“Fem FH City of Brookhaven False Alarm Internal Audit 2020 aa Peay NG oP, CeA) CRI cies ‘ae. Willa Mulcahy, CPA, CUM Cy Auditor Cy oF rookRaven 4362 Peachtree Road NE Brookhaven, GA \We have completed our internal audit procedures related to Flee Alarms at the city of Brookhaven Police Department. An overview, summary of procedures, bservations and recommendations are contained herein ‘Ourprocedures were performed in conformity with Statements on Standard for Consulting Services of the American Institute of Certified Puble Accountants, and did not constitute an aut In accordance with generally acepted auditing standards. Accordingly, we expressed no opinion on any of the items reviewed ‘We would ike to thank all Department employees for ther assistance and the City Auditor fr the ‘opportunity to provide services tothe City af Brookhaven Police Department Sincerely, Cany Rigger £ Ingramd, bot. CARR, RIGGS & INGRAM, LIC (CPAs and AdvisorsOverview ‘The Clty of Brookhaven Police Department (the Department) False Alarm Internal Audit was ‘onclicted by Car, Riggs & Ingram, LLC, forthe perl January 2, 2020 through or as of) August 31, 2020, unless otherwise indicated. Data analysis was conducted using information obtained from the Departments third party vendor forthe period January 1, 2020 through November 23,2020. ‘Our procedures eesuted in certain relevant observations wa data analysis and one best practice recommendation. ‘Summanyof Procedures obtained and examined the Brookhaven Code of Ordinances (drat) applicable to false alarms. + Identified relevant third parties. Documented respective roles and reviewed applicable agreements and SOC reports. ‘+ Twentyfive alarm companies were selected to determine ifthe company was in compliance with the Brookhaven Code of Ordinance: Article 2 section 11-38. + Selected 25 customers to determine if the thity party vendor is effectively ‘monitoring compliance withthe Brookhaven Code of Ordinance: Article 2 section 1136. 1 Selected 20 alse alarms to determine timely, accurate billing and to determine that 4 record of the fase alarm was maintained by the third party vendor. Obtained the year to date charges/receivabes report from the thir part vendor and performed certain relevant data analysis as enumerated In the Observations section below. Observations Data analysis was performed relative to false alarm charges and flue to register alam companies ‘orcustomers, as appliable. The analysis was conducted under the assumption that none of the false ‘alarms were appealed and forgiven Unregistered Alarm Companies and Customers Data was sorted to Include only unregistered users noting: ‘© 1B unregistered alarm companies #132 unregistered customers ‘Hased on the August 31,2020 accounts receivable repor, receivables from the 13 unregistered alarm ‘companies made vp $45,875, or 58.2%, ofthe oustonding accounts receivable balance. Receivables {from Castnet Systems, nc. represented $20,475 of tht bolance.customers with More Than 4 False Alaems ‘The Department intends to cease response to locations with more than 4 fale alarms within any 24 ‘month perlod once the Brookhaven Code of Ordinances is approved. Customers with more than 4 false alarms during 2020 were Identified as follows ‘©The Department responded to 1142 false clorms during the perio, ‘There were 324 false olarms (28%) thot were ether the ffth or greater forthe customer. 4 Total fer aszested for sid alarms amount to $70.250. Revenue by Alarm Company Examination of data revealed the following alarm companies as those with the most significant volume of charges during the period, ‘© Ackerman $11,250 ‘Johnson Controls Security Solutions LLC $7,825 ‘+ Protection One $5,700 14.4% ofthe fes assessed related to the above companies and thelr customers. Revenue by Month Data was sorted by month to identify relevant trends. ‘+ Monthly fe average is $5,070 ‘© May generated the least fees at $1,675 and November generated the highest fess at $8,650. Recommendations Section 11-38 ~ Evidence of Compliance Twenty-five alarm companies were selected from the active alarm company listing to determine compliance with Section 1-38. The Affidait and information Form was provided for each of the alarm companies selected, However, the following supporting documentation evidencing compliance ‘was not maintained by the Department's 3% party vendor (CentralSquare) ‘+ Alarm companies current state and local lcenses/permits ‘© Evidence the company’s alarm systems meet SIA Control Pane Standard CP-01 Centralsquare represented the Alarm Company Afdavtis relied upon as evidence of compliance in Jou of obtaining the apliahla eippotingdermentation As a best practice, the Department should consider requesting Centralsquare obtain supporting documentation, rather than solely placing reliance onthe aforementioned Afidavit