Vote no on 4A

WindPeak wrote: FNP thank you for your posts. Did you not see the part in the Report about fee based programs that have been used in other states that go directly to fire fighting. Isn't ECFD a fire district?

And do you figure that somehow you don't get any of the funds if it were to go to local goverment? Where do you think your funding comes from?

You dismiss the Wildfire Task Force as if it isn't going to happen. Guess what? It is going to happen whether taxpayers like it or not. And the fire districts reap the benefits. Duh!

Actually, it is quite likely that nothing will happen with the Task Force recommendations. Our state government likes putting on dog and pony shows without doing anything of real value to help residents in regards to wild fires.

WindPeak wrote: You have answered your own question SC. Isn't spending thousands of dollars replacing pumps and engines which would resolve the issues immensely cheaper than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for shiny new ones?

Either way according to McLaughlin ISO will go up (from the first video) whether they have shiny new vehicles or not.

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?

You are incredibly delusional SC. Where or where in the question before the voters does it show that it is for those specific items only? The wording says in case you can't comprehend it 'the purchase of fire equipment including two fire tankers and one fire engine. It does not say that it is limited to those only. There's your first blank check. Second blank check is the wording 'and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services'. That gives them the authority to do whatever they chose under the guise of fire protection services including hiring more union people.

Sometimes I think some of you either can't read or just fell off the turnip truck.

As Walter stated quite well in another thread, it's impossble for the district to plan 10 years out so it only makes sense to be somewhat flexible in the wording. Unfortunately, any way that that is written you will take the wrong way and assume they will go hog wild with their new income so let me make this as clear as possible.

There. Is. No. Blank. Check.
• The mill levy is for an exact amount of funding that expires after 10 years.
• This mill levy has to be approved by the majority of voters, it is not being "shoved down anyone's throats."
• This mill levy must be spent on at least 3 new trucks, PPE for firefighters, and facility maintenance. The Chief spelled that out in more detail in his 2014 Budget Proposal which was presented at last week's BOD meeting and has been posted here .
• The ECFPD Budget must be submitted to the state every year and money must be formally appropriated for each year.
• BY LAW, the department is NOT ALLOWED to spend over its appropriated amount.
• All budget expenditures are submitted to an independent, third party auditor who in turn submits that report to the state for accountability.
• The Board of Directors is an elected body, if you don't like how they are running the fire protection district, you are free to run yourself, or vote them out and someone whom you do think will do a better job in.

You still haven't answered my question, nor has anyone: if not a mill levy, how do you propose that the funds for replacing equipment be raised? There gets to be a point where it is cost-prohibitive to repair rather than replace vehicles because they are past their lifetime. The lifetime on these trucks is 20 years, these are 24 and 25 YO, respectively. They are spending quite a bit on their budget on overtime for the fleet mechanic right now because of the extra time he has to spend servicing these vehicles, plus parts because they are out of warranty, and ISO won't even recognize them as qualifying for credit.
So what is your solution?

Mike Bartlett made the claim during his presentation at the Public Affairs Meeting that he believed that the ambulance services should be self-sufficient, then when questioned after his and the Chief's presentations as to how that could happen, he quickly retracted his statement and said that ambulance services couldn't ever be self-sustaining, and never offered a solution as to how they could be when pressed further. You know why? Because they can't and he knows that, yet he will stoop to using it against the current board and chief and making it look like they aren't fiscally responsible. That's not all he's done to misrepresent the facts, and I'll be posting the letter that CUT sent out to local businesses later showing that.

WindPeak wrote: I think the Chief better ask the residents whether they want boundaries eliminated to belong to ECFD in as much as those on Keuhster Rd petitioned out of ECFD and into InterCanyon which is a much better FD w/o all the infighting. Who wants to be part of the sad, pathetic FD that Elk Creek represents.

What in the world are you talking about? The residents on Kuehster Rd never petitioned to be out of ECFPD and put into Inter-Canyon - they've always been in Inter-Canyon's district.

"Sad, pathetic department that Elk Creek represents?" Is that really what you think of your home district? The same one that had the largest rookie academy class ever, and had to turn away applicants because they didn't have enough gear for them all?

The same department that almost all ff's sign a letter only 8 months ago publicly stating their support of their Board and their Chief? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNgqc-yV-H0 19:00 minute mark.

I think you're thinking of departments past. There is no infighting, there is no "huge loss of volunteers", and there is no longer any conflict. There is just a department doing its job serving the community.

WindPeak wrote: And frankly with all the bad news ECFD is why should more money be invested in changing dispatch from JEFFCO Sheriff to EFR? Just because EFR has a dispatch doesn't mean the taxpayers of Evergreen want others on their dispatch. JEFFCO Sheriff needs to remain in the loop, mostly to keep ECFD honest and from running off doing whatever they choose.

I'm afraid you are grossly misinformed as to what it means to re-draw the district boundaries, what Jeffco dispatch actually does, and to switch to using the Evergreen location for dispatch. First, they don't really have a choice in the matter - due to other smaller departments deciding to switch, ECFPD MUST follow suit, notwithstanding the fact that Jeffco Sheriff's dispatch was going to discontinue anyway because the mountain area call volume has gotten too frequent for them to continue providing it for free.

Jeffco Dispatch doesn't provide any sort of "oversight" capacity to the area fire departments so how they'd "keep ECFPD honest and from running off doing whatever they choose" is incomprehensible.

How this benefits the residents:
1. People who live closer to a station that is outside of their current home district, such as Shadow Mountain where they are over 5 miles from ECFPD so they pay insurance based on a PC10 but live within 2 miles of an EFR station, will have their insurance ratings go lower and pay less. You bet your ass the residents are going to be all for that.
2. We get more efficient response times and effective fire damage control. Remember the Bluebell Fire this past summer? Guess what? It was a Jeffco deputy who changed the evacuation perimeter over the objections of the EFR Chief from 1.5 miles to 4 miles, placing the evacuation shelter, Conifer High School, inside the evac zone. Jeffco dispatch doesn't know our area like the local fire depts and local dispatch does, so this is going to mean they know better who to first send and how much is needed based on local conditions and assessments by those who understand how fires move up here - wind patterns, ground conditions, mitigation in the area, etc.

The cost is going to be borne by the departments with the residents benefiting from the change.

WindPeak wrote: The chief is a flat out liar when he says he is unbiased and not taking a position. His role is to represent the Fire District to the best of his ability. If he was unbiased he wouldn't be standing there presenting any information about the question, much less all the slanted information he presented. Chief McLaughlin looks worse and worse and doesn't help resolve all the conflict that has gone on in the fire district. He just plans on using all the money to hire more union people and force out more of our reliable volunteer firefighters just like in previous years and to do whatever he wants like some egomaniac with a blank check.

Stop the Chief from going berserk, Vote NO on 4A.

Have you got a source proving your claim that "he just plans on using all the money to hire more union people and force out more of our reliable volunteer firefighters just like in previous years and do whatever he wants like some egomaniac with a blank check?" If not, it's just your opinion, and completely contrary to the facts of what the Chief has done, and stated he intends to do.

WindPeak wrote: I received an email from a friend in Evergreen reminding me of a few other facts.

Why would ECFD want to be associated with Evergreen Fire Department (dispatch) who just went through a very divisive recall which split their community. Ask Evergreen Fire if voluntary contributions by individuals and businesses and voluntary fundraising by families in the immediate community where the burn building will be added onto have dissipated or have disappeared altogether. Ask the businesses who supported the EFD if their businesses have slacked off significantly. You do not piss off a portion of your community w/o repercussions by the citizenry who feel they have been ignored. Their right whether people like it or not. Ask some of the citizens in the surrounding Evergreen neighborhood if they have plans to oust Board Members in the coming elections. Look at Platte Canyon FD Board of Directors 2 realtors who are on the Board. Ask them if their businesses have taken a hit for their insufferable decisions. Ask those in Elk Creek Fire District who oppose new taxes if they will support the Friends of Elk Creek individuals and associated businesses. Ask them if Board members won't be supported or outright campaigned against when they come up for reelection. If you have any brains at all look at InterCanyon Fire and Lower North Fork Fire and look at how they listen and work with their community to get them behind their efforts to improve their fire department. They don't go out asking for increases when they are in utter chaos, lack integrity and have a new boss who doesn't know how to work with his community. Unbiased Chief? I don't think so.

Edited to add, as deltamrey said in an earlier post 'create an environment of trust, transparency and integrity' which is sorely lacking from the ECFD right now and isn't helped by their asking for an increase when they, including the chief, have been so irresponsible.

Vote No on 4A

Thank you for bringing up the Evergreen Fire Recall, that is an excellent example to use here.

Far from being divisive, the final vote ended up being 6,500 out of nearly 8,000 residents who voted against the new candidates. Over 100 businesses supported that effort, which I'm guessing means they are doing just fine since the majority of the residents did as well with over $18,000 in contributions to the effort. http://www.clearcreekcourant.com/conten ... l-election They also had a huge turnout of Evergreen firefighters who helped campaign in support of their Board.

Has anyone asked the residents near the burn building, which is now in use, if it has in fact lowered their quality of life like some, not all, complained of?

Has anyone asked the residents of Evergreen how they feel about having had to pay about $170,000 for the recall election forced by a small group which very obviously was only about a Not In My Back Yard issue?

I'm sure the current ECFPD Board members who are up for re-election expect to have opponents who will try to use this mill levy against them. And I can bet you that they will stand behind their decision as being the right one for the department. I would highly recommend that if you are planning on running for this board that you start attending the meetings on a regular basis and learning more about how it operates and the challenges the department faces - the fact that the Evergreen recall candidates had attended very few, if any, board meetings, and some of their claims as to how Evergreen Fire Rescue wasn't operating at par (such as complaining about call response times) made it blatantly obvious that they only cared about getting rid of the burn building and not actually about learning how the fire department worked so they could run it effectively or capably once voted in. They shot themselves in the foot with their ignorance and focus on one issue only.

I, too, stand 100% firmly behind my decision to support this effort as the right one for this community. I figured out over a year and a half ago that it was likely that a mill levy would be proposed at some point in the future, so I went to the board meetings with the intention to learn everything I could, and to make it transparent and obvious for everyone whether this department was worthy of trust, run with integrity and honesty, or if there was still evidence of corruption, dissent and abuse of power. Watching how the board and the Chief handled people respectfully at meetings even though they came with agendas was telling. The day the firefighters publicly stood up in support of their board and their Chief made it crystal clear to me that this department had turned around from the rumors I'd heard for so long. Seeing the effort they made to cut expenditures, and the involvement this department and its members have in supporting their community sealed it for me.

I'm okay with there being backlash against my own company because I'm willing to take a stand for what's right rather than being wishy washy and standing on the sidelines staying silent - those who appreciate that I'm still fair, open-minded, and willing to engage in dialog and welcoming everyone to post their opinion here, whether in agreement or dissent, yet not treating them any differently because of it, will appreciate the value that this site/business provides to the community. Those who wish to hold grudges are welcome to do so, but realize that if the mill passes that it does so because the community chose it - not because the few of us who helped inform everyone made it pass all by ourselves and 'forced' it upon you.

PrintSmith, the recent vehicle purchases that the department has made were used vehicles. You are right, they certainly can provide a lot of value for less cost, especially if they are vehicles that aren't counted for the ISO rating (like the Command SUV). However, depending upon how old they are, they also can already be out of warranty.

Here's my take on it: if they buy a 10 year old engine or tanker today, when the mill levy sunsets in 10 years then they have a vehicle that is already at the end of its life, the department will be facing an ISO rating again the following year, and may have to ask voters to approve yet another mill levy depending upon if there's heavy use of the equipment between now and then - that seems like kicking the can down the road. If they purchase brand new, it's in warranty for several years and will need less maintenance, and when this mill expires, they've got another 10 years of life left on the vehicle and won't have to go back to the voters - that makes total sense to me. Also, if they purchase several new vehicles all at once, as the Chief is proposing, then they can get substantial discounts which helps it be more cost effective.

Twister, I'm not the insurance agent, I own this site you're posting on - and long posts are my specialty. A quick search of the ECFPD Facebook page will find you several photo albums with the rookie class going through training and the graduating class pictured in June.

January 2013

June 2013

Just to give you some perspective, there are currently 47 active volunteers with the department. If you count the people in the above pictures, they had 20 recruits in January (and many more who had tried out and weren't accepted for training because they didn't have enough gear - that's the point, they could've accepted more if they had the funds to outfit them properly - do you want more volunteers or not?) and 16 graduated in June for an almost 34% increase in the volunteer staffing at the department with that one class. And they weren't "hired", they aren't costing you a thing - they're all volunteers.

By the way, has anyone watched the October meeting video and analyzed the 2014 Proposed Budget yet? It's all here: http://mymountaintown.com/forums/area-n ... ions/28224