Vote no on 4A

... I care about my community. I have been around for quite some time. Native born. We cannot continue to bear the brunt of extravagant fire engines, buildings, pensions to volunteers for life after 10 years of very part time participation, etc. If it will make you feel better I won't contact the fire department. In the old days we took care of it ourselves. Look at the wildfire in eastern Colorado this last summer. Many ranchers/farmers got their farm tractors and took hold of it so that the prairie fire wouldn't go wild without waiting for the fire department. If you look at many on the eastern plains and rural areas, they don't have all the whistles and bells that Elk Creek Fire is asking for and do just fine. I hope the residents say again, enough is enough and Vote NO.[/quote]

Colorado native. House in Conifer since 1979. Trying to stick with the facts:
If I heard the chief correctly at the town hall meeting, the extravagant engines he is proposing cost less than the existing engines they would replace and they are designed for firefighting in our location. I cannot find any source that says 25 year old engines and tenders are adequate or dependable enough to be front line equipment for a fire department.

In what way are the existing buildings extravagant? I don't see it.

Exactly how much is the pension granted to volunteers? Is it extravagant? Volunteers do the same job as regular full time paid firefighters who have full pay and allowances, life insurance, medical and dental benefits and retirement. It seems to me that we are getting a real bargain.

Hard to compare prairie grass fires with forest fires up here. Tractors won't help up here. Maybe a D-5 Cat, but not many of us have dozers up here in Conifer. Recent wildfires up here have demonstrated that we need all the help we can get and that existing local fire protection districts resources and capabilities are inadequate when it comes to dealing with wildfires.

The Colorado State legislature has stalled any plans to increase State ground or State aviation assistance for local district firefighting.

The USFS cut 50 engines and 500 ground crew from their firefighting capability this year and they ran out of money last month. USFS is down to 14 or so firefighting air tankers from a high of 44 air tankers in 2001. They have borrowed aircraft from Canada, Alaska, the military, and other States and still do not have enough to do the job.

This less than adequate State and Federal fire fighting help can only be called up to help our district after a fire is out of control. It isn't available when we urgently need it in order to help keep small fires small.

Elk Creek is charged with providing fire, EMS, and rescue for our new Staunton State Park. The State hasn't given Elk Creek a penny to do the job. Next year they are supposed to allow camping [and fires] there.

So yup, we have to fix this problem ourselves because the State and Federal cavalry isn't coming to our rescue and hope is not a plan. I don't see voting yes on 4A as an extravagance. I believe it is a necessity.

WildPeak wrote: ... I care about my community. I have been around for quite some time. Native born. We cannot continue to bear the brunt of extravagant fire engines, buildings, pensions to volunteers for life after 10 years of very part time participation, etc. If it will make you feel better I won't contact the fire department. In the old days we took care of it ourselves. Look at the wildfire in eastern Colorado this last summer. Many ranchers/farmers got their farm tractors and took hold of it so that the prairie fire wouldn't go wild without waiting for the fire department. If you look at many on the eastern plains and rural areas, they don't have all the whistles and bells that Elk Creek Fire is asking for and do just fine. I hope the residents say again, enough is enough and Vote NO.

FNP wrote: Colorado native. House in Conifer since 1979. Trying to stick with the facts:
If I heard the chief correctly at the town hall meeting, the extravagant engines he is proposing cost less than the existing engines they would replace and they are designed for firefighting in our location. I cannot find any source that says 25 year old engines and tenders are adequate or dependable enough to be front line equipment for a fire department.

In what way are the existing buildings extravagant? I don't see it.

Exactly how much is the pension granted to volunteers? Is it extravagant? Volunteers do the same job as regular full time paid firefighters who have full pay and allowances, life insurance, medical and dental benefits and retirement. It seems to me that we are getting a real bargain.

Hard to compare prairie grass fires with forest fires up here. Tractors won't help up here. Maybe a D-5 Cat, but not many of us have dozers up here in Conifer. Recent wildfires up here have demonstrated that we need all the help we can get and that existing local fire protection districts resources and capabilities are inadequate when it comes to dealing with wildfires.

The Colorado State legislature has stalled any plans to increase State ground or State aviation assistance for local district firefighting.

The USFS cut 50 engines and 500 ground crew from their firefighting capability this year and they ran out of money last month. USFS is down to 14 or so firefighting air tankers from a high of 44 air tankers in 2001. They have borrowed aircraft from Canada, Alaska, the military, and other States and still do not have enough to do the job.

This less than adequate State and Federal fire fighting help can only be called up to help our district after a fire is out of control. It isn't available when we urgently need it in order to help keep small fires small.

Elk Creek is charged with providing fire, EMS, and rescue for our new Staunton State Park. The State hasn't given Elk Creek a penny to do the job. Next year they are supposed to allow camping [and fires] there.

So yup, we have to fix this problem ourselves because the State and Federal cavalry isn't coming to our rescue and hope is not a plan. I don't see voting yes on 4A as an extravagance. I believe it is a necessity.

Absolutely. Thank you Sir for the eloquent way of putting all that.

YES on 4A with open www based accountability audited by a commerical third party. This is being done in many places.....why not ??

deltamrey wrote: YES on 4A with open www based accountability audited by a commerical third party. This is being done in many places.....why not ??

Because it isn't in the Tabor question? The Tabor question is worded so that it gives a blank check to the ECFD to do whatever they choose. They don’t have to have a commercial third party. They can buy whatever they want at whatever price they choose. You give them that when you vote yes based on the wording of the question. “and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services”.

And the chief can say anything he wants. In fact that is his job. He is like the used car salesman. It is what is written down that counts. And nowhere do I find anything in the Tabor question that says he is going to limit his purchases. It is all in the writing.

FNP are you a volunteer firefighter?

You see it as a necessity. Why didn’t you work on the wording of the Tabor Question to limit it to very specific equipment and not write a blank check to the fire department. How does the Tabor question as written become a necessity?

And why does the Tabor question leave it open for the ECFD to come back at any time and ask for more? “all without limiting in any year the amount of other revenues that may be collected, retained and spent by the district”.

No the necessity appears to be that the volunteer firefighters want more money for their own benefits and the way the Tabor question is written it gives it to them. Learn to live with what is currently available. Lots of other fire departments do it. Vote No on 4A.

Well, I was going to vote 'No'...But after watching all of the usual anti-tax zealots complaining about "oversight" and "misuse of funds", and screeching about $100/month pensions (after 10-years of service) as "wanting more money for their own benefits".... I'm convinced...

I'm voting 'Yes"... Good job WindPeak...You are very persuasive...

It's the anti-tax zealots who are largely responsible for bridges falling down, roads crumbling, and infrastructure ending up in the worst shape it's been in for 50 years....

[bluebox=:3sy7rvhb][/bluebox:3sy7rvhb]

deltamrey wrote: YES on 4A with open www based accountability audited by a commerical third party. This is being done in many places.....why not ??

Have you checked the Elk Creek website? The budget is available there along with an audit by a commercial third party.

[bluebox=:29a1x0ta][/bluebox:29a1x0ta]

WindPeak wrote:

deltamrey wrote: YES on 4A with open www based accountability audited by a commerical third party. This is being done in many places.....why not ??

And the chief can say anything he wants. In fact that is his job. He is like the used car salesman. It is what is written down that counts. And nowhere do I find anything in the Tabor question that says he is going to limit his purchases. It is all in the writing.

FNP are you a volunteer firefighter?

You see it as a necessity. Why didn’t you work on the wording of the Tabor Question to limit it to very specific equipment and not write a blank check to the fire department. How does the Tabor question as written become a necessity?

And why does the Tabor question leave it open for the ECFD to come back at any time and ask for more? “all without limiting in any year the amount of other revenues that may be collected, retained and spent by the district”.

No the necessity appears to be that the volunteer firefighters want more money for their own benefits and the way the Tabor question is written it gives it to them. Learn to live with what is currently available. Lots of other fire departments do it. Vote No on 4A.

No I'm not a volunteer firefighter but I am a bit familiar with firefighting issues.
Were you an Elk Creek volunteer? If you were, what did you do to keep the present equipment replacement budget shortfall from happening?

It is the job of the tax payer elected Elk Creek board of directors to manage the TABOR question with legal advice on TABOR wording. Volunteer firefighters do not write TABOR questions, nor do citizens.

Unlike the usual representation process in our Republic, deciding the intent of 4A is a true democratic process where every taxpayer involved gets to vote on the issue.

If you do not trust the present Board of Directors, 2 positions are open this election and if you really believe the issue is more urgent, there is always the option of initiating a recall election. I have reviewed the board meetings videos ... I see no evidence of of an unresponsive board or of citizens issues being raised over runaway volunteer pensions.

I can give you several reasons why paying for the Elk Creek fire department request is a necessity: Buffalo Creek, Hayman, Schoonover, Snaking, Black Mountain, Hi Meadow, and Lower North Fork fires. If any of them happened in the middle of this district, you wouldn't have to worry about the cost to maintain a fire department.

Or how about the Community Wildfire Assessment Plan current risk assessment: "The majority of the district is at high risk for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fires." Conifer, Aspen Park, and Pine Junction are listed on the Federal Register as "communities at high risk from wildfire". Prudence would dictate a higher degree of readiness than for those living outside forested areas.

I talked with a couple of the Elk Creek volunteers and asked them about the pension program. There are no benefits other than a monthly check. Zero extra benefits. They expect that after ten years they will receive about $100/ a month as a pension. The open budget on the Elk Creek web site shows a cost of $50K annually being paid to the FPPA for volunteer pensions.

When you consider the cost of replacing an engine, 2 tenders, and an ambulance in a couple of years and instituting a capital replacement fund to ensure the district doesn't get caught in another equipment replacement jam like this one, worrying about paying a volunteer $100 a month after 10 years service entirely misses the major problem.

I'm tired of watching our local forests burn and kill our neighbors and at the same time seeing cuts in State and Federal firefighting capability. I can't do much about State and Federal capability but I can vote yes on 4A.

And, I think impugning the integrity of our fire chief is unwarranted.

FNP I was not a volunteer as by weight I wasn't eligible, I weighed too little. However I did my EMT training with Elk Creek and have known many of the firefighters and chiefs as they came through long before you showed up in 1979. Back in the olden days there was more fiscal responsibility. Something that seems to be lacking in the last decade.

And obviously you are an information officer or someone well versed in giving your spill. Did you provide input to your board or do you just spout the standard line. Give us everything, a blank check, and we will do whatever we want. That is exactly what your Tabor Question spells out.

Really all you want to do, Mr. PR man is talk about the pension. How come you haven't addressed any of what I wrote about the Tabor question.

You prey on people by reciting the fires that have occurred and yes more will occur but guess what other rural mountainous districts manage w/o all the glitz. You damage your community and the people in it who are barely making ends meet now by asking them to give more. Go to Vail or Aspen and peddle your spill where the money is.

WindPeak wrote: FNP I was not a volunteer as by weight I wasn't eligible, I weighed too little.

You still are too small, and you always will be.

WindPeak wrote: You prey on people by reciting the fires that have occurred and yes more will occur but guess what other rural mountainous districts manage w/o all the glitz. You damage your community and the people in it who are barely making ends meet now by asking them to give more. Go to Vail or Aspen and peddle your spill where the money is.

You puke propaganda and have gotten answers from other posters but continue your tirade. Your "glitz" is in the so called pensions. People aren't talking about Aspen or Vail, they're talking about THIS district. Those other places are funded and people like you keep ours FROM being funded. Oh, and the comment that you won't ever call the FD or utilize their services? Yea, that's a bald faced lie. Like a person with their hair on fire refusing a bucket of water. You also knew all kinds of different firefighters and chiefs long before 1979? As far as I'm concerned I'm done even TRYING to give any of your previous argument any credit or believe a word you say, and I'm pretty strict on what tax increases I vote for, and one of them ISN'T the Public Schools. The community I know and the people I trust don't involve pathological liars and people that b*tch about penny's for pensions and phantom financial delinquency.