||| FROM BEN LUNA for ORCAS ISLAND FIRE & RESCUE |||
Community Needs
Orcas Island Fire & Rescue (OIFR) facilities and apparatus require immediate attention. Fire engines, ambulances, brush trucks, and other critical equipment need refurbishment or replacement. Facility roofs and structural damage will worsen without prompt action.
The district’s apparatus committee and facilities committee spent months evaluating equipment and facility conditions. Their recommendations, combined with staff analysis, identified urgent capital needs that cannot be delayed.
Apparatus committee members included Brian Ehrmantraut, Dimitri Stankevich, Heather Morelli, Kevin McCoy, Penny Buttke, Poke Haffner, Jack Delisle. Facilities committee members included Bruce Brackett, Caleb Weichert, Clark Cundy, George Schermerhorn, Greg Sawyer, Toni Knudson.
Financial Approach
OIFR proposes general obligation bonds rather than increased levies. The estimated bond levy rate is approximately $0.20 per thousand dollars of assessed value. Combined with the current regular levy of $0.77 per thousand, total property tax impact would be roughly $0.97 per thousand – less than the rejected 2023 levy attempts of $1.06 per thousand. The maximum regular levy rate for fire districts is $1.50 per thousand, providing context for current funding levels.
Bond Benefits
Cost Management: Bonds spread project costs over the equipment’s useful life of approximately 20 years. This approach results in lower annual property tax increases compared to funding projects entirely through levies.
Timing Flexibility: Bonds can be issued as needed rather than all at once. Apparatus has lead times of 1-2 years or more. This approach allows bond issuance to align with actual equipment purchases and spreads tax impacts over time.
Dedicated Funding: Bond funds are legally restricted to designated capital projects. No future board can redirect these funds to other purposes, addressing community concerns about funding accountability.
Community Equity: Bonds allow residents who benefit from equipment during its service life to pay their share while they live on the island, rather than current residents paying the entire cost upfront.
Financial Impact Considerations
While bonds cost more overall than upfront payment, they use tax-free government rates lower than commercial financing. The approach addresses community feedback favoring lower annual property tax payments over large immediate increases. Community discussions revealed strong preference for separating capital equipment funding from operational expenses. This bond approach creates that separation while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
Community Context
The 2024 operational levy of $0.77 per thousand passed after two failed attempts in 2023. The 2024 operational levy covers basic expenses to maintain services but does not address capital needs or new programs.
Public outreach included presentations by attorneys on financing options, committee work on equipment and facility assessments, community discussions gathering resident feedback, and a town hall meeting. The bond approach emerged as the preferred method based on community input and financial analysis.
Brian Ehrmantraut, Chair of the Board of Fire Commissioners, says, “We chose the bond method because it allows us to match the cost of critical capital projects to their useful life, without creating such a large spike in property taxes as other methods. What we heard in discussions with the community was clear: people wanted a transparent, stable approach to funding major repairs and replacements. A bond gives us that structure, and ensures the funds are used exactly as promised. This bond isn’t about expansion or new programs. It’s about taking care of the equipment and facilities we already rely on, so our firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs can continue serving the community safely and effectively.”
**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.**
Given our fire department’s recent successful work to sav West Sound homes, plus a single day of 3 medical and 2 fire emergencies, how could we not support what they need? Thank you, OIFR!
Den and Lynn Baker, West Sound
Speaking about OIFR responses to medical emergencies, see this article by Fire Commissioner Elisabeth Britt, including her amazint photo:
https://theorcasonian.com/letter-to-editor-when-public-service-meets-public-fury/
Apparently the 5-year old boy survived after over a week in Seattle Children’s Hospital’s intensive care unit. Great work, Elisabeth and OIFR.
How about a progressive levy instead of a “flat tax” that applies equally to all property owners? A levy based solely on the assessed value of someone’s property may not maximize the funding potential for OIFR, nor is it socially equitable.
With so many homes worth over $1 million on these islands, but so few people who actually live in them (an estimated ~40% sit vacant most of the year), the people who stand to lose the most from a structure fire should also pay the most. Not only in terms of total property value but in terms of the levy per $1K.
I think most voters would get behind such a thing because there are more people living in rentals, substandard housing, and sub-$1 million homes.
Current levy: $0.77 per $1K
Proposed bond + levy: $0.97 per $1K
Maximum levy rate: $1.50 per $1K
Start at $500K (very few developed properties are worth less) and add $0.10 per $100K of value so that it looks more like this:
$500K: $0.77 per $1K
$600K: $0.82 per $1K
$700K: $0.97 per $1K
$800K: $1.07 per $1K
$900K: $1.17 per $1K
$1M+: $1.27 per $1K
It’s an interesting proposition: One of the issues with this approach is income disparities. Like for long held Orcas properties where the owners have had their properties for decades let’s say and their incomes are now fixed and on the low side on the economic scale., or younger people who’s families have held properties multi-generational etc (other scenarios exist) may not be able to handle the tax increase and could loose their homes and properties. A progressive tax might cause unintended churn of properties.
Some property owners may hold high-value properties potentially inherited or acquired years ago but may live on a fixed or relatively low income. For these individuals, the burden of a progressive tax structure could be disproportionately high, leading to financial stress. They may struggle to pay increased taxes, which could force them to choose between maintaining their homes and affording essential living expenses.
Property Tax as a Percentage of Income: For lower-income households, property taxes, even at a lower rate, can represent a larger percentage of their income compared to wealthier households. What solutions would you propose to reduce the risk for those in this situation.
Thank you, David, for your thoughtful and well-reasoned proposal. Your suggestion to adopt a progressive levy structure speaks directly to the kind of equitable funding many in our community are advocating for—especially in light of the imbalance between property ownership and year-round residency.
Unfortunately, Washington’s state constitution presents a significant barrier to implementing a tiered property tax system based on assessed value. Article VII, Section 1 mandates uniformity in property taxation within each class, which has consistently been interpreted to require flat levy rates for residential properties. This interpretation was notably reinforced in the 1933 Culliton v. Chase decision, where the courts classified income as property and struck down graduated tax models.
So, as it stands, adopting a progressive levy similar to what you’ve described would likely be deemed unconstitutional unless either:
Property classes are redefined in law
The state constitution is amended to permit graduated rates
That said, your proposal could serve as a catalyst for exploring creative alternatives—such as benefit assessments or service fees—that achieve more equitable outcomes while staying within legal bounds.
I appreciate you sparking this important dialogue.