||| FROM ELISABETH BRITT |||
A bond ensures accountability, long-term funding for critical equipment, and respects the community’s history of rejecting permanent levies.
As commissioners for Orcas Island Fire & Rescue, we are responsible for ensuring that the district has the reliable equipment and facilities needed to protect lives and property. Recently, there has been a spirited debate about the best way to fund those needs. We welcome that discussion—because it shows how deeply our community cares about public safety. After careful consideration of the options and listening to community feedback, we placed a bond measure on the ballot. We believe this is the most stable, accountable, and affordable path forward for meeting our long-term capital needs.
Listening to the Community
Since 2023, the commission has been discussing different financing vehicles to meet the district’s long-term needs. Throughout that process, we have consistently heard one message: our community does not want a permanent levy. We took that concern seriously. That is why the measure before voters is a limited-term bond—not a permanent levy. Unlike a levy lid lift, which can become permanent and still fail to keep pace with inflation, this bond is designed to sunset once the capital improvements are paid for.
Why Levies Are Unstable
Levy lid lifts may sound appealing, but they are not a stable or affordable solution for long-term capital needs. Under Washington’s 1% cap (RCW 84.55), levy revenue cannot grow faster than 1% per year without another vote. Meanwhile, the cost of fire trucks, ambulances, and protective gear rises much more quickly—often by 3–8% annually.
To raise the $18.5 million needed for our capital plan, we would have to go back to voter’s multiple times over the next two decades—each time requesting larger amounts to keep up with inflation. This approach is not only uncertain but also more expensive.
Each new levy campaign adds administrative costs, and the compounding effect of inflation means taxpayers would ultimately pay more than they would under a single, well-structured bond.
Why Bonds Provide Accountability
Another risk with levies is that they are not legally restricted to capital projects. Even if a levy is presented to voters to fund equipment or facilities, future commissions can redirect those dollars to operating expenses or other purposes. In fact, this has
happened here before.
A bond is different. By law, bond proceeds must be used only for the specific capital purposes described in the ballot measure. Future commissions cannot divert them. That legal safeguard ensures accountability and transparency: when voters approve a bond, they know exactly what their dollars will fund, and they can trust that the money will be spent as promised.
The Urgency of Reliable Equipment
In just the past year, Orcas Island has faced five wildfires. One of them smoldered for an entire month, requiring Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staff to remain on the island until it was fully extinguished. While we are grateful for that support, it underscores a hard truth: we cannot assume that outside help will always be available.
Neighboring districts may be tied up with their own emergencies, and DNR resources are stretched thin across the state.
So, the question is simple: what happens when our neighbors and DNR cannot respond?
The answer is that we must be ready to stand on our own. That means having reliable engines, up-to-date equipment, and trained personnel who can respond immediately. Right now, some of our fire engines are 28 years old—well past their service life. They are more prone to breakdowns, harder to maintain, and less reliable in the very moments when reliability matters most.
This is precisely why the bond is so critical. It provides the stable, accountable funding needed to replace outdated equipment and ensure that Orcas Island Fire &; Rescue can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies—without depending on outside agencies to fill the gap.
Making Capital Improvements Affordable Through Bonds
A bond provides a one-time, voter-approved solution that locks in funding for the whole 20-year plan. It also allows us to structure financing in tranches—issuing debt in phases over time rather than borrowing the full amount all at once. This approach is both legally sound under Washington’s Public Securities Act (RCW 39.46) and financially responsible for taxpayers.
Here is why:
- Lower Initial Burden: We only issue what we need when we need it, avoiding. unnecessary debt upfront.
- Refinancing Flexibility: State law allows bonds to be refinanced if interest rates improve, reducing costs for taxpayers.
- Dedicated Use of Funds: Bond proceeds are legally restricted to the capital purposes described in the ballot measure.
- Predictable Cost: The proposed bond is estimated to cost about $0.27 per $1,000 of assessed value. For a $1,000,000 home, the average on Orcas Island is about $270 per year. This is a stable, time-limited cost that sunsets upon the bond’s repayment.
- Careful Planning: By aligning tranches with our capital improvement schedule, we ensure that funds are available when equipment needs replacement, without raising more money than necessary at once.
The Responsible Path Forward
The commissioners made this decision after careful consideration of the facts, the finances, and the community’s history. We stand by it as the most responsible path forward for Orcas Island Fire & Rescue and the people we serve.
Ultimately, this decision concerns providing Orcas Island with dependable, adequately equipped emergency services for all community members. We encourage every voter to review the facts, watch the meeting recordings, and ask questions. Most importantly, we invite you to join us in supporting the bond measure so that, for the next 20 years, our firefighters and EMTs have the tools they need to protect lives and property on Orcas Island.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
There are so many totally erroneous statements in this guest opinion posting that it would take a longer post to correct the falsehoods.
Approving the bond $18.5 million bond will put the fire district in debt for the next 20 years … and estimated $28+ million will have to be repaid for borrowing the $18.5 million. Cost to Orcas taxpayers would be the same (assuming $0.27/$1000 for both), but the fire district would have, at a minimum, $10 million MORE for fire apparatus and facility repairs if the commissioners had decided one of two possible levy lid lifts.
It’s quite obvious from Elizabeth Britt’s rant against levies that she still doesn’t know what a Single Year Permanent Levy Lift even is. It doesn’t expire until it’s either ended by the commissioners (it could go on for 20 year, providing right at $1.5 million a year and increasing every year at about 2%), or the commissioners replace the current $0.77 levy with a $1.03 permanent level lid lift. Either of those choices avoids fire district debt and bond, lawyer, and bond sales fees.
The fire commissioners NEVER did a bond vs. levy spreadsheet analysis or discussed the pros and cons of both. I can say that with 100% confidence, although they say they “discussed” both. It’s all available on the OIFR website meeting videos, but likely nobody is going to take the hours of work to review those meetings.
I suspect the bond will pass because the community has high regard for the current fire district and Chief and funding is too complicated for many voters to understand. But a vote for the bond is an additional $10 million expense to the fire district over the next 20 years that would have been avoided with a levy lift that could go on for the next 20 years. I’ve worked bonds and levies for more than two decades and taught college level finance, and failure to pencil out a levy lid lift vs. debt financing and present that comparison to the public is frankly one of the greatest failures I’ve witnessed by any group of agency heads/commissioners.
That having been said, all five commissioners have done a very acceptable job in virtually everything else they have worked on.
They just struck out on this big dollar decision.
Thank you, Mr. Dashiell for sharing your strong opinions with the community.
Over the years, Orcas Island voters have shown a strong commitment to investing in our community through targeted bond measures. Looking back, there’s a clear pattern: when proposals are realistic and focused, the community steps up.
1999 & 2006: School bonds were approved to repair and improve facilities.
2010: A larger $35 million school bond failed, even though it had majority support, because it didn’t meet the 60% supermajority threshold.
2017: A scaled-down $10.8 million school bond passed, funding critical repairs to classrooms, athletic fields, and the gym.
Now, in 2025, we’re being asked to consider a new bond for Orcas Island Fire & Rescue. Proposition 1 would authorize $18.5 million to replace aging fire engines, ambulances, and brush trucks, and to repair station facilities. This is the first significant public safety bond in decades, and it comes at a time when our emergency services are stretched thin.
The history is clear: Orcas Islanders support bonds when they directly strengthen the safety, education, and resilience of our community. The decision before us now is whether we’ll continue that tradition by ensuring our first responders have the tools and facilities they need.
Thank you again for your post.
I am re-iterating, IRT Mr Dashiell,that he continually either misses the following point or willfully ignores it, because he has not factored inflation into his analysis: Bonds are long-term loans at a fixed interest rate, which makes inflation our friend, for numerous reasons.
1) The fire department (and we the tax payers) get the loan money sooner, when it is worth much more than money is in the future.
2) We get to purchase badly needed equipment and facility improvements sooner, at a lower price than if we had to wait into the future, when inflation makes products and services cost much more.
3) We get to pay back the loan far into the future, with dollars that are worth much less then than the dollars the loan provided us.
That is a win, win, win for a Bond….three benefits that a Levy does not come close to providing.
So please join me in voting YES for the Orcas Fire District Proposition 1 Bond, which is the best financial decision for Orcas Island property owners.
Two comments related this continuing fire district funding discussion.
IRT Elizabeth Britt: Your posting states it’s from the Board of Fire Commissioners. I attended the recent meetings either in person or on Zoom, don’t recall this was on the agenda or discussed. But, maybe I missed this discussion. Appreciate your opinions and advocacy, but the Open Public Meetings Act requires board actions to be open to the public, and chain correspondence amongst commissioners (if it was not conducted in a BOFC meeting) is a violation of that act. So the question is if the posting is your position, or is it the collective position of the Board of Fire Commissioners, and if so, was it approved unanimously?
When the current fire commissioners were voted in, public transparency was a major theme, and every fire commissioner is required to attend a Public Meeting Act training session within 90 days of being sworn in. But, if it’s your personal posting and not one by the fire commissioners, then no Open Public Meeting Act violation.
IRT Terry Sullivan: Future inflation is an unknown. Fed goal is 2%, but current inflation is at 3% and is likely to go higher when the impact of tariffs finally settle in. Bond interest rates are historically (almost always) higher than inflation. Agree with you in that buying the 13 pieces of apparatus the plan calls for in the next 4 years would be somewhat less costly than spreading those expenditures out over say 6-8 years, but that buy plan creates the same situation the district now finds itself … the majority of the fire equipment aging out en-mass. The seemingly more logical approach is the buy major new fire apparatus say every 2.5 to 3 years. … replacing fire apparatus at a paced cycle. There is enough money in the current $.77 levy to start refurbishment for apparatus that can cost effectively be rehabbed, and/or facility repairs. The preliminary 2026 budget seems to favor fund contingency reserves, which is puzzling since some of the facility needs appear to be worthy of immediate contingency funding. That said, the 2026 budget is still a TBD.
Either a bond or a levy lift could fund a more measured purchase and refurbish approach.
The key point I think you fail to consider is the bond costs (legal, seller fees, and interest), which is going to be in the $10 million range, is FAR FAR greater expense than the sum of realistic future inflation costs.
The current fire equipment fleet is aged but operational, but the average fire equipment age is fairly typical of rural fire districts. Nobody argues apparatus replacement is not required, but I’d advocate it should be paced out longer than the present four year accelerated replacement plan.
For voters, the issue is still voting for 20 years office district debt, or do a levy lift in 2026 that would avoid the estimated $10 million in debt payments.
There is that $8-$10 million extra dollar thing again.
Is this plan really worth millions more in expense?. Predicting the deep future like this is generally very inaccurate.
What’s wrong with coming back to the voters now and then if needed? A 20 year plan like this is loaded with variables we cannot foresee.
Even with all the fancy analysis it is still $8-$10 million in additional costs guaranteed.
We all want this equipment but 43% of the total for costs seems like it a bit much.
Gary has summarized the problem perfectly.
Are the three benefits noted in Terry’s post worth an extra $10,000,000? Has there been any attempt to quantify these benefits and show this analysis to the voters? Subjective bullet points are not that useful in this situation. We need an objective comparison of the two approaches and this has not been provided.