Common Council - Regular Meeting

Let me keep my phone. Yes. Oh, you think that might

Yeah.

Good evening. The time is now 6:33. I will call the May 4th meeting of the common council to order. Um, please rise for the pledge of

allegiance. I alian to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. The next agenda item is roll call members and the determination of quorum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. We have seven counselors present and we do have a quorum. This meeting has been properly noticed in accordance with Indiana's open door law. Copies of the agenda are located at the back. For citizens wishing to speak during citizens comments, please use the sign-in sheet um based placed at the back as well.

The next agenda item is comments of council members and special recognitions. Do we have any comments this evening? I do. Yes, Council Robinson.

Thank you. At our last um council meeting, I asked a question about who should review the claims, the council or the board of public works. Uh Lawrence historian contacted me to advise me that there is an ordinance in place for that. So because of that we were able the clerk madame clerk was able to pull that ordinance is ordinance number seven dated 20 2005 and I sent that ordinance to attorney Amber Finley. She and I had a meeting and she agreed that only this legislative body can approve claims for the city of Lawrence. The board of public works can look at the claims, vouchers, invoices. They can say okay. But the controller cannot pay bills unless this council says approved. I have copies. If anybody want a copy, I can give you a copy. Okay. So, just to make it clear, this legislative body has the last say on claims. That conversation was held between attorney Finley and controller Terry Faulner who to be that the claims could only be paid by the approval of this um this council. Okay. So that's it. I'm done.

Can I ask a question of that? Thank you, Council. Yes, Council Wells.

Uh yes, Council Robinson. I understand that we have the or we it it's up to us to make the payment or authorization for payment. However, um it was my understanding when we wrote the ruling uh with the board of works that the u anything that they wanted over $2,500 uh that had to go before us before they approve it. So I guess my question is is it not uh a possibility or is it not even just a common practice that the board of works approves whatever amount and then they initiate it and award the contract and then the payment or the bill goes to payment.

You're speaking of the professional services contract. Yes. I'm not. You're not. Mm-m. The professional services contract as we discussed needs to be updated. That language needs to be included. This wouldn't be the same thing. No, this is the claims that I'm referring to. The vouchers and claims that we're going to approve tonight or look at, right? I understand that. Yes. But it's still the same thing. No, it's not. I mean, it's still they it's something that always been a bug to me for years is that we we get the approval or the the approval is put for us after the money's done been spent. I hear what you're saying.

Yeah. To me, that's like it was also for the horse. It was also suggested that we clarify that in the professional services contract to make it clear. That'd be great. Yeah, I'd be all in favor of that. Thank you. Madame controller, did you wish to respond? I I I heard you speaking from the back, but I wasn't sure. I wanted to give you the opportunity if you so wish. I really don't have a response. I don't recall being at a meeting with Robinson. No, you was wasn't a meeting with me. No, I don't have Thank you. I just want to responded last last meeting that we don't pay claims until the council approved. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, the controller is up here. Terry,

if it's not related to this, we'll leave it for later when we do administration stuff. Is it related to this exact conversation? Similar. Well, can we hold off until administration's comments? Until when then? Administration comments? Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Any other counselor's comments? Um, thank you, Councelor K. Yep. Uh, President, we uh were missing Councelor Mazer tonight and she contacted me requesting that I present her presentation tonight in in her place. So, if I may, I'll go down to the podium.

Thank you. lefty. All right. Whoops. Picking up litter and health fairs are major and vital facets of live longer in Lawrence. It's a healthy environment that helps us live a longer, happier, and healthier life. Can anything else help Lawrence have a healthier environment which makes us healthier and helps us live longer? Reduce replace turf grass with native pollinator friendly plantings. There is a growing scientific body of evidence that commonly used lawn care products are not as harmless as we once thought. EPA registration does not mean products are safe. There's a loophole. A product which is registered hasn't necessarily been tested. 40% of the chemicals used by the lawn care industry are banned in other countries because they are carcinogens. 40 to 60% of fertilizer applied to lawns ends up in surface and groundwater where it kills aquatic organisms and contaminates drinking water. The American Academy of Pediatrics says children's exposure to pesticides should be limited as much as possible. December 27th, 2022 article in the Indianapolis Star says, "In Indiana doctor's study links herb herbicide to pre-term births. Dr. Paul Winchester of Franciscan Health Indianapolis found that pregnant women whose urine contained higher levels of a chemical commonly used in herbicides such as glyphosate gly glyphosate were mostly to deliver low birthw

weightight babies. low birthw weightight baby.

And a clip from asthma awareness month put out by the EPA. An average of one out of every 10 school-aged children has asthma. 5% of the air pollution in the US is from gas mowers. If we reduce the amount of mowing, we can reduce air pollution which exacerbates asthma in our kids. One hour of operation of a gas leaf blower is equivalent to driving 1,000 miles. Reducing replacing turf grass with sustainable native pollinator friendly plantings reduces pol reduces pollution which helps us live longer in Lawrence. Flooding is not healthy. It can be dangerous. reducing flooding and improve water quality by reducing turf grass, which isn't very good at absorbing heavy rainfall. Compare how much better native plant roots reduce flooding and filter water. Yeah, the native pollinator friendly plantings are healthier than turf turf grass and reduce flooding, but are they pretty? And here's an example of pretty pollinators at the Fort Ben Library on 56th Street. Why native pollinator friendly plants? Natives are heartier and need less maintenance and water. Natives have adapted without pesticides and fertilizers, making those pollutants unnecessary. And they reduce exposure to chemicals, reduce pollution from mowing, and they reduce flooding. Thank you for your attention,

Mr. President. Yes, I have councelors and I'd like to

Yes. Um, I am saying this on behalf of the residents um that live along Kingsboro Drive. Um, there's been several of them that have attended council meetings and stood at that podium and they have complained about the street conditions that they have to endure going to work and coming home every day. I have been in contact with our DPW director. I've been in contact with our street department person uh multiple times and recently I spoke with uh Mr. Hennegan and I appreciate the fact for the effort that they made in act in going over there on Kingsboro. Uh they told me that uh let me back up just for a second. They told me that this street is slated this summer for complete uh replacement, which it desperately needs it. It has been a mess for a long time, and it uh if you go down that street off of 46th Street, and I asked my other fellow council people to do so, please go over there and look at this street. And I would ask every one of you to tell me if there is another street in the city of Lawrence that's as bad as that street because most potholes you can drive around them. I guarantee you there is no indie driver out there at the track to get around all these potholes without hitting one of them because they're they're the whole width of the street right as you come off of 46th Street. And like I said, uh Mr. Hennegan sent a crew over there upon my request to at least patch these holes.

Well, they patched I could count on on one hand the where I seen where and they did it right in front of the two the two men that had been here the last time they did it right basically in front of their house. They patched one hole and 5T from where they patched one there was another hole bigger than the one they patched. But the biggest problem is right as you pull off of 46th Street. So for you council people that are at large, please go over there and look at it and see what you think. See see if there's another street in the city and residential area that's as bad as that street. And I doubt that you'll find it. And yes, I've been told they're going to replace that street. But what until that happens? I mean, these people have been enduring that street for years. It'd be one thing if it was uh, you know, after a hard winter, which we had. We did have a hard winter, but that street's been like that for years. And, you know, I just implore our street department, to me, it's embarrassing. I would think they would be embarrassed and to at least go over there and make temporary repairs on that street so these people don't have to endure and drive across that and damage the their tires, their wheels, and their suspension on their cars. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Councelor Wells. Anyone else like to speak? I actually have one. Um, thank you, Councelor Groom.

Uh, also a DPW. Mine mine is a cheer. Um, at our last council meeting, I spoke about a constituent, a couple constituents that live um, up on Promonary Road off of 86th Street. Um, I had received the email immediately before coming to our our midmon council meeting in April. Um, they have a pedestrian bridge that everybody, you know, you can drive over and walk over it, too. uh leading into their neighborhood and it's it's paved where the cars drive, but on the side it's, you know, big wood planks. Um, they're original to the neighborhood which was built in the early 90s and it they're decaying terribly, but they they emailed me because there were holes in between where you drive and and where you walk where the wood had disintegrated, you know, rotted through and fell down in and it was very dangerous for like kids and small animals. Anyway, I came here just hours after receiving that email and, you know, brought it up in publicly and then followed up with DPW. Um, I just I'm happy to say DPW went out there within 48 hours after that. Um, did a quick patch job, put some planks in there so that it's safe, so that there's not just holes straight down to the creek. Um, and then Mr. Hennegan told me that they are going to get an engineering firm to come out and uh tell them what needs to be done and then bring a contractor out because of liability issues. So, it will be a longer process. It's not just that fix. But I'm very grateful that they came and took care of it as quickly as they could. So, just a shout out. Thank you.

I'd like to make a shout out Jamie uh in her leadership on Earth Day. uh I with uh Liz Mazour was able to go out and help clean up the community. And so I think that's a great response to some of the uh comments that we've had from residents. So I just wanted to say thank you for your leadership. It was a u I guess a gamut of residents, neighbors, elected officials, and the business community. Thank you, Councelor Boy. Thank you.

Do we have any other counselor's comments? All right. We will proceed with the next agenda item which is the approval of minutes of the regular meeting of April 15, 2026. Are there any questions or corrections? I have a motion from councelor Jennings. Do I have a second to approve? I'll second it. Thank you.

We'll now proceed with the vote. Let the record reflect that we have a 7 to zero to approve the the minutes of the regular meeting of April 15, 2026. The next agenda item is the signing of vouchers and the approval of claims and the authorizations of payment. Do we have a motion to approve? Thank you, Councelor Freeman. And we have a second from Councelor Jennings. Is there any further discussion? We'll now proceed with a vote to approve the m to approve the authorizations of payment.

Mhm. All right. Let the record reflect that we have a 6 to1 vote to approve the um approval of claims. The next agenda item is reports of committees. Do we have any reports from our committees this evening? No. The next agenda item is unfinished business. Proposal number 3, 2025. Uh, madame clerk, would you please read the title of that ordinance into the record? Proposal number 3, 2025, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Lawrence, Indiana, amending title one, article 2, chapter 5 of the code of ordinances of the city of Lawrence, Indiana.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. That proposal does remain before our public ser uh public safety committee um for consideration and for recommendation to council and we brought back. Um, but I do understand that we have Nick Rimmel and Brandon Rafferty, representative representatives from the Lawrence Professional Firefighters Associate Association, Local 416 and the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 159, respectively. Um, here to speak to the council. Would you guys like to approach the podium?

Good evening, council. Good evening. Let me pull up my stuff here. All right. So, uh we have provided to you guys all um kind of our financial breakdown in the the pocket of the the red folders you guys receive uh is the Baker Tilly report um that we received during our negotiations. This reflects um the payraises um as they were uh as as they were given to us when we started our negotiations. This is the exact document we were emailed uh from uh Amber uh from Amber uh giving us our uh offer. So uh this is the uh we actually had did have a meeting uh in regards to this. Uh we had our own numbers. They had their numbers and we had to to agree which numbers were were law and this is what what where the Baker Tilly report came from. Um so we provided that to you guys. Um couple things on uh the Baker Tilly report. Um the financial these are the financial models that we did receive. They aren't rough drafts. These are exactly what was given to us. Um we treated these spreadsheets exactly as they were intended to be used. um they were at the time the city's authorative financial picture of what they could afford. Um the other part of this is these numbers were presented to us from the former controller um and and also Baker Tilly. So if I know the last uh meeting there was discussion on whether that encompassed these ordinances or not. To our knowledge they encompassed everything, right? They gave us this with the offer for our contract. Um, to our knowledge, that's what they encompassed. Um, if there is a discrepancy in that, that's not at the fault of of the unions. Uh, we did not

prepare these documents. These are what we were given. Um, and and and you know, I think it's also important to note that those reflect a 3% increase for our civilian staff as well. Um, that was a non-negotiable for both fire and police. It was a non-negotiable for the city. They were adamant like we want to take care of our civilians as well. They are a vital part of our staff. Uh we work alongside our street department, HR department, you name it. Sorry if I didn't mention you, but I appreciate everybody that works here to make this city great. So um that that was being considered uh alongside uh those numbers as well. So obviously Senate Senate Bill one uh throws a wrench in things. Uh this is pre Senate Bill one. Uh so those numbers obviously are are a little skewed now. Uh but I'm providing you what we were given at the time and uh we can move on from that. Um is there any questions about the Baker Tilly report specifically?

I have a couple questions. not in particular about the uh report per se, but uh first off, just for clarification, uh what is the administration's stance on this or have they given a stance on it on the Baker Tilly report? Well, on this extra money. Yeah. The this is this is the Baker Tilly report we were given to by the administration. So, I mean, I don't know what their current stance is on it. Um this is what we were given during our negotiations. So they haven't made a a yay or a nay on it either way as far as you know. As far as I know. Okay.

I'm prov you guys asked for the numbers we we saw. This is what I'm providing to you today. Do you know if there's any other uh municipalities that are that this will be going in or going into effect or already is in effect? I don't understand the what specifically are you talking about? Well, these other ben these additional benefits the you talk about the ordinances. We'll get into that here in a second. We'll break those down. Any questions on the Baker Tilly report specifically?

Okay. All right. Seeing none, uh we will kind of just dig through these um ordinances kind of one at a time. Sorry if I changed the screen there. Um so, uh we'll start with bereavement leave uh since that's the first page you guys are seeing. scroll down my notes here. So, would it be beneficial to everybody for me to um overview kind of just a quick overview? Not as not as lengthy as the last time I was up here. Um, it would be for me council member.

All right, perfect. Let me get down in my notes here. I think I just passed it. Okay. So the as a reminder this is uh increasing our benefit. Currently uh firefighters get 24 hours off for bereavement. Uh police officers get uh 25.5 hours which is three shifts. Um remember our shifts are 2448. So that is a three-day gap in between there too. Um the ask per the CBA was to increase that for fire to to three shifts um and for police officers to six shifts. There are times that our families really rely on us. um being being in public safety um to to sift through some of the the things during a time of loss. Um and so um I know I've used this uh this example before, but we had a firefighter who lost both of his parents to COVID um and he had to travel to Arizona twice uh during that time. Um it would be nice just to have those extra shifts to to not worry about where your time is and all that stuff. Um they're just kind of given to us. Um, do you have anything to add on the bereavement stuff?

No, I I think some of the um the finer points that in the summary just kind of really sum it up is why it's important for us. You know, we work in a profession where you don't just kind of come back to work and can ease into things maybe like a different profession, public safety. We have to make sure that our men and women are are good, you know, mentally, physically, and ready to come back to work. and we thought that uh this proposal here would certainly address those needs.

I think it's also important to note um the the other part of this uh ordinance change was to be more inclusive. Uh the the modern-day family does not resemble the the the family that was uh intended I guess during the original writing of this. Um so we're really trying to push the the significant other um extended family and blood blood affinity clause that's uh that's in this as well. Um, this isn't a new benefit. It is an increase to the benefit. Um, and then if you guys don't have any questions about the specifics, I'll have Trusty Rush come over and do the financial breakdown for you guys. Any questions on the specifics of what this is? Okay.

Good evening.

So, what we try to do, it's something that we can't predict how many briefments we're going to have per year. We could have one, we could have 10, you know, we don't know. So we try to break everything down per incident or per member for these benefits here. So the briefment um going through and calculating the cost per per incident for police and fire um we thought a conservative number to use was our certified salary salary rate which is a 25-y year patrolman or a 25-y year firefighter that we feel it's it's going to be a higher number than what majority of the fire department would be. So therefore it's we feel comfortable presenting that that data. Um so if you look at the the current um thing it was about $940 for the fire and $1,25 for the police. Um and then increase the benefit. Um that would c create a an 18 almost $1,900 increase per breedment for the firefighter or a $1,200 increase benefit for the police officer. Is there any questions on

I have a question? Yes. Um, so this this is to make sure I understand. We're talking about all the firemen, all the police officers and then we're also talking about civil or the yeah civil employees for the fire department. This stuff is just encompasses the firefighters. Um, so I I would hope that the fire administration I guess it would be up to them or the city administration to encompass the civilians. Unfortunately, we don't negotiate for the civilians. So, I can't answer. I can't make that decision. I would like to see it go for the civilians as well, the civilian staff. But unfortunately, we just negotiate for the merit merit staff of the fire department.

Well, I don't want to sound coldhearted to this, but it to me it is looking at numbers. Okay. And how many police officers and how many firemen are on staff with the city of Lawrence right now? Do you know that? Well, there are 65 police officers. That's what they're budgeted for. Um, so I I don't know the current staffing number, but we can budget for 65. That's the highest that they would go right now. And 83 firefighters, 83.

So I I don't know, you know, 148 maybe. Well, and here again, I don't want to sound cold or I don't want to sound like the grim reaper, but all these family members, uh, you take that number, multiply it by the total number of police and fire, that is a lot of opportunity for this money to be used. Understand? Yeah. I mean, 148 personnel and then, you know, if there's all the extended family members, the the chances of a briement being being utilized is high.

Is real high. Um that's something I haven't researched and maybe we can try to get that to you of maybe what last year's numbers were for the police and fire of how many briement uh leads were claimed. Um that would give us an idea of you know what's the rough number yearly that what we we utilize this for. Um this is a big ask for that. But again, we we are focusing on trying to make sure the mental health is is there for our employees when they come back to work and that they're not coming back, you know, unsound of mind or, you know, non-focused and and having to be in critical situations and not, you know, not be in the right mindset for that. So, that was our focus behind it. But you I understand Yeah. I mean, you can calculate, you know, the chances of, you know, of claims being high. Yes. Um, like I said, I can work on getting maybe what last year's numbers were for police and and fire and uh and report that back to you if you'd like. It

be nice to see maybe the last three to five year. Yeah, I but I'll reach out to the administrations and see how how far we can go and what we can what we can dig up because further back we can see it allows for you know to find an average. Yeah, see an average. Brandon, did you have something or No, I think that that answer that'd be a, you know, a good solution to kind of give you some numbers of what the reality is because reality is you're not going to have a member of every single public safety employee passed away in a year. Like for example, vice president of our FOP, he's been here 21 years and he's never used time. So there are people that,

you know, are fortunate enough they don't have to use it and uh that's certainly the case. May I ask also in your uh preparation if you could give us a comparison to a municipal similar in size of the city of Lawrence other agencies what they what they do. Yeah. What does their package look like?

Yeah. And I think also it's it's important to note that we do have internal controls. Anytime somebody uses bereavement they have to submit that to the to their uh their supervisor their the battalion chief food control staffing and then that gets submitted up to the the administration for approval as well. So, um, the the the hope would be that people wouldn't take advantage of this. It does have to be approved. Uh, but I would hate to to if somebody had a a foster parent that tech technically raised them, I would hate for them to lose somebody and not have the time to where they were able to grief. So, this uh bereavement or well, this whole package is it is instilled right now with other municipalities around us.

Yeah, other departments have bereavement. I don't know exactly what the their timeline is, how much they get for bereavement. Um, but

well, I know the union I was member of the pipe fitters union and they had like a day and the uh, you know, as far as vacations, there was none. They took money out of our check each week and they put it into a fund. So once we were off work on a vacation, the employer paid nothing. employer paid nothing for holidays. The employer paid nothing for sick days. Uh, you know, whether that's changed since I was no longer a member. But I mean, I have been a complete supportive as much as I possibly thought was reasonable for the fire department because I mean, I I totally respect everything you guys and the police officers do, but you realize this city is in a terrible shortfall for money. And I to me you know, additional funds. I just don't see how how and where it's coming from. I mean, the maybe the controller could weigh in what her thoughts are. You know, that's why I asked how the city thought about this, but I I questioned that we could even afford it.

And something I kind of want to clarify here, too. Um, this study here that we presented, this is to look at the benefit of per employee. So this doesn't mean that each time this briement happens that this is be the necessarily cost. We could have the staffing that day and there doesn't create any overtime or shortfalls and it's a zero additional cost. The way I I' I've compiled the study was what is the benefit to the employee because that's what the negotiation for the contract where we were negotiating benefits. Um so I mean to say the actual cost either do we have overtime or do we have coverage the day of the grievance I mean that so that but that is unknown. So the extra cost is is very um unknown but this is just a benefit cost to the employee.

Let me ask you this. If if uh say god forbid a fireman police officer had a death in the immediate family. Does the management of the fire department or police department do they give them any latitude as to okay the city is going to give you a day you pay but do they give them latitude as to how much time they feel that they need to be off and not be penalized for it? The administration can't allow them to use sick time in addition to uh the briefment time if you know those kind of like a immediate loved one were to pass away. Right. So they could they could even tap into their vacation money or whatever.

I believe that's within the policy. Yes. The city ordinance writing in there or internal policy. The goal would be not to to dig into the vacation time per se because they might have something at the end of the year. Um you know I would rather see them tap into their sick time. Um and this is me speaking to our firefighters. I'd rather see them uh dig into their sick time before they dug into their vacation time. I think that this is kind of what we're trying to intend with that. We're giving them that extra time so that they're not going to have to dig into their to their vacation time. This gives them uh some extra days to to kind of figure things out uh and get themselves mentally prepared to to do our job. Gotcha. I'd say I'd let you continue your presentation and then we'll have questions at the end.

That way we can let you guys get out what you need out and then we can Yeah. ask everything at the end. The next following pages I just uh try to put in um the wording for the police contract and for the fire contract and what the current city ordinance is just those clips just for reference so when you guys review this later you're not having to dig around everywhere trying to find everything. Appreciate it. So on page four we've moved to the holiday time. Yeah. You want to take over?

Yeah. So uh for holiday time um really the ask on this uh is to to allow our members who are hired post. It's not changing anything for pre209. Uh this is all post 2019. And and while we're talking about that, I want to also make the point that Jason Fwick made this change um in 2018 uh for the the for the hires after this. Um and we agree something had to be done with the way we acrew our time. It's it's financially irresponsible. Um but that's in in lie of raises. That's how the city decided to do business a long time ago. And unfortunately, we've kicked that can down the road and now we're seeing the unfunded liability. Um, and we're completely aware aware of that and and that was stuff that we uh considered throughout our negotiation process and we're really trying to spend those those hours down so the city's not stuck with these these high checks every time somebody walks away. But unfortunately, there are guys with uh guys and gals with a lot of time that are built up and and um essentially the city's kind of on the hook to to pay them out if if they don't choose to use their time or put it into other accounts. Um this is just in regards to the post 2019. We're asking uh for us to be able to increase the holiday time rollover. So again, that's roll over what they can roll over into the next year to 250 hours. What that does is that allows them to have time built up in January that they can use. Right now they cannot roll any, right?

96 hours. They can roll 96 hours. So that increases that from 96 hours, which is for us that's, you know, just shy of four four shifts or right at four shifts. Um, and then they only acrew eight and a half hours, I believe, every month

when they first when they first start and and their vacation time. Uh this is stuff that's front-loaded in January. Um so they they're able to use this time. If we increase that and let allow them to roll over that 250 hours, that gives them a little more time that they can use at the beginning of the year. Uh the way we operate is all on a a seniority base. Even when we uh bid our vacation time, um it starts at the top. They bid their days and then it goes it goes down. Uh we get a certain number of picks every sh every round. Um, and this allows those those younger guys to have those days that are already built up. It's very hard to to bid a vacation day if uh you don't have the time sitting in your acral. Sometimes New World is uh 30 days in the rears and and they may not see their acrual pop up uh in in u real time. So, it's really hard sometimes for these the younger guys specifically to to know how much time they can uh they can use. So that's really what that's that one's about. Do you have do you have anything to add on?

He's got a financial

again. We've kind of looked at what was the benefit per employee. What would that extra payout be? Um utilizing that 25-y year salary number, that hourly rate. Um you can see in the red here, that's the difference of what that would be. We understand that these large unlimited time banks cause serious problems. uh we think or thought that the pendulum swung a little too hard at our membership was hoping to try to swing that back somewhere, you know, more towards the middle and we thought that 250 hours was an appropriate cap for the holiday. And just for clarification, people who were hired pre209 and for everybody listening, um instead of us getting paid for our holidays, we get we receive days off. Um so we can take our holidays whenever. Um instead of that, that that's that's kind of how the city's really always done done things, which is is fine. But um pre209 there's no cap. So, I can literally take all of my holiday and put them into an account for my entire career and then just wait till the end of employment and then I get paid out that amount. So, that's why there had to be a cap put on it.

So, we're not asking for that cap to be taken off. We're just asking for us to extend that cap a little bit to allow some of these younger guys um more acred time that they can use at the beginning of the year. And may I verify they receive eight hours acrruel time per pay period or that's per month. Per month for vacation. Yeah. The start the start out.

The start out. Yeah. And that goes up. I mean the way they acrew their time the amount of hours at the end uh of the year is the exact same as if they were pre209. It just they've kind of prorated it through the year. The way we operate for our vacation time is we work for our vacation. Like this year I'm working for my vacation time next year. I'll get all of my vacation time given to me in January that I've worked for for this year. They acrew it as they go. Um the next one is on sick time. That's on page six. I think sick time is a really big one for us. Um right now uh they are capped at

200 hours and this is asking for that that bank to go up to 600 with the with the understanding that the bank the the payout. So the payout is what they will pay at the end of of uh employment does not increase from what it currently is. Currently they're they are only able to do 200 hours. they will only get paid out for 200 hours. By increasing that cap for them though, that allows them to take advantage of things like our hardship leave. It it uh we have to use what is it 400 480 hours in order to get into our um hardship leave. By increasing that um that cap for us, that allows those younger guys to get into that hardship leave without uh word screwing them up. Right now, we you know, I applaud our chief. Our chief has uh never really denied anybody any of these things. Uh he allows them the opportunity, but we have to think long term. Um and we may not always have a reasonable chief. So this really protects our members who u who may end up um kind of in in a bind where they are getting caught up with words. again they are only able to to accumulate that uh what what did we say 200 200 hours and then um this just allows them to to take advantage of that and then again we also have other things in place such as the PEP um this allows them to take advantage of those things as well and I'll let you financial breakdown of that

really know said we weren't asking for the payout to be more that really wasn't a concern for us during negotiations it was just the being able to acrew a little bit more of a a bank that would be a little bit more of a cushion for for offduty injury or like I said taking advantage of our our time trade into the path. And I think it's also important to note that if guys are acrewing time, if they're increasing past that 200 hours to if we, you know, raise that cap, that means they're not calling into work, which means overtime should go down. Fingers crossed, right? I can't, you know, can't make that assurance, but uh that means they are actually coming to work and they're acrewing that time. They call in, they don't receive sick time for that month. I think that covers all of the ordinance specific things. So, we will entertain some questions.

Anybody have any questions? I would be interested in knowing what's the U administration's stance is on this. Do we have any questions for the union records that are in front of us now? I still don't right now. You don't right now. But I will. But you will. We will. We still This is This is awesome. We finally got some numbers. Thank you for for bringing numbers today. Seriously.

Seriously. Seriously. This is This is amazing. At least every single time you come here, uh uh there's never been anything else. You know, it's Well, we think it's a good idea. and you guys brought some numbers that I I thought the last time we were told that there wasn't any report. We didn't know about a report, but then you bring you show Baker Tilly and it's like it's magic.

You know, that just shows I think that, you know, when we did the negotiations, everybody was doing their due diligence. We didn't just add components into these contracts not understanding or knowing that there's a financial component. And if something didn't fall within those parameters, didn't make the contract. You know, there are things that as part of the process that we had to pick and choose in terms of priorities. And obviously, I can't speak for the administration on what they think of this, but these are the numbers that they provided us saying this is what we can afford and they signed the contract, right, saying that they agreed to it. So, I would say that that kind of speaks to that part of Did you say the administration said they can afford this? Did I hear you say that?

Yes. Yes, that's how we did the contract negotiations is to the best of the ability of everybody that was involved. Anything that had a financial component was

figured into what was provided to you that Baker Tilly report. Um, and there were certain items that obviously didn't make the contract because either they cost too much or we had to pick and choose uh because as you understand the city only has so much money and so the contract that that is in place is what you see of things that both the city said that they can afford um and that we agreed to and then that's the contract that we have. I would I would say that um councelor um did mention that um this was affordable two years ago, but with the with the new governor uh what was it? SEA1. SEA1.

Thank you. Um we have to really take a look and make sure that it still makes sense today. Is that fair enough? I mean, if we're going to be asked to do Yeah, I think that I think that's fair. I I mean I also think it is important to note that um we've been here throughout SEA1 and at no time have we been brought in front of anybody to to discuss the ramifications and stuff. We still have a signed agreement uh that we're trying to sift through and trying to close out because here in about a year and a half we'll be gearing up to do this again and this should have been closed out. Facts. Facts

two years ago. I'm just a local DJ and I'm just trying to, you know, so I need to talk to the lawyer to make sure it's straight. But, you know, I have a question. Is this was negotiated, I assume, with someone from the administration. Yeah. Within our negotiations, we had uh the chief of staff, chief of staff at the time, Zack Brown. Uh Amber Finley was in the room, uh Humphrey, the the controller. Um,

there was two representatives uh from um Faker Drinker that represented the the city during that. Uh, Brad Boswell and Tim Morardi. Uh, and then the fire uh union. We have a contract committee that we have and then the FOP has a contract committee. Um, what we did different is we all did it in the same room this time. We didn't do it separate. FOP uh local 416. We were kind of a team and went into it to get their books. Yeah.

Well, my I guess my question my next question is if the council apparently has the final say as to whether this is get it gets funded or not, does the council say there's a something in here in this in this agreement that or this proposal that the council just absolutely we can't do that but the rest of it's okay. Is that is that something that could go back to the negotiation table or No,

no. At this I mean at this time it's a signed signed contract. The council did sign the contract. Um there there's there's representation from the council. Um so unless we open up negotiations that that takes uh that takes some work to to do. Um again we've never been brought in in front of anybody to do so. Uh we don't intend to do so. Um but um I think it's also important to note um that um we obviously we learn as we go. We try to do things a little better the next time. Um the next time we're going to have council representation in the room with us when we count when we when we do this. It also it also is kind of um the word the way the contract is worded in those specific areas where it kind of throws it at an ordinance. It kind of puts the ball in your court which is completely unfair to you. But unfortunately that was the contract.

Yeah. That was signed and that's what that's that's the hand we've been dealt and we're just trying to sift through the cards right now. Totally get it. Yeah. Appreciate you saying that. Feels like it's a learning lesson all all around. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. For sure. effects. Are there any other questions for the union reps while we have them? I would like to remind everybody that this item is still in committee, so we will be meeting to discuss it. Again, we are not taking action right now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys.

The next agenda item under is unfinished business proposal number one. Madame clerk, could you please read the title of that ordinance into the record? Proposal number one, 2026, an ordinance of the common council of the city of Lawrence, Indiana, amending title one, article 1, chapter 2, section 12 of the municipal code regarding common council approval on expenditures of professional service contracts. Thank you, Madam Clerk. This proposal does remain before the committee of the whole for consideration and will be brought back to the council when it's appropriate. The Sorry, when did you say that? That uh meeting may come where we hear this. Um that meeting will be scheduled before our next council meeting. So before the midmon.

Before our next council meeting. Before the midmon. Yes. So it will be probably right prior to a council meeting. You won't be It has not been scheduled. So I don't know exactly what time, but probably yes. Y um the next agenda item is new business. Uh there's only one item under new business this evening, which is resolution number three. Madam clerk, could you please read the title of that resolution into the record? Resolution number 3, 2026, a resolution of the common council of the city of Lawrence, Indiana, opposing federal proposals to increase commercial truck size and weight limits. All right.

One has a copy at their desk. Yes. right here. Yes. Yes. So, this resolution uh came about after Aiden Hogan, a regional director for the coalition against bigger trucks, contacted Jim Parin, um director of our communications for fund development. Um I was under the impression that he was going to give a presentation. Jim, would you like to speak on it or Oh, we do.

Sweet. Mr. Chair, good evening. Uh, Mr. Han Plumps, Ohio as we speak. He was making a presentation on this very topic uh to the police chief's association for the state of Ohio and wasn't able to get back here to Indianapolis in time. He's supposed to be online. Uh, I I don't know if he is or not, but he's available to answer any questions uh you may have. But we appreciate your taking this under under consideration. So, absolutely. There he is. Hey. Hello, Aiden. Can you hear us?

I can. Awesome. Uh, so we have introduced the resolution. If you would like to speak on it or if you have any sort of presentation, we'd love to hear from you. Happily. Um, well, first of all, thank you all for having me. Uh, Mr. Peron and the mayor's office has been very helpful uh and supportive just trying to just communicating with me and making sure that this happened today. So, very thankful for that. Um, if there's any technical issues while I'm talking, please just flag it to me and I can, you know, uh, remedy that feedback.

But to kind of introduce the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks and this whole issue. Um, so the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks is this organization. It's a national nonprofit nonpartisan organization that started 30 years ago. Um, and the whole goal of this organization is to oppose federal legislation that's going to increase the size and weight of semitrs. Um so it's very narrow and technical um but the consequences are very widespread and and certainly very deep. So to give some context about 30 years ago or about 50 years ago um the weight limit went up from 72,000 lb to 80,000 lb and now they're trying to increase it from 80,000 lb to 91,000 lb. The other proposal that they're trying to push is to make the twin trailer trucks about 10 feet longer. Um, so that's it. Those are the two proposals. Um, who they are. They trying to push these proposals. It's the shippers coalition. They are a lobbyist firm, a lobbyist group. Um, certainly the Goliath of this fight and they are pushing for these two proposals very very specifically. Uh, the coalition against bigger trucks. um in Indiana, the Chiefs of Police Association, the Sheriffs, the Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns and Townships, American Public Works, uh etc., etc., just to name a few. It's essentially all the professional associations of folks who respond to crashes, maintain the roads, and much like yourselves, find a way to pay for all of it. Um are all on one side of this issue. I had a legislative director tell me, you know, for a coalition like this, for an issue like this, you really don't build a coalition like this on an issue that's 5050 or even an issue that's 8020. Uh this is really an issue that is, you

know, 99 to1. Um so my whole goal is to make just that truth clear um to members of Congress is to organize local support talking to local councils, police chiefs, sheriffs, um DPW directors, people who are stakeholders in this decision. basically explain to them this very, you know, unknown um proposal that's coming up that's getting pushed very heavily um and to talk to them about it and educate them about it and ask for their support. So the the highway bill um which is the surface transportation reauthorization act uh it's up every five years in Congress. It's every fifth year, so 2010, 2015, etc., etc. and it's up. It was up, you know, last year they asked for an extension and the vote on it is next week. Uh the markup in the committee has been announced for a week from today. Um I believe if not Wednesday, but regardless, it's next week. Um and Jefferson Shrieve is on the transportation and infrastructure committee, which is why in the last year I've had about two or three various trips uh to his district, to your area, talking to local officials about this. Um, so my whole goal, um, is to ask for your support for voting for this resolution tonight. Uh, and happy to answer any questions that folks have because I know this is, uh, usually the first time that they've heard about this issue. So,

thank you very much. Do we have any questions from our counselors? No questions. Um, but I do want to say, hi Aiden, this is councelor Cone. You and I have been emailing back and forth a lot. It's nice to put a face with your name. Um, agreed. This when when he first contacted me earlier this year, I think it was earlier this year, right? Yeah. Um,

it aligned very closely with some comments that I had been hearing from my constituents. Um, specifically the ones that live along East 75th Street. Oops. Um a as you go out to Carol Road, which is the very end of Marian County. Um because when you then when you turn right and go south on Carol, you run into Pendleton Pike and that's where the new the new Meyer is. It's not that new anymore, but the most recent Meyer. Um and the amount of trucks that go down East 75th, which is dang it, a very very narrow two-lane road. Uh it's got some, you know, some quirky little bump hills. Um the vis the visuals along there are are not easy and just, you know, homes on both sides and neighborhoods.

And you know, I'm hearing from constituents like we've never had this much traffic and it's all because the Meyer, it's filling the store. It is the people going there and getting their stuff. So now they, you know, they don't have to go up to 96th Street. Um, and the that road was not meant to carry that that sort of load. And you know, this is exactly addressing that. So I'm so for this. Yeah. So, thank you for being here, Mr. President. Councelor Wells.

Yeah. Um, this kind of hits home to me to some degree because, you know, my district, uh, of course, uh, is right in the heart of the old original part of our city,

not to mention my neighborhood. Um, there's a culde-sac that is an industrial park which has been there for years and it can only be accessed going through this uh, old residential neighborhood. Uh there's also a u a company that sells uh fuel and back in the day, way back in the day, um the the trucks that we used to go back to this fuel place were like the for home heating, you know, people that heated with fuel oil. Well, that's no longer the case. Very, you know, almost nobody heats with fuel oil anymore. So these trucks that were designed to carry fuel oil to residential houses are no longer, but this company still exists. And now it's tanker trucks. It's like the big semi-tanker trucks that you see on the interstate are now going down these residential streets. Uh I have talked to our DPW people. They even went and had an engineering uh person do some kind of a study on these streets that the streets are only rated for X amount and these trucks far exceed that. Not only the tanker trucks, but the trucks that go back into this little industrial park. And I was told by the DPW people that we were going to put weight restrictions on these residential streets because the neighbors and the people in that neighborhood are constantly dealing with the streets caving in. I had a cave-in on Van Cleave Street where it was it was like a seven foot drop with a hole that was probably four or five foot around and it all came from, you know, the truck being just too heavy and and and the street collapsed where

there was some kind of a was an old sewer pipe or whatever it was that was under there. But it was incredibly dangerous. And you know, I put my car right in front of it, right in the middle of the street, just to keep people from falling in it until DPW could get out there to barricade it. So, yeah, I totally understand what you're doing here. And I think that uh in in light of it, you know, I would still urge the administration to follow through with the promises that they've made in trying to redirect these big trucks to go straight down 47 Street, not meander through uh the neighborhood and trying to make these wide turns with these big long semitrs. Uh you know, these streets aren't made for that. And the uh you know the bad part of it is and I'm not sure how you do it. I've talked to uh we had one semitr that got uh right on the corner of my street at 46 in Mafy. He got stuck and because he couldn't make it around the corner and there was a big oak tree. Now, luckily the treerees gone, but uh the fella down the street, the landscaper had a big uh fork truck and he came down, picked the rear end of the trailer up and scooted it over so the guy can make that turn. I mean, it's it it would be a great boom for this residential neighborhood if the city would act on this and try to prevent these trucks from coming through there or at least limit them to come down one street and one street only, which is 47th Street. So, anyway, that was my part of it. So, thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Wells. Councelor Jennings, what is the capacity for U Aiden? Do you know what the capacity for uh let's say normal streets, not side streets are? Yeah, so the federal standard right now is 80,000 lbs. That's the same in Indiana. Um so for most streets when they're just, you know, developing a regular street or or highway, what have you, it's 80,000 lbs. And anything that's going to be separate from that for one reason or another um whether it's going to be you know weight limited um needs to be posted.

So if it's you know 30 tons or 20 tons or 10 tons so on um that needs to be stipulated under like a posted sign for most states most places and I believe that's the same for Indiana. So to answer your question counselor it's 80,000 pounds 40 tons. Okay. I I for me um the semi-truckss at the weight that they are now is a potential problem because I don't want to get go too long. Uh but I just feel like that um we have too much of a variable. If there's a street construction someplace, these trucks will get rerouted on the streets that are just not designed to for that type of capacity. And I I think they're too they're too heavy as as it is right now today. Um, I would I would not be for increasing the weight of the trucks based on that without without uh some kind of guarantee that they would only adhere to a certain a certain street. And it's it's no way to really do that or even police that unless unless someone knows something. I don't know. I don't think so.

That's it.

Thank you, Councelor Jennings. Do we have any other further questions for uh Aiden? If I could just add to councelor Jennings's comment, um it's a very common concern. Um I hear that a lot. Um and I think there there really is very limited things that municipalities can do to enforce, you know, commercial freight. It's really, you know, that free use clause kind of really opens the door for them to go wherever a passenger vehicle can go largely. And to be able to enforce it, uh is a whole another thing. Um, so I I realize I didn't really go through, you know, my entire pitch of of everything that there is about this issue, but uh, safe to say, you know, that's a big part of the concerns. The heavier trucks, they crash more often, the crashes are more severe, the damage to the roadways is exponentially higher. Um, I think one there's many statistics that I love to share, but one of them is, you know, one fully loaded 80,000lb truck does more damage to your road than more than 10,000 passenger vehicles passing through it. So, when you're talking about the damage to infrastructure, if it's not winter or potholes, um, it is commercial vehicles and having a good understanding of the damage that they're doing to your roads, um, is critical. And the idea um of making them, you know, 12% heavier uh is extreme. And I can assure you that if you look at the federal study on this, their estimates of infrastructure costs increasing, of crash rates increasing are alarming. Um, so these two proposals that they're asking for to make them 11,000 pounds heavier than they are right now and 10 feet longer, it seems like it's, you know, a small change perhaps, but um the consequences are are extreme and it'll be certainly felt um like councelor Jennings was saying like every council that's commented has said, it'll be felt in each district, you know, on local roads. It won't just be something that's

uh kept to interstates. So I I appreciate everyone's questions tonight and comments. Mr. President, one more thing if I hold I saw councelor Jennings hands first. So Mr. I just wanted to I would hope that you could give me that bank of data that you have. Could you if you could send that to me? Happily. Yeah, there's there's a lot of data. I'll send you everything I have. Okay. I did I did share all the the slide deck. My apologies. Yes. That I'd love that. Thank you, Council Wills.

Yeah. How do we I mean, how do we enforce this? How do we uh because I know I've been on the interstate and I've seen the state police have these scales and the trucks back over and and somehow they compute all the weight of the different wheels. I doubt seriously that large police has the ability to do that. Uh so I mean, how do we even enforce it? uh you know uh police is not going to look at a truck and say oh yeah that thing's 80,000 lb or that thing's 90,000 they're not going to know by looking at it. So I mean what would be the plan for that if we I mean say we pass this and then what

what we'll do uh Mr. Sure. Is if and when you uh vote to support this resolution and it's duly signed by the mayor, uh it will be conveyed uh to the rep our congressional delegation.

I'm sorry. that we will send the resolution uh to our congressional Indiana congressional delegation, Congressman Carson, Senator uh Todd Todd Young and Senator Banks to their uh to those those representatives so they are aware of your position on this issue uh as they consider federal legislation. And as Mr. Corgan indicated uh in Indianapolis area Congress Congressman Shrieve is on the on the committee uh that is uh will be considering this very soon and so that's why this is uh timely.

Okay. Thank you. I just want to for the record, we have a lot of streets and bridges that need repair as we speak right now. And it's it it just scare it feels scary to me to think that if we increase the weight of these trucks that it's just going to cause who knows what kind of

Another thing you may all all want to keep in mind and I know obviously you understand uh the effects of heavy trucks on on our local streets but also the effects on our on our the uh major highways the long haul. Uh, and need to bear in mind too, some of you may recall back in 1976. Uh, the federal government got involved because the, uh, Pennsylvania Railroad in area Lacawana were going to go bankrupt and these were the major railroads of the north northeastern part of the United States. Uh, so they took over uh, the federal government took over and created something that was known as the Consolidated Rail Corporation or Conra Rail. uh after many years of federal involvement uh to keep those make those railroads that railroad solvent uh it was successful and in 1999 uh Conrail was split up into what was now uh the CSX and the Northolk Southern as you know CSX traverses our city uh but that was only after that success was only after major federal investment to keep the keep the railroads uh sound now trucking shippers ers want to save money by not having to put their longhaul freight onto the rail uh and put it on to let you the state and the local local communities pay for uh their surface transportation that they need to traverse on. So I think keep that in mind uh that that investment by the federal government for our rail system uh is something we should we should consider as well and a typical rail car can can handle the capacities about three times as much.

Well also I don't see it as much but uh uh the rails also had something known as the piggyback system where the trucks would put their their trailers tractor trailer onto a flatbed rail rail car. I think that's uh more the solution rather than these trucks. Agreed. I get you. Thank you. Yeah. I'd also like to remind the council that we as a council passed a a vision zero resolution and our like in two years ago. Um so we've talked a lot about the infrastructure side, but I'm thinking of a public safety as well. Um bigger trucks on our roads aren't going to save a lot. So

has my support else? Not not where we've got bus routes stopping every few feet. No. Anything else? Awesome. Thank you. Um I see that we have a motion to approve resolution number three and as well as a second. So I will proceed with the vote.

Absolutely. Looks like we have a unanimous decision to approve resolution number three. Thank you guys very much. The next agenda item is comments from the administration. Do we have any comments this evening?

Good evening, counselors. First, um, chief of staff Greg Goodn Night cannot be here. Please, so please keep him in your thoughts and prayers. Um, I just wanted to say first, thank you Tracy for or counselor Boyd for your comment. I really do appreciate it. We did end up picking up 1.35 tons of of trash that day. So, we really cleaned up our city in one day. We had a great group of volunteers that were able to do that. I know Councelor Jennings also organized something in his um neighborhood as well. We we added we want to add 75 pounds to your to your time. So,

and then we had another group clean up Alexander Park on the Thursday following following our day as well. So, we had a lot of people out cleaning out trash and cleaning up Lawrence and I really appreciate everyone that did come out and help us.

Um some other events that are going on in May, we're truly in event season. So, um, this Thursday is National Day of Prayer at 7:30, um, at the community center. 7:30 in the morning at the community center is a full breakfast. Um, we do have a speaker that will be there. Um, May 9th is international festival from 12:00 to 4:00 at Civic Plaza. Um, May 29th, films at the fort. will be doing a family movie night at the cultural campus and we'll be showing Despicable Me at 7:00 outside with um Hartland. May 31st is the Live Longer Lawrence Health and Wellness Fair that we have to reschedule from April 18th. And then one month from today is farmers market season.

Farmers market. Okay, that's it. Thank you. Where can uh uh people find this information? Visit lawrence Indiana.com. I'm sorry. What's your name again? I'm sorry. Visit lawrence. What's my name? Yes, ma'am. Jamie Wire, director of city events. Okay. Councelor Janice. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. I have a question for the controller if I may. Okay. Madam Controller, would you approach the podium?

Good evening. Good evening. Um, I attended the uh uh state of the city address and something that came to my attention or I guess my uh failure to understand. So ask, were these comments that came from the mayor? I'm sorry. Were these comments that came from the mayor? Yes. Okay. So you may want to address those questions. Well, I think they were probably numbers that came from you. So that's why I'm fixing to ask you. Okay.

Uh she said, matter of fact, she put it on a screen like this that there was money left over from the budgets in the first year and the second year, which would second year would have been last year uh in 2025. And she claimed that there was like $1.2 million left over in her budget. And I'm just a little bit puzzled on that when the administration in the last week of December came to the council asking for a over a $3 million appropriation when there was push back from the council. The news meeting that was general funds money that she was referring to. That was general fund money that she was referring to.

Okay. That was the statement that she made. Okay. So she said there was a 1.2 2 million uh left over in that fund. I believe it was 1.2, but there was money left over from the general fund from the appropriation that we had received. Yes. I guess I'm confused. If he had a $800,000 appropriation, the appropriation, additional appropriation was not for general fund money. It was not. None of it was for general fund. Only for the council. I'm sorry.

The only general fund was for the council. The $800,000. It wasn't $800,000. I believe it was $131,000 for the council. Was there any Can you ask answer me this? Was there any money left over? I'm sorry. Was there any any bills from 2025 that were rolled over into 2026? Typically, there normally are purchase orders that have been already encumbered from the previous years that are rolled over to the next year. Would it be possible to get that number? I'll get that number for you. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. You're welcome.

We will now proceed with citizens comments. There are none. Would anyone like to speak? Meeting is adjourned.