Commissioners Reach Consensus on Fire Levy

 — by Margie Doyle —

At its Special Meeting on Monday, Dec.30, the Orcas Board of Fire Commissioners reached consensus on the 2015 levy amount and term of levy after discussion amongst themselves, with Orcas Fire and Rescue staff and volunteers, and with the public.

The $2,048,000 approved levy equals $1.05431 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation. The Fire Commissioners — Barbara Bedell, Chair; Clyde Duke, and Jim Coffin — decided upon a 10-year term for the levy. With consensus reached, the commissioners will formally vote at their next regular meeting on January 14.

The current levy, established in 1999, will expire on Dec. 31, 2014.

Fire Chief Kevin O’Brien reviewed the work of the Orcas Fire District, saying it’s an “All Hazards Responder.” Pertinent facts to the formulation of the levy budget are:

• Recruitment of 23 new volunteers in 2013;
• Call volume increase of 123 percent since 1999;
• Increased regulatory mandates.

O’Brien quoted the maintenance of seven fire stations and 22 district vehicles, and the increase by 37 percent since 1999 in the consumer price index. He compared the cost in equipment, which  increased by 300 percent since then, and the current 174 hours of required training, increased from 76 hours in 1999. He thanked the volunteers for their “incredible gift —  without them the cost would be at least $5.7 million more.”

With its development of a 10-year financial projection, accounting for staff, equipment and facilities, the budget showed an ending deficit of nearly $12,000.

Commissioners Bedell and Coffin were ready to approve the levy budget. “I’ve concluded that our taxpayers are happy with the level of service of OIFR,” Coffin said. “No matter how you slice it…. In this day and age, this is what it costs to provide the level of service we provide; it’s not going to get any cheaper.”

Commissioner Duke said, “I concur with the cost of doing business; my challenge is how do we pay for it? We’re asking the public to support themselves; we have to explain why it costs what it does.”

Duke also expressed his concern about the proposed 15-year time frame, and added that he would like to see consideration, “a tool in place, for us and future chiefs and commissioners,” to provide for increasing costs.

“This is an expensive proposition… even the program on the table is short on capital. … We need some commitment to take care of the future,” Duke said.

Coffin said, “I don’t believe the voters would take kindly to an increased amount from where we are today. At the current level —  if we look at future capital needs — it is skinny, it is thin. The success of the levy is dependent upon the voters understanding that this is what it costs to do business today.”

As Commission Chair Bedell pushed for consensus, Duke re-iterated that he would “like to encourage” a lesser amount. Coffin argued, “We should always be willing to look at reducing levels. I have trouble knocking a token off to look good, it seems manipulative. If we need it, we need it.”

Citing the effort and time involved in the process of bringing a levy before voters, the Commission discussed the length of time for the new levy when the 1999-2014 levy expires. Coffin said the term “needs to be long enough so we’re not perpetually doing this.”

When Financial Consultant Mark Horaski on conference phone was asked his opinion, he recommended a 10-year levy, emphasizing that it was his personal opinion. “Reaching out over a 10 year period is about as far out as anyone would realistically want to go; to look out 15 years —  it is difficult to anticipate.

“A lot can change in 10 years; if [the levy term] is shorter, it keeps the organization on its toes. There’s a lot to be said for that.”

Coffin invited comments from those in attendance at the meeting.

County Councilman Rick Hughes  commented that the conversation was driven by the budget submitted for approval. He questioned the lack of provision for capital funds: “Is the amount you’re looking for the right amount of money, considering capital needs?”

Art Lange questioned the administrative structure as formulated in the budget. He asked if the $200,000 increase in salaries over the next 10 years was a reflection of a three percent cost of living adjustment (cola) rather than the one percent proposed levy increase. When that assumption was confirmed, he clarified that the District was not committing to raise salaries by three percent as reflected in the budget, and that the chief and commissioners were responsible to propose and monitor salary increases.

Bob Phalan questioned the increase in administrative positions in the last year, citing the assistant chief, a personal assistant, financial officer and public relations person as added positions. He was told that the assistant chief replaced the division chief position; that the administrative assistant is not a personal or executive assistant; that the financial officer was a replacement for Rick Anda, who retired; and that a human resources person was needed to manage the volunteers.

Phalan maintained that voters would not approve the levy amount. Hilary Canty disagreed, saying that support for the district’s level of service was strong and that volunteers such as herself appreciated knowing there was a “strong second line” supporting the first responders.

Chief O’Brien said that in the two years since he assumed OIFR leadership, he “has evaluated the needs of the organization, based on call volume, mandated law, and national standards. Over the last two years, we have worked to get our business internal business systems and processes in shape. Every position in this organization has different responsibilities. We’re busy building a strong, smart organization.

“This is not a sleepy little department. I invite anyone to meet with me and see what we do.”

 The next regular meeting of the Orcas Fire Commissioners is on January 14, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. at the Eastound Firestation.