Um good morning, everyone.

Um we have uh one of our members, George Egomez is held up in traffic, but we do have a quorum, so uh we're going to get started.

Um I'll call now call the meeting of the government and the budget and government efficiency committee to order.

A quorum is now present, consisting of committee members, um council members uh Sherman Kate and me, Barbara Bree.

Uh we also have with us from the City Attorney's Office, Brant Will, our committee consultant, Vicki Joes from the IBA, uh Andrea Tevlin and from uh Financial Management, uh Tracy McCraner and from the IBA, Christiana Galgar.

Did I say your name right?

Your last Golgar, sorry, Christian.

Um good morning.

Uh moving right along.

Um, the committee record of actions from the March 8th, 2017 meeting will be approved by unanimous consent unless pulled for discussion.

Do we have no seeing none?

Uh we have no non-agenda public comment today.

So do we have any committee members uh or represent other people who would up here who would like to say something before we get started?

Okay, no.

Okay, item number one.

Good morning, Chair Chair Bree and fellow committee members members.

The San Diego Police Department has revised the municipal code.

We're proposing changes to the municipal code related to burglary and panic alarms.

We've also revised the alarm system permit fees and fines and penalties.

We're looking for approval for those two, as well as to amend the fee schedule maintained in the office of the city clerk.

How we got here.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and take that.

Thanks.

So how we got here is um back in November of 2010, California voters approved proposition 26, which limits the government's ability to impose certain fees and charges.

The proposed alarm fees in this revised ordinance fall within two categories that are exemptions under Prop 26.

Those are reasonable regulatory costs for the administration of the permit, and then fines and penalties to gain compliance.

In 2011, the grand jury conducted an audit and they published a report entitled No Cost for Alarms.

The audit revealed a significant loss of income to the city due to uncollected fees and penalties.

The grand jury made seven recommendations, four of which directly impacted the regulation and enforcement of alarms.

In summation, the grand jury wanted to ensure alarm permits were issued before activation and to come up with a better data system to track alarm permits.

They also wanted the department to establish a more effective penalty-based program and to adhere to the regulations regarding permits and fees.

In October of 2011, the city, the Office of the City Auditor published the results of a performance audit of the police department's permits and licensing unit.

Of the 15 recommendations, three directly addressed the alarm permit program.

To reduce false alarms, ensure alarms have proper permits.

The city auditor wanted the department to amend the municipal code, establish a more effective penalty-based program, and adopt national strategies.

The city auditor wanted also wanted us to remove the cost of responding to false alarms from the current permit fee and come up with a better data system to track and collect fees.

In response, the San Diego Police Department purchased a new software program called CryWolf.

The department also proposed changes to the municipal code and conducted a fee analysis on permit costs, and we also surveyed what other cities charge for fines and penalties.

And I'll talk about each of these specifically in the in the upcoming slides.

It provides citizens online access to their account information, automatically generates notices, creates invoices, calculates fees, it integrates alarm incidents, billing, and account receivable, provides comprehensive management reports, fully automated interface with our CAD system.

It allows alarm companies to a portal to update customer information and tracks the filing and adjudication of hearings and appeals.

We expect the software to be fully operational with our anticipated start date of July 1st.

The other response is that we went to the municipal code and we we took the the different audits and um propositions and we looked at modifying that.

We proposed a new section stating the purpose of the ordinance.

Definitions were added and/or amended.

Alarm businesses are to provide current customer information to the department.

A separate alarm permit is required for each address, and alarm businesses must provide a signed certification that includes instructions on enhanced call verification and possible consequences of false alarms.

And I'll talk about enhanced call verification a little in a little more detail in the in the upcoming slides.

Alarm system permits shall expire in 12 months.

This is different.

Currently, we're on a two-year permit.

A penalty is assessed for each false alarm without a valid permit.

Automatic shutoff mechanisms for audible alarms are to be connected and in working order.

And then the enhanced call verification.

What this is is the alarm company is required to make two calls to the alarm user.

So whatever two numbers that you decide to give to your alarm company, they're required to make those calls to you first before alarm before police respond.

And studies have shown that there has been a significant decrease in the amount of false alarms and responses by police officers based on enhanced call verification.

Each false alarm will be assessed an escalating fine with an additional revocation fee assessed during the sixth false alarm.

There's an appeal process in place so that for those who feel that they were unjustly fined, they will be able to take advantage of that.

And then our two-year alarm permit, what are we going to do with those people that currently have two year permits?