At a recent Whitehall City Council meeting, the city auditor stated that there were no formal methods in place to track revenue generated by the city marina at Goodrich Park.
That statement should concern every taxpayer.
Not because it is political. Not because it is partisan. But because it reflects a deeper issue of stewardship.
The marina is a public asset. It requires maintenance. It requires capital investment. It consumes tax dollars. And it sits in a prime location along White Lake. Meanwhile, other marinas in less ideal locations are thriving.
If we are not even tracking revenue properly, we are not managing the asset responsibly.
This is not an attack on individuals. It is a leadership conversation.
Local Government Exists to Do What Individuals Cannot Do Alone
The proper role of local government is to provide essential public services that individuals and private markets cannot reasonably provide on their own. These typically include:
• Public safety through police and fire protection
• Infrastructure such as roads, water, and sewer systems
• Zoning and land use planning
• Basic regulatory frameworks to protect health and safety
These are shared goods. They require coordination. They require taxation. They require structure.
In a previous discussion, I made the case that trash collection, for example, is not inherently a public monopoly function. It is a service that can and often does operate effectively within a competitive private marketplace.
The marina raises a similar, though slightly more complex, question.
Is operating a marina a core function of local government? Or is it an amenity that could be structured differently?
That does not automatically mean government should not own it. But it does mean we should be clear about why we do.
Public Assets Require Business Discipline
Any organization, public or private, that owns a revenue generating asset should be able to answer five basic questions:
• How much revenue does it generate?
• What are its direct operating costs?
• What is its net financial impact?
• What deferred maintenance exists?
• What is the long term capital plan?
If those answers are unclear, decision making becomes reactive instead of strategic.
In private business, failing to track revenue would be unacceptable. Boards would intervene immediately. Controls would be implemented. Performance expectations would be clarified.
Public institutions should operate with the same discipline, if not more. Taxpayer funded assets deserve measurable accountability.
Ownership Versus Operation
This situation also raises a broader question. Should assets like a marina be managed directly by government?
There are generally three models to consider.
- Government owned and operated
The city owns the asset and runs daily operations.
Pros:
• Local control
• Alignment with community priorities
• Potential emphasis on access over profit
Cons:
• Political decision making can override business realities
• Weaker incentives for operational efficiency
• Performance accountability can become unclear
- Government owned, privately operated
The city retains ownership but contracts with a professional operator.
Pros:
• Industry expertise
• Clear performance metrics in contract
• Maintains public ownership
Cons:
• Requires strong contract design and oversight
• Poorly structured agreements can underperform
- Full privatization
The asset is sold to a private entity.
Pros:
• Removes taxpayer burden
• Strong profit incentive for optimization
• Greater likelihood of capital investment
Cons:
• Loss of public control
• Potential pricing increases
• Community access considerations
The right answer depends on the community’s goals. But regardless of the model, one principle remains constant.
Stewardship is non negotiable.
The Real Issue Is Governance
The concern here is not whether government can own a marina. The concern is whether we are exercising appropriate oversight.
If:
• Repairs are needed
• Tax dollars are subsidizing operations
• Comparable marinas are thriving
• Revenue is not clearly tracked
Then the issue is governance.
Strong governance requires:
• Transparent financial reporting
• Defined performance metrics
• Clear operational accountability
• Strategic planning tied to measurable outcomes
Without those elements, even a well intentioned asset will struggle.
Community Assets Should Serve the Community
A marina is more than docks and slips. It can be:
• A tourism driver
• A downtown economic catalyst
• A destination anchor
• A source of community pride
But that potential must be intentionally managed. If the marina is strategic, it deserves a strategy. If it is not strategic, we should ask why we are subsidizing it. Avoiding the conversation because it is uncomfortable does not serve taxpayers. Neither does defaulting to ideology.
This is not about being pro government or pro private sector. It is about being pro stewardship.
What Should Happen Next
At minimum, the city should:
• Implement formal revenue tracking immediately
• Produce a clear profit and loss statement
• Benchmark performance against comparable regional marinas
• Publish transparent reporting to taxpayers
• Evaluate operational alternatives if performance is weak
These are not radical steps. They are basic governance practices. Communities thrive when leaders combine vision with discipline. As residents and taxpayers, we should expect both.
A Call for Constructive Dialogue
Whitehall is a strong community. Goodrich Park is a tremendous asset. The marina has opportunity. But opportunity without accountability leads to stagnation. This moment is not about blame. It is about improvement.
If we want thriving public assets, we must demand professional management, transparent reporting, and measurable performance. Stewardship is not political. It is responsible.
And responsible leadership is what every community deserves.
Stay connected to what’s happening in our area by visiting CatchMark Community.
Powered by CatchMark Technologies — helping people, solving problems. Explore more on our website.
