[00:00:05] >> WELCOME TO THE MONDAY, OCTOBER 19TH, CARMEL FINANCE, UTILITIES AND RULES MEETING. ITEMS, ORDINANCE D-2772-25 AND/OR OR ADOPTING REQUIREMENT FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION RECEIVING PUBLIC SUPPORT FROM CITY AND RESOLUTION CC-10-05-26-02 RESOLUTION FINDING THE CITY 2027 PROPERTY TAX RATE SHOULD NOT EXCEED, SAME RATE AS 2026 RATE AND RECOMMENDING HOW DLGF PROPERTY TAX LEVY AMONGING CITY FUNDS, IN [1.a. 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; Sponsors: Councilors Aasen, Ayers, Minnaar, Snyder and Worrell.] INTERFUND BORROWING. FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS ORDINANCE D-27 D-2772-25. PROPOSED ORDINANCE BEEN IN OUR PACKET FOR SOME TIME. ESTABLISHING RULE AND CHANGES TO ORDINANCE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO OVER CHANGING AND WHY THEY ARE RECOMMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION? >> BENJAMIN LEGG, OFFICE CORPORATION COUNSEL. ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PRESENTED SOME MOONS AGO, WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, TO PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE HERE. THERE IS NOT ANY ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE SEEN THAT COMES ANYWHERE CLOSE OR NEAR THE SCOPE OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS PRESENTED FOR THE CONTROL RELATED FROM COUNCIL TO NONPROFIT THAT RECEIVE FUNDING. TO SOME DEGREE, ELEMENT OF FIRST IMPRESSION FROM OUR ANALYSIS AND AU ALSO A CAUTION AS TO EXTENDING THE ROLE THAT IS PROVIDED FOR THIS BODY, THE COUNCIL BODY. SO WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED, THERE ARE SPLIT THEM, SPLIT INTO TWO DISTINCT ISSUES, IF YOU WILL. THE FIRST BEING ONE OF SCOPE RELATED TO THE DEFINITION, SO WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF AFFILIATED ENTITY, WE HAVE VERY BROAD, VERY BROAD LANGUAGE HERE. IT IS ENTIRELY UNCLEAR FROM THE READING OF THIS DEFINITION WHICH MAINTAINS FIVE DISTINCT SUBSECTIONS. HOW MANY NONPROFITS WOULD BE PULLED INTO THIS SCOPE. THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT SUCH AS AGENCIES UTILIZED, GROUNDS, INDIRECTLY SUPPORTUX , THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE IS UNCLEAR WHAT NONPROFIT WOULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS COUNCIL. WE HAVE FIRST SUBSECTION WE HAVE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, THOSE ARE BROADLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS COUNCIL AND FORMED UNDER T THEIRS CODE UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE ONE THAT EXIST FOR THE CITY A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW. >> AND COUNCIL HAS AN APPOINTEE AND COUNCILMEMBER ON THAT BOARD FOR THE RECORD. >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THE AWAYS OF INCORPORATION FOR THAT ENTITY WERE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A COUNCIL APPOINTEE TO BE PART OF THAT BOARD. THAT IS ALREADY THERE. THE OTHER BROAD LANGUAGE IS SOMETHING THAT QUITE FRANKLY I'M NOT SURE THE SCOPE OF, HOW FAR IT GOES, HOW MANY ENTITIES IT TOUCH TOUCHES, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, SUBSECTION THREE ONLINE 33, IT HAS NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION UTILIZED BY THE CITY TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SUPPORT OR ACCEPT DONATION FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN DIRECT TAX OR FEE REVENUE SUPPORT, EVENTS OR PROGRAMS OF THE CITY. IS THAT ROTARY CLUB? WITH CARMEL FEST? HOW FAR AND THAT IS A CLASSIC [00:05:06] LOOK, BUT THE TRUTH IS THIS CITY, DOES TREMENDOUS AMOUNT TO SUPPORT NONPROFITS AND SO IT IS UNCLEAR HOW FAR THE SCOPE WOULD TRULY GO, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE DEFINING TERMS AS TO WHAT UTILIZED MEAN OR INDIRECTLY SUPPORT MEANS. PUHAVE TO PROPERLY DEFINE WHAT AN AFFILIATED ENTITIES IS. NEXT ASPECT, WHAT CAN COUNCIL DO IF AFFILIATED ENTITIES RECEIVE SUPPORT IN PROPOSAL IS THAT THEY HAVE AN APPOINTEE ON THE BOARD. BUT BEYOND THAT, PROPOSAL IS THE REMAINING MEMBERS OF AFFILIATED ENTITIES GOVERNING BODY MUST BE APPROVED BY A VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WE ALREADY HAVE UNDER INDIANA CODE LAWS THAT CONTROL NONPROFITS, INDIANA CODE ARTICLE SO WHAT YOU WOULD BE ASKING THIS ENTITY TO DO WOULD BE TO AMEND BYLAWS IN A MANNER, SORRY, INCORPORATION TO INCLUDE COUNCIL APPOINTEE ON IT AND BEYOND THAT AND QUITE LIKELY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER STATUTE WOULD THEN REQUIRE ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF T THAT -- UNDER THOSE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO BE APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL. IT IS EXTREMELY BROAD STROKE AND IT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND TAKING ON. TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS BOARD WANTS TO -- THIS COUNCIL WISHES TO HAVE SOME SAY OR SOME ELEMENT OF OVERSIGHT IN RELATION TO FUNDING PROVIDED TO NONPROFITS, THE PROPOSAL WILL BE TO FOLLOW A MORE TRADITIONAL PATH AND THOSE PATHS SET OUT PREVIOUSLY WOULD BEING REPORT ING FOR ENTITIES THAT CLEARLY FALL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BODY. SO IN THOSE INSTANCES, THE PROPOSAL FROM THE ADMIN ADMINISTRATION, WHICH I WILL PUT UP, I HAVE IT HERE. TWO SECONDS. >> FOR THE RECORD THIS WAS DISTRIBUTED A FEW WEEKS AGO TO ENTIRE COUNCIL AND FINANCE COMMITTEE. MONDAY NIGHT OF THE LAST MEETING. >> I WOULD SAY WE AS THIS IS SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO -- RECOMMEND STILL REVIEWING TO EXTENT COUNCIL WISHES TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS TO ALLOW LEGAL TO HAVE MORE EYES ON IT, BUT HERE IS THE PROPOSAL TO AFFILIATED ENTITY SAYS, NARROWING DEFINITION, IF YOU WANT TO COME DOWN TO LINE 38. WHICH RUNS THROUGH TO LINE 42. IT INCLUDES SAME DEFINITION FOR A 509A3, THAT IS NARROWLY DEFINED ANYWAY. IT THEN HAS A NONPROFIT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT EXIST TO SUPPORT THE CITY OR AGENCIES, SO THESE ARE 4C, DC ENTITIES THAT EXIST ON THE REDEVELOPMENT SIDE. >> QUESTION, BASICALLY KEPT GENERALLY SAME AFFILIATED ENTITY DESCRIPTION WITH MINOR CHARGES AND CORRECTIONS AND REMOVING NONPROFITS THAT AREN'T NORMALLY JUST FUNDED THROUGH THE ANNUAL BUDGET? >> WHAT YOU WOULD REFER TO IS AFFILIATED ENTITIES IS WHAT EXIST HERE, ENTITIES THAT EXIST UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO BE SUPP SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS CHRIS KENDALL MART AND ESTABLISHED UNDER 509A3, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TH AUTHORITY FOR THE CRC AND THE STATUTE, AS WELL. ROLE WOULD BE LIMITED, AS WELL. THE ROLE BASED ON THAT FUNDING, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO KEEP MORE TRADITIONAL PATH, WHICH IS THAT THE AFFILIATED ENTITY AND [00:10:03] AGAIN LINE 62 HERE WILL SUBMIT TO THE COMMON COUNCIL ORIGINAL REPORT OF PREVIOUS YEAR'S ACTIVITIES AND THEN PROVIDE FOR T THE -- TO PROVIDE WRITTEN REPORT, IT IS REPORTING REQUIREMENT, IF I CAN DRAWBACK AS TO COUNCIL POWERS, THE COUNCIL'S POWERS COME FROM THE POWER NOT TO REGULATE NONPROFIT, POWER TO APPROPRIATE AND CONTROL THE PURSE. SO WHEN THE COUNCIL APROPRIATES FUNDS AND DECIDES TO PROVIDE FUNDS IT CAN SET CONDITION ON THOSE FUNDS. POWER EXIST IN A MANNER THAT IT HAS BEEN USED AS MEANS BY WHICH TO GET REPORTING REQUIREMENT SO DECISIONS MADE EVERY YEAR, APPROPRIATION IS SOMETHING IT CAN COME BACK TO AND SEEK AND ON YEARLY BASIS, AS WELL, THAT YOU CAN DECIDE BASED ON PRIOR ACTION OF THAT ORGANIZATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PRACTICALITY INVOLVED OF CHANGING YOUR CHANGING THE CONTRACT THAT EXIST BETWEEN THE NONPROFIT AND THE STATE, THAT IS WHAT AFRLS OF INCORPORATION ARE OR NONPROFIT AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU ARE SEEKING TO AMEND ARTICLES IN CORPORATION GOING FORWARD FOREVER. SO IF YOU HAVE A NONPROFIT THAT ONE TIME RECEIVES $25,000, AND NO OTHER YEAR RECEIVES IT, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THEM AMEND ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ASSUMING IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO, WHICH COURT WOULD ALLOW AND THEY WOULDN'T BE CHALLENGED AND AGAIN, STRONG CAUTION HERE BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION IN THE SCOPE OF THE COUNCIL'S ROLE. ASSUMING IT WOULD BE ALLOWED PRACTICALITY IS SUCH THIS ENTITY WOULD HAVE A MEMBER VOTED BY COUNCIL ON IT AND MAY RECEIVE FUNDING ONCE. OF COURSE CAN AMEND ARTICLE OF INCORPORATION AND MOVE FORWARD THERE OR AGAIN YOU MIGHT BY CREATING SUCH STRONG OBLIGATIONS UPON THE ORGANIZATION, THE NONPROFIT, POTENTIALLY YOU PUSH THOSE ORGANIZATION SAYS AWAY FROM SUPPORTING THE CITY. POTENTIALLY PUT REQUIREMENT SO STRONGLY UPON THEM THAT THEY ARE THEN ADVERSE TO COME AND SEEK FUNDING THAT THEY NEED AND THEY THAT IS POLICY BASED VERSUS LEGAL BASED DETERMINATION AND SHOULD BE PART OF YOUR REVIEW AS TO PRACTICAL EFFECT 'VE SUCH A BROAD AND STRONG HAND CHANGE THROUGH THE ORDINANCE. SO THE PROPOSAL HERE WOULD BE KEEP THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE ENTITIES THAT MORE READILY WOULD BE AFFILIATED ENTITIES FOR THE CITY AND ALLOW THEM TO COME REPORT AND FROM THERE YOU CAN MAKE DETERMINATIONS ON AN ONGOING BASIS BASED ON APPROPRIATIONS POWER THIS COUNCIL HAS. >> QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN MINNAAR. >> THANK YOU, WENT DOWN RABBIT HOLE OF 23-17 LOOKING AT RULE, I WANTED TO RESEARCH TO SEE IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO AND REACHED OUT TO NONFOR PROFIT ATTORNEY TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THEM AND YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. S THE PROBLEM I UNDERSTOOD EVERY NONFOR PROFIT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION WHICH WOULD SEEM TO BE A HARDSHIP. IT IS COSTLY, IT DOES TAKE MONEY TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO AMENDIOR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND PUTS UNDO HARDSHIP ON NONFOR PROFITS. I DON'T HAVE ISSUE WITH THE REPORTING PIECE OF IT, THAT IS WHEN WE LOOK AT ARTS GRANT AND MECHANISM SET FORTH THROUGH THAT, THEY USE BASICALLY A COMMITTEE, THE CITY COUNCIL IS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. WHEN WE DECIDE TO FUND OR NOT FUND AN ORGANIZATION EVERY YEAR. WE HAVE THAT MECHANISM IN PLACE, [00:15:03] ONLY QUESTION I TRULY HAVE IS IN DEFINITION OF AFFILIATE, ARE WE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY OF TYPE ONE BECAUSE AGAIN THE -- YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE SCOPE, IT IS NOT IN THE LANGUAGE. TYPE ONE, I COULD SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHERE WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. TO DO IT FOR EVERY NONFOR PROFIT, THEY WOULD NEED THE SAME RULE WOULD APPLY AND WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION. >> YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO AMEND ARTICLE OF INCORPORATION AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL CHALLENGES SCOPE OF POWER OF THIS BODY. I WILL ALSO JUST STATE THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS PROPOSAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATION RELATED TO AN AMENDMENT TO THIS, TO EXTENT THE COUNCIL BELIEVE THERE NEED TO BE ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT WHICH DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST, I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE CRC REPORTING ON REGULAR BASIS AND YOU HAVE 4CDC TYPE OF ENTITIES ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT REDEVELOPMENT. SGLP WE HAVE APPOINTEE TO THE 4CD.C. >> I'M NOT SURE THAT IT IS NECESSARY AMENDMENT TO THE EXTENT YOU FEEL LIKE THERE NEED TO BE SOMETHING MORE READILY CODIFIED TO PROVIDE THAT REPORTING, THEN SO BE IT, THIS IS SOMETHING PROPOSED. I'M NOT SURE IT IS SOMETHING T THAT -- >> COUNCILLOR, QUESTION? COU COUNCILOR GREEN? >> I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN MINNAAR SAID, A LONG TIME SINCE THIS WAS INTRODUCED AND BACK WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED, I THOUGHT IT WAS A REAL RUSH AND I READ THROUGH IT FROM LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, TWO YEARS AGO, 18 MONTHS AGO, I WAS QUESTIONING LEGAL AUTHORITY WE HAD TO DO ANY OF THIS, SOUNDS LIKE YOU REVIEWED IT AND COUNCILMAN MINNAAR, THERE ARE QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE PRECEDENT AND LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO THESE THINGS WHEN IN THE END IF WE WANT SOMEBODY TO REPORT TO US WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT HAVING THEM REPORT TO US. SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE KIND OF INTENT IF THIS IS NEEDED AT ALL. AND IF IT IS NEEDED, IF MAJORITY OF COUNCIL THINKS IT IS NEEDED JUST NARROWING IT DOWN INTO REQUIRING YOUR REPORTING. SO THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK WE SHOULD, YOU ELUDED TO IT COUNCILOR GREEN, THINK OF THE MOTIVATION OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS REACTION TO AN EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE AND AND THE LESSON I LEARNED IS INTRODUCING ORD ORDINANCES HALF BAKED AS BECAUSE THERE IS SOME CONFLICT OR IT IS REACTION OR IT'S SOMEBODY'S MAD IS BAD GOVERNMENT. I THINK WE SHOULD END THIS TODAY. IT'S NOT NEEDED AND WHATEVER ROLE I PLAY IN THAT I APOLOGIZE IN THE CRAFTING OF THIS ORIGINAL BUT THIS SHOULD GO BACK WITH A NOT NEEDED RECOMMENDATION AND I AGREE WITH THE REPORTING, WE CAN ASK FOR THAT ANY TIME AND WE DO ROUTINELY. SO THANK YOU, BENJAMIN, FOR BEING CAREFUL AND THOUGHTFUL IN YOUR RESPONSE, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS NOW FULLING Y UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE ARE TODAY. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILOR. >> I TEND TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY SAID. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO FORCE NONPROFIT TO HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR BYLAWS AND ARTICLES OF CORPORATION TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY FOR AN EVENT. AS THE COUNCILORS STATED WE CAN IN BUDGETING PROCESS IF THEY ARE COMING FOR FUNDING WE CAN REQUEST ITEMS, I KNOW RELATED TO ARTS GRANT THAT WAS DONE, ADMINISTRATION ALREADY REQUESTS FINANCIAL REPORTING WHICH COULD [00:20:05] BE EASILY DISTRIBUTED TO THE COUNCIL IF NEEDED OR IF THERE IS QUESTION, THAT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED, 990S ISSUE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS YOU CAN LOOK UP ANY TIME. IRS TAX FORM 990S, I TEND TO AGREE. I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ON THIS. WE HAVE THREE ACTIONS, WE CAN VOTE TO SEND BRAK WITH NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION BACK TO FULL COUNCIL. WE COULD AMEND IT WITH LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY ADMINISTRATION, WHICH DECREASES THE DEFINITION OF WHAT AFFILIATE ENTITY IS AND MANDATE FINANCIAL REPORTING. OR HOLD THIS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION TO EITHER OR OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED IN -- AND/OR WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, THREE ACTIONS, DO WE HAVE MOTION RELATED TO THIS ORDINANCE? >> I'M GOING TO CHOOSE ACTION ONE, CLOSEST TO KILLING THIS, I CAN SEE, OTHER TWO WOULD GIVE IT LIFE. I AM GOING TO MOVE WE SEND THIS BACK WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL COUNCIL. >> MOTION BY COUNCILOR ROYAL, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILOR GREEN. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO SEND TO FULL COUNCIL YOU WITH NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION AND HOPE TO ACT ON THIS THIS EVENING. [1.b. Resolution CC-10-05-26-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, to Limit the Rate for Taxes Payable in 2027 and Authorize Necessary Temporary Borrowing Among City Funds; Sponsor: Councilor Taylor.] NEXT IS CC-10-05-26-02. RESOLUTION SETTING OUR, TELLING DLGF TO KEEP OUR TAX RATE SAME AS 2026 AND NOT RAISING PROPERTY TAX RATE. WITH THAT, ANY OTHER COLOR TO ADD TO THIS? >> NOPE, YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT OUR BUDGET USES SAME TAX RATE FOR 2027 AS 2026 .7783 AND CLARIFY WHAT WOUR INTENTION IS N CASE MATH ON THEIR END DOES NOT WORK QUITE RIGHT. >> QUESTIONS FOR OUR CFO? >> OKAY. WE'RE IN FINANCE MEETING SO THE 7783 HAS BEEN WITH US FOR SEVERAL YEARS, DID I READ CORRECTLY ASSESSED VALUE WENT DOWN A TICK BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN SEA 1? DOWN A TICK. >> 199 MILLION. >> THAT WAS -- NOT GROSS. >> THAT WAS NET, YEP. >> GROSS IS UP BUT NETS WAS DOWN. AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES, SO THAT IS -- IS IT 12.6 OR 4? >> IT WAS 12.4 AND NOW 12.2. >> 2. GOT IT. OKAY. SO 199 MILLION, THAT IS KIND OF THE BIG NUMBER. AND WOULD I ALWAYS HEAR YOU HELD THE RATE SAME, ASSESSED VALUE KEEP GOING UP. THIS YEAR, FIRST TIME I CAN REMEMBER THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT HAPPENING. >> WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THE RATE AND WE'RE GOING TO RECEIVE LESS MONEY. THE ADMINISTRATION MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION COUNCIL WILL OR WILL NOT GO ALONG WITH WE WILL SEE. POINT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO STRESS AT FULL COUNCIL TONIGHT, THAT IS BREAKING NEWS, ALL NOISE WE HEARD ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES FACT WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THE RATE, LIVE WITH THE RATE AND RECEIVE LESS AND ASSESSED VALUE GO DOWN IS A REVELATION. >> OTHER SIDE OF THAT, THAT MEANS THE TAXPAYER, AVERAGE TAXPAYER IN CARMEL WHO SAW ASSESSED VALUE GO DOWN THIS YEAR WILL PAY LOWER TAX BILL NEXT YEAR. >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY, YEAH. THAT IS MY ONLY COMMENT TO THIS AND CONGRATULATIONS FOR MAKING IT ALL WORK. >> COUNCILOR GREEN. >> ZACH, MAYBE CLARIFIED THIS IN YOUR NEXT COMMENT, 199 MILLION. >> CORRECT. >> SO FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT SO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIESEL -- PEOPLE WITH TAXES GO DOWN. [00:25:10] >> IN TOTAL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS YEAR 92 MILLION WAS WHAT WE COLLECTED THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES, WHAT YOU WILL SEE NEXT YEAR IS 1.6% REDUCTION, SO CLOSER TO 90 MILLION FOR NEXT YEAR. WE KIND OF PICK -- >> THIS IS OUR OPERATING LEVY? >> IT IS BOTH. BOTH OPERATING LEVY AND DEBT LEVY. >> DEBT LEVY BOTH. >> BOTH ADD UP TO 7783. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE INCREASE IT TO 7883? WHAT DID MODEL SHOW? HOW DID YOU LAND AT THIS? IS EVERYTHING GOING TO BE OKAY? WHAT CAN'T WE DO? ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO? >> THIS BUDGET FULLY FUNDS OPERATIONS FOR NEXT YEAR. THIS TIME OF YEAR THERE IS OFTEN TALK ABOUT IF WE'RE KEEPING SAME PROPERTY TAX RATE ASSESSED VALUE GONE UP THERE IS A LITTLE SPACE THERE TO KNOW BOND FOR AND THAT IS NOT AN OPTION THIS TIME AROUND. OVERALL, OUR LIT REVENUE ARE UP FOR NEXT YEAR AND SO THAT IS COUNTER ACTING OUR LOWER PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FOR NEXT YEAR. IN TERMS OF THE .7783, I CAN TELL YOU EVERY PENNY WE MIGHT RAISE THAT WOULD GENERATE LIKE 1.1 OR 1.2 MILLION SO THAT GIVES YOU BALLPARK FOR IF THERE WAS WILLINGNESS TO GO UP OR DOWN, BUT 783 WE THOUGHT IMPORTANT TO TRY TO ESSENTIALLY PASS THOSE SAVINGS ON TO TAXPAYERS THIS YEAR, SEE IF WE CAN LIVE WITHIN THAT AND ABLE TO WRITE A BUDGET THAT FULLY FUNDS EVERYTHING THAT IS NECESSARY NEXT YEAR AND LIVES WITHIN MEANS AND DOES NOT INCREASE TAX RATES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK IT IS WORTH TALKING ABOUT, AS WELL, HOW REDUCTION IN OUR DEBT SERVICE DID HELP WITH OUR LIT AND WHAT WE RECEIVED FOR THE LIT FUNDING AND HOW THAT AFFECTED THE BUDGET, AS WELL. >> YEAH, SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THERE IS IF WE'RE HOLDING OUR RATE FLAT YEAR OVER YEAR AND GIVEN THAT THE CERTIFIED ASSESSED VALUE WENT DOWN, THAT MATH PROBLEM IS GOING TO EQUAL LOWER PRODUCT THAN IT DID FOR THIS YEAR. YOU TAKE A SMALLER CNAB, SAY RATE, GOING TO BE LOWER. YOU WILL HAVE OPTION DO WE WANT TO PRIORITIZE OPERATINGEF WELLY OR THE DEBT LEVY AND THERE IS AN INCENTIVE IN THERE TO KEEP OUR OPERATING LEVY THE SAME BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ALLOCATING LIT REVENUES, THOSE ARE DISTRIBUTED BASED UPON SIZE OF OPERATING LEVY IN PROPORTION TO EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTY, FILLING THAT UP FIRST RESULT IN US RETAINING 3 MILLION OF LIT THAT WOULD STILL BE COLLECTED ALLOCATED TO OTHER COMMUNITIES INSTEAD OF CARMEL. YEAH, SO THE RESULT THOUGH IS THAT OUR DEBT LEVY IS INSUFFICIENT TO COVER THE ALL OF THE DEBT PAYMENTS AND WE HAVE TO APROPRIATE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO MAKE DEBT PAYMENTS. AM GO THROUGH THAT AND IT IS EITHER DO WE DO IT THIS WAY AND HAVE EXTRA 3 MILLION OR THE OTHER WAY AND WE DON'T GET THE 3 MILLION. >> THANK YOU. >> PLEASURE. >> THAT ALSO ENSURED WE CA CAPTURED OUR MLGQ, QUOTIENT OF 6%? >> YES. >> YEP. THIS IS WONDERFUL. WE DO KNOW THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES INCLUDING ONE JUST TO THE EAST OF US IS RAISING THEIR PROPERTY TAX RATE SO SORRY, ZACH, I KNOW YOU LIVE OVER THERE, BUT NO, THIS IS A GREAT STRATEGY. I LOVE THISSIGE STRA OF CAPTURING MAX LEVY TO MAXIMIZE, MAX OPERATING LEVY TO MAXIMIZE OUR LIT AND FOR THE RECORDKEEPING SAME LOCAL INCOME TAX RATE WE CANNOT SET THAT UNTIL 2029. >> CORRECT. [00:30:01] BASED UPON CURRENT LAW, OPPORTUNITY IN FUTURE TO READOPT THAT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING RESOLUTION CC-10- CC-10-05-26-02? IF NOT IS THERE MOTION TO SEND BACK TO FULL COUNCIL WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION? >> I MOVE, MR. CHAIR. I MOVE THAT WE MOVE RESOLUTION CC-10-05-26-02 TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND. >> WE GOT A MOTION BY COUNCILOR MINNAAR AND SECOND BY COUNCILOR, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, MOVES ON. OF ANY OTHER ITEM THAT HAVE NOT BEEN LISTED ON THE AGENDA? MOVE TO ADJOURN 3:31 P.M. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.