Supervisor Serna warns Metro Airpark property owners: funding needed for planned fire station or occupancy limits may follow

Chair Phil Serna told the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 9 that the pace of development at Metro Airpark has created a looming need for a public fire station and associated life-safety infrastructure.

“Unlike roads, sewers, water conveyance, when it comes to fire life safety, there is going to be a point, where we can no longer ignore the fact that we have to have a fire station out there, so that lives and property, aren't going to be compromised relative to response times,” Serna said during the consent-item discussion, addressing county staff and property owners.

Serna said he has discussed progress with a county staff member identified in the record as Mr. DeFonte and appealed to the property owners’ group to cooperate on funding and timing. “I want to make sure it's clear to especially the property owners group that, there's going to be a point where we're gonna have to really look hard at, occupancy out there and whether or not it makes sense to continue with permitting occupancy in, various, for various activities, distribution or otherwise, without that necessary piece of infrastructure,” Serna said. “I'm certainly not willing to ignore the fact that, we are going to have to have that facility in place and operable in the not too distant future.”

Why it matters: Metro Airpark is a growing employment and industrial area near the county airport. Fire station siting and staffing are local government responsibilities that affect public safety, response times and developers’ ability to permit occupancies for warehouses, distribution centers and other industrial uses.

What was said and what follows: Serna praised the county’s community development team and local developers for progress at Metro Airpark but said the next stage requires a funded, operable fire station. He asked Mr. DeFonte to communicate the urgency to the property-owners group. County staff did not present a funding plan during the consent discussion; Serna’s remarks were framed as a public admonition and direction to staff to press funding partners and to inform property owners that permit activity could be restricted if the county determines life-safety thresholds are not met.

Record details: Serna made the statements on the consent agenda while registering an abstention on unrelated consent items; his remarks are part of the public record. The transcript shows the board then proceeded to approve the consent items.

What the record does not show: The meeting transcript records no specific funding sources, timelines, formal motion or vote tied to Serna’s warning. No firm deadline or statutory citation was provided on the record; Serna said only that the county must have the station “in place and operable in the not too distant future.” Any specific funding commitments, occupancy restrictions or formal conditions would require later board action.