02/04/2003 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 2/4/2003 as this, which assesses f nes for false fire alarms, would be a discouragement to businesses and instead encourage businesses in the opposite intent of the ordinance to disconnect a malfunctioning alarm rather than to keep it going and pay the fines. The ordinance addresses a $25 fire false alarm fee, not for the first offense, but for the second. It has a graduated system of collecting fines for 2~, 3`~ and 4~' offenses from $50 to $200 as the maximum or actual cost to the city for attending to that false alarms. There are exceptions to that rule which would be if it is a first offense, an act of God, an alarm where in fact the Fire Dept. was not eventually dispatched. There are some considerations for extenuating circumstances. There was significant discussion in the committee which raised several suggestions and enough suggestions that the committee suggested it be held in committee for two weeks. It is being held for consideration of the following issues which are to be addressed to the Law Department and Safety Director. One issue to be considered by the Law Director would be if he would consider a time limit on the violations. For example, would it be appropriate to include that the four violations must be within two years, as opposed to just four violations or four false alarms. The second consideration for the Law Director would be to consider adding a discretionary clause that would allow the Fire Chief the discretion to deal with businesses with respect to repeated false alarms that are possibly caused by vandalism or other extenuating circumstances that have not yet been addressed in the ordinance. With regard to the Safety Director's concerns to this ordinance, the committee requests that he ask and check into the Fire Code that is soon to be considered and advise the Safety Committee with regard to whether or not that Fire Code addresses fire alarms and false alarms. The second issue for the Safety Director would be to find out the number of businesses that actually have incurred an excess of four false fire alarms within a certain short period of time so it can be determined whether or not the fee is excessive or whether it is a discouragement as apposed to the full intent of the ordinance which is to provide and maintain active functioning fire alarms. ^ The committee delayed discussion of chimney screening which was raised at the last Council meeting until they receive input from the Fire Chief. ^ Dover Center Road light issue that was raised by a resident, Mr. Crowley, and submitted to Council and the Mayor is also being delayed for discussion. She and the Mayor have not yet discussed his intentions. ^ Canterbury Road speed limit. The committee is grateful for Mr. Dubelko's detailed response. He did make contact with the County Traffic Engineer and came to the determination that the best avenue for City Council to address the Canterbury speed limit back to 25, if they so choose to do that, would be to petition the Dept. of Traffic Safety and Transportation of the State of Ohio. In order to do that and have a good case, the Law Director suggested that a traffic study on Canterbury Road be conducted. She will request the administration to do that and to provide the committee with information with regard to the cost and timelines of the study. Hopefully, it can be done in-house. 10