Proposed Changes To Town Alarm Ordinance Detailed Ahead Of Public Hearing
The day before Legislative Council Ordinance Committee Chairman Ryan Knapp was set to be interviewed by The Newtown Bee to help review and explain the many of revisions and additions to the town’s Alarm Ordinance, he was asked to provide a similar explanation on a local social network site.
The council has set a public hearing on the ordinance before a special meeting on October 28 in the Council Chambers of Newtown Municipal Center. To view the current alarm ordinance, click here.
The proposed alarm ordinance can be reviewed here.
Mr Knapp confirmed the information he provided on Facebook and offered an abbreviated explanation about why the ordinance came up for review.
“Back in February the Police Commission asked the [council] to revisit our existing alarm ordinance as it was not working,” the ordinance chairman said, adding that local officers are responding to “upwards of 1,400 alarm calls a year,” while only two or three of those are legitimate versus false alarms.
“Each time, they take two [officers] off patrol to respond so it is a huge loss of resources. When you need an officer to respond to an emergency they maybe off at someone’s home where [the resident] forgot their alarm code,” he said.
“The goal of a registration system is to have a means of tracking these false alarms in a data base and knowing who is and who is not operating alarms in town. We currently have registration and fines for false alarms, but the whole system is outdated and they do not know what alarms are still active as there is no renewal being used,” Mr Knapp continued. “We did a lot of research and compared other ordinances to our own. We also went through ours seven or eight times to trim it down as it was often far too specific, duplicative and contradictory. It is about ten pages now, down from 18.”
In the revision, he said, the registration process is set up to restart the entire system and make it an easy transition for residents.
“This is a simpler ordinance that gives the police the reliability to actually implement something workable as the old ordinance was overly specific,” he said.
Responding to a question about why there is a proposed annual fee besides an original registration fee, Mr Knapp said, “Much like using the transfer station or owning a dog, operating an alarm system is voluntary and thus a registration renewal is not a tax as you are under no obligation to do so.
“Annual registration renewal was something recommended in the model ordinance we were provided by the Police Commission and the police chief as a means of keeping our database of alarm users up to date, something that is not being done now, and a big part of the reason why we spend over six figures in taxpayer money each year in police time responding to false alarms,” the ordinance chairman responded.]
“The overarching goal is to cut down on false alarms and not take officers away from their more pressing duties. Awareness is a big part of addressing the issue,” Mr Knapp said.
A Reminder To Users
Mr Knapp said an annual renewal serves as a reminder to alarm users that there is an ordinance and consequences for false alarms.
“Having and maintaining a database is not without a cost,” Mr Knapp said. “A $5 renewal fee helps with the administration thereof, much like the $90 transfer station permit costs go towards the transfer station. Under the current ordinance there is no annual renewal, but there is a provision that the alarm administrator could consider alarm registrations expired and require everyone to reapply, presumably at a cost of $25.”
He said this provision puts some of the cost of administration on the users rather than all taxpayers, many of whom may not have an alarm system.
“Lastly there is some logic that people who are invested in a program will pay more attention to it than a program with no cost, even just $5,” Mr Knapp continued. “The idea is that alarm users who are invested may pay more attention to the ordinance and learn the proper operation of their system so they are not wasting police resources, which is the goal of this entire ordinance. We want our officers patrolling and responding to emergencies, not responding to someone who forgot their code.”
In the end, Mr Knapp explained, it is “not at all about revenue generation and ideally will be revenue neutral.”
“We have put language in the ordinance where the council can amend the dollar values and I am sure — at least if I’m still on the LC — we will circle back and assess how this program is doing and if needed, make any necessary adjustments,” he said.
Russell Anderson on Facebook asked if alarm companies typically handle the registration and pay the fee on the homeowners’ behalf.
Mr Knapp responded saying, “Everyone operating an alarm system should currently be registered under the existing ordinance, but we recognize that many are not. Part of that is an awareness issue so we have language in the proposed ordinance to allow for people to come into the program as if we are starting anew.”
He said the revised proposal also sets a start date of July 1 for the registration year.
“My hope is that much like we did with senior tax abatement, we can do an insert with car tax bills to raise awareness,” he said. “As for registration, that is between the alarm user and the alarm administrator. It would be unmanageable for the administrator to invoice monitoring companies who likely would not concern themselves with all the unique ordinances of all the different municipalities they operate in. At the end of the day, its your tax dollars being spent on police responding to false alarms, not the monitoring company’s.”
He also said his committee left language in the draft so that registration can be done online, ideally moving that way as the process is developed.
“We tried to add flexibility as the existing ordinance was overly specific and read like a work instruction right down to what’s on the form,” he said. “Also there is language to do a reminder and it is intentionally at the same time as other renewals like the transfer station and dog licenses. I really do not want people to be blindsided by this.”
The committee also added a grace period from the date of implementation until June 30, 2016, to incentivize alarm users to register or reregister. Police Commissioner Andy Sachs thanked Mr Knapp for his thorough explanation and his committee’s work on the proposed revision.
“I and my fellow police commissioners appreciate your efforts,” Mr Sachs said on the site.
Mr Knapp adding that anyone who wishes to offer comment, and who cannot attend the October 28 public hearing, may submit comments for the public record via email at ryan.w.knapp@gmail.com.