Oneonta staff explain administrative-fee system, three-year inspection schedule for rental properties

At a Jan. 13 meeting of the Oneonta Common Council legislative committee, code enforcement staff presented an overview of the city’s administrative-fee program and how it ties to periodic rental-property inspections.

Steve Gurely, a certified code official with the city, told the committee the office moved in 2019 to a uniform inspection cadence that requires most properties to provide proof of specified inspections every three years, while smoke-detector forms must be submitted annually. Gurely said the change was intended to simplify a formerly complex “hazard table” schedule that had staggered inspection intervals and fees.

The city’s current approach, Gurely said, mirrors provisions in the state uniform code and makes enforcement and compliance tracking easier. "We made uniform inspections 3 years. So everything for everyone is due every 3 years with the exception of smoke detector forms," he said. Gurely also said the code office uses Unicity software to track properties and inspection records and that the office currently has four certified code officials assigned to these duties.

Why it matters: The program affects landlords, renters and properties across Oneonta. Gurely told the committee the city has about 15,331 residents and a large share of housing stock that predates modern codes; about 60% of housing units were built before 1939, he said, and many are converted older buildings that require regular inspection and third‑party maintenance reports.

How the fee and enforcement process works: When the city lacks required inspection reports the office sends an initial packet explaining what is missing, the applicable ordinance, the fee schedule and how to appeal. Gurely described the standard warning letter and the fee schedule the city provides with it: for some missing items the letter states a $250 initial fee plus $10 per day thereafter, with shorter 30‑day compliance windows for high fire-safety items (sprinklers, smoke detectors, fire alarm panels) and 60‑day windows for most other items.

Property owners can appeal an administrative fee to the Board of Public Service within 30 days of the invoice, Gurely said; the board may vacate fees when the city has erred in administering the process or for other narrowly defined circumstances. Gurely said waivers for financial hardship on owner-occupied single‑family homes are rare and that the board’s authority to wipe out fees is tied to demonstrated errors by the city in how fees were charged.

Entry and inspections: Gurely noted that the office relies on tenant consent to enter rental units for inspections; if a tenant refuses, the office may seek a warrant. He said many maintenance and safety checks — heating, electrical, sprinkler, elevator and other specialized systems — are performed by licensed third‑party inspectors and submitted to the code office as proof of compliance.

Staffing and practical limits: Gurely told the committee the city’s four certified officials must cover an estimated inventory of thousands of housing units, and staffing shortages constrain how aggressively the city automates fee generation. He said the department’s operating principle is to seek willing compliance first and reserve court action and maximum fines for persistent or dangerous noncompliance. He described case examples where courts have approved much larger daily fines in prolonged violations, but said the city normally reserves those remedies for serious cases.

Appeals and closing out fees: Gurely explained that administrative fees accrue until the property is brought into compliance; at year‑end the city closes out unpaid fees and may levy them on property taxes as liens. He emphasized that inspectors or contractors must be licensed; the city accepts reciprocal licensing from nearby jurisdictions for third‑party inspectors.

Committee discussion and suggestions: Committee members asked about automation options, email notices and whether the city could provide a clearer checkpoint schedule to new or recently acquired investment-property owners. Gurely said the department already generates requirement schedules for each property and will provide them on request, but resource limits and industry-wide shortages of licensed contractors can delay third‑party inspections.

Next steps and appeals: Committee members discussed whether the council could help by publicizing checkpoints, collecting owner emails at registration, or encouraging better recordkeeping by owners and title companies. Gurely recommended the board’s appeals process be followed when an owner disputes a fee and reiterated that state law and the New York State Uniform Code set minimum inspection requirements the city enforces locally.

Ending: The committee did not take formal votes on the presentation. Staff left committee members with options for outreach and recordkeeping improvements and with the department’s contact information for property owners who receive administrative notices.