Case Date:

4/19/2024

To whom it may concern, The following describes multiple code violations from Chandler Automotive that I noticed/experienced during the process of retrieving my towed car from their site. I have video/audio evidence of the violations, and I would prefer if someone reached out to me so I can submit these as proof. It will only allow me to upload images through this submission form. Thank you: BMC 4.32.140(b): Called the number at around 5:30pm to ask to retrieve car, employee stated that she will not be able to get my car until about 9:30/10pm. This is in violation of part 1 of section B, as well as violation of part 2 of section B, since this was well outside the sixty minutes. I recorded the phone call where the employee told me 10pm. Please reach out if you would like this evidence. BMC 4.32.140(f): The invoice, see attached, is not itemized correctly pursuant to the requirements of I.C. 24-14-5-1. The invoice is missing/incorrectly accounted for the following: - I.C. 24-14-5-1(4)(D) - No VIN number. - I.C. 24-14-5-1(4)(C) - No year. - I.C. 24-14-5-1(5) - License plate # is incorrect. - I.C. 24-14-5-1(C) - No explanation is given for the additional charges incurred, which is required here. BMC 4.32.130(a)(2) - The company attempted to charge me $185 for the tow. One $25 charge being a go jack fee, and the other being a dollies fee. Since a go jack fee is a special fee, the total for those should not be $50 according to the code, but a maximum of $25. They corrected this upon me providing them a copy of the code. However, I have audio recording of them attempting to charge me that amount, and being unable to explain these additional charges. BMC 4.32.120(a) - As stated above, the towing company failed to comply with applicable state law in the invoice. BMC 4.32.120(e) - The vehicle was not able to be claimed upon calling at 5:30pm on 4/18/2024. Please reach out for a copy of the evidence as I am not able to upload it here. These laws were created by the legislature with the intention to be construed strictly due to the stated purpose of this chapter being to protect the public from unconscionable practices (BMC 4.32.010). Please reach out to me if you have any additional questions. I plan on following up in fourteen (14) days if I have not heard back from the city on this matter by that time. Thank you for taking the time to read this complaint, and I appreciate your enforcement of the laws of our wonderful city. Respectfully, Matt Shelton

Case Date:

12/29/2023

People are living year-round in an RV parked on an unimproved surface at 220 S. Maple Street. They have been there for about 18 months. I previously reported them to H.AN.D. and the city's legal department. There are also 3-5 other cars parked in the small property lot at all times. The man is apparently fixing cars for others. Various articles and garbage bags are often strewn about. Their has been many domestic violence and nuisance reports to the police and fire department during this time.

Case Date:

11/8/2022

Coworker refuses to stop vaping in the office and management will not enforce the no smoking policy in the office.

Case Date:

9/19/2022

In regards to resolved uReport# 181500: Reply from City: Up until recently, we've been relying on the scooter companies to enforce their users behaviors with illegally parking of the scooters. We have two positions that we are currently hiring for that are funded with fees from the scooter companies that will focus on moving into a system where fines will be issued for improper parking. My reply with two (2) questions: I do not understand Adam Wason's reply in light of what was stated by City Attorney, Mike Rourker, in 2019 (please see below for quote). Additionally, I worked from March 2019 until October 2021 as the main point-of-contact (POC) working with the entities licensed by the City for providing the service and product of motorized scooters, and neither was I informed of any efforts to ticket the companies nor the users of the scooters. Can someone please explain to me what the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for holding the licensed entities accountable for the stipulations in the ordinance governing use and management of the scooters was prior to the recent creation and hiring of a new staff position? Also, why were no violations issued and no fines collected in over three years? Thank you for your time. "At its July 31, 2019 meeting, city attorney Mike Rouker told the city council that scooter companies would be fined if their users violated the parking restrictions. Rouker put it this way: “So just to be clear, at the same time, that Bird or Lime or another scooter company may be taking those additional steps against their own users, the city, if this is an issue, will be fining them every single time we see a parking issue.” Rouker continued, “I suppose if the company wants to move very slowly and pay lots and lots of fines to the city, until we’re fed up enough that we either revoke their license or geo-fence an area, that’s a business decision. But I don’t know if it’s a sound business decision.” For an improperly parked scooter, the fine called for in the city’s ordinance runs $30. The fee connected to impoundment is $100, plus $10 per day storage, and another $150 for disposal. As it turns out, the only payments the scooter companies have had to make to the city of Bloomington are the $10,000 annual licensing fees and the 15 cents a ride. The three companies now operating in Bloomington are Lime, Veo, and Bird." Source: https://bsquarebulletin.com/2021/11/22/electric-scooter-parking-violations-zero-citations-in-over-2-years-since-local-bloomington-law-was-passed/ Additional source: https://otter.ai/s/56nnFv2HQX2elRJ40z1X8A?snpt=true

Case Date:

12/13/2020

2 people in my apartment complex are smoking inside their apartments. It’s coming in through my walls and vents so badly that I’m having asthma attacks. I’ve emailed my property management company who has sent out texts, but the smokers in the building are still smoking indoors.

Case Date:

12/3/2019

Often a suv parking on handicap ramp/ loading area in county showers lot

Case Date:

9/24/2019

1508 W. 11th is going to be sold in a Sheriff Sale on Oct 18th. Contractors for the lawyer/bank who repossessed the property due to the death of the owner have already cleaned out the house and have been keeping the property mowed. However, because the house is vacant, the neighbors to the east (1506), have been stacking/throwing trash, debris, etc. into the house. It is just packed with it. This is absolutely unfair to any potential buyer of 1508 as they will have to pay for the removal of this garbage once they purchase the property. 1506 needs to dispose of their own damn trash.

Case Date:

9/23/2019

Case Date:

9/12/2019

I have reason to believe that a high school in this county is discriminating against a few African American teen age boys. One of The boys was recently expelled from school for allegedly touching a girl the incidents didnt even take place on school grounds. Oh but When I'm done with doing my investigation and helpng this family out. They will regret their descion.

Case Date:

9/5/2019

It is my understanding, that the Bloomington Recruiting officers have had multiple incidents with unauthorized/unethical relationships with High School Students, within the surrounding Indiana school district. There has been issue's coming out of IU Campus, Bedford High School, Bloomington South High school, and Brown County High School. Recruiters are being allowed to enter these High Schools (some through the JAG program) others through recruiting events.and through this events, they are able to nurture unauthorized relationships with the high school students during instructional time. It is my understanding that the teachers and staff were notified of the inappropiate conduct but nothing has been done about. As a parent, it is concerning that we are "forced by law" to send our children to school where these adults are being given repeated access and opportunty to our young girls.