Surprise considers plans to reduce false alarms

The Surprise City Council is considering a proposal that could charge Surprise residents penalties for false-alarm calls and that would force security companies to verify the authenticity of alarms.

The council heard proposals on the program on Tuesday and is expected to vote by the end of the year.

The city currently has no penalties for false alarms.

Fewer than 5 percent of residents in Surprise have an alarm system, according to city data. However, police respond to as many 4,000 falsealarm calls each year. False alarms account for 8 percent of all police calls in the city.

City staff offered no estimate on how much the wasted trips cost police.

Other Valley municipalities already have similar penalties and verification systems to curb false alarms.

The council reviewed three options, including doing nothing. It directed staff to pursue the “verified response” option.

This method would require alarm companies to verify criminal activity before calling police. Verification could include audio or video surveillance, alarm activation in two separate places or an on-scene response from a security guard or other eyewitness.

This option likely would not include a registration fee for alarm-system owners, though staff is considering whether fines for repeated false alarms should be part of it.

This system can dramatically reduce the number of police responses to homes, Harold Brady, Surprise’s police and fire legal adviser, said.

However, it could cost homeowners. Those with alarms could have to pay for upgrades, Brady said.

A second option, which the council opted not to pursue, is called two-call verification or enhanced call verification. It requires alarm-company workers to make two attempts to contact the owner before calling police. This option would include a $10 annual permit fee for alarm-system owners and fines for repeated false alarms. Brady said most cities use this option and it is preferred by alarm companies.

Some council members opposed this option because they didn’t like the registration fee, they worried it wasn’t as effective and they felt it put the onus on the city to enforce.

“We’re adding another bureaucracy at the city level when the responsibility should be on the alarm companies,” Councilman Skip Hall said.