From glennwmichael at gmail.com  Sat Apr  2 12:08:26 2016
From: glennwmichael at gmail.com (Glenn Michael)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 14:08:26 -0400
Subject: [Board] Options for the mooring maintenance contract with PCMS
In-Reply-To: <003e01d18c7f$98df95e0$ca9ec1a0$@dangingras.net>
References: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
	<003e01d18c7f$98df95e0$ca9ec1a0$@dangingras.net>
Message-ID: <CAC7tJWZ5odnqg++sASSmrMMw=OhDL6jffs3ztmTHxV2oCVXDuw@mail.gmail.com>

My vote is for the 3/4" at the IOS.  A little more money, but we can sleep
better....

Glenn

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Dan Gingras <dan at dangingras.net> wrote:

> Given the number of large rafts (acknowledged that they're mostly
> non-member
> boats from Newburyport!)   I think that 3/4" chain at the IOS might be a
> better option.
>
> Dan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Board [mailto:board-bounces at portsmouthyc.org] On Behalf Of Dick
> Blidberg
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 8:16 PM
> To: 'Board of Directors' <board at portsmouthyc.org>
> Subject: [Board] Options for the mooring maintenance contract with PCMS
>
> HI All
>
> Roy & I have been talking with PCMS about the mooring situation and
> considering what might be done to get the total cost for the year down a
> bit.
> First of all we considered what the level of effort was going to be based
> on
> their (PMCS) inspections for last year. Geoff relies on the input he gets
> from
> his people during the inspection and feels very confident about what they
> have
> found.  He has also checked to make sure that the data that he gets is
> accurately reflected in the summary documents his administrative people
> produce and has corrected any incorrect entries.
>
> Given the experience we had last year and the results of that accident we
> all
> feel that there is no way we should do less that required by the results of
> the inspections last year.  They, Pepperrell Cove Marine Services, must
> maintain the moorings in a manner that addresses the problems found last
> year.
> They cannot, in good conscience, delay required maintenance, suggested by
> last
> year's inspections, for a longer period of time unless the inspections this
> year suggest that the moorings are in better shape than expected.  If that
> is
> the case then they will not undertake the suggested maintenance until
> 2017. As
> a result he has generated the quote in the yearly maintenance contract
> which
> details those costs (Attached) .
>
> We have looked at two possible options that can be considered to reduce the
> cost for the year. We have talked with PCMS about these options and they
> are
> in agreement that both options are possible. They are summarized in the
> second
> and third columns of the second document (attached). The first option
> (OPT1),
> column 2, reflects the results of some conversations with Geoff . We all
> agree
> that the 5/8" chain is fine for all of the shallower moorings such as
> those in
> Pepperrell Cove, Little Harbor, and Fox point. The moorings at the Isles of
> Shoals on the other hand, might best be served by 3/4" chain due to the
> deep
> water of some and the manner in which they are used e.g. multiple boat
> rafting.
> The moorings in front to the club should be 3/4" chain due to the high
> currents and the river traffic that those moorings experience.
>
> The second option (OPT2), column 3, eliminates the 3/4" chain on the IOS
> moorings. Although this is not optimum, it is felt to be sufficient.
>
> Bottom line, we can lower our costs this year to $15,000 without causing
> too
> much of a problem. If we want to feel more secure at the IOS then we can
> put
> 3/4" chain on the moorings that have to be changed there. But that brings
> our
> costs up to $16,828.
>
> After considering the options Let us know what your thoughts are so we can
> move forward with the process. We think both of the options are viable and
> would be acceptable.
>
>   Dick Blidberg, Roy Briscoe
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160402/fc0624bc/attachment.htm>

From dswajda at comcast.net  Sat Apr  2 13:05:53 2016
From: dswajda at comcast.net (David S Wajda)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 15:05:53 -0400
Subject: [Board] Options for the mooring maintenance contract with PCMS
In-Reply-To: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
References: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
Message-ID: <0F354D22-2FD4-4ACD-9FAE-3E1EFFF1373D@comcast.net>

After the comments from others - option one is best for all.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 8:16 PM, Dick Blidberg <blidberg at ausi.org> wrote:
> 
> HI All
> 
> Roy & I have been talking with PCMS about the mooring situation and considering what might be done to get the total cost for the year down a bit. First of all we considered what the level of effort was going to be based on their (PMCS) inspections for last year. Geoff relies on the input he gets from his people during the inspection and feels very confident about what they have found.  He has also checked to make sure  that the data that he gets is accurately reflected in the summary documents his administrative people produce and has corrected any incorrect entries.
> 
> Given the experience we had last year and the results of that accident we all feel that there is no way we should do less that required by the results of the inspections last year.  They, Pepperrell Cove Marine Services, must maintain the moorings in a manner that addresses the problems found last year. They cannot, in good conscience, delay required maintenance, suggested by last year's inspections, for a longer period of time unless the inspections this year suggest that the moorings are in better shape than expected.  If that is the case then they will not undertake the suggested maintenance until 2017. As a result he has generated the quote in the yearly maintenance contract which details those costs (Attached) .
> 
> We have looked at two possible options that can be considered to reduce the cost for the year. We have talked with PCMS about these options and they are in agreement that both options are possible. They are summarized in the second and third columns of the second document (attached). The first option (OPT1), column 2, reflects the results of some conversations with Geoff . We all agree that the 5/8" chain is fine for all of the shallower moorings such as those in Pepperrell Cove, Little Harbor, and Fox point. The moorings at the Isles of Shoals on the other hand, might best be served by 3/4" chain due to the deep water of some and the manner in which they are used e.g. multiple boat rafting. The moorings in front to the club should be 3/4" chain due to the high currents and the river traffic that those moorings experience.
> 
> The second option (OPT2), column 3, eliminates the 3/4" chain on the IOS moorings. Although this is not optimum, it is felt to be sufficient.
> 
> Bottom line, we can lower our costs this year to $15,000 without causing too much of a problem. If we want to feel more secure at the IOS then we can put 3/4" chain on the moorings that have to be changed there. But that brings our costs up to $16,828.
> 
> After considering the options Let us know what your thoughts are so we can move forward with the process. We think both of the options are viable and would be acceptable.
> 
> Dick Blidberg, Roy Briscoe
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> <Mooring contract options 2016.docx>
> <PYC Contract.docx>



From jamcadams at comcast.net  Sat Apr  2 13:26:03 2016
From: jamcadams at comcast.net (Jim McAdams)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:26:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [Board] Options for the mooring maintenance contract with PCMS
In-Reply-To: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
References: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
Message-ID: <F40ABA1A206349C2.F9A5563D-5B6B-47E6-90AA-4A480DF4456C@mail.outlook.com>

I like option 1. 
Does any one know if we can get any salvage value from the old chain?

Jim




On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM -0700, "Dick Blidberg" <blidberg at ausi.org> wrote:










HI All

Roy & I have been talking with PCMS about the mooring situation and 
considering what might be done to get the total cost for the year down a 
bit. First of all we considered what the level of effort was going to be 
based on their (PMCS) inspections for last year. Geoff relies on the 
input he gets from his people during the inspection and feels very 
confident about what they have found.  He has also checked to make sure  
that the data that he gets is accurately reflected in the summary 
documents his administrative people produce and has corrected any 
incorrect entries.

Given the experience we had last year and the results of that accident 
we all feel that there is no way we should do less that required by the 
results of the inspections last year.  They, Pepperrell Cove Marine 
Services, must maintain the moorings in a manner that addresses the 
problems found last year. They cannot, in good conscience, delay 
required maintenance, suggested by last year's inspections, for a longer 
period of time unless the inspections this year suggest that the 
moorings are in better shape than expected.  If that is the case then 
they will not undertake the suggested maintenance until 2017. As a 
result he has generated the quote in the yearly maintenance contract 
which details those costs (Attached) .

We have looked at two possible options that can be considered to reduce 
the cost for the year. We have talked with PCMS about these options and 
they are in agreement that both options are possible. They are 
summarized in the second and third columns of the second document 
(attached). The first option (OPT1), column 2, reflects the results of 
some conversations with Geoff . We all agree that the 5/8" chain is fine 
for all of the shallower moorings such as those in Pepperrell Cove, 
Little Harbor, and Fox point. The moorings at the Isles of Shoals on the 
other hand, might best be served by 3/4" chain due to the deep water of 
some and the manner in which they are used e.g. multiple boat rafting. 
The moorings in front to the club should be 3/4" chain due to the high 
currents and the river traffic that those moorings experience.

The second option (OPT2), column 3, eliminates the 3/4" chain on the IOS 
moorings. Although this is not optimum, it is felt to be sufficient.

Bottom line, we can lower our costs this year to $15,000 without causing 
too much of a problem. If we want to feel more secure at the IOS then we 
can put 3/4" chain on the moorings that have to be changed there. But 
that brings our costs up to $16,828.

After considering the options Let us know what your thoughts are so we 
can move forward with the process. We think both of the options are 
viable and would be acceptable.

  Dick Blidberg, Roy Briscoe


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160402/c9fd388b/attachment.htm>

From nancgulley at gmail.com  Sat Apr  2 15:29:10 2016
From: nancgulley at gmail.com (Nancy Gulley)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 17:29:10 -0400
Subject: [Board] Options for the mooring maintenance contract with PCMS
In-Reply-To: <F40ABA1A206349C2.F9A5563D-5B6B-47E6-90AA-4A480DF4456C@mail.outlook.com>
References: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
	<F40ABA1A206349C2.F9A5563D-5B6B-47E6-90AA-4A480DF4456C@mail.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAEYcus-edvkGBjKZ3sr1Q6DV=MVVFXJrO=zLO9eRihgsvkDSgg@mail.gmail.com>

Option 1.   I believe the requirement is now 3/4.  Good
question, Jim, about salvage.
Nanc

On Saturday, April 2, 2016, Jim McAdams <jamcadams at comcast.net> wrote:

> I like option 1.
>
> Does any one know if we can get any salvage value from the old chain?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM -0700, "Dick Blidberg" <blidberg at ausi.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','blidberg at ausi.org');>> wrote:
>
> HI All
>>
>> Roy & I have been talking with PCMS about the mooring situation and
>> considering what might be done to get the total cost for the year down a
>> bit. First of all we considered what the level of effort was going to be
>> based on their (PMCS) inspections for last year. Geoff relies on the
>> input he gets from his people during the inspection and feels very
>> confident about what they have found.  He has also checked to make sure
>> that the data that he gets is accurately reflected in the summary
>> documents his administrative people produce and has corrected any
>> incorrect entries.
>>
>> Given the experience we had last year and the results of that accident
>> we all feel that there is no way we should do less that required by the
>> results of the inspections last year.  They, Pepperrell Cove Marine
>> Services, must maintain the moorings in a manner that addresses the
>> problems found last year. They cannot, in good conscience, delay
>> required maintenance, suggested by last year's inspections, for a longer
>> period of time unless the inspections this year suggest that the
>> moorings are in better shape than expected.  If that is the case then
>> they will not undertake the suggested maintenance until 2017. As a
>> result he has generated the quote in the yearly maintenance contract
>> which details those costs (Attached) .
>>
>> We have looked at two possible options that can be considered to reduce
>> the cost for the year. We have talked with PCMS about these options and
>> they are in agreement that both options are possible. They are
>> summarized in the second and third columns of the second document
>> (attached). The first option (OPT1), column 2, reflects the results of
>> some conversations with Geoff . We all agree that the 5/8" chain is fine
>> for all of the shallower moorings such as those in Pepperrell Cove,
>> Little Harbor, and Fox point. The moorings at the Isles of Shoals on the
>> other hand, might best be served by 3/4" chain due to the deep water of
>> some and the manner in which they are used e.g. multiple boat rafting.
>> The moorings in front to the club should be 3/4" chain due to the high
>> currents and the river traffic that those moorings experience.
>>
>> The second option (OPT2), column 3, eliminates the 3/4" chain on the IOS
>> moorings. Although this is not optimum, it is felt to be sufficient.
>>
>> Bottom line, we can lower our costs this year to $15,000 without causing
>> too much of a problem. If we want to feel more secure at the IOS then we
>> can put 3/4" chain on the moorings that have to be changed there. But
>> that brings our costs up to $16,828.
>>
>> After considering the options Let us know what your thoughts are so we
>> can move forward with the process. We think both of the options are
>> viable and would be acceptable.
>>
>>   Dick Blidberg, Roy Briscoe
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160402/d3fda4ed/attachment.htm>

From blidberg at ausi.org  Sat Apr  2 18:16:33 2016
From: blidberg at ausi.org (Dick Blidberg)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 20:16:33 -0400
Subject: [Board] Options for the mooring maintenance contract with PCMS
In-Reply-To: <CAEYcus-edvkGBjKZ3sr1Q6DV=MVVFXJrO=zLO9eRihgsvkDSgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56FF0F5B.4000007@ausi.org>
	<F40ABA1A206349C2.F9A5563D-5B6B-47E6-90AA-4A480DF4456C@mail.outlook.com>
	<CAEYcus-edvkGBjKZ3sr1Q6DV=MVVFXJrO=zLO9eRihgsvkDSgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <570060E1.1090207@ausi.org>

Hi All
I have received emails from eight members of the BOD.  All agree with 
option 1.  I will let Geoff at PMCS know that we will go with option 1.  
We will have to bring this up at the next BOD meeting and get a formal 
vote on record I believe.  Thanks for all of your input
Dick

On 4/2/2016 5:29 PM, Nancy Gulley wrote:
> Option 1.   I believe the requirement is now 3/4. Good 
> question, Jim, about salvage.
> Nanc
>
> On Saturday, April 2, 2016, Jim McAdams <jamcadams at comcast.net 
> <mailto:jamcadams at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     I like option 1.
>
>     Does any one know if we can get any salvage value from the old chain?
>
>     Jim
>
>
>
>
>     On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM -0700, "Dick Blidberg"
>     <blidberg at ausi.org
>     <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','blidberg at ausi.org');>> wrote:
>
>         HI All
>
>         Roy & I have been talking with PCMS about the mooring situation and
>         considering what might be done to get the total cost for the year down a
>         bit. First of all we considered what the level of effort was going to be
>         based on their (PMCS) inspections for last year. Geoff relies on the
>         input he gets from his people during the inspection and feels very
>         confident about what they have found.  He has also checked to make sure
>         that the data that he gets is accurately reflected in the summary
>         documents his administrative people produce and has corrected any
>         incorrect entries.
>
>         Given the experience we had last year and the results of that accident
>         we all feel that there is no way we should do less that required by the
>         results of the inspections last year.  They, Pepperrell Cove Marine
>         Services, must maintain the moorings in a manner that addresses the
>         problems found last year. They cannot, in good conscience, delay
>         required maintenance, suggested by last year's inspections, for a longer
>         period of time unless the inspections this year suggest that the
>         moorings are in better shape than expected.  If that is the case then
>         they will not undertake the suggested maintenance until 2017. As a
>         result he has generated the quote in the yearly maintenance contract
>         which details those costs (Attached) .
>
>         We have looked at two possible options that can be considered to reduce
>         the cost for the year. We have talked with PCMS about these options and
>         they are in agreement that both options are possible. They are
>         summarized in the second and third columns of the second document
>         (attached). The first option (OPT1), column 2, reflects the results of
>         some conversations with Geoff . We all agree that the 5/8" chain is fine
>         for all of the shallower moorings such as those in Pepperrell Cove,
>         Little Harbor, and Fox point. The moorings at the Isles of Shoals on the
>         other hand, might best be served by 3/4" chain due to the deep water of
>         some and the manner in which they are used e.g. multiple boat rafting.
>         The moorings in front to the club should be 3/4" chain due to the high
>         currents and the river traffic that those moorings experience.
>
>         The second option (OPT2), column 3, eliminates the 3/4" chain on the IOS
>         moorings. Although this is not optimum, it is felt to be sufficient.
>
>         Bottom line, we can lower our costs this year to $15,000 without causing
>         too much of a problem. If we want to feel more secure at the IOS then we
>         can put 3/4" chain on the moorings that have to be changed there. But
>         that brings our costs up to $16,828.
>
>         After considering the options Let us know what your thoughts are so we
>         can move forward with the process. We think both of the options are
>         viable and would be acceptable.
>
>            Dick Blidberg, Roy Briscoe
>
>
>         ---
>         This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>         https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160402/339834d7/attachment.htm>