Report Prepared by: Kelly Fincher, Chief Deputy City Attorney and Marvin Dillsaver, Communications Supervisor, Merced Police Department
Title
SUBJECT: Preliminary Discussion for the Preparation of a False Alarm Ordinance
REPORT IN BRIEF
This Administrative Report provides the information and data requested by the City Council for the preparation of a False Alarm Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff on a variety of issues relating to a False Alarm Ordinance.
Body
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide specific, alternative options; or,
2. Request additional information that will provide aid to the decision making process; or
3. Continue the item to a date certain; or,
4. Determine that Council desires no action be taken.
AUTHORITY
Charter of the City of Merced, Section 200.
California Business and Professions Code, Section 7592.8.
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES
The reduction of the number of false alarms in the City is a Council priority for fiscal year 2015/2016.
DISCUSSION
Many homes, government offices, and businesses in the City have intrusion alarm systems which are provided and monitored by third party service providers. While specific notification protocols may differ among providers and customers, generally, when an alarm is tripped (regardless of the reason) the Merced Police Department is often notified of the possible intrusion. After such notification, a patrol unit is dispatched to investigate and hopefully, prevent a crime from occurring. Since calendar year 2011, the Police Department has received to more than 4,500 such alarm calls per year or an average of about twelve (12) calls per day.
The enactment of a False Alarm Ordinance has been a City Council priority for several years. In prior discussions about proposed False Alarm Ordinances, the Council has expressed that their desired intent behind the Ordinance is not to generate revenue for the City, but rather to reduce the vast number of false alarms occurring in the City so that police resources can be focused on actual emergencies.
At the February 3, 2014, City Council meeting, a proposed draft False Alarm Ordinance was presented to the City Council for consideration. The Council did not like the ordinance as drafted and referred the item back to staff to research and provide more information regarding the following questions and issues:
1. The costs of starting up and administering a program to enforce the False Alarm Ordinance internally by City staff or alternatively by a third party vendor;
2. The pros and cons of administering a False Alarm Ordinance internally by City staff versus a third party vendor;
3. An analysis of the number of false alarms that an alarmed site should have before a service fee is imposed; and,
4. Whether the definition of “false alarm” includes a false alarm that is caused by an employee of an alarmed site or system.
In addition, the City Council directed staff to meet with representatives from the public school districts to discuss the ordinance and the separate false alarm service fee schedule applicable to public schools. The Council expressed their desire to discuss and decide the foregoing core issues before another draft ordinance was presented for their consideration. Accordingly, a draft ordinance is not being presented for Council consideration at this meeting.
Once the Council provides direction on the above core issues, the City Attorney’s Office will draft an ordinance in accordance with the direction given and the ordinance will be presented at a future meeting for consideration and adoption.
Statistical Update of Current False Alarm Calls
According to a study by the United States Department of Justice, nationwide approximately 94-98% of all alarm calls for police response are false alarms. In the City of Merced, that figure is about 97%, meaning that only about 3% of alarm calls per year are for true emergencies.
It is estimated that each false alarm requires at least 20 minutes of police time to handle. The top causes of false alarms are attributable to faulty or inappropriately installed equipment, poor installation, user error, failure to train authorized users, failure to secure doors and windows before activating an alarm system and changes in environment (i.e., new pets, decorations or plants).
The statistical data for false alarm calls and dispatches in the City during the last five years is as follows:
|
Year |
Total Alarm Calls |
Dispatched False Alarms |
Cancelled False Alarms |
Dispatched True Alarms |
Percentage True Alarms |
|
2011 |
5,041 |
4,361 |
551 |
129 |
3% |
|
2012 |
5,310 |
4,623 |
555 |
132 |
2½% |
|
2013 |
5,447 |
4,662 |
694 |
91 |
2% |
|
2014 |
5,236 |
4,416 |
790 |
30 |
½% |
|
2015 |
5,224 |
4,317 |
764 |
143 |
3% |
As can be seen, the number of alarm calls during the past five years has remained relatively constant. Unfortunately, the number of false alarms has also remained constant at 97% or more per year. In round numbers, this means that fewer than 150 alarm calls per year have been for bona fide emergencies.
Issue No. 1: What are the costs of starting up and administering a false alarm enforcement program internally by City staff and alternatively by a third party vendor?
It is difficult to estimate the exact costs of administering this program in the absence of some key information such as the service fee schedule and whether there will be a permit fee. The following are estimates of the costs to the City to administer the false alarm program internally with City staff and externally by a third party vendor:
Processing Internally
|
|
Expense |
Monthly Amount |
Estimated Annual Amount |
|
Additional Police Staff |
Up to two full-time Records Clerk I/II positions |
$2,473 - $3,315 plus benefits 35% of salary |
$40,000 to $ 53,703 |
|
Additional Finance Staff |
Up to one full-time Account Clerk I/II/III positions |
$2,473 - $3,669 plus benefits 35% of salary |
$40,000 to $ 59,438 |
|
Software and Training |
Purchase of software and staff training |
|
$7,500 first year |
|
|
Postage, mailing and supplies |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Total |
$150,000 |
The estimated costs to staff and enforce the ordinance will be offset to some degree by the service fees collected. However, once the ordinance achieves the desired result of reducing the number of false alarms, the amount of service fees collected by the City will decline. Once that result is realized and after the program is fully implemented, staffing levels may be able to be reduced.
Processing Through a Third Party Vendor
|
ExpenseMonthly AmountEstimated Annual Amount |
|
|
|
|
Additional Police Staff |
Up to one full-time Records Clerk I/II position |
$2,473 - $3,315 plus benefits 35% of salary |
$40,000 to $53,703 |
|
Additional Finance Staff |
Up to one half-time Account Clerk I/II/III position |
$2,473 - $3,669 plus benefits 35% of salary |
$20,000 to $29,438 |
|
Software |
Purchase of software or other IT startup costs |
|
Unknown |
|
Training |
Staff training |
|
Unknown |
|
|
Postage, mailing and supplies |
|
Unknown |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Total |
$69,000 |
These estimated costs will be offset to some degree depending on the share of the collected service fees that the City would receive from the third party vendor. The City’s share of the collected service fee would be set by an agreement between the parties and the percentage would be based upon the service fee schedule and the annual permit fee required by the vendor.
Issue No. 2: What are the pros and cons of administering a program to enforce a false alarm ordinance by City staff and alternatively by a third party vendor?
Internal Administration and Enforcement of the Ordinance
There are several advantages to the City if the False Alarm Ordinance was administered and enforced internally by City staff. The biggest advantage is that we would have more control and discretion over the design and administration of the ordinance. In order to guarantee a profit stream for their services, an outside vendor will likely require our ordinance to have an annual permit fee and no more than two false alarms that are free of the imposition of a service fee. If the City administers the program, it can determine whether a permit is required (with or without a fee). The City will also be able to determine the service fee schedule without any minimum or threshold requirements from a vendor.
In addition, by administering the program internally, the City will retain the service fees collected to offset its costs of running the program, rather than having a large percentage of the fee shared with a vendor to cover their operating costs.
There are several risks and disadvantages to administering the program internally. As the City has not administered a program before, we can only estimate the startup costs associated with administering and enforcing the ordinance, such as training costs, staffing costs and ancillary costs such as postage. While some of these costs will be recouped by the collection of service fees, we do not know how quickly we will be able to collect the fees and what percentage of the fees will be easily collectable.
In addition, a program will take time to implement, processes and procedures will have to be developed and there will be impacts on the City’s Police and Finance Departments beyond just the hiring of extra staff. Specifically, new employees will be added to these departments who will need work stations and supervision. Other City departments will likewise be impacted to the extent that they are involved in the appeals process or other administration or legal issues.
External Administration and Enforcement of the Ordinance
There are several advantages to having an outside vendor administer the ordinance. An outside vendor will take care of the cumbersome work of billing and collecting the service fees, which will save the City from hiring additional staff to perform these functions. In addition, their expertise in administering false alarm ordinances may initially cause the implementation and administration of the ordinance to be more efficient, which may in turn have a greater impact in terms of the reduction of false alarm calls.
There are also several disadvantages. An outside vendor will have to be able to interface with the City’s New World Systems database in order to download the false alarm data for processing and billing. City staff has only identified one company who has the capability of interfacing with our system. If we use a company that cannot interface with our system, there will be additional (and expensive) software costs to achieve compatibility. Moreover, to guarantee a funding stream, an outside vendor will likely require an annual permit fee, fewer false alarms that are free of a service fee and higher service fees for repeat offenders.
Issue No. 3: An analysis of the number of false alarms an alarmed site should have before a service fee is imposed.
There are several issues involved in this consideration, for which we seek Council direction, including: (1) how many false alarms should an alarmed site have before a service fee is imposed?; (2) should there be a waiver of a service fee if the offender participates in a false alarm awareness class?; (3) should the public schools have a different service fee schedule?; and (4) what period of time should be used for a compliance period?
The answers to the above questions may have a different result depending on whether the program is handled internally or externally by a third party vendor. If the program is handled externally by a third party vendor, a large portion of the service fees will be retained by the vendor to offset the costs of their services. A vendor will likely require an annual permit fee to guarantee a revenue stream to cover their costs of administering an enforcement program. Accordingly, a determination regarding whether to administer the ordinance internally by City staff or externally by a third party vendor should be determined prior to setting the service fee schedule. Staff recommends that for ease of administration, the compliance period run for a 12-month calendar year period (January to December). This will reduce the number of issues and disputes with alarm owners regarding whether subsequent false alarms fall within the ordinance’s compliance period. Such issues could be created by a rolling compliance period (such as any 12-month period).
To assist the Council in reaching a consensus about the service fee schedule, below is a summary of the service fees imposed by surrounding cities and counties, all of whom appear to handle the enforcement of their ordinances internally.
|
Public Agency |
Fee Schedule |
Compliance Period |
Permit Requirements |
|
City of Los Banos |
1-2 No charge 3rd warning letter sent 4-5 $ 63.00 fee 6-7 $125.00 fee 8-plus $250.00 each |
Applies to false alarms committed within a calendar year. |
Permit is required every two years, but does not appear to be enforced. |
|
City of Atwater |
1-2 No charge 3 to 5 $ 50.00 each 6-plus $100.00 each |
Applies to false alarms committed within any 12-month period. |
A permit is required. There is not a fee for the permit, but if an owner does not have a permit, there is an additional $100.00 service fee imposed to the fee schedule per occurrence. |
|
County of Merced |
1-2 No charge 3rd $ 50.00 fee 4th $100.00 fee 5th $150.00 fee 6-plus $200.00 each |
Applies to false alarms committed within any six-month period. |
Permit is required with a one-time $20.00 fee. |
|
City of Madera |
1-3 No charge 4-8 $ 50.00 burglar alarm $ 75.00 panic alarm 9-plus $100.00 burglar alarm $125.00 panic alarm |
Applies to false alarms in a 365-day rolling period. |
A $50.00 permit is required every two years. |
|
City of Turlock |
Does not have an ordinance. Instead, they have an adopted policy to verify burglar alarm calls before dispatching. |
|
|
|
City of Modesto |
1 No charge 2nd $ 50.00 3rd $100.00 4th $200.00 5th $400.00 6-plus Police will not respond |
Applies to false alarms in a 12-month period. |
A permit is required. There isn’t a fee, however, if a permit is not on file, each false alarm is assessed a $200.00 service fee. |
In the prior version of the Ordinance, staff recommended the following service fee schedules:
|
Number of False Alarm Responses |
Service Fee |
|
1 |
No fee |
|
2 |
$ 50.00 (subject to waiver* ) |
|
3 |
$ 75.00 |
|
4 |
$ 100.00 |
|
5 or more |
$ 250.00 |
|
*Subject to waiver upon completion of a false alarm awareness class (online) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fee Schedule Applicable to Public School Districts |
|
Number of False Alarm Responses |
Service Fee |
|
1-7 |
No Fee |
|
8 - 12 |
$ 25.00 |
|
13 - 15 |
$ 50.00 |
|
16 or more |
$100.00 |
Issue No. 4: Whether the definition of “false alarm” should include a false alarm that is caused by an employee authorized to access an alarmed site.
The goal of the False Alarm Ordinance is not to raise revenue, but to reduce the number of false alarms by encouraging offenders to repair and maintain their alarm systems and correct human operating errors so that valuable public safety time and resources won’t be wasted. In order to be effective, the ordinance must have a deterrent effect, especially for the alarmed sites that have excessive false alarm responses.
If the goal is to reduce the number of false alarms that require a police response, then an effective definition of a “false alarm” should include the activation of an alarm that results in a police response that is caused by mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation or maintenance, or the negligence of the owner, lessee or his/her employees or agents. In contrast, alarms caused by uncontrollable acts of nature (earthquakes, severe weather, etc.), by criminal activity or by a person during the course of installing, connecting, maintaining or servicing the alarm system are not the type of false alarms that can be deterred by this ordinance and should therefore not be considered or counted as false alarms for purpose of the imposition of service fees.
The proposed definition of a false alarm is as follows:
“The activation of an alarm system which results in a response by the Police Department, when the activation results from a cause other than an emergency or other situation for which the alarm system was intended.”
There are three proposed exceptions to this definition which should not constitute false alarms for purposes of the imposition of a false alarm service fee:
(1) A false alarm that was caused by severe weather, earthquake or uncontrollable acts of nature;
(2) A false alarm that was caused by someone other than the alarm owner or the owner’s officers, agents, employees, independent contractors and any other persons authorized by or subject to the control of the owner;
(3) A false alarm that was caused by a person who was installing, connecting, maintaining or servicing the alarm system.
In order to maximize the effectiveness of the ordinance, it is recommended that a false alarm response that is caused by the negligence or human error of an employee of the alarm owner count as a false alarm for purpose of the imposition of a false alarm service fee.
Meeting with the Public School Districts
On October 6, 2015, City staff, including the Chief of Police and representatives from the City Attorney’s Office and City Manager’s Office met with representatives from the Merced City School District, Weaver Union School District and the Merced County Office of Education to discuss their concerns about the City’s False Alarm Ordinance. Also present were Hoffman Security and Steve Keefer, who is the National Law Enforcement Liaison with the Security Industry Alarm Coalition.
During the meeting, the districts provided valuable information concerning significant and expensive upgrades that have been made to their alarm systems and internal procedures. All three districts present provided detailed descriptions of actions they have and are currently taking to help alleviate false alarms from their sites; including on-site cameras (which can be viewed from mobile devices), on-call staff after hours and weekends to provide verification of alarms prior to police dispatch, and upgrades to the actual on-site security systems.
Mr. Keefer provided information concerning false alarms nationwide, as well as details of similar ordinances. Of particular interest is the fact that Merced’s last proposed ordinance was unique, in that schools are allowed more false alarms (up to seven) prior to the mandatory imposition of a service fee. Mr. Keefer stated that he was not aware of any other local government agency allowing for a dual service fee schedule for public schools within their jurisdictions.
After review of the separate service fee schedule for public schools, all district representatives present agreed the proposed schedule represents a fair and balanced method to curtail the overly high number of false alarms associated with school districts. They also agreed the progressive fines enumerated in the prior ordinance were appropriate.
The district representatives conveyed that they are making significant investments in their security systems and strong efforts to reduce the number of false alarm calls at their school sites which are caused by operator error. They expressed that these changes take time, especially considering the large number of employees on their campuses who are authorized users of the alarm systems. They requested to have a delay in the effective date of the ordinance until the beginning of their next fiscal year (July 1, 2016), to afford them time to complete the necessary upgrades and implement their own internal policies to help reduce false alarm calls.
Pilot Program
A review of the video recording from the presentation of the False Alarm Ordinance at the February 3, 2014, City Council meeting revealed that the Council desires a False Alarm Ordinance that is not unnecessarily burdensome or costly to the public. In addition, Council is seemingly interested in administering the imposition and collection of the service fees for false alarms internally with City staff rather than through a third party vendor. As explained above, many of the costs associated with the start-up and enforcement of an internal False Alarm program are unknown and can only be estimated. With those considerations in mind, staff has developed a proposal for a pilot program which will utilize the $30,000 already set aside in the 2015/2016 budget for the False Alarm Ordinance for a pilot program to test whether an internally administered False Alarm program is feasible for the City.
The suggested components and parameters of the program include a trial period of six-months to implement and administer a false alarm program internally. Prior to the completion of the six-month trial period, staff will report back to the Council with data on false alarm statistics (to see if the ordinance has had the intended deterrent effect) and service fee collections (to determine appropriate staffing levels). To implement the program, the $30,000 set aside in this fiscal year’s budget will be used to purchase the required software to administer the program with the City’s New World Systems public safety software program, hire a part-time temporary clerk to administer the data collection, billing and collection of the service fees and pay for other expenses such as postage and mailing supplies.
IMPACT ON CITY RESOURCES
$30,000 which has been set aside in the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 budget for the False Alarm Ordinance.