||| FROM FIRE CHIEF CHAD KIMPLE for ORCAS ISLAND FIRE & RESCUE |||
As we move into fall, I want to update the community we proudly serve. It has been a very busy year for our responders, with 1,010 calls as of October 14, 2025. From medical emergencies to structure fires to rescues, our firefighters, paramedics, and volunteers have been hard at work keeping Orcas safe.
This summer’s wildfire season put our island to the test. Thanks to training, teamwork, and quick action, Orcas Island Fire and Rescue (OIFR) crews were able to contain them and prevent major damage. I am proud of how our responders rose to the challenge and grateful to the community for your support and vigilance during fire season.
At the same time, the work highlighted challenges. Several of our fire engine pumps failed during active fires, making it clear that our fleet is aging and nearing replacing or refurbishing. OIFR is pursuing a plan to refurbish three of our engines and replace five others to ensure reliable service for years to come. We are also planning to purchase a new water tender to
strengthen our ability to fight fires in areas without hydrants.
OIFR operates out of seven fire stations across the island, but only one of these stations is staffed 24/7. The others rely heavily on our dedicated volunteer firefighters, EMTs, and responders. For our stations to remain safe and functional, we need to address critical facility repairs. Several buildings have safety concerns such as damaged roofs, rot, mold, and poor to absent ventilation. Others do not have basic bathroom facilities. These problems make it harder for volunteers and staff to carry out their duties.
The bottom line is this: our people are doing an outstanding job, but they need the right tools and safe facilities to continue protecting our community. These capital needs—apparatus refurbishment and replacement, a new water tender, and station repairs—are not “wish list” items; they are essential to providing reliable emergency services on Orcas Island.
Levy and Funding
OIFR is currently funded by a 0.77 cent Fire Levy that went into effect on January 1, 2025. This levy is approved for five years and is designed to support the base operations of the Fire District—including minimum staffing, basic training, and day-to-day emergency response.
However, this operational levy does not provide funding for capital needs such as fire engine refurbishment and replacement, a new water tender, or facility repairs.
This November voters will see Proposition 1 on the ballot. This is a bond measure put forward by the Board of Fire Commissioners to address capital needs such as apparatus and station repairs. The bond was selected to more quickly address the years of deferred equipment needs and urgent facility repairs. Compared to a levy, bonds provide more ready access to funds and will allow OIFR to begin replacing equipment and fixing facilities sooner, ensuring responders have safe and reliable equipment and facilities to serve the community.
Fiscal Responsibility
We understand the importance of being good stewards of public funds. OIFR works hard to stretch every tax dollar, pursue grants where available, and plan ahead for major expenses through our capital improvement planning. Investments in apparatus, facilities, and equipment are made carefully and with long-term community safety in mind.
Looking ahead, OIFR is also excited to announce a Firefighter Academy starting January 3, 2026. We are actively seeking additional volunteer firefighters at all stations across the island. If you have ever considered serving your community in this way, now is the perfect time to step forward. You can fill out an interest form at https://www.orcasfire.org/join-oifr.
We are committed to transparency and to keeping you, our neighbors, informed as we work with the Board of Fire Commissioners on solutions. Your ongoing trust and support make our work possible, and together we can ensure that OIFR remains strong and ready for the future.
**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.**
I will vote YES on Proposition 1 on the up-coming ballot.
“This is a bond measure put forward by the Board of Fire Commissioners to address capital needs such as apparatus and station repairs. The bond was selected to more quickly address the years of deferred equipment needs and urgent facility repairs. Compared to a levy, bonds provide more ready access to funds and will allow OIFR to begin replacing equipment and fixing facilities sooner, ensuring responders have safe and reliable equipment and facilities to serve the community.”
Thank-you to all the professionals and volunteers who respond to fires and medical emergencies in our community!
I too will vote YES on this measure.
At the recent OIFR Open House, I witnessed part of the problem — a pumper truck that was leaking water from beneath as it tried to pressurize the fire hoses being used to display the department’s fire-fighting abilities. We cannot let this sorry state of affairs continue.
I too will vote Yes on this Proposition 1 Bond measure for the fire department.
A Bond is a much more standard way than a Levy for funding capital improvements for a district such as ours. A bond provides a capped amount for specific purchases that will have a standard useful life and will be amortized (expensed) over their useful life. Orcas Island residents have for too long postponed equipment replacement and major facility improvements, and it has caught up to us in the form of a lower level of safety which has resulted in greatly increased property insurance costs for all of us, A levy will not provide the upfront funds required for major purchases, and that will put us just further and further behind in making the improvements necessary to upgrade safety for both the fire department and all the property owners on Orcas. A bond will allow the fire department to make improvements to our safety and lower our property insurance expenses in a much shorter period of time, which will result in significant savings over time for all property owners.
I encourage everyone to join me and vote YES on the PROPOSITION 1 BOND measure for the fire department.
I will vote yes on Proposition 1 because the safety of our community depends on it. Orcas Island Fire & Rescue has served us heroically—answering more than a thousand calls this year alone. But their equipment and facilities are aging, with broken pumps and limited water access in un-hydranted areas.
This bond measure is not a luxury—it’s a lifeline. It will fund essential repairs, replace worn-out engines, and provide the tools our firefighters and EMTs need to respond quickly, safely, and effectively. When an emergency strikes, we depend on them. Now it’s time for us to make sure they can rely on us.
Together, we can keep Orcas Island safe for everyone. Please join me in voting YES on Proposition 1.
A 20 year bond is not a “standard way” for rural fire districts for funding capital improvements, but It’s completely legal and would provide the fire Orcas Fire District with millions of cash in 2026.
The issue with the bond, which the OIFR and staff failed to properly explain to the public, is that the fire district will be in immediate debt for repaying the $18.5 million plus an estimated $10 million in interest payments and bond legal and selling fees .. estimated $28.5 million to be repayable over 20 yers.
The alternative they never discussed was a One-Year Permanent Levy Lid lift. Although it has a misleading legal name, it doesn’t expire. It continues year after year until the fire commissioners end it. The fire commissioners could have used that Washington State legal lid lift in addition to the remaining $.77 levy at the same $.27 /$100. Cost to taxpayers would be the same as the proposed bond. And voter passage requirement is 50% +1.
The advantage to the Orcas Fire District and is no debt and a savings of $10 Million over 20 years. That enough to by 30+ ambulances or about 8 additional fire truck over the next 20 years. The increased revenue flow to the district would be about $1.5 million a year for however long the commissioners would decide to keep that additional levy. And, in 2029 when the current temporary levy expires, voters will have yet another levy cliff decision, and they can restore the $.77 levy and/or increase it … it will probably be in the $.70/$1000 by 2029 (it goes down annually with increased valuation and new construction).
Finally, the current average Orcas fire apparatus age is ballpark with the thousands of rural fire districts in the United States.. It’s true some of the fire apparatus pumps and seals leak, but that doesn’t put them out of commission . That’s likely more of a lack of proper maintenance issue, and seals/gaskets can be replaced at far less cost than new equipment.
This is a vote about the best way to fund clearly needed new and refurbished equipment, not how much love/respect one has for the fire district. The bond is an expensive debt decision when the Fire District commissioners could have at the minimum fully discussed and presented the financials of the levy option which would have added and estimated $10 million to the Orcas Fire district in the next 20 year vs. paying for a bond debt.
And the district will have enough money with the current $.77 levy to to begin refurbishing fire apparatus or doing facility repairs even if the bond levy is voted down.
Thank you Robert for speaking out with a well seasoned explanation that is understandable.It speaks GOOD SENSE TO ME I will vote no.
Thank you, Robert, for raising these critical points and contributing to the discussion. While it is true that bonds are not the only financing tool available to rural fire districts, they are a well-established and legal method used across Washington State—including small rural districts in Mason, Whatcom, Pierce, Island, and San Juan Counties—for funding capital improvements like apparatus, construction, and station upgrades.
Regarding the $10 million interest figure, it is essential to note that this is speculative. The bond has not been sold yet, so final interest rates and associated costs are unknown. The actual cost will depend on market conditions at the time of issuance, and the district will pursue the most favorable terms available to minimize taxpayer burden.
As for the alternative permanent levy lid lift, it is worth clarifying that while it may appear to offer a similar revenue stream, it comes with significant limitations. The 1% annual cap on levy increases makes it difficult to keep pace with inflation and rising equipment costs. Moreover, voters on Orcas Island have consistently expressed a preference for time-limited funding mechanisms over permanent tax increases. The district is respecting that preference by proposing a 20-year bond that can be adjusted or retired early if grants or significant donations come through. It is also important to note that bond interest rates can be refinanced, giving the district flexibility to secure better terms if rates decline in the future. Another key distinction is that bond expenditures are legally restricted to capital improvements, ensuring funds are used for equipment and facilities. Levy funds, by contrast, could be redirected by future commissioners for other purposes, which may not address the district’s most pressing capital needs.
The bond provides upfront capital—millions in 2026—to address urgent needs, rather than relying on incremental revenue that may not be sufficient or stable over time. While maintenance is part of the solution, several pieces of apparatus are already beyond their recommended service life. At that stage, patching leaks or replacing seals is no longer sufficient to ensure safety and reliability.
Ultimately, this vote is about choosing the most responsible and timely path to ensure our fire district has the reliable tools and facilities it needs to protect the community for decades to come. The bond offers a structured, time-limited solution that aligns with voter preferences and provides immediate resources to meet critical needs.
A very eloquent statement of the current plan but still…
It is still 10 million more is it not? If “speculative” the number may be lower I can understand that..but not by much.
Why could a specific special levy not be able to protect these capital expense funds from the misuse of the past which got us here in the first place?
It is beginning to look to me like this funding proposal may need more work
IRT Elizabeth Britt’s post, I agree with a number of her comments. but not all.
Fire Districts normally issue bonds when they are constructing new fire stations where it requires millions of dollars in the following three-six years.I just looked at one …. $80 million bond for removal and reconstruction of their main fire station, multiple upgrades to other stations, some new fire apparatus, and building a fire training facility. Voters (MUCH larger district) approved the bond. No levy lift required to fund those type projects would ever get approved where they would have enough tax revenue to even begin to pay for such expenditures.
Ditto why school districts use bond funding … large constriction expenses in the a relatively short time period.
That’s not the case with OIFR. If Orcas bought a new fire engine every 2.5-3 years, and a new ambulance every four or five years, the district would eliminate the situation they find themselves in now … a fleet of functional but aging equipment. They can only refurbish one piece of fire apparatus at a time … it will go off island and likely take maybe a year to complete. The facilities renovations are not wildly expensive … in the $3 million range. They are not all going to be done in a year because the district is probably going to have to hire someone to contract and manage the lengthy list of repairs. Between the current $.77 levy, which will have some end of year excess funds for at least the next two years, the fire district can start to make progress on their highest priority capital needs.
I look on the failure of the Orcas fire district, both management and commissioners, to present to the public the costs and pros and cons of a bond vs. the two forms of levy lifts that would not require debt funding. Discussing this in a local news source when bond decision has been made and the ballots are in the mail is six months too late.
Hopefully a lesson learned for staff and future fire commissioners.
Your fire commissioners and management staff have been working on capital planning for several years. In 2023 a single year permanant levy lid lift to pay for operations and capital expenditures – just like is proposed by Mr. Dashiell was soundly rejected by the voters in the August and November elections. New commissioners were elected and with that a new approach was presented to the voters: a bond.
A bond assures voters the money spent is applied to the purpose for which they are taxed – capital facilties and fire and emergency apparatus. Though it is argued it’s possible to write an iron clad resolution as an alternative, its not possible to prevent future commissioners from changing that resolution. But when bonds are issued the purpose of the expenditures are fixed and locked by agreement with the lenders. I believe voters want this assurance and that’s why I favor the bond.
Finally, a bond provides the funds when needed. An important consideration that must be taken into account is the increasing cost of capital projects and apparatus if delays occur. Just think of the price of project around your own home 10 or 20 years ago. The projects are using today’s prices because a bond will allow us to start the projects soon. If we wait 20 years to start the projects the costs will be much greater and so the future commissioners will have to return to you for more money if a levy approach is used.
I wish former commissioners had anticipated the increased costs and the needs five or ten years ago. Now is not the time to delay. The capital needs and bond proposal was put together with the voters best interest in mind and discussed with the public at many meeetings. Please vote yes.
I have several questions for Mr. Dashiell regarding his following statement related to his financial assumptions supporting his $10 million additional cost estimate over 20 years for municipal bonds.
‘The issue with the bond, which the OIFR and staff failed to properly explain to the public, is that the fire district will be in immediate debt for repaying the $18.5 million plus an estimated $10 million in interest payments and bond legal and selling fees .. estimated $28.5 million to be repayable over 20 years.’
Regarding the $10 million bond additional cost estimate above, those costs can be very different based upon these financial assumptions:
1. The estimated timing of the dates of actual issuance of the bonds, vs the potential November 2025 approval date.
2. The estimated interest rate the bonds will pay the investor when they are actually issued, over their 20 year life.
3. The estimated costs related to the approval, issuance, selling and administration of the bonds over their 20 year life.
So, please answer these questions regarding the estimated $10 million additional cost for $18.5 million in municipal bonds:
1. Is the financial assumption that all $18.5 million of the bonds will be issued immediately, directly after approval, in say, 2025/2026, or that they will be issued at various times in the 20 year approval period, and if so, what are the estimated years of issuance over that 20 year time period?
2. What is the financial assumption of the interest rate the bonds will pay over their 20 year life?
3. What are the other estimated costs related to the approval, issuance, selling and administration of the municipal bonds over their 20 year life?
4. Answering these questions and properly explaining your rational will help the voter better understand the basis for the additional $10 million cost over the $18.5 bond approval amount.
It would also be handy if the commisioners would weigh in with any additional information regarding their answers to the above questions.
Response to Terry O’Sullivan:
1. The bond funding documents produced by OIFR dated 8/6/25 showed two projections. The single 2026 full draw showed the district would receive $17,495,000 after bond expenses. Interest payments would be $11,814,000. Total debt repayments would be $29,309,000.
The second projection was 2026 bond for $10,000,000. Cash to the district would be $9,490,000 after expenses. Interest would be $5,469,750. Total debt service would be $14,959,750. The remainder would be a $8,500,000 bond sold in December 2028. Cash to the district would be $8,140,00. Interest would be $6,251,850, and total debt would be repayments would be $14,391,850. Total debt repayment would be $26,855,075.
Total combined interest in the two sale scenario was $11,721,600.
The bond spreadsheets were calculated by Northwest Municipal Advisors. Interest rates were best estimate at the time, using a complicated baseline plus 50bps.
The bond spreadsheets used a $.305 tax rate on the one bond sale plan and $.27 tax rate on the two bonds scenario. I rounded down to $10 million because the bond proposition is projected to be $.27/$1,000, and bond rates are slightly less now than in August.
2. Explained above … Northwest Municipal Advisors projections. Nobody can say for certain what the bond rates will be. The fact the district has had two failed levies in the past three years and a state audit that show past financial issues that couldn’t be rectified might or might not influence bond buyers. That said, appears to be in the 4.8% range. Hopefully the bonds might sell for a lower rate … one of the reasons I used $10 million vice the estimated $11.7 million.
3. Bond costs are normally in the 3-5% range. They are not detailed but included in the cash to the district in question 1 response.
4. Happy to answer questions. Bonds and levies are generally not well understood by the public. The public meetings (not well attended) made that obvious. The OIFR district and commissioners should have, but didn’t, explain or compare the two options with the public before they decided on bond funding with was decided at the June 16 OIFR meeting. District could also have posted the bond spreadsheets in their bond information link on their website.
Fire district and fire commissioners should be able to answer your questions … I’m just a reasonably well informed citizen/voter.
I’ve actually attended a number of the OIFR meetings during which the bond vs. levy lift discussions were taking place, and I strongly encourage Mr. Dashiell and others who have expressed criticisms/concerns now that a decision was made and the bond is on the ballot to consider perhaps attending such meetings in the future. There is no doubt in my mind that this approach is the appropriate one, and I’m certainly going to vote for it; there is no more important issue for those of us who are permanent residents than having a properly equipped and funded fire and emergency response department, in my opinion as a 27 year resident.
For those of you who note that interest payments accumulate over a number of years, you might have a look at how much interest you’ve paid on your mortgage over the course of time vs. the principal, or for some real fun, have a look at the interest that has accumulated on our national debt.
I hold our current Board and Chief and other staff in very high regard, and fully trust their abilities to manage our tax dollars as wisely as is possible in these modern times. Please vote “yes” for this bond.
OK yes! Many cogent and well expressed comments. We all agree that we need to get this done.
Still….What will the total cost to the taxpayer of this financing option be?
“We won’t know until…” is not good enough!
The board owes us their best estimate.
And I would thing right now.
Reply to Robert Austin:
The Single-Year Permanent Levy Lift. which is the arguably the best levy lift option, was NEVER mentioned by attorney Richard Davis when he gave the levy options presentation to the Fire Commissioners video (available on the OIFR website, June 2 meeting) , and two of the five commissioner of the five commissioners couldn’t explain what a Single-Year Levy Lid Lift even was when asked in September. The bond decision was made at the June 16 meeting … where there is brief mention of a levy lift option, but that was quickly dismissed with no real discussion.
I have Zoomed or attended every meeting, and have viewed every meeting for those I missed while traveling this past summer.
The commissioners NEVER had a serious discussion about a levy lid lift or compared the cost of a bond vs. a Single-Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift and the financial effect on the fire district. I offered one of the commissioners $1,000 if he could give me the date and video time of such a discussion. No answer yet, and there won’t be one because the two were never compared as to cost and pros and cons.
New commissioners and Chief Kimple have done an excellent job of getting the fire district back on track. I was a member of the stability committee that worked on the $.77 levy. An $18.5 million bond over 20 years is a significant ask for a small rural fire district, and a the bond vs. levy comparison SHOULD have been made.
If the bond passes, so the it. The cost to the taxpayers will the same as the levy. The fire district will pay an additional $10 million over the next 20 years for borrow that money where they wouldn’t have to go in debt and pay for the loan if they would have used a single year levy lid lift. But, they may get new and refurbished equipment faster with a bond … a Single Year Permanent Levy Lid Lift it would have been a steady stream of $1.5 million a year in addition to the $3.7 million tax the now get from the existing levy.