WSP06019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

01448 . WAPA continues to argue that its "Will-Be" plan is the best plan for WAPA and its customers One would have to agree that the "Will Be" plan is the best plan for WAPA and possibly its larger customers. However, a closer look at the overall plan shows CRSP as the big loser. CRSP loses much of its oversight responsibilities and its staff to carry out its mission. The Montrose Plan, however, keeps a staffing level to perform all CRSP management functions within the Upper Basin. The "Will Be" plan revenues, while being under the control of a CRSP manager in Salt Lake City, will be used to support and staff other WAPA offices. This is occurs today and from reviewing WAPA's plan one can see no relieve for CRSP in the future regardless of WAPA recent statements to the contrary. . WAPA estimates that the Montrose employee's Montrose Plan costs $1.6 million per year over its "Will Be" plan. Even if WAPA's is correct, is $1.6 million per year savings to CRSP over the Montrose Plan justification to close WAPA's most efficient operations center, move control of CRSP from the Upper Basin, cause significant economic harm to the Montrose area, a real possibility of reducing Upper Basin revenue for future water projects and rebuff many political leaders in the Rocky Mountain region? . WAPA initiated its own reorganization. The Department of Energy did not require WAPA to downsize or reengineer itself. One of WAPA's strategic planning objectives was to contain costs. This objective was used as justification by WAPA to initiate its reorganization effort. Years of effort went into developing a strategic plan. From those years of effort, WAPA could identify only 2 other objectives. The other 2 objectives were new project justification guidelines and resource coordination with other Federal and State agencies. Cost containment was a problem for Western because of the visibility to its customers of an increase in its HQ staff (increase from virtually no staff in 1978 to over 700 in 1995) and associated overhead costs coupled with moderate staff . . increase in its Area Offices. By comparison, Montrose had 160 employees in 1966, and less than 150 at the start of 1995. Many believe that Mr. J.M. Shafer needed to established himself as WAPA's new administrator by doing something big and politically acceptable. Many also believe that Tri-State Generation and Transmission lnc, located in Thorton, Colorado, had considerable influence and inside information because of the close ties with WAPA's senior managers and was able to influence the direction of WAPA's reorganization effort for their own benefit. 6