My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
DWR_2810575
DWR
>
Reference Library
>
2015
>
10
>
DWR_2810575
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2015 11:23:46 AM
Creation date
10/27/2015 12:19:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Reference Library
Title
SEO FORUM: INTRODUCTION AND BUDGET ISSUES- IMPACTS ON DWR'S BUDGET
Author/Source
DICK WOLFE, STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Keywords
SEO FORUM, BUDGET, IMPACT, PERSONNEL, BUDGET, RULES, ADMINISTRATION, TECHNOLOGY, CDSS
Document Type - Reference Library
Presentations
Document Date
10/1/2010
Year
2010
Team/Office
Denver Office
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />The Division has essentially the same number of water commissioners today as in the <br />1960’s (115 in the 1960’s vs. 114 today—however, we have added man-months to <br />these positions). <br /> <br />The Division has added 21 new well commissioners since 1996 due to increased well <br />administration. <br /> <br />The Division currently has over 25 vacant positions. <br /> <br />The Division has tried to address these increasing workload issues each year through <br />annual Decision Item requests for additional staffing. <br /> <br />The Division has not been able to make any requests since 2007 and is projected we <br />will not be able to make any requests for additional staffing at least through Fiscal Year <br />2012-2013. <br /> <br />Budget <br /> <br />The Division is 90% general funded with a approximately $25M total budget. 85% spent <br />on salaries. <br /> <br />This includes a $1.5M operating budget of which 50% is spent on mileage (2.4 million <br />miles per year) for water commissioners, well commissioners, well inspectors, dam <br />inspectors and hydrographers. <br /> <br />The recent budget cycles have demonstrated the vulnerability of the Division’s general <br />funded budget. <br /> <br />Attempts to make a portion of the budget funded by user fees or severance tax dollars <br />were defeated in the legislature the last couple of years; however, the Interim Water <br />Committee agreed that developing a secure funding source for the Division would be a <br />priority for the Committee. <br /> <br />The Division considered a proposal in 2009 (SB 09-216) for alternative funding sources <br />including voluntary fees (i.e., well permit application and inspection fees, Substitute <br />Water Supply Plan fees, and dam design review fees). <br /> <br /> A second proposal was introduced in 2009 that included the use of severance tax <br />monies (HB 09-1308) and again in 2010 under HB 10-1006. All three of these <br />measures were ultimately defeated. <br /> <br />Other ideas for alternate funding sources that were suggested but not yet fully <br />evaluated included involuntary fees (e.g., water administration fee), water commissioner <br />inspection fee, county referral review fee, fee for review of accounting reports, water <br />court application fee, water court consultation fee, use of revenue generated form
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.