Meetinghouse Telephones

Now that we have worked out the FHC Telephone situation (hehehe), I have another question.

Who should be paying for the alarm system lines that are being put into newer buildings? Does the Church reimburse the stake for them? After all, they are not bishops/clerks offices or hall phones.

And the FM Group does not seem interested in putting it on their budget.

I think we have been coding them as reimbursable and that there is not a problem, but we are about to get two more alarm lines added to a building, and it would be good to know who is going to have to budget for these things. They are not cheap.

I don't know the answer, but I once worked with a consultant whose rule was "he who calls pays".

Who is ordering the alarm systems? I'd think if it was the FM Group, then it would seem the burden would be on them to show how it's to be paid.

lajackson wrote:Now that we have worked out the FHC Telephone situation (hehehe), I have another question.

Who should be paying for the alarm system lines that are being put into newer buildings? Does the Church reimburse the stake for them? After all, they are not bishops/clerks offices or hall phones.

And the FM Group does not seem interested in putting it on their budget.

I think we have been coding them as reimbursable and that there is not a problem, but we are about to get two more alarm lines added to a building, and it would be good to know who is going to have to budget for these things. They are not cheap.

These are being spec'd in each new building. FM Group should be paying for this service even if they seem reluctant to do so.

RussellHltn wrote:I once worked with a consultant whose rule was "he who calls pays".

Who is ordering the alarm systems? I'd think if it was the FM Group, then it would seem the burden would be on them to show how it's to be paid.

The contractor cannot get us an occupancy permit from the city until the alarms are installed and functioning. I do not know if this is city code or state code. Or even US code. But every new building and major modification in our area now requires two phone lines, one primary and one alternate.

As for your consultant's rule, although the FM Group is willing to order the lines for us, and they will show up on the bill with the existing phone service to the building.

And I think the stake will handle that bill the same way they handle all of the other phone bills. [grin]

Our fire alarm system uses the same two phone lines that are used in the two bishop/clerk offices. I know this becuase the fire alarm system sounds a beeping alarm whenever one of these phones go dead. Unless there is some local code against this, it sure seems like a good way to go to save money. Such a waste to have two phones lines just for that alarm.

bretpetersen1 wrote:Unless there is some local code against this,

Local code does not allow this in our area. However, since my initial post, the FM group has taken over all of the lines and billing for these types of things. I believe they were able to get a rate on a set of lines from one company by consolidating.