|
ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 18, 2002
A Public Hearing was held in the Council Chambers of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, November 18, 2002. The Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Vayda at 7:25 p.m.
ROLL-CALL - Present were Councilmen Edgar, Egan, Fiore, Hall, Jones, Kaupin, Mangini, Strom, Tait, Tallarita, and Vayda. Also present were Town Manager, Scott A. Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne F. Olechnicki; Deputy Chief of Police, Raymond Bouchard.
Chairman Vayda read the notice of the Public Hearing which was published in the Journal Inquirer on Saturday, November 9, 2002 as follows:
TOWN OF ENFIELD
LEGAL NOTIE
PUBLIC HEARING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002
RESOLVED, the Enfield Town Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Enfield Town Hall, Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, November 18, 2002 at 7:15 p.m. to allow interested citizens an opportunity to express their opinions regarding the PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ALARM ORDINANCE.
Copies of the proposed changes are available for public inspection in the office of the Town Clerk, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Chairman Vayda then announced the ground rules for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Shanley stated this is a relatively simple and brief ordinance that gives the Chief of Police authority to enforce fines for violations regarding false alarms. He noted it addresses the escalating fine issue, but only to $100 since that is the state limit. He added this also addresses the issue of not doing business with companies that are in violation and do not pay their fines.
Councilman Kaupin highlighted an e-mail he received from Tim Slade who could not be present this evening. He submitted the e-mail to the Town Manager. He noted some items raised in the e-mail are as follows:
" There is no mention made of municipal violations.
" Is the Alarm Review Board being dissolved?
" No mention was made of where to obtain, or what form the appeals notice will take
" What is the specific period of time that the Chief of Police has to respond to an appeal?
" Who will monitor the success or failure of the ordinance? He suggested a monthly report to the Town Manager and the Town Council.
" This ordinance should include a requirement for registering an alarm system with a nominal registration fee which could preclude or minimize the legwork it would take to determine a subscriber or property owner.
" How will the ticket be served?
" Who monitors the actions of the Police Department on the actual enforcement of the ordinance?
" Should the fire departments also be included as a respondent because of false fire alarms?
" Does the five day appeal limitation include weekends or holidays?
Mr. Shanley stated the ordinance indicates regulations will be promulgated by the Police Department. He noted within those regulations he would expect to see how the ticket would be served and all the details of compliance. He explained the intent of this resolution is to keep it relatively simple and let the Chief of Police do this. He stated he, as the Director of Public Safety, monitors the Chief of Police. As concerns the Alarm Review Board, the intent would be to simplify the process and give the Police Department the authority to enable it. He suggested the Council pick a date, either six months or one year when the Town Council would review this to determine whether this ordinance has been effective and if it has reduced the false alarms.
Mr. Bouchard stated they envision that municipal buildings would be exempt from this ordinance.
Chairman Vayda stated the Council is looking for a change in behavior regarding people who have alarms and that would include municipal facilities.
Chairman Vayda suggested sending a copy of these minutes to Mr. Slade. Councilman Kaupin noted he will reply to Mr. Slade's e-mail to learn if he needs additional information.
Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road
Questioned how many times a false alarm can occur before a fine is issued.
Chairman Vayda responded two times and by the third false alarm, an individual will be fined.
Ms. Jedziniak stated many people have an alarm for their personal protection, and she noted she would not like to have to pay a fine if it goes off accidentally. Chairman
Vayda stated on a regular basis there are properties where alarms are continuously going off and the police have to respond on a more frequent basis. He noted police resources are being used for false alarms when the police should be dealing with other issues. He noted the whole town would benefit if people made sure their alarm systems were working optimally. He noted if a property continuously has false alarms, there needs to be a way to encourage individuals to be sure to fix their alarm systems.
Charles Wood, 11 Westerly Drive
Stated he can see the need to have an ordinance such as this, however, there should be a differentiation between business and home alarm systems. He added his belief there should be some discretion when making these judgment calls. He suggested perhaps the Town should consider fining the manufacturer or installer of the alarm system.
Chairman Vayda stated in terms of the ordinance, it seems the Chief of Police has some discretion.
As no others wished to speak, Chairman Vayda closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m.
|
|
|