HomeMy WebLinkAboutA041 - Staff report regarding false alarmsITEM #:44
DATE:05-27-25
DEPT:POLICE
SUBJECT:FINES FOR FALSE ALARMS
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
BACKGROUND:
At the April 22, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council received a memo from the Police Chief
regarding the possibility of increasing fines for false alarm calls for service. The Council
referred the memo to a future agenda. Further information regarding the issue is outlined
below.
Many businesses in the City utilize security systems that notify the Police Department in the
event the alarm is triggered. Although these systems can provide a valuable service to detect
break-ins, in some instances the alarm systems can be faulty or triggered by a lack of
diligence by the business. Currently, the City allows for three False Alarms before the
business incurs a $30 per occurrence charge. It appears this fee is no longer a sufficient
deterrent to ensuring alarm systems are not being activated falsely.
False alarms are costly to the City and can be dangerous to our police officers in the following
ways:
1. Responding to a false alarm usually involves a two-officer response for safety reasons.
An average, a call takes 30 minutes per officer to clear, depending on the response of
the alarm holder (approximately $45 of staff time per response)
2. Responding to false alarms can put officers in a mindset that alarms are usually false
and therefore officers may not take them seriously in cases when there is a real alarm.
3. While officers may not respond to all alarm calls with lights and sirens, any response to a
call for service increases risks to life and property. In some alarm cases, officers do
respond with lights and sirens, which increases safety risks and liability for accidents.
4. Responding to false alarms takes officers away from other duties and reduces the level
of customer service that can be provided to those requiring police assistance at that
time.
In 2023, dispatchers answered 585 alarm calls, sending officers to investigate. Th e vast
majority were false. In 2024, there were 626 calls. Through April of this year, 177 calls have
been received.
Repeated alarm calls have been a challenge at some locations. In 2022, there were 13
businesses where seven or more false alarms occurred, with some locations requiring
as many as 15 responses by the Police Department. In 2023, there were several
businesses with more than eight false alarms, including one with 17 false alarms and
another with 24. In 2024, again, there were several businesses in excess of nine false
alarms, including three businesses with 20, 25, and 29 false alarms. While it is early in
1
2025, staff is seeing similar results.
Other communities have instituted higher penalties to incentivize reducing the incidence of
false alarms. Examples include:
Clive
First two calls free, third call is $75; fourth call is $100; fifth and subsequent calls
are $150
Ankeny
$25 new permit fee; $15 renewal; First three calls free, then $50 and $100
Marshalltown
First two free, then $40
Urbandale
First free, then $100, $200, and $400; resets on calendar year
Staff is interested in a graduated system where the first three false alarms would incur
no fee, but the fourth false alarm would result in a $50 charge, a fifth false alarm would
result in a $100 charge, and all subsequent false alarms would result in a $200 charge
per occurrence. Staff believes this structure would accommodate situations where a
business may need some time to work out the initial challenges with the alarm system
but incentivizes making corrections and maintaining a well-operating system.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance allowing for three false alarms at no charge, a fine of
$50 for a fourth false alarm, a fine of $100 for a fifth false alarm, and a fine of $200 for
each subsequent false alarm occurrence.
2. Direct staff to prepare changes to the fines for a different amount.
3. Do not make changes to the current fine structure.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Most businesses in Ames are responsible and work diligently to ensure false alarms do
not occur. However, false alarms come with a cost in staff time as well as increased
liability. The current fine structure of a $30 charge after three false alarms does not
appear to be a strong deterrent to motivate fixing the underlying cause of these false
alarms. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative No. 1, as described above.
2