[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: RE: Alarm Ordinance 8123

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Testa, Greg

Council Member Burton requested additional information on the proposed modifications to the alarm policy.  Below are responses to her questions:



1.       What amount would you consider for the permitting fee?  We propose a $35 permit fee per year, for both residential and commercial alarm systems. An annual permit renewal increases the accuracy of information on file with the alarm company.  Currently, we have many alarm accounts that have outdated contact information. According to the Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC), Direct-TV conducted a national survey of 6700 municipalities of the alarm industry and found the national average for residential permit fees is $32.75 and commercial is $42.75.  We could also consider a discount for senior citizens or others.


2.       Would we have a role in the testing or verification of quality installation, workability, etc.? No, the alarm company is responsible for ensuring proper installation of the alarm; the alarm user is responsible for ensuring the alarm is properly maintained.  While we do not have a 100% accurate accounting of the number of alarms within the city, we believe it is in excess of 5,000 based on information from the alarm companies.  Given the large number of alarms, the police department does not have the resources to test and verify the proper installation of alarms.  The alarm industry is a for-profit entity and we believe it is a function for the industry to inspect alarms.    If not, who would do it and how would things change from current practice? The proposed fee and fine approach will provide incentive for alarm users to work with their respective alarm companies to ensure alarms are installed and maintained properly.  Our experience with most alarm companies is that they are responsive when there are mechanical problems and they frequently notify us when they are working on a system so that we do not respond to alarms triggered by maintenance or testing. SIAC and the local alarm industry have told us the key to reducing false alarms is changing the behavior of the alarm user and this cannot be done successfully without a stringent false alarm fine structure.  Communities who have established similar fee and fine structures have reported 20-30% reductions in false alarms the first year of implementation, and 40-60% reduction in year two.  On average 70% of false activations are human error and implementing a fine structure has been the best approach to changing human behavior, by placing the responsibility on the alarm owner.



3.       What is the current split of alarms between business and home?  Our CAD (computer aided dispatch) system is address dependent and does not readily provide information if the address is a business or a residence.  During our research into the most chronic alarm locations, the majority of those addresses with 6 or more false alarms within a year were businesses.  We believe there are more residential alarm systems in use than business alarm systems.  Having a permit requirement will provide us with an accurate number of alarm systems within the city and will make it easier to determine the residential vs. business breakdown.



4.       What are the reasons for the exorbitant number of false alarms? Some form of operator (human) error is the most common cause of a false alarm; e.g. not knowing the proper code, not responding to telephone calls from the alarm company to verify the alarm, failing to ensure all employees know the proper procedures, etc.  The current alarm ordinance has no enforcement provisions; without any teeth in the ordinance there has been no incentive for the alarm user to reduce or eliminate false alarms.  Our number of false alarms is very similar with the national average.  Our focus is to find ways to change the behavior of the alarm user and research has shown that a fine structure is the most effective way, which is highly supported by SIAC and the local alarm industry, who have seen marked improvement in other local municipalities when a fine structure is used.



5.       Would the fine be charged to the property owner or to the alarm company? The fine will be charged to the alarm holder, not the alarm company.  Have any cities tried both? Most cities have fined the alarm holder, instead of the alarm company, as most often the cause is operator error, not an equipment malfunction.  On average over 70% of false alarms are human error, we believe the alarm user and not the alarm company should be fined.



6.       Did you consider stiffer fines? Why or why not?  Yes, however, in working with the City Attorney’s Office, we believe that keeping fines less than $500 will be effective and will keep false alarms in the civil penalty realm and not criminalize them.  Another important goal is to have the ability via the ordinance to suspend response to locations with excessive alarms.

Please let me know if we can provide additional information, Greg

Greg Testa
Chief of Police
[Police_lockup_COBLogo]
303-441-3310
testag at bouldercolorado.gov

Boulder Police Department
1805 33rd St. Boulder, CO 80301
Bouldercolorado.gov<http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/>



From: Burton, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:39 PM
To: Testa, Greg
Cc: HOTLINE
Subject: Alarm Ordinance 8123

Dear Chief Testa,

Could you please respond to a few questions in relation to this ordinance before the next reading of the above ordinance?


1.       What amount would you consider for the permitting fee? Would we have a role in the testing or verification of quality installation, workability, etc.? If not, who would do it and how would things change from current practice?

2.       What is the current split of alarms between business and home?

3.       What are the reasons for the exorbitant number of false alarms?

4.       Would the fine be charged to the property owner or to the alarm company? Have any cities tried both?

5.       Did you consider stiffer fines? Why or why not?

Thanks so much!!

Jan Burton
Member of City Council
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4042 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20160705/3684a7be/attachment.obj