IG report: Montgomery Co. volunteer fire association received ambulance fee funds in violation of county code
Montgomery County’s Office of the Inspector General found that since 2014, the county has been improperly giving money collected from ambulance fees to an organization that should not have been eligible to receive those funds.
The Dec. 18 report stated that over a period of four years, from 2021 to 2025, the Montgomery County Volunteer Fire-Rescue Association, or MCVFRA, received $688,711 connected to ambulance fees for purposes including data management upgrades, administrative support, training and conferences.
The report concluded that there’s “no basis” for the MCVFRA to be treated like a local fire department and should not have been awarded the funds. The organization identifies itself on its website as a nonprofit that represents the county’s volunteer fire departments through “administrative and advocacy-focused” work.
The OIG called for “appropriate action, including, but not limited to, potential recovery of funds,” as well as a financial audit by the county on the use of the ambulance fee money. In a response to the report, Montgomery County Chief Administrative Officer Richard Madaleno wrote that “a thorough audit will be promptly initiated” and necessary action would be taken.
On Dec. 2, the MCVFRA posted a notice on its website, stating that there had been “leadership transition” and that since midsummer, the organization had been conducting a “comprehensive review” of its financial and administrative practices.
According to the MCVFRA’s statement, “That review identified several compliance and documentation issues that required correction.”
“There is no evidence of misuse or criminal activity,” the agency said.
The concerns revealed in its own review involved accounting classifications and reimbursement timing, “not missing funds.”
In an email to WTOP, Christopher Jennison, a member of the MCVFRA Board of Directors, said the organization did not agree with the OIG’s decision.
“We do not agree with that conclusion. MCVFRA has never claimed to be a local fire and rescue department, and that point has never been in dispute,” Jennison wrote.
“The County Code requires that EMST funds be used for the benefit of local fire and rescue departments. It does not require that funds be paid only directly to individual departments, nor does it prohibit the use of a representative or system-level entity to carry out functions that benefit those departments collectively.”
During his weekly briefing Wednesday, Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich said he viewed the report as a “technicality — but it’s technically real.”
“We’ll probably come up with legislation to obviate the problem,” Elrich said. “Either that, or we’ll just have to give the money directly to the volunteer companies — all of it.”
If the transfer of those funds violated the county code, Elrich also questioned why it took so long to catch the issue.
“I guess nobody went back and thought, ‘Well, why are we doing this?’ Because it was a normal part of what we were doing,” he said.
Earl Stoddard, the assistant chief administrative officer for Montgomery County, called the MCVFRA “a critical partner in delivering fire and rescue services in Montgomery County.”
Stoddard noted the organization works with the county’s 19 volunteer fire and rescue departments.
“Obviously, we need to work through those issues, but at the end of this process, be left with a volunteer fire and rescue association that is a capable partner for the county to continue to deliver the services that our residents rely on,” Stoddard said about the issues cited in the OIG’s report.
Last week, the OIG released a performance audit of Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Service’s handling of funds from ambulance fees. It concluded that the agency showed “inconsistencies” with its “monitoring and tracking” of that money.
The audit from Inspector General Megan Limarzi also showed that local fire and rescue departments “did not always follow County regulations and internal MCFRS policies” when making purchases. The report further stated that the use of “P-cards,” or purchasing cards, didn’t always comply with the county’s policies.