wanted his concerns entered into the record. He clarified that he was not stating the County would deny ARPA grant reimbursement but believed the change warranted concern.
- Mr. Alexander questioned the proposed relocation of Duke Energy guy wires, asking which poles would be affected, whether additional utility easements would be required, and whether relocating the utilities would result in additional costs. Staff responded that Duke Energy had been contacted and indicated the work would involve relocating the guy wires rather than moving the poles and that additional information would be obtained as the project moved forward.
MOTION to approve RFP 25-06 for the Sun N lake Blvd Trail. Recommend KDL for a 483K MAX cost including a 5% contingency and authorize the GM to oversee the project, project will be funded by CIP program reserves and the $227,823 RPAC Grant upon completion Motion by Supervisor Caramanna-Yes, seconded by Vice President Phillips-Yes, Supervisor Gilpin-No, Supervisor McLaughlin-No and President Norton-Yes, Motion was approved, 3–2.
ACTION AGENDA – ITEM 8B
Review the General Managers Evaluation feedback from Supervisors, with potential contract adjustments.
The Board reviewed the results of the General Manager’s annual performance evaluation, as required under the terms of his employment agreement prior to consideration of any contract adjustment.
The General Manager explained that the evaluation process consisted of performance ratings in the areas of organizational development, planning and leadership, Board relations, and an overall evaluation. Because former Supervisor Herrick served during a portion of the evaluation period, his evaluation was included with those of the current Board members.
The evaluation summary reflected an overall score of 402 out of 600 possible points, which constituted a Satisfactory rating. Four evaluations averaged approximately 95.5%, while two evaluations reflected significantly lower scores, including ratings of 25 and 0.
The General Manager stated that, after more than 40 years in public service, he welcomed performance evaluations and constructive criticism and believed they were essential to professional growth. However, he expressed concern that the two substantially lower evaluations were not accompanied by prior documented or informal discussions identifying performance deficiencies or providing him with an opportunity to address concerns throughout the evaluation period.