Yeah.

Good evening and welcome to land use and special studies committee meeting Wednesday, September 17th, here at the Carmel Clay Public Library.

It is 532.

We'll call the meeting to order.

We've got a number of things on our agenda.

We are going to start with amendment to ordinance D 274-25, which is amendment to our short-term rental ordinance.

Initially intending to include condominiums, and it after review became more of a cleanup and just and um so we're gonna talk about why the condominiums were included, what the thought behind that was, pros and cons, and um I do want to note that this was championed, sponsored, and authored by counselor Rich Taylor initially, and he's not with us, so even if we send it out of committee tonight, it's probably not in its final but maybe it is.

I don't know.

Oh, we'll see.

The only correction, not short-term rental, just rentals.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, rentals.

Rentals, period, the rental cap ordinance that um is effectively intended to be a citywide cap of 10 percent by definition of neighbor by neighborhood geographic boundaries.

Yep.

If I phrase that correctly, yeah.

Okay, Sergey, you ran through the amendments that have been made in in the original ordinance that mostly cleaned clean things up.

Um the issue with the condo condominiums being included, my understanding from learning from Shannon and you and Ted are uh the statutory difference between a condominium and a townhouse and who owns the dirt underneath.

Correct?

Correct, and they'll look more according to condominium act of Indiana, which is Indiana Code 32-25.

It regulates a lot of relationships between condominium owners, owners of the land with dirt underneath, home um HOAs, uh it's fairly robust, long statute that regulates a lot of aspects of condominium operation.

It does not address uh rental caps, but nonetheless, a lot of the areas relating to condominiums are preempted by the state of Indiana.

So that's uh that's a main difference between condominium and single family homes and town homes.

So my my initial instinct was that absolutely condominiums should be included just out of fairness for all property owners in Carmel.

They still they still own it's an asset, it's a tangible asset if you own a condominium.

And I'm not sure I've come off that I think it should be that way.

However, no HOA uh condominium HOAs are the strongest because they're more confined.

So we're not talking about uh 400 acres of single family houses where it's hard to get four people together.

It you're you're very tight-knit.

Um I invited uh Sydney uh who's on the board directors of Timber Creek to offer up opinions, and I have no idea what your opinions are.

And I'm gonna say I don't care, not that I don't care what your opinions are, but either way you think I just want to know the truth.

Being on an HOA board, what are your thoughts about this?

First of all, would you define uh short-term?

Well, it's not short.

I was I I misspoke.

Oh, okay.

Any rental at all.

So for anything day 30 days are more than 30 days, 30 days.

Um we have a cap on ours.

We have I think it's 10 percent.

And um we don't really care for the rentals, but it's part of the um bylaws that we can rent.

We have a waiting list right now.

Yeah.

So you already do the 10th percent cap?

Yeah, I believe it's 10%.

We do have a cap.

That's a great thing that you're so that ordinance is either way, it's not going to affect you specifically.

Because you only regulated the same way.

Yeah, we regulated.

What if you had a cap that was 20%?

I'm just making that up.

And the city came along and said, Well, we can't regulate individual condominium owners.

What if we said to you, HOA board, because you own the dirt, we want you to impose a 10% cap.

Like how would you we don't own the we don't own the dirt?

Each person owns the dirt.

We have 192 people and they all own the dirt.

But but but they signed over management operations to the HOA board.

I mean, through your bylaws, you guys manage all the public space.

Maybe through a management company.

You guys at signatures.

So if you impose that, like how would that be received?

If the city said, we want you if you didn't have a cap, we want you to have a 10% cap.

Like how do how would that feel as an HOA?

I think we would have to go back through our bylaws and change our bylaws.

But how would it no?

I don't think you'd have to by law, you wouldn't have to do that.

You don't think so?

No.

Because it would be a private contract between you and the homeowners.

And the condominium.

Well, I think what Matt's asking you is how would you feel if the city said to you he's asking?

Let's say it was that what you're asking.

Either way, just I just want to know if you feel like this would be overreach of the city meddling.

And Teresa's point, the inverse is absolutely true.

If you had a stricter one and the city's passed an ordinance saying it's now 10%.

Is that how I guess I'm just trying to get your feeling for what is a good balance?

I know you sounds like you don't love it, but it's just something you've it's hard not to.

I mean, there are reasons.

We we tolerate it.

Um I'm not sure.

Not sure.

I know that um, you know, the the renters don't take care of the property like a homeowner would.

Um, but we don't have um really we don't have a lot of problems with the renters.

But um it's just kind of a sore spot sometimes.

Where I'm sorry, we're totally putting on the spot here.

Um where do the owners of the con condominiums live?

Are they local and they are rentable?

Some uh what happens is that you own the property and you live there, and then you leave and you want to rent it, you know, instead of selling.

Yeah, we have homeowners, we have um condominium owners that live you know out of state, and sometimes they live in caramel, sometimes out of state.

Yeah.

So yeah, it's not I mean it's not um people renting in in the locally, yeah, yeah.

I don't know.

No, I know what you're saying.

They can walk, they can drive down the street and check on the property.

Yeah, we have some that are out of state.

Yeah, yeah, I got your point, Teresa.

I think I think we're gonna go to this subject undersecure.

Yeah, okay.

What are your thoughts?

What are your thoughts?

Well, I'm part of the Deerfield HOA board, and we actually started a rental cap, a series of amendments included a rental cap before the city got into it.

And we've been gyrating through it, and um my questions revolve around you're permitting the people that are rental, right?

You go online and you're gonna issue a permit.

Well, will that permitting process need clearance of the HOA to make sure that they're in good standing?

That's my understanding that it if you're so any HOA agreement that HOA may have is would be excluded from regulation ordinance.

So if you have a stricter than 10% cap, your specific HOA would control.

So uh that would not affect right.

But some of the things that we are looking at is A, the owner needs to be in good standing with the HOA.

Umce they get a permit, if they fall out of favor with the HOA for violating that we were gonna be able to pull it, but how does that interact with the city's permit?

To completely barrel pass.

So you can have additional requirements as long as uh you cannot have um so if you have them in place right now, then that's what will control.

If you don't, then you can have looser requirements, but you have you can have additional requirements.

So you can go beyond the ordinance.

But I think what he's asking is let's say so.

He goes, he goes to the city.

Or not you, but let's say I want to rent a property in Deerfield, and I know your neighborhood, I can't I'm trying to think of a number that would make sense for 10%, but 10% is what we agreed on.

There's 44 houses, so for potential rentals.

So there's three currently occupied.

I want I go to the city and I fill out a permit.

And through the data we have, it says it's under the 10%, but I haven't paid my HOA dues in 10 years.

How do they tell you no?

No, he's not he doesn't, he's not allowed to rent.

Yeah, so it's this it's the same way as we deal with any issue that HOA controls.

So you have a lot of control over condominium units through your HOA bylaws and organizational documents.

These are homeowners.

Oh, it's homeowners.

I'm sorry, HOA strike the condominium reference.

They would have to comply with both set of requirements.

So one is by the city, the others between you personally as individuals agreeing among yourselves to do whatever you want to do.

I think what his point is though, Sergey, and I think I I'm gonna drill into this because I think I know exactly what you're saying.

So like for a fence permit, fence permits, I think still still still require you to get HOA approval or sign off on an HOA.

No, I'm gonna disagree.

Okay.

Well, I'm I'm just using that as an example.

No, no, no, no.

I'm glad you brought it up because if you get a building permit, you don't get the permit until the HOA actually gives you a letter before you get their permit.

Yeah, sorry, I used a bad example.

No, no, no.

But the the problem is with the fences, the city gives people the permit subject to the HOA's approval.

Well, but by that point in time, they've already put the fence up, and the HOA doesn't have a lot of teeth to stop them from doing that.

So that's why I'm drawing back and say we really need a something like the building permit that you can't get a city permit until the HOA gives that person authorization that they're in good standing.

And we haven't built the I tried to fill out the point.

It's a good point.

We don't have currently we don't have that requirement in this ordinance.

We do have a similar requirement with you describing in our UDO.

In application stage, uh we have verification that HOA has approved whatever um whatever you're asking for.

That's actually a good point.

We don't have it.

You should put that in there.

I think when you in there in order to get through the screen, I know this isn't the real screen, um, and what I'm looking at is the City of Carmo website of their pre-registration form.

The the question should be do you have clearance from your HOA?

Have you spoken with your HOA?

I it is it's not in the list of affirmations and verifications that we currently require, and I did not include it in this particular amendment, but I actually I think it's uh to to make things clear with HOAs yes.

I think I think a letter from the HOA needs to be uploaded for the city to say yes, this is a good standard.

I like the um the other thing that we have I think you only have a one-year requirement for ownership before you can rent.

Uh we're lobbying for a three year ownership to keep the corporate out of there.

So if somebody a year and a half in and meets your requirement but doesn't meet ours, you know, we would have no way of stopping it if we didn't have this clause that said upload the letter from the HOA saying yes, you're okay to rent.

Can it can we put that in the ordinance, Sergey?

We don't have a one-year ownership requirement.

No, but can we put the you must have yeah, yeah, no, not the approval letter from your HOA board wherever thank you.

And then that may that may solve the condominium problem.

I don't know if a single condominium complex that doesn't have an HOA.

You have to.

Yeah, you have to have one.

So once a condominium HOA receives a letter or somebody says the city says I have to ask permission, if they don't have that, they're gonna have it very soon.

Um and then it just would need to conform.

Or I would solve those legal issues, because then it's and with with that, with that, is that something um we we don't have anybody here from DFCS.

So I would really, if we can get it into the ordinance and then have Mike somehow have Telemy require that letter of affirmation.

Well, HOA approved certain things through different means.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a letter, it can be an official document if it's a little bit more run in a more formal manner, especially if they're represented by an attorney if they tend to have actual minutes of a meeting et cetera.

Smaller HOAs just we do have a letter, and some HOAs have a couple of volunteers that are active in it, and everybody else is kind of just there.

Again, so we we I'll think about the the best way to uh implement that requirement, but we do require that for other things as well, so it's not necessarily new.

So it's not necessarily new.

But again, it needs to be done before, not like the fence ordinance because that's causes a lot of grief already.

So can we can you make a note to talk to Mike about switching that on the fence ordinance as well?

I I tend to agree with that because they do go up, and then nobody wants to be a shitty neighbor and say take your fence down.

Well, what have and we can, and we we do.

We do ask for an HOA approval.

The problem is that sometimes we receive a letter or other an affirmation that HOA approval has been received and it's not correct.

And so the fence goes up, um, and then it and then we get notified like hey, HOA actually has an approval.

So what why is the review process different than on the building permit?

What do you mean?

Well, I just did an extension on my house and I pulled my own building permit, and part of the documents I had to submit was a letter from our HOA saying they approve what I was doing to my property as part of the submission, not after the fact, not hearsay.

It was I gotta have a black and white letter that says and we have those instances as well that we do have some document indicating approval, and it actually hasn't been received.

But the fence permit because I called and verified it, you know, they'll give the fence permit with just without having to have that document from the HOA.

Okay, I will look into that specific one if it's maybe different permitted permitting level.

This is CJ, this is I think defining what needs to be in the letter and having that on the website for the for the homeowner that says you the letter from your HOA must say these things, and it probably ought to have a signature line, or maybe it's a form letter.

You know, I am an authorized signator of the HOA and have duly received uh votes in a quorum quorumed meeting proving this or something.

Like an E-stoppable, Sergeant.

Is that possible?

Something along that line.

Yeah, let me let me think about this, and you can certainly come up with something that's again that's not particularly new to the city of Carmel.

I don't know if it just then question what if someone falls out of favor after they do have a city permit.

I think you file it.

Yeah, so yeah, well, that that might be a little bit different.

So HOA relationships are contractual obligations between the parties.

The city is usually is not involved in regulating those relationships.

We're simply not a party to that agreement, and therefore we don't have a power to do so.

It is on HOA to enforce its own covenants.

The city will not enforce them, but will not interpret them or do anything otherwise.

That is on HOA.

I just want to make it very clear.

So if they fall out of favor, it's a civil suit.

Right.

Well, but I but here's the the scenarios that I'm a renter, uh trash the place, the HOA says owner, you need to clean up your renter, he doesn't do anything about it, but I have a city permit that says I could be renting this place.

Right.

How does the HOA?

There is a provision, and that's a good that's a good example.

There is a provision in the ordinance that states if the holder of a permit has certain number of citations from the city, the permit can be revoked.

So that is one of those scenarios.

If it violates any ordinance of a city, in this particular case would be probably nuisance, then um after accumulation of three offenses, the permit will be revoked.

If you have stricter requirements on your HOA, you can pursue a civil matter between your HOA board and that particular individual, but that would be separate.

I don't know.

But if I'm the if I'm the owner of the rental property and I still hold in the city permit, and the city hasn't acted on any ordinances, how do I say you can't rent anymore?

My the owner's arguments can be I have a city permit.

Again, these are two separate parallel tracks.

You need to call if if somebody is being a nuisance, but they're not mowing their lawn, the trash has animals in and out, anything in myriad of things that can fall under nuisance, and they've stopped paying.

Let's say they've started and whatever.

You just need to start calling code enforcement daily saying here, and then hopefully after I don't know what the time period between calls can be, but after six, eight weeks, you've racked up your three citations, and the city will revoke the permit.

Aren't we requiring them to pay a yearly fee for it?

It's a yearly fee.

So when the yearly fee comes up, if they're not in good standing with the homeowners association, they cannot leave for another permit to keep that.

Unfortunately, yes, in theory.

However, the fee that the state allows us as a municipality to charge for registration program is five dollars a year.

That is it.

We cannot go higher than that.

So that is what was suggesting because it wasn't included in the original ordinance was suggesting a five dollar annual fee, and then a late fee of up to $200 that was not paid.

But in theory, but do you have to reapply every year?

And I kind of need to.

Yes.

Okay, so in that reapplication process.

Not reapplying necessarily, but pay for the permit.

But when you all get online, you say, I want to renew my permit.

Click on it.

Should you have to click a box that says, are you still in good standing?

As a current.

And if it's found out you are not, your permit will be immediately revoked.

I mean, can we can we do that?

How about resubmit your standing?

I don't ask, are you?

The answer is yes.

Move on.

If you say we need you to resubmit.

I don't want to paint the picture that all landlords are bad.

And knowing me and properties I own, I'm doing this on December 30th.

And getting that getting that letter is gonna be a challenge.

Yeah.

How the if you have to comply, you have to comply.

So right.

My only concern with HOAs is we're not in the business of enforcing HOA covenants.

We don't have that power.

Well, Dr.

Joe's guy.

If there is a violation of an HOA covenants, it should be on the HOA board to enforce it visiting the owner.

What you're saying is that if they're violating HOA covenants, there's nothing we can do as a city, which which is what Sergei is saying.

But if they violated city code three times, then we as a city have recourse to say sorry, you're not you can't renew.

If you have thousand different HOA rules, like you know, villager West Clay have very comprehensive covenants.

Right.

We don't care about those that don't uh that are go beyond our codes.

Right, but to match point, if when they re- oh, there should be an acknowledgement as long as they meet city standards.

We have no but we have a requirement that they have that they are blessed by their HOA is in for the initial permit.

And then to the CAP amount that the rentals are allowed by HOA.

As far as other covenants, that's on HOA.

If you don't, if you have a particular requirement about the length of grass or particular requirement about the color of your home, that has nothing to do with the rental permit.

Right, no, I think we're right, but if they're in violation, we don't want them to get another permit.

That's when you have a private cause of action when you go to court and and on the re-up, if you have a way of having at least a checkpoint that says, yes, I mean it's standings with the HOA.

We've already established that in the initial submission process, we would like to see a more thorough a form letter executed by the HOA, saying that the HOA is giving approval, period.

Now, if they don't approve them based on something else, and that renter or homeowner wants to pursue for some civil rights violation, so be it.

That's between them.

But if, for instance, they haven't paid their HOA dues in ten years, and they're only at 8% of the cap, or in their neighborhood's case, three rentals.

That's really not our business to ask why.

Our business is did your HOA approve this?

I don't care why or why they didn't approve it, did they do you have an approval letter?

And I know do I think we should ask.

But I think what he's talking about is the re-upping system.

And then so then when we re-up, it shouldn't be any different.

It should be, do you still have that HOA approval letter?

And they paid their fees.

Being honest, and a year and a half in, two years in, two and a half years in, it becomes known to the city that they did the that the owner did not have the permission.

Can what can the fine be?

You're telling me we they you can only charge five dollars a piece for the permits.

Can we make the fine hurt at that point it's fraudulent because I would like to see it say under perjury of law, and then it's a huge huge fine.

So to your point, so I think what I think what you're asking is that and I can see both sides, so let me just make sure I'm I want to be sure I'm hearing what you're hearing.

So City of Carmel cannot we cannot enforce your covenants, you know that.

So when it comes up for the re-up process, what you're saying is let's just say the the the owner of the property did not pay their HOA dues that year.

They're not in good standing with the HOA.

You're asking that for the city of Carmel then to say you have to get another letter of approval for your re-up of your permit.

Yes.

So basically they would need a yearly letter.

Yeah, from the HOA.

So what you're saying, so what I want what I want to know from Sergey is that by that is that enforcing their covenants.

I don't see I don't want to know that answer.

Okay, don't answer it.

Like it could be cause.

I don't want to know why they don't they want to deny it.

Yeah.

Like oh, yeah, I get what you're pointing.

I guess I just want to hear if we're requiring an approval letter, we're requiring an approval letter.

The short-term rentals, right?

For the most part.

It is not.

It is not.

I mean, no, no, no, no, I got you.

I I'm glad you, but okay, so but the short-term rental, they still have to come back for their repermit.

Right.

Is it the same?

It only concerns whether HOA allows short-term rentals.

It doesn't concern any under covenant of HOA.

Right.

That's right.

That's right.

If the HOA left.

So unless they ban it and then altogether.

And then if they ban it altogether, then you can no longer short-term rent.

Correct.

Okay.

So without getting in into the weeds, all we know now is that we want to have the city not approve a permit until they have a real formalized letter.

Under perjury.

Threat of hanging.

Um from the HOA.

And then what's being considered now is annually when they re-up, they need that same letter saying that they got permission from the HOA.

And if the HOA does not grant permission for a reason other than the cap, that we don't know that.

We don't care, and that would become a civil issue.

Yeah.

Right.

Except for HOA cannot contractually enforce a covenant that does not exist in the HOA document.

Therefore, they cannot permit or not permit a rental if it's not in the covenant.

But they're not permitting it.

So it it doesn't as long as if I'm an HOA and it the rental cap is not mentioned in HOA documents, I don't have to go to HOA to ask for approval because it's not there.

I'm not contractually obligated to seek permission.

Okay.

That's a big difference.

But they are.

They have it in their covenants.

Cindy has it in hers.

And I'm guessing Cindy's gonna go home and tell her board of directors.

Um not only are we gonna keep this 10%, but we also need to include that if you're not in good standing, you can't rent your if the owner of the condo is not in good standing, you are not allowed to rent your or if you're okay.

How about that's that's a good point too.

Yeah, Matt, it's a good point.

How about I I think about the language that would include the possibility if HOA covenants contain any prohibition as to a rentals, including those that might not be related to rental caps, they need to provide a letter of approval.

Oh, I like that.

So this way it will be limited to whatever is actually in HOA covenants.

And then what would happen for let's say you didn't know.

Let's say you weren't here and weren't in the no, an informed citizen.

You want to get rid of this rental because they're they're just a bad apple.

Well, you you go to the city, the city says no, I mean it now you're gonna have to keep them for one more year, but during that year your HOA is going to modify their language.

So that's during the re up.

Right.

And that's that's the language I can include, and I think it we should.

Because those HOA relationships obviously can change from year up to year if you approve the rental cap or any sort of prohibition.

Right.

It doesn't have to be a cap.

Right, and our HOA, I mean I I kicked that ball originally about rental caps, and it's grown from two to three to now the four with the ten percent.

If other HOAs don't do it, it's shame on them.

But you know, we're we spent six months going through the language to get all these things in that we should get it passed before the end of the year.

Absolutely.

It takes a long time, and I I appreciate that.

And uh Shannon is next to them on that, and she can talk ours about the HOA issues.

So I get this, but we also got to be careful where I don't want the city as a city uh you know, legal counsel.

I don't want the city to be included in litigation between two private entities.

Sure.

That concerns enforcing a property.

We're included in litigation between everything.

You're named in every lawsuit.

So are we additional additionally to already a long list of it?

So I just think by putting that stop in there, that'll motivate owners to keep their places up to a standard, which is everything we're amending our documents to keep our home values up.

And I think I think to your point, one of the things that Jeff Lorell said on the on the um dais, which I thought was really important, we're actually needing to focus on the bad the bad actor landlords.

We're not trying to penalize the good landlords, we're trying to keep these bad landlords, you know, to keep their properties up, which is why we have three violations, you know, city code violations, police runs, um I'm sorry, first responder first responder if I'm saying that right in the ordinance.

So we have done that.

So this that's really a lot of the meat of this ordinance itself, not just the rental cap, but the fact that we're holding these landlords' feet to the fire saying, you know, do this, this will happen.

Right.

So because I'm with you.

I I prefer I prefer I I hear you.

I'll let me think about the language that in you know you guys are legislative branch.

If you disagree with my assessment, don't have language, you can always change it constantly.

Oh that much of a hard time.

No judges to advising council in the building.

I know, we wouldn't have gotten this college.

So um the condominium issue, the the the including them that has some sticky wickets in it, um seems to be solved by this because I don't know of a single Honda associate.

I don't think you can have a condominium development that does not have an HOA.

You can also if the letter from the HOA will help with all of these issues.

And I think the first and if they don't have a rental cap the first time a landlord wants to rent, and it says, Do you have permission?

and they go to their HOA and say, I'm supposed to have permission, they're gonna say why, and probably call the city and say, Well, the city has a uh single family residence has a 10% rental cap defined by neighborhood, you are a defined neighborhood.

Your HOA is entitled or could Sergei wouldn't say it, but the person answering the phone would say you're entitled to doing this.

They're gonna start they're gonna include it, I would think, especially if they don't want it.

Yeah, if that's not the direction they collectively want to go.

Yeah.

Good point.

Anything else on this that you want to talk about?

Sir pretty much my big points.

See how easy it is?

You show up and you uh get you away.

We we appreciate you coming.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I mean Cindy, anything else you want to talk about?

I have nothing on the trail.

I talked to Michael today.

Okay.

Oh, good, yeah.

Well, what's the update?

Well, they're still there's still um looking at the trees and the landscaping and where to put the trail, and they've had some designers in there doing it, but um probably won't be on a committee until the end of October, first of November.

Okay.

Is there anything else in the city you have a grievance about or want to bring that?

Yeah.

I'm not doing anything.

Well, you made it on the fence issue, and that was that.

Right now, it it you applied for a fence or you a fence permit.

Yeah, you get an approval as a approved pending HOA approval.

Approval.

Well if I got that letter up in the fence, like I got the city's approval, and that's what's happening here.

Okay, so it really needs to say before they issue that, they need it's kind of similar thing.

Yeah, go to the if the HOA has a restriction.

I mean, so I know in our HOA, you have to have the architectural review committee review anything that you do before you submit to the city.

Right, but see, that's on the question of us clearly.

No, that's underlays.

But Josie.

We have that as well, but the problem is that the fence permits go out before there's documentation.

So if we don't approve, there's nothing to stop them from holding the city permit.

Okay.

Now you're fighting after the fact.

Okay.

So you brought up some things.

Sorry, sorry.

So what it should say is go like the city should say go you first must communicate with your HOA before.

Just like a building permit.

Yeah.

So the fence permitting is different, so maybe yeah.

That that makes sense to me.

I mean it should be cohesive.

Yeah.

Yeah.

If we're saying that about any kind of building permit, it should say that's part of building.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Go ahead and fix that as well.

I will look into that.

I'm just making a note right now.

Okay, you're chopping up with a neighbor on our block who says I've never seen an architectural review committee truck go through here looking.

Oh god.

I painted my front door.

And that truck came through.

So did Jeffrey paint it?

Uh no, because I all I did was paint it the color it was, and I didn't I really I literally didn't.

And it doesn't matter.

They were fine.

I worked I worked through it.

I know.

Now I now I know.

Darn you.

All right.

So what about the golf courts?

If you could fill me in on that, how did that resolve?

Yeah, it hasn't resolved.

I took it back to our HOA.

Then what did they say?

We probably need to get this issue before someone You probably need to what it in our uh laws or our rules and regulations.

For no golf.

Yeah.

I could see somebody buying one and driving it to the pool.

Well, you have hardly any parking at your pool, I would take it.

So what do we what's one we're gonna do for unless anybody has any other topics they want to bring up?

Well, speaking of architectural review committee trucks, let's say that wasn't a clearly marked city vehicle and it parked on a sidewalk.

Segway anyone?

Right-of-way vehicle.

So that is uh Jack of the Jack, you're hired.

Uh it's uh if it is a city vehicle, it's still gonna be an administrative disciplinary action.

Well well, but let's how about we talk about right-of-way permits?

Right-of-way permits?

Yeah.

You just woo.

Anything else?

I mean, you're welcome to sit through this.

It's fascinating.

You're welcome.

I know you've got the year go out.

I've got thank you.

You'll get relief, Shannon.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Call me anytime.

All right.

I mean, that is actually a good question.

Do city vehicles still need to have the sidewalk closed assigned post a visual notice for reference.

Like if it's just a city vehicle, but it's just someone's car unmarked.

Yes.

Yes.

They're blocking the path, is that the question?

Yeah.

Yep.

Yeah, I mean, that's the law.

So I love the legitimate public or you know, city business, then but generally we're not too far away from the vehicles, so that's usually a reasonable extension.

If you're within side of the vehicle and you see someone coming up in the street in front of the design just education.

That's great.

Finally, Matt.

Okay.

Okay.

Right.

Shift gears and pull this up.

Uh we have our address Caleb's entered because he liked the log board.

No, no, Caleb is our Rideway Manager.

Right of way manager.

He sent an email that was really good.

Well, he gave a three-page document, I think.

No, Sir Gang included it all in his direction.

Oh, that's right, he did.

He did, sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh I need to know when the last I think there might have been one thing I didn't include, but there's like a a good reason though to normally.

Sir G what was the last what date did you send the last one out?

There's a couple comments I have on what you sent you as well.

Yeah.

Sergey.

Um I had a question for the right-of-way that hopefully can be answered while you're all trying to find what you want to find.

Um is are there provisions for bicycles on sidewalks in the the new draft?

I don't think so.

I haven't advocated for one, mostly because it's I think that is this.

Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I think I know where you're heading, but it's gonna be very hard if you're on a bicycle to say once once you enter August first.

August first, okay.

When you enter this zone, you shouldn't you have to walk your bike.

We have to walk your bike zones already.

Um, who sent it, Anita?

Yes, I think I didn't get it.

Yeah, you can't already just like 2000.

Yes, everything that would either like implicitly prohibit bikes from sidewalks, and that is something I would have a problem with.

Um with an example in specific being the one sixteenth in gray roundabout.

The bike lane ends with a solid line and a sign saying bike lane ends, and a a little jump up to the sidewalk, which um seems like every engineering tool is suggesting for a bike to enter the sidewalk, and then hypothetically would be the city suggesting to a bicycle to do an illegal thing.

So I don't want to speak for the police chief, but we have a specific targeted uh sidewalk.

Thank you.

Bike walking zones on main street downtown.

That's the only place that's specifically targeted.

I doubt that they enforce any sidewalk on bicycle on sidewalk laws anywhere else.

Will that be in the new ordinance though?

It's probably already in that's when we did the well we had the discussion actually, exactly the discussion about the safety of underaged individuals that may choose to learn how to ride a bike or feel uncomfortable riding bike on the furrowfare, and uh would ride it on a sidewalk instead.

And I believe the consensus was that we don't want to discourage certain people of certain age to be on the actual road.

Yeah.

I think Jack, what your citing sounds like perhaps a design it notes.

Yeah, where is it uh Disney?

116th and grade your bike plane ends and just kind of dumps out onto the sidewalk.

And then I guess I believe that if there was something saying like a sidewalk is for pedestrians and bicycles are not allowed, and then there was some sort of fine for an infraction or misuse, then that could be entrapment.

Probably not an entrapment.

That's entrapment is a little bit different, legal theory.

Um but again, we don't as of right now, we don't enforce um bicycle not being in a sidewalk.

For again, for multiple reasons, but mostly to protect the minors, people who learning how to ride, etc.

People who simply feel uncomfortable being in the road, people with disabilities on the list goes on and on and on.

So it's it where is it's it's never a perfect world where we we don't have bike lanes on every road.

Right.

Um and a lot of people don't feel comfortable because we're just not either not experienced enough riders or small or they're afraid for whatever reason.

Yeah, or unable to do it.

Um so we as a city we don't discourage sidewalk use.

And I think this is that micro mobility piece, so if we're gonna talk about right-of-I would like to go to right-of-way permit.

Sorry.

Okay, I don't know.

No, no, I'd uh Jack not trying to discourage this conversation at all, because I agree with you.

Um I'm one of those people who's not comfortable at in the road on my little, you know, slow bike.

Um but it's uh yeah, it's it's one of those things.

But I I think the right-of-way was what we wanted to try to talk about.

There is no apology required.

Mr.

Schneider asked if there was any anything else with orders.

Yes, please.

You were in the way of the any matters in this city that you any agreements.

Although I do see that 116th in gray, there's no guardrail on that sidewalk up against curb.

There is no garter.

Especially on a roundabout curb where a car could just go straight into a pedestrian.

Or fly onto the T box and then roll down the hill, which I have done in a golf cart.

Oh, you're talking over that's rule number 15.

Okay, that's another.

That's 14th, sorry, that's whole 14th.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

So the the permit applies to anybody doing work, impacting, blocking, obstructing.

Well, uh both obstructing the public pathway, but then also doing any kind of work that's in right-away where the public wouldn't be anyway.

Um the ultimate goal here is a to impose stout fees to help teach better behavior.

Um then also make sure that the restoration project, restoration process of said impact is followed through.

So Brad, I know you've you've read through this version, I assume.

Is there anything we've put in here that from an engineering perspective you raise that?

Yeah, but we made adjustments to it.

So the latest we got from Caleb, that is that is your opinion.

Okay, yeah, that's all of it's been integrated.

He said yes, that he did take exceptions.

I read it, we made a couple adjustments as far as like what's reasonable to keep track of the forest, etc.

So we've made some slight adjustments to the workability of it.

I wouldn't say that the intention that you had initially is changed much.

But some of the bonding things or some of the technicalities, logistics.

We made adjustments to them.

So very simple.

You'll see that in the version that you have, I think.

But do you want to point out the U made just so that we can go through them in a succinct manner?

I'd have to pull up both because I don't I don't have to.

I try to remember what we had and what we've got.

Hey, I'm sorry.

And I don't, I mean uh we need to well, I forgot to do that, but also we need to if we're all comfortable with the amendment, we need to move it out of committee.

Yeah, I I would like to do that tonight.

So oh, the right way, sorry.

I didn't know if I can bring that language or other somebody who will be presenting it, because it will be out that day um with amended language.

So I would like to hear a motion to move this out of committee with a positive recommendation pending the language to be inserted requiring robust hoa approval prior to city permit being issued.

That move and then you can go ahead and start happy.

And then you as a legislative buddy can discuss whether that language is enough.

We kind of tell them that the answer this way we can get moving.

Because we are approaching in the number one target date of uh registration.

So we've got a motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye, aye, it'll go back to the full council unanimously with a favorable recommendation.

Apologize.

Think about it.

Okay.

So the version that Caleb sent you have and distributed to land use committee.

Because it just came in today.

He uh brought it in with him when he was at the land use and the August 1st one.

So we have a new version today with the center.

Oh, today, no.

Um then no.

Okay, sorry.

So we may have to wait for that for Sergei to review before we can because it's got non-lawyer language in there that probably needs to be reviewed by him.

But I will say it's minor.

It's uh again, it's probably not a lot that this committee is gonna be that concerned with as far as functionality, it's some bonding logistics things.

Uh there's some language added to like we just had rights away, we added easements, we added like swale and a list of other facilities and some other minor adjustments like that, which I have here and we can go over, but you have anybody bring the thing Mike Hobaugh, his whole matrix is like 20 page matrix.

I don't know if I did or not.

I think I did.

I I emptied my backpack before I came.

Have you seen Mike's right-away or I mean Mike's Matrix then?

Matrix for all of his new fees.

No, it's at home.

That holy curls.

So you have something similar to that.

So here we can talk about the fee part.

That's probably what we want to talk about.

Yeah.

So I'll just talk about that.

So since this is new for our department, my goal in this is to solve 90% of the problem with 10% of the the solution here, right?

Because we're just getting stepped in.

I don't want to make it too big of a thing that we can't implement in time, and then my team can't do.

So we're gonna start small, and my goal is to solve 90% of the problem, 10% of the effort kind of a thing, so that way next year we iterate on that and we learn and we go.

So we only have three fees that we're proposing to implement the application fee itself, which we already have that, but we're upping that fee to we're proposing 175 dollars, and that's based on the actual labor man hours that we do.

So that's cost recovery.

And it's not even, you know, it's kind of conservative.

The second is a street cut fee, and the third is a path and sidewalk cut fee.

Street cut fee is $500.

Again, it's a man hour justification for the number of inspections that we would typically have for that, plus the damage to the road, and then the path and sidewalk one's $200, which is similar, but it's you know less damage, so it's a smaller fee.

Those are the three we would like to start with.

Can I ask a question, man?

Do we have a non-reverting fund for these?

We do not.

But I think general fund, I believe.

That's where Mike's gonna be.

I think if we had a non-reverting fund for if you had your uh I would agree with that.

Um to my point about revenue generated by independent departments.

I think it should not go to the general fund because then they never see it.

Right.

Well, then you can track it much easier as to what you're actually using, what you're recouping for, right?

It just makes accounting much more simple and you can use it for your you could be it could be your cost recovery for all the right-of-way work that needs to be repaired.

I mean, I don't I don't know.

I'm just saying, I don't I don't disagree.

Uh whether we get that in this verse, because again, I want to revisit this this time next year with everything we learned while we've been doing it.

Sure.

So whether we do that now into the general, whatever, that's not essential to me right now, but I would it is to me.

Yeah, I want to I want to keep track of it and see where we're at, but I I don't disagree with the point that you know where the money comes from and can go back.

But quick question for you on director P's.

Yeah, would you like to include a catch-all whole other disturbances fee?

Because obviously three, but you're proposing a limited to specific tasks, but can be other that's the application fee.

Oh, this application.

Every every activity has the opportunity.

Regardless, so we kind of went with those guards possible.

We went with the baseline of every application, anybody disturbs anything, what does the kind of every distobic?

So let's say I'm just gonna use this as an example, right?

So let's say I'm behind my house.

Easy example.

They come, they do uh duke comes and does work, and then they park their trucks on the on the path, but then they tear up a hundred feet of not just path, and not just not just um you know the path the the grass and all that and then curve cut, whatever.

So you're saying that that 175 dollars would cover that cost?

No, we didn't get to the fines part yet.

So we did a fee structure and a fine structure.

Okay.

We have more detail in the fine structure, but the fee structure is just the upfront cost, the fine structure is the did you do what you said you were gonna do consequence part.

So I can scroll down to that, and there is a bonding requirement.

So if something is done, or rather not done.

There is a penalty provision, but also there's a bonding requirement that we can draw on if there's some serious damage to our infrastructure or I see your wheels turning.

Well, no, I guess I want to hear the fine piece, and then I'm gonna then I'm gonna ask the question.

Because your wheels are turning, we can see it.

Do we want to have this conversation here or in our educational meetings?

Because I think there's gonna be some disagreements.

Up to you.

Look forward to it.

So the fee part, um scroll to that.

So the fee part is pretty straightforward.

It's not a different fee for or a different number for each fee.

All fees are the same.

Violation one, violation two, violation three is what we did.

250, 500, and 1,000.

255.

Is it 200, 500, and a thousand?

Sorry.

250, 500, 1,000.

For first offense, second offense.

Yeah, that's what it's.

This is what we've just proposed in the updated two.

It was today.

So we did that to match with some other things.

Okay.

Um, but any failure, and we have six of them listed for if you had a permit, there are six failure points, and all of those would be two fifty, and they're each violation and each day.

So they're gonna add up very quickly.

So the difference is that $50 for first first violation.

Yeah, uping up.

But can they there be multiple first violations?

Is what you're saying?

Or what?

I'll have to work with legal to make sure that's where annual is that per work order is that per it's per violation as we have it written here, so I'll make sure that's we make that tight and legal.

But our intention is it's per violation per day.

So we'll add up quickly.

Okay, okay.

And that's 250, not 200, just that's online.

And these are all just proposed, they're subject to whatever this committee sets.

But the the six failures we have are failure to provide notice.

So if they sh they got a permit, but they showed up before they told us they were going to give us 24 hour notes to show up, and that's important for police fire schools.

Closure restriction without notification.

So that's if I got a permit and then I showed up and then I changed my mind, decided I need to close the road.

That happens pretty commonly.

Again, police fire schools need to know about that, so that's a violation.

Failure to provide proper traffic control.

So if we get somebody out there that says I'm gonna close the road, and this is what I'm gonna do, but then we find out that they didn't do what they said they're gonna do, the same thing.

Uh if they complete work without the required inspections, so that happens very commonly.

Oh, I already filled the I already fixed the road, but I didn't have an inspector out there to see how they fix the road.

So that's not only a you know, we'll s you know there's some wiggle room, but it's a violation and rip it out and do it so we can watch it one or the other, depending on what we look at.

Maybe it's better to leave it that.

Um other work completed without inspections, uh failure to uh secure open disturbances, so if they leave holes behind and then failure to restore the right-of-way, that's the what you're talking about.

If they don't restore it according to what agreement we made, whether that's one day, a week, whatever it would be, violation.

They don't every day is a violation, 500 a thousand is gonna add up.

Those are the six failure points if you got the permit.

There are a number of failure points if you didn't get a permit.

So we have people show up and never got a permit, they're gonna get fined at the same 250, 500, 1,000.

They're gonna be 250 immediately, because they have to retroactively get a permit.

They're gonna have to pay all fines and fees as they've already added it up before they can get that permit, they're gonna have to restore, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

There's a whole list.

That's all.

The thing made a funny noise and we're at zero, zero, zero.

Is that normal?

Okay, okay, yeah.

It made a funny noise.

So now I understand your qu I'm sorry, now I understand your question about multiple first permits.

So let's say they failed to do four things, they're not getting four one time.

They'd get that first one, they'd get that second one, and then every subsequent one would be correct.

The third one, okay.

Good question.

It is it is pretty robust.

Um unheard of.

And our method and our the practicality of it we're taking from uh counselor Snyder is versus worrying about collecting it at that point, it's probably when they go get the next permit.

That's gonna be our best leverage.

Yeah.

Um that's where we really would have the problem anyway.

The repeat offenders, there's the one off some guy comes in and does something and leaves, and we may never get that fine, but that's not 90%.

That's not 90%.

I agree with that.

We're gonna do the 90%.

So it's uh withholding that next permit.

You all uh you owe us four thousand dollars and or you can't work here anymore.

Ooh.

I hope that changes behavior awful quick.

I have a question.

Um you clarified that if you've got four violations, like of different things, it would be uh first fine, second fine, then like a two maximum.

What if, for example, a code of enforcement officer came over and noticed that you had done four things wrong and issues like four citations right then at the same time?

Would that still be first offense, second offense, and subsequent offenses?

I'll work with legal to make sure we get the language.

That's kind of the question I'm asking.

Can you have more than one first violation?

Is what you're asking?

Like, done multiple things.

Like on day one, you didn't get the permit, we didn't close the road, et cetera.

Well, make sure the language is the right way, but most most of those things you're not undoing in a day anyway, so you're gonna do one day, two days, three days is and this ordinance only applies to right-of-way permitting and what's done within real numbers ordinance.

There's a whole other code that a petitioner or whoever might violate.

So these can be in conjunction.

So when you're talking about code enforcement officer, that's something different.

Uh this would be engineering department.

Yeah, okay.

But it can be in addition to if there are any other code violations, they can go hand in hand.

Okay.

Um I also had failure to provide proper traffic control.

Do you have standardized provisions for traffic control on multi-use paths?

Yeah, that's a NUC.

Standardized sign engines.

Okay.

I guess the reason I ask is because I I have not seen signage repeated once when a multi-use path was closed.

It's either two cones thrown out or a fold up sign, or sometimes you get like a three-level barrier with a sidewalk closed on it.

Sometimes you get a lot of different things.

Yeah, I mean, there's different options for doing it, so it's not necessarily gonna be always the exact same configuration.

It just needs to convey the message and then have the detour.

So River Road, I think, has uh some waterline work going on in their path right now.

They didn't have a detour set up.

They have one now.

They have one now, so you can check that one, let me know what you think that they have a detour through community drive now around the that's what I'm hoping this curves, and I don't want to throw any home or under the bus, but at a location I drive by daily now, they were repaving their driveway.

So for two days they were just dump trucks parked on the multi-use path with zero traffic control.

And that happens all the time.

All the time.

All the time.

And that's what the community is telling us they're tired of.

We hear town halls, we see it ourselves.

It that is what needs to stop.

And it's usually the smaller companies that don't want to go rent, go to the signed company and rent signs, or they don't want to pay for the flagger, or they don't want to do do do do.

Um, but that's really what needs to stop because that it's dangerous.

Well, sometimes they're yeah, they don't I don't think they anticipate the consequences.

So depending on where you are, how far, you know, if you're not near your truck and can't move it out of the way, or whatever, how far do someone have to go around that really needs to use the path?

You know what I mean?

If they're in a wheelchair, if there are other reasons that they really need to.

That's why the consequences in this scenario, and I do believe I have a picture.

You get two dump trucks.

They were doing millings first, I assume.

Dump truck pulled forward, so he's just chilling on the path full, waiting for his buddy to get filled out.

Now he's sitting on this multi-use path, that's 19 tons.

And don't love that.

He has two options.

He's jumping the curb going through the grass.

Or in this case, because I sat and watched, he drove the half mile all the way down the path until no way.

Did you stop him?

Don't love that either.

I don't have that.

He a dump truck?

Yeah.

Like a dump truck?

A full triaxle.

So, and that happens.

I mean, that is an extreme as far as weight is concerned, but that scenario happens all the time.

All the time.

Okay, I have a feeling you drove by and saw the same thing.

Did you call the Popokay?

Uh the police pulled up though.

They I did see the police pull up and I nothing changed.

So I don't know.

Is it the designs of police or carnal?

I don't know.

But it's it's it is it is dangerous.

Those paths.

And like one of the arguments I I dislike the most is there's gonna be like six people off this path.

Well, I've thought that before, and I've always been proven wrong.

Every path in Carmel is well used if you just sit and watch.

It might only see six people and the time of day you go.

Exactly, yeah.

But hearing someone say that the Hagen Burger trail, how do you say trail is never used?

Yeah, no.

Yeah, why do that one?

And and then of course everybody's looking through it through the lens of a abled-body 45-year-old person.

Yeah, that can just walk on the grass around.

That's not a good thing.

Well, and all of these small issues that are like the why Verizon or Metronet Verizons.

Those small issues are very irritating.

I mean, it's it happens all the time, and they don't give a crap.

So even those small situations, I think.

Well, and I'm hoping, because that is a lot of it, all these subcontractors, and then the ordinance Anita got through about the barrel depth, we'll start hitting them on both at the same time.

I mean, that's a needed.

You'll be happy to know that I watched Metronet dig, did you behind my house, a 50-foot trench, and I walked up there and watched them, and I stood and like they asked me, what do you do?

I said, just making sure you're following the city's ordinances.

And they're like, Deputy Code Enforcement Officer over here.

They're like, why are you doing that?

Yeah.

No, it's I mean, these are the small these are the things that upset our institutions.

Yeah.

We cannot.

My understanding.

State of Indiana cannot issue tickets by such as moving violations via photography.

Uh generally correct, yes.

But can a municipality issue fines based on indisputable photography.

So if a citizen is driving by or standing in their front yard or backyard and says, This is what's happening.

Can the city issue a fine based on that?

It's how we're gonna it's how we're gonna implement most of our fines.

We're gonna take pictures, so obviously we can receive those from them, attach it to that work.

My time photo enforcement is so good.

It's not ability issues with uh presenting that evidence in court, but that's a different story.

You know, you know you need to have a person who took a picture testifying, is it a correct representation of particular time and they took a picture?

You know, you know you need to have a person who took a picture testifying, is it a correct representation of particular time and they took a picture?

Yes.

Um is the picture been disturbed and or modified or changed in any way, no.

Move to introduce.

So some occasionally there are some issues as to hey, this is not my truck, this is my license plate, and your license plate, and this and this picture I cannot read.

That can be for the judge to decide.

Generally speaking, pictures is our especially videos that are best friends in court.

So this and this is an administrative fine.

This is not a civil penalty.

It's same we enforce civil penalties too if we're not paid in the same way.

Okay.

You go to city court and do uh not the small claims, but it's essentially very similar.

I have I have a sneaky suspicion that they're gonna be racking up some really good fines in the next or change some behaviors, we'll see.

Yeah, but I mean exactly, which is ultimately the exactly, but I mean so on multi-paths, they have now seated and put the straw down along 116th Street over by 421, where that path comes right down to the curb and then goes back.

There's no protection of any kind there.

Is that in the works?

I also are looking into it, it's unrelated to the right-of-way thing, but we are looking into that, yeah.

It's gonna be in the works sooner than you might think, pending I'm talking to Kay, looking past Brad.

Uh sooner than you might expect.

Some of that is just kind of but when it's right on the curb.

Yeah.

And we have a little five-year-old in our neighborhood who has a down five houses from me who has a little motorbike that he rides.

Yeah, like that comes down and hits the road.

Yeah.

We were um last night we were walking, and we saw a kid on old meridian.

Big four lanes, kind of median, it's nice.

Kid on a motorbike, he was right in the middle.

It was like around midnight.

He must have been going 60 miles an hour.

What were you doing out at midnight?

We um there were there were at moms.

Bombomer.

There were there were there were bats in the house, so we um we got a hotel.

I've used that excuse too.

Yeah.

I have this is not that one yet.

This is spiraling for bats in the house.

Uh okay.

So you're you're your um, your limited application fee.

I guess what the greater thing for me is part, it's half of it's your engine is just your city standards, which have to do with restoration.

It's all like not the design of roads or anything like that, just the restoration expectation.

Um specifically longitudinal patching.

Um because I've seen that, not and I'm not talking about what I brought up during our budget hearings, but where a utility needs just a foot of path, for instance, and then they replace a foot of path without any it just we are working on updating our standards right now.

So and that's what I um when are those when do you think you'll have that ready?

Because I kind I would by January one is the goal.

Okay.

So I'd like to tie some, I'd like to see your new standards, and then strengthen that by the ones that aren't specifically design related, but more restoration is a general ordinance that would cover maybe even the UDO as far as what is expected for put back of community assets of infrastructure.

You're not talking about soft soft surface structure.

Yeah.

No, I know where you're what you're talking about.

We're working on that.

Okay.

Um I also saw at 116th in triple Away, there was, I think it was a gas company was digging there, and they dug a lot of the path that was closed for a while.

But they filled it in with like really rough concrete in all of the places.

And then I think like two weeks later they came and they smoothened it out, but it's still is jarring and concrete, not asphalt, and bumpy and high.

Well, is that something you're addressing?

Like in the standards.

That is a temporary fix because there's a roundabout going in there.

So it should have been, it should be improved enough to be a long term temporary acceptable at this point.

The initial that you're talking about was not.

So it should be good enough.

Well, I haven't looked at it personally, but the direction I gave was that it needs to be a long-term temporary, but it doesn't need to be the full asphalt and all that because it's all getting torn up for the roundabout.

So then on the when we talk about man hours for the inspections and that kind of stuff.

And one thing I don't hear is anything about your MS4 stuff, like erosion control and those violations.

And I understand those are not that's it's independent standalone from right-away, but if you're already out there doing right-away, you're also looking at your MS4 and that kind of thing.

So I I would like to see those violations in there because a lot of the work is done in swales.

They leave the dirt, it climbs the drain, it's environmental impact.

Yeah, let me look into that where those currently sit or if there's fines for those or what the violations are.

Um and then be controlled by IBM, I'm actually not sure on that.

No, I don't think so.

Just because I've enforced quite a few of them.

Uh specifically erosion your erosion control and then illegal discharges.

So like when concrete truck like emptying it to a straw bale, or even the ready sacks when they miss the sack and then don't clean it up.

So in our jobs, we're usually enforced that by non-payment.

Is that how you do it?

Well, no, it's a thousand dollar fine.

Because of the city you're working on, they have an ordinance?

Yeah, okay.

I'll look into that and see.

Um the discharge, especially uh anything from they've got a dewater a swale and they're just dewatering it across the street, or they're dewatering it straight into a city sewer.

Yeah.

It's it those cause problems, and it's so easy to do, but it it's a but there's also easy fixes.

So from an just environmental management standpoint, um, yeah, we address those.

I mean, we have a stormwater inspector who addresses those and and rectifies those.

I don't know, fine-wise.

I guess we'll look into that.

My point, I guess what I'm getting at is when they're going out and doing their inspection, whatever, and this is not the conversation for now, but which is why I have a hard time with the number of man hours being able to actually watch full things go on.

But if they're out there already looking at man or woman hours.

Oh my god.

Shannon's looking at me.

Human hours.

Human hours.

I was?

I thought you were like sorry.

Stop saying that.

And we're looking at the person hours.

Yes.

Human.

Human hours.

He's gonna punch one of us.

Listen, Matt, it's been a long week, so yeah.

No lining over here.

No lining.

We're looking at the number of individual heartbeats and for for how we calculate.

All I'm saying is if they're out there, they could also be looking at I guess I this could encompass a lot of the MS4 stuff as well.

And it could be part, it you could have MS4, and you could have right-of-way, but the fines could be sit, sat in the right-of-way fees, so they've got more teeth.

Um what are your regulations for utility vehicles that are blocking path?

I know they get an exemption, but they don't, they're not allowed to block the path without a detour.

Yeah.

So you'll they are allowed to block a portion of the path.

Uh they have to leave.

I think it's now 40 inches or 48 inches for the new ProAg requirement, so they have to leave so you can get by.

If they don't, then they have a detour.

There is no exemption for anything to block at all without a DJ.

Unless there's an extreme emergency situation.

Well, two exceptions.

Emergency situations that are defined in state 126 with uh water meaning.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That's usually get out there and plug the water and worry about the detour.

And the other one, which is very rare, but it does, we do have a couple places in in the city where it is the case.

If our path is entirely within utilities easement.

So we we have an encroachment agreement with the utility.

So they have a complete right to be there.

So it might be our responsibility to pretty much.

It's a little bit pretty rare.

There are a couple places in the city that we have that scenario, but it's very rare.

It's a whole monon between city center and crumble drive.

Exactly right.

Exactly where it is.

Um is that the only instance?

It's the only one that I know of.

There's probably others, and actually that one I don't think is the whole path.

Is it the whole path?

I think we actually have the other, we have the piece device.

And then that particular scenario versus BAP is actually well the walking area is much wider.

So even though it's not technically a path, you can still go around.

I think you asked, are those the only instances?

Yes.

That is the only instance.

Those are the only times that you can block the path.

So if you see someone blocking the path, let us know.

And then what more importantly, if the city leaves ruts, the city needs to go fix them.

Yep.

See um I one place I noticed where it constantly happens is East Carmel.

There's a path on Grey Road that's really lovely.

And then there's a short section of path before the bike lane on 116th that's really lovely.

And they're kind of near utilities.

But I I think it's the city right-of-way, at least the concrete poles that say R slash W.

It is within those.

And the utility vehicles are constantly blocking.

You get USIC.

Oh, locate vehicles, not Carmel utilities.

Yeah, like parked on the path, you get black pickup trucks with white lettering utility vehicle on them.

Yeah, no, they're not allowed to block it.

Those are all subcontractors.

We're gonna change that behavior, Jack, with this ordinance.

Hopefully.

Yeah.

We mean business.

So were there other changes that you wanted to bring up to us before we kind of think about it?

I've read through the other ones up for a little bit.

Those are the main, yeah.

Sergeant needs to look at our text just to make sure it's legal.

And I have a couple more notes for you, Sergey, that I'll add, but that was the meat of I think what you guys report.

I didn't know what what we require, so I just think they could include numbers that let's take this discussion to our admin.

Yeah, let's do a final review there.

Yeah.

If we want to talk about dollar amounts, or if we include more again, with the with the three upfront fees, the goal was to start somewhere, and I don't want to overburden our staff and we want to figure out how to manage this, and then next time maybe we have a matrix or five or ten, or you know, we can have that discussion and see if maybe we need to have another one.

But in part part of it is I want to understand what I want to know the computer software and how this is actually going to work.

Same.

So that's a big thing.

Can CityWorks do it?

Can the software we have, can whatever Zach's pitching do it?

Because I I have no idea and I don't really care.

I just want to make sure it's gonna function.

Yeah, so well, I think what I propose can function with what software we have now.

So in CityWorks, which is what we're using now with our payment processor, we can just sort of expand it minimally.

If we get bigger and it becomes like the more complicated thing is I I'm doing this work, and then our team has to go figure out how many fees do you have because of the you know the detail of your work.

I didn't want to get into that right now.

It's just a couple check boxes, and then you got the fee and then.

Pending budget blow up at our next Wednesday meeting.

Can you can you have somebody set up a demonstration?

Like kind of a end-to-end how is that a or can I call can I have IT try to set up a dummy one or just somebody it should be the same as the right-of-way, which I thought you walked through that.

That's just the $50 fee we have now, application fee.

So it's just an expansion on that.

Well, that's a complicated as I so I didn't like that experience.

Okay.

So our team has thoughts about that.

We can discuss that yeah in our Wednesday meeting.

So I think BOCS uses it much more than we do.

Who does BS they have a complicated matrix and that's what works for them?

And we're just piggybacking on and trying not to make waves and make it simpler.

So we'll I would just like to see right-away permit.

Yeah.

Like I I just so maybe if they can't make any excuses for it being hard.

Yeah.

And maybe if somebody from IT needs to be there to give that some clout.

Now I feel better.

Is it really?

Well, I agree.

All right.

We had a good meeting.

Can I clarify something really quick?

Going back to the beginning of our meeting.

The reason for the Zionsville police monitoring outside, it is a privately security, a private security company.

So they are hired out.

I didn't know that.

I've had that the library was kind of part of the city, so then Carmel Police were monitor it.

But it is like a part-time job for security.

That explains that.

I do love to see our Carmel Police Department everywhere, and I missed them today.

So I just wanted to clarify that from the from earlier the beginning of the meeting.

Thank you.

Um one more thing, Mr.

Pease.

You said 48 inches of room.

Is that for any vehicle or just utility?

That's any blockage of a multi-use path.

And I'd have to confirm that doesn't it used to be 36 inches and they changed it in the program, which just got updated this year, so I have to verify.

I think it's 48 now.

But it's 48 a passing room.

And it's you know for wheelchair access or something to get around.

Without a detour, you have to have a passage.

Oh, everybody keep it.

So that's any vehicle that any vehicle or any obstruction.

You know, if they fence off something, they have to leave that much space or provide a detour.

So one's reasonably available, you know, there's some limitations here.

Does curb count toward that bit?

No.

Curb does not count towards that.

So it's 652.

This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.