Montgomery Township hears mixed public reaction to fire-staffing plan; supervisors schedule follow-up meeting

Montgomery Township supervisors debated a proposal to expand paid fire staffing on Oct. 28 as residents weighed safety gains against a potential property-tax increase.

Chief Bill Wegman’s staffing plan, presented earlier in the budget process, offers several scenarios—ranging from phased hires to a full complement—built on finance staff estimates using the chief’s staffing recommendations and assumptions about benefits and premium increases. Township staff said outreach included committee briefings, a town hall, a podcast, a dedicated webpage and a postcard mailed to 11,304 addresses.

The meeting turned into an extended public comment session. Denise Sesselman of 106 Caldwell Court said she received limited HOA notice and asked for an independent review, noting on the mailed card that the 1.4‑mill option "is actually an increase of 47.6% of our township taxes," a figure she said would be onerous for many residents. Several other speakers echoed concerns about timing and affordability for seniors and fixed‑income households.

Other residents and longtime volunteers urged action. Bernie Hines, a life member of the Montgomery Township Fire Department, called the proposal an adaptation to changing demographics and traffic patterns on Route 309 and urged "positive consideration" of the chief’s plan, noting the chief’s proposal could improve the township’s ISO rating and result in homeowner insurance savings. Angel Mejuez, president of the FDMT Relief Association, said county data show longer response times and argued the data support adding paid staff now.

The department’s deputy volunteer chief, Denae Setti, described occasions when a truck might not be available and appealed for recruitment while also confirming the department will host a Firefighter I class (about 210 hours) starting Feb. 1. Supporters and volunteers repeatedly said Chief Wegman has an open‑door approach and that paid staff would be added alongside volunteers, not instead of them: "the chief has consistently said this will be paid and volunteer will continue."

Board members split on process. Some supervisors said they trust the chief’s expertise; others said they remain unconvinced about the pace and scale of hires and want an impartial, third‑party study. The township solicitor explained that staffing levels for township employees are generally not subject to referendum under the Second Class Township Code and election code, meaning the matter would not automatically go to a public ballot.

After discussion about apparent inconsistencies in the budget scenarios (for example a $37,500 consulting line that appears in some scenarios but not others) and requests for clearer, scenario‑specific expense modeling, the board made and approved a motion directing staff to advertise a public meeting on Nov. 14 at 10 a.m. to revisit the staffing scenarios and the financial projections. The motion was approved by voice vote.

The follow‑up meeting will allow staff to present corrected numbers and give residents another opportunity to comment before any final budget adoption. For now, supervisors said, no final decision on staffing or millage has been made.

Meeting documents referenced by the board include the staffing scenarios, benefit‑cost assumptions and county response‑time data; the township posted a dedicated project page and has published related materials online.