Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County public-safety official outlines consolidation plan and staffing gaps for fire and EMS

Tazewell County Planning Commission · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Tazewell County’s director of public safety described plans to centralize the county's 12 volunteer fire departments under a single department structure and warned of recruitment, equipment and ambulance staffing shortages that he said require new investment.

Barry Brooks, Tazewell County director of public safety, told the Planning Commission on March 9 that the county currently has 12 fire departments and that staff are pursuing a model to bring departments under a single, centralized county fire department with multiple locations to improve purchasing power and coordination.

Brooks described a set of challenges hampering the current EMS program: a drop in volunteerism, limited budgets, an aging firefighter population, equipment shortfalls and enacted standards that raise training and certification requirements. He warned of a nationwide shortage of ambulance operators and paramedics and said the county has relied in some cases on trained law-enforcement officers acting as EMTs “to help until ambulances and paramedics arrive on the scene.”

Brooks also identified specific operational constraints tied to recruitment and training: screening potential candidates; insurance limits that require drivers to be at least 21; certification requirements for new hires; and wage competition that limits the county’s ability to hire full-time EMS staff. He urged efforts to attract younger volunteers and cited a need for aerial equipment to improve response capability in larger incidents.

Brooks framed these issues as part of the county’s planning considerations rather than a finalized policy change; no funding commitments, timelines or ordinance changes were proposed at the meeting.