Rising false alarm calls prompting changes to town bylaw

Following consistent increases in the number of false alarm calls responded to by the Whitecourt
Fire Department, changes are coming to how the municipality deals with those who have more
than one false call in a year, in the hopes of reducing the numbers.

By Serena Lapointe

When a security system is triggered, emergency services aren’t too far behind it. Out in the
community, volunteer firefighters are scrambling to get to the hall, leaving behind whatever they
were doing so they can hop onto the fire trucks and head towards the address from where the
alarm is sounding. If they arrive and aren’t needed, that could be considered a good news story.
But what if that keeps happening?
“Around forty percent of our calls for the fire department are false alarms,” explained Lee
Hardman, Director of Community Safety, during the October 19 Policies and Priorities
Committee (P&P) meeting at the Town Office. The P&P Committee is comprised of Town
Council members and allows elected officials to dig deeper into topics before voting on them at
their regular council meetings.
Director Hardman explained that the issue around false alarms has been ongoing but that it has
increased quite a bit in the last few years. “In 2025, we had 193 false alarms. It is a significant
number of our calls. It prompted the need for us to look at this bylaw,” he said.
One of those issues involves confirmation of an emergency, or, in this case, the lack of it. He
said an alarm is often triggered without confirmation from the homeowner or business owner.
The committee discussed updating the bylaw to include a requirement for alarm companies to
attempt to contact the key holder of the address before alerting emergency services. If no one
answers, or someone does and confirms the emergency, help will be sent, but it gives someone
the chance to stop help from coming if the need isn’t there. Changes also include the need for
alarm companies to keep an updated contact list for key holders, residents and business owners.
For those who have had repeated false alarms called to one location, Hardman said they are also
adding a user fee increase from $200 to $250 for each subsequent fire alarm, with a cap of
$1000. However, a rebate can be given to individuals who implement improvements or who take
steps to reduce the likelihood of further false alarms. The fee would only be charged if someone
had more than one false alarm call in a twelve-month period.
Member Lanctot asked why the cap was $1,000. Director Hardman said that in his research of
comparable communities, he didn’t see anyone go higher, and noted that at that point, the
individual would be paying $1,000 for each false alarm, which is fairly significant. The fee starts
at $250 and doubles for each subsequent false alarm in twelve months, so to reach the $1,000
infraction cost, someone would have had at least four false alarms within a year.
If a false alarm triggers services, but it gets waved off before they leave the hall, there’s usually
not a fee. “However, we are still proposing that if they are dispatched, it is a response, and they
will be billed for that.” He said if they are called off during their ride to the residence or business,
the fee will be half ($125), and again, that’s for the second false alarm in twelve months.
Someone who has one false alarm call in a blue moon isn’t the focus of the bylaw. It’s for the
repeated calls that are eating up resources.
Member Wynn said high numbers of false alarms aren’t good for the volunteer base. “I know
that many, many years ago, people just wouldn’t come, because if it’s a false alarm, why should I
get out of bed, go start my car at thirty below, drive a block and then turn around and go home?”
Member Baker asked how they would know if it was a false alarm without responding. “Our
duty officer would respond to every alarm, regardless. But we wouldn’t usually dispatch another

apparatus; it would just be a duty officer, and it would be either verification from dispatch or
from the property owner that it’s not an actual alarm,” explained Hardman.
Calgary, Edmonton and St Albert are just three municipalities that have strict rules for alarm
companies, requiring not only that they attempt contact, but also that they have multiple people
on the contact list. The Alberta RCMP also requires similar verification, although duress codes
and robbery alarms don’t count. Hardman said that an interesting statistic from the City of
Calgary shows how costly false alarms can be. “Each false alarm costs the ratepayers (in
Calgary) around $500. Ours wouldn’t be that high, but we’re estimating it’s costing ratepayers
(in Whitecourt) around $250 to $300 per alarm.”
The Edmonton Police Service reported that roughly 98 percent of its 6,300 annual alarm calls are
false. Calgary Police Service responds to roughly 45 calls per day, with up to 96 percent of those
being false calls (rcmp.ca). Reasons given run the gamut from forgetting passcodes, faulty
sensors, aging systems, and smoke or steam from cooking.
A few easy ways to keep from triggering a false alarm include making sure that everyone in the
house or business knows how to arm, disarm and cancel an alarm and keeping an updated
contact list with your company. Regular inspections, battery changes and keeping detectors clean
are also good. As is making sure motion sensors are pet-proof and won’t be triggered by a
roaming pet.
Fire Alarm Bylaw 1588 was officially passed by Town Council at the October 26 regular
meeting and can be viewed in full on the municipality’s website. Director Hardman said they
would send the document to Woodlands County for their consideration on updates to their bylaw,
for consistency in application.