city merger agreement

February 18, 2016

of 23

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT

CONCERNING SAVANNAH-CHATHAM METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this _____ day of February, 2016, by and

between CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia

(hereinafter referred to as “County”) and the MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF

SAVANNAH, a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Georgia

(hereinafter referred to as “City”).

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Georgia of 1983 in Article 9, Section 3,

paragraph 1, provides that municipalities, counties, and political subdivisions of this state may

enter into agreements with one another for the provision of services by intergovernmental

agreements for a period not to exceed fifty (50) years; and

WHEREAS, the County and City are mutually concerned about reducing crime, improving

police responsiveness and visibility, facilitating more effective criminal investigations, improving

drug enforcement and improving the overall criminal justice system within County and City in

the most cost-effective manner; and

WHEREAS, the County and City entered into an intergovernmental agreement on the

16th day of October, 2003 for the purpose of both providing jointly police services in the

unincorporated area of the County and in the City, as well as county-wide for Animal Control,

Marine Patrol, Chatham-Savannah Counter Narcotics Team and Emergency Medical Services

administration, through a police department known as “Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan

Police Department” and referred to as “MPD”; and

WHEREAS, the County and the City had each provided police services to their citizens

and now provide police services through an intergovernmental agreement; and

WHEREAS, the County and the City have been negotiating since 2014 to replace the

2003 intergovernmental agreement; and

WHEREAS, the County and City agree that the MPD jurisdiction is defined as the

geographic area of the City, and the unincorporated County, as it exists on the date of

execution of this Agreement and as it may be amended and that this area of jurisdiction will be

hereinafter referred to as the MPD jurisdiction; and

February 18, 2016

of 23

WHEREAS, the County and City recognize that the police service needs of the City and

unincorporated County are different and that the concentration of utilized services may

therefore differ; and

WHEREAS, the County and City intend to provide absolute accountability for MPD

services within the separate jurisdictions of the County and the City by developing a system to

measure and track services provided using objective performance factors and metrics, so that

an evidence-based funding formula can be developed reflective of the services utilized by each

jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah reviewed this Agreement

and authorized the City Manager to sign this document at the February ____, 2016 meeting of

Mayor and Aldermen.

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Chatham County reviewed this Agreement

and authorized the Chairman to sign this document at the February ____, 2016 meeting of the

Board of Commissioners; and

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein

made, the County and City do hereby mutually agree as follows:

1. Effective Dates

This Agreement will begin January 1, 2016 and will operate through December 31, 2020.

2. Jurisdictional Authority and Governance

A. Legal Identity. The MPD will not be a separate legal entity for purpose of the

City and County to provide police services to its respective jurisdiction, but will be an joint

instrument of the City and County governments. The MPD will provide the full range of police

services in the unincorporated area of the County and in the jurisdictional area of the City

pursuant to this intergovernmental agreement.

B. County-Wide Jurisdiction of Officers of MPD and Enforcement of Ordinances. All

Police Officers and new recruits of the MPD will be sworn in by the City and County as MPD

Police Officers and then assigned to the MPD. MPD officers will have authority to enforce

County and City Ordinances, and to exercise the authority of law enforcement officers

generally, as conferred by the laws of Georgia. The County Clerk of Commission and Sheriff

have the authority to swear in Police Officers for the County-Wide Jurisdiction.

February 18, 2016

of 23

C. Policy Committee and Elected Officials. A Policy Committee is herein established

to provide governance over intergovernmental issues and affairs between the County and City

regarding the MPD and to ensure implementation of this agreement. The Policy Committee will

consist of four persons: the Mayor of the City or an Alderman designated by the Mayor, the

Chairman of the Commission or a Commissioner designated by the Chairman, the City Manager

and the County Manager. The Policy Committee shall meet at least quarterly. The Chief of the

MPD or the Chief’s designee will attend all Policy Committee meetings.

Policy direction from the Commission shall be provided through the County Manager to

the Chief, with written notice to members of the Policy Committee. Policy direction from the

City Council shall be provided through the City Manager to the Chief, with written notice to

members of the Policy Committee.

Elected officials shall exclusively communicate to the County Manager and City Manager

any service requests, and the Chief shall provide prompt action and response considering

available departmental resources. Both the City Manager and the County Manager shall have

direct access to the Chief.

All written notices required herein shall be copied to the Policy Committee through the

respective Manager for each governing authority.

D. Compliance with the law. It is intended that the operations and administration

of the MPD be fully in conformance and compliance with the charters and ordinances of the

County and City. Nothing in this amendment Agreement shall supersede such charters and

ordinances.

3. Evidence Based Funding Formula

The City and County understand that their respective jurisdictions have both common

and different needs as to police services. The City Manager and County Manager desire to

provide quality police services within their respective jurisdictions, through direction to the

Chief of Police. During this Agreement a Staff Committee shall be convened to provide a due

diligence review of provided MPD services to develop, on or before March 31, 2017, an

evidence-based funding formula.

A. Law Enforcement Consultant. To develop an evidence-based funding formula,

the City and County will jointly select and equally share the expense of an independent law

enforcement consultant or organization to provide guidance to the Staff Committee. The

consultant will provide assistance and guidance to the Staff Committee in the collection,

February 18, 2016

of 23

analysis and interpretation of relevant data, best practices, benchmarks and performance

measures, and will document provided and needed MPD services both within the

unincorporated County and municipal City boundaries. The consultant shall be actively involved

throughout the process to develop an evidence-based funding formula.

B. Staff Committee. The Staff Committee will include the City Manager, County

Manager, Police Chief, selected staff members and the law enforcement consultant. The Staff

Committee shall be charged with the duty to meet at a minimum once a month, with

mandatory attendance required, except that attendance may be excused if related to illness,

emergency or other unexpected absence.

The Staff Committee and the Consultant shall develop accountability standards to

resolve concerns related to precinct composition, beat structure, police service levels,

organizational structure and cost division for the MPD. To develop these standards, the Staff

Committee and Consultant shall analyze benchmarks, call data, crime statistics and other

metrics and service levels provided by the MPD within each jurisdiction. The Staff Committee

and consultant shall review the current organizational structure, precinct use and beats. The

Staff Committee and consultant shall actively review and analyze measured data to determine

applicability and methodology for overall governance, operations, and citizen service

accountability. The Staff Committee and consultant shall gather relevant data, conduct a

resource allocation study, analyze and develop metrics for application to each jurisdiction,

including, but not limited to, the following factors of service levels of each jurisdiction, crime

rates Part I and II, percentages of types of crime, 911 calls for each jurisdiction classified by type

of call, response time information, street officers’ coverage ratio, jurisdictional population, day

time jurisdictional population, beat structure, precinct structure, composition of precinct staff,

staffing vacancy rates and such other factors that will ensure accountability standards to an

evidence-based funding formula. The evidence-based funding formula will be based on

metrics, benchmarks, and data as gathered through resource allocation and other studies, and

analyzed by the Staff Committee. Data will be gathered for all MPD functions to include

administrative departments, shared cost centers and E911 Communications. Both parties are

expected to make a good faith effort to develop a fair and effective evidence-based funding

formula.

To assist the Staff Committee and consultant, both parties shall have access to all E-911

data, police reports together with service reports, except as to ongoing investigations and other

confidential matters.

Both parties will provide quality periodic updates, at least monthly, to each governing

body on the progress of discussions and, when possible, will issue joint press releases.

February 18, 2016

of 23

The City Manager and the County Manager will recommend to their respective

governing bodies an evidence-based funding formula consistent with the Staff Committee’s and

consultant’s recommendations.

Such new evidence-based funding formula, when adopted by each governing body, will

become effective retroactively to January 1, 2016.

4. Organizational, Operational, and Cost Allocation Structure

A. Organizational Structure

1) Beats. While it is preferable that all beats that presently encompass both City

and Unincorporated County areas be redrawn so that no beats cross jurisdictional lines, MPD,

on or before August 31, 2016 will install technology tracking in all MPD vehicles so that it can be

readily recorded which vehicles are in which jurisdictions. The Chief will keep accurate records

of the time worked by officers in each jurisdiction.

2) Commanding Officer. The Commanding Officer of the MPD will be at the level of

County and City Police Chief and will be known as the Police Chief of the MPD (“Chief”).

a) Selection, Salary, Employment and Removal of Chief. The County Manager and

City Manager will jointly consult and confer as to the selection and removal of the Chief. The

City Manager shall have final decision making authority as to the selection and removal of the

Chief. The County Manager will render his/her opinion in writing to the City Manager as to any

selection or termination decisions. City Manager and County Manager shall jointly consult to

negotiate the salary of the Chief dependent upon experience and other relevant factors. Unless

otherwise directed by the City Manager, Chief will be a City unclassified employee, and occupy

a City position as head of the MPD, acting in accordance with the Charter, policies, rules and

regulations of the City.

b) Supervision. As a City employee, Chief shall be answerable to the City Manager

for all matters except for policing matters occurring in the unincorporated area, for which the

County Manager will provide specific direction to the Chief. Though Chief will occupy a City

position, in accordance with the outlined jurisdiction herein, Chief shall be answerable to the

County Manager for all policy matters occurring or arising out of the unincorporated area. City

Manager shall have no decision making authority over any policy action or inaction arising out

or occurring in the unincorporated area of County.

February 18, 2016

of 23

c) Access to Chief. The City Manager and County Manager will establish

administrative procedures to afford them direct access to the Chief and to delegate police

service tasks to the Chief. The Chief shall attend Department Head and other meetings

scheduled by the County Manager and the City Manager, and may send a representative as

necessary. The Chief will make presentations to Council and Commission upon request.

d) Performance Evaluation of MPD Chief. For purposes of evaluating the Chief’s job

performance, the City Manager and County Manager shall independently develop an approved

work plan with performance criteria within the respective jurisdictions and shall evaluate the

Chief’s performance. At least annually, the City Manager and County Manager each shall

provide a written evaluation of the Police Chief and all written performance evaluations shall be

reviewed by the Policy Committee.

e) Chief’s Responsibilities. The City Manager and County Manager will establish

and provide clear direction to the Chief for administrative and managerial responsibilities and

related processes for their respective jurisdictions. Target service levels for each jurisdiction

are defined as that level of police service delivery necessary for governance, and the City

Manager and County Manager will identify target service levels for their respective

jurisdictions. The Managers will receive the Chief’s recommended implementation plan to

achieve target service levels, and will recommend adoption, rejection, or amendment of the

plan to the Policy Committee. Police Chief will have direct responsibility to keep the City and

County Manager informed as to the application of services and evidence-based funding formula

for costs as to each jurisdiction.

f) Chief as record keeper. The Chief shall maintain records and accounts as

requested by the City Manager or County Manager in order to demonstrate services provided

in the City and in the unincorporated County. The Chief shall provide any requested

information to the Staff Committee to facilitate a review of MPD services and development of a

revised cost funding formula. The Chief shall also provide a report of service measures to the

City Manager and County Manager at least annually. Service Measures will include but will not

be limited to statistics for each jurisdiction related to number of precincts and beats serving

each jurisdiction, response time, calls for service, crime statistics (Part I and Part II), open cases,

closed cased, personnel assignments, workforce recruitment, police reports, vacancies and

retention of staff, the staffing of precincts, and provision of mutual aid. At all times during this

Agreement, the Chief shall provide whatever available data the City Manager or the County

Manager requests. Whatever data is provided to the City shall also be shared with the County.

Whatever data is provided to the County shall also be shared with the City. Both the City and

the County shall deliver to the other whatever MPD data is requested by either manager.

February 18, 2016

of 23

B. Operational Structure. Until changed pursuant to this Agreement, MPD

departments will be retained except that property crime investigators will be moved to the

precincts from other MPD departments. For purposes of this agreement, departments can be

categorized as:

1) City-Only Departments. Mounted Patrol, Savannah Impact, and Savannah

Impact-Work Ventures are classified as City-Only Departments since they operate only within

the City’s municipal limits. Crimestoppers is also classified as a City-Only Department, and

provisions for its operation are considered in a separate intergovernmental agreement.

Historically, the City has fully borne the operational costs of these departments.

2) County-Wide Departments. The Chatham-Savannah Counter Narcotics Team

(CNT), Animal Control, Marine Patrol and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are classified as

County-Wide Departments. Under the 2003 intergovernmental agreement, these departments

were included in the MPD’s administrative umbrella but were fully funded by the County.

County-Wide Departments have been returned or will return to the County Manager’s

operational jurisdiction under the following schedule:

• CNT and EMS – July 1, 2015

• Marine Patrol and Animal Control – July 1, 2016

The County Manager and City Manager will develop a separate plan detailing the

transition of staff from City to County employment.

Animal Control and EMS units will continue to be dispatched through the E-911 center,

and will respond to service calls throughout Chatham County, serving the City of Savannah on

the same basis as they serve other areas of the County.

The Counter Narcotics Team (CNT) will operate as a County Department reporting to the

County Manager as provided for in a separate intergovernmental agreement. Policy direction,

structure, funding, staffing and all other matters concerning CNT are governed by the

aforementioned intergovernmental agreement and are not outlined herein. Both parties agree

to amend the existing CNT Intergovernmental Agreement to incorporate County

reimbursement of CNT administrative personnel who retain status as City employees.

3) Shared Departments. Other MPD Departments that serve both the City and

County are categorized as Shared Departments. As of the date of this agreement, these

February 18, 2016

of 23

departments included Police Chief, Patrol, Criminal Investigations/Special Operations, Traffic

Unit, Canine Unit, Support Services, Information Management, Emergency Communications,

and the Office of Professional Standards, and Training & Recruitment.

a) Office of Professional Standards. It is the desire of both parties to agree that the

Office of Professional Standards and Internal Affairs will operate using the best practices to

include a bifurcation of the unit into two divisions, to wit, the Office of Professional Standards

and Internal Affairs. The Chief shall endeavor to introduce to the extent practical and advisable

the best practices as outlined in industry standards which have been developed by the

Committee on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). If any complaint, grievance

or investigation of any MPD officer is initiated by any other law enforcement agency or by the

County Manager or City Manager and referred to the Internal Affairs division, the Chief shall

ensure that a written copy of the resulting Internal Affairs report, and any action taken by the

Chief in response to the report, is provided to the initiating agency and the Policy Committee.

b) Aviation and Charges. The MPD Budget shall include appropriations to

reimburse the County for costs incurred for the utilization of mosquito control aviation by the

MPD. The amount of such charges shall be billed at the actual cost per hour to include flight

time, pre-flight and post-flight operations. The City will expense the cost of services to the

Department requesting the service (e.g. Patrol, Traffic Unit, etc.). Placement of MPD

equipment on County aviation units will be subject to approval of the County Manager.

4) Function of Chief Upon implementation of Agreement. It is anticipated that the

Chief will review the current operational structure of MPD and may realign some activities

described herein. If so, upon approval of Managers in accordance with this agreement, if it is

beneficial to break these activities out into separate departments to track activities and costs,

Chief will do so.

C. Cost Allocation Structure. It is the intent of both parties to develop a cost

structure for each jurisdiction based on actual services provided within each service area.

Under the 2003 intergovernmental agreement, costs to operate Shared Departments were

allocated on the basis of geography and population. This agreement is adopted by both parties

with the expectation of the development and implementation of an evidence-based funding

formula, as described in Item 3 on Pages 3 and 4 above, for cost allocation of Shared

Departments.

1) Until the implementation of the evidence-based funding formula, the County

agrees to pay the City a fixed fee of $13,100,000 per annum for the services of Shared

February 18, 2016

of 23

Departments, payable in monthly installments of $1,091,667. This fee will be subject to

reconciliation pursuant to the evidence-based funding formula devised pursuant to Item 3.

Because the City voted on its 2016 budget in 2015 and that budget anticipated

$14,154,780 annual payments from the County, the County will pay $14,154,780 for calendar

year 2016, payable in equal monthly installments of $1,179,565. For calendar year 2017, the

County will pay $12,045,220, payable in equal monthly installments of $1,003,768.

In addition to the fixed fee, the County shall remit to the City all of the County’s revenue

received from E911 Emergency Telephone Service Fees.

2) For the term of this Agreement, the County will fully fund the operations of

County-Wide Departments and will reimburse the City on a monthly basis for any expenditures

paid by the City to the County on behalf of these departments.

3) For the term of this Agreement, the City will fully fund the operations of City-

Only Departments and will reimburse the County on a monthly basis for any expenditures paid

by the County to the City on behalf of these departments

4) Any additional capital or operating cost that benefit both parties shall be based

on an equitable cost share to be agreed upon by both parties prior to procurement or

implementation. All new capital or operating costs shall be referred to the Policy Committee.

The Policy Committee shall recommend approval, denial or modification to both parties for

approval by both governing bodies.

5) The County will pay for any new or expanded services or capital items it requests

that are not in place as of the effective date of this Agreement, and the cost of new or

expanded services may add to the County’s annual fee. Likewise the City will pay for any new

or expanded services it requests that are not in place as of the effective date of this Agreement

and will bear the related cost. Each entity will provide written notice of the new or expanded

service to the other.

6) 911 Emergency Communications. A combined E-911 public safety

communications center (Public Safety Answering Point or “PSAP”) currently provides all services

for the unincorporated area, City, and other municipalities within Chatham County with the

exception of Tybee Island. The center operates under the MPD’s administrative structure. The

County has designated the MPD as its public safety answering point. Any E-911 fees collected

by the County will be remitted to the City for costs of the center’s operation. Operating costs in

February 18, 2016

of 23

excess of fees will be determined and paid pursuant to the evidence-based formula or until

such time as a separate intergovernmental agreement regarding E-911 services is executed.

It is the intent of both parties to implement the recommendations and provisions

enumerated in the document “City of Savannah Operational Plan for Consolidation of Police

and Fire Dispatch” dated October 17, 2011 prepared by Windborne & Costas, Inc. The City

Manager and County Manager will prepare an implementation plan with a two-year timeline

for full operational implementation which will be subject to the approval of both the

Commission and Council under a separate intergovernmental agreement. To the extent such

an implementation plan ultimately alters the reporting and managerial structure between the

emergency communications /E-911 Center functions and the Chief, the MPD Agreement will be

correspondingly amended to alter the MPD jurisdiction, related departmental and cost

structure.

It will be the City Manager’s fiduciary responsibility to budget and account for all E-911

fees and expenses. E-911 Revenues and net assets of the City’s Emergency Communications

Fund available as of the effective date of this Agreement shall be used to fund communications

related costs for the E-911 Center’s operation. Any revenues of the County and City Emergency

Telephone Systems Funds received after the effective date of this Agreement shall be used to

fund the annual operating costs of the Communications Cost Center, until such time as a

separate intergovernmental agreement is executed.

6. Employees

A. MPD Employees. All MPD employees are classified as City employees, and

except as otherwise provided in this or other intergovernmental agreements, shall be subject to

the personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations, pay and benefits of the City. A list of

authorized positions by Cost Center for the MPD as of January 1, 2014 is incorporated into this

Agreement as an exhibit to provide baseline staffing data and an indication of the level of

resources and effort existing as of the date of this Agreement.

B. Equal Opportunity and Diversity. The administration and staff of the MPD will be

committed to equal employment opportunity and diversity in the MPD work force consistent

with the law, and will strive to achieve appropriate representative goals in recruitment, hiring

and promotion to equal employment opportunity and diversity consistent with law.

February 18, 2016

of 23

C. Uniforms, Vehicles and Weapons. The uniform of MPD will remain

representative of a professional metropolitan police organization with visual recognition of the

rich department history of the County and City Police Departments.

D. Take-Home Vehicle Policy. The City and County Manager, through the Chief, will

develop a unified take home policy for sworn personnel to be implemented on an incremental

basis.

E. Medical, Pension and OPEB Benefits. Nothing herein shall prevent either the City

or the County from modifying its pension plan, or any other employee benefit plan, in the

future. Any future modification of the City Pension Plan shall apply to MPD employees who are

participants in the City Pension Plan, and any future modification to the County Pension Plan

shall apply to MPD employees who are participants in the County Pension Plan. The City shall

allocate costs to the MPD for Medical, Pension and OPEB benefits on the same basis as

allocated to other City departments and bureaus.

Former County police officers and staff had elected to remain on the County’s Pension

Plan and Medical Plan during the initial staff transition to City employment in 2003 through

2005. These employees shall continue to be participants in the County Pension Plan and

Medical Plan. Provisions of the County Pension Plan shall apply to all participants in the County

Pension Plan. Provisions of the County’s Medical plan shall apply to all participants in the

Medical Plan. The pay of employees who elected County benefit plans shall be subject to

withholding for employee medical premiums and pension contributions as specified in the

County plans. The City shall pay to the County the amount of such withholdings on a monthly

basis. The employer cost for retirement benefits, OPEB and medical benefits for such

employees shall be included in the MPD budget and remitted to the County on a monthly basis.

The amount of employer cost for the Pension Plan shall be based on the annual actuarial

valuation of the County’s Pension Plan and allocated to the MPD on the same basis as allocated

to other County departments. The amount of employer cost for OPEB (other post-employment

benefits) shall be based on the biennial actuarial valuation of the County’s OPEB plan and

allocated to the MPD on the same basis as allocated to other County departments.

7. Legal Representation and Settlement of Outstanding Claims

A. County Provided Representation. The County Attorney will represent the

County, MPD, the City (if requested), and MPD officers or employees who are sued for incidents

arising out of the use or ownership of county-owned vehicles. The County Attorney will also

represent the same listed parties in all actions arising out of any incident involving staff

February 18, 2016

of 23

assigned to Animal Control and the Counter Narcotics Team. The County Attorney will also

represent the same parties listed when an incident not otherwise covered by this agreement

occurs within the unincorporated area of the County. The salaries and benefits of the County

Attorney and other County legal staff shall not be charged back directly or indirectly to the MPD

Budget. County is responsible for payment of all claims settlements or judgments made in

pursuant to this paragraph. The payment of such settlements or judgments shall not be

charged back directly or indirectly to the MPD Budget as part of any Cost Center.

B. City Provided Representation. The City Attorney will represent the MPD, the

County (if requested), the City and MPD officers or employees who are sued for incidents

arising out of the use or ownership of a city-owned vehicle. The City Attorney will also

represent the same listed parties when an incident not otherwise covered by this agreement

occurs within the corporate limits of the City. The City is responsible for the payment of all

claims settlements and judgments covered by this paragraph. The payment of such settlements

or judgments shall not be charged back directly or indirectly to the MPD Budget as part of any

Cost Center.

C. Employment claims. As all employees of MPD are City employees, the City

Attorney will represent the MPD, the City and County in all employment law matters and

claims. The salaries and benefits of the City Attorney and other City legal staff shall not be

charged back directly or indirectly to the MPD Budget. All other costs related to the defense of

such claims and the payment of any settlements or judgments resulting from such claims shall

be charged back to the MPD budget as approved by the Policy Committee.

D. Subrogation. The parties waive any rights to subrogation against the other for all

matters as to each other and MPD. At the time of this agreement, both parties are self-insured.

Should either party obtain insurance, the other party shall not be charged through any cost

center or other cost allocation procedure for the internal service fund, pro rata cost, or

premium as it relates to MPD functions.

E. Procurement of Insurance. Should City or County elect to participate in a liability

insurance program or similar organization providing for defense and insurance for the claim, all

expenses for premiums, or fees, shall be paid by the jurisdiction that is included or participated

in such program and said amount not charged to the other party, nor shall the other party be

considered a purchaser of insurance as part of participation in this agreement.

F. No Requirement to Defend or Waiver of Immunity. By entering into this

agreement, City and County do not waive any defense as to sovereign immunity and any waiver

February 18, 2016

of 23

of sovereign immunity is only to the extent allowed by general law. Nothing contained herein

shall require the City or County to defend any claim, or to pay any judgment against any

employee without the express approval of the City Council or County Commission, or to defend

any claim or pay any judgment for actions (i) taken in violation of any law or any policy of the

City or the SCMPD, (ii) for violations of claimant’s civil rights under the Constitution of Georgia

or the United States, or (iii) for actions taken outside the scope of his or her employment.

Nothing contained herein is intended to any sovereign or other immunity which may apply with

respect to any claim.

G. Outstanding Claims. Any outstanding claims or funding disputes made by either

the City or the County against the other for activities that occurred prior to the enactment of

this agreement related to the operation of the MPD or Recorder’s Court shall be considered

resolved, or waived so that neither party has a remainder claim. All disputes regarding money

or other compensation owed under the previous intergovernmental agreements for MPD and

Recorder’s Court are satisfied and shall not be governed by this Section or the previous

agreement. As of the date of this Agreement, the City contends that the County owes funds for

MPD in excess of $1.8 million related to each jurisdiction’s interpretation of the cost allocation

formula in the 2003 intergovernmental agreement. The County estimates the amount due

from City from 2008 to 2013 for Recorder’s Court is $2.8 million dollars. Notwithstanding

provisions of this paragraph, the City agrees to reimburse the County for the purchase of the

“old Comcast” building located at 5515 Abercorn Street, Savannah, Georgia by June 30, 2017.

8. Budget Process and Policy

A. General Principles. It is the express intent of this Agreement that each

jurisdiction is intended to contribute its fair share of funding for the MPD, thereby providing

fiscal equity between the two jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction is intended to receive services in

accordance with the funding that it provides. The difference in per capita funding by each

jurisdiction shall reflect evidence based factors such as, but not limited to: (a) police call

volume; (b) crime statistics; (c) geographic response time; and (d) ratio of police officers serving

the jurisdictional population to include non-resident tourists. Either Manager may at his or her

own discretion delineate additional factors based upon the direction of the respective

governing authority.

B. The MPD Budget Process. The MPD Budget shall be prepared by the City

Manager in conformity with the requirements of the City Charter and City Code for each annual

period commencing each January 1. Effective for the period beginning January 1, 2017, the City

February 18, 2016

of 23

Manager will prepare a biennial budget detailing the estimated operating costs and capital

costs, when not included in the operating budget, for twenty-four months of MPD operations.

During budget development and prior to making a final budget recommendation, the

City Manager shall confer with the County Manager and County Staff designated by the County

Manager as to the MPD Budget Proposal and shall provide a budget calendar outlining key

dates in the budget process. The City Manager, in consultation with the County Manager, shall

modify the proposed MPD budget to conform to changes requested by the Commission and

City Council.

1) The City Manager shall provide the MPD final proposed budget and funding

requirements by source to the County Manager and City Council no later than December 1st

each year.

2) Capital items requiring funding from both jurisdictions will also be included in

the budget proposal. The City Manager shall request the appropriate budget authorization

from the City Council and the County Commission, working with the County Manager to obtain

budgetary approval from the Commission. The County’s budgetary approval shall be required

before the City contracts for or commits funds.

C. Additional Service Needs. It is recognized that the demand for services in the

City’s jurisdictional boundaries and in the unincorporated County differ. Consequently,

additional services or programs may be desired by either party after the enactment of this

Agreement. As stipulated in Section 2C on page 3 above, the Policy Committee will approve

implementation plans for target service levels, and those plans may include a recommendation

for additional services. Where such services provide benefit to only one party, the benefitting

party will request and incur the related cost for the service. Should the City desire additional

reoccurring services that benefit both parties, the City Manager may seek resources from the

county. The City Manager shall provide detailed information to the County Manager on the

proposed new or expanded service to include a recommended budget proposal outlining the

operational costs and any necessary equipment items, as well as any increases in authorized

positions. The County Manager will seek budgetary approval from the Commission for these

items as though the MPD were a County department. Such budgetary approval by the

Commission will be required before any allocation of costs for these new or additional

services, or provision of these services by the City to the County. Likewise, the new service for

the City may result in an increase in cost to the City and said cost shall not be charged to the

County. If the Commission withholds its approval, the related activities will be accounted for

as a City-Only Department in the City’s ledgers and paid for solely by the City. A reciprocal

February 18, 2016

of 23

process will be utilized in instances where the County desires additional or expanded services

for the unincorporated area.

D. County Staff within MPD. The County Manager may designate a county

employee, appointed and paid for by the County, whose responsibility is to work in a

coordinated effort to ensure that the County Manager has full and complete disclosure of all

financial and operational matters related to the MPD’s use of County resources. The intent and

purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that the County Manager receives all information

necessary to ensure verification of financial and service measure information provided. The

cost of such employee shall not be included in the MPD budget.

E. Audit of MPD Police Expenses, Access to Records and Reporting. As an

instrumentality of the City, the MPD accounts shall be audited annually by an independent firm

of accountants as part of the annual City audit made in conformance with audit requirements

for municipal governments set forth in State law and the City Charter.

F. Additional Audits. Each party may, at its own expense, conduct additional

financial or operational audits of the MPD.

G. Annual Reconciliation. Under the 2003 intergovernmental agreement, the City Manager would, at the completion of each calendar year, determine the actual costs of the MPD for the annual period. The City Manager would then reconcile County payments received during the year against the County’s computed share of actual MPD expenses, calculated under the contractual funding formula for cost allocation. This Annual Reconciliation determined whether the County owed additional funds to the City or whether it had paid in excess of actual costs, in which case the City would provide a refund to the County. The City Manager would provide the Annual Reconciliation to the County no later than June 30 following the end of the budget year to show the actual costs of the MPD, the amount to be funded by the County, the amount paid by the County, and any amount due to either City or County. The 2003 agreement remains in effect and, unless changed herein, the 2003 agreement governs the parties’ MPD relationship through December 31, 2015.

Although the 2003 agreement required Annual Reconciliations, pursuant to Item 7G

above, both parties waive any such reconciliations for payments made from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

H. Access to all records. The County Manager and City Manager, or persons

designated by them, shall have full and unfettered access to all MPD financial records or other data including operational metrics such as call for service history, use of MPD Confiscated funds, or other data relevant to all matters covered herein.

February 18, 2016

of 23

I. Providing records. The City Manager shall provide the County Manager with a

monthly financial report showing line item budgets, current month, and year-to-date expenses

for each MPD cost center. The City’s payroll system will be configured to provide accurate

information about the assignment of staff to specific cost centers. The City will allocate staff

salaries to the specific departments or cost center where the employee is primarily assigned.

City and County staff will jointly and in good faith analyze E911 call data and police reports as

needed to determine dispatched calls for service within each jurisdiction.

9. Funding from Grants, Condemnations, or Other Sources

A. Grants. All parties agree to aggressively seek funding through grants and other

sources to reduce the costs of providing police services. Information on grant applications will

be reviewed by the County and City prior to submission to ensure coordination of efforts

among the two jurisdictions. A separate Cost Center within the MPD accounts shall be used to

account for expenses funded by such grants. The use of any funds secured through a grant

shall be governed by the terms of the grant.

B. Condemnations and Forfeitures. All funds derived from condemnations and

forfeitures initiated by the MPD shall be deposited in the MPD City’s Confiscated Assets Fund/

condemnation account and shall be available for expenditure by the MPD in accordance with all

applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. All funds derived from condemnations and

forfeitures initiated by CNT shall be deposited in the County Confiscated Assets Funds.

C. Revenue. Expenditures funded by the MPD City’s Confiscated Assets

Fund/condemnation account shall be charged to a Confiscated Assets Expense Fund.

D. Court and Parking Revenues other than those assessed in Recorder’s Court.

Cases or parking violations brought to a court by the MPD for violations reasonably believed to

have been committed within the City’s corporate limits (as determined by the MPD Chief) shall

be deemed “City Cases”. Any revenue resulting from City Cases which is eligible to be paid to a

police jurisdiction shall be paid to the City. Such revenue shall not be part of the MPD budget

and shall not be subject to any cost allocation methodology.

All other cases or parking violations brought by the MPD shall be deemed to be “County

Cases”. Any revenue resulting from County Cases which is eligible to be paid to a police

jurisdiction shall be paid to the County. Such revenue shall not be part of the MPD budget and

shall not be subject to the cost allocation methodology.

February 18, 2016

of 23

The Chief shall establish standard operating procedures (in cooperation with the County

courts) for the MPD to properly identify all violations as either a City Case or a County Case as

defined above.

All fines assessed in Recorder’s Court shall be governed by the intergovernmental

agreement which funds that Court. CNT is not a part of MPD for the purposes of this Section.

10. Detention Center Costs

A. Costs. All costs of the Chatham County Detention Center shall be paid by the

County and charged to the County’s Maintenance and Operations Fund, except as provided for

in other intergovernmental agreements.

B. Record keeping. Any inmate delivered to the Chatham County Detention Center

by the MPD for crimes reasonably believed to have been committed within the City’s

jurisdictional limits shall be deemed a “Savannah Prisoner”. Any inmate delivered to the

Chatham County Detention Center by the MPD for crimes reasonably believed to have been

committed within the County’s unincorporated area shall be deemed “County Prisoner”. The

MPD Commander shall establish and maintain standard operating procedures (in cooperation

with the Sheriff) to properly identify each person delivered to the Detention Center as either a

Savannah Prisoner or a County Prisoner.

C. Medical Expenses. Prisoner Medical Expenses incurred prior to Detention Center

Admission. Should the Sheriff refuse to accept any prisoner in the custody of SCMPD for

admission to the Chatham County Detention Center because of perceived medical instability,

then the City shall bear the cost of any necessary medical expenses incurred in caring for such

prisoner while he is in SCMPD custody and prior to his admission to the Detention Center, in

the case of a Savannah Prisoner, and the County shall bear the cost of such expenses in the case

of a County Prisoner.

11. Capital Assets, Equipment and Supplies

A. Ownership of Capital Assets, Equipment and Supplies. Capital assets and

equipment will be generally owned by the entity that directly purchased the item, and any

salvage value will be paid to the property owner upon the asset’s disposal. In the ordinary

course of operations, the MPD will purchase capital assets, equipment and supplies through the

MPD departments. The City will have administrative custody and ownership of these assets,

equipment and supplies except in the event of Termination of this agreement. In that event,

February 18, 2016

of 23

ownership of assets utilized by the MPD will be divided based on each entity’s proportionate

contribution for Shared Department’s costs as averaged over the past three (3) years, with

Patrol separated for purposes of the calculation. Any assets purchased with funds from a City-

only Department will become the property of the City in the event of Termination. Any assets

purchased with funds from a County-wide Department will become the property of the County

in the event of Termination. Such assets will include computers, radios and other equipment

purchased through the City’s internal service funds with contributions from the MPD

departments, excluding vehicles.

B. Replacement Vehicles. The County shall replace a minimum of nineteen (19)

police vehicles, with mobile data terminals if necessary, during the first two years of this

agreement. All costs to mark and outfit the vehicles will be paid by the County external to the

MPD Budget. Vehicles and computers purchased by the County shall be listed in the County’s

inventory, shall be County property, shall be maintained by the County Fleet Maintenance

Department, and shall be self-insured by the County.

The City will replace a minimum of thirty (30) vehicles with mobile data terminals if

necessary, per year during the first two years of this agreement. All costs to mark and outfit

the vehicles will be paid by the City external to the MPD Budget. Vehicles and computers

purchased by the City shall be listed in the City’s inventory, shall be City property, shall be

maintained by the City Fleet Maintenance Department, and shall be insured (or self-insured) by

the City.

During the first two years of this agreement, the Staff Committee will review all costs

incurred to outfit a vehicle and determine a standardized set of equipment for inclusion as part

of a vehicle’s cost.

Both parties are the owner of the respective vehicles purchased with the funds of the

governing authority, and nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a rental agreement

between the parties for use of MPD cars nor is there any waiver of sovereign immunity based

upon renting of MPD cars.

The MPD Chief shall be consulted on bid specifications for all vehicles purchased for use

by the MPD. All vehicles purchased will be of the same color and bear the marking of the MPD.

C. Vehicle Use Charges. The MPD Budget may include appropriations for vehicle

depreciation titled Vehicle Use Charges. Vehicle use charges shall be paid to the jurisdiction

which owns the vehicle and shall be used as a method to accumulate funds for the systematic

February 18, 2016

of 23

replacement of vehicles due to age or use. Such replacement charge amounts shall be

calculated in a similar and methodical fashion for each jurisdiction and will be charged to the

MPD Cost Center to which the vehicle is primarily assigned.

D. Fleet Maintenance and Fuel Charges. The MPD Budget shall also include

appropriations to pay each jurisdiction for the cost of vehicle maintenance performed by their

respective vehicle maintenance departments and fuel charges. Such charges shall be expensed

to the MPD Cost Center to which the vehicle is primarily assigned. The methodology used to

determine vehicle maintenance charges shall be on a basis consistent to all other cost centers

throughout the jurisdiction.

E. Procedures for Maintenance/Repair, Disposal and Replacement of Capital Assets,

Equipment and Supplies. All parties shall follow reasonable and customary procedures for

schedules of maintenance/repair, disposal and replacement of capital assets, equipment and

supplies for the MPD. Irrespective of ownership, all vehicles shall be maintained, repaired,

replaced and disposed on the same standardized schedule.

12. Dispute Resolution.

Any unresolved question shall be placed in writing through notice, and the

County Manager and City Manager shall meet within twenty-one (21) days of the written notice

in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. Any unresolved dispute shall be considered

“contested”. Any “contested” items shall be forwarded to the Policy Committee for discussion

within twenty-eight (28) days, and the Policy Committee will decide within fourteen (14) days

of the discussion.

Because of the disputes arising in connection with this complex Intergovernmental

Agreement, the City and County desire to resolve the disputes quickly, economically and with

final certainty. Both the City and County agree to have an expert person familiar with Georgia

law to determine those disputes rather than a jury trial or traditional arbitration rules.

Therefore, both parties agree that the disputes arising out of the agreement shall be resolved

by a judge, senior judge, or retired judge as agreed to by the parties and applying Georgia law,

so as to achieve the best combination of benefits of the judicial system and of arbitration. Both

parties specifically waive jury trial in connection with disputes from this agreement.

The parties shall select a mutually agreed upon judge as outlined above. Should the

parties be unable to agree, then each party shall select a judge of its choice. Those two judges

would then select a third judge who would actually try the matter. Both parties will present

February 18, 2016

of 23

their factual and legal argument and position concerning any dispute presented to a judge, who

shall make a written decision. That decision shall be considered final by the parties and both

parties specifically waive the right to appeal the matter to any court of record.

13. Adoption of MPD Intergovernmental Agreement subject to Adoption of

Revised Recorder’s Court Agreement.

It is the intention of the City and County to adopt the MPD Intergovernmental

Agreement subject to each entity’s adoption of a new intergovernmental agreement for the

operation and cost sharing for Recorder’s Court. Joint operation of the Recorder’s Court

provides for the efficient use of officer time in court appearances and more streamlined

administrative functions.

14. Term.

The effective date of this Agreement shall be January 1, 2016 through December 31,

2020.

15. Termination of Agreement.

This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time after December 31, 2017,

by six months written notice from one party to the other party.

16. Miscellaneous

A. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended by the mutual agreement of

the parties hereto. Such amendment shall be in writing and shall be attached to and

incorporated into this Agreement.

B. Counterparts. This agreement may be signed in several counterparts, each one

of which shall be an original and all of which when taken together will constitute one

agreement between the parties.

C. Validity and Enforceability. If any provision of this agreement is held invalid or

unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of the agreement

shall not be affected thereby, unless the provision held invalid is a material element of this

agreement.

February 18, 2016

of 23

D. Waivers. No delay or failure to exercise a right under this agreement shall impair

such right or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, and any such rights may be exercised

from time to time as often as deemed expedient. Any waiver shall be in writing and signed by

the party granting such waiver.

E. Headings. The headings of the sections of this agreement have been inserted

for convenience of reference only and shall in no way restrict or otherwise modify any of the

terms or provisions hereof.

F. Parties hereto are sole beneficiaries. This Agreement is made for the sole

benefit of the City of Savannah and Chatham County and is not intended to be construed as

conferring benefits on any other party.

G. Sovereign Immunity. Both parties are sovereignly immune from suit in all matter

unless such immunity is waived by act of the General Assembly. Nothing in this agreement is

the product of any legislative act by the General Assembly and nothing herein shall be

construed as waiving any immunity or defense available to either party under law.

H. Agreements in existence with other parties. The MPD will continue to provide

services pursuant to all mutual aid agreements and formal police service agreements between

the County, City and other governmental entities in existence at the time of execution of this

Agreement. The MPD will continue to provide services pursuant to all grant project

agreements in existence at the time of execution of this Agreement.

I. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire and complete

agreement and commitments of the parties with respect to the combining of the City and

County police departments, all prior or contemporaneous understandings arrangements and/or

commitments whether oral or written having been merged herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and City have caused this Agreement to be duly

approved by their proper officers and so attest with their corporate seals affixed hereto set

forth in duplicate originals.

[Signatures on Next Page]

February 18, 2016

of 23

CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA

BY: _____________________________ Albert J. Scott, Chairman Board of Commissioners ATTEST: ____________________________ Janice Bocook Clerk of Commission [SEAL] THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH

BY: _____________________________ Stephanie Cutter, City Manager ATTEST: ____________________________ Dyanne Reese Clerk of City Council [SEAL]

February 18, 2016

of 23

EXHIBIT A

MPD AUTHORIZED POSITIONS BY COST CENTER

Police 2011 2012 2013

Police Chief 13 11 11

Patrol 423 427 427

Criminal Investigations 103 103 103

Special Operations 18 19 19

Traffic Unit 20 20 20

Canine Unit 6 6 6

Support Services 17 17 17

Information Management 32 30 30

Professional Standards and Training 22 22 22

Subtotal 654 655 655

Savannah Impact Program 15 14 14

Crime Stoppers 3 3 3

Savannah Impact Work Ventures 2 2 2

Marine Patrol 8 8 8

Mounted Patrol 7 7 7

Animal Control 13 13 13

EMS Administration 1 1 1

Counter Narcotics Team 35 35 35

Total 738 738 738

city merger agreement

Documents