My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/7/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
7/7/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:03:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/07/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Another problem the Fire Inspectors have noticed in a few facilities <br />that is attributed to the new fee structure of $100, $200, and $300 <br />is that fire alarm systems are completely turned off or either <br />rendered inoperable with rubber gloves or other means. This is of <br />real concern and the potential for loss of life increases when this <br />occurs. This is a total reverse of the intended effect of the false <br />fire alarm ordinance. <br />However, staff is compelled to follow the ordinance as established. <br />Absent action by the Board to the contrary, staff will proceed to <br />turn the matte= over to the County Attorney for collection efforts <br />through a court of competent jurisdiction or the Code Enforcement <br />Board. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Authorize staff to pursue collection of the existing charges <br />utilizing the court or Code Enforcement Board only as a last resort. <br />Staff also recommends the Board authorize staff to review the <br />existing false fire alarm ordinance and determine if a more equitable <br />method of charging for alarms can be developed for consideration by <br />the Board. <br />Commissioner Bowman asked the nature of these false alarms, <br />and Director Wright responded that the causes are varied, from <br />malfunction to dust in the devices to vibrations which set them <br />off. He confirmed that the intent of the ordinance was to cut down _ <br />on the number of false alarms by charging a fine and attempting to <br />get people into compliance. <br />County Administrator Jim Chandler reported that in the first <br />6 months of last year there were 88 false alarms; in the first 5 <br />months of this year there were 137, and we are seeing repeat <br />offenders. <br />Director Wright was concerned that because of the high <br />charges, some people have covered their devices with latex gloves, <br />have taken the batteries out of them and used other means to <br />prevent the alarms from going off, which is undesirable. Larger <br />institutions have made efforts to correct their problem by hiring <br />technicians and putting their systems on a computer, which is <br />expensive, and which is also undesirable. He questioned whether we <br />need to modify the ordinance. <br />Commissioner Scurlock clarified that Director Wright was <br />requesting direction from the Board on collection of these fines. <br />He felt we do not have the ability to waive the f ines that have <br />been levied. <br />Commissioner Bird stated that when this ordinance was <br />discussed, he was not in favor of the $100, $200, and $300 fines <br />and suggested that the ordinance should be reviewed. <br />49 <br />'JUL 07 19 <br />GOOF <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.