Endorsement: Winfield Fire Protection District

We're well aware voters have thrice said "no" to the Winfield Fire Protection District's requests for more money. With the fourth attempt coming up Feb. 5 -- and the waters muddied by a citizens-initiated vote on whether fire district trustees should be elected rather than appointed -- another "no" vote might very well be in the offing.

That's unfortunate, because the fire district makes a good case for the authority to exceed the tax cap, collecting 12.5 percent increases in taxes each of the next four years. The district hasn't had a voter-approved tax increase since 1988, yet officials point out its call volume has tripled in that time. They note, too, that their full-time firefighters start at $46,680 a year -- about $10,000 less than typical nearby districts, and competition for firefighters is intense, due to a dwindling pool of aspiring firefighters.

We don't want to diminish the significance of a 50 percent tax increase during the next four years, but in terms of actual dollars gleaned, this would come to an extra $160,000 the first year of the tax increase. That money would be used to hire three full-time firefighters.

Voters, too, would seem to be warming to the district's plea for more tax money. In March, 2006, the tax increase was clobbered; last time around, in April 2007, the measure was defeated by 10 votes. Yet that residents could drum up more than 1,600 signatures to force a vote on electing fire district trustees would seem to be indicative of lack of trust. At the same time, it should be noted that 1,328 people voted no in the last referendum.

We recommend a "yes" vote to both ballot questions -- give the district the money it says it needs to provide a very basic public safety service. But vote for an elected board to ease residents' concerns about accountability.