County staff weigh raising revolving loan cap for volunteer fire/rescue apparatus and facilities

County officials on Sept. 9 discussed proposed changes to the county’s revolving loan program for volunteer fire departments and rescue squads, including raising the current $5 million borrowing-cap to account for inflation and projected apparatus and facility needs.

Deputy County Attorney John Sterling Hauser presented the item as one of six legislative proposals under review by the commissioners for the 2026 session. Hauser told the board that the existing $5 million figure in local law refers to a cap on borrowing authority tied to general obligation bond proceeds and that, after preliminary review, about $4.7 million of that cap remains unused. He said the proposal would increase the cap to an even number—$7 million—to preserve borrowing authority consistent with today’s costs if commissioners choose to use bond financing in the future.

County financial staff cautioned that borrowing authority does not require immediate bond issuance. Hauser and others noted an interest-rate mismatch if the county were to use bond proceeds to lend at the program’s current 0.5% loan rate: the county’s borrowing cost on general obligation bonds is typically higher than the rate charged to volunteer organizations.

Chief Financial Officer Vonetta (Van) Cleave and staff outlined a 10-year projection focused on apparatus replacement. Their analysis, built from reported apparatus needs and current repayment schedules, identified a projected shortfall of roughly $2 million for apparatus over the next decade under the current program parameters. Van Cleave said rescue-squad facility projects reported by local groups were not always accompanied by firm cost estimates, but she cited Hollywood Volunteer Rescue Squad’s preliminary building estimate as an example of a potential facility need in the multi‑million-dollar range.

Commissioners and staff also discussed policy parameters that affect how much each organization can borrow at one time and under what terms. County staffers noted an existing policy cap of $1 million per loan and that policy changes (loan limits, allowable uses, loan-to-value ratios) could materially change the total funding need: expanding the program to include larger facility projects increases projected demand substantially.

Commissioner Colvin (identified in the hearing transcript) and other commissioners asked whether the revolving fund is currently drawing from the general fund reserves, what portion of the program had been financed historically with general obligation bonds, and how previous bond issuances had been repaid. Finance staff said earlier issuances had been used but most are retired; a recent $300,000 issuance was retired this year, and about $4.7 million of the $5 million cap remains available.

Staff and the board agreed to gather additional details and return to the commissioners for further direction at their Sept. 23 meeting, including clarifying where previous program funds originated, testing alternative policy scenarios (loan limits, grant/loan terms, and allowable project categories), and refining the 10-year projection to include facility renovation/construction requests where firm cost estimates are provided.

No formal vote was taken Sept. 9. Commissioners were asked to weigh the trade-offs between helping volunteer organizations access low-cost county financing and the county’s borrowing and fiscal risks if general obligation bonds were used to fund the program. County staff recommended more granular data from volunteer departments to determine whether a modest increase (the CFO’s $2 million apparatus baseline) or a larger cap accommodating facility projects would be appropriate.