facts on the alarm permitting program bylaw 7555 18 july 2005 corrie kost economics 1 overall crime...

18 July 2005 Corrie Kost

FACTS on the Alarm Permitting Program

Bylaw 7555Bylaw 7555

ECONOMICS 1

•Overall crime rate has been dropping

• Policing budgets have been increasing far beyond cost of living and population growth

• Those with alarms have ¼ of break-in rate / loss

• DNV False Alarm rate is half that of Vancouver.

• Vancouver charges less to register alarms

• Home Insurance cost savings for having an alarm would be cut – in my case by ~ 30%Alarm discount is only applicable to Property Coverages – for my own case – Discount was 15% of $421 which saved me $63. The proposed $20 Registration fee would result in savings reduction of ~ 30%




MISC

•Police do not travel at high rate of speed to attend home alarms unless they are for break-ins “in progress”. If they speed they should do so safely!

• There has been very limited public consultation – even my insurance agent was not aware of the proposed alarm permitting program!

• As shown in the “Statistics” section – there is no significant risk or service degradation due to current non-billable false alarms.




STATISTICS

Alarms in 2004: 3350 (DNV only)

Alarms Attended in 2004: 1929 (DNV only)

False (billable) Alarms in 2004: 697 (DNV only)

False Alarms not billed in 2004: 1250 (DNV only)

Average non-billed false alarms 1 every 6 hours

In my opinion this has a negligible impact on public safety and is more than compensated for by reduced crime due to those having home alarms

Note: DNV total home alarm rate is 0.23/yr CNV is 25% higher at 0.29/yr




ECONOMICS 2

Current net cost to DNV: - $87,185

Net Cost with Permits: + $396,191

Conclusion: Program is a TAX GRAB – Violates Local Government Act requiring cost recovery only.




PRIVACY CONCERNS

• Private information would be divulged to District Staff

• District staff would likely be required to undergo security checks, including fingerprinting.

Alternative Model

Use the “Prince Albert” business based model:

- less overhead / bureaucracy

- via usual business model - targets only the people with false alarms




Conclusions

• Current risk and service degradation minimal

• Program would be unfair to majority not having false alarms and who contribute to lowering police costs

• Programs revenue far exceeds expenses – ILLEGAL TAX GRAB

• Alternative fairer, less bureaucratic, models exist to reduce false alarms and fund minor shortfall.

Recommend we maintain current program with enhanced education by DNV and alarm companies and possibly allow only 1 “free” false alarm every 2 years.

facts on the alarm permitting program bylaw 7555 18 july 2005 corrie kost economics 1 overall crime...

Documents