I do see that there are occassions wherein the 1st “false” alarm is sometimes given away as a warning by some communities.

Dont get me wrong – I’m betting it’ll cost someone a pretty penny to have an officer respond. . . . .

You know – it’s a little like the rescue that I know a little bit about. Coast Guard had to dispatch a helo to pull a hang glider off of a cliff they had whacked into. Last I heard – the individual ended up paying for the bigger part of the expense associated with his “rescue” – there’s some of that starting to go on in the public parks as well.

I guess that my point is, whatever the cost is – if it costs us $300 (I’m making that up – maybe it’s $500 – but who cares, unless you have a “bad” alarm) to dispatch an officer for 30 minutes – so be it. . . . pay the bill or fix your service – in the meantime, the city makes some sorely needed revenue.

You are probably also underestimating the cost of hiring and keeping someone on the police force. It’s not just the salary, retirement contribution, various employee taxes and whatnot, it’s also the six months to one year recruitment process for each officer and the months of training. Oh, and don’t forget the patrol cars and other equipment each officer requires.

Tell me, what do you think the *total* cost of recruiting, training, hiring, paying and supporting one police officer is?

Your first point is that uncertainty of the revenues from false alarms is so great, that we would not feel good about hiring officers to support this work. . . . and I get that. But, it seems like uncertainty of even our most significant incomes (and outflows) such as sales taxes and property taxes are quite dynamic as well – witness the wild swings in our city “balance sheet” owing to these uncertainties – isn’t this just a part of city management (or any business management)e.g., dealing with uncertainty ? Why is THIS economic forecast SO MUCH TRICKIER than other projections our city managers live with and plan for already ?

Your second point is the “meter reader” is a different job – and I agree with you. But is it also your position that just because the skills necessary are different – the accounting HAS to work differently ? We have loads of differing skill sets that our P.D. needs to do its job, meter readers are one example. We can hire some of these folks (meter readers) and give them a job to do because there’s a revenue produced by their activity – and that revenue pays for those who are doing the job, BUT that’s not to say they are (as you suggest) on a commission. I offer the meter reader example only as an analogy to make the point that there already ARE situations within our existing police force where individuals are rationalized against the revenue they produce – which is a smart thing to do. Dont get me wrong, I’m not suggesting EVERYONE is rationalized against a revenue, but where you can, it seems like the decision is a no-brainer.

This idea that our P.D. is subsidizing the alarm co’s problem is a wonderful turn of the table which, if you think about it makes absolutely zero sense for me. Let’s lay this one to rest – We only subsidize the “false alarm” problem if we deliver a service and DONT RECOVER THE COST OF DOING SO !!! and no one is suggesting that.

So – if I summarize -

Economic uncertainty is something all cities deal with on a number of fronts – the false alarm response issue is no more or less variable than others.

We already rationalize P.D. resources based on their revenue production, we COULD rationalize other resources in the same manner – if that’s what we want to do.

As long as we charge a fee greater than the fixed costs of response – we aren’t subsidizing alarm companies.

I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed Andrew – maybe there’s something here I’m missing and I genuinely would like to figure that out. At the end of the day, I see many communities charging for this “false alarm” service – whatever you think the challenges are (different job, uncertainty of incomes) other cities seem to have figured out how to overcome these obstacles and presumably do so for some economic advantage.

Ok, I’ll bite.

1.) “The P.D. could ADD STAFF if the fees generated are sufficient.” No, the PD can’t add staff based on fees that may or may not be enough to cover the cost of employment. When you hire someone you have to know there’s money in the budget, this year and next year, to pay them. When you hire a polic officer it is a long term commitment by both parties. Police officers shouldn’t work on spec or on commission.

2.) “And 100% of parking violations result in no individual being “injured” – but we somehow find the time and the resource to hand out and collect on parking tickets.” Different job, different requirements – and paid by what is collected. That is to say, if the tickets dropped to one half next year, the employee still gets paid. They may get laid off for lack of work, but again, they don’t work on spec nor on commission.

Now it’s your turn. Explain why you feel the taxpayers should subsidize the alarm companies.

How about you (or anyone else) that is pro-the current direction on this “bite the bullet” and do your best to respond to the responses – or points made.

How about you just bite the bullet and pay a security company to monitor your alarm. That’s what Chief Steckler does.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/ci_10799475 lays it all out.