southern marin fire protection district€¦ · 22/03/2017 · agenda – board of directors...

Agenda – Board of Directors Meeting – March 22, 2017 1 | P a g e

Southern Marin Fire Protection District 308 Reed Boulevard

Mill Valley, California 94941 Phone: 415 388-8182 Fax: 415 388-8181

Southern Marin Fire Protection District - Board of Directors Meeting

AGENDA

Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:00 pm

308 Reed Boulevard, Mill Valley Phone: (415) 388-8182 Fax: (415) 388-8181

Any person with a disability covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may receive a copy of the agenda and a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet prepared by the local agency or other interested person for the meeting of 12/21/2016 upon request in an appropriate alternative format. Requests for mailed copies of agendas or agenda packets are valid for the calendar year in which requests are made and must be renewed annually after January 1. Any person with a disability covered under the ADA may also request a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services in order to participate in a public meeting. Please contact Susan Kim, at (415) 388-8182 at least 5 working days prior to the meeting and provide information on the assistance required.

Call to Order:

Pledge of Allegiance:

Open Time for Public Expression: (limited to 3 minutes per person). The Board welcomes public comments on all agenda items. Agenda Adjustments:

Approval of Minutes: February 22, 2017 Board Meeting

A. Correspondence

1. Thank you letter to Firefighters Danny Gemma, Ryan Meier, Brett Stone and Drew Clason from Pages 1-2 the Technical Collaboration Team at Wikimedia Foundation for fire station tour and fire equipment demonstration.

2. Marin Independent Journal Newspaper article dated 3/2/2017, Golden Gate Bridge suicide prevention net. Pages 3-4

3. Marin Independent Journal Newspaper article dated 2/21/2017, Marin County Open Data portal. Pages 5-6

4. Congratulations letter to Battalion Chief Matt Barnes for Chief Fire Officer re-designation. Pages 7-8

B. Staff Reports:

1. Fire Chief Report: Fire Chief Chris Tubbs Pages 9-13

Project Update 4

2. Operations & Training: Battalion Chief Matt Barnes

3. Logistics: Battalion Chief Kai Pasquale

4. Prevention: Deputy Fire Marshal Fred Hilliard

5. Finance: Finance Manager Alyssa Schiffmann

- Finance Report: March 2017 Pages 15-16

- Balance Sheet: Dated 3/13/2017 Page 17

- Budget Report: FY 2016/2017: Dated 3/13/2017 Pages 18-22

- SMFD Disbursements/Warrants: Dated 2/28/17 & 3/14/17 Pages 23-24

- Bank of America Statement: Dated January 14, 2017 to February 13, 2017 Pages 25-28

- 2015/2016 Audit Summary Page 29

- 2015/2016 Audit stapled packet

6. Association Report: Association President Jason Golden

Agenda – Board of Directors Meeting – March 22, 2017 2 | P a g e

C. Committee Reports: 1. Southern Marin Emergency Medical Paramedic System (SMEMPS) (Discussion/Action) 2. Shared Services Committee (Discussion/Action)

3. Finance Committee (Discussion/Action)

4. Personnel Committee (Discussion/Action)

5. Communications Committee (Discussion/Action) 6. Building Committee (Discussion/Action) 7. MERA Committee (Discussion/Action)

D. New Business 1. TCSD Grant Update – Presentation by Jim Kasper 2. The Matrix Group – Presentation of the Final Analysis of the Fire Prevention Study by stapled packet (Discussion/Action)

Courtney Ramos and Daniel Garcia of Matrix 3. Presentation by Kary Witt, Golden Gate Security Coalition Closed Session: (1 item)

1.) Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency negotiator: SMFD Personnel Committee Employee Organization: Southern Marin Chief Officers Association, IAFF Local 1775

Open Session: Report on any action taken in closed session

F. Poll the Board

Next regular meeting: 04/26/2017

Please Bring Board Manual to the Meeting

At the discretion of the Board, all items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the

Board

Southern Marin Fire Protection District To: Danny Gemma Ryan Meier Brett Stone Drew Clason

The Technical Collaboration Team at the Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that helps to operate Wikipedia) thanks you very much for taking the time to show us around your fire station after your busy day at work. It was very exciting for everyone to see how a US fire station is run and what equipment is used. I especially appreciate the surf board attached to the roof of the fire truck. :) We visited with 11 people from 9 countries and many of them wanted to thank you in their own languages below. - Rachel (Piedmont, California)

"Thanks for showing us around. Absolutely loved learning about how you use the thermal camera. Och tack for entusiasmen." - Johan (Malmo, Sweden)

Thank you very much for your time, your explanations, and your sympathy. While the media bombard us with celebrities, it's the local heroes like you who make the differencel

Molta sort, i a veure si la idea de sushi en comptes de pastis qualla. - Quim (Lives in Cologn, Germany, from Spain)

"It has been amazing to discover your work and your dedication to help people. Merci beaucoup !" - Benoit (Le Mans, France)

Thank you for taking time out of your day to show us around, but more importantly thank you for supporting your community with your service. -Chris (St. Louis, Missouri)

"It was great to meet you, and to learn more about how you work. Thanks again for the tour, and for doing what you do!" -Nick (Victoria, Canada)

It was a super interesting evening and I learned a lot about all the different aspects, situations, approaches. Velke diky za Vasi praci! -Andre (Prague, Czech Republic)

I was thrilled to learn how passionate you are about your work. Thank you for sharing all about it with much eagerness. Kudos for you risk your life to save several ones :)

In my language which is Hindi, I want to say: Shukriya (�) meaning "Thank You!" - Srishti (from India, Living in Oakland, CA)

"Thanks for the tour! It was great for me to see the equipement needed to do the job specific to the circumstances of the Bay Area, and I appreciate the work you all do." - Keegan (Huntsville, Alabama)

- 1 -

Dear firefighting fellows, thanks for your warm welcome, despite having just had a long day. My dad is so going to love the pies of your powerful chainsaws! I especially loved learning about your efforts in rescuing Golden Gate Bridge jumpers. Grazie per tutte le amorevoli cure che prestate alla comunita. - Erica (!tally)

Also "thank you" from: - Moushira (Alexandria, Egypt)

- 2 -

2/21/2017

Portal offers trove of public data

MARIN COUNTY

Online feature called a transparency tool

By Adrian Rodriguez

arodriguez@marinij. com @adrianrrodri on Twitter

A: Main

Marin County officials have launched a new database designed to make county budget information and public health and safety statistics more accessible.

The Marin County Open Data portal, which is part of the five-year business plan the Board of Supervisors approved in 2015, is an effort to provide more online resources to residents who want to better understand what is going on in the county.

"It's really a tool in helping the county step toward more open transparency," said Charlie Haase, county director of information services and technology, the department that helped develop the database. "We are pretty excited about it, and hope as we go along, to add more data sets that have value to people."

Marin joins the San Francisco, San Mateo County and Alameda County in using the Socrata-powered database. Socrata is a Seattlebased company that builds open data software and services to sell to governments.

The county paid an initial $38,352 to launch the program. The subscription to the service is $26,352 annually.

The portal publishes statistics such as food facility and safety inspections, emergency medical services including, bicycle and sports injury incidents that are broken down by city and towns, kindergarten immunization reports and county employee salaries and budget and spending figures.

When it comes to bikerelated injuries, Sausalito, Mill Valley and San Rafael have the highest amount of incidents.

Haase said the information could help residents collaborate and find solutions to these and other county issues.

To help introduce this collaborative concept, the county is hosting a hackathon event on April 1, in which high schoolers from around the county will use Marin County Open Data to

1/2

- 3 -

2/2112017 A: Main

The Marin County Open Data portal contains statistics such as bike-related injuries. Sausalito, above, M ill Valley and San Rafael have the highest number of incidents.

ALAN DEP- MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL

download and share information.

"We are hoping to collaborate with software engineers and develop things l ike mobile apps, and that sort of thing," Haase said.

Southern Marin fire Chief Chris Tubbs said the information collected for emergency services is helpful in comparing incidents in neighboring communities.

"The more data tools there are, the more opportunity there is to get this information to the public," he said. "This gives quick and rapid access to that information."

Tubbs said he is excited to see the database grow.

So is Jody Morales, head of Citizens for Sustainable Pensions, a Marin-based watchdog group.

At a glance, the database "appears to be a great step," but the information is "pretty basic," she said.

"I'm glad to see transparency take its first steps into the Civic Center," she said. "Hopefully, over time it will improve."

Morales said she hoped to see that in the salary book that names of county employees would be published: "If the county is going to do this, they need to be at that level."

County Administrator Matthew Hymel said the county already submits that information to the Bay Area News Group and Transparent California databases and that "we formatted our salary data to reflect our salary schedules similar to Sonoma, Alameda, San Mateo, and San Francisco's open data portal."

Hymel said county officials want to encourage residents to become more familiar with how local government works.

"Transparency is the key to increasing public trust and drives accountability," he said. "The better informed our residents are about what we do, the more responsive we can be to their needs and the more effective we can be."

Tuesday, 02/21/2017 Pag .A03 Copyright Terms and Terms of Use. Please review new arbitration language here.

212

- 4 -

3/2/2017

Suicide barrier completion date set January 2021

GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE

By Mark Prado

[email protected] @MarkPradoiJ on Twitter

A: Main

A date has been set for completion of a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge.

The bridge district last month issued a notice to proceed with the project and is now targeting Jan. 12, 2021, as the date to finish it.

Work has already begun.

"It may not be visible on the bridge, but there is already activity going on in the contractor's office and in our engineering office," said Ewa Bauer, bridge engineer, adding that meetings are occurring about twice a week on logistics.

The first evidence the public will see of the project is construction of a fence on the span designed to protect workers below, Bauer said.

The Golden Gate Bridge board in December unanimously agreed to award the building contract to Oaklandbased Shimrnick/ Danny's Joint Venture. The project is expected to cost as much as $204 million. Any unspent dollars would be shared proportionately among the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrans and the bridge district, the agencies funding the work.

The project involves installing the e quivalent of seven football fields of netting along the 1. 7 -mile bridge.

Photo illustration of the suicide prevention option approved by the Golden Gate Bridge District board. It would add a horizontal net system 20feet below the sidewalk that extends 20feet from the bridge.

PROVIDED BY GOLDEN GATE B RIDGE DISTRICT

The net will be made of stainless steel, marinegrade cable to stand up to the elements, bridge officials said. The bridge district's barrier plan calls for a net extending 20 feet below and 20 feet from the side of the span, although it will have to be modified in certain areas because of surrounding terrain.

The net will be gray instead of red to better blend with the water. The net will not be visible to motorists driving on the bridge, and is designed to be sensitive to views of and from the span.

1/2

- 5 -

312/2017 A: Main

While people could still jump into the net, such occurrences might be rare because the net would act as a deterrent, bridge officials have said.

"A lot of people are behind you," Manuel Gamboa told the bridge board last week. His 18-year-old son jumped from the span in September 2013. "This is going to be a good thing and we know it," If you need help, or know someone who does, call Marins 24/7 suicide prevention and crisis hotline at 415-499-1100. For in-person or telephone grief counseling, call415499-1195.

Thursday, 03/02/2017 Pag.A03 Copyright Terms and Terms of Use. Please review new arbitration language here.

212

- 6 -

CRSE �I Center for

Public Safety Excellence

February 10, 2017

Matthew L. B ames Battalion Chief- Operations Southern Marin Fire District 308 Reed Blvd. Mill Valley, CA 94941

Dear Chief Barnes:

4501 Singer Court, Suite 180 Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 691-4620 T

(703) 961-0113 F

www.cpse.org

Congratulations! On February 7, 2017, you were re-designated as a "Chief Fire Officer" (CFO) by the Commission on Professional Credentialing. You have earned the professional designation as witnessed by a team of your peers and members of the Commission on Professional Credentialing. You have demonstrated through your education, leadership and management skills that you possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the fire and emergency services profession.

Enclosed you will find your certificate announcing your achievement.

Please note that the "Chief Fire Officer" designation is valid for three years. To continue to keep your designation, you will need to show that you have continued to develop as a CFO in four areas: Professional Development, Professional Contributions, Active Association Membership and Community Involvement.

On behalf of the Commission on Professional Credentialing, we commend your efforts and dedication in achieving this personal and professional milestone.

Sincerely,

W4J1� Debbie Sobotka Deputy Director

Enclosures

Commission on

Fire Accreditation International

Commission on

Professional Credentialing

Technical

Advisor Program

- 7 -

tt\J t <ttommtS'S'ion on .al ([ ·

has conferred upon

:M.atthew £. (Barnes c.R.§4Jesignatetf P e6ruary 7, 2017

the designation of

Cliief Pire Officer (CPO) for demonstrating a high level of competence, as witnessed by your peers, by documenting

professional, educational, technical, and community service achievements and fulfilling prescribed standards of performance, ethics, and conduct required for designation.

��cL.,, �� -�·�/ Pre<S{dent, CPSE Boar�f Directors

'

Chairman, Commission on Professional Credentialing - 8 -

Southern Marin Fire Protection District

Board Report – Chief’s Report March 2017

Employee Recognition This month the Fire Chief is happy to share with the Board:

• This month Battalion Chief Matt Barnes achieved his re-accreditation with the Center for Public Safety Excellence, maintaining his Chief Fire Officer (CFO) status. Matt was also re-accredited maintaining his Chief Training Officer (CTO) status. Chief Barnes also received the following notable recognitions by his Peers:

o Ed Bent Training Officer of the Year – California Fire Chiefs Training Section. o Selfless Service Award – Sausalito Rotary.

• FF/PM Jason Golden was recently asked to Co-Chair the Marin County Firefighter Association's

Behavioral Health Committee.

• We have two individuals who have entered into the CPSE Fire Officer Accreditation Process. Firefighter/Engineer Adam Vollmer and a member who has asked to remain anonymous at this time. This is an exceedingly challenging process but a significant accomplishment for the individual and organization to have staff who are accredited through CPSE.

2017 APEX in Monterey Last month the Fire Chief attended the annual APEX Conference at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey. The conference is sponsored by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security and each year discusses the latest Homeland Security issues. This year some of the key presentations and discussions related to the Fire District included: Cyber Security; Illegal Immigration; Critical Infrastructure; Behavioral Analysis of Violent Extremists; Climate Security, and Tomorrows Technology and its potential impacts.

Key takeaways from this conference include: 1. The role social media plays in shaping views – specifically radicalization. It can also be leveraged

in positive ways and have exponential impacts. 2. Anger is an effective strategy in creating viral social media posts and is specifically employed by

many organizations. 3. Climate is a Homeland Security Issue. Developing resiliency is a key strategy. Marin County is

taking the right approach with initiatives like the Bay Sea Level Rise project. 4. The National Immigration Debate. There are two paths into the US – the Refugee path in which a

non-resident seeks asylum in a County outside the US. This engages a multi-year process in which each applicant can be vetted. The second track is illegal immigration in which non-residents independently travel into the US, outside the immigration laws. The most often come from overseas via South America.

5. Cybersecurity continues to be a Homeland Security issue. Sabotage, industrial espionage, exploitation are the leading issues. Organizations need to be highly proactive in creating systems and practices that minimize the opportunity for cyber-attacks.

6. The United States has a significant infrastructure problem. It is estimated that there are $3.6 trillion dollars in infrastructure needs for our roads, bridges, and dams alone.

- 9 -

Supreme Court Decision – Public Disclosure / CPRA On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court held that the public has a right to emails and other communications, such as text messages, regarding government business written or received by public officials and employees, regardless of whether the communication was done using a private account or device.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Carol Corrigan relied on a broad interpretation of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) along with the mandate provided by the Proposition 59 amendment to the California Constitution in 2004, providing that statutes be broadly construed if they further the people’s right of access. The court recognized that “In today’s environment, not all employment-related activity occurs during a conventional workday, or in an employer- maintained workplace.”

The court concluded that a writing prepared by a public employee or official conducting agency business is considered to be “prepared by” the agency within the meaning of the CPRA, even if the writing is prepared using the employee or official’s personal account. Documents or communications that meet the CPRA’s definition of a “public record” do not lose their status merely because they are located in a private account or device.

A copy of the decision can be downloaded at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S218066.PDF

In lieu of the Court’s decision, we are currently developing draft plans to adjust to the new decision. This will likely result in some of the following recommendations and actions:

1. Board members will be directed to use District Email Addresses for all District Business. 2. Board Members will be provided a District iPad or similar device/tool, for conducting

District Business. 3. Current Lexipol Policy will be reviewed and modified to ensure compliance with the decision. 4. The District will ensure devices used by employees are District owned and operated.

We are working with other Marin fire Agencies to navigate and develop plans that incorporate the potential impacts of the Courts decision.

Mill Valley City Council / Shared Services Chief Tubbs and Chief Welch will be meeting with City Manager Jim McCann on March 21, to discuss a shared management team.

Battalion Chief MOU & Administrative Staff Labor Agreement This past month Alyssa Schiffmann met with the Board in Closed Session. The Board, as a result of the closed session, provided direction to the Negotiating Team. Chief Tubbs was subsequently informed of the Board’s direction.

The negotiating team met with the Battalion Chiefs on March 2, 2017, and Director St. John will brief the Board in Closed Session.

- 10 -

Mobile Data Computer Project Since last month significant progress has been made that has resulted in a key decision and a direction forward. As the Board will recall, the 2016/2017 Budget allocated $97xxx dollars for the acquisition and installation of a new mobile platform in our apparatus. We had been holding on purchasing the hardware and software due to the potential option of choosing an iOS platform versus the County’s PC based platform. The iOS platform would provide much greater functionality, as well as at a much lower cost.

Due to the efforts of Battalion Chief Matt Barnes, who has spent countless hours over the past three years, we have determined that we can opt for the iOS platform. The Board should be made aware that Chief Barnes has spent many of his own personal time over the past three years, working, developing, populating, and organizing all the elements necessary to bring this option to fruition.

Therefore the Fire Chief has provided direction to begin the process that will result in all our apparatus having the new system installed, and all personnel being trained to leverage this valuable tool.

We will provide the Board with an update when the project is complete and the total costs finalized.

Golden Gate Bridge Training Exercise On February 28th, Chief Tubbs and Barnes attended and participated in a training exercise at Station Golden Gate, with regional partners. The exercise was designed to test the current Golden Gate Operational Plan based on a prescribed scenario. The four-hour exercise resulted in multiple benefits, one of the most important identifying areas of the current plan which will now be further clarified and improved.

Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Barrier The Board may recall that the Golden Gate Bridge District will be installing a suicide barrier at the bridge, in the coming years. Most recently the Marin IJ reported that completion has been set for January 12, 2021, which is the information we have received at the bi-weekly Golden Gate Security Coalition Meetings.

One element of this project directly impacts the Southern Marin Fire District. As one of the primary agencies involved in providing emergency services to the Bridge, the Fire District was chosen as the site to construct a training prop which will allow firefighters to train for the removal of injured individuals who may jump into the net, once constructed. The training prop’s construction should begin, according to Golden Gate Bridge Manager Kary Witt, within the next year.

There are a number of operational challenges that must still be decided. Southern Marin Fire will be sending representatives with the Golden Gate Bridge Officials, to New York State where a similar bridge and operation have been in existence for many years. The team will seek to learn and extract direction and recommendations that will aid in the crafting of our Operations, Policy & Procedure.

MERA On March 9, 2017, The Board of Supervisors approved the contract with Motorola Solutions for the next generation Radio System. The Board vote was 5 – 0. It is worth noting that originally two companies expressed interest in submitting bids, but Motorola was the only company that submitted. The MERA negotiating team had several conference calls prior to negotiating with the Motorola team. These conference calls were with agencies that had recently engaged in and completed negotiations with Motorola. Most specifically the team had a multi-hour conversation with the Seattle/King County PSERN (Public Safety Emergency Radio Network) group, with who Chief Tubbs was a part of prior to his arrival to Marin County. Seattle/King County recently replaced their previous 800 Mghz regional radio system with a second-generation system at a cost of $273 Million. Chief Tubbs put the MERA team in contact with the PSERN team.

- 11 -

Mill Valley / Southern Marin Fire Evacuation Drill In January we reported of an Evacuation Drill that we will be collaborating with Mill Valley Fire. Chief Tubbs has participated in Mill Valley’s drill the past three years and this year Mill Valley and Southern Marin have proposed conducting a drill that includes both communities.

The City of Mill Valley and the Southern Marin Fire District have begun to plan a joint evacuation exercise for 2017. Captain Paterson has joined the planning team for this event on May 20, 2017.

Replacement of Ladder Truck / Reserve Ladder Truck Finance Manager Schiffmann and Chief Tubbs will be presented financial options to the Finance Committee at the March meeting. We will be incorporating the replacement of the ladder truck in the 2017/2018 budget.

Fire Prevention Fee Study The Fire Prevention Fee Study has been completed. Included in the Budget Packet is the final report. In addition, the Matrix Group will be presenting their findings to the Board tonight.

Revenue Study Recently we received preliminary information from our vendor, on some of the data reports and analysis that has been completed. Finance Manager Schiffmann and Chief Tubbs are meeting with the vendor on March 16th to receive a project update and discuss the analysis to date. Chief Tubbs will provide an oral update to the Board at the March Board Meeting.

SMEMPS Rescue 9: The Liaison Fire Chiefs directed two Ad-Hoc committees to specific work within specified time-frames for the Rescue 9 replacement. The Equipment Committee provided a report to the SMEMPS Fire Chiefs and were subsequently directed to draft Apparatus Specifications for the Policy Committee to review. The SMEMPS Chiefs have targeted the May SMEMPS Governing Board Meeting as a date they will submit a request to approve the purchase of replacement rescue vehicle. Pending that approval, the order will be ready to process promptly.

Organization By-Laws and Policies. Chief Tubbs has been tasked by the Liaison Fire Chiefs to draft updates to the SMEMPS By-Laws and Policies. Chief Tubbs has currently been focused on developing expanded policy and procedure on Financial Management for SMEMPS.

Personnel Currently, we have one employee out on sick leave/ disability. This employee is currently back at work on light duty. He is able to perform a number of administrative tasks for us, primarily in data entry. Additionally, he is catching up on outstanding training and certifications needs. - 12 -

SIDEWALK CPR Event ON Saturday, June 10, 2017, Marin County EMS, in partnership with local fire agencies including the Southern Marin Fire District, will participate in hosting the event in key locations.

This will be the eighth year of this successful event. Incorporated with the CPR instruction will be Stop the Bleed, a National Initiative to educate the public of immediate hemorrhage control. This training is done because it is recognized through research, that citizens are the true first responders and their actions can be critical to the survivability of cardiac and traumatic injury.

CERT In April we will be providing two basic training courses for CERT applicants.

Respectfully,

Chris Tubbs, Fire Chief Southern Marin Fire District

- 13 -

Project Highlights – February/March 2017

1. Operations/Training: none to report

2. Administration: none to report

3. Logistics: none to report

4. Finance: none to report

5. Prevention: none to report

Thank you, Liza Andre, Project Manager

The Southern Marin Fire District

2016-2017 Major Projects

Project Progress Start End Notes

Annual Report 17% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 08/01/2015 11/03/2105 Project Initiated

BC MOU 20% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01/01/2017 05/30/2017 Working to establish first meeting

CAD/Mobile Deployment 80% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01/01/2014 05/01/2016

Command Vehicles 25% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 08/01/2016 04/01/2017

Deployment Analysis 75% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 6/15/2015 6/30/2016 Project Complete - 100%

ERS 80% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12/15/2014 02/01/2017

Fire Prevention Fee Analysis 86% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07/01/2016 03/31/2017

Grand Jury Report - 911 Referral 100% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07/01/2016 09/30/2016 Done

Grand Jury Report - Trafficking 100% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07/01/2016 09/30/2016 Done

Knox Box Replacement Program 50% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 06/10/2015 04/01/2017

Lexipol 63% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 08/01/2014 03/01/2017

MDC iPad Program 20% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03/01/2015 04/01/2016 Working with MCSO

OpenGov Deployment 67% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 06/15/2015 06/30/2017 Drafting and Finalizing Reports prior to deployment

Overtime Analysis 0% 08/01/2015 09/30/2015 On Hold due to workload

Performance Evaluations 40% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 7/1/2015 5/31/2017 PE's completed for Admin Staff

Prevention Vehicles 25% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 08/01/2016 08/01/2106

Revenue Study 60% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 09/01/2016 11/30/2016 Both studies underway.

Senate Bill 854 40% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10/08/2015 03/01/2017 Info posted to website

Station 4 Remodel 57% |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02/14/2012 10/15/2018 On hold due to SB 854 - creating new policies and procedures

Station 9 Solar Project 100% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04/27/2015 01/15/2017 Revised Estoppel Agreement signed

Strategic Plan Initiative 1 0% 07/01/2016 12/31/2017

Strategic Plan Initiative 2 50% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07/01/2016 09/30/2016 Signed agreement with MCSO






Type 3 25% ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 08/01/2016 06/01/2017

- 14 -

March 2017

1. 2016/17 Budget Highlights:

• As of March 16th, we are at 64% of 70% of the total budget.

We anticipate revising the 2016/17 Budget, but will make the revision once the Battalion Chief MOU is

finalized. In addition to factoring in the impact of the BC MOU changes, we will also be updating the

budget to reflect the impacts of:

• The grants we received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), for fitness equipment ($64,604) and a rescue watercraft

($4,389), respectively.

• Rehiring Engineer Chance.

• The actual strike team revenues anticipated to-date.

• Increased GGNRA contract from $322,592 to $345,000 per year for the next three years.

2. The 2015/16 Audit is complete and included in this month’s board packet. See audit summary for

highlights.

3. The Spyglass work on streamlining the phone system is complete. We expect to save $15,490 per year

going forward due to the changes made to the long distance, wireless, and MDC accounts, and have paid

Spyglass for 1 year of that anticipated savings. In addition, we received a retro credit from AT&T for

$12,763, of which we paid 50% to Spyglass:


Board Report – Finance Report

- 15 -

4. To-date, out of county overtime consists of 7,210 hours (approximately $384K in costs), out of 17,042

total overtime hours. See table below for a prior year comparison:

OT/OOC hours/cost Total OT

hours

Out of county

hours % of

total OT

Strike Team OT

$ Total OT

Cost

2014/15

32,659

4,250 13%

209,883

1,528,551

2015/16

31,715

6,840 22%

350,221

1,588,699

thru 3/11/17

17,042

7,210 42%

384,266 919,559

5. Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust:

SMFD’s OPEB Trust balance as of 1/31/17 is $2,420,478, reflecting an increase of $24,705 in January.

Thank you,

Alyssa Schiffmann, Finance Manager

- 16 -

SMFD

Balance Sheet

March 16, 2017 Feb 16, 2017

ASSETS

Checking/Savings

74900 · Operating Fund - County 4,400,956 4,144,632

Capital Replacement Fund 2,157,500 2,157,500

Unallocated Reserves 712,753 712,753

447 · Payroll - B of A 447 307,444 309,950

11000 · Prevention Fees Paypal 1,265 0

Total Checking/Savings 7,579,917 7,324,835

Other Current Assets

Accounts Receiveable 311,192 312,316

Loan Receiveable 19 70

Advance Retirement Payment 51,151 49,342

Deferred Outflows 3,762,824 759,752

Prepaid Expenses 6,331 6,331

Total Other Current Assets 4,131,517 1,127,811

Total Current Assets 11,711,435 8,452,646

Fixed Assets

Equipment 3,373,115 3,373,115

Accumulated Depreciation -4,749,911 -4,749,911

Buildings 3,566,726 3,566,726

Land 214,807 214,807

Total Fixed Assets 2,404,737 2,404,737

Other Assets

Interagency Receivable 1,508,000 1,508,000

Total Other Assets 1,508,000 1,508,000

TOTAL ASSETS 15,624,172 12,365,384

LIABILITIES & EQUITY

Liabilities

Current Liabilities

Unavailable Revenue 10,000 10,000

Claims Payable 58,564 58,564

Payroll Liabilities 0 1,524

Accounts Payable -21,103 -10,617

Total Current Liabilities 47,461 59,471

Long Term Liabilities

OPEB OBLIGATION 163,707 163,707

DEFERRED INFLOWS 1,433,522 2,249,604

NET PENSION LIABILITY 6,033,143 3,845,243

COMPENSATED ABSENCES 789,096 789,096

Total Long Term Liabilities 8,419,468 7,047,650

Total Liabilities 8,466,929 7,107,121

Equity

AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED -952,803 -952,803

AMOUNT TO BE PROVIDED - PENSION -3,703,841 -5,335,095

FIXED ASSET FUND 2,404,737 2,404,737

FUND BALANCE 10,148,270 10,148,270

NET REVENUE -739,120 -1,006,846

Total Equity 7,157,243 5,258,263

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 15,624,172 12,365,384

3/13/2017- 17 -

SMFD

Budget Report

2016/2017

70%

to March 16,

2017 Budget

Over/(Under)

Budget % of Budget

REVENUE

PROPERTY TAX 6,827,494 11,986,000 (5,158,506) 57%

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 477,658 855,000 (377,342) 56%

ERAF 446,043 775,000 (328,957) 58%

CELL SITE RENTAL 32,974 102,997 (70,023) 32%

SAUSALITO OPEB REIMBURSEMENT 0 58,000 (58,000) 0%

GGNRA 80,648 322,592 (241,944) 25%

SMEMPS 574,745 480,000 94,745 120%

OVERTIME REIMBURSEMENTS 424,957 300,000 124,957 142%

PLAN FEES 63,021 100,000 (36,979) 63%

WORKERS' COMP REIMBURSEMENTS 64,966 75,000 (10,034) 87%

REIMBURSEMENTS/REFUNDS 24,781 30,000 (5,219) 83%

INTEREST 15,390 7,000 8,390 220%

TOTAL REVENUE 9,032,677 15,091,589 (6,058,912) 60%

EXPENDITURES

501 · SALARIES

501-A · Base Salaries 3,583,551 5,150,000 (1,566,449) 70%

501-B · Sick Buy-Out 0 20,000 (20,000) 0%

501-C · Vacation Buy-Out 26,922 30,000 (3,078) 90%

Total 501 · SALARIES 3,610,472 5,200,000 (1,589,528) 69%

501-O · OVERTIME

501-0A · Overtime 919,559 1,200,000 (280,441) 77%

501-0B · FLSA 93,562 135,000 (41,438) 69%

501-0C · Out of Grade 20,931 30,000 (9,069) 70%

Total 501-O · OVERTIME 1,034,052 1,365,000 (330,948) 76%

504 · EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

504-A · Health Benefits 712,423 1,095,000 (382,577) 65%

504-AB · Retiree Health Savings 0 45,000 (45,000) 0%

504-AA · Retiree Medical 202,316 370,000 (167,684) 55%

504-AAA · Retiree Medical (OPEB) 0 321,000 (321,000) 0%

504-B · Dental 71,155 110,000 (38,845) 65%

504-C · Vision 7,070 11,000 (3,930) 64%

504-D · Holiday Pay 128,991 246,000 (117,009) 52%

504-E · District Share Retirement 1,463,283 2,110,000 (646,717) 69%

504-G · Educational Allowance 153,567 230,000 (76,433) 67%

504-H · Clothing Allowance 20,800 20,400 400 102%

504-K · Workers Compensation 467,472 643,296 (175,824) 73%

504-L · Def.Comp. Employer % 178,984 260,000 (81,016) 69%

504-N · Long Term Disability 11,726 16,000 (4,275) 73%

504-O · Long Term Care Insurance 17,136 24,000 (6,864) 71%

504-S · Longevity 5,512 8,500 (2,988) 65%

504-V · W/C Payroll Audit Adjustment 0 31,000 (31,000) 0%

504-X · Life Insurance 5,704 8,000 (2,296) 71%

504-Y · Payroll Taxes 64,292 105,000 (40,708) 61%

Total 504 · EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,510,430 5,654,196 (2,143,766) 62%

3/13/2017- 18 -

SMFD

Budget Report

2016/2017

70%

to March 16,

2017 Budget

Over/(Under)

Budget % of Budget

511 · OFFICE EXPENSE

511-A · General Office Supply 3,960 7,000 (3,040) 57%

511-B · Copier/Printer Expenses 3,177 2,200 977 144%

511-C · Maps & Run Books 54 1,500 (1,446) 4%

Total 511 · OFFICE EXPENSE 7,192 10,700 (3,508) 67%

512 · POSTAGE 1,340 2,200 (860) 61%

513 · SPECIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENSE

513-C · Public Education 218 3,000 (2,782) 7%

513-F · Subscriptions 278 600 (322) 46%

513-G · Awards 301 4,100 (3,799) 7%

513-H · Office Equipment Replacement 545 2,000 (1,455) 27%

513-L · Photos -162 4,000 (4,162) -4%

513-O · Misc. Celebrations/flowers 254 1,400 (1,146) 18%

513-P · Shift Calendars 188 300 (112) 63%

513-Q · Station Flags 769 4,150 (3,381) 19%

513-S · Hydrant Supplies 0 4,750 (4,750) 0%

513-T · Computer Upgrades/Programs 800 8,000 (7,200) 10%

513-U · Misc. Computer Supplies 1,407 1,500 (93) 94%

513-V · Software Subscriptions Services 24,839 40,000 (15,161) 62%

Total 513 · SPECIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENSE 29,439 73,800 (44,361) 40%

515 · CLOTHING & PERSONNEL SUPPLIES

515-A · Uniforms/Boots 7,814 30,000 (22,186) 26%

515-B · Badges 1,330 1,200 130 111%

515-G · Personal Protective Equipment 11,777 43,750 (31,973) 27%

515-H · Misc Repairs/struc cloth 215 12,000 (11,785) 2%

515-I · Wildland - Safety Clothing 820 21,500 (20,680) 4%

515-N · Strike Team Equipment (OOC) 2,076 3,400 (1,324) 61%

515-O · Raingear 907 1,000 (93) 91%

515-P · New Employees 0 6,000 (6,000) 0%

515-T · Wildland Shelters 0 1,500 (1,500) 0%

515-U · Swiftwater Rescue Gear 1,467 2,500 (1,033) 59%

515-V · USAR Equipment 0 3,000 (3,000) 0%

Total 515 · CLOTHING & PERSONNEL SUPPLIES 26,406 125,850 (99,444) 21%

517 · COMMUNICATIONS

517-A · Telephone 4,649 29,000 (24,351) 16%

517-B · Dispatch including CAD Service 93,208 196,293 (103,085) 47%

517-C · Pagers + Voice Mail 433 700 (267) 62%

517-D · Cell Phones 10,239 16,000 (5,761) 64%

517-E · MERA Operating Costs 45,569 45,569 0 100%

517-F · MERA Bond Service 51,854 51,855 (1) 100%

517-G · Internet/IDSL 7,746 16,000 (8,254) 48%

517-I · Phone Repairs/Replacement 1,628 2,500 (872) 65%

517-K · MERA-New Project Financing 5,430 5,430 0 100%

517-L · MDC Connection 4,008 9,300 (5,292) 43%

517-M · MDC Service Contract 4,939 10,000 (5,062) 49%

Total 517 · COMMUNICATIONS 229,704 382,647 (152,943) 60%

3/13/2017- 19 -

SMFD

Budget Report

2016/2017

70%

to March 16,

2017 Budget

Over/(Under)

Budget % of Budget

518 · UTILITIES

518-A · PG&E Station 4 8,663 13,500 (4,837) 64%

518-B · PG&E Station 9 6,771 15,000 (8,229) 45%

518-C · MMWD Station 4 1,516 1,800 (284) 84%

518-D · MMWD Station 9 1,168 1,600 (432) 73%

518-E · Richardson Bay Sanitation 0 1,060 (1,060) 0%

518-F · PG&E Station 1 1,777 6,500 (4,723) 27%

518-G · MMWD - Station 1 1,167 2,400 (1,233) 49%

518-H · Sanitation - Station 1 2,199 4,000 (1,801) 55%

Total 518 · UTILITIES 23,262 45,860 (22,599) 51%

520 · BUILDING & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE

520-B · Janitorial Supplies 11,429 21,000 (9,571) 54%

520-C · Unscheduled Repairs & Maint. 19,781 25,000 (5,219) 79%

520-D · Sprinklers/Alarm System 1,505 2,100 (595) 72%

520-E · Elevator Contract 5,181 5,500 (319) 94%

520-H · Carpets - Cleaning 0 3,000 (3,000) 0%

520-K · Kitchen Supplies 589 5,500 (4,911) 11%

520-L · Sign Changes 1,102 650 452 169%

Total 520 · BUILDING & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 39,587 62,750 (23,163) 63%

521 · EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

521-A · Radio Repair 2,924 12,000 (9,076) 24%

521-B · Air Pak Maintenance 6,424 11,000 (4,576) 58%

521-C · Office Equip. Maint. 88 250 (162) 35%

521-E · Mechanical Systems - Contract 963 8,500 (7,537) 11%

521-H · Repairs & Unscheduled Maint. 3,831 16,000 (12,169) 24%

521-I · Ladder Testing 600 2,000 (1,400) 30%

521-J · Portable Equipment 2,460 6,000 (3,540) 41%

521-K · Extinguishers/Annual Maint. 493 900 (407) 55%

521-M · Gym Equipment Maintenance 0 5,000 (5,000) 0%

521-O · Copier Maint. Contract - Sta 9 0 8,000 (8,000) 0%

521-R · Hose Maint/Nozzle & Fittings 592 1,000 (408) 59%

521-W · Dive Team Maintenance 6,222 8,800 (2,578) 71%

Total 521 · EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 24,596 79,450 (54,854) 31%

521-1 · VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

521-1A · Vehicle Repair 56,714 99,800 (43,086) 57%

521-1B · Fuel 18,960 40,000 (21,040) 47%

521-1C · Marine Division 15,569 22,000 (6,431) 71%

521-1D · Fireboat Docking Fee 3,532 3,533 (1) 100%

Total 521-1 · VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 94,775 165,333 (70,558) 57%

522 · MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

522-B · Logistics 438 500 (62) 88%

522-C · Administration 210 500 (290) 42%

522-D · Training 0 750 (750) 0%

Total 522 · MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 648 1,750 (1,102) 37%

3/13/2017- 20 -

SMFD

Budget Report

2016/2017

70%

to March 16,

2017 Budget

Over/(Under)

Budget % of Budget

523 · SPECIALIZED SERVICES

523-A · Board Per Diem 5,400 8,400 (3,000) 64%

523-B · Payroll Processing/Bank Fees 8,441 10,600 (2,159) 80%

523-C · Legal/Professional Fees 63,316 60,000 3,316 106%

523-D · Legal Postings 46 500 (454) 9%

523-E · Elections 0 85,000 (85,000) 0%

523-F · Haz Mat JPA 7,820 7,850 (30) 100%

523-G · Tax Collection Fees 103,121 190,000 (86,879) 54%

523-H · Flu Shots 158 3,100 (2,943) 5%

523-J · District Dinner -25 6,500 (6,525) -0%

523-K · New Employment 0 24,000 (24,000) 0%

523-L · Computer Consulting Services 12,703 30,000 (17,298) 42%

523-M · Audit 10,028 10,500 (472) 96%

523-N · Parcel Tax Refunds 0 600 (600) 0%

523-P · Dept. Physical Exams 14,495 31,000 (16,505) 47%

523-Q · Fitness Testing 5,818 28,000 (22,182) 21%

523-R · Fire Investigation JPA 411 2,000 (1,589) 21%

523-S · LAFCO Operating Expenses 8,231 8,231 (0) 100%

523-T · Team Building 1,351 7,000 (5,649) 19%

523-X · Promotional Test 0 3,700 (3,700) 0%

523-Z · Disaster Preparedness 4,045 12,500 (8,455) 32%

523-ZB · Vegetation Management 2,325 11,250 (8,925) 21%

523-ZC · Fire Prevention 6,543 11,500 (4,957) 57%

523-ZG · Public Outreach 428 5,000 (4,572) 9%

Total 523 · SPECIALIZED SERVICES 254,655 557,231 (302,576) 46%

524 · INSURANCE

524-A · Comprehensive Insurance 79,046 85,000 (5,954) 93%

Total 524 · INSURANCE 79,046 85,000 (5,954) 93%

525 · GRANT FUNDED EXPENDITURES 67,467 0 67,467 100%

526 · TRAINING & CONFERENCES

526-A · Training 43,539 100,000 (56,461) 44%

526-I · EMS Recertifications 266 3,100 (2,834) 9%

Total 526 · TRAINING & CONFERENCES 43,805 103,100 (59,295) 0%

526-1 · MEMBERSHIPS & STAFF CONF.

526-1A · General 2,150 2,100 50 102%

526-1B · FDAC 440 440 0 100%

526-1C · Costco 0 110 (110) 0%

Total 526-1 · MEMBERSHIPS & STAFF CONF. 2,590 2,650 (60) 98%

526-2 · MEETINGS & TRAVEL EXPENSES

526-2A · Food/Meetings/Training 2,185 5,550 (3,365) 39%

526-2B · Transportation/Bridge Tolls 891 3,700 (2,809) 24%

526-2C · Bi-Monthly Reserve Meeting 0 1,000 (1,000) 0%

3/13/2017- 21 -

SMFD

Budget Report

2016/2017

70%

to March 16,

2017 Budget

Over/(Under)

Budget % of Budget

526-2D · Strike Team Expenses 1,731 3,000 (1,269) 58%

Total 526-2 · MEETINGS & TRAVEL EXPENSES 4,807 13,250 (8,443) 36%

527 · RENT 75,000 100,000 (25,000) 75%

583-4 · EQUIPMENT

583-4D · Hydrants 42,658 66,500 (23,842) 64%

583-4F · Hoses 7,887 10,000 (2,113) 79%

583-4H · Radios 11,148 17,450 (6,302) 64%

583-4K · Office Equipment 7,851 8,500 (649) 92%

583-4R · New Workstations 8,536 97,000 (88,464) 9%

583-4T · Tool Upgrades 0 4,000 (4,000) 0%

583-4U · Thermal Image Camera 7,294 8,300 (1,006) 88%

583-4V · MDC iPad Program 3,331 6,500 (3,169) 51%

Total 583-4 · EQUIPMENT 88,707 218,250 (129,543) 41%

583-5 · FUNDED FROM RESERVES

583-5B · Sta 4 Ext. Paint 0 30,000 (30,000) 0%

583-5H · Other Repairs 0 40,000 (40,000) 0%

583-5J · New Apparatus 18,665 181,050 (162,385) 10%

583-5N · Type 3 Engine 386,879 415,000 (28,121) 93%

583-5T · Apparatus Door Replacement 0 36,000 (36,000) 0%

583-5U · Telestaff 20,478 26,000 (5,522) 79%

583-5V · Station 4 Remodel 0 143,000 (143,000) 0%

583-5W · Misc One-Time Projects 38,926 65,000 (26,074) 60%

Total 583-5 · FUNDED FROM RESERVES 464,947 936,050 (471,103) 50%

585 · DEBT SERVICE 58,869 58,870 (1) 100%

589 · CONTINGENCY 0 50,000 (50,000) 0%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,771,796 15,293,937 (5,522,141) 64%

NET EXCESS/(DEFICIENCY) (739,119) (202,348)

3/13/2017- 22 -


Warrant List March 14, 2017

Date Num Name Memo Amount

Mar 14, 17

03/14/2017 808901094 FEDEX #2995-1478-1 -42.37

03/14/2017 808901093 City of Sausalito. Barnes mgmt academy -398.53

03/14/2017 808901092 WEST MARINE PRO Cust#402865 -210.98

03/14/2017 808901091 KENTFIELD FIRE Chiefs' dinner -65.00

03/14/2017 808901090 WATERSTREET COMPANY Cust 1790 - supplies -48.77

03/14/2017 808901089 WILD PHOENIX GRAPHICS Vehicle striping -4,710.33

03/14/2017 808901088 VERIZON WIRELESS MDCs Acct#971744897-00004 -220.40

03/14/2017 808901087 VERIZON WIRELESS Acct#942050785-0001 -855.14

03/14/2017 808901086 SILVERADO AVIONICS, INC. BK VHF radio -3,629.00

03/14/2017 808901085 STEPFORD MDCs -6,377.03

03/14/2017 808901084 R.J. RICCIARDI, INC. 15/16 Audit -805.00

03/14/2017 808901083 RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON grand jury report -11,385.52

03/14/2017 808901082 PG&E 4961811465-3; 0872424565-2 -1,493.42

03/14/2017 808901081 PRAXAIR ACCT# 5A086 -29.73

03/14/2017 808901080 THE CONFERENCE GROUP, LLC Acct#DDAC-0001 -40.69

03/14/2017 808901079 HOLSCHER, LORI TRX classes -400.00

03/14/2017 808901078 MARIN COUNTY FIRE Meier Wildland Officer Academy -300.00

03/14/2017 808901077 SCHONIG, FRANK RMB Nozzle Forward class -200.00

03/14/2017 808901076 OFFICE RELIEF, INC Ergonomic office equipment -5,583.40

03/14/2017 808901075 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Acct#939152000 Janitorial Supplies -487.30

03/14/2017 808901074 MARIN DIVING CENTER scba supplies -409.96

03/14/2017 808901073 Marin County Tax Collector County counsel Oct-Dec 2016 -377.50

03/14/2017 808901072 MARIN TROPHIES & TREASURES clocks for past directors -92.44

03/14/2017 808901071 Marin IT IT Support/new workstation/monitors (2) -5,074.44

03/14/2017 808901070 City of Sausalito. telephone sta 1 -488.50

03/14/2017 808901069 HANSON, IAN Rmb Co Officer 2B/2D -690.00

03/14/2017 808901068 GOLDEN STATE EMERGENCY VEHICLE SE gauge -69.39

03/14/2017 808901067 GOODMAN BUILDING SUPPLY acct# 20091 -72.71

03/14/2017 808901066 COMCAST 8155 30 012 0297650 -300.66

03/14/2017 808901065 CITY OF MILL VALLEY Jan fuel/repairs -1,730.75

03/14/2017 808901064 L.N. CURTIS & SONS alum caps (2) -470.51

03/14/2017 808901063 Collins, Patti misc. repairs -8.68

03/14/2017 808901062 BLUE POND SIGNS Sign change -109.25

03/14/2017 808901061 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS March 2017 -7,664.58

03/14/2017 808901060 AT&T 128 BAN 9391034128 -12.31

03/14/2017 808901059 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4-106071 -48.75

03/14/2017 808901058 ALLIED HEATING & AC, INC. Cust #1SOU03 - Sta 9 service call -595.00

03/14/2017 808901057 Southern Marin Fire District to payroll account for 2/26-3/11/17 -200,000.00

03/14/2017 808901056 SMPFA Union dues 2/26-3/11/17 -2,147.00

03/14/2017 808901055 SMFA Assoc Dues 2/26-3/11/17 -923.00

03/14/2017 808901054 Nationwide Retirement Solutions Def Comp 2/26-3/11/17 -2,078.86

03/14/2017 808901053 Wilmington Trust Def comp 2/26-3/11/17 #d0aee93969ff0e5 -23,904.33

03/14/2017 808901052 MARIN COUNTY RETIREMENT 2/26-3/11/17 -110,171.72

Mar 14, 17 -394,722.95

- 23 -


Warrant List February 28, 2017Date Num Name Memo Amount

Feb 28, 17

02/28/2017 808901051 EVALS LLC User licenses for academy (9) -1,080.00

02/28/2017 808901050 MARIN COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE data request for 10/11 to 16/17 -784.00

02/28/2017 808901049 HOLSCHER, LORI Rmb suspension trainers (6) -967.92

02/28/2017 808901048 AFSS Conference Kim 3/28-3/31/17 -300.00

02/28/2017 808901047 US BANK -10,758.01

02/28/2017 808901046 PG&E 7621967160-9 -347.43

02/28/2017 808901045 PROTECTION ONE ALARM MONITORING 333 Johnson St alarm -170.79

02/28/2017 808901044 NORBAY CONSULTING Sta 4 asbestos sampling -407.00

02/28/2017 808901043 MCERA Jan 2017 -27,938.88

02/28/2017 808901042 MMWD -1,079.82

02/28/2017 808901041 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES boots -411.29

02/28/2017 808901040 MARIN DIVING CENTER dive supplies -250.81

02/28/2017 808901039 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP Plan fee study -3,457.00

02/28/2017 808901038 MSM, INC. Janitorial Supplies -550.75

02/28/2017 808901037 L.N. CURTIS & SONS dual cert pants -946.32

02/28/2017 808901036 Kaiser - Occ Med 320900249124 -2,045.00

02/28/2017 808901035 Emergency Equipment Management. uniforms -584.84

02/28/2017 808901034 CITY OF MILL VALLEY Dec fuel -2,157.48

02/28/2017 808901033 Marin Health & Human Services Chance EMT renewal -52.00

02/28/2017 808901032 City of Sausalito. telephone sta 1 -499.59

02/28/2017 808901031 CITY OF MILL VALLEY OT 2/10/17 -1,158.00

02/28/2017 808901030 BLUE POND SIGNS Signs for all stations -992.33

02/28/2017 808901029 Southern Marin Fire District to payroll account for 2/12-2/25/17 -200,000.00

02/28/2017 808901028 Nationwide Retirement Solutions Def Comp 2/12-2/25/17 -2,078.86

02/28/2017 808901027 Wilmington Trust Def comp 2/12-2/25/17 #669b5121b7198896 -23,578.47

02/28/2017 808901026 MARIN COUNTY RETIREMENT 2/12-2/25/17 -110,418.38

02/28/2017 808901025 Powers, Joann Feb 2017 health benefit -1,378.39

02/28/2017 808901024 WILLIS, STEPHEN 2/22/17 Board per diem -100.00

02/28/2017 808901023 WALDECK, CHRISTINA 2/22/17 Board per diem -100.00

02/28/2017 808901022 PERAZZO, THOMAS 2/22/17 Board per diem -100.00

02/28/2017 808901021 HILLIARD, CATHRYN 2/22/17 Board per diem -100.00

02/28/2017 808901020 FLEMING, PETER 2/22/17 Board per diem -100.00

02/28/2017 808901019 CHUN, KURT 2/22/17 Board per diem -100.00

02/28/2017 808901018 CAPF March 2017` -1,298.50

02/28/2017 808901017 NPFBA March 2017 -1,916.16

02/28/2017 808901016 BCN Feb 2017 -159.00

02/28/2017 808901015 FDAC EBA March dental/life/vision -12,166.36

02/28/2017 808901014 KAISER PERMANENTE March 000000463-0007 -70,134.70

02/28/2017 808901013 CA State Disbursement Unit CSE#: 1090140153-01 -425.07

02/28/2017 808901012 SMFA Assoc Dues 2/12-2/25/17 -923.00

02/28/2017 808901011 SMPFA Union dues 2/12-2/25/17 -2,147.00

02/28/2017 808900985 VOID Voided check 0.00

Feb 28, 17 -484,163.15

- 24 -

- 25 -

- 26 -

- 27 -

- 28 -

Audit Summary – FY 2015/16:

Net Revenues over expenditures: $921,054 (p. 11).

Property tax revenues increased 6.5% over FY 14/15 - $801,331 - and total revenues exceeded the

budgeted estimate by $445,001, due to higher than budgeted property taxes, strike team overtime

reimbursements and workers comp reimbursements.

Expenditures were $16,194 less than budgeted (p. 4).

Expenses increased $140,000 over FY 14/15 (p. 4).

Net Pension Liability (NPL) per GASB 68 increased 57%: from $3.84 million to $6.03 million. This

change is largely due to the decreased assumption rate (from 7.5% in FYE 6/30/13 [used to determine

6/30/15 report] to 7.25%), and the use of more conservative mortality tables. See below for example of

how NPL is affected by the assumed discount rate.


Board of Directors Cathryn Hilliard, President

Thomas Perazzo, Vice President

Stephen Willis - Dan St. John – Kurt Chun – Christine Waldeck – Peter Fleming

- 29 -

THE 2015/2016 AUDIT COULD NOT BE

INSERTED INTO THE BOARD MEETING

PACKET DUE TO DOCUMENT SECURITY.

SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT

Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

Report

SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE PROTECTION

DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148

Mountain View, CA 94040 v.650.858.0507 f.650.917.2310

March 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 7 3. USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY 11 4. FIRE PREVENTION FEES 14 1.MODIFICATIONS TO FEE SCHEDULE 14 2.CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW 15 3.VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 16 4.FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 17 5.CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE PERMITS 18 6.FALSE ALARMS 19 7.SPECIAL SERVICES 20 8.FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES — MISCELLANEOUS 20 9.MISCELLANEOUS 21 10.NEW FEES 22 5. ANNUAL IMPACTS 24 6. COMPARATIVE MARKET SURVEY 25 7. CONCLUSION 28 ATTACHMENT: COMPARATIVE FEE SURVEY

SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA Cost of Services (User Fee) Study

Matrix Consulting Group Page 3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee)

Study conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the Southern Marin Fire Protection

District.

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK

The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost of service relationships that exist

between fees for service activities associated with fire prevention, including sprinkler

systems, fire alarm systems, vegetation management plan, state fire marshal

inspections, California fire code permits, and occupancy inspections. The results of this

Study provide a tool for understanding current service levels, the cost for providing

those services, and what fees for service can and should be charged.

2. GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted

“bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is

determined for each position within a division. Once time spent for a fee activity is

determined, all applicable District costs are then considered in the calculation of the

“full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of

costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the District:

Cost Component Description Direct

Fiscal Year 16/17 Adopted Budgeted salaries, benefits and allowable expenditures.

Divisional Overhead

District and divisional administration / management and clerical support.



Together, the cost components in the previous table above comprise the

calculation of the total “full” cost of providing any particular service, whether a fee for

that service is charged or not.

The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the

proposed fees for service involved the following steps:

• Divisional Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed staff in the fire prevention division regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items, or for the addition of new fee items.

• Data Collection: Time estimate data was collected for each item. In addition, all

budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 16/17 were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model.

• Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis

was established by combining time estimates and fully burdened hourly rates. • Review and Approval of Results with District Staff: District management have

reviewed and approved these documented results.

A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy

considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.

3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Overall, this Cost of Services Study concluded that the District under-recovered

its fire prevention fee-related service costs by approximately $373,000 in FY15-16. The

project team worked with District staff to compare fee-related annual revenue with

approximate fee-related annual expenditures in order to assess cost recovery. As a

result, this under-recovery equates to a cost recovery level of 21%. While the detailed

documentation of the Study will show an over-collection for certain fees (on a per unit

basis), and an undercharge for others, overall, the District is providing an annual

subsidy to fee payers for all services included in the analysis.



The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide

a basis for policy development discussions among Board members and District staff,

and do not represent a recommendation for where or how the Board should take action.

The setting of the “rate” or “price” for services, whether at 100 percent full cost recovery

or lower, is a policy decision to be made only by the Board, often with input from District

staff and the community.

5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES

The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the District use the information

contained in this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy,

and also to implement a mechanism for the annual update of fees for service.

(1) Adopt a Formal Cost Recovery Policy

The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the Board adopt a

formalized, individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study.

Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of

providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be

recovered through other revenue sources.

Based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s experience in analyzing local

government’s operations across the United States and in California, the typical cost

recovery levels observed for fire prevention related services varies between 20-40%.

The District’s cost recovery level of 21% for fee-related services is at the lower end of

this cost recovery range.

In recent years, more local jurisdictions have adopted formal cost recovery

policies at a program or service level (e.g. fire sprinkler systems, public education,



California Fire Code permits, etc.) The Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized

cost recovery policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.

(2) Adopt an Annual Fee Update / Increase Mechanism

The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical

structure, service level estimates and assumptions applied in the previous study, and to

account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures. The Matrix

Consulting Group believes it is a best management practice to perform a complete

update of a Fee Assessment every 3 to 5 years.

In between comprehensive updates, the District could utilize published industry

economic factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to

update the cost calculations established in the Study on an annual basis. Alternatively,

the District could also consider the use of its own anticipated labor cost increases such

as step increases, benefit enhancements, or cost of living raises. Utilizing an annual

increase mechanism would ensure that the District receives appropriate fee and

revenue increases that reflect growth in costs.



2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY

CONSIDERATIONS

A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a

public citizen or group. In California, several constitutional laws such as Propositions 13,

4, and 218, State Government Codes 66014 and 66016, and more recently Prop 26 and

the Attorney General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the user fees

typically administered by local government are established and administered.

Specifically, California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees

charged by local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of

providing the service for which the fee is charged”.

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES

Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their

communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to

constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while

others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following

table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of

the degree of community benefit received:

Services that Provide

General “Global” Community Benefit

Services that Provide Both “Global” Benefit and also a Specific Group or Individual

Benefit

Services that Provide a Primary Benefit to an Individual or Group, with

less “Global” Community Benefit

• Fire • EMS • Police • Public Works

• Fire Suppression • EMS • Prevention & Public Education • Recreation / Community Services

• Building Permits • Planning and Zoning Approval • Site Plan Review • Engineering Development Review • Facility Rentals



Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such

as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax

revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have

become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user

fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by

the general fund. In the table on the previous page, services in the “global benefit”

section tend to be funded primarily through voter approved tax revenues. In the middle

of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fee, and other funding sources.

Finally, in the “individual / group benefit” section of the table, lie the services provided by

local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.

The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:

• Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large.

• A profit making objective should not be included in the assessment of user

fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval.

Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that

will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.

2. GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES

Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a

subsidy from a tax based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that

jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on



the continuum of benefit received.

Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting

Group recognizes several reasons why District staff or the Board may not advocate the

full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in

setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:

• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee at all. Examples include State Licensed Residential Care facilities, as well as Public Records Requests for charging for time spent copying and retrieving public documents in the District’s Administrative office.

• Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below

full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for changing a water meter in a residential home is higher than the cost of the automatic residential fire sprinkler system itself, many citizens may avoid pulling certain permits for remodels or not completing the project.

• Effect on demand for a particular service. Sometimes raising the “price”

charged for services might reduce the number of participants in a program. This is largely the case in Fire Prevention programs such as CPR, CERT, Fall Prevention, or defensible space evaluations, where participants may compare the District’s fees to surrounding jurisdictions or other options for support activities.

• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is

mutual. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community as a whole. Examples include Prevention programs, event booth inspections and Fire / EMS stand-by at certain types of special events.

The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally

subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair

and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services, and assure that the

District is in compliance with State law.

Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine

the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than the full cost



amount. The Board is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of

balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity

within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times

fall into a “grey area”. However, with the resulting cost of services information from a

User Fee Study, the Board can be assured that the adopted fee for service is

reasonable, fair, and legal.



3. USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY

The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology, commonly

known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term

means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These

components then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the

service. The components of a full cost calculation are typically as follows:

Cost Component Description

Direct Salaries, benefits and allowable departmental expenditures.

Departmental Overhead Division or Departmental administration / management and clerical support.

District Overhead District costs associated with central service costs such as payroll, human resources, budgeting, District management, etc.

The general steps utilized by the project team to determine allocations of cost

components to a particular fee or service are:

• Calculate the fully burdened hourly rate for each position, including direct and indirect costs;

• Develop time estimates for each service included in the study;

• Utilize the comprehensive allocation of staff time to establish an allocation basis for the other cost components; and,

• Distribute the appropriate amount of the other cost components to each fee or

service based on the staff time allocation basis, or other reasonable basis. The result of these allocations provides detailed documentation for the

reasonable estimate of the actual cost of providing each service. The following are

critical points about the use of time estimates and the validity of cost allocation models.

One of the key study assumptions utilized in the “bottom up” approach is the use



of time estimates for the provision of each fee related service. Utilization of time

estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff

members who understand service levels and processes unique to the Fire Protection

District, developed these estimates.

The project team worked closely with Fire Prevention staff in developing time

estimates with the following criteria:

• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are excluded from the analysis.

• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically

perform a service. • Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the district, and often

involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their

experience with other agencies. • Estimates were not based on time in motion studies, as they are not practical for

the scope of services and time frame for this project. The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not

perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service for which

to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service, and it meets the requirements of California law.

The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing

on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or sometimes very

large and complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not

be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons:

• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner.

• Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and

monitoring deposit accounts.



• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for

permits or participating in programs. • Applicants may request assignment of less expensive personnel to their project. • Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using

standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes. Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time

tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group

recommends charging flat fees where possible for the reasons discussed above.

However, in instances of large and complex projects, taking a deposit and charging

Actual Costs for those projects would be appropriate.



4. FIRE PREVENTION FEES

The Southern Marin Fire Protection District (SMFD) provides emergency services

to the communities of Tamalpais Valley, Almonte, Homestead Valley, Alto, Strawberry,

Tiburon, Sausalito, Marin Headlands, and Fort Baker. The District’s areas of

responsibility include Community Risk Reduction, Suppression, Emergency Medical

Services, Rescue, Marine Response, Disaster Preparedness, and Community

Education. The Southern Marin Fire Protection District Fire Prevention Bureau is

responsible for all fire prevention, fire hazard inspection, community development plan

check, and fire code enforcement services. The fees examined in this study relate to

plan check and inspection services for development permits along with California Fire

Code Permits, Fire Protection System permits, annual business inspections, and other

prevention-related fees. The following chapter explores modifications made to the

current fee structure for the District and the detailed per unit results.

1. MODIFICATIONS TO FEE SCHEDULE

In collaboration with District staff, the project team developed a comprehensive

fee schedule encompassing all fee related services currently provided by the District.

The fee schedule includes items taken from the existing structure and incorporates the

following modifications:

• Designating plan check and inspection services by type (e.g. Planning Division, Building – Construction)

• Breaking out plan review by Occupancy Type (e.g A—Assembly Fixed Seating) • Breaking out Vegetation Management Plan permits by type (e.g Single-Family

Dwelling, Multi-Family Dwelling)



• Adding Re-submittal and Re-inspection categories for all Vegetation Management Plans

• Breaking out Photovoltaic System permits by Type (e.g residential, commercial) • Establishing the number of plan submittals and re-submittals included per service

(where applicable) • Establishing the number of inspections and re-inspections included per service

(where applicable) • Converting Final Occupancy to a Deposit-based fee • Updating the Sprinklers square footage ranges for Fire Sprinkler plan check and

inspections to 0-5,000 sq. ft and 5,000 sq. ft and above • Updating the range category for Fire Sprinkler Tenant Improvement plan check

and inspection services to each 10 sprinkler heads • Updating the range categories for Automatic Extinguishing System plan check

and inspections to 0-10 nozzles and each additional nozzle • Breaking out California Fire Code Permits by type • Adding new fees reflecting services currently provided but not listed on the

current schedule related to occupancy inspections, California State Fire Marshal Pre-inspections, Motion Picture / Television applications, and Pre-Sale Inspections.

As the points above indicate, the proposed fee structure for the Southern Marin

Fire Protection District serves to streamline the existing schedule in order to accurately

reflect the current services provided. This new fee structure will allow the District to

better capture its fire prevention services and appropriately assess fees.

2. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW

District staff chose to modify the existing Construction Plan Review fee structure

by establishing multiple classifications in order to better reflect the services currently

being provided. The following table presents the proposed fee category, the current fee

charged, the total cost calculated through the study, and the resulting surplus / deficit.



Fee Name Current Fee /

Revenue Total Per Unit Cost

Surplus / (Deficit) Per Unit

Residential—New (3 Submittals / Reviews) $295 $496 $(201) Residential—Remodel (3 Submittals / Reviews) $295 $496 $(201) Commercial—New (5 Submittals / Reviews) $295 $674 $(379) Commercial—T.I. (5 Submittals / Reviews) $295 $674 $(379) Residential Re-submittal $177 $248 $(71) Commercial Re-submittal $177 $248 $(71)

As the table above shows, the District is currently under-recovering for the

majority of its Construction - Plan Check services. More specifically, the under-recovery

associated with these services ranges from a low of $71 for both commercial and

residential re-submittal fees to a high of $379 for Commercial Plan Review – New

Construction and Commercial Plan Review – Tenant Improvement services. On

average, the District is recovering approximately 58% of its per unit costs related to

Construction – Plan Review.

3. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

The project team worked with staff to modify the Vegetation Management Plan

fee category as noted in the modifications section. More specifically, District staff chose

to expand the existing Vegetation Management Plan fee structure to more accurately

reflect the current services being provided. These modifications included the addition of

new fee categories for Multi-Family Dwellings and Re-submittal and Re-inspection

services. Additionally, staff elected to add language defining the appropriate service

levels for Single-Family and Multi-Family Dwellings. (e.g. 1 Plan Review / 2

Inspections). The following table presents the proposed fee category, the current fee

charged, the total cost calculated through the study, and the resulting surplus / deficit.

Fee Name Current Fee

Total Cost Per Unit

Surplus / (Deficit) Per

Unit Single-Family Dwelling (1 plan review / 2 inspections) $354 $588 $(234) Multi-Family Dwelling (1 plan review / 2 inspections) $354 $588 $(234)




Total Cost Per Unit


Unit VMP Re-submittal NEW $248 N / A VMP Re-inspection NEW $200 N / A

As the previous table shows, all Pre-Construction Consultation fees are currently

under-recovering on a per unit basis. The under-recovery for this category currently

stands at $234. On average, the District is recovering approximately 60% of its per unit

costs related to the Vegetation Management Plan permits.

4. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES As discussed in the modifications summary section, the project team worked with

district staff to modify the existing Fire Protection Services category. First, staff chose to

establish the categorical ranges for NFPA 13D Systems and NFPA 13 or 13R systems

at up to 5,000 square feet and 5,000 square feet or greater, respectively. Staff also

chose to consolidate the fee categories listed for Commercial Tenant Improvement

projects into a single fee, establishing a restructured range of each 10 sprinkler heads.

Similarly, restructured ranges of up to 10 nozzles and each additional nozzle were

applied to Automatic Extinguishing Systems. The following table presents the proposed

fee category, the current fee charged, the total cost calculated through the study, and

the resulting surplus / deficit.

Fee Name Current Fee / Revenue

Total Cost Per Unit


Unit Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems

NFPA 13D (up to 5,000 sq ft.) $354 $531 $(177) NFPA 13 or 13R (5,000+ sq ft.) $531 $792 $(261) Commercial T.I. (each 10 heads) $295 $531 $(236) Underground $354 $531 $(177)

Automatic Extinguishing Systems Hood and Duct (up to 10 nozzles) $354 $401 $(47) Hood and Duct (each additional nozzle) NEW $67 N / A Spray Booths and Other Systems $177 $738 $(561)



Fee Name Current Fee / Revenue

Total Cost Per Unit


Unit Fire Alarm Systems

Sprinkler System Monitoring $177 $335 $(158) Building under 6,000 sq. ft. $354 $531 $(177) Building over 6,000 sq. ft. $531 $662 $(131)

All Other Systems Other Systems (per hour) $177 $289 $(112) Dry and Wet Stand Pipes $354 $668 $(314) Private Fire Hydrants $354 $448 $(94)

Additional Plan Reviews (per hour) $177 $248 $(71) Additional Inspections (per hour) $177 $200 $(23)

As the previous table shows, the District is currently under-recovering for plan

check and inspection services related to Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarm, Fire Extinguishing

and other Fire Protection related systems. The under-recovery associated with these

services ranges from a low of $23 for additional inspections to a high of $561 for the

Spray Booth permit. On average, the District is recovering approximately 66% of its per

unit cost for Fire Protection Services.

5. CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE PERMITS

District staff decided to expand the existing California Fire Code Permit fee

category in order to incorporate various permit types that reflect the current services

provided, including: Hot Work operations, Open Flames and Torches, Industrial Ovens,

etc. The following table presents the proposed fee category, the total cost associated

with that service, and the resulting surplus / deficit.


Total Per Unit Cost


Unit Tent and Temporary Structures

under 1,500 sq. ft. $177 $401 $(224) 1,500 - 6,000 sq. ft $354 $466 $(112) 6,000+ sq. ft $531 $596 $(65) SFM Facility 25 or less (State Fire Marshal) $50 $235 $(185) SFM Facility 26 or more (State Fire Marshal) $100 $301 $(201)




Total Per Unit Cost


Unit California Fire Code Permits $0.00

Cutting and Welding $295 $289 $6 Fire Pumps and related equipment $295 $200 $95 Hot Work Operations $295 $289 $6 Industrial Ovens $295 $266 $29 Lumber Yards Woodworking Plants $295 $266 $29 Open Burning $295 $289 $6 Open Flames and Torches $295 $224 $71 Private Fire Hydrants $295 $200 $95 Rooftop Heliports $295 $200 $95 Wood Products $295 $200 $95 Tents and Air Supported Structures $295 $200 $95 Other ** (Hourly Rate) $295 $200 $95

As shown in table above, State Fire Code permits are over-recovering on a per

unit basis. The over-recovery associated with these services ranges from a low of $6 to

a high of $95. However, fees related to Tent and Temporary Structures are actually

under-recovering on a per unit basis. The under-recovery ranges from a low of $65 to a

high of $224. Overall, the average recovery on a per unit basis is 106%.

6. FALSE ALARMS

District staff chose not to modify the existing False Alarm fee categories. The

following table presents the current fee category, the total cost associated with that

service, and the resulting surplus / deficit.

Fee Name Current

Fee Total Cost

Per Unit


Alarm System Malfunction resulting in Fire District response $225 $448 $(223) Fire District response due to failure to notify Prior to testing $225 $200 $25 Intentional Activation of alarm system where no emergency exists $225 $448 $(223)

As the table above shows, two of the three fees related to False Alarms are

currently under-recovering on a per-unit basis. Fees that are currently under-recovering

in this category have a deficit of $223. Conversely, the District is over-recovering for the

Response Due to Failure to Notify fee, which has a surplus of $25. On average, the



district is recovering 71% of its per unit costs related to False Alarms.

7. SPECIAL SERVICES

Similar to False Alarm fees, staff chose to leave the existing structure as it

currently stands. The following table presents the current fee category, the total cost

associated with that service, and the resulting surplus / deficit.

Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Per Unit


Incident Reports $50 $70 $(20) Fire Investigation Reports $50 $70 $(20) Duplicate Prints of Photo's $50 $70 $(20) Deposition / Interview of Civil Matters Actual Cost $674 N / A Public Information Records $50 $248 $(198)

As the table above shows, the District is under-recovering for Special Services

fees. The under-recovery ranges from a low $20 for various fees to a high of $198 for

Public Information Records. Additionally, the District also charges the Deposition /

Interview of Civil Matters fee based on actual costs given that the staff time associated

per unit varies and requires time-based processes separate from flat fees. Overall, the

average recovery on a per unit basis is 59%.

8. FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES — MISCELLANEOUS

In addition to Planning Division — Plan Review, Construction Plan Review &

Inspection, and Vegetation Management Plans, SMFPD also provides Fire Prevention

services related to Photovoltaic Systems, Ministries, and Wildland Urban Interface Fire

Protection. As noted in the modifications section, the project team worked with staff to

establish new fee categories by project type for services related to Photovoltaic

Systems, including Commercial, Residential, and Additional Re-inspection categories.

Additionally, the Final Occupancy without Final fee category was converted from a per

day fee to a deposit-based fee. The project team did not assess the Unauthorized Work



fee as it is not a fee for service, but rather a penalty or fine. The following table presents

the proposed fee category, the current fee charged, the total cost calculated through the

study, and the resulting surplus / deficit.


Total Cost Per Unit


Unit Ministerial Permits $295 $283 $12 WUI Fire Protection Plan $354 $496 $(142) Unauthorized Work Fee Double Fee $827 N / A Final Occupancy without Final Deposit Deposit Deposit Photovoltaic Systems

Commercial $354 $466 $(112) Residential $354 $401 $(47) Additional re-inspection NEW $270 N / A

As the previous table shows, the District is currently under-recovering when

providing miscellaneous fire prevention services. The under-recovery for the

miscellaneous Fire Prevention services ranges from a low of $47 to a high of $142.

Conversely, the District is over-recovering at a surplus of $12 for Ministerial permits on

a per unit basis. On average, the District is recovering approximately 85% of its per unit

costs.

9. MISCELLANEOUS

For fees that fall under the miscellaneous category, staff chose not to modify the

existing structure. The following table presents the current fee category, the total cost

associated with that service, and the resulting surplus / deficit.

Fee Name Current

Fee Total Cost

Per Unit Surplus /

(Deficit) Per Unit Special Events / Fire Watch (plus Actual Cost) $354 $200 $154 Late Charge for delinquent fees $50 $140 $(90) Service Fee for Returned Checks $50 $140 $(90) Other Outside Services $177 $140 $37

As shown in the previous table, the miscellaneous fee category contains fees

that are both under-recovering and over-recovering. Fees that are currently under-



recovering in this category have a deficit of $90, while the over-recovering fees maintain

a surplus ranging from a low of $37 to a high of $154. On average, the District is

recovering approximately 94% of its per unit cost for fees in the miscellaneous category.

10. NEW FEES As briefly summarized in the Fee Schedule Modifications section, the project

team also worked with District staff to identify additional fire prevention services for

which it does not currently charge fees for, such as: Planning Division – Plan Review,

New Construction Projects Inspections, Annual Occupancy Inspections, State Fire

Marshal Pre-Inspections, and Motion Picture / Television applications. The following

table presents the total cost of each fee category.

Fee Name Total Cost

Per Unit Planning Division - Plan Review (Commercial)

A—Assembly Fixed Seating $318 B—Business $318 E—Educational Group Occupancy (6+ persons, up to 12th grade) $318 F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate Hazard $472 H-1—High Hazard Group $561 I-1—Institutional—7+ persons, ambulatory $318 L—LABS $318 M—Mercantile—Department & Drug Store $318 S-1—Storage—Moderate Hazard $383 U—Accessory—Agricultural Building $318

Planning Division - Plan Review (Residential) R-1 Residential—Transient $496 R-2 Residential—Permanent, 2+ Dwellings $318 R-3 Dwellings—Custom Homes $318 R-4 Residential—Assisted Living (6-16 persons) $496

Construction Inspection Residential—New (3 Inspections) $331 Residential—Remodel (3 Inspections) $331 Commercial—New (5 Inspections) $662 Commercial—T.I. (5 Inspections) $662 Residential Re-Inspection $200 Commercial Re-Inspection $200

Pre-sale Inspection $200 Occupancy Inspections

Assembly $531 Educational $662 Business $270



Fee Name Total Cost

Per Unit Institution $531 Hazardous $401 Camps $335 Factory $401 Mercantile $270 Labs $335 Residential - Single Family Dwelling $270 Residential - Multi Family Dwelling $335 Hotel / Motel $531 Residential Care Facility $531 Storage $401 Miscellaneous $270

California State Fire Marshal Pre-inspections Residential (less than 25 clients) $270 Residential (more than 25 clients) $436 Commercial (less than 25 clients) $270 Commercial (more than 25 clients) $436

Motion Picture / Television Permit Production Application $448

As shown in the table above and on the previous page, the District can generate

new revenue streams by formally implementing any of the fee categories listed in the

table above into the existing fee structure.



5. ANNUAL IMPACTS

The project team gathered information regarding FY 15-16 fee revenue and

projected FY 16-17 fee-related expenditures in order to assess the cost recovery level

of the Fire Prevention division. While actual annual volume / workload statistics were

not readily available, the project team worked with District staff to approximate annual

fee-related time spent providing plan review and inspection services. Projected fee-

related expenditures are based on the available staff hours devoted to fee-related

services combined with the fully burdened hourly rates for applicable positions. This

analysis projected approximately $474,000 of fee-related expenditures for the District

The following table shows the current revenue, projected annual fee-related cost, and

associated cost-recovery.

Category Amount FY 15-16 Actual Fee-Related Revenue $100,928 Fee-Related Expenditures $473,671

Total $(372,743) Cost Recovery 21%

When comparing the FY 15-16 revenue with the proposed FY 16-17 budgeted

expenditures for fee related services, the District is expected to have a subsidy of

$373,00. This subsidy equates to a 21% cost recovery level, which is at the low end of

typical recovery levels seen for other Fire Districts (20-40%).



6. COMPARATIVE MARKET SURVEY

As part of this Cost of Services (User Fee) Study for the Southern Marin Fire

Protection District, the Matrix Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of

fees. The District identified seven jurisdictions to be included in the comparative survey:

the City of San Rafael Fire Department, Marin County Fire Department, Ross Valley

Fire Department, Napa Fire Department, Tiburon Fire Protection District, Novato Fire

Protection District, and San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.

While this report will provide the District with a reasonable estimate and

understanding of the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to

consider the local “market rates” for services as a means for assessing what types of

changes in fee levels their community can bear. However, a comparative survey does

not provide adequate or objective information regarding the relationship of a

jurisdiction’s cost to its fees. Three important factors to consider when comparing fees

across multiple jurisdictions are: population, operating fire department budget, and size

of fire department workforce. The following tables provide statistical information

regarding the jurisdictions included in the comparative survey.

Population Ranking by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction 2013 Census Tiburon FPD 11,084 Ross Valley FD 25,152 Southern Marin FPD 34,700 San Rafael FS 58,994 Novato FPD 65,000 Napa FD 79,068 San Ramon Valley FPD 169,900 Marin County FD 258,365



Budget Ranking by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction FY 16/17 Budget Tiburon FPD $7,741,150 Ross Valley FD $8,788,476 San Rafael FD $11,186,757 Southern Marin FPD $13,641,174 Napa FD $17,671,491 Marin County FD $17,786,045 Novato FPD $27,297,818 San Ramon Valley FPD $63,736,084

FTE Ranking by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction FY 16/17 FTE Ross Valley FD 33.00 Tiburon FPD 45.00 Southern Marin FPD 53.00 Napa FD 69.51 Novato FPD 77.00 San Rafael FD 79.00 Marin County FD 90.14 San Ramon Valley FPD 184.00

Based on the data shown in the tables above and on the previous page, the

Southern Marin Fire Protection District ranks slightly below average in terms of

population, staffing, and operating budget.

In addition to demographic factors, the project team calculated a projected cost

recovery percentage for fire prevention services. The following table ranks the cost

recovery percentage for those jurisdictions surveyed and where the data was available.

Jurisdiction Cost Recovery %1 Novato FPD 3% Napa FD 15% Southern Marin FPD2 21% San Ramon Valley FPD 25% Tiburon FPD 193%

These cost recovery percentages will allow the District to place into context the

1 The cost recovery percentage for the comparative jurisdictions was calculated based on the available budget data from each jurisdiction for FY15-16 Revenue and FY15-16 Expenditures. 2 The cost recovery percentage for Southern Marin FPD was calculated by the project team based on FY15-16 fee-related revenue, and FY16-17 projected expenditures.



fee comparisons presented as an attachment to this chapter. Therefore, if there are

higher fees in Petaluma this could be due to their decision to achieve higher cost

recovery comparative to other jurisdictions. Along with keeping these statistics and

information in mind, the following issues should also be noted regarding the use of

market surveys in the setting of fees for service:

• Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on actual cost of providing services.

• The same “fee” with the same name may include more or less steps or sub-

activities. In addition, jurisdictions provide varying levels of service and have varying levels of costs associated with providing services such as staffing levels, salary levels, indirect overhead costs, etc. In addition to the issues noted above, market surveys also run the risk of creating

excess that will obscure rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is

different, it is recommended that the survey be used as a secondary decision-making

tool. The results of the survey are shown in an attachment to this report.



7. CONCLUSION

The Southern Marin Fire Protection District engaged the Matrix Consulting Group

to determine the total cost of services provided to its citizens and businesses for fee

related services. To calculate the total cost of each Department / Division’s services, the

Matrix Consulting Group employed both a widely accepted and defensible methodology,

as well as the experience and input of District staff to complete the necessary data

collection and discussion to complete the analysis. District staff and the Board can now

use this information to make informed decisions and set its fees to meet the fiscal and

policy goal objectives of the District.

Overall, this Cost of Services Study concluded that the District under-recovers its

costs by approximately $373,000 per year for its fire prevention fee-related services.

While the detailed documentation of the Study will show an over-collection for certain

fees (on a per unit basis), and an undercharge for others, overall, the District is

providing an annual subsidy to fee payers for all services included in the analysis.

The project team recommends the District lower fees that show an over-recovery

in order to comply with state laws. For fees that show an under-recovery, the District

should review all circumstances and policy factors and raise fees where feasible. For

fees that the District chooses to subsidize, policies should be established to outline

target recovery percentages.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY


Matrix Consulting Group Attachment: Comparative Fee Survey Page 1 of 4

Fee Schedule Adopted / Effective Date Aug. 2015 Jan. 2000 Dec 2013 2013 Feb. 2015 Jan. 2016 Nov. 2015

Current Full CostPlanning Division - Plan Review (Commercial)

A—Assembly Fixed Seating NEW 318$ B—Business NEW 318$ E—Educational Group Occupancy (6+ persons, up to 12th grade) NEW 318$ F-1 Factory Industrial—Moderate Hazard NEW 472$ H-1—High Hazard Group NEW 561$ I-1—Institutional—7+ persons, ambulatory NEW 318$ L—LABS NEW 318$ M—Mercantile—Department & Drug Store NEW 318$ S-1—Storage—Moderate Hazard NEW 383$ U—Accessory—Agricultural Building NEW 318$ All Shell Buildings NEW -$

Planning Division - Plan Review (Residential)R-1 Residential—Transient NEW 496$ R-2 Residential—Permanent, 2+ Dwellings NEW 318$ R-3 Dwellings—Custom Homes NEW 318$ R-4 Residential—Assisted Living (6-16 persons) NEW 496$

Construction Plan Review

Residential—New (3 Submittals / Reviews) 295$ 496$

Residential—Remodel (3 Submittals / Reviews) 295$ 496$

Commercial—New (5 Submittals / Reviews) 295$ 674$

Commercial—T.I. (5 Submittals / Reviews) 295$ 674$ Residential Re-submittal 177$ 248$ 185$ 322$ Commercial Re-submittal 177$ 248$ 185$ 322$

Construction Inspection

Residential—New (3 Inspections) NEW 331$

Residential—Remodel (3 Inspections) NEW 331$

Commercial—New (5 Inspections) NEW 662$

Commercial—T.I. (5 Inspections) NEW 662$ Residential Re-Inspection NEW 200$ 110$ 322$ Commercial Re-Inspection NEW 200$ 110$ 322$

$337 (includes 1 plan review, 1 re-submittal, 1 field insp., 1 re-insp) New / Addition - 0-

5,000 sq. ft.: $786; 5,001-

10,000:$1,317; 10,001-20,000:

$337 (includes 1 plan review, 1 re-submittal, 1 field insp., 1 re-insp) New / Addition - 0-

5,000 sq. ft.: $786; 5,001-

10,000:$1,317; 10,001-20,000:

Apartment — 11-40 units: $320,

40+ units: $455; All Other Types:

$320

360$

San Ramon Valley NapaFee Name Southern Marin Tiburon Novato San Rafael Fire Marin County Ross Valley

Hourly Rate

Hourly Rate

Hourly Rate

Hourly Rate Actual Cost ($177 / hr)

Actual Cost ($177 / hr)

Actual Cost

Actual Cost

25% of Building

Permit Fee

25% of Building

Permit Fee




Current Full CostSan Ramon Valley NapaFee Name Southern Marin Tiburon Novato San Rafael

Fire Marin County Ross Valley

Vegetation Management PlanSingle-Family Dwelling (1 plan review / 2 inspection) 354$ 588$ 352$ 354$

Multi-Family Dwelling (1 plan review / 2 inspection)

354$ 588$

2-5 Residencies: $880, 6-15

Residencies: $1,408, 16+ Residencies:

$1,760

2-5 residencies: $531; 6-15 residencies: $1,416; 16+:

$1,770 VMP Re-submittal NEW 248$ 110$ VMP Re-inspection NEW 200$ 110$

FIRE PREVENTION SERVICESMinisterial Permits 295$ 283$ 295$ WUI Fire Protection Plan 354$ 496$ 352$ 354$

Unauthorized Work Fee Double Fee 827$ double initial

fee Double Fee

Final Occupancy without Final Deposit DepositPhotovoltaic Systems

Commercial 354$ 466$ 354$ Residential 354$ 401$ 354$ Additional re-inspection NEW 270$ 177$ 110$

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICESAutomatic Fire Sprinkler Systems

NFPA 13D (up to 5,000 sq ft.) 354$ 531$ 288$ 352$ $300 + $4 /

sprinkler 354$ 561$

NFPA 13 or 13R (5,000+ sq ft.)

531$ 792$

Up to 94 heads: $397; (ea add'l: $3) 352$

0-10 sprinklers: $300 + $4 /

sprinkler; 11+ sprinklers: $450 + $4 /

sprinkler

Residential: $354;

Commercial: $531

(New System) 1-20 heads: $732;

Addition/Remodel: $578, ea. Add'l: $81

Commercial T.I. (each 10 heads)

295$ 531$ Under 10

heads: $137 375$

1-10 heads: $295; 11-30 heads: $354

0-25: $386, 26-99: $520, 100+:

$655 $ 81

0-100 heads: $346; ea.

Additional 50 heads: $103

Underground354$ 531$ 288$ 300$ 354$

Plan Check:$295; Insp: $346

Automatic Extinguishing SystemsHood and Duct (up to 10 nozzles) 354$ 401$ 179$ 300$ 243$ Hood and Duct (each additional nozzle) NEW 67$ 234$ 300$ 243$ Spray Booths and Other Systems 177$ 738$ 179$ 300$ 243$

578$

360$

320$

Residential - <5,000 Sq. ft.:

$520, >5,000 Sq. ft: $587

Commercial: $550

Auto. Suppression

Systems: $360

300$


Residential - $243;

Alteration: $140 /

system; Commercial - 0-100 heads:

$276; ea. Additional 50 heads: $103

Plan Review: $26






Fire Alarm SystemsSprinkler System Monitoring 177$ 335$ 179$

Building under 6,000 sq. ft. 354$ 531$ 343$ 264$ 264$ 354$

Building over 6,000 sq. ft. 531$ 662$ 343$ 264$ 264$ 354$ All Other Systems

Other Systems (per hour) 177$ 289$ 179$ 578$ Dry and Wet Stand Pipes 354$ 668$ 343$ 300$ 587$ 578$ Private Fire Hydrants 354$ 448$ 343$ 150$

Additional Plan Reviews (per hour) 177$ 248$ 50% of original 185$ 239$

Additional Inspections (per hour) 177$ 200$ 109$ 185$ 254$ PERMITSTent and Temporary Structures

under 1,500 sq. ft. 177$ 401$ 123$ 300$ 320$ 1,500 - 6,000 sq. ft 354$ 466$ 232$ 300$ 320$ 6,000+ sq. ft 531$ 596$ 287$ 300$ 320$

SFM Facility 25 or less (State Fire Marshal) 50$ 235$ 50$ SFM Facility 26 or more (State Fire Marshal) 100$ 301$ 100$ California Fire Code Permits

Cutting and Welding 295$ 289$ 240$ 320$ 50$ Fire Pumps and related equipment 295$ 200$ 520$ Hot Work Operations 295$ 289$ 240$ 320$ 50$ Industrial Ovens 295$ 266$ 300$ 587$ 50$ Lumber Yards Woodworking Plants 295$ 266$ 240$ 320$ 50$ Open Burning 295$ 289$ 240$ 320$ 116$ Open Flames and Torches 295$ 224$ 240$ 320$ 50$ Private Fire Hydrants 295$ 200$ 240$ 578$ 50$ Rooftop Heliports 295$ 200$ 240$ 50$ Wood Products 295$ 200$ 240$ 320$ 50$ WUI Fire Protection PlanTents and Air Supported Structures NEW 200$ 240$ 320$ 227$ Other ** (Hourly Rate) NEW 200$ 240$ 125$ 247$

FALSE ALARMS

Alarm System Malfunction resulting in Fire District response 225$ 448$ 164$

Fire District response due to failure to notify Prior to testing 225$ 200$ 164$

Intentional Activation of alarm system where no emergency exists 225$ 448$ 164$ SPECIAL SERVICES

Incident Reports 50$ 70$ 17$

1-20 devices: $628; each additional:

$225

289$

Actual Costs + 10%

Actual Costs

176$ 295$



New System: $520;

Modification: $3200

New - Base: $243, Per 20

Devices: $103

Actual Cost

Malicious / Negligent (3 or more in

180 consecutive days): $682

Actual Cost






Fire Investigation Reports 50$ 70$ 28$ Duplicate Prints of Photo's 50$ 70$ 28$ Deposition / Interview of Civil Matters Actual Cost 674$ Actual Cost Deposit + Full Cost

Public Information Records

50$ 248$

Board Packets &

minutes: $17 (first page);

$1 (ea. Add'l)

$.10 per page

MISCELLANEOUSSpecial Events / Fire Watch (plus Actual Cost) 354$ 200$ 123$ Actual Cost Service Fee for Returned Checks 50$ 140$ 30$ 25$

NEW FEESOccupancy Inspections

Assembly NEW 531$ Educational NEW 662$ Business NEW 270$ Institution NEW 531$ Hazardous NEW 401$ 320$ Camps NEW 335$ Factory NEW 401$ Mercantile NEW 270$ Labs NEW 335$ Residential - Single Family Dwelling NEW 270$ Residential - Multi Family Dwelling NEW 335$ Hotel / Motel NEW 531$ 320$ Residential Care Facility NEW 531$ 320$ Storage NEW 401$ 320$ Miscellaneous NEW 270$

California State Fire Marshal Pre-inspectionsResidential (less than 25 clients) NEW 270$ 50$ 202$ Residential (more than 25 clients) NEW 436$ 100$ 327$ Commercial (less than 25 clients) NEW 270$ 50$ 202$ Commercial (more than 25 clients) NEW 436$ 100$ 327$

Motion Picture / Television Permit Production Application NEW 448$ 123$

$307 / hr

Actual Costs + 10%

No Charge

1-15 units: $262, 16-75: $404, 76+:

$749

Actual Cost ($177 / hr) 150$


Actual Cost

Actual Cost