The Saco River has long been a source of vitality for the cities of Biddeford and Saco, which grew up on the industries the river’s power allowed people here to pursue. The cities, however separate and parochial they try to be, are joined economically and physically by the river’s attributes, though nowadays it is used more for recreation than industry.
In arenas such as fire response and economic development, the cities have worked well together, and their safety patrol of the river has been no exception. A “memorandum of understanding” has been the informal agreement under which the cities’ first responders handle the river. At issue now, however, is a more official “interlocal agreement” that would spell out each city’s responsibilities for this patrol. A joint committee of officials from both cities was convened last year to craft this agreement, but it seems the two sides cannot agree on its details.
The agreement is not that different from what the cities are already doing, of course. It simply clarifies the response protocols on the Saco River and mouth of the ocean. As with everything else in life, it’s the money that is creating an issue here, causing Biddeford to delay signing the agreement.
The City of Saco is currently sharing the cost for the use of Biddeford’s fire-rescue boat, even though the memorandum of the understanding doesn’t explicitly require it. The proposed interlocal agreement puts that payment into writing. Biddeford is wary of signing off because Saco plans to purchase a brand new fire rescue boat, at a cost of $127,000, to replace its other boat, which sank during a 2012 storm. If the agreement solidifies that Saco pays for Biddeford’s boat, that goes both ways, Biddeford officials surmise, so they’re not so sure they want to sign on the dotted line.
We’re glad the Biddeford council is being prudent about this decision rather than pre-emptively jumping into it, as the previous Saco council did with the boat purchase in November.
According to Biddeford Fire Chief Joseph Warren and the cities’ mayors, the interlocal agreement does not require that the cities share the cost of each other’s purchases, but allows them to do so “if they so choose.” The commission, to be established by the agreement, would make the recommendation of any major purchases and bring those before both city councils for approval, per Warren’s reading, before any purchase could be made.
At this point, however, it’s up to interpretation, and many of the councilors on either side of the river believe signing the agreement will entail sharing the expense of a new boat for Saco. The Saco council, in fact, put off the boat purchase pending Biddeford’s approval of the agreement, which certainly implies a connection and expectation of shared expense.
Until the boat purchase issue is settled, Biddeford taxpayers should be glad the city isn’t signing on just yet.
The previous Saco council should not have voted to purchase a new boat, particularly such an expensive, brand new model, with total disregard for the interlocal relationship and the work of the joint committee that was creating the interlocal agreement proposal. We applaud the new Saco council for prudently halting the process, though the initial decision has clearly caused some damage by clouding the basics of the interlocal agreement with a boatbuilding contract that is hanging over it.
Some Biddeford councilors don’t want to see this boat purchased, and certainly many Saco taxpayers have voiced their displeasure at the decision. If the two cities are truly going to work together on river patrol, as they have been, major purchases must be decided together. The interlocal agreement provides for that process and seems like a prudent way to move forward.
The cities’ officials are being wisely cautious in working out the details to determine how their taxpayers will be affected, and we hope to see them come to an agreement that provides appropriate rescue response in the river and bay without binding either city to a particular purchase.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
