My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Department of Natural Resources FY 02 Budget Process Perliminary Outline
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Department of Natural Resources FY 02 Budget Process Perliminary Outline
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 3:38:27 PM
Creation date
7/30/2012 2:19:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Department of Natural Resources FY 02 Budget Process Perliminary Outline
State
CO
Title
Department of Natural Resources FY 02 Budget Process Perliminary Outline
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Budget
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Constructing the budget <br />(A) Zero Based Budget Work Packages <br />We expect that many of the details about how the work packages take shape in individual <br />divisions will be hammered out in our first round of individual meetings in early March. <br />The DOW work package template will be used for all divisions. Divisions should be <br />considering what internal structure they will design prior to the meetings. As a result of <br />the Division of Wildlife's experience in this process, we have learned some valuable <br />lessons. Divisions should design a their work packages to fit their organizational <br />structure. Program managers should designate key activities that represents how their <br />unique program works. It should be created by and for the manager so it makes sense <br />operationally, not necessarily just to fit a budget exercise. The work package document <br />should reflect the process. The structure cannot and should not be cast from the top <br />down or by the fiscal analysts in a vacuum. A simple geographical structure is not an <br />appropriate delineation for work packages. The structure should be driven by <br />organizational objectives so that a grouping of the work packages telescope into an <br />organizational goal. <br />(B) E &E Analysis <br />In addition to the internal base review for all divisions, we will target 20% of our <br />departmental budget for the rigorous "efficiency and effectiveness" review as <br />instructed by the Office of State Planning and Budgeting. We will jointly identify the base <br />budget elements that will be selected for this analysis. Based on our $150 million budget <br />for the current year, that analysis will need to cover in excess of $30 million in FY 02. We <br />expect that our round of individual meetings with the divisions in early March will initiate <br />the identification of our E &E review items. Divisions should come to those meetings <br />with suggestions for E&E analysis. mvd /s <br />Timeline <br />January 26, 2000 Initial meeting with Budget Liaisons — DOW experience. <br />Week of February 21St Meet with Greg to review and revise details. <br />February 25, 2000 Roll out the process at Division Director's meeting. <br />First Week of March Budget Liaison Meeting <br />March 6 -24, 2000 Individual meetings with divisions ����c�ov /7f ° W <br />April 3, 2000 MEGA Board has initial review of STAX requests. <br />April 17, 2000 Final Identification of E &E items for analysis <br />April 26, 2000 Initial "Work Package" submission to EDO (Structural Outline) <br />E &E sketch from divisions <br />May 1 -15, 2000 Review and Approval of Work Package structure <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.