Big Bear Fire Authority approves 2026–27 budget after debate over withheld passthroughs and proposed brownouts

The Big Bear Fire Authority approved its proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget on July 14 after hours of public comment and board discussion about funding shortfalls and operational cuts.

Chief Wagner and finance staff Kristen presented a budget that reflected a mix of cost-saving measures — including eliminating a buyer-inspector position, not backfilling an HR/payroll coordinator and salary savings from promotions — that staff said would produce a positive change to fund balance of roughly $198,000 before later adjustments. Staff also listed dissolution liabilities if the authority winds down, including pension and loan obligations totaling roughly $3,700,000 in the presented summary.

Several public commenters and directors warned that withholding passthrough property-tax funds by one partner, and a proposed credit from the Fire Protection District, threatened service levels. Public commenter Patrice Duncan told the board that the city’s decision to withhold funds under its reading of the joint powers agreement had created "public-safety concern[s]" and that vacancies were already affecting emergency response. Theodore Trentman and Miguel Gonzalez urged cooperation across valley jurisdictions and warned the community would react if services decline.

Board members pressed staff for numbers, asking how brownouts would operate and what a single removed suppression position would cost. Kristen said the fully burdened annual cost for one suppression position was approximately $150,000; staff also said the authority currently has little in bank reserves and has relied on short-term TRAN borrowing. Directors questioned whether approving a budget that incorporates a district-proposed credit would effectively approve that credit and whether such a credit required a prior amendment under the JPA.

Special counsel and several directors reviewed the joint powers agreement’s relevant sections on apportionment and dispute resolution, noting that any declaration of default under section 7.7 could have consequences for allocation of assets on termination and that the authority itself lacks standing to litigate a dispute between the two member agencies under the JPA. Counsel noted dispute-resolution steps in section 11 and said parties could pursue mediation or other remedies.

Directors debated whether to pass the budget now to avoid operating without a budget — staff said the authority can operate under last year’s budget but that projected revenues would be lower and personnel decisions such as brownouts could still be required. After discussion and a motion, the board approved the proposed 2026–27 budget (the budget motion was made, seconded and debated in open session). Staff said they will continue to report on final receipts and adjust as needed.

The board moved on to other agenda items and directed staff to continue negotiations, prepare required budget documents and report back. The board also asked staff to pursue options that could reduce legal exposure and to consult the participating agencies’ CFOs to reconcile financial positions.

The budget approval was the most recent procedural action; staff said they will update the board when final property-tax passthrough payments are received and will return with recommended amendments or follow-up actions if revenues differ from current projections.