12.a. Sixth Reading of Ordinance D-2726-24; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving and Adopting a Third Amendment to Interlocal Agreement; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder and Taylor. Returns from the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.

[12.a. Sixth Reading of Ordinance D-2726-24; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving and Adopting a Third Amendment to Interlocal Agreement; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder and Taylor. Returns from the Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

ARE DONE WITH THIS. MOVING ON ITEM 12, OLD BUSINESS. 60

[01:20:04]

READING ORDINANCE D -2726-24 ORDINANCE OF COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL APPROVIN AND ADOPTING THIRD AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT . THIS RETURNS FROM THE LAND-USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE. MICHAEL IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND IT WILL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILOR SNYDER AND COUNCILOR TAYLOR IF THEY WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS.

>> THANK YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS AGREEMENT BEFORE THE SIMPLEST OF TERMS PARKS DEPARTMENT EXISTS BECAUSE OF THIS DOCUMENT. HAVE NEVER BEEN BASHFUL ABOUT SAYING IT NOR I WILL BE I THINK THIS DOCUMENT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS CARMEL HAS BECAUSE IT KEEPS GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY OUT OF PARKS DEPARTMENT AND WE DO HAVE THE GREATEST PARKS DEPARTMENT IN THE WORLD. THIS DOCUMENT ALLOWS THEM TO FUNCTION AS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY JOINTLY BY THE CITY AND TOWNSHIP WHO APPOINTS A BOARD THAT GOVERNS THE PARK. THE AUTONOMY AND EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH THEY ARE ABLE TO RUN THIS GOLD-MEDAL WINNING OPERATION , I DO NOT SEE HOW CHANGING THAT COULD MAKE IT ANY BETTER AND YOU ARE ALREADY THE BEST. SO WHAT THIS DOCUMENT DOES IS IT EXTENDS THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BY ANOTHER TWO YEARS. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IN LAND-USE. ONE THING WE DISCUSSED WAS LONG-TERM FUNDING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS AND THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF SERVING WITH WANTED TO AND AGREE IT'S TIME TO START HAVING THE CONVERSATION AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED IT TO BE IN LAND-USE AND BE HONEST AND CANDID ABOUT LONG-TERM FUNDING OF OUR PARKS. AND HOPEFULLY THIS TWO-YEAR EXTENSION , WE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION.

>> THANK YOU , FOR THAT SYNOPSIS. NOT SURE I CANNOT TOO MUCH MORE TO THAT. AS SUGGESTED OR STATED , THIS BASICALLY LOST THE PARK BOARD INTO CURRENT CONFIGURATION , APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR OR BY CLAY TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE, ONE BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. IF THE AMENDMENT IS NOT PASSED WHAT WOULD TRANSPIRE IS IT WAS TO HAVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BUT BY ALL EFFECTIVE MEANS IT WOULD BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CITY BECAUSE WE WOULD REVERT TO THE 2002 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT STATES THE PARK POSITION WOULD BE WHICH IS 11 MEMBERS ONE BY THE SCHOOL BOARD AND 10 BASED ON EVERY 10% THAT IT IS A CITY OR TOWNSHIP IS PROVIDING FOR THE GENERAL SUPPORT. WITH THE ANNEXATION OF HOMEPLACE, EFFECTIVELY 10 OF 11 WOULD BE APPOINTED BY CARMEL.

THIS DOES NOT RESOLVE THE FUNDING CHALLENGE WE HAVE BUT IT DOES PROVIDE A TWO-YEAR WINDOW TO HOPEFULLY RESOLVE IT AND WORST-CASE SCENARIO IF WE CANNOT FIND A WAY FOR THE TOWNSHIP FOR A NEW FUNDING SOURCE TO BE PROVIDED IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A TRANSITION PLAN FOR WHATEVER THE DEPARTMENT LOOKS LIKE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THE, THAT MEMBERSHIP AUTOMATICALLY REVERTS IN JANUARY WHEN THE BOND IS PAID OFF. THAT'S WHY TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OF APPROVING THIS AMENDMENT IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THE BOARD UNDER ITS CURRENT STRUCTURE. BECAUSE IN LESS THAN A MONTH IT WOULD BE NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT UP A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN REVIEWED THE TOWNSHIP'S LEGAL COUNCIL. AND THE TOWNSHIP IS SET UP PRESUMING THE PARK BOARD GIVES US A FAVORABLE VOTE TO ALSO ADOPT AT THEIR SCHEDULED MEETING ON DECEMBER 17. WITH THAT WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS.

>> COUNCILOR SNYDER. >> THE INTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN WAS WHEN OR WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN THE TOWNSHIP HAD MORE LAND AREA IN THE CITY.

SO IT SEEMED KIND OF FAIR. THE INTENT WAS TO MAKE IT FAIR. YOU SET FOR EVERY 10% IN THE GENERAL FUND, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THERE'S A LOT MORE OF THE GENERAL FUND FUNDED AND WHY

[01:25:04]

THERE SHOULD BE TWO PLAYERS AT THE TABLE.

>> ABSOLUTELY, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. AS THE AMENDMENT STATES. WITHIN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS SINCE 2019 THE TOWNSHIP HAS CONTRIBUTED TO $37.5 MILLION TO THE CLAY TOWNSHIP IMPACT PROGRAM FOR REINVESTMENT IN THE PARK SYSTEM, DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW BRIDGE CONNECTING US TO FISHERS AND HAZELWOOD PARK SO THE INTERLOCAL WAS WRITTEN WITH ALL THE FUNDING FOR PARKS AND IT WAS SELF GENERATED COMING TO THE GENERAL FUND EFFECTIVELY. BUT THAT'S NOT HOW WE OPERATE TODAY. OUR FUNDING HAS BEEN TWO COEQUAL PARTNERS WITH THE CITY PROVIDING THE OPERATING DOLLARS FOR THOSE ELEMENTS THAT CANNOT GENERATE REVENUE. GENERAL PARKS, NOT THE COMMUNITY CENTER OR RECREATION PROGRAMMING WHICH IS SELF-SUFFICIENT, BUT FOR EVERYTHING ELSE PARKS PROVIDES. IT HAS BEEN THE TOWNSHIP THAT IS THE PREDOMINANT FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE PARK SYSTEM AS IT STANDS TODAY WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. SO YOU ARE VERY CORRECT. IT WAS, THE REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD WITH EVERY 10% OF THE GENERAL FUND WAS BASED ON A DIFFERENT MODEL THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR MUCH OF MY HISTORY.

>> COUNCILOR TAYLOR. >> I SERVED ON THAT PARKS BOARD FROM 2010 UNTIL THE END OF LAST YEAR. THE LONG-TERM FUNDING DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE AT EVERY JOINT PARKS BOARD, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING WE HAVE HAD, IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES AND ELECTED LEADERS AND IT WAS ONE OF THE GOALS THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO BE ELECTED TO CITY COUNCIL WE WOULD ONCE AND FOR ALL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. TO TALK FUNCTIONALLY ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR YOU , FOR THE INTERLOCAL TO GO AWAY AND FOR THE CHANGES THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY BE MADE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPENSATION STRUCTURES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT RETIREMENT , 457 B PLANS BUT IT IS THE SAME ADMINISTRATOR. TALKING ABOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE DEPARTMENT IF WE WERE NOT ABLE TO PASS THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THIS EVENING. IT HAS BEEN ON, THIS IS THE SIXTH READING. I KNOW YOU HAD FINANCIAL EXPERTS COMING IN TO DISCUSS THE LAND-USE MEETING WHICH I HAVE BEEN IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS MYSELF. THIS TWO YEARS WILL GIVE A WINDOW TO DO IT RIGHT AND TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY IN A SUSTAINABLE FASHION THAT WILL PROTECT PARKS FROM NOW INTO THE FUTURE SO I IMPLORE MY FELLOW COUNSELORS TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> ONE PROCEDURE. THE ONLY CHANGE TO THIS GOING THROUGH IS BASED ON COMPOSITION OF THE

BOARD. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THIS AMENDMENT DOES BECAUSE WITHOUT WE GO TO 11

MEMBERS. >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT. I SERVED ON THE PARKS BOARD MANY YEARS AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT I WAS A HAIR FRUSTRATED THE OTHER NIGHT WHEN WE HAD ANOTHER JOINT MEETING WITH EVERYBODY THERE AND IT'S THE SAME FIVE CHOICES ON THE SCREEN AND HOW WE SOLVE THIS. WHAT IS IT GOING RECOMMEND A REFERENDUM OR I RECOMMEND SBT. IF THERE ARE ONLY FIVE CHOICES, BECAUSE I LEFT SAYING I HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER ONE OF THESE NEXT YEAR.

>> TO GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE MEETING SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS, THE COUNCIL, THE PARKS, THE TOWNSHIP WERE THERE .

[01:30:06]

>> THANK YOU, I APOLOGIZE IF YOU LEFT FRUSTRATED.

>> NOT YOU, THE SITUATION. >> I CAN RELATE. IT FEELS LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY TO ME IN MANY WAYS. ON NOVEMBER 14 WE HELD A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE PARK BOARD, CITY COUNCIL AND TOWNSHIP AND THE FIRST OBJECTIVE OF THE MEETING WAS TO REVIEW THE NEW FIVE-YEAR CONFERENCE A PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN COVERING 2020 THROUGH 2024. AND IDENTIFY FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDERS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE THE MANAGEMENT OF PARKS RESUMING WE GET FUNDING FOR THE FIVE YEARS. THE BIG CHALLENGE , RIGHT NOW , YOU KNOW THE CITY AND/OR TOWNSHIP NEED, UNDER THE EXISTING MECHANISMS AVAILABLE, IT IS A COUPLE THINGS, REALLOCATION OF EXISTING DOLLARS. LOOKING AT A SPECIAL BENEFITS TAX USED TO FUND BONDS. BONDING THROUGH SOME OTHER CAPACITY AND WE ARE ADVOCATING THAT THE TOWNSHIP BE OR CONTINUE TO BE THE PRIMARY FUNDER OF CAPITAL PROJECTS TO TRULY HAVE THE JOINT DEPARTMENT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ANYTHING HAS BEEN PARAMOUNT TO OUR SUCCESS OVER THE YEARS. THE REFERENDUM I WOULD LOVE TO RECOMMEND WE DO THAT TODAY.

BASED ON FEEDBACK WE HAVE I THINK WE COULD PASS , THE PROBLEM IS STATE STATUTE DOES NOT ALLOW IT. ONE OF THE THINGS TAT THIS TWO YEARS HOPEFULLY DOES , WE ARE WORKING WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND HAD A MEETING WITH JEFF THOMPSON A COUPLE WEEKS AGO . WE ARE MEETING WITH LOCAL DELEGATION . WE HAVE PEOPLE WORKING FOR US TO TALK TO ALL THE LEADERSHIP IN BOTH HOUSES TO TRY TO GET THAT ENABLING LEGISLATION SO THAT OPTION IS AVAILABLE. CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THIS YEAR I DID GET SUPPORT FROM THE PARK BOARDS TO ACTIVELY PURSUE THAT SOMETHING. WHAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THE PARK SYSTEM IS ONE, FOR THE COUNCILMEMBER, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD MEMBERS, THE MAYOR AND THE TRUSTEE TO ALL ADVOCATE FOR THE LOCAL DELEGATION AND OTHER LEGISLATIONS THAT YOU KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GOOD, NOT ONLY FOR CARMEL, BUT FOR COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE PARK SYSTEMS FACING THE SAME CHALLENGES , THE DIFFERENT BUSING CHALLENGE FOR HAVING THE FUNDING. I THINK IT TAKES A WORKING GROUP BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO IRON OUT THE DETAILS THAT, SAY WE GET LEGISLATION PASSED THIS YEAR IT MIGHT BE A COUPLE YEARS BEFORE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO USE, WE NEED DOLLARS BETWEEN THENCE WE NEED AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND TOWNSHIP ARE HOW WE BRIDGE THE GAP. MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE USE DEPARTMENT CAPACITY TO SPECIAL BENEFITS TAX OR THROUGH OTHER TAX MEANS THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS TWO THAT POSSIBLE. BUT YOU KNOW I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN NEXT YEAR OR IN TWO YEARS OR FIVE YEARS WE DEFINITELY NEED TO GET THIS RESOLVED BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT RESOLUTION WHAT WE FACE AS A PARKS SYSTEM THAT IS SUCCESSFUL IN OPERATIONS COVERING 84% OF THE OPERATING EXPENSES, IF WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE CAPITAL SIDE OF THE PARK SYSTEM, REVENUE-GENERATING FACILITIES WILL START WEARING OUT AND PEOPLE WON'T WANT TO SPEND DISCRETIONARY TIME OR INCOME WITH US SO THEN WE SEE COST INCREASING WITH THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OPERATING DOLLARS ACCELERATING. PEOPLE WILL BE DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE PARK SYSTEM START TO WORK OUT AND FRANKLY PARK SYSTEMS THAT WE SEE THROUGH THE COUNTRY THAT LOOK TIRED AND THAT SOMETHING A COMMUNITY , THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARDS CAN WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN THERE IS THAT SOLUTION. WE KNOW WHAT IS AVAILABLE AND IT'S MAKING A COMMITMENT TO DO THAT FOR HOPEFULLY THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS UNTIL WE HAVE A NEW FUNDING SYSTEM.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THE, I TRUST COUNCILOR SNYDER, LAND

[01:35:10]

USE COMMITTEE FOR THE RECOMMENDATION, THE ONLY THING THAT WENT THROUGH MY MIND WAS IF WE MADE IT A SHORTER TIME FRAME IF THAT WOULD PUT PRESSURE ON THE POWERS TO BE LIKE YOU SAID, WE HAVE TO GET IN A ROOM AND MAKE A DECISION.

I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE I TRUST THE WORK OF ALL THE PEOPLE, THE COUNCILORS, THE GANG WHO ARE WORKING ON THIS SO THAT'S GREAT, BUT THIS IS A PRIORITY AND WE HAVE TO GET

THIS FIGURED OUT. >> COUNCILOR SNYDER.

>> FOR ME THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO GET THE STATE TO CHANGE LEGISLATION. IN A MINUTE I WILL ASK YOU HOW EVERYBODY CAN HELP.

WHAT IS VERY IMPORTANT IS WHEN YOU TOUCH ON THIS, CHANGING THE LEGISLATION TO ALLOW A PARKS DEPARTMENT TO INTRODUCE ITS OWN TAX RATE , YES IT'S GREAT FOR US. IT GETS YOU OFF THE CITY BOOKS OFF THE TOWNSHIP BOOKS AND YOU OPERATE MUCH LIKE THE LIBRARY DOES WHICH IS PHENOMENAL. THROUGHOUT THE STATE WHERE YOU HAVE SMALL COMMUNITIES AND YOU HAVE ONE IN MIND WE ARE ON ONE SIDE OF THE , A BUSTLING METROPOLIS AND IT'S DOING WELL. I SEE THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR VARIOUS STATE ECONOMIC DIVISIONS TO ALSO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER IS UNDERSERVED, UNDERDEVELOPED.

RUNNING WATER, THAT KIND OF THING. IF THEY HAVE THE ABILITY, NOW EVERY DIME THEY COLLECT THOSE TWO CRITICAL NEEDS TO PAY FOR POLICEMAN, TO THE FIREMEN, TO TRYING TO KEEP INFRASTRUCTURE SOMEWHAT ALIVE AND IT DOES NOT GIVE THE ABILITY FOR ANY REAL QUALITY OF LIFE IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE WILL ALLOW THIS, THEN THAT COMMUNITY COULD SEE IF THE PEOPLE WANT TO ADD A PENNY PER YEAR AND ACTUALLY BUILD A PLAYGROUND OR START DEVELOPING A RIVERFRONT TO BRING IN REVENUE TO THEIR COMMUNITY. I SEE THIS BENEFITING SMALL TOWNS A LOT MORE THAN US. SURE WE CAN KEEP ARGUING FOR YEARS AND BOND AND BORROW. I WANT TO STOP THAT, I WANT YOU TO SOLVE IT ON YOUR OWN THIS HELPS THE REST OF THE STATE SO I WILL ASK THE QUESTION, AS WE ALL COLLECTIVELY TALK ABOUT THIS, WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP? BECAUSE LET'S GET THIS DONE. STATE LEGISLATURE SOMETIMES MOVES FAST ON SOME THINGS AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T SO WHAT CAN WE DO TO ASSIST YOUR

EFFORTS? >> LOBBY, LOBBY, LOBBY, TALK TO YOUR LEGISLATORS AND COLLEAGUES WHETHER THEY REPRESENT US OR NOT. UNFORTUNATE WILL BE JOINING THE LEADER OF THE PARK ASSOCIATION SO I CAN WORK WITH MY COLLEAGUES AROUND THE STATE TO ADVOCATE FOR BETTER FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR PARKS BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A TEAM EFFORT. THE MORE THE LEGISLATURE UNDERSTANDS CHALLENGES, PART OF THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH CHAIRMAN THOMPSON WAS AND THIS BODY KNOWS WELL WITH THE LEASE RENTAL BOND THAT YOU PASSED. HAVE INCENTIVIZED AND THE ONLY MECHANISM A LOT OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, WHETHER STREETS ARE PARKS OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE IS THROUGH BOND AND BORROWING. WHEN YOU LISTEN TO DELIBERATION FROM THE STATE HOUSE , THEY DON'T WANT ALL OF THAT BONDING , BUT THE RULES THEY MAKE US PLAY BY REQUIRE THAT. I THINK THERE IS RECOGNITION , AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT I TOOK AWAY FROM MY CONVERSATION WITH CHAIRMAN THOMPSON. THERE IS RECOGNITION THAT THOSE RULES ARE NOT CREATING THE RESULTS THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AND THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS. I THINK IT IS HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE GET TO PASS LEGISLATION WHETHER THROUGH STANDALONE BILLS OR MORE REALISTICALLY WITH SOME OMNIBUS LEGISLATION STATE BUDGET TICKET ACROSS THE FINISH LINE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WILL TAKE. DEFINITELY PLEASE,

[01:40:07]

FIRE AND STREETS ARE CRITICAL FOR EVERY COMMUNITY. AS YOU TOUCH UPON QUALITY OF LIFE, YOU KNOW THE PREVIOUS MAYOR WOULD TALK ABOUT WE DON'T HAVE OCEANS AND MOUNTAINS, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR CARMEL AND ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A CRAWFORD AND UNIONVILLE AND WHATEVER THEY MAY BE THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE, TO PROVIDE QUALITY OF LIFE BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE PARKS WITH PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT WE ARE FORTUNATE TO PROVIDE HERE IN CARMEL, PEOPLE WILL NOT WANT TO LIVE THERE OR MOVE THEIR IN ANY GREAT NUMBERS. THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE DECLINING POPULATION OUTSIDE THE METRO AREA BECAUSE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT THERE OR IT IS DETERIORATING SO IT IS CRITICAL IF WE HAVE ECONOMIC VITALITY THROUGHOUT THE STATE, WE NEED TO HAVE PROPER FUNDING THAT IS NOT IS SIPHONED AWAY FROM PARKS WHICH IS SO EASY TO DO AND WHY MANY COMMUNITIES ARE IN THE STATE THAT THEY ARE WITH

THEIR PARK SYSTEM. >> WHAT ARE SOME OF THE GROUPS? WE TALKED THROUGH A CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE BUT THERE ARE COMMITTEES ACROSS THE STATE. INITIATIVES AND CONVERSATIONS.

EVEN FOR US, IF WE CANNOT FUND THE GREATEST PARKS DEPARTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES THEN WE ARE SAYING WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. ARE THERE OTHER GROUPS WITHIN STATE GOVERNMENT, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD JUMP ON THIS?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO THINK SO. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING AIM COULD BE BEHIND OR THE VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP GROUPS COULD GET BEHIND BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CONSERVE GREEN SPACE AND PUBLIC LAND WITHOUT FUNDING TO DO SO, YOU MENTIONED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THIS IS A CRITICAL PART OF THE STATE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IS WHY WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN RECEIVING A READY GRANT FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE QUALITY OF LIFE IS WHAT IT IS ABOUT IN CRITICAL TO FUTURE SUCCESS. YES I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THERE'S MORE GROUPS AND ORGANIZATION WE CAN GET AS ADVOCATES THAN LESS.

>> COUNCILOR TAYLOR. >> A LOT OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO COMMENT HAS BEEN COMMENTED. SOME OF YOU DO COME UP WITH NEW STRATEGIES WHICH ONE OF WHICH IS THE REFERENDUM PIECE THAT PARKS AS THEIR OWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED OR CITIES FOR THAT MATTER IF IT WAS CITY ARE ALLOWED TO GO TO REFERENDUM SIMPLY RAISE A TAX FOR OPERATIONS AND FUNDING WITHOUT A DEBT SERVICE ATTACHED TO ITS. A LEVY ATTACHED TO IT.

I DID SEND EMAIL TO STATE SEN. REPRESENTATIVE AND WILL CONTINUALLY WORK WITH THEM AND GET THOSE MEETINGS ON THE CALENDAR. WE WERE ABLE TO FIND AND HIRE A LOBBYIST?

>> YES THE PARK BOARD DID BRING A LOBBYIST UNDER CONTRACT.

>> GREAT, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? LOOKING FOR A MOTION. DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE.

[12.b. Resolution CC-11-18-24-06; A Confirmatory Resolution Designating an Economic Revitalization Area and Approving Tax Abatement for Qualifying Certain Personal Property – Alliance for Cooperative Energy Services Power Marketing, LLC; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Joshi and Worrell. Sent to the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee (12/2/24 Meeting Date).]

APPROVED 9-0. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM RESOLUTION CC-11-18-24-06 CONFIRMATORY RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AND APPROVING TAX ABATEMENT FOR QUALIFYING CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY ALLIANCE FOR COOPERATIVE ENERGY SERVICES POWER MARKETING. THIS HAS RETURNED FROM THE FINANCE

UTILITY AND RULES COMMITTEE. >> THIS DOES COME BACK WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION 4-0. WE HAVE HAD TWO MEETINGS ON THIS.

APPRECIATE THE TEAM HERE , TO COME TO THE MEETINGS. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? OKAY, TO COME TO THE MEETINGS, PARTICIPATE.

ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, THEY

[01:45:06]

UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE SIGNED THE AND WE WILL BE REVIEWING ANNUALLY. SO IT COMES BACK WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THAT TONIGHT.

>> SECOND >> ANY DISCUSSION ?

>> MOVING ON

[12.c. Fourth Reading of Ordinance D-2740-24; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 1, Sections 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 2-10, 2-12, 2- 13 and 2-14 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Aasen. Sent to the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee (12/2/24 Meeting Date).]

ORDINANCE OF COUNTY COUNSEL CITY OF CARMEL AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 1 FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE . THIS REMAINS IN THE FINANCE UTILITY RULES COMMITTEE. MOVING ON 12 D

[12.d. Fourth Reading of Ordinance D-2741-24; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 2, Article 6, Sections 2-301, 2-302 and 2-303, of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Aasen. Sent to the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee (12/2/24 Meeting Date).]

FOR THREADING ORDINANCE 2741-24 ORDINANCE OF COUNTY COUNSEL AMENDING CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6 OF THE CARMEL CITY CODE SPONSORS COUNSELORS GREEN AND COUNCILOR AASEN IN THE FINANCE UTILITY

[12.e. Petition for Alley/Street Vacation or Order to Remove Obstructions; 40 East Main Street, Carmel, IN 46032; Carmel Library Associates, LLC, Property Owner. Remains in Land Use and Special Studies Committee.]

RULES COMMITTEE. PETITION FOR ALLEY STREET VACATION ON ORDER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS 40 EAST 40 EAST MAIN ST. CARMEL 46032 CARMEL LIBRARY ASSOCIATES REMAINS IN LAND-USE AND SPECIAL

[13.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2746-24; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Appropriation of Funds from the Marketing and Community Relations Budget (#1203) to Line Item 4359000 - Special Projects; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Taylor.]

STUDIES COMMITTEE. MOVING ON ITEM 13 ON THE AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS FIRST READING ORDINANCE 2746-24. ORDINANCE OF COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE MARKETING OF RELATIONS BUDGET 1203 TO LINE ITEM 435-9000, SPECIAL PROJECT SPONSOR PRESIDENT GREEN AND TAYLOR. MOTION TO INTRODUCE? ALL RIGHT. COUNCILOR TAYLOR CAN YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR PRIME LIFE ENRICHMENT CENTER IN CARMEL CLAY HISTORICAL SOCIETY OPERATION EXPENSES.

>> CAN YOU GIVE US BACKGROUND? AND EXPLAIN PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU, TECHNICALLY THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT HELP TO MAKE UP THIS TRANSFER. I THINK THE MAYOR AND SOME COUNSELORS HAD TALKED WITH PRIME LIFE AND THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND WANTED TO MOVE AROUND SOME AVAILABLE FUNDING TO PROVIDE THEM BOTH WITH $100,000 GRANT THIS YEAR. SO THE TRANSFERS THE RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE TOGETHER BASICALLY TAKE 200,000 OF AVAILABLE FUNDING FROM THE FULL-TIME SALARY LINE AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHERE THEY WERE ON TRACK AT ONE POINT , I THINK TO SEND BACK ALMOST 3 MILLION TO THE GENERAL FUND THIS YEAR TAKING 200,000 THERE AND MOVING OVER AND THEN THIS MOVES DOWN INTO THE OPERATING BUDGET SO THEY CAN PROVIDE THE $100,000 GRANTS. AS A REMINDER AND MAYBE YOU DID NOT CATCH IT. IN THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR THERE IS 50,000 FOR BOTH OF THESE ENTITIES BUILT INTO THEIR

BUDGET. >> ANY REFERENCING THE

RESOLUTION ON 14 B? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR ZACH?

>> CLARIFICATION QUESTION, DID YOU SAY THEY HAD $50,000 FOR EACH OF THOSE IN EACH OF THE BUDGETS FOR NEXT YEAR? OKAY WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.

>> I THINK THERE WERE OTHER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CITY AND CARMEL CLAY HISTORICAL SOCIETY IN PLACE TODAY THIS IS TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THAT. THIS IS FOR ARCHIVE PURPOSES. THIS IS FOR

NEW FUNDING. >> COUNCILOR WORELL.

>> SEVERAL QUESTIONS. FIRST AS FAR AS NEXT YEAR FOR BOTH ENTITIES CURRENTLY MY UNDERSTANDING IS HISTORICAL SOCIETY RECEIVES 30,000 FOR THE ARCHIVAL SERVICES. ARE YOU SAYING NEXT YEAR IT IS 50, PLUS 30?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT IS THE 100 AND THE 50

EXACTLY FOR IT? >> I'M NOT SURE I WAS TOLD

[01:50:05]

EXACTLY WHAT IT IS FOR. I DON'T MEAN TO BE QUITE WHEN I SAY IT. I THINK THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE CITY TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE WANT THOSE DOLLARS PRIORITIZED. I THINK THERE MIGHT BE ONGOING CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER THESE ARE MORE OPERATING DOLLARS OR ENDOWMENT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF AN

AMOUNT. >> I WILL ANSWER MY OWN QUESTION. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. WE ALL RAN ON A SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY AND TO THROW 100,000 HERE AND 100,000 THERE AND 50,000 HERE, I WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. FIRST I WOULD SAY I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL IT SHOWS UP ON THE AGENDA. NUMBER TWO I THINK IT IS BAD FORM AND I'M NOT SURE WHO TO ADDRESS TO. FROM HERE ON OUT TO ASK ME TO VOTE ON TWO, $100,000 UNDISCUSSED, UNPLANNED FOR, NOT BUDGETED IN ONE RESOLUTION , ONE ORDINANCE IS , WILL BE A LITTLE DRAMATIC, A SIN. FRANKLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON $100,000 TO THE PRIME LIFE INSTEAD OF BEING FOR MISCELLANEOUS FINANCE I WOULD RATHER BE WE SUPPORT HISTORICAL SOCIETY MUSEUM AND PRIME LIFE ENRICHMENT PLEASE DO NOT SEND US THIS KIND OF ORDINANCE AGAIN WHERE WE CANNOT GIVE IT ITS DUE DISCUSSION AND WHAT IT IS DESERVED TO DISCUSS. SO MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I CALLED TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE RIBBON-CUTTING THAT I WENT TO AT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO OFFER THE HISTORICAL MUSEUM AND WE HAVE TO GIVE IT CREDIT FOR COUNCILOR SNYDER . THAN TO OFFER FREE TO THE RESIDENTS AND THEY FELT AND I DON'T KNOW IT IS EXACTLY 100,000 AT THIS 100,000 WOULD ALLOW THEM TO OFFER FREE ENTRY. I USED IT WITH MY FAMILY WHEN THEY WERE IN TOWN. SO THE FACT , THEN 50,000 NEXT YEAR SOUNDS LIKE A ROUND NUMBER I WANT TO BE SURE WE THINK THAT WILL DO THE JOB.

BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS VALUE TO NOT CHARGING RESIDENTS FOR ENTRY INTO A BUILDING THAT USE TAX DOLLARS TO BE BUILT , THAT WOULD BE MY ASSESSMENT. SO THEN ON THE PRIME LIFE ENRICHMENT.

WHAT THAT IS FOR? I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. I DON'T EITHER BUT I KNOW WE GAVE THEM 40 LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE. I COULD BE WRONG ON THE NUMBER, I LOOKED IT UP AND I THOUGHT IT WAS 40 LAST YEAR. IF THERE IS NOT A PLAN FOR ONGOING HOW TO UTILIZE THE FUNDS , I SUPPORT SENIOR SERVICES AND PRIME LIFE ENRICHMENT PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR? 40 LAST YEAR, 100 THIS YEAR, WHAT IS IT NEXT YEAR? IF YOU SAY YOU GIVE THEM

50 I DO NOT SEE A TREND. >> I BELIEVE THE REQUEST FROM BOTH WAS 150,000. I BELIEVE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ONGOING 150,000 A YEAR AND A COMPROMISE WAS 100,000 UP FRONT, 50,000 ONGOING. AND AGAIN I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS MORE OF THE ENDOWMENT TYPE SITUATION.

>> OKAY ALL RIGHT. MY LAST POINT I AM GOING TO MAKE IS IN THE SPIRIT OF WHO MIGHT BE READING THIS IN THE CURRENT OR HEARING ABOUT THIS IS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, THE IMPORTANCE OF TAKING MONEY FROM SOMETHING OVER HERE SO WE HAVE MORE MONEY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. I FIND IT A LITTLE IRONIC THAT WE OVER BUDGETED BY $3 MILLION? AND I WAS PART OF THE BUDGET SO WE DID A TERRIBLE

[01:55:01]

JOB WITH THE PUBLIC WILL HEAR THAT WE ARE TAKING $200,000 FROM THE BELOVED POLICE DEPARTMENT AND GIVING IT TO TWO OTHER ENTITIES. I NEED A REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION ON THAT , THAT

I WANT TO BE ON CAMERA. >> I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE BUDGETING HABITS OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION OF WHAT WAS PASSED PREVIOUS. THERE WAS A BIT OF OVER BUDGETING. WE HAVE BEEN UNDERSTAFFED, THIS YEAR WE HAVE NOT CAUGHT UP TO VACANCY SO FRANKLY WE ARE UNDER WHAT WE WOULD PROJECT TO SPEND FULL YEAR WHICH IS WHAT WE BUDGET FOR. FOR THE MAJORITY OF THIS YEAR WE WERE UNDERSTAFFED BY 12 POSITIONS SO THAT IS A REASON WHY THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SURPLUS THERE.

>> THE ERNIE CONTINUES BECAUSE COUNSELOR GREEN WAS FIGHTING FOR THE DOLLARS BECAUSE WE WERE UNDERSTAFFED. THAT'S ALL I

HAVE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? COUNCILOR SNYDER. >> TO SECOND COUNCILOR WORELL I CLEARLY LOVE BOTH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS. I WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT FACILITATED ASKING FOR MONEY FOR THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. I WOULD AGREE HAVING THEM IN INDEPENDENT ORDINANCES WITH BE BETTER. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, YOU MENTIONED GRANTS SO THIS IS NOT A TYPICAL GRANT. THERE IS NO DELIVERABLE. IS PUTTING TOGETHER A HUGE PROPOSAL ASKING FOR THREE YEARS OF FUNDING WHILE SOME OF THE MONEY THEY HAVE RAISED WITH COMMITMENTS THEY HAVE THEY START CYCLING IN AND PART OF THAT IS IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL THINGS CARMEL WE LACK A WELCOME CENTER.

>> WHERE WE ARE IDENTIFYING THOSE DOLLARS AND IN MY MIND I WAS ORIGINALLY SOLVING FOR PROBABLY 6.5 MILLION AT YEAR END. WE HAVE THE 3.6 MILLION OF, FOR THE ROAD FUNDING THAT YOU MENTIONED. EARLIER DOING THE BUDGET WORKSHOP I MENTIONED I THOUGHT WE UNDERFUNDED OUR HEALTH INSURANCE BY ONE 2 MILLION THIS YEAR. I AM GETTING MORE COMFORTABLE AROUND THE $1 MILLION SHORTFALL AND THEN LASTLY, KIND OF THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION , FINDING OTHER DOLLARS THAT WE CAN USE FOR THE FIBER PROJECTS. SO IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY PAID FOR OUT OF THE BOND. I WAS GETTING TO THE TOTAL OF ABOUT 6.6 MILLION. THE LAST REPORT THAT I RAN LAST WEEK SHOWS THAT WE WERE CURRENTLY UNDER SPENDING GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION BY $19 MILLION AS OF LAST WEEK. WE STILL HAD THREE PAYCHECKS TO PAY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES AND THAT WOULD BE A LARGE EXPENSE THAT IS NOT COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND YET, BUT AT THIS POINT I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON WHY WE WILL NOT HIT THE $6 MILLION NUMBER. IN THE PAST, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A REAL SOLID ENCUMBRANCE POLICY AND THAT IS SOMETHING I'M STRENGTHENING TO MAKE SURE, IT'S ONE THING TO LEAVE DOLLARS ENCUMBERED OR ROLLUP A PURCHASE ORDER AT THE END OF THE YEAR , WHENEVER WORK IS COMPLETED WE DON'T HAVE THE INVOICE OR COUNCIL GAVE A DEPARTMENT ONE TIME MONEY FOR A

[02:00:06]

ONE-TIME PROJECT AND IT HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A PAST PRACTICE OF SOME DEPARTMENTS TO ENCUMBER AS MUCH AS 1/3 OF THE BUDGET TO MAKE THE NEXT YEAR EASIER AND THAT'S GOING TO STOP. LAST YEAR WE UNDER SPENT BY $6 MILLION, ALL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION. I WOULD SAY WILL BE AT LEAST THAT IF NOT HIGHER AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.

>> IT WOULD PROBABLY BE GOOD, FOR SOME REASON I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAPPEN AT THIS WERE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. PRESENTATION ON WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH. BECAUSE THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN OF HOW WE WILL COME OUT 6.5 MILLION AND I THOUGHT I FORWARDED AN EMAIL MAYBE TWO WEEKS AGO FROM YOU OR I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU WOULD CLARIFY AND THEN SEND IT OUT TO EVERYBODY TO THE COUNCIL ON GAINING 6.5 MILLION AND HERE'S HOW THE MONEY GOES. FIBER OPTICS AND EVERYTHING.

>> ONE OTHER THING, I WON'T SAY IT THROWS A WRENCH INTO IT, BECAUSE THAT'S NEGATIVE, BUT THE POSITIVE IS THERE HAS BEEN AND I WILL NOT MENTION NAMES BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW PUBLIC THIS IS. WE HAVE HAD AT LEAST ONE LEGISLATOR SAY HE WILL GO TO THAT AND AMEND THE LAW SO OUR EXCISE TAX ANSWER TAX WOULD GO INTO EFFECT ON JULY 1 SO THAT'S THE CASE WE WOULD PICK UP 1.8 OF THAT 6 MILLION.

>> OR TRY TO BRING PAVING LEVELS TO A MORE APPROPRIATE

AMOUNT. SO WITH THAT AND . >> WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. WE CAN EITHER SEND TO FINANCE COMMITTEE OR KEEP IT WITH US AND THEN GET A PRESENTATION .

>> THE SENTIMENT IS NOBODY OPPOSES. MY PERSONAL SENTIMENT IS I DON'T WE GET THE TRANSFER, WE GET ENCUMBERED 100,000 AT THE END OF THE YEAR WITH YEAR END DEADLINES.

>> JUST A QUESTION FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT.

WOULD IT BE A POSSIBILITY TO SPLIT THAT ORDNANCE OR DOES HA HAVE TO THEN BE PUBLICLY NOTICED THEN HAVE TO GO? I'M JUST ASKING.

THEN THAT'S FINE. I'M NOT GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT. I JUST WANTED THE UNDERSTAND IT. THANK YOU.

>> I THINK THE REASON IT'S IN ONE ORDNANCE AND WE WERE ASKED TO SPONSOR THIS BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICING IT'S COMING FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT. IT'S GOING INTO THE SAME FUND.

THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO THIS WOULD REQUIRE TWO SEPARATE NOTICES THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR. REQUIRE TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FUNDS THAT ARE COMING FROM ONE FUND TO ANOTHER. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE INCLUDED IN ONE APPROPRIATION ORDNANCE.

BECAUSE WE WERE ONLY MAKING ONE APPROPRIATION.

FROM ONE FUND TO ANOTHER. THAT'S WHY IT'S AN APPROPRIATION ORDNANCE.

I THINK IT'S WHY IT'S DONE THAT WAY.

>> I THINK AS, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES AGREE, BUT AS POLICY, WHEN YOU'RE VOTING ON $200,000, I THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY, IT SHOULD BE DONE AS SEPARATE VOTES WHERE WE'RE NOT TIEING ONE ORGANIZATION TO THE OTHER.

>> IS THAT HOW YOU GUYS DO THE

ARTS FUNDING? >> I DON'T KNOW.

IF I WERE TO MAKE A MOTION OR AMENDMENT AND SAID I MOVE TO GIVE THE HISTORY MUSEUM $105.

$100,005. COULD I DO THAT AND IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY. I'M JUST ASK FROM A PROCESS.

I DIDN'T AMBUSH ANYBODY. I SENT TO GREEN EARLIER TODAY

[02:05:05]

AND I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK.

>> GOOD EVENING. SAMANTHA KARN.

I'LL TAKE THE FALL FOR HOW THIS WAS DRAFTED.

MY OFFICE DRAFTED IT AND WE CAN CERTAINLY SEPARATE IT GOING FORWARD SO EACH ORGANIZATION IS SEPARATED OUT AND YOU CAN VOTE ON EACH ONE OF THOSE.

IF YOU WERE TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT TONIGHT, WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE CURRENT ORDNANCE.

I SUSPECT AT THAT POINT WE WOULD SUSPEND THE RULES TO VOTE ON

THAT. >> I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT, BUT I WANTED TO KNOW. SO IT COULD BE DONE.

BUT THANK YOU.

>> COUNSELOR.

>> IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS POSITION ON THIS SPECIFIC ORDNANCE, I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW WE HANDLE THE ARTS GRANTS ORDNANCES BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S DONE IN ONE ORDNANCE AND WE SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL THAT WE PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF FUNDING FOR.

>> HANG ON. THIS IS A TRANSFER.

SO THIS WAS NOT BUDGETED. THIS IS MOVING MONEY AROUND.

I VIEW THIS VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING.

>> YEAH, APPROPRIATION ORDNANCE.

>> COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY THIS. THE MONEY FOR VARIOUS ARTS GOES, IS SPENT BY A COMMITTEE THOUGH, RIGHT? COMMISSION.

NOT A DEPARTMENT. BUT IN THIS, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS IT'S NOT, IT'S DIRECTLY IN THEORY OR IT'S GOING INTO A DEPARTMENT WITH A DEPARTMENT. I SEE BOTH OF YOUR POINTS OF VIEW. ON THIS ONE, I THINK IT IS, FOR ME, IT'S MORE JUST ABOUT BEING AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN LARGE SUMS OF MONEY. OF COURSE, I SUPPORT BOTH OF THEM. BUT IF, FOR SOME REASON, WE HAD ONE THAT HALF OF US DIDN'T AGREE WITH, I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE. WHAT IF WE WERE HERE AND HALF OF US DIDN'T LIKE THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

THEN IT KILLS THEMTHEM BECAUSE THERE'S NO TIME.

>> YOU DO THROUGH AMENDMENT.

>> WELL THEN WHY COULDN'T WE --

>> YEAH, SO --

>> I THINK WHAT SAMANTHA SAID WAS WE'D HAVE TO HAVE PROBABLY

RENOTICE EVERYTHING. >> JUST GOING THE CLARIFY THIS QUESTION HERE BECAUSE ONCE WE FIND OUT WHAT THAT REAL NUMBER IS, FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION THAT COULD BE HAD.

THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY HAS ASKED FOR $150,000 IN '25, '26, AND '27.

RUNNING A MASSIVE SURPLUS, MAYBE IT'S WORTH NOT DOING IT FOR THREE÷÷ YEARS IN A ROW AND FIGURING OUT A WAY TO JUST TAKE CARE OF IT AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO OTHER THINGS. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR, THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. JUST THAT'S ONE REASON WHY I'D LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE YOUR REAL DATA IN FRONT OF US.

THAT'S IT.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I'LL START THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM. ALL RIGHT.

NOT SEEING ANYBODY MAKING ANY MOVEMENT TO THE PODIUM.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09.

WE CAN EITHER HAVE A MOTION SUSPEND THE RULES OR PUT IT IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THEN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

SO COUNSELOR --

>> YOU COULD ENCUMBER THE FUNDS AND WE'RE NOT IN A RUSH.

ONCE THEY GET TRANSFERRED, I CAN ENCUMBER THE FUNDS OVER AT MACK. MY --

>> OKAY, SO --

>> MY YEAR END DEADLINES IN TERMS OF WHEN WE CAN CUT CHECKS THEN GET IT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

THAT'S WHERE WE GET A LITTLE NERVOUS.

>> SO 13A, WE COULD HOLD OFF BUT 14B IS MORE TIME SENSITIVE. YOU NEED US TO TRANSFER THE MONEY LATER ON IN THIS AGENDA.

>> I MEAN, WE STILL HAVE TIME WITH THE DECEMBER 16TH COUNCIL MEETING TO ACHIEVE ALL THAT.

IF COUNCIL WANTS TO WAIT UNTIL I BRING HIM MORE INFORMATION I THINK TO COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER'S POINT. WE'RE KIND OF SAYING DO WE WANT TO TRANSFER THIS $200,000 BEFORE WE HAVE THE FULL PICTURE AND I THINK THE DECEMBER 16TH MEETING GIVES

US PLENTY OF TIME. >> IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE WE NEED TO SEND IT THE FINANCE AND MEET OR HOLD UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AND GET OUR QUESTIONED ANSWERED?

[02:10:01]

WHAT DO YOU THINK? I DON'T KNOW.

>> ALL MY DATA POINTS ARE GOING TO COME AT THE NEXT MEETING UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING GROSSLY, YOU KNOW, OUT OF WHACK.

I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE.

>> ALL RIGHT. I'LL JUST TABLE IT.

WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'LL BRING IT UP AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME.

[13.b. First Reading of Ordinance D-2749-24; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Appropriation of Unexpected Funds from the Operating Balance of the Local Road and Street Fund (202); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Ayers, Green and Worrell.]

SO, ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON TO 13B. FIRST READING OF -- AUTHORIZING APPROVING APPROPRIATION OF UNEXPECTED FUNDS OF LOCAL ROAD AND STREET FUND.

202 ERROR, GREEN AND WOR RELL. COULD I GET A MOTION TO INTRODUCE?

>> MOVE TO INTRODUCE. ALL RIGHT, COULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS, PLEASE?

>> THIS ORDNANCE PROEP RATES -- FOR SIDEWALKS AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT IN

AMEN, NEW YORK NEIGHBORHOOD. >>

ZACH, YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN? >> I NEED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION AS WELL AS SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THIS.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING ABOUT $72,000 THAT WAS ENCUMBERED BACK IN I THINK STARTING IN 2018 AND ROLLED FORWARD AND BASICALLY WHEN WE CLOSE A PURCHASE ORDER OR INCUMBERANCE, THOSE DOLLARS GO BACK TO THE FUND BUT AREN'T APPROPRIATED. THIS IS ASKING TO INCREASE THE FUNDS ON THIS PROJECT. IF I CAN MENTION SOME PROPOSED VERY SLIGHT EDITS HERE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE CLEARER IN THAT SYNOPSIS IF INSTEAD OF SAYING 2018 INCUMBER, THAT SHOULD SAY THE 2024 BUDGET.

WE'RE ADDING IT TO THE 2024 BUDGET.

THE FACT THAT IT CAME FROM 2018 INCOUPLE BRANSS PROBABLY ISN'T RELEVANT HERE.

AND THEN ON LINES 37, 41, AND 45, THERE IS AN R IN FRONT OF THOSE ACCOUNT NUMBERS. THAT'S OUR ACCOUNTING LINGO FOR ENCUMBERED DOLLARS THAT ARE ROLLED.

IT JUST NEEDS TO BE PUT IN THE CURRENT YEAR.

SO IF YOU'LL STRIKE THE RS IN FRONT OF THE ACCOUNT CODES THERE. 37, 41, AND 45.

>> COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER.

>> I THINK IT'S GOOD YOU HAD THE 2018 IN THERE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE LAST ORDNANCE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN COMMITTED TO FOR SIX YEARS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. IT'S NOT THE SAME OR I'M NOT GOING TO BRING UP THE SAME ISSUE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN.

>> AND PERHAPS THE SOLUTION THERE IS INSTEAD OF REPLACING THE 2018 ENCUMBRANCES, ORDNANCE APPROPRIATES 719 FROM 2018 ENCUMBRANCES IN THE 2024 BUDGET. SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD CHECK BOTH BOXES I THINK.

>> MR. SCHNEIDER, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING

ELSE? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

I NEED TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> BUT I'M MOVING US ALONG.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JEFF'S DONE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND START THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:14. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, PLEASE GO TO THE PODIUM. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY STAND UP THERE, NO? ALL RIGHT. GOT ME EXCITED.

CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT

8:15. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. SUSPEND THE RULES.

>> WHY ARE WE --

>> IT'S AN ORDINANCE. YEAH.

FOR FIRST READ, DON'T WE NEED TO

[02:15:02]

SUSPEND THE RULES? >> YES.

>> OH, OH.

>> YEAH.

>> PRESIDENT GREEN, DO WE ALSO NEED TO MAEK A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE?

>> YEAH, GOOD, COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER.

HOW ABOUT WE AMEND THEN SUSPEND.

>> I MOVE.

>> I LIKE -- HOW ABOUT WE MEND THEN SUSPEND?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE AS AMENDED WITH THE TITLE CHANGE AS OUR CFO AND LEGAL PROPOSED OR SEE BEST FIT THERE AND TO REMOVE THE RS ON THE LINES INDICATED WHICH WERE 37, 41, AND 45.

>> IS THERE A SECOND TO AMEND? ALL RIGHT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? PLEASE VOTE.

>> I LOST MY SERVER CONNECTION. WE'LL NEED TO TAKE A VOICE VOTE. I'M SORRY.

>> COUNSELOR MENARD.

>> ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN AMENDED.

ALL RIGHT, SO MOTION, WE NEED A MOTION TO

SUSPEND. >> MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING.

>> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION, PLEASE VOTE.

TAKE COUNSELOR.

>> AYE.

>> GO AHEAD. SO WE'RE GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE GOT A MOTION TO SUSPEND.

NOW IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED VERSION?

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE AMENDED VERSION.

>> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT.

>> BUT YOU HAVE TO STILL, THANK YOU.

>> AS A SIDE BAR.

>> NO, I THINK THAT WAS THE OLD ONE.

IS THIS -- JESSICA, WE READY OR SHOULD WE JUST DO VOICE VOTE? ALL RIGHT.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

>> BEFORE YOU GO ON, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU, ZACH, ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED WHEN II THIS, I THOUGHT IT WAS RAND FOR SOUTH AFRICAN DOLLARS SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION AND THAT'S AN AYE FOR ME.

>> AYE.

>> AYE. THAT'S APPROVED, 9- 0, THANK YOU.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, COULD I JUST CLARIFY WE DID AN AMENDMENT, SUSPENSION AND AN APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED ONE AND ALL THREE, UNLESS SOMEBODY

[14.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2751-24; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending and Creating Law Enforcement Aid Funds; Sponsor: Councilor Worrell.]

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY JUST IN CASE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> YEP. MOVING ON TO ITEM 14, NEW BUSINESS. FIRST READING OF D-7524.

THE CITY OF CARAMEL, INDIANA, AMENDING AND CREATING A LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUND.

>> MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

>> ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS?

>> THIS CREATES FUND 910 AND AMENDED 911 IN ORDER TO MANAGE FORFEITURE MONEY.

>> CPD MANAGES AA NUMBER DIFFERENT FUNDS.

ONE IS OUR 911 LAW ENFORCEMENT AID FUND WHICH FUNDS THE OPERATIONS FOR OUR DRUG TASK FORCE. THERE'S ALSO A REVENUE ACCOUNT ATTACHED TO THAT.

SO WHEN THE DRUG TASK FORCE BRINGS IN FORFEITURES AND UP UNTIL NOW WHEN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHICH OPERATES SEPARATELY OF THE POLICE FORCE BRINGS IN FORFEITURES, SO THIS FUND OR THIS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES A 910 ACCOUNT WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO KIND OF OPERATE ITS OWN REVENUE ACCOUNT. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IT.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF? THERE'S NO QUESTIONS. COUNSELOR.

>> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW MUCH FUNDS DO WE USUALLY COLLECT ON AN ANNUAL BASES FOR THESE?

>> SO, IT MIGHT BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR MAJOR RYAN MYERS WHO'S WITH ME. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, IT JUST DEPENDS. FORFEITURES COME AND GO.

SOMETIMES DRUG TASK FORCE IS VERY LARGE.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, OUR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION JUST CLOSED A BIG FORFEITURE WHICH WE EXPECT TO

[02:20:01]

BRING IN A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE MAKES IT TO THE RIGHT ACCOUNT. THAT WAS THE MAIN DRIVER FOR ESTABLISHING THIS ACCOUNT. I DON'T KNOW THE MAIN AVERAGE BUT I CAN GET THAT TO YOU LATER.

>> I JUST WANT TO GIVE CREDIT TO MAJOR MYER WHO CARRIED THE BALL ON THIS AND IS A MEMBER OF THE DRUG TASK FORCE AND IS PUTTING IN THE WORK AND THE TIME.

SO THANK YOU, AND SITTING THROUGH THIS MEETING.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER, COUNSELOR?

>> JUST A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. WHEN IT SPLITS FROM A BUDGET PROCESS, WE JUST WENT THROUGH, DO YOU GUYS APPROPRIATE ALL THE MONEY THAT'S COLLECTED FROM THIS?

>> WE DON'T TYPICALLY APPROPRIATE ALL THE MONEY. JUST FOR WHAT WE PLAN TO NEED.

IC CODE GOVERNS, AUTHORIZES VERY LIMITED EXPENDITURES WITH FORFEITURES TO WE HAVE TO KIND OF PLAN IN ADVANCE.

>> THEN WILL YOU APPROPRIATE THE TWO FUNDS, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL APPROPRIATE BOTH 910 AND 911 MOVING FORWARD?

>> AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS, COUNCIL DID APPROPRIATE DOLLARS TO FUND 911.

AFTER THIS GETS ESTABLISHED, AFTER DOLLARS GET IN THERE, WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO APPROPRIATE THE DOLLARS IN THIS NEW FUND.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO SUSPEND.

>> TO SUSPEND THE RULES THIS EVENING.

>> ALL RIGHT. SUSPENDED RULE VOTED 90.

MOVE TO APPROVE?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> DISCUSSION.

PLEASE VOTE. APPROVED, 90.

[14.b. Resolution CC-12-02-24-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds from the Carmel Police Department Budget (Fund 1100) into the Marketing and Communications Department Budget (Fund 1203); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Taylor.]

THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO 14B.

RESOLUTION CC-12-02-24-01. RESOLUTION COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF CARAMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING OF TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. INTO MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT BUDGET FUND 1203 SPONSORS COUNSELOR GREEN AND TAYLOR. COUNSELOR TAYLOR, CAN YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS, PLEASE? CAN I GET A MOTION TO INTRODUCE?

>> COUNSELOR TAYLOR, CAN YOU READ THE SYNOPSIS? 14B.

>> TRANSFERS, $40,000. FOR THE 2024 BUDGET, THE 2024 MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS

BUDGET. >> WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED

[14.c. Resolution CC-12-02-24-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Approving a Transfer of Funds Within the Human Resources Department Budget (#1201); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Aasen.]

THIS. WE'LL JUST HOLD ON TO THIS WITH THE ORDINANCE.

RESOLUTION 12-02. THE CITY OF CARAMEL APPROVING OF TRANSFER FUNDS WITHIN THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BUDGET. NUMBER 1201 SPONSORS COUNSELOR GREEN AND OSEN.

CAN I GET A MOTION TO INTRODUCE? PLEASE READ THE SYNOPSIS.

>> THIS TRANSFERS IN THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BUDGET.

>> ALL RIGHT. ZACH, COULD YOU PLEASE KIND OF DESCRIBE THE TRANSFER, THE MAKE UP AND THE INFORMATION?

>> YEAH. CERTAINLY.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THINK IT'S BETTER IF I DESCRIBE ANOTHER TRANSFER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE RELATED TO THE HR DEPARTMENT ON NEXT, ON THE NEXT AGENDA AS PART OF A BIGGER PACKAGE HERE.

SO ESSENTIALLY, THE HR DEPARTMENT YOU KNOW, IS FUNDED FOR 2024. IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED AT THAT TIME THAT THE PAYROLL FUNCTION WOULD BE EXECUTED BY THAT DEPARTMENT DURING THIS CALENDAR YEAR. THAT WAS A DECISION MADE PRIOR TO ME COMING ON BOARD. I CAME ON BOARD IN APRIL. PRIOR TO ME STARTING PAYROLL HAD ALREADY MOVED OUT OF FINANCE AND OVER TO THE HR DEPARTMENT. AND SO THAT IS ONE FACTOR AND WE HAVE A PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR WHO DOES THE CITY'S PAYROLL AS WELL AS A CONTRACT EXPENSE FOR ADP. THAT'S ONE GROUP OF EXPENSES. THE OTHER EXPENSE THAT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED IS THAT WE HAD AN INTERIM HR DIRECTOR FOR A

[02:25:06]

FEW MONTHS AND BASICALLY NEEDED DOLLARS MOVED TO PAY OUT EXPENSES ON CONSULTING FEES RATHER THAN ON THE FULL- TIME APPROPRIATION.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS $104,000 OF MOVING WITHIN THE HR BUDGET TO BASICALLY TAKE DOLLARS THEY HAD AVAILABLE FIRST TO FILL THOSE GAPS AND THEN THE TRANSFER YOU'LL SEE ON DECEMBER 16TH IS A TRANSFER FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WHERE WE DID, WE WERE APPROPRIATED DOLLARS FOR THE ADP CONTRACT AS WELL AS PAYROLL ADMINISTRATORS BENEFITS SALARIES. YOU'LL SEE THE TRANSFER COMING FORWARD NEXT MEETING TO TRANSFER THOSE DOLLARS, PLEASE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YOU'RE SAYING THE NEXT MEETING WE'LL HAVE MORE MEETING MOVED INTO --

>> I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK TO SEE IF IT'S THOSE EXACT ACCOUNT LINES.

IF YOU GIVE ME A SECOND --

>> AGAIN, KIND OF PROCESS. AS LONG AS WE'RE ALL LEARNING, I GUESS I CAN BE OKAY WITH IT, BUT DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE NOT DOING THESE AT ONCE WHEN THEY'RE WITHIN THE SAME LINE ITEMS. WHY?

>> PARDON ME?

>> WHY HAVE THEY -- WHY IS IT GOING OVER MULTIPLE MEETINGS?

>> BASICALLY BECAUSE THE, MY GOAL IS TO GET AS MANY OF THESE CLEANED UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER FROM FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO HR HAS TO BE PUBLICLY NOTICED SO THAT'S SLOWED IT DOWN BY ABOUT THREE WEEKS. THAT'S WHY THE OTHER PART IS LAGGING.

>> SO THE CONSULTING FEES FOR THE INTERIM IS, DOES 25,000 COVER ALL THAT OR IS THERE GOING -- WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I DON'T WANT TO PARTIALLY FUND SOMEBODY'S PAY.

>> YEAH, IT'S ALREADY, IT IS ALREADY NEGATIVE, IF YOU WILL.

>> I THINK MY POINT IS I PERSONALLY, MAYBE THIS AN EXTRA THING OR IF YOU'RE DOING TO DO THESE MID YEAR AS YOU SEE THE PROBLEMS POP UP, JUST DO THEM AT ONCE.

MAKES THINGS A LITTLE EASIER TO JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND INSTEAD OF NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO HR TRANSFERS. AND THEN THE BIG QUESTION WOULD BE LIKE WHY DID WE DO NO TRAINING? THERE'S $90,000 OF THE TRAINING THAT WASN'T DONE. IS THAT A DISSERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY? JUST SO WE HAVE TIME TO ACTUALLY GET THOSE QUESTIONS IN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ZACH. LOOKING FOR A

MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

DISCUSSION PLEASE VOTE. APPROVE 9-0.

[14.d. Resolution CC-12-02-24-03; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing a Transfer of Funds Within the 2024 Carmel Police Department Budget; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Minnaar, Worrell and Joshi.]

MOVING ON TO 14D. RESOLUTION CC-12- 02, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CARAMEL AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUND WITHIN THE 2024 POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. SPONSORS.

>> MOVE INTRODUCE. >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> TRANSFERS $55,000 FROM LINE ITEM INTO THE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LINE ITEM WITHIN THE 2024 POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET.

>> ALL RIGHT, CHIEF.

>> THIS WAS WE USED THIS TO PAY THE CHIEF.

HE WAS HIRED ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS.

THAT WAS NOT OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION PLANNED FOR IN 2024 SO THIS MAKES THIS LINE. LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

[14.e. Resolution CC-12-02-24-04; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds within the Mayor’s Office Budget (#1160); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Aasen.]

>> SECOND. APPROVED 9-0. MOVING ON TO E.

PROVING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITHIN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE BUDGET.

SPONSORS. >> MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

ALL RIGHT.

>> THIS TRANSFERS $197,500 WITHIN THE 2024 MAYOR'S OFFICE

[02:30:05]

BUDGET.

>> WHAT'S THE MONEY FOR?

>> YEAH, AND SO, MAKING IT UP AS WE GO ALONG. IF I CAN OFFER ONE AMENDMENT TO THIS FIRST. IT'S LOWER.

ON THE, ON LINE 38, IT SAYS $35,000 ON FURNITURE AND FIXTURES.

THAT SHOULD BE 10,000 CURRENTLY THE AMOUNT WE'RE TRANSFERRING DOES NOT MATCH THE AMOUNT THAT'S RECEIVING. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 10,000 DL.

BIG PICTURE THOUGH. COUNCIL EARLIER THIS YEAR APPROVED THE CREATION OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF POSITION WITHIN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. HOWEVER, DOLLARS WERE NEVER PROVIDED TO PAY THAT SALARY.

THAT HAS BEEN THE COST OF THAT HAS BEEN ABSORBED BY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE WITHIN THE EXISTING APPROPRIATION OVERALL BUT DOLLARS ARE NEEDED TO BASICALLY ORDER TO FUND THAT NOW.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS A TOTAL OF 185,000 BEING MOVED INTO FULL- TIME REGULAR. FYI, THAT IS LARGER THAN THE CURRENT AND OR FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF'S SALARY, HOWEVER, WHENEVER A CASHOUT OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT HENCE THE NEED FOR MORE THAN JUST A ACTUAL SALARY.

AND ALSO, REMOVING 2500 FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES AS WELL AS $10,000 FOR FURNITURE AND FIXTURES.

10,000 FOR LIGHTING AND THE MONITORS AND OTHER AUDIO- VISUAL TYPE HOOK UPS FOR THE OFFICE.

>> COUNSELOR SCHNEIDER.

>> PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY BEFORE YOU SAID THE LAST WORDS. ALREADY WRITTEN A IPO FOR $19,052.95 FOR AUDIO-VISUAL.

ARE YOU SAYING IT TAKES MORE THAN $20,000 IN AP EQUIPMENT FOR AN OFFICE?

>> I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT PO SO I COULD GIVE YOU AN INTELLIGENT --

>> IT SAYS ON THERE, CHIEF OF STAFF'S OFFICE.

SO, WE HAD, THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH THE BUILDING REMODELS COST AND THERE'S STILL QUESTIONS IF THERE'S STILL REQUESTS COMING IN. I JUST, NOT GOING TO FIGHT IT.

I WANT CLARIFICATION ON EVERYTHING.

>> AND I WOULD SAY BASED UPON THE JUSTIFICATION OR THE DESCRIPTION THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE, THE ENTIRE OFFICE SUITE WAS RENOVATED FROM KIND OF THE LOBBY SPACE BACK TO AND INCLUDING THE OFFICE FOR THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, THE CHIEF OF STAFF AND KIND OF THE CONVERSION FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO BECOMING THE CONFERENCE ROOM/EMERGENCY OPERATIONS BACK UP CENTER AS WELL AS WHAT'S NOW THE OFFICE ITSELF.

>> YEAH BUT THAT WAS $47,882 FOR THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'STHERE'S -- EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, THERE HAS BEEN MONEY SPENT FOR.

I CAN GIVE YOU THAT PO NUMBER, TOO. MAYOR'S OFFICE, AV, 2581. SO AND THEN THERE'S FURNITURE ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF THIS.

AS WELL. SO PAYING FOR IT TWICE? I MEAN -- I DON'T SEE HOW THIS STUFF IS NEEDED BUT IT'S ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR ONCE THIS YEAR. HOW MUCH MORE AV IS NEEDED?

>> AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE PURCHASE ORDER YOU'RE LOOKING AT, IS THAT STILL AN OPEN PURCHASE ORDER OR HAS THAT BEEN -- THAT WAS HOW WE WENT ABOUT BUYING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THIS IS NOW -- PUTTING MONEY IN PLACE.

>> THEN THE NUMBERS DON'T JIVE.

YOU SIGNED IT. YOU AND SETH SIGNED IT.

>> YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY.

>> ON 72624.

>> YEAH. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT IS, THERE WERE ORIGINALLY DOLLARS IN FURNITURE, IN

[02:35:03]

FIXTURES THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO ABSORB MOST BUT NOT ALL OF THIS. THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S JUST UNDER I THINK TEN GRAND NEGATIVE.

AND THE GOAL IS TO FIX THAT NEGATIVE AS PART OF OUR FISCAL YEAR CLOSE OUT.

>> THEN WHEN IT WAS REQUESTED FOR A BREAKDOWN OF EVERYTHING, THIS WAS, Y'ALL KNOW MY FEELING ON LASER FISH.

THIS WAS 12 HOURS FINDING ALL THESE INVOICES BECAUSE YOU GUYS WOULDN'T PROVIDE THEM. AND YOU SENT AN E- MAIL THAT DOES NOT JIVE WITH INVOICES FOUND.

AGAIN, I'M SURE NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG, BUT JUST WANT IT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR SO WE KNOW WHAT GOT SPENT ON EACH INDIVIDUAL THING. I GUESS MY FRUSTRATION IS AGAIN, YOU SEEM TO ME LIKE SIMPLE QUESTIONS AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE THE SOFTWARE TO PULL EVERY INVOICE WRITTEN TO AVI SYSTEMS, THEN, ANY OF THESE CONTRACTORS, THEN THEY SHOULD BE EASILY SENT TO US.

SO WE JUST KNOW WHAT WAS SPENT ON THIS BUILDING.

I DON'T REALLY CARE. THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1989. IT NEEDS A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT BUT WHEN ASKED THE QUESTION HOW MUCH WAS SPENT, I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE AN ACCURATE ANSWER.

>> I APOLOGIZE. I DID RESPOND BACK TO THAT.

>> YOU SENT AN E- MAIL THAT HAD WALLPAPER, OLD REMEDIATION, AND PLUMBING.

NOT A SINGLE THING ABOUT FURNITURE, REMODEL, PAINTING.

IN THESE VARIOUS ROOMS. I'VE COMPARED THE E- MAIL YOU'VE SENT TO THESE INVOICES AND THEY DON'T MATCH UP. AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING HAS BEEN DONE WRONG. I'M JUST SAYING I WANT THE FULL PICTURE.

>> YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO TRY AND HELP.

SO ZACH DID SEND A, AN E- MAIL WITH A SUMMARY OF 364,000 OR 365,000 AND MATT, YOU AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT EARLIER TODAY.

THAT'S THE E- MAIL YOU'RE

PROBABLY REFERRING TO. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THEN MATT HAS SEEN SOME ADDITIONAL --

>> ON THIS BUILDING, MY TOTAL COMES, AND THE PO S I FOUND, TOTAL 422,859. 57 BUT THERE'S NOTHING THIS THESE POS THAT REFERENCE OLD REMEDIATION, PLUMBING, OR WALLPAPER.

AND THAT'S WHERE WAS IT REALLY 422 PLUS 369? ASKED ABOUT THE ONE THING AND I'D RATHER NOT GET DEEPER SO WE KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

AGAIN, OLD BUILDING. WHAT I DON'T LIKE DOING IS LYING TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME A QUESTION. AND I'M NOT DOUBTING YOU BUT I WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT THOSE, THE 400 WHATEVER TOTAL, 469, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

JUST TO MAKE SURE WHAT WAS IT, WAS IT THIS BUILDING? WAS IT WORK ON THE PAVEMENT THAT WAS DONE AROUND THE --

>> MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, MAYOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, MAYOR'S OFFICE. MAYOR'S OFFICE.

MAC OFFICES. COMMON AREAS.

MAYOR'S OFFICE. MAYOR'S OFFICE. ENGINEERING. CIO OFFICE.

WHAT IT SAYS ON ALL THE POS. AGAIN, I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST TERMINATE AND YOU SAY LET ME GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION. BECAUSE I'VE GOT IT DOWN TO THE, JUST TOOK THE INFORMATION OFF

THE PO. >> ALL RIGHT.

COUNSELOR LOTT.

>> JUST A BROADER QUESTION. THIS CAME UP IN THE FINANCE MEETING. THE CONCEPT OF A RUBBER STAMP, THE CONCEPT THAT WE ARE APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS THAT WERE OVERSPENT TO MAKE UP THE SPENDING THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED.

LIKE THIS ONE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

BOTH CATEGORIES ARE NOW FILLING NEGATIVE NUMBERS ON BOOKS. SOME OF THEM, WE'VE APPROVED AS FAR AS THINGS WE KNEW ABOUT THAT WE KNEW THEY WERE COMING. I REALLY STRUGGLE, LIKE THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE KNEW WHEN WE APPROVED THE POSITION THAT THERE WOULD BE A BUDGET SHORTFALL BASED ON THE APPROPRIATIONS.

[02:40:04]

I APPLAUD THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR FINDING SAVINGS WITHIN THEIR OWN BUDGET TO COVER THAT.

IT FEELS FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, IT ELIMINATES OUR CONVERSATION ON THE BUDGET TO DELINEATE LINE ITEMS IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO RUBBER STAMP AT THE END APPROVALS BASED ON THE SPENDING NEEDS BASED ON THE DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY'RE THERE. I KNOW THIS THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE BUDGET WAS WRITTEN BY A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION, DIFFERENT COUNCIL. WE'RE A NEW ADMINISTRATION, DIFFERENT PROCESS.

I'M COMFORTABLE THAT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE APPROVING TRANSFERS FOR LINE ITEMS WHEN THE OVERSPENDING CAN BE KNOWN AHEAD OF HIM.

CAN WE HIT THESE EARLIER. THE CONCEPT OF YOUR FIXES, HOW DO WE ENSURE WE'RE DOING THAT SO THAT A DOLLAR ISN'T SPENT THAT HASN'T BEEN APPROPRIATED.

THAT'S OUR GOAL AS A FISCAL AGENT.

THEN SAY WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE AFRAID OF AN AUDIT AT THE END OF THE YEAR OR NEXT YEAR, THAT'S A PROBLEM. THAT'S A MATERIAL BREACH OF OUR FIDUCIARY DUTY TO OVERSEE THE WAY YOU'RE APPROPRIATING.

I UNDERSTAND IT'S PAST PRACTICE, BUT I IMPLORE YOU AS A MAN WHO IS IS BIGGER AND MORE SOPHISTICATED BUDGET AND MORE ACCURATE TO NIP THIS IN THE BUD, NOT DO THIS AGAIN NEXT YEAR BECAUSE THE AUDIT SHOULD POTENTIALLY SHOW FINDINGS THAT WE'RE SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE THEN FIXING IT. THAT'S A PROBLEM.

>> AND I'LL SAY, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT THE TYPE OF STUFF THAT STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS LOOKS FOR, FRANKLY, AS LONG AS IT'S FINE BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

THIS WOULD NEVER --

>> I GET IT. I'M SAYING THAT FROM A FISCAL OVERSIGHT AS A CO- EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, ENSURING WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON WHAT WE SHOULD AFTER SPENDING 30 MINUTES TALKING ABOUT A POSITION THAT CAN'T BE ADDED. WE'RE SPENDING MONEY THAT'S BEING POSITIONED INTO A BUDGET ITEM. AGAIN, THIS YEAR DIFFERENT.

MOVING FORWARD, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO APPROVE A TRANSFER UNLESS IT IS BROUGHT TO US AHEAD OF TIME OR EVEN DURING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSITION LIKE HEY, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE CUTS IN BUDGET. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH A TRANSFER. IT GETS TO THE CONCEPT THAT ALL OF THE WORK WAS PUT INTO THE BUDGET THIS YEAR WAS APPROVED. MANAGING THE CITY.

THAT MONEY NEEDS TO BE USED FOR WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR AND IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHANGE TO THAT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, AS SOON AS WE KNOW ABOUT IT, WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT IT.

>> THAT'S MY COMMITMENT FOR NEXT YEAR IS THAT I WON'T GO INTO MY FULL SPIEL, BUT AS SOMEBODY WHO IS OVER ALL TRANSFERS AT THE STATE LEVEL, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE BACKED INTO A CORNER WHERE SOMEBODY'S ALREADY MADE MY DECISION FOR ME. THAT THIS HAS BEEN OVERSPENT.

YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT MANY OPTIONS AT THIS POINT.

>> WE CAN JUST NOT APPROVE IT IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN THIS YEAR, BUT IT MAY HAPPEN NEXT YEAR. IT MAY HAPPEN THIS YEAR, BUT KNOWING WHAT IS GOING ON IS IMPORTANT.

>> AND SO ON LATER THIS MONTH, I'LL BE ROLLING OUT KIND OF A REVISED COMPREHENSIVE TRANSFER POLICY FOR ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS.

FIRST RULE FIGHT CLUB FOR TRANSFERS IS, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY, WE ASK FOR PERMISSION FIRST. AS OPPOSED TO FORGIVENESS IF IT'S EVEN THAT AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SOME UNFORESEEN EMERGENCY WHERE I'LL BE COMING AND ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS, BUT THINGS LIKE THIS WHERE YEAH, CLEANING UP THE SALARY STUFF FOR A POSITION THAT WAS APPROVED JANUARY, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN. THERE'S NO REASON WHY SOME OF THESE COULDN'T BE DONE EARLIER.

WAS JUST THE SAY THE PROCESS AND THE MANAGEMENT STYLE THAT I KIND OF INHERITED WHEN I BECAME CFO THEN TOOK ME A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO GET ACCLIMATED. AGAIN, WE JUST TAKE THESE TO COUNCIL AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

THEY HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP.

>> OKAY. I DON'T LIKE IT.

[02:45:01]

I WOULDN'T WANT THAT DONE TO ME.

>> THE LIKELIHOOD THIS WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEXT YEAR AFTER THIS COUNCIL, THIS NEW COUNCIL AND THE NEW ADMINISTRATION OWN THE BUDGET, YOU KNOW, SHOULD DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE.

COUNSELOR AUSTIN THEN TAYLOR.

>> COUNSELOR LOCKE IS RIGHT. THERE WAS A SITUATION WHEN I WAS ON PLANT COMMISSION WHERE THEY ASKED FOR A VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN BUILT IN THE CRC.

THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE AND IF THE PLANT COMMISSION WERE TO VOTE NO, WHAT DO YOU DO? TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING? TO GO INTO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE SOLUTION ISN'T TO TAKE AWAY THE COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO APPROVE IT. IT'S GET THE MONEY TRANSFERRED BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE NEGATIVE THEN WE DON'T RUN INTO THIS ISSUE. I'M PROBABLY GOING TO SUGGEST IN THE NEXT YEAR THAT MAYBE ON A QUARTERLY LEVEL, WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE CITY'S BUDGET SO WE CAN HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE THAT IS. PERHAPS PUT THAT AS AN AGENDA ITEM THAT WE COULD CODIFY.

BUT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE THERE, BUT YEAH, I MEAN, WE'LL CUT YOU SOME SLACK BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR FIRST YEAR AND NEW ADMINISTRATION.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNSELOR TAYLOR THEN WOREL.

>> FIRST, IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC THAT THESE TAX DOLLARS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE PUBLIC. WE JUST PASSED A BUDGET FOR WHICH WE UNAPPROPRIATED OVER $3 MILLION THAT WE'LL BE COLLECTING FROM TAXPAYERS BUT NOT DEPLOYING NEXT YEAR THROUGH A BUDGET. OTHER UNAPPROPRIATED DOLLARS THAT GO TO OUR GENERAL FUND THAT WE JUST COLLECT AND NOT USE. THAT'S WHY WHEN WE'REGOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THAT'S WHY I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHY WE'RE IMPLEMENTING A WHEEL AND SURTAX WHEN IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT WE COULD UNAPPROPRIATE ALMOST $3 MILLION FROM THE BUDGET WHICH WE'RE COLLECTING FROM TAXPAYERS NO MATTER WHAT THEN NOT DEPLOY IT. IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ME WE COULD COME UP WITH THAT $3 MILLION ELSEWHERE. SO IT'S VERY CLEAR, VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE CHOOSE TO NOT APPROPRIATE DOLLARS, DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE NOT COLLECTING IT FROM THE TAXPAYERS.

WE'RE COLLECTING THAT MONEY FROM YOU AND NOW IT'S SITTING IN AN ACCOUNT EARNING INTEREST AND NOT BEING DEPLOYED WHEN WE UNAPPROPRIATE IT.

IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND. WHAT I WAS JUST GOING TO REQUEST IS THAT SINCE THERE'S A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPENDING FOR THE REMODELING ON CITY HALL, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE THIS ITEM TOTO COMMITTEE.

I CALL THAT WE MOVE THIS TO COMMITTEE THEN AT COMMITTEE ON DECEMBER 10TH, I THOUGHT WE WERE HAVING ONE ON --

>> OR WE COULD TABLE IT.

>> SO FINANCE AND RULES IS CANCELED ON 10TH EVEN THOUGH WE MET TODAY?

>> WE SAID THAT WE WERE MOVING THE FULL AGENDA TO TODAY INSTEAD OF KEEPING THE 12TH OR WHENEVER IT WAS.

>> I NEVER GOT THE DECLINE THEN.

>> IT WAS TODAY. NO, IT WENT ON ON TEXT JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE SAW IT.

>> IF WE'RE TRANSFERRING ONE TO ANOTHER, WE NEED TO GET OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED BEFORE WE APPROVE.

>> THAT'S TAKEN AND WE CAN HOLD ON TO IT. COUNSELOR WOREL.

ALL RIGHT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, DIDN'T MEAN TO START AN INQUEST HERE. I WAS REALLY TRYING TO JUST SUBTLY POINT OUT THAT WE DO THESE TRANSFERS AND FRANKLY, I JUST WANTED A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. DIDN'T MEAN TO CALL OUT ALL OF THIS, ALTHOUGH I HOPE YOU CAN NOW THAT IT'S OUT THERE, YOU CAN RECONCILE IT ALL AND THANK YOU.

THE OTHER COUNSELORS I THINK HAVING ACCURATE DATA IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT ALL OF THIS STUFF WAS NEEDED AND CONTRACTORS, EVERYTHING, A PRICE WAS GIVEN THEN IT WAS WE'LL FIGURE OUT OU TO PAY FOR THIS LATER.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL RECONCILED.

SO COUNSELOR LOCKE'S POINT. WE DON'T HAVE TO FUND SOMETHING AND WHILE THAT MAY BE A HORRIBLE IDEA AND WHILE WE MAY GET FINED, THAT'S A DECISION WE GET TO MAKE. AND SOMETIMES ON SOME THINGS, IT MAYBE WEIGHING THE FINE VERSUS THE WHAT WE FEEL IS

[02:50:01]

UNACCEPTABLE IS A CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD. SO I DO THINK THAT DECISION NEEDS TO BE REMAIN WITH US.

BECAUSE IT IS THE COUNCIL'S DECISION TO MAKE AND WE CAN MAKE A GOOD DECISION OR A BAD DECISION BUT IT IS ONE THAT, IT IS A TOOL IN OUR SHED THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED.

[14.f. Resolution CC-12-02-24-05; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds within the Marketing and Community Relations Department Budget (#1203); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Aasen.]

SO I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM F.

RESOLUTION CC-12-02-24-05. RESOLUTION CITY OF CARAMEL, INDIANA, APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITH THE MARKETING COMMUNITY RELATIONS DEPARTMENT BUDGET NUMBER

1203. >> MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

>> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, COUNSELOR.

>> THIS TRANSFERS 275,000 WITHIN THE COMMITTEE RELATIONS

BUDGET. >> ALL RIGHT. ZACH.

>> IF YOU LIKED THAT ONE. SO, LET ME START BY, I, WE DID AS LATE AS TODAY KIND OF NEGOTIATE THIS ONE DOWN A LITTLE BIT. WHILE THE TOTAL LISTED IS $275,000, IT CAN BE LOWERED BY 45,000.

DOWN TO $230,000. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE IN THE SYNOPSIS AS WELL AS LINES 10 AND 14.

AND I CAN KIND OF MENTION WHERE TO TAKE THE 45,000 FROM.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, THIS YEAR WHEN WE LOOKED AT MAX BUDGET, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE ADDED POSITIONS THIS YEAR COMPARED TO WHERE THEY STARTED THIS YEAR WITH BEING MORE HEAVY ON CONTRACTED ASSISTANCE AND SO WE'VE GOT THE TRANSFER INTO FULL- TIME REGULAR TO COVER THOSE SALARIES. AND THEN ALSO THE TRANSFER FOR OTHER PROFESSIONAL FEES ON THE NEXT PAGE, WE HAVE THE ESSENTIALLY, WE HAD 50,000 COMBINED FOR FURNITURE AND FIXTURED. WE CAN LOWER THAT TO $45,000.

HENCE THE $45,000 DIFFERENCE THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> IN THE INTEREST OF FULLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUES THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE BROUGHT UP, I RECOMMEND WE TABLE THIS AND HOLD ON TO IT.

>> NEED TO BE OUT OF HERE BY MIDNIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> THAT'S GOOD. SHOULD WE DO --

>> ALL RIGHT. COUNSELOR.

>> YES. THANK YOU.

BUT IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THIS, WE NEED BETTER COMMUNICATION SO THE FIRST THING THAT POPPED INTO MY MIND, HOW DO YOU TAKE A $45,000 TRANSFER AND TURN IT INTO FIVE. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? I DON'T GET THAT AT ALL. AND THAT'S ONE THING.

WHAT IS THIS FOR? WHAT'S THE HEAD COUNT? I SAT IN YOUR OFFICE, WE WENT THROUGH HEAD COUNTS AND I'M LOST AND FRANKLY, SOMEONE, IF WE HAD DEALT WITH THIS, I WOULD HAVE WANTED TO ASK SOMEONE FROM MAC TO BE HERE. IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR $275,000, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEONE HERE. JUST LIKE SOME OF THESE OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE SUFFERED THROUGH THIS THING TONIGHT.

>> I'LL SAY -- DON'T FAULT THE KELLY FOR THAT.

SHE ASKED ME IF I THOUGHT SHE NEEDED TO BE HERE AND I DIDN'T READ THE ROOM AND I SAID NO, I THINK IT'S A NO BRAINER. SO, ANY WAY.

>> THAT IS ON YOU.

>> I WILL SAY THE REASON THAT THAT 50,000 IS REDUCING BY 45 TO 5 IS THEY DID READ THE ROOM.

AND ORIGINALLY, THEY WERE REQUESTING TO MAKE AA FURNITURE PURCHASE AT YEAR END. THEY'VE NOT SPENT THAT NEGATIVE YET.

WE WENT BACK TO THEM AND SAID YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T THINK COUNCIL IS GIVEN HOW THE BUDGET WORKSHOPS WENT, I DON'T THINK AND THE BUDGET, I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD, WE AGREED THEY SHOULDN'T BE ASKING FOR 50,000 HENCE THE REDUCTION TO FIVE. THEY'RE GOING TO, IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WORK SPACES, DESKS. THEY'VE GOT PEOPLE USING PARTS OF DESKS. YOU KNOW, ONE DESK WITH THE CREDENZA OVER HERE AND THE ACTUAL DESK PART OVER HERE.

AND SOMEBODY ELSE IS USING THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO.

[02:55:01]

AS A MAKESHIFT SPACE. AND SO, WE GOT IT DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DESKS, WORKSTATIONS FOR SIX PEOPLE.

[14.g. Resolution CC-12-02-24-06; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds Between the Grant Fund (#900) and the General Fund (#101); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Green and Aasen.]

YES, I'LL BRING, HAPPY TO BRING THIS BACK NEXT TIME.

>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT RESOLUTION G. CC-12-02-24-04. RESOLUTION THE CITY OF CARAMEL, INDIANA APPROVING A TRANSFER OF FUND BETWEEN GRANT FUND NUMBER 100.

>> MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

>> TRANSFER $5,000 FROM THE GRANT FUND 900 TO THE GENERAL FUND TO REIMBURSE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED EXPENDITURES.

>> AND THIS ONE IS AS SIMPLE AS IT READS.

ESSENTIALLY, WE ARE REIMBURSING THE GENERAL FUND FOR SOME EXPENSES AND PAYING THAT OUT OF THE GRANT FUND. OR THE PARDON ME, YEAH, THE GRANT FUND FOR FESTIVAL AND COMMUNITY EVENT RELATED EXPENSES.

IT'S JUST A TRANSFER BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND.

IT'S NOT REAPPROPRIATING IT.

>> ALL RIGHT. COUNSELOR LOCKE.

>> JUST PROCESS. SOURCE OF THE GRANT FUNDS.

WHERE DID IT COME FROM? THEN JUST LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S TRANSFERRING FROM THE GRANT TO THE MAC LINE ITEM FOR FESTIVALS. SO --

>> YEAH, I'D HAVE TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE.

I'M NOT SURE OF THE SOURCE. I KNOW IT'S, I'LL PUT IT LIKE THIS. IT IS VERY COMMON FOR, WHEN WE GET GRANTS, WE PUT THEM IN A GRANT FUND THEN MOVE THOSE REVENUES OVER TO THE GENERAL FUND AND THEN INCREASE THE APPROPRIATION FOR THAT. BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE GRANT WAS, I'D HAVE TO --

>> THESE ARE LIKE, IT'S A GRANT FROM TO BE APPLIED FOR AND GOT FROM A -- WE DON'T KNOW.

WE HAVE NO IDEA.

>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING FEDERAL FUNDING HERE.

I THINK THIS IS LIKE A PRIVATE GRANT DONATION TYPE SITUATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

LOOKING FOR A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION. PLEASE VOTE.

>> IT WAS GIVEN FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND NOW WE'RE

[14.h. Resolution CC-12-02-24-07; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds Within the Motor Vehicle Highway Fund (#201) Engineering Department Budget (#2200); Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Snyder, Taylor and Worrell.]

JUST REIMBURSING THE GENERAL FUND FOR THAT EXPENSE.

MOVING ON TO ITEM H. RESOLUTION CC-12-02-24-07.

APPROVING TO TRANSFER FUNDS BEEN THE MOTOR VEHICLE FUND, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BUDGET NUMBER 2200 SPONSORS COUNSELORS SCHNEIDER, TAYLOR, AND WOREL.

GET A MOTION TO INTRODUCE?

>> INTRODUCE. ALL RIGHT.

>> IN THE 2024 MOTOR VEHICLE HIGHWAY

FUND. >> DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING.

ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO TRANSFER THIS MONEY.

HAVE NOT UNDERSPENT YET. PTO PAYOUT.

ANY QUESTIONS, COUNSELOR?

>> JUST A COMMENT. YOU GAVE US A FULL EXPLANATION, ANSWERED QUESTIONS, THAT MAKES THIS SO MUCH BETTER. I GOT TO GIVE YOU THE FACT THAT YOU ENDED UP BEING THE LAST ONE ON THE AGENDA, NO OFFENSE, BUT MAN, YOU DIDN'T DESERVE THAT SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

[03:00:11]