Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

So I'd like to take a moment and call our land use meeting to order this evening for today is August 4th? 5th. Let's see. 5th. August 5th. My goodness, the day goes by very quickly. 532 PM. As is customary, I'm just going to have everybody go around and introduce themselves since this isn't live streamed. So I will start. Dr. Anita Joshi, Carmel City Council, West District, Landy's Chair.

Ryan Locke, Carmel City Council, Northwest.

Ruth Ayers, City Council, North Central.

Thanks, Chairman. Carmel Police Chief. Shane Collins, Major, Carmel Police Department. Clifton Hogue, Park Resource Officer.

Kay Gaither, Resident, West District.

Tony Green, South Central City Councilor.

Jessica Kahn, Clerk's Office.

Jack Feldman, Carmel Resident.

And Sergey Gruchugin, City Legal.

Okay, well thank you everyone for being here this evening. For the agenda tonight, I know we had two items, but I really would like to focus on the Micromobility Ordinance that we have in front of us. And Sergey is still researching some areas of the city hall for public use ordinance. So we're going to skip that one and really focus on this tonight. And I was hoping, since we have made some changes and suggestions to this ordinance, that we kind of go through it in order of the changes that we've made and the first section and just kind of go section by section and see if we can get to an understanding where we can get this moved back to council, if that's possible. So the first issue and the first section was focusing on something that the police department had brought up to our attention and was concerned about and that is the dismounting and sort of some areas in midtown where there's some narrowing and some difficulties so wanted to address that first and Sergey I'm going to ask you to make some comments and then I really would love the police department to weigh in on their concerns

Yeah, so let's just jump back for just a second. The first amendment is on line 70. It makes clear that Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 e-bicycles are not e-motor devices, but I think we received, surprisingly, A lot of comments about this is like, well, is e-bicycle an e-motor device? So make it clear that, hey, we're not. We're two separate animals and regulate them very differently. And the second big amendment is a dismount zone on Monon Boulevard between West Main Street and the newly expanded Monon Boulevard that goes all the way to City Center Drive. Jack actually pointed out a very good point. I walked it as well and realized the same thing. That there is two small areas of Monum Boulevard where with bicyclists and pedestrian share lane. And the rest of the Monon Boulevard and the majority of Monon Boulevard, there's a designated bicycle lane. And actually, a couple places are at 2 and streets, obviously, as well. But between West Main and First Street Southwest, that's where the shared space comes in. There's only one street in that area as well, so it's a lot narrower. And that's where the congestion really happens more so than anywhere else in Monum Boulevard. And then the second section, it's a new one, a new expanded one. Unfortunately, I was looking at the maps and Google hasn't updated it yet, so I can't give you the exact location of that, but there's a similarly joint area, but that one is even smaller. So that is... The amendment, it basically says that you have to dismount unless you're on a designated bicycle lane, and there's a designated bicycle lane in the middle of Vermont Boulevard, there's another one in other places, or you're on the street. So if you're going in the direction of traffic, there's narrow streets there. Usually bicycles don't like to be there because it's cobblestones, so not exactly most comfortable to probably ride on, but... Basically, the amendment says that anywhere else, if you want to be anywhere else around Midtown Square or in pedestrian lane or anywhere else, you have to dismount and walk it, essentially. So again, the question remains, what do we want to do between West Main and First Street Southwest? Again, we're merging pedestrians and bicyclists occurs, fairly short area. I think my suggestion would be just to limit the bicyclists and micromobility users to the street that goes there. It's not particularly well used by cars anyways, so that would be my suggestion, but of course, you know, please, please. All officers are here, and they may weigh in as well.

You want, you're saying both bicycle and motorist should be using the street lane and not obviously the.

Right, not the smaller area for pedestrians because it's already congested there.

That's right in front of .

I have an issue with that. That's a one-way street. Yeah.

So I don't know if if you want to weigh in on that

That is a fair question. I think maybe the easiest solution is to remove Main Street and just drop down to the northern boundary and be that first street southwest. That might be the easiest, in my opinion. Yeah.

The reason this is one of our suggestions is just it's that area where it's so crowded with people moving around. I figure if we can put the bikes on the road or in the designated bike path, it would be safer for pedestrians and kids.

I have no I have no concern. I think that makes perfect sense from you know my perspective We need to keep the pedestrian safe in that area, and so I think that's really Probably the only solution based on how that roadway is designed the Just quick thought in a walk South past bubs there I cross under US 31 and walk down through that area quite a bit and

north of main street it's just the trail and it's just the one it's like the road and it's got the line and it's bikes and walkers and you're kind of getting prepared to enter the midtown area wondering if there's signage or a process and trying to think of how do we eliminate kind of that the congestion that happens there you've got the main street crossing which is one of the most you know active pedestrian car interactions probably in the city at this point if there's a way to maybe even extend it further north where you start to get people to understand that they should be dismounting and being prepared to kind of walk that next step. That block, because it is tight, there's no way to add another block next to Baspo's. It's going to be one lane there with the cobblestone. That's the beginning of kind of that cobblestone area. So cars are starting to transition in. And it gets kind of hairy anyway. And then you've got the splash pad on the west side. So you've got families hanging out, waiting for dinner, kind of setting up shop there. So it almost makes sense to have people Preparing to understand that in this next block you should walk your bike or your micro mobility or your cool one-wheeled skateboard And just trying to think through that, thinking about it from the safety perspective, but also then the signaling to people that are flying for two miles on their bike in the regular Monon, you're hitting Main Street Carmel, does it make sense to figure out a way to start people shifting their behavior? And then when you get past that block, it makes it very clear, like you're back in a bike lane, there's a sign at First Street that says bike lane this way, you can get back on, you can ride for the next mile or so before you start to hit that kind of shared space again. Yeah, which I don't know if that shared space, to your point it's not on the map yet. And Sergey or Jack, do you know where it is?

You said First Street. Is that First Street Northwest or First Street Southwest? Great question. Northwest. Northwest? Oh, sorry. Southwest. Southwest. Southwest. Southwest. Yeah.

And that's, yeah, so like that block, if you've got the map pulled up or thinking about it, you've got the block between West Main and First Southwest that is that narrow path that becomes, it's like the corridor, the entry into Midtown. North of that, you've got the kind of trail starting its actual trail capacity. You've got the road, 2nd Avenue next to it. So it's kind of a safer area there and you're kind of up and raised away from and then you get into the neighborhoods. But that area feels like the area where it's like begin to prepare to dismount, dismount at Main. You can remount then at First Street Southwest and go on the bike path for as long as that kind of takes you through fancy Midtown with the squiggly path. And then you hit Walnut Street. And on the map, presently, it goes back to one, but I know that's more built out than it is.

The new playground.

Yeah, we can confirm where exactly it is. I just didn't have a chance to go there.

I believe it's where the new extension of the road ends. So whatever that unnamed street as part of the development is. This is a suggestion, but I know the engineering department has done some trials recently with just cones in areas. I wonder if we could try maybe a week or two week long trial with Monon Boulevard since that seems to be, apart from valet, a relatively underused stretch of road. Maybe we could trial closing that road to cars for a week and making that the bike space and the pedestrian space the Monon?

Are you saying Monon Boulevard?

I'm saying the one-way section of Monon Boulevard by BASBO.

That might be hard for businesses in there though too, so...

So what do you guys think?

I think for the issue of, so I'm looking at a map right now. Just south of Main Street, there is some congestion where the motor on trail and the water feature is. But there's also, I don't think that area is designated with this is for pedestrians, this is for bikes. That's right. It's merged. That's correct. I think the easiest thing is to not And then, Councilor Locke, like what you were saying, I don't know if we could put signage north of when you're coming southbound, like a warning here. Yeah. To kind of, you know, that will get people thinking around Main Street to get off there.

Because a lot of people have it up. Because of all the vehicular traffic through there, they're having to come to such a slow down pace that it almost forces you to put your foot down and almost dismount anyway. So it might be a natural place for them to dismount that main walk.

I don't know what the appetite would be for this is just make it a strictly dismount zone. When you come south of Maine, unless you're in like a handicap mobility device, you have to get off. For that period? Yeah, for that stretch. Anything that's motorized has to get dismounted.

And how long would that stretch be then? Where are you proposing that should be?

i would think from main street just to the end of that new section um what the new playground is should there be certain time periods like if you're riding your bike at 5 a.m like cyclists that ride from downtown carmel to downtown indianapolis maybe there should be a time like 5 a.m on the signs there's not a lot of traffic

Yeah, I think we could.

And to clarify one there, south of First Street Southwest, you go back to there being a split bike path and a split walking path. So I think, and this is what I'm echoing your sentiment, the idea of there being a required dismount zone and the idea of having a time frame, if you're before 5 a.m. or whatever that is, based on sunrise, being allowed to be on the trail, but um that block because it is so congested you've got we've got our trusty statute police officer there slowing cars down like the the premise of that yeah that being a specific block where everybody understands you just kind of walk it for this area because it's a a slow down point and then once you cross back over first southwest you're back on the bike path you can get back on and start riding again south

Yeah, that would give a transition period.

So why not have it be for the block that Bubs is on? You've got a warning zone, you've got Bubs' block, you've got Bazmo's block, you're back on your bike.

This is a little silly, but would that affect our bike counter? I know the city has used that for promotional material. Would it affect that if the bike was being walked? Would it still count as a ride? I don't think it would.

And I'm sorry, I do want to clarify because I think. My comment as far as the 5 0 AM are usually cyclists. Regular cyclists writing their. Like, so I know that this is about ebikes and. Specifically, but. There is a problem with speeding on the Monon anyway, and I'm not going to deep dive into that, but that's where my head was at as far as a time frame, the 5 a.m., because there are a lot of cyclists.

And I think you could do a time frame or... if you just said if you are on any type of motorized device you have to dismount yes bicycles would still be allowed they're typically at a slower speed than what the motorized devices are whether it be an e-bike or whichever class it is unless it's your saturday peloton

Yeah, I mean, I think having a zone that's clearly defined with some kind of transition to allow for education for people to make sure they understand what is happening so that it makes your enforcement piece easier as well makes perfect sense. Because a lot of this is education and trying to change behavior, right? So we're trying to figure out how do we do that best. So I love the idea of getting off at Maine. It makes perfect sense to me to get off there and then, you know, or... Even earlier if you thought that would be better but definitely by May and you should dismount it off and then get back on when your bike lanes resume and then get back off when they Leave again, which is probably right near the plate like at the Palladium right at City Center Drive That would be when you would have to get off again potentially right because you don't have that bike designated Separation and now you have a lot of events and a lot of people walking around and so again pedestrian safety becomes So I don't know how you feel about further down if you had thoughts on that During

The farmer's market, we have a lot of people mixed in with bikes, but we're not getting a lot of complaints on that stretch of speeding bikes or dangerous behavior.

Okay. It's so wide there as well. It is pretty wide. We do have more room. It's just I know there's still more people.

People spread out from the Monon and that area. They can walk around the place. It's a lot more spread out crowd.

Well, I think, were you saying just... before the palladium on city center yeah you were saying right where that new park where the new part yeah yeah i think especially when that whole area opens up i there's a lot of kids i think they're yeah i think that going just right right there on um the south side of the city and the tunnel tunnels yeah that's where it gets very narrow yeah

And they were talking the other night at the meeting that there's going to be a shaded area for people to sit down there. I haven't walked through that area yet. What is the plan for bikes? Do they go around that? That's a lot of stuff in a couple of acres, you know?

Well, and I think what we could do is make some... make some adjustments based on the map that we currently have and then do what we did last year when we started this process, which is to revisit when we get to that point and make another amendment and come back and do it. Because I think to try to do it without a clear understanding might not lead to the best results. So perhaps we do it with what we know and then we agree to revisit this in a year as we did and make adjustments. I don't know how people feel about that suggestion, but. I'd hate to not move forward because we just don't have the information.

Do the best we can.

School starts next week. Right. Exactly.

Exactly. Is everybody else?

We have some questions about the language that we've got. So we've got it set up where it's devices may only be operated on streets and designated bicycle lanes on Monon Boulevard between West Main Street and City Center Drive. In all other areas, operators shall dismount micromobility devices and walk. So we've narrowed it to just micromobility devices. When I was thinking earlier, I was thinking bikes, but there might be a way to get bikes in. But other devices, micromobility devices, is narrowly defined. to any open-air device designed for personal transportation, propelled fully or in part by a mechanical or electrical motor, regardless of human power. It excludes, there's dot, dot, dot, everybody can read it. It does not include motorized wheelchairs, assisted mobility electric scooters, electric knee scooters, I don't know what those are, sounds awesome. Golf carts, go-karts, low-speed vehicles, electric trikes, electric mopeds, capable of reaching speeds. So all of those are exempted. My presumption is go-karts are illegal on the trail to begin with. Wondering if we're missing anything by that definition or if there are other classes of vehicles or things that make sense to dismount. E-bikes are not part of that because they are not... propelled wholly, well, they're propelled in part by an electric motor, okay.

Does the separate definition of e-bike exclude them from micromobility device, or is it just separate for the purpose of defining it?

Yeah, it's separate because there are three types, essentially. So we wanted to make sure that we understand that there are three different types. There are slight variations in regulation for class three, so we have to include the differences between one, two, and three.

I think the fact that it is defined separately can cause that confusion, and it is something separate other than a micromobility device.

That's actually a good point.

My thought is like adding, if it is in that, can we add just a section in micromobility that it includes e-bikes or e-bicycles as defined later, and then it does not include all of the other stuff. And then as we think about... like the application of that geography. It clearly covers Main Street through, which has sections that have no shared path and then sections that do have the joint, the split path. Is there a way for us, thinking enforcement and clarity, should we specifically state in it that that block is dismount? That way it's clear that you must dismount during that. It gives us the ability to then put signs up. It still is clear based on what I read earlier that if there's designated bike lanes you can ride on them and that if there's another section south of there we could explicitly state that when we come back and amend it to add that to a provision that allows us to specifically clarify where on the south side it should be cut out to.

And another question is should is there any appetite to include bicycles for dismount zone in that particular tiny block? I know we go slower, but if you're a good rider, you can also go pretty fast.

Yeah, I think there can be issues with human-powered bicycles or skateboards where someone could hit someone else. But typically what we're seeing with the dangerous behavior in higher speeds is a micro-movement. I could go either way with it.

I mean, seeing in that section, we do have a sculpture called First Ride, showing someone teaching their child how to ride a bike. So, like, we could incorporate an age requirement. A lot of cities in Europe have done that, say, if you're under 12, you can ride your bike. But it seems like. It's a fair point there, yeah. There's that statue.

We could move it to where you can get back on. Where you can get back on. That's okay. There we go. Relocate. We've relocated other statues, so we can relocate them.

And I don't have a problem for that narrow, small area from my perspective of including bicycles if the police department feels like it would just make it much easier to sort of deal with that one area as a dismount area. It's simpler that way. It's simpler for you. It's easier for people to understand. And I think if the goal is to change behavior, maybe we just change it in that one spot. And even if they're riding to Indianapolis, it is not going to slow them down significantly for one block, I think.

And most people that are riding to go to another place are leaving at 5 a.m. Yeah, they're going early.

Or 7 or whatever.

But, like, during high traffic times, I mean, I have gotten several e-mails in the last three years about, I don't know.

Bicyclists as well.

Yeah, and... Sure. My dad being one of them for a very long time, he usually left at 5 a.m., so I don't think he was ever in the high-traffic areas. But I do, I understand. He probably went really fast, too. I run there every day, and I take up this portion, but people are zooming past me. So, especially during high-traffic times and in that area, yeah.

Now, I know there are markings on that section of the Monon done by the consortium of people that designed our new Monon Boulevard area that have a bicycle and an arrow very similar to how a bike lane is marked. Is that in the shared section as well? Because if so, that could be infusing. You know, you're telling people it's a bike lane.

Yeah, we can check out that. That's a good point. I'm not... I don't remember, but I believe there might be some markings on the ground.

I know not all of it is, but there are portions that are marked. It's almost like the path is cut in half and has a picture of a bicycle on one side and a picture of a pedestrian on the other.

But very narrow. Very narrow. Yeah, we can check on existing signage.

So do we want to amend that section, or do we want to leave it then?

I think we should amend it to be more clear for sure. My thought is I would be open to the concept of bikes dismounting in that area. Bikers, please send me your love on that one. But I'd love the idea of there being a reasonable amount of time or time at the beginning of the day or at the end of the day where it makes sense. The end of the day is hard because that's when people are out. Yeah. And there's a million people out there already. Even coming here today, went through that. And you've got to really watch if you're a car. And if you're new to the area, a bike could be coming at 20 miles an hour north or south. And you've got to pause there and wait for them to get through. You've got to be really kind of on your game. So from my perspective, I would love... to tweak that, would take whatever feedback you guys have as you look at it and shape that right, but if it ends up that bikes is too much, we'd put them back in.

We do also, I believe it's built into either this ordinance or another one, where it says if there are signage or markings that say you must dismount, you shall dismount. So we could trial that, we could see things by just putting signs up and seeing dismount, see how it works, do some loose studying.

We do have dismount signs on Main Street already.

I'd like to go back to the task force. i know school starts next week but can we do another task force week um i just i think it was really beneficial i think you guys did a great job with that perhaps we could do it one more time i don't know and maybe maybe after school is back in session to see kind of what the traffic is like.

Yeah, I think with school starting, it affords us an opportunity to be a little bit more direct with our enforcement because we know where the kids are going. They're going to a school. Whereas in the summer, they're just everywhere. So I do think there's an opportunity in collaboration with both the SROs and the Parks Resource Officers to where we can get on some education to the kids and to the parents as well. I know last year at the start of school, CCS was very helpful in sending a message to all parents that these are what's not allowed. We shouldn't see these on campus. We'll probably do that again as well. But I think, you know, probably hit those first couple weeks pretty hard, potentially. Big safety push.

Absolutely. I'm already working with a couple of the SROs right now to schedule times to go and do presentations with the students within the first couple weeks. Love that. That's great. That's awesome. That's great. Thank you so much.

So if we're comfortable with that, I'd like to move to the next section just in the interest of trying to get through some of this. So kind of went down to about line 168 or so where we began more edits. And that is the requirement to display the e-bike class, which is an easy, identifiable way to identify an e-bike. I know that this will bring up some conversations about older e-bikes that don't have that display capability and how that might affect some of our residents. So wanted your perspective a little bit on how we would deal with that issue. how you felt about that and knowing that nothing is perfect and that people will be people. And so we will have people who will do it correctly and we will have people who will not. And so understanding that, how does that read for you guys with...

I think these guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't going to be checkpoints, so to speak. So we're not going to be checking for stickers. It would likely be the fruit of another poisonous tree. They've done some other illegal act, and oh, well, we also noticed that you don't have your sticker. We have that conversation. Our officers use discretion all the time. If it's something super egregious, maybe it is something that we cite or that we use in a violation, but if it's otherwise not an issue for us, we recognize that it's an older bike, I think I would encourage the officers to use discretion on that.

I can't tell you the last time I took a call or dealt with somebody on a bike pre-2020 that wouldn't have had one of these stickers. Okay. They're not the individuals we're having problems with or dealing with. At the chief's point, most of the time when we're looking at stickers of somebody that we've stepped out with for a different reasoning and we're trying to figure out what their class of bike is and we're looking for that sticker, we're not just stopping people and saying, hey, let me see your sticker, kind of thing.

Right. So that's great. So that helps me because that was one of the concerns I think that got brought up was just making sure that, you know, those residents are being dealt with effectively.

Is there a planning meeting?

No.

It's not.

That's okay. So that was just that first section, about 168 to about 175. And then we move into the Emoto devices, and it basically just says that they shall only be operated on the streets. And I think that was a big, great change for us to really deal with the issues that are happening and keep our pedestrians and bikers of traditional bikes and walker, you know, everybody safe, the kids and adults who are walking and riding bikes. So I thought that change was great. Perspective from anybody?

I do have one question on the previous section. Oh, sure. On, like, there's infinity stickers on the Internet. You can buy random things. Is there anything enforcement-wise that makes sense to add to, say, if somebody buys a Class 3 sticker and puts it on a Class 11 bike or whatever is up there in a way to kind of defraud the process that there's a... Obviously, you're not able to kind of check it without some other reasonable suspicion to pull them over in the first place. But if they're actively attempting to defraud officers with what their device is on scene, is it worthwhile to have a section that says it gives you some enforcement mechanism?

I think there's enough other pieces in here. Yeah.

Okay. It comes later. It comes a little bit later.

Okay, perfect. Okay. I also believe there are devices that some police agencies are using that can measure the wattage of the motor or can measure the top speed of a bike.

which I found kind of cool. I think I read that in another call, but maybe we could allocate some funds for the police department to purchase some of those. Is that the one where Officer Hope gets on it and sees how fast it goes? That would be. I think it's like you plug it into the wheel and it spins the wheel very fast.

One thing we found that seems to be just as simple as that is a lot of these bikes that have throttles, if you want to see if it matches a Class 2 threshold, you just put a kickstand down, pop the rear wheel up and hit the throttle, then it stops at 20 miles an hour, we know it's a Class 2 bike. There's a lot of simpler, easier ways that we don't have to go buying additional equipment. Now, it may get to that point as these devices continue to develop that we have to revisit that, but I think what we're seeing right now, we've been able to identify other ways to identify the type of device that they're looking for.

I mean, I've spoken to kids who have said they have bikes where they can flip a switch and make it a class two, and then flip the switch down and make it a 70 mile an hour dirt bike. So there's also that to watch out for.

If wires are cut to eliminate the governor, there's all kinds of modifications they can do. You can buy a $200 pass, put it on some drive-in, that would be your advice too.

And that that was my point I think saying that there's only so much I know that we can do in reality with these things because the minute you put something into place then someone finds a way around it and then we start playing this game and that is the game but I still think that this gives you at least the ability to add that on So the e-motive, twice as we move down, go ahead.

Sorry, back to the streets one, thinking citywide now, like over west side, we've got multi-use paths. That's where most of the kids are riding them now is on like the longitudinal multi-use paths that are next to 141st Street and 136th Street. This puts them in the streets, on the roads, 40 miles per hour, the Emotos can go 100, whatever they can go, but we're now dealing with a different type of enforcement, obviously, and it's a different kind of mechanism.

So it puts them on the road, but it also then establishes them under state statute, which is they have to be at least, I think it's a lot of the Moped rules, I think it's 15 years old. And now we're dealing with state laws, operating under a license, operating without insurance. So I think there's some... I see what you're saying, that we're pushing them over the road, but there's also some state safeguards in place already saying what protective equipment they have to have in order to... For sure.

And so, yeah, so this acts as an active then full ban on e-motos for people that are not licensed and or fitting that state code in neighborhoods, around streets, all of that. Okay.

The e-moto basically has to be

So you can ride it at 15 Because I believe the state statute says it's 15 for a motor driven cycle Which I think is 35 miles an hour.

No interstate highways, which is different from a motorcycle, which is whatever age it is for a motorcycle add-on for a driver's license and it can go

It does not, so the e-moto, I just want to be clear on this for me, the e-moto does not need a license to drive it then.

If it's an e-moto that would go over, I'm not sure of the exact.

But see, this is going to be the critical piece is because you've got these Children who are riding Emoto's who are clearly not 15. You've now said okay. We're pushing them onto the street so that they must be 15 But they're still not They're still not licensed Necessarily at 15 and the helmet only applies from 15 to 18 now where does that put you in the ability to figure out enforcement and and safety and all the other things, because that's a concern. I mean, from my perspective, and I've said this before, from my perspective, I think if we can put something in place that's not gonna get, how should I say this, preempted by the state, but that can serve as some kind of call out for us as City of Carmel to say, we strongly recommend we do. I know you can't enforce it, but to put that into language is meaningful, I think at some level. And to your point of educating students and families and people in high school when they are now 18 or 19 before they get out of high school I think is really important because this is they are still children at some level. And so it's making sure that they're safe and that we're preventing injury. And I know that we're worried about preemption of state statute. And so until we can convince the state to do a better job in actually doing this, I think it still falls to us as a community to advocate for our residents and those who come into our community to visit our residents to act in a better way. So I certainly would love to see some kind of language I don't know what we can do, Sergei. I would have to throw that to you.

I think we do issue guidelines for various things. I think it will fall into that kind of, you know, recommendation category. But, you know, I agree. The state is very clear. It's 15 years old for motor-driven cycles, so you have mopeds over the world. And that number is consistent throughout the state code. So that's just the state number that we have. I don't think increasing it is really a good option here for preemption reasons. But I think issuing a guideline and recommendations are fair game.

Are they, so obviously like motor-driven cycle and motorcycle laws, we've done this for 100 years at the state level trying to make sure that that hits right. Are they registering these e-motos as motor-driven cycles like that?

Yes.

Most of them?

It has to be registered as a motor-driven cycle. Yeah.

They're not. Okay. Well, and that was, yeah, my question was more on the state side. Is the BMV registering? So let's say the, if it goes... If they're not in the practice of registering it, our law would preempt them from being on the street as an e-moto because they wouldn't be registered. But if they're registerable, then they fall under that very nuanced and applicable case law that you guys already have to kind of apply from an enforcement process on what a motor-driven cycle versus motorcycle is. I mean, this is really the transition from bicycle to e-bike to e-moto to the next phase, which is motor-driven cycle to motorcycle. We only kind of have to talk about it because nobody's riding a motorcycle on the Monon. If they did, they would be gone before you could ever find them. But that premise of enforcement, I think, matters, specifically because right now the way that these are being used in the neighborhoods is it's kids. impact, shooting around, going three yards, doing things that we used to do on bikes. They're doing on e-motos now. So just ensuring that we hit that right tenor so we're not creating a new arbitrary rule that shifts your behavior when you're dealing with motor-driven cycle based on e-moto and puts you in a position where you can't enforce or just...

I think most of the, when we've had issues with these that have been on the streets, it's almost simpler than dealing with the ordinance because it's in state law. If this one goes over 35 miles an hour, it's a motorcycle. You have to have a driver's license. You have to have insurance. You have to have registration. So those are very easy for us to tow and cite on those when it's on. So state law is not really the issue that we had. Going into this one, they're on city streets, and that's a pretty easy day. It's just that when they're on the Monon and those kind of places.

Honestly, we ran a lot of them off the Monon, and it made a lot of the road officers' jobs a whole lot easier because they knew we were out there, so they went to the streets, and then they were just like, done. They weren't meeting the requirements of a motor during the cycle, so at the time, you couldn't pound them until you guys passed the local ordinance or the behavior piece or the ordinance.

I'm out of questions.

No, that's fine.

Yeah, but it seems easier to enforce if we push them onto the streets. Yeah. You know, but it's going to take away their ability to, you know, if they're not 15 without license, you know, we start stopping kids off. For sure.

And I have told parents who have asked and called about these, well, where can they ride them on? They can ride them on your property in the backyard, but if they're not, they can't ride them on the streets and they can't ride them on the trails, then that's it. If you have a private property, they can ride them there if you want.

It's not unlike the four-wheeler issue out in the countryside that we deal with a lot. So it's, yeah.

Well, another alternative, get a Class 3 e-bike if you want to go a little bit faster. That's a possibility as well. It's a different type of vehicle, but tough luck. If you want to go faster, there's plenty of big properties in Carmel you can maybe do that at.

Be comfortable with... where we are on that language. Okay. So, yeah, if we, I would love it if we could add some guideline language in here somewhere. It would make certainly me feel better, but I understand that that's not going to affect your enforcement. I still think it affects your education and training of families.

Can I ask one quick question? I'm sorry. I just Googled IS IT 28 MILES AN HOUR OR 35?

FOR CLASS 3. FOR THE MOTOR GRIPPING CYCLE.

FOR HIGH-POWER TWO WHEELERS. OH, E-MOTO. SORRY.

So I just, I Googled it as well with the Motor Drivers Cycle, and this is just AI, so this is by no means an official thing. It's AI Google saying it, but it says riders must be at least 15 years old with a valid driver's license, learner's permit, or state ID with a Class B or MDC endorsement, Motor Driven Cycle endorsement.

And it's, Therese, it's Indiana Code 9-19. So that's where you'll find all the regulations for...

The Motor Driven Cycle is 9-21-11-12.

So I think that brings us to the kind of we're working on the safety requirements, and then that led into the specific prohibited behaviors that we edited and added here. So that starts at line 204. Correct, that operators should not engage in stunt riding, single wheel operation, intentionally lifting, balancing the device on the single wheel, jumping the end, I mean, you can read all of it, but racing, speed contests, stairs, grass, turf, or landscaped areas, Of course, if it's your private property, that is up to you. Operators shall not operate devices in groups of three or more in a manner that obstructs or impedes the safe, orderly movement of traffic or pedestrians, and shall not operate devices off permitted areas, including unpaved footpaths, public lawns, Embankments, stormwater retention structures, or environmentally sensitive zones. So I think that covered a lot. Is there anyone or any other things we feel we need to add to that?

Like you said, we can revisit it. Yes. If somebody learns a new trick that we weren't ready for. Yes, yes.

Or I think we kind of have a little catch-all with unsafe, you know, but I think we can, yes, we probably need to think about it.

Yes. Yes. The seat, it's an understandable mistake on their part because they're all these banana seats and they're very long. So I don't know if there's language that we can put in there. I probably want to get into a measurement of what a standard bicycle seat should accommodate. But it's confusing a lot because it's a 24, 30-inch long seat, but the device is really only designed for one person. It's just designed for... different sizes of individuals that have shorter or longer arms. So you may sit back farther if you're a full-size adult. If you're a 12-year-old around your class, you might be sitting up closer because your arms can only reach so far. So I don't know.

Well, you won't be doing that anymore as the 12-year-old, so you'll be... I don't know. Is that language, would that help also for you guys to add that language in there?

It would. A lot of times we just tell these kids, hey, I told them one, you know, have one person on. They're like, oh, okay. But there's not. Language. I don't know if that's something you put in the ordinance or if that's an education piece. You can buy extenders for these devices that mount to the frame and it makes it then longer, safer, has pegs and stuff for additional individual ride. But I don't know if that's something you guys want to add, but that is something we have seen that they think it's for two, but it's really designed for one.

Okay. Good thoughts, I appreciate it. where would we want to add that section? Just under that where it says may only carry the number of passengers for which they are designed and then add a measurement in that section? Or do you want to do that? I'm holding two ideas. Okay. Sergey, what do you think on that, adding the measurement of the seat section so that when you talk about the line 198 micromobility device may only carry the number of passengers for which they are designed? Where is a good place to address the length of, you know, how would they know?

Yeah.

Yeah, it certainly is more of a catch-all provision. I can look into specifics because, again, it's such a vast evolving area. When we were drafting this, there were only a couple ordinances in the whole country. Now there are hundreds, if not thousands. So it's a very, very fast-moving legal area, so I can look at that specifically, see if we can.

And I wonder, like, there's, obviously, like, when a, kid gets his permit there are rules on passengers he's allowed to have like there's a differentiation in law usually for passenger i just tried to control find an article 19 for passenger and it didn't seem to be anything specific yeah i don't know yeah but like i could see there being like a rule where if you are under a specific age or just got your permit you can't have a passenger at all on a motorcycle um but i this this gets back to preemption like the idea of if there's a state

process on what passenger rights are on these devices I think we have to kind of hone to that if you're looking Sergei yeah I will look because I'm already seeing that I might have a wrong citation here anyway so I need to look at it one more time I think it is 921 and I'll look a little bit more and see if we can maybe list some of them to avoid confusion

since we are equating them to a specific state regulation section I would be I would be interested so that's for people above the legal threshold of operating legally right there would be a state kind of metric for everybody below they're out but if we added from that perspective if we're allowed to prohibit the behavior we can say if you're not like one rider has to be on it. So then if you see two, you've got your fact for a stop because they're now in compliance with the ordinance. It's an ordinance stop, which allows you then to check IDs, see if they're underage, check what the device is. And it precludes the behavior of there being multiple kids on a bike. that is outside the scope of that law. So that's why I think the idea of adding it, if it is feasible and can be added, makes sense, because it does add another very easy visual cue that there are two kids on this bike, it's time to stop it.

So Sergey, we're going to task you with that then. Yeah, we'll do. See if we can add that. The most fun section is coming up now. That's the enforcement section. That's why we have all of you gentlemen here this evening. But I looked at this and read through this. And I guess I feel very strongly about the fact that obviously we need to prevent this behavior. We need to educate to prevent this behavior. We need to change the behavior. All of those things need to happen. And in order to do that, there has to be enforcement and fines to do it. I'm a little bit concerned with the kind of steep sort of immediate 250 and then 2,500. It seems like it goes up pretty, like it just starts high. And if we're educating and we're changing behavior and we're trying to work on this, do we think we should start at 150 for the first offense, 250 for the second offense, and then up to 2,500 and in court? Because it looked like just 250 here from what I read, but I could be wrong.

No, that's right. First and second offense would be 250, and then it escalates to the quarter.

And it just seems out of step with most of the other ordinances that we've worked on that have a first, a second, and then a third offense. So just to be consistent, I didn't know how you felt about that.

Just discussing whether she would be consistent with other ordinance violations. I wouldn't want it to be disproportionate to those. And I don't know where this language came from. It was 100 for the first couple of sentences.

And we asked for steeper penalties. Okay. I do think, like, when we come up with a new ordinance, let's say we do this dismount zone, we kind of have a... In formal procedure as a police department where we do warnings for the first few weeks just as an educational piece. And we can still write warnings for this and we still write warnings to this day for kids that are on e-motos that shouldn't be. You know, officers have that discretion depending on how they're writing or how many times. but i i do like the idea of having a little more teeth and the penalty to maybe get these kids attention because there are some dangers especially with the emo goes that'll go that fast and we've had some kids hurt on them oh no absolutely i think that that is a deterrent also and maybe it will get some parents attention there if they got to pay 250 dollars I'm all for higher penalties, but that's just... Yeah, I'm not.

I just wanted to bring up the conversation so that we could discuss it because it just seemed different than some of the other step-ups that we've done, one, two, three. So that's why I asked. I wanted to make sure we had that conversation.

I will say, to the Major's point, a few of the tickets might have written them for, but for some offense... I thought they were like, how much is it? It's usually a question you get. I think it's $100. And they're like, oh, okay. And then they just kind of shrug it off, if you will, that it's not that much. Which, when you look at the devices, a lot of these devices are $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, depending on the device. So commiserate to the device cost. Almost like a fee to drive it is how they view it.

Right. Yeah. No, I am not against doing it. I just wanted to have a discussion about why and what was the difference and why this one looked differently than another one, because otherwise the question will come up and we will not have answered it, and now we have publicly answered it, which makes sense.

I have a concern with the 250. I definitely want to make sure that we include some sort of time provision for the dismount zone because, you know, if you're riding to Indianapolis and there's no one on the Monon Trail. and you ride at 15 miles an hour through the dismount zone and you get fined $250. That might not seem as big of an issue as somebody on a 70 mile an hour device going through when they're pedestrians. So some sort of like, I don't know, 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. or saying if you're on a normal acoustic bicycle, the fine is lower, something like that. Because I feel like lumping going at 70 miles an hour down a multi-use path with teaching your 12-year-old how to ride a bike next to the statue where someone's teaching their kid how to ride a bike. I feel like those are not the same level of severity.

I'm not comfortable with 11 p.m. during the summertime.

Well, no, not those exact times, but I would like to... It seems like finding someone $250 for doing something reckless versus finding someone $250 for committing a very minor violation, it might be worth.

distinguishing between... Well, again, they do have the authority to...

I was going to say, just to that point, someone's out there riding and is enforcing stuff, if you're riding at a set speed at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. when there's hardly anybody out on the trail, but then you're riding that same exact manner at 2 o'clock when there's kids and families and everybody else out there, my reaction, my enforcement type is probably going to be drastically different based off of the circumstances around me.

i have a side quest question on this one um in i think it was may or june we changed the ovb which is the ordinance collection agency um uh and i'm wondering have you guys thought about how this change here we're going to have for probably a little bit a lot of ordinances or violations related to this is there does this interact with that change we made Or is this something the clerk would stay in their capacity to do?

So that, it's my understanding that that change was mainly for parking. That's right. As a way to pay. These are probably, most of the enforcement is done by the parks officers and some of the officers on the road. They don't have those devices. They'll still be issuing tickets in the traditional way. Okay. That's more of a device to solve a problem.

Okay, and those those will go back through the clerk's office for collection processing just the way that the regular Yeah, okay, it would be the same process for how we do Side quest a burden until you hit that third offense and then it goes to the court.

Mm-hmm

Yeah, I don't, I would not want these to be ran through a third-party servicer for collection and processing because this is a, the incentive of that company to find ways to enforce gives them production of value in a different way than it's parking, is parking? No. Perfect. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. And then I think that it just gave authority and determining, unless we have anything else not sectioned, the last kind of section here is the authority and determining whether a device is an e-bike or an e-moto, manufacturer, factory labels, VIN, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You can read this. Again, I'm not going to read through it. felt like that was fairly comprehensive unless there's something else that anyone else feels like they need to add on this one and then the first and second violations within the same rolling 365 day period. So that kind of work done, that was just that, to make that language consistent, I think that was the only other change, correct? That's correct. So that takes us through the entire ordinance. So to recap, I think we had a couple of questions that we need to go back and have Sergey clarify, but not Not a lot. The fair substance of this seems pretty cut and dry in the sense of, yes, with the few tweaks to what we agreed upon with the dismount zone. We can put those in there, Sergey, and then also the section... on teaching and helmet use, and then the citing of the correct code, Indiana code, and some clarifications.

It sounds like it might be a little bit premature to send it back since it's a couple of questions that I need to just clean it up and make sure that everybody's on the same page relating to driven cycles especially because we are engaging with a state code and we need to make sure that that is all correct. If you don't mind, I'll prepare a cleaner red line for the next meeting so everybody is crystal clear where we stand and everybody's comfortable moving forward to full council.

Great. I appreciate that. I think that's what I would love to see so that we can go through one more time, just make sure if there are other suggestions, let's make them now so that certainly we can...

My final, after we just went through it, I didn't really see it, but that aftermarket modification with stickers, just as you read through it again, Sergey, make sure that that has coverage, and if there's something in that that makes sense for you guys from an enforcement, I would love to see that in there. If there's my sticker comment earlier, or if they're adding rocket boosters or other fancy stuff that's coming through TikTok,

It's coming. All right. Well, I think we've accomplished our goal for this evening, so that unless anyone has anything else for the good of the order, I call this meeting adjourned. Yes, please. I just wanted to clarify.

So the next meeting will be Thursday the 20th, correct? Yes.

The next meeting will be Thursday the 20th at 6.30. 6.30, not 5.30. Correct.

And we're going to just go to that then, and that's going to be normal.

That's going to be normal. There is one meeting date where we could not get the library for a Thursday, and that is October 22nd. So we will keep that one Wednesday, and we had that conversation. So we will keep that one Wednesday because the library was not able to accommodate us, so...

And you'll remind us of that.

Yes, I will absolutely remind you, and Jessica will remind you, and I promise.

Dr. Joshi, thank you for doing that. I really appreciate it to keep us all together. I know it's, council weeks are never easy, so I really do appreciate that. No problem. I'm glad it worked out for everybody, and for the good of the order. And with that, our meeting is adjourned at 634.