Vote no on 4A

A question that has been posed is: What equipment does Elk Creek Fire plan to replace and what will each replacement piece cost?

We are planning to revamp our fleet to make it more efficient and less costly to purchase and maintain. In 2011, the district had:

3 type 1 (structure) engines
1 type 3 (interface) engine
4 tenders
3 ambulances
4 SUV’s
1 hazmat truck
1 heavy rescue
1 pickup
1 plow truck/maintenance truck
3 type 6 brush trucks
1 pump truck
1 rehab

For a total of 24 vehicles.

By using vehicles that serve more than one function, we can reduce the fleet size, reduce costs and improve efficiency. The revised fleet would be:

2 type 1 engines
3 type 3 engines
4 tenders
4 ambulances
1 SUV
2 pickups
1 type 6 brush truck

The short term timeline would be:

Sell the 2 old tenders, the old type 3, the 2 SUV’s, plow truck, 1 brush truck and the rehab right away.

Purchase 2 tenders and 2 type 3 engines.

We will not exact costs until the time of purchase, as we would send them out for competitive bid. We have been estimating based on current prices other departments have paid, or on advertised prices. Based on current estimates provided by a dealer last month, we have to figure on $350,000 each for a type 3 engine, and $350,000 each for a tender. In comparison, a type 1 engine averages around $525,000 and a type 6 brush truck similar to ours would cost around $180,000. The type 3 interface engine takes the place of both of those.

A citizen asked: Is there any way the voters can hold the Board accountable for using a tax increase for the purposes stated?

Absolutely! Board positions are elected, so if the public so chooses, they can vote board members out through the election process.

Here is a question that was raised in a recent public meeting: The ECFP 2012 audit shows $1,347,302 for administration, $574,881 for fire fighting and $113,032 for EMS. Why is there no breakdown of administration? May the public have a breakdown of administration expenses to the lowest account level?

Budgets through 2012 were prepared by previous administrations. Starting in 2013, the budget was prepared by Chief McLaughlin. The “administration” category previously lumped together all of the salaries and benefits for all personnel, including the fire marshal, paramedics and the mechanic. Starting in 2013, the budget has been revamped to show more clearly exactly what various programs cost. The 2013 budget also shows the audited numbers for 2011 and 2012 in a format that explains spending better.

This data is available for public review. For more information, contact the Elk Creek Fire Protection District at 303 - 816 - 9385.

Michael_Davis wrote:

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.

With all due respect....it was sort of an inside joke. It would take wayyyyy to long to explain it.

Let's just say that having LJ agree with you in not necessarily a badge of honor for many here.
It's a little like Big Douky giving his stamp of approval. LOL

On a more serious note.....Thx so much for all the clear info you are providing.

frogger wrote: On a more serious note.....Thx so much for all the clear info you are providing.

You are welcome sir.

Here is yet another question posed at a public meeting: All the money from the proposed tax rate increase will be spent on raises for its union employees? How do you respond to that?

Those would be some fantastic raises. I hope the firefighters haven’t heard that because it isn’t going to happen. While we won’t rule out modest raises at some time in the future, the money from this proposed levy will used for the one eliminated position, the replacement trucks, PPE, sorely needed building maintenance and a fund for future replacement of trucks.

It's Mam....but that's OK. I really appreciate the information you are bringing to the table here.

frogger wrote:

Michael_Davis wrote:

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.

With all due respect....it was sort of an inside joke. It would take wayyyyy to long to explain it.

Let's just say that having LJ agree with you in not necessarily a badge of honor for many here.
It's a little like Big Douky giving his stamp of approval. LOL

And let's just say that having teabagger knuckle-draggers like you and some others disagree with me IS a stamp of approval. It's what changed my vote.

Mike Davis , stop dancing around the question.

What is the name of the Dealer that you got estimates to buy Fire Trucks from?

Very simple question mike. Is ***** ***** the friends of elk creek promoter and salesman for E one Firetruck corp the source of your estimates?

Who and what companies will get fat off of district monies?

Please post the truth, not like i don't know but concerned taxpayers have a right to the truth