Vote no on 4A

I choose to be educated. If you choose to buy used, that is your opinion. I have done both, but when you buy used, you really don't know what you are getting, so it's a crap shoot. Sometimes, you get someone else's problem. Along with looking at NFPA Standards, you have to also look at the service life of the vehicle, so it is not always a better value to purchase used. There are a lot of other factors that play into an ISO rating other than new apparatus. There are items as silly as a burst jacket (that no one uses any more). I'm also curious as to where you got your ISO "8a" rating from. I was under the impression that as of last month, Elk Creek had a rating of 5/9

Again, I see the accusations of malfeasance within the District, but those accusations are only aired here, instead of someone reporting these violations to the Colorado Attorney General's Office.

I get from your posts that you definitely don't like paying taxes. Nobody does. but how do you expect to keep your community services running? It can't be done for free.

No one is suggesting that services can be had for free Engineer, but it is the obligation of those who depend on taxpayer dollars for their support to be as frugal as possible so that the demand they place on the taxpayers is as small as possible.

There is absolutely no set of circumstances under which any public entity needs a 50%+ raise to their revenue unless the funds have been misused. It is possible, even highly probable, that the majority of the public funds are misused to some extent at various points in time without it rising to the level of a criminal act. Creating a false dilemma such as you have by asking why no one has filed action with the State Attorney General does not dismiss the very real argument that ECFD did not fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities over the course of the last 10 years.

You have called yourself an educated voter and yet you didn't know that the ISO rating is going to be falling from a 5 to at best an 8a even with the approval of the 50% tax rate increase? How can this be if you are an educated voter? I was not even eligible to vote on the issue and yet it appears that at least in this regard I was more of an informed voter than you yourself were. You voted for the increase without understanding that your insurance rates were going to go up as a result of this rating reduction with or without the 50% increase to the mill levy dedicated to ECFD? And you wish for us to believe that you made an informed and educated vote despite not knowing any of this?

A decade ago, at the last ISO review, the tankers and other equipment which the department wishes to replace with brand new equipment today was already nearly 15 years old. It was known a decade ago that they would have to be replaced before the next ISO review in 2014. A decade ago that 15 year old equipment had significantly more value than it has today and used equipment that was only 5 years old at the time, equipment which would have counted in the upcoming ISO review, was less expensive than similar equipment is today, not to mention the cost of new equipment being considerably less a decade ago than it is now. Even 5 years ago, when the equipment was 20 years old, the used and new equipment costs less than it does today. By delaying the acquisition for a decade not only has their kicking the can down the road for 10 years going to be a large reason why the rating gets downgraded, they have literally cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in addition just in the increased cost of replacing the equipment today compared to a few years ago. If that isn't a failure of both their duties and their fiduciary responsibility I don't know what else you would call it. Perhaps you'd like to suggest an alternative?

Science Chic, Thanks for the clarification. Print, I apologize. I reread your post and misunderstood it initially, as far as the current ISO rating of the District. Regardless, an ISO of 8 is still better than 10, and I don't think the voters would have been happy about replacing equipment after the last ISO evaluation, as some still think that they are all mechanically sound right now.

As far as the continued accusations of malfeasance within the District, ANY misuse of funds by Elk Creek constitutes a criminal act (CC §18-8-407,EC §24-18-103)and therefore, should be brought to attention. The Chief of the District has been in that position for less than a year, so are you going to hold him accountable for for the previous problems that the District may or may not have had?

Actually over 2/3 of the current members live in district, not really sure where you pulled the 10% from. And this issue was voted on and passed fair and square, just because some of you are bitter about the results does not mean that bad mouthing the members of the dept is called for. I will say it again, instead of sitting behind your computers arm chair quarterbacking come out and actually see how things are running. Nothing was ever fixed or improved by anonymous shit talkers making threats. Ten years ago this dept was run by a completely different group of people so to blame the current dept for what happened back then is pointless, chief McLaughlin started fixing things from the beginning of his time wih ECFD less than 2 years ago. The past is the past and cannot be changed, only learned from and improvements made, which is what is happening. You don't have to like us or agree with us but we are your fire dept and we will be there if you call, we will be professional and do a damn good job. I hope you never have to call, but if you do maybe you will actually see first hand that we are an asset to this community.

So after all that bitching about how bad this department supposedly is, is wasting money, let this financial situation get to a point that they supposedly had to use "fear tactics" that insurance rates would go up if the mill wasn't passed, and isn't transparent, I check out the latest board meeting video and lo and behold it has a whopping 4 views . And says in the description that an astounding 15 people came to the public hearing for the 2014 budget. :rofllol

You people get what you deserve if that's how involved you are. And you have no right to complain if something like what happened at Intercanyon happens at Elk Creek too. For all this talk of being against government interference and them having too much power and the people being sheeple, you won't even lift a lazy finger to attend a meeting and review the proposed budget and ask questions about how your tax dollars are being spent. [two thumbs up] Wow. [/two thumbs up]

Wicked wrote: So after all that bitching about how bad this department supposedly is, is wasting money, let this financial situation get to a point that they supposedly had to use "fear tactics" that insurance rates would go up if the mill wasn't passed, and isn't transparent, I check out the latest board meeting video and lo and behold it has a whopping 4 views . And says in the description that an astounding 15 people came to the public hearing for the 2014 budget. :rofllol

You people get what you deserve if that's how involved you are. And you have no right to complain if something like what happened at Intercanyon happens at Elk Creek too. For all this talk of being against government interference and them having too much power and the people being sheeple, you won't even lift a lazy finger to attend a meeting and review the proposed budget and ask questions about how your tax dollars are being spent. [two thumbs up] Wow. [/two thumbs up]

Bloody...well...right. However, I will say that in comparison to other fire districts, Elk Creek is in serious need of more funding. I just hope they don't go crazy and turn the place into solid Union, but we'll see. Either way, their percentage of funding is pretty low in comparison to other districts, people keep moving up here by the droves and the locals need new equipment. The shit (4A) passed, so now is the time to get involved or shut up and let them do whatever. I don't live in that district, but I'm giving these guys the benefit of the doubt in defiance of what has happened in the past. We'll see if new blood locally is any better than nationally.

Edit: It's also my understanding that if the ISO rating hits 10 then insurance can just start being flat out cut off. The equipment wasn't purchased before, it needs purchasing now before hitting that ten mark. From the guy I know that lives in Conifer and is a volunteer firefighter, that's the goal. They want to make sure people get top notch protection and at the same time make sure they pass inspections this time around with flying colors (keep good/fair ISO rating). For now though, it looks as though insurance rates will go up until the next round of inspections. It takes time to revamp stations and equipment and offer better trainings. Course, he ain't in the decision making process, but like I said, I'm hoping for the best with new management. I would go to these meetings and be involved, but I'm not gonna inform everyone else like some kind of journo that gets told he's biased, *ahem* WMN.

Science Chic wrote: PrintSmith, they asked voters to pass a mill levy both in 2007 and again in 2010, so I really don't think it's fair to say that they weren't fiscally responsible or delinquent in performing their fiduciary duties when they tried before and we're told no. This ISO review coming up has been scheduled since the last one was done 10 years ago, so it wasn't a surprise or a "tactic", but did mean that this was the final opportunity to request funds for trucks and a position that they truly need to have filled. That's not scare tactics, that's just the reality of the situation. They have spent their reserves down and cut what they could. The mill levy is not exorbitant and you can see how they've budgeted its funds. A question PS: if not with a mill levy, how would you propose that they raise the funds for what they needed?

As Engineer said, purchasing new vs used when it comes to firefighting equipment can't really be equated to private vehicles. And they have bought used vehicles when it makes sense to - like the pickup trucks. And to address a previous point that was brought up about replacing parts to keep them going - some of these vehicles are so old that you can't even get parts for them anymore, not to mention the extra time they have to pay the mechanic to maintain them because they require extra care and are out of warranty so there are no price breaks. A new vehicle takes care of those costs and must be factored in when claiming that used or maintaining old vehicles is more cost-effective. Sometimes it's just not. And because they are purchasing multiple vehicles at once, they will get a significant discount across the board on them.

I can't say that I know much about Platte Canyon's dept, but considering their high tax rate, and seeing how the numbers compare on number of paid staff and calls/year, I don't think I'd hold them up as a good comparison that they are a better value or you pay less in taxes. Not trying to knock on them, but ECFPD has the lowest cost per call so I think that means they've run their dept more efficiently than any other around here.

Engineer, yes the current rating is a 5 for those within 5 miles of the district. With the mill levy passing, and their plans to replace the equipment and Fire Marshall/Training Officer position that would not have been credited in the upcoming ISO review, they estimate that they will receive an 8. If the mill levy had not passed, they expected to receive a 10. For details on what is reviewed and how the rating is determined, see the June 2013 ECFPD Board of Directors meeting, Fire Chief report portion:
[youtube:1fnul4j4]

[/youtube:1fnul4j4]

I have a horrible time trying to be "articulate." lol

BTW, Wicked, is that YOU in that avatar? YOWZERS!

Jekyll wrote:
[snip]

I would go to these meetings and be involved, but I'm not gonna inform everyone else like some kind of journo that gets told he's a liar, *ahem* WMN.

I'm confused by this last line. What "journo" were you referring to? "WMN" who is that? If you were referring to me, when was I called a liar?