Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-15-BAC-min.pdf t► page 1 w'' October 15, 979 - Burglar Alarm Committee Kent First o all in terms of relative costs to users, and I start with the assumption hat we have to put an end to the use of the normal police department num ers for this purpose as recommended by the committee, to the extent that additional unlisted dial numbers are used is a substantial difference in cost to the users between using the voice dialer system and using the voice dialer system and using the digital arrangement Bailey- To this extent initially the costs are just about the same- If you werestarting off from day one, the initial cost of the black box which connects your system to the police department is about the same whichever way you go After that, you would now be obligated for a fee on the order of $35 to $60 per annum - this varies - which would entitle you (1) to tie in, and (2) I assume would include a bi-annual inspection fee which we are recommending here also Kent Then the cost wouldn't be any different to the user whether the high speed digital arrangement is used or whether the voice dialer is used to additional numbers other than the basic police department Bailey Yes, it would be different The voice dialer does not require any annual maintenance fee The reason for the annual maintenance fee for the high speed digital dialer is the device in the police station and in the fire station which areceives - well, it does two things - it first, as Howard says, it shakes hands with the black box in your house and acknowledges that it is ready to receive the message It receives the message and immediately prints it out so that there is a hard copy of a coded location and a code for the type of distress in the hands of the officer on duty He is not having to pick up a phone or anything else, and if three or four of these are coming in, they are coming out on the tape just as fast as they can come out So the $35 to $60 annual fee is for your share of the maintenance of the apparatus on that end On the voice dialer, we recommend that there be no added charge Now, the question is who is going to pay the $18 per month per incoming telephone line for that, and there are two ways you can handle it - we waffled a little bit but (1) that the town pays for these and it certainly is not going to de- stroy your budget, and the other is that you just include those lines as part of the package that you go out for bids on and tell the contractor that in addition to the lines that are going to have to come in to handle the dedicated lines and to handle the digital dialers, that he's got to supply one or two lines to the police station and one or two lines at the fire station to handle the voice dialers It just didn't seem to be a pretty significant financial item. Miley Mr Weinstein has some input on this Weinstein I want to address this single question which I think is an isolated and separate one The digital line as being proposed will rent between $34 to $64 per line per year Now, most dialers that I am familiar with are 2-channel dialers - one dials the police and one dials the fire department That means the average dialer, with which I am familiar, would pay an annual rent of $68 to $120 a year under the new system plus a new installation fee of $40 Now, the present cost of the voice dialer is zero once it is in- stalled Of course if you have a new one installed, you have to compare that with an installation fee I don't know how many dialers there are in Lexington at the present time but I think in the present period it is not unreasonable to talk in terms of 1,000 If you do that, you are talking about a maximal cost under the new system to the townspeople of $150,000 a year including installa- tion and a minimal cost of $108,000 a year including installation compared Page 2 • October 15, 111979 - Burglar Alarm Committee 1 S to a present cost for two new lines - by the way, I agree completely with the committee's recommendation that they should be low priority lines The installation of two new low-priority lines would be $432, so I think the cost is of that difference, and this is one of the central items in this recommendation on which I take issue Miley When you mention the people of Lexington, you mean those who are using this Weinstein Sure Miley I want to be very sure that's very clear Hutchinson That is an important distinction and I under- stand that it's hypothetical out of 9,000 dwellings Weinstein Let me just say this, almost everyone who installs a system in the town of Lexington has done so at the suggestion of the town. Miley I'm just pointing out that there are 8,000 homes which don't have this and I want this to be clear now before we go any further that it only concerns this 1,000 Weinstein I was talking about the total amount paid by the town which would be Miley You used the term townspeople and I just use that as a nnre blanket term than you do Kent I want to follow that up just one step further to be sure I understand - the committee's position - when the committee's position is open - is when or whether those currently having the dialing arrangement, whether those people be required to convert after a period of time or indeed not be required to convert at all I take it the committee is somewhat open on that matter; at least it doesn't have a concrete recommendation in here as I read it Bailey That is correct Kent But I take it the committee is of the - I don't want to put words in your mouth - the committee, as I understand it, is of the unanimous view that any connection from this point forward ought to be required to be on the high-speed digital arrangement I am correct about that Bailey Yes Miley Any other questions from any member of the board? Kent Had a question of chairman Miley, as to whether you regard this as the proper time to comment on the report and on the recommendation that it makes There is one comment that I would like to make because I would rather like the committee's reaction to the comments, and that relates to the proposed by-law and the regulation, and I think the problem I have with the proposed by-law is its open endedness in that it does state a prohibition on the use - in the installation of these devices without the approval of the department head but there is nothing in the by-law itself about regulations There certainly is nothing in the by-law at all about who should promulgate regulations, and I do have a question whether regulations of this character ought to be promul- gated unilaterally by the heads of the department in question - whether the promulgating authority - I think there should be some reference in the by-law to the regulations in the first place, and second, I think there is a question qs to whether those regulations should be actually promulgated by the department head If so, I would think at least subject to the approval of the manager, if not subject to the approval of the board of selectmen. whether the manager should be the promulgator of the regulations or whether the board should be the promulgator of the regulations I do have, I must confess, difficulty with the by-law that makes no reference to regulations and to the complete silence as to who should promulgate and the implicit assumption that I find in the committee report that this should be in the unguided and unreviewable control of the department chairman in question October 15, 1979 - Burglar Alarm Committee Page 3 Bailey- Two points One is you are correct and I think we would agree also that probably the by-law would be strengthened by saying that somebody should pull together regulations As to who does this, I don't know that we have a strong preference I don't know that we discussed it in that much detail Experience in other towns is that department heads do this as a matter of convenience and that discussions with the folks at Palmer & Dodge indicated that generally speak- ing that they felt it made sense for department heads to do it It doesn't bother us whether it is a department head or the manager or the selectmen. This is a detail which really doesn't cause any difficulty, I don't think Kent. I'm not asking for us to have the job of writing such regulations but it seems to me there ought to be some reference in the by-law to them and that somebody in addition to the department chairman ought to have an ultimate approval function with respect to them; at least that's my present reaction. Hutchinson Any regulations proposed by the department heads would come to my office and be filed with the board as a matter of information if nothing else. I assure you if it is approved by my office that they won't be in- stituted by the department heads Miley I think that is the answer to your question. Kent With respect, I don't think it is - it is an answer to my observation Hutchinson. If you want approval back in your own office, I think it's one of the things you should digest and think about Kent I don' t know; I wanted to raise it while the committee is here and let the members of the committee think about that and perhaps let us have Bailey Department heads present (Corr & Bergeron) can comment on this particular point Hutchinson They are more than willing to work with us Chairman Miley- Any further comments? Any questions from the audience? Art Smith. Did I interpret Mr Bailey's comments correctly that all of the fees from users would be used for maintenance of the central equipment? Because as I understand it, he is talking about average fee and it is raised to about $50/yr with a number of about 1,000 users Are we talking about $50,000 for maintenance of equipment at this time? Bailey These fees go directly to the contractor Smith I understand but are we paying rental? Are we paying maintenance? I just don't understand why we are paying this much for this particular service, and I understood you to say that this was the users ' share of the maintenance of the central equipment Bailey Amortization; annual maintenance, and telephone lines Smith The entire cost, in essence, of the central equipment is charged to the users by this annual fee Bailey Yes Smith I haven't had a chance to read the report and I understand it will be available and in the paper Are there figures on the number of useful re- sponses to these systems - that is, how many burglars are apprehended? How many fires are detected by these kinds of systems? I am not aware of how valuable this service is to the town - that is, to an individual on a statistical basis How many calls are we talking about that are useful? • Page 4 d October 15, 1979 - Burglar Alarm Committee Hutchinson We can try to get you some of that; again, I suppose it's the alarm that goes off in the house and how effective is it? It is important to remem- ber out of the committee's recommendations that there is a choice to be made and that choice is to be made by that person who wants to have the system and pay that, and I think that is very important There are people who don't want to spend the $50 for whatever the protection level is. Weinstein. As a Town Meeting member, I would request that when this is brought to Town Meeting, the written regulations be brought at the time of the informa- tion meeting The opinion of Palmer & Dodge that it's not illegal to proceed in the manner of by-laws and regulations and registration - to intelligently vote on the by-law, you should have an idea of what the regulations are behind the by-law The second item is the grandfather question - I know many people have put in these systems without the expectation of a $120/yr upkeep cost or minimally $68/yr upkeep cost I think that the grandfather clause should remain somewhat firmer than my inference of what Mr Bailey said, and that the existing system once inspected should be allowed to stand My final comment is that - perhaps Howard Cravis is more up on this question than I am - but the last time I checked, the surrounding towns allowed voice dialing without any exceptions The towns I checked were Belmont, Burlington, Newton, Waltham and Winchester And it seems unusual to me that the town proceed in a way that heavily penalizes citizens whereas equivalent towns don't find the need to do that The Board agreed that more information is needed and will be discussed further in two weeks