11.j.Finance Department Budget Update (Quarterly – April, July, October, January (for the 4th quarter of the previous year))

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

MOVING ONTO OLD BUSINESS. WE HAVE THE 18TH READING OF ORDINANCE D 2762-25, COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL , INDIANA, ARTICLE FIVE SECTION 837 AND 847 OR 848, CARMEL CITY

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

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

WE HAVE THE 13 TO READ OF ORDINANCE 77-22 FIVE, ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIANA ADOPTING A NEW ARTICLE EIGHT UNDER CHAPTER 2 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODES AND

[12.c. Third 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. Remains in the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

SPONSOR SNYDER. THIS REMAINS IN THE FINANCE UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE AND WE HAVE THE THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE, D 27 AN ORDINANCE OF CARMEL, INDIANA, ESTABLISHED PUBLIC AREAS OF CITY

[12.d. Third 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. Returns from the Land Use and Special Studies Committee. ]

HALL AND THE SPONSOR IS SNYDER. THIS REMAINS IN LAND-USE SOCIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE. WE HAVE THIRD READING OF ORDINANCE D 2796-25.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CARMEL CITY CODE CHAPTER THREE, ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 3-58, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 6-63, CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 8-40, EIGHT 41, AND 44, SPONSORED BY SNYDER, AYERS , JOSHI , MINNAAR. COUNSELOR SNYDER?

>> YES, THIS CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS. THIS HAS BEEN A PROJECT SINCE JULY AND I NAÏVELY SAID, HEY, WE CAN TACKLE THIS. I CAN APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENTS TOWARDS THE CLASS THREE BIKES. I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THEM FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, BUT THERE ARE SPEED LIMITS ON THESE VARIOUS AREAS. THESE BIKES ALSO GO ON THE ROAD AND ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN SPEED. I AGGREGATED THEM IN THE TYPICAL BIKE SPEED OF A 14 TO 16-YEAR-OLD AT CRUISING SPEED IS 15 TO 18 MILES AN HOUR OR 13 TO 14 MILES AN HOUR. THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL SPRINT SPEEDS OR ALSO GREATER THAN 2% DOWNHILL. 13 TO 14-YEAR-OLDS AND 16 TO 20 MILES PER HOUR AND 15 TO 16-YEAR-OLDS IS 18 TO 24 MILES PER HOUR. THESE SPEEDS ARE ACHIEVED WITH OR WITHOUT THE MOTORIZED BIKE. HUMAN POWERED BICYCLES ARE GENERALLY GOVERNED BY STATE STATUTE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT, JAMES? THIS WAS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS AND I'M REALLY HAPPY WITH OUR ATTORNEYS. WHO DID SO MUCH RESEARCH ON THIS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND THE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY. ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET IN IS HOW MUCH FOR UNDER THE AGE OF 16, WHICH IS A FIRST AND SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE ARE LEADING THE WAY ON. WE ARE LEADING THE WAY ON SETTING THE DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE COUNTRY TO SET A GENERATION DEFINITION FOR WHAT E MOTO IS. BACK IN JULY, MR. FRIEDMAN WAS HERE AND I DID MY FIRST INTERVIEW. SAID WE WERE GOING TO TACKLE THIS AND DID AN INTERVIEW AND THEY SAID, IS THERE ANYONE WHOWOULD BE OPPOSED? AFTER WALK DOWN AND TALK TO MR. FRIEDMAN. THEY DID, THEN I GOT CALLED AND WAS LIKE, HE IS ALL IN FAVOR. WELL, THIS IS GREAT, SO IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT THE RETAILERS ON THESE

[00:45:02]

BIKES ARE HUGE PROPONENTS OF MAKING THIS SAFE. THIS WHOLE TIME, MYSELF AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THE PRIMARY MOTIVATION HERE HAS AND SAFETY. THERE IS ONLY SO MANY THINGS THAT YOU COULD DO. I AM SURE THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE NEED TO IMPROVE IN THE FUTURE ON THIS ORDINANCE. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN WORKED TO DEATH FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS. I THINK WE NEED TO SEE HOW THIS WORKS'S THROUGH SPRING AND SUMMER AND MAKE MODIFICATIONS AT THE END OF FALL. I KNOW SOME COMMITTEE

MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTS. >> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT WAS PUT IN. THE PUBLIC INPUT FROM BIKE RIDERS TO VENDORS TO JUST THE GENERAL PUBLIC. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO TOUCH ON AND I DRIVE A CLASS TWO BIKE AND I THINK I MADE A PLEA TO SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS TO DIRECTOR TO GO TO JOSH'S BIKE SHOP OR ANOTHER BIKE SHOP, GET ON ONE OF THESE BIKES AND SEE WHAT WE FEEL LIKE. THEN, KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE AND UNDERSTAND IT. I THINK DIRECTOR TOOK ME UP ON THAT OFFER AND ACTUALLY DID IT AND I THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT SO VERY MUCH. I AM IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE BIKES ON, BECAUSE I HAVE A BIKE AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THOSE HIGH-SPEED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. IT'S NOT LIKE THE CLASS TWO BIKE WHERE YOU HAVE A THROTTLE. SO, THANK YOU FOR PUSHING THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE TO MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I KNOW THAT HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE HELMETS, SO THAT YOU HAVE

THE MIC. >> THANK YOU. AGAIN, THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND I THINK THIS WAS A GREAT PROCESS. I DO THINK WE DID GET HELMETS PUT IN FOR THESE DEVICES FOR 15 AND YOUNGER -- 15 YEARS OLD AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. WE CAN'T REGULATE SOME HELMETS ON MOTORIZED VEHICLES, BECAUSE THE STATE DOES HAVE INCONSISTENT LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW OR MAKE SENSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SPEEDS AT WHICH CERTAIN VEHICLES ARE MOVING AND THE ABILITY TO REGULATE PEOPLE'S SAFETY. HAVING SAID THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR HIS EYE THAT WE ROLL THIS OUT TO THE PUBLIC, WE EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF HELMETS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS, BECAUSE HER CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS SICK OR FIVE AND SIX WHO ARE WRITING THESE BIKES, IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO HAVE A HELMET, SO AS A PEDIATRICIAN, I WILL ADVOCATE THAT FROM THE EDUCATION STANDPOINT AND NOT EVERYTHING IS AN ORDINANCE, BUT WE CAN USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATE ON ALL BICYCLES, VEHICLES AND PERHAPS EVEN GET MORE CONSISTENT LANGUAGE IN THE FUTURE AT THE

STATE LEVEL. >> QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?

TAYLOR? >> MY QUESTION WAS, IT LOOKS LIKE WE DECREASED THE LEGALITY OF RIDING A CLASS THREE E-BIKE .

WHY ARE WE DROPPING TO 15? >> GOOD EVENING. THE REASON WHY WE DID THAT AND THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. WE ARE REQUIRING FOR E MOTOR DEVICES FOR OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY STANDARDS TO MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLES THAT ARE REGULATED BY THE STATE.

IN THE STATUTORY BRAINWORK FOR THOSE TYPES OF VEHICLES, THE AGE

LIMIT IS 15. >> THAT IS THE AGE LIMIT FOR

MOPEDS? >> EXACTLY. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO EQUATE THE TWO, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD LEAD TO IRRATIONAL RESULT WHERE WE WOULD ALLOW MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE OPERATORS AT 16 AND E MOTORCYCLES OPERATED AT 15. IT MADE SENSE TO EQUATE THE TWO. THAT'S THE REASON. STAY AS

[00:50:01]

CLOSE TO THE STATE REGULATION AS POSSIBLE.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO EXPRESS MY THANKS TO THE COMMITTEE AND I KNOW THIS HAS TO BE HARD. WHAT I THOUGHT I MIGHT DO IS KIND OF START WITH THE EASIEST STUFF FIRST AND THE THING I RECEIVED THE MOST COMPLAINTS ABOUT OUR WET WHAT WE NOTIFIED AS THE E MOTO DEVICE. I WILL CALL YOU FROM BACK IN MY DAY, DIRK BIKE DIRTBIKE. AS A GENERAL PLACEHOLDER. OKAY. THOSE WOULD NO LONGER BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE ON OUR GREENWAYS OR THE

MULTIUSE PASS, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, UNLESS THEY

CAN GET REGISTRATION. >> GREAT POINT. AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, ARE THEY ALLOWED ON OUR STREETS CURRENTLY?

>> NO, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS UNLICENSED

VEHICLE. >> HE WAS NODDING HIS HEAD YES.

>> YOU MIGHT WANT TO STAY UP THERE. JUST HANG OUT THERE FOR A

BIT. >> YES, IT IS YES AND NO, I

GUESS. >> I'M USED TO THAT FROM YOU.

>> IF AN OPERATOR OF THE E MOTO DEVICE WILL COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF INDIANA STATE CODE, THEN ABSOLUTELY THEY CAN BE ON THE STREETS. IF NOT, HOWEVER, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO. IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK RIGHT NOW TO DO THAT. MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE, HOW DOES A POLICE OFFICER KNOW THAT.

HOW DOES THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT? JUST THIS WEEKEND, THERE WERE TWO E MOTO DEVICES ON THE GREEN RIDING AROUND ON THE TURF THERE.

I HAVE SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES AND I WANT TO START THERE WITH THE EASIEST ONE AND THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO REGULATE AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO GET OFF TO MAKE THE PUBLIC SAFE. IN THAT REGARD, HOW ARE WE GOING TO KNOW -- I WANT TO KNOW THAT.

>> THAT'S GOOD QUESTION, AS WELL. THAT IS EXACTLY THE REASON WHY WE TRY TO EQUATE OPERATIONAL SAFETY STANDPOINTS. THOSE TYPES OF VEHICLES TO MOTOR DRIVEN CYCLES THAT ARE REGULATED BY THE STATE CODE AND THOSE TYPES OF CYCLES THE POLICE ARE VERY FAMILIAR. THEY HAVE BEEN RECREATED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. INTEGRATING THOSE TWO SETS OF REQUIREMENTS STATE CODE WHEN IT COMES TO OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY MAKES IT A LOT EASIER FOR

OUR OFFICERS TO ENFORCE. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. I'M GLAD WITH THE WORK THAT WE ARE GETTING THOSE OFF OUR PUBLIC AREAS. I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SCOOTERS.

COULD THE COMMITTEE TELL ME THE THOUGHT PROCESS? RIGHT NOW, SCOOTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED. THIS IS AN ADDITION. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEFORE I WEIGH IN ON THAT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SCOOTERS ARE CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED AND THIS ORDINANCE IF WE PASS IT WOULD ALLOW SCOOTERS ON OUR PAST AND GREENWAYS MAYBE I SHOULD SAY.

>> THE SCOOTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND WITHIN THE PARKS. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THE CITY OWNED MULTIUSE PATHS.

>> I WILL CLEAR PAY ON THE GREENWAYS. THIS WILL ALLOW THEM.

>> THE REASON A LOT OF THE REASONS FOR SOME OF THIS WAS PRIMARILY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. BEING ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE ALL OF THE USES I DID NOT USES IT TO A VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND GRAPHIC THAT COULD BE PUT ON ONE SHEET OF PAPER THAT ALLOWS THE PARENTS OR CONSTITUENT TO KNOW WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T. THE SCOOTERS OF THE SLOWEST OF ALL DEVICES. THEY STILL REQUIRES HUMAN INTERVENTION TO GO, SO WE DREW THE LINE AND WHERE THEY WROTE THE E MOTO LANGUAGE TOOK OFF FROM ANYTHING THAT HAS HUMAN INTERVENTION AND RUMOR REQUIRES A HUMAN TO DO SOMETHING AND GO.

IT ALL GOT PUT INTO ONE CAT WORRY, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THAT ADDITION TO THAT AND ALSO BASED ON RESEARCH, THROUGH OTHER COMMUNITIES, THE SCOOTERS HAVE NOT BEEN A PROBLEM IN OTHER

[00:55:03]

COMMUNITIES AND HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP, LIKE THE E-BIKES HAVE FROM OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

>> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. ARE THEY OR ARE THEY NOT ALLOWED? THEY ARE? SCOOTERS ARE ALLOWED ON THE GREENWAYS? OKAY. SORRY.

>> ONE CLERK OCCASION ON THAT, AS WELL. THE ORDINANCE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ON THE GREENWAYS THAT ARE REGULATED BY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE OPERATORS SHALL ALSO COMPLY WITH ANY PARKS RULES AND THEY MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THIS ORDINANCE. THE SPEED LIMIT IS DIFFERENT IN THE PARKS RULES CURRENTLY. IT WILL BE A WORK IN PROGRESS FOR THE CITY AND FOR PARKS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ROLES ARE WORKING IN TANDEM. OCCASIONALLY IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE SCOOTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND THIS ORDINANCE WILL BRING THEM BACK AND BE INTRODUCED AND STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE PARKS RULES, THEN THE ON PARKS PROPERTY. IN ADDITION, REGULATED BY CODE 921 CODE 11 13 6, BUT WE INCARCERATE SPECIFICALLY FOR E-SCOOTERS. IT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE THAT HAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT

RULES. >> ARE ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE SCOOTERS THAT THE PARKS RULES CURRENTLY DON'T AND THEY WILL DROP THAT, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED?

>> AS LONG AS THE PARK RULES FORBID THEM. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IT HAS BEEN TRADITIONAL PRACTICE FOR PARK RULES TO CHANGED CHANGE AND ADOPT RULES THAT REFLECT CITY ORDINANCES? THAT IS RIGHT. WE DID RECEIVE A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE RIGHT HERE WITH US AND ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT.

>> PROBABLY THE ONE AREA THAT WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT CERTAINLY WELCOMES AND ALSO DISCUSS WITH THE LEGAL COUNSEL.

AS IT CURRENTLY STATES UNDER PARK RULES, WHICH WE ADOPTED EARLIER THIS YEAR BY CITY COUNCIL, SO THEY COULD BE ENFORCED BY CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, THAT IS REGARDING USE OF VEHICLES WITH BICYCLES AND OURS CURRENTLY STATES THAT IT WILL BE STRICTLY PROHIBITED FOR ANY PERSON WITHIN THE PARK WORKER IN MAY TO OPERATE A MOTORIZED VEHICLE AS DEFINED BY CARMEL CITY CODE SECTION 663 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO GOLF CARTS SNOWMOBILE, WHICH IS AN OFF-ROAD VEHICLE AND ALTERING VEHICLE MINIBIKE MOPED MOTORIZED SCOOTER OR MOTORCYCLE OFF-ROAD ACCEPTING THOSE AREAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AND/OR DESIGNED OR DESIGNATED FOR SUCH USE. I AM REFERENCING 663 BEING AMENDED BY THIS. ELECTRIC SCOOTER AND MOTORIZED SCOOTER .

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE ULTIMATELY WANT TO GET SOME CONGRUENCE BETWEEN AND CLARIFICATION WITH OUR CODE TO

SAY, IS IT OR IS IT NOT. >> FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME IN INDIANAPOLIS, THERE IS A DEBATE OVER LAND SCOOTERS AND THIS IS PROBABLY FOR COMMITTEE MICHAEL OR WHOEVER. SINCE OUR ORDINANCE EXCLUDED ELECTRIC SCOOTERS FROM USE ON THESE PATHWAYS AND GREENWAYS. WE BELIEVE THIS KEPT A COMPANY LIME OR ONE OF THOSE THIRD-PARTY PROVIDERS TO DUMP A BUNCH OF SCOOTERS IN OUR TOWN AND START ALLOWING THEM TO BE USED WITH THE APP? DO WE FEEL THAT IF WE CHANGE THIS NOW THAT IT WOULD OPEN UP THE DOOR TO ALLOW COMPANIES TO USE RENTABLE SCOOTERS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

>> I DO THINK AND I WILL LET HIM CHIME IN. I DO THINK THAT THE PARK RULES WERE HELPFUL IN KEEPING THE LINES AND OTHER

DEVICES OUT . >> I AGREE. I THINK IT IS

[01:00:01]

PROHIBITION OF USE WITH THOSE TYPES OF DEVICES AND IT WAS PROBABLY A FACTOR, HOWEVER THIS ORDINANCE ONLY ADDRESSES PERSONAL USE, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO IS KEY, THOSE COMPANIES, LIME AND UBER, THE WAY THEY DO BUSINESS MUNICIPALITIES HAS ALSO CHANGED A LOT. TAKE INDIANAPOLIS, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY ESTABLISHED WHERE THOSE TYPES OF DEVICES CAN GO. I THINK IF AND THEN WERE WITH THOSE TYPES OF COMPANIES THAT HAVE COME TO CARMEL , IT WILL CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION.

>> QUICK QUESTION. IT'S OKAY IF YOU DON'T KNOW. FOR E MOTO, WHAT IS THE AGE RESTRICTION? IT IS ALSO 15?

>> FOR THE USE, IT'S 15. >> THEN, ALONG THE LINES OF A SLIGHT DISCREPANCY WITH THE PARKS RULES, AND ENFORCEMENT.

WHO ENFORCES? IS IT WITHIN THE PARK RULES VERSUS PASSING THE

ORDINANCE? >> POLICE DEPARTMENT, CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT . I KNOW THAT TWO OFFICERS TO ENFORCE PARK RULES WILL WORK IN PARKLAND. THEY SEE THEM RIDING THE BIKES AND ALSO ANY DESIGNATED ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, SO IT CAN BE OTHERS TO DESIGNATE TO SERVE THAT ROLE.

>> THIS IS FOR SNYDER. DURING THE PROCESS, CARMEL POLICE PARTICIPATED AND TALKED ABOUT COMPLIANCE.

>> THEY WERE HERE NEARLY AT EVERY MEETING AND ARE HERE

TONIGHT TO SPEAK. >> WE RECEIVED A SPECIAL LAND-USE MEETING WITH A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WORKED WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. A LOT OF THEM ACTUALLY AND ENTHUSIASTS OF THOSE TYPES OF DEVICES THEMSELVES, SO THEY PROVIDE QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION NOT ONLY FROM ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, BUT ALSO THE USAGE STANDPOINT THAT IT WAS AN EDUCATION PROCESS FOR ALL OF US ON THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE AND WE HAD TO LEARN QUICKLY, BUT THIS

IS A RESULT. >> ON THE SCOOTERS THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT, GOING IN TANDEM WITH THIS IS ALSO THE UPDATE TO OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE, WHICH ALSO PROHIBITS ANY COMMERCIAL USE VEHICLE WITH ANY RENTABLE SCOOTER WOULD BE FROM BEING LEFT IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, SO BY DEFINITION THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THOSE KINDS OF COMPANIES TO OPERATE.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FORGOT TO POINT OUT AND SPOKE INITIALLY WAS, IF YOU ARE RIDING IN A BIKE AND I THINK THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL AGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY THIS, BUT THEY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLASS ONE, TWO AND THREE. THEY CAN MOST LIKELY TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AND E-BIKE AND E MOTO DEVICE, SO UNLESS YOU HAVE A STICKER ON THE BIKE THAT SAYS, THIS IS A CLASS THREE BIKE, THEN WERE NOT GOING TO KNOW IT IS A CLASS THREE BIKE UNLESS YOU INSPECTED AND THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS TO CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE CITY ITSELF AND WE HAVE SPEED LIMITS. YOU DON'T TRY 100 MILES AN HOUR. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I WANTED TO BRING.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS.

I WILL GET ONE, BY THE WAY, BUT TO ALL E-BIKES HAVE SPEEDOMETERS? ANY OF THESE OTHER DEVICES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 15 OR 20, DO THEY ALL HAVE

SPEEDOMETERS, AS WELL? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT E

MOTO'S? >> WE ARE NOT ALLOWING E MOTO'S.

>> I WOULD DEFER TO JOSH ON THE BIKE PIECE, BUT FROM MY

[01:05:03]

EXPERIENCE, ALL OF THE BIKES I HAVE WRITTEN, THEY HAVE

SPEEDOMETERS AND OLD OWNERS. >> I DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION CORRECTLY. ALL OF THE SCOOTERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE THE HOVER BOARDS, SEGUES I GUESS WOULD BE ALLOWED. DO THEY ALL HAVE SPEED LIMITS? IF WE ARE DOING THIS BASED ON SPEED AND THE WATTAGE, I'VE NOTICED, HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK?

>> THE SPEED IS JUST LIKE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO RESEARCHING SOME TECHNOLOGY THAT I BELIEVE WE ALREADY HAVE. NOW CHECKING THE LEGALITY AND USING IT. USING OUR EXISTING CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IRREGULAR OFFENDERS THAT NOTIFY THE POLICE

DEPARTMENT. >> YOU ARE ABLE TO CATCH THEM

WHEN THEY ARE SPEEDING AWAY? >> YES, SO THE ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY BEHIND THIS WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT AND WE HAVE HANDHELD RADAR DEVICES, THEN AS SNYDER POINTED OUT, THEY HAVE OUR CAMERAS AND DIFFERENT PLACES AROUND THE CITY, AS WELL. NOT NECESSARILY FOR THIS PURPOSE, BUT THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE A RADAR SYSTEM BUILT INTO THE CAMERA, SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THAT IN TANDEM WITH THE HANDHELD DEVICES THAT WE ALREADY HAD FOUR ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES AND FOR ALL PLATFORMS. I DON'T HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER TO A QUESTION. I WOULD GUESS NOT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD SEE THEM AS MOST THAT YOU ARE STANDING UPON RATHER THAN A HANDLEBAR DEVICE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT THAT WOULDN'T PLAY A FACTOR IN OUR DECISION WHETHER ORDINANCE OR NOT AND IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A RIDER OF THE DEVICE TO KNOW APPROXIMATELY HOW FAST YOU ARE GOING.

>> ONE THING THAT I THINK IS HELPFUL WITH BOTH THE PROPOSED MICRO MOBILITY ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS THE PARK RULES THAT HAVE BEEN CODIFIED BY THE COUNCIL IS, ORDINANCE ALREADY AND THIS ORDINANCE PROPOSES A PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT RECKLESS USE.

I'M PROBABLY NOT USING THE EXACT TERMINOLOGY, BUT IF YOU ARE BEHAVING BADLY, JUST AS YOU ARE A RECKLESS DRIVER AND THAT IS A TICKET OF ELEPHANTS IF YOU ARE IN A CAR. WE HAVE ADDED THAT PROVISION WITHIN THE EXISTING PARK RULES AND THIS REINFORCES IT WITH THE MICRO MOBILITY OFFICE OR ORDINANCE, SO IN ADDITION TO THE SPEED BEING A FACTOR BY WHICH THE POLICE CAN ISSUE A CITATION, THEY CAN ALSO ISSUE CITATION FOR RECKLESS BEHAVIOR THAT IS ENDANGERING THEMSELVES OR OTHERS, WHICH I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT, AS WELL. YOU CAN DO THAT AT ANY

SPEED. >> ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. THE REASON I STARTED OUT BY ASKING MY QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND E-SCOOTERS? IT IS MAYBE A PROCESS TO ANSWER TO MAKE IT UNDERSTANDABLE ET CETERA. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER HOW WE INTEND FOR THEM TO BE USED. THE COMPLAINTS THAT I RECEIVE, THE CONCERNS I RECEIVE. THEY ARE MULTIPLYING EVERY YEAR, BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON THE MALL AND ON. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A COMPLAINT, WHY CAN'T I USE MY SCOOTER? I SUSPECT AND SINCE THE ARTICLE CAME OUT, I HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED EMAILS. I ALREADY FEEL UNSAFE WITH ALL OF THE RING AND GOING AROUND. I THINK THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT THERE ARE ONLY CERTAIN TYPES AND I DON'T WALK IT ON THE WEEKEND. I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER NOT INCLUDING SCOOTERS JUST FROM PURE VOLUME STANDPOINT. WHEN THAT WAS DESIGNED AND THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN THIS ROOM, IT WAS ABOUT PEDESTRIAN BICYCLES AND RECREATION AND EXERCISE. IT WASN'T REALLY AND I COULD BE WRONG, BUT IT WASN'T ABOUT GOING TO THE GROCERY STORE OR GETTING TO MY JOB ON A

[01:10:04]

REPORT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE AND I WOULD ASK US TO AT LEAST ABATE, SHOULD WE BE ADDING

SCOOTERS TO THIS ORDINANCE? >> ONE THING THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND ABOUT MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN E MOTO AND E-SCOOTER, THE MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE WOULD BE LIKE THE DEVICE YOU RIDE ON , SO THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IF YOU GO UNDER 20 MILES AN HOUR AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT. I HAVE A QUESTION THAT IS NOT RELATED TO THIS DEBATE THAT I WANTED TO

ASK. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE IS CONFUSION. CAN YOU JUST SPELL OUT CLEARLY WHAT ISN'T ALLOWED TODAY THAT WOULD

BE A ALLOWED UNDER THIS? >> THE SCOOTERS ARE CERTAINLY PROBABLY THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE OF THAT. THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR PARKS RULES. THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE PARKS WILL CHANGE WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND WE WILL WORK WITH PARKS TO SEE WHAT THEIR POSITION ON THIS IS OR EVIDENCE BODY DECIDES TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE VIEW, AS WELL. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND, TOO. WHY ARE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS INCLUDED AND NOT OTHERS? A QUICK AND EASY ANSWER IS THAT MOST DEFINITIONS ARE INCLUDED. IF WE WANT TO ALIGN OURSELVES WITH WHAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE AND IF STATE REGULATIONS CHANGE AND FOR SOME REASON WE DON'T WANT THEM TO DO THIS MASSIVE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND SPECIFICALLY E-BIKES ALREADY REGULATED, SO THAT IS WHERE WE GET CLASSIFICATIONS CLASS TWO AND CLASS THREE ARE FROM STATE STATUTES THAT WE INCLUDED FOR CLARITY AND EXCLAMATION. THAT IS WHAT THE E-BIKE IS. THEY ARE REGULATED AT THE SAME CAPACITY FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THE SAME THING WITH THE SEGWAY. WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT HERE, BECAUSE DIDN'T REALLY FEEL LIKE HAD A SEPARATE CATEGORY AND AN E MOTO DEVICE IS A COMPLETELY NEW DEFINITION. WHEN I WAS DOING MY RESEARCH, I COULD NOT FIND AN OFFICIAL QUOTE UNQUOTE DEFINITION ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY WITH A COUPLE OF ARTICLES WHERE THAT TERM HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. THE TERM ITSELF IS USED WIDELY AT THIS POINT ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, BUT AS FAR AS DEFINITION, IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL DEFINITION TO MY KNOWLEDGE. IT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED, SO THIS ORDINANCE IS BEING PROACTIVE IN A SENSE THAT IS TRYING TO TACKLE AN ISSUE THAT WE KNOW EXISTS AND WE ARE BLAZING A TRAIL IN THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, SO E MOTO'S ARE NOT ALLOWED ON GREENWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. EVERY OTHER TYPE OF MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE WOULD BE CERTAIN REGULATIONS OR SOME SPECIFIC ONES . THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. NOW, CAN ACTUALLY FORCE AN ORDINANCE AND TARGET AND SITE THE BEHAVIOR THAT IS UNWANTED AND RECKLESS OR JUST AGAINST THE ORDINANCE. THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. MICRO MOBILITY DEFINITION IS FAIRLY BROAD, SO IF A DEVICE FITS INTO THAT DEFINITION, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON MULTIUSE PATHS AS LONG AS WE FOLLOW OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY

REQUIREMENTS. >> I'M GLAD THAT THE HELMET LAWS AND HELMET REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I WANTED TO TRY TO STRIP THAT OUT AND PUT THAT IN PLACE EARLIER. IT IS NEEDED RIGHT AWAY AND ALSO LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THAT YOUNG KID RIDING ANY OF THESE DEVICES IF THEY ARE NOT WEARING A HELMET GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL THEM OVER AND ACTUALLY INSPECT, LIKE YOU SAID. THERE IS NOT A STICKER THAT SAYS THAT IT CAN BE AN E MOTO, BUT HAVE FAKE PETALS

[01:15:05]

ON IT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD KNOW WITHOUT PULLING THEM OVER.

ALSO, WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT WITHOUT'S TOPPING SOMEBODY IS MODIFICATIONS AND MY UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT I HAVE HEARD IS THAT MANY CAN BE EASILY MODIFIED AND USED IN EXCESS OF SPEEDS AND I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING IN HERE PROHIBITING THE MODIFICATION OF THESE DEVICES AND USE ON OUR STREETS, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF MAYBE THE COMMITTEE -- YEAH, BUT.

>> A LOT OF THIS IS ABOUT CHANGING THE BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE.

COUNSELOR WORRELL, YOU MADE A GOOD POINT. MORE PEOPLE ARE ON , BUT WE NEED TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR AND WE ARE PUTTING IT BASICALLY ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT BICYCLISTS CAN DO THE SAME THING. THEY CAN GO OVER THE SPEED LIMIT AND SWIPE SOMEBODY ON THE SIDE. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE AN EFFORT IN CHANGING BEHAVIORS AND WITH TECHNOLOGY AND ALL OF THESE NEW DEVICES COMING OUT, IT WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT TO TRY TO REGULATE, SO IF WE CAN GET ON TOP OF IT AND TRY TO CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF AND SEVERAL PEOPLE ARE RUINING IT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO MAYBE RIDE THESE DEVICES TO WORK FOR THE GROCERY STORE OR WHATEVER. WE NEED TO GET ON TOP OF CHANGING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FEW THAT ARE WERE RUINING IT FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

>> EXCELLENT POINT. I WILL JUST SAY SOMETHING REALLY QUICK AND WE WILL LET THEM GO ON WITH THE PRESENTATION. I WATCHED ALL OF THE LAND-USE MEETINGS AND IT IS A LOT. YOU HAD MONTHS OF WORK PUT INTO THIS AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OTHER MEMBERS ARE GETTING CAUGHT UP. WE ALL APPRECIATE THE WORK AND IT WAS A GREAT MEETING. SNYDER, IF YOU WANT TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THIS ?

>> WHAT WOULD BE CLEAR EARLY ON AND THIS IS NOT AN ACCURATE GRAPHIC. PLEASE DON'T REPRODUCE. EARLY ON, WE TRY TO DO IT BASED ON DEVICE TYPE. THAT BECAME IMPOSSIBLE. THERE ARE TOO MANY DEVICES AND OUR NEW DEVICES ARE COMING OUT EVERY YEAR, SO THEN IT BECAME ABOUT MANAGING BEHAVIOR. HOW DO WE JUST TRAIN HUMAN BEINGS TO FUNCTION APPROPRIATELY WITH OTHER HUMAN BEINGS USING DIFFERENT DEVICES? ONCE WE GOT THERE, THEN IT BECAME, HOW DO WE EDUCATE THE PUBLIC? EVERYONE OF THESE INITIATIVES CONFLICTED. THE REASONS THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE ON THE SURFACE, SUCH AS THE SCOOTERS, WAS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE A WAY TO DELIVER THIS TO THE PUBLIC. THE BEST WAY IS WITH PRETTY PICTURES AND THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. THE MORE COMPLICATED WE MAKE THIS, THE LESS UNDERSTANDABLE SOMETHING LIKE THIS GETS. THIS IS WHAT I WILL BE SEEING IN OTHER AREAS WITH THE PARKS AND WHATEVER THE ENGINEERING CHOOSES TO EDUCATE THIS AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THEM IN THE EVERY SINGLE PEDIATRIC OFFICE IN CARMEL, SO PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T ALLOW FOR STUDENTS. THE STUDENTS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE END RESULT OF THIS IS WHAT WE WILL GO THROUGH FOR SCHOOLS, EDUCATION AND IF THIS BECOMES OVERLY COMPLICATED, NO ONE WILL PAY ATTENTION AND IT WILL NOT BE EASY TO UNDERSTAND. THIS IS NOT ACCURATE AND IT IS A DROP IN A LONG TIME AGO, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE ARE HEADING FOR. EDUCATING THE PUBLIC TO HELP TRAIN BEHAVIORS IS REALLY WHERE THIS WENT AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET. THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE GREAT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS IN A COHESIVE MANNER AND THAT IS WHY YOU SEE THINGS IN DIFFERENT POCKETS THAT MAYBE THEY WEREN'T BEFORE. IN THIS ORDINANCE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, IF THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO PUT UP SIGNS, THAT COMPLIES WITH THE ORDINANCE. OTHERWISE NOTED. IF WE AND THE MAYOR WANT TO PUT A SIGN SOMEWHERE, THAT WILL BE NOTED AND IT WILL CHANGE WHAT'S IN HERE. BEFORE WE GET WAY IN THE WEEDS, THE EDUCATIONAL PIECE OF THIS FOR OUR CHILDREN WAS WHAT BECAME CRITICAL GET THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE AND ARE ALL REMIND EVERYBODY THAT FOR MOST OF US, SANTA CLAUS IS COMING SOON FOR MANY CHILDREN. SOME OF SANTA'S HELPERS REALLY GET INVOLVED A WEEK FROM THIS FRIDAY, SO WE REALLY HAVE AN INITIATIVE TO GET THE EDUCATIONAL PIECE OUT BEFORE THANKSGIVING, SO THAT PEOPLE ARE BUYING THE PROPER THINGS LEADING

[01:20:04]

UP TO CHRISTMAS AND OTHER CULTURAL HOLIDAYS. THANK YOU.

>> TAYLOR? >> TO THAT POINT ON THE GRAPHIC, E MOTO AND ELECTRIC BIKES AREN'T ALLOWED FOR MULTI USE PASS FREEWAYS AND THAT WILL BE A SIMPLE GRAPHIC TO ADD.

>> TAYLOR, THERE IS ONE THING YOU ASKED ABOUT MODIFIED DEVICES. IT IS ADDRESSING THE ORDINANCE, BUT MAYBE I WAS A LITTLE BIT TOO LEGALISTIC ON THIS AND I THINK WE CAN AMEND THAT. IT SAYS ONLINE 69 AND OTHER NONCLASSIFIED DEVICES.

WITH OUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN LEARNING ABOUT E-BIKES ESPECIALLY. ONCE YOU MODIFY AN E-BIKE OR SOMETHING MORE TO GET IT GOING PAST THAT 28-MILE-PER-HOUR IF IT'S CLOSE THREE AND MORE THAN 20 MILES PER HOUR IT'S CLASS TWO. IT NO LONGER FITS INTO THAT CLASS, BUT IT IS A GOOD POINT. I THINK THE GOOD POINT IS WELL TAKEN FOR AN EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE, AS WELL AND WE CAN ADD OTHER NONCLASSIFIED.

>> I GUESS WHAT I MEANT, I MOSTLY CONCERNED ABOUT E MOTO OR MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES THAT ARE NOT CLASS ONE, TWO OR THREE BICYCLES ON THE TRAIL BETWEEN 116TH STREET CARMEL DRIVE . THAT IS WHERE WE ARE SEEING THE MOST PROBLEM WHERE THE MOST PEOPLE ARE. I DON'T THINK WE DEVELOPED IT THAT WAY AND IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH IN MANY PLACES AND BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED, SO IT'S DIFFICULT IN CERTAIN AREAS. THAT IS WHERE MY REAL

CONCERN IS ABOUT THIS. >> I THINK THE CONCERN IS WELL TAKEN. IN FACT, THE LAST MEETING, THEY DID TALK ABOUT THAT EXACT ISSUE. I THINK THAT IT WILL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE DO WITH GREENWAYS ESPECIALLY, BECAUSE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST USED MULTIUSE PATHS IN THE CITY AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS, BUT THE PERCENTAGE OF USAGE OF THOSE TYPES OF DEVICES AND MORE IS VERY HIGH ON ONE GREENWAYS SPECIFICALLY THAT WE ALL KNOW. I THINK THAT DISCUSSION WILL CONTINUE AND WE WILL COORDINATE WITH THE BOARD ATTORNEYS TO SEE HOW WE CAN ADDRESS IT. AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT DOES INCORPORATE

RULES. >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT AND CHANGING BEHAVIORS, BUT ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES ARE ALREADY NOT ALLOWED IN THESE AREAS AND WE ARE STRUGGLING TO ENFORCE IT NOW.

>> YEAH, BUT JUST KIND OF THOUGHT THERE. OBVIOUSLY, THE PARTICLES ARE DIFFERENT AND WE CAN BASED ON NEED. I LIKE THE IDEA AS WE BUILT UP ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PATHS AND STRUCTURES AND THINGS TO HAVE THAT PLAN IN MIND, BUT I DO SEE A VERY VALUABLE NEED IN SETTING THE STAGE, THEN HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WE MAY SEE AN UPTICK IN THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T EVEN EXPECT. I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE ABOUT THE WAY THE CITY GOVERNMENT WORKS AND THE BEAUTY OF THAT IS THAT WE ARE STRATEGIC AND CHANGE AGAIN TO SOMETHING ELSE IF WE NEED TO AND THERE'S NOTHING SET IN STONE, BUT I DO WANT TO ECHO THE WORK THAT YOU PUT IN TO SHAPE THIS TO GET IT TO THIS POINT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MASSIVE BOOK OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD BE OCCURRING TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE ARE DEBATING THE CONCEPT OF GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENTIATION ON SOMETHING AS COMPLEX AS THIS IS AMAZING. ECHO SOME OF THE SAME SENTIMENTS, BUT THE BEST WAY TO PUT INTO PRACTICE IS TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT HAS ALL OF THIS WORK IN IT AND SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS AND OTHER TOOLS OF OTHER QUASI-GOVERNMENT FUNCTION OR OTHER RULE SETS TO PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE WE ARE PROTECTING SPECIFIC ASSETS FROM THE WHITE -- RIGHT WAY FROM THERE. LET'S SEE WHAT DATA COMES BACK AND WHERE WE ARE AND LET'S TAKE OF THE FEEDBACK AS THINGS MOVE. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE IN THEBEST PLACE WITH ALL OF THOSE THINGS, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT MOVING THIS NOW AND PUTTING US IN A POSITION WHERE WE KNOW WHERE THE GROUND RULES ARE MATTERS A TON, BECAUSE TO TAYLOR'S POINT, THESE THINGS ARE OUT THERE ALREADY, SO WE NEED TO SET AN AGENDA AND SOME EXPECTATIONS AND ONCE YOU START TO PASS RULES, YOU CAN MITIGATE BEHAVIOR AND WE WILL JUST KIND OF SHAPE IT FROM THERE. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING. IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS, ALWAYS REACH OUT AND WE CAN HELP SHAPE IT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ADDRESSING THOSE THINGS AS WE

[01:25:04]

MOVE. >> WE ARE HAVING A DEBATE UP HERE. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A MICRO MOBILITY AND E MOTO? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO TERMS? IS THAT WHAT

YOU MEANT? >> MICRO MOBILITY IS DEFINED ON

LINE 43 THROUGH 53. >> 43.

>> E MOTO IS A COUPLE OF DEFINITIONS DOWN AND STARTS AT

66. >> I GOT THAT. WE ARE NOT AS WELL-EDUCATED AS THE COMMITTEE. CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO TERMS AS FAR AS THE

DEVICE GOES? >> A LOT GOES INTO POWER, SO A LOT OF DEVICES AND MORE POWERFUL DEVICES, WHICH IS WHY THEY TYPICALLY EXCEED 750 WATTS. ANOTHER THING IS CAPABLE OF GENERATING MUCH HIGHER SPEEDS AND CLASS FOR E-BIKE. THAT IS LIMITED TO 28 AND IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ASSIST, SO YOU HAVE TO CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN THE SPEED AND I THINK THEY WERE REFERRING TO THAT. IT IS PRETTY HARD TO DO ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS. E MOTO DEVICES, BECAUSE WE ARE MORE POWERFUL AND THEY CAN GO WITHOUT ANY ASSIST WHATSOEVER AND A LOT DON'T EVEN HAVE A PADDLE. ANY SORT OF ASSIST, SO IT IS REALLY THE TWO MOST DEFINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, THEN WE MAKE SURE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN DEVICES THAT DON'T FIT INTO EITHER CATEGORY AND THEY

ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED. >> OKAY, WELL I'M JUST GOING TO THROW THIS OUT. ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH AN AMENDMENT. I WILL USE COUNSELOR LOCKE'S LOGIC. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. SNYDER IS SAYING WE ARE UNDER A DEADLINE AND WE HAVE TO BEAT SANTA CLAUS.

MY LOGIC IN PASSING LAWS WOULD NOT BE TO TRY AND WRAP MY ARMS AROUND EVERY SINGLE THING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN. I WOULD TAKE THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS IF WE STILL THINK THERE ARE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE, THEN I WOULD TAKE THE BIGGEST CHANGES, WHICH TO ME ARE THE DIRT BIKES, IMMOBILITY -- E MOTO. THE E MOTO AND WHAT'S NOT ON THERE RIGHT NOW, WHICH ARE THE SCOOTERS, WHICH THE PARKS BOARD WHOM WE ALL RESPECT OBVIOUSLY HAD A REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT SCOOTERS WERE APPROPRIATE.

TAKE THOSE TWO THINGS OUT AND THE MICRO MOBILITY DEVICE AND LET'S START WITH GETTING THOSE THINGS OFF IN ORDER TO HAVE A BETTER EXPERIENCE. THAT IS MY MOTION AND HOPEFULLY THE CLERK

CAN FOLLOW >> CLARIFY THE MOTION.

>> THE MOTION IS TO MOVE AND TO NOT ALLOW ON OUR GREENWAYS OR MORE PATHS, THE E MOTO'S, SCOOTERS , AND I THINK MICRO MOBILITY, BUT I'M OPEN TO THAT ONE. YOU ARE ELIMINATING MICRO

MOBILITY? >> RICH AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TERM. I DON'T MEAN TO UPSET YOU, COUNSELOR SNYDER. I WILL JUST REMOVE IT TO E MOTO AND SCOOTERS. THAT IS WHAT I GET ALL THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM I THOUGHT WE WERE SOLVING AND I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT GOLF COURSE, BUT IT SEEMS IT'S NOT PART OF THIS, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M STARTING WITH THOSE TWO CATEGORIES BEING MANDATED AS ILLEGAL ON OUR

MULTIUSE PATHS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN FOR A SECOND. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION 100% AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR SIX MONTHS AND WE ARE NOW HEARING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION. I WANT TO RESPECT THE PARKS BOARD AS MUCH AS I CAN, BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF GUTTING THE ORDINANCE THE WAY WE JUST DID IT. I'M JUST NOT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT.

>> I WILL SECOND. WHAT I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IS THAT WE WERE GOING

[01:30:08]

TO ALLOW -- THERE IS A SCOOTER THAT IS GAS POWERED VETERANS AROUND OUR COMMUNITY ALL THE TIME AND THOSE ONE WHEELERS THAT ARE SUPER FAST ON OUR GREENWAYS. OUR INTENT IS TO ADD ALL NON-E

MOTORCYCLES ON OUR GREENWAYS. >> WHITE RIVER, HAGAN BURKE.

>> LET ME CALL ON YOU. WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE HEATED HERE.

>> I'M NOT UPSET. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. I WILL THROW OUT SOMETHING ON THIS AND THEY KNOW IT MAY DISAPPOINT SOMEONE ON THE COMMITTEE AND THIS MAY BE A BETTER OPTION. THEY ARE GETTING THE ORDINANCE.

WE COULD TAKE ANOTHER MEETING AND STILL DO THIS BEFORE SANTA CLAUS, BECAUSE WHILE YOU WORKED ON IT FOR SIX MONTHS, THOSE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE ARE PLAYING CATCH-UP AND IT IS NO OFFENSE TO THOSE WHO WORKED ON THE COMMITTEE. WE CAN FILL IT OUT AS AN OPTION, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE THE MOTION TO BE WITHDRAWN. IT IS IMPORTANT. E MOTO DEVICES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON GREENWAYS, MULTIUSE SIDEWALKS. E MOTO'S AND EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE, INCLUDING SUCH THINGS AS ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES, ELECTRIC MOPED AND ELECTRIC DIRT BIKES, ELECTRIC TRACKS AND OTHER NONCLASSIFIED DEVICES. IF I HAVE A MOTION CORRECTLY, THE E MOTO IS ALREADY EXCLUDED ONTO THE ORDINANCE OF OUR GREENWAY, INCLUDING THE MULTIUSE PATH. IT SEEMS THAT THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ISSUE IS RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO E-SCOOTERS. AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE ARE INCLUDED IN MICRO MOBILITY AND WE COULD EXCLUDE

THEM FROM THE DEFINITION >> LET ME JUST CLARIFY. AS A RESPECT TO THE COMMITTEE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS WORKING ON ADDING SCOOTERS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED AND THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO ME WHEN I RECEIVED THIS. I WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WHICH YOU HAVE DONE ON THE E MOTO'S AND I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP SCOOTERS OFF THE MOAN ON. THAT IS MY MOTION.

>> DO WE STILL HAVE MOTION AND SECOND? COUNSELOR LOCKE?

>> MINE WOULD JUST BE PROCEDURAL. MAYBE YOU CAN POINT TO WHERE THE ORDINANCE CHANGE WOULD BE AND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE? THE IDEA THAT THEY COULDN'T REGULATE BASED ON THE WAY THIS IS SET UP. THAT CAN BE PROHIBITED BASED ON INPUT FROM THE EXTERNAL SOURCE. I JUST WANT TO VERIFY IN THE LANGUAGE FROM WHERE IT IS. THE PIVOT TO THAT WOULD BE THAT IF WE CAN'T FIND IT SPECIFICALLY AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THE REWRITING OF THIS IN FRONT OF US, LIKE THE IDEA OF BRINGING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PASSING AS IT IS WITH THE WORK PUT IN, BUT BRINGING AN AMENDMENT AT A LATER DATE WITH THE RIGHT LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE WE DO IT AFTER THE RIGHT DISCUSSION IS A WAY TO TWEAK THAT, AS WELL. AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO VERIFY HOW THE CHANGE

WOULD LOOK. >> IF THE AMENDMENT IS LIMITED TO E-SCOOTERS, I THINK IT IS ACTUALLY QUITE EASY. WE CAN SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE E-SCOOTERS FROM A DEFINITION OF MICRO MOBILITY, SO IT WOULD BE THEIR OWN CATEGORY AND IT WOULD MAKE SENSE AND WE ARE REGULATED BY INDIANA CODE IN MANY WAYS. WE DO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE FOR THOSE REGULATIONS AND DEVICE SPECIFIC REGULATION SECTION WORKER E-SCOOTERS, WHICH IS LINE ITEM LINE 170 THROUGH 179 CURRENTLY. THEY WOULD BE KIND OF A DEVICE THAT WE PUT OUT ON THE STREETS AND THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ON MULTIUSE PATHS, SIDEWALKS OR -- WHAT AM I MISSING? GREENWAYS.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ITSELF?

>> WE HAD A MOTION, SECOND AND KIND OF AN AUDIBLE ON THE MOTION. CLARIFICATION. RIGHT NOW, IT IS ONLY SCOOTERS.

[01:35:01]

> THE MOTION IS TO REMOVE SCOOTERS FROM THE SIDEWALKS AND GREENWAYS. IT WOULD BE SO SIMILAR TO CURRENT PARK SCHOOLS.

>> THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF THE SCOOTER RIDERS ARE KIDS AND YOU ARE NOW SAYING THEY HAVE TO BE ON THE ROAD? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING? THIS IS SO ABSURD. EVERYONE, LET'S --.

>> WANTED A DEFINITION FOR THE SCOOTERS. I THINK THERE IS SOME CONFUSION IN MY MIND NOW ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF A LYME OR UBER VEHICLE, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO, VERSUS YOUNGER PEOPLE ON THOSE SCOOTERS THAT WE USED TO SEE, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE ARE REGULATING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING THIS CORRECTLY. SOME OF THOSE SCOOTERS ARE OPERATED PERFECTLY SAFELY BY YOUNG KIDS WITH HELMETS. THESE ARE -- EVERYTHING NOW IS PARTIALLY MOTORIZED. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY. IF WE DON'T ALLOW FOR THAT, THEN WE DON'T ALLOW SOME OF THESE SMALLER SCOOTERS, SO THE REASON WE GOT INTO THESE CONVERSATIONS WAS BECAUSE IT IS A BIT MORE NUANCED WITH THESE PARTIALLY MOTORIZED THINGS. THEY ARE NOT JUST THE OLD, KICK YOUR FOOT AND PUSH THE SCOOTER, WHICH IS WHAT THEY USED TO BE, THAT THEY ARE PARTIALLY MOTORIZED AND THEY CAN BE PARTIALLY AND PARTIALLY NORMAL. IF YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO ELIMINATE THOSE VERY HIGH-SPEED DEVICES, THEN I THINK THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED TO GO THAT FAR, BECAUSE THOSE KIDS AS TO COUNSELORS POINT, YOU WILL ASK THEM TO BE OFF THESE TRAILS AND ON THE ROADWAYS IF THEY ARE

OPERATING THEM. >> TO THESE SCOOTERS HAVE A

THROTTLE? >> I THINK THEY DO.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

>> THESE E-SCOOTERS DO HAVE A MOTOR. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE SOLELY POWERED BY THE MOTOR, WHICH IS WHY WE EXCLUDED THAT IN THE DEFINITION, BECAUSE JOSHI IS EXACTLY RIGHT. SOME ARE FULLY OPERATED BY THROTTLE OVER THE HELP OF A THROTTLE, SO THAT IS ALL AND E-SCOOTERS NECESSARILY HAVE AT THE VERY LEAST A MOTOR

ASSIST TO GET GOING. >> THE QUESTION WAS THE MOTOR

ASSIST. >> COUNSELOR SNYDER, WHEN YOU ASKED THE DEFINITION, YOU DID A GREAT LEGAL JOB PERHAPS, BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MICRO MOBILITY AND E MOTO IS MICRO MOBILITY MUST HAVE HUMAN FORCE TO OPERATE. MUST HAVE HUMAN PHYSICAL ENGAGEMENT. 100% THROTTLE. NO HUMAN FORCE REQUIRED. I WANT TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION, BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF, BUT THE CUT OFF LINE, WHICH MAKE THE GRAPHIC WORK FRANKLY WAS HUMAN FORCE, NO

HUMAN FORCE. >> IT CAN BE BOTH. YOU CAN OBTAIN MUCH HIGHER SPEEDS IF YOU ASSIST AND IS A MORE POWERFUL MOTOR, BUT THE SPEED DISTINCTION COMES IN, AS WELL. IF YOUR DEVICE IS CAPABLE OF GENERATING 28 MILES PER HOUR AND MOTORIZED, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY E MOTO BY DEFINITION. EVEN IF IT HAS PETALS, IT WOULD BE IMO THOUGH, BECAUSE IT WOULD GO FASTER. IT DOES NOT NEED INTERACTION. IT'S E MOTO.

>> IS THAT HOW IT'S WRITTEN? >> YES.

>> THE LIME SCOOTERS AND BIRD SCOOTERS WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED EVEN UNDER OUR CURRENT ORNAMENTS?

>> THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER PARKS ROLES.

>> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. THOSE THINGS DON'T REQUIRE?

>> THEY DO. >> THE COMMERCIAL SCOOTERS, THE SPEED LIMIT EXCEEDS -- WHAT THE SCOOTER -- THOSE SCOOTERS GO EXTREMELY FAST ON ARE MEANT TO KEEP UP WITH TRAFFIC IN URBAN AREAS. THE SCOOTERS I'M REFERRING TO ARE THE ONES WHERE

[01:40:03]

THERE IS A LOT MORE ASSIST IN THE LIME OF THOSE BRANDS. IF THE BUSH A LITTLE BIT TO GET GOING, BUT IT IS 100% THROTTLE

ACTIVATED. >> E-SCOOTERS THAT ARE REGULATED BY THIS ORDINANCE ARE LIMITED TO 20 MILES PER HOUR. THEY CANNOT GO ABOVE 20 MILES PER HOUR. IF PEOPLE UNDO DIFFERENT CATEGORY.

>> CLARIFICATION UNDER MICRO MOBILITY HELPED ME, BECAUSE I'M THINKING OF STRAIGHT ELECTRONIC DEVICES THAT THEY CAN GO BY THROTTLE AND DRIVE AS FAST AS THEY WANT.

>> COUNSELOR GREEN? >> JUST READING THE DEFINITION.

WITH OR WITHOUT HUMAN PROPULSION. LESS THAN 20 MILES PER HOUR, LIKE YOU SAID. SPEED IS NOT THE ISSUE. IS IT MORE OF JUST CLUTTERING UP TOO MUCH ACTIVITY IF THE SCOOTERS ARE

ALLOWED? >> FIRST OF ALL, WHO IS GOING TO BE THE ARBITER OF WHETHER THE SCOOTER -- I SEE THE SINGLE WHEEL SCOOTER OR STAND UP SCOOTERS OR SEGUES. MY UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT I ASK IS THAT THOSE ARE IN THIS E-SCOOTER

CATEGORY, SO IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOU NEED UNICYCLES AND THOSE? E-SCOOTERS ARE SPECIFIC. THEY HAVE TO WEIGH 100 POUNDS OR LESS, SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. YOU DON'T HAVE HEAVY DUTY SCOOTERS.

THAT IS THE GROUP OF TWO OR THREE WHEELS. TWO WHEELS UP FRONT AND IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE A TRICYCLE AND VERY NARROW.

HANDLEBARS AND ELECTRIC MOTOR. THAT IS THE DEFINITION. THAT IS POWERED AND CAPABLE OF POWERING A DEVICE WITH OR WITHOUT REPULSION AT A MAXIMUM SPEED OF A LEVEL OF SERVICE, THEN WE EXCLUDED AND ASSISTED MOBILITY AND ELECTRIC E-SCOOTERS. THAT IS FULLY UNDER THAT CATEGORY IF WE DON'T EXCLUDE SPECIFICALLY. TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, FOR ME, ONE, WE DID NOT ALLOW THEM AND THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A REASON AND I WAS NOT AT THE PARKS BOARD WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE, BUT MY SENSE IS THAT IT IS GETTING MORE CROWDED AND NOT LESS CROWDED. IF THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED IN PREVIOUS AND WE NOW ALLOWED THEM, ALL I'M DOING IS COMPOUNDING MOTORIZED TRAFFIC. THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN. I WANT TO STAMP OUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, WHICH ARE THE E MOTO'S, THEN FIGURE THIS OUT. I'M HAPPY TO CALL FOR THE QUESTION THAT WILL LET THE AMENDMENT FALL OR FAIL.

>> ONE MORE CLARIFICATION. ARE WE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, AND CURRENTLY SAYING AND INDICATED THAT HE SCOOTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED. THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. THIS ORDINANCE REFERS TO THE RULES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE PARKS BOARD, WHICH CURRENTLY EXCLUDES THE E-SCOOTERS BEING ALLOWED, SO THIS ORDINANCE WILL NOT, BECAUSE THE PARK WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION WILL TRUMP IT. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE ORDINANCE WILL ALLOW SCOOTERS ON OTHER CONTROLS, SO BUT NOT ON OTHER GREENWAYS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT

MIGHT ALLEVIATE. >> I WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

>> ONE S.E.C. DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO CHANGE YOUR RULES?

>> WE WERE PLANNING TO SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE MOBILITY ORDINANCE. WE WERE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT CONFERENCES, DIFFERENCES AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

>> IF WE ALLOWED IT, THERE IS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PARKS

BOARD WOULD ALLOW IT? >> WE HAVEN'T HAD THE CONVERSATION. WE DID HAVE THE CONVERSATION EARLIER THIS YEAR TO BRING THE PARK RULES AS IT STANDS TODAY TO THE COUNCIL, SO WE HAD AN EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION AT THAT TIME FRAME AND I'M NOT

[01:45:02]

SURE THAT THE PARK BOARD'S PHYSICIAN, SINCE IT'S THE SAME MEMBERS TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN THAT WAS ADOPTED. I'M NOT SURE.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT CONVERSATION. MY GUESS IS THAT THERE IS PROBABLY NOT AN APPETITE TO EXPAND OTHER THAN THE IDEA OF MICRO MOBILITY IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN TOTALITY.

>> I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER THINGS ON OUR AGENDA. COUNSEL, DID YOU

STILL WANT TO DO IT? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT RIGHT NOW WE DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER IF WE PASS THIS?

>> WE DO. IT IS CLEAR THAT IF WHERE YOU ARE RIDING FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE PARK BOARD, WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THE GREENWAYS IN THE CITY AND INCLUDING THE MOST FAMOUS ONE,

THEN CONTROL. >> I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

>> UNLESS THE PARK BOARD MODIFIES THAT, E-SCOOTERS ARE

NOT ALLOWED. >> SINCE IT'S WITHDRAWN.

>> I WILL WITHDRAW. >> ONE FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

THERE ARE RULES TO BE ENFORCEABLE BY THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, IT HAS TO BE CODIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL IT WOULD BE A TWO STEP PROCESS AND THE PARK BOARD WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT AND THE CITY COUNCIL. IT WILL COME BACK TO THIS BODY.

>> THAT MOTION IS WITHDRAWN. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE WITH NO AMENDMENT.

>> SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ANY OTHER CONVERSATION? PLEASE VOTE.

>> I BELIEVE WE DO NEED TO -- THIS IS THE AMENDED VERSION FROM THE ORIGINAL. WE NEED TO DO THAT FIRST.

>> CHANGE YOUR MOTION. >> I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND CHANGE IT TO, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGE. THAT CAME OUT IN THE BONUS PACKAGE.

>> SECOND? >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

THIS PASSES 9-0. DOES THE MOTION AMEND? MOTION TO AMEND PASSES

9-0. MOTION TO APPROVE? >> MOVED.

>> THE SCREEN WAS MESSING UP ON ME. IT IS ALL MOVING. THIS

[13.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2797-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation from the Carmel Police Department Fund (#1110); Sponsor: Councilor(s) Minnaar, Taylor and Worrell.]

PASSES 910. THANKS TO EVERYONE IN LAND USE FOR ALL THE WORK YOU PUT INTO THIS. I KNOW IT'S NOT AN EASY ISSUE. MOVING ON. PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D 2797-25, ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA, AUTHORIZING APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FROM THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT FUND , FUND NUMBER 1110, SPONSOR, COUNSELOR MINNAAR, TAYLOR AND WORRELL? DO I HAVE A MOTION? ZACH, ARE YOU PRESENTING ON THIS?

>> YES, MR. PRESIDENT. THE FIRST ORDINANCE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION IS ALSO TIED TO THE RESOLUTION CC 1117 25-02 IN NEW BUSINESS SECTION. OF GRANT DOLLARS RECEIVED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE AND STATE AGENCY FOR

OVERTIME. >> THAT SEEMS CUT AND DRY. ANY WESTERNS FOR THE COUNCIL BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

COUNSELOR LOCKE ? >> IS THAT NEW OR OVERTIME ON

TOP OR IS THIS --. >> WE WILL RECEIVE THIS IN A WAY THAT DOES ADD TO THE AVAILABLE SPENDING.

>> OKAY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 . ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE? PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE MICROPHONE.

NOT SEEING ANYONE MAKE A MOTION AND I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49:37. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ORDINANCE?

>> I WILL MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY CONVERSATION? PLEASE VOTE. WE

[01:50:04]

CAN ACT ON THIS THIS EVENING. DO I HAVE A MOTION? CONVERSATION?

[13.b. First Reading of Ordinance D-2798-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of Funds from the Opioid Settlement Restricted Fund #257; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Minnaar, Taylor and Worrell. ]

PLEASE VOTE. THIS PASSES. NEXT, FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE, D 2798-25, ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FROM OPIOID SETTLEMENT RESTRICTED FUND 257.

SPONSORS ARE COUNSELORS MINNAAR, TAYLOR AND WORRELL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS? SORRY ABOUT THAT. CUT

YOU OFF GUARD. >> THAT'S OKAY. THIS ORDINANCE APPROPRIATES FUNDS COVERED WITH THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT RESTRICTED

FUNDS TO 57. >> ZACH, PRESENTING ON THIS.

>> THANK YOU. WE OPERATE TWO DIFFERENT OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND ONE IS RESTRICTED DOLLARS AND ONE IS UNRESTRICTED.

AS IT SOUNDS, UNRESTRICTED IS FAIRLY OPEN USES, WHEREAS RESTRICTED CAN ONLY BE USED FOR DRUG TREATMENT ABATEMENT AND THOSE TYPES OF PROGRAMS. THIS IS FOR THE RESTRICTIVE DOLLARS AND WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR I BELIEVE IT WAS $68,900 FOR A PROGRAM THAT DOES MEET CRITERIA OF THE RESTRICTED FUND, SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO APPROPRIATE THOSE DOLLARS TO MAKE PAYMENT

FOR THAT GRANT. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL? IF NOT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51:36. ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ORDINANCE, MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE MICROPHONE. NOT SEEING ANYONE MAKE MOTION THAT WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51, AND 47 SECONDS. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON

THE ORDINANCE? >> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE ROSEN

ACT ON THIS TONIGHT. >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE WHETHER TO SUSPEND THE RULES. ALL RIGHT, WE CAN ACT ON THIS ORDINANCE. COUNSELOR LOCKE? IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS. WE CONNECT ON THIS ORDINANCE THIS EVENING. MOTION

TO APPROVE? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> ANY CONVERSATION? THESE VOTE.

[13.c. First Reading of Ordinance D-2799-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Additional Appropriation of Funds from the City General Fund #101; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen, Snyder, Taylor, Green, Worrell, Ayers, Minnaar, Locke and Joshi.]

THIS PASSES 8-0. MOVING ON TO FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D 2799-25, ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF CARMEL , INDIANA AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND 101 SPONSORS OR COUNSELORS AASEN, SNYDER, TAYLOR, GREEN, WORRELL, LOCKE AND JOSHI. MOTION

TO INTRODUCE? >> MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

>> WHY DON'T YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> THIS ORDINANCE APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EMERGENCY DISASTER RESPONSE BY PARKS AND RECREATION

DEPARTMENT. >> WELCOME BACK, DIRECTOR.

>> AFTER THE APRIL 2ND TORNADO, THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZED UP TO $50,000 OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT STORM AND WE DID INCUR JUST OVER $50,000 FOR A SIGNIFICANT TREE MITIGATION WITHIN CHERRY TREE PARK AND WE HAD TO HIRE A REPUTABLE CONTRACTOR TO HELP REMOVE, AS WELL AS SIGNIFICANT TRIMMING WITHIN THE PARK. THIS PROCESS WILL ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF THOSE FUNDS TO MAKE US HOLD FOR THOSE EXPENSES WE HAVE. WITH THAT, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS.

>> IF NOT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53:52 AND ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE, PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE MICROPHONE. NOT SEEING ANYONE GET UP. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54: 04.

>> MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND ACT ON THIS TONIGHT.

>> PLEASE VOTE WHETHER TO SUSPEND THE RULES. WE CAN ACT ON IT THIS EVENING. MOTION TO APPROVE?

[14.a. Resolution CC-11-17-25-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds Between the Grant Fund (#900) and the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Fund (#106); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Minnaar, Taylor and Worrell.]

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE. >> MOVING ONTO NEW BUSINESS. I CAN PUT MY CLOCK AWAY. RESOLUTION CC 11-17-25-01, AND RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN THE GRANT FUND NUMBER 900 AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE FUND NUMBER 106. A MOTION TO INTRODUCE? WOULD YOU REACH THE SYNOPSIS, COUNSELOR

[01:55:05]

TAYLOR? >> TRANSFERS $1,426,958.15 FROM GRANT FUND NUMBER 900 INTO THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE

NUMBER 106. >> THIS PARTICULAR ACTION WILL TRANSFER AS INDICATED THE FUNDS FROM THE GRANT FUND INTO OUR PARK IMPACT FEE FUND AND THESE GRANT DOLLARS THAT WE RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE GRANT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHITE RIVER IN NORTH EXTENSION. THIS IS BASICALLY THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING THE IMPACT FEE FUND AND THIS IS IRREVERSIBLE FEE PROGRAM, SO WE HAVE TO SPEND MONEY, THEN WE GET THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE STATE AND THE FUNDS COLLECT900 AND WE ARE JUST MAKING OUR EXPENSES WHOLE. WE WILL LIKELY HAVE ONE MORE GRANT TRANSFER REQUEST AND PROBABLY EARLY NEXT YEAR, WHICH WILL MAKE THE FULL $4 MILLION GRANT WHOLE, BUT THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF REIMBURSING THOSE DOLLARS TO US.

>> THIS IS A RESOLUTION. BEFORE THAT, ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS A

RESOLUTION. I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE?

>> ANY CONVERSATION, PLEASE VOTE. THIS PASSES 7-1.

[14.b. Resolution CC-11-17-25-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds Between the Grant Fund (#900) and the Carmel Police Department Fund (#1110); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Minnaar, Taylor and Worrell. ]

RESOLUTION SEE C- 11 MINUS 19-25-02, RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA APPROVING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN GRANT FUND NUMBER 900 , CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT FIND 1110 . DO I HAVE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE?

>> SECOND. >> WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE TRANSFER 63,000 -- $62,181.47.

ON THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT FUND, $1110 .

>> THIS IS A COMPANION TO THE ONE WE JUST VOTED ON?

>> IT'S TRANSFERRING THE CASH THAT BACKS THE APPROPRIATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, MOTION CONVERSATION? IF NOT, PLEASE ? -

[14.c. Resolution CC-11-17-25-03; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving an Amendment to the Carmel Comprehensive Plan to Incorporate a new Subarea Plan for the US-31 Corridor; Sponsor: Councilor Minnaar.]

VOTE. THAT PASSES 9-0. NEXT, RESOLUTION CC 11-17-25-03, RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF CARMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE A NEW SUB AREA PLAN FOR THE U.S. 31

CORRIDOR. SPONSOR IS MINNAAR. >> MOVED INTRODUCE.

>> READ THE SYNOPSIS. >> UNPOPULAR TONIGHT. THIS RESOLUTION AMENDS THE CARMEL CONFERENCE OF PLAN TO INCORPORATE A NEW SUB AREA PLAN FOR THE U.S. 31 CORRIDOR AND

MAKES ASSOCIATION REVISION. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WILL TELL YOU THIS AHEAD OF TIME. I HAVE HEARD THAT THIS WILL LIKELY GO TO COMMITTEE, SO WE HAVE -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THE WHOLE THING TONIGHT, BUT WE DO WANT A

PRESENTATION. >> I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD ASK THE SHORT VERSION TONIGHT. GOOD EVENING. ADRIAN WITH THE CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS STARTED AS A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION IN JULY AND THEY HAD THREE COMMITTEE MEETINGS TO DISCUSS AND MAKE REVISIONS AND THE PLAN COMMISSION'S AMENDED VERSION IS A RESOLUTION. WHAT THIS WILL DO IF PASSED, IT WILL ADD A NEW SUB AREA PLAN TO THE CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEE SECTION 5 OF THE CARMEL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . AS SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL OR THEY HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED IN 2022, WHICH IS A CITYWIDE SET OF VISION AND POLICIES AND GOALS AND MAPS FOR THE CITY, WE PROMISE TO COME BACK AS WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPECIAL AREAS, CORRIDORS THAT NEED ATTENTION OR REVISION, SO REVISING ALL OF THOSE AT THE TIME WE DID THE ENTIRE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS GOING TO BE TOO BIG A JOB, SO HE PROMISED TO COME BACK IN PIECES.

U.S. 31 SUB AREA PLAN AND HOMEPLACE IS ALSO GOING ON SIMULTANEOUSLY, WHICH WILL BE COMING TO YOU SHORTLY, SO THIS

[02:00:05]

DOCUMENT WOULD BE ADOPTED INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE VISION AND MAKE ASSOCIATED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND TO MATCH SOME THINGS IN THE SUB AREA PLAN. QUICKLY, I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT SUB AREA PLAN AS GUIDANCE FOR A SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD OR CORRIDOR. SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE DESIGNATED CITYWIDE AND BROADER THAN THE VISION AND POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERALL. WHAT A SUB AREA PLAN DOES NOT DO AND THERE IS A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT I THINK BEARS REPEATING AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

REVISING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT UPDATE THE ZONING REGULATIONS OR ANY PUD'S THAT MIGHT APPEAR IN ANY OF THESE DISTRICTS. IT DOES NOT ALTER THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS. IT DOES NOT MAKE DESIGN OR LAND-USE DECISIONS OR ANY INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT SITES AND IT DOES NOT ALLOCATE ANY FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE OR PROGRAMS OR ORGANIZATIONS. THERE ARE LOTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND SUB AREA PLANS. THEY ARE BROAD RANGING DOCUMENTS, BUT A LOT OF THINGS WOULD REQUIRE SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL APPROVALS TO IMPLEMENT. SUCH AS PERHAPS AMENDING THE UTO BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS. THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, THERE IS A COVER RESOLUTION THAT POINTS TO THIS DOCUMENT AS EXHIBIT A AND THE MOBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AMENDMENT AS EXHIBIT B, BUT THE DOCUMENT ITSELF IS COMPRISED OF OF FIVE DIFFERENT PARTS.

>> THIS IS ALL IN THE PAPERLESS PACKET, TOO. A PLANNING SUMMARY GROWTH STRATEGY DESIGN AND POLICY GUIDANCE AND THAT IS WHERE YOU WILL SEE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON POTENTIAL UGO AMENDMENTS, THEN THE SUB AREA PLAN ITSELF. AS YOU ARE NAVIGATING THE DOCUMENT, IF YOU DOWNLOAD IT -- I DON'T THINK

I'VE PRETTY >> I KNOW WE ARE -- FIRST OF ALL, THE 90 DAY RULE DOESN'T APPLY FOR THIS, SO WE HAVE TIME.

>> THIS IS -- COMPREHENSIVE PLANS DO NOT HAVE THE 90 DAY RULE, SO THE COMMITTEE CAN DISCUSS THIS AT ITS LEISURE.

>> I WILL ASK THIS OUT OF RESPECT FOR YOUR TIME. AS OUR PLANNING COMMISSION WERE PRESENTED, WILL YOU GIVE ME THE SOUND BITE FOR THE Y ON THIS? WHERE WE DOING THIS? GIVE US THE

SOUND BITE. >> I WOULD SAY THAT WITH THE EVER-CHANGING DEVELOPMENT WORLD, AS EVERY THING HAS CHANGED AND WE DON'T NEED THESE 40 STORY BUILDINGS WITH BIG GRAY PARKING LOTS THAT ARE SOMEWHAT EMPTY, WE ARE LOOKING AT WAYS -- THIS WILL HELP TO FIND WAYS TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE WITH NICE GUIDELINES AROUND IT. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

>> I THINK YOU DID GREAT. IF ONLY THE TV NEWS WAS STILL HERE.

DO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH EACH PAGE OR SAVE THAT? I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATER. I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO

DISCUSS. >> MAY I INTERJECT?

>> YARD AND COMPANY WILL BE AT THE NEXT LAND-USE COMMITTEE. IS

THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS OUR PLAN. ONCE WE FIND OUT WHEN THE COMMITTEE WILL BE MEETING, I WILL COMMUNICATE WITH THEM, SO WE CAN HAVE THE CONSULTANT HERE, AS WELL.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT TO SHOW THE SLIDES, SO YOU CAN SEE AND THEY WILL GO THROUGH THE SLIDES WITH US AND DETAILED INFORMATION AND DATA THAT THEY COLLECTED. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL COUNSELORS TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS.

>> I THINK THIS IS A BIG ONE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? NOT TO MOVE YOU ALONG TOO FAST. I KNOW IT'S GETTING

LATE. >> WE COVERED ALL THE HIGH

[02:05:02]

POINTS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS WILL BE GOING TO LAND-USE AND SPECIALIST STUDIES COMMITTEE.

ABSOLUTELY. >> JESSICA? CAN YOU SEE -- CAN WE GET A LARGE ROOM AT THE LIBRARY FOR THE NEXT REGULAR

SCHEDULE? THANK YOU. >> MOVING ON, TWO MORE ITEMS.

[14.d. First Reading of Ordinance D-2802-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving and Adopting a Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Aasen, Ayers, Joshi, Minnaar, Snyder, Taylor and Worrell. ]

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE, DEED 2802-25, CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SPONSOR COUNSELORS, AYERS, JOSHI, TAYLOR AND WHAT WORRELL. COUNSELOR, WOULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> IT IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION

AGREEMENT. >> DIRECTOR?

>> WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TONIGHT THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHICH IF YOU RECALL IN DECEMBER 2024, THE COUNCIL APPROVED A THIRD AMENDMENT, WHICH BASICALLY LOCKED THE PARK ORDINANCE CURRENT STATE AND GAVE US A COUPLE OF YEARS TO THE END OF 2026 TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A NEW FUNDING MECHANISM THAT WOULD ALLOW BOTH THE CITY AND TOWNSHIP TO BE VIABLE FUNDING PARTNERS FOR THE PARK SYSTEM. IT HAS BEEN A SYSTEM OR PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN VERY VITAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF CARMEL PARKS AND RECREATION AND I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS LOCAL THAT HAS HELPED GIVE US THE GROUNDWORK AND FOUNDATION TO BE THE PARK SYSTEM THAT WE ARE TODAY. IT HAS BEEN PARAMOUNT FOR US OR CERTAINLY A HIGH GOAL TO FIND A WAY TO KEEP THAT MARRIAGE TOGETHER. THAT IS WHAT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES. ONE, IT DOES EXTEND WITH FOUR APPOINTEES.. WHY DID WE PICK 2042? THE CLAY TOWNSHIP IMPACT PROGRAM BONDS THAT WERE ISSUED AND SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCE THE PARK SYSTEM AND THE LAST OF THOSE ARE PAID OFF IN 2022. IT IS LINED UP TO THAT MAJOR MILESTONE. UNDER RECENT CHANGES AND A COMPANION HOUSE BILL. IT DOES REQUIRE TOWNSHIPS TO NOW ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND ADOPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

OBVIOUSLY, THEY HAVE INVESTED SIGNIFICANTLY INTO THE PARK SYSTEM AND HAVE COMMITTED TO INCORPORATE PROJECTS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PAT FUNDED IN THE TOWNSHIP INTO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. ANY UNENCUMBERED UNAPPROPRIATED FUNDS THAT ARE WITHIN THEIR BUDGETS AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

AND IT IS LOCKING UP SOME PROJECTS, AS WELL AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT ANY OTHER CASH RESERVES REMAIN WITH THE

TOWNSHIP AND CAN BENEFIT. >>

>> MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE THIRD COMPONENT OF IT IS UNDER THE EXISTING LOCAL COOPERATION, THERE IS A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND BASICALLY THIS SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT CAN BE USED TO REPAY THOSE BONDS, SPECIFIC TO PARKS. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WHICH HAS A SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT. THIS IS PARKS UNDER INDIANA PARK LAW. UNDER THE CURRENT INTERLOCAL AUTHORITY WITH THE CITY OF CARMEL, THE CITY OF CARMEL AND THE ALMOST 35 YEAR HISTORY OF CARMEL PARKS AND RECREATION, HAS NOT USED THAT AUTHORITY. THE WAY, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WITH THE STATE ACCOUNTS, THE CITY AND TOWNSHIP ESSENTIALLY HAVE THE SAME RESTRICTIONS WITH ONE SMALL EXCEPTION FOR THE CITY THAT INCORPORATES WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP. STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS WILL ONLY ALLOW ONE OR THE OTHER ENTITY TO DO IT, NOT BOTH, EVEN THOUGH STATE STATUTE ALLOWS TOWNSHIP DENSITIES TO BE OF USE THAT SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT IS BASED ON HOW WE ARE FORMED AND THE COTERMINOUS STATUS, ONLY ONE CAN DO. SO WHAT THIS ALLOWS, WOULD PERMIT AND WOULD AFFECT, IS THE TRANSFER OF THAT TAXING AUTHORITY FROM THE CITY TO THE TOWNSHIP. AND THAT PROVIDES THE MECHANISM THAT THEY OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS TO THE PARKS. IT

[02:10:02]

DOESN'T COMMIT THEM. THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS JUST AS CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR BONDS. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. THE PARK BOARD WOULD STILL, JUST AS WE WOULD HAVE TO, FOR ANY BONDS THAT CITY COUNCIL UNDER ANY OF YOUR AUTHORITIES, WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE YOU A COMPELLING CASE TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT OF ALREADY. BUT IT ACTUALLY GRANTS THE TOWNSHIP BASICALLY IT'S ONLY TRULY VIABLE EXISTING MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE CAPITAL FOR THE PARKS. SO THAT IN A NUTSHELL IS WHAT THIS DOES. WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THIS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AND THEY HAVE APPROVED IT SO PENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, THAT AUTHORITY WOULD AUTOMATIC TRANSFER. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE COUNCIL TO WAIVE THE RULES AND ADOPT TONIGHT. WITH THAT I'LL BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> >> I GUESS JUST CLARIFICATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC. ONE IS THAT THE CITY OF CARMEL IS NOT CURRENTLY USING THIS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO REDUCE THE CITY OF COUNSEL

CARMEL'S REVENUE? >> THAT IS CORRECT, THIS NO WAY IMPACTS THE CITY'S EXISTING REVENUE SOURCES IN THE CITY HAS

NEVER USED THIS SOURCE. >> THANK YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE THE AGREEMENT. IT LOOKS GOOD. INSTEAD OF EXTENDING IT YEAR-BY-YEAR, TWO METERS BY TWO METERS, UP UNTIL 2042. SO MY QUESTION IS BASED ON IN THE WAY I READ THE STATUTES, THE CITY, THE EXISTING LAW IS GOING TO BE TAKING OVER. THAT'S HOW IT'S ULTIMATELY DRAFTED. THERE IS CURRENTLY LEGISLATION LIKELY COMING, YOU KNOW, TO TERMINATE THE TOWNSHIP.

ULTIMATELY WITH THE DEBT ASSUMING SOMETHING COMES OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND ULTIMATELY THAT'S THE WAY TOWNSHIPS ARE ULTIMATELY -- SOME TOWNSHIPS ARE ELIMINATED. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CITY WITH THE DEBT AND EVERYTHING ELSE . I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT ANY ENABLING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BE THAT CONSOLIDATION OR ELIMINATION, BECAUSE THOSE SPECIFIC RULES HAVEN'T BEEN DEFINED. IT IS PRESUMED BUT OF COURSE IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO MAKE THE DEFINITION THAT THAT WOULD TRANSFER. IT IS ALSO PRESUMED THAT THIS TAXING AUTHORITY, IF THE TOWNSHIP WAS GONE, THE CITY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY IMPACT SO NOT JUST THE DEBT BUT ALSO THE WAY TO CONTINUE FUNDING THAT THAT. I THINK THAT IS A SAFE ASSUMPTION BASED ON -- IT IS CLEAR THAT UNDER EXISTING STATUTE THAT AUTHORITY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE

GRANTED BACK TO THE CITY. >> I'M PUTTING COUNCILOR TAYLOR ON THE SPOT. BUT AT SOME POINT HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION OR KIND OF THINKING OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CITIES BOND RATING AND DEBT STRUCTURE IF ASSUMED, EVENTUALLY ASSUMES THAT TOWNSHIP'S DEBT 2 THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY NO BUT LIKE ON A MACRO

LEVEL. >> NO BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT IF WE ASSUMED ANOTHER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION'S DEATH, WE ALSO ASSUME THE LEVY THAT IS THE DEBT SERVICE LEVY THAT WAS ESTABLISHED TO REPAY THAT DEBT AND ALSO THERE TAXING AUTHORIT.

WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THIS PARKS DISTRICT TAX. THE REAL CONCERN , WITH THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS FIX IS THE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION LOCAL INCOME TAX ISSUE, WHICH SOME OF THE TOWNSHIPS DEBT IS BACKED BY LOCAL INCOME TAX AND THAT'S A BIGGER ISSUE THAN MOODY'S AND S&P HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS ISSUE. IT'S THROUGH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS THAT ISSUED DEBT BASED BACKED BY LOCAL INCOME TAXES, BEGINNING WITH THE CHANGES TO LOCAL INCOME TAXES THAT SOURCE OF REVENUE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION, MEANING THE PHYSICAL BODY HAS TO APPROPRIATE HERE AND CREATES ADDITIONAL RISKS FOR CREDITOR SO MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIX THAT ISSUE THIS SESSION BUT THAT'S A BIG ISSUE.

AND THAT DOESN'T -- THAT'S AN ISSUE REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE ARE

ADDRESSING TODAY. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT WOULD NOT AFFECT OUR BOND ISSUE, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, IT WOULD NOT -- OKAY, BUT HYPOTHETICALLY, AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, IT WOULD NOT REDUCE THE CAPACITY FOR US TO BOND IF WE NEEDED TO, EITHER. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

>> TO CLEAR THAT UP ON THE SAME LINES, TOO, THIS SPECIAL TAXING

[02:15:01]

DISTRICT, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SPECIAL BENEFITS TAX THAT WE USE AS A BACKUP ON OUR CRC BONDS, CORRECT?

>> IT IS . IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THIS IS SPECIFIC TO

PARKS. PERTAINS ONLY TO PARKS. >> THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING, WHICH BY THE WAY, WE NEVER INITIATED A SPECIAL BENEFITS TAX. WE USED IT AS A CREDIT ENHANCEMENT ON SOME OF OUR BONDS. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE.

>> THAT'S THE RDA'S TAXING AUTHORITY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTION, COUNCILOR LOCK?

>> JUST ONE. BASED ON WHAT YOU SHOWED EARLIER, IT WOULD BE 66

OR 67 WHEN THIS COMES THROUGH? >>

>> I TOLD YOU IT WAS MY BIRTHDAY, RIGHT?

>> COUNCILOR LOCK, WE MAKE MAKE YOU LAUGH. TODAY WAS THE 67TH DAY OF SCHOOL FOR CARMEL PLACE SCHOOLS SO MANY OF THE ELEMENTS OR SCHOOLS AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS CELEBRATED IN SOME FORM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS, COUNCILOR SNYDER?

>> SO AS PERTAINS TO THE TOWNSHIP, IT'S SUCH A HYPOTHETICAL AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GOVERN BASED ON A RIDICULOUS HYPOTHETICAL. AND THE -- WE DID DO A STUDY ON WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MITCH DANIELS PUSHED THIS THROUGH LAST TIME, AND OBVIOUSLY TO RICH'S POINT, THE LEGISLATURE COULD CHANGE THINGS BUT AT THE TIME, WE GET THE DEATH, WE DON'T GET THE TAX RATE BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY CAPPED AND THEN THE LEAD, MONEY THAT THE TOWNSHIP DOES COLLECT RIGHT NOW, THE TOWNSHIP WHICH BY THE WAY COSTS THE TAXPAYERS VERY, VERY LITTLE, IT'S THREE EMPLOYEES THAT MAKE MAYBE $250,000 COMBINED. BUT THE TWO, OVER $2 MILLION IN RELIEF THAT THEY RECEIVED DOES NOT COME TO CARMEL. IT WOULD GET DIVVIED UP AMONGST THE 30 OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS AND HAMILTON COUNTY. SO ANYBODY SUPPORTING A TOWNSHIP EMILY IS REALLY DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF CARMEL. I DO BELIEVE THE TOWNSHIP STILL OFFERS A VITAL ROLE, NUMBER ONE. WE ARE HOPING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HELP CONTRIBUTE AND BUILD FIRE STATION NUMBER SEVEN. THEY HAVE BUILT EVERY SINGLE FIRE STATION IN CARMEL. THE PURCHASED, UNTIL THIS PAST YEAR, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF FIRE APPARATUS, AND THEY HAVE BUILT SO MANY THINGS FOR THE COMMON GOOD, INCLUDING -- AND I'M GOING TO BUTCHER THE NUMBERS, BUT $200 MILLION IN PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, ALL FROM SUCH A SMALL LITTLE OFFICE.

SO ANYBODY THAT WANTS THAT TO GO AWAY, I DON'T BELIEVE ARE PUTTING THE PEOPLE OF CARMEL FIRST. BUT TO THE FINANCIAL QUESTION, IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL. WE DON'T KNOW AND I'M SURE THEY'LL DO A BRILLIANT JOB LIKE THEY DID ON THIS ONE.

>> WELL ON THAT NOTE, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ORDINANCE?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SUSPEND THE RULES.

>> SUSPEND THE RULES. ONE OF THEM. I MOVE ON ALL OF THEM.

>> I KNOW YOUR SECOND. PLEASE VOTE TO SUSPEND THE RULES.

>> WE ARE WINDING UP HERE TODAY.

>> YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'M GOING TO PUSH IT OR IS ANYONE AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED, THEN. AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT AGAINST IT, IT'S SUSPENDED. OKAY. THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED. NOW WE CAN ACT ON RECEIVING. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THIS PASSES.

[14.e. First Reading of Ordinance D-2803-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 3, Section 8-20 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor: Councilor Joshi. ]

THANK YOU SO MUCH, DIRECTOR. OUR FINAL ITEM ON THE EVENING, FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE THE 2803-25, AND ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 8-20 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE. SPONSOR IS COUNCILOR JOE SHE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO

INTRODUCE? >> MOVED TO INTRODUCE.

>> SECOND. >> COUNCILOR JOSHI READ THE

ORDINANCE. >> EXPANDING CITY STREETS IN THE DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION. NICE AND SIMPLE.

>> DIRECTOR PIECE, I WANT YOU TO PRESENT, BEFORE YOU DO, COUNCILOR JOE SHE TOLD ME THIS, WOULD YOU TELL ME A LITTLE ABOUT HOW YOU KIND OF GOT THIS GOING?

>> DEERFIELD SUBDIVISION IS IN MY DISTRICT AND THEY WERE STRUGGLING WITH A GREAT DEAL OF SPEEDING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY HAVE A LOT -- THEY HAD A LOT OF TURNOVER AND HAD NEW FAMILIES MOVING IN SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF YOUNG KIDS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN HER NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, SO KIND OF DEALING WITH THE SPEEDING HAS BECOME MORE OF AN ISSUE. SO THEY SIMPLY WANT A REDUCTION IN THE SPEED

[02:20:02]

FROM 30 TO 25 MILES AN HOUR, WHICH IS ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS THE INJURY RATES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?

>> NOPE. >> THIS IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 96TH AND

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL?