[Bboa-members] Finance Sub committee meeting

[erwan illien]

The replacement of the berth or repairs whatever may
come to be is not in my opinion the bigger problem. 
The marina revenues amount to 2,750.000 and yet the
payroll comes to 2,500.000 which means let's say 25
people at 100.000 a year. Ridiculous. And that's not
all. There are more payroll cost apparently tied to
the marina. If this is true, we have a BIG problem
that needs to be rectified first. 
Firthermore how do we have to pay for fireworks when
it is put together for everyone in berkeley and
beyond. 
Last why does the marina has to pay for the
maintenance of the parks around. Are the people
leaving next to Tilden Park paying alone for the
maintenance of that park or the one living in front of
Ohlone park payong alone for the replacement of the
kids play structure? NO. Why us then?
This is the fundamental problem.  We should be at the
City Council every week. A few at a time maybe... But
continuously until we are clearly heard.
When is our next meeting. Please...

--- David Talton <DKTalton at comcast.net> wrote:

> Keith,
> 
>  
> 
> I for one want to thank you for your insight and
> detailed explanation of the
> meeting. Thanks for taking the time. I feel we are
> moving in the right
> direction now and may well get a few things
> accomplished. I have some
> experience with budgets and wouldn't mind studying
> what they have presented.
> Is it possible to get a copy?
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with the repair versus replace concept.
> There are cracks on J-dock
> as well that I am sure could be repaired. It all
> depends on who is doing the
> job and how well they do it. I certainly don't see a
> need for replacement
> but a study by a knowledgeable source would be
> prudent.
> 
>  
> 
> Dave Talton
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bboa-members-bounces at berkeleyboa.org
> [mailto:bboa-members-bounces at berkeleyboa.org] On
> Behalf Of Keith Samse
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:21 AM
> To: 'Ray Schmahl'; 'Tom & Lori Jeremiason'; 'Bob
> Griffiths'
> Cc: bboa-members at berkeleyboa.org; 'Zach Nobel'
> Subject: [Bboa-members] Finance Sub committee
> meeting
> 
>  
> 
> Hi All,
> 
>  
> 
> I attended the finance sub committee meeting on Wed
> night, but had to leave
> after an hour & 45 minutes.  It lasted another 30
> minutes or so.
> 
>  
> 
> I found the meeting to be very open and mostly non
> political.  The committee
> members seemed genuinely interested in reducing
> costs - in fact, the entire
> time I was there they only mentioned increasing fees
> twice.  The
> sub-committee chair (Brad Smith) was more than
> accommodating in taking
> questions from the public (only 4 were there - I was
> the only BBOA member (I
> think) until Tom Jeremiason came a little later).  
> 
>  
> 
> The agenda ran around a bit, but it generally
> revolved around the
> replacement of docks, possible materials to be used,
> the rearrangement of
> docks, and the multi-year fiscal projections.  While
> several good ideas
> surfaced, and the energy was clearly focused on
> minimizing costs, I felt
> there was a bit of wheel-spinning happening.  The
> committee is trying to
> develop a recommendation to the waterfront
> commission on "what to do".
> However, like most municipalities - and,
> unfortunately most sub committees
> formed largely by volunteers - I didn't feel that
> the real expertise was
> present to say what would be the best material to
> use to provide the best
> long-term cost/performance/longevity picture.  Wood,
> concrete and aluminum
> were discussed.  An idea was raised to make the RFP
> (request for proposal)
> to include design.in other words, have the potential
> contractors "educate"
> the city on what was the best long term solution.  I
> really felt this was a
> good idea.  Waterfront commission manager Cliff
> (didn't get last name) said
> the city generally didn't do that.  However, I feel
> it might be a good idea
> because of the quantity of "new-age" building
> material being developed
> today.  It might be a mistake for the city to spec
> "concrete docks" for
> example, when there might be a new material out
> there that would ultimately
> save the city (and berthers) money.
> 
>  
> 
> This was the wheel-spinning part.  I've been City
> Finance Officer for 3
> cities over the past 16 years - and I fully
> understand that sometimes city
> staff doesn't have all the best answers.  In this
> case, I feel that the
> sub-committee cannot make a qualified recommendation
> to the waterfront
> commission unless some serious homework is done, or
> they get a consultant to
> do the homework for them.
> 
>  
> 
> In the budget that was available as a handout, I had
> a couple questions.  It
> showed a multi-year timeline with beginning fund
> balances for each year,
> added in projected revenues, subtracted out
> projected expenditures, and came
> up with a resulting ending fund balance - which was
> used as the following
> year's beginning balance.  Makes sense.  However on
> this "budget forecast"
> it listed debt principal payments as reductions to
> the fund balance each
> year.  Debt interest payments are indeed expenses
> and reduce the fund
> balance as diagrammed above.  However, when the debt
> principal is paid down
> or reduced (remember that debt is a liability, not
> an expense), there is a
> reduction in liabilities.  The cash that is given to
> reduce the debt
> principal is an asset - so assets are reduced the
> same amount as the
> liabilities.  Net effect on the fund balance is
> zero.  I asked Cliff about
> this when I ran into him in the parking lot after
> the meeting but didn't
> have time to fully discuss.  Anyway, the effect of
> presenting a budget
> forecast which includes debt principal payments is
> to overstate
> expenditures, and show a "loss" that is higher than
> actual.  I didn't feel
> that this was being used to intentionally overstate
> the grimness of the
> picture - I think it was a mistake in the
> spreadsheet.  However, it
> represents several hundred thousand dollars - and
> should be made clear.  
> 
>  
> 
> A bigger issue for me concerned replacement versus
> repair of the docks.  A
> question was asked if the 88 docks that need to be
> replaced were in their
> condition due to neglect.  The answer was "no". 
> Another question was "are
> you proposing to replace all the docks or repair
> some?".  The answer was
> that repairs aren't worth it - they last only a
> couple years.  The
> combination of those two answers really concerns me.
>  To replace a dock
> costs (numbers quoted last night) $7,500 each.  I
> have cracks in my concrete
> finger at my dock (L-Dock) that could easily be
> repaired - which would
> prevent further deteriorization.  I figure cost of
> labor & materials would
> be less than $300.  Do the math.  I don't think it
> is fiscally responsible
> to claim that "repairs don't last, it is a waste to
> do them - it is better
> to replace them".  If a repair lasts 3 or 4 years at
> $300, and a replacement
> that lasts 40 years costs $7,500 it is cheaper to do
> the repair.  This only
> makes sense.  Yes, it is "cleaner" to get brand new
> docks, but I felt the
> discussion on the decision to replace versus repair
> - which lasted about 2
> minutes - was not looked at nearly closely enough.
> 
>  
> 
> Effective communication is the ultimate path to
> positive 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Bboa-members mailing list
> Bboa-members at berkeleyboa.org
>
http://colo1.sunsolver.com/mailman/listinfo/bboa-members
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com