The City of Franklin Common Council voted to deny reimbursement for an amendment request from JPM, an acoustics consultant, after months of neighborhood complaints about event noise and a contested invoice for additional on-site work.

Mayor John R. Nelson opened the discussion by saying he appreciated the data collected but echoed council concerns about not being notified before the additional work and costs were incurred. JPM’s consultant, John, told the council he performed on-site monitoring at multiple events and locations and that the additional data collection was necessary to produce a complete mitigation plan: “I had to be present, understand what was going on, and make decisions on the fly in terms of where I would like to have my permanent locations,” he said.

Neighbors and council members pressed the consultant and city staff over process and cost. Joy Jurgenas Zingales, speaking during public comment, had earlier warned that monitors were “not set to the appropriate decibel levels per the ordinance,” arguing monitoring settings were missing violations. Council members focused primarily on the invoice and communication: Alderman Eichmann moved to deny reimbursement for the amendment, saying the council did not authorize the extra work and could not charge taxpayers for it.

The council heard that the original contract totaled $78,500 and that the city had already paid $51,025 toward that contract. The amendment presented to the council would raise the total to roughly $106,250, a figure several aldermen described as unexpectedly high. Finance staff confirmed the $51,025 payment on the original contract during questioning.

City Administrator Kelly (the city’s main point of contact on the contract) told the council she did not understand during the consultant’s time in Franklin that the extra work would result in additional invoiced dollars beyond what had been discussed. John (JPM) said he had emailed that amendments would be required and that he expected to provide an amendment for added services, but he acknowledged he had not provided a fixed dollar estimate before performing the additional monitoring.

Council members requested more detail and documentation. Alderman Day and others asked for a full, itemized breakdown of the amendment that included dates, hours, tasks and the specific events monitored. The consultant said the amendment includes a table of dates and services and that he had applied a 12% discount to the amendment; he offered to negotiate further but said the in‑person data collection materially changed the work required.

After extended debate, Alderman Eichmann moved (seconded by Alderman Day) to deny reimbursement for the amendment (referred to in the meeting as “option 4”). The council took a roll call vote: 4 in favor, 2 opposed. The motion carried. Mayor Nelson noted the city still planned to use the data collected and said staff would follow up with additional itemization and communications to determine whether any portion of the work could be salvaged under a future agreement.

The council directed staff to produce the cited emails and the consultant’s itemized amendment and to return to a future meeting if necessary. No immediate payment for the amendment was approved.

What happens next: City staff will provide the exchanged emails, a more detailed itemization of the amendment, and options for council reconsideration or re-negotiation. The consultant said he would not delete collected data and that the city would retain the monitoring records.