Council To Consider Service Fees For False-Alarms
By Earl Neikirk/Bristol Herald Courier
About 85 percent of all automatic alarm system calls that summon city police, fire and emergency services turn out to be false, according to data collected by the city.
BRISTOL, Tenn. – About 85 percent of all automatic alarm system calls that summon city police, fire and emergency services turn out to be false, according to data collected by the city.
To help those emergency departments recoup expenses for more than 1,250 false alarms a year, the City Council on Tuesday will consider reducing the allowable false alarms and adopting service fees for calls above that number.
“Obviously, no verification is required for fire, holdup, duress or panic alarms,” Police Chief Blaine Wade said. “A lot of times, an alarm can trigger because of equipment failure. We send them out in good faith on any call. But you get the police department, fire department and EMS responding to this many false alarms and it gets costly.”
City Manager Jeffrey Broughton, in a memo to council members, said the ordinance changes will give the city a tool to “reduce undesirable false alarms” and “enhance public safety response and resources.”
The alarms in question are mechanical devices that, when activated, automatically call 911 or the alarm or security service that monitors the device. The ordinance amendment on the agenda Tuesday would not apply to emergency telephone calls.
Currently, the city’s ordinance states that a violation occurs when a system issues three false alarms in a 30-day period, or eight in 12 months.
Wade said the ordinance is “extremely lenient.” He said the police and fire departments in 2008 responded to 1,461 alarms, of which 201 had “any significance.”
The amendment under consideration Tuesday would drop the limit for false alarms to three times in 12 months. Anything above that would be considered a violation. Additionally, the ordinance amendment would allow the city to assess the home or business owner whose alarm goes off but is found “non-verifiable” in violation of that three-a-year limit.
“Non-verifiable basically means that when we get there, we find the response was unnecessary,” Wade said. “That’s opposed to an alarm truly triggered by something where a report must be written. For instance, if we find a window has been busted out, and there’s a possible burglary, or if we find evidence of a fire.”
A false alarm will not be documented if a violent act of nature or other identifiable cause reasonably beyond the control of the alarm user activates the alarm.
Wade said that studies conducted nationwide show that more-accountable alarm ordinances in other cities have reduced false alarms, and he believes the proposed amendment would provide a 50 percent reduction in false alarms in the city.
City Attorney Jack Hyder said the earliest the new ordinance could go into effect is Feb. 20, and the fee for exceeding the maximum allowable false alarms hasn’t been set.
“The fee will more than likely equal what it cost each department to respond, and that would vary by department,” said Hyder, who helped draft the ordinance. “There may be three fire trucks sent out to one call, and there may be only one. But remember, when a fire truck is sent out an ambulance normally goes with it.”
| (276) 645-2512
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Bill, you obviously know NOTHING about Emergency services. How do you figure sitting in the station costs the same as running “false alarms”. When your vehicle is sitting in your driveway,does it cost you any gas money? It’s not all about the money, it is more for the safety of the motoring public. Operating an Emergency vehicle takes more skill than you may know. When the lights and sirens are activated,people panic, and that is only one of the many hazards of driving an emergency vehicle.
These false alarms are a serious problem in Bristol. On nearly a
daily basis the Bristol, Tn. FD
respond to Edgemont Towers. Someone
burnt their toast. The FD sends all
of their trucks to this location.
Within 10 to 15 minutes I can hear
all of these trucks going back to their
station. I know these services need
practise drills. But it has gotten
ridicules. These depts.need to handle
alarms differently. I can imagine the
fuel cost of these false alarms.
I am very thankful for the dedication
of our fire-fighters. But there must be
better management within the dept. and
central dispatch.
Imposing fines might help, but it’s
not the solution to the problem.
Well it’s about time. Bristol is WAAAY behind on this. Alarm malfunctions and false alarms get the same $million ladder truck, and $half million pumper that a working fire gets. The risk of an accident is also there the same as a working fire. Why should tax payers pay for responses to locations that do not keep up good mainteance of their alarms ?
“son on vet” There is no discount when they stay in station. It cost the same.
Driving around for show what costs wasted money, The trucks and manpower cost either way.
“ A Vet”
Are any of you that speak negative of the fines involved in or know any one involved in an EMERGENCY Service? Obviously not. To respond to a call,false alarm or actual need, is costly. The trucks cost over $200,000 not counting the equipment on board. Then you have the price of fuel,and these trucks don’t get 20 miles per gallon! Factor in the starting and stopping through the city streets,trying to manuver the truck around people freaking out,which is scary enough! There is a lot of responsibility involved in being in these much needed services. Last thing i might add is; what if they are responding to a ‘false alarm’ and you were to need them? How would the simple fine that doesn’t affect you look then?
‘The Cities of Bristol’ own a ‘state of the art’ fiber optic network. It was bought and paid for with ‘the tobacco fund’ and tax dollars. It cost the ‘cities’ nothing to build and maintain. And, they are not required to make a profit for the services provided.
Why…..does not the ‘Cities of Bristol’ use their network to monitor, traffic, pedestrian activity(aka crime) and every business with an alarm connected to the police station through alarms and cameras fed by the network? The poles are there. The fiber is there. Just add cameras and alarms. And if you had any sense you would read the electrical meters at the same time brother Browder……
Don’t wait for permission from Brother Rick or Brother Clyde. Jump into the future all by yourself. It would be cheaper to monitor traffic on the ‘Parkway’ with a camera than with a patrol car, and, a heck of lot less polluting.
Don’t you think it would solve this problem of “false-alarms” if you taxed, fined, or charged the offending device maker instesd of the people needing your protection!?!?
Please turn on your brain!
These are city services. Those of us who pay taxes pay for everything the city does whether it comes out of our taxes or they send us a bill. The bigger issue is that these services are available when they’re really needed. They’re trying not to waste their time because that only wastes our money. It looks to me like they’re trying to be good stewards of our money here.
Just take out all the alarms and then the break-in or the fire will be big enough to see from City Hall.
One of those things if you charge the business they just pass the cost on to customers. Or give it to city hall and let the spend it.
Right On$$$$$$
Advertisement