Fire Dept. Order Cause of Alarm for Some in City | Public Safety ...

By Lyle Moran, Lowell Sun (Massachusetts)

LOWELL ? Starting in late 2009, the Fire Department has told owners of residential buildings with 13 or more units they had to purchase radio fire-alarm boxes that connect directly to the city?s 911 Communications Center from East Coast Security Services of Salem, N.H.

The directive from Fire Chief Edward Pitta, which drew strong criticism from several fire-alarm companies and landlords, was part of the city?s effort to get property owners to switch from alarm boxes connected to the city?s dispatch center via telegraph wires to wireless radio boxes.

Pitta said the change was necessary because the telegraph-based system was going to be shut down since it was too expensive to maintain and not as reliable as a wireless system.

Lowell?s policy hit a roadblock in May, however, when the state?s Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower-court ruling that invalidated the city of Springfield?s fire-alarm ordinance.

Soon after, Lowell eliminated its requirement that owners of residential buildings of 13 or more units purchase only one type of alarm-signaling system. Instead, those owners can now choose from among four options of signaling systems, including utilizing a central station that receives notice of an alarm being activated, and then has a method of alerting the city?s dispatch center.

In rejecting Springfield?s ordinance mandating city-approved radio boxes, the SJC said property owners can use any of four ?fire protective signaling systems and automatic fire detection systems? allowed under the state building code.

?If all municipalities in the Commonwealth were allowed to enact similarly restrictive ordinances and bylaws, a patchwork of building regulations would ensue,? the court said of Springfield?s law.

Despite the SJC?s ruling and Lowell?s recent change of policy, Pitta said his department stands by its interpretation of ?automatic? fire-alarm systems.

?We interpreted the code as requiring a radio box that needed to be registered directly with us,? Pitta said. ?We were doing what we believed was the right thing at the time.?

While the city?s reversal is vindication for those in the alarm industry who questioned the Fire Department?s interpretation of the state building code, the policy shift comes after hundreds of property owners have already chosen to purchase East Coast?s wireless boxes, which, at $2,475 a piece, were more expensive than other options.

Brian McGowan, owner and president of TMI Property Management and Development, said he turned to East Coast for new alarm boxes for at least six buildings he manages in Lowell.

McGowan said a local company could have provided the boxes for $1,000 less a box. He said he was skeptical that the city could force him to turn to only one company, but he acted to make sure his buildings were in compliance with the Fire Department?s regulations.

?I?m a day late and a dollar short,? McGowan said after being informed of the Fire Department?s change in policy. ?It?s disappointing.?

Officials from Mammoth Fire Alarms wish the city never implemented its decision requiring property owners to install only one type of alarm system from one company. Employees of the Lowell-based business questioned Pitta?s interpretation of the state code from the beginning.

?We disagreed with the chief?s reading of the code, but the chief settled on his decision and would not bend at all,? said Rene Demers, a municipal sales consultant at Mammoth Fire Alarms.

While Demers said he is glad the Fire Department has altered its policy in the wake of the court ruling, he said his company missed out on ?a ton of business? because most property owners of 13 or more units, as well as other property owners, turned to East Coast for alarm boxes.

?We were right here in Lowell, and the city was telling everyone to do business with a New Hampshire company,? Demers said.

However, Demers said the company was successful in convincing some property owners to hold off on switching to East Coast alarm boxes because of the possibility the Fire Department would be forced to alter its policy.

One of those businesses was Princeton Properties, which will save $1,000 per alarm box for eight buildings by going with a local company, said Dick Bleakley, a vice president for project management at Princeton Properties.

?Without a doubt, it would have been a large financial impact if we had gone with the company from New Hampshire,? Bleakley said. ?The change in policy will save some companies a tremendous amount of money.?

Pitta estimates several hundred property owners have switched off the old telegraph-wire alarm system since the city?s notice that it would be eventually turned off. But he said he thinks several dozen property owners have yet to do so.

He did not have an exact count of how many of those properties are residential buildings that have 13 or more units.

Letters have been sent to property owners impacted by the Fire Department?s recent policy reversal, said Deputy Fire Chief Phil Lemire, head of the city?s fire-prevention bureau.

Pitta said he still recommends that property owners switch to East Coast?s system that connects directly to the dispatch center.

?I prefer the radio-box system because it is more immediate and gets our people moving sooner,? he said.

As for when the telegraph-wire system will no longer be operable, Pitta said he does not have an exact date. The city is working to get full compliance before it ends supervision of the system, Lemire said.

?That whole system could fail at any time and leave (some properties) without protection, which is what we are trying to prevent,? Lemire said.

Copyright ? 2012 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Source: http://psc.apcointl.org/2012/08/09/fire-dept-order-cause-of-alarm-for-some-in-city/

norman reedus norman reedus sears office max office max cyber monday deals 2011 cyber monday deals 2011