[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6218545,"mediaKeyId","3627130-e31c79f6d920333aac05c196ee6ce4e6","parentId",3627130,"title","Harbor advisory board urges capture and oversight of ferry embarkation fees, proposes $1-per-trip recommendation","audioSeconds",4063,"startMs",576000,"endMs",4639000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627130-e31c79f6d920333aac05c196ee6ce4e6&start=576&end=4639","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627130-e31c79f6d920333aac05c196ee6ce4e6/thumbnail_576000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6218545/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Harbor-advisory-board-urges-capture-and-oversight-of-ferry-embarkation-fees-proposes-1-per-trip-recommendation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218545-af9f779430f625d0f9bb769d2ef0dd93/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138696&Signature=fIiT3g~mc2~tfbCTOfFJvTskb-GP8vGRH7zL2u0khlzXJdkdXHoa31E~YJ7JywpVIHullg9KDGwFaX5gDMGaTZKC9LR~pK4QM0bpvJbeHke6sV~Y9JaPv4z84liKEpyYmZeaqWi7CTMylZIIFfMPXN1Ahqiu87JlC1IJ2xS~bX7mzTN8GWdzjJnjock4UCUPLH7DQ3xua0o5WNgZjJqVYjz3nB5C9uLE0z4UfYslGvolfibWbCSA1BVEGbmNzpzlczkeTW6rBEijEcalpUNg9gCgS-GQfTPEzILtj5GWRMIok8eDbqt2TjAjrW4zajiY0a~j5srnl8R6nToCrd7oCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town-County of Nantucket, MA","date","2025-06-03T14:43:05.13Z","article","The Harbor Plan Update Committee discussed a recommendation from the Harbor Shellfish Advisory Board to change how ferry embarkation fees are used and overseen, and to consider raising the fee to $1 per trip.

The recommendation, presented during the committee’s May 12 meeting by a commenter representing the Harbor Shellfish Advisory Board, said the board voted unanimously to support both a dollar-per-trip increase and formation of an oversight group to review receipts and recommend expenditures. “Our recommendation was to raise the fee to a dollar per trip,” the commenter said. The presenter said the board believed the island has not received the full intended share of embarkation revenues since a 2003 law and that, for the last 22 years, much of the money has gone to public safety instead of harbor improvements.

Committee members and other speakers framed the item as two separate issues: (1) capturing and redirecting the existing embarkation revenue to harbor-related uses, and (2) pursuing legislation and local approval to raise the fee. Kim (UHI staff) told the committee that the recommendation to increase the ferry fee is cited elsewhere in the draft plan’s administration section, but the financial-capture concern remains distinct.

Several commenters said the town has appropriated roughly $1 million per year for harbor work but that the plan’s total recommendations have been estimated at about $900,000,000. Committee members urged clearer language in the draft to explain how retained or increased ferry fees would be routed and governed. One speaker suggested that, if state enabling legislation for a fee increase passes, the town could use a citizen warrant article at Town Meeting to specify where the money should go.

The discussion identified practical next steps but no formal committee vote was recorded. Items committee members said should be included in the plan text or follow-up work included: language clarifying the separate processes for (a) recovering currently collected fees that appear to have been routed to public safety, and (b) pursuing a legislative authorization and a voter-approved change in how any future fee increases are spent; a recommendation to assign monitoring of ferry receipts to a standing or appropriate entity; and suggested outreach (public meeting, town meeting language) to make the history and uses of the fee transparent to voters.

Speakers pressed for clearer local controls and independent oversight. One commenter argued the town has lost “hundreds of thousands, if not millions” over 22 years and urged the plan to recommend a finance/oversight group including representatives from finance, transportation and public safety to review past receipts and recommend changes. Kim (UHI staff) responded that a draft recommendation already suggests assigning responsibility to a harbor plan implementation committee to monitor quarterly ferry receipts and annually identify harbor-related expenditures, but committee members asked the text be explicit that a standing entity should carry the work forward beyond an ad hoc implementation committee.

The committee also discussed how capturing existing fees and increasing fees follow different approval paths. Committee members and commenters noted that increasing the per-trip fee requires state legislation, followed by local approval at Town Meeting; capturing/re-directing funds already collected may require a different local or legal remedy and should be spelled out in the plan. Several members said the plan should show multiple funding paths — grants, town matching funds, and fare-related revenues — not just reliance on the ferry fee.

No formal action was taken at the meeting, but committee members asked staff to add explicit language about (1) the separate processes for fee capture versus fee increase, (2) the possibility of a warrant article at Town Meeting to direct revenues if state law permits, and (3) assigning a standing entity (not only an ad hoc task force) to monitor receipts and recommend harbor expenditures.

Ending: Committee staff said they will revise the draft to include the stronger language requested and that the committee will review a redlined draft at its next meeting before any public meeting or formal submittal to the Select Board.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Harbor Plan Update Committee - 5/12/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Harbor Plan Update Committee discussed redirecting ferry embarkation fees to harbor uses and a Harbor Shellfish Advisory Board recommendation to raise the fee to $1 per trip and create oversight.","taxTitle","Nantucket County, Massachusetts","taxId",61456,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6218536,"Committee discusses legal survey of docks, Chapter 91 licenses and a public portal to improve enforcement",327,3625000,3952000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627130-e31c79f6d920333aac05c196ee6ce4e6&start=3625&end=3952","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627130-e31c79f6d920333aac05c196ee6ce4e6/thumbnail_3625000.jpg","/articles/6218536/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Committee-discusses-legal-survey-of-docks-Chapter-91-licenses-and-a-public-portal-to-improve-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218536-534c6993092a548fc3e663d7cb99c80f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138696&Signature=TsuDyqZCLjZQpotPIX9qmVvaNruv~xbroh3~O0jRtqtrjR79peMlbN-koyVwW64rWDE4TQUEMR2ujOL1FPzQi4HhDaTjW7K2ONfjpdNbFwVUl78JxQKDIH3Ws0T~MHpom9v9PzSKynz42UkEjG9iwvgmlzScn9MQYwFlpRrmGTwDr~zJ8KYrndv7vhNgeTXEpNKhrm-hU7~u4CH8k~cm~YlFDYHRKUel-bdSIaml4t~756jhk9xYLeWz6Eq16IANm7W2JHlG-sSZAOOfKmrdMoJ7K7XqhsjzLXpg3dsVlutXOceEDB~WBCddvl4ybRJYpnRY5dlAuWn4DnTiGu~jtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members discussed a substantial recommendation to survey the legal status, licenses and permits for docks, piers and moorings and to create public access to those records to improve fair allocation and enforcement.

Jeff (committee member) outlined the scope of the work and the practical challenges: searching registry-of-deeds records and state Massachusetts waterways records, inconsistent recording of licenses, and limited state staffing for review. “Our records are only as complete as people are willing to follow the rules,” Jeff said. He noted many valid permits are recorded properly but others are not and that unrecorded permits present legal and enforcement challenges.

The committee debated whether the scope should be limited to harbor-plan areas (the committee agreed that limiting the survey to harbor areas is appropriate) and whether the town could create a local recording or permitting step to mirror state Chapter 91 conditions. One committee member proposed that the town require a local Chapter 91 step tied to local permitting so the town can enforce the state conditions locally by adopting the permit conditions in local approvals; Jeff described that approach as a “pseudo enforce” workaround that could allow local enforcement of state-like conditions via local permits.

Members flagged legal and practical constraints: state regulations and statutory processes (Chapter 91 and the Wetlands Protection Act) and inconsistent recording deadlines (a 60-day recording period was referenced). They discussed creating a public portal for recorded Chapter 91 materials and digitizing existing files; graduate students and limited-budget projects were offered as possible implementation supports. The recommendation included surveying all docks, piers and moorings in harbor plan areas to ensure public trust assets are allocated fairly and that permit conditions are monitored.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to include the survey and portal recommendation in the plan and to note the resource implications; no formal vote was recorded. Staff and committee members discussed potential next steps for resourcing the work, including graduate-student help and a phased approach limited to harbor areas.

","Committee discussed a recommendation to complete a survey of the legal status of docks, piers and moorings, create a public portal for Chapter 91 licenses, and explore local mechanisms to capture and record state permit conditions to improve enforcement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":46,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6218540,"Committee strengthens language: recommend standing harbor implementation body to track projects and ferry revenue",1600,3039000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627130-e31c79f6d920333aac05c196ee6ce4e6&start=3039&end=4639","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627130-e31c79f6d920333aac05c196ee6ce4e6/thumbnail_3039000.jpg","/articles/6218540/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/Committee-strengthens-language-recommend-standing-harbor-implementation-body-to-track-projects-and-ferry-revenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218540-0f72c03cc92c0fdcaa72f4f8d09ba42a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138696&Signature=LnCWtrIN9MHKbHIpdaeWScsNN9uycaoCzcSOScaDdi6KnwCDXqgi8DX66GoBPxcmlxjmSWsRh07hj~wfEyQk3hHZ641y-OGphpuX4Tx9Mmm94Ym1xHFzRJDo-tm9wiT2c~Q4HOaV~2k7y~K6Tgq8yoDGvKF9Vh-Sq49yZ3eM2CdIJ-aq9hSc4h3~cM3Mh~TFa64v5On9Gd54jbFtvhnpi7wZbTAELqI6UwrDGjKiT5Nleq4I~FZHy6fm0wkU4Heg0Y0xRhpkQWNRHdDj-25TBpBRyZ~jSYmmTIwXqP3~0KeYbrZhc9kx1F3WHe0pQO1Isdm448N~XUtm4SRMCoy3Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Harbor Plan Update Committee moved to tighten recommendations for an implementation body to manage harbor plan execution, coordinate harbor-related boards and departments, and monitor revenue and project delivery.

Kim (UHI staff) told the committee the draft recommends the Select Board create a harbor implementation committee charged with coordinating management and investments related to the harbor plan. Members wanted stronger language requiring that the implementation committee be composed of representatives of responsible boards, departments and standing entities, plus some continuity with members of the harbor action plan update committee.

Committee members repeatedly asked that the draft not rely on an ad hoc body that would dissolve after initial implementation. One member said the plan should assign recurring responsibilities — for example, monitoring quarterly ferry receipts and annually identifying potential harbor-related expenditures — to a standing or “appropriate” entity so the work survives turnover. “They do not — that’s not a standing committee. That’s done,” a committee member said when discussing groups that may disband.

Members identified specific stakeholders they expect to be represented: Natural Resources (referred to in discussion as a responsible party), Transportation, Public Safety, Finance, the Conservation Commission, Planning/Zoning stakeholders and harbor advisory groups. Jeff (committee member) described existing work to revise regulations and emphasized the need to coordinate with state and local agencies: “This project… is already underway,” he said, listing multiple town and waterfront interests.

Committee members proposed several process clarifications: require (not just encourage) the Select Board to create the committee; include staff/professional representation to maintain continuity; and include language requesting the implementation committee be added to distribution lists for development proposals affecting the harbor. Kim indicated staff will prepare a redlined draft of the plan and a background section for committee review, with an expectation that the committee review those revisions a week in advance of the next meeting.

Ending: Committee asked staff to produce a clean and redline copy for review and to add specific, stronger language requiring the creation of a standing implementation committee and assigning ongoing responsibilities for monitoring receipts and coordinating harbor-related permitting and projects.","Members debated composition and charge of a harbor plan implementation committee, recommending that the Select Board create a standing body with representation from responsible town departments plus continuity from the plan update committee to monitor implementation, receipt reporting, and project coordination.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Harbor advisory board urges capture and oversight of ferry embarkation fees, proposes $1-per-trip recommendation

Committee discusses legal survey of docks, Chapter 91 licenses and a public portal to improve enforcement

Committee strengthens language: recommend standing harbor implementation body to track projects and ferry revenue