Security Industry News >> EMERgency24 Inc.

Greenwich, CT, May Use Liens to Collect False Alarm Fines

Repeat violators of a Greenwich, CT, ordinance dealing with false smoke and burglar alarms could have a different kind of cause for alarm. 

Try a lien on their property or a hold on pending building permits or restaurant licenses.

Owed $116,000 in unpaid fines for having to respond to false alarms, the town is looking at those get-tough measures, as well as perhaps using a collection service similar to the one employed by the tax collector's office to get delinquent home and business owners to pay up on back property taxes.

"Right now, we don't have any teeth to sink into these people," said Jim Daine, chairman of the town's Alarm Appeal Board.

Daine listed a series of potential remedies Thursday to the Board of Selectmen during the group's regular meeting, held at the Bruce Museum.

All alarms that call directly to the police or fire departments are required to be registered with the town.

Residents and businesses are allowed one false alarm per year without being penalized, with the fine schedule starting at $50 for a second false alarm, $100 for the third, $150 for the fourth and $200 for each subsequent infraction. No changes to those fines have been proposed.

"We don't want to deter people from registering alarm systems, but we want to better educate them," Daine said.

A volunteer firefighter with the Sound Beach Volunteer Fire Department, Daine said the five members of his board have been conferring with town lawyers and could propose sanctions for unpaid fines later in the year.

"It's out of control right now, to be perfectly honest with you," Daine said. 

The Alarm Appeal Board tried to take a first step Thursday to crack down on violators of the ordinance, however, proposing to raise the fines for those who fail to register their alarms with the town. 

Upon notification from the town that they must register, those who fail to do so within 30 days would be fined $50, up from the current $20. After 60 days, the fine would jump to $200, double the current $100 penalty.

The registration fee for new alarms, which has been unchanged since about 1981, would go from $10 to $20 under the proposal, which is expected to be voted on at the next Board of Selectmen meeting on March 26.

"I'm delighted you're doing this," Selectman Peter Crumbine told Daine. 

Under the proposal, the town would also tack on an additional fine of $50 for false alarms that require the response of both police officers and firefighters. The fine would not apply to the first false alarm allowed per year by the ordinance.

According to Daine, the town collected about $360,000 in alarm fines and registration fees during the 2007-08 fiscal year, which he said underscores the importance of trying to collect the outstanding portion of $116,000.

"That would go nicely to the General Fund," Daine said.

Selectman Lin Lavery echoed Daine's comments.

"Seeking outstanding revenue is really important," Lavery said.

In other business, a series of proposed rules and regulations for the mooring of boats in the area of Greenwich Harbor was presented to the Board of Selectmen for consideration. 

Drafted by the First Selectman's Coastal Resources Advisory Committee, the rules require all vessels to have a mooring and pay seasonal fees for the amenity. 

The 12-page proposal seeks to regulate everything from where commercial vessels can anchor to waiting lists for moorings. It could also be voted on by the selectmen on March 26.