Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owasso fire chief proposes adding multifamily dwellings to ambulance subscription fees
Summary
Chief David Hurst presented ordinance amendments to include multifamily residential dwellings in the city ambulance service subscription model; the proposal would charge owners $4 monthly to the complex utility bill, include a rebuttable presumption to collect 85% of occupancies, require occupancy data by March 31 and impose a penalty up to $750 for noncompliance.
Owasso’s fire chief proposed amending the city code to bring multifamily residential complexes into the ambulance subscription model so those residents would receive the same out‑of‑pocket protections currently afforded to single‑family households.
Chief David Hurst explained the proposed language changes to Part 13, chapter 2, article C (ambulance service), including a provision to include multifamily residential units. He said that, under the proposal, multifamily complexes would be assigned a $4 monthly fee to the complex utility bill so residents would “receive the same benefits of single family, where, during emergency medical response that there would be no direct out of pocket cost other than the $4 monthly assigned to the complex utility bill.”
Hurst said the draft contains a rebuttable presumption that the city will collect payments from 85% of occupancies, and that property owners who fail to provide occupancy numbers by March 31 would face a misdemeanor fine up to $750. He said the ordinance also clarifies long‑term care facilities’ treatment in the fee structure, allowing them to remain on a subscription model at their option to avoid double charging residents who might already pay a similar fee elsewhere.
Councilors asked for clarification on who pays (Hurst said building owners/complexes are billed and may pass costs to tenants) and why long‑term care facilities were left optional (Hurst cited fairness concerns and the risk of double billing for residents who maintain separate primary residences). The item was discussed and staff indicated it would return for further consideration; no council vote was recorded during the meeting.
