61-95 ORDINANCE NO. 61-95
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 112, "ALARM
SYSTEMS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
DELRAY BEACH, BY AMENDING SECTION 112 27, "MULTIPLE
ALARM MALFUNCTIONS OR FALSE ALARMS DECLARED A PUBLIC
NUISANCE; FEE CHARGES", SUBSECTION 112.27(B), TO
REVISE THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSES TO FALSE
ALARMS; PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE, A GENERAL REPEALER
CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 1995, the City Commission adopted
Ordinance No. 1-95, enacting a new Chapter 112, "Alarm Systems", to
provide for the regulation of alarm systems within the City of Delray
Beach; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1-95, Section 112.27(B)
of the City Code sets forth the fee schedule for multiple alarm
malfunctions or false alarms responded to by the Police Department or
the Fire Department at the same premises during each calendar year;
and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds the current fee schedule
to be excessive and not in the best public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to implement a revised
fee schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SectiQn 1, That Chapter 112, "Alarm Systems", Section
112.27, "Multiple Alarm Malfunctions or False Alarms Declared a Public
Nuisance; Fee Charges", Subsection 112.27(B), of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, be, and the same is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) No fee shall be assessed for the first three (3) false
alarms at the same premises responded to by the Police Department or
the Fire Department during each calendar year. Thereafter, ~
525,00 ~¢/~W~/~¢~ shall be paid by the alarm user for each
false alarm responded to by the Police Department or the Fire
Department at the same premises during each calendar year.
Section 2. That should any section or provision of this
ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence or word be
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a
whole or part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
$gction 3 That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
· ~ That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage on second and final reading.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session on second and final
reading on this the 24th day of October , 1995.
ATTEST: ~
~City C~erk '
First Reading October 10, 1995
Second Reading October 24, 1995
- 2 - Ord. No. 61-95
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER~
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # /O~. - MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE NO. 61-95 (REVISED FEE
SCHEDULE FOR THE ALARM ORDINANCE
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1995
This is second reading and public hearing for Ordinance No. 61-95
which amends the City's alarm ordinance (Chapter 112 of the City
Code) by revising the fee schedule for multiple alarm
malfunctions or false alarms responded to by the Police or Fire
Department at the same premises during each calendar year.
In January, 1995 the Commission adopted the new alarm ordinance
which contained a graduated fine structure for responses to false
alarms. No fee is assessed for the first three false alarms, $50
for the fourth, $100 for the fifth, $150 for the sixth, and $200
for the seventh and more. As outlined in the attached memorandum
from the Police Department, this fee structure seems to be
excessive and somewhat overwhelming to business owners and
residents interested in taking appropriate crime prevention
measures to ensure the safety of their properties. In addition,
there is some difficulty in administering the ordinance, and it
has caused some erosion of the team effort between citizens and
Police which the department has worked so hard to establish.
For these reasons, staff proposes that the fee schedule for false
alarm responses be adjusted to a flat $25.00 fine per alarm in
excess of three per calendar year at the same premises.
At first reading on October 10, 1995 the Commission passed the
ordinance by a vote of 5-0.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 61-95 on second and final
reading.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: ~CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM ~ /~'~' - MEETING OF oCTOBER 10o 1995
FIRST READING FOR ORDINANCE NO. 61-95 (REVISED FEE
SCHEDULE FOR THE ALARM ORDINANCE)
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 1995
This is first reading for Ordinance No. 61-95 which amends the
City's alarm ordinance (Chapter 112 of the City Code) by revising
the fee schedule for multiple alarm malfunctions or false alarms
responded to by the Police or Fire Department at the same premises
during each calendar year.
In January, 1995, the Commission adopted the new alarm Ordinance
which contained a graduated fine structure for responses to false
alarms. No fee is assessed for the first three false alarms, $50
for the fourth, $100 for the fifth, $150 for the sixth, and $200
for the seventh and more. As outlined in the attached memorandum
from the Police Department, this fee structure seems to be
excessive and somewhat overwhelming to business owners and
residents interested in taking appropriate crime prevention
measures to ensure the safety of their properties. In addition,
there is some difficulty in administering the ordinance and it has
caused some erosion of the team effort between citizens and Police
which the department has worked so hard to establish.
For these reasons, staff proposes that the fee schedule for false
alarm responses be adjusted to a flat $25.00 fine per alarm in
excess of three per calendar year at the same premises.
Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 61-95 on first reading. If
passed, a public hearing will be held on October 24, 1995.
ref:agmemol3
DELRAY BEACH
Delray Beach Police Department
NI-AmedcaCity
300 West Atlantic Avenue · Delray Beach, Florida 33444-3695 lllllr
(407) 243-7888 Fax (407) 243-7816
MEMORANDUM ~ 993
RECEIVED
TO: David T. Harden, City Manager ~k~P
FROM: Joseph L. Schroeder, Captain ..~/,-? .
Patrol Division Commander ///~,/,--~~ v
THRU: Richard G, Overman, Chief of Police ~
DATE: September 13, 1995
SUBJECT: P.R. OPOSED CHANGES TO THE .ALARM ORDINANCE
The Police Department responds to thousands of alarm calls in a year. Many of those alarms mm
out to be alarms in which the cause of the activation is unknown to the officer who responds.
Those alarm calls are chargeable under the current city ordinance and alarm owners are amassing
extremely large bills due to our response. What we have found at the Police Department over the
past eight months of dealing with the alarm ordinance is that fine structure for police responses to
alarms has a significant impact upon business owners and residents. It is the recommendation of
the Police Department that the City Commission reconsider the fine structure for police responses
to alarms.
Since March 7th, the Police Department has responded to 4,751 alarms. Of those 4,751 alarms,
4,418 were chargeable under the ordinance with a total billable amount of $128,050.00. In
contrast, the Fire Department has not billed a single chargeable alarm since the inception of the
ordinance.
In developing the alarm ordinance, one of the goals was to curb responses to alarms that
continually malfunction. This has been handled by the requirement of the owner to have their
alarm company check out the alarm to determine if it is operating properly. The fine structure
also provides the incentive for alarm owners to have the alarm systems in proper working order
but our current fine structure is so steep that it is overwhelming for many small business owners
and residents. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Police Department that the current
alarm fine structure for police responses to alarms be adjusted as follows:
CURRENT PROPOSED
0-3 Free 0-3 Free
Fourth $50 Fourth $25
Fifth $100 Fifth $25
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ALARM ORDINANCE
September 13, 1995
Page 2
Sixth $150 Sixth $25
Seventh & more $200 Seventh & More $25
As you can see by this proposal, we have eliminated the ever increasing fine for repetitive alarms.
In contacting Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, and Palm Beach County, we found that our fines were
substantially higher than our neighbors. In Boca Raton, the first two alarms per year are free then
there is a $27.00 fine per alarm regardless of the number of alarms. Palm Beach County allows
the first two alarms to be free then there is a $25.00 fine per alarm regardless of the number of
alarms. In Boynton Beach, the first three alarms are free and then there is a $25.00 fine for the
fourth alarm, a $50.00 fine for the fifth alarm and a $100.00 fine for the sixth and any additional
alarms.
There are also several other reasons for our position. First, many alarm activations are impossible
to determine the actual cause for the activation. Business owners and residents will always say
that the alarm prevented a burglary, yet there is no detectable evidence to indicate that an actual
attempt was made. If an alarm goes off' seven times in a year and the cause of the activation was
undetermined, then that owner would face a bill of $500.00. This is a substantial burden for the
alarm owner and leaving the owner with very few options.
Secondly, we want business owners and residents to take appropriate crime prevention measures
to ensure the safety of their properties. The very harsh fines may actually cause some to either
disconnect their alarms, have their alarm companies no longer contact the police, or may even
discourage individuals from ever installing an alarm in the first place. That is not the goal of our
ordinance. We want alarm owners to ensure their alarms are operating properly, we do not want
to discourage them from using the systems.
The third reason is the difficulty in administering the ordinance because of the numerous
complaints, not based on our response, but on the fines. The ordinance does not provide a vehicle
to appeal a bill, it only allows for appeals on orders to disconnect. This appeal is made to the
Code Enforcement Board and this would cause a tremendous burden on the Code Enforcement
Department and Board as they can anticipate a high volume of appeals dealing with the fines.
Finally, but certainly not least of our reasons, is the breakdown of harmony and teamwork
between the citizens of Delray Beach and the Police Department. Over the past several years, we
have worked very hard in developing a partnership with our community to resolve the crime
problems we face. The fines associated with our response to alarms pits the Police Department
against the citizens who are trying to do what they can to keep their properties safe and secure.
By reducing the fines we would bring about better understanding by the community as well as
better compliance as we will return to a team effort as opposed to an us versus them situation.
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ALARM ORDINANCE
September 13, 1995
Page 3
There is a downside to making a change at this stage of the process. We have mailed out 114 bills
totaling $13,800.00 and to date have received $3,000.00. If the fine structure were to be adjusted
the City must consider how they would handle the monies that were paid under the earlier fee
structure.
In closing, it is the recommendation of the Police Department that the City Commission consider
adjusting the fine structure for alarms that are responded to by the Police Department. We feel
that such an adjustment would be in the best interest of the city, the Police Department and our
citizens.
JLS/gb
A4qJBLIC HEARING ~ll I~ ~
~ ~DINANCE ~ THE CiTY
~ ~ THE CiTY ~ DELRAY
~H, FL~I~ REZ~ING AND
~ ~ND ~E~ENTLY
~EO ~ (~NNED ~FICE
~NTER) DISTRICT IN THE CF
[~UNITY FACILITIES) DI~
T~i~; ~ID ~ND BEING L~AT.
~D kT THE ~T~EST C~NER
~ ~RE~ AVENUE A~ ~KE
LY ~RIBED HEREIN; AND
~NDtNG ~TNG ~P OF DEL*
~Y BETH, FL~T~, ~ PRG
Y~IMG A ~NERA~ REP~LER
~U~E, A ~VI~ C~USE, AND
~ EFFECTIVE ~TE.
~ ORDINATE OF THE CtTY
~N ~ THE CITY ~ DELRAY
~CH, F~ID~ REZON~NG AND
~ING ~D PRE~ENT~Y ~E CI~ OF ~LRAY EEACH, BY
~ED R-~ (SIDLE F~ILY ~ENDING ~CTtON 11~.~7,
~I~NTI~) DISTRICT IN THE ~ULTIPLEA~M ~LFUNC-
~ (~UN~ FACILITIES) Dt~ T~S OR FA~E A~R~ DE.
TRIG; ~ID ~ND ~EING L~T- C~RED ~ ~9LIC NUI~NCE;
ED AT THE ~THWEST CORNER ~E C~GE~, SUBSECTTON
~ N.W. 3RD AVENUE AND N.W. 11~(B), TO REVISE THE FEE
~D STREET, ~ ~RE PARTICU. ~HEDULE P~ RE$~NSES TO
~RLY ~RIBED HEREtN; AND FA~ A~; PR~IDING A
~NDING ~ING ~P OF DE~. ~VlNG C~U~E, A GENERAL RE-
RAY BEACH, FL~IDA, 1~; PR~ ~LER C~USE, AND AN EFFEC.
VIDING A GENERAL REPEA~ER T~E~TE.
C~USE, A ~VING C~USE, AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
B~H, FLORIDA, REZOg~NG AND
~CING ~MD PRESENTLY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~y
CF (C~UN]TY FAC)~TIES)
~ ~ THE ~TH S~DE OF ~KE
I~ ROAD, WEST OF AND ADJA- O~DELRAYBEACH
~NT TO THE C~UNITY CH~D
~RE CENTER, ~ ~RE PART~C- C~C~k
~R~Y ~SCRI~ED H~RE]~;
~IDI~G A GENERAL RE~A~- ~ R~
~R C~USE, A ~V~NG C~USE,
~AN EFFECTIVE OATE
Afl ORDINANCE OF THE OTY C~
.~1~ ~ THE CiTY ~ DEL~Y
B~H, FLORI~, ~END~NG SEC.
THE ~ND ~VELOPMENT REGU-
~T]~S OF THE CI~ OF OELRAY
~CH, TO PROV~D~ CRITERIA
t~ THE WAIVER ~ DEVELOP-
~T APPLI~TI~, P~N CHECK
~ PER~tT FEES FOR ELIGIBLE
*~PROF~T AND SERVICE ~GA-
M~TI~S; ~Dt~ A GENER.
~ REPEALER C~E, A ~ING
~CH, F~ORi~, ~ND gG ~ ·
T~ 2~ ~T~CE RE~IRE-
~NT~, OF THE ~D ~VELOP.
~ ~gT REGU~TI~S ~ THE C~TY
~ ~LRAY I~H, BY RE~AL-
E~ RE~, ~O E~TtNG A NEW
~EgT AP~I~TI~S ~TH
~ATUTORY ~E~IR~ENTS:
~IDING A GENERAL REP~.
;ER C~USE, A ~VING C~USE,
~D ~ EFFECTIVE ~TE.
~ ~D]gAMCE ~ THE C~TY
~ION OF THE CITY ~
* ~CH, F~DA, ~NDING
C~ER 11~ tA~RM SYSTEMS',
~ THE CODE OF ORDINANCES