⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 7 findings
F01
The cost of processing the alarm permit application is to be borne by the applicant. An audit would clarify whether this is being accomplished.
F02
A number of activated alarms do not have a valid permit.
F03
A number of fees for new alarms or renewal permits are not being collected.
F04
Without the requested audit, the Grand Jury is unable to verify the number of licenses revoked due to false alarms.
F05
Without the requested audit, the Grand Jury is unable to verify the amount of money collected for revocation of permits and fines due to failure to have a valid permit.
F06
The permit applicant must go to different locations for different types of permits, such as building, cigarette, entertainment, and burglar or fire alarm permits.
F07
The time required to track down expired alarm permits, six to nine months, is inefficient and deprives the City of significant revenue.
Recommendations 7
-
11-44Page 3Enforce the law requiring alarm companies installing such alarms to obtain
-
11-45Page 3Establish a program to ensure that the Permits and Licensing Division
-
11-46Page 3Modernize the alarm permit tracking system to monitor permits and
-
11-47Page 4Comply with existing departmental policies and procedures and municipal
-
11-48Page 4Revise Municipal Code Sec. 33.3700 through 33.3713 to levy a substantial
-
11-49Page 4Audit the San Diego Police Department's Permits and Licensing Division
-
11-50Page 4Direct the City's Chief Operating Officer to acquire a location/office where
Agency Responses 6
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.