[2. MINUTES]
[00:00:15]
>>GOOD MORNING. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. >> MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. MINUTES A. MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 18,
[Additional Item]
2026, REGULAR MEETING MOVE TO APPROVE. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? . THE MOTION PASSES.
>>92 GOO >>GOOD MORNING, BOARD. BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE NEXT SESSION, THE BIDS OPENING. WE DID RECEIVE MARCH 2ND, A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD ACE REJECTION OF OLD BIDS FOR THE PROJECT, FROM CONSTRUCTION, SINCE THE BOARD RECEIVED THIS IN WRITING, THE STAFF WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO IT AND PROVIDE OUR RECOMMENDATION IF
THE BOARD SO ALLOWS. >> >> WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION TO
ADD THAT ON? >> YES. >>WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
>>WE JUST RECEIVED IT TWO DAYS AGO, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S REQUESTING THE BOARD RECONSIDER YOUR REJECTIONABLE BIDS FOR THE PAVING PROJECT THAT I JUST MENTIONED AND AWARD THEM THE LOWEST BID THAT WAS PRESENTED AND THEY WERE THE LOWEST BID FOR THAT PROJECT. AS THE BACKGROUND STAFF REJECTED THE BIDS, IT WAS THEN REBID AND WILL BE OPEN TODAY DEPENDING ON THE RESULT OF THIS REQUEST. THE STAFF RECOMMENDED REJECTION OF OLD BIDS BASED ON TWO REASONS. ONE, THERE WAS AN EXPANSION OF A SCOPE OF A PROJECT, SPECIFICALLY THE ADDITION OF PAVING AREAS OF MEETINGHOUSE ROAD TO HOOVER ROAD FROM HIGHLAND DRIVE FROM 106 TO THE END. THIS SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, WE ANTICIPATE IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE COPY OF THE PROJECT UP TO 250,000, MAYBE MORE. AND THE SECOND ONE THERE WAS SOME SPECIFICATION THAT IT NEEDED TO CLARIFY OR SPECIFICATIONS, AND THEY ARE LISTED IN THE BID DOCUMENTS. I WANT TO SUMMARIZE THEM BECAUSE SOME ARE QUITE TECHNICAL FOR ADA ISSUES, AN EXAMPLE. WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT ALL PRIME CONTRACTORS ARE IN THAT 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND OWN THEIR OWN PLANTS APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND ALL SUB CONTRACTORS HAVE $2 MILLION CAPACITY IN THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND TWO YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF THE SNORTED LIEU OF THAT WE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED TWO YEARS OF WORKING WITH THE CITY DIRECTLY. THERE WERE ALSO SOME TECH REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO STRIPPING AND ADA CURVES. I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT SPECIFICALLY BUT WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT ALL CONTRACTORS, SUB CONTRACTORS ARE ADA COMPLIANT ALSO. THERE WAS SOME COMMUNICATION RELATED TO COLD JOINTS. I'M NOT EXACTLY WHAT COLD JOINTS ARE, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RELATING TO THOSE SPECIFIC CHANGES, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. AND ALSO, THERE WAS A CHANGE REGARDING JOINTS AND MINIMUM DEPTH RELATED TO THEM.
[00:05:12]
SO, IN THEIR REQUEST ARGUED THAT THE CITY DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH IN THE RECOMMENDATION MADE AND THE BOARD REJECTED THE BIDS, AND THAT THE CITY INTENTIONALLY PREVENTED RILEY FROM OBJECT OBTAINING THAT PROJECT. THE CITY IS STRONGLY OPPOSING THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, ASSERTIONS, THE CHANGES IN THE BIDS AND EXPANSION OF SCOPE WERE ALL DONE IN GOOD FAITH. WERE DONE TO MAKE SURE THE TAXPAYERS MONEY IS SPENT IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY POSSIBLE AND TO BE SURE THE PROJECTS ARE DONE PER THE CITY'S DESIRED EXPECTATIONS BY ALL SUB CONTRACTORS. FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS FOR THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS ABOUT $100,000, ARE GATHERED BY THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SECTION B 5, SUB SECTION B 5 THAT ALLOWS THE BOARD TO REJECT ALL BIDS.THE STATUTE DOES NOT SPECIFY ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARD THAT THE BOARD HAS TO CONSIDER WHILE EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO REJECT OLD BIDS BUT RILEY AND IN CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO YOU CITE TWO INDIANA LAW CASES, ONE FROM '83 AND THE OTHER ONE FROM '92 THAT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
ESSENTIALLY THOSE CASES STATE THAT THOSE DECISIONS TO REJECT BIDS HAVE TO BE MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT AND NOT BE ARBITRARY. SO, DISREGARDING ANY ISSUES OF FACTORS BETWEEN THOSE TWO CASES AND OUR CASES OR ABILITY OF THOSE CASES. THIS IS NOT A COURT AND NOT ACTING IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY, DISREGARDING THAT, THE CITY HAS CLEARLY MET THOSE STANDARDS. THE DECISION TO AMEND AND THE BIDS TO REBID WAS NOT MADE ARBITRARILY, IT WAS MADE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO CITY STANDARDS AND ARE CLEAR TO ALL CONTRACTORS AND TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF A PROJECT. THAT'S BY THE WAY, ON ITS OWN IS A SUFFICIENT REASON, MTO REJECT BIDS AND NOTHING TO PREVENT RILEY FROM RECEIVING A BID AWARD. OVER THE LAST YEAR, RILEY HAS RECEIVED NINE PROJECTS FROM THE CITY WITH A CONTRACT AMOUNT OF OVER $34 MILLION. SO, OUR LONG HISTORY OF WORKING TOGETHER DOESN'T SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT WE WERE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO REBID THE AWARD TO REEF. AND ABSOLUTELY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THOSE ASSERTIONS IN THE
RECORD. >>SO, TO CONCLUDE, OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD IS TO REJECT REEF RILEY'S REQUEST TO RECONSIDER AND TO CONTINUE WITH BID OPENING FOR A PROJECT
TODAY. THANK YOU. >>ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ASK YOU. WE WERE IN GOOD STANDING AS FAR AS OUR ACTIONS REGARDING THE PREVIOUS BID
OPENING. >>WE BELIEVE SO. ONE THING I MIGHT ADD, IS THAT UNDER THAT CASE LOAD, YOUR DISCRETION TO REJECT ALL BIDS IS EXTREMELY BROAD. THAT'S WHAT THE COURT USED TO GIVE YOU THAT DISCRETION. IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE UNDER THOSE CASES EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE JUST SAYS YOU CAN REJECT ALL BIDS. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL STANDARD FOR THE BOTH. BUT EVEN FOLLOWING THE TWO CASES THAT WERE CITED, THE EXTREME BROAD DISCRETION
[00:10:07]
USUALLY, IMPLIES IN THE CASES THAT TALK ABOUT THIS, USUALLY, IMPLY SOME WILLFUL OR INTENTIONAL ACT FROM THE BOARD TO EITHER PREVENT THE BID OF BID AWARD FOR NO ARBITRARY REASONS.HERE IS THE CASE, WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT WASN'T THE CASE HERE AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE
RECOMMEND THAT REQUEST BE REJECTED BY THE BOARD. >>AND WITH REGARDS TO THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO REBID, WE ARE NOT IN ANY FORM OR FASHION DENYING THEM THE CHANCE TO
REBID? >> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. >>OKAY.
>>THEY CERTAINLY CAN BID AND IT WILL BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, THE CONTRACT WILL BE AWARDED TO THEM AS WAS DONE WITH MANY IN THE PAST. ONE MORE THING I FAILED TO MENTION AS WELL.
REEF ARGUES THAT THEY WERE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER. THEY WERE THE LOWEST BIDDER T DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONSIVENESS WAS NOT MADE BY THIS BOARD. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THAT HASN'T BEEN MADE SINCE ALL THE BIDS WERE REJECTED. BUT YES, RECONSIDERATION UNCOMMON OCCURR FACT, THERE WAS ONE FROM THE BRIDGE THAT WAS THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER AND THEY WERE AWARDED TO THEM. >>I WOULD MOVE TO DENY TO
[3. BID OPENINGS, AWARDS, AND REVOCATION]
RECONSIDER AND GO FORWARD. >>SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? >>THANK YOU.
>>MOVING ON TO 3. BID OPENINGS, AWARDS, AND REVOCATION A. BID OPENING FOR 26-STR-02 PAVING; MATT HIGGINBOTHAM, STREET COMMISSIONER
THERE WERE TWO BUSY. ONE FROM HOWARD ASPHALT LLC $631,446.72. >>THE SECOND BIDDER FROM BE
PAVING IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,479,350.30. >>THANK YOU.
[4. TABLED ITEMS]
>>I'M SURE THEY WILL COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION. 4. TABLED ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF UNSAFE BUILDING; 11033 HAVERSTICK ROAD, CARMEL, IN 46033; BRENT LIGGETT, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL TABLED 11-05-25 CORPORATION COUNSEL: ON THIS ONE, WE APPRECIATED THE BOARD'S PATIENCE. IT'S BEEN TABLED FOR MANY MEETINGS. WE BELIEVE WE ARE VERY CLOSE HERE ON MOVING FORWARD. WE WOULD ASK, THE CITY WOULD REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THIS. SO THE MOTION TO BRING IT BACK FROM THE TABLE AND THEN WE WOULD THEN ASK THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE A WITHDRAWAL. AND THEN IF WE NEED TO IN THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE, WE CAN ALWAYS BRING IT BACK. THE BENEFIT REMAINING ON THIS IS IT HOLDS
[00:15:02]
THE INDIVIDUAL TO TAKE IT DOWN THOSE STEPS. IF WE HAVE TO BRING IT BACK, THE STEPS ARE JUST A NOTICE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD HAVE US HAVE TO SERVE THAT NOTICE AGAIN. SO WE WOULD REQUEST IT BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE AND COME BACK AND THEN TO APPROVAL WITH THE OFFER OF THISMATTER. >>LET ME MAKE SURE IF WE MOVE TO WITHDRAW THIS, THAT THAT DOES
NOT STOP THE CITY'S PURSUING THEIR BRINGING THIS TO CODE? >> NO, IT DOESN'T. SO, THIS IS A PROCEDURE ON UNSAFE BUILDING LAWS THAT REQUIRES FOR THIS TYPE OF DEMOLITION. THE NOTICE WAS BROUGHT ON. THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT, AND WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE STEPS THAT ARE BEING TAKEN IF WE NEED TO COME BACK BECAUSE WE ENTER INTO NON-COMPLIANCE, THEN WE WILL DO
[5. CONTRACTS]
SO. >>OKAY. THEN I WOULD MOVE TO WIT
WITHDRAW. >>I SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> 5. CONTRACTS A. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES; ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION; ($223,040.00); ZENIX MONITORS DEFIBRILLATORS EMS; ADDITIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT; CHIEF JOEL THACKER, CARMEL FIRE
DEPARTMENT >>GOOD MORNING, JOEL THACKER, FIRE CHIEF OF CARMEL. THESE ARE HEART MONITORS THAT WE PURCHASED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THE HEART MONITORS AT THAT TIME WERE END OF LIFE AND WE KNEW THE NEW ONES WERE COMING OUT THAT NEEDED FDA APPROVAL. ONCE THEY RECEIVED FDA APPROVAL, THERE WERE REPORTING MODULES WITH OUR HEART MONITORS AND WE WERE ABLE TO NOW WITH ADDITIONAL DOLLARS ABLE TO UPGRADE THEM FUNCTIONALITY AND THEY WERE ABLE TO REVIEW THIS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND APPROVED THE FUNCTIONALITY OF IT AS WE PARTICULARLY LOOK TO BRAIN INJURY AND OTHER ADAPTIVES THAT WE ARE ABLE TO UTILIZE. WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS. IN THE NEXT MEETING, THERE WILL BE SOME ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS TO THESE MONITORS TO FINALIZE. I WILL BE BACK TO ASK FOR FUNDING FOR THAT. THIS IS TO GET THE MONITORS TO GET THEM GOING IN AND DO SOME TRAINING BEFORE WE CAN GET THEM IN SERVICE.
>>I MOVE. >>SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, CHIEF.
>> B. REQUEST FOR SECOND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT; AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.; CHIEF DRAKE STERLING, CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT
>>GOOD MORNING. THE CHIEF FROM CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS AN AGREEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE DRONE PROGRAMS THAT WE NOW HAVE THREE DRONES COVERING THE ENTIRE CITY.
>>QUESTIONS? >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. >> C. REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; CROSSROAD ENGINEERS, P.C.; ($228,000.00); 22-ENG- 12 & 17-SW-15-WESTFIELD BLVD PATH & STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT; ADDITIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT #7A; BRADLEY PEASE, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING GOOD MORNING, BOARD. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY GOING TO THE SECOND PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. WE HIT SOME DELAYS WITH UTILITIES AND OTHER PROCUREMENTS. THIS IS THE EXTRA TIME THE TEAM HAS FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF THE PROJECT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
[00:20:02]
>> ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. >>THANK YOU, JERRY.
>> D. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES; REITH-RILEY CONSTRUCTION; ($4,695.86); 18-ENG-12A COMMUNITY DRIVE RAISED INTERSECTION PROJECT; CO#1 FINAL; BRADLEY PEASE, DIRECTOR OF
ENGINEERING >>THIS IS JUST THE FINAL BALANCING CHANGE OF ORDER FOR THIS PROJECT. WE HAD A COUPLE OF UNIT CHANGES ON THIS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. THIS IS THE FINAL
BALANCE ON CHANGE OVER. >>QUESTIONS, MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.
> AYE. Select to skip to this part of the video">>>SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE". >> AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. >>NICE SHOES. LOOKING SHARP. >>THANK YOU.
>>ALL RIGHT. E. REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; HEAPY SOLUTIONS, LLC; ($88,000.00); PHASE 1 ENERGY CENTER FEASIBILITY/DESIGN WORK; ZAC JACKSON, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER >>GOOD MORNING, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR BUDGET MANAGEMENT FILLING IN FOR JACK JACKSON IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,000 TO MOVE TO ENGINEERING WORK-RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ENERGY PROJECT. THIS PHASE FOR ENGINEERING FOR GEOTHERMAL TEST WELL TO CONFIRM
CAPACITY AND DETERMINE ANY GEOTHERMAL FEASIBILITY. >>QUESTIONS?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >>SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. >>THANK YOU.
>>5F. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES, $232,218.89. >> F. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES; FORTE, INC.; ($232,218.89); MIDTOWN PLAZA-EXTRON HEAD END REPLACEMENT; ADDITIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT #3; KEVIN CUSIMANO, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
>>GOOD MORNING. THIS IS DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY FOR THE CITY. THIS IS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF OUR NINE-YEAR-OLD SCREEN AND THE EQUIPMENT BEHIND-THE-SCENES THAT HOPE THE RUN ALL THE
BROADCASTING WE DO THROUGH THE MIDTOWN TOWER PLAZA AREA. >>KEVIN, THAT'S A BIG SCREEN TV.
>>YES, SIR, ABSOLUTELY. AND BECAUSE IT'S SO OLD WE ARE AT THAT POINT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF BACKUPS. IF SOMETHING WERE TO BREAK, WE NEED TO MOVE THAT FORWARD AND BE ABLE TO REPLACE THAT. IT WILL TAKE THEM PROXIMATELY A WEEK OR TWO TO GET THAT SCHEDULED TO GET THEM TO CHANGE THAT OUT. IT MIGHT LOOK A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN IT DOES TODAY IN TERMS OF BEING NEW
EQUIPMENT. >>IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I CAN PUT IN MY LIVING ROOM?
>> YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD PUT IT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM FOR SURE AND IT WILL BE AMAZING, TRUST ME.
>>ALL KINDS OF NEW FRIENDS. I MOVE TO APPROVE. >>SECOND.
>> G. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES; ENGLEDOW, INC.; ($182,000.00); 2026 FLOWER MAINTENANCE; ADDITIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT; MATT
HIGGINBOTHAM, STREET COMMISSIONER >>GOOD MORNING, BOARD. THIS CONTRACT IS A SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THEM TO INSTALL ALL FLOWERS THROUGHOUT CARMEL. FOR THEM IS JUST INSTALL AND SOME IS THE MAINTENANCE DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION.
>>MOVE TO APPROVE. >>SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. >> H. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES; TMT, INC.; ($85,000.00); MULCHING & LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE; ADDITIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT; MATT HIGGINBOTHAM, STREET COMMISSIONER FOR THIS CONTRACT IS OUR ANNUAL MULCHING CONTRACT, INSTALLING OF MULCHING AT THE TREE RINGS AROUND CARMEL. A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT MAIN SCAPE DOES FOR
[6. REQUEST TO USE CITY STREETS/PROPERTY]
US. >>MOVE TO APPROVE. >>SECOND.
>> 6. REQUEST TO USE CITY STREETS/PROPERTY
WE'LL TAKE THE FIRST THREE. SOME CONCERN ON SOME OF THOSE. >> A. REQUEST TO USE CARTER GREEN; WEDDING FIREWORKS; MARCH 7,2026; 5:00 PM TO 12:00 AM.; DONALD EICKS, CIRCLE CITY PYROS DONALD EICKS, CITY'S PYROTECHNIC. I WAS ASKED TO DO A FIREWORKS SHOW. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR NOISE PERMIT. SORRY
[00:25:11]
ABOUT THAT. BEING SO LATE ON THAT. I THOUGHT WE CAN GET THIS PERMIT AND MAKE SOME PEOPLEHAPPY. >>THANK YOU. >>ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST REFER THIS TO THIS ATTORNEY AND HAVE HIM COMMENT ON THIS.
>>THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT WOULD BE WITHIN OUR SCOPE TO APPROVE THIS.
>>RIGHT. >>HELLO, BOARD AGAIN. THE REQUEST IS TO USE FIREWORK
DISPLAY FOR 5-8 MINUTES? >> YES. >>THAT'S IT?
>> YES. >>SO, OUR NOISE ORDINANCE REGULATES DIFFERENT TYPES OF NOISES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE CITY. FIREWORKS HAS BEEN IN REGULATION FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
OUR ORDINANCE HAS A SPECIFIC SECTION ABOUT FIREWORKS REGULATION AND LIMITS THE DATE AND TIME BY ORDINANCE WHEN FIREWORKS CAN BE PERFORMED IN THE CITY OF CARMEL. IT COMPLIES WITH STATE CODE THAT HAS PROVISIONS IN THERE AS WELL WITH MINIMUM DATES AS WELL. CITY OF CARMEL HAS SLIGHTLY MORE DAYS THAT FIREWORKS ARE ALLOWED. SPECIFICALLY IS FOURTH OF JULY, NEW YEAR'S, THE FESTIVAL, I THINK I'M BLANKING ON ONE MORE. THIS IS NOT UNFORTUNATELY WITHIN THOSE AUTHORIZED DAYS. THE OTHER SECTION OF THE SAME ORDINANCE INCLUDE SOME EXEMPTION FROM REGULATIONS, WHICH ONE OF THEM INCLUDES A BOARD APPROVED EVENT AND IT LISTS CERTAIN EVENTS THAT CAN BE APPROVED BY BOARD INCLUDING PARADES, FAIRS, THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT SPECIFIC SECTION IS THAT SECTION ADDRESSES GENERAL KINDS OF NOISES THAT CAN BE GENERATED BY THOSE PUBLIC EVENTS VERSUS A MORE SPECIFIC SECTION THAT REGULATES FIREWORKS DISPLAYS DATES AND TIMES SPECIFICALLY. IF WE HAVE A MORE SPECIFIC SECTION, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IT. IT TRUMPS A MORE GENERAL SECTION THAT ADDRESSES THIS WIDE ARRAY OF NOISES. THEREFORE, WE CANNOT APPROVE FERIREWORKS FOR A PRIVA EVENT. IN FACT, THIS PRACTICE WAS TO AMEND AN ORDINANCE TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL DAY FOR THE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS. AND THAT WAS A PUBLIC EVENT, THAT WAS A CITY SPONSORED EVENT, AND EVEN WITH THAT TYPE OF EVENT, THE CITY WENT TO CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE, NOT TO THIS BOARD. ONLY AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF THE ORDINANCE, THE CITY WENT TO THIS BOARD FOR APPROVAL. SO OUR DETERMINATION IS THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT AUTHORIZE FIREWORKS DISPLAY WITHIN THE CITY OUTSIDE OF THE DATES AND TIMES SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN OUR FIREWORKS SUB SECTION OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE.
>>IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I WOULD MOVE TO DENY. >>IT SOUNDS LIKE UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR SCOPE TO APPROVE IT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. >>6B B. REQUEST TO USE CITY STREETS; WEDDING CEREMONY; JUNE 19, 2026; 8:00 AM TO 10:00
AM; USNAL GILL, A PANACHE AFFAIR THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS? >> I'M BETH HOPKINS WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT DOES THE FACILITIES REQUEST. THIS COMPANY IS BASED OUT OF CALIFORNIA. THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY. THE PENDING THAT YOU SAW ON THERE WAS FIRE WAS CONCERNS THAT THE DITCH WAS GOING TO BE CLOSED NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IT IS NOT A
[00:30:06]
CLOSURE. THEY WILL ABOUT THERE ON-SITE TO HELP WITH TRAFFIC. >>OKAY.
>>MOVE TO APPROVE. >>SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
>> C. REQUEST TO USE CIVIC SQUARE GAZEBO AND LAWN; SPECIAL REQUEST TO USE FOUNTAIN AND REFLECTING POOL RESTROOMS; THE CLIMB; OCTOBER 4, 2026; 9:00 AM TO 6:00 PM; BRITTANY DEWBREW-HALE, FLOURISH MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS
>>GOOD MORNING. I'M BRITTANY. THIS IS -- WE ARE CO-LEADERS FOR THIS EVENT AND PARTNERSHIP WITH POSTPARTUM SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL. THE CLIMB IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST COMMUNITY AWARENESS FUNDRAISING EVENT FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH OF NEW FAMILIES. POSTPARTUM SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL SHINES THE LIGHT ON ANXIETY DISORDERS WHICH IS THE MOST COMMON COMPLICATION IN CHILDBEARING. OUR CURRENT ISSUE IS OUR INSURANCE DOES NOT MATCH YOURS. SO EVERYTHING MATCHES ASIDE FROM THE PER PERSON MEDICAL PSI'S INSURANCE IS $5,000 PER PERSON AND YOUR REQUEST IS $300,000. THERE HAVE BEEN 500 TIMES ACROSS THE YEARS ACROSS THE NATION WITH THIS
INSURANCE. WE ARE REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION. >>CAN I ASK YOU THIS? IS THIS AN ISSUE OF YOU CANNOT GET INSURANCE, OR YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INSURANCE? I'M NOT
FOLLOWING. GO AHEAD. >>WE SENT THE REQUEST TO PSI, AND THEY SAID THEY CAN CUSTOMERS EVERYTHING TO FIT YOUR REQUEST ASIDE FROM THE PER PERSON MEDICAL. SO WE HAVE THE $1 MILLION THAT WOULD COVER THE MEDICAL, BUT WHAT WE HAVE IS THE KIND OF LIKE QUICK $5,000 MEDICAL, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE NON-PROFIT DIDN'T HAVE THE WIGGLE ROOM TO CHANGE TO
$300,000. IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >>DO YOU CHECK WITH OTHER COMPANIES?
>> WE CHECKED WITH OTHER COMPANIES IN FULL TRANSPARENCY, I'M A MENTAL HEALTH CLINICIAN,
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONDIFUSED. >>WE ARE PART OF INTERNATIONAL POSTPARTUM AND WE WOULD NOT GET ANY FURTHER REIMBURSEMENT IF WE PURCHASED OUR OWN INSURANCE AND WE THOUGHT IT COULD BE AN SEPARATION SINCE THERE IS LOW RISK AND THERE IS NOT A LOT OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY OR MACHINERY
BEING USED. >>TELL ME THIS. DO YOU BUILD A WALL? WHAT IS THE CLIMB?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO, THE CLIMB LIKE A SYMBOL, LIKE CLIMBING OUT OF DARKNESS FOR NEW FAMILIES, PERINATAL, AND THE HUGE STIGMA AROUND IT. THE CLIMB CAN BE A WALK. AND IF YOU TELL US, WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE A WALK TO REDUCE RISK THEN IT CAN JUST BE AN AWARENESS EVENT, WE
ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT. >>I'M NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS MUCH AS I AM, WHEN I HEAR THE WORD, CLIMB AND IT'S AN EVENT, I'M THINKING OF SOMEBODY FALLING OFF OF SOMETHING, HAVING
[00:35:07]
THE CITY BE AT RISK FOR A MALDY LIKE THAT AND YOU HAVING NO INSURANCE.>>SURE, THERE IS NO CLIMBING AT THE EVENT. IT'S MORE OF AN AWARENESS EVENT. BOOTHS WHERE FAMILIES CAN GET RESOURCES FOR WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. NO CLIMBING. JUST A SYMBOLIC TERM.
>>OKAY. >>YOU HAVE 5,000 INDIVIDUAL AND A MILLION UMBRELLA?
>> YES. >>I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE. >>I WILL SECOND.
>>THANK YOU. >>THESE ARE ALL REQUESTS REVIEW BY DEPARTMENTS AND THESE WERE ONLY A FEW QUESTIONS. D-H ARE ALL BY DEPARTMENT REVIEWED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU ARE
WELCOME TO COME UP TO TALK ABOUT IT. >>I WILL MOVE ITEMS D-H.
[7. OTHER]
>> A. REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO ENCROACH; 1445 TALLYN WAY; PROPERTY OWNERS I THINK THESE HAVE ALL BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >>MOVE TO APPROVE. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. >>7B, I THINK THEY WERE ALL
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >>I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 7 B
[8. ADD-ONS]
THROUGH E. >>SECOND. >>ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
>> 8. ADD-ONS WE HAVE ONE ADD ON FOR THE CITY SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GAZEBO IN THE LAWN. THE REQUEST COMES FROM REQUEST TO USE IN MIDTOWN PLAZA
FOR A WATCH PARTY MARCH 8TH. THIS SUNDAY. >>THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THIS EVENT HAS BEEN ORGANIZED. I THINK IT'S FAIRLY SUCCESSFUL. I'M NOT SURE WHAT GAME IT'S GOING TO BE, WORLD CUP OR SOME OTHER COMPETITION BUT ONE OF THE BIGGER ONES. I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING SUNDAY. APPARENTLY IT'S A BIG GAME AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT TW TWICE. THIS REQUEST WASN'T SUBMITTED ON TIME. ALL THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED IT AND WE HAVE NO OUTSTANDING ISSUES. AGAIN, THIS IS THE TIMING IS SET UP TIME WOULD BE 8:00 A.M.. EVENT START AT 9:00 A.M.. EVENT WILL END AT 3:00 P.M. AND TEAR
DOWN TIME 4:00 P.M. >>I MOVE TO ADD ON. >>SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION, MOTION
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.