285 corridor fire district consolidation moves forward

Elk Creek Fire approves consolidation resolution

BY DEB HURLEY BROBST DBROBST@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

Plans to ask voters in three re districts on the U.S. 285 corridor whether to consolidate moved forward when the Elk Creek Fire board voted to approve a consolidation resolution.

If North Fork and Inter-Canyon re districts also approve the resolution by June 22 — and both are expected to — that sets in motion requirements to put two issues on the November ballot: whether the three districts should consolidate and whether voters approve property tax increases up to 16 mills to pay for the consolidated district. Voters in all three districts must approve both ballot measures before the consolidation can take place.

e Elk Creek Fire board voted 4-1 on May 11 to approve both the consolidation resolution and a preconsolidation intergovernmental agreement with North Fork and Inter-Canyon.

Board member Chuck Newby had the dissenting vote. He provided written statements to the board about why he was against the two measures, saying he believes consol- idation likely would degrade services to Elk Creek residents, and since no consolidation planning process had been performed, a vote on the resolutions was premature.

Board member Sharon Woods reminded residents attending the meeting that approving the consolidation agreement did not mean the re board approved consolidation. e vote allowed the district to move forward with the process.

A survey of residents in all three re districts performed by Magellan Strategies, the rm hired by the districts to perform the survey, found between 69% and 80% of respondents favored the three re departments consolidating, and when the survey provided additional information on what consolidation would mean, those percentages increased slightly. is is the second time the Elk Creek Fire board voted on the preconsolidation intergovernmental agreement. At the April meeting, Newby objected to a vote because the agreement was added to the agenda only a few hours before the meeting, not giving him and the public time to read the agreement and ask questions.

Board President Greg Pixley apologized for the late addition to the April agenda, saying he forgot to have it added ahead of time. He explained there was no malicious intent, and he was not trying to shove the agreement past everyone.

If voters approve consolidation, the new re department would be called the Conifer Fire Protection District.

Pre-consolidation agreement e pre-consolidation intergovernmental agreement delineates what information each district would supply to the other two such as property and equipment inventories, employee rosters, contracts with suppliers, nancial audits, pending litigation and more.

It also sets up how a new governing board would be created if voters approve consolidation. Initially, the consolidated district would be governed by members of all of the current boards and as elections come up, the new governing board would move to ve at-large members by May 2027.

John Chmil, Elk Creek’s attorney, said the goal of the document was to get all districts on the same page.

“Overall this is what I call a planning document,” Chmil said. “It’s intended to establish a clear set of expectations and timeline from start to nish. Once all agree to the IGA, then all three districts are marching in same direction. … Ultimately it’s aimed at setting up expectations.”

In response to questions, Chmil explained that there’s no termination date to the agreement in case the consolidation measures fail in November. e agreement could stay in e ect if the three districts wanted to try to consolidate again.

Elk Creek Fire to consider impact-fee policy

e Elk Creek Fire board wants to nd ways to ask developers for fees to o set costs the re department incurs to provide re ghting and emergency medical services.

e board plans to have a work session to discuss creating a matrix to use to determine such fees no matter whether the development is commercial, residential or on public land. is would allow the board to be proactive rather than reacting to proposed developments in the re district.

e discussion at the May 11 meeting comes after a contentious discussion in April when board member Chuck Newby wanted the re department to nd mechanisms to o set the costs of emergency medical services that Elk Creek could provide if the Shadow Mountain Bike Park proposal is approved by the Je erson County commissioners.

While that motion was defeated in April, the board asked Fire Chief Jacob Ware to look at emergency medical service costs.

Ware said on May 11 that it was time for the department to have a policy that would t all proposed development scenarios rather than reacting to individual developments as they arise. He noted that the department also reacted to other development in previous years because it didn’t have a policy in place.

Other re departments, he said, use one of three methods to assess fees: payment in lieu of taxes, service fees and impact fees.

“What we need to do is not look at individual development but at many possibilities,” Ware said. “Development will continue to come. Rather than being reactionary, we should anticipate what we need.”

Newby said he would like to hear the pluses and minuses of the three approaches, so the board could give Ware and the district’s attorney direction.

Board member Sharon Woods suggested that the district could nd a consultant who works with the di erent fee-assessment methods to get more information and recommendations.

The Elk Creek Fire board has approved a consolidation resolution that moves forward asking voters whether they want the department to consolidate with North Fork and Inter-Canyon fire departments.