Policy would have County, towns share fire protection funding
Chris Ellington, second from right, is chairman of the County's Fire District
Commission, which is recommending that the County and its towns
share equitably in the cost of fire protection.
In some cases, residents of rural Johnston County pay more than their fair share for fire protection. In others, town residents do.
A proposed County policy aims to balance the scales, though its success would hinge on agreement — and often more dollars — from Johnston towns.
“The purpose of the policy is to establish a fair and transparent cost-sharing model between the county and the towns for fire protection services,” Fire Commission Chairman Chris Ellington told County Commissioners on Dec. 1. “That’s the whole intention behind cost-share — to make sure the towns are paying their portion of fire protection and the county’s paying its portion.”
That’s not the case now with every fire department that serves both a town and its rural neighbors, said Ellington, whose Fire Commission has looked at the numbers. “What we saw in a large majority of the places was that the county citizens who do not live inside the municipalities were subsidizing the towns’ fire protection,” he said.
The Fire Commission did find some exceptions to that rule. “Some towns were putting more money into the County fire protection than what they were supposed to,” Ellington said. “So this cost-share is to help even that out.”
Under the policy, the County and its towns would each pay based on their share of a department’s call volume, property values, population and square miles.
The cost-share formula would give the greatest weight to call volume, 40%, followed by real and personal property values, 30%; population, 20%; and square miles, 10%. Here’s how that might work: Let’s say a town accounts for 60% of a fire department’s call volume, 70% of its real and personal property values, 55% of its population, and 20% of its total square mileage. Using those figures, the town’s share of a $1 million annual operating budget would be 58%, or $580,000. The county would pay the remaining 42%, or $420,000.
“This is all data-driven,” Ellington said. “This is not opinion-based. It is strictly based on numbers.”
The same formula would apply to apparatus purchases — fire trucks and the like — while different rules would determine what the County and a town would pay for a new fire station. “If a fire station is going to be constructed inside the town limits, we want to look at that because there is some benefit to the citizens outside the town,” Ellington said.
But in exchange for funding, County Commissioners would have to sign off on proposals to build fire stations.
Ellington then addressed implementation of the policy. “This is going to be a difference for either the County or the towns,” he said, referring to the additional dollars either might need to contribute to a fire department.
Ellington acknowledged likely resistance to change. “If you’ve gotten something for free or you’ve gotten something at a discounted rate, nobody really likes to go back and have to pay full price for it or start paying for it at all,” he said.
Because of that, the policy calls for phasing in cost-share. Depending on the additional dollars needed, the policy would give the County or a town up to five years to begin contributing its fair share.
County Commissioners could adopt the policy as early as next month. Ellington couldn’t say what the towns might do. “Obviously, we can’t dictate what a town adopts or doesn’t adopt,” he said.
Ellington said the Fire Commission had received what he called “letters of concern” from Clayton, Kenly, Micro and Princeton. “I think all of them agree that cost-share is something that has to be looked at,” he said. “The implementation is what they were looking at and how soon they could implement it and be able to afford it for their citizens.
“Because that’s what we want to do — provide the service — but the citizens have to be able to afford it.”
Page last updated on: December 15, 2025