Bothell council votes to schedule joint meeting with Shoreline Fire RFA to explore annexation

The Bothell City Council on May 5 voted unanimously to direct the city manager to arrange a joint meeting with the Shoreline Fire Department Regional Fire Authority board to explore whether Bothell should pursue annexation into the RFA and potentially place the question on a future ballot.

The resolution, moved by Council Member Kurt and seconded by Council Member Angulari, passed 7–0. Council members said the joint meeting would give elected officials from both bodies an opportunity to hear details about governance, finances, and service levels before the council considers a formal annexation request.

Why it matters: staff framed the discussion as a multi‑year, multi‑step process that would culminate in a voter decision. City staff emphasized there are off‑ramps at multiple points — including before any ballot measure is filed — and that the August 4 filing deadline is the practical cutoff to reach the November 3 general election ballot this year.

Key figures and fiscal framing: Finance Director Quan Wong presented a 10‑year model comparing Bothell remaining an independent department versus joining the RFA. “Our ongoing cost … to operate the fire services … would be about $9.9 million as a net impact,” he said, adding that projected costs could grow to roughly $18.8 million by 2035, in part because of a planned third fire station anticipated to cost about $5 million annually. Wong said that joining an RFA would shift operational costs to the RFA and allow the use of funding tools such as a fire benefit charge to distribute costs across a larger tax base.

Governance questions: Diana Gregory of Pacifica Law Group outlined how RFAs are governed under Washington state law and stressed that an RFA’s plan (the governing document) would need to be amended to provide for any new seats or changed representation. “Each RFA has a plan … it is the guiding … document for the composition of the board,” she said, and amendments occur at the RFA board level before voter consideration.

Council concerns and next steps: Council members pressed staff on the assumptions behind the financial model, treatment of existing levies and pensions, collective bargaining oversight, the desired number of commissioners at the joint meeting, and public outreach. Council Member Kurt said he preferred all seven council members attend the joint meeting to hear details firsthand. Staff recommended scheduling the joint meeting promptly to allow time for follow‑up work should the council choose to proceed.

What happens next: the motion directs the city manager to schedule the joint meeting and return with any feedback; if both bodies agree to pursue annexation, the RFA would amend its plan, the council would pass a resolution requesting annexation, and staff would prepare ballot materials (the county filing deadline identified during the presentation was August 4 for the November ballot).

An exchange captured key contextual points for residents: the process is exploratory, financial details remain subject to negotiation, and final action would be decided by voters. The council stressed preserving local oversight and service levels as priorities during any negotiation.

The council took the vote after roughly two hours of presentation and questions; the joint meeting date will be scheduled by staff and reported back to the council.