The town of Lake Alfred, Fla., is fed up with false alarms, and somebody’s gonna pay.
Last month the Lake Alfred City Council approved an ordinance that institutes fines for businesses or residences that generate multiple false alarms requiring a police or fire department response.
City Manager Jan Shockley said the ordinance was in response to the high rate of false alarms handled by the police, the fire department or both. Some 30 percent of the 275 alarm calls from businesses and private residences in the last year turned out to be false.
The new ordinance requires business and residences to pony up $25 annually for an alarm-system permit, or face a $100 fine if they fail to file for one. Then, if they initiate a false alarm call, a tiered system of fines kicks in.
Sort of. The first three false alarms incur no fine, and the next two would bring a $50 fine to the owner. Pretty mild stuff, given the cost of trotting out police and fire crews to a scene for no reason. The sixth and seventh false alarm result in $100 fines.
If, so help us, a business or home incurs more than seven false alarm calls in a single year, the fines start to climb: $250 for the eighth and ninth calls, and $500 for all subsequent ones. This can really add up for business and homeowners who have hypersensitive (aka improperly-installed) alarm systems.
Lake Alfred’s ordinance may seem unusual, but a number of other larger metropolises also have such laws on the books, including Dayton, Ohio; Oakland, Calif.; Savannah, Ga.; Boulder, Colo.; and Seattle, Wash. The town of Amherst, N.Y. was an early pioneer, having had a “false alarm avoidance” ordinance for the past twenty-five years.
Most of these cities false alarm fine systems are a lot stricter than Lake Alfred’s 10-step program. Boulder, for example, charges $100 for the first false alarm; $200 for the second and $300 for the third. (It’s possible some of these calls are due to the streaking pumpkin runners OhMyGov! wrote about yesterday.)
In Canada, police departments have instituted extreme false alarm measures. The city of Toronto may suspend police department response for one year to locations that have generated more than four false alarms. Talk about the perils of crying wolf! Edmonton no longer responds to one-hit alarms, in that the police will wait for verification from another alarm such as a motion detector, before responding to the alarm.
In the super-safety-conscious U.S., such a tough love policy from police would never fly. But the high false alarm rate that Lake Alfred sees is not an isolated case. What is the proper response from increasingly cash-strapped municipalities?
The False Alarm Reduction Association (FARA), an association of public safety agencies and government employees, points out that many localities have ordinances on the books to “govern alarm management” but that most of them are not enforced.
So enforcement would be a good start. False alarms are a quality of life issue for neighbors, and a real inconvenience and budget burden for those tasked with responding. It’s time to get tough.
FARA notes the lack of enforcement is mainly due to many municipalities’ inability to computerize the tracking of permit fees and fines. The technology hurdles are real, but surmountable.
The association also claims that the fees and fines “encounter citizen and public resistance.” Some cities have dealt with complaints over false alarm fines by providing info and educational services on how to reduce the number of false alarms. One way is to have alarm companies verify the distress signals prior to contacting law enforcement.
Lake Alfred’s false alarm ordinance may seem like government lawmaking run amuck considering the likelihood the town will fully enforce it. But it’s a start.
Also Interesting:
Get our Newsletter!
Click here to sign up and stay informed