Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs requiring Knox Box installation at change of occupancy to aid emergency access
Summary
Hampton Township officials discussed reviving a Knox Box ordinance requiring lockboxes for keys on commercial/multifamily buildings, favoring phased implementation at change of occupancy or permitting events and noting an approximate per‑unit cost of $500.
Council members and staff revisited a previously considered Knox Box ordinance intended to give emergency responders rapid access to commercial and multifamily buildings.
Public safety staff described Knox Boxes as lockboxes that store keys accessible to fire or EMS with a master key and said the township previously considered an ordinance in 2019. The draft discussed would require installation at change of occupancy or for major permitting activities, rather than mandate retroactive installation within a short timeline.
"At the change of occupancy it would be much easier administratively and easier to implement," a public safety official said, noting that a staggered, occupancy‑triggered approach avoids the burden of requiring every business to come into compliance immediately.
Council members and residents weighed tradeoffs: roughly $500 per box borne by the business, the administrative effort to track and enforce compliance, volunteer fire company concerns, and the potential for claims against emergency responders’ insurers when force is used to enter locked premises. A resident described a past incident at the community center where delay in access led to significant damage, and the fire marshal said that Knox Boxes reduce response time and collateral damage for false alarms and small incidents.
Staff agreed to refine the draft ordinance with additional data (frequency of forced entries/false alarms, number of businesses) and return with options that might include a phased timeline, permitting triggers, or an owner waiver process.
No ordinance vote was taken; council requested additional information and edits to the draft for future consideration.
