Mercurial > hg > rsof

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='../../../lib/xml/doc.xsl'?>
<!DOCTYPE doc SYSTEM "../../../lib/xml/doc.dtd" [
<!ENTITY pound '&#163;'>
]>
<doc>
 <head>
  <title>Future of 7 VT working group: Third meeting</title>
  <author>This informal summary by Henry S. Thompson, Convenor</author>
  <date>Held at 7 Victoria Terrace, Edinburgh on 26 January 2009, 7:30 p.m.</date>
 </head>
 <body>
  <div>
   <title>Attendance</title>
   <p>Present: Alison Burnley, Madeleine Harding, Phil Lucas,
 Laurie Naumann, John Phillips,
Eileen Schott, Henry Thompson (in the clerk's chair)</p>
   <p>Prevented: Brian Mayes, Rufus Reade</p>
  </div>
  <div>
   <title>Cashflow history and forecast</title>
   <p>John Phillips presented some summary cashflow figures over the last nine
years (attached).</p>
   <p>Much of BYM deals with property at Local Meeting level -- we are
relatively unusual in viewing property as an Area Meeting resource.  John
thinks this is important.</p>
<p>The staff are not here to run a business, but to be the face of Quakerism in
Edinburgh.  The contrast with the situation when we were in Stafford Street is
instructive in this regard.</p>
   <p>The figures in the sheet are summary numbers, simplified in various ways,
leaving out a number of much smaller numbers.</p>
   <p>Over the first 10 years, expenditures (under the heads listed here)
roughly balanced income.</p>
   <p>Expenditures are at the top, as insofar as there is a feeling that the
building is too expensive, these are the things which must be controlled.</p>
   <p>There has been a notable increase in the staff costs, this is down to a
number of things:</p>
   <list>
    <item>Much more responsibility for the financial side of things</item>
    <item>Policy development, for example wrt Health and Safety</item>
    <item>The staff coverage is much greater: two or three staff on duty from
0900 until 2200 every weekday.</item>
   </list>
   <p>The first two of these represent a professionalisation of tasks which formerly fell to
members, as amateurs.</p>
   <p>Other costs which have risen signicantly is the maintenance and repairs
-- recarpetting the Meeting Room, for instance, was 7,000GBP.  This heading
covers a wide range of things (fridges as well as chairs), and just varies a lot.</p>
   <p>We cover the Council Tax on the staff flats, as they are required to live
in them.</p>
   <p>Lettings income in general has risen, but there has been a 10% gap in 2008.</p>
   <p>It has been since approx. 2003 that a real gap has opened up between
expenditure and income.  Area Meeting has viewed it as their responsibility,
since this is an Area Meeting resource, to cover that gap from contributions
made by Friends to Quaker funds.</p>
   <p>Our annual donation income to the Area Meeting is running at around
70,000GBP.  This depends in important part on a small number of very large
donations, which John would like to put into savings, but has been unable to do
so must.  So 20,000 to 30,000 from this goes to bridging the gap.  This in turn
has reduced the amount we have in the past, and that John feels we should, pass
on to BYM.</p>
   <p>What could we do about the situation?  Appeals and legacies have been
used to cover the increased gaps caused by major items, i.e. the foyer/ramp/Bow
Room and the stonework.</p>
   <p>John is not sure we can expect to do this in the future:  too many
appeals are counter-productive</p>
   <p>John's take on upcoming large expenses, if we are to go on using the
building as we are now: window repair/replacement;
toilets; kitchen and its equipment</p>
   <p>We are not using the building to its full capacity, but no clear route to
being sure to do so.</p>
   <p>If we thought we couldn't afford the major expenses, and/or the income
continued to drop:</p>
   <list>
    <item>Retrench: reduce the staffing, and the approach to use, particularly
during the day, i.e. open only in the evening.</item>
    <item>Sell: But the market value of the building is low, moving is unlikely
to be easy financially.  The flats are a better proposition, they were
initially viewed at least in part as an investment, and they have done
reasonably well.</item>
   </list>
   <p>Eileen asks, what about the future for maintenance and repairs?  John
says, well, hard -- sometimes things just jump out and surprise us -- for
instance, DDA regulation requiring a ramp causing the foyer refit.  30K is a
fair estimate, not including exceptional items.</p>
   <p>Laurie asked about a sinking fund?  John said there is one -- we tried to
put aside a reserve each year in the early days of owning the building, and
that built up a large general fund, but latterly it has been run down from a
peak of perhaps 70,000 pounds to a current level of 30,000 pounds.  This is
distinct from the capital fund, which grows from legacy, was used up to buy
Kelso meetinghouse, but since most have gone to cover capital costs (foyer,
stonework) so there is only about 15,000 in that fund today.</p>
   <p>AM's other major outgoings: donations to BYM, GM, NFPB: 30,000, but AM
would like that to be higher, it has not kept pace with inflation, and we're
not getting close to giving half our income to BYM, which was of old the
target; AM activities: conferences, Woodbrooke, etc: 8,000; Administration:
newsletters, advertising, fees: 12,000; local meetings pay their own letting
costs.  It's the donations figure that has to bear the brunt of making the
books balance.  This makes John unhappy, and probably a lot of AM Friends as well.</p>
   <p>Henry was worried that there was a clearcut possible plan to
significantly reduce the gap by cutting back in some way which leaves us here, <emph>or</emph> moves us
out.</p>
   <p>John agreed, and said he didn't see how we could meet the needs of the
Meeting (both AM and CE LM) without staying here, and making the best of what
we've got.</p>
   <p>Madeleine asked how many people give regularly.  John said that every
month there are 80 or 90 monthly standing orders, and 40 or so annual
donations.  So quite a large proportion of our 240 or so members contribute.
Madeleine wondered about other ways to generate more income, similar to other charities.</p>
   <p>John mentioned that people say "It's so nice not to be in a place where
people keep asking us for money".  We don't, in general, spend our time trying
to raise money.</p>
   <p>John confirmed to Laurie that our donation income includes the Gift Aid benefit.</p>
   <p>John answered Phil that the rents were reviewed and a phased-in raise
happened over the last year.  Alison wondered if this had contributed to the
decline in rental income.</p>
   <p>John surveyed the staff allocation: The Buxtons and Tom Nisbet make up
1.7 FTEs; the part-time wardens are paid hourly, one of whom, Cathy McCurrough (sp?),
is on a .4 FTE contract, and the rest probably add up to around another 1 FTE.
So a total of about 3, which is as noted a considerable increase.</p>
   <p>Laurie asked about Festival income: 'excludes charity grants'?  Festival
Committee manages a turnover of about 30,000.  They recommend that some of the
profit each year be allocated to one or more charities, that is what is meant.</p>
  </div>
  <div>
   <title>Progressing the survey</title>
   <p>Carry forward by email, Henry will coordinate</p>
  </div>
  <div>
   <title>Next Meeting</title>
   <p>Our next meeting will be at 7:30 p.m. on Sunday 8 February at 11
Douglas Crescent.</p>
  </div>
 </body>
</doc>
author	Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
date	Sat, 10 Jul 2021 15:45:24 +0100
parents	890f65827d7f
children