Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development‑funding‑cfd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Big Bear Fire Authority asks consultants to develop CFD options to fund additional staffing
Summary
After extended debate, the board directed staff and consultants to continue studying a community facilities district (CFD, Mello‑Roos) as a potential annual special tax on new development to pay for ambulances, paramedic squads and firefighters; no formation decision was made.
The Big Bear Fire Authority on July 8, 2025, directed staff and retained consultants to develop more detailed options for a possible community facilities district (CFD, commonly called a Mello‑Roos district) to raise ongoing revenue from new development to fund additional fire and EMS staffing and equipment.
Board members spent more than two hours on the topic during the meeting’s strategic planning update. Staff and consultant representatives presented four scenarios that estimate different staffing and apparatus outcomes, the projected annual costs, and the per‑unit or per‑square‑foot special tax that would be needed if the board pursues a CFD. Consultants and counsel also described the CFD formation process and legal mechanics, including landowner elections and annexation options.
What was proposed and why: Staff outlined four staffing scenarios. At the lower end, adding a non‑safety ambulance (personnel and overhead) was estimated at about $780,041 annually for that unit; a scenario that added a firefighter‑staffed paramedic squad was shown at roughly $1.3 million in annual cost; a combined, “full” scenario (scenario 4) that included a paramedic squad, an ambulance and three top‑step firefighters totaled about $2.6 million in annual cost. Staff estimated future build‑out of about 1,769 single‑family dwellings over 1,000 square feet in the planning horizon, with an estimated assessed value of about $815 million and approximately $1.2 million in additional property taxes from that build‑out. The draft CFD rates presented would range, for residential examples, from roughly $0.06 per square foot up to about $1.55 per square foot (examples varied by structure size), which consultants said would translate in sample models to amounts such as $6 to $278 per year depending on dwelling size and the chosen scenario.
How a CFD would work: Consultant representatives explained a CFD is an annual special tax placed on property tax rolls (not a one‑time impact fee) and that the district formation process includes setting goals and policies, establishing boundary and rate/method documents, and holding required public hearings and elections. Formation typically begins with a property owner or the board initiating proceedings and may require a landowner vote when a project first seeks annexation. Consultants noted that property owners who annex into a CFD agree to the special tax as a condition of approval for the project; consultants also said a developer can elect to place its project into the CFD or use alternative funding mechanisms such as developer agreements.
Board concerns and open questions: Directors and members of the public raised multiple concerns: whether the CFD would apply to additions or accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or only to undeveloped parcels; equity concerns about imposing higher ongoing taxes on new owners compared with long‑time owners; how the CFD would interact with existing CSD (Community Services District) taxes and other special taxes (board members requested a clear breakdown of current revenue sources and which agencies receive those revenues); the potential for CFD rates to affect development decisions; and the technical assumptions behind the build‑out projections. Several directors requested data or benchmarking to show whether particular per‑square‑foot rates had historically suppressed development in other communities.
Public comment: A member of the public, Patrice, urged the board to “put a line in the sand” and begin capturing revenue from anticipated commercial and residential projects on the valley’s eastern parcels, noting recent and proposed developments near State Route 38 and Snow Summit.
Outcome and next steps: The board did not form a CFD or adopt rates at the meeting. Instead, directors reached a consensus that staff should continue working with the consultants (DTA and legal counsel) to develop more detailed formation materials, refine scenarios, and produce clearer comparisons of current tax revenues and CFD options. Staff was asked to return with a more detailed package including legal options for ADUs and remodels, a clear revenue flow diagram (how existing CSD and fire taxes interrelate), and data on development‑threshold “tipping points” used elsewhere in California. The board indicated it wants those materials for further review before taking any formal formation action.
