FALSE ALARM PROGRAM

A false alarm is defined in Seattle Municipal Code 6.10.005 as, “the notification to the Seattle Police Department or Seattle Fire Department concerning the activation of an alarm system or alarm device when: 

1. There is no evidence of a crime or other activity that warrants the assistance of the Seattle Police Department on the premises, as indicated by the investigation of a police officer on the scene or by the lack of a police report filed by the property owner, and no individual who was on or near the premises or who had viewed a video communication from the premises called for the dispatch or confirmed a need for police response; or 

2. There is no indication or presence of a fire on the premises, that warrants a call for assistance from or investigation by the Seattle Fire Department, and no individual who was on or near the premises or who had viewed a video communication from the premises called for the dispatch or confirmed a need for fire response; or 

3. The dispatch of police or fire personnel was cancelled by the alarm system monitoring company, whether the alarm was cancelled before or after the arrival of police or fire personnel at the alarm site.”

The primary difference between a burglary/intrusion alarm and RPD alarms is that RPD alarms are intentionally activated by an individual to notify police of a potentially life threatening incident, where as burglary/intrusion alarms are passive and detect only motion or a broken contact.

The Seattle Police Department will respond to any and all robbery/panic/duress alarms regardless of whether or not the alarm company is licensed.

• The monitoring company calls two numbers and gets no answer at either number. 
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted.
• The monitoring company calls one number, gets subscriber who says dispatch the police. 
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted.
• The monitoring company calls a business and gets a person that does not know the cancellation code.  This is not proper ECV and the call will not be accepted.  The monitoring company needs to make the second call to try to verify the person inside (i.e. Bob, the new employee closing up, answers the phone but doesn’t know the code.  The monitoring company should call the second number and find out if Bob is supposed to be there before calling 911). 
  Once a second call is made, the ECV requirements have been met and the call will be accepted.
• The monitoring company calls in after making zero or one verification attempts, but there is an exigent reason, sensitive location or other reason to dispatch the call. 
  This is an exception to ECV and the call will be accepted at the discretion of the call-taker.
• The monitoring company calls in stating they have real time audio or video on a site and their review of the audio/video indicates that a crime is in progress (not just someone on site)
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted
• The monitoring company calls in after making zero or one verification attempts. 
  This is not proper ECV and the call will not be accepted 
• The monitoring company calls in and says they were refused dispatch because they had not made two calls, but now they have and they are requesting dispatch.
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted
• The monitoring company calls in a robbery/panic/duress alarm but has not made any verification attempts. 
  This is proper ECV and the call will be accepted – robbery/panic/duress calls do not require verification.   
• The monitoring company calls in a burglary/intrusion alarm but does not have UIN.  The call will not be accepted 
• The monitoring company calls in a robbery/panic/duress alarm but does not have UIN. 
  This call will be accepted and the False Alarm Unit will follow up with the monitoring company after the fact to get them licensed.
• The monitoring company calls in stating they have a note on the file not to call the subscriber first, but to dispatch the police immediately. 
  This is not proper ECV and the call will not be accepted – the alarm company needs to talk to their customer and advise them that this is not an option for them.   

The City of Seattle charges alarms companies for every false alarm.  Alarm companies may pass this fee onto their customers.  The City of Seattle updated its false alarm fees for 2011 to bring them in line with actual expenditures.  The fee is used to recover the costs of running the False Alarm Unit and sending officers to false alarms. The fees are imposed when an officer responds to and arrives at a location where an alarm is determined to be false.

Beginning January 1, 2011, the City of Seattle is using a new fee structure for billing false burglar and panic alarms. The new fees are $115 for a false burglar alarm and $230 for a false panic/duress/robbery alarm. These changes were unanimously approved by the Seattle City Council as part of its 2010 budget process.

The fee for an alarm cancelled after the officer has been dispatched (but prior to arrival) has not changed, and will remain $30.  Cancellations before dispatch do not incur a fee.

The City’s Finance Administration Section – Revenue and Consumer Protection (FAS-RCP), coordinates the billing for false alarms, as well as the licensing of the alarm companies.

The City of Seattle bills the alarm company for the false alarm. To recover the cost of a false alarm fee, the alarm companies commonly pass this fee onto the subscribers. Alarm company customers that disagree with their billing should dispute this with their alarm company. Alarm companies have several options to obtain a one time waiver from the City of Seattle, including switching to private guard response, sending their customer to an alarm user workshop, or disputing the false alarm in an administrative hearing.

Each licensed alarm company is issued a Unique Identifying Number (UIN) by DEA-RCA.  This UIN is required to be given to the 911 call-taker when an alarm is called into the Seattle Police Department.  Billing is facilitated by this UIN, but companies without a UIN require more investigation for the City to recover their costs.  Effective January 1, 2009, if a company cannot provide a UIN to the 911 call-taker, the call will not be accepted or dispatched.

If you would like to request a report that is not listed here, you may complete and submit a Public Disclosure Request.

If you feel the alarm company has made a mistake or has not followed the ordinance, you will need to dispute that with the alarm company. You may attempt to request that they send you a call-log verifying that they used ECV. Please note, your agreement with the alarm company is a private civil contract between you and your alarm company. The Seattle Police Department’s False Alarm Unit will work with both alarm subscribers and alarm companies to ensure that these standards are upheld, but the actual resolution of any billing dispute will be between the alarm company and the subscriber.

No. It is not the responsibility of the subscriber to register their alarm system with the city of Seattle.  Your alarm company is required to give a list of new subscribers to the city of Seattle quarterly when they turn in their licensing paperwork to the city’s Finance Administration Section – Revenue and Consumer Protection (FAS-RCP).  Your alarm company pays a $10.00 annual registration fee for each and every alarm system that they provide service for and can pass this fee onto their subscribers.

The Washington Burglar & Fire Alarm Association (WBFAA) completely endorses the implementation of this policy.  

The WBFAA states, “It would level the playing field, ensuring that all companies are playing by the same rules and are in compliance with the effective Seattle Municipal Code.  Further, it will have a positive effect on the overall goal of reducing false alarm dispatches and providing cost recovery for the city.  This proposal has the unequivocal support of the WBFAA.  There is no rationale to support enforcing the law with one segment of the industry while providing the same benefits to members of the industry who are not in compliance.” 

Between July and December of 2008, only 77% of all alarms called into the Seattle Police Department complied with the law. In those six months 1,496 alarms were called in without a UIN. Those are alarms that cannot be automatically billed through the City’s computer systems, and thus require an individual to research the call, contact involved parties and manually prepare an invoice. This is a time consuming and unnecessary effort, which has resulted in approximately $100,650.00 in delayed collection or lost fees due to improper licensing and reporting during that 6-month period. Further, in those six months 812 alarms were called in without utilizing ECV. Using alarm industry studies that indicate 30% - 50% of alarm calls to the police could be avoided by utilizing ECV, it stands to reason that 244 - 406 of these alarms should not have been called in. That would have been an additional reduction of 2.9% - 4.8% of the alarm calls. During that time period, based on other procedures implemented since April 2008, there was an 11.2% reduction in false alarms and a 9.3% reduction in alarm dispatches. Had ECV been utilized, using the 30%-50% estimates of the study, the reductions could have been between 13.9%-15.7% for false alarms and 12%-13.8% for alarm dispatches. Each alarm that is prevented from being called into 911 allows for better service to all citizens of Seattle.

Call the Seattle Police Department’s False Alarm Unit at
(206) 684-7713.  They will be able to answer your questions and also offer a free alarm user workshop at least once a month.  Attendance at this class provides alarm users with a waiver of one false alarm fee, or can be held and used for a future false alarm.  For large community groups or businesses, they will bring the class to you.  There are also fee waivers available for other alarm events including private guard options and upgrading to modern equipment.