Page History
Shown below is the Staff draft proposal for comment, on a Operating Plan and Budget document, with improvements suggested by the Ad Hoc community group working on this particular focus in line below.
ORIGINAL STAFF PROPOSAL:
I. Intro
II. Strategic Overview of Budget Process
a. Planning cycle
b. Define Current Fiscal Year Strategic Objectives
c. High level budget analysis: vision and rationale for funds such as reserve, contingency, capital and net assets
d. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats)
III. Operating Plan and Budget
a. more $$ details
b. core vs project view in more detail and separated
c. more financials / less words
d. EAG to return ?
e. Functional view: more definition of 15 functional areas and keep at high level
f. Traditional view / expense category: provide more detail
IV. Appendix
a. SO AC requests
b. Close Out reporting
c. Five Year View (growth and trends of past 5 years)
COMMUNITY COMMENTS BEGIN:
I. Intro [CC1]
II. Strategic Overview of Budget Process
a. Planning cycle
b. Define Current Fiscal Year Strategic Objectives
c. High level budget analysis: vision and rationale for funds such as reserve, contingency, capital and net assets
d. SWOT[CC2] (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats)
III. Operating Plan and Budget
a. more $$ details FY13 was 15 lines[CC3]
b. core vs project view in more detail and separated
c. more financials / less words
d. EAG to return ?[CC4]
e. Functional view: more definition of 15 functional areas and keep at high level[CC5]
f. Traditional view [CC6] / expense category: provide more detail
Non Cash and Capital Expenditure [CC7]
g. Core [CC8] and Project[CC9]
h. Revenue [CC10]
IV. Appendix
a. SO AC requests
b. Close Out reporting[CC11]
c. Five Year View [CC12] (growth and trends of past 5 years)
Community Feedback[CC13]
[CC1]“Priorities” should be in a Separate section
[CC2]Is this new? Where from? Caution introduce new concepts.
[CC3]Is first para which only describes table necessary?Each line item broken down into a sub line item. Asterix as approx if necessary.
‘Others’ as closing item explicit or implicit. [CC4]At high level (eg FY12 p98 Fig C-3) which was 11 items it is more confusion than illumination.
Dakar presentation indicated a more detailed EAG. Save for FY15?
[CC5]Don’t understand. There are 25 pages to describe 15 line items. [CC6]Where was the traditional view in FY13? Was it figure3-7 then 3.8 to 3 18?
Easier if 3.7 is a one page table.
[CC7]Brief compared to framework.
[CC8]Core was missing form FY13.
[CC9]Inline with Framework. Importance of unique project title, number, staff lead, milestones, url ref to wiki or document. Set minimum project value for inclusion 100k?
[CC10]This always appears to be a well understood and detailed section with assumptions.
[CC11]What is this?
[CC12]Important
[CC13]Was included in FY12. Review whether this or whether FY13 charts are best approach.
[CC1]“Priorities” should be in a Separate section
[CC3]Is first para which only describes table necessary?
Each line item broken down into a sub line item. Asterix as approx if necessary. ‘Others’ as closing item explicit or implicit.
[CC4]At high level (eg FY12 p98 Fig C-3) which was 11 items it is more confusion than illumination. Dakar presentation indicated a more detailed EAG. Save for FY15?
[CC5]Don’t understand. There are 25 pages to describe 15 line items.
[CC6]Where was the traditional view in FY13? Was it figure3-7 then 3.8 to 3 18? Easier if 3.7 is a one page table.
[CC7]Brief compared to framework.
[CC10]This always appears to be a well understood and detailed section with assumptions.
[CC11]What is this?
[CC12]Important
[CC13]Was included in FY12. Review whether this or whether FY13 charts are best approach.
