minutes of the city-county council special service district councils … · 2013-01-04 · special...

5

MINUTES OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND

SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF

INDIANAPOLIS, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA

REGULAR MEETINGS MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2012

The City-County Council of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana and the Indianapolis Police Special Service District Council, Indianapolis Fire Special Service District Council and Indianapolis Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Council convened in regular concurrent sessions in the Council Chamber of the City-County Building at 7:07 p.m. on Monday, August 13, 2012, with Councillor Lewis presiding. Councillor Simpson, recognized Pastor T.D. Robinson, senior pastor at Mt. Parin Baptist Church, who led the opening prayer. Councillor Simpson then invited all present to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

ROLL CALL The President instructed the Clerk to take the roll call and requested members to register their presence on the voting machine. The roll call was as follows:

28 PRESENT: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 1 ABSENT: Evans

A quorum of twenty-eight members being present, the President called the meeting to order.

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS AND VISITORS Councillor Oliver recognized Reverends David Green, Ronald Fletcher, and Michael Jones. He said that he would like to publicly apologize for someone who recently came to testify with Unite Here being fired for their testimony. Councillor Adamson asked those in support of the domestic partnership proposal to stand and be recognized. Councillor Pfisterer recognized Speedway resident Ron Long and former Councillor, now State Representative Mike Speedy. Councillor Lutz recognized Wayne Township Trustee Andy Harris and Wayne Township Fire Chief ??. Councillor Moriarty Adams recognized her brother John, a member of the Carmel Fire Department. Councillor McHenry recognized Wayne Township residents Rick and Susan Scott. Councillor Mahern recognized the Indianapolis Congregation Action Network. Councillor Talley recognized State Representative Bill Crawford and George Wright, chair of INSTEP. Councillor

Journal of the City-County Council

6

Mansfield recognized Sheriff John Layton, Auditor Billie Breaux, County Clerk Beth White, and Treasurer Claudia Fuentes and all other county officials in attendance. Councillor Gooden recognized former Council Clerk Melissa Thompson. Councillor Brown recognized State Senator Jean Breaux and Controller Jeff Spalding. Councillor Gray recognized State Senator Greg Taylor, firefighters and Union President Steve Quick. Councillor Barth asked those in support of the complete streets to stand and be recognized. Councillor Simpson recognized radio personality Amos Brown and Tom Hanify, president of Local 416 Firefighters’ Union. Councillor Osili recognized Tamara Zahn, executive director of Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. Councillor Scales recognized Bill Owensby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police. Councillor Gray recognized community activist Jocelyn Tandy-Adande. Councillor Oliver recognized Rev. C.L. Day of the Concerned Clergy.

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS The President called for the reading of Official Communications. The Clerk read the following:

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND POLICE, FIRE AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, INDIANA Ladies And Gentlemen : You are hereby notified the REGULAR MEETINGS of the City-County Council and Police, Fire and Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Councils will be held in the City-County Building, in the Council Chambers, on Monday, August 13, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., the purpose of such MEETINGS being to conduct any and all business that may properly come before regular meetings of the Councils.

Respectfully, s/Maggie A. Lewis President, City-County Council

July 16, 2012 TO PRESIDENT LEWIS AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND POLICE, FIRE AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, INDIANA: Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana, I caused to be published in the Court & Commercial Record on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 and in the Indianapolis Star on Thursday, August 2, 2012 a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing on Proposal Nos. 234-237 and 239-250, 2012, said hearing to be held on Monday, August 13, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in the City-County Building. Respectfully, s/NaTrina DeBow Clerk of the City-County Council

The Honorable Gregory A. Ballard, Mayor offered the following remarks:

Madam President, members of the City-County Council, fellow citizens; tonight I present to you the proposed 2013 budget for Marion County and City of Indianapolis. This marks the fifth consecutive fiscally responsible budget proposed to this Body. Maintaining fiscal responsibility has been an ever increasing task during the prolonged economic downturn. Just this past weekend the front page of the Wall Street Journal and a prime-time cable news special focused on the fiscal calamity facing some cities. I am proud to say Indianapolis was not among them – and because of strong fiscal management – it won’t be. Local government is funded almost exclusively through property and income tax revenues. I support property tax caps and advocated for their adoption at the Indiana General Assembly. The security of

August 13, 2012

7

knowing you will never pay more than 1% of the value of your home in taxes was an important part of stabilizing our neighborhoods and providing relief to those who were suffering from crushing bills. Capping tax bills, however, means we have fewer dollars to spend on providing services. Adding to the diminished property tax revenue are declining income tax revenues. National unemployment remains above 8% for the third consecutive year, the longest time since the Great Depression. Fewer working Americans means fewer tax dollars derived from their income. American families are living on less money and as a result so are their cities. This is a challenge we fully embrace. The budgets I have previously presented reflected these circumstances and positioned us to continue to improve the delivery of government services to our residents. In addition to those fiscally responsible budgets we have made strategic decisions about how we operate. My team has found creative solutions that yielded hundreds of millions of dollars in savings and generated hundreds of millions more to invest in our continued growth. The budget before you today is built with those same principles in mind and funds critical services of the city and county without base funding cuts in any agency. After five consecutive years of cuts in all non-public safety agencies, our local government has become leaner, more efficient and more responsive. The challenge before us now is to work together to adopt policies that save even more taxpayer money and improve service. Whether it’s reducing the cost of inmate medical care or prolonging the life of the brakes in our vehicle fleet, our employees are our best resource at identifying new ways to cut costs and improve service. That’s why this budget contains the city’s first merit-based “pay for performance” raise program for civilian employees. Simply maintaining base operations, however, continues to cost more money. The cost of health insurance and pensions continue to escalate. This budget reflects those higher costs. The vast majority of those increased cost occur in public safety. To be clear, we are proposing a budget that invests 20 million dollars of additional revenue in public safety just to maintain our current number of police officers, firefighters, and fully honoring the Sheriff’s funding request. To accomplish this, the city will tap $17 million from the Rainy Day Fund and $20 million from other agency fund balances. The city will once again seek reimbursement of $10 million from our infrastructure investments made in economic development districts. In addition, this morning my administration reopened our police and fire union agreements. Those agreements provide that if property tax revenue increased, so would the salaries of our public safety officers. As I mentioned, revenues have not improved and as such we will begin working with respective unions on a solution. My administration has a history of supporting its police officers and firefighters and we will continue to provide that support. When I took office, despite plummeting revenue due to the recession and property tax caps, we honored raises of 3%, 4% and 5% in back-to-back-to back years. We honored another 1% increase in this year’s budget. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to provide an additional 3% again this year. Finally, this budget proposes to end an old property tax relief program that was put in place before the protections of property tax caps. Back then both the state and local governments used income taxes to protect homeowners against large property tax increases. But the caps now provide that protection. The state ended its homestead tax program years ago. It’s now time for the city to do the same and save over $8 million in the process. For homeowners currently at the 1% property tax cap, nothing will change for you. For homeowners not yet paying 1%, you may see a slight increase in your property tax bill. For the average priced home in Indianapolis not currently at the 1% cap, the increase will be approximately $24 a year. One year ago, I stood before you and said that budgets are a financial management plan, not a license to spend. That was true then. It is true now. This budget is fully funded. It is fiscally responsible and it does not borrow money to support operations. This budget provides full funding for our critical operations. It incentivizes continued improvement and it leaves us with a balance heading into another difficult year in 2014. My outstanding team of creative leaders stands ready to work with you over the next two months as together we turn this initial proposal into the final budget. Thank you.


8

The President called for a brief recess at 7:31 p.m. The President reconvened the City-County Council at 7:52 p.m.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The President proposed the adoption of the agenda as distributed. Without objection, the agenda was adopted.

APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

The President called for additions or corrections to the Journals of July 16, 2012. There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS, AND

COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS PROPOSAL NO. 270, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Cain and McQuillen, recognizes Tamara Zahn for 19 years of service and dedication to Downtown Indianapolis and the residents of Marion County. Councillor Cain read the proposal and presented a copy of the document and Council pin to Ms. Zahn. Ms. Zahn thanked the Council for the recognition. Councillor Cain moved, seconded by Councillor McQuillen, for adoption. Proposal No. 270, 2012 was adopted by a unanimous voice vote. Proposal No. 270, 2012 was retitled SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 37, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 37, 2012

A SPECIAL RESOLUTION recognizing Tamara Zahn for her 19 years of service and dedication to Downtown Indianapolis and the residents of Marion County. WHEREAS, Ms. Zahn has been with Indianapolis Downtown, Inc (IDI) as the non-profit organization’s first president since it was established in 1993; and WHEREAS, under her 19 years of leadership, Ms. Zahn and IDI have accomplished the following successes: $7 billion in new construction since 1993; job development for 120,000 employees, Central Indiana's largest workforce; the creation of the largest neighborhood in Central Indiana which consists of 20,000 residents; growing Central Indiana residents’ regular Downtown visits from 47 percent in 1994 to 82 percent presently; and WHEREAS, in addition, Ms. Zahn, along with IDI, has been successful with the following projects: facilitating the strategic growth of Downtown through the planning and integration of 400 new projects, which include healthcare, hospitality and tourism, corporate, education, and residential; developing of the Cultural District program; and building public and private partnerships, including security, cleaning, beautification and parking partnerships, which all keep Downtown clean, beautiful, safe, convenient and growing; and WHEREAS, IDI culminated in its peak performance this year when it partnered with the City of Indianapolis to host Super Bowl XLVI, as well as many other national and international events throughout Ms. Zahn’s 19 years as president; and WHEREAS, Ms. Zahn has been vitally instrumental in the revitalization of Downtown Indianapolis; now, therefore:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:

August 13, 2012

9

SECTION 1. The Indianapolis City-County Council recognizes Tamara Zahn for her 19 years of service and dedication to Downtown Indianapolis and the residents of Marion County. SECTION 2. The Council extends its appreciation and gratitude Ms. Zahn and wishes her a relaxing retirement and continued success in her future endeavors. SECTION 3. The Mayor is invited to join in this resolution by affixing his signature hereto. SECTION 4. This shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14 PROPOSAL NO. 271, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Pfisterer, recognizes Joy Lorch for her hard work and dedication to the citizens of Marion and surrounding counties. Councillor Pfisterer read the proposal and presented Ms. Lorch with a copy of the document and Council pin. Ms. Lorch thanked the Council for the recognition. Councillor Pfisterer moved, seconded by Councillor Moriarty Adams, for adoption. Proposal No. 271, 2012 was adopted by a unanimous voice vote. Proposal No. 271, 2012 was retitled SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 38, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 38, 2012

A SPECIAL RESOLUTION recognizing Joy Lorch for her hard work and dedication to the citizens of Marion and surrounding counties. WHEREAS, in 1992 Ms. Lorch graduated from Southern Illinois University with a B.A. in Psychology and has continued to complete her Masters in Behavioral Analysis & Therapy; and WHEREAS, from 2003 to 2010 Ms. Lorch was a member of the Lawrence Township Fire Department where she was exposed to the instant loss of someone’s belongings or their loved one; and WHEREAS, Ms. Lorch was one of the first in Marion County to recognize the need of a wristband with a tracking device to be used with Autistic and Alzheimer patients. The wristband has tracking to assist the fire department in locating them, with an average time of 30 minutes or less; and WHEREAS, Ms. Lorch has established storage units around the county to assist fire victims with clothes and household furnishings. In times of need, Red Cross in Marion County calls her for help with their fire victims; and WHEREAS, Ms. Lorch was the driving force to establish the first Fire Rescue House in Marion County. The house was established to allow fire victims to stay in a home for up to two weeks free of charge, while being assisted with finding suitable living; and WHEREAS, when Henryville, Indiana suffered a devastating tornado in March of 2012, Ms. Lorch was drawn to the area even on vacation, she immediately began working on The Concert of Hope Indy, which brought a ten-band concert held at Ben Davis High School that raised over $10,000 for the stricken area; and WHEREAS, it is the belief of those close to Ms. Lorch that following one of the paths that she has blazed would help a person realize to be a kinder to those who have suffered; now, therefore:


SECTION 1. The Indianapolis City-County Council recognizes Joy Lorch for her hard work and dedication to the citizens of Marion and surrounding counties. SECTION 2. The Council extends its appreciation and gratitude to the unwavering care that Ms. Lorch gives to any and all in need. SECTION 3. The Mayor is invited to join in this resolution by affixing his signature hereto.


10

SECTION 4. This shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14 PROPOSAL NO. 272, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Mahern and Talley, extends the deadline for members of the public to submit proposed redistricting plans for the Council's consideration from August 17, 2012 to September 7, 2012. Councillor Mahern read the proposal and said that this will allow the public more time to be heard. Councillor Pfisterer asked how many submissions have been made to date. Councillor Mahern said that he does not know. Councillor Mahern moved, seconded by Councillor Talley, for adoption. Proposal No. 272, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

22 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Gooden, Hickman, Holliday, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Scales, Simpson, Talley 5 NAYS: Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Hunter, Sandlin 1 NOT VOTING: Gray 1 ABSENT: Evans

Proposal No. 272, 2012 was retitled COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 78, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 78, 2012

A PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL RESOLUTION extending the deadline for members of the public to submit proposed redistricting plans for the Council’s consideration from August 17, 2012 to September 7, 2012.

WHEREAS, Council Resolution No. 76, 2012 (Proposal No. 256, 2012) established a deadline of August 17, 2012 for members of the public to submit proposed redistricting plans to the Clerk of the Council for consideration by the Committee on Rules and Public Policy; and

WHEREAS, because the Rules Committee is not scheduled to meet again until September 25, 2012, it is in the

public interest to extend the August 17 deadline; now, therefore:


SECTION 1. The deadline of August 17, 2012 for members of the public to submit proposed redistricting plans to the Clerk of the Council for consideration by the Committee on Rules and Public Policy, as established by Council Resolution No. 76, 2012 (Proposal No. 256, 2012), is hereby extended to September 7, 2012. SECTION 2. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 273, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Talley and Mahern, accepts the final report and recommendations of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Study Commission. Councillors Talley and Mahern explained the Commission process and said that the budget conditions do not seem to be improving, and sunsets are needed on TIF districts to help supplement tax revenue. Councillor Mahern recognized Council Chief Financial Officer Hope Tribble for all her work, as well as those members who served on the Commission. He said that having studied this issue, they can better understand the ramification of TIFs. Councillor Cardwell said that he served on the Commission but is not in agreement with the recommendations. He stated that accepting these recommendations will put the city at a disadvantage with peer cities. He said that each TIF should be analyzed independently; one-size-

August 13, 2012

11

fits-all does not work. He said that the City must have the tools it needs to achieve the goals they are looking to meet, and these recommendations limit the potential that the City has to create jobs and promote economic development. Councillor Lutz commended the members of the commission for reviewing all of this mind-numbing information. He said that he does believe they need some guidance regarding TIF districts, especially in establishing such districts. However, he believes each district is different and these recommendations do not take that into account. He said that he cannot support a one-size-fits-all approach to TIFs. Councillor Mansfield said that this resolution expresses gratitude and appreciation for all the work that has been done. It does not adopt the recommendations, but simply acknowledges they have been presented to the Council. Any recommendations would have to be implemented by an ordinance. She said that she shares some of her colleagues’ concerns regarding a one-size-fits-all approach, but this proposal simply accepts the work that the commission has done as a starting point. They will continue to dialogue about what kind of parameters should be put into place. Councillor Mahern said that Section 3 says that recommendations will be implemented by ordinances and resolutions, and this just acknowledges the hard work and begins the proper dialogue. He said that this was a very rigorous exercise, that included academics, professionals and many others, and not just Council members. He said that this proposal acknowledges the work of the commission and that the recommendations exist. Councillor McQuillen asked if this acknowledgement is non-binding and there is no legal authority behind it. Fred Biesecker, General Council, said that it is simply accepting, not adopting the recommendations, and therefore is non-binding. Councillor McQuillen said that he appreciates the effort and believes the TIF process needs to be looked at, but he cannot support this proposal. Councillor Hunter thanked everyone who participated in the process, but the act of accepting something means agreement. He said that if this proposal then gets delivered at the other end of Market Street to the State legislators, it gives the appearance that the full Council is on board, but that is not true. He said that they did not do this type of acceptance resolution on similar commisions. He said that he can appreciate the hard work but cannot support this proposal in this format. Councillor Cardwell said that Section 2 says that the Council accepts the report and recommendations. He asked if they could accept the report and not the recommendations. If so, then he might feel more comfortable supporting it. Councillor Mahern said that this resolution is exactly what it appears to be and is putting the action of the commission on record. This report was issued over a month ago, and there will be other proposals offered later that make references to the Legislature. Councillor Talley moved, seconded by Councillor Mahern, to call the question and end debate. The motion carried on the following roll call vote; viz:

22 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Cain, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McQuillen, Moriarty Adams, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 6 NAYS: Brown, Cardwell, Lutz, McHenry, Miller, Oliver


12

1 ABSENT: Evans Councillor Talley moved, seconded by Councillor Mahern, for adoption. Proposal No. 273, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz: Proposal No. 273, 2012 was retitled COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 79, 2012, and reads as follows:


A PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL RESOLUTION accepting the final report and recommendations of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Study Commission.

WHEREAS, the Indianapolis-Marion County Council Tax Increment Financing Study Commission was established by City-County Council Resolution 36, 2012 to examine economic development policies and procedures related to the use of tax increment financing (TIF) in Marion County; to hold public hearings and take public input; and to report to the Council its findings and recommendations for improvement; and

WHEREAS, the Commission members included three City-County Councillors, the City Controller, the Director

of the Indianapolis Bond Bank, the County Auditor, the Chair of the Metropolitan Development Commission and a member of the Indiana General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, over the course of eight meetings and more than 24 hours of discussion, presentation and public

testimony, the commission members explored the following 10 objectives set by the enacting ordinance: 1) Policies and past practices used in Marion County for the establishment of TIF districts and projects therein;

2) Policies and past practices used in Marion County for the expenditure of TIF district funds and the issuance

of debt backed by TIF district funds;

3) Current Marion County TIF districts and associated fund balances, debt obligations and past expenditures;

4) Need for new methods to increase transparency of Marion County TIF districts’ funds and the expenditure of those funds, including the establishment of an online database of TIF districts’ funds and expenditures and periodic reporting of TIF districts’ financial data to the Indianapolis City Controller, Marion County Auditor, the Indianapolis-Marion County Council and taxing districts impacted by TIF;

5) Need for new methods to increase accountability, including the establishment of new performance standards

in the establishment of TIF districts to ensure targeting of TIF districts to revitalize blighted areas of Marion County and job creation;

6) Need for performance goals for private development that receives TIF and methods to provide consequences

for the failure to achieve those goals;

7) Need for a comprehensive Economic Development plan to ensure the creation and development of TIF districts and projects therein in a coordinated fashion consistent with Economic Development goals of job creation and community revitalization;

8) Need for periodic review of established TIF districts and projects therein to ensure performance towards

Economic Development goals;

9) Impact of TIF districts on Marion County taxing districts that depend on property tax revenue and the need to mitigate negative impact to those taxing districts, including development of standards and methods to return excess TIF district funds to those units; and

10) Need to establish methods to dismantle TIF districts that are no longer needed and/or address projects therein that are not achieving economic development goals; and

August 13, 2012

13

WHEREAS, the Commission issued a Final Report on June 30, 2012, which contains recommendations for changes to certain policies and procedures related to the use of TIF in Marion County; now therefore:


SECTION 1. The Council expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the TIF Study Commission; to those who made presentations to the Commission; to the Commission staff; to those who made their venues available for Commission meetings; and to those who attended the Commission meetings or submitted written comments to the Commission. SECTION 2. The Council hereby accepts the final report and recommendations of the TIF Study Commission as set forth in Exhibit A hereto. SECTION 3. Individual recommendations will be implemented by ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, policy, procedure, or statute, as appropriate. SECTION 4. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after adoption. PROPOSAL NO. 274, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Talley and Mahern, urges the Metropolitan Development Commission to adopt the recommendations of the Council's Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Study Commission. PROPOSAL NO. 275, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Talley and Mahern, urges the Indiana General Assembly to adopt certain recommendations of the Council's Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Study Commission. Councillor Mansfield moved, seconded by Councillor Gray, to refer Proposal Nos. 274 and 275, 2012 to Committee for further discussion, since the recommendations were just received in the previous proposal. The President said that the motion to refer these proposals to committee needs eight votes to carry. Proposal Nos. 274 and 275, 2012 were referred to Committee on the following roll call vote; viz:

16 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Gray, Hunter, Lewis, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Robinson, Simpson, Talley 12 NAYS: Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Hickman, Holliday, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Pfisterer, Sandlin, Scales 1 ABSENT: Evans

INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL NO. 263, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Moriarty Adams. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Special Resolution which determines the need to lease approximately 9,244 square feet of space, 68 North Gale Street, for use by the Marion County Clerk's Office"; and the President referred it to the Administration and Finance Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 264, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Moriarty Adams. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Special Resolution which determines the need to lease approximately 4,368 square feet of warehouse space, 68 North Gale Street, for use by the Office of Finance and Management, Surplus Division"; and the President referred it to the Administration and Finance Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 265, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Moriarty Adams. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Special Resolution which determines the need to lease approximately 30,800 square feet, 2650 Fortune Circle, East Drive, for use by the Department of Public Safety, Indiana Task Force One"; and the President referred it to the Administration and Finance Committee.


14

PROPOSAL NO. 266, 2012. Introduced by Councillors Talley and Lewis. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints David A. Hampton to the Indianapolis City Market Corporation Board of Directors"; and the President referred it to the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 267, 2012. Introduced by Councillors Talley and McQuillen. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a General Ordinance which amends the Code with regard to impoundment and removal of abandoned vehicles to allow operational efficiencies by holistically addressing the procedures and requirements under the authority of the Department of Code Enforcement"; and the President referred it to the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 268, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Moriarty Adams. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Elizabeth Henning Byfield to the Citizens Police Complaint Board"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 269, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Mahern. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a General Ordinance which amends the Code to require public disclosure and notification to the Council whenever a city or county employee receives a salary increase equal to or greater than 10% that is not the result of a promotion or change in position"; and the President referred it to the Administration and Finance Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 282, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Moriarty Adams. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Police Special Service District Fiscal Ordinance which approves the tax levies and rates for the Police Special Service District for 2013"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 283, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Moriarty Adams. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Fire Special Service District Fiscal Ordinance which approves the tax levies and rates for the Fire Special Service District for 2013"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 284, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Brown. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Solid Waste Collection Special Service District which approves the tax levy and rate for the Solid Waste Collection Special Service District for 2013"; and the President referred it to the Public Works Committee. PROPOSAL NO. 285, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Lewis. The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Fiscal Ordinance which adopts the annual budget for the City of Indianapolis and Marion County for 2013"; and the President referred it to the Administration and Finance, Metropolitan and Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Public Safety and Criminal Justice and Public Works Committees.

SPECIAL ORDERS - PRIORITY BUSINESS PROPOSAL NO. 261, 2012. Councillor Talley reported that the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee heard Proposal No. 261, 2012 on July 23, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Talley, is a final authorization for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds not to exceed $23,000,000 to Covered Bridge, Indiana, LLC, for the acquisition,

August 13, 2012

15

renovation and equipping of a 252-unit multifamily housing facility with related recreational facilities and parking area located at 4909 Covered Bridge Road (Covered Bridge Apartments Project) (District 1). By a 7-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Talley moved, seconded by Councillor Cardwell, for adoption. Proposal No. 261, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

25 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Moriarty Adams, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Talley 0 NAYS: 3 NOT VOTING: Miller, Oliver, Simpson 1 ABSENT: Evans

Proposal No. 261, 2012 was retitled SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 3, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 3, 2012 A SPECIAL ORDINANCE authorizing the City of Indianapolis to issue up to $18,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its City of Indianapolis, Indiana Collateralized Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 (Covered Bridge Apartments Project) (the "Bonds") in one or more series of its Bonds and approving and authorizing other actions in respect thereto.

WHEREAS, Indiana Code Title 36, Article 7, Chapters 11.9 and 12 (collectively, the "Act") declares that the financing and refinancing of economic development facilities constitutes a public purpose; and

WHEREAS, the Act provides that an issuer may, pursuant to the Act, issue revenue bonds and lend the proceeds

thereof to a developer for the purpose of financing, reimbursing or refinancing the costs of economic development facilities, for diversification of economic development and creation or retention of opportunities for gainful employment; and

WHEREAS, the Act provides that such bonds may be secured by a trust indenture between an issuer and a

corporate trustee; and WHEREAS, a representative of Covered Bridge Indiana, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company (the

"Company") has requested that the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (the "Issuer") issue bonds and lend the proceeds thereof to the Company in order to enable the Company to undertake and complete the acquisition, renovation and equipping of a multifamily housing facility known as Covered Bridge Apartments consisting of 252 apartment units, together with functionally related and subordinate facilities such as recreational facilities and parking areas, located at 4909 Covered Bridge Road, in Indianapolis, Indiana (the "Project") in Council District 1 of the City-County Council of the City of Indianapolis and of Marion County, Indiana (the "City-County Council"); and

WHEREAS, the Indianapolis Economic Development Commission (the "Commission") has rendered a report

concerning the proposed financing or refinancing of economic development facilities for the Company and the Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County has been given the opportunity to comment thereon; and

WHEREAS, the Commission after a public hearing held on July 18, 2012, pursuant to Indiana Code Title 36,

Article 7, Chapter 12, Section 24 and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") found that the financing of the Project complies with the purposes and provisions of the Act, that such financing will be of benefit to the health and welfare of the Issuer and its citizens through the requirement that the Project serve persons and families of low and moderate income, that the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the project and its viability as a qualified housing project throughout the credit period for the Project and that the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority’s qualified allocation plan; and

WHEREAS, the financing will not have an adverse competitive effect or impact on any similar facility or facilities

of the same kind already constructed or operating in the same market area or in or about Marion County, Indiana; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, the Issuer desires to provide funds to finance the Project

by issuing not to exceed $18,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds; and


16

WHEREAS, the Issuer intends to issue the Bonds in one or more series pursuant to a Trust Indenture (the

"Indenture"), by and between the Issuer and a trustee to be selected by the Company (the "Trustee") in order to obtain funds to lend to the Company for the purpose of the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project pursuant to a Loan Agreement with respect to the Bonds between the Issuer and the Company (the "Loan Agreement"), provided, however, that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed $18,000,000; and

WHEREAS, the Loan Agreement provides for the repayment by the Company of the loan of the proceeds of the

Bonds pursuant to which the Company will agree to make payments sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable and to pay administrative expenses in connection with the Bonds; and

WHEREAS, no member of the Council has any pecuniary interest in any employment, financing agreement or

other contract made under the provisions of the Act and related to the Bonds authorized herein, which pecuniary interest has not been fully disclosed to the Council and no such member has voted on any such matter, all in accordance with the provisions of Indiana Code 36-7-12-6; and

WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the Commission for its approval substantially final forms of the

Indenture, Loan Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement, Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, Pilot Agreement, Continuing Disclosure Agreement, Preliminary Official Statement, the forms of the Bonds, the Collateral Agreement, the Trust Account Agreement (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Financing Documents") and this proposed form of ordinance which were incorporated by reference in the Commission's Resolution adopted on July 18, 2012, which Resolution has been transmitted hereto; and

WHEREAS, the Borrower will be liable for the debt described in the Loan Agreement; and WHEREAS, based upon the resolution adopted by the Commission pertaining to the Project, the Issuer hereby

finds and determines that the funding approved by the Commission for the Project will be of benefit to the health and general welfare of the citizens of the Issuer, complies with the provisions of the Act and the amount necessary to finance the costs of the Project, will require the issuance, sale and delivery of one or more series of economic development revenue bonds in an aggregate combined principal amount not to exceed $18,000,000; now, therefore:

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:

SECTION 1. It is hereby found that the financing of the economic development facilities referred to in the Financing Documents consisting of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the loan of the net proceeds thereof to the Company for the purposes of the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project, and the repayment of said loan by the Company will be of benefit to the health or general welfare of the Issuer and its citizens and does comply with the purposes and provisions of the Act, including in particular, the requirement of promoting a substantial likelihood of creating or retaining opportunities for gainful employment. Furthermore, it is hereby found that the Project will further a public purpose of the Issuer through, among other things, the provision of quality, affordable, multifamily housing. SECTION 2. The forms of the Financing Documents presented herewith are hereby approved and all such documents shall be kept on file by the Clerk of the Council or City Controller. In compliance with Indiana Code Title 36, Article 1, Chapter 5, Section 4, two (2) copies of the Financing Documents are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Council for public inspection. SECTION 3. The Issuer shall issue its Bonds in one or more series, as described above, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $18,000,000, for the purpose of procuring funds to loan to the Company in order to finance the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project which Bonds will be payable as to principal and interest solely from the payments made by the Company pursuant to the Financing Documents to evidence and secure said loan and as otherwise provided in the above-described Financing Documents. The Bonds shall never constitute a general obligation of, an indebtedness of, or charge against the general credit of the Issuer. SECTION 4. The Clerk of the Council and City Controller are authorized and directed to sell such Bonds to the purchasers thereof at a price not less than 97% of the aggregate principal amount thereof plus accrued interest, if any, and at a rate of interest not to exceed 10% percent per annum. The Bonds will mature no later than 40 years from the date of their issuance, and shall be subject to optional redemption within 2 years of the date of issuance thereof at a price of 100% of the principal amount thereof. SECTION 5. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to execute those Financing Documents approved herein which require the signature of the Mayor and Clerk and any other document which may be necessary or desirable to

August 13, 2012

17

consummate the transaction, and their execution is hereby confirmed on behalf of the Issuer. The signatures of the Mayor and the Clerk on the Bonds may be necessary or desirable to consummate the transaction, and their execution is hereby confirmed on behalf of the Issuer. The signatures of the Mayor and the Clerk on the Bonds may be facsimile signatures. The Clerk and City Controller are authorized to arrange for the delivery of such Bonds to the purchaser, payment for which will be made in the manner set forth in the Financing Documents. The Mayor and Clerk may, by their execution of the Financing Documents requiring their signatures and imprinting of their facsimile signatures thereon, approve changes therein and also in those Financing Documents which do not require the signature of the Mayor and/or Clerk without further approval of this City-County Council or the Commission if such changes do not affect terms set forth in Indiana Code Title 36, Article 7, Chapter 12, Section 27(a)(1) through (a)(10). SECTION 6. The provisions of this ordinance and the Financing Documents shall constitute a contract binding between the Issuer and the holder or holders of the Bonds and after the issuance of said Bonds, this ordinance shall not be repealed or amended in any respect which would adversely affect the right of such holder or holders so long as said Bonds or the interest thereon remains unpaid. SECTION 7. Rule 15c2-12(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "SEC Rule"), provides that, prior to the time a participating underwriter or placement agent bids for, purchases, offers or sells municipal securities, the participating underwriter or placement agent shall obtain and review an official statement that an issuer of such securities deems a "near final" official statement. The Preliminary Official Statement is hereby deemed final as of its date, except for the omission of no more than the following information: the offering price(s), interest rate(s), selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, delivery dates, ratings and other terms of the securities depending on such matters. The Mayor, the Clerk or any other officer of the Issuer familiar with the matters with respect to the Issuer set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement is hereby authorized to certify to the underwriter, that the information in the Preliminary Official Statement with respect to the Issuer is deemed to be final within the meaning of the SEC Rule prior to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement. SECTION 8. Subject to the obligations of the Borrower set forth in the Loan Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and the Tax Representation Certificate, the Issuer will use its best efforts to restrict the use of the proceeds of the Bonds in such a manner and to expectations at the time the Bonds are delivered to the purchasers thereof, so that they will not constitute arbitrage bonds under Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Mayor and the Clerk, or any other officer having responsibility with respect to the issuance of the Bonds, are authorized and directed, alone or in conjunction with any of the foregoing, or with any other officer, employee, consultant or agent of the Issuer, to deliver a certificate for inclusion in the transcript of proceedings for the Bonds, setting forth the facts, estimates and circumstances and reasonable expectations pertaining to said Section 148 of the Code and the regulations thereunder. SECTION 9. No recourse under or upon any obligation, covenant, acceptance or agreement contained in this ordinance, the Financing Documents or under any judgment obtained against the Issuer or by the enforcement of any assessment or by any legal or equitable proceeding by virtue of any constitution or statute or otherwise, or under any circumstances, under or independent of the Loan Agreement, shall be had against any member, director, or officer or attorney, as such, past, present, or future, of the Issuer, either directly or through the Issuer, or otherwise, for the payment for or to the Issuer or any receiver thereof or for or to any holder of the Bonds secured thereby, or otherwise, of any sum that may remain due and unpaid by the Issuer upon any of such Bonds. Any and all personal liability of every nature, whether at common law or in equity, or by statute or by constitution or otherwise, of any such member, director, or officer or attorney, as such, to respond by reason of any act or omission on his or her part or otherwise for, directly or indirectly, the payment for or to the Issuer or any receiver thereof, or for or to any owner or holder of the Bonds, or otherwise, of any sum that may remain due and unpaid upon the Bonds hereby secured or any of them, shall be expressly waived and released as a condition of and consideration for the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement and the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. SECTION 10. The Borrower will indemnify and hold the Issuer, including its officials, attorneys, employees and agents, free and harmless from any loss, claim, damage, tax, penalty, liability, disbursement, litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses and other court costs arising out of, or in any way relating to, the execution or performance of the Financing Documents or other documents in connection therewith or any other cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project or the Bonds, including the issuance and sale of the Bonds or failure to issue or sell the Bonds or other actions taken under the Financing Documents or other documents in connection therewith or any other cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project or the Bonds, all as further described in the Loan Agreement, except in any case as a result of the intentional misrepresentation or willful misconduct of the Issuer. SECTION 11. It is hereby determined that the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of the Code does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the Project and its viability as a qualified housing project throughout the credit period for the Project. In making the foregoing determination, the Council has


18

relied upon representations of the Company. The foregoing determinations shall not be construed to be a representation or warranty by the Issuer as to the feasibility or viability of the Project. The Council hereby authorizes and directs the Auditor of Marion County to review and make the foregoing determination again for and on behalf of Marion County at the request of the Company, following receipt of supporting materials submitted by the Company to the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority ("IHCDA") and either written representations of the Company or of IHCDA to the effect that (i) the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of the Code does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the Project and its viability as a qualified housing project throughout the credit period for the Project and (ii) the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under IHCDA's qualified allocation plan. Such determinations shall occur on or about the date of the sale of the Bonds to the Purchasers thereof and on or about the date that each building of the Project is placed in service. In reliance upon the representations of the Company, it is hereby found and determined that the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under IHCDA's qualified allocation plan. SECTION 12. If any section, paragraph or provision of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 13. All ordinances, resolutions and orders or parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. SECTION 14. It is hereby determined that all formal actions of the Council relating to the adoption of this Ordinance were taken in one or more open meetings of the Council, that all deliberations of the Council and of its committees, if any, which resulted in formal action, were in meetings open to the public, and that all such meetings were convened, held and conducted in compliance with applicable legal requirements, including Indiana Code 5-14-1.5 et seq., as amended. SECTION 15. The Mayor and the Clerk are authorized to take all such further actions or to execute, attest and deliver such further instruments and documents in the name of the Issuer as in their judgment shall be necessary or advisable in order fully to consummate the transaction and carry out the purposes of this Ordinance. SECTION 16. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with Indiana Code Title 36, Article 3, Chapter 4, Section 14. PROPOSAL NO. 262, 2012. Councillor Talley reported that the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee heard Proposal No. 262, 2012 on July 23, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Talley, is a final authorization for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds not to exceed $18,000,000 to Meadowlark Indiana, LLC, for the acquisition, renovation and equipping of a 360-unit multifamily housing facility with related recreational facilities and parking area located at 9350 E. 43rd Street (Meadowlark Apartments Project) (District 12). By a 7-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Talley moved, seconded by Councillor McQuillen, for adoption. Proposal No. 262, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

27 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 0 NAYS: 1 NOT VOTING: Oliver 1 ABSENT: Evans

Proposal No. 262, 2012 was retitled SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 4, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 4, 2012 A SPECIAL ORDINANCE authorizing the City of Indianapolis to issue up to $23,000,000 aggregate principal amount of its City of Indianapolis, Indiana Collateralized Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2012 (Meadowlark Apartments Project) (the "Bonds") in one or more series of its Bonds and approving and authorizing other actions in respect thereto.

August 13, 2012

19

WHEREAS, Indiana Code Title 36, Article 7, Chapters 11.9 and 12 (collectively, the "Act") declares that the

financing and refinancing of economic development facilities constitutes a public purpose; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that an issuer may, pursuant to the Act, issue revenue bonds and lend the proceeds

thereof to a developer for the purpose of financing, reimbursing or refinancing the costs of economic development facilities, for diversification of economic development and creation or retention of opportunities for gainful employment; and

WHEREAS, the Act provides that such bonds may be secured by a trust indenture between an issuer and a

corporate trustee; and WHEREAS, a representative of Meadowlark Indiana, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company (the "Company")

has requested that the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (the "Issuer") issue bonds and lend the proceeds thereof to the Company in order to enable the Company to undertake and complete the acquisition, renovation and equipping of a multifamily housing facility known as Meadowlark Apartments consisting of 360 apartment units, together with functionally related and subordinate facilities such as recreational facilities and parking areas, located at 9350 East 43rd Street, in Indianapolis, Indiana (the "Project") in Council District 12 of the City-County Council of the City of Indianapolis and of Marion County, Indiana (the "City-County Council"); and

WHEREAS, the Indianapolis Economic Development Commission (the "Commission") has rendered a report

concerning the proposed financing or refinancing of economic development facilities for the Company and the Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County has been given the opportunity to comment thereon; and

WHEREAS, the Commission after a public hearing held on July 18, 2012, pursuant to Indiana Code Title 36,

Article 7, Chapter 12, Section 24 and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") found that the financing of the Project complies with the purposes and provisions of the Act, that such financing will be of benefit to the health and welfare of the Issuer and its citizens through the requirement that the Project serve persons and families of low and moderate income, that the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the project and its viability as a qualified housing project throughout the credit period for the Project and that the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority’s qualified allocation plan; and

WHEREAS, the financing will not have an adverse competitive effect or impact on any similar facility or facilities

of the same kind already constructed or operating in the same market area or in or about Marion County, Indiana; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, the Issuer desires to provide funds to finance the Project

by issuing not to exceed $23,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Issuer intends to issue the Bonds in one or more series pursuant to a Trust Indenture (the

"Indenture"), by and between the Issuer and a trustee to be selected by the Company (the "Trustee") in order to obtain funds to lend to the Company for the purpose of the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project pursuant to a Loan Agreement with respect to the Bonds between the Issuer and the Company (the "Loan Agreement"), provided, however, that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed $23,000,000; and

WHEREAS, the Loan Agreement provides for the repayment by the Company of the loan of the proceeds of the

Bonds pursuant to which the Company will agree to make payments sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable and to pay administrative expenses in connection with the Bonds; and

WHEREAS, no member of the Council has any pecuniary interest in any employment, financing agreement or

other contract made under the provisions of the Act and related to the Bonds authorized herein, which pecuniary interest has not been fully disclosed to the Council and no such member has voted on any such matter, all in accordance with the provisions of Indiana Code 36-7-12-6; and

WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the Commission for its approval substantially final forms of the

Indenture, Loan Agreement, Bond Purchase Agreement, Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, Pilot Agreement, Continuing Disclosure Agreement, Preliminary Official Statement, the forms of the Bonds, the Collateral Agreement, the Trust Account Agreement (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Financing Documents") and this proposed form of ordinance which were incorporated by reference in the Commission's Resolution adopted on July 18, 2012, which Resolution has been transmitted hereto; and


20

WHEREAS, the Borrower will be liable for the debt described in the Loan Agreement; and WHEREAS, based upon the resolution adopted by the Commission pertaining to the Project, the Issuer hereby

finds and determines that the funding approved by the Commission for the Project will be of benefit to the health and general welfare of the citizens of the Issuer, complies with the provisions of the Act and the amount necessary to finance the costs of the Project, will require the issuance, sale and delivery of one or more series of economic development revenue bonds in an aggregate combined principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000; now, therefore:

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:

SECTION 1. It is hereby found that the financing of the economic development facilities referred to in the Financing Documents consisting of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the loan of the net proceeds thereof to the Company for the purposes of the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project, and the repayment of said loan by the Company will be of benefit to the health or general welfare of the Issuer and its citizens and does comply with the purposes and provisions of the Act, including in particular, the requirement of promoting a substantial likelihood of creating or retaining opportunities for gainful employment. Furthermore, it is hereby found that the Project will further a public purpose of the Issuer through, among other things, the provision of quality, affordable, multifamily housing. SECTION 2. The forms of the Financing Documents presented herewith are hereby approved and all such documents shall be kept on file by the Clerk of the Council or City Controller. In compliance with Indiana Code Title 36, Article 1, Chapter 5, Section 4, two (2) copies of the Financing Documents are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Council for public inspection. SECTION 3. The Issuer shall issue its Bonds in one or more series, as described above, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000, for the purpose of procuring funds to loan to the Company in order to finance the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project which Bonds will be payable as to principal and interest solely from the payments made by the Company pursuant to the Financing Documents to evidence and secure said loan and as otherwise provided in the above-described Financing Documents. The Bonds shall never constitute a general obligation of, an indebtedness of, or charge against the general credit of the Issuer. SECTION 4. The Clerk of the Council and City Controller are authorized and directed to sell such Bonds to the purchasers thereof at a price not less than 97% of the aggregate principal amount thereof plus accrued interest, if any, and at a rate of interest not to exceed 10% percent per annum. The Bonds will mature no later than 40 years from the date of their issuance, and shall be subject to optional redemption within 2 years of the date of issuance thereof at a price of 100% of the principal amount thereof. SECTION 5. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to execute those Financing Documents approved herein which require the signature of the Mayor and Clerk and any other document which may be necessary or desirable to consummate the transaction, and their execution is hereby confirmed on behalf of the Issuer. The signatures of the Mayor and the Clerk on the Bonds may be necessary or desirable to consummate the transaction, and their execution is hereby confirmed on behalf of the Issuer. The signatures of the Mayor and the Clerk on the Bonds may be facsimile signatures. The Clerk and City Controller are authorized to arrange for the delivery of such Bonds to the purchaser, payment for which will be made in the manner set forth in the Financing Documents. The Mayor and Clerk may, by their execution of the Financing Documents requiring their signatures and imprinting of their facsimile signatures thereon, approve changes therein and also in those Financing Documents which do not require the signature of the Mayor and/or Clerk without further approval of this City-County Council or the Commission if such changes do not affect terms set forth in Indiana Code Title 36, Article 7, Chapter 12, Section 27(a)(1) through (a)(10). SECTION 6. The provisions of this ordinance and the Financing Documents shall constitute a contract binding between the Issuer and the holder or holders of the Bonds and after the issuance of said Bonds, this ordinance shall not be repealed or amended in any respect which would adversely affect the right of such holder or holders so long as said Bonds or the interest thereon remains unpaid. SECTION 7. Rule 15c2-12(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "SEC Rule"), provides that, prior to the time a participating underwriter or placement agent bids for, purchases, offers or sells municipal securities, the participating underwriter or placement agent shall obtain and review an official statement that an issuer of such securities deems a "near final" official statement. The Preliminary Official Statement is hereby deemed final as of its date, except for the omission of no more than the following information: the offering price(s), interest rate(s), selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, delivery dates, ratings and other terms of the securities depending on such matters. The Mayor, the Clerk or any other officer of the Issuer familiar with the matters with respect to the Issuer set forth in the Preliminary Official Statement is hereby authorized to certify to the

August 13, 2012

21

underwriter, that the information in the Preliminary Official Statement with respect to the Issuer is deemed to be final within the meaning of the SEC Rule prior to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement. SECTION 8. Subject to the obligations of the Borrower set forth in the Loan Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and the Tax Representation Certificate, the Issuer will use its best efforts to restrict the use of the proceeds of the Bonds in such a manner and to expectations at the time the Bonds are delivered to the purchasers thereof, so that they will not constitute arbitrage bonds under Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Mayor and the Clerk, or any other officer having responsibility with respect to the issuance of the Bonds, are authorized and directed, alone or in conjunction with any of the foregoing, or with any other officer, employee, consultant or agent of the Issuer, to deliver a certificate for inclusion in the transcript of proceedings for the Bonds, setting forth the facts, estimates and circumstances and reasonable expectations pertaining to said Section 148 of the Code and the regulations thereunder. SECTION 9. No recourse under or upon any obligation, covenant, acceptance or agreement contained in this ordinance, the Financing Documents or under any judgment obtained against the Issuer or by the enforcement of any assessment or by any legal or equitable proceeding by virtue of any constitution or statute or otherwise, or under any circumstances, under or independent of the Loan Agreement, shall be had against any member, director, or officer or attorney, as such, past, present, or future, of the Issuer, either directly or through the Issuer, or otherwise, for the payment for or to the Issuer or any receiver thereof or for or to any holder of the Bonds secured thereby, or otherwise, of any sum that may remain due and unpaid by the Issuer upon any of such Bonds. Any and all personal liability of every nature, whether at common law or in equity, or by statute or by constitution or otherwise, of any such member, director, or officer or attorney, as such, to respond by reason of any act or omission on his or her part or otherwise for, directly or indirectly, the payment for or to the Issuer or any receiver thereof, or for or to any owner or holder of the Bonds, or otherwise, of any sum that may remain due and unpaid upon the Bonds hereby secured or any of them, shall be expressly waived and released as a condition of and consideration for the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement and the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. SECTION 10. The Borrower will indemnify and hold the Issuer, including its officials, attorneys, employees and agents, free and harmless from any loss, claim, damage, tax, penalty, liability, disbursement, litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses and other court costs arising out of, or in any way relating to, the execution or performance of the Financing Documents or other documents in connection therewith or any other cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project or the Bonds, including the issuance and sale of the Bonds or failure to issue or sell the Bonds or other actions taken under the Financing Documents or other documents in connection therewith or any other cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project or the Bonds, all as further described in the Loan Agreement, except in any case as a result of the intentional misrepresentation or willful misconduct of the Issuer. SECTION 11. It is hereby determined that the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of the Code does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the Project and its viability as a qualified housing project throughout the credit period for the Project. In making the foregoing determination, the Council has relied upon representations of the Company. The foregoing determinations shall not be construed to be a representation or warranty by the Issuer as to the feasibility or viability of the Project. The Council hereby authorizes and directs the Auditor of Marion County to review and make the foregoing determination again for and on behalf of Marion County at the request of the Company, following receipt of supporting materials submitted by the Company to the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority ("IHCDA") and either written representations of the Company or of IHCDA to the effect that (i) the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of the Code does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the Project and its viability as a qualified housing project throughout the credit period for the Project and (ii) the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under IHCDA's qualified allocation plan. Such determinations shall occur on or about the date of the sale of the Bonds to the Purchasers thereof and on or about the date that each building of the Project is placed in service. In reliance upon the representations of the Company, it is hereby found and determined that the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under IHCDA's qualified allocation plan. SECTION 12. If any section, paragraph or provision of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 13. All ordinances, resolutions and orders or parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. SECTION 14. It is hereby determined that all formal actions of the Council relating to the adoption of this Ordinance were taken in one or more open meetings of the Council, that all deliberations of the Council and of its committees, if


22

any, which resulted in formal action, were in meetings open to the public, and that all such meetings were convened, held and conducted in compliance with applicable legal requirements, including Indiana Code 5-14-1.5 et seq., as amended. SECTION 15. The Mayor and the Clerk are authorized to take all such further actions or to execute, attest and deliver such further instruments and documents in the name of the Issuer as in their judgment shall be necessary or advisable in order fully to consummate the transaction and carry out the purposes of this Ordinance. SECTION 16. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with Indiana Code Title 36, Article 3, Chapter 4, Section 14. PROPOSAL NOS. 276-278, 2012 and PROPOSAL NOS. 279-281, 2012. Introduced by Councillor Talley. Proposal Nos. 276-278, 2012 and Proposal Nos. 279-281, 2012 are proposals for Rezoning Ordinances certified by the Metropolitan Development Commission on July 31 and April 2, 2012. The President called for any motions for public hearings on any of those zoning maps changes. There being no motions for public hearings, the proposed ordinances, pursuant to IC 36-7-4-608, took effect as if adopted by the City-County Council, were retitled for identification as REZONING ORDINANCE NOS. 42-47, 2012, the original copies of which ordinances are on file with the Metropolitan Development Commission, which were certified as follows:

REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 42, 2012. 2012-ZON-029 2802 MERCHANTS DRIVE (Approximate Addresses) INDIANAPOLIS, WAYNE TOWNSHIP COUNCIL DISTRICT # 14 INDIANAPOLIS ALUMNI CHAPTER, KAPPA ALPHA PSI, INC., by Mark Young, requests Rezoning of 7.84 acres, from the I-3-S (FW) (FF) District, to the C-4 (FW) (FF) classification to provide for commercial uses. REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 43, 2012. 2012-ZON-034 1936 PERKINS AVENUE (Approximate Addresses) INDIANAPOLIS, CENTER TOWNSHIP COUNCIL DISTRICT # 20 IMG REALTY TRUST, by Brian J. Tuohy, requests Rezoning of 13.4 acres, from the D-A District, to the SU-10 classification to provide for a cemetery and mausoleum. REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 44, 2012. 2012-ZON-035 4102 EAST WASHINGTON STREET (Approximate Address) INDIANAPOLIS, CENTER TOWNSHIP COUNCIL DISTRICT # 16 CPT REO, LLC, by David Kingen, requests Rezoning of 0.26 acre, from the C-1 District to the C-3-C classification to provide for commercial uses. REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 45, 2012. 2012-ZON-026 530 FULTON STREET AND 530 SPRING STREET (Approximate Address) INDIANAPOLIS, CENTER TOWNSHIP COUNCIL DISTRICT # 9 MIKE CUNNINGHAM AND PATRICK HEITZ requests Rezoning of .16 acre, from the I-3-U District to the CBD-2 classification to provide for an office building with one residence on the 2nd floor. REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 46, 2012. 2012-ZON-033 1129, 1133, 1137 AND 1147 EAST 10TH STREET (Approximate Address) INDIANAPOLIS, CENTER TOWNSHIP COUNCIL DISTRICT # 16

August 13, 2012

23

INDY MOD HOMES, LLC, by Ursula David, requests Rezoning of 0.5716 acre, from the C-2 District, to the D-8 classification to provide for the construction of single-family residences. REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 47, 2012. 2012-ZON-036 1740 SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL ROAD AND 7800 COLONEL H. WEIR COOK MEMORIAL DRIVE (Approximate Address) INDIANAPOLIS, WAYNE TOWNSHIP COUNCIL DISTRICT # 22 BLACK-HEBERT LUMBER COMPANY, INC., by Timothy H. Button, requests Rezoning of 5.72 acres, from the C-4 District, to the I-4-S classification to provide for heavy industrial uses.

SPECIAL ORDERS - PUBLIC HEARING

PROPOSAL NO. 234, 2012. Councillor Mansfield reported that the Administration and Finance Committee heard Proposal No. 234, 2012 on July 17, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Mansfield, appropriates $119,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Information Services Agency (Information Services Fund) to continue implementation of the Indy CORPS ERP Project, with $60,000 appropriated from the Enhanced Access Fund to reimburse ISA for funds spent enabling mobile devices to access the Indy.gov website. By a 6-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Moriarty Adams stated that she serves as the chief financial officer for the County Assessor, and there were many frustrations with the new hyperion system, especially during the budget submission process. She said that she hopes this money will bring some immediate remedies. The President called for public testimony at 8:36 p.m. There being no one present to testify, Councillor Mansfield moved, seconded by Councillor Moriarty Adams, for adoption. Proposal No. 234, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

28 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 0 NAYS: 1 ABSENT: Evans

Proposal No. 234, 2012 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 17, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 17, 2012

A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012, by appropriating One Hundred Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($119,000) and transferring Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) for purposes of the Information Services Agency.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:

SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Information Services Agency, additional appropriation of $119,000 to continue the implementation of the Indy CORPS ERP Project, with funding from the Information Services Fund balance. Specifically, these funds will be used to complete the Hyperion budgeting software program. Also included is an appropriation of $60,000 from the Enhanced Access fund, to reimburse ISA for funds spent enabling mobile devices to access the Indy.gov website.


24

The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:

COUNTY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET

TOTAL Information Services Agency ISA Fund 119,000 119,000 Information Services Agency

Enhanced Access 60,000 60,000

SECTION 3. Upon approval of this ordinance, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance

ISA General 297,000 Enhanced Access Fund 1,065,000

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 235, 2012. Councillor Mansfield reported that the Administration and Finance Committee heard Proposal No. 235, 2012 on July 17, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Mansfield,appropriates $133,000 in the 2012 Budgets of the Office of Finance and Management and the Department of Public Safety (Consolidated County Fund) to fund five new full time positions and a temporary contract grant writer for the purpose of researching, writing and managing grants, including financial reporting. By a 6-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Moriarty Adams encouraged her colleagues to support the proposal. She said that there has been widespread concern about losing grant dollars because of non-compliance, and this will help secure grants, keep grants, and produce even more benefit. Councillor Brown said that this way, hopefully the City can capture grant money and not be penalized and losing that grant money because the grant was not monitored or managed properly. He said that he originally had some concerns about funding this, but after some conversation, he feels it is long overdue. He said that even though the administration claimed the 2012 budget was balanced, the Office of Corporation Counsel (OCC), the Office of Finance and Management (OFM), the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) and the Indianapolis Fire Department (IFD) were all woefully underfunded. He said that while funding cannot be found, the need is great, so he will support the proposal to help the City quit squandering grant opportunities. Councillor Pfisterer said that she supports the proposal to take advantage of grants opportunities and dollars that are not local tax dollars. She said that finding skilled and experienced grant writers is not an easy task, and this initiative is very important. Councillor Lutz asked for every dollar spent on a grant writer, what that writer would produce back in the way of grants. Jeff Spalding, City Controller (OFM), said that he does not have a specific number to share, but generally, there is a return on investment significant enough to recover most, if not all, funds. Councillor Mahern said that said that there have been some disturbing revelations regarding the lack of grant capacity and lack of grant funds, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars. He asked if this was due to going without grants staff. Mr. Spalding said that they have had an

August 13, 2012

25

inadequate staff in grant management, but he does not have any statistics to prove that they have lost dollars. Councillor Mahern said that in this instance, the existing grant staff has returned a zero return on investment. Councillor McQuillen asked for a point of personal privilege and said that a year ago at this very moment, tragedy struck the Indiana State Fairgrounds through the collapse of an outdoor stage. He asked for a moment of silence in remembrance of those who lost their lives in that tragic event. A moment of silence was observed. Councillor Hunter said that the return on investments is not always realized directly. He added that there is some validity in the statement that not having beefed up the grants staff has affected grant capacity. He said that there have been a lot of efforts, though, by the Criminal Justice Planning Council (CJPC) to secure and manage grants properly, and what has failed is the enterprise-wide issue. Every agency has some grant management issues across the board, and having this investment enterprise-wide will be very helpful. Councillor Hickman said that she would be interested in what happens in the future. She has been associated with many non-profit agencies, and she does not know any that do not realize a greater return on investment than their costs associated with employment of a grant writer. She said that there is no doubt they will make money off this position. The President called for public testimony at 8:48 p.m. Larry Vaughn, citizen, said that grants are tax dollars, and are just regurgitated; but should be cherished as much as local dollars There being no further testimony, Councillor Hickman moved, seconded by Councillor Pfisterer, to call the question and end debate. Debate was ended on the following roll call vote; viz:

25 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 3 NAYS: Cardwell, Freeman, Lutz 1 ABSENT: Evans

Councillor Mansfield moved, seconded by Councillor Barth, for adoption. Proposal No. 235, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:


Councillor Lutz asked for consent to explain his vote. Consent was given. Councillor Lutz said that he is not criticizing the process, but is just curious if any study has been done. Proposal No. 235, 2012 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 18, 2012, and reads as follows:


26


A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 12, 2011), by appropriating One Hundred Thirty Three Thousand Dollars ($133,000) for purposes of the Office of Finance and Management and the Department of Public Safety.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases and reductions hereinafter stated for purposes of the Office of Finance and Management, as listed in sections 101 (f) and 101 (i) of the 2012 budget ordinance. SECTION 2. The Office of Finance and Management will receive funding for two new FTE positions and one temporary contract grant writer, for the purpose of researching, writing and managing city-county grants, funded from the Consolidated County fund (“City General” subfund.) The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:

FUND CHAR 1 CHAR 2 CHAR 3 CHAR 4 CHAR 5 TOTAL Consolidated County

40,000 0 15,000 0 0

55,000

SECTION 3. The Department of Public Safety will receive funding for three new FTE positions, for the purpose of researching, writing and managing city-county grants, funded from the Consolidated County fund (“City General” subfund.) The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:


78,000 0 0 0 0

78,000

SECTION 4. Article V of the 2012 budget ordinance (fiscal ordinance 12, 2011) is hereby amended by increasing the number of authorized FTE’s for the Department of Public Safety (excluding IMPD and IFD) from 110 to 113. SECTION 5 Upon approval of this and other pending proposals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:


Consolidated County Fund (“City General” subfund only)

3,826,000

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 236, 2012. Councillor Mansfield reported that the Administration and Finance Committee heard Proposal No. 236, 2012 on July 17, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Pfisterer, appropriates $100,000 in the 2012 Budget of the City-County Council (Consolidated County Fund) for additional funding of Early Intervention Planning Council programming. By a 6-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass as amended. Councillor Pfisterer said that this has been a long and arduous process in helping to keep children out of the court system. She urged her colleagues to support the effort. Councillor Miller agreed and said that this is a great program. The President called for public testimony at 8:55 p.m. There being no one present to testify, Councillor Mansfield moved, seconded by Councillor Pfisterer, for adoption. Proposal No. 236, 2012, as amended, was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

August 13, 2012

27




A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 12, 2011), by appropriating One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the purposes of the City County Council.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA

SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures, the necessity for which has arisen since the adoption of the annual budget, §1.01(c) of the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by an increase in the budget of the City County Council for additional funding of Early Intervention Planning Council programming. SECTION 2. The following increased appropriation is hereby approved: CITY COUNTY COUNCIL CONSOLIDATED COUNTY FUND 1. Personal Services 0 2. Supplies 0 3. Other Services and Charges 100,000 4. Capital Outlay 0 5. Internal Chargebacks 0 TOTAL INCREASE 100,000 SECTION 3. The additional appropriation to the 2012 Budget of the City-County Council is deemed by the Council to be an appropriate use of and expenditure of funds, pursuant to Section 283-507 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County. SECTION 4 Upon approval of this and other pending proposals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

PROJECTED 2012 YEAR-END

BALANCE CONSOLIDATED COUNTY FUND (“CITY GENERAL” SUBFUND ONLY)

3,826,000

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with Ind. Code § 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 237, 2012. Councillor Mansfield reported that the Administration and Finance Committee heard Proposal No. 237, 2012 on July 17, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Mansfield, appropriates $73,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Office of Corporation Counsel (Consolidated County Fund) to cover expenses for outside legal counsel needed to defend the city against major lawsuits and to fund one attorney position to work in the prosecutor's section to assist in litigating cases involving code violations, which will be refunded back via an internal chargeback to the department of code enforcement. By a 6-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass.


28

The President called for public testimony at 8:58 p.m. There being no one present to testify, Councillor Mansfield moved, seconded by Councillor Simpson, for adoption. Proposal No. 237,2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

27 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 1 NAY: Brown 1 ABSENT: Evans



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 12, 2011), by transferring and appropriating a net total of Seventy Three Thousand Dollars ($73,000) for purposes of the Office of Corporation Counsel.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases and reductions hereinafter stated for purposes of the Office of Corporation Counsel and the Department of Code Enforcement, as listed in sections 101 (e) and 101 (k) of the 2012 budget ordinance SECTION 2. The Office of Corporation Counsel, transfer and additional appropriation of funds to cover outside legal counsel needed to defend the city against major lawsuits. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:


(45,000) 0 122,000 (4,000) 0

73,000

SECTION 3. The Office of Corporation Counsel, transfer and appropriation of funds to hire one staff attorney who will work in the city prosecutor’s section of OCC to assist in litigating cases involving city code violations. The cost for this position will be refunded back to OCC via an internal chargeback to the Department of Code Enforcement. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:


36,000 0 0 0 (36,000) 0

SECTION 4. Article V of the 2012 budget ordinance (fiscal ordinance 12, 2011) is hereby amended by increasing the number of authorized FTE’s for the Office of Corporation Counsel from 46 to 47. SECTION 5 Upon approval of this and other pending proposals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:


Consolidated County Fund (“City General” subfund only)

3,826,000

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Councillor Moriarty Adams reported that the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee heard Proposal Nos. 239-250, 2012 on July 18, 2012. She asked for consent to vote on these proposals together. Consent was given.

August 13, 2012

29

PROPOSAL NO. 239, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $74,123 in the 2012 Budget of the Marion County Public Defender Agency (County General Fund) for the salary and benefits of the mitigation specialist and a portion of the contractual expenses related to the Thomas Hardy death penalty case. PROPOSAL NO. 240, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $1,250,898 in the 2012 Budget of the Marion County Sheriff (Emergency Telephone System Fund) to cover a one year extension on the AT&T contract for the E911 telephone system, funded with revenues from the MECA Debt Service Fund. PROPOSAL NO. 241, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $550,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (State Law Enforcement Fund) to help cover a budget shortfall in salaries for the IMPD forfeiture unit. PROPOSAL NO. 242, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $55,927 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (IMPD General Law Enforcement Equipment and Training Subfund) for training and equipping IMPD officers, funded by revenues received from visiting NFL teams that pay fees for escort vehicles. PROPOSAL NO. 243, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, ppropriates $175,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (State Law Enforcement Fund) to pay salaries and benefits of transcriptionists through June 30, 2012. PROPOSAL NO. 244, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Adamson and Moriarty Adams, appropriates $402,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety, Animal Care and Control Division (City Cumulative Fund) to purchase and equip eight vehicles and pay for repairs and upgrades to the city's animal shelter. PROPOSAL NO. 245, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $757,069 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (IMPD General Fund) to restore funding for salaries and benefits that were required to be cut from the IMPD budget by order of the DLGF. PROPOSAL NO. 246, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $3,203,771 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (IMPD General Fund) to cover the reimbursement of IMPD operating expenses during the SuperBowl, funded by revenues received from the Capital Improvements Board and the NFL. PROPOSAL NO. 247, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $413,813 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (Federal Grants Fund) to cover the costs of Task Force One (Urban Search and Rescue) for the purchase of equipment and supplies in their response to local deployments, for training, fuel, overtime, travel and other items, funded by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security. PROPOSAL NO. 248, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $422,722 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety, Fire Division (Fire General Fund) to reimburse expenses incurred by IFD during the SuperBowl event, funded by revenues received from the Capital Improvements Board. PROPOSAL NO. 249, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $93,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety, Fire Division (Fire General Fund) to supplement personal services, funded by revenues received from IUPUI for fire protection services. PROPOSAL NO. 250, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, appropriates $59,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (City Cumulative Capital Improvement Fund) to provide for the required 50% match on bullet proof vest grants. By 8-0 votes, the Committee reported the proposals to the Council with the recommendation that they do pass. The President called for public testimony at 9:12 p.m. Mr. Vaughn said that the loan that the City gave to the Capital Improvement Board for the Super Bowl was never paid back and is part of the City’s shortfall. He added that another $43 million was loaned for the Super Bowl by Public Safety Director Frank Straub and has never been paid


30

back. He said that if they have a shortfall of funds, it is because of mismanagement and misallocation of funds. There being no further testimony, Councillor Moriarty Adams moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson, for adoption. Proposal Nos. 239-250, 2012 were adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:




A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012, by appropriating Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Three Dollars $74,123) for purposes of the Marion County Public Defender Agency.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Marion County Public Defender Agency additional appropriations supported by the County General Fund. These funds are used to fund the salary and benefits of the Mitigation Specialist and to cover contractual expenses relating to the Thomas Hardy death penalty case. The Indiana Public Defender Commission will reimburse Marion County for 50% of all costs associated with capital cases, and 40% of costs associated with non-capital cases. The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:

COUNTY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET TOTAL Marion County Public Defender Agency County General 65,427 8,696 $74,123

SECTION 3. The said additional appropriation is supported by new revenues, not previously budgeted in the County General Fund, representing reimbursements from the Indiana Public Defender Commission. The Marion County Public Defender expects to receive at least $60,000 more revenue from reimbursements in 2012 than had been anticipated when the 2012 budget was adopted. SECTION 4. Article V of the 2012 budget ordinance (fiscal ordinance 12, 2011) is hereby amended by increasing the number of authorized FTE’s for the Marion County Public Defender to 206 FTE. (The budget ordinance showed 197, which was an error. The correct total should have been 205, which is hereby increased by 1 to 206. SECTION 5 Upon approval of this and other pending proposals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:


County General Fund $6,921,000 SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 240, 2012 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 22, 2012, and reads as follows:

August 13, 2012

31


A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Eight Dollars ($1,250,898) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, IFD.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Marion County Sheriff’s Office, seeks to transfer $1,250,898 from the MECA Debt Service Fund to the Marion County Emergency Telephone System Fund to cover a one year extension of the AT&T contract. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:

COUNTY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET TOTAL

Marion County Sheriff Office

Emergency Telephone System Fund $1,250,898 $1,250,898

SECTION 3. Revenues from the MECA Debt Service Fund will be directed to the Marion County Emergency Telephone System Fund to cover appropriation. SECTION 4. Upon approval of this and other pending proposals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance MECA Debt Service Fund $88,000 Emergency Telephone System/E-911 Fund

$247,000

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 241, 2012 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 23, 2012, and reads as follows:


A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($550,000) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety Agency additional appropriations are supported by the State Law Enforcement Fund. These funds will be used to fund the shortfall in salaries for the IMPD forfeiture unit. The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:

CITY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET TOTAL

Department of Public Safety

State Law Enforcement Fund 550,000 550,000

SECTION 3. The said additional appropriation is supported by the State Law Enforcement Fund for $550,000, which was not previously budgeted in the 2012 budget, in the total amount of $550,000.


32

SECTION 4. Upon Approval and other pending approvals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance State Law Enforcement Fund 1,783,000



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars ($55,927) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety Agency additional appropriations are supported by the IMPD General (Law Enforcement Equipment and Training Fund. The revenues supporting this appropriation are received from NFL teams that pay fees for escorting vehicles when they are in the city. The funds are deposited into a dedicated Law Enforcement Equipment and Training fund, which is a subfund of IMPD General. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved: The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:



IMPD General (Law Enforcement Equip & Training subfund) 15,000 10,000 30,927 55,927

SECTION 3. The said additional appropriation is supported by the IMPD General Fund for $55,927, which was not previously budgeted in the 2012 budget, in the total amount of $55,927. SECTION 4. Upon approval of this and other pending proposals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance IMPD General Fund (Law Enforcement Equip & Training subfund)

$31,000



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating One Hundred Seventy Five dollars ($175,000) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety.


August 13, 2012

33

SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety Agency additional appropriations are supported by the State Law Enforcement fund. The appropriations will be used to pay the salaries and benefits of transcriptionist through June 30, 2012. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved: The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:

CITY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET TOTAL Department of Public Safety

State Law Enforcement Fund 175,000 175,000

SECTION 3. Upon approval of this and other pending proposals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance State Law Enforcement Fund $1,783,000



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Four Hundred Two dollars ($402,000) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, Animal Care and Control.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety Agency additional appropriations are supported by the City Cumulative. The appropriations will be used to purchase and equip eight vehicles for use by the Division of Animal Care and Control, and to pay for repairs and upgrades to the city’s animal shelter. The repairs include replacing ceiling tiles, upgrading the HVAC systems, and creating additional kennel space to relieve overcrowding of animals. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved: The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:

CITY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET

TOTAL Department of Public Safety- Animal Care and Control

City Cumulative Fund 102,000 300,000 402,000


Projected 2012 year-end balance City Cumulative Fund 8,224,000

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 245, 2012 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 27, 2012, and reads as follows:


34


A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Seven Hundred Fifty Seven Sixty Nine dollars ($757,069) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, IMPD.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety, appropriations to restore funding for salaries and benefits that were required to be cut from the IMPD budget, by order of the Indiana Department of Local Government (DLGF). This budget reduction was ordered by the DLGF based on anticipated COIT revenue before the State’s local income tax calculation error was acknowledged. The correct amount for 2012 COIT is now known, and the revenue will support restoring the budget to the level included in the adopted budget amount approved by the City-County Council in fiscal ordinance 12, 2011. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:


IMPD General 757,069 757,069

SECTION 3. The said additional appropriation is supported by the IMPD General Fund for $757,069, which was not previously budgeted in the 2012 budget, in the total amount of $757,069. SECTION 4. Upon Approval and other pending approvals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance IMPD General Fund $3,662,000



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Three Million Two Hundred Three Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One Dollars ($3,203,771) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, IMPD.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety, appropriation of revenues received from the CIB and the NFL, as reimbursement of Super Bowl expenses, to cover IMPD operating expenses. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:

August 13, 2012

35


IMPD General 784,387 2,388,384 31,000 3,203,771

SECTION 3. Upon approval of this and other pending proposals,, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance IMPD General Fund $3,662,000



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Four Hundred Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen Dollars ($413,813) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, Task Force I.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety, federal grant appropriations will cover costs of Task Force One (Urban Search and Rescue) for the purchase of equipment and supplies for response to local deployments, for training, fuel, overtime, travel and other items funded by the Department of Homeland Security. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:

CITY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET TOTAL Department of Public Safety Federal Grants 50,000 60,591 147,796 155,426 413,813

SECTION 3. The council does not intend to use the revenues from any local tax regardless of source to supplement or extend the appropriations for the agencies or projects authorized by this ordinance. The supervisor of the agency or project, or both, and the controller are directed to notify in writing the city-county council immediately upon receipt of any information that the agency or project is, or may be, reduced or eliminated. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 248, 2012 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 30, 2012, and reads as follows:


A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Four Hundred Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two Dollars ($422,772) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, IFD.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2.


36

SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety, appropriation of $422,772 received from the Capital Improvements Board, to reimburse the Indianapolis Fire Department for operational expenses incurred during the Super Bowl event of 2012. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:

CITY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET TOTAL Department of Public Safety Fire General 393,938 24,818 4,016 422,772

SECTION 3. The said additional appropriation is supported by the Fire General Fund for $422,772, which was not previously budgeted in the 2012 budget, in the total amount of $422,772. SECTION 4. Upon Approval and other pending approvals, the following unappropriated fund balances are projected to remain at the end of 2012:

Projected 2012 year-end balance Fire General Fund $3,885,000



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($93,000) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, IFD.


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety, appropriation of $93,000 received from IUPUI for fire protection services, to supplement the personal services portion of the Fire Department. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved:

CITY AGENCY Fund char 1 char 2 char 3 char 4 char 5 NET TOTAL Department of Public Safety Fire General 93,000 93,000


Projected 2012 year-end balance Fire General 3,885,000



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by appropriating Fifty Nine Thousand Dollars ($59,000) for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, IMPD.


August 13, 2012

37

SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety Agency additional appropriations are supported by the City Cumulative Fund. These funds will be used to fund the 50% match required for the Bullet Proof Vest grants. The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:


DPS-IMPD City Cumulative Fund 0 59,000 59,000


Projected 2012 year-end balance City Cumulative Fund $8,224,000

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14.

SPECIAL ORDERS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS PROPOSAL NO. 179, 2012. Councillor Mahern reported that the Rules and Public Policy Committee heard Proposal No. 179, 2012 on June 12 and July 10, 2012. The Council adopted the proposal on July 16, 2012, and the Mayor vetoed it on July 25, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Lewis, Mahern, Robinson and Adamson, amends Chapter 901 of the Code by making it a condition of licensure that a hotel not be party to any agreement that prevents the hotel from hiring employees of a hotel cleaning service. Councillor Mahern said that one employee who gave testimony at the recent committee hearing was let go because of her testimony. He said that the Mayor’s reasons for vetoing the proposal are incorrect. Councillor Lutz said that he spoke to a Unite Here representative regarding the termination of the woman who spoke at a recent committee meeting. He said that he was not able to take a return call from the Hotel Industry representative yet, but his conversation with the union representative led him to believe that there was an allegation by the staffing agency that this employee did not show up for work. He said that he does nto know the true facts in this case, but there is a system of law in place to resolve these types of disputes, and he believes this individual is availing herself of that system. He said that this is not the forum to resolve those types of issues, and that is why the legislative branch and the judicial branch are separate. He said that it is unfortunate if this woman was terminated due to her testimony, but they do not really know what happened and should trust the appropriate system to resolve it. Councillor Oliver said that this is a slap in the face for the public to come forward and then be fired for their comments. To say the only remedy in place is the judicial system is not sufficient. Councillor Mahern said that State law only deals with individuals being dismissed, but there may be people in the community being blacklisted so that they are unable to feed their children or pay their rent. He said that people deserve better treatment. Councillor Mahern moved, seconded by Councillor Talley, to call the question and end debate. Debate was ended on the following roll call vote; viz:


38

19 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Freeman, Gray, Hickman, Lewis, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 9 NAYS: Cardwell, Gooden, Holliday, Hunter, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Pfisterer 1 ABSENT: Evans

Councillor Mahern moved, seconded by Councillor Brown, to override the Mayor’s veto. The motion to override the veto failed on the following roll call vote; viz:

15 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Gray, Hickman, Lewis, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Robinson, Simpson, Talley 13 NAYS: Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Holliday, Hunter, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Pfisterer, Sandlin, Scales 1 ABSENT: Evans

Councillors Miller, Brown and Hunter asked for consent to explain their votes. Consent was given. Councillor Miller said that he also called the union and the hotel industry and heard there were more human resources issues, but he has not seen any evidence of blacklisting, and if someone can present him with a concrete case of this type, he would do all he could to address it as best he could. Councillor Brown said that to believe this woman was not terminated because of her testimony is not very smart. He said that he is disappointed in members of the minority caucus. Councillor Hunter said that he objects to closing the debate early, as many Council members were denied an opportunity to speak on this issue. Councillor Brown stated that Councillor Hunter’s comments are out of order. PROPOSAL NO. 203, 2012. Councillor Mansfield reported that the Administration and Finance Committee heard Proposal No. 203, 2012 on June 26, 2012. The proposal was adopted by the full Council on July 16, 2012, and then received a line-item veto from the Mayor on July 25, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Mansfield, appropriates a total of $10,081,164 from various city-county funds for use by various city-county departments and agencies, funded by revenues not previously appropriated, reductions of appropriations and remaining fund balances. Councillor Mansfield said that $50,000 of Council funds were spent on non-Council business and spent on behalf of the Mayor. It adds insult to injury that this Mayor found efficiencies enough in his office to jack up salaries of his staff, yet would not pay this bill. She said that she finds this unconscionable. Councillor Mahern said that a promise unkept is a debt unpaid. The Mayor should do his work and allow the Council to do theirs. He said that the Mayor should pay the people back for this expense. He asked General Counsel Fred Biesecker to speak to the line item veto. Mr. Biesecker said that a previous veto of the Mayor on Proposal No. 165, 2012, noted that he could not approve one item in a section and not the other. Yet, in this veto, he claims now to have the authority to do that. He said that in his opinion, he believes the first interpretation to be correct. He said that this is very narrowly construed and he believes he cannot use this veto power to strike a condition to an appropriation. Councillor Adamson said that if re-precincting is the Mayor’s obligation, Council dollars should not be used to do it.

August 13, 2012

39

Councillor Mahern said that this is an unsettled question in the courts, and apparently also in the Mayor’s mind. This body must work with the Mayor, but the Mayor is not giving the Council clear indications of how he will conduct business, so it is hard for them to plan accordingly. Councillor Mahern moved, seconded by Councillor Talley, to call the question and end debate. Debate was ended on the following roll call vote; viz:

18 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Gray, Hickman, Lewis, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Scales, Simpson, Talley 10 NAYS: Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Holliday, Hunter, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Sandlin 1 ABSENT: Evans

Councillor Mansfield moved, seconded by Councillor Talley, to override the Mayor’s line-item veto. The motion failed on the following roll call vote; viz:

15 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Gray, Hickman, Lewis, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Robinson, Simpson, Talley 13 NAYS: Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Holliday, Hunter, Lutz, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Pfisterer, Sandlin, Scales 1 ABSENT: Evans

SPECIAL ORDERS - FINAL ADOPTION

Councillor Brown reported that the Public Works Committee heard Proposal Nos. 175-178 and 206-207, 2012 on August 1, 2012. He asked for consent to vote on these proposals together. Consent was given. PROPOSAL NO. 175, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Gray and Simpson, authorizes a multi-way stop at 40th Street and Central Avenue (Districts 8,9). PROPOSAL NO. 176, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Freeman, authorizes a multi-way stop at Hamlyn Drive and Exchange Street (District 25). PROPOSAL NO. 177, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Lewis, authorizes intersection controls at Moller Road and 53rd Street and Ruelling Road and 52nd Street (District 7). PROPOSAL NO. 178, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Holliday and Cardwell, authorizes the Department of Public Works to enter into an interlocal agreement with Johnson County for improvements to the intersections of County Line Road with Morgantown Road and Railroad Road (Districts 22, 23). PROPOSAL NO. 206, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Miller and Adamson, removes parking in the eastern and westernmost blocks of Georgia Street in order to improve traffic flow and increase infrastructure longevity (District 19). PROPOSAL NO. 207, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Miller, Adamson and Barth, approves a weight limit restriction on Georgia Street from Capitol Avenue to Pennsylvania Street (District 19). By 8-0 votes, the Committee reported the proposals to the Council with the recommendation that they do pass. Councillor Brown moved, seconded by Councillor Barth for adoption. Proposal Nos. 175-178 and 206-207, 2012 were adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:



40

Proposal No. 175, 2012 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 17, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 17, 2012 A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls.


SECTION 1. The “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” specifically, Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be and the same is hereby amended by the deletion of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 18 40th St Central Ave Stop Central Ave SECTION 2. The “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” specifically, Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 18 40th St None All-Way Stop Central Ave SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 176, 2012 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 18, 2012, and reads as follows:



SECTION 1. The “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” specifically, Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be and the same is hereby amended by the deletion of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 49 Hamlyn Dr Exchange St Stop Exchange St SECTION 2. The “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” specifically, Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 49 Hamlyn Dr None All-Way Stop Exchange St SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 177, 2012 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 19, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 19, 2012

August 13, 2012

41

A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls.


SECTION 1. The “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” specifically, Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 9 Moller Rd Moller Rd Stop 53rd St 9 Ruelling Rd 52nd St Stop 52nd St SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 178, 2012 was retitled SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 40, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 40, 2012 PROPOSAL FOR A SPECIAL RESOLUTION authorizing the Department of Public Works to enter into an interlocal agreement with Johnson County, Indiana, for improvements to the intersections of County Line Road with Morgantown Road and Railroad Road.

WHEREAS, IC 36-1-2-6 defines the City-County Council of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana as the fiscal body for the Consolidated City of Indianapolis, Marion County; and

WHEREAS, IC 36-1-7-2 allows the Consolidated City to enter into interlocal agreements by ordinance or

resolution; and

WHEREAS, IC 36-1-7-4 allows this agreement to be entered into without the approval of the attorney general if approved by the fiscal body; now therefore:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA: SECTION 1. The City-County Council hereby authorizes the Department of Public Works to enter into an interlocal agreement with Johnson County, Indiana, for improvements to the intersections of County Line Road with Morgantown Road and Railroad Road. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Works intends to carry out all the specific activities listed in the agreement, a copy of which has been attached. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 206, 2012 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 20, 2012, and reads as follows:


A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” Sec. 621-121, Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets.



42

SECTION 1. That the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana, specifically Sec. 621-121, Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, be, and the same is hereby amended by the deletion of the following, to wit:

Georgia Street, on the south side, from Capitol Avenue to 90’ east of Capitol Avenue; Georgia Street, on the south side, from 390’ east of Capitol Avenue to Illinois Street; Georgia Street, on the south side, from Pennsylvania Street to Delaware Street

SECTION 2. That the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana, specifically Sec. 621-121, Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit:

Georgia Street, on both sides, from Capitol Avenue, to Illinois Street; Georgia Street, on both sides, from Pennsylvania Street, to Meridian Street

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 207, 2012 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 21, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 21, 2012 PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to restrict the operation of certain vehicles on Georgia Street between Capitol Avenue and Delaware Street.


SECTION 1. Section 441-364 of the "Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County," regarding restriction of trucks on certain streets, hereby is amended by the deletion of the language that is stricken-through, and by the addition of the language that is underscored, to read as follows: Sec. 441-364. Trucks Vehicles on certain streets restricted.

(a) The owner of any truck having a manufacturer's rating of more than one and one-half (1½) tons capacity, that is registered in the office of the secretary of state and used principally for the transportation and delivery of property between two (2) or more points situated within the city, including tractors, trailers, semitrailers and farm tractors, may file with the bureau of license and permit services of the department of code enforcement an application, on a form prescribed by such bureau, for an annual permit to allow the truck or other vehicle to use and be driven upon the streets described in this section, upon the condition that the maximum gross weight of such vehicle and any load shall not exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) pounds in any instance, without obtaining from such bureau a special emergency permit therefor, which special permit may be obtained without charge for any such use found by such bureau to be necessary. No other streets shall be so used by any such vehicles without a special permit therefor, as herein authorized.

(b) Upon the proper execution and filing of an application and the payment of a fee provided in section 131-501 of

the Code to the bureau of license and permit services of the department of code enforcement, to be credited to the city's general fund, such bureau shall issue an annual permit for each truck or other vehicle, appropriately describing it by motor number or body number, and by license number. Such permit shall not be transferable from one (1) vehicle to another vehicle, and shall be carried by the operator of the vehicle or be attached thereto, and exhibited by the operator of any such vehicle upon the request of any police officer or other person charged with the duty of enforcing this chapter. The granting of any such permit shall not be subject to the issuance fee applicable to licenses.

(c) The Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the provisions of this section shall not apply to any

private passenger automobiles, to any vehicles carrying passengers for hire, to school buses, to motorcycles or motor scooters, not or to any governmental vehicles.

August 13, 2012

43

(d) No passenger bus, school bus, delivery truck the maximum gross weight of which is fifteen thousand (15,000) pounds or greater, or tractor trailer shall use Georgia Street from Pennsylvania Street to Capitol Avenue, unless a prior written exemption is granted by the director of the department of public works or his designee.

(de) No motor vehicle of the following designated gross weights, with load, shall use the following enumerated streets, except such portions thereof as may be state highways:

10,000 POUNDS GROSS WEIGHT Tenth Street, from a point 150 feet east of Arlington Avenue to Emerson Avenue; Sixteenth Street, from Arlington Avenue to the east city limits; Seventeenth Street, from Central Avenue to College Avenue; West Seventeenth Street, from Belleview Place to Lafayette Road (U.S. Highway 52); Nineteenth Street, from Central Avenue to Park Avenue; Twentieth Street, from Broadway Street to College Avenue; Twentieth Street, from Parker Avenue to Olney Street; Thirty-third Street, from Keystone Avenue to Temple Avenue; Fifty-first Street, from Hillside Avenue to a point 150 feet east thereof; East Sixty-fourth Street, from Keystone Avenue to Rural Street; West Seventy-sixth Street Bridge, over Crooked Creek, in Pike Township; East Ninety-fifth Street, from College Avenue to Pennsylvania Street; Addison Street, from Oliver Street to McCarty Street; Addison Street, from Washington Street to Turner Avenue; Alabama Street, from Terrace Avenue to Lincoln Street; Arlington Avenue, from Tenth Street to Brookville Road; Audubon Road, from Washington Street to Brookville Road; North Audubon Road, from east Tenth Street to East Sixteenth Street; Barrett Avenue, from Belmont Avenue to Eagle Creek; Bazil Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Belleview Place, from Sixteenth Street to Lafayette Road (U.S. Highway 52); Belleview Place, from Oliver Street to McCarty Street; Belleview Place, from Washington Street to Turner Avenue; Belleview Place, from Washington Street to Turner Street; Belmar Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Blaine Avenue, from Morris Street to Minnesota Street; Blaine Avenue, from Morris Street to I-70;


44

Boehning Street, from Washington Street to Tenth Street. Boulevard Place, from Thirty-eighth Street to Westfield Boulevard; Bradley Street, from East Washington Street to Moore Avenue; Broadway Street, from Sixteenth Street to Twenty-first Street; Broadway Street, from Thirty-eighth Street to Westfield Boulevard; Brookside Avenue, from Tenth Street to Parker Avenue; Butler Avenue, from Twenty-third Street to Twenty-fourth Street; Butler Avenue, from Twenty-fifth Street to Thirtieth Street; Capitol Avenue, from Sixteenth Street to Westfield Boulevard; Carvel Avenue, from Forty-sixth Street to Fifty-second Street; Cecil Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Central Avenue, from East Ninety-first Street to East Ninety-sixth Street; Central Avenue, from Fort Wayne Avenue to Westfield Boulevard; College Avenue, from Ninth Street to the north city limits; Cruft Street, from Shelby Street to Villa Avenue; Davis Drive, from Mooresville Road to Murray Street; Dearborn Street, from Fifty-eighth Street to Kessler Boulevard; Delaware Street, from a point 350 feet south of Palmer Street to Adler Street; Devon Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Eastern Avenue, from Thirtieth Street to Thirty-second Street; Eaton Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Edmondson Avenue, from Washington Street to East Tenth Street; South Emerson Avenue, from Washington Street to Brookville Road; Fall Creek Parkway, North Drive, from Thirty-eighth Street to Meridian Street; Fenton Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Frontage Road, from Post Road to Wittfield Street; German Church Road, from Brookville Road to Washington Street; Gibson Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Glen Arm Road, from Tenth Street to Eleventh Street; North Graham Avenue, from East Tenth Street to East Sixteenth Street; Hamblen Drive, East, from 1750 South Hamblen Drive to 1900 South Hamblen Drive;

August 13, 2012

45

Hamblen Drive, West, from 1750 South Hamblen Drive to 2050 South Hamblen Drive; Harbison Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Hawthorne Lane, from Twenty-seventh Street to Thirtieth Street; Henry Street, from McClure Street to Luett Avenue; Hiatt Street, from Wyoming Street to Oliver Avenue; Hillside Avenue, from Twenty-fifth Street to Thirtieth Street; Hillside Avenue, from Forty-sixth Street to Fifty-first Street; Hobart Road, from Walker Avenue to Wade Street; Holmes Avenue, from Oliver Street to McCarty Street; Holmes Avenue, from Washington Street to Turner Avenue; Howard Street, from Belmont Avenue to Pershing Avenue; Illinois Street, from Fortieth Street to Westfield Boulevard; Kansas Street, from Meridian Street to Senate Avenue; Kappes Street, from Morris Street to Wilkins Street; Kappes Street, from Wyoming Street to Oliver Avenue; Kealing Avenue, from East Ninth Street to East Tenth Street; North Kildare Avenue, over Brookside Creek, in Center Township; Kingsley Drive, from East Forty-sixth Street to East Fifty-second Street; Lambert Street, from Belmont Street to Pershing Avenue; Lee Street, from Morris Street to Wilkins Street; North Lesley Avenue, from East Tenth Street to East Sixteenth Street; Luett Avenue, from Washington Street to Oliver Avenue; Lynhurst Drive, from Mooresville Road to dead end; Lyons Avenue, from Mooresville Road to Kentucky Avenue; Madison Avenue, from Pleasant Run Parkway to Southern Avenue; Marlin Road, from a point 2,435 feet east of Senour Road to Carroll Road; Martha Street, from Belmont Avenue to Pershing Avenue; Maywood Road, from Gimber Street and Tibbs Avenue to Warman Avenue; McClure Street, from Washington Street to Oliver Avenue; McGaughey Road, from Southeastern Avenue to Post Road; Michigan Street, from Franklin Road to Post Road;


46

Mills Avenue, on both sides from Madison Avenue to East Street; Minnesota Street, from Sherman Drive to Emerson Avenue; Mount Street, from Washington Street to Turner Avenue; New Jersey Street, from Terrace Avenue to Lincoln Street; New York Street, from Franklin Road to Post Road; New York Street, from Highland Avenue to Emerson Avenue; Park Avenue, from Nineteenth Street to Twenty-first Street; Pennsylvania Street, from Sixteenth Street to Westfield Boulevard; Perry Street, from Mooresville Road to Murray Street; Pershing Avenue, from Washington Street to Turner Avenue; South Pershing Avenue, from Morris Street to Howard Street; Ralston Avenue, from Twenty-second Street to Twenty-fifth Street; Ralston Avenue, from Twenty-fifth Street to Thirtieth Street; Reisner Street, from Morris Street to Oliver Avenue; Richland Street, from Wyoming Street to Oliver Avenue; Richland Street, from Morris Street to Wilkins Street; Ritter Avenue, from Tenth Street to Brookville Road; North River Road, from East Eighty-second Street (State Road 100) to North County Line Road; South River Road, from Keystone Avenue to East Eighty-second Street (State Road 100); Riverside Drive East, from Eighteenth Street to Twenty-ninth Street; Robson Street, from Gale Street to Sherman Drive; Roosevelt Avenue, from Hillside Avenue to Sherman Drive; Ruckle Street, from Sixteenth Street to Twenty-first Street; St. Paul Street, from Southeastern Avenue to English Avenue; Sargent Road, from Fall Creek Road to Ninety-sixth Street; Sheffield Avenue, from Howard Street to Morris Street; Sheffield Avenue, from Washington Street to Turner Avenue; Shelby Street, from Epler Avenue to US 431; Shepard Street, from Wyoming Street to Oliver Avenue; Sherman Drive, from Thirtieth Street to Thirty-eighth Street; Singleton Street, from Raymond Street to Le Grande Avenue;

August 13, 2012

47

Southern Avenue, from Madison Avenue to Shelby Street; Sugar Grove Avenue, from Eighteenth Street to Twenty-second Street; Tacoma Avenue, from Thirtieth Street to Thirty-fourth Street; Tacoma Avenue, from East Sixty-second Street to East Sixty-fourth Street; Temple Avenue, from Thirtieth Street to Thirty-fourth Street; Temple Avenue, from East Sixty-second Street to East Sixty-fourth Street; Terrace Avenue, from Madison Avenue to Wright Street; Tremont Street, from Washington Street to Turner Avenue; Union Street, from Merrill Street to Adler Street; East Vermont Street, from Gale Street to North Kealing Avenue; West View Drive, from Belmont Avenue to Lee Street; Washington Boulevard, from East Ninety-first Street to East Ninety-sixth Street; White River Parkway, East Drive, from Tenth Street to New York Street; Wilkens Street, from Belmont Avenue to Blaine Avenue; Windsor Street, from Tenth Street to Nowland Avenue; Wyoming Street, from Belmont Avenue to Reisner Street;

11,000 POUNDS GROSS WEIGHT An alley, being the first, west of Senate Avenue, from Morris Street to Wilkens Street; Tenth Street, from Delaware Street to Central Avenue; Tenth Street Frontage Road (998 N.), from Thorndale Street to 10th Street (7125 W.); Eleventh Street, from Arsenal Avenue to Brookside Avenue; Thirteenth Street, from Shadeland Avenue to Shortridge Road; Twenty-third Street, from Parker Avenue to Wheeler Street; Twenty-fourth Street, from Arlington Avenue to Kenyon Street; Twenty-fourth Street, from Hillside Avenue to Keystone Avenue; Twenty-fifth Street, from Harding Street to Burton Avenue; Twenty-fifth Street, from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street to a point 200 feet east of Clifton Street; Twenty-fifth Street, from Post Road to German Church Road; Twenty-sixth Street, from Harding Street to Burton Avenue; Twenty-seventh Street, from Brouse Avenue to Keystone Avenue; Twenty-eighth Street, from Brouse Avenue to Keystone Avenue;


48

Twenty-eighth Street, from Georgetown Road to Mussman Drive; Twenty-eighth Street, from Harding Street to E. Riverside Drive; Twenty-ninth Street, from Brouse Avenue to Keystone Avenue; Thirty-second Street, from Moller Road east to Beeler Avenue; Thirty-fifth Street, from Ralston Avenue to Orchard Avenue; Fortieth Street, from Arlington Avenue to Emerson Avenue; Forty-second Street, from Millersville Road to Sherman Drive; Fifty-sixth Street, from Emerson Way to I-465; Fifty-ninth Street, from Georgetown Road to Guion Road; Sixty-fifth Street, from Allisonville Road to a point 287 feet west of Rural Street; Seventy-first Street from Hague Road to Fairwood Drive; Seventy-second Street, from Coffman Road to New Augusta Road; Seventy-fifth Street, from Westfield Boulevard to Edgewater Drive; Seventy-nineth Street, from Moore Road to Innovation Boulevard; Eightieth Street, from Keystone Avenue to Westfield Boulevard; Eighty-fourth Street, from College Avenue to Evergreen Avenue; Ninety-first Street, from Westfield Boulevard to Haverstick Road; Admiral Drive, from Twenty-first Street to Kenyon Street; Alabama Street, from Fort Wayne Avenue to Sixteenth Street; Allison Avenue, from Thirty-fourth Street to Ruskin Place; Alton Avenue, from Sixteenth Street to Twenty-first Street; Applegate Street, from Nelson Avenue to Southern Avenue; Arbor Avenue, from Oliver Avenue to Gillette Street; Arsenal Avenue, from Tenth Street to Twelfth Street; Arthur Avenue, from Cossell Road to Vermont Street; Asbury Street, from Bradbury Avenue to Walker Avenue; Asbury Street, from Minnesota Street to Lawton Avenue; Bancroft Street, from Michigan Street to Tenth Street; Banta Road, from Belmont Street to Tibbs Avenue; Banta Road, from Bluff Road to East Street; Banta Road, from Stanley Road to Ratliff Road;

August 13, 2012

49

Barrington Avenue, from Minnesota Street to Rural Street; Bauman Street, from Tenth Street to Thirteenth Street; Beechcrest Drive, from Southern Avenue to Woodcliff Drive; Beechwood Avenue between Franklin Road and Post Road; Beeler Avenue, from Thirtieth Street east to Thirty-second Street; Bellefontaine Street, from Twenty-second Street to Twenty-third Street; Bertha Street, from Auburn Street west to Hardin Boulevard; Boehning Avenue, from Twenty-fifth Street to Routiers Avenue; Bradbury Avenue, from Bradbury connector road (4250 west) to Holt Road; Brill Road, from Southern Avenue to Troy Avenue; Brookside Parkway, North Drive, from Brookside Avenue to Olney Street; Brookside Parkway, South Drive, from Jefferson Avenue to Sherman Drive; Brookville Road, from Emerson Avenue to English Avenue; Brookville Road, from Bradley Street to Emerson Avenue; Bursdal Parkway, from White River Parkway, East Drive, to Barnes Avenue; Butler Avenue, from Lexington Avenue to English Avenue; Calvary Street, from English Avenue to Shelby Street; Calvin Street, from Bethel Avenue to Legrande Avenue; Carlsen Avenue, from Girls School Road to Thorndale Street; Carrollton Avenue, from Twenty-fifth Street to Guilford Avenue; Catherwood Avenue, from Twenty-first Street to Windsor Drive; Chapelwood Boulevard, from a point 637 feet south of Tenth Street to St. Clair Street; Chase Street, from Oliver Avenue to Henry Street; Cherry Lake Road, from Thirtieth Street to Kyle Court; Chester Avenue, from Twenty-sixth Street to Thirtieth Street; Church Street, from Morris Street to Wilkens Street; Clifton Street, from Twenty-fifth Street to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Street; Coffey Street, from Oliver Avenue to Henry Street; Cold Spring Road, from Lafayette Road to Thirty-eighth Street; Colorado Avenue, from Tenth Street to Sixteenth Street; Commerce Avenue, from Massachusetts Avenue to 12th Street;


50

Conarroe Road, from Seventy-ninth Street to Eighty-sixth Street; Concord Street, from Banta Road to Epler Avenue; Conrad Avenue, from Belmont Avenue to Pershing Avenue; Cottage Avenue, from Perkins Avenue to Rural Street; Dandy Trail, from Crawfordsville Road north to 38th Street; Dawson Street, from Minnesota Street to Lawton Avenue; Dearborn Street, from Thirtieth Street to Thirty-fourth Street; Delaware Street, from Ninety-first Street to Ninety-sixth Street; Denny Street, from Tenth Street to Eleventh Street and from Thirteenth Street to a point one hundred feet south of

Sixteenth Street; Denny Street, from Twenty-sixth Street to Thirtieth Street; Dobson Street, from Seventy-first Street to Seventy-fourth Street; Doris Drive, from Girls School Road to Sixteenth Street; Dunk Drive, from Gerrard Avenue to Moller Road; Dunlap Avenue, from Minnesota Street to Plainfleld Avenue; East Street, from Troy Avenue to Southern Avenue; Eleanor Avenue, from Tenth Street to Thirteenth Street; Elizabeth Street, from Thirty-eighth Street to Massachusetts Avenue; Ellenberger Parkway, East Drive, from St. Clair Street to Ritter Avenue; Ellenberger Parkway, West Drive, from St. Clair Street to Tenth Street; Elrico Drive, from Eighty-sixth Street to Ninety-first Street; Emerson Avenue, from Washington Street to Tenth Street; Englewood Drive, from Sixteenth Street to Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive; Epler Avenue, from Bluff Road to Harding Street; Epler Avenue, from Concord Street to Warman Avenue; Evergreen Avenue, from Eighty-fourth Street to Eighty-fifth Street; Ewing Street, from Tenth Street to Brookside Parkway South Drive; Fall Creek Road, from Kessler Boulevard East Drive to Shadeland Avenue; Fall Creek Road, from Shadeland Avenue to Ninety-sixth Street; Fall Creek Parkway, East Drive, from Tenth Street to Sixteenth Street; Fall Creek Parkway North Drive, from Binford Boulevard to Fifty-sixth Street;

August 13, 2012

51

Fall Creek Parkway, North Drive, from Kessler Boulevard to Fall Creek Road; Farley Drive, from Eleventh Street to Doris Drive; Farnsworth Street, from Holt Road to Maywood Road (Tibbs Avenue); Fletcher Avenue, from Calvary Street to State Avenue; Fletcher Avenue, from State Avenue to St. Paul Street; Flynn Road, from Ameriplex Parkway to Raceway Road; Foltz Street, from Troy Street to Ironton Street; Forest Manor Avenue, from Twenty-sixth Street to Thirtieth Street; Franklin Road, from Washington Street to Twenty-first street; Gale Street, from Tenth Street to Brookside Parkway South Drive; East Garfield Drive, from Shelby Street to South Garfield Drive; South Garfield Drive, from Raymond Street to East Garfield Drive; Gatwick Drive, from Sterling Pointe Drive to a point 1,050 feet northwest of Sterling Pointe Road; Glen Arm Road, from Tenth Street to Fourteenth Street; Glenn Drive, from Parker Avenue to Wheeler Street; Grand Avenue, from Lexington Avenue to English Avenue; Guilford Avenue, from Twenty-fifth Street to Thirtieth Street; Haines Avenue, from Belmont Avenue to Pershing Avenue; Halsted Drive, from Girls School Road to Radburn Drive; Hamilton Avenue, from English Avenue to Southeastern Avenue; Harris Avenue, from Washington Street to Vandalia Avenue; Hartman Drive, from Pendleton Pike to Thirty-eighth Street; Haverick Road, from Eighty-sixth Street to Ninety-first Street; Henry Street, from Harding Street to Drover Street; Highland Avenue, from Washington Street to Marlowe Avenue; Highland Avenue, from Marlowe Avenue to New York Street; Hiner Lane, from Shadeland Avenue to Shortridge Road; Hoyt Avenue, from Sherman Drive to Grant Avenue; Illinois Street, from Morris Street to Wilkens Street; Jackson Place, from Illinois Street to McCrea Street; Johnson Road, from Fall Creek Road to Seventy-fifth Street;


52

Katherine Drive, from Stop 11 Road to McGregor Road; Kealing Avenue, from Tenth Street to Brookside Parkway South Drive; Kelly Street, from Churchman Avenue to Keystone Avenue; Kenwood Avenue, from Morris Street to Wilkens Street; Kenyon Street, from Twenty-first Street to Twenty-fifth Street; Kessler Boulevard North Drive, from Sixteenth Street to Fifty-sixth Street; Kessler Boulevard West Drive and East Drive, from Fifty-sixth Street to Fall Creek Parkway North Drive; Kitley Avenue, from a point 230 feet north of Twenty-first Street to Twenty-fifth Street; Kitley Avenue, from a point 1,120 feet south of Washington Street to Pleasant Run Parkway, S. Drive; Kittley Road, from Brookville Road to Vandergriff Road; Kollman Road, from Decatur Boulevard to Thompson Road; Lake Road, from Wicker Road to a point 4,330 feet south of Southport Road; Lawrence Avenue, from East Street to Madison Avenue; Lesley Avenue, from Thirtieth Street to Massachusetts Avenue; Lexington Avenue, from Harlan Street to St. Paul Street; Lockerbie Street, from East Street to College Avenue; Louise Drive, from Mary Lane to Katherine Drive; Lupine Terrace, from Thirty-fourth Street-to Lupine Drive; Manderley Drive, between Eighty-sixth Street and Ninety-first Street; Margaret Avenue, from Sherman Drive to Woodcliff Drive; Markwood Avenue, from East Street to Madison Avenue; Marsh Road, from Seventy-First Street to Seventy-Ninth Street; Mary Lane, from Stop 11 Road to McGregor Road; Melvenia Street, from Lexington Avenue to Fletcher Avenue; Mendenhall Road, from Decatur Boulevard to Narita Road; Mildred Drive, from Thirtieth Street to Maren Drive; Miley Avenue, from Washington Street to Ohio Street; Milhouse Road, from Decatur Boulevard to Flynn Road; Millersville Road, from Forty-second Street to Forty-sixth Street; Millhouse Road, between State Road 67 and Decatur Boulevard; Minnesota Street, from Bethel Avenue to LaSalle Street;

August 13, 2012

53

Minocqua Avenue, from Minocqua Street to a point 500 feet north of Cottage Avenue; Moore Road, from Lafayette Road to Ninety-sixth Street; Morton Avenue, from Belmont Avenue to Pershing Avenue; Mussman Drive, from Thirtieth Street to Twenty-eighth Street; Nelson Avenue, from Allen Avenue to Shelby Street; Northeastern Avenue, from Franklin Road to Southeastern Avenue; Nowland Avenue, from Windsor Street to Jefferson Avenue; Oliver Avenue, from Holt Road to Tibbs Avenue; Oliver Avenue, from Lynhurst Drive west to Armentrout Lane; Oxford Street, from Thirty-fourth Street to Thirty-eighth Street; Park Avenue, from New York Street to Michigan Street; Parker Street, from Twenty-fifth Street to a point 200 feet south of Twenty-third Street; Patricia Street, from Moller Road east to Beeler Avenue; Payne Road, from Seventy-ninth Street to Eighty-sixth Street; Pennsylvania Street, from Schiller Street to LeGrande Avenue; Perkins Avenue, from Bethel Avenue to a point 300 feet north of Cottage Avenue; Pershing Avenue, from Minnesota to D.E. South; Pershing Avenue, on the west side, from the north curbline of Eleventh Street to a point 45 feet north on Pershing

Avenue; Pershing Avenue, on the west side, from the north curbline of Fourteenth Street to a point 45 feet north; Pine Street, from I-70 (Fletcher Avenue) to Elm Street; Pleasant Run Parkway, North Drive, from Audubon Road Bridge to Arlington Avenue; Pleasant Run Parkway, North Drive, from Colorado Avenue underpass to Michigan Street; Pleasant Run Parkway, North Drive, from English Avenue to Brookville Road; Pleasant Run Parkway, North Drive, from Southern Avenue to Prospect Street; Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive, from Arlington Avenue to Tenth Street; Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive, from Emerson Avenue to Audubon Road Bridge; Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive, from English Avenue to Colorado Underpass; Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive, from Raymond Street to Keystone Avenue; Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive, from Shadeland Avenue to Arlene Drive; Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive, from Southern Avenue to Madison Avenue. Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive, from Tenth Street to Shadeland Avenue;


54

Pleasant Street, from Harlan Street to St. Paul Street; Pollard Street, from Seventy-first Street to Seventy-fourth Street; Purdy Street, from Seventy-first Street to Seventy-second Street; Randolph Street, from Cruft Street to Troy Avenue; Randolph Street, from Minnesota Street to Lawton Avenue; Ransdell Street, from Sumner Avenue to Werges Avenue; Riley Avenue, from Michigan Street to Tenth Street; Roache Street, from Burton Avenue to Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. Street; Routiers Avenue, from Thirtieth Street to Twenty-fifth Street; Roy Road, from Post Road to Routiers Avenue; Rucker Road, from Fall Creek Road to Sixty-second Street; Rural Street, from Thirtieth Street to Thirty-fourth Street; Rural Street, from Thirty-fourth Street to Thirty-eighth Street; Ruskin Place West, from Moller Road to Allison Avenue; St. Clair Street, from Girls School Road to Westmore Drive; St. Paul Street, from Woodlawn Avenue to Lexington Avenue; St. Peter Street, from English Avenue to Southeastern Avenue; Schiller Street, from the first alley east of Meridian Street to Pennsylvania Street; Senate Avenue, from Morris Street to Wilkens Street; Shanghai Road, from Lafayette Road to Seventy-first Street; Sheridan Avenue, from Southeastern Avenue to Troy Avenue; Shortridge Road, from Tenth Street to Fourteenth Street; Spencer Avenue, from Lexington Avenue to English Avenue; Spring Mill Road, from Ninety-sixty Street to Kessler Boulevard, West Drive; Stanley Avenue, from Camby Road to Banta Road; Stanley Avenue, from Nelson Avenue to Southern Avenue; Sterling Pointe Drive, between State Road 67 and Kirkwood Club Drive; Stop 10 Road, from Madison Avenue to Shelby Street; Temple Avenue, from English Avenue to Hoyt Avenue; Thompson Road, from Sandhurst Drive to Warman Avenue; Thompson Road, from State Road 67 to Decatur Boulevard;

August 13, 2012

55

Trowbridge Street, from English Avenue to Hoyt Avenue; Udell Street, from Harding Street to Riverside Drive; Valley Mills Avenue, from Depot Street to Kollman Road; Vermont Street, from East Street to College Avenue; Villa Avenue, from Walker Street to Troy Avenue; Village Way, from Eighty-sixth Street to Ninety-sixth Street; Waldemere Avenue, from Washington Street to Chelsea Road; Washington Boulevard, from Fall Creek Parkway, North Drive, to Westfield Boulevard; Westmore Drive, from Tenth Street to St. Clair Street; Wheeler Street, from Twenty-fifth Street to a point 375 feet south of Twenty-third Street; White River Parkway, East Drive, from Tenth Street to New York Street; White River Parkway, East Drive, from West Eighteenth Street to West Thirtieth Street; White River Parkway, East Drive, from West Thirtieth Street to West Thirty-eighth Street; White River Parkway West Drive, from Thirtieth Street to Cold Spring Road; Windsor Drive, from Arlington Avenue to Kenyon Street; Woodcliff Drive, from Beechcrest Drive to Sherman Drive; Woodlawn Avenue, from Virginia Avenue to Leonard Street;

16,000 POUNDS GROSS WEIGHT East Seventy-fifth Street, over Williams Creek; Market Street, from Miley Avenue to Indianapolis Union Railroad Tracks (1650 W); and

20,000 POUNDS GROSS WEIGHT Southern Avenue, from Tibbs Avenue to Centennial Street. SECTION 2. The expressed or implied repeal or amendment by this ordinance of any other ordinance or part of any other ordinance does not affect any rights or liabilities accrued, penalties incurred, or proceedings begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Those rights, liabilities, and proceedings are continued, and penalties shall be imposed and enforced under the repealed or amended ordinance as if this ordinance had not been adopted. SECTION 3. Should any provision (section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or any other portion) of this ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the remaining provision or provisions shall not be affected, if and only if such remaining provisions can, without the invalid provision or provisions, be given the effect intended by the Council in adopting this ordinance. To this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage by the Council and compliance with Ind. Code § 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 208, 2012. Councillor Brown reported that the Public Works Committee heard Proposal No. 208, 2012 on August 1, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Lewis, Barth, Miller, Oliver, Evans, Mansfield, McQuillen, Adamson and Gooden, amends the Code to


56

add new Secs. 431-801 through 431-807 regarding complete streets. By an 8-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Barth thanked President Lewis and Public Works Director Lori Miser for all their work and support on this issue. He said that this proposal puts neighborhoods first and provides more interconnectivity by promoting more walking and biking to promote a healthier lifestyle. Councillor Mahern commended those involved in this important proposal, and said that this shows how infrastructure needs better direction and further dovetails with the tax increment financing (TIF) recommendations. There is a $1.7 billion backlog in infrastructure needs, and TIF dollars could fund these initiatives. Councillor Miller thanked the Southeast Neighborhood Development Corporation (SEND) for their recent presentation on streets and sidewalks and said that this has changed his perspective. Councillor Brown moved, seconded by Councillor Barth, for adoption. Proposal No. 208, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:



CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 22, 2012 A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County by adding new Secs. 431-801 et. seq., regarding complete streets.

WHEREAS, Indianapolis strives to be a “liveable community” and a well-balanced and connected transportation system that allows for safe walking and biking and efficient, robust public transit is a vital component of a “livable community;” and

WHEREAS, Complete Streets are a sound financial investment in our community that provides long-term savings,

in that a transportation budget can incorporate Complete Streets projects without requiring additional funding; and

WHEREAS, CEOs for Cities released a report called “Walking the Walk” which measured the dollars-and-cents value that homes in walkable areas — all other things being equal — command over homes with “average walkability,” and found that in 13 of the 15 housing markets they studied, increased neighborhood walkability was positively correlated with highly significant price increases; and

WHEREAS, creating Complete Streets also reduces infrastructure costs by requiring far less pavement per user compared to increasing road capacity for vehicles alone; this saves money at the onset of the project and reduces maintenance costs over the long-term; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2025, the portion of Marion County residents over 65 will

increase from 11% to 16%, totaling nearly 150,000 people, and they need the public right-of-way to better serve them by safe places to walk, bicycle, or board the bus, and by designing the streets to better accommodate older drivers; and

WHEREAS, more than one third of Americans do not drive due to age, disability, or poverty and need

transportation alternatives; and

August 13, 2012

57

WHEREAS, in Marion County, 40% of our children are overweight or at-risk for becoming overweight and nearly two thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and incomplete streets mean many people lack opportunities to be active as part of daily life; and

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Development Commission adopted Multimodal Design Guidelines which address

inclusion of biking and walking infrastructure on city roads, and Indianapolis was recently awarded a bronze designation as a “Bicycle Friendly Community” by the League of American Bicyclists; now, therefore:


SECTION 1. Chapter 431, Article VIII, of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County is hereby amended by adding new Sec. 431-801 et. seq., to read as follows: Sec. 431-801. Definition of Complete Streets. “Complete Streets” means streets that are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, in that pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a street. Sec. 431-802. Complete Streets Policy.

The City shall develop a safe, reliable, efficient, integrated and connected multimodal transportation system that will promote access, mobility and health for all users, and will ensure that the safety and convenience of all users of the transportation system are accommodated, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, people of all ages and abilities, motorists, emergency responders, freight providers and adjacent land users. Sec. 431-803. Scope of Complete Streets Applicability.

(a) All city-owned transportation facilities in the public right of way including, but not limited to, streets, bridges and all other connecting pathways shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so that users of all ages and abilities can travel safely and independently.

(b) Privately constructed streets and parking lots shall adhere to this policy.

(c) The City shall foster partnerships with the State of Indiana, neighboring communities and counties, and business and school districts to develop facilities and accommodations that further the City's complete streets policy and continue such infrastructure beyond the City's borders.

(d) The City shall approach every transportation improvement and project phase as an opportunity to create safer, more accessible streets for all users. These phases include, but are not limited to: planning, programming, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction, construction engineering, reconstruction, operation and maintenance. Other changes to transportation facilities on streets and rights-of-way, including capital improvements, re-channelization projects and major maintenance, must also be included. Sec. 431-804. Exceptions

Any exception to this policy, including for private projects, must be approved by the Director of Public Works and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision. Such documentation shall be publicly available.

Exceptions may be considered for approval when:

(a) An affected roadway prohibits, by law, use by specified users (such as an interstate freeways or pedestrian malls), in which case a greater effort shall be made to accommodate those specified users elsewhere, including on roadways that cross or otherwise intersect with the affected roadway;

(b) The activities are ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition (e.g. mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, and surface treatments such as chip seal or interim measures;


58

(c) The Director of Public Works issues a documented exception concluding that the application of Complete Streets principles is unnecessary, unduly cost prohibitive, or inappropriate because it would be contrary to public safety; or

(d) Other available means or factors indicate an absence of need, including future need.

The Director of Public Works shall submit quarterly reports to the Board of Public Works summarizing all exceptions granted in the preceding quarter. These reports shall be submitted at the first Board of Public Works meeting after the end of the quarter, and shall be posted on-line.

Sec. 431-805. Design Standards.

The City shall follow accepted or adopted design standards and use the best and latest design standards available.

In recognition of context sensitivity, public input and the needs of many users, a flexible, innovative and balanced approach that follows other appropriate design standards may be considered, provided that a comparable level of safety for all users is present. Sec. 431-806. Performance Measures.

The City shall measure the success of this Complete Streets policy using, but not limited to, the following performance measures:

• Total miles of bike lanes • Linear feet of new pedestrian accommodation • Number of new curb ramps installed along city streets • Crosswalk and intersection improvements • Percentage of transit stops accessible via sidewalks and curb ramps (beginning in June 2014) • Rate of crashes, injuries, and fatalities by mode • Rate of children walking or bicycling to school (beginning in June 2014)

Unless otherwise noted above, within six months of ordinance adoption, the City shall create individual numeric

benchmarks for each of the performance measures included, as a means of tracking and measuring the annual performance of the ordinance. Quarterly reports shall be posted on-line for each of the above measures Sec. 431-807. Implementation and Reporting. The City of Indianapolis shall view Complete Streets as integral to everyday transportation decision-making practices and processes. To this end:

(a) The Department of Public Works, the Department of Metropolitan Development, the Office of Sustainability and other relevant departments, agencies, or committees will incorporate Complete Streets principles into all existing plans, manuals, checklists, decision-trees, rules, regulations, and programs as appropriate (including, but not limited to, ReZone Indy, ReBuild Indy, the Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Capital Program, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans, Transit Plan and other appropriate plans);

(b) The Department of Public Works, the Department of Metropolitan Development, the Office of Sustainability

and other relevant departments, agencies, or committees will review current design standards, including subdivision regulations which apply to new roadway construction, to ensure that they reflect the best available design standards and guidelines, and effectively implement Complete Streets, where feasible;

(c) When available, the City shall encourage staff professional development and training on non-motorized

transportation issues through attending conferences, classes, seminars, and workshops;

(d) City staff shall identify all current and potential future sources of funding for street improvements and recommend improvements to the project selection criteria to support Complete Streets projects;

(e) The City shall promote inter-departmental project coordination among city departments with an interest in the activities that occur within the public right-of-way in order to better use fiscal resources;

(f) An annual report will be made to the City-County Council showing progress made in implementing this policy. The Department of Public Works, the Department of Metropolitan Development, the Office of Sustainability

August 13, 2012

59

and other relevant departments, agencies, or committees shall report on the annual increase or decrease for each performance measure contained in this ordinance compared to the previous year(s); and

(g) Every Complete Streets project shall include an educational component to ensure that all users of the transportation system understand and can safely utilize Complete Streets project elements. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 213, 2012. Councillor Mahern reported that the Rules and Public Policy Committee heard Proposal No. 213, 2012 on June 12, July 10 and July 24, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Mansfield, Adamson, Barth, Hickman, Lutz and Hunter, establishes Domestic Partnership and provides equitable benefits for Consolidated City and County employees who are in a domestic partnership. By a 6-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass as amended. Councillor Mahern commended Councillors Mansfield and Adamson for their efforts with this proposal. Councillor Mansfield said that she actually started working on this issue in 2010, when the former public safety director heard through the grapevine that she was supportive of such an initiative and encouraged her to pursue it. She said that the public safety director was supportive of such a proposal due to Warren Township firefighters having these benefits before their merge with the Indianapolis Fire Department. She said that she drafted a proposal and contacted the Mayor’s Office and other Councillors and found strong support to move forward. She said that some amendments were made at the request of the Mayor’s Office and the Office of Corporation Counsel, especially with regard to proof of relationship, even though she would have generally left this up to Human Resources to handle internally. She thanked the Council for working in a bi-partisan fashion to come to a consensus. She said that several groups, such as the Fraternal Order of Police and the firefighters’ union, as well as many individuals, have expresed their support for this initiative. She said that this sends a very important message that the Indianapolis community recognizes that equal benefits should apply to everyone. She said that many universities and large corporations in Indianapolis already offer these benefits and it can be a beneficial economic development tool. She said that some have argued that this disincentivizes marriage, but that is not a valid argument. Councillor Cardwell said that with a $65 million budget gap, this propsoal is not currenlty funded in the budget that was presented. Although proponents of the measure have estimated that 1% of eligible participants would result in an additional $200,000, that number could be as high as $1 million a year. He said that his opposition to the proposal is that this is a new cost that further exacerbates an already $65 million budget gap, and to create a new entitlement with that in mind is irresponsible. Councillor Barth thanked Councillors Mansfield and Adamson for their hard work on this issue. He said that at the first hearing of this proposal, a representative from Eli Lilly made an important point and said that having a hometown city that supports such an initiative will help them as they work internationally to try and attract and retain quality staff. He said that he believes this impacts the economic development and future of this City. Councillor Freeman said that if they fund everything included in the 2012 budget for 2013, there will be a $65 milllion budget gap. The administration is looking to open firefighters and police contracts for re-negotiations and elimination of raises, yet this proposal adds another funding requirement to further impact the problem. He said that all the testimony regarding the cost was


60

based on presumptions and assumptions, and the fact is that they really do not know the cost. He said that it is beyond fiscally irresponsible to enact legislation with an undetermined cost effect, when they already cannot fund vital services in 2013. He said that he also feels they should be promoting marriage and pro-family stances, and this proposal sets a bad precedent and is not the message he would like to send for the city. Councillor Oliver said that with the pay increases in the Mayor’s Office, it is embarrassing that the City cannot find funds for this initiative, and this Council should be willing to establish another set of priorities. Councillor Mansfield saidt aht the Controller did a cost analysis and found that it would be less than one-third of 1%, and is a very small investment. She said that a lot of consideration went into this analysis and she feels it is pretty accurate. Councillor Pfisterer said that it seems fiscally irresponsible to take on something when they do not know how much it will cost, especially when they had to fight to get $100,000 for the Early Intervention Planning Council. To say $200,000 is a drop in the bucket is fiscally irresponsible. She said that anecdotally, she finds it unfair that a certain employee’s husband could not qualify for benefits because of obesity, and wonders why the door should be opened for more when a married couple cannot even get coverage. Councillor Lutz said that this proposal does not give domestic partners any greater benefits than married couples. He said that if it is truly a fiscal issue, then they should just eliminate benefits for everyone, yet he questions what would happen to the quality of employees they would get if they did this. He said that he has been married for 40 years and is a great supporter of traditional marriage, but in reality, many changes have taken place over the years. He said that there was a time when parents decided who their children would marry, or when people could not get a dissolution of marriage and had to show fault. This does not disincentivize marriage. He said that he has clients who come into his private law practice asking for a prenuptial agreement who never plan to live together, but simply do this to get health insurance benefits. This proposal puts a lot of burden on proof on those taking advantage of it, something that is not even required of married couples. He urged his colleagues to support the proposal. Councillor Hickman said that anyone who has health insurance and refuses to give it to someone else should be ashamed. She added that the health insurance company is the one who denied coverage to the obese spouse, not the City. She said that if money could be moved around in the Mayor’s Office budget to afford excessive raises, they should be willing to find funds for health insurance. She said it would be more expensive not to cover them. Councillor Hunter said that he is a conservative Republican, but he is going to support this measure. He said that he believes in marriage, but he cannot cast his morals and judgment on the people they govern, especially when there are children involved in such a family setting through no fault of their own. He said that he will support the proposal as an economic development tool and as an advocate for individuals’ rights. Councillor Sandlin said that each Councillor comes into this chamber with their own personal experiences, and while he appreciates and respects the opinions of other Councillors, he has not had one call urging him to support the proposal, but has had numerous asking him to oppose it. He said that all of the opposition was based on cost, and the fact that the cost of this cannot be quantified. He added that he also has concerns about fraud, and cannot support the measure for this reason.

August 13, 2012

61

Councillor Miller said that he polled constituents on his e-mail list, and 75% of those who responded, support this proposal and do not believe it alters the institution of marriage. He said that the information required for the burden of proof indicates that there will not be much opportunity for fraud. He said that he recognizes that $200,000 is just an estimate of cost, but it seems that number is based on logic. He said that in the Bible, Joseph was appointed second-in-command in Egypt, and gave grain to everyone who came during the famine. He said that it is not his role to align faith with the law, but rather to show mercy and love and help meet the needs of the people. He said this will guide his vote this evening. Councillor Mahern said that much of the conversatino has been about how this will affect the budget, and although the Mayor indicated this budget is fully funded, it just appeared at his desk this evening, and so he does not know if it truly is. He said that this is a question of fairness. He said that he would never deny anyone in this room or their family the same benefits he receives simply because they disagree with him. He said that benefits should be extended to all regardless of personal beliefs. Councillor Simpson moved, seconded by Councillor Talley, to call the question and end debate. Debate was ended on the following roll call vote; viz:

15 YEAS: Adamson, Brown, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Mascari, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Simpson, Talley 13 NAYS: Barth, Cain, Cardwell, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, McHenry, McQuillen, Sandlin, Scales 1 ABSENT: Evans

Councillor Mahern moved, seconded by Councillor Mansfield, for adoption. Proposal No. 213, 2012, as amended, was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

20 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Robinson, Simpson, Talley 8 NAYS: Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Holliday, McHenry, Pfisterer, Sandlin, Scales 1 ABSENT: Evans


CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 23, 2012 A PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to extend city and county employees’ benefits to such employees’ domestic partners. WHEREAS, the City-County Council hereby declares that it is in the best interests of the City and County to provide equitable benefits to all married and unmarried employees of the City and County who are in a Domestic Partnership, irrespective of whether they are same-sex couples or different-sex couples; now, therefore:


SECTION 1. Chapter 291 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, regarding personnel, hereby is amended. by the addition of a new ARTICLE V, to read as follows:


62

Sec. 291-501. Definitions.

As used in this Article, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section. Basic living expenses means the cost of basic food and shelter. The individuals need not contribute equally or

jointly to the cost of these expenses as long as they agree that both are responsible for the costs. Declaration of domestic partnership means a form provided by the human resources division of the office of

finance and management that creates a domestic partnership when signed by domestic partners. By signing it, two persons attest, under penalty of perjury, that they both meet all of the requirements of domestic partners as provided in Section 291-501.

Domestic partners means two adults who meet the following requirements: (1) Both adults have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual

caring; (2) Both adults currently share a primary residence. (3) Both adults have shared a primary residence for the preceding 365 days; (4) Both adults are jointly responsible for basic living expenses, as demonstrated by a signed declaration of

financial interdependence and by providing three (3) proofs of the following criteria to the satisfaction of the Human Resources Division, if and when requested;

a) Joint ownership of a primary residence or joint tenancy of a residential lease;

b) Copy of utility (water, gas, or electric) invoice listing both domestic partners; c) Joint ownership of an automobile;

d) Joint bank or credit account; e) Joint liabilities (e.g. credit cards or loans, etc.); f) A will or trust designating the domestic partner as beneficiary; g) A retirement plan or life insurance policy beneficiary designation form designating the domestic partner

as beneficiary; h) A signed durable power of attorney to the effect that the employee and the domestic partner have

granted powers to one another; i) Copies of each domestic partner’s driver’s license that indicates the same address;

(5) Both adults have been jointly responsible for living expenses during the preceding 365 days; and (6) Neither adult is currently married. Domestic partnership means a relationship conferring benefits described in Sec. 291-503 between domestic

partners who have signed a declaration of domestic partnership as provided in this article. Share a primary residence means that two persons share the same primary living quarters; however, it is not

necessary that the legal right to possess the living quarters be in both of their names. Two persons may live together even if one or both have additional living quarters.

August 13, 2012

63

Sec. 291-502. Establishing a Domestic Partnership.

a. Two persons may establish a domestic partnership by submitting a signed declaration of domestic partnership to the human resources division of the office of finance and management, which shall maintain such declaration on file and give the two persons a copy showing that such declaration was filed.

b. Anyone barred from marrying in Indiana under I.C. 31-11-1-2 through 31-11-1-4 is likewise barred from

entering into a domestic partnership under this article. Sec. 291-503. Benefits. Benefits that are available to domestic partners shall be identical to those available to spouses. Such benefits include, but are not limited to, insurance coverage, pension benefits, and family/medical leave. Benefits for the children of an employee’s domestic partner shall be equal to those of the children of the spouse of an employee. The submission of a domestic partnership declaration is understood to be a qualifying event for purposes of enrolling a domestic partner in an insurance plan. Sec. 291-504. Termination of a domestic partnership.

(a) A domestic partnership terminates when at least one of the domestic partners no longer qualifies as a domestic partner as that term is defined in Section 291-501.

(b) If a domestic partnership ends, the city/county employee must submit written notice to the human resources

division of the office of finance and management within thirty-one (31) days after the termination of the domestic partnership. The notice must be dated and signed under penalty of perjury. The employee must also send a copy of the notice to his or her former domestic partner.

(c) An employee’s former domestic partner shall have the same rights to purchase continuing insurance as the

former spouse of an employee. Submission of the notice shall be considered a qualifying event for purposes of the non-employee partner’s right to continue coverage for himself or herself and/or his or her eligible dependant(s). Sec. 291-505. Tax Liability. Because a domestic partnership is not a legally recognized relationship by either the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or the Indiana Department of Revenue, an employee will be taxed on benefits provided to his or her domestic partner. The employee shall be solely responsible for paying these taxes. SECTION 2. Section 291-208 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, regarding death leave hereby is amended by the addition of the language that is underscored, to read as follows: Sec. 291-208. Death leave.

Upon the death of a member of the immediate family, i.e., spouse, domestic partner, mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, stepmother, stepfather, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandmother, grandfather, grandson and granddaughter or other relative who was residing with the employee, an employee will receive a maximum of three (3) working days' leave with pay. The appropriate official has discretion to grant three (3) days for leave to be charged against any earned leave time for a death of someone other than those listed above. Documentation of the appropriate circumstances may be required of the employee, e.g., death certificate or article. Additional time off to be charged to earned leave time if available, or without pay may be granted at the discretion of the city or county office, department, division, bureau or commission. Temporary and seasonal employees are not eligible for paid death leave. SECTION 3. The expressed or implied repeal or amendment by this ordinance of any other ordinance or part of any other ordinance does not affect any rights or liabilities accrued, penalties incurred, or proceedings begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Those rights, liabilities, and proceedings are continued, and penalties shall be imposed and enforced under the repealed or amended ordinance as if this ordinance had not been adopted. SECTION 4. Should any provision (section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or any other portion) of this ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the remaining provision or provisions shall not be affected, if and only if such remaining provisions can, without the invalid provision or provisions, be given the effect intended by the Council in adopting this ordinance. To this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable.


64

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the council or January 1, 2013, whichever last occurs, and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 223, 2012. Councillor Talley reported that the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee heard Proposal No. 223, 2012 on July 23, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Talley and Holliday, approves the statement of benefits of Arcamed, Inc., an applicant for tax abatement for property located in an economic revitalization area. By a 7-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Talley moved, seconded by Councillor Gray, for adoption. Proposal No. 223, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

27 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson, Talley 0 NAYS: 1 NOT VOTING: Osili 1 ABSENT: Evans

Proposal No. 223, 2012 was retitled GENERAL RESOLUTION NO. 14, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL RESOLUTION NO. 14, 2012

PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL RESOLUTION to approve the statement of benefits of Arcamed, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”), an applicant for tax abatement for property located in an allocation area as defined by IC 36-7-15.1-26.

WHEREAS, IC 6-1.1-12.1 allows a partial abatement of property taxes attributable to redevelopment, rehabilitation activities or installation of new equipment in Economic Revitalization Areas (each hereinafter referred to as a “Project”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1, the Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County, Indiana, acting as the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (hereinafter referred to as "MDC") is empowered to designate Economic Revitalization Areas; and

WHEREAS, IC 6-1.1-12.1 requires an applicant for Economic Revitalization Area designation to provide a statement of benefits and requires the MDC, before it makes a decision to designate the area as an Economic Revitalization Area, to determine that (i) the estimated value of a Project is reasonable for projects of that nature, (ii) the estimated employment at the indicated annual salaries for a Project identified in the statement of benefits can reasonably be expected, (iii) a Project can be reasonably expected to yield the benefits identified in the statement of benefits and (iv) the totality of benefits arising from a Project is sufficient to justify Economic Revitalization Area designation; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1-2(l), a statement of benefits for property located within an allocation area, as defined by IC 36-7-15.1-26, may not be approved unless the City-County Council of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana (hereinafter referred to as "Council") adopts a resolution approving the statement of benefits; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Statement of Benefits to the MDC as part of its application for Economic Revitalization Area designation for property where Applicant’s Project will occur, located within an allocation area, as defined by IC 36-7-15.1-26; and

WHEREAS, MDC has preliminarily approved Applicant’s Statement of Benefits, pending adoption from the Council, to allow the designation of the Economic Revitalization Area and related tax abatements pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1; now, therefore:


August 13, 2012

65

SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the Statements of Benefits that were submitted to the MDC, as part of the application for Economic Revitalization Area designation, by Arcamed, Inc. SECTION 2. This resolution shall be in effect from and after its passage by the Council and compliance with Ind. Code 36-3-4-14. Councillor Brown stated that the Public Works Committee heard Proposal Nos. 225-227, 2012 on August 1, 2012. He asked for consent to vote on these proposals together. Consent was given. PROPOSAL NO. 225, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Miller and Robinson, authorizes intersection controls at McCrea Street and Jackson Place (District 19). PROPOSAL NO. 226, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Sandlin and Robinson, authorizes parking restrictions on Linden Drive from Cragmont Drive to Banta Avenue (District 24). PROPOSAL NO. 227, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Osili and Robinson, authorizes intersection controls at Meridian Street and Tippecanoe Street (District 15). By an 8-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Brown moved, seconded by Councillor Gray, for adoption. Proposal Nos. 225-227, 2012 were adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:





SECTION 1. That the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana, specifically Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be, and the same is hereby amended by the deletion of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 25 McCrea St Jackson Pl Stop Jackson Pl SECTION 2. That the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana, specifically Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 25 McCrea St None All-Way Stop Jackson Pl SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 226, 2012 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 25, 2012, and reads as follows:


66


A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” Sec. 621-121, Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets.


SECTION 1. The “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” specifically, Sec. 621-121, Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, be and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit:

Linden Drive, on the west side, from Cragmont Drive to Banta Avenue SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. Proposal No. 227, 2012 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 26, 2012, and reads as follows:



SECTION 1. The “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” specifically, Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit: BASE MAP INTERSECTION PREFERENTIAL TYPE OF CONTROL 25 Meridian St Meridian St Stop Tippecanoe St SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 228, 2012. Councillor Moriarty Adams reported that the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee heard Proposal No. 228, 2012 on July 18, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Osili, Simpson, Barth, Robinson, Gray, Adamson, Cardwell, Pfisterer, Mahern and Moriarty Adams, establishes a study commission to examine and investigate current policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenders. By an 8-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Osili moved, seconded by councillor Simpson, to amend Proposal No. 228, 2012 as per a handout provided to members. Councillor Simpson said that he believes this issue needs a serious look and it could save the City money in the long run if they can keep these individuals out of incarceration and help them become productive, contributing taxpayers. Councillor Pfisterer said that over 500 ex-offenders re-enter the community every month, and she has been a long-time advocate of illuminating the problems related to re-entry. She said that it is not just the individual that is affected, but their children, as well. She thanked Councillor Osili for his initiative with this proposal. Councillor Mahern said that he is proud to co-sponsor this effort and feels that not looking at this issue would miss some great economic opportunities.

August 13, 2012

67

Councillor Sandlin said that he hopes the study commission will also look at the educational piece for employers, as this is also important. Councillor Mansfield asked why the appointment for the Sheriff’s Department is being made by the Council president and not the Sheriff. Councillor Moriarty Adams stated that the majority of these appointments are being made by the Council president. Councillor Mansfield said that she thinks that out of respect for that separate office, the Sheriff should be allowed to make this appointment. Councillor Mansfield moved, seconded by Councillor Hunter, to make a friendly amendment to allow the Sheriff to make the appointment from the Sheriff’s Department. Consent was given to amend the amendment to allow for that discretion. Proposal No. 228, 2012 was amended on the following roll call vote; viz:


Councillor Moriarty Adams moved, seconded by Councillor Osili, for adoption. Proposal No. 228, 2012, as amended, was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:


Proposal No. 228, 2012 was retitled COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 80, 2012, and reads as follows:


A PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL RESOLUTION establishing a study commission to examine and investigate current policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenders and the economic and community impact of reducing recidivism, to hold public hearings and take public input, and to report to the Council findings and recommendations for improvement.

WHEREAS, approximately 5,000 men and women are released into Marion County from prisons and jails each year; and

WHEREAS, during the last few years, approximately 51% of those released into Marion County have returned to

incarceration within three years of their release date; and WHEREAS, the average annual cost for an incarcerated offender is more than $25,000; and WHEREAS, reducing the rate of recidivism would have significant economic and public safety benefits in

addition to increasing the number of productive members of our community; now therefore

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:


68

SECTION 1. Purpose: A study commission shall be established under the authority of the Council to examine and investigate current policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenders and the economic and community impact of reducing recidivism in Marion County, to hold public hearings and take public input, and to report to the Council findings and recommendations for improvement.

SECTION 2. Name: The Commission shall be named the Re-entry Policy Study Commission. SECTION 3. Members: The Commission established for this purpose shall be composed of eleven (11) members, as follows: (1) the chair of the Council’s Public Safety Committee, who will serve as chair of the Commission; (2) a member of the Council’s Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee, appointed by the Council president; (3) a member of the minority caucus of the Council, appointed by the minority leader; (4) a representative of the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, appointed by the Council president; (5) a representative of the Marion Superior Court, appointed by the Council president; (6) a representative of the Department of Public Safety, appointed by the Mayor; (7) a representative of the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, appointed by the Council President; (8) a member of the Marion County Re-entry Coalition, appointed by the Council president; (9) a representative of the Mayor’s Office of Re-Entry, appointed by the Mayor; (10) a representative of a local re-entry service provider, appointed by the Council president; and (11) a representative of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department, appointed by the Sheriff. SECTION 4. Quorum, Proxies, and Vacancies: After its initial meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call of the chair or a majority of its members. Six members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Commission members may designate a proxy to participate in the Commission meetings. Any reports of the Commission shall only be approved by the vote of six members. Any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. The Commission shall meet and begin its operations as soon as practical. SECTION 5. Staffing: The commission will be staffed by the Council’s chief financial officer and general counsel. SECTION 6. Powers and Duties of the Commission: The Commission shall review and make recommendations on policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenders into Marion County and the economic and community impact to Marion County of reducing recidivism, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Review current practices surrounding offender sentencing, incarceration, release, and re-integration into the county;

2. Review sentencing practices/guidelines and their role in supporting or crippling successful re-

integration; 3. Review costs associated with the processing, prosecution, incarceration, release, probation, and

community supervision of the offender, and determine how the funds are utilized and their efficiency and effectiveness as measured by the successful re-integration of the re-entrant population;

4. Review sources of payment of these costs and how they are utilized; 5. Create community goals/targets for successful re-integration of re-entrants into the community and

study the potential impact on the city’s economic development; 6. Review national best practices for successful re-integration, including use of public funds utilized

in the process of prosecution, sentencing, incarceration, and release of offenders; 7. Review the service provider entities which have been most successful in lowering recidivism rates

and recommending means of streamlining and possibly eliminating those which have not; 8. Analyze economic cost/benefit to city/county of incorporating any new policies; 9. Review current barriers to re-entrant employment, housing, and other necessities; 10. Review best practices to encourage more private sector employers to review their hiring and

screening policies, and provide more non-discriminatory hiring opportunities; 11. Review and analyze our supportive services (housing, workforce development, etc.) and ways to

improve their role in successful re-integration; and

August 13, 2012

69

12. Establish a periodic review of the county’s recidivism rate and create a method of measuring and tracking successful performance and re-integration of the re-entrants.

SECTION 7. Information Sharing. City entities shall share information and cooperate with the commission, including, without limitation, permitting personnel to meet with commission members and testify in front of the commission. SECTION 8. Report. The commission shall make its final report to the Council by March 31, 2013. SECTION 9. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 238, 2012. Councillor Talley reported that the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee heard Proposal No. 238, 2012 on July 23, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Adamson, Cain, Talley, Moriarty Adams, McQuillen and Cardwell, approves the statement of benefits of Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. and Roche Diagnostics Corporation as an applicant for tax abatement in an economic revitalization area. By a 7-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Cain said that a $300 million capital investment by Roche is one of the largest capital investments in the City’s history, and will provide many high-paying high-tech jobs. Councillor Hickman said that she did have some concerns about tax abatements, but after having met with representatives from Roche, she will support their efforts, as they will be going into schools and providing training for high-tech jobs. Councillor Cardwell thanked Roche for the opportunity to tour their facilities, and said that he is grateful that they have chosen this city to make their investment and bring more jobs to the area. He said that cities all across the country would love to have a company of this caliber. Councillor Miller said that he does some work for Cap Gemini, a subsidiary, and wanted to disclose that fact, although it should not affect his ability to vote on this matter. Councillor Mahern thanked Roche and thanked other businesses who are doing projects in the county without requesting a tax abatement. Councillor Talley moved, seconded by Councillor Cain, for adoption. Proposal No. 238, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:


Proposal No. 238, 2012 was retitled GENERAL RESOLUTION NO. 15, 2012, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL RESOLUTION NO. 15, 2012 PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL RESOLUTION to approve the statement of benefits of Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. and Roche Diagnostics Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”), an applicant for tax abatement for property located in an allocation area as defined by IC 36-7-15.1-26.

WHEREAS, IC 6-1.1-12.1 allows a partial abatement of property taxes attributable to redevelopment, rehabilitation activities or installation of new equipment in Economic Revitalization Areas (each hereinafter referred to as a “Project”); and


70

WHEREAS, pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1, the Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County, Indiana,

acting as the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (hereinafter referred to as "MDC") is empowered to designate Economic Revitalization Areas; and

WHEREAS, IC 6-1.1-12.1 requires an applicant for Economic Revitalization Area designation to provide a statement of benefits and requires the MDC, before it makes a decision to designate the area as an Economic Revitalization Area, to determine that (i) the estimated value of a Project is reasonable for projects of that nature, (ii) the estimated employment at the indicated annual salaries for a Project identified in the statement of benefits can reasonably be expected, (iii) a Project can be reasonably expected to yield the benefits identified in the statement of benefits and (iv) the totality of benefits arising from a Project is sufficient to justify Economic Revitalization Area designation; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1-2(l), a statement of benefits for property located within an allocation area, as defined by IC 36-7-15.1-26, may not be approved unless the City-County Council of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana (hereinafter referred to as "Council") adopts a resolution approving the statement of benefits; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a Statement of Benefits to the MDC as part of its application for Economic Revitalization Area designation for property where Applicant’s Project will occur, located within an allocation area, as defined by IC 36-7-15.1-26; and

WHEREAS, MDC has preliminarily approved Applicant’s Statement of Benefits, pending adoption from the Council, to allow the designation of the Economic Revitalization Area and related tax abatements pursuant to IC 6-1.1-12.1; now, therefore:


SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the Statements of Benefits that were submitted to the MDC, as part of the application for Economic Revitalization Area designation, by Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. and Roche Diagnostics Corporation. SECTION 2. This resolution shall be in effect from and after its passage by the Council and compliance with Ind. Code 36-3-4-14. PROPOSAL NO. 251, 2012. Councillor Moriarty Adams reported that the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee heard Proposal No. 251, 2012 on July 18, 2012. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Moriarty Adams, approves a transfer of $18,000 in the 2012 Budget of the Department of Public Safety (Public Safety Communications General Fund) from Character 02 to Character 05 for fuel costs. By an 8-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Moriarty Adams moved, seconded by Councillor Gray, for adoption. Proposal No. 251, 2012 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

27 YEAS: Adamson, Barth, Brown, Cain, Cardwell, Freeman, Gooden, Gray, Hickman, Holliday, Hunter, Lewis, Lutz, Mahern, Mansfield, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Moriarty Adams, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson, Sandlin, Scales, Simpson 0 NAYS: 1 NOT VOTING: Talley 1 ABSENT: Evans



A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 2012 by transferring Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($18,000) from Character 2 to Character 5 for purposes of the Department of Public Safety, Public Safety Communications.

August 13, 2012

71


SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual Budget for 2012 be, and is hereby, amended by the increases hereinafter stated for purposes of the following departments and agencies, as listed in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Department of Public Safety requests a transfer of funds for fuel usage from character 2 to character 5 within the Public Safety Communications General fund. This is a result of the Public Safety Communications agency moving from a County department where fuel costs are paid from Character 2, to a City Department where they are paid from Character 5. The following changes to appropriations are hereby approved: The following changes in appropriations are hereby approved:



Public Safety Communications General Fund ($18,000) $18,000 0

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC36-3-4-14.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADJOURNMENT The President said that the docketed agenda for this meeting of the Council having been completed, the Chair would entertain motions for adjournment. Councillor McQuillen stated that he had been asked to offer the following motion for adjournment by: (1) Councillor Gray in memory of Reginald Alexander Crowe; and (2) Councillor McQuillen in memory of William Raspberry and George E. Hallowell; and (3) Councillor Pfisterer in memory of John Baldwin, Fred Dilger, Jr., Dick Linville, James L.

Johnson and Winnie Kirkman; and (4) Councillors McHenry and Lutz in memory of Roy Franklin Stringer.

Councillor McQuillen moved the adjournment of this meeting of the Indianapolis City-County Council in recognition of and respect for the life and contributions of Reginald Alexander Crowe, William Raspberry, George E. Hallowell, John Baldwin, Fred Dilger, Jr., Dick Linville, James L. Johnson, Winnie Kirkman, and Roy Franklin Stringer. He respectfully asked the support of fellow Councillors. He further requested that the motion be made a part of the permanent records of this body and that a letter bearing the Council seal and the signature of the President be sent to the families advising of this action.

There being no further business, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 10:51 p.m.

We hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and complete record of the proceedings of the regular concurrent meetings of the City-Council of Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana, and Indianapolis Police, Fire and Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Councils on the 13th day of August, 2012.


72

In Witness Whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our signatures and caused the Seal of the City of Indianapolis to be affixed.

President ATTEST: Clerk of the Council (SEAL)