Montgomery Township supervisors decline outside staffing study, opt to proceed with chief’s plan

Montgomery Township supervisors voted to forgo an outside staffing study and move forward with the fire chief’s staffing proposal after more than two hours of public comment and debate. The motion "to not hire a firm to conduct a fire staffing study" was made and subsequently passed by the board.

The discussion centered on whether a third-party consultant would add value beyond the chief’s analysis and whether delaying to commission a study would impede implementation. Carolyn McCreery introduced the item and reminded the board the question before them was whether to hire a consultant for a staffing review; she noted prior public meetings and recommended that, if the board sought a more comprehensive operations study, it could be authorized for 2026.

Supporters of the chief’s plan and opponents of a new study cited the chief’s work and the township’s existing data. Dan Gormley, chair of the township public safety committee, said the committee voted to "recommend moving forward with Chief Wegman’s plan as presented." Vinay Sethi, deputy fire chief, told the board that departmental systems already produce the same information a consultant would and urged supervisors not to delay action: "All that information is gonna be turned around and said the same exact way."

Career firefighters and union representatives emphasized safety, staffing models and worker health as reasons to adopt the chief’s recommendations. Andrew Backlund, a career captain who identified himself as president of the township’s professional firefighters union, supported implementing a 24/72 schedule and said the change was meant to "strengthen our combination department with additional, career staffing that supports our volunteers." Backlund described the 24/72 schedule as reducing fatigue and long-term health risks compared with a 24/48 alternative and urged the board to weigh human impact alongside costs.

Several residents urged hiring a consultant to provide an independent review and long-term fiscal modeling. Shapna Mukherjee, referencing her career working on feasibility studies, said such reviews "are not to point out errors ... it's just a way of saying, are there holes in something?" Homer Elizardo and others said consultants can produce detailed multi-year benefit and cost projections and validate or propose alternatives to the chief’s plan.

Cost and timing were frequent themes. The board reviewed three proposals: Aspirant Consulting Group (staffing-focused, $16,500–$25,000, not to exceed $25,000), Municipal Resources Incorporated (staffing option ~ $25,000 plus travel, with a comprehensive option cited near $45,000), and the Center for Public Safety Management with a full comprehensive price quoted in the $45,000–$47,560 range. Board members noted that two of the firms could deliver results in time to inform the township’s Nov. 10 preliminary budget process if the board chose to retain them for the staffing portion.

Residents also raised questions about phasing and tax impacts. Karla Helazzek asked the board to consider a phased hiring approach (for example moving from five to eight, then to 12 over several years) to blunt a "huge tax increase" on seniors and other homeowners. John Almeida urged clearer public education on costs and said that for some households an estimated 38–40% change in the fire portion of the tax bill translates to roughly "$120–$160 a year," depending on property assessments.

At the close of the hearing, a supervisor moved "to not hire a firm to conduct a fire staffing study," and the motion was seconded. After a roll-call-style exchange in which some supervisors voiced "nay," the chair announced the motion passed. The board therefore declined to contract any of the proposed firms for the staffing study and will proceed toward budget decisions and implementation steps based on the chief’s proposals and internal review.

The board discussed additional resident outreach and engagement in coming weeks, including podcasts, targeted meetings with senior communities, and options for mailings and social media to help residents understand schedules, tax effects and anticipated service changes. The township’s preliminary budget is scheduled for presentation to the board on Nov. 10; supervisors said that timeline remains relevant as they finalize staffing and fiscal decisions.