City Council - Regular Meeting

I want to welcome everyone this evening.

City of Bedford Common Council meeting, Bedford Municipal Hall, 1617 K Street, Tuesday, June the 16th at 7 p.m. I want to start this evening with a public hearing consideration of adoption of an ordinance to implement a local option highway user tax, motor vehicle excise surtax, and county wheel tax. Mr. Pitman?

Thank you, Mayor. I'll open the public hearing by introducing the ordinance and kind of explaining the municipal real tax and the motor vehicle license excisor tax and then open it up for any public comment. If anyone would like to come up and speak, they'll need to come up to the podium, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes to address the council on that topic. The ordinance that's being presented is for a municipal real tax and a motor vehicle license excise tax. There's a statute that establishes those taxes, of course, and the range for the municipal tax is anywhere between $5 and $40. and a motor vehicle license excise surtax, there's a range of $7.50 up to $25 that can be imposed by the city council. The current municipal real tax and motor vehicle license excise surtax, which I'll call real tax and surtax from now on, those two taxes are collected by the county at the current time at $25 for each one for any vehicles eligible and subject to that tax. That was passed back in 2005 and has been imposed since that time. Now that's been collected a little differently and will be paid directly to municipalities that pass this ordinance and the proposed ordinance keeps the rates at the exact same amount. Those rates are not additional taxes to what the county charged before. They're the same amount. So it's not a double tax. Um, used to, you would stack the two. So it would be important for us to kind of coordinate with the county to establish that tax before this year. But starting 2026 effective next year when the tax would be implemented, there is no stacking. So municipal residents who go to the B and B register their vehicles that are subject to these taxes would pay the same amount and just be paid to the city instead of through the county. So it would not be additional tax. So this ordinance keeps it at the same rate it's been since 2005 and would be collected through the motor vehicles and paid back to the city. The reason it's important this tax is necessary for the city to be eligible for local road bridge matching grant lane mile distributions. So it's important for us to pass this and be able to be eligible for those These two different taxes, the statute requires that they be passed concurrently. So this ordinance has both taxes in them. It's required to be passed both taxes. So you can't have one without the other. So that's why there are two. And again, the rates don't change. So the taxpayer will not see an increase in any of the tax paid for, either the real tax or the surtax. The vehicles that are subject to the surtax are passenger cars, trucks less than or equal to 11,000 pounds, motorcycles, motor driven cycles such as mopeds, and then trailers less than or equal to 9,000 pounds. And then the municipal tax, it's subject to trucks greater than 11,000 pounds, trailers greater than 9,000 pounds, semis, buses, recreational vehicles. Does council have any questions for me at this time? Okay, I'll open it up to the public. If there's anyone here who'd like to address the council on this topic, feel free to come up at this time.

Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

All right, thank you. Brian, would you please lead us in prayer? Please join me in prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for giving us the ability to meet tonight to conduct the city's business. Please entrust us the ability and the knowledge to make the best decisions we can for the city of Bedford and that we will all make safe journeys home and be with us through the 4th of July weekend that's coming up. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Craig, would you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Yes, sir. Oh, okay. At calling our meeting to order this evening, we have approval of minutes from May 19th, which was a regular meeting. Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the minutes as presented.

I second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? One item that was tabled is ordinance 10-2026. Meaning chapter 33 employment policies 33.50. Health insurance request authorization and approval. Remember to ordinance 33.50 health insurance spousal carve out. Denise.

Thank you. This was tabled from the last council meeting. completely, of course, up to the council as to what you'd like to do with this. It has been changed to say shall instead of may if you decide to implement this. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Do you have an idea of approximately how many employees this affects? I know everybody has spouses or may, I get that, but I mean, do you have any idea of

The number of employees that I believe it could potentially affect. I've took the number from the last bill and took half of the number on each plan and then also kind of reduce that by half. So just a guesstimate. I mean, it could be about 20 employees.

Probably a little more than that.

And can you remind me, Denise, if those estimates are somewhat accurate, approximately how much that would be saving the city?

Using those numbers, it's going to be probably between $250,000 to $290,000 in savings on those premiums.

And when exactly do we have to have this decision made by?

if we weren't just theoretically you know sure tabling or hold off before making any decisions we are meeting with our medical trust in july to start working towards basically the next phase of the open enrollments in november however i think budgets are starting budget talks are starting with the department heads and things end of june beginning of july okay

I would like to make one note, Denise. When we talk about, you said approximately 20 employees, I feel like that we should mention the number of employees that we actually have.

We have 157 full-time eligible employees.

Okay. And then on the other question reference to the time frame, Heath, we're looking at it this year just from the standpoint of the insurance as if we want to deal with it this year or not. As we all know, we're looking at budget cuts. And the Clerk-Trader can probably speak to that a little bit better possibly with her members. It's something that we're looking at doing and want to present to the Council for this year. If the Council decides that they don't want to act on it, then it's something that I'm assuming will probably be back next year. I believe the rough number in 2028. Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking $3 million?

Yes, roughly $3 million.

in 2028 so we're just trying to start looking at options to and it's we're seeing some things going to affect now but 2028 is going to be the big hit where we're going to lose that and then as far as to our lick money so it's entirely up to the council how they want to address the issue if they want something they want to look at doing now or if they desire not to so denise you said you came up with 20 employees

And you said you took half of half?

Is that what you... Not quite half of half. It was about half and then I deducted maybe five off of that from each plan. That was going by the April premium goal to distinguish how many employees were on each plan.

So the employee's spouse that doesn't

doesn't work and doesn't have insurance.

They're still, they're still okay.

Yeah, this is only going to pertain to if we have an employee and their spouse has excess and qualifies for health insurance where they are employed at. Other than that, they will continue to be on our plan and go from there. And I think when Denise tries to give these numbers, I just want to make sure we're throwing some numbers out there. But until we actually go through this process, this is just a guesstimate as to what we're possibly looking at as to what reality may actually really be. Denise, has there been any feedback from any of the employees?

I've heard from three employees. Two of them have indicated that it could be a hardship with their spouse's insurance to be more expensive. I think that in the long run, the savings to the employee could be applied to that. And I understand there's going to be some situations that it won't cover completely, depending on how their insurance is set up through their spouse's insurance company. I personally have heard from three people that have indicated a question as to the costs of their spouse's insurance.

Is there a way legally to do a poll to ask each employee

So we do have a hard number?

I could. I could do it, yeah. I could do a poll or I could contact their insurance companies directly. I know that would take some time.

My recommendation, we're not going to try to contact every employee's insurance carrier. I think that if we want to poll something, we can send something out to the employees and have them sign it. As of today, if this took place, how it would affect you. And then we'd probably just list a checkbox so that it would be very simple for them to look at and be able to complete and then get it back to us.

I didn't know what legalities, if you could even ask that question, if you can ask that question. That limited information would be okay.

And we could also do the opposite if they didn't want to. Right. They wouldn't have to. Would that be anonymously collected? Or would you... I don't think it'd be an honestly because we're not running the issue and I have unfortunately some individuals filling out more than one form just to be honest with you.

You said 250 to 290 is what you're proposing, Denise?

That's an estimate, yeah, based on just dividing numbers, reducing numbers, kind of understanding certain situations through a rough estimate.

And I think that one thing that has hurt us a little bit, the city's insurance is decent insurance and we have seen in the last two or three years or probably even longer than that that we're seeing a lot of employees that are actually bringing their spouses over to our insurance because for different reasons our insurance is better than what they have so i think we have also kind of drawn spouses to our insurance just because of the availability of it and what it amounts to well and with this budget cut that we're going to deal with the next few years our quality of insurance may go down a little bit too just to make the rates that we have to get close to there's in the next two or three years there's going to be a lot of questions come up that's going to have to be answered uh And again, like I said, this is something that's up to the council. If you want to poll or if you decide you just don't want to deal with it until at a later date, then that's an option. It's just whatever you prefer to do.

Would it be possible to have the policy so that if they wanted to keep their spouse on our insurance, they could, but they had to pay for it?

Well, that could possibly be an option, but I'd probably comprehend it for those people. Yeah, I think that it probably would be. But then, I mean, I don't know what some of the spouses, what insurance they may have. It might be a benefit to them. Denise, can you speak to that?

I can. I mean, if the council wanted to impose, I don't want to say a fee, but if you wanted to impose some sort of cost. to keep the spouse on the plan that they could pay. I'll just give you an example. Currently, an employee spouse plan, the total premium for one month is $2,677.50. The city pays around 90-some percent of that currently. So that leaves the employee paying just around 10% of that. So the city's portion currently of that particular one is $2,133 per month. And the employees is $543. However, we also have the wellness credit that we give employees if they participate. So that's an additional $105 per month that the city takes on that comes off the employees portion. So that brings it to around the 90%. mark um taking those numbers i mean you know if you wanted them to pay 500 um i think if you look at billy's chart that might help a little more i don't know if i don't know if it made it into this one or not this book um it might have been from last month but

So Denise, can you tell them if you have a just say, for instance, you have a husband and wife, you have that plan. And if you looked at that and converted it to a single policy, then what would they be paying for their spouse? Additional money. And I don't think you attribute the $105 to it because that would be for the employee. So they would have to pay the difference. What would that number be?

So not using the wellness credit for that particular employee to spouse to go down to an employee-only plan, there's a difference of about $343 a month. From the employee family is roughly $600 a month to go down to roughly $210. So you're almost looking at $400 a month.

I don't think I explained myself correctly and possibly. I was wondering the dollar amount that if they were separated, what that total income, what it would cost them to be on that spousal plan versus the single plan.

The employee only plan on the PPO.

Okay.

Do you want the total premium or just what the employee currently pays?

Well, I don't know what the difference is between the one plan versus the other plan. What our employee is going to have to pay out of pocket if they keep their spouse on the policy, which will then, they will be paying for a double plan there for husband and wife or whatever, but they would only be paying for the single policy. They would be paying for the spouse and credit.

The single policy is $210 a month. The employee plus spouse is $543 a month.

Okay, but that's what the city's paying?

No, that's what the employee pays.

That's what the employee's paying.

The city currently pays $820 a month on the employee-only PPO. And employee spouse, the city pays $2,133. Okay. Okay. Am I not? That's fine.

That's fine. So you're saying that if we want to offer this plan, then we're going to tell our employees that the employee pays for the single rate and for their spouse to have the extra coverage for the husband, wife, whatever, the spouse coverage. It's only costing $400 a month.

No, that was the employee-only portion.

Okay.

So the employee plus spouse plan is $267. That's the total premium. If you stick with the same percentage the city's paying now, we pay $2,133. So if you go down to the employee-only plan, That's $1,029 and the city pays $820 a month. of that plan. So the difference between what the city pays on an employee spouse is about $1,200 a month.

That's the number I'm looking for. About $400. That's what the employee would have to pay to have his spouse on the income. That's what I was trying to get to.

You have to draw me a picture.

I just want to make sure we want to second this $400 because it was going to be around $1,200 or so for them to keep their spouse on. And that's where we're going to have to look to see if it's even cost effective for them to keep them on or for them to get insurance where they're currently employed at if they have coverage.

I guess if you're going to poll, could you include that in the poll that would you keep your spouse on and pay that? And we know the rates are going to be for 27. I mean, the county's jumped $2 million on their insurance.

Yeah, we don't know what our new rates are going to be. It'll all be speculation.

As a side note, going from an employee family down to an employee only is $2,000. So if you take employee family and you just go down to employee child, it's $1,000 additional amount.

If you have the family plan and you have a spouse to keep the spouse on the family plan would be $1200 a month.

If you currently have a family plan, it would be $3000. It would be 2000. I'm sorry, yes.

To keep the family plan. Wouldn't we have to adjust that for the kids, for any kids on the plan?

There is a plan for employee and children. So what you're going to have to do is look at that plan versus the family plan and do the same thing we just did with the other.

If a spouse comes off a family plan and they have children that they still want to cover, it would go down to the employee child plan, which would be $1,000.

If you want to go by year, If you have a family plan, it's plan one. Right now it's costing the city over $29,000. That would drop from a family plan to employee and children. That would save the city, I said county, $8,765 a year on one person. That's just taking the spouse off, leaving the children on.

Is this off the handout you had last?

Yeah, it should be in your book, I think. And all I can say is this is not up to me, but this is just the beginning of some hard decisions you guys are going to have to make.

As the mayor stated earlier, we're very happy with our insurance plans, our insurance coverage, and this is one way that we can try to not have to rock that boat yet to get different coverage or, you know, affect the entire employee consensus. This will affect the employees that have eligible insurance other places for their spouse.

Does this take three passages, Mayor?

If it's an ordinance, yes, it'll take three passages. else and something else we've talked a little bit about uh you know it makes it more difficult because we all want to do what we can for our employees without a doubt but whenever i've since the last meeting i've done a little bit of polling with other businesses and stuff ryan and i have talked about it a little bit and this is something that's been taking place for some time we just have not had to deal with it and been able to take care of our employees. But unfortunately, now we're kind of in a situation that is very difficult.

Well, I guess I'll be the bad guy. If it takes three passages, we won't make the third passage until next month. And that gives us time to get a poll. If that can be done in a month, so I'll make a motion that we pass ordinance 10-2026.

I'll second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? I would entertain this if there's a second passage. So moved, Mr. Mayor.

I second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So we will leave it there. We will see about doing a poll out and get it out to the employees to see about the other side of this and then we'll bring that back at the next meeting and go from there and if any employees wanted to come to the meeting on the 21st of july they would be welcome to do so is that correct yeah and i'm open to comments too from the employees so yeah thank you thank you i have one question for council so with this ordinance that we're looking at as far as to the two passages tonight at our next meeting if we come back after this polling and they decide that they want to do something else as far as giving the employees the option of paying privately or whatever for their spouse's insurance will this ordinance then have to be amended again Yes, you'd have to introduce a new ordinance. Okay, that was my thought. Three more passages. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that with everybody. Thank you. All right, we will move on to new business. Compliance with statement of benefits, CF1 tax abatement for Stone City products, personal property, 600 ton stomping press line. Stewart? I don't believe Stuart is here. Okay, so Stuart's not here. i would recommend that i get a motion to table and we'll try again next meeting second all right i'm sorry who made the motion okay all right craig and ryan all those in favor signify by aye aye anyone opposed all right thank you all right moving on to complies the statement of benefits there was Several resolutions here, and they're all General Motors. I want to check with the board to see if anyone objects to going through these at one time and just do one passage for all of them. Okay. All right. So compliance with statement of benefits tax abated for General Motors LLC. We have representatives here. If you want to come up. I'll take it. Alicia?

Yes.

All right. Welcome.

I am here.

Okay. So what we're going to look at is Personal Property Resolution 7-2015, Furnish and Install Machinery Equipment and Special Tools to Support By-Casting Operations for Various Products. We have Personal Property Resolution 8-2016, Furnish and Install Machinery, Equipment, and Special Tooling to Produce Aluminum Block Castings. We have Personal Property Resolution 6-2022, Furnish, Install, or Upgrade Machinery, Equipment, and Special Tooling, including Dyes to Support ED Component Manufacturing. So if the council wants to look at those resolutions and we will see if they have any questions or any discussion and then we will proceed from there.

Mayor, one of these is getting ready to be close to the end of its term, isn't it?

I believe that we've had one bill that's already dropped off this year.

These three still go on for a couple of years. Yeah. OK. The one here is. One fell off. This is the last year for it. We still have three left. Yeah, in the front of your book, it has the timeline.

On the abatements. I think the top one is the one that fell off. I didn't believe.

Yeah, the last year was 25 pay 26.

Are your employee numbers staying about the same?

Yes.

I was looking at that. On the three that we have here, one of them went from 670 to 788. Yeah.

I mean, you always see fluctuation from year to year in volume and employee headcount. But overall, it's pretty consistent.

Yeah. We were considering those limits just a tad bit, went from 798 to 788, but the other two are well over, well over their number.

Yeah, if you look at our annual volume, you know, last year we were roughly two more than same for this year for the number of castings that we are shipping.

Okay.

So very consistent.

Mr. Mayor, does anything need to be changed in the wording? of a motion since we're doing these all three together. Yeah, the motion just needs to say that we're passing and just list, I believe, all three resolutions in the motion to approve.

Actually, you're going to approve the CF1s. The resolution's already passed. That's just the resolution that goes with the CF1s. OK.

I make a motion to approve the CF1 Statement of Benefits for the Personal Property Resolution 7-2015, Resolution 8-2016, and Resolution 6-2022. Second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Compliance with state of the benefit CF1 tax abate for racing real estate LLC. Corey King.

How we doing?

Good. Doing well, thank you. See ya. Does council have any questions or discussion for Corey?

Mr. Mayor, I would move to approve the CF1 tax abatement for Grayson Real Estate LLC.

I'll second. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you, Corey. Thank you. Appreciate it. Compliance with statement of benefit CF1 tax abatement for Lee, Cuba. The council has anything we discussion, if not, when appropriate, I'd entertain a motion. In fact, business has picked up a little bit late.

I did today, actually, yes.

Thanks to our GEM partners.

But our underground pipe repair business is almost completely gone. Almost underground? But GM business is keeping us afloat. I'll make a motion to approve the CF1 for Raycuber.

I'll second. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? I'm abstaining. I'm sorry? I'm abstaining. Okay. I'm sorry, Craig. And you had me down twice. Do I have a second? Yeah, we've got a compliance statement of benefits if one tax abatement for manly properties. Okay. Well Mr. Mayor, I move for the approval of the CF1 tax abatement for Nan Lee Properties LLC. I'll second. Second by Judy. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? I abstain from that one also.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right now, Ordinance 11-2026, Imposing the Municipal Real Tax and Excise Surtax and Creating the Municipal Real Tax Fund. Mr. Pitman.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, that's number 11 there in your book. As I mentioned earlier at the public hearing, this would establish two different taxes, the real tax and the surtax. Excise surtax at $25 per vehicle that's subject to the tax. This does not increase the amount of taxes being paid by the current taxpayer. In the past, they were tacked on to the county's real tax and surtax, starting with passages of these taxes in 2026, effective 27. They aren't tacked. onto one another. So the $25 would not generate an increase to the taxpayer. And I listed the vehicles earlier that would be subject to the real tax. If anybody's got any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them.

I just had a quick question on the distribution of the revenues. How is that working? You know, do we get some of that revenue, like, as soon as each time somebody pays their, you know, fees at B&B, or is it? I don't know how frequently it's distributed. Right. It's monthly. Monthly, okay.

That's how the county gets it and distributes it to us. Well, I know that's how it does currently. After this, we'll get it straight from the state.

Okay. But it'll come in monthly installments?

It has been.

Okay.

And I know you've said this. I just want to reaffirm it. This is not a new tax. This is basically taking what currently goes to the county, and instead of being distributed to the county and the county giving it to us, it's going to come directly to us. Correct.

And their tax was imposed in 2005. That's when they adopted the tax, and it's been $25 since that time, I believe. And it still is $25, so we're just matching what the county is already charging.

And also as a matter of clarification, we have to do this in order to qualify for the community crossings and those grants. Correct. I would make a motion that we approve ordinance 11-2026. I'll second.

All those in favor signify by aye. By aye. Anyone opposed? I would entertain a second passage. So moved. Second. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We will wait and do our third and final passage at our next meeting. We'll move on to Ordinance 12-2026, Establish an Ordinance for Donation Fund.

Yes, the city currently receives donations for different activities that it has and right now we're collecting donations to have a larger fireworks. One thing that we need to do is separate those funds from other funds and keep a separation. So I do need this resolution so I can establish the fund and I would ask for you to pass it tonight, all three passages. is that is that set up really for different funds even besides if it's a follow-up or something else exactly yes that's why we wrote it as a donation fund so i'll have a line for fireworks we'll keep that money separate in the fund okay i'll make the motion to approve ordinance 12-2026 second i'm sorry who's the second right okay

All those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed, entertain a second passage.

I'll make a motion for the passage of Ordinance 12-2026, second passage.

Second. All those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? If so, I'll entertain a motion to suspend the rules. So moved. Second. We have Larry and Kathy, all those in favor signify by aye. Aye. This time I will entertain a third and final passage. Mr. Mayor. Second. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. All opposed? All right, thank you. Okay. Resolution 5-2026, adoption with official city flag.

good evening in your packets you should have a rendering of the proposed city file this is something that we would like to for the city council to adopt um we as you can as you can see have opted to go with the bedford city seal and that's just for branding continuity um because it's something that is synonymous with the city already it's already part of our letterhead and on vehicles and it just continues to keep our brains strong.

So when we present this flag, do you sing?

I would definitely advise against that. Larry just went no so he knew what to practice.

If you're going to back me up, Larry, then I'll try.

How fast do you think we can get these put up? So?

So we have already ordered some sample sizes just to kind of play around with what we think is going to look best at our municipal sites and we should have the sample sizes in I would say within the next couple of weeks but a larger order usually takes at least 10 business days to turn around. So probably by the end of July if it was passed today. Are these going to be 3x5 flags? Well, that's what we're assuming, but we've ordered 3x5s and then also 2x3s just to see how they compare on the different size poles that we have.

Will we be presenting these to, as an example, career firefighters, career police officers? and so on, who served 20 years with the city, would they get one of these every time?

We've not. We've not came up with that policy yet. Okay. Once we, if we get the flag in place, then that's something that we will review and look at different options on how we want to present these flags to our employees or any other circumstance that we really want to look at. Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 5-2026. Second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Resolution 6-2026, resolution approving plan commission, order an enlargement of TIF area. Heidi? I apologize, I think we have someone else on the agenda. Yes.

Hi, my name is Heidi Benitez with Baker-Tillard Municipal Advisors. Just a little bit of a summary of the resolution. This council meeting is a third step and a four step process to amend and expand the city's consolidated TIF area for four different new developments. The process started with the adoption of a declaratory resolution by the RDC at its main meeting. And the plan commission adopted an order approving the declaratory resolution at its meeting last week. So if approved by the council, the process would go back to the RDC for a public hearing and confirmatory resolution at its July meeting. And then Baker Tilley would prepare and distribute a tax impact statement to all overlapping units prior to that meeting. So the actions would reset three sites currently in allocation area number one and east gate allocation area into new 25-year allocation areas. So resetting that time for that TIF. The existing allocation areas expire after 2036 and 2039. So really it's to maximize the TIF capture for the new projects and ensure TIF collections remain healthy in future years. So going into the analysis, which kind of outlines the numbers. On the second page, you'll see the first, Stone City Allocation Area, which will be composed of the Del Taco Restaurant. We are estimating it to be assessed at about 500,000, with TIF collections about 10,000. On the next page, the Wawa Allocation Area will consist of the Wawa Gas Station convenience store and we're estimating it to be assessed at about $1.3 million with the total tip at about $36,000. And then the next page, the Limestone Edge Allocation Area will be composed of a rental residential project of about 28,000 square feet total throughout a few different units. We're estimating it to be assessed at about 2.8 million and we have taken into effect the SCA1 deductions for 2% parcels. So we're estimating the TIF to be about 50 to 60,000 after those deductions are put into place. and then that number for the last area this is um that's causing us to expand the consolidated tiff so this is another rental residential project at about 46 000 square feet um estimating it to be assessed at about 4.5 million and again we put into place those two percent new deductions from sea one and we are estimating tips to be about 80 to 90 000 after those SCA1 deductions go into place. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

This Cardinal Crossing, that's the new one out by Arby's, correct?

Number 4? No, the Cardinal Crossing has been down on 39th Street, I do believe. The limestone edge is the Hoosier Outdoors project, I believe.

Next to Holiday Inn, right?

Yes, uh-huh.

And these four different parcels are also all undeveloped land. So everything really is an additional, it wasn't really capturing any TIF existing.

The new allocation area proposal in the 2026 enlarged area is the Cardinal Crossing. That's the one on 39th Street.

There's a motion that we approve Resolution 6-26. Second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you. Thank you, Heidi. All right. Request approval and acceptance of estimate four is tax abatement SB1, real estate improvements 802 16th Street and approval resolution 7-2026, establishing deductions for real estate improvement tax abatement. Greg? Thank you, Mayor.

You have a resolution before you that if you approve the abatement would establish an abatement for up to 10 years for real property tax abatement for this particular application for abatement. The Redevelopment Commission earlier considered the abatement and they had scored the abatement and have a recommendation to do a 10-year abatement if you approve the abatement. So the period of time has been established and recommended by the Redevelopment Commission at 10 years. So if there is a motion to pass and approve this resolution then you will also need to identify in the motion the percentage each year for the The abatement, that is normally a reducing percentage each year, at 10% each year for a 10-year abatement. So you'd have 100% the first year, 90, 80, down to 10% in year 10, which in year 11 would be zero. You also need to identify what percentage you want to charge for a fee. So the city collects a portion of the abated taxes up to 15% or 100,000, whichever is less. So traditionally you've done 15%. You max that out. And then you also need to identify what economic development organizations, you'd like that fee to be distributed to that. We have four, um, Bedford Redevelopment Commission, Lawrence County Economic Growth Council, Bedford Revalidation Incorporated, and Bedford Urban Enterprise Association. Those are eligible entities to receive that fee. You can divide it up among all four. You can divide it or pay it to one. Most recently, you've been doing the Redevelopment Commission 100%. So, um, I believe that's all for this resolution.

Any discussion? So Dan, what are they wanting to do in this building?

What they're doing, Donna's wife has purchased the property at 802 16th and The project's going to take a building that's been vacant for a long time and make it useful once again. That's the main thing. But they want to build out the interior of the building to create a co-working and business development center. The entrepreneurs of today don't use the traditional model of holding bricks and mortar offices because you've got to pay rent and all these other things. They rent space on an as-needed basis, and that's kind of what this project is about. You know, Bon and his wife have invested significantly in the downtown area, and they would like to see a space that entrepreneurs can use to conduct meetings, to brainstorm, things of this nature, and that's what they're going to finish it out and use it for. I think that's fairly accurate, isn't it, Bon? Yes. And if you don't recognize the address of the building, it's the old IGA building for us old folks. It advances after that.

So if this use changes, let's say in five years, the use of this building changes. Does that fall for the tax abatement?

It could, depending on the use, but that's why we have the compliance statement each year to review. There is a procedure to claw back that abatement earlier than that. You don't have to wait until that if there's some major change. What's that procedure exactly? The council can actually file a petition to stop the abatement to recall it. If they're not complying with the SB1.

We've actually been through that process one time with Manchester Tank.

It looks like I don't have current number of employees as current members wanting to retain retain one employee.

Yeah, I mean, I have plans to hopefully have another staff member there, but just me for now, because I can't guarantee that that'll happen.

With the recommendation of the RDC and the scoring, I would make a motion that we approve the tax abatement.

I'll second it. So you're approving Resolution 7-2026? Sorry, yeah, I was trying to. Okay, that's fine. I just want to get it in the motion. Yeah, approving Resolution 7-2026.

Sorry, I was looking for one page. In the abatement.

Do you want to go ahead and put that into one motion? So also Greg just wants to do the one motion passing the resolution and also the percent and then who it goes to in one motion.

And you said it's gone to economic development mostly?

It's required the statute states that the city council has to direct the Lawrence County Auditor to distribute the fees to one or more public or non-profit entities established to promote economic development within the city. So you have to choose one or more economic development.

Okay, maybe say they did it lately. It's been going. It's been the redevelopment commission. Redevelopment, yeah. We can change that if we want. We can change that. You can approve it in any order before however you choose. But do I need to put that all in my motion? That's Greg's request. I'll be putting one in motion. I think so.

I make a motion to approve Resolution 7-2026 that we do a 10-year abatement going from 100% down to 0% at 10% increments. And that we do 75% to the Bedford RDC and 25% to Lawrence County Economic Growth Council.

I'll second that.

Okay.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Everyone opposed. Thank you. Now we have Request Approval and Acceptance of Chili Red Investments Tax Abatement SB1 Real Estate Improvements 2535-39th Street and Approval Resolution 8-2026 Establishing Deductions for Real Estate Improvements Tax Abatements. Craig?

Thank you, Mayor. This abatement's just a little bit different. We've done one other before this for a residential purpose. So the use of the property is actually residential, not business, not commercial. And it's not manufacturing equipment. So it falls under a different statute. in this particular case it was presented to the redevelopment commission earlier and they scored the abatement and recommended a maximum term for the abatement at five years you're limited to a five-year abatement on residential something that's a little different for this abatement you have to you're limited to 10 of the area of the city on these types and you have to find that Um, it's residentially distressed area. So that particular area where this abatement would apply needs you have to find within this resolution based on the SB one and information given to you that it's a residentially distressed area. And those factors are listed there in the resolution A through F under Section one. um in addition to that you also have to make the same findings you did on the last one um what percentage of fee you want to um collect and their same limits 15 or 100 000 whichever is less you also have to establish the percentage each year that it'll be abated so um standard would be a reducing by 20% each year, so 180, 60, 40, and 20 in the final year.

I believe that's it.

I know the owners are here, and Dan, of course, to answer any questions.

And just one piece of clarification on the SB1, Section 3, on the current number of employees. The number you see in there is the number of construction workers that will be involved in construction. Those are not current permanent employees. That will be right now, it will just be Mr. and Mrs. Morris, and then eventually they're going to hire up to ten people, just for clarification.

I'll make a motion to pass resolution 8-2026, tax abatement starting at 100%, dropping 20% for five years. Am I right, Greg? Yes. Okay. And also to distribute the tax abatement to 75% to RDC and 25% to Lawrence County Growth Council. And 15%?

I'm sorry. At 15%? Yep.

I'll second that one as well. All right. All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. All those opposed? All right. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Just for clarification, I may have missed it. In Ryan's motion, did he specify the 15%? I think so.

Okay. I'm assuming so.

Okay. Just for clarification, it was the 15%. I didn't catch that he actually put the 15%. So, just for clarifying, the 15% on that abatement also. Okay. Alright, moving on, we still get Arts and Education Center.

june 2026 update linda henderson okay good evening um as you can see you have your handout uh story continues to be doing very well uh better now you can see that uh a better model for um At this time, it was $33,241. Last year, at the same time, it was $17,000. Overall revenue at $37,824. Last year, it was well over $23,000. And our railroad continues to be strong, and I expect those numbers to continue to improve as well. Grant update, we did receive notification that we're receiving for the fourth year Duke Energy Grant at $3,000, but that grant is totally dedicated to the skilled showcase, skilled trade showcase that's scheduled for October 1st, and we're continuing to do that. Last, when I was here in April, I shared with you all that we had a new opportunity. We've been contacted by Trilogy Health Services and by exploring buying out some space for us. Kathy Burlington with the Growth Council and I had a Zoom call this afternoon. We're moving forward with that. Actually, they may actually want more space, and they are going to be doing a site visit in July. the state of Indiana site for their employee trainings. And they partner with the School of Nursing out of New York. And their employees will either be getting an LPN license or getting their RN. So it's a huge opportunity for us. We will be the site for the state of Indiana. They are expanding into Indiana and Michigan. their employees by May of next year, no later than September. We will be ready for them. The issue will be they don't get anything lined up with the state of Indiana so that the school of nursing that's coming to Indiana has Indiana credentials so that they can deliver the training. So some of that's out of our hands, but we'll be ready for them. New collaboration. Joe Vorce and I met with staff from ROI, their new momentum initiative. The ROI, Regional Opportunity Initiative, they received a Department of Defense grant to focus on microelectronics workforce development initiative to help strengthen the pipeline for the security defense employees. launched the momentum initiative at Westgate. And at Westgate, they partnered with the schools in and around Westgate. The next step will be to launch at Stonegate and partner with the schools around us. And we will be working on that in June. in the fall, probably won't actually have students in the middle of schools until probably sometime in the spring of 27. So 27 is going to be a really big year for us with Trilogy and then with the Momentum project going on. New initiatives, it's all pretty much the same, as you can see. We did partner with the Lawrence County Home Extension Homemakers at the Dane-Winestone Heritage Festival. We had an art show, if you missed it, you missed it, but we have roughly 50 people come to the art show. They want to make the art show an anchor event for the Limestone Heritage Festival, and we were excited to be a partner with that. Kids camp registrations, our numbers have been, we actually had to cancel two of the kids camps because we didn't have the registrations make the camp happen we've got two scheduled for july we're going to do some uh additional marketing uh but uh there's a lot of competition for kids programs this summer more than have been in a while and also with the economies it is it's uh you know eighty dollars is a tank of gas for an suv and that's what camp costs to come to stonegate um we will be in the fall offering a introduction to keyboard becky munson will be providing that both for dance and youth, and we hope to introduce introduction to guitars. as well this fall. We are waiting on a couple of grants, a notification we applied for the rating grant 2.0 for arts and we're waiting to hear a notification if we've got that grant and if so how much. Our request was roughly $191,000 and that's over 30 months so but we'll see. So we're looking forward to hearing on that. Any questions? Okay, very good, thank you. Thank you, thank you.

Is there anything for discussion? Yes. Actually, at the Board of Works today, we did the road closures in preparation for that. And during the process of accepting donations for the fireworks, we anticipate this year again that all the fireworks will be funded from donations. The way it's looking, which is a great thing. We want to thank all of our businesses and citizens and everyone for that contribution to the fireworks. One other note that I will make, back whenever the council chambers was in City Hall a few years ago, at that point in time they were in the council room, the Marquis Churchill Council Chambers. So as you notice on the wall, I brought that marker over here and put it up into this building for that reason. We named this building a little bit differently because this building now is being used for all of our meetings. The park board met here earlier today. All of our pension boards will meet here at this time. Basically every board that we have now will be utilizing this facility and go from there. Anything else from the council? I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor signify by aye.