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

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.