ORANGE COUNTY IN BANKRUPTCY : O.C. Plans for Privatizing EMA Unclear, Panel Finds

A committee on Tuesday declined to endorse any of the four bids from private companies to take over the county’s Environmental Management Agency, saying the county should better define just what work should be privatized.

“It appears that the unique combination of EMA functions may render the . . . privatization of this multifaceted agency unnecessarily unwieldy,” the committee wrote in its report. “Therefore, the team recommends that the board . . . refine the county’s strategy of how to privatize all or part of the EMA.”

The supervisors are expected to consider the matter at their regular meeting next Tuesday.

The EMA is one of the county’s largest departments. Among its functions are building and maintaining roads, reviewing development plans, and managing flood-control channels.

Three of the proposals were from large conglomerates whose recommendations ranged from complete privatization under county oversight to the privatization of about 85% of the EMA’s functions including harbors, beaches and parks but not including planning, building and development. The fourth proposal came from a county employee who advocated keeping the EMA a county government agency but adopting methods private companies use for efficiency.

Supervisor Roger R. Stanton’s proposal two months ago to privatize the EMA has drawn fire from labor leaders, environmentalists and county employees.

While Stanton saw the move as an important part of the county’s restructuring, opponents argued that it would violate state labor laws, cause potential conflicts of interest and result in the degradation of parklands put under private management.

More than 100 potential bidders attended a conference held last month. Only five submitted bids. One was eliminated immediately by EMA staff as “non-responsive” because it dealt only with waste management. The four remaining bids were forwarded for evaluation to a committee consisting of members of the county’s Privatization Task Force and other agencies, including the EMA.

Their report expresses serious reservations about the privatization process as it has played out so far.

“The team validates the concept of privatizing EMA and believes your board should continue to pursue the cost-savings potential,” it says. But by more specifically defining just what portions of the EMA’s work should be privatized, the report continues, “the county would be able to obtain more substantial proposals. . . . “

A section of the report prepared by EMA executive director Michael M. Ruane urges that the board to give him recommendations on which areas of the EMA should and should not be privatized, as well as a timetable for seeking new bids. It also suggest that the board reiterate its policy against selling or surrendering control of regional parklands maintained by private contractors.