Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Corte Madera adopts fire impact fee ordinance to fund future fire infrastructure
Summary
Council adopted ordinance No. 10 51 establishing fire impact fees based on a consultant nexus study. Staff said the fees are proportional to infrastructure replacement costs and projected growth; an urgency ordinance was also renewed to keep fees in effect pending full adoption.
The Corte Madera Town Council on Dec. 16 adopted an ordinance establishing fire impact fees after receiving a consultant presentation on the methodology and fee comparisons with neighboring jurisdictions.
Town staff and Matrix Consulting consultant Khushbu Engel explained that impact fees must be tied to infrastructure costs and proportional future demand. The analysis separated locally owned fire‑station replacement costs (which differ by jurisdiction) from jointly owned Central Marin Fire Authority equipment costs; the consultant said Corte Madera’s stations total roughly 20,000 square feet compared with Larkspur’s 15,000 square feet, increasing Corte Madera’s proportional replacement cost. Projected population growth figures (staff cited a roughly 15% 15‑year growth estimate for Corte Madera versus 9% for Larkspur) and differing unit sizes were included in the per‑square‑foot calculations.
Councilmembers pressed staff about the fee’s size in regional context and whether the charge would deter development. Staff advised the fee is intended to offset new‑development impacts proportionally and is not designed to fund full replacement of a station; the consultant said the estimated $4.5 million in revenue over 15 years would not cover a full station replacement by itself.
After public comment and discussion, Councilmember (speaker 8) moved to adopt ordinance No. 10 51 establishing the fees and fee schedule; the motion passed unanimously on a roll‑call vote. The council also voted to renew, for 30 days, an urgency ordinance (No. 10 55) to keep the fees in effect while the permanent ordinance completes the second‑reading and implementation timeline.
