March 25, 2011

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

 

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

Comments

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

Ken,

Thank you so much for putting this out for us! We are working hard to fight this issue as we know there are other Cities here in AZ who will want to follow in Avondale's footsteps if we do not take action now.

One other notable is that we have SB-1277 for statewide alarm licensing in process. We hope to have this passed this year.

Love your daily emails they bring such great topics to light. Keep up the great work! Thank you!

Maria Malice

Vice President Special Projects

COPS Monitoring

Scottsdale, Arizona office

Arizona Alarm Association, President

***********

Ken

Here in Calgary, Alberta, Canada alarm coÂ’s have been billed $75 for every false alarm for the last 5+ yearsÂ…

This has led to a lot more guard response/verification (unarmed).

Randy S. Larkam

***********

Ken:

The best analogy that I have heard on this approach is..."Should Ford and other auto makers have to pay the speeding tickets that you and I receive for disobeying the speed limit" Maybe if the alarm companies in Arizona can convey this line of reasoning to the elected officials they will re-think this ordinance.

Michael Samulin

Intruder Alert Systems, Inc.

San Antonio, TX

*********

 

Ken

With regard to the Arizona fine discussion. This is entirely political, desperately passing the cost of municipal collection on to the alarm company.

Should a car manufacturer pay the fine for a speeding driver who chose their vehicle over another? Not much of a difference here.

Respectfully,

John W. Yusza, Jr., President

Monitor Controls, Inc.

Wallingford, CT

 

***********

 

To the City Council

Avondale, AZ

 

Honorable friends,

By way of amicus curiae I would like to express the opinion that your recent false alarm ordinance, requiring the alarm company to pay false alarm fines for its customer, is a bad idea.

For starters, your ordinance may eventually have the effect of delaying or preventing the reporting of a true alarm condition, and has the potential to cost lives.

The end user should be held responsible for purchasing and installing false-alarm-resistant system technology; for updating obsolete technology; for keeping it in proper operating condition; for learning the proper operation of the system; and for using the premises and the system in a way that does not provoke false alarm incidents.

While the alarm company can and should assist in the above, it does not control the end user's budget; who will be on the premises; and the broad variety of things they might do to provoke false alarms including raising dust, spray painting, burning things in the kitchen, improper testing, renovations, roof and plumbing leaks, animal and insect infestation, insect fogging and more. The alarm company usually does not know in advance that such events are taking place on the premises and therefore cannot identify false-alarm-provoking activity until after the alarm has been tripped.

The alarm industry as a whole has been struggling with these false alarm problems for all of my thirty-one years in business and in recent years has become increasingly aggressive in its efforts. While great strides have been made in false alarm reduction, we have yet to find the magic bullet.

Economically, the starting assessment of $150 is disproportionate to the fee that alarm companies charge for monitoring service, approaching and probably significantly exceeding the ultimate profit on a year's monitoring service for many companies. Putting the burden of reimbursement on the alarm company will create friction between all parties that will ultimately prove to be counterproductive.

Although I'm not in your area, there are some municipalities in my market area that my company simply won't serve at all for lesser reasons. You are therefore jeopardizing the availability of affordable service in your community by driving away potential vendors; and you're giving the companies that do stay the leverage to raise their installation, service and monitoring fees substantially to compensate for the extra risk and expense.

Sincerely,

Luis Arellano, III, President

Reliance Alarm Company

Quakertown, PA

***********

Welcome to COMMUNIST STATES OF AMERICA. We need to overturn this idiotic government just like people do it in other countries. It is ridiculous that we let people who steal, cheat, even pay hookers with our tax money like former New York governor rule our lives. Are we bunch of kids to let anyone order us around?

Dusan

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

Ken,

Does this mean that ADT and other national companies and/or monitoring centers will be responsible for these fines?? I would think ADTs deep pockets wouldnÂ’t allow for this.

Bill

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

City of Avondale Council Members:

As you consider making alarm companies pay false alarm fees, there are at least three major considerations alarm dealers would like for you to remember.

1- In majority of cases, the alarm company does not own the alarm, they are not responsible for turning the alarm off and on, and do not have access to the home or business.

2- Most cities assess false alarm abusers as a deterrent, so the abuser will correct the problem. If the alarm company, as opposed to the alarm owner, is paying for the false alarms, will this work? Will the alarm abusers change their habits?

3- 75 to 80% of false alarms are caused by an error of the user, something which the alarm company has no control over.

Alarm installing dealers are concerned that authorities are responding to false alarms rather than attending to legitimate emergency requests. We are cooperating with central monitoring stations in their procedures to verify alarm signals and manufacturers have improved the alarm devices to be almost false alarm proof.

Homeowners and businesses need to be responsible for false alarms generated by operator error. I have found employees of large chain businesses that have not been trained to properly operate the alarm systems nor do they know when to report malfunctions of certain alarm system features. So I know that residential and business accounts that I take over are NOT the only users out there in false alarm paradise that havenÂ’t been trained.

I donÂ’t want my clients nor the central monitoring station nor the authorities to be bothered by false alarms and I have initiated a policy to review on a quarterly basis alarm signals received from client systems at the central monitoring station. Software is available for monitoring stations to report to dealers any false alarms received from alarm monitoring subscribers.

Seems to me that an effort to train subscribers AND installing dealers in the basics of alarm systems might prove to be beneficial rather than the high volume dealers who have pressured technicians to slam the system in and race to the next install instead of taking the time to properly train the users.

Thank you in advance for considering the above three facts as you discuss your reaction to Avondale, AZ false alarm issues.

Ed Blackwelder, Owner

IHS Security Services, LLC

Simpsonville, SC

 

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

 

To the Council Members

 

With all due respect to the issue of FALSE ALARM DISPATCHES I feel that by fining the alarm INSTALLERS for false alarms is the same as giving SPEEDING TICKETS to the CAR DEALERS that sold the vehicle, telling the dealer to get his money back from the auto owner.

Who gets the ticket when the dealership closes? Who gets the ticket for LOCAL ONLY alarms? What about DO IT YOURSELFERS that buy equipment off the internet?

The Electronic Security Association, a national trade organization and the Security Industry Alarm Coalition with your Arizona Alarm Association take false alarms seriously. Industry initiatives aimed at reaching out to States and Municipalities to combat the problem have had great success in other parts of the country.

Some of these initiatives include:

1- Training alarm users. ((Repeated training after alarms))

2- Providing repair services promptly and identifying the CAUSE of alarms.

3- Assisting municipalities in TRACKING false alarms and identifying the cause of alarms.

4- Certification Training for all installers and technicians through National Training School

of the Electronic Security Association.

5- IQ Installation Quality assessments and best practices initiatives. ((IQ CERTIFICATION/ESA)

aimed at eliminating false alarms.

 

Just to hold an industry accountable for the actions of an end user makes no sense and is an emotional reaction to a problem that can be addressed by rational means. The best way to impress the end user with the severity of the problem requires a multi pointed effort by all. (If you correct a pet for misdeeds they will change. If you blame the vet or the breeder there

will be no change in the behavior.

Have any of the decision makers met with and requested assistance from the industry?

SIAC.ORG stands ready to assist ANY STATE OR CITY THAT REQUESTS HELP.

Thank you for your attention to my comments.

Joel P. Kent

Education Chair

Connecticut Alarm and Systems Integrators Association (CASIA)