The Vigo Ledger

Transcript — Terre Haute City Council, 2026-09-03

Machine transcription of the recording of the Terre Haute City Council meeting on 2026-09-03, aligned to the video timeline. This is not the official record — the clerk's minutes are, and this is unreviewed automatic speech recognition that mis-hears names and numbers. Check anything that matters against the recording.

Each line is stamped with its position in the recording, both as a clock time and as [t=SECONDS]. Those are the same seconds the archive's source links use: open the recording and add &t=<seconds> to jump to any line.

Speakers were separated automatically and named from the meeting's speaker roster where the evidence supported it; an unnamed voice is shown as Speaker <n>, which is a machine label and not a person's name.

Transcript

  • 0:00:00 [t=0] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): President day, September 3, 2026. First item on the agenda is a moment of silence and pledge of allegiance to the flag. This evening, the pledge will be led by Councilperson Tammy Boland.
  • 0:00:22 [t=22] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
  • 0:00:21 [t=21] Speaker 6: I pledge allegiance 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.
  • 0:00:37 [t=37] Speaker 14: Thank you. House of Person Thompson. Here.
  • 0:01:08 [t=68] Speaker 18: All are present. Thank you.
  • 0:01:10 [t=70] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): At this time, we reserve up to 30 minutes for public comment on non-agenda items. Speakers who signed up in advance will be called in the order they signed up. After that list has been exhausted, anyone else wishing to speak may do so if time remains. When your name is called, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and limit your comments to three minutes. Public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to address the council. It is not a question and answer period, and speakers should not expect back and forth
  • 0:01:36 [t=96] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): discussion with council members, staff, or others present. Please direct your comments to the council as a body and maintain respectful conduct so that everyone has a fair opportunity to be heard. We had nobody sign up this evening, but is there anybody from the audience that'd like to make public comment on a non-agenda item? Hearing none, we will close public comment. Correction to the journal from the preceding meeting.
  • 0:02:00 [t=120] Speaker 20: There are none.
  • 0:02:01 [t=121] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Communication from the mayor. Good evening, mayor.
  • 0:02:03 [t=123] Speaker 22: Good evening, Council President Dinkle and members of the Terre Haute City Council. So a couple of things. Paving, 25% remaining still for the year. We're on track with our paving goals there.
  • 0:02:16 [t=136] Brandon Sakbun (staff): That list was just sent out again in the mayor's newsletter, so please do check that. There's a lot of streets on there, and I'm not even going to try to rattle them off here today. Second, we did have another really large round of storms recently. We made it through okay But one thing I really want to point out Is we have wetlands A lot of communities don't have wetlands And those wetlands were integral In really kind of holding back Most of that flooding to just Fairbanks Park area I think both the Tarot Street Department And Wastewater have done a phenomenal job
  • 0:02:50 [t=170] Brandon Sakbun (staff): With recovery efforts on that end If any of your residents still have Limbs or issues They did their best to go kind of Throughout the city and through the neighborhoods but now we're kind of back on the 3-1-1 cycle, so please do have them report. AT and the team did finish their neighborhood grants, so those are still on track to get constructed and built this year. That's some good news there. Some not-so-great news, we should have a few gasoline fuel adjustments for different city departments. As of now, it looks like 80%, 85% of those we'll be able to handle internally
  • 0:03:27 [t=207] Brandon Sakbun (staff): with in-series transfers, but we do think, for example, the Transportation Department will need to come to you all probably in November. I want to give it another month just because it does look like prices are going to go up even though that we are still continuing the gas tax because this time the Ukrainian-Russian war. Outside of that, we do have the budget about, you know, 99.9% complete, so we'll start sending those slides and those handouts to you all here the next couple of weeks and our goal is to make sure you have at least a full week of review before the
  • 0:03:59 [t=239] Brandon Sakbun (staff): presentations. Then we'll go into the presentations and we'll follow our continuing cycle of adoption there. Even with SEA 1 and all the credits and the deductions, we still grew our net assessed value. We still had positive growth for the city. This is the first time in a long time we were able to claim the 6% maximum levy growth quotient. That was changed under SEA 1 as well. So we were able to see some growth. We've got a lot of good projects for next year that we'll touch on during the budget meeting. I appreciate your time. And last thing, there's a
  • 0:04:36 [t=276] Brandon Sakbun (staff): very large conversation going on about schools right now that I'm sure you're all very well aware. So the city was approached with, hey, you know, if a school were to occur on the east side along 46, what could you guys do to financially support that project? When you look at it, just on a map, just no school, right? Take the school out of it. We have several large infrastructure projects planned for that area that would come through TIF financing that could serve a school that are already planned for the city to do. And that was the portion of that conversation.
  • 0:05:11 [t=311] Brandon Sakbun (staff): A lot of the folks who are supporting the school who put that presentation together, they did get a little bit overzealous and put the city in the first presentation. Councilwoman Loudermilk and I were texting and giving each other looks during that presentation saying, well, where'd that come from? But there are some real infrastructure conversations that we would need to have based off any of their general sites where they're communicating for. And so I think what's good there and what I remind folks in the community is I have asked
  • 0:05:43 [t=343] Brandon Sakbun (staff): this council through the TIF districts to help with a service road for a new east side shopping center to help finish new Margaret and do the new Margaret storm water detention pond so our sewage customers didn't have to pay for that I've asked you to help with downtown development through the form of hotels I've asked you to help with single family housing neighborhoods and each time you know we looked at it and we made a business decision every time we do a TIF deal there is someone who says, well, you know, TIFs, they hurt schools. They're not going to help the schools.
  • 0:06:16 [t=376] Brandon Sakbun (staff): And we always say, well, if there's income tax data here, that's going to show this. There's food and beverage tax data that's going to show that. And here's how we can loosely tie it to schools. Baker Tilly recently did a report a few years ago of six different counties and cities that have used TIF financing to directly impact schools in a positive direction. And so I've reviewed some of those. And honestly, if I have the ability to bring this council a TIF project that directly benefits the school corporation, wherever that location may be, I think that will
  • 0:06:51 [t=411] Brandon Sakbun (staff): be the one, just, I would be the most proud of that TIF project because we would be able to, as a council, find a way through current tax financing revenue streams to do something that would lead to generational change. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done by the county, by the school corporation before we have that conversation. When we do have that conversation, we'll need to have a discussion, me, Michael, as well as the city council president and your council attorney, about how we would want to properly structure a committee.
  • 0:07:24 [t=444] Brandon Sakbun (staff): I don't know if anyone watched Tuesday's four-and-a-half-hour council meeting, but there was a lot of conversation about ad hoc committees and the purpose of those. We're a few months away from those conversations, but we're going to need to be very deliberate to do it correctly. I appreciate this council's professionalism. I've had the opportunity now to attend many different public meetings and council meetings in our community, and I cannot tell you how refreshing it is to stand with you all today for a meeting that will be hopefully one hour or less and conducted in a professional manner.
  • 0:07:56 [t=476] Brandon Sakbun (staff): So no point of order from me tonight. I'm standing by if you have any questions, and if not, we'll continue with our agenda.
  • 0:08:05 [t=485] Speaker 32: Councilperson Hannon.
  • 0:08:06 [t=486] Speaker 38: Mayor, thank you for being steadfast in our community. I just have a question about an update on the downtown hotel.
  • 0:08:16 [t=496] Brandon Sakbun (staff): Yeah, so that hotel is currently undergoing the bidding process. So there were changes made to that hotel, one of which was to address the first floor parking that has now since been moved to the alley. It was going to be two hotels on one site. Now it is still two hotels, one on the original site, and the second they're going to reuse. I call it the state office building. There's a building behind the convention center and between that and Holman Center. So they're going to reuse an old building and build just one hotel there. The project costs are looking to be the exact same.
  • 0:08:50 [t=530] Brandon Sakbun (staff): We were able to take away the first floor parking. We were able to get Max back where Max needs to be. I know the Max Ehrman statue has been a huge conversation, and I was actually very happy to address that portion in the community. The designs did not take long. The design approval from the Marriott did take long. That was a very strenuous process that has now come to fruition. All signs point to November of 2026 for the bids to be secured from the private developing group, and then from there they'll get going and mobilized on the site.
  • 0:09:25 [t=565] Speaker 36: So the ARPA funds are being held.
  • 0:09:27 [t=567] Brandon Sakbun (staff): The city is continuing to hold those and gain interest. And, of course, we have a December 31st deadline, so that's something that we are looking at.
  • 0:09:38 [t=578] Speaker 43: No one has an overpass question. I thought I'd get one of those. Council President Thompson.
  • 0:09:44 [t=584] Speaker 46: Just kind of going off of what Councilwoman Hinton said, so we are still getting two new hotels? Yes. Okay. And we're still getting our one crosswalk?
  • 0:09:58 [t=598] Brandon Sakbun (staff): Yes. Okay. And there's more restaurants included and additional dining. So we were able to get a lot more than what we started with. Just some conditions kind of changed, and it actually worked in our favor. So, you know, normally I come to you guys and I'm like, hey, we need to do this. I need your help. I need approval. We got to go. This is a project I'm very happy we took an additional year on because it's going to end up moving in the city's favor.
  • 0:10:25 [t=625] Speaker 53: Yeah, sounds like it. Thank you.
  • 0:10:30 [t=630] Speaker 55: What about the overpass?
  • 0:10:32 [t=632] Speaker 22: Utility relocation is starting, and then November, NDOT takes that project out to bid.
  • 0:10:41 [t=641] Speaker 60: Was that right, Marcus? Anything? Perfect, okay. I have just one other question. Councilperson Hazard.
  • 0:10:46 [t=646] Speaker 66: On the downtown project, the hotel, is there going to be retail also or not?
  • 0:10:52 [t=652] Speaker 69: There are, there's room for two.
  • 0:10:57 [t=657] Brandon Sakbun (staff): So you have the lobby and then I think at the corner and at the end right by, not Circle Center, Haute City Center, you have two spots for retail there.
  • 0:11:09 [t=669] Speaker 74: Okay, thank you.
  • 0:11:12 [t=672] Brandon Sakbun (staff): And that's part of that C1, not C1, C6 designation of having the first floor as commercial as possible.
  • 0:11:21 [t=681] Speaker 79: It's C9 because it's the pedestrian district. It's Wabash Avenue.
  • 0:11:28 [t=688] Todd Nation (councillor): And to more directly or clearly address the commercial space,
  • 0:11:33 [t=693] Todd Nation (councillor): the original plan had two commercial spaces, one at the west end, one at the east end. This one has three.
  • 0:11:40 [t=700] Speaker 89: Great to see you, David.
  • 0:11:46 [t=706] Speaker 92: Thank you. Reports from city officials.
  • 0:11:51 [t=711] Speaker 93: There are none. Reports from Board of Public Works and Safety. There are none. Reports from Standing Committees. There are none. Reports from Non-Standing Committees. There are none. Items previously tabled. There are none. Tax abatements for confirmation.
  • 0:12:03 [t=723] Speaker 18: There are none. Items on second reading.
  • 0:12:05 [t=725] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): Special Ordinance 9-2026, rezoning of property located at 908 South 7th Street. Area Planning gave a favorable with conditions recommendation.
  • 0:12:15 [t=735] Speaker 95: Petitioner.
  • 0:12:16 [t=736] Speaker 97: We have petitioner on this.
  • 0:12:21 [t=741] Tim Hawkins (resident): Should I just make comments? Yeah, just tell us what you're doing. I had an hour's worth of comments, but I don't want to upset the mayor because he clearly has plans. So I'm the representative of a family who has lived at this house for the last 25, 26 years now, actually. the latest in an unbroken chain of, we're the sixth now, single family who has lived here since the foundations were set in the 1880s. We are passionate advocates for the single family element of Farrington's Grove and larger city as a whole. We've advocated for that aspect for as long as we've lived in Farrington's Grove
  • 0:13:19 [t=799] Tim Hawkins (resident): and chose to raise our family there.
  • 0:13:22 [t=802] Speaker 102 (resident): And we obviously, there was no reason for us to make a zoning change, given the fact that at some point, probably in the 1960s, the city laid down an R2 designation over the neighborhood, and that accommodates single family, among other things. But we decided as a family that this issue was important enough, so important enough, that we wanted to make this symbolic change.
  • 0:13:56 [t=836] Tim Hawkins (resident): And with your support, this would, I think, is our goal to reflect that Farrington's Grove is more than a multi-use neighborhood. It is more than a neighborhood that it has seen and will continue to see undoubtedly a lot of variances to the nature of the neighborhood. We are down zoning to single family because that's what this house represents. It's what it's represented for more than 100 years. and we hope that when we are no longer the custodians of the House,
  • 0:14:34 [t=874] Speaker 102 (resident): that it will remain that way because we believe that that is a very significant thing to protect here in Farington's Grove and in the city.
  • 0:14:44 [t=884] Speaker 104: So thank you for your consideration.
  • 0:14:46 [t=886] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Thank you. Anyone from the public who wishes to comment on Special Ordinance 9-2026? Hearing none, we will close public comment and open to council discussion.
  • 0:14:56 [t=896] Speaker 106: Mr. President. Councilperson Nation.
  • 0:14:57 [t=897] Todd Nation (councillor): I'd like to thank Tim, Margaret, and their sons for doing this. We've been neighbors for years. They've been very active, murdered, especially in the Farrington's Grove Historic District Incorporated.
  • 0:15:10 [t=910] Speaker 107: And not only is my name on this, I fully support it. And if there's no further discussion, I'd like to move for approval of Special Ordinance No. 9-2026.
  • 0:15:22 [t=922] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. So moved by Councilperson Nation, seconded by Councilperson Boland,
  • 0:15:26 [t=926] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): that Special Ordinance 9-2026 be approved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. The motion passes. Special Ordinance 9-2026 is adopted.
  • 0:15:36 [t=936] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. Next item.
  • 0:15:40 [t=940] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): General Ordinance 8-2026, amending City Code Chapter 9, Article 5, Section 9-99, minimum charge of sewer rates in creating section 9-99-1 stormwater charges. You must vote to take action.
  • 0:15:54 [t=954] Speaker 122: Petitioner.
  • 0:15:57 [t=957] Brandon Sakbun (staff): I'm going to be really quick, and then I'm sure there's a lot of council comments, and we have our team here to address any questions that you do have. But what you have in front of you, and thank the entire council for being a part of this conversation, is increasing sewage rates in 2030 and then doing the stormwater fees starting next year. The confirmed projects that we'll be using some bonding for for next year are North 4th Street, Ohio Street, and Lincolnshire, Woodshire, Phase 1. And then, of course, 2028, we got a lot to take
  • 0:16:29 [t=989] Brandon Sakbun (staff): care of there. That's Chamberlain Road, the Locust Street, entire project. That's our goal, but we're going to finish up design next year, and then Fairbanks floatable controls to address some of the stuff coming out of the pipes. Bottom line, this is all from the city's long-term control plan, and as we've sat through the presentation before, EPA mandate, it's happened for decades, and we've kicked the can down the road. I'm happy today to stand up here and say we've made a lot of changes with the edit budget, the sewage department's budget, and the casino budget.
  • 0:17:05 [t=1025] Brandon Sakbun (staff): To stand up and say to consumers, our goal was to raise rates at 1% a year on average over a 10-year span. And so before you, you'll have a 10% sewage rate increase that will take effect in 2030, with your last rate increases at council being in 2019. So with that, I think it's probably better just to go to council discussion, so then you can ask anyone from the team a litany of questions. We're happy to help guide us through this. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 0:17:32 [t=1052] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Is there anyone for the public who wishes to comment on General Ordinance 8-2026? Hearing none, we will close public comment and open Council discussion.
  • 0:17:41 [t=1061] Todd Nation (councillor): Mr. President
  • 0:17:54 [t=1074] Speaker 128: Councilperson Nation
  • 0:17:55 [t=1075] Todd Nation (councillor): fill the void here a little bit it hasn't been that long since we were given a presentation on this we've had this for a number of weeks now and all of our names are on it as sponsors. Speaking for myself, I see the significance of it, especially this is about the stormwater. And it's been a concern of mine ever since we started talking about combined sewer overflow decades ago that we address this stuff and that we have a functioning partnership with the state and federal entities who tell us what to do and what to pay for it.
  • 0:18:46 [t=1126] Todd Nation (councillor): This step that we're at now, as I understand it, and I think that Marcus might be able to enlighten us more, this is the result, partly, of the negotiated finish to our plan with the state where we got more time to pay and figure out exactly what we were going to do to meet the thresholds that they've set. I don't want to monopolize this. I just want to say that, for me, these are steps in the right direction, and I'm glad we're finally taking them. I yield.
  • 0:19:34 [t=1174] Speaker 131: Councilperson Boland.
  • 0:19:37 [t=1177] Tammy Boland (councillor): Well, since Marcus is headed this way anyway, can you tell us how long this process has been and some of the steps that you have taken to get us to where we are?
  • 0:19:46 [t=1186] Speaker 136: Happy to answer that.
  • 0:19:47 [t=1187] Marcus (staff): So good evening, happy to be here. So Todd, you are correct. This is the result of a long process of negotiations to not necessarily buy us time. We have these projects. We want a clean Wabash River. We want a clean community. We also have other maintenance needs that we would be forced to ignore if this plan were to stay just long-term control plan.
  • 0:20:11 [t=1211] Marcus (staff): We went to the integrated plan. This all really started turning when we had the issues of the main lift station with the fish gill. That was the trigger that said, hey, we can reorganize and we can redo this and we can start construction again, but we've lost X amount of years. We've got to do something. So luckily enough in 2012, the year after our previous plan was approved, EPA came out with this opportunity for integrated planning. So we spent years working with IDEM towards this integrated plan and their typical approval period doesn't exceed 20 years.
  • 0:20:53 [t=1253] Marcus (staff): we were able to negotiate a plan that not only exceeded that, buying time for our rate payers and the city to accomplish these goals, but also included the meaningful projects that we also need to accomplish that would have taken the rates that were mandated. EPA and affordability guidelines put us at 2 percent of the median household income is where we should be. So any improvements we wanted to make beyond just the CSO stuff in that case would be on top of that. This lets us combine them and stick to that 2% median household income.
  • 0:21:28 [t=1288] Speaker 141: So we kind of have a cap per se that helps calculate that time frame. I could probably talk way too long. Did I answer your question or would you like me to continue?
  • 0:21:38 [t=1298] Speaker 138: MS. I think so. And I just also want to thank Mayor Sackman for keeping us informed along the way and
  • 0:21:44 [t=1304] Tammy Boland (councillor): the presentations that you've provided here at the council meeting and help to try to educate not just us but the public on how we got to where we are and what happens if we don't follow through with this.
  • 0:21:55 [t=1315] Brandon Sakbun (staff): So with that, Councilwoman Bowling, what I'll say is our sanitary district board is truly phenomenal. We actually had a meeting the other day where Pat Goodwin and Troy from HWC and Marcus all got to look at projects that they started when they interned for the city. when they first began their careers. And we all kind of laughed and had a joke, and we were like, it's great to finally actually do some of these from decades ago. So that's the short version of how long we've been on this journey, Councilwoman Bowling.
  • 0:22:27 [t=1347] Brandon Sakbun (staff): But we look forward to the projects and some of the stuff that we've got to do, according to the EPA, but also our residents deserve it.
  • 0:22:34 [t=1354] Speaker 145: Yeah, I appreciate everyone's collective effort, and we need to applaud that. Councilperson Nation.
  • 0:22:41 [t=1361] Todd Nation (councillor): Marcus, you know, we've had a lot of intense rain events recently.
  • 0:22:50 [t=1370] Todd Nation (councillor): Can you talk a little bit about what people in neighborhoods that are flooding or whose basements are flooding about how this will help address some of those issues?
  • 0:23:06 [t=1386] Marcus (staff): Yeah, so first, one, if we don't know about it, we can't help solve it. So 311 is a great tool to notify the city that you're having problems, and it can do cool things.
  • 0:23:15 [t=1395] Marcus (staff): So we can also geolocate these and see where common areas are. This gives us tools to solve those problems. We're looking at several different tiers of this. One, there's the mandated long-term control plans where this is a project that we have to complete. We have a drainage section where we're fixing problems, and we have so many longstanding problems. We do have a little bit of a backlog. but letting us know what we can do but also on the combined sewer side and a lot of this is where
  • 0:23:44 [t=1424] Marcus (staff): the basements come in when you have sewage and water mixing and heavy rainfalls you know a lot of the system went in prior to 1900 in the downtown area I don't know I don't think they used CAD or computers to design it back then so there was probably a lot of guesswork and and things like that but we find that some of us undersized and leads to these overflows being able to fund these projects and make some improvements can help with that and you know we're probably going to do a lot of worst first kind of things but you know make us aware let us know and
  • 0:24:18 [t=1458] Marcus (staff): we're happy to solve them we have a had a pretty unique year with some pretty heavy intense rainfalls and we've gotten a lot of calls this year and we're we're looking at those but one one key thing is these aren't new problems. These are problems we haven't heard about for 10 years because we haven't had these intense rainfalls for a little while, but they do come and we watch them. So we're going to have tools to solve some of these problems. It just really depends on project size and location. So one thing is we've got 30 years, well, 25. It's
  • 0:24:55 [t=1495] Marcus (staff): a 30-year plan, but we did compromise with IDEM that we started the plan in 2021.
  • 0:25:01 [t=1501] Marcus (staff): We've got 30 years of projects planned out to solve a lot of the worst first problems, but we do have some flexibility to solve some new problems as well. And having a funding source dedicated to stormwater is going to help with that because currently we have zero dedicated funds. I mean, I'm sure the mayor will tell you we use edit, we use redevelopment, we use sanitary district funds, but there are zero dollars dedicated to stormwater. So this is going to allocate a certain portion that we can use to make it right.
  • 0:25:31 [t=1531] Speaker 154: Thanks. I yield.
  • 0:25:40 [t=1540] Speaker 158: Nobody else has a comment? I'd like to make one comment.
  • 0:25:44 [t=1544] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Fixing these types of problems, sewers and stormwater, doesn't seem as appealing to the average person as roads, but the infrastructure is just as important. I've heard from constituents who have dealt with these flooding issues that it's affecting its real-world problems. And secondly, to go 12 years is effectively how long this will have been without a rate increase. I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find any other private utility that can stay the same. So I don't think any of us takes increases lightly. I mean, this has been a long process, detailed. We've thought a lot about it.
  • 0:26:20 [t=1580] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): But essentially, something we have to do to take care of the infrastructure in the city. and if we don't, the feds can come in and mandate that our rates are higher than this even, and I think we all want to avoid that. So I just want to thank Marcus, the mayor, everybody involved with this,
  • 0:26:39 [t=1599] Speaker 163: for briefing us very detailed and preparing us.
  • 0:26:43 [t=1603] Brandon Sakbun (staff): Council President Dinkle and really the entire city council, I think any time we have this conversation people are going to say, well, why aren't you using what you have? How are you being efficient? Just so you all know, that wastewater department has been through a lot. They've reduced staff. They've changed chemicals to reduce the rate. They've modernized technology to reduce costs in other areas. You know, the city as a whole, parks, streets, wastewater, if you look at their 18-year history, has really, since the tax caps, aggressively cut where they could cut.
  • 0:27:14 [t=1634] Brandon Sakbun (staff): And at some point, we have to address the fact that when the cost of road paving grows by 6x over an 11-year time span, it gets to a point where you just cannot cut yourself out of this equation. So there are some tools with this to help address problems. I know Ed Stewart's team is really looking forward to getting back into the curb and gutter business to help increase some of the curb and gutter projects that we are working on. There are some street sweeper conversations to help with the cleaning of the inlets to really kind of take on some of the flooding that happens in heavier rains.
  • 0:27:50 [t=1670] Brandon Sakbun (staff): But we have done a lot to try to lower that. We've refinanced the $90 million ban that occurred when the first main lift station had a massive fish kill that really led us to a huge conversation, you know, six years ago now. so I just I hope that you would relay to your constituents all the steps that we've taken and so you know at one point this was going to have to be 15 to 17 percent and we've changed a lot of things internally to get it down to 10 percent so this is what we have today and thank
  • 0:28:21 [t=1701] Brandon Sakbun (staff): you for that comment of the private utilities and their consistent rate increases as compared to ours
  • 0:28:26 [t=1706] Speaker 54: Thank you, Mayor.
  • 0:28:33 [t=1713] Speaker 166: No further discussion. I'd entertain a motion at this time.
  • 0:28:39 [t=1719] Speaker 168: Motion. Councilperson Azar.
  • 0:28:42 [t=1722] Speaker 169: I move to take action on General Ordinance 8. Second.
  • 0:28:47 [t=1727] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): It's been moved by Councilperson Azar, seconded by Councilperson Thompson, that we take action on General Ordinance 8, 2026. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. The motion passes. We may now take action on General Ordinance 8-2026.
  • 0:29:03 [t=1743] Speaker 66: Mr. President.
  • 0:29:04 [t=1744] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Councilperson Azar.
  • 0:29:05 [t=1745] Speaker 66: We approve General Ordinance 8-2026.
  • 0:29:08 [t=1748] Second.
  • 0:29:08 [t=1748] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): It's been moved by Councilperson Azar, seconded by Councilperson Thompson, that General Ordinance 8-2026 be approved.
  • 0:29:15 [t=1755] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. The motion passes. General Ordinance 8-2026 is adopted.
  • 0:29:22 [t=1762] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): At this time, without objection, I'm going to move Special Ordinance 28-2026 to next on the agenda since it is accompanying General VIII.
  • 0:29:33 [t=1773] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): Special Ordinance 28-2026 approving the issuance and sale of special taxing district bonds of the Terre Haute Sanitary District. You must vote to take action.
  • 0:29:45 [t=1785] Speaker 177: Do we have a petitioner on this?
  • 0:29:52 [t=1792] Speaker 181: Good evening.
  • 0:29:56 [t=1796] Dennis Otten (resident): Good evening, Council. Just for the record again, Dennis Otten with Bozzi, McKinney & Evans. I know we've been back before you a month or two ago about this process, and a companion to this is the ordinance before you tonight. This is the ordinance that approves the special taxing district bonds component to fund the projects that will be supported in part by the rate increase that was just adopted through the prior ordinance. You'll see in this ordinance the projects that the mayor mentioned and that Marcus has talked about to be funded, and then the authorization of the bonds.
  • 0:30:31 [t=1831] Dennis Otten (resident): This has to go through the council because the bonds are property tax supported. There's a statute that requires that, and you all have done that before in the past. I do want to highlight there's reference to $125 million in this for authorization, and I know when we gave the presentations before, there's a revenue bond authorization for the same amount and there's a GO bond authorization for 125, but collectively no more than 125 million of bonds would be issued. We're doing that to preserve flexibility as we move forward with the funding of these projects
  • 0:31:06 [t=1866] Dennis Otten (resident): and we'll do it on a case-by-case basis, what makes the most sense of the time in the market and where the rates and charges, the revenues are coming into the utility and where the tax rates are. But I just want to highlight that.
  • 0:31:20 [t=1880] Speaker 185: I'm happy to answer any questions.
  • 0:31:23 [t=1883] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Thank you.
  • 0:31:24 [t=1884] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment on Special Ordinance 28-2026? Hearing none, we will close public comment. Open Council discussion.
  • 0:31:36 [t=1896] Speaker 187: Councilperson DeBond.
  • 0:31:37 [t=1897] Speaker 186: If there be no discussion amongst the council, I'll make a motion that we take action on Special Ordinance 28-2026.
  • 0:31:45 [t=1905] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. Moved by Councilperson DeBond, seconded by Councilperson Chalos, that we take action on Special Ordinance 28-2026. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
  • 0:31:56 [t=1916] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Motion passes. We may now take action on Special Ordinance 28-2026. Councilperson DeBond.
  • 0:32:01 [t=1921] Speaker 188: I make a motion that we approve Special Ordinance 28-2026.
  • 0:32:05 [t=1925] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. The move by Councilperson DeBond, seconded by Councilperson Chalos, the special ordinance 28-2026 be approved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion passes. Special ordinance 28-2026 is adopted. Next item.
  • 0:32:21 [t=1941] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): General ordinance 9-2026, amending city code chapter 2, article 9, section 2-128, abandoned vehicle non-reverting fund.
  • 0:32:30 [t=1950] Speaker 122: You must vote to take action. Petitioner.
  • 0:32:33 [t=1953] Speaker 195: Good evening, Council. I'm Molly Meeks with the Chair of the Police Department. This change came about at the request of State Board of Accounts when they were doing our audit this year. They caught some things with this fund that we had received some incorrect guidance in the past on how to use the money in this fund, and they asked us to change the language that we had in our city code so that it matches what state code says on how we can use this. And I would be happy to answer any questions.
  • 0:33:13 [t=1993] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment on General Ordinance 9-2026?
  • 0:33:20 [t=2000] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Hearing none, we will close public comment, open council discussion.
  • 0:33:27 [t=2007] Speaker 128: Councilperson Thompson.
  • 0:33:28 [t=2008] Speaker 203: So if I'm reading correctly, it looks like the portions that are struck out,
  • 0:33:36 [t=2016] Amanda Thompson (councillor): it looks like just one of them is changing, reverting, and then the removal, storage, and disposal of abandoned vehicles was then struck. Is that the extent of the changes?
  • 0:33:49 [t=2029] Speaker 205: Yes. Okay. And then, of course, they wanted to add the reference to IC 9-22-1.
  • 0:33:57 [t=2037] Speaker 206: Correct. Okay.
  • 0:33:58 [t=2038] Speaker 205: I yield.
  • 0:34:06 [t=2046] Speaker 208: Councilperson Chalos.
  • 0:34:08 [t=2048] Speaker 210: If there's no further, I move that we vote to take action on General Ordinance 9, 2026.
  • 0:34:15 [t=2055] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. It's been moved by Councilperson Chalos, seconded by Councilperson DeBond, that we take action on General Ordinance 9, 2026.
  • 0:34:22 [t=2062] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion passes. We may now take action on General Ordinance 9-2026. Mr. President. Councilperson Chalos.
  • 0:34:31 [t=2071] Speaker 215: I move we pass General Ordinance 9-2026. Second.
  • 0:34:35 [t=2075] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): It's been moved by Councilperson Chalos, seconded by Councilperson DeBond, that General Ordinance 9-2026 be approved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. General Ordinance 9-2026 is adopted. Next item.
  • 0:34:49 [t=2089] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): General Ordinance 10-2026, Amending City Code, Chapter 7, Article 1, Division 2, creating Section 7-40, Groundwater Usage Restrictions. You must vote to take action.
  • 0:35:01 [t=2101] Speaker 220: Petitioner. Good evening, Mr. President, members of the Council. Michael Wright, City Attorney.
  • 0:35:09 [t=2109] Michael Wright (staff): General Ordinance 10 relates to an issue that Marcus and I had met with IDEM on a few months ago, and then the mayor had a couple follow-ups with Indianapolis Company. in regards to historical environmental contamination sites that are still being monitored by the Indian Department of Environmental Management and really have no prospect of end in sight. and the ordinance before you contemplates a restriction on the installation of groundwater wells in those areas that IDEM has identified, which are included in an exhibit to the ordinance that was submitted.
  • 0:36:11 [t=2171] Michael Wright (staff): All these are, as I alluded to earlier, historical issues going back, I guess, decades, probably multiple decades, primarily laundry sites that entered into settlement agreements with IDEM that required groundwater monitoring. The reason why this is the preferred alternative for IDEM is the other avenue involves making personal contact with each property owner in these areas and asking them to record an environmental restrictive covenant on their property, alerting any future landowner of a groundwater restriction, ground well water restriction
  • 0:37:17 [t=2237] Michael Wright (staff): on that site. So the personnel associated with that task significantly outweighs the ordinance that you have before you. And so this was their preferred
  • 0:37:35 [t=2255] Speaker 226: method and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
  • 0:37:43 [t=2263] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Anyone from the public who wishes to comment on the general ordinance 10-2026? Hearing none, we will close public comment, open council discussion.
  • 0:37:52 [t=2272] Speaker 128: Councilperson Thompson.
  • 0:37:55 [t=2275] Speaker 230: Mike, so with this, I mean typically
  • 0:37:59 [t=2279] Amanda Thompson (councillor): we grandfather in existing but with this ordinance it is ordering any existing private well waters to be closed within 365 days. Yes.
  • 0:38:13 [t=2293] Speaker 233: How many people will be impacted by that?
  • 0:38:24 [t=2304] Speaker 236: I can't give you an honest answer to that.
  • 0:38:27 [t=2307] Michael Wright (staff): It is something that we are continuing to line out, but I do not believe there are a litany of wells in these areas. But to say that I know for certain there are none, I cannot represent that.
  • 0:38:47 [t=2327] Speaker 46: Because part of my concern, like I understand the extra work that would have to be done by IDEM and that type of thing to find those individuals.
  • 0:38:54 [t=2334] Amanda Thompson (councillor): but since we aren't grandfathering and we are asking people to remove the well, I would like to have some further notice to these landowners that this is going to happen before we take action on it.
  • 0:39:12 [t=2352] Speaker 241: Well, I mean, this is certainly, as I alluded to, this is a decades-old problem.
  • 0:39:19 [t=2359] Michael Wright (staff): I mean, we are, you know, I am not asking for action on this tonight. We are willing to accommodate whatever request the council has. And I agree with your sentiment that given that potentially existing landowners could be affected,
  • 0:39:39 [t=2379] Speaker 236: that totally tracks with me.
  • 0:39:42 [t=2382] Speaker 224: So we will continue on that front and be back next week to advise to any new information.
  • 0:39:53 [t=2393] Todd Nation (councillor): Mike, I remember when this started, at least with Irmish cleaners, and when I look at the plume maps, I note that all of them are in the, what I'll call the historic core of the city. So my point is that I think that most, if not all, of these locations are already served by city water.
  • 0:40:25 [t=2425] Speaker 246: I do believe that to be correct, Todd.
  • 0:40:28 [t=2428] Todd Nation (councillor): And if they're not served by city water, it would be a lot easier to hook them up than it would areas of the city that have never been served by city water, for example. And when you get out to the edges of the city, whether they're south or north or whatever, then that becomes more of a challenge because you've got to run the big lines that get you close to the house where you're trying to provide water.
  • 0:40:58 [t=2458] Todd Nation (councillor): When we look at the maps that are attached, the big, we're looking at Wabash Avenue, and
  • 0:41:12 [t=2472] Todd Nation (councillor): then we're looking at their site that was on Poplar and going straight west almost all the way to the river.
  • 0:41:20 [t=2480] Todd Nation (councillor): And then we're down south, and it looks like that's Cruft College. So this is the historic core of the city, which is well served by utilities.
  • 0:41:33 [t=2493] Todd Nation (councillor): That's my point. The question, though, is as part of this monitoring process, for the part that runs in my district, I was aware back when this was all happening over a decade ago that monitoring wells were being set up, people were being asked. I filled out a survey for my property on Wabash Avenue. A friend who has property on 9th Street filled out a survey. They came and snipped his basement and determined that there were fumes in his basement percolating up from the groundwater below, etc.
  • 0:42:17 [t=2537] Todd Nation (councillor): My point is that IDEM has done the investigations into this. Does IDEM know where the wells are, if there are any?
  • 0:42:32 [t=2552] Speaker 250: Their ground well monitoring sites?
  • 0:42:35 [t=2555] Speaker 248: Well, I know they know where those are. I watched them drill them on 9th Street.
  • 0:42:39 [t=2559] Todd Nation (councillor): Or their contractors. but I'm talking about through their surveying system and all those steps that they took.
  • 0:42:48 [t=2568] Speaker 252: I know there has been inquiry made with them as to any wells they are aware of.
  • 0:42:56 [t=2576] Michael Wright (staff): So I don't have a response on that, but I know that inquiry has been made. So we've been aware of this, as I alluded to, for a couple months, and had some prior conversations. And so we are cognizant of the existing population, and so we have no problem following through
  • 0:43:24 [t=2604] Speaker 224: and confirming for the council and for the administration who all this would be impacting.
  • 0:43:33 [t=2613] Todd Nation (councillor): Okay. Okay. I think about industrial uses, but I'll stop here for now and I yield. Thank you.
  • 0:43:46 [t=2626] Speaker 260: Councilperson Hinton. So this map is just for this area
  • 0:43:53 [t=2633] Speaker 263: and what's the possibility of it being
  • 0:43:56 [t=2636] Michael Wright (staff): expanded south? I don't think, I mean, and Marcus could speak to the geology of this I guess, but I mean, from my understanding, IDEM has confirmed that they have cut off all source material creating possibly new issues. So there's nothing new being created. And these outlines that you see reflected on that exhibit are, you know, IDEMs that has been derived from the drilling that Todd alluded, that IDEM, you know, did over the course of several years monitoring the site. So I think the prospect for new contamination is very low, but the question of how long that contamination will hang around,
  • 0:44:54 [t=2694] Michael Wright (staff): that's why this ordinance is what's being requested is because that is a guess to anybody because of the soil composition, the sandy composition it's likely to stay where it is and that vein running all the way to the river they have no reason to expect it to significantly deteriorate
  • 0:45:22 [t=2722] Speaker 224: over a very significant period of time.
  • 0:45:26 [t=2726] Speaker 263: Well, I am aware of contaminated wells to the south. Sure. And I'm not sure that it's fair to residents who aren't interested in keeping wells, who would love to be connected to American water
  • 0:45:47 [t=2747] Speaker 267: to be fined in this way.
  • 0:45:53 [t=2753] Michael Wright (staff): I mean, I understand the point there. I think it's just their desire to try and ensure that those who have utility service available to them, I mean, they just feel it is so much safer for that to be the drinking option as compared to well water in these areas. I agree. Yeah, that they want some penalty in there for violation of that to disincentivize.
  • 0:46:41 [t=2801] Speaker 224: But we are workable on all the points that have been brought up tonight.
  • 0:46:49 [t=2809] Speaker 274: I yield.
  • 0:46:51 [t=2811] Speaker 275: Council President Thompson.
  • 0:46:52 [t=2812] Amanda Thompson (councillor): Are they going, or you might not know the answer to this, but American Water, are they, for the people that do have wells in these areas, do you know what type of hookup fee they're going to be charging them? No. Because I've spoken with some people that aren't necessarily trying to get a new water hookup, but even just like a basic line to the house are being quoted outrageous numbers by American Water.
  • 0:47:21 [t=2841] Speaker 279: is that something that IDEM would have any influence on?
  • 0:47:30 [t=2850] Speaker 284: My instinct says no. So does Mark. I mean, Mark.
  • 0:47:35 [t=2855] Marcus (staff): I don't know the answer for sure either, but I know I've watched some other ones go. So what's looking to happen here is there's these sites that have been cleaned to the best of expected ability.
  • 0:47:46 [t=2866] Marcus (staff): IDEM is continuing to pour resources into an open site. This is a step that has to be taken before a closer, which behooves not only IDEM, but the person doing the cleanup. I think we can make a call to IDEM and see if, I mean, I'm certain they've looked into
  • 0:48:02 [t=2882] Marcus (staff): wells in the area. We can see if there are any. If there are, I mean, that may be a negotiation tool with the person doing the cleanup of, hey, I've seen scenarios in the past where water connections for those that were served
  • 0:48:14 [t=2894] Speaker 287: by a well were provided. That's a very good point. but Standard Register, which is, do you remember that one, Todd? I remember it.
  • 0:48:23 [t=2903] Marcus (staff): Maybe 10, 15 years ago, there was a scenario where there was a neighborhood that only had well water
  • 0:48:28 [t=2908] Speaker 287: in order to continue the cleanup and close out that. They did have to provide city water to those folks.
  • 0:48:35 [t=2915] Speaker 292: So Shedden Park neighborhood across from North High School?
  • 0:48:38 [t=2918] Speaker 295: Yep, yep.
  • 0:48:39 [t=2919] Speaker 293: Standard Register had to pay it, though.
  • 0:48:42 [t=2922] Marcus (staff): I mean, I think this is the teetering point of closing this out, so it would be a good time to take a step back, look, and see.
  • 0:48:48 [t=2928] Marcus (staff): And, you know, there may be an opportunity to get those connections made if they're not there.
  • 0:49:01 [t=2941] Speaker 301: So quick question.
  • 0:49:03 [t=2943] Speaker 303: So you're going to find out how many are actually affected, correct?
  • 0:49:09 [t=2949] Michael Wright (staff): Well, I mean, I don't think, I don't, to be honest, if there are any, I expect it to be less than five, and that we will confirm exactly how many there are. And we might come back next week asking for the council to table this so that we can continue that negotiation that Marcus just referenced regarding getting those who do have wells, getting their hiccup taken care of before this. Because we are doing, in essence, a big favor for the businesses that have these agreements with IDEM for continued monitoring. So it is a very good point to have those conversations before that act is done.
  • 0:49:59 [t=2999] Speaker 66: So if you find that there aren't any, there's no purpose in this ordinance?
  • 0:50:02 [t=3002] Michael Wright (staff): If we find that there aren't any, then the only exception to that, Councilman Azar, would be for the future. Presumably. Okay.
  • 0:50:15 [t=3015] Marcus (staff): And it would allow those sites to close and for the state to stop spending resources in the thing that's happening.
  • 0:50:20 [t=3020] Speaker 301: Okay.
  • 0:50:21 [t=3021] Speaker 303: I'm in agreement with Amanda that at least if there are any, that they should be at least made aware of this prior to passing something that's going to, oh, guess what? $2,500 fine you didn't get in 365 days or whatever.
  • 0:50:36 [t=3036] Speaker 287: Okay, and I would be really surprised if those surveys that went out didn't include something about well water. There is a, you know, there's well water databases out there
  • 0:50:44 [t=3044] Marcus (staff): that you can look up on a map, but, you know, they're as accurate as any data that goes back, you know, decades. There may be wells that show up there that no longer exist. It's a place to start, but I think reaching out to IDEM and seeing what that survey data and people don't always turn surveys in either. That's the hard part. I turn mine in. They're probably working with the best of their ability of what they can between the database and the responses. But if they're willing to go sniff basements based on survey stuff, I would be really surprised if they didn't go
  • 0:51:21 [t=3081] Marcus (staff): at least test any wells if they were in the area because that's also a brief point of information. If nothing else, you can see the flume in it.
  • 0:51:37 [t=3097] Tammy Boland (councillor): This is just for clarification. Private water wells for human and domestic purposes is what's restricted. So let's just say someone has tapped into Indiana American water, but they've maintained their well for water in their garden, their yard, things like that.
  • 0:51:55 [t=3115] Speaker 327: will that be restricted as well i i mean that was not something that that i contemplated but i mean
  • 0:52:08 [t=3128] Michael Wright (staff): i would argue domestic to me means household use i mean i would say yes based on the plain meaning of domestic in my mind but i mean that's a conversation we can have with idem as well as regardless if that's a point of emphasis for them i mean just just clarify you know
  • 0:52:31 [t=3151] Speaker 331: that's all
  • 0:52:37 [t=3157] Speaker 338: a motion on this this will move to the next thank you
  • 0:52:53 [t=3173] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): Special Ordinance 11-2026. Rezoning of property located at 715 Park Street.
  • 0:53:11 [t=3191] Speaker 344: Area planning did not issue a recommendation. You must vote to take action. Thank you.
  • 0:53:17 [t=3197] Speaker 346: Petitioner. Good evening, Mr. President, fellow members of the council.
  • 0:53:22 [t=3202] Speaker 347: My name is Richard Shagley. I'm with the law firm of Wright Shagley and Lowry, and tonight it's my honor to be here on behalf of Ed Trover.
  • 0:53:29 [t=3209] Richard Shagley (resident): Ed is the owner of the property at 715 Park Street, and he's here tonight asking for his property to be rezoned from R2 to Family Residential District to R2 Plan Development. As Michelle stated, the city council gave it a no recommendation. Or I'm sorry, I apologize. The Area Planning Commission gave it no recommendation. They can either give it unfavorable, favorable, or no recommendation. And after about an hour of discussion, they landed on a no recommendation.
  • 0:54:10 [t=3250] Richard Shagley (resident): And part of that was due to the fact that the staff, I don't know if you're familiar with the process, but the Area Plan Commission, the staff provides a report to the commission, and that staff report was unfavorable. And part of the basis of the staff giving it unfavorable is the fact that the engineer's office gave it unfavorable after their review of the project. and the hang-up, the primary hang-up that the engineer's office had was parking. This is, I thought this was in Farrington's Grove.
  • 0:54:52 [t=3292] Richard Shagley (resident): This is just outside Farrington's Grove, but for all intents and purposes, it's part of Farrington's Grove. Well, and this parking issue is kind of what leads to the hardship. as you know for a plan to develop you have to have a hardship you know with regard to the land and what's fascinating two things I found fascinating about this one that this whole area is R2 and two on this block all the lots are basically 48 by 140 well the lot that this house is on was part of one of the bigger lots that was somehow subdivided. And it was subdivided, it's only a 50 by 48 lot,
  • 0:55:47 [t=3347] Richard Shagley (resident): which isn't a buildable lot in the city of Terre Haute,
  • 0:55:51 [t=3351] Richard Shagley (resident): which leads to the hardship because the structure on this property is massive for the lot size. So there's not much space for parking. there is a drive where you could park two or three cars, but this has created the hardship that the Area Plan Commission last night
  • 0:56:14 [t=3374] Speaker 354: accepted as the hardship that allows for the plan development.
  • 0:56:19 [t=3379] Richard Shagley (resident): Mr. Trover, your petition this evening, is the owner of 750 Park, but he's also the owner of 901 South 8th Street. So he lives on the same original lot before it was subdivided.
  • 0:56:33 [t=3393] Richard Shagley (resident): He's lived there for over 10 years. He acquired the property in September of 25. In October of 25, he acquired 715 Park. It is his desire. Currently, right now, it's a pretty large home, like most of the old homes in Farrington's Grove or just outside Farrington's Grove. And it's R2. It could be chopped up into two large duplexes without any trouble and have 10 residents, which would lead to 10. I mean, but instead, Mr. Trover, after living next to this building, finally acquired it.
  • 0:57:19 [t=3439] Richard Shagley (resident): And it is his hope to have a single apartment on the second floor, an art studio, and then on the main floor, and also have a by appointment tattoo parlor. This tattoo parlor will not take walk-ins. This is a situation where artists, just like everything else, people have their favorites and the things they like to follow.
  • 0:57:57 [t=3477] Richard Shagley (resident): And that's no different when it comes to tattoos. People have their favorite artists and when you get to that level, people will come to you and sometimes you go to them.
  • 0:58:09 [t=3489] Richard Shagley (resident): So they would pre-set up appointments. They'd come in for a couple days. And this facility is set up so they could stay in the apartment when they come in for a night or two for their scheduled tattoos.
  • 0:58:23 [t=3503] Richard Shagley (resident): So I tried to be pretty careful to point out appointment-only tattoos. Although I don't have a tattoo. I wouldn't consider myself a tattoo connoisseur, but I don't think unless you've been drinking, you walk by a tattoo place and get a tattoo. That's something that's premeditated, it's planned, and they will not allow for these unplanned, premeditated tattoos. So it's not a situation where there's going to be a large walk-in crowd.
  • 0:58:58 [t=3538] Speaker 357: Part of the art studio, I applaud Mr. Trover and his wife.
  • 0:59:02 [t=3542] Richard Shagley (resident): They are, among other things, artists.
  • 0:59:06 [t=3546] Richard Shagley (resident): and they're trying to create an environment where artists can come together and either learn
  • 0:59:16 [t=3556] Richard Shagley (resident): or teach one another about different types of art. There was a lot of questions and discussion last night about parking. And in that discussion, Marcus Maurer, the city engineer, there could be a need for two parking spots. Sometimes there could be a need for 15. But there's at no point is it anticipated that there's going to be a need for a 24-7, 15 parking spot requirement. The classes, the seminars in the art studio aren't going to
  • 0:59:58 [t=3598] Richard Shagley (resident): be every day and more than likely they're also going to be during the day which is a less crowded
  • 1:00:05 [t=3605] Richard Shagley (resident): time in the neighborhood so although it will i'm like i mean i can't stand up here and say it's not going to cause additional parking issues but it's not going to have the impact
  • 1:00:18 [t=3618] Richard Shagley (resident): that is thought based upon what their use is and it's for sure not going to be more damaging to the neighborhood than if this was a duplex with five or ten people living there. So Mr. Trover does not believe this will be detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, he's improving the property, he has been improving the property, and he's also shown to be a good
  • 1:00:46 [t=3646] Richard Shagley (resident): steward of the properties in the Farrington's Grove area. which I think if you did a survey of the people inside and outside of the Pernod's Grove area, one thing they would probably all like to have is owner-occupied, cared-for buildings.
  • 1:01:09 [t=3669] Richard Shagley (resident): And Mr. Trover fits in that.
  • 1:01:12 [t=3672] Richard Shagley (resident): And not only that, but he bought a building that had been vacant to try to not only improve the neighborhood, about our community and creating an avenue and a way for artists to come together, learn, and to teach one another. So as a result of that, because of what he's wanting to do, he's asking for this property to become re-zoned to an R2 plan development.
  • 1:01:45 [t=3705] Richard Shagley (resident): And as you know, in the plan development world, in the event that he stops doing this, it reverts back to an R2.
  • 1:01:54 [t=3714] Richard Shagley (resident): We had attempted to find a way to prevent it.
  • 1:02:05 [t=3725] Richard Shagley (resident): In an event that he sells the property, the new owner couldn't carry on with the current activities. activities they'd have to come back in front of you and that was just an extra measure of
  • 1:02:21 [t=3741] Richard Shagley (resident): protecting the neighborhood unfortunately our city code says you shall be it shall be transferable so although mr trover was agreeable that and understood the need for it unfortunately our code does not allow that so we will we were not able to make that amendment
  • 1:02:40 [t=3760] Richard Shagley (resident): And that was with the help of Councilperson Nation. I will tell you in full disclosure, and when anybody calls me for a project in this area, and I had this same conversation with Mr. Trover, I said, have you talked to Councilperson Nation?
  • 1:03:00 [t=3780] Richard Shagley (resident): And he had, and I was, to say I was thrilled is an absolute understatement, that Mr. Nation was in support of Mr. Trover's project here. That, I think, says a lot about not only Mr. Trover and his wife, but also what he intends to do.
  • 1:03:25 [t=3805] Richard Shagley (resident): So as we all know, Councilperson Nation is a protector of Farrington Grove and helps keep it going in the right path.
  • 1:03:38 [t=3818] Richard Shagley (resident): We did have our office in receiving correspondence, area plan office in receiving correspondence, but we did have two people last night that live around the corner who had concerns, and I believe they'll stand up here and explain those. But again, we are just asking for this property review zone to R2 plan development. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
  • 1:04:04 [t=3844] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment on special ordinance 11-2026?
  • 1:04:16 [t=3856] Tim Hawkins (resident): Hi. Tim Hawkins. I, to be frank, was not planning to say anything tonight, but I guess I got the invitation. So I said a lot. I said as much as I thought I was going to say last night.
  • 1:04:38 [t=3878] Speaker 102 (resident): I prefaced my remarks last night by saying that I was not standing up in opposition necessarily to the plans as I understood them of the petitioner. I do literally live around the corner, and I find it interesting and perhaps ironic that these two issues are coming before you at the same time. And as I said last night, I can see this house from my bedroom window, so any Sarah Palin references you want to make, go ahead. But part of the reason why I wasn't going to say anything tonight was because I felt like I had made all of the comments that I thought were relevant,
  • 1:05:21 [t=3921] Speaker 102 (resident): and what I did not realize was that what we understood last night, which was that this rezoning, which is very different from the one that we came to you with just a few minutes ago, literally on our block, so you can take that for what it's worth, we understood yesterday that this would not be transferable. It was presented to us as something that would revert back if this property were sold. And so given what the petitioner has asked for and given our desire to accommodate what seems in many respects to be a positive attempt to, I guess, develop or promote the neighborhood,
  • 1:06:21 [t=3981] Speaker 102 (resident): although that's certainly not the way that we would like to see things go in general, We, or at least I am only speaking for myself, I was comforted by the fact that this change would revert back. And now to be told that that is not possible is extremely disconcerting to me. And so, to be frank, I guess I will simply state that this is a decision that's up to you. You appreciate where previous levels of review have come down on it for various different reasons, and I'm sure those will be addressed. You don't need me to comment.
  • 1:07:11 [t=4031] Speaker 102 (resident): But I asked you to consider our downzoning in an effort to promote the single-family nature of not only this block, but also Farrington's Grove. And this is not going in that direction. So if you feel like it's appropriate to accommodate going in two different directions for essentially the same space, I'm sure Mr. Shadley will give you the reasons why that is acceptable and he's been before you many times in the past to encourage you to promote variances of a variety of kinds in Farrington's Grove. But as someone who again believes strongly in single family residences and what that
  • 1:08:05 [t=4085] Speaker 102 (resident): brings to the neighborhood for this now to be sold to me literally just five minutes ago as something that will be transferable into the future is something that I feel is something that I cannot support. So I want you to know that. Thank you for listening.
  • 1:08:27 [t=4107] Speaker 374: Thank you. Does anyone else for the public wish to comment on special ordinance 11,
  • 1:08:33 [t=4113] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): hearing no with a closed public comment open for council discussion councilperson Chalos
  • 1:08:40 [t=4120] Speaker 375: how come it can't I know you said the code
  • 1:08:44 [t=4124] Speaker 376: the code says I thought that was a fine development that was part of all
  • 1:08:48 [t=4128] Richard Shagley (resident): well the so when when we went down the path of non-transferable we had done an amendment and then it was discovered or pointed out to us by Mr. Slagle that it's pretty clear it shall be transferable. What's fortunate in this situation, and what's great about the plan of development, as we all know, is if Mr. Trover decides, you know, I'm done, it will revert back to the R2. What we're trying to prevent is someone, he decides I'm done, he sells it and the next person comes in and wants to do something very similar.
  • 1:09:37 [t=4177] Richard Shagley (resident): Well, the beauty about this is we're requesting for the apartment, the studio, and the by appointment tattoo place. And I think that by appointment is the key there because that prevents the walk-in tattoo type situation.
  • 1:10:03 [t=4203] Richard Shagley (resident): The other thing about this is this whole area is R2, which I found fascinating.
  • 1:10:14 [t=4214] Richard Shagley (resident): and I always remember Councilperson Azar's question to the, when I have the whole neighborhood here, do you want this or do you want this? And I kind of brought that up last night. It went kind of on deaf ears. I thought I had a good one and it kind of failed miserably. But, you know, like I said, currently you could have, I think, what,
  • 1:10:41 [t=4241] Richard Shagley (resident): 10 people live in this house. and there'd be 10 cars and all these people coming and going.
  • 1:10:51 [t=4251] Richard Shagley (resident): Or you could have, and there's nothing that area plan, the council, because it's already zoned R2. And unfortunately, bless you. And unfortunately, however it got divided, I have no idea how that lot got divided because it leaves so little room. But that is a monster structure.
  • 1:11:13 [t=4273] Richard Shagley (resident): I mean, it helps, I guess, me with the hardship, but we're fortunate that Mr. Trover wants to go down this path because the three things he wants to put in there, you know, none of them, you know, the tattoo place.
  • 1:11:35 [t=4295] Richard Shagley (resident): So you have a tattoo artist and someone getting a tattoo, there's two people. There might be a situation where there's a class of ten people.
  • 1:11:46 [t=4306] Richard Shagley (resident): But that's not going to be every night. That's not going to be every day.
  • 1:11:49 [t=4309] Speaker 359: It could be a couple times a month. And I heard last night that they all have a favorite neighbor that has pool parties.
  • 1:11:58 [t=4318] Richard Shagley (resident): Because on the same block, there's a person who has pool parties. And the whole area is covered with parking and creates parking issues. Mr. Trover's, you know, this isn't going to be every weekend, every day. We don't believe that the parking situation outweighs the benefits of what Mr. Trover wants to do to structure for the neighborhood.
  • 1:12:27 [t=4347] Speaker 392: Okay. I was just more interested in the plan development.
  • 1:12:31 [t=4351] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): why didn't oh oh that was your question yeah yeah yeah for for clarity i i've looked it up it's uh section 10 1 1 before of city code subsection 5 this shall state that the rights
  • 1:12:47 [t=4367] Speaker 399: granted herein shall be transferable something i learned yeah me too yeah and it's in the
  • 1:12:54 [t=4374] Speaker 359: the form very different petition and ordinance every one of them now we know why
  • 1:13:01 [t=4381] Richard Shagley (resident): The other nice thing about this is we have a known entity. We don't have somebody new trying to come in the neighborhood. Mr. Trover's been in the neighborhood living there for over 10 years, and he owns two homes side by side.
  • 1:13:18 [t=4398] Speaker 106: Councilperson Thompson.
  • 1:13:20 [t=4400] Speaker 230: Thank you. I was at area planning last night, and I was on the fence going in,
  • 1:13:28 [t=4408] Speaker 410: and I was still on the fence leaving by the end of the night.
  • 1:13:32 [t=4412] Amanda Thompson (councillor): If it had been an R1 that you were asking to make an R2 plane development, that would be a quick and easy no for me. But knowing that it already is an R2 and you're wanting to make a plane development, that was some reassurance. Plus just hearing the owners kind of describe their vision, almost like an artist enclave, bringing in artists from around the country, maybe even around the world, to come here to Terre Haute, share their talents with us. I think it could have a great impact on our art scene. So I love the idea, and it sounds like the apartment would be
  • 1:14:10 [t=4450] Amanda Thompson (councillor): for those traveling artists coming to the area. It wouldn't be a full-time occupied apartment. And I was sitting right next to Marcus, and I know City Engineering, their big concern was the parking issue. And I get it. In looking at the plat and how it's divided up, there really is no specific dedicated parking space for this building. So I was having a really hard time visualizing it last night. So after speaking with Councilman Nation earlier today, I went back and I drove the area.
  • 1:14:46 [t=4486] Amanda Thompson (councillor): and there is actually quite a bit of street parking, including spaces in front of the owner's home that they reside in. So that really alleviated the parking concern for me. I still understand the city engineer's department, their position on it. I totally appreciate that. but just in driving the area, the project that they've described, I think this area can accommodate that. Also looking at the work they've done on their current home, they're maintaining historic attributes. They spoke last night that that's their intention to do with this building as well.
  • 1:15:38 [t=4538] Amanda Thompson (councillor): So I understand the concern of putting something like this close to Farrington's Grove, but based upon what I've seen and what's been shared, I think this could actually be a big bump for Farrington's Grove. I think it could bring a lot of eyes to the area, people interested in historic buildings, other artists. so I by finally going in and seeing it in person I was I was swayed so I'm no
  • 1:16:14 [t=4574] Speaker 412: longer in the fence I do support this project
  • 1:16:27 [t=4587] Todd Nation (councillor): Richard mentioned I'm supportive of this project I've been talking to Ed about it for, it feels like a year, maybe longer. I was Ed's neighbor. The property we're talking about is 715 Park Street. I lived at 714 Park Street. And I remember Harriet McNeil. Some of you probably remember Harriet, too, the woman who sold Ed his house at the corner of 8th and Park. And without going too deep into it, Harriet's other house was at 825 South 7th Street. Some of you who've served on the council with me for a while may remember that a woman named Bonnie Bollinger came to the council
  • 1:17:12 [t=4632] Todd Nation (councillor): around 10 years ago, and she wanted to, Harriet's other house on 7th Street, you know the house. It's a big green cool house. It's on the block across from Barbasco. It has a tower on the corner. It's a landmark. Bonnie bought the house after Harriet was done with it, and it had been through another party's hands, too. But the point is that she wanted to open an antique shop in her living room. And, you know, I was worried about commercial encroachment in the neighborhood and all that. And I went and met with her and looked at the house, and we talked about parking.
  • 1:17:56 [t=4676] Todd Nation (councillor): And then her petition came before the city council, and it got unanimous approval. And I thought, and I'm probably wrong, but I thought that as part of those proceedings, we had negotiated out transferability. Now, I probably am remembering that wrong. and probably I was oversimplifying in my head the reality of this situation and every other plan development we do, which is basically when the use that we're talking about is finished, then it reverts back to its original zoning classification. So in my head, I probably made Bonnie's thing more complicated than it was.
  • 1:18:46 [t=4726] Todd Nation (councillor): Bonnie ran a small antique shop out of 825 South 7th Street, moved on. The house reverted to R2 and a family moved into it. And now it's sold again and another family is moving into it, or at least that's the hope. In any case, it's R2. It's not an R2 plan development and there is no shop up in the front room. So I think about that precedent, and I think about what a minimal impact it had, Bonnie's shop had, on my experience living across the street from it. My experience living across the street from Ed and 715 Park Street was that there's plenty of curbside parking in that area.
  • 1:19:44 [t=4784] Todd Nation (councillor): I'm not concerned about parking. And I'll stop there. I'll just say that, in general, it pains me that we're in a, that I'll just speak from my own personal perspective. I think of myself as someone who supports a vision of Farrington's Grove as a place where families and of all types. And businesses of some types can actually intermingle, especially businesses that are run by the people who live there. I think of Ed buying the house next to him and putting an art studio in it and other art-related endeavors of his as roughly analogous to what Bonnie did in her living room.
  • 1:20:48 [t=4848] Todd Nation (councillor): Now it's a separate structure. And to Richard's question of how this got done, well, the houses were all built like 100 years ago. And we've only had zoning for 60 years. So all of this predates zoning. That doesn't mean they didn't have minimum lot sizes. But when you go and look at that block, three of the four alley-adjacent lots have houses on them. I'm not talking about facing the main streets of 7th Street or 8th Street. Three of the four, I lived in one of them. Ed's rezoning one, and there's another one across the alley that's even bigger than both of the houses that I'm talking about.
  • 1:21:32 [t=4892] Todd Nation (councillor): so these lots have a front facing house and a back facing house adjacent to the alley that's a common thing in this area in this part of the city and yeah it predates zoning and yeah it creates situations like this I'm happy that Ed is doing something with the house and that the house is surviving I'm confident that when he's done with it it will go back to being a residential structure. And I realize that a lot of this is rambling.
  • 1:22:17 [t=4937] Speaker 420: Councilperson Hinton.
  • 1:22:19 [t=4939] Speaker 422: Are there any ADA requirements for the art studio?
  • 1:22:25 [t=4945] Speaker 424: It would be grandfather.
  • 1:22:26 [t=4946] Speaker 314: Is there going to be any particular signage or anything like that?
  • 1:22:40 [t=4960] Speaker 430: That's a question.
  • 1:22:47 [t=4967] Speaker 435: I'm Ed Trover, the owner of the 715. The signage, we want to keep it residential. we're going to have, there's across the porch, there's like a header, and we're going to have our business name there in small six-inch ceramic letters. And then in terms of signage for the tattoo element of it, it'll just have artist Instagram handles on the door, and it'll say appointment only, those kinds of things. It's going to be very minimal. I live next to it.
  • 1:23:19 [t=4999] Speaker 437: I don't want to look at a bunch of signage. So, yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
  • 1:23:24 [t=5004] Todd Nation (councillor): Mr. President, if there's no further discussion, I move that we vote to take action on Special Ordinance 11-2026.
  • 1:23:39 [t=5019] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. It's been moved by Councilperson Nation and seconded by Councilperson Hinton that we take action on Special Ordinance 11-2026.
  • 1:23:47 [t=5027] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. We may now take action on Special Ordinance 11-2026.
  • 1:23:54 [t=5034] Speaker 77: Mr. President, I'm approved for approval of Special Ordinance No. 11-2026.
  • 1:23:59 [t=5039] Speaker 380: I think you have to... No, but did everybody vote? We took action. Oh, okay. Sorry.
  • 1:24:07 [t=5047] Speaker 447: We can undo it if you want.
  • 1:24:08 [t=5048] Speaker 380: No. I didn't hear the... I'm a little fuzzy.
  • 1:24:11 [t=5051] Speaker 448: You want a no-dose?
  • 1:24:12 [t=5052] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Do you have a second? We have a second. It's been moved by Councilperson Nation, seconded by Councilperson Hinton, that Special Ordinance No. 11-2026 to be approved. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
  • 1:24:23 [t=5063] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Opposed, say nay. The motion passes. Special Ordinance 11-2026 is adopted.
  • 1:24:28 [t=5068] Speaker 455: Thank you very much for your time. Next item.
  • 1:24:33 [t=5073] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): Special Ordinance 26-2026, rezoning a property located at 4 and 40 West Margaret and 2929 Arliss Street. Area planning gave it favorable with conditions recommendation.
  • 1:24:45 [t=5085] Speaker 96: You must vote to take action.
  • 1:24:47 [t=5087] Speaker 174: Petitioner.
  • 1:24:53 [t=5093] Speaker 459: Good evening. My name is Hugh Pebworth. I am a development associate here with TWG
  • 1:25:00 [t=5100] Hugh Pebworth (resident): development and we're here to discuss the rezoning of three parcels to allow for a proposed affordable senior housing project known as Margaret Senior. So a little background on TWG. We're an affordable housing developer based out of Indianapolis. I've been developing affordable housing since 2007. We also have a market rate branch. But I do also want to point out our affordable housing development currently under construction in Terre Haute, Wabash Place. Is that on backwards?
  • 1:25:27 [t=5127] Speaker 462: We can't see it. Oh.
  • 1:25:31 [t=5131] Speaker 464: There we go.
  • 1:25:32 [t=5132] Speaker 468: There we go. Now we can't see you, but that's okay. I'll shift over here.
  • 1:25:40 [t=5140] Speaker 459: I do want to point out also our affordable workforce housing development, Wabash Place,
  • 1:25:45 [t=5145] Hugh Pebworth (resident): which is under construction here in Terre Haute and is adjacent to the sites. So now I'll talk a little bit about the sites. So I believe in the packet that I handed out just before this meeting, you'll see three images. One is an aerial drone view taken in the last month or so of the site with an arrow indicating the site. Another one is a map from Beacon indicating the entire six parcel site. And the third page shows the highlighted three parcels, which we're asking to be rezoned tonight. So this site is comprised of six parcels, roughly 3.1, 3.2 acres.
  • 1:26:19 [t=5179] Hugh Pebworth (resident): three of the six parcels are already zoned R3, which allows for multifamily, and then three of them are not. Of the three, two of them are zoned R1 and one is zoned C2. You'll see those in those highlighted parcels on the third page there. Of the three parcels that are not correctly zoned as of today, two of them are vacant, and then one of them has a single-family rental residence on the site. So if you look at the aerial map and the drone footage of the site and the area around it, You'll notice our development Wabash Place to the east of it.
  • 1:26:51 [t=5211] Hugh Pebworth (resident): You'll notice apartments to the north of it, a nursing home facility to the west of it, another multifamily dwellings in the area. And so these three parcels that aren't zoned correctly to allow for, or aren't zoned to allow for multifamily really are outliers in that area. And we'd like to ask for a rezone of those three parcels to match the surrounding uses and the surrounding items in the area. So now I'll talk a little bit about what we're proposing to develop. So Margaret Senior will be in 80 units affordable senior housing development for seniors 55 and plus.
  • 1:27:27 [t=5247] Hugh Pebworth (resident): In front of me, you'll see our very early initial site plan. So we'll see just where we have things laid out as of today. So 80 residential units reserved for seniors 55 and up. They'll all be accessible. We'll have on-site parking. Our initial plan shows 153 spaces. On-site property management, there will be resident amenities including a lounge, fitness center, barbecue, picnic area. And then this project is currently being reviewed for state funding, and part of the state funding involves pretty strict design standards. So there will be stricter than usual energy ratings.
  • 1:28:07 [t=5287] Hugh Pebworth (resident): This project will achieve an NGBS silver rating. there will also be an accessibility consultant that will go through this project as it's being built if it's awarded funding to ensure that all of the spaces are accessible to these senior residents. There will be an inspire requirements for electrical and fire protections, and the sum of all this is above what you would see from a typical multifamily building, what would it have to go through during construction. And so we believe that that's going to result in not only an affordable development for these seniors,
  • 1:28:34 [t=5314] Hugh Pebworth (resident): but also a high-quality building. And then so lastly, I'll talk a little bit about timeline and sort of where we are. So this site we took to the state of Indiana to apply for funding in July, so about five weeks ago. They're currently reviewing it, reviewing our application, and they'll get back to us in the next couple weeks with any feedback, any errors I'd like to see corrected, things of that nature. And then we'll find out in November if we're awarded funding.
  • 1:29:03 [t=5343] Hugh Pebworth (resident): If we're successfully awarded funding, November until May of next year would be when we'd finalize architectural plans, line up permits, line up lenders, that sort of thing. And then construction would commence in June of next year, looking at roughly 18 months. And so your first residence would move in here end of 2028, very beginning of 2029. So if there are any questions, I'll pause now for those. Thank you.
  • 1:29:30 [t=5370] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Does anyone from the public wish to comment on special ordinance 26-2026? Hearing none, we will close public comment and open to council discussion.
  • 1:29:44 [t=5384] Speaker 476: Councilperson Thompson.
  • 1:29:45 [t=5385] Speaker 478: Thank you.
  • 1:29:46 [t=5386] Speaker 230: I know I asked you this question last night.
  • 1:29:51 [t=5391] Speaker 46: Is the company that you work for, is it considered a nonprofit or for-profit?
  • 1:29:58 [t=5398] Speaker 480: No, we're a for-profit entity.
  • 1:30:00 [t=5400] Speaker 230: Okay. And I'd ask if you would be asking for any other, other than the state funding, if you'd be asking for any other tax abatements or anything like that.
  • 1:30:08 [t=5408] Hugh Pebworth (resident): Yes. So we may come back if we're awarded funding after November for a tax abatement or a pilot. The rezone tonight is the first step to get us to see if we have the possibility of being awarded. There is a state, in order to maximize scoring, there's a state requirement for a 10% local match. and so that's a conversation I guess we can have further down the line if we were to be awarded funding. But yes, that would be something in the future.
  • 1:30:36 [t=5436] Amanda Thompson (councillor): And building this is contingent upon getting that state funding?
  • 1:30:40 [t=5440] Hugh Pebworth (resident): Yes.
  • 1:30:41 [t=5441] Speaker 230: Because I will say affordable housing for seniors is much needed in our community, so I appreciate you considering building this here. I yield.
  • 1:30:54 [t=5454] Speaker 486: Council President Bolin.
  • 1:30:55 [t=5455] Speaker 138: So building this is not only contingent on getting the state funding, but also getting the match from us. Is that correct?
  • 1:31:01 [t=5461] Hugh Pebworth (resident): We need to maintain our final score, which would include those points. So the exact combination that adds up to that match, we can determine later. But we do need to maintain those points. Yes.
  • 1:31:13 [t=5473] Speaker 491: Thank you.
  • 1:31:17 [t=5477] Speaker 493: Mr. President.
  • 1:31:18 [t=5478] Speaker 106: Councilperson Nation.
  • 1:31:19 [t=5479] Todd Nation (councillor): As Councilperson Thompson stated, we do need affordable senior housing here.
  • 1:31:28 [t=5488] Todd Nation (councillor): And I'd echo her thanks that your company is trying to figure out how to do this.
  • 1:31:35 [t=5495] Speaker 107: And if there's no further discussion, I move that we take action on Special Ordinance 26-2026.
  • 1:31:43 [t=5503] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. It's been moved by Councilperson Nation, seconded by Councilperson Thompson, that we take action on Special Ordinance 26-2026. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. The motion passes. We may now take action on Special Ordinance 26-2026. Mr. President. Councilperson Nation.
  • 1:32:00 [t=5520] Speaker 77: I move for approval of Special Ordinance 26-2026.
  • 1:32:04 [t=5524] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. It's been moved by Councilperson Nation, seconded by Councilperson Thompson, that Special Ordinance 26-2026 be approved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Posey-nay. The motion passes. Special Ordinance 26-2026 is adopted.
  • 1:32:18 [t=5538] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): Thank you. Thank you. Next item. Resolution 13-2026, honoring the community theater at Terre Haute on its 100th anniversary. I will be serving as petitioner for the next two
  • 1:32:30 [t=5550] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): resolutions. We're fortunate in this community to have a vibrant arts and culture environment. I'm I'm proud to be a part of that. And it's pretty remarkable. We have two nonprofit arts organizations celebrating 100 years of serving the community this year. The first one is Community Theater of Terre Haute, which I'm fortunate to serve on the board of. For 100 years now, this all-volunteer organization has been serving the community, providing opportunities for live theater. And you can read through the resolution. I won't read it all out loud. to see their history, but it's pretty remarkable
  • 1:33:09 [t=5589] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): that they came from very modest beginnings right before the Great Depression, made it through that, finally got it home in 1954, have expanded it and are still going strong all these 100 years. So with that, we will open for any public comment on Resolution 13-2026. Hearing none, we will close public comment, open council discussion. Councilperson DeBond.
  • 1:33:36 [t=5616] Speaker 507: Just a quick comment. My experience with the theater had been pretty limited until last year, and I had the opportunity to attend most of the shows last year. Incredibly well done. It's an amazing asset to our community. It really is. After last year, I'm considering myself somebody who's planning on going to all of the future shows I can go to. I appreciate you doing this resolution and your service on the board and everyone else who works with you as well.
  • 1:34:10 [t=5650] Speaker 509: So thank you and I yield.
  • 1:34:13 [t=5653] Speaker 508: Mr. President.
  • 1:34:14 [t=5654] Speaker 509: Council President Hinton.
  • 1:34:15 [t=5655] Speaker 511: Yeah, congratulations to you and the board and to the community theater. I've had an opportunity to perform. I suck. Don't go look at the tapes or anything. but it made me feel worthy and I had a good time doing that and have even attended many plays there and it's right kind of in my neck of the woods I can ride a bike or walk to the theater so my congratulations to at least 100 more years for a community theater. It will outlive all of us. I yield.
  • 1:34:53 [t=5693] Speaker 516: Mr. President, as a former great actor I'd like to show you all a photo.
  • 1:34:59 [t=5699] Speaker 303: The show is at the community theater. I think this is well-deserved, and if there's no further questions or comments, I move that we adopt Resolution 13-2026. Second.
  • 1:35:13 [t=5713] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): It's been moved by Councilperson A's or seconded by Councilperson Loudermilk that Resolution 13-2026 be adopted. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
  • 1:35:23 [t=5723] Speaker 217: Motion passes. Resolution 13-2026 is adopted. Next item.
  • 1:35:30 [t=5730] Speaker 523: Resolution 14-2026.
  • 1:35:31 [t=5731] Speaker 526: He sent that, didn't he? I'm going to redo my vote.
  • 1:35:39 [t=5739] Speaker 527: The gavel came down.
  • 1:35:42 [t=5742] Speaker 96: Resolution 14-2026, honoring the Terre Haute Symphony Orchestra on its 100th anniversary.
  • 1:35:48 [t=5748] Speaker 503: Yes, likewise.
  • 1:35:50 [t=5750] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Terre Haute is home to the oldest professional symphony orchestra in the state, which is really something. I'm honored to represent the union musicians as secretary-treasurer of Local 25 at the AFM. and like the theater symphonies had a lot of different homes and they started on December 4th, 1926 with their first concert at the Indiana Theater which continues to be a topic of discussion today and they are by all accounts as strong as ever they have a new music director this past year that's just been phenomenal and honored to represent the symphony with this resolution today.
  • 1:36:46 [t=5806] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): So with that, we will take any public comment on resolution 14-2026. Hearing none, open for council discussion. Councilperson Bolton.
  • 1:36:56 [t=5816] Tammy Boland (councillor): I just had a question. Did I hear a rumor that they're going to be performing Labor Day? Is this group the one that's performing it? It is not.
  • 1:37:04 [t=5824] Speaker 531: There are some musicians from the Terre Haute Symphony that will be performing on Labor Day at the park.
  • 1:37:08 [t=5828] Speaker 543: Okay. Thank you. I yell. Mr. Rimmer. Councilperson Lauderdale.
  • 1:37:13 [t=5833] Speaker 544: I just want to say, again, I think they're an asset to our community, just like the theater. I've had the opportunity to attend several of those, especially the Christmas one, my favorite. So I just, again, want to congratulate them on the 100 years and hope they continue 100 years and we can keep them out of place, maybe the Indiana Theater again.
  • 1:37:36 [t=5856] Speaker 547: Maybe someday. Maybe someday. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 1:37:39 [t=5859] Speaker 548: Councilperson Hinton.
  • 1:37:40 [t=5860] Speaker 553: There are no more compliments. I move to adopt resolution 14-2026. Second.
  • 1:37:48 [t=5868] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): I move by Councilperson Hinton and second by Councilperson Nation that resolution 14-2026 be approved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. The motion passes. Resolution 14-2026 is adopted.
  • 1:38:02 [t=5882] Speaker 558: Anything?
  • 1:38:03 [t=5883] Michelle L. Edwards (clerk): Mr. President, just a reminder, there will be a public hearing on the budgets next Thursday, September 10th at 5.30 p.m. and the regular meeting will be at 6 p.m.
  • 1:38:13 [t=5893] Speaker 192: Thank you, Michelle.
  • 1:38:14 [t=5894] Speaker 561: Move to adjourn.
  • 1:38:16 [t=5896] Anthony J. Dinkel (chair): Second. So moved by Councilperson Bazar, seconded by Councilperson Hinton, that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Carrow City Council stands adjourned.
The Vigo Ledger