Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-02 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO- P.O. BOX 25010 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320 5811 NORTHWEST88T'H AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5000 December 28, 1984 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council on Wednesday, January 2, 1985, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of the meeting is discussion and possible action on Temp. Ord. #1166 pertaining to regulation of burglar alarm users and burglar alarm devices under Chapter 14 of the Code (First Reading). The public is encouraged to attend. e61ttA� Carol E. Barbuto Assistant City Clerk Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Macy GF NCND1sC3G1CDA=CN ON 7HE HASIS cr EIDICAPPM s=%Z "An Equal Opportunity Employer" CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 2, 1985 TAPE CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz called the meeting to 1 order on Wednesday, January 2, 1985, at 10:00 A.M. He said the purpose of the meeting is discussion and possible action on Temp. Ord. #1166 pertaining to regulation of burglar alarm users and burglar alarm devices under Chapter 14 of the Code. (First Reading) ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mayor Philip B. Kravitz Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein C/M Allan C. Bernstein C/M Raymond J. Munitz C/M Jack Stelzer ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Elly F. Johnson City Attorney Jon M. Henning Asst. City Clerk Carol E. Barbuto Secretary Joann Colwell MEDITATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Kravitz called for a Moment of Silent Meditation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Mayor Stein said that at the last Council meeting it was agreed to give the burglar alarm system board an additional 90-day test in City Hall. He said nothing here today will remove that 90-day period or circumvent it; the ordinance under dis- cussion will govern the burglar alarm no matter where it is. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: TABLED to the first Council. Meeting possible after revision by City Attorney and adequate opportunity for all parties concerned to have access to the revised wording. City Attorney Henning read Temp. Ord. #1166 by title. Mayor Kravitz said the public would be limited to time, but the public would be given the privilege to speak. C/M Bernstein said he made a statement at the last Council Meeting which he would repeat with modification. He said there is a memo dated December 13, 1984, expressing suggestions for changes in this ordinance, agreed upon unanimously by the Burglar Alarm Committee on December 6, 1984. He said every effort has been made to incorporate 7 of the 8 recommendations of that committee; to wit: discontinuing the $50 a year users fee; license and bond- ing of all burglar alarm installers; having the Building Code Department assign a man for burglar alarm system training; charge of a one-time fee at installation of system to cover cost of an initial inspection; continue the fine arrangement, as presently established with consideration of lowering the $50 fine; eliminate the $10 appeal fee; the ordinance should include provisions for fining the installers if the false alarm was caused by improper installation. C/M Bernstein said the item concerning removal of the board from the Police Department and the recommendations, is being deferred since a 90-day test is being conducted, not to determine whether the screening will cut down the number of.false alarms, but to determine whether or not it is practical to do such screening in the Police Department. He stated at the end of that test period the Council will take such action as seems appropriate at the time as to whether or not the board should remain in the Police Department or should be removed. He said he believed that the changes that have been incorporated in the ordinance carry out in detail those recommendations that were made by the Burglar Alarm Committee, -1- 1/2/85 City Attorney Henning said that it was clear that Council is not going to resolve the location of the board today. C/M Munitz asked the effective date at which the 90-day period started. City Manager Johnson said that the Chief is working on a plan for implementation in the next few days. He said the test should be implemented within the next two weeks and Council would be informed of the effective date of monitoring. City Attorney Henning said he wanted to touch on Council's policies. He said one policy that has been raised has been the involvement of the Building Department. He said he understands that there is a policy question on involving the Building Depart- ment more in the Burglar Alarm Ordinance; the installation stage; inspection stage; possibly at the initial permitting stage; possibly to enhance training for an electrical inspector. C/M Bernstein said the intent is to have standards established by the Building Department instead of detailed standards being spelled out in the Ordinance. Mr. Henning said there are two procedures in establishing standards. He said they can be in the Ordinance, as indicated, or a separate set of standards proposed by the Building Depart- ment, Police Department, or some electrician's group, or a burglar alarm group, but those standards eventually have to be approved by Council and he said he would like to have them approved by Resolution. He said Council cannot delegate its legislative authority to another organization. He said ordinances can be used for items that are more firm and inflexible; and resolutions for procedures and guidelines for installations, types of acceptable or unacceptable equipment, deadlines for permits, proper forms to be filled out, which are more flexible items that may change. He said he sees no problems setting up separate guidelines and pro- cedures providing they are approved by Council. C/M Bernstein said he agreed. Vice Mayor Stein said he does not know if the Building Department has a qualified person to do inspections, etc. He said this would require the Building Department to send someone to school and have them qualified. C/M Bernstein said it would require specialized training and such training is available at no cost to the City. Mr. Henning asked Bob Jahn, Chief Building Official., if Burglar Alarm Inspections come under the umbrella of Master Electrician, or is it a separate specialty outside of that. Mr. Jahn said that since Burglar Alarms are hooked to an electrical system, they would be under the umbrella of the Electrical Inspector. He said, however, the equipment itself, which is all low voltage wiring, is not covered under the South Florida Build- ing Code, the types, how they are set, etc. Mr. Jahn said that one inspector has been inspecting the wiring and the transformer hooked into the regular electrical of the house.. He said that Pat Kieley is capable and can be sent to school for training. Mr. Jahn said that he feels neither he nor Pat Kieley are capable of producing the standards or specifications. The Chief Building Official questioned if the City would be under any liability by inspecting and establishing standards by the Building Department if the system malfunctions or if someone divulges the type of system and how it could be disconnected. Also, the Chief Building Official added, the County passed Licensing Ordinance 78-9, of which burglar alarm licensing is a part, containing a prohibition concerning municipalities pass- ing differing regulations. He requested that the City Attorney review this county ordinance and Mr. Henning agreed. Mr. Jahn said he could not anticipate the additional workload to make these inspections and suggested a trial period in order to ascertain whether another part-time person would be required. Mr. Henning, City Attorney, said that the City has a serious false alarm problem now and usually, false alarms are tied into equipment failure or user failure. He said there seems to be more problems from false alarms than crimes in Tamarac. Mr. Henning said there is a possibility of a liability issue with inspections. He said there are no exclusions from the Public Records. He said the City already has a regulation that reguires a listing of all customers in City Hall Records. Mr. Henning said if the City requires the types of installations, the backup power and contact places there could actually, in the public records, be the plans of individual burglar alarm systems. C/M Bernstein said that the intent is in no way to have the inspector inspect a system for efficiency. He said the inspector is involved in inspecting only two things: 1) does it conform with the South Florida Building Code, which is basically concerned with having a UL transformer at the electrical outlet and 2) is it installed in such a fashion that it is likely to cause a false alarm. He said the City does not care if it is effective in preventing burglaries or not. He said in no way is the inspector to say there should be more traps involved, there should be other wiring involved, etc. He said he could see nothing that will be on file in Public Records that would be of value to a burglar with the possible exception of whether or not the house is wired and that is very easy to determine just by taking one quick look at a house. Mr. Henning, City Attorney, said that a suggestion had been made that the bond that is required of the installer, presently, at $150 be raised to $500. Mr. Henning said he had prepared a draft printout that he handed out to Council this morning with some of the proposed revisions. Mr. Henning referred to C/M Bernstein's memo of 12/19/84, in which he stated: Page_10,_ Section 5: Second and third paragraphs, reference to cash bond. Is a $500 bond adequate, or should we go for a larger amount. Page 11, Section 6.2: a) Add: "or the Burglar Alarm Committee" where indicated. Page 11, Section 6.2: b) Delete "in this ordinance", Add "by the Building Department. Page 11, Section 6.2: b) last three lines -� these seem to refer tc. a deleted,„ ,.,,..,...,. Suction of the Ordinance and should accordingly be deleted. C/M Stelzer said that C/M Bernstein's memo of December 19, 1984, shows two pages of corrections and suggestions following his memo. Mr. Henning said the items were given Section numbers to corres- pond with the City Code. He said at the request of C/M Stelzer those sections that are not amended have been omitted and three dots placed in so that Council can pass over several pages of printing that have no change. Mayor Kravitz said that as Mr. Henning, City Attorney, read the memo the public would be able to see what is proposed. (See Attachment #1) Mr. Henning again referred to C/M Bernstein's memo of 12/19/84: which stated, "In the title, delete the words that are crossed out. They are no longer pertinent. The words are 'and excusing certain monies due for false alarms prior to E/l/78' ". Mr. Henning said on Page 2; Item 9, Section 1, this paragraph should be deleted covering Building Department standards. Mr. Henning said this.pertains to a telephone alarm device of which there are two types and he recomTended leaving this definition in. City Attorney Henning said on Page 2 2aragraph 5, the last four words, "evident to the officer" are suggested to be deleted. He said this takes away the right of the officer to be the judge and leaves it up to the Burglar Alarm Committee, at a later date, to determine if there is any evidence of unauthorized entry. Nick Camerano, resident, asked if the City is controlling this with the Police Department or if the Committee will control this. C/M Bernstein said what is intended is that the officer will make his report and the Burglar Alarm Committee will consider the fine and the testimony. Nick Camerano said it sounded too simple, that if there was an attempted entry the officer will be called back. He said there is about 2% of the whole community of Tamarac requiring this service and the cost is tremendous. He said he thinks the City needs a referendum on this item. City Attorney Henning referred to the memo on Pate 3, Section 2, item 2: Should not businesses which install alarm systems even when excluded from the definition in Section 1 (1) be required to obtain a license? C/M Stelzer mentioned that Radio Shack sells alarms that can be installed by the home owner and do not come under the definition. C/M Bernstein said that the word should be "install" not "sell". Mr. Henning said that there had been a proposal that any installa- tions should be regulated and Home Owner installations are not regulated. C/M Stelzer recommended that on Page 3, item 12, the word "Broward" should be noted as the Code just states "County". Mr. Henning said: Page 5, Section 2, Item 4: Delete words "for violation of this ordinance". Mr. Henning said: Page 9, new Section 5.1 (a) (9) the words "violation of any Section of this TAPE Mr. Henning noted changes on pages 10, 11, and 12.(See Attachment 1). 2 Walter Rekuc, resident, said that he would like to bring to the attention of Council South Florida Building Code, Section 4507.7, "Fire Alarm or similar Systems, which are devised, installed for safety of life and property shall be installed by a qualified person regardless of voltage or amperage and permits shall be obtained for such installations". He stated that in paragraph 1, Section 6, it states they must get a Building permit. Attorney Henning said that the change on Page 12, Section 6.3 (a) substitute "may" for "shall", this allows Council not to have a fee. "Shall" says the City must have a fee. C/M Bernstein said that one of the recommendations of the committee was the discontinuing of the $50 per year users fee, charged to all homeowners having Burglar Alarms. Mr. Henning noted changes on Page 13, Section 6.3, Subsection 7: Delete "all" substitute "any change inrthe". - Abe Hahamovitch, member of the Burglar Alarm Committee, said it would be more effective to delete the user fee altogether. Ee recommended that if Council wants it_in the future, that it come up for discussion at a future date. He said in the mean- time, no reference should be made. City Attorney Henning said he liked the recommendation of C/M Bernstein to use the word "may" since the City is entering into a 90-day test and monitoring is going to help false alarms. He said the cost to the City to do this is not known or whether it would be better to have a private company do this. -4- 1/2/85 /jc City Attorney Henning said whether you call it a registration or user fee, when the 90-day test is done the City will find out the impact of this additional service and then Council can address whether or not some type of fee should be charged. Abe Hahamovitch asked if monitoring by private companies does not necessitate a users fee, he sees no reason why the possible decision by the City that they should do the monitoring would result in a users fee. Hyman Fox, resident, said he does not have a burglar alarm at his home. He said C/M Bernstein indicated that there would be no cost to the city for training; however, a man is sent for training and his salary is being paid. He said that several employees of the City are opposed to having the Burglar Alarm System at the Police Department. He said the City has never been made aware of what it is costing them to run this particular burglar alarm system. He said that the word "should" should remain there and not be changed. He asked if a burglar alarm is in his automobile in his driveway, does he need a permit. C/M Stelzer answered "no". He asked if he puts an alarm in his house so that his neighbor will know that someone is interfering with his home, does he need a permit for that? Mr. Henning answered "yes", if it is audible. He said he believes that the City should get out of the burglar alarm business completely. Vice Mayor Stein said the 90--day test is to decide where the burglar alarm shall be - either a private company or the Police Department. He said if it is in the Police Station there has to be a users fee and private companies charge a monthly service fee which is the same as a users fee. He said there is a cost to maintaining this system and if the City discontinues the users fee that is automatically saying that the City will discontinue this service. He said he thinks the word "may" is correct, because if the City decides to keep the service they will have to have some sort of fee for the maintenance of this system. Steve Popick, member of the Burglar Alarm Committee, said instead of making it a "user" fee why not make it a monitoring fee. C/M Stelzer said. the City has some alarms that are audible and not connected to the board and the City is not monitoring them; however, the City still charges them the fee. Steve Popick said then that is a permit fee. He said if the Police answer an audible alarm to a building, if there is no permit for that building, they leave. He said in most of Tamarac, regardless of who is monitoring, a resident has got to have a permit so that the Police Department knows that it has been approved by the Building Department. C/M Stelzer said that the City plans to have an inspection fee of $50.00 for every new alarm that is installed. He said once that is paid there is going to be no further charge, unless, there are false alarms. C/M Bernstein said that is correct; in the event that there are repeated false alarms that call for additional inspection, there will be a charge. City Attorney Henning read the changes on page 13. He said that when a paragraph is removed which prohibits certain alarm devices, the prohibition is being removed, not the devices. He said there are devices that Council wants to prohibit, a section is needed prohibiting them. He said if Section 7 is taken out, there is no section prohibiting certain types of equipment. C/M Bernstein said the intent was to have those things appear in the Burglar Alarm Standards as set forth by the Building Department, not to eliminate them. He said he is sure that any starting point set by the Building Department will be at least those items that are being prohibited in the past ordinance. -5-- 1/2/85 /j c City Attorney Henning said that for a future draft he will keep Section 7, remove all the language and say something to the effect that Council shall adopt in its procedures and standards the equipment that is prohibited in the City of Tamarac. City Attorney Henning read changes on Pa e 14, Section 8, to line: Add "or the Burglar Alarm Committee". City Attorney Henning said that changes in pages 14, 15, and 16 are, basically, all of the standards to be in a separate resolution. City Attorney Henning read the changes on Page 17. (See Attachment 1) City Attorney Henning revised Section 11.5, page 8, to read "pursuant to the ordinance" along with other changes noted. Council made that changes as noted for page 19 and 20. (See Attachment 1) C/M Bernstein noted that there had been hardship cases which have made the arbitrary imposition of a $50 fine for each instance an unreasonable penalty and thus gave them a certain amount of leeway. He said this was a unanimous recommendation. Bernard Newman, resident, said that all Council members except C/M Stelzer have Burglar Alarms. Vice Mayor Stein corrected this statement noting that only two members of Council have burglar alarms. Mr. Newman said he feels this would cause a conflict of interest for members of Council with the alarms to vote on this. Shirley Blumfield, resident, stated she has a burglar alarm and it is not connected to the board. She said she pays a separate fee to ADT. She said she has had false alarms and has paid her fines. She asked how the fines and fees have been implemented; are there outstanding fines and fees that have not been paid? She stated that it said "if payment is not made within 30 days of date of notice, thereof, the alarm system shall be disconnected". She asked how this will be implemented. City Attorney Henning said if the committee should order that the alarm be disconnected and it is not disconnected, then that is additional violation and every day is a violation. He said eventually, if necessary, there would be a court order or court case to collect the fine. He said if a resident refuses to pay or to disconnect the alarm, it would be a judge's decision to order the disconnection of the alarm and not for the City to do. Vickie Beech, Resident, asked Mr. Henning how does State law clarify governing burglar alarms and does not the State law supersede the County Law? City Attorney Henning said he did not know that the State has a particular law regulating burglar alarms, other than the South Florida Building Code which has the effect of a State law. Vickie Beech, asked if there is not a State law governing private enterprises in order for them to get licensing and to meet with the requirements. City Attorney Henning said that most of the laws they have heard about have been County licensing. He said there is a State law on Occupational Licenses. Vickie Beech asked what standards were set up for the Police Department and who set them up for monitoring the burglar alarms. City Attorney Henning said that to his knowledge the Police Depart- ment has not been monitoring in the sense that an alarm is confirmed by the call-back arrangement that was talked about at other meetings. He said the burglar alarms have been wired to the dispatch desk and 911 is called. -6- 1/2/85 /jc Walter Rekuc, resident said according to information supplied by C/M Bernstein there were 1775 calls within one year at $141,000 in cost. He said the cost per call is $800 approximately. He questioned why the City only charges $50. C/M Bernstein said that the figures supplied did show 1775 calls within one year. He said they did not show a cost of $800.00. Mr. Rekuc, resident, said the Police Department figures are $141,000. Lillian Feldman, President of the Woodlands Homeowners Associa- tion, said she does not have a burglar alarm, but she feels that this question has been distorted. She said she understood from the outset that the Police Department has not lost money on this. She said because of the 90--day test period, she would like the people who do own burglar alarms and are connected to the Police Board to have notice of this. She said in the past, when moni- toring was done by a private company, they were not aware of it. She said education and alerting the people involved is very important in order to have true results of the test. She said she appreciates the fact that the Council is conducting this test. Shirley Blumfield said when her ADT calls into the Police Depart- ment and they say her alarm is off, she is entitled to get Police service to come to her home and check whether there is a burglary in progress or not. She said that she is entitled to the same kind of police service that other residents are seeking. Bernie Hart, resident, said he had two things for the members of Council to keep in mind; 1) expense and 2) high costs for legal action for violations. Mr. Hart said there is a summary of 17 West Broward Cities, that the President's Council had made on important issues that the citizens were interested in. He said one of the questions was "Do you have a burglar alarm system monitored through your Police Switchboard". He said of the 17 cities, one did not answer the question, one answered "partial", one answered "yes" and 14 cities said "no". Mr. Henning said on Page 21, Section 15 was deleted. Vice Mayor Stein asked C/M Bernstein of the 1700 responses were they all false alarms. C/M Bernstein said no. Vice Mayor Stein said no matter who monitors a burglar alarm if that company calls the Police Department, the City is obligated to respond. He said it should be clarified as to who should monitor, the Police Department or a private company. He said this ordinance pertains to how a burglar alarm should be installed, by whom, and under what circumstances. City Attorney Henning said one of the points mentioned is that we are preparing something for codification into the City Code; therefore, when Council goes to the printout we have changed your Section numbers to coincide with Chapter 14 of the City Code. He said Council is trying to put it in the format that the Municipal Code Company can place into the City Code. City Attorney Henning stated that page 12 of Temp. Ord. #1166 has to do with the alarm user fees; the word "permit" is being taken out. He said the fees are paid on a calendar year basis and there is no pro -ration. He said (c) on page 3 shall read, "Every new user shall obtain a permit prior to installation of his alarm system". He said a fee for such permits shall be set by Resolution of the City Council and the permit fee shall include "an inspection" by the City to determine that the system conforms. to the Ordinance. City Attorney Henning read Section (d)of Page 12 of Temp. Ord. #1166. -7- 1/2/85 /jc Steve Popick, resident, said with the additional inspections, every homeowner who does have an alarm system who has bought the system outright or leases the system from the alarm company, specifies that if anyone outside of the company touches that TAPE alarm system, that makes any kind of service guarantee or 3 warranty null and void. He said if another inspection is needed the alarm company should be notified to go inspect the house and get a written inspection notice from the alarm company. C/M Bernstein told Mr. Popick that as it reads that would be permitted. He said the ordinance does not state it would be done by the Building Department. Mr. Henning stated that page 12 of the Ordinance, Section 4 is being deleted; the remaining paragraphs renumbered and pointed out that on page 14 of the ordinance at the bottom of the page, language is being deleted. C/M Stelzer asked if this would be covered by the standards and Mr. Henning replied in the affirmative. He said he would get back to Council to advise how much can be taken out and how much can stay in. C/M Bernstein pointed out to Council that on page 15, Section 6 b) this new language is for the guidance of the burglar alarm committee. He said this section talks about "Acts of God". Mr. Henning said that anything that refers to violations and false alarms should be kept in the Ordinance. He said standards and guidelines can be taken out, but, anything that will be of concern to the committee or to the users, as far as violations, should be kept in the Code. Mayor Kravitz asked Mr. Henning if he was going to present Council with another Ordinance with all these changes. Mr. Henning said yes and it will implement all these changes. C/M Stelzer said Council should approve this Ordinance on First Reading as amended. Murray Wiener, resident, said he wanted to know how this meeting came about on short notice. He asked why there was not a finished Ordinance. Mayor Kravitz answered that Council received the proposed changes with the Ordinance. C/M Stelzer mentioned that on December 19, 1984, a memo was issued from C/M Bernstein indicating all the items discussed today. Murray Wiener said all these revisions should be give a great deal of thought. C/M Stelzer said this came up at the last Council meeting and it was decided to hold a Special Meeting. Murray Wiener asked if Council was going to vote on this matter. Vice Mayor Stein said he knows of no urgency unless the Chairman of the Burglar Alarm Committee determines one. He said Council has given the City Attorney a direction to make all the changes and give Council a new Ordinance. He said it should be discussed at the next meeting for First Reading. He stated the purpose of this meeting was to go over the Ordinance and make these changes officially and have the Attorney put it into codification. C/M Bernstein suggested Council proceed to finish. Walter Rekuc, resident, said that the citizens should have a chance to get the same information. 1/2/85 /jc City Attorney Henning stated that on Page 16 of Temp. Ord. #1166 they are adding language to allow for tests during business hours, with advanced notice to the Police Department. He said this is to avoid false alarms being charged in tests. He asked what hours would Captain Roche recommend for the Ordinance? Captain Roche of the Police Department said the most appropriate time would be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in order to have a receptionist answering the phone. Captain Roche asked if the department should send out the notices of users' fees due January lst? He said he had advised the staff to wait because he does not know how the alarm ordinance will read. Mr. Henning said that the test would take 90 days and the present Ordinance is in effect which provides for $50 a year unless Council wants to change that. C/M Bernstein said that as far as the installing business there does not seem to be any difference in the present and proposed Ordinance; therefore, those bills could go. He said in so far as users are concerned, in the event the bills are sent out and Council decides to eliminate the fee because the users are required to go to a private monitoring agent, the time would only be months and they would not be required to pay for a year. He said in the event that the Council decides not to charge a user fee, that time could be prorated while the board was in the Police Department. C/M Stelzer said notice must be given before the board can be pulled out of the department, therefore, the notices should be sent out. Stephen Popick, resident, asked if Council is talking about the people being monitored in the Police Station or about everybody in Tamarac who has a burglar alarm? Mr. Henning said they are talking about everybody in the City of Tamarac who has a burglar alarm. Stephen Popick said that should be an Alarm Permit not a user fee. C/M Bernstein said the City is currently operating under an existing Ordinance. Mr. Popick asked if the $50 fee discussed now, is for the permit for the Police Department to respond to the calls. He said the people who are monitored by ADT or a private company, pay them monthly, but they have to pay the City for the permit. City Attorney Henning said that appropriate action should be taken so that City Manager Johnson could do the proper invoicing. Vice Mayor Stein suggested that Captain Roche bill as he has done previously. City Attorney Henning told Council that there was some new language on Page 19 of Temp. Ord. #1166 regarding the presence of a police officer at the hearing. He said this is in regard to paragraphs f), g) and h). City Attorney Henning read the paragraphs. C/M Stelzer said he would like to see the $10 fee go back in so there are no frivolous appeals. C/M Bernstein stated that there has been considerable opposition to that fee on the part of the public in the past. He said if the fee is appealed, and if it appears to the Alarm Committee that the public is abusing the privilege of appealing, they can always come back to Council and request the reinstatement of that $10 fee. Attorney Henning said that the fee was initiated because there was a need for it. He said appeal fees are not unusual in any system of due process, whether it is a traffic case or a small claims case. -9- 1/2/85 Al Robbins, Chairman of the Burglar Alarm Committee, said one of the recommendations listed the removal of that $10 appeal fee and all members approved it. City Attorney Henning said that he did not know if item 10, Page 20 belongs in the Ordinance and he recommended it be removed. C/M Bernstein MOVED for TABLING of this Ordinance with First Reading at the next regular Council meeting after there has been adequate opportunity for all parties concerned to have access to the final wording of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor Stein SECONDED. VOTE: ALL VOTED AYE Herman Fox, resident, stated he has a memo to Chief Joseph McIntosh from Officer Larry D. Nieman updating the cost of opera- ting the burglar alarm system out of the Police Department. He said the figures are astronomical. He asked the Chairman of the Burglar Alarm Committee if he had these figures when they were discussing the burglar alarm? He said the year 1983's total cost was $103,336.13. He said the proposal for monitoring would require 5 people being added to the staff for an additional $75,000 for a total cost of $178,336.18. He asked if the Council was aware of this? He asked if the Burglar Alarm Committee was aware of this when the recommended deleting the $10 appeal fee and the $50 permit fee. Al Robbins, Chairman of the Burglar Alarm Committee said we did not have those exact figures, but at their last committee meeting he made a recommendation that the board be taken out of the Police Department. Mayor Kravitz adjourned the meeting at 11:45 A.M. �•, I�� ,P/%a j / . • - f ATTEST: ASSISTANT CITY CLERK This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ U62- or $ .1.a7 per copy to inform the general public and public officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations by the Council of the City of Tamarac. -10- 1/2/85 /jc CITY Y OF TAMARAC APPROVED AT MEETING OF ds City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 1 of 2 -- Special Meeting - January 2, 1985 Burglar Alarms CITY OF TAMARAC INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM MEMO TO: Jon Henning, City Attorney; Mayor and Council; Police Chief; City Manager; City Clerk; Al Robbins, Chr. Burglar Alarm Committee;Bob Jahn FROM. Councilman Allan Bernstein DATE: December 19, 1984 SUBJECT: Burglar Alarm Ordinance - 0-84- Having read the proposed Ordinance, I have marked certain changes that I feel to be desirable. Typos are shown in ink on this copy only. Other proposed changes and the reasons therefore are as follows: TITLE: Delete words that are crossed out. They are no longer pertinent. PAGE 2: Section 1, item 9: Delete this paragraph, covered by Building Department standards. PAGE 3: section 2, item 2: Should not businesses which install alarm systems, even when excluded from the definition in Section 1 (1) be required to obtain a license? PAGE 5: Sdction 2, item 4: Delete words "for violation of this ordinance". PAGE 9: New Section 5.1 (a)(9): Violation of any Section of this ordinance. PAGE 10: Section 5, second and third paragraphs, reference to cash bond. Is a $500,00 bond adequate, or should we go for a larger amount? PAGE 10: Section 6.1: Substitute "Building Department" for "Law Enforcement Officer". Also, substitute the word "installs" in lieu of "operates". PAGE 11: Section 6.2 (a): Add: "or the Burglar Alarm Committee" where indicated.. PAGE 11: Section 6.2 (b): Delete "in this ordinance", Add "by the Building Department". Page 11. Section 6.2 (b): Last three lines - These seem to refer to a deleted Section of the ordinance and should accordingly be deleted. Page__12: Section 6.3 (a): Substitute "may" for "shall". Page 13. Section 6.3, Subsection 1: Delete "all",substitute "any change in the". PaaL 13: Section 7: Delete entire Section. Substitute: "Burglar Alarm Standards. All New Systems within the City of Tamarac shall conform to standards established by the Building Department." "An Equal Opportunity Employer" ATTACHMENT 1 - Page 2 of 2 - Special Meeting of January 2, 1985 Burglar Alarms Burglar Alarm Ordinance 0-84- 12/19/84 Page Two PAGE 13, Section 7 (continued "All users cited for fineable false alarms are required to have an inspection by the Building Department and shall have their systems conform to all of the requirements of the standard established by the Building Department to the ex- tent required by the Building Department inspector." NOTE: This is tentative wording, and should be put into proper legal form. PAGE 14: Section 8, top line: Add "or the Burglar Alarm Committee." Section 8, delete last paragraph. This is no longer a problem within Tamarac, and new installations will be covered by the Building Department standards. PAGE 14, 15, 16: Section 9, Alarm Operating Standards. item 1: 9.1(a), substitute "It is a further violation of this Ordinance to maintain any alarm system which does not conform to the standards of the Building Department, and which has caused three or more alarms within a period of six months." Section 9.1 delete Section 9, items lb, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a, 7 & 8. These are all to be covered by the Building Department Standards. Renumber 9.6 b, c & d. PAGE 17: Section 11.2: add "or the Burglar Alarm Committee" where indicated. Delete: "a duly authorized agent of the law enforcement office." Substitute: "the Building Department." On the next line add: "or Burglar Alarm Committee and head of the law enforce- ment office." Section 11.3: Add "or the Burglar Alarm Committee" in two places where in- dicated. PAGE 18: Section 11.4: delete "Law Enforcement Officer," substitute "Building Depart- ment" where indicated. Insert: "Burglar Alarm Committee or" where indicated. Section 11.5: delete "may be reconnected upon satisfactory proof submitted to the Law Enforcement Officer that the prescribed corrective action has been taken," and substitute "must be inspected and approved by the Building Department." Section 11.8(b): should the word "liaison" be substituted for the words "ex-officio member?" PAGE 19: Section 11.8(d): add a new (2)"Make recommendations to Building Department concerning Burglar Alarm Standards." Renumber existing Sections (2) and (3). PAGE 20: Section 13: change "less" to "more." PAGE 21: Section 15: delete this section; this does not seem to be current. Please give me any suggestions or comments. Councilman Allan C. Bernstein /ss