Laserfiche WebLink
3. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: An Ordinance Concerning Alarm Systems: Renumbering and <br /> Amending Section 4.933 and Adding it to Section 3.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; <br /> Amending and Renumbering Sections 4.935, 4.936, and 4.937 of the Eugene Code, 1971 to <br /> 3.105, 3.110, and 3.115; Amending Sections 3.990 and 4.990 of that Code; Repealing <br /> Section 4.934 of that Code; and Adding a New Section 3.100 to the Eugene Code, 1971 <br /> <br />City Manager Jim Johnson reminded the council that it had a work session on the issue. He invited <br />questions. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson noted that she had referred information to staff regarding alarms that were <br />triggered by someone not authorized to be on the premises who then leaves without leaving <br />evidence. She requested staff feedback on how a citizen would not fall under the penalty phase <br />when an alarm was not really false. Senior Management Analyst Terry Smith of the Eugene Police <br />Department said that it was a common situation. Someone attempts an illegal entry but leaves no <br />evidence. The officer responding would note that information. Mr. Smith explained that the alarm <br />then became an indeterminate type of alarm, and the system administrator would collect that <br />information and review it and attempt to determine what happened. For example, a tape of the <br />audio would be requested, or the alarm system owner would be asked which intrusion detector that <br />triggered the alarm. Mr. Smith said that, ideally, when the officer arrived and found an alarm had <br />no apparent cause, the alarm provider would have provided the location in the building where the <br />alarm was triggered and the officer would check that. In a case where there was no obvious <br />indication that a false alarm was triggered, no penalty would be levied. In the case of a dispute, the <br />ordinance provided for an appeal process. Councilor Nathanson thanked Mr. Smith for the <br />explanation. <br /> <br />Councilor Rayor supported the ordinance but expressed concern that alarm company owners were <br />unaware of the ordinance. He advocated for large display advertising in the newspaper when the <br />council took action that affected a large group of people. Lt. Carolyn McDermed of the Eugene <br />Police Department reported on the public outreach that occurred, which included a meeting limited <br />to chronic alarm users and alarm companies, and that was expanded to a larger invitation list. <br />There was limited response to the meetings, but those who attended had good input and good <br />ideas, many of which were incorporated into the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Ted Parker, 27470 Clear Lake Road, represented Sonitrol. He said that his company had been in <br />business for many years and enjoyed good response from the Eugene Police Department. He <br />believed that the implementation of the false alarm ordinance would only improve the response <br />time by eliminating the need to respond to false alarms. He thought the ordinance would improve <br />fire and police response times throughout the community. He offered his company's assistance to <br />the Police Department and community on any education programs the City provided. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />