Police chief hopes for compromise on alarm ordinance, saying controversial fee was never about raising revenue

The Lubbock Police Department still wants to crack down on false alarms after public backlash caused the City Council to repeal an alarm ordinance – with Police Chief Seth Herman explaining his motivation was public safety and officer safety – not money.

In late August, Herman took a renewed alarm ordinance to the City Council calling for a fee of $50 for having more than three false alarms (instead of five). It also required alarm companies to call the home or business owner twice before requesting a police response.

But the application fee was what upset people.

The new ordinance required everyone with an alarm service to get a $50 permit ($25 for those over the age of 65). Previously, only people with three or more false alarms had to get a permit.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I’m ashamed of you,” said Clint Overland during public comments in the October 28 council meeting.

“You want to tax us one more time. You can call it a permit for our alarm systems. … We have people that are going hungry, especially in this economy – SNAP benefits being cut. Well, $50 could mean the difference between a family of four eating for two weeks. But y’all don’t care about that,” Overland said.

Tayna Jernberg, also during public comments, said, “A retiree living on a fixed income might disable her system completely because she can barely afford the senior discount permit rate.”

Members of the council, especially David Glasheen, councilman for District 3, were also critical. Glasheen was out of town for the late-August council meeting but watched a video replay of the discussion on the new ordinance.

“I have to say that the briefing was inadequate – and in fact it was to the point that the briefing was misleading about the content and scope and intentions of the ordinance,” Glasheen said.

The council took the second and final vote to repeal the ordinance this week.

Chief Herman spoke at length with LubbockLights.com the day after the repeal was finalized.

Herman wants a solution in place as soon as possible. The timing will be up to the council and the city manager, Herman said.

“I’m assuming that if we put all our heads together we can come up with something that is a compromise for both the citizens and the department,” Herman said.

Why ask for an updated ordinance?

Officers respond to false alarms between 9,000 and 14,000 times per year, Herman said.

Not only is it “wasting our time,” he said, but “Every call that officers respond to has an element of danger. Alarms are no different, and very often they may be one of the most dangerous types of calls that we respond to.”

Herman recalled a case years before he got to Lubbock where the alarm was real and an officer suffered a severe injury before fatally shooting a burglary suspect.

Then, in 2019 when Herman was police chief in Midland, a false alarm led to the shooting death of officer Nathan “Hayden” Heidelberg. Two officers were standing at the front of the home and called out.

“They announced themselves as Midland Police Officers … The homeowner stepped from behind cover and fired one shot, not realizing that it was the police – not having been notified by the alarm company,” Herman said.

“As much as I try, I will never be as good a man as Hayden,” Herman was quoted as saying at Heidelberg’s memorial service.

Herman came to Lubbock in May 2024.

“The ordinance had been proposed by previous administrations. … It was a topic of discussion pretty much as soon as I hit the ground,” Herman said.

‘Trying to prevent … harming of an officer or obviously a citizen’

The ordinance came up during the budget process. Herman said he had no interest in revenue for the city – except the ordinance would generate information needing to be tracked. That costs money, so he wanted it in place in time for the 2025/26 fiscal year.

“I’m trying to prevent the harming of an officer or obviously a citizen,” Herman said.

He looked to other police departments for “best practices.”

“We went over the [Texas] government code, and then we went over the top 20 cities in Texas by population. … All of them had an ordinance either identical to the one that we submitted or a very close variant,” Herman said.

The ordinance passed first and second votes in late August and early September. Trouble began when the police department sent out notices that folks needed to pay for an alarm permit.

Kasie Davis, public information officer, said, “We were aware that there were some rumors going around – people claiming that the letters that individuals were receiving were scams … So, we did a news release and a post to social media, just letting people know, ‘Hey, this is not a scam.’”

But then a new wave of complaints hit social media. This time people were accusing the city of doing a cash grab – charging money for police protection already paid for with tax money. Councilmembers – including Jennifer Wilson, District 5 – apologized for not fully understanding the changes before approving them.

In the October 28 council meeting, Wilson and others were clear they still support the effort to reduce false alarms. But they weren’t happy with how things turned out, which LubbockLights.com covered here.

Police recently began refunding permit fees.

Not chasing money

Herman defends his motivation for bringing the issue to the council.

“At no point in time in my career in 34 years have I ever done anything in order to garner money from the citizens of either a previous city I worked for or this city,” Herman said.

The fee was to pay for keeping the records. It wasn’t even to pay for the extra time officers spend on false alarms, he said.

“The biggest change that I notated was the utilization of a third party to monitor these alarms. … The [information] packet was provided a week in advance that stipulated all of these alterations and the amounts,” Herman said.

After his presentation in August, no one on the council had questions, he said.

Technically the $50 application fee never changed, but the “who has to pay” did change, and the chief admits that could have been emphasized more. Previously, only those with too many false alarms had to get a permit. The new ordinance forced everyone to get permit even without a record of false alarms.

“I think it would have allowed people more time to absorb it and ask questions. … I can only assume that it probably would have lessened the shock and awe,” Herman said.

“I didn’t think from the aspect of, ‘Where is the council going to receive the biggest backlash?’ Again, I take responsibility for that. It was on me,” Herman said.

The application fee could have been lower, he said, so long as there was enough money to cover the cost of tracking who had a monitored alarm system.

“I understand that people are upset that when they didn’t have to pay, now they have to pay. I get it. But that was not the intent of what we’re trying to accomplish,” Herman said.

Why Herman says a permit matters

The ordinance only applied to alarms monitored by a company that can automatically call police. Keeping track of your own Ring Doorbell Camera never required a permit.

Knowing who has a permit makes a difference, Herman said.

“It gives us at least a base understanding of what’s going on,” he said.

If the name on the alarm permit is Joe Smith, and police find Joe Smith at the alarm location, that’s different than finding someone else, Herman said.

“That allows us to reduce our investigative efforts and establish at the onset, ‘Okay, this is the legitimate individual who should be here.’ … That places the onus on the alarm holder to have somebody available so that we can make contact with them,” Herman said.

Also, the new ordinance required alarm companies to try twice to reach the homeowner before requesting police officers.

When asked if that might have saved officer Heidelberg’s life, Herman responded, “Absolutely.”

“It’s … ensuring that our people are not continually responding to false alarms – becoming complacent in their response – which is going to get an officer killed,” Herman said.

One way or another, he wants to know who should and should not be in a home or business when an alarm company notifies police.

“We need all of the available information … in order for us to make at least a tactical decision enroute and be able to assess the situation prior to getting on scene,” Herman said.

And he wants the alarm company to call the homeowner before calling the police.

Please click here to support Lubbock Lights.