Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canton staff propose ordinance to require Brycer compliance engine for fire‑protection inspections
Summary
City staff proposed codifying mandatory use of the Brycer compliance engine under a new Chapter 42‑27 ordinance, saying the platform improves inspection tracking and reduces paperwork; council took the item under advisement and will consider formal approval at a future meeting.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CANTON, Ga. — City staff presented a proposed ordinance on Oct. 2 to require the use of the Brycer compliance engine — a third‑party software platform for tracking fire‑protection system inspections — for most fire protection service providers operating in Canton.
Presenter Marcia Kula described the platform as a tool the city has used in a pilot/beta capacity for nearly two years and said it helps the city track inspections, identify overdue systems and reduce time spent chasing paperwork. Kula said Canton has a high compliance score on the platform (reported as 99.5%) and that, from a community‑risk reduction perspective, the system reduces inefficiencies and helps reduce false alarms.
Council asked whether the platform will remain free to the city and how the vendor is compensated; staff said the platform is free for the jurisdiction and the vendor charges a small submission fee (reported in the meeting as $18 per report, up from $17 two years ago) to the reporting service providers. Staff said the proposed ordinance’s intent is to require submission via Brycer for providers who otherwise refuse to report, not to generate a wave of citations. The presentation cited estimated administrative savings and a claim of about 32.5% of inefficient/non‑inspected systems contributing to false alarms during prior operations.
The council did not take final action Oct. 2; staff said the ordinance will be considered for approval at a future meeting. Council members asked staff to confirm implementation details, potential impacts on smaller providers and whether the city would face ongoing costs; staff said no direct jurisdictional fee to use the platform was anticipated but that provider submission fees could rise modestly.
Next step: formal ordinance language (Chapter 42‑27 as drafted) will return to council for an action vote at a subsequent meeting.

