[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-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",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_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":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6511641,"mediaKeyId","5322113-54d1dea9b9f3561f89395b6ac2bd7009","parentId",5322113,"title","Council adopts ceremonial resolutions, traffic changes and appointments; many measures pass unanimously","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",881000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322113-54d1dea9b9f3561f89395b6ac2bd7009&start=881&end=881","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322113-54d1dea9b9f3561f89395b6ac2bd7009/thumbnail_881000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6511641/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Council-adopts-ceremonial-resolutions-traffic-changes-and-appointments-many-measures-pass-unanimously","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511641-4e73e51b9a682c73b8cee788164baf0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171263&Signature=NTtorx98xcBGFbZ0gHuRhBdVnlZpEpJMkZY78adlQHYJt-AE1SZupWGtqEc3Z8DwHviu1VIF5OKGtNkg4ML6AeOyZSvgoo4CChbAK3U5L-wxr01CjzgLAtSUetm3n3O~unPybbNV2DQYfkbNct8YDoqHxqsjlQEVJazHd5v~OCYSfGxZPbBSEEatdM6Wc1cNuCrYLEBXxkrMTzuUYS2KlXUkgO0cfEYidtE4NxkPJqGSwXnJHkmSCn9V67~8hAOzgY7JM0rVT7Yg~fGSX7QivdvbJ022qOtqnpwITXgKTiTGLWzjNnMhgJLSkrCiYU4skv1DCfLznHQv-MuNszFV~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Indianapolis, IN","date","2025-07-07T00:00:00Z","article","Several routine and ceremonial items were adopted by the Indianapolis City‑County Council on July 7, many by unanimous votes or by the clerk confirming committee certifications.

The council passed City‑County Special Resolution No. 15‑2025 commemorating the Indiana Pacers’ 2025 postseason performance. The clerk read the resolution and the motion carried on voice vote. A representative of the Pacers and Fever organization thanked the council on behalf of Herb Simon and the Simon family, saying the franchise appreciated the city’s support and “this was something to unite our entire city and state.”

The council also adopted a special resolution recognizing No Zone Action Days and commending city‑state cooperation on public education about ozone and fine particulate matter. Chairman Barth introduced the resolution; the clerk recorded the motion as carrying. Mo McReynolds, director of the Office of Sustainability, asked residents to follow SustainIndy social media and state text alerts to learn about No Zone Action Days: “If you are interested in continuing to follow No Zone Action Days ... please follow our social media accounts at SustainIndy. Or you can follow text alerts from the state.”

Councilor Robinson successfully moved to add Proposal 232 (an ordinance amending chapters 3.81.101–102 of the revised code with respect to curfew hours for children) to the agenda; that motion carried 24–0. Multiple other items were adopted with little debate, including reappointments and committee recommendations that the clerk certified for passage (many recorded 24–0). Representative items included:

- Reappointment of Kenneth Beach to the Marion County Stormwater Management Technical Advisory Committee (Proposal 109) — motion carried 24–0.
- Appointments to township citizen advisory committees for comprehensive plans (Proposals 136–139; 180, 182, 183) — carried or passed out of committee and adopted by full council, votes recorded unanimously.
- Appointment of Tanissa Woodard to the Indianapolis Public Library Board of Trustees (Proposal 207) — passed 24–0.
- A collection of traffic and street code changes, including speed‑limit reductions and parking restrictions (Proposals 148, 151–154, 149, 150, 155, 147) — all carried by the full council with votes recorded as 24–0.
- Amendments aligning stormwater code with Indiana Department of Environmental Management requirements (Proposal 190) — carried 24–0.
- Land‑use and economic development measures, including the creation of the Oxford Road economic development area and authorization of development TIF bonds for a small residential project (Proposals 176–177) — carried 24–0.

Why it matters: Most of these items are routine confirmations, traffic safety changes and ceremonial recognitions. The No Zone Action Days resolution and the stormwater code update have direct public‑health and environmental implications for residents; traffic‑calming and parking changes affect neighborhood safety and mobility.

Ending: The council completed the docketed agenda and adjourned after offering memorial remarks and motions of adjournment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council of Indianapolis, IN - City-County Council - Jul 07, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On July 7 the council adopted a ceremonial Pacers resolution, recognized No Zone Action Days, added a curfew ordinance to the agenda, and approved multiple appointments, traffic rules and code amendments, mostly by unanimous votes.","taxTitle","Indianapolis City, Marion County, Indiana","taxId",3627,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6511646,"Council splits proposal 164 after debate over Fisher Phillips report and payment; parts approved, others paused",812,2179000,2991000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322113-54d1dea9b9f3561f89395b6ac2bd7009&start=2179&end=2991","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322113-54d1dea9b9f3561f89395b6ac2bd7009/thumbnail_2179000.jpg","/articles/6511646/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Council-splits-proposal-164-after-debate-over-Fisher-Phillips-report-and-payment-parts-approved-others-paused","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511646-b811e5dd314f3ae80f8f3c9526f7dc53/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171263&Signature=QJNCyex-1hS4DNu1LljQe3yzUJZdTWfWr5kig-VcL-n7NigWmdyNz0Flza8t74rLu5jw5Aahq6OmYpxBXRmU3FuF09KHFGn6XouK0qK6-WrAFYvrWYCFy~3BcdchJ3kUDetJL1yd-gtK0SwstoV2CaMMaT5IGVfUkLrtF4zWlgqJLSoH42lHjdxQwI52ec4XCCRii4AnCqJX5F2j2Vj6h6GpXCsmeYp~JuKRWtPdn-BUHJbpNSFdG2iRJgKZGcz2-9~6H12LUGQd8fbBGJWnmkVFGHW~ZndmWwUwSNlprzgOO7bheq4xWSYmD5X5S8bqsdJP8I9fVbFZQHKdOyajkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Indianapolis City‑County Council on July 7 divided proposal 164 and approved portions of the appropriations after floor debate focused on transparency around work by the law firm Fisher Phillips and the timing of final fund transfers to the Office of Public Health and Safety (OPHS).

Leader Hart moved to ratify a prior written amendment to section 16 of the proposal and to require the OPHS to return to the council with a detailed proposal regarding the Indianapolis Foundation scope of work. The council adopted that motion 24–0. Leader Hart later brought a second amendment that would pause a final transfer of funds to OPHS until the office presented the Indianapolis Foundation scope of work; that amendment failed (5 yeas, 19 nays).

Councilor Hart and several colleagues said they sought additional transparency before releasing taxpayer funds to outside contractors. “We have unanswered questions that I know both parties have to Fisher Phillips,” Hart said, urging a replacement of a committee chair and a fuller report for the public record. Another councilor who opposed payment said taxpayers should not pay for a work product that, in their view, contained errors and was not produced according to written requests: “When taxpayers and counselors alike are kept in the dark about important matters like these, leadership is failing.”

After debate, Leader Lewis moved to divide the proposal into three questions. The council carried the division 24–0. The subsequent roll calls produced the following recorded outcomes in the order presented by the clerk:

- Question 1 (appropriations for OPHS elevation grants as set out in sections 16–17 of proposal 164) — carries: 18 yeas, 5 nays, 1 abstention.
- Question 2 (appropriations for legal services set out in sections 6–7 of proposal 164) — carries: 18 yeas, 6 nays.
- Question 3 (the remaining fiscal items in proposal 164) — motion recorded as carrying by the clerk; the transcript records the clerk saying, “Motion carries, 20 21 yeas and 3 nays.” The final numeric tally for Question 3 is not clearly specified in the meeting transcript.

Why it matters: Councilors described the items as a mix of direct service funding (elevation grants) and payment for the investigative work and legal services associated with a review. The debate centered on whether the fisher Phillips deliverable met the council’s requests and whether final transfers should await additional reporting.

Ending: The council approved most of proposal 164 after dividing it into three questions and sending portions of funding forward; questions about contract extensions and transparency remain a point of contention among councilors.","The council divided proposal 164 and approved funding for elevation grants and most fiscal items while debate centered on whether to pay Fisher Phillips for its investigative work and how much transparency the council should require before final transfers.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6511650,"Motion to add removal elections for council president and vice president fails, 4 yeas to 20 nays",270,493000,763000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322113-54d1dea9b9f3561f89395b6ac2bd7009&start=493&end=763","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322113-54d1dea9b9f3561f89395b6ac2bd7009/thumbnail_493000.jpg","/articles/6511650/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Motion-to-add-removal-elections-for-council-president-and-vice-president-fails-4-yeas-to-20-nays","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511650-a9d324ae16758738389d8c67fe6ff667/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171263&Signature=W~BmtsKAE2-7tIv9FuJBAWz12f7ZE9ect~3Fe5KkmAv1E7uEG3FmvQBV08dwjMREpapo1Gv3vLtohxFU-g62~Iwf2Uuy5MqooTmUKwaC12NduUnBw2yIn~cdCRyGwu0TesMurqHOnErX~NJBo0HG3lGs8wg6WhSbkN5AKlCau1AZOMfQbqSlHuKYNeMZm0F4Cz9vJB6AtOb2~1ej0Vzoz~ZyZzMm4vRNoybZoFd64-qHmiYE-NNuSuR1fAE2trjwScjqBEHgCdZw11tOiu9dYQxjwgLkOuE94sJ5Q2CTLidattdl7EJ5ZQ6TeE7yqFrm79cV5Lu-m5NO59oavyIioQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilor Jesse Brown asked the Indianapolis City‑County Council on July 7 to suspend the rules and add two items to the council’s Aug. 11 agenda to hold roll-call votes on whether to remove Council President Bob Osely and Council Vice President Ali Brown. The motion failed on a recorded voice vote: “Motion fails. 4 yeas to 20 nays.”

Brown said the proposed August items would be two separate roll‑call votes, one on whether “Council President Bob Osely should be removed from his office as president of the city county council,” and a separate vote on whether “Council Vice President Ali Brown shall be removed from her office as vice president.” He acknowledged he did not have conclusive proof but said he had unresolved concerns about internal actions and recordkeeping: “I don’t have a smoking gun, but I have enough smoke that I have a lot of concerns that have not been answered,” Brown said, adding questions about whether an agreement with the law firm Fisher Phillips had been extended, who signed it and where the documents were.

Council Leader Hart asked Brown if he had new evidence supporting the motion, saying some similar claims had been retracted at recent committee meetings: “Do you have any new information or proof of reasons why you’re calling for this motion?” Councilor Brown repeated his concerns about unanswered questions and cited reported incidents involving the council president and members exercising free speech as part of his rationale for seeking new leadership.

Councilor Boehme acknowledged regret over how the prior meeting had unfolded but said his vote was driven by concerns about the vice president’s statements regarding the investigating committee process rather than a personal judgment of the president. No other councilors spoke in favor of adding the removal votes. With the failure of Brown’s motion, neither removal vote will be added to the August agenda as requested.

Why it matters: The proposal would have placed internal leadership questions — including alleged procedural and records issues — before the full council. Brown framed the motion as a governance remedy; opponents and those asking questions sought clearer documentation before taking such steps.

Ending: The council proceeded to other agenda business after the failed motion. No formal action to remove either officer was taken during the July 7 meeting.","Councilor Jesse Brown moved to suspend the rules and add two roll-call items to the Aug. 11 agenda to decide whether to remove Council President Bob Osely and Vice President Ali Brown; the council voted 4–20 against adding the items.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council adopts ceremonial resolutions, traffic changes and appointments; many measures pass unanimously

Council splits proposal 164 after debate over Fisher Phillips report and payment; parts approved, others paused

Motion to add removal elections for council president and vice president fails, 4 yeas to 20 nays