Board Minutes September 2024: Difference between revisions

Board Minutes September 2024 (view source)

Revision as of 03:23, 10 September 2024

3,131 bytes added , 10 September 2024

→‎Budget Discussion (Sarah - 8 min)

Adam.burgess

Bureaucrats

1,350

edits

@@ Line 203: / Line 203: @@
 === Budget Discussion (Sarah - 8 min)===
 *
-* 4 Scenarios were circulated to staff and board
+Scenarios were circulated to staff and board
 *Scenario 1 is a balanced budget (BE has a surplus of $111.80 at the end of 24/25). It assumes that all staff salaries and hours remain the same in 24/25 as they were in 23/24. Keith and I considered written feedback from Alex as well as a feedback provided by Coreen at a budget discussion meeting to generate the revenue and expense projections. We used Scenario 1 as the basis for the other 3 scenarios.
-*Scenario 2 assumes that we increase staff salary costs by 10%. The board would have to determine how they wanted to assign those increases- no assumptions were made on that point in the scenario. It uses the same revenue and expense projections as Scenario 1 as raises won't affect the revenue generated and only staff expenses increases. It leaves BE with a deficit of $17,888.20 at the end of 24/25.
+*Scenario 2 assumes that we increase staff salary costs by 10%. The board would have to determine how they wanted to assign those increases- no assumptions were made on that point in the scenario. It uses the same revenue and expense projections as Scenario 1 as raises won't affect the revenue generated and only staff expenses increases. It leaves BE with a deficit of $17,888.20 at the end of 24/25. --Is this sustainable? Maybe, according to Keith's analysis. Sarah less sure.
 *Scenario 3 assumes that we decrease staff costs by 20%. No assumptions were made on how those costs would be decreased. It assumes revenues will fall by 10% as a result of cutting hours. This would leave BE with a surplus of $36,111.80. The Finance Committee notes that when the board decided to end the ED role, the board also motioned to pay for admin help. This scenario envisions that BE would be in a position to pay for such help at end of fiscal next year.
@@ Line 213: / Line 214: @@
 *Scenario 4 assumes that we decrease staff costs by 40%. No assumptions were made on how those costs would be decreased. It assumes revenues will fall by 20% as a result of cutting hours. This would leave BE with a surplus of $72,111.80. This scenario envisions that BE would be in a position to hire an ED at end of fiscal next year.
-These scenarios take into account no new fundraisers or grants.
+These scenarios take into account no new fundraisers or grants. Colin hopes his committee could deliver something in this regard.
+Sarah would like to go the AGM with a balanced budget, she feels members deserve that. She also feels that continuing as an operating board is not sustainable long-term.
+Alex notes that he and Vaughan are at 25h, the minimum to qualify for benefits, so a reduction there would makes their jobs less viable.
+Coreen feels that staffing cuts would result in a greater reduction in income than what is in the draft budget. Also that potential revenue is underestimated, as evidenced by recently exceeding monthly target in various ways.
+Adam is a skeptic of quickly hiring someone external to the organization. Also skeptical that we were ever a governance board or had an ED that wasn't really more of a general manager, doing a lot of nitty gritty work, so suspicious of any spreadsheet showing that's possible soon.
+Marcel leans towards scenario 1-- would like to give a raise, having trouble seeing how in the numbers yet. Marcel thinks revenue could improve a lot if we were open more hours-- members are saying they'd like more access. Coreen says it's not necessarily that people want more shop hours, they just want more space on Saturday afternoons.
+Alex agrees a full- or part-time ED would be premature. The work of delineating staff roles will identify hours/roles that they can do that match a lot of those duties. They could work on this more when the summer rush cools down.
+Keith is struggling with the disconnect between 6 months ago when we thought that closing South shop would decrease revenue, which haven't come to pass. Why is that? Just an open-ended question.
+Sarah is mindful something Chris said at the board retreat about budget discussions, where there was much larger deficit than planned for. "They made the budget that they wanted to make, and there was a lot of hopes and prayers attached." We don't want to squander the hard work of achieving solvency. Coreen appreciates that, and feels our budget is now a lot closer to reality. She notes that it kind of burns to hear priorities re: an ED and a cash cushion rather than taking care of staff.
+Adam suggests something like scenario 1-- costs could still be cut through attrition, and a bonus could be offered if we exceed targets.
+Keith notes that a raise could be mandated in bargaining, and he'd like it to have been voluntary & genuine rather than forced.
+Colin supports something like scenario 2, with a commitment to fundraising to make it happen.
+Keith mentions the best way to raise revenue is to leverage volunteers, and the AGM is the best time to tell membership how they can best help us-- ex bike-building. Bike building is about 50/50 paid/vounteer-- volunteer should be higher. Alex and Coreen agree should mobilize more volunteer time-- but it will take staff time. And the volunteers aren't nearly so productive in that time. Do the paid bike builders really yield that much revenue over and above their salaries? Keith has looked at it in different ways and it's hard to say.
 {{Motion