Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 8533 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS NO- 8533 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council Date: 0913012003 Page I of 2 SUBJECT: Verified Alarm Response raxa Problem: During FY 2001 —2002,97%of commercial and 99%of residential alarm calls were false. The cost to respond to these false alarms during the year was$3,433,313, an average of$51.03 per call.Nationally, in calendar year 2000, there were 36,000,000 false alarms with an attendant cost of$1,800,000,000. If the false alarm problem did not exist at least 35,000 officers could be shifted to other duties. (Erwin A.Blackstone and Simon Hakim,Temple University and Uriel Spiegel, Bar-Ilam University). Current Situation: The City of Fort Worth alarm ordinance currently requires an alarm permit prior to the operation of a commercial burglar alarm system. The cost of the permit is $50 and it is valid for two years.A permit must be acquired for a residential alarm system following the first false alarm. The permit fee is$25 and is also good for two years.All permit holders are allowed, 5 false alarms in any 12-month period. Following that,a$41 service fee is assessed for each false alarm. The Fort Worth Police Department currently responds to all alarm calls. r,-.taff Research: Staff members of the police department conducted research on various responses that might possibly ameliorate the alarm situation. This included requiring residential alarm permits prior to operation of an alarm system, increasing permit and service fees to attempt to offset police department costs, and a newer strategy,the use of Verified Response. Verified Response was first used in the early 90's and has spread to selected agencies in the U.S. and Canada, and is defined as police response to an alarm activation only when there is probable cause that an intrusion has actually taken place. Actions to Date: The police department presented false alarm issues to the Public Safety Committee beginning with the March meeting and continuing through July 22,2003. A series of presentations were made which highlighted the research and answered members questions, including: • Can we change the state law regarding the number of free responses to false alarms before afee may be billed to the user and the amount of the fee? o HB 3236 attempted to change both of these items; it was not approved by the Legislature. • "at is the difference between Vered Response and how we currently respond? o Currently the police department dispatches officers on all reports of alarm activation. Under VR we will still respond to panic and robbery alarms, but will only respond to intrusion alarms with eyewitness or technology verification of a probable intrusion or offense. • Did burglaries go up in cities that adopted Verified Response? o While all cities with Verified Response said they had no problem with increased crime, most had implemented the policy too recently to have significant numbers. Three cities were able to provide useful data. Las Vegas,NV had a 1.6% increase in burglaries(comparing the one year period prior to ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 8533 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council Date: 09/30/2003 IT Page 2 of 2 SUBJECT: Verified Alarm Response implementation of VR to one year following implementation), Arvada, CO had a 5.5%decrease and Salt Lake City, UT, had a 1.6%decrease. • Instead of stopping responses, can we charge enough to recover the total cost despite the five (5)free responses? o No,current state law limits the amount a municipality can charge for a permit to $50 per year and limits the amount of penalty for a false alarm to$50, but may not exceed the actual expense incurred for the response. HB 3236 addressed the issue, but did not pass. Staff pointed out to the committee that following the implementation of Verified Response in Salt Lake City,Utah, their volume of alarm-related calls for service dropped 90%and the rate of apprehension of burglars on site increased. Police Department staff at the July 291h Public Safety Committee meeting recommended the adoption of Verified Response and discontinuation of alarm permits, as it would be a mere efficient use of resources and eliminates the need to add 13 officers.Verified Response would be implemented and officers would not be dispatched to an alarm call unless there was reasonable suspicion of an actual entry as verified through an alarm company representative, security guard, owner/agent, resident, or eyewitness.The department would also utilize technological verification, including video cameras and audio devices. Police would still respond to all panic and holdup alarms. This recommendation incurs an annual loss of$701,190 in net revenue due to the elimination of permits and the loss of service fees for false alarms, but eliminates the need to fund 13 additional officers at$813,480 and eliminates the Alarms Unit,saving$235,000. It would also result in a soft dollar impact of$200,358 through freed call taker/dispatcher resources. Public Safety Committee Action: On July 22,2003,the Committee agreed by vote, to: 1. Support the Police Department recommendation above,pending public input 2. Make a report to the full Council outlining the false alarm issue. 3. Conduct two public hearings to allow residents and almTri company representatives to present their views to the City Council regarding these issues Staff recommends that public hearings be held on October 7'h and 14'h and that Council take action on the proposed ordinance changes at the latter meeting. a s n City _j ity fainiager ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS