Vote no on 4A

OhSuzanna wrote: Folks, I recommend that we all start having some serious conversations with our insurance companies. I recently did a re-fi on my home and my agent (and several other companies I talked to) used something called a "risk rating" to assess the amount of fuel/trees around the buildings. ISO was never mentioned. I am pretty sure that "fire ratings" have gone the way of the dinosaur.

Then I read this article that touches on the subject.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... s-colorado

OhSuzanna, I don't know if you saw the post by Jennifer Eleniewski back on Pg 2 of this thread , but she explained there, and in her presentation at the Conifer Town Hall Meeting , that fire ratings are indeed used by every insurance company. Not all of them go strictly on the Insurance Service Organization (ISO), but they use many of the same factors as the ISO if not.

The Chief discussed more about that during the Q&A portion of the Conifer Chamber's Public Affairs Meeting as well: starting at the 22:25 minute mark.
[youtube:144ficxt][/youtube:144ficxt]

If you'd like to learn in extreme detail what the ISO reviews for each department, watch the June 2013 BOD Meeting starting at the 5:45 minute mark:
[youtube:144ficxt][/youtube:144ficxt]

WindPeak wrote: SC thank you for your information. I will go back and look at what Chief said. Do you agree though that he did provide the same information that Friends of Elk Creek are using showing ECFD at the bottom and not showing how much money they are receiving?

All of the information that FOECF is using came from the area departments' verified budgets - we called and requested the records - and from local insurance companies. Neither the Chief nor the BOD has ever hidden how much the ECFPD department brings in in revenue, nor how it is spent and you can see that on the audited budgets. Compare it to the other area departments - yes they bring in the 3rd highest amount behind EFR & PCFD (b/c home values are the 2nd highest in value), but they also have the 2nd highest number of residents to protect, the 2nd largest number of structures to protect, go on the 2nd highest number of calls, and do it with significantly fewer paid staff than Evergreen or Platte Canyon - this department is the most efficient and best value for your dollar of any department in our foothills area. Inter-Canyon is volunteer only, same for North Fork, so when they answer a medical call, you don't get a paramedic or EMT. That's your choice if you wish to live in a district that doesn't provide that level of service, and that's what this mill levy is all about. Keep in mind though that the majority of calls that ECFPD goes on are medical calls - ask yourself, is it not worth it to have 2 paid, trained staff per shift dedicated to that service if it's such a need in our community? And I'll be addressing GO UNION's posts on this issue in my next post as well.

The department is not being greedy - they've cut everything that they can, and have suspended paying into the capital fund in order to replace the aging equipment. The undisputed fact is that the Chief cut 2.5 paid "union" positions while adding the biggest volunteer rookie class ever during his short tenure to date. (And I'm going to go more into that union issue with my next post). Every argument I've seen so far against this mill levy is based on things that people think are going to happen: housing values are going back up so the department will make more, the department's going to spend it converting everyone to a paid union position, etc etc.

If this Chief and current board were corrupt spenders, then you wouldn't have seen the budget cuts and ACTUAL actions taken that have been taken - base your decision on their actions. Every budget is audited by an independent, outside source. There is transparency and accountability, honesty and integrity and I say that because I've been attending these BOD meetings for over a year now, I videotaped them expressly for the reason of keeping the community informed about the organizations that serve them, and I like to think that I'm a decent judge of character and that my opinion is worth at least a little bit based on my own integrity and honesty in my action and words - at least enough that you all will keep an open mind and fully inform yourself of this issue before assuming what they will do in the future, especially if it's absolutely opposite of what they've said they will do and have done. Don't believe me? Totally fine - go to the meetings yourself, go talk to the Chief and the board members, chat with some firefighters, and get to know them. Tour the station and check out their equipment and facilities (btw, they are having an Open House Oct 12th). Come to the Community Meeting this Wednesday Oct 2, at Conifer High School at 7pm that the FOECF has organized and ask your questions - we all welcome them. The volunteers and staff at ECFPD spend their time to protect us - they are for the community at the most selfless level.

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote:

Friends of Elk Creek Fire wrote: Everyone cares about Return on Investment, right? Here's a comparison of what you pay per call compared to surrounding districts and you'll see that you get the best value for your money with Elk Creek Fire.

Can you fill in the chart with the same departments that are on your flyer? Excluding city/ suburban
departments.
Should also be noted that the majority of Evergreens employees staffs the ambulances ONLY they are not firefighters, and they are not union. They also staff a dispatch center.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand your question KS. The other area mountain departments are already on this spreadsheet: Evergreen, Platte Canyon, North Fork, Indian Hills, and Inter-Canyon.

Yes, most of Evergreen Fire's paid staff are ambulance staff; I do not know if the dispatch center staff is included in that number in the spreadsheet - aren't dispatch offices staffed by Jeffco Sheriff personnel? 2/3 of ECFPD's paid staff are EMT/paramedic, the remainder being admin. In clarification of your comment about "they are not union": neither are ECFPD firefighters either, technically. They do not have bargaining rights, voting rights, or any of the other things associated with union privileges - more on that in my next post (this one's getting too big as is).


I agree with FNP's post from a previous page, we need to focus on the big picture and what needs to be done to keep us safer moving forward.

FNP wrote: OK one last try at getting some fact based discussion on the real problem. The present discussion is like arguing over how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The problem is that since about 1970, wildfires in Colorado, in areas just like where we live, have been getting bigger and more destructive. They are not as frequent, but they are very much bigger. In the last few years they have turned deadly.

The fuels load in the forests has grown larger. The fire danger is higher. There are more people living in the forests on the front range every year. Fires are a much more significant problem than they used to be.

Colorado's front line of defense that provides the initial attack on wildfires is done almost entirely by our local fire protection districts. When initial attack fails to contain a fire in-spite of a district or districts best efforts, we turn to the State and Federal agencies for help.

State and especially Federal firefighting capabilities have been cut. There's less help available. The whole picture is not pretty. The outside fire fighting assets that used to be available to help out our local fire protection districts fight larger fires just aren't there like they used to be. One might argue that we have become dependent on federal firefighting welfare and now it isn't available like it used to be and we are on our own more than ever.

So, here's the debating point I care about. I don't want this community to burn next season or ever. I live here, so do you. Albert Einstein is supposed to have said that insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Colorado [and we in the Elk Creek District are included] have done very little to improve our ability to keep small fires small. I don't think we can keep doing basically the same thing as far as fire protection districts go and expect different or better results.

This discussion ought to focus on how we can improve our firefighting capability and whether the improvements suggested in 4A will help. Explain how what you are discussing makes a significant difference in our ability to keep from burning next year or explain why you don't think its a problem.

I agree with Einstein. Doing more of the same is probably insanity.

Now, who wants to go back to rearranging the deck chairs?

Sorry KincaidSprings, I'm trying to get to the posts as I can - there's a lot of info to share, and it takes me time to review the videos and let everyone know what time mark you all can find specific info you've asked about in order to save everyone time. No, no one's been "silenced," that's just absurd. I have provided plenty of facts in my last post and answered some of your questions, which I haven't seen you reply to yet.

Grady wrote: I just received the Friends of Elk Creek flyer in the mail today, pretty slick, full color glossy, and I would assume pretty expensive. Of course we won't know who is putting up the cash until after the October 15 filing date for "Friends of Elk Creek" issue committee. I am betting that we have outside interests (Union) putting money into the funding a tax increase. One thing to note Michael Davis is the FF union Membership President and principal of "Friends of Elk Creek" issue committee.
BTW here is the link to the Secretary of State's website. SOS Tracer

MIKE ROGERS is a union leader in the IAFF Union and current the President of the ECFD Fire Board.

Edited to correct Mike Rogers and Michael Davis's actual roles.

Thanks, we worked hard on that mailer, and no it wasn't that expensive to print. Thank you for correcting your information about Mike Rogers and Michael Davis as well. What was not noted is that Michael Davis is a Volunteer and the union issue has nothing to do with this mill levy whatsoever, it's a scare tactic used by those who oppose this measure.

Let me straighten up this "union" issue now. When the term "union" is used, it brings to mind strong-arming tactics, bargaining rights, hold outs, strikes, issues of entitlement, etc. That is NOT the members of Elk Creek Fire Protection District. They are not an official union, they do not have voting rights, nor do they have any bargaining rights whatsoever. If they wish to become a formal union with all of that, they must put it before the voters of the district who must pass it by a majority vote. In addition, the position that is being proposed to be re-filled is not eligible to join the IAFF.
If you'd like to learn more, please see what the Chief had to say about it at the Public Affairs meeting Sept 17th, starting at the 14:10 minute mark:
[youtube:kj2oamkr][/youtube:kj2oamkr]