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) wabsci@aol.com

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.
MarionCounty
Indianapolis
IPD-MCSD
Charlotte
Denver
Nashville
Louisville0.00
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.
MarionCounty
Indianapolis
IPD-MCSD
Charlotte
Denver
Nashville
Louisville0.00
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)
4.43
6.14
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
5.17
4.65
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:
 Information Technology
 Reduction of Vehicles
Information Technology
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

More Related Content

More from Abdul-Hakim Shabazz

Recently uploaded

Consolidation report august192005