Memorandum
City
of
Legal
Services
|
TO: |
David
L. Corliss, City Manager Toni
Ramirez Wheeler, Director of Legal Services |
|
FROM: |
Scott
J. Miller, Staff Attorney |
|
Date: |
April
26, 2009 |
|
RE: |
Regulation
of Alarm Systems |
In
2008, the Lawrence Police Department responded to more than 3500 alarm
calls. While the Police Department’s
computerized dispatch database does not identify the calls that were false
alarms and those that were related to actual emergencies or criminal activity,
historically it has been demonstrated that more than 95% of all alarm calls
received by the Lawrence Police Department are false. Police Chief Ron Olin has stated that we
receive about ten false alarm calls a day, each requiring approximately 35
minutes of police time. Over the course
of a year, this means that duty time equivalent to one police officer is spent
answering false alarm calls.
The
City now, and for many years, has had an ordinance that requires the registration
or licensure of both alarm companies and individual alarm users, among other
things. This ordinance has been in place
since at least 1979 and the last amendment of any type to the ordinance was in
1981. While the portions of the
ordinance requiring alarm company licensure have continued to be enforced, the
provisions regarding the issuance of permits for individual alarm users have
not been applied since the mid-1990s.
Reinstating
registration of individual alarm users and enforcing the code provisions
related to individual alarm users poses a number of challenges. The first bar to enforcement is tracking the
calls themselves. There is currently no
automated method of tracking false alarms as all alarm calls appear the same on
the Police Department’s computer assisted dispatch system. While call types can be added to the computer
system, someone would be required to manually query the results and to
determine, based upon case review and property history, whether it is
appropriate to attempt to assess a false alarm fee or revoke a license under
the ordinance. There is an automated
module that interfaces with the dispatch program that would automate some of
these functions, but that module costs many thousands of dollars.
In
order to document the facts and circumstances for a potential false alarm
hearing, the police officer would be required to spend more time on each alarm
call. Also, conducting contested hearings
requires the assignment of witnesses, a hearing officer, and perhaps an
advocate for the City’s interest to appear from City staff. While all of this attention would not be
necessary for every false alarm, the time it is necessary would undercut the
time saved by the Police Department by false alarm avoidance.
The
second part of the staffing puzzle is the time it takes to review applications,
send renewal notices and issue licenses.
Although it is difficult to know how many alarmed properties there are
in the City of
From
a financial perspective, recovery for the value of the time spent responding to
every false alarm is unlikely to occur.
Part of this is because of the structure of the ordinance. Permit revocation is only possible after four
false alarms in one permit year. Also,
users with more than four false alarms in a year are subject to a fee,
currently set at $10, for every false alarm over four. Only about 220 properties in the City had
more than four alarms last year, and statistics are not kept regarding how many
of those alarms were false.
Finally,
the false alarm fee and every other fee or charge in the ordinance would need
to be revisited. Since the amounts in
the ordinance were set, consumer prices have more than tripled. What once seemed like an amount of money that
generated some amount of deterrence is less likely now to have a significant
impact on behavior.
With
this history in mind, and considering the fact that the status quo has been
tenable if not perfect, City Staff recommends that the alarm user permit portions
of the current ordinance be repealed to prevent public confusion. If a
significant increase in alarm calls is noted as a result of this action, the
issue might be revisited in light of current best practices, which differ
significantly from our current law.
Because the license fees for alarm companies have not been increased
since 1981, it is recommended that those fees be increased. Currently, the first year fee for an alarm
company license is $125.00, and the yearly renewal is $62.50. Further, a $31.25 late charge is assessed for
companies 60 days delinquent in renewing their licenses. To better reflect the impact of the actual
amounts assessed when the ordinance passed, a $300.00 first year license fee,
$150.00 renewal fee and $75.00 late fee might be more appropriate.
Attached
you will find a draft ordinance
that repeals the alarm user permit requirements and adjusts the fees for alarm
company licensure as recommended above.
If you have any questions, please let me know.