Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fee Authority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown council debates who should set private-duty police fees
Summary
At a questions-to-directors meeting, Middletown council members and the city attorney debated whether the council or the executive branch (police chief/Public Safety Commission) has authority to set private-duty police fees; the attorney urged an ordinance-plus-resolution approach to avoid legal challenges.
Council members debated on April 6 whether the Common Council or the city’s executive branch should have final authority to set private-duty police fees, a disagreement prompted by a recent Public Safety Commission recommendation.
Attorney Smith, who told the council he would bring an ordinance amendment for the 7 p.m. agenda, said the safer course is to amend the ordinance to make clear that the council has authority over fee-setting and then pass a separate resolution to establish fees. "Passing the ordinance tonight, which makes clear that the council has the authority to pass these fees," he said, and follow that with a resolution to authorize specific amounts so contractors who already pay under current contracts cannot later challenge authorization.
Several council members said they were unsure whether the current ordinance properly delegated that power and raised concerns that giving the council retroactive authority could conflict with the city charter or inadvertently micromanage operations that typically sit with the police chief.
One council member argued the police department is part of the executive branch and that the chief, working with finance, typically develops rates based on contract terms and operational costs. "When the chief sets the rates, he doesn't arbitrarily just say I'm gonna set it for this or whatever. He works with what's in the contract," the member said.
Attorney Smith countered that fee-setting is part of the council’s "power of the purse," citing state Home Rule authority and the council’s legislative appropriations role. He described the proposed ordinance as a "belt-and-suspenders" approach to ensure fee decisions are not later attacked in court.
Council members also noted the council’s own committee process (General Counsel Commission) vets ordinances and that, in practice, commission recommendations are often ratified by the full council. Several members said ratifying the commission’s earlier action would do no legal harm and could provide clarity for future practice.
No formal ordinance vote was recorded during the workshop; the matter was presented for discussion and Attorney Smith said he would place the proposed ordinance and accompanying resolution on the upcoming regular agenda for formal consideration.
