Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lubbock council repeals new alarm permit ordinance after public outcry and staff briefing

Lubbock City Council · October 30, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lubbock City Council voted Oct. 28 to repeal Ordinance 2025‑00111, which would have required permits and fees for third‑party monitored alarm systems, after public objections and a police briefing showed large volumes of false alarm responses.

The Lubbock City Council voted Oct. 28 to repeal Ordinance 2025‑00111, which would have required permits and fees for third‑party monitored alarm systems, after lengthy public comment and a staff briefing on alarm calls.

Assistant Police Chief Neil Baron told the council the ordinance was intended to ‘‘free up first responders to answer higher‑priority calls’’ and said alarm calls consumed thousands of officer hours in 2024. ‘‘We sent two officers to each alarm call,’’ he said, estimating police spent roughly 5,027 hours responding to false alarms last year. Baron also clarified the ordinance targeted third‑party monitored systems and would not apply to devices monitored by a homeowner’s phone or to car alarms.

Residents criticized the permit and fee structure during the public‑comment period. ‘‘I’m ashamed of you,’’ said Clint Overland, who called the permit ‘‘another tax’’ that would fall hardest on low‑income households and seniors. Tanya Jernberg, who cited local and FBI crime data, warned that fines could discourage alarm use and increase risk: ‘‘A retiree living on a fixed income might disable her system completely because she can barely afford the senior discount permit rate,’’ she said.

Several council members, noting they had not been fully briefed on fee mechanics and implementation, supported repeal. Councilman Glasheen said he had ‘‘not accurately understood the way that staff intended to implement’’ the ordinance and called the staff briefing ‘‘inadequate’’; he moved to repeal and was seconded by Councilwoman Doctor Wilson. Council members who supported repeal said they still backed police efforts to reduce unnecessary responses but preferred a narrower approach focused on repeat or negligent false alarms and more public input.

The motion to repeal carried; the transcript records the motion and the mayor pro tem’s announcement that the motion carried, but does not record a numeric roll‑call tally. Council members directed staff to return with a revised approach after broader briefing, additional data and public engagement.