Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police chief proposes outsourcing alarm permitting and false‑alarm billing to improve collections
Summary
Police staff briefed council on a proposed contract with a firm that would manage alarm permitting, false‑alarm billing and collections; staff said current in‑house collection rates are low and the vendor would take a percentage of collections in exchange for full service and customer support.
Des Moines police and records staff briefed the council April 3 on a proposed operational change: contracting a private alarm management firm to take over alarm permitting, false‑alarm management and billing.
Chiefs and records staff told the council that the current in‑house alarm program is labor intensive for records personnel, that collection rates for fines and permits have been modest and that the city does not use outside collection services. The city’s 2023 numbers presented during the briefing showed roughly $45,200 billed for false‑alarm fines with collections around $20,175 (about 50% collection rate), while permitting billing was approximately $53,000 with collections near $33,000 (about 60–70% collection rate). Staff said the low collection rate means the city is leaving revenue on the table and that records staff are not specialists in alarm administration.
Staff described a national vendor (described in materials as a “false alarm management solution” or FAMS) that provides a cloud‑based, end‑to‑end service: registering alarms, coordinating with alarm companies, automated customer portals, billing and collections. The vendor proposes to retain a percentage of collections (staff cited 27% in briefing materials) in exchange for a turnkey service that includes onboarding, customized dashboards for residents and reduced workload for records staff. Staff reported peer‑agency checks with nearby jurisdictions that use the firm and said those agencies reported improved compliance and less administrative load on police records staff.
Councilmembers asked whether the contract required a competitive solicitation. Staff said the contract did not go to an RFP because the procurement threshold does not require one for this purchase. Councilmembers asked about data security and linkage to existing systems; staff said the vendor is cloud certified and uses practices consistent with evidentiary processing. Council members also asked whether the city retains legal responsibility for debts and whether the vendor purchases debt; staff said the vendor acts on the city’s behalf and the debt remains the city’s.
Council and staff also discussed the municipal code’s fine schedule, which staff described as antiquated; legal review would be needed if the council decides to move forward. Several councilmembers expressed support for improving compliance and reducing records workload. Staff said implementation would take about eight weeks to onboard and build the customized solution if the council elects to contract the service. No formal council action was requested at this briefing; staff will return if the council asks to move forward with contract negotiation.
Ending: Staff said they will continue contract evaluation and legal review and will return with a draft contract and implementation schedule if the council requests formal authorization to proceed.
