Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/2007, PH1 - MULTI-DWELLING PROPERTY FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM o • counat April 3,2007 j acjenba Repom CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Callahan, Fire Chief Prepared by: Viv Dilts, Administrative Analyst II Molly Brown, Fire Inspector II SUBJECT: MULTI-DWELLING PROPERTY FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving a 50%cost recovery fee structure for the Multi-Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Program by: 1. Reducing annual apartment/R-1 condominium per unit fees from $50 per unit to $28 per unit. 2. Reducing maximum annual fee for large apartment properties (over 500 units) from $15,000 to $10,000. 3. Increasing the inspection fee from $62 to $112.50 for the third, and each subsequent inspection to address continued non-compliance at some properties. DISCUSSION On January 23, 2007, the Council directed staff to return with a proposal for a Multi-Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Program that would include a 50% cost recovery fee and some type of reinspection fee, penalty, or other incentive/disincentive to gain compliance in a more timely manner. This report is in response to Council's request. Notifications of this public hearing were sent to all affected property owners, property managers, realtor groups, and other related business organizations. Reduce apartment per unit fees from $50 per unit to $28 per unit 1. Under this proposal, the current $65 administrative fee per property for apartments and R-1 condominiums would remain, but per unit fees would be reduced from $50 per unit to $28 per unit. This would result in an additional General Fund subsidy of$110,402 annually. An R-1 property is defined in the California Building Code as a multi-dwelling property without a real property line between units, which means it does not include a two-hour firewall between individual dwelling units, constructed in accordance with building code standards. 2. The annual fee structure for hotels, motels, lodging houses, bed & breakfast facilities, youth hostels, senior facilities, sororities, fraternities, and other congregate residences would remain at their current rate (0-30 units - $200/year per facility, 31 to 80 units - $300/year per facility, and more than 80 units - $400/year per facility). o • Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page 2 Reduce fee for large apartment properties (over 500 units) from $15,000 to $10,000 If apartment per unit fees are reduced from $50 to $28, this results in a 44%reduction in fees. Staff is proposing a similar reduction in the annual fee for properties with 500 or more units;-from $15,000 . to $10,000 annually. When considering the previous fee reduction for this category of facilities approved by Council in 2005 in establishing a $15,000 maximum, along with the current proposed fee reduction,from $15,000 to $10,000, the total fee reduction for this category of facilities is 39%. There is only one property in this category: Mustang Village with 513 units. Increase the current fee for the third, and each subsequent inspection from $62 to $112.50 per inspection Since 1993,the Fire Department has been authorized to charge a fee for third and subsequent fire safety inspections. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, if a property is inspected and a notice of hazard is issued, but the hazardous condition is not corrected by the time of the second inspection, and a third inspection therefore becomes necessary, the fee can be charged to the property owner- The procedure for charging this fee is to complete an invoice and send it to the Finance Department, which directly bills the property owner. If the property owner does not pay the bill within 30 days, this process is repeated and late charges are assessed every 30 days thereafter. Accounts are assigned to legal collection 60 days after the initial invoice date if the fee has not been paid. While we currently have the ability to charge this fee, the Fire Department's present practice is to make every attempt to gain compliance without charging fees. The current $62 fee for a third and subsequent inspection does not even cover the cost of one billable hour for an Inspector, which is approximately $75. Staff is recommending that the-$62 fee be increased to $112.50,which equals one and one half hour of an Inspector's time. This fee increase is being proposed as a way to limit the number of additional inspections needed. This is to provide an incentive for property owners to gain compliance by the second inspection. During fiscal year 2005-06, there were 41 properties that required three or more inspections before code compliance was obtained, resulting in 143 third or more inspections (for an average of 6 inspections total for each of these 41 properties. If we had charged fees for these 143 inspections, at $112.50 per inspection, the total amount billed would have been$16,087. It should-be-noted-that this figure is hypothetical and in a real life scenario the fees may have been less because violations would likely have been corrected in a more timely fashion after the first reinspection fee invoices were received by property owners. This would be the ideal condition, as it is the purpose of the fees to gain faster compliance. Staff is not recommending any changes in the fee for fraternities and sororities. Council may recall that when this program was initiated, many fraternities and sororities attended a Council hearing and objected to the higher rate originally recommended by staff. They objected mainly.because.they. felt that the proposed fee was disproportionately high for the nature of fraternity and sorority living and the level of house oversight. The Council directed staff to work with fraternities and sororities to negotiate a lower rate, which the staff did on the night of the hearing, since so many stakeholders . were present. An agreement was reached that evening, and there has been no objection since that time. �-z o • Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page 3 Reengaging fraternities and sororities at this time in an attempt to raise the fee again would be difficult and contentious, and would slow down the implementation of the other changes. With regard to fraternity and sorority inspections, an increase in their fee would have little impact on the overall fee structure and revenue. The incentive for these occupancies, as well as for all covered by this program, to comply with the Fire Code and maintain a safe environment will come with the recommended changes in the Third Inspection Fee. The non-compliant occupancies will be paying more than the ones that are well-maintained. Therefore staff feels that the cost-benefit of pursuing higher annual fees at this time is not advantageous. At some point, we need to achieve closure relative to this long debated program,and staff believes that we have reached this point in a way that is as fair and reasonable as possible. CONCURRENCES The Finance and Information Technology Department concurs with the findings of this report. FISCAL IMPACT COST RECOVERY Total Program Costs 394,900 394,900 Hotels, Motels, etc. 14,624 14,624 Sororities, Fraternities 3,500 3,500 Apt Admin. Facility Fees 27,495 27,495 Apartments Unit Fees 224,700 125,832 Condominium Admin. Facility Fees 715 715 Condominium Unit Fees 14,850 8,316 Mustang Village (>500 units) 15,000 10,000 Total Billing 300,884 190,_482 Cost to the General Fund 94,016 0• ,418 ALTERNATIVES Although not consistent with Council direction at the January 23, 2007 Council meeting, Council could approve one of three alternatives: 1. Maintain all program fees at the current rate of 76% cost recovery. 2. Increase fees to obtain 100 % cost recovery. 3. Eliminate all cost recovery and provide 100% General Fund support. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Agenda Report dated January 23, 2007 — Multi-Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Program 2. Draft Resolution G:/Prevent/Word/Rental Inspection Program/CAR/Aoril 2007 CAR-Update.doc /—d O i ATTACHMENT 1 council M.Amg D� Jan. 23,2007 j agcnaa wpont '..N.Aw CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Callahan, Fire Chief Prepared by: Viv Dilts, Administrative Analyst II Molly Brown, Fire Inspector II SUBJECT: MULTI-DWELLING PROPERTY FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the performance of the Multi-Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Program during 2005-06. REPORT-IN-BRIEF In accordance with past Council direction, the purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive status report on the performance of the City's fire and life safety inspection program for multi- dwelling properties during 2005-06. This review shows impressive results in making San Luis Obispo a safer community. Given the benefits of this program and its consistency with our adopted cost recovery policies, we do not recommend making any changes in the program scope or funding sources at this time. DISCUSSION Background During the 2003-05 Council goal-setting process, representatives from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) expressed concern about the quality of rental properties in the City, and the existence of substandard and un-permitted rental units. RQN described an ordinance in effect in the City of Azusa that funds annual inspections of rental units by that city, including single family residences (SFR) to ensure compliance with required state and municipal housing code provisions. The inspections are funded by an annual fee paid by rental property owners. RQN wanted San Luis Obispo to implement a similar program. As part of the 2003-05 Financial Plan, the Council ultimately adopted a major City goal for "Neighborhood Wellness," which included as part of its work plan an analysis of implementing a comprehensive residential rental inspection program similar to the one in Azusa. In spring 2005 staff presented to the Council a comprehensive report discussing options for an enhanced rental property inspection program, with a focus on full-cost recovery for whichever program was developed. As noted above, one of the options included inspecting single-family residences (SFR). 0 Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page 2 After much discussion, including public input, the Council directed staff to develop recommendations for achieving cost recovery for only the current State-mandated requirements for fire and life safety inspections for multi-dwelling units. State Fire Inspection Requirements What are the State mandated inspection requirements? California Health & Safety Code, Section 13146.2 states: "Every city or county fire department or district providing fire protection services ... shall, annually, inspect all structures subject to subdivision (b) of 17921 (hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartment houses and dwellings)." Additionally, this mandate states, "A city, county, or district which inspects a structure .... may charge and collect a fee for the inspection from the owner of the structure in an amount as determined by the city, county or district, sufficient to pay its costs of that inspection." After additional Council meetings, the Council approved an enhanced program that included the State-mandated fire and life safety inspections as well as a more proactive public education program. The adopted program includes annual fire and life safety inspections for hotels, motels, lodging houses, bed & breakfast facilities, your hostels, senior facilities, and sororities & fraternities. It also includes annual inspections of apartment buildings containing three or more dwelling units, including residential condominiums designated as R-1 properties. An R-1 property is defined in the California Building Code as a multi-dwelling property without a real property line between units, which means it does not include a two-hour firewall between individual dwelling units, constructed in accordance with building code standards. With regard to cost recovery, Council initially agreed with the recommendation to pursue full cost recovery, with program costs to be paid by the property owners rather than by the general purpose taxpayer. Enhanced Program Not Without Controversy - Especially Regarding Cost Recovery While almost everyone agreed that a multi-dwelling inspection program is a worthy undertaking, there were significant differences regarding the relationship of the inspections to the proposed fees. Council directed staff to work with property owners to refine the initial recommendation to assure the highest level of equity possible. As such, the program reduced the fees for sororities and fraternities to match the fee structure of hotels and motels. Additionally, the Housing Authority and Peoples Self Help Housing were exempted from fees. The new program was eventually adopted, but differences persisted within the community over the next several months, as implementation took shape. As such, shortly after the new Fire Chief began with the City in November 2005, he was directed to "take an objective look" at the program, and return to Council in early 2007 to report on the program's performance and its relationship to the fees. The balance of this report addresses this direction. Program Components O • Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page 3 There are three basic components in the City's multi-dwelling fire and life safety inspection program: 1. Annual Inspections 2. Public Education Program 3. Annual Fees for Service 1. Annual Inspections How are inspections conducted? a. Research occupancy files b. Visit site, contact managers, invite them along for inspection c. Identify hazards and violations d. Review required corrections with manager e. Mail notice to owner and manager f. Conduct follow up inspection(s) for compliance What are the 2005-06 inspection statistics? All 523 annual properties, subject to the program, (which include 8,852 units), were inspected during 2005-06. Three hundred and eight (58%) of these properties had violations and required at least one re-inspection. On average, there were more than two violations in each of these facilities. Ninety-six percent of the properties have corrected their violations and four percent are currently in enforcement. What were the most frequent violations or hazards we found? There were a number of common violations/hazards found during these inspections. They included: a. Non-operational emergency exit lights and exit signs b. Non-operational fire extinguishers and smoke detectors c. Excess storage in exit corridors d. Fire alarm systems and fire sprinkler systems needing required maintenance e. Obstructed fire hydrants f. Substandard illegal electrical wiring g. Excess vegetation and combustible trash h. Damaged fire-rated walls i. Obstructed fire lanes j. Illegally dumped hazardous materials and hazardous waste 0 0 Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page_4 What are the benefits of annual inspections? Inspections were completed by focused, well-trained fire inspectors. Corrected violations resulted in better maintained properties and safer living environments for tenants. Overall, the risk of fires and hazardous materials environmental contamination were significantly reduced. 2. Public Education Program The Fire Department has developed and presented to the public a number of public education messages and formats to instruct occupants in multi-dwelling properties about fire and life safety. These public education messages included: a. Ten presentations given to residents of the rental facilities we inspect, regarding home safety, life safety, and disaster preparedness. b. Informational door-hangers on proper use of smoke detectors delivered to 1,500 apartments. c. Home fire safety program slides aired on the public access television channel, Channel 20. d. Public education display booths viewed by approximately 200 people at the Cal Poly Housing Fair and Mid-State Fair. e. Distribution of 500 Apartment Living Guides (booklets) to property management companies. f. Fire extinguisher training given to several groups of apartment residents, including Housing Authority residents. 3. Annual Fees for Service At the July 5, 2005 meeting, the Council set the current fire inspection fee structure as follows: CURRENT Apartments & R-1 Condominiums Hotels, Motels, B&B, Senior Facilities, Fraternities and Sororities $65 Administrative Fee Per Facility 1-30 Units $200 $50/Unit Fee 31-80 Units $300 $15,000 Maximum Per Facility Over 80 Units $400 Alternative Fee Methodologies Due to property owners' concerns and suggestions, staff researched several aitematives. 1. Square Footage of Buildings - Currently, no accurate data exists for many of these properties: Substantial labor costs would be incurred to determine accurate square footage data. The size of a building does not necessarily relate to the time an inspection takes. 2. Time and Materials Per Inspection -This method would bill each property differently based on the time spent by inspection staff on property-by-property basis. This would be very labor intensive to calculate and track this data for each property. Additionally, we would no longer be able to collect fees on the County tax roll; and therefore, we would incur higher collection costs. Lastly, we believe that this approach in practice would generate significant customer concerns, as property owners will never know how much the inspection will cost until it is completed: could be $50, could be $5,000. Whatever our cost recovery goal and related fee, we believe it is important to clearly communicate the amount. �� 0 0 Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page 5 3. Reduction for Well-Kept Properties - This methodology is also subjective. The public could perceive that inspectors are overly scrutinizing properties to generate higher fees. As with hourly rate per inspection methodology, it would be more labor intensive. The City could no longer collect fees on the County tax roll, and the revenues collected would be unpredictable from year-to-year. Stakeholder Notification In advance of this report, staff has notified all 523 affected property owners as well as 93 other interested groups and individuals such as the Chamber of Commerce, Property Owners Association, Board of Realtors and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods about this meeting . A display ad was also published in The Tribune. CONCURRENCES The Finance Department concurs with the findings of this report. The City's "Cost of Services Study" consultant, Maximus, has reviewed the data and also concurs that the City's cost recovery methodology and rate structure based on units is reasonable. FISCAL IMPACT Annual costs for this program are $394,900. On May 17, 2005, the Council approved cost recovery for this program of$370,400 (94%). On July 5, 2005, Council approved a fee structure exempting properties owned by government agencies or non-profit organizations like the Housing Authority and Peoples Self Help Housing, and reducing fees for sororities and fraternities. This change led to revenues of $340,100, or 86% cost recovery for this program. However, after completing a detailed analysis of the number of rental units, staff identified some discrepancies in the database, which further reduced revenues to$302,300, or 76.5% cost recovery. This shortfall was presented to the Council as part of the 2005-06 mid-year budget review, when all City revenue projections were discussed. The database records have since been corrected, and the actual cost recovery for 2005-06 was right on target at$300,900. o • Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page 6 Cost Recovery Summary: 2005-06 Program Costs___ __ Fire Inspector III (2 FTE) 209,800 Admin.Asst. (1 FTE) 67,600 Office Supplies/Printing 800 Postage 200 Fire Training 1,000 Amortized Start-Up Costs 8,600 Indirect Costs 37.1% 106,900 Total Program Costs 394,900 Total Billing for 2005-06 176% _ _ _ A3001900) Cost to the General Fund 94,000 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the Current Cost Recovery Program of 76%. The Council could elect to continue inspections and keep the fee structure as is, with a 76% cost recovery of the program. Given the benefits of the program and its consistency with our cost recovery policy, this is our recommended option. 2. Reduce Cost Recovery to 50%. The Council could consider reducing the overall cost recovery goal from 76% to 50%. Under this option, rather than across-the-board reductions, we would recommend leaving fees the same for hotels and institutional users; retaining the current$65 fee per property for apartments and R-1 condominiums; and reducing per unit fees from$50 per unit to $28 per unit. This would result in an additional General Fund subsidy of$105,000 annually. This added General Fund cost is the equivalent of the traffic enforcement police officer we had to cut in 2005-07 in balancing the budget. !I REDUCE COST RECOVERYTO TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 394,900 Hotels, Motel, B&B, Senior Facilities 14,624 Sororities &Fraternities 3,500 Apartments Administrative Fee ($65) 27,495 Proposed Apartment Per Unit Fee ($28/per unit) x 4494 Units 125,832 Condo Admin. Facility Fee ($65) 715 Condo Unit Fees ($28/per unit) x 297 Units 8,316 Mustang Village over 500 Apt. Units 15,000 TOTAL BILLING @ 50% 195,482 COST TO GENERAL FUND Current Cost at 76.1°!0 94,000 Additional Cost at 50% 105,418 [TOTAL COST TO GENERAL FUND @ 50% 199,418 Under the City's cost recovery policies, it makes sense for property owners to fund a large portion of the cost of this program: not only do they benefit from owning safer property, but they drive the need for these services. And our cost recovery policy recognized the distinction between —7 U • Multi-Dwelling Property Fire And Life Safety Inspection Program Page 7 service recipients (who in this case include the tenants as well as the community at large) versus service drivers—which in this case are the property owners. And the current "75/25" split recognizes the dual benefit. On the other hand, while property owners drive the need for this cost, recognizing that there are benefits to others as well could be the basis for a"50/50" sharing of costs. In the final analysis, this "policy calculus" is the Council's call. But we should recognize that shifting costs to general purpose revenues where we could reasonably have higher cost recovery means fewer resources for services like police, fire,.streets, flood protection, open space, senior services and parks. 3. No Cost Recovery. The entire $394,900 cost of the program would be absorbed by the General Fund. This would result in an added General Fund subsidy of$300,000 annually. This is the equivalent of three of the four police positions we had to cut as part of the 2005-07 budget balancing process. While a case for"50/50" sharing under our cost recovery policies can be made, it is more difficult to see how shifting all costs of the program would be consistent with our current fiscal policies. CONCLUSION The program is going very well overall. The City is in full compliance with the State mandate to inspect multi-dwelling properties on an annual basis. Properties within the City are better maintained because identified hazards and violations are being corrected, and program costs are being funded in accordance with the City's adopted user fee cost recovery policies. Renters and property owners receive focused fire and life safety education messages. Finally, with this program in place the City is a far safer community. i � 1r �::, i � azt S a / ➢. w,r C ,a '. i 1. ' "x- G:/PreventfWord/Rental Inspection Program/CAR/Jan.2007 CAR-Update.doc o • ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND MODIFYING THOSE FEES FOR THE RECOVERY OF COSTS RELATED TO FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF ALL MULTI-DWELLING PROPERTIES CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code Section 17921 to annually inspect multi-dwelling rental properties containing three or more dwelling units, including apartments, hotels, motels, lodging houses and congregate residence; and WHEREAS, a typical fire and life safety inspection at these facilities would include, but not be limited to, checking fire alarm systems, fire sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, common areas for fire hazards, exiting and fire access issues; and WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146 authorizes cities to charge property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain adequate to achieve adopted cost recovery goals; and WHEREAS, such service charges and fees are set forth in the master fee schedule, adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time; and WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public hearing on May 17, 2005 based on a detailed analysis of costs and funding requirements to meet adopted cost recovery goals, and adopted Resolution No. 9684 (2005 Series) setting fees providing for 94% cost recovery for state-mandated fire and life-safety inspections; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2005, the Council held a public hearing and subsequently by its Resolution No. 9706 (2005 Series) modified fees applicable to sororities and fraternities and very low and low income households; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on April 3, 2007 to consider amending the fee schedule to reduce certain multi-dwelling property fire and life safety inspection fees and increase fees for the third and additional inspections in the event of non-compliance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City's master fee schedule is hereby amended as follows: A. The Multi-Dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule shall include the following new fees in place of the existing ones, and all other provisions of that fee schedule shall remain in effect: � Resolution No. (2007 Series) O atraC1114ENt Page 2 Apartments $28.00 per unit per year Administrative Fee of$65.00/year per facility (County billing fee not included) $10,000 maximum per property Fees are waived for units that are built, owned, and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other governmental agencies, or not-for-profit housing organizations. Hotels, Motels, Lodging House, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities and Senior Facilities, Sororities,Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences 1 to 30 units $200/year per facility (County billing fee not included) 31 to 80 units $300/year per facility (County billing fee not included) More than 80 units $400/year per facility (County billing fee not included) B. The "Third & Subsequent Fire Safety Inspections" fee as provided in portion of the Master Fee Schedule entitled "Fire Equipment and Personnel Stand-by Fees Effective July 1, 2006" is changed from $62.00 to $112.50. SECTION 2. These fees shall be effective immediately. On motion of, seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of April 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jo . Lowell City Attorney r�ac�Cc Pima:is -- ® COU F CDD DIR RED FILE ® CAO Z FIN DIR NG AGENDA ® ACAO ® FIRE CHIEF — MIEET� ® ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR VATE� ITEM #J-HL C5 CLERK/ORIG M POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS Z REG DIR ® E UTIL DIR P�►� ,,a Q� U. HR DIS Cd RECEIVED sa cR� City of San Luis Obispo L Regarding the Fire Inspection Program flpR ' 3 9001 SLO CITY CLERK I have contacted the Fire Department in the past because I believe the program as it is currently implemented is a waste of manpower and property owners' money. I see this program as merely a way to raise needed money to support city services. I do not object to that goal but it unfairly burdens owners of rental properties. Why not add a service tax to all properties? Additionally, I feel that the inspections that are done are cursory and of little value. I was informed that they go around and look at the outside of the building. It seems most likely to me that the greatest preponderance of fire hazards are inside. Student housing, such as mine is, would benefit from having the department look inside for fire extinguishers, loose and inappropriate wiring, too.many items on one outlet, etc. Leaving behind a pamphlet on fire prevention would also be of benefit. I think the $200. fee that I paid was for a program that was ineffective and not well conceived. Thank You ev 20 Buena Vista Ave San Luis Obispo CA. 93405 omih@charter.net San Luis Obispo , Property Owners Association P.O.Box 12924 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 MAR 2001 SI-0 CITY ConUNC1. RED FILE March 28, 2007 MEETING AGENDA DATE y b'IITEM # VW Honorable David Romero " Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Dave, I wish to express the support of the San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association (SLOPOA)for the proposed fee modification to the Multi-dwelling Property Fire and Life Safety Inspection Program. It is my understanding that Fire Chief John Callahan has recommended reducing fees from $50 per unit to $28, reducing maximum annual fees from $15,000 to $10,000 on apartment complexes of over 500 units, and increasing the fees from.$62 to $112.50 for third and subsequent inspections resulting from noncompliance. We believe this is a big step in the right direction, and we would appreciate your support of his proposal. Hopefully this will encourage more compliance by that small minority that creates the most problems, while not unfairly taxing the vast majority who are consistently in compliance. This would also bring our fees, while still very high, closer to those of other communities. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Sincerely, uCOUNCILLeslie Halls SP CDG`�IR CcO -i President f?ACAO CAO R FIN DIR San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association t�lATTORNEY @® PW FIRE CHIEF CLERK/ORIG DIE E3 DEPT HEADS 9 POLICE CHF . 9 REC DIR " � UTIL D1R iweY Ca o