Loading...
2020-03-04 Council Work Session PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA March 4, 2020 6:40 pm (To Follow Closed Session) Mendota Heights City Hall 1) Call to Order 2) Discussion Item a) Discussion of Change to Provisions of City Code 5-5-4 B.2 (False Alarms) 3) Adjourn DATE: March 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain SUBJECT: Discussion of False Alarm Penalties in City Code Comment: Introduction: Previously, the City Council has given directions to staff that any proposed changes to a City Ordinance be addressed first in a City Council work session. If time permits, a work session is proposed to be held following a Closed Session on March 4th, to discuss a possible revision to the City Code, as it relates to false alarms in Chapter 5 of the City Code. Background In reviewing a false alarm report in October, 2019, I observed there were two business addresses with a substantial number of false alarm calls, and therefore significant charges for those calls. After examining the report and the related charges, it appeared there were several factors that contributed to the number of calls: • The businesses did not keep key holder information up-to-date with the Dakota County Communication Center, making it difficult to make contact with the property owner • The false alarm reports were not run regularly by the City. • Invoices from the false alarm reports were not sent to the businesses on a regular basis. • The current City ordinance does not place a cap on the amount billed per false alarm call in a calendar year. Once I became aware of these issues, the City took steps to address several of the areas. Two businesses with the highest volume of false alarms have been contacted and advised of the issue—they have outstanding invoices of $17,550 and $7475, respectively. They have been requested to update their key holder information with the Dakota County Communications Center. Additionally, false alarm reports are now being run monthly and given to the finance department. This will allow for invoices to be sent in a timelier manner. However, one of the biggest problems is that the penalties section of the ordinance does not place a cap on the amount billed per false alarm call in a calendar year. There are times when businesses and residences require a police response to a false alarm for reasons that are out of the owner’s control. Although the City encourages well-functioning alarm systems, I believe the current fee structure could be updated to avoid potentially excessive fees. The false alarm fee structure in the Alarm Ordinance Penalties Section [Ordinance 5-5-4(B)(2)] in the City Code. currently reads: • All Other False Alarms: A penalty shall be paid to the city by the alarm user for each false alarm, other than a false fire alarm, in excess of three (3) in any calendar year. That penalty shall be fifty dollars ($50) for the fourth false alarm and shall increase by twenty five dollars ($25) for each succeeding false alarm within the same calendar year. (Ord. 352, 6-20-2000) Although I believe our improved false alarm reporting and billing procedures will identify potential problem addresses sooner, a change to the fee structure should also be considered. My proposed change to the ordinance would read as follows: • All Other False Alarms: A penalty shall be paid to the city by the alarm user for each false alarm, other than a false fire alarm, in excess of three (3) in any calendar year. That penalty shall be fifty dollars ($50) for the fourth false alarm, seventy-five dollars ($75) for the fifth false alarm and one-hundred dollars ($100) for the sixth and each succeeding false alarm(s) within the same calendar year. As shown, this change would cap the 6th and subsequent false alarms at $100. I believe that this amount is reasonable given the nature of the response. Budget Impact: The 2019 budget had anticipated $3000 in false alarm charges. There are five addresses which would be impacted, with three (two residences and a church) being relatively minor in charges. The previously mentioned accounts with substantial outstanding charges are both businesses. If the above proposed changes are enacted, it would reduce the outstanding bills to those properties to $3525, and $2225, respectively. Action Required: The Council is asked to consider the proposed changes. If acceptable to the Council, the changes would be placed on a future City Council agenda for formal action.