Maker Pro
Maker Pro

City of Seattle Burglar Alarm License

D

Derek Ollom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Does anyone know more about the City of Seattle requiring alarm companies to
get licensed in the City?
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
WHEREAS, the number of monitored fire and property alarms within the city of
Seattle continues to grow and the costs associated with responding to these
alarms has increased accordingly; and

WHEREAS, over ninety-eight percent of all burglar and property alarms
requiring police dispatch are ultimately proven to be false alarms; and

WHEREAS, alarm monitoring companies currently enjoy the benefit of police
response to their customers' alarms without any accountability for the
accuracy or reliability of their alarm systems; and

WHEREAS, the efforts of City employees in tracking and administering fees
for false alarms will be minimized if such fees are collected from alarm
monitoring companies;
I hadn't previously seen this Act, but damn, I'd say the City of Seatle has
a good understanding of the realities of the Alarm Industry. This is a step
in the right direction, which I would hope to see and fully support even on
a National Level.
If you read through it...it brings a better relationship where it belongs,
between Alarm Companies, and Responding Authorities. I like that. What's so
wrong with proving the need for response?

Jack
 
B

Blank

Jan 1, 1970
0
A few things worth noting:

Seattle has another alarm ordinance (with fines for false alarms) which has
resulted in an overall reduction of false alarms over the past couple of
years. It has actually been quite successful.

This ordinance is in addition to, not in place of, the other ordinance.

About the only thing this ordinance really does is fatten the city coffers.
It imposes an annual fee ($40) payable by the monitoring company, not the
alarm user (home owner, business owner) for each alarm system. Of course,
the monitoring company will pass this cost on to the end user.

This ordinance requires the fee for any alarm that is monitored, or has an
audible or visible exterior indication of an alarm even if the system is not
monitored. However, the only way the fee can be paid is through a
monitoring company. Thus, in effect, you can't install a stand alone,
un-monitored alarm with an external enunciator, and remain compliant with
the Seattle ordinance. I called the alarm coordination office of the
Seattle PD and asked (via voice mail - no human being answered) how to
comply with this requirement and never received a response.

There have been a couple of pretty negative articles in the local press
regarding this ordinance. Given that there is another ordinance which has
resulted in reduction of false alarms, the consensus is that this is nothing
but a money grab by a city council that is coming up many millions of
dollars short of what they need for their overly fat budget. They are also
raising parking meter rates to $1.50 an hour from $1.00, and enforcing them
much more stringently (more revenue).

One of these days I will get off my butt and move out of this tax and fee
crazy city. But alas, I am one of the few remaining natives.

Carl
A Seattle resident.
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
It's good to here from a resident. I'm sure there are a few quirts, as with
any ordinance, but as far as lining pockets...for over 20 years Security
Companies have been lining their pockets with RMR, and backing it with the
knowledge of a "Free" response by local responding authorities. I see no
disadvantage for departments who implement a means to balance their budgets
with just such an offset. So long as it stays "Managed", it is a good system
for both parties. Any less money dedicated to a Police Budget, and
re-directed towards Schools is a good thing.
The security industry has never been held accountable for their actions.
Things are going to change, and more than most likely, these changes
overall, will be wrong decisions made by Politicians. We're beginning to see
these idiots coming out in various States, and Cities.
I see Seattle as initiating a system, that while may be new, may require
some modifications in the future, but overall, is the best start I've seen
thus far that is good for both sides.

As far as moving out of Seattle for finding a lower tax structure...let me
know how that works for you. New Hampshire is a nice place to live 4 months
out of the year....

Jack
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert L. Bass said:
What!?! You can't go around posting stuff like that in this forum. :^)

Only kidding, Jack.

I know...I am silly. I must have been thinking...
There may be a constitutional problem with placing the onus of collecting
fees upon a contractor located outside the local jurisdiction. I'm not sure
but this might be prohibited by Quill v. North Dakota. While that case had
to do with collection of sales taxes rather than fines or fees, the
situation is somewhat similar. Out of state companies are forced to act as
the agents of local governments where they have no physical presence. It
would be interesting if one of the big players decided to fight this
ordinance in federal court.

Your probably right. Unfortunately, in some cases, States are not mandated
to follow Federal Guidlines....only incourgaged. Just look at all the ADA
violations across the Nation, and the lack of following a Federally Mandated
Act. What rule do they follow? They make them up as they go....it is only
human nature (American) to challange them when there mis-understood, or
mis-represented, or mis-appropriated, or mis-guided....
That is why you see the kind of trash most of the ASA Taliban post.

That's ok, I see a light at the end of the tiolet paper role.
Actually, NH is a beautiful place all year round. Of course it helps if you
like skiing.

I could live on Lake Winnipesaukee year round, but us New Englanders are
used to beautiful climates....

Jack
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
AlarmReview said:
I recently met with an owner of an alarmco from LA who admitted that if
municipal response was taken away, it would severely crimp his ability to sell
monitored alarms. He admitted that they never gave it a second thought that
what was really being sold wasn't notification of an alarm but police response
to that alarm. Fortunately, he's moving towards alarm response.

That's the reality. At least he has recognized it, most don't. I make it
clear to my customers, without evidence, there will be no dispatch.
That's the point I've heard from police executives. If the alarm companies are
selling a service that the police have to deliver, the police should have the
right to participate in that business relationship by setting their rate for
service and/or standards for the delivery of that service. I know some will
say they should be providing that service as a matter of government
responsibilities, but I've never heard any department with or without response
say they would ever charge if the alarm was real. They are only charging for
the false ones.

That's all I've ever agreed with. But on the flip side, if you have the
evidence to support why a dispatch was needed, I personally feel, it's the
right way to request it.
If you look at all the levels of ordinances from permits to fines to
non-response, seems all the steps from the bottom up have been tried with
little success, so the logical step, just short of non-response, is pay as you
go. I bet the 900 number dispatch looks pretty good now compared to what's now
been proposed and implemented.

Terms likeVerification, Intervention, will be the corrective action.

Jack
 
J

Jackcsg

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have to tell you also, despite the availability of video verification on
most of my accounts, all but one customer has at least one reader controlled
door. I see integration with access, or even keyless entry, with control
panels as a major contributor to the 50% or so of less user errors. With
Readers pretty much around the cost of a good motion detector, adding at
least one controlled door to the system has drastically cut down on the
number of nuisance alarms from our customer base. I still have not had a
single dispatch...

Jack
 
Top