Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City-County Council adopts $1.7 billion 2026 budget after close votes and failed amendment
Summary
The Indianapolis City-County Council on Oct. 6 adopted the fiscal 2026 budget after rejecting a last-minute amendment to shift $2 million toward urban forest preservation. The full-budget package passed after the council divided the measure into multiple questions to allow recusals and abstentions.
The Indianapolis City-County Council voted on Oct. 6 to adopt the city'county fiscal 2026 budget, a package councilors said totals about $1.7 billion. The final procedural vote on the balance of the measure passed as Question 9, 17 yays and 8 nays.
Councilor Paul Hart moved a last-minute amendment that would have transferred $2 million from the Office of Public Health and Safety (OPHS) to the Department of Public Works (DPW) to fund urban-forest acquisition and preservation. "With that, Mr. President, I move on, proposal 2 59 to move those dollars from the Office of Public Health and Safety over to the Department of Public Works," Hart said when offering the amendment.
The amendment failed on the floor, 17 nays, 7 yeas and 1 abstention. Several councilors who opposed the amendment said they supported urban-forest preservation but not by cutting funds allocated to community-based violence-prevention and reentry grants. Councilor Brown said he "cannot in good conscience vote to further defund the elevation grants that are doing such good work in the city," while Chairwoman Boots argued the amendment was "the wrong place and the wrong time" and proposed pursuing a separate nonreverting fund and governance changes to steward forest-acquisition dollars.
Supporters of the amendment said a dedicated urban-forest fund would deliver tangible community benefits. Hart framed the proposal as a tangible investment, saying the money could "provide just that" in terms of nature preserves that benefit mental health, development and community life.
Councilors debated the budget package for more than an hour, raising state fiscal pressures and local priorities. Councilor Nielsen, who led much of the council'side budget engagement, said the council faced "significant cuts to property tax revenues and future growth" after state changes and credited collaboration among council and administration staff for finding budget trade-offs. Several councilors referenced Senate Bill 1 as a cause of reduced local revenue.
Opponents criticized the budget for insufficient investment in roads, public-safety equipment and other priorities. Councilor Bean called infrastructure "by far the number 1 issue" and said the budget "guarantees our roads will be worse next year than they are today." Others objected to the budget'process and the timing of certain allocations.
To allow councilors with personal or organizational conflicts to abstain on specific parts of the package, the council divided the adoption vote into multiple "questions" (1—through—9) that isolated appropriations for community development grants, public-purpose grants, the Information Services Agency and other departmental allocations. Vice President Brown moved the division and the council approved the procedural motion.
Key committee votes were recorded in committee reports during the session; multiple parts of the budget passed out of committee with varying votes. After the division and sequential votes on those questions, the council adopted the full budget package.
The council also rejected a separate amendment earlier in the meeting to amend other line items and received several public and council-member comments urging additional funding for pedestrian safety, homelessness intervention and urban-forest acquisition.
The ordinance is styled as Proposal 2-59 (2025). Councilors who spoke at length included Councilor Paul Hart (mover of the $2 million amendment), Councilor Jesse Brown, Chairwoman Boots, Councilor Nielsen and Chairmen Robinson and Jones, among others.
Votes at relevant points: the Hart amendment failed, 17 nays, 7 yeas, 1 abstention; the balance-of-package vote (Question 9) passed, 17 yays, 8 nays.
What the council did not do tonight: enact a separate, legally binding forest-preservation fund; instead several members said they would continue negotiations with the administration and seek year-end or other funding paths.
What comes next: The budget ordinance adopted by the council will be implemented by the city'county enterprise, subject to technical corrections authorized by the council later in the meeting to reconcile computational or formatting errors.
