Vote no on 4A

WindPeak wrote:
Did you forget that they are better trained and don't fight with each other, not trying to get Unions in there like this District is trying to do with their blank check they want taxpayers to authorize. Dump the paid administration and use volunteers like InterCanyon and build a better fire department. Try using IC as an example of professional volunteer f.f.

And Elk Creek doesn't receive mutual aid from other fire protection districts?

Science Chic wrote:
*Edit to add: and the "union" isn't really a union - it doesn't have bargaining rights, it doesn't have voting rights, and the Chief explained all that in the Public Affairs meeting.

WindPeak wrote: Sorry FNP you can't blame the equipment for the last two disastrous fire seasons. Errors were made by McLaughlin in the Lower North Fork Fire, his assuming command when it wasn't even his district. More evaluation needs to be done of the f.f. process w/i the District. That doesn't mean throwing more money at it will improve it.

WindPeak wrote:
And from the Wildfire Task Force Final Report. Fees are coming which will benefit the fire districts.
http://www.dora.state.co.us/taskforce/D ... NDICES.pdf
Given the guiding principle that homeowners in the WUI should share in the risk of living in
wildfire-prone areas and should therefore shoulder much of the associated costs, the Task
Force recommends a fee be assessed on those who live in the WUI. The wildfire risk rating
could be used to identify homeowners who would be charged. Properties with higher risk
scores could be assessed a higher flat fee than those with lower risk scores. The funds would
be collected at the state level and distributed to local governments to help offset the costs of
mitigation in the WUI.
Fee-based programs are not untested. California recently enacted legislation that requires rural
residents to pay an annual $150 fire-fighting fee. The funds are used for prevention and
protection services. Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington also have fee requirements in
place. Some assessments date back decades to years when private timber companies first
taxed themselves to pay for fire protection.

Several methods for assessing the property fee exist, including:

• Funds could be raised through a graduated mill levy assessment on properties in the
WUI. The mill levy would vary based on the severity of the hazard rating. A variation of
this theme is to apply the mill levy state-wide, but properties scoring a 0 risk level would
have no additional assessment. This would require local TABOR elections for the mill
levy increase.

• Funds could also be raised through a flat fee on any property in the WUI.

• As part of the process, homeowners might qualify for a rebate or reduction of the fee if
they perform proper mitigation on their property and reduce their risk score.

Fee-based programs are not untested. California recently enacted legislation that requires rural
residents to pay an annual $150 fire-fighting fee. The funds are used for prevention and
protection services. Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington also have fee requirements in
place. Some assessments date back decades to years when private timber companies first
taxed themselves to pay for fire protection.

FNP wrote:
Wind Peak …. Your words

“Other fixes on the horizon have to do with the Colorado Wildfire Task Force Recommendations and the fee they want to charge people living in the mountains. As of now it is recommending that the fee go to the fire districts.”

What I do see from the report says that fees, if approved, will go to local governments, not fire districts, to offset mitigation costs …

Something would have to change if any of these funds as proposed end up in our district directly supporting our fire department. The task force recommendations aren’t the best answer. Only 30% of the forests in Colorado are on private land. Most of our recent big fires, Black Forest excepted, started on public lands; weren’t contained by an initial attack and then spread from there as big fires.

I don’t support the task force recommendation as a first choice because it does not directly address the district’s firefighting capability. I’d rather see our taxes go directly to our fire district. Then we could discuss mitigation strategies for the district.

Science Chic wrote: Given that the trucks needing replaced are already past ISO's criteria for being counted, should they spend tens of thousands of dollars replacing pumps and engines instead of replacing the trucks, how is the department going to find enough money within the next 2 years, as that income has now been determined by the counties and the department told how much they can expect - and it's another 4% decrease. It takes a year for these trucks to be built, even from the time that they are ordered, and they have to be paid for over many years on a lease-purchase. How do you propose they come up with funds to do so?

not to exceed two and one half (2.5) mills to be used for the purchase of fire equipment including two fire tankers and one fire engine, and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services;

Science Chic wrote: Even with passing this mill levy, it's still the best return on investment the residents are getting. But this isn't about North Fork or Platte Canyon, this is about Elk Creek. They've cut what they can, and they've analyzed their level of service they can provide with and without the mill levy, in regards to what is happening in real-time with insurance reviews, and have provided you that information. That's not extortion, threats, or emotional hand-wringing, that's justifying why they are asking for what they are, and allowing the voters of the district to decide what service level they wish to have. The mill isn't a "blank check" - it has specifically stated uses and they have to file appropriations that are mandated by law showing how it's spent. This board and Chief have demonstrated fiscal responsibility with their actions, look at the budgets and look at their actions. Call and ask them if you have questions. Come to the board meeting tonight. Go to the Open House and see their facilities. The firefighters, paid and volunteer, have come out in overwhelming support of this board and their chief - there is no in-fighting or internal division. They aren't hiding anything.

ECFPD is facing an immediate problem that can't be solved by bake sales. The mountain area chiefs' efforts to eliminate district boundaries and help folks out who are closer to out-of-district stations and reduce their insurance ratings based on distance to responding stations won't be fixed without serious capital investment and time to change dispatch from Jeffco Sheriff to the center at EFR.