Fire Chief Edward presented a multi‑phase strategic plan for the Marshfield Fire Rescue Department and asked the Police and Fire Commission for oversight and authorization to conduct a cost and staffing analysis.

"Our goal is to have a living document that we can work with," Fire Chief Edward said, describing the plan as a multi‑year, evolving strategy rather than an immediate budget request. He said the presentation is informational and that the department is not asking for funding at this time: "No budget approval requested. Really, all I am asking for is oversight on this. We would come back with all that information and all the studies for that."

Edward proposed several near‑ and long‑term changes: reclassifying daytime deputy chiefs to division chiefs to separate strategic and operational roles; creating a training division officer to centralize training, certification tracking and regional partnerships; and, in the longer term, adding an assistant chief and moving toward a two‑station deployment model to meet response‑time objectives. He cited industry standards as the foundation for the proposal, referencing NFPA 1561 (incident management), NFPA 1021 (fire officer qualifications) and NFPA 1710 (career department staffing and deployment), and noted a $35,000 financial/staffing study with SEH included in the CIP.

Chief Edward emphasized operational drivers: increasing call complexity, training shortfalls for shift commanders, and areas of the city with response times of 6–10 minutes. "We have areas that are anywhere from 6 to 10 minutes out," he said, adding that achieving the national standard for response and improving ISO performance informed the multi‑phase timeline (0–12 months for analysis, 1–3 years for foundational changes, 3–5 years for incremental staffing, 5+ years for full implementation).

Commissioners pressed for specifics. One commissioner asked whether the presentation should return as separate agenda items for the proposed inspector and the training division so the commission could review risk‑reduction impacts and staffing implications. The commission agreed to request targeted follow‑up: a line‑by‑line staffing and salary comparison, projected start‑up and recurring costs, potential offsets, ISO impacts, and a clearer implementation timetable. The department agreed to bring those details to the next meeting and to include the draft position descriptions and pay‑study data.

Next steps agreed by consensus were not a formal vote: authorize staff to proceed with the cost/benefit and staffing analysis and return with detailed proposals for the inspector role and the training division officer, plus risk‑reduction metrics and the SEH study deliverable. No budget appropriation was approved at this meeting.

Ending: The commission asked for the detailed analyses, position descriptions, and financial estimates at a subsequent meeting before considering formal approval of structural changes.