Advisory board rejects draft FY26–27 Bight budget, citing erosion of reserves and capital spending concerns

Advisory board members declined to recommend the draft FY26–27 Historic Seaport (The Bight) budget to the CRA/City Commission after a lengthy debate over capital spending, reserve levels and revenue assumptions.

Staff presented a draft that reflected operating reductions and an effort to balance capital needs, noting a tentative ferry/grant revenue item of about $1.3 million that had not yet been confirmed in writing. The director said staff had undertaken a “zero‑based” budget exercise, trimmed advertising by 20% and reduced operating headcount; he described several capital projects, including a planned storage/office building and a Reef Relief building renovation estimated in the millions.

Several board members warned the draft’s seven‑year projections shrink the board’s excess reserves from roughly $7 million today toward a negative balance in later years. One board member argued the Bight is a nonstandard asset — with uninsured docks that could require millions in unrecoverable costs after a storm — and said that 90 days of operating reserve is inadequate. That member moved to disapprove the budget as written; after debate and a short attempt to withdraw with a friendly amendment, the board put the budget approval to a vote and it failed on roll call: Gerard — No; Henson — No; Malone — No; Weekley — Yes; Chairman Knowles — Yes.

Public commenters and board members also debated whether some projects (for example the Harbor Walk) should be funded by TIF rather than the Bight’s accounts, whether capital projects should be phased, and whether staff should pursue additional revenue options such as better parking utilization. The board asked that a spokesperson convey its concerns to the CRA and City Commission at the upcoming workshop so commissioners receive the advisory board’s reservations before final action.

The advisory board’s negative recommendation does not prevent the CRA or City Commission from approving the draft; it signals the advisory board’s concern about long‑term structural assumptions, capital timing and the adequacy of reserves for uninsured marina infrastructure.