Board of Works & Safety - Regular Meeting

I want to welcome everyone this evening. Our agenda this evening, we have a public hearing and then we have our regular meeting of the city of Bedford Common Council here at Stonegate Arts and Education Center, 93115th Street, Tuesday, September the 16th at 700 p.m. We have a public hearing, introduction of the budget for the year 2026. Billy,

yes. I will read um each fund name, the proposed budget, and if it has a levy, I will read the levy. Uh the general fund 14,417,521 with a levy of 7,625 $7,625,000. um motor vehicle restricted and unrestricted $3,42,800 with a levy of $1,947 1,947,000685. Local road and street 150,000 no levy. Park 2,534,475 with a levy of 2,365,000. capital development 575,000 with a levy of 380,000. The rest of the funds do not have levies. Non-reverting park 92,400. Uh, law enforcement continuing education 14,250 low at public safety 1,358,200 non-reverting golf carts 99,000 Otis trust 5,000 non-reverting Otis 97,384 nonreverting pool 29,000 fire prevention 5,000 non-reverting transit 100,000 capital improvement ment 200,000 fire pension 589,900 police pension 520,950,000 that with a total budget 23 million830,880 with a levy of 12317,685

um in the general fund that includes a health insurance increase of 3% % property insurance of increase of 7.5% public safety PEF increase by the state from 20.3% to 23.3%. Um there's a proposed stifen for city employees instead of a salary increase due to the um uncertainty of funding due to the Senate Bill one and the restructuring of the local income tax. Um Stonegate is asking for an increase in funding from 50,000 to 160,000. So some that is some of the bigger increases in the budgets. Okay, start with the public hearing. Okay, we'll open the public hearing and invite the public to come up and make any comments. Um, please state your name and your address and you have three minutes to address the council on the issue of the budget. All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and move on to the next item.

So, next we have a public hearing waiver of non-compliance for CAP Inc. Real estate tax abatement SB1. Great.

Thank you. Under Indiana law, there is a requirement that an for a tax abatement, the SB1 has to be filed prior to the start of a construction project for improvements uh on real estate that are subject to the abatement. Um in this case, CAP, Inc. is requesting an abatement. They submitted that in July and had started uh construction prior to submitting the SP1. So, a public hearing is required under the law. So we um and the public hearing is on the issue of waving the non-compliance. So waving the issue of having started prior to the SP1 being submitted. So I'll open the public hearing and give anyone an opportunity who would like to address that issue to come forward again. Have uh please state your name and address and you have three minutes to address the council. Seeing none, we will close that public hearing and proceed with the regular agenda.

All right, Craig, would you lead us in prayer, please? Dear Lord in heaven, we approach thy throne in prayer, thanking thee for this day, allowing us to be here. Ask you to give us wisdom that we make the proper decisions to benefit the city and its citizens. We ask you to be with the leaders of our city, state, and on the federal level. Now, as we about to go through the further exercise this hour, be with us. Guard, guide, and direct us, forgive us for many sins, and finally found faithful, give us home with thee in heaven. Christ your name we pray and amen. Amen.

Kathy, would you lead us in the pledge, please? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Calling our meeting to order. We have approval of the minutes from August the 19th which was a regular meeting. Motion to approve.

All those in favor signify by I. I.

Anyone opposed? Thank you. Now we'll move on to new business. I want to have a brief discussion on our new business. Starting out with number one, number two, and number three as you see in your book. Of course, these are all ordinances and they're reference to the budgets. So we can take this evening and go through these and we can do as normal uh after some other discussion we can have a first and a second motion and then finalize everything at the next meeting with a third and final motion or if we're going to make any changes if we want to wait and do all three readings and suspend the rules at the next meeting and do everything at one meeting. However, we do have to realize that everything will need to be completed by the end of the next meeting. So, that's just some option that we look at. If the board has any discussion or any input on how they would like to proceed with that voting, uh, I'd be glad to hear those comments. Okay. Mayor, I'd like to if we can do the first two readings and if we have any changes, we can make changes in October. Correct. It

it's a little difficult. If we do that, you can, but I would have to go back amend my ordinance to what you change it to and then you would all have to come in and sign it within the next day. So yeah, it is doable, but you will all have to come in and sign the order or we can discuss it and then do all three readings and at the October 21st meeting. Correct. Yeah. Yes.

My input would be just to do all three readings at the next meeting. Uh just from that standpoint that I'm not all that fond of passing something and going back and changing it after we pass it. I just kind of prefer that if we're going to make any changes, we make them and then at the next meeting with everybody understanding that that at the end of that meeting, we'll vote and we'll have to suspend the rules and do all three passages at that time. Is everyone agreeable to that process? Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. So, we will start out number one, ordinance 16, 2025. We have appropriations and tax rates, adoption of the budget for 2026 for Billy Tumi. But before we start into that, Billy, I want to go over some of the high points here and give the board some information and ask some questions to see if we have some discussion. So, we have the White River Humane Society that we have budgeted 150,000. The city has worked hard at this uh trying to come up with alternatives reference to being able to get animals released and and working on our own as far as chipping and chip reading and doing some stuff. So I would like to propose to the council that we drop that from 150,000 to 75,000. Does anyone have any comments on that topic? Mayor, we're still just pay as we go with both of our animal services. Correct.

Correct. Yes, we are. And and one reason that we're going to leave that amount of money in there, we're also working on a CAT program uh that will be brought to the council at the next meeting that we will also have to have some funds for for that. So, that's why I'm recommending that we leave it at 75,000. And we've talked about this with department heads and we feel like that if all goes well that is a doable number that we can work with. We have the boys and girls club. Uh and in talking about this there was a an error this evening on this agenda under old business. We should have had the uh tabled the request last time for the $25,000 on the opioid restricted funds. uh and unfortunately it was left off so we're not able to discuss that. But I also discussed last month reference to one of our nonprofits that if we used restricted opioid money that we could also save some more money for our general fund. So, in in talking with the Boys and Girls Club, who we have given restricted funds to in the past, they advised that they would be happy to work with us and take $25,000 of restricted opioid funds and $10,000 out of our general fund, which of course would save us the $25,000 in our general fund due to our our funding that we're going to be lacking. Does anyone have any comments or concerns about that? I will state the only concern I have is is we did talk with uh the growth council on that 25,000. Uh we don't know for sure when we're going to get more money in from that standpoint. Billy, do you have any input

if this is approved this way? If we do need to fund that other 25,000 that where we would be at as far as waiting on more opioid money restricted to come in. Right now we have $60,211. So that would cover both okay requests. All right. Okay. So, with that being said, does anyone have any discussion or comments on the Boys and Girls Club on what I just mentioned referenced using the restricted opioid funds to help offset that? The Boys and Girls Club can meet the requirements of that. Correct.

Yes. Billy and I went over and and talked with the CEO u and I I know that we have given them that money in the past and he told us that he would be able to work with that reference to those restrictions. All right. The Lawrence County Growth Council we have 50,000. So the input on that is that we continue the abatement money and take the abatement money and put it in RDC and then take RDC and the amount that we give the growth council would come out of RDC and that would also free up whatever that amount would be right now if we're looking at the 50,000 that will free up another 50,000 out of the general ederal fund that come can come out of the RDC fund where the abatement money is going. Any questions or comments? And then we have BARRI at 5,000. We have Green Hill Cemetery at 68,000. And then of course we have Stonegate with the request of 160,000. uh they're getting 50,000 at this time. So it' be an increase of 110,000. So does anyone have any comments reference to the request from Stonegate for the 160,000? Billy, would you want to comment on this as far as to the budget?

Due to the unknown of the new funding mechanisms that the governor has passed with SB1, we are going to continue to lose tax levy. Um, in our general fund and some other funds and also in 2028, the local option income tax will change. So, if we were to fund this this year, we would have to really consider it another year because we're going to continue to lose money um until we can find out what the new legislation is really going to do. It looks like up in by 2028, we could lose almost $2 million out of the general fund. And you know, the council all knows that at at some point, depending on our funding, where we may be at with this, but the only way down the road that is going to be able to be funded is if we find money someplace else that's already in the budget to take from there to put into this line item. So, is there any other comments or discussion on on the Stonegate budget? If not, I'll move on. Mayor, on on the Stonegate budget, are we are we held can we do like a six-month payment and then re-evaluate it again or do we have to how does that work or Billy, I guess? Well, I can refer to council, but I mean since we're the funding mechanism, I would say that they'll probably have to work with whatever we can afford to give them and however those guidelines would be. Council, do you have any input?

I think you're right. Okay. I I didn't know if we could, you know, if things get better or worse, I guess, you know, if that could be adjust, if that amount could be adjusted uh later in the year, if we're better off to approve a number and have that as a a number to shoot to go go to or how how would be the best way to handle that?

Well, I mean, their their funding that they're looking at is what they're estimating to get them through for a year. Uh and there's been discussion on this and and Stonegate is continuing to operate as if they will have funds. Uh of course they can't plan on stopping operations whenever there's a possibility they're going to get funding. Uh so they're going to continue to go ahead and operate the way they're operating unless we tell them that funding is going to expire or if we somehow even if we limit funding and say you're going to give them 80,000 the first half and 80,000 the second half. I mean they're still going to be operating under the same function. Uh, from that standpoint,

I guess my question is if they get a tenant in here that pays, you know, if they sign a a deal, they get a tenant in here that that helps pay for that, can that be subtracted from the amount that we give them? Well, I mean, I think one way if you want to look at that option, uh, you could break this down more than likely to be a monthly payment and then have them come in every month and give us information reference to their income. Uh, if that's what the board would like to do, uh, they have no idea as far as the work one is here at this point in time paying rent. Uh on the flip side of that, uh you know, that's a possibility at some point, hopefully not, but that renter could leave also, and then there would be even a bigger deficit. Uh the city of Bedford also has some money in a fund that we help take care of some of the maintenance here. Uh that will be another topic that will come up a little bit later as to whenever that funding runs out as to that will be an additional expense for the facility as far as any repairs.

Thank you. Any other comments or and Ryan, if you would want to suggest or make a motion to see if the board's in favor of proceeding on something along you're talking about uh we can go from there. Otherwise, I guess it was just more for a question, mayor, to see if there was any any way way to do it in case they did come up with a a big funding source that where we weren't weren't liable for making those payments if they were able to back feed their right back feed their income.

I and I I I agree with that to that standpoint. That's something we have to look at with with some of our or all of our nonprofits from that standpoint to make sure that uh they're they're getting guidance because of course we're we're funding all of this with tax dollars. So, we need to be very cautious on spending our tax dollars as to how we're spending them. Uh, so I would entertain any other comments.

I I kind of agree with Ryan that I think we need to before the next meeting look into that option. Um, I don't feel like we want to say just yes or no right now with with the requested some that they're asking for, but if there's some way that we can do it that gives us more flexibility in the future, I feel like that would be something that would be prudent as council to Okay. So, all right. Well, that I I agree with that. That brings up another question as far as the discussion between now and the next meeting council as far as how that discussion can take place reference to the open door law.

Yeah, the council wouldn't be able to get together and talk about it can't be an executive session even. Um so have to have a special session or if administration just makes a recommendation to you at the next meeting, investigates it, comes back with a again I guess that'd be my request. I mean, I know the logistics of a meeting could be difficult, but if the administration could come up with a couple possibilities or a couple options to present to us. Okay. I will I will work on those options and I will also check with Stonegate with the president and consult him on this to see what options he think might might be feasible, right?

Uh and look at that scenario uh and see what we can come up with and then we'll discuss it at the next meeting.

Okay. All right. Uh, next kind on your agenda, we we've talked about a stipen consideration, an employee stipened. So, we looked at 3,000 and 1,500, 25, uh, 1250, 2,000, 1,500, and 750. And we're looking at this instead of a a pay raise, which we are not fond of, but due to the circumstances that we're looking at as far as to funding along that we just talked about with Stonegate, we don't want to put something out there that in the next year or two we may have issues funding uh reference to our revenue and cause ourselves some serious problems. So, that's why we're looking at a stipen. Uh does any of the council have any input? First of all, reference to a stipen uh versus a salary increase. Is there any discussion on that topic?

I know some do stipens different than others. Would it be say we do the 3,000 to,500? Would it be 3,000 all at one time? Would it be two checks? I know some do it. Okay. That way it don't hit you as hard on the tax part of it. Okay. what we're looking at doing on that. If we're just going to talk about the stipen for now, you know, my recommendation is the 3,000 and the 1500 for the employees, right?

But also before we talk about how it would be paid out, I think that another good option since it's a one-time payout is the RDC could pay the police officers and fireman stipen. And if you do the 3000, that stipen from RDC would be 219834. Uh there again, if we do that, that's going to be a savings of that dollar amount that if it was paid out of the general fund, right? So it would be another cost savings that we can do it. However, we could use the RDC money and still save our general fund money. Right.

As far as to the payouts, Billy, I'll let you discuss that. I know we've discussed we mentioned um two checks, one going out the 1st of June, one going out the 1st of December, and they would be checks, not direct deposits. And one reason we looked at that for the employees, it will never be perfect for all of them, but they would be getting a a lump sum check possibly before they look at vacations, right? And then the other would be that they would hopefully have it for Christmas. For that's that was that's my suggestion to do. Yeah,

that was our thinking behind that. Uh, so any other discussion on which dollar amount or the payout or anything from that? At this point, I'd be looking at the 3,500 with the two checks payout as stated and RDC funding that portion from the police and fire. Okay. All right. Billy kind of hit on some of the other stuff down here as far as to the different percent on a lot of things that that has went up. Uh the public safety PEF was was a a huge dollar amount from that standpoint. Uh one of the other things that's really hitting us hard that that she hit on, I don't know if she mentioned the dollar amount or not, uh on our increasing our insurance. Uh that's something that uh is rather large. If we have an employee that's on a single plan uh and if they get married and they have children or whatever the case and whatever the case is and they go to a family plan, then there's a large amount of that of course that the city has to pick up. Uh that can vary cost savings uh from that standpoint. Okay. Mayor, does the city carry the insurance on uh Stonegate?

I think Stonegate carries an insurance policy on it uh with us listed on it. Uh do you have any input on that, council? Say that again. I'm sorry. As far as to the insurance on Stonegate, we we carry it. Is that what's your question? I'm sorry, I didn't hear. Does the city carry the insurance on Stonegate or Stonegate carry itself? I think the city carries it, but I'm not sure about that. I think the city has some insurance on it, but I believe that Stonegate also has some insurance on it also. And it may be reference to the contents from that standpoint. I think the city insures the building and the contents are insured by Stonegate.

Right. And I guess on that topic, I didn't get on a minute ago. As far as to the utilities and stuff here, the Wi-Fi and everything, Stonegate pays all of those bills and everything from that standpoint. Uh, so that's what is also paid out of their their budget. I should have mentioned that a minute ago. My apologies. Okay. All right. So, we will get ready and move on with number one, the ordinance 16, 2025, appropriations and tax rates, adoption of the budget 2026.

Billy,

yeah, we have the the draft on that and the what I read at the at the hearing is exactly what is in this resolution. Um I can read you the adopted the proposed adopted tax rate for the general fund would be 1.544. Uh motor vehicle would be 3999. Park would be 4789 and cumcap development would be well it's proposed on here is 0769 but it would really be 050 to advertise high. the total tax rate would be 2.4997. Um the DLGF will adjust that down when we have the official assessed values from the assessor. So they will use that. So these are just proposed advertised rates. Okay.

And that's what will be on the agenda on the resol ordinance. Okay. All right. We're not going to take any motions on these and hold off for the next meeting, but is there any discussion reference to ordinance 162025? Does there need to be a vote to table? I'm sorry. Does there need to be a vote to table? Yeah, that' be a good idea. You want to vote to table? Okay. All right. That being said, then discussion first or Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Is there any any further discussion on it before we table it? Okay. If not, I would entertain a motion to table. So move, Mr. Mayor. I second.

All those in favor signify by I. I. Anyone opposed? Thank you. All right, we will move on to number two. Ordinance 17-2025, approving base salaries for police firefighters, appoint of officers and employees, and approving additional compensation of elected and appointed officials for the year 2026. Billy, the only change from the 2025 ordinance would be the change in the health insurance. So, the health insurance values changed and the stipen is in a line. Other than that, it's identical to the 2025 ordinance.

Any discussion or comments on ordinance 17 2025? Mayor, this so the compensation of elected appointed officials for the year 2026. None of us will be eligible for this. Correct,

Billy? That is up to the the council. It is written as such as because what what has to be written in here is because the health insurance because all elected some elected officials receive health insurance. That's why it's in this budget and not the elected elected officials health insurance. It's in this one. So that's what it's referring to additional compensation because it's health insurance. But as far as the stipen, that's up to the council as to who receives the stipen discussion.

My my opinion on this is that the full-time elected officials, which I would say that's the mayor and Billy, should be the only two that are eligible for this type. I don't feel that the council should be eligible for that uh with the budget shortfalls that we're coming with this year. Mr. Mayor, I agree with her. I agree. I agree. Okay. All right.

So, so amen. I guess it would. We need to table. You going to table it? Yep. Mr. Mr. Mayor, I move to table ordinance 17-2025 until the next meeting. Second. Do we need in there about the changing of what she has on her documents at this time? Just clarify that. Well, just we'll have a new ordinance. This one will be tabled, right? So, just wait and do it. You'd have to consider this ordinance.

So, it could die for lack of motion or whatever, but then we'd have a new ordinance with the different language or we could amend this one and not take any action on it. So, don't take not table it, but So, it's better not to table it. Bring back an amended ordinance. In my opinion, yeah, it's a little easier. You don't have to take uh two actions to to pass it. So, no table. I I would recommend not tableing it. Bring back I withdraw my motion, Mr. Mayor. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. That motion has been withdrawn. Okay, first rules.

All right. So, moving on to ordinance 18 2025. Establish the salaries of elected officials for the year 2026. Billy, um, there is no change. It's identical to the 2025 ordinance. There's no change whatsoever. Okay. Any discussion or comments on ordinance 18 2025? If not, then I'm assuming we're going to table this ordinance as we did the first one. Yes, you would table that. All right.

I'll make a motion we table ordinance 18 2025 for establishing the salaries of elected officials for the year 2026. I'll second. All those in favor signify by I. I.

Anyone opposed? All right. Now we're going to move on to resolution 8-2025 approving waiver of non-compliance for CAP in under Indiana code 6-1.1-12.1-9.5. Mr. Pitman, thank you. Uh res resolution 8-2025 uh will authorize the SB1 for CAP to proceed to consideration by the board because they started construction before the SB1 was submitted the application was submitted. You have to wave that non-compliance. So there's a resolution to approve the waiver and then if you do approve that then it proceed to the consideration of the resolution to approve the SB1. Okay. Any comments, discussion on resolution 8-2025? If there's no discussion, then I would entertain a motion. I'll make a motion for approving the waiver of non-compliance for CAP, Inc. under Indiana Code 8. uh 6-1-12-1 dash 9- or point

there's a lot there let me start over okay that would be um 6-1-12.1-9.5

All right, I'll second that. I'm not going to repeat it. All right. You should have two, Larry. All those in favor signify by I. I. Anyone opposed? Thank you. I couldn't follow you, Judy. I was going to go. Request approval and acceptance of cap in tax abatement SB1 real estate improvements 10054th Street. And this is the approval of resolution 9-2025 establishing the period for rehabilitation deductions for purposes of tax abatement.

Council, uh, we presented the SP1 to the RDC for scoring. The RDC U average was 113.25, which passes the threshold for the 10-year abatement. So, the recommendation is for a 10-year abatement. The percentage um is a kind of deescalating percentage each year. It's a 100% the first year, then 95, 80, 65, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, and five in the 10th year. That's the recommendation of the RDC. The RDC also recommended a 15% fee um and that that fee be paid to the RDC. Um and that was unanimously approved by the RDC. Uh, and then Mr. Bortner and Mr. Conrad are here to describe the project.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. Uh, for the record, my name is Dan Border. I'm representing Lawrence County Economic Growth Council. With me this evening is Mr. Doug Conrad. He's representing CAP Incorporated. We're here tonight to request tax abatement for the CAP Incorporated project located at 100054th Street here in Bedford. This $3.5 million project is a 65,000 square foot warehouse space connected to the current Cap Group building. The building is to be occupied by CAT Group or a related strategic alliance. Original employment estimates are for up to six employees to occupy the space with payroll estimates at $240,000. We respectfully request consideration of this project and it is backed by both the Lawrence County Growth Council and Radius Indiana. And so thank you for your consideration and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Council have any questions or anything for discussion? I would entertain a motion for resolution 9-2025. So move, Mr. Mayor. I'll second. Okay. you need to you need to state in your motion reference to the 15% uh if it's going to the RDC will that will need to be in the motion correct council. Yeah. So the motion to approve the resolution and to uh apply the recommendation of the RDC. Yes. Okay. So that's the motion and that is the second. All those in favor signify by I. I.

Anyone opposed? Thank you. Ordinance 19-2025 amending 155.017 and 155.018 of Bedford code within the professional residential PR district. Kevin,

thank you. Uh, ordinance 19205, the ordinance amending Beverage City Code 155.017 permitted uses in zoning districts and 155.018 uses requiring a special exception permit. Uh, the planning commission met on September 9th, 2025 at 4 p.m. to have a public hearing on a resolution to amend the zoning code for professional residential or PR districts to allow for single family dwellings and two family dwellings as permitted uses and retail stores as uses requiring a special exception permit. Hopefully in your packet you have maps, but there's um five or six areas best I recall in town that are zoned the PR mostly around the former Dun Hospital is the largest section. Uh there's a section between 14th and 15th and L&M Street in that block. It's also PR. Vast majority of properties are PR. [Applause] I'm not sure how clear your maps copied off, but I want to point out that most of the structures in all of these PR zones are already single family dwellings. Um, so there but there's vacant lots in some of these zones where people have contacted my office wanting to put single family homes or duplexes and they're not allowed to do that without reszoning those properties, which as we know is a three-month process. So, if we could change that code to where like right now you can build a boarding house in one of those vacant lots and you don't have to do anything but you can't build a single family home. So, like to change that to where we can have that done without having to reszone. Um, point out at the corner of 15th and L, I think you're familiar with the gas station that was there for years and the gas station

closed down. It's now a convenience store and it wasn't realized that it wasn't zoned properly to be a convenience store, but I can't go back and say, "Hey, you can't be here now." So, we'd also like to correct that matter by allowing for the retail space and he would just be exempt and grandfathered in. The biggest change I think is well lastly really is it I'm going to use this property as an example of taking a property that borders a residential district and bringing it back to life in a positive way that meets the concerns of the neighbors and allows the property owner to have a business without the neighbors being concerned what might happen if that business fails in 5 to 10 years or what happens if they decide to sell that building. thought will be the next business goes in there and I think the council and I know the planning commission has addressed those where somebody wants to have a business and they have to reszone it to business related one of the B's and then you really don't have control over what happens to that property after years down the road. So recently the council reszoned the property at 513 P Street to PR and that designation allows the owner to have the art studio that she wishes to have in the basement of that building. And in the upper section of the building, the owner would like to use that section as an antique mall, which would be a retail space. By amending the ordinance ordinance to allow for retail space as a use requiring a special exception permit, the planning commission and the zoning board will review each of these requests on an individual basis and approve or deny them. This allows the board to hear the plans of the property owner and the neighboring residents that may be affected and make a decision that fits the neighborhood. Special exceptions are not transferable

to the next property owner if the business fails or the property is sold. So, the next owner would have to go through the process again to have that retail space. I now ask the council approve the recommendation of the planning commission to amend Bedford City Code 155.017 and 155.018 as outlined in ordinance 19205. Okay. Does the board have any questions or discussion?

Yes, Kevin, just to elaborate on the uh the instance of the uh the lady that bought the property on Peace Street. Um I was there planning commission. So, she originally, just a little background, was considering a request to resone that to business and decided to do this on the possibility of potentially what we're about to vote on here today so she can still have her

I I think there wasn't. Sorry. I think there was enough neighbors, the neighbors in that area didn't want to see it zone business because of what might occur. They didn't have a problem with what she wanted to do, but they were concerned about what might happen in the future if she sold the building, what might go in there. And I think we've seen that with some other properties in the last couple years that neighbors have had those concerns. So, this is a way to allow for retail store only, retail space only. I'm not asking for it to be anything else, you know, not service shops or any of that other stuff, but allow that to happen. You know, to answer your question, the neighbors were fine with her having a retail space knowing that

if that could be a if that left, right, it wouldn't it would never be a tavern because that's not one of the permitted uses or even a special exception consideration. So, and the neighbors were fine with the PR designation knowing that this is what they wanted to do and it satisfied most of them. I mean, I think there was one that still didn't want anything to be there, but I think I think they were happy with it being a vacant building and I don't know if that's a good use for that's not a good look for the city, I don't think. But,

okay. Thank you. Any other comments or discussion? Okay. If there's nothing further, then I would entertain a motion. Motion to pass ordinance 19-2025. I'll second. All those in favor signify by I. I. Anyone opposed? Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Ordinance 20-2025 amending Ordinance 13-969 as amended by Ordinance 24-20008. Ordinance 27-20009, Ordinance 23-2110, and Ordinance 22-223 regarding the collection and disposal of trash, garbage, and refugees within the city limits of Bedford. Mr. Good evening. That was a long introduction for a pretty short thought here. Um, basically in this we're we're wanting to change the ordinance um because we have initiated a single stream recycling. Um, this has been a really good move for the citizens of Bedford. Um, sorting this recycling has always been an issue and people don't like to do it. We don't like to pick it up. this is um a lot easier to handle this way and it's good for the workers and for the citizens. And so in the in the definition that's it basically is just the changes. It it does not need to be separated. And then in the recycles part of it is um basically we're going to do this with a 96gallon tote. So we can do this in an automated fashion. So it's going to be a lot less hand work. Um our employees it's going to be a lot safer and and better for them not to have to handle these recyclables. Um it's been wellreceived so far. Um, I would act ask for your guys approval of this ordinance change.

Okay. Any discussion, comments? Ordinance 20-2025. David, the the recycling containers, are those I don't have one, so I'm going to ask. Are those provided? If somebody calls and says, "Hey, I want a recycling container." Do you bring one out? Uh right now um we use these red bins. Okay. Um is what was always used in the past and the city did provide those for the people whenever they ask for them. Um so yes, you said was going to go to 96

the 96 gallon totes is um it'll be more on the order of our compost program where they do have to pay the cost of the tote. Um, so if somebody does want a larger one, they can call and purchase a larger one,

right? We we will be um exchanging the people that are are using the services now. They will we will exchange their red totes. If they give us their red totes, we'll provide them with a with a 96gallon tote. Anybody that wants to do it in the future will have to pay the cost of the tote. Well, I think it's also worth noting that they have to pay the price of the toe, but there's no additional fees of any type for the city to to pick any of this up. Right. David, what's the process if somebody puts in one of the prohibited items? Like

honestly, what happens is um this goes directly to Rumkey at Madora and then they loaded up on trucks to go to Cincinnati to their facility. If we ended up having a lot of issues with this, Rumpky would then charge us. Okay.

Um, and it would basically make our load just go into their landfill. Um, we've been doing this, we did this on a trial basis to start to see how it would work and and we've been doing it ever since because it's just been fantastic. So when our guys have told me they've went to Rumpky and dumped our recyclables next to everybody else's recyclables, they said, "You wouldn't believe how much better our recyclables are than than other communities or other areas." So we're we're pretty thrilled with with what we've done so far and and got the word out on what is recycle and what's not. We do have some bad apples once in a while, but not very often. It's been really encouraging. Well, I think a lot of people as forced to the recycle if it's something they want to do, they don't have to. They do it right. And I I think that's a big difference as long as some education that goes along with it. The education is a big part just so that they understand exactly what they need to do. and we've made a conscious effort to try to educate more on our on our um web pages and Facebook pages and and um I I think it's um it's done done well. Any other discussion, comments? If not, this is an ordinance, so I would see if there is a a motion for passage. I'll make the motion to pass ordinance number 20-2025 amending ordinance 131 1969 as amended by ordinance 24-208 ordinance 27-209 ordinance 23-2010 and ordinance 22-20223 regarding the collection and disposal of trash garbage and abuse the city of Indiana. [Laughter] Okay. So, we got a we got a second. We'll say with Kathy.

All those in favor signify by I. I. I. Anyone opposed? I would entertain a second passage. So move, Mr. Mayor. Second. All those in favor signify by I. I. Anyone opposed? All right. We will take the third and final passage at our our next meeting. Thank you very much. All right. Does the board have anything for discussion?

Yeah, we can here. He doesn't have a name tag, so I guess we can let everyone know who's here. So, as far as we have a new member this evening, Craig Turpin, uh, who was caucused in actually last night uh, at the caucus as to fill the the vacancy here at the at large seat. So, we welcome Craig to our city council. Thank you. He's going to have a little fast track. First meeting being the budget night, but with his background, I'm sure that he will be able to handle it. And we've already ordered your name plate. Uh so it will be here for the next meeting. Thank you.

Council have any other thing for discussion or comments? Not I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to second. Whatever. All right. We got Judy on the motion and we got Larry on the second. All those in favor signify by I. I. Anyone opposed? We stand a journal.