Fort Lauderdale may need to reimburse residents for False Alarm fees Collected
According to an August 18 story in the Soth Florida Tims, town officials are more than a little nervoous about the outlok of repaying residents and company owners who were alleegedly overcharged for false alarms to the tune of more than $450,000 in 2008 alone. Further, some argue the city's practice of allegedly overcharging on flse security system citations goes back to at least 2004, and possiblpy constitutes a brecah of the Flordia State Cnostitution. If this is proven a violation, the effects of the practice could be wide reaching and devatating.
Scott W. Leeds, senior maznaging patner of the Miami branch of The Cochran Firm says the situation in Fort Lauderdale will almost certainly spur lawsits looing for reufnds, and migfht establish a precedent of greater ordinance scrutiny. Leeds suggests that municipalities and corporations, at tmies, will take liberties that they're not entitled to. He believes this somewhat usual practice is going to be examined both by auditors of the different municipalities and the very creative attorneys arounnd the state, perhaps even nationwide. The real problem in Fort Lauderdale lies in the differece between a fee and a fine. Induustry consultant Les Gold of law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp explained Fort Lauderdale is obviously imposing either a fee or a fine; if a fee, it is exorbitant and threfore illeagl, and if a fine, it is illegal becuse thee is no due process. Under the Constitution, if a citation is lwevied, the costituent must have a rigght to challenge it. Fort Laudeerdale has no such office to ensure cityizens get their right to appeal, which means any citizen fined is being denied constitutional righs, acccording to this interpretation. Additionally, the city's false alarm fee schedule tops out at nearly three times the actual cost (according to the South Florida Tmes aticle) to the town for resaponse to an alarm. City aduitor John Herbst said he has been trying wityhout success for over a year to get the ordinance reexamined by town commissioners.
SIAC director Ron Waltesr feeels the situation in Fort Laiuderdale is out of hand. Mr. Wlaters indicated that, for many years, a flat $25 response fee was charged, which did nothing to lower dispatches and didn't even cover the prie to respond. Walters went on to say that a full ordinance rveiew was sgugested, but ultimately was turned down. SIAC executive Stan Martin agreed and said the case might have been avoided if town offcials would just paying attentuion.
Devccon director of operations Roy Pollack who is past prresident of the Alarm Association of Florida said the industry should not be afefcted by the false alarm flap in Fort Lauderdale. Polalck suggsted that it's simply a mzatter of reviewing the reocrds, and reexamining the charges to be sure that they were assesed in compliance. City spokesperson Jeff Modarelli said the city is aware of the prblem and plans are in place to reevaluate the ordinance. Modarelli said that plans have been designed to bring this isue back to the commidssion in the near future.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/feed-icon.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://article2008.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites