Yeah, that's right.

Okay.

I'm 14 or not last time.

Girls.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Do I think I'm in here?

I tried to switch to access.

I guess we just have to do it.

She's got some.

Okay.

All right.

Or later.

You you will, yes, to and to speak.

You're going to introduce yourself.

All right.

Quiet in the chamber.

I just love this gap so much.

All right, it's uh three o'clock, uh, so I'm gonna call uh the April 23rd Board of Business and Neighborhood Services meeting uh to order.

My name is Abby Brands, I am the director of the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

If my board members would like to introduce themselves, starting to my right.

Camille Blunt.

Courtney Yarbrough.

That's great.

And this is Miss Yarbrough's first meeting on the board.

We're happy to have her.

All right, so uh with consent, I would like to take this agenda forward.

Consent.

Consent.

Consent.

Perfect.

Love to hear it.

All right.

Uh first item is the meeting minutes from the February 26th meeting.

Are there any issues with these minutes?

Um neither one of us were present for the meeting.

Oh, yeah.

Should we um I thought we had okay for it?

I've talked about it before.

You can approve them that they look like they're actually based on what happened.

Okay.

So if you're comfortable, yeah.

Okay.

So if there's a motion to approve the February 26th uh meeting minutes.

So moved.

There's a motion.

Second.

And there's a second.

All those in favor signify by saying I.

All right.

First agenda item is 2026 C 1008.

Miss Angela.

And if it's okay with you all, I would like to present 009 and 010 all at the same time.

So eight, nine, and ten all together.

Sure.

Okay.

Um the staff recommends that the board approve and authorize the director to enter into three new service agreements with the following vendors for highways and grass mowing abatement services.

That would be Einstein X9 Lawn and Tree Service LLC.

Green Earth Lawn Services and Property Masters LLC.

The vendors' responses to the city's request for qualifications were deemed responsive and were determined by staff to be qualified for a contract award.

The agreements will have two-year terms beginning as of April 1st, 2026, and ending March 31st of 2028.

The fee schedule will be as follows.

Um lot under one acre.

170 dollars per lot from one to one and a half acres, and twenty dollars for photos of already cut lots.

The not to exceed compensation limits for the two-year term are $300,000 for Einstein Eckstein.

$270,000 for green earth lawn services and $200,000 for property masters.

All right.

Angela, could you um just briefly explain what the process is as far as high wheats and grass uh enforcement and abatement, like what this looks like when we have vendors?

Um is that would you like me to explain like coming in from the Mac?

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Uh we respond to MAC complaints about highways and grass, and that is over 12 inches on property.

Uh we'll have an inspector go out to measure that grass and confirm whether it is over that 12-inch mark.

Uh, we will then send notification to the property owner and any registered agents if they're applicable.

Um, they will be given a 10-day period to abate the issue themselves.

If that is not done, then it'll be sent to one of these vendors, and we will have them go out, mow it, process that those invoices and build the property owner.

Okay.

Any questions for Angela?

None for me.

Not for me.

And Sarah, we still have to take these individually.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So for the first one, uh C1008.

Is there a motion for approval?

I move that we accept uh resolution 2026 C1000 as introduced.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

We did it.

Uh all right.

Next one, 009.

I move that we accept resolution 2026 C1000 as introduced.

Second.

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Last one, C10010.

I move that we accept 2026 C10010 as introduced.

All right, motion and second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Miss Angela.

Thank you.

All right.

Mr.

Shook with uh C1011.

We got the full agenda today.

This is what happens when we skip them up.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um staff recommends this board approve and authorize the director to amend the current professional services agreement with vendor safe built LLC for structural plan review services.

The amendment shall increase the vendor's contract compensation not to exceed limit in order to fund the remainder of the contract term.

This amendment represents a $90,000 NTE increase for safe built, bringing their contract compensation NTE up from $390,000 to $480,000.

The contract is due to expire June 30th of 2026.

There are no extensions to this term as part of this amendment.

Additionally, there are no changes or increases to the pricing or rates of compensation within this amendment.

DBNS is engaged in the process of interviewing firms that respond to the 2026 plan review request for qualifications in order to award the succeeding contracts that will go into effect July 1st.

So you're increasing the amount but not increasing the terms of the contract.

Correct.

Okay.

So we currently have a handful of RF calls out for all of these services.

So for every plan to be a service and every inspection service, and we will be bringing those to the board probably in next month or so.

We're actually in the interview process right now for all of those.

So my guess is that this one was just timed at this amount, and we've hit a certain wall.

Is it just as safe built taking on more projects?

I can speak to this.

Uh if you recall, we brought, I believe, three other of these amendments uh maybe a couple months ago.

Truthfully, this should have been included in that batch for the same reason that those were brought forth as we were approaching the the in-the-contract.

Um, you know, various uh of those service providers were approaching their not to exceed limit, and um uh so we had to extend those NTs or increase those NTs in order to be able to fund those services uh through the contract duration.

So uh truthfully, this should have come forward uh a couple months ago, and my apologies for breaking it out separately.

Any other questions?

Not coming, Chris.

All right, is there a motion to approve 2026 C1001?

I motion to approve resolution 2026 C 10011.

So uh truthfully this should have come forward uh a couple months ago and my apologies for breaking it out separately any other questions all right is there a motion to approve 2026 C1001 my motion to approve resolution 2026 C10011 is there a second second all those in favor signify by saying aye aye thank you Chris I don't know why I say look at that every time it's just there's something about it say look at that we did it all right on we did it you know we're on track uh miss harney for 2026 C1012 Hello Hello Um the existing professional service agreement with John C.

Krauss to provide administrative law judge services expires on June 30th of 2026 the staff recommends that the board approve and authorize the director to extend the term of that contract by one year there are no changes to the hourly rates or the uh not to exceed amount just if it's just a term extension can you explain the kind of cases that um John Krause here's first so several property and safety property safety and maintenance related programs require either as a part of an appeal process an informal hearing or in the case of like unsafe building demolition we have to have that order affirmed through an administrative hearing so Mr.

Krauss has presided over those hearings for many years okay gotcha any other questions for lacey if not I'll entertain a motion for 2026 C10012 I motion we approve resolution 2026 C10012 is there a second second uh motion and a second all those in favor signify by saying aye aye thank you lacey thank you all right miss eva 2026 C10013 how's it going all right hello everyone Eva Flick Deputy Director of Administration here to present 2026 C10013 which is an NTE increase to the contract with CaliMet Civil Contractors for our illegal dumping mitigation project aka alleyway rehabilitation phase two and yes we've officially started phase two and we already have a change order um but in front of you so we're requesting an increase of sixty four thousand three hundred and forty one dollars and ninety cents to increase the total NTE to one million five hundred thirty five thousand nine hundred eighteen and eighty nine cents after the project was awarded and additional scoping was done by the contractor uh portion of one of the alley segments that was previously identified as uh asphalt was actually determined to be concrete and since the rest of the alleyway project has been replacing like for like materials we're wanting to replace this segment of the alley to concrete and concrete's more expensive than asphalt and so hence the change order today um this change is specifically for a portion of the state in Minnesota Alley 2 uh segment of the project and uh we have no concerns about absorbing this within the overall project budget bid two uh which was this award was uh phased out conservatively so that way we would have additional flexibility to add on things as needed or if we wanted to do additional uh trash cleanups and things like that related to the program we'd be able to do that as well um phase one went really well for us overall um so just I guess recap where we're at today completing the project so far uh phase one total cost was 1.9 million dollars um broken out from there uh cali met was 1.67 million uh 2500 of that was for cleaning and then 200k of that was for ASI uh um who's our project manager for the program and they're continuing for phase two as well uh for phase one uh we completed around 40 tons of uh trash of cleanup from these segments um so significant improvements and investments in the community which is the whole goal of the program altogether um any additional funds that we have left over are gonna continue to be targeting the hot spots related to phase one and phase two and then we're gonna be seeking out some other proactive cleanings um across the county I'm happy to answer any questions that you have yeah any questions for Eva all right we'll entertain a motion for 2026 C10013 I move we accept resolution 2026 C10 uh 013 as introduced second all right there's a motion a second all those in favor signify by saying aye aye thank you thank you Eva all right and so now uh we have an appeal for a floodplain permit determination where would you like it to sit wherever you would like to sit madam preskee can you should I sit up here too sorry documentation

Where would you like it to sit?

Wherever you would like to sit, Madam Preskey.

Can you sit up here too?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

Thank you so much.

Oh, this is just one.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't sure how many.

No, no, no, you're fine.

All right.

And I can leave the second copy.

All right.

You're good.

Actually, why don't you just take the second copy?

Are you sure?

Yes.

Now we're going to be looking at that and not paying attention to you.

Oh, wait, you have a tag here.

Do you want to remember something?

No, no, no.

Okay.

Thank you for having me here today.

My name is Colin Davis.

I'm the homeowner at 5204 East Pleasantwood Parkway.

The purpose of my being here today is to appeal the determination in flood case FLD 26-0051.

The permit in question, which I'm appealing, is to allow the installation of push piers into my uh home, which is on a floodway.

Um we were told that this is a non-substantial improvement, and that as we are in a floodway, uh that where a prior non-substantial improvement had been made in 2018, we'd have to appeal before this board before a permit could be issued.

Um I intend to show today that my home is an historic structure, and as such, our house is accepted from the definition of non-substantial improvement for purposes of flood control regulation of construction permits.

Further, I intend to show that the alterations made in 2018 and the alterations that will be made uh with the permanent issue will uh not change the historic nature of the home.

Um so uh in uh I requested the PL be granted in our favor in the permit issued.

Uh to begin with, um the uh work in question uh would normally constitute a non-substantial improvement.

Uh section 70 uh 740-202 of the Indianapolis Municipal Code defines non-substantial improvement for purposes of flood control regulation.

Um however, the definition provides that the term does not include any alteration of an historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structures continued designation as an historic structure.

Um the definition of historic structure is also defined in that same code.

Um it includes any structure that is in relevant part subpart two certified or preliminary determined by the secretary of the interior as contributing to the historic significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminary determinant by the secretary to qualify as a registered historic district.

Um that the municipal code also says that no non-substantial improvements may only be granted one time for homes in a floodway.

Umstantial improvements are prohibited, and any subsequent non-substantial improvement after the first one would be treated as a substantial improvement.

Um these definitions that I've cited to uh are based in part or mere uh federal regulations found in 44 CFR 59.1.

Uh from my understanding, 44 CFR 60.3 specifically requires communities participating in the national flood insurance program of the NFIP to adopt and enforce uh regulations that minimize flood risk.

Uh the NFIP is of course overseen by FEMA, the uh federal emergency management agency.

FEMA created these carve-outs for historic structures so that people with historic homes can improve the property and keep them preserved instead of merely maintaining them, basically providing additional relief and incentivizing people to keep our nation's historic buildings looking great.

Um as one FEMA document that I provided answers to questions about substantially improved or substantially damaged buildings uh states.

Floodplain management regulations give special considerations to the unique value of designated historic structures, which includes again structures certified or preliminarily determined as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district.

It goes on to state that provided historic structures retain their resignations as historic structures, the requirement to bring them into compliance does not apply if they will be substantially improved.

FIBA requirements stipulate that communities such as Indianapolis can exempt historic buildings by one of two ways.

They can exempt historic structures through the definition of substantial improvement or non-substantial improvement, which Indianapolis has done.

The other way is through a variance as stipulated in 44 CFR uh section 60.6.

Uh since Indianapolis is chosen to the former and not the latter, I believe that's the purpose of why I'm here today in front of your the board.

There is the application that was submitted to the Department of the Interior.

And that our house is listed on, I believe, page 35 or the where the the arrow is 5204 East Pleasant Run Parkway.

The application form lists our house as a contributing home on that in on that page.

Back in uh 2018, we applied for a permit to add a bathroom to our home.

We ran into this very issue of non-substantial improvement then as well.

And I confirmed at the time with Paul Diebold, who is the assistant director for preservation services at the State Historic Preservation Office with the Indiana Department of National Resources who prepared that application that our house is a contributing building in a historic district, and that the Pleasanton District is listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Mr.

Deepold confirmed last night, last month the email that the addition of the bathroom in 2018 did not affect the status of the house, and therefore it remains a contributing building to the Pleasanton and Historic District.

And so that is the third packet of information or the emails.

The first is the email from 2018 or from last month.

The second page of that is the bathroom modification, and then the third page is the email from Mr.

D.

Bold from 2018 talking about it being a trimmed uh building.

Um the work being done for the permit at issue is merely to repair the foundation on my home by digging below the foundation and adding peers.

Um the once the piers are installed, the dirt will go back in and the that will be it.

Um it's merely to correct a half inch gap that has been created due to rainwater, potentially um you know, snowfall, whatever moisture issues that have caused it to crack.

Um this would then fix the issue and cause it to not slip any further uh into disrepair.

Um so that won't affect the status as a contributing building to pleasant since it's not an alteration just to get it back to your current state.

Um and so I've the last page, the one pager is just the uh information from Indiana uh foundation services that just states that it's it's to install uh three peers.

In conclusion, the municipal code provides a one-time only exception for non-substantial improvements to structures in the floodway.

Um, as our home though is a his and historic structure and will remain in historic structure, the work at issue for which we are requesting a permit does not meet the definition of a non-substantial improvement, uh, or a substantial improvement for that matter, as it had the same exception for historic structures.

As such, I kindly request that the appeal be granted in our favor in the permit issued.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And I'm happy to answer any questions or turn it over to the city.

Are there any questions?

All right.

Um, just so everyone knows I'm Caitlin Campbell, city prosecutor with the city of Indianapolis.

Um for purposes of this hearing today, I'll be just a listening testimony through a D DNS employee um to show D DNS's uh opinion on this matter.

Um so I'm gonna have more of the same answer some question.

Could you please state your name and tell the board higher employee?

Hi, I'm Marie Siggins.

I am the program manager for floodplain that serves as the floodplain administrator for the city of Indianapolis.

And how long have you made that position?

Um two weeks.

And prior to um this new role, what position did you have at D DNS?

I was a project compliance analyst within the um department, the section of infrastructure for stormwater.

All right.

And are you familiar with the property of 5204 East Pleasant Run Parkway and North Drive?

Yes.

Is there a structure located on that parcel?

Yes.

What is that structure?

A house.

And is this structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places?

It is.

And is this property and structure located within the special flood housing area?

Yes.

And would a flood permit or flood approval be required by DPNS prior to any repairs or relocation of this structure?

Yes.

Has the property owner of this parcel applied for a slightness?

Yes.

Has that permit been issued?

Yes.

Okay.

And what, if anything happened after that permit was issued?

Um the permit was placed into abeyance after further research is done that standards have changed, which requires us to now do an appeal process for granting that permit.

Okay.

And that's why we're here today.

Yes.

Okay.

And what is this permit for?

Um it is for the rehabilitation of the foundation of the structure.

And is it is uh so the permit was issued now it's in abeyance.

Does it still need to be let's say reissued in order for this work to proceed?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and for the repairs that are requested by the property owner, would that preclude this structure from maintaining its historic designation?

It would not.

We got confirmation from the same source that needs to do this for that.

Okay.

And if this appeal is approved, would the city be at risk of non-compliance with any local or federal standards?

It would not.

Okay.

And is there good and sufficient cause to approve this appeal?

Yes.

And will approval this appeal result in public harm or increase in public expenses.

It will not.

Okay.

Um so in conclusion, I would just like to state that thank you.

Um but uh this structure is individually listed on the National Register for Historic Places as maintained by the Department of the Interior as such under 565-201 of the revised code is considered historic for purposes of the floodplain regulation.

The uh testimony presented today indicates that the properties requesting improvements that would be considered substantial and or due construction and require that the property be brought into compliance with current building protection standards before the permit could be reissued.

Um staff does not as a rule recommend approval of appeal, however, the floodplain administrator and staff understand that approval of this appeal for the scope presented would not put the city at risk of non-compliance with federal or local standards.

Further, the floodplain administrator and staff understand that approval of this appeal is not likely to result in public harm or increased public expenses, and they believe that good and sufficient cause has been shown by the property owner owner if the board decides to grant this appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Maurice and Madam Prosecutor.

Appreciate your time.

Um Sarah.

Yes.

So it's my understanding uh the board does not rule live on the on the matter.

It is uh a formal written decision that we provide to the property owner within within 30 days.

Within 30 days, yes, okay.

So I can assure you you will receive a written uh response within certainly a shorter time frame than 30 days given the the qualifying evidence that we've you know received today and appreciate your time and your appreciation.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Yes, thank you.

Yes, thank you, thank you for providing thorough information on your property and absolutely very helpful.

Yeah, thank you.

That's what being a steward of a historic home is all about, right?

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Well, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, with no other business to come before the board.

Um our next meeting is May 28th, uh 2026 in this room, T260 at the City County Building from 3 to 5 p.m.

Uh I call this meeting adjourned.

Oh, okay.