||| FROM ROBERT DASHIELL |||
A NO vote on the Orcas Fire District bond proposal on the November 4, 2025 ballot can result in an estimated $10 Million in Fire District additional capital funding at lower or same cost to Orcas Island taxpayers.
Orcas Fire District commissioners had two sensible funding options for their logical and reasonable ask for $18.5 Million over the next 20 years for apparatus refurbishment/replacement and facility improvements. Option one was the 20-year bond, which they chose to offer to voters. Option two was a Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift.
Five well educated and intelligent commissioners made the wrong financial choice.
The property tax increase for the bond is $.27/$1000 of assessed value. A Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift could be less than the $.27/$1000, but assume they would ask for the same $.27/$1000 for this comparison of the two funding options.
Bond costs will require the Orcas Fire District to pay $9+ Million in interest payments plus $.5+ Million on bond legal and selling fees.
All of the bond and interest expenses would be avoided with option two, a simple One-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift. What that would do from a taxpayer perspective (at $.27/$1000) is exactly the same as the bond option. All of that tax money would go to the fire district (same for both options), but the fire district would have no bond interest or fee payments. The result would be an estimated $10+ Million MORE for the fire district to use in apparatus and facility improvements in lieu of paying that $10+ million to bond holders. lawyers, and bond marketing entities in the next 20 years.
That’s and estimated 55% more money for the fire district in the next 20 years than the bond option would provide for capital expenditures.
The downside of voting the bond down is the fire commissioners would have set back the capital improvement plan by a year by not doing the levy lid lift option this year. They would put before the voters a Single-Year Levy Lid Lift in 2026, and if a simple majority of voters approved, tax collect would begin in 2027.
That doesn’t mean they couldn’t start on the fire equipment refurbishment immediately. The current $.77/$1,000 approve in 2024 brought in an additional $1.274 Million to the fire district this year and an estimated $1.3 Million in 2026, and the fire district should have an annual excess of $300,000-$500,000 for each of those years. That is sufficient to get fire apparatus refurbishment started in 2026.
A 2026 Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift voter approved would add about $1.5 Million a year tax revenue to the fire district starting in 2027, and would increase each year under the Washington States property tax limitation of 1% plus new construction.
I’ve analyzed various local government bond and levy proposals for some 20 years. The five current fire commissioners have done commendable work improving Orcas Fire and Rescue, but their bond decision to fund future capital needs with a bond rather than a Single-Year Levy Lid Lift is (my opinion) the arguably the worst funding decision I’ve observed a local small Agoverning body make.
The November bond vote is NOT about how much citizens appreciate the continuing fine work of the Orcas Fire District. It’s a vote about funding well thought out and needed capital improvements.
In conclusion, a NO vote on the November bond proposal followed by YES vote next year on Single-Year Levy Lid Lift is the FAR better funding option for the next 20 years for Orcas Fire and Rescue.
**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.**
As a commissioner, I want to be clear: bonds are the standard, time-tested tool used by school districts, fire districts, and other local governments across Washington to fund major capital projects.
The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC), which advises local governments statewide, is also clear: while levy lid lifts can technically be written to fund capital purchases, bonds are the more accountable and predictable tool for significant capital projects because they provide immediate, restricted funding and end when repaid.
That distinction matters. A bond ensures Orcas Fire and Rescue can begin replacing aging apparatus and upgrading facilities right away, with every dollar legally restricted to the capital purposes voters approve. The tax obligation sunsets when the bond is paid off. A permanent levy lid lift, by contrast, raises the tax base forever, grows slowly under the 1% cap, and leaves future spending priorities to future boards.
The commissioners carefully considered both options. We unanimously chose the bond because it delivers certainty, transparency, and timely improvements at a predictable cost. A YES vote on the bond is the responsible choice to secure the equipment and facilities our firefighters need to keep Orcas safe.
Robert, thank you for your detailed analysis of the proposed measure.
While I disagree with your conclusion and will be happily voting YES on the proposed ballot measure, I do understand the concerns about interest payments and bond fees. There are several major factors why OIFR’s governing body might have chosen the bond financing scheme over a permanent levy lid lift that are not accounted for in the purely financial analysis you provided above, namely:
1. Orcas Island voters rejected two of OIFR’s last three proposed levy lid lifts. Both of the rejected levies were permanent lid lifts. Much of the discussion at the time negatively framed permanent lid lifts (as much as anything can truly be permanent in a post–Tim Eyman world). The Commission is, in my opinion, correct to seek other funding options that voters may view more favorably.
2. Voters are likely more price-sensitive now than in recent elections. Many people who shared feedback during the evaluation process highlighted the need to lessen the financial burden in the short term and spread out the cost over a longer period. Bonds allow large capital apparatus to be paid for by everyone who benefits from its useful life. Front-loading funding with a permanent levy lid lift places a greater share of the cost of the apparatus on current residents and lessens the cost on residents 10–20 years in the future who will still be enjoying the use of the capital equipment purchased with these bond funds. The Commission is, in my opinion, correct in selecting bonds for this reason as well.
3. Voters and OIFR’s membership both expressed substantial concern about the potential long-term use of capital funds. My understanding is that the statutory requirements for using bond funds place a significantly higher accounting burden on ensuring that all collected funds are used for legitimate capital expenses. While I have little doubt in the Commission of today, twenty years is both a long time (politically) and a short time (in terms of apparatus schedules). The department cannot afford to be back in this position in ten years, and a permanent levy lid lift does not provide the same level of accountability that the bond measure would.
I think these elements are important for understanding the decision the commission made, and why many people will be supporting the measure on the November ballot.
Orcas Island Fire and Rescue Proposition No. 1 is not for a specific levy amount. It is asking voters to give the Board of Fire Commissioners the power to issue $18,500,000 of bonds as they are required for capital expenditures for 20 years at whatever interest rate prevails at the time they are issued. Currently, they estimate this will require a .27/$1000 of assessed valuation levy. The estimate is based on the total value of Orcas Island property and the expected bond rate. If, for instance, either or both of these changes, the levy amount will reflect the change. That is why the levy amount is uncertain. In other words, we would be giving the Commission unlimited power to levy us at the going rate for their capital needs for the next 20 years.
We agree the Fire Department needs to refurbish and replace its apparatus (fire engines, tenders, etc.) and make permanent improvements (replace roofs, etc.) to its stations. We also strongly support this Commission and applaud their diligent leadership, but we do not believe any commission should have unlimited levy power.
The Orcas Island Fire and Rescue District commissioners NEVER considered a Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift. The levy options they considered are all on the June 2, 2025 OIFR meeting, including the levy option presentation by attorney Richard Davis. That meeting is video recorded on the OIFR website. Mr. Davis failed to include that specific form of levy in his presentation to the fire commissioners. He discussed four and six year levy options, and briefly discussed and logically concluded neither of those would work.
Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lifts continue year after year until the commissioners decided to end the levy. That form of a levy lid lift NOT discussed as an option in the capital fund needs discussion.
During the June 2 meeting, the commissioners did discuss a levy lid lift replacing the current $.77 levy. That too would eliminated the $10 million in bond payments, but the commissioners decided that would require a a levy amount that Orcas voters would not approve.
The advantage of a Single-Year Levy Lid Lift is the cost to the taxpayers could be exactly the same as the proposed bond,, but the fire district would not have to pay an estimated $10 Million to bondholders. That’s $10 million more the fire district could use for capital needs in the next 20 years.
A bond is perfectly legal and is on the ballot, but taxpayers should be aware their tax money will be paying some $10 Million as a cost of borrowing the $18.5 million.
I think Bob Dashiell’s assessment is correct and a levy would save taxpayers millions of dollars. That is a fact worth considering when voting on this bond proposal. OIFR provides a vital (literally) service to our community and the monies to restore equipment are critically needed. A levy is a better way for taxpayers to achieve that goal.