Consolidation report august192005

City of Indianapolis

Marion County, Indiana

Indianapolis/Marion County:

Law Enforcement Consolidation

Phase I Preliminary Report

August 19, 2005

Lead Investigator: Roger B. Parks, Professor

Indiana University School of Public & Environmental Affairs

Financial & Contract Specialist: James Steele

3799 Steeplechase Drive

Carmel, IN 46032

(voice) 317/872-9529

(fax) 317/872-9885

(e-mail) [email protected]

Indianapolis/Marion County Law Enforcement Consolidation Phase I Report 2

INDEX

Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

Statutory Consideration ------------------------------------------------------------ 5

Purpose of Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Public Safety Coverage Measurements ------------------------------------------- 7

Consolidation – Benefits Related to Law Enforcement Coverage ----------13

Summary of Savings and Costs --------------------------------------------------- 14

Indianapolis Airport Authority Law Enforcement --------------------------- 14

Possible Revenue Enhancement -------------------------------------------------- 14

Transition Costs --------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

Potential Annual Savings

Management Consolidation ----------------------------------------------- 21

Facilities Consolidation ---------------------------------------------------- 21

Consolidation of Support Services --------------------------------------- 23

Personnel Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- 24

Contract Comparison -------------------------------------------------- Tab A

Biography Material ----------------------------------------------------- Tab B

Indianapolis Police Department Organization Chart ------------ Tab C

Marion County Sheriff's Department Organization Chart ------- Tab D


Executive Summary

Law Enforcement Consolidation

Phase I Preliminary Report

Purpose

The purpose of the Phase I Preliminary Report (the "Report") is to provide independent

information on a possible consolidation of the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) and Marion

County Sheriff's Department (MCSD). This information will be used by the Council Law

Enforcement Consolidation Committee (the "Committee") to determine if the Indianapolis

Marion County City-County Council (the "Council") will continue to investigate consolidation.

This Report will demonstrate the reality that law enforcement consolidation can increase

accountability and generate overall efficiency under certain circumstances.

Public Safety Coverage Measurements

Public safety coverage measurements examine a city and county's sworn officers to the residents

within its jurisdiction. IPD's sworn officer staffing level outpaces similar cities. For every

thousand residents, IPD employs 3.70 sworn officers, compared to MCSD which employs .94

sworn officers per thousand. A consolidated IPD/MCSD force would fall well within the

established coverage at two sworn officers per thousand residents as compared to comparable

cities and consolidated city/counties such as Charlotte, Denver, Nashville/Davidson, and

Louisville/Jefferson.

Consolidation: Benefits Related to Law Enforcement Coverage

MCSD police coverage ratios are substantially below the statistical coverage ratios of

comparable cities. With consolidation of IPD/MCSD, police coverage ratios are similar to

coverage ratios of comparable cities. MCSD would have to add 356 to 486 new officers in order

to achieve the same levels of coverage that would be achieved through consolidation. The

approximate cost of adding 356-486 new MCSD officers is estimated to be $29 million to $39

million per year.

Indianapolis Airport Authority Law Enforcement

A consolidation of the Airport Authority law enforcement may be considered if the IPD/MCSD

consolidation is implemented and determined to provide savings.


Possible Revenue Enhancement

In a preliminary review, Wabash Scientific, inc. found no specific revenue that was a direct result

of the IPD/MCSD consolidation. However, their research did reveal potential revenue gained

from the consolidation of the City of Indianapolis' (the "City") Fire Department and the fire

departments of the townships within the consolidated city. The "Consolidated City" includes

Marion County, except the independent cities of Beach Grove, Lawrence, Southport, and

Speedway.

Transition Costs

Because the Council has already consolidated many of the technical functions of the IPD and the

MCSD over time, the cost of transition will be substantially lower than a comparable

consolidated city such as Louisville. Louisville's cost of transition was approximately $60

million. The IPD/MCSD projected costs of transition are estimated between $270,000 (most

cost-effective) and $3.5 million (least cost-effective). The areas of transition costs include:

Information & Communications Technology

Equipment Consolidation

Facilities

Standardization of Vehicles


Management Consolidation – savings may be attainable through re-assignments of top

management (~ $150,000 to $225,000).

Facilities Consolidation – possible savings generated through consolidation of Training

Facilities; Fleet Services; IPD/MCSD Headquarters; and reduction of rents due to

consolidation of district offices (~ $162,000).

Consolidation of Support Services – savings unknown:

Information Technology

Reduction of vehicles

Personnel Issues – savings generated by staff reduction, reduction of overtime, and pension

contributions (~ $3,289,000).

Total Net Savings:

Year 1 ~ $3,406,000

Year 2 ~ $3,701,000

Year 5 ~ $3,776,000

Year 10 ~ $3,901,000


Statutory Considerations

On May 12, 2005, the Governor of Indiana signed Senate Enrolled Act 307, into law (the "Act"),

which allows the Indianapolis Marion County City-County Council (the "Council") to adopt an

ordinance to combine the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) and the Marion County Sheriff's

Department (MCSD). Before such merger can occur, the Council must hold a public hearing and

determine that reasonable and adequate law enforcement protection can be provided through

consolidation and that consolidation is in the public interest.

Anticipated Process & Purpose of the Phase I Preliminary Report

Wabash Scientific, inc. has prepared this Phase I Preliminary Report (the "Report") for the

Council based on the anticipation of a decision-making process which contains two fundamental

phases. This Report only provides information and analysis of the first phase in the decision-

making process of the Council.

Phase I: Developing Baseline Issues & Information

The first general phase is the Council's examination of the premises of IPD/MCSD

consolidation, to determine whether there is a fiscal basis for implementing IPD/MCSD

consolidation. This examination phase is to be led by the Council Law Enforcement

Consolidation Committee (the "Committee"), which has engaged in the following activities as

part of the Phase I process:

Received information from a broad range of individuals, agencies, and the general public

regarding the proposed IPD/MCSD consolidation;

Interacted with various individuals and groups which offered information through

question/answer exercises, written information exchanges, and general research;

Visited other cities where consolidation has been implemented in order to gain first-hand

information by interacting with other community leaders on their consolidation

experience;

Developed additional research into potential costs savings and revenue enhancements

which could potentially be realized through IPD/MCSD consolidation:

Developed a preliminary report to serve as the basis for public discussion and to serve as

a public information document; and,

Engaged a public discussion of the relative merits and other issues related to IPD/MCSD

Consolidation in preparation for a vote of the Council on whether to pursue

consolidation.


The purpose of this Report is to provide a basis for public discussion and preliminary policy-

making. This Report will demonstrate the reality that law enforcement consolidation can

increase accountability and generate overall efficiency under certain circumstances.

Wabash Scientific, inc. respects the complexity and difficulty of this decision, and understands

that good people can read, consume and respond to material differently. As such, this Report

simply seeks to provide an objective basis for future discussions, affording the public a

transparent view of the consolidation issue and its underlying information, and attempting to

identify the circumstances under which consolidation can produce the desired results.

We must state categorically that a decision to pursue the IPD/MCSD consolidation is only a

precursor to a series of complicated policy decisions which must subsequently be made.

At the end of the Phase I process, it is the intent of Roger B. Parks, Professor, Indiana University

School of Public & Environmental Affairs, James Steele, Financial & Contract Specialist, and

Wabash Scientific, inc. (hereinafter referred collectively as the "Consultants") that the Council,

as well as the general public will understand the decisions which must be made in order for law

enforcement consolidation to be successful. It is our intent that readers of this report will begin

to understand that certain outcomes must be carefully negotiated on very specific topics, if any

"savings" of public money are to be realized.


Public Safety Coverage Measurements

A law enforcement department‟s total number of sworn officers provides a foundation for an

analysis of public safety coverage. „Sworn officer‟ refers to full-time, non-civilian officers. The

“Officers per Division” graph below outlines the number of sworn officers for IPD and MCSD.

Marion County‟s sworn officer staffing excludes the Jail Division, since it would remain largely

unaffected by consolidation. The 436 MCSD sworn officers include sworn special deputies that

did not receive formal sheriff‟s academy training. That total decreases to 408 if „sworn officer‟

means only state-certified merit officers. As of July 2005, sworn IPD officers totaled 1,192.

Taking into account an anticipated reduction in force of 78 sworn officer positions within IPD,

the total number of budgeted sworn officers will be 1,114.

The following analysis will use the following numbers: 408 MCSD officers and 1,114 IPD

officers. For the purposes of this report, a consolidated IPD-MCSD force would include 1,522

sworn officers. Based on a number of coverage measures detailed below, such a force would

remain adequate when contrasted with comparable cities that have consolidated their law

enforcement departments.

87

32

26

27

208

112

849

265

22

0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

AD EX IN OP MP

Sworn Officers per Division

Sworn Officers MCSD

Sworn Officers IPD

AD: Administration IN: Investigations MP: Manpower Pool EX: Executive OP: Operations/Law Enforcement The graph includes MCSD special deputy officers for a total of 436 sworn officers. It also includes all sworn IPD officers as of July 2005: 1,192 officers. This report uses only MCSD merit officers (408) and excludes sworn IPD officer positions to be eliminated (1,192 minus 78 or 1,114) for a total of 1,522.


Comparing a city or county‟s sworn officers to the residents within its jurisdiction provides an

initial overview of overall public safety coverage. IPD‟s sworn officer staffing level outpaces

similar cities while MCSD lags behind IPD and consolidated departments. As evidenced in the

“Total Officers” chart and table below, a consolidated IPD-MCSD police department would fall

within the established coverage in comparable cities.

Marion C

ounty

India

napolis

IPD

-MC

SD

Charlott

e

Denver

Nashvill

e

Louis

vill

e0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

Population & Officers

Population (in thousands)

Sworn Officers

Sworn and Civilian Officers*

Population and Officers

County/City Population

(in thousands) Sworn Officers Sworn and Civilian Officers*

Marion County 459.32 408 1,158

Indianapolis 322.55 1,114 1,473

IPD-MCSD 781.87 1,522 2,631

Charlotte - Mecklenburg 695.45 1,488 1,987.5

Denver – City/County 554.64 1,399 1,718

Nashville - Davidson 545.52 1,275 1,867

Louisville - Jefferson 693.60 1,255 1,767

*MCSD numbers reflect Marion County 2005 Proposed Budget; IPD numbers reflect anticipated reduction in force of 78 sworn officers.


To account for variations in population density, the “Residents and Officers” graph below

presents adjusted ratios (i.e. per capita or per resident) for five separate law enforcement entities.

It includes two measures related to population density: the number of officers per 100,000

residents and the number residents per sworn officer. Due to Marion County‟s consistently

rising population and the Indianapolis Special Police District‟s declining population, an

imbalance in sworn officers per resident becomes apparent in the graph. An overview of the

graph confirms that a consolidated IPD-MCSD force would cover an equivalent area and serve

an equivalent citizenry when contrasted with comparable cities.

Marion C

ounty

India

napolis

IPD

-MC

SD

Charlott

e

Denver

Nashvill

e

Louis

vill

e0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

Residents and Officers

Sworn Officers per 100,000

Residents

Residents per Sworn Officer

Residents & Officers

County/City

Sworn Officers per 100,000 Residents

Residents per Sworn

Officer

Population (Year 2000, in

thousands) Sworn Officers

Marion County 88.83 1,125.78 459,318 408

Indianapolis 345.37 289.54 322,552 1,114

IPD-MCSD 194.66 513.71 781,870 1,522

Charlotte 213.96 467.38 695,454 1,488

Denver 252.24 396.45 554,636 1,399

Nashville 233.72 427.86 545,524 1,275

Louisville 180.94 552.67 693,604 1,255


The “Officers per Square Mile” graphs focus on the relationship between officers and land area.

Such a measure offers a complement to population density estimates by incorporating estimates

of mileage assigned per officer. Although MCSD officers currently lag behind IPD officers in

this regard (Graph A), a consolidated IPD-MCSD force would assign each sworn officer an area

no bigger than Charlotte or Denver officer and no smaller than their Nashville or Louisville

counterparts (Graph B). Again, IPD-MCSD coverage would remain within the range of similar

cities.

1.42

12.91

4.43

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Marion County Indpls IPD-MCSD

Officers per Square Mile (A)

4.436.14

9.12

2.69 3.26

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

IPD-MCSD Charlotte Denver Nashville Louisville

Officers per Square Mile (B)


Chart 3: Sworn Officers per Square Mile

Sworn

Officers Square Miles* Officers per 100 Sq. Mile

MCSD 436 287 152.92

IPD 1,192 86.3 1,381.23

IPD-MCSD 1,628 343.5 473.94

Charlotte 1,488 242.3 614.11

Denver 1,399 153.4 911.99

Nashville 1,275 473.3 269.39

Louisville 1,255 385.1 325.89

*IPD-MCSD includes Marion County except the independent cities of Beech Grove, Lawrence, Southport, and Speedway (approx. 29.8 sq. mi.). Mileage estimates refer to land area.

The number of crime reports captures an accurate estimate of an officer‟s workload. An

overview of personal crimes (i.e. criminal homicide, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated

assault) and property crime (i.e. larceny/theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft) offers insight

into an officer‟s workload across different departments. IPD and MCSD officers do not differ as

greatly in their workload for personal crime reports as they do for property crime reports. Based

on 2003 criminal statistics, the graphs below further confirm that the workload for a consolidated

IPD-MCSD department would be within the same coverage parameters of comparable cities.

Personal Crime Reports per Officer

3.21

5.174.65

6.18

2.32

6.56

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Marion Cty Indpls IPD-MCSD Charlotte Denver Nashville


Personal Crime Reports Per Officer (2003)

Reports per

Officer Reports Sworn Officers

Marion County 3.21 1,309 408

Indianapolis 5.17 5,761 1,114

IPD-MCSD 4.65 7,070 1,522

Charlotte 6.18 9,190 1,488

Denver 2.32 3,240 1,399

Nashville 6.56 8,359 1,275

Property Crime Reports per Officer

55.89

20.27

29.82 29.93

21.02

30.29

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Marion County Indianapolis IPD-MCSD Charlotte Denver Nashville

Property Crime Reports Per Officer (2003)

Reports per

Officer Reports Sworn Officers

Marion County 55.89 22,803 408

Indianapolis 20.27 22,583 1,114

IPD-MCSD 29.82 45,386 1,522

Charlotte 29.93 44,534 1,488

Denver 21.02 29,401 1,399

Nashville 30.29 38,619 1,275

Conclusions

Based on the data examined regarding law enforcement coverage, a consolidated IPD/MCSD

police department's coverage would be within the same range of measurement parameters of

other comparable cities.


Consolidation: Benefits Related to Law Enforcement Coverage

The coverage data clearly shows that MCSD police coverage ratios are substantially below the

statistical coverage ratios of comparable cities. The tables below attempt to demonstrate the

number of MCSD officers which would be necessary to increase MCSD coverage ratios to levels

comparable to a consolidated IPD/MCSD.

IPD MCSD

Coverage Estimate

Total IPD-MCSD Sworn

Officers Parity Ratios (coverage/officers)

Dispatched Runs 518,702 1,522 0.0029

Square Miles 343.5 1,522 4.4309

Residents 781,870 1,522 0.0019

Property Crime Reports 45,386 1,522 0.0335

MCSD Coverage Estimate

Parity Ratios (IPD-MCSD)

Total Officers (coverage x ratio)

Additional Officers Needed (Total Officers -

408)

Dispatched Runs 273,587 0.0029 802.772 394.772

Square Miles 287 4.4309 1,271.656 863.656

Residents 459,318 0.0019 894.115 486.115

Property Crime Reports 22,803 0.0335 764.689 356.689

Coverage Estimate

Total Officers Parity Ratio

Additional Officers Needed (Total Officers -

408)

IPD-MCSD Dispatched Runs 518,702 1,522 0.0029

MCSD Dispatched Runs 273,587 802.772 0.0029 394.772

IPD-MCSD Square Miles 343.5 1,522 4.4309

MCSD Square Miles 287 1,271.656 4.4309 863.656

IPD-MCSD Residents 781,870 1,522 0.0019

MCSD Residents 459,318 894.115 0.0019 486.115

IPD-MCSD Property Crime

Reports 45,386 1,522 0.0335

MCSD Property Crime Reports 22,803 764.689 0.0335 356.689

The tables clearly show a direct contrast between the police coverage ratios which can be

achieved through consolidation, and the number of new MCSD officers which would be

necessary in order to achieve the same coverage ratios without consolidation. Based on the brief

analysis above, MCSD would have to add 356 to 486 new officers in order to achieve the same

levels of coverage that would be achieved through consolidation.

The approximate cost of adding 356-486 new MCSD officers is estimated to be $29 million to

$39 million per year.


Summary of Savings and Costs: Phase I

The following summary is constructed around the areas of operations and budgets, which were

presented to the Committee by the IPD and MCSD. The Consultants are offering their findings

and suggested yearly savings, which can serve as the basis for the Phase II - Detailed Study.

Please note that it is highly unlikely that the final outcome of any consolidation process would

generate 100% of the savings/benefit projections.

Indianapolis Airport Authority Law Enforcement

In addition to the consolidation of IPD and MCSD, the Act also grants authority to the Council

upon approval from the Airport Authority to include the Airport Police Department in its Law

Enforcement Consolidation. The Consultants reviewed the financial and organizational structure

of the Airport Police and recommend initially that Law Enforcement Consolidation should be

limited to IPD and MCSD. If consolidation of these two departments is completed then at that

point we recommend further investigation of the economic and operational feasibility of merging

the Airport Police into the new consolidated department.

Possible Revenue Enhancement Resulting from Consolidation

In a preliminary review, Wabash Scientific, inc. found no specific revenue that was a direct result

of the IPD/MCSD consolidation. However, their research did reveal potential revenue gained

from the consolidation of the City's Fire Department and the fire departments of the townships

within the Consolidated City. Currently, certain excise taxes received by the Consolidated City

are based on the population of a Fire Special Service District. It is reasonable to anticipate that

Potential Annual Savings Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10

Management Consolidation ~ $225,000 ~ $225,000 ~ $225,000 ~ $225,000

Facilities Consolidation ~ $ 162,000 ~ $ 162,000 ~ $ 162,000 ~ $ 162,000

Consolidation of Support Services Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Personnel Issues ~ $ 1,800,000 ~ $ 1,800,000 ~ $ 1,800,000 ~ $ 1,800,000

Pension Contributions ~ $ 25,000 ~ $ 50,000 ~ 125,000 ~ $250,000

Contract Parity ~ $ 1,464,000 ~ $ 1,464,000 ~ $ 1,464,000 ~ $ 1,464,000

Total Projected Savings ~ $ 3,676,000 ~ $ 3,701,000 ~ $ 3,776,000 ~ $ 3,901,000

Projected Costs

Transition (Year 1 only) ~$ (270,000) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

Net Savings (Savings less Costs) ~ $ 3,406,000 ~ $ 3,701,000 ~ $ 3,776,000 ~ $ 3,901,000


upon a fire department consolidation, the Fire Special Service District would be expanded to

include the population of the entire Consolidated City. This would potentially create over $1

million in additional excise tax revenue for the Consolidated City. Of course the fire department

consolidation is not the subject of this Report. Further study on what legislative and/or

administrative changes that are required to realize this revenue must be completed to accurately

projected additional excise tax available to the Consolidated City.

Transition Costs

Recent testimony from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) in Louisville indicated that Louisville

took six years to plan their consolidation effort, and that there were problems. Therefore, a

comparison of transition costs may be an indicator of the potential success of consolidation.

The comparison of transition costs demonstrated in the table below shows that Indianapolis is

well prepared for consolidation. The comparison of the transition costs for Louisville vs.

Indianapolis suggests that the Council is to be congratulated for its previous vision and foresight

by consolidating many of the technical functions of IPD and MCSD over time. That vision and

foresight has now directly resulted in substantial savings related to transition costs for law

enforcement consolidation. As shown in the table below, the vision and foresight of the Council

in previous consolidation of certain functions have generated a projected savings of nearly $60

million in transition costs

Transition costs are difficult to analyze, primarily because the analysis often generates a

disagreement between parties as to what "should count" as a transition cost, as opposed to "an

expense that was necessary anyway." In this case, we have to analyze transition costs, by

defining transition costs as one-time costs, directly related to consolidation; the analysis below is

presented in an attempt to quantify transition costs as a cost of consolidation.


This analysis of transition costs is based largely on the comparative experience of law

enforcement consolidation in Louisville. Louisville's transition costs were largely driven by the

cost of consolidating the following types of expenses with the preliminary analysis of

Indianapolis transition costs contained in the text following the table below:

Transition Cost Item Louisville Indianapolis

Information & Communications Technology (mobile data terminals, in-car cameras, consolidated

communications center & system) $54,000,000

< $100,000 (done previously)

Equipment Standardization (batons, vests, helmets, etc.)

$1,000,000 < $50,000

(done previously)

Facilities (renovation and remodeling)

$2,500,000 Unknown

Standardization of Vehicles (moderate cost) $2,600,000 $ 3,312,960

Standardization of Vehicles (low cost) $ 2,600,000 $ 118,320

Uniforms (re-branding) Not examined $0

Total Estimated Transition Cost (low alternative) $ 60,100,000 < $ 270,000

Total Estimated Transition Cost (moderate alternative) $60,100,000 < $3,500,000

Information & Communications Technology

One of the largest costs of the Louisville law enforcement consolidation was the cost of

consolidating information and communications technology. In order to consolidate law

enforcement forces, Louisville has been forced to develop an entirely new communications

system, with an estimated cost exceeding $50 million. In addition, Louisville was also required

to standardize such equipment as in-car cameras and mobile data terminals for the consolidated

vehicle fleet.

This cost is virtually totally obviated as a result of previous consolidation actions by the Council

to standardize information and communications technology. Officials with the Metropolitan

Emergency Communications Agency (MECA) have indicated that they can handle this transition

completely within one year using its normal annual budget. As a preliminary figure, we have

inserted a preliminary estimate of <$100,000 to cover unexpected/undiscovered transition costs

at this stage in the analysis, however, we expect this figure to be reduced if no such transition

costs can be specified by the end of the analytical process.

Equipment Standardization

The Louisville consolidation also required that certain police equipment, such as batons, helmets,

vests, weapons, etc., be standardized across both departments, with a total estimated Louisville

expense of approximately $1 million.

Again, this cost is virtually totally obviated by previous actions of the Council which successfully

standardized the equipment of the IPD and MCSD. We have inserted a preliminary placeholder

of <$50,000 to cover unexpected/undiscovered transition costs at this stage in the analysis.


However, we expect this figure to be reduced if no such transition costs can be specified by the

end of the process.

Facilities Renovation/Remodeling

The Louisville consolidation also discovered an estimated $2.5 million in facilities costs related

to the consolidation. This included work on several buildings, but the primary item in this

category was a cost of $1.8 million for renovation of a major facility to include a consolidated

property room. Again, Indianapolis has already consolidated its property room, thereby

eliminating this consolidation cost.

Projected Rent Savings

It is our understanding that IPD/MCSD already have a consolidated property room. Further, it is

our understanding that the MCSD district offices are largely donated (i.e., cost-free), thereby

making it difficult to project long term savings resulting from MCSD facility closure. Since the

MCSD facilities are rent-free, savings in this area could only result from the consolidation of five

IPD district offices.

The projected savings in rents may be valid. However, if five IPD district offices are to be

consolidated, it would appear that excess capacity at the consolidated locations would be

necessary to accommodate relocated MCSD personnel. The existing rents would cover any

increase in square footage necessary to handle the larger consolidated offices.

The use of other government buildings with vacancies may also be available. In addition, the

consolidation of five district offices may also require a transition cost related to

renovation/remodeling of the consolidated district offices, as well as moving expenses.

Headquarters Consolidation

For several reasons it is difficult to consider the cost of this item as a matter of law enforcement

consolidation. The need for space for courts, prosecutors, public defenders and other functions is

well documented. Furthermore, the re-allocation of buildings and space for the entirety of City

and County operations is likely to affect MCSD and IPD, regardless of consolidation. As a

result, it is entirely possible that a new IPD/MCSD headquarters located apart from the

City/County Building might well alleviate a part of the overall space problem, which must be

addressed regardless of law enforcement consolidation. If the consolidation is to include a new

headquarters, the most appropriate method for analyzing the costs would be to include some

form of construction/purchase/remodeling cost, as well as the projected cost of moving for the

two headquarters operations, and the operating costs of the new building.

It is our conclusion that the issue of a new headquarters is not a proper issue for the IPD/MCSD

consolidation study, due to the complexity of inter-relationships between space needs of many

agencies. Instead, the only proper method for analyzing these inter-related space needs would be

to consider all space needs simultaneously, and to determine the optimum blend of space

configurations which would result in the best long-term value to taxpayers.

Certainly, a reduction in personnel resulting from consolidation will have a positive impact on

the overall demand for space from IPD and MCSD. However, it is impossible to precisely

quantify the specific portion of that space demand that results specifically from consolidation.


We therefore suggest that any consideration of a new headquarters be pursued as a part of the

larger issue of space needs of city and county operations.

Vehicle Standardization

The Louisville consolidation spent an estimated $2.6 million for transition costs related to

standardization of vehicles and vehicle policies. This included approximately 100 new cars (at

an estimated $21,000 each), as well as about $500,000 in other costs. Obviously, Louisville's

analysis did not include re-branding all cars in the transition cost estimate.

The transition cost of IPD/MCSD vehicle standardization will depend on the transition

alternative selected. The alternatives for vehicle standardization are outlined in the following

table.

Existing Vehicle Fleets - The table below shows the information received from MCSD and IPD

regarding their fleets and the cost of their vehicles.

IPD MCSD

Total # of vehicles 1518* 846

# of marked patrol cars 1064 415

Unmarked vehicles 375 346

“other” vehicles 106 85

Cost of removal/replacement of decals/vehicle $ 100 $ 100

Est. cost of re-painting $ 2,700 $ 2,700

Worst Case: Purchase All New Marked Vehicles ** $ 21,436,620 $ 10,142,085

Re-decal 80% of marked vehicles, only $ 85,120 $ 33,200

Re-paint/re-decal 80% of marked vehicles $ 2,383,360 $ 929,600

* 70 vehicles designated for auction not included in this total.

** State QPA price ($19,715), plus $5,469 in equipment.

Not all of the vehicles are marked, and therefore, not all vehicles in the fleet are subject to re-

branding costs (it is assumed that unmarked cars need not be re-branded). For purposes of this

preliminary report, the focus will only be on re-branding marked patrol cars.

"Maximum Cost": Purchase of All New Vehicles - The "maximum cost" alternative would occur

if the consolidation were to include purchasing all new vehicles for both departments

immediately (~$31.5 million). Based on information provided from each agency, the cost of

police vehicles is approximately $25,000 per vehicle. We have no reason to believe that the

situation would demand "worst case" parameters, and we will not analyze that alternative further,

unless directed to do so.

Phased Conversion of Vehicles - During the City's presentation of their consolidation concepts,

the City Controller indicated that the City favored conversion of the consolidated fleet over four

to five years. This phasing period would generally correspond with the retirement cycle of

vehicles for both departments, and would allow vehicles to be fully "re-branded" with full

identification of the consolidated department as existing vehicles are retired, as part of the annual


budget, and without transition cost. Additional specific refinement of this estimate can be

provided. If necessary, however, we believe that the generalized estimate contained in the table

is sufficient for this stage of the analysis.

Under the Phased Conversion alternative we have developed a "low cost alternative" (involving

replacement of decals without re-painting @ $100/vehicle) and a "moderate cost alternative"

(including both re-painting and decal replacement @ $2,800/vehicle), as shown in the table

above.

We also note that re-painting of older vehicles is probably not cost effective even if those

vehicles are to be retained. If the vehicles are not re-painted to a single color scheme during the

first year, the fleet would have two different vehicle colors during the transition period (MCSD

cars would remain two-tone brown and IPD cars would remain white). Research indicates that

IPD cars were changed to white in order to be more visible to the public as part of the

community policing initiative, which may be a factor in selecting the final vehicle color.

Uniform Standardization

Consolidation of IPD and MCSD would require that uniforms be standardized. This topic has

been broached with the departments and the FOP. The FOP has provided us with estimates of

the cost of new uniforms under the various consolidation scenarios. The FOP estimates are

attached as an appendix to this report, and basically indicate that a full set of new uniforms can

be provided for less than $1,400 per officer.

MCSD uses a Quartermaster system for uniform distribution while IPD provides officers with

$750 per year in clothing allowances. Therefore as a basic conclusion, the estimated cost of

$1,400 to provide new uniforms to each officer suggests that the entire consolidated department

could have new uniforms in two budget years, which could be reduced to one period of 12

months through careful budget management.

Furthermore, if the uniform transition can be reasonably accomplished at an average cost of

$1,400 per officer, it would be theoretically possible to achieve uniform transition over two

budget cycles, but within one 12-month period. This would require budgeting to replace half of

the uniforms during the final months of one fiscal year, and replacing the remaining half in the

first months of the following year.

It might be possible through careful management and coordination to achieve more complete

uniform standardization by careful prioritization of replacement items. For example, it may be

prudent to consider the purchase of additional uniform shirts/trousers/etc. before replacement of

such things as holsters, handcuff cases, magazine pouches, gunbelts, etc.

By handling uniform standardization through careful budget management, the budget impact of

this transition cost is minimized to nearly zero, inasmuch as the uniforms can be replaced within

the normal budget cycles and appropriations.


Recommendations

There are several recommendations to be studied with regard to transition costs, as follows:

Any necessary transition costs for information & communications technology should be

refined to reflect a precise estimate of necessary information/communications equipment;

however, direct contact with MECA confirms that information and communications

technology can be consolidated at minimal cost.

Any necessary transition costs for equipment standardization should be refined to reflect

a precise estimate of necessary equipment standardization costs, however previous

Council actions have minimized the necessity for this expense.

Transition costs for facilities should be further studied, identifying district offices

projected for consolidation, assuring that adequate capacity exists within these facilities

and quantifying renovation/remodeling costs for the consolidated offices.

The Committee should not consider transition costs related to development of a

consolidated headquarters. Instead, any headquarters consolidation should be considered

as a part of an overall study of City/County government space needs.

Transition alternatives/costs for vehicle consolidation should be finalized with specific

estimates for vehicle painting and decal replacement, in accordance with actual fleet

retirement parameters.

100% transition of uniforms can theoretically be accomplished through careful planning

and management to replace all uniforms in less than 12 calendar months (over two budget

cycles).



(1) Management Consolidation

Although the specific personnel/positions have not yet been identified, assuming the

consolidation can generate re-assignments of top management, a savings projection appears to be

attainable. Experience in other cities indicates that certain management redundancies can be

eliminated through consolidation. Based on the assumption that none of the management

redundancies would result in layoff, the main result of management redundancy elimination

would be a potential reduction in salary for managers that are re-assigned to non-management

duties. The City has suggested that this sort of re-assignment would generate a savings of

$15,000 per position. If there is a Phase II, 10-15 potential redundancies should be identified,

which could generate annual savings of $150,000 to $225,000.

(2) Facilities Consolidation

The Consultants split this area into three categories:

Training Facilities

Fleet Services

Reduction of rents due to consolidation of district offices

Training Facilities

IPD and MCSD both run separate training facilities located in Marion County. IPD owns its

facility located at 10th

Street and Post Road. MCSD leases its space on North Shadeland Avenue

for approximately $213,000 per year. If combining training divisions is a goal under

consolidation, there remains a capacity question for officers located at either facility that are not

related to training.

Wabash Scientific, inc. has learned through its research that both departments house detective

branches at their respective training facilities. If one facility was closed as part of consolidation

then management would have to address the displacement of at least 60 detectives.

The issue of the consolidation of training facilities must be carefully studied to assure that all

personnel are fully and professionally accommodated into the consolidated department, and that

the cost of that accommodation is fully known and understood. This would include the cost of

moving these personnel, facilities to house these personnel, and equipment to facilitate the

efficient performance of these personnel.

Fleet Services

Much like the training facilities, IPD and MCSD both operate maintenance garages for their

vehicles. IPD actually utilizes the services of Indianapolis Fleet Services.

Our review of potential savings in this area revealed that there is very limited space at both the

city and county garages. Closing the Sheriff‟s garage is not possible without outsourcing all of

the routine maintenance for their vehicles and most likely all of IPD‟s. Fleet Services is very


cost efficient when it comes to medium and heavy maintenance but they do not appear to be as

efficient as the private sector in performing oil changes, tire changes and minor repairs.

Outsourcing minor repairs and services could save as much as 20% (~ $156,000) off the

Sheriff‟s garage budget of $783,150 annually. This move would not necessarily eliminate the

Sheriff‟s mechanics‟ jobs, mainly because of the amount of backlog at Fleet Services and the

Sheriff‟s garage.

Again, the viability of this proposal assumes the replacement of this capacity at other facilities or

though outsourcing. It is entirely feasible that a carefully-crafted outsourcing plan which

identifies and relocates those functions which can be performed in the private sector at low profit

margins could be successful in generating savings.

Reduction of Rents Due to Consolidation of District Offices Given the public concern over the retention of existing levels of community policing, it is

appropriate to consider the value of leaving the five IPD district offices open in the event of

consolidation.

Material presented indicates that the MCSD district offices are largely donated, with the

exception of a roll call site on the Southside, which the Sheriff rents for approximately $6,000

per year. This substantially reduces the potential to generate savings through consolidation. As

explained previously, such consolidation must include the assurance of available capacity at

other locations as part of the analysis.

Recommendations

The recommendations with regard to the issue of savings resulting from Facilities Consolidation

are as follows:

The Committee should consider the discussions necessary to ascertain that the staff and

the training capacity of the Shadeland facility can be accommodated in other locations.

This should include remodeling/renovation costs of other facilities, if necessary.

The Committee should consider the discussions necessary to ascertain that the production

capacity of the MCSD garage can be accommodated by other facilities/locations or

through outsourcing.


(3) Consolidation of Support Services

Consolidation of Support Services includes two sub-headings, as follows:


Reduction of Vehicles


Wabash Scientific, inc. suggests consideration of the possibility of re-tasking the IT department

to the specific goal of identifying quantifiable improvements in efficiencies through new

technological applications.

Economies of scale are difficult to achieve in law enforcement work. Criminals do not generally

aggregate for the purpose of being caught efficiently. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that

future efficiencies are likely to result from such functions as reducing the time necessary to

process an arrest, reducing the time necessary to write a traffic ticket, or reducing the lost time

necessary for a court appearance – for example, by enabling the officer to appear in court

electronically from the police car. These time reductions are most likely to be achieved through

the application of new technologies, which is the general domain of IT.

The unit most responsible for technology might prove itself useful to generating future

efficiencies, if carefully tasked and managed to specific efficiency goals.

Importance of IT in a Consolidated Department - Improved efficiencies and standardization of

data collection and reporting could lead to significant benefits, including reduced grant

application costs, decreased report generation costs, increased standardization of information,

and increased information management efficiencies which could have multi-tiered benefits to the

consolidated department.

Reduction of Vehicles

The IPD report presented to the Committee showed a total of 1,381 vehicles dedicated to IPD.

According to additional IPD information, reserve officers have 32 vehicles, civilians have 36,

eight are dedicated to out of town travel, and 14 are dedicated to volunteer units, for a total of 90

from these purposes alone. Therefore, it may be possible to eliminate vehicles without reducing

organizational flexibility.

Wabash Scientific, inc. also notes that the cost of retaining a vehicle in good condition past its

normal retirement date is not terribly expensive and could add functional flexibility to the

agency. Once a police vehicle has reached it capital cost retirement date, the cost of retaining the

vehicle is operating cost only. As such, having the vehicle for back-up purposes may be an

effective management choice.


Recommendations

The Consultants suggest that the Committee obtain additional detail regarding the following:

A careful analysis applying IT expertise toward future increases in efficiency of law

enforcement functions.

A careful study of the total fleet size of the two departments to determine whether

increased vehicle savings can be realized without reducing the effectiveness of the

consolidated agency.

(4) Personnel Issues

Staff Reduction

Staff reduction is possible through the elimination of personnel redundancies. Reduction in staff

tends to increase efficiency resulting from a consolidation of this size, especially considering the

structural changes necessary to support law enforcement consolidation. Structural changes such

as consolidation of policies and procedures could be expected to result in streamlined procedures

for many activities, which combined with improved technological application, should reasonably

generate reduced demand for staff.

It is not possible to identify the most effective methods for achieving personnel consolidation at

this stage in the process. It would be possible to suggest that the elimination of 30-35 positions

would generate an annual savings of $1,100,000 to $1,200,000. However the responsibility of

determining a final personnel/staffing level which balances the demand for services with the

opportunity for savings should occur in Phase II.

Reduction in Overtime

These savings are calculated under the assumption that the consolidated department is organized

under the Sheriff and that he is able to increase the number of reserve officers. The Sheriff is

very successful in keeping his overtime costs down by utilizing reserve deputies who are

virtually free of charge. IPD does not utilize reserve officers to the same extent.

Our analysis of overtime expenditures indicates that the Sheriff spends about $2,700 per year per

deputy while IPD spends just over $3,200. It is unlikely that the Sheriff could train enough

reserve officers to make a significant impact the first year. Any savings realized the first year

would most likely be offset by training costs for those new reserve officers. However the next

year and beyond it is not unreasonable why a consolidated department couldn't realize annual

savings of $600,000 or more.

Pensions Contributions A detailed analysis performed by James Steele revealed that the Sheriff's pension plan requires

higher contributions per deputy than the 1977 State PERF pension plan of IPD by about $1,000

per officer per year. The Act mandates that every new officer of a consolidated department must

enroll in the state‟s plan. For every deputy that separates from the consolidated department, the

city will save $1,000 per year. If every deputy retired or resigned right after consolidation the


immediate savings would be approximately $417,000 per year. This is extremely unlikely so a

better portrayal of yearly savings would be to use near normal attrition rates, which is about 25

deputies per year. That equates to an annual savings of $25,000 the first year, $125,000 after

five years and $250,000 after ten years.

Social Security Exemptions

This issue has not yet been determined.

Salary & Benefits Consolidation

The analysis of Salary and Benefits Consolidation was performed by Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele's

primary analysis was performed based on the consolidation of the MCSD and the IPD union

contracts, and the specific parameters thereof.

Mr. Steele's analysis is based on 2005 contract parameters. His analysis is presented in the tables

contained in Tab A of this report

__________________________

Acknowledgements The Consultants would like to thank President Steve Talley of the Council, Chairwoman Mary

Moriarty Adams, Mayor Bart Peterson, Sheriff Frank Anderson, Chief Michael Spears and their

staff, and President Vince Huber and the members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 86, for

their assistance in preparing this Report.

.

Biography Material

Michael R. Shaver, President, Wabash Scientific, inc.

Mr. Shaver is the President and Founder of Wabash Scientific, inc., a consulting firm providing expertise in

economic analysis, community growth and development, planning, zoning, and economic development to

Indiana communities. The company has provided community development expertise on a broad and varied

scale. Expertise in Economic Development Planning has been provided to communities such as Carmel,

Lafayette, Marion, Beech Grove, Lawrence, Speedway, Mooresville, Schererville, West Baden, Peru, Converse,

Frankfort, Tipton, Tipton County, Wabash, Crawford County, Hendricks County, Dekalb County, and others.

Historic preservation & redevelopment projects such as the West Baden Springs Hotel, the Lyles Station

Schoolhouse, the Plymouth Fire Station, the Old Republic in New Carlisle, historic downtown Lawrenceburg

(under the direction of Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana), Mooresville and Carmel. Comprehensive

Planning expertise has been provided to Floyd, Jennings & Crawford Counties, the municipalities of

Greencastle, Tipton, Schererville, Greendale Sheridan, and others. Annexation planning expertise has been

provided to Lafayette, Peru, Wabash, Frankfort, Tipton, Carmel, Yorktown, Converse, Muncie, Charlestown

and others.

1985-1989: Director, Community Economic Development Division, Indiana Department of Commerce.

1980-1985: Regional Manager, Woolpert Consultants.

1976-1980: Senior Planner, Butler, Fairman, and Seufert, Inc.

1973-1976: Water Quality Planner, Indiana Division of Water Pollution Control (IDEM).

EDUCATION:

Bachelor of Arts, Wabash College, 1973.

Master of Urban & Regional Planning, Ball State University, 1979.

Doctoral Student, Indiana University School of Public & Environmental Affairs.

Dr. Roger B. Parks

Dr. Parks is Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs and Director of Public Affairs and Public Policy

Ph.D. Programs at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University. His research foci in the

last ten years have been (1) whether and, if so, how the adoption of community policing makes a difference in

the work done by law enforcement officers at the street level, (2) if and how this adoption affects police services

received by residents of diverse urban neighborhoods, and (3) community policing adoption's effects in police

organization structure and resource allocation. Parks served as a co-principal investigator for the National

Institute of Justice's 1993-99 Project on Policing Neighborhoods, a large-scale observation study of law

enforcement activities in community policing environments, and from 1998-2002 as a consultant to NIJ and the

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services on an 1,800 plus department investigation of community

policing implementation. Recent publications from these projects appear in Criminology, Justice Quarterly,

Police Quarterly, Crime and Delinquency, Justice Research and Policy, and in reports published by the National

Institute of Justice.

Richard B. Brown

Mr. Brown is the Senior Associate of Fiscal Policy for Wabash Scientific, inc. Before joining Wabash

Scientific he worked as the Chief Financial Officer for the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. He has over ten years in

municipal budgeting and finance, serving as a Deputy Controller for the City of Indianapolis and Clerk-

Treasurer for the City of Beech Grove, Indiana. He holds a Masters Degree in Public Affairs from the School

of Public & Environmental Affairs, Indiana University (Indianapolis) and Bachelor‟s Degree in Economics

from Indiana University (Bloomington).

James H. Steele

Mr. Steele brings over 25 years of government finance experience. He served as the Indianapolis City

Controller under Mayor William Hudnut and Mayor Steven Goldsmith from 1990 to 1997. Prior to his tour

with the City of Indianapolis, he ran the Indiana Bond Bank from 1987 until 1990. He also served the City of

Anderson as their Controller from 1980 to 1987. Mr. Steele also served as a member of the Governor's Tax

Restructuring Advisory Panel; a Co-Founder and Past President of Indiana Government Finance Officers

Association; and a member of Madison County Jail Overcrowding Commission. Today Mr. Steele provides

fiscal consulting to Marion County and the City of Indianapolis as well as other municipalities and counties

throughout Indiana. Mr. Steele received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Industrial Management from Purdue

University.

Juan M. Pedroza

Mr. Pedroza is a candidate for a Master in Public Affairs from Indiana University‟s School of Public and

Environmental Affairs (SPEA). He will graduate in May of 2006 with a concentration in policy analysis. He

received a Bachelor of the Arts Degree from DePauw University (class of 2003) in History and Conflict

Studies.

Contributing Editors:

Aaron E. Haith, Esq., Choate & Haith

Randle B. Pollard, Esq., Ice Miller

Consolidation report august192005

Business

Transcript of Consolidation report august192005