HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - PH/Ord. on AlarmsEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Alarm Systems; Amending Sections 3.005,
3.105, 3.110, 3.115 and 3.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971;
and Repealing Section 3.100 of that Code
Meeting Date: July 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 4
Department: Eugene Police Staff Contact: LindaPhelps
www. cl. euget~e, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-6308
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This public hearing is being held regarding amendments to Eugene Code Sections 3.005, 3.105, 3.110,
3.115 and 3.990. The proposed amendments eliminate the registration and permits requirements for
fire and burglary alarms and remove all fines and regulations regarding false burglary alarms.
BACKGROUND
Council Action History
On May 13, 1996, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20043, establishing notice requirements and
requiring that false alarm fees be levied against property owners who have repeated false alarms. Due to
the problems associated with collection of fees from property owners (alarm operators are often tenants)
and the elimination of the staff position through budget reductions, Ordinance No. 20043 was never
fully utilized.
On September 3, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20233, requiring alarm system users to
register with the City prior to the installation and/or activation of an alarm system and requiring alarm
system users to pay a permit fee. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 20233, if an alarm system user fails to
register and obtain a permit the user was subject to a fine.
Policy Issues
1. Should the City eliminate the requirement that all alarm system users register with the City and
obtain an alarm system permit?
2. Should the City eliminate the requirement that burglary alarm system users pay a false alarm fee for
repeated false alarms and instead utilize a verified response system?
Council Goals
Removing unnecessary or outdated regulatory authority meets the Council Goal of "Effective,
Accountable Municipal Government."
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124.DOC
Financial and/or Resource Considerations
No reduction of revenue will occur because the registration and permit fee programs have not been
utilized. Attachment B, the one-year report on the implementation of the police department's verified
response protocol, has documented that the equivalent labor hours of five FTEs have been saved by
reducing the police response to false alarm calls.
The fire alarm information gathering function, originally envisioned as coming from this expanded
program, has been successfully assumed by existing fire staff working in Eugene Fire Marshal's Office.
Other Background Information
Ordinance No. 20233 (adopted on September 6, 2001) and Ordinance No. 20043 (adopted on May 1,
1996), respectively, established an alarm permit registration program and incrementally increased fees
for repeated false alarms occurring at the same location. Prior to completing the administrative rule to
establish permit fees and penalties, additional information was received by the police department
regarding the nationwide law enforcement transition to a "verified response" to alarms. The
implementation of a verified response strategy was providing very positive reports of reduced false
alarms with significant savings in personnel costs both from the reduced patrol officer response to
alarms and from the reduction of administrative staff necessary to administer the false alarm programs.
The reports of direct and indirect cost savings when coupled with the police department's urgent need to
address critical understaffing in the patrol division caused the department to stop work on the
administrative rules and the false alarm provisions of the code were not enforced.
In August 2002, prior to implementing the verified response protocol, the dispatch priority for police
response to all intrusion alarms was reduced. On November 15, 2002, following meetings with alarm
service providers and community members, the police chief implemented the verified response protocol
which requires security alarm service providers to confirm that a valid alarm has occurred before calling
the police. Robbery?hold-up, panic?duress alarms, and response to businesses licensed to se//firearms,
have continued to receive an immediate police response and do not require verification. After
consultation with the City Attorney, the regulatory authority from City code was left intact, although
unused until a one-year evaluation could assess the effectiveness of the verified response protocol. With
the completion of the positive review of verified response, the department has now returned to the
council to remove unnecessary regulatory authority for alarms from the City code.
Nationally, 95-98 percent of all alarm calls are false alarms. In Eugene in 2001, Central Lane 9-1-1
received 5,944 alarm calls requiring police response. Of those 5944 calls, 98.5% were false, meaning
that only 88 of those calls resulted in a police report and only 10 of those calls resulted in a burglar
being apprehended at the scene of the crime. The first year of verified response implementation has
resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of dispatched alarms, an increase in the police reports of a
crime incident having taken place and a significant decrease in response time to verified calls.
(Attachment B provides a more thorough analysis of the verified response protocol effectiveness.)
Eugene's experience with false fire alarms has been below national averages for communities of similar
size, code provisions were not primarily adopted to reduce fire department response to fire calls (the
focus of the code provisions had been false burglary alarms). When fire crews determine that a
particular location or occupancy is causing them to respond to repeated false alarms (either due to
construction work, maintenance shortfalls or aberrant behavior), it is immediately reported to the Fire
Marshal's Office. Because the pre-existing civil penalty process had proven to be a slow and
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124.DOC
cumbersome tool for gaining compliance, Ordinance No. 20233 provided the fire department with an
additional option of using municipal fines when appropriate. For this reason, EC 3.110(1) and EC
3.115, as those sections apply to false fire alarms, are an effective tool in maintaining a more timely and
efficient process for obtaining needed system repairs, and mitigating the occurrence of chronic false fire
alarms.
Because Eugene has been granted "exempt" jurisdiction status by the Oregon State Fire Marshal's
Office, the City enjoys the ability to amend provisions of the adopted Uniform Fire Code (UFC), in
order to provide more specific regulatory requirements for the local area. Through a 1998 amendment
to the UFC, all fire alarm system service contractors are required to provide all service reports to the
Fire Marshal's Office on an ongoing basis. The Fire Marshal's Fire Protection and Detection System
Program, tracks all required service dates and the repair status of 2,550 total systems in Eugene, of
which 541 are fire alarm systems. In addition, all pertinent information detailing new fire alarm systems
in the city is thoroughly documented by the Fire Marshal's Office through the normal Fire andLife
Safety plan review process.
Timing
There are no timing issues.
OPTIONS
The council has several options:
1. Approve the changes to amend the alarm system ordinance, eliminating registration for fire and
burglary alarms and eliminating fees for false burglary alarms;
2. Decline to approve the changes and direct the city manager to implement the existing alarm
ordinance; or
3. Create a substitute provision for regulation of alarm systems.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends proceeding with the scheduled July 26, 2004, action on this item with approval of the
proposed amendments to the Eugene Code and the repeal of Section 3.100 of that code.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is required as this is a public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A. False Alarm Ordinance
B. April 8, 2004, Memorandum to City Manager
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Linda Phelps (Police) or Matt Shuler (Fire)
Telephone: 541-682-6308 or 541-682-7111
Staff E-Mail: linda.m.phelps~ci.eugene.or.us or, matt.p.shuler~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124.DOC
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING ALARM SYSTEMS; AMENDING
SECTIONS 3.005, 3,105, 3.110, 3.115 AND 3.990 OF THE EUGENE
CODE, 1971; AND REPEALING SECTION 3.100 OF THAT CODE.
The City of Eugene does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The "Licensed Businesses" section of Section 3.005 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, is amended as follows:
3.005 For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall
mean:
General
City manager. City manager or designee.
License. Includes licenses, certifications, or permits.
Licensee. Includes all persons possessing licenses, certifications or
permits.
Principal. Includes all owners, shareholders, partners, directors, officers
and managers of a business.
Material Information. Any information requested as part of the application
process either for a new license, permit or certification, or a renewal of an
existing license, permit or certification.
Special event. An activity, use, or event of a type normally regulated,
permitted or licensed under provisions of this code, except that the activity,
use, or event occurs only on a scheduled date(s) for a period of time not to
exceed 14 calendar days.
Licensed Businesses
Alarm Systems. For purposes of sections [3A~)O] 3.105 to 3.115, the
following words and phrases mean:
,~,,,,,~ ~,~,,,,~ ,~,~,,,~ ,,,~v,,,~ ~, ,,,~,,,,,~ ~,,y ~,~,,,, ~y~,,, ~,
Alarm central station. The business of any individual, partnership,
corporation or other entity of monitoring the status of alarm systems not
at the alarm central station location and reporting any alarm activations
or changes in status to any police, fire, public safety or other
governmental agency.
....... Ms~r
~, u ,~, ~, ,,~
Audible alarm system. Any fire alarm system that upon activation,
causes to be activated, in the immediate vicinity, any siren, bell, buzzer
or other type of sound-emitting device that is designed for or expected
to [ward off intruders and/or] notify persons in the vicinity of an
activation of the alarm system.
Automatic dialing device. A device which is interconnected to a
telephone line and is programmed to select a predetermined telephone
number and transmit by voice message or code signal an emergency
message indicating a need for emergency response. Such a device is
an alarm system.
Ordinance - 2
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
Emergency response services. Police, fire and/or emergency
medical services.
False alarm. A report received by the city from any source that results
in a dispatch of emergency response services personnel to the
premises on which a[~] fire alarm system is located, (when a situation
requiring a response does not in fact exist), but does not include an
alarm signal caused by violent conditions of nature or other
extraordinary circumstances not reasonably subject to control by the
property owner, alarm business operator or alarm user. Use of a[~] fire
alarm system for a purpose other than its specific intended use
constitutes a false alarm. A false alarm does not necessarily require a
response by the city to the premises.
Fire a[A]larm business. The business of any individual, partnership,
corporation or other entity selling, leasing, maintaining, servicing,
repairing, altering, replacing, moving or installing any fire alarm system
or causing to be sold, leased, maintained, serviced, repaired, altered,
replaced, moved or installed any alarm system in or on any building,
structure or facility.
Fire alarm system. A combination of approved compatible devices
with the necessary electrical interconnection and energy to produce an
alarm signal in the event of fire or system activation. Fire alarm
system, for purposes of this chapter, includes, but is not limited to
audible alarm systems, local alarm systems, silent alarm systems
and those devices designed to transmit a signal or a message to a
central alarm receiving station. An alarm system, the existence of
which is e. empt from disclosure under the public records law, is
not included within this definition and is not subject to the
provisions of sections 3.105 to 3.115 of this code.
Fire a[A]larm user. Any person, firm, partnership, association,
corporation, company or organization of any kind that owns, leases,
rents, controls or occupies any building, structure or facility wherein a[~]
fire alarm system is maintained on premises within the city.
Interconnect. To connect a[~] fire alarm system including an
automatic dialing device to a telephone line, either directly or through a
mechanical device that utilizes a telephone, for the purpose of using the
telephone line to transmit a message upon the activation of the alarm
system.
Local alarm system. Any fire alarm system that operates solely as an
audible alarm system without the additional features of a silent alarm
system.
Ordinance - 3
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
9-1-1 Central Lane Communications Center. The multi-jurisdictional
facility used to receive emergency and general information from the
public to be dispatched to the respective police and fire departments
utilizing the center.
Premises. Any building, structure, facility, property or land within the
city.
Primary trunk line. A telephone line serving the 9-1-1 Central Lane
Communications Center that is designated to receive emergency calls.
Silent alarm system. Any fire alarm system that, upon activation,
causes to be transmitted to a remote location, any signal or message
indicating [o-'
,....,.,.,..,~'-'"o*~ ......... ,, .., ,.,, ,¢ ...,*h'~n,...,, activation of the fire alarm system that signals or
conveys a message that is not normally audible to persons in the
vicinity.
Sound emission cutoff feature. A feature of a[~] fire alarm system
which will cause an audible alarm to stop emitting sound.
Section 2. Section 3.100 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed.
Ordinance - 4
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
,,H .........................
· · ~........~.~. .~..~ .~ ~] ~..] .~.~ ~.~.....~ ....~ .........
........... i~o~ i .... ,i~~° 02J ~f*hi° .~ Vh ...... ~ oho.
Ordinance - 5
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
Section 3. Sections 3.105, 3.110, 3.115 and 3.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971,
are amended as follows:
3.105 Fire Alarm Systems - Prohibitions.
(1) Information required. Each fire alarm business selling, leasing or
furnishing to any fire alarm user an alarm system that is installed on
premises located within the city shall furnish the fire alarm user with
instructions that provide sufficient information to enable the fire alarm
user to operate the alarm system at any time, together with city
guidelines and regulations related to fire alarm systems.
(2) Automatic dialinq device. It is unlawful for any person to:
(a) Fail to disconnect or reprogram an automatic dialing device within
12 hours of receipt of written notice from the city that it is
programmed to select a primary trunk line in violation of section
4.904 of this code.
(b) Program an automatic dialing device to select any telephone line
assigned to the city, or fail to disconnect or reprogram such
automatic dialing device within 12 hours of receipt of written notice
from the city that it is so programmed.
The notice required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall
be personally delivered to the fire alarm user, or other person in charge
of the premises.
Ordinance - 6
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agcndas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
3.110 Fire Alarm Systems - False Alarms. [(4)] Upon the occurrence of two or
more false fire alarms at the same premises within a 12 month period, the
[,pem:fit-heh;lef] fire alarm user shall be required to pay the false fire alarm
fee established by the city manager for the second and subsequent false
alarm at the premises. Notification of each false fire alarm, and/or the notice
of the amount of the false alarm fee, shall be sent to the [pom~] fire
alarm user at the address where the fire alarm system is maintained
[r,~,,~,-,,~,~ ~,, *k ..... ~* ~,, *k ....... ] and shall contain[~] the information
required in rules promulgated by the city manager hereunder. The notice
shall advise the [~] fire alarm user of the right to appeal the false
alarm fee in the manner set forth in section 2.021 of this code.[~
J
addition to, or in lieu of the fire false alarm fee or any other penalty, upon the
occurrence of the second and subsequent false fire alarm at the premises
within a 12 month period, following the procedures of section 2.018 of this
code, the city may impose an administrative civil penalty upon the [~
~] fire alarm user. The fire alarm systems fee schedule may also
establish a credit that may be applied to offset all or a portion of a false fire
alarm fee for attendance by the [~] fire alarm user at city
approved alarm system educational programs.
,~,,~u~,,,,,~ ~,~,,]~ ~,,~ ,~~ ~ v~,,,,~u~,,,,,~,~,, ~] u,~ ~,~].
,~,,~u~,,,,,~ ~,~,,]~ ~,,~ ~],,,~,,~ ~] u,~ ~,,,,,~ ,,~,~, ~, ~
Ordinance - 7
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
3.115 Fire Alarm Systems - Cessation of Transmission.
(1) A[F)] fire alarm user not utilizing an alarm central station shall post a
notice containing the current name(s) and telephone numbers of the
person(s) to be notified, capable of silencing the alarm and securing the
premises whenever the fire alarm system is activated. The notice shall
be posted in a conspicuous location that is visible from the exterior of
the building. A[F)] fire alarm user utilizing an alarm central station shall
provide the alarm central station with the current names and telephone
numbers of all persons capable of silencing the alarm and securing the
premises who are to be notified when the fire alarm system is
activated.
(2) Upon request of the city, an alarm user or other designated person shall
respond to the premises where the fire alarm system is located within
30 minutes after being notified, and shall silence the alarm and secure
the premises.
(3) [,~,r-"-',,--'-.~l~ ,..,,,,,...,'"m ..... ,.,, ,q,',~,,,,., ~;~+~l,,~j, '"~"" J Emergency response personnel may
silence or cause an alarm system to be silenced if:
(a) A[F)] fire alarm user or designated person does not arrive within
30 minutes after being requested to do so by the city; or
(b) The alarm system has transmitted a signal for more than ten
minutes after the arrival of [a ,-,,,1~,.,~ ,-,m ..... ~r,~ ~,-,r,+,~rl and no
~,,~ ~,,,~, ~, ,,,~ ,,~,,~,j
fire alarm user or designated person is available to respond. The
city shall be exempt from and shall assume no liability or
responsibility related to the silencing of any alarm system and any
subsequent incidents where the alarm does not function due to
exercising the provisions of this section. It shall be the
responsibility of the fire alarm user to repair, reset, or otherwise
enable any fire alarm system so silenced.
3.990 Penalties - Specific.
(1) Violation of section 3.500 is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 for
each day that the violation exists.
(2) Violation of sections 3.510 to 3.515 is punishable by:
(a) A fine not to exceed $200 for the first violation;
(b) A fine not to exceed $350 for the second violation occurring within
a period of 24 months from the date of the first violation;
(c) A fine not to exceed $500 each for a third or subsequent violation
occurring within a period of 24 months from the date of the first
violation.
(3) Violation of section 3.812 is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 or
confinement in jail not to exceed 100 days, or both fine and
imprisonment.
(4) Violation of sections [34gg] 3.105 to 3.115 is punishable as follows:
[~o~ '~ ! nn/~ =i,-,,~ ,-,~ ,-,,-,+ i,~oo ,-,o,-, ¢~n ....... ""°'" $500;]
([b]a)3.105(1) - Fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500;
Ordinance - 8
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
([6]b)3.105(2)(a) - $500 fine or 30 days in jail, or both;
(c) 3.105(2)(b) - Fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500;
[m '~ !n~/~ r~,.,~ ,-,~ ,.,-,~ ~,~oo ~o,. $!00 ....... ~°'* $!000;]
([eJ]d)3.115 - Fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500.
([h]e)Violation of any provisions of section [;?,~3] 3.105 to 3.115 not
specifically referenced in subparagraphs (a) through (g) above are
subject to the penalties provided in administrative rules or orders
of the city manager, including imposition of an administrative civil
penalty pursuant to section 2.018 of this code as referenced in
section 3.110(1).
Section 4. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added,
amended or repealed herein.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
__ day of ,2004. __ day of ., 2004.
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 9
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407124-attA.DOC (6/09/04)
ATTACHMENT B
Eugene Police Department
Operations Support
777 Pearl St, Room 107
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-6898
(541) 682-8395 FAX
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 8, 2004
To: Dennis Taylor, Eugene City Manager
Police Commission
From: Steve Swenson, Captain Operations Support
Subject: 12-MONTH REVIEW OF VERIFIED RESPONSE ALARM POLICY
The purpose of this memo is to provide a one-year review of the effectiveness of the
department's verified response procedures specific to intrusion alarms.
The City of Eugene's verified response protocol, which was implemented on November
15, 2002, requires security alarm service providers to provide an eyewitness
confirmation that a valid intrusion alarm has occurred before calling the police. The
alarm service provider may use independent verification or dispatch private security to
verify an alarm is actually due to a criminal act. Once the alarm is determined to be a
valid alarm, police are called. The first year of implementation has resulted in a
dramatic decrease in the number of dispatched alarms, illustrating why verified
response has become a proven law enforcement strategy to more effectively utilize
existing police resources by greatly reducing police response to false intrusion alarms.
A review of the two years before verified response compared with the first full year in
which the new protocol was required demonstrates both a continual reduction in police
response to false alarms and a decrease in the response time to valid alarms. Various
concerns were considered during this analysis, including a concern raised by the alarm
industry that burglary calls might increase due to the new requirements. This appears
not to have occurred.
For purposes of this memo the three 12-month time periods being reviewed are as
follows: The first period is November 15, 2000-November 14, 2001; the second is
November 15, 2001-November 14, 2002; and the third is November 15, 2002-
November 14, 2003. The third period covers the first complete year in which verified
response was required.
Page 1 of 1
City of Eugene - Three-year comparison of alarm verification vs. no verification
Dispatch decrease. A significant reduction in
3-Year Comparison of dispatched alarm calls has been achieved in the
Alarm Dispatches first year of the verified response protocol. The
graph below demonstrates the dramatic decline in
6000 police response to intrusion alarms. It is
5000 important to note that none of the numbers
referenced in this report include robbery, panic,
4000 hold-up, or duress alarm activations, as police
3000 continue to respond to these without requiring
verified response.
2000
1coo During the first period, police responded to 5,464
0 intrusion alarms, and the second period resulted
11/15/00- 11/15/01- 11/15/02- in 5,287 alarm responses. In contrast, in the first
11/14/01 11/14/02 11/14/03 (VR) complete year requiring verified response, police
responded to only 396 intrusion alarms.
Alarms associated with a crime incident. The generation of a police report indicates that
there is some evidence a crime has taken place,
although in many cases the crime is unrelated to the 3-Year Comparison of Alarms
alarm activation (e.g. narcotics possession or driving Resulting in a Police Report
3.5
under the influence). During the period ending in [= 3
2001, only 1.5% of the 5,464 alarm responses (82)
resulted in a police report being taken; of the 5,287 ~, 2.5
intrusion alarms that police responded to during the { 4.5
period ending in 2002, 1.7% (88) generated a report.
1
With the implementation of verified response, this {' o.5
rate doubled: police reports were taken in 3% (11) of ~. o
the 396 alarms that police responded to during the
period ending in 2003. ~v~4/o~ 11/14/o2 11/14/03(VR)
Response times. A review of response times over the three years being considered illustrates
the effect of the reduction in priority of intrusion alarms. During the 12-month period ending in
November 2001, prior to reducing the police response
3-Year Comparison of priority to all intrusion alarms, the average response time
Alarm Response Times from when the intrusion alarm call was dispatched to when
officers arrived on scene was 4.88 minutes. In mid-2002,
those same calls were assigned a reduced dispatch
priority*, thereby increasing the average response time by a
police officer to 4.96 minutes in the period ending in
November 2002. In the first year of the verified response
protocol, intrusion alarm calls received an appropriate
priority recognizing that the alarm had already been verified
and there was a likelihood that criminal activity had
occurred. This is evidenced in the reduction of the average
11/15/oo- 11/15/Ol- 11/15/o2-police response time to a verified intrusion alarm to 3.45
11/14/01 11/14/02 11/14/03 (VR)
minutes.
Page 2 of 2
Valid alarms and arrests. There is another
indicator that verified response has improved 3-Year Comparison of
efficient use of limited law enforcement Alarm Activations in Burglaries
resources: The percentage of overall 1,600
burglaries in which police reports indicate
~ 1,400
intrusion alarm activation remains consistent ·
over the past three years**. During the ~ 1,200 ~
period ending in 2001, 1,252 burglary reports ~- 1,000
were taken in the city of Eugene. Fifty-six ~ 800
(4.5%) of these reports indicate that an alarm ~
was activated; 10 of these cases resulted in ~ 600
arrests. In the period ending in 2002, ~ 400
immediately prior to implementing verified m: 200
response protocols, 1,239 burglary reports
were taken. Of these, 62 (5%) indicated an 0 11/15/00- 11/15/01- 11/15/02-
alarm had activated, with 9 cases ending in 11/14/01 11/14/02 11/14/03(VR)
arrest. During the first year of the verified
response protocol, 1,379 burglary reports were taken in Eugene; 68 (4.9%) of the reports
indicated an alarm had activated, and 9 of these cases resulted in arrests.
Based upon the data presented above, the first year of the verified response program has been
very successful. Staff have identified areas of concern which will be the future focus for service
improvement:
· Reduce calls for service for non-verified intrusion alarms by reviewing all calls for service
involving intrusion alarms. The goal of this effort will be to reduce the significant time
burden these calls place on 9-1-1 calltakers, thus freeing the calltakers to devote more
time to valid calls for service in the community.
· Continue to work with alarm companies as new technology is introduced within the
industry to identify potential additional options to the verification requirement.
* In August 2002, prior to implementing the verified response protocol, the dispatch priority for police response to all intzusion
alarms was reduced. This change was made to more effectively utilize limited police staffing, given the historical high
percentage of false alarms, and was in accordance with alarm response recommendations of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police Model States Report specific to intxusion alarm calls. This reduction in priority excluded robbery/hold-up and
panic/duress alarms, which remained a high priority.
** The number of burglaxies was slightly higher in 2003 than in 2002 or 2001, consistent with an increase in several other forms
of property crime. However, both the percentage of burglaxies in which alarms axe known to have been activated and the number
of arrests in such activated-alarm burglaxies remained similax to previous years.
cc: Robert M. Lehner, Chief of Police
Page 3 of 3