12.c. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2820-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 3-58 and Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-45 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Minnaar, Taylor, and Worrell. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.

[12.c. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2820-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 3-58 and Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 8-45 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Minnaar, Taylor, and Worrell. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

[00:50:03]

THIS EVENING. OLD BUSINESS.

AS DISCUSSED, THE 23RD AND 13, A.M.P. ARE STILL IN COMMITTEE.

SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA OMITTING CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 3-58... CARMEL CITY CODE. DOES RETURN FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. COUNCILLOR TAYLOR WE.

>> THIS RETURN HERE THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION.

AND THE SERGEANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

WE REVIEWED THE ORDINANCE OF REASONS, THE NEW SCHEDULE.

I GUESS THE INFRACTION. SCHEDULE.

OR COST. AND THIS WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, RETURNING FROM FINANCING.

>> THANK YOU. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. HASTINGS. CAN YOU ALSO EXPLAIN-- WE WENT AROUND AND AROUND ABOUT VIOLATIONS.

AND YOU BRIEFED US ON SOMETHING I HAD NEVER HEARD OF, ON HOW VIOLATIONS WENT THROUGH SOMETHING.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? >> THIS, AND I DON'T HAVE A CITATION. I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD FROM THE STATE CODE. THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF VIOLATION IS ADMINISTERED BY... A CITY CLERK IS ESSENTIALLY A BODY THAT ADMINISTERS THE VIOLATION AND AS OF RIGHT NOW THE CITY CLERK DOES NOT HAVE AN ABILITY TO DESIGNATE ADMINISTRATION VIOLATIONS TO ANY OTHER PARTY BUT THE CITY CLERK.

SO THAT IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES.

IT WILL SOLVE IT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ADMINISTRATION BY DESIGNATE, ESSENTIALLY. IN THIS CASE IT WILL BE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH WHATEVER SOFTWARE WE DECIDE TO PURCHASE.

THERE IS A CONTRACT PENDING RESOLUTION HERE, SO THAT'S WHAT

THIS ORDINANCE ESSENTIALLY DOES. >> I ALSO FORGOT TO MENTION THAT DURING OUR COMMITTEE MEETING THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AROUND HANDICAPPED PARKING, WHEN WE REVIEWED THE HANDICAPPED PARKING FINDS-- FINES, WE FELT THEY WERE EXTREMELY LOW AND THERE WAS A FEW ITEMS ADDED TO THE PACKET HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN.

TO CHANGE THE SECTIONS, IN PARTICULAR LINE 67, SECTION THREE, ITEM THREE. A VEHICLE UNLAWFULLY PARKED IN A PROPERLY MARKED HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE H-50 SHOULD BE ISSUED A TICKET SUBJECT TO A $150 FINE FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION. A FINE SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR VIOLATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE FIVE OF THIS CHAPTER FOR EACH SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION IN THE CALENDAR YEAR. SO I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS RETURNED FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WITH THAT ONE

PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. >> SO LET'S MOVE TO AMEND AND THEN MR. HAYES CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IF SOMEBODY WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND AS PREVIOUSLY STATED.

>> MOTION IS AMENDED. >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

MY NAME IS SERGEANT HASTING, ON THE SERGEANT OF THE TRAFFIC UNIT THAT'S BEEN HEADING UP THIS INITIATIVE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

WE JUST ASK FOR YOUR VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT TO CONTINUE MOVING THINGS FORWARD WITH OUR ENFORCEMENT OBJECTIVE.

WE'VE BEEN AROUND THE COMMUNITY FOR ALONG TIME WITH THE THINGS OF BEEN LACKING ON, AND A FULL-- TERMS OF ENFORCING PARKING, AND OUT OF TIME PARKING SPOTS. IS WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER, HAVING THE DEDICATED EYES TO LOOK FOR THOSE PARKING VIOLATIONS. SOMEONE WHO CAN DEDICATE THEIR TIME TO KEEPING THINGS TURNING OVER IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA HIGH SCHOOL, THAT'S WHERE WE WILL START THIS SCHOOL INITIATIVE. AND THEN WE ARE REALLY EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO USE THIS EQUIPMENT SOFTWARE TO DO THAT EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. WE RESEARCH THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND WE THINK THIS IS THE BEST OPTION FOR US MOVING FORWARD.

AND I WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME AND I APPRECIATE

YOUR SUPPORT. >> THIS IS FROM MY AFFILIATE--

[00:55:01]

FOR MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON FINANCE.

I THOUGHT IN THE ORDINANCE WE HAD SAID THERE WAS A NOTICE TO APPEAR, WHICH WOULD HAVE MOVED OVER FOR THE HANDICAPPED PARKING. DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT? THAT WE ARE MOVING THE PARKING FOR HANDICAP VIOLATIONS-- DID I MISS THAT? MOVING IT UP OUT OF-- FROM--

>> WELL, WE CHANGED THE PINE TO 150, BUT ALSO-- MOVING THE

NOTICE TO APPEAR. >> THERE WAS A NOTICE TO APPEAR.

BUT SURROGATE-- SERGEI, I WISH BENJAMIN WAS HERE, HE WORKED ON THIS WITH US. I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE IT SAYS PROVIDED FOR VIOLATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE FIVE

OF THIS CHAPTER. >> I JUST WANT TO BE SURE.

>> THERE IS A POSSIBILITY IT WAS KICKED OUT OF OPB.

THEY HAVE A LOW LEVEL OF APPLIANCE FOR VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE. SO THEY GO THROUGH THE BARRIER FIRST. AND THEN IF INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES DECIDE TO COMPLY WITH THE FINE, THEN IT MIGHT ESCALATE TO THE CODE PROCEEDINGS. -- COURT PROCEEDINGS.

PERHAPS THE IDEA THERE WAS TO INCREASE THE FINDS SO GOES DIRECTLY TO COURT PROCEEDINGS. AS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF VIOLATION. PERHAPS THAT WAS THE INTENT.

OTHERWISE IT'S STILL IN AVAILABILITY.

>> JEFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THOUGHT WE SAID THERE WAS NOTICE TO APPEAR AND IT WOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE COURTS.

DID I MISS THAT? >> I COULD NOT ATTEND THAT

MEETING. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

I'M SORRY. >> THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION.

BUT WE ALSO DISCUSSED THOSE CASES THAT-- WE SET THE FIRST

TIME VIOLATION AT 150. >> IF THE FIRST VIOLATION IS THE 150, YOU STILL HAVE THE OPB WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS, RIGHT?

>> I'M KIND OF SPEAKING FROM THE EMAILS I RECEIVED ON THE TOPIC.

THERE IS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT DATA STORAGE AND THAT KIND OF THING. ONE OF THE BIGGEST QUESTIONS IS IS THIS EXCLUSIVE FOR CPD? ANY DATA COLLECTED OR LICENSE PLATE READ, IS IT EXCLUSIVE TO THE CPD AND WATER THE CONTROLS TO KEEP THEM FROM SHARING THAT WITH OTHER ENTITIES?

>> YES, IT IS GOING TO BE KEPT WITH OUR CPD USE, THE SECOND PART OF YOUR QUESTION, I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER FOR.

BENJAMIN SPOKE ABOUT THIS A BIT LAST TIME.

HE IS OF LITTLE WILL-- MORE WELL-VERSED IN THE LEGALITY OF HOW THAT STUFF IS KEPT. BUT THE DATA WILL BE FOR OUR

USE. >> AND I ASSUME-- AND I DON'T MEAN IT IN A BAD WAY, SOMEBODY IS SELLING ANOTHER SOURCE OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA THAT'S NOT RELATED TO WHAT YOU ARE

COLLECTING? >> WHAT WE ARE COLLECTING IS THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER AND IT'S GOING TO BE USED TO BASICALLY START A TIMER WITHIN THE SYSTEM. YOUR LICENSE PLATE WILL BE YOUR PERMIT, LET'S SAY YOU LIVE AROUND THE HIGH SCHOOL AND YOU ARE A RESIDENT AROUND THE HIGH SCHOOL, YOU CAN REGISTER YOUR VEHICLE. IT WILL COME TO US, CPD WILL VERIFY YOUR REGISTRATION THAT YOU DO HAVE THAT VEHICLE REGISTERED AT THAT ADDRESS. SO YOUR LICENSE PLATE BECOMES YOUR PERMIT. WE WILL USE THAT FOR OUR INTERNAL DATABASES JUST FOR KEEPING UP WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS SCANNED. FOR THE TIMER PURPOSES.

SO THIS COMPANY WILL BUILD OUT THE SOFTWARE FOR US.

SO THE SPOTS WILL BE GPS COORDINATED.

WHENEVER WE SCAN A PLATE THE SOFTWARE WILL KNOW BASED ON THOSE COORDINATES IF IT'S A ONE HOUR OR THREE HOUR 15 MINUTES BOUGHT, AND A TIMER WILL SCAN THAT PLATE IN THE SAME SPOT AND WILL KNOW THE VIOLATIONS ARE MET.

PLUS, HAVING THESE PART-TIME PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE AREA, WE WILL BE ABLE TO DIVE DEEPER INTO SOME OF THE STOPPING AND STANDING PARKING ISSUES THAT WE HAVE GOT TO.

PULLING ONTO THE MULTIUSE PATH. WHATEVER THE CASE WILL BE.

THOSE TYPES OF LIFESTYLE SITUATIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH THE DAILY PUBLIC. THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE LOOKING TO ADDRESS BY HAVING DEDICATED RESOURCES DOWNTOWN TO LOOK AT

PARKING ON A REGULAR BASIS. >> PRIOR TO THIS, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON MULTIUSE PATH INFRACTIONS.

I THINK THEY ARE PRETTY HEAVY. HOW DOES ONE DIFFERENTIATE-- DO WE JUST GO WITH THE STRONGER PENALTY? CAN THEY DOUBLE-TEAM THEM? WHAT IS THE...

[01:00:01]

>> THOSE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS FOR THE MULTIUSE PATH THAT YOU WOULD NOT USE THIS TOOL FOR THAT. BECAUSE IF WE SEE IT AND IT'S ON THE PATH WE TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION IMMEDIATELY.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PINPOINT.

AND WE JUST CANNOT DO IT RIGHT NOW WITHOUT SITTING AN OFFICER BEHIND THE CAR FOR THREE HOURS. ONCE WE CAN GET THE POWER FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PERMIT FOR THE MULTIUSE PATH VIOLATIONS. AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THESE OFFICERS ON DISTRICT PATROL KEEP AN EYE ON.

THIS WILL BE MORE TARGETED TOWARD THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT REALLY NEED THAT TURNOVER OF THE THREE HOUR SPOTS TO EFFECTIVELY RUN THEIR BUSINESSES AND GET PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND ENJOY WHAT WE HAVE TO OFFER.

>> THE ITEM THAT SENDS THIS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS LINE 59. EXCLUDING TICKETS UNDER 8-50 THAT SHE'LL BE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL

CITY COURT. >> THANK YOU.

MATT, SORRY. COUNSELOR TAYLOR.

-- COUNCILOR SCHMIDT A. I DID RECEIVE A COUPLE EMAILS ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. AND IT WAS RESPONDED TO.

I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION, OR SHARED WITH YOU

OFF-LINE, PROBABLY? >> IF IT'S RELEVANT TO THE

PUBLIC. >> IT'S RELEVANT.

>> BUT THOSE QUESTIONS WERE MORE REGARDING THE FLOCK CAMERA SYSTEMS WE ARE USING. A SEPARATE ISSUE THAN THE LDR'S WHICH USES SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY. I THINK THE CORE OF THE QUESTIONS IS IN ORDER TO GET THE TIMING AND PLACE FOR THE BOND REFUNDING WE HAD TO HOLD A COMMITTEE MEETING THE SAME EVENING THAT LAND USE WAS ALSO MEETING.

SO-- I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE START FROM THE BEGINNING JUST TO REHASH WHERE DID THIS DERIVE FROM? IT DERIVED FROM THE PARKING STUDY.

HOW YOU GUYS WENT ABOUT IT. THE SYSTEM YOU ARE GOING TO USE, AND THE FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF IT.

WHICH IS DRIVING WHY THIS ORDINANCE NEEDS TO ALLOW THE CLERK TO DESIGNATE OTHER PEOPLE FOR THIS MATTER.

>> AND TO ADD TO THIS, ONE OTHER GREAT POSITIVE, HOW DO YOU FORESEE THIS UNROLLING IN A LARGER WAY, AND ONE THINGS-- A LOT OF US HAVE SATIN PEOPLE'S LIVING ROOMS THAT LIVE IN THE URBAN CORE AND HOLD A NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING PERMIT.

AND HOW THAT MIGHT EXPAND, HOW THEY APPLIED, WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES, THAT TYPE OF THING IN THE COST RECOVERY.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGER QUESTIONS.

THERE WAS A NUMBER THROWN OUT THAT WAS WELL, OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGHER THAN ANYTHING THE CITY IS EVER COLLECTED BEFORE.

AND I WANT TO HELP RECONCILE THAT.

>> SURE. THIS STARTED AT THE BARE-BONES LEVEL, WHEN WE WERE LISTENING TO YOU GUYS REACH OUT NOT TO US, BUT YOUR CONSTITUENTS, WITH CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE OVERSTAYING IN THE TIMED PARKING AREAS DOWNTOWN IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESSES IN MULTIUSE AREAS. AND SOME AREAS AROUND THE HIGH SCHOOL WHERE IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ONE OR TWO OFFICERS TO ENFORCE A FIVE OR 600 CAR PROBLEM ON PICKUPS AND DROP-OFFS. WE GOT THAT ORDINANCE PASSED.

OUT THERE AND DO ENFORCEMENT. IT IS DIFFICULT TO DO IT ON THE SCALE THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT WHAT TYPES OF OPTIONS WERE OUT THERE.

WORKING WITH ENGINEERING, ONCE WE FINALLY GOT THE PARKING STUDY BACK IT WAS ACTUALLY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKING STUDY TO LOOK AT AN LPR ENFORCEMENT TYPE OF SYSTEM.

WHICH WAS THE DIRECTION WE WERE LEADING ANYWAY.

WE LOOKED AT SOME AI BASED THINGS.

AND THE WAY OUR DOWNTOWN WAS BUILT WITH THE TREE CANOPIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE FIBRES AND OUR DOWNTOWN. SOME OF THE I.T. FOLKS, AND IT JUST WAS NOT A FEASIBLE OPTION TO ADD MORE TO THE PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO WE HAD A LOOK AT SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES. WE FOUND THIS LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM. IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE INDUSTRY STANDARD. IT'S USE JUST ABOUT EVERYWHERE WHERE PARKING ENFORCEMENT IS TAKING PLACE.

I KNOW INDIANA UNIVERSITY, ON THEIR CAMPUS THEY USE LPR, ALSO SOME OF THE OTHER TECHNIQUES I DISCUSSED.

BUT THIS IS AN EFFICIENT WAY TO DO IT.

SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT OPTIONS, VERSUS US RUNNING IT IN-HOUSE, OR CONTRACTING IT OUT. SO WE LOOKED AT KIND OF THE DENISON PARKING MODEL. WHAT THEY WOULD USE IN OTHER AREAS. THEY HAVE OUTSOURCE THE ENTIRE

[01:05:02]

OPERATION. THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS GOING TO FIT FOR US. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE THIS AS A EDUCATIONAL TOOL, AS WELL AS BE ABLE TO OFFSET OUR COSTS BY GENERATING WHATEVER THE TICKET REVENUE WOULD BE.

I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT INCREASING FINDS.

I'VE BEEN HERE 17 YEARS AND THE FINE HAS BEEN $25 SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE. I THINK IT'S TIME WE LOOK AT INCREASING THAT. AND THIS WOULD BE THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT AS WELL. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS WILL DO IS WE WILL-- WE HAVE BEEN HOLDING INTERVIEWS, WE HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST RICKOVER 105 APPLICANTS FOR TWO PART-TIME PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT TRYING TO GET THEM UP TO 28 HOURS PER WEEK.

AND I AM GOING TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND WORK OUT SCHEDULING BASED ON AVAILABILITY. OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT TIMES MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. WHENEVER BUSINESSES ARE THRIVING FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. 9:00 P.M.

WE WILL BE TRYING TO STAGGER THOSE HOURS TO GET AS MUCH COVERAGE AS WE CAN TO PART-TIME FOLKS.

WE HAVE A VEHICLE IDENTIFIED THAT'S IN OUR FLEET THAT WE ARE GOING TO REPURPOSE FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

SO THE CAMERAS WILL MOUNT TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE.

IT WILL BE MARKED LIKE OUR COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS.

THEY HAVE THEIR COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER PATCH ON THE SIDE, AND IT WILL SAY SOMETHING TO THE TUNA PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

WE HAVEN'T GONE THAT FAR INTO THE DETAILS YET, BUT IT WILL BE A HYBRID FORD EXPLORER. WE ALREADY HAVE OUR FLEETS.

THAT WILL BE A SHARED VEHICLE BETWEEN THE TWO PART-TIME PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THE GOAL HERE IS TO NOT HAVE THEM WORKING AT THE SAME TIME SO WE CAN MAXIMIZE COVERAGE.

WE ARE ALSO GETTING PART OF T THIS-- THE SUITE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THREE HANDHELD LPR UNITS AS WELL.

SO IT IS A NICE DAY. WHAT MY MODEL WOULD BE IS GOING OUT AND WALKING, COMMUNICATING WITH BUSINESS OWNERS, TALK TO THEM. WHAT ARE THEY SEEING.

WHERE THE PROBLEM AREAS. BE INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY.

FROM THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT BACK END EDUCATION.

WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TRYING TO DO WITH THIS IS TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR. LIKE I SAID, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME AND SPEND TIME DOWNTOWN.

IT'S HARD TO DO WHEN IT'S HARD TO FIND A PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF YOUR FAVORITE RESTAURANT BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS BEEN THERE ALL DAY. THIS WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. THE HANDHELD UNITS, WE WILL TALK TO THE CAR UNITS. FOR INSTANCE, IF WE HAVE A SLOW DAY AND AN OFFICER WANTS TO GO WHEN WALKED THE GEORGE DISTRICT, THAT'S OUR DOWNTOWN AREA AND WE HAVE DEDICATED RESOURCES DOWN THERE. THEY COULD TAKE A HANDHELD UNIT AND SCANNED THE LICENSE PLATE. THOSE WILL TALK TO EACH OTHER, THE IN CAR SYSTEM AND THE HANDHELD SYSTEM RUNS THE SAME SOFTWARE OFF OF AN ANDROID TABLET.

AND ONCE, IN THE CAR, OR IN THE VEHICLE, EVERYTHING IS DONE ELECTRONICALLY. IF A VIOLATION IS OBSERVED, THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WILL GET A NOTIFICATION ON THE COMPUTER THAT THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN HERE 44 HOURS-- FOR FOUR HOURS, AND YOU CAN TAKE ENFORCEMENT HOURS-- ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS.

AND THAT'S UP TO THE OFFICER'S DISCRETION.

IF THEY FEEL LIKE A WARNING IS NECESSITATED, GREAT.

IF THEY FEEL LIKE A TICKET IS NEEDED, THEY CAN PRINT UP A TICKET RIGHT THERE. LEAVE A COPY ON THE VEHICLE'S WINDSHIELD. THEN WHEN THE SPECIFIC PORTION COMES INTO PLAY, THIS ACCOUNT, THE MAIN REASON WHY WE LOOKED AT THIS SYSTEM IS THE SOFTWARE SIDE OF IT.

BECAUSE THEY HANDLE-- THEY, PASSPORT, THE COMPANY WHERE ASKING FOR APPROVAL TO MAKE AN AUTHORIZED ACCOUNT, PASSPORT HANDLES ALL THE PAYMENT PROCESSING ON THEIR END.

SO IT MINIMIZES THE MANPOWER INVOLVEMENT FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND IT STREAMLINES THE PROCESS TREMENDOUSLY.

SO, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WHEN SOMEBODY GETS A TICKET THEY CAN SCAN A QR CODE THAT WILL TAKE THEM TO PASSPORTS WEBSITE. PASSPORT GETS THE MONEY.

AND THEN WE DECIDED ON A MONTHLY BASIS TO GET PAYMENT REMITTED FROM PASSPORT, MINUS WHATEVER FEES WE WOULD OWE THEM.

SO THEY WOULD TAKE THE FEES THAT WE OWE THEM AND IT'S GOING TO VARY BY MONTH, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE VIOLATION BOAT LOOKS LIKE.

BUT THEY WOULD TAKE THEIR FEES OUT OF WHATEVER GENERATED REVENUE COMES IN AND THEN HE WOULD-- WOULD REMIT THE DIFFERENCE TO US. IF IT'S POSITIVE, OR IF WE STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR USING THEIR SERVICES AND WE DID NOT HAVE A BUNCH OF TICKETS THAT MONTH, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT PAYING THE DIFFERENCE OF WHATEVER THE SURFACE-- SERVICE COST WOULD BE. SO THEY CAN ADMIT THE VIOLATION, OR THEY CAN CHOOSE TO DENY THE VIOLATION.

THAT IS THE CASE-- IF THAT IS THE CASE, ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT END WE WILL EVENTUALLY EXPLAIN THIS AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE WILL THEN TRIGGER THAT INTO OUR E TICKET SYSTEM THAT ALL THE POLICE OFFICERS USE THAT THEN GOES IN TO THE COURT SYSTEM.

[01:10:02]

SO RIGHT NOW IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE THE WAY IT IS SET UP WITH PASSPORT. ADMINISTRATIVE FINE WOULD THEN GO TO PASSPORT AND THEN THEY WOULD GIVE US THE MONEY BACK.

ONCE THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE IT ADJUDICATED, IF THEY WANT TO SEE THE JUDGE AND HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT, WHICH IS FINE, WE ARE GOING TO GENERATE THAT TICKET INTO EACH TICKET, WHICH IS GOING TO GENERATE IT INTO THE CORE SYSTEM.

THAN THAT WILL GIVE THEM A COURT DATE BUT IT WILL INCUR COURT COST BECAUSE-- SO WE WILL HAVE NOTIFICATION ON AND WORK TOGETHER ON WHAT THE PACKETS NOTIFY IN THE TRIFOLD.

WITH INFORMATION ON WHERE THEY CAN PAY AND HOW THEY CAN PAY, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY, WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE.

AND FROM THAT POINT, IT WILL GENERATE IN TO THE COURT SYSTEM AND GIVE THEM A COURT DATE AND THEY CAN GO TO COURT LIKE THEY WOULD ON ANY OTHER SPEEDING TICKET OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAYBE. AND BE EDUCATED AND-- HAVE THAT ADJUDICATED IN FRONT OF A JUDGE. THAT'S KIND OF THE 30-- 30,000-POINT VIEW OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE AND HOW WE GOT TO

THIS POINT. >> SO I SUPPORT PARKING ENFORCEMENT, ABSOLUTELY. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION.

I PARKED AT A SPOT, IT'S A THREE HOUR SPOT.

I DON'T PARK MORE THAN THREE HOURS.

I DON'T COMMIT A PARKING VIOLATION.

MY LICENSE PLATE IS BEING SCANNED.

WHERE IS THAT DATA GOING? >> IT STAYS WITHIN THE PASSPORT SYSTEM. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT GOES TO A CLOUD OR ANYTHING. IT KEEPS THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE SOFTWARE TO BE CHECKED AGAINST ALL THE CURRENT SCANS.

>> HOW LONG IS THAT DATA THERE? >> I DO NOT KNOW.

>> SO THERE IS DATA OF WHERE I GO.

AND WHERE I HAVE BEEN IF I HAVE COMMITTED A PARKING VIOLATION.

AND SOMEONE CAN ACCESS THAT FOR OTHER POLICE RESOURCES.

YOU'RE DOING AN INVESTIGATION AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE SOMEBODY VISITED FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.

IS NOT ACCESSIBLE? >> IN MY UNDERSTANDING WE CAN USE THAT INFORMATION WITHIN THE FLOCK.

THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE FLOCK INFORMATION.

BECAUSE THAT SHARED AMONGST ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATE IN FLOCK. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS HELD WITHIN OUR SYSTEM AND OUR ACCOUNT AND IT'S CHECKED AGAINST EACH OTHER EVERY TIME THE PLATES ARE RAN BASED ON THE LOCATION. SO WITH THE CANNON IT WOULD BE USED FOR MORE THAN JUST PARKING ENFORCEMENT.

>> IF WE WERE SCANNING PLATES-- >> THERE IS A BAR FIGHT BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE. SOMEONE SAYS I WAS NOT AT THAT BAR, YOU COULD SAY, WELL, WE CAN SEE THAT YOU WERE THERE?

BECAUSE OF THE PARKING PICTURE. >> YES.

AND IT TAKES A PICTURE OF THE LICENSE PLATE AS WELL.

IT TAKES A PICTURE OF THE CAR FROM THE-- CAMERAS ARE MOUNTED USUALLY ON THE TOP CORNERS OF THE VEHICLE.

ON THE FRONT JUST TO GET MULTIPLE DIFFERENT VEHICLES ACCESS. BUT THIS ALL HAS TO BE DOUBLE CHECKED BY A HUMAN BEFORE THE TICKET IS WRITTEN.

WHENEVER THE VIOLATION COMES UP, OUR A PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WILL BE LOOKING AT THE FIRST AND SECOND SCAN TO VERIFY THE PLATES ARE CORRECT ENDED SEE VEHICLE IN THE SAME SPOT BEFORE

ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKES PLACE. >> THIS DATA CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY CARMEL POLICE OFFICERS?

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS DATA WOULD BE HELD WITHIN THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT, PASSPORT.

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. I FORGOT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT PERMITTING. FOR MERCHANT PARKING, FOR INSTANCE, THAT ESSAY YOU ARE-- LET US SAY, YOU ARE DOWNTOWN AND YOU HAVE SIX EMPLOYEES AND YOU WANT THEM TO PARK IN MERCHANT PARKING SPOTS, NOW YOU WOULD HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM YOUR COMPANY COME FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GET ALL THE DOCUMENTATION, SAYING THIS PERSON WORKS FOR YOU, THAT THIS IS THE VEHICLE THAT YOU WANT AND THEN WE CAN GIVE YOU SOME HANG TIME. THE WAY THIS WOULD WORK AS IDENTIFY AN AGENT FROM YOUR OWN COMPANY, GET AN ACCOUNT ON PASSPORT. THEN WE WOULD BE THE OVERSEEING BODY OF THAT. SO YOU GO ONLINE, YOU HAVE ALL THE PLATES OF THE VEHICLES THAT YOU WANT REGISTERED, THAT COMES TO US. YOU CAN UPLOAD A PHOTO OF THE REGISTRATION. WE VERIFY THAT THAT IS THE REGISTRATION FOR THAT CAR. AND NOW WE APPROVE THE PLATES AS MERCHANTS THAT ARE APPROVED TO BE PARKING IN RELATION TO YOUR COMPANY, AND NOW YOUR LICENSE PLATE IS YOUR PERMIT.

WHATEVER THE CARS OR HANDHELDS ARE GOING AROUND, IF YOUR VEHICLE IS SCANNED IN ONE OF THOSE MERCHANT PARKING AREAS, AND YOU ARE AN AUTHORIZED MERCHANT PARKER BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU MET, AND AUTHORIZED, THEN YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM THOSE TIME LIMITS AND THOSE CERTAIN SPOTS.

SAME THING GOES WITH RESIDENTIAL PARKING.

THE RESIDENT WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE AN ACCOUNT ON PASSPORT TO UPLOAD THEIR PHOTOS OF THEIR REGISTRATION, AND THEIR VEHICLES, SO WE GET THE RECORDS DEPARTMENT.

[01:15:02]

OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE CONFIRM YESES-- THIS IS YOUR VEHICLE. IT BELONGS TO YOU, IT'S REGISTERED TO YOU. IT'S REGISTERED TO YOUR HOUSE.

YOUR LICENSE PLATE THEN BECOMES YOUR PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING. SAME THING GOES WITH VISITOR PARKING. SO IF YOU HAVE VISITORS THAT COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND YOU NEED THREE PARKING PERMITS, YOU CAN SUBMIT THAT INFORMATION AND GET THE AUTHORIZED VISITOR PERMITS FOR THE DESIGNATED TIME PER ORDINANCE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THAT WOULD BE, BUT YOUR DESIGNATED FOR THAT CERTAIN TIME LIMIT ON THAT VEHICLE.

>> IS THIS OPEN TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST?

>> I DO NOT KNOW. BENJAMIN WOULD.

>> TWO YOU KNOW? >> I'M NOT SURE.

>> SAY SOMEBODY SAYS WHO HAS BEEN AT SO-AND-SO'S HOUSE? CANNOT GET A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST TO FINDOUT WHO HAS BEEN

PARKING CLOSE TO THOSE THINGS? >> OF THIS DATABASE WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY THEN IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THAT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN-- THERE ARE SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS FOR PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR WHAT CAN BE RELEASED.

SO THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED BY OUR OFFICE.

WE HAVE A DESIGNATED ATTORNEY THAT DOES ALL THOSE REQUESTS.

BUT IF IT IS MAINTAINED BY CITY THEN IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO

THAT. >> SOME BUT-- SOMEONE COULD REQUEST ALL THE INFO FOR WHERE THAT PERSON HAS BEEN.

>> AGAIN, IT HAS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC, THE REQUEST.

AND A PERSON WOULD ALREADY HAVE TO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION TO NARROW IT DOWN FOR US TO RESPOND TO IT.

IT HAS TO BE REASONABLY PARTICULAR.

THAT IS THE STANDARD. >> I THINK ONE DISCUSSION WE HAD AT FINANCE COMMITTEE WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT AND THE REASON WHY YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE RECOMMENDED KEEPING THE SAME HOUSE VERSUS HIRING A DENNISON OR THIRD PARTY REQUIRED TO DO THE TICKETING IS BECAUSE THE GOAL OF THIS IS NOT TO CREATE A WINDFALL OF PARKING VIOLATION REVENUE, THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO CHANGE BEHAVIORS SO AS THE STUDY POINTED OUT THAT WE HAVE A PROPER TURN ON OUR ON STREET PARKING AND WE CHANGE BEHAVIOR TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.

AND ALSO TO CREATE EFFICIENCIES FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT, IF WE PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES RESIDENTIAL PERMIT ON THIS PARKING STREET, THOSE PEOPLE NOW HAVE TO COME TO THE CARMEL PD PUBLIC RECORDS, CEMENT ALL THIS STUFF IN PERSON, WAIT A PERIOD OF TIME AND GET A PERMIT ISSUED TO THEM. NOW THIS IS SO MUCH EASIER FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR BUSINESSES IN OUR CENTRAL CORE TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE PERMIT, APPLY FOR IT ONLINE.

GET IT IN PLACE AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE STICKER OR TAG THEY HAVE ON THEIR CAR OR THEIR LICENSE PLATE.

AND WE DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT LAW AND PRIVACY.

YOU CANNOT ENTER IN-- ENTER IN THE CITY OF CARMEL WITHOUT YOUR LICENSE PLATE BEING READ BY A FLOCK CAMERA.

THAT'S A STANDARD PRACTICE. THESE LPR'S ARE USED ALL OVER CENTRAL INDIANA. IT'S JUST WE WANT TO DO IT THE CARMEL WAY VERSUS THE DENIZEN OR OTHER WAY THAT HAS DRIVEN IT AS MONEY AS A MOTIVATING FACTOR. OUR MOTIVATING FACTORS CHANGE BEHAVIORS-- ARE FOR CHANGE BEHAVIORS, NOT STREAM OF

REVENUE. >> YES.

>> AND I WOULD'VE HAD FINANCE TO ASK THIS QUESTION, BUT I DIDN'T THINK OF IT TILL TONIGHT. THE FIRST, THE VIOLATIONS BUREAU, THIS MIGHT BE A LEGAL QUESTION, BUT IT'S A BROAD EXPANSION OF THE ABILITY TO DESIGNATE FOR ALL THE PURPOSES OF THAT BUREAU TO THIRD PARTIES, AND I WOULD LOVE TO DIG IN AND ENSURE WHAT I UNDERSTAND WHEN WE SAY-- IT'S A BROAD CATEGORY, REALLY ANYTHING. BASED ON THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR SET UP FOR BOTH SIDES. ONE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY. ON THE SECOND IS THE FINANCIAL SIDE WHERE THEY ARE COLLECTING THE PAYMENTS.

AND THAT'S THE CORK SIDE TO ME. I'M WONDERING IF WE LOOK AT THE CONTRACT, THINKING ABOUT IT, I WOULD LOVE TO LOOK AT THAT LANGUAGE AS WE GET IT PERFECTED AND SHARE IT.

[01:20:02]

IS THIS A DUAL CONTRACT FOR THE CLERK WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY DERIVED BY STATE LAW UNDER THE CODE, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S BEING TRANSFERRED TO POLICE AND THEN FOLLOWS THAT AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S A BROAD EXPANSION FOR ALL THE PURPOSES OF THAT VIOLATIONS BUREAU? SHOULD WE NARROW IT TO THE PURPOSES OF JUSTICE PARKING ENFORCEMENT THIS TIME? OR ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THE IMPACT WE WILL HAVE ABOUT ALL THE OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT ARE

IMPACTED UNDER THAT SCOPE? >> IT'S UP TO YOU AT THIS POINT.

WHETHER AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND IT BEYOND THE PURPOSES IS...

THE DESIGNEE WOULD BE THE POLICE OFFICER WHO IS ENFORCING IT.

I WILL MAKE SURE TO REVIEW THE CONTRACT THAT'S IN FRONT OF ME.

BUT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALIGNED WITH THE CLERK, AS YOU INDICATED. COUNCILOR OVB.

IT'S NOT DUE TILL WEDNESDAY. AT THIS BODY PASSES THE ORDINANCE, OR IF YOU DECIDE TO TABLE IT OR SEND IT TO

COMMITTEE. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR THIS ORDINANCE.

BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. IT WILL EXPAND IT FOR OTHER PURPOSES AS WELL. IT'S AN OPEN-ENDED DESIGNATION TO THE PRIVATE CLERK TO ENFORCE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS.

TO DESIGNATE THIRD PARTIES. I SHOULD SAY.

>> I'M NOT OFFERING OPINIONS, I'M JUST REPEATING SOME QUESTIONS. THE THING ABOUT THIS AND WHY THERE IS SO MUCH DELIBERATION HERE, IS A KIND OF DICTATES THE PATH WE ARE GOING TO GO. WILL IT BE THIS VERY EFFICIENT WAY WHICH SOME PEOPLE THINK IS A SLAM-DUNK, AND OTHERS THINK THIS IS JUST A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY. LIKE THE FLOCK SYSTEM.

YOU JUST GO THROUGH COMING IN TO CARMEL.

BUT NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL, TO THE COUNCILOR POINT, BUILDING A CASE AGAINST SOMEBODY BEFORE THEY'VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG. SOMEBODY COULD DO SOMETHING, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE A PREBUILT CASE OF EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. INTO ME THAT IS GUILTY BEFORE BEING PROVEN INNOCENT. AND WHEN READING, DOES ANYTHING ELSE TRIGGER IF YOU HAVE A WARRANT? NOTHING. SO PEOPLE WHO HAVE A SUSPENDED LICENSE, I'M NOT CONDONING THIS, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE. IT'S PURELY PARKING.

>> SO THESE PART-TIME PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE POLICE OFFICERS. THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR A LICENSE PLATE.

THIS IS PURELY TAKING A PICTURE OF A LICENSE PLATE AND STORING THAT LICENSE PLATE IS A PICTURE, AS A NUMBER, AND CHECKING IT AGAINST THE OTHER LICENCE PLATES THAT HAVE COME IN TO SEE IF THERE IS A MATCH IN THAT SAME LOCATION.

THIS IS NOT ANYTHING LIKE FLOCK. THINK OF IT LIKE A PHOTOGRAPH.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THESE OFFICERS ARE NOT-- I SAY OFFICERS, I USE THE TERM LOOSELY.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY POLICE POWER.

THEY WILL NOT HAVE ANY SPECIAL POLICE OFFICERS LIKE OUR CURRENT-- OUR CURRENT FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICERS.

THEY WILL STRICTLY BE ENFORCING IT BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT THEY HAVE SEEN, THE PLATE, WHERE IT WAS SCANNED.

THIS DOES NOT TRIGGER ANY SUSPENDED LICENSE HITS, IT DOESN'T RUN ANYTHING ON THE BACK END, ASIDE FROM WHAT THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER IS AND CHECKING IT ON OUR OWN CURRENT SCANS OF

RECENT PLATES. >> STRICTLY FOR ENFORCEMENT, I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE ARE REVAMPING THE DISTRICT BETWEEN THIS. I WANT TO KNOW HOW LONG IT IS.

>> AND I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

BEFORE YOU EVEN MOVE ON, TO MATCH POINT, WHEN IT READS THE LICENSE PLATE, DOES A LICENSE PLATE COME UP AND SAY THIS IS

JOHN SMITH THAT-- >> NO.

>> SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT ALL IT IS IS A PICTURE COMPARED

TO A PICTURE IN A TIME FRAME. >> CORRECT.

>> SO THERE IS NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT THE TICKET IS ACTUALLY. WHAT?

THAT'S THE QUESTION? >> IF IT'S A VIOLATION, PART OF

[01:25:08]

WHAT WE USE PASSPORT FOR, AS THEY WILL DO THE BACK END DRIVER'S LICENSE LOOK UP. JUST THE LICENSE PLATE AND TO THE REGISTERED OWNER. HE TICKET WILL BE ISSUED TO THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE VEHICLE. THERE WILL BE SITUATIONS WHERE YOUR KID IS DRIVING THE CAR, AND WHENEVER WE GET THESE TICKETS, THEY WILL GO TO-- COME ACROSS THE STREET AND THEY WILL DEAL WITH THOSE TICKETS. THEY WILL HAVE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON THAT, AND WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION ON OUR END, TO COUNCILOR TYERS POINT, SOMETHING WE ARE INTERESTED IN DOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE OUR HANDS ON THIS TO DO IT THE CARAMEL WAY, NOT THE PREDATORY PARKING, TRYING TO GENERATE REVENUE. WE ARE TRYING TO DO THIS WITH OUR CITIZENS IN MIND AND OUR BUSINESS OWNERS IN MIND.

TRYING TO TURN OVER THOSE SPOTS. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO BE PREDATORY ABOUT THIS. WE ARE TRYING TO JUST ANSWER THE CALLS FOR HELP ON HOW WE CAN EFFICIENTLY DO THIS.

>> IF I COULD PULL UP ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT DATA, TO GIVE YOU A BIT OF BACKGROUND, WE HAVE UPDATED OUR DATA PROTECTION CYBERSECURITY ADDENDUM A COUPLE YEARS AGO AT THIS POINT.

WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE I.T. DEPARTMENT, AND WE ARE STILL MEETING EVERY OTHER WEEK WITH THE I.T. DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STAYING STATE-OF-THE-ART WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PROTECTION.

AND INCLUDING AND THAT ADDENDUM THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON HOW THE DATA IS COLLECTED FROM THE CITY, AS IT'S BEING USED.

SO THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON COMMERCIAL USE OF THAT DATA, LIMITATIONS ON HOW YOU CAN STORE IT.

WHAT'S CONSIDERED IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.

HOW THAT IS TO BE STORED AND SHARED.

IT'S QUITE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF THINGS.

AND IT INCREASES THE CONTRACT BY 25%.

>> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS WHAT IS THE PERMITTING STRUCTURE FOR OUR RESIDENTS? DO THEY PAY FOR PERMITS?

HOW DOES THAT WORK? >> ALL OF OUR PERMITTING-- THEY JUST HAVE TO COME TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO OUR RECORDS WINDOW AND PROVIDE OUR REGISTRATION-- THEIR REGISTRATION.

WE PROVIDE THE PLATE ON THE VEHICLE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO REGISTER IS REGISTERED TO THEM. AND THEN WE ISSUE THEIR PERMIT RIGHT THERE. IT'S GOING TO ILLUMINATE SOME OF THAT COST AS WELL AS HAVING THOSE BAIT EVERY YEAR, WHENEVER WE CAN UTILIZE LICENCE PLATES TO HAVE TO MAKE DIFFERENT COLORS AND TAGS AND STICKERS ON THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> THERE MAYBE SOME EFFICIENCIES IN THAT SYSTEM.

THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS IS I RECOGNIZE THAT WERE NOT TRAINED TO PUNISH RESIDENTS THAT THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO TRY TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR. HOWEVER THERE IS A COST TO DOING THIS, WITH PART-TIME OFFICERS AND HANDHELD DEVICES, THE VEHICLE THAT YOU WILL BE USING, THE SOFTWARE ITSELF AND MONTHLY FEES THAT YOU HAVE TO SOMEHOW RECOVER.

SO I'M TRYING TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, WHAT WILL THOSE COSTS LOOK LIKE AND HOW WILL WE ENSURE THAT WE CAN CHANGE BEHAVIOR AND ABSORB THOSE COSTS EFFECTIVELY AND STILL NOT INCONVENIENCE OUR CITIZEN RATE?

>> SO WE REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE SCOPE OF THIS PROBLEM IS. BECAUSE WE'VE NOT HAD THE ABILITY TO EVER ENFORCE IT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT WE GET INTO IT THIS UNTIL WE GET INTO IT.

WE LISTEN TO OUR RESIDENTS AND WE KNOW IT'S A PROBLEM.

THEY'VE BEEN TELLING US FOR YEARS IT'S A PROBLEM.

WE WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL WE GET INTO IT.

IT'S A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT OUT OF THE GATE.

ONCE WE GET INTO YEAR TWO —-DASH, WHENEVER WE NEED TO SEE IS THIS WORKING OR NOT WORKING, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT, AND IF WE SEE THIS IS A BENEFIT GOING FORWARD WE CAN HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND REEVALUATE AT THAT POINT.

BUT THIS IS KIND OF THE GROUND ZERO TO GET IT STARTED SOMEWHERE. TO GET THE BALL ROLLING.

>> MR. PRESIDENT? I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE LISTENING AND THINKING BACK TO THE YEARS OF TROUBLE THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH

[01:30:05]

PARKING IN OUR DOWNTOWN, AS THE DOWNTOWN BECOMES MORE POPULAR.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT INCONVENIENCE OUR CITIZENS BECAUSE IT IS-- WHILE MAYBE NOT INTENTIONAL, THERE IS A PROCLIVITY TO SEEK CONVENIENCE, WHICH MAY INCONVENIENCE SOMEBODY ELSE. THE PARKING LOT NEAR INDIE COFFEE ROASTERS, OR THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THE HIGH SCHOOLS, OR THE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE DRY CLEANER.

AND RESTAURANT PICKUPS. SO I'M NOT FEARFUL OF INCONVENIENCING RESIDENTS. I ACTUALLY WANT TO TRY TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR EVERYONE IN OUR CORE.

BECAUSE I DO SEE THAT THERE IS LOT OF STRIFE GOING ON WITH PARKING. AND I THINK THERE ARE INCONSIDERATE PARKERS AS WELL. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING YOUR RESEARCH.

I JUST WANT TO ASK BOTH YOU, SERGEANT HASTIE, AND SERGE, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL POSITION, U.S. POLICE ENFORCEMENT, AND OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, ARE YOU BOTH COMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY THE DATA IS BEING MANAGED? ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THIS TOOL? DO YOU SEE ANY DOWNSIDE, ANY DANGER. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WORRIES YOU AND-- I AM ASKING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW IF THE GOOD OUTWEIGHS ANY POSSIBLE BAD.

WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON TO DO THIS IN MY OPINION.

SO COULD YOU JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WORRIES YOU? OR THAT YOU SEE AS A POSSIBLE PROBLEM FOR THIS PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE? REGARDING DATA?

>> REGARDING THE DATA, I AM NOT CONCERNED.

THE FLOCK DATA THAT WE ARE GATHERING EVERY DAY, WE ARE ALL TRAVELING THROUGHOUT THE STATE, IT'S MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAN REMOTELY CLOSE TO WHAT THIS IS-- THEY ARE GOING TO BE CAPABLE OF.

I'M NOT CONCERNED AT ALL WITH WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE COLLECTING, AND THE DATA WE WILL BE COLLECTING FOR THIS.

I'M NOT CONCERNED. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE, AND IT'S KIND OF THE GOAL OF THIS, IS IF WE COME BACK IN THREE YEARS AND WERE LIKE WE ARE NOT WRITING ANYMORE PARKING TICKETS.

SO WE CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR. SO NOW WHAT DOE THAT LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD. WE CAN TAKE A STEP BACK AND SAY, HEY,, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO KEEP INVESTED, OR SOMETHING WE CAN DOWNSIZE? WE HAVE THE PROBLEM UNDER CONTROL WITH SPOT ENFORCEMENT? WE COULD LOOK AT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE MOVING FORWARD? THAT IS KIND OF WHAT OUR GOAL IS. BUT I CAN SEE THIS BECOMING EFFECTIVE AND DOES NOT HAVE BEEN NEARLY AS MANY PARKING ISSUES AS WE'VE GOT BECAUSE WE CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR.

I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS. >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DO. BUT LET ME REINFORCE SOMETHING THAT SERGEANT HASTIE SAID AS WELL.

WE COLLECT AN ANONYMOUS AMOUNT OF DATA.

AS A CITY AND IN EVERY DEPARTMENT.

I AM ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT DATA PROTECTION, DATA SECURITY, OUTS USED AND STORED. HOW IT'S RETURNED TO US.

HOW IT IS DESTROYED. ET CETERA.

I WOULD BE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT DATA THAT'S COLLECTED FOR OUR HR DEPARTMENT. THERE IS LOTS OF PERSONAL INFORMATION THERE THAT IS STORED VERY SECURELY.

WE REVIEWED THOSE PROVISIONS INCREDIBLY CAREFULLY.

AND THESE PROVISIONS AS WELL. AS FAR AS MY CONCERN GOES, WITH THIS SPECIFIC ORDINANCE AND THE FIRST FUNDING CONTRACT, IT'S THE TYPE OF DATA THAT IS BEING COLLECTED, THE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT'S BEING COLLECTED, IT IS INCREDIBLY LOW.

RELATIVE TO OTHER CONTRACT AGENCIES THAT WE DEAL WITH, ET CETERA. SO DO I HAVE A CONCERN? I ALWAYS HAVE A CONCERN. IT'S KEN WE ELIMINATED THE RISK TO ZERO ABOUT THE DATA BRIDGE INCONSIDERATE-- FOR THE PARTICULAR AGENCY OR THIRD PARTY OR CONTRACT VENDOR? NO. THAT'S JUST THE PROOF OF IT-- TRUTH OF IT. BUT THAT IS MY LEASE CONCERNED

[01:35:01]

BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF DATA AND WHAT'S BEING COLLECTED.

>> SOUNDS LIKE MANAGED RISK. SO THANK YOU.

>> I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT. IN THREE YEARS WE COME BACK TO THIS AND WE ARE HAPPY. BUT WITH THE COMMENTS THAT JACK MADE I WANT TO SUPPORT HIM. BUT IN THREE YEARS I WOULD SAY THERE-- THAT IT'S NOT PARKING. THERE ARE ADD-ONS, SOUND ORDINANCE, OR TECHNOLOGY WHERE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE VEHICLE MOUNTED, AND THEY CAN PICK UP OTHER ITEMS WITH THE NOISE AND OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE BETTER COLLECTED THROUGH AN AUTOMATED PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT JACK WAS TRYING TO GET TO AS FAR AS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.

GC THAT BEING A FUTURE? >> I IMMERSED MYSELF INTO THIS.

THIS IS MY SPHERE, WHAT I DO. I GET EMAILS WEAKLY FROM PEOPLE TRYING TO SHOW US THEIR COOL NEW PRODUCTS.

AND THIS TECHNOLOGY IS RAPIDLY EVOLVING.

IT'S VERY NEW, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW IT WOULD FIT IN YET.

BUT EVEN FROM THE PARKING STUDY WE DID, THE BEST THING WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW IS THIS FORM OF ENFORCEMENT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE GOT THE PARKING STUDY TO TELL US, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS GOING TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT ROUTE FOR US MOVING FORWARD RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS GROWING. THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A NEED FOR IT. BUT ONE OF THE BEST THINGS ABOUT THAT IS WE DON'T HAVE PAID PARKING.

SO I'M A FAN OF THAT. I WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME HERE. BUT WE HAVE TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO MOVE ON AS WELL WHEN IT'S TIME TO DO SO.

I THINK THIS IS GOING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM AT LEAST IN THE SHORT TERM TO BE ABLE TO START TURNING THOSE SPOTS OVER.

AND IN THE FUTURE I'M EXCITED TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN STAY ON THE LEADING EDGE OF IT GOING FORWARD. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON. THERE IS SOME UNIQUE STUFF OUT THERE. WE ARE CURRENTLY GOING TO CONFERENCES AND TALKING TO LEADERS AND INDUSTRY ABOUT WHAT'S COMING. I'M EXCITED FOR WHAT THE FUTURE

BRINGS. >> AND IF YOU COULD, PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, HOW LONG DATA IS STORED BY PASSPORT.

AND AFTER THE DECISION IS MADE BY THIS, COUNSELOR TAYLOR, IF YOU COULD TAKE UP FEES IN YOUR COMMITTEE.

BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, A 25-DOLLAR TICKET.

I WILL PAY THAT FOR PREMIUM PARKING.

IT NEEDS TO REFLECT THE COMMUNITY.

>> ON THAT POINT I ELABORATED ON THIS AND THE OTHER COMMITTEE.

BUT TO BRING YOU UP TO SPEED I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE CITY OF CARMEL.

USUALLY IT'S COMPARED WITH THE BEST PLACES TO LIVE, SO I REACHED OUT TO A LOT OF THEIR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND AGENCIES ON HOW MUCH THEIR PARKING FINDS AND FEES AND STRUCTURES ARE. WE ARE INCREDIBLY LOW.

LESS THAN HALF OF THE SIX PLACES I LOOKED AT ARE TRYING TO WORK.

LESS THAN HALF OF THEIRS WORK. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO LOOK AT ADDRESSING THAT. BUT JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE-- A LITTLE CONFIDENCE THERE, WE NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE ON THIS AND NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO DO THAT.

>> WOULD YOU SHARE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS ARE IN THAT MEETING?

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> ANYMORE COMMENTS?

>> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT WAS AME AMENDED-- WE DID THAT? I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE

AMENDED ORDINANCE. >> SECOND.

>> DID YOU GET YOUR CONTRACT QUESTION?

>> CONGRATULATIONS, SERGEANT. >> SECOND READING.

[12.d. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2822-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds for the Purpose of Providing Funds to Refund Certain Outstanding General Obligation Bonds of the City and to Pay Incidental Expenses in Connection Therewith and on Account of the Issuance and Sale of the Bonds and Appropriating the Proceeds Derived from the Sale of Such Bonds; Sponsors: Councilors Taylor and Snyder. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

>> SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE DE282 TOW-26.

[01:40:06]

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS TO REFUND CERTAIN OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY AND TO PAY INCIDENTAL EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE BONDS AND APPROPRIATING THE PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; SPONSORS: COUNCILORS TAYLOR AND SNYDER.

COUNSELOR TAYLOR? >> THANK YOU.

A LOT OF THESE ITEMS ARE RELATED TO THE BOND REFUNDING.

SO WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO ZACH JACKSON, THE CITY CFO TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS AND HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.

NONE OF THESE ORDINANCES ARE RESOLUTIONS FOR AMENDED IN COMMITTEE. SO THEY ARE IS PRESENTED.

>> THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. ZACH JACKSON, CFO AND CITY COMPTROLLER FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL.

IS COUNCILMAN TAYLOR MENTIONED, THERE ARE FIVE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. ALL OF THE SAME PACKET.

YOU HAVE ONE ORDINANCE THAT AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS UP TO 12 MILLION, AND THEN FOUR RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF DIFFERENT BONDS. I HAVE SEVERAL FOLKS HERE WITH ME TONIGHT. IF WE WANT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS HERE. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFINANCE $157 MILLION OF DEBT AT LOWER INTEREST RATES. THE IDEA IS THAT IF WE ARE ABLE TO STRIKE WHILE THE-- BEFORE INTEREST RATES POTENTIALLY GO UP AGAIN, LOOKING AT OF TO 12.3 MILLION OF SAVINGS.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TRY TO TARGET AS MUCH OF IT MAKES SENSE TOWARDS FISCAL YEARS 27-28. REALLY THE IDEA OF LOWERING OUR OPERATING COST, WE WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH FOR THIS DEBT IN THOSE TWO YEARS TO HELP US GET THROUGH WHAT IS PUSHED ON TO US IN TERMS OF SCA ONE. OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS THAT I WAS MENTIONING, UP TO 4 MILLION PER YEAR, WE ARE ALSO REFINANCING OUR STORMWATER BONDS FROM 2016 AND 2020.

THAT IS EXPECTED TO SAVE ABOUT A HALF MILLION PER YEAR.

SO FAR THIS BUNDLE HAS BEEN THROUGH REDEVELOPED-- THEORY DEVELOP INTO AUTHORITY, THE REDEVELOP MUCH COMMISSION.

THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, AS THEY ARE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT. THEN WE ARE BACK HERE TONIGHT ON SECOND READING FOR THESE. COUNCILOR TAYLOR, YOU DID

MENTION-- >> THERE WAS ONE AMENDMENT WE-- WHERE WE STRUCK. CAN YOU EXPEND THAT ONLINE AND ITEM G, RESOLUTION, 55 —-DASH 18-2026 CREE.

>> I CAN HAVE SOMEONE COME UP AN ASSIST WITH THAT ONE.

>> GOOD EVENING, BRAD BINGHAM. AS ZACH MENTIONED PACKETS RESOLUTION G ON THE AGENDA. 0--- 05-18-22 A 6-01.

THERE WAS ONE SENTENCE IN ONE SECTION, I THINK IT WAS THE LAST SECTION. TWO.

THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION SET UPON THE ISSUES WAS THE REFUNDING BONDS. THE PLEDGE TO THAT LEASE WOULD TERMINATE. WE WANT TO GET RID OF THAT LANGUAGE BECAUE WE WANT TO KEEP THE PLEDGE IN PLACE TO THAT PARTICULAR FINANCING. SO LONG AS THE EXISTING LIT IS AROUND UNDER CURRENT LAW THROUGH JULY 2028.

>> DO YOU WANT TO MEANT THAT AMENDMENT? OR WAIT TILL WE GET TO THAT ITEM.

>> I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.

>> IF I CAN, ONE MORE COMMENT. COUNCILOR OVB, AT THE LAST MEETING YOU HAD MENTIONED BEING PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE OUR TRADE-OFFS HERE IN THIS SITUATION.

AND I WOULD SEE TO-- THE FIRST ONE I MENTIONED IS A LITTLE FACETIOUS. WE ARE TRADING THE ABILITY TO FINANCE AT A HIGHER INTEREST RATE LATER ON, AS WE LOOK AT THE ECONOMIC TRENDS, WE NOW HAVE A WINDOW TO REFINANCE THAT HAS NOT EXISTED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS.

IN THE NEAR FUTURE WE THINK THAT RATES ARE GOING TO GO UP, PROBABLY LATER THIS YEAR. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW LONG THEY STAY UP. WHAT WE ARE LOSING WOULD BE THE

[01:45:01]

ABILITY TO REFINANCE LATER IF RATES DO GO BELOW WHAT THEY ARE NOW IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS. BUT ANOTHER WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION WOULD BE I THINK WHERE WE HAVE DONE REFINANCING OR REFUNDING IN THE PAST, IT HAS USUALLY BEEN WHAT MORE CAN WE BUILD OR DO WITH THIS FREEDOM-- FEES FREED UP DOLLARS.

AND THAT'S NOT OUR INTENT. OUR INTENT IS TO LOWER OUR OPERATING COST, IF YOU WILL. WE WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH FOR THIS DEBT OVER THE REMAINING TEN YEARS COMPARED TO WHAT WE

ARE ON TRACK TO DO RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. I HAVE BEEN NOTICING SOME CHATTER ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND I'VE BEEN GETTING EMAILS FROM CONSTITUENTS THAT TALK ABOUT US KICKING THIS CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

AND PAYING OUT THE DEBT, AND I HAD A NICE CONVERSATION WITH HEIDI BAKER. AND I THINK THAT IT IS WORTH JUST A COUPLE MINUTES OF HEIDI, WERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT AND JUST HONE IN THAT WE ARE NOT KICKING THE CAN DOWN

THE ROAD HERE. >> TO THAT POINT, IF WE DON'T FIND-- REFINANCE THE DEBT, WHEN IS IT PAID OFF, IF WE DO, WHEN

IS IT PAID OFF. >> YES.

WE ARE LARGELY REFINANCING 2016 BONDS THAT WILL MATURE IN 2036.

WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE MATURITY DATES OF THOSE AT ALL.

WE WILL PATO SO FOUND THE SAME TIME FRAME.

IT WILL JUST NOT BE AS EXPENSIVE ALONG THE WAY.

THE 2020 STORMWATER BONDS TO REACH MATURITY A LITTLE EARLIER, I BELIEVE, AND WE ARE NOT EXTENDING THOSE, BUT I DON'T

REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> THOSE WILL REMAIN MATURING IN JANUARY 312033. BUT WE ARE GOING OUT TO THE MARKET WITH ONE BUTTON ISSUE. IF THERE ARE PIECES THAT MATURE BEFORE 2036, THEN THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MATURE IN THOSE PERIODS OF TIME. WE ARE NOT EXTENDING THE MATURITY DATE ON ANY EXISTING BONDS.

AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS WITH THIS KICKING OF THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, THAT IS TYPICALLY DISCUSSED WHEN YOU ARE MOVING PRINCIPAL TOWARDS THE BOND ISSUE.

AND WE ARE NOT DOING THAT IN THIS CASE.

WE ARE PAYING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF A BOND ISSUE. EVERY SINGLE YEAR THERE IS SAVINGS ON THE BOND ISSUE. SO IN 2027-2028 THERE IS FOUR TRAINING 5 MILLION BEING SAVED, AND THEREAFTER 1.3 MILLION.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR THAT'S BEING SAVED AND INTEREST COST.

SO WE ARE PUSHING PRINCIPAL BACK.

WE ARE BARELY RELEASING SOME WAS DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUNDS.

WE HAVE A BOND PREMIUM ALLOWING THE BOND ISSUE TO BE REDUCED.

THOSE MECHANICS ARE ALLOWING US TO HAVE MORE SAVINGS UPFRONT, INSTEAD OF SPREADING THAT SAVINGS ACROSS THE WHOLE BOND ISSUE. BUT THERE IS INTEREST SAVINGS EVERY SINGLE YEAR. 1.3 BILLION.

>> LET'S MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY, 143 FOR GENERAL FUND AND THE COST OF RUNNING THE CITY AGAIN NEXT YEAR, THAT'S $144 MILLION.

BUT NOW YOU HAVE YOUR $4 MILLION, DEPENDING ON THE MAYOR OF THE COUNCIL IT COULD BE USED TO HELP SEE A LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT FUND. OR OTHER THINGS.

IS NOT A LOGICAL WAY TO LOOK AT IT?

>> IT'S FREEING UP CAPITAL THAT SITTING IN ACCOUNTS RIGHT NOW.

THERE IS OVER 3.9 MILLION SITTING IN TWO SERVICE RESERVE FUNDS FOR THE STORMWATER BONDS THAT WE ARE REFUNDING.

THOSE ARE BOTH GOING TO BE RELEASED AND USED TO PAY OUT THIS BOND ISSUE. WHICH IS ALLOWING THE CITY TO REALIZE THOSE SAVINGS WHEN THEY ARE.

>> TO CLARIFY, WE ARE NOT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR THIS YEAR.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

THE PREMISE OF THAT IS TO BRING OUT MONEY THAT WE PAY TO THE DEBT. IT FREEZE IT UP BECAUSE WE ARE SAVING IT. HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SAVINGS, OR IS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE LOST REVENUE BASED ON SCA ONE HOLDING US BACK CLOSER TO WHERE WE WERE WITH THE ORIGINAL REVENUE FORECAST FROM THREE YEARS AGO OR EVER IT WAS.

I ASK THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO THE PREMISE OF WHY WE ARE REFUNDING NOW. BECAUSE WE ARE REDUCING OPPORTUNITY IF RATES FALL AND THINGS ARE DIRE, OR WE HAVE COOL

[01:50:01]

EXCEPTION PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE WE WANT TO PUT MONEY INTO TO REFINANCE AND FREE UP REVENUE IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

WITHOUT THE BROADER DISCUSSION OF NEED, OTHER THAN SAYING THAT FINANCES CHANGE AND WE ARE SET UP NOW TO HAVE LESS MONEY.

WE HAVE STRUGGLED, I THINK TO DO IT-- TO CUT, WERE DISCUSSED CUTTING. WE ARE FINDING WAYS TO MINIMIZE EXPENSES FOR THINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE WORTHWHILE IN A TIME OF POTENTIAL AUSTERITY DUE TO STATE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT 4,000,001 YEAR, 5 MILLION THE NEXT YEAR, I'D LOVE TO KNOW YOUR TAKE ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS PURELY TRYING TO MAKE UP REVENUE BY MINIMIZING EXPENSES BONDS TO PAY FOR THE THINGS THERE, AND IS THIS THE RIGHT TIME? OR ARE THERE OTHER DISCUSSIONS WE SHOULD BE HAVING BECAUSE THOSE RATES CHANGED, OR THINGS MOVED, THERE MAYBE A BETTER TIME IN THE FUTURE TO REFUND THESE BONDS.

WE CAN ONLY DO IT ONE TIME. THAT'S THE WAY THE MECHANISM IS SET UP SET UP. SO ARBITRATING NOW PRESENTLY FOR THE MOON SHOT OF POTENTIAL TO MAKE UP REVENUE THAT IS NOW LOST IN THE PIT-- IN POTENTIAL PERPETUITY, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE NEXT YEAR AS A MATTER OF COURSE, OR IS THIS TO REFER TO PUT MONEY INTO OUR RESERVE ACCOUNT SO WE CAN GET THROUGH THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS OF FINANCING A BETTER

WAY. >> I'M GOING TO LET HEIDI ANSWER THE IF NOT NOW SIDE OF THINGS. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT ONE

FIRST? >> AS FAR AS THE BOND MARKET GOES, NOBODY HAS A CRYSTAL BALL, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE HEADING. BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE WILL ENTAIL. WHERE WE ARE HEADED, WE KNOW THIS YEAR, AND WHAT OUR PRICING DIRECTOR IS TELLING US BASED ON THE MARKET TRENDS, ALL THE ECONOMIC DATA COMING OUT.

THE MUNICIPAL MARKET FOLLOWS THE FED FUTURES RATE VERY CLOSELY AND THAT'S PROJECTED TO GO UP IN TO THE END OF THIS YEAR AND IN TO THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR. SO WE DO KNOW THAT INTEREST RATES ARE GOING UP. WE DO HAVE A SWEET SPOT IN TIME TO GET IN TO THE MARKET NOW, IF THAT IS THE DESIRE OF YOUR COUNCIL. WE KNOW INTEREST RATES ARE GOING TO GO UP. THERE IS ONLY TEN YEARS LEFT ON THIS BOND ISSUE. HOW MUCH OF A BET DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COME DOWN MORE THAN WHAT THEY ARE RIGHT NOW IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY RIGHT

NOW TO SAVE THE CITY MILLIONS. >> SO IF WE FINANCE THIS NOW AND

IT CLOSES IN 90 DAYS. >> JULY.

>> JULY. SO IS THERE A-- WOULDN'T THERE BE SOME SAVINGS REALIZE THIS YEAR THEN?

>> IT'S PROBABLY BASED ON THE NEXT PAYMENT THAT WE WOULD DO.

>> I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN. IN THE HANDOUT IT SHOWS YOU THE ANNUAL SAVINGS EACH YEAR. FOR THE JANUARY 15TH TO 27TH PAYMENT WE ARE ANTICIPATING ABOUT 373,000 INTEREST SAVINGS ON THAT PAYMENT. AND YOU WILL REALIZE THE MAJORITY OF THE NEXT TWO PAYMENTS AFTER THAT WILL BE

25 MILLION. >> THE NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS IS BEING CREATED BY THE DEBT INTEREST RESERVE FUNDS TO PAY DOWN THE PRINCIPAL. AND THESE BONDS WERE ONLY CALLABLE UNTIL NOW. SO THIS WAS OUR FIRST

OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND WHEN WE GO OUT TO REFUND THIS BOND ISSUE, BECAUSE IT ONLY HAS A 10-YEAR TERM, THERE WILL BE NO OPPORTUNITIES TO CALL THE BONDS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO WE WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT ON NOT. BUT WHAT IS THE MARKET GOING TO DO IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS? KIND OF HARD TO TELL.

BUT WE KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. AND WE'VE HEARD THAT THEY MIGHT BUMP IT TWO TIMES BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THIS YEAR EVEN.

>> CAN YOU PRESENT THE PRESENT VALUES SAVINGS CALCULATION? THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING TO DISCUSS IS THE TAX INCREMENTAL FINDINGS IN THE BACK BONDS. IF YOU CAN PULL UP THAT SERIOUS.

>> THIS IS FOR THE NET VALUE SAVINGS IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER. IT'S ABOUT 12.3 MILLION RIGHT NOW. OUR GOAL IS TO BE BETWEEN EIGHT AND 12 DEPENDING ON WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE MARKET.

[01:55:01]

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SHOOTING FOR RIGHT NOW.

BUT I WOULD SAY WITH HOW WE ADVISE OUR CLIENTS AT THERE NEEDS TO BE 3% SAVINGS ON A DEAL TO EVEN CONSIDER DOING IT.

SO YOU ARE DEFINITELY ABOVE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR TRANSACTION.

>> THESE NEW-- SAVINGS ARE NET OF COST?

>> CORRECT. >> AND THE 2016 A BONDS, WHICH ARE THE ONES BACKED BY TO, CAN WE GO TO THAT SPECIFIC PAGE?

>> YOU WANT JUST THE SAVINGS? ALREADY WANT THE REVENUE?

>> YES, THAT ONE. >> LET ME GET THERE.

>> THESE BONDS, THE ALLOCATION AREA EXPIRES BEFORE THE BONDS RETIRED. SO THANKS TO PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION THEY ESTABLISH A REVENUE DEPOSIT AGREEMENT AND TO FUND FOR WHICH WOULD FUND THE LAST FEW YEARS OF PAYMENTS. THIS HELPS US.

THEY DID THE TIFF ANALYSIS EARLY ON AND SHOWED THAT EVEN WITH THE DECLINING AREA OF THE U.S. 31 CORRIDOR THAT THE REVENUE DEPOSIT AREA HAS SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS TO PAY THOSE REMAINING FEW

YEARS OF PAYMENTS. >> THE SHORTFALL IT COVERS ARE THESE TWO LAST YEAR. YOU CAN SEE THE SHORTFALL THERE.

>> IT HAS EIGHT PLUS MILLION IN IT NOW I BELIEVE.

>> SPECIAL RESERVE AT 8.8. AFTER MAKING ALL THESE PAYMENTS AT A .8. BUT THE CURRENT BALLOTS ON THE SPECIAL RESERVE, AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR WAS 7.1 MILLION. SO AFTER THIS USE PAYMENTS IT'S GOING TO BE 8.8. SO IT WOULD BE FULLY FUNDED ENOUGH TO COVER THOSE PAYMENTS RIGHT NOW.

>> RIGHT NOW. SO THE KEY IS HERE THAT YOU ARE REDUCING THIS DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT.

FOR THESE BONDS, WHICH MAKES THE BALANCE WE HAVE IN THE SPECIAL

RESERVE ACCOUNT EVEN SECURE? >> THE SPECIAL RESERVE IS FUNDED BY FIXED PAYMENTS. AND THAT CAN BE AMENDED AS NEEDED BY THE COUNCIL. BUT IT'S FULLY SUFFICIENT NOW TO

COVER THE SHORTFALL YEARS. >> SO THAT MAKES THAT GAP EVEN BIGGER. TO THE GOOD.

>> I WANT TO ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PRESENT VALUE WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT 7.83%. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID FOR SAVINGS. AFTER COST.

FOR MY PURPOSES, WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED COST IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THAT FORWARD OF ACTUALLY DOING THIS REFINANCE?

>> THERE ARE SEVERAL FEES AS YOU CAN IMAGINE-- SEVERAL FEES AND DOING A BOND ISSUE. ONE IS THE UNDERWRITERS, THEIR ROLE IS TO TAKE THIS DEAL AND FIND PURCHASERS FOR IT.

THERE WILL BE A FACE PERCENTAGE OF THE PAR AMOUNT OF THE BOND ISSUE. SO IT'S 4.25% OF THE AMOUNT, ABOUT $600,000. AND THERE IS A LINE ITEM FOR ALLOWANCE FOR ANOTHER 600,000. IT COVERS OUR FEE, THE BONDS AND COUNCIL FEE, UNDERWRITER COUNCIL FEE, RATING AGENCIES, WHICH WE ARE GOING TO THE RATE AGENCY THIS FRIDAY TO HAVE A CALL WITH THEM. PREPARATION FOR THAT.

THERE ARE ATTESTATION REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AS A PART OF THIS. PARITY REPORTS, VERIFICATION REPORTS. THAT IS SOMETHING OUR OFFICE TAKES CARE OF. THAT'S ABOUT 1.2.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF EVERYONE IS AMENABLE, IS ROLL THROUGH THESE-- I ASSUME IF SOME BUT HE HAS AN OBJECTION TO ONE THEY PROBABLY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO ALL OR VICE VERSA.

IF WE COULD GO THROUGH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE AMENDMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE AND KNOCK OUT THESE VOTES, BUT IF WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE?

>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. I WAS LOOKING AT THE GAPS BETWEEN GOING OUT TO MARKET FOR MAX OF 12 MILLION TOTAL FOR THE FIRST ORDINANCE, BUT THE OUTSTANDING PRINCIPLES ARE LESS

[02:00:02]

THAN THAT. SO THERE IS A GAP IN THAT 800,000 PLUS, IF YOU DO THE MATH.

SO THAT GAP, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT AS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET AT MARKET AND THE FEE STRUCTURE. BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO GO OUT FOR 12, BUT YOU ONLY REALLY NEED ASK PURCHASE FOR MY

UNDERSTANDING. >> THE NUMBERS THAT ARE IN THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS YOU ARE APPROVING OUR MAXIMUM PAR AMOUNT OF THE BOND ISSUE. THOSE ARE VERY HIGH NUMBERS COMPARED TO WHERE WE ACTUALLY GO OUT.

WE MAKE THEM HIGH JUST SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS. IF, FOR SOME REASON, THE PREMIUM COMES IN LESS THAN WE ANTICIPATE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE COVERED TO DO THAT BOND ISSUE.

THE 12 MILLION MACS PARAMOUNT IS RELATED TO THE GEO BOND ISSUE PORTION OF THE DEAL. SO WHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO ISSUE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF IT ALL IS 10.16 MILLION.

AND YOU ARE APPROVING 12. SO THERE IS A GAP THERE, BUT WE WON'T ISSUE THE 20 MILLION OR LESS THAN THAT.

>> YOU WILL COME IN WITH WHAT YOU NEED TO COME INTO COVER THAT

AND ALLOW FOR THAT. >> INTEREST RATES AND BOND PREMIUM, THOSE ARE MOVING PARTS THAT WILL BE FINALIZED ON THE DAY OF PRICING, WHICH WE ARE SHOOTING FOR JUNE 22ND, WITH

JULY 16TH CLOSING. >> ALL OF THESE ARE ROUNDED UP A

BIT FOR THAT SAME PURPOSE. >> THE NEXT RESOLUTION, AND THE REASON I ASKED THAT, BECAUSE THIS ROUNDING SEEMS LESS.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TEN, IT'S A DIFFERENT STRUCTURED BOND MAYBE. BUT THAT MAXIMUM BOND RISING AMOUNT SEEMS A LOT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAD GOING IN.

SO WHY THE BIG DIFFERENCE, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT TO ME?

>> LIKE THE STORMWATER BOND ISSUES, WE HAVE THE RESERVE FUNDS IN THE PRIOR BOND FUNDS. IF WE SET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WE ASSUME THEY ARE NOT THERE FOR SOME REASON.

SO WE JUST SET THE MAXIMUM QUITE A BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE ARE GOING TO ISSUE TO MAKE SURE IF SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN THAT WE ARE COVERED AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS. WE KNOW THE FUNDS ARE THERE

THOUGH. >> COUNCILOR SCHMIDT A, AND I ANSWERED THE QUESTION THERE. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO LOWER OUR OPERATING COST IN RESPONSE TO DECLINING REVENUES FORCED ON TO US BY THE STATE, WEATHER PROPERTY TAX CHANGES, CHANGES TO OUR FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX, CHANGES TO ARE BUILDING PERMIT.

WE WILL SEE LASTING REVENUE FOR THE NEXT CALENDAR YEAR IN THE GENERAL FUND, MORE THAN WE'VE HAD THIS YEAR.

SO I'M LOOKING AT EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY I CAN TO LOWER OUR OPERATING COST, WITH THIS BEING A BIG OPPORTUNITY.

>> ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ONES SPECIFICALLY? THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS THERE WAS A LINE THAT I CAUGHT IN THEIR, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS NOW.

I'M SO SORRY. THE-- IT SAID, I THINK IT WAS FOR THE STORMWATER BONDS TO ALLEVIATE RESTRICTED COVENANTS FROM 2016 TO 2020. WHAT PART OF THOSE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT WE ARE ALLEVIATING, WHAT DOES THAT

MEAN? >> I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THOSE.

>> IT'S ITEM JI BELIEVE. >> THE REASON FOR THE REFUNDING, THERE'S TWO REASONS TO DO THAT. ONE IS ECONOMIC SAVINGS.

YOU'RE REDUCING THE INTEREST COST.

THE OTHER IS TO ALLEVIATE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

SO WE ARE REFUNDING 2016 AND THE 2020 STORMWATER BONDS, EACH OF

[02:05:06]

WHICH HAS A FULLY FUNDED DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND.

AS PART OF THIS RESTRUCTURING WE ARE GOING TO GET RID OF DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUNDS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A YEAR'S WORTH OF DEBT OR CASH MONEY SET ASIDE. AND WE DON'T NEED THAT ANY LONGER. BECAUSE YOU'RE HEALTHY IN THAT SENSE. SO STANDARD LANGUAGE WE PUT IN THERE. BUT WE JUST POINT TO THE STATUTE AND SAY THIS IS THE REASON UPON WHICH WE ARE DOING THIS.

>> AND SINCE THEY ARE PAID OUT OF THE AVAILABLE REVENUE, IS THIS DEBT RESTRUCTURING THEN GOING TO CHANGE INCREASES IN STORMWATER FEES FOR CARAMEL RESIDENTS? AND I'M NOT A BONDS PERSON. I'M ASKING AS A CITIZEN.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. >> GREAT QUESTION.

MAYBE IT'S A STEP BACK TO EXPLAIN THE 2016 STORM BONDS VERSUS 2020. 2016 STORMWATER BONDS WERE EXPECTED TO BE PAID FOR STORMWATER REVENUES.

THE ONLY PLEDGE WAS THE SPECIAL BENEFITS TAX.

IN 2020 IT'S THE OPPOSITE. THE ONLY THING PLEDGED WHERE THE ACTION REVENUES OF THE STORMWATER DISTRICT.

THERE WAS NO PROPERTY TAX BACKUP.

TO CLEANUP THE BIN PLEDGE WE SAID IT'S KIND OF SILLY TO DO IT THAT WAY. LETS DO IT LIKE WE DID IN 2016.

THE ONLY THING PLEDGED IS THE SPECIALTY TAX.

BUT THERE IS NO EXPLICIT RATE INCREASE AS A RESULT OF THE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE THAT CLEAR.

>> THE OTHER ONE FOR THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT HAD...

>> BOTH THE BOND ISSUES WE ARE REFUNDING HAVE A SURETIES ON THEM. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE RESERVE FUND. IT'S CASH SET ASIDE AT THE CLOSING THAT IS JUST SITTING IN A BANK ACCOUNT.

THAT SERVICE RESERVE WILL BE RELEASED AS AN INSURANCE POLICY THAT ACTS LIKE A INSURANCE RESERVE FUND.

SO IN LARGE TRANSACTIONS YOU OFTEN SEE A SURETIES, IF SOMEONE CAME IN SHORTLY A SURETY WOULD BE PULLED ON AND IT VALUES THE PROPERTY TAX BACKUP. SO THOSE WILL BE POLICED.

>> ON LAYMAN'S TERMS WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A PRIVATE REGIONAL INSURANCE ANYMORE? NO MORE BMI FOR THE CITY OF

CARMEL. >> OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

WHEN WE COME BACK WE WILL VOTE ON ALL OF THESE.

AFTER REVOTE ON DAYS, I HAVE TO GO, TO BE FRANK.

IT WILL BE A TRUE 5 MINUTES, NO LONGER.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE READJOURNING.

AT 8:20 P.M. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER? OKAY.

HEARING NONE, WE ARE GOING TO START WITH D, SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE D, 2822-2026. MOVE FOR THAT ORDINANCE? ORDINANCE D BEING HELD. ORDINANCE F BEING HELD.

[12.f. Second Reading of Ordinance D-2824-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, amending Article 4, Section 2-128 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s): Taylor and Snyder. Remains in the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

ORDINANCE G. COUNCILLOR TAYLOR?

>> ON ITEM F WE SENT IT BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT.

THIS IS TO ESTABLISH A NOT REVERTING FUND.

WE MADE A COUPLE AMENDMENTS TO THAT.

ONE IS THAT WE INCORPORATED THE LANGUAGE IN TO THE ORDINANCE BASED ON YOUR EMAIL AND CONVERSATIONS WITH ZACH.

WE ALSO MENDED THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE NAME TO THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INSURANCE RECOVERY FUND.

WHICH WILL BE FUND NUMBER 927. SO I MOVED TO AMEND ORDINANCE D-2824-26, WITH THE AMENDED LANGUAGE PRESENTED TO COMMITTEE TODAY, AND ALSO WITH THE NAME CHANGE OF THE FUND TO THE

[02:10:03]

INFRASTRUCTURE INSURANCE RECOVERY FUND.

>> THAT IS MY FAULT. I APOLOGIZE.

ZACH HYMAN NEED YOU TO PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN.

>> THIS IS WHAT COUNCILLOR TAYLOR WAS TALKING ABOUT.

WAY BACK DURING COUNCILOR COMMENTS.

ONE IDEA GOT SPLIT IN TO TWO. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE TWO TO KEEP THE CITY TRANSPARENT, EFFICIENT AND SOLVENT ON ANTICIPATED THINGS MOVING FORWARD THAT ARE INQUIRED FOR CASUALTY CLAIMS. SO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WAS UP THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COLOR THAT IS.

OR WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE WITH A DIFFERENT COLOR.

>> THE RED IS AS I ORIGINALLY DRAFTED IT A FEW WEEKS AGO.

THE GREEN IS THE NEW LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY COUNCILLOR SCHN SCHNEIDER. THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT A MINUTE AGO WAS CHANGING WHERE IT SAYS HERE THE NONINVERTING CITY ASSETS REPAIRS PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INSURANCE RECOVERY FUND WAS THE EDIT. BUT HE WAS RATHER OPEN BEFORE THIS NOW CLARIFIES THAT ALL INSURANCE PROCEEDS SO FORTH WILL BE DEPOSITED IN THE FUND. IT TALKS ABOUT THE EXPENSES, THE ALLOWABLE EXPENSES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN DAMAGE TO A PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE CITY IS IN THE PROCESS OF FILING AN INSURANCE CLAIM FOR THAT. AND ESSENTIALLY THE LAST SECTION HERE ON THE PAGE TALKS ABOUT IF THE COST FOR THAT REPAIR SHOULD BE GREATER THEN WHAT INSURANCE REIMBURSES THAT WE NEED TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR THE ADDITIONAL MONEY TO SPEND IN THAT SITUATION. IN SOME INSTANCES YOU MAY NOT WANT TO PUT IT BACK EXACTLY THE SAME IT WILL-- SAME WAY IT WAS.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET THE REPAIR, OR THERE MAYBE A DEDUCTIBLE INVOLVED. AND LASTLY, THE OTHER PAGES JUST A THOROUGH DEFINITION OF WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET. >> WHAT A UNIQUE SITUATION, WHERE ZACH AND STAFF AND THE MAYOR WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE OUR BUDGET GOALS WHILE STILL TAKING AND ESSENTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THE STREET DEPARTMENT TO COVER THE SUBSTANTIAL LOSS WE HEAD TO THE CITY ASSET, OVER $1 MILLION.

BUT THAT PUT A LOT OF CONSTRAINTS ON THAT DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE THING. YOU ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO FIND HOW YOU UPFRONT PAY FOR SOMETHING.

NOW YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT IT, AN INSURANCE CHECK, AND THE MAYOR AND FINANCE AND COUNCIL THINK THAT A PRUDENT WAY TO HELP KEEP US FROM HAVING THIS ISSUE IN THE FUTURE IS TO CREATE THIS FUND THAT WILL RECEIVE INSURANCE CLAIMS, A SENSE WE HAVE RECEIVED MONEY TO EFFECTIVELY OPEN THE NEW FUND WITH $1,074,842, IT PROTECTS US FROM HAVING TO TAKE FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND PROTECTS US FROM AGAINST INSURANCE DENIALS, ACCIDENTS WHERE SOMEONE DOES NOT HAVE INSURANCE.

VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS DON'T TAKE THE FINANCIAL BRUNT BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS. WE ARE CEDING THIS WITH INSURANCE AND IT WILL BE USED TO FRONTLOAD INSURANCE CLAIM SO WE CAN MAKE REPAIRS, QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY.

IT GIVES ADMINISTRATION AND ABILITY TO ACT FASTER THAN THEY COULD OTHERWISE, WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE A BUNCH OF MONEY AROUND.

DID I SAY ANYTHING AND CORRECT? >> NOT AT ALL.

I WILL ADD THAT THERE ARE TECHNICALLY THREE AGENDA ITEMS RELATIVE TO THIS HERE TONIGHT. THE FIRST WILL BE THAT WE SKIPPED OVER THE APPROPRIATION. WE HAVE PUBLICLY NOTICED THAT.

AND WE'VE DONE THAT AGAIN JUST TO USE THE NEW FUNDING TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE THERE. SO WE POSTED THAT AGAIN TODAY.

[02:15:01]

THAT WILL MEET THE 14 DAY REQUIREMENT TO BE ON COUNCIL NEXT MEETING AGENDA. F IS THE CREATION OF THE FUND AND LATER ON IS THE TRANSFER OUT OF THE GENERAL FUNDS.

K IS THE TRANSFER OF CASH. THE RESOLUTION OF THE TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE NEW FUND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

TO AMEND WITH THE LANGUAGE PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN.

OKAY. THAT WAS K MAC F, G.

COUNCILLOR TAYLOR. RESOLUTION G.

COUNCILLOR TAYLOR? >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. I MOVED FOR APPROVAL AS AMENDED.

THE ORDINANCE. >> SECOND.

>> THANK YOU. NOW WE ARE ON G.

[12.g. Resolution CC-05-18-26-01; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Certain Carmel Redevelopment Authority Lease Rental Refunding Bonds to Refinance Certain Outstanding Bonds and Related Matters; Sponsor(s): Councilor(s) Taylor and Snyder. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

COUNCILLOR TAYLOR? >> THANK YOU.

THIS IS PART OF THE BOND REFUNDING.

SO I MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION CC-05-18-26--- SORRY.

ITEM G. WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND. I APOLOGIZE.

I MOVED TO AMEND MY RESOLUTION CC-05-18-26-01 LINE STRIKING THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE FROM LINE 125 IN THE ORDINANCE.

UPON THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2026 BOND, THE COUNCIL WILL HEREBY REPEAL THE PLEDGE OF LOCAL INCOME TAX REVENUE TO SECURE THE LEASE AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE D DASH 2283 DASH---60.

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL FOR THE AMENDED ORDINANCE RESOLUTION CC-05-18-26-01. RESOLUTION CC-05-18-16-02.

[12.h. Resolution CC-05-18-26-02; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Certain Carmel Redevelopment Authority Lease Rental Refunding Bonds to Refinance Certain Outstanding Bonds and Related Matters; Sponsors: Councilors Taylor and Snyder. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> RESOLUTION CC-05-18-26-03.

[12.i. Resolution CC-05-18-26-03; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving Certain Carmel Redevelopment Authority Lease Rental Refunding Bonds to Refinance Ceratin Outstanding Bonds and Related Matters; Sponsors: Councilors Taylor and Snyder. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

MOVE FOR APPROVAL? JAY.

[12.j. Resolution CC-05-18-26-04; A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving the Issuance of Refunding Bonds of the City of Carmel Storm Water District and Related Matters; Sponsors: Councilors Taylor and Snyder. Returns from the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee.]

CC-05-18-26-04. MOVE FOR APPROVAL? K WILL BE HELD. PUBLIC HEARINGS, THERE ARE NONE.

[14.a. First Reading of Ordinance Z-707-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing Fees Related to Zoning and Development Applications and Violations in the Unified Development Ordinance for the City's Engineering Department and Amending the UDO Fees to Comply with HEA 1001; Sponsor: Councilor Ayers.]

NEW BUSINESS. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE Z-707-26. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL ESTABLISHING FEES RELATED TO ZONING AND DEELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND VIOLATIONS IN THE UNIFIED EVOLVEMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND AMENDING THE FEES TO COMPLY WITH AGA 1001, SPONSOR

IS COUNCILOR AYERS. >> I WILL MOVE TO INTRODUCE.

[02:20:01]

>> THIS IS-- FINDING FEES. I'M SORRY.

GO-AHEAD. >> THIS ORDINANCE AMENDS THE FILING FEES IN ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 1.29 OF THE UNIFIED

DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

THERE IS ONE NOTE ON THIS ORDINANCE.

THIS IS A BDO AMENDMENT WHICH MEANS IT'S A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT. IT HAS TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE WERE NOT ABLE TO NOTICE IT AT THE TIME.

IT IS SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT MEETING, BUT WE CAN INTRODUCE AND SEND A TO COMMITTEE TO START DISCUSSING.

WE JUST HAVE TO COMPLY IF THIS IS IT.

THIS IS OUR CODE ROW. IT'S NOT A STATE LAW.

WE DID AMEND THAT RULE REGARDING REZONED.

MAP AMENDMENTS. I DO NOT RECALL WHY WE DID NOT INCLUDE TEXT AMENDMENTS. I DO RECOMMEND THAT WE GO FORWARD TO CONSIDER THAT IN THE LAND-USE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

BUT REGARDLESS THIS IS AN AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE ONE SECTION 21, IT ACCOMPLISHES TWO THINGS. NUMBER 1 IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IT'S SIMPLY THE WAY THE FEES CAN BE INCREASED HAVE BEEN CHANGED. AND NOW WE CANNOT CHANGE IT AS IT'S UNDER DO YOU DO. IT HAS TO BE NOW CHANGED EVERY FIVE YEARS UNDER THE CPI, AND UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAN BE AMENDED OR INCREASED IN THE INTERMITTENT PERIOD IF THE FEES GO UP OR EXPENSES GO UP SO MUCH THAT THERE IS AN EXTRAORDINARY AMENDMENT, IF YOU WILL.

THIS IS LEVEL ONE. THAT AMENDMENT DOES IN THE FIRST PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE OF SECTION TWO.

THE LANGUAGE IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE CODE.

SO THE SECOND PORTION WILL BE STARTING IN SECTION FOUR, AND IT INTRODUCES ENGINEERING FEES FOR DEVELOPMENTS.

THEN ALSO THE DIRECTOR FEES IS HERE TO GO INTO THAT.

>> YOU MOVED ON TO ANOTHER ORDINANCE CUT CORRECTLY.

>> WE ARE STILL ON THAT. THESE FEES ARE RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT FEES. SO THEY INCLUDE SUCH THINGS AS DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWS, PLAT REVIEWS, VACATIONS, MAJOR PROJECT BU D'S. USE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ET CETERA. HISTORICALLY THE CITY OF CARMEL HAS NOT CHARGED THOSE FEES. MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS DO CHARGE% THOSE FEES. FOR YEARS NOW.

YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS THE LAST COUPLE YEARS.

AND THOSE STUCK-- DISCUSSION STARTED A COUPLE YEARS AGO NOW.

AND WE CAN GIVE YOU MORE BACKGROUND.

BUT IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WE THINK IT IS TIME TO INTRODUCE SOME OF THOSE FEES.

WE BELIEVE THEY ARE FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE COMPARED TO OUR NEIGHBORS. AND ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE NEVER CHARGE THEM BEFORE.

AND I WILL MOVE IT TO THE DIRECTOR TO GO THROUGH THIS.

>> THIS HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. AND THE NEXT ORDINANCE WILL BE INTRODUCED, WHICH IS SEVEN PAGES OF EDITS.

IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AND TALKED THROUGH IN THE SECOND ORDINANCE.

>> YES. >> IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AND TALKED THROUGH LAND-USE FOR A WILD.

HOWEVER, THE REASON I ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION IN THE BEGINNING, IT HAS BEEN ASKED THAT IT IS STILL A FIRST READING. IT'S THE FIRST TIME THE FULL COUNCIL IS SEEING THIS. SO IT WILL GO BACK TO COMMITTEE ONE MORE TIME FOR A FINAL REVIEW.

BOTH OF THESE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION BEFORE WE SPEAK AT NAUSEA HIM.

IF WE HAVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS AND WE CAN VOTE THE NEXT TIME. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.

THAT WAS MY REQUEST. BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN OPENLY DISCUSSED AT COUNCIL MEETING. WE DID THE DISCUSSION PRIOR TO

THAT MEETING. >> ONE MORE COMMENT I FORGOT TO MENTION, IT DID PASS BLANK COMMISSIONS.

IT RECEIVED UNANIMOUS ASCENT, WITH A NOTE THAT BLANKET

[02:25:07]

COMMISSION WOULD LEAD WITH THE FEES BEING INTRODUCED MAYBE A LITTLE TOO LOW. WITH ENCOURAGEMENT TO REVISIT IT AT COUNCIL LEVEL TO PERHAPS INCREASE THAT.

>> NOW YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CLOCK AND DECIDE HOW LONG YOU WOULD

LIKE TO SPEAK. >> I WILL JUST SAY THAT THIS IS NOT-- JUST TO REITERATE A POINT THAT SURROGATE KIND OF SUBTLETY MADE. THIS IS NOT A DIRECT REFLECTION ON SGA ONE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE YEARS AGO AS FAR AS INCENTIVIZING GOOD PLANS IN OUR DEPARTMENT. SO WE ARE NOT DESIGNING STUFF FOR PEOPLE TO OVERLY SUBSIDIZE THE DEVELOPMENT.

HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT MORE. >> DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS THIS

EVENING FOR OUR CITY ENGINEER? >> I DID NOT MEAN THAT.

THIS WILL GO TO LAND-USE BECAUSE IT IS TIED TO THE OTHER FEES

[14.b. First Reading of Ordinance D-2826-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Amending Chapter 8, Article 65, Section 8-65 of the Carmel City Code; Sponsors: Councilors Ayers, Joshi, Minnaar, Snyder.]

THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT IN A MOMENT.

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D-28-26-26.

EXCAVATION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY TO SERVICE PERMANENCE, MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS AMENDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. THIS HAS BEEN LOOKED AT IN THE LAND-USE. REALLY TRYING TO PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON OUR PATHS, WHERE CONTRACTORS PARK.

ALSO MUCH LIKE THE LDR IS, CHANGE BEHAVIOR IN THAT REGARD, AND ALSO REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORATION.

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, WHETHER THEY ARE IMPACTING OUR ASPHALT.

ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE OUTLINED IN THE RESTORATION BACK

TO EQUAL OR BETTER CONDITIONS. >> GO-AHEAD.

>> THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU.

THIS WILL GO BACK TO LAND-USE ONE MORE TIME FOR NOSTALGIA.

[14.c. First Reading of Ordinance D-2827-26; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adding Chapter 6, Article 5, Section 6-85 to the Carmel City Code and Amending Chapter 3, Article 2, Section 3-58; Sponsors: Councilors Minnaar, Taylor, Joshi, Worrell, Aasen.]

FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE D 2827-26.

ADDING CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 6-85 TO THE CARMEL CITY CODE AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 3-58.

SPONSORS MINNAAR, TAYLOR, JOSHI, AASEN, AYERS.

FULL COUNCIL. >> GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS THE LAST ITEM FROM LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER D-20272026.

IT REDUCES LIMITATION ON EXCESSIVE NOISE BY MOTOR VEHICLES. SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S A SCENARIO A LOT OF US HAVE EXPERIENCED, ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED IT TWO DAYS AGO AND IT STARTLED ME AND THAT GOT MY HEART RACING.

IT'S TARGETED TO ADDRESS EXCESSIVE NOISE GENERATED BY VEHICLES THROUGH ENGINE REVVING. CHANGES TO EXHAUST SYSTEM, OR MODIFIED EXHAUST SYSTEMS, AND AGGRESSIVE ACCELERATION.

WHEN A VEHICLE GOES TOO FAR INTO GEAR, TOO FAST INTO GEAR, IT GENERATES A LOT OF NOISE WITH CERTAIN NOISES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BEHAVIOR. SO THAT ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY TRIES TO REGULATE OR DISCOURAGE THAT BEHAVIOR BY MAKING IT AN ORDINANCE VIOLATION. SO IT WILL GO SIMILARLY TO THE ONE YOU CONSIDERED EARLIER IN THE DAY.

SO IT'S A FAIRLY SMALL FINE FOR FIRST DEFENSE.

THE SECOND ONE IS A 250-DOLLAR. AND THIS IS-- IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, ESPECIALLY IN OUR CORE.

MIDTOWN. RANGE LINE, CITY CENTER.