Repeat false alarms drop

The alarm ordinance that took effect in Spokane Valley in January appears to be a rousing success, cutting down on the number of repeat false alarms and ensuring police know who to call if an alarm does go off.

The Spokane Valley City Council passed an ordinance in 2009 requiring alarm users to register for a fee. The rules don’t apply to fire alarms, personal safety alarms or car alarms.

Under the old rules, a business or homeowner was allowed one false alarm and then charged an ever-increasing fine for additional false alarms. The new rules set up a fee of $85 for homes and $165 for businesses and the first false alarm is no longer free. People are not charged if the alarm is canceled before an officer arrives.

Each false alarm would take two officers between 30 and 45 minutes to respond, check out the building and fill out paperwork. Now the paperwork is done by Public Safety Corp., which was hired to run the city’s registration efforts through its Cry Wolf program. “That’s one less piece of paper they have to fill out,” said Lt. Matt Lyons of the Spokane Valley Police Department.

With the new ordinance in place, police have seen the number of repeat false alarms drop. From January to September 2009 there were 100 second false alarms and 34 third alarms. Those numbers dropped to 75 and 16, respectively, for that same period in 2010. “I think that’s probably the best indication that this is working,” Lyons said.

The numbers are even more significant because Lyons believes that the city now has more homes and businesses with alarms, though he has no firm numbers to back that up. “We don’t have good stats back to ’09,” he said. But the city did see 802 new alarms registered in the third quarter of 2010, which would seem to indicate that they are newly installed systems, not people just getting around to registering their systems.

Though the fees for false alarms are much less than they used to be Lyons believes more money is actually coming in because there was no way to enforce collection under the old system. “People, frankly, just didn’t pay it,” he said.

But the point of the fees is not to bring in money for the city’s general fund and he doesn’t even refer to the fees as fines, Lyons said. “We call it a cost recovery fee, because that’s what it is. This is not about making money. This is about more efficient use of our resources.”

There was some negative feedback at first about the registration requirement and the small annual fee, but that has faded away, Lyons said. “Once you explain why this is in place, they’re on board,” he said.

Spokane Valley dentist Blake McKinley Jr. was one of those who complained last February. He sent an e-mail to city council members complaining that the registration fee of $25 for homes and $35 for businesses was a tax and that he thought business owners should also get one free false alarm as they did under the old rules. He asked the council to review the ordinance and “substantially modify it or eliminate it.”

Nearly a year later McKinley said he has not changed his opinion. “I understand what they’re trying to do,” he said. “It’s just not business friendly. There has got to be other ways to decrease the false alarm incidents.”

His business has not had any false alarms this year, McKinley said. He believes the council should target repeat offenders and leave businesses like his alone. “They created a uniform fee increase for everybody,” he said. “The vast majority of people didn’t have a problem to begin with. You’re penalizing them.”

There are 2,409 alarms registered in Spokane Valley. “Most of the businesses are alarmed,” Lyons said. “The vast majority of them register their systems and that’s it.”

If police become aware of an alarm system that is not registered, the homeowner or business has 120 days to register. Reminder letters are sent every 30 days. If the entire time period goes by with no response, a final letter is sent out saying that their account is suspended and police will not respond to any alarm, Lyons said.

Usually at that point most people complete the registration, he says, but 22 businesses and homes have chosen not to. Police will still respond if criminal activity does occur at a location that has opted out of the program, Lyons said.

There is an appeal process in place if people believe they have been unfairly charged for a false alarm and Lyons said he has reduced the fees when circumstances warrant it. “It seems to go over pretty well,” he said.

In the past when police would respond to alarms, whether they were false or real, the alarm company sometimes would not have current contact information for the business owner or homeowner. Police would have no one to call to say a business had been burglarized. The new registration requirement has virtually eliminated that problem, Lyons said. “It comes right up in the system,” he said. “We know those are accurate. It’s most beneficial when it’s a legitimate alarm.”

Overall, Lyons is pleased with the new program. “Once we get another year down the road, we’ll get better stats to compare,” he said. “This is much better.”