Margate, NJ, city residents, spared from a sleepless night caused by a neighbor's incessant home alarm, may have former state Sen. Bill Gormley to thank.
City commissioners are set to introduce an ordinance that will allow the city police chief or a person he selects to disconnect audible burglary, smoke or similar alarms with broken timers that are "disturbing the public peace."
City ordinances already require audible alarms to have timers that turn them off after 15 minutes.
The ordinance would also lower the limit of legal false alarms from five to three in a calendar year, while increasing the penalties.
The city currently fines people $25 for each false alarm past the five-alarm limit. This proposal would fine a person $50 for the fourth alarm, $100 for the fifth, and $200 for each subsequent alarm.
At their Jan. 21 meeting, officials said the city was drafting the ordinance after hearing a complaint from Gormley and his wife regarding a neighbor's alarm. The alarm was going off throughout a recent night, officials said, but no one was authorized to turn it off.
"Let's just say no one slept well most of the night," Gormley said Wednesday.
Gormley, an attorney who lives in Margate, is an influential former state official who served as a Republican assemblyman from 1978 to 1982 and as state senator from 1982 to 2007.
He downplayed his role, saying he merely brought something to the attention of local officials, who were to be complimented on taking them seriously.
Police Chief David Wolfson said most newer alarms silently notify police or other security about a possible problem. He acknowledged that these older alarms could be a real nuisance, especially if they are sounding off in the middle of the night, and that police were aware of the problem.
Wolfson said the ordinance was not drafted because of Gormley's complaint.
"There's been complaints in the past that have gone by the wayside," he said, "so this is not the first time we have heard about this."
Similarly, Mayor Michael S. Becker said he had heard complaints through his daughter, a municipal police officer, for several years, but city officials have not acted on them before now.
"I know it's an issue that has been talked about for quite some time," he said.
Beginning March 1, the Frisco, TX, Police Department will begin enforcement of the city's new residential and business burglar alarm ordinance.
The city council passed the ordinance late last year, but officials held off on enforcing it to give residents and business owners time to comply.
The new ordinance requires a $35 annual fee for residential and business alarms and establishes a new fee schedule for excessive false alarms. In 2009, the Frisco Police Department responded to 9,841 alarms and 99.6% of those were false alarms, city records show.
To help mitigate the cost of responding to false alarms, residents will now have to pay up to $100 for excessive false alarms in a 12-month period. And alarm permit holders are required to give their alarm companies the names and telephone numbers of three contacts who are able to respond to a false alarm. Failure by the alarm permit holder or the three contacts to respond within 30 minutes of a false alarm may result in a $50 fine.
Possible fees for alarm permits were discussed at a recent Tiffin, OH, City Council Law and Community Planning meeting.
City Administrator Wayne Stephens and Fire Chief Bill Ennis have been working to update procedures for alarm permits in private residences and business, last updated in 1993. Permits, issued for smoke detectors, fire alarms, burglar alarms and the like, are required if property owners want the city to monitor the alarms.
Stephens said the biggest change includes the addition of a $25 annual permit fee.
"For all the years that we've issued alarm permits, we've never charged a fee," Stephens said. "We have over 280 alarms, and I can tell you, that creates a lot of work."
The city does not charge to monitor the alarm systems and a fee would help cover costs.
Another change is an increases in fees for false alarms. Previously, a third false alarm fee was $20, a fourth was $30, a fifth was $40 and a sixth was $60 and permit revocation. The changes would double the fees.
While the city does not want to revoke permits, Stephens said that after six offenses, the property owner needs to address the reason for frequent activation.
"Obviously we don't want people to have their permit revoked, so we have them educate their employees or fix their equipment, because typically a false alarm is caused by employee error or faulty equipment," Stephens said.
In addition, charges are to be increased if firefighters or police have to wait longer than 30 minutes for a response from the business or home owner. Originally, $15 was charged if the wait was longer than 20 minutes, but the fee is to increase to $30 for the first half hour and $30 for every half hour after.
Ennis also suggested a fee if police or firefighters are unable to contact any of three individuals provided as contacts by the property owner in the case of an alarm.
The committee approved the changes to the alarm procedures and authorized Howard to create legislation based on Ennis' draft.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation moved forward on a bill that will address carbon monoxide poisoning cases.
The CO bill is S. 1216. The Residential Carbon Monoxide Safety Act would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to adopt ANSI/UL 2034-2005, the American National Standard for Single and Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide Alarms, as a mandatory standard.
Manufacturers of residential CO detectors made more than a year after the date of the enactment of the law would have to clearly mark on the detector and its container that it conforms with the standard.
Also, the bill would direct CPSC to set up a grant program to help states carry out CO alarm programs.
To be eligible for a grant, a state would have to have in place a law or rule mandating approved carbon monoxide alarms be installed in accordance with NFPA 720 in all commercial residential dwelling units and all new dwelling unit construction. A state receiving a grant could use the money to train fire code enforcement officers and to create training materials, hire instructors, and pay any other training cost associated with the program.
John Andres, engineering director for Kidde's Residential and Commercial Division of Mebane, N.C., testified Dec. 17 at a Senate Transportation subcommittee hearing that Kidde supports the bill.
He said S. 1216 "would focus much-needed federal attention and resources toward ending accidental carbon monoxide poisoning" and added that the grant program is especially important. Twenty-three states have laws requiring CO alarms in residential dwellings, but states, consumers, and manufacturers need a consistent standard defining what constitutes an "approved" alarm, Andres said.
Owners of rental properties in Baltimore County, MD, will have four months less than they might have thought to comply with a newly passed law requiring carbon monoxide detectors.
The new deadline for installation is August 2010.
The seven-member Baltimore County council unanimously passed an amended version of the carbon monoxide bill in a voting session in Towson.
Council Chairman Joseph Bartenfelder said before the meeting that he planned on sponsoring an amendment to shorten the grace period for installation from 12 months to eight months. The law is expected to take effect in February, making the new deadline October
“This is a public safety issue,” said Bartenfelder.
The law requires owners of rental units with gas appliances or an attached garage to install at least one carbon monoxide detector in common areas outside bedrooms.
Prince George’s County and Ocean City have similar laws on the books. State law already requires the monitors for rental units built after Jan. 1, 2008.
Officials said Baltimore County firefighters responded to more than 1,300 incidents carbon monoxide poisoning last year. The department projects it will be called to about 1,400 incidents this year.
“I want to hold the industry’s feet to the fire to come into compliance,” Bartenfelder said Monday. “I’m getting tired of watching the news and seeing people get carted off on stretchers.”
Before Monday’s meeting, Kathy Howard, a lobbyist representing the Baltimore-based Maryland Multi-Housing Association, questioned the need for Bartenfelder’s change to accelerate the timetable.
“It’s going to make it difficult for complexes to meet the deadline,” she said.
Howard and the association worked with County Executive Jim Smith to craft a bill that wouldn’t require rental properties in the county to install the detectors until next December, after a new executive and council are sworn in. But Bartenfelder said that’s one reason he wanted it done sooner.
“This is a public safety issue that has to be dealt with,” Bartenfelder said. “If there’s an issue, this council will still be there to deal with it rather than a new council and a new executive.”
The bill includes the 15,000 properties in the county rental registration program, as well as all apartment complexes. Rental property owners would have to have the units installed by October.
Councilman Kevin Kamenetz recommended that Bartenfelder add provisions allowing owners to seek a 60-day extension. That provision was also added.
The county Department of Permits and Development Management, which is responsible for ensuring compliance, will be required to draw up regulations establishing criteria for getting an extension.
The detector can be combined with a smoke detector — but must be either wired into the electrical system or plugged into an outlet that is not controlled by a wall switch. The units must also have a battery backup.
The property owner would have to provide certification of installation to the county and product information to at least one adult per rental unit. Residents would be responsible to replace batteries and would not be allowed to disable the detectors.
The county would enforce the law through its rental registration program, as well as by making spot checks of rental properties. Violations would be subject to a fine of $200 per day.
False alarms are costing taxpayers far too much, Spanish Fork, Utah Police Chief Dee Rosenthal says, and he's asking city leaders to consider charging repeat offenders up to $200 for each incident.
The police and fire departments respond to hundreds of false alarms annually, Rosenthal said, costing the department an estimated $79,000 a year. False alarms increase liability for the emergency responders and have resulted in accidents.
Under a proposed new ordinance, police would start keeping track of false-alarm repeat offenders, something they don't do now.
"We know who they are," Rosenthal told the City Council on Tuesday. "There's about eight if them."
The ordinance, similar to one passed in Orem, would require alarm companies, businesses and residents to register their alarms with the police department. The first three false alarms in a calendar year would get off with a warning. The fourth false alarm would cost the owner $50; the fifth, $75; and the sixth through the ninth, $100 each. Ten or more false alarms in a year would carry a fine of $200 each, Rosenthal said.
Repeated false alarms at the same establishment create a complacent attitude among responders, he said.
"We're not supposed to be complacent, but it puts the responder in jeopardy," Rosenthal said.
In California, Los Gatos’s new commercial burglar alarm ordinance has gone into effect.
According to the law, business owners must now register their alarm systems with the city at a cost of $50. Registration and fees can either be made via snail mail or
online at a registration site set up by the town.
Failure to register the alarm can result in a $100 fine.
Stricter penalties for false burglar alarms in Danvers, MA, saved the police hundreds of man hours last year and raked in $48,000 in fines.
Officers responded to 1,402 false alarms at businesses and homes — nearly four a day — down from the typical average 1,988, police Chief Neil Ouellette said. That works out to nearly 11/2 fewer alarms each day, a 29 percent drop.
Fewer false alarm calls meant 488 man hours saved. On average, it takes two officers 20 minutes and a dispatcher 10 minutes to handle each call and write up reports, Ouellette said. The time saved adds up to nearly $12,688 in wages, based on a rate of about $26 an hour.
That time allowed officers to follow up on investigations, do more patrols or solve problems in the community, "instead of being like a pingpong ball," Ouellette said.
Police must respond to every alarm call, but more than 99 percent of burglar alarms are false, Ouellette said.
Thanks to the fines, the department also realized a big jump in revenue.
As of Nov. 12, the department had billed $48,000 in fines. In all of 2008, the department collected $6,515 from false alarms.
Town Meeting approved a new alarm bylaw in 2008. Under the old bylaw, the fine for businesses was $25 after two false alarms, $50 after 12 and $100 after 20, all in a year.
The new bylaw carries an $80 fine after the third and each subsequent offense in one year for homes. Business and "panic alarms" carry a $120 fee for the third and subsequent offense.
"We've had many violators tell us they were having their (alarm) company come in because they didn't want to suffer" the fines, Ouellette said. Businesses also wanted to make sure police knew they were working on the problem.
Most false alarms are caused by defective equipment or operator error. Homeowners are not the problem, but big box retailers and some businesses Ouellette described as "habitual offenders."
One former business on Cherry Hill Drive used to rack up hundreds of false alarm calls, with employees setting off the system like clockwork every morning at 8, Ouellette said.
"Every morning, two cars (would respond)," Ouellette said. "They paid their (fines). They must have thought it was the cost of doing business."
So far, downtown businesses are not alarmed by the alarm bylaw.
"There hasn't been any grumbling," said C.R. Lyons, chairman of the Downtown Improvement Committee.
He said the topic came up at a meeting a few months ago in relation to questions about how businesses could update alarm contact information with police. The conversation was positive, Lyons said.
The town charges a $10-a-year registration fee for homeowners and a $25 fee for businesses. The purpose of the fee is to make sure police have the most up-to-date contact information. The department raised $2,485 in registration fees last year.
The Police Department's criminologist, Chris Bruce, said some businesses improved in 2009, including Endicott Liquors in Endicott Plaza, which went from 28 false alarms in 2008 to five in 2009; The Home Depot on Route 1, which went from 25 alarms in 2008 to five in 2009; and Costco, which dropped from 15 to four.
Cristian Giumba, the proprietor at Endicott Liquors, declined comment until he learned more about what his store was doing. A manager at The Home Depot said he was too new to say why the store improved.
Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse improved its false alarm rate, going from 39 in 2008, the top offender, to 15 last year, Ouellette said.
Top false-alarm offenders in 2009 included Enterprise Rent-A-Car on Andover Street, with 29, and Danvers High, with 18, Ouellette said.
School Superintendent Lisa Dana chalked up the alarms at the high school to human error, with more than 100 people who work in the sprawling complex on Cabot Road.
Often, staff or sports teams come in on a Sunday and enter an area that's alarmed without realizing it.
She said school officials try to identify the causes of false alarms during weekly "cleaning meetings" with custodians, who work for the Department of Public Works.
"If they see there is a couple in a row, or one group that continues to make a mistake, they will address it with that group," Dana said.
Leslie's Swimming Pools Supplies on Route 1 had a sharp rate of increase in false alarms in 2009, going from one in 2008 to 11 last year, Bruce said.
Leslie's local manager referred questions to its corporate office.
Chuck Escover is a former police officer, so he understands that responding to false burglar alarms wastes departments' resources.
So
Escover, also a former Pleasant Hill, CA, councilman, supports the city's 2007 decision to fine residents $100 for each false alarm after the first one in a calendar year. What he does not understand is why the city is charging every residential and commercial burglar alarm user in the city an annual $27 registration fee.
"Basically, we call it a penalty for having an alarm," Escover said. "If the alarm company has contact information, it's redundant for the city to have it, too."
Police Chief Peter Dunbar said that the city's burglar alarm registration is akin to the state's requirement that motorists register their vehicles every year, at a cost.
"There may not be new information, there may be new information, but you're still paying a fee," he said. "We really don't know until we get these (registrations) back from people."
About 1,165 alarms are registered in Pleasant Hill, he said.
Dunbar said that the fee covers the cost of processing the registration forms, which include the location of the alarm, name of the customer, phone numbers for those who police should call if the alarm goes off, and the name of the alarm company.
"I just don't see a need to change because it seems to be working the way it is," Dunbar added.
Pleasant Hill adopted the alarm ordinance to reduce the 97 percent false alarm rate, which was costing the city an estimated $300,000 a year in officer time and administrative costs. From March to December, Pleasant Hill fined seven residents and 50 businesses for false alarms, Dunbar said.
Several Contra Costa County cities, including Walnut Creek, Martinez and Richmond, also levy fines for false alarms. A few charge for a permit for a new alarm. However, Pleasant Hill appears to be the only city in the county to impose an annual registration fee.
Mayor Karen Mitchoff, who was not a council member when the alarm ordinance was passed, thinks the fee is fair. The city is recouping the cost of maintaining its records, she said, not turning a profit.
"If this was a large amount of money that would be one thing, but $27 every year to make sure we have the most updated information I don't think is unreasonable," Mitchoff said.
Escover, who wants the council to reconsider the fee, suggested charging only those burglar alarm users who need to update their contact information or fining residents with incorrect information on file with the city after police respond to an alarm.
"It is a lot of money when you think about your property taxes are going to go up, and the (Pleasant Hill) Recreation and Park District was successful with their bond, so that's going to add money to your property tax bill," he said. "Every little bit hurts when you add it up."
Too much American Canyon, CA, police department time and manpower is used to respond to false burglar alarms at homes and businesses, and city officials say fines may be the logical answer.
Vice Mayor Ed West asked city staff to research how other cities address the issue so officials can decide on an appropriate approach.
"We had more than 1,000 false alarms last year, and that seems excessive," West said. "It's a common problem in cities, but eventually, most respond by charging the alarm owners for the impact on city resources of responding."
False alarms can have many causes including stormy weather, Police Chief Brian Banducci said.
"We've been responding to four or five false alarms a day since this storm started," he said. Banducci said calls from locations with a history of false alarms are taken less seriously.
Gaining a reputation for triggering false alarms "discredits the integrity of the alarm," and can contribute to an erosion of the attitude needed for effective police response, West said.
Vallejo Police Department Support Services Manager Bill Powell said he agrees that 1,000 false alarms in a year is excessive.
"We get about 6,400 a year, so, for their size, yes, that's a lot," he said.
Powell also agrees that false alarms are a common problem.
"No matter how many alarms you get, 97-plus percent are going to be false, and that's always been the case," he said.
In Vallejo, alarm owners are fined for excessive false alarms, Powell said.
"We've been successful with the fines and with not responding to egregious offenders," he said. "Fremont doesn't respond without verification of a real emergency, and they've been successful with that. And there are cities in (Southern California) that don't respond at all. Private security responds, and if there's a real problem, they call police."
In Vallejo, false alarm fines range from $155 for an intrusion alarm to $311 for a hold-up alarm, Powell said.
"The difference is in the seriousness of the call," he said. "A hold-up alarm is supposed to be triggered when someone comes in with a gun and tries to rob a place, so we send four officers, set up a perimeter and expect to confront an armed person."
False alarms can also come from a lack of proper device maintenance or forgetting to re-calibrate if changes occur, Powell and Banducci said.
"Dust near the sensor can set them off. So can dead batteries," Powell said. "A new pet or family member of a different height. Lots of things. We had a government office here that was having lots of false alarms, and after extensive investigation, we finally determined that the heavy trucks driving by were setting it off."
The Vallejo Police Department also offers a false alarm awareness class that can be completed online in about 20 minutes, Powell said.
Vallejo Municipal Code allows those who successfully complete the course to submit a certificate in lieu of paying a false alarm penalty.
Fines might help mitigate the problem in American Canyon, Banducci said.
"Maybe assessing fines would provide people the incentive they need to keep the equipment properly maintained," he said.
The Waynesboro, VA, Police Department is trying to reduce the number of false emergency alarms that officers get called to in the city.
Waynesboro police responded to 633 false alarms this past year. Each call averaged about 14 minutes and usually required two officers.
That means officers spent 290 hours and $5,000 responding to false alarms last year.
Nationally, nearly 99 percent of security alarm calls are false alarms, and most are due to human error.
Waynesboro police are considering fining homes and businesses if they have three false alarms, or letting them take an "alarm training" course.
"To teach people how their alarm systems work and how not to have false alarms. And when it comes to businesses, the high turnover rate in businesses is where most of those false alarms come from," says Chief Douglas Davis with the Waynesboro Police Department.
The educational course would take the place of a fine, and police say it would make the department more efficient.
"It would reduce our response to false alarms, and by reducing the number of false alarms, it frees up our resources for other things," says Davis.
Glen Mowrey works for the non-profit Security Industry Alarm Coalition that is working with the police department.
He says cutting down false alarms with this ordinance will also help with officer safety.
"When an officer continually responds to the same call over and over and over, after a while, a complacency sets in and they can drop their guard when they walk in. When they do, it may be a real alarm, and if that's the case, it could be a real problem," says Mowrey.
The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police passed a model alarms ordinance last year, and Waynesboro could become the first city to follow suit.
"They're very successful and we've got agencies across the country that have dropped their alarm calls anywhere from 40 to 50 to 60 to 80 percent in sustained reductions in those programs," says Mowrey.
Wednesday night was just an informational session for the city council.
The council was mostly in favor, but did raise a concern about one part of the ordinance that would stop police response after a property had eight false alarms.
The council also plans to discuss requiring a permit for security alarms.
If you have more than three false alarms from your Kettering, OH, home security or business security system within a year, expect to receive an administrative nuisance abatement fee.
The city recently passed an alarm ordinance, now in affect, that changes when a fee will be issued to alarm owners.
“It’s our service to respond to alarms,” said Kettering police Officer Michael Burke.
“We find that nearly 98 percent of them are false alarms, and it’s just imperative that the alarm owner has the alarm system operating properly and knows how to operate it to prevent these false alarms.”
The ordinance notes when multiple false alarms occur within a 24-hour period, beginning with the first alarm, it may be counted as one false alarm, unless the alarm user already had three or more false alarms during the same calendar year, Burke said.
City officials decided this new ordinance was more suitable than the previous one, which had been in effect since 2003, Burke said. The old ordinance said the alarm owner would receive a $100 fee for three false alarms within a six month period and a $200 fee, per alarm, for every false alarm afterwards.
The police department is asking anyone who has installed an alarm in their residence or business and has not registered with the Kettering Police Department, to register. That can be done by downloading a registration form at www.ketteringoh.org or by contacting Officer Jennifer Smithhart at (937) 296-3238.
Owners will have a one-time registration fee of $10 and will be asked to renew the registration every two years.
A substantial change in the Greeley, CO, False Alarm Ordinance went into effect and it will cost $75.00 for every false alarm activation that exceeds two in a calendar year.
The alarm subscriber will be charged for each alarm considered a false activation, malfunction of device and/or accidental or negligent activation. Medical emergency alarms are exempt from false alarm charges.
The Greeley City Council recently passed an amendment to the ordinance (Section 6.12.090) to increase the amount of the fee for false alarms exceeding two per calendar year in an effort to reduce the number of false alarms to the Police and Fire departments. The ordinance in effect prior to the amendment allowed six false alarms per calendar year before charging fifty dollars for each additional false alarm.
Chief Jerry Garner said, “About 99 percent of our alarms are false. Responding to those alarms consumes a huge amount of time and resources from the police and fire departments, not to mention the cost to taxpayers. Responding as a priority to the same locations time after time also creates an unacceptable safety hazard for our employees and the public in general. That’s why it’s important to use every tool we can to reduce false alarms. We believe that this ordinance change will help do that.”
Under the new ordinance the City will notify the residential or business alarm owner of the false alarm in writing. An appeal process is available if the notice is contested.
Additional information can be obtained at www.greeleygov.com.
Westminister, CA, residents and business owners in the city who own or operate security alarm systems will be required to obtain a permit for operating such a system or face a $500 fine.
The city is allowing a grace period until March to allow residents or businesses to get the periods, which must be renewed annual.
Officials say the requirement will reduce the number of false alarms and save valuable time and resources.
According to city staff reports, Westminster police responded to about 9,575 alarms from 2006 to 2009. Out of these, only 239 calls (2 percent) were legitimate alarm calls. This is consistent with other studies, which show that 98 percent of alarms that police respond to are false, officials said.
In 2008 Spokane Valley Police responded to more than 1,000 false alarms, wasting valuable time in the process. With a new alarm ordinance in place, police are hoping to reduce the alarm calls and spend more time patrolling the streets.
Each alarm call requires at least two officers. "We can't predict what he'll find when he gets there," said Lt. Bill Rose. Even if an alarm turns out to be false, it takes from 30 to 45 minutes for officers to respond, check the premises and then do paperwork for the call. It all depends on how far away the officers are, the weather and the size of the building to be checked, Rose said. "It can also take more time. Those two guys are out of circulation."
The reason for a false alarm can be anything from a person accidentally setting it off, to faulty batteries. Alarm systems with motion detectors are susceptible to something as simple as helium balloons set swaying by a forced-air heating or cooling system, or pets. "I've been to a lot of those," Rose said.
The police department looked to the city of Spokane, where a similar ordinance reduced false alarm calls by more than 80 percent. "It's been very successful," he said. "That's hard to argue with."
Under the old system, the first and sometimes the second false alarm were free; then the city would start charging an ever-increasing fee for subsequent false alarms. Under the new system there are no free false alarms, but the fines of $85 for residential alarms and $165 for businesses is a flat fee. The new program will actually be cheaper for someone with multiple false alarms.
The new ordinance also requires that homeowners and business owners register their alarms for an annual fee. That gives police and alarm companies a way to make sure contact information for owners is up to date. That's not always the case now and there's nothing more frustrating than responding to a real burglary and the alarm company doesn't have current contact information, Rose said. "We need that information and we need it to be accurate," he said.
There will not be a fee if the alarm is genuine and there has been a break-in. The new ordinance does not apply to fire alarms, personal safety alarms or car alarms.
There is a bit of leeway in the alarm ordinance that can save someone from a fine. A person will not be charged for a false alarm if police response is canceled while the officer is en route, even if he is literally getting out of the car, Rose said. Under the old system people were charged if police had been en route for more than 10 minutes.
Rose said he will be happy if the new ordinance doesn't result in a lot of fines. The new ordinance is more about encouraging responsibility. "It's to make sure they just don't blow off a false alarm," he said. "If it doesn't impact us we have a tendency to ignore the problem. Consequences are what really keep us in line."
People with alarm systems have been getting letters telling them about the new ordinance that took effect Jan. 1 and the registration requirement. People can register online at www.spokanevalley.org.
Some people have been complaining about the registration fees, but they cover the cost of the new program, Rose said. The city has contracted with The Cry Wolf program run by Public Safety Corp. "This isn't a money-making proposition despite what people may think," said Rose.
The company also will handle all the paperwork associated with a false alarm call, freeing up the officers and dispatchers who used to have to do it. "It really is a good deal for our taxpayers," he said. "It's freeing up our time so we're better using the taxpayers' dollars."