Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harbor User Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Depoe Bay public hearing draws sharp opposition to proposed harbor user fee
Summary
Hundreds of residents, charter operators and small-business owners warned the Depoe Bay City Council that a proposed per-passenger harbor user fee would act like an unlawful tax, penalize charters that use private docks and risk hurting tourism-dependent businesses; councilors said the draft will be revised and returned for further review.
A packed public hearing at Depoe Bay’s Oct. 7 City Council meeting drew sustained opposition from charter operators, harbor businesses and long‑time residents to a proposed harbor user fee ordinance, Ordinance No. 358-25.
"The harbor user fee is an unlawful tax," said Molly Agan, a Depoe Bay resident and owner at Trademan Charters, at the podium during public comment. She told the council the draft ordinance would charge passengers embarking from private docks and effectively shift general harbor costs onto private businesses and visitors.
Speakers raised two legal concerns repeatedly: that a per‑passenger charge detached from a directly provided city service functions as a tax that may require voter approval, and that the city lacks authority to impose fees tied to activity occurring entirely on private docks or submerged lands not conveyed to the municipality. "Under Oregon law, title to submerged lands rests with the state," a commenter noted, arguing that the ordinance overreaches if it attempts to include private docks.
Residents and business owners also warned that the added cost would be passed to customers and could deter tourism. "If enacted, this ordinance will burden visitors already navigating a difficult economy," one speaker said, describing how charters are connected to restaurants, lodging and retail in the local economy.
Council discussion following the hearing focused on drafting clarifications rather than immediate adoption. Councilors asked staff to tighten the ordinance’s purpose-and-intent language to make clear it is a pass-through fee charged to passengers, not a new charge assessed on operators; to distinguish operators from booking agents; to clarify audit and record requirements; and to align confidentiality and public records language with ORS 192. Members also debated the fee amount (some said $1 per passenger, others supported $2) and questioned rebate, filing and penalty provisions.
Council did not adopt the ordinance. Instead, members directed staff to incorporate a number of edits suggested during the meeting and to return the revised draft for additional review and a council work session. Several speakers urged the council to pursue alternative revenue sources and to allow more time for charter operators and other stakeholders to help design any new collection mechanisms.
Next steps: councilors said they will revise the draft ordinance to clarify that the fee is intended as a passenger pass-through, tighten confidentiality and roster-count procedures, and return the ordinance to a future work session before any formal vote.
