Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Big Bear Valley fire authority asks San Bernardino County for proposals on fire and ambulance services
Summary
After a City Gate review warned the joint fire authority is fiscally fragile, the Big Bear Valley fire authority voted unanimously (with one absence) to direct each partner agency to seek proposals from San Bernardino County for all fire and ambulance services to compare contracting or annexation options.
The Big Bear Valley fire authority voted Feb. 10 to ask San Bernardino County to provide formal proposals for delivering fire and ambulance services as the board considers whether to amend its joint powers agreement or pursue a different governance structure.
The action follows a recent City Gate Associates review that, board members and the consultant said, found the authority in a balanced but fiscally fragile position. City Gate project director Stu Gary told the board, “You’re balanced today and you’re just a little fragile,” and recommended building reserves and getting a county proposal before adding staff or pursuing structural changes.
Board members debated competing priorities for the valley’s East End and Big Bear Lake, with several directors urging that both partner agencies — the Community Services District (CSD) and the Fire Protection District (FPD) — separately seek county options so each can evaluate service levels and costs that match their constituents’ needs. A public commenter urged formation of a stand-alone fire district and alleged that the City of Big Bear Lake had withheld previously allocated fire tax dollars; the allegation was voiced during public comment and was not resolved at the meeting.
The motion approved by the board asked each partner agency to go to the County of San Bernardino for RFP/proposals covering all services, explicitly including ambulance service. The roll call vote recorded a unanimous yes among directors present; one director was absent.
Attorneys and consultants cautioned that multiple legal paths exist — contracting for services, a JPA with the county, or annexation/detachment — and that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) may need to review reorganizations that change employee status or materially affect fiscal viability. Board counsel said termination of the existing JPA is a contractual step that may not itself require LAFCO approval, but annexation or transfers that alter employment could trigger LAFCO review under the Cortese‑Knox‑Hertzberg local government reorganization statutes.
Directors asked for proposals that address the full suite of services and include ambulance operations; consultants recommended each partner obtain proposals side-by-side to compare options. Several board members stressed the need to protect current employees while assessing whether shifting to county service or reorganizing the JPA would deliver more reliable, sustainable coverage for the valley.
The board asked that the partners return with status updates at the next BBFA meeting so directors can compare proposals and decide whether to pursue JPA amendments, contracting, or annexation. The meeting then moved to closed session on personnel and legal matters, including an unfair practice charge filed with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).
