Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oneonta committee seeks clarification on nuisance‑alarm fees, appeals and tax‑levy collection
Summary
The Legislative Committee reviewed proposed edits to code enforcement language (Chapter 280), including rules for nuisance fire alarms, notice and appeals timing, fee triggers, and how unpaid fees are attached to tax bills and collected by the county.
Members of the Oneonta Legislative Committee discussed proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 280 at the April 21 meeting, focusing on what triggers nuisance‑alarm administrative fees, how notices and appeals are issued, and the county’s role in collecting unpaid charges via the tax roll.
Committee members and staff reviewed specific draft language in 2‑80‑4(d) (addressing shared structures and mailing addresses) and 2‑80‑5 (appeals). Staff said invoices would go out by regular mail while certified mail would be used for enforcement notices; the committee asked staff to confirm the practice and the point at which certified mail is used. The committee also noted the standard 10‑calendar‑day period for appeals is consistent with other code enforcement notices.
The draft uses a repeat‑occurrence standard for nuisance alarms: two incidents within 48 hours can trigger fees, and the code sets a six‑month period used to measure recurring incidents. Committee members raised questions about whether a property owner who returns a property to compliance still carries outstanding administrative fees and whether those fees would remain attached to the property if not paid. Staff confirmed that unpaid administrative fees may be attached to property tax bills and the county will collect on behalf of the city.
Members also discussed how compliance would be measured in practice: whether removing or bypassing a detector constitutes compliance, and how to verify that systems are functional rather than simply bypassed. A committee member asked the city to clarify the definition of “fire alarm” in the draft, distinguishing between smoke detectors, fire alarms and sprinkler systems for enforcement purposes.
The committee asked staff to consolidate suggested wording changes for 2‑80‑4(d) and 2‑80‑5, to clarify the 48‑hour/7‑day trigger language and the start of the 10‑day appeal period, and to confirm the invoicing/notice practice (regular vs. certified mail). Staff said they would pass suggested edits to Code Enforcement Officer Steve Yearley to incorporate into the draft and circulate revised language ahead of the next meeting.
No formal vote on the code text occurred during the session; the committee requested clarified language and additional details before further action.
