Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Marinwood Contract topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

San Rafael commission briefed on Marinwood contract amendment that would cost city $350,000

San Rafael Fire Commission · June 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners were told Marinwood’s board unanimously approved a second amendment to a shared-services contract that would pay Marinwood $350,000 and end $110,000 in chief-officer services to San Rafael; the amendment is slated for the City Council consent calendar.

San Rafael’s Fire Commission heard details of a proposed second amendment to the shared-services agreement with Marinwood that the commission was told would shift roughly $350,000 from San Rafael to Marinwood while eliminating about $110,000 in chief-officer services the city currently receives.

Commissioner Chung reported that Marinwood’s board of directors “unanimously approved the contract on their end.” She said the amendment preserves existing shared-services arrangements while formalizing payment of $350,000 to Marinwood to support station staffing and related coverage.

According to the commission briefing, Marinwood runs about 900,000 calls that affect San Rafael coverage, and the amendment is intended to help Marinwood staff its station and hire firefighter‑paramedics. Commissioner Chung said the payment is intended as roughly a one‑year arrangement; the longer-term goal is a regional study of a model that could include CSA 13, CSA 19, Marinwood and San Rafael.

The commission was also told the contract does not transfer ownership of Marinwood assets — Marinwood would retain station ownership and legal authority — and that future negotiations would be required if the parties move toward any expanded arrangement. The item was placed on the City Council consent calendar for the May 15 meeting; commissioners were invited to provide public comment at that council meeting.

The commission did not take a formal action on the amendment during the meeting itself.