The Nostalgic Argument for Caf

Holmes Beach -- This week, the Manatee County Board of Commissioners voted to move forward in their contract with United Park Services, for operation of the Manatee Beach Concession. Commissioner Carol Whitmore made an impassioned motion to delay the process in order to negotiate the first bid of the current restaurant operator and "second-ranked firm", CafŽ on the Beach, but it failed 4-3. The vote to proceed with the new vendor's contract passed by the same margin, immediately thereafter.

The menu board at Cafe on the Beach

It was an emotional day, which included testimony from nearly two-dozen citizens in the packed chambers. The board debated intensely, but their efforts found no sway, and each commissioner left with the same perspective that they had brought with them.

This issue has received a tremendous amount of attention and I have spent considerable time following and researching both sides of the argument. I have received many letters in support of the current operation and I have spoken with many of the principals involved.  

In the end, I cannot help but believe that much of the debating has been wasteful, because in truth, while there is an argument to be made (and a strong one), nearly all of the opponents of the county's new deal are making the wrong argument. What's worse, they're making an argument that cannot be won.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the citizens of Holmes Beach and moreover, the loyal patrons of CafŽ on the Beach, want the concession to remain as is. If the beach concession was a city asset, that would be a valid reason to at least wage such an argument. Nonetheless, the job of the county commission is not to respond to the desires, or even best interests, of each individual city or area, but to the entire county's interest as a whole. The fact that the concession is a county asset means that its fate should be decided with those priorities at the helm.

All of the insinuations that it shouldn't be about revenue, the photo album with old pictures of a pregnant Commissioner Whitmore at the site, the stories from locals; they all served to do damage to the dissent. For the record, I like CafŽ on the Beach just the way it is and will be angry (though perhaps skinnier) if someone takes away my $5 all-you-can eat pancakes.

Prior to moving to Manatee County, I was a resident of Siesta Key. One of the reasons I frequently visit Holmes Beach is because it maintains many of the charms Siesta has long since lost. I am quick to admit that I preferred the old Daiquiri Deck to the new, same with the Beach Club, and same with the Key Hole (now Gilligan's). I was upset to find my breakfast at Granny's replaced with more automated daiquiri machines, and on the rare occasions I return, I'll make the long drive down to the Crescent Club, rather than take in a new place like the Hub.

Now, none of these businesses are county owned. My point is that as a resident, I personally preferred what I saw as the quaint charm of the old key, to the gaudy and tacky aura of the new. I am, however, quick to acknowledge that the village is more crowded than it ever was then, the beach front condos at the Terraces are now worth a million bucks, and the rentals go for a lot more than they ever did in those days, another reason I now choose Holmes Beach. Still, whatever people like me have lost, Sarasota County has gained in increased tax revenues from such changes.

The commissioners of this county have a responsibility to the entire Manatee tax base to maximize the profits associated with county venues, especially when there is so little evidence that such change is ever anything other than good business. As Commissioner Getman said at the meeting, "The plan is not to knock it down."

The Manatee Beach Concession

Anna Maria has done a great job of zoning for the sort of lifestyle their citizens want to preserve. Both the current and new agreements relinquish very little room for drastic changes by the tenants. UPS would have to seek approval for any changes or improvements, and if this process has demonstrated anything, it is that the local citizens are prepared and capable of raising cane, were a vendor to attempt to do so, and such a time would be the proper venue for the impassioned pleas we heard Tuesday.

Now, before I invite the wrath of many of our readers, let me get to my real point. While dissenters have not made a powerful enough argument by way of nostalgia, a careful review of the documents shows that the process through which the decision to contract UPS was made, is not as easily defended on ”business decision“ grounds, as someone attending last Tuesday’s meeting may have been led to believe.

For starters, it is important to distinguish CafŽ on the Beach from their current landlords, P.S. Beach. All of the conversation at the commission meeting seemed to muddy that fact and imply that CafŽ on the Beach is the current entity that is contracted by the county. Much of the press surrounding the story has implied the same, or that the current landlords are being forced out, when in truth, they never even submitted a bid to keep the building. Simply put, the beach concession has been leased by the county to a company called P.S. Beach for the last 18 years. Seven years ago, they began subletting the restaurant portion to the current operators of CafŽ on the Beach, an entirely separate entity. Cafe on the Beach did bid on the contract with the county to operate the concession and would sublet the small gift shop on the property back to their old landlords (who currently operate it), were they to be awarded the contract.

P.S Beach’s relationship with the county has been rocky to say the least. They began leasing the concession in 1992 and problems began almost immediately over capital improvements, reimbursements, and rent. They had requested and received several extensions and waived fees totaling nearly $80,000 by 1998. Problems continued and in 2002, the Florida Department of Revenue actually put a lien against P.S. Beach for $20,656, which was later paid off.

However, the county’s 40-page agenda memorandum implied it was such problems that led them to test the waters for a more profitable vendor, though the laundry list of issues they note, seem to dry up just about the time CafŽ on the Beach came into the picture. Still, the county is clearly within its rights to test the market and if anything, the process has shown that the property is capable of bringing in significantly more revenue than it currently receives through its deal with P.S. Beach.

In June of 2009, the county made a request for proposals to the county administrator regarding the space. This is where things get hairy. It seems that County Administrator, Ed Hunzeker, decided to form an RFP committee, which reached out to 18 local firms that it deemed potentially capable of running the concession and invited them to make bids. The committee then offered 11 more invites to regional firms. Four of the firms made bids to operate the concession.

Hunzeker then reportedly met individually with each commissioner to brief them on his RFP board’s findings, which from what I understand, is somewhat unusual and even peculiar. At some point after, UPS gave a presentation to the Board of Commissioners as the recommended firm.

It is by what justification UPS became the ”first-ranked bidder“ that is at the heart of the real argument. The bidding process was sealed. Each firm was to follow the invitation’s guidelines and make a presentation to the RFP committee as to such things as rent, profit sharing, experience, and capital improvements offered.

At Tuesday’s meeting, county commissioners repeatedly compared the final negotiated offer from UPS with both the current contract with an irrelevant company and the original sealed bid of CafŽ on the Beach. That is disingenuous at best. In the original bid, CafŽ on the Beach actually offered the most guaranteed revenue, any way you measure it.

UPS’s offer was for a much lower guarantee, coupled with a speculative tiered profit-sharing plan for revenues over $2.5 million each year. There were also capital improvement pledges that relied upon dubious accounting, since it included replacing normal operating and inventory items like tables and chairs that were already there, while CafŽ on the Beach, as current tenants, listed only actual detailed improvements in addition to what was already present on the site.

That being said, it was very difficult to come away from a review of both actual bids without the impression that CafŽ on the Beach had given the taxpayers the most solid offer. Nonetheless, the RFP committee ranked them second to UPS, in contradiction to its own criteria for selection. Aside from revenue, the committee had placed particular value on experience; pertinent experience like hosting live nightly music and having dealt with all-you-can-eat food service.

From what I can see, UPS has neither. The Fort Desoto Beach concession that they currently operate is closer to Siesta Key’s snack shack than a full-service restaurant. On the other hand, CafŽ on the Beach has not only run a similar operation, they’ve run the very operation in question for nearly seven years and to a high degree of success.

Now, if we make the admittedly gargantuan leap and concede that the RFP board was reasonably persuaded with the presentation of UPS and felt they were somehow superior, it still does not justify comparing a negotiated second bid from them with an initial, sealed bid from CafŽ on the Beach, and that is exactly what four county commissioners did repeatedly last week.

CafŽ on the Beach is a reputable restaurateur. The seven years that they have been subletting the food pavilion at the Manatee Beach Concession have been the seven best of the facility's existence. If the county has an axe to grind with their landlord, so be it. If the county has a problem with CafŽ on the Beach, in turn, planning to sublet the structure’s small gift shop back to the owner’s of P.S. Beach, then it should say so.

At the mention of going back to CafŽ on the Beach and merely extending them the same courtesy that was given to UPS (negotiating beyond the initial bid), Commission Chair Donna Hayes noted her experience as an insurance executive and said, ”As a business, you always come in with your best bid first. You don’t wait and see what the other guy does.“

Yet, that is exactly what the ”first-ranked firm“ did. UPS did not give their best bid first. They gave a convoluted offer that looked like little steak and much sizzle. Then they mysteriously came back to the table with a guaranteed offer of just more than that of CafŽ on the Beach’s initial sealed bid, an offer still laden with questionable promises of improvements and services.  

The county administrator’s office did not return calls for comment. I tried to speak further with individual commissioners on Friday, but they could not comment on the details of the contract because CafŽ on the Beach has since appealed the bidding process. After all of my investigating to this point, I can tell you that I am left with the succinct impression that CafŽ on the Beach’s bid was doomed from the start.

I believe that the county’s sour relationship with P.S. Beach and the refusal of many parties involved to distinguish its owners from the separate and independent entity that placed a solid bid for the concession (CafŽ on the Beach), has led to something less than a fair process. As a result, I feel that the taxpayers of Manatee County will not have gotten the best possible return on their property.

Unfortunately, an entire day was wasted with little of the above material being mentioned, let alone debated. As I said, I’m a sucker for nostalgia; for rustic old Florida charm. But I’m also a taxpayer. Though I visit Holmes Beach often, I live in East County.

As a Manatee County resident, I expect my county commissioners to consider the best interest of me and the other 330,000 people who live and pay taxes here. In this case, I believe they have failed us in that regard. I not only understand, but appreciate the sentiment of overlooking nostalgia and making a business-based decision with my best interest as a taxpayer at heart. In this case, it doesn’t feel like that's what happened.

What is perhaps most disturbing, is that by simply committing a reasonable chunk of time to following this story and even dedicating an entire day to attending a commission meeting, I would not have been able to comprehend the entirety of this issue without considerable research. That should not be the case.

Local government must be transparent. It must be aboveboard and executed competently, especially when it pertains to the taxpayers' money. It must be beyond petty feuds and capable of producing fair and equitable outcomes.

CafŽ on the Beach should not be given the beach concession contract just because the people who eat there want it so. Neither should they be given the contract simply because they are the current tenant of the facility. However, if they are willing to outbid the only other candidate for the concession, which they repeatedly say they are, then they should clearly be allowed to do so.

Hopefully, the bid appeal process will address these failures and deliver a worthy end result. The only way to ensure the maximum return for the taxpayer is to have an open bidding process where each entity has the opportunity to up the ante in competition for the lease. UPS was given that opportunity, but CafŽ on the Beach was not. Until they have, our board of commissioners cannot claim to be certain it has gotten us taxpayers the best possible deal, no matter how much more it brings than the current contract. The appeal gives the county administrator and the board one final chance to get it right. Let's hope they make good use of it.