||| FROM BRIAN EHRMANTRAUT |||
Orcas Island Fire & Rescue’s fire engines have served this community well for decades, but the fleet is aging and needs urgent attention. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which sets national standards for fire apparatus, recommends in NFPA 1911:
“Apparatus more than 15 years old that have been properly maintained and are still in good condition should be placed in reserve status and upgraded to incorporate as many features as possible of the current standard. Apparatus over 25 years old should be replaced.”
All of OIFR’s engines are in front-line service. Their ages are 28, 26, 20, 20, 17, 17, 17, and 17 years. Every one of them is beyond the 15-year guideline, and the two oldest are past the 25-year retirement threshold.
To make matters worse, the four “young” engines, now 17 years old, were all bought together and share a design flaw that has caused pump failures during firefighting. The part responsible is no longer made and has no reliable substitute. After two years of effort, OIFR still hasn’t found a dependable workaround.
Fire engines don’t age like cars. They run fully loaded, idle for hours at incidents, and sit out in salt air. By 20 years, corrosion and mechanical wear take a toll, parts become scarce, and breakdowns grow more frequent. Standards for cab safety, braking, lighting, and firefighter seating also change regularly; older engines can’t always be upgraded to meet them.
The proposed bond will let OIFR replace and refurbish our community’s engines, and re-establish a staggered schedule so future replacements happen gradually and predictable, and not all at once. The bond spreads the costs over a 20-year period, while allowing OIFR to address the current need in a suitable timeframe to achieve those goals.
This isn’t about buying shiny new trucks or expanding programs. It’s about reliability, firefighter safety, and responsible planning. I’ll be voting yes on the bond, and I encourage you to do the same.
**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.**
Certainly we need to fund our capital needs. After the necessary political wrangling these past few years and the resultant excellent remix of our fire board; the time has come to alleviate the problem. As we now know it will not be inexpensive and rightly so. We as a community created the mess and now we must fix it. I am all for this.
The total cost for purchases is $18.5 million. Why is there nearly another 10 million in interest and fees?
Is there no better way at all to avoid this extra expense?
Perhaps a revised timeline could be considered. Who knows what the world will look like in 10 years let alone 20.
Direct tax dollar usage has no interest or fees.
I sure would like to hear how more people feel about this. Time to decide
Fire commissioner Ehrmantraut is saying what virtually everyone is in full agreement with … the fleet of fire equipment is aging and refurbishments and new fire apparatus are needed. Like virtually all mechanical things, a problem occasionally rises and needs repair, and as the equipment ages, sometime the repair parts are harder to come by. But I’ve recently been told all 24 pieces of Orcas Fire and Rescue apparatus is currently in operational condition, although some fire equipment pumps and seals leak and should be replaced.
The latest proposed fire apparatus replacement schedule is has 13 pieces of new purchases and 3 refurbishments inn the next five years (2026-2030). That would take bond funding because a l$.27/$1000 levy lift would add about $1.5 million a year , and the propose replacement schedule is estimated to cost an estimated $10.7 million, so a levy lift would stretch out that five year replacement schedule eight years, but with no new debt.
I’ve been told Orcas Island had 16 fires in 2024. A levy lift would have provide enough money for one new fire truck a year , and there is enough money in the current $.77 levy for the next two years to fund one engine refurbishment.
For Orcas tax payers, the cost of a bond or a levy lid lift could be the same at .$.27/$1,000 (fire commissioners could set a different milage rate for a levy, but probably would set it at $.27). The difference is the $10 million in fees and interest the fire district will have to pay bond holders for borrowing $18.5 million for the accelerated apparatus replacement and needed facility improvements.
This is just part of a detailed discussion of funding that should have been held six months ago but wasn’t. In general, the fire district bond has not drawn much attention at the fire districts bond discussion open house houses, and it’s also clear much of the general public doesn’t bond vs. levy financing.
On to November 4th! The sky isn’t going to fall with either way the vote turns out.
Why Downplaying Fire Risk Is Dangerous: A Response to Bond Skepticism
Some community members have suggested that voting no on Proposition 1—the $18.5 million bond measure for Orcas Fire and Rescue—is a low-risk decision. One commenter recently argued that Orcas Island only had sixteen fires in 2024, implying that our emergency infrastructure is sufficient and that a slower, permanent levy-based funding approach would be more prudent. But this framing dangerously minimizes the reality we face.
Wildfires Are Escalating—and Fast: On July 8th, a 40-foot brush fire rapidly escalated into a 7-acre wildfire that threatened six homes. Within minutes, the blaze grew from manageable to potentially catastrophic. It took extraordinary interagency cooperation—including neighboring districts and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)—to contain it.
Just twelve days later, two more wildfires erupted near Doe Bay and Rosario. An unattended campfire caused one; the other may have been sparked by landscaping equipment. These were not isolated incidents; they are part of a growing pattern of year-round wildfire risk on Orcas Island.
Shrinking state and federal support: In May 2025, Governor Bob Ferguson signed legislation cutting wildfire protection funding by 50% over the next two years. Programs like Firewise chipping and Wildfire Ready Neighbors site visits—essential tools for prevention—are now at risk. RHNA members have already voted to raise dues and fundraise to offset these losses, but the burden is shifting to local communities.
At the federal level, 2025 has brought even deeper cuts:
Workforce Reductions: The Trump administration has significantly reduced the ranks of federal wildland firefighters and support personnel, leaving states and tribes to scramble for replacements.
Funding Freezes: Executive orders have frozen hiring and delayed funding, disrupting wildfire training and vegetation management projects.
Agency Budget Cuts: The White House has proposed cutting over $5 billion from agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and Department of the Interior, with reduced funding levels already enacted for FY2025.
Local Impact: These cuts have upended wildfire response planning across the West, making it harder to contain large blazes like the Limepoint Fire on the Oregon-Idaho border.
Why a Bond Is the Right Tool: The commenter suggests that a levy lift could fund one new fire truck per year, stretching the replacement schedule over eight years. But that assumes no further equipment failures, no price increases, and no urgent needs. It also ignores the fact that aging apparatus with leaking pumps and seals, as well as others requiring obsolete parts, are still being relied on for life-saving response.
Proposition one allows Orcas Fire and Rescue to act now, replacing and refurbishing critical equipment before failure occurs. It is structured to protect taxpayers through:
• Tranche issuance (borrowing only as needed)
• Refinancing flexibility
• Legal restrictions that ensure funds are used only for voter-approved capital projects
Public Engagement Has Been Robust: Contrary to claims that the bond proposal lacked public discussion, Orcas Fire and Rescue has engaged in extensive outreach since 2023:
• Strategic Planning Committee with community input:
• Multiple public hearings and open houses
• Three town halls in fall 2025
• Regular Board of Fire Commissioners meetings (open to the public and available via Zoom).
• Additional sessions at fire halls across the island.
This is not a rushed or opaque proposal; it is the result of years of planning, analysis, and community dialogue.
The Bottom Line: Voting no on Proposition 1 not only delays equipment upgrades but also risks leaving Orcas Island vulnerable to growing wildfire threats and shrinking state and federal support. The “sky isn’t going to fall,” as one commenter put it—but the next fire might. And when it does, we will wish we had invested in readiness.
Proposition one is a responsible, transparent, and forward-looking investment in the safety of our island. Let us not wait until it is too late.
The claims of $10 million being bandied about by bond opponents is indeed scary, but it deserves closer scrutiny that I will try to provide here.
First, it is based on investing the entire (presumably to be authorized) $18.5 million all at once in the first year, 2026. Not only would that not be prudent, as other needs will almost certainly arise in future years, but also because it would result in major interest payments of something like half a billion dollars in 2027 and subsequent years. A more likely scenario that I have heard voiced is to invest $5 million the first year in the most-needed equipment and repairs.
Second, it ignores the fact that in future years, OIFR will be paying the loan off in INFLATED dollars that are worth less (and likely much less as the years go by) than the 2026 dollars in which the investments were originally made. So, evaluated in 2026 dollars, the interest costs go down accordingly.
So let’s take a more reasonable case and do the math. Say the initial bond principal is $5 million, on which the interest rate is 4% (I’m told by a knowledgable person that 3.7 to 3.8% is currently likely, but I want to be conservative and this choice makes the math easier to follow.) Over 20 years, that turns out to cost OIFR $4 million in interest charges. But let’s assume that inflation continues at its current value of about 3% per year, a reasonable assumption given current realities (See the current issue of The Economist). So OIFR would really be paying only $1 million in 2026 dollars. That sounds like an awfully good investment to me (Full disclosure: I’m paying off an auto loan at 3% interest — given basically free money by the credit union.)
Of course, MBA’s will argue that I should be doing a “net present value” calculation, which involves various assumptions about interest rates over the next 20 years, but I’ll bet dollars to dimes that my $1 million ballpark figure (in 2026 dollars) is close to the truth.
As Bill Clinton famously said, and I like to quote: “It’s just arithmetic!”
The fire department suffered from mismanagement by past boards. We gave them $$ in 2014.. they promised to spend it wisely. They didn’t. They ignored (pretty much) rolling stock and building maintenance…
That is why their levy ask in 2023 failed twice!! They put the money all together again….
We said “no”…
This time around they split the needs …. We passed an operations levy in 2024 which covers their day to day costs. THIS bond is specifically for engines, ambulances, and building repairs. They cannot spend it on anything else.
This is an important detail.
The other thing is we replaced the previous board …swept them out of office in fact…
I personally have great respect and faith in our current board members.
$270/year is not much to ask for what they provide.
Emergency services are the third most important utility we have … behind water and sewer.