By Kevin Aldridge
The Cincinnati Enquirer

No alarms went off when Cincinnati City Council adopted a new policy in May to charge homeowners and businesses for having security alarm systems.

But council members' ears are ringing now that angry citizens are calling to complain about the bills they recently received.

At the urging of police, Council passed a law in May that requires homeowners with alarm systems to pay $50 and businesses to pay $100 every two years to register them. Police pushed for the ordinance because they said not having a database of alarm user addresses made it difficult to notify citizens of false alarm responses and their violation of the false alarm ordinance.

The registration fee was put into place to cover the administrative costs associated with organizing this database.

The policy also called for stiffer penalties for homeowners with repeated false alarms. The fees escalate from $50 to $800, depending on the number of false alarms in a 12-month period.

City officials saw the policy as a way to cut down on the more than 24,000 false alarms that were stretching the Police Department thin and costing the city about $500,000 a year.

Most homeowners and businesses with alarm systems were unaware of the new registration fee until they received bills in the mail in mid-July. Many say it's OK to charge for repeated false alarms - but not to register the alarm system itself.

The public's outcry has been so great in recent days that it looks as if council will likely repeal the fees next week.

"Our city's got a crime problem, and citizens are trying to protect their property and businesses with these alarms," said Councilman Chris Monzel. "The false alarms cost the city money, but we've got to figure out a better way to deal with that than by penalizing our residents and businesses for trying to keep their property secure."

Monzel is expected to introduce a motion to repeal the fees for homeowners and businesses at today's finance committee meeting. Monzel was the only council member to cast a dissenting vote when the ordinance was first introduced. He later reversed his position and voted in favor of the measure, which passed through council unanimously.

"It's one of those things that slipped through at the end of the session," said Councilman Pat DeWine, who is also pushing to repeal the fees. "I don't think people were paying enough attention to it.

"We made a mistake and we ought to go back and fix it," he said. "I don't think we ought to be putting more taxes on homeowners in the city."

That's music to the ears of Leslie Scott, owner of Ali's Boutique in Northside. Scott said she was very upset when she received a letter from the city saying she needed to pay the $100 alarm fee.

"I do not receive large amounts of assistance in the form of tax breaks ... or grants like the larger businesses in this city," Scott said Wednesday. "I'm sure that $100 doesn't mean much to Convergys, Kroger, Procter & Gamble, or Saks Fifth Avenue, but it does to me."

Debbie Clark, manager of Excel Central Inc., a Walnut Hills monitoring station used by several independent alarm dealers in Cincinnati, said forcing all homeowners to pay the registration fee is bad for business. Clark said the city should target only those people with repeated false alarms. Charging everyone, she said, might force many customers to cancel their security service.

Clark said she is also concerned about turning over her customer list to police, because of the competitive nature of the security alarm business.

"The customer list is like the holy grail in this industry," Clark said. "If you don't maintain the confidentially of that list, you could be out of business fairly quickly."

Vice Mayor Alicia Reece, who supports repealing the fees, suggested that council adopt a policy of not imposing any new fees or taxes on residents without having a mandatory public hearing first.

About 100 people showed up at a town meeting at the Clifton Recreation Center on Wednesday night to discuss the new charge, and they weren't happy.

"I can't afford it," said Julia Bertke, 43, of East Price Hill. "I'm on fixed income, I'm on medical disability."

She's experienced several false alarms, but in the end, "I sleep at night better because I have an alarm system," she said.

Response fee per response: 1st: none 2nd: none 3rd: $ 50 4th: $ 75 5th: $100 6th: $150 7th: $200 8th: $300 9th: $400 10th: $500 11th or more: $800

Andrea Uhde contributed to this story. E-mail kaldridge@enquirer.com