Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Rescue Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant presents 120 recommendations for Montgomery County fire and rescue system
Summary
A consultant who conducted a countywide assessment told the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Commission the volunteer-dominant system faces rising call volumes and data gaps and delivered 120 recommendations across immediate, intermediate and extended phases to improve governance, staffing, dispatch and station planning.
Frank Edwards, the project manager for Mission CIT, presented the results of a countywide fire and EMS assessment to the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Commission and urged a systemwide approach to growth and staffing.
Edwards summarized the study process and sources — three-day site visits, station inspections, focus groups, an online staff and public survey and CAD records — and said the team benchmarked findings primarily to NFPA 1720 and used NENA and American Ambulance Association guidance for 911 and ambulance metrics. “Our recommendations are made around the key themes,” Edwards said, noting the consultant organized the report into immediate, intermediate and extended phases. He said there are “120 recommendations in the report.”
The study found workload increases for both fire and EMS over six years (about 18% and 19%, respectively), and reported 210 responses from fire-and-rescue personnel (about two-thirds volunteer; roughly one-quarter career; 11% both) and 111 public survey responses. Edwards cautioned that the team encountered inconsistent or incomplete department and CAD data, which limited some analyses: “We didn't get the full amount of information that we requested from everybody, if that makes sense,” he told the commission.
Key themes in the report include governance and oversight, a countywide funding/allocation model, improved data collection and records management, standardized performance measures (for example, using NFPA 1720 as a benchmark), review of response districts to confirm closest-unit response, and a coordinated technical-rescue capability. Recommendations aimed at operational readiness include annual physicals and fit testing for members, improvements in diesel-particulate controls at some stations, and a push to develop countywide policies for incident command and firefighter accountability.
The consultant recommended that the Fire & Rescue Commission take a stronger strategic role — including the creation of subcommittees (recruitment and retention, training, apparatus and equipment, and policies/procedures) — to shepherd detailed work before it returns to the full commission for approval. Edwards also recommended a county records-management repository so planners and elected officials can extract consistent performance and staffing data across departments.
Jurisdiction-specific recommendations included a county fire marshal and human-resources support for volunteer recruitment in the unincorporated county; Christiansburg moving toward four-person daytime staffing (a budgeted change already in process); and Blacksburg expanding daytime staffing with possible future 24/7 career coverage as calls and data warrant. The study identified three priority future station locations — in the Peppers Ferry Road area, the Roanoke Street/Lee Highway corridor, and along Radford Road — but said site development and construction are multi-year efforts.
During questions, volunteer members criticized gaps in the data and said they expected more hands-on equipment checks during visits. One attendee summarized the room: “90% of everybody sitting in this room is volunteers,” and asked why consultants could not collect some equipment details directly. Edwards replied that detailed apparatus specifications are easier to compile when departments provide records in advance and that the consultant validated what it could during site visits and focus groups.
Commissioners discussed next steps including forming subcommittees and prioritizing the report’s recommendations. Several members emphasized the county cannot fully fund every recommendation immediately and that elected bodies will need to address funding while the commission focuses on technical implementation. The consultant said the team will remain available for follow-up questions and implementation assistance, and staff indicated the final report and presentation slides will be posted on the county website.
The presentation provided a baseline for discussion; the commission did not take a formal vote on the recommendations at the meeting and directed staff and members to review the full report and return with prioritized next steps.
