Montgomery Township reviews proposed career fire‑staffing expansion as residents press for clearer outreach

At a special meeting in early November, the Montgomery Township Board of Supervisors reviewed a proposed expansion of career fire staffing and four budget scenarios that would change the township's fire fund millage. No final staffing vote was taken; supervisors said they will address advertisement of the budget and the staffing scenario at their regular public meeting later in the month.

Carolyn, a township staff presenter, told the board the packet includes four staffing scenarios and associated budget adjustments. She said recent edits (lines shown in red in the packet) moved some pension and equipment costs and added consulting services to fund a feasibility and a comprehensive fire service study for 2026.

Chief Bill Wegman argued the staffing choice should prioritize consistent operational safety. “I am asking, at this point, for 11 because that is the bare minimum standard by NFPA and by OSHA,” he said, citing the service‑level goal of four personnel per engine (the “2‑in/2‑out” safety standard) and data showing a number of slow responses in the department's 2025 sample. The chief presented response‑time figures drawn from 175 calls and highlighted outliers: “When you're looking at calls over 9 minutes … we're at 74%,” he said, and warned that outlier delays and recalls were well above commonly accepted thresholds.

Staff outlined the tradeoffs among scenarios. Some of the numbers discussed in the packet and in the meeting: various schedule assumptions ($24.48 vs. $24.72 hourly schedules were mentioned), stipend increases (the stipend was recently increased to $100 per shift), and projected payroll totals under each scenario as shown in the packet. Staff also said consulting fees for a comprehensive fire study would be one‑time costs tied to the consultant scope; if the board directs the study for 2026, that cost would be included in the consulting line item.

Board members and staff debated how overtime was being calculated and how part‑time and volunteer resources were counted. One supervisor noted that overtime assumptions change depending on how a work schedule is structured and suggested the township consult labor counsel before making any unilateral schedule changes; staff acknowledged they had not yet engaged labor counsel on every scenario and said they would do so before implementation.

Residents who spoke during public comment voiced a mix of support for career staffing and concerns about transparency and cost. Denise Seschelman, a township resident, said outreach methods left many residents uninformed and urged earlier, clearer communication: “When you start seeing the dollar signs, then sometimes your head pops out of the sand … maybe a postcard would have been nice 6 months before you voted on the consultant.” Stan Vasconis and other residents urged a clearer long‑term roadmap showing response‑time targets, staffing triggers and the financial plan for phasing hires. Neil Franklin, a longtime area resident, expressed support for on‑duty staffing, noting that personnel stationed in a house produce much faster response times.

Several commenters and supervisors suggested concrete public‑facing materials (a short brochure or web summary with targets and a matrix of staffing/volunteer mixes) so nontechnical residents can understand the options and tax impacts; staff said the website includes an address‑based calculator that shows estimated homeowner impacts for each scenario and that they could add a concise summary and update the charts.

On timing, township staff said they had checked with the solicitor's office and that authorizing advertisement of the budget at the board's next regular meeting would meet the 20‑day advertisement requirement and keep the township on schedule to adopt a final budget in mid‑December if the timeline is followed. No formal vote on staffing was taken at the special meeting.

The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn that passed by voice vote; the transcript records the motion and an affirmative voice response but does not record a roll‑call tally. The board plans to return the staffing scenarios and a brief public presentation to the next regular meeting for possible authorization to advertise the budget and select a staffing scenario.