Vote no on 4A

Walter L Newton wrote: from heathrow airport

And now I have my work cut out me. I will continue to write and cover elk creek in the flume and we shall see if they follow through with their promises in proving the dept

Yes please follow through and keep the govt honest. That has been lacking in local papers for so long now, I am glad this is your attitude.

please keep us informed, over 10 years ago that dept. was 100 % covered by volunters that lived in the district, no out of district members where on the dept. In the past 10 years maybe 10% of the volunters live in district, so they are spending money on training, radios, PPE, other fire gear to protect them. I would guess maybe 75% of these out of district members last 3 to 4 years and are gone to another dept. or carrier dept. They have set up requirements to be a member in good standing but they are not inforced. So they are wasting money on beeing a training dept. for personal gain by the out of district members. I feel you care more if you live in the district. The neighboring depts. dont allow out of district members. All I can say BUCKLE UP YOURE SEAT BELTS for the lay suits that might come out for slander and deflemation of character that was done during this negative campaign against former members that where named during the last 3 months. I HATE TO SAY YOU MIGHT OF WOKE UP A SLEEPING GIANT WITH SOME OF THE X AND RETIRED MEMBERS THAT i KNOW. A

please keep us informed, over 10 years ago that dept. was 100 % covered by volunters that lived in the district, no out of district members where on the dept. In the past 10 years maybe 10% of the volunters live in district, so they are spending money on training, radios, PPE, other fire gear to protect them. I would guess maybe 75% of these out of district members last 3 to 4 years and are gone to another dept. or carrier dept. They have set up requirements to be a member in good standing but they are not inforced. So they are wasting money on beeing a training dept. for personal gain by the out of district members. I feel you care more if you live in the district. The neighboring depts. dont allow out of district members. All I can say BUCKLE UP YOURE SEAT BELTS for the lay suits that might come out for slander and deflemation of character that was done during this negative campaign against former members that where named during the last 3 months. I HATE TO SAY YOU MIGHT OF WOKE UP A SLEEPING GIANT WITH SOME OF THE X AND RETIRED MEMBERS THAT i KNOW. A

OhSuzanna wrote: please keep us informed, over 10 years ago that dept. was 100 % covered by volunters that lived in the district, no out of district members where on the dept. In the past 10 years maybe 10% of the volunters live in district, so they are spending money on training, radios, PPE, other fire gear to protect them. I would guess maybe 75% of these out of district members last 3 to 4 years and are gone to another dept. or carrier dept. They have set up requirements to be a member in good standing but they are not inforced. So they are wasting money on beeing a training dept. for personal gain by the out of district members. I feel you care more if you live in the district. The neighboring depts. dont allow out of district members. All I can say BUCKLE UP YOURE SEAT BELTS for the lay suits that might come out for slander and deflemation of character that was done during this negative campaign against former members that where named during the last 3 months. I HATE TO SAY YOU MIGHT OF WOKE UP A SLEEPING GIANT WITH SOME OF THE X AND RETIRED MEMBERS THAT i KNOW. A

Ouch. That was painful to read.

Ouch you are painful to read Engineer2207. Do not underestimate the large number of voters who voted NO. There are a lot of unhappy people and the disgraceful performance by FOECFD is not forgotten. It is not tyranny by the majority.

Engineer2207 wrote:

OhSuzanna wrote: please keep us informed, over 10 years ago that dept. was 100 % covered by volunters that lived in the district, no out of district members where on the dept. In the past 10 years maybe 10% of the volunters live in district, so they are spending money on training, radios, PPE, other fire gear to protect them. I would guess maybe 75% of these out of district members last 3 to 4 years and are gone to another dept. or carrier dept. They have set up requirements to be a member in good standing but they are not inforced. So they are wasting money on beeing a training dept. for personal gain by the out of district members. I feel you care more if you live in the district. The neighboring depts. dont allow out of district members. All I can say BUCKLE UP YOURE SEAT BELTS for the lay suits that might come out for slander and deflemation of character that was done during this negative campaign against former members that where named during the last 3 months. I HATE TO SAY YOU MIGHT OF WOKE UP A SLEEPING GIANT WITH SOME OF THE X AND RETIRED MEMBERS THAT i KNOW. A

Ouch. That was painful to read.

WindPeak wrote: Ouch you are painful to read Engineer2207. Do not underestimate the large number of voters who voted NO. There are a lot of unhappy people and the disgraceful performance by FOECFD is not forgotten. It is not tyranny by the majority.

Engineer2207 wrote:

OhSuzanna wrote: please keep us informed, over 10 years ago that dept. was 100 % covered by volunters that lived in the district, no out of district members where on the dept. In the past 10 years maybe 10% of the volunters live in district, so they are spending money on training, radios, PPE, other fire gear to protect them. I would guess maybe 75% of these out of district members last 3 to 4 years and are gone to another dept. or carrier dept. They have set up requirements to be a member in good standing but they are not inforced. So they are wasting money on beeing a training dept. for personal gain by the out of district members. I feel you care more if you live in the district. The neighboring depts. dont allow out of district members. All I can say BUCKLE UP YOURE SEAT BELTS for the lay suits that might come out for slander and deflemation of character that was done during this negative campaign against former members that where named during the last 3 months. I HATE TO SAY YOU MIGHT OF WOKE UP A SLEEPING GIANT WITH SOME OF THE X AND RETIRED MEMBERS THAT i KNOW. A

Ouch. That was painful to read.

Settle down bitter loser, and reread the post. Unless you failed Elementary English (no bets on my part as to if you did, or not), you will notice a slew of grammatical errors. I wasn't making any reference to you or any other "poor loser" that is still whining because of the vote. Apparently, there were enough people that were educated on the issue, instead of believing the baseless allegations that were presented during this election.

Educated or hoodwinked? Time will provide that answer for us, but as someone outside of the district I'm leaning towards the second option.

I guess you could say hoodwinked about either side. I posted educated, as I went down and looked at the apparatus in question, researched through the Open Records Act (and made copies), and basically did the homework, as an "educated" voter should. I also did some back ground investigation into Mr. Bartlett's and Mr. Dolan's activities within the District. Is either side perfect? Absolutely not. I also read, with some amusement, I might add, to some of the posts that couldn't be factually backed up on this board. Weighing all that is what helped me make my decision on how to vote. I didn't vote because Elk Creek seem like "nice guys," or because I used to be with the District, knows someone who knows someone who used to work for the District, or didn't get what they wanted and left disgruntled, taking up that axe to grind. And as you say, time will tell.

And I chose hoodwinked because I know that there are other options that wouldn't involve raising taxes half a million dollars a year, and significantly more than that over the course of the next decade as home values increase, that would address the situation faced by ECFD. I have never purchased a new vehicle in my life, nor do I ever plan to. The value received purchasing new never, ever, justifies the cost of doing so. I'm sure lots of people, including those who run ECFD, like to have something shiny and new in their garage, but the reality is that more value is always, without exception, realized by purchasing used.

I will also note that the department should never have found itself in a situation where they had to scare the taxpayers into voting for an increase that will at best result in a downgrading of their current ISO rating to an 8a instead of a 10, which is the best case scenario right now according to those "in the know". Shameful doesn't even begin to cover it. Delinquent in their duties and fiduciary responsibility might be a good start.

I used to live in that district. In fact, I was living right behind Station 1 for a number of years. When it came time to purchase rather than rent, I chose Park County specifically because of the tax burdens inherent in buying in and around that area of Jefferson County. Seeing what has transpired with regards to ECFD only confirms the wisdom of my decision.