Security Industry News >> EMERgency24 Inc.

$250 Fine for Late Alarm Registration Angers Palo Alto, CA, Residents

A $250 fine for not renewing their burglar-alarm permits on time has some Palo Alto, CA, residents feeling like criminals.

Homeowners who for years have faithfully paid the annual $35 permit fee on time recently found themselves in receipt of the hefty penalty when the renewal notice they usually receive didn't arrive -- and they forgot to pay.

Fifteen residents appealed the penalty during an administrative hearing on April 1, but to no avail. Residents received a five-page legal document informing them that the penalty would not be waived, they said.

What has some residents even angrier than the hole in their wallets is the attitude of officials, they said. They claim they've been treated rudely, that officials haven't been cooperative and that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined.

City officials maintain the penalty is just and in line with other $100 and $250 fees, since the permit-expiration date is listed on a sticker posted at the homes. But some conceded the fine may be excessive, or at least a better method of notification could be devised.

Christy and William Neidig, who have had a home alarm for more than 20 years, are among those protesting the penalty. 

The Neidig's permit expired in September 2008. Christy Neidig appealed the penalty at the April 1 hearing before Louis Amadeo, an attorney and the city's administrative-hearing officer, and Janice Hall, a community-service officer at the police department.

Fourteen other people who also were fined but who had not received renewal notices were also waiting for the one-on-one hearings, Neidig said.

On April 13, the Neidigs learned their appeal had been rejected and that the city is not legally required to send the renewal notice, but does so as a courtesy.

Amadeo informed Neidig that he denied every request for waiving the fee and has always denied such requests and would continue to do so, Neidig said.

William Neidig said it sounded like a kangaroo court: The two officials knew what the outcome would be. 

"What I'm really objecting to is the concept of 15 people sitting in a room and to go through this charade 15 times," he said.

Amadeo said he's in a tough spot because he has to walk a fine line between being polite and also not advising appellants. His role is like a judge's, and he can't respond to or give legal advice related to a hearing -- and that can be interpreted as being uncooperative, he said.

But ultimately, as with any license, the responsibility rests with the permit holder, he said.

"It's like a driver's license or car registration," he said. "The city permit on its face has an expiration date. Whether the person has actual notice to respond to that (expiration) or if people claim they don't receive it is irrelevant. If it's expired, it's not allowed," he said.

Resident Vanessa Davies, who also appealed, said the fine is out of proportion to the offense. 

"A 700-percent-plus fine is outrageous. Property taxes, car registration fees, etc., items are considerably more important than an alarm fee. All have fines in the 10- to 20-percent range," she said.

Davies also said that she and others at the hearing received a letter dated Jan. 7 stamped "payment was due within 10 days or there would be an additional penalty of 10 percent per month" in addition to the $250 fine. But the letter was postmarked March 4.

But Charles Cullen, the alarm-program director for the Palo Alto Police Department, said the department is "very diligent about sending out the renewal notices one month in advance, and there is a grace period."

Cullen also said 1 to 2 percent of residents don't pay their renewals on time.

But he acknowledged the fine is "pretty significant. We need to look at it again." 

Cullen also said that while he understands people's frustration, the penalty is not intended to generate revenue. 

"I know people think we are gouging them. It was written before it was on my radar. In the next year, I hope to have some changes. We want to make it easy for people," he said.

The alarm permit was added to help manage the number of alarms going off. It requires alarm users to provide the police department with the names, addresses and phone numbers of three persons who can respond within 30 minutes, helping to track and cut down on police time, according to the website.

But the language pertaining to the penalty could be confusing: On Nov. 21, 2001, the city council voted unanimously to amend the administrative penalty schedule to include a $250 penalty for operating an alarm system without a permit. But the city's 2008-09 adopted municipal-fee schedule does not list a penalty for late renewal, only penalties for false alarms.

Davies said many people may be affected by the confusion.

"When I stood in line at the police department to speak with the alarm clerk about the fine, there was an elderly gentleman behind me with the exact same issue. He begrudgingly paid the fine and stated he didn't have the bandwidth to fight it. If 10 people bothered to go to the hearing ... I would bet a lot more people were like the guy behind me in line, threw up their hands in the air, and just paid it," she said.