George Rebane

The county’s Board of Supervisors and senior staff held a two day workshop at the local Holiday Inn away from the phones and walk-in business that usually interrupts sessions at the Rood Center.  This environment provided the right atmosphere for an informal give-and-take by the participants that was interspersed by formal presentations by department heads.  I and a few fellow bloggers and observers were welcomed guests and got to sit in the public chairs.  We all had ample opportunity to ask questions and trade ideas with the Supes and staff during the breaks.

I was a little disappointed that more of the public did not attend.  They missed sessions of our local government at work that were not only informative but eye-opening.  Unfortunately our newspaper was able to spare a reporter for only part of one day and its meager attendance reflected that level of attention and its quality of coverage. 

What the attendees saw and heard were presentations and policy discussions that spanned the entire spectrum of our county government’s actions, issues, concerns, and intentions.  I saw a well-facilitated gathering where department heads gave slide presentations on key areas that were followed by round table discussions – all on point and effective.  After each presentation the five Supervisors engaged and dissected topic after topic, each bringing their own perspectives and concerns into the forum.  The department heads performed superbly as resources to explicate matters of fact and process that enabled the policy makers to keep up the momentum. 

Over the two day period I came away impressed by the quality of people we have doing the people’s business in Nevada County.  Having been involved in one or two affairs of local government over the decades, seldom have I seen such mutual courtesies shown and collegial demeanor among elected officials – there was no grandstanding, posturing, or hubris.  The staff – all having command in breadth and depth of their respective areas – joined comfortably into the discussions, always remembering who they were supporting, but never holding back from a professionally rendered correction or contribution.  More of us citizens should witness such governmental work sessions, especially those of us who have learned (with some cause) to look at government with a gimlet eye.  But enough of this grateful gushing.

All of us in the public seats were taking notes trying to capture the more salient snippet here and there from the constant shower of information.  I’m going to list a few of my takeaways in no particular order to give a flavor of what transpired.  Perhaps one or two of these will motivate you to call your Supervisor and give him/her your take on a topic.

1. Most Supes voiced support of the notion that the county should, as a matter of policy, limit the scope of its actions to county business.  This excludes wasting time on resolutions and postured mandates on American foreign policy, fighting AIDS in Africa, and advising NASA on the sequence of upcoming space missions.  None opposed.

2. Everyone continued to be focused on “customer service” – making all citizen interactions with county departments as facile as possible.

3. The county’s large scale emergency (e.g. pandemic) planning recognizes surge loads by locals on facilities such as our hospitals, but we still sidestep any explicit recognition of the ‘head for the hills’ syndrome of thousands heading up here on highways 20 and 49 during a large scale emergency that would completely compromise any plan we might then have in place.  Individually, most of the Supes recognize this threat to county planning, and we will probably see this politically and practically thorny issue addressed in future versions of emergency plans.

4. Growth is to a large degree paced by support functions such as the sewage treatment capacity.  The Supes agree that “regionalization” involving investment in large capacity facilities is preferred to permitting small (80-100 household capacity) plants to spring up all over the landscape that are made obsolete in the next decade by advancing regulations and technology.  What seems to be a sticking point in providing for such infrastructure as sewage and roads is the absence of a policy that says how far into the future we should provide.  For what duration should we today financially encumber ourselves when we make a developer pay for road access or sewage capacity.  Fifty years is probably too long – no one can look that far ahead – and five years is too short.  Thirty years was mentioned a lot, but can anyone really provide for that kind of horizon?  How far ahead do we pay for?  This and other such policies are hard to make and make stick since no Board can encumber a future Board which must respond to the needs of its day.

5. For planning purposes our county accepts an annual growth rate of 1.7% that will swell our 100,000 souls over the next several decades.  This is a critical planning parameter because it drives decisions in so many areas.  Even though there are many mandated processes and procedures in place to slow growth (e.g. LAFCO), it seems that our mountains are due for a more vigorous onslaught as the I-80 corridor reaches out to us.  We are next to one of the three fastest growing counties in the country and spend considerable energy making 20 and 49 wider, faster, and safer.  It’s a little odd to think with such desirable real estate and lifestyles available in Nevada County, that making access easier will keep our growth rate below any of the national averages.

6. Privatization of many county functions was seen by all as something to reduce the cost of government.  All agreed that privatization was not a panacea for every service that the county must or wants to provide.  The Supes split on how privatization should be approached.  One alternative is to put the onus on the commercial entity wanting to operate a government service/facility.  Let that company approach the county with a proposal which would then be evaluated.  The alternative would be for the county to identify a service to be privatized, develop the legal and operational scope of the contemplated privatization, and then issue an RFP for competitive bids.  Because of the complexity of privatization, I favor the latter approach to the ‘hunt and peck’ by the outside firm trying to iteratively propose something that the county might accept.  This will be too expensive of an exercise for most firms to undertake. 

Perhaps the county CEO could set up a ‘Director of Privatization’ to continually survey county functions for privatization and develop the appropriate specifications for such action to be included in the RFP.  Once established, this process could become extremely efficient by ‘continually’ floating RFPs into the marketplace that would give feedback as to what is the current art of the possible.  This approach would also satisfy the ‘take it all’ sense that the Supes seemed to agree on – that is, the private company should assume ‘all’ the responsibility for a county function, and not just carve out the operational sweet spot leaving the county to manage the fragmented residual functions which in sum might wind up costing more than such partial privatization.  But here’s the rub, only the county can and should decide what all goes into the ‘all’ that it wants the successful bidder to undertake.  Hence the need for a Privatization Director whose position should easily pay for itself in completing the first successful deal.

7. Finally, I talked with a couple of Supes about their starting to blog their important positions, ideas, and proposals.  The blogs would be accessible on the county’s official website MyNevadaCounty.com from the individual Supes’ pages.  Such postings would overcome the journalistic hurdles of accuracy, completeness, and timeliness that often burden The Union.  These posts would be covered by other local bloggers who would cross-link to them, thereby promoting an ever-increasing readership.  Who knows, even The Union might then point a link to some text that a Supervisor actually wanted to communicate.  In any event, a new day would dawn.

I’ll stop with this short list for now.  There were more items, but those can wait until we see what community interest this workshop can drum up.  And one more time, we have a good crew in the Rood Center working on these problems.  More folks should come, get informed, and see for themselves.

For more coverage also see what Russ Steele writes on NC Media Watch.