The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-02 FILED In the Office of the Secrete County sanitation Districts County Sanitation Dstril(sr, of Orange County,California Nos) ' �' ^ ; P.O. Box 8127 a 10844 Ellis Avenu MAR 271996 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714)962-2411 By DRAFT MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 28, 1996 - 5:30 p.m. A meeting of the Steering Committee of the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California was held Wednesday, February 28, 1996, at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative office. (1) ROLL CALL The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE: OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Present: John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair STAFF PRESENT: John J. Collins, Chair, PDC Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Absent: George Brown, Chair, FAHR (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the January 24, 1996 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. r Minutes of the Steerir� Committee Meeting Page 2 I.V February 28, 1996 (5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) There was no report by the Committee Chairman. (b) The General Manager reported that staff will be making a presentation on the spill in Newport Beach at tonight's Board meeting. He said that personnel actions will be taken but that will not be appropriate for public discussion. He also asked that the Steering Committee consider a request from IRWD that was received after the agenda was prepared. It was moved, seconded and passed to consider the additional item. IRWD has requested that the Districts support their Wetlands Water Supply Project when it is considered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on March 8, 1996. After discussion, it was decided that no formal action would be taken. The General Manager also informed the Committee on an opinion of General Counsel regarding conflict of interest as a result of the husband of the General Managers executive assistant working for a consultant who works for the Districts. Because she is not in a position to influence or make decisions, General Counsel concluded there is no conflict. (c) There was no report by Counsel. (6) DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Consideration of May 4. 1996 as the next Directors' Strategic Planning Workshop on Water Reclamation and Conservation It was agreed that Saturday, May 4, 1996 will be the next Directors' Workshop to discuss water reclamation and conservation. The decisions made will impact the Districts' future capital requirements. The consultants will be available and help with the presentations. The use of a facilitator is being considered to encourage interaction. The General Manager said that water reclamation is vital to the southland, but he doesn't want the Districts to get ahead of the efforts of the Water District. Bill Mills will be attending the work shop to help make the presentation on their reclamation study. ' Minutes of the Steerin- Committee Meeting Page 3 February 28, 1996 Chair Cox gave a heads-up on the possibility of IRWD sending their winter flows directly to OCWD. This issue and the impacts will be considered by our consultants. (b) Election of Special District LAFCO Representative. The Committee chose not to submit a nomination at this time. The Committee secretary will advise I.AFCO tomorrow. (c) Review scheduled agenda items for Committee action in March. The list of action items being presented to the Committees in March was reviewed. Director Swan indicated that he would like the OMTS Committee to come up with an action plan to reduce costs of operating the plants. The General Manager indicated that there is a consultant currently working on this issue and the report will be presented to the committees. Director Collins mentioned that discussion of a very large change order on the Pacific Coast Highway project, Contract No. 5-37-3, will be added to the PDC Committee agenda. Judy Wilson said that the discussion of in-house legal services will be moved to April. Chair Cox said that the report can be faxed to the interested individuals but that the matter will be considered by the FAHR Committee. In order to allow adequate time for discussion in Closed Session, the remaining items were discussed as follows: (8) OTHER BUSINESS Judy Wilson submitted a request by the Employees Activities Committee that the Committee consider funding $3000 to help defray the costs of the picnic and the Christmas party so that the employees do not have to spend time with fund raising activities. The general consensus of the Committee was that the General Manager could provide up to $3000 to assist with these activities. Any expenditures over$3000 would require additional review. Minutes of the Steerir- Committee Meeting Page 4 February 28, 1996 (9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were no matters to be reported at a subsequent meeting. (10) MATTERS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND A STAFF REPORT There were no matters for a future agenda. (11) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next meeting has been scheduled for March 27, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. (7) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened in closed session at 6:25 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to evaluate the performance of the General Manager. The Committee reconvened in Open Session at 7:05 p.m. The Chair reported that the Committee voted unanimously to forward a finding of an outstanding performance during the past year of service and to recommend to the Joint Boards a salary adjustment of ten percent (10%)with $8000 in base pay and $5000 for merit. (12) ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m. Submitted by: 04� 2n-w_ J n Tappan, Steer' g Committee Secretary JAWPWQGMST M�.MIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Notice and the Agenda for the Steering Committee meeting held on Wednesday, February 28, 1996, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts'offices on February 23, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of February, 1996. Penny Kyle, SecrKory of ch of the Boards of Directors of County San ion Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 of Orange County, California Posted: February 23 , 1996, P.M. By: 2e�v--- Signature wydw mW! mm,p bng" " COUNP...,�ANITATION DISTRICTS OF DI"VGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Board Secretary(2) phone: (714)962-2411 mailing address: PO. Box 6127 Fountain Valley.CA February 22, 1996 9272"127 street address: 10344 Ellis Avenue Finattain Valley.CA 9270B-7016 NOTICE OF MEETING Member STEERING COMMITTEE Agencies • cities COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Anaha;m NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 Buena Paaikk OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA cypress Fountain Ved, ' Fullerton Huntington Baschirvind WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. Habra La Habra L.Palma Las Alamitos Newport Beech Orange DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES Plaelven. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE sear seen FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Stanton Tustin Vila Park Yorba Linda County of orange A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Joint Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange Senate" 0ietricts County, California, will be held at the above location, date and time. costa Mesa Garden Grove M;dway City Water Districts Irvine Ranch A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Sice 1954 '.r STEERING COMMITTEE Roll Call: Meeting Date: February 28, 1996 Meeting Time: 5:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Committee Members John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair . . . . . . . . . . . _ George Brown, Chair, FAHR . . . . . . . . . . . . . John J. Collins, Chair, PDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR . . . . . . . . . Others Present Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel . . . . — Staff Present Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager . . . . . . — — Blake P. Anderson, Asst. General Manager . . — Judith A Wilson, Asst. General Manager , . . . — Jean Tappan, Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — c: Board Secretary Lenora Crane February 28, 1996 AGENDA STEERING COMMITTEE JOINT BOARDS OF DIRECTORS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICTS' ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1996 - 5:30 P.M. .__........ . . . ............ __.....__.. ...................._. . . . .... __..___ _._......_..._. .. ............_. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the Districts' Administrative Offices not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the I Committee for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda,or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman Pro tem, if necessary. (3) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. -1- February 28, 1996 Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) Consideration of motion to approve Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held January 24, 1996. (5) The Committee Chair, General Manager and General Counsel may present verbal reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Committee Members. These reports are for information only and require no action by the Committee Members. (a) Report of Committee Chair (b) Report of General Manager (1) Opinion re Conflict of Interest (c) Report of General Counsel (6) Steering Committee Discussion and Action Items (a) Consideration of May 4, 1996 as next Directors' Strategic Planning Workshop on Water Conservation and Reclamation (b) Discussion re Election of Special District LAFCO Representative (c) Review scheduled agenda items for Committee action in March (7) Closed Session. Closed Session: During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Committee,the Chairman may convene the Committee in closed session to consider matters of pending real property negotiations, pending or potential litigation,or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8,54956.9.54957 or 54957.6,as noted. Reports relating to(a)purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation;(c)employment actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act,may be reviewed by the Committee during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Committee on any of these subjects,the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. -2- February 28, 1996 (a) Convene in closed session at approximately 6:15 p.m. (1) Evaluation of General Manager's Performance (Section 54957) (b) Reconvene in regular session. (c) Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (d) Report on discussion taken in closed session, as required. (8) Other business, if any. (9) Matters which a Director would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting. (10) Matters which a Director may wish to place on a future agenda for action and a staff report. (11) Consideration of upcoming meeting dates. (12) Adjourn. Notice to Committee Members: For any questions on the agenda or to place items on the agenda, Committee members should contact the Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days in advance of the Committee meeting. Committee Chair: John C.Cox,Jr. (714)721-6660 Secretary. Jean Tappan (714)962-2411.Ext. 2001 (714)962-0356(Fax) J\W OpOLW Mlti1R{OMM9TFEBNGENOA M -3- STEERING COMMITTtE AGENDAFOR FEBRUARY 28, 1996 Agenda Item (4): Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve draft Minutes of Steering Committee Meeting held January 24, 1996 Summary Attached are the draft minutes for the January 24, 1996 Steering Committee. Recommendation Consideration of a motion to receive, file and approve the draft Minutes of the Steering Committee meeting held January 24, 1996. JIWP oacrnarnsovm�e Ese CVR County Sanitation Districts `.. of Orange County,California P.O.Box 8127 • 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 Telephone: (714)962-2411 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE January 24, 1996 - 5:30 p.m. A meeting of the Steering Committee of the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California was held Wednesday, January 24, 1996, at 5:30 p.m., at the Districts' Administrative office. (1) ROLL CALL The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE: OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Present: John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair Peer A. Swan, Vice Joint Chair STAFF PRESENT: George Brown, Chair, FAHR Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager John J. Collins, Chair, PDC Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Judith A. Wilson, Assistant General Manager Nancy Wheatley, Director of Technical Services Absent: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Roger Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the December 13, 1995 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 2 January 24, 1996 (5) REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR. GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL (a) There was no report by the Committee Chairman. (b) The General Manager reported on his participation in professional outside interests. He is currently active on two committees, which are helping him understand the politics and players in the County. He is not representing the Districts but rather himself. Director Swan expressed some concern because the Restructuring Committee (a subcommittee of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities) does not have any elected officials as members. Mr. McIntyre said that the group is more of a "think tank" and will be making recommendations only and sharing ideas. He will keep the Directors informed. The Districts' response to Assemblyman Pringle's proposed Special Districts Consolidation bill. The Committee advised staff to make personal contact with Mr. Pringle here in Orange County, if possible, or his aides. Chair Cox said that this issue was discussed at CASA last week, and the CASA lobbyist said that he is unclear where Mr. Pringle is coming from. Judy Wilson indicated that this bill may be the result of LAFCO's taking so long to act on the Garden Grove Sanitary District dissolution, any may have been suggested by the mayor of Garden Grove. (c) There was no report by Counsel. (6) DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Update on the status of the Consolidation Effort Judy Wilson reported on the activities since the last meeting. The draft feasibility plan was received just this afternoon and she hasn't had a chance to review it in too much detail. Basically, the consultant is suggesting proceeding to form one district that incorporates all nine districts. One important thing to consider is the real estate investment (about $15 million) by District 14. This sum could be credited against the reserves that IRWD needs to provide the Districts. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 3 January 24, 1996 Zones would have to be established to address the issue of different connection fees_ These fees are going to be addressed in the strategic plan. Eventually they would be equalized over time, depending on the capital requirements specified in the Strategic Plan, and then the zones can be eliminated and user fees established The report does not recommend annexing any areas that could be annexed. This areas will be identified in the LAFCO application and LAFCO may stipulate that this be done. The $60,000 in general obligation debt must be addressed. Director Swan indicated that the more he hears, the more uncomfortable he is becoming about the terms. General Counsel indicated that depending on what section of the state code new district is created under would determine whether IRWD would have a seat on the Board. Director Swan said that he needs to make sure that all the electeds know the consequences. The Pringle bill would certainly have an impact, and Assemblyman Pringle has indicated that the County Sanitation Districts are part of the picture. Chair Cox indicated that consolidation is the smartest thing to do and that it would allow fixing the organization. The issue will not go forward without everyone understanding the issues and ramifications. Director Swan said that he wanted to see the proposal address Districts 13 and 14 specifically. Judy will be working with the consultant to finalize the report, including estimating capital needs. She will also be meeting with IRWD staff to go through the report's findings and to get their feed back. Director Swan indicated that if the terms and conditions are right, then he would have no problem with consolidating. Chair Cox said that this issue must be treated as a business decision. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 4 January 24, 1996 The final report will be presented to the Executive Committee at the February meeting. Any recommendations will be presented to the full Boards for approval. (b) Discussion of Excess Capacity Charge Nancy Wheatley discussed the Staff Report on the Excess Capacity Charge. There are several issues that need to be clarified. First, the Excess Capacity Charge, which was repealed, would have charged businesses that significantly increase their discharges over their permitted limits, as well as new large dischargers coming into the County. When the new ordinance was rescinded, it removed the new business charge and the provision to charge for major increases by existing companies. This has created an inequity between new and existing businesses since under the old ordinance there is no provision to charge for major increases. Staff is requesting approval of a one-year moratorium until a new fee can be developed as part of the Strategic Plan. Any applicants who submit permit applications for either a new connection, or an increase in discharge limits, will be advised that the moratorium is in effect and when the fees are determined, they will be required to pay them. If the new charge is higher than the Excess Capacity Charge (the repealed version)when the fee is finally established, they would be able to pay that fee rather than the new fee. If the charge is lower, the business would be assessed as implemented. The new Strategic Plan will address the issue of which businesses should pay how much for capital charges. The capital charge will apply to businesses that increase their discharge over 50,000 gallons per day, but until then, applicants will be advised that if a firm increases flow, they will not be charged during the moratorium, but will be required to pay when the charge is developed. Director Collins felt that this was the fairest way to handle this issue at this time. Chair Cox said that this issue needs to be looked at more comprehensively, not unlike the SCAQMD did with their business assistance council. We have to let the business community know what we are doing to change our operating procedures to reduce costs, and we need to begin thinking more competitively. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 5 January 24, 1996 A Newport Beach developer has asked for a waiver of fees for a planned seniors facility. After discussion, staff was directed to advise the applicant that an appeal may be requested from the District 5 directors. The General Manager indicated that it would be advisable for the cities planning and development staff to attend the Strategic Planning sessions so that they are aware of the things being considered and the reasons behind them. Staff was authorized to present to the working Committees and the Boards the recommendation of a moratorium until the new fees are in place. No firm will pay an excess capacity charge at this time, though they will be informed that there will be one eventually and they will be required to pay at that time. The square footage charge will continue, as will the single- family residence fee. Any firm in the permit application cycle will be asked to sign an agreement of understanding. (c) Update on Landfill Acquisition Issues Don McIntyre and Blake Anderson have met or will be meeting with all five of the County supervisors to go over our proposal. They also met with Jan Mittermeier. Supervisor Saltarelli and Ms. Mittermeier believe that the County should maximize the value of the system. Supervisor Steiner appears to understand the political realities and what the cities think about the proposal. Everyone seems to understand the need to get all the cities involved. The big issue is the value of the system. On Monday, IWMD staff advised the Districts that they would not be providing the E&Y evaluation numbers as previously indicated. Ms. Mittermeier stated that the $15 million for 20 years was the floor and they would be working from that. Staff met with Price Waterhouse today, and depending on the assumptions used the value went from a minus $30 million to plus $200 million. If the 75-day period comes and there is no agreement, the County has indicated that they may remove the exclusive negotiating rights and start discussions with others. The General Manager stated that Supervisor Saltarelli indicated he does not think selling the landfills to a private contractor makes sense but privatizing could helpmake the tipping fees go Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 6 January 24, 1996 down. Some of his numbers do not agree with our findings. He also mentioned that the County may want to contract with the Districts to run the system. Director Collins asked that a printout of the various scenarios be available. Blake indicated that they will be ready at next week's Ad Hoc Committee meeting. The County is working towards a resolution to meet the June deadline. d) General Manager Performance Evaluation The General Manager asked if there were any questions on his performance evaluation package. This will be reviewed at the February meeting in closed session. Director McGuigan stated that the goals package was very well done. That section, according to the General Manager, was prepared to show where we were a month ago. The General Manager also mentioned that one weakness of his is over- committing staff. Director Swan asked whether Blake would be able to handle the new Watershed Committee activities in light of his current assignments. Blake indicated that the landfill issue and the bankruptcy are very close to being settled which should allow him more time. Other things that staff are working on are the Executive Management retreat Feb. 1 and 2 to start the '96-97 budget preparation process; the Strategic Plan workshop on Saturday, Jan. 27; the Grand Jury visit January 30; and a presentation to the Business Council that same day. e) Review of Working Committees Pre-agenda Items There are only five items to be considered by the OMTS and/or the PDC Committee in February. Staff will preview them with the Committee Chairs separately. Next month the listings will be submitted to the Steering Committee. (7) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Page 7 January 24, 1996 (8) OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. (9) MATTERS TO BE REPORTED AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING The General Manager's evaluation will be discussed at the next meeting, February 28, at time certain 6:15 p.m. (10) MATTERS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND A STAFF REPORT There were no matters for a future agenda. (11) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next meeting has been scheduled for February 28, 1996 at 5:30 p.m. (12) ADJOURNMENT The Steering Committee adjourned at approximately 7:23 p.m. Submitted by: Un Tappan, Ste in Committee Secretary M� 124WMW STEERING COMMIT'ItE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1996 Agenda Item (6)(a): Consideration of motion approving May 4, 1996 as next Directors' Strategic Planning Workshop on Water Conservation and Reclamation. Summary As part of the Strategic Plan update, staff is presenting workshops on specific issues to provide detailed information and seek input from concerned customers in order to educate the Directors about the issues before policy decisions are made. The first workshop was held on January 27 on the changes that have occurred since the last Master Plan was prepared in 1987. Twenty-three Directors attended that workshop. The discussion topics for the next workshop are water conservation and reclamation. Staff will be inviting special interest representatives, area residents, environmentals and water agency representatives to attend so that we may receive their input, concerns and recommendations. Staff has tentatively scheduled Saturday, May 4, 1996, subject to approval by the Steering Committee. Staff Recommendation That the next Strategic Plan Workshop for Directors be held Saturday, May 4, 1996 between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. 1wm000GM9m{afAlsasERwAcm STEERING COMMIT11EE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1996 Agenda Item (6)(b): Consideration of LAFCO's request for nominations for Special Districts' representative on LAFCO Board. Summary It is time again to consider nominations for the Special Districts' seat on the LAFCO Board. That position is currently held by Bob Huntley, Director of the Municipal Water District of Orange County, who is running again. Additional information is attached. Staff is seeking direction on whether to take action at this time. Staff Recommendation JAW PDOQGMSTRZObAT881FEBMS.0 LAFCO V O L.oca!Agency Formation Commission Orange County January 29, 1996 CHAIRMAN WILLIAM G.STEINER SUPERVISOR TO: Independent Special Districts Selection Committee FOURTH DISTRICT FROM: Dana M. Smith, Executive Officer VICE-CHAIRMAN Local Agency Formation Commission CHARLES V.SMITH MAYOR CITY OF WESTMINSTER RE: Election of Special District LAFCO Representative DAVID BORAN REPRESS\TA OF The government code dictates that the Executive Officer notify the Independent GENERAL PUBLIC Special Districts Selection Committee(ISDSC) when there is a vacant special district seat on the Commission. Robert J. Huntley's term as a special district representative JAMES H.FLORA expires on March 15, 1996. COUNCILMAN CITY OF LA HABRA At this time I am requesting nominations for that seat. A nomination form is attached. JAMES SILVA Resumes and other written material should accompany the form. Nominations,•which SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT should be mailed to the LAFCO office, will be accepted until 5:00 P.M. on February 28th, 1996.E JOHN WITHERS DIRECTOR The election will be conducted by mail. After the close of nominations, I will send a IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT ballot and voting instructions to each committee member. The voting period will last thirty(30)days. As you are aware,the ISDSC consists of the presiding officer of the ROBERT J.HUNTLEY legislative body of each independent special district. Each member of the ISDSC is DIRECTOR entitled to one vote. MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OFORANGECOUNTY For your information, LAFCO has sent a draft copy of the bylaws for the proposed ALTERNATE Special Districts Advisory Committee to all districts for comments. We are planning VERNON S.EVgM1'S to take the bylaws back to the LAFCO Commission at their meeting in April. If REPRESENTATIVE OF approved at that time,LAFCO staff would be calling a meeting of the ISDSC in April GENERAL PUBLIC to select the members of the Advisory Committee. ALTERNATE RANDAL J.BRESSETTE If you have any questions, please call Joyce Crosthwaite, Assistant Executive Officer, COUAN CITY OFLAGU at(714) 834-2471. CITY OF LACUNA HILLS ALTERNATE Sincerely, PHILIP L.ANTHONY DIRECTOR ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DANA M. SMITH Executive Officer DANA M.SMITH EXECUTIVE OFFICER Attachment 12 Civic Center Plaza. Room 235. Santa Ana.CA 92701 (714)834-2556 FAX(714)834-2643 NOMINATION FORM Candidate for Special District Member of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) TO: Independent Special District Selection Committee The undersigned hereby nominates the person named below for the election io LAFCO as a migularspecial district member. INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT SUBMITTING NOMINATION name of district CANDIDATE INFORMATION (must be elected or appointed special district officer residing in Orange County but shall not be a member of a city council or County Board of Supervisors) name ofcandidate title district SIGNATURE OF INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTING NOMINATION: signature name(type or print) title(must be presiding officer ordesignated alternate memberofboatd) district date Statement of Qualifications and/or Resume must be attached DUE IN LAFCO OFFICE BY 5:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 28th, 1996 Board of Directors . � Grace P. Epperson James V. Evans February 9, 1996 Raymond T. Littrell Joy L Neugebauer Margie L Rice To: Special District Board Members From: Board of Directors of the Midway City Sanitary District Re: Nomination for Special District Representative on LA.F.C.O. The Board of Directors of the Midway City Sanitary District takes great pleasure in nominating Director James V. 'Jim" Evans to the office of Special District Representative on LAFCO. Director Evans has served our District well since 1981. He has brought to the Board many innovative ideas that have enhanced the financial position of the District as well as the spirit and morale of the District employees. Jim has also worked very hard over the past ten or more years with I.S.D.O.C., especially in the area of getting Independent Special Districts appointed to LAFCO. This included working on the State level attempting to get legislation passed, and at the local level filing resolutions three times petitioning LAFCO to admit Independent Special Districts to the Commission. Jim has dedicated many years of service to ISDOC, including serving as President for a total of five years, and has told us his only reason for wanting to be elected to LAFCO is to make sure that the Independent Special Districts are treated fairly. We invite you to review Jim's background data attached. We urge your support for James V. "Jim" Evans! if you wish to talk to Jim, call 714 897-2904. Sincerely, MIDWAY CITY SANITARY DISTRICT Joy L. Neugebauer Board President 14451 Cedarwood Avenue Westminster, California 92683 • (714) 893-3553 • Fax (714)891-8624 BACKGROUND DATA JAMES V. EVANS RESIDENCE: 13762 Claremont Street Westminster, CA 92683 Resident and homeowner in Westminster, California since 1962. California resident since 1946. FAMILY: Married Wife, Etiennette J. Evans Four Children, Stephen, John, Mark, Michele EDUCATION: Graduate of University of Southern California majoring in accounting with a Bachelor of Science, 1951 Graduate of American College of Life Underwriters, 1966 Chartered Life Underwriter OCCUPATION: President - James V. Evans Accountancy Corporation BUSINESS ACTIVITIES: Past Vice President and Board member of the Westminster Chamber of Commerce Past President Long Beach-Orange County CLU Chapter Past President Long Beach Life Underwriter Association Licensed Life and Property and Casualty Insurance Agent Elected Board Member - Midway City Sanitary District 1981 - Present COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: . Scoutmaster-Troop 31.4, for 12 years District Chairman Boy Scouts - 1972-1974 Traffic Commissioner - City of Westminster Mobile Home Park Commission for the City of Westminster City Centennial Committee-Chairman 1970 Fiscal Policy Committee - City of Westminster 1991 to Present (Made recommendation that saved City millions of dollars annually.) American Legion Elks Independent Special Districts of Orange County President1986 President1987 President 1988 President 1992 President 1993 Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors- 1991-93 Orange County Sanitation District - Member Fiscal Policy Committee Robert J. Huntley Director, Municipal Water District of Orange County 14140 Beach Boulevard, # 110 Westminster, CA 92683 (714) 891-3071 FAX TRANSMITTAL February 16, 1996 Orange County Special Districts' Presidents RE: Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission It's that time - time for the election of a Special District LAFCO member. I heard from a few districts that the letter of notice of the upcoming election had been mistakenly interpreted by some to indicate that I was stepping down from the group. Perhaps I am, but hopefully not until AFTER the election. I am a candidate, and my District will nominate me. As you may know, I was awarded the two-year term at the time we were successful in obtaining the Special Districts' seats on LAFCO. I have served on LAFCO for the past two years, and, if you are not familiar with my record, I urge you to talk to your neighboring Districts, or give me a call at (714) 891.3071. Sincerely, Kl - "NT EY STEERING COMMIT-hffE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1996 Agenda Item (6)(C): Review of Agenda Items Scheduled to be Presented to Committees in March Summary In December during the discussions on consolidating committees,staff was directed to routinely prepare a listing of dams that will be presented to the working committees and the Boards the following month. This would allow the Steering Committee the opportunity to review these items early enough to make changes in the approval process. The Committee and the items are as follows: OMTS Committee: 1. OMTS95-041C Approve agreement with Battelle re heavy duty vehicle demonstration project at no cost to the Districts. 2. FAHR96-12 Staff Summary Report on Training (nformation only). 3. OMTS96-ON Authorize a Two-Year Solids Management Agreement with Waste Markets and Maness Environmental Services,Inc.for disposal of grit and screenings beginning April 30,1996,at an estimated annual cost of$315,000. PDC Committee: 1. POC9649 Change Order No.5 to the plans and specifications for Slater Avenue Pump Station Sewage System Improvements,Contract No. 11-17-1. 2. PDC96-10 Change Order No.3 to the plans and specifications for Replacement of Pacific Coast Highway Gravity Sewer,Phase 3,and Balboa Boulevard Sewer Replacement and Abandonment of 47th Street Pump Station Project,City of Newport Beach,Contract No.5-37-3. 3. PDC96-11 Recommendation of award of professional services agreement re Phase 1 of the Strategic Plan, including Jobs Nos.J-39,J-40-1 and J-40-2. FAHR Committee: 1. Review of Legal Services Options and SubCommittee Report. 2. Quarterly Communication Program Update. 3. Review Insurance Coverages. 4. 1996-97 Budget Update. 5. Consider RFPs for financial team for landfill financing. 6. Delegate to staff authority to change contracts for company name changes. 7. Employee/Employer Relations Resolution revisions. Staff Recommendation Information item only. J\W V W CGMIRR{OMM\9R�EB W BC CV R v STEERING COMMITttE AGENDAFOR FEBRUARY 28, 1996 Agenda Item (7)(a)(1 ): Evaluation of General Manager's Performance Summary Attached is the material provided for the January 24, 1996 agenda with one change. That change is on the benchmarking study re executive management salaries which is attached. We have added the Transportation Corridor Authority to provide a more comprehensive report on public agencies in Orange County. o� Competitive Position of Executive Management Classifications Public Sector D atruisoata, 1NarhSt F)ata %variance MCj1th[y', M'or18Oy '.. Montw Momw-g",, 2ayt7ang9 *�"z_ Pay- .; Survey PayRan Pay CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classdication Mtrc,' ;"�.•IfAac s� 11aTe`� Source Market Max Market Pay GM 10,833 4 14,583 -34.6 3 12,213 15,193 13,8a5 -28. 6 11,771 -8.7 5 11.440 -5.6 1 11,282 -4.1 2 9,084 9,768 9,768 9.8 Xwey4gbur��= 10'ti43; 248t ,i.? ,��.-11' AGM 7,500 10,000 10.000 3 10,405 12.928 12.487 -29 -25 4 11,346 -13 6 10.618 -6 1 9.281 7 2 6,357 8,832 8.832 1 1 5 8,667 13 1fz Dir,Maint 6,834 10,259 7,700 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10. -37.7 4 5,309 9,821 9.114 4.3 -18. T'197;-?711.r.S4 --- Dir,Ops 6,834 10,259 7,708 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10. -37. 1 8,352 -8.4 Dir,Tech Svcs 6.834 10,259 7.833 3 9.084 11,287 10,612 -10. -35.5 1 7,427 5. Rveragex.: 8,084 7k'f287. SA2O: SffT:;:=fvi' Dir,Eng 6,834 10,259 7,833 3 9,084 11.287 10,612 -10. -35.5 4 5.309 9.821 9,682 4.3 -23.6% 6 6,283 8.796 8.481 14.3 -8.3 1 8.385 -7. pveTa9e 6,892 %. ;9W :8,290,'.. 2.8. 18. No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are Oat rated. Incumbent responsible for maintenance and operations for either sewerage or solid waste. V o vowmer Competitive Position of etyma Executive Management Classifications Public Sector oisu.ris Deli ":�'},o,fp•pa) ?�;.' %variance Monthly Monthly > `Dnt41y Pay Range I'ay Survey APB epP'dy CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classilicatlon r 111 „ ," :Max _ hate Source ;M�';... •" Market Max: Market Pay DIr,Finance 6,741 10,218 8,123 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.5 -30.6 5 6.933 10,400 8.667 -1.8 -6.7% 6 6,065 8,491 8.188 16.9 -0.8% 1 8,122 0.0 4 5,309 9.821 7,790 3.9% 4.1 2 5,782 7,289 7.288 28.7% 10.3114 Averaqa 6,635 ' MOM Dir,Into Tech 5,948 8,925 6,831 4 5,309; „I ' tfy`• u=1. '�'�;:,. DIr,HR 5,948 8,925 5,878 3 8.604 10.691 10,051 -19.8% -71.0% 4 5.309 9.821 8,169 -10.0% -39. 5 6,933 10.400 7,627 -16.50A -29.8 2 5,561 6,964 6.964 22.0% -18.5% 1 7,068 -20.2% Overall Average -4. -1& No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are fiat rated. Survey Sources: 1 Orange County Water District 1995 Executive Management Compensation Survey,October 1995., 2 Orange County Division of League of California Cities Salary Survey,October 1995. 3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Salary Schedule,November 1985. 4 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transponation Authority,November 1995. 5 Orange County Transportation Authority,November 1995. 6 Transportation Corridor Agencies,February 1996. Competitive Position r pr,wwi `..: Executive Management Clas�vfverations Public&Private Sector DisttIcts Data ` a ', %Variance Mon811y i... M pay Nang@ ` Survey °a C9DOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classification ' ��„�,Maxi•„ , , , SourceM` „x,....,. Market Max Market Pay GM 10,833 7 20,270 31,056 24,503 -126.20 8 15,125 -39.6 4 14,583 -34.6 3 12.213 15,193 13,885 -28.2 6 11,771 -8. 5 11,440 -5.6% 1 11.282 -4.1 2 9,064 9,768 9.768 9.8 AGM 7,500 10,000 10,000 8 15,067 -51% 3 10,405 12,928 12,487 -29% -25% 4 11,346 -13% 6 10,618 -6% 1 9.281 7% 2 6,357 8,632 8,832 120k 120/b 5 8,667 13% =9, Die,Malnt 6,834 10,259 7,708 3 9,084 11,287T14.3% -37. 4 5.309 9.821 -18. Die,Ops 6,834 10,259 7,708 3 9.064 11,287 . -37. 1 8,352 -8.4 ,. DIr,Tech Svcs 6,834 10,269 7.833 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10. -35.5 1 7,427 5. Die,Eng 6,834 10,259 7,833 3 9,084 11.287 10,612 -10.0% -35.5% 4 5.309 9,821 9,682 4.3% -23.6% 6 6.283 8,796 8,481 14.3 -8.3% 1 81385 -7.0% No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. " Incumbent responsible for maintenance and operations for either sewerage or solid waste. o� Competitive Position !w,.r Executive Management Classifleations Public 6 Private Sector Districts Data Market Data ` %Varlan09 Monthly Monthly Monthly. . Monthly-, Pay Range Pay ': Survey Pay Range Pay CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classl8cation Min Max , Rate Source Min Max Rate Markel Max Market Pay Dir,Finance 6,741 10.218 8,123 3 9,084 11.287 10.612 -10.5 -30. 5 6,933 10,400 8,667 -1.8 -6. 6 6,065 8,491 8,188 16. -0. 8 8,123 0. 1 8,122 0. 7 5,464 8,496 7.647 16.9qt 3.4 4 5,309 9,821 7,790 3.90A 4.1% 2 5,782 7,289 7,289 28.7% 10.3% Average 6,440 9,297 :&390" 4.. `-25 .. Diq into Tech 5,948 8.925 6,831 4:: 5,309 ``9,821 Off.HR 5,948 8.925 5,878 3 8,604 10,691 10.051 -19.8 -71.0- 4 5,309 9,821 8,169 -10. -39.0% 5 6,933 10,400 7,627 -16.5 -29.8% a 7.235 -23.1% 2 5,561 6.964 6.964 22. -18.5^ 1 7.068 -20.2D 7 4,646 7,281 5.958 16.4 -1.41 Overall Average -3. -20.8 No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. Survey Sources: 1 Orange County Water District 1995 Executive Management Compensation Survey,October 1995. 2 Orange County Division of League of California Citles Salary Survey,October 1995. 3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Salary Schedule,November 1995. 4 LOS Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,November 1996. 5 Orange County Transportation Authority,November 1995. 6 Transportation Corridor Agencies,February 1996. 7 Orange County Private/Public Compensation Comparison Survey,April 1995. 8 The Employers Group 1995 Executive Salary Survey,March 1995. P STEERING COMMIT11EE AGENDAFOR JANUARY 24, 1996 Agenda Item (6)(d): Evaluation of General Manager's Performance Summary Attached is a letter to the Steering Committee dated January 17, 1996 re Annual Performance Review of the General Manager, which is due to be completed by the end of February. Additional information is provided to assist in the evaluation. Most of the attached material is background information only. The pertinent material immediately follows this cover page. Steering Committee Recommendation This is an information item only at this time. At next month's meeting, the Steering Committee will be requested to make a recommendation. wpE %gmwr�mw.fm F COUNI'slesSANITATION DISTRICTS OF Cis NGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 17, 1996 phone: (714)962 2411 mailing address: Members of the Steering Committee PO. Box 8127 F n cxa Valley,M 9272&B127 avast address: SUBJECT: Annual Performance Review t M44 Ellis Avenue Founlei Valley,CA 9270B.701B Section 3 of my Contract of Employment states that, "The Boards shall meet with General Manager approximately March 1, 1996 to review his performance over the prior year and may increase the compensation paid to Member General Manager to be effective March 1, 1996. The Boards may also meet Agencies, 0 with General Manager at any other time for purpose of reviewing his Cie.. performance." Anaeirn Bre. It has been my understanding that, notwithstanding the language of the Brea Buena Part contract, the Steering Committee would do my performance appraisal. I am, Founw n,Valley therefore, providing you with information that may assist in that effort. Fullartin aantington Beath Enclosed is a copy of the report made to you on September 22, which wine La Habra outlined some concepts that might be used as the basis for my evaluation. At La Palma Las Alamiws that meeting, a decision was made to request that the General Manager Newpart Beath "prepare more specific goals addressing direct lines of responsibility and Orange Plateaus insuring better reports to committees. The Steering Committee and the Sun.o./B Ana General Manager will determine a set of measurable goals for the annual Beal Beech 9 swnwn performance evaluation at the next meeting." rusty Villa Perk Yorba Linde A copy of the report made to the Steering Committee on October 25 is aunty o, orange attached. This report includes suggested goals for General Manager, both administrative and operational, as well as a critical goals for fiscal '95-96 for ,nicary Districts the entire organization. Cosw Mo. careen Cite a It seems appropriate that you evaluate the General Manager on two levels; Mrdw y City one, on the critical goals, and two, on the responsibilities of the General Water Districts Manager in providing leadership to change the culture of the organization. lrvina Ranch For that reason, I am providing you with information regarding those programs that address the issue of changing the culture as well as the status of each of the agency's critical goals. A Public VVes[e.vwr and EnxrwenenW Management Agency Cammytted w Pr4tectiry Ne Ennronment Since 1954 Members of the Steering Committee Page Two January 17, 1996 1 am also providing you with salary range distribution and performance rating guidelines, which are to be used for evaluating management personnel. You may recall that in connection with the MPRP review, the Boards authorized 3% for cost of living adjustments for 1996-97 and 5% of payroll for merit for 1996-97. Finally, I am providing you with a copy of the executive salary benchmarking report provided to you for your review at the December 13, 1995 Steering Committee meeting. Since your evaluation is to be completed before the end of February, I am providing this information at your January meeting so that you will have sufficient time to give the matter thoughtful review. Your review of my performance is, in a way, a review of the performance of the organization, and your observations will be helpful to me in making my determination with respect to the effectiveness of my direct reports. Should you need additional information, please let me know. I am looking forward to your comments, observations and guidance as we work together to make this good organization even better. Respectfully, v ' G,l�- Donald F. McIntyre General Manager DFM:jt Enclosures January 16, 1996 CHANGING THE CORPORATE CULTURE Arguably, everything done in and by an organization has a bearing on, and is an expression of, its culture. It is abundantly clear to me that I was hired to help bring about major change to the culture of this organization. Whether it was required by the Board or not, it would have been a personal objective to do that, since my management style would dictate implementing many of the changes currently underway. It seems to me that the last four of the eight"critical goals" address, most directly, change to the culture. These are: consolidation; communications, training and management performance. CONSOLIDATION While consolidation is viewed primarily as a governance issue, to the extent that it simplifies the operation and streamlines the administration, it contributes to culture change. COMMUNICATIONS The initiation of the Board Letter, I believe, has contributed to the Board members feeling better informed in all aspects of the organization. The user-friendly budget and graphics used to identify capital improvement projects also helps establish and maintain improved communications between policy makers and staff. And the work now being done to improve staff presentations to the Boards and committees responds to a clear need in this organization. The workshop scheduled to help the Boards members be more a part of the policy development process in the Strategic Plan will contribute immeasurably to the quality of the public policy resulting from that effort. Internally, improved communications is resulting from such things as: installation of 20 bulletin boards in all parts of the organization; the display of our updated mission statement at both plant entrances and displayed in the Board Room and in conference rooms helps to get out the message of change. We believe the recently inaugurated Communications survey and the creation of a communications action team will pay important dividends as employees begin to feel more a part of the team. TRAINING Perhaps the most high-profile element of our culture change efforts is the approval by the Boards of a major increase in the training budget. This affords the opportunity to make training a requirement, rather than a benefit. It affords the opportunity to aggressively cross train employees to help them achieve more and to create a working environment of generalists with broad-based skills replacing many of the specialists whose skills, in some cases, are replaced by computerization. In order to maximize the impact of training dollars, we have centralized and professional training, and have involved people from every part of the organization to serve as members of a Training Advisory Committee. Much needed supervisory and management training programs are being developed to improve the standard of supervision, as well as a variety of courses addressing skills and safety needs of the organization. A tuition assistance program is now in place which will be an important supplement to our in-house training efforts. We are also making training a part of each employee's annual performance review to ensure that they are being counseled, both by their supervisors and by the training staff, as to their individual training needs. Their progress through an approved curriculum will become a part of their record. A Core Values Committee has begun work on a challenging and self-defined agenda. I think it's worth sharing here. The ten categories of core value issues identified are: 1. Commitment to core values and an ethical compass owned by all. 2. More trust and confidence (no hidden agendas, no retaliation). 3. More PRIDE awards, recognition, positive enforcement, higher morale. 4. Everyone feels cared for. 5. Improved team work, unity of purpose, synergy, reduce 'us-them". 6. More open communication; fewer barricades; more means to listen; feedback. 7. People feel more comfortable about change. 8. More involvement; less hierarchy. 9. Utilization of everyone's talents, skills, intellect, education, experience. 10. Compensation system more commensurate with a person's contribution to the organization. The work of a performance evaluation committee is just now emerging. As you know, this program has not been effective—indeed, it has been counter-productive, and it is essential that the comprehensive recommendations coming from this group be carefully considered if we are to have a program that creates incentives for greater productivity and improved performance- 2 `/ MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE Performance measurement and benchmarking is at the heart of the culture change. Creation of a formal work plan based upon benchmarking data should drive the budget; and performance measurements must be used to evaluate the individual performance of our managers. This, then, is a brief overview of the individual, but related, efforts that will move this organization toward a more open, collegial, bottom-line sensitive organization. DFM:jt J 1 W V W C1I15 W1LV ERSOINLY]1LlUREdq 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION STEERING COMMIT)-eE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 13, 1995 Agenda Item (6)(C): Discussion of Benchmarking Study re Executive Management Salaries in both the public and private sector. Summary Attached is a memorandum dated November 30 and an attached benchmarking study on executive management salaries. wpd.V.Xstr.mm%i.fm `sv \aaael a fl November 30, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: STEERING COMMITTEE John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair Peer Swan, Vice Joint Chair George Brown, Chair, FAHR Roger R. Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR John Collins, Chair, PDC Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS FROM: Judith A. Wilsoeve Chief Administra Officer SUBJECT: Executive Management Salaries - Benchmarking with Public Agencies and the Private Sector At the October 25 Steering Committee meeting, the staff was requested to prepare a benchmarking study of Executive Management salaries looking at both the public and private sectors. Attached is a copy of this analysis. The following agencies and private sector surveys were used: - Orange County Water District - Orange County League of California Cities - County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County - Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Orange County Transportation Authority - Orange County Private/Public Compensation Survey - The Employees Group 1995 Executive Salary Survey As you will see, in most instances the Orange County Sanitation Districts' pay rates are well below the market average. Only the Finance Director position is close to the market average, and in that instance it is still 2.8% below the market average. For positions that are somewhat specific to wastewater treatment, i.e. Director of Technical Services, Director of Operations, and Director of Engineering, there were no appropriate private sector comparisons to compare against in this region. Therefore, only public agencies were used. CSOOC 6 P.O.Box 8127 0 Fountain Valley.CA 92728.8127 0 (714)962-2411 Steering Committee Page 2 November 30, 1995 We have also compiled a schedule showing the Sanitation Districts' relative position in comparison with public agencies only. In comparing only to the public agencies, the Districts' pay is still below market, with the Assistant General Managers' salaries being the closest to market at 1% below. JAW:cmc JAW PDOMMU W Il50N1113O9511 Competitive Position of �....m Executive Management Classifications Public 8 Private Sector `a eee 4. ea . �.,kMer�ltk� %variance '<fbag r Survey , !' 'f? .,i CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classification a �ri,?,rt., r,�, source Market Max Market Pay GM 10,833 6 20,270 31,056 24,503 -126.2 7 15,125 -39.6 4 14,583 -34. 3 12,213 15,193 13.885 -28.2 5 11,440 -5.6 1 11,282 -4.1 2 9,084 9,768 9,768 as AGM 7,500 10,000 10.000 7 15,067 -51 3 10.405 12.928 12,487 -29% -25 4 11,346 -13% 1 9,281 7% 2 6,357 8,832 8.832 12 12 5 8,667 13 01r,Malnt 6.834 10,259 7,708 3 9,084 11,287 10.612 -10.01A -37.7 4 5,309 9,821 9,114 4.3% -18. Average '"4.1f)''.,,. ' Dir,Ops 6,834 10,259 7,708 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.0% -37. 1 8,352 -8.4 Average •, - .S ;1�'4 ....,,'c..,, Dir,Tech Svcs 6,834 10,259 7.833 3 9.084 11,287 10,612 -10.0% -35.5% 1 7,427 5.2% Dir, Eng 6,834 10,259 7.833 3 9,084 11,287 10.612 -10.0% -35.5 4 5,309 9,821 9,682 4.3% -23.6 1 1 1 8,385 -7.0 Average 7,197 No minimum or maximum pay ratesshown for market positions that are flat rated. Incumbent responsible for maintenance and operations for either sewerage or solid waste. y � , „ Competitive Position of Executive Management Classifications Public a Private Sector DI %Variance Survey x I ,p,1�1 � yl 'f CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to gtuailketlon girt r a k Market Max Market Pay Off.Roams, 6,741 10,218 8,123 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.5% -30.6% 5 6,933 10.400 8,067 -1.8% -6.7% 7 8.123 0.0% 1 8,122 0.0% 6 5,464 8,496 7,847 16.%t 3.4% 4 5,309 9,821 7.790 3.9% 4.1% 2 5,782 7.289 7.289 28.7% 10.346 Avenge' .; 0 14 �'90159 8,350 7.4 Off,Into Tech 5,948 8,925 6.831 - 41 .' >79;018 ,i "k10• xl9x ,t?.,C iF-82, Dir•MR 5.948 8.925 5.878 3 8,604 1 10.051 -19. -71.0 4 5,309 8,169 -10. -39.0 5 6,933 1 7,627 -16.5% -29.8 7 7,235 2 5,561 6,9764 6,964 22.0 -18.5 1 7,068 -20. 6 4,646 7,21 1 5,958 18.4 -1.4 AYeti 8211 ;9,091 ?,; „y �`;r >i S,"a99 No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. Survey Sources: 1 Orange County Water District 1995 Executive Management Compensation Survey,October 1995. 2 Orange County Division of League of California Cities Salary Survey,October 1995. 3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Salary Schedule,November 1995. 4 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,November 1996. 5 Orange County Transportation Authority,November 1995. 6 Orange County Private/Public Compensation Comparison Survey,April 1995. 7 The Employers Group 1995 Executive Salary Survey,March 1995. � Competitive Position of e-w Executive Management Classifications Public Sector %Variance v Survey ��" 2 �, ;, CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to CWSSIOcation a Imo' _ ,. 4. Source Mfn. -'.Maz .x... Market Mu Market Pay GM 10.833 4 14,583 -34. 3 12,213 15.193 13,885 -28. 5 11,440 -5.6 1 11,282 -4.1 2 9,084 9,766 9,768 9. A NOW, AGM 7,500 10,000 10,000 3 10.405 12,928 12.487 -29 - 4 11,346 -13 1 9,261 AA 2 6.357 8,832 8.832 1 1 5 8.667 13 Averep6 ,:,, .9,. `, '. r Dir.Malnt 6.834 1OZ9 7,708 3 ' 9,084 11.287 10,612 -10.0 -37.7 4 5,309 9.821 g�� 9,114 4. -18. d55rr H,S:S83g' s r ti s° Dir.Ops 6.834 10.259 7.708 3 • 9,084 11.287 10.612 -10. -37. 1 8.352 -8.4 . ,+: Dir.Tech Sycs 6,834 1D,259 7.833 3 9,084 11.287 10.612 -10. -35.5 1 7,427 5.2 llverapa:;x.:," s .. $.OZO::r Dir,Eng 6.834 10,259 7,833 3 9.064 11,287 10,612 -10.096 -35.5 4 5,309 9.821 9.682 4.3% -23.6% 1 8,385 -7.0 itverage " No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. 1 Incumbent responsible for maintenance and operations for either sewerage or who waste. V � r e� Competitive Position of Executive Management Classifications Public Sector %Variance Survey CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classification ._ _ Source - Market Max Market Pay Dir,Finance 6,741 10,218 8,123 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.5 -30. 5 6,933 10,400 8.667 -1.8% -6. 1 8,122 0.7.790 3.9 4 5,309 9.821 % 4.1 2 5,782 7,289 7,289 28.745 10.3 " . , Dir,Into Tech 5.948 81925 6,831 .(e_ _ ,-_ Dir,HH 5,948 8,925 5,878 3 8,604 10.691 10.051 -19.8 -71.0 4 5.309 9,821 8.169 -10. -39.0 5 6.933 10.400 7,627 -16.5 -29.8 2 5,561 6,964 69" 22 -18.5 1 7:068 -20. No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are gat rated. Survey Sources: 1 Orange County Water District 1996 Executive Management Compensation Survey,October 1995. 2 Orange County Division of League of California Cities Salary Survey,October 1995. 3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Salary Schedule,November 1995. 4 to Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,November 1995. 5 Orange County Transportation Authority,November 1995. � � a November 30, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: STEERING COMMITTEE John C. Cox, Jr., Joint Chair Peer Swan, Vice Joint Chair George Brown, Chair, FAHR Roger R. Stanton, Vice Chair, FAHR John Collins, Chair, PDC Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS FROM: Judith A. Wilson Chief AdministraNNve Officer SUBJECT: Executive Management Salaries - Benchmarking with Public Agencies and the Private Sector At the October 25 Steering Committee meeting, the staff was requested to prepare a benchmarking study of Executive Management salaries looking at both the public and private sectors. Attached is a copy of this analysis. The following agencies and private sector surveys were used: - Orange County Water District - Orange County League of California Cities - County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County - Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Orange County Transportation Authority - Orange County Private/Public Compensation Survey - The Employees Group 1995 Executive Salary Survey As you will see, in most instances the Orange County Sanitation Districts' pay rates are well below the market average. Only the Finance Director position is close to the market average, and in that instance it is still 2.8% below the market average. For positions that are somewhat specific to wastewater treatment, i.e. Director of Technical Services, Director of Operations, and Director of Engineering, there were no appropriate private sector comparisons to compare against in this region. Therefore, only public agencies were used. CSDOC 0 P.O.Box 8127 0 Fountain Valloy,CA 62728-8127 0 (714)862-2411 Steering Committee , Page 2 November 30, 1995 We have also compiled a schedule showing the Sanitation Districts' relative position in comparison with public agencies only. In comparing only to the public agencies, the Districts' pay is still below market, with the Assistant General Managers' salaries being the closest to market at 1% below. JAW.cmc J:WPDOCr3MUW1LSONU 13M.L1 Competitive Position of Executive Management Classifications Public&Private Sects hiar iOA1'd %Variance Survey Pay F1an0e; Pay CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classification Source & Minr Market Max Market Pay GM 10,833 6 20,270 31.056 24.503 126.20h 7 15,125 -39.6% 4 14,583 -34.60 3 12.213 15,193 13,8M -28.2% 5 11,440 -5.6% 1 11,282 -4.1% 2 9,084 9,768 9,768 9.8- AGM 7,500 10,000 10,000 7 15,067 -51% 3 10,405 12,928 12,487 -29 -25% 4 11.346 -13% 1 9,281 7% 2 6.357 8,832 8.832 12% 12011 5 8.667 13% Avari low ww mom"r '- R DIr,Maint 6.834 10.259 7.708 3 9,084 17,287 10,612 -10.0% -37.7^ 4 5,309 9,821 9.114 4.3% -18.2% ... IMM DIr,Ops 6,834 10,259 7,708 3 9,084 11.287 10.612 -10.0 -37.7% 1 8,352 -8.4% Dr.Tech SvCS 6,834 10,259 7,833 3 9,084 11'287 10,612 -10.0% -35.5 1 7,427 5.2 Dir,Eng 6,834 10,259 7.833 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.0 -35.5% 4 5.309 9,821 9,682 4.3% -23.6 1 8.385 Avlxage •':S 7.197 1fl;55d No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. Incumbent responsible for maintenance and operations for either sewerage or solid waste. o� rr Competitive Position of d..m Executive Management Classifications Public&Private Sector %Variance Survey .� CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classification =Iftro" Source �� Market Max Market Pay DIr,Rnance 6.741 10,218 8,123 3 9.084 11,287 10,612 -10.59A -30.6 5 6,933 10.400 8,667 -1.8% -6.7 7 8.123 0.0% 1 8.122 0. 6 5.464 8,496 7.847 16.9% 3.4% 4 5,309 9,821 7,790 3.9% 4.1 2 5,782 7,289 7,289 28.7 10.3% ..w.,,,, ,ta „,..,..,.._ ,. _,..,.� DIr,Info Tech 5.948 8,925 - 6,831 MMEW ` DIr,HR 5,948 8,925 5.878 3 8,604 10.691 10,051 -19.8 -71.0% 4 5,309 9.821 8.169 -10.0% -39.0 5 6,933 10,400 7.627 -16.5 -29.8 7 7.235 -23.1 2 5,561 6,964 6.964 22. -18.5 1 7,068 -20.2 6 4,646 7,281 5.958 18.4% -1.4 No minimum or maxlmum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. Survey Sources 1 Orange County Water District 1995 Executive Management Compensation Survey,October 1995. 2 Orange County Division of League of California Cities Salary Survey,October 1995. 3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Salary Schedule,November 1995. 4 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,November 1995. 5 Orange County Transportation Authority,November 1995. 6 Orange County Privata/Publlc Compensation Comparison Survey,April 1995. 7 The Employers Group 1995 Executive Salary Survey,March 1995. nw.e Competitive Position of aw Executive Management Classifications Public Sector `.W,s 4 %Variance ''"� :, , tarr',� u., y r Pay Survey CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classification E 0 .,Hd♦B Souma Min ;-, Market Max Market Pay GM 10.833 4 14,583 -34.6% 3 12.213 15.193 13.885 -28.2 5 11,440 -5.641 1 11.282 -4.1 2 9,084 9,768 9,768 9.8 AZMag9 `. .= - 6`G49: :72'481> •:. � . ...,,,, Wit, �. .do. AGM 7,500 10,000 10,000 3 10,405 12,928 12.487 -29% -25 4 11,346 -13% 1 9,281 7% 2 6,357 8,832 8,832 12 12 5 8,667 13 Average 8.381• 6�y .. Dir,Main 6,834 10,259 7,708 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.0 -37. 4 5,309 9,821 9,114 4.3% -18.2% IDir,Ops 6,834 10.259 7.708 3 9,084 11,287 10.612 -10.00A -37.7 1 8,382 -8.4 Dir,Tech Svcs 6,834 10,259 7.833 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.0 -35.5 1 7,427 5.29A A09k 2 DIr,Eng 6,834 10,259 7,833 3 9,054 11.287 10.612 -10.0% -35.5 4 5,309 9.821 9,682 4.3% -23.8 1 8,385 -7.0% 87, Kwi No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. " Incumbent responsible for maintenance and operations for either sewerage or solid waste. rrae... Competitive Position of Executive Management Classifications Public Sector .. , . . . ,.,. %variance Survey CSDOC Max to CSDOC Pay to Classification '9 _ Source , Market Max Market Pay Dir,Finance 6,741 10218 8,123 3 9,084 11,287 10,612 -10.5% -30. 5 6,933 10,400 8,667 -1.8% -6. 1 8,122 0.0 4 5,309 9.821 7,790 3.9% 4.1 2 5,782 7,289 7,289 28.7% 10.3 Or, Into Tech 5,948 8,925 6,831 4•-„' $ *'� -"'y' Dir,HR 5,948 8,925 5,878 3 8,604 10,691 10.051 -19.8 -71. 4 6,309 9.821 8,169 -10. -39. 5 6.933 10,400 7,627 -16.5% -29.8 2 5,561 6,964 6,964 220% -18.5 1 7,068 -20. No minimum or maximum pay rates shown for market positions that are flat rated. Survey Sources 1 Orange County Water District 1995 Executive Management Compensation Survey,October 1995. 2 Orange County Division of League of California Cltles Salary Survey,October 1995. 3 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Salary Schedule,November 1995. 4 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,November 1995. 5 Orange County Transportation Authority,November 1995. STEERING COMMITI-tE AGENDAFOR OCTOBER 25, 1995 Agenda Item (7): Review of 1995-96 Goal Statements for General Manager, Administrative and Operations Departments Summary As discussed at the meeting of the Steering Committee last month, we are now providing the recommended Goal Statements for the organization, as well as a Suggested Goals Statement for the General Manager. It seems appropriate that the Steering Committee adopt these goals and that you give us direction as to how to present these to the full Boards, if indeed you feel that is required. In the future, it would be my expectation that the goal statements supported by a work plan would be presented to the full Boards as a part of the budget process, and that that document would become the basis for each department head's evaluation, the evaluations of the Assistant General Managers, and of the General Manager as well. As you can see, considerable thought has been given to the preparation of these goal statements and I hope that you will take time to review them carefully and critically. The question was raised last month about how the General Manager's goals are integrated with the work plans of the balance of the organization, and at the meeting we will provide some graphics which we hope will illustrate how that is being done. Staff Recommendation That the Steering Committee adopt the goal statements and provide direction on presentation to the full Boards. J:\W PDOC\GMWR-COMMWM2595.7 SUGGESTED GOALS FOR GENERAL MANAGER Administration • Create formal work plan system with measurable goals and milestones and be to the FY'97 budget and performance evaluation system by the Fourth Quarter. • Improve Management Evaluation System and train managers in performance evaluation by the Fourth Quarter. • Complete work on IRWD capacity purchase agreement by the Second Quarter and submit documentation required by LAFCO by the Third Quarter to proceed with Consolidation of the Districts. • Implement centrally-managed comprehensive training program for Districts'employees by the Second Quarter. • Expedite the revision of the 20-20 Plan. Meet with Board members for special Saturday workshops once a quarter to address major policy issues. • Begin implementation of the new Financial Information System by the Fourth Quarter. • Establish a comprehensive Communications Program. Operations • Complete a five-year staffing projection for use in the space utilization study and for developing a strategic plan for transitioning the Districts Into an automated and cost-competitive organization white avoiding layoffs through retraining and anticipated attrition. • Proactively re-engage EPA and California Regional Water Quality Control Board in the renewal of the Districts'Ocean Discharge Permit and achieve substantive progress in achieving the renewal. Consult with all appropriate stakeholders in the process. • Continue and achieve substantive progress on feasibility studies for providing up to 100 MGD of secondary effluent to the Orange County Water District for reclamation purposes. Consider alternative of diverting existing secondary effluent from ocean discharge to reclamation purposes. • Achieve substantive progress on the analysis of peak flow management techniques for the purpose of delaying the need for new capital facilities including a second ocean outfall. • Complete solid waste management system study and,if appropriate,achieve substantive progress toward acquisition. J 1YIP W L1GM➢FMGO.LLS OFM Critical Goals For Fiscal Year 1995-96 Prepare alleging Establish working Complete due AwaM end tneneBe Complete IRWD flecrull Centralize Iralning Create formal projections for relationships w it diligence mnlmcts br ocean negotlallon Communiations 000rtlinauon in HR workplen system all deperteeols EPA on pennil ougell,andpeak Director renewal hydraulic Now slutly Evaluate economic Complete required gecmit Improve Evaluate-Paco and management Z, eIWies Implement lnlernel ed heining Manegar management nes Evaluate objectives Award and manage mmmunicellons evaluallon system San Diego Permll contract for strategies financial analysis Resolve Establish Calamine Prepare governenre end employee training Initiate opponunilies for Determine CWA reaommentlation Ilnanclel hsues Eslablbh employee advisoryoommillea benchmarldng automation and amendments tar Board amldn Hold quarterly etivlsory commlllee antl pedormance privatization nodded or daslrad Board workshops measurement In for permit to review xoM all departments pin otlucIs and Adopt resolutions Pre re If appropriate, approve key and limited to complainsnsive Itlenlity need for edth C nagollatbns polities LAFCOIor Doyebp external ue relratningand Consu11 mth key with County processing siramgjes to °g Implement o assin elldlidn policies to stakeholtlers support key FlS system used layogs agency Baels, Curly on failed,tlll Le.permN renewal, flesoNety IMP" ns lament suaregic plan, Implement program governance Issues; study on water p mnsolitlarlon, and track results Negotiate Issues take throuh reclemelbn slraemlinetl Creels FY 1996'9] Cmn ales ace with EPA to achieve IAFCO rocesa adminisimtive landllll ecquislgon budgetchcum ulilizetidn s utly bosom by Sepl.'96 p procedure- which Is goal j antl lncorporat Idenlly poncy benchmarldng data batlaogs bosh Develop Determine economic as well wmprehansive oppodunilies for as environmental communications program Generale useful opllmiiIng staging egbienoy monthly,reporle for managers and Prepare for policy makers Strategic Plan StudAll Department Head. programs an(facilitiea, d 8 asset ran outcome management! Atlminlatrellon In the lead of butl on outcome of bullish,peak Operations In the teed hydraulifinumbal and aoxwclx� studio al analysis �.wcsooc -ladles STEERING COMMIT\,•cE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 (1 U) Performance Evaluation of General Manager Summary Attached is a memorandum dated September 22, 1995 for your review prior to discussion at the meeting. Recommendation Information item only. �wvooc cMv n-murmmnr,+a September22, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Steering Committee FROM: Donald F. McIntyre General Manager SUBJECT: General Manager Evaluation Section 3 of my contract of employment reads: "The Boards shall meet with the General Manager approximately March 1, 1996 to review his performance over the prior year, and may increase the compensation paid to General Manager, to be effective March 1, 1996. The Boards may also meet with General Manager at any other time for purposes of reviewing his performance." In order to make this contract provision consistent with the Management Performance Review Program, the Steering Committee needs to establish a work plan, or set of objectives, that we may agree upon which spells out specific accomplishments to be identified as the basis for evaluating my performance. I am enclosing a copy of the Management Performance Review Program form currently in use, and bring to your attention, specifically, Section III at the top of page 8 of the form. Additionally, I am providing you with some ideas that may help you in making a determination of what might be considered in establishing a work plan. In this connection, I am referring to some information that was a part of the Executive Retreat, which I believe may be helpful. First, I am providing you with what I identified as my"personal agenda"for the agency which each of us presented at the retreat. 1. Develop public policy process involving the Board in updating the 2020 Plan. 2. Plan for changing our culture into more collegial management style. 3. Training. 4. Benchmarking. 5. Revisiting the Mission Statement. 6. Need to leave retreat with some action planning as the basis for evaluation of management at the end of the year. CSOOC • P.O.Box 8127 0 Fountain Valley.CA 92728-8127 0 (714)992-2411 Members of the Steering Committee Page Two September 22, 1995 In discussing my role with other members of the Executive Committee, I made the following points: 1. My job is to link between the Board and the organization. 2. 1 intend to spend time with the Board and with the employees, leaving the day- to-day management in the hands of the two Assistant General Managers. 3. We need to revisit the evaluation system to make it performance based and target it to achieve the goals of the organization. 4. 1 will promote change to make the style of management more collegial. 5. We must control and reduce costs. Finally, I made certain commitments to the group which are noted below: 1. Two strategic workshops a year with the Executive Committee to plan and monitor achievements. 2. Complete the Consolidation Study. 3. Complete the Space Utilization Study. 4. Meet quarterly with all employees of each department in settings to be determined by Department Heads. 5. Develop comprehensive external communication system. 6. Complete Landfill Study and possible negotiations. Using the ideas expressed above, and any others that can be mutually agreed upon, I would suggest that the Steering Committee commit the time to develop a specific work plan for me so that at evaluation time in March my performance can be measured against previously agreed upon criteria, just as we do for all management personnel. I would like to discuss this briefly at the Steering Committee meeting on Wednesday, September 27, and have place this matter on the agenda for that purpose. DFM:jt f.1WpWNISPNMppB5.M1 MANL;aEMENT PERFORMAUE REVIEW The Districts' Management Performance Review Program focuses on an employee's development as well as past performance, and emphasizes future achievement. It involves both the employee and supervisor in establishing clear work goals and performance targets that support their department's and the Districts' overall mission. The following comments are offered to clarify the process, and to encourage its application in a fair and consistent manner. However, the real value of performance appraisal lies in the ongoing communication and understanding of mutual needs and expectations that is developed in the course of working through the process. This form is simply a means of formalizing and documenting the achievement of that goal. Section I must be completed and agreed upon by the supervisor and the employee at the beginning of the review period in order to provide performance and achievement targets. Targets may, however, be revised during the review period to respond to changing priorities, goals or parameters of success. Section I Ratings and all subsequent sections will be completed by the supervisor and reviewed at the conclusion of the review period. The rating in Section I is intended to evaluate how effectively the employee achieves objectives and carries out responsibilities during the review period. Projects, responsibilities or objectives that represent major commitments of the employee's time will be selected and briefly described. Performance factors that are major considerations and define measurable characteristics within each of the selected areas are mutually determined, and characterized in one or two words. Examples of frequently used performance factors are listed below. Subjective factors, such as attitude, loyalty, and diplomacy should be avoided as they are difficult to quantify, and may have very different meanings among different individuals. ❑Timeliness ❑ Quantity ❑ Accuracy O Decisiveness ❑ Productivity ❑ Persistence ❑ Communications ❑ Cost Effectiveness ❑ Reliability O Organization ❑ Proactive O Consistency O Goal Attainment O Staff Development O Innovativeness O Implementation ❑ Report Writing O Initiative O Resourcefulness ❑ Objectivity O Dependability ❑ Supports Others ❑ Personal Development O Work Quality At the conclusion of the review period, Performance Ratings and Supporting Comments will be added by the supervisor. Supporting comments should be specific to results achieved and support the rating in an objective and factual manner. Ratings of performance should conform to the following definitions: Outstanding - Reserved for employees who consistently exceed expectations in all job aspects, perform all duties in a superior manner and consistently seek out improved work methods. Exceeds Expecta6orts - Employee's performance exceeds expectations in most aspects of the job, and consistently exceeds a majority of critical agreed upon objectives and anticipated results. Meets Expectations - Employee has mastered all of the major or critical job aspects, and consistently meets performance expectations of most objectives. Improvement Needed - Employee's performance does not consistently meet expectations, and requires intense supervision or assistance. Performance deficiencies must be addressed in Section II and an Action Plan developed. Unacceptable - Employee consistently fails to meet performance expectations and to achieve the results required in Skills Development program within a reasonable period. Separation is indicated. The Overall Performance Level is a summary of the employee's total performance over the review period. Comments should support the Overall Rating in each Major Responsibility/Objective area, and reflect the relative importance of each area. MANAG` TENT PERFORMANCE,,.)IEVIEW Employee's Name Position Department Evaluation Period: From To Section I. MAJOR JOB RESPONSIBILITIES/OBJECTIVES RATINGS The first five items deal specifically with administrative and supervisory issues, and items 6-10 with safety issues. For all PERFORMANCE < X z others, list the agreed upon responsibility/objective and select FACTORS: c g. W appropriate Performance Factors. In the Ratings column, assess the uwi p"p a employee's effectiveness in accomplishing target objectives or in u zd L7 H carrying out responsibilities during the rating period based upon ? g E w o Rating Definitions. — 1. Administrative Skills ,s suggesting Comments: i. con Effectiveness x. Intent- 3 Problem Solang a. Judgement S. GeatiJty Overall i 2. Supervisory/Management Skills Supporting Comments: t. Training !. Delegating 3.Employee aeatbne a.abiecdmy 5.Produativay Direst m" � 3. Project Management Skills "gill supporting Comments: t. Planning 3.arsenal, ].Reeou¢aruinen d.goal AaNevemem 5.Timelines. wen 4. Communication Skills Supporting Comments: t.Homontal 2.Venkel 3.EatemN d.Written $.VeNN Overall j `.. 5. Level of Contribution >�!. Supporting Comments: t.We.pna 2. Other Employees 3.Dep.rtmem a.at..,. 5.Otber Aparmie. Overall /Section /. continued) RATINGS PERFORMANCE < x z FACTORS: p X w z w w w N U p Q U Z H y y 2 a X 6. Safety Meetings supponing comments: 1. R...ins 2. Nese..Imen 3.Aoel Attainment e.Fellow.up 5.Reco.d Keeping e.. It 7. Safety Inspections ' Suppo Nog comments: 1. Goal Avornm.nt 2.Follow-up 3. Initiative a. Timeline.. 5.Retool K..ping overall _ S. Injury Reduction min MM Supporting Cotnottow 1. Intiative 2. oalegetiN 3.Cammuneaeun a.Goal Attainment S.Record Kaepinq 0- 9. Accident Investigation Supperinp Commenu: 1.Timelineee 2.Anal-'. 3.Wpoot WtitNe 6.Co.iva Action 6.RedaN Keeping 10. OSHA Compliance 1Supponing comments: I Goal Atuinerent 2.rm.gne.. 3.Training 6. Consistency 5.Record Kaepinp 0 oral1 } 11 . Major Responsibility/Objective �` . EMBEFA supportmg Comments 1. x. 3. C s. ov...11 (Section/. continued) RATINGS w PERFORMANCE < o x z FACTORS: a o X z W w W m U Z N w N Z a w U J s E w2 W O 12, Major Responsibility/Objective Supporting Comments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 13. Major Responsibility/Objective Supporting Comments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. oseral 14. Major Responsibility/Objective Supporting Comments: 1. 2. 3. 4. S. �y Overall M.w SNW U7 15. Major Responsibility/Objective Supporting Comments: I. 2. 3. 4. 6. Overall ' OVERALL PERFORMANCE LEVEL Comments: Section II. SKILLS ASSr-WENT AND DEVELOPMENT I%./ �%.ad A. Identify the employee's major strengths in terms of skills and abilities. In this section, the employee's strengths are identified and reinforced. Emphases is placed on identifying specific skills and abilities the employee has demonstrated in completing assignments and meeting objectives. Examples, which may have also been used in Performance Factors in Section I are: D Motivating Others ❑Time Management D Judgement 0 Controlling ❑Delegating ❑Leadership ❑Methadology 0 Teahnioal Expertise ❑Innovativenass 0166ative 0 Job Knowledge ❑Asaenivenese 0 Cooperation 0 Skill Level 0 Problem Solving 0 Comprehension ❑Safety 0 Planning B. Identify areas of performance that may present opportunities for improvement. In this section, emphasis is placed on identifying specific areas in which further training or development would improve performance. Comments should support and refer to the performance ratings given in Section I. C. Considering strengths and improvement areas, identify an Action Plan For Development to be followed during the next review period. Actions may include training and development, cross training, new assignments or educational courses. Develop an Action Plan and the steps indicated for improving skills and abilities, or directing strengths in a more productive manner during the next review period. Commit time and resources to actions that will improve both performance and individual career potential. Action to be taken: Responsibility of: Beginning/Completion Date: Section Ill. COMMITMENT F—R THE FUTURE - %,d In this section, develop a work plan or set of objectives that are agreed upon by the employee and are to be accomplished during the next evaluation period. The objectives may offer a 'challenge', but also must be realistic and achievable. Goals and objectives developed in this section become the basis for Section 1 in the subsequent review period. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Section IV. EMPLOYEE COMMENTS Employee's Signature Date Section V. SUPERVISOR'S ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Immediate Supervisor's Signature Date Second Level or Department Approval Date O&M94 FORMSNPRP