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

[12.a. Twenty-sixth Reading of Ordinance D-2772-25; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting a New Article 8 Under Chapter 2 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsors: Councilors Aasen, Ayers, Minnaar, Snyder and Worrell. Remains in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

ONTO OLD BUSINESS. A READING OF ORDINANCE

[00:40:07]

D-2272-25. >> COUNCILOR SNYDER, MAY I -- MAY WE HAVE A DISCUSSION RELATED TO THIS? IF YOU DON'T MIND? SO YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS INVESTIGATION GOING ON FOR SOME TIME.

YOU KNOW, THE PROCEEDS WE ALLOCATED TOWARDS THIS WERE SPENT IN DECEMBER. IT'S NOW -- WE'RE IN THE END OF JULY. WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT YET.

THIS REALLY NEEDS TO GET WRAPPED UP.

I KNOW THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED ALL WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TO THOSE -- TO THE LAW FIRM DOING THE INVESTIGATION. SEEING SUCH -- I WANTED TO PUT A TIME LINE TO THIS, JUST SO WE HAVE A DEADLINE TO WHEN THIS REPORT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY, AND IF NOT, THEY CAN JUST TURN OVER THE INFORMATION THEY HAVE TO THE CITY LEGAL.

MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT THEY HAVE UNTIL OCTOBER 20TH -- OR AUGUST 20TH TO FINALIZE THIS REPORT AND SUBMIT THE REPORT TO REVIEW FOR CITY LEGAL, AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT COMPLETED BY THEN, THEN THEY NEED TO TURN OVER THEIR FINDINGS OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE SO FAR TO CITY LEGAL.

IT'S JUST BEEN GOING ON WAY TOO LONG.

WE'VE ALLOCATED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DOLLARS TO THIS AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE REPORT BACK.

SO MY MOTION IS REPORT IS DUE TO US BY AUGUST 20TH.

IF NO REPORT IS DUE, THEN THEY NEED TO TURN OVER ALL OF THEIR FINDINGS AND INFORMATION THEY COLLECTED TO CITY LEGAL.

>> I WOULD MAKE ONE -- IF YOU DON'T MIND -- ONE -- NOT REALLY CLARIFICATION BUT JUST PROCESS. BECAUSE I'VE -- I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH CORPORATION COUNSEL AND OUR COUNSEL AND BECAUSE THE COUNCIL INSTIGATED IT, IT WILL BE THE COUNCIL -- YOU SAY TURN OVER TO CITY LEGAL. IS SAM HERE? SO CORPORATION COUNCIL WOULD LIKE IT TO HIT OUR COUNCIL FIRST

AND HAVE THEM TURN IT OVER. >> THAT'S FINE.

I'M OKAY WITH AMENDING TO SAY THE CITY COUNCIL'S LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE IT GOES TO CORPORATION COUNSEL.

SO THAT'S MY MOTION. >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> DISCUSSION? >> SURE.

JUST TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN UPDATE, AND AGAIN JUST 1ST WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION OVER THE MOTION AND I HAD SAID NOBODY HAD REACHED OUT FOR UPDATES OR ASKED ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT DIRECTLY TO ME, WHICH IS TOTALLY -- EVERYBODY'S PREROGATIVE AND HAS BEEN THE WHOLE TIME. IT IS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND YOU CAN REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL, THAT WE HAVE ASKED TO DO THE INVESTIGATION FOR US.

BECAUSE WE'RE ALL EQUALS. THE IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE -- SO I REQUESTED UPDATES AS WE'VE GONE. THEY DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM THE CITY, FROM CITY LEGAL. IT WAS RESPONDED TO THEM IN THE FORM OF A SINGLE PDF AND THEY ARE WORKING TO COME PIPELINE COE SURE ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE THERE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY DETAILS ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE BUT I DID GET AN UPDATE TODAY BECAUSE I ASK ON MONDAYS, TO ENSURE THAT I KNEW WHERE THEY STOOD. THEY SAID THEY WERE WORKING TO DECOMPILE ALL OF THOSE TO ENSURE THAT THEY GOT RESPONSES.

THEY SAID THE RESPONSE WAS TIMELY.

BUT THEY ARE WORKING TO KIND OF BREAK THAT DOWN AND LOOK AT IT TO VERIFY WHAT THEY NEED IF THERE ARE OTHER FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS OR THINGS THEY NEED TO DO TO ENSURE THEIR INVESTIGATION IS DONE FULLY. SECONDARILY TO THAT, I DO WANT TO REMIND ALL OF US THE IMPETUS OF THIS WAS TO LOOK AT AND REVIEW THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHRIS KINDLE MARKET AND OUR HANDLING OF THAT. THAT INCLUDES THE COUNCIL.

SO ONE OF THE REASONS AND ONE OF THE ROLES I WAS PUT IN IS THE WONDERFUL -- OF THE NINE OF US PUT IN A POSITION TO KIND OF MANAGE THIS. WAS TO ENSURE THAT THAT WAS DONE AS OBJECTIVELY AND NEUTRALLY AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION.

I'VE NOD ASKED FOR OTHER INFORMATION, OTHER THAN THINGS THAT COME UP OR SHARING WHEN AN EVENT LIKE THIS HAPPENS ON THE DIAS THAT THEY SHOULD LOOK AT OR ADD TO THE PROCESS.

SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW AND HAVEN'T SEEN THE RESPONSE THAT'S COME THROUGH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY REQUESTED OTHER THAN SEEING THE INITIAL THING THAT CAME THROUGH TO DO THE REQUEST. SO I AM NOT CERTAIN -- AND PART OF THAT FOR ME IS BECAUSE I, AS YOU ALL ARE AS WELL, ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE WAY THAT WE PULLED THAT TOGETHER.

SO TRULY IN THE EFFORT TO KEEP THIS NEUTRAL, TO PUT THEM IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO PULL THE INFORMATION TO COME TO THE RIGHT

[00:45:03]

ANSWER, HAVE GIVEN THEM FAIRLY CLEAR AUTHORITY TO MANAGE THAT PROCESS THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE SEEN NECESSARY TO COME TO THE RESPONSE THAT THEY REQUIRE. THAT BEING SAID, HAPPY TO ASK ABOUT A TIME LINE. ALSO HAPPY NO RELAY THAT THIS COUNCIL THROUGH A MOTION MADE AND DULY SECONDED APPROVED A TIME LINE THAT PUTS THEM IN A POSITION TO TURN OVER WHAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED. THAT BEING SAID BASED ON THE FEEDBACK I RECEIVED ABOUT WHAT THAT RESPONSE LOOKED LIKE, DEPENDING ON PAGES I THINK MR. GREENE SAID 4,000 DOCUMENTS, AT THE LAST MEETING, WHICH IS THE ONLY INFORMATION I HAVE ABOUT HOW BIG THAT IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PAGES THAT IS AND IF THEY'RE TRYING TO GO 000 ONE PDF, TWO LAWYERS AT A CONFIRM WHO ARE NOT STILL BILLING HOURS, THEY'RE BILLING THEM TO THE CODE BUT CAN'T BE PAID BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACT WE NEGOTIATED ON THE FRONT END DO THIS CONTRACT FOR THE SOLE AMOUNT OF 125,000, THEY MAY NOT BE AT A POINT TO SEND ANYTHING BACK TO US OTHER THAN THE RECORDS REQUEST THEY RECEIVE FROM THE CITY.

SO AGAIN I'M HAPPY TO RELAY FORWARD TO THEM THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FASTER. I HAVE DONE THAT MANY TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION BECAUSE I TOO WOULD LOVE TO BE OUT FROM UNDER IT PERSONALLY, AS THE PERSON PUT TO HELP SHEPHERD THAT, AND UNDERSTAND THE HEARTBURN, THE TIMING, THE CONCERNS ON ALL OF THEM. BUN I ALSO WOULD LOVE TO JUST REITERATE AS I SAID A SECOND AGO THAT THE RIGHT OBJECTIVE AND RESULT WILL SERVE US ALL BETTER LONG-TERM, IN MY OPINION, WILL SERVE US ALL BETTER IN THE LONG TERM THAN ASH ARBITRARILY RUSHIG SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE NOT READY YET TO PRODUCE.

SO AGAIN HAPPY TO TAKE WHATEVER FEEDBACK WE PUT TOGETHER AS THIS IS A COUNCIL OF NINE, AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE WILL IS.

>> WHAT I HEARD IS -- FROM YOU, COUNCILOR TAILOR, AND I'M LOOKING AT YOU, MAYOR, IS THE CITY HAS GIVEN -- HAS EXHAUSTED WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE. THERE'S NO MORE TO GIVE.

AM I REPEATING WHAT I HEARD CORRECTLY?

>> THE ONLY REQUESTS THAT CAME 000 THROUGH WERE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. AS YOU'RE MENTIONED YOU'RE UNDER INVESTIGATION TOO, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY REQUESTS ABOUT CITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT SO UNLESS THAT HAPPENS, WE ARE DONE WITH

THE INITIAL REQUEST. >> OKAY.

WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THEY'RE DONE.

I THINK WE'RE DONE. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW --

>> SO IN -- TO CLARIFY FROM THE FEEDBACK, WE RECEIVED A TIMELY PRODUCTION FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, BUT IT WAS PRODUCED IN A MANNER OF THEIR MANUALLY LOGGING THE DOCUMENTS.

THEY ARE FORMULATING THEIR FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AS THEY GO AND WILL CIRCLE BACK WITH THEIR FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BY NEXT WEEK. THIS WAS LAST WEEK, THEY HAD HIT AN INTERNAL DEADLINE AND SAID IT WOULD BE -- THEY'RE WORKING BACK OFF THAT DEADLINE AND WORKING ON IT PRESENTLY.

SO I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME FOLLOW-UP BASED ON THE RESPONSE THAT WAS THERE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO ASK FOR, BUT THAT WILL BE OBVIOUSLY MORE NEW AND AND VERY FOCUSED TO THE THINGS THAT THEY PRESUMED TO FIND AND WHAT THEY ASKED FOR THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE SEEN TO SEE IF THEY EXIST OR NOT. SO I THINK THAT THERE IS LIKELY STILL A PROCESS STEP THAT THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE THEY JUST RECEIVED THE INITIAL REQUEST AND ARE JUST GOING THROUGH IT. SO AGAIN, HAPPY TO PURVEY WHATEVER WE DECIDE. I WOULD RECOMMEND TO LET THEM RUN THEIR PROCESS BUT TO MAYBE GIVE THEM THROUGH EVEN THIS CONVERSATION, WHICH THEY WILL WATCH AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO THE CITY THAT THIS BECOMES TOP PRIORITY FOR

THEM MOVING FORWARD. >> MR. PRESIDENT, MAY I? RYAN, CAN YOU TELL ME, WHEN WAS THE LAST -- I CAN'T REMEMBER, WHEN WAS THE LAST ASK FOR DOCUMENTS? DO YOU KNOW THE DATE? AND WAS IT -- I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> I MAY HAVE -- LET ME LOOK. >> ADAM, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>> YEAH.

>> DO YOU WANT TO ASK IT WHILE HE'S LOOKING THAT UP?

>> SURE. UM, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING ON WITH THIS. AND GIVEN THE 30 DAYS, I MEAN, I REMEMBER I THINK IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY EVERY COUNCILOR VOTED YES, WE ALL PROBABLY HAD A DIFFERENT REASON FOR VOTING FOR THE INVESTIGATION. I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MY REASONS VOTING FOR IT. BUT THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD THAT LED ME TO VOTE FOR THE INVESTIGATION HAVE REALLY BEEN

[00:50:03]

RESOLVED. WHETHER IT'S COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNCIL, BOARD MAKEUPS, MEETING WITH THE NEW CHRIS KINDLE MARKET DIRECTOR. I'VE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN PROCEEDING WITH REGARDS TO THE MARKET AND THE CITY INVOLVEMENT SO WE ALL PROBABLY HAD SOME CONCERNS THAT MADE US VOTE YES AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO MINE, BUT MY CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED SO -- IT'S STILL HELPFUL TO READ THE REPORT BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST FROM MY SENSE ANY URGENT ACTION I WOULD RECOMMEND, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE SOME OF THOSE ACTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN.

BUT I JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF. SO I WOULD AGREE THAT AT THIS POINT, MOVING FORWARD WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BEST COURSE OF

ACTION. >> THE REQUEST WENT THROUGH ON APRIL 29TH WITH A MAY 29TH DEADLINE.

AND JUNE 1ST IS WHEN PROFESSOR GREENE BROUGHT IT UP ON THE DIAS LAST TIME AND THIS IS THE SECOND TIME SINCE THEN THAT THE COUNCILOR HAS ASKED A QUESTION OR REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT FEEDBACK ON THIS. I WILL SAY, IF I MAY RESPOND, AGAIN, IN ATTEMPTING TO STEER THIS, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU SHINE A LIGHT IN A ROOM, THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE ROOM GO AWAY, WHICH IS A BEAUTIFUL PART OF GOVERNMENT.

YES GET TO BE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON BEHAVIOR AND WE FIND OUT HOW TO FIX IT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE ISSUES THAT STARTED THE CONCERN IN THE FIRST PLACE ARE GONE.

I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME, AND I WOULD SAY FOR THE PUBLIC, THAT WE FINISH THIS UP APPROPRIATELY AS IT HAS TAKEN A LOT OF THE BAND WIDTH, THE ENERGY FOR ALL OF US, SOME OF US IN OUR FIRST TERM ON COUNCIL, OTHERS IN LONGER TERMS, THE MAYOR IN HER FIRST TERM AS MAYOR.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ANY OF US NECESSARILY WANTED TO BE A PART OF IN ANY CAPACITY, OTHER THAN THERE WAS A DECISION MADE TO DO THIS. I STRUGGLE PHILOSOPHICALLY WITH THE IDEA THAT BECAUSE THE ISSUE NO LONGER PRESENTS ITSELF, THAT WE SHOULDN'T FINISH THE PROCESS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INTEGRAL IN MAKING THE ISSUES OR HELPING SUPPORT THE ISSUES MOVING TOWARDS A BETTER POINT. I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE MAKE PROMISE, REGARDLESS OF HOW CONCERNED WE ARE ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT SAY ON ANY END ABOUT ANY OF US FOR ANY REASON, WE SHOULD FOLLOW THROUGH, BECAUSE WE ARE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF CARMEL. WE'RE NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF OURSELVES OR OUR OFFICES. WE'RE ACTING AS PART OF THE CITY. SO AGAIN, I SHARE THAT AS CAUTION, AS THE CHAIR OF OUR CITY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AS WE TRY TO NAVIGATE WHAT THE RIGHT NEXT STEPS ARE.

I AGREE, I THINK A FASTER TIME LINE IS BETTER.

I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO CHRIS KINDLE MARKET THIS YEAR WITHOUT BEING THE CHAIR OF A SECRET OR NOT SECRET ON DIE AS DISCUSSED INVESTIGATION OF IT.

I'M NOT LIKE THE GRINCH THAT IS TRYING TO STEAL IS FROM ALL OF US FOREVER BUT I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO FINISH THE THINGS WE START WITH THE RIGHT WAY JAILED FOLLOW THAT QUESTION UP BY SIMPLY ASKING IF YOU DON'T MIND ASKING THE ATTORNEYS ARE THEY GOING TO ASK FOR ANOTHER TRAUNCH OF INFORMATION.

I DON'T THINK IT'S -- IF THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE ON, RIGHT, HOWEVER THE SMOKE GOES, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ARE THEY GOING TO DISCUSS FOR ANOTHER TRAWRNLG OFF INFORMATION.

>> I DO SAY THEY WILL HAVE FOLLOW-UP.

WHAT THEY SAID IS THEY ARE COMPILING THE FOLLOW-UP THEY NEED TO REQUEST AS THEY GO THROUGH, BUT IF THAT IS AN EXPEDITED TIME LINE, THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE THEM TO WORK ON, THAT IS SOMETHING I CAN COMMUNICATE, IF THEY COME BACK AND SAY AUGUST 20TH IS IMPOSSIBLE, WE COULD ALWAYS, AS A COUNCIL, MOVE TO GIVE THEM THE TIME LINE THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM. TRYING TO BE AS PRAGMATIC AS POSSIBLE, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING, AGAIN ASKED OF ME BEFORE RIGHT NOW, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO NAVIGATE IT FOR ALL OF US.

KNOWING FULL WELL THERE ARE MANY, MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPEN ABOUT THINGS SPECIFICALLY THIS BETWEEN ALL OF US, MAYBE EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE WORTHWHILE. BUT WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE DO WHAT WE ARE DOING APPROPRIATELY. SO I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF MY FINAL WORD. HAPPY TO GO EITHER WAY.

[00:55:01]

I WOULD SAY IF THEY DID SAY THAT AUGUST 20TH IS NOT POSSIBLE, IF THIS MOTION MOVES TONIGHT, I WOULD STRONGLY ADVOCATE WE MOVE TO WHATEVER TIME LINE MAKES SENSE FOR THEM AT THE NEXT ONE AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AS A COUNCIL TOGETHER

FROM THERE. >> HERE IS MY STRUGGLE.

THIS WAS APPROVED ON SPRING BREAK LAST YEAR, APRIL 2025.

I'VE READ THE BILLABLES COMPLETELY AND LOOKED AT WHO SPOKE ABOUT WHAT, I'M JUST CONCERNED ON HOW THE PROCESS WAS MANAGED. THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY PROVIDED DON'T SHOW YOU AS THE PERSON WHO SET THE SCOPE AND THE DIRECTION OF THE INVESTIGATION, IT LISTS ANOTHER COUNCILMEMBER.

THIS IS -- THEY CONTINUED THOUGH LUCKILY WE DID HAVE A LUMP SUM.

THERE WERE -- THEY CONTINUE TO SEND VIDEOS, VIDEO THREE INVOICY HAVE ALREADY EXPEND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT.

LUCKILY TO OUR ELECTRONIC'S OFFICE STAFF THEY CAUGHT IT AND ORIGINALLY PUT ON ONE OF THE ITEMS ON OUR CLAIMS AND THEN HAD TO RESEND THE OTHER TWO. SO THESE QUESTIONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED OR COULD BE INVESTIGATED, THEY HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO DO THIS AND IF THEY ARE NOT PREPARED BY NOW, I'M VERY, VERY -- AND THEY CAN'T PRODUCE THIS REPORT BY AUGUST 20TH, OVER HOW MANY MONTHS IS THAT, SINCE WE BEGAN IT? I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS PROCESS HAS WORKED.

IF THEY CAN'T PRODUCE A REPORT IN 30 DAYS FROM NOW, AFTER OVER A YEAR OF LOOKING AT DATA AND THEN HAD TO WAIT UNTIL APRIL OF THIS YEAR, AFTER THEY REALIZED WE WERE OUT OF MONEY TO THEN REQUEST INFORMATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, I'M JUST VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS WHOLE ENTIRE PROCESS.

THEY NEED TO PRODUCE THE REPORT. THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN NEEDED. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVEN'T INVESTIGATED ANY COUNCILMEMBER, WHICH WAS -- WHICH COUNCILOR GREENE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE.

I STAND BY IT. THEY NEED TO PRODUCE THIS REPORT. WE NEED TO MOVE ON.

AND LET'S HAVE A GREAT CHRIS KINDLE MARKET IN 2026 SO --

>> I'M NEUTRAL. WELL, YOU GUYS KEEP LOOKING AT

EACH OTHER. >> GO AHEAD.

I'M WAIT. GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE LAST INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED IN JANUARY, I THINK SO -- FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH.

WHO WANTS TO TALK? >> WHEN WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS IT WAS THE WORDS INTEGRITY, PROMISES MADE, COMPLETE, THOROUGHNESS TO THE PROCESS.

AND I FEEL LIKE OTHER THAN -- AND AN UNDERSTANDABLE DESIRE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD QUICKLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CHANGED THE CIS KINDLE MARKET IN THE SENSE OF WE HAD A BEAUTIFUL CIS KINDLE MARKET IN 2025. I THINK THE POINT WAS DO IT IN A WAY THAT WAS UNBIASED AND UNFILTERED BY ANY OF THE POWERS THAT BE TO STEER THAT PROCESS. AND TO ME THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHEN WE USE THOSE WORDS, THEY ARE MEANINGFUL.

AND I THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC.

SO I DON'T THINK ANY ARBITRARY DATE IS NECESSARILY THE RIGHT OR THE WRONG ANSWER TO THIS ISSUE BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PROCESS NOT GET TAINTED BY ANY OTHER NEEDS OR DESIRES OR TIME LINES THAT WERE TO BE MET SO THAT'S ALL I WILL SAY ON THAT. THANK YOU MARKET I WAS THE SPONSOR OF THIS ORIGINAL

[01:00:01]

RESOLUTION. I THINK MAYOR YOU AND I TALKED ON THE PHONE AND WE WORKED OUT HOW THIS MIGHT GO FORWARD, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES. BUT THE BOUNTY MADE TO MAYOR FINKAM IS THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS IN MY OPINION BEGINNING TO DIVIDE OUR COMMUNITY. SO I FELT LIKE IF WE JUST TACKLED IT, GOT THE INFORMATION OUT THERE, HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED, I THINK MY WORDS WERE THEN -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN -- AND I THINK I REFERRED TO THE HOTEL CARMICHAEL INVESTIGATION OR RESEARCH THAT WAS DONE AND HOW THAT WAS PRESENTED.

WE GET EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE.

HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED. WE ACCEPT IT, WE LEARN FROM IT AND WE MOVE ON. I FEEL LIKE THIS HAS NOW GONE TOO FAR, THAT IT IS ACTUALLY NOT DOING THAT.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WILL BE IN THE REPORT BUT TO NOW BRING UP A REPORT THESE MANY, MANY, MANY MONTHS LATER, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND CAN WE ALL GET ON THE SAME PAGE AND MOVE FORWARD, WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT.

I THINK THE COMMUNITY HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT WE HAVE DONE THAT EXCELLENTLY. WHATEVER HAPPENED, WE HAVE A NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WE HAVE A NEW BOARD, WE HAVE A MAYOR THAT'S SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHRISTKINDLMARKT, WE HAD A GREAT EVENT AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER GREAT EVENT.

I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS 30-DAYTIME LINE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GONE TOO LONG. AND I THINK IT'S DAMAGED WHAT MY AT LEAST ORIGINAL INTENT WAS, TO GET EVERYONE ROWING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. NOW IF WE'RE GOING TO START POINTING FINGERS AND IT'S WAY AFTER THE FACT AND IT'S IRRELEVANT, VERY, VERY RISKY, IN MY OPINION THAT WE DO THAT TO OUR COMMUNITY. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT 30 DAYS OR NOTHING, OR HOWEVER THAT WAS WORDED.

SO -- >> I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S SENTIMENT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND, PROBABLY MORE THAN ALL OF YOU FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT THIS FOR ME HAS SERVED AS A WEDGE, BETWEEN ME AND ALL OF YOU FOR THE ENTIRE TIME IT'S BEEN GOING ON. AND I HATE THAT.

I HATE IT FOR ME. I LOOKED AT A PICTURE FROM 2023, I GOT -- YOU KNOW HOW YOUR PHONE GIVES YOU A PICTURE OF MY SON'S FACE IN 2023 AND THE JOY HE HAD ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE DOING THIS. AND IT BROUGHT ME A LOT OF JOY.

I'M SORRY THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PICTURE I'VE EVER SEEN, MAYBE.

AND I THEIR THAT WITH YOU NOT TO MAKE AN EMOTIONAL PLEA, I DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THAT, BUT BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE NOT EASY AND YES IT'S RISKY. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT I THINK THE RISK TO NOT DOING SOMETHING COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY IS BIGGER. SO WHEN I SIT UP HERE AND COUNCILOR TAYLOR, I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS ON THE WAY IT'S BEEN MANAGED AND THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TIME LINE, WE STARTED WITH AN AFFILIATE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND WE HAD OPEN DISCUSSIONS AND THOSE WENT PRETTY WELL, THAT WAS THE NEGOTIATION THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE PREVIOUS COUNCILMEMBERS WHO KNEW HOW THESE THINGS WORKED DID IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS WHEN THE REOF US WERE REST OF UL FINDING OUR FEET.

WE HAD TO PIVOT BASED ON THAT PRESENTATION AND SLIDE DECKS OF INFORMATION THAT JUST DIDN'T SIT RIGHT.

IT DIDN'T FIT THE SCOPE. SO WE PIVOTED AS A COUNCIL AND THEN ASKED TO DO AN INVESTIGATION AS OPPOSED TO THE AFFILIATE REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH PAUSED THAT.

SO THERE WAS NO OUTCOME FROM THE AFFILIATE REVIEW WHICH WE PUT VERY SMART NON- PROFIT PEOPLE ON WITH US AS COUNCILLORS AND TRIED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT BUT IT WAS REPLACED WITH THIS.

WE THEN SPENT SIX MONTHS, SEVEN MONTHS WORKING TO GET ALL OF US, BECAUSE WE DECIDED NOT TO DO A COMMITTEE RUN BY ONE OR TWO OR THREE FOR THE INVESTIGATION BUT BY ALL OF US, TO GET EVERYBODY, CLUCK THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND OTHERS, IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE DOING THE INVESTIGATION IN A TIMELY MANNER TO BUILD THE SCOPE. AND TO YOUR POINT IT WAS NEVER MY JOB TO SET THE SCOPE. I WAS THERE TO HELP SHEPHERD THE SCOPE THAT WAS BROUGHT BACK TO ME BY THE LAWYERS THAT WROTE A SCOPE BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THEY RECEIVED FROM ALL OF YOU AND OTHERS. HAD WE GONE A DIFFERENT ROUTE I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE WRITTEN A NARROWER SCOPE BUT WE DIDN'T.

AND TO THAT END THE IDEA OF TRYING TO DIRECT A THIRD PARTY INVESTIGATION THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL WITH FEEDBACK,

[01:05:01]

EVEN FROM ME IS THE PERSON PICKED TO HELP THEM NAVIGATE IT NEVER FELT APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE AGAIN AT THE END OF IT WE NEEDED THE INFORMATION TO BE SOUND AND JUST AND FAIR SO THAT AS WE GET TO THE END OF WHERE WE WERE GOING, THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE PUT IN A POSITION TO NOT BE IMPLICATED IN SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WAS JUST A HARD PROCESS THAT HIT WEIRD TIMES THAT BECAME AN INVESTIGATION AND THAT OTHERS THAT HAD CONVERSATIONS OR THINGS THAT PUT US IN THOSE SPOTS TO BEGIN WITH MAY BE FOUND OUT.

ALL OF THAT FOR THE PURPOSE NOT TO BE RISKY TO INDIVIDUALS BUT TO ELIMINATE THE RISK OF THINGS THAT OUR CITY IS DOING BEING DONE IN A WAY THAT IS HARMING THE EFFICACY OF THOSE EVENTS, THOSE INSTITUTIONS AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE A PART OF THEM.

WHEN I GO BACK TO A -- I MEAN, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WHEN YOU BOTH PULLED TOGETHER THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A BIG DISCUSSION, IT CAME OUT HERE, WE FIGURED OUTWEIGH TO GO AND WE STARTED THE PROCESS.

WE MOVED IN A DIRECTION I THINK BASED ON FEELING, BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE NEEDED TO SEE, BASED ON WHERE PEOPLE WERE PUT IN SOME OF THE DARKEST MOMENTS OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL AND CARMEL LIVES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.

SO AGAIN I FULLY UNDERSTAND IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE.

IT'S NO MORE UNCOMFORTABLE FOR ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL THAN IT IS FOR ME. I STRONGLY, AGAIN, URGE US TO FIGURE OUT -- AND AGAIN IF WE MOVE IT TONIGHT I'M HAPPY TO BRING THAT CONVERSATION. CLOSED FOREVER, THAT'S THE PREROGATIVE OF THIS COMMITTEE. THE PRESIDENT OF THIS GIVING US DIRECTION THAT RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME A DEADLINE THAT MAY NOT WORK FOR THE INVESTIGATORS IS THE EXACT RIGHT CALL TO MAKE AFTER TALKING ABOUT OLD BUSINESS, EXHIBIT A FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A MONTH AND A HALF AND REALLY THE FIRST TIME TO ME FROM ANY OF YOU IN REALLY ALMOST ANY CAPACITY SINCE THIS THING BEGAN. SO APPRECIATE AGAIN EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID, WE'LL DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, BUT I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE DEADLINE AS IT STANDS.

>> I'VE HEARD A COUPLE THINGS THAT RESONATE.

COUNCILOR AUSTIN, YOU MENTIONED THAT WE ALL PROBABLY HAD OUR OWN REASONS FOR DOING THIS. RICH, YOU MAKE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT. JEFF, YOU'RE HERE THE LENGTH OF IT AND OLD EMOTIONS -- I DO THINK THAT PART OF THE BEAUTY OF HOW LONG IT'S GONE ON IS THAT THE EMOTIONS ARE GONE, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING -- OR HAVE SUBSIDED TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT THIS OBJECTIVELY. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN THIS REPORT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING. I DON'T HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT THE INVESTIGATION IS. I KNOW FOR ME IT'S ONE SINGULAR ITEM THAT I'M INTERESTED IN, THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW IS IN THIS REPORT OR WAS BEING ASKED OR VETTED.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PERHAPS OFFER UP A COMPROMISE TO YOU.

I WILL SAY THAT -- >> COULD I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION FIRST? SO THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO BE -- WHO SET UP THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT WILL BE IN

THIS REPORT, WHO WAS THAT? >> THE ATTORNEYS WE HIRED WERE TASKED WITH SETTING UP THE SCOAL SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION, SCOE OF THE INVESTIGATION, BASED ON THAT ALL NINE OF US HAD DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON WHAT THAT SHOULD BE.

THAT WAS THE INITIAL DISCUSSION WE HAD, THAT NOBODY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH ANY SINGLE PERSON DEFINING OR DERIVING WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE CONCERNS OF PEOPLE TAKING SIDES THEN AND FIGURING OUT PROCESS FOR INFORMATION BETWEEN THE EXTERNAL PARTIES AND THE INTERNAL PARTIES --

>> SO MAYBE I'LL JUST GET TO MY BOTTOM LINE: IS THERE -- IS THAT SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT SOMEONE HAS REVIEWED, MAYBE I REVIEWED IT, I DON'T RECALL REVIEWING IT, BUT IS THAT

[01:10:01]

SOMEWHERE AROUND? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT HE -- AND I'M KIND OF ADDRESSING I THINK RYAN --

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER ADAM.

>> I'M HAPPY THAT -- SO INITIALLY WHEN IT WAS FIRST VOTED ON, I THINK WE FIRST VOTED FOR RYAN TO BE IN CHARGE OF IT AND THEN IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT HE HELP RECOMMEND THE LAW FIRM.

ONCE THE LAW FIRM WAS SUGGESTED, I DID HAVE SOME CONVERSATION WITH THEM REGARDING SCHEDULING AND TIME LINE, SAYING HEY, HAVE YOU TALKED TO RYAN AND JUST KIND OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, ARE YOU SETTING UP MEETINGS, ARE YOU -- THERE WAS A DESIRE LIKE WE SAID WHEN WE FIRST PASSED THIS FOR THIS TO BE DONE QUICKLY.

BUT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SCOPE OR WHAT THE INVESTIGATION WOULD COVER.

I KIND OF TRIED NOT TO MICROMANAGE COUNCILOR LOCK ON THAT. AND I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF THE -- YOU WANT A QUESTION ANSWERED.

>> I WANT TO FINISH -- YOU GO AHEAD, I'LL FINISH LATER,

ALL RIGHT. >> WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS WAS THAT RIGHT NOW -- AND I THINK FOR MANY OF US -- IF SOMEBODY SAID I NEED SOMETHING IN 30 DAYS, THAT WOULD BE TOUGH FOR ME TO TURN AROUND IF I'M STILL COMPILING ALL THIS INFORMATION. BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO EVEN GET THAT INFORMATION? WELL, THAT IS WHAT IT IS. I'M ALSO HEARING THAT WE'RE KIND OF DONE PROVIDING ANYTHING, SO THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THOUGH THAT WOULD BE FRUITLESS.

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR DELAYS AND THE REASON WHY I KNOW WHAT'S IN THIS IS BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF US WERE INTERVIEWED AND KIND OF TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE IN IT.

I KNOW EXACTLY WHEN MY INTERVIEW WAS BECAUSE IT WAS EXACTLY TWO MONTHS -- TWO MONTHS AFTER SATURDAY.

IT WAS TWO MONTHS AFTER MY MOM PASSED AWAY, AND I DELAYED -- I WAS THE SLOW DOWN FOR THE COUNCIL BECAUSE I FRANKLY DIDN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT AT ALL. I WASN'T REALLY IN FAVOR OF IT AT THE BEGINNING. I CAME AROUND BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD, I LISTENED, BUT I DELAYED MY INTERVIEW BY A COUPLE MONTHS. SO I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ASK IS MAYBE INSTEAD OF 30 DAYS WE GIVE THEM 60 DAYS, A MORE REASONABLE TAME LINE AND BE A TIME LINE AND BE A LITTLE MORE TO YOUR POINT AGGRESSIVE ON WHAT THAT MEANS.

GIST DON'T THINK SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TURN SOMETHING AROUND

IN 30 DAYS. >> I MEAN, THEY SHOULD ALREADY HAVE IT VIRTUALLY DONE. INTERVIEWS WERE ALL DONE LAST YEAR, BESIDES YOU MAYBE SAY ONE IN JANUARY.

THEY CHARGED SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS JUST TRYING TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW WITH ME, WHICH I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH OF AN INTENT TO INTERVIEW. I UNDERSTOOD WHAT A TYPE I SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION WAS. I REVIEWED THE BYLAWS.

I FULLY KNEW THAT THE MAYOR HAD THE ABILITY TO ACT UNDER AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE BOARD AS SHE SEES FIT.

I'VE SERVED ON A NUMBER OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS BEFORE.

I WASN'T HERE TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD CONDUCT THIS INVESTIGATION IN THE FIRST PLACE PLACE.

I WANT TO STICK WITH THE 30 DAYS AND IF SORE SOME REASON THEY CAN'T COMPLETE THAT, WE CAN COME BACK AND MAYBE DISCUSS IT AGAIN ON AUGUST 3RD AS TO IF THEY NEED ADDITIONAL TIME, THEY'VE EXPENDED ALL THE MONEY AS OF DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

THEY HAVE ALL THE DATA THEY NEED.

THERE'S NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. THIS ISN'T A CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. THIS ISI WASN'T HERE WHEN WE HAT DISCUSSION. THIS WAS DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU GUYS PRIVATELY AFTERWARDS. I WANT TO STICK WITH THE 30 DAYS. IF THEY CAN'T COMPLETE IT OR HAVE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THEY NEED MORE THAN 30 DAYS, THEN IF MY MOTION PASSES THERE COULD BE YOU KNOW A MOTION ON

AUGUST 3RD TO MAKE A CHANGE. >> MR. PRESIDENT? JUST WANTED TO SAY FROM THE BEGINNING I NEVER WANTED INVESTIGATION. I THOUGHT YOU KNOW, IT WAS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. HOWEVER, I VOTED CONSISTENTLY FOR IT BECAUSE THERE'S ONE PERSON I REALLY TRUST -- AND I STILL TRUST THEM -- TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THAT WAS

[01:15:02]

COUNCILOR LOCK. HOWEVER I DO AGREE IT'S JUST BEEN A LONG TIME AND YOU KNOW, A VOTE TODAY KIND OF SHOWS WE'RE ALL READY TO KIND OF MOVE ON. AND THEN IF WE REVISIT THOSE 30 DAYS AND THEY'RE CLOSE, THEN WE'LL DISCUSS IT AGAIN IN 30 TASTE BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK WE'RE GAINING BY HAVING A FORMAL VOTE? THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THIS.

JUST I'M WORRIED ABOUT PRECEDENT, SOMETHING DOESN'T -- FOR FUTURE ANYTHINGS. WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY, HEY, WE'LL JUST PULL AN ARBITRARY DATE OUT, LIKE, WE FOCUSED SO MUCH ON THIS -- RUNNING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND I AGREE, I MEAN, THE ONLY TIME I'VE COMMUNICATED WITH THE LAW FIRM WAS IN FEBRUARY-MARCH I THINK -- THE SAME DAY I CALLED THEM TO TRY TO EXPEDITE THIS. AND I GOT A LAWYER ANSWER, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT SO I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE -- THEY'RE GOING TO SEE THIS. WE'VE MADE THE STATEMENT.

EVERYBODY UP HERE WANTS THIS OVER.

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT A FORMAL MOTION -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING. WE HAVE NO --

>> MR. PRESIDENT? >> YES, SIR.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE'S GOING TO VOTE AND HOW EVERYONE FEELS. THIS BODY IS A LIVING, BREATHING BODY WITH NINE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR WHAT THE BODY SHOULD DO. I THINK A VOTE TONIGHT IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I DON'T WORRY ABOUT PRECEDENT. I WORRY ABOUT ME HAVING MY RIGHT TO VOTE THE WAY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO BASED ON A MOTION THAT IS BEFORE US, LIKE ANY OTHER PIECE OF BUSINESS.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT CONTROLLING IT. I JUST WANT TO HAVE MY SAY.

I THINK IT IS -- AND COUNCILOR LAC -- AND I'M GETTING A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE HERE, I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE IT.

BUT YOU HAVE I KNOW DONE EVERYTHING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE, FELT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO NO FAULT OF YOURS, WIND CHILL IE ANYWAY IN A SITUATION WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

SO THIS IS NOT PERSONAL. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY JUST ABOUT WHERE I THINK WE ARE TODAY. AND I THINK I HEARD PRESIDENT SNYDER SAY EARLIER TODAY THINGS CHANGE, AND BOY, HAVE THEY CHANGED. AND I THINK THEY'VE CHANGED FOR THE BETTER. I WOULD LIKE -- I WANT MY CHANCE

TO VOTE, MR. PRESIDENT. >> THAT'S FINE.

I'M NOT SAYING DON'T VOTE. YOU DO KNOW WHERE THIS STANDS.

EVERY PERSON UP HERE HAS SAID THEY WANT THIS OVER.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HEARD COUNCILOR JOSHI -- I DON'T WANT

TO ASSUME THAT. >> SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE.

I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILOR -- YOU -- GREEN, THANK YOU, TONY -- COUNCILOR GREEN. I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR GREEN AND IF WE VOTE TONIGHT TO SAY YES, IT'S 30 DAYS, THEN IF WE HAVE TO REVISIT IT AND THE NEXT MEETING, SO BE IT.

I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT 100%.

JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW. >> SO I MEAN I'M READY TO MOVE FORWARD. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY VOTED ON THIS, IF I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO TAKE 14 MONTHS I PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR IT. BUT I DO WANT TO CLARIFY -- AND PART OF THE REASON I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TOO IS NOT ONLY DO I THINK THAT THEY'VE HAD AMPLE TIME TO DO AN INVESTIGATION, I DON'T THINK THIS IS KILLING AN INVESTIGATION AT ALL.

I THINK THAT, AGAIN 14 MONTHS WAS PLENTY OF TIME.

BUT I ALSO SEE SOME OF THIS -- HOW IT AFFECTS THE COUNCIL AND I THINK IT'S BECOME A DISTRACTION FROM THE IMPORTANT WORK THAT WE CAN DO. BUT I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE I SEE THAT COUNCILOR LOCK DOES TAKE A LOT OF PRIDE IN THIS. ME VOTING TO MOVE ON HAS NO REFLECTION ON YOU AND YOU HAVE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB AND -- I DON'T KNOW, IT MAKES ME UPSET TO SEE IF MY VOTE WOULD UPSET YOU BUT I HAVE TO DO WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT.

>> AND FOR THE RECORD, THANK YOU ALL FOR THE COMPLIMENTS.

EVERYBODY LOVES A GOOD COMPLIMENT.

I DON'T OBJECTIVELY CARE HOW WE VOTE.

I'VE GIVEN YOU MY THOUGHT ON IT. I THINK THAT IN SOME WAY A VOTE FOR THIS TONIGHT MIGHT BE A POSITIVE TOOL TO KEEP THE BALL ROLLING. AGAIN, IF THEY SAY THEY CAN'T OR IT'S TOO MUCH, WE'LL -- I'LL BRING IT BACK AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN. I WILL SAY AND TO JEFF YOUR

[01:20:03]

POINT, THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT THEY COMPILED ON THEIR LETTERHEAD FROM ALL OF THE INVESTIGATION, DISCUSSIONS THEY HAD THEY SENT FORWARD THE DOCUMENT REQUEST RELATED TO THAT SCOPE WAS PULLED TOGETHER THROUGH THEN THE INVESTIGATION DISCUSSIONS THAT COUNCIL HAD WITH ALL OF US, WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY -- BUT THAT IS, I PRESUME, AND WELL, I WON'T PRESUME BUT LIKELY A DOCUMENT I CAN SEND TO ALL OF YOU.

I CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT, WITH HIS WE ARE ALL ON THE COUNCIL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. AND GO FROM THERE.

ONE FINAL PROCESS -- POINT HERE. WE DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THIS BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO BE COMFORTABLE.

AND I WOULD LOVE IT TO BE COMFORTABLE AND IT WOULD BE REALLY FUN TO JUST GIGGLE AND DO COOL STUFF ALL DAY.

BUT CIVILIZATION IS HARD, IT'S BEEN HARD FOREVER.

THE EXPERIMENT THAT WE'RE ON NOW FOR 250 YEARS AS A NATION AND 50 YEARS AS A CITY IS SOMETHING NOVEL IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN PRIMATES ON THE PLANET. WE ARE GOVERNING OURSELVES.

AND I TEND TO STOP BY THE STATE HOUSE EVERY MONDAY MORNING AND READ THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS ON THE WALL, THERE'S A PLAQUE.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVEN I'M TELLING EVERYBODY AT ONCE BUT I READ THAT EVERY MONDAY I'M IN THE BUILDING.

IT WAS A MONDAY, I READ IT, IT REMINDS ME OF WHY I WALK INTO THAT BUILDING EVERY SINGLE DAY AND THEN TWICE A MONTH IT REMINDS ME WHY I WALK INTO THIS ONE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT, AGAIN, ULTIMATELY WHAT WE DO TODAY.

WE WILL BE LIKELY FORGOTTEN TO THIBLES THE ANNALS OF HISTORY LIKE GROVER CLEVELAND OR OTHER PRESIDENTS. BUT THIS MATTERS MORE THAN ANYTHING, MORE THAN OUR RELATIONSHIPS, MORE THAN OUR FEELINGS, DEFINITELY MORE THAN ANYTHING WE DO TO KEEP THESE SEATS LONGER THAN WE SIT IN THEM TODAY.

SO I TOTALLY 100% APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU.

I APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK. I APPRECIATE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS, IT DID AND HAS GONE ON WAY LONGER THAN NECESSARY, BUT -- OR NOT NECESSARY. IT'S GONE ON LONGER THAN I WISH IT HAD. I WISH IT WAS OVER INSTANTANEOUSLY BEFORE IT BEGAN BUT HERE WE ARE, DOING WHAT WE CAN DO WITH EVERY QUESTION, EVERY DISCUSSION, EVERY DECISION WE MAKE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE FUTURE OF THIS PLACE, NOT FOR US NOW BUT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT COME AFTER US, THAT LITTLE BOY IN THAT PICTURE. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK INTO A MICROPHONE WAY LONGER THAN I SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO TALK BUT LET'S MOVE FORWARD THE WAY

WE SHOULD TOGETHER. >> USUALLY THAT'S ME.

I WILL SAY I DO KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS.

THEY WANT THIS OVER. THE ONLY THING DIFFERENT IS IN WHAT FASHION. AND I WILL SAY SIDE BOARD CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR TODAY, I WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER NFL GAME ADD TO THE SEASON BUT WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT THAT IS ALL BY THEM.S WOULD HAVE AN ART RIS- AN ASTERISK BY THEM.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS WHATEVER IS PRODUCED, I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE THE ASTERISK, WELL THEY RUSHED IT AT THE END, FRANKLY I DOUBT THIS HAS ANYTHING THAT IS EARTH SHATTERING AT ALL, THAT'S MY GUT. I DON'T KNOW THAT, THERE'S SUPPOSITION BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT THERE WILL BE PEOPLE SOMEWHERE THAT SAYS YEAH WELL, THEY RUSHED IT AT THE END.

THAT'S MY CONCERN. BUT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO LET'S VOTE.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, COULD YOU RESTATE THE --

>> YES, I BELIEVE -- >> THE MOTION PLEASE --

>> THE MOTION IS WE AS A COUNCIL MOVE TONIGHT THAT WE REQUIRE THE FINAL REPORT FROM DENTON'S DOING THE INVESTIGATION SURROUNDING THE CHRISTKINDLMARKT WITHIN 30 DAYS, THE 20TH OF AUGUST WE HAVE THAT IN OUR LEGAL COUNCIL'S HAND.

[01:25:04]

IF THEY DO NOT PROVIDE THAT WITHOUT PROVIDING SOME JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY NOT, THEN THEY NEED TO TURN OVER ALL -- EVERYTHING THEY HAVE COLLECTED SINCE THE BEGINNING TO OUR LEGAL COUNCIL AND THE MATTER IS CLOSED.

EVERYBODY HEAR THAT -- CAN I RESTATE THAT?

THANK YOU. >> CORRECTION, DIDN'T THEY SAY THEY WOULD TURN IT OVER TO THE COUNCIL BEFORE THE LEGAL

COUNSEL? >> LEGAL COUNCIL'S COUNSEL.

>> AS LONG AS WE HAVE IT RIGHT. >> THAT CARRIES.

SO WE'VE MADE THIS PUBLIC. RYAN, CAN YOU SEND AN EMAIL TO DENTON'S WITH THIS ACTION AND COPY THE FULL COUNCIL ON THAT EMAIL? THANK YOU.

IS THAT FAIR ENOUGH TO EVERYBODY?

>> DID NOT KNOW WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS TONIGHT.

BUT I'M GLAD WE DID. I THINK THIS WAS HEALTHY.

AND AS COUNCILOR WORRELL HAS SAID, IT'S AN ISSUE, NOT A PERSON, RIGHT. OKAY B, THAT'S SAD TO SAY, WE'RE ONLY ON B. THAT REMAINS IN FINANCE -- EXCUSE ME, IN LAND USE, CORRECT? C, STILL IN FINANCE.

[12.e. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2836-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 6, Article 7, Regarding Stormwater User Fees; Sponsor: Councilor Snyder. Sent to the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee (Meeting Date 7/20/26). Sent to the Land Use and Special Studies Committee (Meeting Date 7/23/26).]

D, STILL IN FINANCE. E -- E IS RETURNED FROM FINANCE -- FINANCE, UTILITIES AND RULES COMMITTEE WITH A UNANIMOUS NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.

IT STILL REMAINS IN LAND USE. >> SO SERGEI MAYBE I'LL OPINE ON THIS. BUT THE INTENT WAS TO YOU KNOW AS I DISCUSSED EARLIER, THIS RETURNS FROM FINANCE BECAUSE OF PROCEDURALLY HOW IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE STORMWATER BOARD FIRST BEFORE IT COMES TO US. I REQUESTED FROM YOU EITHER TO PULL IT FROM LAND USE OR I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO PULL IT USING ROBERT'S RULES. PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS ACTED ON THIS EVENING. SO PRESIDENT SNIDER YOU HAVE SNL IT FROM LAND USE OR -- WHICH REQUIRES A 5-MEMBER VOTE, NOT JUST A QUORUM, A TRUE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL IN ORDER TO RETURN IT FROM LAND USE TO THE FULL COUNCIL TO ACT ON IT.

DID I GET THAT CORRECT, SERGEI? >> THANK YOU.

I'M NOT GOING TO PULL IT. YOU CAN DO THE MOTION.

AND MOSTLY BECAUSE WE'VE TOLD THE PUBLIC THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT AND I DON'T WANT TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THEM BUT IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY, CERTAINLY -- AGAIN

IT'S AN ISSUE, NOT A PERSON. >> MR. PRESIDENT, SO JUST MAYBE -- BECAUSE IT'S A LAND USE AND SPECIAL STUDIES COMMITTEE, NOT PRECLUDES THEIR COMMITTEE FROM DISCUSSING AN ISSUE, WHETHER THERE'S AN OTHERS ATTACHED TO IT OR NOT SO WHETHER THE ISSUE GETS PULLED OR NOT, THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE COULD STILL DISCUSS STORMWATER ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

>> AND THAT'S WHAT I SUGGESTED PRESIDENT SNYDER.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS JUST -- ON A PROCEDURAL POINT I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND SO -- WHY -- FIRST OF ALL WHAT WAS THE ISSUE REGARDING PLANNING ORDINANCE? AGAIN I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT WAS PRESENTED, PROCESSED, SO IF WE COULD JUST REVIEW THAT FOR THE PUBLIC BRIEFLY. AND IF WE COULD ALSO ENSURE THAT I THINK THE UNDERLYING PREMISE OF THIS WAS TO DISCUSS ISSUES THAT WERE COMING FORWARD OUT OF CONCERNS FROM CONSTITUENTS WHO WE ARE ALL BEHOLDEN TO AS THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS, BECAUSE THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY WELL ATTENDED.

THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE THAT CAME OUT AND SPOKE FROM ALL SIDES OF THE CITY SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT --

>> THE ARGUMENT IS THAT OUR -- OUR STORMWATER ORDINANCE READS -- AND IT'S STATUTORILY THAT A FEE CHANGE HAS TO COME

[01:30:01]

FROM THE ESTABLISHED BODY AND IN CARMEL THAT WAS THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. FRANKLY THEY REALLY JUST NEED TO HAVE A HEARING AND THEN EVEN IF IT'S AN EMPTY HEARING, THEY COULD COME TO US AS THE WAY IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME LEGALLY.

BUT THAT'S THE LEGAL BASIS AS TO WHY INITIATING IT FROM HERE, NOW I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE, BUT -- BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN KEEP THIS OPEN REGARDLESS OF ANYBODY'S OPINIONS ON WHAT I PUT FORTH, OUR ORDINANCE STILL NEEDS TO BE AMEND, AND I'M HOPING -- JUST PRODUCT OF SOME HOUSEKEEPING THING.

IT'S NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THE DAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY GESH IT -- S BPW WOULD BE BRINGING THAT UP SHORTLY NOW THAT THEY KNOW THAT, MAY AS WELL LEAVE THE ORDINANCE OPEN. I UNDERSTAND WHAT TAYLOR IS SAYING, IT'S NOT ANIMOSITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I THINK WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PROCEDURAL APPROACHES.

SO I WOULD RATHER GET VOTED DOWN, FRANKLY.

I DON'T MIND THAT. I JUST WANT -- BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS -- THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN TO THIS ORDINANCE NO MATTER WHAT, WHETHER IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO

WITH WHAT I WANTED TO SEE. >> SO AT FINANCE TWO ITEMS WERE PRIMARILY DISCUSSED, A REVIEW OF THE SOLUTIONS FOR CONCORDE AND THE ADMINISTRATION DISCUSSING HOW RAISING STORMWATER FEES AREN'T REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. SO A REVIEW OF LAST TUESDAY'S MEETING AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, NUMBER 2 WAS SERGEI'S PRESENTATION ON HOW THE PROCESS SHOULD WORK.

HE DID STATE, THOUGH, THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO BE WORKING ON A NEW ORDINANCE TO MAKE -- TO CERTIFY THE ERU AT OUR CURRENT ERU RATE, BECAUSE IT'S STILL -- THE ERU RATE IS WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED, AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE COLA ADJUSTMENTS, THAT DIDN'T SET A NEW ERU RATE EACH YEAR. SO HE'LL MAKE THAT CHANGE AND ALSO THE COLA CHANGE AND A BRAND NEW ORDINANCE THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED TO THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY, THE STORMWATER BOARD AND THEN COME TO US AS A COUNCIL.

SO THEY NEED SOME TIME TO BE ABLE NOTICE THAT PUBLIC HEARING, DRAFT THAT ORDINANCE AND THAT'S WHY FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE'S DISCUSSION IS LET'S JUST RETURN THIS TO THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, WE WILL GET A FULL CLEAN NEW ORDINANCE THAT'S INITIATED THROUGH THE STORMWATER BOARD AND THEN THAT WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO FIX INITIALLY.

AND THEN THE ADMINISTRATION DID STATE THAT -- BECAUSE THE COLA GOING TO GO AWAY -- THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STORMWATER FEES WILL BE DONE EACH YEAR DURING THE BUDGETARY PROCESS.

SO THERE'S CAPITAL PROJECTS NEEDS AND A BUDGETARY PROCESS THAT'S ASSIGNED TO WHEN THE STORMWATER FEES ARE INCREASED.

SO THAT WAS JUST THE REPORT FROM FINANCE TODAY.

I DON'T KNOW SERGEI IF I MISSED ANYTHING OR --

>> PRESIDENT SNYDER, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF SERGEI KIND OF EXPLAINED FOR NOT JUST COUNCILLORS WHO DIDN'T SEE THE FINANCE MEETING BUT FOR PEOPLE AND THE PUBLIC WHO THEN TUNE IN AND KIND OF HEAR YOUR EXPLANATION AND THE RATIONALE.

>> GOOD EVENING. SERGEI KUBRIK.

EVERYTHING WAS SAID IS CORRECT. THE PROCESS HAS BEEN OUTLINED IN THE INDIANA CODE, SPECIFICALLY INDIANA CODE [INDISCERNIBLE] AND OUR OWN ORDINANCE WHICH IS CITY CODE SECTIONS 2610 AND 2611.

BOTH OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ESTABLISH THAT IT'S A BOARD OF -- DEPARTMENT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AS PRESIDENT SNIDE IROUTLINED, AND THE PROCESS BEGINS THERE.

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE STATUTE. IT'S CLEAR FROM OUR OWN

ORDINANCE -- >> SERGEI, COULD YOU HAD A PIECE OF PAPER THAT YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN FOR FINANCE.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE WHOLE COUNCIL.

BECAUSE YOU WENT THROUGH IT VERY METHODICALLY AND -- IT'S THE STATUTE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IF I

COULD. >> IF I CAN HAVE -- SO AGAIN AS I MENTIONED, IT'S CLEARLY REGULATED, THE USER FEES AND STORMWATER ORDINANCE. ITTHAT SECTION OF THE CODE IS

[01:35:03]

CLEAR THAT IT IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DEPARTMENT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PER OUR ORDINANCE THAT MAY ASSESS AND COLLECT THE FEES, CONDUCTS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDS IT TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. OUR ORDINANCE WHICH IS 6210 621D 6211 ESTABLISHES THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS OUR BPW AND ALSO FROM THE SAME SECTION OF THE CODE OF CITY -- NO SORRY, NOT CITY CODE, THE STATE CODE, IT IS CHEER BUT IT'S THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITIES TO ESTABLISH THE FEES NOT COUNCIL'S. SO THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT IT'S THE COUNCIL THAT ESTABLISHES THE FEES, THE STATE STATUTE IS CLEAR THAT IT'S ACTUALLY THE BOARD THAT ESTABLISHES THE FEES AND THEN RECOMMENDS IT.

BY CONSIDERING THE FACTORS OUTLINED IN SUBSECTION D, WHEREAS SEVEN TACK FORCE PLUS SOME DISCRETIONARY FACTORS THAT'S -- THE BOARD CAN USE IN ADOPTING DIFFERENT SCHEDULE FEES. SO WHEN WE DID IT ORIGINALLY WE CONDUCTED A STUDY TO DETERMINE THOSE AND USED SOME OF THOSE EXACT SAME FACTORS AS OUTLINED HERE.

SO THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS WORKS AND AGAIN OUR OWN ORDINANCE THAT. FOR THOSE REASONS I BELIEVE THE PROVIDES JUST HASN'T BEEN FOLLOWED CORRECTLY.

I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO WITHDRAW THIS ORDINANCE ENTIRELY. THE ADMINISTRATION IS WORKING ON DOING THAT PROCESS IN THE CORRECT ORDER SO THAT ORDER WILL COME TO YOU IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FORM BUT VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING. OR WHAT WAS INTRODUCED RATHER.

AND EVEN THAT ORDINANCE IT, DOES SAY THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AT THE BPW LEVEL. IT OBVIOUSLY HASN'T SO AGAIN FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK IT WILL BE MUCH CLEANER TO START THE PROCESS ANEW. I THINK COUNCIL HAS DONE -- THAT ACTION STARTED THAT PROCESS I THINK IT'S A VERY POSITIVE THING SO THE FINAL RESULT WILL BE WHAT COUNCIL INTENDS OR -- INTENDED

ALL ALONG. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, AN UNDERSTANDING FOR EARN IN THE PUBLIC AND MYSELF

INCLUDED. >> THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD -- SORRY. I WANT TO GIVE COUNCILOR SNYDER AND COUNCILOR HEIRS A LOT OF CREDIT FOR SHINING A LIGHT ON SOME OF THE CONCERNS NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I THINK A LOT OF SOLUTIONS THAT WE'LL BE COMING TO CAN GIVE CREDIT TO BOTH THESE COUNCILLORS FOR REALLY SHINING A LIGHT ON THESE ISSUES.

BUT AS I ASKED AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, THERE WAS A PLAN PROPOSED ON JULY 14TH FROM THE CITY HOW TO ADDRESS SYMPTOM WATER ISSUES IN THE CONCORDE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I ASKED, I SAID DOES THIS REQUIRE ANY CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OR DENIAL, DO WE HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THIS.

AND THE ANSWER WE GOT FROM LEGAL IS THAT NO, THERE IS NOT.

AM I CORRECT THERE MAY BE SOME MONEY MOVED AROUND THAT WE WOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER BUT WE DON'T APPROVE OR DENY THIS PROJECT?

>> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. AS FAR AS THE ORDINANCE GOES YOU DO HAVE A POWER OF APPROVAL. YOU'RE NOT THE INITIATING BODY.

SO IF YOU FEEL AS A BODY THAT THE FEES THAT'S BEEN INTRODUCED AT BPW LEVEL ARE NOT CORRECT YOU CAN SEND THEM BACK.

>> I'M IN THE ASKING ABOUT THE FEE.

I'M ASKING ABOUT THE ACTION TAKEN TO ADDRESS STORMWATER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DON'T APPROVE OR DENY THAT,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> UNLESS MONEY NEEDS TO GO FROM ONE ITEM TO ANOTHER, THAT WOULD BE OUR ONLY CONTROL OVER THAT. I ASKED WOULD YOU BE PROCEEDING AND CITY ENGINEER SAID YES, THEY ARE PROCEEDING WITH THAT PLAN.

I KNOW SOME OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AREN'T HERE TONIGHT BUT IT APPEARS, YOU KNOW THAT'S TO ADDRESS STORMWATER IN

[01:40:16]

THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL BUT WHAT WE CAN DO AS A CITY COUNCIL IS INFLUENCE AND I REALLY HAVE TO GIVE A LOT OF CREDIT TO COUNCILOR SNYDER AND COUNCILOR HEIRS FOR INFLUENCING EASTERN EVEN IF WE'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE ACTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN, REMEMBER GETTING THAT CONVERSATION STARTED SO THANK YOU TO BOTH OF

YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> I ALSO JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.

I KNOW IT'S KINDS OF YOUR EXPERTISE SO I REALLY DO APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE

CONSTITUENTS. >> AND ONE OF THE DISAPPOINTMENTS I HAD WAS THAT THIS BECAME ALL ABOUT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT TONIGHT IS NOT THE NIGHT TO DISCUSS THIS.

I DO THINK MY JOB IS TO ADVOCATE AND I WILL ALWAYS ADVOCATE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF CARMEL. BUT I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH ONE THING IN YOUR PROCESS AND THE BIG THING IS THERE'S NO REASON WHY -- LISTEN IT, THERE ARE THINGS THAT I CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT IN, WRITING ORDINANCES, NOT SO MUCH.

AS EVERYBODY HAS SEEN. BUT THE ACT OF TAKING THE COLA AND CONVERTING THAT TO A DOLLAR AMOUNT DOES NOT BPW ACTION.

I DISAGREE WITH YOU. IT CAN BE DONE EASILY AND SIMPLY. BUT THAT IS A POINT OF CONTENTION AND I DO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY FOR THE RECORD ON THIS ONE, THE PROCESS THAT THE CITY HAS BEEN RUNNING NOW FOR -- FROM WHAT I CAN TELL SINCE 2023 ON GETTING INFORMATION, KNOCKING DOORS, TALKING TO -- AND THEN POTENTIALLY LONG BEFORE THAT, FROM THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE COME UP ABOUT ISSUES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD POTENTIALLY CAUSED BY CIVIC ACTION OR BUILDING AROUND THEM OR ON THE FAR NORTHWEST SIDE, LARGE DEVELOPMENTS GOING IN NEXT DOOR THAT CONTINUE TO MEYER THE QUIEG MAYOR OF MUD AROUND THEIR RETENTION PONDS IN WE'RE GOING TO WAYS. WHAT THIS HAS BROUGHT IS THE ABILITY AND THE DISCUSSION AROUND STORMWATER THAT WE HAD NOT NECESSARILY HEARD OF OR TALKED ABOUT AS A COUNCIL BEFORE. MAYBE IT HAS COME UP OVER THE YEARS, OBVIOUSLY A STORMWATER FEE WAS PUT IN PLACE AT SOME POINT. BUT I DO WANT TO ECHO THE SENTIMENT THAT THAT WORK OF TALKING TO AND GETTING THE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO MATTER IN ALL THE DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING IT'S ALSO A LITTLE CONCERNING FOR ME BASED ON HOW MUCH FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN. WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL THIS MORNING WITH A PICTURE FROM THE STORMWATER FROM THE WEEKEND: THERE SHOULD BE MORE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THIS DIRECTLY IMPACTS BEFORE WE GO FULL FORCE INTO SPENDING FOR PROJECTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT INCREASE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. AND I SAY THAT TO ADAM'S POINT TO POINTS WE SEE MADE MANY TIMES BY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON SOMETHING THAT -- WELL IT'S NOT MY THING, I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT AND I KNOW I CAN'T HELP.

WE CAN AND I WOULD URGE ALL OF US AS WE LOOK AT THIS TO TAKE COUNCILOR WORRELL'S STATEMENT EARLIER -- SORRY, I CAN'T SAY YOUR REARVIEW MIRROR RIGHT TONIGHT AND WE DO DISCUSS THIS AS A GROUP AND WE MAKE SURE WE MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BECAUSE I THINK MORE FEEDBACK WILL CONTINUE TO COME.

I DO THINK THAT THE PLAN IS A GREAT POTENTIAL START TO DISCUSS WHAT AND WHAT SHOULDN'T BE DONE TO PEOPLE'S HOUSES, NEIGHBORHOODS, LIVES. AND MAKING SURE WE DO THAT

[01:45:06]

CORRECTLY WITHOUT POTENTIAL QUICKNESS OR DECISIONMAKING THAT PUTS US IN A POSITION THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEEN FLOODING FOR 19 YEARS FROM PROBABLY WAIT FOR THE RIGHT FEEDBACK. SO IF IT WAS MY HOUSE I WOULD REALLY WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

I WILL ADVOCATE FOR THAT WITH MY LAST BREATH INTO THIS MICROPHONE

HOPEFULLY FOR THIS EVENING. >> I JUST WANT TO ADD -- SORRY -- ANOTHER THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND I KNOW THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING BRAD PARKINSONS DISEASE ISN'T PEAS ISN'T HERE RIGHT NOW BUT IT WAS BASED ON A QUESTION FROM COUNCILOR HEIRS AND COUNCILOR TAYLOR, STORMWATER FEES, HOW THEY'RE SPENT, HOW THEY'VE BEEN SPENT, YOU KNOW, WHAT PROJECTS THEY'VE BEEN SPENT ON AND IT WAS HELPFUL IN THE FINANCE MEETING BRAD KIND OF EXPLAINED THAT HE'S NOT HERE BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD KIND OF GO THROUGH.

THAT'S BEEN A QUESTION, PEOPLE GRAZED SO --

>> ONE MORE OR THREE MORE BREATHS.

THAT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION THAT WOULD BE DELIGHTFUL TO HAVE HERE. AND I WILL GO BACK AND WATCH THE MEETING. I THINK THAT IS REALLY THE IMPETUS FOR THE CONVERSATION. I WILL ALSO SAY FOR THE RECORD AS A LAWYER AND AS A REVIEWER OF THINGS WITH SERGEI ON STUFF LIKE THIS, THAT PROCEDURALLY, THE PREMISE OF THIS BEING IN THE WRONG ORDER IS LIKELY CORRECT AND FOLLOWING THE RULES SET FOR THAT IS RIGHT. I WILL SAY THEN THAT THE IDEA OF THIS BEING PRINTED GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

IT CREATED TOWN HALLS. IT CREATED ATTENTION TO SOMETHING THAT WE HAD NOT TALKED ABOUT FOR 19 YEARS AND A 90 PAGE SLIDE DECK FROM THE CITY THAT HAD NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE, WITH IDEAS TO FIX IT. SO THIS BEING SAID AGAIN THE PROCESS TENDS TO WORK WHEN WE PUT THINGS IN THE LIGHT TO FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD. MAYBE NOW THAT WE'RE THROUGH THE INFORMATION GATHERING TO TAKE A STEP BACK, PAUSE, LOOK AT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE IMPACTING AND MAKE SURE WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS AND THAT'S A CALL TO ACTION TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT FROM UP HERE EXCEPT LIKELY DEAPPROPRIATE MONEY WHICH

WE WILL LIKELY NOT DO SO -- >> EXCELLENT.

AND I WILL SAYID AN EXCELLENT CONVERSATION, LENGTHY WITH THE MAYOR ABOUT THIS. CERTAIN THINGS WERE JUST FUNDAMENTALLY BE ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF.

AND I FAILED TO REALLY PROBABLY PROBABLY -- BEING AS INFORMATIVE ABOUT THE GRANDER GOODY SAW IN THIS IT KIND OF GOT MIRED DOWN IN THE ONE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THAT HAPPENS.

TO EVERYBODY'S POINT THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN STARTED.

SO I'VE BENEFICIARY THIS WILL GET KILLED BUT I WILL MOVE TO -- I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE, IF I CAN GET A SECOND, WE CAN VOTE THIS

OFF. >> YOU MEAN ARE WE -- ARE YOU

STILL ON LAND USE, SO ARE YOU -- >> IF WE'RE GOING TO KILL THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT, I WILL PULL IT FROM LAND USE AND I MOVE TO

APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. >> THERE'S A SECOND.

WE HAVE ALL VOTE NO. OUR YOU CAN GO AHEAD HOWEVER YOU

WANT. >> SO YOU'RE CALLING FOR THE QUESTION. YOU JUST MOVED YOUR OWN -- MOVED THIS AS PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> JUST TO MOVE IT ALONG. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

>> I THAT WRONG? >> HE MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE D-28-38-26. TECHNICALLY AS THE PRESIDENT

YOU'RE NOT EXPOSED SUPPOSED TO - >> I WAS TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT.

>> PRESIDENT SNYDER JUST PULLED IT FROM THE LAND USE --

>> YES. >> IT'S OUT OF FINANCE NOW.

>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE WHETHER YOU VOTE YES OR NO SO I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, TO ACT ON THIS THIS EVENING.

>> SECOND. >> THIS IS THE -- TO APPROVE THE

ORDINANCE OR NOT. >> TO APPROVE OR DECLINE THE

ORDINANCE. >> NOW TO LAND USE.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT -- I KNOW ALL OF ALREADY STUDIED THEM, A

[01:50:06]

SPECIAL TOYED IF WE COULD CONTINUE, SINCE WE'VE MADE THAT COMMITMENT ALREADY. THERE'S NO ORDINANCE ATTACHED TO IT, THEN THAT WAY WHEN SOMETHING COMES FROM BPW -- THANK YOU -- ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT

>> WHAT ARE WE ON? >> ITEM A UNDER 13.

>> FIRST READING OF OWNERS ORDIE D --

>> WE'RE AT 13A. >> THERE'S ALWAYS A GOOD CHANCE

[13.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2837-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, authorizing and approving an additional appropriation from the Motor Vehicle Highway Fund (MVH) (#201); Sponsors: Councilors Aasen, Taylor, Worrell.]

I'VE MISSED SOMETHING. THANK YOU.

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-2837-26, AN OWNERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE HIGHWAY FUND MVH. SPONSORS COUNCILLORS ASEINE,

TAYLOR WORRELL. >> THIS ORDINANCE APPROPRIATES FUNDS TO COVER GRANT ELIGIBLE EXPENSES IN MVH NUMBER 201.

>> MR. JACKSON. >> IT'S AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION, 50,000 OF THIS WOULD BE COVERING THE SPEED HUMPS THAT WERE PASSED FOR WEST ROAD IN D-28-13-26 AND THE REMAINING 601,000 MAKES UP THE SHORTFALL THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN MY LAST QUARTERLY REPORT, WHERE OUR WHEEL TAX REVENUE ESTIMATE WAS NOT PERFORMED CORRECTLY.

AND SO FUNCTIONALLY WE'RE PUTTING UP THIS 601,000 TO REPLACE THE REVENUE THAT WILL NOT MATERIALIZE ON THE WHEEL TAX. SURTAX IS STILL COMING IN LIKE

GANGBUSTERS, THOUGH. >> LET'S HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL OPEN IT AT 7:52.

AND MR. JACKSON WILL PROMPTLY MOVE OUT OF THE WAY FOR ANY PUBLIC MEMBERS THAT WANT TO -- I'M KIDDING, ZACK.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53.

COUNCILOR COMMENTS? DO WE WANT TO ACT -- JUST.

>> JUST A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT IF THERE WAS A MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES AND ACT ON IT THIS EVENING, SINCE IT REQUIRES A SECOND READING IT WOULD NOT GO TO GO TO COMMITTEE IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO ASSIGN IT TO COMMITTEE. SO THE OPTIONS ARE WAIVE THE RULES, ACT ON IT THIS EVENING, SEND IT TO COMMITTEE OR JUST LET IT SIT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A

SECOND READING. >> GENTLEMAN MOVEWELL, I CAN'T G

WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT TO DO? >> I MOVE THAT WE ACT ON THIS, SUSPEND THE RULES AND ACT ON IT THIS EVENING.

WE ARE VOTING TO ACT ON IT THIS EVENING.

IF SOMEBODY COULD CALL THE LOGICAL FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

THERE YOU GO, ZACK. WHERE IS ZACK?

[14.a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2839-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Carmel City Code Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-44, Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 3-58, and Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-40; Sponsors: Councilors Aasen, Minnaar, Snyder, Taylor, Worrell.]

>> NEW BUSINESS. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-2839-26, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL,IAN, AMENDING CARMEL CITY CODE CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 8-44, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 3-58, AND CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 8-40. SPONSORS AASEN, MINNAAR, SNYDER, TAYLOR, WORRELL. THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE USE OF MICROMOBILITY AND E-MODED DEVICES WITHIN THE CITY OF

CARMEL. >> MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

>> SECOND. >> THIS IS GOING TO OPEN UP A MUCH BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS.

I'M SO PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE DID FOR A YEAR TO WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND THIS AND GET AN ORDINANCE DONE.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT HASN'T WORKED MOTOCOUNCILOR WORRELL HAS BEEN WORKING WITH A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS.

THERE HAVE BEEN CONVERSATIONS WITH EVERY COUNCILOR HERE ABOUT

[01:55:01]

THE EFFICACY OF THIS. I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE MAYOR, SHE HAS MADE HER POSITION RATHER CLEAR.

IT'S GOING TO TO BE HER STORY TO TELL THOUGH OR IT WILL COME OUT IN COMMITTEE. IN COMMITTEE WE'LL HAVE THE POLICE TALK ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THEY HAVE.

IT HAS BEEN OUTRAGEOUS. IT'S JUST -- I'M BLOWN AWAY, FRANKLY. SO THIS IS GOING TO GO TO COMMITTEE BUT IS THERE COUNCIL DISCUSSION, ANYBODY -- YES?

>> SO I SUPPORT THIS GOING TO COMMITTEE BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LOT TO DISCUSS BUT THERE ARE TWO ITEMS HERE THAT I WOULD LOVE IF THEY COULD BE CARVED OUT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO CARVE OUT THIS EVENING.

IF NOT, MAYBE THE COMMITTEE CAN SEND THEM BACK QUICKLY.

BUT AS I UNDERSTAND THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT SHOULD BE NOT CONTROVERSIAL THAT MAYBE WE COULD ACT ON QUICKLY.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE ABILITY TO IMPOUND A DEVICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. AND FORFEIT TURF THE DEVICE IS USED IN RELATION TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

>> HOW CAN WE DO THIS? >> I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN CARVE OUT A CERTAIN PROVISION OF AN ORDINANCE --

>> CAN WE AMEND THE ORDINANCE AND APPROVE THAT?

AND THEN -- >> OF COURSE WE CAN, YES.

>> YOU COULD, YEAH. >> AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE --

>> WILL BE A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE, THEN.

>> CAN YOU INTRODUCE ANOTHER ORDINANCE? WE MAY AS WELL START TALKING ABOUT IT.

>> MY ONLY CONCERN IS SINCE YOU'RE GOING TO BE AMENDING AND ACTING YOU WILL MISS A MEETING UNTIL THE NEW OARPZ GETS INTRODUCED, SENT TO COMMITTEE SO YOU'RE A COUPLE WEEKS BEHIND SO

THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. >> A COUPLE WEEKS BEHIND ON THE

REST OF IT YOU MEAN OR -- >> FULL AMEND THIS ORDINANCE JUST TO INCLUDE THOSE TWO PROVISIONS, THEN I WILL NEED TO INTRODUCE YET ANOTHER ORDINANCE SO YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT TWO WEEK-

>> WELL, WE KNOW -- YOU WOULD NEED FEEDBACK ANYWAY TO WRITE A

NEW ORDINANCE. >> I GUESS HE CAN ASSIGN A

SUBJECT. >> COUPER WORRELL ISTHEY'RE GOIE

WORKING WITH THE GROUPS -- >> PRESIDENT SNYDER, IF YOU ASSIGN A SUBJECT TO COMMITTEE AND WE CAN START DISCUSSIONS THERE AND WE'LL CATCH UP ON THE LEGAL FRONT.

AND WE WILL INTRODUCE A BRAND NEW ONE AND START DISCUSSING THE TOPIC BECAUSE WE ONLY RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS FROM PARKS AS WELL

SO THERE'S DRIVE THINGS QUITE A- >> WOULD SOMEBODY TO OPEN TO AMENDING WHAT'S BEFORE US TO INCLUDE THE TWO ACTION ITEMS THAT THE POLICE DESPERATELY WANT ASAP?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THIS ORDINANCE TO ONLY INCLUDE THE PROVISIONS -- ADD PROVISIONO IMPOUND A DEVICE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND FORFEITURE PROVISION IF THE DEVICE IS USED IN RELATION TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND ALL OTHER ADDITIONS BE

REMOVED FROM THE ORDINANCE. >> SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION? >> YEAH, SO I HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD FROM THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT AND I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU WANT ME TO -- I WANT TO ALSO PUT OUT THERE THE OTHER THINGS THEY'VE ASKED FOR.

BUT THESE TWO POINTS THAT COUNCILOR AASEN JUST TALKED ABOUT, THEY BELIEVE WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN SOONER THAN LATER.

AND IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON SUGGESTION THAT I GET FROM THE PUBLIC, WHY DON'T YOU JUST IMPOUND THEM, DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE IMPOUNDING POWERS? AND I SAY, WE WILL.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, NUMBER 1, IF WE CAN DO THIS, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THAT, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT POINT THAT COUNCILOR AASEN MADE. BUT I ALSO WANT TO JUST ALSO LET YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

I THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO DO A WHOLE PRESENTATION BUT IT WILL GO TO COMMITTEE, NO PROBLEM. BUT THEY WANT MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REGARDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE E-MOTO DEVICES AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- UNLESS YOU'RE VERY TRAINED.

AND SOME OF THEM ARE DOING SOME THINGS THAT MAKE YOU THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT IT'S REALLY NOT. SO HOWEVER, WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT LANGUAGE ON THE VEHICLE ITSELF, AND THEN THE PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR. SPEEDING, RECKLESS USE OF THAT WHAT THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN THEN JUST SAY WE WITNESSED YOU DOING SOMETHING YOU SHOULDN'T OF BEEN DOING AS FAR AS THE USE.

DONE ALSO IF I CAN FIND MY PLACE HERE.

[02:00:02]

IF CAN ALSO DO THE MANDATORY COURT APPEARANCE AND FURTHER INCREASED FINE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE PARENTS WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND THEN THE IMPOUNDMENT AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT MAYBE JUST SOME OUT-OF-THE-BOX IDEAS.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS THE WORKING GROUP I PUT TOGETHER WHERE YOU DON'T WANT TO SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN, WE WILL KEEP WORKING ON CREATIVE IDEAS TO ENHANCE WHATEVER THIS BODY DOES.

>> I HAD A PRODUCTIVE AND LENGTHY CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR ABOUT THIS TODAY MY VERY SUPPORTIVE.

WITHOUT GETTING INTO SOME OF THE DETAILS BUT ONE OF THE THINGS SHE MENTIONED AND I FULLY SUPPORT IS THEY ARE RUNNING, THEY ARE RUNNING FROM THE POLICE AND I DON'T THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S COMPUTING, YOU ARE FLEEING FROM A POLICE OFFICER.

>> ONE ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IS FORT WAYNE AND ALLEN COUNTY HAVE A PRETTY GOOD ORDINANCE AND IT RELIES HEAVILY ON INDIANA STATE LAW WERE THESE ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES ARE ACTUALLY MOTORCYCLES AND REQUIRED TO BE, REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED, INSURED IN ORDER TO DRIVE ONE OF THOSE, PERIOD.

IF WE LOOK AT HOW INDIANA STATE LAW APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES AT THE SAME THING WITH A GAS POWERED MOTORCYCLE. YOU DRIVE A DIRT BIKE ON THE ROAD AS A TEENAGER, WHY DOES IT MATTER IF IT'S ELECTRIC POWERED OR GAS POWERED? IT MUST BE LICENSED, VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND YOU MUST BE INSURED IN ORDER TO WRITE THAT ANYWHERE. THERE MIGHT BE SOME THINGS WE CAN GLEAN FROM FORT WAYNE AND ALLEN COUNTY.

>> WE DO HAVE SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE BUT WE CAN SEE IF WE CAN EXPAND IT.

FOR THE RECORD SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR, WE ARE KEEPING SECTION 7C AND D RELATED TO IMPOUNDMENT WITH MINORS AND A SECTION 8 AND ADDITIONAL SECTION C WHICH DEALS WITH IMPOUNDMENT AND FORFEITURE

OF A DEVICE. >> WE HAVE THE MOTION AND THE

QUESTION, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I'M READING THE CODE.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULE IS.

[LAUGHTER] SURE!

>> VOTE TO AMEND? >> THANK YOU, THAT CARRIES.

[LAUGHTER] YOU GUYS NEVER FAIL TO FIND INTERESTING SITUATIONS. THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE -- SPEAKER WE GOT TO SUSPEND THE

RULES, IF YOU LIKE. >> MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND

ACT ON THIS THIS EVENING. >> SECOND.

>> WE ARE WORRIED ON THAT ONE? >> MOVED TO APPROVE.

THANK YOU. >> WHEN WILL THIS BECOME

EFFECTIVE? >> ONCE IT'S PUBLISHED IT WILL

BECOME EFFECTIVE. >> THE SUBJECT OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS SHALL BE GOING TO LAND USE.

[14.b. First Reading of Ordinance D-2840-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Article 4, Section 2-157 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsors: Councilors Minnaar, Snyder, Taylor, Worrell.]

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D, 2840, 26.

THE CITY OF CARMEL, AMENDING THE CARMEL CITY CODE SPONSORS SN

[02:05:07]

SNYDER, THIS IMMENSE ARTICLE 4 CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A NONREPORTING DOCS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FUND.

>> MOVED TO INTRODUCE. >> THE CHAIR: DOES ANYBODY

WANT TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE? >> USUALLY ZACH PRESENTS THOSE BUT THIS ONE IS MORE OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN THE FINANCE INITIATIVE. THE STATE HAS AMENDED THE STATE CODE RECENTLY AND REQUIRED OLD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, ZONING AND ENGINEERING FEES WOULD HAVE TO GO TO SPECIAL NONREPORTING FUND IN ORDER TO BE USED. THIS ORDINANCE COMPLIES WITH STATE CODE, IT CREATES -- I CAN ADDRESS BOTH OF THEM IF I MADE.

BOTH ORDINANCE IS STILL THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER, ONE IS FOR DOCS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND EACH ORDINANCE CREATES A SPECIAL NONREPORTING FUND WHERE THE FEES WILL BE GOING TO.

THAT FUND MUST START HAVING THOSE FUNDS DEPOSITED TO THEM BY JANUARY 1ST OF NEXT YEAR, RIGHT NOW IT'S A PLACEHOLDER, THE FUNDS CAN GO TO GENERAL FUND UNTIL SUCH TIME, I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINANCE PLAN IS REGARDING THAT BUT THAT'S WHAT IT DOES. THEY CANNOT REVERT TO GENERAL FUND AND THEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OUTLINED IN OUR

ORDINANCE. >> I WILL JUST ADD TO AS THESE GET CREATED, WE WILL KIND OF BE INCORPORATING THIS INTO THE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT, WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FOR EXAMPLE WITH THE FIRST FUND, THEY GET A LOT OF BUILDING PERMIT REVENUE TODAY, THAT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND. WE COULD NO LONGER PUT THAT IN THE GENERAL FUND, IT WILL START GOING TO THIS NEW FUND.

THE FEES CAN'T BE HIGHER THAN WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF REGULATING THAT ENVIRONMENT. WE WILL BE BUDGETING FOR PART OF THE DOCS IN THE FUTURE OUT OF I THINK WE HAVE LESS HISTORY ON THE ENGINEERING FEES, THOSE ARE NEWER BUT THE SAME THING WE WILL COME UP WITH AN ESTIMATE THERE AND PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO BE BUDGETED OUT OF THAT NEW FUND.

>> THE CHAIR: WE HAVE TO DO IT, REALLY THE ONLY TOPIC OF DISCUSSION IS THE USE OF THE FUNDS.

>> EVEN THE USE OF THE FUNDS AS OUTLINED IN THE STATUTE AS WELL.