Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears Fire Station 4 timing, staffing and budget scenarios as west-side growth approaches
Summary
Fire Chief Casey Davis presented build-out, staffing and deployment options for a planned Fire Station 4 to serve growth on the west side tied to Chisholm Summit; finance staff showed multi-year budget scenarios and stress tests that reduce fund balance under conservative revenue assumptions.
The Burleson City Council on April 7 received a briefing on planning, timing and financial implications for a proposed Fire Station 4 designed to serve planned growth on the city’s west side, including the Chisholm Summit development.
Fire Chief Casey Davis said the west-side development could add roughly 3,000 homes and that typical modeling indicates each 200 new homes could generate about 94 additional calls for service. Davis recommended initially opening the new station as a four-person engine company with at least one paramedic on duty, and said adding a fourth ambulance will require raising minimum daily staffing from 17 to 19 and eventually to 23 when the station is fully staffed.
Davis noted the city’s pursuit of the industry 17-10 standards for turnout and response and said Station 4 would improve coverage and help maintain the city’s ISO rating. He also described equipment and FTE needs and suggested staged hiring and options for pre-construction presence or contractual arrangements with the emergency services district (ESD) if growth accelerates.
Harlan (finance) reviewed a five-year forecast and three stress-test scenarios based on property-tax growth assumptions. Using a 5.5% growth assumption produced more favorable fund-balance figures than a scenario that reduced growth to 2% then 1%; a zero-growth stress test showed the fund balance could go negative in later years without offsetting reductions or new revenue. The presentation reminded council that a voter-approved $15,900,000 bond covers the project’s capital cost; staff emphasized the principal budget challenge is ongoing operating costs (personnel and recurring expenses) rather than the capital bond.
Councilors asked for more detailed staffing and amortization options, including whether the city could accelerate depreciation schedules to align useful life and debt service, and requested additional models to explore phased hiring and alternative coverage strategies. Staff said it will bring supplemental requests and models through the budget process for council consideration.
