ASK THE BORED (IN EXILE): It appears that street sweeping is suspended through April 7, although it should be eliminated altogether.

From a thousand years ago ... or 2015.

Word has come via 5th district councilman Josh Turner: "No street sweeping through April 7th and subject to change."

Thanks for asking, Josh. After all, the Bored of Works hadn't gotten around to the press release.

This brief suspension of inanity is pleasant enough, given the strange new world of coronavirus containment. Should residents being urged to stay inside also be compelled to go outside and move their cars?

In spite of Mayor Gahan's ongoing efforts to purge learning in favor of the alphabet according to HWC Engineering, words do have meanings, ideas actually matter, and in New Albany street “sweeping” hasn't ever been an issue of cleanliness.

Rather, it is a political hypocrisy issue, fully exposing this city’s historic tendency not only to tolerate selective law enforcement, but to double down, institutionalize and celebrate it as a civic birthright.

A few years back Bluegill perfectly summarized the prevailing idiocy:

A wasteful program is getting more wasteful. As a Midtown resident. I wish they'd stop rather than expand. This is a parking ticket revenue grab, hounding locals for cash while truckers and other passers through speed by unhindered. We're continually told the city can't afford this or that but we can always afford to pay people to ride around in circles all day writing ridiculously expensive tickets to residents. They even write them when the sweeper isn't sweeping, when people have blocked absolutely nothing. It's a joke.

To repeat with clarity: street “sweeping” should not be expanded. It should be ended. The physical process of “sweeping” is largely futile, and there is no United Nations storm water “law” stipulating dust cloud creation as a workable corrective to anything. Genuine drainage impediments like leaves and garbage barely are addressed by “sweeping.”

Bluegill again:

We'd be better off spending the time and money on drain cleaning and waterway improvements. Instead, the City has chosen the least effective (but most profitable) system to expand.

However, when it comes to profitability and effectiveness, the most profound outrage of all is that parking regulations supposedly applying to all city residents are enforced in some instances, as during street “sweeping,” and not in others, as in the entirety of the historic downtown business district.

When I ran for mayor, my team tackled this one (July 6, 2015).

---

Campaign Diary, Chapter 2: A Baylor Paper on Street Sweeping.

Wednesday is street sweeping day at my address.

Being a good citizen, I'll go out and make sure the car is moved from the north side of Spring Street, lest I receive a citation for blocking the street sweeper.

Meanwhile, a few blocks west across an imaginary line somewhere, it's theoretically possible to park for weeks on end, in front of a downtown business, taking up a parking space without the slightest worry of being penalized. That's because we don't enforce parking regulations ... unless we do.

You'd need a Ouija board to know when, where and why -- and this must stop.

I'm not convinced the street sweeper has come past for a very long time, judging by the appearance of the parking lanes and the chronically unaddressed instances of road kill in the bicycle path, but when it does, the results are frankly ridiculous. Little of note is removed, and much of it is shifted from curbside directly into the bicycle path or out onto the traffic lanes themselves. All the while, citations are being written.

I have a few ideas on how we might improve this situation. Please read, and give me your feedback. Unlike the current occupant, I'm eager to listen.

---

A Baylor Paper on Street Sweeping.

HISTORY: In selected portions of New Albany, from March through October, city crews operate large vehicles with rotating brushes that are designed to “clean” the streets. A complex system of schedules make on-street parkers subject to citations and fines if they leave their cars along the curbs of these selected streets at specific times.

It is important to note that what gets “swept” are the parking lanes – not the streets per se. Although clearing the streets of litter, brush, debris, and deposited oils is a valiant goal, this ongoing program produces onerous side effects while being mostly ineffective at cleaning the selected streets.

Ostensibly, the program is part of an agreement with the EPA as part of this city’s efforts to comply with The Clean Water Act. The sweeping trucks are assumed to be keeping detritus from reaching our streams, including the Ohio River.

PREMISE: In fact, the sweeping program merely rearranges dirt while depositing it up onto sidewalks and onto nearby buildings. In addition, residents are subjected to inconvenience and financial loss. The program is almost universally considered to be a nuisance and to be ineffective. That conclusion is reinforced when we consider that many other streets that drain into our waterways are not subject to any kind of regular street sweeping program.

Further, the inclusion of this street sweeping program into our Clean Water Act compliance protocol is a fraud.

Petroleum products are the most toxic pollutant likely to be transferred from our streets into local waterways. Yet, we do not even attempt to clean the streets themselves – only the parking lanes.4

Perhaps, with other and/or better functioning equipment, a street cleaning program would be effective. But as currently constituted, the program is little more than an expensive make-work project and a scheme to extort money from those who must park their vehicles on city streets.

PROPOSAL: Effective immediately and by executive order, I will declare a 1-year moratorium on the existing street sweeping program. During that year, my administration will explore the implications of the existing program and maintain a regular inspection and reporting program on the cleanliness of the streets within the program area.

We will also inspect those streets outside of the existing program during this moratorium year. As most debris and deposited oils enter our waterways via storm drains, our stormwater professionals and advisers will be heavily consulted.

In addition to routine storm drain clearance, we will operate a crash program of drain clearing before impending storms and after known storms.

If we decide to resume the program in calendar year 2017, we will only do so if it can be proved to be effective.

Don't say I didn't remind you of the leaf sucking protocol for 2019.

The city's leaf removal protocol for 2019 is to petition Superman, and he'll take care of it all by himself. Actual quoted passage:

"Mayor Jeff Gahan is pleased to once again aid the citizens of New Albany with leaf removal."

Well, he's the Wizard of Bling, and he can do ANYTHING.

Of course it's the stormwater utility's employees who'll be doing the actual work, like always, but naturally this doesn't stop Anchor City's narcissist-in-chief from claiming credit for the labor of others. After all, that's why he's here.

But don't look for the information at the city's web site.

Don't look for these, either, or Bob Caesar will set your leaves on fire.

Rather, the lowdown comes with the stormwater utility's periodic paean to Dear Leader's re-election campaign.

Short version: If you want your leaves sucked, keep them out of the curbs, gutters and streets, or else ... absolutely nothing will happen to you.

GREEN MOUSE SAYS: They're still illegally parked, but finally those Williams Plumbing safety hazards have been removed from Spring Street.

I've been outspoken about this situation for quite some time, and summarized the case in this post from February 9, 2019.

And like a blight neighbor, Williams Plumbing is there ... for years, and years, and years.

You'll never be able to convince me otherwise: Blocked sight lines caused by an illegally parked Williams Plumbing commercial vehicle were a contributing factor in Matt Brewer's death-by-driver last August.

Recently I noticed the trucks no longer were being parked on the street in front of the business. They're now usually lined up on 9th, north of Spring. This remains illegal according to the city's ordinances, which plainly are written to require commercial vehicles to have off-street parking.

However, at least these vehicles no longer block sight lines at the intersection. The Green Mouse inquired and was told that it wasn't police, ordinance enforcement or somnolent councilman Greg Phipps to credit for taking the lead in removing the safety hazard posed by these illegally parked trucks, but rather Mickey Thompson, New Albany's street department commissioner.

Fairness dictates a round of applause and a "thank you" to Mickey for addressing this.

Very interesting: "Court Says Using Chalk On Tires For Parking Enforcement Violates Constitution."

We have all been here before.

Council Monday: No Sharpies for selective tire marking, and no answer for why tires are being selectively marked.

A bizarre election-year case of selectively enforcing the city's largely ignored 24-hour overnight parking ordinance.

For now, I'm just leaving this here. Based on a few things I've seen in the past month, we may also be dealing with a "prolific chalker" in New Albany. We've since ruled out "Sharpiers," right?

Court Says Using Chalk On Tires For Parking Enforcement Violates Constitution, by Matthew S. Schwartz (NPR)

The next time parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark your tires, they might be acting unconstitutionally.

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that "chalking" is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case was brought by Alison Taylor, a Michigan woman whom the court describes as a "frequent recipient of parking tickets." The city of Saginaw, Mich., like countless other cities around the country, uses chalk to mark the tires of cars to enforce time limits on parking.

By the time Taylor received her 15th citation in just a few years, she decided to go after the city — and specifically after parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins.

Hoskins, Taylor alleged in her lawsuit, was a "prolific" chalker. Every single one of Taylor's 15 tickets was issued by Hoskins after she marked a tire with chalk, and then circled back to see if Taylor's car had moved. That chalking, Taylor argued, was unconstitutional.

"Trespassing upon a privately-owned vehicle parked on a public street to place a chalk mark to begin gathering information to ultimately impose a government sanction is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment," Taylor's lawyer, Philip Ellison, wrote in a court filing ...

Council Monday: No Sharpies for selective tire marking, and no answer for why tires are being selectively marked.

From Facebook.

There are depressingly few dull moments in the Hermetic Kingdom of New Gahania.

Two weeks ago ...

A bizarre election-year case of selectively enforcing the city's largely ignored 24-hour overnight parking ordinance.

 ... It's strange. If we succeed in convincing neighborhood residents to leave their cars parked for a while while walking or biking downtown, they'll return to their homes to find a ticket. Conversely, while understanding fully that we as a society have accepted (rightly or wrongly) the notion of using public property to warehouse private vehicles, it seems a modicum of fair warning might have been given -- although to do so would require the city to concede it wasn't enforcing ordinances previously, and as the embodiment of perfection, Gahan cannot make such a concession.

And so we get the usual politically-motivated cluster from the same usual suspects ...

On Monday evening, at-large councilman Al Knable led off council speaking time with a partial update on the selective enforcement of neighborhood parking, as detailed in NAC's previous post.

Apparently police chief Bailey took a few minutes away from his tireless work on behalf of the Gahan re-election clique to discuss one facet of the issue with Knable.

Seems that Chief Bailey was not aware that some NAPD officers are marking the tires of selectively targeted parking violators with indelible Sharpies and not chalk, and he said this practice will be addressed and rectified.

Now if we could just address the reasons for the selective enforcement in the first place ... but big thanks to Knable for following through and starting the conversation.

A bizarre election-year case of selectively enforcing the city's largely ignored 24-hour overnight parking ordinance.

"They can tell which car out of 24,000 New Albany cars have been parked for over 24 hours. But they can't catch people who break into cars every weekend."
-- Facebook comment

A New Albany resident posted the ticket from a few days ago and recounted his experience at the Facebook members-only page called New Albany Indiana. It prompted a spirited discussion about selective enforcement and overall civic priorities, with another group member undertaking to do necessary research.

Alright, I emailed Chief (Todd) Bailey, showed him both the pink violation form and the most recent codes from 2018. This is what he said.

“Whoever printed the warning notice made a mistake. It should read 72.15. I’ll get it handled. I know of nothing that reserves parking for residents in front of their house outside of a Residential Parking Permit. Those can be obtained from the City Clerk for a few. Outside of that they share the public parking on the street and must move every 24 hours.”

And the ordinance incorrectly referenced on the ticket, which by all rights should render the citation invalid?

Here's the correct passage.

Bookmark§ 72.15 OVERNIGHT PARKING.
It shall be unlawful to leave any motor vehicle parked on the public streets of the city for a period in excess of 24 hours or to park any motor vehicle which is held for sale or one which is not in running condition on the public streets of the city in excess of 24 hours.
(Ord. 4573, passed 8-27-1956; Ord. G-09-15, passed 5-4-2009) Penalty, see § 37.02

It's telling that when Bailey gazes out into neighborhoods where petty crime and slumlordism remain firmly entrenched -- places that haven't yet benefited from Jeff Gahan's eight years of luxury enhancement -- he recommends giving his boss more of the loot.

§ 72.20 INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT-ONLY PERMIT PARKING AREAS.

(A) Fees. The Board of Works shall establish and collect an annual uniform fee which shall be required for each resident only parking space. Any resident of the city may apply to receive a resident only parking permit subject to the terms and conditions of this section. The fee collected upon application for a resident only parking permit shall initially be $250 for the first year, and $100 for each subsequent year. The year shall run from January 1 through December 31, and any person who obtains a pass shall pay an amount prorated to the month of the date of the issuance. The fee may be waived upon a majority vote of the Board of Works in the case of any individual showing a special need or hardship. All fees collected shall first go to the expenses of the resident parking only program, then to the nonreverting fund.

It's strange. If we succeed in convincing neighborhood residents to leave their cars parked for a while while walking or biking downtown, they'll return to their homes to find a ticket. Conversely, while understanding fully that we as a society have accepted (rightly or wrongly) the notion of using public property to warehouse private vehicles, it seems a modicum of fair warning might have been given -- although to do so would require the city to concede it wasn't enforcing ordinances previously, and as the embodiment of perfection, Gahan cannot make such a concession.

And so we get the usual politically-motivated cluster from the same usual suspects. I directed a few thoughts to Al Knable (elected council person) and Warren Nash (appointed Board of Works gatekeeper) via the Facebook portal.

Al Knable Warren V Nash (tagged): To bring this to the attention of council and the board of works, I'd invite you both to read through this thread. I'd have included other council members and city officials, but it appears that out of almost 15,000 members here, you're the only two from city government. It was my intention to attend this morning's board of works meeting, but something came up at work, so let's start here. It's hard to look at this an any way apart from it being a crazy, incoherent muddle. We see tires chalked/sharpied and tickets issued in some places, not others; the police chief conceding the ordinance number on the ticket is mistaken; and folks in the neighborhoods asking some really good questions about the (shall we say) abrupt change in emphasis. Are downtown parking regulations yet being enforced? How can we have rules for some parts of town and not others? I understand that Al will pay attention and Warren will brush me off, but please note that I'm not taking a position -- yet. The two of you have dibs to come up with some sort of explanation of why this is happening. Thanks for your time.

If NA Confidential gets an answer, so will you. It's an election year, so virtually anything might happen.

And like a blight neighbor, Williams Plumbing is there ... for years, and years, and years.

Same shit, different year.

The point is simple. Shouldn't a business like this one located in a primarily residential area be compelled to adhere to minimum standards of appearance and (more importantly) street safety?

Moreover, shouldn't it be WILLING to embrace such minimums before being forced to do so?

Just two blocks east, HyperCars was given a punch list for compliance before being given variances -- and did exactly as requested. I'll never be a supporter of automotive businesses in such a setting, BUT it cannot be denied that HyperCars went the extra mile to be a good neighbor.

Why not Williams Plumbing?

Let's begin the back story on May 19, 2011.

"Municipal dysfunction sweeping prohibited."

I’m continually amazed by prominent examples of neglect that go completely unaddressed.

Almost every day, I walk or bike past Williams Plumbing on the northeast corner of E. Spring and 9th. If I’m not mistaken, long ago it was Cora Shrader’s Shoppe, a nicely maintained corner property.

Now it is a scantily maintained, increasingly dilapidated eyesore used exclusively for what amounts to industrial storage. Extreme weather over a period of years has torn hunks of siding away from both sides of the house, exposing the wood. Worse, the company’s big trucks tend to be parked right on Spring Street, consistently impeding the view of motorists approaching southbound on 9th.

Do these trucks get ticketed when they block the street sweeper, or does the invisible, undefined, non-enforcement Green Line come into play?

Is it downtown or midtown?

Lowdown, or down low?

If there is ticketing, does Williams Plumbing pay the tickets?

Eventually the exterior deterioration was minimally addressed, but illegally parked commercial trucks continued to be an impediment to sight lines. On September 7, 2018 we offered a clear illustration of the issue.

How the Williams Plumbing trucks block vision at 9th & Spring -- a pictorial.

You'll never be able to convince me otherwise: Blocked sight lines caused by an illegally parked Williams Plumbing commercial vehicle were a contributing factor in Matt Brewer's death-by-driver last August.

Still, neither the city nor Keith Henderson did anything to address the situation. From August 20, 2018:

If you want to know how Deaf Gahan purposefully botched the Speck plan for walkable streets, read this article. Hint: HWC dunnit.

NA Confidential: Brief question: has the accident report about Matt Brewer been released? I’m particularly interested in the role of those Williams Plumbing trucks forever parked illegally on the street, blocking the view. Thank you.

Chief Todd Bailey: All crash investigations handled by the Combined Accident Reconstruction Team are maintained by the Floyd County Prosecutor’s Office. I can tell you the case is still under investigation but if you’re looking for specific information you’ll need to inquire with the Prosecutor.

It didn't start yesterday.

Dec 20, 2016
This outrage against innovative public art must be avenged -- or, what happened to the Williams Junk Water Heater Park?

What is it about ordinance non-enforcement in this burg, anyway?

How the Williams Plumbing trucks block vision at 9th & Spring -- a pictorial.

These three photos were taken sequentially at around 9:25 p.m. on Thursday, September 6. In the first photo, from a vantage point on the north side of Spring, a driver approaches the intersection of 9th and Spring, traveling eastbound.

But where'd he go?

There he is again, whizzing past at a speed I'd estimate as a minimum of 35 mph, maybe a bit more ... in a 25 mph zone, coming off a hazardous curve at 10th.

Here's the relevant speed table.

Here's the ordinance which plainly forbids the Williams Plumbing truck ("any other commercial vehicle") from being parked where it is.

And here is the memorial to Matt on the utility pole.

I'm not sure if I can illustrate these problems any more clearly than this, although as in the past, I honestly believe it would be helpful for those city officials in charge of such matters to come outside for once and view the scene from the ground, as so many of us do every day.

Perhaps only then will this combination of danger and neglect make the necessary impression.

What does it mean to operate a taxicab in the city of New Albany?

William S. is the Road Hammer. We had a chat recently, and I learned a bit about the business of driving a taxicab, insofar as rules and regulations govern the undertaking.

If you want a experienced driver with a proper license and insurance, and is permitted to operate in Southern Indiana call me: Road Hammer. My background includes:

• Licensed by the city of New Albany to operate in Southern Indiana. 
• Class A CDL, and have traveled all 48 states. 
• Driving a cab off and on for years serving Southern Indiana. 
• Former safety supervisor with company no longer in the cab business. 
• Trained emergency vehicle operator. 
• Former trained bodyguard and emergency medical tech.

If you need an experienced and trained driver for your local and long distance transportation, I hope you give me a chance. 

Road Hammer

These strike me as excellent qualifications to drive a taxicab.

Until we talked, it hadn't occurred to me to consider the notion of New Albany taxicab legality versus illegality in the era of Uber and Lyft -- and yes, I'm fully aware of the sharing economy (we adore Airbnb) and those arguments on both "sides" of the issue.

A "common-sense solution to the Uber vs. taxi wars" can be viewed here, and yet it remains that in New Albany, we've been talking about ordinance enforcement for as long as mayors have refused to undertake it fairly and uniformly.

Below is New Albany's lengthy, exhaustive taxicab ordinance, verbatim. What do these rules mean in the context of the ride sharing economy?

Thanks to the Road Hammer for asking the question. The answer is anyone's guess, so perhaps it's time for a city council conversation?

CHAPTER 119:  TAXICABS

Section

General Provisions

   119.01   Definitions

   119.02   Compliance with taxicab operation license regulations required

   119.03   Taxicab operation license required; application

   119.04   Taxicab operation license fee

   119.05   Issuance of license

   119.06   Insurance required

   119.07   Reserved

   119.08   Taxicabs to have identifying signs

   119.09   Taxicab drivers

   119.10   Reserved

   119.11   Revocation of license; hearing

   119.12   Inspections

   119.13   Rates

Taxicab Drivers

   119.25   Taxicab driver’s license required

   119.26   Taxicab driver’s license application

   119.27   Refusal to issue; revocation

   119.28   Conditional license

   119.29   Employment of unlicensed taxicab drivers prohibited

   119.99   Penalty

GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 119.01  DEFINITIONS.

   For the purpose of this chapter, the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.

   TAXICAB.  A motor vehicle that:

      (1)   Is designed and constructed to accommodate and transport not more than six passengers in addition to the driver;

      (2)   Does not operate over any definite and designated routes within the corporate boundaries of a city or town and the suburban territory of a city or town; and

      (3)   Transports passengers to the destination designated by the passengers at the time of their transportation.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)

§ 119.02  COMPLIANCE WITH TAXICAB OPERATION LICENSE REGULATIONS REQUIRED.

   No person or persons, firm or corporation shall drive, run or operate any taxicab upon or along any street or other highway within the city’s corporate limits, except in accordance with regulations, terms and conditions established by this chapter. Any person or persons, firm or corporation found to be in violation of the requirements of this chapter shall be subject to the penalties provided in § 119.99(A).

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.03  TAXICAB OPERATION LICENSE REQUIRED; APPLICATION.

   (A)   Any person or persons, firm or corporation desiring to operate a taxicab or taxicab service upon or along the streets or other highways within the city, shall, before undertaking to do so, file a signed application form in writing for a taxicab operation license, duly sworn to by the applicant or applicants with the Board of Public Works, which application shall show the following:

      (1)   The name and address of the person, persons, partnership, firm or corporation desiring the business license; if a partnership or firm, the full name and address of each of the members thereof; if a corporation, the name and address of each of the officers thereof;

      (2)   A certified copy of the certificate of existence and which shows registered agent of the applicant provided by the Secretary of State of Indiana;

      (3)   The applicant is financially able to render taxicab services as applied for and has the financial backing, including liabilities, as required by any and all city, state, or federal regulation;

      (4)   The applicant owns and is the sole owner of the taxicabs described in division (A)(5) below in his or her service; and

      (5)   The make, model, factory number and state license number of each motor vehicle to be driven and operated as a taxicab under the business license.

   (B)   Any person or persons, firm or corporation found to be in violation of the requirements of this section shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 119.99(A).

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.04  TAXICAB OPERATION LICENSE FEE.

   (A)   Upon the filing of an application, the Board of Public Works shall then pass upon the application, taking into consideration the applicant, his or her financial standing, and his or her equipment for rendering taxicab service in the city. If the Board of Public Works finds that it is for the best interests of the city and the citizens thereof that the applicant be issued a license to operate a taxicab service, then the Board of Public Works shall instruct the City Clerk to issue a business license upon the compliance of the applicant with all other provisions of this chapter.

   (B)   The City Clerk shall issue to the applicant, upon the approval of the Board of Public Works as above, a license upon the payment of a fee set forth in § 158.06(D) for each taxicab to be operated, for any calendar year or fraction thereof the cabs are operated. The taxicab operation license shall continue, subject to inspection, in effect from year to year until revoked by the Board of Public Works. The license must be visible and prominently placed in a window of the taxicab.

   (C)   The operation of an unlicensed taxicab will be subject to the penalties of § 119.99(A).

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-96-133, passed 8-15-1996; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)

§ 119.05  ISSUANCE OF LICENSE.

   Upon filing the application, approval thereof by the Board of Public Works, and payment of the required fees as fixed in § 119.04, and provided the other stipulations and conditions hereof have been met, the City Clerk shall issue to the applicant a license permitting the operation of the motor vehicle or motor vehicles described in the application for one year, commencing January 1 and ending December 31 of each year, subject to revocation as hereinafter provided.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995)

§ 119.06  INSURANCE REQUIRED.

   (A)   No license shall be issued and no taxicab shall be operated on any street or highway within the city until there is filed with the City Clerk a policy of insurance executed by a company authorized to execute such instruments under the laws of the state, running for the year of the license to be issued to the applicant as provided in § 119.05.

   (B)   The insurance policy shall provide for the payment of any final judgment that may be rendered against the insured for damages to property, bodily injuries or death of any passenger or passengers or any other person or persons resulting from collision or other accident for which the person, persons, firm or corporation may be found liable while operating the taxicab described in the application, in a sum not less than the state statutory minimums for property damage and for injury or death of any person or persons.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.07  RESERVED.

§ 119.08  TAXICABS TO HAVE IDENTIFYING SIGNS.

   It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to use any motor vehicle for taxicab services unless that vehicle is designated as a taxicab by two or more colored signs, which signs must be permanently painted of a fast color on the body of the vehicle. The signs must designate the person, persons, firm or corporation to which the vehicle belongs, and must be readable at 150 feet or more by a person of normal vision. Limousines shall be exempt from this requirement.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.09  TAXICAB DRIVERS.

   It shall be the obligation of the owner or operator of any taxicab company which has secured a license to operate in the city to ascertain that each driver employed by that operator has obtained a state-required license to operate for hire passenger-transporting conveyances. Each driver shall present his or her license to the City Police Chief, or his or her designee, prior to entering any employment as a driver for the inspection of the Police Department, and the driver shall be instructed by the Police Chief, or his or her designee, with respect to traffic ordinances of the city.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.10  RESERVED.

§ 119.11  REVOCATION OF LICENSE; HEARING.

   (A)   The Board of Public Works may suspend or revoke the license issued to and for any taxicab or taxicabs for the violation of this chapter, whether or not any criminal prosecution of the licensee is pending, upon proof and hearing thereof.

   (B)   Any license issued to any owner or owners, operator or operators under the terms and conditions of this chapter may be revoked or indefinitely suspended by the Board of Public Works, upon failure of the owner, owners, operator or operators to operate a taxicab or taxicabs in compliance with the terms of this chapter and the laws of the state. However, the owner or owners, operator or operators of each taxicab shall be given five days’ written notice of the violation, and upon hearing and proof thereof the license for the taxicab or taxicabs may be suspended for a definite period or revoked.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.12  INSPECTIONS.

   Any vehicle used as a taxicab shall submit, upon request, to a safety inspection by a member of the Police Department or the department’s designee and further shall submit, upon request, to inspection and verification of all meters or rate devices by the Department of Weights and Measures or the Department’s designee.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.13  RATES.

   (A)   The rates charged by a taxicab service shall not exceed the following:

      (1)   A startup fee of $4.10; for each additional mile $1.95;

      (2)   Thirty cents ($0.30) for each minute of waiting;

      (3)   An additional charge of $3.00 per passenger beginning with the fifth passenger may be added to the metered fare; and

      (4)   Maximum hourly rate of $20.75 per hour.

   (B)   No taxicab service may charge a rate less than 80% of the maximum charges outlined in divisions (A)(1) through (4) above. No additional charge may be made for the following: luggage, grocery bags, laundry, wheelchairs, or seeing-eye dogs or multiple passengers (except for more than four passengers).

   (C)   The Board of Public Works and Safety is hereby authorized to declare a fuel emergency and to authorize a fuel surcharge, which will be in addition to the surcharges in division (A) of this section, to be added to the taxicab rate when the cost of gasoline exceeds $3.50 per gallon, according to the American Automobile Association’s published gasoline costs for medium grade gasoline for a period of 15 days. The allowable surcharge of 5% rounded to the nearest five cents will be added to the rates of fare authorized in this section. Any taxicab operator or company implementing this surcharge shall reset its taximeters and flat rate schedules to include the 5% surcharge, and the Board of Public Works and Safety shall provide a form notice of the surcharge to each taxicab company, and said company shall cause a copy of the notice to be placed in each licensed taxicab. The Board of Public Works and Safety is further authorized to terminate the surcharge when the cost of gasoline falls below $3.50 per gallon according to the American Automobile Association’s published rates for medium grade gasoline for a period of 15 consecutive days, or to extend the surcharge in 30 day increments if the cost of gasoline remains above $3.50 per gallon based upon gasoline costs for medium grade gasoline as published by the American Automobile Association.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)  Penalty, see § 119.99

TAXICAB DRIVERS

§ 119.25  TAXICAB DRIVER’S LICENSE REQUIRED.

   It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a taxicab as a driver within the city without first having secured a taxicab driver’s license to do so from the city. Any person or persons, firm or corporation found to be in violation of the requirements of this section shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 119.99(B).

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.26  LICENSE APPLICATION.

   Every person desiring to drive a taxicab in the city shall, before undertaking to do so, file an application in writing for a taxicab driver’s license, duly sworn by the applicant, with the City Clerk, which application shall show the following:

   (A)   The name and present address of the applicant;

   (B)   The address of each place of residence of the applicant during the last two years prior to the date of the application;

   (C)   The place of employment, the kind of employment and the name of each of the employers of the applicant for the last five years immediately preceding the date of the application;

   (D)   The applicant’s experience in automobile operation;

   (E)   Whether or not the applicant has ever or does use alcohol or drugs;

   (F)   Whether or not the applicant has ever been charged or convicted in any court for any crime or misdemeanor and, if so, the facts and details concerning each conviction;

   (G)   The applicant’s state driver’s license number;

   (H)   The applicant shall also at the time of filing an application for a taxicab driver’s license, pay to the City Clerk the sum of $15 as fee for an annual taxicab driver’s license. The license shall expire one year after issuance unless it is revoked pursuant to the provisions of this chapter;

   (I)   The applicant is fingerprinted;

   (J)   The applicant obtains a local background check and an interstate identification index background check; and

   (K)   Any additional documentation deemed necessary by the Board of Works or the City Clerk in verifying the responses given by an applicant.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.27  REFUSAL TO ISSUE; REVOCATION.

   No taxicab driver’s license shall be issued to any person who does not meet the requirements set forth in I.C. 9-24-1 et seq. In addition, all applicants for a taxicab driver’s license shall provide all information concerning any violations, past, present or future, of any local, state or federal laws, and shall submit certified results of initial drug testing, and random drug testing at least annually thereafter from a private drug-testing contractor approved by the Board of Public Works. Violation of any local, state or federal laws or failure of any drug test shall be adequate ends for non-issuance, revocation or non-renewal of a taxicab driver’s license.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-96-133, passed 8-15-1996)

§ 119.28  CONDITIONAL LICENSE.

   Notwithstanding any of the express provisions of this chapter, the Board of Public Works may, in its discretion, issue a conditional license which shall, along with the regular license, be subject to immediate revocation for any period the Board may determine, upon the licensee being convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any charge involving moral turpitude.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995)

§ 119.29  EMPLOYMENT OF UNLICENSED TAXICAB DRIVERS PROHIBITED.

   No person, firm or corporation licensed to operate taxicabs under this chapter shall employ any person as a taxicab driver in the city unless that taxicab driver has been duly licensed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Any person, firm, or corporation found to have knowingly violated this section shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 119.99(B).

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)  Penalty, see § 119.99

§ 119.99  PENALTY.

   (A)   Any person or company found to be in violation of §§ 119.01 through 119.13 of this chapter shall be subject to impoundment of the offending vehicle(s), towing and impoundment costs, and a fine of $2,500 to be paid to the City Clerk before the vehicle will be released.

   (B)   Any person or company who violates §§ 119.25 through 119.29 shall be subject to a fine of $100 for the first offense, and a fine of $250 for each subsequent offense.

   (C)   In addition to the penalties above, the Board of Public Works may suspend or revoke the taxicab operation and/or driver’s license of any business or individual who violates the provisions of this chapter. Each day a violation continues shall be deemed a separate violation.

(Ord. G-95-228, passed 8-17-1995; Ord. G-11-26, passed 8-18-2011)