Vote no on 4A

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote:

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote:
[snip]

I keep trying to bring it back around to the district finances and the appropriate budgetary care. What detailed facts would you like? I am happy to give you all you ask for. I have already done my homework.

[snip]

And I've PM you and asked you if you would like to be one of my opponents that I interview for my rather long Flume article that will be published on Oct. 11th.

But you have not bothered to answer me.

The offer still stands.

If you have something to say "on the record" please PM me and we can arrange something.

Walter, no disrespect intended. I have little to no trust in the reporters in this area. You may be different, but once burned twice shy.

Just because I didn't want to be interviewed for your article doesn't mean I am hiding or that I am not well informed. I have asked several questions of the friends and they have not answered. If they are interested, they can go back find them and reply.

I have done my research and education as well. More looking to see if they have or if they are just spewing forth the buckets of dung they have been given.

I certainly respect your decision and thank you for your reply.

GO UNION wrote: Those numbers on paper look like a UNION SLOW DOWN WHICH IS ILLEGAL. Just because there are fewer transports does not mean fewer people have called for help! Look at the EMS calls for the year vs transports. Why does ELK CREEK have more patient refusals than ever before? The residents in the mountains are known to be a hardy,tough and sometimes stubborn people, they don't call 911 unless they need help! How many residents have been transported by other ambulance services in the Elk Creek District in the last year? While watching the BOD meetings on you tube Elk Creek has more paramedics than ever before to cover second and third due calls which should result in more transports than ever before resulting in more revenue that ever AND most importantly all of the citizens taken care of by the district that is obligated to serve them. If outsourcing the ambulance billing is that profitable then show me the MONEY!

A competent adult legally can refuse transport or treatment even if a medical professional feels they need transport or treatment, that is called an AMA refusal (against medical advise). If more people are refusing transport that is most likely because there are more people that are uninsured, unemployed, under insured, or under employed and transports cost money, calling 911 does not. Anyone can call 911 and have a paramedic come evaluate them then refuse transport and they don't pay anything. Elk Creek has good relationships with their neighboring departments and from time to time do rely on mutual aid, just as Elk Creek gives mutual aid to these departments as well, it helps everyone involved. Just because there are "more paramedics then ever" if the patient refuses transport, the transport does not happen, its that simple. So Elk Creek is responding to these calls but no income for a transport occurs.

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote: I have said it before and I will say it again, Elk Creek Fire does not control our insurance rates. They CAN control the ISO rating and they do so with man power, and appropriate water sourcing, and appropriate equipment use. I can remember "back in the day" when my buddies used to do water shuttle training. To keep times short and everyone spot on so when ISO came to check in, they passed the tests.

The misinformation about the truck can't go uphill very fast is simply debunked because that vehicle resides at the top of the hill not at the bottom.

and why threaten to close station 3? Because it would effect the largest population group and instill the most panic. The homeowners could chip in 10 bucks a piece and over pay what it costs to keep that station "open" every year.

I am assuming that the Friends must have been silenced or the employees were, as the board has gotten a little quiet. And they still haven't provided the "FACTS" that were asked for.

No on 4A
No on 66
No NO NO

Yes, one of the old tenders and the oldest engine are stationed at station 3 which is indeed at the top of the hill. The other old tender is at Station 2 which is in fact not at the top of a hill. And yes from station 3 they do drive downhill initially but unless the fire is somewhere between station 3 and 285 they will be going back up a hill to get to the call, everywhere you look around here is either up hill or down hill so most likely if you go downhill you will be going up hill too. Yes, these old trucks are slow, period. Try driving behind one going uphill and you will see. Apparently you don't live on Conifer Mountain, you just want others to pay more to keep fire protection in their area but you don't want to pay your part to protect YOUR community?? Saying the people that are near station 3 should just pitch some extra money to keep station 3 open is absurd. You basically are saying that you support the mill levy increase for other people to pay but not for yourself, that's pretty selfish. Station 3 has the oldest equipment so it seems that station would be the first to close because it makes the most sense, without the ability to replace these trucks they will eventually stop running and/or pumping all together and be useless i.e. no need for station 3 if there are no trucks to put there.

Kassk20 wrote:

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote: I have said it before and I will say it again, Elk Creek Fire does not control our insurance rates. They CAN control the ISO rating and they do so with man power, and appropriate water sourcing, and appropriate equipment use. I can remember "back in the day" when my buddies used to do water shuttle training. To keep times short and everyone spot on so when ISO came to check in, they passed the tests.

The misinformation about the truck can't go uphill very fast is simply debunked because that vehicle resides at the top of the hill not at the bottom.

and why threaten to close station 3? Because it would effect the largest population group and instill the most panic. The homeowners could chip in 10 bucks a piece and over pay what it costs to keep that station "open" every year.

I am assuming that the Friends must have been silenced or the employees were, as the board has gotten a little quiet. And they still haven't provided the "FACTS" that were asked for.

No on 4A
No on 66
No NO NO

Yes, one of the old tenders and the oldest engine are stationed at station 3 which is indeed at the top of the hill. The other old tender is at Station 2 which is in fact not at the top of a hill. And yes from station 3 they do drive downhill initially but unless the fire is somewhere between station 3 and 285 they will be going back up a hill to get to the call, everywhere you look around here is either up hill or down hill so most likely if you go downhill you will be going up hill too. Yes, these old trucks are slow, period. Try driving behind one going uphill and you will see. Apparently you don't live on Conifer Mountain, you just want others to pay more to keep fire protection in their area but you don't want to pay your part to protect YOUR community?? Saying the people that are near station 3 should just pitch some extra money to keep station 3 open is absurd. You basically are saying that you support the mill levy increase for other people to pay but not for yourself, that's pretty selfish. Station 3 has the oldest equipment so it seems that station would be the first to close because it makes the most sense, without the ability to replace these trucks they will eventually stop running and/or pumping all together and be useless i.e. no need for station 3 if there are no trucks to put there.

I think what I am saying is we have a fire district asking for a 50% pay raise and is using ransom tactics to do so. The cost to keep that station running is minimal and could be accounted for in just ONE of 9% raises given to the union based employees. Obviously I don'y live on Conifer Mountain ( my name is Kincaid Springs!) But that doesn't mean I don't drive there or that I lack familiarity with the area.

You obviously don't make that drive much yourself or you would know that unless you are in a ground hugging sports car, that NO ONE drives fast up those roads. Have you ever been behind a propane vehicle or dump truck or other comparable sized vehicle... they are all slow. it is a steep climb with a lot of weight. If these assumptions are wrong, Please give us a time trial. one of your new tenders vs the old one. Again how about some facts and details.

The leader ship is planning on replacing the nimble brush trucks and the current engines with large interface engines, they are huge! How fast will they go up conifer mountain or Kings valley? Have you tested it? Is there a notable difference? If this is the base for the argument tell us about the difference that will be made.

It's very clear that Substandard is the Elk Creek fire daily standard.

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote:
I think what I am saying is we have a fire district asking for a 50% pay raise and is using ransom tactics to do so. The cost to keep that station running is minimal and could be accounted for in just ONE of 9% raises given to the union based employees. Obviously I don'y live on Conifer Mountain ( my name is Kincaid Springs!) But that doesn't mean I don't drive there or that I lack familiarity with the area.

You obviously don't make that drive much yourself or you would know that unless you are in a ground hugging sports car, that NO ONE drives fast up those roads. Have you ever been behind a propane vehicle or dump truck or other comparable sized vehicle... they are all slow. it is a steep climb with a lot of weight. If these assumptions are wrong, Please give us a time trial. one of your new tenders vs the old one. Again how about some facts and details.

The leader ship is planning on replacing the nimble brush trucks and the current engines with large interface engines, they are huge! How fast will they go up conifer mountain or Kings valley? Have you tested it? Is there a notable difference? If this is the base for the argument tell us about the difference that will be made.

I do in fact live on the top of Conifer Mountain, so yes, I make that drive everyday and have followed many slow trucks up the hill. I was not talking about the rigs going back up conifer mountain, at that point they are headed home and time is not important. This whole district is hills, including 285. For example, when those old trucks are headed towards pine junction on 285 up that hill it's 30 mph pedal to the floor, when headed to a fire time matters big time. The newer tenders can do the speed limit easily up that hill. That's a 25 mph difference, which is huge! I guess if you prefer the truck going 30 mph to a fire at your house then you should vote No on this. As for the 50% increase yes 2.5 mills is 50% of the current 4.9. But 2.5 mills is small, most houses up here that is far less than $100 a year. A 50% increase on something small is going to be small. This whole thing comes down to what service do you want when you call 911? Me I want good equipment, PPE on the firefighters, and well trained members...this all costs money, things get more expensive every year and elk creek has been operating with the same mill for over 20 years...prices go up in all aspects of life...to me this could mean life or death for me and others in this community. The mill increase is a small price to pay for that security.

I am very confused... I have not read all of this thread but I am in Park County and not near any of the Stations that would close and just got a pre-ballot brochure for this why?

Unless there is an actually wild fire I do not see why Elk Creek would come to our house (we are in DCVR) Platte Canyon is looking to raise the sales tax here if I get a ballot I will vote no only because this is not my county.

Please explain.

Just guessing, you may get an opportunity to vote on ECFD ballot issue because ECFD covers your area under a mutual aid agreement with PCFPD.

If they cannot afford to adequately cover their own jurisdiction, they certainly cannot afford to help much in a mutual aid situation IMO.

I have never seen an Elk Creek fire vehicle back here in the almost 12 years that I have lived here so sorry they are grasping at me supporting this.

If I lived in Jeffco that would be a different story one of the main Platte Canyon stations it less than 4 miles from us so this is just wrong that they want money from me.

Love the firefighters don't get me wrong but this is not my counties battle we have our own issues.

HappyCamper wrote: I am very confused... I have not read all of this thread but I am in Park County and not near any of the Stations that would close and just got a pre-ballot brochure for this why?

Unless there is an actually wild fire I do not see why Elk Creek would come to our house (we are in DCVR) Platte Canyon is looking to raise the sales tax here if I get a ballot I will vote no only because this is not my county.

Please explain.

Elk Creek's Fire District does cover a small part of Park County, where you live may be part of this area. If you are getting ballot info I would guess you are in Elk Creek's district. The proposed mill levy increase is not just about keeping stations opened. I would suggest you look into the increase it will cover mainly needed equipment (trucks and gear for firefighters etc) and training for the firefighters. The Friends of Elk Creek have been putting a lot of info out as well as the chief has talked at numerous public meetings. Some of these were taped and are posted on here.