[0:02] I want to call to order the meeting of the Big Bear Fire Authority for

[0:07] February, February, July 14th, 2026 is now called

[0:13] to order. Please join me in a moment of silence.

[0:37] Director Mel, would you please lead us in?

[0:39] » Please join join me in honoring our country and our flag. I pledge algiance

[0:44] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[0:49] stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[0:55] for all the

[1:02] roll call, please

[1:07] » here.

[1:11] » Dctor >> here.

[1:15] » Dr. J >> here.

[1:17] » Dctor >> here.

[1:19] » Dctor here.

[1:21] » Director Ziggler. >> Yes.

[1:24] » Director Heric is absent. >> Director Hicks

[1:28] » still. >> Director Melnik

[1:30] » here. >> Director Siggoia

[1:32] » here. >> All right. That's a forum. Thank you.

[1:38] » Moving on. Now we enter the public comment period. As a reminder, any

[1:43] member of the public may address the board on items within the board subject

[1:47] matter jurisdiction, but which are not listed on this agenda during public

[1:53] comments. However, no action may be taken on matters that are not part of

[1:58] the posted agenda agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes

[2:03] per person. This time limit may be shortened by the chair to accommodate a

[2:08] large number of speakers. We have um just one for general comment

[2:16] or public comment and that would be Patrice Dunar

[2:31] Lake directors, your recent decision to withhold taxpayers funds from the fire

[2:35] department because quote the board voted to abide by the JPA agreement has now

[2:40] created a public safety concern. Several safety personnel have already left the

[2:44] department and have not been replaced, leaving critical vacancies in our

[2:48] emergency response system. As a result, we are currently experiencing

[2:51] perforation downstaffing because there are not enough qualified personnel on

[2:56] the payroll available to fill shifts. The firefighters and command staff in

[3:01] this room know this to be true. I believe that the public should also

[3:05] recognize that the uncertainty surrounding the future of this

[3:07] department is already affecting employee retention. Experienced personnel,

[3:12] including your own son, Randy, are actively looking and choosing to leave

[3:16] for other agencies rather than wait to see what happens here. While the city

[3:20] continues to insist that everyone must strictly abide by the agreement, I would

[3:23] remind everyone in this room that the city itself spent $80,000 of taxpayer

[3:28] funds to hire citygate associates to evaluate the health of the fire

[3:31] department. Earlier this year, Citygate Representative Stuart Gray stated in his

[3:35] presentation to the community that the JPA agreement is a skeletal agreement

[3:39] based on the best practices of 2012 and has not been meaningfully updated since

[3:43] the authority was formed. Mr. Mr. Gray also addressed the financial provisions

[3:47] in section 7 of the agreement by stating, quote, "The truth was when the

[3:51] authority was formed, the 50/50 was only the headquartered number of personnel

[3:55] and not the total number of personnel." Let that sink in, everyone. The city's

[4:00] own consultant stated that the 50/50 cost sharing applies to admin costs and

[4:04] not the total tax revenue contributions. Furthermore, section 7 is the sole basis

[4:08] for the city withholding funds from this department, and it is at best an

[4:12] incomplete interpretation of the agreement. Third party legal counsel has

[4:16] acknowledged that this is an issue that is not clear-cut as some may have

[4:19] suggested. Separately, the agreement outlines the process for mandatory

[4:23] dispute resolution. Sections 8 and 11 establish the requirement that CSD board

[4:28] president and fire protection district chair first meet and negotiate in good

[4:31] faith to resolve any dispute. If those negotiations fail, the matters to be

[4:36] sent to JAMS, a third party mediation service. That never transpired. Rather

[4:40] than engaging in mandatory mediation outlined by the JPA agreement, the city

[4:44] immediately threatens CSC with litigation. Third party legal council

[4:48] has also identified this as a potential point of contention for future legal

[4:52] proceedings against the agencies. If this board expects every provision of

[4:56] the JPA to be enforced when it supports its position that every provision,

[5:00] including the required dispute resolution process, should have been

[5:03] honored as well. The city of Bidar Lake cannot selectively enforce the

[5:06] agreement. The residents of this valley deserve consistency, accountability, and

[5:10] decisions that place public safety ahead of personal political disagreements.

[5:18] » Mr.

[5:22] What a good speech. About time you're making some sense.

[5:29] [snorts] I've been watching this uh program the last year and a half or more

[5:35] and I've never seen anything so pathetic in my life.

[5:39] What the hell is Big Bear Lake thinking and doing?

[5:43] It's just amazing. The other day we had 1.8. Oh, the Brown

[5:49] Act. Yeah, you know what? What a There'll be more paperwork on that, Mr.

[5:55] Putts. [clears throat]

[5:58] spending more money. Two buildings over in Big Bear Lake that haven't been used

[6:02] for probably 20 years or more. And they want to start some type of

[6:09] office and some type of another one over uh

[6:15] like uh Bare Mountain

[6:20] somewhere between a,000 to $2,000 a square foot or more. Plus, there's no

[6:26] bathrooms, no sleeping quarters there. But yet, Big Bear Lake has their ass on

[6:33] fire to redo those buildings. It's just find it amazing. How much

[6:39] money is that going to be? Oh, it's just to check it out. Now, it moves it along

[6:45] to start two separate buildings over there.

[6:49] What? We've had this one what for the last I don't know 20 years, 15 years,

[6:54] whatever. Brand new trucks, brand new building. But yeah, Big Bear Lake wants

[6:58] to go out and make a couple redo a couple more

[7:03] buildings. They don't like the trash site against them. They did a cluster on

[7:07] that trying to move it. And I'm looking into that because I didn't see any

[7:11] approvals on the work that was done there with the asphalt and all the other

[7:14] things where those two ladies were killed in a car accident on Sienna.

[7:23] So they were trying to move it there, which is the dumbest thing I've ever

[7:27] seen in my life. And oh no, no, we're not going to use it for storage. We're

[7:31] going to use it for something else. But I hear they want to close down the

[7:36] trash site. Isn't that amazing?

[7:40] What kind of operation is this? Everything I see from start to finish is

[7:46] on the fault of Big Bear Lake. They haven't been cooperative.

[7:52] They've been kind of one-sided. Very one-sided.

[7:58] It just doesn't seem to end. They continue on trying to do things, even

[8:03] doing making these two other fire stations.

[8:06] Why now? I think it looks kind of foolish,

[8:13] but not after some of the things that I've seen in the last three and a half

[8:20] years. It looks predictable now to me. >> Thank you.

[8:30] » Thank you, Dad. Okay, moving on to the consent calendar. All matters on the

[8:34] consent calendar are considered routine and are and are to be approved with one

[8:40] motion unless a board member or staff member request

[8:47] separate action on specific items. First item number one approve of demands check

[8:54] issues between 420 26 and 528 2026.

[9:01] Approve approval of meeting minutes from the

[9:06] June 3rd, 2026 special meeting of Vic Authority.

[9:10] » Number three, >> you skip something.

[9:14] » No, you have the dates.

[9:22] » No, sorry about that.

[9:26] » Chair, I move for approval. >> I'll second.

[9:33] All right.

[9:36] » Go ahead. >> Can I ask that all the directors make

[9:38] sure their microphone has a green light on?

[9:44] » And this is going to be roll call for approving the consent calendar.

[9:49] All right. Uh, Director Hicks. >> Hi.

[9:54] » Director Melnik. Hi. >> Director PZ.

[9:56] » Hi. Director Bro,

[10:02] » Director Bo, >> I heard.

[10:04] » Sorry.

[10:08] » Hi, >> Director JRo.

[10:10] » Hi, >> Director Russo.

[10:12] » Hi, >> Director Walsh.

[10:14] » Hi, >> Director Ziggler.

[10:16] » Hi, >> Director Siggoia.

[10:19] » Hi. >> Thank you. Passes.

[10:22] » All right, moving on to new business. [clears throat] Excuse me. Number four,

[10:27] resolution to approve side letter agreement to the memorandum of

[10:32] understanding January 1st, 2024 through December 31st, 2025 between the Big Bear

[10:40] Fire Authority and the Big Bear Professional Fire Fighters L35.

[10:49] Do any members [snorts] of the public wish to speak on this item?

[10:55] Directors, do you have any comments? >> I did have a a question for Kristen if I

[11:02] I could maybe I missed it, but um in the agenda report um was there any mention?

[11:09] » Oh, I guess I didn't. Uh so there is no uh financial impact of this, correct?

[11:15] » Correct. We budget each year for this and estimated we don't know exactly

[11:19] who's going to pass or how many. So, so this cost is budgeted for and will be

[11:24] absorbed by the current budget. >> Okay. Thank you.

[11:29] » Else motion second.

[11:37] » I'll make a motion. Second.

[11:47] » All righty. Um, director

[11:53] Yes. >> Director Hicks.

[11:57] » Yeah. >> Director Melnik.

[12:02] » What was that? >> Yes.

[12:04] » Director Puttz. >> Yes.

[12:06] » Director Vero. >> Hi.

[12:08] » Director Jro. >> Hi.

[12:10] » Director Russo. >> Hi.

[12:11] » Director Walsh. >> Hi.

[12:12] » Director Siggoia. >> Hi.

[12:14] » Thank you. Moving on to the big verifier authority

[12:19] board recommendation for year 2026 2027 proposed budget.

[12:26] Chief Wagner, >> if I could just before I turn it over to

[12:29] Kristen to address some of the comments that have been made decisions to brown

[12:34] out positions based on the fact that uh we don't know exactly what our budget is

[12:39] going to be, although we have a letter that kind of states anticipated funding

[12:45] and just to be responsible the budget uh to make sure that we can make payroll

[12:49] and move forward through this next year. The decision was made to bring out some

[12:53] of the suppression positions and nothing I wouldn't arbitrarily decide not to

[12:58] fill positions. I'll turn it over to Crystal.

[13:04] » At the June 9th budget workshop, a budget was presented as requested that

[13:10] showed both agencies contributing equally along with multiple cuts that

[13:15] would have resulted in a reduction in fund balance of $262,000.

[13:21] At that meeting, the board further voted to adjust the proposed budget by

[13:26] eliminating the fire inspector position for savings of 163,000

[13:32] and board stipens for 5200. Additionally, the position of the HR

[13:39] payroll coordinator has become vacant and rather than hire somebody for a

[13:44] period of less than a year, administration is continuing to handle

[13:48] those duties on top of our own and to remove the cost of that position from

[13:52] the final budget in the amount of 125,000.

[13:56] Due to recent promotions, there was an additional savings of 113,000 in

[14:01] salaries. Also in a coordinated effort to reduce

[14:06] fire authority expenses and CSD workload related to fire services,

[14:12] the annual CSD general support services, LFCO aortionment and miscellaneous UAL

[14:20] charges from the CSD were eliminated from the budget in the amount of

[14:23] $52,000. These changes in total would have

[14:28] resulted in a positive fund balance contribution in the amount of 198,000.

[14:35] On July 1st, the fire authority received a letter from the city manager stating

[14:38] that the fire protection district will be taking a credit in the current fiscal

[14:43] year in the amount of 899 889,000

[14:48] to offset the difference in property tax pass through revenues between the CSD

[14:54] and protection district last fiscal year. Additionally, staff was informed

[14:59] by the city's finance officer that they would be withholding an additional

[15:03] $215,000 for legal expenses. That number has

[15:07] since been decreased to 68,000. However, this update was not received in

[15:12] time to update the budget before it was distributed last week. In order to

[15:17] partially offset this decrease in revenue, the budget reflects a reduction

[15:22] in service in which firefighter vacancies would not be replaced or

[15:27] backfilled resulting in brownouts. After reducing the FPD deduction for

[15:33] legal fees from 215,000 to 68,000, the sum total of these budget changes

[15:40] would result in a deduction in fund balance of $240,000

[15:45] if approved today. Also, as promised, a list of dissolution items was noted with

[15:51] loans due as of June 30th, 2027 as follows. [snorts] SB Sarah 740,62.

[16:01] Bank of America loan number two for truck 281 and brush engine 281 for

[16:07] $843,518.

[16:11] Bank of America loan number two for medic engine 282 medic ambulance 281

[16:18] and Italian chief vehicle 2806 or 647,184

[16:26] and an estimated PTO payout of 1.5 million for a total of 3.7 million.

[16:35] Any questions?

[16:38] Have all of those vehicles been delivered?

[16:41] » Yes.

[16:46] » Have some public comments. >> Any other directors have any other

[16:50] questions? >> Okay.

[17:06] To be clear, this board is not discussing the dissolution of our fire

[17:09] department. You are discussing the steps necessary to transfer authority for the

[17:13] department in its entirety to another governing agency. County Fire expects to

[17:18] assume responsibility for a fully staffed, fully functioning fire

[17:21] department. It is not expecting the board to cut corners, sell assets,

[17:25] reduce staffing so that both agencies can minimize their cial obligations at

[17:30] the transfers. The task before you is not to create a winded down budget. Your

[17:35] responsibility is to adopt an operating budget for 2627 fiscal year that

[17:40] maintains the current level of service the service our community receives.

[17:44] Separately, a financial statement should be prepared with input from the CFOs of

[17:48] the three participating agencies to identify the costs associated with the

[17:52] solving the GPA relationship. What I've seen to date is not complete. You don't

[17:57] talk about any of the assets owned by the fire authority. The entire community

[18:01] deserves and expects full fire protection for our tax dollars that you

[18:06] collect and are intended to provide. Residents of Big Bear Lake need to be

[18:10] reminded that the Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District, which is made up of

[18:14] city council members, has already withheld 1.6 million from the current

[18:18] budget and continues to vote for reductions to the emergency service

[18:21] budget, limiting their access to proper emergency response. While I agree that

[18:27] the authority should refrain from purchasing additional capital equipment

[18:29] or other assets, eliminating eliminating board member stipens or basic

[18:34] necessities such as protein bars and bottled water for our firefighters is

[18:38] ludicrous. These proposals demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the

[18:42] operational needs by this board of your modern fire department. If this board

[18:46] truly is interested in reducing costs, why is it not seriously considered the

[18:50] recommendations of its own citygate consultant? His primary recommendation

[18:54] for immediate savings was to allocate the fire authorities administrative

[18:58] costs back to the partner agencies equally. Both agencies already maintain

[19:02] comparable administrative positions and could reasonably absorb these

[19:05] approximately 5.5 full-time equivalent positions on a temporary basis. Finally,

[19:11] I will reiterate what I said before. Your previous budget actions combined

[19:15] with the continued public rhetoric and hostility displayed during these

[19:18] meetings have already created a public safety concern for our community. They

[19:22] have exposed both partner agencies and the fire authority and potentially

[19:26] individual board members to third party civil litigation. The people in this

[19:31] community expect responsible governance, transparent financial planning, and an

[19:35] uninterrupted emergency services. I urge this board to focus on those

[19:39] responsibilities rather than implementing cuts that jeopardize public

[19:42] safety and undermine its successful transition to the new fire service

[19:46] provider.

[19:53] Oh, sorry. >> Well, unfortunately, Patrice has stole a

[19:59] lot. I've looked through all the documents for the authority budget, the

[20:03] current budget coming up, and obviously the things that she stated in her first

[20:07] comment were actually on point. So, you the reduction in revenue, obviously, the

[20:12] only outcome we have is to be able to cut service. Cutting service in this

[20:17] town that you've already been told is lean in regards to what we staff is not,

[20:22] in my opinion, going to be a good look for any board member in this room. Um,

[20:26] as you know, we have about a 100,000 people that visit. Our current model

[20:31] requires us to expand and contract here at Big Bear Fire to meet that because we

[20:35] don't know how many people will be here. If you choose to vote to withhold money

[20:40] that changes the operation, it will be on all 10 of your heads.

[20:45] happens, the babies we deliver, the people that die, the houses that burn

[20:49] down, and we only have a squad that goes there. You're going to own it. You're

[20:53] going to own it, and you're going to have to deal with that when it comes.

[20:57] Obviously, you're making a financial decision, and it's just convenient.

[21:00] There's about $3 million that's going to be being put away at the city at

[21:04] overtime. That's kind of about the dollar amount that you need to be able

[21:07] to pay for your your divorce. I don't think you thought your divorce through.

[21:12] Your divorce was not well thought out. I don't think you even knew exactly what

[21:17] you were going to have to pay for. So instead, we're winding it down by

[21:21] putting it on the back of our public safety. And I hope you sleep well at

[21:26] night. If something happens in this community because you're putting it on

[21:29] the back of the department because of not a wellthoughtout divorce, then

[21:34] again, you will see me and many other people in this community. It won't be

[21:37] pitchforks, but it'll be your political pitchforks.

[21:41] You're making a bad choice. you have a bill due, you're going to have to figure

[21:45] it out when the bill's done. You can't prepare for it by cutting fire services.

[21:50] So, I would recommend again, think of what you do when you make this choice.

[21:55] Find a better way of cutting service or forcing the chief to cut service by a

[22:01] credit that I will tell you when you look at the authority 2012

[22:06] administrative costs 201 what 14 to 18 we absorbed employees. [clears throat]

[22:12] What I will tell you, and I'll put this on three of you that are in here that

[22:15] are as part of this deal, you should have asked why we didn't do a service

[22:19] level agreement between Big Bear City and Big Bear Lake. If you're so worried

[22:23] about why we're not getting good service in Big Bear Lake, ask for a service

[22:26] level agreement. You obviously want it for County Fire, you want to staff state

[22:32] the Moonidge Station, you know, put out more money. Why don't we do that now?

[22:37] Why are you waiting till 2027? Is it okay in 2026 that we run short?

[22:44] I would say that you should ask those questions. So, as we move forward, I

[22:48] would really again go back to highly recommend that you change your course of

[22:52] action and you put this place back on the right trajectory. Thank you.

[23:03] » We got some new folks. Anyone else? >> I'll say something again.

[23:09] I still think this whole thing was caused by Big Bear Lake. The unequity

[23:14] of the services that are needed here in this town

[23:19] compared to what is needed on the east side and what some of the future things

[23:24] are. I think there are some other hidden plans made because all of a sudden we

[23:31] have these meetings that we're going to do this and we're going to fix that

[23:34] building and we're going to do things on our own.

[23:37] Why hasn't this building and what they've had it on the east side worked

[23:42] for years? I just think there's unequity

[23:47] in the services. You know, it's great buying all brand

[23:52] new equipment, but then also, I'm sure it must have put somebody in the spot

[23:57] when there's five, four or five million dollars worth of equipment.

[24:02] You know, hopefully they're all diesel and thank God they got them before uh

[24:08] some of this battery stuff until it's finally

[24:11] figured out. But Big Bear Lake, why why are you doing

[24:18] all this with the other buildings? Taking out a trash site, spending the

[24:23] money there, a stupid 2050 plan tomorrow that's almost $2 million. Already spent

[24:28] 300,000. They're spending like drunken sailors

[24:32] and it's all leftist propaganda, leftist crap,

[24:36] millions of dollars. And then the visit Big Bear getting millions of dollars in

[24:43] TV IDs. What a joke. There's plenty of money.

[24:50] They barely could should have come to an agreement to

[24:53] split the services 6040 or something because they're planning, you know, the

[25:00] new motel that's coming up right here on Moon Ridge, the one at Summit,

[25:07] the 19 acres down here. They're just itching to get those people out of there

[25:12] and and give tax credit to them. And who knows who's going to be making money off

[25:17] of that deal. There always is. Thank you.

[25:26] » All right, we need a vote, please. What are we voting?

[25:30] » There hasn't been any motions or >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[25:34] » Sorry. Um, okay. Motion and a second, please.

[25:38] » Can we have a discussion? >> Well, I asked for discussion. Okay. Go

[25:42] ahead. >> [snorts]

[25:43] » I did ask for that earlier, >> but I was in the middle of asking

[25:46] questions and then you actually public comment.

[25:49] » Um, have we looked at the cost of inter facility transfers yet? I know that it's

[25:54] come up month after month and that we lose money on inter facility transfers

[25:59] and I'm just wondering um there's money on the table there that we're we're

[26:05] taking a loss for services that we're providing that can help to bolster the

[26:11] budget. And

[26:14] are we going to meet with the hospital on what's going to happen there?

[26:18] » Yes, I reached out to the CEO the day after our board meeting when he

[26:21] requested that and he just asked for some time to do a little research

[26:25] together and have a meeting. >> Um,

[26:29] [snorts] do we have the figures on how much those cost us and how much we lose?

[26:35] I don't have I would have to get back to you on the cost, but I know that we

[26:40] bring in approximately $450,000 in revenue that I'll have to return on you.

[26:44] It would have to be determined whether or not we would be able to drop an

[26:49] ambulance completely. Um, but I can certainly get those.

[26:52] » Right. But I imagine with the overtime, with meals, with having people not on

[26:57] the hill, I mean, I followed them down the hill multiple times. And

[27:02] » I'll get that to you. Can we do that? I would just ask if we could do that

[27:06] sooner rather than later because my request would be in as we're doing a

[27:10] budget to meet with Evan because if it's costing us $100,000 a year that the

[27:15] hospital should be paying then we can request that money and do a contract

[27:20] with the hospital to make up that difference so we're not in a deficit

[27:23] given that ambulances lose money. >> Absolutely. And I'm happy to follow up

[27:28] with Ev.

[27:32] » No, I'm happy to follow up with him to have him show a little bit more urgency

[27:37] because I can't imagine that he has urgency to have that meeting.

[27:41] Yes, director. >> Uh, Chief, I'm I don't intend to second

[27:47] guess it, but I would like to better understand the decision uh to not fill

[27:52] the positions and um the implications of what exactly does a brownout mean and

[28:00] what does that look like? How does that impact us? rounds will include one

[28:04] position per day uh suppression position and decision to do that was based on the

[28:08] fact that we don't have a budget. I don't know where we're headed and again

[28:11] with the potential of a credit uh the level of funding it is at a point where

[28:16] I mean I have to make cuts somewhere with the loss now of HR um

[28:20] administrative staff is all doing at least two jobs. The only place left that

[28:24] I can go to for enough money to make up for that credit without completely

[28:28] tapping out um our fund balance is to stop back filling the vacancies that

[28:35] exist currently. They are there. We're paying them with overtime to fill in

[28:38] currently but again it's reactionary based on you know what we think we're

[28:43] going to receive in terms of funding this year.

[28:46] It's one position though what that will be filled.

[28:52] So no matter what, there will be one less firefighter position on duty at any

[28:59] given time. >> Depend dependent upon funding. Yes. If

[29:02] if I have enough to fund that to where we're not, you know, going too down into

[29:07] fund balance, then my intention. Yes. >> Well,

[29:13] help me understand the variable of if you can fund it or not based based on if

[29:18] we were to approve this budget. How would that impact whether or not

[29:24] you're able to fund it? >> Kristen, can you tell me?

[29:28] » If this budget is approved, then we won't receive the funding we need and we

[29:32] will have to run out.

[29:43] » Any other directors?

[29:48] We talk about the reserves around here and reserve fund balance I think is the

[29:54] words you always use. How much actual cash do we have in

[30:00] reserves in a bank account in an investment account for this authority?

[30:07] » At the current moment we have had to borrow TR funds. That's typically where

[30:12] we're at this time of year. So there is So, we have no cash reserves.

[30:20] » As of right now, that's correct. That will change in a couple of weeks when I

[30:24] get the CSD. >> Yeah. But but then that becomes a part

[30:30] of the operating funds. Correct. >> Um the CST.

[30:34] » Yes. It's not so much a reserve as much as it

[30:39] goes into the operating. >> It's one and the same. It goes through

[30:46] Okay, let me ask you this. Let me ask you another way. When we ended the 2526

[30:54] fiscal year, how much money did we have left over

[30:58] » in cash? >> Yes,

[31:00] » we had $72,000.

[31:08] So after 14 years of being or however many years we've been in business here,

[31:15] we find ourselves only 72,000 extra and that's all the money we have in the bank

[31:22] outside of our trans loan and spending whatever dollars come in as far as

[31:28] passroughs from the two agencies. >> Well, just a reminder that had as in

[31:32] years past all of the fire protection property tax revenues come through that

[31:37] number would have been million dollar >> but all except for maybe last year and

[31:43] maybe the year before that the pass through from fire protection district

[31:47] has always been all of the dollars coming in to the fire protection

[31:51] district. So I think we're only talking the last couple years if I'm not

[31:54] mistaken where there's even a question on us paying something in excess of 50%.

[32:01] But you've answered my question. My question again was how much money do we

[32:06] have in reserve? And clearly we have no money in reserve. We have

[32:11] nothing in an investment account >> at the moment. That will change in a

[32:15] couple of weeks. >> But that money that's coming in Kirsten

[32:20] in a couple of weeks is not going to an investment account. That money is going

[32:25] straight into the operational funds and it will be used to pay help pay our

[32:30] bills and pay back this trans loans. So that is not a reserve. That's an actual

[32:36] operating fund that we're going to be spending. So again, we don't have

[32:41] anything in investment and the only reason I ask is because if we had

[32:46] something that would have less of an impact on possible brown out that we

[32:52] could go to that reserve, but Clearly, we don't have one. So, that answers that

[32:56] question. Thank you, >> Kristen. So, I know CSD owes over $2

[33:02] million. Is that correct from their last tax payment?

[33:07] » I'd have to double check on that number, but that's

[33:10] » I think that's a number that that you gave me a couple of weeks ago. Do you

[33:13] have any idea when they're going to pay it?

[33:16] » They usually pay it towards the end of July after the final property tax

[33:20] payments come in in July. So, I'm expecting receive that shortly in which

[33:25] case at that time we'll pay back the trend that we've had to borrow for a

[33:28] couple of weeks and then we will be um sufficient for a few months.

[33:35] » Um doesn't Janette when she gets the money then she gives it to you?

[33:40] » She absolutely does. She she writes the check calls me and I come and pick it up

[33:43] and put it in the bank. She's very cooperative with that and helpful.

[33:48] That one more question. That $2 million approximate is that for 2526?

[33:54] » Yes. >> Yes. They pay late every year.

[33:59] » Okay. So, we're having to use money6

[34:06] to survive. When do we anticipate getting money for

[34:11] 2627 from CSD? And I know we quartly if I'm

[34:17] not mistaken based on the invoices. So when do you expect that?

[34:22] » The CSD pays us quarterly and since nothing comes in as far as property

[34:26] taxes in the first quarter of the fiscal year, we anticipate the the first

[34:31] payment for 2627 to come in in January from the CS.

[34:39] » I had asked Kristen for some figures and was just surprised to see that the first

[34:46] that they made was for24.25.

[34:51] So, you know, they're always behind. >> They have to wait to receive the final

[34:58] property tax payments in July for the previous fiscal year. So, once they

[35:02] receive those, then they pass those along to us.

[35:07] » So, it's not like we're holding money back.

[35:09] » No, you're you're waiting for it to arrive and then as soon as they get the

[35:13] final payment, they'll write us a check. So, is this budget for 2627

[35:20] based on receiving a check from CSD in July of 27?

[35:28] » Yes.

[35:33] Kristen, if I could help me understand

[35:39] both the fire protection district and CSD

[35:43] are basically collect property tax via the assessor. Um,

[35:52] is there something different from how the fire protection district collects

[35:58] and receives money than CSD that causes a delay.

[36:05] » Historically, before this last fiscal year, uh the fire protection district

[36:10] and the fire authority had access to the account in which those fire protection

[36:16] district property taxes came in. So, we we had immediate access to that. Um but

[36:20] that was removed from us. So now so now we have to wait to receive a check from

[36:25] the fire protection district as well. Um historically the CSD we never had a

[36:32] shared bank account so they would [cough] write us a check. So it was

[36:35] always it was always done a little bit differently but now it's done more

[36:39] similarly where we have to wait for the fire protection district to write a

[36:42] check as well as the CSD. >> So is the fire protection district

[36:45] behind if you will like CSD is right now.

[36:49] » Uh they're not they're not behind per se. Um they they just chose to pay us a

[36:54] certain amount so they knew what that number was. So they they did pay us and

[36:58] we have been paid for 2526 the CSD because they can only pay us

[37:03] exactly what they receive from the county. They don't know what that number

[37:06] is until mid July and as soon as they know that number then we get paid.

[37:14] » I apologize. I'm still having a hard time understanding why the two entities,

[37:18] if they're very similar in the way that they collect funds, and I would assume

[37:24] they'd be treated the same by the treasur, tax assessor, whoever at the

[37:29] county. I'm having a hard time understanding why fire protection

[37:33] district finds itself in a position to pay more timely than CS. So I think it's

[37:39] because the fire protection district isn't paying us the full amount and

[37:43] they've decided how much to pay us. So they can pay us when they're at the

[37:48] quarterly increments, but the C they have to wait until they receive the

[37:53] money from the taxing from Sanino County to pay us the correct amount. So that's

[37:59] that's the difference. We get the full amount from the CSD that they that they

[38:02] are allotted and they don't know what that is until mid July. Then they write

[38:06] us a checkum and Um it was it was the same with the fire

[38:11] protection district when all of the funds passed through. We didn't receive

[38:15] all of those funds until July as well because that's when they come in. Uh but

[38:20] now that the funding structure has changed and we're receiving

[38:25] a piece of it. You guys have been paying us ahead of time for that. So that so

[38:30] that is different just in this last year.

[38:35] » Okay. I apologize. I still don't understand the difference.

[38:38] » I'd be more than willing to to show you >> afterwards. Anyone else?

[38:46] » Need a motion in a second.

[38:54] » I'll second.

[38:59] I'm not in favor of approving a budget that reduces

[39:04] service level. this last year.

[39:09] I think we have to find a way to either cut or I know we'd have to go back to

[39:14] fire protection about how we want to determine that for

[39:19] me it's just not something that I'm comfortable with an obligation to

[39:22] provide services to the community and if there is funding available for that um

[39:28] for me we can figure out how we account for it and how we do things after the

[39:33] fact but I'm not comfortable with having service levels

[39:39] How much is that one position a day costing for the year?

[39:48] » She she'll give you fully burdened versus the overtime pay because there's

[39:52] a difference between the two. >> The fully burden crosses approximately

[39:55] 15,000. >> Then what's this 596?

[40:00] It's for three people. So that's the fully burdened three and

[40:06] then the overtime would be what? >> Um I'd have to get back to you on those

[40:11] exact numbers but I'll get back to >> it would vary as well depending upon

[40:14] years of service for the person that's working over time based on where they

[40:17] are. So it's hard to exactly

[40:26] » um have you started any browning out activities yet?

[40:31] » No, I have not. Okay. So up to this point we're still

[40:38] minus HR.

[40:42] » Okay. And um Kristen, if we don't approve a budget tonight, tell us the

[40:48] ramifications of that, please. >> The ramifications are we would still be

[40:54] operating on last year's budget. However, the difficulty would be that

[41:00] it's our understanding that the revenue is going to be decreased whether or not

[41:04] this budget is approved. So, um I guess at that point a decision would have to

[41:10] be made how to move forward because we wouldn't be able to operate at last

[41:14] year's budget level with the understanding that funding levels are

[41:19] going to be reduced regardless of whether this budget is passed. So,

[41:23] that's something that will have to be discussed.

[41:28] So the effect of not passing a budget would be to operate under last year's

[41:33] budget. >> Do you need any kind of resolution or

[41:36] anything to be able to do that or is that happen automatically?

[41:40] » Automatically. >> Okay. And the impact of that would be we

[41:45] would be operating under previous year's budget which would not include the uh

[41:51] reduction of the three positions. >> Correct. And then the issue beyond that

[41:57] would be we wouldn't necessarily have the income to cover that budget and or

[42:02] we'd have to figure out how we reconcile that correct going forward.

[42:08] » Okay.

[42:12] » There is a potential that the amount that comes in from CSD at the end of

[42:16] July this year will be more than we budgeted for. If that's true, and I

[42:22] don't know if that's true or a possibility, but then that money would

[42:26] roll over to this year's budget. Is that right? Do we have a sense of where those

[42:29] numbers are coming in? If they're going to be at, below, or above what you've

[42:33] been budgeted, >> it won't roll into uh this fiscal year

[42:37] per se. It would be counted as property tax revenue for last fiscal year. But

[42:40] again, we would have it to pay for things. Correct. Right.

[42:43] » Well, that's but that's what I mean. If it's if the amount is more than what

[42:48] you needed for last year's budget, then you take that money and that's a pool of

[42:52] money that's available to offset costs this year's budget.

[42:56] » Yes. And and then to answer your second question, we are not projecting that it

[43:00] will be higher. In fact, we are projecting it might possibly be a little

[43:04] bit lower than budgeted, but we will definitely keep you posted

[43:08] as soon as the final payment comes in. We'll let you know how we performed

[43:11] against budget. >> No, that's okay.

[43:15] I'm not a budget person and I don't pretend to be one on television either.

[43:20] So when I look at this the ambulance revenues you have in the revenue column

[43:26] you have bad debt. Explain to me why bad debt is in the

[43:32] revenue column. I mean if if are we trying to figure out how to write

[43:39] off that bad debt or what are we doing because

[43:44] It's an accounting function to accurately reflect what we actually

[43:49] expect revenues to be less what we don't expect to collect. So, and that that's

[43:54] the correct accounting place for that line item.

[43:58] » So, you're expecting not to receive $235,000

[44:02] this year. >> That's correct. So, that relates, if I

[44:04] may, it relates to if you bill somebody for an ambulance ride and they don't pay

[44:11] it. So, they get build. Hospitals do the same thing. Physicians offices do the

[44:14] same thing. And it's a line item called bad debt. It's uncollectible from bill

[44:20] charges that go out. >> Okay. What What are the contractual

[44:24] allowances? What is that? >> It's a similar item. It's basically when

[44:31] we bill for services like Medicare, Medicaid, we have we bill the full

[44:36] amount, but we only receive a much lesser amount. the difference between

[44:41] that is is considered that contractual allowance. So when you when you have

[44:46] your charges, your revenue charges minus your bad minus your allowances, that's

[44:51] the actual revenue that you hope to bring in. So it's it's a conservative

[44:55] actual number that you're anticipating bringing in for that revenue item.

[45:03] » We still have motions on the table. >> There's a motion and a second

[45:09] to

[45:12] » [clears throat]

[45:15] » Let's see how >> Yes,

[45:20] » special counsel. >> Sorry.

[45:25] » Special counsel. >> Thank you. I just want to make a quick

[45:30] clarification to Can you hear me? >> Yes.

[45:35] » To the um FPD's letter about proposed credit. So, um,

[45:43] the parties approved the budget last year with the

[45:48] 5050 invoices and FPD paid their share. And what they're actually saying in

[45:53] their letter is that because they paid their share and CSD did not pay their

[45:58] share to the tune of this 889 number. Um, they're proposing a credit offset

[46:05] for next year's budget, but under the joint cars agreement,

[46:11] you know, unless there's a budget amendment, that amount has already been

[46:15] paid. And this year's budget, if approved, if it reflects that credit,

[46:22] then you're approving the credit. But if you don't approve the credit, then

[46:28] you're not allowing FPD to have that credit. For what it's worth, it's not a

[46:33] they're proposing the credit in order to allow CSD to not arguably not be in

[46:39] default and actually have a 5050 split. But the credit,

[46:45] you know, it's not um applying the credit toward

[46:51] this year's payment in my mind only works if you approve that.

[46:58] » So are you saying >> if your budget reflects that, then

[47:00] you're approving that? >> I just heard you say default. Is CSD in

[47:06] default? something right now.

[47:11] » Well, the board approved the budget and they approved 5050 expenses and those

[47:19] bills went out and CSD didn't pay well, the last invoice. I'm not sure where

[47:24] we're at with the timing, but CSD has 60 days under the JPA to pay that bill. And

[47:30] I understand they won't be able to pay that entire bill.

[47:38] And the letter the letter talks about that. I mean the letter that's included

[47:41] in the agenda packet talks about that as a contractual issue for CSD. But

[47:47] [snorts] the proposed remedy is if we take a credit then we're at 5050.

[47:53] So, I just wanted to but I my point is FPD's proposed credit for this year's

[48:02] budget needs to be approved by this board

[48:08] in order for them to apply the credit. Like, they only get to apply a credit if

[48:11] you if this board says they do. It's not a surefire thing that they just

[48:18] get to do that. The joint powers agreement says that stuff like credits

[48:22] has to be approved by the board.

[48:27] » Anybody else? >> Yes.

[48:31] » Perhaps a question for council. I'm not sure. Or

[48:36] if [clears throat] the board approved the budget

[48:39] with expenditures and income which were not 5050 and now they want to change it,

[48:46] doesn't that require an amendment to the budget that was passed?

[48:54] » So the board approved the budget showing revenues and expenses. The revenue side

[49:02] did not did not 50/50. Um, but FPP sent a reservation of rights

[49:09] letter in October of last year that said if we approve a budget, we just want to

[49:14] be clear, we're approving it as to expenses because that's what the JPA

[49:19] says. The JPA says 5050 each party has to make the contribution

[49:24] to pay that party's proportionate share of expenses. It doesn't say anything

[49:29] about revenues like contemplated revenues. It just says the budget

[49:34] expenses that you approve. Each party pays 5050

[49:39] and the board approved a budget that reflected expenses to the tune of

[49:46] you know that I want to say it's like a 14 million dollar number. I don't have

[49:50] it exactly in front of me. And the 5050 of that call it 14 million is 7 million7

[49:58] million. And and CSD can't pay 7 million right? they only have six or something

[50:01] like that. So that's the that's the issue with last

[50:07] year's budget that has been and in order to remedy that you have to amend the

[50:11] budget last year's budget which I think has been staff has presented a couple

[50:16] times now >> but it has not been approved

[50:19] » correct it hasn't passed

[50:27] in the JPA

[50:32] is section 11 about when there is a dispute conflict resolution.

[50:39] We have never sat down to work this out even when Mr. specifically asked twice

[50:48] stating, "We can expect six million, we cannot expect 7 million. Therefore, we

[50:53] cannot agree to spend 7 million and we have no way short of borrowing

[51:01] against assets of the district to come up with

[51:05] an extra million dollars. So, I would think this should have been

[51:10] discussed and I would have to say we have a method to do that. We have a way

[51:16] to put it before an administrative judge and yet it's never been done.

[51:23] So, I can't see why we would agree to pay 7 million when we simply don't

[51:31] have it. And we've said that all along.

[51:37] But didn't we all vote to pass the budget, including CSD?

[51:43] » Eight out of 10 voted for it with the understanding that it would

[51:49] then be adjusted. But the adjustment now calls, sorry, the adjustment then is now

[51:55] saying we need to come up with a million dollars from somewhere.

[52:00] And I'm saying we did not agree to that. We agreed to 8

[52:06] million and 6 million revenue. That was supposed to be the 14. U

[52:14] the legal interpretation now is that under the 5050 aortionment

[52:22] is how you got to 7 million. But I'd have to take it back to the fact that

[52:26] the 5050 was for year when the only obligation was the shared asset of the

[52:33] chief. If it was always to be 5050 instead of

[52:39] CSC, Big Bear Lake and county, you wouldn't need to say an aortionment.

[52:47] You would say equal, and that's not how the wording goes.

[52:50] » It says for subsequent years. So that would be after the first year.

[52:57] » Correct. >> If you look at the language of JPA, it

[53:00] doesn't say the first year. It says subsequent years. It says 5050.

[53:05] The numbers listed I believe was 187750 for the two different numbers for the

[53:12] first year. After that, because we knew that the two agencies didn't have the

[53:18] same number of employees, the same number of rolling stock, the same

[53:23] assets, it was supposed to be adjusted to cover

[53:27] for services provided. >> But it wasn't, Larry. It's still black

[53:33] and white document that was not adjusted.

[53:37] » Which is why I'm saying it should be put before an administrative judge to look

[53:42] at the fact that the wording did not say equal. It said

[53:48] proportional. >> Why would you say that if it was always

[53:52] supposed to be 5050? >> Okay, we're rehashing the same thing

[53:55] that we have rehashed for the last year and a half over who is supposed to do

[53:59] what, when, where, and why. My question to you is this. if we were to declare or

[54:06] I don't know if it's a one-sided deal or how it worked that CSV is in default

[54:12] because they haven't met their obligation for last year and Perry just

[54:17] pointed out that if we uh if they are in default according to the termination

[54:23] agreement the way it terminates we would then adjust how assets are distributed

[54:30] based on that default figure is Is that a correct statement?

[54:35] » Section 10.3A of the >> I'll have to defer to special counsel on

[54:39] that as well as your own council's >> your own agency. So under under section

[54:46] 7.7 of the JPA, any party which defaults in its obligation to pay or

[54:52] advance any amounts due um are delinquent um and are deemed to have

[54:59] waved and relinquished rights and benefits they have under the agreement.

[55:02] And then there's interest that occurs on the amounts of uh unpaid unpaid amounts.

[55:08] So that's that provision is 7.7. Um and this this um board um any declarations

[55:17] or findings that this board makes are irrelevant to the joint powers agreement

[55:21] because this body is not a party to that agreement. The agreement is between FPD

[55:26] and CSD. Those are the only two parties. BBFA is a product of the agreement.

[55:32] Right? You were created by the agreement. So the authority doesn't have

[55:36] standing. Well, yes, the authority doesn't have

[55:39] standing to pursue anything. It has to be FPD and CSD directly.

[55:44] » Yeah. So if FPD then says that CSD is in default at date of termination then

[55:51] according to 10.3 then we would have to look at an allocation of assets. There's

[55:55] no arbitrator there's no other discussions as such if if I'm reading

[56:01] that correct >> only there's a dispute and what I'm

[56:06] thinking is that if that is in fact the case then

[56:13] I'm sure the FBD would have to talk about it, but we we could see that as

[56:18] our credit adjustment at that and take that out of this this budget as such.

[56:26] » So, discussions between FPD and CSD about a potential credit adjustment

[56:31] could happen in a number of ways and I would defer to your respective legal

[56:34] counsel, but yes, you could do it through the dispute resolution or

[56:37] conflict resolution paragraph paragraph 11. And you could also have that

[56:42] conversation and paper that agreement whatever it is that you come to in a

[56:47] termination agreement you know because the JPA contemplates that uh the parties

[56:53] can agree on how to wind up the affairs of the authority and distribute assets.

[57:03] So there's a couple different avenues. Um, Chief, if we don't pass a budget

[57:07] tonight in light of those uh three positions that you are

[57:13] suggesting under an approved budget would be um eliminated,

[57:18] what would be your approach with a nonpass budget operating under

[57:24] last year's budget towards brownouts and those three positions? How how would you

[57:30] approach that if we leave here tonight without

[57:35] the desire to be to work to fill that. But again, you know,

[57:39] the question that circles around in my head is are we going to maintain that

[57:43] level of funding throughout the year? It' be really challenging to hire some

[57:47] people only to say you may or may not have a job in the next few months and to

[57:52] go through the process of hiring and all that's involved with that. Um to only

[57:57] have somebody potentially a couple months, you know, is is it worth the

[58:01] time and effort to do that? My intentions would be if we have the

[58:04] funding for the positions is to fill them because that's the service level

[58:08] that the community expects and it sounds like it is that what you hope to see

[58:13] continue on for the 25 26 fiscal year. >> Okay. and

[58:31] » so I want to make sure I'm following. Then if we don't pass a budget,

[58:36] you would be reluctant to fill those positions and then would you backfill

[58:44] with overtime? >> They'd be back filled with overtime.

[58:48] Yes. while we're working through the budget challenges. Correct.

[58:51] » Okay. But would you assure us that until you are directed otherwise with a new or

[58:59] passed budget that's supplants last year's budget that we'd be operating

[59:06] under if we didn't pass one today that we would not brown out positions.

[59:11] » That's correct. I'll continue to back those positions as long as we're

[59:14] operating under last year's budget where they were. [snorts]

[59:19] If I may, so I guess what it really comes down to is if that credit is

[59:24] applied and the FDA does deduct it from funding, then we would need to round out

[59:30] those positions >> eventually.

[59:34] » Okay. >> But if we cut that credit

[59:37] down by 512,000, that would cover your cost. Correct.

[59:44] » Correct. I mean, there's frankly multiple ways we could arrive at getting

[59:50] enough money to offset the impact of those three positions.

[59:54] Budget cuts in other places, right? Barry pointed out

[1:00:00] » for >> right

[1:00:02] one area um uh I'm not suggesting this, but another

[1:00:09] could be that the fire protection district could continue to overpay.

[1:00:15] um supplement that um and you know, who knows what what other ways uh that that

[1:00:21] could happen. But the reality is if we don't pass a budget, we're still going

[1:00:26] to have to grapple with that. I would offer that there's a lot of things that

[1:00:30] we have to grapple with financially, credits here, credits there, who's

[1:00:34] paying for what, where, right? To me, it seems like the deeper we dig and the

[1:00:40] more questions we ask, it's almost like the murkier uh it gets. um with how

[1:00:46] things have been handled financially. So I I suspect it's going to take a while

[1:00:51] to um first of all understand it all and then beyond that to get hopefully some

[1:00:58] sort of agreement so that we don't have to go to litigation. That's something

[1:01:04] that um we can all collectively uh agree on that is one consistent with what we

[1:01:10] agreed on over time whether that be the GPA agreement, whether that be when we

[1:01:17] voted to um support the 5050. Um we had that motion uh and supporting funding

[1:01:26] that way. Um but there there still will remain lots of issues uh to figure out.

[1:01:32] I'm inclined to agree uh with director Melnik about I'm I'm not eager to reduce

[1:01:40] um the service level um collectively in in the valley um and I I would like to

[1:01:47] figure out a way if possible to accomplish that and hopefully that I

[1:01:54] might be naive in a way that's fair to everyone.

[1:01:59] » Please stop at the side. I'm sorry teacher.

[1:02:04] » We will have whatever conversations we need on the side. We will make sure our

[1:02:07] mics are turned off. You don't run our meeting. We run our meeting. Okay.

[1:02:11] » There should be one director speaking at a time.

[1:02:13] » You don't run our meeting. We run our meeting. Okay.

[1:02:16] » There should be no side conversation. >> There will be

[1:02:23] » you have something to say. You can say it.

[1:02:25] » I'm sorry. You communicate to Al. No, I'm She [snorts] needs to finish. But

[1:02:30] you guys were talking as he's speaking. >> Okay, go ahead.

[1:02:38] » I'm going to take a deep breath and I'm going to encourage everyone else to take

[1:02:41] a deep breath with me um as we move forward. Um we clearly still have to

[1:02:47] summarize um I'm inclined to agree with Director Melnik um that I'm not eager to

[1:02:54] um impact the level of service in our valley. Uh recognizing that it will be a

[1:03:00] heavy lift for us collectively to figure out how we reconcile uh everything. But

[1:03:05] we have that ahead of us no matter what. So there's no waiting. Um we're going to

[1:03:09] have to slog through all this uh hopefully to get in a place with a

[1:03:14] minimum amount of uh disagreement with a minimum amount of legal expenditure uh

[1:03:20] to get this all wrapped up. So um

[1:03:27] What if we were to and somehow put it on paper so it's memorialized so folks

[1:03:35] can't come back a year later and say we didn't agree to this that um

[1:03:41] we assuming the fire protection will go

[1:03:46] along with we would adjust or change our property tax credit down by 512,000

[1:03:54] on for this purpes of this budget and have as a part of this budget an

[1:03:59] understanding that the fire protection district is paying that 512,000

[1:04:06] and that it is in the purpose of this budget that on termination of this

[1:04:12] authority that 512,000 be reimbured to the district.

[1:04:20] » Does that make sense?

[1:04:26] I was just going to say procedurally I think that is an agreement that you

[1:04:29] would need to work out through this the two separate agencies through your

[1:04:32] councils and then bring back something like that is worked out and I'll defer

[1:04:38] to Adriana for their thoughts but this board can't do that itself.

[1:04:43] » Yeah, I agree with Nick. I think there would you could make that

[1:04:48] you [snorts] could say that this board could say that when it when it approves

[1:04:51] the budget, but it wouldn't be enforcable unless the respective

[1:04:58] um councils or boards make the same determination in in their meetings

[1:05:03] » or at least the the fire protection district if we're the ones that take

[1:05:07] take the hit on it.

[1:05:13] We need to vote on this budget. >> We have a motion and a second.

[1:05:18] » So this is motion by director seconded by director

[1:05:23] um to approve item number five. The big bear fire authority board recommended

[1:05:27] fiscal year 2627 proposed budget. Um Director Siggoia.

[1:05:35] [snorts] >> Director Hicks. Hi.

[1:05:39] » Director Ziggler.

[1:05:46] Director Walsh >> abstain.

[1:05:52] » Director Rouso >> abstain. I seems obvious that the full

[1:05:57] board will not come to a consensus on certain issues. So I'm abstaining from

[1:06:02] voting on this uh issue and request that we follow section 11.1 of the JPA and

[1:06:09] bring in a mediator. >> We just

[1:06:13] You know what? I said what I wanted to say.

[1:06:17] » Director Jroin.

[1:06:21] » Director Bro >> abstain.

[1:06:24] » Director Puts. >> I'll mix it up with a no.

[1:06:30] » Director Melik. >> No.

[1:06:34] » Motion fails.

[1:06:45] Item six. >> Show

[1:06:50] you any information from Kristen. >> If we don't have a budget, does that

[1:06:55] automatically collapse your trans? >> It doesn't.

[1:07:11] Moving on to item six, introduction to ordinance eliminating compensation for

[1:07:17] members of the board of directors. Um,

[1:07:26] » good evening board members. At the last board meeting as part of a budget

[1:07:29] discussion, the board voted to provide direction to eliminate the board

[1:07:34] compensation or board site for attending meetings. Uh, And in order to actually

[1:07:40] accomplish that it would require both a change to the ordinance and the violent

[1:07:44] policies of the authority. Ordinance is required two readings. So this would be

[1:07:48] the uh introduction and first reading of uh the ordinance which is titled an

[1:07:54] ordinance that they verify the board of directors they verify authority from

[1:07:59] powers authority citing the compensation be reissued by the board of directors.

[1:08:03] and specifically this would remove the language from the existing ordinance uh

[1:08:07] that provides board compensation um for attending meetings. Uh the other board

[1:08:13] compensation and benefits would remain in place. Um so if this ordinance is

[1:08:19] approved for introduction and first reading this evening, then at the next

[1:08:23] board meeting, there would be a second reading and final approval as long as

[1:08:27] well as an update to the bylaws, including the compensation provisions.

[1:08:32] So, um, this is being brought this evening because it does weigh on the

[1:08:35] budget discussion. If it's approved, it'll be worked into the budgets that

[1:08:38] are presented. If it is not approved, um, that will also impact the the budget

[1:08:43] that's presented in future.

[1:08:55] » Hi, um, I'm Theodore Trentman. Back around 1980, a group of people made a

[1:09:00] decision to divide this valley. Whether that was a good idea or a bad one, we

[1:09:05] have lived with the consequences ever since. Today, the people making

[1:09:10] decisions about fire protections are entrusted with one of the most important

[1:09:13] responsibilities there is, keeping us all safe. You should be paid for the

[1:09:18] work that you do to protect the valley. But nobody should be paid to make

[1:09:23] decisions that leave any portion of this valley unsafe.

[1:09:27] I want the city of Big Bear Lake to remember something. Had this valley

[1:09:31] never been divided, the tax base of Big Bear City wouldn't look any wouldn't

[1:09:36] look very different than it is today. Those u are quality of life decisions,

[1:09:42] but together we still form one valley and one community. The children on my

[1:09:48] street in Big Bear City play kickball, ride motorcycles, and grow up looking

[1:09:53] forward to a future here in the valley. They are every bit as much a part of the

[1:09:57] future of this valley as the children who are playing in Big Bear Lake.

[1:10:02] Whatever your disagreements are with the CSV,

[1:10:06] uh maybe understand that the leaders are

[1:10:10] working with the system created nearly 50 years ago. The tension did not begin

[1:10:16] with today's board members or today's elected officials. In many ways, the

[1:10:21] bickering began the moment the valley was divided, and it will continue unless

[1:10:26] we finally learn how to live and work together as a reality. Let's pay our

[1:10:31] firefighters and pay our public officials to keep us safe. Let's stop

[1:10:36] using public safety as a leverage in an old political disagreement. And perhaps

[1:10:40] we should place a little faith in the very divide that has com that ha that we

[1:10:46] have complained about for decades because it's in that very strange divide

[1:10:52] that has helped protect our communities, our identities, and the way of life that

[1:10:57] makes this valley what it is. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:11:09] I'm Miguel Gonzalez and I'm just going to comment on what

[1:11:13] I'm hearing right now. First of all, I'm appalled by some

[1:11:18] members of this board's disrespect to the community,

[1:11:23] to staff, to fellow members.

[1:11:28] Is this how you all operate? I've known strangers confrontation in my past, I'll

[1:11:33] tell you now. But people deserve respect and to disregard others just so

[1:11:40] blatantly is really sad. What happened to that? Nothing was going

[1:11:46] to affect no staff members would lose jobs. We'd have the same fire protection

[1:11:52] people. Not to worry, it's all going to be just fine. Now I'm hearing about

[1:11:56] brownouts. As Brian said,

[1:12:01] I'm gonna get together. If people get hurt, if people die because of this

[1:12:05] going on, I will do my best to get whoever we can to figure out what our

[1:12:09] resource is because this is ridiculous. You should be fighting to figure out how

[1:12:13] to cut this budget. I see blame trying to be placed everywhere, smoking

[1:12:17] mirrors, like saying, "Well, we don't have an investment uh account, and

[1:12:21] forgive me, uh, Kristen, you know, and Kristen saying, we do have a reserve.

[1:12:24] It's an operating reserve." Well, if it's both one and the same, then it's

[1:12:27] one and the same. Let's not do the smok and mirrors about well no we don't have

[1:12:30] a reserve but we're in two in a few weeks we're going to have $2 million

[1:12:34] that we're going to be working on. So to say we have no money and try to say that

[1:12:39] there's zero money in the budget when we know it's going to happen and that's how

[1:12:42] it always operates just a bunch of smoke and mirrors trying to confuse the

[1:12:47] people. Bottom line, you all promised that nothing was going to be affected

[1:12:51] here and I'm hearing there's going to be some serious changes.

[1:12:55] So, I hope the people who listen to this video and when I go out and put my next

[1:12:59] video compilation may not be as professional as others, but when I go

[1:13:02] put it out there, I'm going to let them know to remember some of these meetings

[1:13:06] like in May when forgive me chief, but when the chief said that yes, the

[1:13:10] inspection the the inspector's job can be done not as well, but it can be done.

[1:13:15] And then in the next meeting, oh yeah, we can do it. So, what changes from one

[1:13:19] month to the next? I just don't get it. It just seems that people are relying as

[1:13:24] in all politics that people have short memories

[1:13:27] and I'm going to do my best to make sure that nobody forgets everything that's

[1:13:30] going on. Thank you.

[1:13:37] » Are we are we not voting on this tonight?

[1:13:42] » That's

[1:13:51] the seconds. Excuse me. >> Are you looking for a motion?

[1:13:54] » No, I'm asking, are we going to vote on it? Yes.

[1:13:58] » Then I'm looking for a motion. >> Okay.

[1:14:02] » Trying to follow I'll move uh I'll move for approval.

[1:14:08] » Second.

[1:14:13] » All right. Uh this is a motion by Director Put and seconded by Director

[1:14:17] Hicks uh to approve the the reading introduction to the ordinance

[1:14:24] eliminating compensation for members of the board of directors.

[1:14:27] » Before we move on, I think I think you and I may have skipped a step. We didn't

[1:14:31] have a discussion of the board. >> We could still have a discussion after

[1:14:35] the motion if we like.

[1:14:43] » As I said last time when this came up, um

[1:14:49] the job that we do is challenging and um certainly many of us lose money doing

[1:14:56] it. But the idea that there should be no compensation for it even a nominal

[1:15:02] amount I think uh devalues the importance of the role of boards and

[1:15:09] electeds. Um people can agree or disagree with the job that we do. It is

[1:15:14] still um serious and time consuming and um I think we all try to do our best in

[1:15:22] what we do to serve our community. Uh to devalue it not only for us who are

[1:15:28] serving now, but for those who choose to run and serve in these roles in the

[1:15:33] future after November or December after the election. Um I think is really

[1:15:38] devaluing our responsibilities and our

[1:15:41] obligations. I understand that the fire authority is in a challenging place

[1:15:45] financially. There are a myriad of reasons uh for that. I'm not convinced

[1:15:53] that a $5,000 stipen is the make or break for our budget that would have set

[1:16:00] us on a trajectory of success um financially. Um

[1:16:07] I said at the last meeting I'm I'm a no on this. I would have no problem

[1:16:11] reducing it uh to a smaller amount. um $50, whatever it is, but the idea of

[1:16:19] eliminating it, that would require another vote. We all know that we can't

[1:16:23] get to a lotment on anything as a governing body at this point. And um so

[1:16:29] for me, uh it will go to a vote. I think the people who voted on it last time

[1:16:35] didn't necessarily understand what they were voting on, and that was clear when

[1:16:38] it was brought up again after the fact, after the vote was taken. Um so I'll

[1:16:43] make a substitute motion depending on Anybody

[1:16:49] else? >> I'm going to say the same thing that I

[1:16:52] said last month, which is I have devoted a lot of time to this. And when I see

[1:17:00] that there are still cuts that can be made to this fire department that

[1:17:04] haven't been made that I've been talking about

[1:17:08] for more than a year now, I don't see why we should be the one

[1:17:14] taking the when there's still cuts that can be made.

[1:17:24] » From my perspective is uh we're asking folks to take a hit. We're asking

[1:17:31] um we're seeing a possible HR position not being filled. And I

[1:17:37] think it's only if we're expecting others to take a hit, we can take a hit.

[1:17:42] That's why I motion put this on the floor at the last meeting and I will

[1:17:48] continue for it.

[1:17:54] » Yes. >> Um

[1:17:58] I actually agree with everything that's been said. Um and where I land on this

[1:18:04] is is that um clearly anybody that served in any of

[1:18:09] these types of positions knows and understands that

[1:18:14] costs you money, you know, [snorts] off of it um for a variety of reasons.

[1:18:22] And um I think though that under the

[1:18:27] circumstances uh that we are in um that it is an appropriate gesture even though

[1:18:35] I agree that it diminishes value, you know, all of that. I I agree with that.

[1:18:42] I do that it is

[1:18:47] just that a gesture agree it's not going to make a huge material difference um to

[1:18:54] the budget

[1:18:58] and I agree that it under under values or minimizes the value of

[1:19:05] the service that people give but under the circumstances that we're in I do

[1:19:12] think

[1:19:17] Yes, >> I'm voting no on that subject.

[1:19:26] » I've been on this mountain for a long time. I'm a businessman

[1:19:31] and just what the lady said, I really agree with the lady there right there.

[1:19:35] What she said was a beautiful speech and I right now I go along with her 100%. I

[1:19:41] can make more money in my damn business. Even though I'm all crippled up, let

[1:19:45] alone this. And all of our other agencies get more money than we do. It

[1:19:50] costs money to go to these meetings. And I think it's really wrong when you take

[1:19:55] my damn water away when the doctor wants me to drink more water and take our

[1:20:01] sandwiches away. It's insane. I mean, are we that damn cheap? I mean, if you

[1:20:05] people can't afford what we've been getting on the sideline here, then maybe

[1:20:11] I ought to go buy a whole damn truckload of water. I'll back it up. The door will

[1:20:16] unload it. It's ridiculous. It's not right. It's wrong.

[1:20:23] We uh I think we're at a turning point here where we're just can't be getting

[1:20:28] too damn cheap. I understand being conservative, but this is ridiculous.

[1:20:33] when you don't have water and when you don't have the sandwiches after a long

[1:20:37] day and then you got the open session ahead of the close session and then

[1:20:42] they've been nice enough to bring little sandwiches and they've got us through

[1:20:46] the night cuz I can't leave home and get over here and and make a stop along the

[1:20:51] way to buy dinner. It's ridiculous. And what it cost you for water and what you

[1:20:56] call for sandwich, how can you be so damn cheap? We're here to serve and

[1:21:02] we're been here for a long time speaking of myself and my family and so I vote no

[1:21:08] on that subject. Thank you, master. >> Anybody else?

[1:21:13] » Yeah. So, what what's the actual thing? I keep hearing back and forth. What is

[1:21:17] Yes, we want to keep it. What is No, we we you can take it away. Which is what?

[1:21:23] » Nickels and dimes. Well, we do have water.

[1:21:26] » There's a motion and a second pending that would eliminate compensation. The

[1:21:29] board hasn't taken a vote yet. >> Now, look, would that eliminate

[1:21:32] compensation for the attorneys, too?

[1:21:38] » You bet. Actually, would

[1:21:42] » Yeah, that's >> because the money

[1:21:49] is >> I'd like to make a substitute motion

[1:21:52] that um We receive no compensation for the fiscal year 2627 budget period only

[1:22:02] and they are after this would return to 13.

[1:22:12] » I'm sorry but you're taking food off of my table. [clears throat]

[1:22:19] » Call for the question.

[1:22:26] No, no, no, no. >> Could you please repeat what you just

[1:22:32] said? >> Yes. I would like to make a substitute

[1:22:34] motion, which is that we agree to receive no compensation for

[1:22:42] meetings for the period of the 2026 2027 budget period only. Given the

[1:22:51] challenges that the authority is facing right now and to show our commitment to

[1:22:57] um to taking a cut uh and thereafter it would return to its normal level.

[1:23:06] I'm going to go ahead and second that discussion.

[1:23:11] Anybody here?

[1:23:14] » Will I still vote no on the subject? It's wrong.

[1:23:17] » I have a >> Which question comes?

[1:23:20] » You are leaving. You two that are going to no st for the

[1:23:26] rest of the year. Three months, four months.

[1:23:33] I thought you were suspending all meetings for the rest of the year. So

[1:23:36] there's no suspension anyway. >> There's no s.

[1:23:41] » How much are we saving? >> Are we suspending?

[1:23:46] I think we have a lot to do. >> Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that either.

[1:23:54] » So I actually have a question for you considering

[1:23:59] what you're suggesting is starting now. for the next year that we would not have

[1:24:06] stipens and then they would return but there may

[1:24:10] be nothing for them to return to. >> There may not be but I'm saying that

[1:24:16] while we are figuring things out in this period of time I'm not comfortable

[1:24:21] saying in perpetuity and I understand that it would come back to the board if

[1:24:25] the board wanted to have a sip again. I'm not comfortable saying that for

[1:24:30] people who are going to serve after me in perpetuity that they would not be

[1:24:34] entitled to a second. I'm willing to say I understand for the period of time that

[1:24:38] I am committed in continuing to serve my community. I'm the fire authority. I'm

[1:24:44] willing to take to lose more money. Um and I'm willing to do that because I

[1:24:49] understand the challenges that we are in. And if there's any little bit of

[1:24:53] money, I'll bring you a sandwich next time. Now, um you know, there's any

[1:24:58] little bit of money then fine I'm willing to do that but I don't want to

[1:25:01] make that decision for people who are going to be serving

[1:25:05] » uh in the future so I'm saying while we are figuring out a budget and while it's

[1:25:09] our budget that we are responsible for passing I'm willing to say nothing but I

[1:25:15] think there's a value in what we do that all stands and I'm just willing to say

[1:25:18] for this year where we're figuring out a challenging budget that we will agree to

[1:25:23] take nothing and there in the future whatever happens

[1:25:27] that it's still on the books that there is a that's

[1:25:31] » but the three new CSD people that come in potentially new and the three new

[1:25:36] city council members would be coming in to nothing

[1:25:41] » they will be running knowing that. So if they ever watch one of these meetings or

[1:25:46] come and and see one of these meetings or watch a city council meet, then they

[1:25:50] will know that if you're going to serve on fire authority for the next period of

[1:25:54] time during this budget, you're not going to get if if you're running for

[1:25:58] the $130, >> maybe you're not the right person to be

[1:26:02] running to serve the community >> or just not show up.

[1:26:06] » Well, then maybe you shouldn't be running to serve your community because

[1:26:09] part of it is showing up. But I would add that if to the degree

[1:26:14] new people were seated and they wanted uh something different, they could pass

[1:26:18] a whole new ordinance and change it meeting if they wanted to. So they

[1:26:23] » see their priorities. >> They could fix it if that was important

[1:26:26] to that option as well.

[1:26:33] » Well, [clears throat] I still vote no. And at the same time,

[1:26:39] what the lady spoke in the past here, I agree with her. I still have a business.

[1:26:44] Unfortunately, I have a body that don't want to be a roofer anymore. He don't

[1:26:48] want to go up the ladder. And so, if you ever get into the position that I'm in,

[1:26:52] and I'm not crying about it, but boy, it makes a big difference. believe me

[1:26:58] because when you add up everything we have in retirement when it comes to my

[1:27:02] beautiful wife and myself and then we serve these meetings, well,

[1:27:06] unfortunately, I can't work anymore either. I'm done. You can see that. And

[1:27:11] I don't like rocks thrown at me. I've served this community in good faith

[1:27:16] through the many, many years at the cost of my family not going on vacations and

[1:27:21] all kinds of inconvenience. And I'm proud of what I've done. And I'm

[1:27:25] proud of the way I voted. And I'm really proud of the people that I served both

[1:27:30] on CSD and here, the finest people in the world, all qualified. What we have

[1:27:36] here is a damn group of people that knows what the hell are doing. We don't

[1:27:40] need no fruit cakes coming on board if we can prevent it. That's why I reran

[1:27:45] today because at the end of the game, you know, some of those fruit cakes

[1:27:51] don't have no fruit in them. And boy would be it's going to make could make a

[1:27:55] make a big change when we start thinking about both ends of this valley and

[1:28:00] changing out some of our people. It's going to be a hello earthquake. Thank

[1:28:05] you. >> I'd like to call the question. [snorts]

[1:28:08] » Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I did not see I did not see you over there. I would

[1:28:12] not have called the question. My apologies.

[1:28:15] » So quiet. >> Okay.

[1:28:18] » Does the substitute have to be voted on before the first one? Therefore, we are

[1:28:22] voting on something you did not write an ordinance for. Thank you.

[1:28:25] » So, I did want to clarify that. So, >> uh

[1:28:30] my right now there's an ordinance in place that says you're paid $130. An

[1:28:34] ordinance does need to be passed to contravene that. So, the likely outcome

[1:28:38] of the approved substitute motion will be at the next meeting. It would be an

[1:28:42] ordinance suspending the payments for 26 23 26

[1:28:48] voting on >> correct. So that's my assumption from a

[1:28:53] legal perspective is that just taking an action to suspend it is not going to

[1:28:57] overcome the ordinance that currently exists. So you do need an ordinance in

[1:28:59] place to overcome it. So I would take it as direction that something would come

[1:29:03] back at the next meeting to do that. >> So

[1:29:05] » because right now the ordinance that is in the agenda packet would completely

[1:29:09] eliminate it. >> So if this if this substitute motion

[1:29:13] fails then we go >> you go back to the main motion of the

[1:29:16] original of the ordinance that's in the packet.

[1:29:21] Thank you. >> If my substitute motion passes,

[1:29:27] but we're not having any meetings or nobody calls a meeting, how does that

[1:29:32] work? Since there's been a motion to pass an ordinance, but nobody's doing a

[1:29:36] meeting to make sure that we actually do the fire's business.

[1:29:42] » My recollection from the prior meeting is that um the the calendar has not

[1:29:48] changed, but direction to the chief was not to schedule a meeting if there was

[1:29:53] not business the chief believe needed to be done at the time. So essentially it

[1:29:59] was the board is moving to quarterly meetings after this July meeting.

[1:30:02] » I mean I guess regardless of whether we pass mine or the first if there's no

[1:30:06] next meeting it doesn't become anything >> there are more rare meetings than they

[1:30:10] typically >> and when do the payments start being

[1:30:12] suspended >> upon

[1:30:14] » when the ordinance is finally passed. So the second the second reading

[1:30:19] » so the next meeting >> so it would and functionally if you only

[1:30:23] have essentially quarterly meetings and that gets passed it would essentially

[1:30:28] only suspend them for the second half of the fiscal year

[1:30:32] and you can't make it >> only if you wanted staff to

[1:30:38] » demand that board members pay back the assignments they receive.

[1:30:43] » And then there's the added wrinkle that Depending on when the meetings are and

[1:30:48] how delayed that gets, it could be a significantly different

[1:30:59] year. >> There'll still be a lot of people here,

[1:31:03] but two or three or whatever are gone. So,

[1:31:10] » well, for sure three are going to be gone.

[1:31:12] » Yeah. >> So, They don't care.

[1:31:17] » Yeah, I promise. >> Well, I'm not leaving. I'll tell you

[1:31:22] that right now. >> Can we call for the question?

[1:31:25] » Yeah. And Nick, >> we have a

[1:31:31] » So, the board is currently considering the substitute motion which would

[1:31:36] provide direction to bring back an ordinance that would suspend board

[1:31:40] stipens only for the 26 27 year >> fiscal year.

[1:31:46] So we're just voting on we're just voting on to bring back another proposal

[1:31:53] for the ordinance. Correct. >> That was suspended.

[1:31:57] Correct. >> For this fiscal year.

[1:32:01] » Okay. >> I still vote no. And if it works, don't

[1:32:05] fix it. We got the finest people in the world right here. They do a good job.

[1:32:10] » God only knows what we're going to get receded with.

[1:32:14] If we do. >> All right. Here's roll call for this.

[1:32:18] » Larry, I have a question. >> Sorry.

[1:32:21] » If you have to do a reading and then an ordinance follows, it would have to take

[1:32:26] at least two more meetings to >> That's correct. That's why I made the

[1:32:30] point that it is likely that they'll be through half of this fiscal year by the

[1:32:33] time this goes into it. >> You can all agree to to wave your siphon

[1:32:40] in the intro, too. Chuck did that last

[1:32:45] Larry did that. Larry, I'm sorry. Twice now.

[1:32:56] [clears throat]

[1:32:58] » All right. This is roll call for the substitute

[1:33:02] motion.

[1:33:05] All right. Um, director Siggoia, >> no.

[1:33:10] » Director Ziggler, >> no. Director Walsh.

[1:33:15] » Hi. >> Director Russo.

[1:33:19] » No. >> Director J. Ro.

[1:33:24] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:33:29] » Director Bro. >> Hi.

[1:33:32] » Director PZ. >> Hi.

[1:33:36] » Director Melik. >> Hi.

[1:33:39] » Director Hicks. >> Hi.

[1:33:45] Motion passes.

[1:33:50] Okay. On to director's closing comments. Any directors have closing comments?

[1:33:58] I have something. Um, it was news to me that we're maybe not

[1:34:04] having meetings. Um, I spoke with Nick today. I would like an agenda item

[1:34:11] brought forth for a potential ad hoc or meeting whatever to

[1:34:18] list the two parcels of property that EBFA owns for sale.

[1:34:25] » Which one are those?

[1:34:31] » Right. >> And Nick, what is what does Ky need to

[1:34:35] get that on the agenda? >> Uh that's it. Any director can place an

[1:34:39] item on the agenda by requesting that the chief at least one week before

[1:34:42] regular meeting or three or more days before special meeting.

[1:34:48] » I'll concur with that. >> Can we clarify what the two parcels are

[1:34:53] though? >> There are two parcels that were

[1:34:56] purchased by BBFA for a potential >> back in what 2015?

[1:35:05] » I'd have to check the 2018 kind of sticks in my head, but it was 25 acre

[1:35:09] partial parcels that are in between the cemetery and the sugar park station 283

[1:35:16] that just sitting. >> It was supposed to be for potential

[1:35:22] training center and new fire station. >> Makes sense to get them on.

[1:35:28] » Yep, does

[1:35:43] I'm sorry, but I think it's a damn good idea to sell it. We're never going to

[1:35:47] build a fire station on that damn property. I know I won't with my

[1:35:51] lifetime. It's ridiculous. And at one time, our CSD organization

[1:36:03] » the uh >> the president organization.

[1:36:08] » We can't talk about it's not on the agenda yet.

[1:36:10] » It's it's going to be on >> the next agenda.

[1:36:12] » Fine. Do it.

[1:36:16] » Take the damn money and put into working capital. Then you don't have to borrow

[1:36:19] money. >> Uh if I can maybe uh I understand chief

[1:36:26] that administrative staff is starting to double up on the different activities

[1:36:30] that they're performing. >> I might offer

[1:36:35] you know concurren from the city manager that the authority

[1:36:40] looks to take or take advantage of the resources that we have in the city. U if

[1:36:48] there's a need for HR work, I think we have sufficient staff to handle it. If

[1:36:53] there's need for payroll support to take some of the work off of Pearston, I

[1:36:58] think we have the resources to do it. And um because there's going to be a lot

[1:37:04] of things to to do just to wind down this

[1:37:09] administrative staff having multiple different jobs. And I would recommend

[1:37:14] that you contact Eric and see what kind of resources we can supply to again take

[1:37:22] the stress and workload off of these two or three folks that you have left.

[1:37:29] Or have you I know doesn't CSD use a payroll system like a company

[1:37:35] you guys don't do your own payroll

[1:37:39] » right Larry >> to help take some of the burden off you

[1:37:44] package it give it to the the contract. So if if I could chuck consistent with

[1:37:51] your request, which I don't disagree with, I think it would be appropriate

[1:37:55] for the fire protection district to approve whatever additional resource it

[1:38:00] might be contributing to that and then also I think it's perfect for the fire

[1:38:05] authority court um and especially CSD to have an opportunity to chime in that

[1:38:10] they in fact want that help. >> Yeah. No, that's whatever however it

[1:38:14] works. It's it's fine. I know we need to get together I think [snorts] we'll get

[1:38:18] together a couple weeks to talk about this on the table. That's why I said let

[1:38:24] chief write a letter to Eric express what he needs and then we can go from

[1:38:28] there.

[1:38:31] » And I just want to say that our role here as a board is to provide clear and

[1:38:36] unified policy direction to staff so that they may do their jobs of running a

[1:38:41] functional fire department. Today we need to run the fire department for

[1:38:46] today. Time and time again the past year we have encountered obstacles which have

[1:38:51] made us unable to do this with the separate votes to dissolve the JPA we

[1:38:57] have taken action that requires review and intervention of outside agencies and

[1:39:02] councils. As you said director Melnik at the April

[1:39:07] FPD meeting we are not effectively serving the people or getting anything

[1:39:13] done and we are a stagnant organization and As you said, Director Pus at the May

[1:39:19] Fire Protection District meeting, we are fighting a losing battle. It is time now

[1:39:24] that we take the fight outside, so to speak. So, let's let the chief do his

[1:39:30] job, which he's been cutting and trying to do. Effective safety service to this

[1:39:36] valley and we limit our board meetings to the items that are essential and

[1:39:41] actionable. >> Joe, one last thing if you don't mind.

[1:39:45] » Yes. Uh Nick, I know the city council we're required now to uh have Zoom

[1:39:52] available and available for people to call in. Are we under those same

[1:39:57] obligations here? >> No. As a joint powers agency, we don't

[1:40:00] have the same obligations. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:40:05] » Anything else? Okay. We will now move into close

[1:40:09] session which we're going to talk about conference with legal counsel

[1:40:13] anticipated litigation and public employee performance evaluation

[1:40:18] from position fire chief. You have anything to add Nick?

[1:40:23] » Okay I end this session we will take a brief break and I'm sorry

[1:40:34] » is there any

[1:40:42] Um, I just heard something that was disappointing.

[1:40:46] I was a member of a group up here a few years back which is kind of what

[1:40:50] catapulted me into becoming Santa Claus last five or six years on my of my own

[1:40:55] with my wife. I left that organization because one of their comments to me was

[1:41:02] I was put to try to build membership and in building membership I was talking to

[1:41:07] a lot of the past members, a lot of the current members, people crying to me

[1:41:10] saying that they weren't respected, they weren't treated well. Um I had a lot of

[1:41:16] individuals in the community saying they wanted to help but they couldn't afford

[1:41:20] the $112 or$1

[1:41:24] dinner that we had every month. And the people from that organization

[1:41:30] said if they can't afford $1 $112, we don't need people like that. Maybe they

[1:41:34] don't belong here. Kind of heard that today from someone that shocked me for

[1:41:40] saying it because there's a lot of people in this community that can't

[1:41:43] afford $110 or $120 or whatever it is for lunch or for an amount that you all

[1:41:50] and us pay for lunch. But there's a lot of people that $120 is a lot. They would

[1:41:55] like to serve the community. So to think or to say that just because they can't

[1:41:59] afford to give up the site that maybe they shouldn't belong,

[1:42:04] that's really discounting a lot of this community

[1:42:08] » and that's the mentality issue. That's

[1:42:13] [applause] >> wait on the session items only.

[1:42:19] If they're only running to get $130, then maybe that's not the appropriate

[1:42:24] reason to run and never discounted that people may value the 130 or any amount

[1:42:29] of money is if that's the reason you're running,

[1:42:32] » then that's not the right motivation. >> Okay. The only discussion

[1:42:36] » I understand that you have Al Ziggler on this council and I'm going to tell you

[1:42:41] something. >> Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait.

[1:42:42] » Wait a minute. You you made a comment >> that I'm going to look into a legal

[1:42:47] remedy where you started to talk about people running for office that are fruit

[1:42:51] cakes. >> I don't know. No, I don't care what it

[1:42:54] is. >> But if you're going to manage, it it

[1:42:57] isn't. Well, then I'll be contacting an attorney about this group of people. But

[1:43:03] while you allow this man to serve on this council while he's segregating

[1:43:07] people in your community that are running for these offices, you'll be

[1:43:11] hearing from me. You just call your damn lawyer. And I've got one, so don't worry

[1:43:15] about it. >> We got that on tape, too.

[1:43:16] » You ain't got no damn right to get [snorts] up there and badmouth me.

[1:43:19] » Excuse me. Excuse me. Go ahead. >> We're adjourning this meeting and we

[1:43:24] will take a brief recess and go to close session. Thank you.

[1:43:29] » A good idea.

Fire Authority Meeting - 07/14/2026

Transcript