Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to  Revise  Fees for Fire Department Services and Permits. (Fire 10032220)
It is a public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending Master P Resolution 121912 Revised fees for fire department services and permits. Thank you. And who is presenting this one? Mr. Levitt. I know, but help me out. Who is. Presenting? Okay. I'm sorry. We're promoting the interim fire chief right now. Sorry. All right. Remember the fight? Got it. Okay. Okay. Ready when you are. Hello. Interim chief is on Beck. You're still there. Good morning or good. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council rookies on Beck Interim Fire Chief. So I don't know that there's a presentation to be had here. I'm here to answer questions, but I can certainly fill in for anything that you or any questions that you have and you have a report in front of you. There's previous history with this. As you all know, it was in front of you in July and it got you know, it got extended to this evening. Okay. Listen, my answer or what can I answer for you? Sure. Counsel, do we have any I should ask Madam Kirk, do we have public speakers on this item? Do you not? All right, then. I'm closing. Come on, just raise your hand. I'm not closing. Public comment. Let's hear a public comment and then come back to council questions and discussions, if we could. So let's go ahead and hear from our public speaker. We have two now, Beth Kenny. All right. Good evening, Speaker Kenny. How do you think? I am hoping to. Learn a little bit more about these fees. I am concerned about whether they will be. Applied to people who. Are getting services through the alternative response team that will be based out of the fire department and because that will be a real barrier to service. So I just want to make sure that. These fees are. Not being applied. Oh. Speaker Kenny, you cut out there. Madam Clerk, is she. Are they still with us? Yeah. I'm not sure. We could go to the next speaker and ring. Let's try that. Speaker, can you back? Okay. Yeah. The next speaker is Jennifer Rakowski. Good evening, Speaker Rakowski. Hi. Thank you. Counsel. I would like to echo what best was starting to say as we transition more services over to the fire. Department. And we reimagine the mission. Of the fire department. I think we need to keep in mind these and the impact of the fees. On our most vulnerable members of our community. I urge you also to look with a racial equity lens and to some of the comments about city fees that the racial equity task forces highlighted. And even as these reports highlight, there's a lack of transparency about how much of the fees are recovered he needs to pay. I've heard reports from members of the community where they initially attempted reimbursement through their health care provider and if they rejected a out of service payment. So whether it's hardship provisions, increased transparency and looking at fees as it relates to the expanded mission of the fire department, I think there is. A. Whiff that the resolution. Is silent on. That the council should take up. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. We'll try Speaker Kenney again and see if she can speak. Yeah, I think we've been having Internet issues. There you are. Hi. Hi. Thank you. Sorry, I'm not sure where I got cut off, but basically I was just saying I want to. Make sure that these fees. Don't apply to the alternative response model that's going to be based out of the fire department. And I do think that we need to look at these fees and how, as Speaker Koski was saying. They are collected. What portion are actually getting passed. On to individuals and is there. Income based. Considerations? Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Deborah mendoza. Good evening, Speaker Mendoza. Yeah. Good evening. I also want to. Share my concerns when I when I. Heard that. There potentially could be a fee to those who receive services. I'm just very opposed to that. When I worked. With victims of crime, a lot of times I've seen situations where victims are charged for an ambulance that was brought dispatched for their for their own care. And we don't need that at all. And especially when. We consider the people that are going to be. Receiving these services most likely are marginalized, our. Most vulnerable members of our community. Right now, this whole state of California has just eliminated fees for, you know, juveniles. Who are facing the criminal. Justice system. We do not need to have a share of this. Costs go. To the people who are. Receiving these services, especially with this with this national model, do not do not fit the bill to the people who will be receiving services. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Melody Montgomery. Good evening, Speaker Montgomery. Good evening again. I was going to say a lot of things, but Deborah and Jennifer pretty much said everything that I wanted to say. So I'm just going to let other people speak and ask you two to keep in mind what they said about. Our most vulnerable. Being. Charged in their most vulnerable moment. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Our final speaker is savannah chair. Good evening, speaker. Chair. Hi. I think it's also already been said, like I think Melanie brought up. I was just going to support the comments that that that then Jennifer made. And I just wonder if this is a little bit of a piece of the pilot program that may have gone overlooked. I mean, because it's a pilot and it's new, it may not have been considered. So just to put this out there that, you know, it won't make a lot of sense to ask someone in crisis to pay a fee for a program that was designed to help that person in crisis. So it's difficult, I think, just to I want to point out that the public may not understand and I didn't understand this until I looked into it a bit more, that the kind of paramedic aspect of fire service is different than like the firefighting. And so if you get like an ambulance transport or you have like a a first responder, like an EMT, you know, I don't know, help you with something like a medical situation that, you know, that is different than them coming in, like putting out a fire in your kitchen or something so that some of the fees may be attached to that. And that, I think was maybe confusing to the public and could be further confusing for people utilizing the services of the Mental Health Alternative Response Program. So yeah, I just echo what everyone said and hopefully we're not going to be charging people for that service. Thanks. Thank you. Further speakers, Madam Clerk. There are none. Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment on item 70 and we'll take it back to council. Councilor comments, questions councilor for her. SPENCER Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like to ask. All right. Acting Chief. Interim, maybe. I'm sorry. My apologies. I get it wrong all that time. The public comments in regards to the ambulance, how that works, and any other of the comments that you like to respond to. Well, first, I think it'd be appropriate to state that this doesn't relate to the Crisis Mobile Response Unit. We're not recommending fees for that service. This is a new pilot program. And this these these fees are not related to that. These are existing fees that we're asking for just a an adjustment to the fee structure. And these are for fire prevention services. So when our fire prevention officers go out and do inspections of new buildings and, you know, systems that are being installed to ensure that they're done properly, and they're also for our ambulance transport program. And these both already have fees attached to them. So these are essentially adjustments to the fees. Go ahead, Councilor Spencer. So on the attachment, I think it's like a seven page attachment. It has multiple columns is the adopted fee. The current fee and then the initial fee. Can you explain your different columns here? Where is the current emergency adjusted fee? Sure. So I'm sorry. I can. But I just want to make sure that we're in the same in the same place in the document. So you're. Are you referring to the. The the part where we're talking about the fee change over time through year one, two, three and four. Is that what you're talking about? I was actually looking at the resolution. Oh, okay. On there, it states that staff is recommended that the percentage of the cost recovery be increased from 48 to 57% and the fully burdened hourly rate be increased from 150 to 180. But then on the exhibit A, it has multiple columns, adopted fee, initial fee, minimum, and I don't think it has the current amount. But do you have something that shows that the current amount is then what the request is? Sure. I actually there's in the council report. There is. There are a couple of charts. So let me go back to probably the back up for just a minute and go give you a little background on this. So we, as you know, and I think you've seen it in the report, we've had a study conducted. We did that in 2000, late 2018. It was completed January of 2009, and it was forwarded and provided to council in March of 2019. And at that time, the study recommended that we enact a four year plan to raise the fees in our fire prevention office, fees for the various services that we provide from the current rate at that time in 2019 two over a four year period, so that we could go from the 28% recovery of our cost to potentially 57% over four years. So in 2018 19 budget year, the contractor estimated that we were collecting about 28% of the cost or recovering approximately 28% of the cost to provide this service. And the recommendation was to raise that over time, over four years to 57%, which still makes us one of the lowest cost recoveries in the county among the municipal or municipal fire departments. So the first step was in an act was enacted in 2019, in that budget year. And we went from the 28% that we were recovering of our costs to 48%. That was the recommendation it was in. It was enacted. And so currently we're at 48%. The second year or the second year of the proposed four year plan was due to be last year, July of 2020. And it was decided by the staff recommended that and and it was and the city manager agreed that we would not enact the the next step, which would have been to raise it from 48% cost recovery to 57% cost recovery. So now the next step would be 57% cost recovery from 48. So I know that's a little confusing, but our fees were the lowest in the county effectively. And so they recommended that over time we'd move them or into the middle. So we were at 28%. They moved up to 48%. The recommendation now is to move it to 57% of our cost. So that's the cost recovery. So it's still there is still some cost to the city for providing these services. But the recommendation is to. To charge the customer more in this case. These are typically the contractors that we provide services to to inspect other projects, including their new buildings, their fire protection systems, their plans that they put forth to be approved before they build. So related to fire the fire components of the built. So that's what we're recommending. And I appreciate that. And this is we swore in firefighters to do this to do these inspections. We do. We use both suppression personnel on on shift that some of those or those crew members go out and they do inspections during their their daily routine. But we also have specialists that work in our fire prevention office. And those folks do the more technical inspections, new buildings, the first suppression systems that are being designed into the buildings, including the the the the plans. Thank you. And my recollection, I'll ask I'm not sure who this question goes to, but my recollection was when this came just before there was discussion about using non sworn firefighters for some of these inspections and saving money for the city as well as the consumer. Can anyone answer the other cities use non sworn firefighters to do any of these inspections? Well, I can certainly answer that. So it was a recommended by council and the fire department actually looked into the prospect of doing that. We attempted to hire civilian inspectors over the last number of years, and I think we had an outreach. It was at least four different times, and we were unable to get qualified civilian inspectors. And I could you know, I could give you my opinion as to why that occurred. But the end result was we just were unable to coax civilian inspectors to come in, you know, to the fire department for these for these jobs. As far as other departments, other departments in the area do I know used some civilian inspectors when we were attempting to. Hire civilian inspectors. Several years ago, we when we were having difficulty, we talked to some of the other fire departments because, you know, they had used them and they said that they were having trouble also. And again, it was just a matter of the availability of folks that are trained to do this kind of work that are in civilian life. So we just we struck out, I think it was four different outreaches that we did. Thank you. And a lot of these charges go to businesses for the inspections. Do we have an idea of how our businesses are faring, if this would be a good time to charge them more for the inspections? Because and again, I'm not sure who should be answering this, but it's my recollection that because of COVID, the city has actually been out there trying to support our businesses and keeping them afloat. So I'm I'm not sure what feedback we've received, if any. If you've reached out to the business communities to see if they think they are in a position to pay these higher inspection costs or if they're not. As we've heard many speakers say, we're still in a pandemic and that they're really not there yet. Thank you. I'm going to refer that question, Councilmember Spencer, to the city manager, because he was certainly at the chambers presentation this last Friday about economic recovery in general and then specific to Alameda. And he and I would also add assistant city manager Jerry Bowden to the extent he wants to chime in there in pretty close touch with our business community, I guess we don't have anyone still from community development, but this is the city manager and assistant city manager. Mr. Levitt. For sure. Thank you, Mayor. As he I have to I want to say that, yes, that that's been a consideration. And so the fee that is being presented tonight was actually a fee that was increase. That was initially to go in in the summer of 2020. We actually at that time recommended deferring that fee for a year because of the pandemic. So we are bringing it back. But we would recognize if you decide not to increase, it is still below what the cost of the services we were to. Even though we'd be a year and delayed on the schedule, we were starting to try to to do the schedules. So even with this fee going in place, it would still be one year behind where where the initial schedule was on the initial study. But if you wanted to defer one more year, I'm open to that discussion to. So I appreciate that answer. But that wasn't I think really my question was I haven't heard from Robert today, for instance, or other business communities the Chamber had. Is your outreach to them specifically that they support this at this time, or would they? Are they letting city know or, you know, what is that about? Is the outreach been where where are they on this issue? We haven't done it. I don't believe the fire department's done specific outreach to those to the business community. This was on the agenda in the summer and it's been back. I think that they are they are facing stresses. I think you're correct. And we tried to look at that, but we also tried to lower the fact that we had deferred it for a year. And so so we brought it forward for consideration, but also with the option that you could defer one more year. Thank you. And then also in regards to the ambulance fees, we have had comments during prior when we were talking about, for instance, the policing issue and subcommittees of we had some people call in and speak to the victims. Someone from the public call over a victim issue and then an ambulance comes and then the victim actually receives the bill for the ambulance and they may or may not have insurance that covers that. So but how does the city handle that situation? Sit down. Mr. Levitt or our interim chief, Sabet. Because I would ask the interim chief to answer that because those bills go through the fire department. Sure, I can answer that. So first of all, I want to make sure I understand the question so we respond on an incident and someone is Bill that is a victim as opposed and perhaps they didn't call us, but so far, I understand that correctly. First of all, when the fire department responds, as, you know, the fire department provides a. A first responder service. That's our fire engine. We also have an ambulance that we provide a transport service. So that's an additional service. Most folks understand that they pay taxes to support police and fire services. The fire department provides us first responder services as part of those costs. Our ambulance is an additional service that is atypical. It's not traditional for the fire departments to provide, but the fire department, the city of our midst provided it for. I think it's 37 years now and I think it's an excellent service and we're very proud of it. So when we respond, if we can potentially transport someone and that's where we charge them an ambulance transport fee. Now, currently, the fire department transports more than 4000 people a year, and we certainly don't recover the cost of providing all of that service. But at the end, when we I guess maybe to get to the point, I would suggest that the when someone is billed, if there's an issue with the building, we're always very mindful of a person's ability to pay. We have, you know, obviously sometimes folks ask for hardships and we are currently working on a policy and it's actually going to be coming forward to you probably in about two months with the new fire chief. But we're internally working on that right now to update our hardship policy. But we always look at that and we take that into consideration. You know, a person's ability to pay. Thank you. And, Mr. Levitt, you wanted to say something, please. If I could just add that the ambulance fee is consistent with Alameda County. They set the fee cap, and we we keep our fees consistent with Alameda County. What Alameda County sets. If I'm correct. Right on that. Yes. But is this a matter of what percentage for going after collecting? Well, again, I as city manager said the county establishes the the fees that the providers can charge. So in the case of the US and the other fire departments, I can't speak for the private provider, but I do. I have close connections with the the other fire departments. And, you know, the fire departments are charged. We we charge with the county will allow us to charge and we we don't capture our costs by any means to provide the service. Okay. Councilmember Harry Spencer. So I am concerned as we had speakers today, and I know you are too in regards to figuring out this hardship, how we address the issue of the people that cannot afford to pay or cannot afford to pay as much as this bill is. So I look forward to having that policy come back. Thanks. Absolutely. And it is in the works. If I could just add one thing. You know, we do have a lot of our patients that we transport in Alameda are Medicare patients. So that's a large number of our are transport patients. And although there's a maximum amount that the county will allow us to charge those patients because their Medicare patients are under the Medicare rules. So they you know, they're not charged that same rate. It's just that's what Medicare requires. Okay. Councilmember Harry Spencer. And actually, in one minute, I'm going to need to make a motion because it's almost 11:00. But do you have something you really brief or should I? Well, just real quick. So the Medicare maybe you want to answer it later. The Medicare patients, do they still have to pay something out of pocket? I don't know what the policy is. Things. Typically, no. Okay, Counsel, we have 10 minutes before it's 11:00. 11 minutes before it's 11:00. And so we have to make a decision about how much farther after 11:00 we will continue this meeting. We will finish this item because we're on it. But whether we take anything else, whether we decide to end at a specific time, takes a motion and it must be passed this for council members. So and if not, we just end as soon as this item is over. Anybody want to make a motion? Well, even Howard wants to make a motion. I take it to mean that when this item is over, well, that counts over a day. So, fanclub, cars were designed. That did other news. Hi. Yes, I'll move that. We continue until 12 a.m. and that we just continue as we move along and wherever we land at 12 a.m. is wherever we land. Is there a second to that motion? I am not saying a second. So that motion dies for lack of a second. Is there any other emotion? I am not seeing any hands up. So I will say that we are going to finish seven D and call it a night. Okay. All right. So where were we? Counsel for her. Spencer. Well, I'd like to make a motion that we actually not adjust the fees at this time that we leave the masses. Is there something to that motion? Vice mayor of L.A.. I'll go ahead and second that. All right, let's have a discussion. Councilwoman, an expert. I think I saw your hand going up. I was simply going to make a motion, sir. Okay. All right. Well, any discussion or should we just take a vote? I will I will go ahead and say that I will support this motion. I, I was at that luncheon last week and we heard from the economist of this recovery is not a matter of flipping a switch on and off. Our businesses are recovering slowly. People's incomes are recovering slowly. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. I don't think this is the right time to take this action. Okay. Vice mayor of L.A.. So your hand up and then you. Councilmember de SAG. Yeah. I think our fees I know our fees are low relative to the rest of the county, but I think timing is really important. I'm just concerned that we're putting a lot of money out there in terms of housing, keeping people housed and helping our small businesses, helping helping them stay open. So I just want to be thoughtful about the timing of this and understanding that, yes, our fees do need to increase. I would like to have staff certainly come back with this at the appropriate time. I think especially looking at when we see indicators that that, you know, the we're through the pandemic, for one, or that that we see economic recovery happening. And I understand that there are cost implications. I'm not saying that we waive the fees. I just think that we. Should. Should hold off on increasing for right now. I agree. I don't think we should burden our small businesses any more than they already are. I'm Counselor Kalahari Desert. I think I saw your hand up. Yeah. Great. When the matter came before council in March 5th, 2019, I didn't support the matter in a range of votes that were raised. So actually, to be consistent with the March 5th, 2019, I'll be voting no. Okay. All right, Mr. Leavitt, you got your hand up. Go ahead and unmute. So I definitely understand the emotion regarding the inspection fees. I understand and appreciate that on the ambulance fees. And because some of those are tied to federal funding where such as many Medicare, what they pay, I would ask that you at least defer that I am and let us go research that further and bring that the ambulance fee, maybe segregate the two and have us bring that one back. Because Alameda County as a whole is is for the most part raising those fees. And we would be below the rest of the county at that point. So I would certainly welcome you to bring that item back. Mr. Levitt, in the the staff report, it simply says that on July 14th, 2021, the Amity County Emergency Medical Services Agency notified the city that the county had authorized an increase subject to city council approval of the city's user fee for ambulance transport services. I didn't see anything about a loss of federal funds, so by all means, when this item comes back, I know the Council would appreciate having all the information we need to make an informed decision. Anything further counts. Alex White. Can I ask a quick clarification? I believe the loss of federal funds is through the lack of collecting the full fee because we can collect them. So it's not other funds, it's just since we wouldn't be increasing the fee, we wouldn't be making that differential on Medi-Cal or Medicare. Right. As far as Medicare markup. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Vice mayor of L.A.. I'm just curious how long it'll take the city manager to review that. I'm fine bifurcating this. You know, if I'm the second or I guess the the the amendment would need to go through the maker of the motion. But perhaps we can we can bifurcate the vote so that on the on the ambulance fees we can give we can just give further direction to staff to come back with that information. Okay. So we're not approving anything tonight, but we're giving direction, okay. To come to come back with the information. I mean, if there's if we can get the full reimbursement, that's fine. I just I would want more information before making a decision about the increase. Over a course over her. Spencer, you're the maker of the motion. So. So I appreciate that. In fact. So this is coming to us to increase the rate. But if we're not going to do that at this time, I'm not sure that we actually need a motion to keep it as is. And then staff will come back at any time in regards to addressing this issue or I don't know, in regards to the Medicare, if we can have it increased for that purpose at this time so that we receive that as much as we can from that for the city. But then in regards to people that don't have Medicare and that they would then have to pay more themselves for those patients, what do you what is the proposal on that or was that all look like? Well, and I'll just chime in that I'm concerned. I appreciate the oral information we're being given. So it wasn't if it's in the staff report or somewhere and I missed it, please pointed out to me. But I, I think my feeling would be the better course is to bring it back. But Vice Mayor, you were you were proposing a kind of a compromise. Yeah, I think, you know, I. I think if we can bifurcate the vote, vote down because I don't want this the fees to come back necessarily on the inspections. Right. So I if we could separate that out. And then on the on the second part for the fees relative to the ambulance, just not take any action tonight . But that way we would allow staff, for instance, if they have the information, they could get it available for the next meeting. We could perhaps continue that conversation if time is of the essence, maybe not to the next meeting, but to the meeting after it, rather than vote it down and then have to have somebody from the majority of the council. And happy to accept that. Okay. Okay. So do you want to restate the motion just so we make sure the clerk has it and all of us are following along? Vice Mayor, if you could just restate the motion as you amended it, because I think the motion is amendable. So we would be that motion would be to not increase the fees for building inspections at this time, but that would be the first motion. The second motion, and perhaps the clerk or the city attorney. Is why interruption? I think it's inspections and plan reviews. Both. Yes, yes. Okay. And then and perhaps, you know, and this is where I think some clarity from either the city attorney or the city clerk would be welcome. But to either continue the remainder, the the fees on the ambulance to a future meeting or to just give direction to staff at this time for more information. And to have that come back to us. I think is either. Excuse me, I see. Mr. Levitt. Go ahead. Mr. Levitt. I think the first motion if you just do the first motion, then we can bring the motion back. I don't even believe we need to continue it. You could just not have a motion on the ambulances currently and then we can bring that action back. That's all it. And that's consistent with what I was requesting. Okay. I'm fine with that, if that's fine for the original maker of the motion. Yes. Okay. So motion to to not increase the permit and fair review and inspection fees. Okay. Is it, Madam Clerk, that's okay with you? Yes, definitely. That's perfect. Okay. So we had a motion by Councilmember Harry Spencer. It's been seconded by Vice Mayor Vella. Any further discussion council seeing then maybe we have a roll call cover. Please remember Jason. No. Harris. Spencer. I knocked. Right. Hi, Lola. So as the Ashcroft. I. Met Kerry supporter one. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Chief Sun back and firefighter Hern. I'm sorry. I don't know your your rank. Thank you very much. He's with. Is he? He is our fire marshal. So he's he's a division chief. But to. Visit you. Will someone provide clarification to the department for what you'd like us to bring back? That's all I ask, because so we can bring it back in the future. Because City Manager. Clare right now. City manager will be in touch. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone on this item. Okay, so then let's see. We can, Madam Clerk, we can just. You help us out the. Anything there. I think you've reached your 11:00 stop time and you've completed the item, so I think you can simply go to adjournment. Okay. So what I am going to do, though, to adjourn. Sorry. And just reaching for there. I had it. I did want to adjourn this evening's meeting in memory of a well known long time Alameda resident Ashley Jones, who passed away on September 25th of this year, just last month at the age of 90.