CC Minutes - 07/23/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

David Lynch, 279 East 11th Avenue, spoke as an alarm user. He thought the issues to be addressed by the ordinance could be addressed by allowing private security firms to respond to alarms instead of the police. The response in other cities such as Houston was demonstrated to be faster. People would pay their security company instead of the permit fee. He did not think false alarms would be reduced as a result of the ordinance. Mr. Lynch questioned how the ordinance would put more police on the street given how short-handed the police were now. He said that any ordinance should include the option for a private response. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Mayor Torrey called for councilor questions and comments. Responding to a comment from Councilor Kelly regarding Councilor Rayor's previously expressed concern about the breadth of the definition of a false alarm, Mr. Smith noted again that the definition had not changed. The City was amending an ordinance that already existed. He anticipated it would be fairly easy to detect malicious false alarm calls as they would be received from someone who was not an alarm service provider. Speaking to Mr. Rayor's concern about public input, Mr. Smith reiterated that the City was amending an existing ordinance that already included a fee schedule that had not been applied; however, the community was aware of the ordinance and many individuals responded by changing the way they use alarms. Councilor Kelly said that the fees were intended to cover the cost of the program, but recollected a suggestion at the work session that the fee be sufficient to establish reserve for the computer- assisted dispatch (CAD) improvements. Mr. Smith noted the staff recommendation that the fees be sufficient to pay for the program operations, to begin building a reserve fund for the CAD software upgrade, and to cover the costs of officers responding to false alarms. He noted a complication in estimating revenues created by disagreement about the number of alarm systems in the community today, and said that staff proposed to contact all alarm service providers and request a list of customers to determine who was subject to the fee to make a more accurate projection of revenues. Councilor Kelly asked about Mr. Lynch's proposal to allow security staff to respond to alarms. Mr. Smith said that private security companies do currently respond to alarms. He cited School District 4J as an example. The district has those alarms verified and an unarmed security guard responds to each to determine if its false before a call goes to 9-1-1. The change meant that the district no longer had the level of false alarms it previously had. Councilor Kelly did not object to private security responses, but did object to armed private security responses. Councilor Rayor determined from Mr. Parker, representing Sonitol, that customers frequently request that the building that was the site of an alarm be checked first by Sonitrol rather than by the police. Mr. Parker said that it was not a standard, but it was typical in cases where a company had multiple false alarms. Councilor Fart left the meeting. Councilor Rayor asked how the ordinance addressed situations where a faulty window or door caused the problem. City Manager Johnson said that one purpose of the ordinance was to MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 8 Regular Meeting