SUSPEND THE RULES TONIGHT.

>> WELL THAT ANSWERS THAT. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. SO THAT BEING SAID DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'M GOING TO SEND IT TO LAND USE BECAUSE THEY OFFERED THIS , IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WE

[13.c. First Reading of Ordinance D-2796-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Carmel City Code Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 3-58, Chapter 6, Article 4, Section 6 63, Chapter 8, Article 4, Sections 8-40 and 8-41, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-46, and Adding Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-44; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder, Ayers, Joshi and Minnaar.]

MOVING ON TO OUR LAST ITEM OF THE EVENING , FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D - 2736 AMENDING CODE CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 2 , CHAPTER 6 ARTICLE 4 SECTION 663 , CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 8 ARTICLE 5 SECTION 8 - 46 AND ADDING CHAPTER 8 ARTICLE 4 SECTION 8 - 44. SPONSORS ARE COUNSELORS SNYDER, AYERS, JOSHI AND MINNAAR. MOTION? SECOND. I WILL LET YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS.

>> THANK YOU MISTER PRESIDENT. THIS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES REGULATIONS OF THE USE OF MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES WITHIN THE CITY

OF CARMEL. >> SO I TALKED WITH COUNSELOR SNYDER WHO IS , THEY SAID THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO BACK FOR SOME CHANGES AND I KNOW WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE. I'M GOING TO READ KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE HERE AS WE

MOVE FORWARD. >> AND WE GOT OUR FIRST MISTAKE CALLED OUT TODAY SO MUCH APPRECIATED .

>> WE LOST HIM. I DON'T BLAME HIM. WHAT WE REALLY WANT IS NOW THAT WE'VE GOT A DOCUMENT WE CAN WRITE ON AND EDIT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER PASS AT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. EARLIER I SAID THE NEXT MEETING WAS AT THE LIBRARY. IT IS THE ONE DATE OF THE ENTIRE YEAR THE LIBRARY COULD NOT ACCOMMODATE US SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK FOR ANOTHER LEGAL NOTICE ONCE WE FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE HAVING THE MEETING BUT IT WILL BE NOVEMBER 5 AT 5 :30 AT A LOCATION YET TO BE DETERMINED.

REALLY PROUD OF WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN ON THIS AND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY INPUT AND PROFESSIONAL INPUT ESPECIALLY THE POLICE CHIEF AND THE FIRE CHIEF NOW THAT YOU STARTED IMPLEMENTING SOME THINGS, WHAT HAVE BEEN WORKING IN WHAT HAS IN. IF YOU ALL ARE AVAILABLE I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE

YOU THERE. >> COUNSELOR TAYLOR?

>> GREAT WORK ON THIS COMMITTEE SO FAR. ONE THING I WOULD ASK IF POSSIBLE IS ONE ITEM I AND VERY -- I AM VERY IN PARTICULAR INTERESTED IN IS A HELMET USED FOR MINORS. LAW ENFORCEMENT ALSO SEES THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO STOP A MINOR ON A MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE THAT OTHERWISE THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TELL WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LEGAL. LET'S SAY AN ELECTRIC DIRTBIKE BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A CLASS II OR WHATEVER YOU BIKE . IT'S AS FAST AS THAT.

YOU DON'T KNOW BY LOOKING AT IT, IT MAY HAVE FAKE PETALS ON IT ET CETERA. IF THEY ARE NOT USING A HELMET, USE IT AS AN EXCUSE TO STOP THE MINOR AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. WE ALSO MAY WANT TO LOOK AT TYPE OF HELMET USE AND WHAT THEY ARE SEEING ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE TYPICAL BICYCLE HELMET MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR WHEN YOU ARE USING A MUCH FASTER TASH IF THEY ARE BANNED COMPLETELY THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE BUT THE HELMET USE IS A BIG THING AND I WORRY THAT I GUESS IT'S GETTING COLDER, BUT I WORRY THAT IMPLEMENTING SOME KIND OF ORDINANCE MAY NOT BE IN TIME SO I WAS ALMOST ABOUT TO REACH OUT --

>> IT IS IN THERE. >> WHAT I'M SAYING IS I HAD REACHED OUT TO HIM EARLIER ABOUT PULLING THIS OUT AND DOING THIS SEPARATELY TO GET IT IN PLACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO I KNOW THAT IT'S THERE, SERGEI CONFIRMED IT TO ME AND I AM LOOKING AT IT

[03:40:02]

GOING TO SAVE PEOPLE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THIS WILL

[15. OTHER BUSINESS]

[16. ANNOUNCEMENTS ]

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY A CONGRATULATIONS TO JACOB QUINN AND HIS FAMILY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.