TheBakersfieldCalifornian.com

The Bakersfield City Council on Wednesday will vote on a new ordinance that would fine repeat offenders of false burglar alarms, and also discuss a recent state decision to ax redevelopment agencies and how that could impact Bakersfield's projects.

Regarding alarm fees, the Bakersfield Police Department hopes that by penalizing users of alarm systems who repeatedly have false alarms -- forcing dispatchers and officers to respond each time -- they will take steps to make sure they go off only when users are at risk, thus saving police time and money.

In 2010, police received 17,725 alarm calls, of which 97 percent were false, police reports show. Of those calls, police responded on site to 10,115, costing the department more than $1 million (each response is estimated to cost $105 in dispatcher, officer and clerk costs).

On any given day, 9 percent of dispatched calls concern alarms. Schools, government buildings, churches, banks and large retailers are the most common violators, reports show.

Currently, Bakersfield alarm users are not penalized for the first five false alarms, but other cities do issue fines. Fontana, for each false alarm charges, $136; Fresno doesn't charge on a first offense, but for a second it charges $155; and in Los Angeles, upon reaching five false alarms, the penalty adds up to $1,180, reports show.

"These false alarm responses are a tremendous drain on police resources," Bakersfield Police Capt. Joe Bianco wrote in a report. "Bakersfield alarm users have little incentive to use their alarm systems properly ... Alarm industry experts from across the spectrum agree that the best practice for deterring false alarms is the use of a fine schedule that holds alarm users accountable to the proper usage of their system."

Cities that have moved to a penalty approach saw false alarms reduced by more than 80 percent, city reports show. To remedy the situation here, police are asking for:

* Penalties: Proposed new rules call for a written warning after the first false alarm, and a $105 fee for the second -- which could be avoided by completion of online alarm school. For each additional false alarm, another $105 is added. Additionally, users would pay a "fee" of $105 by th third false alarm, the cost for police response. Therefore, a third false alarm would cost a user $210 — $105 fee and $105 penalty.

The fines are low compared to other cities, reports show.

* Software: Police would use new alarm management software, called PSC CryWolf, in place throughout California. The current BPD system is not designed for alarm tracking and cannot manage the volume of false alarms. It would cost 23 percent of the alarm-generated revenue, and services with the system include tracking, payment invoices, mapping and public education.

* Code changes: Alarm users must register and renew registration annually, a $15 fee (Note: the figure was incorrect in Tuesday's paper). Alarms must be installed by city licensed companies. Alarm companies must register with the new system and may also be fined for not complying with rules.

Local alarm companies have not been resistant to changes, according to reports, calling them realistic and "following suit" with other cities. Wednesday's vote will be the first reading of the ordinance.

Regarding redevelopment agency talks, councilmembers will hear a report on the matter and vote on a "non-binding" resolution that will allow the local agency to continue operating.

City Manager Alan Tandy during June's City Council meeting called the state decision "devastating to our development efforts." The action will "destroy millions of dollars in local economic activity which supports the creation of over 3,000 ... jobs within the city," according to staff reports.

Those projects include affordable housing at 20th Street and in the Mill Creek area, improvements in Old Kern and southeast Bakersfield, downtown revitalization, and other future projects.

An option keeps the agency alive, but it would require it to make payments into special funds designated for schools, for example. That payment is estimated at $3.8 million for the 2011-12 fiscal year, where last year it paid $572,000 into the funds. The new amount "will be very painful," according to staff reports.

It's expected legal action will be taken against the state by California cities. In fact, the council on Wednesday will also discuss potential litigation on the issue behind closed doors.

"There are a number of legal questions that need to be addressed in a scheduled conference with our redevelopment attorney," a staff report reads.

In other business, the City Council will:

* Vote on an agreement with Padre Hotel to build a staging area at the southwest corner of 19th and H streets that will be used for valet parking and community events, like First Friday. The $107,000 project is expected to add four full-time jobs at the hotel. An alley and sidewalk improvement project in the same area, costing $431,000, is also being planned.

* Vote on a five-year agreement with Microsoft Corp. for $215,385 to install the latest version of Microsoft products on 1,265 city computers, and to run servers, databases and websites.