Expand Bidding on Agency, Group Says

A citizens group on Monday denounced a county proposal to privatize the entire Environmental Management Agency, calling the plan “a disaster in the making” because of a restrictive bidding process that excluded many private firms from participating.

Patrick Quaney, local issues coordinator for United We Stand America, sent a five-page letter to the Board of Supervisors on Monday complaining that the bidding process, which officially ended late Monday, was “misguided” because it seeks to hand over all of the agency’s varied functions to a single private entity.

Instead of finding a single consortium to take over the work of EMA, the county should break up agency services and give smaller companies a chance to compete, Quaney said. He said he believes that alternative might be cheaper for the county, and complained that a consortium just replaces one bureaucracy with another.

County officials did not disclose how many bids they received to privatize the agency. Those details were scheduled to be released today, they said.

The agency performs a number of county services, including land management, overseeing low-income housing efforts and running the county’s harbors, beaches and parks. The agency also is involved in flood control, land-use authorizations and environmental planning. County officials also are planning to merge the functions of Integrated Waste Management into EMA.

The Board of Supervisors approved the plan in April, saying that the county needed to re-examine how it delivers services. The plan, which was pushed by Supervisor Roger R. Stanton, has drawn criticism from labor leaders, small-business owners and members of a committee formed by the board to explore privatization, because it could violate state law and prompt a slew of lawsuits.

Stanton, however, has said privatizing EMA could save taxpayer money, eliminate county jobs and become a model for privatizing other county agencies, such as the General Services Agency.

But some critics say EMA is an unusual starting point for the county’s privatization effort, because the agency is nearly 70% privatized already and receives very little county money.

Even some supervisors privately have said they aren’t sure why the privatization was limited to an all-or-nothing approach, or why EMA was selected.

Stanton and EMA Director Michael Ruane did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Dan Miller, a former Stanton aide, is overseeing the request process and also did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Paul Nussbaum, top adviser to County Chief Executive Officer William J. Popejoy, emphasized that the county is simply looking at its options and may ultimately consider using smaller businesses for certain EMA tasks.

“The market for all or part of EMA’s operations will be determined by the proposals,” Nussbaum said. “What might evolve is a hybrid” of small and large firms.

Quaney said he supports efforts to contract services out to the private sector, as long as it is fair and not restrictive.

“We are not against privatization, but it must be done in a such a manner that it is open bidding,” he said.

Times staff writer Rene Lynch contributed to this story.