City Council - Regular Meeting

I want to welcome everyone this evening. City of Bedford Common Council, Bedford Municipal Hall, 1617 K Street, Tuesday, July 21st at 7 p.m. We're going to start our meeting off this evening with a public hearing.

Thank you, Mayor. We'll open the public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is consider proposed additional appropriations the following additional appropriations in excess of the budget for 2026 are subject to the hearing fund 2201 motor vehicle highway for buildings a $500,000 additional appropriation and for machinery and equipment $100,000 for a total proposed additional appropriation of $600,000 and the purpose is construction of street garage and the purchase of that equipment I'll open it up to the public for any comments that they may have. You can come up to the podium and state your name. You have two minutes.

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Keith, will you lead us in prayer, please? Yes.

Bow your head, please. Heavenly Father, thank you for this day. Thank you for this opportunity for us to get together as a city council and a community to decide on the business for our city. Lord, just please grant us wisdom this evening as we do so and just be with everyone here at the meeting and all of our citizens of this community. Keep them safe. Keep our employees safe and healthy and prosperous and just continue to bless us, Lord. In Christ Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Amen.

Kathy, would you lead us in the place, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, calling our meeting to order. We have approval of minutes. from the June 16th regular meeting.

Motion to approve as presented.

Second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Any opposed? Moving on to old business, we have a compliance with statement of benefits CF1, tax abatement for Stone City products, personal property, 600 ton damping press line.

Stewart.

yes please give us just a little history in what's taking place up there how things are going reference to your abatement then we'll see if the council has any questions this is a 600 ton stamping line one of our larger presses we use it primarily for appliance automotive and electrical and HVAC work. So it's currently operating 80 hours a week, two shifts, one of three 600-ton presses that we have. So we try and keep it very busy. We do appreciate the tax abatement that the city's granted us in the past.

Council have anything for discussion? Nothing. I'd entertain a motion to approve.

I'll make a motion to approve the CF1 for Stone City Products.

I second.

All those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you, Stuart. We appreciate it.

Thank you all so very much.

Thank you. Next, under old business, we have table third and final passage, Ordinance 10-2026, Mending Chapter 33, Employment Policies 33.50, Health Insurance. I also carve out. So this is our third and final passage on this ordinance. I do want to bring some information to the attention of the council that we received here the last couple of weeks. Just for your general information before you vote on this, because I don't want to advise you and then whatever actions taken tonight, then there's discussion about what we may be facing in the future. Of course, we have our medical insurance with AIM, who we've been with for a few years now after we had extremely high premium information come back from Blue Cross. We met with them the other day, went over some general information, and that's what it is at this time. The way they do this, we'll come back and we'll have some general information. They will tell everyone that is in the plan what the max increase would be. So at that time, they gave us what the max increase could possibly be, and they advised that that could go up to as high as 9%. So that's the highest it will go for anyone that's in the plan. They will now go back. and look at the individual plans for the different cities and look at their claims to see where their claims are at. And then the first part of August, they will come back and tell us what percent that is going to go up. Whether if it's 1%, 5%, if it's 9%, whatever it's going to be from zero to nine, that's the information that we've been given. But we will be receiving that information the first part of August. Whatever action is taken or not taken on the Carvel spousal, yes, Brian, we talked about this earlier. Spousal. Yeah, spousal carve out. From my understanding, AIM has to have that information, what we are doing by August the 10th, no later, so that they can start doing what they need to do to see what we're going to do. Now, whenever this gets a little bit further down the road, AIM will have different plans and different options that we can take, which of course will have all different effects as far as to what the city pays, the employee pays, just as insurance goes. And then we can look at the plans that are options that we have to take and we can look at those and see which one best fits the city as far as to our revenue, the total pictures to how we want to address that as far as to what plan we may take as far as to whatever increases might be. So I want to be sure and let the council know that we just got that information so that you are aware of it before you take any action tonight or whatever actions not taken from that standpoint. One other point that I want to make, I want to make this to the audience also and for everyone on Facebook, as mayor, I feel like it is my duty whenever we're looking at shortfalls to give the council options as far as to ways that we can try to take back revenue from that standpoint. It's a very difficult job, as the council knows. But that's something that I feel like is my job. And I think some council members have came and suggested different things to look at also. So whenever we do this, this affects all of our city employees from that standpoint. Some it affects adversely, some it doesn't affect. Whenever we look at the 9%, depending on how that goes, it may affect all of our employees again because we don't know for sure where that's going to go yet. So there's a lot of unknowns here, but as Billy stated here the other day as far as to what we're anticipating on the property tax loss, she made that statement as to what we're looking at. So it's up to the council as to how you want to address this from that standpoint. There's many options out there as to how you can do it. So I'm gonna leave it at that. And if the council has any thing for discussion or questions for me, we'll be glad to answer them the best we can from that standpoint. So with that being said reference to the carve out, is there any discussion comments or anything before I ask if there's a vote.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Is there any way that we can pause this for the current employees and then implement it over time? Well, I view it we've made a promise to our employees in reference to their insurance for their spouses. Is there any way we could include the current employees and then the new employees coming on board would be advised of the carve out?

I mean, the council can take whatever action they want to take. I mean, the bottom line is that the council has to look at it at some point in time, whether if it's tonight or if it's next year, as to the revenue loss that we're anticipating that we're going to be losing from that standpoint. We're looking at a little over $200,000 is what's estimated in savings from this. If you do away with that $200,000 and grandfather everybody in, 167 roughly employees, 167 by the time those people start leaving, it's going to take a long time, unfortunately, to generate that revenue. But whenever this comes down to what action wants to be taken, it's completely up to the council because the council is the one that funds the city. My only problem is if the council, however they fund the city, if they don't fund it appropriately, then if I'm here or another mayor's here, if the money's not there, then they're going to be looking at cutting services and layoffs. So that's something that also, of course, the council needs to be aware of just from that standpoint as to what action they take or if they don't take, is that if this progresses the way that it's been discussed and Billy has talked about, at some point in time, there may be other actions that have to be taken. I've talked to one group whenever we talked about the carve-out. I said, you know, if we don't do the carve-out, then in two years or whatever, if we're short this money, then maybe we should be looking at layoffs. I mean, and it's a give and take. I mean, however... the council wants to look at it from that standpoint. I mean, I agree. You can look at this a hundred different ways. If you want to keep your insurance up, and if you think you're going to lose some employees, keep your employees, but then you may have to cut your employee staff. And no one knows exactly for sure how bad the scenario is going to be, other than what projections that Billy's getting on these property tax caps, particularly because The lit part of it, which is a little different, I still believe there may be changes coming next year on some of the lit stuff. But I think the property tax is pretty much appears to be locked in place. So the council can do whatever they want to. I mean, they can approve this. They can deny it. And we're going to talk about other options. We're not just looking at this option on tonight. We've got the wheel tax stuff that we're looking at hopefully will be passed. generate the city more money I talked to all the council members some time ago and went to the state and got the food and beverage tax approved from that standpoint to help generate extra revenue but when things come from the state whenever you get stuff it always appears for the most part they always have strings attached as to what you can spend that money for and it's it's It's kind of a game at times that we've already been looking at it. We're going to talk about it more in a minute. As some of that revenue, if that is, we look at passing the food and beverage tax, some of that money can be shifted to other locations to free up some other money for the general fund. But we're just looking at a substantial loss. So to answer your question, council can take whatever action they would like to take. It's entirely up to you.

Sam, we looked at maybe not as good a policy as what we have, a little Less of a policy to be able to incorporate that?

That's something that will come up whenever we see if we're going to 1% or 9% as to our revenue policy that we're going to have. But there again, I understand your thought on that.

Right.

But the problem of it is whenever you go to your employees and say, okay, for everybody the carve-out was going to affect, we're going to take care of them, but everybody else, you're going to pay more for your insurance. So it's a double-edged sword no matter how you do it to try to adjust it. Is one way better than the other one? Yeah. I don't know.

And I guess I have a question. Have we talked about any kind of going to do any employee raises this year? I mean, I know we can't get all that figured out yet.

I'm meeting with the clerk treasurer we met this morning and came up with some dates here. this next week that we're going to meet over the budget and start looking at where we're at with our our revenue and see what's going on but by the same token you have to stop and realize to a point we need to know what you're doing about this because this is a two hundred thousand dollar increase in revenue if this takes place so we have to have all that information after finalize the budget exactly. Looking at raises, if we're not going to look at stipends again, I know nobody likes stipends. I'm not crazy about stipends either, and I understand why people aren't. But one thing, we talked about our TIF money earlier, which is a huge benefit to the city because on those stipends helps the city greatly because we don't have that much in our general fund. If it's going to cause us more issues, we can pay for all those police and fire stipends out of TIF money, which with the amount of police and fire officers we have is a huge part of that stipend amount. So there again, it's just the total picture of what you want to look at and basically what you want to do, what you feel like is the best thing to And that can be across the board. Everybody can have a different opinion on what they feel like is the best thing to do. It's been mentioned as far as easing this in and trying to do half of it for this year or whatever and half of it the next year and stuff. You can't do that with the plan because there's so many different things in it. My input was from the standpoint with the question that I got with that, I said, Well, if you're wanting to do 50% of it this year and 50% of it next year, and that's your goal, you know, I have to say my input is if that's your feeling on it, then just wait and do it next year and just do it all in one year, and then it'll be 100%. And you're going to be doing the same thing if you do 50 and 50. It's going to be 100%. And I don't know if that's going to – this is giving the employee some time from now until the first of the year. Some spouses may not want to look for other work. Some spouses may decide that it might be cheaper if they just don't work. So they don't have insurance. I mean, there's so many variables in all of this for it to play out.

It's very difficult to do.

If we do wait and see what the increases are going to be, we have to do something right now. If not, we can't do it in August. And I'm just...

To my understanding, they have to have an answer on the carve-out before August the 10th to give that information to the insurance company for them to start doing their work for the carve-out for all the insurance. And we won't know what the increase is going to be until probably, we could have it by the 10th, but it could be just a little bit after that too. It's supposed to be the first part of August. I know there's a lot of discussion on this and a lot of things to consider. And I guess I just want to know whenever the board, whenever you're done with discussion, because at that point in time, I'm going to ask for a vote one way or the other, whatever takes place, and then go from there.

As I understand it too, Mr. Mayor,

carve out where there's no way we could include expectant mothers in particular the child that's being carried by that mother on the plan has to be after they're married or after the birth is that correct i i don't see how you could accomplish that because then again and some employees might be fine with it but you're going to have other employees that are going to say okay my wife's on the spice the carve out you know she don't have any insurance coverage at all but just because my wife's pregnant you're going to cover her

I don't see how there's any really justification.

And this plan has been, you know, they're pretty much set. Actually, we can tell them to a point what we're kind of wanting to look at, but they actually will come back with different plans, different setups and things, and we can try to tweak them a little bit, which is what's best for us. That's one nice thing about AIM is they try to work with us, accommodate us on what's best for us instead of some of the big carriers coming in and just saying, this is what it is. Take it or leave it.

So if we pass this this evening, and then we go through the August thing and we get the numbers back and they're not as bad as what we think, go back the other way.

And just asking.

I mean, I don't... I guess, Larry, my train of thought on that, if the numbers aren't as bad as what they could be like, if it's a four instead of a nine, we're still talking about a revenue loss and we're still talking about having to come up with more money to pay our insurance.

I mean, that's just the way it works from that standpoint.

Now, you do understand it's a spousal carve-out only if the spouse has a job and is offered insurance. So a spouse that does not have insurance with their job or if they're not employed, they still stay on.

Other comments, questions, or discussion? Go ahead, Craig.

This is a fairly common proposal nowadays in business. Everybody's having an issue with the insurance. And I mean, a lot of companies have gone to this now. We're honestly kind of behind what a lot of people are doing. It's unfortunate we don't like to do it. It is common.

I think, too, you can tell from our hesitation that we do not want to do this. I think I can speak for everyone up here. This is a part of this position that we hate. But do we rip the Band-Aid off now, or do we do it in a year, basically, is what it sounds like?

you don't have to do it at all from that standpoint but right yeah that's what we've got to decide well i think the big discussion was whenever they talked about the 50 50 and that's not doable i mean i it's there again it's just up to the council as to how they want to look at it and how they want to address it thing that i struggle with with this and i understand what craig's you know referring to as far as other businesses i mean that's that is commonplace um i just wish

wish we had more time to have to make this decision before next month. I feel like there's a lot of information out there that could be collected that could make this question clear for us as far as the numbers across the board, when our insurance rates are going to go up, how many people exactly are going to be affected, and how much we're going to have. So that is the thing that I'm still come within the sense that you know I don't know in purses all chance we'll have to do this next year as well so I get that notion of this too that is what I on your the information HR sent out email to everybody reference to the he currently has 154 full-time employees

for eligible health insurance of those 137 employees are enrolled in the city's health care insurance plan. We received 76 survey responses. Out of the 76 employees who responded, 20 indicated they would be affected by spousal carve-out. So we can't, I'm not going to demand that our employees fill this paperwork out if they don't want to fill it out. from that standpoint. So with that information that we collected, which is all we can use, is what we collected from our employees, we're looking at an approximate cost savings. I said $200,000. It could be as high as maybe $209,000. It's going to be in that ballpark, and it's going to vary some because with the time that we've received this information from everyone that filled the forms out, by the first of the year, Part of their spouses may have different jobs, may not have jobs. I mean, all of this is a possibility to change some of these numbers somewhat. And I will say, I think it's worth noting, which they're here this evening, basically the whole fire department filled all of their responses out and sent them back in. So those numbers do reflect the fire department with the number of responses that we got. A lot of the other city departments, for whatever reason, the employees didn't respond. Our savings may be this, and if we had several employees that didn't respond to that it's going to affect, it could be $250,000. But this is with the responses that we got using that information. That's just what we know at this point in time.

Do we have a one-time enrollment like, say, what you said a while ago? Some of the spouses may decide maybe it's cheaper for me just to stay at home. Can they come back to the plan if they do that?

For my information and an issue, you may want to go to the podium and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my information, they have qualifying events. So to my understanding of that, if we have an employee, her wife's working, she has access to insurance. If she... whatever is no longer working and has excess availability for the insurance, then she would be able to come back onto our insurance.

Okay, all right, I'm sorry. Okay.

So there's different qualifying events. Right.

Just asking, because you brought that up a while ago, and that's a legit thing. Some of them may say, you know, it's cheaper for me to stay home and take care of the kids, and I get my insurance back.

And we may have somebody's wife that has the availability to get a job, and it may be better insurance than what the city has.

Does it also work the other way, that if they get a job with insurance during the year, then they have to drop off? That would be my understanding.

That's my understanding.

But hypothetically, and I'm not saying this is going to happen, and I hope it wouldn't happen, but, you know, say you have 10 employees that say, you know, the health insurance that you have is terrible at wherever I work, or the wives, rather, where I work, and they just decide to quit their jobs, and that, in turn, would affect the numbers of savings.

Okay. This whole thing...

and change drastically because even at the time frame that we're looking at now and even throughout the year, it can change.

You said AIM can tailor policies to fit us.

They can try and work with us. They offer different policies. They'll have four, six or however many different...

It's the same plans. They just offer different deductible levels, basically.

Well, there's not a plan that... where the spouse could buy back in?

That would be up to the council. That's up to us if we want to do something like that. They have a specific set of rules as to how spouses are eligible or not eligible. If the council decided they wanted to have a buyback, that's up to you all. That's just on our end of the policy.

We talked about that a little bit last time on some of those expenses, what that would cost if you had to carve out and someone's wife wanted to be on our insurance, what that monthly fee would be for them to be on it. It wasn't cheap, but some of them may feel like that it would be a benefit to even pay that much. I don't know, but that would be fairly detailed. Personally, which I've not heard of that any place. I didn't know if that was an option. Taking place or not.

None of the polls that came back were interested in that much money. A few of the polls said they would be willing to pay to keep a spouse on, but not at that price.

Well, it is a pretty heavy increase, what that number would be.

Yeah, it's the city's, basically what the city is paying from an employee to an employee spouse policy or employee child to a family policy? I'm sorry, I don't have anything in front of me. Billie, do you have the number?

Yeah, from a family plan to employee and children, it's $8,700. An employee and spouse to just employee, it's $15,758. And a family to just employee, saves $18,319.

Is that the employer cost? That's the employer cost.

So what if, big what if, but what if we say, what if we do have someone that's pregnant now? Then what if, would they have trouble, I wonder, you know, like mid- term, you know, to switch insurances? Like, where would that, I mean...

If we remember when we went from Anthem and we went to the AIM Medical Trust with UnitedHealthcare, there was a disruption. You know, people had to go back and have their doctor contact UnitedHealthcare and say, we've already been through this process. We don't want to redo it. It's a peer-to-peer type of thing. There were disruptions in service, but it's not say that their insurance company wouldn't pick them up because they're pregnant. Or an illness that they've, you know, doctoring.

Now all of a sudden they would have to.

And if they said, no, we're not picking you up, then they're not eligible for that insurance and they'd stay.

But the second the child is born, they're covered by the father's insurance.

The child is if the child decides to put the children on his insurance here.

So it's retroactive to the birth.

Yeah, they've got 31 days from a qualifying life event to get the children on the policy.

And I'm not trying to say anything, but the mothers that work for the city would be covered anyway.

Right, yeah, if the mother works here.

That's why I'm alluding to the fathers. And there's absolutely no way to cover the child once it becomes viable in the womb. It's still the father's child is where I'm coming from with that.

As much as I would like to be able to control the insurance, that's up to the insurance companies.

Okay.

And they don't consider a child in the womb as a dependent yet for insurance purposes.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome. Now I can tell you that some of the plans next year on our high deductible with the health savings account, Currently right now we're on the $3,500 plan, and we have a $4,750 out-of-pocket. And next year the medical trust is saying there's no longer an out-of-pocket. When you meet your deductible, you've met your out-of-pocket, and it's 100%. So hopefully I can bring that education out, maybe get some people over on that plan. That will help with costs, I think, if there's an increase. But I'm just throwing that out. That's how they set their plans up. It's the same health insurance. No matter which deductible you're on, we just have to choose which deductible and cost level we're comfortable with.

What were those numbers again, Denise?

Like on the high deductible? Yeah. Right now, we have a $3,500 high deductible. And our out-of-pocket is $4,750. So basically next year for that high deductible, your out-of-pocket is $3,500. It's the same as your deductible. So once you meet your deductible, you're 100% covered.

At this time, I think that we've discussed a lot of information. We are on our third passage, so we've had some time for the council to review this and look at it and ask questions. I think at this point in time, I'm going to ask to see if there's a motion, and whatever motion that is, then we will proceed and go from there, whether it's a motion to approve or if there's no motion, or there's a motion to deny it, or if there's a motion for More information, whatever that information the council feels like may be. I think at this point in time, I'm going to ask to see if there's a motion.

And we have to know this by August, correct?

If we're going to do that, do this carve out as my information has to be done by August. To apply for next year.

Correct. 7.

Start in 27 or start in 28?

7. January 1 of 27.

If we vote on it tonight, it will start January. What I'm saying is, if we tabled this, voted on it next month, then .

Well, and I think at that point in time, They're going to tell you, in my opinion, it's just to die for lack of emotion. Because if we bring it back next month, all the factors that's going to change from August of 26 to August of 27 are going to be unpredictable with part of the problem we're facing tonight. So, you know, if there's not going to be any action taken, then I would suggest that it just die for lack of emotion. And then if that's what the council wants to do, and then next year at this approximate timeframe or whatever, more than likely we'll be talking about it again unless we have a windfall of revenues someplace and go from there.

But at that point in time, are we going to have the same?

It's going to be the same scenario, basically. The scenario is- Certainly as far as what's going to be rate-wise the following year? Yeah.

You're just putting it off a year for whatever reason the council wishes to put off a year and go from there. So I will ask again if there's a motion. All right, it dies for lack of a motion. Okay, we will move on.

For third and final passage, Ordinance 11-2026, Municipal Will Tax and Excise Tax Surcharge Creating Municipal Will Tax Fund. Greg, do you want to hit on any of this? Or I guess I can ask, first of all, if the council, we've discussed this quite a bit in detail also, another way for us to generate revenue that will not affect our taxpayers other than we'll just be receiving the money rather than it going to the county. So if there's any questions or discussions, I would entertain that, and if not, I'll entertain a motion. So moved.

I was going to say I'll make the motion to pass ordinance number 11-2026. Second.

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

Thank you. Mayor, how often will we, and I think we've discussed this, but how often will we get that payout? Yes. Yes.

I think now we're ready to move on to new business.

Resolution 9-2026, additional appropriation construction of street department and purchase of the equipment.

David. Thank you, Mayor. I'm asking for two additionals tonight. I need an additional $100,000 to go on my equipment line. We've found a sweeper that is quite the buy. It's a holdover. Save us about $70,000 for what one would normally cost. So I'm a little short in my machinery account to do that. So I'm asking to increase my machinery account $100,000 appropriated. You want to do both of these at once?

Yeah, it's...

Okay. The other is if you, in your book, you've got a floor plan of our new building that we're generating a bid out, and it just gives you an idea of building layout. Additional appropriation is for $500,000, and it's just so when we get started on... The bidding process, if we accept the bid, we're going to need some money to start this project. So I'm asking. Put a half a million dollars in the building fund.

Part of this money, David, do you cover some of the equipment that goes in the building also?

Not this money. This is just the $500,000 building. We can use some of it for equipment, but I think that the basic use of that is for the building.

What are we doing with the old street sweeper? We're going to try to sell it? The old sweeper?

The old sweeper, we've not made the decision. I've not even talked to the mayor about how to dispose of it, but probably we'll do a bid for one of those programs. It seems to generate the best money.

Does that money go back in on an appropriator?

It goes back into the NBA.

Mr. Mayor, I would move for the approval of Resolution 9-2026.

First and a second. All those in favor, signify by aye.

Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you very much.

Request approval and acceptance of Jay Strauss Development LLC Tax Abatement SB1 Real Estate Improvement Bigby Coffee. 3232 Lisa Drive, and approving Resolution 10-2026, establishing deductions for tax abatement. Great.

I'll defer to Dan first to kind of describe the abatement.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I come to you tonight seeking a real property tax abatement for Strauss Development LLC, doing business as Bigby Coffee. The project will bring nearly a million dollar investment to the community and will be located at 3232 Lisa Drive, which is just off John Williams Boulevard. This establishment will be owned and operated by Jay Strauss and Kara Williams, who are with us tonight. Jay and Kara are well-known members of the local community, and they are passionate about customer service and the product mix that they're going to be bringing in. Bigby Coffee exists to build communities where people feel connected, valued, uplifted, and inspired. The idea is to create a community where people are energized by purpose, connected by community, and uplifted through everyday interactions. This location will be franchised by Strauss Development, LLC. We expect the local community will embrace these new products provided by Big B Coffee from the minute they open their doors. There will be many positive aspects to this project in addition to the products that they serve to the community. Once the abatement is expired, we expect a nearly $10,000 per year increase in the annual property taxes above what is currently being paid on this particular parcel. We also believe it will help alleviate the traffic congestion on 16th Street since there will be an alternative option for coffee less than a mile away. We ask for your support tonight of this abatement request and the project owners are here with me tonight to answer any questions you may have.

Council have any questions for Dan? Thank you, Dan. Thank you. All right.

Dan, I just want to, it looks like they're looking at 25, are these part-time or full-time employees or? Will this access off of John Williams Boulevard or is it going to access out of coming in through the jail? Access off Lisa Drive or JWB.

Right off of John Williams. Any other questions for Dan?

Great. All right. Thank you. This was presented to the Redevelopment Commission earlier this evening, and they scored the abatement. They scored it a 58, which under our ordinance results in a six-year abatement. The percentage that they recommend was 15% fee, and they left it up to the council to determine the allocation of the 15% fee among the four entities that Established are established to promote economic development Statute requires the abatement percentage would be for year one would be a hundred percent year 283 percent year 367 percent year for 50 percent year 534 percent year six 17 percent and then zero at year seven so that's the recommendation from the Redevelopment Commission Make a motion to approve that that you include the entities that fifteen percent

that schedule debate.

Okay. Any questions for Greg?

No questions? Move to approve Ordinance 10-2026, Mr. Mayor.

Whenever we're going to put in this approval, 15% and 15% is broken down? Preferably one, but I just want to clarify where we're at with this. Would you have any other information in reference to your motion other than approval on the 15% and where it goes?

No, Mr. Mayor. I think the city attorney did a fine job of explaining it.

we'll go ahead and excuse the the six years is there a second all right we got kathy with a second on that all those in favor signify by aye aye anyone opposed so now we will go back i'm abstaining from that okay we'll go back to the collecting the 15 and where that is to go and if so how it's broken down so is there a motion

Right. So over the six years, the first year, is that what you want?

No, there's a 15% fee that's collected that can be distributed to whatever percentage you choose. So you got to make a motion to allocate that 15% fee among that redevelopment commission. Morris County Economic Growth Council, Bedford Revitalization, or Bedford Urban Enterprise. It has to be an entity, for-profit or non-profit, that's established to promote economic development within the city.

Okay.

So that 15% fee is going to be collected by the auditor and then distributed.

We have to direct where that's going to go. I know

Most of the past payments have been 100% to the Redevelopment Commission. Some have gone a percentage to the Redevelopment Commission and some to the Economic Growth Council. I think it was $75.25 last month.

$75.25. That's up to you.

We just need a motion to approve the 15% and how you want it split and where it goes. Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve that. And let's do 75% again to redevelopment and 25% to the economic growth council. Is that okay?

Yep.

I'll second.

Okay.

All those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. We have amended Resolution 7-2025, Sunrise Suites LLC tax abatement. Eric Stoltz. Billy?

Yeah. Last year when you approved the resolution, there was a typo on one of the parcel numbers. One was duplicated. So this will just correct that parcel number. The county assessor needs the correct parcel number in that resolution.

Any discussion or comments?

Motion we approve amended resolution number 7-2025. I second.

All those in favor signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Staying from that one. Okay. Resolution 11-2026 authorizing a retention and recognition bonus for sworn officers. Chief Moore?

Thank you.

I was at the Board of Works earlier and asked for an approval of an agreement on if this resolution was to pass on how this would be returned if an officer was to leave or be dismissed for cause. That was approved. So you have a resolution in front of you on a retention recognition bonus. A few reasons, points I want to make as to why I'm here asking for this. Most of you know that we are short staffed and have been short staffed for quite a while. Typically, we're always busy taking calls. Summer months, our call volume increases dramatically and we're doing this with less officers. My concern is this adds additional stress and other personal issues to our officers. A few other things I want to make note is that while we're working short, we don't close our doors. So officers have had to work their scheduled days off. Officers had to give up vacation days. Officers are now having to work 10 and 12 hour days because we have to take these calls. Money's available. I think that it's wise to use this money wisely. It's there. I think that we should support and recognize our officers for the sacrifices they're making at this time. So that's why this resolution is in front of you and I'm here to ask for your support to recognize our officers and the things they're going through right now and that we can put some money back into their pockets and show that we appreciate what they're doing right now in some difficult times for our department.

Thank you, Chief. I kind of look at this from my perspective, from my seat as a standpoint of, you know, we're asking them to work some days off and work more time. They are getting compensated for that. They're getting paid. But I feel like what we're looking at is basically burnout standpoint of requesting them to work so much because of the lack of manpower So I agree as far as this is a line item in his budget money that they just didn't spend because they weren't staffed. Other personnel stepped up and did the job that they had to do to take care and answer all these calls and actually work additional hours because of being staffed.

Just to verify it too, Mayor, they don't get overtime. It's just regular time, right? Officers work more hours. They just get straight time overtime.

So it depends on if they've taken any time off. If they've taken time off during their pay cycle, they only get straight time back until they go above what they've already taken off. So if they've taken off eight hours, they've got to get those eight hours back before it's time and a half. We do have a budgeted overtime comp line that we pay out twice a year. But that can go pretty quick when we're looking at I know what's coming down the line the next couple months with vacations. We've got an officer that's getting ready to have a child. We've got an officer that's getting ready to have a surgery. And we're going to be working a lot of extra hours. And I agree with the mayor. I see the burnout happening, and that really concerns me that I can't continue to lose officers because of stress and burnout because we're asking 20 officers to do the job of 24, 25, 26 officers. And they're not getting their time off.

Chief, during the Board of Works meeting, if the officer leaves or is let go for just cause, they contractually will have to pay that money back to the city, correct? That's correct.

Related to this, because I personally support voting for this, but are we still actively looking for additional officers right now?

So I got one approved at the Board of Works that's been in the works for about four months. This is a long process. I've got two more right now that are in the works. They're about three months into the process. And if that all goes well, I anticipate coming to the board either in August or September. The thing about police and fire is these aren't quick hires. These can take three, four, and five months to get this done, and then it could be another eight to 12 months before we get them to the academy. So it can take 16 months before I can count on an officer to go out and take a call safely. So these are the reasons why we got to support our officers and keep them here so they know that we understand what they're going through. Because every department's going through it, but we're living it every day. And I'm just concerned with what I see coming up in the next few months. Our new officers are not going to be ready by then. My newest officer I just hired, he can't go to the academy until January. And then he's there for four months. So I can't count on him until maybe June or July of next year And he's already been here for three months.

And also in your book, you'll see, I think the clerk treasurer put it in there from the standpoint of whenever I referred to the burnout as far as to the police general fund, one vacant officer basically for all year, one vacant officer all year, and then another vacant position filled May 7th. So that was my point as far as working the short staffed as far as to whenever... Most of our employees are all right as forced to working. A lot of them are all right working some overtime. But it seems like, unfortunately, it gets to a point at times, and it seems like it's into the law enforcement now, that they're being asked to work a lot more hours. And I think it does create a burnout problem from that standpoint, depending on how much they have to work. Hopefully, this bonus will relieve a little bit of that stress. And to be honest with you, even for the spouses involved in these situations where they are required to work and work and work to come home with a little bit of bonus, which is in their line item, it's in their pay that hasn't been spent, sometimes helps things a little bit.

I would like to also note, you know, we had two officers retire on July 4th, and I had another one just leave last week on disability. So you can see where we've been, and now I've got three more seats to fill. Well, that's why when I talk about what I see what's coming down the road, that's what I'm also talking about. I'm also three additional officers short right now on top of what you already see here.

And this doesn't include your dispatchers, right? This is just the officers? This is just officers.

Our dispatch is completely staffed right now, and they have been for quite a while.

We're doing fine there.

Okay. Resolution 11. 2026. Do I have a motion? Yes, you do. Second. First and a second. All those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you. I wanted to hit briefly, as I talked a little bit ago on the food and beverage tax. I know all the council's familiar with that. We applied to the state. We got that granted. We're looking at that again as far as to extra revenue to try to come in to help SB1, what we're doing. I've asked Greg to kind of look into some of that. It's like everything. I mean, we have to go through a process, public hearing. We have to go through all the stuff to pass it. And then whenever that's passed, then, of course, since it comes from the state, they give you guidelines on how you can spend it, which is very unfortunate for cities because we know where we're hurting people. And we know where we need the money, but they put guidelines on how it can be spent. So I'm going to have Greg talk a little bit about this aspect as to some of this information. And then I'll continue talking now.

So 1% to 2% tax, depending on how we pass it, but most jurisdictions are 1% at this point. Likely what it would be.

It can't be used for just any general purpose. It has to be used for tourism-related purposes or economic. It can be used to pay bonds that are used for those purposes to build a structure or some improvement to the city that is economic development-related or tourism-related. So it can't be used for salaries unless that salary is for an individual who's exclusively job duties are related to tourism or economic development. Some things that it might be used for, just examples of things for economic development would be industrial park development, utility extensions serving commercial development, redevelopment and vacant commercial property, brownfield remediation, land acquisition, business incubators, technology parks, infrastructure serving new employers. And for tourism-related purposes, some examples are convention facilities, visitor centers, festival grounds, amphitheaters, museums, limestone heritage, attractions, trail systems, downtown beautification, public plazas, historic preservation projects. So it's pretty specific. And the State Board of Accounts is going to scrutinize how we spend this. If you decide to pass it at some point, It'd be good to, anytime there's an appropriation of those funds, that we show how it's related in our resolution or whatever to appropriate funds for that purpose, that we include how it's related to tourism or economic development. It can't be used for purchasing patrol cars, paying police officers, even though they may have some connection to that, or general paving of streets, things like that. not going to be able to use it for those purposes. Or fire station or equipment for fire. No, they're serving those areas and may loosely be related to economic development and tourism. You couldn't spend it on that. So a new city hall, for instance, the fire station we're talking about, you couldn't spend the money on something like that. Park maintenance, depending on the purpose, I guess, exactly what we're doing, but general park maintenance you couldn't spend. So pretty strict and limited on what you can spend the money on. So I don't know if that answers questions or helps at all, but.

Where would Otis Park fit into this considering, I would say, just guessing 50% of the customer base there is from outside of the city limits, maybe more. But, you know, there's a lot of, I mean, to me, I would think that is a tourism attraction for Bedford.

Yeah, depending on the specific expense we're paying with that. Yeah, I mean, it could be. That'd be more likely than anything else. Golf pro salary.

I'm just throwing something out there. I don't know if it'll be salaries. I'm kind of looking at Otis Park as fours, too. Fertilize whatever it takes to maintain the park. Anything there. A huge part of that, in my opinion, could be tourism. Yeah. To bring people into the city. Do we have an estimated income? Might be. Whenever we talk about estimates, it's always kind of crazy. I want to say that we're looking at the neighborhood of $650,000 to maybe $700,000. That ballpark. Whenever this was passed, I asked the legislator to see about including police fire in it because, of course, that's where we need it. They advised me that the legislator had basically gotten away from that, that they are very specific on how they want to do it. So I told them, and we went ahead and applied for it, and we received it. I mean, that's going to be my follow-up question here as to... The board wants me to get this prepared and start working with council to get this set up, to get this in place. It's my understanding that, frankly, council, we've discussed it some. My understanding is whenever this passes and goes into effect, it's not one of those things that starts January 1st. It starts so many days after the passage of the ordinance.

Some technicalities have to be sent up to you.

state it's collected the same way sales tax even though this is this is limited on what we could spend it for it would free up some other money that we're spending on that now in the general fund to be able to that's my opinion yes yep so i think that we might as well get ready and pursue it but i wanted to touch base with the council to see if it's something that they're ready to pursue now or if they

They want to wait a little bit if they want more information on it or how we want to play this out, however you... And this is only on food and beverage, correct? That's my understanding. And whenever you get down to technical, as to what's classified as food and beverage, it specifies in there if they sell stuff, food that's packaged or it's... There's a lot of detail that goes into it. And it was kind of strange. On a side note, I know one of the other mayors that did this, and they passed it, and he was upset because he felt like the people weren't turning it in. He sent one of his employees with a city charge card every day and told him to go eat at a different place and bring the receipt back. Because he felt like he had several establishments. They weren't paying it. But just on a side note, it was rather interesting. But there again, it's something that Up to the council. There's no doubt some people will not be for it and some will be for it. But I just want council input if you want us to start working on that to bring it back to you if you want to pass it or not.

Same from my standpoint. We'll have to figure out currently how to work it. revenue around, but again, figure out and get creative to figure out how to use that really however we want.

As I said earlier, I'm looking for revenue sources to however help with our budget situation. And this is one of them that a lot of cities have done. And it does bring in, you know, not a huge amount, but a substantial amount of money to try to plug some holes and free up some other money that can be used in other places. I will proceed with that, start working on that next couple of months, try to get something put together and bring to you. And we can get you down that road with that. Anyone have anything for discussion before I talk?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, I just want to remind people that school will be starting before our next meeting and ask people to please be mindful of the children in the school zones.

All right. I just want to make one note that I've talked with Ryan. I'm going to be exiting the Stonegate board and as long as the council is good with it, Keith has agreed that He will sit on that board. With not seeking reelection, I think it's very important with the funding that the city spends for that that we have a representative on that board starting soon because whenever we start doing budgets next year, that's going to be for 28, and that's whenever a lot of this is hit. Also, I did advise the Stonegate board the other day that we did have – $30,000 or so, whatever the dollar amount was at one time, in a fund for Stonegate that was left over when it was built. And we've been utilizing that money for any major repairs or anything. And we had a major unit, the HVAC that went out the other day, I think it was over $10,000. So we have depleted those funds. So any maintenance issues or anything that goes on with Stonegate now will also just be paid by out of the admin fund.

keep it in operation. I believe that's all I have.

Council, clerk, do you have anything else?

All right. At that point, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, signify by aye.

Aye.

Anyone?