Responding to false alarms diverts police resources from service to the community as a whole to service for a select group of people â€“ alarm users. Alarm response is the only type of call for service the police have traditionally responded to without a person being present to verify the need for police presence, and it is also the only type of call for police service that is unnecessary anywhere close to 99.7% of the time. That led us to the core premise of our program â€“ that false alarm response is not a basic police service. Alarm users are the customers of alarm companies, not the City or the police. In Olympia, unverified police response to alarms is a privilege the City and PD grant to alarm users with two provisos. First, alarm users must pay for the entire cost of the service â€“ program administration and response to any false alarms. Second, alarm users must demonstrate good stewardship of their alarm systems by not having too many false alarms. To those ends, we have an annual registration fee that is based on what it actually costs us to administer the program. We also have a service fee for false alarm responses that reflects our actual cost of providing the service, and alarm users are charged that fee for every false alarm response they generate. Alarm users are permitted three false alarm responses in a calendar year, after which they lose the privilege of police as a first response option (are "suspended") for 90 days or until the end of the calendar year â€“ whichever is greater. If they are suspended three times in any five year period, they are "revoked" â€“ i.e., they are no longer eligible for police first response to their alarm system. If an alarm user has fees outstanding at the time they need to re-register, they are suspended until their fees have been paid in full. Alarm users are responsible for making their own arrangements for unverified first response if their registration is suspended or revoked.
Alarm users do not have register with the City or use police for first response. They can opt to hire private security to be first responders or they can rely on neighbors. But, in those instances, police will only respond to alarms that have been verified by a person present at the alarm site (i.e., the same standard of reporting we require for all other calls for service).
When we developed this program, we used a process that involved representatives from the industry, from residential alarm users (including several representatives from the senior community), commercial alarm users, schools, State government (weâ€™re the State capital, so this was important) and from citizens who were not alarm users. That group met several times over the course of a year (mostly in 2003) to craft the program, and there certainly were some areas where there was controversy. All in all, though, there was broad agreement on some central themes. Among those were that taxpayers generally should not subsidize specialized services provided only to those who chose to own and could afford to own private alarm systems â€“ either directly or indirectly, and that those who used the specialized services should pay for them. The alarm industry was prepared to take an active role in making the program work, and they contributed a number of suggestions to help make the program stronger. Particularly important in that regard was our agreement that we would require enhanced call verification (ECV); the installation of the most contemporary ANSI panels (currently CP-01); and the installation of devices for activating robbery and panic alarms that required two actions. (The installation requirements were for all new installs and for any system upgrades done after a certain date.) They also agreed to have consumers sign an affidavit prior to signing a contract for monitoring, for installation of new equipment/systems or for installation of upgrades that verified that the customer understood the obligations involved in the Cityâ€™s alarm program and realized that unverified first response by police was a privilege that could be lost.
After the work group completed its task, the City Council held a public hearing prior to adopting the ordinance in July, 2004. We had done a lot of public information work during the whole process, and there was little opposition to the proposed program at the public hearing. There was good editorial support from the local newspaper throughout the process, too â€“ which undoubtedly helped community understanding of the issues and the proposal. We spent the last half of 2004 and the first months of 2005 setting up the logistics of the program and doing more community education. We gave "warning notices" starting in May, 2005, and then started the full program in earnest in July, 2005.
McConnell: What has been the result of the new measures that were put in place?
Machlan: The results so far have been very good, and weâ€™re far enough down the line now, that I feel pretty comfortable that weâ€™re not just experiencing a "honeymoon" period. 2006 was our first full year of the program, and in that 12-month period, we averaged 51 false alarm responses per month (613 total for the year) â€“ a 79% reduction from the 1999-2003 five-year monthly average. That reduced level extends back to when we actually started the program in July, 2005, as well. We are averaging 31.5 per month for the first two months of this year. In addition, we recovered $38,814 in service fees in 2006 (our ordinance mandates that the revenues from false alarm service fees must be spent on public safety) and paid for the entire administration of the program with registration fees.
We use a private vendor for 99% of our alarm administration. Alarm businesses bill their own customers for annual registration, which ensures that all of their customers are properly registered and saves the City the cost of having a duplicate billing system. One police employee spends an hour or two a week supporting our entire program.