We will call to order the October 8th land use and special studies committee meeting here at the Carmel Clay Public Library at 533.

First thing on our agenda is going to be ordinance D 2784-25 regarding rental caps.

Benjamin, can you just walk us through the procedure here in pertinent information?

Sure.

So it's back with this committee as a result of changes from recommendations from the department.

We had a land use and special studies committee meeting last week where suggested changes were heard.

I have added all those suggested changes into what is now in front of you as version B, yet to be approved for those amendments.

All those amendments that were discussed at last week's land use meeting are in highlighted colour code.

So those were recap the department of community services was concerned related to the requirement that a house possess a certificate of occupancy.

That is because there are certain areas and houses and residents within the city that do not have a certificate of occupancy based on when they were built and how when they entered into the city's domain.

So the language change there is on line 44, which is ready to be let for occupancy as opposed to possess a certificate of occupancy.

And that is that they have not been the subject of three or more civil judgments or one or more criminal convictions within the preceding 24 months related to residential rental, dwelling, or any other properties owned by the permittee, rental rights or other such related matters.

And so that was just changing that from citations and charges and bringing it more in line with what can be what has been proven.

And if we move on to line 163 and on from there, they have to uh affirm, continue to keep affirming when they are renewing that the information that they provided at application time is still correct.

Um at 166 um it is um we had a requirement for me.

I have a score copy if you would like to follow along.

Um such a request this is the direct determination to deny the residential dwelling.

Um what we've done here is bring into line, and we're at page uh line 166, and it's just to bring into line um the appeal procedures for each type of decision that's been made by the city.

So this is the appeal procedure for when they make a determination to the deny, um, and then there's the following the appeal, it follows the same similar appeal procedure for when there is a revocation.

Again, we've got language in there that reflects what we have on previous pages related on line 181 related to civil judgments and criminal convictions.

Then we move over the page to uh penalties and remedies.

Um the suggestion um was made by legal um that on um 4504A1 that the um violation be related to owners who advertise for rent and fail to register, and that will make it um make it easier for compliance from our code enforcement um to be able to know who is um a violator and make it easier for enforcement.

Um and um we have language there that it's common to use, which is each day constituting a new and separate violation.

The increase for the fine um past the initial fine is to 1,000 per day as opposed to 100, and that recommendation is based on um just the types of properties that may be for rent in Carmel and the amount of money that may be made from those properties with uh on a daily basis, and so wanting to make sure that um uh the the amount there properly disincentivizes those types of uh violators.

Then what we have um on line 221, um uh the violation continues to exist until the correction has been verified by the city's designated enforcement officer.

So, and that can um depending on it allows for flexibility, but there are individuals within the city that have been designated with that power.

Um we have our code enforcement, we have our community service officers, we have our police officers, um, we have code enforcement officers that exist within engineering um and um utilities.

So it it it it really that's you wouldn't expect that.

You would expect this to go to our code enforcement team, but you know, to the extent that um they need support or help, it allows for that flexibility.

So again, we have that same language on line 229, the city's designated enforcement officer may issue the notice of violation again on 242 contact information for the city's designated enforcement officer.

Um, and again on 245, we have the ability to appeal the notice of violation.

Um and that applied that will apply the same appeal notice uh appeal requirement for uh denials and revocations.

Um that um is tidying up uh on lines uh 251 down to 266, I'll just tidy up the language to reflect um the changes related to the appeal process.

These were the changes that were recommended by the department of community services and by the law department, were previously heard by this uh committee last week and uh requested that they be added in so that the committee could act upon it and they've been drafted in the form of a version B to the extent that this uh board would uh this committee would act on it tonight.

Um what I would do is uh and you were to approve it and send it back with a positive recommendation.

All I will do is I will add the date on the second to last line of each page to reflect the committee meeting where that change took place, and it would go back before the council.

Perfect.

And I would send it out to the council with um uh with those changes.

And just one question under penalties of perjury.

I'm sure there's a whole list of penalty, like what the penalties for perjury are.

Yep.

There are any of them revocation of permit.

Like we can say under penalty of perjury, but if it's not one of the outlined defenses, it doesn't mean they get kicked out.

See what you're saying.

Are you saying that to the extent that they lie on their application that that should be a reason for it it wouldn't be something that would be an automatic uh the penalties uh assigned to it are um are different.

That would be uh that would be, but is there it?

I'm wondering if there's anything else that um any broad language that we have for a violation.

Well, um on um line one, starting at line.

I'm just gonna use line 159 through 171.

So it talks about like I'll just use this as an example.

Um that no changes to the HOA covenants that introduce new rental restrictions that prevent renting from a residential rental dwelling.

So to Matt's point, I guess what I'm saying is I kind of agree with Matt because that doesn't necessarily mean that we we have to revoke their we don't the city is not not there to enforce their covenants, but we can deny their rental registration or permit or permit and then registration, right?

And then that would become a civil issue between the HOA and the homeowners association.

I but I I think that the point that Matt's making, I think is well taken.

Yeah.

What you're wanting to have here is language that says information, um wrong information submitted, um, intentionally submitted, shall be um cause for immediate uh revocation or denial of the permits.

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah.

Yep.

I guess that's the point I was trying to make, but didn't sound right.

I'm just curious why you seem so shocked that you agreed with me.

I do agree with you very much so.

I'm just trying to find the best place to add that in.

Um, wouldn't it wouldn't it be under the spot where Matt was talking about under civil perjury or whatever it is.

What line was that on that?

Um it's on the second page.

Uh nine, line seventy-four.

So affirmation and then wouldn't it then go to one?

Are you talking about one uh seventy-three?

Yeah, sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah, it could just be six.

Discovery of discovery of intentional perjury on the city application.

On line 183, adding a subsection six to A.

Yeah.

That would say whatever that language is that you just used.

Yep.

So in that case, if if, and again, I'm just gonna use a simple ex uh example.

If they came come in, they lie to us that their HOA allows rentals at all, or doesn't allow them at all, and they come in and they sign up for a permit, and their HOA covenants don't allow it, they come in and they lie and say, Yes, we're allowed to, and then we that a city a civil uh, you know, somebody comes in and says, hey, they're renting this house, it's against our covenants.

I read your ordinance, it says they're not allowed to do that.

Then we would be able to, would we be able to revoke that permit?

If it's in if they provide a false misleading information, and the language says that false misleading information provided in the application shall be called for immediate um revocation.

Yep.

Perfect.

So procedurally then we would vote send this back to council with the amended language with all amended language, everything encompassing, right?

I don't I don't want to send back an amended amendment.

No, okay.

Well we already have a lot of things.

It's gonna be it will go back as a version B.

Version B.

It will go back as version B.

So that's what it will be.

So it will look like this.

And then it will also be a clean version provided to be able to act upon.

And what you would do is you would um this version B incorporate all the amendments that are in it, would be the first motion, and then the next motion would be to approve it.

Tonight or at council.

Okay.

Tonight, we are just tonight.

You're just you are recommending these amendments with a positive recommendation to be sent back to council.

Um so we're probably gonna want to add that in uh two places, yeah, right?

Because it's gonna be both for the revocation and also calls for denial, right?

If it's discovered that they have provided possible information.

So if you if you trust me with that, I will add that in to both um 4502 and 503.

4503, it makes sense to add it in at A6.

Um, and I will find the best place to add it in.

Um it may be its own subsection, uh, just as it's as pure language because it's not as specific.

Okay.

You yeah, I say yeah.

Okay.

So I move that we send this back with a positive recommendation.

Version B with all the amended language to Castle.

Seven.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Carries unanimously with those present.

We can go around the room and don't even oh sorry.

Well's K.

Where is K?

She texted and said she couldn't make it.

Okay.

You good with that?

Is that something in the mission?

Submission requirements.

Yeah, we just we just strengthen it even further.

That's it.

Basically, it just says part of the minute here.

Oh, sorry.

That's why you should have sat with us.

And do you want a copy of this?

There you go.

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

The only thing that's gonna be different is the addition that intentionally putting wrong information is cause for denial and or relocation.

Um I think we should just need to sharing with any attendee.

I want to make sure that everybody knew that Anita was at the meeting on Wednesday.

Oh, yeah.

She wasn't able to be here because she had a priority.

But I just um forgot that.

I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned or one of us mentioned, and maybe it's not even needed to be mentioned.

But uh, you should.

She feels the changes that have been made to the rental agreement.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but prior, you the the ones that were prior to the ones that we were educated on in our educational session.

Uh yes.

So um she said, please do me the courtesy of sharing that with any attendees.

Thank you all.

So Dr.

Joshua was in full support of all of these changes.

Um was instrumental.

Very instrumental in making them happen.

Um I would like to go through I'm looking at the latest iteration of micromobility, and it looks like everything except for the title.

Has been updated.

So I want to go through the updates.

Um updates and comments.

Sergei uh has made.

Um everything regarding uh LSVs and golf carts has been removed with the exception of in the title.

I'm sure that's just an oversight.

Um we are so streets.

Where do I put it?

First comment was uh we had concerns that we needed to find somewhere to put must have human power.

Um Sergei does not think any further explanation is needed as it is covered by the definition of micro mobility.

Um sidewalk based on our discussions we've had for the last several months.

Majority.

They are not intended exclusively for human use, so we can't ban them from that.

Um we have a question over here.

Um so it says must have human power.

Is there any language in here um relating to first?

I just noticed the white River Greenway, which is kind of fun.

And second relating to the um the use of electric assist e-bikes.

I know those are really good for seniors, and they're not the same as like e-motorcycles.

I feel like maybe some language could be included to like um like majority inhuman power or fully in human power to allow for such devices.

I'm I alright.

Now say all of that in less words.

He wants to know if you can have some just all human power or majority human power.

Because there are some bikes that provide some electricity for like people that might not be able to pedal as hard, like some of our senior citizens.

Isn't that right?

And I feel like those are good devices.

And those aren't e-bikes?

Uh no, those are I mean they are e-bikes, but they're not e-motorcycles.

Yeah.

E-motorcycle has no pedal, right?

Uh e-motorcycle, uh it can have pedals, but like they're fake.

They're controlled by a throttle.

That means you pull a throttle and you just go.

Electric assist means you just pedal in like for each pedal stroke you put down, it gives you double power, like one point.

It's called pedal assist.

I guess I I thought that was part of human power.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I would think that would be power.

Yeah.

That would cover the gamut gamut, in my opinion.

You what you're saying is you just don't want it, you you don't want it all just to be throttle power.

Because that is yeah, human power could be interpreted as fully human power.

But oh, you're saying must have human power, could be interpreted as must be fully human powered.

We need uh where's the definite.

I think in the definition, at least that's what he's wholly or in part by mechanical or electrical motor.

So every time we realize reference something micromobility, it means it has some sort of electric power.

Great question.

I do think that Sergei's point that it's been referenced in the definition is a good one.

Yeah.

I think there's a grammatical error on doing right trails.

Trails.

That was not my catch, but very good.

Um portion of the street between curb lines and adjacent property.

I'm really glad, Matt, that you allowed the class three.

Because I think the the uh gentleman who came and said that their class three bikes were really important to them.

Yes.

No, I did it is in here that you have to be at least 16 years old to the helmet.

Right.

Yeah.

Um is that for all e-bikes or just class three?

Class three.

Um should be for all bikes, personally.

Well, at least for miners.

Yeah, for my but I'm talking like the one, two, and threes.

That's okay.

Um because my two, just so you know, Matt, my my class two bike, which I have, can go up to 30 miles an hour.

And then is class, I can you re-educate me on the class three is just can go higher or it's more human power.

No miles an hour, though.

Class one is 20 miles an hour and electric assist only.

Class two is 20 miles an hour, but you have a throttle.

Right.

So you could like hypothetically get started or keep going without pedaling.

And then class three is up to 28 miles an hour, but electric assist is pulling me.

No throttle.

No throttle.

Okay.

Thank you.

No.

He knows his e-bikes.

I love it.

Well, I I just educated myself on the topic that was being discussed.

Good for you.

All right, Matt, sorry, go on.

Uh permanent and restricted locations, micromobility maybe operate in the following areas.

We have streets and roadways within the city of Carmel having a posted speed limit of 35 miles an hour per less or less.

A comment from city staff asks if that means bicycles cannot ride on roads with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour.

I frankly don't have a problem with that, because then hopefully all the bicyclists would speak up and say that we need to reduce the speed limit to 35 miles an hour, because I personally don't see a need for a 40 mile an hour speed limit, except on about three roads of Carmel.

Yeah.

Uh I mean, I'll do it.

I I think we should reduce the speed limits.

I think there's no need for it.

I think it would make it safer.

Well, it doesn't matter.

It would.

So I think we should probably vet that comment.

I I I appreciate the staff members' comment, uh, but I think that that speaks to greater.

What line is that on that?

20.

75.

Okay.

20, 25.

I would say I think it's important to realize, I mean, there is already Indiana code on e-bikes and and how they are treated on one of the provisions there, although it it does create exceptions for trails and multi-use paths, which we can accept here.

Yeah, it does otherwise say that uh e-bikes shall be allowed to go anywhere with bicycles on.

Yeah.

So to the extent that we are allowing bicycles to be able to be on those roads, um, Indiana code would have us allow the e-bikes to also be on those roads.

This is so yes.

But electric skateboards, electric unicycles, like you think that's what you you have it within the micromobility devices, which is the old encompassing um, which is the old encompassing definition.

I I don't need to think about all of these things.

I I never like this topic because it's uh you know, I mean, there's a lot of thought that's been put into this, and this is just my first um yeah, coming into it.

Um sometimes uh from an organizational perspective, it you do have these all-encompassing definitions, and um e-bikes appear to be somewhat special in the micromobility world from what from what I from what I can tell.

I mean, we have Indiana codes that specifically provide the definitions, we have Indian Indiana code sections that provide um uh restrictions related to them and what we can do and what we cannot do specifically when it comes to e-bikes.

A potential solution here um to avoid levels of confusion is to take e-bikes out of the definition of other micro mobility devices, and whenever you're referencing micro-mobility devices, you would just reference the micro-mobility devices and the e-bikes, and so you could separate you could separate the two.

You would have to you would broaden the definition to some degree um of e-bikes, but what it would allow you to do is it give you a bit more flexibility and make it cleaner for how you wish to interpret it.

Here's just one example, and maybe that's the only issue that is at play.

Uh let me ask you this.

Because my goal here, this has not been introduced.

So my goal is to get something at least passable that we can get in front of council and then officially sent to us to actually make the final tweaks and in in the public can know we now have an ordinance here.

Sure.

For now, could it say uh under general regulations permitted and restrictive micromobility devices maybe operate in the following areas unless overridden by state law.

And then in the iteration that when it comes back, we can we can separate it.

I'd really like if this is you you want to get it, you want to get an ordinance in front of council so that then it can come back and be looked at and amended.

Yes, okay.

Um can I ask a quick question then really quick?

Sorry.

So with micromobility, it would be with any motor assistance.

Like, yeah.

So skateboard or unicycle, bicycle, e-bike, segue.

Segway.

So any, so that's okay.

Um I think that's possible, right?

I mean, you know, you're not gonna be able to uh law is a living creature, right?

I mean, uh so it's something that you could get in front of and you can evolve and you change and you might have to come back to and look at it again.

What I would say to you is that the the biggest hurdle to getting this in front of council, in my opinion, is um the cleanup that's going to be needed to multiple other sections of city code based on uh the duplicity and um the overlap that exists with this.

This seems to be an all-encompassing regulation, but uh my quick review was you've got um 666 deals with skateboards, 663 deals with comprehensively deals with vehicles in the right of way.

Uh 841 is the use of bike lanes and and how they're used.

You also have uh within um 846, I believe you also have the uh parking bicycles, which is also addressed in here in more detail.

So what would what would need to be accompanied with this it uh is a little bit of a uh an omnibus ordinance where you would take all the other ordinances that touch it and clean them up so this is the authority on it and leave whatever is there for that that remains if it if there is anything and and go that route.

Um arguably yes, you can do that after the fact in a version A that would go to committee.

Um but at some point it needs to be done, and my recommendation would be to have it done prior to it being in front of council, so all of all of it is there, and we know it's being addressed.

We are being the uh the voice the voices of of uh the people that are concerned or support or do not like this issue need to be heard, and they're a lot of them are holding back because it's this isn't official yet, this is a conversation.

And we uh I keep saying this will get in, get in, get in, and then I keep learning about a new complication.

Not that we're saying it's complication, it's just it's a complicated issue.

And while I would say 90% of the time I would agree with your statement on this one, I think it's more important for the people to know that there is something now officially being looked at because it's it's starting to look like we keep saying there is, and and we can talk about it in this meeting to the few people that come here and want to talk about it, but even the people that are passionate about this have stopped coming to this meeting because we just keep pushing it.

And so if this is if this piece and it would and we can state if there's some way to state, there will be a version B.

This is the premise of what's being introduced.

It's time for the people to speak up.

There is a whole bunch of back end work that needs to be done through a bunch of other city ordinances and laws that needs to be cleaned up.

But we want to show you we are committed to this.

It is now officially in in front of council, and you'll have a month after the next council meeting, because we won't have a the council meeting.

We won't have land use following that.

We can say that and we'll be a month away from the budget, out of the budget, so hopefully people will have calmed from that.

I I we can sit in here and you can go through all the cleanups and all the laws this did, and we can understand how much we really screwed ourselves up and how much you did to fix it.

Uh, because I do I can I can not even begin to imagine how much this affects things.

But I really feel strongly that this needs to get to capture.

I absolutely agree with you.

May I make a recommendation that splits this um in the middle a little bit, but in your favor.

Uh how about um what because there isn't anything to vote on here, it's just a discussion, right?

There isn't actually an ordinance.

But how about the ordinance gets drafted in a manner that pulls in those sections?

Yeah.

That makes initial steps at um correcting some of the issues and some of the overlap.

Um then everything is properly there in one ordinance.

Um we're not gonna be it's not gonna be growing into what pages, um, and that it will it can then be addressed and be seen, and you can see the overlap and you'll get the feedback in relation to well, actually I prefer the way it's framed in 663, because in 663, you know, an expert said this is this helps here, and we're missing that here in in the new um it would be what eight four eight forty-four, is that what we're calling it?

So um the and then that way it gets in front of it, there's no delay, um, and it can be everything can be seen in one document.

It's not going to be the solution.

But I think we can be honest, but it but it will be but the but the clay that needs to be molded will be present in the document.

Though no, we're serious, but yeah, that's all we need.

Also, this has been going this yes, I agree because this was even prior to this be coming into land use, it's been a topic of conversation.

So we want to call it that.

When did when do you need to have it?

Well, the official deadline is Friday, but um I'm I'm actually on PTO the next two days, so I can get it on the I can get it, I can get it in to you in a version.

Do you yeah, I can I can get it into a version and get it across for you to um I we need sponsorship, of course, right?

For for that and for we all agree.

You can put a whole land, I'm sure Anita would want to be on it as well.

And then it can just be worked on from there, and and I can do an initial kind of um this is absolutely in contradiction to what you're putting here, so we're gonna redline that one completely there and go from there.

So it will then have everything that that I found in there.

I would say this is important enough, and if you disagree with the statement, please tell me that if you think you're gonna get into a time crunch before Monday to reach out to Ted and ask one of his associates to help.

This is what we do.

I'll get it to you.

Okay.

Thank you.

We look forward to it and seeing it and having him on the next.

I think the citizens are gonna be grateful.

Yeah.

It's more of a safety thing.

More than anything, it's safety.

Yeah.

So I mean so there's no action here.

We're just gonna have an ordinance submitted to Jessica on Monday.

It would probably be submitted before.

But you'll see it before.

I'll get it to you and you can take a look, take a look at it.

I'll need to send it to you for your sponsorship.

And then you can take a look at it, and you can then, once I get your sponsorship, we'll work on getting the ordinance number and go from there.

And that is with your permission to take out portions of line 174 and 175.

I think it would where you have the impaired operation, that's that's fine, but it can't be the same penalties, which would be the criminal penalties for operating a vehicle.

So we're moving that or so you're gonna keep you're gonna keep it as a violation, right?

That they can't operate in micromobility device while under the influence, but it's not going to be subject to the same penalties as operating a motor vehicle while in third.

So question, but riding a bicycle while you're impaired, you can be thought state statutes that you they can prosecute you as you so the issue is an ordinance can only issue an ordinance violation.

Got it.

It cannot duplicate an infraction, a misdemeanor, it cannot duplicate it cannot impose a crime, it cannot impose that violation.

So we leave it on there and just say subject to state law.

Um whatever.

I would strongly recommend uh getting rid of that unless what you're wanting is a police officer to conduct some level of sobriety test that is um a procedural matter, right?

That procedurally you want it to flow, but quite frankly, um this is going to be an ordinance violation, right?

It's civil in nature.

Oh, okay.

Actually, let me let me ask this.

I there is a difference between getting behind a two-ton car after having a couple beers and getting on your e-bike.

And if all of our officers have uh are able to be use some level of discretion, and if they had something that wasn't go to jail and ruin your life, yeah, because you left Bazbo Pizza after having a beer uh and got on your scooter.

Perhaps that an ordinance violation is a good thing to have.

It's the only thing you could have.

The only thing that you can do under the state statute is issue an ordinance violation for this.

There isn't anything more that you could do.

Um and I mean arguably the it you could have it as an ordinance violation.

You can go a step below.

And that was another thing that potentially is a recommendation here, is that you could take a look at the ordinance violation bureau, right?

Which doesn't in and of itself go directly to court.

That is the you will get a notice of your violation because you you violate in person, here it is, and you've got seven days to pay the ticket.

And if you violate again, it goes up again, and if they violate a third time, then you go to court and you're adding in the 139 dollars in court costs and you're adding in a much higher fine.

And that quite quite frankly kind of mirrors some of the bit some of the violations that we have that are already in City Code that are similar to this, is that you would go to the ordinance violation bureau first.

Um that allows for a little bit more flexibility.

Um I think to your point, Matt, this this is seems to be the from here.

Please at the yeah, yeah, yeah.

I mean, if we can't do it anyway, you can't.

I I would I strongly recommend that you remove that, and then you know you can discuss at a later point what you would like to do when it comes to the enforcement side.

It has a let's discuss C list below.

Um, you know, you have that first, second, third offense.

I will I will tell you this is on line two uh oh seven.

This type of violation is sim what would be an OBB in in most other situations.

You can make it be an What's an OBB?

Ordnance Violation Bureau, Indiana Code, the statute allows for certain violations that would ordinarily be ordinance violations to be fine only.

Okay, right, up to a certain dollar value, uh it's 250.

And that fine only allows for um it's kind of like we're enforcing, but we're not wanting to clog up the court, and we're not wanting to impose a hundred and thirty-nine dollar court fee onto um the citizen that may violate this.

So the ordinance violation bureau, it's it's run out of the clerk's office.

Um and um if they pay the fine within a set period of time, $25, $50, whatever you say it is, um, then it's done.

It never generates a court case.

It never generates anything other than the citation itself, so there's no my case audits odyssey lookup, right?

So it's kind of it's some degree more respectful of privacy.

Police officer pulls something over, they can return a $50 citation.

That's all I'm like, is that not what's happening?

If a police officer pulls someone over a violation um of an ordinance violation, they can um they don't have they have they don't have discretion beyond what uh for the viol, they can give a warning, but when it comes to the actual violation itself, it's the city council that decides whether or not it goes to the ordinance violation bureau first or whether it goes to an ordinance violation.

So it's it's multiple places within within city code, um, and we have that for a lot of parking violations.

They'll first go, we have it for things like alarm permits.

That if you forget fail to get an alarm permit, you you got it installed and an alarm goes off and within if you do it within a time period, if you get your permit within that time period or you pay your fine within that time period, it doesn't go any further.

If you don't, the clerk's office provides then that the ordinance violation bureau um provides that to officer corporation counsel.

And then what we do is we file a complaint with the court, and that complaint with the court will carry with it the $139 in court costs along with any fine that's issued.

But who's so okay, I think Matt, what you're asking is can the cop pull them over to issue the citation.

Yeah, and be done with it.

And be done with it.

So the ticket.

Okay, then all right.

Then we're good.

This is wonder if someone is over the limit on a little life or switcher runs over a four-year-old.

I'd say they're gonna have a hard life in prison for a long time.

Is that a violation of the ordinance or is that a criminal?

I think that would be that's just like harming someone.

Like I don't know if we have in city code about like sucking someone in the nose, but it's still an offense.

Yeah, so it we can't address any of the criminality that would would be at play here, but to the extent that we have within here operating a vehicle while intoxicated, that would be the the violation.

Or potentially already existing um uh a nuisance aspect.

Remember, ordinance violations they're very low down, right?

In in in the realm of penalties, comparatively speaking.

And so they are civil in nature um and they are designated by statute to be the uh the means by which um uh units of government the um the county.

So if somebody was harmed, it would be operating a vehicle or whatever while under the influence harming yourself or others or harming others.

If someone is harmed as a that that it is it it is it would be for the police officer and the prosecutor's office.

Okay.

It would not be for the city.

That would be above the process of the process of the process.

It would be I would expect the police officer to work with the prosecutor's office to to work on whatever charges would need to be filed to the extent of the case.

Because at that point there is no police discretion.

You're done.

Yeah, you're going to jail, buddy.

So on line what the first offense, line 107.

Yeah, 207.

So either a warning or a fine.

And I would encourage you to look at the ordinance violation bureau.

I think this is something to the extent that you're wanting to put it as a and it can be, you can have it as 50, 150, and and and so forth, you can keep the same dollar values there.

But what you're going to do by sending it to that ordinance violation bureau is you're gonna keep it out of court, it's not gonna generate a my case.

Um you're still gonna have a citation, it's still gonna be a public record, but it's not gonna be generated there, and it will cut the fee that they're gonna have to pay by 139 dollars.

If they're pull up this fine to 100 and then cut the and if they are and if they're multiple multiple violations, then beyond that it it goes directly to court.

So if they are a frequent flyer, then you're they're gonna be they've missed out.

It's it's a good will gesture, quite frankly, uh, from the legislature that it says we we understand it's sometimes hard to stay abreast of everything, and these types of violations are things that you may have done.

Um and we want to give you this is an easy way for you to be educated and not be harmed too much in relation to the penalty that's in place, but now you know.

Um and then it escalates into the court setting.

But otherwise you get the 139 dollar um court fee.

And whatever the whatever you put in the case.

So you're paying the court fee for the $50 citation.

No.

So you're I guess are you you are paying.

If this goes, if this if you issue an ordinance violation and you say the first violation is fifty dollars, that is going to be uh $189.

Oh, I thought you said we'd have to go with the OBV or OVB.

If there's no if it goes to the OBB, it's only the fine that you're mentioning.

Uh when my seven-year-old gets older and gets one of these tickets.

Yep, I want to pay the fifty dollars or the hundred and fifty dollars, or whatever it is.

And call it a day.

Yep.

I'm not dragging.

And that's the other benefit is if you find that your your violators are actually going to be um those of uh a younger age, right?

And and so forth.

There's a benefit there that of them not being pulled into the into the legal system as much if they pay if they pay the ticket.

Okay.

My strong recommendation is a good thing.

I say put it in the OBS.

Just put it in there.

Just the OB OVB, whatever.

I will I will take the ordinance violation bureau language that we already have uh that exists in City Code, and um and I will pull it into here.

Uh the only thing you're gonna see in addition to that is there is um a um uh a creation language ordinance that will need to just reference it.

So I will pull that language in as well to add the um 84 um as one of the the options.

Okay, I think that's good.

Okay, great.

Well I got more questions, but we can that's why it's coming back.

That's right.

Yeah, it's just as a starting point.

That's great.

I've I'm glad you're here to uh give me an education on something I have never heard of before.

Yeah, me too.

Yeah.

Any other recommendations there, sir?

Um I mean I I don't not not not to delay it.

The the the immediate the immediate concern was the uh violation.

Yeah.

I I will say that um I don't fully know where um section seven came from, which is 238 line two thirty-eight to forty.

Uh it's very unusual language to have um within um within a an ordinance such as this.

And I would probably recommend that it pertained to something else that used to be in here.

I would strongly recommend striking that um it's not something that we would normally keep in a provision like this.

Okay.

The part of the part of the issue with that is um changes being made, changes being made that are an enforcement-based change need to be published, right?

There needs to be uh if they're going to be enforced and an ordinance violation uh ticket is gonna be issued, there needs to be a uh a notice requirement and a publication requirement.

So um that would uh seem to bypass it and it wouldn't be my recommendation to keep it in.

Um you now have something you can pick apart and send us an email.

I do yeah, there are people when that's published.

Okay, which is good.

I noticed at 104, it says 20 parentheses 25 miles per hour.

And scrimmage yeah, there's gonna be there will be um the scrivener aspects that are gonna be fixed up here.

Um you're like me, Jack.

I I'm an eagle eye with that kind of stuff.

Yeah.

Good for you.

Anything else to go to the group?

No, sir.

This will go back.

This will get to Jessica by Monday or sooner.

Um 623, we're adjourned.

Thank you.