2. Budget Options-2010-2011 Background -Baseline Budget -Project funding
-2008 Strategy Session
Options and Decision
Options for
Next Steps??

3. Background Baseline Budget
Budget Categories
Overhead
General Benefit
Specific Benefit Projects

4. A.Overhead Board meetings $39,300 Board meeting minutes $ 4,560
Agency Coordination $13,680
Administrative Steering Comm. $ 4,460
Office Support (in kind)
$ 62K

5. B. General Benefit Public Outreach Materials $7,500
Committee Activities $27,360
Website $ 3,644
Data Management $10,000
Watershed Council $22,800
Update of IRWMP $20,000
Contingency Reserve $25,000
Somewhat fixed- ~$115,804
Usually carried over- $62, 500
Total ,304

6. C. Specific Benefit Projects
*Historically ( ) used algorithm
to allocate costs
*Since 2005 have used “Carryover” funds
for projects

7. Base over time (A.& B.) Year Total Base 2000-2001 $51,700 $39.7 k
$215 k $88 k
$256 k $140 k
$423 k $140 k
$232 k $151 k

8. Base
Year Total Billed
$225 k $ 225 k
$178, $ 178,704
$178, $ 178,304
$178, $ 178,304
$ $178, $ 150,300
? , ???

9. 200-2004 Projects Magic Show $ 12.5k Water Conservation $ 15k
Erosion-Sediment $ 28k
Regional Recycling $ 70k
Fluorescent lights $ 25k
Mercury PP $ 50k
Watershed Stewardship Plan $ 200k ($640 k)
Satellite Treatment $ 94k
Total~ $ 482k

10. 2005- 2007 Projects IRWM Plan $93 k ($ 980 k) Digital Library $29k
Road Show $26k
Integrated Projects $20k
High School Pollution Prevention ~ $10k
Monitoring $20k
Novato Creek ($60K)
Miller Creek $ 50k

11. 2007-2009 Projects Watershed Signs $ 16 k Salmonid Monitoring $ 34 k
Laterals (~$140 k Marin WWT) $ k
STRAW $ 15 k
Perf. Measures/Indicators $ 43 k
Water Conservation-SCWA $ 25 k
Fact Sheet $ 12.5 k
Workshop-SW & WWT $ k
Climate Change/Watersheds $ 50 k Total $ 458k

12. May 2008 Strategy Session http://www. nbwatershed
Part I-The Past
Mission / Goals / Process for Projects
Past Project Evaluation
IRWMP / Policies
Recent Projects-Evaluation
Performance Measures / Long-term Targets
Part II-The Future
New Projects
Budget options

13. Evaluation Criteria Ratings A-Outstanding B-Very good C-Average,
Furthers NBWA goals
2. Funds used effectively
3. Useful (or transferable)
Ratings
A-Outstanding
B-Very good
C-Average,
D-Below average
E-Waste of money

14. NEW Funding SFEP/EPA -$1.5 Million
“ Implementing Sediment and Pathogen TMDLs in the North Bay”
Marin County- Richardson Bay~ $ 369,542
Napa RCD- Napa River ~$ 367,500
SEC- Sonoma Creek $ 363,800
SSCRCD-Sonoma Creek-~ $ 318, 300
NBWA/ MMWD $ 75,000
In Kind- $80k
NO NBWA cash contribution

15. Options-March 2009
1) Allocate entire carryover to “projects” -to be determined
2) Allocate all carryover to baseline budget and reduce membership costs by~50%.
3) Split carryover between baseline budget and “projects”
-Reduce membership costs by 25%
-Allocate ~ $46k to projects
4)??

16. 2009 Decision
Drop Option 2 and use carryover to reduce membership fees to 90% (10% reduction),
go up to 95% (5% reduction)
back to 100%
included covering Petaluma fees with carryover from dropped project.

17. Options for 2010-2011 Prior year decision –
1) Allocate entire carryover to “projects” – TBD
- No specific proposals at this time
- HFTC reviewed proposed projects on March 1(~$200k)
2) Allocate all carryover to baseline budget
-reduce membership costs ( ~50%Reduction)
- No projects
3) Split carryover between baseline budget and “projects”
- Reduce membership costs by ( ~25% Reduction)
- Allocate ~ $40k to projects
Prior year decision –
-Go up to 95% this coming year (5% Reduction)
- Allow -~ $75k for projects
Note! This year we included covering Petaluma fees with carryover from dropped project and for we would cover with carryover.

18. Next Steps
Reduce options?
Add option?
Modify base?