The Jeffersonville police union asked for a 4 percent raise for officers in each of the next two years in negotiations Monday with the City Council.
That was a counteroffer to the 0.6 percent the council had proposed for next year, said Joe Hubbard, president of the Jeffersonville lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, which negotiates the police contract.
The city and the police union negotiated a four-year contract in 2009, with the sections on salary and physical fitness test requirements for 2011 and 2012 to be reopened this year.
Those sections were to be reopened because the city was working on a major annexation -- now completed -- that added an estimated third to the city's population, and because the physical fitness requirements in the contract were new and still being fine-tuned.
The unusual public negotiating session was held Monday in the mayor's conference room in City Hall with the council and a dozen police officers and several supporters attending.
Referring to the proposed pay raise, Hubbard told the council: "I came up with this because we have officers patrolling twice the city we used to have" before the annexation.
Council President Nathan Samuel asked Hubbard how much the police union's offer would cost.
Hubbard said that, including pay increments based on higher rank and length of service, the increase he offered would raise the cost of police pay to the city from this year's $3.1million to $3.4million next year and $3.5million in 2012. The city has 58 officers.
Hubbard said that's more than the 4 percent he estimated because it includes factors over which the police union has no control, such as officers' length of service and rank.
The 4 percent he cited uses the base pay for a patrolman first class, which is $45,126.
He said he did include $500 per officer as an incentive for passing the new physical fitness requirements, adding that he opposes the current contractual language that says officers hired after Jan. 1, 2010, can be fired if they can't pass a physical fitness test after several attempts.
Hubbard said he thinks incentives are more effective than punitive measures.
Hubbard also proposed exempting officers with "legitimate medical conditions" from the physical fitness test until those medical conditions clear up.
Samuel said contract language already allows officers not to take the fitness test for "extraordinary circumstances."
"Extraordinary circumstances are vague," Hubbard said. "I wanted to make it more clear."
Council member Ed Zastawny, who helped negotiate the police contract in 2009, said the physical fitness requirements were included "to be sure (police officers) could perform their duties."
Hubbard also proposed allowing crunches instead of sit-ups because sit-ups can cause back injuries. He proposed requiring 50 crunches or 30 sit-ups for officers 18 to 29 years old, with the requirements declining for older officers. He also proposed a time limit of 16 minutes, 30 seconds for a 1.5-mile run for officers of that age instead of the 15 minutes currently in the contract, and a 30 push-up requirement.
Hubbard said his proposals generally are based on Indiana police academy requirements.
Samuel said he would discuss Hubbard's proposals with council members and call the police union president to schedule another meeting "in a couple of weeks."
Hubbard reminded Samuel that if there is no agreement by Aug. 1, the contract issues are to go to binding arbitration.