MINUTES OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL · collection FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 13, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation of $10,848,465 in the 2018 Budget of the ... Agency (Information

5

MINUTES OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND

SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF

INDIANAPOLIS, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA

REGULAR MEETINGS

MONDAY, JULY 16, 2018

The City-County Council of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana and the Indianapolis Police

Special Service District Council, Indianapolis Fire Special Service District Council and

Indianapolis Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Council convened in regular

concurrent sessions in the Council Chamber of the City-County Building at 7:04 p.m. on Monday,

July 16, 2018, with Councillor Osili presiding.

Councillor Scales led the opening prayer and invited all present to join her in the Pledge of

Allegiance to the Flag.

ROLL CALL

The President instructed the Clerk to take the roll call and requested members to register their

presence on the voting machine. The roll call was as follows:

25 PRESENT: Adamson, Clay, Coats, Cordi, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Holliday, Jackson,

Johnson, Kreider, Lewis, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Mowery, Oliver, Osili,

Pfisterer, Ray, Robinson, Scales, Simpson, Wesseler

0 ABSENT:

A quorum of 25 members being present, the President called the meeting to order.

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS AND VISITORS

Councillor Jackson recognized the family of recently slain 13-year-old Harry Taliefer. She

extended her condolences to the family on their loss, and stated that they are here in support of the

introduction of her proposal regarding gun violence as a public safety crisis.

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS

The President called for the reading of Official Communications. The Clerk read the following:

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND POLICE, FIRE AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, INDIANA

Journal of the City-County Council

6

Ladies And Gentlemen : You are hereby notified the REGULAR MEETINGS of the City-County Council and Police, Fire and Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Councils will be held in the City-County Building, in the Council Chambers, on Monday, July 16, 2018, at 7:00 p.m., the purpose of such MEETINGS being to conduct any and all business that may properly come before regular meetings of the Councils.

Respectfully, s/Vop Osili President, City-County Council

June 21, 2018 TO PRESIDENT OSILI AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND POLICE, FIRE AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, INDIANA: Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana, I caused to be published in the Court & Commercial Record and in the Indianapolis Star on Wednesday, June 27, 2018 a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing on Proposal No. 229, 2018, said hearing to be held on Monday, July 16, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building. Respectfully, s/SaRita Hughes Clerk of the City-County Council June 29, 2018 TO PRESIDENT OSILI AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL AND POLICE, FIRE AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT COUNCILS OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY, INDIANA: Ladies and Gentlemen: I have approved with my signature and delivered this day to the Clerk of the City-County Council, SaRita Hughes, the following ordinances: FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 7, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation of $560,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Department of Metropolitan Development (Redevelopment General Fund) to finance a program that enhances post-secondary educational opportunities and access to youths and adults in Marion County FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 8, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation of $850,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Department of Metropolitan Development (Redevelopment General and Consolidated County General Funds) for environmental remediation of two brownfield sites and to meet contractual needs for permanent supportive housing FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 10, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation and transfer totalling $115,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD General and City Cumulative Capital Funds) to purchase equipment for the traffic division, cover costs associated with the leadership academy, and support a furniture upgrade at the training academy FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 11, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation of $4,200,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Office of Public Health and Safety (Consolidated County General Fund) for land acquisition and lease expenses related to the Community Justice Facility Complex FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 12, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation of $1,920,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Department of Public Works (Solid Waste Collection General Fund) to purchase new heavy side loader trucks for refuse collection FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 13, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation of $10,848,465 in the 2018 Budget of the Department of Public Works (Transportation General Fund) to purchase capital equipment and to hire additional staff to perform street maintenance work FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 14, 2018 – approves an additional appropriation of $220,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Office of Audit and Performance (Consolidated County Fund) to cover the cost of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office comprehensive assessment of proficiency of execution of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office statutory and constitutional authorities and responsibilities FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 15, 2018 - approves a transfer of $100,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Information Services Agency (Information Services Fund) to purchase docking stations, monitors and audio/visual equipment FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 16, 2018 – approves a transfer of $82,000 in the 2018 Budget of the Forensic Services Agency (County General Fund) to purchase forensic instrumentation and equipment for the Drug Chemistry and Crime Scene Sections

July 16, 2018

7

GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 45, 2018 – authorizes a speed limit reduction to 25 miles per hour in various subdivisions within the Eagledale area bounded by Lafayette Road, 38th Street, High School Road and 25th Street (Districts 6,10) GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 46, 2018 – amends the Code to reflect the creation of a new education committee as a standing committee of the council with regard to oversight of the Indianapolis Pre-K Program GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 47, 2018 - amends the Code to establish the Greater Virginia Area Corridor Economic Improvement District for the development and improvement of the Fletcher Place and Fountain Square business area GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 48, 2018 – amends the Code to create city and county community justice campus funds as subfunds of the county general fund to be used solely for expenses related to the community justice campus SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 6, 2018 – approves an interlocal agreement between the City (Department of Public Works) and the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) for the financing, design, construction, implementation and maintenance of rapid bus transit lines in furtherance of the implementation of the Marion County Transit Plan SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 7, 2018 – adopts the declarations of the Director of the Marion County Public Health Department and approves the Safe Syringe Access and Support Program SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 22, 2018 – recognizes retired Indianapolis Fire Department Lieutenant Charles E. Smith SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 23, 2018 – recognizes Financial Center First Credit Union, under the leadership of their President and Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Ryan, for receiving a nearly unprecedented four national awards for financial literacy and community outreach s/Joseph H. Hogsett, Mayor

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The President proposed the adoption of the agenda as distributed. Without objection, the agenda

was adopted.

APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

The President called for additions or corrections to the Journals of June 18, 2018. There being no

additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS, MEMORIALS, SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS, AND

COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS

PROPOSAL NO. 241, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Cordi, Jackson, Ray and

Johnson, honors Warren Township Superintendent of Schools, Dena Cushenberry, upon her

retirement. Councillor Cordi stated that Ms. Cushenberry was unable to come to the last meeting

due to a family emergency, and has already moved to Florida to enjoy her retirement. She added

that she will deliver the resolution to her at a later time. Councillor Cordi moved, seconded by

Councillor Jackson, for adoption. Proposal No. 241, 2018 was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.

Proposal No. 241, 2018 was retitled SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 24, 2018, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 24, 2018

A SPECIAL RESOLUTION recognizing Warren Township Superintendent of Schools, Dena Cushenberry.

WHEREAS, Dr. Dena Cushenberry has been in public education for over thirty-one years. She is an Indiana University

alumni with Bachelors, Masters, Specialist and Doctorate degrees; and

WHEREAS, Dr. Cushenberry started her career with Metropolitan School District of (MSD) Warren Township in 1999,

as the assistant principal at the middle school level and principal at the elementary level; and


8

WHEREAS, Dr. Cushenberry opened Liberty Park Elementary School in 2002-2003, and in 2008, Liberty Park was

recognized as a National Blue-Ribbon School; and

WHEREAS, in 2008, Dr. Cushenberry moved to the central office, where she served as the Associate and Deputy

Superintendent from 2008-2012. She was appointed as Superintendent in April of 2012; and

WHEREAS, Dr. Cushenberry has received numerous awards and recognitions; such as the 1997 Gloria E. Bond Award;

the 1999 Henry Ferrettie Distinguished Public Service Award; the 2015 Excellence in Education from Phi Delta Kappa; the

2015 Achievement in Education, K-12; and the 2017 Governor’s Award for Achievement in Education; and

WHEREAS, Superintendent Dena Cushenberry will retire June 2018, after 31 years of service in Elementary and

Secondary education; now, therefore:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:

SECTION 1. The Indianapolis City-County Council proudly recognizes and appreciates Superintendent Dena

Cushenberry’s dedication and commitment to the students and faculty of Warren Township schools.

SECTION 2. The Council heartily wishes Superintendent Cushenberry a long and enjoyable retirement.

SECTION 3. The Mayor is invited to join in this resolution by affixing his signature hereto.

SECTION 4. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14.

PROPOSAL NO. 284, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors McQuillen and Osili, honors

Kent B. Smith upon his retirement from an impressive 33 years of service in the United States

Military. Councillor McQuillen read the proposal and presented Mr. Smith with a copy of the

document and a Council pin. Mr. Smith thanked the Council for the recognition. Councillor

McQuillen moved, seconded by Councillor Pfisterer, for adoption. Proposal No. 284, 2018 was

adopted by a unanimous voice vote.



A SPECIAL RESOLUTION honoring Kent B. Smith upon his retirement from an impressive 33-year service in the

United States Military.

WHEREAS, Kent B. Smith developed a “Coping Skills Program” while stationed in Germany to teach military

families how to manage transition to military life in Germany. His most cherished living memorial is raising three

wonderful children to become upright adults in our community; and

WHEREAS, his military jobs included Administrative Specialist, Healthcare NCO, Behavioral Health NCO,

Master Resilience Trainer, and Recruiting/ Retention NCO. During his years in the military he also managed to become

an Author; Motivational Speaker and Trainer; and

WHEREAS, Kent B. Smith served on the Indianapolis City-County Council from 2008-2010, serving as Vice-

President and Chair of the Community Development Committee. He also served as Group Facilitator/Mentor with

Project Male Responsibility for over sixteen years through the Center for Leadership Development.; and

WHEREAS, Kent B. Smith currently serves as one of the armor bearers for Pastor Dr. Henzy Green of Emmaus

Christian Church. The wisdom he has gained from listening and learning from mighty men and women of God is

enormous, but the greatest part of being an armor bearer is that you are close enough to receive the overflow of the

anointing, “It’s like standing near a fire, the closer you get the more intense the heat”. He has learned “everyone should

be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. “(James 1:119); now, therefore:



July 16, 2018

9

SECTION 1. The Indianapolis City-County Council recognizes Kent B. Smith for his years of service in the military.

SECTION 2. The Council extends its gratitude to Kent B. Smith for giving of his time and talents to social service

agencies, non-profits and small businesses, contributing greatly to the quality of life for Indianapolis residents and the

growth of a healthy business climate in the City.

SECTION 3. The Council wishes Mr. Smith many years of continued success in all his endeavors.



PROPOSAL NO. 285, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Osili, Lewis and Robinson,

honors Shannon Williams, former President and General Manager for Recorder Media Group.

Councillor Lewis read the proposal and presented Ms. Williams with a copy of the document and

a Council pin. Ms. Williams thanked the Council for the recognition. Councillor Lewis moved,

seconded by Councillor Robinson, for adoption. Proposal No. 285, 2018 was adopted by a

unanimous voice vote.



A SPECIAL RESOLUTION honoring Shannon Williams, former President/General Manager, Recorder Media Group.

WHEREAS, Shannon Williams served as the President and General Manager of Indiana Minority Business

Magazine and The Indianapolis Recorder Newspaper, America’s fourth oldest surviving African-American newspaper

from 2010 - 2018.

WHEREAS, after graduating from Jackson State University with a bachelor’s degree in Mass Communications

Shannon began her career with the Recorder Media group in 2000 as a Marketing and Circulation Manager.

WHEREAS, after showing her leadership qualities and superior ability, Shannon was swiftly promoted to Assistant

Editor and then Editor in 2002 which made her the youngest to hold such a title in the history of the company.

WHEREAS after only six years at the Recorder, Shannon successfully reached Vice-President status and then was

named president in 2010 at the age of 33.

WHEREAS, Shannon has received many local, regional and national awards for journalism, community advocacy

and leadership. Her continued excellence has resulted in her being featured in Ebony magazine as one of the country’s

emerging leaders.



SECTION 1. The Indianapolis City-County Council proudly recognizes Shannon Williams for over 17 years of dedicated

and immeasurable service to the Recorder Media Group.

SECTION 2. The City-County Council wishes Shannon continued success in all future endeavors.



PROPOSAL NO. 298, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Pfisterer, Evans and

McHenry, recognizes the Speedway Sparkplugs Softball team for their 2018 Indiana High School

Athletic Association (IHSAA) 2A State Championship win. Councillor Pfisterer read the proposal

and presented representatives with copies of the document and Council pins. Head Coach Alyssa


10

Coleman thanked the Council for the recognition. Councillor Pfisterer moved, seconded by

Councillor Evans, for adoption. Proposal No. 298, 2018 was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.


CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL RESOLUTION NO. 27, 2018

A SPECIAL RESOLUTION recognizing the Speedway Sparkplugs Softball team for their 2018 Indiana High School

Athletic Association (IHSAA) 2A State Championship win.

WHEREAS, the Speedway Lady Sparkplugs won the 2018 IHSAA 2A State Championship game on June 9, 2018

by defeating Bremen High School; and

WHEREAS, the Lady Sparkplugs are the first female State title team, who has won the first sectional, regional,

semi-state and IHSAA 2A State title in the school’s history; and

WHEREAS, the Lady Sparkplugs finished the season with a 13-game winning streak, outscoring opponents 39-5

and a 22-6-1 record for the season; and

WHEREAS, the team has been led by Head Coach Alyssa Coleman and Assistants Carl Fenters and Kati Gregory;

and

WHEREAS, the team’s roster consisted of 10 Freshman, 1 Sophomore, five Juniors and four Seniors: Rylee Wade,

Nikki Ray, Paige Rush, Emma DeVault, Rachael Gregory, Brooke Hartman, Lane Hooper, Katie Endres, Josie Frey,

Kayte Turnquist, Alexis Laffin, Madison Golden, Kylee Man, Hannah Lindsey, Jackie Eversole, Kaiah Fenters, Madison

Barnes, Alexa Faulkner, Kendall Short and Molly Griner; and

WHEREAS, Freshman Kaiah Fenters led the team with a one-hit shut-out in seven innings, and Senior Rylee Wade

won the 2018 IHSAA Class 2A Mental Attitude Award, granting a $1,000 scholarship to Speedway High School; now,

therefore:



SECTION 1. The Indianapolis City-County Council proudly recognizes the Speedway Sparkplugs Softball team for their

2018 Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) 2A State Championship.

SECTION 2. The Council extends its congratulations to the entire team, coaching staff and school administration on

their achievement and wishes each player great success in their future endeavors, both athletically and academically.



PROPOSAL NO. 299, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor McHenry, honors Saint

Theodora Excellence in Education Award recipient, Lynne Locke. Councillor McHenry read the

proposal and presented Ms. Locke with a copy of the document and a Council pin. Ms. Locke

thanked the Council for the recognition. Councillor McHenry moved, seconded by Councillor

Miller, for adoption. Proposal No. 299, 2018 was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.



A SPECIAL RESOLUTION honoring Saint Theodora Excellence in Education Award recipient, Lynne Locke.

WHEREAS, Ms. Lynne Locke teaches junior high theology and social studies at Cardinal Ritter Jr./Sr. High School

in Indianapolis; and

July 16, 2018

11

WHEREAS, her commitment to the school is amazing. She has coached three Academic Challenge teams to

championships in the past three years, and coordinates the eighth-grade class trip to New Albany and St. Louis so that

the students can learn more about the legacy of Cardinal Joseph E. Ritter; and

WHEREAS, Lynne is not only committed to Cardinal Ritter, but to the community as well. She prepares and serves

meals to families of hospitalized children at the Ronald McDonald House here in Indianapolis; and

WHEREAS, Lynne lives her life evangelizing the Catholic faith through the manner in which she lives. Generations

of students are not only smarter, but better people because of the guidance and teachings of Lynne; and

WHEREAS, Lynne’s depth of caring for her students is one of the reasons that she is this year’s recipient of the

Saint Theodora Excellence in Education Award, the highest honor for a Catholic educator in the archdiocese; and

WHEREAS, when asked about the lasting impact Lynne hopes to have on her students, she said “I hope they always

love to learn, and they always look for ways to get greater knowledge about anything. I hope they understand the love

that Christ has for them and the importance of going to heaven one day, and hopes that they remember that she cared

for them and truly wants what is best for them”; now, therefore



SECTION 1. The City-County Council recognizes Saint Theodora Excellence in Education Award recipient Lynne

Locke.

SECTION 2. The City-County Council acknowledges the many contributions, accomplishments, dedication and hard

work of Ms. Locke.



PROPOSAL NO. 286, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Kreider and Osili, strongly

urges the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) to establish a Veterans' Ride-

Free program for its fixed routes. Councillor Kreider read the proposal and moved, seconded by

Councillor McQuillen, for adoption. Proposal No. 286, 2018 was adopted by a unanimous voice

vote.



A SPECIAL RESOLUTION strongly urging the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) to establish a

Veterans Ride Free program for its fixed routes.

WHEREAS, unquestionably, Indianapolis veterans of the Armed Services have sacrificed beyond belief to secure

Americans’ liberties, rights, and security, both at home and abroad. Upon returning home, veterans often face significant

challenges with reacclimating to civilian life; and

WHEREAS, an estimated 48,000 veterans of the armed services are living within Marion County, Indiana; more

than 14,000 have disabilities, and up to 1,300 are homeless; and

WHEREAS, the City of Indianapolis and Marion County taxpayers, through programs delivered by the Department

of Metropolitan Development, provide financial resources to social service organizations that work with veterans to

remove barriers; and

WHEREAS, in Indianapolis, public and nonprofit organizations expend funds to address barriers in securing

employment, healthcare, mental health services, healthy food, legal and education services for veterans; and

WHEREAS, the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) is a municipal corporation of

Indianapolis-Marion County, and its operation is funded primarily by Marion County property and income taxes; and


12

WHEREAS, IndyGo provides vital access to dozens of Indianapolis destinations where veterans receive services to

address barriers to self-sufficiency. Too often veterans in Indianapolis are unable to access these vital services due to

limited transportation options, or because of the cost of transportation; and

WHEREAS, providing fare-free access to IndyGo fixed routes for all veterans in Marion County will make

significant positive impacts in the health, wellbeing and self-sufficiency of veterans that are the most vulnerable;

WHEREAS, the Indianapolis City-County Council recognizes that IndyGo currently collects fares directly from

veterans, in addition to revenue for ticket sales from organizations serving veterans, in an amount that is estimated at

more than $150,000 annually; now, therefore:



SECTION 1. In honor of the undeniable sacrifices made by veterans of the armed services, and to positively impact

the health, economic and social outcomes of veterans living in Marion County, the Council fully supports and strongly

urges IndyGo to establish a fare-free program for veterans living in Marion County.

SECTION 2. The Council recommends that the fare-free program for veterans shall be limited to local fixed route

bus service within Marion County, and shall not extend to paratransit, flexible, or demand-response services operated by

IndyGo, its contractors, or private sector mobility partnerships.



PROPOSAL NO. 200, 2018. Councillor Robinson reported that the Public Safety and Criminal

Justice Committee heard Proposal No. 200, 2018 on June 6, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by

Councillor Robinson, appoints Tracy McQueen to the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team.

By a 9-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it

do pass. Councillor Robinson moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson, for adoption. Proposal

No. 200, 2018 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

25 YEAS: Adamson, Clay, Coats, Cordi, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Holliday, Jackson, Johnson,

Kreider, Lewis, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Mowery, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Ray,

Robinson, Scales, Simpson, Wesseler

0 NAYS:

Proposal No. 200, 2018 was retitled COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 65, 2018, and reads as

follows:

CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 65, 2018

A COUNCIL RESOLUTION appointing Tracy McQueen to the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team.



SECTION 1. As a member of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team (fulfilling the requirement of a child

protective services employee), the Council appoints:

Tracy McQueen

SECTION 2. The appointment made by this resolution is for a term ending December 31, 2018. The person appointed

by this resolution shall serve at the pleasure of the Council and for sixty (60) days after the expiration of such term or until

such earlier date as successor is appointed and qualifies.

July 16, 2018

13

INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSALS

PROPOSAL NO. 253, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Simpson. The Clerk read the proposal

entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which reappoints Janai Downs to the Equal

Opportunity Advisory Board"; and the President referred it to the Administration and Finance

Committee.


entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which reappoints Marion Faye Godwin to the Equal


Committee.


entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which reappoints Douglas Huntsinger to the Equal


Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 256, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Mascari. The Clerk read the proposal

entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which reappoints John Barth to the Public Art for

Neighborhoods Selection Committee"; and the President referred it to the Community Affairs

Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 257, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Lewis. The Clerk read the proposal entitled:

"A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Brian Robinson to the Metropolitan Board of

Zoning Appeals, Division I"; and the President referred it to the Metropolitan and Economic

Development Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 258, 2018. Introduced by Councillors Lewis, Adamson and Miller. The Clerk

read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Edward Battista

to the Greater Virginia Avenue Corridor Economic Improvement District Board"; and the President

referred it to the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee.


read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Matt Cremer to

the Greater Virginia Avenue Corridor Economic Improvement District Board"; and the President



read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Jacob Dietrich to




read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Terry Garcia to




read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Mike Halstead to




14


read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Trinity Hart to




read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Linda Osborne to




read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Paul Smith to the

Greater Virginia Avenue Corridor Economic Improvement District Board"; and the President


PROPOSAL NO. 266, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Lewis. The Clerk read the proposal entitled:

"A Proposal for a Council Resolution which confirms the Mayor's appointment of Brian Madison

as the Director of the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services"; and the President



entitled: "A Proposal for a General Resolution which designates a portion of Michigan Road north

of Fox Hill Court to 63rd Street and a portion of 63rd Street from Michigan Road to three residences

east of Bettcher as the Bishop Edwin Hamilton Vaughn Memorial Way"; and the President referred

it to the Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 268, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Robinson. The Clerk read the proposal

entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Nancy Swigonski to the Reuben

Engagement Center Board"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice

Committee.


entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which appoints Chris Duzenbery to the Early

Intervention Planning Council"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal

Justice Committee.


entitled: "A Proposal for a Special Ordinance which approves a lease by the Board of the Office

of Public Health and Safety as governing body of the Public Safety Communications Systems and

Computer Facilities District to finance upgrades to various structures, equipment and systems

designed to allow various public safety and other entities within Marion County access to

interoperable radio communications systems, and improvements related thereto"; and the President

referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee.




Computer Facilities District to finance the replacement of radio equipment for the Marion County

Sheriff's Office and other entities related to community justice and civil law enforcement in Marion

July 16, 2018

15

County, and improvements related thereto"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and

Criminal Justice Committee.




Computer Facilities District to finance the replacement of radio equipment for various police

departments and related public safety entities within Marion County, and improvements related

thereto"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee.




Computer Facilities District to finance the replacement of radio equipment for entities that provide

fire, rescue and/or emergency medical services within Marion County, and improvements related

thereto"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee.




Computer Facilities District to finance the replacement of radio equipment for governmental

entities in Marion County that do not provide first responder or law enforcement services, and

improvements related thereto"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety and Criminal

Justice Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 275, 2018. Introduced by Councillors Jackson, Adamson, Simpson and Clay.

The Clerk read the proposal entitled: "A Proposal for a Council Resolution which recognizes gun

violence as a public health crisis in Indianapolis"; and the President referred it to the Public Safety

and Criminal Justice Committee.


entitled: "A Proposal for a General Ordinance which authorizes a speed limit reduction to 25 miles

per hour in the Grandview Gardens, Hoover Park, Stonybrook, Delaware Trails, and Westlane

Terrace subdivisions (District 7)"; and the President referred it to the Public Works Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 277, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Miller. The Clerk read the proposal entitled:

"A Proposal for a General Ordinance which authorizes intersection controls at Kappes Street and

West View Drive (District 16)"; and the President referred it to the Public Works Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 278, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Jackson. The Clerk read the proposal

entitled: "A Proposal for a General Ordinance which authorizes intersection controls in the Carroll

Farms subdivision (District 14)"; and the President referred it to the Public Works Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 279, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Jackson. The Clerk read the proposal

entitled: "A Proposal for a General Ordinance which authorizes a speed limit reduction to 25 miles

per hour within the Carroll Farms subdivision (District 14)"; and the President referred it to the

Public Works Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 280, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Gray. The Clerk read the proposal entitled:

"A Proposal for a General Ordinance which authorizes a speed limit reduction to 25 miles per hour


16

in the Saddlebrook subdivisions (District 8)"; and the President referred it to the Public Works

Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 281, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Clay. The Clerk read the proposal entitled:

"A Proposal for a General Ordinance which authorizes intersection controls at Eastbourne Drive

and Radnor Road (District 13)"; and the President referred it to the Public Works Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 282, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Evans. The Clerk read the proposal entitled:

"A Proposal for a General Ordinance which authorizes a speed limit reduction to 25 miles per hour

within several subdivisions in the Lynhurst Drive and Mooresville Road area (District 22)"; and

the President referred it to the Public Works Committee.

PROPOSAL NO. 283, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Evans. The Clerk read the proposal entitled:

"A Proposal for a Council Resolution which establishes a study commission to review and analyze

information gathered from infrastructure experts, and to recommend operational policy changes

and potential long-term funding options"; and the President referred it to the Rules and Public

Policy Committee.

SPECIAL ORDERS - PRIORITY BUSINESS

PROPOSAL NO. 252, 2018. Councillor Lewis reported that the Metropolitan and Economic

Development Committee heard Proposal No. 252, 2018 on July 2, 2018. The proposal, sponsored

by Councillors Lewis and Jackson, authorizes the issuance of Economic Development Mutifamily

Housing Revenue Notes to Amber Woods, II, LP in a principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000

for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquisition, renovation and equipping of a

multifamily housing facility known as Amber Woods, consisting of 200 apartment units, together

with functionally related and subordinate facilities (recreation and parking), located at 10202 John

Jay Drive (District 14), and approves and authorizes other actions in respect thereto. By a 9-0 vote,

the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass.

Councillor Jackson stated that she supports this proposal because it provides much needed

affordable housing for the most vulnerable of the City’s residents. However, she asked for consent

to abstain from the vote to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Consent was given.

Councillor Lewis moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson, for adoption. Proposal No. 252, 2018

was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

24 YEAS: Adamson, Clay, Coats, Cordi, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Holliday, Johnson, Kreider,

Lewis, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Mowery, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Ray, Robinson,

Scales, Simpson, Wesseler

0 NAYS:

1 NOT VOTING: Jackson

Proposal No. 252, 2018 was retitled SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 8, 2018, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 8, 2018

A SPECIAL ORDINANCE of the City-County Council of the City of Indianapolis and of Marion County, Indiana

authorizing the issuance of one or more series of its City of Indianapolis, Indiana Economic Development Revenue Notes,

Series 2018 (Amber Woods Apartments Projects) (the “Notes”) (to be completed with the designation as determined to

be necessary), in a maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed Twenty Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000), and

approving and authorizing other actions in respect thereto.

July 16, 2018

17

WHEREAS, Indiana Code 36-7-11.9 and 12 (collectively, the “Act”) declares that the financing and refinancing of

economic development facilities constitutes a public purpose; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (the “City”) is authorized to issue revenue notes

for the purpose of financing, reimbursing or refinancing the costs of acquisition, renovation and equipping of economic

development facilities, for diversification of economic development and creation or retention of opportunities for gainful

employment in or near the City; and

WHEREAS, the Act provides that such notes may be secured by a trust indenture between an issuer and a corporate

trustee; and

WHEREAS, a representative of Amber Woods II, LP, an Indiana limited partnership (the “Borrower”) has

requested that the City issue notes and lend the proceeds thereof to the Borrower in order to finance the acquisition,

renovation and equipping of a multifamily housing facility known as Amber Woods Apartments, consisting of 200

apartment units, located at 10202 John Jay Drive, in the City of Indianapolis, Indiana (the “Project”) in Council District

14 of the City-County Council of the City of Indianapolis and of Marion County, Indiana (the “City-County Council”);

and

WHEREAS, the Indianapolis Economic Development Commission (the “Commission”) has rendered its report

regarding the proposed acquisition, renovation and equipping of economic development facilities for the Borrower and

the Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County, Indiana, has been given the opportunity to comment

thereon; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has heretofore conducted a public hearing on June 27, 2018 in accordance with Indiana

Code 36-7-12-24, and pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) found

that the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project complies with the purposes and provisions of the Act, that

such acquisition, renovation and equipping will be of benefit to the health and welfare of the City and its citizens through

the requirement that the Project serve persons and families of low and moderate income, that the amount of tax credits to

be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, does not exceed the

amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the project and its viability as a qualified housing project throughout the

credit period for the Project and that the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar

amount under the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority’s qualified allocation plan; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has considered whether the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project will

have an adverse competitive effect or impact on any similar facility or facilities of the same kind already constructed or

operating in the same market area or in or about Marion County, Indiana; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, the City desires to provide funds to acquire, renovate and

equip the Project and to pay incidental costs of issuance by issuing the Notes; and

WHEREAS, the City intends to issue the Notes in one or more series pursuant to a Funding Loan Agreement (the

“Funding Loan Agreement”), by and between the City and a fiscal agent to be selected by the Borrower (the “Fiscal

Agent”) in order to obtain funds to lend to the Borrower for the purpose of acquiring, renovating and equipping the

Project pursuant to a Project Loan Agreement with respect to the Notes among the City, the Fiscal Agent and the Borrower

(the “Loan Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Loan Agreement provides for the repayment by the Borrower of the loan of the proceeds of the

Notes pursuant to which the Borrower will agree to make payments sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the

Notes as the same become due and payable and to pay administrative expenses in connection with the Notes; and

WHEREAS, no member of the City-County Council has any pecuniary interest in any employment, financing

agreement or other contract made under the provisions of the Act and related to the Notes authorized herein, which

pecuniary interest has not been fully disclosed to the City-County Council and no such member has voted on any such

matter, all in accordance with the provisions of Indiana Code 36-7-12-16; and

WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the Commission for its approval substantially final forms of the Funding

Loan Agreement, Loan Agreement, Land Use Restriction Agreement, the forms of the Notes (hereinafter referred to

collectively as the “Financing Documents”), and a form of this proposed Ordinance, which were incorporated by

reference in the Commission's Resolution adopted on June 27, 2018, which Resolution has been transmitted to the City-

County Council; and

WHEREAS, the Borrower will be liable for the debt described in the Loan Agreement; and


18

WHEREAS, based upon the resolution adopted by the Commission pertaining to the acquisition, renovation and

equipping of the Project, the City County-Council hereby finds and determines that the funding approved by the

Commission for the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project will be of benefit to the health and general

welfare of the citizens of the City, complies with the provisions of the Act and the amount necessary to finance all or a

portion of the costs of the Project, will require the issuance, sale and delivery of one or more series of economic

development revenue notes in an aggregate combined principal amount not to exceed Twenty Five Million Dollars

($25,000,000); now, therefore:

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE


SECTION 1. After considering the evidence presented in the EDC Report and EDC Resolution, it is hereby found,

determined, ratified and confirmed that the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the economic development facilities

referred to in the Financing Documents consisting of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Notes, the loan of the net

proceeds thereof to the Borrower for the purposes of acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project, and the repayment

of said loan by the Borrower will be of benefit to the health or general welfare of the City and its citizens and does comply

with the purposes and provisions of the Act, including in particular, the requirement of promoting a substantial likelihood

of retaining opportunities for gainful employment. Furthermore, it is hereby found that the acquisition, renovation and

equipping of the Project will further a public purpose of the City through, among other things, the provision of quality,

affordable, multifamily housing.

SECTION 2. The forms of the Financing Documents presented herewith are hereby approved and all such documents

shall be kept on file by the Clerk of the City-County Council or the City Controller. In compliance with Indiana Code

36-1-5-4, two (2) copies of the Financing Documents are on file in the office of the Clerk of the City-County Council for

public inspection.

SECTION 3. The City shall issue its Notes in one or more series, as described above, in the aggregate principal amount

not to exceed Twenty-Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000), for the purpose of procuring funds to loan to the Borrower in

order to finance the acquisition, renovation and equipping of the Project which Notes will be payable as to principal and

interest solely from the payments made by the Borrower pursuant to the Financing Documents to evidence and secure

said loan and as otherwise provided in the above-described Financing Documents. The Notes shall never constitute a

general obligation of, an indebtedness of, or charge against the general credit of the City.

SECTION 4. The Clerk of the City-County Council and the City Controller are authorized and directed to sell such

Notes to the purchasers thereof at a price not less than 97% of the aggregate principal amount thereof plus accrued

interest, if any, and at a fixed or initial variable rate of interest not to exceed 12% percent per annum. The Notes will

mature no later than 40 years from the date of their issuance, and shall be subject to optional redemption within 11 years

of the date of issuance thereof at a price of 100% of the principal amount thereof.

SECTION 5. The Mayor, the City Controller and any other officer of the City are authorized and directed to execute the

Financing Documents, such other documents approved or authorized herein and any other document which may be

necessary, appropriate or desirable to consummate the transaction contemplated by the Financing Documents and this

Ordinance, and their execution is hereby confirmed on behalf of the City. The signatures of the Mayor, the City Controller

and any other officer of the City on the Notes may be necessary or desirable to consummate the transaction, and their

execution is hereby confirmed on behalf of the City. The signatures of the Mayor, the City Controller and any other

officer of the City on the Notes may be facsimile signatures.

SECTION 6. The Mayor, the City Controller and any other officer of the City are authorized to arrange for the delivery

of such Notes to the purchaser, payment for which will be made in the manner set forth in the Financing Documents.

The Mayor, the City Controller and any other officer of the City may, by their execution of the Financing Documents

requiring their signatures and imprinting of their facsimile signatures thereon, approve any and all changes therein and

also in those Financing Documents which do not require the signature of the Mayor, the City Controller or any other

officer of the City without further approval of this City-County Council or the Commission if such changes do not affect

terms set forth in Indiana Code Sections 27(a)(1) through and including (a)(10) of the Act.

SECTION 7. The provisions of this Ordinance and the Financing Documents shall constitute a contract binding between

the City and the holder or holders of the Notes and after the issuance of said Notes, this Ordinance shall not be repealed

or amended in any respect which would adversely affect the right of such holder or holders so long as said Notes or the

respective interest thereon remains unpaid.

July 16, 2018

19

SECTION 8. Subject to the obligations of the Borrower set forth in the Loan Agreement, the Land Use Restriction

Agreement and the Tax Representation Certificate, the City will use its best efforts to restrict the use of the proceeds of

the Notes in such a manner and to expectations at the time the Notes are delivered to the purchasers thereof, so that they

will not constitute arbitrage notes under Section 148 of the Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Mayor

and the Clerk, or any other officer having responsibility with respect to the issuance of the Notes, are authorized and

directed, alone or in conjunction with any of the foregoing, or with any other officer, employee, consultant or agent of

the City, to deliver a certificate for inclusion in the transcript of proceedings for the Notes, setting forth the facts, estimates

and circumstances and reasonable expectations pertaining to said Section 148 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.

SECTION 9. No recourse under or upon any obligation, covenant, acceptance or agreement contained in this ordinance,

the Financing Documents or under any judgment obtained against the City, including without limitation the Commission,

or by the enforcement of any assessment or by any legal or equitable proceeding by virtue of any constitution or statute

or otherwise, or under any circumstances, under or independent of the Loan Agreement, shall be had against any member,

director, or officer or attorney, as such, past, present, or future, of the City, either directly or through the City, or

otherwise, for the payment for or to the City or any receiver thereof or for or to any holder of the Notes secured thereby,

or otherwise, of any sum that may remain due and unpaid by the City upon any of such Notes. Any and all personal

liability of every nature, whether at common law or in equity, or by statute or by constitution or otherwise, of any such

member, director, or officer or attorney, as such, to respond by reason of any act or omission on his or her part or otherwise

for, directly or indirectly, the payment for or to the City or any receiver thereof, or for or to any owner or holder of the

Notes, or otherwise, of any sum that may remain due and unpaid upon the Notes hereby secured or any of them, shall be

expressly waived and released as a condition of and consideration for the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement

and the issuance, sale and delivery of the Notes.

SECTION 10. The Borrower will indemnify and hold the City, including its officials, attorneys, employees and agents,

free and harmless from any loss, claim, damage, tax, penalty, liability, disbursement, litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees

and expenses and other court costs arising out of, or in any way relating to, the execution or performance of the Financing

Documents or other documents in connection therewith or any other cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project or the

Notes, including the issuance and sale of the Notes or failure to issue or sell the Notes or other actions taken under the

Financing Documents or other documents in connection therewith or any other cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project

or the Notes, all as further described in the Loan Agreement, except in any case as a result of the intentional

misrepresentation or willful misconduct of the City.

SECTION 11. It is hereby determined that the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section 42 of

the Code does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the Project and its viability as a qualified

housing project throughout the credit period for the Project. In making the foregoing determination, the City-County

Council has relied upon representations of the Borrower. The foregoing determinations shall not be construed to be a

representation or warranty by the City as to the feasibility or viability of the Project. The City-County Council hereby

authorizes and directs the Auditor of Marion County to review and make the foregoing determination again for and on

behalf of Marion County at the request of the Borrower, following receipt of supporting materials submitted by the

Borrower to the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (“IHCDA”) and either written representations

of the Borrower or of IHCDA to the effect that (i) the amount of tax credits to be allocated to the Project under Section

42 of the Code does not exceed the amount necessary for the financial feasibility of the Project and its viability as a

qualified housing project throughout the credit period for the Project and (ii) the Project satisfies the requirements for the

allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under IHCDA's qualified allocation plan. Such determinations shall occur

on or about the date of the sale of the Notes to the purchasers thereof and on or about the date that each building of the

Project is placed in service. In reliance upon the representations of the Borrower, it is hereby found and determined that

the Project satisfies the requirements for the allocation of a housing credit dollar amount under IHCDA's qualified

allocation plan.

SECTION 12. If any section, paragraph or provision of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for

any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining

provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 13. All ordinances, resolutions and orders or parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance

are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed.

SECTION 14. It is hereby determined that all formal actions of the City-County Council relating to the adoption of this

Ordinance were taken in one or more open meetings of the City-County Council, that all deliberations of the City-County

Council and of its committees, if any, which resulted in formal action, were in meetings open to the public, and that all

such meetings were convened, held and conducted in compliance with applicable legal requirements, including Indiana

Code 5-14-1.5 et seq., as amended.


20

SECTION 15. The Mayor, the City Controller, the Clerk and any other officer of the City are hereby authorized and

directed, in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver such further documents and to take such further

actions as such person deems necessary or desirable to effect the purposes of this Ordinance, and any such documents

theretofore executed and delivered and any such actions heretofore taken, be, and hereby are, ratified and approved.

SECTION 16. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with Indiana Code 36-3-

4-14.

PROPOSAL NO. 287, 2018, PROPOSAL NO. 288, 2018, and PROPOSAL NOS. 289-296, 2018.

Introduced by Councillor Osili. Proposal No. 287, 2018, Proposal No. 288, 2018, and Proposal

Nos. 289-296, 2018 are proposals for Rezoning Ordinances certified for approval by the

Metropolitan Development Commission on July 5 and June 29, 2018. The President called for any

motions for public hearings on any of those zoning maps changes. There being no motions for

public hearings, the proposed ordinances, pursuant to IC 36-7-4-608, took effect as if adopted by

the City-County Council, were retitled for identification as REZONING ORDINANCE NOS. 65-

74, 2018, the original copies of which ordinances are on file with the Metropolitan Development

Commission, which were certified as follows:

REZONING ORDINANCE NO. 65, 2018.

2017-ZON-090

7 West Epler Avenue and 5520 South Meridian Street (Approximate Address)

Perry Township, Council District #23

Chin Evangelical Baptist Church Inc., by Christina M. Bruno

Rezoning of 1.62 acres from the D-A district to the SU-1 classification to provide for secondary access to Epler

Avenue.


2018-ZON-015

8835 River Road (Approximate Address)

Washington Township, Council District #3

CILTI – Oliver’s Woods, LLC

Rezoning of 16.99 acres, from the C-1 (FW) (FF) and D-A (FW) (FF) districts, to the SU-16 (FW) (FF)

classification.


2018-ZON-029 (AMENDED)

6902 and 6904 North Tacoma Avenue, 2430 Butterfield Drive and 6955 North Keystone Avenue (Approximate

Addresses)

Washington Township, Council District #2

Patrick Sullivan, LLC, by Brian J. Tuohy

Rezoning of 1.6 acres, from the C-S, C-3 and D-3 districts to the C-S district to provide for residential uses, a

greenhouse expansion, the indoor and outdoor storage and display of plant material and other related garden items,

covered pergola, with outdoor storage, an eight-foot tall privacy fence, a six-foot tall privacy fence, a six-foot tall

wrought iron fence, a gift shop expansion, meeting and conference space, the North Pole / Santa experience, and the

outdoor storage of nursery stock, as outlined in the C-S statement and site plan filed with this petition.


2018-ZON-041

7425 East Washington Street (Approximate Address)

Warren Township, Council District #18

AMERCO Real Estate Company, by Holly Reading

Rezoning of 12.54 acres from the C-4 district to the C-S classification to provide for self-storage, truck and trailer

sharing and rental and related retail sales.


2018-ZON-045

2450 Tansel Road (Approximate Address)

Wayne Township, Council District #6

Juarez Brothers Land LLC, by David Kingen and Justin Kingen

Rezoning of 0.44 acre from the D-A district to the D-4 classification.

July 16, 2018

21


2018-ZON-046

723 South Capitol Avenue (Approximate Addresses)

Center Township, Council District #16

Bullseye Event Center LLC, by David Kingen and Justin Kingen

Rezoning of 0.33 acre from the I-3 (RC) District to the CBD-2 (RC) classification.


2018-ZON-047

2900 and 2950 Prospect Street (Approximate Addresses)


Indianapolis Bond Bank, by Andrew B. Buroker and Mark Leach

Rezoning of 53.661 acres from the D-5 (FW) and I-4 (FW) (FF) districts to the SU-9 (FW) (FF) classification to

provide for a criminal justice complex.


2018-ZON-050

5417 Adelaide Street and 4101 Cashard Avenue (Approximate Addresses)

Franklin Township, Council District #18

Ardizzone Investments LLC, by Adam DeHart

Rezoning of 1.212 acres from the D-3 district to the I-2 classification.


2018-ZON-054

2145, 2157 and 2162 (part) North Talbott Street and 113 East 22nd Street (Approximate Addresses)


SDL Property Holdings LLC, by Michael Rabinowitch

Rezoning of 0.40 acre from the C-4 and C-S districts to the C-S classification to provide for C-3 uses, with exclusions

(2145 and 2157) and a single-family detached dwelling, multi-family dwellings and off-street parking (113 and 2162

(Lot 85)).


2018-CZN-813

1644 and 1654 Roosevelt Avenue (Approximate Addresses)


Phillip Greene Decker Schaefer as Trustee of the Phillip Green Decker Schaefer Trust, by Pat Rooney

Rezoning of 1.76 acres from the MU-2 district to the D-8 classification

PROPOSAL NO. 297, 2018. Introduced by Councillor Lewis. Proposal No. 297, 2017 is a

proposal for Rezoning Ordinance certified by the Metropolitan Development Commission for

denial on July 5, 2018. The President called for any motions for public hearings on this zoning

maps change. There being no motions for public hearings, the proposed ordinance, pursuant to IC

36-7-4-608, was denied by the City-County Council, the original copy of which ordinance is on

file with the Metropolitan Development Commission, which was certified as follows:

2018-ZON-039

8415 West Washington Street (Approximate Address)

Wayne Township, Council District #22

Harjinder Singh

Rezoning of 3.6 acres from the C-4 district to the C-7 classification.

SPECIAL ORDERS - PUBLIC HEARING



Councillor Robinson, approves an additional appropriation of $400,000 in the 2018 Budget of the

Office of Public Health and Safety (Consolidated County General Fund) to support the violence


22

reduction initiative. By a 9-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the

recommendation that it do pass.

The President called for public testimony at 7:50 p.m.

Larry Vaughn, Concerned Clergy, said that they have a program already in place working as these

possible peacemaker positions will be structured, and he thinks this is a good program to find these

individuals before they get into the criminal justice system.

Gene Parsely, resident of District 16, encouraged the Council to be more pro-active when it comes

to gun violence and crime. He said they have to address these issues before they become a problem,

and find more opportunities to be a leader with new initiatives to combat these issues. He said he

would like to see the Council consider removing the ban on light rail, as well.

Jock Starvan, resident, said that he has lived in some of the worst neighborhoods in Indianapolis

and was a member of a gang in his early 20s. He said that he was able to reach a lot of people with

messages of stopping the violence and abstaining from drugs. He said that most of those carrying

guns are doing so out of fear, and a positive word from someone they respect and know would go

a long way to solving the problem if the Council is willing to invest some money into this effort.

He said that it is important for these young people to pick up a book instead of a gun.

Antonio Lipscomb, president of Love Life Outreach Vocational Training, said that is important to

work together to find solutions to gun violence, and give these youth something positive to replace

the criminal activity and mindset. He said that drug dealers are business owners, but if they could

channel those business skill sets another way, it would save those individuals from a life of crime,

as well as help the economy. He said that it is also important to plug offenders into services and

resources when they come out of incarceration. He said that the majority of incarcerated population

is made up of African American males, and this needs to be addressed.

Councillor Clay said that he supports the intent of this program, but it cannot be considered without

punctuating the $300,000 appropriation the Council made previously this year for a witness

protection program. He said that both of these very worth programs need a public launch in order

to be successful. They could both be great programs, but if the community does not know they

exist, they cannot succeed.

There being no further testimony, Councillor Robinson moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson,

for adoption. Proposal No. 229, 2018 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:




0 NAYS:

Proposal No. 229, 2018 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 17, 2018, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 17, 2018

A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2018 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 26, 2017)

by an additional appropriation for purposes of the agency listed below.



July 16, 2018

23

SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual

Budget for 2018 is hereby amended by the additional appropriation hereinafter stated for purposes of the Office of Public

Health and Safety, as listed in sections 2 through 4:

SECTION 2. The Office of Public Health and Safety, requests an additional appropriation from the Consolidated County

General Fund. These funds will be used to award community organizations focused on implementing evidence-based

violence prevention initiatives in neighborhoods across Marion County impacted by violent crime.

FUND CHAR 1 CHAR 2 CHAR 3 CHAR 4 TOTAL

Consolidated

County General

400,000

400,000

SECTION 3. Upon approval of this, and other pending approvals, the 2017-year end and projected 2018-year end fund

balances are as follows:

2017 Year-End Balance Projected 2018 Year-End Balance

Consolidated County General 168,832,165 133,277,260

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14.

SPECIAL ORDERS - FINAL ADOPTION

PROPOSAL NO. 120, 2018. Councillor Adamson reported that the Public Works Committee

heard Proposal No. 120, 2018 on April 19, 2018 and June 28, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by

Councillor Osili, amends the Code to add a new Sec. 431-605 to prohibit dockless bicycle share or

hire programs in public rights-of-way. By a 6-1 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the

Council with the recommendation that it do pass as amended.

Councillor Mascari asked if there are any scooter company representatives in attendance. He asked

if a scooter is rented, who bears the liability if there is an accident resulting in injury or death. He

asked if the scooter company would be required to cover that cost. Kip Tew, representative for

Lime Scooters, said that without legal counsel present, he cannot answer that question. He said

that it would probably be up to the courts to decide where the liability lies.

Councillor Adamson made the following motion to amend Proposal No. 120, 2018:

Mr. President

I move to amend Proposal No. 120, 2018, as previously amended in committee, by deleting the language that is stricken-

through and adding the underlined language, to read as follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. , 2018

PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to establish a licensing process and other

regulations for shared mobility systems.



SECTION 1. Title IV of the Revised Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 905, to read as follows:

Chapter 905 - SHARED MOBILITY OPERATOR

Sec. 905-101. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:


24

Public right-of-way shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in section 645-112.

Shared Mobility Device means, but is not limited to, any of the following devices used in a Shared Mobility System:

1. A bicycle, as that term is defined in section 431-601;

2. An electric bicycle shall mean any bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance when the rider is

pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph or a Bicycle equipped

with a throttle-actuated motor, that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph.

3. Scooter, which means a conveyance or device with two (2) or more wheels in contact with the ground with a

floorboard for the user to stand upon when using it, and may be propelled by a motor that reaches no more than

20 mph.

4. Any other similar device approved by the license administrator.

5. Shared Mobility Device does not include any other type of motor vehicle as defined in section 441-101 of the

Code.

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a shared mobility device shall not include a device used to aid a disabled person

with a disability, including but not limited to a motorized wheel chair.

Operator means a person or entity that owns and/or operates a shared mobility device from an operator system.

Shared Mobility System or System means a system which provides a shared mobility device for short-term rentals

for point-to-point trips and which may be locked or unlocked for use with or without being located on a rack or docking

system.

User means a person who rents and uses, or allows another person to use a shared mobility device from an operator.

A User must be at least eighteen (18) years of age.

Sec. 905-102. License required; fee.

(a) It shall be unlawful for a person to operate, or cause to be operated, a Shared Mobility System in the public

right-of-way in the city, unless the Operator first obtains a license from the license administrator and registers each shared

mobility device as provided in this chapter.

(b) The fee for a Shared Mobility System license and the registration fee for each Shared Mobility Device shall be

provided in section 131-501 of the Code. These license and registration fees shall not apply to an Operator that has

received an investment of public funds, by grant or otherwise from the city.

(c) A license issued under this section shall expire on the last day of the calendar year in which it is issued one year

after the issuance of the license, and to continue operating a shared mobility system an operator shall apply for a new

license at least 30 days prior to the expiration of its license. The license and registration fees established by this section

shall apply to an application for a new license and renewal.

(d) Upon receipt of a completed license application, the execution of an Indemnification Agreement, and the filing

of a bond and insurance certificate under section 905-105 of this chapter, the license administrator shall either issue or

deny a shared mobility operator license. In making this determination, the license administrator may consider, among

other factors, the extent to which the applicant’s operations or the use of the applicant’s Shared Mobility Devices have

complied with current law.

Sec. 905-103. License application; information

(a) Applications for a license under this chapter shall be made on forms provided by the license administrator, and

shall be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant who is an officer or employee of the applicant with

authority to legally bind the applicant, who shall verify under oath that the information contained in the application is

true and accurate.

(b) In addition to the information required by section 801-203 of this Code, the applicant shall provide the

following information:

(1) The number of Shared Mobility Devices that will be used in the Shared Mobility System;

(2) An inventory A description of all Shared Mobility Devices that shall will be used in the Shared Mobility

System, including a description of the model, manufacturer, serial number, unique identifier and color of

each Shared Mobility Device;

(3) Color photographs depicting the Shared Mobility Devices to be used in the Shared Mobility System;

July 16, 2018

25

(4) A schedule of rates and charges that the applicant will charge to use a Shared Mobility Device;

(5) A GPS or GIS based map depicting the proposed service area of the Shared Mobility System;

(6) A 24-hour customer service telephone number;

(7) The rules and regulations for the Shared Mobility System Operators’ users;

(8) A signed indemnification agreement as required by section 905-105(a);

(9) Proof of public liability coverage as required by section 905-105(b);

(10) Any other information deemed necessary by the license administrator.

(c) Any changes to the information required under subsection (b) shall be submitted to the License Administrator

within 15 days of such change.

Sec. 905-104. Restrictions on operation imposed by regulation.

(a) Pursuant to section 801-201, the license administrator may by regulation impose appropriate conditions on the

operation of Shared Mobility Systems in order to further the purposes of this chapter, including but not limited to, the

following:

(1) Limits on the locations in which a Shared Mobility System may operate;

(2) Prescribe the locations where Shared Mobility Devices may be stored or parked when not in use;

(3) Limits on the number of Shared Mobility Devices permitted in the Shared Mobility System;

(4) Standards for the use and maintenance of Shared Mobility Devices;

(5) The license administrator may impose any other regulations necessary to further the purposes of this Chapter.

(b) Nothwithstanding Section 441-371, Shared Mobility Devices may be operated on bicycle lanes, subject to

regulation by the license administrator.

Sec. 905-105. Indemnification, insurance.

(a) Any Shared Mobility Device operator issued a license under this chapter shall, as a condition of the issuance

and continued validity of the license to operate a Shared Mobility System, indemnify, hold harmless and defend, by

counsel of the city’s choosing, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County and their respective officers,

agents, officials and employees for any and all third party claims, actions, causes of action, judgments and liens to the

extent they arise out of any negligent or wrongful act or omission, or violation of any provision of this Code or other law

by an Operator or any of its officers, agents, employees and users arising from the operation, maintenance, or use of the

shared mobility system and the operator’s shared mobility devices. Such indemnity shall include attorneys’ fees and all

costs and other expenses arising therefrom or incurred in connection therewith and shall not be limited by any insurance

coverage required by this chapter or otherwise carried by the Operator. This indemnification requirement shall be

memorialized in an agreement signed by an authorized representative of the Operator who is an officer or employee of

the Operator with authority to legally bind the Operator, and the Operator shall be required to post an indemnity bond in

favor of the city. Such agreement and indemnity bond shall be in a form approved by the corporation counsel.

(b) Any Shared Mobility Device Operator issued a license under this chapter shall, as a condition of the issuance

and continued validity of the license to operate a shared mobility system, purchase and maintain a policy of commercial

general liability insurance that will protect it and the city from claims for damages because of bodily injury and personal

injury, including death, and claims of damages to property which may arise out of or result from the operation,

maintenance, or use of the shared mobility system and the operator’s shared mobility devices.

The commercial general liability insurance required under this section shall be not less than: (1) each occurrence

limit of $1,000,000.00; (2) $100,000.00 for damage to rented premises; (3) $5,000.00 for medical expenses; (4)

$500,000.00 for personal and advertising injury; (5) $1,000.000.00 products/completed operations; (6) $1,000,000.00

auto liability; (7) $2,000,000.00 general aggregate limit; (8) $5,000,000.00 excess/umbrella liability. Certificates of

insurance naming the Consolidated City of Indianapolis, Marion County as an additional insured showing such coverage

then in force, but not less than the above amounts, shall be submitted by the operator with its application for a license

under this chapter. Such certificates shall contain a provision that the policies and coverage afforded thereunder will not

be canceled until at least 30 days after written notice to the license administrator.

(c) The failure to maintain the bond or insurance policies required under this section throughout the entire term of

a license shall constitute a violation of this Code and shall be considered an emergency for purposes of emergency

suspension under Section 801-413 of this Code.

(d) This section shall not apply to an operator that has received an investment of public funds, by grant or otherwise,

from the city.


26

Sec. 905-106. Safety, condition and appearance; equipment.

(a) A Shared Mobility Device shall always be maintained in a reasonably clean and working condition.

(b) All shared mobility operators must meet all safety standards as prescribed by the license administrator.

(c) Every Shared Mobility Device shall have a unique identifier ID number that is visible to the user and nearby

pedestrians that clearly identifies both the Shared Mobility System operator and the specific Shared Mobility Device.

(d) Every Shared Mobility Device shall have posted on it a notice to the user of the 24-hour telephone number with

live operator, website, and mobile application information of the shared mobility operator.

(e) Every Shared Mobility Device shall be equipped with a bell, horn, or other lawful sound signaling device.

(f) Every Shared Mobility Device shall be equipped with the following if able to operate after sunset and before

sunrise:

(1) a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the

front; and

(2) a lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the rear.

(g) Every Shared Mobility Device with a motor shall be equipped with a speedometer. There shall be only one

person on a Shared Mobility Device at any time.

(h) Users may not ride a Shared Mobility Device while controlling an animal, either by hand or on a leash.

(h) (i) Every Shared Mobility Device shall have posted on it language clearly visible to users that:

(1) Users are encouraged to wear helmets;

(2) Users shall follow all traffic laws;

(3) Users shall yield to pedestrians in the public right-of-way; and

(4) Users must follow proper parking procedures; and

(5) Users must confirm, during the sign up stage and on stand-alone pages, their agreement to comply with

user requirements.

(i) (j) Unless approved by the license administrator, it shall be unlawful for any shared mobility operator to advertise

for a third party on any equipment related to its Shared Mobility System or on its shared mobility devices. Any violation

not corrected within 24 hours of notice shall be in violation of this Code, and if the violation is on a Shared Mobility

Device the Device may be removed from the public right-of-way and impounded by the city at the cost of the operator.

The penalty for violation of this section and fees for removing and impounding a shared mobility device shall be set forth

in section 103-52.

(j) (k) A Shared Mobility System operator shall be jointly and severally liable for all violations of this chapter,

including the violation of any traffic laws and parking restrictions, relating to a user’s use of a Shared Mobility Device.

Sec 905- 107. Enforcement, Removal from the Public right-of-way; penalties

(a) During the hours of 6 AM through 9 PM any Shared Mobility Device that is unsafe to operate or is inoperable

shall be removed from the public right of way by the shared mobility operator within 2 two (2) hours of notice made to

the shared mobility operator. During the hours of 9:01 PM through 5:59 AM, an inoperable Shared Mobility Device or a

Shared Mobility Device that is not safe to operate shall be removed from the public right of way by the shared mobility

operator within 6 six (6) hours of notice made to the shared mobility operator. Notice may be given to the Shared Mobility

System operator by any person through the 24-hour phone number, website, email, or mobile application.

(b) The license administrator reserves the right to prohibit the use of any Shared Mobility Device in the area

surrounding any special event and the area affected by any public safety emergency.

(c) Shared mobility devices that are not removed pursuant to 905-107(a) or 905-106(i) (j), or any Shared Mobility

Device that is not parked in accordance with section 905-108 may have a penalty assessed to the shared mobility operator

pursuant to Sec. 103-52 of this Code.

July 16, 2018

27

(d) Any Shared Mobility Device that poses a hazard to the public health and safety may be removed by the City at

the cost of the shared mobility operator. The penalty for the removal of a Shared Mobility Device shall be provided in

section 103-52 of the Code.

(e) In addition to enforcement procedures and penalties set forth in Chapter 801, a Shared Mobility System’s

operator’s first violation of any provision of this chapter in a twelve-month period, including, but not limited to, the

operation of a Shared Mobility System that is not licensed, or not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter,

shall be subject to admission of violation and payment of the designated civil penalty through the ordinance violations

bureau in accordance with Chapter 103. A Shared Mobility System’s operator’s second and subsequent violations in the

twelve-month period are subject to the enforcement procedures and penalties provided in Section 103-3.

Sec 905-108. Parking

A Shared Mobility Device that is not in use:

(a) Shall be parked in such a way that leaves at least six four (4) feet of unobstructed passage in the public right of

way, which shall be documented by a suitable photograph taken by the user upon conclusion of the ride if there is no

permanent docked station for the Shared Mobility Device;

(b) May be parked in the grassplot, the grassy section of public right-of-way between the sidewalk and street, but

may not park in any landscaped areas in the public right-of-way between the sidewalk, street or buildings;

(c) Shall be parked at a bicycle rack or docking station, if available;

(d) Shall be parked in an upright manner;

(e) Shall not be parked in a way to obstruct;

(1) Any transit infrastructure or public right-of-way, where parking blocks ADA accessibility pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, bikeshare stations, or bus operations including but not limited

to bus stops and signs, shelters, BRT bus rapid transit stations, passenger waiting areas and bus layover

and staging zones, except at existing bicycle racks;

(2) Any loading zone;

(3) Any accessible parking zones or spaces for people with disabilities;

(4) Any street furniture that require pedestrian access;

(5) Any curb ramp;

(6) Any entrance or exit from any building (must be at least ten feet from any entrance or exit);

(7) Any driveway; and

(8) Any raingarden and/or drainage facilities.

(f) Shall not be parked in any street or alleyway, unless approved by the license administrator, or on any private

property without the permission of the property owner and compliance with applicable zoning code.

Pursuant to section 905-104, the license administrator may by regulation limit the locations at which a Shared

Mobility System may operate or cause Shared Mobility Devices to be stored or parked.

Sec 905-109. Data Sharing

(a) To inform and support safe, equitable and effective management of the Shared Mobility Device System

throughout the city and inform transportation planning efforts, all Shared Mobility Operators shall provide anonymized

data, including but not limited to: (1) origin and destination data; (2) the number of bike share shared mobility users and

trips. The license administrator shall determine the scope, format, frequency and manner of data to be collected and

transmitted to the City.

(b) All Shared Mobility Operators shall keep records of maintenance, operations, and reported collisions of its

Shared Mobility Devices. The license administrator shall determine the frequency and method of reporting this

information.


28

Sec. 905-110. Enforcement and penalties.

In addition to enforcement procedures and penalties set forth in Chapter 801, a Shared Mobility System’s operator’s

first violation of any provision of this chapter in a twelve-month period, including but not limited to the operation of a

Shared Mobility System that is not licensed, or not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, shall be subject

to admission of violation and payment of the designated civil penalty through the ordinance violations bureau in

accordance with Chapter 103. A Shared Mobility System’s operator’s second and subsequent violations in the twelve-

month period are subject to the enforcement procedures and penalties provided in section 103-3.

Sec. 905-112 110. License application date.

From and after the effective date of this ordinance, it shall be unlawful to operate a Shared Mobility System

without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter. The license administrator shall be prepared to accept license

applications beginning on August 1, 2018.

Sec. 905-111. Severability.

If any section, sentence, clause, word or other provision of this article, or any ordinance amendatory thereof or

supplemental thereto, shall be held invalid, such fact shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence, clause,

word or other provision herein, which may be severable therefrom and be valid and capable of reasonable effect and

application without such invalid portions, and to this end all such portions of this article Chapter are declared severable

and shall be so construed whenever possible to do so.

SECTION 2. Section 131-501 of the "Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County," regarding schedule of license

and permit fees, hereby is amended by the addition of the following code section citation 905-102 with license/permit

identification and maximum allowed fee in sequential order, to read as follows:

Sec. 131-501. Schedule of license and permit fees.

The board of business and neighborhood services shall have the power to establish the amount of fees by

regulation as granted in section 226-204 of the Code. The following maximum allowed fees are established for their

respective licenses and permits issued by the city or county:

Code

Section

License or Permit Maximum Allowed Fee

905-102 Shared mobility system in the public right of

way

$15,000 annually

And

$1 per day, per Shared Mobility Device operating

within a licensee’s Shared Mobility System

SECTION 3. Section 103-52 of the "Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County," regarding schedule of Code

provisions and penalties, hereby is amended by the addition of the following code section citations 905-106 and 905-107 and

905-108 with subject matter and civil penalty in sequential order, to read as follows:

Sec. 103-52. Schedule of Code provisions and penalties.

The following Code (or ordinance) provisions and their respective civil penalties are designated for enforcement

through the ordinance violations bureau:

Code

Section

Subject Matter Civil

Penalty

905-106 Illegally Parked Shared Mobility Device $25.00

https://library.municode.com/in/indianapolis_-_marion_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIORAD_CH226DEBUNESE_ARTIIOR_S226-204BOBUNESE

July 16, 2018

29

905-107 Removal of a Shared Mobility Device $100.00

plus

$10.00 per day


SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage by the Council and compliance with Ind. Code § 36-

3-4-14.

Councillor Lewis seconded the motion.

Councillor Gray stated that there is a laundry list of things users are not supposed to do, but he

asked how many officers are available to enforce these regulations. Thomas Cook, chief of staff,

Mayor’s Office, said that there are a variety of enforcement issues, and he is not sure how many

officers will be needed. There needs to be a balance of having officers available for unsafe

infractions and having the companies be responsible for educating their users. He said that most

residents have never ridden a scooter before these showed up, and it is important to have a

regulatory framework for this ordinance with Department of Business and Neighborhood Services

(DBNS) guidelines in place to address some of these issues on the front end, so that they do not

become a problem. He said that they want citizens to comply with the laws and be good citizens.

Councillor Miller said that he thinks this proposal will pass, but it is important to realize that this

body acted very quickly to put reasonable rules in place. He said that he has had more e-mails

about this issue in the last few weeks than any other issue, with some in favor and some against,

but there needs to be a happy medium. He said that he still has concerns about where these are

being used, and although he thinks they would be good on trails, he would not like to see them

being used on the roads. He said that he believes using them on the sidewalks is unsafe, and that

is the number one place they are being used presently, even though the instructions when one is

rented clearly state that they are not to be used on sidewalks. He said that the other issue is about

where they are being parked, and he does not understand why people would leave them blocking

an ADA ramp or obstructing a sidewalk or business entrance. He said that the reason these laws

are needed is because people are not using common sense. He said that he loves the technology

and this offers another option for those who do not wish to drive, but he wants them to be used

responsibly.

Councillor Fanning said that she loves the idea of scooters and believes they can play an effective

role, but she would like to see them outside the mile square. She asked the company representatives

to express their position regarding this proposal. Jason Wild, regional general manager, Lime

Scooters, said that they are committed to serving everyone reliably and affordably, and the only

hesitation they have is with regard to the fee structure, as it is six times higher than any other market

they operate in. He said that this makes it hard for them to run a successful business. Councillor

Fanning asked if they would prefer they pass the proposal this evening. Mr. Wild responded in the

affirmative.

Councillor Oliver asked about liability. Mr. Wild said that they carry liability insurance in all cities

where they are in operation. Councillor Oliver asked if the only requirement is that a user be 18

years old and have a credit card. He asked if they sell them any insurance with the rental. Mr.

Wild said that they do not, and they only have to agree to their terms of service. He said that they

have no expectation of adding insurance as a part of renting the vehicle.


30

Councillor Pfisterer said that she believes scooters are a lot of fun, but there has been a great deal

of controversy over the way these scooters have been introduced to cities. She said she is curious

as to why these companies thought they could come into a city without addressing legalities or

speaking to government officials. Mr. Wild said that they have been working with the city for some

time to bring dockless mobility to Indianapolis, but they were convinced to come in the manner

they did because their competitor came into the space without reaching out and nothing happened

to them. He said that they subsequently voluntarily complied with the cease and desist letter,

because they felt it was the right thing to do. Councillor Pfisterer said that police officers have

plenty to do without having to enforce this, and this is low in their list of priorities. She said that

these companies’ past behavior does not show responsibility in using this city’s public right-of-

way, and therefore she will oppose the proposal this evening. Mr. Wild said that safety is of the

utmost importance to them, as they are a new service, and they are working tirelessly to educate

their users on safety. He said that they are trying to be a part of the community, and there have

been some bumps in the road, but they believe scooters can change the mobility landscape.

Councillor Kreider said that Councillors were given certain information about fees being charged,

but are now learning they are not comparable with other cities. Mr. Cook said that this fee structure

was not pulled out of thin air, but has been worked on over the last few months dealing with shared

mobility issues. He said that they do not want to get into a back and forth interaction as to whether

their fees are comparable or not, but the administration is comfortable that these fees reflect

estimated costs to the city administration, as well as for public safety. He said that there is a flat

fee for administration and then a $1 a day per scooter, which has been utilized in other markets,

and was a fee structure freely offered by one of these scooter entities. He said that one of the

criticisms has been that they are telling scooters to use bike lanes, and in this proposal, $1 per

scooter will be earmarked toward bike lane infrastructure and other mobility issues. He said that

they are comfortable that the fee is fair and reflects statutory maximums. DBNS could, however,

still adjust those fees on a case-by-case basis. Councillor Kreider said that this could affect not just

scooters, but all other like devices, such as bicycles. Ms. Higgins said that they are on par with

other cities like Memphis and Chicago, but the costs are not necessarily derived from what others

are doing but based on what the administration believes will be the cost to the city.

Councillor Simpson asked who is in attendance representing each company. Mr. Wild said that he

represents Lime. Mindy West, Faegre Baker & Daniels, stated that she is in attendance representing

the owners of Bird, as they were not able to attend. Councillor Simpson asked why they were

unavailable. Ms. West stated that they had a scheduled vacation. Councillor Simpson said that he

is very frustrated with scooter users criss-crossing in the middle of the street, flipping off motorists,

and causing safety hazards. He is concerned the city does not have the capacity to handle enforcing

these scooters. He said that he is also appalled at the lack of respect shown by these companies

dropping their scooters into the city without consulting city officials first. He said that he has not

heard any commitments from these companies about enforcing usage rules, and he feels they need

to see better than what they have seen so far, as his constituents deserve better. He asked if the

companies have technical people in place in Indianapolis. Mr. Wild said that they do have 15 local

staff members who pick up the scooters, maintain them, collect the funds, and man a 24/7 phone

line for customer service complaints. Councillor Simpson asked if any of their staff are out there

on the streets trying to catch bad actors. Mr. Wild said that they do not have a designated

enforcement squad, but the Council has his commitment to education and any enforcement

responsibilities put upon them. He said that they can disincentivize bad user by terminating their

accounts, and do so regularly. Councillor Simpson asked about Bird’s staff. Ms. West said that

they have a fleet coordinator in Indianapolis, and ambassadors for education. They are committed

to holding pop-up events to educate the public on use of the scooters. Councillor Simpson asked

when they can expect to see these ambassadors on the streets. He said that he rides the Monon

July 16, 2018

31

Trail on weekends, and has run into 10 to 12 scooter riders acting crazy and running bikers off the

path. He said that there has to be some enforcement and regulation.

Mr. Cook said that from an administrative perspective, he thinks Indianapolis is a unique place for

this technology. He said that these are national companies, and they are not here by accident. They

are here because no regulations are in place, and they are going into cities where regulations

regarding their product are ambiguous. He said that there are no rules in place now, and he would

ask for the Council to support putting this framework in place so that they can do more than just

“ask” these companies to do something, but instead can require that they comply. He said that

some are excited to see these scooters on the streats, but under the current rules, there is nothing

holding these companies accountable for edcuation or enforcement. He said that adopting this

ordinance will change that and give the city more control. Councillor Simpson said that there are

way too many variables and moving parts, and they have no control at the moment.

Councillor Coats asked if DBNS or IMPD will be the primary enforcers. Andy Mallon,

Corporation Counsel, said that it depends if it is a public safety matter, such as a scooter blocking

the sidewalk, then the scooter can be confiscated. If it is a matter of a code violation regarding

permits, then a code enforcement officer would handle these kinds of regulatory duties. Councillor

Coats asked if there could be some overlap if a scooter is left in the middle of a sidewalk, where it

would be both a regulatory offense, as well as a public safety hazard. Mr. Mallon responded in the

affirmative. Ms. Higgins said that a parking ticket could be issued by DBNS for a device

aggregiously parked, but the device could also be then impounded by IMPD. Councillor Coats

asked if the fees could be used to fund more positions for enforcement. Ms. Higgins said that as

they see more scooters deployed, this will be part of the learning process. They are still creating

the regulatory framework and can adjust it as needs arise. Councillor Coats asked why Section 110

is being removed. Mr. Mallon said that it was moved to another place in the Code. Councillor

Fanning said that this language is now found in Section 107.

Councillor Clay asked if Lime had initial discussions with the city. Mr. Wild said they did.

Councillor Clay asked who they spoke with in the administrations. Mr. Wild said that Kip Tew

could answer that question best, as he led the initial conversations which started back in December

of last year. Councillor Clay asked if the fruit of the conversation led them to believe they could

launch prior to legislation. Mr. Wild said that they felt the lack of action against the other

competitor indicated they could launch early. Councillor Clay sked if they were given the okay to

proceed. Mr. Wild said that they did not receive either a green light or red light, but they did notify

the administration.

Councillor McHenry said that the scooters do look like a lot of fun, and she can understand the

attraction, but there have been many good questions and concerns raised. They have not really

considered the effect this program will have on the police force, as they have more important things

to focus on. She also worries that DBNS will not be available to monitor on nights and weekends,

leaving the enforcement burden solely to police. She said that there are too many riders who do

not show respect for others, and their property, as well as the safety of downtown pedestrians. She

said that this is a knee-jerk reaction and it needs to be thought out more thoroughly.

Councillor Wesseler said that there needs to be more education and training, and it needs more

publicity. He said that he would like to have a representative from Lime available for questions

about liability. He said that riders are zipping through pedestrian traffic and causing havoc, and

then dumping devices in the street. He said that he would prefer a postponement to review this

more in-depth.


32

Councillor Johnson said that they seem to be creating a false dichotomy. A vote in favor of this

proposal this evening is not a vote in support of scooters, and a vote against does not mean that the

scooters will go away. This vote, instead, is to legislate these scooters instead of letting them run

their business free-ball. Voting against the proposal only means that the Council and administration

will have no power to have any further discussion about regulating the use of scooters in the city.

Councillor Johnson said that scooters are a very innovative transportation, but it would be

irresponsible not to act to create regulation for this new industry.

Councillor Gray asked if the payment per scooter would still be the same during the winter. Ms.

Higgins said that the applicatino is filed annually, so they would indicate the inventory they

anticipate for the entire year. There is no way to predict what is actually in use. She said that the

regulatory process will establish an increase or decrease in fleet size.

Councillor Wesseler moved, seconded by Councillor McHenry, to send Proposal No. 120, 2018

back to committee.

Councillor Adamson urged his colleagues to oppose the motion.

Councillor Pfisterer said that she does not believe the process is complete, and additional discussion

and conversation is needed. She supports the motion to return to committee.

Councillor Scales said that it is important to get this regulated, but there should be a companion

ordinance that deals with regulation of users, along with the ordinance that regulates operators. She

said that it is worth doing their due diligence to make the safety of residents a priority.

Councillor McHenry agreed that safety is the number one priority, and that is why she feels it

should be returned to committee to address who will be doing the enforcement.

Mr. Cook said that the only reason these companies are not operating currently is because they

voluntarily agreed to stop operating in anticipation of a vote to regulate the industry. He said that

there is no legal reason, however, they cannot continue to operate. Sending the proposal back to

committee insures that both companies would re-deploy without any regulations. If adopted, upon

the Mayor’s signature, it would become illegal for these companies to operate until and when a

license can be issued by DBNS. Such licenses would not be issued any sooner than August 1st,

maybe even longer, and they will have time to address the enforcement and public safety concerns

before that time to define that responsibility more fully in the licensing process. He said that he

wants to make it clear that not approving this proposal this evening, means these companies can

continue to operate without any regulations.

Councillor Clay said that he is troubled by these comments. He said that he understood there was

a cease and desist order, but now it is being testified that they voluntarily agreed to halt operations.

He said that it is difficult to legislate from a point of misinformation and misdirection, and asked

what the true situation is. Mr. Mallon said that they have not issued a cease and desist order,

because there are no regulations on the books that would provide a basis to issue such. He said that

they requested that Lime and Bird halt operations in order for the city and Council to deliberate the

issue, and they complied. Councillor Clay said that the media picked up the wrong language, as

did some other individuals he spoke with. He asked if there is anything that would prohibit an

intoxicated person from renting one of these scooters. Mr. Cook said that there are laws on the

books about operating any type of motor vehicle while intoxicated, and this would apply to the

scooters, as they have a motor. Mr. Wild said that riding while intoxicated is called out specifically

as an infringement in the user agreeement.

July 16, 2018

33

Councillor Miller said that he does not like a gun being held to his head in this matter, but they

need to regulate what they can. He asked them to consider creating a sub-account for these funds

and fees to make sure they can pinpoint where the money goes. He urged his colleagues to move

this proposal forward this evening.

Councillor McQuillen said that he supports the motion to return the proposal to committee. He

said that he is cognizant about putting a new layer of regulations on the books. Eight or nine years

ago, they made panhandling within 50 feet of an intersection illegal, yet there has been no

enforcement of that, because the police have more important matters to attend to. He asked why

they need this long list of regulations and high fees when it will end up as another unenforceable

law on the books.

Councillor Scales said that they need to be more careful and deliberative and include everything

that needs included, while excluding all that is unnecessary. Spending this much time on the floor

discussing this means that it is not finished, and some items still need to be refined. She said that

the Lime representative said that they rolled out their scooters because their competitor came in

with their operations with no consequences, yet newspapers across the country are reporting that

these companies are doing the same thing in many cities. They drop the scooters into cities, and

then force cities to come up with a regulation to deal with them. In Santa Monica, the city filed

violations against Bird, and they pleaded no contest and paid a settlement. She said that this track

record does not bode well for future ninteractions, and they need to make sure that what is put in

place is enforceable and the city has the resources to actually enforce the regulations.

Councillor Johnson said that the only way to have a reasonable conversation about these things is

to pass the mechanism tonight to continue those conversations.

Mr. Cook said that the administration is opposed to returning the proposal to committee. He said

that many of these questions and decision points will be up to DBNS to factor into their regulations,

and they will further engage the Council in that process. He said if they delay this vote, none of

these options can be considered until the next Council meeting, and they will be back to the same

situation of dealing with these companies operating without regulations.

Councillor Simpson moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson, to call for the question and end

debate. Debate was ended by a unanimous voice vote.

The motion to return Proposal No. 120, 2018 to committee failed on the following roll call vote;

viz:

8 YEAS: Cordi, Holliday, McHenry, McQuillen, Mowery, Pfisterer, Scales, Wesseler

17 NAYS: Adamson, Clay, Coats, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Jackson, Johnson, Kreider, Lewis,

Mascari, Miller, Oliver, Osili, Ray, Robinson, Simpson

The motion to amend Proposal No. 120, 2018 carried on the following roll call vote; viz:

19 YEAS: Adamson, Clay, Coats, Cordi, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Jackson, Johnson, Kreider,

Lewis, Miller, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Ray, Robinson, Scales, Simpson

6 NAYS: Holliday, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Mowery, Wesseler

Councillor Johnson moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson, for adoption, as amended. Proposal

No. 120, 2018, as amended, was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:


34

19 YEAS: Adamson, Clay, Coats, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Holliday, Jackson, Johnson, Kreider,

Lewis, Mascari, Miller, Oliver, Osili, Ray, Robinson, Scales, Simpson

6 NAYS: Cordi, McHenry, McQuillen, Mowery, Pfisterer, Wesseler

Proposal No. 120, 2018 was retitled GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 49, 2018, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 49, 2018

PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to establish a licensing process and other

regulations for shared mobility systems.



SECTION 1. Title IV of the Revised Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 905, to read as follows:

Chapter 905 - SHARED MOBILITY OPERATOR

Sec. 905-101. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section:

Public right-of-way shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in section 645-112.

Shared Mobility Device means, but is not limited to, any of the following devices used in a Shared Mobility System:

7. A bicycle, as that term is defined in section 431-601;

8. An electric bicycle shall mean any bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance when the rider is

pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph or a Bicycle equipped

with a throttle-actuated motor, that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph.

9. Scooter, which means a conveyance or device with two (2) or more wheels in contact with the ground with a

floorboard for the user to stand upon when using it, and may be propelled by a motor that reaches no more than

20 mph.

10. Any other similar device approved by the license administrator.

11. Shared Mobility Device does not include any other type of motor vehicle as defined in section 441-101 of the

Code.

12. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a shared mobility device shall not include a device used to aid a person with a

disability, including but not limited to a motorized wheel chair.

Operator means a person or entity that owns and/or operates a shared mobility system.

Shared Mobility System or System means a system which provides a shared mobility device for short-term rentals

for trips and which may be locked or unlocked for use with or without being located on a rack or docking system.

User means a person who rents and uses, or allows another person to use a shared mobility device from an operator.

A User must be at least eighteen (18) years of age.

Sec. 905-102. License required; fee.

(a) It shall be unlawful for a person to operate, or cause to be operated, a Shared Mobility System in the public

right-of-way in the city, unless the Operator first obtains a license from the license administrator and registers each shared

mobility device as provided in this chapter.

(b) The fee for a Shared Mobility System license and the registration fee for each Shared Mobility Device shall be

provided in section 131-501 of the Code. These license and registration fees shall not apply to an Operator that has

received an investment of public funds, by grant or otherwise from the city.

(c) A license issued under this section shall expire one year after the issuance of the license, and to continue

operating a shared mobility system an operator shall apply for a new license at least 30 days prior to the expiration of its

license. The license and registration fees established by this section shall apply to an application for a new license and

renewal.

July 16, 2018

35

(d) Upon receipt of a completed license application, the execution of an Indemnification Agreement, and the filing

of a bond and insurance certificate under section 905-105 of this chapter, the license administrator shall either issue or

deny a shared mobility operator license. In making this determination, the license administrator may consider, among

other factors, the extent to which the applicant’s operations or the use of the applicant’s Shared Mobility Devices have

complied with current law.

Sec. 905-103. License application; information

(d) Applications for a license under this chapter shall be made on forms provided by the license administrator, and

shall be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant who is an officer or employee of the applicant with

authority to legally bind the applicant, who shall verify under oath that the information contained in the application is

true and accurate.

(e) In addition to the information required by section 801-203 of this Code, the applicant shall provide the

following information:

(11) The number of Shared Mobility Devices that will be used in the Shared Mobility System;

(12) A description of all Shared Mobility Devices that will be used in the Shared Mobility System, including

the model, manufacturer, and color of each Shared Mobility Device;

(13) Color photographs depicting the Shared Mobility Devices to be used in the Shared Mobility System;

(14) A schedule of rates and charges that the applicant will charge to use a Shared Mobility Device;

(15) A GPS or GIS based map depicting the proposed service area of the Shared Mobility System;

(16) A 24-hour customer service telephone number;

(17) The rules and regulations for the Shared Mobility System Operators’ users;

(18) A signed indemnification agreement as required by section 905-105(a);

(19) Proof of public liability coverage as required by section 905-105(b);

(20) Any other information deemed necessary by the license administrator.

(f) Any changes to the information required under subsection (b) shall be submitted to the License Administrator

within 15 days of such change.

Sec. 905-104. Restrictions on operation imposed by regulation.

(a) Pursuant to section 801-201, the license administrator may by regulation impose appropriate conditions on the

operation of Shared Mobility Systems in order to further the purposes of this chapter, including but not limited to, the

following:

(6) Limits on the locations in which a Shared Mobility System may operate;

(7) Prescribe the locations where Shared Mobility Devices may be stored or parked when not in use;

(8) Limits on the number of Shared Mobility Devices permitted in the Shared Mobility System;

(9) Standards for the use and maintenance of Shared Mobility Devices;

(10) The license administrator may impose any other regulations necessary to further the purposes of this Chapter.

(b) Nothwithstanding Section 441-371, Shared Mobility Devices may be operated on bicycle lanes, subject to

regulation by the license administrator.

Sec. 905-105. Indemnification, insurance.

(d) Any Shared Mobility Device operator issued a license under this chapter shall, as a condition of the issuance

and continued validity of the license to operate a Shared Mobility System, indemnify, hold harmless and defend, by

counsel of the city’s choosing, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County and their respective officers,

agents, officials and employees for any and all third party claims, actions, causes of action, judgments and liens to the

extent they arise out of any negligent or wrongful act or omission, or violation of any provision of this Code or other law

by an Operator or any of its officers, agents, employees and users arising from the operation, maintenance, or use of the

shared mobility system and the operator’s shared mobility devices. Such indemnity shall include attorneys’ fees and all

costs and other expenses arising therefrom or incurred in connection therewith and shall not be limited by any insurance

coverage required by this chapter or otherwise carried by the Operator. This indemnification requirement shall be

memorialized in an agreement signed by an authorized representative of the Operator who is an officer or employee of

the Operator with authority to legally bind the Operator, and the Operator shall be required to post an indemnity bond in

favor of the city. Such agreement and indemnity bond shall be in a form approved by the corporation counsel.


36

(e) Any Shared Mobility Device Operator issued a license under this chapter shall, as a condition of the issuance

and continued validity of the license to operate a shared mobility system, purchase and maintain a policy of commercial

general liability insurance that will protect it and the city from claims for damages because of bodily injury and personal

injury, including death, and claims of damages to property which may arise out of or result from the operation,

maintenance, or use of the shared mobility system and the operator’s shared mobility devices.

The commercial general liability insurance required under this section shall be not less than: (1) each occurrence

limit of $1,000,000.00; (2) $100,000.00 for damage to rented premises; (3) $5,000.00 for medical expenses; (4)

$500,000.00 for personal and advertising injury; (5) $1,000.000.00 products/completed operations; (6) $1,000,000.00

auto liability; (7) $2,000,000.00 general aggregate limit; (8) $5,000,000.00 excess/umbrella liability. Certificates of

insurance naming the Consolidated City of Indianapolis, Marion County as an additional insured showing such coverage

then in force, but not less than the above amounts, shall be submitted by the operator with its application for a license

under this chapter. Such certificates shall contain a provision that the policies and coverage afforded thereunder will not

be canceled until at least 30 days after written notice to the license administrator.

(f) The failure to maintain the bond or insurance policies required under this section throughout the entire term of

a license shall constitute a violation of this Code and shall be considered an emergency for purposes of emergency

suspension under Section 801-413 of this Code.

(d) This section shall not apply to an operator that has received an investment of public funds, by grant or otherwise,

from the city.

Sec. 905-106. Safety, condition and appearance; equipment.

(h) A Shared Mobility Device shall always be maintained in a reasonably clean and working condition.

(i) All shared mobility operators must meet all safety standards as prescribed by the license administrator.

(j) Every Shared Mobility Device shall have a unique ID number that is visible to the user and nearby pedestrians

that clearly identifies both the Shared Mobility System operator and the specific Shared Mobility Device.

(k) Every Shared Mobility Device shall have posted on it a notice to the user of the 24-hour telephone number with

live operator, website, and mobile application information of the shared mobility operator.

(l) Every Shared Mobility Device shall be equipped with a bell, horn, or other lawful sound signaling device.

(m) Every Shared Mobility Device shall be equipped with the following if able to operate after sunset and before

sunrise:

(3) a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the

front; and

(4) a lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the rear.

(n) There shall be only one person on a Shared Mobility Device at any time.

(h) Users may not ride a Shared Mobility Device while controlling an animal, either by hand or on a leash.

(i) Every Shared Mobility Device shall have posted on it language clearly visible to users that:

(1) Users are encouraged to wear helmets;

(2) Users shall follow all traffic laws;

(3) Users shall yield to pedestrians in the public right-of-way;

(4) Users must follow proper parking procedures; and

(5) Users must confirm, during the sign up stage and on stand-alone pages, their agreement to comply with

user requirements.

(j) Unless approved by the license administrator, it shall be unlawful for any shared mobility operator to advertise

for a third party on any equipment related to its Shared Mobility System or on its shared mobility devices. Any violation

not corrected within 24 hours of notice shall be in violation of this Code, and if the violation is on a Shared Mobility

Device the Device may be removed from the public right-of-way and impounded by the city at the cost of the operator.

July 16, 2018

37

The penalty for violation of this section and for removing and impounding a shared mobility device shall be set forth in

section 103-52.

(k) A Shared Mobility System operator shall be jointly and severally liable for all violations of this chapter,

including the violation of any traffic laws and parking restrictions, relating to a user’s use of a Shared Mobility Device.

Sec 905- 107. Enforcement, Removal from the Public right-of-way; penalties

(a) During the hours of 6 AM through 9 PM any Shared Mobility Device that is unsafe to operate or is inoperable

shall be removed from the public right of way by the shared mobility operator within two (2) hours of notice made to the

shared mobility operator. During the hours of 9:01 PM through 5:59 AM, an inoperable Shared Mobility Device or a

Shared Mobility Device that is not safe to operate shall be removed from the public right of way by the shared mobility

operator within six (6) hours of notice made to the shared mobility operator. Notice may be given to the Shared Mobility

System operator by any person through the 24-hour phone number, website, email, or mobile application.

(b) The license administrator reserves the right to prohibit the use of any Shared Mobility Device in the area

surrounding any special event and the area affected by any public safety emergency.

(c) Shared mobility devices that are not removed pursuant to 905-107(a) or 905-106(j), or any Shared Mobility

Device that is not parked in accordance with section 905-108 may have a penalty assessed to the shared mobility operator

pursuant to Sec. 103-52 of this Code.

(d) Any Shared Mobility Device that poses a hazard to the public health and safety may be removed by the City at

the cost of the shared mobility operator. The penalty for the removal of a Shared Mobility Device shall be provided in

section 103-52 of the Code.

(e) In addition to enforcement procedures and penalties set forth in Chapter 801, a Shared Mobility System’s

operator’s first violation of any provision of this chapter in a twelve-month period, including, but not limited to, the

operation of a Shared Mobility System that is not licensed, or not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter,

shall be subject to admission of violation and payment of the designated civil penalty through the ordinance violations

bureau in accordance with Chapter 103. A Shared Mobility System’s operator’s second and subsequent violations in the

twelve-month period are subject to the enforcement procedures and penalties provided in Section 103-3.

Sec 905-108. Parking

A Shared Mobility Device that is not in use:

(g) Shall be parked in such a way that leaves at least four (4) feet of unobstructed passage in the public right of

way, which shall be documented by a suitable photograph taken by the user upon conclusion of the ride if there is no

permanent docked station for the Shared Mobility Device;

(h) May be parked in the grassplot, the grassy section of public right-of-way between the sidewalk and street, but

may not park in any landscaped areas in the public right-of-way between the sidewalk, street or buildings;

(i) Shall be parked at a bicycle rack or docking station, if available;

(j) Shall be parked in an upright manner;

(k) Shall not be parked in a way to obstruct;

(1) Any transit infrastructure or public right-of-way, where parking blocks accessibility pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, bikeshare stations, or bus operations including but not limited

to bus stops and signs, shelters, bus rapid transit stations, passenger waiting areas and bus layover and

staging zones, except at existing bicycle racks;

(2) Any loading zone;

(3) Any accessible parking zones or spaces for people with disabilities;

(4) Any street furniture that require pedestrian access;

(5) Any curb ramp;

(6) Any entrance or exit from any building (must be at least ten feet from any entrance or exit);

(7) Any driveway; and

(8) Any raingarden and/or drainage facilities.


38

(l) Shall not be parked in any street or alleyway, unless approved by the license administrator, or on any private

property without the permission of the property owner and compliance with applicable zoning code.

Pursuant to section 905-104, the license administrator may by regulation limit the locations at which a Shared

Mobility System may operate or cause Shared Mobility Devices to be stored or parked.

Sec 905-109. Data Sharing

(c) To inform and support safe, equitable and effective management of the Shared Mobility Device System

throughout the city and inform transportation planning efforts, all Shared Mobility Operators shall provide anonymized

data, including but not limited to: (1) origin and destination data; (2) the number of shared mobility users and trips. The

license administrator shall determine the scope, format, frequency and manner of data to be collected and transmitted to

the City.

(d) All Shared Mobility Operators shall keep records of maintenance, operations, and reported collisions of its

Shared Mobility Devices. The license administrator shall determine the frequency and method of reporting this

information.

Sec. 905-110. License application date.

From and after the effective date of this ordinance, it shall be unlawful to operate a Shared Mobility System

without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter. The license administrator shall be prepared to accept license

applications beginning on August 1, 2018.

Sec. 905-111. Severability.

If any section, sentence, clause, word or other provision of this article, or any ordinance amendatory thereof or

supplemental thereto, shall be held invalid, such fact shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence, clause,

word or other provision herein, which may be severable therefrom and be valid and capable of reasonable effect and

application without such invalid portions, and to this end all such portions of this Chapter are declared severable and

shall be so construed whenever possible to do so.

SECTION 2. Section 131-501 of the "Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County," regarding schedule of license

and permit fees, hereby is amended by the addition of the following code section citation 905-102 with license/permit

identification and maximum allowed fee in sequential order, to read as follows:

Sec. 131-501. Schedule of license and permit fees.

The board of business and neighborhood services shall have the power to establish the amount of fees by

regulation as granted in section 226-204 of the Code. The following maximum allowed fees are established for their

respective licenses and permits issued by the city or county:

Code

Section

License or Permit Maximum Allowed Fee

905-102 Shared mobility system in the public right of

way

$15,000 annually

And

$1 per day, per Shared Mobility Device operating

within a licensee’s Shared Mobility System

SECTION 3. Section 103-52 of the "Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County," regarding schedule of Code

provisions and penalties, hereby is amended by the addition of the following code section citations 905-107 and 905-108 with

subject matter and civil penalty in sequential order, to read as follows:

Sec. 103-52. Schedule of Code provisions and penalties.



https://library.municode.com/in/indianapolis_-_marion_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIORAD_CH226DEBUNESE_ARTIIOR_S226-204BOBUNESE

July 16, 2018

39

Code

Section

Subject Matter Civil

Penalty

905-107 Removal of a Shared Mobility Device $100.00

plus

$10.00 per day



3-4-14.


Justice Committee heard Proposal No. 205, 2018 on June 6 and 20, 2018. The proposal, sponsored

by Councillor Robinson, approves transfers totalling $200,000 in the 2018 Budget of the

Indianapolis Fire Department (Fire Cumulative and Fire General Funds) for station maintenance

and repairs and contract materials, including costs for supplies per City plumbing, electrical and

mechanical contracts. By a 9-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the

recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Robinson moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson,

for adoption. Proposal No. 205, 2018 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

22 YEAS: Adamson, Coats, Cordi, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Holliday, Jackson, Johnson, Kreider,

Lewis, Mascari, McHenry, McQuillen, Miller, Mowery, Oliver, Osili, Pfisterer, Robinson,

Scales, Wesseler

0 NAYS:

3 NOT VOTING: Clay, Ray, Simpson

Proposal No. 205, 2018 was retitled FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 18, 2018, and reads as follows:

CITY-COUNTY FISCAL ORDINANCE NO. 18, 2018

A FISCAL ORDINANCE amending the City-County Annual Budget for 2018 (City-County Fiscal Ordinance No. 26, 2017)

by a transfer of appropriations for purposes of those agencies listed below.



SECTION 1. To provide for expenditures the necessity for which has arisen since its adoption, the City-County Annual

Budget for 2018 is hereby amended by the character transfers hereinafter stated for purposes of the Indianapolis Fire

Department, as listed in sections 2 through 5:

SECTION 2. The Indianapolis Fire Department, requests a transfer of appropriation in the Fire Cumulative Fund for

station maintenance and repairs. This transfer will allow the department to address sprinkler systems, kitchen upgrades

and asphalt/concrete repairs.


Fire Cumulative

150,000 (150,000)

SECTION 3. The Indianapolis Fire Department, requests a transfer of appropriation in the Fire General Fund to contract

materials. This transfer will be used to cover the cost of supplies per City plumbing, electrical and mechanical and

contracts.


40


Fire General

Fund

50,000 (50,000)

SECTION 4. Upon approval of this, and other pending approvals, the 2017-year end and projected 2018-year end fund

balances are as follows:

Projected 2017 Year-End Balance Projected 2018 Year-End Balance

Fire Cumulative 2,358,031 2,436,911

Fire General Fund 8,580,248 7,504,146

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and compliance with IC 36-3-4-14.



Councillors Robinson and Kreider, Fanning, approves and adopts the Marion County Multi-Hazard

Mitigation Plan Update dated July 2018. By a 9-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to

the Council with the recommendation that it do pass. Councillor Robinson moved, seconded by

Councillor Adamson, for adoption. Proposal No. 190, 2018 was adopted on the following roll call

vote; viz:

24 YEAS: Adamson, Coats, Cordi, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Holliday, Jackson, Johnson, Kreider,



0 NAYS:

1 NOT VOTING: Clay

Proposal No. 228, 2018 was retitled GENERAL RESOLUTION NO. 15, 2018, and reads as

follows:

CITY-COUNTY GENERAL RESOLUTION NO. 15, 2018

A PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL RESOLUTION to approve and adopt the Marion County Multi-Hazard Mitigation

Plan Update dated July 2018.

WHEREAS, the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (“DMA 2000”) was enacted to establish a national disaster

hazard mitigation program in order to reduce the loss of life and property due to such events and to provide disaster

assistance to state and local governments; and

WHEREAS, the DMA 2000 requires local entities to prepare and adopt a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan in order for

National Flood Insurance Program communities to be eligible for future mitigation funds and to be eligible to receive

project grants under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program as well as other grants programs; and

WHEREAS, the Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan is required to be updated and re-submitted to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency every five years; and

WHEREAS, the Marion County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update is a multi-jurisdictional planning effort led

by the City of Indianapolis/Marion County Division of Homeland Security and the Marion County Mitigation Plan

Update dated July 2018 was prepared in partnership with the City of Beech Grove, City of Lawrence, Town of Speedway

and the City of Southport; and

WHEREAS, the City-County supports reasonable efforts to make the community better prepared for future disasters

and better able to recover after disaster strikes; and

WHEREAS, The City-County council body recognizes the threat that natural and human generated hazards pose to

its residents, their property, public infrastructure, and the health and safety of the community at large; and

July 16, 2018

41

WHEREAS, Planning for and implementing actions that avoid or mitigate the impacts of hazards before disasters

occur reduces the potential for harm to people and property and saves taxpayer dollars; and

WHEREAS, The City-County has provided notice of the draft plan revision and opportunities to comment to its

local partners in disaster mitigation, has participated jointly in the planning process with the participating jurisdictions,

and has held a hearing to solicit comments from the public.

WHEREAS, this City-County council body is required to adopt and approved this Mitigation Plan Update in order

to remain eligible for future mitigation and grant funds; now, therefore:



SECTION 1. The City-County council, of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, hereby adopts and approves the

Marion County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update dated July 2018 which is to be utilized within the City of

Indianapolis/Marion County.

SECTION 2. This resolution shall be in effect from and after its passage by the Council and compliance with Indiana

Code § 36-3-4-14.

PROPOSAL NO. 230, 2018. Councillor Lewis reported that the Metropolitan and Economic

Development Committee heard Proposal No. 230, 2018 on July 2, 2018. The proposal, sponsored

by Councillors Kreider, Coats, McQuillen, Evans, Fanning, Cordi and Miller, amends the Code to

revise outdated terminology and revise requirements for solicitations entering on private premises

to add a non-solicitation registry implemented by Department of Business and Neighborhood

Services and impose a night time solicitation curfew for all city residences. By a 9-0 vote, the

Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass as

amended.

Councillor McHenry asked if there are exemptions to this and solicitation does not apply to political

and religious activities. Mr. Mallon said that this is correct.

Councillor Scales referred to sub-section 81, and said sometimes a no-solicitation notice is posted

on or near the entrance of a residence, but not on other portions of the property, and a vendor could

face a punitive action by violating something they were not aware of. She said that there are many

vendors who have been around for many years who violate the ordinances already in place

repeatedly, and she is not sure it will change anything if the ordinances already in place are not

being enforced. She said that she does not believe a registry is the way to go, because too many

already ignore the signs, and they will not abide by a registry list. She said that she does not believe

this is the way to go to combat this problem.

Councillor Lewis moved, seconded by Councillor Adamson, for adoption. Proposal No. 230, 2018




Robinson, Simpson, Wesseler

1 NAY: Scales



PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE amending the Code to revise outdated terminology and revise

requirements for solicitations entering on private premises to add a non-solicitation registry implemented by Department

of Business and Neighborhood Services and impose a night time solicitation curfew for all city residences.


42



SECTION 1. Section 391-104 of the "Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County," regarding solicitors entering

private premises, hereby is amended by deleting the language that is stricken through and adding the language that is

underlined, to read as follows:

Sec. 391-104. Peddlers and sSolicitors entering private premises.

(a) The practice of entering upon the premises of private residences in the city by any persons acting as solicitors

peddlers, hawkers, itinerant merchants or transient vendors of merchandise or commercial services of any kind,

magazines, pamphlets, books or any other articles, when such person has not been requested or invited to do so by the

owner or occupant of the private residence, or when a notice is posted at or near the entrance thereof forbidding such

entry for any such purposes, with the intention of selling or soliciting orders for the sale of any such things, or of peddling,

hawking or otherwise disposing thereof, or doing performing all or any of such practices, is hereby declared to be a

nuisance and shall be punishable as prescribed in this chapter under the following circumstances:

1. At any time when a notice is clearly posted at or near the entrance of the applicable residence forbidding

such entry for any such purposes,

2. At any time after the owner or occupant (or a representative or agent thereof) has requested that the

solicitor or vendor leave the premises,

3. At any time when the owner or occupant of the applicable residence has annually registered the residence

with the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services as a residence at which such solicitation is

prohibited, or

4. At any residence in the city after (a) thirty (30) minutes following sunset, or (b) nine o’clock pm,

whichever is earlier.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the sale, soliciting of orders for the sale, or the delivery to any

such premises of milk, dairy products, vegetables, fruits, meat, poultry, eggs, groceries, bread or any other farm and

garden produce and foods or liquid products, so far as the disposal thereof is at any time authorized by law and is done

in compliance with all applicable provisions of this Code or other city ordinances; nor shall they apply to the delivery of

any services, merchandise, or other articles of any kind previously purchased or ordered by or for the owner or occupant

of such premises.

(c) The annual registration of a particular residence as a residence at which such solicitations are prohibited shall

apply to the residence from the date of registration until December 31 of the registration year. Thereafter, the residence

must be re-registered on or after January 1 of the subsequent year. The Department of Business and Neighborhood

Services shall adopt residential registration processes and a registration form in electronic and/or written format

consistent with this chapter and shall make publicly available an updated list of addresses with the respective date of

registration to which the prohibition contained in paragraph (a) (3) shall apply throughout the year.

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage by the City-County Council and compliance

with IC § 36-3-4-14.

Councillor Adamson reported that the Public Works Committee heard Proposal Nos. 231-236 and

238, 2018 on June 28, 2018. He asked for consent to vote on Proposal Nos. 231-236, 2018 together.

Consent was given.

PROPOSAL NO. 231, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Holliday, authorizes parking

restrictions on Orly Road, from Stansted Road to County Line Road (District 20). PROPOSAL

NO. 232, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Osili, authorizes parking restrictions on

East 15th and Bellefontaine Streets near College Avenue (District 11). PROPOSAL NO. 233,

2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Osili, authorizes intersection controls at Harding

Street and Waterway Boulevard (District 11). PROPOSAL NO. 234, 2018. The proposal,

July 16, 2018

43

sponsored by Councillor Adamson, authorizes parking restrictions on Brookside Parkway South

Drive, from Sherman Drive to Rural Street (District 17). PROPOSAL NO. 235, 2018. The

proposal, sponsored by Councillor Miller, authorizes parking restrictions on Court Street, between

White River Parkway West Drive and Harding Street (District 16). PROPOSAL NO. 236, 2018.

The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Osili, authorizes parking restrictions on Court Street near

Delaware Street (District 11). By a 7-0 votes, the Committee reported the proposals to the Council

with the recommendation that they do pass. Councillor Adamson moved, seconded by Councillor

Scales, for adoption. Proposal Nos. 231-236, 2018 were adopted on the following roll call vote;

viz:




0 NAYS:



PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to make various changes to Chapter 621, Parking,

standing and stopping restricted.



SECTION 1. That the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana,

specifically Sec. 621-122, Stopping, standing or parking prohibited at all times on certain designated, be, and the same

is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit:

Orly Road, on both sides, from Stansted Road to County Line Road (one-hundred feet west of the driveway

at 9222 Orly Road);

SECTION 2. The expressed or implied repeal or amendment by this ordinance of any other ordinance or part of any other

ordinance does not affect any rights or liabilities accrued, penalties incurred, or proceedings begun prior to the effective date

of this ordinance. Those rights, liabilities, and proceedings are continued, and penalties shall be imposed and enforced under

the repealed or amended ordinance as if this ordinance had not been adopted.

SECTION 3. Should any provision (section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or any other portion) of this ordinance be declared

by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the remaining provision or provisions shall not be affected,

if and only if such remaining provisions can, without the invalid provision or provisions, be given the effect intended by the

Council in adopting this ordinance. To this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable.


3-4-14.








specifically Sec. 621-121(b), Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, be, and the same is hereby amended by

the addition of the following, to wit:


44

East Fifteenth Street, on north side, from College Avenue to Bellefontaine Street;

Bellefontaine Street, on west side, from Fifteenth Street to one-hundred feet north of Fifteenth Street;










3-4-14.



PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to make various changes to Chapter 441, Traffic.


CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA


specifically Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be, and the same is hereby amended by the deletion of the

following, to wit:

Base Map Intersection Preferential Type of Control

24 Harding Street

Waterway Boulevard

Waterway Boulevard Stop

SECTION 2. That the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County, Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana, specifically

Sec. 441-416, Schedule of intersection controls, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit:

Base Map Intersection Preferential Type of Control

24 Harding Street

Waterway Boulevard

None All-Way










3-4-14.



July 16, 2018

45






specifically Sec. 621-122, Stopping, standing or parking prohibited at all times on certain designated, be, and the same

is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit:

Brookside Parkway South Drive, on north side, from Sherman Drive to Rural Street;










3-4-14.








specifically Sec. 621-120(a)(9), Special parking privileges for certain person or vehicles in certain locations, be, and the

same is hereby amended by the deletion of the following, to wit:

Court Street, on south side, from Delaware Street, to a point seventy-two feet west of the west curb line of Delaware Street;


specifically Sec. 621-120(a)(9), Special parking privileges for certain person or vehicles in certain locations, be, and the

same is hereby amended by the addition of the following, to wit:

Court Street, on the south side, from Delaware Street, to a point seventy-two feet west of the west curb line of

Delaware Street;










3-4-14.


46




standing, and stopping restricted.




specifically Sec. 621-121(b), Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, be, and the same is hereby amended by

the addition of the following, to wit:

Court Street, on both sides, from White River Parkway West Drive to Harding Street;










3-4-14.

PROPOSAL NO. 238, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Osili, authorizes intersection

controls at Talbott Street and 18th and 21st Streets (District 11). By a 7-0 vote, the Committee

reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it be stricken. Councillor

Adamson moved, seconded by Councillor McQuillen, to strike. Proposal No. 238, 2018 was

stricken on the following roll call vote; viz:




0 NAYS:


heard Proposal No. 239, 2018 on June 28, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillor Miller,

amends the Code to adopt new provisions within Chapter 621 regarding the residential permit

parking program to formally establish the program and provide a mechanism for more enforcement.

By a 7-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal to the Council with the recommendation that it

do pass.

Councillor Adamson moved, seconded by Councillor McQuillen, to make the following

amendment:

Mr. President

I move to amend SECTION 1 of Proposal No. 239, 2018, by deleting the zones that are highlighted and double stricken-

through below and by adding an additional residentialial permit parking zone at the end of the list in Section 621-130 (a) as

per the double underlined language below, and to amend SECTION 2 of the proposal to change the penalty fee in Section

103-52, by deleting the language that is double stricken-through and adding the double-underlined language, to read as

follows:

July 16, 2018

47

Section 621-130 - Residential permit parking zones established.

(a) The following designated portions of streets in the city are hereby established as residential permit parking

zones:

Street Orientation From

Centerline

Boundary

Alpine Avenue North & South Sides Thurston Ave. -to- MacArthur Ln.

Patton Drive East & West Sides 3100 N. -to- 3220 N.

Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr. Street

West Side 9th Street to 10th Street

Sec. 103-52. - Schedule of Code provisions and penalties.



Code Section Subject Matter Civil Penalty

621-131 Violation of residential permit parking restrictions $100.00 $50.00

Proposal No. 239, 2018 was amended on the following roll call vote; viz:




0 NAYS:

Councillor Adamson moved, seconded by Councillor Kreider, for adoption, as amended. Proposal

No. 239, 2018 was adopted on the following roll call vote; viz:

24 YEAS: Adamson, Clay, Coats, Cordi, Evans, Fanning, Gray, Jackson, Johnson, Kreider,



1 NAY: Holliday



PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to adopt new provisions within Chapter 621

regarding the Residential Permit Parking Program.



SECTION 1. Chapter 621 of the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” regarding Parking, Standing, and

Stopping Restricted, hereby is amended by addition of a new Article VI, consisting of sections 621-129 through 621-

131, establishing a Residential Permit Parking Program, to read as follows:

ARTICLE VI – RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM

Sec. 621-129. - Residential permit parking program; permit requirements.

(a) Residents of each dwelling located directly adjacent to a street within a residential permit parking zone

established under Sec. 621-130 may request a residential parking permit upon an application provided by the

department of business and neighborhood services.


48

(b) Each application for a residential parking permit shall contain the following information: applicant name and

address; proof of residency at that address; year, make, model and license tag number of the vehicle(s) for

which an application is made; and, proof of ownership, lease or rental of the vehicle by a resident of the

applicant address. Final determination of eligibility will be made by the department of business and

neighborhood services and the department of public works.

(c) Residents meeting the criteria in subsection (a) may also apply for up to two (2) visitor parking permits. Each

application for a visitor parking permit shall contain the following information: applicant name and address

and proof of residency at that address. Final determination of eligibility will be made by the department of

business and neighborhood services and the department of public works.

(d) A residential parking permit or visitor parking permit shall be affixed to the vehicle for which the permit is

issued in a prominent location that is visible from outside of the vehicle.

(e) A residential parking permit or visitor parking permit shall be valid only for the vehicle for which it was issued.

If the resident who applied for and received a residential parking permit or visitor parking permit moves his/her

residency outside of a residential permit parking zone, then all parking permits issued under this section shall

be void.

(f) A residential parking permit or visitor parking permit issued under this section shall be valid for one (1) year

from the date of issuance.

(g) A residential parking permit or visitor parking permit shall not serve to guarantee or to reserve the permit holder

an on-street parking space.

(h) Neither a residential parking permit nor a visitor parking permit shall take precedence over temporary or

permanent no parking zones enacted by the council or otherwise posted by the department of public works, the

department of business and neighborhood services, or the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

(i) All residential parking permits and visitor parking permits issued by the city prior to this section’s passage into

law shall be grandfathered and remain in full force and effect until the expiration date of that permit.

Section 621-130 - Residential permit parking zones established.

(a) The following designated portions of streets in the city are hereby established as residential permit parking

zones:

Street Orientation From

Centerline

Boundary

Merrill Street South Side East St. -to- Virginia Ave.

Warsaw Street South Side East St. -to- Virginia Ave.

Norwood Street North Side Meridian St. -to- 144 feet E. of Meridian St.

Avondale Place West Side 206ft S. of 22nd St. -to- 362ft S. of 22nd St.

Paca Street East Side Saint Clair St. -to- 10th St.

Camp Street West Side Saint Clair St. -to- 10th St.

California Street West Side Saint Clair St. -to- 10th St.

9th Street South Side Paca -to- Alley 550W

Bancroft Street East & West Sides Nowland Ave. -to- 14th St.

Nowland Avenue South Side Riley Ave. -to- Dequincy St.

Riley Avenue East & West Sides Nowland Ave. -to- 14th St.

14th Street North & South Sides Bancroft St. -to- Riley Ave.

Riley Avenue East & West Sides 13th St. -to- 14th St.

Mason Street South Side Madison Ave. -to- Ransdell St.

11th Street South Side Brookside Ave. -to- Arsenal Ave.

Brook Lane East & West Sides 124ft N. of Brooks St. -to- 12th St.

13th Street South Side Ritter Ave. -to- Leland Ave.

18th Street North & South Sides Hawthorne Ln. -to- Ritter Ave.

Irvington Avenue East & West Sides Wayne Dr. -to- 13th St.

Whittier Place East & West Sides 17th St. -to-18th St.

July 16, 2018

49

Irvington Avenue East & West Sides 16th St. -to- 17th St.

Fletcher Avenue North Side 96ft W. of Calvary St. -to- 248ft W. of Calvary St.

22nd Street North & South Sides Gale St. -to- 145ft W. of Sherman Dr.

Bancroft Street East Side Howe Dr. -to- Julian Ave.

Fayette Street East & West Sides 9th St. -to- 10th St.

East Street East Side 222ft North of Buchanan St. -to- 431ft North of Buchanan

St.

East Street East Side 115ft North of McCarty St. -to- 185ft North of McCarty St.

East Street East Side 313ft North of McCarty St. -to- 360ft North of McCarty St.

East Street East Side Stevens St. -to- 76ft N. of Stevens St.

East Street East Side 121ft North of Merrill St. -to- 446ft North of Merrill St.

44th Street North Side Sunset Ave. -to- Rookwood Ave.

44th Street South Side Haughey Ave. -to- Rookwood Ave.

Meridian Street West Side 100ft S. of Merrill St. -to- Norwood St.

11th Street North Side 452ft West of Senate -to- 298ft West of Senate

Oriental Street West Side Michigan St. -to- North St.

East Street West Side 85ft S of New York St. -to- Vermont St.

Lockerbie Circle North

Drive

South Side East St.-to- Lockerbie Circle S. Dr.

Lockerbie Circle South

Drive

North Side East St.-to- Lockerbie Circle N. Dr.

Lockerbie Street North & South Sides East St. -to- Park Ave.

Lockerbie Street North Side Park Ave. -to- College Ave.

Park Avenue West Side Lockerbie St. -to- Michigan St.

Vermont Street North Side Cleveland St. -to- East St.

Vermont Street South Side East St. -to- College Ave.

East Street East Side New York St. -to- Vermont St.

New York Street North Side East St. -to- College Ave.

Walnut Street South Side 75ft East of Cleveland St. to 122ft East of Cleveland St.

Church Street East Side 300ft S. of McCarty -to- McCarty

Church Street East Side 335ft S. of Wyoming St. -to- 147ft S. of Wyoming St.

Meikel Street West Side 370ft S. of McCarty -to- 190ft S. of McCarty

Meikel Street West Side 120ft S. of Wyoming -to- Wyoming

Meikel Street West Side 315ft S. of Wyoming -to- 255ft S. of Wyoming

Ray Street North Side 245ft W. of Senate -to- 125ft W. of Senate

Senate Avenue West Side 200ft S. of McCarty -to- 140ft S. of McCarty

Senate Avenue West Side 93ft N. of Ray -to- 153ft N. of Ray

Wyoming Street North Side 30ft E. of Senate -to-150ft E. of Senate

Missouri Street East Side South Terminus of Missouri (1000S.) -to- Wyoming

Wyoming Street North Side Missouri -to- Meikel

Lord Street South Side East Street -to- Cincinnati

Illinois Street East Side / West Side Wilkins to Morris

Montcalm St west side 100' north of 15th St to 14th St


50

Montcalm St east side 60' south of 15th St to 15th St

Chadwick Street East Side 180 ' North of McCarty -to- 250' North of McCarty

Arsenal Avenue East Side 12th Street to Brookside Avenue

Lexington Avenue n/a 715, 718, 736, 730

Elm Street n/a 734, 739

South Pine Street n/a 467, 469, 471, 475, 476, 526

South College n/a 615

Noble Street n/a 706

Stevens Street n/a 637, 639

Lord Street Both Sides College Avenue to Davidson Street

Harrison Street Both Sides College Avenue to Davidson Street

Concordia Street Both Sides Lord Street to Harrison Street

Davidson Street Both Sides Lord Street to Harrison Street

46th Street North Side Sunset Avenue to Boulevard Place

Ray Street North Side 60ft W. of Meridian St. -to- 120ft W. of Meridian St.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Street

West Side 9th Street to 10th Street

(b) The department of public works shall post reasonable and adequate signs designating the residential permit

parking zones established under subsection (a).

Section 621-131 - Residential permit parking zones; enforcement.

(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner, driver or operator of any vehicle to park such vehicle or to allow such

vehicle to be parked without a residential parking permit or visitor permit issued pursuant to section 621-

129 at any time, without exception, in a residential permit parking zone established pursuant to section 621-

130.

(b) A violation of this section shall constitute a violation of the Code. A person's first and second violations in

a twelve-month period shall be subject to an admission of violation and payment of the designated civil

penalty through the ordinance violations bureau in accordance with sections 103-51 and 103-52. All

subsequent violations in a twelve-month period shall be subject to the enforcement procedures provided for

in section 103-3.

SECTION 2. Section 103-52 of the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” regarding the schedule of Code

provisions and penalties is hereby amended by adding the language that is underlined, as follows:

Sec. 103-52. - Schedule of Code provisions and penalties.



Code Section Subject Matter Civil Penalty

621-131 Violation of residential permit parking restrictions $50.00

SECTION 3. The expressed or implied repeal or amendment by this ordinance of any other ordinance or part of any

other ordinance does not affect any rights or liabilities accrued, penalties incurred, or proceedings begun prior to the

effective date of this ordinance. Those rights, liabilities, and proceedings are continued, and penalties shall be imposed

and enforced under the repealed or amended ordinance as if this ordinance had not been adopted.

SECTION 4. Should any provision (section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or any other portion) of this ordinance be

declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the remaining provision or provisions shall not

be affected, if and only if such remaining provisions can, without the invalid provision or provisions, be given the effect

intended by the Council in adopting this ordinance. To this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable.

July 16, 2018

51

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage by the Council and compliance with Ind. Code

§ 36-3-4-14 or from July 1, 2018, whichever shall later occur.


heard Proposal No. 240, 2018 on June 28, 2018. The proposal, sponsored by Councillors Miller

and Adamson, amends the Code to adopt new provisions within Chapters 621 and 986 regarding

temporary closure of metered parking spaces. By a 7-0 vote, the Committee reported the proposal

to the Council with the recommendation that it do pass.

Councillor Miller said that this has been a two-year effort to get this fixed. He congratulated

Department of Public Works Director Dan Parker for putting in new practices to change this and

save the city money by not giving up that parking meter revenue. He said that executive orders

should not allow for non-transparency, and he asked citizens to keep their eyes out for these types

of activity and report them for change.

Councillor Adamson commended Councillor Miller for making sure that these infrastructure

dollars are being properly spent and can be redirected to neighborhoods.

Councillor Adamson moved, seconded by Councillor Miller, for adoption. Proposal No. 240, 2018





0 NAYS:



PROPOSAL FOR A GENERAL ORDINANCE to amend the Revised Code to adopt new provisions within Chapters

621 and 986 regarding Temporary Closure of Metered Parking Spaces.



SECTION 1. Section 621-100 of the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” regarding Parking, Standing,

and Stopping Restricted is hereby amended by the addition of the underlined language, to read as follows:

Sec. 621-100. - Definitions.

(a) The terms used in this chapter shall have the meanings ascribed to them in section 441-101 of the Code.

(b) In addition, the following terms as used in this chapter shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section.

Adjusted for inflation means adjusted by the percentage increase, if any, or decrease, if any, in the Index during the

applicable adjustment period.

Concession agreement means any definitive agreement entered into between the city and a concessionaire to operate,

maintain and improve the parking meter spaces.

Concessionaire means a party designated by the city to operate, maintain and improve the parking meter spaces.

Index means the "Consumer Price Index - United States, All Items" (not seasonally adjusted) as published by the

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; provided, however, that if the index is changed so that the base

year of the index changes, the index shall be converted in accordance with the conversion factor published by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; provided further that if the index is discontinued or revised during the


52

term, such other index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same

result as would be obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised.

Operations plan means the established policies, procedures, guidelines and minimum requirements to operate and

maintain the metered parking system.

Parking meter or meter means any device or meter operated either manually or automatically, as prescribed in this

article, which is placed or erected for the regulation of parking of vehicles for specific periods of time upon the public

streets and places of the city by authority of this article or otherwise.

Parking meter space means the space or the section of the street adjacent to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated

by lines painted or otherwise durably marked on the surface of the street and curb, or otherwise plainly indicated, and

regulated by parking meters, in which space vehicles may be parked for the respective periods of time hereinafter

prescribed, as indicated for each such space upon or near the parking meters.

Parking meter zone 1, parking meter zone 2, parking meter zone 3, and parking meter zone 4 each means the

numbered zone established in section 621-201 of the Code.

Payment means the form or forms of acceptable payment as designated on or near the parking meter.

Placard means a valid placard issued by the city to an employee of the city, or any other person, which allows such

person to be exempt from payment for parking in a parking meter space.

Special events means any event that (i) does not occur annually or more frequently than annually; (ii) has an expected

average daily attendance of more than seventy-five thousand (75,000) persons; (iii) in the reasonable judgment of the

city, requires the temporary closure of at least fifty (50) percent of the parking meter spaces in any given parking meter

zone for a period of at least seven (7) business days in a calendar year in connection with the event and (iv) in which the

city has agreed to offer free parking meter spaces to the hosting entity as a condition to award of the event to the city.

Special events specifically include, but are not limited to, those listed on Schedule 10 of the Concession Agreement*

regardless if such events meet the foregoing criteria.

SECTION 2. Chapter 621, Division 4, of the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” regarding Parking,

Standing, and Stopping Restricted, hereby is amended by addition of a new Section defining the Temporary Closure of

Metered Parking Spaces, to read as follows:

Sec. 621-243. Temporary Closure of Metered Parking Spaces.

The operations plan contains the process to follow for an application for a special event license if the event

results in the temporary closure of meters, also known as meter bagging. This process includes provisions whereby

the applicant may request a meter bagging fee waiver; provided however, that the process requires the following:

(a) All requests to waive meter bagging fees will be brought before the Board of Public Works except for

the following:

(1) requests initiated by IMPD in the interest of public safety;

(2) events qualifying as a “special event” under the Concession Agreement and in Sec. 621 -100 of the

Code;

(3) requests from the State of Indiana for a State purpose; and

(4) civic sponsored special events designated under Sec. 986-104 of the Code.

(b) By January 1, 2020, no requests will be granted other than those listed in section (a).

(c) Each year in the month of January, the Department of Public Works will supply the Council with a report

of all fee waivers granted in the previous year.

SECTION 3. Section 986-104 of the “Revised Code of the Consolidated City and County,” regarding Special Events,

hereby is amended by the addition of the underlined language and the deletion of the stricken through language, to read

as follows:

July 16, 2018

53

Sec. 986-104. Designation of civic sponsored special events.

(a) Each year, the following events shall be designated as civic sponsored special events under this article:

(1) The 500-Mile Race Festival;

(2) The Indiana Black Expo concert;

(3) The St. Patrick's Day Parade;

(4) The Circle City Classic Parade;

(5) The Circle of Lights; and

(6) The Indiana State Fair.;

(7) The Original Farmer’s Market at the Indianapolis City Market; and

(8) Indy Pride

(b) The following events shall be designated as civic sponsored special events under this article during any year

in which they are to be held in the city:

(1) National Collegiate Athletic Association championship contests and all official related events;

(2) National Football League Super Bowl, Pro Bowl, draft and all official related events;

(3) Big Ten Conference championship contests and all official related events;

(4) National Basketball Association Finals or All-Star activities and all official related events; and

(5) Women's National Basketball Association Finals or All-Star activities and all official related events.

(c) In the interest of retaining the ability to attract additional events to the city, the mayor shall have the authority

to designate additional events as civic sponsored special events at his or her sole discretion.

SECTION 4. The expressed or implied repeal or amendment by this ordinance of any other ordinance or part of any

other ordinance does not affect any rights or liabilities accrued, penalties incurred, or proceedings begun prior to the

effective date of this ordinance. Those rights, liabilities, and proceedings are continued, and penalties shall be imposed

and enforced under the repealed or amended ordinance as if this ordinance had not been adopted.

SECTION 5. Should any provision (section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or any other portion) of this ordinance be

declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the remaining provision or provisions shall not

be affected, if and only if such remaining provisions can, without the invalid provision or provisions, be given the effect

intended by the Council in adopting this ordinance. To this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable.

SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage by the Council and compliance with Ind. Code

§ 36-3-4-14.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADJOURNMENT

The President said that the docketed agenda for this meeting of the Council having been completed,

the Chair would entertain motions for adjournment.

Councillor McQuillen stated that he had been asked to offer the following motion for adjournment

by:

(1) Councillor Osili in memory of Lynda Parrett, Alicia Smith and Dr. Freeman Martin, III; and

(2) Councillor McQuillen in memory of Julie Powell, John K. Snyder and Deana Nelson Slater;

and

(3) Councillor Pfisterer in memory of James W. Clay and Marlene Beall; and

(4) Councillor Wesseler in memory of Carminta Wright and Bertrice “Bert” Paschall; and

(5) Councillor Cordi in memory of Mark Hunter and Gary Robinson.


54

Councillor McQuillen moved the adjournment of this meeting of the Indianapolis City-County

Council in recognition of and respect for the life and contributions of Lynda Parrett, Alicia Smith,

Dr. Freeman Martin, III, Julie Powell, John K. Snyder, Deana Nelson Slater, James W. Clay,

Marlene Beall, Carminta Wright, Bertice “Bert” Paschal, Mark Hunter and Gary Robinson. He

respectfully asked the support of fellow Councillors. He further requested that the motion be made

a part of the permanent records of this body and that a letter bearing the Council seal and the

signature of the President be sent to the families advising of this action.

There being no further business, and upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned

at 9:36 p.m.

We hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and complete record of the proceedings

of the regular concurrent meetings of the City-Council of Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana,

and Indianapolis Police, Fire and Solid Waste Collection Special Service District Councils on the

21st day of May, 2018.

In Witness Whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our signatures and caused the Seal of the City

of Indianapolis to be affixed.

President

ATTEST:

Clerk of the Council

(SEAL)