City committee advances new fire-alarm lockbox language; full board tables final adoption
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Charter & Ordinance committee proposed a new ordinance standardizing fire-alarm control-panel locks and key-box procedures; the Board of Aldermen read the language but—because unanimous consent is required for same-meeting adoption of ordinance changes—tabled formal adoption to a later meeting.
The Charter and Ordinance Committee recommended new city ordinance language on Aug. 4 to standardize locks and key-box use for fire-alarm control panels and remote annunciators. Committee members and Fire Chief Lovett told the board the change would replace older language and bring the city into alignment with forthcoming federal/NFPA standards. The proposed ordinance (new section 2808, read into the record) would require buildings to use a specified keyed lock assembly to secure main fire alarm panels; existing panel keys would be converted to the new standard prior to the next annual test and inspection, and noncompliant panels could receive a variance from the chief engineer. The proposal would also authorize a civil penalty of up to $500 for violations after due notice. Because the adoption or amendment of an ordinance first offered in a meeting may not be adopted at the same meeting unless all aldermen present vote unanimously, the board moved to table the item for formal action at a later meeting. Committee chair noted attorney guidance recommending a unanimous vote if the board chose to adopt immediately; after discussion the board tabled the matter for consideration under unfinished business at a future meeting. Why it matters: The change is intended to improve firefighters’ ability to access alarm control panels quickly and reduce delays at emergency scenes by standardizing locks and key placement. The municipal ordinance change will require an additional board vote at a subsequent meeting to adopt the language. Discussion vs. decision: The committee recommended the ordinance language and the board read the proposed text aloud; the board did not adopt it and instead tabled the ordinance pending the next meeting and further review.
