Oneonta committee reviews draft nuisance-alarm ordinance after fire department reports 408 false alarms in 2024

Council member Shannon McHugh and city staff heard a presentation from the fire department Wednesday about proposed changes to the city code to address nuisance or unnecessary fire alarms.

Fire Chief Matt told the committee the department recorded 3,654 total responses in 2024 and 408 false or nuisance alarms — roughly 11 percent of calls. Chief Matt presented two cost calculations for charging property owners: an initial fee he computed at $351.47 per response (based on four firefighters at $32 an hour, the FEMA per-hour rate used by other New York departments, and a $50 administrative charge), and a higher calculation that includes payroll-related personnel costs such as FICA and retirement. Chief Matt said, using the 408 false alarms figure, charging for every nuisance response would have yielded about $142,000 in revenue in 2024, though he emphasized the department’s goal is prevention and education rather than revenue generation.

The draft ordinance under consideration (City Code Chapter 280, “Unnecessary Alarms”) would let the fire captain designate certain incidents as non-nuisance — for example, a mechanical failure that has been reported and placed on a fire watch — and would exempt those from fees. The draft also contemplates exceptions for maintenance or construction that is pre-notified to the fire department; Chief Matt gave several examples in which contractors or facilities staff failed to notify the department and caused repeated false activations.

Committee members and staff flagged several implementation questions. Colleges and other large campuses are frequent sources of nuisance calls: SUNY and Hartwick College were repeatedly mentioned as sites that generated multiple alarms during construction or maintenance. The committee debated whether charges should be assigned per parcel or per building (for example, a campus with multiple dormitory addresses), noting that treating each structure separately could multiply fees for a single owner in a short period.

Council members asked for additional analytics before any ordinance is finalized. Staff were asked to return with (1) a city-versus-town breakdown of the 408 nuisance alarms, (2) how many distinct properties triggered those alarms, (3) multi-year comparisons (the department’s current reporting system goes back to February 2021), and (4) how often nuisance calls overlap with other calls and generate overtime. Committee members also asked for recommended definitions of “unnecessary alarm” and a checklist for captains to apply when deciding exemptions.

Public comment at the meeting also addressed related concerns about administrative fees and due process. Mike Stoll, a Oneonta resident and rental property owner, urged clearer procedures for receipts and tracking of submissions to the code office; he suggested the council consider allowing the Board of Public Service and the Common Council to review or amend earlier administrative decisions as a way to reduce expensive court challenges. Stoll also urged the city to separate administrative fees from fines and to ensure penalties reflect administrative costs rather than functioning as de facto punitive fines.

Staff and the committee discussed outreach to affected owners. Chief Matt and council members said it would be prudent to send advance notice to property owners and campus facilities, and one council member suggested announcing a start date of June 2025 for any enforcement so owners have time to adjust operations and notification procedures. No ordinance vote was taken; the item remains under review and staff will return with the requested data.

The committee set a follow-up meeting on February 25 at 5 p.m. to continue the review once staff have supplied the additional analytics and property-level counts.