CC_Minutes_2010_1122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Meeting Monday, November 22, 2010 Page 7 change to the ordinance since its last presentation was to lines 33 -35 to clarify the time period for which false alarms were tracked. Councilmember Roe noted receipt of an e -mail from Councilmember -elect Tam- my McGehee dated November 22, 2010 related to the proposed ordinance; and reviewed and expressed appreciation for the Fire and Police Department's res- ponses to that e-mail, attached hereto and made a part thereof At the request of Mayor Klausing, and for benefit of the public, Councilmember Roe paraphrased and reviewed the topics and responses on the e-mail, specifically related to the department still sending an officer to the site of a false alarm even after receiving an all -clear from the owner to ensure that response was not pro- vided under duress; with that response not counting toward the annual tally for false alarms. In response to the concern expressed in the e-mail regarding false alarms not the fault of the owner but requiring response, Councilmember Roe pointed to specific ordinance language defining false alarms and exceptions, with the owner only held responsible for those things under their control. Discussion was held among Councilmembers and staff in response to concerns raised in the e-mail from Councilmember -elect Tammy McGehee; related to the proposed progressive fee schedule; with Chief Mathwig noting that only 2% of the types of alarms being addressed were not charged, given the data presented that of the 1200 annual residential and business alarm calls, 1,176 of those calls, or 98 were false alarms. Further discussion ensued regarding capping of fees; how tiers for charges based on the number of false calls were determined and broken down; comparable data from surrounding communities; intent of the proposed ordinance to provide incen- tive to fix the problem by having people take responsibility for their actions, or lack thereof, rather than having the entire community shoulder the cost for false alarms; noting that the majority of false alarms were for businesses, while recog- nizing that some residents had a high frequency for false alarms as well. Lt. Lorne Rosand was also present to assist Chief Mathwig in responding to comments and questions related to the proposed ordinance. Additional discussion ensued regarding whether to adopt the ordinance, followed by an annual review if any fee adjustments were indicated after it had been in op- eration for a year; clarifying that the requested action was only for ordinance adoption, with the proposed fees under separate action. Councilmember Johnson expressed his willingness to support the ordinance and proposed fees; however, he noted the impacts for small business owners, as well as residents, with a fee of $1,500 for the seventh false alarm; and spoke in support of reviewing the ordinance after the first year's operation to determine if its goals