SCMPD Agreement

Overview
September 3, 2015

Timeline

SCMPD Framework recommended in May 2015

Framework approved by both City Council & County

Commission

County provides Agreement to City staff July 13,

2015

City staff responded mid-August with changes

City Council approved SCMPD Agreement August 20,

2015

Provisions of the Agreement

Follows points of agreement in previous drafts

Includes provisions of the SCMPD Framework Agreement

2 year term
Develop accountability standards
Use of consultant
Convene a staff committee monthly
Strong Policy Committee
Flat fee for County in Years 1 and 2

-for more infoList location or contact for specification (or other related documents)

Minor Changes

County Staff will recommend minor changes to contract

approved by City in keeping with the Framework Agreement
Use of Policy Committee prior to perform due diligence
on any service or cost increases

Section III C (5)

Section V C
Section VI B (2)

RECORDERS COURT OF
CHATHAM COUNTY
Presentation by County staff of proposed
funding agreement
September 3, 2015

Then and Now

History of successful operation since 1961
Court considered a City department
Each jurisdiction disburses $ for certain costs
Annual reconciliation process
Costs shared based on collected fines & fees

3 Judges
Using 3 courtrooms at 133 Montgomery Street
Expanded mandates for indigent defense

Recorders Court IGA

Cost Sharing Agreement for Courts operations
City and County have been revising the IGA since

July 2013
Framework provisions incorporated
City Council approved agreement August 20,
2015
County Commission will vote on Friday,
September 11, 2015
Agreement would be effective January 1, 2016

Basic Premises of Agreement

Court treated like a stand-alone municipal court
Establishes 3 Cost Centers for cost allocation
Uses Caseload Data to allocate costs
Defines Costs of Court
Reinstates Annual Reconciliation Process

One year term with automatic renewal

Section 3 - Costs of Court paid by City

Salaries and benefits of Judges and Court staff
Unless otherwise noted in the agreement
Operating costs of the court
Pro-tem judges
Rent for Courtrooms and court operations area
Internal service fund charges
Risk management
Computer services

Section 4 - Costs of Court paid by County

Indigent Defense Felony
Indigent Defense Misdemeanor
Pretrial services Public Defender

Telecommunications in courthouse
Sheriff Deputies in courtrooms
District Attorney

Victim Witness

Section 7 Costs Centers Identified

Felony
Misdemeanor & Traffic
Code Enforcement
Court will tally caseload for each cost center by

jurisdiction(prior year data)

City/County Jurisdictional percentages for Felony
City/County Jurisdictional percentages for Misdemeanor
City/County Jurisdictional percentages for Code Enforcement

Section 7 Cost Assignment to Cost

Centers
Felony Section 7.2
Misdemeanor Section 7.3
Code Enforcement Section 7.4
Costs allocated by percentage for:
Victim Witness
Indigent Defense
Sheriff
Other costs of court (administrative)

Section 7.6 Determine annual cost

Divide Total Court Costs by calculating the cost for each

cost center:
CURRENT YEAR COST CENTER EXPENSES
x
JURISDICTIONAL PERCENTAGE

Annual cost for each jurisdiction is the sum of this formula

for all three cost centers

Section 7 Annual Reconciliation

Agreement reinstates Annual Reconciliation Process
Compare total amounts disbursed by a jurisdiction to the

jurisdictions annual cost

Pay difference
Annual credit to City of $250,000 per year in 2016 and
2017

Other Provisions in Section 3

Judges pay to be agreed to and authorized by

both parties
Confirmation process for Pro Tem judges outlined
Nomination process for appointed judges
Take turns putting nominations forward
Appointment requires consent of each governing body