03-07-2011, 07:14 PM
Cordray on Lucas County Sheriff charging for PSAP
![[Image: aglogo.jpg]](http://glasscityjungle.com/wp-content/gallery/blog-cats/aglogo.jpg)
Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates asked for a legal opinion from Attorney General Richard Cordray on the topic of Lucas County being able to charge for public safety answering point (PSAP). You can read the full opinion at this LINK.
In essence, the County can not:
Not only does a county sheriff lack express statutory authority to charge a township that is served by a PSAP operated by the sheriff a fee for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel to respond to 9-1-1 calls in the township, but to conclude that a sheriff may do so pursuant to a contract for road patrol services would be inconsistent with the provisions of law governing the funding of PSAPs.
The basic summary:
In conclusion, it is my opinion, and you are hereby advised as follows:
1. A county sheriff who operates a public safety answering point may not charge a township that is served by the public safety answering point a fee for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel to respond to 9-1-1 calls in the township when the sheriff and township have entered into a contract whereby the sheriff provides road patrol services to the township.
2. A county sheriff who operates a public safety answering point and township that is served by the public safety answering point may not enter into a contract whereby the township pays the sheriff for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel to respond to 9-1-1 calls in the township.
3. Pursuant to R.C. 4931.45, a county’s final 9-1-1 plan may be amended to require a township that is served by a public safety answering point operated by the county sheriff to pay a portion of the costs associated with operating the public safety answering point through an addendum approved by a majority of a 9-1-1 planning committee, provided the addendum does not change the source of funding as between the alternatives set forth in R.C. 4931.43(B)(5).
4. Pursuant to R.C. 4931.45(B), an amendment to a county’s final 9-1-1 plan that changes the source of funding for a county sheriff’s public safety answering point as between the alternatives set forth in R.C. 4931.43(B)(5) must be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in R.C. 4931.42-.44.
While the opinion does not state what needs to be done with any money that was improperly charged as fees, it’s been assumed that the Townships that paid Lucas County will seek to have that money refunded. What impact this will have on Lucas County and the budget for the Sheriff’s department remains to be seen.
http://glasscityjungle.com/2010/08/cordr...-for-psap/
Monday, March 7, 2011
(Thought this was interesting and in some way possibly relevant?)
Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates asked for a legal opinion from Attorney General Richard Cordray on the topic of Lucas County being able to charge for public safety answering point (PSAP). You can read the full opinion at this LINK.
In essence, the County can not:
Not only does a county sheriff lack express statutory authority to charge a township that is served by a PSAP operated by the sheriff a fee for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel to respond to 9-1-1 calls in the township, but to conclude that a sheriff may do so pursuant to a contract for road patrol services would be inconsistent with the provisions of law governing the funding of PSAPs.
The basic summary:
In conclusion, it is my opinion, and you are hereby advised as follows:
1. A county sheriff who operates a public safety answering point may not charge a township that is served by the public safety answering point a fee for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel to respond to 9-1-1 calls in the township when the sheriff and township have entered into a contract whereby the sheriff provides road patrol services to the township.
2. A county sheriff who operates a public safety answering point and township that is served by the public safety answering point may not enter into a contract whereby the township pays the sheriff for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel to respond to 9-1-1 calls in the township.
3. Pursuant to R.C. 4931.45, a county’s final 9-1-1 plan may be amended to require a township that is served by a public safety answering point operated by the county sheriff to pay a portion of the costs associated with operating the public safety answering point through an addendum approved by a majority of a 9-1-1 planning committee, provided the addendum does not change the source of funding as between the alternatives set forth in R.C. 4931.43(B)(5).
4. Pursuant to R.C. 4931.45(B), an amendment to a county’s final 9-1-1 plan that changes the source of funding for a county sheriff’s public safety answering point as between the alternatives set forth in R.C. 4931.43(B)(5) must be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in R.C. 4931.42-.44.
While the opinion does not state what needs to be done with any money that was improperly charged as fees, it’s been assumed that the Townships that paid Lucas County will seek to have that money refunded. What impact this will have on Lucas County and the budget for the Sheriff’s department remains to be seen.
http://glasscityjungle.com/2010/08/cordr...-for-psap/
Monday, March 7, 2011
(Thought this was interesting and in some way possibly relevant?)