An Alternative for City Officials False Alarms Reduced through Third-party Administration
by Russ Gager
March 1, 2007
 |
|
Steven Huelskoetter, president/COO of APB Services LLP,
Chesterfield, Mo.,
discusses false alarm statistics with Tammy
Daniel, customer service manager.
|
|
Third-party administration of permitting, fee and penalty
programs for burglar alarms can reduce false alarms and increase revenue for
municipalities, its adherents maintain.
St. Louis
reported that false alarms have been reduced 28 percent from June 2005 to June
2006 over the previous period while third-party administration of the alarm
permitting and penalty process has been handled by APB Services LLP, Chesterfield,
Mo.
The results of freeing up police from alarm permit and fee
administration are not easily measured. “One of the officers over there worked
on this virtually full-time and is now doing full-time [police work] in another
unit,” reported Charlene Deeken, executive assistant to the director of public
safety for the City of St. Louis.
“If other cities are trying to manage a false alarm program,
and I understand everybody is, then they might consider some legislation like
this,” she recommended.
“The ordinance here in St. Louis
is a good set of building blocks to build on for the next couple of years,”
said Dan Abert, vice president, Alarm Association of Greater St. Louis. “To see
the cooperation between the city, the private sector, the vendors, aldermen,
police chief and safety, it’s unprecedented.”
Irving, Texas,
also has contracted with a third-party administration company, ATB Services, Colorado Springs, Colo.,
to administer its alarm program. The city revised its alarm ordinance Nov. 16, 2006 to take into account
changes in alarm fees and penalties from the state, pointed out Chris Russell,
president of the North Texas Alarm Association.
ATB’s largest customer is Omaha,
Neb. Irving, Texas is the next largest. Other customers include Bellevue
Neb.; Council Bluffs,
Iowa; Papillion,
Neb.; Rahway,
N.J.; Paradise,
Calif.; Olympia,
Wash.; Montclair,
N.J.; Sparks,
Nev.; and Gretna,
Neb.
By the end of last year, Olympia’s
number of false alarms had decreased 75 percent from its level in 2002 when the
municipality began enforcing an alarm permitting and fee system, according to
Michael Zelesnik, ATB’s president.
Other false alarm reductions Zelesnik cited are from 30
percent to 40 percent, depending on the number of free alarms the
municipality’s ordinance allows. He maintains municipalities that allow three
free false alarms have lower reduction rates because 70 percent of customers
who have false alarms have no more than three.
Zelesnik and Dan Stocking, ATB’s government relations
manager, think that cities do better enforcing their alarm permit fee and fine
programs than going to verified response or non-response.
“We’re not aware of any city that uses alarm administration
that has gone to verified responses or non-response, because their problem is
being handled,” Stocking maintained. He added that usually alarm ordinances
must be updated and should follow the models suggested by the Security Industry
Alarm Coalition (SIAC).
“Only in the last five or six years has third-party
[administration] been developing in that area,” Stocking asserted. “The vast
majority is not even aware that that solution is out there for them. Once they
hear from you, they generally will go with third party, because they virtually
have to do very little work.”
But Russell does not see the connection between using
improved alarm administration to offset a move toward verified response. “Third
party administration has to do with collection of fees and fines,” Russell
noted. “That’s not an issue with police departments — they have an issue with
responding to too many false alarms.
Reported Henry Edmonds, APB’s chairman and CEO, “Cities that
have gone to verified response have let the police lead the charge,” he
declared. “If they understand there is an alternative that does work, the
citizens want the police to respond, and the citizens elect the politicians.
“It’s
important to talk to people when the issue is being discussed rather than after
a decision is made,” Edmonds concluded. “There are a
lot of benefits to the [enforcement] approach, and if they understand those
benefits, they may change what they’re pushing for.”
|