Crescent City Profile - California Sea Grant

flaw, the plant produced strong odors thatresulted in complaints from nearby businessowners and residents. Eventually the problemwas fixed. However, the cost of operating theplant became so great that in 1997, the CityCouncil threatened to shut it down until afinancial solution could be found. In 1998, theharbor district took possession of the plant,and resumed operations. By 2001, however,all three processors had gone out of business,due in part to high operating costs, includingthose associated with the wastewater treatmentplant. Currently the one resident processor usesthe wastewater treatment plant only during theheight of the crab season (two to three monthsin the winter) and whiting season (two weeksin late spring). Operating costs continue to beextremely high, totaling an estimated $110,000per year (RRM Design Group 2006, Durkee2008). These high costs and other issuesassociated with the plant have limited seafoodprocessing and, according to some studyparticipants, deterred other processors fromestablishing operations in the area.Taken together, these factors have put asubstantial financial strain on the harbor,particularly since its revenue has declinedin recent years. The harbor district operatedunder a deficit beginning in fiscal year (FY)1995–1996 (RRM Design Group 2006). Thedistrict relied on property taxes to cover thisdeficit, however these funds were insufficient,and the harbor district had significant debtuntil FY 2006–2007, when it showed a netprofit of about $230,000 (Crescent City HarborDistrict 2008). In 2008, the harbor districtimposed additional fees on fish processors,raised mooring rates, and increased servicecharges and rents to reflect actual costs andmatch market rates (Young 2008). For FY2008–2009, harbor staff projected a deficit of$60,000, and expected cash reserves to coverthe shortfall (Crescent City Harbor District2008).Crescent City Fishing Community Profile 49