Eyes wide shut.
||| FROM CLARK CUNDY |||
Trust and Transparency: Nothing has really changed in my opinion about the fire levy. It’s still a VOTE NO for me, especially after I have done much more research. I wholeheartedly support the EMT/Paramedic/Firefighting personnel protecting our community and say Thank You. A NO VOTE on this levy is not a negative reflection on those giving service but is a no vote to the Board of Fire Commissioners (BOFC) as a whole… it’s a wakeup call to OIFR administration that
there is a need to reevaluate their approach to the taxpaying community. This levy is too expensive for many.
The single node funding model that is currently using only one source (the taxpayer) may need to be modified i.e., there may be a new mix of funding instruments paying for all these services. The ”newly elected” BOFC will come to you with “creative optimism” that they can and will do better for you, the OIFR personnel…
In my professional life as a Technical Architect for a major Seattle Corporation we ran many projects in the millions of dollars. When we did this our process was always open, transparent to all who wanted to participate, have opinions, tell their side of the issues regarding what we were trying to accomplish. This is a very iterative and sometimes messy process, but it was highly democratic, everyone got to participate with our ‘EYES WIDE OPEN’ approach as much as possible. Not everyone got all they wanted but there was consensus.
I see my role in this fire levy and BOFC board member discussion as a property owner and taxpayer who is concerned with the process with which this levy came about, the metrics that were assembled, and the amount of money BOFC is asking me for. There is around an 83% increase from the current .058/1000 to the proposed 1.06/1000 of assessed property value. This proposed levy is also a permanent increase. The current 2014-2024 levy has a ten-year life span. IMHO the new levy should not be permanent and should be reevaluated after the levy’s given life span to observe and to plan for the future needs.
The current BOFC did not seem to be worried about me, the taxpayer, who is dealing with other increases in taxes and inflation itself. I did not receive any communication from OIFR regarding the substance of this levy. This proposed levy was already submitted to SJC. OIFR did not ask me my opinion about level of service, and the costs that go along with that. On the contrary the only Town Hall that I know of was after the second levy submission to SJC. The same exact levy, the one which failed by 75%. I also learned that in the primary levy vote that failed the same exact levy had already been resubmitted to the county two weeks prior to the first no vote failure on the August 1 st Primary.
I attended some meetings by zoom and in person after the levy failed and found interaction with the board closed and guarded, uncomfortable even for the people attending. That was the feeling I got. The board seemed to know this first
levy attempt would fail but didn’t have a plan B as stated as ‘something to have’ by their own Strategic Plan. I have read that plan, which is actually a pretty good process document.
However, it does not seem to have been used on this levy’s construction and many other budget line items. The Strategic Plan talks about the interaction with the community on funding efforts. I encourage people to read the plan to see what was possible. A lot of work and taxpayer dollars went into the Strategic Plan, and it is still a living document through 2024.
n BOFC meetings the public was “permitted” to ask questions at the beginning of the meeting but nothing at the end. At one meeting a question was asked “if the meetings time could be moved from 3 p.m. to a later time so working people could participate.” We were told that because of the after-hour intense training schedule this would not be possible. As you can
imagine there were not many people there.
In a special meeting whose main purpose was to decide whether or not to rescind the levy for a second vote in November, the start time was even earlier, Monday – August 14, 11:00 a.m. At this same meeting many taxpayers wrote letters to the board asking them to rescind the levy we are voting on now; however those requests and others fell on deaf ears in that and on other related subjects in subsequent meetings. It was clear to me that the board was not listening, and was not going to listen, and once again had no plan B, effectively creating their own ‘EYES WIDE SHUT’ conclusion to actual communication with the community.
As a taxpayer my degree of trust and transparency in current BOFC commission of OIFR funding and other processes is next to nil, and I’m looking forward to a new board of fire commissioners that are willing to share with the Island Community the department’s story.
The new tax revenue numbers from the SJC Auditors office have revenue up potentially 10% to about 4.5 billion. This number will probably vary but not too much according to our county auditor. Those new numbers translate into how much more revenue the OIFR will be receiving, making an already too expensive levy even more expensive. This also means that numbers used to create this levy we are voting on are now obsolete. Time to reevaluate this levy entirely and reconstruct it. There is time to do this and have it ready for a vote April 2024. Revenues from a new levy do not take effect until April 2025 and current funding will continue until the fall of 2024. There is a monetary gap from then on to April 2025 when the new levy starts contributing to OIFR coffers. According to current OIFR draft budget numbers there currently is an estimated 1,154,571 of cash reserves for year end 12/31/2023. We will need a new team of BOFC with sharp pencils to piece together a money strategy needed to manage this time frame and keep service going at current levels. So we shouldn’t be afraid to vote no on the current levy when this money management challenge will be there no matter if it’s this levy or a more affordable levy is approved in April 2024.
Please join me in voting for the Board of Fire Commissioner challengers, Randy Gaylord, and Brian Ehrmantraut! Each is extremely well qualified in experience and skills both in the public and private arenas, rounding out what is needed to take on these positions. Regarding the two remaining great candidates Kate Hansen and Toni Knudson, we all have a
tough choice to make. They both come to us with honesty, integrity, management experience, different skill sets, and community service. Tony with her private business acumen and prior SJC positions, together exhibiting many problem-solving skills, concurrent with the ability to see all sides; and Kate Hansen comes to us with Certified Project Management skills, was a Fire Department Administrator for King County, and was a Board Secretary and Public Records officer. We need some real help opening up access to our Fire Department information for easier access. If I were a hiring officer, given the information presented, I would have to give the nod and hiring recommendation to Kate Hansen for the commission seat. Again, it is a really tough choice; either will do a fantastic job. All new board members will be working to rebuild the Communities Trust through Transparency and access to the OIFR department.
Outstanding piece Clark. I have worked tirelessly on failing this thing but I could not have said it better. Your explanation of the situation is just excellent. Thanks for stepping forward for Orcas.
Fully concur with this Letter to Editor … the permanent fire levy should be voted down with not just a no, but another record setting NO! And new fire commissioners (Randy Gaylord and Brian Ehrmantraut) need to be elected. Both Kate Hansen and Toni Knudson have the backgrounds and skill sets to be positive commissioner additions, and only one can prevail. Voters can’t go wrong with either candidate.
The OIFR will need a new levy in 2025 to avoid more than a $1 million a year reduction in tax funding … that would be a true funding cliff that would cause substantial harm to this island community. But not to worry … a new levy with a much more realistic ask for taxpayers and at a minimum maintaining or improving the current level of service, which is at present quite good.
The aggressive push to rerun the voted down levy and tell half truths about the cost of the levy and what might happen if the levy fails is deceptive. The OIFD will get more tax money in 2024 than they did in 2023 … that’s a fact. They might have to be a little frugal on non-essential spending, but they can manage until voters pass a more realistic but fully adequate levy in 2024.
Thank you Clark for attending these meetings and reporting your impressions so clearly .It is refreshing
Thank you Clark. Welcome to the “trailer trash” club
<~~~~ as an off island captain in OIFR described anyone who is against this levy.
You pretty much nailed it. We have to avoid the same mistakes that got us here. Spending on operations (salaries) while ignoring apparatus. A new board will redesign the levy to include dedicated funds for infrastructure separate from operations.
If they do so I will pledge to support it AND pay my full year taxes as early as possible to get funding to OIFR early in 2025.
Please elect Randy, Brian and Kate or Toni to fix this problem.
Well researched and reasoned, as always. Another reason to vote no on this levy and vote for change in the board of commissioners. With transparency and community involvement, the finances can be worked out – it may require a combination of things. Thank you.
I have been a member of more than one fire and rescue department, and consider OIFR to be one of the very best. The levy is vital to support the needs of the department. The opponents ignore the increased fire risks from climate change, the increased island population, and the 48% call volume increase in the past 10 years. If you want Orcas Island Fire and Rescue to remain the very best, then please support it. Your life, property, and well-being may depend on it!
Dan, With all due respect, I have read your comments on this levy before and find your logic and threats to our continued existence to be as flawed as the levy itself.
We have not ignored these concerns we just want an appropriate fire levy and perhaps an equipment bond. And oh yes, some community involvement in crafting a good levy.
Is it possible your elevated fear of global warming has clouded your judgement on this?