Option 1. I believe the requirement is now 3/4. Good question, Jim, about salvage.<div>Nanc<br><br>On Saturday, April 2, 2016, Jim McAdams <<a href="mailto:jamcadams@comcast.net">jamcadams@comcast.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>I like option 1. </div><div><br></div><div>Does any one know if we can get any salvage value from the old chain?<br><br><div>Jim</div><br></div><br><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM -0700, "Dick Blidberg" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','blidberg@ausi.org');" target="_blank">blidberg@ausi.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="3D"ltr"">
<pre>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.
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div>