Kent County approves five-year successor contract for EMS personnel
Loading...
Summary
Kent County Levy Court approved a five-year successor collective bargaining agreement covering eligible Emergency Medical Services employees, effective July 1, 2025–June 30, 2030. One commissioner abstained from the final vote after noting absence from executive-session discussions.
Kent County Levy Court on Tuesday approved a five-year successor collective bargaining agreement for eligible Emergency Medical Services personnel, the county announced at its Dec. 9 meeting.
The motion to approve the agreement — recorded in the minutes as between the county and 'AFS CME, Council 81 local, Affiliate 7 81' (as named in the record) — was moved by Commissioner Angel and seconded by Vice President Scott. The contract term in the motion was listed as effective July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2030. A roll-call vote recorded six yes votes and one not voting; Commissioner Sweeney said he had not participated in the executive-session bargaining discussion and therefore did not vote.
The public comment period included remarks by Brandon Yorkovic, who identified himself as president of the paramedic union and said the membership ratified the agreement. "It overwhelmingly passed," Yorkovic said, and he thanked the county negotiating team by name for a cooperative process he called "very pleasant." He added that several former staff members planned to return in anticipation of the contract passing.
County staff member Trudy Horsey summarized key contract changes for commissioners prior to the vote and answered questions about removed sergeant shift differentials and retention-related pay provisions. Horsey told the court the document contained the changes provided in the commissioners' packet and asked if there were additional questions before the motion.
The Levy Court did not release further contract text in the meeting record. The court's action authorizes the president to execute the agreement on behalf of Levy Court. The meeting record indicates the vote outcome and effective dates; other implementation details and final signed copies were not specified at the meeting.
The court scheduled no additional public hearings tied to this item during Tuesday's meeting.

