Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board postpones county fire and rescue system RFP to gather cost estimates and chief input
Summary
After a year of work on a draft RFP for an outside review of the county—ire and rescue system, the Board voted unanimously to postpone action until the second meeting in March to allow staff to gather recent cost figures and for members to consult volunteer and career chiefs.
The Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to postpone consideration of a draft request for proposals (RFP) for a Fire and Rescue System Study until the second meeting in March, directing staff to return with more refined cost estimates and giving board members additional time to consult with volunteer and career fire chiefs.
The RFP would fund an outside review of the county—ire and rescue system, examining organization, fleet maintenance, revenue recovery and expenses, communications and recruitment and retention. Staff said a full, comprehensive study could cost in the range of $150,000 to $200,000; breaking out certain components would lower near‑term cost (examples given included fleet maintenance estimated at $50,000–$100,000 and a narrow revenue/expense review in the $20,000–$30,000 range). County staff recommended considering separating fleet maintenance, revenue recovery and communications into standalone scopes if the board wanted targeted, lower‑cost reviews.
Discussion and concerns: Several supervisors and stakeholders urged caution about duplicating existing work by the Chiefs Working Group, which the board and staff said already maintains a 10‑year plan covering many operational and equipment replacement issues. Supervisor Wells and others said some volunteer leaders preferred that funding go directly to volunteer recruitment and retention rather than an outside study. Other supervisors argued an independent outside review could provide a fresh perspective and identify long‑term savings and operational improvements.
Action taken: Supervisor Lockwood (motion maker recorded in meeting packet as motion to postpone) moved to postpone consideration until the second meeting in March; the motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice/roll call vote. Staff said they could gather more specific price estimates within two weeks but the board scheduled formal follow‑up for the second March meeting so members could consult with chiefs and review refined cost figures.
Outcome and next steps: Staff was directed to collect recent comparable study costs and return with refined estimates and a clarified scope. Board members were asked to consult the Chiefs Working Group and volunteer chiefs in the interim; if the board chooses to proceed later it may decide whether to issue a single comprehensive RFP or multiple narrower scopes (fleet, revenue, communications).
