Frequently Asked Questions

Washougal voters showed strong support for the regional fire authority (RFA) proposal—the measure received majority approval in Washougal. However, because the RFA requires combined approval from both Camas and Washougal, the overall measure didn’t reach the threshold needed to move forward. Running the measure again is part of the original process we laid out. 

While it did not pass in Camas during the last election, the results have prompted a review of the funding impacts in Camas. Camas has worked to revise the funding impacts in Camas to an approach responsive to Camas voters. 

This new ballot measure reflects our ongoing collaboration and our shared goal: to provide strong, reliable fire and emergency services for both communities.

The current Interlocal Agreement (ILA) will end after 2026 and there will be separate departments that provide fire service to the cities of Camas and Washougal. Additionally, Washougal voters will need to decide on a levy lid lift renewal in 2026 that will start in 2027 to replace the existing lid lift in order to maintain current service levels. If the RFA passes, the lid lift will no longer be necessary.

Camas and Washougal are asking voters to consider forming a regional fire authority (RFA) during the November, 4, 2025 General Election. An RFA is an independent agency to provide fire/EMS with one governing board representing residents in both cities collectively.

The current structure requires both city councils to agree on operational and funding decisions. While both cities are aligned on the importance of public safety, an RFA creates a separate, independent entity that empowers fire leadership to make timely, expert decisions. The RFA is still accountable to the public through its own, unified governing board.

The RFA is fairer and more cost-effective for taxpayers than the current fire services agreement. With the current structure, the difference in cost increases between the cities is based on funding formulas from the interlocal agreement, meaning that all property owners do not pay the same rate. Under the RFA, all property owners pay the same rate of $1.05/$1,000.  

The cities began a trial consolidation of the two fire departments in 2011, then agreed to a temporary partnership in 2014 governed by an interlocal agreement. In the agreement, Camas maintains the fire department and Washougal contracts with Camas for emergency services.

Both cities have taken steps to make the partnership permanent by asking voters to consider forming a regional fire authority.

The City of Washougal estimates a property tax levy of $1.51 per $1,000 of a home's assessed value, which funds essential services such as fire, police, streets, and parks & recreation. To offset the loss of the Department, the City of Washougal plans to reduce its existing property tax levy by an estimated $0.88 per $1,000 of a home’s assessed value. This results in a net increase of only $0.17 per $1,000 for Washougal homeowners. For a Washougal home valued at $583,000*, this equates to an estimated annual tax increase of $99.11 a year or $8.26 per month for fire service in 2027. The estimated $0.88 rate reduction in 2027 includes the expiration of Washougal’s 6-year Fire/EMS levy lid lift after 2026. If the RFA passes, Washougal will not need to renew this lid lift, which was last renewed starting in 2020 at a rate of $0.10. 

Property owners would pay the RFA directly for services eliminating the cities as the intermediary. Most importantly, property owners in both cities would pay the same rate for service of $1.05 per $1,000.

This equal investment brings fairness to the taxes we all pay for fire service and means there can be collaborative, long-term emergency services planning for both communities as they grow. Long term stability in the RFA ensures that future investments (such as stations, apparatus and equipment) are more cost-efficient. Additionally, an RFA is directly accountable to its taxpayers and is governed by locally-elected representatives.  

In 2026 under the current system, property owners would pay approximately $0.88 per $1,000, which includes a $0.07 per $1,000 temporary levy.

Because the current situation is not sustainable, if the RFA is not approved Washougal will need to pursue an alternative approach to providing fire/EMS. The current agreement with Camas expires after 2026.

Both cities have a levy for Emergency Medical Service. In the November 7, 2023, General Election Ballot, Washougal voters approved Proposition 11 to renew the expiring Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Levy. This renewed EMS levy expires after 2029. An EMS levy is a property tax levy specifically designed and used for the provision of emergency medical services. In 2029 the RFA would ask voters to renew the EMS levy beginning in 2030. Property owners would then pay the RFA directly.

Voters in Camas and Washougal each approved a bond to build a new station within their city. The cost of these stations will remain the responsibility of each individual city and will be reflected on their respective property tax statements until the debt is retired. The ownership of the stations will transfer to the RFA when construction is completed. Since the property owners in the RFA are the same as the property owners in the cities, the same taxpayers will own the station, but through the RFA instead of through the cities.

• The exploration of an RFA first began in 2011/2012. We actually formed an RFA Planning Committee back then. 
• The conclusion at the time was to do an ILA approach first and revisit the RFA in the future. 
• In 2017 an independent EMS study was performed, with a recommendation that an RFA was the preferred path forward for stability of the system. The decision then was to defer such consideration a bit longer. 
• A full master plan for the fire department was done in 2019, covering the full scope of the program. It also concluded that an RFA was the preferred path forward. Similarly, the decision was to further defer that consideration. 
• In 2022 an independent, third-party detailed financial and governance analysis was completed by a financial firm. The purpose of the study was to look at multiple partnership options though a financial and governance lens. 
  • Multiple options were evaluated, including amending the ILA, options involving ECFR, forming a municipal fire district and forming an RFA. Again, the RFA was identified as the preferred option. 
  • Based on this comprehensive analysis, the councils formed an RFA Planning Committee, leading to the current RFA proposal. 
• This process has been discussed and evaluated for almost 15 years. It has been analyzed by multiple independent third parties in multiple contexts, all reaching the same conclusion

• All fire department assets will transfer to the RFA. This includes the three stations, apparatus (engines, ambulances) and supplies and equipment.
• Who is the RFA and who is the City?  They are both all of us as citizens and voters. The difference is that instead of the cities holding the assets on our behalf, the RFA does, but the shareholders are exactly the same, all of us. The “management company” changes.
• If the RFA for some reason was to dissolve, the assets would stay with the shareholders, they would transfer just as they are upon formation. The RFA Board is comprised of city councilors. The citizen shareholders will not have to buy them twice.

• The RFA would be brand new and will not receive property tax revenues until April/May and October/November of 2026
• To make payroll and meet expenses, the RFA needs funding sooner than that
• The cities together will loan the RFA ~ $4.4M to be repaid over three years at the same interest rate that the cities can get by investing those funds in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP)
• The RFA property tax rate of $1.05 is designed to accommodate this repayment

• Imagine a city that has only one parcel and one house that is brand new. This property is worth $100,000. As its only property, its value is also the entire assessed value of the city. Suppose further that the levy rate in that city is $2.00. That means this property owner must pay $2.00 for each $1,000 that their property is worth.
• In the first year after its construction, the taxes on that home would be calculated as follows:
• Assessed value of the city in thousands ($100) x Levy rate (2.00) = Tax bill and Year 1 levy ($200.00)
• The only time taxes are calculated this way is for new construction – i.e. the first year after the home is built. In every following year it works differently.
• In Year 2 the city may only increase its levy by 1%. So, following our example:
• Last year's levy ($200) + Additional 1% ($2.00) = Tax bill and Year 2 levy ($202.00)
• Let's assume the value of this city’s one home doubled from $100,000 in Year 1 to $200,000 in Year 2. Its tax bill would still be $202.00. No matter how much the assessed value in the city increases, its levy may increase only 1%. So, the city adjusts the levy rate to make it fit the new assessed value:
• New levy amount ($202.00) ÷ New assessed value in thousands ($200) = New levy rate (1.01)
• Any new homes that might be built in Year 2 would be taxed at this new levy rate.
• Now suppose our imaginary city had started with two new homes, but each one was worth only $50,000. The assessed value would still total $100,000 in year 1.
• With the same $2.00 levy rate, the levy in the first year would still be $200. But instead of one home paying the entire levy, the two equal-value homes would split the levy equally and pay $100 each. 
• In year 2 the levy would still increase by only 1% to $202. And if the value of both homes together increased to $200,000, the levy rate would still drop to 1.01
• But suppose to get to that $200,000 value, one home tripled in value to $150,000 and the other stayed the same at $50,000. Then their respective tax bills would look like this:•
  • The total levy is still $202, but more of it is borne by the home that increased in value and less of it by the home that did not increase. 
  • The total citywide levy increased the maximum 1%, but the tax bill for Home 1 increased by 52% while the tax bill for Home 2 decreased by 50%.
  • Assessed value only determines a home’s share of the levy. If all home values were to change by the same percentage, then each home’s share of the levy would stay the same and everyone’s taxes would increase by exactly 1%.

As an example...

$0.17 rate increase for the average house of $583K = $99.11/annually ($8.26 monthly by 2027)