26 Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement.
The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner.
(b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall submit a report to the Planning Commission setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by Owner with the terms of this Agreement and his/her recommended finding on that issue.
(c) If the Planning Commission finds on the basis of substantial evidence that Owner has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded.
(d) If the Planning Commission makes a preliminary finding that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that the City Council commence proceedings to modify or terminate this Agreement and the City Council may proceed to modify or terminate this Agreement under Section 9.4 and Section 9.5. Notice of default and opportunity to cure as provided under Section 10.4 of this Agreement shall be given to Owner prior to or concurrent with proceedings under Section 9.4 and Section 9.5.
9.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a recommendation of the Planning Commission under Section 9.3(d), the City Council determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, the City Council shall give written notice to Owner of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
(a) The time and place of the hearing;
(b) A statement as to whether or not the City Council proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and the specifics of such modifications; (c) Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform Owner of the nature of the proceeding.
9.5 Hearing on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, Owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on Owner. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that Owner has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement the City Council may terminate this Agreement notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, or modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the City. The decision of the City Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, Owner is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon request by Owner, issue a Certificate of Agreement Compliance (“Certificate”) to Owner stating that after
27 the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the Planning Commission and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) Owner is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review, and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. Owner may record the Certificate with the County Recorder.
Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees of Owner, City shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the City Manager.
ARTICLE 10. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
10.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof.
In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that City shall not be liable in damages, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, to Owner, or to any mortgagee or lender of Owner or to a successor in interest of Owner, or a mortgagee or lender of Owner, or to any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages:
(a) For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action which arises out of this Agreement; or
(b) For the impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided under, with, or pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, any impairment or restriction which Owner characterizes as a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation; or (c) Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement.
Further, nothing contained herein shall modify or abridge Owner’s rights or remedies (including its rights for damages, if any) resulting from the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain; provided, however, that such exercise results in a physical occupation of the Property or portion thereof. Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, Owner’s remedies shall be limited to those set forth in this Section 10.1 and Sections 9.5 and 10.2.
10.2 Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate, and specific performance and other non- monetary relief, including temporary and permanent injunction relief, are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all Parties for the following reasons:
(a) Money damages are unavailable against the City.
28 (b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Owner may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. Owner has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Owner for such efforts; the parties acknowledge and agree that any injunctive relief may be ordered on an expedited, priority basis. (c) Owner shall not be required to post a bond to obtain injunctive relief.
10.3 Release. Except for nondamage remedies and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, including the remedy of specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Section 9.5, Owner, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits or any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law, ordinance, or judicial decision which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.
Without limiting the generality of anything in the immediately preceding paragraph, Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby expressly waives the benefit of, and any protections provided by Civil Code Section 1542, which provides:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT
KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT
THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF
KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY
AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR
OR RELEASED PARTY.
BY INITIALING BELOW, OWNER HEREBY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SECTION 10.3:
Owner’s Initials, Suburban Land Reserve, Inc.
Owner’s Initials, Millrose Properties California, LLC
Owner’s Initials, 7th Standard Ranch Investors LLC
(b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, Owner may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. Owner has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to detennine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Owner for such efforts; the parties acknowledge and agree that any injunctive relief may be ordered on an expedited, priority basis. (c) Owner shall not be required to post a bond to obtain injunctive relief.
10.3 Release. Except for nondamage remedies and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, including the remedy of specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Section 9. 5, 0-WTier, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits or any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law, ordinance, or judicial decision which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement.
Without limiting the generality of anything in the immediately preceding paragraph, Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby expressly waives the benefit of, and any protections provided by Civil Code Section 1542, which provides:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT
KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT
THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF
KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY
AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR
OR RELEASED PARTY.
BY INITIALING BELOW, OWNER HEREBY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1542 IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SECTION 10. 3:
Owner's Initials, Suburban Land Reserve, Inc.
Owner's Initials, Millro e Properties California, LLC
Owner's Initials, 7th andard Ranch Investors LLC
28
29 In addition to waiving the provisions of California Civil Code section 1542, the Owner hereby waives, releases and foregoes the provisions of any federal or state statute or judicial decision of similar effect.
10.4 Termination or Modification for Default of Owner. City may terminate or modify this Agreement for any failure of Owner to perform any material duty or obligation of Owner under this Agreement as provided in Article 6 hereof, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “default”); provided, however, City may terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Section in accordance with Article 6 hereof only after providing written notice to Owner of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by Owner to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, Owner has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.
10.5 Termination of Agreement for Default of City. Owner may terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by City in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to City of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by City to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, City has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default.
ARTICLE 11. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION.
11.1 General Plan Litigation. City has determined that this Agreement and the Mission Lakes Specific Plan are consistent with its General Plan, and that the General Plan meets all requirements of law. Owner has reviewed the General Plan and concurs with City’s determination.
City shall have no liability under this Agreement for any failure of City to perform under this Agreement or the inability of Owner to develop the Property as contemplated by the Mission Lakes Specific Plan, which failure to perform or inability to develop is as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law, or that this Agreement or any of City’s actions in adopting it were invalid, inadequate or not in compliance with law.
11.2 Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys’ fees, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against City, its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. City shall promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action or proceeding, or if City fails to cooperate in the defense, Owner shall not
30 thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless City. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.
11.3 Indemnity. In addition to and not as a limitation upon the provisions of Sections
11.1 and 11.2 above, Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from all liability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury or death (Owner’s employees included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating to or in any way connected with or arising from the activities contemplated hereunder including, but not limited to, the design, engineering, construction, completion, operation, maintenance, repair, failure, conveyance or physical condition of the Public Improvements.
The foregoing obligation shall not apply to any claims for damages which arise through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of City. Owner shall defend, at its sole cost, expense and liability, including attorneys’ fees, City, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such alleged acts or omissions of Owner.
City may, in its discretion, participate in the defense of any such legal claim, action or proceeding and shall be entitled to reimbursement from Owner for any and all costs associated with such defense including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees.
11.4 Environmental Contamination. Owner shall indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of Owner, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns and independent contractors, excepting any acts or omissions of City as successor to any portions of the Property Dedicated or transferred to City by Owner, for any violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys, fees, City, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission. City may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action or proceeding.
11.5 City to Approve Counsel. With respect to Sections 11.1, through 11.4, inclusive, herein, City reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which Owner selects, hires or otherwise engages to defend City hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense; provided, however, that Owner shall reimburse City forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys’ fees, upon billing and accounting therefor.
11.6 Survival. The provisions of Sections 11.1 through 11.6 inclusive, shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
11.7 No Waiver of Common Law or Statutory Obligations. City and Owner acknowledge and agree that this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or abridgement of any common law or statutory obligations which Owner may have with respect to indemnification, defense and contribution in the event that any action or proceeding is commenced against City
31 which is based upon this Agreement or which is in any way related to any actions taken by Owner pursuant to this Agreement.
ARTICLE 12. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION.
The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement, provided, further, that any modifications of this Agreement are subject to the provisions of Section 5.5 of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value.
(b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any default by Owner in the performance of Owner’s obligations under this Agreement. (c) If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed Owner under this Agreement.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of Owner’s obligations or other affirmative covenants of Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance. However, to the extent that the performance of such covenant by Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of any act by the City, the City shall have no obligation to perform such act hereunder unless and until the Mortgagee performs the covenant of Owner which is the condition precedent to the City’s performance. Although a Mortgagee is not obligated to perform the obligations and covenants of Owner hereunder, if the Mortgagee elects to so perform, such performance shall be in full accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.4 of this Agreement.
32 ARTICLE 13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
13.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Kern County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period following the Effective Date as required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code.
13.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement.
13.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Article 7 of this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and City would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the development rights set forth in Article 6 of this Agreement are essential elements of this Agreement and Owner would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever.
13.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.
13.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
13.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural.
13.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term of this Agreement any part of the Property is jointly owned, in whole or in part, by more than one owner, all obligations of such owners under this Agreement as to that portion of the Property jointly owned shall be joint and several, and the default of any such owner shall be the default of all such owners, except to the extent such portion(s) of the Property and associated obligations have been transferred and assigned pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no owner of a single lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such owner as a
33 member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided herein.
13.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element.
13.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter.
13.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
13.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, government regulations, or court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions). If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years. The failure of either party to obtain or maintain financing necessary for the performance of its respective obligations and duties hereunder shall not be deemed a cause for an extension of the term of this Agreement or a cause for the extension of time for performance of any such obligation by any party hereunder unless mutually agreed to by the parties in writing.
13.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefitted thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefitted party.
13.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during Ownership of the Property or any portion thereof.
13.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument.
13.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the
34 County of Kern, State of California. Each Party hereto irrevocably consents to the personal jurisdiction of that court. The City and the Owner each hereby expressly waive the benefit of any provision of federal or state law or judicial decision providing for the filing, removal, or change of venue to any other court or jurisdiction, including, without implied limitation, federal district court, due to any diversity of citizenship between the City and the Owner, due to the fact that the City is a party to such action or proceeding or due to the fact that a federal question or federal right is involved or alleged to be involved. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Owner and the City specifically waive any rights provided to it pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394. The Owner acknowledges that the provisions of this Section 13.15 are material consideration to the City for its entry into this Agreement, in that the City will avoid the potential cost, expense and inconvenience of litigating in a distant forum.
13.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property.
13.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement.
Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The provisions of this Section
13.17 shall not require the taking of any actions which are prohibited by law or, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, including, without limitation, Section 6.7, impair the lawful legislative discretion of the City as to those matters to which the law imparts legislative discretion to the City.
13.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by City of its power of eminent domain.
13.19 Agent for Service of Process. In the event Owner is not a resident of the State of California or is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, Owner shall file with the City Manager or his or her designee, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event Owner may be personally served with such process out of this County and such service shall constitute valid service upon Owner. Owner is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained, and waives all objections and protests thereto.
35 13.20 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner warrants and represents that he/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he/they has/have the authority to bind Owner to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
13.21 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the statute governing development agreements (Sections 65864 through 65869.5 inclusive) in effect as of the Effective Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 6.5 above, to the extent the subsequent amendment to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such amendment shall not be applicable to the Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enforceable.
13.22 No Personal Obligation/No Completion Obligation. This Agreement in and of itself does not represent a personal obligation of individual officers, directors, and shareholders of Owner, its successors or assigns. Nothing herein contained shall in and of itself be deemed to create an obligation of the Owner, its successors or assigns to complete the development of the entire Project as contemplated, or any particular portion thereof. No officer, official, employee, agent, contractor or attorney of the City shall have any personal liability or obligation for the performance of the City’s obligations hereunder.
36 SIGNATURE PAGE TO
MISSION LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22 CITY:
CITY OF SHAFTER, a California municipal
corporation
By:
Mayor, City of Shafter
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP:
By:
City Attorney
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
MISSION LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22 OWNER:
7th Standard Ranch Investors LLC
PO Box 82515
Bakersfield, CA 93380
By:
Its:
Dated.
/^.r^
-7Z.
t0/-7 -Z-$
41
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF <2. < )ss.
)
On Oc^to<-r- ~7 (3-0'9^, before me, \|~I&I<L ^>\(Lfp , a Notary Public, personally appeared ^.<- "QSzM.i^.So , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person^) whose name(^) is/ayfe subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s^e/ttyfy executed the same in his/h^r/th^ir authorized capacity(ie;S), and that by his/he't'/thfeir signatures^) on the instmment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person^) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing parasrauh is true and correct.
VIOLA ROrtERO
Notary Public . Ciliforni*
Kwn County
Corn mission »24«1631
My Comm. Expires Aug W, 2027
1 WITNESS y hand and official seal.
Notar}' Public
42
43 EXHIBIT A
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Legal Description of the Property
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 4 157201-001304
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real Property in the City of Shafter, County of Kern, State of California, described as follows:
TRACT 1:
PARCELS 1 THROUGH 22, INCLUSIVE, 25 THROUGH 28, INCLUSIVE, 29 THROUGH 31, INCLUSIVE AND "D" OF PARCEL MAP NO. 11314, IN THE CITY OF SHAFFER, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED JANUARY 31, 2006 IN BOOK 54, PAGES 149 TO 158 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL INTERESTS CONVEYED TO TENNECO OIL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1988, IN BOOK 6183, PAGE 1167 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WHICH INTERESTS CAN BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED AS
ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER LIQUID AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBONS AND IN ADDITION THERETO
CARBON DIOXIDE, HYDROGEN, HELIUM, NITROGEN, METHANE, SULFUR (IN EACH CASE IN EITHER
LIQUID OR GASEOUS FORM) AND ANY OTHER LIQUID OR GASEOUS SUBSTANCES, INERT OR
OTHERWISE, OR ANY OF THEM, ANY MINERALS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION THEREWITH ("HYDROCARBONS") IN, ON OR UNDER THE PREMISES, TOGETHER WITH ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN ANY WAY RELATED THERETO. IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED
THAT THIS RESERVATION IS FULLY SET FORTH IN THE CONVEYANCE REFERRED TO ABOVE AND THAT
TITLE IS SUBJECT TO THAT CONVEYANCE AND NOT SUBJECT TO THIS SUMMARY WHICH IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. SAID ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE WAS CLARIFIED BY FIRST AMENDMENT THEREOF RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1989, IN BOOK 6200, PAGE 1908 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
APN'S: 536-010-20 THROUGH 536-010-24, 536-010-26 THROUGH -536-010-29, 536-010-32, 536-010-34, 536-010-35 THROUGH 536-010-40, 536-010-42 THROUGH 45, 536-010-49 THROUGH 536-010-51, 536-010-63, 536-010-67 THROUGH 536-010-70, 536-010-72, 536-010-73, 536-010-81, 536-010-84, AND 536-010-86 THROUGH 536-010-91
TRACT 2:
PARCELS 23, 24 AND 29 OF PARCEL MAP 11314, IN THE CITY OF SHAFTER, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED JANUARY 31, 2006 IN BOOK 54, PAGES 149 THROUGH 158, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL INTERESTS CONVEYED TO TENNECO OIL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1988, IN BOOK 6183, PAGE 1167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WHICH INTERESTS CAN BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED AS
ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER LIQUID AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBONS, AND IN ADDITION THERETO
CARBON DIOXIDE, HYDROGEN, HELIUM, NITROGEN, METHANE, SULFUR (IN EACH CASE IN EITHER
LIQUID OR GASEOUS FORM) AND ANY OTHER LIQUID OR GASEOUS SUBSTANCES, INERT OR
OTHERWISE, OR ANY OF THEM, AND ANY MINERALS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION THEREWITH ("HYDROCARBONS") IN, ON OR UNDER THE PREMISES, TOGETHER WITH
ALL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN ANY WAY RELATED THERETO, IT IS
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS RESERVATION IS FULLY SET FORTH IN THE CONVEYANCE REFERRED TO
ABOVE AND THAT TITLE IS SUBJECT TO THAT CONVEYANCE AND NOT SUBJECT TO THIS SUMMARY WHICH IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. SAID ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE WAS CLARIFIED BY FIRST AMENDMENT THEREOF RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1989, IN BOOK 6200, PAGE 1908, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL WATER RIGHTS OR WATER STOCK APPURTENANT TO
OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND ALL MINERALS, COAL, CARBONS, HYDROCARBONS,
OIL, GAS, CHEMICAL ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS WHETHER IN SOLID, LIQUID OR GASEOUS FORM,
AND ALL STEAM AND OTHER FORMS OF THERMAL ENERGY ON, IN OR UNDER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, (THE "MINERAL ESTATE"), PROVIDED THAT GRANTOR DOES NOT RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON OR USE THE SURFACE OR ANY PART OF THE SUBJECT LANDS ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 5 157201-001304
FEET BELOW THE SURFACE, AS RESERVED BY FARMLAND RESERVE, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION IN DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 2004 AS DOCUMENT NO. 04-243888 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
APN'S: 536-010-33, 536-010-41, 536-010-71, 536-010-74 AND 536-010-85 TRACT 3:
PARCEL A (WELL 4E 36-1)
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 89°13'33" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 14.45 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTH 89°14'03" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1, A DISTANCE OF 1028.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°45'57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 251.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 1) NORTH 44°44'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET; THENCE 2) NORTH 45°15'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 70.94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL;
THENCE 3) SOUTH 44°44'39" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 110.00 FEET; THENCE 4) SOUTH 45°15'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 70.94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 536-010-13
PARCEL B (WELL 4E 36-2)
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE NORTH 02°10'43" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 2135.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°49'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 840.17 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 1) NORTH 17°14'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 72°45'39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 85.51 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL;
THENCE 3) SOUTH 47°31'21" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 8.46 FEET; THENCE 3) SOUTH 17°14'21" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 92.70 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 72°45'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 81.25 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 536-01-12
PARCEL C (WELL 4E 36-3)
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 02°11'12" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 1532.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°48'48" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1838.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE 1) SOUTH 80°52'39" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 61.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL;
THENCE 2) SOUTH 09°07'21" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 3) NORTH 80°52'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 61.20 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 09°07'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 536-010-11
PARCEL D (WELL 4E 36-4)
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 89°14'39" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE OF 799.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°45'21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 79.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 1) SOUTH 35°48'39" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 54°11°21" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 62.26 FEET;
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 6 157201-001304
THENCE 3) NORTH 35°48'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET, THENCE 4) NORTH 54°11'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 62.26 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 536-010-10
PARCEL E
COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE SOUTH 02°10’34"
WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 1700.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE CALLOWAY CANAL; THENCE SOUTH 66°52'59" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 12.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE 1) SOUTH 66°52'59" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 23°07’01” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 34.68 FEET; THENCE 3) NORTH 66°52'59" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 23°07'01" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 34.68 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 536-010-09
PARCEL F
ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, M.D.M., COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34 FROM WHICH THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION BEARS NORTH 89°12'12" WEST; THENCE SOUTH 45°44'16" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3730.76 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE (1) SOUTH 02°12'57" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE (2) NORTH 87°47'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE (3) NORTH 02°12'57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE (4) SOUTH 87°47'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 536-010-80
EXHIBIT B
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Map of Property and Ownership Information
Millrose Properties California, LLC
5 River Park Place East, Suite 210
Fresno, CA 93720
North Kern Water Storage District
33380 Cawelo Extended
Bakersfield, CA 93308
7th Standard Ranch Investors
P.O. Box 82515
Bakersfield, CA 93380
Suburban Land Reserve, Inc.
P.O. Box 511196
Salt Lake City, UT 84151
EXHIBIT C
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Current Mission Lakes Specific Plan
Available at:
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter, CA 93263
OR
Online at:
www.shafterca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6045/
Mission-Lakes-SP
EXHIBIT D
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement (“Assignment”) is made this ____ day of __________, by __________, a __________ (“Assignor”) and ____________ (“Assignee”) with reference to the following facts:
A. Assignor is the owner of that certain real property, described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”). The Property is subject to the provisions of that certain Development Agreement No. 25-22 ("Development Agreement"), dated as of __________, with the City of Shafter, a California municipal corporation (“City”).
The Development Agreement was recorded on __________, as instrument no.__________, in the official records of the Kern County Recorder.
B. Assignor has proposed to sell and transfer the Property to Assignee. Pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of the Development Agreement, Assignor wishes to assign all rights, duties, and obligations pertaining to the Property under the Development Agreement to Assignee. Similarly, Assignee desires to assume all of Assignor’s rights, duties, and obligations pertaining to the Property under the Development Agreement.
C. Assignor’s proposed sale and transfer of the Property to Assignee has been reviewed and approved by the City pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of the Development Agreement, as evidenced by the City’s execution of this Assignment below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals of fact set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement in their entirety by this reference.
2. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby transfers and assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby expressly and unconditionally assumes all the rights, duties and obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement to the extent those rights pertain to the Property, including, without limitation, all of the general rights, duties and obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement for the development of the Property. Assignee agrees to observe and fully perform all of Assignor's obligations under the Development Agreement, and to be subject to all the terms and conditions thereof, it being the express intention of both Assignor and Assignee that, upon execution of this Assignment, Assignee shall become substituted for Assignor as the “Owner” under the Development Agreement with respect to the Property.
3. Secured Obligations. Pursuant to section 5.4.1(b) of the Development Agreement, Assignee has provided the City with security equivalent to any security previously provided by Assignor to secure performance of its obligations under the Development Agreement.
4. Release of Assignor. Pursuant to section 5.4.1(c) of the Development Agreement, Assignor shall be free from any and all liabilities pertaining to the Property accruing on or after the date hereof with respect to the Development Agreement. No breach or default under this Assignment or the Development Agreement by Assignee shall be attributed to Assignor.
5. Governing Law. This Assignment is made and entered into in the State of California and shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Kern County.
6. Binding Effect. This Assignment shall apply to, bind, and inure to benefit of Assignor and Assignee, and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.
7. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall together constitute one instrument. [Signatures on Following Pages]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed as of the date first above written.
“ASSIGNOR”
________________
a ________________
By: ______________________________
Name: __________________
Its: _________________________________
“ASSIGNEE”
________________
a ________________
By:__________________________________
Name: _______________________________
Its: __________________________________
[Intentionally Left Blank]
The City of Shafter hereby approves of this Assignment and acknowledges that Assignor, having satisfied the conditions to the release set forth in Section 5.4.1 of the Development Agreement, shall be released from its obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to the Property described in Exhibit A.
CITY OF SHAFTER, a California municipal law corporation By: ______________________________
Name:
Its:
ATTEST:
By: _______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By: _________________________
City Attorney
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF _____________ )ss.
)
On __________________, before me, _______________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
____________________________________
Notary Public
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF _____________ )ss.
)
On __________________, before me, _______________, a Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
____________________________________
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A TO EXHIBIT “D”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY BEING ASSIGNED
EXHIBIT E
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Public Improvement Phasing Plan
Phase 1 Tract 7461
Roads: North half improvements of Seventh Standard Road from the west side of Calloway Canal to the west boundary line of Phase 1, Full width improvements1 (not including sidewalk and landscaping on east side) of Lake Road, including sidewalk and landscaping along the west side of Lake Road for the tract frontage, Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on north side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Lake Road to the south end of Street A, including sidewalk and landscaping along the south side of Mission Lakes Boulevard, and fire access improvements consisting of base rock and two-lane asphalt pavement on Mission Lakes Boulevard South from the south end of Street A to Zerker Road.
Sewer: Sewer main from the point of connection on Seventh Standard Road at Zerker Road to Mission Lakes Boulevard South, east along Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Lake Road, south to point of connection on Seventh Standard Road.
Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company connection in Seventh Standard Road across Calloway Canal along Seventh Standard Road to Zerker Road. A tee main connection will be installed at Lake Road to continue to Mission Lakes Boulevard South, then continuing along Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Zerker Road, then south on Zerker Road to Seventh Standard Road.
Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 1.
Signal: Traffic Signal at intersection of Seventh Standard Road and Lake Road.
Phase 2 Tract 7462
Roads: Sidewalks and landscape for east side of Lake Road, Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on west side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard East from Lake Road to Street D, including landscape and sidewalk along east side of Mission Lakes Blvd from Lake Road to D Street and Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on west side) of Street D to the Phase 2 north boundary, including landscape and sidewalk on east side of D street from Mission Lakes Blvd to northerly boundary of Phase 2. 1 Full width improvement means curb-to-curb.
Sewer: Sewer main along Mission Lakes Boulevard East from Lake Road to Street D, along Street D to the Phase 2 north boundary.
Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company, along Mission Lakes Boulevard East from Lake Road to Street D, then along Street D to Mission Lakes boundary connecting to Gossamer Grove development.
Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 2.
Phase 3 Tract 7463
Roads: Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on north side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard North along Phase 3 frontage, including landscape and sidewalk on south side of Mission Lakes Blvd North for Phase 3 frontage and Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on west side) of Street A, including landscape and sidewalk along east side of A Street from Mission Lakes Blvd South to Mission Lakes Blvd North; sidewalk and landscaping on the north side of Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Street A to the eastern boundary of Phase 3.
Sewer: Sewer main along Street A from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Mission Lakes Boulevard North, and along Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Street D to Lennar’s western property line/Suburban Land’s eastern property line.
Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company, along Street A from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Mission Lakes Boulevard North, and along Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Street D to Lennar’s western property line/Suburban Land’s eastern property line.
Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 3.
Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).
Phase 4 Tract 7464
Roads: Sidewalks and landscape for north side of Mission Lakes Boulevard North along Phase 4, full width improvements along Mission Lakes Blvd North from westerly boundary of Phase 4 to A Street and Full width improvements (not including sidewalk and landscaping on east side) of Street D from Phase 2 boundary to the north boundary of Phase 4, including landscape and sidewalk
improvements along west side of D Street from Mission Lakes Blvd to northerly boundary of Phase 4.
Sewer: Sewer main along Street D from Phase 2 boundary to the north boundary of Phase 4.
Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company installed with Phases 1-3.
Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 4.
Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).
Phase 5
Roads: North half improvements of Seventh Standard Road from the west boundary line of Phase 5 to the west boundary of Phase 1, and Full width improvements (including sidewalks and landscape for south side) of Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Street A to the west boundary line of Phase 5, and Full width improvements along Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to Seventh Standard Road, including landscape and sidewalk on both side of Zerker Road from 7th Std Road to Mission Lakes Blvd South.
Sewer: Sewer main along Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 5.
Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company connection in Seventh Standard Road from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 5, and along Mission Lakes Boulevard South from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 5.
Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 5.
Signals: Modifications to existing traffic signal and loop detectors at the intersection of Zerker Road and 7th Std Road.
Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).
Phase 6
Roads: Full width improvements including landscape and sidewalk on both sides of Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Zerker Road to west boundary of Phase 4, and Full width improvements including landscape and sidewalk on both sides of Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to north boundary of Phase 6; sidewalk and landscaping on the west side of A Street between Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Mission Lakes Boulevard North.
Sewer: Sewer main along Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 4, and along Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to north boundary of Phase 6.
Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company Mission Lakes Boulevard North from Zerker Road to the west boundary of Phase 4, and along Zerker Road from Mission Lakes Boulevard South to north boundary of Phase 6.
Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 6.
Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).
Phase 7
Roads: Full width improvements of Street D from north Phase 4 boundary to northeast side of the Calloway Canal including roadway bridge over Calloway Canal and sidewalk and landscaping on both sides of D Street along Phase 7 frontage; sidewalk and landscaping on the west side of Mission Lakes Boulevard from the Phase 3 boundary to Street D. -
Sewer: Sewer main along Street D from north Phase 4 boundary to Street E.
Water: Domestic and Irrigation mains from Oildale Mutual Water Company installed with Phases 1-3.
Utilities: Power, Gas, Telephone, Fiber and Cable TV to serve Phase 7.
Signals: Traffic Signals at intersections of Mission Lakes Boulevard South and Zerker Road, and Mission Lakes Boulevard North and Zerker Road (if warranted by a traffic impact study).
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE
ONLY, EAST SIDE OF
MISSION LAKES BLVD. Page 322 of 446
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
MISSION LAKES BLVD LAKE ROAD CALLOWAY CANAL STREET A STREET C STREET D MISSION LAKES BLVD ZERKER ROAD STREET E 7TH STANDARD ROAD Ó N
SIDEWALK AND
LANDSCAPE ONLY,
WEST SIDE OF
MISSION LAKES BLVD. Page 327 of 446
EXHIBIT F
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 25-22
Mission Lakes Specific Plan Park Improvements
EXHIBIT F
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 24-22
Mission Lakes Specific Plan Park Improvements
Per the Mission Lakes Specific Plan (“Plan”) approved July 16, 2024 (Ordinance No. 754), there are thirteen (13) parks found within the Plan area. A brief description of the parks can be found in the table below:
Planning Area (PA)* Acres per Park (minimum) Minimum Number of Parks in PA PA-1 1.0 1
PA-2a 2.0 1
PA-2b Not Applicable 0
PA-2c Not Applicable 0
PA-3 1.0 1
PA-4 1.0 1
PA-5 1.0 2
PA-6 Not Applicable 0
PA-7a 2.0 1
PA-7b Not Applicable 0
PA-8 1.0 1
PA-9 2.0 1
PA-10 44.1 1
PA-11 24.1 1
PA-12 Not Applicable 0
PA-13 Not Applicable 0
PA-14 1.0 1
PA-15 1.0 1
PA-16 Not Applicable 0
*Planning Areas and general park locations within the Planning Areas found in Figures 3-1 and 3-4, respectively, of the Mission Lakes Specific Plan approved July 16, 2024.
In lieu of paying a Park Impact Fee for each dwelling unit, the Owner may design and fully construct publicly accessible parks included in the Plan, which shall be completed within eight (8) months of commencing park construction.
Per the approved Plan, “[n]eighborhood parks shall be completed prior to the issuance of 60% of the certificates of occupancy for dwelling units in their respective planning area where they are located.” Additionally, the Plan requires that the 44.1-acre park in PA-10 “shall be completed prior to issuance of the certificates of occupancy for 1,500 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area.” Finally, the Plan requires that the construction of the 24.1-acre park in PA-11 begin “after the issuance of the certificates of occupancy for 2,500 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area and completed before 3,000 certificates of occupancy for dwelling units have been issued.” However,
the City of Shafter reserves the right to revise these requirements through unique conditions of approval for a future tract map, site plan, etc. applicable to a subject planning area.
Also, per the Plan, where possible, “detention basins should be integrated into [the Mission Lakes Specific Plan area] as landscaped open space areas for passive recreation and/or playfields.” Additionally, per the Plan, “[t]he neighborhood pocket parks will be landscaped with a small grove of trees, shrubs, and other plant material as described in the project’s plant palette which will be determined by the master developer. The public and neighborhood pocket parks will have unique identities and shall contain any combination of passive sitting areas, open space turf areas for various activities, tot lots, walkways, and decorative lighting, subject to approval of the Planning Director.”
The general landscaping standards for parks found in the Plan are as follows:
All areas required to be landscaped will be planted with turf, groundcover, shrubs, or trees selected from the plant palette contained in these guidelines. The private recreational facilities and neighborhood parks, neighborhood commercial center, and common landscaped areas are permitted to be planted with a hydroseed mix. Sod shall be used for required front yard landscaping. A combination of hydroseed mix and flatted groundcovers shall be used to cover areas between shrubs and trees to prevent erosion. Colorful perennials also will be a part of these plantings. Plants with similar watering requirements shall be planted together in order to simplify the irrigation systems and increase water use efficiency. Priority use of water shall be considered, meaning that visually sensitive areas are entitled to use more water than low visual impact areas. Visually sensitive areas include entries and highly traveled street frontages.
The Plan also provides guidance on drought tolerance as follows:
The landscape palette for the Mission Lakes Specific Plan shall promote selective drought tolerance through the use of native and naturalizing species. All common landscape areas shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems. Drip or bubbler irrigation shall be provided where feasible. Automatic controllers shall be equipped with automatic rain-shutoff devices and provide for various type of water management options.
Finally, the Plan provides guidance on plant materials as follows:
Conceptual planting guidelines have been established through this Specific Plan. More detailed plant material guidelines and plant palette shall be established by the master developer…and will provide flexibility and diversity in plant material selection, while maintaining a limited palette in order to give greater unity and thematic identity to the
community. The plant material lists will be selected for their appropriateness to the project theme, climatic conditions, soil conditions, and concern for maintenance and shall be made available of the City of Shafter Planning department. Wherever possible, overall plant material groupings shall have compatible drought resistant characteristics. Irrigation programming can then be designed to minimize water application for the entire landscape setting. Consideration must be given when locating trees to avoid potential long-term problems with tree roots, but the City will have final approval for clearances when public facilities may be affected.
Per the approved Marcona Preserve Specific Plan, the following is applicable to the park(s) to be developed within the subject Planning Area:
PA-1
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-2a
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 2.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-3
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-4
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-5
• Two neighborhood parks with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of parks shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-7a
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 2.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-8
• One neighborhood park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres. • Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-9
• One neighborhood with a minimum size of 2.0 acres.
• Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-10
• One park with a minimum size of 44.1 acres that includes a minimum of one lake and open space.
• Facilities can include community center, hard courts, pool/spa, parking areas, restroom facilities, basketball and tennis courts, tot lots, open space turf, and barbeque facilities. • Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-11
• One park with a minimum size of 24.1 acres.
• Facilities to be provided within this public park shall include, but are not limited to, a tot lot and children’s play area with adjacent seating and paths, multipurpose turf, ball fields, multiuse courts that may include tennis, basketball, volleyball or handball, bike racks, restroom facilities, trash receptacles and parking.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-14
• One pocket park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres.
• Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
PA-15
• One pocket park with a minimum size of 1.0 acres.
• Shall include special landscaping such as focal elements with specimen trees, flowering shrubbery, and turf. Additional elements such as tot lots, picnic tables, benches, low fences and gates, or archways should be provided to further tie these spaces into the neighborhood character.
• Lighting of park shall be designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent and nearby properties.
Statistical Analysis
PA-1
157.6 AC***
PA-15
26.5 AC
PA-16
129.1 AC
PA-4
100.2 AC***
PA-2
179.5 AC
PA-3
87.1 AC
PA-11
24.1 AC
PA-6
24.6 AC PA-7
127.6 AC
PA-12
23.1 AC
PA-10
44.1 AC***
PA-9
49.8 AC
PA-14
24.1 AC
PA-13
12.0 AC
PA-5
78.8 AC
PA-8
114.2 AC
***Number includes school/lake acreage.
Land Use Plan Figure 3-1 0‘ 2000‘ 1000‘
Elementary
School
15.0 AC
Lake
33.1 AC
Middle
School
25.0 AC
LAND USE PA ACRES* DENSITY MAX
DUsRESIDENTIALLow Density Res. (LDR) PA-1 132.6 4-7.5 du/ac 745Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-2 179.5 4-7.5 du/ac 720Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-3 87.1 4-7.5 du/ac 307Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-4 85.2 4-7.5 du/ac 435Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-5 78.8 4-7.5 du/ac 375Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-6 24.6 4-7.5 du/ac 126Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-7 127.6 4-7.5 du/ac 486Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-8 114.2 4-7.5 du/ac 620Low Density Res. (LDR) PA-9 49.8 4-7.5 du/ac 275Medium Density Res. (MDR) PA-12 23.1 7.5-14 du/ac 236Medium Density Res. (MDR) PA-13 12.0 7.5-14 du/ac 123Medium-High Density Res. (MHDR) PA-14 24.1 18-24 du/ac 400Medium-High Density Res. (MHDR) PA-15 26.5 18-24 du/ac 486TOTAL 965.2 5,334NON-RESIDENTIALCommercial PA-16 129.1Middle School PA-1 25.0Elementary School PA-4 15.0TOTAL 169.1PARKS & RECREATIONPrivate Recreation (HOA)** PA-10 11.0Lake PA-10 33.1Public Park PA-11 24.1TOTAL 68.2Public Road 71.6Calloway Canal ROW 82.6TOTAL-GROSS ACREAGE 1,356.8 *Excludes ROW for roads defined on Circulation Plan
** Additional private pocket parks located throughout residential areas.Note: Lot sizes are averaged to achieve maximum dwelling unit count for each planning area.
73.2 AC 70.3 AC 124.9 AC 19.7 AC 168.5 AC 97.8 AC 67.3 AC 89.3 AC 101.2 AC 26.8 AC 74.4 AC Parcel 8 Parcels 9 & 10 Parcels 11 & portion of 12
Parcels 26 & 27 Parcel 28 Parcels 13 & 14 Parcel 15 Parcel 16 PA-7b Parcels 19 & 20 Parcel 18Parcel 31 11.7 acres Parcel 30 13.1 acres Parcels 23, 24 & 25
23.9 Parcel 5 Parcels 1, 2, 3 & 4Parcels 6 & 7 2 5 40.0 AC PA-7a 42.7 AC PA-2b PA-2a PA-2c Parcel 22 38.0 AC Parcels 17 & 21
69.4 AC Parcel D 29.6 acres 42.7
Parks and Recreation Plan Figure 3-4
Legend
Public Park
Private Recreation
Primary Paseo
Secondary Paseo
Natural Trail
Lake/Open Space
not to scale
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
HOA
P
HOA
Public
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Planning and Building: (661) 746-5002 / Fax (661) 746-9125 • www.shafter.com 336 Pacific Avenue • Shafter, California 93263
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 8, 2026
To: Planning Commission
From: Steve Esselman, Planning Director
Subject: Comment Letter on Development Agreement No. 25-22 (Mission Lakes Specific Plan)
Staff received the attached letter at 4:45 pm on September 8, 2026. The following is staff’s response to the letter.
The City disagrees that approval of Development Agreement No. 25-22 requires preparation of an initial study or subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City is not relying on an exemption from CEQA. Rather, the City has determined that Development Agreement No. 25-22 is within the scope and development intensity previously analyzed in the certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2004101029) (Program EIR) and the Addendum prepared for Development Agreement No. 06-03 (Addendum). Development Agreement No. 06-03 was the prior development agreement governing the Mission Lakes Specific Plan area.
The Program EIR and Addendum evaluated development of the Mission Lakes Specific Plan area with up to 5,334 residential units, together with the associated commercial, park, school, roadway, and infrastructure use. Development Agreement No. 25-22 does not increase the maximum number of approved residential units or authorize development exceeding the scope or intensity evaluated in those environmental documents. Accordingly, its approval will not result in a significant new environmental effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect.
Under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required only when substantial changes to the project, substantial changes in the circumstances surrounding the project, or new information of substantial importance require major revisions to the prior EIR. The comment does not identify any specific change in Development Agreement No. 25-22, changed circumstances, or new information demonstrating that the Development Agreement would cause a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously analyzed effect. A general assertion that circumstances have changed or new information exists, without identifying the asserted change, information, or resulting environmental effect, does not establish that subsequent environmental review is required.
Exhibit 3
Because Development Agreement No. 25-22 remains within the scope and intensity of the development previously evaluated in the Program EIR and Addendum, and none of the circumstances requiring additional environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has been shown to exist, the environmental effects associated with approval of the Development Agreement have already been adequately analyzed for purposes of CEQA. Preparation of an initial study or subsequent EIR is therefore not required, and the comment does not provide a basis to postpone or deny approval of Development Agreement No. 25-22.
Attachment(s): Comment Letter
September 8, 2026
VIA EMAIL
John Sanchez, Chairman
Peter Frantz, Vice-Chair
Lovedeep Joshan, Commissioner
David Piuser Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter CA 93263
[email protected]
Steve Esselman, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Shafter
336 Pacific Avenue
Shafter CA 93263
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Development Agreement No. 25-22 (Mission Lakes Specific Plan) September 8, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 Dear Chair Sanchez, Vice Chair Frantz, Honorable Commissioners and Planner Esselman This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), regarding the project known as Development Agreement No. 25-22 (Mission Lakes Specific Plan), which proposes the development of 5, 334 single-family and multi-family dwelling units, 68 acres of public parks, 129 acres of commercial development, two schools, and a 72 acre of road right of way located generally on the north side of 7th Standard Road west of the Calloway Canal. in the City of Shafter (“Project”), which is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2026, as Agenda Item 1.
SAFER objects to the City’s decision to exempt the Project from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) based on consistency with the 2005 City of Shafter General Plan Update EIR and an Addendum to the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Shafter 2005 General Plan Update Exempting the Project from CEQA based on the prior EIR and Addendum violates CEQA because the project will have new impacts based on changed circumstances and new information since the prior EIR and Addendum were approved necessitating preparation of a subsequent EIR. SAFER requests that an initial study be conducted and a CEQA document prepared to analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts. The Planning Commission should decline to approve the Project until proper CEQA review is completed.
September 8, 2026
Comment on Development Agreement No. 25-22 (Mission Lakes Specific Plan) Planning Commission Agenda Item 1
Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP
MANAGEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Michael James, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION ON FEASIBILITY OF CITY-OPERATED FIRE
DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is not a project pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; and receive a presentation from Matrix Consulting Group regarding the draft Municipal Fire Department Feasibility Study dated September 14, 2026.
BACKGROUND
The City of Shafter currently contracts with the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) for fire protection and related emergency services. As the City continues to grow, the City has been evaluating the long-term delivery of fire services and the feasibility of establishing a municipal fire department.
The City retained Matrix Consulting Group (Matrix) to conduct a comprehensive Municipal Fire Department Feasibility Study. Matrix has prepared a draft study dated September 14, 2026, evaluating the City’s existing fire service delivery system and the operational and financial considerations associated with establishing a municipal fire department. The draft study evaluates response capabilities and response times, resource locations, staffing and organizational requirements, facilities and apparatus, support services, financial considerations, and implementation requirements.
The draft study concludes that the City can establish and operate a municipal fire department, but that its financial feasibility is dependent on specific funding conditions.
Among the principal considerations identified by Matrix are whether Fire Fund property tax revenue currently retained by Kern County could be redirected to support a City fire department and whether the City could establish a permanent, dedicated funding source sufficient to support ongoing operations and capital needs. The study also evaluates service-level considerations, including existing response times and the potential need for a second station as the City continues to develop.
Matrix will present the findings of the draft study to the City Council and provide an overview of the operational, financial, and implementation considerations identified through its analysis. The presentation is informational, and no decision regarding the establishment of a municipal fire department is being requested at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
PRESENTATION ON FEASIBILITY OF CITY-OPERATED FIRE DEPARTMENT - 2 -
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with receiving the presentation and reviewing the draft Municipal Fire Department Feasibility Study. The costs associated with preparation of the study were previously authorized by the City Council on December 16, 2025.
Any fiscal impacts associated with potential changes to the City’s future delivery of fire protection and emergency response services would depend on subsequent City Council direction and are not part of the action before the Council at this time.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The item is informational only and therefore, there is no discretionary action that triggers CEQA review for this item.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
1. Municipal Fire Department Feasibility Study Presentation
2. Draft Municipal Fire Department Feasibility Study dated September 14, 2026
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA | FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
2 KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
• Fire service costs the General Fund $0 today. The County’s Fire Fund property tax covers the cost, but the City is projected to start paying in the early 2030s. • Response times miss the County’s own standard. Emergencies average 9:31 against an 8:00 target, driven by travel from one central station. • A City department would cost far more. One station: $3.7M a year and $27M to build. Two stations: $5.3M a year and $43M. • Feasibility rests on two conditions. The County must redirect about $2.5M a year in Fire Fund tax, and the City must secure a permanent revenue source. • Recommendation: conditionally feasible. Do not commit until both conditions are resolved; otherwise stay with Kern County Fire.
Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
3 Shafter property owners pay a Fire Fund share of their property tax, which the County collects and keeps. Today that share exceeds the County’s cost to serve the City.
Why the advantage is shrinking
• The County is phasing in full cost recovery through FY2027-28, with costs rising 2% a year. • The City’s surplus falls from $286K in FY2022-23 to $119K in FY2027-28. • A new contract after June 2028 could bring payments sooner.
The City’s no-cost fire service is projected to end in the early 2030s Projected City cost of County fire service, by fiscal year Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
FY28 FY30 FY32 FY34 FY36 FY40
$0K $0K
$20K
$89K
$158K
$297K
4 Average response
9:31 • Total response time to emergencies in the City, 2023–2025 90th percentile
17:00 • One in ten emergency calls waits 17 minutes or longer County target
8:00 • Kern County Fire’s average response objective for urban areas Response times exceed the County’s 8-minute target
Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
Cause: travel time from one centrally located station.
County Station 61 covers the far southeast because it
is closer.
Fix: a second station in the developing southeast
would shorten response times across the City.
Workload: 4,542 City calls in 2023–2025, 65% of
them medical.
5 A City department would cost $3.7M–$5.3M a year and $27M–$43M to build Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
Cost category One station (today’s
service) Add second station (growth) Two stations (full) Annual operating cost
Fire department personnel $2.31M +$1.24M $3.55M
Support services (HR, finance) $0.23M — $0.23M
Operating budget $1.00M +$0.27M $1.27M
Apparatus replacement reserve $0.15M +$0.08M $0.23M
Total per year $3.69M +$1.58M $5.27M
One-time capital (excluding land)
Apparatus and equipment $3.04M +$1.25M $4.29M
Fire station construction $24.40M +$14.64M $39.04M
Total one-time capital $27.44M +$15.89M $43.33M
The City would start from nothing; the County keeps its station and apparatus when the contract ends. Start-up costs for hiring, training, legal work and dispatch setup add another $0.7M–$1.6M.
6 The gap depends on whether the County redirects its Fire Fund tax, worth about $2.5M a year, to a City department.
How the gap grows by FY2039-40
• Fire Fund redirected: net cost rises to about $2.7M a year. • Fire Fund kept by County: about $5.2M a year, and residents still pay the County’s fire tax. • Stay with County: about $0.3M a year.
Even in the best case, a City department costs $1.2M a year more than the County contract Annual cost to the City, first full year (FY2029-30)
Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
City dept., Fire Fund kept by
County
City dept., Fire Fund redirected
Stay with Kern County
$3.7M
$1.2M
$0
7 Feasibility hinges on two questions the City cannot answer alone • Redirection is not automatic: it needs a County agreement or a LAFCOapproved jurisdictional change. • The County has a financial reason to keep about $2.5M a year. • No California city has left a county department and taken its fire fund tax. • Without it, residents pay the County’s fire tax and fund a City department.
1. Will the County redirect the Fire Fund tax?
• The City must cover $1.2M–$3.7M a year, plus $27M+ in capital, from a stable source.
• Main options: a voter-approved tax or reallocated General Fund revenue. • Grants and fees can offset costs but cannot sustain a department. • Placentia formed its department in 2020 only after voters approved a sales tax.
2. Can the City secure permanent revenue?
Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
8 Do not commit to a City department until both questions are resolved Measure the yearly and capital gap, then evaluate sources, including a voterapproved measure.
2. Size the revenue need
Obtain County Counsel and LAFCO determinations on redirecting the Fire Fund tax. Every other decision depends on it.
1. Get the Fire Fund answer first
Commission a compensation study, apparatus, station and dispatch quotes, and confirm the Fire Fund amount with the County.
3. Validate the estimates
Monitor cost trends and seek better terms when the contract is renegotiated after June 2028.
5. If not, stay with Kern County Fire
Adopt the plan: 25 positions, two stations, a 48/96 schedule and CalPERS.
Weigh the cost against local control and faster response.
4. If both answers are yes, proceed
Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
9 PHASE 1
Funding
Resolve the Fire Fund question,
secure revenue and validate costs
PHASE 2
Formation
Adopt the ordinance and fire
code; give the County 12 months’
notice
PHASE 3
People
Hire a Fire Chief, join CalPERS,
negotiate a labor agreement,
recruit staff
PHASE 4
Facilities
Acquire sites, build stations,
order apparatus early (1+ year
lead time)
PHASE 5
Transition
Set up dispatch and mutual aid,
train crews, cut over with no gap
If the City proceeds, standing up a department takes three to four years Shafter Fire Department Feasibility Study
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT
FEASIBILITY
SEPTEMBER 14, 2026
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
SHAFTER OVERVIEW 4
DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION 25
FIRE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION 37
SUPPORT SERVICES 52
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 60
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION 74
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
The City of Shafter engaged Matrix Consulting Group to evaluate the feasibility and cost of establishing its own municipal fire department to replace its current contract with the Kern County Fire Department.
This report presents the project team's research and analysis of the fire department services system and the community it serves.
SCOPE OF WORK
This study assessed the current fire services delivery system, including operational practices, response capabilities, staffing levels, and the resources required to deliver fire suppression services within the City. Periodic reviews of emergency service delivery are best practices and essential to ensuring that community needs are met as conditions change. Accordingly, this project focused on evaluating the fire suppression delivery system, including the following key areas:
• Response capabilities.
• Response time analysis.
• Resource locations.
• Available resources to serve the city and county.
• Staffing, capabilities, and financial position.
This study used comprehensive approaches, as described below.
APPROACHES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY
The project team assessed emergency services to evaluate service levels and organizational issues. The principal approaches utilized by the project team in this study included, but were not limited to, the following:
• staff interviews,
• initial collection of workload and service provision data, and • a review of strategic documents, reports, budget data, organizational structure, and key practices.
The team summarized this data in a ‘descriptive profile’ of the emergency services, which it reviewed and revised with input from departmental staff to ensure a factual foundation for the study. This approach ensured that the project team understood the emergency services appropriately.
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study reaches one central finding. The City can build a sound fire department of the right size. The harder question is not whether it can be designed, but what it would cost and how the City would pay for it. A municipal department is workable to operate, but it is financially feasible only under specific conditions.
Today the City pays nothing for fire service from its General Fund. The County funds the service through a share of the property tax, called the Fire Fund, that it collects and keeps. That share currently covers more than the County’s cost to serve the City, so the City’s out-of-pocket cost is effectively zero. This advantage is shrinking. Under the current contract, the City is expected to begin paying the County from its General Fund in the early 2030s, and that cost would grow over time.
The City should also weigh the service it receives today. Current response times exceed recognized standards. Total response time to emergencies averages about 9 minutes 31 seconds and reaches 17 minutes for the slowest 10 percent of calls, compared with the County's 8-minute urban target. The main reason is travel time from a single, centrally located station. A City department, particularly one that adds a second station in the developing southeast, would shorten these times. The decision therefore involves the level of service, not cost and local control alone, though the following funding questions still determine whether the City can proceed.
A City department would cost much more than the current contract. A basic department, matching the single fire company the City has today, is estimated at about $3.7 million a year to run, plus about $27 million up front to build and equip. A full two-station department, which the City’s growth will eventually require, would cost about $5.3 million a year and about $43 million to build. One-time start-up costs, beyond apparatus and stations, add an estimated $0.7 million to $1.6 million. The County keeps all stations and apparatus when the contract ends, so the City would start from nothing.
Two questions decide whether the City can pay for a department. The first is whether the County will redirect the Fire Fund property tax it now keeps to a new City department. This is not automatic, has no clear precedent in California, and the County has a financial reason to resist it. If the tax cannot be redirected, residents would keep paying the County’s fire tax and pay for a City department on top of it.
The second question is whether the City can secure a permanent, dedicated funding source to cover the department’s yearly costs and capital needs. The best and worst cases differ sharply. If the Fire Fund cannot be redirected, a City department would cost the City roughly $3.7 million more a year than staying with the County, and residents would still pay the County’s fire tax. If the Fire Fund can be redirected, the City would receive that revenue, estimated at approximately $2.5 million a year, and the net additional cost would fall to roughly $1.2 million a year in the first full year of operation. Even in that best case, a City department would cost more than staying with the County, because a standalone department costs more to run than the County’s allocated cost of service.
California’s recent experience is a caution. In recent years, cities have generally moved the other way, giving up their own departments to join a county system, as California City did. The project team found no California city that has left a county fire department and captured the county’s fire-fund property tax,
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
which is the exact step Shafter’s plan depends on. The one city that recently formed its own department, Placentia, left a regional agency rather than a county, and it paid for the change with a new voterapproved tax.
For these reasons, the project team recommends that the City treat a municipal fire department as conditionally feasible. The City should not commit to it until both funding questions are answered. If both are answered in the City’s favor, the department is feasible, and the City can proceed using the plans in this report, on a realistic timeline of about three to four years. If they cannot be answered, the City should stay with the Kern County Fire Department, monitor cost trends, and seek better contract terms. Today’s cost advantage is real, but it will not last.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
This chapter provides an overview of Shafter's general characteristics.
BACKGROUND
The City of Shafter is in Kern County in California's San Joaquin Valley, approximately 18 miles westnorthwest of Bakersfield along State Route 43. The city encompasses roughly 38.7 square miles and had a population of 19,953 in the 2020 census, up from 16,988 in 2010, with more recent estimates placing the population above 21,000. The city borders several unincorporated communities, including Myricks Corner, North Shafter, Smith Corner, and Thomas Lane, and sits in a region characterized by extensive agricultural land and growing industrial development. Shafter has grown significantly over the past two decades, with its population increasing about 57% from 2000 to 2020 and about 66% from 2000 to the 2024 estimate, and it is recognized as one of Kern County's fastest-growing cities.
Incorporated on January 11, 1938, Shafter is a charter city operating under a Council-Manager form of government, with voters approving its charter on June 6, 1995. A five-member City Council, elected at large to staggered, four-year terms, governs the city, with elections held in November of even-numbered years. One Council member is appointed by the body to serve as Mayor. The City Council serves as the City’s legislative and policy-making authority, setting overall direction, approving programs and services, appropriating funds, and providing general oversight of city government. The City Manager, appointed by the Council, enforces municipal laws, directs the city’s daily operations, and supervises the programs and services delivered by all city departments.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
The following table illustrates the city's demographic profile and changes since 2010.
SHAFTER OVERVIEW
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6
SHAFTER DEMOGRAPHICS
US Census Bureau 2010 2020 2024
Estimated Shafter Population 16,988 19,953 21,193
Median Age 25.4 27.4 28.1
Children Under Age 5 10.6% 7.0% 7.5%
Children Ages 5 to 19 years 31.7% 31.8% 29.7%
Persons Age 20 to 59 years 47.4% 50.3% 52.2%
Persons Age 60 and Over 10.3% 10.7% 10.6%
Families in Poverty 19.0% 23.4% 20.7%
Civilian Labor Force Unemployed 10.4% 9.0% 5.8%
Median Household Income $35,915 $47,433 $71,215
Employment Sectors:
Education, Health Care, Soc. Svc. 31.9% 29.0% 18.0%
Retail Trade 6.1% 6.2% 6.1%
Professional, Scientific, Mgmt. 5.3% 6.0% 6.4%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 5.3% 6.2% 2.4%
Entertainment, Recreation, Food 10.5% 8.7% 10.8%
Construction 4.1% 7.6% 7.9%
Manufacturing 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%
Transportation, Warehousing, Util. 2.2% 0.9% 1.5%
Public Administration 8.4% 6.0% 7.8%
Other Services 12.6% 15.0% 22.4%
Wholesale 7.1% 5.5% 4.1%
Information 3.7% 3.5% 4.8%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 2.5% 5.0% 7.6%
Since 2010, Shafter's population has increased by about 25 percent, adding an estimated 4,205 residents and reaching 21,193 in 2024. The median age has risen over the period, from 25.4 years in 2010 to 28.1 years in 2024.
The following map shows population density by census block.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
As shown, the city's core lies along State Route 43, where population density is higher. The eastern sections of the city are rural, with population densities below 500 residents per square mile, except for a small area along Highway 99 in the southeast corner of the city.
KERN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION
This chapter provides an overview of the Kern County Fire Department's organization and emergency operations.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
ORGANIZATION
The City of Shafter contracts with the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) to provide fire protection services.
MISSION STATEMENT
The Kern County Fire Department is dedicated to protecting life and property by providing effective public education, fire prevention, and emergency services. We are committed to proudly serve our community in the safest, most professional and efficient manner.
VISION STATEMENT
To provide outstanding customer-centered Fire and Emergency Services.
CORE VALUES
Leadership. Integrity. Service.
AUTHORIZED STAFFING
KERN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZED STAFFING
Unit Curr. Auth.
Administration
Fire Chief and Dir. of Emergency Services 1 1
Chief Deputy 1 1
Deputy Fire Chief 5 5
Director of Administrative Services 1 1
Administrative Coordinator 1 1
Sworn 7 7
Civilian 2 2
Total Staff 9 9
Intel
Fire Captain 3 3
Program Specialist 1 1
Sworn 3 3
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
Unit Curr. Auth.
Civilian 1 1
Total Staff 4 4
Office of Emergency Services
Emergency Services Manager 1 1
Assistant Emergency Services Manager 1 1
Administrative Coordinator 1 1
Office Services Technician 1 1
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 4 4
Total Staff 4 4
Emergency Communications Center
Battalion Chief 1 1
Fire Captain 1 1
Fire Emerg. Comm. Ctr Manager 1 1
Supervising Fire Dispatcher 6 6
Fire Dispatcher 24 24
Sworn 2 2
Civilian 31 31
Total Staff 33 33
Finance and HR
Business Manager 1 1
Administrative Coordinator 1 1
Accountant/Sr. Accountant 2 2
Fiscal Support Supervisor 2 2
Fiscal Support Specialist 7 7
Fiscal Support Technician 2 2
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 15 15
Total Staff 15 15
Risk Management
Administrative Coordinator 1 1
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 1 1
Total Staff 1 1
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
Unit Curr. Auth.
Facilities
Structural Maintenance Superintendent 2 2
Maintenance Worker 2 2
Building Services Worker 1 1
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 5 5
Total Staff 5 5
Technology Services
Technology Services Manager 1 1
Local Area Network Systems Admin 1 1
Network Systems Administrator 2 2
Technical Support Engineer 1 1
Systems Analyst II 2 2
Geographic Info. Systems Spec. 1 1
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 8 8
Total Staff 8 8
Fleet Services
Equipment Maintenance Superintendent 1 1
Supervising Heavy Equipment Mechanic 3 3
Fire Equipment Mechanic 13 13
Fire Equipment Service Worker 3 3
Automotive Parts Storekeeper 2 1 1
Fiscal Support Technician 1 1
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 22 22
Total Staff 22 22
Emergency Medical Services
Battalion Chief 1 1
Senior EMS Coordinator 1 1
Fire Captain 2 2
Fire Engineer 1 1
First Responder Medical Unit Operator 12 12
First Responder Paramedic 12 12
Firefighter 1 1
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11
Unit Curr. Auth.
Supervising FR Paramedics 2 2
Office Services Specialist 1 1
Sworn 5 5
Civilian 28 28
Total Staff 33 33
Logistics
Fire Division Chief 1 1
Administrative Coordinator 1 1
Fire Captain 1 1
Facilities and Services Specialist 1 1
Fiscal Support Specialist 1 1
Fiscal Support Technician 1 1
Fire Equipment Technician 4 4
Stock Clerk 1 1
Light Vehicle Driver 1 1
Sworn 2 2
Civilian 10 10
Total Staff 12 12
Operations Division
Fire Division Chief 3 3
Fire Battalion Chief 24 24
Fire Captain 166 166
Fire Engineer 154 154
Firefighter 170 170
Firefighter-Over hire 55 55
Wildland Firefighter 60 60
Sworn 632 632
Civilian 0 0
Total Staff 632 632
Federal Excess Property
Federal Excess Property Coordinator 1 1
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 1 1
Total Staff 1 1
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
Unit Curr. Auth.
Arson
Supervising Fire Investigator 1 1
Fire Captain 6 6
Senior Office Services Specialist 1 1
Sworn 7 7
Civilian 1 1
Total Staff 8 8
Training
Fire Division Chief 1 1
Fire Captain 3 3
Marketing & Promotions Coordinator 1 1
Office Services Specialist 2 2
Sworn 4 4
Civilian 3 3
Total Staff 7 7
Fire Heavy Equipment Facility
Supervising Fire Heavy Equipment Spec 1 1
Fire Heavy Equipment Specialist 9 9
Sworn 0 0
Civilian 10 10
Total Staff 10 10
Fire Plan / Air Operations
Supervisor Fire Aviation Specialist 1 1
Supervisor Fire Hand crew Specialist 1 1
Fire Captain 14 14
Fire Engineer 6 6
Firefighter 4 4
Supervising Helicopter Pilot 1 1
Fire Helicopter Pilot 6 6
Supervising Aircraft Mechanic 1 1
Aircraft Mechanic 3 3
Sworn 26 26
Civilian 11 11
Total Staff 37 37
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
Unit Curr. Auth.
Fire Prevention
Fire Battalion Chief 1 1
Assistant Fire Marshall 2 2
Fire Prevention Inspector I/II 10 10
Fire Plans Examiner 3 3
Departmental Public Information Officer 1 1
Fiscal Support Specialist 1 1
Fiscal Support Technician 1 1
Sworn 13 13
Civilian 6 6
Total Staff 19 19
Department Total
Sworn 701 701
Civilian 159 159
Total Staff 860 860
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
KERN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION CHART
Fire Chief
Deputy Chief
Administration
Deputy Chief
Intelligence
Public Information
Officer
ECC
IT
CRR
Deputy Chief
Operations
Division 1
Division 2
Division 3
Deputy Chief
Wildland
Fire Plan
Dozer
Crews
Air
Deputy Chief
Support Services
Firefighter
Recruitment
Fire Investigations
Division 6
Fleet
FEPP
Facilities
Logs
Deputy Chief
Training/ EMS
Engineer Testing
Division 5
EMS
Training
Prevention
Human Resources Contracts
Battalion Chief
Testing
Executive Secretary
Reception Secretary
OES/EOC
Labor Relations Contract Cities
Finance
Accountant
Budget
Payroll
Accounts Payable
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
KCFD provides service to Kern County, which spans about 8,000 square miles, with 49 fire stations. This assessment focuses on the City of Shafter, which contracts with KCFD. The following map illustrates the location of the fire station in the city.
The city's fire station is in the central part of the city’s most populous area, along State Highway 43.
Additional resources are available in Wasco and Bakersfield.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
SHAFTER FIRE STATION DETAIL
Station 32
325 Sunset Avenue
Assigned Apparatus Staffing
Unit ID Resource Description Scheduled Minimum
Engine 32 2023 Pierce Enforcer Type 1 Engine 4 3
Patrol 32 2009 Ford F-450 Type 6 Engine Cross Staffed
HISTORICAL WORKLOADS
KCFD responds to emergency and non-emergency calls for service. The following table shows the fire department's calls for service, organized by incident type, for 2023–2025.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17
CALLS FOR SERVICE – CITY OF SHAFTER 2023 – 2025
Call Type 2023 2024 2025 Total Pct.
Auto Accidents 40 59 64 163 3.6%
Medical Assist Calls 183 124 87 394 8.7%
Medical Calls 601 897 898 2,396 52.8%
Medical Calls and Auto Accidents 824 1,080 1,049 2,953 65.0% Fire Alarm - Activation 18 8 2 28 0.6%
Fire Alarm - False 34 32 28 94 2.1%
Fire Alarm - Malfunction 15 13 5 33 0.7%
Mutual Aid 5 10 5 20 0.4%
Other Type of Fire 6 13 9 28 0.6%
Overpressure/Rupture 1 1 3 5 0.1%
Smoke Scare 6 8 13 27 0.6%
Structure Fire 8 11 7 26 0.6%
Vegetation/Brush/Debris Fires 56 53 32 141 3.1%
Vehicle Fire 14 10 9 33 0.7%
All Fire Calls 163 159 113 435 9.6%
Rescue Calls - Extrication 1 6 2 9 0.2%
Rescue Calls - Elevator 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Rescue Calls - Other 175 40 4 219 4.8%
Rescue Calls - Search 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Rescue Calls - Technical 1 0 0 1 0.0%
Rescue Calls - Water 0 0 0 0 0.0%
All Rescue Calls 177 46 6 229 5.0%
Dispatched and Canceled 167 156 185 508 11.2%
Good Intent Calls 46 36 47 129 2.8%
Hazardous Material 0 1 0 1 0.0%
Hazardous Conditions 49 52 38 139 3.1%
Severe Weather Alerts 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Service Calls 40 47 61 148 3.3%
Non-Coded Calls 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Other Types of Calls 302 292 331 925 20.4%
Total Calls for Service 1,466 1,577 1,499 4,542
Year-over-Year Change 7.6% -4.9%
Average Calls per Day 4.0 4.3 4.1
The table shows that 65.0% of all calls the fire department received were medical-related. Out of the 4,542 calls received from 2023 to 2025, 9.6% were related to fire activities, and 0.6% were structure fires.
The fire department also responds to various rescue situations, which account for 5% of the total calls.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
The remaining 20.4% of calls cover other issues, including HAZMAT, service calls, and hazardous conditions. This table includes only calls that occurred in the City of Shafter; because this station is part of the larger county fire department, it also responded to calls outside the city limits.
Three call-type series show discontinuities across the period that likely do not reflect actual changes in demand. Medical Calls rise from 601 in 2023 to 897 in 2024, an increase of 49%, while Medical Assist Calls decline from 183 to 87 over the same period, and Rescue Calls, Other fall from 175 to 40 to 4, a decrease of 98%. These patterns are more consistent with a change in computer-aided dispatch or NFIRS coding practice than with a change in what the community is calling about.
The following table shows the total number of calls for service the fire department managed for each hour and day of the week over the past three years, from 2023 through 2025. This chart includes both emergency and non-emergency calls for service to provide an overall view of call demand on the emergency services system.
CALLS BY HOUR AND DAY OF THE WEEK 2023 – 2025
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
12 am 0.81% 0.28% 0.27% 0.47% 0.44% 0.40% 0.32%
1 am 0.71% 0.32% 0.13% 0.38% 0.24% 0.35% 0.49%
2 am 0.40% 0.44% 0.38% 0.43% 0.19% 0.27% 0.28%
3 am 0.40% 0.30% 0.49% 0.19% 0.11% 0.13% 0.14%
4 am 0.25% 0.09% 0.44% 0.30% 0.38% 0.66% 0.44%
5 am 0.13% 0.71% 0.25% 0.33% 0.46% 0.43% 0.54%
6 am 0.25% 0.63% 0.65% 0.35% 0.25% 0.27% 0.25%
7 am 0.22% 0.43% 0.76% 0.60% 0.38% 0.38% 0.30%
8 am 0.30% 0.47% 0.66% 0.81% 0.59% 0.65% 0.54%
9 am 0.71% 0.87% 0.49% 1.00% 0.47% 0.57% 0.32%
10 am 1.00% 0.79% 0.41% 0.90% 0.57% 0.66% 0.63%
11 am 0.92% 0.89% 0.71% 0.78% 0.73% 0.73% 0.76%
12 pm 0.66% 0.60% 0.84% 0.85% 0.89% 0.57% 0.63%
1 pm 0.52% 0.68% 0.59% 0.59% 0.70% 0.79% 0.73%
2 pm 0.71% 0.85% 0.68% 0.73% 0.79% 0.73% 0.92%
3 pm 0.66% 0.57% 0.66% 0.82% 0.93% 0.44% 0.65%
4 pm 0.54% 0.84% 0.55% 0.79% 0.84% 0.90% 0.62%
5 pm 0.95% 0.78% 0.87% 0.60% 0.85% 1.09% 0.65%
6 pm 0.82% 0.66% 0.81% 1.01% 1.12% 0.60% 0.74%
7 pm 0.74% 0.71% 1.00% 0.84% 0.68% 0.98% 0.82%
8 pm 0.87% 0.52% 0.55% 0.55% 0.57% 0.93% 1.09%
9 pm 0.82% 0.57% 1.01% 0.71% 0.84% 0.73% 0.66%
10 pm 0.57% 0.76% 0.51% 0.55% 0.36% 0.57% 0.71%
11 pm 0.41% 0.51% 0.35% 0.33% 0.62% 0.62% 0.65%
The busiest time of day is between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. during the Monday-through-Friday workweek. On weekends, call volume picks up from about 10 a.m. through 9 p.m. The busiest hour of the day is the 5 p.m. hour, and the slowest hour of the day is the 3 a.m. hour.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19
The following chart further illustrates the calls for service by hour of the day.
As illustrated, calls increase sharply at 8 a.m., peak at 5 p.m., and remain steady throughout the day.
Calls begin to decline at 9 p.m., with 3 a.m. being the slowest hour of the day.
The following map illustrates call demand using geospatial technology to show where most calls for service occurred.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
12 am 3 am 6 am 9 am 12 pm 3 pm 6 pm 9 pm
Calls by Time of Day
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
As shown, call volume is highest in central Shafter. Other call clusters appear in the southeast section of the city and along Highway 99. As noted previously, the Shafter station and personnel are part of the larger KCFD response system and, as such, respond to calls outside the city. The following map illustrates the response area assigned to the Shafter station.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
The far southeast section of the city receives service from Station 61, which is a closer resource than Shafter Station.
FIRE PREVENTION
Under Section 2 of the Agreement, KCFD performs fire prevention, plan review, inspection, and code enforcement functions on behalf of the City of Shafter for the purpose of enforcing the regulations of the State Fire Marshal set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. These services include plan check and approval or disapproval of all building, electrical, and plumbing plans for occupancies subject to State Fire Marshal regulations prior to issuance of a City building permit; plan
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
check of any subsequent changes to approved plans for new construction, alterations, or changes of occupancy; and joint final inspections with City building inspection personnel, the approval of which is a precondition to the issuance of any certification of lights, gas, or occupancy or the granting of a business license. Section 1(G) further provides that KCFD will provide fire inspection services to occupancies within Shafter on the same basis as those provided to residents of the unincorporated areas of Kern County. KCFD performs these functions without an increase in the annual fee, provided that the associated fees established by the County are collected and remitted to KCFD pursuant to Sections 7 and 10 of the Agreement, and provided that the services do not require an increase in the minimum staffing level set forth in Section 5(C).
Quantitative data describing the current volume of fire prevention workload generated within the city, including the number of annual plan reviews, inspections, re-inspections, complaint investigations, business license inspections, and hazardous materials permits issued or processed on behalf of Shafter, was not available at the time of this assessment.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
As previously noted, the City of Shafter contracts with the Kern County Fire Department to provide fire protection services within the city. The following revenue and expenditure information reflects the overall operations of the Kern County Fire Department and is not exclusive to services provided specifically to Shafter.
KERN COUNTY CONTRACT
Under the Agreement Between the City of Shafter and Kern County (Kern County Agreement No. 601- 2021), executed October 12, 2021, the City of Shafter pays no annual fee to the KCFD for fire protection services during the current contract term (July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2028). Exhibit A of the Agreement reflects negative annual fee values in every fiscal year of the contract:
• ($285,873) in FY 2022-23
• ($253,834) in FY 2023-24
• ($221,154) in FY 2024-25
• ($187,821) in FY 2025-26
• ($153,821) in FY 2026-27
• ($119,141) in FY 2027-28.
Per Section 6(H) of the Agreement, these bracketed values represent a Negative Net Total Cost, the amount by which Fire Fund property tax revenues collected within the City of Shafter and retained by KCFD exceed the City's calculated Net Total Cost of service under the cost allocation methodology adopted by the Kern County Board of Supervisors on November 10, 2020 and derived from the Analysis of Cost Allocation for Contract Cities (The Natelson Dale Group, Inc., June 18, 2020).
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
These amounts are designated as "Excess Fire Funds," and KCFD retains them rather than refunding them to the City. Under Section 6(H), Excess Fire Funds may be expended only on fire-related operations and capital improvements of mutual benefit to the City and County, as agreed upon by the City Manager and the Fire Chief. The City is entitled to a future Annual Fee credit only when Excess Fire Funds are applied to apparatus replacement, major maintenance, or capital facility construction exceeding $5,000 per item or project on existing facilities. In effect, although Shafter property taxpayers contribute Fire Fund revenues sufficient to fully cover KCFD's stated cost of providing service within the City limits, with a calculated surplus of more than $1.2 million across the six-year contract term, none of those funds flow through the City's General Fund or are subject to direct City Council appropriation. The full cost of service to Shafter, as determined by KCFD's own cost allocation methodology, is funded entirely through property tax revenues that bypass the City's budget and are administered directly by the County.
The Agreement does not disclose the "average cost for station-assigned uniformed personnel" referenced in Section 6(A)(i), nor the dollar value of the FY 2020-21 Fire Fund property tax revenues collected within the City and retained by KCFD that serve as the offset under Section 6(F).
REVENUES
The fire department's revenues come from several sources, including taxes, service charges, and contributions from the general fund.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
KERN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT REVENUES
Line Item FY 2023-24 Actual FY 2024-25
Estimated Actual
FY 2025-26
Recommended
Budget
Taxes $127,290,056 $131,514,230 $128,218,772
Licenses and Permits $2,861,940 $3,530,091 $3,000,000
Fines and Forfeitures $42,708 $28,305 $10,000
Use of Money/Property $1,725,686 $639,525 $500,000
Intergovernmental $2,358,666 $2,629,278 $1,128,000
Charges for Services $59,283,676 $75,728,153 $63,663,960 Miscellaneous $3,155,582 -$972,413 $1,025,000
Other Financing Sources:
Sales - Fixed Asset $66,098 $264,045 $0
General Fund Contribution $13,598,377 $25,360,263 $25,933,684 Local Public Safety $10,549,732 $10,142,622 $11,754,120 State Fire $1,453,630 $0 $693,071
Vehicle/Apparatus Trust $0 $0 $4,757,748
Fire Dept. Donations $0 $0 $158,500
Flood Disaster $16,514 $0 $0
Fire – Hazard Reduction $0 $0 $1,000,000
Fire – Helicopter Operations $0 $0 $0
County Service Area #40.1 EMS $180,298 $0 $200,000
American Rescue Plan Act $6,785,042 $0 $0
Total Revenue $229,368,005 $248,864,099 $242,042,855
About 53% of revenue comes from taxes, and 26% from service charges.
EXPENDITURES
The following table shows the fire department's expenditures.
KERN COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES
Line Item FY 2023-24 Actual FY 2024-25
Estimated Actual
FY 2025-26
Recommended
Budget
Salaries and Benefits $170,453,611 $200,003,131 $195,372,525 Services and Supplies $15,986,381 $17,711,349 $23,954,346 Other Charges $12,375,412 $9,901,752 $13,438,244
Capital Assets $15,444,552 $8,868,836 $11,091,007
Total Expenditures $214,259,956 $236,485,068 $243,856,122
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
Personnel costs represent approximately 80% of the fire department’s expenditures, which is typical for most career fire agencies.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26
This chapter examines the City’s current delivery and performance of fire and emergency medical services, based on three years of computer-aided dispatch records covering 2023 through 2025. The analysis evaluates service demand, response time performance against the standard established in the current service contract, the geographic distribution of incidents, the system's ability to concentrate resources, and its reliability during overlapping calls. Because the analysis reflects the current system operating from the City’s Station 32, it establishes the performance baseline that a municipal department would inherit and be measured against.
SERVICE DEMAND
As a part of the Kern County fire protection system, the Shafter Station responds to calls within its response district that doesn’t necessarily follow the city limits. For example, in the far southeast section of the city, Kern County Station 61 responds to calls from Bakersfield because it is closer than the Shafter Station. Likewise, the Shafter Station responds to areas outside the city because it is closer to the call. The following table shows city calls for the past three years and the provider.
CITY OF SHAFTER CALLS FOR SERVICE 2023 - 2025
Unit 2023 2024 2025
Station 32 - Shafter 1,207 82.3% 1,243 78.8% 1,208 80.6% Station 61 - Bakersfield 123 8.4% 141 8.9% 108 7.2%
Others 136 9.3% 193 12.2% 183 12.2%
Total Calls 1,466 1,577 1,499
As shown, units at Shafter Station handle about 80% of calls. Bakersfield Station handles calls primarily in the southeast corner of the city. Other Kern County units respond to about 12% of the calls in the city.
RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE
RESPONSE TIME CRITERIA
Response time measurement has evolved from an average time, corresponding to 50% performance, to a more accurate fractal time. Fractal time measures how often a department performs within each response-time component. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) use the 90th percentile as the standard for benchmark and baseline measurements.
• Baseline performance: what the agency can perform based on the performance of call processing, turnout time, and travel time over the previous three years.
DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
• Benchmark performance is the agency's target performance level and should show what the agency strives to achieve in relation to community risk and expectations.
Response time to emergencies is broken down into measurable and non-measurable segments, starting when normalcy shifts to a recognized emergency. The process involves a cascade of events, some of which are hard (quantitative) data, while others are soft (subjective) data.
Response time is divided into measurable segments: call processing, turnout, and travel time. Each component represents a different point in the response time continuum and can help identify areas for improvement.
• Call Processing begins when the call taker answers the call and ends when dispatch dispatches appropriate emergency services.
• Turnout Time begins when emergency services receive the call and personnel are on the apparatus responding.
• Travel Time begins when the apparatus and personnel initiate the response and ends once they arrive at the emergency location.
The following chart outlines the cascade of events that occur once an emergency starts or is recognized.
Those highlighted points represent hard, quantitative data versus soft data, which is subjective and unknown.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
RESPONSE TIME CONTINUUM
State of Normalcy
Discovery of Emergency
Reaction to Emergency
Call Received by PSAP
Call Processing
Response Units Notified
Turnout Time
Units Responding
Travel Time
Total
Response
Time
Units Arriving
Mitigation Begins
Mitigation Completed
State of Normalcy Returns
Three models provide guidance for measuring the performance of the emergency services system:
• NFPA 1750: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Services, Special Operations, and Fire Prevention Activities (2026) • The Insurance Services Office (ISO) provides basic information regarding distances between fire stations. However, this “objective” does little to account for the unique nature of each community’s road network, population, calls for service, call density, etc. • The American Heart Association (AHA) provides information on responding to cardiac events, preferred treatment methods and the timing of medical care and treatment delivery.
Performance standards should be based on benchmark performance (the agency's target level of performance) and baseline performance (the current level of performance the agency can achieve).
Baseline performance is generally based on three to five years of data.
It is critical to note that Appendix A, contained in the NFPA 1750 document, provides additional information and background as it pertains to service delivery objectives for the jurisdiction as follows:
“There can be incidents or areas where the response criteria are affected by circumstances such as response personnel who are not on duty, unstaffed fire station facilities, natural barriers, traffic
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
congestion, insufficient water supply, and density of population or property. The written organizational statement should document the reduced level of service by the percentage of incidents and geographical areas for which the total response time criteria are achieved.
The AHJ should establish additional service delivery performance objectives for occupancies other than those identified within the standard for benchmark single-family dwellings. Factors to be considered include specific response areas (i.e., suburban, rural, and wilderness) and occupancy hazards.”
This passage acknowledges the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ); in this case, the City of Shafter determines the level of service provided by emergency services. Considerations for the level of service include, but are not limited to, the fire department’s response time, travel time, staffing, the ratio of emergency calls to non-emergency calls, road conditions, financial resources, and calls involving different occupancies. The service levels provided to the city should be clearly written and documented so that residents understand the expectations of the emergency services system.
KERN COUNTY RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
The Kern County Fire Department has adopted response time performance objectives, though they are established as countywide averages rather than as the component-based, percentile measures a municipal standard of cover typically employs. As published in the County's Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget, the department's goal is to achieve and maintain average total response times of 8 minutes in urban areas, 10 minutes in suburban areas, and 12 minutes in rural areas. These tiers were adopted in Fiscal Year 2024-25 following a standard of cover and response time study, which recommended separating the department's single response-time measure into the three area types now in use.
Demographic Area Type Performance Objective
Urban 8:00
Suburban 10:00
Rural 12:00
Two characteristics of these objectives are important for the City's analysis. First, they measure total response time only. The County has not established separate objectives for the individual components, call processing and dispatch, turnout, and travel- that a standard of cover analysis measures and that a new department would typically adopt. Second, the objectives are expressed as averages rather than percentiles, such as the 90th percentile used by NFPA 1750 and most deployment analyses, which can understate experience at the upper end of the response-time distribution. The objectives are also countywide, defined by area type rather than by jurisdiction, so they do not directly describe the response times experienced within the City of Shafter.
Accordingly, while the County's objectives provide useful context for the level of service currently targeted, they are not a substitute for a City-specific measurement. The response times actually
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
experienced in Shafter should be established from the City's own incident data and evaluated against component-level, percentile-based benchmarks. A municipal department in Shafter should adopt its own response time objectives, defined by component and measured at the 90th percentile, consistent with recognized standards.
ALARM HANDLING
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Alarm handling, also called call processing, begins when the call taker answers the call and ends when appropriate emergency services are dispatched. Kern County Fire Department Communications Center (KCFDCC) provides communications services for the Kern County Fire Department. The NFPA 1225 Standard for Emergency Services Communications establishes the call processing benchmarks outlined in the following chart.
NFPA 1225 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE
Component Target Performance
Within 15 seconds 90%
Calls Answered
Within 20 seconds 95%
Call Processing Within 60 seconds 90%
Call Processing for:
* Language Translation
* TTY/TDD Device Services
* Hazardous Materials
* Technical Rescue
* Text Message
* Calls Received during a
Disaster
* Unable to Determine Location
These call types are exempt from
the call processing time shown
above.
ISO uses the 60-second call-processing-time benchmark performance objective outlined in NFPA 1225.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
NFPA 1225 performance objectives will be used for call processing as local performance objectives have not been established.
The following table summarizes KCFDCC’s performance.
ALARM HANDLING PERFORMANCE
Call Processing
2023 –
2025 2023 2024 2025 NFPA Objective
90th Percentile: 4:17 4:23 4:10 4:14 1:00
Average Time: 2:40 2:35 2:46 2:38 N/A
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
The communications center processed 90% of the emergency calls within 4 minutes and 17 seconds over the 3 years examined. The previous table also shows an average time of 2 minutes and 40 seconds over the 3 years examined, reflecting the Kern County Fire Department compliance methodology.
TURNOUT TIME
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Turnout time is a measurable time segment that begins when the emergency service unit receives the call and is on the apparatus responding (wheels rolling). The following tables compare the two models for benchmark performance objectives.
TURNOUT TIME – BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Call Type NFPA 1750 ISO
Emergency Medical Calls 60 seconds or less 90% of the time No Requirement Fire or Special Operations Calls 80 seconds or less 90% of the time No Requirement NFPA 1750 performance objectives will be used for turnout time as local performance objectives have not been established.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The following table illustrates Shafter Station's performance.
TURNOUT TIME OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Turnout Time 2023 –
2025 2023 2024 2025 NFPA Objective
90th Percentile: 3:14 2:55 3:21 3:14 1:00
Medical Calls
Average Time: 2:01 1:49 2:10 2:00 N/A
90th Percentile: 3:04 2:57 3:14 2:57 1:20
Fire Calls
Average Time: 1:42 1:34 1:54 1:41 N/A
The performance objective times shown on the far right are the NFPA performance benchmark. Over the 3 years, EMS calls exceeded the performance objective by 2 minutes and 14 seconds, and fire calls exceeded it by 1 minute and 44 seconds. The previous table also shows the average time for each call type, reflecting the Kern County Fire Department compliance methodology.
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES
Distribution measures how quickly initial resources reach an emergency to begin mitigation efforts. It is measured in various ways, including percentage of square miles, percentage of road miles and travel time. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) has used road miles for many years, advocating 1.5 miles for an engine company and 2.5 miles for a ladder company. With the advent of GIS technology and improved
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems, actual travel time is another, more accurate measure for resource distribution.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Travel time is a measurable period that begins when the apparatus and personnel initiate the response (wheels rolling) and ends when they arrive at the emergency location (wheels stopped).
Travel time is a measurable time segment that begins when the apparatus and personnel begin the response (wheels rolling) and ends when they arrive at the emergency location (wheels stopped). It is the most appropriate measurement for resource distribution and has a proven record of success. The following table analyzes travel-time dynamics in the emergency services system.
FIRST ARRIVING BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Demand Zone Demographics NFPA 1750 ISO
Urban Greater than 1,000 per sq.
mile
4 minutes or less 90% of the
time.
1.5 road miles in the builtupon area
Suburban 500 - 1,000 per sq. mile 4 minutes or less 90% of the time.
1.5 road miles in the builtupon area
Rural Area Less than 500 per sq. mile 4 minutes or less 90% of the time.
1.5 road miles in the builtupon area
Remote Area Travel Distance greater than
/ equal to 8 miles
4 minutes or less 90% of the
time.
1.5 road miles in the builtupon area
NFPA 1750 is organized into separate chapters for career departments and for combination and volunteer departments, and each treats community characteristics differently. The career department chapter (as shown in the table) does not address demographics or population densities. The combination and volunteer department chapter does address demographics, but only through the arrival of the full response force. ISO addresses only the built-upon area, defined as areas served by available fire hydrants.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The following table illustrates travel time performance for the City of Shafter.
TRAVEL TIME PERFORMANCE - CITY OF SHAFTER
Travel Time 2023 –
2025 2023 2024 2025 NFPA Objective
90th Percentile: 11:43 11:15 11:58 11:44 4:00
Average Time: 5:26 5:06 5:39 5:32
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33
The performance objective times shown on the far right are the NFPA urban performance benchmark.
Over the 3 years, the travel time in the city was 11 minutes and 43 seconds for 90% of the calls. This data includes calls that units from outside the city responded to, such as the southeast area served by Station 61 in Bakersfield. The previous table also shows the average travel time, reflecting the Kern County Fire Department compliance methodology.
The following map illustrates the properties reachable within a five-minute travel time from each existing fire station.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
CONCENTRATION OF RESOURCES
Resource concentration generally describes a fire department's ability to get the appropriate number of personnel and resources to an emergency scene within a prescribed time to mitigate the incident effectively.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The concentration component has two segments: travel time and personnel for the first-alarm assignment. The following table summarizes different viewpoints on travel time for an effective response force of 16 personnel.
FIRST ALARM ASSIGNMENT – BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES Demand Zone Demographics NFPA 1750 ISO
Urban Greater than 1,000 per
sq. mile
8 minutes or less 90% of the
time
No time or mileage
requirement
Suburban 500 - 1,000 per sq. mile 8 minutes or less 90% of the time
No time or mileage
requirement
Rural Area Less than 500 per sq.
mile
8 minutes or less 90% of the
time
No time or mileage
requirement
Remote Area Travel Distance greater
than / equal to 8 miles
8 minutes or less 90% of the
time
No time or mileage
requirement
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The following table illustrates travel time performance for the City of Shafter for the arrival of an effective response force (ERF) of 16 personnel.
ERF TRAVEL TIME PERFORMANCE - CITY OF SHAFTER
Travel Time 2023 –
2025 2023 2024 2025 NFPA Objective
90th Percentile: 19:44 21:34 17:39 18:43 8:00
Average Time: 18:08 19:33 16:12 18:43
Number of Calls: 10 5 4 1
These effective response force results are based on only ten qualifying incidents over the three-year period, too few to support a precise performance conclusion. They indicate that assembling a full firstalarm force currently takes well beyond the eight-minute benchmark, which is expected in a singlestation system that must draw the balance of the response from units outside the City.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
TOTAL RESPONSE TIME
The preceding sections of this chapter reviewed and evaluated the various components of response time individually. Call processing and turnout time are two components the dispatch center or the fire department can control. Travel time, on the other hand, is less controllable, as it relies on a fixed starting point, the fire station, and the existing roadway network to reach the call for service. Consequently, this component is a primary driver of resource distribution and concentration. The following table illustrates the response time components for all emergency calls for service and the arrival of the first resource.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
As noted previously, KCFD uses an average total response time of 8 minutes in the urban areas.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
The following table illustrates the total response time performance for the City of Shafter.
TOTAL RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE – CITY OF SHAFTER
2023 –
2025 2023 2024 2025 KCFD Objective
90th Percentile: 17:00 16:05 17:58 17:10
Average Time: 9:31 8:53 10:01 9:38 8:00
Measured against that objective, current service does not meet the standard. Total response time to emergencies in the City averages 9 minutes 31 seconds and is 17 minutes at the 90th percentile, compared with the County's 8-minute average objective for urban areas.
SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Other contributing factors, such as unit-hour utilization and concurrent calls for service, can affect resource distribution and concentration.
UNIT UTILIZATION
Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) is a foundational measure of whether a fire company operates within a sustainable workload and whether the emergency services system can reliably respond to calls. UHU is calculated by dividing the total hours a unit is committed to incidents by the total hours in a year.
Because UHU is built from the total time a unit is committed to each call, from dispatch through travel, time on scene, and return to service, it captures the same workload that total scene time and total call duration measure. A unit engaged in a long incident is unavailable for the next call regardless of how quickly it reached the first, so unit-hour utilization, rather than either metric taken alone, is the measure this analysis uses to gauge whether a single company can sustain the City's call demand. Expressed as a percentage, it identifies how often a unit is engaged in emergency response and, more importantly, how often it is available. A higher UHU indicates a busier unit with less available time to respond to additional calls, while a lower UHU reflects greater operational flexibility. Because availability is the core
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36
determinant of whether a unit can meet a performance objective—such as being ready to respond during 90% of high‑demand periods- UHU provides a clear, quantifiable indicator of unit workload.
However, UHU alone does not capture the full picture of unit availability. Fire companies spend a significant portion of their operational day on non‑emergency activities that remove them from immediate response capability just as effectively as emergency calls. Training, hydrant testing, preincident planning, inspections, equipment checks, administrative responsibilities, and out-of-service activities such as fueling or maintenance all contribute to periods when an apparatus may be unavailable to respond or delayed in initiating a response. Industry norms and staffing studies consistently show that career fire companies devote 10–20% of their total time to these non‑emergency functions. Training alone often accounts for 250–400 hours per year, with inspections, hydrant work, administrative tasks, and out‑of‑service time adding another 150–300 hours. When annualized, these activities reliably total around 12% of a unit’s operational time, making a 12% addition a conservative and defensible adjustment. Incorporating this factor into UHU produces an Adjusted UHU that reflects a unit’s true unavailability and provides a more accurate foundation for evaluating system reliability and determining whether a unit can meet a 90% performance objective.
The following table illustrates the apparatus’s unit utilization for the past three years.
ADJUSTED UNIT UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE
Unit 2023 2024 2025
E32 21.0% 21.2% 20.8%
This table reflects both emergency and non‑emergency activities because each contributes to the amount of time a unit is unavailable for response. Including these activities in the analysis more accurately reflects true unit availability. Even when non‑emergency tasks are paused for a call, they still consume a measurable portion of the unit’s operational day and contribute to the overall workload. By accounting for both emergency and non‑emergency commitments, the table captures the complete picture of unit utilization and ensures that reliability assessments reflect the real conditions under which the system operates. Engine 32 is below the 30% threshold.
CONCURRENT CALLS
Emergency services systems often have multiple service requests occurring simultaneously. The larger the system, the more frequently this occurs, and with the appropriate resources, it can be handled efficiently. The following table summarizes the number of concurrent calls for the emergency services system for the past three years.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37
CONCURRENT CALLS 2023 – 2025
Concurrent Calls 2023 2024 2025 Total Pct. of
Total
1 1,963 2,016 1,849 5,828 96.9%
2 51 54 48 153 2.5%
3 9 10 9 28 0.5%
4 1 1 2 4 0.1%
5 0 0 1 1 0.0%
6 0 1 0 1 0.0%
Total 2,024 2,082 1,909 6,015
For the past three years, about 97% of the calls were single calls, and 2.5% of the time there were two simultaneous calls. Overall, about 3% of the time, more than one call occurred. The concurrency counts total 6,015 responses across the three years, which exceeds the 4,542 calls shown in the City call-volume tables because the concurrency measure includes all responses handled by the Shafter station, including those to areas outside the City limits.
COMMUNITY RISK
The City of Shafter presents a community risk profile shaped by its role as an agricultural and logistics center in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Once a predominantly farming community, Shafter has added substantial industrial and distribution development in recent years, including large warehouse and distribution facilities that introduce high-hazard occupancies with significant fire loads, life safety considerations, and water supply demands. These occupancies sit alongside the community's agricultural base, residential neighborhoods, and commercial core, creating a mix of low-, moderate-, and high-risk occupancies. Major transportation corridors, including State Route 99, State Route 43, and the BNSF rail line, add the risk of vehicle and rail incidents and the movement of hazardous materials through and around the City.
The community's fire risk primarily determines the department's required capabilities. Shafter's industrial and warehouse occupancies, its transportation and hazardous materials exposure, and the valley's dryseason grass and wildland fire potential represent low-frequency, high-consequence events that demand the greatest concentration of personnel and apparatus a fire department can assemble. Protecting against these risks sets the baseline for staffing, deployment, and equipment, because a department must be built to manage its most serious foreseeable emergencies, not only its most common ones.
Emergency medical incidents are expected to account for the largest share of day-to-day call volume, consistent with the community's population and demographics, and the department must be equipped to meet that demand.
FIRE FLOW AND WATER SUPPLY
The City’s risk profile drives its fire flow demand, which in turn shapes staffing and water supply needs.
Fire flow is the water volume, in gallons per minute, required to control a fire in a given structure. Lowhazard residential occupancies typically require on the order of 1,000 to 1,500 gallons per minute,
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
whereas the large warehouse and distribution occupancies now common in the City can require several thousand gallons per minute under the methodology of Appendix B of the California Fire Code, with the largest occupancies reaching 6,000 to 8,000 gallons per minute before sprinkler credit. Automatic fire sprinkler systems, required in new large occupancies, substantially reduce both the required fire flow and the number of personnel needed to control a fire, which is one reason built-in fire protection is central to managing the City’s industrial risk.
Water supply adequacy divides the City into hydranted and unhydranted areas. The City and other local water purveyors provide hydrant systems in the developed residential, commercial, and industrial areas, and those systems must meet City fire flow and spacing standards; the City should confirm that available fire flow at representative industrial sites meets the demand those occupancies generate.
Large portions of the incorporated area remain agricultural or undeveloped and are not hydranted, so the department must carry its own water supply to those areas. The apparatus plan reflects this in the recommended Type 2 support tender and the cross-staffed Type 6 engine for agricultural and wildland response.
A basic risk assessment ties these elements together. The City’s highest-consequence risks, its warehouse and industrial occupancies, its transportation and hazardous materials exposure along State Routes 99 and 43 and the BNSF rail line, and its dry-season wildland and agricultural fire potential, require the concentration of personnel and water that the effective response force and apparatus plan are designed to deliver. The current single-station system cannot assemble a full first-alarm force within the recognized eight-minute benchmark, as the concentration analysis shows, which is the service-level basis for the staffing and second-station recommendations that follow.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Emergency medical service is the largest single component of the City’s call demand and warrants specific analysis. Medical calls, including medical assists and calls involving auto accidents, account for approximately 65 percent of the calls for service at the Shafter station, a share consistent with communities of similar size and demographics. Any department the City forms, or any contract it renews, must be built first around emergency medical response.
CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL
The Kern County Fire Department currently provides emergency medical service at the Shafter station at the basic life support, or EMT, level. First response is delivered by the engine company, while advanced life support and ambulance transport are provided through the Kern County emergency medical services system by its designated ambulance provider under the authority of the Kern County EMS Agency, rather than by the fire department. This two-tier structure is common across the county, in which the fire department provides rapid EMT-level first response and a separate provider delivers paramedic care and transport.
Medical response performance is measured by the same components reported in the deployment analysis. At the 90th percentile, turnout time on medical calls is 3 minutes 14 seconds and first-unit
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
travel time is 11 minutes 43 seconds, both above recognized benchmarks, so the service-level gap identified for fire response applies with equal force to the medical response that makes up most of the City’s demand. Reducing that gap, particularly in the developing southeast, is the principal service-level benefit of a second station.
SERVICE-LEVEL DECISION FOR A MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT
If the City forms a department, its emergency medical service level is a foundational decision that shapes classifications, training, staffing, and cost, and it should be resolved early. The department may provide care at the EMT, paramedic, or advanced life support level, and it may or may not provide ambulance transport. An EMT-level engine department matches the level the County provides today at the lowest cost. A paramedic engine department raises the level of care but increases personnel and training costs through paramedic pay and accreditation. Adding ambulance transport raises cost and administrative requirements further, but, as the Placentia model illustrates, transport billing can generate offsetting revenue where the City holds transport authority.
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE (ISO) PUBLIC PROTECTION CLASSIFICATION The Insurance Services Office (ISO) evaluates community fire protection and assigns a Public Protection Classification (PPC) on a scale of 1 (best) to 10. Insurers use the classification to help set property insurance premiums, so a change in the City’s classification would affect premiums for residential, commercial, and industrial property owners across the City. Kern County has an ISO Class 3/3x rating.
The Class 3 rating is for those properties that are within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant or within 5 miles of a fire station. The 3x rating is for all other properties.
The classification is built from three weighted elements: the fire department (50%), including staffing, apparatus, equipment, training, and deployment; the water supply (40%), including hydrant distribution and available fire flow; and emergency communications and dispatch (10%). A community risk reduction program can add limited additional credit. Because staffing, water supply, and dispatch all carry weight, the way the City structures a new department, and in particular its on-duty staffing, its dispatch arrangement, and the fire flow available in its developed areas, would directly affect the resulting classification.
A transition to a municipal department presents both a risk and an opportunity for the City’s classification. Reducing daily on-duty staffing below the level the County now provides, or weakening the dispatch arrangement, could lower the classification and raise premiums; conversely, adding a second station, maintaining or improving staffing, and confirming adequate fire flow could preserve or improve it. The City should obtain its current classification and the underlying element scores from ISO, and should plan the new department to at least preserve the existing classification.
POPULATION GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OUTLOOK
Continued growth is the primary basis for the second station recommended later in this report, so the growth outlook warrants its own summary. The City has grown steadily for two decades, from 12,736
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
residents in 2000 to 19,953 in 2020 and an estimated 21,193 in 2024. That is an increase of about 25 percent since 2010 and about 66 percent since 2000, and the City is consistently identified as one of Kern County's fastest-growing communities.
Projecting the recent trend forward provides a planning basis for future service demand. At the compound annual growth rate of roughly 1.6 percent implied by the 2010 to 2024 change, the City would reach approximately 25,000 residents by 2035 and approximately 29,000 by 2045. At the faster rate of roughly 2.3 percent implied by the longer 2000 to 2020 period, the City would reach approximately 27,000 by 2035 and approximately 34,000 by 2045. Either trajectory supports the need for a second station within the planning horizon, and the higher trajectory is plausible given the scale of industrial and logistics development underway. These projections are based on census trends and should be treated as planning estimates.
The City’s General Plan directs where that growth will occur, and its pattern aligns with this report's deployment recommendations. The adopted General Plan carries a 2030 horizon and is being updated through the City’s current Plan Shafter process. It concentrates the largest planned residential growth in the 7th Standard Road Specific Plan area along the City’s southern and southeastern edge, which allows up to approximately 13,954 dwelling units across roughly 3,663 acres, with a second specific-plan area east of downtown allowing about 3,020 units on roughly 955 acres. Planned industrial and logistics growth is directed to separate corridors: the Minter Field area near State Route 99 and Lerdo Highway to the north, where the Wonderful Industrial Park is located, and the 7th Standard Road corridor to the south, home to the Paramount Logistics Park. This pattern is directly relevant to deployment. The General Plan places the City’s principal housing growth in the same southern and southeastern corridor where this report recommends the second station, while the heaviest industrial fire-flow and hazardousmaterials risk concentrates in the northern Minter Field corridor served by the central station and the southern logistics corridor.
The near-term development pipeline reinforces this outlook. The Wonderful Company, whose existing 1,600-acre Wonderful Industrial Park already supports an estimated 16,000 jobs, has proposed an expansion that would add approximately 1,800 acres and up to 21 million square feet of warehouse, distribution, and logistics space, together with a rail-served inland port, cold storage, and a logistics training center. The same proposal includes a residential component of up to approximately 5,400 single-family homes on roughly 680 acres, which local reporting indicates could increase the City’s population by more than 40 percent. These components require City Council approval of environmental review and rezoning and are therefore proposed rather than entitled. Recently completed and active development includes a 630,000-square-foot Walmart grocery distribution center, a speculative distribution building of approximately 1.1 million square feet delivered in 2024, and roughly three dozen active new-home communities.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW
This chapter covers the initial steps and key considerations in establishing a municipal fire department in the City of Shafter. It examines the legal requirements, organizational structure, staffing plan, required physical resources, and administrative support the City needs.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
As a charter city, under the California Constitution, Article XI, § 5, Shafter has broad authority to establish a municipal fire department to provide service within its boundaries. The city may establish a municipal fire department by ordinance or charter amendment. The steps to establish a municipal fire department to meet state law include:
• Council adopts a resolution or ordinance formally establishing a fire department • Appoint a fire chief who meets the spirit of California Government Code § 38611 in training and experience
• Create job classifications, salary schedules, and organizational structure by ordinance or resolution • Adopt a fire code to be used within the City (Kern County Fire Code currently in use) • Appropriate funding
• Comply with reporting requirements to the State Fire Marshal (incident data, etc.) Because Shafter would establish the department to serve within its own municipal boundaries, and not to provide service outside those boundaries or to form a fire protection district, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval is not required to create the department itself. State law does not require LAFCO review even where mutual aid and automatic aid agreements are in place. Redirecting the Fire Fund property tax that currently funds the service is a separate and more consequential question: it is not automatic and may require a property tax exchange and LAFCO review, and because it is fundamentally a revenue and feasibility issue, the financial analysis examines it in detail.
County-related steps would include:
• Provide at least twelve months’ written notice to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, as required by §16 of the 2021 agreement, and negotiate the end of the contract. • Address the shared assets, stations, apparatus, or personnel transition issues if any • Coordinate dispatch, mutual aid, and automatic aid agreements going forward • Update any County-related fire prevention or inspection arrangements
FIRE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42
• Confirm with County Counsel and LAFCO whether the Fire Fund property tax can be redirected to the City and what process that requires, as analyzed in the financial analysis.
Other main regulatory or standard considerations include:
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29 U.S.C. §207(k) – special overtime rule for firefighters • California Code of Regulations Title 8 – firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), respiratory protection, and related safety standards.
• National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) – consensus standards and codes often referenced in Cal/OSHA, the California Fire Code, and fire training programs. These are not laws unless adopted by a governing agency, but still given much weight in the safety and operations of a fire department
GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE-DELIVERY OPTIONS
The City has several governance options for delivering fire protection. The practical choice runs from continuing to contract for service to providing it directly, with several forms in between. This section identifies the principal options and explains why the report centers on a standalone municipal department, while noting the option most directly connected to the Fire Fund property tax question.
Continue contracting with Kern County (status quo). The City can continue to receive service from the Kern County Fire Department under a renewed agreement when the current contract expires in 2028.
This option carries the lowest immediate cost, because the Fire Fund property tax generated within the City currently exceeds the County’s cost of service, and it requires no capital investment or new organization. Its limitations are the ones identified elsewhere in this report: limited local control over staffing and deployment, a cost advantage that erodes over time, and terms set through a County methodology the City does not control. It remains the realistic alternative if the City elects not to form its own department.
Standalone municipal fire department. The City can establish and operate its own department, the option analyzed in detail in this report. It provides the greatest local control over service levels, staffing, and deployment, and positions the City to add the second station its growth will require. It also carries the highest cost and capital requirement and depends on the two threshold conditions identified in the financial analysis: redirecting Fire Fund property tax and establishing a dedicated permanent revenue source. This option aligns with the City’s stated interest in local control and forms the basis for the organization, staffing, and cost analysis presented here.
Fire protection district. An independent fire protection district can also provide fire service under the Fire Protection District Law (Health and Safety Code sections 13800 and following), governed by its own board and funded through a dedicated combination of property tax allocation, benefit assessments, or special taxes. This form is significant for one specific reason. Unlike forming a city department within existing boundaries, forming or reorganizing service into a fire protection district is a jurisdictional change subject to Local Agency Formation Commission review, which can trigger the property tax exchange process under Revenue and Taxation Code section 99 discussed in the financial analysis. It is
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43
therefore the governance form most directly connected to whether the Fire Fund share can be redirected.
Its trade-off is a separate governing board and administrative structure rather than direct City Council control. The City should evaluate this option specifically in connection with the Fire Fund question, in consultation with County Counsel and LAFCO.
Regional partnership or joint powers authority. The City can join with a neighboring jurisdiction to provide service through a shared department or a joint powers authority. This approach can spread fixed administrative and command costs across a larger organization and improve purchasing and training efficiency. It requires a willing partner of compatible size and service level, and it exchanges some local control for shared governance. It does not, by itself, resolve the Fire Fund question, which would still require a County agreement or a LAFCO process. No specific partner has been identified for Shafter, and this option will warrant its own analysis if the City pursues it.
Contract with an alternative provider. The City can contract with a provider other than Kern County, most commonly the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) under a Schedule A agreement, or a neighboring municipal department. This preserves the turnkey character of a contract, generally at a cost between the current County arrangement and a standalone department, while still limiting local control. In Shafter’s circumstances, where the County already provides service, a renegotiated agreement with the County is the more realistic form of this option and should be pursued in parallel with the feasibility question as a fallback.
Recommended focus. The project team recommends that the City center its decision on the comparison between continuing the County contract and forming a standalone municipal department, because those two options bracket the realistic range of cost and control and reflect the City’s stated interest. The City should, however, examine the fire protection district form specifically as a potential mechanism for redirecting the Fire Fund property tax, and should treat a renegotiated County agreement as the practical alternative if the threshold conditions cannot be resolved. The organizational, staffing, and cost analysis in this report applies directly to a standalone city department and would also inform a district or regional option.
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
A municipal department requires an administrative structure that provides clear command, supports dayto-day operations, and maintains accountability to City leadership, while remaining appropriately lean for a department of Shafter's size. The recommended structure and the responsibilities and qualifications of each position are described below.
The following chart illustrates Shafter’s recommended administrative structure:
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44
SHAFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION
The recommended administrative structure is intentionally lean and appropriate for a department serving a city of Shafter’s size and current population. The chain of command shows the Fire Chief reporting to the City Manager, while the Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, and Administrative Secretary report to the Fire Chief. This creates a clear, flat chain of command appropriate for a department of this size while maintaining accountability to City leadership.
FIRE CHIEF
The Fire Chief reports directly to the City Manager and serves as the overall department head. Key responsibilities include setting the department's vision and direction, developing and approving standard operating procedures and policies, preparing and recommending the annual budget, and designing the department's overall organization. Until the department is fully established, the Fire Chief may also need to be directly involved in fire prevention, training oversight, and other key administrative functions. In a department of this size, the Fire Chief also serves as the incident commander on significant fires and other emergencies as required.
Fire Chief minimum qualifications include:
• 7-10 years of fire service experience, including experience as a firefighter and increasing levels of responsibility
• 3-5 years in a supervisory or management role (Captain or higher) • Bachelor’s degree in Fire Science, Public Administration, or a related field (or associate’s degree with significant experience) or equivalent combination of education and experience • California State Fire Marshal (CSFM) Chief Fire Officer or Executive Chief Fire Officer certification (or ability to obtain within a set time)
• EMT certification or higher
• California Class C driver’s license with Firefighter endorsement • ICS / NIMS training (ICS 100, 200, 300, 400, and IS-700/800) City Manager
Fire Chief
Deputy Chief Fire Marshal
Administrative Secretary
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF
This position reports directly to the Fire Chief, supports the Chief in overall department management, and serves as Acting Fire Chief during absences. Primary responsibilities include overseeing operational personnel, coordinating and delivering department training, and performing administrative duties as assigned by the Fire Chief. The Deputy Fire Chief also serves as incident commander if the Fire Chief is unavailable or assumes another command or general staff position on larger incidents.
Recommended qualifications include:
• 5-7 years of progressive fire service experience, including experience as a firefighter • 2-3 years in a supervisory role at the Captain level or higher • Associate’s degree in Fire Science, Public Administration, or a related field (Bachelor’s preferred) or equivalent combination of education and experience
• CSFM Company Officer certification (Chief Fire Officer preferred or ability to obtain within a set time) • EMT certification or higher
• California Class C driver’s license with Firefighter endorsement • ICS / NIMS training (ICS 100, 200, 300, and IS-700/800; 400 also preferred)
FIRE MARSHAL
The Fire Marshal reports directly to the Fire Chief and is responsible for the department’s fire prevention and community risk reduction programs. This position is important to include due to the City's growth and expected continued growth. Key responsibilities include developing and enforcing fire codes and local ordinances, plan review, fire and life safety inspections, public education, fire investigation coordination, and hazardous materials oversight, as applicable. The Fire Marshal also provides technical support to operational personnel and may assist with incident command or other duties as assigned by the Fire Chief, particularly during the department’s establishment phase. In a department of this size, onduty engine companies frequently assist with routine annual and other inspections to assist the Fire Marshal.
Recommended qualifications include:
• 5-7 years of progressive fire service or fire prevention experience • 2-3 years of experience in fire prevention, code enforcement, or plan review • Associate's degree in Fire Science, Fire Technology, Public Administration, or a related field (Bachelor’s preferred) or equivalent combination of education and experience • CSFM Fire Inspector 1 and Plans Examiner certifications (Fire Marshal or Fire Investigator certification preferred or ability to obtain within a set time) • EMT certification or higher (preferred)
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46
• California Class C driver’s license
• ICS / NIMS training (ICS 100, 200, and IS-700/800; 300 also preferred)
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY
Administrative support is recommended to assist the Fire Chief and command staff with routine administrative functions. The Fire Chief will establish specific duties, classifications, and minimum requirements for this position based on operational needs.
POLICIES AND STANDARD OPERATING GUIDELINES
The Fire Chief will develop, maintain, and approve all departmental policies and Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines (SOPs and SOGs). As a newly established municipal department, Shafter will need a comprehensive set of operational and administrative procedures covering emergency response, training, safety, apparatus and equipment, personnel, and fire prevention. These procedures must be developed in coordination with the City's existing employee and personnel policies, so that the department's provisions on conduct, discipline, leave, grievances, and related matters align with citywide policy and any applicable memorandum of understanding rather than conflict with them. The department should develop these documents early in its formation and review them on a regular schedule, with the Deputy Fire Chief and Fire Marshal assisting within their areas of responsibility.
TRAINING
Training is a continuous and essential function of any fire department. In large organizations, it is often structured as a separate division with dedicated staff. In a department of this size, company officers typically handle training. These officers develop and deliver the training program, while the Fire Chief or Deputy Fire Chief oversees and provides final approval of training plans and schedules.
OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS
The department's operational structure delivers emergency response to the community and is designed to coordinate with the administrative structure described above. It is sized to meet Shafter's current service needs and scales as the City grows. The recommended operational structure, company officer and line positions, and core service areas are as follows.
The following chart is the recommended daily operational structure for the City of Shafter Fire Department:
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47
SHAFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
On the operational side of the department, the Firefighters and Engineers report directly to the Captains, who then report directly to the Deputy Fire Chief, who has primary responsibility for day-to-day operations. On significant incidents, the Fire Chief or Deputy Fire Chief assumes overall command as required. This maintains a clear, flat structure consistent with the administrative recommendations while ensuring accountability and span of control appropriate for a department of this size.
Span of control, the number of subordinates a single supervisor directs, is a specific measure of organizational soundness, and the recommended structure meets recognized targets. The Incident Command System and general management practice place an effective span of control in the range of three to seven, with five as the optimum. In the recommended structure, the Fire Chief directs three positions, the Deputy Fire Chief, the Fire Marshal, and the Administrative Secretary; the Deputy Fire Chief directs the two company officers at full build-out; and each Captain directs the two to three line personnel on the company. Each falls within the target range, and the department has no supervisory gaps or excessive spans in either the one-station or two-station configuration.
One span-of-control gap is operational, not structural. The Deputy Fire Chief, who provides day-to-day operational oversight, works a 40-hour administrative schedule, so no chief officer is on duty at night or on weekends. As noted in the command-coverage discussion, the City should designate the senior onduty Captain as initial incident commander and establish a duty-chief callback or rotation, so that command authority is defined at all hours.
Command coverage outside of administrative hours warrants specific attention in a department of this size. The Deputy Fire Chief, who provides day-to-day operational oversight, works a forty-hour administrative schedule and is not on duty at all hours. The department should therefore designate the senior on-duty Captain as the initial incident commander on significant incidents, with a chief officer Fire Chief
Deputy Fire Chief
Captain A Shift
Engineer
Firefighter / EMT
Captain B Shift
Engineer
Firefighter / EMT
Captain C Shift
Engineer
Firefighter / EMT
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
responding from home on a callback basis or establish a duty-chief rotation among the command staff.
The City should adopt a clear policy defining who always holds command authority so that structure fires and other major incidents occurring outside administrative hours are managed without delay.
The operational schedule is based on a 48/96 shift where the crew is on duty for 48 hours, then is off duty for 96 hours. This 48-hour tour model is common in California and is comparable to Kern County Fire Department's current 56-hour operational schedule. Three shifts are required to provide 24/7/365 coverage. This differs from the administrative staff who typically work a 40-hour schedule.
COMPANY OFFICERS (CAPTAINS)
Company officers, called Captains in this structure, serve as the primary supervisor of the on-duty crews.
They direct personnel, ensure apparatus readiness, provide initial incident command, deliver companylevel training, and provide routine fire prevention support as assigned. In a department of Shafter’s size, company officers form the backbone of both emergency response and daily station operations.
Recommended minimum qualifications for the rank of Captain:
• Progressive fire service experience including time as a firefighter and apparatus operator • EMT certification or higher
• CSFM Company Officer certification (or ability to obtain within a set time) • California Class C driver’s license with Firefighter endorsement • ICS / NIMS training (ICS 100, 200, 300, and IS-700/800)
FIREFIGHTERS AND ENGINEERS
Line personnel form the core of the department’s emergency response capability. Firefighters perform fire suppression, emergency medical care, rescue, and related all-hazards functions. Apparatus operators (Engineers) safely operate fire apparatus, perform pump operations, and handle related technical duties. Both positions report directly to the Captain.
Minimum recommended qualifications for Engineer include:
• CSFM Firefighter I certification (Firefighter II preferred) • EMT certification or higher
• CSFM Driver/Operator 1A and 1B certifications
• Progressive experience as a Firefighter
• California Class C driver’s license with Firefighter endorsement Minimum recommended qualifications for Firefighter include:
• CSFM Firefighter I certification (Firefighter II preferred)
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
• EMT certification (or higher)
• Class C driver’s license (Firefighter endorsement required within a set time)
CORE OPERATIONAL SERVICE AREAS
The department will provide all-hazards emergency response within the City of Shafter, including:
• Fire suppression (including structural, vehicle, wildland, and others) • Emergency medical response at the EMT level or higher • Basic and technical rescue operations
• Hazardous materials awareness and initial response
• Support for fire prevention and community risk reduction activities as directed These operational functions will be carried out under the command structure already described, with Captains providing first-line supervision and the Deputy Fire Chief providing day-to-day operational oversight. The Fire Chief retains overall responsibility for department performance, policy, and incident command on significant events. Detailed staffing levels and apparatus assignments and deployment analysis will be addressed in a later section.
STAFFING MODEL
The City should staff the department as a full-time career organization. The project team evaluated potential staffing models, including full-time, volunteer, and combination (hybrid) approaches, and analyzed each against Shafter’s call demand, risk profile, and response-time needs. A career model is the only one of the three that can reliably meet the City’s service requirements. The volunteer and combination models are addressed as follows, along with the limited supplemental role a paid-call component could play.
VOLUNTEER MODEL
A volunteer department is not viable for Shafter. Volunteer and paid-on-call systems depend on responders who live or work near the station and can turn out on short notice, and they perform best in low-demand communities where calls are infrequent and predominantly fire-related. Shafter’s profile is the opposite. The Shafter station handles approximately 1,500 calls for service each year, roughly 65% of which are medical, and demand is concentrated during the weekday daytime hours, from about 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., when residents who might otherwise volunteer are commuting or at work. Much of the City’s workforce works in the distribution, logistics, and agricultural sectors, which draw people away from their neighborhoods during those same hours and further thin daytime availability. A volunteer model would also lengthen response time in a system whose response times, as shown in the deployment analysis, already exceed recognized benchmarks. For a community with high-hazard warehouse and industrial occupancies, hazardous-materials exposure along State Routes 99 and 43 and the BNSF rail line, and a continuous base of medical demand, a volunteer force cannot provide the immediate, consistently staffed response the risk requires.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50
COMBINATION (HYBRID) MODEL
A combination model, pairing a smaller career staff with volunteer or paid-call personnel, is likewise not recommended as the department’s foundation, for the same reasons and with added complexity.
Recurring call volume and around-the-clock medical demand always require a minimum career crew on duty, regardless of volunteer participation, so a hybrid model does not reduce the core staffing the City must fund; it layers a second, less reliable staffing system on top of it. Combination departments also carry administrative burdens that a single career system avoids, including separate recruitment, training, and credentialing tracks; stipend or point administration; and workers’ compensation and presumptiveinjury coverage for non-career members. The apparent cost savings are therefore limited, while operational and administrative costs are real.
RECOMMENDED MODEL
The project team recommends a full-time career department. A career model provides a known, continuously staffed response force, supports the EMT-level medical service that accounts for most of the City’s call volume, and meets the career-department benchmarks in NFPA 1750 that a new Shafter department should adopt. It is also consistent with the staffing approach of comparable California municipal fire departments serving similarly sized and urbanized cities. The staffing plan that follows is built on this model.
A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL ROLE
Although the department should be built on career staffing, the City may over time find a limited, supplemental use for paid-call or reserve firefighters, for example, to add surge capacity during wildland and agricultural fire season or to backfill during large or extended incidents. Any such component should supplement, not replace, minimum career staffing and should be introduced only after the department is established and its core staffing, training, and policies are in place.
STAFFING PLAN
The department’s emergency medical service level is a foundational decision that should be resolved early, as it shapes classifications, training, staffing, and cost. Medical incidents account for roughly half of the calls for service within the City. The department may provide care at either the basic life support (EMT) level or the advanced life support (paramedic) level, and may or may not provide ambulance transport. The Kern County Fire Department currently provides EMT-level service at the Shafter station.
The City should determine whether its department will staff paramedics and pursue transport, recognizing that an advanced life support model increases personnel and training costs but raises the level of care and, if paired with transport, can generate offsetting revenue. The City should make this decision before finalizing position classifications and compensation.
The City should address several items before hiring any Fire Department personnel. • The City will need to develop position descriptions and qualifications for each Fire Department position.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51
• The City will need to develop and implement a hiring process. • The City will need to develop and implement promotional procedures. • A compensation plan for all levels of the Fire Department will need to be developed and implemented.
Administrative staff is straightforward. These positions typically work a 40-hour week, and one person fills each rank/position.
The recommended operational staffing is built in two steps. A base department, matching the level of service the City receives today, always staffs a single three-person engine company on duty, which matches the three-person minimum the County is contractually required to maintain at the Shafter station. The County currently schedules four personnel on Engine 32, so a three-person City company would equal the County’s contractual minimum but one fewer than the County’s current daily staffing, a difference the City should weigh in setting its own minimum staffing. As the City grows, a second threeperson engine company at a second station is recommended to preserve response-time coverage across the City, particularly in the developing southeast, where a closer County station currently provides service. This analysis therefore presents a base one-company department and a second company as a growth-driven addition, using a three-person company, the County’s contractual minimum, as the standard for each company.
The recommended work schedule for operational personnel in this study is forty-eight (48) continuous hours on duty and ninety-six (96) continuous hours off duty, otherwise referred to as a 48/96 schedule.
This schedule is often negotiated because it provides a greater continuous block of time off, creates fewer commutes, and more full weekends off. For the City, it also provides better on-duty continuity for training and inspections and does not require additional personnel compared with other 56-hour schedules.
As with other 56-hour work weeks, this schedule places the firefighter at 224 hours in a 28-day period, or 12 hours above the 212-hour FLSA overtime threshold. Unless the City later adds Kelly days or another hour reduction method, some built-in overtime pay should be expected.
The following table illustrates the staffing needed to keep a single on-duty seat covered 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
48/96 Schedule
Single Position
122 Workdays for one Firefighter
6 Holiday bank days
4 Sick Days per year
5 Vacation days per year
107 Shifts Available to work
1.14 People to cover 122 shifts
3.4 People to cover 24 / 7 / 365
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52
Staffing a single three-person company on duty at all times requires twelve personnel, or four per shift across three shifts, to maintain a minimum of three when a member is on leave. A full two-company department, once the second station is added, requires a minimum of six on duty and twenty-one operational personnel in total. The following tables illustrate the personnel required to staff a company continuously and the resulting department totals.
48/96 Schedule – Fire Department
Single Shift
6 Minimum Staffing per Shift
6.84 Number Assigned per Shift
7 Number Needed per Shift (rounded)
Department
3 Number of Shifts to Cover
7 Assigned staffing per Shift
21 Department Staffing for Operations
Staffing a single position around the clock requires more than the three shifts needed to fill it on any given day because firefighters are periodically absent for vacation, holidays, sick leave, and other approved time off. The ratio of total personnel required to positions staffed is commonly termed the relief factor. Using the leave assumptions shown in the preceding table, one continuously staffed position requires approximately 3.4 personnel. Applied to the six positions that make up the two threeperson engine companies, this yields a staffing factor of approximately 6.84 personnel per shift, rounded to seven to provide a small buffer against a single absence without falling below the minimum staffing of six. Across three shifts, the department requires 21 personnel to sustain daily operations. Adding the four recommended administrative positions brings the total recommended department to 25 personnel.
The relief factor is applied consistently across both configurations. In each case, the per-shift requirement is rounded up to the next whole person: 3.42 becomes four for the single company, and 6.84 becomes seven for the two-company department. Each configuration therefore carries one relief position per shift above its minimum staffing. Because the second company draws on the same shift-level relief pool as the first, adding it increases operational staffing by nine personnel rather than twelve, reflecting the economy of expanding an existing operation rather than the full cost of a second station. If the City instead prefers to give the second company an independent relief buffer, operational staffing would rise to approximately 24 personnel, and the second-station personnel increment would increase by roughly $400,000 per year, to about $1.6 million. The City should confirm its preferred approach when it validates the relief factor.
The relief factor used here reflects a lean leave assumption and should be treated as a planning minimum. Actual leave usage typically increases as personnel gain seniority and accrue additional vacation, and departments commonly experience higher relief factors once training, injury, and other absences are included. The project team recommends the City validate the relief factor against the leave and benefit provisions it ultimately adopts, and plan for the resulting overtime. At the recommended
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
staffing level, some overtime should be expected as a normal, recurring cost of maintaining minimum staffing, and it should be budgeted accordingly rather than treated as an exception.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the fire stations, apparatus, and equipment the department requires. Consistent with the staffing plan, it presents a base configuration sized to match the level of service the City receives from the County today: a single staffed station, plus a second station and related resources the City should add as it grows and coverage needs increase.
The analysis considers accepted fire service planning tools, including NFPA 1750 travel time objectives, ISO distribution concepts, and the Standards of Cover approach. This analysis is applied to Shafter’s current road network, residential growth, and industrial risk.
The base configuration places one staffed City station in the central Station 32 service area, which covers the downtown and the Minter Field corridor, where most call demand occurs. A single central station cannot, however, provide timely coverage to the entire city. The far southeast, where growth is concentrated, is presently served by the County's Station 61 because it is closer than the Shafter station.
In the base configuration, the City would rely on an automatic aid agreement to maintain southeast coverage; as the City grows, a second station along the 7th Standard Road and Santa Fe Way corridor is recommended to close that gap and reduce travel times to the southern portions of the city. Automatic and mutual aid remain integral to the response plan under either configuration.
STATION A
Station A is a new City station in the central Station 32 service area and serves as the department's first station and headquarters. It is a new facility, not the existing County station. Under the current agreement, upon termination, the County retains Station 32 and its apparatus and equipment, and no well-documented California examples exist of a county transferring an operating station to a city. The County is likely to retain Station 32 to cover the surrounding unincorporated area. The City should therefore plan to build a new station in this central service area, sited to preserve coverage of the downtown and the highest call-demand areas.
Options are as follows:
• Negotiate a transfer, lease, or joint-use agreement of the existing station if possible • Build an additional city fire station in Station 32's response area and not renew the contract. The County would still be expected to operate Station 32 for unincorporated calls. Response to the City after that point would depend on a new agreement or mutual/automatic aid.
As the department's headquarters, Station A should house both an engine company and the department's administration. It should include at least two apparatus bays; living and sleeping quarters for the on-duty company; departmental logistics and storage; offices for the Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, and Administrative Secretary; and conference, training, and workspace.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54
STATION B
Station B is the growth station, a second company station the City should add as it grows. It is positioned along Zerker Road just north of 7th Standard Road, in the City's developing southeastern area. This location will serve as the station's starting point. Once development begins and the roadway network is designed, the City can determine a better, more appropriate location. Section 13 of the current County agreement also notes that the City and County have already discussed future station construction. Sited in this corridor, Station B reduces travel time to the underserved southeast, closes the coverage gap now filled by Station 61, and coordinates with Station A as first-due and second-due companies.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 55
SECOND STATION TIMING AND TRIGGERS
The City should plan the second station now but activate it when growth and workload warrant, rather than on a fixed calendar date. A trigger-based approach is appropriate because the timing depends on private development that will proceed on its own schedule, and it allows the City to match its commitment to actual demand. The station should be planned so that site acquisition and design can begin on twelve to eighteen months’ notice once a trigger is met, given the lead time required to build a station and place a company in service.
The project team recommends the City use the following triggers, any one of which should prompt it to begin developing the second station:
• Development. Occupancy of approximately the first 1,000 to 1,500 dwelling units in the southeastern growth area, or the start of residential construction in the 7th Standard Road Specific Plan area. • Population. A citywide population of approximately 25,000, which the growth projection places in the mid-2030s.
• Workload and reliability. Engine 32’s adjusted unit-hour utilization is approaching the 30 percent reliability threshold, or a sustained rise in concurrent-call activity in the southeastern service area. • Response performance. A 90th percentile first-unit travel time in the developing southeast that exceeds the department’s adopted benchmark.
These triggers can be tied to the development now moving through the City’s approval process. The Wonderful Logistics Center West project along the 7th Standard Road corridor entered environmental review in 2025, and residential growth in that corridor is expected to follow; the City should adopt the buildout horizon established in that project’s environmental impact report as the outer planning date for the second station. The nearer-term Lerdo Residential Project east of downtown, projected to break ground around 2026, falls within the central station’s service area and is not by itself a trigger for the southeastern station. The City should monitor these triggers annually through its budget process and revisit the timing at each General Plan and Plan Shafter update.
STATION DESIGN
Station B is a company station, not a headquarters facility. It should include at least two apparatus bays, living and sleeping quarters for the on-duty company, storage, and workspace. The following station design considerations apply to both stations.
In addition to the buildings themselves, the following non-inclusive list of items should be considered in building or remodeling both fire stations:
• Turnout PPE storage separate from living quarters
• Gear washing and drying (extractor and dryer)
• SCBA compressor and fill station
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 56
• Medical supply and storage
• Hose storage
• Furnishings for daily living and sleeping
• IT infrastructure storage and security
• Public accommodations
• Site room for future building or bay expansion
• Generator
• Decon room
APPARATUS
With two stations and the current run load, we will plan cross-staffing, similar to the Kern County Fire Department model. Each station will house a Type 1 engine as the staffed first-due company. Those engines will also serve as the primary second-due resource for structure fires.
In addition, one station will house a cross-staffed Type 6 engine for wildland and agricultural fire response.
The City and other local water purveyors provide hydrant systems for Shafter's developed residential, commercial, and industrial areas, and those systems must meet City fire flow and spacing standards.
Large portions of the incorporated area remain agricultural or undeveloped and are not hydranted.
Therefore, the City should plan to house a cross-staffed water tender at the opposite fire station.
Apparatus recommended in this plan should meet FIRESCOPE standards so they can be used in the existing mutual aid system. FIRESCOPE is California’s standard system for incident command and resource typing. A Type 1 engine and a Type 6 engine must meet the following minimums:
Type 1 Engine:
• Pump: 1,000 gpm at 150 psi
• Water tank: 300 gallons
• Hose: 1,200 feet of 2 ½ inch and 500 feet of 1 ½ inch Type 6 Engine:
• Pump: 50 gpm at 100 psi
• Water tank: 150 gallons
• Hose: 300 feet of 1 ½ inch and 300 feet of 1 inch
• Pump and roll capability
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 57
These are considered minimums used for typing and mutual aid. Most Type 1 engines are built larger than the minimum, commonly 1,250 or 1,500 gpm with a 500-gallon or larger water tank. A water tender is a separate resource and is not a substitute for the staffed Type 1 companies.
This plan recommends a Type 2 Support Tender, similar to other tenders in the County. Minimums are:
Type 2 Support Tender:
• Pump: 200 gpm at 50 psi
• Water tank: 2,500 gallons
Station 32 does not currently have a tender. The nearest tenders are at Station 31 in Wasco, about 12 to 15 minutes away, and Station 67 in Rosedale, about 20 to 25 minutes away.
Apparatus should be equipped with at least the minimum equipment listed in NFPA 1900. Additional equipment reflects local or departmental preferences, should meet City requirements and should be reasonably compatible with mutual aid companies.
Beyond the apparatus listed above, command and prevention staff will require vehicles for daily work and emergency response. The Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief should have SUVs equipped with emergency lighting, radios, and command equipment for routine travel and incident response. Fire Prevention / Fire Marshal should have a pickup or SUV that can carry inspection gear, reach construction sites, and support daily travel.
The recommended model relies on cross-staffing, in which the on-duty engine crew also staffs the Type 6 engine or the water tender as needed. This approach is common and appropriate for a department of this size, but it has an operational limitation: when a crew places the Type 6 or the tender in service, it removes the engine from service, reducing the department’s ability to handle simultaneous incidents.
Mutual and automatic aid therefore remain integral to the response plan, and the City should account for this limitation when evaluating the department’s capacity during concurrent calls.
The apparatus plan should also provide for reserve capacity. A front-line engine placed out of service for scheduled maintenance or unplanned repair must be backfilled to maintain response coverage, which requires at least one reserve engine beyond the front-line units. Because the City does not currently maintain heavy fire apparatus, the plan should also address how apparatus maintenance will be provided, whether by contract with a qualified provider or otherwise, as noted in the support services analysis.
The following table summarizes the needed apparatus for the City of Shafter Fire Department:
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 58
SHAFTER APPARATUS
Resource Location Use
Type 1 Engine Station A Structural firefighting / First due Type 1 Engine Station B Structural firefighting / First due Type 6 Engine Station A Agricultural / Wildland fire
(cross-staffed)
Type 2 Support Tender Station B Water supply for unhydranted areas Cross Staffed
Command SUV Fire Chief Daily use / Emergency response
Command SUV Deputy Fire Chief Daily use / Emergency response Utility Truck or SUV Fire Marshal / Fire Prevention Daily use / Inspections Reserve Type 1 Engine Assigned as available Backup coverage during maintenance or repair
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 59
Standing up a fire department also adds workload to the City's support functions; this chapter outlines those functions and the potential increased workload in those areas.
HUMAN RESOURCES
Establishing a new municipal fire department carries significant human resources implications that the City must address before the department can operate effectively and in compliance with state and federal law. Building a workforce from the ground up requires a complete personnel infrastructure: job classifications and compensation, recruitment and credentialing, work schedules that reflect the fire service's unique overtime rules under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and benefits shaped by California's fire-specific statutes, including firefighter presumptive injury and illness provisions and CalPERS safety retirement subject to the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). It also requires labor relations conducted under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), personnel policies, and health and wellness programs suited to a high-risk profession. The following sections outline the primary human resources considerations the City should plan for in standing up the department.
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION
Job classifications and a formal compensation structure form the foundation of the department's personnel system, and the City should establish both before recruitment begins. The City will need classifications and job descriptions for every rank and role, including firefighter/EMT, fire engineer, fire captain, battalion chief, and fire chief, each defining duties, minimum qualifications, and physical requirements. Minimum qualifications should align with California certification and licensure standards, including State Fire Training certifications and EMT or paramedic licensure through the local emergency medical services agency.
Alongside the classification plan, the City should adopt a formal pay plan and salary schedule, a promotional and step structure, and a defined method for comparing the new positions to the surrounding labor market. That comparison should be based on a defined set of comparable agencies and expressed in total compensation, including salary, CalPERS retirement, and benefits, rather than base salary alone. This approach gives the City a competitive position for recruiting and retaining qualified personnel and a defensible basis for future negotiations under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
LABOR RELATIONS
Collective bargaining is a significant consideration in California. Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), local government employees, including firefighters, have the right to organize and to be represented by an employee organization of their choosing. If firefighters select an exclusive representative and the City recognizes the bargaining unit, the City must meet and confer in good faith over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and the parties record any agreement
SUPPORT SERVICES
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 60
in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). If negotiations reach impasse, the MMBA provides for mediation and factfinding under Government Code section 3505.4; California does not impose statewide binding interest arbitration on firefighters, so the City retains final authority after those steps are exhausted. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) administers the MMBA and resolves related disputes. Even before a bargaining unit forms, this possibility shapes how the City should write its policies, because many of those terms become subject to negotiation once employees organize.
RECRUITMENT, HIRING, AND CREDENTIALING
The City will need a complete hiring process, including recruitment, application screening, a physical ability test (commonly the Candidate Physical Ability Test, or CPAT), interviews, background investigations, drug screening, and pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. Because fire and emergency medical personnel in California must hold and maintain specific state certifications and licenses, the City must also verify and track those credentials throughout employment. They include firefighter certification through the Office of the State Fire Marshal's State Fire Training program (Firefighter I and II), EMT certification and paramedic licensure administered through the California Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) and accredited by the local EMS agency, and the California driver's license and, where applicable, the firefighter endorsement required to operate fire apparatus, along with the continuing education and recertification each credential requires.
DISPOSITION OF EXISTING COUNTY PERSONNEL
How the City treats the firefighters currently assigned to the Shafter station is both a recruitment question and a cost driver, and it should be addressed early. The most direct path to a trained initial workforce is to recruit the incumbent County crew and other experienced laterals, which shortens the recruit academy, reduces start-up cost, and preserves local knowledge. The start-up estimate is sensitive to the share of experienced laterals the City can attract, so the disposition of existing personnel bears directly on both feasibility and cost.
Retirement service credit is the principal complication. The Kern County Fire Department participates in the Kern County Employees’ Retirement Association, a county system established under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, while a new City department would participate in CalPERS. Service credit does not transfer as an asset between systems, but California reciprocity between 1937 Act county systems and CalPERS generally allows an employee who moves from one to the other, without a break in service beyond the allowed period, to preserve final compensation and vesting across both systems. A firefighter who transfers would keep the credit already earned in each system and draw a separate benefit from each at retirement. Before recruitment begins, the City should confirm the reciprocity treatment, and any effect on the department’s CalPERS classic and PEPRA composition and on the retirement cost estimate, with CalPERS and the County retirement association.
WORK SCHEDULES AND FLSA
Firefighter work schedules operate under a special federal overtime framework, the 7(k) exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which changes how the overtime threshold is calculated for fire
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 61
protection employees relative to other workers. The exemption allows a public agency to establish a work period of 7 to 28 days and to calculate overtime against a threshold set for that period rather than the standard 40-hour workweek. This framework is federal and applies in California as it does elsewhere; the specific schedule and any overtime terms above the federal minimum are established through the memorandum of understanding. Common structures in the California fire service include the 48/96 and 24/48 rotations, both of which average 56 hours per week and require multiple platoons to staff each position around the clock. Shift schedule design drives both staffing levels and overtime cost, making it as much a human resources and budgetary decision as an operational one.
BENEFITS AND CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
Beyond standard health and dental coverage and CalPERS safety retirement, California imposes firespecific liabilities the City must plan for. California Labor Code section 3212 and the sections that follow establish a series of workers' compensation presumptions for firefighters, treating specified conditions as arising out of employment unless the City rebuts the presumption. These include heart trouble, pneumonia, and hernia (section 3212); cancer, including leukemia (section 3212.1); tuberculosis (section 3212.6); blood-borne infectious diseases (section 3212.8); meningitis (section 3212.9); and posttraumatic stress disorder (section 3212.15). Because the law presumes these conditions to be jobrelated, they expand the City's workers' compensation exposure well beyond that of a typical municipal workforce, and several presumptions extend for months or years after an employee separates from service. The City will also need workers' compensation coverage priced for the high-risk firefighter classification and a return-to-work and light-duty policy.
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELLNESS
The department will require a medical surveillance program and periodic physicals consistent with NFPA 1582, fitness-for-duty standards, an infection control and exposure program, and a behavioral health program that includes employee assistance and peer support suited to the demands of the profession. It will also require a designated safety officer and compliance with applicable Cal/OSHA requirements, including the two-in/two-out rule for interior structural firefighting.
CORE PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
The City maintains an employee handbook and established personnel policies, as most municipalities do. Those policies are typically built around a standard 40-hour, five-day workweek; however, they will need to be adapted for a fire department that operates 24 hours a day. Rather than maintain a wholly separate handbook, a more practical approach is to adopt a fire-specific supplement or amend the existing policies so standard provisions apply correctly to shift personnel. The areas needing the most attention are those tied to the shift schedule: the definition of hours of work and the FLSA work period, leave accrued and charged in shift hours rather than eight-hour days, holiday treatment for employees who work regardless of the calendar, and overtime, callback, standby, and shift-trade provisions that have no counterpart in a conventional office policy. Many of these terms will also be negotiated under the memorandum of understanding.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 62
The department will still need the standard elements of a personnel system, including conduct, discipline, grievance, equal employment opportunity, and accommodation policies, a performance evaluation system, a formal onboarding and field training program with a defined probationary period, payroll and timekeeping setup, and records retention consistent with the California Public Records Act and Government Code section 34090. Each of these must account for a 24-hour operation. A policy that measures leave, discipline timelines, or work hours against a 40-hour week will otherwise leave gaps in how it applies to firefighters.
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
The fire department will place new and continuing demands on the City's finance function that differ in kind from ordinary municipal activity. Fire service payroll is more complex than general payroll; the department introduces CalPERS contribution reporting and a substantial base of capital assets to track and fund, and it increases the volume of purchasing, grant, and insurance activity the finance department processes. The following items identify the primary financial administration responsibilities the department creates and where added finance capacity may be required.
PAYROLL PROCESSING
Payroll is the most immediate impact. The finance department will process pay for approximately 27 additional employees (the 25 fire department positions plus the two City support positions), and fire department payroll is more complex than standard municipal payroll. It must account for shift schedules, the fire service's 7(k) overtime provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, holiday and overtime pay, and CalPERS member contributions, including the different rates that apply to classic and PEPRA members. This added complexity will increase the finance department's workload and may require additional staff or resources.
PENSION PLAN ADMINISTRATION
The finance department will take on ongoing responsibilities tied to the department's participation in CalPERS. Unlike a locally administered plan, CalPERS administers the retirement system itself; the City's role is to remit contributions, report payroll and membership data accurately, and reconcile those amounts throughout the year. These functions recur on a regular cycle and involve both workload and compliance.
The City will remit two forms of employer cost to CalPERS: a normal contribution expressed as a percentage of covered payroll, and a separately billed payment toward the plan's unfunded accrued liability. It will also withhold member contributions from employee pay at the rates applicable to classic and PEPRA members. Beyond remittance, the finance department must incorporate CalPERS actuarial valuations into the City's budgeting and financial reporting, including the net pension liability and pension expense the City reports under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 68.
Because safety plan contribution rates and unfunded liabilities change from year to year, these figures require regular monitoring rather than a one-time setup.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 63
PURCHASING, PROCUREMENT, AND DEBT SERVICE
The fire department will increase the City's purchasing and accounts payable activity. Apparatus, equipment, supplies, fuel, and maintenance services generate purchase orders, invoices, and payments the finance department must process, and larger acquisitions will require formal competitive procurement under the City's purchasing ordinance and the California Public Contract Code. Apparatus in particular carries long lead times and progress payments the finance department will need to track.
If the City finances apparatus or a station through a lease-purchase agreement, certificates of participation, or a debt issuance, the finance department will also administer the associated debt service and the related reporting, including the disclosures California public issuers must file with the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC). Constructing a station would further trigger public works contracting requirements, including California prevailing wage.
CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT
The department will add significant capital assets that the finance department must record, depreciate, and plan to replace. Apparatus, equipment, and eventually a station are long-lived assets the City must capitalize and report under its capitalization policy and Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements. Tracking these assets is routine. The more consequential function is planning for their replacement.
Fire apparatus is a substantial, long-term investment with a defined service life, and the City should establish a capital replacement schedule and a dedicated funding mechanism to meet those costs as they come due. Setting money aside on a planned basis, rather than absorbing a major purchase in a single budget year, spreads the cost over the asset's life, protects against unplanned service gaps, and is a core element of sound financial management for a fire department.
GRANT ACCOUNTING AND COMPLIANCE
If the City pursues grant funding such as the federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) or the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant, the finance department will manage the associated grant accounting, compliance, and reporting. These awards carry conditions the City must track and document, and the federal Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200) governs their administration. When the City's total federal award expenditures exceed the Single Audit threshold, currently $1 million per fiscal year, the City becomes subject to a Single Audit, which expands the scope and cost of its annual audit.
RISK MANAGEMENT AND INSURANCE
Finally, the higher-risk nature of the fire service will increase workers' compensation and insurance claims activity. Processing these claims, including those arising under California's firefighter presumption statutes (Labor Code sections 3212 and following), will add to the finance department's workload. Because those statutes treat conditions such as certain cancers, heart disease, and posttraumatic stress as job-related, claims can be more frequent and more costly than in other departments,
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 64
which may also raise the City's workers' compensation premiums or its contributions to any risk-sharing pool in which it participates.
FLEET MAINTENANCE
Fire apparatus requires a specialized maintenance program, and the City does not appear to have an inhouse capability to provide it. Given the absence of an in-house shop, the project team recommends that the City contract apparatus maintenance with a qualified provider. The realistic options are:
• Contracted service. The City contracts with a qualified apparatus dealer or an independent, EVTcertified provider for preventive maintenance and repair. This is the most practical model for a new department with no existing maintenance staff, and it converts most maintenance into a predictable recurring cost.
• In-house program. The City hires Emergency Vehicle Technicians (EVTs) and equips a shop to service heavy apparatus. This offers the greatest control but carries a high fixed cost that is difficult to justify for the small fleet a new department would operate, particularly where no maintenance staff exists today.
Regardless of model, the department should operate a documented preventive maintenance program consistent with recognized standards, including NFPA 1901 for the inspection, maintenance, and testing of in-service apparatus and NFPA 1071 for the qualifications of the technicians who service them. The program should provide scheduled preventive maintenance, annual pump testing, and periodic aerial and ground ladder testing, with records retained for each unit. Any provider the City engages should employ EVT-certified technicians.
The City should also plan for reserve capacity. Apparatus placed out of service for maintenance or repair must be backfilled to maintain response coverage, so the fleet plan cannot rely on front-line units alone.
A reserve engine, at a minimum, allows the department to sustain service during downtime and is a recurring operational consideration rather than a one-time purchase.
Two cost distinctions matter for planning. Contracted apparatus maintenance is a recurring annual cost that grows as the fleet ages, and it should be budgeted separately from the one-time cost of acquiring apparatus. Should the City instead pursue an in-house shop, the facility and equipment represent a substantial additional one-time investment. These figures are planning estimates and should be validated against vendor quotes and the experience of comparable California departments before adoption.
Two California regulatory points also bear on the program. Firefighting apparatus are exempt from the California Highway Patrol's Basic Inspection of Terminals (BIT) program, so the department is not subject to CHP terminal inspection; even so, it should maintain an inspection and testing regime meeting the NFPA standards above, for both safety and liability. Separately, California's fleet emissions regulations continue to evolve, and emergency vehicles have generally received exemptions or extended compliance timelines, so future apparatus purchases should be checked against the California Air Resources Board requirements in effect at the time of procurement.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 65
LEGAL AND CITY ATTORNEY
Establishing a fire department will require substantial legal support, both a concentrated effort during formation and a permanent increase in ongoing legal work. Because Shafter currently receives fire protection from the Kern County Fire Department under a service agreement, the transition itself is the most significant legal undertaking. The current agreement runs through June 30, 2028, and allows either party to terminate without cause on at least twelve months' written notice, so the City must build that notice period into its implementation timeline. On termination, the agreement provides that all fire stations, apparatus, equipment, and supplies housed in the County stations remain the property of the County. The City therefore cannot assume the existing facilities or apparatus and must independently acquire, construct, and equip its own, which counsel will support through real property acquisition, construction contracting, and procurement.
The transition would also generate legal work on the treatment of the Fire Fund property tax, including any property tax exchange or LAFCO proceedings required to redirect that revenue to the City. The financial analysis addresses the revenue and feasibility implications of that question.
Formation will generate additional one-time legal work. The City Attorney, often supported by specialized labor counsel, will guide the initial meet-and-confer process under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, recognition of the bargaining unit, and negotiation of the first memorandum of understanding. Counsel will also review personnel policies, apparatus and equipment purchase contracts, maintenance service agreements, and any automatic aid, mutual aid, dispatch, and emergency medical services agreements the department requires. If the City constructs or acquires a station, legal support will extend to real property matters and review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Once the department is operating, legal work will settle into a higher recurring baseline than the City carries today. Fire service employment matters carry heightened procedural requirements, including the due process protections the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Government Code sections 3250 and following) affords in disciplinary actions, so discipline, grievances, and terminations typically require closer legal involvement than in other departments. Counsel will also handle liability claims under the Government Claims Act, respond to Public Records Act requests concerning the department, and support ongoing labor relations, including successor MOU negotiations and any proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Board.
The cost implication is direct. Shafter contracts for legal services with an outside firm under a flat monthly rate for general municipal counsel. Flat-rate arrangements of this kind typically cover routine legal support but exclude litigation and special or extraordinary services, which are billed separately at hourly rates. Most of the fire department workload described above, including the service transition and property tax exchange, labor negotiations, CEQA review, and major contracts, would likely fall outside the flat monthly rate and be billed as special services. The City should therefore expect a one-time increase in legal cost during the formation period and a permanent, if smaller, increase in recurring legal expense thereafter, largely as billings above the base retainer. The City should estimate these amounts in consultation with the City Attorney as the implementation plan takes shape.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 66
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS
The fire department will introduce new information technology and communications requirements, some of which the City can absorb through existing functions and one of which, dispatch, represents a significant decision in its own right. These requirements fall into two categories: emergency communications and dispatch, and the department's information technology systems and support.
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND DISPATCH
How the new department is dispatched is the most consequential communications decision the City faces, and it comes down to two realistic options. The first is to contract fire dispatch with the Kern County Fire Department's emergency communications center, which dispatches the Shafter station today. This option preserves continuity, keeps the department fully integrated with the countywide radio, automatic aid, and mutual aid system, and requires no new dispatch infrastructure, but it comes with a recurring contract cost and a degree of external control over a core function. The second is to bring fire dispatch in-house to the Shafter Police Department, which already operates a police communications function and employs its own dispatchers. This option offers local control and close integration with the City's police operations, but it is not simply an extension of existing work.
The project team recommends that the City formally evaluate both dispatch options, contracting with the Kern County Fire Department's communications center or bringing fire dispatch in-house through the Shafter Police Department, comparing them on cost, service quality, and interoperability before selecting an approach. That evaluation should obtain a firm dispatch-services quote from the County and a staffing and technology cost estimate for the in-house option, recognizing that the in-house path adds dispatch positions and fire-capable technology that the County contract would otherwise provide.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS AND SUPPORT
Beyond dispatch, the department will need its own technology systems, adding to the workload of the City's existing information technology function. These systems include a fire records management system, incident reporting through the National Fire Incident Reporting System and the State Fire Marshal's reporting requirements, personnel scheduling and timekeeping software suited to shift operations, mobile data computers in apparatus, and station technology and network connectivity.
Whether the City provides information technology support in-house or through contract, the added systems, users, and locations will increase that support workload and should be planned for accordingly.
These requirements are divided into one-time and recurring costs. Computer-aided dispatch, records management, mobile data, and radio equipment are one-time capital investments, mostly under the inhouse dispatch option, while dispatch contract fees, software licensing, and support are recurring annual costs. As with the other support functions, these figures are planning considerations that should be quantified in the financial analysis and validated against vendor pricing and the experience of comparable California departments.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 67
CURRENT FIRE SERVICE FUNDING AND CONTRACT TERMS
The City of Shafter (the City) currently receives fire protection from the Kern County Fire Department (KCFD) under a service agreement, and understanding how that service is funded today is essential to evaluating the cost of a municipal alternative. The central finding is that the City does not fund fire service from its general fund. The service is paid for through a dedicated share of the property tax that the County of Kern (the County) collects and retains, and that share currently exceeds the County's cost to serve the City. The financial analysis that follows should therefore be read against a current net cost to the City that is effectively zero, rather than against a contract payment the City could avoid.
THE COUNTY'S FIRE SERVICE FUNDING MODEL
KCFD is a County department funded primarily through a dedicated structural fire fund, not general taxation. The County's Fiscal Year 2025-26 Recommended Budget appropriates approximately $243.9 million for the Fire Department, funded from several sources. The largest is property tax deposited in the Fire Fund, approximately $128.2 million, representing a dedicated portion of the countywide one percent ad valorem property tax levy. The largest remaining sources of Fire Department revenue are charges for services to contract cities and the State, approximately $63.6 million; Proposition 172 Local Public Safety funds, approximately $11.7 million; and a General Fund contribution, approximately $25.9 million, that supports the enhanced medical service level funded through Measure K. Together with the Fire Fund property tax, these sources account for approximately $229.6 million of the $242.0 million in total revenue; the remainder comes from licenses and permits, use of money and property, intergovernmental revenue, and other financing sources.
HOW THE CITY'S SERVICE IS FUNDED
The City funds its fire service through two mechanisms. The first is the Fire Fund property tax generated within the City, which the County retains and applies toward the cost of service. The second is a direct annual fee the City pays when the property tax does not cover the County's allocated cost. Under the current agreement, the County determines the City's total cost of service, discounts it to reflect that the Shafter station also responds to calls in adjacent unincorporated areas, and credits the Fire Fund property tax collected within the City against the remainder. The annual fee is the remaining balance.
For the City, no balance remains. As reflected in Exhibit A of the agreement, the City's Net Total Cost is negative in every year of the current term, meaning the Fire Fund property tax generated within the City exceeds the County's cost to serve it. In those years, the City owes no Annual Fee, and the County retains the surplus as Excess Fire Funds, which it holds for fire-related operations and capital of mutual benefit to the City and County. The City's projected Net Total Cost under the agreement is as follows:
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 68
SHAFTER NET COST
Fiscal Year Net Total Cost to the City
2022-23 ($285,873)
2023-24 ($253,834)
2024-25 ($221,154)
2025-26 ($187,821)
2026-27 ($153,821)
2027-28 ($119,141)
This is a structural feature of the arrangement, not a single-year anomaly. The Fire Fund property tax generated within the City is projected to exceed the County's cost of service every year through the end of the current term, and the City's net position has been consistently negative throughout.
PROJECTED GENERAL FUND EXPOSURE UNDER THE CURRENT CONTRACT The surplus the City enjoys under the current arrangement is shrinking and will not persist indefinitely. As reflected in Exhibit A of the agreement, the amount by which the City's Fire Fund revenue exceeds the County's cost of service declines by roughly $33,000 to $35,000 each year, from approximately $286,000 in Fiscal Year 2022-23 to approximately $119,000 in Fiscal Year 2027-28, the final year of the current agreement. If that trajectory continues, the surplus would be exhausted in the early 2030s, and the City would begin paying the County for fire service from its General Fund. The following table projects the City's net position on the current trend.
PROJECTED CITY NET POSITION UNDER THE CURRENT CONTRACT TRAJECTORY Fiscal Year Projected Net Position to the City
FY2027-28 ~$119,000 surplus (current agreement ends)
FY2029-30 ~$50,000 surplus
FY2031-32 ~$20,000 — City begins paying from General Fund FY2033-34 ~$89,000 paid by City
FY2035-36 ~$158,000 paid by City
FY2039-40 ~$297,000 paid by City
This erosion is a designed feature of the current agreement, not a change in the City's tax base. The County is phasing the City's share of the cost up to its full cost-allocation methodology over six years, from 16.67 percent in Fiscal Year 2022-23 to 100 percent in Fiscal Year 2027-28, and total costs escalate 2% annually. Together, these changes steadily narrow the gap between the City's cost of service and the Fire Fund revenue that offsets it.
This projection is directional and carries two significant uncertainties. The current agreement expires June 30, 2028, and the trend above partly reflects the phase-in that completes in that year, so the trajectory beyond 2028 depends on the terms of a renegotiated agreement rather than a smooth
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 69
continuation. That uncertainty cuts toward an earlier crossover than the projection suggests: the County has characterized contract-city fire service as subsidized by unincorporated-area residents and has moved to increase the cost charged to cities, and a renegotiated agreement built on full cost recovery could require the City to begin paying at or shortly after 2028. Working in the other direction, the City's ongoing residential and industrial growth raises its assessed value and therefore its Fire Fund revenue, which could slow the erosion if the tax base outpaces the County's cost growth. A precise projection would require the County's decomposed cost-of-service and Fire Fund revenue figures, which the agreement does not disclose.
This study is significant because the current arrangement is not a permanently cost-free baseline. Under the existing contract trajectory, the City would begin drawing on its General Fund for fire service within a handful of years, with the cost rising steadily thereafter. The County contract remains far less expensive than a municipal department, but the comparison the City faces is between the cost of a municipal department and a County cost that is modest today, begins in the early 2030s, and grows over time, not between a department and free service in perpetuity.
CONTRACT TERMS RELEVANT TO THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Several terms of the current agreement bear directly on the cost and timing of any transition to a municipal department. The agreement runs from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2028, and either party may terminate it without cause on at least twelve months' written notice. The service level the City currently funds is a minimum of one Fire Captain, one Fire Engineer, and one Firefighter on duty at all times, a three-person engine company. The County currently schedules four personnel on the Shafter engine, above this contractual minimum. Significantly for the capital analysis that follows, the agreement provides that upon termination, all stations, apparatus, equipment, and supplies housed in the County stations remain the property of the County. The City would acquire no facilities or apparatus through termination and would need to provide them independently.
LIMITATION AND DATA TO BE VALIDATED
The precise value of the Fire Fund property tax generated within the City is the figure on which the feasibility of a municipal department ultimately turns, and the County Auditor-Controller should confirm it directly. The figures in this section come from the current service agreement and the County's FY 2025- 26 Recommended Budget and are sufficient to establish the funding structure and the City's approximate net position. Obtain the current-year Fire Fund allocation attributable to the City, drawn from the County's AB8 apportionment, and use it as the revenue basis for the cost comparison that follows.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FINANCIAL
PERSONNEL COSTS
Personnel is the department's dominant recurring cost. This analysis estimates personnel costs based on the staffing recommended earlier in this report: 25 positions, including 21 operational personnel across three shifts and four administrative positions. Base salaries are drawn from regional data for fire
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 70
agencies in the southern San Joaquin Valley and are expressed as ranges with a recommended planning midpoint. Because the City has not adopted a salary schedule or negotiated a memorandum of understanding, these are planning values that should be validated through the comparable-agency compensation study recommended in the human resources analysis. Consistent with the City's stated intent, the analysis assumes emergency medical service at the EMT level and does not include paramedic staffing or the associated pay premium. The tables in this section present the full two-station department; the Cost Summary shows the split between the base one-station department and the second-station growth increment.
RECOMMENDED BASE SALARY RANGES BY POSITION
Position Count Base Salary Range Planning Midpoint
Fire Chief 1 $150,000 – $190,000 $170,000
Deputy Fire Chief 1 $120,000 – $150,000 $135,000
Fire Marshal 1 $105,000 – $135,000 $120,000
Administrative Secretary 1 $52,000 – $72,000 $62,000
Fire Captain 6 $80,000 – $105,000 $95,000
Fire Engineer 6 $72,000 – $92,000 $82,000
Firefighter 9 $58,000 – $78,000 $70,000
Base salary alone does not reflect the full cost of employment. Fire service personnel carry substantial additional costs for overtime, retirement, health insurance, workers' compensation, and related benefits.
Applying planning assumptions for each component to the recommended staffing produces the estimated annual personnel cost shown below.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL COST
Cost Component Estimated Annual Amount
Base salaries $2,179,000
Overtime (operations) $186,000
CalPERS employer contribution $301,000
Workers' compensation $277,000
Health insurance $525,000
Medicare $34,000
Other (uniforms, life, disability) $44,000
Total Estimated Annual Personnel Cost $3,546,000
The recommended planning figure for annual fire department personnel cost is approximately $3.5 million, within a range of roughly $3.2 million to $4.0 million. The principal drivers within this range are the salary schedule the City ultimately adopts, the overtime required to maintain minimum staffing, and health coverage costs. The recommended 21 operational personnel represent a minimum, and the 56-
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 71
hour work schedule generates built-in overtime above the FLSA threshold in addition to the coverage overtime required when personnel are on leave. The overtime figure is therefore a planning allowance that should be refined against the schedule and leave provisions the City adopts.
The overtime allowance is sensitive to the leave assumption, which the analysis treats as a planning minimum. The $186,000 operations overtime allowance covers the mandatory component created by the 56-hour schedule, approximately $136,000 at the recommended salary midpoints, plus a limited allowance for leave backfill. A more typical California leave level of 25 to 35 days per firefighter, once vacation accrual, holiday bank, sick usage, and training absence are included, would require additional overtime to backfill minimum staffing. The following table shows the sensitivity for the two-station department.
OVERTIME SENSITIVITY TO LEAVE ASSUMPTION, TWO-STATION DEPARTMENT Leave per Person FLSA Component Leave Backfill Total Overtime Versus Draft 15 days (as drafted) $136,000 $0 $136,000 –$50,000
25 days $136,000 $158,000 $294,000 +$108,000
35 days $136,000 $368,000 $504,000 +$318,000
Calculated at an average operational base of $80,571, a 2,912-hour work year, and a resulting overtime rate of $41.50. Leave backfill assumes the three float positions per department absorb absence before overtime is incurred.
At a realistic 25- to 35-day level, operations overtime could range from approximately $294,000 to $504,000, roughly $108,000 to $318,000 above the planning allowance carried in the cost tables. The project team recommends the City validate the relief factor and the leave provisions it adopts and adjust the personnel budget accordingly. This sensitivity is noted in the Cost Summary.
RETIREMENT (CALPERS)
The department's retirement cost assumes participation in the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). Sworn personnel would be enrolled under a safety benefit formula and civilian personnel under the miscellaneous formula, with employees hired after January 1, 2013 subject to the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA). The CalPERS amount above reflects the employer's share of the normal cost of these benefits.
One feature of establishing a new department works in the City's favor in the near term. A newly created CalPERS plan begins with no unfunded accrued liability, so the employer's initial contribution reflects only the normal cost of benefits, which is substantially lower than the rates paid by established agencies that carry large unfunded liabilities. This rate is not permanent. As the plan matures and actuarial experience accrues, an unfunded liability will develop, and the employer contribution rate will rise. The estimate is appropriate for the department's early years and should be revalidated against CalPERS actuarial projections before adoption.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 72
OPERATIONAL COSTS
Beyond personnel, the department requires an annual operating budget to fund the supplies, services, and support necessary to keep apparatus in service and personnel equipped and trained. Because the City would be standing up a department rather than expanding an existing one, and would operate two stations with contracted apparatus maintenance and contracted dispatch, its operating cost as a share of personnel cost is higher than that of a large, established department that benefits from economies of scale. The estimated operating budget is presented below.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
Operating Category Estimated Annual Cost
Services and supplies (office, medical/EMS, small tools, uniforms) $250,000 Fuel (apparatus and vehicles) $80,000
Apparatus and vehicle maintenance (contracted) $200,000 Station utilities and facility maintenance (two stations) $120,000 Training and certification $100,000
Emergency dispatch services (contract) $200,000
Insurance and risk management $150,000
PPE, SCBA, and required testing (pump, ladder, hose) $80,000 Information technology and software $90,000
Operating Subtotal $1,270,000
The estimated annual operating budget is approximately $1.3 million. Several lines reflect decisions identified elsewhere in this study: apparatus maintenance is contracted because the City has no in-house fleet capability; emergency dispatch is a contracted service, most likely with the Kern County Fire Department's communications center, and is a planning estimate of approximately $200,000 within a range of roughly $150,000 to $350,000 pending an actual quote; and insurance reflects the higher risk profile of fire operations. In addition to the operating budget, the City should fund an annual apparatus and vehicle replacement reserve of approximately $225,000 so that engines and vehicles can be replaced at the end of their service lives without a future funding spike. Together, the operating budget and the replacement reserve add approximately $1.5 million in recurring cost beyond personnel.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Because the City owns no apparatus or fire station, the department must be equipped and housed from the ground up. This section estimates the one-time capital cost of apparatus and the equipment required to place it in service, and the cost of the two fire stations the recommended deployment requires. As with personnel, the tables below reflect the full two-station department, with the base-and-second-station split summarized in the Cost Summary.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 73
APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT
The organization chapter identifies the required apparatus: two front-line Type 1 engines, one used reserve Type 1 engine, one Type 6 engine, one Type 2 support tender, two command vehicles, and one utility vehicle for fire prevention. Estimated acquisition costs are shown below.
ESTIMATED APPARATUS ACQUISITION COST
Apparatus Quantity Unit Cost Total
Type 1 Engine (front-line) 2 $900,000 $1,800,000
Type 1 Engine (reserve, used) 1 $300,000 $300,000
Type 6 Engine 1 $400,000 $400,000
Type 2 Support Tender 1 $450,000 $450,000
Command SUV (equipped) 2 $85,000 $170,000
Utility / Prevention vehicle 1 $70,000 $70,000
Apparatus Subtotal $3,190,000
Apparatus alone is not operational; each unit must be equipped and personnel outfitted before the department can respond. The following table estimates the cost to equip the apparatus and the department.
ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT COST
Equipment Category Estimated Cost
Structural and wildland PPE (two sets per member) $175,000 SCBA units and spare cylinders $300,000
Hose, nozzles, appliances, ground ladders $120,000
Extrication and rescue tools $90,000
EMS equipment (monitors, AEDs, supplies) $80,000
Mobile and portable radios $250,000
Small tools and miscellaneous loose equipment $85,000
Equipment subtotal $1,100,000
Combined, the estimated one-time cost to acquire and equip the department's apparatus is approximately $4.3 million.
FIRE STATIONS
The recommended deployment requires two stations: a 25,000-square-foot headquarters station and a 15,000-square-foot company station. The City does not own either, so it must build or lease each. Fire stations are essential facilities and cost substantially more per square foot than ordinary commercial buildings, because they must remain operational after a major earthquake and must accommodate heavy apparatus, around-the-clock living quarters, and specialized systems. In California, these
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 74
requirements, together with prevailing wage and building codes, place fire station construction in the range of $750 to $900 per square foot for construction alone; on an all-in basis that includes design, permitting, furnishings, and contingency, the recommended stations are estimated at approximately $975 per square foot, while regional commercial lease space is on the order of $23 per square foot per year.
ESTIMATED FIRE STATION COST, BUILD AND LEASE
Station Size Build (all-in, excl. land) Lease (annual)
Headquarters Station 25,000 SF ~$24.4 million ~$584,000 Company Station 15,000 SF ~$14.6 million ~$350,000
Both stations 40,000 SF ~$39.0 million ~$934,000
Under the build approach, the two stations represent an estimated one-time capital cost of approximately $39 million all-in, excluding land, or approximately $975 per square foot across the 40,000 square feet of the two stations, of which roughly $32 million is construction, equivalent to approximately $800 per square foot and within the construction range cited above, and the balance is design, permitting, furnishings, and contingency. Land is an additional cost if the City does not own suitable sites. Under the lease approach, the two stations represent a recurring cost of approximately $934,000 per year at the regional going rate, escalating over time. Purpose-built stations are rarely available to lease, so a lease would most likely be a build-to-suit arrangement priced off the same construction cost, or the conversion of existing buildings requiring significant tenant improvements. Where up-front capital is the constraint, cities more commonly finance a build through a lease-purchase or certificate of participation than through a conventional lease.
START-UP AND TRANSITION COSTS
Beyond the apparatus, equipment, and stations, standing up a department carries one-time start-up costs that occur before and during the transition and are separate from the recurring operating budget.
These include recruiting and screening the department’s initial personnel, an initial recruit academy or onboarding and field training, developing the department’s policies and records systems, the formationphase legal and labor work described in the legal analysis, one-time dispatch and information-technology setup, and project management to coordinate the transition. The capital estimate includes personal protective equipment, radios, and apparatus, so they are not repeated here. The following planning estimates were developed based on the department’s size and scope and the project team’s experience with comparable department standups, and should be refined as the City develops its hiring and procurement plans.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 75
ESTIMATED ONE-TIME START-UP (TRANSITION) COSTS
Start-Up Cost Category Planning Estimate
Recruitment, testing, and pre-employment screening (about 25 personnel) $75,000 – $125,000 Initial recruit academy, onboarding, and field training $150,000 – $400,000 Policy, SOP/SOG, and records-system setup $75,000 – $150,000 Formation-phase legal and labor counsel (transition, first MOU, CEQA) $150,000 – $300,000 Dispatch and information-technology one-time setup $150,000 – $400,000 Project management and transition support $100,000 – $200,000 Estimated total one-time start-up cost ~$0.7M – $1.6M
Combined, one-time start-up costs are estimated at $0.7 million to $1.6 million, with a planning midpoint of about $1.1 million. This total is in addition to the apparatus, equipment, and station capital summarized earlier, and it is broadly consistent with the roughly $1.6 million in start-up costs reported for Placentia’s recent formation of its own department, though the two are not defined identically. The estimate is most sensitive to the share of experienced lateral personnel the City can recruit, which reduces academy costs, and to whether dispatch is contracted or brought in-house, which is the largest single driver of one-time technology cost.
INDIRECT COSTS
Establishing a fire department also imposes costs on the City's existing support departments. These costs are indirect to the fire department budget but real to the City. The most direct is added workload in human resources and finance, which would absorb the department's recruitment, payroll, benefits administration, CalPERS reporting, purchasing, and accounts payable activity. This analysis includes one human resources support position and one finance support position to meet that demand, both at the support level rather than director level. The positions are based on the City's actual starting salaries for the Human Resources Coordinator and Accounting Technician classifications, fully loaded with benefits.
ESTIMATED SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONNEL COST
Support Position Base Salary Benefits Loaded Cost
Human Resources Coordinator $102,960 $35,878 $138,838
Accounting Technician $60,138 $29,690 $89,828
Total $163,098 $65,568 $228,666
Fully loaded, the two support positions add an estimated $229,000 in annual recurring cost, which the City may establish as full positions or scale to actual workload. Additional indirect costs, including added demand on the City Attorney and information technology functions identified in the support services analysis, are not separately quantified here but should be recognized as further indirect costs of standing up the department.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 76
COST SUMMARY
The estimated costs are summarized below in two parts: a base department sized to match the level of service the City receives from the County today, a single staffed station, and the incremental cost of a second station the City should add as it grows. This separates the cost of replacing today's service from the cost of expanding it.
ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY
Cost Category Base (one station) Second station (growth) Full (two stations) Fire department personnel $2,308,000 +$1,238,000 $3,546,000 Support services (HR, Finance) $229,000 — $229,000
Operating budget $1,000,000 +$270,000 $1,270,000
Apparatus/vehicle replacement
reserve
$150,000 +$75,000 $225,000
Total recurring, per year ~$3,687,000 +$1,583,000 ~$5,270,000 Apparatus and equipment $3,040,000 +$1,250,000 $4,290,000 Fire station(s) $24,400,000 +$14,640,000 $39,040,000
Total one-time capital (excl. land) ~$27,440,000 +$15,890,000 ~$43,330,000 The base one-station department is estimated at approximately $3.7 million per year with about $27.4 million in one-time capital. Adding the second station brings the department to approximately $5.3 million per year and roughly $43.3 million in capital. The base figures are the appropriate basis for comparison with the current County service, since both provide a single staffed company; the second station represents an expansion of service beyond what the City receives today. The recurring figures carry the study’s lean leave assumption; adopting a more typical 25- to 35-day leave level would raise annual personnel cost by an estimated $108,000 to $318,000, which the City should reflect once it sets its leave and relief provisions.
FIVE- AND TEN-YEAR COST PROJECTION
The RFP requires operating cost projections for at least five and ten years. The following table projects the department’s recurring cost over that horizon, escalating the first full year of operation at 3.5% annually, consistent with the comparative analysis. The projection covers recurring operating costs only; the one-time capital cost of apparatus, equipment, and stations is separate and is summarized in the Cost Summary and Capital Investment sections. Figures show the base one-station department, which matches the level of service the City receives today, and the full two-station department the City would build as it grows.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 77
FIVE- AND TEN-YEAR RECURRING COST PROJECTION (3.5% ANNUAL ESCALATION) Period Base Department (One Station) Full Department (Two Stations) Year 1 $3,687,000 $5,270,000
Year 5 $4,231,000 $6,047,000
Year 10 $5,025,000 $7,182,000
The base department’s recurring cost is estimated at approximately $3.7 million in the first full year, rising to approximately $4.2 million by year five and $5.0 million by year ten. These planning figures will change with the salary schedule, benefit and retirement rates, and overtime the City ultimately adopts, and should be revalidated as those decisions are made. The projection reflects recurring operating costs only and does not include the one-time capital required to build and equip the department.
COMPARATIVE ANNUAL COST: COUNTY CONTRACT VERSUS MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT Placing the two options on the same timeline shows the scale of the decision. Because today's County service is a single-staffed company, the comparison uses the base one-station department, approximately $3.7 million in its first full year, escalated at 3.5% annually. The County figure is the General Fund cost from the projection above, which remains zero while the City runs a surplus and begins only in the early 2030s. The second station, as a later expansion of service, would add cost on top of the municipal figures shown.
COMPARATIVE ANNUAL COST, COUNTY CONTRACT VERSUS BASE MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT Fiscal Year Remain with County Municipal, Fire Fund Retained by County (gross)
Municipal, Fire Fund
Redirected to City (net)
FY2029-30 $0 ~$3,687,000 ~$1,187,000
FY2031-32 ~$20,000 ~$3,950,000 ~$1,450,000
FY2033-34 ~$89,000 ~$4,231,000 ~$1,731,000
FY2035-36 ~$158,000 ~$4,532,000 ~$2,032,000
FY2039-40 ~$297,000 ~$5,201,000 ~$2,701,000
On an apples-to-apples basis, matching today's single-company service, the outcome depends on whether the Fire Fund property tax is redirected to the City. If it is not redirected, the base municipal department would cost the City about $3.7 million in the first full year, rising to roughly $5.2 million by 2040, while County costs remain near zero and residents would continue to pay the County’s fire tax. If the Fire Fund is redirected, estimated at approximately $2.5 million a year as derived, the City would receive that revenue as an offset, and the net municipal cost would fall to approximately $1.2 million in the first full year, rising to roughly $2.7 million by 2040. Either way, the municipal figures shown come before the roughly $27.4 million one-time capital cost to build and equip it, and before the added cost of the second station the City would need as it grows. The redirected scenario applies the derived Fire Fund estimate of approximately $2.5 million, held constant; because Fire Fund revenue rises with assessed value, the net gap in the later years is likely smaller than shown.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 78
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE WITH COMPARABLE TRANSITIONS
The project team researched California municipalities that have changed how they provide fire protection to identify comparable transitions and the lessons they offer Shafter. Two findings shape the comparison. First, recent transitions among California cities have generally moved in the opposite direction from the one Shafter is considering, with cities dissolving independent fire departments and contracting with a county provider rather than leaving a county provider to form their own. Second, the project team identified no California city that has left a county fire department and redirected the county’s structural fire fund property tax to a new city department, which is the specific step on which Shafter’s feasibility depends. The two most instructive recent cases are summarized as follows.
CALIFORNIA CITY (KERN COUNTY)
California City, a small city of roughly 14,000 residents in eastern Kern County, recently ended its standalone municipal fire department and moved fire and emergency medical services to the Kern County Fire Department. Rather than dissolving a special district, the City discontinued its own department and entered a service agreement with the County, transferring its firefighters to KCFD and selling its fire station and equipment to the County. Kern County Fire has noted that many incorporated cities have made this same transition from a stand-alone municipal department to contracted County service. The case is directly relevant to Shafter for two reasons. It involves the same county provider Shafter contracts with today, and it illustrates the fiscal fragility of a small, standalone municipal department, a pressure that moved California City toward the County rather than away from it.
PLACENTIA (ORANGE COUNTY)
Placentia is the clearest recent California example of a city leaving a regional provider to form its own department, the direction Shafter is considering, although important differences limit how far the comparison carries. Placentia, a city of approximately 51,000, withdrew from the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) after more than two decades and launched the Placentia Fire and Life Safety Department on July 1, 2020, driven by the rising cost of the OCFA contract, which reached about $6.8 million in fiscal year 2019-20. Placentia adopted a deliberately lower-cost model: two engine companies, each staffed by three full-time firefighters and a reserve firefighter, all certified at the EMT level, with a private provider providing paramedic ambulance transport under contract. The City projected that its own department would cost under $5.2 million in its first year, with about $1.6 million in start-up costs, and estimated roughly $28.3 million in savings over ten years. It supported the change with a voterapproved one-percent general sales tax (Measure U, 2018), whose proceeds the City Council may apply to any municipal purpose rather than to fire service alone. A 2022 Orange County Grand Jury review credited the model with improving service, finding that dispatching an ambulance rather than a fire engine to appropriate medical calls reduced response times, while noting that the projected savings were expected to accrue over the decade rather than immediately.
Two differences determine how much weight the Placentia case can carry for Shafter. Placentia left a joint-powers fire authority under a cash contract, not a county fire department funded by a dedicated structural fire fund property tax, and it replaced that contract with new revenue of its own. Shafter’s
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 79
situation differs in both respects: it contracts with a county department, and the property tax that funds its service today is collected and retained by the County rather than paid by the City, so forming a department does not by itself make that revenue available. The Placentia experience nonetheless offers two transferable lessons. A city can hold down the cost of an independent department through model choices such as part-time and reserve staffing and contracted ambulance transport, though each choice carries service and recruitment trade-offs; and a successful transition depends on securing a sufficient and stable revenue source, which Placentia obtained through a voter-approved sales tax. Both points reinforce the two threshold conditions identified in this report: resolving whether the Fire Fund property tax can be redirected, and securing a permanent revenue source before any commitment.
THE FIRE FUND PROPERTY TAX QUESTION
Whether the City can fund a department at all turns on the Fire Fund property tax. Under Proposition 13, property is taxed at one percent of assessed value, and that single levy is divided among many local agencies according to allocation factors fixed decades ago. A dedicated share of that one percent is allocated to the County's structural fire fund; it is not a separate tax. Within Shafter, the County collects the fire-fund share of what property owners pay and applies it against the cost of the fire service the County provides; because that share currently exceeds the cost, the City pays no additional fee, and the County retains the surplus. The City does not receive the Fire Fund revenue or the surplus.
Establishing a City department would not, by itself, redirect this revenue, and no automatic mechanism moves the fire-fund share of the property tax from the County to the City. The property tax exchange process under Revenue and Taxation Code section 99 is triggered by a jurisdictional change under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, such as a LAFCO-approved annexation, detachment, or reorganization. Kern County Fire is a County department funded through the structural fire fund, not a fire protection district or county service area the City lies within and could detach from. Because forming a department to serve within the City's existing boundaries would not necessarily constitute a jurisdictional change, section 99 may not apply, and the fire-fund allocation could remain with the County even after the City assumes the service.
This outcome rests on how California allocates the property tax. Under Assembly Bill 8, each agency’s share of the one percent levy was fixed decades ago by the property tax it received before Proposition 13, and has been adjusted since only for growth by location. As a matter of law, a city does not acquire a share of that tax simply by assuming a service another agency had provided. The Section 99 exchange previously described is therefore the only routine way the allocation could move to the City, and it requires the County’s agreement. The sole alternative, a special allocation by the State Legislature of the kind that created the Tax Equity Allocation for certain low-property-tax cities, is equally outside the City’s unilateral control.
No California city appears to have assumed fire service from a county and captured the county's structural fire fund in this manner; in recent years the movement has run the other direction, with cities ending their departments and joining county systems, including California City. Absent a jurisdictional change, redirecting the revenue would require a negotiated agreement with the County, which has no
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 80
obligation to relinquish the allocation and a fiscal incentive to retain it. If the allocation were not redirected, Shafter property owners would continue paying the County's fire-fund tax while separately funding a City department, an outcome approaching double taxation. The City should obtain a definitive determination from County Counsel and LAFCO before committing to establish a department, and the cost figures above should be read against this unresolved revenue question rather than against the City's current out-of-pocket cost, which is effectively zero.
ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE FIRE FUND
The Fire Fund revenue generated within the City can be estimated from the report’s own material and should not be treated as zero. In Fiscal Year 2027-28, the final year of the current agreement, the County reaches 100% of its cost-allocation methodology, and Exhibit A shows a Net Total Cost of -$119,141.
Because the City is charged the County’s full allocated cost of service in that year, the Fire Fund revenue collected within the City equals that allocated cost plus the $119,141 surplus.
The allocated cost of the service the County provides, a continuously staffed three-person engine company, is capable of reasonable estimation. Net of the discount the County applies because the Shafter station also responds to adjacent unincorporated areas, that allocated cost is estimated at approximately $2.0 million to $2.8 million per year. Adding the $119,141 surplus places the Fire Fund revenue generated within the City at approximately $2.1 million to $2.9 million, with a planning midpoint of about $2.5 million.
An independent cross-check supports this range. The County’s Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget deposits approximately $128.2 million of property tax in the countywide structural fire fund. The City’s population of roughly 21,000 is about 2.3% of the County total, which alone would imply a Fire Fund contribution of about $2.9 million, and the City’s share is likely higher because its assessed value is weighted toward high-value industrial and logistics development. Both methods point to a figure near $2.5 million and clearly above zero.
FUNDING OPTIONS
If the City elects to establish a municipal department, it must identify a funding source sufficient to meet the department’s recurring costs and to finance its one-time capital costs, and no single source is both large enough and certain enough to carry that cost on its own. The options fall into two groups: primary sources that can fund ongoing operations, and supplemental sources that can offset a portion of the cost but cannot sustain the department on their own. Each is summarized below and should be evaluated against the two threshold conditions identified in this chapter.
REDIRECTION OF THE FIRE FUND PROPERTY TAX
The most consequential source is the Fire Fund share of the property tax now collected within the City and retained by the County. As discussed above, this revenue currently exceeds the County’s cost of service, so redirecting it to a City department would most closely fund the service at its current taxpayer contribution level. Redirection is not automatic, has no clear California precedent, and would require a
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 81
negotiated agreement with the County or a LAFCO process; therefore, it is treated as the first threshold condition. If it can be achieved, it is the foundation of any sustainable funding plan. If it cannot, the City must fund the department from other sources while its residents continue to pay the County’s fire tax.
A DEDICATED VOTER-APPROVED TAX
When Fire Fund revenue cannot be redirected, or is insufficient, California cities most commonly fund a municipal fire department through a dedicated, voter-approved tax. A general-purpose transactions and use (sales) tax, of the kind Placentia adopted to support its department, requires a simple majority but is not legally restricted to fire use. A special tax dedicated to fire and emergency services, such as a parcel tax or a special sales tax, requires a two-thirds majority but provides a protected, ongoing revenue stream the Council cannot redirect. A benefit assessment is another option, most applicable if the City provides service through a fire protection district. Any of these can provide the stable base the recurring cost requires, and the choice among them is a trade-off between the vote threshold and revenue security.
GRANTS
Federal grants can offset some start-up and staffing costs but cannot fund the department long term.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) supports one-time apparatus and equipment purchases, and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant can fund a defined number of firefighter positions for a limited term, after which the City must absorb the cost. These programs are competitive and time-limited, and the City should treat them as a way to reduce initial cost rather than as part of the recurring funding base.
FEES AND TRANSPORT REVENUE
The department can also generate recurring revenue through fees and, potentially, emergency medical transport. Fire prevention and inspection fees, plan-review fees, and similar cost-recovery charges offset a portion of the prevention program’s cost. If the City elects to provide advanced life support and ambulance transport, transport billing can generate meaningful offsetting revenue, as it does under the contracted-transport model Placentia adopted, though establishing transport authority and billing carries its own cost and administrative requirements. These sources are supplemental: they reduce the department's net cost but are not sufficient to fund it.
REALLOCATION OF EXISTING REVENUES
Finally, the City can fund all or part of the department by reallocating existing General Fund revenues to fire service. Because the City does not fund fire service from its General Fund today, any reallocation would draw from revenues currently supporting other City programs and would require the City Council to weigh fire service against those competing priorities. Reallocation can bridge a portion of the cost, particularly during the transition, but relying on it for the full recurring cost would place ongoing pressure on the General Fund and the services it supports.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 82
In combination, these sources define the funding question the City must resolve before committing to a municipal department. Grants, fees, and transport revenue can offset costs but cannot sustain the department; the recurring base must come from the redirected Fire Fund property tax, a dedicated voterapproved tax, reallocated General Fund revenue, or some combination of the three. Securing that base is the second threshold condition identified in this report, and the City should quantify the specific amount required against the department’s estimated recurring and capital cost and identify the source or sources that will meet it before proceeding.
LIMITATIONS OF THE COST ESTIMATES
The estimates in this chapter are planning figures intended to establish order of magnitude. Salaries should be validated against the schedules of comparable California agencies and the terms of any negotiated memorandum of understanding; benefit and retirement costs should be confirmed against CalPERS actuarial data and the City's actual health and workers' compensation experience; and apparatus, equipment, and station costs should be confirmed through formal vendor quotes and a professional construction cost estimate, recognizing that fire apparatus and essential-facility construction carry long lead times and escalating prices. Land acquisition and the definitive dispatch services cost are additional items to be confirmed as the City advances.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 83
RECOMMENDATIONS
Building a municipal fire department in Shafter is workable to operate but financially feasible only under specific conditions. The project team’s analysis shows the City can design a sound department, including its organization, staffing, apparatus, and station locations. The obstacle is not the design. It is the cost. A basic department, matching the single company the City has today, is estimated at about $3.7 million a year plus about $27 million in one-time capital. A full two-station department would cost about $5.3 million a year and about $43 million to build. Both cost much more than the current County contract. For that reason, the project team recommends that the City treat a municipal department as conditionally feasible, subject to resolving two questions before any commitment.
Two conditions determine whether a municipal department is financially feasible:
• Redirect the Fire Fund property tax. The City should get a clear determination from County Counsel and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on whether, and how, the County can redirect the Fire Fund property tax it now keeps to a City department. As the financial analysis explains, this is not automatic, has no clear precedent, and the County has a financial reason to resist it. If the tax cannot be redirected, a City department would fall almost entirely on the City’s General Fund while residents keep paying the County’s fire tax.
• Secure a permanent revenue source. The City should identify and lock in a revenue source large enough to cover the department’s yearly costs and capital needs. If the City fully redirects the Fire Fund tax, it would receive that revenue, estimated at approximately $2.5 million a year, and a City department would cost roughly $1.2 million a year more than staying with the County in the first full year of operation. If it cannot be redirected, the added cost is roughly $3.7 million a year, and residents would still pay the County’s fire tax. The City must meet the applicable gap from a stable source, not one-time or discretionary money.
The project team recommends that the City not commit to a municipal fire department until these two conditions are resolved. If both are resolved in the City’s favor, the department is feasible, and the City can proceed using the implementation steps and the plans in this report. If they cannot be resolved, the City should stay with the Kern County Fire Department and watch the cost trend described in the financial analysis. Today’s cost advantage is substantial, but it will shrink over time and should be reviewed regularly, especially as the County contract is renegotiated after 2028.
The project team offers these recommendations to support that decision:
• First, obtain County Counsel and LAFCO determinations on redirecting the Fire Fund. It is the highest priority because its outcome governs every other decision.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 84
• Determine how much revenue the department needs, measured against its estimated yearly and capital costs, and evaluate the sources that could provide it, including a voter-approved measure if one is required.
• Confirm the planning estimates in this report. This includes a compensation study of comparable agencies, formal price quotes for apparatus and equipment, a professional cost estimate for station construction, a dispatch-service quote, and confirmation of the City’s current Fire Fund allocation with the County Auditor-Controller.
• If the City decides to proceed, adopt the plan in this report: twenty-five positions, two stations, the recommended apparatus and equipment, the 48/96 work schedule, and enrollment in CalPERS. • Weigh the cost of a City department against the benefits that are not financial, such as local control and the improved coverage a second station would provide, and the reduction in response times, which currently exceed recognized benchmarks. This is ultimately a policy decision for the City Council, informed by this study.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The following implementation sequence applies if the City resolves the previous threshold conditions and elects to establish a municipal fire department. This methodical, phased approach sequences decisions correctly and avoids any gap in fire protection during the transition. Because of the twelvemonth notice required to terminate the County agreement, the long lead times for fire apparatus, and the time required to design and construct fire stations, the City should anticipate a realistic timeline of approximately three to four years from a decision to proceed to a fully operational department. • Phase 1 — Threshold Resolution and Funding. Obtain the County Counsel and LAFCO determination on Fire Fund redirection, identify and secure the dedicated revenue source, and validate the report's cost estimates. The City Council will decide to proceed only after these are resolved. • Phase 2 — Formation and Governance. Adopt the ordinance or resolution formally establishing the fire department, adopt a fire code, provide the required twelve-month written notice of termination to the Clerk of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and begin negotiating the terms of the transition, including the treatment of Fire Fund revenue.
• Phase 3 — Organization, Personnel, and Labor. Recruit and appoint the Fire Chief, develop job classifications, salary schedules, and personnel policies, contract with CalPERS for a safety retirement plan, establish the labor relationship under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and negotiate an initial memorandum of understanding, and conduct recruitment, testing, and hiring of the department's personnel.
• Phase 4 — Facilities and Apparatus. Acquire station sites, design and construct or lease the two stations, and order apparatus early, given lead times that commonly exceed a year, together with the equipment required to place it in service.
• Phase 5 — Operational Readiness and Transition. Establish the dispatch arrangement, execute automatic and mutual aid agreements, complete training and certification, and coordinate a defined cutover from County to City service so that fire protection is continuous on the transition date.
MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 85
Throughout, the City should manage the transition methodically, timing the termination of the County agreement to coincide with the City department's readiness so that there is no gap in fire protection. The report should be reviewed in full to understand the factual basis for each recommendation and the analysis that supports it.
MANAGEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Public Works Director, Ravi Pudipeddi, City Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF REVISED ROADWAY CONFIGURATION AT
WEST LERDO HIGHWAY AND SOUTH SCHNAIDT STREET
RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is not a “project” as defined by Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines; approve the proposed roadway configuration at the intersection of West Lerdo Highway and South Schnaidt Street, consisting of removing the dedicated westbound left-turn lane from West Lerdo Highway onto South Schnaidt Street and reestablishing on-street parking on both sides of West Lerdo Highway; and direct Staff to proceed with the pavement striping necessary to implement the approved configuration.
BACKGROUND
At its September 1, 2026, meeting, the City Council confirmed the recently installed allway stop as the permanent traffic control configuration at the intersection of West Lerdo Highway and South Schnaidt Street. The Council and Staff also discussed residents’ concerns regarding the prohibition of on-street parking along West Lerdo Highway, which was implemented to improve safety at the intersection. At the Council’s direction, staff further reviewed the available roadway width and configuration of West Lerdo Highway in the vicinity of South Schnaidt Street. As explained in the September 1 staff report, the available roadway width cannot simultaneously accommodate on-street parking, bicycle lanes, two vehicular through lanes, and a dedicated left-turn lane from West Lerdo Highway onto South Schnaidt Street.
Staff evaluated alternatives for restoring on-street parking on both sides of West Lerdo Highway while continuing to accommodate vehicular and bicycle traffic. One alternative would retain the dedicated left-turn lane and transition bicyclists from the bicycle lane into the vehicular travel lane through a shared-lane, or “sharrow,” configuration near the intersection. Staff determined that this alternative would raise safety concerns due to the volume and type of traffic on West Lerdo Highway and therefore does not recommend the alternative.
Staff’s recommended alternative would remove the dedicated left-turn lane from West Lerdo Highway onto South Schnaidt Street, providing sufficient roadway width to accommodate vehicular travel lanes, bicycle lanes, and on-street parking on both sides
APPROVAL OF REVISED ROADWAY CONFIGURATION AT WEST LERDO HIGHWAY AND
SOUTH SCHNAIDT STREET
- 2 -
of West Lerdo Highway. The proposed work would require removing or covering approximately 220 feet of existing lane striping and installing new striping to establish the revised configuration. Although the left-turn lane existed before the recent intersection improvements, other intersections farther east along this segment of West Lerdo Highway operate without dedicated left-turn lanes. Removing the turn lane at South Schnaidt Street would therefore create a configuration more consistent with other intersections along this portion of the corridor.
Removal of the dedicated left-turn lane may result in minor traffic delays when vehicles stop to make left turns. However, staff considers this potential operational effect acceptable when balanced against the ability to safely accommodate vehicular traffic, bicycle traffic, and on-street parking on both sides of West Lerdo Highway within the available roadway width.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff estimates that the proposed striping modifications will cost approximately $5,000 to $7,000. The City’s existing citywide street striping contractor would complete the work under its current contract. The estimated cost can be absorbed within the existing project budget; therefore, no additional appropriation is required.
CEQA ANALYSIS
The action is not a “project” as defined by Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines because the action consists of approval of modifications to the roadway striping configuration and direction to staff to implement those modifications as part of the existing street improvement project and is therefore an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment beyond the existing project.
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
None
MANAGEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SHAFTER
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026
DEPARTMENT: Alex Gonzalez, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: PROHIBITING PARKING ON PORTIONS OF LERDO HIGHWAY
RECOMMENDATION
Council find that the action is not a “project” as defined by Section 15378(b)(2); adopt Resolution 3120, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Shafter Prohibiting the Stopping, Parking, or Standing of Vehicles on Certain Portions of Lerdo Highway.
BACKGROUND
The City Council previously approved the Core City Bike Lane Project, which includes improvements along Lerdo Highway. While developing the final roadway configuration, Staff identified two locations along the north side of Lerdo Highway where on-street parking must be prohibited to accommodate the approved improvements and maintain safe traffic operations. Because the Council-approved improvement plans did not expressly establish these parking prohibitions, Staff requests that the Council formally establish the restrictions by resolution.
The first location is on the north side of Lerdo Highway between Central Valley Highway and Jackson Avenue. Under existing conditions, the available merge lane is shorter than required by current design standards, causing vehicles to complete the merge within or immediately adjacent to the intersection. Prohibiting parking along approximately 275 feet of this segment would provide the additional roadway width needed to extend the merge lane to approximately 320 feet, consistent with current standards, and allow vehicles to complete the merge outside the intersection.
The second location is on the north side of Lerdo Highway between Munzer Street and Pacific Avenue. The existing roadway width along this segment is insufficient to accommodate on-street parking together with the approved bicycle lanes, vehicular travel lanes, and two-way left-turn lane. The north side of this segment fronts a small, vacant triangular parcel that also serves as the landing area for an existing crosswalk.
Parking is already prohibited immediately west of this segment, along the north side of Lerdo Highway in front of the former Rite Aid property. Extending the parking prohibition approximately 100 feet between Munzer Street and Pacific Avenue would provide the width needed to implement the approved bicycle lane and roadway configuration while maintaining continuity with the existing parking restriction to the west.
FISCAL IMPACT