Afternoon, everyone.

My name is Abby Brands.

I am the director for the Department of Business Neighborhood Services.

I call to order today the Board of Business Neighborhood Services, the June 3rd meeting.

If my board members would like to introduce themselves, hi Courtney Yarbrough.

Kate Wharpool.

Okay.

All right.

We have some minutes before us from the last meeting, April 23rd.

There are any questions or edits or concerns about those meetings.

If not, I will entertain a motion to approve the April 23rd and minutes.

So moved.

Seconded, look at that.

Uh, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Minutes are approved.

Let's move on to the agenda for today.

Miss Carly for trash liens.

2026 C 10014.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi.

All right.

So for resolution number 2026 C 10014, uh staff recommends this board authorize the director to place liens upon the properties listed in exhibit A for unpaid trash, junk, and debris cleanup and abatement costs incurred by the department.

Under Chapter 361 of the revised code, BNS is responsible for the inspection abatement and enforcement of environmental public nuisances.

When a property owner does not correct a violation, the city enlists a contractor to evate the nuisance.

In the event the city's abatement and cleanup costs are unpaid, the city shall place a lien upon the property.

This trash lien certification represents 167 trash cases with a total amount owed of $91,655.57.

The cases reflect outstanding fees 30 days past due as of June 3rd, 2026.

And are there any questions for Carly regarding these trash lanes?

Come on, I will entertain a motion to approve C10014.

Carly, can you just remind the public that there is an appeal process to the trash lanes?

Yes, there is just in case somebody is watching that is interested in hearing that.

Uh so they can contact the news and abatement department and ask for a hearing with the administrative law judge to try to get those reduced or waived.

Thank you.

Wait, sorry.

I make the motion.

Look at that.

Second.

All right.

All those in favor signify signify by saying I.

Thank you.

Can we just say I approve next?

Out of practice.

I have to say all of the rigmal roles.

All right, Eva C 10015.

Good afternoon, board members.

I'm here to present resolution number 2026 C 10015, which allows the director to execute an agreement with Virtosoft LLC for the scoping requirements gathering and developing a proof of concept for a new case management system and an amount not to exceed 199,000, 998 and uh 72 cents.

Over the last couple of years, we've been researching various case management systems and solutions to improve our services that we provide as a department.

One of those companies is OpenGov, and they have a promising solution that we'd like to more formally explore and how see how it might work for our department and our constituents.gov is a product available through the reseller agreement.

A little bit more about OpenGov specifically.

They are currently engaged with the city through two different scopes today.

They are working with the Department of Metropolitan Development to assist with their case new case intakes processes and the Office of Finance and Management's purchasing division for a new contract management system.

The other departments in partnership with ISA, our information services agency, procured their instances of OpenGov through Virtisoft as well.

And unlike a lot of other case management systems on the market, OpenGov has both a robust permitting and licensing module and a robust code enforcement module.

Another benefit of this exploration is that DMD and BBNS have a lot of overlap because uh DMD is currently using OpenGov.

We're excited about potential improvements to the public's experience when interacting with both of our departments over similar workflows, and how utilizing the same system could improve our interdepartmental efficiencies.

Over the next couple of months, we're going to be working with the OpenGov team to outline potential provisioning, gathering documentation, identifying data sources, scoping out what a successful deployment of their product might look like for us.

Uh to close the Virtusoft agreement is already an executed agreement.

So while we weren't required to bring this to the board today, we did want to make sure that we are transparent with the board and the public to make sure that we are per if we are pursuing this opportunity and escagement further.

We have the opportunity to say it out loud for everybody to hear.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

I assume this would replace the CELA.

If we decide to move forward, yes.

That would be a swap to the case management system that we have today.

And would there be a training for all those who engage with a CELA outside of the prime?

I assume within the department, obviously, if you go down this, but outside of the department to be able to search cases.

Yes, we would externally.

Definitely seek to have some training opportunities for the public.

Um I know today we also do some trainings for contractors and other folks that interface with the department today for a CELA, so we would want to do something similar for our high users as well.

Okay.

Yeah, this is a very, it is a I think a much more user-intuitive uh program than a CELA is today.

So I think the training that is required for Acela probably might not be required as much for this to start.

I think it's a bit more intuitive, but yes, we would want to do that.

And we've been transparent with Asella as we've worked through this process, just so they know, like we're doing this.

This isn't a surprise to them.

Um they are still a very committed partner.

They have offered to help us with some product enhancements and things that we might be announcing sooner than later.

Um, so we uh we are appreciative of their partnership.

We are also looking forward to this opportunity to see, you know, how best can we provide service to Mary County residents?

Yes.

And the demos setting up a new uh account takes just a couple of clicks versus the multi-step multi-minute process that it is today.

So I think navigating it from the public perspective should be a lot easier.

Okay, nice.

Cool.

All right, cool.

Thank you, guys.

If no questions, is there a motion for C1015?

I do have one more question.

Yeah, please.

Would the option include the ability to search cases without having to set up an account?

Yes, and you can do that today.

Yeah, I know you can today.

So that can that would be a consistent feature for those who are just nosy.

Yes, yes.

That's an excellent point.

So we've been having demos with this vendor, and I think it can do basically everything Acela can do today outside of a few key features that are unique to Indianapolis.

And so that is very much what this engagement is.

So instead of you know jumping head first into a very expensive contract and then finding those things out later.

We've already identified a few things.

Exploratory, and so it's can you actually get those things developed?

What does that look like?

Would we be able to actually have the solution we need on day one?

And if we feel like that's the case through this proof of concept, then we would decide potentially take another step further.

Okay.

All right.

So moved.

Second, seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Eva.

Thanks.

Next we have Jacob.

C1016.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon, good afternoon.

Resolution 2026 C10016.

Staff recommends this board approve and authorize the director to renew the current service agreements 2107 with Dini Excavating Inc.

in 21078 with Renaissance Inc., the WBE certified vendor for emergency on-call demolition services.

These two-year agreements were signed in 2024 following the solicitation of RFP 1ABNS 067.

Each contract was established with contract compensation not to exceed limit of $850,000, and they are due to expire at the close of business this July 31st, 2026.

The renewal shall be for an additional period of two years, commencing August 1st, 2026 and terminating July 31st, 2028.

There shall be no increases to the individual compensation in TEs with these renewals.

And for context, DBNS expensed uh about $375,000 for emergency demolitions in 2025 and has expensed an additional $74,000 for emergency demolitions thus far into 2026.

How much again into 2026?

Do that again.

In 2026, so far this year, 74,000.

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

Thank you.

And I know you are well aware of this service from your I remember.

Emergency demolitions are very much uh there's an emergency, it is going to fall into the right-of-way or a parcel nearby or something along those lines.

And so only when it is absolutely necessary are we taking this uh precaution.

So moved.

Seconded.

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All right, Jacob.

Proceeding to resolution 2026 C1017.

Staff recommends this board approve and authorize the director to renew the current professional service agreement 19553 with firm Wis Janny Elsner Associates Inc.

for emergency on call engineering services.

The two-year agreement was signed in 2022 and renewed for an additional two years in 2024.

The contract compensation not to exceed limit was established at 40,000, and the agreement is due to expire at the close of business July 31st, uh 2026 this year.

The renewal shall be for an additional period of two years, commencing August 1st, 2026 and terminating July 31st, 2028.

There shall be no increase to the to the compensation NTEs with this renewal.

Uh DBNS has spent just under uh nine thousand two hundred dollars on these emergency on call engineering services from July 2024 to present, so for the last two years.

Any questions for Jacob on the on-call engineering services that are part of the on call demolition services?

If not, I'll entertain a motion for C 1017.

So moved.

All those in favor signify by saying aye, aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jacob.

Next, Miss Angela, C 10018 for highly ten grass.

Good afternoon, afternoon.

So, you've got a lot of stuff.

Sorry.

All right, um, so I would like to bring to the board the resolution number 2026, C1018.

Um, staff recommends that this board approve and authorize the director to enter into a new service agreement with vendor Allied Logistical Services Incorporated for highways and grass mowing abatement services.

The vendor submission to the city requested for qualifications was deemed responsive, and the vendor was found by staff to be qualified for a contract award.

The two-year terms of the agreement shall commence upon the contract execution and will expire March 31st of 2028.

The fee schedule for these agreements pays $95 per lawn below one acre in size, $170 per lot from one to one and a half acres in size, and $20 for photos of already cut lots.

The two-year compensation not to exceed limit is shall be established at $50,000.

And just uh added context.

So we originally brought some other contracts forward.

We didn't bring Allied at that time because we had plenty.

Um, but now we've had one vendor who uh is maybe taking more of a part-time approach.

Uh yeah, they have kind of worried about some things going on, so Allied has agreed to kind of be like an overflow or step in when we don't have that coverage from those previous vendors, yeah.

Cool.

All right.

Any questions for Angela?

Not a motion to entertain C 10018.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

I thank you, Angela.

Thank you.

Did it all right?

Now Alina.

She's gonna have to plug in her laptop.

Jessica, can you help around this?

I don't know if the screen's on.

Yeah, screen.

All right.

I was thinking about it.

Is the screen on?

Okay.

So that's on the screen.

Yes.

Okay.

Do I there should be a pop up?

Yeah, there's usually a pop-up to install and run it, and then you hit the button.

Quick share.

Configure or open.

Oh there it is.

We figured it out.

Psych.

I'm gonna need a little morning.

Okay.

Thank you for your help.

And then the button.

There you go.

Look at that.

We did it.

Thank you, Jessica.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Um the information that I'm sharing in this presentation today, which I promise will be brief, is linked to multiple resolutions.

We recently rebid uh the third party vendor contracts that support plan review uh inspections and testing processes that are managed by my division.

So the scopes that I'm going to cover today are all for contracts which have upcoming expiration dates.

We had the option to extend these contracts, but we chose to rebid the contracts as part of the city's commitment to reevaluating and improving permitting processes as part of the streamline Indy initiative, which is a multi-department initiative that we've been working on with DMD and DPW.

So rebidding the contracts also allowed us the opportunity to expand scopes for processes where we had identified that we could benefit from some additional technical expertise.

We prioritize contracts with the upcoming expiration dates, as I mentioned for today's meeting, but we also anticipate bringing a couple additional contracts for your review at upcoming meetings.

So we complete certain types of plan review in-house in my division, but we also work with multiple third-party vendors for plan review of uh non-residential structural permits and non-residential infrastructure permits.

So infrastructure permits include drainage, infrastructure, and transportation infrastructure.

Historically, they also included flood structural reviews, cover building construction and renovation.

Flood is something that we will see in upcoming conversations as we've split that out and evaluating some of the scope there.

So when we're talking about infrastructure, we're looking at drainage toils, streets, sidewalks, and more.

In addition to reviewing plans, as you would imagine, these contracts also allow for some additional technical support from our vendors.

So that might look like being the engineer in the room for a project meeting and providing technical advice and support there, or it might look like training our internal staff on specialized topics.

Past trainings have included fascinating things like uh manually calculating the base flood elevation from flood insurance rate maps.

Which we deeply appreciated to training up.

I do also want to mention specifically that for these contracts, the vendors invoice DBNS directly for the plan review services.

The department subsequently pays those invoices from funds collected upon permit issuance.

So this is a little bit different from the inspection and testing process, which we'll get to in a minute.

So because we've received feedback in the past that contract pay rates were not sustainable for vendors, rather than proposing set rates in our RFQ.

We requested proposals for pricing structures and evaluated market prices.

So after reviewing various proposals and evaluating our own budget, we've settled on a rate that works both for our budget and for our vendors.

You can see those rates on the screen.

A change that I do want to note is the shift in how we pay for accelerated reviews.

So when we brought the new accelerated review policy to the board a few months ago, we shifted to a flat rate fee rather than an hourly rate, and the change that we've made in this instance is also a shift for how we pay vendors in relation to accelerated review.

It used to be a different hourly rate for accelerated review.

Now it is simply a flat fee, which is more reflective of our current fee structure and also better incentivizes turnaround times.

So after going through the RFQ process, we've chosen to move forward with Prime AE and Safe Built, who are both current vendors for structural plan review.

For infrastructure, we chose DLZ and Aegis, both our current vendors for infrastructure.

I think I said for infrastructure twice, but so when it comes to inspections on the structural side of the house, um, all our inspections are in-house.

We have building inspectors that check new buildings for compliance with building code when it comes to things like foundations and framings framing, we also have uh compliance inspectors whose job it is to inspect for compliance with building ordinance regulations.

And things look a little bit different on the infrastructure side of the house.

But the idea is very similar.

We have in-house compliance inspectors, so they evaluate compliance with ordinance and with regulation.

However, because of the technical expertise that's required to assess whether infrastructure is being correctly installed, we also contract with third-party vendors, uh, third-party inspectors who provide construction observation for drainage infrastructure and for newly constructed transportation infrastructure.

So the goal is to make sure that what's on the plans is what's in the grounds, that materials weren't changed, that you know, backfill materials were applied correctly, and then at the end of the process, everything's been tested to make sure it works and that things are draining properly and functioning as planned and turned over either to the new owner or to the city in a functioning condition.

I also want to note specifically for this uh set of contracts that it is a zero dollar pass-through contract.

So we have a list of approved vendors and an agreed upon rate, and then the permittee executes a contract directly with the inspection vendor and the vendor invoices the permittees.

So on this slide, you'll see both our historical rates and our new rates.

Uh I'll note that the main shift here is right sizing of expertise.

So, whereas before the rate was the same, whether the inspector was a certified inspector or a trained engineer.

Now we're focusing more on how different types of construction observation can require different levels of expertise.

So, whereas for something like interosion and sediment control inspection or a closure inspection where we're determining is their grass on 100% of the site or on 70% of the site.

It's different if we're trying to complete a test on whether or not a BMP uh stormwater bus management practice is functioning as intended, and different equipment is required.

And so our rates are shifting to reflect the different levels of training required.

Um also note that we have an escalator clause, which is to address inflation more closely mirror market rates.

We also agreed to a testing rate increase after requests from all our vendors.

So we're working with many vendors that we really value and have had long-standing partnerships with.

So we're excited to work with them.

As always, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um, that's always there.

I know that sometimes these reviews take more time than the public would like, and are maybe more um robust than the public thinks they should be, or the by the public I mean the design teams.

Um what opportunities do those groups have to have conversations with BNS about that review process and how to make sure it is appropriately sized.

Yeah.

Well, I would say we're engaged in ongoing conversations with individuals, and we always welcome conversations like that because I think it's very helpful for us in improving our processes when we, you know, when we're looking at a review, we have a standard set of comments uh that we might work from.

Sometimes people will uh alter those comments a little bit as they're creating a review to better reflect the circumstances, but I think it's also important to pay attention to the consistency and the clarity of that particular comment.

So we're working to provide in a more consistent way, those standard comments saying if we're gonna make this comment, this is the way that we want to say it, and then we can add additional uh information as needed, but let's have a base comment.

And then as we do that, we're also working directly, as I mentioned, with individuals, whether that's uh folks like the Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis, when they're saying, hey, we've seen a couple of different types of comments come through for this particular design, right?

Um, what's going on with that?

We can then go back to our teams and make sure that if we either need to provide a standard comment uh that is the same for both of those, we have that uh QAQC process, or if it's something where there really was a little bit of a difference and it was nuanced, but it was important that those comments were not exactly the same, we're able to explain why and make sure that we're consistently using those comments in the specific instances.

So I hope that answered the question, but happy to I can I can add to that too.

So as you know, we have SLAs set in these contracts as far as turnaround times and those expectations.

Uh, we do plan on shortening those to some degree, especially for turnaround.

Um, and then we obviously took a different approach with accelerated review as well, and that's been going very well as far as turnaround times go.

We did a big data dive when we um kicked off the streamline indeed process to see what was our baseline, and what we found was that in 2024 we were issuing uh structural permits in 40 working days, and in 2025 we'd gotten down to 20.

Is that right?

Yes.

So 40 to 20.

So, like, and part of that is small things like our what the manager over commercial projects instituted a new rule where if you hit three review rounds, uh everything kind of pauses and a meeting has to get set between her and the reviewer and the applicant to say, like, okay, three is what's the issue here, let's figure it out.

Um we saw drainage went from 123 working days down to 60 working days, and so we've seen improvements as we've been engaging more with our vendors directly.

And so to Elena's point, some of it has been that far more detailed approach of just like what are you even putting on the page?

And some of it's been higher level conversations as well.

Uh, we've also been doing lunch and learns.

Uh, we haven't done one in a couple months, actually.

But uh we've been doing lunch and learns so that if you're an engineering firm or a builder or an architect, uh she and I will come to your office and uh we will go through the Streamline Indy presentation and talk about the data and talk about the things that we're trying to do to fix, and we've gotten some really great feedback in those sessions because we've done all of those.

We've met we've met with architectural firms, and the feedback is obviously very different depending on the audience and what their kind of bread and butter is, but it's been really really helpful as we've uh put together, had these types of conversations and other conversations with permitting.

So that's a very long-winded answer to say we are aware there are frustrations.

I think on one hand, we are trying to reshape the narrative and get those numbers out there to show like it actually isn't this bad, like there might be one-off instances or a variance is involved, so it takes longer, but like let's talk about what that actual process looks like.

And then on the other hand, we are acknowledging that there are still things that need to be resolved.

And so between this, between the pre-submital meetings we've been having with DMD and DPW, which uh going back to open gov, people can go to DMD's website, their open gov website, and sign up for those now.

Um, but we've been offering a twice a month meeting where representatives from each of those departments is in the room to review your project and to make sure you're on the right track and to give you a timeline to proceed.

Those have been going really well.

We've gotten a lot of really good feedback from them.

So we we are doing what we can to try to meet people where they are and to try to actually not just hear feedback but ingest it and try to do something valuable with it.

Yeah, and I think the biggest takeaway from the process is really that it is a multifaceted process with a lot of players, a lot of opportunities for communication to not go as planned, and that the critical thing really is that open communication and making sure that when we find those challenges, we're asking how can we make this better and having that conversation.

So, thank you.

Vanina, are we able to take these together or do we need to vote on them separately?

I assume separately, but yeah.

Okay, alright, all right.

We can do that.

No.

Speed round.

I'm kidding.

All right.

So is there a motion for C 1019?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Seconded.

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

C 1020.

So moved.

Seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

C 1021.

So moved.

Seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

C 10 20 20.

C 10 0 22.

So seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

C 10 23.

So moved.

Seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

C 10 24.

So moved.

Seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

C 10 25.

So moved.

Seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Look at that.

Thank you, Lena.

Thank you.

There's one more piece of business to come before the board.

This is a little unorthodox, but there's a gentleman here today, Matthew.

I'm gonna say your last name wrong, so I'm not even gonna attempt it.

Uh he would like to make a public comment as it pertains to some zoning pieces.

And although it's not necessarily germane to the meeting, the last thing I want to do is discourage someone from their ability to to speak vocally.

So if you want to introduce yourself, uh, and then feel free to to make your statement, sir.

Um my name is Matthew Kimbrough, and uh yeah, prepared state classic.

Perfect, yeah, whatever you'd like.

Um yes, um I'll prepare the following statement for the topic of two gas stations being built in the Riverside MOK neighborhood.

Um K in Riverside is become a food desert.

Uh, USDA defines uh food desert based on a combination of income, proximity, and access to affordable nutritious and fresh foods.

It was 2015 when the only grocery store in our neighborhood closed.

It's been over 10 years.

We've survived on communities, small mon pod restaurants and shops that have had to sell necessities for people such as detergent, flour canned goods, and more.

Uh this includes Family Dollar General Store, Cleo's Bodega, MLK Food Mart, formerly known as Baba's, a small restaurant and general store.

Cleo's being the only option for fresh produce due to the farm, which is recently open, but it's very small with limited resources.

Uh the two additional gas stations that are being built are a shell and an emoco.

Um we're nervous due to the uh environmental effect that could be had upon our neighborhood with our only small farm.

I have recently visited this farm and spoke to the lead of this farm, and um there are not many workers or a lot of support for this farm.

It's still in its info size and um with two new gas stations along with the two that we already currently have.

This could drastically affect not only the environment, but we still don't have a grocery store, and it's been 10 years, and so the people of the neighborhood really need this.

There's a lot of elderly disabled individuals uh children in this neighborhood, and so we're just trying to bring awareness to this, find a way to hopefully stop those two uh gas stations from being built and to either get a company to provide us with a grocery store or to get a neighborhood grocery store installed.

That's it.

Thank you all.

Thank you, sir.

And I will uh if you want to hang back after the meeting, I will give you my contact information and we can get you in touch with some of the zoning people.

All right, cool.

Thank you.

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

Uh we our next meeting is technically June 25th here in room T 260.

Uh, this meeting is adjourned.