Ann Arbor Fire Department raising penalty fee from zero to $250 for first-time false alarms
With staff sizes shrinking and budget pressures growing, Ann Arbor's police and fire departments are taking steps to reduce the number of false alarm responses in the city.
Under a new fee schedule approved Monday night by the Ann Arbor City Council, property owners will be charged $250 each time the fire department has to come to their address for a false alarm — including the first time.
Assistant Fire Chief Ed Dziubinski addresses the Ann Arbor City Council Monday night.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Currently, no fee is charged for a first offense, but the Fire Department charges $120 for the second time and $360 the third time.
The police department currently bills property owners $82 for each false alarm response, which will stay the same for now.
Assistant Fire Chief Ed Dziubinski, who spoke before the City Council, said he had no estimate of the potential financial benefits to the city from the fee changes. But he said the police and fire departments handle hundreds of false alarm responses every year.
"Usually, it's a system malfunction, a shorting out within the system, poor maintenance, or poor or outdated battery backups," he said of the cause of most false alarms.
He said the fees are to recoup costs.
"The fire engine's sitting there idling with the whole entire crew on there," he said. "We have to recoup some costs, and that's just a portion of the overhead that we have to incur."
In addition to new fees, the City Council approved a new ordinance that clarifies the relationship between alarm companies, alarm users, and the police and fire departments.
"The new ordinance is based on a registration system with appropriate controls to facilitate false alarm reduction and education of alarm users," Mary Joan Fales, senior assistant city attorney, wrote in a memo to council members. "It contains enforcement control and administration provisions, identifies the responsibilities of an alarm company, and penalty provisions for misuse of alarm systems by alarm users."
The police and fire departments are switching to an automated system for alarm system registration, billing and enforcement. City officials say the new system, EnablePoint, will reduce the personnel time required to track and prepare alarm system billings.
"Due to staff reductions, we're looking to utilize software vendors to actually monitor and take care of our false alarm billing," Dziubinski said, adding that the software vendors and city will work together to determine if a property owner should be billed for a false alarm.
The changes approved by the council establish an annual fee of $37 that property owners must pay to both the police and fire departments to register alarm systems. The police department already charges that fee. Dziubinski said the added revenues will help pay for the registration database that will help reduce false alarm responses.
Dziubinski said property owners who dispute a false alarm charge can appeal cases to the city. In the case of fire responses, appeals go to the city's fire marshal.
Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, raised concerns Monday night that the ordinance allows the city to potentially set a penalty fee as high as $500 per false alarm. She said she hopes a fee that large is never imposed on Ann Arbor property owners.
"The question is under what circumstances do people get charged?" she said. "We approved it because they said they're going to be very reasonable about it. There's an appeals system where you can appeal, for instance, if your electricity went out due to a major storm."
Briere said the police and fire departments aren’t interested in fining anyone for false alarms, but also don’t want staff returning over and over again to a house or business because there’s a problem with the alarm or someone forgets a key and breaks into their own home.
"That kind of false alarm wastes police or fire resources," she said. "Or, God forbid, you have a hard-wired fire alarm in your kitchen which you consistently set off by cooking."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Milton Shift
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 3:01 a.m.
That was as objective as objective can get. Are you sure you understand subjectivity? Giving a percentile would be much more subjective as it would relate their wealth to mine, regardless of its real objective implications. In some societies where the distribution of wealth is much more fair, the 10th percentile is going to be a very different lifestyle than in another whether the distribution is top heavy. It's constantly in flux and thus meaningless as an *objective* benchmark.
AlphaAlpha
Mon, Oct 11, 2010 : 9:47 p.m.
Too vague; too subjective. Can you please be more specific? More objective?
Mick52
Mon, Oct 11, 2010 : 6:43 p.m.
BurnandRazed (sorry could not help it) I have no issue with the FD getting food and eating it. But to take a fire truck to get it? How about one person in one of those pickups they have? If there is a fire, that person can respond with the pickup. To take a fire truck to the grocery when they are charging people for the alarms alarming is a cheap trick. There is no such thing as a false alarm. Similar to traffic collisions are not accidents. By the way, I was taught that by two guys who installed alarms.
Milton Shift
Sun, Oct 10, 2010 : 12:18 a.m.
Those whose wealth has exceeded the point of achieving real gains in their standard of living, and projects significant political and economic power.
AlphaAlpha
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 8:06 p.m.
So, who are 'the rich'? Maybe the top ten percentile of income earners?
Milton Shift
Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 5:23 p.m.
"This is also an attempt to help the city cover for their "ridiculous Cadillac" pension and healthcare benefits in light of dwindling tax reciepts. No better way then to slam an already overtaxed taxpayer!" Blaming workers in the same boat as you for our mutual problems? (That is, low pay and disappearing benefits) I believe that's exactly how the rich want us to behave. Tear each other apart while they make off with the cash. Please make sure you save your harsh words for those that deserve it. In the last two years, all the money has been going to the rich. It's one of the greatest redistributions of wealth in history, and it's certainly not going to some retired firefighter. Raise taxes on the rich to compensate instead of cutting pay for honest hard workers. On the subject of pensions and the elderly: I've always said the best judge of the character of a society is how the elderly are treated. The young are also vulnerable, but they are our future workers, so there are ulterior motives in keeping them healthy and alive, and in not making them angry, as they will hit their 20s and raise hell if they are unhappy. But the elderly have already put in their hours and built this world to pass onto the next generation. They have little left to offer us materialistically. Toss aside our parents and grandparents with no respect or appreciation for their hard work...? I would hope not.
stunhsif
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:47 p.m.
Fine the abusers that continually have false alarms. There should be no fine for a first time offense. This is also an attempt to help the city cover for their "ridiculous Cadillac" pension and healthcare benefits in light of dwindling tax reciepts. No better way then to slam an already overtaxed taxpayer!
Biff Steele
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 3:11 p.m.
Building owners will shut off their alarms to avoid the false alarm fee. As a result guess how big their next fire will be. And after that fire they probably wont rebuild in Ann Arbor. Who do they recover costs from when they take the fire truck to the store? Same crew, same fire truck idling. Except they are in the store longer than they are at the false alarm. I guess we can absorb those costs.
Milton Shift
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
Thank you Mick52 for your reasonable assessment of the situation. The reason for the fees is because the rich and powerful do not want to pay higher taxes even though their income is going up, and since the tax base (lower and middle classes) is shrinking drastically due to falling income, there's a gap. They're finding all kinds of desperate ways to raise revenue to address this, nickel and diming their way to solvency.
Milton Shift
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 2:03 p.m.
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/tenn-o06.shtml There's some more information on the fire Mr. Pierce linked us to. The brutality of this cannot be understated. I have a relative in that area and I personally witnessed the apathy of privatized fire services - it took over 4 hours for them to respond to what could've turned into a huge wildfire (his neighbor thought hot coals weren't "on fire" and threw them into the woods - we'd be dead if we hadn't seen her do so). We had to put the fire out ourselves, him spraying it with a hose, me frantically digging a fire break with a shovel. It came less than 10ft from jumping into a field of dry leaves and grass. A lot of people could've died that night. Fire departments are not a place to skip on funding!
Mick52
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 1:56 p.m.
I retired from LE and from the beginning I thought fees for false alarms are inappropriate. I argue there is no such thing as a false alarm. Alarms do not go off falsely, an alarm is triggered by something, like a door opening. That is not false, the alarm did what it is supposed to do alarms do not go off by themselves. The duty of the responding officers is to determine what set off the alarm, not to casually dismiss it as false, which can be costly. Answering alarms "false" or not should be considered good training for response time and investigative skills. It never bothered me to respond. Usually I was just driving around waiting for something to do or a car to ticket. I preferred investigating real crime, not harassing motorists. If for example a heating or air conditioning system kicks on and moves a curtain, which sets off a motion detector that problem needs to be identified. To leave a scene without determining what set off the alarm is improper and poor (no) investigation. To assess a fee in addition to taxes seems like double dipping to me. Let's see what the responding officers were doing at the time of an alarm response. If a police officer is on patrol and not on assignment and gets sent to an alarm, why should that support an additional fee? The response is the officer's job, what they are supposed (and paid) to do. If fire fighters are sleeping or barbecuing when an alarm goes off, well I am sorry but responding is your job, you are already being paid to respond. Take this scenario. A person hides in a store at closing steals a pair of pants and a shirt then exits through a crashbar door. That is not a false alarm, but when the police respond, they will see nothing if the person is gone, no damage and no indications of the theft. The store may never uncover the crime until some inventory is done, and the loss might be dismissed as shoplifting. Not a false alarm, but it will be billed as such. Someone could fall asleep in a library and set off an alarm when leaving. Not a false alarm. Perfume can set off a smoke detector. So can pipe smoke. Back before smoking was banned in buildings, a political science professor would set off the smoke detector in Haven Hall while waiting for the elevator. Not a false alarm, the alarm did what it is supposed to do. If a citizen looks out their window sees a fight and calls the PD but upon arrival the combatants and witness are gone, is that billed? Nope. If someone is in the city parking garage elevator and pushes the emergency button, requiring a response, but nobody is in the elevator upon arrival, does the PD/FD bill the city for the run? Not a false alarm, somebody pushed the button. Go to the DVD store and rent the movie, "How To Steal a Million." Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole. If I were training police officers in the academy on investigating burglary, I would make them watch that movie. There is no such thing as a false alarm and it should not be billed as such. Darn, another reason to hate the police.
SonnyDog09
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 1:50 p.m.
Don't go giving City Council any ideas :-)
Steve Pierce
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.
You could have this fire service Didn't Pay $75 Fee? Firefighters Watch Your Home Burn To Ground http://consumerist.com/2010/10/firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-ground.html - Steve
abc
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.
Mr. Stanton Which way did Ms. Briere vote on the issue? It seems from her cooking comment that she may not have read the new ordinance. I would say that when the ordinance excludes a potential fire hazard from the definition of a false alarm that one should not be charged with a false alarm for a cooking induced alarm even if it is set off constantly. Per the code False Alarm means the activation of an alarm system through mistake, mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation, lack of prudent maintenance, or negligence of the Alarm User, its employees or agents or any other activation of the Alarm System when the responding officers/services finds no evidence of a fire or potential fire hazard, criminal offense, attempted criminal offense or other situation that the alarm was designated to indicate after having completed a timely investigation of the Alarm Site. A False Alarm does not include an alarm activation caused by a tornado, earthquake, area-wide power outages, downed telephone lines or other condition beyond the control of the Alarm User. Maybe the stove is not working properly. Maybe the exhaust system is not working properly. Regardless of the consistency the FD needs to show to make sure that house, and maybe the next, doesnt go up. If something is not working right in a house the FD can insist that you get it looked into. There is also the AA Fire Prevention Bureau. Ill also bet today that the AAFD has some addresses that they recognize because they call more than most. Maybe they are older, forgetful people who arent as attentive to their heating and cooking devices as they should be. When these addresses are reported they know that they have to show up because there truly is a danger but it probably would not happen to most of us; like a pot that boils dry and something burns because it was forgotten again. This ordinance seems to be strictly about the rash of false alarms caused by alarm system failures; as these systems have proliferated so has false alarms. Jake C the definition may answer your question as well. I dont think the FD wants people to NOT report something suspicious. They are simply trying to get a break from mechanical devices running amuck. BTW toasters and toaster ovens are notorious fire starters.
a2d3
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 11:51 a.m.
The $250 first time fee is an incentive to decrease fire detection sensitivity...ie better shutoff the fire detectors or automatic call in systems to avoid false triggers (while missing real triggers). The original structure made a lot more sense to me....
Jake C
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.
Maybe I'm just missing it, but does this article or any of the links clarify what exactly qualifies as a "False Alarm"? This is meant to only apply to completely automated fire & intruder alarms that automatically contact the police or fire departments through some 3rd-party service like ADT? How about your neighbor who calls 911 because she smells smoke in your house but it turns out you just burned some toast?
ViSHa
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.
@jameslucas: thanks, that makes sense
SonnyDog09
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:28 a.m.
Does the city bill the property owner for a false alarm that the city causes? When I worked in town, the fire inspector triggered the alarm while they were conducting an inspection. We all had to go outside the building. The city workers sat in their pickup truck while we stood out in the crisp fall air. Would the property owner be responsible for that false alarm, or would the city employee who triggered the alarm have to pay the fine? Also, did the city offer any statistics on how many false alarms they responded to in the last year?
amlive
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
I knew of the police fees for false alarms before I got my alarm system installed, and it really doesn't seem unfair to me. It just keeps me on my toes to make sure my system is working properly, batteries are replaced well before they expire, and I check to make sure nothing's going to fall or blow around to trigger the motion sensors when the furnace starts blowing. Still, $250 for a first false fire alarm does seem a bit much. Perhaps half that would be a bit more palatable, recover some costs, and still get the point across enough to make sure systems are properly armed and maintained.
Ignatz
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.
This looks like an incentive to those who use alarms to keep them in fine working order. @aataxpayer: Why would an owner choose to discontiue their alarm service and therefore risk life and property loss rather than to spend far less money to maintain the system?
jameslucas
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 8:08 a.m.
The reasoning for keeping the second and third time false alarm fees the same as the first, is because it is a fee not a fine. I think the fees are fair and long over due.
TMazur
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.
Chris W--my understanding is this new fee pertains to alarms that are monitored and called in to them by a company, not if a homeowner requests a response due to a natural gas/carbon monoxide monitor going off.
ViSHa
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.
What is the reasoning for keeping the second & third time false alarm fees the same as the first? Seems strange for first time offense to go from zero to $250 and then stay the same for each subsequent offense. maybe i'm wrong?
ChrisW
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 6:49 a.m.
It's ok. Grandma doesn't have to eat this month because her fire alarm went off, probably because the neighbors are smoking medicinal marijuana. Seriously, though, $250 for a first offense that the homeowners usually can't control is ridiculous. Our natural gas detector went off once and I debated whether to call the fire department because I couldn't smell anything. The $250 fine will simply encourage people to disconnect their alarms, causing more serious actual fires. Brilliant.
Badbob11
Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 5:56 a.m.
This fine is long overdue. All Fire and Police department should put in place a fine for this and also for using this service for other than emergencies.