Form revised April 10, 2010
2011-2012 BUDGET LEGISLATION FISCAL NOTE
|
Department: |
Contact Person/Phone: |
CBO Analyst/Phone: |
|
Seattle Police |
Mike Quinn, 615-1230 |
Michael Katz, 684-5211 |
|
Legislation Title: AN ORDINANCE relating to alarm systems; modifying penalty provisions; and amending Section 6.10.100 of the Seattle Municipal Code. |
Background: False Alarm Trends: The burden of responding to false alarms has been a problem of longstanding in the city of Seattle. Considerable progress has been made since the last major revision of the alarms ordinance in 2003 (Ordinance 121332) As shown in the graphic, false alarms dropped from more than 2,000 per month in 2002 to just 892 per month in 2009. At the same time, the false alarm rate remains distressingly high at upwards of 97% for both property and panic alarms.
The existing false alarm fee for both property and panic alarms was set at $90 per occurrence in Ordinance 121932 in 2005. This fee does not cover the cost of alarm response nor does it provide much incentive for the alarm monitoring company or its subscribers to take actions that could significantly reduce the likelihood of future false alarms, particularly for panic alarms.
As shown in the table, false panic alarms have moved counter to the overall trend in false alarms, moving up since 2005 with a surge to 70 per month in 2009.
|
Monthly Average False Alarms |
|||
|
Year |
Property |
Panic |
Total |
|
2002 |
N/A |
N/A |
2,006 |
|
2003 |
N/A |
N/A |
1,787 |
|
2004 |
1,182 |
30 |
1,212 |
|
2005 |
1,050 |
32 |
1,082 |
|
2006 |
1,088 |
43 |
1,131 |
|
2007 |
1,049 |
49 |
1,098 |
|
2008 |
985 |
39 |
1,024 |
|
2009 |
822 |
70 |
892 |
With automatic property alarms, the Police Department has the option of placing premises that experience six or more false alarms within a one-year period on a No Response List. This option does not exist for the so-called panic alarms, given that these are human-activated alarms.
The doubling of the basic alarm fee to $230 for panic alarms will address this problem by encouraging panic alarm users to select enhanced alarm technology, thereby resulting in reduced false alarms in the future.
The practice of charging more for false panic alarms is common in our area. Auburn, Issaquah, Lakewood and Pierce County all set their rates for false panic alarms at twice the fee set for property alarms.
False Alarm Costs and Revenues: In 2009, City costs for responding to alarm calls and the associated billing process for false alarms exceeded $1,264,500; at the same time, as of mid-year 2010, Revenue and Consumer Affairs reported 2009 collections for false alarm fees at $760,375 and approximately $263,800 for alarm device registrations. This represents a 2009 shortfall, in costs less revenues, of approximately $240,300 under the false alarm fees then current (same as 2010).
False alarm fees are now set at $90 for every alarm call dispatched when police arrive at the premise; and $30 for every dispatch when the call is cancelled prior to officer arrival at the premise (a “victor” call).
In 2010, SPD anticipates that false alarm totals will be approximately what they were in 2009 – 10,700 false alarm dispatches, including 9,700 dispatches with units arriving (8,300 property alarms and 1,400 panic alarms) and 1,000 victor calls. Assuming a false alarm collection rate of approximately 83.5%,[i] under the existing fee structure collections would be approximately $1,024,000. Estimated program costs for 2010 are expected to be approximately $1,298,000. The cost recovery shortfall in 2010 (cost less revenue) is anticipated to be approximately $274,000.
Estimated revenue change and totals for 2011 and 2012 under the proposed new false alarm fees are contained in the tables below. Text accompanying the tables includes estimated program costs for 2011 and 2012.
Bottom line: the numbers show that estimated costs and revenues are virtually identical in each year under the proposed new false alarm fees. This is a cost recovery proposal.
· Please check one of the following:
____ This legislation does not have any financial implications. (Stop here and delete the remainder of this document prior to saving and printing.)
__X__ This legislation has financial implications. Please complete all relevant sections that follow.
Summary of Changes to Revenue Generated Specifically From This Legislation:
The false alarm program generates variable revenue from two sources: a $10 annual fee from each registered alarm device (not proposed for change) and a fee charged for each false alarm occurrence, as described in the Background section above. Only changes to the false alarm fees are proposed. The first of the following two tables estimates the increase in revenues anticipated under the proposed ordinance; the second table estimates total program revenues, from both device registrations and false alarm fees, anticipated under the proposed ordinance.
|
|
Revenue Source |
2011 Proposed |
2012 Proposed |
|
|
False Alarms Fees |
Increase of $147,200 |
Increase of $94,000 |
|
Total Fees and Charges Resulting From Passage of This Ordinance |
|
Increase of $147,200 |
Increase of $94,000 |
Notes: The alarm monitoring company receiving a false property alarm citation would be asked to pay $25 more per occurrence ($115 instead of $90). The alarm monitoring company receiving a false panic alarm citation would be asked to pay $140 more per occurrence ($230 instead of $90). These increased charges typically are passed on to the alarm system subscriber, either the business, agency, or residential customer. Please see background for additional information, including information on last fee change and reference to other jurisdictions in the region.
Anticipated Total Revenue from Entire Program, Including Changes Resulting From This Legislation:
|
Fund Name and Number |
Revenue Source |
Total 2011 Revenue |
Total 2011 and 2012 Anticipated Revenue from Entire Program |
|
General Subfund (00100) |
False Alarms Fees & Alarm Registrations |
$1,181,200 |
$2,319,200 |
|
TOTAL |
|
$1,181,200 |
$2,319,200 |
What is the financial cost of not implementing this legislation? Failure to make the proposed changes will leave the City more than $145,700 short of meeting the cost of City response to false alarms in 2011 and approximately $99,700 short in 2012. Of equal importance, failure to make these changes will forego a significant incentive for alarm monitoring companies and subscribers to address the problem of false alarms.
Assuming adoption of the proposed fee increases, which are expected to decrease false alarms approximately 19% over the two-year period, program cost for alarm response is estimated at $1,179,700 in 2011 and $1,143,700 in 2012.
Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? The Revenue and Consumer Affairs (RCA) Division of the Department of Finance and Administrative Services will be affected by this legislation. RCA will need to change the fee structure for billing false alarms – a minor change in procedure well within the capability of that agency. There also will likely be an increase in inquiries regarding the change in fees. SPD will work proactively to get the word out to the alarm companies and their subscribers to mitigate any impact. The Director of RCA, Denise Movius, has been notified of our intent to change false alarm fees. RCA staff member Terry Boyle has also been notified.
What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives?
There are no practical alternatives at this time. Choosing not to respond to panic alarms – a No Response option – where there might be a crime underway poses an unacceptable level of risk that the Department is unwilling to incur and the public would not accept. Increasing fees will allow the Department to recover the cost of responding while providing an incentive for alarm monitoring companies and subscribers to seek alternatives to unnecessary police dispatch.
Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements? No.
Other Issues: None.