No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-07 - City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE a TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 March 25, 1982 NOTICE OF WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COUNCIL Please be advised that the City Council will hold a Workshop Meeting on Wednesday, April 7, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 5811 N. W. 88th Ave., Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss a proposed Burglar Alarm Ordinance, Temp. #728. The City Council may discuss such other items as may come before it. The Public is invited to attend. /lc 3/25/82 ak�t-�' - ;9;�� Carol A. Evans Assistant City Clerk I�ur�tiaitit ko Chapter "$Q=1b5'�f' Ioride La�,v;:Senste -BiH 36.9: ICI a� pikion decides to appeal 'any >decision made by the City Couricil'with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record the proceedings and for such p(4ame.,6', may need to ensure that a verbatimi're�ori ;incfajes 4*-,1e5fi4m�i�''and-evidence upon which the appeal is to be 6ased' CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING APRIL 7, 1982 DISCUSSION OF BURGLAR ALARMS CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Walter Falck called the meeting to order at A. -on Wednesday, April 7, 1982, in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Walter W. Falck Vice Mayor Helen Massaro Pape Councilman Irving M. Disraelly 1 Councilman David Krantz ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Councilman Philip B. Kravitz ALSO PRESENT: Laura Z. Stuurmans, City Manager Christine Carsky, Asst.City Attorney Patricia Marcurio, Secretary Mayor Falck read into the record the official notice of the workshop meeting which was called for the purpose of discussing the proposed Burglar Alarm Ordinance Temp. Ord. #728. Mayor Falck said that the Burglar Alarm Committee has finished their discussion concerning this Ordinance and it was Council's feeling that this should be discussed at a Workshop Meeting so that it could be Agendized for disposition one way or the other. C/M Disraelly clarified that the Ordinance being discussed is the last revision dated 4/l/82. V/M Massaro .said she has been serving as liaison to this Committee and asked Alan Bernstein to proceed reviewing the Ordinance with Council section by section. Mayor Falck said by reviewing this section by section they can address some comments raised by the Police Department. Council received a report from Sgt. Harmuth and his comments are to be reviewed also. Alan Bernstein, member of the Ad Hoch Burglar Alarm Committee said that Section 1 of the Ordinance is basically routine and contains only definitions. Section 2 has not substantially changed from what was there before except it requires that there be a Company's Competency Qualifier. In other words, one technically competent man who takes the responsibility for the kind of work done by everyone in the organization. C/M Disraelly commented that the thrust of this whole ordinance is to prevent false alarms and Mr. Bernstein concurred. C/M Disraelly said there are certain penalties described in the Ordin- ance and he asked if there were only this one section for the Ordinance would this not satisfy the requirements of the City? Mr. Bernstein said absolutely not, it would not be legal and the whole thrust of this revision is to cut down false alarms in a number of ways. One way is by outlawing certain devices that have been used in early burglar alarms which have been responsible for many false alarms. Secondly, is an effort to hold Burglar Alarm Companies in effect responsible for their work. C/M Krantz said as far as one person in each company being qualified, who determines the extent of the qualification? Mr. Bernstein said they are licensed by Broward County as to their qualifications. V/M Massaro said they must have a written certification from Broward County. 1 - 4/7/82 /pm Mr. Bernstein said under Section 2 there were supposed to be corrected forms distributed. C/M Disraelly pointed out that on Page 4, Line 29 the spelling should be corrected to read "license". On Page 5, Line 22, should have the words "or servicing" inserted between"installation" and "of". Mr. Bernstein said they have settled upon licensing alarm businesseE they are not,under this Ordinance,requiring a license for an installer serviceman. What they are doing is requiring that a serviceman installer carry an ID card which would certify that the people carrying this card have no prison convictions, etc. V/M Massaro pointed out an error on Page 1 in the title, 12th line, the word "providing" is misspelled. C/M Disraelly asked how this protects the homeowner any more so than a non -capable alarm business? Mr. Bernstein said this would be explained later. Mr. Bernstein said Section 3 is routine; Section .4 states that any alarm business wishing to do business in the City shall be licensed by the City of Tamarac. V/M Massaro said if they have a license and their business does not originate in the City they do not have to pay a license fee but they still need a license to do business in the City but do not pay anything. They will require an Occupational License if it is applicable. Mr. Bernstein said Section 5 would have a partial answer to C/M Disraelly15 nuestion concerning how this would protect the homeowner. Mr. Bernstein said the main reason they want to license these companies is that under the appropriate conditions they car.. revoke that license. The grounds for this revocation would be misrepresentation, fraud, failure to correct deficiencies in leased or rented equipment within thirty (30) days after notice of same from a law enforcement officer or within a reasonable time if the deficiencies cannot be corrected within the said thirty (30) days. Mr. Bernstein referred to Section 5(8) which states that if the same company is responsible time after time for certifying that an alarm system is good and then there are false alarms due to equipment failure that is cause for revocation of license. C/M Disraelly asked what a homeowner would do in this case and V/M Massaro said the only recourse would be to change companies. Mr. Bernstein said they are trying with this Ordinance, to protect the residents from being victimized again and again by the same company. Sgt. Walter Harmuth of the Police Department asked how it is determined that repeated false alarms are due to the equipment failure? He said there were 56 false alarms in a one hour period at the Woodmont Country Club. They have 4 alarm models and the alarm company was called. They said the equipment is fine but there is a telephone workman in the area and the alarms are hooked up to the telephone lines and this is what is causing this. Sgt. Harmuth said you cannot blame the alarm company for the failure when it could be something else. He said this happens many times especially in the Woodlands. Alan Bernstein said it is impossible on the day the alarm is given to say what the cause is but it is very rare that tampering with the telephone lines will cause a false alarm. V/M Massaro said there is no point in discussing this because the telephone company will still be doing this and the City will still have the problem. Some things will have to be worked out as they go along. C/M Krantz referred to Page 8, Line 18 which says "no alarm business shall be revoked, or other disciplinary action taken, until a hearing is held by the Law Enforcement Officer". Would this be the Law Enforcement Officer only or would there be a committee assigned for a hearing ? Mr. Bernstein said this problem has not come up but he would designate someone to have a hearing. V/M Massaro said this is a valid question and will be looked at further. Chris Carsky pointed out that further down on Page 8(3) it stipulates that the Law Enforcement Officer would make recommendations to the City Manager and if the party is not satisfied with the decision they have the right to appeal it. On Page 9, Lines 6 through 15 the rights of appeal are spelled out and Council has the final power. 2 - 4/7/82 /pm Alan Bernstein said on Page 9, Lines 33 through the balance,which calls for the posting of $150 bond by every alarm business, the purpose of which bond is to have available some cash in the event that they fail to comply with provisions of the ordinance and particularly as covered on Page 9, Lines 25 through 29. This means if an alarm business is closed for any reason they must notify their customers because otherwise their customers are stranded. This portion of the Ordinance says if they do not notify their customers, the City will notify the customers for them and the City will deduct the cost from that $150 bond. Mr. Bernstein said Section 6 is Alarm User Permits and is self-explana- tory. C/M Disraelly referred to Page 11, Line 10 "any alarm user who installs a system, etc." the word "personally" should be inserted between "who" and "installs". C/M Disraelly said on Line 13, Page 11 the words "licensed alarm" should be inserted between the words "such" and "business". C/M Disraelly said a resident might install an alarm himself; if there were a false alarm the City would then charge him $50 fee but unless there is a false alarm there is no way to control this. Mr. Bernstein said it is spelled out very clearly in the Ordinance that everyone has to get a license. Sgt. Harmuth said a resident could buy an alarm system from a local merchant. How can the City require this resident to get a license? V/M Massaro said they would definitely be required to have a license. Sgt. Harmuth said the individual's rights are being pushed if he purchases an outside alarm system and the City forces him to have an alarm business inspect it and send the City a letter. Sgt. Harmuth asked if there were a legal question concerning this. Chris Carsky said the question is would the burden to the resident who installed the local merchant's device be so great that it outweighs the good to the rest of the community by having him under these regulations; and the answer is 'no'. C/M Disraelly said on Page 11, Line 29 "every alarm user shall be required to have the alarm system inspected at least once every five (5) years";if this is installed by the resident himself how will this be enforced? V/M Massaro said originally they had set a time of 2 years but then they decided that this was too soon and decided on 5 years. By this amount of time the systems should be inspected to prevent false alarms. They felt that the burden on the owner of paying for an inspection every five years was more than offset by the false alarms that would be eliminated. V/M Massaro said as time goes by if they feel it should be changed, the Ordinance could be amended. Chris Carsky said she has a drafting question on Page 11, Line 31," the alarm business licensed in Broward County that performs the inspection is this an alarm business licensed by Broward County or could this be any business in Tamarac? Mr. Bernstein said Ms. Carsky picked up a point that should have been corrected, the word "in" should be replaced by the word it by . "ape Mr. Bernstein said on Page 12, Line 2 the word "furnished" should be 2 changed to "prescribed". On Line 6, Page 12 it should read "user permit until condition has been corrected and until such proof has been provided". On Page 12, Line 24, it should read Section"7" not Section "3". On Page 12, Line 33 the word "can" should be changed to "may" C/M Disraelly said. Mr. Bernstein said Section 8, is self-explanatory. Section 9, Alarm Operating g Standards would prohibit a whole variety of things which can cause tr ouble but which should be taken care of with the proper install- ation. Mr. Bernstein said on Line 22, Page 14(3)"Systems using a digital communicator reaching the Police Department via a telephone line must have an isolation means to permit connecting the digital communicator to the telephone line only during alarm conditions", the technical reason behind - 3 - 4/7/82 /pm which is that whenever there are electrical storms there are surges over the telephone line. They are not bad enough to burn out a lot of equipment but if a digital dialer is connected to the telephone line at that time it can very well be affected. After the storm occurs, the digital dialer sends in alarms without proper identification and this is called a "Runaway Dialer". Mr. Bernstein said on Item(4) Page 14,Line 26 should read "recessed button type and must require 2 buttons be pressed at the same time to". The word "to" should be added between "buttons" and "be". This is dangerous because as far as the Police are concerned, there is a crime in progress or this alarm would not have been activated. On Page 14, Item (5) "Systems shall not cause a false alarm to be sounded because of a power line failure of less than 4 hours duration", Mr. Bernstein said there is no excuse for a storm causing problems; there should be back-up batteries there that would be capable of carrying the system. Mr. Bernstein said Section 10, Intentional Activation of Alarms Prohibited If A Crime Is Not Bein Perpetrated, Page 14, Line 34 the words "provided that" should be inserted between "equipment" and "advance!' Also on Line 34, the words "has been given" should be inserted between the words "notice" and "to". Alan Bernstein said Section 11 covers False Al what is in the present ordinance. On Page 16 should be transposed in order to be clarified. (8) sets up the Burglar Alarm Committee: arms and is substantially Paragraphs ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) On Page 17, Paragraph a) no less than 4 members of the public to serve at the pleasure of the City Council b) one Council member selected by the City Council. d) The Police Chief or his designated representative shall be present at all meetings of this committee. C/M Disraelly asked if the Police Chief or the Council person has voting power. Mr. Bernstein said the Council person does but not the Police Chief. V/M Massaro said there are not many controversial items dis- cussed at the committee and everything is discussed thoroughly and the faults are brought out and everyone discusses them. C/M Krantz said since the Police are so vitally concerned with this problem shouldn't they have the right to vote? Everyone concurred that this should be so. Police Chief McIntosh said that the City Attorney, Arthur Birken,because of a legal possibility of litigation felt that the Police Chief or any City employee, City Attorney or the City Manager, should not be voting on certain items. V/M Massaro said this will be brought up with Mr. Ruf when he returns. C/M Disraelly said Item (c) on Page 17, "All meetings of this Committee shall be open to the public" does not belong in that area and should be on Page 18 as a last item before Section 12. Mayor Falck said on Line 14, Page 17 this sentence should be stricken. V/M Massaro said this is a Committee that requires its members to have expertise. There is no need for alternates if there is not an established number of members to the committee. Mr. Bernstein said on Page 18, Item 9 states "if the alarm user has signed a statement holding the City harmless, in the form prescribed by the City Attorney, the Law Enforcement Officer shall accept a telephone cancellation of an alarm". In other words, if someone phones the Police Department and says they set their alarm off by accident and he gives the code number the practice has been for the Police Department to accept the cancellation. The files must be checked to varify the code. The new aspect is about trying to protect the City more assuring that the City is protected if there were grounds for a lawsuit against the City for not responding. However, this type of statement would only help the City avoid problems. - 4 - 4/7/82 /pm Alan Bernstein read Item 9 Lines 6 through 9 which states, "providing such a cancellation occurs before an investigating officer is dispatched to the scene, the alarm shall not be counted as a false alarm, but there may be a penalty set by resolution". He said the thought here is that they will go entirely by experience. V/M Massaro said there might be reason at some time if there were a cost to the City to be reimbursed through this. Mr. Bernstein continued with Section 12 Application. C/M Disraelly asked if there are any alarms being handled in the unincorporated sections north of Commercial Boulevard and Mr. Bernstein said 'no' and Section 12 and Section 13 are routine. C/M Disraelly questioned Line 16, Page 18 "if payment is not made within 30 days of date of notice thereof the alarm system shall be disconnected". Would this just be on the Board here? Mr. Bernstein said this is one of the points that was raised by the Police Chief and he has a proposed Disconnect Form. Mr. Bernstein read the Disconnect Notice Form: "You are hereby notified that you are in violation of City of Tamarac Ordinance Temp. 728 for the reason listed below and I am hereby ordered to disconnect your alarm system in accordance with Section 8 of that Ordinance within 72 hours:. There are three boxes, the first box is Operation Without A Proper License Or Permit, second box is Failure To Have Your S stem Ins ected By A Licensed Alarm Company With Certification, third box is Failure To Take Proper Corrective Action After A False Alarm, fourth box is three .lines to be filled in if there is another reason for ordering a disconnect. Failure to comply with this order would constitute a separate violation of this ordinance. If you have any questions contact the Police Department, 722-5990. Such contact does not relieve you of the responsibility to comply with this order". V/M Massaro said all of these forms should be submitted to Council for review. She said a false alarm is the only way to know when there is a violation. Mr. Bernstein said Section 14, Page 18 the title should be changed to read "Decoder Board (Receivers)". He said Sections 15 through 19 are just routine. C/M Krantz said he has before him a memo of April 2 from Police Chief McIntosh where he designated Sgt. Harmuth and he wrote several objections to the Ordinance and he requested Sgt. Harmuth's comments on the over-all situation. Sgt. Harmuth said as stated in the original memo concerning the short form version of the Ordinance, some of the items do not coincide with this new form. C/M Krantz said many objections were because some of the provisions are unenforceable. Sgt. Harmuth said the only real way is voluntary enforcement. If there is a false alarm and they are warned and there is another false alarm they must be penalized with a false alarm fee, violation of their notice to disconnect and it is questionable as to how they should serve this notice. Mayor Falck said he prefers using the Certified Mail service and the person would still receive it even if they were up north. If he were to refuse it then it could be sent first class mail and if it does not come back it went to the right address and the City is covered. V/M 'ape Massaro said the main objective of this Ordinance is to do away with 3 false alarms and there are some problems yet. Sgt. Harmuth agreed with V/M Massaro that even if the false alarms are cut only 15% it is still a tremendous help. C/M Disraelly said this is the best Ordinance that they have devised in the past five years. Mayor Falck asked Sgt. Harmuth to take this Ord- inance and the memo he wrote and review this memo with this current form. V/M Massaro said when Sgt. Harmuth responds to the long form it would be most helpful to have constructive criticism so that they will be able to enforce this better. - 5 - 4/7/82 /pm C/M Disraelly asked Sgt. Harmuth to coordinate the Sections and Lines with the Ordinance. Mayor Falck commended Sgt. Harmuth for putting his memo together because it helps Council to take additional looks at the Ordinance. V/M Massaro suggested to Sgt. Harmuth that he not say that "we cannot enforce this" because Council has put down the best that they can to act as a deterrent if nothing else. Mayor Falck adjourned the meeting at 11:40 A.M. Carol A. Evans, Assistant City Clerk This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ F7, qr2. or $ 7, 8,7, per copy, to inform the general public and public Officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City Council of the City of Tamarac. - 6 - 4/7/82 /Pm