AGENDA #4d

BUDGET WORKING PAPER

TO:                  W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

FROM:            Daniel Jones, Fire Chief

SUBJECT:       Potential Fee Assessment for Excessive False Fire Alarm Activations

DATE:             April 27, 2005

This budget working paper describes potential impacts if the Chapel Hill Fire Department were to institute a fee for excessive false alarms.  It will also look at possible costs associated with this program if adopted and potential revenue production.

BACKGROUND

Research findings on the issue of false fire alarms conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency were presented in the article, “Funding Alternatives for Fire and Emergency Services”.  Identified were many fire departments that experience a large impact due to responding to nuisance fire alarm activations.  Nuisance fire alarms include activations due to poor maintenance of the fire system, malicious activities by building occupants and improper maintenance of cooking appliances.  In most, if not all, instances, the nuisance alarm activation could have been prevented through better maintenance of the systems or exercising tighter control of the occupants. 

The adoption of a fee program for excessive activations is intended to encourage better maintenance of the systems, shift greater responsibility onto the building or business owner to monitor the occupant practices that cause malicious activation of the systems and generate revenue to offset the cost incurred by a responding Fire Department.  Not included in this type of program would be alarm activations due to one-time, accidental incidents, malfunction of the system, fire drills or tests by the occupants or activations due to maintenance on the system by a qualified technician.  In the end, the goal of this fee program attempts to persuade the building owner or occupant to be more responsible thereby reducing nuisance alarms.

DISCUSSION

The decision to institute a nuisance fire alarm fee is a balancing act between the anticipated goal of behavioral change resulting in a reduction of incidents and the possible negative impacts of reducing the presence of voluntarily installed systems.  In most fee programs currently in use, careful application is exercised to ensure specific types of nuisance alarms are targeted and not a “shotgun” approach that targets all false fire alarms. 

Inherent in any electrical fire alarm system is the possibility for activation due to unforeseen circumstances.  False fire alarm activations occur for reasons that include phone line circuit fault, electrical surge in the power system, lightning and wind storms and activation due to breakdown of electrical components.  In addition to system failures, most fee programs also exclude system activations due to proper function because of fires, cooking or steam from showers.  These are considered activations due to structural design and not due to poor system maintenance or irresponsible behavior.

In addition to determining which false alarms will be subject to a fee, consideration should also include the possible reduction in voluntary fire alarm installations due to fear of punitive fee assesssement.  Fire Departments, including the Chapel Hill Fire Department, are witnessing an increase in the number of fire alarm and sprinkler systems installed even though they are not required by State fire code.  This trend indicates public acceptance that fire protection systems save lives and are worth the investment.  Most voluntarily installed fire alarm systems are in residential structures where these systems prove most beneficial in live saving actions.  If a fee program is interpreted as punitive or the building owner interprets the program as too costly, the possibility exists that voluntary installations may decrease or cease to be maintained through monitoring companies.  The unintended result is a reduction in the use of life saving technology.

The City of Durham Fire Department currently assesses a fee on the second false activation within the same month.  Their assumption is that after the first alarm activation, an identified system problem may exists requiring the home or building owner to have a qualified alarm system technician look at the system.  If the system activates the second time, a fee of $100 is assessed.  Over the past year, the Chapel Hill Fire Department has responded to 23 buildings for activations averaging greater than 1 per month.  Of these, 11 of the properties were not State owned properties (University or Hospital).  Of these 11, only 3 properties had false alarms attributed to malicious activities.  Two of the three were fraternities and the third was a large occupancy student housing private facility.  All three properties are required to maintain the fire alarm system.

Fire Department data shows most false fire alarms occur in State-owned housing facilities or at the UNC Health Care facilities.

RECOMMENDATION

The revenue generated by the initiation of a false alarm fee program would be nominal based on recent estimates from Fire Department data.  The negative impact from the public’s perception of the fee program could create a higher potential of life loss due to voluntary fire alarm systems being deactivated.  My recommendation would be to not institute a nuisance fire alarm fee program at this time but to continue to observe actual trends based on our data to see if nuisance alarm frequencies increase to an amount that would be deemed problematic.  To date, Fire Department staff has experienced good cooperation from property owners in addressing problems identified in alarm systems.