Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPZ - 02/09/1982 - FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE MINUTES VILLAGE OF ELK GROVE VILLAGE PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ALARM ORDINANCE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982 A public hearing was convened by the JPZ Committee at 7:00 P.M. , February 9, 1982, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue, to afford the public opportunity to be heard in regard to the proposed False Alarm ordinance. Members Present: Pretri, James, Chairman Bosslet, Joseph Hauser, Edward Members Absent: None Staff Present: Engelbrecht, Fred, Chief of Police Knickerbocker, George, Village Attorney Chairman Petri, in his opening remarks, advised those present this was an informal, courtesy hearing held for the purpose of explaining the ordinance and obtaining input from those who may be impacted by the passage of a false alarm ordinance. He further went on to explain the background of alarm problems over a number of years and what attempts have been made to resolve them without apparent success. Mr. Petri, speaking for the Committee, expressed a desire to pass an ordinance which would be equitable and palatable to all concerned as the remaining alternative of inability to educate and work with alarm users to satisfactorily reduce the number of false alarms. Those wishing to express their views were invited to do so by Mr. Petri and are as follows: E. Stanley Klyber, Executive Director, Greater O'Hare Association. Mr. Klyber, acknowledging the alarm problem, requested interpretation or clarification of specific portions of the proposed ordinance and wished to know if alarm would be considered false under certain conditions with an example given. Responses were given by Committee Chairman and/or Village Attorney, Chief of Police. William Sanserverino, Village resident, 1275 Parker Place. Mr. Sanserverino supported the proposed ordinance and efforts shown, however, he questioned why homeowners were encompassed and if they would be required to secure a license or pay a fee every year. , Mr. Knickerbocker and Mr. Petri indicated they wished to provide equal protection under the law and not distinguish between residential and comrercial alarms, further stating that yes under certain conditions license and fees would be applicable. Some question arose as to police response, however, example as given did not appear applicable when con- sidering false alarm problem and overall police responsibility. continued. . . Minutes - Public Hearing - Proposed Alarm Ordinance Tuesday, February 9, 1982 Page TWo John Poyle, Honeywell Security, 35 Gaylord Mr. Poyle expressed concern over alarm industry becoming licensed in every cc uuty and indicated as an industry attempts were being made to secure state legislation. He further stated alarm companies do not knowingly contribute to alarm problems and encouraged consideration to graduated scale of fines ratter than as proposed. Mr. Knickerbocker indicated graduated fines had been considered and proposed fine structure was lenient co pared to some others he had researched. Question of compromising confidentiality by supplying police department with certain alarm information and problems in revolking certain users license was responded to by police chief. Upon Mr. Foyle's question of who would comprise revocation hearing board it was indicated this had not been determined but would be reconmended that it be made up of JPZ Committee members and possibly representatives from concerned association or alarm canpany. Henry Collins, Edlong Corporation, 65 Icing St. , & 225 Scott Street Mr. Collins basically expressed concern and apparent dissatisfaction with the alarm companies inability to provide a workable system, indicating his firms have had many alarms without problem being resolved. Suggested burden be placed more on the alarm company than the user. Joe Cunningham, Illinois Burglar & Fire Alarm Association, 675 W. Ardmore Roselle, IL Questioned why licensing required and suggested permit similar to that of electrical contractor rather than license when installation of alarm is accomplished. Afterthought of this proposal did not seem to be in the best interest of alarm installers after explanation given by Mr. Knicker- bocker that one time yearly fee rather than a series of fees would be preferable. Mr. Cunningham cited false alarm leading causes from National Burglary and Fire Alarm Association, however, they were not in accord with information the Village Attorney discovered in his research. Mr. Knickerbocker indicated National Crime Prevention Institute lists subscriber as causing 50o of false alarms whereas Mr. Cunningham had cited people problems, telephone, equipment failure, and improper application/installation by alarm companies having equal fault. Dan Conroy, Division Manager, Kierulff Electronics, Inc. , 1536 Land Bier Rd. Mr. Conroy indicated his company was one of the biggest violators and envisioned problems due to sensitivity of his alarm system. Mr. Conroy, at request of police chief, was asked by Mr. Petri not to discuss particulars of his business in an open forum, to which he complied. Larry Walters, Edlong Corporation, 65 King St. , & 255 Scott Street Mr. Walters indicated he thought proposed ordinance was very selective and restrictive, suggesting a one (1) year period of time rather than 30 days continued. . . Minutes - Public Heal. 3 - Proposed Alarm Ordinance Tuesday, February 9, 1982 Page Three be considered as grace period when new alarm system installed. Mr. Knickerbocker replied that period of time would be too extensive con- sidering the pressure/emotion placed on a police officer in responding to numerous alarms and basically unfair to their well being. No others wishing to be heard Chairman Petri concluded the meeting at 8:15 P.M. , indicating the JPZ Committee would further review Ordinance in totality with the input received as result of the hearing. &PEngel3becht Respectfully . ted, Chief of Police FJE/rm c: President & Board of Trustees, Village Manager, Ass't Village Manager Administrative Assistant, Village Attorney, -Village Clerk) Chief of Police, Fire Chief.