||| FROM BEA VONTOBEL |||
When my Voters’ Pamphlet arrived in the mail, I sat down to acquaint myself with its contents. I was surprised to see 18 uncontested nonpartisan races for office. I was even more surprised to see that for two positions for the OISD race and one for the SJC Fire District #2 contained no information for these candidates’ seats.
For two taxing districts which have provoked both positive and negative press in the past, I have wondered why these three candidates chose not to respond. Granted, the seats are uncontested, but for those of us who have no direct connection with either entity, it would have been nice to learn something about all of them.
As it is, I will not be voting for any of those aforementioned candidates. (As an aside, it should be mentioned that the remaining races, including the Port of Orcas, Parks and Rec, Cemetery District #3, Public Hospital District #3 and Eastsound Sewer & Water, 10 of 11
uncontested position candidates supplied information.)
Then, after reading arguments for and against the levies and bonds outlined in the booklet, I have decided to vote against the OISD Proposition #1, based solely on the fact that this is the 3 rd time the public has been asked to fund a facility that was originally created by a very generous gift, and was purported to be enough money for construction plus annual maintenance funds for upkeep.
I will support Proposition #2 for OISD. As for the SJC Fire District #2, I am in complete disagreement with seeking these funds via GO bonding. As other writers have noted, this request should have been made through the levy process. Like the series of votes which provided OISD funding from the early teens after two defeats, the fire district could have learned a lesson, thus saving money through not having to pay for another election.
**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 it is, I will not be voting for any of those aforementioned candidates.”
Me, neither. To me it looks like they don’t care to spend the time or can’t meet a deadline (though they may think they’ve already devoted more than their share of effort, and possibly have).
When the Fire District Commissioners considered options for paying for necessary capital and apparatus, I mentioned what happened at the school district a decade ago and also the fact a permanent levy to fund capital and operations was soundly rejected twice in 2023. We commissioners looked at a capital-only levy but the short duration required of that approach means the price tag is much higher. We saw that stretching the payments over 20 years with a bond — the life span of the facilties and equipment made sense. The bond was well thought out, and considers the history of past efforts and the future of the needs of the department. Time to vote Yes for the Fire District.
The public can review the video of the June 16 OIFR meeting (about the 25 minute mark) and observe the fire commissioners mentioning levy funding and quickly deciding on bond funding. I think Mr. Gaylord’s “short duration of that approach” was likely for four or six year levy lifts, which fairly common. NOconsideration of a Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift, which as strange as that title reads, can go on for 20 years (or more) and $0.27 (or any other amount they might choose), but using $0.27 for a level playing field comparison would cost taxpayers the same as the $18.5 million dollar bond but the fire district would not be in debt for $18.5 million for borrowed money and an estimated $10 million in interest payments.
Commissioner Gaylord is correct in saying the $1.06 permanent levy lifts were twice very soundly voted down, but neither of those levies had a comprehensive apparatus study or a facilities issue study presented to voters … it was simply a levy lift ask from $0.588 to $1.06 (80% fire district tax increase). Extremely poor presentation to voters for such a large increase, but in retrospect, that levy lid lift would have been far preferable than the $0.77 levy PLUS a $18.5 million bond, which is where the district is at now, because there would have been no debt funding an this bond ask wouldn’t be happening
Commissioner Gaylord has consistently argued against permanent levies. Permanent levies make sense with the state property tax limitation of 1% plus new construction annual increases because most voters can understand inflation is going to remain above 2% for the foreseeable future. MRSC also encourages taxing districts to use permanent levies. The argument that a bond limits the fund expenditures to future fire commissioners using it for operational expenses is true, but a properly worded levy lift and a fire district policy on use of funds can do the same. It’s a matter of accounting … not commingling the funds, and this fire district provides detailed expenditure documents once a month so the commissioners and public can track their intended use.
I would like to contribute my two cents worth to the OIFR levy. The facilities have need of upgrades and repairs. If not addressed, it will cost more money in the near future. I am a carpenter by trade, and I was on the facilities committee.
I was a volunteer with OIFR for 35 years, now retired. It is my opinion that if the volunteers are will to do and important job, basically for free, then we need to step up to the plate and give them the equipment they need to do the job.
Above all, please VOTE!!!
Bruce Brackett
IRT Bruce Brackett: The OIFR vote is about FUNDING for new fire apparatus and facility upgrades. This is not about buying equipment for volunteers to do facility upgrades, although it would be absolutely fantastic t if that would happen!
This is a vote on having the OIFR go in debt for $18.5 million dollars and paying interest on that debt for the next 20 years, when they could have decided on a two specific type of levy lifts, which would cost the taxpayers the same as the bond, and the fire district would have no additional debt and save some $10 million in debt payment over the next 20 years.
San Juan Island fire district had virtually the same funding issues as the Orcas Fire District in 2024 … needed new apparatus and facility repairs/upgrades. They were wise enough to do a Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift vice go into bond debt. That levy passed, and the fire district got an additional $2,654,168 in 2025. That levy type increase is used as the basis for future levy lifts. That most likely ensures they will not need another fire levy for the next 20 years., and they have no debt payments. That levy will bring in about $58 million dollars over 20 years …. the levy increases at the 1% plus new construction each year. It doesn’t expire despite the misnamed “Single-Year in the legal name of that type levy.
The Orcas fire commissioners NEVER compared a levy lid lift vs. bond funding. I don’t think four of the five commissioners even knew what a Single-Year Permanent
Levy Lid Lift was based on discussion with the,
MAJOR FAILURE on the part of the Orcas fire commissioners not to compare a levy lift, and other than this bond and subsequent debt decision, they have done an outstanding job restoring the fire district’s management.
If the bond doesn’t pass, they can recover and do a a levy lid lift (there are two types that would work) in early 2026. That delays new tax receipts until 2027, but they have enough end of year carry-over money in the current $.77 levy to start facility repair and one apparatus refurbishment. The district will have the same fire fighting capability as it has today.
Let’s set the record straight. Mr. Dashiell was invited to write the voters’ pamphlet opposition statement and declined, and he chose not to run for the open commissioner seat. The commissioners engaged the public extensively beginning in 2023 and throughout this process. Mr. Dashiell’s criticism focuses on a single June meeting he missed while he was in Canada on his boat. Using that isolated absence to impugn the board is misleading and distracts from the substantive issue before voters: how best to fund necessary fire apparatus and facility upgrades.
The board thoroughly reviewed levy and bond options with legal and financial advisors in multiple public meetings beginning in 2023. The suggestion that four commissioners do not understand what a Single‑Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift is false and unfair. Meeting minutes, fiscal analyses, and presentation materials document the board’s review of levy mechanics, projected revenues, and tax impacts and are available for public review.
Bonds structured in tranches are the responsible way to finance major apparatus and facility improvements. Tranches allow the district to issue debt in staged financings tied to project phases and cash needs, so voters approve the whole program while the district borrows only the amount needed at each stage. Tranche financing matches borrowing to the timing of expenditures, reduces interest costs by postponing part of the debt until funds are required, and preserves flexibility to adjust scope or timing based on actual costs and public priorities. Tranches also make it easier to refinance individual series if interest rates fall, produce predictable, tax‑exempt debt service for each tranche, and maintain the legal restrictions and reporting that create accountability for this board and future boards. Bonds amortized over the useful life of assets match costs to beneficiaries, provide up‑front capital for large multi‑year projects, preserve operating levies and reserves, and avoid the higher long‑term cost of delayed or piecemeal work. Inflation over a 20‑year horizon reduces the real value of fixed payments, lowering the debt burden in inflation‑adjusted terms.
In contrast, a levy capped at 1% growth cannot keep pace with construction, equipment, and labor cost inflation. A 1% cap erodes real revenue over time, prevents the district from securing necessary up‑front capital, forces delays or piecemeal projects that increase total program cost, and risks repeated short‑term levy requests that create uncertainty for taxpayers.
We are committed to fairness and transparency. We welcome constructive, fact‑based dialogue, encourage residents to review the fiscal comparisons and tax‑impact projections, and invite questions at public meetings so the community can choose the funding path that best balances services, costs, and long‑term fiscal responsibility.
IRT Mr Dashiell, he continually either misses the following point or willfully ignores it: 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 things 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 Proposition 1 Bond, which is the best financial decision for Orcas Island property owners.
To put some concrete numbers on Terry’s valid observation, assuming the current inflation rate of 3% continues for 20 years, a dollar will be worth 74 cents ten years from now and only 54 cents 20 years from now, with these figures given in 2025 dollars. And that’s probably a conservative assumption, given current economic trends, according to a recent issue of “The Economist.” Which means the loan interest will be something like $8 million in today’s dollars, not the $10 million Mr. Dashiell emphasizes.
IRT Elizabeth Britt, and since she has now turned this personal, she is correct that I was not on Orcas Island when the fire commissioners made their decision to use debt vs. levy lift funding at their June 16 OIFR meeting. That’s completely irrelevant to the real issue. The complete video of every OIFR meeting is available on the fire district’s website. I’ve watched that meeting video three times. The commissioners did mention a levy lid lift as a funding option at that meeting, but spent maybe two minutes talking about levy options before the discussion turned to bond funding. There was ABSOLUTELY ZERO financial discussion comparing bonds vs. levy lid lift options.
She goes on to talk about the 2023 stability group discussion of levies. I was a member of that group. She is correct that levy options were discussed at those meetings, but that again is completely irrelevant because those discussions were about what to do to avoid the levy cliff that the expiring 10 year levy would bring about where OIFR funding would revert to about half the tax revenue they were receiving after two $1.06 levies had soundly failed. Funding just to keep operations going was the issue at the time, and the decision was to come up with a levy amount that would keep the fire district operationally functional. Fire apparatus and facility issues were pretty much an unknown because no studies had been made to even know what that expected cost would be. So the stability group, after multiple meetings and public meetings, decided on a $0.75 levy which the commissioners increased to $0.77. and that levy passed.
Elizabeth Britt is just wrong in saying the fire commissioners fully studied the levy options available to them in the 2025 discussions of capital needs funding. If I’m wrong, she can publish the date and time mark of the OIFR meeting(s) where they were compared. Or anyone can do that … all the meeting are available on the OIFR website.
The voters will decide whether the fire district will go in debt $18.5 million to be paid off over 20 years. If approved, the district will be paying millions in interest, be it $8 million, $10 million, or the $11.7 million the show in their initial bond calculation, which they have not published on their website.
The annual cost to taxpayers for a bond or a levy lift can be the same … about $0.27/$1,000.
The difference is a levy lift has no bond fees and debt payments … ALL the tax collected money stays with the fire district.
It’s pretty simple.