the home owner across the street from the fire house donated the land to fire dist 8. because he thought they would get to plow the road. that way he could make his wife happy. herd it from his own mouth about 2.5 years ago. so its not about fire dist 8 and the usfs. its one guy trying to get what he whats...
Firefighters vs. snowmobilers
- Thread starter summitchaser
- Start date
Lingzing, tried a pm. Not sure if it went through.
C
chief 8101
Well-known member
Thought maybe I would bore all of you with some actual facts on how this issue came about:
The station was built at its current location for a couple of reasons. In order for your insurance company to rate your property as "protected" it has to be within 5 road miles of a fire station. The area on the South side of I-90 was over 5 miles away from the other fire stations so there was no credit given to those property owners for being in the fire district.
Also, the fire district was awarded CTED funding from the State at the last minute that had to be used ASAP or lost. Without that money they couldn't have built a station at all. Land in this area usually only sells in 3 acres or larger chunks. Since it was going to be used for a fire station, Kittitas county allowed a smaller piece of land to be broken off and donated to the fire district to construct the station.
Has anyone bothered to mention that the road closure order from 1994 for FS RD 54 specifically exempts firefighers, search and rescue, law enforcement, etc in the official performance of their duties. I don't know about you, but I would interpret the official performance of duties to include accessing the fire station and responding to emergency calls from it. This was the wording in the order at the time the fire station was built. The forest service has said that what they mean is that we can only plow the road to respond to a call after it is dispatched, we can't plow the road before the call is dispatched. That makes a lot of sense!
The fire district has approached the private property owners between the station and the snopark about an easment across their land to reach the station and it was denied. This is the first year that the district was able to have the building insulated and heated with the ability to be in service year around.
A suggestion was made about switching during winter months and parking the fire equipment in the groomer shed in the snowpark. The fire district is open to that suggestion, but the district has some questions first. Is there electricity in the buildings, are they heated and insulated, what about insurance coverage, will the groomer even fit inside the fire station with the narrower doors, etc. The district has asked these questions and has yet to receive answers back.
This area is largely a recreational (weekend and 2nd home) area with very few full time residents. That is part of the problem, the volunteers at the other stations are not full time residents (except for 2 of them) where the volunteers at the station on FS RD 54 are full time residents. We have a real shortage of available manpower to respond to emergency calls during the week. The 20-30 minute delay comes from the responders that normally operate out of the station in question (station 83) now have to snowmobile to the snopark, defrost their cars, drive the 7 miles to the other station, get the aid car and then drive back to I-90.
I have had a home in Kachess since 1981, long before the snopark was at Crystal Springs or on Kachess Lake Road. While many people use these areas to recreate, we can't forget that a handful of people do live in the area full time and year around and those people, along with everyone that travels I-90, deserve the right to emergency medical and fire responses to this area.
The easement in this area is 66 feet wide, how much would it really hurt for the forest service to allow the fire district 13 feet to access the station? The groomed trail in the area in dispute is currently 44 feet wide at its narrowest point.
The district is not concerned with the private property owners accessing their homes, we are concerned with being able to access and respond from the fire station period.
Are you aware that next year the forest service is doing a winter timber sale in the lost lake area and the entire winter they are going to plow road 54 and lost lake road to pavement and gravel so the log trucks can roll. No snowmobiling Monday morning until Friday afternoon was their last plan I heard and only allowing sledding on the weekends. This will be fun riding for miles on a plowed road.
In my personal opinion I take that to mean that if you pay enough to the forest service they don't give a darn about the snowmobilers OR the fire district.
I have been an avid snowmobiler since I was 6 years old and the majority of members of the fire district are also snowmobilers. The district does not want to fight with the snowmobile community, but we do believe that there are solutions to this problem that would work for both groups.
If any of you are seriously interested in learning more about this issue or have suggestions to help come up with a resolution that would work for both sides, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Monty Moore
Fire Chief
Kittitas County Fire District 8
206-617-4521 cell
The station was built at its current location for a couple of reasons. In order for your insurance company to rate your property as "protected" it has to be within 5 road miles of a fire station. The area on the South side of I-90 was over 5 miles away from the other fire stations so there was no credit given to those property owners for being in the fire district.
Also, the fire district was awarded CTED funding from the State at the last minute that had to be used ASAP or lost. Without that money they couldn't have built a station at all. Land in this area usually only sells in 3 acres or larger chunks. Since it was going to be used for a fire station, Kittitas county allowed a smaller piece of land to be broken off and donated to the fire district to construct the station.
Has anyone bothered to mention that the road closure order from 1994 for FS RD 54 specifically exempts firefighers, search and rescue, law enforcement, etc in the official performance of their duties. I don't know about you, but I would interpret the official performance of duties to include accessing the fire station and responding to emergency calls from it. This was the wording in the order at the time the fire station was built. The forest service has said that what they mean is that we can only plow the road to respond to a call after it is dispatched, we can't plow the road before the call is dispatched. That makes a lot of sense!
The fire district has approached the private property owners between the station and the snopark about an easment across their land to reach the station and it was denied. This is the first year that the district was able to have the building insulated and heated with the ability to be in service year around.
A suggestion was made about switching during winter months and parking the fire equipment in the groomer shed in the snowpark. The fire district is open to that suggestion, but the district has some questions first. Is there electricity in the buildings, are they heated and insulated, what about insurance coverage, will the groomer even fit inside the fire station with the narrower doors, etc. The district has asked these questions and has yet to receive answers back.
This area is largely a recreational (weekend and 2nd home) area with very few full time residents. That is part of the problem, the volunteers at the other stations are not full time residents (except for 2 of them) where the volunteers at the station on FS RD 54 are full time residents. We have a real shortage of available manpower to respond to emergency calls during the week. The 20-30 minute delay comes from the responders that normally operate out of the station in question (station 83) now have to snowmobile to the snopark, defrost their cars, drive the 7 miles to the other station, get the aid car and then drive back to I-90.
I have had a home in Kachess since 1981, long before the snopark was at Crystal Springs or on Kachess Lake Road. While many people use these areas to recreate, we can't forget that a handful of people do live in the area full time and year around and those people, along with everyone that travels I-90, deserve the right to emergency medical and fire responses to this area.
The easement in this area is 66 feet wide, how much would it really hurt for the forest service to allow the fire district 13 feet to access the station? The groomed trail in the area in dispute is currently 44 feet wide at its narrowest point.
The district is not concerned with the private property owners accessing their homes, we are concerned with being able to access and respond from the fire station period.
Are you aware that next year the forest service is doing a winter timber sale in the lost lake area and the entire winter they are going to plow road 54 and lost lake road to pavement and gravel so the log trucks can roll. No snowmobiling Monday morning until Friday afternoon was their last plan I heard and only allowing sledding on the weekends. This will be fun riding for miles on a plowed road.
In my personal opinion I take that to mean that if you pay enough to the forest service they don't give a darn about the snowmobilers OR the fire district.
I have been an avid snowmobiler since I was 6 years old and the majority of members of the fire district are also snowmobilers. The district does not want to fight with the snowmobile community, but we do believe that there are solutions to this problem that would work for both groups.
If any of you are seriously interested in learning more about this issue or have suggestions to help come up with a resolution that would work for both sides, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Monty Moore
Fire Chief
Kittitas County Fire District 8
206-617-4521 cell
Seems to me that if the private property owners won't give up some ground to improve their safety, then why should we? Was it built there to only reduce the rate of those homeowners insurance? Or are you making the case for response on I-90?
Perhaps the response time isn't the best, but that's a weak part of a volunteer system, if it's a large concern for response time, perhaps the money should be found for full time firefighters. And then place facilities in a location that will split the distance between ohter fire stations in Easton or the summit or where ever is going to help the I-90 emergencies closer to the highway.
From my point of view it seems this is in motion for a few "special" people and not for the majority, or the plan just wasn't thought out very well...but then again, what can we expect from our poorly paid government employees?
As for lost lake logging...hopefully it makes us some new riding areas.
Perhaps the response time isn't the best, but that's a weak part of a volunteer system, if it's a large concern for response time, perhaps the money should be found for full time firefighters. And then place facilities in a location that will split the distance between ohter fire stations in Easton or the summit or where ever is going to help the I-90 emergencies closer to the highway.
From my point of view it seems this is in motion for a few "special" people and not for the majority, or the plan just wasn't thought out very well...but then again, what can we expect from our poorly paid government employees?
As for lost lake logging...hopefully it makes us some new riding areas.
Or the home owners have to spend the money to have a fire suppression system installed in their home.
I personally have no problem having a 13 ft wide strip plowed to the fire station as long as it is for emergency use only and no private land owners get to use it to access their property with wheeled vehicles.
Hopefully if that happens no rookies ,which there are many that ride out of that area, will drop off of the snowmobile trail onto the plowed area and get injured!
13 feet out of a 66 foot easment could work, it would have to be well marked and hope people pay attention.
OR - IF there is a car crash on I-90, let Fire from Snoquailmie Pass respond? Sounds like they could be there quicker than the response time quoted above?
There is a volunteer fire station on I-90 at Exit 78. No snow issues, right at the bottom of the ramp. I see Fire responding out of Cle Elum heading west all the time, driving right past that fire station. They don't respond to every little broken fingernail on I-90!
From watching the idiot drivers on the pass, I don't think they really deserve a fire station at each exit....
There is a volunteer fire station on I-90 at Exit 78. No snow issues, right at the bottom of the ramp. I see Fire responding out of Cle Elum heading west all the time, driving right past that fire station. They don't respond to every little broken fingernail on I-90!
From watching the idiot drivers on the pass, I don't think they really deserve a fire station at each exit....
Cap, I think you have nailed it! If it's used for any other use than emergency, impound the vehicles and sell them to buy more groomers.
It does seem stupid not to have secured these issues first. Hey, turn it into a warming hut during the winter!It sounds like a well intented usage of State money that was about to expire and the offer from a private homeowner.
Unfortunately it was not fully thought out and these are the resulting issues.
I would have hoped that the fire districts had long-term planning in place for the future and would stick to those plans rather than hurry and act like this.
I appreciate every volunteer firefighter's efforts and dedication, yet those making the decisions need to do a better job.
Unfortunately it was not fully thought out and these are the resulting issues.
I would have hoped that the fire districts had long-term planning in place for the future and would stick to those plans rather than hurry and act like this.
I appreciate every volunteer firefighter's efforts and dedication, yet those making the decisions need to do a better job.
Similar threads
