Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harbor Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Depoe Bay work session explores user fee, RFPs and lease options to close harbor budget gap
Summary
City and Harbor Commission members reviewed harbor finances, discussed a per‑passenger user fee and expanding an RFP to lease fueling or operations. Staff was directed to gather data, consult legal counsel about fee authority and prepare options for council consideration.
Depoe Bay — At a joint work session, city officials and the Harbor Commission discussed ways to reduce the harbor’s operating deficit, including a per‑person harbor user fee on charter tickets, expanding a request for proposals (RFP) to find private operators, and revisiting leases for dock uses that previously generated revenue.
Why it matters: Harbor leaders said the harbor has run deficits in recent years and that current subsidies — discussed in the meeting as a roughly $150,000 transfer from transient room tax and an approximately $100,000 transfer from urban renewal or general fund sources — are helping operations but are not sustainable without additional revenue or structural changes.
Discussion highlights: staff presented historical and current budget trends showing recurring annual deficits in the harbor enterprise fund; one figure cited in the meeting was a 2021 deficit of about $231,000 after transfers. Participants discussed options raised by the Harbor Commission: charging a modest harbor user fee (example figures discussed included $0.50–$1.00 per passenger on charter or whale‑watch tickets), conducting a tourist survey to estimate harbor usership and spending, pursuing an expanded RFP to lease fueling operations or entirely outsource fuel sales, and re‑examining legacy dock leases that previously generated six‑figure revenues over time. Staff said some past leasing arrangements had lapsed and that reclaiming or renegotiating leases could restore revenue lost since the mid‑2000s.
Legal and administrative steps: the group asked the city attorney to review whether a harbor user fee must be placed to a public vote or can be established by council ordinance; meeting participants cited a memo that concluded the city has authority under its charter and home‑rule powers to set fees dedicated to harbor facilities if the fee is specifically earmarked for harbor costs. Commissioners requested a legal briefing and suggested the attorney attend a future meeting to answer questions.
Operational and equity considerations: Commissioners and staff emphasized designing a user fee as a dedicated revenue stream, not a general tax, so that proceeds would directly fund harbor maintenance, restrooms and operations. Several speakers urged that the fee be structured so tourists who benefit from harbor services contribute while minimizing additional cost pressure on local slip holders already facing higher operating costs. One staff suggestion was to allow an opt‑out or exemptions for small children (e.g., under 6), mirroring practices elsewhere; the final policy questions would be subject to council decision.
Decisions and next steps: the Harbor Commission and city staff obtained concurrence to pursue three parallel follow‑ups: (1) circulate and analyze a short survey of visitors to estimate harbor use and revenue potential; (2) expand the existing RFP for fuel pricing to include proposals for leasing or operating fueling and to proactively contact likely distributors; and (3) ask the city attorney to prepare a legal briefing on fee authority and a proposed mechanism for dedicating any user‑fee revenue to harbor expenses. No formal fee was adopted at the session.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to return with specific cost estimates, survey results and the attorney’s memo so the council can weigh a possible fee, RFP responses or leasing strategy in a future meeting.
