This might have something to do with it?
*"Boulder is the richest city in Colorado and the tenth wealthiest in the
United States*. Most households in the metro region make more than $88,535
per year, and 13.7 per cent make more than $200,000 per year – a higher
percentage than all but six other metro regions in the US."
https://usabynumbers.com/richest-cities-in-the-us/#:~:text=10.-,Boulder%2C%20Colorado,metro%20regions%20in%20the%20US
.
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 8:33 PM Janet <janetrodina@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I still wonder why Boulder County is requiring sprinklers for fire
rebuilds. Must be some reason.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2022, at 8:29 PM, Megan Williams <gmeganwilliams@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Goodness!
If you'd like sprinklers, GO FOR IT.
if you'd like $10-15K spent on rebuilding instead of sprinklers, GO FOR
IT.
if you chose not to see the line between green and superfluous codes, as
having direct and huge consequences for our life-long residents, GO FOR IT.
Green codes, sprinkler codes, can't wait to see what comes next?
We look to the Town to minimize code requirements that will be unlikely to
shift the needle in fire safety and/or B. implement financial support for
green and/or sprinkler mandates. These should not be burdens placed on fire
survivors looking to reclaim life on their own land.
Thanks, all.
Megan
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 7:42 PM Janet Rodina <janetrodina@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Notes to all, but first to David and Mike:
*Thanks, David. * I did not dig into Form 990 that deep....but I still
don't understand why, for instance, on
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521256543
it says, for 2020 executive pay was $814k, which is only 6.8% of expenses:
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $184,867 6.8%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Other salaries and wages $374,041 13.7%
So I still can't see how he gets his income up to around $1 million. I'm
not saying he doesn't....I just don't fully understand, as I am not
accustomed to parsing out salaries of non-profit organizations. And, as
Mike rightly points out, this is getting too far into the weeds.
*Mike, I do agree with you--this discussion is getting off point. * No,
we don't just want to *guess* about whether it is a good idea to mandate
sprinklers or not. I have watched almost all the Town Board meetings, work
groups, etc since the fire because I wanted to know how things were going
to fall into place or not for my own rebuilding. On the sprinkler matter
and other issues, I have seen presentations, heard discussions, done some
of my own research, and concluded that the Trustees, with the assistance of
staff and other experts have pondered the best of the data and analytics
out there on this topic of sprinklers. Couldn't find anything else, either
pro or con.
Before things in this OT discussion got down into the weeds of tax
filings and earnings of a non-profit agency that has been in existence
since 1896, several postings seemed to be calling into question not just
the expertise and data that the Board of Trustees was considering on the
topic of sprinklers, but also the motives of our Town leaders were directly
or indirectly being maligned. I have been and remain stunned that this
negativity prevails in our OT group during such a time of heartache and
stress, and wish from the bottom of my heart that we could indeed, as Daryl
and Reagan have said, "Trust but verify." Notice that phrase puts "Trust"
first, and doesn't seem ready to point fingers without first verifying that
something or someone CAN be trusted.
With the tax forms and executive compensation exploration, the point I
had been trying to make is
*WHO ARE WE GOING TO TRUST?*
If you want data and analytics, I will ask again: Please suggest
a better, more reliable source of information about safety in our own
homes. I am certainly not an expert on this, and I am guessing most folks
in OT have other professions and expertise, but probably not fire safety.
Where is the data that could prove sprinklers do not save lives?
The Marshall Fire spread from house to house by strong winds. There
were 2 lives lost in the fire, but we don't know if those lives would have
been saved if the victims had had even just one more minute to escape. So
how *can* you provide "data" on something like that? How would you even
go about proving that people did not die because of fire sprinklers? How
would that research work exactly and who would collect the data? And if
firefighters provided the analytics, would they then be suspected of
puffing up their statistics to make themselves look like they saved lives?
This way madness lies. I did not go to a bunch of my friends to consult
with when I had brain surgery a few years back. I went to a brain
neurosurgeon. I tried to find the best one I could here in the Denver
area, and then I trusted him because he is an expert. If we don't trust
experts, science, and research professionals, then who DO we trust?
We do know that modern homes burn faster and hotter due to the contents
having more plastics, insulation, electronics, and toxic chemicals than
ever before. That's why urban fires must be contained very quickly,
because each of us is surrounded by other homes that can quickly ignite a
neighbor's home and the next one.
This is not data or analytics, but sometimes, with more than a one- or
two-sentence zinger, we can reason through tough decisions. Here are some
things I have been thinking about:
I wear my seat belt every time I get in my car and no doubt have paid
thousands of dollars more for every car I've ever owned because they are
equipped with seat belts. They are mandated for my safety and that of my
passengers. I don't drink then drive, because that is mandated and doesn't
even make sense to do so. Although I don't directly pay monies not to
drink and drive, I do pay extra local and state taxes to pay for the patrol
and enforcement of this mandate. I never directly paid for the fire
hydrant in my front yard or for the fire department in my town to come out
when I had a scary gas leak, but I am sure I paid for it through increased
taxes for fire protection. All of these are safety "mandates" are to
protect me, my family, and my neighbors. I can't simply choose to say
NO!...I will not pay taxes to cover the cost of putting that fire hydrant
on my property. We humans have mandates because we are not always eager to
pay for the common good and the common safety within our communities.
*Mike, I hear you that you just want to rebuild your home.* I do too--I
am a retired single woman living exclusively on Social Security and don't
know if I can make it work to rebuild. I may not have lived on my property
for decades like others in OT, but I dearly loved my home, invested my
heart and savings in making it a loved place where I was going to spend all
the rest of my senior years. I probably can't bring that home and pride
and hope for the future back again. But I know one thing for sure--it is
too much heartache and stress to build a home again only to have it
vulnerable to wildfires OR urban house-to-house fires in the kinds of winds
we are experiencing these days. I don't even think I could sleep in the
house if I didn't know that I and my neighbors have done all we could to
try to build back safer and stronger. Is it bullying to be concerned about
the safety of all of our neighbors if one of us innocently forgets to turn
their stove one night and a fire spreads from someone's kitchen to the
patio, to a fence, and on to neighbor's home where children lie in their
beds sound asleep before the fire trucks arrive?
Concern about each other is what binds a community together. We are all
rightfully part of this community no matter how long we have been here; we
are not mavericks in the wild west, where anything goes. Humans have
learned that safety is a community issue, a neighbor-cares-about-neighbor
issue.
By the way, at the meeting on Monday, please don't forget to ask the
Trustees what they are doing to try to mitigate the cost of the
sprinklers. You might find it interesting to know that they are
really concerned and do understand how hard and expensive rebuilding is for
all of us. They ARE trying, in case you weren't aware. Give them a chance
to explain before you judge them so harshly.
One final note:
If you think that our Town Trustees are just trying to "bully" some of us
and "forcing as many land sales as possible by making the cost to
rebuild untenable for those with the longest and deepest roots in the
community." maybe take a look at Boulder County's requirements for
sprinklers in ALL new homes. It can be found at the Marshall Fire website:
https://www.bouldercounty.org/property-and-land/land-use/building/marshall-fire-rebuilding/#building-permits-for-residential-construction
If you don't want to look it up, it says:
Automatic Fire Sprinkler System
Under the 2015 International Residential Code (“IRC”) as adopted by
Boulder County, all new one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses are
required to be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system that is
designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13D or IRC Section P2904.
*My final question is: So does this mean that Boulder County is also
bullying its fire victims?*
I guess that this email is not the analytics or data that people say they
are seeking to justify not investing in fire prevention strategies
for building back stronger and more resilient. I am not offering
2-sentence zingers or finger-pointing or data-analytics. But I am offering
one small voice and the ramblings from a heart and mind of one of your
neighbors. How these ramblings are received, pondered, or dismissed will
speak volumes.
