For the last few months, the Village of Walden board has been tinkering with its False Alarm Reduction Act, a new local law that would enforce a penalty fee on property owners for repeated false alarm violations. During the village’s March 4 meeting, the board continued working on the law and discussed key components of false alarm violations, such as the departments that determine the violation and the individuals who receive the fine.

During the village’s February 18 meeting, Walden FD Assistant Chief George Brown spoke on behalf of the Walden Fire Department and provided feedback to the board on its false alarm law. At that time, he and his department were unsatisfied with the draft and felt that the law’s parameters for a false alarm violation were too broad. He gave the mayor and trustees sample laws from other municipalities and requested that they tighten up their draft using language from the samples.

Since then, Walden Police Chief Daniel D’Elicio has also given his two cents, asking the board to define the difference between a false alarm caused by a faulty system and a false alarm caused by someone accidentally pressing their personal body alarm.

“The chief had some comments that there ought to be more nuance there, for let’s say a person has some sort of personal alarm and accidentally tweak it,” said Village Attorney David Donovan. “That’s a decision for the board, because it is a false alarm.”

During the March 4 hearing, Trustee Becky Pearson was unsure about who determined whether an alarm is legitimate or false, and she asked the board to specify this in the law. Trustee Bill Taylor agreed with Pearson’s sentiment.

“My only thought on that is, when the false alarm is triggered and the person activating it believes an emergency exist, we discussed that the building department determines whether it’s a false alarm or not a false alarm. I’d like to have somewhere in this law that states who responsible and how that’s determined.”

“I agree with Trustee Pearson that we should have the law delineated to lay out who’s making the determination whether it was a false alarm or accidental,” Taylor said. “Some real easy words would clear that right up.”
Donovan told Pearson that the Walden Police Department responds to a given alarm, determines whether it was false or not, and sends that information to Village Building Inspector Robert Wallner. Later in the hearing, Brown that the fire department can also make that determination when responding to fire alarms.

“When it comes to the administration, if this law was to go into effect, the fire department already works closely with the building department. We make reports instantaneously, sending emails from the scene to the building department,” Brown said. “In the case of fire alarms, we make a determination that there is a false alarm, we put in the criteria of the law, and Mr. Wallner would receive the emails while he’s sleeping in the middle of the night.”

Village Manager John Revella told the board that the village ultimately determines false alarm violations, given that the local law lays out procedures that the fire and police departments must follow. The board agreed to add this part in the draft.

Later in the hearing, Batson posed another question: should the property owner be fined if their tenant was responsible for the false alarm violation? Typically, all the village’s laws hold the property owner responsible, not their tenants. Batson, however, felt that this law should hold the alarm’s owner accountable, such as a tenant who installs their own alarm and fails to maintain it, rather than punish the owner of the property where the violation occurred.

“I do understand that all the rest of our policies do say business owner, but I’m just not sure if that’s right,” Batson said. “I think it should be whoever’s alarm it is. I understand that means additional complications and administrative pieces on our part, but I think it’s the right thing to do. I think if I owned a building and my tenant was the one to put in an alarm system, and my tenant didn’t maintain it, then I think it would be the tenant’s responsibility to pay the fines for it.”

Trustee Ralph Garrison Jr. speculated that Batson’s suggestion might be difficult to enforce due to turnover rates for apartments. Taylor, meanwhile, asserted that the property owner should be held responsible, but they have the power to enforce alarm maintenance onto their tenants. Village Mayor John Ramos added to Taylor’s recommendation, stating that the tenant could be fined by their landlord if they fail to maintain their alarm system.

“I think the property owner should have some repercussions if they’re being dinged for a false alarm. Let’s say I’m dealing with a tenant, and I tell that tenant, ‘Hey, I’m not going to continuedly eat this fine for a false alarm. I’m going to assess you on either your rent or whatever,’” Taylor said. “That’s a conversation I would have if I was in fact a business owner, and I was being fined for a false alarm caused by one of my tenants.”

“The landlord shouldn’t get penalized if they’re going to pursue the fire and safety aspect and ensure their units are working 100 percent. As for the tenant, they should be weary of this law,” Ramos said. “The owner should also have documentation in their lease saying if the tenant have any personal alarms, you are subject to a fine if you’ve activated it more than twice.”

At the end of the discussion, the mayor and trustees closed the law’s public hearing and agreed to revise the draft with the additions they discussed during the meeting. Before the hearing ended, Brown offered to help the board expand the draft beyond the feedback he provided at the last hearing.

“If you’re open to the idea of rewriting the law, I’m offering my services to sit down with you and go over the law,” Brown said. “My suggestions that I gave to you were only ideas to limit what is a false alarm, but I would help further if you guys would like.”