Ree D IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY _—F'ILED-IN OFFICE . STATE OF GEORGIA i ete amis Jntl29. mI 50 JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity as HIND A PIERCE i i COUNTY, Sheriff of Muscogee County, OCG ER oi eT? Plaintiff, v. COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation and body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia; TERESA P, TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor of Columbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official capacity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official capacity as Finance Director of Columbus, JERRY “POPS” BARNES, in his official capacity as Djstrict 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his official capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN ‘TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4 Councilor, MIKE BAKER, in his official capacity as District 5 Councilor, GARY ALLEN! in his official capacity as District 6 Cduneilor, EVELYN “MIMI” WOODSON, in her official “capacity as District 7 Councilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her official capacity as District 9 at’ Large Councilor, fand = BERRY “SKIP” HENDERSON, | in his official capacity as District 10 at tare Councilor, Defendants, Civil Action No, SU14CV3437-94 | P [F IN FOR 1] 1D P. | DEFENDANTS" INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES COMES NOW, John T. Darr, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Muscogee County, Georgia (“Sheriff Darr” or “the Sheriff”), Plaintiff in the above-styled action, and files this MOTION FOR LEAVE ADD PARTY AND DROP DEFENDANTS’INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES to add TOM BUCK, in his Official Capacity as District 8 Councilor, ahd, to drop Defendants in their individual capacities; and, pursuant to the authority of 0.C.G.A, §§ 9-11-15(a); 9-11-19(a), and 9-11-21, moves the Court as follows: 1 Sheriff Darr's Second Amended Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney Fees and Costs is before this Court, The issues in said action are a dispute between Sheriff Darr and Defendants regarding the sufficiency of his FY 2015 Budget; the legality of Lhe budget process used with respect to his FY 2015 Budget; the constitutionality of budget Ordinance Nos. 13-39 § 1 and 14-25 §§ 2 and 28; and, the appointment! of attorneys and payment of fees and costs pursuant to 0.C.G.A. § 45-9 ar(e). 2 Sheriff Darr’s original Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition cies of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs, was brought against Columbus, Georgia and the above-named Defendants, with the exception of Tom Buck} in their official capacities, 3 At the time Sheriff Darr’s original Petition was filed, the District 8 Councilor Position was|vacant due to the recent death of C.E, "Red" McDaniel and, therefore, he ‘was not named as a party to this action. 4 ‘Tom Buck subsequently was appointed to fill the District 8 Councilor position,5 Tom Buck is a resident of Muscogee County and he is subject to the venue and Jurisdiction of this court. 6. Sheriff Darr secks leave to add Tom Buck, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, as he is a person needed for just adjudication of this action if complete relief is to be afforded among those already parties as Sheriff Darr seeks relief which will necessitate the presence of the full Council, As confirmed in footnote 1 of Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss, the presence of District 8 Councilor ‘Tom Buck is required to have the full Couneil present in this case. 7 In addition, Sheriff Darr seeks leave, out of an abundance of caution and to the extent it is required by law, to drop Defendants in their individual capacities; thus, Sheriff Dar’s claims will be against each of the Defendants in his or her official capacity only. 38. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Sheriff Darr’s Petition asserting as one of their grounds that the common law injunctive relief sought against Defendants in their official capacities is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity,9. As instructed by the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia Dep't of Natural Res. v. tr. for a Sustainable Coast, Ine, 294 Ga $93, 785 §.B.2d 184 (2034),! and in conjunction with his Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Sheriff Darr filed a Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs naming the individual capacities ofthe already named Defendants, with the exception of Tom Buck, and adding allegations relevant the Defendants in their individual capacities.2 Both sides briefed and argued to the Court the issue of sovereign immunity as raised by Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, including the issue of qualified immunity as to Defendants in their individual capacities. Defendants also briefed and argued the issue of legislative immunity, also a personal immunity defense, in their Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. 10. ‘The effect of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss has not “significantly narrowed the sues” in aie case as Defendants represented to the Court that it would; rather, it has 1 Tn Sustainable Coast, the Georgla Supreme Court overruled its prior precedent cresting a judictal exception tothe bar of sovereign jmmunity for injunctive roll against a public official. Prior to Sustainable Coast, Ithad long been the law in this Site that equity would enjoin actions flowing from a local government's wlia vires acts. This was recognized as anfexception to sovereign immunity where a party secs injunctive rlief agains the stat oa public oficial acting ouside the scope of lawful authority. The Supreme Court now holds that soverign immunity isa bar to injunctive reli at common law unless there is an express waiver by statute, “Except as specifically provide in aragraph, svereign immunity extends to the state and all ofits departments and agencies, The sovereign Jmmuniy ofthe bate and its departments and agencies can only be waived by an Act ofthe General Assembly which specifically provides that sovereign immunity is thereby waived and the extent of such waiver.” Ga. Const, art. 1,§ 2, TIX, The Supreme Court then instructed, “fojur decision today does not mean that etizans aggrieved by the unlawful conduct of publig officers are without recourse, St means only that they must eck reliof against such officers in their individual capacities, In some casos, qualified official immunity may limit the availability of such relief, but sovereigi immunity generally will pose no bar.” Id, a 603, 755 SE.2d at 192. 2-“{A}I officers and employees of the state or its departments and agencies may be subject to sult and may be lible for injuries and damages caused by the negligent performance of, or negligent failure to perform, their ministerial functions and may be liable for injuries and damages if they act with actual malice or with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their oftcial functions.” Ga, Const, art. I § 2, 4X.greatly expanded the same. Faced with the likelihood of further delay due to the certain appeal by Defendants of any denial of their motion to dismiss on their immunity defenses,s ard the distinct possibility of some or all of his claims being dismissed as moot while this cdse languishes in the appellate court and FY 2015 ends on June 30, 2015,4 Sheriff Darrjis left with little alternative other than to significantly narrow his claims for relief to ensure some relief survives the tactie of delay underlying Defendants’ motion to dismiss6 ‘These narrowed claims for relief are not subject to the bar of sovereign immunity and, as Defendants are present in their official capacities only, they are not subject to any personal immunity defenses, such as qualified or legislative immunity. uu ‘There is no prejudice to Defendants in dropping Defendants in thelr individual capacities to|this action.’ Discovery has not started as it has been stayed since the filing 3 Bd of Revel v, Canis, 29S Ga, Ap. 505,672 $8.24 471 2009) (An order that denies a motion to dismiss, based ‘on a conclusive determination that the state or a state officer or employee is not immune from suit on the basis of sovereign immupity, meets the criteria ofthe collateral order doctrine such that an appellate cout has jurisdiction over a direct appeal from such an order); Liberty Cnty. Sch. Dist, v. Halliburton, 328 Ga, App. 422, 762 S.B.2d 138 (2014) (Although the trial court's order denying the motion to dismiss did not explain its ruling, the unambiguous posture of the case, including the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity raised in the answer and repeated in the motion to dismiss, suggested that the trial court's rejection of the defenses of sovereign and qualified immunity ‘was conclusive such that defendants were entitled to a direct appeal under the collateral order doctrine). 4 An appeal from judgment denying plaintiff relen suit ettackng refuse of city to grant plaintiff liquor icense ‘was dismissed ag moot, where license was sought for year 1965, and city thereafter adopted new ordinance respecting the granting of liquor licenses applicable to all years beginning January 1, 1966. ‘Moran v. Carswell, 384 F.2d 720 (Sth Cir. 1967), 5 In this regard, Sheriff Dart is likely one ofthe first constitutional officers of tis tate to suffer the injustice of ‘Sustainable Coast as he has been aggrieved by the unlawful conduet of public officers and, for some of his relief, he is row simply without recourse. 6 In fact, Defendants in thelt individual capacities are not partes to this action as they have not been added by order ‘ofthe court, The procedure to add a defendant's individual capacity when the defendant is before the court in an official capacity }s by leave of court. See, Bd. of Commins of Glynn Coty, v, Johnson, 311 Ga. App. 867, 873, m5, 117 8E.24 272, 277 (2011) (“Because suing the members of the Board of Commissioners in their official capacities is in reality a sult against Glynn County, adding Mr. Thaw as a defendant in his individual capacity would be tantamount to adding a new party to the lawsuit"), Thus, Sheriff Darr would need to seek leave of court to add Defendants in their individual capacities anc the court would have to order thet the Defendants in their individualof Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants have not filed an Answer in their individual capacities, All Defendants were personally served in their official capacities and are properly before this Court in their offical capacities; thus, there is no harm in droppinig Defendants’ individual capacities to this action, leaving thom as parties in their official capacities only. 12. Defendants have raised the bar of sovereign immunity only as to Sheriff Dam’s claims for injunctive relief at common law and Sheriff Darr's Thitd Amended Petition, attached hefeto as Exhibit “A,” significantly narrows his claims for relief against Defendants. | ‘Those claims for relief against Defendants in their official capacities, and the allegations thereto, which the bar of sovereign immunity does not apply to, remain. ‘Those claims for relief against Defendants in their official capacities for injunctive relief at common llaw, and against the Defendants in theit individual capacities and the allegations thereto, are dropped. Consequently, Defendants cannot be prejudiced thereby. 13. The amendments ate needed for the just adjudication of Sheriff Darr’s claims since, in absence of Tom Buck, in his Official Capacity as District 8 Councilor, complete relief cannot be afforded to Sheriff Darr, capacities be addd. As Sheriff Darr has not sought leave of court to add Defendants in their individual capacities, ‘nd this Court hat not ordered the same, the Defendants in their individual capacities are not parties to this aetion, ‘ohnson, supra,and is made 14. This for leave is made timely in response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Jor to the Court ruling thereon, 15. Sheriff Darr moves the Court for leave to file the Third Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs attached hereto as Exhibit "A", 16, A proposed Order on this Motion for Leave is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 7. In further support hereof, Sheriff Darr files contemporaneously herewith a Brief in ‘Support of his Motion for Leave containing argument and citation of authorities. WHI ‘ORE, Sheriff Darr moves this Court for Leave of Court to file his Third Amended Petition and an Order as follows: @ this action @) action; @) {that TOM BUCK, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, be joined in a Defendant; that the Defendants in their individual capacities be dropped from this that the Third Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs, attach led hereto as Exhibit "A," be filed of record and that a copy of the same be served on Tom Buck, in his Official Capacity as District 8 Councilor, as provided by law; @) ‘that Defendants be relieved of filing an answer thereto; and,(5) _| that this Court order such further relief as it deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 27 day of January, 2015. W. Kerry Howell, LLC 290 Second Street Macon, GA 31202 (478) 745-0111 Wkhowell, Jaw@bellsouth.net Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Moore, LLP 909 Ball Street | P.O. Box1770 Perry, Georgia 31069 (478) 98: 115 iker@wh kmoore@whi HRRY Ht L State Bar No, 372688 Papen. Attorney for Sheriff Dart 6 mracsa Jor TARRY WALKER bey Kem. State Bar No. 7323004, ~ttomey for Sheriff Datt ee 79 _, LYE @®MOORE State Bar No. 520035 Attorney for Sheriff DarrIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff, v COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation and body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia; TERESA P. TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor of Columbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official capacity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official | Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 capacity as Finance Director of Columbus, JERRY “POPS” BARNES, in his official capacity as Djstrict 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his official capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4 Councilor, MIKE BAKER, in his official capacity as’ District 5 Councilor, GARY ALLEN in his official capacity as District 6 Councilor, EVELYN “MIMI” ‘WOODSON, in her official capacity as official capacity as District 9 at Large Councilor, fand| BERRY "SKIP" HENDERSON, in his official capacity as District 10 at Large Councilor, Defendants. ahem (ON FO} ‘0 ADD PAR! P DELENDANTS: INDHIBUSL caPacuiies EXHIBIT “A” ‘THIRD AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ABSOLUTE AND INJUNCTION AND PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND PAYMENT OF District 7 Councilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTSIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN 'T, DARR, in his officiel capacity as Sheriff of Muséogee County, Plaintiff, vw COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation ard body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia; TERESA P, TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor of Coltimbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official capacity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official capacity as Finance Director of Columbus, JERRY “pops” BARNES, in his official capacity as District 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his| official capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4 Councilor, MIKE BAKER, in his official capacity as District 5 Councilor, GARY ALLEN, in his official capacity as District 6 Councilor, EVELYN “MIMI” WOODSON, jn her ‘official capacity as District 7 Councilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her official capacity as District 9 at Large Councilor, | and BERRY —“SKIP” HENDERSON, in his official capacity as District 10 at Ilarge Councilor, Tee Civil Action No. SU14CV 3437-94 MOTIO} R LEAVE TO ADD DDI ‘DEFENDANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES EXHIBIT “B” PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD PARTY AND DROP DEFENDANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIESIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Mustogee County, Plaintiff, ve COLUMBUS, |GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation and body politic and a political subdivision ofithe State of Georgia; TERESA P. TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor of Collimbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official capacity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official | Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 capacity as Finance Director of Columbus, JERRY “POPS” BARNES, in his official capacity as District 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his| official capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4 Councilor, MIKE BAKER, in his official capacity as District 5 Councilor, | GARY ALLEN, in his official capacity as District 6 Councilor, EVELYN “MIMI” WOODSON, Jin her ‘official capacity as District 7 Couheilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her official capacity as District 9 at Large Councilor, [and BERRY “SKIP” HENDERSON, in his official capacity as District 10 at Farge Councilor, Defendants. ING P] 'F’S MOTION F¢ TOAD) AND DROP DEFENDANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES Having considered Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add Party and Drop Defondants’ Individual Capacities and Plaintif’s Brief in Support thereof containing argument and | citation of authorities, the Court hereby GRANTS said motion on the grounds that the sameis necessary for the just adjudication of Plaintiff's claims for relief; the motion for leave to amend is brohght is timely; and, Defendants are not prejudiced thereby. Itis FURTHER ORDERED, (a) | that TOM BUCK, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, be joined in this action as|a Defendant; (2) _| that the Defendants in their individual capacities be dropped from this action; (3) _|that the ‘Third Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," be filed of revord and that a copy of the same be served on Tom Buck, in his Official Capacity as District 8 Couneilor, as provided by law; and, (4) _| that Defendants be relieved of filing an answer thereto. so. onpgren this day of, 2015. Honorable Hilton M. Fuller Superior Court Judge Order prepared by: W. KERRY HOWELL W. Kerry Howell, LLC 230 Second|street Macon, GA 31201 (478) 745-0811 Whhowell_law@bellsouth.net LARRY WALKER KELLYE C. MOORE Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Moore, LLP 909 Ball Street | P.O. Box1770 Perry, Georgia 31069 (478) 987-1435 mlaw, ml Attorneys for ‘Sheriff DarrCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing upon counsel for Defendants by STATUTORY ELECTRONIC SERVICE as follows: Ms, Melanie V. Slaton Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP P.O, Box 2707 Columbus, orga 31902-2707 mvs@hatcherstubbs.com Ms, Carter P|Schondelmayer The Schondelmayer Firm, LLC P.O, Box 5742 Columbus, Georgia 31906 schon: This 27% day of January, 2015, Whee egtla LL ba Kor, State Bar No. 372688 Attomey for Sheriff Darr W. Kerry Howell, LLC 230 Second Street Macon, GA 31201 (478) 745-0111 Wkhowell_law@bellsouth.net Tey wills be, Kom. State Bar No. 732300 Attorney for Sheriff Darr LE el 0 State Bar No, 520035 Attorney for Sheriff Darr Walker, Hulbert, Gray 8 Moore, LLP 909 Ball Street P.O. Box1770 Perry, Georgia 31069 (478) 987-14: Iker @whghilaw.co: Inoore@whgmlaw.com 10% yhgmlaw.Lanny Waren Davo G, Waneen Davao P, Husaers, Je. ‘Mrcuaut G.Grav Kanu C. Moore Jour W.Husnerr Marrnew C, Hunoent WALKER HULBERT GRAY & MOORE, LLP Ryan W, Exouisi geass January 28, 2015 Taner O'NEAL Ms, Linda Pierce, Clerk Via FedEx Overnight Delivery ‘Muscogee County|Superior Court 100 Tenth Street Columbus, Georgia 31901 Re: John T. Darr, Sheriff of Mus unity vs. C ia, et al, Superior Court of Muscogee County Civil Action File No, SUL4CV3437 Dear Linda: Please find enclosed the following original documents for filing in the above-referenced case: ay @) @) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add Party and Drop Defendants’ Individual Capacities; Binns Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to Add Party and Drop Defendants? Individual ipacities; and, ‘Third Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petit Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs, which is Exhi Motion for Leave. n for it “A” to the Also, enclpsed are return copies of the first page of each document, Please stamp the return copies with the date of filing ahd return them to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope, Thank you for your attention to these matters, KOM Enclosures Very truly yours, CML, Kellye C. 0: (Wout englosures previously sent via email on 1/27/2015) Hon. Hiltgn Fuller (via email mfulles665@aal,com and hard copy via FedEx) Sheriff John Darr (via email jdarr@columbusga.org) Ms, Melanie V. Slaton (via email mys(@hatcherstubbs.com) Ms. Carte} P. Schondelmayer (via email eschondelmayer@outlook.com) Ms. Mandi MeDonough, Staff Attorney (via email mandimaclaw@gmail.com) 909 Bans Stree Avroaneys Av Law P.O.Dox 177 Pena, GA 31065 ‘Texeenions: (478)987-1415 Facsmecs:(478)987-1077 Excast:mall@whgmlawcomIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY). eb.IN OFFICE STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff, v COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation and body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia; TERESA P. TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor of Columbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official capacity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official capacity as Fitlance Director of Columbus, JERRY “POPS” BARNES, in his official capacity as District 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his Official capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4. Councilor, MIKE BAKER, in his official capacity as District 5 Councilor, GARY ALLEN] in his official capacity as District 6 Councilor, EVELYN “MIMI” WOODSON, in her official capacity as District 7 Councilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her official capacity as District 9 at’ Large Councilor, nd BERRY “SKIP” HENDERSON, |in his official capacity as District 10 at Latge Councilor, Defendants. DIS JAN 29 AHI: SO ae 1t PIERCE. lsseeek Coch SUPERIOR COURT” Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94. | FFIS BRL RT OF Mi VE. P, AND DROP DEF Y INDIVID CIT) COMES NOW, John T. Dary, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Muscogee County, Geors files this BRI Sheriff Dart” or “the Sheriff"), Plaintiff in the above-styled action, and IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD PARTY ANDDROP DEFENDANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, and shows the Court as follows: 1 L ODI Sheriff Darr’s Second Amended Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney Hees and Costs is before this Court. ‘The issues in said action are a dispute between Sheriff Darr and Defendants regarding the sufficiency of his FY 2015 Budget; the legality of the budget process used with respect to his FY 2015 Budget; the constitutionality of budget Ordinance Nos. 13-39 § 1 and 14-25 §§ 2 and 28; and, the appointmentlof attorneys and payment of fees and costs pursuant to 0.C.G.A. § 45-9- 21(e)(2). Sheriff Darr’s original Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs, was Drought against Columbus, Georgia and the above-named Defendants, with the exception of Tom Buck, in their official capacities. At the| time Sheriff Darr’s original Petition was filed, the District 8 Councilor position was vacant due to the recent death of C.E. "Red" McDaniel and, therefore, he ‘was not named as a party to this action. Tom Buck subsequently was appointed to fill the District 8 Councilor position, Sheriff} Darr seeks leave to add Tom Buck, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, as he is a person needed for just adjudication of this action if ‘complete relief is to be afforded among those already parties as Sheriff Darr seeks relief which will necessitate the presence of the full Council. As confirmed in footnote 1 of Defendants’ 2Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss, the presence of District 8 Councilor Tom Buck is} required to have the full Council present in this case, In addition, Sheriff Darr seeks leave, out of an abundance of caution and to the extent it is Sheriff Darr’ only, There| capacities to Fequired by law, to drop Defendants in their individual capacities; thus, claims will be against each of the Defendants in his or her official capacity is no prejudice to Defendants in dropping Defendants in their individual this action. Discovery has not started as it has been stayed since the filing of Defendants’ re to dismiss. Defendants have not filed an Answer in their individual capacities. properly bet Defendants’ capacities onl Furthe) Darr’s claim: Il Defendants were personally served in their official capacities and are ne this Court in their offictal capacities; thus, there is no harm in dropping individual capacities to this action, leaving them as parties in their official ly. x, Defendants have raised the bar of sovereign immunity only as to Sheriff for injunctive relief at common law and Sheriff Darr’s Third Amended Petition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” significantly narrows his claims for relief against Defendants; sequently, Defendants cannot be prejudiced thereby. This motion for leave is made timely in response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and is made prior to the Court ruling thereon, As set amendments, forth below, leave should be granted to Sheriff Darr to file said1 ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES Sheriff Darr seeks leave of court add a party to this action needed for just adjudication} “Leave shall be freely given when justice so requives.” 0.C,G.A. § 9-11- 15(@). In this case, the amendment is necessary for the just adjudication of Sheriff Darr’s claims since, in absence of Tom Buck, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, complete relief cannot be afforded to Sheriff Darr, Sheriff Dar’s claims and requests for relief will require the presence of the full Council as Sheriff Dar’s Petition seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Council to perform thei clear legal duties, Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss confirms the addition of Tom Buck as a necessary party to this action as the presence of District 8 Councilor Tom Buck is required to have the full Council Present, before this Court. “A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if: (1) In his absence complete relief cannot be afforded among those who are already parties. ...” 0,C.G.A. § 9-11-19(a). In addition, Sheriff Darr seeks leave, out of an abundance of caution and to the extent it is required by law, to drop Defendants in their individual capacities, “Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party.” 0.C.G.A. § g-11- 21, Thus, Shetiff Darr's claims will be against each of the Defendants in his or her official capacity only, jas they were originally named and as they are properly before this Court. In fact, Defendants in their individual capacities are not parties to this action as they have not been added by order of the court. The procedure to add a defendant's individual capacity when the defendant is before the court in an official capacity is by 4leave of court. See, Bd, of Comm'rs of Glynn Cnty. v. Johnson, 311 Ga. App. 867, 873, n. 5: 717 Sgd 272, 277 (2011) (“Because suing the members of the Board of Commissioners in their official capacities isin reality a suit against Glynn County, adding Mr. Thaw as a defendant in his individual capacity would be tantamount to adding a new party to thellawsuit”). Thus, Sheriff Darr would need to seek leave of court to add Defendants in their individual capacities and the court would have to order that the Defendant's in their individual capacities be added. As Sheriff Darr has not sought leave of court to add Defendants in their individual capacities, and this Court has not ordered the same, the Defendants in their individual capacities are not parties to this action. Johnson, supra. However, out of an abundance of caution, Sheriff Darr seeks leave to drop the Defendants in their individual capacities. Sheriff|Darr filed his Second Amended Petition in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss asserting as one of their grounds that the common law injunctive relief sought against Defendants in their official capacities is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As instructed by the Georgia Supreme Court in Georgia Dep't of Natural Res. y. Ctr. for alSustainable Coast, Inc., 294 Ga. 593, 755 S.E.2d 184 (2014), and in conjunction with his Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Sheriff Darr filed a Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs naming the individual capacities of the Defendants, with the exception of Tom Buck. In Sustainable Coast, the Georgia Supreme Court overruled its prior precedent creating a judicial exception to the bar of sovereign immunity for injunctive relief against @ public official. Prior to Sustainable Coast, it had long been the law in this State that 5equity would enjoin actions flowing from a local government's ultra vires acts, ‘This was recognized as an exception to sovereign immunity where a party secks injunctive relief against the fate or a public official acting outside the scope of lawful authority. ‘The Supreme ae now holds that sovereign immunity is a bar to injunctive relief at common law unless there is an express waiver by statute, “Except as specifically provided in departments (this Paragraph, sovereign immunity extends to the state and all of its jind agencies, ‘The sovereign immunity of the state and its departments and agencies canj only be waived by an Act of the General Assembly which specifically Provides that sovereign immunity is thereby waived and the extent of such waiver.” Ga. Const, art. I, 5% TIX. The Supreme Court then instructed, “[oJur decision today does not mean that citizens aggrieved by the unlawful conduct of public officers are without recourse. It means only that they must seek relief against such officers in their individual capacities. 1 relief, but so ‘Thus, out of it some cases, qualified official immunity may limit the availability of such reign immunity generally will pose no bat.” ld, at 603, 756 S.E.2d at 192, in abundance of caution, it was necessary for Sheriff Darr to amend his Petition to name the Defendants’ individual capacities to preserve all possible relief for his claims. This dees not mean that Sheriff Darr admits, concedes or agrees thet sovereign immunity applies to him in this cause of action and the relief sought therein. Contrary to the Defendants’ assertions in their Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss, in naming the Defendants’ individual capacities Sheriff Darr does not admit that all of his claims for junctive relief against Columbus, Georgia and the Defendants in their official capacities are barted by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, 6generation private suits 2240, 2247, - immunity is premised on an immunity from private suits, “The it designed and adopted our federal system considered immunity from |central to sovereign dignity.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715, 119 S. Ct. 44 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1999). State sovereign immunity is premised on the same principle - immunity from private suits, “[TJhe Constitution was understood, in light of its history and structure, to preserve the States traditional immunity from private suits.” Id, at 724, 1 19 8. Ct. 2240, 2252, 144 L. Ed. ad 636. Sheriff Darr is not a “private citizen” aggrieved by the unlawful conduct of public officials, Sheviff Darr has brought his suit in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Geo igia, He is an “arm of the State” and he is entitled to sovereign immunity himself both| under federal law and state law. Indeed, a sheriffs general sovereign immunity granted under Georgia's Constitution is independent from the county's immunity. Grech v. Clayton Cuty., Ga., 335 F.3d 1326, 1393 (11th Cir. 2003), citing, Cantrell_v. Thurman, 231 Ga, App. 510, 513, 499 8.E.2d 416, 420 (1998); Seay v. Cleveland, 270 Ga. 64, 65-66, §08 S.E.2d 159 (1998). Sheriff Darr represents the sovereignty of the State in Muscogee County “in conserving the public peace, in vindicating the law, and in preserving the rights of the government;” he has no superior in his county.| Grech, 335 F.3d at 1334. d 938 F.gd 1304, 1928 (sath Cit. 2009)(Sheriff was an “arm ofthe state” in establishing a : | Manders v. Lee, use of force policy at county jail and in training and disciplining his deputies in that regard), Brine, 13-14297, (2015 WL spi (uth Ce, Jan, 23, 2015) Sheriff acted as an "arm ofthe State" when cexereising his po Caty,, Jaws and in kee ower to hire and fire deputies that enforced the laws of Georgia on his behalf);Grech v. Ga., 335 F.gd 1926, 1999 (11th Cir. 200g)(Sherifis act as agents for the state in enforeing the sping the peace), 7Sheriff Darr seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the performance of clear legal duties that only he, in his official capacity as Sheriff representing the sovereignty of the State, has a tight to compel. These duties flow from the sovereign State itself under the Georgia Constitution, statutes, and common law. Sheriff Darr has a right to be free from Home Rule. |It is the State that mandates this and precludes the county from taking any action pursuant to its legislative powers affecting the Office of Sheriff, Ga, Const, art. IX, §2, 11. Itisthe State that mandates that the county must (1) maintain the jail structure, (2) appropriate funds for necessities to inmates (such as food, bedding, clothing, clectricity, and sanitation) and the salaties of the Sheriff and his deputies, and (3) pay the premium for|the Sheriff's official bond. 0.0.G.A. §§ 36-9-5, 42-5-2(a), 15-16-20, 45- 4-7. Mandets, 338 F.gd at 1323. It is the State that mandates that the county pay for any needed medical and hospital attention for inmates in the county jail and charges the Sheriff with the duty to provide those inmates with medical aid, heat, and blankets, to be reimbursed if necessary from the county treasury. 0.C.G.A. §§ 42-5-2(a), 42-4-4. It is the State that mandates that counties set a budget for the sheriff's office, Pellitteri vy, Prine, 13-14297, 2015 WL 151112, at "4 (a1th Cir. Jan, 13, 2016). It is the State that mandates these Constitutional and statutory duties to the county and Sheriff Darr has a clear legal right to the performance of the same, In his official capacity as Sheriff, representing the sovereignty of the State, Sheriff Darr's suit seeks relief against Columbus, Georgia and its public officials arising out of their failure in these official duties mandated by the State. Sheriff Darr specifically pledhis clear legal right to the performance of these duties.» Sheriff Darr specifically pled that his budget is inadequate to fulfil the duties of his Office.2 Sheriff Darr in his official capacity is not a private citizen; he is an “arm of the state” and he alone has the clear legal tight to}bring the claims for mandamus and injunctive relief sought in his petition. Defendants cite no case in which the doctrine of sovereign immunity was applied to bar the claims of a Sheriff in his official capacity, let alone one in which a Sheriff, by writ of mandamus and injunction, is seeking to compel the faithful performance of official duties which are mandated by the State to the county and by which the county discharges its duty through the Office of Sheriff. All sovereign immunity cases cited by 2 For example, Sheriff Darr has pled the duties of his office that derive from the Georgia Constitution, statutory law ad common law, (Second Amended Petition, #11 22-35). He has pled the duties of Defendants as mandated by the State and the Charter, which specifically apply tothe Oifice of Sheriff, {including the following: (1) duty to make reasonable and adequate budgetary provisions for courthouse security, ¥ 168; (2) duty to provide for the jail and inmate food, clothing and medical care, $212; (3) duty ‘tonot take legislative actions that affect Sheriff Darr, his office, his employees and their salaries, 1977, 98- 99, 195-197; and, (4) duty have his budget incorporated into to the overall consolidated government budget submitted to thé Council, $157. He has pled the duties of Defendants as mandated by the State, the Charter ‘ind Georgia lav) in the budgetary process, 99 46-77, including the duty to pass a budget that funds all expenditures of his office for the entire fiscal year, 4 63-65, and the duty to adopt a budget that reasonably and adequately provides for the personnel arid equipment necessary to enable him to perform his duties of enforcing the law and preserving the peace, 176, Bd, of Comm'rs of Dougherty Cnty. v. Saba, 278 Ga. 176, 598 S.E,2d 437 (2004), 3 For example, Sheriff Darr pled the duties that he will not be able to fulfil due to the inadequate budget recommended by the Mayor, City Manager and Finance Direetor and adopted by the Council, Yig4. Sheriff Darr pled the explanation he gave to Counell of his statutory duties, and which the majority of his budget fs allocated t, suc as medical care for inmates, reserve deputies and blliff for courthouse security, and ‘operational materials for the jail provided to inmates, 134(@). Additionally, Sheriff Darr pled that the duties of his offite, which are required by law, are not limited to statutory duttes, but include all common Jaw duties, right$ and powers (Elder v. Camp, 193 Ga. 320, 18 $.E.2d 622 (1942)}; all qualifications, powers, and duties as provided by general law (Ga, Const. art. IX, 64, TID); and, those duties that necessatily pertin to his office (0.C.G.A.§ 15-16-10()(8), 22-35. Sheriff Darr pled the duties of his office as required by the Columbus Chatter, “The sheriff shall perform the same duties and exercise the same powers as are conferred upon sheriffs generally by the Constitution and laws of Georgia.” Charter, § 8- 100), 4 45, Sherjff Darr specifically pled examples of inadequate budget appropriations for training, bailiffs and courthouse security, personnel, motor vehicle fuel costs, and medical care for inmates, and the amount of funds necessary for him tobe able to perform the duties of his office with regard to each example, 19 162/224, Sheriff Darr pled specific examples of funds needed to enable him to perform his duties “of enforcing the law and preserving the peace” under the Georgia Constitution, statutory law and common law.Defendants involve a private party bringing suit against the State or one of its entities, ‘There is no support for the unprecedented extension of state sovereign immunity that Defendants seek to employ; it is not a question of whether an “exception” to sovereign immunity exists in this context, but whether sovereign immunity applies in the first place. Sheriff Darr submits that it does not, While} sovereign immunity should not apply to bar Sheriff Darr in his official capacity, representing the sovereignty of the State, as the actor, it does not apply to bar his action for writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, and appointment of counsel and ‘payment of attorney fees and costs, and any accompanying injunctive relief thereto, Defendants do not raise the bar of sovereign immunity to Sheriff Darr’s claims for mandamus and the law is clear that sovereign immunity does not apply to Sheriff Datr’s ‘claim for a writ of mandamus against Columbus, Georgia and Defendants in their official ho judicial “exception” to sovereign immunity struck down by Sustainable Coast, the we recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity to medical providers under O.C.G.A. § 42- 5-2. Macon-Bibb Cuty, Hosp, Auth. v. Houston Cnty, 207 Ga. App. 530, 532, 428 S.B.2d 374, 376 (199a)(the courty’s immunity was waived by the legislature's enactment of OCGA § 42-5~2, and its esponsibility tojpay all medical and hospital expenses may not be avoided by the defense of sovereign immunity); e LC " tes, B.C, 221 Ga. App. 496, 499, 471 S.E.2d 561, 564 (4996)(Our law places the responsibility for providing medical care to inmates on the counties); see also, it Mem‘ » 328 Ga, App. 332, 336-37, 761 S.E.2d 871, 874 (2014)(The ‘waiver of soverefgn immunity as to medical providers alleging claims against county or State jailers a8 tated in Macon! Bil also applies to municipal jallers), Sheriff Darr, by virtue of his office, is the Jailer of the coutlty. O.C.G.A, § 42-4-1. He is charged with the duty to furnish persons confined in the jail with medical aid, heat, and blankets, to be reimbursed if necessary from the county treasury. O.C.G.A. § 42-4-4, Although Sheriff Darr contends that sovereign immunity is not a bar to him or his claims for relief, if sovereign immunity did apply then arguably the legislature's waiver of sovereign immunity would apply to his action seeking to compel the county to pay all costs of the jail and inmates as the county has a non- dlseretionary duty to do s0, At minimum, these statutes arguably are a waiver of sovereign immunity to Sheriff Darr's clqims for mandamus relief seeking to compel the county to perform its duty with regard to his budget, “A county also has the duty to maintain and furnish the fall, OCGA § 36-9-s(a) and (b), and "to ‘maintain the innbate, furnishing him food, clothing, and any needed medical and hospital attention,” O.GG.A. § 42-5-2(a). In order to meet their duty, the county commissioners have "a duty to adopt a. ‘budget making reasonable and adequate provision for the personnel and equipment necessaty to enable ‘the sheriff to perform his duties of enforcing the law and preserving the peace." Lawson, Lincoln Cnty., 292 Ga. App. 527, 530, 664 S.E.2d 900, 902 (2008). 7 10capacities. Mandamus actions do not fall within the rule that the State may not be sued without its consent. DeKalb Cnty. Sch, Dist. v. Gold, 318 Ga, App. 633, 639, n. 34, 784 S.E.2d 466, (2012); S. LNG, Inc. v. MacGinnitie, 290 Ga. 204, 205, 719 S.B.2d 473 (2011), citin} Stanley _v. Sims, 185 Ga. 518, 526, 195 S.E. 439 (1998) (action for mandamus Seeking to compel an official to perform a ministerial duty cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim based on an assertion of sovereign immunity because such consent), an action is not within the rule that a State cannot be sued without its Avmitlof mandamus can only be brought against a public official to compel official duties. 0.C.G.A, § 9-6-20. To apply sovereign immunity to a mandamus action would render the st tute meaningless, Even after Sustainable Coast, the Georgia appellate courts will ngt extend sovereign immunity to render a statute meaningless, even if there fs no express Jianguage of waiver in the statute, “As recently explained by the Supreme Court in Ga, IDept. of Natural Resources v. Center for a Sustainable Coast, Inc., if the plain languafe of a statute does not provide for a specific waiver of governmental immunity not the extent of such a waiver, no waiver can be implied or shown. ‘That is not to say that an act must use the phrase, the State waives its sovereign immunity in order for an express waiver to occur, If a legislative act creates a right of action against the State whi ‘h can result in a money judgment against the State treasury, and the State otherwise would have enjoyed sovereign immunity from the cause of action, the legislative act must be considered a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity to the extent of the ight of action—or the legislative act would have no meaning.” (Internal retPunctuationjomitted) City of Hapeville v. Grady Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 328 Ga. App. 332, 335, 761 S.E,2d 871, 873 (2014). Similarly, Defendants do not raise the bar of sovereign immunity and it does not apply to Sheriff Darr’s claim for a decree declaring Ordinance No, 19-39 § 1 and Ordinance io, 14-25 §§ 2 and 28 as unconstitutional and void and seeking aecompanyitig injunctive relief against Columbus, Georgia and Defendants in their official capa ities. Sovereign immunity does not bar declaratory relief in suits challenging the constitutionality of legislative acts. DeKalb Cuty. Sch. Dist, v, Gold, 318 Ga. App. 633, 205, 719 S.E} contexts), 639, 734 S.E.2d 466, 472 (2012); 8, LNG, Ine, v, MacGinnitie, 290 Ga. 204, I2d 473 (2011)(Declaratory actions against the State recognized in certain Sheriff Darr is exempt from Home Rule and his Petition seeks a decree declaring these budget] art. IX, § 2, jordinances unconstitutional and enjoining their enforcement. Ga. Const. | 1; See, Channell v. Houston, 287 Ga. 682, 687, 699 S.E.2d 308, 312 (2010)(County had no constitutional authority to create a special tax district funding the duties of a constitutional officer such as Houston, it was not error for the trial court to enter the de district), latatory judgment and to enjoin the implementation of the special tax gislative acts in violation of this Constitution or the Constitution of the United States|are void, and the judiciary shall so declare them.” Ga. Const. art. I, § 2, vs 5 Sheriff Darr’s Hetition secks a declaration that Ordinance No. 19-39 § 1 and No. 14-25 8§ 2 and 28 are ‘unconstitutionaljand void because, under Georgia Constitution Art. IX, § If, 11(¢)(2), the Sheriffs specifically exempt from Home Rule. Warren v. Walton, 231 Ga, 495, 499, 202 8.B,.2d 405, 408 (197). Defendant Columbus, Georgia and Defendant Councilors have no jurisdiction to take legislative actions affecting him, hit office, his employees, and their salaries, “An action of a county governing authorityae Defendants do not raise the bar of sovereign immunity and it does not apply to Sh iff Darr’s Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney Fees and calts which is before this Court as a separate petition and as Count III in his Petition for|Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction against the above-named Defendants.| Defendant Columbus, Georgia, the “county governing authority” of Muscogee County, Georgia, i by 0.0.6.4, §45-9-21(0)(2) made liable for the payment of could “affect” ah elective county office ora court or the personnel of either if that action negatively ‘impacted on the ability of the elective county officer or court or the personnel thereof to perform their jobs." shengon v, r « 261 Ga, 399, 401, 405 S.E.2d 488, 490 (1991). In ‘determining the validity of an ordinanee, the court must decide whether the county had the power to enact | the ordinances and whether the exercise of its power is clearly reasonable, v. Gui 292 Ga, 675, 677, 740 S.E,2d 605, 608 (2019). Sheriff Darr's objection to these ordinances is not based on a reasonableness diie process challenge; rather, his objection is that the county has no constitutional authority to tak¢ legislative action affecting his office. In conjunction with a declaration that said ordinances are yoid, Sheriff Davr seeks injunctive relief. See, Channell v, Houston, 287 Ga, 682, 687, 699 S.B.2d 308, 312|(2010\(County had no constitutional authority to create a special tax district funding the uties ofa constitutional officer such as Houston, it was not error for the tial court to enter the declaratory judgment and té enjoin the implementation of the special tax district), Sheriff Darr specifically pled that Ordinance No. 1-39 § 1 and Ordinance No. 14-25 $§ 2 and 28, are in conflict with the Georgia Constitution and, therefore, void, 19 98-99, 196-197. Sheriff Darr attached Ordinance No, 23-39 and Ordinance No, 14-25 as exhibits “A” and “B” to his petition thereby becoming a part of bis pleadings. Sheriff Darr specifically pied how Ordinance No. 13-39 § 1 and Ordinance No. 14-25 ‘88 2 and 28 are being used by county officials to control him, his office, his employees and their salaries, $1 78-99 and 195-197. “The Couneil cannot do indirectly, by the exercise of their fiseal authority and their contro sf county property, that which they could not do directly.” Wolfe v. Huff, 233 Ga, 162, 210 S.E.2d 699 (1974). ‘Rett baa pled how Ordinance No. 19-39 § 1is being used to subject the Sheriff to public criticiam by the Mayor for alleged mismanagement of his offic, 1/84, and by the Finance Director and the oun to contp the pesformane ofthe ofl duties ofthe Sherif through control of his budget, 1 82, 85, Sheriff Dart specifically pled how Ordinance No. 14-25 § 28 is being used by the Mayor to publically criticize him and how itis being used by the Finance Director and Councilors to control him, his office, his employees and ‘their salaries, ‘V195. Sheriff Darr specifically pled how Ordinance No. 14-25 § 28 is being ‘used to dictate to him how to operate his office by control of funds removed from his appropriated budget and placed in a Bublic Safety Vacancy Reserve, $f] 182-184, 195-197. Sheriff Darr specifically pled how Ordinance No. 14-25 § 2 stating, “At mid-year 2015, the Columbus Couneil may review the Muscogee County Sheriffs Operating Budget or such other operating budget as deemed appropriate," is being used to control him and his office by the Mayor and Finance Director in persijading the Council to adopt the Mayor's recommended budget as the Mayor's recommended budget had enough funds for the Sheriff to make until mid-year, meanwhile the Fi Director would continue to look for additional cuts to the Sheriff's budget, 99 135-136, 140-145. Sheriff Darr’s petition states a cause of action seeking a declaration that Ordinance No. 13-99 § 1 and No. 14-25 $§ 2 and 28 are unconstitutional and void as the same are in conflict with the Georgia Constitution. Thus, Sheriff Dart’ claims for declaratory relief and its accompanying injunctive relief survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ine 1Battomey feed and costs for Sheriff Darr’s individual legal counsel and Sheriff Darr has a cause of action against Defendants pursuant thereto. Ga. Const. art. IX, § 2, 1 IX. Similarly, 0.C.G.A. § 45-9-21(e)(2) stating “the county governing authority shall pay” is a waiver of si ereign immunity as to Sheriff Darr's claim for attorney fees and aecompanying injunctive relief in Count III of his Petition. Whenever a county is by statute made liable for given demand, action against it will lie therefor, though the statute does not in express terms authorize or provide for bringing of such action. Taylor v.Jenkins Cnty., 116 Ga. App. 718, 158 8.E.2d 322 (1967). Defen: fants have raised immunity defenses only as to Sheriff Darr’s claims for ‘injunctive relief at common law. Sheriff Darr’s Second Amended Petition naming the individual capacities of the Defendants also added allegations relevant to the Defendants in their indivj of the state ot idual capacities to avoid qualified immunity. “[Alll officers and employees its departments and agencies may be subject to suit and may be liable for injuries and damages caused by the negligent performance of, or negligent failure to perform, their ministerial functions and may be liable for injuries and damages if they act with actual malice or with actual intent to cause injury in the performance of their official functi the issue of st the issue of] ns.” Ga, Const. art. I, § 2, TIX. Both sides briefed and argued to the Court wvereign immunity as raised by Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, including qualified immunity as to Defendants in their individual capacities. Defendants also briefed and argued the issue of legislative immunity, also a personal immunity a in their Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. The issues” in this fect of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss has not “significantly narrowed the case as Defendants represented to the Court that it would; rather, it has 14greatly expanded the same. Faced with the likelihood of further delay due to the certain appeal by Defendants of any denial of their motion to dismiss on their immunity Eau distinct possibility of some or all of his claims being dismissed as moot while this case languishes in the appellate court and FY 201g ends on June 30, 2015,7 | Sheriff Darr is left with little alternative other than to significantly narrow his claims for relief to ensue some relief survives the tactic of delay underlying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ‘To this end, Sheriff Darr’s Third Amended Petition, attached to his Motion for Leave as Exhibit “A,” significantly narrows his claims for relief against Defendants. ‘Those claims for relief against Defendants in their official capacities, and the allegations thereto, which the bar of sovereign immunity does not apply to, remain. ‘Those claims for relief against| Defendants in thefr official capacities for injunctive relief at common law, and against the Defendants in their individual capacities and the allegations thereto, are dropped.® In this regard, Sheriff Darr is likely one of the first constitutional officers of this State to suffer the injustice of Sustainable Coast as he has been aggrieved by the 6 Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505, 672 $.E.2d 471 (2009) (An order that denies a motion to dismiss, based oh a conclusive determination that the state or a state officer or employee is not immune from suit on thepbasis of sovereign immunity, meets the eriteria of the collateral order doctrine such that an appellate court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal from such an order); Lil i Halliburton, 328 Ga. App. 422, 762 8.B.2d 138 (2014) (Although the trial eourt’s order denying the motion to dismiss did not explain its ruling, the unambiguous posture of the case, including the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity raised in the answer and repeated in the motion to dismiss, suggested ‘that the trial court's ejection of the defenses of sovereign and qualified immunity was conclusive such that defendants were entitled to a direct appeal under the collateral order doctrine). 7 An appeal from judgment denying plaintiff relief in suit attacking refusal of eity to grant plaintiffa liquor flenge was dismissed ab moot, where license was sought for year 965, and elty thereafter adopted new ordinance respegting the granting of liquor licenses applicable to all years beginning January 1, 1966. Moran y. Carswell, 384 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1967). 8 For the convenience of the Court, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a Table depicting Sheriff Dan’s claims for relief in his Third Amended Petition, | 1Sunlawful conduct of public officers and, for some of his relief, he is now simply without Tecourse, : Therelis no prejudice to Defendants in dropping their individual capacities to this action. Discovery has not started as it has been stayed since the filing of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants have not filed an Answer in their individual capacities, All Defendants were personally served in their official capacities and are propetly before this Court in their official capacities; thus, there is no harm in dropping Defendants’ individual capacities to this action, leaving them as parties in their official capacities only. Sheriff Darr’s motion for leave to file his Third Amended Petition to add ‘Tom Buck, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, is necessary for granting “complete relief." 0.C.G.A. § 9-11-19(a). Sheriff Darr's motion for leave, to the extent it is required by law, to drop Defendants in their individual: capacities is necessary to ensure some teliof survives the tactic of delay underlying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, The right to amend pleadings under the Civil Practice Act is very broad and the same must construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. 0.C.G.A. § 9- 12. WHEREFORE, Sheriff Darr moves this Court for Leave of Court to file his Third Amended Petition and an Order as follows: () that TOM BUCK, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, bejoined in this action as A Defendant; (2) that the Defendants in their individual capacities be dropped from this action; 16(3) |that the Third Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of ‘Attorney's Fees and Costs, attached to his Motion for Leave as Exhibit "A," be filed of record and that a copy of the same be served on Tom Buck, in his Official Capacity as District 8 Councilor, as provided by law; (4) _|that Defendants be relieved of filing an answer thereto; and, (5) _ [that this Court order such further relief as it deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 27* day of January, 2015. W. Kerry Hot yal, LLC 230 Second Street Macon, GA 31201 (478) 745-0111 Wkhowell_law@bellsouth,net Walker, Hulbgrt, Gray & Moore, LLP 909 Ball Street | P.O. Boxt770 Perry, Georgid 31069 (478) 987-1415 walker law.cor ore@wheinl: State Bar No. 372688 pan gepwead Attorney for Sheriff Darr Prana ae Afarec ea, State Bar No. 732300 Wf gkymeqo Attomey for Sheriff Darr etme KELLYE C. Boon State Bar No. 520035, Attorneys for Sheriff DarrTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ae Ga. Const. of ia 1 Ga. Const. art. I, § 2, {1X Ga. Const. a 82,4 Ga. Const. at. IX, §'2, 11X Ga, Const. art. IX, § 1, $1 STATUTES! O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(a) O.C.G.A. § 9-11-19(a) O.C.G.A. § 9-11-21 O.C.G.A. § 9-11-1 O.C.G.A. §36-9-5 OCGA. § 4205-2 O.C.G.A. § 1516-20 O.C.G.A. § 4574-7 O.C.G.A.§ BAe 20(0)6) O.C.G.A. § 45/9-21(e)(2) i Ine., 294 Ga. 593, 755 Sia 184 Ca 14) Be ee nn Cay Same, 311 Ga. App. 867, 873, n. 5, 717 S.B.2d 279, thous. ba ine, S.Ct. L.Ed. 2d 636 (1999) 527 US. 706, 119 S, Ct. 2240, 144 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1999) Mando dee 338 F.3d 1304, 1328 (ath Cir, 2003) Peliteriy Pein, 13-14297, 2015 WL 151112 (11th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015) eat y. a auton Caty., Ga., 335 F.3d 1926 (11th Cir. 2003) , 231 Ga, App. 510, 499 $.B.2d 416 (1998) jel 270 Ga. 64, 508 S.F.24 159 (1998) mm'ts of. fon 278 Ga, 176, 598 8.B.2d 437 (2004) Ba, ak Camp; 193 Ga 320, 18 $.] 7 2d 622 (1942) Macon-Bibb Cnty, Hosp. Auth, v. Houston Cnty, 207 Ga. App. 530, 428 8.E.2d 374 Gi Di here ..N. Cobb Surg ociates. P.C., 221 Ga. App. 496, 471 S.E.2d 561 (300) { of Hapeville v. xD, 328 Ga. App. 332, 761 8.E.2d 871 (2014) Cty of Hapeville v. Grady Mem'l Hosp. Corn, Lawson v. Lindoln Cnty., 292 Ga. App. 527, 664 8.E.2d 900 (2008) S.LNG. Inc, v|MacGinnitie, 290 Ga, 204, 719 $.E.2d 473 (2011) Stanley v, Simé, 185 Ga. 518, 195 S.E. 439 (1937) 18Channell v, Houston, 287 Ga. 682, 699 $.E.2d 308 (2010) Wolfe v. Huff, 233 Ga. 162, 210 S.E.2d 699 (1974) 3d, of Regents v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505, 672 S.B.2d 471 (2009) Sch. Dist. v, Halliburton, 328 Ga. App. 422, 762 8.E.2d 138 (2014) Moran v, Catswell, 384 F.2d 720 (sth Cir. 1967) ‘Warren v. Walton, 231 Ga. 495, 499, 202 8.E.2d 405, 408 (4973) Stephenson v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Cobb Caty,, 261 Ga. 399, 401, 405 $.E.2d 488, 490 Gg91) -v. Gwinnett 292 Ga. 675, 677, 740 S.E.2d 605, 608 (2013) Taylor v. 116 Ga. App. 718, 158 S.E.2d 322 (1967) lb ich, Gold, 318 Ga. App. 633, 639, 734 8.E.2d 466, 472 (2012) ity of ‘lle v. Grz fem'l Py 328 Ga. App. 332, 335, 761 S.E.2d 871, 873 (2014) 7 OTHER Charter, § 8-100IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintifé, v COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation and body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia; TERESA P. TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor of Columbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official caphcity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official | Civil Action No, SU14CV3437-04 capacity as Fijance Director of Columbus, JERRY “POPS” BARNES, in his official capacity as Djstrict 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his pfficial capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN ‘TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4 Counellor, MIKE BAKER, in his official eapacity as, District § Counctor, GARY ALLEN] in his official capacity as District 6 Councilor, EVELYN “MIMI” WOODSON, ih her official capacity as District 7 Countilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her official capacity as District 9 at Large Councilor, land BERRY “SKIP” HENDERSON, | in his official capacity as District 10 at Large Councilor, Defendants. LAINTIFF’S BI sl MOTION FOR. ADD PAR’ AND DROP DEFENDANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES EXHIBIT “A”Mandamus| Declaratory Judgment ‘Appointment of Counsel and Paymvent of Compe! public ofital to efor ts |_Unconsttuona Ordnance and inuncive | Attorney Foes nd Costs and inuntve Relief Relief ‘A oficial dts shouldbe ieitialy “Legislative acis in violation of his Constalion or | The gavering autho off county shal pay. performed, and whenever, om any {he Constitution ofthe United States are void, and | OCGA. § 46-9-24(0)(2). ‘cause, a delecoflegal justice would | the julay shall go declare them,” enue from a lure fo perform or tom | Ga, Const. at | § 2,1. Whenever a counly i by sltuts made liable for improper perormenca, the wrt of given demand, action egainstt wil le therefor, mandamus may issue to comnpela due | Sovereign immunity does not bar declaratory relief | though te statute does notin exoress les performance i thro fs no other specific legal remedy forthe legal ighs. OC.G.A, §9620, Mandernus actos donot fl within the ‘ule that the Stata may not bp sued without consent ‘Dekalb Caly. Sch Dist. v. Gld, 318 Ga, ‘App. 633,699, 734 S.E.20 486, 472 (2012); $.LNG. nc. v, MaGinnita, 290 2,204, 05, 718 SE.24 478 (2041) See ‘Stanley v, Sins, 185 Ga, 518, 528, 195, ‘SE. 439 (1938) (acon for nfandamus ‘seeking to compe! an oficial perform a ministerial duly cannot be dismissed for {alate to sate claim based on an assertion of soverelgn immufily beceuse “{sluch an action i ra the rule that Stale cennot be sued wihcut Rs consent), ‘Alegation and prayer for rl in Pelion: Compe performance of clea egal dulles (1) Gy manager incorporate|Sherifts tudgel into consolidated governments budget (2) Mayor present budget Inoorporatng Sher budget to Counc (@) Mayor, Cy Menager and|Finance Director recognize shri as budget offcor {or his ofce and only he can|prepare his budget (4) Coun adopt a Budget for (a) cnt fisal yet, and (b) in mount ‘reasonable and adequate to provide for the parsonel and equipment necossary to enable the Sheif to perro his due of enforcing the law and preserdng the paca, Bd. of Commits of Dougherty aly. v. Saba, 278 Ga. 176, 178, 698 SE.2d 437, 440 (2004), Insults challenging the constitutional of legislative ais ty. Sch. 518 Ga. App. 693, 639, 724 SE 2d 466, 472 (2012); S. LN Ginnie, 200 Ga, 204, 206, 719 SE 24473 (2011) Decaratory actions ‘against the State recogrized in certain contexts) Sherif Exempt fom Home Rule. Ga, Cons. art 1 §2, on, 287 Ga. 682,699 ‘SE2d308 (2010\CCommissioners were without {he consttutonal authoty fo create spect! tex lst funding th duties of a consttutonal offcer, declaratory judgment and ijuncton against the Implementation ofthe specie tax dit). ‘Stephenson v, 84. of Comins of Cobb Cty, 284 Ga, 399, 407, 405 SE 24 486,490 (1991)(Acton ‘ofa county governing author could affect” an elective county ofce If tha ation negatvely impacted onthe ebity ofthe elective county officer ‘personnel thereof o perform tel jobs). ‘Alegation and prayer for role n Peto: ‘Ordinance Nos. 13-38 § 4 and 14-25 §§ 2 and 28 ‘a'8 unconstuanal in Volaon of Home Rute cexceplion as negatively impacting Shes ability (odo his pb, Decree tha ornanoes are ‘unconsitutonal and injunction against eppeation of erdinances to Sherif. authorize or provide for bringing of such action Tar L116 Go, App. 718, 158 3.26 322 1967). of Hapevi Host 328 Ga. App. 232, 395, 761 SE.24871, 873. (2014)(Recognizing welver of sovereign lnmunity even vithout express words in statute even after Georala Dep't of Natural Res. v. Cir, {ora Sustainable Coast Ino, 204 Ga. 693, 755 S.E.20 184 (2014), ‘Alegaton and pray for rai n Pelion: Columbus, GAs by O.C.G.A, § 459-21(6)(2) made liebe for re payment of alorney fees and ‘ost for Sherif Dai’ indhidval egal counsel and Shot Dat has a clear ight fo seek al ‘elaf thereunder, including any necessary injunctive ret; Order Columbus GA to pay the ‘Shes altrney’s fees and costs of igaon; and, temporary and permanent iunction prohibiting the Mayor, Clly Maneger and Finance Director rom charging any attorney foes and costs agains he Short’ budget and tho Counc fom reducing any eppropcaions to the Sher’ budget to offset any alter fees and costs. Columbus, Georgia Columbus, Georgia Columbus, Georgia Mayor Offical Capacily ‘Mayor Oficial Capacly Mayor Official Capacly ‘Gy Manager Oficial Capaci ‘ily Manager Oficial Capaclly ‘ity Manager Ofcal Capacity Finance Dir. Official Capacity Finance Di. Official Capacty Finance Dir, Official Capacity Councilors Official Capacity ‘Councilors Oficial Gapactty Councilors Offclal CapacityCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this‘day served the foregoing upon counsel for Defendants by STATUTORY ELECTRONIC SERVICE as follows: Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP P.O, Box 2 Columbus, Georgia 31902-2707 mys@hatcherstubbs.com Ms. era Slaton Ms. Carter P| Schondelmayer ‘The Schondelmayer Firm, LLC | PO, Box 5742 Columbus, Georgia 31906 cschondelmayler@outiook.com This 27 day of January, 2015, Uy W. KERRY HOWELL by KN State Bar No, 372688 Attorney for Sheriff Darr ‘W. Kerry Howell, LLC 230 Second Street Macon, GA 31201 (478) 745-0111 Wkhowell_law@bellsouth.net | i Mel Y WAEKER fy KOA. State Bar No. 732300 Attorney for Sheriff Darr State Bar No. 520035 “Attorney for Sheriff Darr Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Moore, LLP 909 Ball Street | P.O. Boxt770 | Perry, Georgia 31069 | (78) 987-1415 | lwalker@whigmlaw.com, kmoore@whgmlaw.comPED. INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY 910 i OFFICE | STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T. DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff, v COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation and body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia; TERESA P. TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor of Columbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official capacity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official capacity as Finance Director of Columbus, JERRY “POPS’ BARNES, in his official capacity as District 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his official capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4 Councilor, MIKE BAKER, in his official capacity as District 5 Councilor, GARY ALLEN,, in his official capacity as District 6 Councilor, EVELYN “MIMI” WOODSON, in her official capacity as District 7 Councilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her official capacity as District 9 at Large Councilor, and BERRY “SKIP” HENDERSON, in his official capacity as District 10 at Large Councilor, Defendants. MNS JAN 29 ANIL: SO HoLIND.A PIERCE HUSCOGEE.coUNT ‘SUPI ‘08 ue Civil Action No, SU14CV'3437-94 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD PARTY AND DROP DEFENDANTS’ INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES : ERE) ? INDIVID! | EXHIBIT “A” ‘THIRD AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ABSOLUTE AND INJUNCTION AND PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTSIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY I STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, a City, a public corporation and body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Georgia; TERESA P. TOMLINSON, in her official capacity as Mayor’ of Columbus, ISAIAH HUGLEY, in his official capacity as the City Manager of Columbus, PAM HODGE, in her official capacity as Finance Director of Columbus, JERRY “POPS” BARNES, in his official capacity as District 1 Councilor, GLENN DAVIS, in his official capacity as District 2 Councilor, BRUCE HUFF, in his official capacity as District 3 Councilor, EVELYN TURNER PUGH, in her official capacity as District 4 Councilor, MIKE BAKER, in his official capacity as District § Councilor, GARY ALLEN, in his offigial capacity as District 6 Councilor, EVELYN “MIMI” WOODSON, in her official capacity as District 7 Councilor, TOM BUCK, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, JUDY THOMAS, in her official capacity as District 9 at Large Councilor, and BERRY “SKIP” HENDERSON, in his official capacity as District,10 at Large Councilor, Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 1__ Defendants, [ENDED PETY: rE IS ABS ION AND PET! OF A) r IRNEY FEES AN!COMES NOW, John T. Darr, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Muscogee County, Georgia (hex Dart” or “the ‘ShevifP), Plaintiff in the above-styled action, and pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11:15, 9-11-19 and 9-11-21, and the Order of the Court granting leave to amend, files this Third Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney Fees and. Costs, striking jhis Second Amended Petition in its entirety and substituting this Third ‘Amended Petition in lieu thereof, as follows: “ARTI 1 Defendant Columbus, Georgia is located in the Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit and is a body corporate sind politic of the State of Georgia. i a Columbus, Georgia is a consolidated government of the former City of Columbus, Georgia and Muscogee County, Georgia. i 3. chums, Georgia is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. : 4 Columbus, Georgia has all the powers and duties previously vested in Muscogee County, Georgia and is the “county governing authority” of Muscogee County as term is defined under Georgia law. 0.C.G.A. § 1-3-3(7) and Columbus City Charter (“Charter”) § 2-100(1). | ‘ The consolidated government of Columbus, Georgia is a mayor-council-city manager form of government. Charter, § 1-101.6. Defendant ‘Teresa P. Tomlinson ("the Mayor") is the duly elected Mayor of Columbus, Georgia. : : 7 ‘The Maypr is the official spokesperson for the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government and:has the power and the duty to see that the consolidated government faithfully ‘executes and enforces the laws of the State of Georgia, the Charter and the ordinances and regulations of the consolidated government. ' 8. ‘The Mayor is to receive process on behalf of the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government. Charter, § 4-201(6). : 9 Defendant Tomlinson is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia and she is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. ‘ 10. Defendant Isaiah Hugley (“the City Manager”) is an officer of the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government and serves as the City Manager. : lh Under ti Charter, the City Manager is required to prepare and submit to the Mayor the annual operating and capital budget for Columbus, Georgia consolidated government. ' 12, ‘Under the Charter, the City Manager is to confer with and advise all elected and of the consolidated government who are not under the immediate control orjurisdiction of the Council but who reeeive financial support thereffom, such as sheriff, tax commissioner, dork of eourts, and probate judge. Charter, §4-307(10). : 13. Defendant Hugley is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia and he is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. ! 4 Defendant Pam Hodge (“the Finance Director”) is the Finance Director of the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government. ; 15. The Finance Director supervises the financial planning division of the consolidated government's finance department, 16. Among other duties, the consolidated government's financial planning division is responsible for the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government's budget preparation and controls budget execution. : 17. Defendant Hodge is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia and she is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. 18. ‘The individual Councilors comprising the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government Council are Jerry “Pops” Barnes, Glenn Davis, Bruce Huff, Evelyn Turner Pugh, Mike Baker, Gary Allen, Evelyn “Mimi” Woodson, Tom Buck, Judy Thomas, and Berry “Skip” Henderson (collectively abe or “the Council”), | |19. Each ofthe Councilors is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia and each is subject to the jurisdiotion and venue of this Court. i 20. CE. “Red” McDaniel was the duly elected, qualified and serving member of the Council representing District 8 until his death. At the time this action was filed, the District 8 Councilor position was vacant; thus, C.E, “Red” McDaniel was not named as a party to this action. Subsequently, Tom Buck was appointed to fill the District 8 Couneilor position. By Order of the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add Party, Tom Buck, in his official capacity as District 8 Councilor, has been joined in this action as a defendant to have the full Council present in this case as needed to afford Sheriff Daxr complete relief should he prevail in his claims for relief. i 21. This cause of action is brought against the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government and the Mayor, the City Manager, the Finance Director, and the Councilors, in their official capacities, ‘THE SHERIFF 22, i Sheriff John‘, Dare is the duly elected and acting Sheriff of Muscogee County, Georgia. 23. Sheriff Darr is a Constitutional Officer of Muscogee County, Georgia charged with certain statutory’and constitutional duties under Georgia law. : 24. Sheriff Darr is a "county officer" as defined by 0.C.G.A. § 45-9-21(6)(a).25. Pursuant]to Georgia law, Sheriff Darr is the chief law enforcement officer for Muscogee County, Georgia: 26. Sheriff Darr is an elected, constitutional officer. As such, he is subject to the charge of the General Assembly and he is independent of the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government, the Mayor, the City Manager, the Council, and the Finance Director, He is not an employee of the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government or any of these defendants. E 27. ‘The Courts of this State have long recognized the common-law duties, rights and powers of the Office of Sheriff. “The office of sheriff carries with it, in America, all of its common law duties and powers, except as modified by statute.” Elder v. Camp, 193 Ga. 320, 322, 18 S.E.2d_ 622, 625 (1942). ‘ 28, In his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Sheriff Darr has certain constitutionally mandated duties which he is obligated to perform. His duties mandated by Taw include, but are not limited to, those duties sot forth in 0.C.G.A. Title 15, Chapter16 and those duties that necessarily pertain to his office. : 29. Sheriff Darr is the jailer of the county required by law to operate the county jail and to provide medical care, heat and blankets to the inmates,30. Sheriff Darr is required by law to provide courthouse security and to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the security of the county courthouse and any courthouse annex. ' . 31. Sheriff Datt is required by law to attend, by himself or his deputy, upon all sessions of the superior couit of the county and also upon sessions of the probate comt whenever required by the judge thereof and, while the courts are in session, never to leave same without the presence of himself or his deputy, or both, if required. ; 32. Sheriff Darr is responsible for the hiring and firing of all deputies, jalers and other staff of the Sheriff’ Office and county jail. 33. Sheriff Darr is responsible for the purchase and upkeep of all patrol cars and other items required for his office. : 34. Sheriff Datr is requited to perform such other duties as are or may be imposed by law or which necessarily appertain to his office, : 35. Sheriff Dar is responsible for enforcing the laws and preserving the peace of Columbus, Georgia and Muscogee County, Georgia. i 36. Sheriff Darr supervises and employs over 324 swom officers and other employees in his office. | tPOWERS AND DUJIES OF THE CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT 37. The Columbus, Georgia consolidated government was created in accordance with Georgia law and,the consolidated government must comply with Georgia law. 38. ‘The consolidated government of the City of Columbus, Georgia and Muscogee County became effective October 5, 1971. 39. ‘The General Assembly passed the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government's most recent Charter as Act Number 279 (H.B. 694). The Govemor approved this Chatter on April 5, 1993. There have been various amendments to the Charter since 1993. / 40. ‘The Columbus, Georgia consolidated government exists only by virtue of Georgia law, and thus, is subject to the terms and conditions of Georgia la. 41. Georgia law provides: “Phe powers of county commissioners are strictly limited by law, and they can do nothing except under authority of law, and . .. if there is reasonable doubt of the existence of a particular power, the doubt is to be resolved in the negative, ....” Boswell v. Bramlett, 274 64.60, 52, 549 .B.24 100, 102 (2001). : 42. ‘The powers of the Council, as the county governing authotity, “are strictly limited by Jaw." :43. ‘The Cour as the county governing authority, “can do nothing, except under authority of law.” ' 1 44, If there is reasonable doubt of the existence of a particular power as to the Council, the “doubt is to be resolved in the negative.” ‘The Charter acknowledges that despite the consolidation of the government, “[tJhe 45. sheriff shall perform the same duties and exercise the same powers as are conferred upon ' sheriffs generally by the Constitution and laws of Georgia.” Charter, § 8-100. 46. Georgia law and the Charter govern the manner in which the Columbus, Georgia coneclidated government must prepare, present, and adopt an annval operating and eapitel budget. i 47. The City Manager is to prepare and submit to the Mayor the annual operating budget and capital budget. Charter, §§ 4-307(3) and 7-401(2). ; 48. ‘The Mayor is to submit to the Couneil the recommended annual operating and capital budget, Charter, 8§ 4-201(10) and 7-403(2).i 49. ‘The fiscal year shall begin on the first day of July of each year and shall end on the thirtieth day ot June the following year; said fiscal year shall constitute the budget year. Charter, § 7400, 50. At preserit time, the 2015 Fiscal Year (“F¥2015") budget is the governing budget. Charter, § 7-400. A true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 14-25 approving and adopting the Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 2015 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 5. ‘The Council must prepare and pass an annual fiscal year budget that provides for and covers all expenditures required by law for the ensuing fiscal year. Charter, §§ 7-401(2) and 7-402(2). 52. It is illegal for the Council to pass an annual budget that does not provide for all the expenditures anticipated for the ensuing fiscal year. : 53. For each department, fund, part, or unit of the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government, the total proposed expenditures from any fund shall not exceed the total anticipated revenues plus the estimated unappropriated surplus of fund balance and applicable reserves and less any estimated deficit at the end of the current fiscal year. Charter, § 7-401(6). ; 54. ‘The Sheriff s a “unit of local government” as defined in 0.C.G.A, § 36-81-2(26). | |55: The Sherk his own “budget officer” for his office and the funds appropriated to him for its operation as defined in 0.C.G.A. § 36-81-2(2). 56. "The Sheriffs the “legal level of control” for his office and the funds appropriated to him for its operat defined in O.C.G.A. § 36-81-2(14). Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. IX, § 1, 910; Art. 14 TL, 11@@). 1 er. Section 8-105 of the Charter provides in relevant part: “All elective officers such as the sheriff, . .. , which receive appropriations from the Council, shall prior to the commencement ofeach fiscal year prepare and submit to the City Manager annual operating and capital budget requests for the ensuing fiseal year. Such budget requests shall be incorporated into the overall consolidated government budget for submission by the Mayor to the Council. The Council shall grant a hearing to any such officer or agency on such proposed budgets.” \ 58. ‘Nothing in the Georgia Constitution, Georgia law, or the Charter authorizes the Mayor and the City Manager to submit to the Council their own proposed annual budget for the Sheriff, Instead, they are required by the Charter to incorporate the budget requests submitted to them by the’ Sheriff into the overall consolidated government budget submitted to the Council, Charter §8-105. 59. ‘The Mayon City Manager and Council must comply with § 8-105 of the Charter.60. 1 ‘The Colimbes, Georgia consolidated government’s annual budget must make appropriations for the consolidated government's entire fiscal year, which begins on July 1 of each year and ends on June 30 of each year. 0.C.G.A. § 36+81-3; Charter, § 7-400. : 6. L On or before June go of each year the Council must adopt an annual budget for the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government for the upcoming fiscal year, : 62, The Columbus, Georgia consolidated government's budget must be a “balanced budget.” O.C.G.A. § 36-81-3; Charter, § 7-403(6). ; 63. In adopting the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government’s annual budget, it is the Council's duty to appropriate sufficient funds to make reasonable and adequate provision for the personnel, goods, services, and equipment necessary to enable the Sheriff to perform his duties for the entire fiscal year, and to levy tax adequate to fund that budget for the entire fiscal year. 0.C.G.A. §§ 36-81-35 48-5-220(5); Charter, § 7-403(4). 64. The Council must adopt an annual fiscal year budget that appropriates sufficient funding to provide for and cover all expenditures required by law for the entire ensuing fiscal year, 0.C.G.A. § 36-81-5; Charter, §§ 7-401(2) and 7-402(2). ; 65. Its illegal for tae Couneil to adopt an annual budget that fails to provide for and cover all expenditures mtcipated to be necessary for the Sheriff to perform his duties for each entire fiscal year,66. Adopting; an annual budget that fails to provide for and cover all expenditures anticipated to be necessary for the Sheriff to perform his duties for each entire fiscal year subjects the Council to mandamus as well as other legal and equitable remedies. : 67. Except in the ense of a tie vote among Councilors on a budget ordinance or resolution where the Mayor is authorized to cast a tie-breaking vote, the Mayor, and those under her control, inching the City Manager and the Finance Director, have no authority to do anything in an attempt to impose on or dictate an annual budget to the Sheriff. { 68. ‘The va and those under her control, including the City Manager and the Finance Director, have tio authority to require the Sheriff to submit a budget request conforming to what they propose or dictate for his office, 69. ‘The Council must consider the budget requests submitted by the Sheriff, and either approve them, or modify them in the exercise of reasonable discretion. 70. The amount appropriated by the Council for the Sheriff's Office must be reasonably adequate for the Sheriff to perform his official duties required by law for the entire year. n The Council may not abuse its discretion, fail to use its discretion, or act arbitrarily, in adopting an annual budget appropriation for the Sheriffs Office, t ! 'Rp. ‘The conta must gather and evaluate sufficient facts to exercise reasonable, educated, and informed discretion and the Council must be able to provide a reasonable explanation for the budget adopted ; 73. ‘The Council may not refuse the budget requests of the Sheriff without giving due consideration to the effect of such refusal and whether the amount approved will permit the Sheriff to canry out his duties imposed by law. i 4. Once the! Council adopts a budget for an elected constitutional county officer, such as the Sherif, the decision how to spend the funds allocated to that ofie falls solely to the constitutional officer in the exercise of his duties, and the Council has no power or authority to dictate to the constitutional officer how the budget will be spent. : 75» ‘The amount approved by the Council in the operating budget adopted for the Sheriff shall constitute'the annual appropriation for the Office of Sheriff. ‘The Sheriff may not make expenditures or encumbrances in excess of the otherwise unencumbered balance of the appropriated operating budget for hs office. Charter, § 7-402(4). : 76. ‘The Council has the duty to provide the funds necessary for Sheriff Darr to perform the duties and obligations required of him as the Sheriff of Muscogee County, Georgia and to adopt a budget that: “yeasonably and adequately provide[s] for the personnel and equipment necessary to eriable the Sheriff to perform his duties of enforcing the law and preserving thepeace.” Bd. of Comm'rs of Dougherty Cnty. v. Saba, 278 Ga, 176, 178, 598 S.B.2d 437, 440 (2004). | 7 ‘The Shetiff is specifically exempt from “Home Rule” by the Columbus, Georgia consolidated gojernment under Georgia Constitution Art. IX, § I, 1 1(c)(2), and the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government has no jurisdiction to take actions affecting him, his office, his employees and their salaries, | ILLEGAL BUDG: Ss 7. Jn 2033, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 139. A true and correct copy of Ordinanee No. 13-39 is attached as Exhibit “B.” i 79- Section 1 of Ordinance No, 13-39 provides: “All elected officials and departments of the consolidated government must receive Council approval before expenditures are incurred exceeding budgeted appropriations for any fiseal year. Such requests for approval must be scheduled before Council by the Finance Director.” i 80. Ordinance No. 13-39 is unnecessary because expenditures exceeding budgeted appropriations already are forbidden without a budget amendment by 0.C.G.A. § 36-81-3(b) and (d) and the Charter, § 7-402(4). i 81 The Complore are using Ordinance No. 19:49 to create am allowance system to micro manage and control the Sheriff and other elected officials.82. Every tine the Sheriff needs more money to perform the duties of his office because his original budget is inadequate to begin with, he must schedule a request through the Finance Director to appear personally before the Council to justify the need for more funds as a condition of haying a supplemental budget request considered. ! 83. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 13-49, the Sheriff has been required to appear before the Couneil to explain, request and justify additional funds to pay for the expenses of his office necessary;to enable him to perform his constitutionally mandated duties. Ordinanée No. 19-39 is being used to subject the Sheriff to public criticism by the Mayor for alleged misinanagement of his office when, in fact, the Sheriffs budget did not reasonably and adequately provide for the personnel and equipment necessary to enable the Sheriff to perform his duties to begin with. : 85. Ordinance No. 19-99 is being used by the Council to control the performance of the official duties of the Sheriff through control of his budget, which is clearly prohibited by law. 86. ‘The Council cannot do indirectly, by the exercise of their fiscal authority and their control of the county property, that which they could not do directly. Wolfe v, Huff, 233 Ga. 162, 163, 210 S.E.2d 699, 701 (1974). 87. ‘The Council is failing to legally participate in the annual budget process required by Georgia law and the Charter.. 88. Instead, when the Annual Budget is enacted in any fiscal year, arbitrary figures are appropriated Al the Sheriffs Office, with no regard whatever to what the actual necessary expenditures for the fiscal year are going to be. | bs, The Council knows the funds appropriated to the Sheriffs office for FY¥2015 are bare going to run out before the fiscal year is over. The Sheriff's FY2015 budget | is insufficient because the Council failed to fulfill its duty to provide the Sheriff with a budget inadequate and that made reasonable and adequate provision for the personnel and equipment necessary to enable him to perform his duties of enforcing the law and preserving the peace. i 90. The covhe knows it is going to be necessary to pass a budget amendment when the Annual Budget js adopted, : 91. This illegal budget activity is further evidenced by the F¥2015 budget, Ordinance No. 14- 25, § 2, which provides: “At mid-year 2015, the Columbus Council may review the Muscogee County Sheriff's Operating Budget or such other operating budget as deemed appropriate.” ‘ 92. ‘This language was added to the F¥2015 budget Ordinance No. 14-25 at the suggestion of the Mayor in an effort to sell the Council on her recommended budget for the Sheriff. j 93. ‘The Mayor and the Finance Director represented to the Council at the F¥2015 budget meetings that the Finance Director would look for additional cuts to the Sheriff's budget and, ifthe Finance Ditgetor could not find additional cuts, the Council ould reconsider the Sheriff's FY2015 budget * mid-year and amend it. | 94. ‘The Couseil is required by law to appropriate a sum reasonably necessary to operate the Shes Oo forthe entire sal ent | 95. ‘The law: does not contemplate that budget amendments will be used for routine appropriation purposes because a budget appropriation was adopted knowing it was inadequate for [ entire fiscal year. Budget oo are to be used when circumstances occur that cause changing governmental rieeds or necessitate extraordinary expenditures. 0.C.G.A. § 36-81-3(4). 96. 97. A budget amendment is appropriate only to cover expenditures that were not contemplated iy and anticipated for the routine operations or performance of an office, department, ot agency, but were made necessary during the budget period because some unexpected change in governmental needs or extraordinary circumstance occurred necessitating the change. ; 98. Georgia: Constitution Art. IX, § II, 1 1(¢)(2) prohibits the Defendants from taking any actions affecting the Sheriff, his office, his employees, and their salaries. Therefore, Ordinance No, 13-39 § 1 is unconstitutional and void as applied to the Sheriff, his office, his employees, i and their salaries.99. Georgia |Constitution Art. IX, § IL, 1 I(@)G) prohibits the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government from taking any actions affecting the Sheriff, his office, his employees, andl their salaries. Therefore, Ordinance No. 14-26, § 2 is unconstitutional and void as applied to the Sheriff, his office, his employees, and their salaries. FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET 100. ‘The F¥2015 budget for the Sheriff is funded by the General Fund and the other Local Option Sales Tax Fund (“Other LOST Fund"). : 101, The Goheral Fund is the principal operating fund for the Columbus, Georgia eonsolidated goverument and accounts forall financial resourees and expenditures that are not accounted for in specific purpose funds. The expenditures incurred are for current day-to-day expenses, operating equipment and special appropriations. i 102, ‘The majority of the budget for the Sheriff falls under the General Fund. ! 103. ‘The Other LOST Fund is a special purpose fund that accounts for all financial resources related to the Other Local Option Sales Tax implemented in 2009. 104 InJuly be 2008, the citizens of Columbus voted to approve a new Local Option Sales Tax (referred to as the “Other LOST") that would allocate a one-cent sales tax to help raise funding for the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government. Seventy percent of the tax revenue is devoted to Public Safety. Public safety expenditures have included the addition of 100 policeofficers, adding \new patrol zones, building police precincts, replacing fire stations, building a jail addition, hiring Sheriff personnel, and annually paying every city law enforcement lofficer a supplement, ‘The remaining thirty percent has been dedicated toward roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects, The tax went into effect on January 1, 2009. 105. Prior to F¥2010, the budget for the Sheriff was funded solely by the General Fund. 106. ‘The law enforcement officer supplement funded by the Other LOST went into effect for FY2010 as ae on July 1, 2009, Resolution No, 323-08. ; In F¥2010, the Sheriff was budgeted his first Other LOST Funds to pay for the law 107. enforcement officer supplement for the Sheriff's sworn officers. ' 108. In FY20u1, F¥2012, FY201g, and F¥2014, in addition to the law enforcement supplement for the Sheriff's sworn officers, additional personnel were hired as Authorized Positions addel to the Sheriff's Office and budgeted with Other LOST Funds. : 109. By FY2014, the Sheriff had 26 additional law enforcement Authorized Positions funded by Other Lost Funds. a. For F¥201g, the Mayor, or the Finance Director acting oon her behalf, presented the Sheriff with ee line item budget for his office. A true and correct copy of the FY2015Mayor's Recommended line item budget for the Sheriff's Office is attached here to as Exhibit “oe a. ‘The F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget showed no change from F¥2014 in the number of Authorized Positions funded by Other LOST Funds for the Sheriff's Office; the number remained at 26. A true and correct copy of the Personnel Summary from the FY2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” 12. ‘The F301 Mayor's Recommended Other LOST Fund Budget for the Sheriff was $2,826,619 and included 26 Authorized Positions. 113, ‘The F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended General Fund Budget for the Office of Sheriff was $24,827,343. 4. ‘The F¥2015 Sheriff's Proposed General Fund Budget was $26,853,715. A true and correct copy of the Sheriff's Proposed line item General Fund Budget is attached hereto as 1 Exhibit “E.” 115. ‘The F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended General Fund Budget for the Sheriff was $2,026,372 less than the Sheriff's Proposed General Fund Budget. 6. ‘The Sheriff's General Fund Budget is separate from the Other LOST Fund Budget allocated to his office.; 117. "The FY2015 Other LOST Fund Budget for the Sheriffs Office is $2,826,613. 118. In accordance with § 8-105 of the Charter and prior to June 30, 2014, Sheriff Darr presented to Cduneil a line-by-line annual operating and capital General Fund Budget request for his office for FY2015. 119. ‘The FY2015 Mayor's Recommended budget presented to the Sheriff is a line-by-line ‘budget in which Mayor set out a specific amount for each line item of the Sheriff's budget. 120. The octal does not authorize the Mayor to submit a proposed budget to the Sheriff. 121. ‘There ig no authority in Georgia law that authorizes the Mayor to submit a proposed ‘budget for the Sheriff's Office. 122. Sheriff. Darr is the budget officer for the Sheriff's Office, . Despite! receipt of the Sheriffs proposed FY2015 budget in accordance with §8-105 of the Charter, the City Manager did not incorporate the Sheriff's FY2015 proposed budget into the overall consolidated government budget for submission by the Mayor to the Council. Despite receipt of the Sheriff's proposed FY 2015 budget, the Mayor never submitted it to Couneil nor had it incorporated into the overall consolidated government's proposed budget to Council, | { { { i124, Instead, the City Manager incorporated the F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff into the overall consolidated government budget for submission by the Mayor to the Council months earlier. a. The Mayor, City Manager, and Financial Director never intended to include the Sheriff's proposed budget for FY2015 in into the overall consolidated government budget for submission by the Mayor to the Council, b. In January 2014, at the F¥201g Budget Preparation Process Q&A Session, it was announced: (1) “Departments will not be required to submit a ‘Requested Bhdget”; (2) that Finaneial Planning would prepare a F¥15 budget plan for Mayor's Recommended Budget; and, (g) that there will not be a series of nectings with Department Heads and the City Manager and Mayor. ! 125. ‘The Mayor submitted the Annual Budget to the Counell and that budget incorporated the FY2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff's Office months before the Annual Budget was due knowing that the Sheriff's proposed budget had not been included and would 1 not be due under the § 8-105 of the Charter for over two months. t 126. 1 ‘The Annual Budget the Mayor submitted to the Couneil did not incorporate or include ‘he Sheri FZ2015 Proposed Budget for his Office. 127. Becaus¢ the Sheriffs Proposed Budget was not included in the Annual Budget, at the appropriate thhe Sheriff Darr submitted his proposed FY2015 budget to the Council outside of: the eonsolidated budget, The Mayor, City Manager and Finance Director were present at the time the Sheriff presented his proposed FY 2035 budget to Council. 128. ‘The Mayor does not have the power to disregard the express terms and conditions of the Charter. 129. ‘The City Manager does not have the power to disregard the express terms and conditions of the Charter. 130. "The Council does not have the power to disregard the express terms and conditions of the Charter. | | 131. The Cit} Manager violated § 8-105 of the Charter when he incorporated the FY2015 Mayor's Recontmended Budget for the Sheriff's Office into the Anmual Budget for submission ‘to the Council. 132. ‘The City Manager should have incorporated the Sheriff's FY2015 Proposed Budget into the Annual Budget for submission to the Counell. : 333. ‘The Mayor violated § 8-105 of the Charter when she submitted the Annual Budget to the Council because it incorporated her own F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff's Office and not the Sheriffs Proposed Budget.134. Sheriff Darr requested a budget hearing with the Council to discuss his proposed budget and to explain boy the F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff's Office failed to provide him with the monies required for him to discharge the duties of his office. At budget. hearing, the Sheriff presented his proposed budget to Council in a line-by-line comparison with the F¥201g Mayor’s Recommended Budget explaining that the amounts delineated in the Mayor’s Reconimended Budget were inadequate to allow the Sheriff to perform the duties required of his office, in particular: a ‘That his proposed budget was “the bare minimum he needed to operate the Mesoogee County Sheriffs Office”; ‘That he was not asking for more than he needed, i.e, there was no “fluff” in his proposed budget; ‘That he did not want to continue to be put in the position of having to come back Before the Council to ask for additional funding because his budget was inadequate; ‘That his proposed budget is the amount necessary to enable him to perform the constitutional state requirements expected of him as Sheriff; that his proposed budget is the amount needed to maintain compliance with the Department of Justice decree in place over the operation of the jail; and, that his proposed Hudget allows him to continue to deliver the services expected of the Sheriff's office both from the citizens of Columbus and the other departments of the Gonsolidated government; ‘That the majority of his budget is allocated to duties required by statutory law dnd gave the examples that he is required by law to provide medical costs toinmates, Reserve Deputies and Bailiffs for security of the courts and government buildings, and operational materials for the jail provided to the inmates. The ‘Sheriff explained that he does not have the option to do away with these services; ‘That the Mayor's proposed budget for his office was inadequate and in several particulars not based on historical expenditure figures or reality; and ‘That is proposed budget included cots made in an effort to save money balanced with the requirements of his duties as Sheriff imposed by law. ARBI ¥ C SHE! sED BI | 196. ‘The Fingnce Director attended the F¥2015 budget hearings on May 13 and May 27 and, along with the Mayor and City Manager, opposed Sheriff Darr in his efforts to have the Council approve his reduested F¥2015 General Fund Budget, in particular as follows: a ih response to Councilor Thomas’ expressed concern that there was a “significant arene of several hundred thousand dollars in the amount budgeted for medical care for inmates between the Sheriff's proposed budget and the Mayor’s Recommended budget, the Finance Director refuted the Sheriff's explanation that the noted “significant difference” was for specialized medical care for inmates not covered by the contracts in place for general and mental health care, and dodged any explanation for the shortfall by averring that the Sheriff can somehow come up the with difference needed by moving funds in his budget from other “object codes" i.e, line items, In making such statement, the Finance director admitted that the line item amounts in the Mayor's Recommended Budget were amounts that “we” put into the Sheriffs budget “to get to the total” for of Mayor’s Recommended budget, In other words, the line item amounts were arbitrary;In| response to Councilor Pugh’s expressed concern over the approximately $53,000 difference between the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and the Sheriff's proposed budget for line item 6g19 Administration contractual services, which te Sheriff explained included contracts for sex offender registration, surveillance equipment, and training systems, the Finance Director again failed to explain the SHortill and inferred that such expenditures were discretionary comparing the Sheriff's contracts to other government department contracts; Im response to Councilor Pugh’s expressed concern over the almost $400,000 difference between the Mayor's Recommended Budget and the Sheriffs proposed Doidget for line tem 6145 Baliffs, the Finance Director admitted thatthe amount fr that line iter in the Mayor's Recommended Budget wes based on an arbitrary number stating, “in the Sheriff's instance, we never came toa total bottom line of ‘what should be allocated in each particular line item, so some of the object codes sdloue filling in the numbers inorder to come to the total, not necessarily those numbers provided by the Sheriff” ‘After Sheriff Darr explained the duties that the Bailiffs provide in security at the government center, the recorder’s court, the superior court judges and courthouse and further explained that the $311,000 in the Mayor's Recommended Budget would not cover the costs of providing that security, Councilor Pugh asked the Finance Director to explain how she arrived at the $311,000 figure in the Mayor's recommended budget, to which the Finance rector admitted that she just filled in a number on that line item to arrive at the total budget recommended by the Mayor stating, “[tJhe Sheriff has theopportunity to move money within his budget however he sees fit, but the bottom ln number is really what we are concerned about”; At the May 27, 2014 Budget Review Briefing, the Finance Director presented to the Council a “Sheriff's Adjusted Budget” claiming that she had found more than $1,000,000 in euts that could be made to the Sheriff's proposed budget and suggesting that additional cuts could be made by “operational changes” in the Sheriff's office, such as the use of patrol cars, changes in the operation of the fiting range, re-assignment of personnel to the jail, meals at the jail for correctional officers, and medical care provided to inmates, among other suggestions. The Finance Director th dmitted th: rit id et of these osed cuts SI ted_operati changes; yet, she again recommended that the Council approve the Mayor's Recommended budget, which admittedly contained arbitrary line item amounts “filled in” by the Finance Director to arrive at the Mayor’s recommended budget for the Sheriff. ‘When Councilor Thomas expressed being in a “quandary” over what to do in light of the fact that there was still atleast a one million dollar difference between the Sheriffs proposed budget and the “Sheriff's Adjusted Budget” prepared by the Finance Director (and which the Sheriff did not agree to), and in light of the fact that “He's told us in the past that he need $2,000,000 more than we were ng bir and we didn't give it to him and, sure enough, he went over budget $21000,000," the City Manager and the Finance Director suggested that additional efficiencies in the Sheriffs operations and additional revenue generating possibilities might be able to offset the difference. Despite this,cobs ‘Thomas expressed she was still “agonizing” with the decision to go with thd Mayor's Recommended budget for the Sheriff. & Io of allowing the Councilors to exercise their discretion, the Mayor made | the recommendation that the Council “hold in abeyance” the million dollars with the understanding that the Council could amend the Sheriff's budget at mid-year ifsiecessary and, until then, the Sheriff should have enough funds in his budget to make it until then, h. ‘The Covneil accepted the Mayor's recommendation and agreed to adopt her recommended budget for the Sheriff and further accepted the suggestions of the Mayor and Finance Director that the budget ordinance contain a “footnote” that at mid-year the Council could re-visit the Sheriff's budget in the event he needed additional funds to perform the duties of his office. 136. At the request and urging of the Mayor and the Finance Director, at the F¥2015 budget | meetings, the Council rejected the Sheriffs proposed budget and adopted the Mayor's | Recommended Budget for the Sheriff's Office in 2015. The Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors knew the Mayor's proposed FY 2015 Sheriff's budget was inadequate for the Sheriff to’ perform the duties of his office for the entire budget year. 137. ‘The Countil approved the FY2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget as to each and every line item contained in the Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff's Office.138. ‘The Couneil did not explain why they elected to approve each and every line item of the Fy201g ae eae Budget for the Sheriff's Office and reject the Sheriff's Proposed Budget. i 139. ‘The Council did not require the Mayor or the Finance Director to justify the proposed amounts for any of the line items contained in the F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff's Office. THE FY2015 SHI 'S BUDGET UATE: ICIL’S P’ ET CUTS DURING THE FI Is ILLEt AND THE MAYOR'S PLANS TO PAY FOR THE SHERIFF'S 2015 EXPENSES BY BORROWING FROM THE SHERIFF'S FY2016 BUDGET IS ILLEGAL, : 140. During the F¥2015 budget meetings, and in an ongoing effort to convince the Council to approve the F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff, the Finance Director represented to the Council that she would continue to review the Sheriff's 2015 budget to see where additional budget cuts could be made, : 141. ‘The Finance Director did not identify during the budget meeting where the additional budget cuts would be found and these budget cuts remain unknown. ua. The Coutetlors recognized at the budget meetings that additional budget cuts would have to be made in order for the Sheriff to operate his office for the entire F¥2015 within the \ budget proposed by the Mayor.| 143. ‘The Mayse and the Finance Director represented to the Council at the budget meetings that ifthe Finance Director was unable to find sufficient cuts, the Council could reconsider the Sheriff's F¥2015 budget at mid-year. 144. ‘The Mayor told the Council that if additional monies were required for the Sheriff's F¥201g budget, and the monies were not available to the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government at that time, that the additional money could be taken from the Sheriff's FY2016 budget. : 145. ‘The Couricil adopted the F¥2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriffs Office and resolved: “At mid-year 201g, the Columbus Council may review the Muscogee County Sheriff's Operating Budget or such other operating budget as deemed appropriate.” Ordinance No. 14-25, § 2. 146. ‘The Mayor, City Manager, and Councilors failed to follow the Charter as to the Sheriff's FY2015 Budget. 147. ‘There is no legal authority under the Charter for the Mayor, the City Manager or the Finance Director to submit a proposed budget to the Sheriff or to submit a “Sheriff's Adjusted Budget” to the Council. 148, The Charter requires that the Sheriff shall prior to the commencement of each fiscal year prepare and submit to the City Manager annual operating and capital budget requests for the1 1 ensuing fiscal year. Such budget requests shall be incorporated into the overall consolidated government wudgt for submission by the Mayor to the Council. The Council shall grant a hearing to any sivch officer or ageney on such proposed budgets. Charter, § 8-105. 149. Georgia law requires that at the time the budget for the Sheriff's Office is passed, the amount appropriated be sufficient for the Sheriff to perform the duties and fulfill the requirements of his office for the entire upcoming fiscal year. 150. ‘The Coutiil violated Georgia law and the Charter by approving the FY2015 Budget for the Sheriff's Office knowing that the amount was inadequate and based on the Finance Direetor’s representations she would continue to look for additional places to cut the FY2015 Budget for the Sheriff's Office during the fiscal year. 151. ‘The Council violated Georgia law and the Charter by approving a budget for the Sheriff's Office for FY2015 with the acknowledgment that if the Finance Director could not find the additional, but yet unknown, cuts to the Sheriff's Budget, a mid-year review would be required. : 152. By virtue of passing the FY2015 Sheriff's Budget dependent on the Finance Director's ability to find additional yet unspecified budget cuts as the fiscal year progressed, the Council established a de facto process to control the day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Office and the mannor in which the Sheriff spends the monies appropriated to his office,153. The Counell violated Georgia law by anticipating that reasonable and necessary expenses of the Sheriff's Office for the F¥2016 could be paid for by borrowing from the Sheriff's FY2016 Cee : 154. ‘The Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors disregarded the law in the manner and ee in which they prepared and approved the Sheriff's F¥201 Budget. | 155+ ‘he Counelors disregauded the law in the manner and process in which they appropriated money to the Sheriff's Office for the FY2015 Budget, 156. ‘The Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors disregarded the Charter in the manner and process in which they prepared and approved the Sheriff's F¥2015 Budget. 1 ‘ ‘The Cotincilors disregarded the Charter in the manner and process in which they appropriated money to the Sheriff's Office for the FY2015 Budget. 158. ‘The Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors abused their discretion in the preparation, submission and approval of the Sheriff Office's FY201g Budget. ‘ 159. In the Fra015 Sheriffs Budget, the Council failed to make xeasonable and adequate budgetary provisions for the personnel and equipment required for Sheriff Darr to perform his duties of enforsing the law and preserving the peace for FY2015.160, The cones abused their discretion in the amount they appropriated to the Sheriff Office's FY201g budget, both in the total amount appropriated and in the amounts appropriated in certain critical line items in the budget. ; 161. By taking the actions described in paragraphs above, the Councilors abused their discretion, or in the alternative, failed to exercise their discretion entirely and properly and the Councilors have further failed to meet the legal standard. 162, ‘There are several particular instances in the approved Sheriffs FY2o15 Budget where the Council fled to appropriate sufficient funding for Sheriff Darr to discharge his duties. The following are some, but not all, ofthe inadequacies in the Sheriff's budget for 201g: ING 163. ‘The Council appropriated $15,000 to the Sheriff for “education, training, travel and conferences,” Iine items 6601 and 664, forall of his employees for F¥2015. ; 164. Prior to’ filling in the numbers for line items 6601 and 6641, the Couneil did not investigate whether the amount of $16,000 was reasonable, 165. ‘The approprited $15,000 for line items 6601 and 664i represents a fraction of what it will cost to keep the Sheriff's Office employees properly trained and certified for F¥2015. i166. ‘The Sheriff's proposed line item 6601 requested $15,000 and his proposed line item 6641 requested $20,000 and this is the minimum amount that the Sheriff's needs to keep his employees adequately trained, educated and certified for FY2015. | 167. ‘The couyet did not explain how the Sheriff could properly train, educate and certify his employees witha 66.67% cut made to his education and training budget for FY2035. i ‘The Couiell is required by law to make reasonable and adequate budgetary provisions BAILIFFS AND COURTHOUSE SECURT 168. for courthouse security in the annual budget approved for the Sheriff's Office, O.C.G.A. § 36- 81-11. 169. In the approved FY2015 Sheriff's Budget, the Couneil appropriated $311,900 for Bailiff and Courtroom Security in line item 6145. 170. $311,909 is the exact amount proposed by the Mayor for line item 6145 in her F¥2035 Mayor's Reconimended Budget for the Sheriff's Office, which the Finance Director admitted was an arbitrary number, ! im. Based oh historieal numbers and his reasonable experienced projection for FY2015, the Sheriff requested $681,000 for line item 6145 for his FY2015 budget. I172. {$681,000 is the actual amount it took to provide bailiffs and courtroom security for F¥2013, I 173. Sheriff Darr cannot provide adequate Bailiffs and Courtroom Security for less than the amount it sama ' 174. In Ordinance No. 14-25, the Council voted to eut the level of funding for Baiiffs and Courtroom Security in FY¥2015 by more than 50% of the amount the Sheriff requested. : 175. At the tine the Councilors enacted the 50% cut in line item 6145 of the F¥2015 budget as requested bythe Mayor, they did not provide any explanation or justification of how Bailiffs and Courtroom] Seousity eould be provided for F¥2015 for less than half of what the same services cost in F¥2013. 176. When the Counellors enacted the 50% cut in the line item 6146, they did not require the Mayor or the Finance Director to explain how they concluded that the Sheriff could provide courtroom security and bailiffs throughout the various courts of Muscogee County for less than half of what it east in F¥2013. : 177. When the Councilors cut line item 6145, they knew they had recently added another seourity cheekypint thet the Sheriff mus staff during F205 that was not required in FY2013, || va ‘When thé Councilors cut line item 6145, they knew that there was an additional superior court judge redently appointed in the Chattahoochee Judicial Cixenit that would require additional courtroom security and bailiff obligations in F¥201g that was not required in FY2013. 179. ‘The Couicilors were not aware of any decrease in the duties and obligations placed on the Sheriff for ‘Bailiffs and Courtroom Security for FY201g at the time they approved the Mayor's $311,300 request for line item 6145. cy’ INGS" {D PERSONN! | 180. The cuba approved budget for the Sheriffs Office imposes $621,484 in "salary savings” on the Sheriffs Budget. “Salary Savings” is money removed. from the Sheriff's budget and held in a reserve fund subject to the control of the Council. Ifthe Sheriff wants to ire deputies necessary to enable him to perform the duties of his office, he must seck Council approval for the funds which were removed from his budget. : 181. The $621,484 in “salary savings" is comprised of $265,251 in "salary savings" carried forward from prior! years vacant positions, plus an additional reduction of $356,223 in the Personnel Apptopriation for Sheriff's General Fund Budget. | 182. ‘The $265,251 in "salary savings" carried forward from prior’ years vacant positions has een set aside in a Public Safety Vacancy Reserve Fund ereated in FY 2015.183. ‘As set forth in Section 28 of Ordinance No. 14-25, all positions vacant and included in the Public Safety Vacancy Reserve in the General Fund shall require Council approval for funding of those vacant positions. | 184. For the Sheriff, seven (7) vacant positions are included in the Public Safety Vacancy “Reserve and the maximum amount available to the Sheriff in the Public Safety Vacancy Reserve is budgeted at $265,251 for FY2015. 185. While $265,251 in "salary savings" for the seven (7) vacant positions has been “set aside” in the Public Safety Vacancy Reserve, the remainder of the $621,484.00 in "salary savings" is comprised of an additional reduction of $356,223 in the Personnel Appropriation for Sheriffs Office. : 186. It is not apparent whether the $356,289 reduction in the Personnel Appropriation for the Sheriff's Office has been set aside in any Public Safety Vacancy Reserve or other reserve; it simply has bee eliminated arbitrarily from the Shetiffs Budget. | 187, As noted in the FY2015 Mayor's Recommended General Fund Budget for the Sheriff, “the department will need to identify how this reduetion will be aceomplished.” A true and correct copy, of ‘the FY2015 Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Sheriff Office is attached l hereto as Exhibit “F.”| 188, i The Persbnnel Summary in the FY2015 Approved Budget for the Sheriff's General Fund Budget notes the following personnel for the Sheriff Office have been "unfunded": In Administratic wne Administrative Clerk I Position and One Deputy Sheriff Position were unfunded for ‘he In Operations - two (2) Deputy Sheriff and one (1) Deputy Sheriff Field ‘Train Officer Positions were unfunded for F¥ig; In Detention - Four (4) Deputy Sheriff Positions were infunded for F¥15, A true and correct copy of the said Personnel Summary is attached hereto'as Exhibit “G.” : 189, The total number of personnel positions "unfunded" for the Sheriff's Office from the General Fund for FY2015 is nine (9) positions, including eight (8) Deputy Sheriffs. 190. ‘Thus, while the Counell purports to approve of these positions and do not eliminate these positions) the Council intentionally leaves these positions unfunded so there is not enough S| appropriated to the Sheriff to fil all of the positions necessary for him to provide for the orderly administration of his office. The funds for these positions have been removed from the Sheriffs Budget and are being kept in the General Reserve Fund so that the money remains in Control of the Council and the Sheriff must seek Council approval to fund these positions; 191. ‘The Colmeilors approved the Mayor's recommended $621,484 in “salary savings" without the exercise of discretion as to whether the imposition of said arbitrary "salary savings" would afford 4 reasonable and adequate budget for the personnel required for the sheriff to perform his duties of enforcing the law and preserving the peace for F¥2015.192. ‘The Couticil’s imposition of said arbitrary "salary savings" is equivalent to a refusal to provide funds to pay the salaries of these personnel and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious denial. 193. ‘The Council’s imposition of said arbitrary "salary savings" was an abuse of discretion or 194. t By taking such action, the Council has impermissibly instructed the Sheriff as to what a failure to [| discretion entirely. Deputy Sheriffs he may hire and fire in violation of O..G.A. § 15-16-23. 195. Section 78 of Ordinance No. 14-25 states, “All positions vacant and included in the Public Safety Vacamey Reserve in the General Fund of $1,889,900 [of which 7 positions and $265,261 is resérved for the Sheriff] shall require Council Approval for funding of those vacant positions.” See Exhibit “A.” a Oh December 9, 2014, the Sheriff appeared before Council and requested Council approval to fund six Deputy postions in the Publie Safety Vacancy Reserve. b. _Dbspite the language of Section 28 of Ordinance No. 14-25, at the December 9, 2014 Council mneeting, the Mayor told the Sheriff that he was not supposed to come before Council to request these public.safety vacancy resérve positions, but that he must email his request to the Finance Director and the Finance Director would review the request and notify him if his request had been approved. c. sof the filing of this Third Amended Petition, Sheriff Darr has been advised by the Finance Director that Council has approved the funding of the six positions; however,Sheriff Darr is not aware that any transfer of funds removed from Sheriff Darr's budget and set Aside in the Public Safety Vacancy Reserv has been made tothe Sheriffs Ofice General Fund Budget. ! 196. Georgia Gonstitution Art, IX, § II, 11(¢)(@) prohibits the Council from taking any actions affecting the Shxif, his office, his employees, and their salaries. ‘Therefore, Ordinance No. 14- 25 § 28 is unconstitutional and void as applied to the Sheriff, his office, his employees, and thelr salaries. : 197. Section 28 of Ordinance No.14-25 violates Georgia law because it controls the manner in which the Sheriff spends the monies appropriated to him in the FY2015 Sheriff's budget and otherwise seeks|to control how the Sheriff discharges the duties of his office. { 198. Im addition to the arbitrarily imposed $621,484 in “salary savinge" on the Sherif's General Fund Budget resulting in the "unfunding" of nine (9) personnel positions, eight (8) of which are Deputy Sheriffs, an additional four (4) Deputy Sheriff positions were removed from the Authorized Positions funded under the Sheriff's Other LOST Fund Budget. i 199. In F¥a04, the Sheriff had twenty-six (26) Deputy Sheciffs in Authorized Positions fanded under his Other LOST Fund Budget. 200. Inthe spe and approved F¥201g Other LOST Fund Budget for the Sheriff, there are only twenty-two (22) Authorized Positions for Deputy Sherifis. A true and correct copy of the Personnel Summary for the Other LOST Fund Budget is attached hereto as Exhibit “H.” I| 1 No explaiiation is noted for the elimination of the four (4) Deputy Sheriff positions from the Sheriff's Other LOST Fund Budget. : 202, ‘The Coutellora acted without the exercise of discretion as to whather the removal of these previously Approved Positions from the Sheriff's Other LOST Budget would afford a reasonable and adequate budget for the personnel required for Sheriff Darr to perform his duties of enforcing the law and preserving the peace for FY2016. 203. No other Publie Safety Office with Authorized Positions funded under the Other LOST Fund had positions eliminated in F¥2015, ' 204. In fact, since the inception of the Other LOST Fund, the total number of Authorized Positions funded by the Other LOST Fund has never been reduced for any Public Safety Office, until the Sherif’s reduction for F¥2015. : 206. The Couns approval of a F¥2015 Sheriff's Other LOST Fund Budget reducing the | number of Deputy Sheriffs as Authorized Positions from twenty-six (26) to twenty-two (22) is not only contrary to the spirit and purpose for which the taxpayers passed the Other LOST, which was to create and fill additional law enforcement positions, but, the Councilors’ actions are contrary to law.HI STS i 206. The Couricil is required by law to furnish the Sheriff fuel at the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government's expense, 0.C.G.A. § 36-9-7. 207. ‘The F¥2015 Sheriff's Budget proposed by the Mayor and approved by the Councilors appropriated $200,000 for line item 6746, motor vehicle fuel costs. | 208, Sheriff Datr's F¥2015 Proposed General Fund Budget, based on historical numbers and the current price.of fuel, requested $295,000 for line item 6746. ! 209. Sheriff Date cannot perform the duties required of his office with the fuel budget eut by 33% from its historical and expected cost. 210. The Council did not justify the $95,000 cut in the Sheriff's fuel budget for line item 6746 for F¥2015 or explain how the Sheriff was to make do with two-thirds of the fuel it takes to operate his office, 211. The Council was not aware of any decrease in the duties and obligations placed on the Sheriff for F¥2015 that would explain how a 33% reduction in line item 6746 could be achieved.EDIC. FO) 212, Healthcare for the inmates at the Muscogee County jail is a large portion of the Sheriff's budget each year. a, The county governing authority is mandated by the state to maintain the inmate, furnish him food, clothing and any needed medical and hospital attention.. O.CG.A. 42-5-2(0); and, that county governing authority is mandated by the state to maintain the jail, 0.0.6.4. 36-9-5(a). In order to meet its duty to maintain and furnish the jail and to maintain the inmate, the county governing authority has a duty to adopt a budget making reasonable and adequate provision for the personnel and equipment necessary to enable the sheriff to perform his duties. Lawson v. Lincoln County, 292 Ga. App. 527 (2008). ‘The Councilors knew when they passed the Mayor's Recommended Budget that the Mayor's budget was almost $400 less than the Sheriff's proposed budget for outhide medical services, eg., hospital and emergency room care, for the jail inmiates. ‘The Finance Director addressed the shortfall by stating that the Sheriff can|move money around in his budget and assign it to what-ever line items or “object codes" he wants to. The county is mandated by the state to maintain the inmate and furnish medical attention. ‘The Sherif should not have to find money in other areas of his budget to cover these costs. At the time of the FY2015 budget heatings, the Finance Director told the Council that since they had contracted with CCH to provide in-house medical services to the jall, the amount of costs for outside medical services had increased, not |deéreased as expected, which not only increased the costs for the medical services, but increased the operational costs of the jail, as well. ‘Iwo deputies are required to accompany an inmate sent for outside medical services. 213. ‘The Sheriff is charged with the duty to furnish persons confined in the jail with medical aid, hext, and Blankets and to be reimbursed from the county treasury, O.C.G.A. § 42-4 4(a)(2). Failure to provide medical care to inmates subjects the Sheriff to liability for which he has no immunity. ‘The Council's failure to appropriate the sufficient funds to cover the medical costs of the jail inmates in the Sheriff's budget is not only a failure of its duty under state law, but it exposes the Sheriff to immediate and irreparable harm. i 214. Sheriff Darr has no control over the health care requirements of the inmates in the Muscogee County Jail, but he must provide healtheare forthe inmates as required by state and federal law. 215. ‘The vast inaority of the inmates of the Mustogee County Jail are incareerated by law enforcement agencies other than the Sheriff's Office. | 216, ‘The Councilors know that the Sheriff has to provide for the reasonable and necessary healthcare of the inmates. | | 217. ‘The Countilors know the Sheriff has little control over these healtheare ‘expenses.! ' { For Fy201g, the Sheriff requested a total of $4,645,449 for healtheare, including 218. pharmacy, medical supplies and mental healthcare for the inmates of the jail. : 219. The Coutiitors only approved a total of $4,156,569 for healthcare, including pharmacy, medical supplied and mental healthcare for the inmates of the jail, | 220. There is a deficiency in the approved FY2015 Budget for the Sheriff's Office for healtheare ofimore than $480,000. 22, The sheriff cannot fulfill his legal duties to provide adequate and reasonable healthcare to the inmates 4 ‘the jail for F¥2015 with a budget cut of over $480,000, ; 209, At the tinle they passed and approved the Sheriff's FY2015 Budget, the Councilors did not explain how|Sheriff Darr could carry out the duties of his office with a fuel budget cut by nearly one-third] a training budget cut by two-thirds, "salary savings" of more than $620,000, and inmate medical care budget cuts of over $480,000. 223. ‘The Couneilors' position on these specific budget issues was that during the course of the fiscal year, the Finance Director would try and find ways to cut the Sheriff's budget and if she could not, the Councilors would re-visit the Sheriff's Budget at mid-year,: 224, The Mayor represented to the Councilors that if the additional monies required to fand the Sheriff's Office for the entire FY2015 were not available when needed, they could just borrow the money from the Sheriff's F¥2016 Budget. 225, The Council will not provide any additional funding to the Sheriff's Office now. Any attempts by the Sheriff to request additional funding for FY 2015 is futile because such requests will be' denied by the Council. The planning for the FY 2016 budget has already begun. As to the F¥2016 budget process, the Mayor, the City Manager and the Finance Director plan to follow the exact same illegal and ultra vires budget process as they, used for the Sheriff's F¥2015 budget. Sheriff Darr already has been instructed by the Finance Director to appear before her, the City Manager and Mayor in continuation of this illegal budget process for FY2016 as follows: “We are in the fact-finding process leading up to the F¥2016 Mayor's Proposed Budget to City Council. As you may recall Council asked us to look into possible duplication of law enforcement resources during the budget process in FY2015. The Mayor, City Manager and I would like to meet with you to discuss any duplication of law enforcement services. We would like to meet with you November 12th, at 3:30 p.m,, in lieu of your currently scheduled Public Safety meeting with the Mayor. In order to facilitate our discussion, please bring a Sheriff's Office organizational chart by division and task or objective. Also, provide the F¥2015 funding, equipment or other resources attributable to those tasks or objectives.” | 226, ‘The Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors have left Sheriff Darr with no alternative other than to seek a Mandamus Absolute and Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction, 227, All conditions precedent to the filing of this action and the Sheriff's right to the relief sought herein have occurred, have been performed, or have been excused.Re [US ABSOL! ! 228, ‘The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein. i 239, As pled herein, Sheriff Darr will not be able to fulfill the duties of his office due to the inadequate budget recommended by the Mayor, City Manager and Finance Director and submitted to and adopted by the Council; and, he has set forth herein specific examples of inadequate budget appropriations for training, bailiffs and courthouse security, personnel, motor vehicle fuel costs, and medical care for inmates, and the amount of funds necessary for him to be able'to perform the duties of his office “of enforcing the Iaw and preserving the peace" under the Georgia Constitution, statutory law, common law and the Columbus, Georgia Chatter. ; 230. Sheriff Darr is without an adequate remedy at law, and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute is the proper procedure to compel the proper and faithful performance of the Defendant publi officials’ duties as pled herein and the Council’s duty to appropriate sufficient funds to make reasonable and adequate provision for the personnel, goods, services, and equipment necessary to enable the Sheriff to perform his duties of enforcing the Iaw and i preserving the peace for the entire fiscal year for the Sheriff's Office and Jail for which the Sheriff is responsible under the Georgia Constitution, statutory law, common law and the Charter.| 231. Georgia law provides: “All official duties should be faithfully performed, and whenever, from any cause, a defect of legal justice would ensue from a failure to perform or from improper performance, the writ of mandamus may issue to compel a due performance if there is no other specific legal remedy for the legal rights; . . .." O.C.G.A. § 9-6-20. : 232. By this Petition, Sheriff Darr seeks the following relief: a. Judgment issuing a writ of mandamus absolute compelling the proper and faithful performance by the Mayor and City Manager of their official duties to follow the budgetary process required by Georgia Law and the Chatter, specifically §8-105, requiring the City Manager to incorporate the Sheriff's proposed budget into the overall consolidated government budget and requiring the Mayor to submit the City Manager's overall consolidated government budget, incorporating the Sheriffs budget, to the Couneil. (Second Amended Petition, {232(a)); Judgment issuing a writ of mandamus absolute compelling the proper and faithful performance of the Couneil’s duty to appropriate sufficient funds to make reasonable and adequate provision for the personnel, goods, services, and equipment necessary to enable the Sheriff to perform his duties of enforeing the law and preserving the peace for the entire fiscal year. (Second Amended Pétition, 1292(c), (@) and (e)); Judgment issuing a writ of mandamus absolute compelling the proper and faithful performance of the Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Director's duty to recognize that Sheriff Darr is the budget officer and the local government official i |charged with budget preparation and administration for the Office of Sheriff of Miseogee County, not the City Manager, the Finance Director ot the Mayor; and, as such, only he shall prepare a proposed annual budget for the Office of Sheriff of Muscogee County. (Second Amended Petition, 1232(e))s a Such other relief as may be allowed under Georgia law. t 233. Sheriff Dir has a well-defined clear legal right to each of the prayers for mandamus relief prayed for‘in the paragraph above. : 234. ‘The Maysr, City Manager, Finance Director and Council viclated their legal duties by proposing, submitting and approving the Mayor's Recommended FY2015 Sheriff's Budget. : 235. ‘The Counicilors violated their legal duties by appropriating monies to the Sheriff's Office for F¥2015 in an amount that is less than they knew it would take to operate this office and discharge his duties as Sheriff for the entire fiscal year. : 236. The Major, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors have established an unconstitutional and illegal de facto process to control the day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Office ina the manner in which the Sheriff spends funds appropriated to his budget. ; 237. ‘The actions of the Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors are illegal, ultra vires, andWvoid,| 238. ‘The Sheriff's F¥2015 Budget proposed by the Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and adopted by the Councilors is legal, ultra vires, and void. 1 239. ‘The Couneil will not provide the Sheriff with any additional funding, Any attempt by the Sheriff to appedt back in front of Council to request additional funding for FY 2015 budget is fatile. ; 240. The stays, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors have left Sheriff Darr with no alternative other than to seck a Mandamus Absolute. : 241, Sheriff Darr is without an adequate remedy at Jaw and a Petition for Wit of Mandamus Absolute is the proper procedure to compel the Mayor, City Manager, Finanee Director and Couneilors to provide the relief sought herein, Grimsley v, Twiggs Cnty., 249 Ga, 632, 632, 292 8.8.24 675, 676 (1982)(Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a publie officer or a county board to perform a duty imposed by law); accord, Boswell v, Bramlett, 274 Ga. 50, 51, $49 $.B.2d 100, 101'(2001); Bd, of Comm'rs of Dougherty Cnty. v. Saba, 278 Ga. 176, 598 S.B.2d 437 (2004); Mobley v. Polk Cnty., 242 Ga. 798, 251 8.B.2d 538 (3979). t COUNT IT INJUN 1 RELIEF 242. | ‘The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein.| | on ‘The Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors failed to comply with Georgia law and § 8-105 of the Charter and failed to perform or negligently performed their duties in the manner in which they submitted and approved the Sheriff's FY2015 Budget. j 244. ‘Asa rest the Sheriffs T2015 Budget proposed by the Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and adopted by the Councilors is illegal, ultra vires, and void. i 245. Shotiff Darr is entitled to an order declaring the F¥2015 budget adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-25 for the Sheriff's Office ultra vires and vod ad initio, 246. ‘The Charter provides: “In the event, the Council falls] to adopt the budget by [June $0], the amounts appropriated for current operation for the current fiscal year shall be deemed adopted for the ensuing fiscal year on a month-to-month basis, with all items prorated accordingly until such time as the Council shall adopt a budget forthe ensuing fiscal yea.” Charter, §7-402(3), ; 247. In conjunction with an order declaring the FY2015 budget adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-25 a8 void, Sheriff Datr secks immediate temporary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining and restricting the Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Councilors from using the approved FY2016 Sheriff's Budget for the Sheriff's office, which is insufficient to enable him to perform the duties of his office and which potentially exposes him to liability for which he has no immunity.i 248. Under the Charter, in the event the Counet! fails to pass a legal budget by July 1 of each fiscal year, the prior year's budget is reinstated on a month-to-month basis until the Couneil can legally passa budget for the Sheriffs office, i 249. Sheriff Darr is entitled to the reinstatement of his Actual Budget for FY2014 until such time as the Couricilors approve and pass a legal budget for the Sheriff's Office for F¥2015. | 250. ‘The Sheriffs Actual Budget for F¥2014 (unaudited) was $26,694,469 for the General Fund Budget and $2,666,463 for the Other LOST Fund Budget for a total budget of $29,360,932. . amount represents the actual expenditures approved by the Council as legal and necessary for the Sheriff to perform the duties and obligations of his office for fiscal year 2014. EE 251. Sheriff Darr sooks a doeree declaring that Ordinance No. 13-39 § 1 and Ordinance No. 14-25 §§ 2 and 28 are unconstitutional and void because, under Georgia Constitution Art. IX, § Il, 1 1G), the Sheriff is specifically exempt from Home Rule by the Columbus, Georgia consolidated gojernment, and the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government has no jurisdiction to take actions affecting him, his office, his employees, and their salaries, (Second Amended Petition, 191 252(i) and (k)) Ordinance No. 13-9 § 1. and Ordinance No. 14-25 §§ 2 and 28 are in conflict with the Georgia Constitution and void, (Second Amended Petition, $11 98-99, 196-197), jas they are negatively impacting the ability of the Sheriff Darr to perform his duties; they are being used by county officials to control him, his office, his employees and their salaries. (Second Amended Petition, {11 78-99, 182-184 and 195-197). A declaratory judgment| is necessary to settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to his rights, status, and other legal relations. OCGA § 9-4-1. 252. In conjunction with a declaration that said ordinances are unconstitutional and void, Sheriff Darr seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Mayor, City Manager, Finanve Director and Council from enforcing, or attempting to enforce, directly or Indirectly, Ordinance 13-g9 §1 and Ordinance No. 14-25 8§ 2 and 28 against the Sheriff, his office, his employees, and their salaries or otherwise negatively impacting the ability of the Sheriff Darr to perform his duties as Sheriff, (Second Amended Petition, $1 252(), () and (m)). Channel v. Houston, 287 Ga. 682, 687, 699 S.E.2d 308, 312 (2010). COUNT IT ITT FO) OF IBY. EF “A RN} AND 253. ‘The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference herein, : 254. The City Attorney cannot represent the Mayor, City Manager, Finance Director and Couneilors as well as Sheriff Darr in this action due to the City Attorney's ethical conflict of interest in representing both the Sheriff and the Defendants. 255. Under O.0.G.A. § 45-9-21(¢)(2), Sheriff Darr is entitled to have other attorneys represent him and his office in this dispute.256, Under 0.C.G.A. § 45-9-21(e)(2) Sheriff Darr is entitled to have his counsels’ necessary and reasonable Attomey's fees and expenses of litigation be paid by the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government, not by the Sheriff and not from the Sheriffs FY2015 Budget or any subsequent fiscal year's budget, as the Mayor intends to do as evidenced by her statements to Couneil and tnd Finance Director at the December 2, 2014 council meeting in which she ‘instructed the Finance Director to devise a process to “charge back” litigation fees to the department budget from which the litigation originates, rather than the City Attorney's budget. ' 257. Sheriff Darr incorporates by reference herein his Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of. Attorney's Fees and Costs, including its exhibits, previously filed with the Court on November 10, 2014, with the exception that (1) the caption of the same is struck in its entirety and relied with the caption set forth this Third Amended Petition for Writ of ‘Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attomey Fees and Costs; (2) to the extent that any claims for relief sought in said Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs seek injunctive relief or other equitable relief, the same is available against the named Defendants in his or her official capacity as Defendant Columbus, Georgia, the “county governing authority” of Muscogee County, Georgia, is by 0.C.G.A. § 45-9-21(e)(2) made liable for the payment of attorney fees and costs for Sheriff Dart's individual legal counsel and Sheriff Darr has a clear right seek all relief thereunder, including any necessary injunctive relief; (3) that the Columbus, Georgia consolidated government be ordered to pay the Sheriff's attorney's fees and costs of litigation; and, (4) that the Court issue a temporary and permanent injunction issue prohibiting the Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Director from charging any attorney fees and costs paidpursuant to O.C.G.A. § 4§-9-21(e)(2) against the Sheriff's budget and the Council from reducing any appropriations to the Sherifi’s budget to offset any attorney fees and costs. (Second Amended Petition, 9 252(q)) WHEREFORE, Sheriff Darr prays for the following relief: a. at this Third Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus Absolute and Injunction and Petition for Appointment of Counsel and Payment of Attomey's Fees and Costs be filed and that service be permitted as provided by law; ‘That the Court issue a Mandamus Nisi directing the Defendants to be and appear at a time and date certain to show cause why the relief requested by Sheriff Darr should not be granted; That the Court issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Defendants and in favor of Shit Darr providing the relief set forth in the foregoing paragraph 232 of this Petition; ‘Tht Sheriff Dan's Petition for the Appointment of Counsel and the Payment of ‘Atfomey’s Fes and Costs be granted pursuant to 0.C.G.A. § 45-9-21(¢), since the City Attorney has an ethical conflict of interest and cannot represent the Sheriff and the Defendants in these proceedings, and it is necessary that the Sheriff retain other counsel to represent him in accordance with law; and, that the Court issue a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Mayor, City Manager, and Finance Director from changing any attorney fees and costs paid putsuant to O.0.G.A. § 45-9-21(6)(2) against the Sheriff's budget and the Counell from reducing any appropriations to the Sheriff's budget to offset any attorney t fees and costs;e That the Court issue a declaratory judgment and temporary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and in favor of Sheriff Darr providing the r set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 251 and 252 of this Petition; f, That the Court set down at the earliest possible time a hearing on an interlocutory injunction in this cause on the issues raised in this action; That upon a final heating in this cause, said interlocutory injunction be made i permanent; and h, ‘That Sheriff Darr have such other and further relief as may be necessary under the circumstances, Respectfully submitted this 27% day of January, 2015. W. Kerry Howell, LLC 230 Second Street Macon, GA 31201 (478) 745-0111 Wkhowell_law@bellsouth.net Walker, haber, Gray & Moore, LLP 909 Ball Street P.O. Box1770 Perry, Gedrgia 31069 (478) 987-1415 Iwalker@whgmlaw.com mooret smlaw.con ief State Bar No. 372688 qpfuae By, Attorney for Sheriff Dart ia sph it LARRY ori R be KON State Bar No. 7323008 44 7 Attorney for Sherltf Dat” “erdoeg a L&E MOORE State Bar No. 520035 Attorney for Sheriff Darr| VERIFICATION emealy eppewed before the undersigned officer authorized by the law of the State of Georgia to administer oaths, John Das, who belng fst duly sworn, tats the fos st forth in the sreoig complaint are true and correc, to tho best of his knowledge, information and belief Ti 27th day of Janury, 2015, I Joh 4 ‘Sworn to an subsoribed before me {hig 27th doy of Fanuary, 2015,i CE} OF SER) Thereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing upon counsel for Defendants by STATUTORY ELECTRONIC SERVICE as follows: Ms. Melanie V. Slaton Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP P.O, Box:2707 Columbus, Georgia 31902-2707 ws@hatch con 1 Ms. Carter P. Schondelmayer ‘The Schondelmayer Firm, LLC P.O, Box 5742 Columbus, Georgia 31906 eschondelmayer@outlook.com, ‘This 27% day of January, 2015, | | we Mes aut by KC : State Bar No. 372688 \ Attorney for Sheriff Darr W. Kerry Howell, LLC 230 Second Street Macon, GA 31201 (478) 745-0111 haw 2: f A abker be, KO LARRY WALKER State Bar No. 732300 : Attorney for Sheriff Darr i ' ‘LYE @MOO! : State Bar No, 520035, . Attorney for Sheriff Darr Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Moore, LLP 909 Ball Street P.O. Box1770 Perry, Georgia 31069 (478) 98731415 Iwalker@whgml 01 kmoore@whgmlaw.com,| INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY - STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T. DARR; in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 vw COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants, | ‘THIRD AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ABSOLUTE AND INJUNCTION D (ON FOR APPOINT. ‘COUNSEL PAYMENT. FEES ' AND Ct EXHIBIT “A” Ordinance No, 14-25OA: 06-10-14 iD) | oromance CA Ole 7 C | Ro. 2e-25. Qe : 14-88 ‘nvonawaics apornn aNOPERATING HUDGET FoR THE PISGAL YeARDHIS DULY l 214 AND NDING JME 3, Bs, POR GeRTAM SNS OF a CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, AND APPROPRIATING THE, AMOUNTS SHOWN IN EACH BUDGET, ‘THE COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGJA HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS: e + SECTION}. The snnual Operating and Copital Improvement Budget for FY15 proposed inthe total amount of $263,646 639 Is approved and edoptedinaccordance withthe Columbus Chater, Section 7-402 and oulined in Setions?thrs 16 of tls ordinance, SECTION2, The Gener! Pund Budget proposed inthe amount of $51,070,160 the Consolidated Goverment ‘of Columbus, Geérgi, covering the fiscal year beginning July 1,2014 and ending June 30, 2015, ishereby siotoved and adopted she budget forth Conselided Government of Clubs, Georgia for general purposes, ‘At midyear FY2015, the Columbus Council may seview the Muscogee County Sheriff's Operating ‘Budget of such other operating budget as deemed epropriate, t SECTION3. 1 ‘The Local Option Sales Tex Fund Budget proposed in the amount of $33,000,000 for the Consolidated Goverment of Columbus, Georgi, covering the fiscal year begining July 1, 2014 andending Jane 30,2015, isereby approved and adoptedas the budge! forthe Conslidted Governmento€ Colas, Georgia for public safety end infrastructure purposes. SECTION 4. ‘The Stormwater (Sewer) Fund Budget proposed inthe amount of $5,254,260 forthe Consolidated Governmént of Columbus, Georgia, covering the fseal year beginning July 1, 2014 end ending June 30, ‘2S, is hereby approved and adopted ag the budget for the Conslidated Goverument of Columbus, Georgi, for stonmwater fund services, SECTION 5. * ‘ThaPaving Pond Budget proposed in the amoiint of $4,969,902 forthe Consolidated Government cof Columbus, Georgia, covering the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June30, 2015, ishereby ‘approved and adopted asthe budget forthe Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgi, forstest nd roaduay improvement purposes. i SECTION 6. TH Meta Cover Fund Bulg ropes in these of 5140502 fe he Covad Goverment of Columbus, George, covering the fsel year beginning July 1, 2014 and exdag une 30, 2015, is hgteby approved and adopted as tho budget for the Consolidated Qoveroment of Columbus, ‘Georgi forthe annual appropriation tothe Medical Center foc ndigent medical eae, : SECTION ?. “hd Integrated Waste Management Fund Budget propotd in the amount of $11,146 049 fr de Cansoidted Government of Columbus, Georgia, covering the fsal year beginning uly 1,2014 andending ine 30,2015, shee approvedand adopted asthe budget fr he Consolidated Government of Colambs, ego provide sotd wae managannt seis,SECTIONS, } ! ‘thetnerene Teephon Rind Bdge propos inte mont of 5,18 fer he Comaidtad ‘Gorenmet of Colanbs, Goria covering th fel ya being ly, 20a! edge 3, 2015, is hereby approved and adopted as the budget for the Consolidated Government of Columbus, ‘eal t pode for he epertn of tho) Cate , SECTION 9. ‘The Civic, Conter Fund Budget proposed in the amount of $5,553,500 for the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, covering the fscal yea begining July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, ig heoby approved and adopted as the budget'for the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georpa to provide forthe operation ofthe Civic Center i SECTION 10. ‘The Debt Service Fund Budget proposed in the emouat of $11,108,808 for the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, covering the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, is hereby approved and adopted as the budgel for the Consolidated Government of Columbus, corgi, forDebt Service purposes. SECTION 11. ‘The Transportation Fund Budget proposed in the emount of $6430,424 for the Consolidated Govemment of Columbus, Georgia, covering the fiscal yca beginning July 1,2014 and ending Juve 30, 2015, is hereby approved end adopted as the budget forthe Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, forthe provision of pubic traaspertatioa, SECTION 12, ‘The Parking Management Fund Budget proposed in the amount of $398, 900 for the Consolidated Goverment of Columbus, Georgia, covering the fiscal year boginning July 1, 2014 and ending Ture 30, 2015, is‘herby approved end adopted as the budget forthe Consolidated Goverament of Columbus, Georgia, forthe provision of pubic parking. i SECTION 13, D ‘The Bull Creek Budget proposed inthe amount of St482,050 for the Consolidated Government of Colunbus, Georgie, covering the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, is hceby ‘approved a adopted asthe budget forthe Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, to provide for the operation of Bull Creek Golf Course, ‘SECTION 14. ‘The Oxbow Creek Budget proposed inthe amount $552,000 forthe Consolidated Goveruentof CColanbus, Georgi, covering the fiscal year bepimrng July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, is hereby approved ond édoptod as the budget for the Consolidated Governinent of Columbus, Georgia, to provide for the option of Oxbow Creck Golf Course, ‘SECTION 15. fe Columbus fron Works Convention and Trade Center Budget proposed in the amount of $2,644,840 forthe Coosolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia covering the fieal year beginning July 1, 2014 ad ending June 30, 2015, is hereby approved and adopted as the budget for the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, for the operation ofthe Columbus ron Works Convention and Trade Center\ SECTION 16, ‘The Economic Development Aubry Budget proposed in the amount af $2,152,420 for the Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgi, covering the fiscal year begining July 1, 2014 and ending June 30,2015, ishereby approved and adopted asthe budge forthe Consolidated Govemmentof Columbus, Georgia, forthe provision of Eeonomie Development activities, H SECTION 17. : ‘The Health and Life fasurance Budget proposed inthe amount of $27,000,000 forthe Consolidated Government of Colunbus, George, cavering the zal year bopimnng July 1:2014 and ending Jue 30, 201S, ig thereby approved and edopled a the budge for the Conslidted Government of Columbus, (Georgi te provide forthe adminktration of health and life ceuenee. : SECTION 18, he Risk Mansgernent Budget proposed in the smount of $5,651,316 fr the Conidae Govensrent of Columbus, Gere, coveig the sal ear begining Sly 1, 2014 and ending une 30, ‘2015, is hereby approved and adopted as the budget for the Consolidated Government of Colucibus, ‘Georgia, to provide for the operation of isk management activities. SECTION 19, ‘The Workforce Investment Act (WIA), facmenly the Job Training Pesinership Act @TPA}, Budget [opocein the smiouat of $3,583,594 frthe Consfsfed Government of Columbus, Gear caveg the ‘eal yerbepinaing July 1,204 and cing June 3, 2015, ishereyaporoved and adopedasthe bgt forthe Consolidated Coveriment of Columbus, Geargi, to provide forthe administration of the of ‘Woilforce Investment Act (WIA) atv, ‘The Community Development Black Grant (CDBG) Budget proposed inthe amount of$1 416.583 {ithe Consolidated Goverment of Colurbus, George, coveringthe fal year begining July 1,2014end ‘ating June 30,2015, is herby approved and adoped asthe budget forthe Consolidzted Govermest of, Columbus, Georgi, to provide forthe eéministation ofthe of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) tivities, thin the overall budget imitations, suthoity is hereby delegated to the City Manages, er the Finance Director when acting on the authority delogited by the City Manager, fo effect such inten, transfes dfeppropriation and revenue anticipation as may be deemed necessary to ho offestive performance and delivery of services approved herein, Under no elreumstances, however, may the total budget of eny Fund, except WIA and CDBG, contained inthis Ordinance be inreazed of deeveased without Council approval, Authority is extended tthe City Manager, or the Fiaance Director on the authority delegated by the City Manager, to conduct any canryoversnecesstry forthe continued opecation of WIA and CDBG. | SECTION 22, ‘Tht Coot Allocation Pan for FY15, which has beea filed with the Clerk of Council, is hereby spproved for use during the 2015 fseal year na ota amount of $2,673,434, Fund Being Charged Pus H Charges LOST Fund (Publio Safey) $242,106 LOST Pund Gftasetue) 100,81 ‘Stonmoater (Sewer) Fund 198.2 Paving Fund 22731 ‘Integrated Waste Management 33,650Emergency Telephone 108,691 CDBG Fund 18,522 ‘UAC Tg 2 | Economic Developorent Fund 0 7 | HOME Pra Pod 2oais | Mal Goveamen Fd | Tasworaton Phang sare EP Oa “4 ara Tees a 4000 USAmyC¥S Stone sono urOattne Vatingonscnn| 555 Nae funy Pateiip 02 : Cente Fund 135,821 Ee Job Training Fund 123,157 ft | i ‘Metro Dig Task Force 7 ° . ‘Neighborhood Stebilization ; Tei aso : Tepaon id wai : Parking Authority Fund 8,964 : Tate Cn 096 E Bull Cresk Golf Course 33,413 ; Oxbow Creek Golf Course 11,822. 1 Foal Charge ‘Bana ; i ! SECTION 23. ‘The City Manager or bis designee is authorized to make may be deemed appropsite, justments of cost allocation cherges as SECTION 24, ‘The period of emergency or war continued in Resoluiion No, 392-03 is hereby extended from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. i SECTION 2s. | ‘The following position changes are hereby adopted es part ofthe FY?5 Budget and areas fellows: NEW POSITIONS: ‘General Fund Tx Assessor ()Chiet Depaty Appraiser (623) ‘General Fund - District Attorney 1 Assistant Diguiot Attomey (G22) General Pund - District Atiorney @) Court Clerk (G11) RECLASSIPIED POSITIONS: ‘Two Prabal Cott postions are reclesfed by separate ordinance DELETED POSITIONS: | None TRANSFERS: |” To: LOST, From: General Fund (14) Firefighters P14), FYISONLY | Continuation from FY14 (10) Police Officers (P14), FYISONLY |TITLE;CHANOB ONLY: | Ocneral Fund ~ Community Reiwestment From: Caramunity Relvesiment Director r ‘To: Community Refavesiment Division Manager ! i SECTION26, ‘The Columbus Consolidated Government Pay Plan for Sslary and Wegesishereby adopted as ptt of {he FYLS Budget adi inconporeted herein by Atachment A. EtfectiveJanunry 3, 2015, a.5¥oinereace for ‘al classifed positions is hereby adopted. Efesive January 1, 2035, retirees wlll ecaivea 25% increase, i SBCTION21. Other 2009 Locat Option Sols Tx pay supplement of $3,121 fr ll wom pecsonel ill Pulte ‘Sefety departments, Pblle Works, Paks de Receton, METRA, and Civie Center departments efetve ly 1, 2009, distbated in equal paymente ove 26 bi-veckly pay pod, wil mala in effet for PYIS, “This sujplomeat excludes elected oficile, SBCTION78, Al positions vaceat and incuded inthe Publo Safety Vacancy Reserve inthe General Fund of| ‘$1,889,900 shall require Counil approval for funding of those vacant postions, The following vacant ‘postions are included inthe Public Safety Vacancy Reserve: 7 Bepartent Rater Vasant Parone icledol | Sahai plas TCA Goataton inpsve. or Posion cluded PSUR Pale 37 313108 erin 3 207,008 Masog City Ro 2 868517 Seri z His 251 etal PSV w IKON PLETE eciclar dete oso wh ore ene AT. 7 SECTION29, ‘The Fay Plan adoped by Columbus Ordnance No, 0640 amended by Ordinance No, 06:67 Astned sign-on bonus fr swora pubic safey offer effective June 30, 2006 for five yea, The sane ‘on bons of $2,000 shal be extended for PY2015, i } SECTION30. ‘The Special Bvent Parking Fee forthe Parking Garages will be incieszed fiom $2.00 to $3.00 fective July 1, 2014; fom $3.00 0 $4,00effective July 1,2015; fd from $4.00 0 $5.00 effective July 1, 2016, Paragraph 19 of Section I of OrdinanceNo, 05-85 is hereby expaesaly repealed. t SECTION31. | ‘Health Plan Premiums Effective January 1, 2015 ‘alive Baphoyens | — Keio Baployens | Atine Bnpres, HMO Mouhly Rate | POS@PO Naty | RWC Monthly Rate Rate Baas SOD as Sas [Eacloyes Spas S16 323367 53036 renployee + Charen) $530 “817 ce eamiy S089 35326 Spal Pee nates | — PreeS Relea Press Rates HMO Monthly Rate | rosrerO Monthly | BWC Monty Race Ree ee was sear SO Employee tone 5041 S45 eb Employes + Chea HOR 45056 Sate Fail 3.50 F7i7 Serni Plan Benefit Changes — Effective January 1, 2015 (Oza FOSPPO Deletes TOGO a ar LaivicDedeaibe Soa, 000 (nda HolOard OPPO Ou of Pocket Naxinenst BOI. 100 (alist Fan Prepon 20540560 ‘Hoshonge Fi ke Mes (Other Plan Benefis not fisted remain unchanged. : ‘SECTION 32. i "fective wit the plan year beginning Janay 1, 2015 the Columbus Consolidated Goverment + EmployéefRete Self Funded Medial Benefit Plan is implementing the "working spouse o spas cxclslon” provision of the Ciy's ef instred medial healthcare plan for employees and nor Medicare teties hose wrking spates have accesso health care coverage provided by thelr employer. Spouses dhatmest ese erterl wile noteligible for COG Medical Bnei Pln coverage “Tis woikng spouse not exchded fim insurance coverage on the ily insured deat ed vision plas. Te dental andvsioncoverages fly funded by employee remfums, Employees ray coninv to {nchide qpowes on ese insurance plans, ! secrioy 33. Allretiees who are Medicare eligible aad were hired on or after July 1,2001 villnotbe eligible for artipation inthe Columbus Consolidated Goverment (CCG) Employe/Retre Self Funded Medical ‘BenefiPlan To theextent te identifies anda Medicare compote surance planfor Medicare liibe tes, 100 percent ofthe casts asscited with that plan wil be bome by those patielpnts, and the City will assume no lish for ony benefits payable to patelpans under thet plan. ‘il employees wo were hired on or after July 1, 2001 who retve while enoled in the CCG EnployeemRetie SeltFunced Medial Benefit Pan and beg to drew pension bent rir to beconing Medicare eligi, and any non Medicare eligible dependets covered the tine of the employees reiremest may remain a pr of tis CCG SelfFurded Medical Baeft Plan ul hey become Medicare litle; provided howe, the premiums for plan members in this category wil be stinacoréonce with the guideline efor in seaton 31 above, Any resiee who discontinves his or her participation inthe CCG Seif Funded Medical Beneft Plan or ‘any Medicare compatible Insacance plan offered by the CCG will forfeit ny future righttore-eaollhimselt ‘orany dependents in either plan, Section 20 of Oninance No.01-49 is specifically repeated end replaced by this setion SECTION34, Allnequet for funding fom the Colunbus Consolidated Govemmenfornew feiiised sytes willbe stpported by a tentative operating and business plan for such facllty or system whic shall be presented a, reviewed by endapproved by Columbus Council before such pojectis approved for funding in this budget SECTION 35. All requests for funding by ageneles recelving grants funded by the Coluinbus Consolidated Goverment must be made to Columbus Council dusing the annual budget process. Nothing herein shal preven te Mayor, City Manager or Finance Director from recommending mid-year budget emendaents to ‘the Counel, Ineimergency situations, the Mayor, City Manager or Finance Ditectormey als recammeas to (Council eddltonal funding outside the budget proces for vatiousdepariments, agencies, boards authorities cof other eitties associated with the city.‘SECTION36, ‘The minimuin budget requirements set forth in O.C:G.A, Tile 36, Chapter 81 ae hereby edopted. SECTION 37. All ordinances or pats of ordinances in cont with this ordinance ere hereby cepealed, Introduced ot a regular meeting of the Council of Columb held on the 10 day of une, 2014; introduced a second tine tw tegolar menting held onthe. ay of June, 2014 and adopted at ‘tid meeting by he afitmative vote of Lidl members of sald Covell ComctlorAllea vting_ ABSENT" Couatslor Baker voting YES. ; voting_ABRENT Connetlor Bares Couacilor Davis oti S Couacilor Henderson voting (Counclér Huff vot Couclor MeDaniel voting (Councilor Thomas voi ‘Counsie Pugh voting ‘et Counelos Woodson voting WES. ‘Sandra T, Davis, Deputy Cleske t t This range evbrtod ta MAYOE paotem, ter tigclanotuce, to th soorp202 (7 jnageo racelvad alae Pent Eo oolvad ‘bocame 2 cob sista 6 pp ‘Tia 6 to cory tha this ordinanea was published ieastey ate ages Ledger on nate ty sere +20, 0I 1 THE FOLLOWING TWO PAGES ARE ATTACHMENT : eam i COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT : PAY PLAN. FOR FY2015(7oelsroveane 08 nese ha i TTR SEL OO TET | BENET | EP RETAT| VEETTSS | CSOT [OVTEEWA | TWURLOT OTT [eWER [OPE |e ESSEC | FEVER | PET | od wom |e Dr TEER TE [IEEE RPE TERE x Ec I I eeeatrs [woven [roveees | SERRE TOT | OFeSV TOY | HTT] TONER | OCH DS AECSTTE | OeOHTeS | TVET woaatee | ereaver_ [yee] We ToveEa|coTaPaa | ereRreT [WORT [iraReer| SOE CTE gl al 4 | gq al telelelaaatalal i i 3) adel Tee Sroaz we | WEIN] araawec | WRT | WeeTE_ | TesWeE | CRETE ae re eae rma | Wee eaTee | Tee ET Seve | TEE BET owe a ea 7 st a ¥ 7 7 = # ‘SUBENE NOISNAd - ANVTYS TVANNY ‘SUBEWEN NOISNSd - ANVTYS TWNNNY SHOZIEOMLO onnoatia - UBiet Atel BOD SLOZ/EOIL0 @nioeyE - Ud Aed 20D| INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T. DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 v COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants. THI :D PETITION F ‘OF Mi MUS AB! DIN. AND PET! FOR. F CO} AND PAY ATT AND COSTS EXHIBIT “B” i Ordinance No. 13-39OA. UIA ISUP) LA Ly AEYIO | ChbD9 LIVE OB MIBEL HE: ln ordinance xequtsing ateced ottictats a Gh Geese) the donsclidated government Co seck Council approval for expenditures excedding budgeted appropriations; and for other purposes: ‘THE COUNCEL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, HERESY OROATNS: i . secrzon 1, ALl elected officials and departments of the consolidated government must receive Council approval before expenditures are incurred exceeding budgeted appropriations for any fiscal year. Such Foquests for approval must be scheduled befor Council by the Finance rector. ' SECTION 2, This ordinance shall not apply to energency expenditures of less then $25,000 approved by the Mayor, City Manager and Finance Director, hor to risk managenent settletents or legal expenses of less than 325,000 approved by the City Manager, City Attorney and Finance Dizectior. As used in this ordinance, the term “energency” shall mean any situation reculting in inainent danger to the public health or safety or the loss of an essential government service. BECTON 3.~ ‘This’ ordinance shail not apply to funds disbursed from offsetting revenue collections or to statutory forfeiture funds disbursed with approval of the Finence Director. SECTION 4. ‘This ordinance shai becone effective August 1, 2013. SECTION 5. ALL ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. 1 : Introduced at a regular mesting of the Council of Colunbus Georgia held on the 23" dey of July, 2013; Ant @ second. tine af a regolar necting of said Council held on the day of 2013, and adopted at said meeting by the affiztetive vote of nemberg of aid Council. 7 Councilor Allen voting YES Thig grdinages recelved, slangd by Couneiior Baker voting——Yes——. at Arph PM. on he aay opal Councilor Barnes. voting, 7 ‘and baceme law at sald in 2 Coonesior Davis voting VES —. —Znd“nocumeettogyro( IGP foo Gounetor Henderson voeTng ABSENT. folowing ot, Councilor Huff voting, Councilor Ncbaniel voting Councilor Pugh voting s Councilor Thomas voting YES. Councilor Woodson voting TERESH Pike FOMINSON MAYOR:| INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY : STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T. DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff. ‘of Muscogee County, Plaintf : Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 v. I COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants, | 1 ‘HIRD. ETITION IT OF MAND; LUTE, UNCTIC ID PETITION Ft (NTMEI COU! - AYMENT OF, 'S FEES ' ‘AND COSTS: EXHIBIT “C” FY2015 Mayor's Recommend Line Item Budget to SheriffColumbus Consolidated Government 6100 Budget Summary Recommended Budget i Frais —Fyao1s Fania F207 ; Actual —_Acttial Adopted Rec Expend _Expend Budget Budget 0101 SSENERAL-FUND ° 101000 ADMINISTRATION . + 6103 SALARY SAVINGS o © (60,000) (64,111) | SI05-/SALARIES-GENERALG( 392,968 460,283 482.611 442,866 6110- WAGES 29204 2220026240 30.812 5120~'SALARIESSWORNPER . 926,006 ° 999,067 841,154 996,000 6130-/OVERTIMEPAYSWORN | 17,804 18,005 ©. 10,000 6205-FICACONTRIBUTIONS 96,348 40096 101,976" 114,004 6210-EMPLOYER RETIREME? 64,635 "een 96.505 40.168 6215- EMPLOYER RETIREME? 220887 24,311 203,463 (281,376 €220-GROUPHEALTHINSUR, 165,084 190,682 175,160 186,480 €225-GROUPLIFEINSURANC 4,595 6731 «500-7409 6268-CLOTHINGALLOWANCE 316004200 ° ‘600 6319-CONTRACTUALSERVIC 28,722 20693-4000 40,000 {6324 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PH ° 622 © 6000 1,000 6837-AUDITING SERVICES 14,000 2 6000 6365-PROMOTIONALEXAME 6436 0 43650 8519- MISCELLANEOUS EQUI 4321 2,039 2,609 \ 660{-EDUCATIONTRAINING 62427“ f0,758 0 6622- MOBILE PHONE 5453-52345 600 {9625- POSTAGE ates 4349 -3.600 {8631 ~ PRINTING SERVICES: 5810191800 6602-COPIER CHARGES 264 ©3519 5.300 8641-TRAVELSCHOOLS&CC 36,828 20,178. 0 G857-MENBERSHIPDUESAN ©2678 «2.753 «3,700 8661 - ADVERTISING 0 ea 1,800 ‘6683 - RISK MANAGEMENT Cr 0 6650 ° 67 11- OFFICE SUPPLIES e62t 9,765 5,000 8,000 6714-PUBLICATIONS/SUBSCt 8971245 4,000,000 6728- OPERATING MATERIAL! §3432 68,005. 10,000" 10,000 6742-WATER 1810 414,920 420 6743-ELEOTRICNY 10,121 10,605 12200 12,200 6703-SPECIALEVENTSUPPL 4,862, 8,110 ° ° 9605- CASHIER OVER/SHORT 0 300 D 0 ‘5801000 - ADMINISTRATION 2,116,878 2,204,494 7,071,809 2,168,864 15502100 UNIFORM DIVISION (6103 - SALARY SAVINGS o © 685.145) 267,948) G105-SALARIES- GENERAL GK 104,129 169,524 188.987 196,816 6115 - OVERTIME PAY 3894 3,558 0 0 6120-SALARIES-SWORN PER 2,046,953 2,078,358 2,098,442 2,223,300 S190-OVERTIMEPAVSHORN "74st" 73,673 0 "40,000 ota? Page fof 4 Fonte sep€100 Budget Summary Recommended Budget | Columbus Consolidated Government ! 1 | 7 Franz Fea getaseee aes FvaaTa——FYEOTE | otual —“Aetoal Adopted Ree ! Expend _Expend —_Burget__Budget ‘0701 - GENERAL FUND (5502100 - UNIFORM DIVISION 6146 - BAILIFFS: 718430 © 681,000 300,000 311,300 6205-FICACONTRIBUTIONS 222,624 217,214 «203,124 211,184 6210-ENPLOYER RETIREMED "90,009 “305 S7,77 38,459 e215-EMPLOYER RETIREME] 601,185 S00,087 482646 496,098 €220-GROUPHEALTHINSUR 296,307 334259 927,700 385,360 S225-GROUPLIFE INSURANC Bit T1508 11498 12,108 (6265 - CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 7,200 7,200 o Goeccormncrinconme goon ied c000 40008 6519 = MISCELLANEOUS EQUI 3091918 3,000 600 8622- MOBILE PHONE A942 4.523 6000 6,000 6682-COPIER CHARGES * 858 540 "700 "700 €642-PRISONERTRANSPOR’ 14,200 8513 10,000 ° (6657 - MEMBERSHIP DUES AN Oo o 500 100 666{- ADVERTISING wes tort 20m ° (6683- RISK MANAGEMENT Cr 27870 oO 0 8711 OFFICE SUPPLIES a 449 9 o erat oe a ey ‘ ‘ele ‘mm a - Qs D srt- UNFORS fy eH TY 6703- SPECIAL EVENT SUPPL. 4 0 400 409 (6602100 - UNIFORM DIVISION: 4,181,895 4 294,727 3,167,427 3,647,002 (§602300 - TRAINING (6883 - RISK MANAGEMENT Cr o 4,504 oO o (8502300 - TRAINING: : 0 4,804 oO o 15502400 - MOTOR TRANSPORT 6721-AUTOPARTSANDSUPF 81,077 85,945 75,000 75,000 6746- MOTOR FUEL 316,016 205,716 200,000 200,000 6747 BOTTLED GAS ° 0 20,000 ° 7721 -AUTOMOBILES. 0 258tt 0 ° 8802400-MOTOR TRANSPORT $07,093 408.471 296,000 276,000 5802600 -eponioe Cout 6103 - SALARY SAVINGS 0 ° ° 9 6120-SALARIES-SWORN PER 75705 T7A77 77,408 79,848 6205-FICAGONTRIGUTIONS «8730S 875921 OT 6216-EMPLOYERRETIREME! © 17405 17,016 17,609 17,702 6220 - GROUP HEALTH INSUR. ‘5421 6,284 5,850 5,650 6225 -GROUP LIFE INSURANC 27 382 387 397 See 104,541 = 107,446 = 107,167 §— 109,168 - 673012014 i‘ Page 2 of 4 nr| Columbus Consolidated Government I ¢100 Budget Summary Rocommended Budget FYaIe —Fya0n) —_FY2014 — FYROTS Actual Actual Adopted Ree : Expend _Expend Budget Budget 0101 - GENERAL FUND 5202600 -JAlL. 6103 ~'SALARY SAVINGS 0 0 (950,000) (289,425) GI05~‘SALARIES-GENERALG( 259,858 199.408 200,770 273,485, 4310 3,188 0 0 6120~SALARIES-SWORN PER 7,008,148 6,093,167 8,193,905 8,179,032 6130- OVERTIME PAY-SWORN 674.712 734,692. "480,000. 6205-FICACONTRIBUTIONS 662,649 653,161 698,623 656,138 - 6210-EMPLOYERRETIREME! 30,051 3808358412 51,70 6215-EMPLOYER RETIREME! 2008428 2,013,323 1,677,647 1,816,007 ‘8220-GROUPHEALTHINSUR, 1.164613 1,105,289 1,344700 1,322,100 §225~GROUPLIFEINSURANC ‘28.210 ‘37,949 "42.203" 42,268 0 6265 - CLOTHING ALLOWANCE ‘600 0 9 6819-CONTRACTUAL SERVIC 93,008 «13,638. 100,000 100,000 6837-AUDITING SERVICES 0 4250 4.880 0 6513-SERVICE CONTRACTS 64,014 84,034 100,000 76,000 G619-MISCELLANEOUSEQUI = 3.21, 14,799 «000 -—6,000, 8521-BUILDING MAINTENANC 16,080 &§847 10,000 7,000 6622-MOBILE FHONE 1006 24642502260 8691 PRINTING SERVICES 7324 = 3400 7az4 (2800 L (6682- COPIER CHARGES 4853-5498 4900 2.800 E 6541 - TRAVEL SCHOOLS & CC 0 64 0 0 I (6642- PRISONER TRANSROR™ 0 ° 0 10,000 F 6057 - MEMBERSHIP DUES AN 23 204 26 00 8673-STATEINMATEWAGES 3,180 8080 3,180 3,180 6711 OFFICE SUPPLIES 36275 «82.717 35,000 26,000 6714-PUBLICATIONS'SuBSCF 7,300 4424——_8,800 500 6728- OPERATING MATERIALE 214,980 298,816 160,000 160,000 6741 - NATURAL GAS 93928 114747 95,000 114,400 6742- WATER 479491 180,851 186,848 186,000 6743- ELECTRICITY 474498 430,677 470,000 450,000 ‘8771-FOOD 1,180,165. 4,209,024 1,140,000 1,100,000 6784 -UNIFORVS 93,759° "96,052 "0,000 * 60,000 7701 - CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ° 0 68,000 0 802600 16,208,764 15306,541 14,612,207 14,480,000 {5602650 - MEDICAL DIRECTOR ‘6103 SALARY SAVINGS ° ° ° 0 105~GALARIES-GENERALG 219,401 174,806 0 ° f Sif0-WAGES 904,167 824,762 0 0 6115 -OVERTIME PAY 318358 284,058 0 ° 9 ° 6205-FIGACONTRIBUTIONS 112,683 94,008 ona | Pages of@ Fonc.emgsnpColumbus Consolidated Government | (©100 Budgot Summary i l Recommended Budget Fraats ——rvaois Yao FY2078 Actual Actual Adopted Rec \ Expend _Expend Budget Budget 0101 - GENERAL FUND £8502660- MEDICAL DIRECTOR 6210-EMPLOYERRETIREMEt 182,272 173659 ° o 6220-GROUPHEALTHINSUR 117,878 115,762 ° 0 6225-GROUPLIFEINSURANC 27412084 ° 0 6265-CLOTHING ALLOWANCE "300 0 0 0 6315- CONSULTING 203900 870225 050.401 2.815.190 6820-MEDICAL SERVICES INI 40.922 1,308,161 400,000” 850,439 8821-MEDICALSERVICES 798605 506.381 0 o 822-DENTAL SERVICES 83608 68,607 0 ° (6223 - PHARMACY SERVICES 0 0 8 781,000 ‘8518- MISCELLANEOUS EQUI 263 0 o 8 ‘6601 - EDUCATION/TRAINING 320 0 o o * 6612-SURETY BONDS 763 324 0 o 6631 - PRINTING SERVICES 4,595 1,836 ° o {6632 - COPIER CHARGES 1623-2838, 0 ° 6641-TRAVELSCHOOLS ACE 4458 0 ° ° 6657 - MEMBERSHIP DUES AN '500 180 0 ° ‘S711 - OFFICE SUPPLIES 14307 9588 o ° 6714 -PUBLICATIONSISUBSO! 248 75 ° 0 6728-OPERATING MATERIAL! 4,082,300 * 0 o 6781 - UNIFORMS 208. 8 0 0 6795-MEDICALSUPPLIES 724,142 268213 600,000 200,000 ‘6502080 - MEDICAL DIRECTOR 4,399,994 4,872,642 4,859,461 4,160,569 0101 - GENERAL FUND Grand Total Page 4 of 4 26,498,162 27,225,825 24,013,101 24,627,343 26,498,162 27,225,025 24,019,101 24,027,249Columbus Consolidated Government ! i ' C100 Budget Summary i Recomménded Budget 2a + FY2012° ~ FY2013—“FY2014 FY2015 ' Actual Actual Adopted Rec Pee Expend _Expend Budget Budget 0102-LOsT- Public Safety £09900 Pile Sfoly- LOST 6108 -SALARY SAVINGS o ° ° ° 8105- SALARIES-GENERALG 27,717 58,129 0 oO. 6115 - OVERTIME PAY. 15,998 22,015 o a 6120~SALARIES-SWORN PER 1,547,603 1,662,599 1,894,308 1,943,001 6130 - OVERTIME PAY-SWORN 66,199 63,118 0 — 180,000 6205 -FICA CONTRIBUTIONS 120,905 180,085 148,915 148,840 S2{0-EMPLOYER RETREMED 14012 14,884 ° ° 6218-EMPLOYER RETIREMET 368,969 397,959 435,691 433,488, 622-GROUPHEALTHINUR, 113.827 (21719 146,900 140,900 (6225 - GROUP LIFE INSURANC 2207 4423 4,584 8319-CONTRACTUALSERVIC 155,941 oO oO 6728- OPERATING MATERIAL! $3,153 ° ° 8781- UNIFORWS 31439 ° ° ‘72h -AUTOMOBILES 118.970 o 9 7722-LIGHT TRUCKS 101,479 26,811 o o 7731 FURNITURE 2622 ° 0 o 7782- COMPUTER EQUPMEN 0 59,160 ° ° 7733~COMNUNICATIONS Et 17,674 a 0 0 ‘7761 ~ CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 7,662 oO oO ‘7763 ~CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 56,597 o o 1509900 - Pubic Safety-LOST 3,898,499 2.000.267 2026618 0102 - LOST - Public Safety 3,839,493. 2,630,237 2,826,613 ‘Grand Total : 3,839,493, 2,630,237 2,828,613 | | | i I i I 1 eaoo% Page toft once TrIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T. DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff, i v ' ' COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, etal., Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 Defendants. t E) ITION RIT OF MAND. UTE AND IN. AND PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES 1 AND CosTs T EXHIBIT “D” Personnel Summary in FY201g Mayor's Recommend Budget \ iPERSONNEL erie Adopted EYI5 Adopted Senaral Fund i Seazonal/ Seazoval7 | Fulttime | portsime | Temporary |_tulltine | parttime | temporary Superior Courk ides is 4 2 7 5 i District attorney 35 25 ‘dst Probation 3 3 “enti Court & Grate Wide Suvarte Court = = Javerle Court lrk 3 c z Try Manager 2 i 2 i Vitin Witness ~BA 3 3 Superior Gout Clerk 36 a a Z| Wares State Courtudger 6 6 State Gout Solictor es z Fa i Pubic Defender 3 i 5 a ‘Murine Gour tude 5 i 5 + Geko tenia Court 4 3 ‘Municipal Court tarshal 7 Vater [i ‘Vavies idee of Probate é é ‘Sher Baz z ra a7 z % “Tax Commisioner 28 z 78 2 Coroner 4 i 4 z Recorders Court 5 z a5 z “Total General Fund [7 aas7 ‘32 ‘Varies 1,860 33 Varies 1 LOST Fund : Gime Prevention i ae Palle Hd 30 £911 Gommuniatons 3 $ Fre &EMS 2 20 Msscogee County Prison 3 3 Distro attorney 2 2 State Soictor 3 3 Municipal Cou Care 2 2 Matsol 5 5 Probate Cout i eee Sierif 26 26 Recorders Court 2 2 Enginoering~ infeastrursure | 4 1 Total LOST Fag? 35 = 108 I Stormwater Fund Braise | — = € Stornvatar | a 4 ‘Stormwater Maintenance = 35 Total Stormwater Fund s 6 i Tesco Project Englneer{temporarly pald from OLOST Infrastructure unt the Project Engineer Ia Stormwater rates, 80IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T. DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, i Plaintiff, vw ' Civil Action No, SU14CV3437-94 COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et al., i Defendants. | 1D AMENDE] ‘ION. SOLUTI I Ng 01 PPO! UNS PAYM, RNI iS AND COSTS. EXHIBIT “E” FY¥2015 Sheriff's Proposed General Fund Budget[foao'ey $ [000 $7 0008 ‘sayddng soo] 1125) : ste on ‘yaeg SETH usulebeuey ise] e880 : ‘$ | 00S. $ | 00g, Buspienpy jeoipovedvededsmen| 1969] 7 s [oose soos, ‘see pue song duseqwen| 4399] Toor oH | o00'0z $ | o00'r sequarajuog'sioowsTeneli( 1469] a $ [000% $ [000% ‘safe 10;60["Ze99| a $ [000% [0007 ‘saqjirag Buia] 1£96] (oor [009 | 00s" ‘eBeisoul S299] ei Long's $ | 00°s, BouoTG eA 2289) ooo'or) $ [o00'Sr $[000°S ‘Buel pue uoxeonpa| 1089] [ooz’z) $[oos'e ‘s{ Oe Weudnbs snoeuerecswy| 619) Hooo'ary | o0o'eh $i- waxes jeuonowars| —— agea| : '$ | 000°S s Seoiueg Gunpny| Lee | 7 S| 000% $ TEOSMi weuiRo|suls-od (saves) $ | sov'e8 = Se0{Alag [ORNOEMTIOD| og s|- = SUEMOITY BUIHOID| $ [GOP = “Siuemsu oF draw) 7 Sov 3ar S “Souemsur mleeH dnaio]| E ‘S| ee ez = TEGUSSIOg DONS - yuouTomey seADIGT ‘S| 881"09) = WeWUIenoD jeseven ~ Weweiney JeroIsUTy| fe S| ve0vbE s. ‘suoHNGIIUOD WO (ooersry '$ | 000", s TEGUSSIog Won hed OuInIEAO)| 7 $1 000866 $s PaUUGSIeg LIONS ~ SeLIEIES| = ‘s{- $ Teg BUWTeAO) = a zie ee $ se0eM| 7 298 247 $ TUSUIUTBASE [BIOUSS ~ SLE [er eeT 000°Se) $ = SETS bees eoualeid __hebpne'seu sjyreus| Nossal > 891 O-SeTETUSHS ALNNOO-BHOOOSNN- Hodey yeBpng oi0z ‘sofpng popuawuosey 9197 ‘Assuming yeBpng OLD JouEAog peyepljosucg snquinjog NOLLVHLSININGY Goo} - oss UM [229425 - L010- J: $ $ “Spee soieyD WeweDevenl ASR] £695) = 15 ste s Busspreapy reorpoveguededsmen| 1209] [001 $001 $ ‘S203 pue song duusiequshi| 508] = st si §. To0BzMIEr 1 panois) vodsuesL seucsng| — z790| = 3 7 3 | Uilupy 88g - Seauere|u09 ‘sjoousS Tene 1799] $ | ood | 00E, st sabletig 121500] ce99| $1000. $1000 s ~ sououd a1gonl 2z09| = $ Fl $ “UIBY 685 ~ BUITELL pue woReONPS| L086] Koos") $ [000% [00s $ ‘Wewdnby snosueyeosi| 6189] gies $ | sea're $ | 000F $ seojuag jeraequog| 619] = $[- $\- $ ‘SoueMOlTy BUATIO| 's9z5| = sere S| eorer g souemsut ai drow) seve $ Losers S [ose ere $ Sauemsu| Greer Gnor|——0zz8| = $s [scorer | seovear 3 HSER TWORG= WaUwalioy ios] giz s [eaves S| eor'ee $ |_Weluuienos 1eBueS = weweNeY ferordws] 0129 = s[eovne S| vsv'b2 $ Suomnquiue wai] S028 fTeozeaeh sToorrtae. S| coehe $ siies| orig] = '$ [00007 S| 000 $ Peulosied Woms - Reg euinsend| ‘0e19| = s lose'eeez | ose'eez $ TBUUOSTEg WioS - SeueIeS| —_Ozi9| . S|- sf s Regaumero| s1a| = $s | sweet S| ere sar = WRUINISAOS TersusH - soustes| 019] fave ze2] a- $ Neve'Z82) = ‘sbunes Mees} e019] S0usTe WIT pebpngseu suveys| ieBpngoey S10KeN Nolidniosaq}_soargo| NOISIAIG BRIOAINA T SNOLLVHSEO O01 08S und TeIeUSD - LOLO (esrteer Spor eLez 3] rereerz = “WLOL NOILVELSININGY[O001 - 088] 2 = $ ‘000°SS Jepun - Seunyjpuadxs jeydeo| _692| = $ 000°SS J0h0 = seumpUeerS [ude] 19/1] e Sf ibe ec eceL eso ‘SHOUL WM] ze = $ Seeding Weng jetoscg| e6.9| $ | ooz@r s | oazer $ Ayouisors] —~evz9 oon $ | cer s{ocr $ Jem] eva roosroa) $ | 000s $ [000 or $ ‘Sena BuneIedo| 29] [ooo [000 = SuaHeHBsaNg /suoReaHgd| PLLpung pe1ua9 - L910 7 ar TeyOL BROD Siopiosey|9OsC— 095] : [Btn $eoreoe Sc ) 7 see s|28e ouEMSy aN Gnas] $279] : $ [0909 $ [050 Souensuj ween diay ——Dzzo| = = ZOU sl zor 7r qWwowemmey seroidws| 6179) zi S209. $109 SuoRNEHIUGS VOIR £028] = S| ere ee | gre'6Z aUuGEISG WONG -SeLeeS|—_OZLSI soueeNIG — febpna ey eaves] yOpng “see SLOAN Noldiossa] L9sra0] nog Siepiooew Oosz-0Ss puns fessti99 - FOLD Roooe) 5] oooLe Ss [OooSzz TO] Wodsuery 1o}OWTOOrE - OB5] = $i: st- SpULWoA| Z2/dI = $i f= Teusdsic) sem pemoal 276) ((oo0's6) $ | 00'S '$ | 900% {pauawied ivy ens Joon] opz9) = S| 000%s2 $ | 000%2 $ sayddng pue Swed omny|—1z9| sousieniG —_febpng sou saves] jebpng dey SJOKeW Nolalyossq] 153rao) PodsuesL 103M OFZ - 09S puny 1e!0u95 - 5010 (eee ree) 3 [See T0Ey 5] aOLe Tero Worsinid WuOHUAT OOFe-088] $ = DOOTSE JepuN= simpuadS CeO] OL $ = 7 ————— aU —— HELI aces Somers = Saugouenyy ——bzL7| : $ [oor | oor SaeANS Wars waseds| care] = s{- s|- Vas] tao0rz) =$ [SBE $ | GOOF, B29 = a $19 7 si e- qWDY 88g SaREMTS US, — Hg[lese'eaeT_ HPA 5 [oes oer hr [e704 vi-NOLNEISG 0052 - 088] ooo'os) $[c00'08 si TSO 0005S Jeno eamypusdig reuseo| Tazz fo00%0s) $ | 000"O0r, $s | 0600S sunojun|—__ bz9] = '$ {0000017 $ | 000°00r'T pos! bzJ9| = $ | o00"0gy '$ | 00's? Kpupetsl— tr29| = '$ [O08 ‘S| o00'S@r JerehAl 279] a aan ‘S| OOF HF sep reanven| bya] To00°65 $ | covore | cOo'Ost. ‘SeTBIEN BupeIedo| 29) (0s. sl S| 00s. (Gigs 80S) MENT Me GSAT jRMal 19] = $ | ose $ [000% ‘sayadng 20410) L129] c3 ‘sToere Sf oev'e SabeNA aeUTUT BIS! 99) a '$ [008 ‘$1005 sang drisiaqurew| ——Zs09] $ | 00004 $ | 000%Or podsuer | Tussi “| 2 on |e enon forenoon en |e en] e>| 0] 20-9 | cal a |unleo|en| SoUeINSUI WHE} GNOID| RULINGS [ewUSD - WowaMeY 1efeia| SuORNqUIUED Wid ‘SebEhy\ [2220 |e0}9fe4| 4} er] of on }en|en co] eo fer} eo| ea} cofen}er|e|calea|ea|n|eafe|un|co|ea ea = $. $ = $ $. § $ s. $ $. a = $s = $s OOOTOEE, $. = = $ $ ¢ s = = s = $< S = $s $ ‘sBujneg NEES | qWeUlWsenoD jESUSH - sbuNES KEES wOpReT oes seYS! eBpng oak saokeW. Noianioss Tora TeOIPEW OS9T - OSS ung (e3u99- LOLO[eze seo 57] Lee SF [ere —— s wou eipng dex eseus) Jabpne 9ou SOREN. TWLOL SAVIN| IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity s Shei of Muscogee County, Plaintiff! t Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 f : v. i COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, etal., : Defendants, THIRD AMENDE! eTITH )R WRIT OF. (D: UTE. IN ANI ETITI -OINT! AN) AS )RNE} 1 AND COSTS: : EXHIBIT “F” i 'py2015 Mayor's Recommend Budget for Sheriff's Office | | || | | DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY Seer = 1 wa ryi3 | aporrep | FYIsREC. acruaL | supeer_| pupcer | % CHANGE ERSONALSERVICES | § 20854018 |S 17,142,733 |$ 17,951,624 412% |GRERATING 6,344,996 73404,458 6,875,119 114% |CAPITAL OUTLAY 26811 66,000 = WAI HOTAL EXPENDITURES | $ 27,225,925 |S _24,613,191|$_ 24,827,343 0.37%] “Tho Shetilf Department enferces all lovis OF Georgia; attends Sessions of thé Superior ant! State ‘Cours; executeslarid returns provesses and ordets of Probate’ Court, Mudicipal Court (criminal cases) Jayenile Cour, Magistrate Contt, and coroner's inquests; publishes sales, citations and oiber ‘proceedings stalls County Jail. The Sheriff Departments composed of the following divisions: i aise = Opgation = Dejan “Hastie “MerTrnspon Rersorial Servicws ‘Salary Savings|of $265,251 ($265,251 carried forward from prior years’ vacant positions) = Overtime for Som Personnel $200,000 ~ Budget NotessIF'Y15 Recommended Budget reflects a reduction 6f $356,233 in the Personnel Appropriation. The department will nced to identify how this reduction wil beraccomplished. Overatisas! | No Issues Capital Outlay: + No Issues 95DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY. PUBLIGSAFETY z ; : - = Fxid v3 ADOPTED | FYISREC AcTUAL | BuDGiiT BuDGkT_ | % CHANGE PERSONAL SERVICES F_ 2,473,666 |S _ 2,630,237 | $ 2,826,613 TAT, [OPERATING 1 10,366, = = Wal CAPITAL GUTLAY. 7,199,074 = = Wal TOTALEXPENDITORES |S 3,683,106 |S. 2,030,237 |8__2,826,618 747% “ThE Sheriff Defarivent ents ws of Georgi attnds dessigns ofthe Superior and Stale Courts cxéqatss sind reins piovesses and aiders of Probate Court, Municipal Coar (citsinal eases), Tavenile Court, Magistrate Court, and coroner's inquésts; publishes sales, citations and othor;proceedings: stafis County Jail, i Personal Services: = Overtime'for Swom Pessorinc! $150,000 ‘Operations: # No Issues: | Capital Gudav: 4 No Issuies. |JOHN T, DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, | Plaintiff! v ' t COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et al., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA. Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 Defendants. ‘HIRD AMENDE! (T OF MANDAMI AND INJI -ETITION FOR. OF COUNSEL A! F ATT( AND COSTS | EXHIBIT “G” Personnel Summary in Approved F¥2015 Sheriff's General Fund BudgetSHERIFF /550 Persomel Summary: Authorized Positions | as Wie Fas ‘Actua Actual Adopted 550-1000 Administration ET/PT 2 26/2 *- 30/2: 36/2 ‘Sheriff T 1 1 . 1 Chief Deputy Sherif 1 1 ie Moor | 2 2 2 Captain 1 1 a Lieutenant 3 3 3 Sergeant 3 1 4 Deputy Sheriff fechnictan 4 5 5 Deputy Sherif 2 5 5 Deputy Sheriff Field Training Officer ° 0 2 Judicial Administrative Technician IL 3 3 3 Investigator o 0 1 ‘Administrative Secretary 1 3 3 Administrative Clerk {t 1 1 1 Administrative Cleric (* 1 a 1 ‘Accounting Technician 1 1 1 Administrative!Coordinator 1 1 1 Crna Reso Techn o 4 1 Ainley 2 2 2 [556-2100 Operations ~~ FI/Pt/Temp | 563/a3 Ty. + -esyee 88/86 Major 1 1 1 Captain 1 ° a Lieutenant 4 4 5 ‘Sergeant 7 6 7 Deputy Sheriff? 25 34 19 Investigator 10 4 7 Identification Technician o 5 o Communtcatior! Tectntctan It 3 3 3 ‘Security Guards 2 2 2 Administrative Coordinator 1 1 1 Deputy Sheriff Technician 9 2 ? ‘Deputy: Sheriff Fold Training: Officer o 2 2 ‘Accounting Clerk ° 1 1 Reserve Deput 38 “a “a Bailiffs 45, 45, 45, 350-2500 Recohlers Court FT/PT™ ies aye jail Commander 1 i “One Administrative Clerk] Position and One ty Ser Ps wae andl or FTE "00 @) Depuy Sherif ‘and One (1) Deputy Sherif Feld Train Officer Positions were unfunded for FYIS Section ShettySHERIFE/S50 Oo Personnel Summary: Authorized Posttions Feat Actual FYis Adopted [580-2600 Detention”. eT all Commander - Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Deputy Sherif Deputy Sherif eld Training Oftcets Deputy Shecif technician ‘Sheriff Correctional Officer Criminal Records Technielan ‘dentication Technician ‘Adiwinistrative Clerk It ‘Accounting Cl Sheriff Human Resources Technician, _ [550-2650 Medical (Cantracted outdat¥i4)- 234/0 1 2 6 23 100 10 0 g =F 285/0- Bown 9 Health Service Admoistratar Registered Nurse Clnke Manager Licensed Practiéal Nurse Modical Technician S| Mates tesa ci Registered Huse (Tempore) Licensed Practical Nurse (Temporary) Medical Records Clerk (Temporary) Medics! Technician (Temporary) wetin ani wnes cocoon oauRey [Fotal Fatt Time Positions... *+* Four (4) D Sheriff Positions were unfunded for FY15 6/53 (327/68, BugetNote: For FYAS, a Public Safety Vacancy Reserve (PSVR) was established to fund the filing of certain public safety vacancies (shown as unfunded posttlons, above) subject to approval by City Council ‘The maximum amount available to Sherifin the PSVR is budgeted at$265,251 for FY1S, ‘SeetionD ‘ShertttIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JOHN. DARR, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Muscogee County, Plaintiff Civil Action No. SU14CV3437-94 v COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants. THY (DED PE’ (T OF MAN] SOLUTE, ION 1D PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FE) AND COSTS EXHIBIT “H” Personnel Summary in Approved FY2015 Sheriff's Other LOST Fund BudgetLOSTFUND (0102 - SHERIFR Personnel Summary: Authorized Positions FY13 FYI4 Actual, Actual s50-1000. Admin. PT 20. 1470 Deputy Sheriff) [550-2600 Detention Lieutenant ~ 1 Sergeant | 1 ‘Sheriff Correctional Officers 9 Medical Technicians 2 [Total Fill Time/Part Time Postdoas ayo BudgetNotes: | i ‘$4,056 Annual Supplement for Sworn Officers (324) Section D