Elk Creek Fire proposed property tax increase sparks debate

From the article...

With a Nov. 5 election looming on the Elk Creek Fire Protection District’s request for a property tax increase (Ballot Question 4A) both sides of the issue have heightened their efforts to get information into the hands of district voters.

The question will ask the voters for a 2.5 mill increase. That’s $2.50 in additional tax for every $1,000 of “assessed value,” with “assessed value” being 7.96 percent of actual value for a residential property. The existing property tax mill rate for the district is 4.915 mills, so the additional 2.5 mills translates to a 50.9 percent increase in the district’s property taxes, to 7.415 mills.

...

When McLaughlin was asked if he was going to hire any new full time employees if the mill levy passes, he responded: “Our plans are to only add the one training/fire marshal position for at least the next three years.”

...

Bartlett emphasized that he feels that one of the future goals of Elk Creek is to build a paid unionized department with a collective bargaining agreement.

“The IAFF [firefighters union] is anti-volunteer and tends to drive away experienced local volunteers,” he said.

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

Read the whole article.

Pros/cons - Did the article answer any of your questions/concerns?

Good article, Walter. Didn't address the concerns that have been posted here regarding the ballot wording - maybe in a follow up article?

jf1acai wrote: Good article, Walter. Didn't address the concerns that have been posted here regarding the ballot wording - maybe in a follow up article?

Thanks,

The ballot language is what it is. It defines upfront their immediate vehicle needs. The rest of the language covers operational needs and maintenance. I don't know how they could have made that any clearer.

Of course they have wiggle room just like any budget has wiggle room "...ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services" The Chief does address some of the concerns that were brought up here.

I know a big concern was the language in the ballot. That's why I asked if the money was going to go to new paid full time employees. And you read his answer. So for the next three years you have public record as to his intent in regards to full time staffing.

If you read the article, he wants more vehicles than what was mentioned in the ballot language. That's certainly precise.

He's looking at 15 more volunteers... well there's part of your "ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services." Volunteers don't come free. There is a number of things that the department supplies and pays for.

80 percent of my article was based on questions and concerns that I read here and on Pinecam. The're in the article.

(I have no dog in this fight, I don't even own a home, nor do I pay property taxes)

Walter L Newton wrote:

jf1acai wrote: Good article, Walter. Didn't address the concerns that have been posted here regarding the ballot wording - maybe in a follow up article?

Thanks,

The ballot language is what it is. It defines upfront their immediate vehicle needs. The rest of the language covers operational needs and maintenance. I don't know how they could have made that any clearer.

Of course they have wiggle room just like any budget has wiggle room "...ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services" The Chief does address some of the concerns that were brought up here.

I know a big concern was the language in the ballot. That's why I asked if the money was going to go to new paid full time employees. And you read his answer. So for the next three years you have public record as to his intent in regards to full time staffing.

If you read the article, he wants more vehicles than what was mentioned in the ballot language. That's certainly precise.

He's looking at 15 more volunteers... well there's part of your "ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services." Volunteers don't come free. There is a number of things that the department supplies and pays for.

80 percent of my article was based on questions and concerns that I read here and on Pinecam. The're in the article.

(I have no dog in this fight, I don't even own a home, nor do I pay property taxes)

First Walter thank you for the article. It is somewhat informative and I do appreciate what you did but you missed the most important part which is all about the question.

The fact that there is a public record as to what he intends for the next 3 years means absolutely squat.

The wording on the ballot says 'the purchase of fire equipment including two fire tankers and one fire engine. It does not say that it is limited to those only. There's your first blank check. Second blank check is the wording 'and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services'. That gives them the authority to do whatever they chose under the guise of fire protection services including hiring more union people and wasting more taxpayer money.

from the 4A ballot question
Quote:
not to exceed two and one half (2.5) mills to be used for the purchase of fire equipment including two fire tankers and one fire engine, and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services;

WP, how do you think the ballot should have been worded?

WindPeak wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote:

jf1acai wrote: Good article, Walter. Didn't address the concerns that have been posted here regarding the ballot wording - maybe in a follow up article?

Thanks,

The ballot language is what it is. It defines upfront their immediate vehicle needs. The rest of the language covers operational needs and maintenance. I don't know how they could have made that any clearer.

Of course they have wiggle room just like any budget has wiggle room "...ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services" The Chief does address some of the concerns that were brought up here.

I know a big concern was the language in the ballot. That's why I asked if the money was going to go to new paid full time employees. And you read his answer. So for the next three years you have public record as to his intent in regards to full time staffing.

If you read the article, he wants more vehicles than what was mentioned in the ballot language. That's certainly precise.

He's looking at 15 more volunteers... well there's part of your "ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services." Volunteers don't come free. There is a number of things that the department supplies and pays for.

80 percent of my article was based on questions and concerns that I read here and on Pinecam. The're in the article.

(I have no dog in this fight, I don't even own a home, nor do I pay property taxes)

First Walter thank you for the article. It is somewhat informative and I do appreciate what you did but you missed the most important part which is all about the question.

The fact that there is a public record as to what he intends for the next 3 years means absolutely squat.

The wording on the ballot says 'the purchase of fire equipment including two fire tankers and one fire engine. It does not say that it is limited to those only. There's your first blank check. Second blank check is the wording 'and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services'. That gives them the authority to do whatever they chose under the guise of fire protection services including hiring more union people and wasting more taxpayer money.

from the 4A ballot question
Quote:
not to exceed two and one half (2.5) mills to be used for the purchase of fire equipment including two fire tankers and one fire engine, and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services;

I didn't write an opinion piece. The Chief qualified his positions face to face, I reported on what he said and what he promised. I have no proof or facts that he is lying.

If you do, then bring the facts to the table here, that's what a forum like this is for. Or speak to the chief himself. He is very accessible and he is in the #1 fire station much of the day. Just walk in and ask to see him.

If you read the article, then you should have realized that I interviewed the Chief, interviewed Mike Bartlett (that interview went on for 4 hours) and spent more time than most people absorbing documentation (and the documents are readily available to anyone, if I could find them, you can too) and then brought back more questions to each of the major players, using what I learned from each one of them so I could challenge them.

This was reportage. Fair and factual. It's your job to inform yourself. Like I said above these promises are now public record. These statements are now history that can be held up to these people in the future.

I got an earful of innuendos from disgruntled ex-employees and former volunteers. And I gave them multiple opportunities to have their views recorded for the record. Most of them would not go on the record.

I did my job, now it's time for the public to do their job.

WindPeak wrote:
[snip]

The wording on the ballot says 'the purchase of fire equipment including two fire tankers and one fire engine. It does not say that it is limited to those only. There's your first blank check.

Of course it's not limited to those only. The Chief believes they need more.

"McLaughlin proposed that the new fleet would include the purchase of three type 3 interface engines and two tenders."

Currently the board of directors have indicated that they think the department should stick to the original request of "two fire tankers and one fire engine."

This is a 10 year mill levy request. There is room in the ballot language for the department to decide future needs and use the money where they deem most necessary.

Do you know what you are going to need both financially and operationally 10 years from now?

From all indications I could find the department is simply thinking ahead.

WindPeak wrote: Second blank check is the wording 'and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of fire protection services'. That gives them the authority to do whatever they chose under the guise of fire protection services including hiring more union people and wasting more taxpayer money.

"According to McLaughlin, the added mill levy revenue will not be used to hire any career (union) firefighters. Union firefighters on staff have no union contracts or bargaining rights with the district, and by law union firefighters are not allowed to strike."

Guise? The language is plain. His statements are plain. They do have the room to include future needs. I don't know of ANY organization that doesn't consider future needs in their plans.

I have no idea if they will use 'operation and maintenance of fire protection services' monies wisely in the future. How do you KNOW that is not the case?

When I was compiling this article I spent countless hours trying to find out if there was any facts available to me that would back up your opinions such as yours.

Tell me why you KNOW that they are going to use the monies for hiring more union workers? Tell me how you KNOW that they are going to misuse these funds? Tell me what you KNOW?

My reporting on Elk Creek is not finished. It's an ongoing process, it's what they call my "beat." It would be my duty to report your facts.

Sorry Walter but your calling it objective is far from it. You totally neglected the meat and bones of the issue the question which is what should have been discussed.

Clearly the Chief and the Board of Directors have different thoughts in mind as to what is needed. The Chief is far from unbiased in his presentations. He represents the District. The question as worded gives them the authority to do whatever they see fit the way it is worded.

The question on the ballot would have more of the community behind them instead of making it so divisive (see other related thread - edited to add link page 25 http://mymountaintown.com/forums/the-co ... 91#p298091 ) if it was very specific as to what is requested and not leave it open for them to hire more union people or do other things than what is specifically specified in the question. They have 5 paid union people already (from an article in The Flume). Even if the Chief says they won't hire any more union but he doesn't make the decisions, the Board of Directors does, so he doesn't have a flippin idea what will be done. The entire group lacks integrity.

And your so called unbiased reporting smacks of bias. Why not discuss the issue itself since that is what the community is voting on. Keep your day job.

WindPeak wrote: Sorry Walter but your calling it objective is far from it. You totally neglected the meat and bones of the issue the question which is what should have been discussed.

Clearly the Chief and the Board of Directors have different thoughts in mind as to what is needed. The Chief is far from unbiased in his presentations. He represents the District. The question as worded gives them the authority to do whatever they see fit the way it is worded.

The question on the ballot would have more of the community behind them instead of making it so divisive (see other related thread - edited to add link page 25 http://mymountaintown.com/forums/the-co ... 91#p298091 ) if it was very specific as to what is requested and not leave it open for them to hire more union people or do other things than what is specifically specified in the question. They have 5 paid union people already (from an article in The Flume). Even if the Chief says they won't hire any more union but he doesn't make the decisions, the Board of Directors does, so he doesn't have a flippin idea what will be done. The entire group lacks integrity.

And your so called unbiased reporting smacks of bias. Why not discuss the issue itself since that is what the community is voting on. Keep your day job.

Still looking for your facts, not opinions.

I addressed most of the opinions I found on these forums.

The article was one of the longest they have ever published (over 2500 words).

The Flume is a Park County newspaper. Even though there is a small pocket of residents in Park County that fall under this tax increase request, I had to contently discuss with my editor about the length of the article. It got longer and longer as I discovered things I needed to revisit.

WindPeak wrote: Even if the Chief says they won't hire any more union but he doesn't make the decisions, the Board of Directors does, so he doesn't have a flippin idea what will be done. The entire group lacks integrity.

The Chief said he needs 3 engines and two tankers, the board recently decided to hold him to the original request (which because of the "blank check" they could have decided on more vehicles at this point). It appears that this board has integrity.

If the article sounds bias to you, then supply me with the facts as to what they are "really" going to do with the money.

I didn't write the article to get approval from either side, I reported facts. There is no way for me to belie your opinions, I didn't expect to do that in any way, for either side.

(P.S. Read the article again... they have 6 career firefighters/medical employees, not 5).

Yes you did write an opinion piece. You wrote about the opinion of the Chief who doesn't make decisions. You wrote about the opinions of Friends of Elk Creek. You wrote about Mike Bartlett's opinion but never discussed how the taxpayers get ripped by the language of the ballot question as it is written. No objectivity anywhere. The crux of the matter is the question not what the Chief has to say.

And you are right it is six union firefighters from your article.

The six union firefighters staff the No. 1 fire station