Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Interlocal Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Work session examines interlocal police agreement to provide 24/7 shared coverage
Summary
Mount Pleasant council members and staff discussed a proposed interlocal police agreement that would provide continuous shared patrols across partner cities, raise governance and cost-sharing questions, and rely on a board to set representation and contributions.
Mount Pleasant’s work session on April 22 focused on a proposed interlocal police agreement that city staff said would allow participating towns to offer continuous, 24/7 police coverage.
An agency official summarizing the plan said, “This will allow us to go 24 hours a day, 7 days a week coverage,” and added that the arrangement is designed so “for most of the time [we’ll] have 2 officers out at the time,” with occasional single-officer periods. The official said the agreement would eliminate an on-call system and noted the draft language currently says the police chief would assign a citizen to the board; the official asked that be changed so the board, not the chief, assigns citizen members.
The discussion centered on governance and funding. Council members and staff debated who should appoint citizen board members and whether a council member should sit on the governing board. One council member suggested mayors could each appoint a representative and the group could also include a citizen appointee, while others recommended the board itself assign citizens rather than leaving that to the police chief.
Officials flagged immediate operational issues the board would need to resolve, including how to calculate partner contributions if a town’s population or service needs change and how travel time between cities would affect officers’ schedules. “How do we determine how much each city puts in?” an agency official asked, noting the need for a defined metric—such as dollars per resident—and that Mount Pleasant’s larger population would likely mean greater contributions and representation.
School-safety funding was discussed as part of the staffing picture. The agency official said the school district had committed $70,000 to the budget, which would allow an officer to be full-time at the high school: “The school has put $70,000 in… it will allow our officer to go full time in the schools.” The official added that officers already perform daily school walk-throughs and that calls at schools would be handled by available patrol officers when the school officer is occupied.
Staff cautioned that contract details remain incomplete: the draft agreement’s asset schedule is blank, and officials want any contributed assets and values recorded so the parties can account for them if the arrangement dissolves. The group also discussed reconciling different leave policies among partners—sick leave versus PTO—and a plan to equalize pay over time.
No formal action was taken at the work session; the item remained under discussion with staff directed to update the agreement language and identify the asset schedule and funding metrics. The work session concluded after handling other agenda items and a motion to adjourn passed.
