Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- . <br /> <br />'. .... <br />014't,u <br /> <br />elimination of project management from the Upper Basin when W AP A's May, 1995, proposal <br />was released, The proposal was modified in the final recommendation to include the modified <br />Salt Lake City Project Management office. The decision on the exact location of the control area <br />boundary in the Four Comers area will be incorporated into existing discussions with utilities in <br />the region over the Four Corners common bus arrangement. <br /> <br />W AP A has received numerous letters of support from Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming <br />customers concerning the proposal, The largest concern of the customers is that the agency will <br />not follow through on the proposal. No customer objections to the Montrose downsizing have <br />been received in the Secretary's office. <br /> <br />Concern #17: After WAPA senior managers proposed their organizational structure in May, I <br />closed process was used to assure all subsequent analysis would simply justify the predetermined <br />decision, <br /> <br />Review: A tremendous amount of analysis was conducted by W AP A staff in May through July. <br />In addition, hundreds of additional comments and suggestions were submitted by employees and <br />other stakeholders following the August 10 release of the draft proposal. <br /> <br />The final recommendations differ from the May proposal in several respects, suggesting that <br />serious consideration was provided the comments and suggestions received, For example, the <br />May proposal had the scheduling and dispatching of the Upper Basin CRSP power generation <br />split between W AP A"s Phoenix and Loveland Offices and only a small customer service presence <br />remaining in Salt Lake City. A review of comments received from customers indicated they bad <br />concerns with this arrangement. To address the concerns, the final recommendation has the <br />CRSP managed out of a smaller Salt Lake City Office wilh dispatching for all CRSP power in one <br />location (phoenix) and all scheduling in a one location (Salt Lake City). In another case the <br />Huron, SD, employees presented an alternative to opening a new Sioux Falls, SD, office which <br />mel the objects oflhe transformation. Their proposal saved two additional FfE and over two <br />million dollars in relocation costs, The proposal was accepted and included in the final <br />recOmmendations, Another example is a proposal to modiJY the makeup of the maintenance <br />staffing in Montrose that was presented by the Montrose maintenance employees. A number of <br />their changes were adopted in the final recommendation, These and many other instances of <br />"adjustments" to the initial and draft proposal indicate input was actively sought and considered, <br /> <br />The foUowing list summarizes the major outreach activities that were used to seek input from <br />employees, customers, and other stakeholders in the process, <br /> <br />estab6shed an Internal Communication Group to foster two-way communication <br />distributed a questionnaire to all employees soliciting input to the Transfonnation Process <br />and received nearly 400 suggestions/comments <br />surveyed W AP A's power customers <br /> <br />6 <br />