Fee plan revived for alarm owners
Households that have alarms could once again be asked to pay thecity $20 a year to register them.
The Tucson Police Department is resurrecting a proposal that wasdropped last year. Officials estimate the fee could raise up to $1million a year and would help recover the cost of responding toalarms.
Police say they don’t know how many alarm owners Tucson hasbecause there is no registration requirement now. Based onregistration in Mesa, which has a similar program, they estimate asmany as 50,000 property owners could register.
The city already has false-alarm fines that start at $165 and goup to $2,465 for the worst repeat violators. but the new permittingsystem would set up a two-tiered fine system for false alarms,creating an incentive for users to register.
Registered users would not pay any penalty for a first falsealarm, which is defined as one where there’s no evidence of anemergency or criminal act.
A second false alarm would cost $100, although it could bewaived if the owner agreed to go to a free class run by TPD, muchlike a short version of driver’s school, on how to use alarmsproperly.
Unregistered alarm users, however, go straight to either the$100 fine or the class for a first alarm. The second alarm wouldrun between $200 to $300.
Law enforcement can opt not to respond if an alarm user has atleast seven false alarms in a year.
Although registration would be voluntary, the proposal alsorequires alarm companies to give police the client name, addressand phone number where alarms are installed, which alarm companiesobject to as a privacy violation.
Assistant Police Chief John Leavitt called the privacy concernsa “red herring,” saying police would naturally need an address andphone number to respond to an alarm, as well as a name of theperson responsible for the premises.
Leavitt said it’s only fair that people with alarms should haveto pay what he characterizes as a surcharge for additionalservice.
He said he believes the alarm-owning public understands it takespolice resources to respond to alarms, which is an extra servicenon-alarm owners now help pay for but don’t benefit from.
A typical call for a burglary not in progress might take hoursto get an officer response, he said. but with an alarm, the waittime could be 10 to 15 minutes.
“If you have an alarm, you get better service. You’re going tothe front of the line, and that’s part of the cost-recoveryissue.”
The department received nearly 18,400 alarm calls in the fiscalyear ending June 2011, and responded to about 10,150 of them. Thecity’s independent audit and performance commission pinpointed thedirect cost of response at $1.1 million. Leavitt said the citylevies false-alarm fines only about 500 times annually, with netpenalties last year of about $55,000, since some of the fines go tothe state and some are absorbed into the cost of prosecution.
Leavitt said the proposal allows people who owe fines to justpay a bill, instead of going to court, the way it works now.
The alarm fee wouldn’t be unique to Tucson. Mesa charges apermit fee, with an annual renewal of $10 per alarm. Phoenixrequires a $17 annual alarm permit and charges $96 for each alarmthat police respond to if you don’t have the necessary permit.Avondale requires any alarm system to be registered with its policedepartment within 30 days of installation.
Three local alarm companies have argued the new ordinance ispoorly drafted.
They don’t like a requirement for the alarm user to meet thepolice on site within 60 minutes of an alarm or risk having thealarm be logged as false, saying that could put property owners indanger by having them respond to what could be an active scene.
They’ve suggested charging the alarm companies for false alarmsinstead of the property owners.
Robert Medler, a spokesman for the Tucson Metropolitan Chamberof Commerce, likewise expressed concerns.
“Sure, in the grand scheme of things, it’s only $20, but it’sthe message it’s sending. How many more of these nickel-and-dimefees is the city going to keep adding on?”
He said he hopes it doesn’t deter people from getting alarms,and he’d rather the city focus on repeat alarm offenders.
Leavitt said the argument that property owners will be assesseda false alarm just because the burglar isn’t caught in the act is”specious.”
“In most of the alarms we respond to, everybody agrees whatcaused it. There’s a cleaning crew inside. There’s a cat hangingfrom the motion detector. The son came home from collegeunexpectedly and set it off. The homeowner forgot to call the alarmcompany.
“These are not whodunits or Nancy Drew mysteries. If there’s aburglary, there are telltale signs,” he said.
Besides, he said, there will be an appeal process for propertyowners who don’t agree that they’ve had a false alarm.
He said police don’t want to charge the alarm companies becausethe companies would just hire a lawyer and the money would nevermaterialize.
Assistant City Manager Kelly Gottschalk said the 2012 budget waspassed in anticipation of the alarm fee’s $1 million, which theCity Council voted to put on hold in July.
“If they decide not to pass it, that would be $1 million we hadcounted on,” she said. but since it’s a once-a-year fee, as long asit’s collected somewhere in the fiscal year that ends in June, thebudget is covered.
City Councilwoman Regina Romero said she’s still weighing theordinance. She said she finds it compelling that other Arizonacities have similar fees, and that it’s geared to recover costs nowpaid by all taxpayers. Councilwoman Karin Uhlich wants to be sureit doesn’t put locally owned businesses at a disadvantage ordissuade people from installing alarms.The council is scheduled tohear the matter in a few weeks.
“If you have an alarm, you get better service. You’re going tothe front of the line, and that’s part of the cost-recoveryissue.”
John Leavitt, assistant police chief
Contact reporter Rhonda Bodfield at 573-4243.
