The Agreement Failed. The Fire Department Did Not.
PinnedAndrew Sauer, Sugarloaf
A note on what this is. I am a candidate for the Big Bear City Community Services District board. I also sit on the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency board representing County Service Area 53B, and I own and operate bigbear.news, where this letter appears. Everything here is my personal opinion as a candidate. It is not the position of the wastewater agency, its board, or its staff, and no one there has reviewed it. Letters on this site are opinion, not reporting, and this one is mine. Two more disclosures, specific to this one. Four of my fellow directors at the wastewater agency, two appointed by the CSD and two by the Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District, also sit on the fire authority's ten-member board. [14] Where this letter talks about "both boards," it is talking about colleagues, and about a board I am asking to join. I have kept it to the documents and the public record for that reason, and I have not named a sitting director except where the minutes do. And my home is in Sugarloaf, on the end of the valley this letter is about. The fire department I am writing about is the one that would come to my door. If elected, I would be one of the votes that decides what replaces it. Everything below is sourced and linked at the end. If I have gotten something wrong, tell me and I will correct it publicly. I would rather be corrected than be wrong in print. The short version. The city voted alone on April 29 to end the fire authority on June 30, 2027, and has picked a county contract. Our end has picked nothing. The fire department did not fail. The 2012 agreement did. Our board never used the repair clause. Our district's open-session record is a leadership failure. It ended the standstill eight days before the city's vote, voted as a bloc against the fifty-fifty correction, abstained on the fire budget, deferred the $889,444 shortfall, and never agendized mediation after its own director asked. Its public letter blames the city for all of it and concedes nothing. Three of the five directors who cast those votes are on the November ballot. That is the shake-up this board needs. Both sides told you half the money story. The city paid about $7.4 million more in taxes since 2019. The full ledger is 50.29 to 49.71 once our CalPERS credit counts. Local control does not staff an engine. Money does. If we can fund our own department without a new tax, I will vote for it. If not, the county, and I will say so. On June 30, 2027, the joint agency that runs fire service for this twelve-mile valley dissolves. 5[19] Big Bear Lake has already chosen what comes next on its end: a contract with San Bernardino County Fire, expected to begin the next morning. 4 Our end has chosen nothing. The stations stay and the engines stay. Whether the people stay is a live question. The budget the fire chief brought to the authority on July 14 was built with "brown outs," which he explained would mean "1(one) less safety personnel per shift," and it left three vacant safety positions unfilled. [12] Who employs the firefighters, who pays for them, and who answers to you when it goes wrong has not been decided. The board I am running for decides it. Here is how it ended. The city's fire district and our district created the Big Bear Fire Authority in 2012 so two governments could run one service without either giving it up. [1] The money had been in dispute for a year. All three agencies signed a Tolling Agreement effective July 9, 2025 "to preserve each Party's respective rights during discussion of these funding questions." On April 21, 2026, our district gave notice terminating that standstill. [5] Eight days later the fire district voted to terminate the joint powers agreement, effective June 30, 2027, whether or not our district agreed. 5 On May 18 our district voted 5 to 0 to manage an orderly wind-down. [8] The city has since told its property owners it chose the county's Option C, at $7,990,968, about $1.5 million more than its $6,490,463 share of the authority's budget. 3[25] The city is not saving money. Its fire taxes have run about $1.36 million a year above ours since 2019, and it is now spending them on its own residents, which is what its voters would expect. [22] One line from the city's April 29 staff report belongs here, because neither press release said it: "The Fire Authority, FPD, and CSD have requested proposals from San Bernardino County Fire to provide fire and emergency services." [5] All three agencies asked the county for a number. The city is the one that acted on it. [16] What actually broke Not the fire department. Citygate Associates, the consultant brought in to review the partnership, found the authority's policies, practices and records "to best practices" and its staff "very knowledgeable." [2] What broke was the 2012 agreement and the two boards running it. Three provisions explain how this ended. The board was never finished. Section 5.1 says the initial board shall have ten directors, five from each agency. The agreement never says what comes after. Fourteen years later it is still the initial board, because changing it takes a written amendment approved by both agencies, and by the time anyone wanted one, the next thing both boards agreed on was ending it. [1] Citygate called it "One of the least detailed JPA's we have ever seen." [2] The arithmetic invited deadlock. Section 6.3 requires seven of ten votes to adopt a budget, take on debt, or approve any purchase over $25,000. Five directors from either side can stop the other five from buying a fire engine. [1] Citygate's recommendation was a five-member board, two from each agency and one at large. [2] Right instinct, fourteen years late. The repair process went unused. Section 11 requires the chairs of the two boards to meet and negotiate any dispute in good faith, then mediate, then arbitrate. [1] By the authority's own minutes, it was not used. On July 14, months after both dissolution votes, Director Walsh said from the dais that the Section 11 process had not taken place, and Director Russo asked the board to invoke it. [12] It should have been invoked before anyone voted to dissolve. Our board's public ledger I can judge the conduct at our end in open session, because I was in the room and the minutes are posted. I cannot judge the city's closed sessions, and I am not going to accept a characterization of rooms I have never seen. [13] Here is the ledger I can document. April 21, 2026. Our district gave notice terminating the standstill all three agencies signed to keep their rights intact while they argued about money. The city voted to dissolve eight days later. [5] I do not know what was said in the rooms where the city decided. I know the sequence, and the sequence is in the city's own staff report. In June our general manager told the Grizzly the city had been planning this for twelve months, "but we're starting at the beginning." [15] A district that signed a standstill on this dispute in July 2025 was starting at the beginning in June 2026. June 9, 2026. The authority took up an amendment to bring the prior year's budget into line with the fifty-fifty funding provision. The motion, as amended, asked two things: write the shortfall into the books as ours, and pay it back out of the city's next-year revenue. The ayes were all five of the city's directors. The noes were B. Rowe, J. Rowe, Russo, Walsh and Ziegler. The motion failed. [20] A director could reasonably refuse the second ask. Our five refused both, and the minutes record no alternative offered in its place. The same night the board voted to cancel two meetings per quarter. It carried nine to one, with Ziegler the only no. [20] Four of our five directors voted to meet less in the year the agency dissolves. Five weeks later the budget failed, August 11 was canceled, and the budget was still preliminary on September 8. [12] I would have voted with Ziegler. July 14, 2026. I want to correct something I have seen said about that meeting, including by me. July 14 is not proof that the seven-vote rule broke the authority. Two ayes fails under any rule. What failed it was the abstention. The city's July 1 letter said the fire district would take a credit of about $889,444, plus about $215,000 for legal fees. The chief's report called that "a total revenue decrease in the amount of $1,104,444." [21] That is why the budget came in with service cuts. He "noted that this budget was presented with 'brown outs' of suppression staff positions not arbitrarily but due to the receipt of the letter." [12] Then the board voted. Two ayes, Segovia and Hicks. Two noes, Putz and Melnick. Herrick absent. Ziegler, Walsh, Russo, J. Rowe and B. Rowe abstaining. [12] Two of the city's own directors refused the budget rather than accept the cuts. Director Melnick "stated she would not support a budget with service reductions." [12] All five of our directors declined to vote either way. An abstention is a decision. It is a decision to let a thing fail without owning the failure. The board's own lawyers told it this was not the authority's fight to settle. Special Counsel Ochoa "confirmed that conversations relating to FPD billing the BBFA for legal fees or budgetary 'credit' should be discussed via FPD and CSD's legal counsel and/or a formal mediation process via paragraph 11 of the JPA." [12] The authority has been running this fiscal year on last year's budget. On September 8 the item was still the "FY 2026/27 Preliminary Budget." [12] August 3, then August 6 and 19. The agency whose July 1 letter caused the brown outs came back a month later with money to remove them. The fire district's staff report recommended cutting the $215,000 legal-fee request, selling authority land and vehicles, reimbursing Station 281, and this, in its own words: "Propose to re-establish the BBFA budget of $500,000 to fund the 3 Firefighter positions currently vacant." The attachment listed three results: a balanced budget, a fifty-fifty share, and "No Brown Out." It kept the $889,444 credit. [11] Our district's August 19 staff report says the city's board approved that exhibit. [10] Both of those are true at once. What our side did is what the documents say. On August 6 the item was "Discussion and possible action." The minutes record the general manager saying operations were "running thin" and that passing a budget was "critical," then comment, then adjournment. No motion is recorded. [24] The August 19 report says our board "did not approve the exhibit as presented." [10] The $889,444 was recognized on paper and deferred to "future agreement and action by the member agencies." [24] Two agencies that dissolve in nine months put the largest number in the dispute off to a future agreement. The authority still has no adopted budget for a fiscal year that began July 1. [12] Section 11. The repair clause says the chairs of the two boards "shall first meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate and resolve any dispute." [1] On the city's side that is Chair Rick Herrick. [4] On ours it is the board president, B. Rowe. [24] Director Russo asked for Section 11 from the dais on July 14. [12] The August 6 and August 19 packets do not take it up. 10 A director asked for the repair clause in public. Our board did not agendize it. That is the ledger, and nobody at our end is outside it. The incumbents I am running against cast those votes. Three of those five seats are on the November ballot. [26] Now read our district's public letter beside that ledger. [13] Four sections, and every one is about what the city did. Not one sentence about the standstill we terminated, the correction we voted down, the budget we abstained on, or the $889,444 we have not paid. It proposes nothing. It concedes nothing. A board that cannot name one thing it might have gotten wrong in a fourteen-year partnership that just ended is not describing the partnership. It is describing itself. The city voted alone, and I have said so. The city at least told its residents what it decided and why. Ours told them who to blame. Two of that letter's factual points hold up. Citygate mapped incidents geographically; station of response and location of incident are different measures. [2] And what was released is a deck titled "PRELIMINARY RESULTS BRIEFING," not a full report. 2 The flexibility claim does not hold up. Section 7.2 fixes each agency's share at fifty percent, in a table. [1] The closed-session claim I cannot verify, and I am not going to vouch for it. 13 Being right about a slide deck does not put anyone on a truck. What the money actually says The most authoritative document on the money went public on September 8. CliftonLarsonAllen was engaged by the authority's special counsel. Its report is dated June 1, 2026. It is not an audit, and the firm says so. It is a forensic accounting of every dollar each side put in since 2012. [22] The city's half is true. Counting contributions since inception and excluding the merger transfers, the fire district contributed $51,483,664 and our district contributed $44,041,722, a gap of about $7.44 million. Since property-tax passthrough began in fiscal 2019, the city's side has put in about $1.36 million more a year. [22] When the city says it pays more, the tax ledger says the city is right. Our half is also true, in the same report. When our fire and ambulance operations came into the authority in fiscal 2019, our side brought a $5,180,175 CalPERS credit. Run the whole ledger and the report lands at $51,707,503 for the city's side and $51,108,562 for ours, 50.29 percent to 49.71 percent. [22] After fourteen years, one merger and seven and a half million dollars of tax disparity, the full ledger is six tenths of a point off even. The first crack ran the other way: we overpaid in 2016, 2017 and 2018. [22] Both sides told you half. Anyone repeating $7.4 million without the $5.18 million credit beside it is giving you part of a sentence. Anyone saying the agreement was never a rigid fifty-fifty is not reading the table. Fifty-fifty was the rule, the rule was broken in both directions, and nobody fixed the formula in fourteen years. Citygate had already told both boards the formula was the problem: "50/50 unrealistic and not sustainable over time," with "No policy to reflect tax revenue differences." [2] What happens next Our district has hired its own consultant. On July 20 the board approved a contract with AP Triton for a Fire Service Governance Transition and Feasibility Study, not to exceed $100,000, paid from fire-restricted funds. The vote was 4 to 0, Ziegler absent. [9] The scope names three paths: a district fire department, annexation to County Fire, or a new fire protection district. Findings are expected in January. 9 I have read the scope. It is public. It does not mention the ambulance. It is also not a decision. Four questions I want answered before this board votes: What it costs to stand an organization back up, in apparatus, payroll, dispatch, records, back office, and a chief, against the cost of signing a contract. How much of the authority's headquarters overhead we already carry inside our $6,490,463 contribution. Citygate counted 11.5 headquarters positions out of 62. 2 What our fire reserves actually are, separate from water, sewer and trash, and what we owe. The forensic report found $2,916,252 still outstanding on June 30, 2025, and "no valuation of fair use" for the two districts' own assets. [22] Who runs the ambulance. County Fire's proposal to the city says on every option that ambulance coverage "is the responsibility of the CSD and is not addressed in this proposal." [3] Citygate counted 3,567 incidents in fiscal 2024-25. Sixty-eight percent were medical. [2] How I will vote Citygate found three crews, nine personnel in total, plus one battalion chief on duty for the entire valley, against a best practice of fifteen to sixteen responders at a single house fire within eleven and a half minutes. It also found that "Current revenues do not support the addition of staffing or services." [2] Local control does not staff an engine. Money does. And Citygate's own list of choices did not end at the county. It offered two: fold both partners into County Fire, or remain in the partnership and update the agreement. [2] The second was on the table in February. Neither board took it. If the finances show we can fund a department from revenue and reserves, without a new tax and without draining cash we need for water and sewer, I will vote for an east-end department or a valley fire district, and I would rather have that. [18] An independent district with its own elected board fixes the defect the 2012 agreement left in place: a governing body that belongs to the service instead of being loaned to it by two other boards. If the finances do not support it, I will vote to contract with the county and say so plainly. County is my floor, not my preference. The risk on my side is real. If we spend this year building the case that the city treated us unfairly, we arrive at June 2027 with a grievance and no plan. The grievance will be partly accurate. It will not respond to a call. The incumbents I am running against own the open-session record above. A board that ended the standstill, voted as a bloc, abstained on a budget, deferred the largest number in the fight, skipped its own repair clause, and then published a letter that names none of that is not the board I want making the next decision. Three of those five seats are on the ballot. That is the shake-up. The consultant reports in January. The board takes it up in public after that, and it will need to decide in time to clear the Local Agency Formation Commission before June 30, 2027. That is the meeting to be at. At two in the morning in Sugarloaf, nobody checks the patch on the sleeve. They want to know somebody is coming, and how long it takes. Every question above is downstream of that one. Andrew Sauer is a candidate for the Big Bear City Community Services District board, represents County Service Area 53B on the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency board, and owns bigbear.news. The opinions expressed here are his own, offered as a candidate. They are not the position of BBARWA, its Governing Board, or its staff. Sources Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating the Big Bear Fire Authority, executed June 21, 2012. Section 5.1(b), "the initial Board shall consist of a total of ten (10) directors"; 6.3, "seven (7) or more affirmative votes of the entire membership" for budgets, bonds and purchases or debt over $25,000; 7.2, fifty percent each; 7.3, capital purchases "when equity so requires"; 10.1, termination on notice; 11.1, "The Presidents or Chairmen of the Parties' boards of directors shall first meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate," then mediation, then binding arbitration; 12.10, amendment only by written agreement of both boards. bigbearlake.gov Citygate Associates, "Fire Services Review, PRELIMINARY RESULTS BRIEFING," Big Bear Fire Authority, deck dated January 21, 2026, presented February 6, 2026. Slide 8, 3,567 incidents in 24/25, 67.98 percent EMS, simultaneous activity 33 percent and rising, "Most occur in Station 281's area in Big Bear Lake"; slide 16, nine personnel on three crews and one battalion chief against "15-16 total crew members within 11:30 minutes"; slide 18, "Policies, practices, and records are to best practices," "Staff very knowledgeable"; slide 19, headquarters 11.5 of 62. bigbearlake.gov San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, City of Big Bear Lake Fire/Rescue Contract Service Options, May 2026. Options A through D at $8,899,523, $8,790,674, $7,990,968 and $7,073,122; on each, "Ambulance service coverage is the responsibility of the CSD and is not addressed in this proposal"; next steps including LAFCO review. bigbearlake.gov City of Big Bear Lake, Fire Protection District page and timeline, including Chair Rick Herrick's May 20, 2026 letter: the County Fire partnership "is expected to begin on July 1, 2027." bigbearlake.gov Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District, April 29, 2026 Special Meeting agenda packet, staff report by Chief Executive Officer Erik Sund. Source of the section 7.2 compliance finding, the Tolling Agreement and the CSD's April 21, 2026 notice terminating it, and the sentence on all three agencies requesting county proposals. Resolution FP-2026-01, notice of termination "effective June 30, 2027 ... if the Big Bear City Community Services District does not agree to jointly terminate"; FP-2026-02, requesting a proposed county agreement. bigbearlake.gov Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District, press release, April 30, 2026: "unanimous support" for termination; "the transition to San Bernadino County Fire will begin July 1, 2027." bigbearlake.gov City of Big Bear Lake, press release, June 30, 2026: "Of the four (4) options, the FPD chose Option C."; "Is the Citygate study complete? Yes." Also City Council minutes, July 8, 2026: property owners mailed notice that "the FPD has chosen contract Option C." bigbearlake.gov Big Bear City Community Services District, May 18, 2026 Regular Meeting minutes. Resolution 2026-16, "Authorizing the Orderly Dissolution," adopted 5 to 0; "The FPD exercised unilateral action on April 29, 2026, by adopting Resolution FP-2026-01." Posted under Minutes at bbccsd.org Big Bear City Community Services District, July 20, 2026 Full Board Packet and minutes. Resolution 2026-25, Professional Services Agreement with AP Triton, LLC, "Fire Service Governance Transition and Feasibility Study"; the three paths and LAFCO considerations in the scope of work; not to exceed $79,989 plus $20,011 contingency, $100,000; "this expense would reduce the amount remitted quarterly to the BBFA for operations"; Ayes B. Rowe, J. Rowe, Russo, Walsh, absent Ziegler. bbccsd.org Big Bear City Community Services District, August 19, 2026 Special Meeting agenda packet, revised FY 2026-27 Big Bear Fire Authority budget exhibit. CSD and FPD at $6,490,463 each; "FPD-PY Credit" $(889,444); "3 FF-No Brown Out" $(500,000); "CSD-CalPERS Payment (Retiree Benefits/OPEB)" $1,266,408. Staff report, quoted in the text on the timing and method of any reconciliation; recommendation, "Receive and discuss"; "The FPD Board subsequently approved the proposed exhibit and budget approach; however, the CSD Board did not approve the exhibit as presented." bbccsd.org Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District, August 3, 2026 Special Meeting agenda packet, Item 1.1, staff report by Director of Finance Dena Heald. The four proposals quoted in the text, including "Propose to re-establish the BBFA budget of $500,000 to fund the 3 Firefighter positions currently vacant"; the $889,444 credit retained; transmitted under Section 7.4. Attachment 1, the three results quoted in the text, both agencies at $6,490,463. Attachment 2, draft Resolution FP2026-XX amending the district's own budget by $175,000. bigbearlake.gov Big Bear Fire Authority, minutes of the July 14, 2026 Regular Meeting (printed in the September 8, 2026 agenda packet), the September 8, 2026 agenda and staff reports, and the document index listing "2026-08-11 BBFA Regular Meeting Canceled." Source of every July 14 quote in the text. Budget motion: "AYES: Segovia, Hicks. NOES: Putz, Melnick. ABSENT: Herrick. ABSTAIN: Ziegler, Walsh, Russo, J. Rowe, B. Rowe. Motion Failed." September 8, Item 7, the FY 2026/27 Preliminary Budget, "a positive contribution to fund balance of $3,084," and a Final Budget hearing recommended for October 13, 2026. bigbearfire.org Big Bear City Community Services District, "Letter to the Editor: Clarifying the Narrative on the Fire JPA Dissolution." The four arguments summarized in the text, including "approximately twelve months of prior closed-session discussions in which the future of the JPA was deliberated without meaningful public transparency," and "While often characterized as a fixed 50 percent funding split, the agreement provides for cost sharing proportionate to the approved budget and was intended to allow flexibility as conditions evolved." bbccsd.org Big Bear Fire Department, Board of Directors: a ten-member board of all five CSD directors and all five Fire Protection District directors. bigbearfire.org Janet Dooley, "What is the future of fire services in Big Bear City?", Big Bear Grizzly, June 18, 2026: the June 15 meeting, a resident's proposal for a fire district with its own elected board, and General Manager Glenn Jacklin's "12 months" and "starting at the beginning" statements quoted in the text. bigbeargrizzly.net "Big Bear Lake and Big Bear City CSD air differences about end of fire partnership," Big Bear Grizzly, July 2026. bigbeargrizzly.net Stacy Moore, "Big Bear City passes fire budget; fire department waiting for full board to OK spending," Big Bear Grizzly, August 28, 2026: the general manager anticipates the consultant's findings in January. bigbeargrizzly.net San Bernardino LAFCO, Resolution No. 3142, September 28, 2011: four agencies protect the valley; the CSD "serves the east end of the valley." sanbernardinolafco.gov Bear Valley Water Sustainability Study, December 2016: "a 12-mile long valley." bbccsd.org Big Bear Fire Authority, minutes of the June 9, 2026 Regular Meeting. Roll call, "Board Chair JoKay Rowe." Item 7, the meeting-cancellation motion quoted in the text; "AYES: Russo, Walsh, Herrick, Hicks, Melnick, B. Rowe, J. Rowe, Segovia, Putz. NOES: Ziegler." Item 8, the amended 50/50 motion quoted in the text; "AYES: Melnick, Putz, Herrick, Hicks, Segovia. NOES: B. Rowe, J. Rowe, Russo, Walsh, Ziegler. Motion failed." Director Putz's statement, reiterated for the record at Director Melnick's request. bigbearfire.org Big Bear Fire Authority, July 14, 2026 agenda packet, Agenda Report, "FY2026-2027 Budget," by Fire Chief Luke Wagner. Source of the July 1 letter credit of "approximately $889,444," the June 25 finance officers meeting, the "approximately $215,000 for legal fees," and "This is a total revenue decrease in the amount of $1,104,444." Also the offsetting "budget decrease of $519,691 ... in which there would be no replacement of three firefighter vacancies." bigbearfire.org CliftonLarsonAllen LLP, "Big Bear Fire Authority Forensic Investigation," dated June 1, 2026, released on the September 8, 2026 Big Bear Fire Authority consent calendar as Item 3. Engaged by Snell & Wilmer LLP, special legal counsel to the authority, "through an agreement dated August 28, 2025"; the report "does not constitute an audit, compilation, or review." Table 2, FPD $51,483,664 and CSD $44,041,722, $7,441,942, and "$1.36 million more in property taxes." Table 3, the $5,180,175 CalPERS credit, "the primary driver of this difference." Table 4, FPD $51,707,503 and CSD $51,108,562, "with 50.29 percent allocated to FPD and 49.71 percent allocated to CSD." Section B, the fiscal 2016 $138,340 finding. Table 7, loans of $10,564,350, $2,916,252 outstanding at June 30, 2025. Section A(3), "no valuation of fair use has been considered or maintained." bigbearfire.org Big Bear Lake Fire Protection District, May 28, 2026 Special Meeting agenda packet, staff report by Chief Executive Officer Erik Sund: "the FPD has reviewed and publicly discussed options for more than a year to address the Authority's funding concerns. Recordings of these discussions are available on the FPD and CSD websites." bigbearlake.gov Big Bear City Community Services District, August 6, 2026 Special Meeting minutes, Open Session Item A, "Draft Fiscal Year 2026-27 Big Bear Fire Authority Budget - Discussion and possible action"; "President B. Rowe called the meeting to order." Source of General Manager Glenn Jacklin's "running thin" statement and the passage ending "The ultimate disposition of the $889,444 will be subject to future agreement and action by the member agencies." Board and public comment were heard and no motion is recorded. bbccsd.org Author's calculation: Option C, $7,990,968 (source 3), minus the CSD share of the revised FY 2026-27 authority budget, $6,490,463 (source 10), is $1,500,505. San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters, Candidate List, November 3, 2026 General Election, page 193: Big Bear City CSD, "Number to be elected 3"; Bob Rowe, Al Ziegler and Jo Rowe listed as incumbents. https://uploads.rov.sbcounty.gov/ROV/Elections/2026/1103/Report_CandidateList.pdf