HB 292 - Milfoil control fee survey

[Lakegeezer]

Would you pay an additional $10 per motorized boat to help pay for milfoil control? There is a bill working its way through the NH legislature and a survey to express your opinion. Please fill out the survey (no matter what your opinion is) and forward the link to your non-forum friends. If there is support, this is the time to express it. The opportunity doesn't come around too often to get funds dedicated to a cause.

-------------------------------------------
From: Bob Reynolds
Fair Funding for Invasives Control, Inc. (FFIC)
reynrob@gmail.com

We created a quick survey to determine boat owners' support for a possible increase in the boat registration fee dedicated to milfoil control funding. This will be important when talking with legislators about public support for increasing fees.

Here is a link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/H75RNXG

Would you please send the survey link to any and all boat owners that you know? Last year, 92,000 boats were registered in New Hampshire, so we have to survey a lot of people to get a representative sample that will provide meaningful results. Please complete the survey yourself, and encourage as many people as possible to respond ASAP.

By the way -- the legislative calendar has been quite full, and we now expect that the HB 292 will not be discussed or voted on until Wednesday, January 29. So, that gives us a few extra days to spread the word and encourage our fellow lake lovers to write and call their State Representatives.

Thanks for your support!

[dave603]

I'm a little confused about your post?
HB 292 only mentions boats from another state or countries having the Milfoil Decal, not NH registered boats.
Those boats without the decal are already subject to fines under that bill, but again, it's NOT for boats registered in NH.

You can read the House Bill here:http://openstates.org/nh/bills/2013/...s/NHD00003629/

[Lakegeezer]

As I understand it, the bill HB 292 originally was to require out-of-state folks to have a milfoil sticker. Yes, it still reads that way. There has been discussion about how unwieldy and unenforceable that is, and that when the bill comes up for discussion, it may shift to be an increase on in-state registrations. The survey is to judge how well that will go over. Hopefully others involved will help clarify, but for now, please take the survey.

[BroadHopper]

Sorry to express my opinion.

I filled out the survey that I will agree increase registration fees if and only if all of the money is used for boating purposes only. As it stands, the fees goes into the state general funds and partially appropriated to boating.

[Billy Bob]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Sorry to express my opinion.

I filled out the survey that I will agree increase registration fees if and only if all of the money is used for boating purposes only. As it stands, the fees goes into the state general funds and partially appropriated to boating.

actually it says :
I. The fee of $7.50 collected under the provisions of RSA 270-E:5, II(a) and RSA 270-E:6-b, III shall be paid to the director of the division of motor vehicles. The director of the division of motor vehicles shall pay over said fee to the state treasurer who shall keep the fee in a special fund to be expended by the department of environmental services. The department shall use $.50 of the fee for lake restoration and preservation measures, exclusive of exotic aquatic weed control, $3 of the fee for the control of exotic aquatic weeds, and $4 of the fee for the milfoil and other exotic aquatic plants prevention program. The department shall deposit the $4 into a special account within the lake restoration and preservation fund which shall be used to administer the milfoil and other exotic aquatic plants prevention program. The special fund shall be nonlapsing. All funds received under this section are continually appropriated to the department for the purposes of this subdivision.

But again , whats this do for tourism , We going to have people stop at the border and pick up the half dozen permits you will need to visit the state of New Hampshire ? this nickel and dime thing going on with people crossing the border is not a swell idea !

[dave603]

I also filled it out, but also expressed concern of how the funds would be used.
I also agree with Billy, this is not going well for tourism in the state.
They seem to be nailing fees everywhere on small boaters both in state and out.
First it was the fee for kayaks and canoes. Just seems to be growing now.

I do a some of my boating down on Cape Cod, I would have expected Mass. to do things like this to both out of state and in state vacationers, but they don't.
I pay nothing to them to boat there, in most towns on the Cape not even launch or parking fees to launch. And small fees for places that do charge. ( $5.00 in Yarmouth, launch and park all day to the next morning if you need to)

Not that ten bucks is going to kill anyone from MA from coming up, but it sure doesn't help.

Edit: Looking at the fines in this bill: Sounds like the old speed traps traveling down south with a Yankee plate, pay me now and it's cheaper.

[Lakegeezer]

The process of laws is a lot like making sausage, a mystery. Here is an amendment to the bill, that apparently is unpublished. That's what is a mystery to me. How can a legislative process, which we hope would be transparent, promote amendments that are updated in the database of bills?

Anyway, the bill has been amended, and a discussion about it is in a legislative report, found here. Basically, they want to raise the existing $7.50 milfoil fee by two dollars. It seems like a lot of work for two bucks - and perhaps the survey will show willingness to pay more. I believe we are under-funding lake preservation and restoration efforts, and hopefully others do too.

Here is the text of the amendment:
Amendment to HB 292-FN-A
(2013-2269h)
Proposed by the Majority of the Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development - r
Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:
AN ACT relative to registration fees for commercial, private, and pleasure vessels.
Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:
1 Vessel Registration; Registration Fees. Amend RSA 270-E:5, II(a) to read as follows:
(a) [$7.50] $9.50 for each registration specified in paragraph I. The fees collected under this subparagraph
shall be paid into the lake restoration and preservation fund established under RSA 487:25.
49 3 jan uary 2014 HOUSE RECORD
2 Lake Restoration and Preservation Fund; Addition to Boat Registration. Amend RSA 487:25, I to read
as follows:
I. The fee of [$7.50] $9.50 collected under the provisions of RSA 270-E:5, II(a) shall be paid to the director
of the division of motor vehicles. The director of the division of motor vehicles shall pay over said fee to the
state treasurer who shall keep the fee in a special fund to be expended by the department of environmental
services. The department shall use $.50 of the fee for lake restoration and preservation measures, exclusive
of exotic aquatic weed control, [$3] $5 of the fee for the control of exotic aquatic weeds, and $4 of the fee for
the milfoil and other exotic aquatic plants prevention program. The department shall deposit the $4 into a
special account within the lake restoration and preservation fund which shall be used to administer the milfoil
and other exotic aquatic plants prevention program. The special fund shall be nonlapsing. All funds received
under this section are continually appropriated to the department for the purposes of this subdivision.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2015.
AMENDED ANALYSIS
This bill increases the additional fee for commercial, private, and pleasure vessels.

Here's the discussion;
HB 292-FN-A, requiring milfoil decals on private vessels registered in other states or countries and operating
on the inland waters of New Hampshire. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY:
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Suzanne H. Gottling for the Majority of Resources, Recreation and Development. This bill was retained
in order to study the feasibility of assessing out-of-state boaters a fee for control of milfoil and other exotic
invasive species through mandatory purchase of a boat decal. The concept had support from all constituencies.
However, testimony showed that purchase of over 35,000 decals would be the minimum required for the
program to break even. Further research revealed that best estimates for out-of-state registered boat users
were 9,000 to 10,000, not close to the originally anticipated number. The reason for the lower number is that
NH uses the federal bow-numbering system. This means that boats may be registered in NH by anyone who
states that his/her boat is primarily operated on NH waters. Many of our out-of-state boaters choose to register
in NH since they avoid taxes that would be assessed in their home state.
As a result of these facts, establishing a decal requirement for out-of-state boaters was abandoned. Attention
turned to the underlying intent of the bill: supporting the important work of preventing, controlling,
and eradicating invasive species in our NH water bodies. In the past twenty years, NH has seen the number
of infested waters increase from 4 to almost 80. The amended bill increases the boating registration fee by
$2.00, all of which is applied to the control of exotic weeds section of the Lake Restoration and Prevention
portion of the boat registration fee.
The amended bill was supported by the department of safety, marine patrol division, the department of environmental
services, and the president of the New Hampshire marine trades. The committee vote reflected
bipartisan support. Vote 13-5.
Rep. Andrew Renzullo for the Minority of Resources, Recreation and Development. The bill as submitted
would have required non-New Hampshire registered boats that use our lakes and waterways to contribute, as
New Hampshire registered boats presently contribute, to the efforts at eradicating milfoil and other invasive
species. The committee majority, upon the recommendation of a sub-committee, voted to amend and completely
changed the bill into a fee increase in the portion of the registration fee allocated for the Lake Restoration
and Preservation Fund from $7.50 to $9.50 – a $2.00 (26.7%) increase. The increase in this portion of the
registration fee is a deviation from the original bill. The bill, as introduced would have established equity in
bearing the costs of combating invasive species between boats registered in New Hampshire and boats not
registered in New Hampshire but still using our waterways. The bill, as amended, is simply an increase in
the registration fee on New Hampshire registered boats. Please note that the amended bill leaves in place the
inequity of having New Hampshire boats pay the full costs of invasive species eradication while out-of-state
boats sail away scot-free. It should also be noted that the bill, as amended, or the amendment alone, did not
have a noticed public hearing alerting the public of a potential fee increase. Only then would those upon whom
this fee would be levied could have had a chance to voice their opinion and submit evidence to the committee.

[dave603]

So now it's a fee increase for NH registered craft only!
No wonder they didn't publish it outright.
What a way to weasel a fee increase through.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by dave603

So now it's a fee increase for NH registered craft only!
No wonder they didn't publish it outright.
What a way to weasel a fee increase through.

I think your cynicism is misplaced. The bill, as written, was not going to work out, so they took advantage of the structure to get to the same goal, that being increased funding for water quality. Yes, it is a fee increase. How else can we address accelerated lake aging? I'd like to see other watershed usage fees too, such as shoreline septic, driveway and roofline fees. The efforts to slow down water quality decay, and in some cases, to improve it, are not well coordinated, because of lack of funding. Without pristine water, the attraction to NH, and its economic engine changes. Property values decline in poor quality areas. The species of fish and plants can change.

Seeing a fee increase that is tied to specific programs is encouraging to me. The folks at DES that are involved with watershed management, are a bright light when it comes to the quality of government - so any funds that be moved in their direction gets my support.

[dave603]

While I agree something needs to be done, and $2.00 isn't going to kill anyone, I just don't like it when they pull what appears to be a sneak attack to raise fees.

[whalebackpoint'r]

It would be useful to know which towns in the Lakes Region are already supporting the elimination of exotic weeds through taxation. In Moultonborough for example, tax payers are raising somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000 per year in addition to many volunteers giving of their time. Are other communities doing their part? Is this really the way to go?

[tis]

Originally Posted by whalebackpoint'r

It would be useful to know which towns in the Lakes Region are already supporting the elimination of exotic weeds through taxation. In Moultonborough for example, tax payers are raising somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000 per year in addition to many volunteers giving of their time. Are other communities doing their part? Is this really the way to go?

I know Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro are.

[BroadHopper]

I kind of like the idea that everyone pays a fee to protect the environment. All motorized vehicles, natural powered crafts are required to get an environment sticker, similar to VT. The money collected is mandated to protect the environment. No general funds bull crap. I think this will take the pressure off pleasure vehicles. After all, automobiles contribute to pollution.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by whalebackpoint'r

It would be useful to know which towns in the Lakes Region are already supporting the elimination of exotic weeds through taxation. In Moultonborough for example, tax payers are raising somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000 per year in addition to many volunteers giving of their time. Are other communities doing their part? Is this really the way to go?

Town of Alton supports it.