The cost of obstructing Elk Creek Fire-Protection District’s Unification with Co

Since 27 November 2024, Elk Creek FPD Director Charles F. Newby, Jr. and citizen Dr. Neil H. Whitehead III have embarked on a systematic effort to thwart the decision of our duly-elected Elk Creek Board of Directors (BoD) by blocking the BoD’s 4-to-1 decision (voted on 21 November 2024) that Elk Creek FPD merge with Conifer FPD. These efforts at obstructing legal Unification have cost the population served by Elk Creek FPD dearly in their services’ efficiency, synergy, and safety. It also has cost us taxpayers real money, and will cost us still more for as long as this obstruction continues.

Irrespective one’s views on Unification, ‘We The People’ should know these financial costs: they are already entirely out of hand, and will only get worse if this obstruction is not dropped or quashed.

The following analysis flows simply and reliably from actual data acquired in the public domain (rather than invented ‘data’, as others have done to bolster their biased, contrarian views). My sources are:


1) responses to Colorado Open-Records Act (CORA) requests of Elk Creek FPD;
2) Elk Creek FPD and Conifer FPD budgets, BoD packets, and required public filings; and
3) information presented by Directors at the Elk Creek FPD and Conifer FPD BoD meetings.

There are several ways to ‘slice this onion’ of finance, and I have elected to do this in terms of:

1) money already spent in anticipation of an election 6 May (and thus unrecoverable; an election made necessary by the legal maneuvers of Newby and Whitehead),
2) money that will be spent if that BoD election takes place 6 May (as currently planned), and
3) large at-risk revenues to Elk Creek FPD as well as significant incremental property-tax costs to taxpayers (should Unification not occur before 2026).

These last two don’t include things like the risk premia charged Elk Creek FPD in its lease of new fire engines (because its status remains unclear to lenders during Newby and Whitehead’s ongoing legal wranglings with Elk Creek FPD re Unification via the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and 1st District Court), nor future Elk Creek FPD legal fees defending the people of this district from the ill-informed ideas of appellees and petitioners Newby and Whitehead with respect to the organizational and operational matters that ARE Unification.

So...here we go:

1) Money already spent (in legal and election fees, as of 26 Feb.’25): $16,600
2) Money that will be spent if the Directors’ election is held 6 May 2025 (election costs alone; legal and other fees will need to be added to this): an additional $19,200
3) Revenues and costs at risk, in at least 2025 and 2026, for

a. Elk Creek FPD’s popular ‘chipping program’ and our fleet mechanics, both underwritten in 2024 by Inter-Canyon FPD (ICFPD), but Conifer FPD (which now includes the former ICFPD) has strongly indicated that it may not provide this underwriting in 2025 or beyond if Elk Creek FPD remains separate from Conifer FPD, and
b. Foregoing the reduction in property-tax payments in 2026 if Elk Creek is not part of Conifer FPD – for Director Newby has not told us the truth (especially to his Conifer South Evergreen Community Committee followers): the associated mill-levy rate within today’s Elk Creek FPD is slated to decrease in 2026 (from 12.551 mills of Elk Creek FPD to 12.000 mills if we’re in Conifer FPD).

In 2025, these revenues at risk total roughly $234,000 (through expected loss of chipping and mechanics subsidies; property mill-levy rates remaining unchanged at the current 12.551 mills), whereas in 2026 they blossom to $444,000 (same revenue at risk / loss of subsidies augmented by lost savings in property taxes by staying at 12.551 mill rather than decreasing to 12.000 mills if in Conifer FPD).

Consequently, all in: by about this time next year, unchecked, these two cavalier individuals will have cost Elk Creek taxpayers an estimated cool $707,000!!! This approaches the cost of a new fire engine, but does our FPD’s residents and taxpayers little if any comparative good.

This is totally wasteful, but must be the cost of political power and ego! It must be nice spending other people’s money like this without their permission!

And these two men say that they are fiscal conservatives? I don’t think so.

Remember: these costs are only made necessary because of the legal actions of Newby and Whitehead.

And don’t they DARE say ‘We told you this would happen’: that is blaming the victim, and these two have victimized everyone in this FPD by their actions!

I’m sorry: the legal actions of these two men are neither ‘righteous’ (as they zealously claim) nor in the public interest. They are instead irresponsible, partisan pseudo-populism, and primarily for their own political benefit and the benefit of their cabal of cronies.

And please, ask yourselves: Why ANYONE – and I mean anyone – would be opposed to greater safety during emergencies and at reduced cost? This makes no sense at all, so please, when you see them, ask Newby and Whitehead.

So, I urge Elk Creek FPD’s current Board of Directors to continue defending our community’s emergency services through pursuing Unification.

I also urge the Jefferson County’s Board of Commissioners to review the appeal by Newby and Whitehead’s promptly - and to deny it.

And I strongly recommend voting in Elk Creek FPD Directors' election 6 May for candidates Al Leo and Kathleen Noonan, both of whom have unreservedly endorsed Unification as the best way forward for Elk Creek FPD. Other candidates wish to send us backward to arrangements that ceased to function decades ago.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Philip S. Koch (Conifer Resident, a Volunteer Member of ECFPD, and a third-generation firefighter)

All of which probably would have been avoided if the ECFPD board had simply sought the permission of the people they serve to proceed in this fashion prior to ignoring the expressed will of The People, who told that board that they wished for their department to remain independent in an election.

Had the BoD simply referred another request to The People, and obtained their answer on the question, none of this would be needed. The election was being held already, including local questions on the ballot, last November. The board could have referred a question on that ballot regarding their intentions at minimal expense, but they chose to do an end around The People who had told them no before, seeking an avenue to pursue that was legal, but still in opposition to the expressed will of The People in the prior election.