The headquarters for Cal Fire’s Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit has been stationed in San Andreas for decades. The administration building is there. The dispatch services, the barracks, engines, maintenance shop and warehouse are there. But that will soon change.

Within a few years, the only thing that will remain in San Andreas is a two-engine firehouse as Cal Fire prepares to move the unit’s headquarters to Sonora in Tuolumne County. And at Tuesday’s meeting with the Calaveras County Board of Super-visors, Cal Fire’s Tuolumne-Calaveras unit chief exp-lained the past, present and future of the project.

“Going back to 1998, (Cal Fire) started talking about where they wanted to move the facilities,” said Josh White, unit chief for Cal Fire. “Currently, the plan is three phases.”

First is the fleet maintenance shop, which is going to be moved to the fire station in Altaville. Second is the supply warehouse.

“That is going to be taken from this (San Andreas) facility and moved to Vallecito – the inmate facility conservation camp,” White said.

The final piece of the headquarters to go is the administration building and emergency command center. Cal Fire already owns the two buildings in Sonora that will be repurposed and serve as the new headquarters.

“(The fact they own the buildings) was one of the largest determining factors,” White said. “And the finalization of this, it’ll probably be five to seven years is what the estimates are.”

News of the move did not sit well with supervisors.

“I have a concern because Cal Fire has been such an integral part of the San Andreas Government Center community,” said District 3 Supervisor Merita Callaway. “Jobs and the people who utilize the services in the community will be gone, whether it’s five or 10 years. It’s a significant impact I perceive in this area.”

White, who took his current post less than a year ago, was unaware of the project until he started doing some digging.

“It’s one of those things I had to ferret out,” he said.

At the end of the day, White simply inherited a project initiated by “my predecessor’s predecessor, who pitched it. … My marching orders were, ‘This is the way it’s going to be.’”

“If nothing else, I’d like to see us write a letter of protest in some form to Cal Fire saying this hasn’t been discussed with the county and we’re disappointed,” Callaway said. “We always thought we were partners. We’ve always had a good working relationship with Cal Fire.”

Her sentiments were echoed by the rest of the board.

“I’m a business owner in San Andreas,” said District 1 Supervisor Cliff Edson, who owns a small restaurant. “For us, it’s more than just a move. You’re taking away a part of our economy.”

For White, the move is out of his hands and the writing’s on the wall.

“(Cal Fire) notified me that this is a done deal,” he said.

The board voiced unanimous support to send a letter to Cal Fire’s headquarters in Sacramento expressing its disapproval of the move.

The new jail is scheduled to open by April, but it was on the verge of doing so without adequate maintenance in place after two supervisors decided to vote against funding the necessary personnel.

Tuesday morning, the board was presented with a service contract with CGL-Kitchell, which is a company that specializes in correctional facilities, to provide maintenance services at the new jail, along with the need to hire two new county employees to serve as custodians at the facility.

“For me, it’s a matter of, are we moving toward privatizing our entire jail system, our entire court system?” said District 2 Supervisor Chris Wright, who refused to support the contract until he could have a sit-down with county maintenance and grounds-keeping staff to see if they could do the job required to maintain the jail. “I can’t believe we can’t find an affordable way to do this without having to send it out to some company out of Folsom.”

The item required four out of five supervisors’ support to pass, since it requires an allocation of $142,000 out of contingency funds to cover the costs in this fiscal year. But Wright and District 5 Supervisor Darren Spellman did not initially support the move, which didn’t sit well with the other supervisors, who see a short window of opportunity to get the necessary operations in place.

“We’re getting real close to firing this program up,” Edson said. “Being able to go into it with people who know the systems and how to maintain it, running it efficiently as possible, that’s the way we have to go right now.”

“It’s a very complex, very expensive building,” said District 4 Supervisor Debbie Ponte. “I don’t think it’s feasible at this point (to find county employees with) the technical expertise that we would need.”

After the item did not pass, many were left wondering about the status of the new jail.

“If we don’t approve the $142,000 from contingencies, which is the maintenance contract with Kitchell, does that mean we don’t open the jail?” Callaway asked.

By 6 p.m., the board voted to bring the item back for another vote, though Wright wanted no part of it.

“We said no. We voted down that proposal,” he said, when others voiced their desire to bring it back.

The board did bring it back and, this time, Spellman had a change of heart.

“They’ve got (technology) over there that’s just crazy,” he said. “Under reconsideration, I will support it.”

The board voted to approve the contract in a 4-1 vote.