coloradowaterquality | ColoradoWaterData

www.coloradowaterquality.org |www.ColoradoWaterData.org

Budget OverviewFOR FY 2015 PLANNING


Typical Revenue Sources:


2014 Revenue Sources:

•NPS Contract (WQCD-MtnGeoGeek, LLC) ($40-81k/year)•REG 85 coalition data upload contracts (AFCURE & SWQC)•Individual Fee For Service (FFS) On Demand•$108/hour, $0.50/mile, pass-thru expenses•Includes Data Formatting & Training in FFS•New Organization Set-up Fees ($349/org)


2012-2014 Revenue Sources:


2012

OTHER =FUND BALANCE

NEWORG FEES

NPS CONTRACTCONTRIBUTIONS


2013

CONTRIBUTIONS NPS CONTRACT

NEWORG FEES

FFSFEDERAL

EXCEEDANCEMAP/ENHANCEMENTSCONTRACT


2014

CONTRIBUTIONS

NPS CONTRACT – INCLUDES RESTFUL WEBSERVICES

NEWORG FEES

TRAININGFEES

FFS (NO CONTRACT)

SWQC REG 85 CONTRACT

PICEANCE


•NPS 2012-2014 Grant:•8 Tasks•New Products/Enhancements funded either w/ amendment (Restful Web Services) or through other WQCD Non-NPS contract•Total NPS contract -- $152,762 over 3 years for specified deliverables/timelines•Assumptions – LT & TAC would assist or lead on tasks.•Grant funded PC at 0.26 FTE•PC would be funded w/ other funds to be 0.75 FTE•$31,676/year would be raised by Council & go toward GRANT deliverables


NPS 2012-2014 Grant Purpose:

Primary programmatic focus for PC was to increase the amount and relevancy of the data in the database - data management system (AWQMS), increase the number of monitoring locations with results data connected to the Monitoring Location/Exceedance Mapper (aka CDSN Google Map), and create the complimentary ArcGIS on-line GIS utility and companion GIS files.



Primary administrative focus for PC was to provide the accounting, reporting, CDSN technical website maintenance, outreach and training tools, negotiate and maintain CDSN contracts (such as those with the technology hosts, NPS contracts, etc.) and provide necessary liability insurance for their position as contractors to CDPHE WQCD for the NPS contract.



The primary administrative focus of the Leadership would be to support the mission to increase the use of CDSN and data managed in CDSN; redesign a successful organizational structure to provide long-term sustainability, resiliency, financial stability, and technological relevancy to CDSN, and implement the redesigned structure. Designing a pilot project of migrating a repository of legacy data into the CDSN was anticipated. A GAP analysis (Tasks 5 and Tasks 6) which would largely be facilitated, designed and implemented by Leadership. By mid-2012 Leadership determined that a Gap Analysis was outside of the scope and mission of the CDSN, which means that the CDSN project does not "judge" data. The appropriate scope and mission for CDSN was to increase the amount of high-quality managed data, publically available, and increase the use of that data by others who would use it for their own analyses.



In 2012-13 Leadership wanted to replace basin SWAPs in Task 1 with REG85 outreach to encourage dischargers to use CDSN to manage their REG85 and other data as part of sustainability strategy.

By mid-2012 Leadership determined that a Gap Analysis was outside of the scope and mission of the CDSN, which means that the CDSN project does not "judge" data.

The appropriate scope and mission for CDSN was to increase the amount of high-quality managed data, publically available, and increase the use of that data by others who would use it for their own analyses.


NPS 2012-2014 Tasks:


NPS 2012-2014 Grant Requirements, Source 1 is Council:


What was funded in Grant:


What was funded in Grant% of NPS funds allocated to each Task:


What was funded in Grant“Cost” – sum of NPS funds and in-kind accounted for by Task


NPS StatusT8 (Admin): $1270.11 for completing final report

(also doing RESTFUL project mgmt, data format meetings, REG85 meetings, pre-data call planning/meetings, on-call

assistance, budget, etc. but unfunded)T7: $18,340 left – all earmarked for Gold Systems for

programming web services


NPS Match Status – over 200% match (mostly in-kind, not cash) accounted for!

Going Forward – What TASKS should we do?What TASKS do we have to do to keep our investment going?

Considered COSTs of –1. Outreach (SWAPs, Conferences, e-blasts, Other)2. Data Call Support – compiling & submitting data batches to WQCD, maintaining close relationship & trust of WQCD3. Mentoring & Training – really training and on-call help desk. Some of this is FFS but some is not. People/public call with questions, need fact sheets, tutorials, webinars, etc.4.AWQMS/STORET uploads – data formatting and upload as FFS is successful. Left in FFS category.5.Migration of USGS data repositories into AWQMS. Groups paid USGS a lot. Don’t have funds. Post-learning curve, cost for each is est. at $21,500. 7 more in state.6.Operation & Maintenance of AWQMS, Map & GIS – a lot has been invested in these. PCs troubleshoot, fix, create materials, repurpose/edit materials, update files. If this stops will we be relevant? Will products lose value? Lab Guidance effort?7.Admin – attend meetings, communicate, maintain org docs, website, accounting, grant writing, membership, etc.8.Fee for Service – New Orgs, Targeted Training, Data services

Rates & Suggestions to consider

1.New Org Fee increased to $4352.Hourly rate increased to $1453.Mileage/Lodging/Expenses for FFS is given a 10% Processing Fee to cover FA fees4.Individual/Biz memberships -- $50/$1005.Website Sponsorships – non-data org: $1000/year6.Data org: annual base fee (some are defunct and won’t pay) – based on volume; number results? Or like GS – tiered,

a) public/non-profitb) Local district/govtc) State govtd) Federal govte) Coalitions (SPCURE/AFCURE/etc)

Lynn PadgettProject Coordinator, Colorado Data Sharing

Network970.258.0836

[email protected]

coloradowaterquality | ColoradoWaterData

Documents

Transcript of coloradowaterquality | ColoradoWaterData