[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6060345,"mediaKeyId","3291731-f3a8d27430416c5206cc220de76fca37","parentId",3291731,"title","Carmel committee debates ambulance fund changes, proposed fee for lift assists to care facilities","audioSeconds",513,"startMs",5783000,"endMs",6296000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3291731-f3a8d27430416c5206cc220de76fca37&start=5783&end=6296","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3291731-f3a8d27430416c5206cc220de76fca37/thumbnail_5783000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6060345/Carmel/Hamilton-County/Indiana/Carmel-committee-debates-ambulance-fund-changes-proposed-fee-for-lift-assists-to-care-facilities","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6060345-57c694fdb56b14d7514e258c4de47bc2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770886325&Signature=gSMVYF~25Iop0eYjcIcUGrk0Fz2NGNTUAeOHmyPBONwIkC9kK9Nxh3Sy5dgXJlyLr4s2bi17qQgYMbiJz3viZeuOZulUJW-uDA39RGXEVtcB5GGEODwbjw1hBfWluTPdtV91a7Y6qwfunQhxROZGu197qOg57cg9mTC3e4~FZZ2mtdmQ-qxZryVb8jgvPSuLcEZBF1uTon26SHSCA4YWHKzXHSJubopQxOc0Ippa-kqqNrAaC2XDWo3R95nPq0PqM9hxQHo0NCB5kwbcyBmstVkA6QsB01shkK5Eu5cBh7clPXBC4bSw9g7wLaLHVyF-KHiQFCGERH8QEPvAvsCrkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Carmel IN","date","2025-05-14T06:51:38.907Z","article","The committee reviewed amendments to the ordinance governing the paramedic/ambulance capital fund and debated a proposed fee for so‑called “lift assists” to assisted‑living and extended‑care facilities.

Fire Chief Joel Thacker described the ordinance changes as language cleanups and statutory alignments. He said the amendments would (1) rename the fund the Paramedic Emergency Ambulance and Fire Service Capital Fund; (2) remove dated references (including a Hamilton County EMS tax that staff could not locate); (3) tie commercial insurer billing to the statutory maximum of 400% of current CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) rates established by recent state law; and (4) cap out‑of‑pocket charges for Carmel residents (the chief discussed an $800 limit as an example). Thacker also proposed giving the fire chief authority to adjust rates to remain compliant with changes in federal or state regulations.

On a separate item, Chief Thacker proposed a $500 lift‑assist fee charged to facilities (not to private residences) when trained facility staff are present but for whatever reason cannot or will not lift a fallen resident and instead call 911. “We respond, you know, 8 to 10 times a month on lift assist to extended care facilities,” Thacker said, noting the department clears patients and most require no transport. He offered first‑quarter 2025 data showing roughly 30 such calls in the quarter and used that to estimate about $15,000 per quarter (about $60,000 annually) if the fee were charged for those calls.

Thacker and staff provided a payer‑mix breakdown for ambulance billing: roughly 55% Medicare, 10% Medicaid, 30% commercial insurers and 5% private pay. He also said the department’s cost analysis put an average per‑transport cost in the neighborhood of $845 and used that figure when discussing the $800 out‑of‑pocket cap for Carmel residents.

Councilors pressed a range of concerns. Several members expressed support for clarifying fund language and tying rates to the statutory maximum, but many cautioned that a lift‑assist fee could inadvertently deter calls for needed help, shift liability or be passed on to vulnerable residents. Councilor Locke said she wanted more evidence that facilities would change behavior because of a fee and asked staff to consult local assisted‑living providers. Councilor Royal and others asked whether the fee would be billed to the facility (as proposed) and whether facilities could or already bill residents for similar services.

A motion to send the amended ordinance, as drafted including the lift‑assist fee, back to full council with a positive recommendation failed after committee members voiced unanswered questions and asked for more analysis and outreach. Committee members suggested alternatives including (1) approving only the non‑fee technical and statutory changes now and deferring a lift‑assist fee until staff complete outreach and a data review or (2) specifying the fee as discretionary (“may charge up to $X”) or making the fee subject to further administrative rulemaking. Chief Thacker said staff would reach out to facility owners and provide additional data about operational costs and the likely impact of a fee.

Why this matters: the amendments would affect how Carmel Fire bills commercial insurers, set consumer protections for Carmel residents and could create a new fee that targets long‑term‑care facilities. Supporters argued the fee would discourage inappropriate use of public emergency resources and recover costs; critics warned it could create perverse incentives that harm vulnerable people and shift costs to residents.

Next steps: committee asked staff to gather comparative data from other communities, consult local assisted‑living providers and return with clearer billing estimates, legal analysis of rate‑setting authority, and recommendations for whether and how to implement any lift‑assist fee. No final ordinance was forwarded to council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Finance, Utilities, and Rules Committee - May 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee reviewed amendments to the ambulance capital fund ordinance to align billing with recent state law and considered a proposed $500 lift‑assist fee for calls to facilities when trained staff are present but unable to perform a lift.","taxTitle","Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana","taxId",3929,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6060349,"Committee backs North End Phase 2 TIF request to fund mixed senior, multifamily and ‘attainable’ housing",1844,6005000,7849000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3291731-f3a8d27430416c5206cc220de76fca37&start=6005&end=7849","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3291731-f3a8d27430416c5206cc220de76fca37/thumbnail_6005000.jpg","/articles/6060349/Carmel/Hamilton-County/Indiana/Committee-backs-North-End-Phase-2-TIF-request-to-fund-mixed-senior-multifamily-and-attainable-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6060349-e57b2bb6dd262097acb95038eaf47dbe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770886325&Signature=WSdNyt4A1xGvp-jPGrUaCGeaQVV2zm9aNOAMmd6A3AYqgeXIQVcmTolMPw5Kb06F5kRRwimBgib7Y7-BWNvXtpcm9nRLvElZHXVoOufpFfkbuckDz5nDvDxK1z2I1ziD~hBzcVvQgoNOl1Yj31bQX4wgM61bSio4iNnTCthVgGkGNVELRvDI~wDmnQUoyrYr1SB~cwE~S8ZFCI3pIa06DBWk0jK1VAOTw6iv-WwZu6fQ21YWscfBtjL60u96svXHtAweUmBLjnoanCdZCMFqHoPeqrAKqrggQ33ukAQwwULFk2GUkJkRsuhx3A9VK6riFJ7VxiUBkZnCc-a5-Fqk9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Old Town and its development partner Avenue Development asked the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee to recommend approval of a TIF bond request for North End Phase 2, a mixed‑use project the presenters said would add market and senior rental units and support an existing attainable‑housing component.

Justin Moffitt of Old Town described the project and its financing approach: “we raised equity so that we had a permanently owned community asset,” he said, explaining a crowdfunded equity structure and a trust arrangement intended to retain ownership and modest returns for local investors. Moffitt said Phase 1 included 68 units with 40 permanently set aside as attainable for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities; Phase 2 would add 72 townhome‑style rental units (designed as two‑unit vertical “sleeves” totaling 72 units) and a 70‑unit age‑restricted project developed by Avenue Development called Viva Benet.

Moffitt and Old Town CFO Kyle May said the total project investment would be roughly $75 million and that the TIF request equates to about a $4,700,000 par bond amount to help pay for site infrastructure and make the development financeable. The developer committed that at least 10% of the new units would be offered at a workforce price (a modest discount) and said the mixed plan aims to reach baseline operational sustainability: Old Town estimates it needs roughly 200 market‑rate units across the development footprint to support leasing and maintenance operations.

Mike Mattingly of Avenue Development described Viva Benet as an age‑restricted product with services targeted to seniors, including a concierge‑medicine option the firm expects to bill through Medicare when appropriate. Mattingly said comparable projects have shown quick lease‑up and that seniors’ independent living alternatives in the market are typically substantially more expensive; he argued Viva Benet would be closer to market‑rate multifamily price points but with supportive services.

Council members praised the project’s multigenerational approach and the attainment commitment. A committee member moved to send the TIF request and associated ordinance D‑2771‑25 to full council with a positive recommendation; a roll call vote recorded aye responses from several councilors and the motion passed unanimously. Committee members emphasized the developer’s pro forma review with municipal adviser Adam Stone and noted the bond indenture language makes the bonds developer‑backed (not a city debt).

Why this matters: proponents framed the development as expanding housing choice in downtown Carmel, preserving permanently owned attainable units, and creating additional senior housing options that could free up single‑family homes for younger buyers. The committee’s positive recommendation sends the request to full council for final consideration.

Next steps: the committee forwarded the ordinance and TIF request to full council. Council will consider the bond authorization, the TIF use for infrastructure, and any related development agreements at a future meeting.","Old Town and Avenue Development presented North End Phase 2 — a mixed project including 72 townhome‑style rental units and a 70‑unit age‑restricted Viva Benet building — and requested tax increment financing bonds. The committee voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to full council.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6060353,"Carmel committee considers citywide cap on single‑family rentals after mixed public comment",5529,266000,5795000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3291731-f3a8d27430416c5206cc220de76fca37&start=266&end=5795","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3291731-f3a8d27430416c5206cc220de76fca37/thumbnail_266000.jpg","/articles/6060353/Carmel/Hamilton-County/Indiana/Carmel-committee-considers-citywide-cap-on-singlefamily-rentals-after-mixed-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6060353-d0f06ba00e4b84d174225e8366f33942/orig.mp4?Expires=1770886325&Signature=kx~duhv8zxTiOytYfHImH-PlSl4SFORKLeV6cpF1njpMSXAhlVDf4wJ53wbios~IeGCQk8EezwI10goXNhQeR~E~gnCkn6I7uXBit-O1zBBzSF6~8XNCd3MB2DVamNjKhMpWhaY8VaTQEaAtVzOVFRWmDeuiKn4tlL1hYriBtm0GQTRZIcTWg83KNJNgF5apE4e9jgWVdrIn1mdyb9wNc-CrTDjnjGLP3muXborqc3ATiJlm-tej1-~o7NGDfWd9qTuf-6zqqmmvTTM~uI1r4vPCKt~v2XBhRnkwl0Myx~TgZiDzNQlCbon4LNmCRVJBX1~3CTP6p6m6KKoZK0BPfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several Carmel residents and homeowner‑association representatives urged the committee to adopt ordinance D‑2770‑25, which would require owners of residential rental dwellings to register and obtain permits and would limit permitted rental dwellings to 10% per platted subdivision and 10% citywide.

In public comment, Lawrence McCormack said, “I rise in support of ordinance d 27 70 dash 25,” and described an influx of out‑of‑state corporate buyers and absentee landlords in his Northeast Carmel neighborhood. Rick Anderson and Ed Shaughnessy (reading a letter from Susan McClain) told the committee they supported a citywide cap because they said rental concentrations have harmed property upkeep and home values. Jason Beyer and other residents described turnover and difficulty for prospective buyers when homes are bought for rentals.

Several speakers opposed the ordinance. Tom Lazara, a longtime resident and property manager, said he opposed the measure “in almost every way, shape, and form” and urged enforcement of existing rules rather than new restrictions. Chris Pryor of the MiBoer Realtor Association told the committee he opposed the proposal on grounds it would restrict private property rights, interfere with the housing market and may not address an actual local problem; Pryor said MIBOR’s data showed just 72 properties in Carmel owned by institutional investors out of roughly 30,000 residential properties.

Ted Nolte, Council legal, outlined changes made to the draft ordinance since the committee last saw it. Key edits include: (1) clarifying that homes in legally defined rental unit communities and build‑to‑rent communities approved by the city are treated differently under state law and (2) adding language that homeowners associations (HOAs) and condominium associations may adopt more restrictive covenants that are not superseded by the ordinance. Nolte also explained the ordinance counts permitted rental dwellings by platted subdivision (a legal term) so the cap applies by subdivision even where an HOA does not exist.

Committee members asked staff for additional data before proceeding. Questions included how many platted subdivisions Carmel contains; how many subdivisions and neighborhoods are already at or above a 10% rental threshold; whether code‑enforcement complaints disproportionately involve rental properties; and whether the city’s existing information systems can reliably identify institutional owners (many use single‑property LLCs). Staff and several council members noted Fishers used third‑party software (described in testimony as a data‑collection tool) to compile detailed ownership and rental data and that obtaining comparable local data would require investment.

Nolte said the draft provides an exemption pathway: a property owner may apply to the Department of Community Services (DOCS) for a hardship or “life situation” exception if the owner needs to vacate and intends to rent temporarily. DOCS decisions would be appealable to Carmel City Court. Committee members asked staff to clarify that exception language (to explicitly include separation, domestic violence, financial hardship and similar circumstances) and to provide a proposed procedure and estimated staffing/technology costs for registration and enforcement.

The committee did not vote to forward the ordinance to full council. Members asked city staff to return with specific datasets (listed below), legal clarifications and outreach to neighborhood stakeholders before any next step.

Requested follow‑up and clarifications: city staff were asked to provide (1) the count of platted subdivisions in Carmel and a list by name; (2) the current count and percentage of residential rental dwellings by subdivision and citywide (using available parcel/GIS and homestead data); (3) code‑enforcement complaint data disaggregated by owner‑occupied versus rental property; (4) an estimate of the software and staffing costs to run a registration and monitoring program comparable to Fishers’ approach; and (5) a proposed DOCS process and appeal path for hardship exemptions.

Why this matters: supporters say concentrated rental ownership by absentee or out‑of‑state investors can reduce owner‑occupied supply, depress resale values and create nuisance/maintenance problems; opponents warned city regulation could interfere with property rights and harm rental supply. The committee’s next steps are to gather the requested data, refine exemption language and return for further debate.","The Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee heard public testimony both supporting and opposing ordinance D-2770-25, which would require registration and limit permitted residential rental dwellings to 10% per platted subdivision and 10% citywide. Committee members asked staff for additional data and did not forward the ordinance for final action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Carmel committee debates ambulance fund changes, proposed fee for lift assists to care facilities

Committee backs North End Phase 2 TIF request to fund mixed senior, multifamily and ‘attainable’ housing

Carmel committee considers citywide cap on single‑family rentals after mixed public comment