Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District authorizes public notice for FY 2025–26 budget amid resident concerns about funding and safety

The Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District voted unanimously on Nov. 12 to authorize public noticing of the preliminary fiscal year 2025–26 budget, after a staff presentation that outlined the authority’s revised $14.3 million budget and the district’s share under a joint-powers agreement with the Community Services District.

In a presentation to the board, a staff member summarized the fire authority’s revised total budget as roughly $14,300,000, with about $13,240,000 allocated for operations, roughly $500,000 to cover an ambulance-service deficit, a small shortfall for fire prevention, and about $540,000 for debt service. Under the 50/50 cost-share JPA with the Community Services District, the presenter said the district’s net obligation was about $6,960,000 and the net impact to the district’s fund balance was roughly $1,600,000. Staff recommended approving the preliminary budget and authorizing notice of a public hearing; final adoption is scheduled for the board’s Dec. 10 meeting.

After the presentation, the board moved and seconded the staff recommendation and approved the authorization by roll-call vote. The five members recorded on the roll call — Board Member Segovia, Vice Chair Hicks, Board Member Melnick, Board Member Putz and Chair Herrick — voted “Aye.”

The meeting also included extended public comment focused on two themes: the district’s handling of fire-tax revenues and building fire-safety and code compliance at public facilities.

Resident Patrice Duncan told the board the Fire Protection District is one half of the governing body for the Big Bear Fire Department and urged transparency about how property-tax–based fire revenues are handled. “Some of you or several of you have another agenda that will seriously impact the quality of fire safety in this valley,” Duncan said, asserting the board had recently voted to pass through collected fire-tax revenues and warning that changes could cause service “brownouts” or station closures. The comment cited a May 8, 2024 vote and said a September 9 meeting had different votes; the board did not rebut those assertions during the session.

Another member of the public, Daniel Gilbrandsen, used his allotted public-comment time to raise detailed safety concerns about the meeting venue and other public spaces, including inconsistencies in posted maximum-occupancy numbers, the use of a magnet lock on a panic door, dual locks that could impede egress, the absence or condition of illuminated exit signage and emergency lighting, and the need for regular inspections. “People panic when there’s earthquakes and fire,” Gilbrandsen said, urging annual inspections and clearer panic hardware on doors.

Board members took the public comments during the meeting but did not amend the staff recommendation; the board’s formal action was limited to authorizing staff to proceed with public noticing of the preliminary FY 2025–26 budget. The presenter said the hearing for final adoption will be on Dec. 10, when the board will consider the budget for final approval.

Authorities and legal references mentioned during the meeting included the Brown Act (open-meeting law) and a closed-session citation to the Government Code provision the presiding officer read; the meeting record cited the closed-session provision during the recess announcement.

What’s next: staff will publish the public-notice materials required for the budget hearing and the board will take final action on the FY 2025–26 budget at its Dec. 10 regular meeting.