Common Council - Regular Meeting

rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, you ready? Okay, roll call, please. Steve Beardsley is absent. Isaac Chavez, virtually present.

Virtually present. Taylor Crrenshaw, present. John Large, present. Robert Stevens, present. Clarence Waran, present. Eric Woods, present. Okay, we have the minutes from the September 8th, 2025 regular meeting. I believe um Councilman Stevens pointed out an error in this set of minutes. Can you refresh my memory on that? It was the time that we uh it it was before, wasn't it? It was we closed the public it was under uh public hearing 707 and we reopened it at 7:06. So, we're going to change that to 708.

Thank you for catching that. Is there any other adjustments? I don't believe so. Okay. So, we could Can we just pass them with the suggested amendment? Okay. I move we accept amendments with the correction for September 8th, 2025. Second. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. Hi. Taylor Crrenshaw. Hi. John Large. Hi. Robert Stevens. Hi. Clarence Warren. Hi. Eric Woods. Hi.

Okay. The minutes from September 8th have been approved. Uh, next we have public comments. We have one person present. Uh, Dave Riggs. Uh, would you like to step up to the podium? And you have three minutes for your uh public clock. Oh.

Hi, I'm Dave Riggs. I would like to speak to you about the data center. They're proposed to go in out west of town. Uh I don't know if it's been brought up to this panel yet. I'm pretty sure it will be because it's mostly on city property. Now, this has been done in I feel incorrectly from the start. It was brought up to somebody in the county and nobody from the city knew anything about it until way late in the process. the gentleman who's wanting to put it in will say that he that's going to bring so much tax dollars to Frankfurt and Clinton County and then he'll talk about a tax abatement. We both know but that can't be true with both of them. Um uh the utility company has assured me that we will do have enough utilities to cover that. However, they can't go outside Clinton County to look at the aquifers. So you within Clinton County, we have enough water in the aquifers. I don't know what's going on outside of Clinton County. I would like for you to vote no for this data center. Everybody I've talked to is not against growth, just against this data center. If it was Coke or Pepsi going in out there that bring in 500 jobs, everybody would be for that. We don't know who the end user is for the data center. It took the federal government a lot of years to get bite dance off of out of Tik Tok. How long would it take the city government to get Chinese government out of our stuff? So you since we don't know who the end

user is, that that worries me because he's probably just going to sell it to the highest bidder. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I think you need that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, David. Um, next we will have a public hearing. So, I'm going to recess the council meeting at 706. And this is on ordinance number 25-23. And this is um for an additional appropriation. Did you have anything, Carol, to

This is um the additional appropriation that we that was presented for first reading at the last council meeting. Um it is for uh the new loader for sanitation as well as the opio opioid settlement restricted and unrestricted amounts um that we're required to appropriate to spend. Does anyone have any questions on that? Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 7:07 and reopen the council meeting. Uh, next on the agenda is ordinance number 25-23. Does anybody have any questions or concerns for Carol? I'll move to pass ordinance 2523 on second reading.

Second. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. I. Taylor Krenshaw. Hi. John Large. Hi. Robert Stevens. Hi. Clarence Warn. Hi. Eric Woods. Hi. Okay. Carol, I believe the next two ordinances are 25, aren't they? Yes. I I apologize. I didn't catch that from the last meeting. Yes, they're 2520 and 2521.

Okay. So, next on the agenda, we have ordinance number 25-20 and it's on second reading. It's for our 2026 uh budget and I believe you have that in your packet. Um, does anybody have any questions on that? We did. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Before we start, Isaac, since you're attending virtually, for the budget and the salary ordinances, you won't be able to vote because of Indiana code. So, for those uh those ordinances that we're passing, Isaac will not be able to vote since he's attending virtually.

What about the elected official salary ordinance? Is he able to run that? I'm pretty sure it's all salary ordinances and the budget. So,

is there any comments or questions on the budget? Um, our total adopted budget with all the funds that we have to adopt is 21 million 369233. Um, and our adopted tax levy is 16,25,654. So, uh, those are the budgets that we have to send in for the DLGF to approve and hopefully we'll hear from them by the end of the year. We also have some home rule funds that are not reviewed by the DLGF and that's a total of 3,443,442. We've worked really hard on the budget this year and I want to thank my department heads also. Um, thank the council for all the hard work that you've put into this. This has not been an easy budget year, but uh, we've worked through it and we'll just have to continue to work through these situations as they arise um, from the SB1 or the SEA1. Um, but right now we're able to pass this budget for 2026 and send it on to the Department of Local Government Finance. Would anyone like to make a motion to pass this budget?

I'll make a motion that we pass ordinance 2520 on what first reading. Second reading. Second reading. I'll second. Alicia, may I ask um should I mention Isaac in the roll call and let him allow him to abstain? Yes, I would let him abstain. Okay. Did you catch that, Councilman? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez, abstain. Taylor Crrenshaw, hi. John Large, hi. Robert Stevens, hi. Clarence Warren, hi. Eric Woods, hi.

Okay. Ordinance number 25-20 passes on second reading. Next we have ordinance number 25-21. This is on second reading as well and it's an ordinance setting the salaries and hourly wages for employees of the civil city of Frankfurt, Indiana. So, is there anything we need to bring to their attention or

I did highlight um the u the ch we've made a few changes and your copy should have um yellow highlighting to show the different changes. Um there were a couple of spots where we just missed things from the budget. So, we corrected the salary ordinance to make the budget to make it um match the budget. Um, the part-time $16 to $19 an hour category was incorrect on the first copy that that you saw last time. So, they're just really all minor changes and nothing exceeds what's in the budget. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to address that.

Does anybody have any questions? No. I'll make a motion we accept ordinance number 2521. Second reading. Second. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. Taylor Krenshaw. Hi. John Large. Hi. Robert Stevens. Hi. Clarence Warren. Hi. Eric Woods. Hi.

Okay. Ordinance number 25-21 passes on second reading. Uh next we have ordinance um there again that's uh 25-22 on second reading. It's an ordinance setting the salaries and hourly wages for elected officials of the civil city of Frankfurt, Indiana. I'll move to pass ordinance 2522 on second reading. Second. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. Thank Taylor Krenshaw. Hi. John Large. Hi. Robert Stevens. Hi. Clarence Warren. Hi, Eric Woods. Hi.

Okay. Ordinance number 25-22 passes on second reading. Um, next we have ordinance number 25-24. And this is an ordinance amending the unified development ordinance of the city of Frankfurt, Indiana. So, I don't know who wants to talk about that. Do you want to talk about it? Okay.

Um, Don, if you want to talk about it, that's fine, too. Uh this uh is a unified development ordinance which means that we just need to approve it because it's already gone through a public hearing and has been approved by the city plan commission. What this one is changing, it's doing two things. Um it's changing the street width. It's changing the composition of um what type of materials need to be used for certain sidewalks and streets. And then it also is taking the historic preservation um standards and guidelines and making that into a historic preservation overlay district. Um so that way that is incorporated within the unified development code that allows the um the administration of that to go through the building services department and then have the board of zoning appeals be the body that would hear appeals on that matter. and it makes it a little bit more simple since that department is the department that generally is dealing with building codes and permitting.

Um the other thing go back to the street department or the street side of things. um in the UDO there is a um uh in the back has to talk about the type of streets whether it's residential or collector where there's a a CBR value which is has to do with soil and uh being the fact that we now reach out into the county heading towards 28 um I I felt like it we our table wasn't complete um it the CBR wasn't addressed So when you look at the CBR value of three, that defines a type of soil and whether or not it's a good enough soil to be built upon or what type of materials need to be done if a street is being placed on it. So um that's why you you have so many uh sections in here that deal with the soil. It's it's basically because we're no longer just in the city limits, but going outside. So, we're going to be getting into some different soils, and I thought it was important that um all that information get be placed into the UDO.

Is that CBR value is that a something that shows up on like the state engineering leases and such?

It it it does. It it it just kind of gives us um well, you know, the the example you have is if when you go to the green section where it talks about a certain type of soil, um um it it will refer to to this side of it and then the construction type it will be set up where it says it's either satisfactory or not. Um that was a change when we took it to the plan commission. um it said permitted and uh the plan commission said let's get rid of all that and either you can or you cannot use the material. So um that's that's what we did. But it it just helps us with um one more step that when they start to do development that they now have to test the soil and uh give us some type of report of what's what's out there. I know in the city planning commission uh we talked about this quite a bit and I was pretty happy with all the answers. So the council has three choices with this. You can either vote to approve this. You can vote to deny it, you can amend it. I guess you have four choices. Or you can take no action. If you take no action within 90 days, then that will automatically be approved by state statute. I have a question, Dawn. Um, does this change the width of the streets?

It does. Um, I was all about keeping them at 30 when you get into minor arterials and local roads. uh keeping the um minimum standards at 36 for for principal arterials. Uh but we settled on 34 uh with from back of curb to back of curb. Uh the fire department was okay with 34s. I mean, if you ask me, I'm I'm I'm still a 30 guide from back of curb to back of curb, but um the uh the uh updated ordinance now goes 34. Um, basically what you're doing is you're requesting that the subdivider put four extra foot of proper or concrete down for streets. Um, in a time when um, infrastructure is is costly and it adds adds up to the cost of of the project. Um, the example that I used at the plan commission was if you use Metobrook subdivision and and all those streets out there were 34 foot wide from curb to curb. um Metobrook would have to come up with an additional five to six more lots to offset just the cost of the additional 4 foot sidewalks. So, one of the reasons that I would love for them to stay at 30, but we're going 34 was one, it slows traffic down in residential districts. it um it it doesn't add cost to the infrastructure work that the uh responsibility falls upon the uh builder the subdivider and uh uh and in a time frame where we're now looking at does the city help participate in some of that uh and by making it a wider street you're you're given opportunity for maybe a little bit faster driving and and then more cost. Um for me um it's it's not the width of

the street that matters. For me it's you decide that what's side what's the width of the street that you would like to have. If it's 30 then do you allow parking or do you not allow parking? Then that gives enough width or enough area for the fire department to do what it is that they need to do. Um if you do a 30- foot wide street and you park on one side, you're looking at 8 and 1/2 ft. That's what the UDO says. So now you're looking at if parking on one side on a 30 foot street then then you've got you know at least a a 21 20 to 21 foot area for the fire department to be able to set up their their equipment. But um once again um we're we're selecting to go 34 just because I'm I I just don't think we need to have the continued battle to try to get there. Now can the plan commission make variances? They can. they can grant a variance in the developmental standards of of the subdivision if they choose to do so. Um and then that would come down to you as council members to make that decision on whether or not you agree with what it is that that they have chosen. So um that's that's where we are with streets right now. You're getting 34 from back of curb to back of curb

and previously it was 36. So it's going from 36 to 34 is the change. And what concession was made for Metobrook? We allowed 30 out there. We allowed 30. Okay. Was that on all streets or just the

It was um on on Hoke. Hulk really should have been 36 when we drew everything up. I thought that's what it was. I didn't do my due diligence of following through on it. And it's 32, but or it's 30 also. And uh it probably should have been 36. That's why we got into some sidewalk issues. you're 10 foot off of the curb because of of the additional uh three feet on on each side making it and then that would have put the sidewalk in the same position as it does everywhere else in the subdivision.

I know when you said 30, my opinion is 34. Take the 30 foot wide back to back subtract what the concrete is, what the actual road is. I mean, if there's a kid darts out from behind a car, I want the extra four feet to swerve. Safety is more important than the 30. So, and I know that we also were considering for the fire department or emergency vehicles in case they were needed to be in those areas.

You said the far the fire department's okay with 34. Yes, they are. And if you want Mr. Chief Stum to come up here and talk to you about it, he he sure will. You okay with that? Yes. Okay. I just now you're talking about curb to curb. You're talking about the rain curb, right? Yes. Now, the sidewalks are going to be on the outside of that.

That's right. So, the sidewalks will be placed 4 foot off the curb and then 5 foot wide in your in your in this uh that you're getting ready to pass. We're moving sidewalks from 4t wide to 5 foot wide residentials because of the ADA accessibility for them. Um, so what we're going to do is in the in the in the previous it was four foot wide, five foot off. So now we're going to go five foot wide and four foot off and and I think we'll just everything will be just fine that way. Yeah. So side work becomes closer to the curb. Yes, it does by a foot and doesn't go into the property anymore. It does not. Okay.

So on 34 foot streets, new streets, there can be parking on both sides. That's that's up to whoever's decision that is. And it can actually be if you take Mebrook, Metobrook has a covenants and its covenant says they're not allowing the parking out there in in their subdivision on the streets. So

there there are two different ways that parking can be handled. Number one is the developer can put that in their covenants and decide what the parking situation is going to be. Metobrook because they were going to be 30 feet did put it in their covenants that they're not allowing parking on those streets. The second option is the city council can decide whether or not parking should be allowed if it should be allowed on both sides of the street or one side of the street or zero sides of the street.

So for clarification, 34 feet in the UDO can allow parking on both sides, but the example of the Metobrook 30foot, they're not allowing parking on either side. Correct. But the council could decide that they didn't want you didn't want parking in there. So even though it's allowed, you could override that by an ordinance. But by their covenants, they can say no parking. Correct. What power do they have to enforce that?

Well, it's part of the homeowners association powers. So the homeowners association would be the body that would be um watching and monitoring that. My experience with homeowners associations, they only exist for a short period of time. Then they disappear.

Well, can can I let me let me just let me address the no parking out there and that is I've not said anything to Brian about putting signs out there. There's a reason for that and that is the school is building a house out there and all their students park on the street and if I put no parking signs out there, they'll have no place to to pull up to. So, I've been kind of holding back on having Brian post no parking um because of all the cars that that head out there from the school. Ultimately, if we really want no parking and it's not being enforced by the homeowners association, you all can do an ordinance that says that there's no parking and then we can put signs out and we can enforce enforce it with code enforcement.

But because it doesn't have anything covered right now other than by the covenants covenants, then we would not be able to put the signs. Correct. Correct. It would be the responsibility of the developer to put the signs out at this point. You know, I'm I'm a little bit more concerned about consistency. You know, we're worried about these these new roads and well, we should be, but what about all the roads we have currently that we can't get fire trucks down?

I I think maybe we if we're going to get serious about this, let's get serious about the other ones and look into what that width is that uh we need to start forcing uh one-sided street parking. You're going to have to. There's streets you cannot go down. You can't. Slide street. If you park on both sides, you can't get through. I mean, I'd like I'd like to have the fire chief's opinion on, you know, what that ordinance would look like. Matt, at a later date.

I agree, Eric. I think it's something at some point we need to to decide on how we want that to happen. I don't think we're ready to do that right now, but it would have to be by ordinance by the city council to make that decision. And I think that's going to take a little research or studying or exactly what way we want to go. Going to take some homework on that one. I agree. Well, this this can be our guidance if this is good enough for the new stuff and we should, you know, have that be the jumping off point for the existing streets. And if we're looking towards the future, I think wider streets are going to be a better idea altogether. So all those changes will happen with one motion.

Correct. All we need if you want to approve it is a motion to approve the um ordinance number 25-24. I make a motion to approve ordinance number 25-24. I second. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. Hi Taylor Krenshaw. Hi John Large. Hi Robert Stevens. Hi Clarence Warren. Hi Eric Woods. Hi. Okay. Ordinance number 25-24 passes.

Next we have which I think Carol just passed out to you. Ordinance uh 25-25. And that is for an additional appropriation. Um it would be on first reading. we'd have to have second reading public hearing at the next meeting. Uh we've ran into some situations with our liability and workers comp and I know Carol's done a lot of figuring. We met with Todd Jackson. There's been a significant increase in workers comp and also liability insurance. um we didn't really have enough budgeted in the beginning and then uh we were going to have to do an increase and then with the 20% on top of that um this is what looks like we're short. Correct, Carol?

That's correct. And what happens is the renewal for insurance when they're pricing out policies happens in October and we're done with our budget. And so it's kind of compounded this year because it was short for 25 or 24 and now it's it's shorter for 25. We've also um the it's it's about a 20% increase overall. We've also um renegotiated the portion that we pay with the utilities and that's gone up a little bit. So, there's a variety of reasons that that's caused it to

and october 1st is when we have to pay the first half of our workers comp. They will not bail it out quarterly. So, that hits us really hard for the October 1 uh the liability portion of that. Some of the others, I think it's cyber security, some of those are quarterly, but they will not do that for workers comp. So, we get hit really hard with, you know, the first half of workers comp along with the others. So,

first reading on this is first reading. We're required to have a public or or public hearing for any additional appropriation ordinance and there's a timeline for that and the first available date we would have for that would be the November meeting. I'll move to read by title only. I'll second that. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. Hi. Taylor Crrenshaw. Hi. John Large. Hi. Robert Stevens. Hi. Clarence Warren. Hi. Eric Woods. Hi. Additional appropriation ordinance number 25-25. I'll move to pass ordinance 2525 on first reading.

Second. I'm sorry. Who was the second? Robert Joe. Thank you. Isaac Chavez. Hi Taylor Crrenshaw. Hi John Large. Hi Robert Stevens. Hi Clarence Warn. Hi Eric Woods. Hi. Okay. Ordinance 25-25 passes on first reading. Uh, next we have resolution number 25-08. And I don't know who's going to talk about that. Um, on the papers they're 259 and 2510. Yes. I I I mislabeled that on the agenda. Okay. When I made the agenda, I didn't have the paperwork in front of me. So the

so we don't know which one we're introducing at this point or we just one of them is for uh local match commitment and the other one is for the um application submission. Has 258 been used though previously? So we're on 259.

We're on 259. Okay. So um 259 is a resolution authorizing a local match commitment. This is for the okra grant for the um comprehensive plan. Um, so okra will pay up to $60,000 and they require a local match of $40,000 to get you to $100,000. If there's any additional expense, like if the comprehensive plan costs more, um, the city would be responsible for that as well. But for the ochre grant portion of it, you just have to commit $40,000 in order to be eligible to receive that grant. So this resolution would authorize that local match of $40,000. we would need to determine what fund we would want to take that from and insert that into the blank line. Um, it doesn't have to be specific. It just could be like general fund or whatever fund we want to pull it from, but we do need to do that. Um, and then this would just require a motion to approve if you want to do so. And we're still in the process of the okra.

It just open it'll open tomorrow. Yeah. So that we're just trying to get everything in order so we can continue to work through the process. This is if we are awarded Yeah. that the funds that I uh was thinking about would either be city general or maybe our economic development income tax. So but this is pretty common that we have to pass something like this in order to even apply for the grant. So Judy, do we have enough funds to do this?

We would have to do an additional appropriation if we get awarded the grant at that time. If we get the grant, if we get the grant, otherwise we would not we probably would not do an additional appropriation until we find out. But um we have to say that we will commit that before they'll even consider our application. Clarence, I think we can also make an ask of the uh pit board to help fund this. I think there's money in the uh the educational portion of that budget. So maybe we can get a little bit out of that. Out of where the out of the pit budget? Oh, the pit budget.

Don't know. I'll send something to Shan and ask what funding's available. Okay. Okay. I'll I'll make a motion we pass resolution 259. I'll second. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. I. Taylor Krenshaw. Hi. John Large. Hi. Robert Stevens. Hi. Clarence Horen. Hi. Eric Woods. Hi. Okay. Resolution number 25-09 passes then is 2510.

Yes, we also need to pass that one. So 2510 also says that we're going to commit $40,000 for the local match. These are forms that we have to use because they're created by OKR. So we are kind of told what we're supposed to do. So, while this does also authorize the $40,000, this allows the mayor to sign the application so that we can submit that application to OKRA for the grant. So, that that this resolution does two different um two different things. Allows for the application submission and also the local match. So, um again, this would just need to be approved so that we can apply. The sooner the better.

Uh we probably need to approve it tonight. Okay. I thought this possible tomorrow since we can send it tomorrow. In a couple days, I'll make a motion to approve uh resolution 2510. Second. Roll call, please. Isaac Chavez. Hi. Taylor Krenshaw. Hi. John Large. Hi. Robert Stevens. Hi. Clarence Warren. Hi. Eric Woods. Hi. Okay. Resolution 25-10 passes. [Applause] Okay. So, Kimberly, we'll work on getting this all signed done, whatever we need to do.

Sorry.

Oh, that's okay. Um, let's see. New business. Do we have any unfinished or old business? I'll go there first. I don't see it on here, but Okay. Okay. New business. Uh, Carol, I presented to you the 2025 season Sapphire Bay Aquatic Center report. As you can see, we did really well. Uh, we were open from Memorial to Labor Day with a total revenue of $157,336.17. Um, I believe this is our best year to date. Um, I think the uh really extensively hot summer and very little weather closures. I think maybe we closed one day for weather. I feel like it wasn't.

Yeah, it wasn't more than one. And you know, a normal season we they they closed frequently for storms or or rain and there just wasn't those occasions this summer. So, they were able to stay open and it's reflected in these numbers. And also uh NHK for the 10. Yeah. Yeah. No, that really helped us out a lot and it was a great thing for our community. A lot of people got to get to got in the experience. They think, hey, that's pretty cool. We'll go. Exactly. That was huge. That was huge. Yes.

And I appreciate them doing that. And that was based on the actual numbers um that that we had in attendance. The pool staff kept kept track of the entries. So we just did a little math and came up with a nice round number. Carol, did we max out the the pool? How much we can have in there?

Multiple times every every day during those free days. And then several other times throughout the summer when it's when it's very very high temps like we had this summer, people want to be in the water and and we often had a line at the door for people waiting to get in, waiting for people to leave so they could come in. Exactly. Yeah. The and the pool staff does a really good job of of keeping those numbers. They there it's stressed to them how important that is that we don't exceed that capacity. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. L lines to get in is always a good good thing. That is a good thing.

Is there any other new business? If not, I would um like to Oh, okay. Oh, sure. Sorry. Um Alicia, do you want to talk about the importance of the public hearing at the next meeting and what we need to do? Yes. So, at the next meeting, we will need to have a public hearing for the OKR grant. um that's a requirement that OKRA uh has as part of the grant process. So, we will need to submit to the paper a notice for public hearing and I just wanted to get and it can be by consensus um approval so that we can submit that notice and have that public hearing at the next council meeting. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay. Well, I was um wondering if the council would be interested in a work session in November. There's some things I would like to discuss as far as like the street department has some things. We have uh somebody from is it LTAP? LTAP that would, you know, like to come and speak to us. Penny from um Jim Beard's office suggested that maybe he come and talk to the council about some suggestions on revenues as we move forward. Um, there's also some other things that I know Brian's been working on. He's going to meet with the councilmatic, but I thought it might be a good time to have a work session before the start of the year. Is that after council meeting?

Yeah, right after the council meeting. It doesn't have to be something that, you know, this a long period of time, but I'd like to and there may be other things that come up between now and then. December will be really busy and I thought, well, that might be a good time to there's anything. Okay. Said my calendar. Okay. Thank you. Carol, you want to put that out that way then? I will. And you your preference is the the way that we normally do it. Work session immediately following the regular meeting. Okay. So, that would be on the 10th, right? Okay.

Is there anything else? just um I need I have several of these documents tonight that need all signatures. So, please don't leave before signing about five documents. Okay, I'll take the motion. Motion made. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Thank