THREE HARBORS COUNCIL

MILWUAKEE, WISCONSIN

“IMAGINE ADVENTURE”

The consolidation of Milwaukee County and Southeast Wisconsin Councils occurred in 2011. This resulted in the formation of Three Harbors Council, headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This merger of equals resulted in the Council owning and operating 4 separate camping facilities.

A key platform of the consolidation was the formation of a Camping Task Force to analyze current practices, and develop a strategic plan pillar that would enable the Council to sustain operations at all facilities. Three Harbors Council is in a strong financial positon, and maintaining this strength is a key pillar of the Strategic Plan.

Two of the Council’s camps are located in the Northwood’s of Wisconsin, and offer only patrol cooking. Ostensibly, one of these camps is used for only 2 weeks annually, and the other is occupied for 4 weeks. The Council’s other two other camps are within close proximity to our service area, and offer opportunities for extensive year-round use.

Each of the camps are revered and have a long history of service to youth. Camp Robert S. Lyle (52 years) and LefeberNorthwoods Camps (85 years) are the northern properties that offer only Boy Scout summer camp programs. Indian Mound Scout Reservation ((98 years) and Camp Oh-Da-Ko-Ta (88 years) offer only Cub Scout summer camp programs, but are used for Council and unit activities throughout the year.

The Camping Task force is comprised of a diverse group of outstanding Scouting volunteers. It represents all geographic and demographic areas of our Council, and the members are heavily invested in the sustainability of the Scouting program in southeastern Wisconsin. Their credibility, integrity and history of effective service are impeccable.

This Task Force studied camp operations for almost 3 years. Extensive research was conducted involving:

  • Historic data related to attendance and camp use. This included camp attendance in ratio to Council membership trends. Projections of potential future usage patterns were extrapolated from this data.
  • Financial data regarding the impact of the camps on Council operations. This included both year-round operations, and specific programmatic use of the properties.
  • The results of the Wisconsin Project, conducted by the National Council, were most helpful in the Council’s deliberations. The Task Force used this information to compare the condition and program offerings of our camps related to the ‘competition’ in the state of Wisconsin. The findings of the Wisconsin Project were absolutely critical to the Task Force in their deliberations. Simply put, the Task Force was able to see very clearly that the long-term needs of our campers would be better met by collaborating with other Councils in the area to provide summer camp programs. This was highly evident in both program quality and financial arenas and property management.
  • NCAP requirements for the future were also key factors in Task Force’s deliberations. Chief among these was the development of the true cost to the Council of operating the properties, including: back-office support; deferred maintenance; and depreciation expense.

The Camping Task Force recommended to the Executive Board that the Council close the two northern properties and outsource Boy Scout summer camping to other viable camps. They also recommended that a continuing study on the use of the southern camps be conducted, with recommendations to be made for strategic implementation in the future. The Executive Board, with little dissent, approved the Camping Task Force’s recommendations.

Immediately following approval of the resolution to close the northern properties, these initiatives were implemented:

  • Negotiations with other council’s to enter into joint operating agreements. This has resulted in the formation of 5 Preferred Vendor agreements for Boy Scout summer camp promotion. 2 of the agreements involve the collaborative use of our southern camps for Cub Scout summer programs and year-round use. Fee schedules, site reservation priority, and volunteer involvement in camping and properties committees were important factors in these agreements. Placing outstanding summer camp staff in other camps is also a priority of these ventures.
  • “Imagine Adventure”, Three Harbors Council’s marketing and communication package related to the changes in camp operations was initiated. This includes on-going direct communication to units regarding camping opportunities, and the solicitation of input and creative thought on future camp use.
  • Town Hall meetings were conducted to solicit input for the future development of the southern camps. These meetings also served as a forum for Scouters to discuss the reasons for, and implications of the decision to close the northern properties.
  • Both northern camps are owned by separate trusts, and operated by the Council. Both trusts are currently working closely with council leadership to properly dispose of the properties. Proceeds from the sale of the properties will be carefully restricted for use in the development, maintenance and operation of the southern camps. We anticipate being able to have access to $6,000,000 for endowment, maintenance, capital development and operations for our southern camps as result of this effort.

Commemorative patches and collectors’ items are now available at camp. A book of memories is under development, and assorted activities and events are underway to bid farewell to the historic northern camps, and forge ahead with developing new traditions and programs for the youth of Three Harbors Council.

Council leadership made the firm decision to release the decision to the general population after deliberations and research were completed. It was decided not to solicit input from our membership at large because of the very volatile nature of the transaction. While the process was not conducted in secrecy, the Council was very selective in who was actively engaged in the research and decision making process. This allowed us to avoid assaults on our voting members to derail the decision making process. . Simply put, it was felt that those who are strongly objecting to the closures could not be positively engaged in any dialogue related to the future of the camps.