Clear Creek leaders review survey showing support for sales-tax option to fund fire authority; education and outreach next steps set

At a joint meeting of the Clear Creek County Board of County Commissioners and municipal leaders, consultants presented results of a public survey about the Clear Creek Fire Authority and funding options, and leaders agreed on steps for public education and further analysis.

Consultant Bill Ray, who presented the survey, said the poll showed that “the fire authority has a high approval rating” among respondents and that residents also showed “a strong rating of confidence handling tax dollars.” Ray said the survey was delivered as a mailer to 35,100 households, closed December 10, and produced 344 usable responses.

The survey found wildfire risk and housing costs as top resident concerns and repeatedly flagged service calls on I‑70 as a point of public confusion. Ray told the group that 68% of respondents agreed with a statement that the authority should address the decline in volunteers, rising call volume and wildfire risk and “seek a sales tax to maintain improved service levels.” In contrast, a straight property-tax option (described in the survey as a 14.67‑mill increase) scored lower in public support.

County and municipal officials used those findings to discuss funding paths and outreach. Guy Patterson (Idaho Springs representative) described a sales tax as “the path of least resistance” and said it can capture some visitor spending; several municipal representatives warned that higher sales-tax rates could push local totals to levels merchants and some residents would resent. County commissioners and town representatives emphasized the need to explain why the fire authority responds to I‑70 incidents and why those calls appear to drive public concern.

Key numeric findings Ray presented: the mailer reached 35,100 households; 344 responses were received; average authority job rating was 4.44 on a 1–5 scale; 60% said they were very or somewhat confident the authority handles tax dollars wisely; support metrics for funding options in the mailed scenarios were: a proposed 1.45% countywide sales tax (average rating 3.34), a property-tax increase of 14.67 mills (average rating 2.52), and a blended sales‑plus‑property option (average rating 3.16). Ray also reported that 41.7% of likely 2025 voters in the sample were age 65 or older, underscoring the need for tailored outreach formats.

Discussion centered on three practical topics: outreach and messaging, further technical work, and near-term coordination. Participants agreed to prepare targeted education materials that would (1) explain the fire authority’s role and budget accountability, (2) clarify the share of calls that occur on I‑70 versus local calls, and (3) describe how different funding options would affect residents and municipalities. Jonathan Barge, the meeting facilitator, summarized the morning as focused on survey results and process and said the group should next build on the information to define public messaging.

Several attendees advocated a blended approach to funding (sales tax plus a smaller property-tax component) to spread cost and political risk; others favored beginning with a single sales-tax ask and testing ballot language before finalizing any measure. County leadership also flagged a separate, countywide budget need: the county is considering broader revenue options for general-fund operations and noted the legal tool sometimes used is the public-safety sales tax (county-level authority discussed in the meeting, described as allowing up to 2% in some circumstances).

The group agreed on immediate next steps and responsibilities. Megan (full name not specified on the transcript), was asked to house and coordinate a draft FAQ and responses to the open-ended comments from the survey; meeting participants agreed to review and contribute refinements. The parties tentatively scheduled a follow-up meeting for February 10 at 1 p.m. to review a draft FAQ/press release, to map a timeline and critical dates for any ballot work, and to report back on outreach conversations (including planned discussions with Evergreen Fire Rescue about possible revenue-sharing or other accommodations). Participants also discussed meeting frequency: monthly meetings were suggested if the group moves toward a ballot measure, and at least annual meetings are required under the executed intergovernmental agreement.

No formal vote or final decision on a ballot measure was taken at the meeting. Participants emphasized that any final proposal should show actual ballot language (TABOR/ballot language) for public review well before a vote and that additional public education will be necessary — particularly to explain I‑70 call costs and the trade-offs of sales versus property tax.

The meeting closed with appreciation for the work to date and a shared sense that the group has made progress toward a coordinated public-facing plan; participants reaffirmed the February meeting to advance the FAQ, outreach plan and timeline.