Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is sad. I hoped it would pass but in the end this amendment fell due to the way it was worded. I feel if it could have been reworked more people would have voted for it.

Thank you Mr. Wright for all your work on this, and my best wishes for quick change in the way things are.

Posted by quartermoonranch (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This loss is very disappointing. Whether the verbage was too complicated for voters, or people were tired of reading and selecting after a long ballot, or citizens don't care about the problems rural fire departments face, it leaves us with a hard road ahead.
Perhaps it is time for a special election where there is no confusion.
Thanks to Dan for all his hard work getting this amendment on the ballot and explaining it all.

Posted by eagle1 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's over. It's all over, and I am so glad. Instead of crying over spilled milk, we just need to get on with it. This whole election has been looming over the country for too long and I believe, no matter who won, once this is past and we get on with our lives that the economy will finally get back on track.

Posted by bhicks (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe it failed to pass because of the wording. My wife was about to put no when I told her what it actually meant. Ah well.. maybe next time they will be able to word it differently.

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did we not pass an amendment several years back to increase our taxes (by around $60 a year) for more fire coverage? I know our commissioner assured us the money would be used to build a substation near the 73/54 intersection. Of course the substation never got built and that money has long since been enveloped into a system that is in yet another financial crisis. When said commissioner (we'll call him HH) came around this time to push this new amendment and we asked about the substation he had no idea what we were talking about.

Posted by steve42 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Many of you may recall when members of a department in Shelby County went to the station and turned in their gear in protest of Fire Dues not being adopted. That was all it took to get the community to wake up and realize there is a value to a fire department, any fire department, and there are ramifications of not funding it.

There are dozens of dedicated volunteers throughout Chilton County who have supplemented their department-issued equipment with better gear out of their own pockets for years. These men and women get no pay and few thanks for their sacrifice. If the response on a fire or rescue call is light because too many of them were at work or away from home when the call went out, then the blame game starts.

The county's voters didn't vote against a tax, because there was no tax on the ballot. They voted against an allocation. Was the wording poor? Possibly. But the fact is the majority of the people don't bother to get information for themselves.

The election turned out the way the majority of the people wanted it to. Now they can get what they want. Fortunately for me and my family, I am served by a 2-station department.

Now it's up to all the single station departments to find a way to get more funding. If that fails, then the voters can figure out how to afford homeowners insurance with an ISO FSRS rating of 10.

Posted by danwright (Dan Wright) on November 5, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve,

You make excellent points. One thing I would like to add is even though you are served by a department with two stations both of those stations lose money each time a new sub-station is funded. You may be aware of that, just wanted to make sure everyone else was as well.

Lack of community involvement and concern of the issues facing rural volunteer fire departments is the reason we are where we are at. In a time of increased costs for all equipment we use, a Nationwide lack of volunteerism, an increased call volume, and a lack of funding we are facing a difficult time over the next couple of years. This has to do with our money distribution more than any other factor. For some reason no matter how many times I express that the State Constitution required the wording on the ballot it is not enough.

REK1138, I hope your comments are based upon knowledge from being involved in your community's fire department. If not see the paragraph above.

I will express one more time. The wording of the amendment is not the issue in all this, it is the wording on the ballot. As stated above, the wording on the ballot was out of our control.

The fire department's will attempt to come up with a solution to this problem and serve our communities to the best of our ability.

Posted by Williamsd (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My husband voted "NO", also because he believed it would be additional property tax. Now what we need to do is to donate more to our fire department. Most of us know our volunteer firefighters, live close to 'em, go to church with 'em. Let's give one of 'em a check.

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's not cloud the issue. This is not about the dedication or appreciation of our volunteer firemen, this is about the allocation of county funds. And BTW, many of us do live in areas that are very low rated and are forced to pay more for homeowners insurance. As I understood the amendment (as it was printed), money would be taken away from rural substations and given to primary stations. I have yet to have anyone tell me how this helps those of who live nowhere near a primary station and would greatly benefit from the creation and maintenance of a substation.

Posted by eagle1 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're beating a dead horse here. Williamsd is right, there are ways to help supplement the loss of the fire tax. Donating to your local fire department is one of them. Think out of the box.

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Or, the county could give up control and let out of county stations serve those of us who don't live near a primary station in the county, like Montevallo and Calera both which have excellent and high rated departments.

Posted by Weasel (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

REK, You could allways just move!! You can put substations up all over the county but they require people to operate them, not just money. If you are concerned about a station at 73/54, I'm sure I can safely assume you are covered by the North Chilton FD, Station 18. A good group of guys and girls who are , if my figures are right, the busy Rural FD in this county. The work hard to provide and maintain the insurance rating they have now, as do all the others. If you want to complain aboutthe higher insurance cost, call your agent and ask him what your coverage will be if you are a rating of 10? You want to talk about high premiums!! Oh and when was the last time anyone went to their local FD to find out how things work or see if there was anything you could do to help out?

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Brilliant comments there Weasel. Again, you want to cloud this issue by playing the if your not for this amendment you're against firemen card, go ahead. It doesn't change the fire rating for anyone in my area of the county nor does it cut down on inadequate response times. Again, not the fault of the primary station, the fault of the county for not funding and supporting adequate substations. I'll check, but I'm almost certain we PASSED a tax increase several years ago to fund substations in our county. We even went so far as to secure a land donation and no fewer than five trained volunteer firemen to help man the substation, all of whom live within a mile of where it was supposed to be built. So before you accuse those of us who voted NO of having something against firemen, know that we enthusiastically voted for a tax increase and that we did do our part. It was the county that let us down. Now we're being asked to take the tax money we OK'd for better coverage and give it back to existing primary stations.

And by the way, we live in this county (and we're not moving), and more importantly we VOTE in this county, and there you go.

Posted by KikiSquigglebottom (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I voted yes so I'm sorry to see this didn't pass. I live close to a Volunteer Fire Department so I will just donate directly to them.

Posted by willthirtytwo (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rek, I hope one day you aren't watching your house burn in the county in which you live because of your ignorance about this allocation.

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First class thing to say there buddy. If I'm ignorant, enlighten me, or is that above your pay grade?

Posted by blakeabell (Blake Bell) on November 5, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK HERE'S THE DEAL! I AM A VOLUNTEER FIREMAN IN THE COUNTY. I ALSO LOST TWO HOMES LAST YEAR DUE TO FIRE, AND I VOTED NO. MANY OF YOU MAY ASK WHY? AND IT IS THIS SIMPLE. EVERYTIME YOU HAVE A HOUSE FIRE OR ACCIDENT IT IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS CHOICE TO FILE THIS INCIDENT ON INSURANCE AND RECEIVE AN ADEQUATE CLAIM. WHEN OUR TWO HOMES BURNT DOWN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FILED A CLAIM AND GOT APPROXIMATELY $10,000 TOTAL IN REIMBURSEMENTS. NOW I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT IF WE HAVE TO PAY HOMEOWNERS AND AUTO INSURANCE ANYWAY, WHY NOT LET THEM DONATE TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS FOR US? I WAS ALL FOR EXTRA TAXES TO DONATE TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS UNTIL I REALIZED HOW THE INSURANCE WORKED. WE CAN GET ON HERE ALL DAY AND BASH THE COUNTY FOR VOTING THIS DOWN, BUT THE TRUTH IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS HOLD THEIR FINANCES IN THEIR OWN HANDS AND ALL IT TAKES IS A LITTLE EXTRA PAPERWORK AND TIME.

Posted by willthirtytwo (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry the comment when read did not come out how i meant it.

Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ooops! I apologize for the quick reaction - I thought you posted "I hope one day you're watching your house burn..." I misread your response. Hence my acidic response - and yet the question remains - explain this amendment to me if, indeed, I am not reading it correctly - a reallocation of funds intended to build and support more substations back to the primary stations.

Posted by eagle1 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PEOPLE, it's a done deal! Argue about something more productive.

Posted by AELLISON (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THE NEW AMMANDMENT WAS MEANT TO GIVE A FULL SHARE OF THE 4 MIL PROPERTY TAX TO THE ORIGINAL 11 RURAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS. NO SUBSTATION CAN BE OPENED AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISION UNLESS DONE SO THROUGH ONE OF THESE DEPARTMENTS. THE SUBSTATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT TO MERELY SUPPLEMENT THE EXISTING DEPARTMENT. THE SUBSTATION SHOULD NOT TAKE AS MUCH MONEY TO OPERATE. THE SUBSTATION WHEN OPENED TAKES ON THE CURRENT ISO OF THE EXISTING DEPARTMENT IF THEY RETEST THROUGH ISO AS COLLINS CHAPEL FIRE DEPT DID WHEN THEY BUILT THEIR 2ND STATION. TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT WITH ALL THE NEW SUBSTATION BEING THROWN UP IN THE COUNTY, EVERY TIME ONE DOES IT TAKES FUNDING AWAY FROM ORIGINAL DEPARTMENTS. EVENTUALLY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FUNDING TO SUSTAIN ALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS. UNION GROVE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN A SUBSTATION IN THEIR AREA BUT WITHOUT COMMUNITY SUPPORT IT JUST IS NOT POSSIBLE. SO IN RETURN THEY ONLY GET ONE CHECK TO OPERATE AND PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES TO THEIR COMMUNITY THAT IS ONE OF IF NOT THE LARGEST COVERAGE AREA IN THE COUNTY WHILE OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE GETTING 2 FULL CHECKS TO COVER A SMALLER AREA JUST BECAUSE THEY WENT DOWN THE ROAD, THREW UP A BUTTLER BUILDING AND CALLED IT A SUBSTATION TO GET A 2ND CHECK. SO IF YOU LIVE IN AN AREA WITH NO SUBSTATION YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FUNDED BUT WITH HALF THE MONEY THE AREAS WHO HAVE A SECOND STATION DO.

Posted by Weasel (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eagle this is not a done deal, we still have a funding issue that has to be worked out one way or another. If you dont like it dont click on the thread.

REK, in 2002 you passed a tax increase to increase the funding of all fire stations. At that time FD's were operating on roughly $20k per year and it was decided that if that was doubled then things would get better and that if there were areas that needed substations, which I'll get to the definition of in a minute, this would make it easier for the parent FD to maintian that substation. The original amendment that was drawn up by the FD's was to raise the tax to 4 mills and to provide an additional percentage to departments operating substations. The county commissioners at that time decided they new what was best, not the firefighters, and decided they would be able to decide what constituted a substation and how much money that substation would recieve. Excuse me I've got to get my children and then I'll be back to finish.

Matt Griffin
Chief
East Chilton Fire Department

Posted by eagle1 (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Weasle, I didn't state that I didn't like it, I stated that arguing about it is not a productive solution, then earlier I stated that a way to supplement the loss of the tax would be donating to your local station and there are other alternatives that would require "thinking out of the box".

Posted by Weasel (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eagle, I agree arguing doesnt solve the problem, but educating the community is what I believe we are trying to get accomplished here so that next time people will have a better understanding of what is needed.

Aellison pretty much summed up the rest of what I was going to say. Also the money that is collected for substations can only be used for that substation and can not be shared between the primary station and substation which makes capital improvement projects of larger expense increasingly difficult (i.e fire truck purchase, facility upgrades). Again the purpose here is to try and get everyone educated on the operations of a FD.

Posted by THORSBYishome (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, I've got a question for anyone who knows. Since this did NOT pass. How do we go about setting guidelines for those substations? We currently have 4 substations and 1 trying if I remember according to Dan. ARE ALL of those in needed coverage areas WELL away from the original stations? IF not then why? IF they are throwing up substations down the road from the original station then they are ONLY contributing to the problem. I would think we have to STOP the bleed here. Set up guidelines that a substation is put up WHERE it can best serve the community at hand NOT to get an extra check.

Posted by THORSBYishome (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another thing, if there are areas that are busy as mentioned above that need a substation, those are the ones that need the substations.

We really need to look at the future substations that come up as well as the ones that already exist. Where are the 5 substations right now open located? How far from their primary station?

I can see where this can be a problem, and I do KNOW the wording confused people. I had to ask questions here, I asked Dan a million of them, I also tried explaining those answers to my elderly mother and she completely did not understand once she seen the ballot. So the wording on the ballot was wrong. Is there a way to set up stipulations on who gets this second check? I could throw up a building in my neighborhood and get a check but if the need isn't there I am only taking funding away from the stations that do it correctly and need the funding. It just isn't right. Okay I think I'm done asking questions but in order to make good judgements we need more information on what we have now and what's coming up.

I will as always donate to my fire department to help because we don't pay fire dues as some cities require, I think it's the least that we can do.

Posted by heathermc (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a suggestion, go donate to your local fire department if you feel they need more money. If you think they need better servicemen go join them. If you don't like these ideas you really don't care as much as you think you do. This didn't pass, maybe next time it will. Until then, remember what our Mom's said, arguing never solved anything. Wording on these ballots are ALWAYS very confusing for the majority of the population, so please read up on our proposed local amendments before you vote so there is no confusion.

Posted by THORSBYishome (anonymous) on November 5, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good suggestion heathermc. However, unfortunately most of the general public will not read up on these amendments and it's up to those that know about them to help educate those people. That's if they want them to pass.

I think Dan did an outstanding job doing that here. As for now, since it didn't pass, my suggestion is that maybe set some guidelines (the county that is) for these substations to obide by. It may not be possible but I certainly think it's worth looking into. A second station should not be a problem if the community has grown so much that the NEED for a second station is there. More people means more tax dollars and more donations right?

Posted by danwright (Dan Wright) on November 5, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thorsbyishome:

Right now there is nothing that can be done to stop "Joe Public" or anyone from building a fire station and receiving funding. The requirements that are in place by the current amendment are all that the County Commission can require and it can only be changed by a vote of the citizens. While it is not likely there could be fire stations every mile and each receive $5.00. As of today there is absolutely nothing in place to stop this from happening.

Posted by quartermoonranch (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding REK's comments about North Chilton's possible station at CR 54 and 73: The "donated land" fell through and actually was outside the mileage limits from the parent station. I recall people at that meeting wanting a station there, but stating they would man the station and not respond to the rest of the coverage area when asked. None of those people wanted to help our station, yet they wanted us to fund and staff theirs. That is NOT how we operate. We have mutual aid and we all help each other. We work together, not independently.

North Chilton, and other stations, have been upgrading equipment so that when the next ISO inspection happens, residents will have lower insurance premiums. We train on a regular basis to be ready. Our members are continuing EMS education to be better able to help the community.
Your tax dollars are put to good use. We put in our own money for a lot of things, so that we can be better prepared to serve you. We already donate our time, and our energy at the expense of time with family and other things we would be doing. When the pager goes off, we drop what we're doing and go, or get out of a bed that was barely warm to respond.
Our station needs repairs and renovation, but with the money crunch, those projects have to wait. The way the money is allocated to each department has put a big strain on an already tight budget. It just seems to me, that people who have no connection to the FD voted against the best solution to our countywide funding problems.
Informational flyers were available, and at our station, members passed them out and answered questions. Other stations went door to door to ask for support. The results were so disheartening.
We'll continue doing our best to raise funds and make ends meet. I would ask the community to support us the best they can out of their own pockets and have a kind word for us now and then.

Posted by steve42 (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dan and Matt,

Here's where my memory is a little foggy. Aren't there some guidelines about how close to the original station a substation can be?

As for the rest of us, the accusations some in this forum are making that stations are just building substations to get more funding and not caring where the best place would be are unfounded.

Enterprise VFD, for one, knew several years earlier where their station #2 should be built, and much like Mayor Driver in Clanton, they held out until they were finally able to convince someone to sell the property to build right where it needed to be. A little further away from Station 1 wouldn't help fire ratings, and any closer wouldn't expand the coverage the way it was needed.

If you know the people who serve as volunteers, you would know that MOST (not all) are serving because somebody has to: because the communtiy needs it. Yes, there are few with poor motivations (liking the attention, feeling some percieved power, wanting to drive big vehicles really fast), but those aren't the rule, and the dedicated leadership will eventually weed them out. The real leaders aren't building substations for more money; they're building substations to better serve.

The editor of another so-called area newspaper made a statement several years ago about tax-and-spend fire departments. That edition was the last time I placed my hands on that particular paper.

If you want to know how a department operates, visit a couple of meetings, or better yet, offer your assistance. The median age of firefighters in this county is probably 50 years old. Those of you who are young enough to be computer savvy (thus surfing this web site) could inject some much needed young blood into the process. I would suggest however, that you remove the chip from your shoulders before you walk in. There are people inside those meetings who hurt for the community they serve, and they don't need any more critics.

Posted by AELLISON (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I FULLY AGREE. UNION GROVE MOST RECENTLY HELD A COMM MEETING TO TRY TO PUT A SUBSTATION CLOSE TO 145 TO BENEFIT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SERVED BY THE RIVER. SEVERAL PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ABOUT 3 PEOPLE, NOONE ELSE HAS SHOWED BACK UP. A SUBSTATION IS NO GOOD TO PEOPLE IF THE SAME PEOPLE FROM TH PRIMARY STATION HAS TO GO TO THE SUBSTATION TO CATCH ALL THE CALLS. IT DOES NOT INCREASE RESPONSE TIME OR ANYTHING. SO THEREFORE SO WHAT IF THOSE PEOPLES HOME OWNERS INSURANCE DROPS IF THEY DIE FROM A HEART ATTACK BECAUSE THEY ARE WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO COME FROM THE PRIMARY STATION INSTEAD OF THE SUBSTATION NEXT DOOR THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING THEM. THE ONLY WAY TO PROPERLY PUT UP A SUBSTATION IS TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ENOUGH COMMUNITY SUPPORT TO RUN THAT STATION, IF NOT THERE IS NO REASON TO PUT UP A BUILDING, PUT A TRUCK IN IT AND PEOPLE HAVE TO COME FROM MILES AWAY TO GET THAT TRUCK.THE DEPARTMENTS NEED NEW VOLUNTEERS. IF YOU HAVE A STATION THAT ONLY HAVE 10 ACTIVE VOLUNTEERS, THEN THERE SHOULD NOT BE A SUBSTATION. I WILL PREDICT THAT IN A COUPLE YEARS THOUGH, THAT ALL DEPARTMENTS WILL HAVE SUBSTATION WETHER THEY NEED THEM OR NOT BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE ONLY WAY TO GET EQUAL FUNDING AMONG DEPARTMENTS. I HAVE PERSONLY BEEN AROUND FIRE DEPT MY WHOLE LIFE. MY GRANDFATHER HELPED BUILD COLLINS CHAPEL FIRE DEPT. THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN UPS AND DOWNS AND YOU JUST HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THEM. I DON'T FEEL LIKE SUBSTATIONS ARE BEING THROWN UP JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT. I FEEL LIKE THEY SEE IT AS THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP FROM FOLDING UNDER. AND THE ONLY WAY TO RECEIVE EQUAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING SINCE THE PUBLIC VOTED DOWN THE SOLUTION.

Posted by danwright (Dan Wright) on November 6, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First: There is not currently a County level guideline or rule that says "a substation must be at least XYZ away from another station". This is why I say that anyone who wants to start a fire department can do so and they can be built like a subdivision if someone wants to do it. The County Commission has no option but to fund a fire department that meets the current requirements. ISO sets forth recommendations about where to place stations but there is no County level guidance.

Second: There is a lot of talk about Departments building unwarranted substations. In my professional opinion it has not happened yet, but it soon will. If one believes that a substation has been built unwarranted I urge you to contact the administration of said department and allow them to explain their reasoning for placing the station where they did.

On the volunteerism issue: EVERY department in this County is hurting for volunteers. There is a place for EVERY citizen in a volunteer fire department. There are fundraisers, community events, station maintenance, paperwork, financial records, etc. Anyone who wants to come and donate a little of their time can be given a task to complete at a volunteer fire department. You don't have to be a firefighter to belong to your community fire department. If you want to be involved in the emergency operations of the department you receive training and equipment. I encourage everyone to ask yourself if you could be doing more to help your fellow citizen.

Posted by AELLISON (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

COULD YOU TELL ME WHY EAST CHILTON'S NEW STATION IS ONLY A MILE DOWN THE ROAD. IN MY OPNION THAT DID NOTHING FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA OUTSIDE 5 MILES FROM THE ORIGINAL DEPT AND IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T LOWER THEIR ISO. THAT ONLY PROVIDES DOUBLE COVERAGE FOR THE PEOPLE COVERED BY THE FIRST STATION.

Posted by danwright (Dan Wright) on November 6, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AELLISON:

East Chilton's second station was placed in its location because of several factors.

First: When the decison was made in 2003 by East Chilton to build a second station a survey was conducted to determine how many structures were in our response area but were outside of 5 miles from Station 1. This survey concluded that the highest concentration of "unprotected" structures were on Lake Mitchell. Once this determination was made we began looking for property to build the station. The ideal location for the station would have been at the intersection of County Road 472 and County Road 476. There were several concerns with this location. The main concern was security. Because of this isolated location we were concerned with break-ins. Also there was the problem of having a station in a location that would not reduce response times because it was so remote.

Second: With the anticipated growth of the entire Lake Mitchell area we anticipated the need for a station on County Road 28 closer to Higgins Ferry Park. We then expanded our property search. Upon this expanded search we were able to obtain donated property for Station 2 at its current location. The donated property was a major contributing factor in its location. By doing this East Chilton was able to build Station 2 and place apparatus into it with no incurred debt. This allowed us to provide increased coverage to multiple parts of our response area and still move forward with other capital improvements.

This location has allowed homeowners the ability to obtain a lower ISO rating because they were brought to within 5 miles of a fire station. As more and more homes are built on Lake Mitchell each one will be able to enjoy a lower ISO rating since this station has been built

It is not often that the perfect location for a fire station and all elements with it being placed there will come together. When this occurs all current and future concerns and needs must be addressed and the best decision made.

Posted by AELLISON (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

THE ONLY PEOPLE BENEFITING FROM THE NEW STATION IS PEOPLE ON THE OPPISITE SIDE OF THE SUBSTATION FROM THE OLD STATION. SO ONLY PEOPLE IN THE ONE MILE EXTENDED OUT WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS STATION. COULD YOU TELL ME IF THIS STATION HAS EVEN BEEN TESTED AND RECOGNIZED BY ISO TO HELP THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT MILE'S HOMEOWNERS. AND IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T LOWER ANY RESPONSE TIME IF THE SAME PEOPLE ARE COMING FROM STATION 1 TO RUN STATION 2. I DO BELEIVE IT WAS AGREDD UPON IN A ASSOCIATION MEETING THAT NO OTHER DEPT WOULD OPEN A SUBSTATION UNTIL THE ISSUE WITH THE AMMENDMENT WAS TAKEN CARE OF. AND AS THE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT DO YOU NOT RECALL THAT PATICULAR MEETING? SOUNDS A LITTLE FISHY THAT THEY WERE GRANTED FUNDING RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

Posted by AELLISON (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

POINT BEING.......THAT HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE READDRESSED IN 2 YEARS AND THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY ARE BETTER INFORMED IN THE REASON BEHIND REDISTRIBUTING THE FUNDS...THE ASSOCIATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET TOGETHER AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW SOME OF THE SUBSTATIONS ARE GOING BEHIND THE REST OF THE DEPARTMENTS BACKS AND CAMPAIGNING AGAINST IT AND THAT WOULD BE THE REASON IT DIDN'T PASS AND I'M AFRAID THEY WILL REGRET THEIR DECISION ONE DAY BECAUSE THEY WILL NO LONGER BE THE ONLY SUBSTATIONS OPERATING AND THEY WILL BARELY BE ABLE TO PAY UTILITIES MUCH LESS BUY NEW EQUIPMENT

Posted by danwright (Dan Wright) on November 6, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AELLISON:

One of the requirements to receive funding is to be recognized as an ISO approved station, so yes this has been done.

East Chilton was approved for funding on December 10, 2007. To view that you can go here:

http://www.chiltoncounty.org/web/121007....

I am not aware of any such agreement by the members of the Association. It is likely that it was mentioned but there was never an agreement signed.

I do not mind discussing this issue with you. I will be happy to provide any documentation you wish to see or to anyone for that matter. However, I would prefer that before you make unfounded accusations on this site that you contact me directly and clear up any confusion before posting such information here. We are each entitled to our opinions and can post them here all day long. Posting statements that are not factually correct only adds to the confusion shared by so many citizens and does not move our service forward.

You can contact me at danhwright@bellsouth.net

Posted by AELLISON (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I AM NOT QUITE SURE WHAT YOU THINK I AM ACCUSING ANYONE OF DOING. I AM STATING VERY FACTUAL STATEMENTS. ENTERPRISE VOLUNTEER FIRE AND RESCUE STATED VERY PUBLICLY THAT THEY ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF REDISTRIBUTING. ALSO ONE OTHER DEPT THAT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO NAME BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT ISSUES. I SIMPLY ASKED IF EAST CHILTON HAD BEEN RETESTED. THERE IS NOTHING THAT COULD BE SAID IN PRIVATE THAT COULD NOT BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC VIEW SIMPLY BEACAUSE EVRYTHING FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC VIEW. I HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN A MEMBER OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT FOR 10 YEARS. I CERTAINLY DIDN'T ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING( I SAID SOME OF THE DEPTS.) AND YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUE AS WELL AS I DO. I DON'T MAKE UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS. I WAS SIMPLY ASKING QUESTIONS THAT I WANTED TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO. WAS IT NOT YOU WHO SAID IF YOU WANTED TO KNOW SOMETHING CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FIRE DEPT. AND YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT IF EVRY STATION IN THIS COUNTY OPENS A SUBSTATION THAT THE FUNDING WILL DEPLETE WHERE THE ONLY WAY THE DEPT WILL BE ABLE TO BUY EQUI[PMENT WILL BE BY GRANTS AND THEN YOU STILL HAVE TO MATCH GOVERNMENT GRANTS BY A CERTAIN PERCENT. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE SOME DEPTS IN THE COUNTY WHO ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH EVERYONE AND THAT IS WHY THE AMENDMENT DIDN'T PASS. PEOPLE WERE NOT CONFUSED BY WHAT THE BALLOT SAID. THEY WERE CONFUSED BY THE CONTRADICTING VIEWS THAT WERE BEING PUT OUT THERE.

Posted by AELLISON (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I WISHED IT WERE AS SIMPLE AS SAYING...O.K. IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TAX MONEY REACH OUT TO YOUR COMMUNITY...BUT A GOOD PORTION OF THEM WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY ALREADY PAY A TAX AND THE REST WITH THE STRUGGLING ECONOMY SIMPLY DON'T HAVE IT TO GIVE.

Posted by NoSugar (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sadly I have been told numerous times over the years that some people always vote no on any amendment because they always think it will be a new tax in some way and cost them money. I have personally heard older (55 and up)people say they do this and they dont even bother to read the amendment. So I believe this too contributed to the amendment failing to pass. I also know members of some of the substations campaigned hard against it, that is just simply wrong after each chief signed the agreement to support it.

Posted by quartermoonranch (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll add one more comment. Most, if not all stations in the county are hurting for volunteers that either have some experience or are willing to work hard and learn. We can use volunteers with a variety of skills. As it was pointed out, there is plenty of work to be done.
Recruiting volunteers who will stay, learn and grow are hard to come by. The work can be hard, dirty and heartbreaking. Community support can be slim to none. Those citizens who care, please don't hestitate to show it.

Posted by Weasel (anonymous) on November 6, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A couple of days late but www.eastchiltonfire.com is back in operation.

Posted by jasong (anonymous) on November 9, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

to rek 1138 I just read your comments regarding the fire tax and your comments concerning North Chilton Fire/Rescue, I have been an officer with the department for several years and some of your posted information on substations is incorrect, call me and lets have an informative discussion on this issue for clarification 205-365-4883