Laserfiche WebLink
Eric Hecox: We have been doing some work on that now that we’ve h ad close to a full <br />fiscal year under the budgets we’ve had. Our t otal budget allocation is $ 1.1 million per <br />year. T he budget is fairly simple: there is one lin e item for salary and benefits, which <br />pays for the staff directly associated with this project (Eric and Viola); another line item <br />for operations (travel, meeting space, food etc.) that fluctuates depending on activity, but <br />typically averages between seven and eight thousand per month; a public ed ucation and <br />outreach line item (approximately $50 th ousand); and the contract for technical support , <br />which is roughly $700 to $750 thousand . As we learn what budget we’ll get from the <br />legislature, I will sit down with Harris Sherman, and maybe bring together small group of <br />IBCC members to get ideas on budg et. As we make allocations for the future, we are <br />probably looking at the same items. We c an reduce expenditures in some areas in order <br />to put more in others. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: Budget considerations with regard to the overall program are in flux <br />right now, and we will know more once the legislative process is complete. <br /> <br />Program Direction and Support <br /> <br />After a brief break, Harris Sherman introduced the afternoon topic of IBCC Program Direction <br />and support. The discussion is recorded below. <br /> <br />Harris Sherma n: Our office has prepared and provided to you a document that presents our <br />ideas on a “path forward” for the IBCC. What I would like to do is take three or four areas that <br />the IBCC could choose to focus on, and try to leave here with some sort of consen sus on what <br />role is appropriate for us to play moving forward. I would like to end today with a clear focused <br />direction. The four areas where we saw a major role for the IBCC are 1) the Public Education <br />and Outreach p ro grams Rita talked about earlier, 2) Support of the water supply reserve account <br />process , 3) N eeds assessment activities, and 4) I dentifying multiple objective solutions. I h ope <br />that basins will be talking wi th each other actively in terms of these issues. I want to move <br />through these one by one and see if we can rea ch consensus on these matters, with the <br />expectation that there m ight be s pecific other responsibilities or task s that we want to take on as <br />the IBCC. <br /> <br />Let’s s tart first with public education and outreach. I don’t have a lot to add to Rita’s excellent <br />summary. We n eed to let public k now what we are about and what the R oundtables are about. <br />What are we doing to address water issues in the state of Colorado ? We h ave to talk in broader <br />terms about t he purpose of the Roundtable s. I h ope we can reach an even larger audience than <br />what we’re reac hing through the Roundtable s. This c ould include discussion of what key issues <br />within each basin are and how the public can interface with these issues. I d on’t think we want <br />to independent ly be creatin g new substantive information on water, but instead make the <br />information that is already out there accessible . Let me stop there and get your comments on <br />whether this is an acceptable role for IBCC to play. <br /> <br />Jeris Danielson: The education c ommittee wrestles with this every time we meet . Are <br />we t rying to educate the traditi onal water buffalo community? There are a l ot of good <br />programs out there, and we don’t want to be duplicative. How do we reach the person <br /> 9 <br />