Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 4, 1992 (55)q CW CITY OF tODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department MEETING DATE: March 4 1992 PR£PAPED BY: City Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council concur in the action of stiff to discontinue tilt silent alarm service monitored by the Police Department. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last summer ttic City Council was advised via a memorandum that it was the City's intention to terminate the silent alarm service monitored by the Police Department. That memo advised that "unless I (City Manager) hear from Councilmembers to the contrary, we w i I I move ahead with this effort....." A second memo was sent to the City Council last November referencing the earlier memo and stating that "we are now ready to do so (terminate) and will proceed as planned." The Police Department, i n a letter dated January 3, 1992, advised the 26 subscribers to this service that the department would no longer maintain the silent alarm'board. The letter gave a disconnect deadline of February 6, 1992. with a provision for a 30 -day extension from that date if the time frame created a hardship. This deadline was subsequently extended an additional 30 days to April 6, 1992. Two months have elapsed since the notification letter was mailed and as of this writing the Police Department has received just tw, calls of complaint. One complainant was unhappy initially. but understood the reasons for the action. He was granted a 30 -day extension and advised the Police Department that he was moving ahead with addressing his silent alarm needs. The only other complaint was received from Mr. David Rice. owner of Bitterman's Jewelry, 10 N. School Street, who appeared before the City Council at its regular meetiny of Wednesday. January 15, 1932, to present his protest in person. There are a small number of City and County work stations and equipment rooms connected to the system and the dispatchers will continue to monitor those until the system completely "crashes." Over half of these are located in the Public Safety Building (Police Department) itself. These alarms are almost never activated and thus pose little. if any, additional load on the dispatchers. Upon the complete failure of the existing alarm system, the City will evaluate alarm system technologies at that time and recommend action as def',ired appropriate. APPPOVED T110MAS A PETERSON City maniligier CC 7 AGENDA TITLE: Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department SIE E T I K) DATE: March 4 1992 Page Two The reasons for the decision to terminate this service were enumerated in the original memo distributed to the City Council. They bear repeating: It has been determined that this silent alarm board operation is obsolete. . The system has become periodically unreliable, and we are experiencing problems and an increasing difficulty in locating parts. . We have created a false sense of security for those businesses currently tied into the system. . There exists the potential of City liability ar;d as a result, the majority of California cities no longer provide this service. . There are a number of local alarm companies available to provide this service. As a direct result of Mr. Rice's requests for additional information, proposals to install a replacement system were solicited from four private alarm companies. Two were Lodi firms; one in Stockton, and one in the Bay Area (San Mateo). The gids ranged widely from a low of 514,800 to a high of $44,649. The range would lead one to logically conclude that the various equipment proposed also varied widely in capabilities. The issue here is not whether a silent alarm system car be installed at a cost of 314,000 or 544,000. The issue is: should the City of Lodi remain in the silent alarm business? It is the recowiendakion of staff that the City should not. The O i r.pa tr-h Cen t Az� is already crowaed with calls for service, many of which are of an emergency nature, and some of which bear directly on the life safety of the officers involved. In the midst of this activity, the City's dispatchers should not be saddled with the additional burden of haviny to prioritize responses to silent alarms. The department has always. and will continue to respond to silent alarms. But the screening of these alarms should be the responsibility of private alarm companies who are in the business of providing this kind of se�•vzce. The fact that a wo-,K ima to l y of the s i len t alarm calls the Police Department receives are "false alarms" lends further support to the City's termination of this service. it is important to note Uia t ;he -e remains in S,3n Joaquin County riot a single other law enforcement. agency still in the silent alarm business. AGENDA TITLE: Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department MEETING DATE: ..March 4 1992 Page Three Finally, there are significant numbers of previous subscribers to the service who have already made arrangements to convert their alarm systems to private alarm companies. They have done so at no small expense. It has cost them money. For example, all of the banks and savings and loan institutions are no longer connected to the City's silent alarm board. Uith the exception of Mr. Rice, the City has not heard from any of the remaining handful of businesses and residents who had previously subscribed to this service. Having received no inquiries from these individuals in the two months since the original contact regarding the termination of service was made, we can only assume that they have either made other arrangements or have concluded they have no continued need for alarm services. To now renege on the City's prior announcement that it would be terminating this service would be most unfair to those businesses and residents who have taken the City at its word. FUNDING: None required Respectfully submitted, 7 ., Thomas A. Peterson City Manager TAP -,Sr CCCOM443/'TXTA, 0iA CITY OF LODI MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY sssssRsassssss:asss:rsrss a sass:arassrsrss:asxra To: Lieutenant Jim Schick, Lodi Police Department From: Bob McNatt, City Attorney Date: January 30, 1992 Subject: ALARM SYSTEM LIABILITY asss:srrrrssasss:ssrasssrrsss:rrssrssrsrrsssssrassssssssrsrrssssssr*artssss I have now had a chance to do a bit of research on the questions you asked about the possibility of a "special relationship" between the City and subscribers to the alarm system maintained by the Police Department. Although case and statute law guidelines are not perfectly clear, it appears that in some circumstances, the City might be liable to alarm subscribers for damage or injury caused by third parties. As a starting point, public entities are generally immune from liability for failure to provide police protection (Government Code Section 845), or failure to make an arrest (Government Code Section 846). There is also a fair number of cases affirming that general rule, such as Anti ue Arts Corp. v. Cit of Torrence (1974 ) 114 Cal. Rptr. 332; Van Batsch v. Americari District lele2raph Co. (1985) 222 Cal. Rptr. 239; and7Lopez v. City o an _Meqo (1 87) Z35 Cal. Rptr. 583. However, all these cases have been careful to say that no liability is involved if no "special relationship" exists. The Lopez court also pointed out that circumstances giving rise to such liability should be "narrowly circumscribed." I believe that creates a rebuttable presunption in our favor. Some situations. however._ have resulted in "special reiationshia" liability. In Carpenter v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 281 Cal-. Rptr. 500. the court found the City liable based on a dutv to warn a witness of a robber's alleged plan to kill him after detectives assured the victim that there was "no real danger" and he relied on that assurance. It is a little hard for me to distinguish between the Carpenter case and H. B. (Jane Doe) V. Cit of San Die o (1991) 284 Cal. Rptr. 555 in which the court found no liability after police assured a victim of a burglary that "These guys never come back." The suspect did, in fact, return and raped the victim after police became aware of his threats to do so. This is why I said that the guidelines are not exactly clear. I suspect the difference between these two cases was simply a factual finding by the jury with more compelling evidence in carpenter than in l'!. S. showing that police actions somehow placed the victim at greater risk. The best I can find as far as a test to see if a "special relationship" exists is in the M. B. v. San Diego case. The court here said a special PDALARM2/TXTA.0IV 1 ':" CITYCc'<':;C� : c� m:,.� t Or :AIS, TO L�l:c.�t.": ,rnNr 1'jt^. 1,001 70L;I:E ^✓27AR:'.Ej:T _'U.". M7, TO ,'!Q:II _':R Mxt; .AR AIARMS ARFULT. ~APS ADDRESS SIGNA71RE n /-own f t c l '+ r Air I rn All i r � 1� wo, nk, VIVAK- A 17 � f�.. C Nc,✓.x,..t 2�--Niu 1c' 21 LJ Q r Q CITY COUNCIL MMES W PINKERTON. Mayor PHLLP A. PENNING MWAXPoR-4we DAVID M. H;NCHMAN JACK A SIEGLOCK IOHN R. (Randy) SNDER Mir Dear David: CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET PO. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 FAX i"% 5314M February 6, 1992 THOMAS A PEIERKN City ►MVM f ALICE M REIMCHE City Ckrt BO$ WNA T City A*wmy This letter will confirm that reconsideration of the decision to discontinue the Police Department's monitoring of silent alarms will appear on the Regular Calendar of the Agenda for the City Council meeting of March 4, 1992. Should you have any questions. please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, imij .-i� Alice M. Rei the City Clerk AMR/jmp