[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6584371,"mediaKeyId","5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f","parentId",5734465,"title","City-County Council: key votes and committee actions from the Sept. 8 meeting","audioSeconds",892,"startMs",252000,"endMs",1144000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f&start=252&end=1144","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f/thumbnail_252000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6584371/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/City-County-Council-key-votes-and-committee-actions-from-the-Sept-8-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584371-f1040092eb5b32218e92fee185aa5ed2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438013&Signature=gjP3N2yAPHP8CUMxZTu3zLlTcSL1P1mo5XHsFuzKuK19FAZ0OxtRZYpzRfDtMkVuTcT2f44YYNlGdoblnClyA1vW0CoOvLZ7aPTOFogdkway7RMcRbrVuyZcEwW8i7e31yaRopY6VD6JqPosALyQ4lRMXUMXxQFsYbfjtmI5fxxCO8fBntzS81eL3vrmqpq8yyRHJe7WJvZUyybhpvWPBIbpLr70ZNaR-YMX5uurKe6Jr6~HI465mWFzRk62Q0CS5jQlBMpT6IFPiEA7RVGOO4VPkFehqKxX5xVkm5IRctusGII2-za62laZeFmxveMmP9k5ZYPdcQEAAJlAG~WKpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Indianapolis, IN","date","2025-09-08T00:00:00Z","article","At its meeting, the Indianapolis City-County Council recorded votes on multiple items across committees. Many items passed with little or no debate; the following summarizes outcomes recorded in the council journal at this meeting.

Passed (selected items):
- Proposal 2‑33 — Reappointment of Ebony Chapel to the Alcoholic Beverage Board. Passed out of committee and approved by the full council (vote recorded 25–0).
- Proposal 2‑34 — Appointment of Laura Lorimer to the Information Technology Board. Passed 25–0.
- Proposals 2‑37 and 2‑38 — Appointments to the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Lawrence Township Comprehensive Plan and City Market Corporation Board of Directors (Brad Kaye and Lori Meiser). Passed 25–0.
- Proposal 2‑42 — Authorization for issuance of general obligation bonds to proceed with acquisition, site work and construction activities. Passed 25–0.
- Proposal 2‑74 — Marion County local income tax resolution (to lower levy tax rate and to cast vote of the council); passed in council 22–3.
- Proposal 184 — Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for Canal Village 3 LP, a 33‑unit affordable housing project. Passed out of committee and approved by the full council (vote recorded 25–0).
- Proposal 2‑35 — Amendment to the revised code concerning the definition of confidential employees (section 291‑602). Passed by vote recorded 25–2.
- Proposal 2‑40 — Approval of special taxing district bonds (Metropolitan thoroughfare) not exceeding $4,000,000 for equipment such as snowplows and paving/line striping equipment. Passed 25–0.
- Proposal 2‑41 — Special taxing district bonds for public‑safety communications and weather/tornado siren replacement (up to $8,500,000). Members said the program would replace the countywide siren system over the next two years; passed 25–0.
- Proposals 2‑46 through 2‑55 — Traffic and speed‑limit changes (intersection controls and multiple 25 mph reductions in named neighborhoods and subdivisions). Passed together 25–0.

Not passed / negative committee outcomes:
- Proposal 2‑36 — Council did not pass the proposal after debate and recorded votes (committee recommendation followed; see separate article). Final recorded council action was to not pass.
- Proposal 2‑44 — Sought to change the General Orders Board into an advisory board; the committee’s due‑pass recommendation failed and the council moved that it not pass the proposal; motion carried 19–6.

Other committee reports:
- Proposal 2‑43 — The Public Safety committee reviewed and accepted jail commissary reports provided by the Sheriff; acceptance recorded and no further action required.

Procedural notes: The council took routine consent votes to adopt the agenda and approve meeting journals; a number of items were taken together by committee chairs with consent. Several items were introduced at the meeting and referred to committee for further review; those introductions were announced by the clerk and are not included above as final actions.

The council adjourned after offering memorials and requests that letters of condolence be sent to listed families.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council of Indianapolis, IN - City-County Council","oneSentenceSummary","The Indianapolis City-County Council approved a series of appointments, bond authorizations, budget and public-safety items and several traffic speed-limit changes; it also declined or tabled several other proposals (detailed below).","taxTitle","Indianapolis City, Marion County, Indiana","taxId",3627,"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},6584376,"Council tables proposal to add parental fines for juvenile curfew violations after extended debate",883,2111000,2994000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f&start=2111&end=2994","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f/thumbnail_2111000.jpg","/articles/6584376/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Council-tables-proposal-to-add-parental-fines-for-juvenile-curfew-violations-after-extended-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584376-6261c8f856aad9195a5e979ab00609d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438013&Signature=lHVkPaww-DJ2QhKSb7TC1nFB-CTfDqtY78vherfMUeswXKBaEraWmm1fPgNHKb9NtG3d69vsBxXvHLLzhUF8Tla~SbO0zw8KNx1Iy-SlNJxGkpXW5l7VOBCeCwz05i~hGpCVF~TCPI-4SzRncoXjU9AfP1LZoiaz2lNBA560EbfxtyE1nU8DYy5XY0WPSO~8uFKBISfHkogsUdnrLYfwB6-HfnlZuEbIpHpKt5F9G-PhfPO~42WP~y156ZA8alpbFWek6Y4Lv~r--WjD8asOZzDchkD4y6Po568WSF-~niXVWoicoAl4RPEBfX5SGaL8RGE8nOFxyJuCqfdD-cm6Yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Indianapolis City-County Council voted to table council proposal 245, which would have authorized parental fines and fees for violations of the city curfew ordinance, after heated debate and a failed amendment to reduce proposed fines.

Councilor Hart introduced the original proposal and later moved an amendment to reduce proposed fine amounts: he suggested lowering subsection BB from $500 to $300 and subsection BC from $1,500 to $700, and adding “up to” language. The amendment was debated and failed on a roll call, 15–10.

Councilor Delaney then moved to table proposal 245 to allow more community engagement and to explore non‑monetary penalties and supportive options. Several councilors — including Chairman Robinson, Councilor Brown, Councilor Bryant, Councilor Evans and others — spoke in favor of tabling to gather best practices, data and broader stakeholder input. Concerns raised included risk of criminalizing parents who lack resources, situations involving youth without available parents, and the need for additional information about how enforcement would work in practice.

Councilor McCormick and others urged collection of data and examples from other jurisdictions before imposing fines. Chairman Robinson noted some councilors favored accountability, but said the committee preferred more stakeholder engagement first.

The motion to table passed 18–7. With the item tabled, no changes to the curfew ordinance were adopted at this meeting; councilors said they expect more committee‑level work and community outreach before reconsideration.

The council also noted that, historically, IMPD has limited enforcement of the curfew law and that further discussion should consider how enforcement and supportive services would operate across the entire city, not only downtown.","Following extensive debate and failed amendments, the City-County Council voted 18–7 to table a proposal that would have imposed parental fines for juvenile curfew violations, citing the need for more community input and data.",{"_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},6584381,"Council rejects amendment that would have exempted public defender from municipal residency requirement",1090,1282000,2372000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f&start=1282&end=2372","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f/thumbnail_1282000.jpg","/articles/6584381/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Council-rejects-amendment-that-would-have-exempted-public-defender-from-municipal-residency-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584381-5f599586cc531feb7688554e83b8a36c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438013&Signature=SdzMm9hsR6-bsnTNlNlXhbvFjqeL5rC4FoImXcRNNUj4pfEZ1F9q1zMQIo4x50YAXkm8U99fhp1LITpU8ZyHZmJBdE64hb6AgX~7LMi4C1QVYpzpYnLSoYqC9YYbnlYD1tJutbcjQ3emH2CZTX-foapGiWEJLUwPlIaJ2PK9p3ZwVqVOj0E7dA9GDxqGPyXI9Yxt7C3Eebw1QSYvSzqrUbPl0Ma4cxQXm0VllJRRNb2ibQYUyEv-NSRUXDqPoDujPxRScIMC3s500iXdBOVZHdAlgM-qrEWbzS4PRWaJk6i-4PU9V5g2u-hVBZiTI-jTUzPtSbsYzp1pJvjNi4gTTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Indianapolis City-County Council voted against an amendment to council proposal 236 that would have created an exception to the municipal residency requirement for the Marion County Public Defender’s Office.

Councilor Hart, a sponsor of the proposal, moved an amendment to remove language that would have broadly eliminated the residency requirement and instead to create a targeted exception so the public defender could hire staff from outside Marion County without filing exception requests. Hart said the change was intended to allow the public defender’s office to recruit on par with the prosecutor’s office.

The amendment — to exempt the Marion County Public Defender’s Office from the local residency requirement — was seconded and debated. Supporters said the exception would help the public defender recruit needed staff; one councilor noted state rules set caseload thresholds and said Marion County receives about $11,000,000 annually in state reimbursement because the county stays below that threshold, arguing maintaining adequate staffing helps preserve those funds.

Opponents urged caution. Councilor Ali Brown (identified in the meeting) said the public defenders seeking to unionize had outstanding demands that the chief public defender had not yet addressed and said altering the code would not resolve those labor issues.

On the amendment vote, the motion failed 7 to 18. Later in the meeting, the council recorded the final action on proposal 236 as not passing (following the committee recommendation). The effect is that the council did not adopt the proposed change to the residency requirement and no exception for the Public Defender’s Office was enacted at this meeting.

Councilors emphasized the staffing difficulties reported by the chief public defender and other department leaders, but the council declined to change the municipal code at this time.","After debate, the City-County Council voted to reject an amendment that would have exempted the Marion County Public Defender's Office from a local residency requirement; the broader proposal (No. 236) was not advanced by the council.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6584386,"City-County Council schedules public hearing for 467.66-acre data center rezoning",137,673000,810000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f&start=673&end=810","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5734465-0f3afccd5295e8054487131150724f4f/thumbnail_673000.jpg","/articles/6584386/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/City-County-Council-schedules-public-hearing-for-46766-acre-data-center-rezoning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6584386-ef271ef1cd4d4a34b44024adf6303a5f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438013&Signature=d1SZfSPSOmu4HCSWIB6T9Hhu6uvVLNL~k9e2~Qj~MW-hswueJcNMV45TkHWbjZRdHS~C1Msrq-RHKKKOKuVIgn5-NtGUV01-VlmnYd-3JLMEafajtgizQoRPxQ65T0lfWUkdEkHAO~vvy9c~H~50MaMbpY8wQhrWajZ0fIK4BPBwIa5QwdvMjPFJe85UdRjs5nX-zFaiMUtU1KOtxfogmesa5665gImfJ-~sayme1aACut1xOJfHc1mIbLV5vwHNno6An4vePiOdEoaJi~2YaKUJkCM8cR~9Qr-ZHzOJ2~OdX-mbB7HTjRXQgGeVQMDsZTmC-kLVs-E697s40fNE8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Indianapolis City-County Council voted to schedule a public hearing on rezoning petition 2025CZN814 (council proposal 3062025), which would rezone about 467.66 acres to a CSF F W district to allow a data‑center campus and related uses.

Councilor Hart moved to call the item down for a hearing at the council’s next regular meeting on Monday, Sept. 22, 2025, at 7 p.m.; the motion was seconded and approved. General Counsel Pierce read the formal announcement and a summary of the petition for the public record.

The petition, as read into the record, proposes rezoning multiple parcels currently zoned in D A F F F W, C4 F F W and SU‑43 F F W classifications to a CSF F W district to permit data‑center campus development and uses including light manufacturing, research and development, utilities and certain office uses. The council’s announcement states written objections filed with the Clerk of the Council will be heard at the Sept. 22 public hearing or at a continued hearing as the council may direct.

Council members did not debate the substance of the rezoning at the meeting; the council’s action was limited to placing the petition on the agenda for a public hearing and ensuring the clerk read the required public‑notice language.

The hearing will take place in the council chambers at the City‑County Building. Interested parties are instructed by the council announcement to file written objections with the Clerk of the Council; the announcement said the hearing may be continued if necessary.

If the council takes public testimony at the Sept. 22 hearing, that input will be recorded in the council journal and considered before any final vote on the rezoning petition.","The Indianapolis City-County Council set a public hearing for Sept. 22 on a rezoning petition to convert roughly 467.66 acres to a data-center campus district, allowing data centers, light manufacturing, R&D and related uses.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City-County Council: key votes and committee actions from the Sept. 8 meeting

Council tables proposal to add parental fines for juvenile curfew violations after extended debate

Council rejects amendment that would have exempted public defender from municipal residency requirement

City-County Council schedules public hearing for 467.66-acre data center rezoning