Monday, 12 April 2010 18:00

Plymouth Fire Staffing Awaits AFPD Agreement

slide1-plymouth_fire_staffing_awaits_afpd_agreement.pngAmador County – The Plymouth City Council discussed its soon-to-expire agreement with the Amador Fire Protection District Thursday, while wondering about the city’s future of development. City Manager Dixon Flynn said the city had been waiting to see what AFPD’s board would do with its Measure M funding. The issue was decided last week, when AFPD’s board approved hiring of battalion chiefs in Plymouth and Upcountry battalions. AFPD Chief Jim McCart told Plymouth City Council Thursday: “We can’t hire for Battalion 20 until we have a contract.” Flynn said the city attorney drafted terms and conditions for a new contract, and “we kind of caught them by surprise.” McCart said the city’s draft agreement “was given to us yesterday.” It appeared to be “cut and pasted,” with sections missing and numbered wrongly. McCart said Plymouth paid $28,000 for personnel last year, and the draft plan had a 3-person, 24/7 staff, costing $700,000 “just for personnel.” Flynn said draft included a general city fire service plan, but the city does not have revenue to pay for it. The city fire committee, made up of Mayor Patricia Fordyce, Vice Mayor Greg Baldwin and Flynn, will discuss the contract with AFPD. Fordyce said AFPD is “asking for a 10-year commitment,” but “we are going to have development, so we might want to look at this a little bit differently.” Councilman Mike O’Meara agreed. McCart said the agreement is for 10 years, and there is no opt-out after 5 years. Fordyce asked about a provision that the contract terminates in 30 days if land in the city is “taken into federal trust for a casino.” She said it was wrong to have the contract contingent on something decided by the federal government. She thought AFPD should base such a contingency on actions by the city council, such as the Municipal Services Agreement the council signed with the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. She said the federal government or the county could allow the casino and “we wouldn’t be responsible.” McCart said: “The purpose is political, I think.” He said “impacts will be created on and off the casino grounds, so we have to address that.” The current contract expires June 1st. Councilman Jon Colburn said “we can’t afford to pay more than we’re paying.” Mayor Pat Fordyce said: “What about 5 years from now, if the contract lasts that long?” Fordyce said if an agreement can’t be reached, they would likely have to extend the existing contract. Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.