County mulls merger

Supes consider departmental consolidation

As budgets tighten and property tax revenues decline, streamlining government has become a priority in most places.

This past Tuesday, the Mono County Board of Supervisors heard a presentation from County Administrative Officer Dave Wilbrecht regarding a possible merger of the County’s Community Development and Public Works departments.

“It’s the duty of department heads … to always look at ways to streamline processes and save money where possible,” Wilbrecht said, adding that all the various players involved in the first look at the merger spent a great deal of time “looking at pros and cons, what’s working, what’s not.”

Wilbrecht advised the Board the situation hasn’t yet reached the yes or no stage, but is at a point where the Supervisors input is helpful. “Do you think we should move forward with it? Do you think it’s a bad idea?”

While consolidations aren’t very common, the County has used them before with mixed success. A Social Services-Mental Health-Public Health “Czar”-style attempt was made in 2003, but the CAO acknowledged it didn’t work out as well as hoped, primarily for financial reasons. On the flipside, however, a consolidation of the Auditor and Tax Collector positions into what is now the Finance Director has proven to be a good move.

The only caution Wilbrecht put out to the Board was that the idea is more about efficiency and not direct savings as such. “District 1 Supervisor, Larry Johnston’s salary in Planning will be a real savings, but this shouldn’t be looked at as something promising savings,” he advised.

Supervisor Hap Hazard was interested in the concept, but thought there was a part missing. Planning is in the business of planning, not making projects happen, he observed, and Public Works executes, but isn’t in the business of planning.

“We’re missing a component,” Hazard suggested. “There’s a need for some sort of coordination to transition the projects from planning to construction and finalizing. What concerns me is that the face people are used to seeing is from Planning. They come to RPACs and so on, but the department has a lot of turnover. Consequently, [CDD] keeps coming back and asking the same questions. There’s a real frustration among citizens. They want projects, but can’t get ‘em in the queue.”

He proposed a “middle linkage” person should take ownership of the project from start to finish. “Consolidated or stand-alone departments, we have to keep things from going down that center hole.”

Supervisor Tom Farnetti said he thinks when it comes to better inter-department communications, that’s a structural thing that can be overcome without consolidation. Savings, however, were a substantive issue for him. “This is a major undertaking. If we can’t [demonstrably] improve efficiency and realize [significant] cost savings, I won’t support it,” he said.

Supervisor Bob Peters took a more wait-and-see stance. “We have to face declining revenues in the near future. If this is the right move, there will be opportunities to save money.”

Acting Public Works Director Jeff Walters thinks there is some merit to the consolidation: “A lot of the pros outweigh some of the potential cons,” he opined, emphasizing what he saw as the benefits of a “one-stop shop with a common voice.” Community Development Director Scott Burns stopped short of endorsing consolidation, but agreed with Walters to a certain extent, saying he thought the two departments have the same common intent and customer service goals.

“A new bureaucracy bothers me,” Chair Byng Hunt commented. “These things have a tendency to expand. There could be cost savings, but coordination is something we need in any case to help fill the gaps we keep hearing about.” That view was echoed by incoming District 1 Supervisor Larry Johnston. “It’s my view that [creating another management layer] is out of step with the public’s view of government bureaucracy [and] spending,” Johnston wrote in a letter.

What would happen if the merger were approved is still rather vague. A recruitment plan would be developed to find persons with building code as well as planning, efficiency standards and other types of hybrid experience.

Wilbrecht said the approach would likely be more “go forward, as opposed to going back and retooling.”

There are, he said, still more people to talk to … Public Works’ Garrett Higerd, for instance. “If he’s ensconced in the Planning Department, how would that affect his work?” Wilbrecht asked rhetorically. Citizens as well should be heard on the topic, he added. “Tim Fesko, for instance, has already talked about problems he sees with the permitting process.”

Part of the initial study on the idea involved polling other counties, such as Madera, that have done similar consolidations. “It would be helpful to see our county’s answers to the 15 questions posed to other counties,” Farnetti recommended.

Finance Director Brian Muir, who ironically was the beneficiary of a successful consolidation, was cautious about the prospect. “Combining them has certain financial benefits,” Muir said, but tempered that with his take that Public Works probably doesn’t have the capacity to do the job. “If I were to grade their situation, it would certainly be below what we’d like to see. It can, however, only get better.”

In terms of a “sense of urgency,” Walters said he didn’t think there was one, but qualified that by pointing out that “the sooner things move forward, the better” for both Public Works and Community Development as well. “How much savings do you want to realize? Wilbrecht quipped.

Supervisors didn’t set a timeline, but agreed by consensus to move forward, essentially directing staff, “Don’t rush it, but don’t take too long.”