Greenwood firefighters press council to restore longevity, consider bargaining amid 2026 budget debate

Tony Murray, president of the Professional Firefighters Union, told the Greenwood Common Council on Oct. 20 that his membership represents thousands of emergency workers statewide and urged the council to consider a bargaining ordinance and restoration of a longevity program as it reviews the city’s 2026 salary and budget proposals. “We represent over 9,000 members across the state of Indiana and 97 affiliate locals,” Murray said. He said longevity helps establish a competitive pension base under the 1977 police officers and firefighters retirement disability fund and improves recruitment and retention.

District Vice President Brian Johns, representing Greenwood firefighters as Local 42‑52, described overtime and staffing pressures in detail. Johns said Greenwood was short 14 firefighters last year and that overtime kept apparatus in service. “If we had not worked the overtime, you would have had fire engines out of service many, many times,” Johns said, and he warned of the public‑safety risk when response units are unavailable.

Tyler Herringer, local vice president with John Scott Professional Firefighters Local 42‑52, told the council the union seeks improved staffing and a formal labor‑management process. “By considering the implementation of a bargaining ordinance, this body can utilize the existing framework to develop a process where current labor management practices evolve to include essential discussion on priorities for all,” he said.

City Controller Greg Wright explained budget constraints and pension costs to the council. Wright said the city ended a longevity program in 2013 and described how longevity increases pension bases and employer pension contributions. “This year, the employer contribution for public safety goes up to 23.3% of the first class salary,” Wright said, up from 21% the prior year. He warned that adding longevity can increase long‑term employer costs and that the council must weigh timing and affordability amid uncertain future revenues.

Council members and staff discussed tradeoffs. Some councilors said they support restoring longevity in principle but questioned doing so in a year the city is facing a multi‑million dollar budget shortfall. Several speakers on both sides emphasized the impact on retention and on retiree benefits. Council discussion noted recent investments in stations, apparatus and staffing, and the controller provided figures showing several capital and equipment expenditures in recent years.

No formal action to restore longevity or to adopt a bargaining ordinance was taken at the meeting; the budget and salary ordinances discussed advanced through readings as part of the council’s process. Public comment and council discussion on these items continued through the agenda.

The remarks occurred during the public‑comment period and during budget ordinance readings. The mayor’s administration and the council’s budget presentation framed the tradeoffs between one‑time and ongoing costs, pension contribution increases and the statutory deadlines that require adoption of a budget and salary ordinance before Nov. 1 for submission to the state.