MANSFIELD — It appears Mansfield City Council will move ahead on changes that would fine security companies whose employees generate false police and fire alarms.
Council members, who discussed changes to the city’s alarm ordinances on Tuesday night, are expected to vote on Dec. 15 on the proposal, part of a package of broader changes to Chapter 775 of the city’s codified ordinances regulating emergency alarms.
Council gave the proposed changes a second reading during its meeting Tuesday.
The most controversial change would allow the city for the first time to fine security companies when their employees trigger alarms while working on a system at a business or residence.
The fine schedule is on a gradual scale. For false police alarms, the fine would be $100 for the first occurrence in a one-year period, rising to $800 for the fifth and each additional occurrence.
For false fire alarms, the fines would be $200 for the first and $1,000 for the fifth and each additional.
Dan Gregory, the city’s alarm ordinance administrator, said he has tried unsuccessfully to work with local security companies for the past 10 years to reduce the number of safety forces “hot” responses to these false alarms, only to find representatives of the security company working at the site.
“Mansfield citizens are the ones paying for these inexcusable false alarms,” Gregory said. “Our safety forces would be better served to be available for true emergencies.
“I have tried to work these alarm companies and the only solution I can come up with is to start charging these companies for these mistakes,” Gregory said.
Under the city’s current code, only residents and businesses can be fined for generating such false alarms.
On average, Gregory said, there is approximately one such false alarm per month created by the city’s five security companies, or about 12 per year.
In a letter to council, Brian Schmidt, president of Schmidt Security Pro/Schmidt Fire, spoke against the change.
“This is not a problem worthy of creating an exorbitant fee schedule that quickly escalates up to $1,000 per incident directed toward alarm companies that already pay the city to be an alarm business in the City of Mansfield,” Schmidt wrote.
3rd Ward Councilman Jon Van Harlingen asked Gregory if the fine scale was too aggressive.
In response, Gregory said, “It was designed to be aggressive. I have worked with these companies for the past 10 years with no results. We currently do not hold the alarm company responsible, so there is no way to hold them responsible.
“Our goal is to get (alarm companies) to train their personnel properly. If they do, they don’t need to worry about (fines),” Gregory said.
Schmidt said employees are humans and do make mistakes.
“Performing service on alarm systems or alarm monitoring dispatch on alarm requires a human element,” he wrote.
“The reality is that humans will make occasional mistakes. We work hard every day to minimize any unnecessary dispatches as we understand this can put our safety forces in harm’s way while responding to an alarm or take resources away from actual crimes,” Schmidt said.
“However, I strongly feel this fee schedule geared towards alarm companies is completely unnecessary and (should) be removed from the revised ordinance prior to a vote,” Schmidt wrote.
Mansfield Fire Department Chief Steve Strickling said its “disconcerting” for responders to arrive at a scene with an alarm going off to find a security company vehicle with an employee working on the system.
“They are supposed to be professionals. Part of that is they should have the alarm turned off so it doesn’t go off (during servicing). I think Mr. Gregory has a good policy here,” the chief said.
At-Large Councilman Phil Scott said company employees are trained professionals and should be held accountable.
1st Ward Councilwoman Laura Burns said it comes down to professional responsibility.
“When the city makes a mistake, we cover it,” she said. “If (an alarm company) does it, they should own up to it.”
Among other action on Tuesday, City Council:
— approved demolition of dilapidated or damaged structures at 142 W. 6th St. (front and rear), 177 S. Diamond St., 222 Sixth Ave., 291 W. Sixth St., 332-334 W. Third St., 417 Tremont St., 429 Burns St., 1094 Seminole Ave., and 559 N. Mulberry St.
— conducted a second read of the city’s 2021’s temporary budget. A final vote is scheduled Dec. 15.
— voted to establish which committees council members will serve on during 2021, including new 6th Ward Councilwoman Kimberly Moton as chair of the employee relations committee.
— approved allowing the Ohio Department of Transportation to repair a bridge on U.S. 30 under Home Road in the city. There are no local costs for the work, scheduled in 2025.
— approved allowing ODOT to repair a culvert on Ohio 39 in the city with no local costs. The work is scheduled in 2024.
— approved allowing ODOT to resurface portions of U.S. 30 in the city. Mansfield will contribute $80,000 and construction is scheduled for June 2021.
— approved allowing ODOT to resurface portions of Park Avenue. Mansfield will contribute $235,000 toward the project, scheduled for 2021.
— approved purchase of eight vehicles for various city service departments, including $91,474 for a New Holland B95C tractor/loader/backhoe; $61,020 for two 2021 Ford F-250 utility pickup trucks; up to $133,745 to buy three 2021 Ford F-250 utility pickup trucks; and $69,934 to buy two 2021 Ford F-250 utility trucks.
— gave first reading on a proposal that would allow the Mansfield Police Department to spend up to $70,138 to buy 12 tasers. Assistant Chief Joe Petrycki said the police department has 66 tasers, 40 percent of which are in non-working order.
