The Numbers on the Wall: What Tool's Fire Department Data Actually Shows

This is Part 3 of an ongoing series. Read Part 1: Tool's Fire Department Is Fighting for Its Life, Part 2: Both Sides of the Fire, and Part 4: The Community Fights the Fire.

The ESD posted performance reports at the fire station for anyone to see. I reviewed them. The data tells a complicated story, but the facts make it easy to follow.

The ESD's case against the VFD keeps coming back to one point: the numbers are on the wall.

Seven performance reports covering all of 2025 have been posted publicly at the Tool fire station since January 2026. I obtained and reviewed copies. My team and I analyzed the full data set.

These are not reports the ESD created from scratch. The underlying data comes from the department's Active911 dispatch response app and NFIRS reporting system, combined with operational data reported to the ESD by the VFD. The reports were then posted at the fire station for public inspection.

After reviewing the full data set, some of the figures are consistent and verifiable. In other areas, the data appears incomplete, leaving questions that neither the reports nor the interviews I conducted can fully answer.

What the Data Confirms

The reports document 410 total calls in 2025. ESD-aligned sources told me the number was "about 400." That checks out.

Of those 410 calls, exactly 23 were categorized as "dispatched and no response," meaning the department was called and nobody showed up. That is 5.6 percent of all calls.

The chief's command vehicle consumed 36.54 percent of the department's total fuel for the year. ESD-aligned sources placed the figure at 39 percent, overstating it by about two and a half percentage points. But the underlying point stands: one vehicle used more than a third of all department fuel, including every fire truck.

The individual participation data is consistent with the ESD's claim that the fire chief attended roughly 37 percent of calls. Multiple other members fall below the 50 percent attendance threshold that the ESD says is required by the VFD's contract. The data suggests only one member meets that threshold.

What the Data Undermines

One area where the ESD has identified concerns is response times. But the response time data has a problem.

Of the 410 calls logged in 2025, only 104 have a response time entered in the NFIRS system. That means 75 percent of all calls have no response time data at all. When three quarters of the data is missing, whatever conclusions you draw from the remaining quarter are built on incomplete information.

Why is so much of the data missing? That remains an open question. VFD-aligned sources have argued that the Active911 app is unreliable in practice. The argument is straightforward: if you are running into a burning building, you are not stopping to tap a phone screen.

That explanation is plausible for initial check-in. But it does not account for the scope of the gap, because the system allows users to go back and edit their response times after the fact. A source who uses the same county-wide reporting system confirmed that times can be adjusted when filling out post-call reports. You fill out the report after the call and correct the times based on what actually happened. Times may be off by a few minutes or as much as twenty, but the data gets entered. Seventy-five percent is not a failure to tap a button in real time. It is a failure to complete the paperwork afterward.

The data as it currently exists cannot answer the response time question. It does not mean the VFD's response times are good. It does not mean they are bad. It means the available records are incomplete. The only source that could provide a definitive answer is Henderson County dispatch records, which neither side has produced and which could be obtained through a public information request.

The Fuel Question

The fuel percentage, while slightly overstated by the ESD, raises a legitimate question. Why does the chief's command vehicle account for more than a third of all department fuel?

VFD-aligned sources offered a specific explanation. The command vehicle is one of only two gasoline-powered vehicles in the fleet. Every fire truck runs on diesel. The fuel report tracks gasoline separately. According to these sources, the chief regularly fills gas cans for department equipment: chainsaws, pumps, a floating pump, and weed eaters.

If the chief is fueling both his vehicle and multiple pieces of portable equipment from the same fuel card, the 36.54 percent figure would reflect more than personal driving. Resolving this requires transaction-level fuel records showing individual purchases, which could distinguish vehicle fill-ups from gas can fills.

The total fleet fuel for the year was 1,046 gallons at a cost of roughly $5,100. The chief's share was approximately 382 gallons, or about 32 gallons per month. In absolute terms, these are modest numbers. The percentage looks alarming. The dollar amount less so.

I was also told by a source with direct knowledge of Henderson County fire operations that the command vehicle was allegedly used for a personal trip to Florida. To be clear, I have not verified this claim through fuel card records or other documentary evidence, and the available data does not confirm or deny it. But if accurate, it would reframe the fuel question entirely. Transaction-level fuel records would resolve whether out-of-area purchases occurred.

The Contested Middle Ground

Beyond the data, this investigation uncovered a series of claims where both sides directly contradict each other. These disputes cannot be resolved without documentary evidence that neither side has produced.

The mattresses. VFD-aligned sources say the board approved $2,000 per bedroom for furniture, but used mattresses with holes appeared instead. ESD-aligned sources say the mattresses were donated from a personal collection and that the $2,000 was approved but has not yet been spent. Purchase records would resolve this.

The training program. VFD-aligned sources say the ESD purchased a Vector Solutions training system with laptops but never distributed them. ESD-aligned sources say the system was purchased and contracts were signed, but distribution was delayed because of the ongoing conflict. Usage logs would resolve whether the system was ever activated.

The financial records. The ESD says the VFD has refused to provide financial statements. VFD-aligned sources say bank statements were offered at a meeting but the board wanted to run their own report. The VFD maintains that its fundraising accounts are separate from taxpayer funds because the department is a 501(c)(3). The distinction between ESD oversight of taxpayer funds and VFD nonprofit fundraising accounts is a question that the contract between the two entities should answer.

The CDL licenses. The ESD says no VFD member holds a CDL and they offered to bring a tester to the station with no takers. VFD-aligned sources disputed this, with members claiming they do hold CDLs. They also argued that Texas law exempts emergency vehicle operators during emergency responses, making CDL certification unnecessary for most fire calls. DPS licensing records would resolve the factual question. The legal question is separate and depends on how the vehicles are classified.

The audit. The question of whether the VFD has had an external audit is a point of contention. VFD-aligned sources say they contacted Henderson County directly and were told the county audits ESDs, not fire departments. However, a source with direct knowledge of Henderson County fire department oversight said the county did audit the VFD's finances and found significant problems, including missing receipts and charges at businesses inconsistent with fire department operations. The source said the audit results were serious enough that the county declined to assign the department a county coverage contract, giving it instead to a neighboring district. County records would clarify the full scope of the audit findings.

The Data Quality Problem

One finding from the wall reports cuts against both sides. Of the 410 calls in 2025, 82 incidents, nearly 20 percent, have no incident type entered in the system at all. These calls happened, someone responded, but nobody recorded what kind of call it was.

An additional 520 hours were logged under the code "Fire, Other," which is a catch-all category that tells you almost nothing about what actually occurred.

Between the 75 percent missing response times and the 20 percent uncategorized calls, the 2025 activity reports have significant gaps. The reasons for those gaps remain unanswered. What is clear is that anyone relying on this data to make their case should acknowledge its limitations. Incomplete records leave room for interpretation, and interpretation is where disputes live.

What Would Resolve This

Nearly every disputed claim in this investigation could be answered by records that are obtainable through public information requests under the Texas Public Information Act.

Henderson County dispatch logs would show actual response times from the authoritative source, not an app that 75 percent of calls never get logged into.

ESD financial records would show exactly what was purchased, from whom, for how much, and whether competitive quotes were obtained.

The VFD's contract with the ESD would show what performance standards exist and whether either side is meeting them.

Court records from Henderson County would confirm or refute specific allegations about individuals that are currently single-source.

Texas Commission on Fire Protection records would show which members hold what certifications.

These records exist. They are public. They have not been produced by either side during the course of this investigation. I intend to request them. If you live in the Tool area or have a stake in the outcome of this dispute, I would encourage you to do the same. Any Texas resident can submit a public information request under the Texas Public Information Act. The more people requesting these records, the harder they are to ignore.

Since publishing Parts 1 and 2, additional sources have come forward with information that corroborates claims from both sides and raises new questions. Some of the records described above may already exist in forms I have not yet obtained. This investigation is ongoing.

What Comes Next

On March 25 at 6:00 PM, the ESD board will convene at the fire station. The agenda authorizes discussion and action on possible termination or suspension of the VFD contract. The vote will occur in open session after the executive session concludes.

The outcome matters beyond Tool. Emergency services districts across rural Texas face similar tensions between oversight boards and the volunteer departments they fund. The questions here are not unique: How much control should an oversight board have over daily operations? When does accountability become retaliation? When does independence become a lack of transparency?

In Tool, both sides have evidence that supports their position. Both sides have claims that their own evidence undermines. The community deserves answers based on records, not allegations. I will continue reporting as those records become available.

Read Part 4: The Community Fights the Fire for what happened at the March 25 meeting.