Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Fire topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fire board details building quote, funding options and aging apparatus to Sherman County commissioners
Summary
Fire-board representatives presented an overview of reserve balances and a contractor quote for a proposed 80x100 insulated, heated building (base price stated as $289,000), discussed options including a $64,000 wash-bay add-on and an alternate full‑concrete option quoted unclearly in the record, and urged commissioners to consider funding and replacement timing for an aging fire engine.
Fire-board representatives briefed the Sherman County Board of Commissioners on department reserves, a proposed apparatus/storage building and the need to plan for a major apparatus replacement.
Presenters said the fire board had a $175,000 carryover: $100,000 was earmarked toward a building project and $75,000 was rolled into capital outlay. They presented a contractor quote described in the meeting as $289,000 for an 80-by-100 building that would include ceiling insulation, heating, a gas stub and electricity.
The presenters discussed two alternatives: adding a wash bay (described as an additional $64,000) and an alternate with a full 6‑inch concrete floor. The transcript records the full‑concrete alternate with a numeric value stated as “655”; it was not clear from the record whether that figure referred to $65,500, $655,000 or a shorthand notation. The commissioners and fire-board members agreed the market is volatile and numbers may change.
Fire-board members also proposed that EMS might contribute toward the cost because the building would house an ambulance that must be kept at a minimum temperature year‑round. Presenters said Kansas storage requirements mean an ambulance’s environment must be at least 55 degrees year‑round; as a result, heated storage was a key reason for the building proposal. One presenter suggested EMS could cover about 25 percent of the building cost to reflect ambulance storage needs.
The presentation moved to apparatus replacement. Speakers said a recent chassis order for a comparable truck cost roughly in the mid‑hundreds of thousands two years ago and that those prices have increased; the group cited multi‑year lead times of two to four years for new apparatus. They discussed lease‑purchase financing as an option to lock in payments and reduce the volatility of setting aside annual reserves.
Other budget items cited included a current equipment account balance (presenters said figures in the transcript consistent with several hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a pump motor replacement on a tanker estimated at about $9,000. Presenters asked the commissioners to consider directions on whether to prioritize the building or apparatus replacement; the board agreed to take time to review options and to follow up at the next meeting.
What’s next: Fire-board representatives will share the contractor quote details and plans with commissioners; commissioners requested time to evaluate funding sources and timing for a possible lease purchase or other financing options.
Note on figures: Several dollar amounts in the transcript were garbled or spoken unclearly (for example, a value transcribed as “655” for the concrete-alternate figure and earlier numeric strings for past truck costs). The article preserves the quoted figures and flags where the transcript left the exact amounts unclear.
