False alarm fines - should you be paying that fine

WEBINAR NOTICE: The Central Station series
Why you should use our central station
see schedule below for presentations

*****************
Follow Up On False Alarm Fines - Should You Be Paying That Fine From Oct 10, 2014 Article
*****************
Seems there's quite the controversy whether municipalities should be assessing false alarm fines and whether the fine should be against the end user or alarm company. I just assumed that the alarm industry was united in its opposition to fines in general and particularly against the alarm company or central station calling in the alarm. That assumption is obviously wrong. One matter I want to make clear is that the Standard Form Agreements all require the subscriber to indemnify the alarm company. You should also keep in mind that most central stations will require the dealer to indemnify the central station. See below.
***************
Ken.

Another example of why Alarm Associations need better guidance from the membership.
Chico California, Population about 85,000, is trying to modernize their police services, including solving their big false alarm problem. Alarm monitoring firms are reporting emergencies at near total failure.
After much research, including VR/Verified Response, City Council voted for a version of SR/Subsidy Recovery, wherein the alarm industry takes greater responsibility for the solutions to unnecessary police response to private alarm systems. The new Chico ordinance will charge the caller (monitoring firms), not the alarm site, for each request for police response to private alarm customers. No freebies…. $100-$300 per unnecessary alarm response. Citizen alarm owners will not be levied fines or fees by the city.
The powerful national alarm association, SIAC was quick to threaten a very costly legal challenge that could bankrupt a small city. We believe this to be a bully type threat to influence submission toward the outdated self serving “Model Ordinance”. SIAC has supported this embarrassing tactic, with much success, many times during last few years, even though it backfired in Fontana CA several years ago. Fontana now has a court tested ordinance that applies both Verified Response and Subsidy Recovery.
SIAC seems to offer more reasons for law enforcement to abandon their voluntary support to the alarm industry.
Source: Lee Jones; Support Services Group
******************
RESPONSE
****************
Lee are are saying that Subsidy Recovery. means charging the alarm co or cs the
fine for false alarms? That you are in favor of Subsidy Recovery. That Siac
opposes Subsidy Recovery. and threatened a city not to implement it? Why would any one in alarm industry support fines against alarm companies?
*****************
LEE'S FOLLOW UP
   Yes to all. the alternative is strict VR. OK with fees like Seattle and Fontana.
   Why would anyone in the alarm industry support fines against alarm companies?
I consider the probable alternative… VR/Verified Response.
1.. SR deliverers predictable public police response, VR does not. (Customer expectations);
2.. VR requires private security response, or not any response (Operationally awkward);
3.. SR fees paid by monitoring firms can be passed onto the customer;
   What we know:

Law enforcement does not like nor trust the alarm industry.
Law enforcement now has experience and facts to totally collapse the SIAC ‘model ordinance’, providing a path for widespread VR or SR. (Note Canada is also quickly moving toward SR, including Peel last July.
Industry support of SR will prevent, or slow a trend toward VR.
Quality security providers will support SR, sloppy providers will resist, but comply. (See Seattle).

SIAC seems to be void of contemporary representation of the industry.
Lee Jones
*******************
Ken
   Subject: Alarm Associations Screaming Foul?
   Alarm associations across the nation have lobbied for permit fees on home alarms and for police departments to charge an assessment fee, instead of issuing a fine for false alarms, due to false alarm fines not holding up in court. These associations have also lobbied for Cities to require alarm companies to submit their confidential client records to the Cities, without a warrant. I have never seen these associations stand up for the rights of their clients. Instead, they have teamed up with the municipalities to take advantage of their clients. Surprise, Az. went to V/R this year. ADT charges an additional $7 per month, if ADT customers in Surprise, Az. request a guard response to single trip alarms. In contrast, a rather large size alarm company in Tucson, Az. charges $1 additional per month, to all this company’s clients and includes guard response. This company claims that half of the $1 is profit. Maybe it is time to ask these associations, “Why are those you represent so afraid of being held liable for the service they are selling?”
   Here are a few Constitutional provisions, from the Arizona Constitution, that Arizona Municipalities and the Arizona Alarm Association have disregarded when implementing City alarm ordinances.
   Article 9, Section 2. Property subject to taxation; exemptions: “All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit of such exemption.”
   Article 2, Section 2. Due process of law: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
   Article 2, Sections 8. Right to privacy: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”
   Thanks for keeping Alarm Dealers informed,
Roger D. Score, President
Arizona Alarm Dealers Association
******************
THANKS TO LEO WEISS FROM EAGLE SECURITY who sent over a news report on Chico:
   "Chico could be the first in California to implement a fine for false alarms that draw police response.
This comes after a controversial move by the Chico police department deciding in June that it would no longer respond to security alarms without verification of the crime. The drafted approach approved by city council members last night fines security companies directly.
   In 2012 alone, the Chico police department had more than 3,200 false alarms totaling up to $300,000.
   The ordinance applies to any alarm companies doing business in the city of Chico. Whether local or national, each company will be treated the same.
   Proponents say it should force alarm companies to do their part to troubleshoot their systems and monitor false alarms.
   The ordinance would impose a fine of $100 for the first offense, $200 the second offense and $300 for the 3rd or higher offense.
   The draft was approved last night but not adopted yet. The city attorney is working on the language to appeal to opponents. The final reading is in two weeks." Oct 9, 2014 1:27 AM by Vanessa Vasconcelos. Action News
******************

WEBINAR NOTICE: The Central Station series
Why you should use our central station
see schedule below for presentations
Sign up for each presentation. All Start at 12 noon EST to 1 PM

Each Webinar will cover:
territory covered by cs
types of alarms cs equipped to handle or specializes in
description of cs facilities and equipment; redundancy of more than one location
general policies on handling alarms
what makes this cs stand apart from others
pricing - why cs charges what it does and special deals if any
contracts the cs requires
***************
October 23, 2014 - USA Central Station https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1676699519071453697

October 28, 2014 - SentryNet
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6448324896921683457

October 29, 2014 – Rapid Response Monitoring https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/4898797453548148993

October 30, 2012 – COPS Monitoring https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6318369219588363265

November 12, 2014 - Statewide Monitoring https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/339270067719231489

November 13, 2014 - Centra-Larm Monitoring https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3930780819384477185

**********************

**********************************************************************

Speaking Engagements

If you would like to schedule a free live video/webinar presentation for your association meeting or event contact Eileen Wagda at 516 747 6700 x 312.

************************************************

Alabama Alarm Association. AAA's Fall Meeting and Trade Show - October 21, 2014 from 3 to 5 PM at DoubleTree Hotel 808 South 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35205 for more info contact AAA Executive Director: director@alabamaalarm.org (205) 933-9000

*****************************

False alarm fines - should you be paying that fine - October 16, 2014