The city of Oneonta’s Legislative Committee continued to discuss an escalating fee structure for nuisance fire alarms at its meeting Monday, March 31.
In past meetings, Fire Chief Brian Knapp, Code Enforcement Officer Steve Yerly and other city leaders have addressed the issue in an effort to curb spending city resources on unnecessary responses that divert responders from real emergencies.
Knapp has proposed instituting a nuisance fee of $350 based on costs of responding to these false alarms. The committee is considering escalating fees starting at $100 for the first two alarms and increasing to $350 for subsequent alarms.
A significant number of false alarms, also called nuisance alarms, come from SUNY Oneonta and Hartwick College. Scott Harrington, R-Sixth Ward, is also Hartwick’s facilities manager. Common causes include improper maintenance of the alarm panel, faulty or aging equipment, accidental activation and deliberate activation in a nonemergency.
“Hartwick is unique, different than a state university, because I have city code and then I have state fire code that oversees me,” he said.
Harrington reported an average of 44 fire response per semester during the past five years, excluding the COVID-19 pandemic months, with the most common culprit being burnt food.
“I don’t think burnt food is a nuisance alarm,” he said. “(It’s the) first time away from home for a lot of them, and they’re trying to figure out how to cook.”
Another problem includes cooking vents that are not built to modern standards.
He also talked about the challenges of addressing specific issues, like shower steam, body spray, hair spray and hot hair styling tools setting off detectors.
Potential solutions included engineering controls and hiring fire prevention personnel, as well as collaboration between Hartwick and SUNY Oneonta to address common issues.
Other business
In other business, the city is beginning to clear the way for hunting under state Department of Environmental Conservation regulations in city parks.
The committee reviewed proposed changes to local parks and recreation and weapons laws that would allow hunters to carry firearms and hunt while participating in regulated hunting under DEC-issued permits.
The changes are needed if the city is going to progress with the deer management program. The council adopted the program two years after an overpopulation of deer raised concerns about their damage to vegetation and other nuisance behaviors in the city.
The city’s deer management program is organized into three phases, according to the program outline.
Phase 1, which ran from June 2023 to May 2024, established the Assessing Vegetation Impacts from Deer program, which included collecting data on the amount of damage deer cause and educating the community about deer deterrents, identifying and monitoring deer activity at locations throughout the city, creating the deer reporting tool, looking at city code changes around fencing height and applying for DMAP.
Phase 2, which began during the summer, occurred after the analysis of Phase 1 results. The city has the DMAP permit for three years. In that time, additional steps include increasing the number of deer tags, expanding the number of parcels open to hunting and resurveying the public about the perception of deer.
Phase 3, in conjunction with Phases 1 and 2, would involve requesting a Deer Damage Permit from DEC to cull some of the herd. That step involves reviewing local ordinances about firearm discharge and park ordinances, which the committee started to do Monday.
Susan Lettis, the city’s volunteer deer management plan coordinator, said Monday that DEC wants the city to do one more year of DMAP before progressing to Phase 3.
In October, the state Department of Environmental Conservation granted the city 60 antlerless deer tags to be used in the Deer Management Plan zone, as determined through DMAP. Thirteen deer were harvested through the program.
Carson asked about the overlap with town of Oneonta in the watershed areas, where hunting is allowed.
“I know that as a municipality, we own the land within the boundaries of another municipality,” Carson said. “I don’t think our rules go over the top of their rules.”
Lettis said the legislation would apply specifically to city codes, not the town, but that she would follow up with the city attorney.