Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 6, 2025 Council Minutes COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA October 6, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes The Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana met for the Regular Meeting on October 6, 2025. Council President Stoner along with City Clerk Gill called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was open to the public in person as well as live streamed via the City Website using Zoom. INVOCATION: Led by Council Vice President Burns PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: The roll call was conducted by City Clerk Lisa Gill and present in Council Chambers were Councilperson White, Council Vice President Burns, Councilperson Semones, Council President Stoner, Councilperson Reed, Councilperson Webb, Councilperson Snelling, and Councilperson Anderson along with Councilperson Hawkins were absent. Let the record reflect that 7 Council Members were present in Council Chambers and 2 absent. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilperson Reed made a motion to amend the agenda by moving Chad Reischl 2025-OR-44 Ordinance Establishing an Non-Reverting Fund for the Jeffersonville Tree Board before Heather Metcalf 2025-OR-45 (Budget Public Hearing) Ordinance for Appropriations and Tax Rates, seconded by Councilperson Snelling; motion passed, 7-0. Councilperson Semones made a motion to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Council Vice President Burns; motion passed, 7-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilperson Semones made a motion to approve the Minutes for Special Proceedings on 9/15/2025, seconded by Council Vice President Burns; motion passed, 7-0. Council Vice President Burns made a motion to approve the Minutes for Regular Proceedings on 9/15/2025, seconded by Councilperson Semones; motion passed, 7-0. CLAIMS TO APPROVE: Civil City$ 3,089,154.17 Council Vice President Burns made a motion to approve the Civil City Claims, seconded by Councilperson Semones; motion passed, 7-0. Parks$ 147,101.77 City Controller Heather Metcalf informed the Council of an additional claim in the amount of$800. Mrs. Metcalf explained that there had been an error on one of the dates on the claim, which caused it not to appear on the original docket. She noted that the claim was for a vendor participating in Steamboat Nights. Councilperson Semones made a motion to approve the Parks Claims, seconded by Council Vice President Burns; motion passed, 7-0. REPORT OF THE CLERK: None REPORT OF THE YOUTH ADVISOR: Youth Advisor Daniel Walters was absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Evan Bike; 1303 Parkland Trail Jeffersonville, IN 47130 Evan Bike addressed the Council. He stated that he did not come prepared to speak, but wanted an opportunity to speak to the Mayor in person. Mr. Bike explained that he did not know where to meet the Mayor, but he noted that Mrs. Amy informed him the Mayor would not be present, but encouraged him to speak to the Council. Mr. Bike shared that he has an innovative idea related to the former Jeff Boat site. He recounted that Jeff Boat had been a pillar in the community for many generations, providing good-paying jobs and insurance. He stated that the closure of Jeff Boat was a significant event for him personally, as he has lived in Jeffersonville his entire life for 40 years. He described the history of Jeff Boat, noting it started with the Howard family, was later owned by the military, and eventually became Jeff Boat around 1970. Mr. Bike stated that he is a videographer and producer, and also does podcasting professionally. He proposed creating a video podcast to have city leaders, past and present, tell the stories of Jeff Boat, including how it started, evolved, and ended. He also mentioned highlighting the upcoming redevelopment at the Jeff Boat site, noting that there are many rumors about what will occur. He expressed that the redevelopment would be huge for the economy of Jeffersonville. Mr. Bike emphasized his desire to archive these stories professionally in 4K, so that 40 years from now, people could access and view the information. He stated that he and his team can accomplish this and expressed a desire to sit down with city officials to discuss ideas. He concluded by stating his love for Jeffersonville, noting he has moved away and returned, and that he wants to put the city in a great light. He expressed a desire for people to be proud of Jeffersonville and stated that he has many great ideas that he would like to discuss with officials. He concluded: "Thank you. I think I can make this look really, really, really good." Councilperson Reed addressed Evan Bike regarding his proposal. She asked if he had reached out to the Howard Steamboat Museum. Mr. Bike responded that he had not. Councilperson Reed suggested that the museum has archival materials related to the history of the area that could be valuable for the proposed podcast. She recommended that Mr. Bike could collaborate with the museum, noting that they tell a lot of the local history and that there may be opportunities for grant funding. She also mentioned that the city library has a podcast room available for free booking, which could be a resource for his project. Evan Bike responded regarding the city library's podcast studio, confirming that he already had a studio. He then addressed the new development at the former Jeff Boat site, noting that there are many rumors about what will occur, but citizens do not have clear information. He mentioned that people have heard about storefronts and apartments, but that there is still uncertainty among the 4 public. Mr. Bike stated that a podcast project of this nature could keep residents informed. He 4 concluded by noting that the project would reflect positively on the Council and the Mayor. Council President Stoner asked Evan Bike if he runs the podcast himself. Mr. Bike responded that he is the producer of the podcast and works with a team of professionals. He described previous work experiences, noting he has collaborated with the Yum Center, Louisville Orchestra, Darnell "Super Chef" Ferguson, and several politicians, including Stan Moore and Rick Blackwell. He also stated that he works with the UAW at the Kentucky Truck Plant, serving as their go-to videographer for major events. He referenced filming for Governor Beshear during a strike at the UAW. Mr. Bike concluded by expressing that he is comfortable working with professionals and wishes to have the opportunity to work with the city, stating his love for Jeffersonville and confidence that he can make the city look good. Councilperson Semones addressed Evan Bike following his presentation. She expressed appreciation for his initiative, noting that after reaching out to the administration without receiving the desired response, he took action by attending the meeting and speaking. She highlighted that Mr. Bike has great ideas,fire, and passion, and expressed confidence that he would find a way to put those ideas into action. Councilperson Semones emphasized that the city encourages citizens to use their public comment time to express their ideas and engage with the Council. She noted that her team consists of younger members with innovative ideas who are ready to implement projects. Councilperson White addressed Evan Bike, suggesting that he contact Gene Burke at the Clark County Museum as well as the Howard Steamboat Museum. He encouraged Mr. Bike to continue pursuing his project and keep pushing forward. Council President Stoner addressed Evan Bike, stating that Jeffersonville is very lucky to have him. He noted that the Mayor appreciates good ideas and expressed that he looks forward to Mr. Bike having a conversation with city officials and seeing where the project goes. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Kim Calabro/Christine Geiser 2025-OR-43 Ordinance Fixing the Salaries of Appointed Officers and Employees for all Departments of the City of Jeffersonville Kim Calabro, Director of Human Resources, addressed the Council regarding updates to the salary ordinance. She noted that copies of the changes had been provided to members and that there are no significant changes to the ordinance from the adopted budget. Mrs. Calabro outlined the following adjustments: - Base salary updated for fire department personnel. - Changes to probationary periods, including zero to less than one year, and removal of firefighter second class in one year. - Police department adjustments, including lease rate updates, addition of patrol officer first class, five years, and removal of patrol officer one to nine years. All changes are pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. - Removal of clothing allowance for three or four individuals at the Jeffersonville Police Department, to be replaced by uniforms, effective January 1, as directed by Chief Mcvoy. -Addition of$500 annual incentive pay for firefighters with active EMT or Advanced Basic Paramedic certification, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. - Removal of a section implemented in 2023 deemed no longer relevant, in coordination with Christina Geiser, Human Resources Manager of Employment. Mrs. Calabro concluded by noting that there are no other changes and that the compensation pay grade remains unchanged. Council Vice President Burns made a motion to approve the Ordinance 2025-OR-43, seconded by Councilperson Reed; motion passed, 7-0. 2. Greg Fifer 2025-R-14 Resolution Approving a 2025 City Services Agreement With the City of Jeffersonville and River Ridge Greg Fifer addressed the Council regarding the 2025 City Services Agreement for River Ridge. He began by thanking the Council President and members for the opportunity to speak and noted that this topic had been discussed several times over the year. He referenced productive meetings with Councilman Webb, Councilwoman Reed, and Wendy, as well as a prior discussion with the Mayor at the board meeting. Mr. Fifer explained that the agreement before the Council covers the annual services provided by the City to River Ridge, which include: Police services, Fire protection services, Wastewater utility services. He emphasized the importance of these services, stating that River Ridge would not be what it is today without them. Mr. Fifer then provided context regarding the financial position of River Ridge. He noted that discussions with the City's financial advisor had been ongoing for nearly two years. Key points included: -Significant assessed value increases in the Commerce Park would generate substantial additional revenue. -Prior to the Meta sale, River Ridge did not have sufficient funds to consider requests similar to those made in 2018. -The Meta sale proceeds, now deposited in the bank and generating interest, had substantially improved the financial position of River Ridge. -Analysis of TIF revenues indicated that the district is entering a phase where revenues are projected to increase steadily over the next five to ten years. He described a hypothetical exercise in which River Ridge's development was assumed to have occurred without the River Ridge Development Authority and without maximum levy restrictions. This analysis produced figures remarkably close to those in the current agreement, providing confidence in the proposed numbers. The proposed agreement includes: -Termination of the prior police services agreement, under which $331,000 had been paid. River Ridge would not request repayment or credit. -A one-time payment of$1.7 million for the remainder of 2025, to be delivered to Mrs. Metcalf's office within one week to ten days following Council approval and the Mayor's signature. Looking ahead, Fifer discussed considerations for future agreements: -Ensuring a predictable flow of TIF revenues to avoid reliance on potentially uncertain funding in future budgets. -Planning for a two-year contract by June 2026 based on projected TIF revenues, requiring meetings in the April—June timeframe to finalize terMrs. -Explaining that legally, funds can only be transferred via a municipal services agreement or by releasing excess assessed value through the governing board, which then distributes funds to overlapping taxing districts. 4 Analysis showed that about 60%of any released TIF assessed value would go to overlapping taxing districts to cover circuit breaker credit losses, with the remaining 40% reducing taxes for River Ridge property owners. Mr. Fifer noted that property owners had not requested a tax break, making this approach less efficient for passing funds directly. Mr. Fifer highlighted the need to balance River Ridge's mission with community infrastructure needs, noting: -Next year's budget is expected to include $30+ million in capital projects necessary to develop remaining property. -A critical project is the design and improvement of the interchange at I-265 and International Drive, currently causing traffic congestion during peak hours. Delays can require three or four light cycles to navigate the area. -Meetings with Tony McClellan, sub-district director at the Seymour office of INDOT, had occurred to address this issue, though outcomes were pending. He emphasized that improvements must occur to accommodate future growth and traffic from new jobs and development. Finally, Mr. Fifer stressed the importance of collaboration with all overlapping taxing districts (the City, Charlestown, Clark County, Greater Clark) to ensure transparency, equitable distribution of revenues, and a mutually beneficial approach. He concluded by inviting questions from the Council and reaffirmed that the plan represents the current direction and strategic approach of River Ridge going forward. Councilperson Webb expressed appreciation to Greg Fifer and the River Ridge Board for their collaboration with the City. He highlighted that the engagement demonstrates a willingness to maintain a strong partnership and move projects forward. Councilperson Webb acknowledged Mr. Fifer's efforts to facilitate the agreement, noting that the Council has been seeking such cooperation over the years and that this year it was particularly needed. Councilperson Webb characterized the agreement as a "no-brainer" for the Council, emphasizing the mutual benefits of working together with River Ridge and the potential for long-term gains from the partnership. He reflected on past decisions, indicating that previous opportunities—such as turning down a prior arrangement related to a fire district—could have resulted in a less favorable situation. He concluded by reinforcing the importance of collaboration and cooperation, asserting that the current agreement represents the right path forward and supporting its approval by the Council. Councilperson Reed expressed agreement with Councilperson Webb and appreciation to Greg Fifer and the River Ridge Board for taking the time to clearly explain the financial situation of River Ridge. She noted that both she and Councilperson Webb benefited from the detailed discussion, as it helped them better understand how River Ridge's finances could positively 4 impact the City. Mrs. Reed emphasized the importance of a mutually beneficial partnership, highlighting that River Ridge benefits from a strong workforce—ideally residing in Jeffersonville—while the City benefits from additional funding to support that workforce. She underscored that as long as both parties maintain this collaborative mindset, the financial partnership has the potential to grow in the future. She concluded by affirming that the proposed $1.7 million payment for 2025 is an appropriate and reasonable starting point for the City's. 0111 Council President Stoner echoed the comments of Councilpersons Webb and Reed, stating that • this is what happens when leaders get together in good faith and work in concert to move the ball forward. He expressed appreciation to Councilperson Webb and Councilperson Reed for getting the ball rolling and acknowledged the administration for their diligence in getting the agreement across the finish line. Council President Stoner noted that he appreciated that Mr. Fifer saying that there are grounds to continue to make this more sustainable for the future. He emphasized that this is not simply a one-time agreement, but involves looking toward the future and working with the municipal service agreements. He concluded by expressing his appreciation for the future partnership. Greg Fifer added a brief comment regarding legal review. He stated that Bo Zeller, the bond counsel, discussed the concept presented to the Council with legal counsel at the DLGF to ensure it is consistent with the spirit of the statutes that apply to a reuse authority. Mr. Fifer noted that counsel confirmed as long as the arrangement is structured as a services contract with a formula, there would be no legislative pushback that could interrupt the process. Mr. Fifer emphasized the importance of ensuring that the primary overlapping taxing units feel they are being treated equitably and that, as the amount grows, it benefits everyone. He concluded by stating that this equitable treatment is the goal they need to achieve. Councilperson White addressed Mr. Fifer, expressing appreciation for appearing before the council. He also commended Councilpersons Webb and Reed for their work earlier in the year. Councilperson White provided additional context regarding the history of negotiations with River Ridge, noting that discussions began in 2024 regarding potential increases to police and fire services. Multiple presentations and meetings had taken place, resulting in the establishment of the police contract, which fully covered overtime costs without impacting the city's budget. Councilperson White emphasized his support for the inter-local agreement but noted that the original goal of increasing fire protection in the eastern part of town had not yet been achieved. He explained that the absence of additional apparatus affects multiple districts beyond his own, underscoring the ongoing need to reach the full objectives of the negotiations. Councilperson White also referenced the council's prior decision to dissolve the fire territory, which would have addressed the apparatus need, and noted that while the current agreement addresses budget concerns, it does not fully achieve the intended outcomes. He concluded by acknowledging Mr. Fifer's advocacy for traffic control measures, which would no longer be implemented under the current agreement. Mr. Fifer addressed the council regarding traffic control in the area, expressing appreciation for any services the city could provide to slow traffic. He stated that River Ridge seeks to be treated consistently with other areas of the city and noted that enforcement, including issuing citations where appropriate, would be greatly appreciated. Councilperson Webb acknowledged Councilperson White's comments, affirming that River Ridge does not seek to dictate how the city allocates the funds. He noted that the city has discretion over whether the funds are directed toward fire, police, or other purposes, provided all administrative accounts are in agreement. Councilperson Webb highlighted that the contribution from River Ridge could total up to $1 million within a year and emphasized that the council is aware of the source of the funding. Mr. Fifer in turn emphasized that the funds from River Ridge are being provided to the city for permitted services. He clarified that there are no minimum scope requirements or reporting obligations associated with the funds.The city is expected to justify at the end of the year how the funds were used, allowing flexibility for the city to allocate the money in the manner it deems most effective. Councilperson Reed 4 referenced Councilperson White's earlier comments and noted that Councilperson Webb had discussed the potential for River Ridge to provide bonding capabilities for future capital projects, such as fire protection. Councilperson Reed indicated that this is an option the council could potentially explore in the future. Mr. Fifer addressed the issue of fire apparatus and firehouse funding at River Ridge. He noted that while the topic could be revisited in future discussions, there is currently no funding available to build or staff a new firehouse or to purchase apparatus, a situation exacerbated by Senate Bill One. Fifer suggested that for now, to just live with Station Four and consider enhancements to that facility, such as accommodating a ladder truck, to better serve the surrounding area. He indicated that River Ridge is open to continuing this conversation in the future. Councilperson White clarified his earlier comments regarding fire apparatus. He emphasized that the issue is not the purchase of new apparatus, but the lack of funding to hire additional firefighters to staff any additional apparatus. Councilperson White noted that while there may be existing apparatus available, the City does not currently have sufficient funds to assign personnel to operate it. He stressed that this goal must remain in focus to ensure the safety of both residents and local businesses. Council President Stoner asked Mr. Fifer whether recent developments, such as the Meta deal and others, have made the concept of municipal service agreements more feasible. Mr. Fifer affirmed that developments such as the Meta project have made municipal service agreements more possible. He stated that Meta's first data center building is expected to be turned over in January, with the administration building potentially completed even earlier. Mr. Fifer noted that Meta is located within the Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ), meaning it will initially pay approximately 50% of what its full tax bill would be without the UEZ incentive. He explained that this incentive is one of the few tools available to attract large companies to the area. He added that once the UEZ incentives expire—similar to Amazon's upcoming expiration—the full assessed value will begin contributing to revenue. Fifer concluded that as more assessed value comes online and incentives phase out, additional funds will be available to help complete development at River Ridge and support the municipal service agreement framework. Councilperson White sought clarification regarding the Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ), confirming with Mr. Fifer that River Ridge has its own UEZ separate from the city's. He noted this distinction to ensure all parties were aware. Councilperson Reed made a motion to approve the Resolution 2025-R-14, seconded by Councilperson Webb; motion passed, 7-0. 3. Chad Reischl 2025-OR-44 Ordinance Establishing an Non-Reverting Fund for the Jeffersonville Tree Board Planning and Zoning Director Chad Reischl addressed the Council, noting that the Jeffersonville Tree Board was established last fall through legislation authored by Councilperson Semones. He reported that the Tree Board has been meeting since April, developing ideas and initiatives to promote tree planting and urban forestry efforts within the community. Mr. Reischl shared that the Tree Board participated in Steamboat Nights by distributing donated trees and informational materials, updated the city's website, and is planning a tree planting event at the Jeffersonville Library in partnership with students from the Jeff High Eco Club later in the year. He also mentioned the potential co-hosting of a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Forestry seminar with the City of New Albany next spring. He explained that while the Tree Board has made significant progress, it currently lacks a designated funding source.To address this, Mr. Reischl proposed creating a non-reverting fund for the Jeffersonville Tree Board to receive and manage non-tax revenues. He gave examples such as grant funds from organizations like Duke Energy and developer payments made under the city's "landscape in lieu" program, which allows developers to contribute funds in place of required landscaping. Mr. Reischl noted that over$9,000 in such fees have been collected this year, and he intends to gift to support the Tree Board's activities. He emphasized that the proposed fund would provide a proper mechanism for managing these resources and enable the purchase of basic materials and outreach it. He concluded by clarifying that the Tree Board is not requesting any city appropriations, but simply the establishment of an account to accumulate and utilize funds for community tree-related initiatives. Councilperson White asked Mr. Reischl whether he had discussed the establishment of the non-reverting fund with Mrs. Metcalf. Mr. Reischl confirmed that he had, stating that Mrs. Metcalf was in approval of it. Councilperson Semones stated that she had been approached by a citizen, Mr. Jeff Cover, regarding the creation of a Tree Board. She noted that Mr. Cover was the inspiration behind the idea and invited him to come forward to share a few words. Mr. Cover thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak and explained that the Council was being asked to consider establishing a non-reverting fund on behalf of the Jeff Tree Board. He shared that the Tree Board had been active in community engagement, noting a recent News and Tribune article inviting residents to share stories about their favorite trees in Jeffersonville. Mr. Cover added that the Board hosted a table at Steamboat Nights and had organized a tree planting project with the Eco Club at Jeffersonville High School. He emphasized that, since the Tree Board currently has no budget and planting trees can be expensive, the creation of this non-reverting fund would allow them to receive public donations, serving as a "piggy bank" for tree-related projects. He mentioned the potential for a memorial fund, allowing residents to contribute in honor or memory of loved ones, and noted ongoing efforts to seek grants from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and other foundations. Establishing this fund under the city's authority, he said, would help the Tree Board pursue fundraising and future projects more effectively. Mr. Cover concluded by respectfully requesting the Council's consideration and thanking them for their support. Councilperson White thanked Mr. Cover and the Tree Board for their efforts, stating that it is always beneficial to have a designated place where various funds can accumulate for initiatives that are otherwise unfunded. She expressed her full support for the proposal to establish the non-reverting fund. Councilperson Semones made a motion to approve the Ordinance 2025-OR-44 on the 1st and 2nd reading, seconded by Councilperson Reed; motion passed, 7-0. 4. Heather Metcalf 2025-OR-45 (Budget Public Hearing) Ordinance for Appropriations and Tax Rates Heather Metcalf, City Controller, stated that the information had been previously presented to the Council during its workshop and that no changes had been made since that time. She reported that the total budget for the Civil City amounted to $68,981,086 across all funds. Council President Stoner expressed appreciation to Heather Metcalf and the administration for their diligence in preparing the budget. He stated that he appreciated the fact that it was a revenue-neutral budget that fully funds the police and fire departments as well as other critical resources relied upon by city workers. He thanked the mayor, Mrs. Metcalf,the department heads, and the council for their hard work in bringing the budget to its current stage. Councilperson Semones thanked Controller Heather Metcalf for taking the time to meet with her, stating that she had learned a great deal during this budget season compared to the previous year and still had more to learn. She expressed appreciation for the tutorial provided by Mrs. Metcalf, who responded that she is always available. Councilperson White asked Controller Heather Metcalf to confirm that the $1.7 million from River Ridge did not include funding to increase the number of firefighters, to which Mrs. Metcalf responded affirmatively. Council President Stoner opened the Public Hearing at 06:44 PM for anyone who wished to speak for or against the 2026 Budget. No one stepped forward to speak, to which Council President Stoner closed the Public Hearing at 06:45 PM. Council Vice President Burns made a motion to approve the Ordinance 2025-OR-45 on the 15t and 2"d reading, seconded by Councilperson Webb; motion passed, 6-1; Councilperson White voted against the Ordnance. 5. Heather Metcalf 2025-OR-46 Ordinance of Additional Appropriation Controller Heather Metcalf explained that the budget for the Building Authority's Director had been handled improperly, coming out of the Jeffersonville Building Authority operating fund. She noted that the position had been increased in 2024, but this adjustment was not captured in the 2025 budget, and the current update corrects that. Additionally, she mentioned that the last item pertains to repairs and maintenance funded from the Capital Improvement Fund, which appropriates cash already available in the fund. Councilperson White asked Controller Heather Metcalf for clarification about appropriating cash already in the fund, asking if this meant using reserve funds. Mrs. Metcalf confirmed that both items involve appropriating cash already in the fund, $100,000. Councilperson White asked about the $100,000 in improvements scheduled between now and December, noting uncertainty about the details. Heather Metcalf responded that the specifics would be a question for the director and that she was not sure, but noting that a lot of AC units were being replaced. Council President Stoner asked whether the council should wait to gather more answers regarding the item under discussion, which the council agreed to do. Council Vice President Burns made a motion to approve the Ordinance 2025-OR-46 on the 1st reading, seconded by Councilperson Webb; motion passed, 7-0 6. Heather Metcalf 2025-OR-47 Ordinance Transferring Certain Funds Within the Same Department Controller Heather Metcalf explained that the items were end-of-year transfers for the Police Department, Finance, City Pride,Vehicle Maintenance, and the Parks Department, noting that the action simply involved moving already appropriated funds from one category to another. Council President Stoner made a motion to approve the Ordinance 2025-OR-47 on the 1st and 2"d reading, seconded by Council Vice President Burns; motion passed, 7-0 4 7. Chad Reischl (PUBLIC HEARING) 2025-OR-48 Ordinance of Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)for Article 10 Processes and Procedures Planning and Zoning Director Chad Reischl explained that, in response to a recent situation where an individual had exploited a loophole in the city's zoning ordinance, an amendment was being proposed to add a single sentence to Article 10 of the zoning ordinance. The amendment would authorize the Planning Director to refuse acceptance of a petition for rezoning within six months of its denial by the City Council or withdrawal following a Plan Commission hearing. He stated that this change would help prevent repetitive cases from returning without substantial modifications, allowing the director to determine if significant changes had been made. Mr. Reischl noted that the proposed amendment came to the Council with a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission. Councilperson White asked how many times the City had encountered a situation that would warrant this proposed change to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Reischl responded that this was the first time the City had encountered this particular issue. He noted that a few concerned residents had approached him asking if there was a way to change the rule to prevent it from happening again. Councilperson White stated that the situation being discussed related to Golf View and emphasized the importance of transparency. He explained that the proposed rule change stemmed from the company withdrawing its petition several times, made concessions, and adjusted its proposal to make it more acceptable before eventually coming before the Council. But now they were trying to change the rule to where they can no longer do that. Mr. Reischl confirmed that Councilperson White's statement was correct, unless the petitioners returned with some significant changes to their rezoning petition. Councilperson Semones asked whether there was a rubric for determining what constitutes a significant change, or if that decision was solely at the discretion of the director. Mr. Reischl responded that it remains at the discretion of the director. Councilperson Semones then asked if there was an appeals process, to which Mr. Reischl replied that there was not, noting it was a good question. Councilperson White noted that there is not an appeals process, the decision is made and it goes away. He expressed significant problems with the change, noting that it punishes someone who, in good faith, tried to make some adjustments and return to the council. He explained that the request was denied, and the process took place, but it seemed as though they did not want the process to happen when people are trying to work and make adjustments when addressing citizens that have problem. Council President Stoner asked Mr. Reischl to repeat the purpose as a refresher and requesting him to go over it one more time. Mr. Reischl stated: "the zoning code had a statement that the planning director shall refuse to accept a rezoning petition within six months of a City Council denial." He explained that in this case, the petitioners withdrew their plan before it went to City Council and then attempted to make changes, which weren't really changes.The neighborhood was notified again, prepared for another plan commission hearing, but the petition was pulled and then returned two months later. He added that the withdrawal occurred because the petitioners did not get what they wanted from the plan commission and hoped to revise it before presenting it again. Council President Stoner noted that the rule already exists in the zoning code, but the proposed update aims to correct a loophole that could allow companies to exploit the regulations. Mr. Reischl explained that under the proposed change, if a matter is heard by the Plan Commission and then withdrawn, it cannot be resubmitted for six months. Councilperson White noted that there have been several instances when he was on the Plan Commission where applicants were advised to consult with the neighborhood and attempt to 4 resolve issues before proceeding, and he believes that practice is still ongoing. Mr. Reischl clarified that applicants can table a matter at a Plan Commission hearing, but the proposed change was not about that. Councilperson White mentioned that there is already a process in place encouraging applicants to work with relevant parties to find solutions for approval. He expressed concern that the proposed changes would impose additional restrictions on this process, noting that the existing approach has not caused any harm. Councilperson Webb commented that the intent of the proposed change is to reduce the number of times residents are required to attend hearings. Councilperson Semones asked whether the purpose of the proposed change is to minimize the burden on residents having to be actively involved in repeated zoning requests. Councilperson Webb clarified that the residents were dragged out, such as in the most recent scenario, it was brought up whether the applicant met with the residents. They met several times, but the rules kept changing. He said a lot of it was protecting some of the residents so the meetings weren't changing all the time. He noted that Mr. Reischl was being quite open to a lot of projects, and that this is not trying to restrict the applicant in any way. Councilperson White stated: "that's exactly what it does." Councilperson Webb responded that he thought the rules were being twisted a little,just to make it more convenient for the applicants, and added that they would have to vote and see the outcome. Council President Stoner asked whether, if the council denies the zoning, the organization can then come back in six months. Mr. Reischl confirmed that to be correct. Council President Stoner asked if that the change would put the decision in the hands of the Plan Commission, so if the Plan Commission denies it? City Attorney Les Merkley: "No, what this does is addresses that once the planning commission takes action, whether it be favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation, this addresses subsequent to that when the applicant withdraws before it is submitted to the council." Councilperson White: "But we are the ultimate arbiter of zoning requests. So if somebody wants to withdraw and make some adjustments to try to make it more feasible, they're still in the process, the residents still get notified. And then if they try to make it more acceptable to the council, who's the final arbiter, this is putting a mild restriction on that. That's a fact." Councilperson Snelling: "Cause the Council has the final approval." Mr. Reischl: "Yes, this would basically be if it went in front of the plan commission and got a negative recommendation,you either have to go to council or you have to come back and wait six months, or provide some very significant revision to your zoning request." Mr. Merkley: "No, the other option is that if they do not withdraw, which is why they withdraw, because if the planning commission, whatever the planning commission does, if the planning commission gives an unfavorable recommendation, and if the council does not act within 90 days, that recommendation stands. That's why they withdraw, I know why they withdrew. They didn't have the votes and they were trying to get their votes. They couldn't get their votes, so they withdrew." Councilperson Semones: "I think from a legal perspective, what we have to do is weigh what is the new restriction and how restrictive is that versus what is the harm that we're trying to correct. I don't have enough information to make that analysis, but I will say that it feels unfair to change the rules because we don't like how somebody played within the rules. So I need more information about it. I certainly am not in favor of vesting more discretion and power in directors and department heads when there is a process in place, particularly when there's no recourse to appeal and abuse of that discretion. Not that you would ever do that, Mr. Reischl, all the faith in the world in you. But I think without an avenue to have that discretion reviewed, I think we're moving in the wrong course." Councilperson Reed: "You're saying that if we had some kind of rubric or something of that nature, so that it was standardized?" Councilperson Snelling: "It's only happened once? Is that what you're saying?" Mr. Reischl: —This was a recent incident, yes, first." Councilperson White: ""It's a recent occurrence, because I don't view it as an incident, or we're I not fixing anything; we're putting something in place because somebody didn't like what was being presented." Mr. Merkley: ""I will say in 28 years, I can't recall where this has occurred. So that's just, again, my memory's not all that great." Councilperson Snelling: "I mean whatever you wanna call it, but I'm not in favor." Councilperson Webb made a motion to table the Ordinance 2025-OR-48, seconded by Council President Stoner; motion passed, 5-2; Councilperson White and Councilperson Snelling voted against. ATTORNEY COMMENTS: Larry Wilder- None Les Merkley- None DEPARTMENT HEADS: None COUNCIL COMMENTS: • Councilperson White—"Thank you, Council just used a rule of parliamentary procedure to table something. We did that because it was felt probably the votes weren't there, and I don't think anybody was willing to take away that ability to table things. I just want to show you how everybody plays the same game that everybody's playing. I voted no against the budget tonight because it doesn't provide for hiring firefighters to man an apparatus on the eastern part of town. When this body rescinded the fire territory, the goal of that was to fill a void that has existed for the last 10 years of having an additional company on the eastern part of town. And I believe—correct me if I'm wrong—but part of the justification given to garner votes against the fire territory was that we'll get this money from River Ridge and we'll be able to do the same thing. If I'm incorrect in that, then please let me know. I'm willing to stand corrected. At any rate, we still don't accomplish the goal that our fire union and fire administration have been telling us is necessary for the past decade and even before I've been on this council. So unless we're able to accomplish that, I will not be in support of the budget. Also, we're just using the $1.7 million, which is a one-time gift at this time, to plug the hole without any significant cuts. Next year, as my friend Jackie likes to say, "we're just kicking the can down the road", next year we're going to have a $1.7 million hole in the budget and will be desperate to get that money from River Ridge again unless we make some cuts. We make the cuts, then we can use the $1.7 million and hopefully get a longer contract to put additional company firefighters in the eastern end of town. That doesn't mean we don't need to use the money to buy an apparatus or hire firefighters. A long-term contract to pay an additional company of firefighters is necessary because that's where we're vulnerable, and we've been talking about it and talking about it, yet we're still not doing anything.The fire territory would have accomplished that and added at least $2 million to our budget.That would have helped us financially in two respects: hiring another company and freeing up $2 million in our budget, which even with SB One would have put us in a sound and very good financial situation. So unless I see some changes in the budget that allow for another company, then that's my stance. Thank you, Mr. President." • Council Vice President Burns— I just want to thank Mrs. Metcalf for her good work with the budget and all those others that had a hand in helping look at it. I could name others, but I might leave somebody out. Mrs. Metcalf gets all the credit because she presented the budget to us, thank you." • Councilperson Semones—' I would say, I spent a lot of time thinking after our last meeting and left here pretty distraught. So I feel compelled to make a statement about public discourse and my belief that hate has no place in our public discourse, likewise, hate's cousins, anger, fear, contempt.They are poisonous to the public discussions that we need to have here. As elected officials, we on city council have a greater responsibility to safeguard our public spaces against these corrosive influences. We have a greater responsibility to conduct ourselves with honesty and civility, and we have to model respect for others and respect for the offices that we hold by running for office. We ask our fellow citizens to put their trust in us. We owe them transparency, accountability, and courtesy. No one up here should presume that they have the power to quash the comments of other council members or to denigrate or diminish contributions from our citizens. I do not condone any behavior by a public official that belittles or insults our citizens or any behavior designed to intimidate or silence the voices of others, whether they are members of the public or professional colleagues. I want to assure my partners and city government and my citizens, my constituents, that you are welcome in this space. You should be treated with respect. You should not be discouraged from participating in government. Your li right to come speak is enshrined in our rules. You got four minutes every two weeks. Come use them and know that you'll be treated with respect. So I want to thank our new friend for showing up to date and saying his piece. I want to thank all the citizens, the ones I agree with, and the ones I disagree with, the ones I enjoy working with, and the ones I dread getting their emails from. You are all welcome to participate in city government." • Councilperson Anderson—Absent • Councilperson Reed—"Second, what Mrs. Semones says. It's so important for our constituents to feel heard. It is our solemn duty to be their voice. And whether I agree with what that voice says or not, it is incredibly important to always be heard. Along with that, I'd like to congratulate River Valley on their football championship, and the River Valley team on their soccer championship, and wish our high school soccer team great luck this week, because I think they're going to bring home a championship there too.Thank you to our department heads, I know that they did make some cuts within their budget that were very hard, and I know that there has been some public feedback about those cuts. And I hope that we can keep the level of services that we have come to expect in Jeffersonville. But I also am appreciative that they did the hard work and really took those cuts seriously." • Councilperson Webb—"I like to again thank Mr. Fifer for the work that you've done and the River Ridge board. There, again, you gotta understand they don't care where we put the funds. We are putting the funds where we need to put 'em right now, but you gotta set ourselves back a year ago, if SB one didn't even come into play, we'd be using those funds for a fire apparatus or a new facility or hiring. But at least this is a start, because the Chief and I talked, we've been trying to work on this for 10 years, and everybody's gotta remember it. They don't have to do squat for us, nothing. So they're trying to be a good partner, I think this is a great start. Again, I thank you greatly from my heart, but it's up to the city where we decide to put those funds, and hopefully after we get a better handle with SB one, we'll know where to put those funds more usefully, but thank you." • Councilperson Hawkins—Absent • Councilperson Snelling—"Well, the police contract only goes to 2026. 1.7 million,just assures us that the police will probably get no more increases in their funds or whatever. Fire department, I agree with Councilman White and Amy Semones, Councilwoman. They still need to be civil, treat people with respect. I've always done that my whole life, and I know most of us in here. Evan was outta line when he told Dustin to be quiet. And I was embarrassed when I left last week or two weeks ago, because I'm not used to people talking to people like that. I've never done that in my life. That's all I gotta say." • Council President Stoner—" So I would like to just say thank you again to the administration, to Mrs. Metcalf, for her hard work on the budget. I'm honestly proud, I was proud to support this budget. If you think about something that some council person said when we, when I first came on the council in 2024, I think it was Mr. Hawkins who said, the budget is really the most important thing that the city council does. It's like all we do is pass the budget.This budget fully funds our police department, it fully funds our fire department. It ensures that we have salt, making sure that we can brine our streets as we prepare for winter. It funds our parks department, it funds our salaries for every single department head, for every single city employee that works their tail off every single day to make the city run. It funds the health insurance for our city employees. It funds the health insurance for all of our workers. It keeps food on the table for our families that power this community. So to the department heads, and 4 I'll tell you what, if there is someone who gets beat up more than politicians get beat up for being in the public square, what our department heads and what our city employees have to go through every day,this whiplash of being sort of along for the ride of politics, I just have so much tremendous credit for our department heads and for our city employees that stick with us, that stick with the City of Jeffersonville because you care. So here, as we voted on the most important thing that the city council does, I just wanna say thank you again for everything you do, day in and day out, 365 days of the year, especially to our department heads that are there 24/7, ready to respond to any call, anything that is going on in our city, thank you.We also got an email from Clark County Emergency Management. So the tornado sirens that we responded with last year, we paid for the equipment, we got that invoice done. We now have to pay for the installation of those signals. I dispersed the invoice to everyone, I wasn't able to get it on the agenda, but I wanted to do it in council comments. Heather sent me what we have currently for city council budget. So there is about$7,000 available currently in special projects, which is in cumulative capital development, and there is$3,000 in special projects in the general fund. So I guess I would just open it up for council discussion. I think we should do some sort of transfer to cover it. It's$9,841 to complete the installation. Councilperson Webb: "I guess, sounds like that's a good place to start. Cause God knows we need it, wanna finish the job, right?" Councilperson Snelling: "I would agree the only thing is, the one's they're putting in, they're having trouble getting fuses for'em, I'm not sure why." Councilperson White: 'What's the issue?" Councilperson Snelling: "Duke hooks 'em up, but they can't get 'em fired up unless they get a fuse. I know a couple of'em, seriously.' Councilperson White: "Are you asking us to approve something?" Council President Stoner: "Well, no, I just wanna make sure that the council's comfortable with me proceeding. I'll reach out to Heather directly and figure out what the best way is. But we're gonna do some sort of transfer to ensure from special projects that this gets done, if that's okay." Councilperson Semones: "That will be put on the agenda?" Council President Stoner: "Yes." Councilperson Webb: "Sounds Good." Council President Stoner: "Well, if we want to, if somebody wants to make a motion, then..." 4 Councilperson White: "Motion for what?" Council President Stoner: "I'll try and we'll see if I do this right. So I will make a motion to cover the cost of the tornado siren invoice from special projects in the general fund city council and from special projects in cumulative capital development. Does that suffice?" Councilperson White: "Do we have sufficient balances in those?" Council President Stoner: "We do, I just went through those first." Councilperson Semones: "I'm gonna make a motion to table, because I would like adequate time to consider." Council President Stoner: "Okay, that's why I asked. You don't have to table it, we can do it on the agenda." Councilperson Semones: "If it doesn't need a vote, someone can just send an email." Council President Stoner: "Okay well, I'm just doing it in the effort to make sure we bring everybody into the conversation. It was sent to us, I think, last week. I just want to make sure everybody was involved." Councilperson White: "Was it already agreed to pay for?" Council President Stoner: "Yes, well, the equipment—we did the invoice for the equipment, but the installation is separate." Councilperson White: "I mean, we agreed to do this?" Council Vice President Burns: "Did we encumber the money already?" Councilperson White: "Agreed to do it, so can it just be a claim?" Mrs. Gill: "There's not enough money anywhere to pay the full invoice.That's why he's talking about doing a simple transfer to get all the money. Councilperson White: "You can't split the claims? I don't know how you do that." Mrs. Metcalf: "It's to get it in the correct account." Councilperson White: "Okay." ADJOURNMENT: Council President Stoner made the motion to ADJOURN the meeting at 7:14 p.m. DISCLAIMER: These minutes are a summary of actions taken at the Jeffersonville City Council meetings. The full video archive of the meeting is available for viewing at www.cityofjeff.net for as long as this media is supported. APP1OVED BY. Evan Stoner, ouncil President ATTEST: Lisa Gill, Clerk I y