Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts stricter false-fire-alarm ordinance after department reports high share of false commercial alarms
Summary
Council approved General Ordinance 11-20-25 to add a tiered fine schedule for repeat false commercial fire alarms after the fire department reported that more than half of October fire responses were false alarms to commercial properties. The ordinance also authorizes inspection tracking through the city’s IPI division.
Michael Wright, city legal counsel, introduced a proposed amendment to city code (general ordinance 11-20-25) to address repeat false commercial fire alarms.
A Terre Haute Fire Department representative told the council the department and central dispatch recorded about 1,270 calls in October, of which 129 were fire-related runs and roughly 75 were false commercial alarms. The official summarized the ordinance’s intended enforcement structure: initial inspections and notifications by the city’s IPI (inspections) division, then escalating fines if a commercial alarm system continues to trigger false responses.
Under the ordinance as presented, property owners would receive initial notices and opportunities to correct malfunctioning systems. On the third offense a $100 fine would apply; alarms five through nine would trigger a $300 fine plus $50 per responding apparatus (which can result in fines of about $500 or more on heavily dispatched calls); a tenth false alarm would carry a $1,000 fine. City staff said the ordinance is intended to recover some of the city’s operational costs (fuel, apparatus wear, staffing) and encourage owners to maintain alarm systems that protect residents living in commercial/multi‑occupancy buildings.
Council members asked how the city would distinguish malfunctioning systems from user error or pranks; the fire department official and legal counsel said battalion chiefs and inspectors retain on-site discretion to exclude single-use pranks from penalty counts. Councilmember questions also covered inspection workload; the IPI division and IPI chief Terry Coker were cited as performing inspections and follow-up.
Councilperson Lautomell moved to approve the ordinance and Councilperson Dinkle seconded. The council voted and the ordinance passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition.
