[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.