Vote no on 4A

I think we are seeing the beauty of a discussion forum and the benefit of many eyes and opinions coming together. Sooner or later.....the truth really does float to the top.

Another inaccurate statement made by folks who oppose 4A is:

Residential property assessments will make a big jump in two years (2015) based on recent sales prices, says the JEFFCO Assessor. And this will solve the budget shortfall problem for Elk Creek Fire, making a mill levy increase unnecessary.

The JEFFCO Assessor’s office has not posted any revenue forecasts for 2015:

Based on inflation-adjusted tax revenue, Elk Creek in 2012 is almost exactly back where it was in 2004; except that the district population has increased and more property is at risk. When the same inflation adjusted buying power is spread out to cover more people and property, district services have necessarily declined since 2004 in some manner.

Waiting 2 more years hoping things improve isn’t a great plan when the issue is maintaining the district’s fire and EMS protection and the certainty that equipment needs to be replaced in less than 2 years.

Another inaccurate statement made by those who oppose 4A is:


This is a 10-year (probably permanent) property tax increase in response to a 2-year overspending challenge.

Colorado law sates that the 10-year sunset is binding. The tax cannot continue past 10 years unless there is another ballot initiative in 10 years and a vote to continue the tax.

The independent auditing mistake that suggested overspending has been corrected and will be published as soon as the state approves the corrected audit. It will show that $2,347,013 was appropriated for 2011-12 and that $1,917,164 was spent.

The challenge is not overspending, it is inadequate revenue to maintain an adequate level of service. This problem will not go away until there is an adequate equipment replacement fund.

This is a problem that was left for the community to face by the previous management of Elk Creek Fire, the very same people who are now telling us that there is no problem.

LadyJazzer wrote: And I'm fed up with underhanded, scorched-earth dirty tricks, innuendo and character assassination crap from the usual teabaggers....

Like I said, before all of the sleazy crap, I was going to vote 'NO'... Thanks to the usual tactics by the usual Randroids, I'm voting 'Yes'...

Thank you!

Here is another inaccurate statement from opponents of 4A:

The Elk Creek Fire District Board is pro union and they intend to use the money from the tax increase to convert Elk Creek Fire into a union dominated paid department.

First, calling any of the employees “union firefighters” is misleading. While the 6 paid firefighters belong to the union, they have no contract and no collective bargaining rights.

The only way the six paid firefighters could obtain bargaining rights is by a putting forth a ballot measure (which they have not done) and receiving a majority vote of the residents of the district. So, even if the board were “pro-union”, they couldn't enter into a union contract with the firefighters.

Secondly, only one of the five directors is a union member. The others are all businessmen or retired businessmen.

Third, the district eliminated 2 “union” positions in 2012. The proposed mill levy would not restore either of those positions. One position is proposed, however it would not be eligible to be included in the union.

Yes I know I should look it up, but does this tax increase require a 2/3s majority or a simple majority?

Michael_Davis wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: And I'm fed up with underhanded, scorched-earth dirty tricks, innuendo and character assassination crap from the usual teabaggers....

Like I said, before all of the sleazy crap, I was going to vote 'NO'... Thanks to the usual tactics by the usual Randroids, I'm voting 'Yes'...

Thank you!

LOL....That might not get you any closer to your needed yes with the public ....hahahaha

And if you want to see a lot of these questions with answers collected in one place please review my article in The Flume (and if you have done so already, thank you).

http://www.theflume.com/news/first_five ... f6878.html

(I post this again not in the spirit of my normal shameless self promotional mode. The article has important information in it, with direct and attributable quotes from all parties involved)

frogger wrote:

Michael_Davis wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: And I'm fed up with underhanded, scorched-earth dirty tricks, innuendo and character assassination crap from the usual teabaggers....

Like I said, before all of the sleazy crap, I was going to vote 'NO'... Thanks to the usual tactics by the usual Randroids, I'm voting 'Yes'...

Thank you!

LOL....That might not get you any closer to your needed yes with the public ....hahahaha

No, but at least it helps restore my faith in human nature and shows that at least one person out there is paying attention.