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 Lefeber Northwoods 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.