Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A budget proposal has been submitted to the Joint Budget Committee of .the <br />State Legislature requesting that beginning in FY 88-89 the funds to operate <br />and maintain the monitoring system ($245,525) be funded $155,525 (63%) from <br />the General Fund, and $95,000 (37%) cash funding. Currently, these costs are <br />funded one-third from the General Fund and two-thirds from user fees. The <br />cost benefits realized by the operation of the system are an estimated $1.5 <br />million annually. This is a ratio of nearly 6 to lover operating costs. <br />Aside from cost-benefits, we need to evaluate potential cost-avoidance. If <br />the system can potentially eliminate the need for ten additional water commis- <br />sioners. savings may be an estimated $350,000 to $400,000 annually. The step <br />to full General Funding is critical to the continued operation and development <br />of the system and in making the system accessible to all Colorado water <br />users. This office contends that the system operates for the benefit of all <br />Colorado water users and, as such, should be funded completely from the <br />General Fund. <br /> <br />An additional FTE should be seriously considered and possibly incorpo- <br />rated into the FY 88-89 budget. The position, System Maintenance Manager, <br />would be responsible for both coordinating and carrying out the sustained <br />operation and maintenance of the remote data collection hardware. As the <br />system becomes more integrated into real-time water rights administration, <br />there develops a greater need to maintain the operation of the monitoring <br />network on a continuous and consistent basis. This requires a full-time <br />position. <br /> <br />Expenditures for the operation of the monitoring system for FY 86-87 <br />amounted to $197,603. The projected budget was $232,741. Cost reductions of <br />$35,138 was primarily the result of less than anticipated hardware service and <br />replacement costs and frugal spending. Total funding available was $204,943. <br />User fees collected were $94,800 in FY 86-87, down from $100,900 collected in <br />FY 85-86. The FY 87-88 operating budget is projected to be $227,674. <br /> <br />Excessive failures experienced with the remote data collection hardware <br />continues to be an area of concern. Failures fall into two categories; unit <br />failures requiring manufacturer repair and unit failures that could be <br />repaired or corrected in the field. In FY 86-87, thirty Data Collection Plat- <br />forms (DCP's) were returned to the manufacturer for repair. This represents <br />18% of the DCP's operated by the state. The majority of the failures involved <br />the voltage control oscillator, frequency oscillator, or an ana10g-to-digital <br />chip. Nearly twice as many units failed but were made operable in the field. <br />These intermittent failures were generally related to scrambling of operating <br />software due to lightning strikes or other forms of static electricity, defi- <br />ciency in the on-site power supply, moisture in the antenna/antenna cable, or <br />vandalism. The cost of these failures is conservatively estimated to be <br />between $30,000 to $40,000. This includes repair costs, travel costs, staff <br />time to visit these stations and repair or exchange malfunctioning hardware, <br />and the cost to edit invalid or lost data. Sutron provided an extended <br />warranty, through August 8, 1987, to cover the repair/replacement costs asso- <br />ciated with malfunctioning voltage control oscillators and the frequency <br />oscillators. <br /> <br />-6- <br />