Lubbock council repeals alarm permit ordinance after public outcry and internal critique

The Lubbock City Council voted Oct. 28 to repeal an ordinance that would have required annual permits and fees for third‑party monitored burglar and robbery alarm systems, following a staff briefing, public testimony opposing the measure and sustained council criticism of the ordinance’s briefing and rollout.

Assistant Police Chief Veil Baron told the council the ordinance was designed to reduce the time officers spend responding to false alarms and to help the department identify and contact alarm owners more quickly. Baron said alarm calls accounted for a substantial share of calls for service and that officers logged roughly 5,027 hours responding to false alarms in 2024. He said that, during the two weeks the new ordinance was briefly in effect (Oct. 1–16), dispatch received 332 false alarm calls from 51 locations, 73 of which generated billable notices under the ordinance’s thresholds.

The ordinance would have applied only to third‑party monitored alarm systems and, as Baron described it in the briefing, included graduated fees consistent with the Texas Local Government Code: an annual permit (up to $50 for residences and higher for other locations), with escalating fees for repeated false alarms and fines up to $500 for violations. Baron also said the ordinance included an opt‑out clause allowing users to file a permit without prepaying the fee and be charged only if a false alarm occurred.

At the public‑comment portion, residents urged the council to reconsider. "I'm ashamed of you," said Clint Overland, a resident who called the permit effectively an additional tax and argued $50 could be a meaningful amount for struggling households. Another resident summarized local alarm statistics and warned that penalties might discourage alarm use and produce unintended consequences for public safety.

Council debate focused less on the technical goals of reducing false calls than on process and implementation. Councilman Glasheen criticized the staff briefing for failing to disclose key implementation details and for giving the impression the ordinance was merely an escalation of penalties for repeat offenders rather than a up‑front permit with fees for all monitored users. Glasheen said the legislative process "flowed backwards," and moved to repeal ordinance 2025‑00111 (adopted Sept. 9, 2025). Council members Wilson, Rose and Collins spoke in favor of repeal, saying they supported taking a second look at ways to deter negligent repeat alarms while avoiding burdens on law‑abiding alarm users; several council members also praised the police department’s intent and said they would work with staff on a revised approach.

Mayor Pro Tem called the question and the motion to repeal carried on a voice vote.

What the council did and did not decide

• Repeal: The council approved a motion to repeal ordinance number 2025‑00111 as adopted Sept. 9, 2025. The motion was made by Councilman Glasheen and seconded by Councilwoman Wilson and carried by voice vote. The repeal returns the alarm code to the prior (pre‑Oct. 1) structure while staff and council study alternatives.

• No new ordinance adopted: Council members directed that staff bring back the issue with fuller briefing, more public engagement, and clearer implementation details before adopting a replacement policy. No replacement ordinance was approved Oct. 28.

Key data and staff claims from the briefing

• False‑alarm workload: Assistant Police Chief Baron said officers responded to roughly 19,178 officer‑responses to alarm calls in 2024 (calculated as alarms × officers dispatched), averaging just under 16 minutes per response and totaling about 5,027 officer hours.

• Short span of enforcement: Baron said that between Oct. 1 and Oct. 16, when the ordinance was briefly active, dispatch received 332 false‑alarm calls from 51 locations; 73 of those events were billed per the ordinance thresholds.

• Historical counts: For 2019 the department reported more than 16,000 alarm calls with about 13,000 judged false and 217 classified as legitimate (officer‑confirmed criminal activity), according to the slide deck summarized at the council table.

What remains unresolved

Council members and staff agreed on the problem—false and repeat alarms are a material drain on police resources—but disagreed about the remedy and the council’s process. Council directed staff to pause implementation, provide more complete briefings, clarify the ordinance language (including explicit exclusions for non‑monitored systems and weather‑related alarms), disclose third‑party contracting or revenue‑sharing plans and return with revised options that emphasize reducing negligent repeat alarms without broadly taxing alarm owners.

Quotes: "I'm ashamed of you...you wanna tax us 1 more time," —Clint Overland, public commenter. "We spent just under 16 minutes at each one of these calls...it totals 5,027 hours on false alarm calls," —Assistant Police Chief Veil Baron. "I was out of town for work the first reading of this ordinance...the briefing was inadequate," —Councilman Glasheen, offering the repeal motion.

Ending: The council will resume work on the issue at a later date; repeal restores the prior enforcement scheme while staff prepares additional options and fuller briefings for future consideration.