I mean, personal can have to do financially.

All right, good morning.

And uh morning.

How are you?

Um Good morning, and I'd like to call to order the November 5th, 2025 meeting of the um public health and safety board.

My name is Andrew Merkley, I'm the director of the Office of Public Health and Safety.

Um looks like we have a quorum today.

All five members are in attendance.

Um Abby, do you need to take attendance?

Yes, please.

Yes, please take attendance.

All right, Mercury.

Here.

Ingram?

Here.

Williams?

Here.

Me?

Rebster?

Here.

Thanks, Abby.

Um has everyone had an opportunity to review the minutes from the last meeting.

Any edits or discussion?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adopt the minutes from last meeting.

So move.

Second.

The motion has been moved and seconded.

Uh all in favor.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the motion is adopted.

Um first on the agenda is the uh item number one zero five two five A, Hendrix County Hospital from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

Uh we'll hear from Deborah Hall.

I brought back up with me Brett Weininger from OHM.

He serves as a member of the pension board.

And I believe we have William Owensby as well here.

Um in case we have questions I cannot answer.

Um so IMPD is requesting approval for contract with Hendrix County Hospital.

Um to provide services of reviewing physical disability pension cases for the pension board and to assess the documentation of people who are trying to be pensioned for disability cases.

Um they will review the cases, they will do their own evaluation, um, and then they will make a recommendation to the board.

The cost is $250 per hour.

Uh this vendor was selected through a request for qualifications that was handled by the city purchasing department.

Uh the board reviewed all the submissions and selected three vendors to work with, one of which dropped out.

Um Hendrix County Memorial or County Hospital, regional hospital.

Um is the one that they selected for the physical disability cases.

If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

And then not to exceed is 28,000 and it's a two-year contract.

Any questions?

Is that is that in line 28,000 with what you would expect across two years?

Yeah.

Yeah.

May I uh Director Merkle, if you don't mind.

I just want to say before we move on.

Uh these two contracts are obviously critical to the board's ability to evaluate applicants.

Uh prior to this, we've had uh Dr.

Kenneth Young, and I think I'd be remiss if I didn't tell the board how thankful we are as board of trustees that he's provided his services free of charge actually for the last two years, almost three, I think.

Uh but as a family practitioner, it's a very big burden on his his loads.

So going with a regional hospital system gives us a doctor that specializes in muscoskeletal services, which is kind of a big majority of what our cases are, but then also uh gives an operational staff behind him to kind of help us keep that process moving so that we can make our 90-day window with NPERS to have our hearing decision and uh that process passed on to them.

These two contracts handle every every claim from PTSD that's yeah.

We've actually this is the first time we're actually bifurcating this out.

Sorry, I didn't mean to use that word, but we're separating it out through a medical provider.

Okay, uh a medical provider to look at those things that are more muscloskeletal or other types of medical injuries.

But as we look at about 14 applicants per year, we're seeing that psychological need creeping up more and more.

We're about probably 6040 medical to psychological.

So having Hope Haven uh, which has been a fantastic uh surprise to us that applied, uh, an XBE vendor uh that has come in and uh she's certified in multiple psychological areas.

We think she's gonna be very helpful in pushing these uh these uh applicants in a more timely fashion.

Continuing care, I know for PTSD, especially what one year, two year old.

Two year process after they're yeah, would that be handled under this contract or is that a separate uh it would be uh the option of the officer, I believe, to seek that.

A lot of times they're they're also being serviced under a uh workers' compensation process, so they may have somebody they're already working with that's in network that and since the work compund pays that that would probably be the process they would go through.

That's no no reason why Hope Haven couldn't work with uh that network though with Broadspire.

Who previously handled the psychological services prior to it was Dr.

Young's review, but usually we were taking the recommendation pretty seriously of Dr.

Hale, who is the IOD uh workers comp uh physician that does a lot of the psychological evaluations.

And so they they between Dr.

Young, Dr.

Hale, and Dr.

I think Hale, all three of these.

Yeah, there's also I I believe also Dr.

Higginbotham, if I'm not mistaken, who he serves on the NPERS board, but he also I think sometimes assists with internal operations at IMPD for the the wellness area, so he may have some evaluation of officers as well that that help them out before this applicant even gets to us.

And that's part of the big deal is getting the paperwork from the officer on any personal health care provider or the actual uh work comp doctors getting that collected, getting it to the new doctor, and then having a board recommendation from our service provider.

It's a matter of trying to keep these things moving.

Was it 250 per hour based off of kind of what the prior um I won't call them thing?

Doctors provided at that same range.

250 an hour is actually quite excellent from Hendrix.

Um I won't give names, but by comparison, one of the vendors that dropped out was charging us over 400 per hour.

So this is a very good deal.

90 percent of it is paper review, almost like a peer review of other doctors that have been uh evaluating that officer.

Um there may be a change in rate if somebody comes into the to the actual office to be visited, but other than that, 275 is a great deal.

Hope haven't a little, I think they're at 175 an hour.

We've capped that at a five-hour review, and then if that person has to come in, it's an $800 expense.

So we factored this up, and part of our NTE is that we would in most cases on a psychological evaluation.

We don't expect to spend more than $1,200 per applicant on about six applications per year as of right now, or six hearings.

Let me put it that way.

I'm sorry.

Okay, couple questions.

One shoot is 40 o' brain.

Whether were there uh were there any Marion County respondents?

Uh one of them was the one that dropped out was a uh provider here on the south side of of uh the county.

Okay.

I don't know the reasoning.

I think it may have just been uh the value of the contract compared to our terms of con of the contract terms as well as uh insurance requirements, things of that nature.

Is it typical to contract with a regional network or system that's out of county?

Uh it's become very typical.

Um if you look at, for instance, Hendrix Hospital, they work with a wider range of people uh across the state.

Um so we have people from I believe Decatur County Sheriff, Avon Fire Department, Brownsburg Police Department, as a few that work with uh Hendricks Regional.

So for those individuals, they are either in Hendricks County or outside looking in.

I believe Hendricks also works with some folks in Lake County that wasn't presented in the proposal as well.

So we have some fairly uh distance wise, some counties farther away from them that they assist to.

Like I said, 90% of it's a paper review, not necessarily in-house diagnostics.

Okay, and my second question, you kind of walked me into uh it wasn't a question at first, but you mentioned MBE, uh this been an MBE vendor.

How does that work with a regional network that this is considered an MBE XBE contract?

We're jumping ahead.

Hope haven't is the XBE.

That's the next contract.

Got it.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

Okay.

Um I would entertain a motion to adopt this item.

So move.

Second.

Motion has been moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, the motion passes.

Thank you.

We will move to item number 110525B, Hope Haven Psychological Resource.

So IMPD is seeking approval um for contract with Hope Haven Psychological Resource, similar to the Hendricks County.

Um Hope Haven will specifically be reviewing the mental health disability claims that are coming out of the cases.

It will review the case documentation from the providers used by the officer.

Um they will assess and and offer their recommendation to the board as well.

Um they have a different list of uh pricing because their services are a little bit different.

Um the same but different.

Um so they have a price structure for a testimonial appearance at 175 per hour, prep for that would be 100 per hour, chart review is of 175 per hour, a comprehensive clinical interview and mental status examination is an 875 flat rate.

Psychological evaluation is a 2100 flat rate and a comprehensive medical clinical interview, mental status examination, and psychological evaluation on kind of three services in one is the flat rate of 2975.

Their NTE is 28,000 based on the number of mental health cases the board pension board expects to review a year.

Um and this is also a two-year agreement, and as mentioned previously, Hope Haven is an XPE, and this vendor was selected through a request for qualification process that was handled by city purchasing.

All right, any questions, comments?

Yes, so the 28,000, this is uh not the same 28,000, they're not sharing.

Thank you.

Um, and then the are these two vendors doing a similar offering similar the offering two separate separate services.

Hendrix is doing physical disability, Hope Haven is doing mental health.

And will they have all of those cases for their categories?

Yes, I believe so.

Any psychological applicant, any applicant that's a psychological um impairment would be going through Hope Haven.

And there's no issues with capacity with either of the two.

No, actually, this will help us a great deal.

I think both of them have the capacity to handle what we project to be six to seven hearings per year applications, and the paper reviews and evaluations and all of those things.

Yeah, those would be the same.

Uh most of it will be paper reviews as opposed to in-house clinical review.

And is the Hope Haven contract?

Is this the contract where previously the gentleman was offering a service for free?

Yes.

He handled both for us as a review.

Um, and then again, he was usually evaluating the work comp doctors that had seen the officers prior.

Okay.

Which is which was Dr.

Hale Hale, yeah.

Got it.

So then this is also a new 28,000 dollar budgetary impact.

Yes.

It's about 14,000 a year.

So it's over a two-year period.

So we were estimating the cost would be 30,000 per year for both hit to the IEPD general fund.

General fund.

Got it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I have a few questions.

One, in order to arrive at this evaluation, is it by recommendation of the work comp doctor, or is it by request of the pension board?

Like to have to seek the psychological evaluation from let's say Hope Haven in this case.

We would be reacting to the applicants request when they apply for disability.

Generally, they are either applying on a track of medical or psychological, so that's where we would send it to Hope Haven in this case as opposed to a general practitioner.

And then the second question I have is just procedure.

I'm asking about the process.

Do you find that applicants sometimes have to qualify under both, or is it just they pick one or the other and this is the course that they take?

They say, Oh, I'm I need basically to medically retire because of mental or physical.

Yeah, we have had both.

It gets very tricky in that case because as you uh mentioned, Scott, uh, we have a situation where you have to be reevaluated and determine whether you could become an officer again.

And if you have a medical issue that is making it inability an inability for you to be an officer, but then you also have a psychological evaluation, then that can be a little bit tricky because now you've passed that.

Perhaps you've gotten better.

You've you know, PTSD is not a life sentence.

Sometimes it can be treated and you could be fine, but the medical is still there, so you may not be able to be capable of being a police officer as you were religious as you originally were.

So it gets very tricky on that.

We um I I think, and I might turn to my colleague uh Bill on this as well, who sees a lot of this as secretary of the board, but uh it's it's probably more beneficial for them to take one track or the other generally.

Yeah, and I think you answered this earlier, but I was just curious how I guess you arrived at the number the round number of 28,000.

I know I'm I'm not sure how many people are being medically retired or excuse me, going through the process do do mental or physical disability.

I just based off the pricing, other than getting the evaluations, what's that like five to six people a year based off this two-year contract?

Yeah, we are looking at about five to six.

It's been pretty consistent as far as the number of applicants and hearings that we've had a year.

Um it's a little bit nebulous.

We don't know if it could increase or not.

So 28,000 gave us a little bit of padding in year one for year two, it might get a little bit tight, but uh we anticipate about over a two-year period of this contract, probably close to 12 hearings for psychological services, um, and then probably closer to 14 medical would be my uh estimation based on our last two to three years of average.

But every, for example, based off the pricing quote on the contract, every person wouldn't require the 2900 evaluation.

No, actually not.

Um I was gonna point that out.

If you're going past the clinical review process, you're probably going into more of an intense long-lasting evaluation and care process.

It'd be almost as if you have already um been accepted as a line of duty psychological issue, and then you're now going into therapy.

Uh, in most cases, I think we would be able to determine that for the board.

The 175 review, like the residents and the okay.

Most times that if we do have it, might be the 875 is a possibility if she has to see the officer.

So we're looking at a probably a max for the board of about twelve hundred dollars on average, maybe a little bit more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any additional questions or discussion.

Hearing none, uh, I will entertain a motion to adopt item number 110525B.

So moved.

Second.

Motion has been moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the motion is passed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Next on the agenda is item number 110525 C.

Antonio Simone.

Fire inspection.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Morning board.

Um my name is Kennedy, and I am the contract manager for the Unappress Fire Department.

I know you've seen me back there hiding sometimes.

Yeah, I think I know, right?

Uh I brought with me our Captain Brody Bradshaw and uh Captain Harmon Kelly to ask the board approval for um the two fire inspection contracts, uh, item C and D.

Uh Antonio Simeone uh Annapolis fire inspection, and then uh Marion County uh fire inspections.

Um can I ask a question before you get started?

Yes.

Is it the same pot of money for both of these contracts with the same NTE or is it two separate?

So it's the same pot of money.

Um and if you want to explain a little bit more why we did it that way.

Um we made it that we because of the the staffing that each one of them has and the ability to possibly shift some of the inspections or inspection zones from one or the other um and possibly bringing in uh future individuals so it can shift around.

So we were afraid if it was completely separate uh pots of money that if there was any changes, uh one would leave, uh, have to look for a new vendor onboarding them.

Obviously, they're not going to be able to do the inspection numbers we need for that year, so it would be much less.

Uh so if it was all coming from the same pot, and then when we could, you know, write off of that for each one of them.

We thought that it would flow easier through the year uh or the two years of the contract.

So real quick, would you guys want to discuss both of these at the same time as or as separate items?

Yeah, you can buy fair.

Yeah, all right.

So we'll we'll plan to as you're for your presentation, we'll talk about both of these as the same.

Um and we'll take them both at the same time as a motion when we get to that point.

Okay.

Um did you have a question before they get started?

So there's an agreed expectation between the two vendors that they're to intentionally work together throughout this process, or is it just in case one can't do the other picks up, or are they actually working together on these inspections?

No, they are working separately.

Um they have uh assigned districts within uh our response area that they work on.

Um, and so it is very rigid separated out of what they could do, but um, depending on their staffing, what they could do, we could move one inspection district from one of them to the other one, um, depending on how the year is going.

Based off of I guess the amount of inspections that are needed at the time.

Is this for commercial buildings and schools, or is this just um what we assign to them are what we would consider low risk occupancies within Marion County that we uh look at?

Um, and it could be schools aren't in there, it's a lot of office buildings, um, some big box scores like CVS, um strip malls, um, that's mainly what they're going in.

Things that we determine, low risk, a few different you know, alarm systems, um we leave the you know, moderate to high, the more difficult ones to our deputy fire marshals that we have on staff.

Great.

Okay, well, if you if you all like to get started with your formal presentation, happy to discuss.

Yes.

Um, so we're requesting the uh asking the board to approve our two fire inspection contracts.

Um they are for uh you want to talk about what they do I mean they kind of get back in um on what we were just saying.

Um yeah, they uh we assign them uh the low or low risk inspections uh throughout Marion County.

Um they'll go out and assess um I'm trying to think exactly how to phrase it.

I mean, just the um why is it my brain leaving me at the moment?

My apologies.

Uh you want to phone a friend?

Chief GPM out real quick.

In Indianapolis, we have over 30, almost 31,000 inspectors.

Can you actually stand for the microphone, please?

Thank you.

We have over thirty, almost 31,000 inspectable occupancies in Indianapolis.

We have had to go to a risk matrix just because of staffing is too as far as staffing that is available to inspect those occupants.

We have 10 deputy fire marshals.

No way we can get 31,000 done in a year.

So we've had to go to a risk matrix, high, medium, and low based on data points.

We've had to separate that out.

That's where the two uh private companies come into play.

They do most of our loads and some of our moders that they can handle.

We make sure that they're uh qualified to do that to inspect or one, and we just uh so that's kind of how we differentiate that out to try to meet our inspection goals.

We want to make sure we get in there and make sure everyone's co-compliant, everyone's safe.

So we're trying to put eyes on everyone that we can in that inspection cycle.

So it's a three, two, one inspection cycle, highs get done every single year.

If we give it as a high risk occupancy, it's done every year, moderate every two, low every three.

We want to get into every one every single year, but we can't.

Well, we're trying that's what the uh PI companies come to play it because they handle the things that are lower level and our uh specialists that get into the higher risk occupancy.

So that's kind of how that flows out.

For the sake of my brain that doesn't know your link, your lingo and your lane.

No, no, no, you're fine.

Can you give us an example of what's a high facility, a medium facility, and maybe a lower facility?

Okay, so you got hazmat.

If you have uh chemicals in there that can highly combustible, that's considered a high.

Like a gas station.

Yes, something like that.

A hotel where you got people that are living there constantly, high risk.

So we're thinking about they've got children in schools.

We have label those high risk now because kids are there, they're almost for a commodity there.

So we labeled those as high risk.

So moderate.

Um it may be something like a CVS store, a lot lower level, no combustibles as far as a flammable uh explosives or anything like that.

It's lower level, so those data points that we have kind of modified it out.

Do they have sprinkler systems?

How far they're away from a hydrant, all those things know how many stories above ground is do they have a standby?

All those things come into play and it's modified out into a matrix, and it gives us what's a low, what's a model?

Obviously, an office building would be low.

You don't have anything in there, but you know, offices and desks and things like that.

So we kind of base it like that, just to give you a kind of a uh general description of it.

So thank you, sir.

Okay.

Any additional questions?

I I do have a technical contract question.

We kind of talked about it beforehand.

Um I understand the rationale that you two laid out as far as why these two vendors are sharing one pot of money.

Um, but is there historically an issue where you've had to move like where you've moved contractors around that would require them to share one pot of money?

You even said uh what if the a contractor is offloaded and you have to bring a new contractor on mid-year.

Is that typical?

Is that something that has happened?

No, the the only time that would have happened was when we brought on the second company itself.

Um, and so that would be the only time in recent.

I mean, the the program's only five five years or less.

Five years old, and uh three years ago we brought on the second uh contractor.

And that's about the only time that's happened.

Um so to answer your question, no, not really, but um things change, and so it's just we're trying to protect uh how to get this accomplished in the monies uh for the future.

Thank you for that.

The reason I asked the question is we we we've kind of wrestled with this idea in the past with other contracts around multiple vendors sharing one pot of funds, um, specifically when they're con each vendor's contract has the has the max not to exceed um and potentially that vendor having the expectation of receiving uh work at that max amount uh and the perception of how a contractor may feel slighted.

I and I know it may be a bit far-fetched, but it's not in this in this day and age.

So uh that's just kind of where I'm a little struggling.

Like, why wasn't if we've never had an issue where you've had to separate con contracts, this is only the it's five years old.

You the only other additional contract where you've had was when you brought on one vendor three years ago.

Like, why couldn't we have just split these up into two contracts based on the zones?

Um I think uh Antonio Simeone does I think 75% more of the inspections, is that right?

Yeah, um top of that, we uh we issue yearly PLs for the vendors.

Um so they have already have like a a knot to see for that year.

Um, and they already know what they can and can't spend.

Um and they never, and that's why we are asking um so technically the NTE is uh lower than what we've had previously because of the spend it just wasn't there.

Um so they already know what they're getting into in regards to that.

Um so we don't foresee that being an issue with them fighting over that pot of money.

I do see what you're saying.

They're gonna see the contract, they're gonna see that number, and they're gonna think that money's thirst.

Um a lot of times I could see how that could be an issue.

I I speak constantly with uh both the the vendors and like uh Kennedy was saying the PO, they get that number and they know at the beginning of the year, this is what they have, regardless of what the NT on the contract is.

Uh they're given that PO and saying, hey, this is this is what we're working with for this year.

Uh both also both of them have been uh work for the fire department, so they they and also in the administration, so they know how this process works of purchase orders and the contracts and those types of things.

So with these two vendors specifically, I don't see that being an issue.

Next question, then if they're issued POs, how this is a two-year contract, right?

Okay, so if they're issued POs every year for that year's amount, and that year's amount kind of guides them as far as what they can or cannot do.

Um why not just make the not to exceed based on the POs that you'll actually issue versus an arbitrary not to exceed?

Can you maybe further I can I I because I think I guess the question is, arguably because it's based off the POs, are is it you have the inspectors go out and they say we have this, or do you say this is I know you said there's 31,000 inspections across the city.

I don't know how many you're gonna assign to these venues, but is that something that's preset and that's how they know how to issue the P.

I mean, how how do we arrive at how many inspections they're doing specifically, I guess, to determine I guess the long-term amount that for the the length of the contract?

So it's we're they're budgeted at a certain amount regardless.

Um we our money the IFP splits our money into different divisions, and I'm I'm sorry, I'm not gonna answer like half the question to answer that.

Um so they know that they're only allotted that fire life and safety our uh captains over here only allotted that certain amount for these inspections because they have other needs that they have to meet.

This is uh what's considered character three, which is our freight or service contracts.

So they they have to split what they get between what they need for that year.

Um so in regards to them, um that's the max that they can have.

Um I don't know if they do all the inspections or not.

The the amount of the inspections they do and how much they bill each year, it's kind of come out of the the five years we've had this contract.

And that's kind of where this number for the NTE for two years, how we develop that number was based off what they billed in the last four, four and a half years, and we've seen the trend.

Um anywhere from seven to ten thousand inspections is what they're doing for us in a year.

And based off what they submit to us is billing and what they've done for effectively eleven months every year.

Did you say seven to ten thousand?

Huh?

Did you say seven to ten thousand?

Inspections, yes.

Sorry for interrupting.

Yeah, to answer your question, we issue them what we want them to have.

They don't dictate that to us.

We do that in anticipation of what we're PO ing for and what they can get done.

Yeah.

So well, I guess the question is if if you all can you you're you're driving the the fire truck here.

If you dictate what the inspections are, you set the you basically set the plan for the year, right?

Why did why is that why doesn't the contract just reflect the plan that you have laid out for them versus an arbitrary number of 765,000 dollars um for two vendors to share?

Why don't we just have two different contracts based on what you already know to be relatively true for these two different vendors?

That would be more of a question for our finance department.

But we still don't I see what you're saying, but we still don't know if that vendor if so if Simeone does 75% of the work, he may one year do 80%, or he may one year do 60%.

Um so it's kind of hard for us.

That's why we gave the 75 765 thousand dollars because we we don't really know.

He has authority to reject doing an inspection, doesn't he?

Like, can you say do this inspection?

I don't have the time to do it, and then you call the other vendor.

I I guess technically uh that I mean it's hard to really speak because it's not come up.

Um I've neither of the companies have you know called me up when I've assigned uh a bulk grouping of inspections for them to do in an area and go no.

Um now uh for different reasons that they might have slower periods in those things of when they're able to get you know weather, all kinds of different things that factor into it.

Uh, but I've never had any of them say no to me, and I guess I no, never I I guess they could they do what we issue them out, yeah.

They can inspect.

So, but I mean, like any company, I mean they use contractors that we have standards for them to have, and maybe their staffing is up and down throughout the year, and so that's why we would like the ability to um have one fund to assign to whichever one is doing those inspections.

So would it be safe to say and I do remember the discussion we've had about this before, and I want to say it was something with the gear that the gloves and boots and bulk or something and I was I was on board with that.

I think I'm comfortable with this because this is just out of an abundance of caution in case Tony Simeone's no young man, maybe it's gonna fold up the shop, you know, and and uh so you you have the flexibility there, and I assume there's got to be some aspect of we don't know what's gonna be built that needs to be inspected, and and certainly out of 30,000, 31,000, whatever you said, um there's not gonna be 10 percent of that built this year, but but there's gonna be 10 or 20, you know, that that pop up and and it gives you some flexibility of whether it's in one zone or the other zone or or the deputy fire marshal zone uh gives you some flexibility.

Would would I be correct in making that assumption?

Yeah, and I mean th this program is uh instrumental on a lot of things uh to identifying, I mean, because what in that matrix that the chief was talking about, the low moderate high, it's not set, and it's not always like that.

There are so many things that these private contractors they they'll call me up or they'll email me and say, hey, I found this, and well, that's something now I need to send the deputy fire marshal.

you know that that that pop up and and it gives you some flexibility of whether it's in one zone or the other zone or or the deputy fire marshal zone uh gives you some flexibility would would I be correct in making that exception yeah and I mean the this program is uh instrumental on a lot of things uh to identifying I mean because what in that matrix that the chief was talking about the low moderate high it's not set and it's not always like that there are so many things that these private contractors they they'll call me up or they'll email me and say hey I found this and well that's something now I need to send the deputy fire marshal this is no longer a low risk we find uh buildings and things that are doing construction that haven't had permits pulled on it and those types of things and with the you know just handful of you know deputy fire marshals that we have there's no way to be able to see all of that I mean there are our eyes and ears on the ground um and it's it's great to have I certainly see the flexibility um and I think I'm okay with this I I'm just curious have you ever exceeded the the not to exceed amount no no I'm giving strict instructions to pay attention to the because I could see a situation where you did exceed the not to exceed amount or what am I sure you could add funds and in an in a future year to those contracts since they're both at 765000 and I think that's is that the concern that maybe you have that that there would be no review of like there's funds being added to the contract because now you're your your actual total NTE to me looks like 765000 times two.

Right.

That's the concern the latter of the concern so um I see what you're saying no it's 75 765000 for both two years and then um so in previous years we've and we gave Antonio Semiali not gay but we did a PO for a um three hundred and thirty thousand dollars per year well he never met that that uh total amount and so we um are technically reducing 765 thousand dollars is just our safe net he's probably gonna bill us way less than that um but it's a kind of a safety net for us I don't think that answers the question a cushion yes so then you would in conjunction with the CFO and with the division chief you just monitor where we are the date on this number and yes I keep a spreadsheet and soda's broody yeah there we have the redundancy that you know as I set them off I keep track and it's been I mean I would love to say it's not as often but it's usually monthly we're in contact to making sure that everything is matching so it it never exceeds that yearly or that yearly POK I understand and appreciate the abundance of caution um but given the information that was shared by you three professionals here seems like that caught that level of caution may not be necessary based on trends and uh information and real data that you have on previous contracts um it may not be necessary but I you know could this have just been one contract with the not to exceed of 765 just with two separate vendors in it because that would then still consolidate the number under that's even worse seven one the the the not to exceed being placed in both contracts is a a conflicting statement because in unless the documents are one document you you can't reference outside of a contract to another contract it does it does and here it's in the contract it says the not to exceed is 765 but it'll be shared between two vendors and it references the other vendor.

One contract it should be two separate contracts you don't put two vendors in one contract.

Well the not to exceed is the the limitation in this instance the 765 I don't I don't want to debate contract law because that I I didn't practice law I went to IU for public administration I thought that was your concern the concern was that the not to exceed is in both both places so it does allude to the fact of being one point five million dollars.

Yes that's the issue the not to exceed being joint in place which is why he's saying either limited at 300 or 400 thousand a contract I yield to the attorneys on the team here from counsel I just want to clarify one point on this we've received the memo we did not receive a draft of the contract right yeah so it's each dra each memo stipulates a separate NTE of 765000 so it isn't necessarily that they're drawing down even if it might be the same pot it's not the the referencing the same amount in in these separate contracts right and just to clarify it's uh the Adam drafted a contract it's in DCS right now so he's given us legal approval of it Adam Wicker okay I think from my perspective since we have similar situations in the Office of Public Health and Safety it would probably be preferable to have two contracts where you're prorating what each of those vendors is going to receive over the course of the two of those two years that equals the full NTE.

So I think that's what we're asking for.

Um if not today in the future at the very least.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, we are going to take both of these items as one motion.

Um and I'll entertain a motion to adopt both items number 110525C and 110525D.

So move second.

The motion has been moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, both motions pass.

Thank you both.

Thank you.

All right.

We are going to move on to item number 110525E vehicle procurement through JP Morgan Chase Bank.

I'm staying up here.

Should have back up.

Sir, can you state your name for the record?

Uh Michael Tiernan, uh Deputy Chief of Logistics.

Uh we are asking the board to approve of um a um sorry.

I apologize just one second.

We're asking the board to approve of a um uh financing through JP Morgan Bank uh for our vehicle apparatus um in the amount of uh sorry um eighteen million dollars eighteen million three hundred thousand dollars.

Um don't be shy.

Don't be shy.

Is this your first time up here?

I think so, yeah.

Both of ours, right?

You have sat here and observed us for many, many, many months.

Don't be shy today because you have the at the seat now.

Go ahead and go ahead and go through your presentation.

You could um we're gonna treat you like RVUBR.

Glad he's not here.

We did go through the Indiana Bond Bank.

Um accepted the rate of 3.59 over eight years with JP Morgan.

Um, and it's for the purchase of 18 apparatus, so five engines, five ladders, five squads, a tanker, a TSU, and a tactical vehicle.

Uh the oldest of which is nearly 20 years old.

So, and these are all frontline apparatus, so it's very important that we continue with cheap loans apparatus replacement plan and get the new apparatus on the street from the communities.

Oh questions, comments?

Yes, so this is the next phase of replacements.

Uh we've we've we've had one grouping this year, correct?

Uh one approval for uh purchase of new apparatus vehicles this year.

We've had one already, correct?

This year we've had one before, but I don't know if it was this year.

It was uh 2023, I think.

Yeah.

Was it that long ago?

Yeah, I think so.

I'm confusing you all with the police cars.

We just want to do this year.

Sorry.

You guys got some nice fancy vehicles.

We'll we'll come back to you, uh, Deputy Chief.

Uh so these are re are these eight eighteen vehicles replacing 18 old vehicles or a certain number of replacements I answer my question.

If they have 14 replacements and four new vehicles, did I read that correctly?

17 replacement vehicles.

And with this, there's a new station 32 that's being opening this year, uh, and we're putting a tanker in there, so that's like a water tender uh to help with the areas on the north side of the community that don't have as many hydrants within them.

So this is a new apparatus that isn't replacing, it's in addition, it's unmanned, so the personnel from station 32 would simply leave the app or the engine that they're on and go to the tanker and take the tinker as well to uh fire seat.

So that station has an engine and you're gonna add a tinker, or it also has a ladder and you're adding it has an engine and we're gonna add a tinker.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um I have a question actually, um, which I I I guess you're getting a a lot here for 18 million.

Um last time we looked at this, I thought some of these engines and ladders were going for over a million apiece.

Is this actually that is this uh yes, this is accurate.

So the the squads, which are uh they are I would say similar to the size of a pickup truck, are substantially less than the engines and the the ladders.

Are those like those they almost look like utility type vehicles?

Correct, absolutely we have five squads within the city, so we're replacing the entire fleet.

Are the support apparatuses just vehicles then like regular type vehicles with the logos on the side, like those so that the the tinker would be a support apparatus and then a TSU, which is a um the SCBAs that we have on the air where we breathe the air through the the packs and everything else, they carry extra bottles and fill stations, so it's in support.

We call them support vehicles because it supports in the uh the suppression services, um, and then the third is the tactical.

Uh so the tactical they respond to um rope incidents, dive incidents, uh hazmat incidents, as well as um accidents where people are entrapped.

Any additional questions?

Discussion.

Sorry.

My only can my only question is we don't have a nice pretty board to display.

We don't have we don't have show and tail, it's my only for the next one.

I see I saw you.

You know, I moved around the office for some like matchbox vehicles.

I didn't find any, and told me, bring a hood so you can show exactly what we're talking about.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

No further questions, yes, sir.

Appreciate that.

All right.

Um hearing no further comments, cut questions, or discussion, I'll entertain a motion to adopt item number 110525E.

So move seconds.

Motion has been moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the motion is adopted.

All right.

Uh item number 110525.

Particulate hoods.

We are asking the board to approve of a contract uh with Phoenix safety outfitters.

This was competed through purchasing.

Um, and uh for our particular hoods, a particulate hoods, um, which is a protective uh barrier um that we use for our firefighters.

Um you want me to pass this is my first meeting, so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to approach council or how that works.

So we're counseling.

Hey, we're counting.

Very approachable.

So the the neck region behind the ears, these are some of the most vulnerable areas when we go into uh building that's on fire because the other areas are are covered by our dual liner uh fire coats and and bunker pants as well as boots.

So these are the most vulnerable areas, and uh we have moved to this particular hood because it filters out at a more uh fine rate uh the the carcinogens that are often found within the the fire environments.

So this was uh provided by Chief Cook who could not be here today.

Um and it uh supports the uh the frontline uh suppression personnel that we have uh currently on the department.

How many um clips are you guys looking to purchase under this contract?

So the contract is for 150,000 dollars.

These hoods cost a bit over a hundred dollars a piece, so it will outfit all of the the men and women on the fire department as well as offer a buffer in case one gets torn and has to be replaced.

So for these, are you actually replacing everyone's current existing gear?

Like will they be required to wear these, or are you just adding some to the ones they have and it's an option for them to wear the hoods?

It is mandatory that they have to wear this.

So everyone's getting a new issue.

Yes, correct.

Because just like um everything has a life cycle, the hoods have life cycles, turnout gear has life cycles, everything else.

Um, so we have to replace them within the manufacturer's recommendations and and also follow NFA standards.

Question with the replacement are you taking the old one and giving them a new one, or are you giving them a new one to add to their wardrobe?

So each each item that the firefighter wears has like a QR code on it, which has the expiration date, how many times it's been washed, the serviceability of it, if there's any big repairs made.

So that is actually dealt with at Chief Cook's level.

So he will look at each individual hood, each individual coat, the the helmets, the face pieces, all that uh has a finite time for when they expire.

So whether or not they can have the the goal is for each person to have two particular hoods, so then they could change out if they have a fire, say the beginning of their shift, they can turn it in and they can still have a particular hood for the continuation of their shift.

However, um that is determined as far as their expiration uh by Chief uh Chief Cook because he has all of his data established as far as when they're put into service and what the the length of of time and service that they can be provided for.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Are those one size fits all?

That is a good question.

I believe they are.

Um, but I would have to defer to Chief Cook and get back with you if you want to know.

Oh no.

Asking, I didn't know if you had to order a variety of sizes that they're the same.

Do you have to like your different ones or um it does say one size?

So I'm they are flexible as you can see.

So for some of us that have larger things up here, um they'll they'll stretch over my head.

So that makes me feel better.

All right, any additional questions?

Discussion.

Hearing that I'll entertain a motion to adopt 110525 F.

So moved.

Second.

Motion is moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the motion is adopted.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

All right, the final item today, uh 110525G.

It's a presentation from Deputy Chief Kendall Adams for the C VIP grant.

Several meetings ago, we had a presentation on a um some contracts related to this, and we requested that the deputy chief come back and provide uh this presentation.

Um, that's that was great.

That would just use the PowerPoint you have here.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I will uh oh she's already got it perfect.

I will just go with uh I'll talk about a little bit about the uh non-fatal advocacy program because that will build into the C VIP that we'll talk about here in just a second.

So um so just to kind of give you a um holistic view of the non-uh fatal shooting program back in 2018-2019, we as a police department started seeing a rise in non-fatal shootings and homicides.

We were well over 200 homicides and well over 600 non-fatal shootings.

So when I came into the seat in 2022, we started talking, we were having a technical assistance with uh Project Safe uh partnership, which is a DOJ funded program uh to help us reduce gun violence.

And one of the areas we looked at was how we interact with victims uh from gun violence.

And what we found is we were very strong on the homicide side with our victim assistance.

Uh they were already advocating are already connecting with those families and providing resources at an unbelievable rate.

Where we found a gap was our non-fatal shootings, and uh it started to occur to me that that made a lot of sense because those those victims survive.

Um and then I was really shocked at the number of repeated victims we have that are shot multiple times.

So we really started talking about okay, well, how can we address this gap with non-fatal shooting victims?

And so that was about the same time that uh COVID was starting, and so our dollar started flowing, and we partner with the Office of Public Health and Safety to uh design a program specific for non-fatal shooting victims with uh advocacy of lived uh experienced individuals.

So essentially what we did was take the victim assistance model and applied it to specifically non-fatal shootings.

We took the other caseloads that victim assistants have because victim assistance deals with domestic violence, deals with robbery, deals with you know every crime type that has a victim they were dealing with.

So we took the non-fatal shooting program and said, you're gonna focus just on non-fatal shootings.

You're gonna provide resources, you're gonna provide um connections, and and selfishly, you know, what I wanted to happen was that these victims would work with our detectives, and our clearance rate would improve by working with our detectives.

Uh so anyway, we launched the program.

We we we got um we got dollars from the ARPA dollars, do officer public health safety, and that program went for three years um up until 2023, I believe, 2022, I believe.

And what we saw in that three-year period, we also partnered with uh Dr.

Lauren McGee, who uh was at IU Indianapolis.

Uh she's now at the IU School of Medicine to track the data for us to determine if in that period we were successful.

And what we found is our clearance rate went up and our shootings went down pretty significantly, like by 13%.

Um so when uh the program was coming to an end, we really had an option, and our department was not in a position to fund those three.

We had three positions.

Uh our department was not in a position to fund any more uh FTEs, and so we we happened to look up on the the grant that was uh published by the DOJ.

Um and so we applied for that grant and we applied as a police department, and one of the things that we came out of that discussion was we needed to do more with service providers.

Uh we could not do it all.

The three advocates couldn't do it all.

Uh there just aren't enough resources.

And so we partnered with uh we we partnered with uh what we call community-based organizations who were already doing the work to deliver dollars to them so that when our advocates interact with these victims, they had somewhere to send them.

Um and so by partnering with them, that was the first time that the police department had partnered with CBOs to actually provide dollars to support their work.

Uh part of that, we also uh recognize that therapy services was lacking, and so we um I think we put out an RFP uh through the grant to um uh solicit therapy services for people that were experiencing trauma.

And so that grant was a 1.6 million dollar grant, I believe uh was a total amount.

Um it guaranteed $50,000 for um our community-based organizations, and I can't remember the exact dollar amount for therapy services.

In addition to that, we partnered with the HFibs.

At this point, H Fibs were starting to kind of ride.

You guys know what HFIBs is, hospital-based intervention.

So, you know, Eskenazi, um, IU, they have they have programs that will go bedside and deal with victims uh through uh kind of peer mentoring, so people that have lived experience, they will go into the hospital and they will try to work with the victims to try to get them services.

So this was a new concept that was start starting to kind of rise around the country and it had taken hold in Indianapolis.

And so we also partner with them to support that that work, and Office of Public Health and Safety is heavily involved in in HF work too.

So all of that to say that that was kind of the summary of the grant.

I didn't really run through this presentation, but this this just talks about the non-fatal shooting program.

Um as a I should say a bulk of the dollars is going to support the three advocates, um, their salaries, their benefits, they are contracted with uh knowledge services for for the work.

So and that grant runs through the end of 2027, I believe, 28 or something like that.

I think it's 27.

27, yeah, end of 27.

Uh obviously we got that grant award in November of 24.

I believe so.

And there was an administration change, so we were a little afraid that that that may impact us, but luckily it did not.

Uh we were we got that grant before the administration had changed, so that was good.

And you know, just talking about um well, this talks about some of the numbers that our canary alluded to the data.

Um, yeah, so here's our numbers uh through 2025, and I'm happy to say I always say this that our numbers are continuing to go down, not only for non-fatal shootings, but for homicides, and our clearance rate is up 90 percent.

Uh and our clearance rate for non-fatal shootings is about 40 percent.

So, yes, ma'am.

Um, what are these?

I see the victims, are these the non-patial shooting or are these are not fatal shooting?

Victims alone, not correct.

Okay, correct.

These are not incidents, these are actually victims.

So when you have incidents, are you seeing like I say there's 713 people, there might have been one or two people injured per year.

Correct, okay.

Correct, because sometimes you have an incident that has two people shot.

Okay.

Um so yeah, and you know, a lot of people, but a lot of people don't really focus a lot on the homicide number, the criminal homicide, and that you know that gets a lot of attention, and and and and I think if I asked most of you if you think crime is down in Indianapolis, most of you tell me no, right?

That's just the reality that we live in.

But the reality is it is down pretty significantly, like 25% uh and 12% for non-federal shootings, and clearance rates are up on both both both homicides and non-federal shootings.

So you know, just reflecting back on this one one more slide.

You know, a lot of questions I get sometimes is can you attribute that to the advocates?

And and you know, what I can attribute is that since the advocates have been here, these numbers have been going down.

Uh what I can't attribute to the advocates is that since they've been employed, um the the clearance rate has continually climbed for both um non fatals and homicides.

So this kind of gives you a breakdown of the demographics of the victims.

Nothing shocking here.

Mostly are male, 80%, and mostly are black males, uh, between the ages of 18 and 34.

So there's nothing really shocking here.

Um juveniles, I get a lot of questions about juveniles, juveniles are starting to rise, but even if you solved every juvenile shooting, you st there's still be 80%.

So most of our shootings are adults.

Uh success stories kind of after being shot or surviving her son were displaced with the support she engaged with the detective, which was key for me.

Secured safe housing is now working full-time while attending therapy.

She has expressed you've got two for stability.

So a lot of what these advocates do, and and again, I've talked about lived experience.

One is Antonia Bailey.

Uh she lost both her children to criminal homicide uh on the east side.

It was a big case, it was solved.

Um another juvenile shot her two children.

Um so she is she's the manager now.

Um and then the other one is Ashley Stokes.

Uh her um uh sister was killed uh um in uh home invasion, that case remains unsolved.

And then um, yeah, DeAndre Dykis, uh a lot of people know her.

Um she needs no introduction, but she was she was instrumental in starting the program.

She has since left the program.

But her son uh Andre was shot in the head tragically, he survived, uh, but he's never been the same.

Uh he is basically in a uh a very um vegetated state.

And so one of the things that Neandra used to talk about was you know, from a from a homicide perspective, as I said earlier, a lot of people get a lot of services, but you know, non-fatals, they survive, they often need continual care, they often need ramps, they often need food, shelter, uh, all these things, and she talks about that.

That's why it was important that we start this program here.

So um yeah, and and Damon Lane was an advocate with us.

He just recently uh left.

He he moved to Texas.

He he was actually a trigger puller, so he was a shooter uh that had reformed his life and wanted to come back and try to help those that he sold desperately were trying to help.

And then um, yeah, these are just the advocates.

Uh that's Dr.

McGee in the middle.

Um she did a at the end of the ARPA dollars, she did a presentation for the executive staff of the police department, uh, where she talked about the program and the data that was collected during that time.

So that uh that that kind of quickly goes through um the program and and as I as I said earlier, the C VI uh P grant was just an ability to extend those services through uh 2027.

Now my hope is we got the CFO here, but my hope is that I can approach the department.

It wasn't gonna be possible in 2026.

Our budget's pretty pretty um pretty tight.

But my hope is that at the end of this program I can approach the police department uh with the with the effort to try to retain these three FTEs specifically to non-fatal shootings.

I don't know that that will happen.

I don't think our budget's probably going any better in 26 and 27, but I I've got some other things I think we can try to maybe get it through VOCA or some some other some other means.

But I'd hate to lose the program, uh, but that's that's why the grant was uh through the DOJ was important because it allowed us to extend the program, expand on the program a little bit.

Um before we're ARPA dollars, we had no CBOs involved.

They really didn't have any ability uh to refer people out.

You know, if they did refer people out and people were taking them in, it was just out of the goodness of their heart.

So we wanted to try to fix that, address that a little bit.

Um, and and the CBIP grant gave us an opportunity to do that.

So I'll take any questions.

Great.

Thanks, Deputy Chief.

Sir Um any questions or discussion?

Thank you for the presentation.

Um the additional information and context on to uh the contracts we approved in previous months, is very, very beneficial, very helpful.

It's it's exciting for me to see the numbers of how we're trending in the right direction in light of what we see in the news and on TV and on social media and all those things.

Uh I constantly say that we have one of the best I uh best police departments in the world.

Uh we have world-class training, world-class leadership, and I thank you all for your leadership.

Um so that's definitely important, and um good to see the data.

My question is uh specifically to the CBOs.

How um I understand that the CBOs that we've had that we've already approved were contracted based on like a carryover from the ARPR funds and wanted to kind of keep them, keep them in line.

Is there potentially a process uh or a thought or an idea to get additional uh vendors on that list because even with the list that the vendors that we had, there were some gaps.

Um I can answer that.

So yeah.

And I'll I'll let Deb jump in here too.

I just want to address one, and when you say CBOs, you're talking about the community-based organization.

Correct.

Okay, so two things.

Previously under ARPAR, there were no CBOs.

So we had no contracts with anyone to do any work.

Um those those CBOs that were introduced uh through this new grant, the C V I P grant, those were new and uh what we tried to do is identify people that were already doing the work that could accommodate the city structure.

Um that that's been our big challenge is that the city and the structure that it requires is very difficult for CBOs.

So we had to have someone that could you know ingest like not getting paid right away, but still be able to do the work.

So no, and that was probably a misunderstanding on my part because um these are organizations that we probably worked with under different RP projects over the past few years, and that's they were low-hanging fruit, so to speak, which is why they wanted to work with them.

But we've got new processes that we're working on to get more CBOs and um what we're gonna do is use our grant management system to put out RFPs.

Um we have a couple, we have some funding left for this program.

Um we are currently working on a process to issue a a request for proposals from the general community organizations, uh giving them specific criteria about what our needs are, let them propose, and then we'll do an evaluation process and select probably a couple more CBOs to provide services under this program.

Um my team in my office, uh, we're down in grant manager.

We have one part-time who is trying to work with OFM to get this RFP out before the end of the year um to at least give a CBO a year or so to finish out the project and provide services in 206.

So that's gonna be our process for most of our grants from this point forward is to just do those RFP processes through our what we call our e-civist system, which may be changing.

Um everything changes.

Um that we can engage more community-based organizations and reach out to more organizations that can provide services for our grants.

Um historically, you know, because of our lack of access to a system that couldn't do an RFP process, um, of course, constant staffing issues and stuff, it's not always been practical historically for us to do these RFP processes for our grants.

Um and historically we've written sub-recipients into those grants before we submit it.

So our hands were kind of tied, but we're changing our strategy on that to where we're just submitting applications that are to be determined sub-recipients so that we can go through a fair and unbiased process of engaging with more people.

I'd just like to reiterate what Dwayne said.

Thank you for coming, Chief, and explaining this program to us.

Um obviously is there's our roles here, we worry about the contract, but as residents, we worry about those results that you were showing, and uh uh certainly uh who knows whether it was this program alone or or uh you have a wide range of things that have come across uh the this this board uh uh other projects uh the totality of them and uh I hope I hope they're able to continue that.

And um if I can make one recommendation, look to me like that number said you're down 50% across two years.

I think that's a little more impressive number.

Maybe maybe sell that.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Uh any any decrease is good, but but let's give them a big number uh down here, Market Street.

There, they're they're telling a different story.

Yes, sir.

So 100%.

All right, any further discussion?

Thank you both very much.

There's nothing to to vote on today.

We we appreciate you coming out and and providing this information and look forward to continuing our collaboration on reducing crime.

I shouldn't introduce myself for those that don't know me, I'm condemned.

I'm the deputy chief of criminal investigation, so it's not gonna throw that out there.

So thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you both.

All right.

Well, nothing else on our agenda.

I think we are adjourned.

Thank you.