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