HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 6, 1993 (71)o�
CITY OF LODI
T
COUNCIL COMMUNI"0.TION
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Specifications and Authorization to Advertise
for Bids for City -monitored Silent Alarm System
MEETING DATE: October 6, 1993
PREPARED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the specifications and
authorize the advertisement for bids for a
replacement City -monitored Silent Alarm System.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This matter has been the topic of considerable
discussion at previous City Council meetings. Strong
sentiment has been expressed on both sides of the
issue. For additional background information attached are copies of the
Council Communications an this topic from the meetings of March 4, 1992 and
August 5, 1992 (Exhibit A). Also attached is a copy of the specifications
(Exhibit B). If the City is to remain in the silent alarm monitoring business,
the existing system must be replaced because it is obsolete. It has become
periodically unreliable, and there is increased difficulty in locating parts.
It was at the regular meeting of Wednesday, August 5, 1992, that the City
Council directed the staff to solicit bids for the installation of a
City -monitored Silent Alarm System. Staff has devoted considerable time to the
development of these specifications which proved to be a difficult assignment.
Staff had to start from "scratch" since there were no other public agencies who
had recently gone through such a procedure.
This is a complex issue. Those business owners who have expressed a strong
desire to be connected to such a system (which would replace the existing
system) have stated that they would pay for the purchase, installation and
monitoring of the system. However, until the cost of this replacement system
is determined, the cost to individual businesses cannot be calculated. IIp^n
receipt of proposals, staff will develop a schedule of charges based on an
estimated number of businesses who wish to connect to the system. The schedule
might then have to be amended if the number of interested parties proves to be
greater or less than anticipated.
00 1
APPROVED.
THOMAS A. PETERSON ecvUeo Daps.
City Manopw J
&M
W
City -monitored Silent Alarm System
October 6, 1993
Page Two
Those business owners who in the past have expressed an interest in connecting
to a new alarm system will be advised that this item appears on this agenda.
Chief of Police Larry Hansen and other Police Department representatives will
also be in attendance to provide additional information if requested.
FUNDING: To be determined
TAP.br
Attachments
CCCOM849/TXTA.07A
Respectfully submitted,
d• a
ep4a;;;—
Thomas A. Peterson
City Manager
C
CITY OF LODI
Ls
EXM- ff°ff' A
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Discuss City -Monitored Silent Alarm Service
MEETING DATE: August 5, 1992
PREPARED BY: City Manager
RECOM[+END ED ACTION: That the City Council direct staff to discontinue the
City -monitored silent alarm service.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its regular meeting of wedaesday, March 4, 1992
the City Council received a report from staff
requesting that the Council concur in the action of
staff to discontinue the silent alarm service monitored by the Police
Department. Attached (Exhibit A) is a copy of the Council Communication of
that date which addresses this matter. Nothing has occurred since then to
alter the information and position presented in that report.
At the March 4 meting, following a lengthy discussion, the City Council
directed staff to survey the business community to determine the level of
interest. The survey form was developed with the assistance of Mr. David Rice,
owner of Bitterman's Jewelers, 10 N. School Street. Mr. Rice has been the
leading proponent of the City of Lodi remaining in the business of monitoring a
silent alarm service. The survey form was mailed, with a self-addressed return
envelope, to 228 businesses. Of this number. only 25 indicated an interest in
subscribing to such a service, although at this time we do not know the costs
to individual businesses. It is interesting to note that not a single bank or
savings and loan institution expressed an interest in such a service.
Bitterman's Jewelers was the only jewelry store in the City expressing
interest. Police Captain Larry Hrnsen coordinated the survey and a copy of his
compilation of the results is also attached (Exhibit B). He will be in
attendance at Wednesday night's meeting to answer any questions Councilmembers
may have.
It is the staff's position that the City's remaining alarms can be adequately
served by a private aln m company or by an alternate method thereby eliminating
the need for the alarm panel as it presently exists or its replacement.
FUNDING: None required
TAP:br
Attachments
CCCOMS61/TXTA.07A
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Peterson
City Manager
APPROVED.
THOMAS A. PETERSON ,+cru+a o+o«
City Manager
CC -1
lCadi F
CITY Ot- LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department
MEETING DATE: March 4 1992
PREPARED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council concur in the action of staff to
discontinue the silent alarm service monitored by the
Police Department.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last sumer the 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 Cooncilmembers to the
contrary, we will move ahead with this effor...." 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, in a letter dated January 3, 1992, advised the 28
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 two tails 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 hoc silent alarm needs. The
only other complaint was received from Mr. David e, owner of Bitterman's
Jewelry, 10 N. School Street, who appeared tefore the City Council at its
regular meeting of Wednesday, January 15, 1992, to present his protest in
person.
There are a small lumber 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 deemed
appropriate.
APPROVED:
THOMAS A- PETERSON
City MnrnQor
L
l.ercue o.o«
• AGENDA TITLE: Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department
MEETING DATE: March 4 1.992
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 and as a result, the
major°ty 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 bids
ranged widely from a low of $14,800 to a high of 544,649. 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 can be installed at a cost of
$14,000 or $44,000. The issue is: should the City of Lodi remain in the silent
alarm business? It is the recommendation of staff that the City should not. The
Dispatch Center is already crowded 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 having 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 service. The fact that
approximately 90t-95% of the silent 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 that there remains in San Joaquin County not a single -ther law
enforcement agency still in the silent alarm business.
r -
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. With 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,
Thomas A. Peterson
City Manager
TAP:br
CCCOM443/TXTA.07A
L O D I P O L I C E D ly P A R T M E N T
• 1lCsL11ir11l1tiD�
M e m o r a n d u m
To: Thomas Peterson
City Manager
From: Captain Larry D. Hansen
Patrol Division Commander
Date: July 27, 1992
Subject: BUSINESS ALARM SURVEY
On June 24, 1992 the alarm monitoring survey was -mailed to 228
city businesses. The following results were noted:
1. 37 surveys were returned (unopened) with no forwarding address
2. 191 surveys were assumed to be delivered
3. 57 (of 191) responses were completed and returned to Lodi
Police Department
4. This is a survey return rate of 301
5. Of the 191 businesses who received the survey, 25 (or 138)
indicated they would like to be connected to Lodi Police
Department
C Included with this memo are the business alarm survey results,
with the following attachments:
A. Businesses interested in connecting to the alarm system
B. Businesses not interested in connecting to the alarm system
C. Current alarm subscribers (a total of 9)
D. City alarms
Based on the results of this survey, it is my recommendation that
the City of Lodi discontinue the alarm monitoring service. I have
consulted with a private alarm company and they have determined
they could monitor all city alarms, thus relieving us of the alarm
monitoring business. However, Lodi Police Department Dispatch
could continue to monitor our existing "panic buttons".
I believe the results of the survey offer an interesting profile
of the businesses in our community. I would refer you to the
summary of the survey results for any further analysis.
Respectfully submitted,
0-2a. &13rt�, Z
Captain arry Hansen
Patrol Division Commander
LDH:jh
C
C
BUSINESS ALARM SURVEY' :SULTS
1. Business name: (Addresses listed on Attachments A & B):
Interested in System (A)
Poser's TV and Radio
Apache Armory
Bitterman's Jewelers
Nick's Gun Works
Al's Wheel 6 Brake
Lodi Coin & Precious Metals
Midas Muffler and Brake -
Lodi Sporting Goods
Sak's TV and Home Furnishings
Lodi Funeral Home
Robinsons Western Store
Baumbach and Piazza
Star Market #1
A,ir Pacific Compressors, Inc.
VariPro System
Gannon Trucking
M & R Company
Radio Plus
Jack in the Box
Dependable Precision
Lodi Warehouse Distributors
Ag Industrial Mfg., Inc.
Guarantee Repair Service
Star Market #2
Ehler's Auto
2. Type of business:
(See Attachments A and B)
3. Identify your risk concern:
Not Interested in System (B)
King Videocable
Longs Drug Stores #48
Danz Jewelers
Burtons Shoes
Valley Ind.
Plaza Liquors #2
Newman & Ramsey Insurance
Country Kitchen
Lodi Video Station
Doors Plus, Inc.
Christensens Fashions
Cherokee Auto Body
Lodi Fab Industries
Bello Cabinets
Lodi Fisco
Stan's Business Machines
E & L Market
Farmers & Merchants Bank
Dobler's Ski Cottage
Wright Insurance Agency
Michele's Antiques
Hollywood Cafe
Lodi Metal Tech., Inc.
The Toggery
Wallace Computer Services
San Joaquin Vet. Clinic
Allied Disc Grinding
Ming's Smorgi Restaurant
Radio Shack
Great Adventures
Lodi Tent & Awning
Bank of Lodi
High Risk:
Expensive inventory - e,sily carried away 17 30%
Moderate Risk:
Moderate to expensive inventory - easy
to difficult to carry away 27 47%
Low Risk:
Low to medium price inventory - easy
to difficult to carry away 13 23%
57 100%
.• Survey Results
Page 2 Ao"N`
4. Describe your concerns for employee safety:
Four respondents expressed concern about employee safety.
Eleven respondents expressed concern about robbery.
5. Type of your existing alarm system:
A. Silent 3 58
B. Audible 10 188
C. Silent 8 Audible 43 758
D. None 1 28
57
1008
6. Does anyone monitor your alarm system?
YES 53 938
NO 4 78
57 1008
7. Please identify who monitors your
system.
Bay Alarm
16
288
American Alarm Electronics
12
218
Alamo
5
98
Lodi Police Dept.
4
78
Sonitrol
3
58
No Response
3
58
Lodi Security System
3
5%
Valley Alarm
2
38
ADT
2
38
None
1
28
The neighbors do
1
28
Honeywell Protection
1
28
Tandy Security System
1
28
Centurion Alarm
1
28
The System Alarm Co.
1
28
Advanced Alarm Technology
1
28
57
1008
8. Do you own your alarm system?
YES 33 58%
NO 22 38%
NO RESPONSE 2 4%
57 100%
- Survey Results
• Page 3
9. Is your system serviced by an alarm company?
YES 50 888
NO 6 108
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 1008
10. Do you have an alarm service contract with your alarm company?
YES 43 758
NO 13 238
NO RE-'?ONSE 1 28
57 1008
11. Do you have a current monitoring/maintenance agreement with
your alarm company?
YES 47 828
NO 10 188
NO RESPONSE 0 08
57 1008
12. Do you have a current agreement for response time?
YES 14 248
NO 42 748
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 1008
13. Do you have an agreement with your alarm company to call you
before the Lodi Police Department is called?
YES 21 378
NO 32 568
NO RESPONSE 2 3.58
YES AND NO 2 3.5%
57 1008
Comments:
1. Police called first
2. We have good reason on several occasions
3. Call police first
4. They call both depending on extent of break in
5. When select zones are activated and during normal
working hours
• '� • Survey Results
Page
4
•
14.
What is your esti—mate
of
how many "employee error" type
alarms you have on a monthly basis?
a. None
32
568
b. .5 a month
6
108
c. 1 a month
6
108
d. 1-2 per year
10
188
e. 5 a month
1
28
f. No Response
2
48
57
1008
j
15.
What is your estimate
of
how many "equipment malfunction"
j
type alarms you have
on a monthly basis?
a. None
33
588
b. .5 a month
5
98
c. 1 a month
4
78
d. 1-2 per year
11
198
e. 5 a month
1
28
f. No Response
3
58
i
57
1008
s
16.
How many burglaries,
unauthorized entires, and vandalisms
have you had in the past
year?
i
a. None
41
728
b. 1 Per Year
6
113
c. 2-4
3
58
d. 5-8
4
78
e. 12-15
2
38
i
f. No Response
1
28
57
1008
17.
Do you use special pass codes with your alarm company?
YES
43
768
NO
11
198
NO RESPONSE
3
58
57
100%
18.
Do you have an alarm
permit issued by the City?
YES
40
708
NO
10
188
NO RESPONSE
7
123
57
1008
Survey Results
_
• page 5
19. Would
you be interested in connecting to an alarm system
monitored
by the Lodi Police Department at a cost to be
determined?
YES 25 448
NO 29 518
NO RESPONSE 3 58
57 1008
Comments:
1)
Mildly interested
2)
If no other service is needed
3)
If cost is reasonable
4)
Perhaps, if more prompt response could be assured
5)
Corporation would not sanction
6)
Possibly, we're fairly happy with our current setup.
Low cost - interest.
7)
Not if I have to maintain a secondary system
8)
Unless the cost is less than I pay now
9)
Too many business costs now
10)
Would be too much money
11)
I feel that the private companies can and are doing a
c
great job
12)
I do not feel that our police department should have to
{`
service private businesses when other means are available
;
20. If it were possible for you to connect to an alarm system
monitored by the Lodi Police Department, would you be willing
to establish a system that is also simultaneously monitored
by a private alarm company?
YES 24 42%
NO 24 428
NO RESPONSE 8 14%
MAYBE 1 2%
57 1008
NOTE: Of the 25 respondents who said they would like to be
connected to LPD, 3 said they were not willing to establish a
separate system and 1 said maybe. Of the 29 respondents who
said they would not like to be connected to LPD, 3 said they
were willing to establish a separate system.
C(,mments :
1) Not unless you think it is necessary
2) Perhaps, if a more prompt response time could be assured
3) Already done
4) We currently have such a system
• Survey Results
Page 6
5) If confusion as to responsibility was eliminated between
the two services
6) Maybe
7) If the cost was not too high, and the city police
department recommended them as a reliable service
8) In existence at our business now
9) Possibly, depends on cost involved
10) Already monitored by private alarm company
11) Depends on cost
12) Perhaps, if it were a free service
13) I would not be willing to pay the additional cost
involved as my private system has been adequate for 9
years
14) If no charges were incurred
21. Are you currently satisfied with your present alarm company?
YES 47 828
NO 6 118
NO RESPONSE 4 78
57 1008
Comments:
1) Not completely - the time taken to notify police of alarm
is not consistently fast enough
2) Lodi Police Department is solely responsible for our
alarm monitoring
3) Not applicable, Lodi Police Department only monitors
alar.n
4) I would feel safer if we were monitored by our police
department
5) Since I got rid of my other alarm company, I haven't had
any problems, with the other company, I was robbed 3 times
22. Does your present alarm company offer guards or contract
service personnel to secure your premises in the event of
window smashlburglary at your business?
YES 7 128
NO 40 708
NO RESPONSE 10 188
57 1008
Comments:
1) They will arrange to provide this service at adeitional
cost
2) Not sure
3) Not sure
4) Not that I know of
5) Very interested in direct police monitoring
Survey Results
Page 7 3
6) Not applicable
® 7) Not sure
8) Unknown
9) Not applicable
10) Damage is covered and repaired, and employees guard store
11) Unknown
12) Unknown
13) Unknown
14) Unknown
15) We are required to secure alarm after each alarm condition
•
0
0
•
0
BUSINESSES INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED BY LPD
(Page 1 of 2)
Poser's TV and Radio
208 S. School Street
Apache Armory
920 S. Cherokee Lane #F
Bitterman's Jewelers
10 N. School Street
Nick's Gun Works
440 E. Lodi Avenue
Al's Wheel & Brake
334 E. Lockeford Street
Lodi Coin & Precious Metals
105 W. Walnut Street
Midas Muffler and Brake
325 E. Kettleman Lane
Lodi Sporting Goods
858 W. Kettleman Lane
Sak's TV and Home Furnishings
200 N. Sacramento - Service Dept.
Sak's TV and Home Furnishings
210 W. Pine Street - Sales Dept.
Lodi Funeral Home
725 S. Fairmont Avenue
Robinsons Western Store
101 E. Lodi Avenue
Baumbach and Piazza
323 W. Elm Street
Star Market 11
741 S. Cherokee Lane
Air Pacific Compressors, Inc.
826 N. Sacramento Street
VariPro System
711 N. Sacramento Street
ATTACHMENT A
go
E-3
BUSINESSES INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED BY LPD
(Page 2 of 2)
Gannon Trucking
1123 E. Vine Street
M & R Company
33 E. Tokay Street
Radio Plus
335 E. Kettleman Lane
Jack in the Box
419 W. Lodi Avenue
Dependable Precision
1111 S. Stockton Street
Lodi Warehouse Distributors
320 E. Lockeford Street
Ag Industrial Manufacturing, Inc.
110 S. Beckman Road
Guarantee Repair Service
101 Commerce Street
Star Market #2
2525 S. Hutchins Street
Ehler's Auto
217 N. Sacramento Street
BUSINESSES NOT INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED BY LPD
(Page 1 of 2)
King Videocable
1521 S. Stockton Street
Longs Drug Stores #48
100 W. Lodi Avenue
Danz Jewelers
220 S. School Street
Burtons Shoes
17 W. Pine Street
Valley Ind.
1313 S. Stockton Street
Plaza Liquors #2
2420 W. Turner Road
Newman & Ramsey Insurance
402 W. Pine Street
Country Kitchen
1327 W. Lockeford Street
Lodi Video Station
550 S. Cherokee Lane #A
Doors Plus, Inc.
314 N. Main Street
Christensens Fashions
5 N. School Street
Cherokee Auto Body
314 N. Cherokee Lane
Lodi Fab Industries
1029 S. Sacramento Street
Bello Cabinets
1109 Black Diamond Way
Lodi Fisco
1150 Victor Road
Stan's Quality Business Machines
469 Murray
ATTACHMENT B
11
•
AO**-,
BUSINESSES NOT INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED BY LPD
(Page 2 of 2)
E & L Market
844 S. Central Avenue
Farmers & Merchants Bank
121 W. Pine Street
Dobler's Ski Cottage
545 W. Lockeford Street
Wright Insurance Agency
2100 W. Kettleman Lane
Michele's Antiques
15 N. Cherokee Lane
Hollywood Cafe
315 S. Cherokee Lane
Lodi Metal Tech., Inc.
213 S. Kelly Street
The Toggery
28 S. School Street
Wallace Computer Services
1831 S. Stockton Street
San Joaquin Veterinary Clinic
523 W. Harney Lane
Allied Disc Grinding, Inc.
1003 E. Vine Street
Ming's Smorgi Restaurant
1040 W. Kettleman Lane
Radio Shack
230 W. Kettleman Lane
Great Adventures Travel
605 W. Kettleman Lane
Lodi Tent & Awning Co., Inc.
1617 Ackerman
Bank of Lodi
701 S. Ham Lane
ATTACHMENT C
CURRENT ALARM SUBSCRIBERS
09
Posers TV and Radio
208 S. School Street
10
Apache Gun Works
920 S. Cherokee Lane
21
Bitterman's Jewelers
10 N. School Street
36
Nick's Gun Shop
440 E. Lodi Avenue
51
Al's Wheel & Brake
334 E. Lockeford Street
Lodi Coin s Precious Metals
105 W. Walnut Street
13
Ehlers Garage
217 N. Sacramento Street
28
Beckman Residence
107 N. Avena
31
Big O Tires
302 N. Cherokee Lane
38
Borelli Jewelers
9 N. School Street
ATTACHMENT C
ZONE#
O1
02
05
07
12
14
15
22
24
26
27
40
48
52
54
75
ATTACHMENT D
CITY ALARMS
ALARM/LOCATION
Water Flow Alarm
Police Basement
Smoke Alarm/Phone
Computer Area
Heat Alarm
Generator Room
Criminal Court
Boiler Room Diesel
Police Department
Sewer Pit Pump
Police Basement
Computer Room Alarm
City Hall
Panic Alarm
Carnegie Forum
Judge - LMC Department 1
City Hall Finance
City Manager
Panic Button
Jail Smoke Alarm
Gasoline Sump
Generator Room
Court - Department 2
Burglar Alarm
Carnegie Forum
District Attorney
Lodi Office
U'aiMBRT B-1
CITY OF LODI
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
(Specification No. PD 9301)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Purchasing Officer of the City of Lodi, State of
California, will receive sealed bids pursuant to Specification No. PD 9301 at the Finance
Department, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA. 95240 or P.O. Box 3006, Lodi,
CA. 95241-1910 not later than 11:00 am on December 7, 1993, at which time they will be
publicly opened and provided to the Police Department for evaluation, for the purdlmase of
the following supplies, material, and/or services:
Alarm Monitoring System
S
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. Each proposal shall be submitted
in a sealed envelope plainly marked: i
"Proposal for Alarm Monitoring System, Specification No. PD 9301"
Each proposal shall be made out on a proposal form as provided. Prices shall include State
and local sales taxes separately identified.
The City of Lodi reserves the right to accept such proposal or proposals as may be deemed
most advantageous to the City, the right to waive any informality in a proposal, and the
further right to reject any aid all proposals.
Additional information maty be obtained by contacting Captain Jim Schick at (209) 333-6882.
Joel Harriss, Purchasing Officer
Lodi, California
TABLE OF CO
Page
General Terms and Conditions 1-3
Special Terms and Conditions 4
i
Specifications 5-6
5
Proposal & Submission Forms 7
Statement of Qualifications & References 8
Purchase Agreement 9-11
GENERAL PROPOSAI ERATS AND CONDITIONS
1. Requirement to Meet All Proposal Provisions - Each proposal shall meet all of the
specifications and proposal terms and conditions. By virtue of the proposal submission and
acceptance of the proposal award, the proposer acknowledges agreement with and acceptance
of all provisions of the specifications, exxpt as expressly qualified in the proposal.
Nonsubstantial deviations may be considered, provided that the proposer submits a full
description and explanation of, and justifications for, the proposed deviations. Final
determination of any proposed deviation will be made by the City of Lodi.
2. Proposal Submission - Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
proposal package. Proposal documents shall be enclosed in an envelope which shall be sealed
and addressed to the Purchasing Officer, City of LODI, 221 West Pine St., Lodi, California
95240. In order to guard against premature opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled
with the proposal title, name of proposer, and date and time of proposal opening.
3. Proposal Retention and Award - The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a
period of 60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive f
nonsubstantial irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete
one part of a proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that the proposals are
qualified by specific limitations, and to make award as the interest of the City may require
based on the criteria identified in Special Terms and Conditions.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extensions - The extensions of unit prices for the
quantities indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the proposer must be entered in
figures in the spaces provided on the Proposal Submission Form(s). Any lump sum price
shall be stated in figures. The Proposal Submission Form(s) must be completed in full. If the
unit price and the total amount stated by the proposer for any item are not in agreement, the
unit price alone will be considered as representing the proposer's intention and the total will
be corrected to conform to the specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal - A proposer may withdraw his/her proposal, without prejudice
prior to the time specified for the opening, by submitting a written request to the Purchasing
Officer for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the proposer
unopened. No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than the place
stated in the "Request for Proposals" will be considered. All proposals will be opened and
declared publicly. Proposers or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening
of the proposals.
6. Submission of One Proposal Only - No individual or business entity of any kind shall
be allowed to make or file, or to be interested in, more than one proposal, except an
alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity
which has submitted a sub -proposal to a proposer submitting a proposal, or who has quoted
prices on materials to such proposer, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a
sub-r)roposal or from quoting prices to other proposers submitting proposals.
7. Contract Requiremdi - The proposer to whom award is . e shall execute a written
contract with the City within ten (10) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent
by mail to it at the address given it its proposal. The Contract shall be made in the form
adopted by the City and incorporated in these specifications. The proposer warrants that
he/she possesses, or has arranged through subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, tabor
and materials to carry out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with all Federal,
State, County, City and Special District Laws, ordinances, and Regulations which are
applicable.
8. Failure to Accept Contract -1f the proposer to whom the award is made fails to enter
into the contract: the award will be annulled; any proposal security will be forfeited in
accordance with the Special Proposal Terms and be made to the next lowest responsible
proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if it were the party to whom the first award
was made.
9. Contract Assignment - The proposer shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise
dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, of its power to execute such a contract
to any individual or business entity of any kind without the. previous written consent of the
City of Lodi.
10. Non -Discrimination - In the performance of the terms of this contract, the proposer
agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage
in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin
or ancestry, or religion of such person.
11. Work Delays - Should the successful proposer be obstructed or delayed in the work
required to be done hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of
the City, or by strikes, fire, earthquake, or any other act of God, or by the inability to obtain
materials, equipment, or labor due to Federal Government restrictions arising out of defense
or mar programs, then the time of completion may, at the City's sole option, be extended for
such periods as may be agreed upon by the City and the successful proposer. In the event
that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions prior to the completion date of the
contract, the City may, at that time of acceptance of the work, waive liquidated damages
which may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of the above, after
hearing evidence as to the reasons for such verbal, and making a finding as to the causes of
same.
12. Labor Actions - In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action
at the time of the award of the proposal (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing
a labor action), the City reserves the right to declare that said proposer is no longer a
responsible proposer, and to select another proposer that is not experiencing a labor action.
13. Sales Tax Allocation - For sales occurring within the City of Lodi, the City is
reimbursed one percent of the sales tax paid. Therefore, for proposals from retail firms
located in the City of Lodi at the time of proposal closing for which sales tax is allocated to
the City of Lodi, 1 % of the taxable amount of the proposal will be deducted from the
proposal by the City in making price comparisons between proposals.
14. Communications f07"arding Proposal -'
All timely reques! 3r information submitted
in writing will receive a written response from the City. Telephone communications with
City staff are not encouraged, but will be permitW. However, such verbal communication
shall not be binding on the City.
15. Business Tax - All proposers should be aware of the City's Business Tax Ordinance
which requires that a Business Tax Receipt be obtained before any business, trade,
profession, enterprise, establishment, occupation, or calling is conducted within the City. The
amount of the tax is based on business conducted in the City of LODI, and is required to be
paid when business is conducted in the City even though the principal location of the
business may be outside of the City or a Business Tax Receipt has been issued to them by
another city. Issuance of a Business Tax Receipt is only evidence of the fact that the tax has
been paid; it does not sanction or approve any operation not otherwise permitted.
Verification that the proposer has a valid City of LODI Business Tax Receipt will be
obtained by the City prior to the execution of the contract. Additional information regarding
the City's Business Tax program may be obtained by calling (209) 333-6761.
16. Payment Terms - The City's payr-.:nt terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original
invoice referencing the City's purchase order number and acceptance of the materials,
supplies, equipment, or services (Net 30). Payment will only be released earlier for payment
discounts and acceptance of materials, supplies, equipment or services.
17. Use of Trade Names - The use of trade names in these specifications is intended to
assist in the description of material, equipment or services requested and will not be used to
limit competition between comparable material, equipment or services.
SPECIAL TOMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Contract Term. The prices provided for these items and services must be valid for a period
of one year unless otherwise conditioned by the Proposer as an exception to the Proposal.
2. Non -Exclusive Contract. The City reserves the right to purchase equipment and services
listed in the RFP Submission Form, as well as any supplemental items or services, from other
contrnctorslsuppliers.
3. Evaluation. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of price, services proposed, warranty,
qualifications of proposer, and reliability of equipment as determined by selection committee
which may use references, trade magazines, and consumer reports in making this determination.
4. Qualification of Contractor. The proposer will provide the City with a list of at least three
(3) references to verify the quality and timeliness of services and equipment recommended under
this proposal to include a history of the manufacturer of the equipment which includes how long
they have been in business, the location of the parent company and a list of current customers.
The City reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information
regarding your firms's qualifications and reliability of the equipment recommended and
experience with the installation and maintenance of the alarm system recommended.
5. Conflict of Interest. The Proposer certifies that no one who has or will have any financial
interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of the City. It is expressly agreed that,
in performing these services, the Proposer shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor
and not an agent or employee of the City.
6. Detailed Specifications. 'The Proposer will provide sufficient detail and system description
(prices and specifications) to allow evaluation of equipment and services. A detailed drawing
of the proposed alarm system will be provided with the proposal. Each proposal will contain
an accurate statement of all dimensions, ventilation requirements, input power requirements,
wiring requirements as well as all other specifications necessary for installation and operation
of the system.
7. Delivery. The proposer will deliver the system within 90 days of award of contact or sooner
if specified in proposal.
8. Warranty. The proposer guarantees that all equipment and subcomponents are free of
defects in both materials and workmanship for a period of one year from date of delivery and
acceptance by the City.
SPECIFICATIONS NO PD 9301
ALARM MONITORING SYSTEM
T
1. The system must have the capability of monitoring both direct wire and digital systems.
2. The system must be simultaneously monitored by the Lodi Police Department monitoring
equipment and a private alarm company. The alarm system must be fully redundant; it
must have a complete backup system at the Lodi Police Department, Public Safety
Building in order to provide total protection.
3. The system must have its own uninterrupted power source so that if power is lost, the
system will continue to function.
4. The system must be capable of operating on 120 volt power source.
5. The system must be capable of accepting a minimum of 100 subscribers.
6. The system must be capable of providing a hard copy of all alarm monitoring functions:
* Upon receipt of an alarm, the system must instantly indicate to the
dispatcher the name, address, type of alarm, number of the alarm, plus
date and time of receipt of an alarm on a :careen sufficiently large enough
to enable the dispatcher to read and immediately broadcast the information
without having to refer to a Roldex or numerical list of names.
* The message must be in plain English and visable to the naked eye from
a distance of at least 6 feet.
* The hard copy printout must be given simultaneously to indicate the type
of alarm circuit number and, again, the exact time and date of receipt of
the alarm
7. The proposer must warrant that the anticipated life of the system is a minimum of ten
years.
8. The proposer must agree to respond to requests for repair seven days a week, 24 hours
a day and provide on the scene repairs within two hours of notification or pay the City
penalties in the amount of $200 per day for each day the system or a component of the
system is inoperable.
9. The proposer will list warranties on all equipment and components by listing equipment
and components under warranty, length of warranty, and type of warranty. In addition,
the proposer will identify equipment and components that will not be under warranty
E
s
SPECIFICATIONS NO PD 9301 - continued
10. The proposer will describe maintenance services to be provided and the cost per hour for
maintenance services not under warranty and provide a copy of the maintenance contract
with the proposal.
11. The proposer will provide training to be approved by the Lodi Police Department at the
Lodi Police Department prior to installation of system :tad equipment.
12. The proposer will confirm that the system recommended is listed by Underwriters
Laboratories (UL).
13. All deviations from the specifications, general terms and conditions, and special terms
and conditions will be identified and a full explanation of each deviation provided.
s
6
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM
TO: City of Lodi
ATTN: Joel Harris, Purchasing Officer
221 gest Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
SUBJECT: Alarm Monitoring System - Specification No PD 9301
The undersigned declares that slice has carefully examined specifications PD 9301, General
Terms and Conditions, and Special Terms and Conditions accompanying the Request for
Proposals and is thoroughly familiar with the contents thereof; is authorized to represent the
proposer, and proposes to deliver the services and equipment at the prices stated on the attached
forms) each numbered in the order of submission.
Signature of Authorized Representative
Name of Firm
Street Address
City, State and ZIP
Telephone
7
STATR,MgT OF PRC'ISER'S QUALIFICATIONS
List and describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm which
demonstrate your ability to provide the services included with the scope of the
specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City reserves the right to
contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your
firm's qualifications.
Reference No. t
Customer Name:
Contact Individual:
Address:
Customer Name:
Contact Individual:
Address:
Customer Name:
Contact Individual:
Address:
Reference No. 2
Reference No. 3
ignature of Authotized Representative
8
Date
Phone No:
Phone No:
Phone No:
T
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREFAiENT is made and entered into in the City of Lodi on this day of
, 1990, by and between the CITY OF LODI, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as CITY, and the , hereinafter referred to as
CONTRACTOR.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on , 1990, CITY invited proposals for the procurement of am alarm
monitoring system and services per Specification No. PD 9301.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said invitation, CONTRACTOR submitted a proposal which was
accepted by CITY. for said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
I. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and
entered, as first written above, and shall remain in effect for a period of one (1) year. At the
end of one year, the City may, at its option renew the contract for an additional one year period.
If the contract is renewed for a second year, prices may be renogiated between the CITY and
CONTRACTOR within 90 days of the second year renewal subject to an increase no greater
than the annual percentage change in the U.S. Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
(CPI -U) for the most recent period for which this information is available pnui- to renewal.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. The Notice Inviting Proposals, the General Bid
Terms and Conditions, the Special Bid Terms and Conditions, Bid Submission Form(s), and the
Bid Specifications, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For furnishing services as specified in this Agreement, CITY will
pay and CONTRACTOR shall receive therefor payment based upon actual services and
equipment ordered and received by CITY and the prices offered and services to be provided by
CONTRACTOR.
Payment to the CONTRACTOR shall be made within :0 days after receipt of an original invoice
from the CONTRACTOR and acceptance of the service, equipment or material by CITY.
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and
agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by CITY, CONTRACTOR agrees
with CITY to furnish the services and equipment to do everything required by this Agreement
and the said specifications. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, CONTRACTOR
warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors engaged for the performance of this
Agreement tha' only persons authorized to work in the United States pursuant to the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance
of the work hereunder
1N ?1_.
5. HOLD HARMLES11"IND INDEMNIFICATION. CON-' ►CTOR agrees to defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its officials, officers, employees, representatives, and
agents, from and against all claims, lawsuits, liabilities or damages of whatsoever nature arising
out of or in connection with, or relating in any manner to any act or omission of
CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees, and subcontractors of any tier and employees thereof
in connection with the performance or non-performance of this Agreement. The
CONTRACTOR shall thoroughly investigate any and all claims and indemnify the CITY and
do whatever is necessary to protect the CITY, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, as to any such claims, lawsuits, liabilities, expenses, or damages.
6. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time by providing
thrity (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Upon such termination,
Contractor shall return to the City all material not yet copied. Work -in -progress will be
completed, delivered and billed as outlined in the Agreement.
7. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties
hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and
specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral
agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.
8. ANTI -DISCRIMINATION. In the performance of the terms of this Agreement,
CONTRACTOR, agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may
employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex,
national origin or ancestry, or religion of such persons. Violation of this provision may result
in the imposition of penalties referred to in Labor Code Section 1735.
9. AUDIT. CITY shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other
written materials used by CONTRACTOR in preparing its statements to CITY as condition
precedent to any payment to CONTRACTOR.
10. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
CITY: Jennifer Perrin, City Clerk
221 West Pine St.
Lodi, CA 93403-8100
CONTRACTOR:
�i
12. AUTHORITY TOECUTE AGREEMENT. Both Cr` and CONTRACTOR do
covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly
authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY:
Thomas A Peterson, City Manager
CONTRACTOR:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Chief of Police
ATTEST:
Jennifer Perrin, City Clerk
JAS WHEEL & BRAKE SERVICE, INC. .-
334 E. LOCKEFORD STREET
LODI, CA. 95240
SEP 3 0'93
r ECE�VE� Cayra„avrsorfa
(209) 334-2323 �•��`? 29 Ft1 It '7
PEI
SEPTEMBER 29, 1993
LODI CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL:
I WOULD LIKE THIS LETTER READ ALOUD TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS
AND STAFF MEMBERS AT THE OCTOBER 6, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING.
REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SPECIFICATION NUMBER
PD 9301 "ALARM MONITORING SYSTEM".
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER WHY IT HAS
TAKEN A YEAR TO DEVELOP THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS?
SECOND, I DISAGREE WITH SPECIFICATION #2 ON PAGE 5 THAT
STATES THE ALARM MONITORING SYSTEM MUST HAVE A COMPLETE
BACKUP SYSTEM AT THE LODI POLICE DEPARTMENT. THIS WILL
LIKELY DOUBLE THE COST OF THE SYSTEM. I FEEL THAT HAVING
A SEPARATE SIMULTANEOUS MONITORING OF OUR ALARM BY A
PRIVATE ALARM COMPANY IS OUR BACKUP TO THE LODI POLICE
DEPARTMENT. HAVING A TbTAL.OF THREE SYSTEMS (TWO AT LODI
POLICE DEPT. AND ONE AT THE PRI—V fE ALARM COMPANY) IS AN
OVERKILL AND ADDS UNNECESSARY COSTS TO THE SYSTEM.
THIRD, REGARDING ITEM #7 ON PAGE 5; HOW CAN ANY BIDDER
"WARRANT THAT THE ANTICIPATED LIFE OF THE SYSTEM IS A
MINIMUM OF TEN YEARS"? ONE CAN ONLY ESTIMATE THE ANTICIPATED
LIFE OF SUCH A SYSTEM, NOT WARRANT IT FOR TEN YEARS!
THAN YOU Ftp YOU ATTENTION TO THIS LETTER.
�'�s•t � nark
STEVEN R. BOSSERMAN
CO-OWNER,
AL'S WHEEL & BRAKE SERVICE
334 E. LOCKEFORD STREET
LODI, CA. 95240
r
W
BITTERMAN' S
10 North School Street
Lod 1. CA 952401363-4593�R.l�
prronef • Gfnulnf Gant • Caftan Osf+pn • wftcn t Jwary Mow rr�_ f �: 'r ^ � . ^
OF LUJ{
Captain Jim Shick
Lodi Police Department
230 W. Elm Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Captain Shick:
October 13, 1993
With regard to our meeting this date, I want to express my apprecia-
tion for having been afforded the opportunity to meet with you and
Mr. Evans to discuss the alarm monitoring proposal.
My understanding of the results of this meeting are as follows:
Item #2. This item is to be removed in its entirety
from the request for proposal.
Item #7. We agree that a supplier cannot "warrant"
the anticipated life of a system and that the wording will
be changed to ask that the proposer "indicate the ex-
pected life of a system", perhaps based upon the exper-
ience of the manufacturer and supplier.
Item #8. The portion of the specification concerning
''component" will be eliminated. Additionally, the pen-
alty requirement will be changed to read "penalties in
the amount of $200 per day may be assessed for each day
the system is inoperable.' Or words to that effect, with
the understanding between us today that penalties in that
amount need not necessarily be assessed depending upon
the circumstances.
In the event my understanding of these matters is incorrect,
I would appreciate a clarification prior to the solicitation
of a request for proposal.
Again, thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter with us
and for your willingness to listen to our positions and reasoning be-
hind them.
In the event I can be of further assistance, or furnish additional in-
formation, please do not hesitate to contact me.
DER:rr
cc: T. Peterson J. Sieglock
L. Hansen R. Snider
P. PenninoJ R. Davenport
Respectfully yours,
nAVID E. RICE
S. Mann
Continued-10�gusa+a3 , �"i991�
J)
2. to certify the filing of s Negative
Declaration by the Community Development
Director as adequate environmental
documentation on the above project.
COMMUNICATIONS
(CITr CLMM)
CLAIMS CC -4(0 On recommendation of Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc.,
the City's Contract Administrator and the City Attorney, on
motion of Council Member Hinchman, Snider secc-d, the City
Council denied the following claims:
a) David Brien, Date of lose 7/3/92;
b) Miracle Recreation, et al, Date of lose
4/17/91; and
c) Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District,
Date of loss 1/24/92.
ABC LICENSE
APPLICATIONS
CC -7(f) City Clerk Reimche presented'.the following Alcoholic
Beverage Control License Applications which had been
received:
a) Richard H. Orr, Roundhouse Tavern, 104 east
Lodi Avenue, Lodi, On Sale General Public
Premises, Person to Person Transfer; and
b) Thrifty Corporation, 300 West Kettleman
Lane, Lodi, Off -Sale General and Off -Sale
Beer and wine.
REGULAR CALENDAR
3TTraI�N3r1�ORSDrSIL�B1iT�I.A�BBRVIC�
CC -6 The City Council was reminded that the subject of
CC -16 City -monitored silent alarm system appeared on previous
CC -152 City Council agendas of March 4, 1992 and August 5, 1992.
At its last regular meeting, the City Council reviewed the
results of a survey of the business community cc:.ducted by
the Police Department. Mr. David Rice, owner of
Sitterman's Jewelry, 10 North School Street, who assisted
in the developmfnt of the survey form, was present at that
meeting and requested more time to personally contact those
businesses that did not respond to the survey.
The following persons addressed the City Council regarding
the subject:
30
Continued August 19, 1992
a) Mr. Dave Rice, 10 North School Street, Lodi;
b) Mrs. Barbara McWilliams, 208 South School
Street, Lodi; and
c) Mr. Steve Bosserman, 109 Hemlock Drive, Lodi. y
i
Captain Larry Hansen responded to questions regarding the
matter as were posed by members of the City Council.
A very lengthy discussion followed with questions being
directed to staff and to those who had addressed the City
Council regarding the matter.
on motion of Council Member Hinchman, Snider second, the
City Council directed the solicitation of bids for a
City -monitored silent alarm service. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Hinchman, Sieglock, Snider and
Pinkerton (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - Pennino
Absent: Council Members - None i
ORDINAHCS INTRODUCED ESTABLISHING`A 5 MPH
SPEED LIMIT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DESCRIBED
AS THE RIVERGATE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
LAGOON, APH 041-290-0026
ORDINANCE NO. 1554 INTRODUCED
CC -6 City Attorney McNatt reminded the City Council that at its
CC -16 meeting of August S. 1992, a request was made by Mr. Robert
CC -149 Stipe on behalf of the Rivergate Homeowners' Association
CC -184 for the Council to adopt an ordinance establishing a 5 -MPH
speed limit on the lagoon owned by the Rivergate
Homeowners' Association. Under Harbors and Navigation,
Code Section 660, it is necessary that the city in which a
body of water is located formally adopt an ordinance
establishing speed limits on bodies of water before such
speed limit can be enforced.
The Council recently acted to establish a 5 -MPH speed limit
on Lodi Lake (Ordinance No. 1553). This matter is slightly
different in that it addresses private property, on which
the City will probably not have any enforcement
capability. As such, the ordinance establishing a 5 -MPH
speed limit is uncodified, i.e., meaning it will not be
placed in the Lodi Municipal Code. This will still allow
enforcement by the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Marine
Patrol.
31
im
r
Of
4`
CITY OF LODE COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: City -Monitored Silent Alarm System
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1992
PREPARED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council direct staff to, discontinue the
City -monitored silent alarm service.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This item has appeared on previous City Council
agendas of March 4, 1992 and August 5, 1992. Copies
of those Council Communications and appropriate
exhibits are attached (Exhibit A).
At its last regular meeting, the City Council reviewed the results of a survey
of the business community conducted by the Police Department. Mr. David Rice,
owner of Bitterman's Jewelry, 10 N. School Street, who assisted in the
development of the survey form, was present at that meeting and requested more
time to personally contact those businesses that did not respond to the survey.
Police Captain Larry Hansen will be in attendance to assist in the
presentation. Mr. Rice will be apprised that this item appears on this agenda.
FUNDING: Nona required
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Peterson
City Manager
TAP:br
Attachment
CCCOM575/TXTA.07A
00
APPROVED:
THOMAS A. PETERSON r.eroaa,
City Manager
CC -t
CITY OF LODI
_��X LU=HMIT A
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Discuss City-Nonitored Silent Alarm Service
MEETING DATE: August S. 1992
PREPARED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council direct staff to discontinue the
City -monitored silent alarm service.
BACXGP.OUND INFORMATION: At its regular meet'ng of Wednesday, March 4, 1992
the City Council received a report fr m staff
requesting that the Council concur in the action of
staff to discontinue the silent alarm service monitored by the Police
Department. Attached (Exhibit A) is a copy of the Council Communication of
that date which addresses this matter. Nothing has occurred since then to
alter the information and position presented in that report.
At the March 4 meeting, following a lengthy discussion, the City Council
directed staff to survey the business community to determine the level of
interest. The survey form was developed with the assistance of Mr. David Rice,
owner of Bitterman'a Jewelers, 10 N. School Street. Mr. Rice has been the
leading proponent of the City nf Lodi r.maining in the business of monitoring a
silent alarm service. The survey form was mailed, with a self -addrea ed return
envelope, to 228 businesses. Of this number, only 2S indicated an interest in
subscribing to such a service, although at this time we do ::-3t know the costs
to individual businesses. It is interesting to note that not is single bank or
savings and loan institution expressed an interest in such a service.
Bitterman's Jewelers was the only jewelry store in the City expzazsing
interest. Police Captain Larry Hansen coordinated the survey and a copy o` his
compilation of the results is also attached (Exhibit B). He will be in
attendance at Wednesday night's meeting to answer any questions Councilmembers
may have.
It is the staff's position that the City's remaining alarms can be adequately
served by a private alarm company or by an alternate method thereby eliminatinq
the need for the alarm panel as it presently exists or its replacement.
FUNDING: None required
TAP:br
Attachments
CCCOM561/TXTA.07A
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Aa
Thomas 'Peterson
City Manager
APPROVED. J
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager r+arelw
L
CC -1
CITY Or" LODI
F
AGENDA•TITLE:•• Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department
MEETING DATE: March 4 1992
PREPARED BY: City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council concur in the action of staff to
discontinue the silent alarm service monitored by the
Police Department.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last summer the 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 will 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, in a letter dated January 3, 1992, advised the 28
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 two 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 meeting of Wednesday, January 15, 1992, 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 existinq alarm system, the City will evaluate
alarm system technologies at that time and recommend action as deemed
appropriate.
AP► 90YED.
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Mnnnger
L J
r.tr.I.O Oat./
1
AGENDA TITLE: Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department
MEETING 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 6 -rd 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 and as a result, the i
majority of California cities no longer provide this service.
1
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 bids s
ranged widely from a low of $14,800 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 can be installed at a cost of
$14,000 or $44,000. The issue is: should the City of Lodi remain in the silent
alarm business? It is the recommendation of staff that the City should not. The
Dispatch Center is already crowded 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 having 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 service. The fact that
approximately 90%-95% of the silent 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 that there remains in San Joaquin County not a single other law
enforcement agency still in the silent alarm business.
AGENDA TITLE:
g MEETING DATE:
Page Three
e
t
t
Discontinue Silent Alarm Service Monitored by Police Department
March 4 1992
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. With 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,
Thomas A. Peterson
City O..anager
TAP:br
CCCOM443/TXTA.07A
C
--Nor
LODI� POL I CE DE,.PA( TRENT
Memo r a n d u m EMITS
To: Thomas Peterson
City Manager
From: Captain Larry D. Hansen
Patrol Division Commander
Date: July 27, 1992
Subject: BUSINESS ALARM SURVEY
On June 24, 1992 the alarm monitoring survey was mailed to 228
city businesses. The following results were noted:
1. 37 surveys were returned (unopened) with no forwarding address
2. 191 surveys were assumed to be delivered
3. 57 (of 191) responses were completed and returned to Lodi
Police Department
4. This is a survey return rate of 30%
S. Of the 191 businesses who received the survey, 25 (or 13%)
indicated they would like to be connected to Lodi Police
Department
Included with this memo are the business alarm survey results,
with the following attachments:
A. Businesses interested in connecting to the alarm system
B. Businesses not interested in connecting to the alarm system
C. Current alarm subscribers (a total of 9)
D. City alarms
Based on the results of this survey, it is my recommendation that
the City of Lodi discontinue the alarm monitoring service. I have
consulted with a private alarm company and they have determined
they could monitor all city alarms, thus relieving us of the alarm
monitoring business. However, Lodi Police Department Dispatch
could continue to monitor our existing "panic buttons".
I believe the results of the survey offer an interesting profile
of the businesses in our community. I would refer you to the
summary of the survey results for any further analysis.
Respectfully submitted,
0-0.'p:t - & a n q - i �).
Captain arry Hansen
Patrol Division Commander
LDH: jh
C
CjUSINESS ALARM SURVEY !"su
1. Business name: (Addresses listed on Attachments A & B):
Interested in System (A) Not Interested in System (B)
Poser's TV and Radio
Apache Armory
Bitterman's Jewelers
Nick's Gun Works
Al's Wheel & Braye
Lodi Coin & Prec.•us Metals
Midas Muffler and drake
Lodi Sporting Goods
Sak's TV and Home Furnishings
Lodi Funeral Home
Robinsons Western Store
Baumbach and Piazza
Star Market #1
Air Pacific Compressors, Inc.
VariPro System
Gannon Trucking
M & R Company
Radio Plus
Jack in the Box
Dependable Precision
3adi Warehouse Distributors
Ag Industrial Mfg., Inc.
Guarantee Repair Service
Star Market #2
Ehler's Auto
2. Type of business:
(See Attachments A and B)
3. Identify your risk concern:
King Videocable
Longs Drug Stores #48
Danz Jewelers
Burtons Shoes
Valley Ind.
Plaza Liquors #2
Newman & Ramsey Insurance
Country Kitchen
Lodi Video Station
Doors Plus, Inc.
Christensens Fashions
Cherokee Auto Body
Lodi Fab Industries
Bello Cabinets
Lodi Fisco
Stan's Business Machines
E & L Market
Farmers & Merchants Bank
Dobler's Ski Cottage
Wright Insurance Agency
Michele's Antiques
Hollywood Cafe
Lodi Metal Tech., Inc.
The Toggery
Wallace Computer Services
San Joaquin Vet. Clinic
Allied Disc Grinding
Ming's Smorgi Restaurant
Radio Shack
Great Adventures
Lodi Tent & Awning
Bank of Lodi
High Risk:
Expensive inventory -
easily carried away
17
308
4
Moderate Risk:
Moderate to expensive
inventory - easy
to difficult to carry
away
27
479
Low Risk:
Low to medium price inventory - easy
to difficult to carry
away
13
239
57
1008
Survey Results
Page 2 ^_ C
A
57 1008
8. Do you own your alarm system?
YES 33 588
NO 22 388
NO RESPONSE 2 48
[ 57 1008
4.
Describe your concerns for employee safety:
Four
respondents expressed concern about
employee safety.
Eleven respondents expressed concern about robbery.
5.
Type of your existing alarm system:
A. Silent 3 58
B. Audible 10 188
C. Silent s Audible 43 758
D. None• 1 28
57 1008
6.
Does anyone monitor your alarm system?
YES 53 938
NO 4 78
57 1008
7.
Please identify who monitors your system.
Bay Alarm 16
288
American Alarm Electronics 12
218
C
Alamo 5
98
Lodi Police Dept. 4
78
Sonitrol 3
58
No Response 3
58
Lodi Security System 3
58
Valley Alarm 2
38
ADT 2
38
None 1
2%
The neighbors do 1
28
Honeywell Protection 1
28
Tandy Security System 1
28
Centurion Alarm 1
28
The System Alarm Co. 1
28
Advanced Alarm Technology 1
28
57 1008
8. Do you own your alarm system?
YES 33 588
NO 22 388
NO RESPONSE 2 48
[ 57 1008
f
C
IN
Survey Results
Page 3
9. Is your system serviced by an alarm company?
YES 50 888
NO 6 108
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 1008
10. Do you have an alarm service contract with your alarm company?
YES 43 758
NO 13 238
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 1008
11. Do you have a current monitoring/maintenance agreement with
your alarm company?
YES 47 82%
NO 10 18%
NO RESPONSE 0 08
57 1008
12. Do you have a current agreement for response time?
YES 14 248
NO 42 748
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 100%
13. Do you have -an agreement with your alarm company to call you
before the Lodi Police Department is called?
YES 21 378
NO 32 568
NO RESPONSE 2 3.58
YES AND NO 2 3.58
57 100%
Comments:
1. Police called first
2. We have good reason on several occasions
3. Call police first
4. They call both depending on extent of break in
5. When select zones are activated and during normal
working hours
f
9. Is your system serviced by an alarm company?
YES 50 888
NO 6 108
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 1008
10. Do you have an alarm service contract with your alarm company?
YES 43 758
NO 13 238
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 1008
11. Do you have a current monitoring/maintenance agreement with
your alarm company?
YES 47 82%
NO 10 18%
NO RESPONSE 0 08
57 1008
12. Do you have a current agreement for response time?
YES 14 248
NO 42 748
NO RESPONSE 1 28
57 100%
13. Do you have -an agreement with your alarm company to call you
before the Lodi Police Department is called?
YES 21 378
NO 32 568
NO RESPONSE 2 3.58
YES AND NO 2 3.58
57 100%
Comments:
1. Police called first
2. We have good reason on several occasions
3. Call police first
4. They call both depending on extent of break in
5. When select zones are activated and during normal
working hours
Survey Results
Page 4
57 100%
14.
What is your estimate
of
how many "employee error" type
alarms you have on a
monthly basis?
a. None
32
568
b. .5 a month
6
10%
c. 1 a month
6
10%
d. 1-2 per year
10
18$
!
e. 5 a month
1
28
f. No Response
2
4%
57
1008
15.
What is your estimate of
how many "equipment malfunction"
type alarms you have
on a monthly basis?
a. None
33
588
b. .5 a month
5
98
c. 1 a month
4
78
{
d. 1-2 per year
11
198
e. 5 a month
1
28
F
k
C
f. No Response
3
58
57
1008
16.
How many burglaries,
unauthorized entires, and vandalisms
have you had in the past
year?
a. None
41
728
b. 1 Per Year
6
11%
c. 2-4
3
58
d. 5-8
4
78
e. 12-15
2
38
f. No Response
1
28
57
1008
17.
Do you use special pass
codes with your alarm company?
YES
43
768
NO
11
19%
NO RESPONSE
3
58
57
100%
18.
Do you have an alarm
permit
issued by the City?
YES
40
70%
j
NO
10
18%
NO RESPONSE
7
12%
57 100%
' Survey Results f
Page 5
19. Would you be interested in connecting to an alarm system
monitored by the Lodi Police Department at a cost to be
determined?
YES 25 44%
NO 29 518
NO RESPONSE 3 58
57 100%
Comments:
t
3
1) Mildly interested
2) If no other service is needed
3) If cost is reasonable
4) Perhaps, if more prompt response could be assured
5) Corporation would not sanction
6) Possibly, we're fairly happy with our current setup.
Low cost = interest.
7) Not if I have to maintain a secondary system
8) Unless the cost is less than I pay now
r
9) Too many business costs now
)
10) Would be too much money
11) I feel that the private companies can and are doing a
great job
C 12) I do not feel that our police department should have to
service private businesses when other means are available
20. If it were possible for you to connect to an alarm system
monitored by the Lodi Police Department, would you be willing
F
to establish a system that is also simultaneously monitored
by a private alarm company?
i
YES 24 42%
NO 24 42%
NO RESPONSE B 14%
MAYBE 1 2%
s
57 100%
}
NOTE: Of the 25 respondents who said they would like to be
connected to LPD, 3 said they were not willing to establish a
separate system and 1 said maybe. Of the 29 respondents who
said they would not like to be connected to LPD, 3 said they
were willing to establish a separate system.
Comments:
1) Not unless you think it is necessary
2) Perhaps, if a more prompt response time could be assured
3) Already done
4) We currently have such a system
Survey Results
Page 6
5) If confusion as to responsibility was eliminated between
the two .services
6) Maybe
7) If the cost was not too high, and the city police
department recommended them as a reliable service
8) In existence at our business now
9) Possibly, depends on cost involved
10) Already monitored by private alarm company
11) Depends on cost
12) Perhaps, if it were a free service
13) Z would -not be„willing to pay the additional cost
involved as my private system has been adequate for 9
years
14) If no charges were incurred
21. Are you currently satisfied with your present alarm company?
YES 47 829
NO 6 119
NO RESPONSE 4 79
57 1009
Comments:
C 1) Not completely - the time taken to notify police of alarm
is not consistently fast enough
2) Lodi Police Department is solely responsible for our
alarm monitoring
3) Not applicable, Lodi Police Department only monitors
alarm
4) I would feel safer if we were monitored by our police
department
5) Since I got rid of my other alarm company, I haven't had
any problems, with the other company, I was robbed 3 times
22. Does your present alarm company offer guards or contract
service personnel to secure your premises in the event of
window smash/burglary at your business?
YES 7 128
NO 40 708
NO RESPONSE 10 189
57 1009
Comments•
1) They will arrange to provide this service at additional
cost
2) Not sure
3) Not sure
4) Not that I know of
5) Very interested in direct police monitoring
L
'
Survey Results
Page 7
6)
Not applicable
7)
Not sure
B)
Unknown
9)
Not applicable
10)
Damage is covered and repaired,
and employees guard store
11)
Unknown
12)
Unknown
'
13)
Unknown
14)
Unknown
15)
We are required to secure alarm
after each alarm condition
C
s
t
L
.Now:
l
ATTACHMENT A
BUSINESSES INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
r
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM; MONITORED
BY LPD
i
�C
(Page 1 of 2)
Poser's TV and Radio
208 S. School Street
f
Apache Armory
920 S: Cherokee Lane #F
Bitterman's Jewelers
10 N. School Street
}
Nick's Gun Works
440 E. Lodi Avenue
Al's Wheel & Brake
334 E. Lockeford Street
Lodi Coin & Precious Metals
i
105 W. Walnut Street
Z
Midas Muffler and Brake
325 E. Kettleman Lane
Lodi Sporting Goods
i
i
858 W. Kettleman Lane
Sak's TV and Home Furnishings
200 N. Sacramento - Service Dept.
Sak's TV and Home Furnishings
210 W. Pine Street - Sales Dept.
Lodi Funeral Home
725 S. Fairmont Avenue
Robinsons Western Store
101 E. Lodi Avenue
Baumbach and Piazza
323 W. Elm Street
Star Market #1
741 S. Cherokee Lane
Air Pacific Compressors, Inc.
826 N. Sacramento Street
VariPro System
711 N. Sacramento Street
BUSINESSES INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED BY LPD
(Page 2 of 2)
Gannon Trucking
1123 E. Vine Street
M-& R Company
33 E.-Tokay Street i
Radio Plus
335 E. Ket:leman Lane
Jack in the Box t
419 W. Lodi Avenue
Dependable Precision i
1111 S. Stockton Street
s
Lodi.Warehouse Distributors
E 320 E. Lockeford Street
Ag Industrial Manufacturing, Inc. Y
110 S. Beckman Road
r Guarantee Repair Service 1
101 Commerce Street r
Star Market #2
2525 S. Hutchins Street
Ehler's Auto
217 N. Sacramento Street s
s
i
F a
i
C
ATTACHMENT 8
BUSINESSES NOT INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED BY LPD
(Page 1 of 2)
King Videocable
1521 S. Stockton Street
Longs Drug Stores #48
100 W: Lodi Avenue
Danz Jewelers
220 S. School Street
Burtons Shoes
17 W. Pine Street
Valley Ind.
1313 S. Stockton Street
Plaza Liouors #2
2420 W. Turner Road
Newman S Ramsey Insurance
402 W. Pine Street
Country Kitchen
1327 W. Lockeford Street
Lodi Video Station
550 S. Cherokee Lana #A
Doors Plus, Inc.
314 N. Main Street
Christensens Fashions
5 N. School Street
Cherokee Auto Body
314 N. Cherokee Lane
Lodi Fab Industries
1029 S. Sacramento Street
Bello Cabinets
1109 Black Diamond Way
Lodi Fisco
1150 Victor Road
Stan's Quality Business Machines
469 Murray
C
C
BUSINESSES NOT INTERESTED IN CONNECTING
TO AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED BY LPD
(Page 2 of 2)
E & L Market
844 S. Central Avenue
Farmers n Merchants Bank
121 W. Pine Street
Dobler's Ski Cottage
545 W. Lockeford Street
Wright Insurance Agency
2100 W.,Kettleman Lane
Michele's Antiques
15 N. Cherokee Lane
Hollywood Cafe
315 S. Cherokee Lane
Lodi Metal Tech., Inc.
213 S. Kelly Street
The Toggery
28 S. School Street
Wallace Computer Services
1831 S. Stockton Street
San Joaquin Veterinary Clinic
523 W. Harney Lane
Allied Disc Grinding, Inc.
1003 E. Vine Street
Ming's Smorgi Restaurant
1040 W. Kettleman Lane
Radio Shack
230 W. Kettleman Lane
Great Adventures Travel
605 W. Kettleman Lane
Lodi Tent & Awning Co., Inc.
1617 Ackerman
Bank of Lodi
701 S. Ham Lane
ATTACHMENT C
CURRENT ALARM SUBSCRIBERS
09
Posers TV and Radio
208 S. School Street
10
Apache Gun Works
920 S. Cherokee Lane
21
Bitterman's Jewelers
r
10 N. School Street
I
36
Nick's Gun Shop
i
440 E. Lodi Avenue
51
Al's Wheel & Brake
334 E. Lockeford Street
Lodi Coin & Precious Metals
t,
105 W. Walnut Street
}
13
Ehlers Garage
t
217 N. Sacramento Street
28
Beckman Residence
107 N. Avena
8
31
Big O Tires
302 N. Cherokee Lane
38
Borelli Jewelers
9 N. School Street
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT 0
CITY ALARMS
C
ZONE#
ALARM/LOCATION
01
water Flow Alarm
Police Basement
02
Smoke Alarm/Phone
Computer Area
05
Heat Alarm
Generator Room
07
Criminal Court
12
Boiler Room Diesel
t
Police Department
14
Sewer Pit Pump
Police Basement
15
Computer Room Alarm
City Hall
22
Panic Alarm
Carnegie Forum
24
Judge - LMC Department 1
f
+
26
City Hall Finance
27
City Manager
Panic Button
40
Jail Smoke Alarm
48
Gasoline Sump
Generator Room
52
Court - Department 2
54
Burglar Alarm
Carnegie Forum
75
District Attorney
Lodi Office