Amador supervisors' funding for economic development

In case you missed the news, the Amador Business Council has approached the Amador County Board of Supervisors about contributing funds to a new economic development corporation. Never mind there's already an EDC in the county. The supervisors have asked the groups to try to resolve their differences and come back to discuss the funding request.

Meanwhile, I decided to weigh in on the subject with the supervisors, for what little my opinion is worth. We'll see how many of them respond to me or even acknowledge receiving my note. Want to make bets?

Here's what I e-mailed them yesterday:

Dear Chairman Plasse and Members of the Board:

I am writing as a private citizen and a county taxpayer, not as a representative of any group.

I strongly support community and government investment in local economic development. However, I do not support the County of Amador simply giving money to groups that come and ask for it without an objective, criteria-based look at their accomplishments and qualifications. The process should be open to any organization or economic development firm that is interested and able to provide the needed service so that the public is assured its money will be well spent.

Consequently, I would suggest that rather than give money to the Amador Business Council for a new economic development corporation, the county should take the more usual, professional governmental approach: Issue a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications and see who applies. The ABC, if interested, can then compete with others who may be as well or better qualified to spend taxpayer dollars in a productive, accountable way.

Before you issue the RFP or RFQ, CAO Chuck Iley, who I gather has extensive experience in contracting, could then work with the appropriate committee and then the full board to develop a set of criteria that would be used to review the submittals and choose the most qualified applicant with the best proposal. I would suggest that those criteria include a demonstrated record of success in economic development, as measured by jobs created, taxable sales increased, increased value of commodities produced, increased value of nonresidential construction, decreased unemployment, wages increased, percentage of new businesses surviving more than two years, poverty levels declining, percentage of employees in family wage jobs increasing, and other objective measures. The proposal should clearly lay out the expected results from the funding, using similar benchmarks so that you can hold the recipient accountable for the funds invested.

If you use an RFP rather than an RFQ, one of the scoring criteria should be the demonstrated success of the applicant.

Using a process of this type, you can select the most qualified applicant and best proposal, and the public can be better assured of getting results for our tax dollars. If the recipient doesn't perform, you can choose not to fund them in the future.

You might also consider setting up an economic development ad hoc committee that includes members of the public to assist with this process. If you do, I recommend that you include people from the full range of local economic sectors to ensure a balanced view. The committee could also benefit from the perspective of agencies like A-TCAA and Job Connection.

If local business owners want to contribute money toward economic development, they would still be free to pledge their funds as they have done with the ABC proposal.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Best regards,
Katherine K. Evatt
Volcano

Placing faith in growth

The Placer County city of Lincoln had just over 11,000 residents in 2000. By 2010, its population had boomed to more than 41,000. Now the town is struggling to make ends meet.

As discussed in recent article in the Sacramento Bee, Lincoln residents will be voting this November on a utility tax to help prevent more layoffs in their police department. It seems that as property values – and property tax and sales tax revenue – went down during the recession, Lincoln has found itself unable to support its police force.

Here’s a priceless quote from the Bee, “After years of being a largely rural small town, the city decided to ride the housing boom. But after the boom went bust, Lincoln finds itself stuck in the middle, having given up its volunteer fire department and smallish police force.”

It appears that the majority of the city residents support the tax, because they understand the importance of having a functional police department. At the same time, one can’t help but wonder: If Lincoln hadn’t grown so rapidly, would it be calling on local residents to pay more taxes? Or would the city be in better fiscal shape?

It’s an important question to consider. Here in Amador County, some folks are loudly beating the drum for population and housing growth as a panacea to all that ails us. But they rarely present any facts or examples to back up their theory. They simply believe that more houses and people create a more affluent community with adequate tax revenue. It’s a faith-based approach to economic development: "In Growth We Trust."

But does it always work that way? Let’s compare Amador and Calaveras counties. Calaveras had more rapid population growth than Amador over the last decade (13.1 percent vs. 8.3 percent).

Who has the higher unemployment rate right now? Calaveras.

Which had the higher sales tax revenue for the last available recorded year (2008-09)? Amador.

Who has more private sector employees? Amador.

Who has the higher median household income? Amador.

Calaveras does have higher property values, so we’ll give them that. But on several measures of economic well-being, it’s not doing as well as its slower-growing neighbor to the north.

Maybe fast growth is not all its cracked up to be, especially if you have no other real strategy for a strong, sustainable and resilient economy.

Wishful thinking on Gold Rush Ranch

It's hard to believe that local realtors and others really think approving the Gold Rush Ranch project will somehow boost our local economy in the short run (there are questions about the long run, too, but I'll ignore those for now).

Amador County isn't an economic island. We can't ignore state and national trends, including these:

-- Housing starts nationally in January and February were the lowest since before 1959, according to the Department of Commerce. Demand for new homes is way down.

-- The people who fueled our local housing bubble (and ensured home prices rose beyond what local working families could afford) were folks with large amounts of equity in their homes in urban parts of California. Now that the state real estate bubble has burst, there's no longer a big pool of equity-amenity refugees able to quickly cash out a home and move to the foothills.

-- Last year's gas prices (and increasing awareness of carbon footprints) caused commuters to think hard about how far they live from work. Long-distance commutes of the type common in the past will be less acceptable to homebuyers in the future. Homes in rural subdivisions built on a commuter-resident model are going to be less desirable than homes closer to jobs.

-- The stock market decline and resulting crash of 401(k) values, combined with declines in home equity, have led many people to delay their retirement by 3-5 years, or more. We won't be seeing as many people retiring in the next few years as once anticipated.

While people may once again start moving to the valley and foothills, it's going to take a while, according to the Sacramento Bee.

And in any case, a project approved now won't be built for some time. There are even approved subdivisions for sale locally.

We need to build our local economy, not more houses for people who don't already live here.

Environment vs economy: a false choice?

That's the title of a November 5 blog post in the Christian Science Monitor by Eoin O'Connor. In it, O'Connor documents how Americans support protecting the environment. The public understands that it's possible to do that and have a strong economy at the same time.

Here's a quote from the post:

"When asked directly, most Americans don’t say that the economy and the environment are inherently opposed. Here’s what a 2006 Los Angeles Times poll [PDF] of 1,478 adults found:

"The public is optimistic . . . that protecting the environment does not have to conflict with economic growth, long a contention of those who are looking to dismantle or weaken environmental protection laws. Almost three times as many said it does not have to conflict as said that it does (70% compared to 25%)."

O'Connor also says,

"As the conservative environmentalist John Bliese pointed out in 1999, US states with stricter environmental regulations outperform states with weaker regulations “on all the economic measures.” The same is true for countries – those with the most stringent environmental rules tend to show the best economic performance."

It's worth remembering.

Some of the local powers-that-be are trying to convince us that to have a sound local economy, we need to sacrifice our county's remaining rivers, oak woodlands, forests, scenic beauty, and ranches.

They are hoping that you don't care enough to make a fuss about it. I am hoping that you do.

Economic woes, and budding success

I've been visiting family on the East Coast as the financial crisis unfolds. These are "interesting times" unlike anything my baby-boomer generation has ever seen. It's quite unsettling.

But having a little distance on Amador County is also a good reminder of this often-forgotten fact: Amador County's economy is tied to regional, state, national and global economies. We don't exist in an economic vacuum.

That's important to remember as people look to Gold Rush to "save" Sutter Creek and a new committee looks at revitalizing downtown Jackson. Things are tough all over, not only in our small towns.

I picked up some information in my home town that I plan to share with the Jackson committee. The downtown here, which was thriving when I was a child in the 1960s, started to die with the birth of malls in the 1970s. Efforts to make it more mall-like simply sped its demise.

Now, after years of decline, and subsequent years of effort to revitalize the historic business district, downtown is coming back to life. People are revamping the beautiful historic buildings. There are new small businesses, professional offices, a brewpub, ethnic restaurants, new housing, and night life for the first time in years. And the group heading the effort has just finished market studies intended to help determine which businesses are needed to make the downtown even more of a go-to (and live-in) destination for locals.

It didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen without some missteps. But people have persevered, and it appears they're on the road to success. I don't see any reason we can't do the same in our small towns. But it may take a while, especially in these interesting times.

Local currencies build local economies

To build a strong local economy, we need to support local small businesses and help them grow.

Using a local currency is a creative way to strengthen a community and help local businesses thrive in the face of competition from the Internet, big box stores, and chains. A local currency is like regular money, but can only be spent locally, and only with businesses that accept it -- which tend to be independent small businesses.

I first read about the use of local currency about 10 years ago, but had pretty much forgotten about the idea until a recent trip to Washington state.

At a coffee shop in Port Angeles, I noticed a sign advertising the town's "Downtown Dollars" program. The dollars can be spent like cash -- but only in the local businesses that accept them.

New England's Berkshire region has a similar local currency called BerkShares. People exchange U.S. dollars for BerkShares at participating banks. For every $90 in federal money, they get 100 BerkShares, which they can spend just like cash in any business that accepts them. That means consumers get a 10 percent discount -- $100 worth of goods or services for $90. Here's an illustration of how it works.

This isn't something new. According to the E.F. Schumacher Society, sponsor of the BerkShare program, "local currencies were widely used in the United States in the early 1900s."

There are many ways to help build a stronger local economy. This might be one of them.

More info

• Learn more about the Berkshire and Ithaca, N.Y. programs on NPR
• Business Week ran an article about the BerkShare program about a year ago.

Jackson does need help, but not Jackson Hills

It looks like Jackson's City Council will complete the approval of the Jackson Hills project on Monday night, September 10. Some locals think the city council members have been "bought off" by the developers.

I don't. I think it's more likely that the council members feel like they have to do something to address the challenges facing Jackson today: a distressed downtown, the loss of sales tax-generating businesses to the county, and the need to develop wastewater disposal alternatives.

The council is approving Jackson Hills because it's been sold to them as the solution to these problems. And they've bought the package, despite the many questions that surround it.

It's an easy fix, right? Approve one subdivision and all of Jackson's problems will go away. Problem is, closer scrutiny shows that Jackson Hills is not the solution, and before long, the city will have the same problems it had before, compounded by the problems that come with Jackson Hills, including gridlock in the south part of town.

There are other options.

Let's take downtown first. Years ago, when the county government was based in Jackson, county workers went downtown to shop at lunch and after work (I worked briefly in the courthouse, so saw and did this myself). When the government center moved out to Argonaut Heights, the downtown merchants lost that business. Now that the county workers are back on Court Street, has anyone tried to lure them back downtown?

Let's see -- why would county workers -- or Sutter Amador Hospital employees -- shop in Jackson? Maybe if there were free shuttles at lunch time. Maybe if it were easy to grab a loaner bike at the workplace and pedal into town for a sandwich without risking your life in the process. Maybe if there were actually something to buy. Remember, Jackson used to have many businesses that catered primarily to local residents and people working nearby.

Perhaps local business owners need to look at the local market again. The city could help by funding some market research and making it available for free to local businesses, working with the two big employers in town, and going back to some of the good plans developed for downtown in the past that are now gathering dust on someone's shelf. A little economic gardening could go a long way.

Also, I've always thought that any big shopping center with a shady parking lot could do a lot more business in summer than those with acres upon acres of unshaded asphalt. Given the choice of shopping at a store with cool parking or one without, I know which one I'd pick on a hot summer day. Urban forest grants could green up Jackson's shopping center lots for those who aren't going to go downtown and make them more competitive with the businesses in Mart-hell.

The sales tax loss is a hard problem to solve. Jackson always had unusually high sales tax revenue, thanks to its car dealerships. One could see how big a problem that loss was going to be years ago when the county decided to create the Mario Biagi Sales Tax Sacrifice Zone in Martell.

Home Depot is trying to sell itself as the solution to this problem, while proposing to build in the historic viewshed below the Kennedy Mine. Surely there are other ways to help Jackson renew its business base.

Wastewater disposal is the third big challenge. Spraying treated wastewater on local ranch lands is one good solution. And unlike a golf course, irrigated cattle pastures don't come with 580 houses and nearly 6,000 car trips a day.

As Jackson works on long-term wastewater solutions, the city could immediately reduce its wastewater volume by conducting water audits for every household to identify water-wasting practices. It could also subsidize the purchase of low-flush toilets and modern, water-saving clothes washers.

A new washing machine of the right type uses only 35%-50% as much water as older models -- that's water going into the wastewater system today. Everyone wins -- the homeowner spends less on water and power and the city has less wastewater to treat. The city would save money, too. Muncipal wastewater treatment requires a great deal of electricity.

Just as there is no free lunch, there is no simple solution for Jackson's problems. But there are alternatives to a big, environmentally destructive, dumb-growth subdivision that threatens the operation of local ranches. I've name just a few here. I'm sure others could be developed with some concerted effort and creativity.

Real leadership for Jackson means moving ahead with that effort. And it means standing up and taking on these challenges with a view to long-term consequences, not opting for the easy short-term fix -- especially one as suspect as Jackson Hills.