Depoe Bay council weighs harbor user fee, asks harbor commission to propose ways to close $85,000 gap

At a March 4 work session, the Depoe Bay City Council discussed options to raise harbor revenue to cover an estimated shortfall and asked the harbor commission and city staff to recommend ways to make up roughly $85,000 in the harbor budget.

The discussion focused on whether to pursue a marine passenger/harbor user fee, raise moorage and launch fees, or adopt other user charges and storage fees. Council members and harbor stakeholders raised legal, administrative and equity concerns, and no formal fee was adopted at the session.

City staff presented a draft revenue proposal and budget figures; the council heard that the harbor operated at a structural deficit that is currently made up in part by transfers from the general fund and by transient lodging tax (TLT/TRT) revenues. Council members asked for clearer accounting of harbor revenues and expenditures before adopting any new charges.

The city attorney warned that Oregon constitutional limits on “head” taxes and recent litigation in Portland constrain how a municipality can charge per-person levies. As summarized at the meeting, "If we're going to call it a harbor user fee, then it needs to be a fee paid by all harbor users," the city attorney said, adding that a selectively applied per-person charge could create legal liability for the city.

Booking agents and charter operators said the local business structure complicates per-passenger collections. Eva, a booking agent who books trips for multiple boats, told the council: "Dockside Charters is a booking agent. We don't take people out on boats." She described multi-step accounting problems with collecting, refunding and remitting a per-person fee through online bookings and credit-card processors.

Council discussion focused on less legally and administratively fraught alternatives: modest increases to moorage/launch/storage and crab-pot storage fees, and closer parity with rates charged at other Oregon harbors. Several council members said raising existing harbor fees would be simpler for small businesses and could be passed through to customers by operators. Staff said the harbor commission and city staff should assess options and return with recommendations during the budget process.

No formal votes or ordinances were adopted at the work session. Council members gave direction to the harbor commission and to staff rather than approving a specific fee structure. The council asked the harbor commission to identify a mix of expense reductions and fee changes that could close the budget gap and requested that staff model potential revenue from modest increases to moorage, launch and storage fees for inclusion in the coming budget.

The council emphasized equity concerns and the town's tourism-dependent economy: speakers noted that tourists and businesses beyond harbor users benefit from city services and that any fee design should consider fairness for small operators and low-cost tourist activities. The council also discussed timing and enforcement practicalities, and whether changes might drive customers to neighboring harbors.

Next steps: the harbor commission was asked to provide specific proposals and revenue estimates to make up the stated gap (roughly $85,000), and city staff were instructed to include moorage and launch fee scenarios in the upcoming budget work. The matter will return to council after harbor commission and staff review for potential ordinance changes or fee adjustments.