Lebanon council adopts preliminary determination for new police headquarters, sets Nov. 3 referendum
June 19, 2026 | Lebanon City, Boone County, Indiana
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Lebanon Common Council on June 18 adopted a preliminary determination to enter a lease to finance a new police headquarters and voted to place a capital referendum on the Nov. 3, 2026 general-election ballot.
City finance consultant Catherine Fanello of Dinsmore & Shohl told the council the project exceeds the 2026 controlled-project referendum threshold ($20,605,991) and therefore required two public hearings before the council may make a preliminary determination. Emma Adlam of Baker Tilly presented two financing scenarios — an "estimated" and a "maximum" — both showing roughly $45,000,000 in net proceeds. Adlam said the maximum legal par amount used for the city’s documents is about $52.165 million and described a legal-maximum interest assumption of 5.5 percent that produced a maximum annual lease rental payment of $4,689,000; under that maximum scenario she said the advertised tax-rate impact would translate to a $216 annual increase for a median $250,000 home based on current assessed value.
Why it matters: the council may adopt a preliminary determination that starts a 30-day window during which at least 500 registered voters and property owners can file a petition to force an election on the debt. If no valid petition is filed, the city will proceed with a voluntarily scheduled referendum. Council members said they intend the advertised numbers to represent the legal maximums required by state law and that actual project scope and final costs should come in lower through scoping and design.
Police chief (as introduced at the meeting) described frequent mechanical and structural problems at the existing station, including recurring HVAC and electrical failures, mold, pest infestations and overcrowded evidence storage. The chief said independent consultants recommended replacement rather than continued repairs and told the council, "If it was my house, I would tear it down." The council and staff encouraged tours of the current facility so members and the public could view the conditions firsthand.
Public commenters asked the council to provide clearer cost estimates and pushed back on the size of the proposed project. Jody Stewart asked how the hearings were advertised, raised concerns that the city had "purchase agreements" that could displace low-income tenants and asked whether the city would assist people facing displacement. Jan Potter and Paul Van Clay said they supported a new station in principle but described a $52–$54 million price tag as "excessive" and urged the city to explain why estimated costs were so high relative to typical facility-build figures cited by commenters. City leaders responded that contractor interviews produced lower ballpark construction estimates (Council members cited $35–$37 million) and emphasized that the $52M+ figure represents a statutory legal maximum rather than an expected final price.
What the council did: following the public hearing the council member who moved adoption of Resolution 2026-22 (preliminary determination) was seconded and the council declared the motion adopted. The council then reviewed Resolution 2026-23 — which elects to apply the referendum procedures and authorizes the mayor and clerk-treasurer to coordinate ballot language with the Boone County Election Board and the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance — and voted to approve that resolution as well; the public question is to be placed on the November 3, 2026 ballot as described in the resolution.
Next steps: the clerk-treasurer will publish notice of adoption and the mayor and clerk are authorized to submit required information to state and county authorities so the public question can appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. If a valid petition meeting statutory thresholds is filed within 30 days of the first publication, the issue must be approved by voters in a public question election; if no petition is filed, the city will proceed with the referendum process as adopted.
The meeting record shows detailed cost ranges and assumptions will be refined during scoping and design; council members said their intent is to deliver a project below the advertised legal maximums.
City finance consultant Catherine Fanello of Dinsmore & Shohl told the council the project exceeds the 2026 controlled-project referendum threshold ($20,605,991) and therefore required two public hearings before the council may make a preliminary determination. Emma Adlam of Baker Tilly presented two financing scenarios — an "estimated" and a "maximum" — both showing roughly $45,000,000 in net proceeds. Adlam said the maximum legal par amount used for the city’s documents is about $52.165 million and described a legal-maximum interest assumption of 5.5 percent that produced a maximum annual lease rental payment of $4,689,000; under that maximum scenario she said the advertised tax-rate impact would translate to a $216 annual increase for a median $250,000 home based on current assessed value.
Why it matters: the council may adopt a preliminary determination that starts a 30-day window during which at least 500 registered voters and property owners can file a petition to force an election on the debt. If no valid petition is filed, the city will proceed with a voluntarily scheduled referendum. Council members said they intend the advertised numbers to represent the legal maximums required by state law and that actual project scope and final costs should come in lower through scoping and design.
Police chief (as introduced at the meeting) described frequent mechanical and structural problems at the existing station, including recurring HVAC and electrical failures, mold, pest infestations and overcrowded evidence storage. The chief said independent consultants recommended replacement rather than continued repairs and told the council, "If it was my house, I would tear it down." The council and staff encouraged tours of the current facility so members and the public could view the conditions firsthand.
Public commenters asked the council to provide clearer cost estimates and pushed back on the size of the proposed project. Jody Stewart asked how the hearings were advertised, raised concerns that the city had "purchase agreements" that could displace low-income tenants and asked whether the city would assist people facing displacement. Jan Potter and Paul Van Clay said they supported a new station in principle but described a $52–$54 million price tag as "excessive" and urged the city to explain why estimated costs were so high relative to typical facility-build figures cited by commenters. City leaders responded that contractor interviews produced lower ballpark construction estimates (Council members cited $35–$37 million) and emphasized that the $52M+ figure represents a statutory legal maximum rather than an expected final price.
What the council did: following the public hearing the council member who moved adoption of Resolution 2026-22 (preliminary determination) was seconded and the council declared the motion adopted. The council then reviewed Resolution 2026-23 — which elects to apply the referendum procedures and authorizes the mayor and clerk-treasurer to coordinate ballot language with the Boone County Election Board and the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance — and voted to approve that resolution as well; the public question is to be placed on the November 3, 2026 ballot as described in the resolution.
Next steps: the clerk-treasurer will publish notice of adoption and the mayor and clerk are authorized to submit required information to state and county authorities so the public question can appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. If a valid petition meeting statutory thresholds is filed within 30 days of the first publication, the issue must be approved by voters in a public question election; if no petition is filed, the city will proceed with the referendum process as adopted.
The meeting record shows detailed cost ranges and assumptions will be refined during scoping and design; council members said their intent is to deliver a project below the advertised legal maximums.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
