Subject: FW: False Alarm Figures Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:40:09 -0800 From: "John Hunter" To: "FONVCA" I spoke to these figures, but as I only received Staff's March 23 2001 memo on False Alarms minutes before my remarks at the Budget "Workshop" yesterday, my figures are not in the paper I handed out. For the use of Council and Staff if they wish, here they are. The math is based on the figures in the staff memo, except as noted. The Staff memo seems to address RCMP only, not fire. There would be further false alarms there presumably, with attendant costs and potential revenue, re the fire department. I know they have occurred - we had one on our street. RCMP 1999 data ------------------------- Of the over 6525 alarm calls (EIGHTEEN PER DAY!!!), about 1/3 were cancelled by the alarm company before RCMP attended. 4168 (11 per day!) were false alarms . DNV charges $130 per false alarm The math works this way. Potential fines 4168 x 130 = $541,840 Actual collected (I have only data for 2000, not 1999 - a bit of apples and oranges) $24,180 If we assume (my guesstimate) that each false alarm costs the RCMP $50 (manpower, dispatcher costs, fuel, overheads, possible forced overtime to handle displaced work), then those 4168 alarms cost $208,000. Not pocket change. Why so little collected vs. the costs or potential revenue? One reason is we allow THREE "free" false alarms PER YEAR. In 2000, this only happened 186 times. So it appears the majority of false alarms invoke no penalty, even if a given party have 2 false alarms each and every year. We are talking 18 a day by the 1999 figures! The fundamental flaw in our Fire and Security Systems Bylaw, in my view, is allowing each owner of an alarm system three "free" false alarms PER YEAR. In my view, this is excessive. Perhaps three every five years? Let us keep in mind that leaving aside the cost of police or fire, people can be killed as forces rush to an alarm, or due to the absence of forces at another location while answering a false alarm. Or property damage/theft/etc can happen at an unattended location. If you whack me with a $130 fine for a false alarm, you will get my attention as a householder. If I am Allied Engineering or whatever, it's a cost of doing business and a VERY LOW one compared to the boost in my insurance rates if a theft and consequent claim take place. I'll happily pay the $130 - not only does it reduce my insurance bill, it's probably cheaper than fixing or upgrading the alarm system for an occasional failure. Worse yet, the problem got so bad according to staff's memo, that RCMP have a policy (still in force?) of not responding to alarms Monday to Friday, 7 am to 7 pm. This cries out for action. We are advised FEES must be cost based - the LGA will not allow fees above cost recovery. I cannot believe the same is true of Penalties (fines) which the charge for a false alarm should be. Are we saying every fine for traffic or a bylaw is cost recovery only? If I am right, and I have not checked this, then you can charge a penalty as a deterrent and above cost, and it SHOULD be high enough to deter. The Staff March 23/01 memo characterizes the charge for false alarms as a "fine". DNV propose to LICENCE alarms and set up a small bureaucracy to do it. We tried that with dogs, secondary suites, and such. Apparently the plan is to troll through all the electrical inspections to trace who has and does not have an alarm. How far do you go back, 1950? Is it LEGAL to use electrical inspection records for this purpose? How do you find the self-installed Radio Shack type things? Do you really want to tell citizens "we are pleased you are trying to protect yourself and we'll help you by charging you a fee"? Do we really need and can we afford another program, even if self funding, if there is a cheaper way? My initial reaction is that 1.6 bodies, an office, furniture, computer, etc and a licence system is overkill. Every body added also adds a bit of a supervisor and so on - this never gets picked up as a cost. Sure, as per staff's memo, it may pay its way, but why go Cadillac before we try a Volkswagen? Do residents and business really need ANOTHER licence? More red tape? Suggestion: Cut the false alarm "freebie " allowance" to 1 a year for 2001, and tighten over time to none. Your political defence is that stopping false alarms cuts costs (taxes) and ensures police are available to handle real emergencies AND would allow police to reinstitute answering daytime alarms if the program works. Keep the fine at $130 for residential, double it for commercial, and triple it for industrial. No magic math here; just trying to ensure they notice if they have false alarms. The police or fire dept. KNOW of the false alarm and just fire the details to Bylaw Enforcement who issue a ticket. Little or no additional bureaucracy - a clerk could do this. This gives most of the benefits sought in staff's memo (and I would argue that those it misses are not high on the priority list). Surely we do not need some big study to do this, or at least to cut the freebies even if you do not change the fine. John Hunter