Harbor Enterprise Business Plan gets mixed reviews
The City Council Tuesday night unanimously approved the adoption of a business plan for the harbor area. But it did so over the objections of two city commissions and some harbor area businesses.
Mayor Mike Gin stressed that the Harbor Enterprise Business Plan – intended to help spur revitalization in the economically struggling area – would continue to be a work-in-progress.
“I think this is a good start,” Gin said. “While it may not be perfect in everyone’s eyes, I think it’s a great start.”
The plan, developed by city staff, lays out a series of goals and priorities and establishes a five year timeline. Among its goals are more defined financial management practices, clearer economic assessments, improvements to infrastructure and the development of a marketing strategy.
The goals are broken down into 49 specific tasks that range from monitoring the condition of parking structures, leveraging leaseholds for renovations, extensive surveying of boaters, hotel operators, guests, and residents, and establishing a mix of tenants able to better attract year-round patronage.
“This gives us the opportunity to better market the harbor, and it is very transparent,” said City Manager Bill Workman. “Here in one place you get to see how we are intending to operate the harbor.”
“The harbor area is underperforming, in many cases,” said Councilman Steve Diels. “In some areas, it is falling apart. It is an embarrassment and it is unwelcoming. This is something that is sorely needed.”
Both the city’s Harbor Commission and the Budget and Finance Commission reviewed the business plan and offered strongly worded objections.
In a letter on behalf of the Harbor Commission submitted by chair Shane Michael, the commission suggested the plan required “additional work to be a viable plan.” Michael wrote that the plan “lacks clear vision, clear goals, clear performance objectives, clear tasks with timelines, clearly identified responsible parties, key performance indicators, a strategic implementation plan, and other such metrics to evaluate its success…” The commission urged the council to establish a task force to further develop the plan.
The Budget and Finance Commission likewise issued a letter suggesting changes to the plan. Chair Wayne Ung recommended the plan “more clearly define the overall vision of the Harbor Enterprise, and supported with a specific list of required projects, with budget amounts and the plan to finance them.” The commission also urged that the plan provide “additional clarity” regarding the controversial use of Internal Service Funds – the accounting method by which the city charges the harbor for services provided there by city departments.
Councilmen Bill Brand noted that a 70-page report issued by Budget and Finance Commissioner Gary Ohst indicated that ISF transfers over the past decade had essentially drained the harbor area of cash needed for revitalization. According to Ohst’s report, Brand said, the ISF transfers from the harbor to the city’s general fund had increased from $400,000 annually a decade ago to more than $2 million this year.
“It does concern me….It has gone up quite a bit in the last 10 years,” Brand said.
Workman suggested that Ohst, who lives and owns property in the harbor area, was potentially biased because of his vested interests as a property owner. Councilman Pat Aust said that the ISF have simply begun fully accounting for services provided in the harbor.
“It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how the Internal Service Funds in the harbor have gone up tremendously in the last ten years,” Aust said. “We just started fully accounting for and charging them back, making sure we identify the sources.”
Councilman Steve Aspel said the commissions’ objections had been heard. But he said that the plan needed to move forward.
“If we take their input and don’t implement everything, it doesn’t mean we are not listening,” Aspel said. “…Gary Ohst is a very nice man, but he has too much time on his hands.”
Ohst was not present at the meeting.
Two pier business operators said the plan was indicative of recent city practices in that it did not take into consideration the concerns of existing businesses.
Trinity Keeney, the manager of pier nightclub Starboard Attitude, said the plan included a lot of feel-good rhetoric but lacked substance and teeth.
“I do not think it is a viable document,” Keeney said. “I think it poses more questions than provides answers. I think it has a lot of fluff.”
Keeney said that many pier business owners do not feel they have a partner in the city. Most critically, she said, several longtime operators have been denied requests for lease extensions, leaving them in a position without any security in which they are unable to reinvest in their businesses. Some are on month-to-month leases.
“They want to be there,” she said. “They want to work with the city…but that is not the general consensus of what is going on right now, though it says it is in this plan.”
Judy Millner, owner of the Shark Attack gift store, said that her business had survived 28 years, weathering storms and fires. But she was uncertain it could survive the combination of the current economy and the direction of the city’s management of the pier. And she said her business was not alone in its plight.
“You can say all you want you are going to make a plan, but unless you have people out there generating income, the plan is not going to work,” Millner said. “I think it is a critical position – you are at a tipping point right now.”
Gin said that property owners who feel that city officials are not being responsive need to get in contact with himself and the council.
“Pick up the phone,” he said. “Tell those folks to give us a call.”
Workman said that the city has talked to several businesses regarding lease extensions. Brand noted, however, that council had adopted a policy not to offer long-term leases as it seeks a larger investor for the pier.
“To make it most marketable, you don’t have long-term leases,” Brand said. “Bring forth a proposal and the city will look at it. Unfortunately, you are not going to see five and 10 year lease extensions. Because that is just not the policy that this council has taken. It is just the way that is.” ER