" It's About Time! "
by Bill Krauss, The Apex Group
Each and every year, several times a year, we draft articles for this newsletter detailing our efforts on your behalf in Sacramento. I explain as accurately as possible the status of pending, future and recently enacted priority legislation and to give some insight into the political intrigue in Sacramento.

Usually, the articles are filled with details about how someone in the Legislature or another interest group, is attempting to do something we don't like. I then explain what we are doing to protect your interests. Well, when I say "its about time" it is because I get to report that there is very little we will likely be opposing this year, but rather we will be focusing our attention on supporting some important legislation! I can't remember a year in the last decade that has had so little we did not like.

It is important to note, however, that while Sacramento is starting out on a more positive note, it will not be a year without "any" bumps in the road. We have already faced an effort to change the sales tax rules on vessel purchases that was killed, but will likely come back during the budget debate, requiring our close attention. And our initial review of newly introduced legislation has identified at least one bill that we "may" oppose. However, one objectionable bill and a "maybe" issue in the future is a pretty good way to start the year.

Given the lack of adverse legislation, it is a good year to focus our attention on a "sponsored" bill (A sponsored bill is a bill that we ask a legislator to author on our behalf), along with another bill we have been working on with the entire boating community for the last 18 months.

Sponsored Legislation
We are sponsoring legislation that will allow an individual to turn in a derelict vessel to a public agency for the purposes of disposal, if the agency is willing to accept the boat.

The Department of Boating and Waterways has had an abandoned vessel abatement program for many years. Each year the Department allocates $500,000 to local agencies in the form of grants for the purpose of abating these abandoned vessels. The program works fairly well, but the grant money can be depleted quickly due to the high cost of recovering and disposing of an abandoned vessel.

To stretch these grant dollars, we have sponsored AB 1950 (Lieu) that would allow those grant dollars to be used to dispose of a vessel that is turned in to a willing public agency by a willing individual. This approach will radically reduce the cost to dispose of derelict vessels because the cost of removing the vessel from the waterway is avoided. The bill has a strong author and already has several "co-authors," which is a good indication of its support.

Mandatory Boater Education
We have been working with the rest of the boating community for over 18 months on a bill that would require vessel operators to pass a test on the "rules of the road" before they can operate a vessel. The program is phased in over several years, will have a minimal cost to the applicant, and tests will be available online.

This has been a complex issue that has required many meetings among the stakeholders to ensure that the details are just right. We have wanted to avoid "licensing" and the requirement that boaters must take a cumbersome and expensive course. Last year, our working group had reached a compromise solution and it was introduced as AB 1458 (Duvall). However, due to Sacramento politics, it stalled. This year, the bill was reintroduced as AB 2110 (Duvall) and hopefully we will have greater success.

Politics
The biggest news as we begin the new legislative year is the change in the leadership in both houses of the Legislature. Leadership guides not only the major policy direction of the Legislature, but also sets the tone of how the parties will interact with each other. This "tone" can affect many aspects of legislative business and directly bear on decision making.

This year, the Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Nunez, is termed out. Although there was a hint that there might be a major fight to replace him, it was not to be. To smooth the anticipated rough transition, Speaker Nunez announced in February a leadership election on March 11th to elect the new speaker. The goal was to limit the politicking to a defined period to minimize the disruption a full fledge fight might bring to the Assembly. However, just as the rumor mill was getting a head of steam, it was announced that Assembly Member Karen Bass would be his replacement. She was the Majority Floor Leader under Nunez and was considered to have the inside track from the beginning. She, like Nunez, is from Los Angeles.

On the Senate side it was, of course, a smoother transition. When Senate Pro Tem, Don Perata, announced his retirement, his replacement was also announced, Senator Darrell Steinberg from Sacramento. In many ways the Senate seems to find a way to conduct its business in a more civil manner. This leadership transition was another example of their desire to be more collegial.

Both of these new leaders are party stalwarts, which means we will not likely see a fundamental change in the guiding philosophy of either house. However, both have a reputation as being fair-minded and not particularly strident, which could lead to improved relations with the Republicans.

For the Republicans, term limits only forced a change in the Senate. The Minority Leader, Dick Ackerman, was termed out and was replaced by Senator Dave Cogdill from the Central Valley. He, like Senator Ackerman, is staunchly conservative. His political persuasion aside, he is very much the statesman and will represent his party well in dealing with the Democrats.

With these leadership changes, the big question will be how they handle what is expected to be a very intense fight over the state budget. I know I have reported many times before about the budget crisis, as the State is always playing catch up, but this time it seems particularly bad. Today we are facing a $16 billion deficit and when the numbers are recalculated after the tax season it could get much worse. We will know more in mid May on this subject.

Bill Krauss will give an update on the legislative activity at the 37th Annual Educational Conference & Trade Show opening lunch on Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at the Paradise Point Resort in San Diego. Conference information is available in this issue as well as MRA's website: marina.org

THE MRA LEGAL CORNER
by Mark D. Holmes, Esq., MRA General Counsel

City Of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court - The Implications Of The California Supreme Court's Holding That Contractual Releases Are Not Enforceable Against Claims Of Gross Negligence

The California Supreme Court's recent decision in City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court has clarified that an agreement purporting to release a defendant from liability for gross negligence is generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy. As agreements between marinas and vessel rental operations may fall into this category, it is important to explain the decision and its implications for future litigation involving marinas, boat yards and vessel rental operations.

The Facts of City of Santa Barbara
The City of Santa Barbara provided summer recreational facilities and activities for children, including an Adventure Camp for children with developmental disabilities. Katie Janeway, who suffered from cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and other similar developmental disabilities, participated in Adventure Camp in the summers of 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

The City conducted the Adventure Camp from noon until 5:00 p.m. on weekdays for approximately three weeks in July and August. Camp activities included swimming, arts and crafts, group games, sports, and field trips. In 2002, as in prior years, swimming activities were held on two of five camp days each week in a City swimming pool.

Maureen Janeway disclosed Katie's developmental disabilities and medical problems to the City, specifically informing the City that Katie was prone to epileptic seizures, often occurring in water, and that Katie needed supervision while swimming. In addition, the City was aware that Katie had suffered seizures while attending Adventure Camp events in 2001. For example, Katie had a seizure when sitting on the pool deck and another seizure at the skating rink. Paramedics were called after her seizure on the pool deck. Nevertheless, Maureen Janeway indicated that Katie was a good swimmer, and never sought to prevent or restrict Katie's participation in the swimming portion of Adventure Camp.

Based upon the information provided by Maureen Janeway and Katie's history of seizures, the City took special precautions during the Adventure Camp swimming activities in 2002. The City assigned Veronica Malong to act as Katie's "counselor." Malong was responsible for keeping Katie under close observation during the camp's swimming sessions.

Previously, Malong, a college student, had worked for one year as a special education aide at the middle school that Katie had attended; had observed Katie experience seizures at the school, and she received instruction from the school nurse regarding the handling of those seizures; and had attended training sessions conducted by the City concerning how to respond to seizures and other first aid matters.

In 2002, Katie participated in the first swimming day at the Adventure Camp without incident. On the second swimming day, approximately one hour before drowning, while waiting to enter the locker room at the pool, Katie suffered a mild seizure that lasted a few seconds. Malong observed the seizure and sent another counselor to report the incident to a supervisor. According to the pleadings, the supervisor stated that the report never was received. Malong watched Katie for approximately 45 minutes following the mild seizure. Then, receiving no word from her supervisor, Malong concluded that the seizure had run its course and that it was safe for Katie to swim.

After the seizure, Malong sat on the side of the pool near the lifeguard, watching the deep end of the pool. In addition to the Adventure Camp participants, there were as many as 300 other children in the pool area. Malong watched Katie jump off a diving board and swim back to the edge of the pool. At Malong's insistence, Katie got out of the pool and rested for a few minutes.

Malong then asked Katie whether she wished to dive again, and Katie said she did. Katie dove into the water, bobbed to the surface, and began to swim toward the edge of the pool. As Katie did so, Malong momentarily turned her attention away from Katie.

When Malong looked back no more than 15 seconds later, Katie had disappeared from her sight. After Malong and others looked for Katie somewhere between two and five minutes, an air horn blew and the pool was evacuated. Lifeguards pulled Katie from the bottom of the pool, and she died the next day.

The Release
The release that was the subject of the case ("Release") was contained in the last section of a one-page form, signed in late June, 2002, the year the accident occurred. The Release provided in relevant part: CITY OF SANTA BARBARA RELEASE AGREEMENT[.] IN CONSIDERATION OF BEING PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CITY ACTIVITY OR USE OF ANY CITY FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ACTIVITY, THE UNDERSIGNED AGREES TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY RELEASES, WAIVES, DISCHARGES AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, ITS EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS AND AGENTS (hereinafter referred to as ' releasees') from all liability to the undersigned, his or her personal representatives, assigns, heirs and next of kin for any loss, damage, or claim therefore on account of injury to the person or property of the undersigned, whether caused by any negligent act or omission of the releasees or otherwise while the undersigned is participating in the City activity or using any City facilities in connection with the activity.

2. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS the releasees from all liability, claims, demands, causes of action, charges, expenses, and attorney fees ... resulting from involvement in this activity whether caused by any negligent act or omission of the releasees or otherwise.

3. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY ASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR AND RISK OF BODILY INJURY, DEATH OR PROPERTY DAMAGE while upon City property or participating in the activity or using any City facilities and equipment whether caused by any negligent act or omission of releasees or otherwise. The undersigned expressly agrees that the foregoing release and waiver, indemnity agreement and assumption of risk are intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted by California law....

I acknowledge that I have read the foregoing and that I am aware of the legal consequences of this agreement, including that it prevents me from suing the City or its employees, agents or officers if I am injured or damaged for any reason as a result of participation in this activity....

IF THE PARTICIPANT IS A MINOR, his or her custodial parent or legal guardian must read and execute this agreement. I hereby warrant that I am the legal guardian or custodial parent of who is a minor, and agree, on my own and said minor's behalf to the terms and conditions of the foregoing agreement.
Adult name (please print)....

Katie's mother, Maureen Janeway, printed and signed her name. The space for the Katie's name (who was a minor) was left blank, but Katie's name was written at the top of the form containing the release.

The Proceedings In The Trial And Appellate Courts
Katie's parents, Terral Janeway, filed a wrongful death action alleging the accident was caused by the negligence of the City and Malong.

Relying upon the Release, the City and Malong moved unsuccessfully for summary judgment and summary adjudication. Defendants then sought relief in the Court of Appeal, filing a petition for writ of mandate.

The Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that the Release was only enforceable insofar as it concerned the City of Santa Barbara and its agent's (Malong's) liability for negligence - is not enforceable as to gross negligence. The City and Malong then appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The Court's Analysis And Ruling
In order to determine the validity of the Release, the Supreme Court had to first define "negligence" and "gross negligence." The court defined "negligence" as "an unintentional tort consisting of a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm."

By contrast, the court defined "gross negligence" as either a "want of even scant care" or "an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct."

The court then noted that a great many interested parties from the sports and recreation industries had filed briefs with the court and pointed out a number of agreements have been upheld insofar as they release liability for future ordinary negligence in the context of sports and recreation programs involving gymnasiums and fitness clubs, auto and motorcycle racing events, ski resorts and ski equipment, bicycle races, skydiving or flying in "ultra light", horseback riding, white-water rafting, hypnotism, and scuba diving.

Over the course of a long discussion, however, the court pointed out that a majority of courts in other states have generally not enforced agreements that release a defendant liable for "gross negligence" and therefore the court would find the City of Santa Barbara release invalid and unenforceable as well.

Analysis of The Court's Ruling And The Implications For Marina Owners,
It was not surprising that the Supreme Court would hold in City of Santa Barbara that releases are not valid against claims of gross negligence - this is the majority view of other states as well as the view of courts deciding cases under the federal maritime law.

Disturbingly, the court appeared unconcerned about the potential for every plaintiff confronted with a release of a negligence claim, translating the claim into one for "gross negligence."

Indeed, the court rejected the suggestion by sporting and recreational interests that the term "gross negligence" was ill-defined and as a result, would cause a great many lawsuits that would otherwise be dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had released claims for negligence against the defendant would now go to trial and, indeed, result in liability.

In fact, the court pointed out that despite the fact that "gross negligence" is normally a question that a jury has to decide at trial, there did not appear to be any evidence that juries were confused by the definition, or that courts were confused as to the appropriate circumstances in which "gross negligence" could be alleged and ultimately supported by the facts of a given case.

Nevertheless, marinas, boat yards and vessel rental operators can now anticipate in the wake of City of Santa Barbara that plaintiffs confronted with exculpatory clauses and releases as a defense to negligence claims will now attempt to plead around the exculpatory clauses by alleging "gross negligence."

Moreover, because of the lack of a clear definition of the term "gross negligence" under state and federal maritime law, marinas, boat yards and vessel rental operators will be exposed to a great deal more litigation and liability as a result, as courts are not always going to be clear when "gross negligence" applies in a given case and, as a result, will allow such claims to go to trial. Juries, unfamiliar with the distinction between "negligence" and "gross negligence" may also hold defendants liable for "gross negligence" in circumstances that warrant -at most - a finding of negligence. These anticipated circumstances, should they occur, do not bode well for marinas, boat yards and vessel rental operators, or the insurance companies who insure them.

If you have questions or comments about this article, please feel free to contact Mark D. Holmes, Esq.

Mark will be presenting more legal issues and updates at the 37th Annual MRA Educational Conference and Trade Show on Thursday, November 6, 2008 at Paradise Point Resort. Conference information is available on this website.

Please note Mark's new contact information on the contacts web page.


Marinas' Ticking Bomb (What lies inside a customer's file makes the difference in insurable risks)
RJ Lorenzi, Principal and Founder, Western Marine Insurance Services Corp.
There are always hidden issues that can blow up in any industry. The marina industry is no different.

Many marinas are tenants of port districts, counties. cities, state lands, and federal lands whose often stringent agreements expose marina owners to uninsurable risks. We are beginning to see an emerging trend where such agreements not only place onerous risks on the marina operator but also require some risks to be incorporated in the marina lease or licensing agreement and therefore passed on to the individual boater.

This article will focus on some of the challenges marinas face that can be passed on to boat owners resulting in additional challenges for both lessors and lessees.

Marina operators genuinely care about the quality of their waterways. However, in recent years governmental officials, inspectors, environmentalists, attorneys and other parties have made the business of marina operations more challenging by trying to make the marina responsible for what the boater does.

Today there are more requirements on marina owners than ever before and in some instances regulatory officials have tried to make marinas responsible for the water around the boats. An example might be when a boat owner or their vendors clean their boat. The owner decides to use a type of product that could be toxic to the waters, such as an unapproved acidic based cleaner. While the marina owner doesn't know that the boat owner used a toxic product or unsafe practices, the marina may still be responsible for any damage done to the waters surrounding the boat.

Due to their location, the real problem for marinas today can be traced to water run-off from uplands, public streets, storm drains, sewage plants, animals, and non-marine air pollution. This high visibility situation has also created additional challenges to the marina owner's risk management programs.

Customer files
Some of the challenges faced by marina owners today can be solved by paying close attention to what's inside their customers' files. In many cases, the reason there is a problem, is simply because the customer files are not complete. Many marina owners don't require or do not have a system to notify the harbormaster of important changes that should be documented in the customer file. So when an accident occurs on the marina property, the owners do not have the most current information on file.

Some of the most common problems that can be found missing or not documented in an owners file include:

• Boat owner is not the customer they have in file;
• Boat is not the vessel they have in their file;
• No valid contract/slip agreement;
• Vessels not registered/documented;
• No current evidence of insurance coverage;
• Non-approved live aboard;
• Multiple ownership or sale;
• Abandoned or sinking vessel; and
• Owner workmanship on vessel.

• Transient to abandoned vessels
• Boat owner guests
• Visitors of building tenants or general public
• Yacht brokers/boat dealers
• Boat repairers
• Boat detailers/canvas installation
• Bottom cleaning divers/underwater zinc replacement.

• Establish Best Management Practices for the marina
• Develop a slip rental process
• Set realistic boat owner customer expectations
• Create stringent lease/license agreements
• Credit checks/owner documentation, etc.
• Marina rules & regulations signed by boaters
• Minimum boat owner best management practices
• Current insurance certificate on file
• Access agreements signed with certificates in file
• Obtain clean marina program designation

AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE FOR KIDS
by Gary Duquette, CLU, Employer Benefits
There are two easily understood and accessible health plans currently available to children of California. There are others, but these two are the most prevalent.

First we have Medi-Cal. It is available to the truly indigent. To qualify for Medi-Cal, you must have a family income of no more than $0-$1,518.00 a month for a family of two. For a family of six, income of no more than $3,061.00 a month, and is free to those eligible. Eligibility varies from county to county, family size and income.

The second plan is Healthy Families. This plan requires a modest premium which varies by county and is available to eligible children and pregnant woman. To be eligible, the family income range for a family of two is a maximum of $2,853.00 and for a family of six a maximum of $5,753.00. There are forms to determine family income and we at Employer Benefits are Certified Application Assistants and can assist folks who may want to see if they are eligible.

Many carriers participate, for example, Kaiser, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Health Net and others. Services are provided with modest or no co-pays, including prescriptions.

In San Joaquin County the premium per child ranges from $7.00 -$15.00 a month for Kaiser, depending on families income. Rates vary from county to county and from family to family based on family size and income.

As the income range illustrates, folks with reasonably good incomes may be eligible to insure their children via Healthy Families. When you compare the rates to add children to existing group or individual insurance, it is generally worth exploring.

You might want to give some thought to folks who could benefit from this valuable program. Basically everyone you know with children could possibly keep dollars they are currently paying for health insurance premiums. Many of our client's employees have saved over $2,000.00 annually by using Healthy Families.

So when you see ads about insuring California's kids (covercaliforniaskids.com) you know we already have the programs, we just need to make them work. Frankly, I question their agenda and motivation. I tried to contact the group via the website they advertise. I wanted to ask why they don't seem to know about Healthy Families or Medi-Cal, which does provide free or affordable health insurance for kids of poor families or families of modest incomes. There was no way listed to contact them. I had to use the back door approach to even find out who they are; the California Endowment.

Please contact us for an information packet for your area: customerservice@ebisinc.com or call 209-956-8600 or 800-803-6686.


THE SENSIBLE APPROACH TO AVOID HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS
By Larry Levy, Employee Relations Management Consultant
On average I investigate and resolve between four to six cases of harassment each year; the majority of which are sexual harassment. The size of the organization affected does not matter. The worst cases can still be found among employers with fewer than ten employees. The types of organizations are also irrelevant; I have investigated cases with general contractors, hotels, dentists, property managers, marinas, mortgage brokers and financial institutions.

These investigations are nasty, time consuming, disruptive and expensive to employers. Investigations involve several days of interviewing employees and managers along with consultations with employment attorneys. Dispositions are only reached after very careful consideration of the circumstances and the application of the law. Following completion of the investigation I document the investigation in a report with my recommendations. Without exaggeration, once an organization is touched by one of these investigations it rarely remains the same. The only good news is that with my involvement in the matter, it is settled and does not evolve into litigation.

Financially, litigation can become very costly! I recall one of my clients standing in my 2007 February Employment Law Update seminar warning my other clients to take this matter seriously. He confided to the audience he had spent $30,000.00 each month in legal fees. Interestingly, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing told the plaintiff she did not have a case. My client was still out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

So what can we learn from these horrible nightmares? Consider the following:

I. Take this problem seriously! You can be very vulnerable if you do not take the following steps.

II. Become well informed and keep up with new developments in employment law. This is a rapidly evolving area of litigation.

III. Watch your own language and behavior. You will be amazed to learn what the courts consider harassment.

IV. Prohibit, at work, any joking or comments that have a racial or sexual basis.

V. Recognize harassment may involve any remark or joke that identifies an employee's age, pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, ethnicity, religion, recent injuries, etc.

VI. Appreciate the fact that you are not only liable for your employees and managers but your vendors, suppliers, sub-contractors and consultants as well.

VII. Have me prepare a harassment policy to be included in your employee handbook. Frankly, it is better I prepare a policy which has been updated and blessed by my employment attorneys. It is thorough, complete and consistent with present employment law. VIII. Treat all employees fairly and equally, and with respect.

IX. Understand that the motivation of the alleged harasser is irrelevant once a charge has been filed. Even if the "alleged harasser" was playing a joke or being humorous it does not matter. If the remark or behavior offends even one person it still can be considered harassment.

X. Comply with Posting and Employee Notification Requirements

A. All employers are required to post a California Department of Fair Employment and Housing poster, which includes information about the illegality of sexual harassment. The poster must be displayed in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace, according to Government Code sec. 12950(a).

B. All employers are required to prepare an information sheet on sexual harassment and distribute it to all employees. Be sure to get receipt signatures from each employee. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the California Chamber of Commerce both have posters and sample information sheets available for purchase.

XI. Investigate and remedy any reported sexual harassment PROMPTLY upon receiving a complaint from an employee. I would recommend you contact me if you ever receive a complaint. Chances are you can handle it on your own. On the other hand, if I see some risk I may suggest I interview the employees involved.

A. Document each step taken by management in investigating any claim of sexual harassment, and,

B. If harassment is found, take disciplinary action against the harasser and/or document disciplinary action taken.

XII. Regardless of the size of your organization I would recommend we train all your employees with the focus on your supervisors and managers. Why? Because an organization is automatically vicariously liable for the conduct of its managers if they are found responsible for some form of harassment. Did you know managers and supervisors are also personally liable if they become involved in this prohibited behavior?

By law if your organization has fifty or more employees (including temporary, part-time or seasonal) we have to conduct training with your managers and supervisors every two years.

A few simple steps on your part you will avoid one of your worst nightmares. As always, if you have questions, please call.

P.S. If your employees ever work in San Francisco please call me and request a summary of the City's new paid sick leave ordinance.

Larry will be presenting more topics at the 37th Annual MRA Educational Conference and Trade Show on November 4-6, 2008 at Paradise Point Resort. Conference information is available on this website.


SEVEN WAYS TO RECESSION-PROOF YOUR MARINA
by Kelly Lam, President, Matchstick Marketing Solutions
Worried about the economic slowdown? Don't be. Good companies and good products are in demand no matter what the economy is doing. Just like preparing for an impending hurricane, what you do now will determine how well off you will be later.

Simply planning ahead is one of the best strategies your marina can use when experts begin to whisper recession.

Recession proofing your marina begins with you, and being proactive is one of the best ways to ride high when others are crashing.

Put these seven easy strategies to work for you and you'll soon find that recession or not, your sales are soaring!

1. Lock in customer loyalty.
   Remember, you aren't the only one facing a possible recession. Figure out what you do to serve your best customers better to keep them coming back to you? Call and ask. One marina in Lake Tahoe offers a boating valet service. When the customer arrives to go boating for the day, his boat is cleaned, gassed and ready to take off from the launch ramp. If the customer wanted lunch, that would have been provided too. The marina makes a nice profit from the added value service and the customers get what they want. Remember, it's all about the customer.
2. Look for another goldmine.
   To find another goldmine of customers, find other businesses that provide complimentary products or services to your customers. I know of marinas that have partnered up with upholstery shops, boating accessories stores and even boat dealerships. Make a list of complimentary businesses and give them a call. Better yet, ask your customers about other businesses they buy from and call them directly-no guesswork.
3. Make time for face time.
   It's easy to slip into the habit of staying in the office and doing business by phone and email. Drop by or schedule a time to meet with slip renters. Listen for opportunities where you can offer a solution for their problems.
4. Leverage that newsletter and website.
   If you're not communicating with your slip renters on a monthly basis besides the invoice, then you don't need me to tell you what a big opportunity you're missing. You already know. But those that are sending out a newsletter, consider selling advertising space. That extra $100, $500 or $1,000 per advertiser will add up quickly to your bottom line. And the first lines of businesses to call are on your goldmine list (see #2). If you have a website, you can sell space there too. And since there's virtually no costs involved besides some easy programming, it's all profit.
5. Create new package options.
   In hearty economic times, there's more to go around. When companies face a possible recession, slashing expenses is one of the first things companies do. To stand out from others, create package deals that offer lots of value-add for the buck. This way you will stand out as a good deal. For example, one marina offers guest privileges at their other marinas for free; free boating instructions and other classes when they get a new customer. It's a tough deal for a customer to turn down when comparing marinas.
6. Do more for less.
   I'm not talking about giving away the farm. I'm talking about doing just slightly more for the same amount. If you would normally tack on fees for an item, throw it in for free. Gifting ignites the law of reciprocity and loyalty follows.
7. Continue your marketing. Businesses that take a proactive approach will feel less blind-sided. Create your plan now and implement it. And whatever you do, don't cut back on sales and marketing initiatives-they are the drivers of your business.
   
   Recessions are part of the economic landscape. They come and they go like a hurricane passing through. The best thing you can do is plan now instead of later. Determine a plan of action and work that prior to and through the tougher times.