Winnipesaukee Forum

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   Boating (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   New/proposed dock fees (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24121)

Descant 01-18-2019 04:39 PM

New/proposed dock fees
 
The NH legislature is in session. Hang on to your wallet. Rep. Spang (d-Durham) and others are proposing to double some dock permit fees and add a new fee for temporary seasonal docks which previously I think, had no fee for a "Permit by Notification." Rep. Spang also wants to take away legislative oversight of the fee structure and just let the DES Commissioner set whatever fees s/he thinks are necessary.

HB 682-FN establishing a water resources fund in the department of environmental services and charging certain application and permit fees.
including
(d) Beginning July 1, 2022, the commissioner shall review the fees established in subparagraph (a) not more often than biennially to determine whether such fees are adequate to cover projected program expenses. If the fees are not adequate to cover projected program expenses, the commissioner shall adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A, to adjust the fees established in RSA 541-A:3 to ensure program sustainability. Such rules may increase the baseline fee, the impact fee, or both.

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_sta...txtFormat=html

Seaplane Pilot 01-18-2019 04:54 PM

Say it ain't so!
 
I am SHOCKED to see that this rep is a Democrat! :rolleye1:

joey2665 01-18-2019 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Descant (Post 306557)
The NH legislature is in session. Hang on to your wallet. Rep. Spang (d-Durham) and others are proposing to double some dock permit fees and add a new fee for temporary seasonal docks which previously I think, had no fee for a "Permit by Notification." Rep. Spang also wants to take away legislative oversight of the fee structure and just let the DES Commissioner set whatever fees s/he thinks are necessary.

HB 682-FN establishing a water resources fund in the department of environmental services and charging certain application and permit fees.
including
(d) Beginning July 1, 2022, the commissioner shall review the fees established in subparagraph (a) not more often than biennially to determine whether such fees are adequate to cover projected program expenses. If the fees are not adequate to cover projected program expenses, the commissioner shall adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A, to adjust the fees established in RSA 541-A:3 to ensure program sustainability. Such rules may increase the baseline fee, the impact fee, or both.

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_sta...txtFormat=html

This has a potential to be a disaster. Allowing the commissioner to establish the fee is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

fatlazyless 01-18-2019 05:56 PM

..... you go girl!
 
Oh Dear State Rep, and fellow Democrat, Judith Spang from Durham NH,

.... let me just say we are all aware the State of NH could use a little bit more revenue to fund all the good things it does ...... and, even though I am a plus-66 year old, barely making it on my monthly social security check, who does all my dock install/removal, all by myself, because I cannot afford to hire a dock service ...... it will be an honor and a privilege for me to help the state with what is basically a very small dock permit fee ........ after all ...... Lake Winnipesaukee belongs to the people of New Hampshire .... and it's a real blessing to own my little spot, with its' super killer-diller location, and super killer-diller view out across the big lake!

You know .... I probably save something like $800/yr by doing the dock by myself, and paying a small dock permit annual fee will make everyone appreciate their dock, just a little bit more. Plus, state and local taxes and fees like this are probably totally deductible off their federal tax return.

You know the NH State Park System is seriously under-funded because it is self-supported entirely by its' entry fees, and gets no money from the general fund. Well .... while Lake Winnipesaukee and all other water bodies are not a state park, they are a state natural resource, so creating a new revenue stream flowing from privately owned docks to the state park system that includes Ellacoya State Beach on Lake Winnipesauke, Ahern State Park in Laconia on Lake Winnisquam, and Mt Major State Forest in Alton seems like a fiscally smart way to help pay for maintenance and repairs at the state parks because these small individual dock fees are federal tax deductible.

Thinking about under-funded state agencies, the NH Fish & Game is another excellent state service that needs better funding, just like the state parks. Paying a small, federal tax deductible, annual state dock fee to better fund the NH Fish & Game, and the NH State Parks seems like a smart conservative way to pay for it.

And, oh yes, the NH Marine Patrol is a another state agency that deserves better funding. So, there's the NH Marine Patrol, NH Fish & Game, and NH State Parks ....... all three excellent state agencies deserve their own piece of this newly proposed private dock fee.


Like .......... why not ..... and what's not to like about that! ....... https://www.nhpr.org/post/nh-house-a...docks#stream/0; further study on docks; 3/06/18


From one Democrat to another ...... you go girl! ........ :yawn:


So, if docks will be getting some type of a NH state fee system ...... then, what is the skinny with breakwaters ..... you know those rock, boulder structures that are somewhat similar to a jetty ..... except they usually have a dock attached to the breakwater?

Well, well, well, ........ and, you know what ........ "If a dock has to pay one hundred dollars/year, then a breakwater should be paying five thousand dollars/year!" ....... Gov Chris Sununu; sneer-sneer-sneer! ..... :D

tis 01-18-2019 06:37 PM

The NH House and Senate went all democrat this last election, so you can expect a lot more fees and taxes. Democrats never saw a tax or fee or regulation they didn't love.

Prestige Worldwide 01-18-2019 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joey2665 (Post 306559)
This has a potential to be a disaster. Allowing the commissioner to establish the fee is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.



Allowing the commissioner to establish the fee is like letting the patient run the asylum.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

joey2665 01-18-2019 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige Worldwide (Post 306562)
Allowing the commissioner to establish the fee is like letting the patient run the asylum.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app



The same but different. [emoji23][emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Lakegeezer 01-18-2019 08:42 PM

Innovative idea
 
The state owns the water that docks are in, so why not charge rent to help maintain water quality. DES needs more funds to get the job done, but the risk of permit rates getting out of control is real. Could be a good debate.

joey2665 01-18-2019 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer (Post 306566)
The state owns the water that docks are in, so why not charge rent to help maintain water quality. DES needs more funds to get the job done, but the risk of permit rates getting out of control is real. Could be a good debate.



Yes but at the same time you cannot let them fix the pricing of the permits. There would be no checks and balances


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

kawishiwi 01-18-2019 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joey2665 (Post 306559)
This has a potential to be a disaster. Allowing the commissioner to establish the fee is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Oh my god! What a DISASTER!!! Um, well, I guess "...has a potential to be a disaster." is still a maybe ...DISASTER! Think of all the ruined lives! The number of people priced right out of their lakefront properties by this! We might not recover, if it happens, in ours, or even our childrens lifetimes. OH.THE.HUMANITY. I will be keeping all of you in my prayers...
First world problems?

joey2665 01-18-2019 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kawishiwi (Post 306569)
Oh my god! What a DISASTER!!! Um, well, I guess "...has a potential to be a disaster." is still a maybe ...DISASTER! Think of all the ruined lives! The number of people priced right out of their lakefront properties by this! We might not recover, if it happens, in ours, or even our childrens lifetimes. OH.THE.HUMANITY. I will be keeping all of you in my prayers...

First world problems?



Please do me a favor if you donít have something nice to day keep it to yourself and keep the statement in context to the post. You might like government abuse and overspending but I donít.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

swnoel 01-19-2019 05:35 AM

Clearly those fees are too low... anyone owning on a lake in the first place can afford it. It's time they pay their "fair" share. This fee helps the poor, elderly, and children. I hope the property owners demand the increase to help these people.;)

joey2665 01-19-2019 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swnoel (Post 306572)
Clearly those fees are too low... anyone owning on a lake in the first place can afford it. It's time they pay their "fair" share. This fee helps the poor, elderly, and children. I hope the property owners demand the increase to help these people.;)



I have no issue if the fees are truly too low, I just think a system needs checks and balances and the commissioner shouldnít be the one to set the fees.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Dad sold the C * C 01-19-2019 06:37 AM

I just gave this a quick read and need to print it out for a more thorough appraisal, but I found #14 a bit disturbing.
Please note what is in brackets is a strike through on the original proposed text, meaning it's a change. . My tablet can't handle the strike-through.
The potential could be scary. Also, I think I read that the fees paid for culvert cleaning and repair will go up:rolleye1: how does that help water quality ?

14 Aquatic Resources Fund. Amend RSA 482-A:29, II to read as follows:
II. A separate, non-lapsing account shall be established within the fund into which all administrative assessments collected under RSA 482-A:30, III and RSA 482-A:30-a, II shall be placed. Such account moneys shall [only] be used [to support up to 2 full-time positions] for administration of the fund, including staff, and related projects. [No other fund moneys shall be used for state personnel costs.]

I'm glad we did the new dock last year!

FlyingScot 01-19-2019 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swnoel (Post 306572)
Clearly those fees are too low... anyone owning on a lake in the first place can afford it. It's time they pay their "fair" share. This fee helps the poor, elderly, and children. I hope the property owners demand the increase to help these people.;)

OK--I'm a lakefront owner, and I do demand that my fees go up to support both the kids who leave near the lake and the protection of the lake's water quality. These fees are minuscule compared to both the vast economic disparity in the region and the pleasure we all derive from a clean healthy lake.

ApS 01-19-2019 08:01 AM

Destined for the General Fund?
 
Why am I reminded of Maryland's "Rain Tax"?
:look:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dad sold the C * C (Post 306575)
I just gave this a quick read and need to print it out for a more thorough appraisal, but I found #14 a bit disturbing. Please note what is in brackets is a strike through on the original proposed text, meaning it's a change. My tablet can't handle the strike-through. The potential could be scary. Also, I think I read that the fees paid for culvert cleaning and repair will go up:rolleye1: how does that help water quality ?

14 Aquatic Resources Fund. Amend RSA 482-A:29, II to read as follows:
II. A separate, non-lapsing account shall be established within the fund into which all administrative assessments collected under RSA 482-A:30, III and RSA 482-A:30-a, II shall be placed. Such account moneys shall [only] be used [to support up to 2 full-time positions] for administration of the fund, including staff, and related projects. [No other fund moneys shall be used for state personnel costs.] I'm glad we did the new dock last year!

If NH goes to tax boat lifts, I'll bet they could fill three new positions!
:rolleye2:

>

Grandpa Redneck 01-19-2019 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingScot (Post 306577)
OK--I'm a lakefront owner, and I do demand that my fees go up to support both the kids who leave near the lake and the protection of the lake's water quality. These fees are minuscule compared to both the vast economic disparity in the region and the pleasure we all derive from a clean healthy lake.

If YOU really want to pay more, nothing is stopping you from writing a check to the state for what ever larger amount you would like to pay.

MAXUM 01-19-2019 12:47 PM

What's really going to happen, this will just encourage more people to flip their middle finger at DES and do as they please. See it all the time.

FlyingScot - since you are so passionate about conservation and the lakes region and the income disparity of the area as a whole please feel free to donate the copious amounts of money you apparently have to various organizations and charities in the area. In fact I'm sure DES is more than happy to take direct donations. Send them a check today!

WE don't need more fees, and certainly no more union hack state positions being created especially when we don't even know how much it's going to cost. God I love that - let's propose doing something, vote, put it in place and then find out if it will pay for itself. This from the donkey that proposed it who is supposedly "college educated" and a "Strategic Corporate Planner". No wonder why she's a politician, with strategic planning like that who the heck would hire her?

8gv 01-19-2019 01:04 PM

So after collecting the money and paying the expense of having employees and other administrative costs, how many pennies are there left from each dollar?

The best way to help a government prioritize the use of taxpayer money is to maintain fiscal near starvation.

Every dollar added to the revenue base encourages waste.

If there are specific initiatives outlined for this money, would it not be more cost effective to raise another fee or tax by a small increment and avoid the infrastructure required by a new fee?

codeman671 01-19-2019 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingScot (Post 306577)
OK--I'm a lakefront owner, and I do demand that my fees go up to support both the kids who leave near the lake and the protection of the lake's water quality. These fees are minuscule compared to both the vast economic disparity in the region and the pleasure we all derive from a clean healthy lake.

Do you think any of that money will actually make its way to water quality or helping children in the lakes region?

joey2665 01-19-2019 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 306585)
Do you think any of that money will actually make its way to water quality or helping children in the lakes region?



Exactly why they canít decide the amount administer funding themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Descant 01-19-2019 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 306585)
Do you think any of that money will actually make its way to water quality or helping children in the lakes region?

As I understand it, DES is basically a fee funded operation, not so much from tax and general fund revenues. I understand that costs go up, and most wetland permit fees are paid by developers who pass it along to their customers. However, I have to giggle when DES says that temporary seasonal docks have no environmental impact, but we still want to regulate them. There must be 1000's of these little docks on hundreds of our small lakes. There's another bill to register all of them, get this, voluntarily. From HB645:
"(d) If an applicant chooses to register a seasonal dock, at the time the applicant registers with the department, he or she shall also submit a nonrefundable fee of $200."
Poll: how many of you will want to voluntarily pay $200 to register a pile of boards that you can take away on the roof of your car?
These bills come at the request of DES, who drafts them and then asks various reps to sponsor. Same thing lobbyists do, but we're paying them to do this.

AC2717 01-21-2019 10:14 AM

isn't this what our registration boat and watercraft fees and permit fees and every other fee associated to the lake already go to?

CaptT820 01-21-2019 11:23 AM

Fees
 
I couldn't agree more with the post that said, "if YOU want to pay more than go ahead". Believe me the state WILL take your additional money if you send it to them. More fees will just mean that more people will skirt the law to not pay said fee. Some people don't buy fishing licences, because they weigh the risk reward of not paying the fee vs. getting caught and paying a fine. This is no different, not to mention good luck enforcing this.

The only reason permanent docks get taxed as they do, is because you are supposed to fill out a DES wetlands impact form and then have it inspected by the town at a later time for tax purposes. You could theoretically build a permanent dock and tell no one and let them figure out you have one when they come to assess your property. This is the continuous cat and mouse game people play with the town and the state.

A majority of DIY'ers do not pull permits for home renovations that require permits. Why? Because they do not want to pay the associated fee, they don't want to have the inspector/engineer tell them to fix something at additional cost, and because inevitably their taxes will rise. If there was no tax increase for a DIY project, then nearly everyone would pull permits, get it inspected, and make sure that it met current code.

MAXUM 01-21-2019 03:26 PM

Seasonal docks are taxed too.

Outdoorsman 01-21-2019 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptT820 (Post 306638)
... More fees will just mean that more people will skirt the law to not pay said fee. Some people don't buy fishing licences, because they weigh the risk reward of not paying the fee vs. getting caught and paying a fine. This is no different, not to mention good luck enforcing this.

The only reason permanent docks get taxed as they do, is because you are supposed to fill out a DES wetlands impact form and then have it inspected by the town at a later time for tax purposes. You could theoretically build a permanent dock and tell no one and let them figure out you have one when they come to assess your property. This is the continuous cat and mouse game people play with the town and the state.

A majority of DIY'ers do not pull permits for home renovations that require permits. Why? Because they do not want to pay the associated fee, they don't want to have the inspector/engineer tell them to fix something at additional cost, and because inevitably their taxes will rise. If there was no tax increase for a DIY project, then nearly everyone would pull permits, get it inspected, and make sure that it met current code.

In 2019 it is incredibly easy plot the docks/moorings that dot the perimeter of any lake. Whether done by interns, drone, MP and ect it can easily be plotted and entered into NHFG's computer for future reference.

Perhaps the best way to level the playing field between those that choose to take the chance and forego the license and those that pay their fair share is to increase the fines to a level that is more than a slap on the wrist.

IE: the fine for not having a $45 fishing license is $4500. 100x would work for anything. Makes you think twice for sure.

Woody38 01-21-2019 04:37 PM

Permit, fees
 
Apparently we dodged a bullet when we gutted the kitchen, laundry and powder room. Proper permits and inspector inspection. His comments were the depth of the sink, a cookie sheet can be rinsed without moving anything, also the double molding at the ceiling. Quite an expensive undertaking with everything a chef would want. The result was that the assessment was not increased and the taxes were not terribly increased.

__________________________________________

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

Descant 01-21-2019 05:37 PM

Tax seasonal docks?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM (Post 306640)
Seasonal docks are taxed too.

It appears to vary from town to town, perhaps depending on what appraisal company the town contracts with. I can have a swim raft or an inflatable 'island', no permit, no registration, no tax. Could be similar size/sq ft.

tummyman 01-21-2019 06:29 PM

You will find that the majority of legislators voting on this stuff do not live near the lake, but rather in southern cities / towns. Wonder when they will institute parking meters for dock space at launch ramps ? Wonder if the next fee will be a swimming fee for using the lake waters ? How about getting a patch for the bathing suit to show you paid the correct fee ? DES has gone from a reasonable operation to an operation mired in regulations. Common sense largely is ignored. Just like anything else, it starts small but get out of control quickly. We wanted to construct a 16 sq. ft. addition not in the 50 ft buffer.....2 ft X 8 ft. The paperwork, fees, and information needed to just get past DES was ridiculous. The more difficult it is to comply, the more folks will just do it. Remember, many folks function under it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. But then again, while they persecute homeowners on impacts to shore banks, they do absolutely nothing to the impacts on shorelines by the enormous wakes from wake boarders.

CaptT820 01-22-2019 12:09 PM

Seasonal Docks
 
My seasonal dock and those of my neighbors (in Alton) are not taxed. The permanent docks are taxed at roughly $25 a square foot for value. So a permanent dock at 40-ft length by 5-ft wide (200 sq. ft) would be assessed at $5000 value. Hence the reason I still have a seasonal dock.

Garcia 01-22-2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptT820 (Post 306655)
My seasonal dock and those of my neighbors (in Alton) are not taxed. The permanent docks are taxed at roughly $25 a square foot for value. So a permanent dock at 40-ft length by 5-ft wide (200 sq. ft) would be assessed at $5000 value. Hence the reason I still have a seasonal dock.

At $14 per thousand that's $70/year. I don't like the idea of taxing seasonal docks, but I doubt the tax issue is going to make a difference in most people's decision to have a permanent dock or not.

For me a seasonal dock is cheaper and requires less annual maintenance. My neighbors often spend the winter worrying about electricity and the bubbler to keep the water open, and more often than not have some type of repair work in the spring due to ice damage.

codeman671 01-22-2019 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptT820 (Post 306655)
My seasonal dock and those of my neighbors (in Alton) are not taxed. The permanent docks are taxed at roughly $25 a square foot for value. So a permanent dock at 40-ft length by 5-ft wide (200 sq. ft) would be assessed at $5000 value. Hence the reason I still have a seasonal dock.

Gilford has our permanent dock assessed for $26,280. It is a 3 finger crib dock (30 x 6' each) connected by a 6' x 42' walkway along shore.

lakershaker 01-22-2019 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptT820 (Post 306655)
My seasonal dock and those of my neighbors (in Alton) are not taxed. The permanent docks are taxed at roughly $25 a square foot for value. So a permanent dock at 40-ft length by 5-ft wide (200 sq. ft) would be assessed at $5000 value. Hence the reason I still have a seasonal dock.

My seasonal dock in Alton is taxed. 6'x40' at $5,400. Which one is an oversight - yours or mine? If mine, I need to get to the tax assessor and get it changed!

tummyman 01-22-2019 03:35 PM

Most property assessments are on the actual property as of April 1st. So if you have a seasonal dock and it is not in the water on April 1st, I would question their assessing something that does not exist as of April 1st. Would be an interesting point to challenge them on for seasonal docks. My seasonal dock does not touch the legal boundary of my property.....it is about 2 inches off the property line. Wonder how they could assess me for that. Whole subject is a PITA.

LIforrelaxin 01-22-2019 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swnoel (Post 306572)
Clearly those fees are too low... anyone owning on a lake in the first place can afford it. It's time they pay their "fair" share. This fee helps the poor, elderly, and children. I hope the property owners demand the increase to help these people.;)

So here is the logic, you own lake front so you must have money... There for we should charge you more and you will pay it...

But when current owners are tired of paying they will sell, with new owners coming in and the old ones leaving they will bring with them new desires and want for what shangrala should be..

Old timers don't like the changes that are going on around the lake... If new people move in because the old move out, there area is going to continue to develop... More Money more development they go hand in hand....

I love this lake always have, but honestly, with all the continued development it is loosing its charm... Lake front owners pay their fair share, for things they can't vote on... Sooner or later lake front owners will say enough is enough.... and move on to other places because this one is getting to ridiculous...

NH needs to wake up... institute a tax, and get over itself...

MAXUM 01-22-2019 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tummyman (Post 306672)
Most property assessments are on the actual property as of April 1st. So if you have a seasonal dock and it is not in the water on April 1st, I would question their assessing something that does not exist as of April 1st. Would be an interesting point to challenge them on for seasonal docks. My seasonal dock does not touch the legal boundary of my property.....it is about 2 inches off the property line. Wonder how they could assess me for that. Whole subject is a PITA.

think that is a loosing battle. Kinda like my old dock sections thrown on the ground are now considered and taxed as a "deck"

FlyingScot 01-23-2019 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tummyman (Post 306672)
Most property assessments are on the actual property as of April 1st. So if you have a seasonal dock and it is not in the water on April 1st, I would question their assessing something that does not exist as of April 1st. Would be an interesting point to challenge them on for seasonal docks. My seasonal dock does not touch the legal boundary of my property.....it is about 2 inches off the property line. Wonder how they could assess me for that. Whole subject is a PITA.

Great question. Really they are taxing you on your use of riparian rights (rights that you have to the public water based on your ownership of the adjacent private land). Since you own the 2" or 100' or whatever of land along the lake, you are allowed to put a dock in. Yeah, it's a PITA to think about tax on 2", but the good news is that you are the only person who can put a dock in front of your house. If these riparian rights did not exist in their current form, you could not put in a dock, or, even worse, your neighbor could put in a dock in front of your house.

CaptT820 01-23-2019 01:37 PM

Seasonal Docks
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lakershaker (Post 306668)
My seasonal dock in Alton is taxed. 6'x40' at $5,400. Which one is an oversight - yours or mine? If mine, I need to get to the tax assessor and get it changed!

No oversight here. I've had a seasonal dock for 4 years and have no tax on it and never have.

They definitely should NOT be taxing you on what is truly a seasonal dock. I did a full assessment of all the properties on our island and only the permanent docks were taxed as they are actual full time structures with inherent full time value. I'd have the town reassess, although that can open a can of worms.

As others have stated, I don't have a permanent dock solely due to the yearly tax on said dock. The other associated costs add up quickly. If you have a new dock and its assessed at full value it could be assessed for $20,000 which would still only be ~$280 a year in Alton. Now add the ~$35 electric bill for the bubbler from Nov-March at a minimum and you are at $175. Maintenance is probably $50 a year or less, so your inherent cost per year is ~$500. Live there for 40 years and your bill is now $20K. That is a heck of a lot for a 7 month a year dock.

Don't get me wrong, I wish I had a permanent dock, but it wasn't in the budget when we got our place.

FlyingScot 01-23-2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptT820 (Post 306712)
If you have a new dock and its assessed at full value it could be assessed for $20,000 which would still only be ~$280 a year in Alton. Now add the ~$35 electric bill for the bubbler from Nov-March at a minimum and you are at $175. Maintenance is probably $50 a year or less, so your inherent cost per year is ~$500. Live there for 40 years and your bill is now $20K. That is a heck of a lot for a 7 month a year dock.

Please don't remind us of the cost of the house attached to the dock. :eek:

Descant 01-23-2019 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptT820 (Post 306712)
No oversight here. I've had a seasonal dock for 4 years and have no tax on it and never have.

As noted earlier some towns tax TSD's others do not. I have a friend in Gilford whose tax card says he gets assessed $13000 for his temporary seasonal dock. I agree with those who suggest if it isn't there on April 1, it shouldn't be part of the assessment. Since a lot of towns hire outside contractors to do the assessments, I think their motivation is to be accurate. If they start shuffling your assessment around just to raise your taxes, there will be more appeals to the BLTA (Bureau of Land Tax Appeals, right?) and their reputation and business suffers.

TiltonBB 01-23-2019 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Descant (Post 306717)
If they start shuffling your assessment around just to raise your taxes, there will be more appeals to the BLTA (Bureau of Land Tax Appeals, right?) and their reputation and business suffers.

I am not sure who the Bureau of Land Tax Appeals is. I have never heard that term. When I appealed my tax assessment I went to the Gilford Board of Assessors. I brought in several examples of neighboring properties and they agreed to lower my assessment. It was relatively easy.

Descant 01-23-2019 09:44 PM

Btla
 
My error. Board of Land Tax Appeals for when you don't get local satisfaction.
https://www.nh.gov/btla/

tis 01-24-2019 06:02 AM

Tilton, if you don't get satisfaction from the town you can appeal to the Board of Land Appeals.

Woodsy 01-24-2019 09:16 AM

IMHO.... (and it is probably unpopular here)

If you have a dock, seasonal or not, it should be taxed accordingly. I do understand that a permanent dock would have a much greater value than a seasonal dock that gets cranked up or taken in and out.

Woodsy

loonguy 01-24-2019 09:27 AM

I agree that a dock, seasonal or permanent, enhances the value of the property and, consequently, should be reflected in the assessed value of lake front property. I recently replaced a permanent dock with a seasonal dock that gets cranked up and IMHO the seasonal dock is the better option; I no longer need to run a water circulator through the winter or be concerned about wind-blown ice damaging the dock. If I had a boathouse, I probably would have a different view, but that is not an option if your property does not have a boathouse that is grandfathered under prior law.

WJT2 01-24-2019 09:32 AM

Double Tax
 
You are already paying a property tax. The dock is attached to your property.
ENOUGH on NEW TAXES. :(

fatlazyless 01-24-2019 09:33 AM

From a January 19, 2019 article in the Union Leader, 'NH paid 314-million more to the feds than it received', every NH resident on average sent $11399 to the feds, and got back $11165 in federal services, or something; a difference of $234.

So, why not impose a NH state waterfront dock fee of $234/dock as a way to even it all out. By paying $234 to the state, and deducting it off your federal income tax, it will zero it out on an individual basis ...... and totally lessens the financial pain .... by turning it into a financial gain.

Is this pure genius or what! ........ :look:

Woodsy 01-24-2019 09:57 AM

WJT2.... I am not proposing anything "NEW". Just tax the value of the property accordingly including the dock.

Waterfront Property without a dock is worth $XX
Waterfront Property with a dock (Seasonal) is worth $XXx
Waterfront Property with a dock (Permanent) is worth $XXX

It is pretty simple...

Woodsy

BroadHopper 01-24-2019 10:32 AM

Food for thought
 
Normally 'permanent structures' are taxed by the state and or towns. Consider a dock that is removed during the winter months a 'temporary structure', maybe we can have docks reclassified?

MAXUM 01-24-2019 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless (Post 306740)
From a January 19, 2019 article in the Union Leader, 'NH paid 314-million more to the feds than it received', every NH resident on average sent $11399 to the feds, and got back $11165 in federal services, or something; a difference of $234.

So, why not impose a NH state waterfront dock fee of $234/dock as a way to even it all out. By paying $234 to the state, and deducting it off your federal income tax, it will zero it out on an individual basis ...... and totally lessens the financial pain .... by turning it into a financial gain.

Is this pure genius or what! ........ :look:

No taking a $234 federal tax deduction does not put the $234 bucks back in your pocket. It just means in theory that $234 is not subject to federal income tax which at the end of the day you might realize a fraction of a penny back in your pocket.... so no it is not a "zero out".

What would make more sense is impose a $234 fee on all welfare recipient benefits, they don't pay income taxes anyways so might as well have them pay their "fair share" of other peoples money.

tummyman 01-24-2019 12:21 PM

Somehow I think this subject got a little off track. I just read HB682 that was the original question. What I se is that the proposal increases the fees when you apply for a dock permit from $200 to the new amount of $400 plus changes the added fee of $2 per sq. ft of area to $6 for a permanent dock, and a fee change for seasonal docks from $1 to $3 per sq. ft of area changed. This is a fee that you pay to DES if you want a dock, or change your existing dock for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with property taxation. As I read it, let's say you want a permanent dock that is 6X40 or 240 sq. ft. The fee currently is $680. If this bill is passed, the fee would go to $1840....a substantial change. Or, if the permit is requested for a seasonal dock, the fee would go from $440 to $1120. These are substantial fee increases and not tax deductible. If you want to add a dock section of 6X10 ft, the fee for a seasonal dock would go from $$260 to $580. Same issues will happen if you apply for a permit to repair your dock, but that fee goes from $200 to $400 only. Message here....if you plan to do any repairs or expansion, get your permit requests in now before the fees change, as I believe the permits are valid for 5 years. BTW, theres is also a section (IVB) in HB682 that is not a complete sentence that may cap the fee at $300, so there may be more twists and turns.

The second item that this topic elicited responses to has to do with taxation of these structures. It is obvious that the taxation of a dock varies by town. Some towns do not tax at all. And taxation may or may not be shared as a Federal tax deduction, since property taxes are capped at $10,000. Separate topic.

Disclaimer....I am no lawyer and what I wrote above is just my best interpretation of what I read in HB682. Remember, these "bills" are written so folks have no idea what the legislature is doing. I certainly think others need to chime in to validate or refute the data I presented.

Descant 01-24-2019 03:12 PM

Disclaimer
 
I don't think you need to be a lawyer to figure out DES wants more money. Maybe a Finance Manager, LOL?

lagoon 02-04-2019 05:44 PM

Typical, it is a money grab disguised as protecting lakes. Those of us who have been here for many years work hard to ensure we are responsible to care for these beautiful lakes. This is a further example of driving out the middle class and have only the million dollar club left.

Descant 02-26-2019 10:18 AM

House votes Thursday
 
The House will vote Thursday, 2/28, on new dock and other related fees. Here are the pro and con committee reports. 10-9 look like a party line vote in committee, so the Democrat majority will probably pass it on the Floor of the House too.

HB 682-FN, establishing a water resources fund in the department of environmental services and charging
certain application and permit fees. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO
LEGISLATE.
Rep. Judith Spang for the Majority of Resources, Recreation and Development. The fee increases in this bill
are critical to the ability of the Department of Environmental Services (DES) to perform the responsibilities
the legislature and the federal government have charged them with. State general funds provide less than 9
percent of DESís operating budget. For development projects in-state, the agency relies solely on fees. By law,
the amount of fees, including those in HB 682, are capped relative to the actual cost to the agency of providing
the service. In 2018, legislation signed into law required DES to shorten the response time for applications for
wetlands, alteration of terrain, and dredge and fill permit requests by one-third to one-half. More staff had
to be hired. The legislature gave the agency no money to fulfill these shortened permitting times. This is on
top of 11 years with no fee increases, despite soaring costs of personnel and other expenses. Inadequate fees
means inadequate review of projects, delays or denial of permit applications, and possible loss of streamlining
of permits with federal agencies. The land development industry supported faster turnaround of their permit
requests and did not testify in committee opposing the fee increases in this bill. As for the rulemaking, the
fees must be set according to the actual costs of reviewing and acting on a wide variety of projects. Every
two years, the Commissioner of DES will review the fees to see if they have been adequate to cover program
expenses. If not, a detailed justification would be required through the RSA 541-A rulemaking process to get
approval for adjusting them. If there is an objection to the proposed fee increases or the rulemaking process,
the committee heard none from the affected industry. Vote 10-9.
Rep. Andrew Renzullo for the Minority of Resources, Recreation and Development. This bill has at least 20
new or increased fees. The Department of Environmental Services (DES) asserts that fees need to be adjusted
because they have not changed in over a decade. According to the fiscal note, the DES compared the revenue
from the existing fee structure ($1,865,677) to the revenue from the proposed structure in the bill ($4,852,256).
That is an increase of $2,986,679. So fees did not just double, they are close to triple what they are now. That
large a fee increase cannot be justified. Let us look at a few of these new fees or increased fees. Right now a
temporary seasonal dock is exempt from permitting requirements. It is a permit by notification. The fee is
$0. Under this bill the fee will be $300. The application fee for an excavating and dredging permit goes from
$200 to $400, plus an increase from $2 to $6 per square foot of permanent dock surface area, an increase
from $1 to $3 per square foot of seasonal dock surface, and an increase from $0.20 to $0.60 per square foot
for dredge and fill surface area. Also, the Department of Transportation calculated, based on the previous
three years, that the average increase in fees paid to DES by DOT would have been $148,512.73 (220.6%)
more each year for FY 2016 Ė FY 2018 had the proposed fees been in place. However, if these inordinately
large fee increases bother us, the DES has proposed a solution. The bill proposes that the Commissioner of
DES shall henceforth adjust the fees by rule. So we as legislators will never have to see them again. That is
a serious thing to contemplate and a betrayal of our duty to our constituents who expect us to monitor and
control the agencies of the government in their behalf. In closing, this bill is a very complicated, far reaching,
multi-faceted, and excessively expensive to New Hampshire citizens and businesses.

ACME on the Broads 03-04-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kawishiwi (Post 306569)
Oh my god! What a DISASTER!!! Um, well, I guess "...has a potential to be a disaster." is still a maybe ...DISASTER! Think of all the ruined lives! The number of people priced right out of their lakefront properties by this! We might not recover, if it happens, in ours, or even our childrens lifetimes. OH.THE.HUMANITY. I will be keeping all of you in my prayers...
First world problems?

Are you the father of AOC or just heating your house with exhaust fumes?

Descant 03-04-2019 10:54 PM

Passed
 
The bill passed the House 201-147 last Thursday, and now goes to the Ways and Means Committee. It was a roll Call vote so you can look on line to see how your Rep voted, but it was likely a party line vote for or against new or increased fees.

kawishiwi 03-05-2019 01:47 AM

Not as far as I know...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ACME on the Broads (Post 307960)
Are you the father of AOC or just heating your house with exhaust fumes?

I was making fun of people who grossly over react to relatively trivial concerns. You know the type, the ones who angrily think western civilization is actually about to topple if anyone does or thinks differently from them in any way no matter how small. They see everything as a DISASTER, and, they get so VERY ANGRY about it.

So...I employed a little hyperbole to point out the ridiculousness of the over re-action. So...of course...the response was to further raise the minor issue at hand into some grander philosophical/politcal issue to justify their original freak out. Some people just have zero self awareness & are very very upset...about everything, all the time.

Major 03-05-2019 09:20 AM

It's not a one-way street
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kawishiwi (Post 307968)
I was making fun of people who grossly over react to relatively trivial concerns. You know the type, the ones who angrily think western civilization is actually about to topple if anyone does or thinks differently from them in any way no matter how small. They see everything as a DISASTER, and, they get so VERY ANGRY about it.

So...I employed a little hyperbole to point out the ridiculousness of the over re-action. So...of course...the response was to further raise the minor issue at hand into some grander philosophical/politcal issue to justify their original freak out. Some people just have zero self awareness & are very very upset...about everything, all the time.

What "type" are you talking about? It's not just conservatives who get concerned about issues such as the resurgence of socialism talk. (It's hard to believe people actually believe in this nonsense.)

Anyway, try talking to a good liberal about the fictions of manmade climate change, wealth inequality, white privilege, etc. You want to see anger and freaking out!

FlyingScot 03-05-2019 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major (Post 307974)
Anyway, try talking to a good liberal about the fictions of manmade climate change, wealth inequality, white privilege, etc. You want to see anger and freaking out!

Anger? Maybe ROFL--I'm sure none of us on this board have ever seen any evidence of manmade climate change, or wealth inequality, or advantages of being white in our society.

Major 03-05-2019 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingScot (Post 307978)
Anger? Maybe ROFL--I'm sure none of us on this board have ever seen any evidence of manmade climate change, or wealth inequality, or advantages of being white in our society.

I am happy to provide amusement whenever possible!

Regarding climate change, our records go back 150 or so years. Based on this limited sample size, how can anyone determine that manmade climate change exists? We know where we live was once a tropical paradise and once covered by a glacier, so we know climate change does exist. My point is that with the such small sample size how does anyone know that it can be caused by man. Remember, in the 1970s, all we heard about was the danger of global cooling. So things change. (That said, I am not an advocate of pollution, and would support efforts to reduce/eliminate pollution.)

Regarding wealth inequality, during my lifetime the playing field has been slanted to help the disadvantaged. I could name countless federal and state programs designed to help people improve their lot in life. What has that achieved? Nothing. The successful people I know are hard working, somewhat intelligent, willing to take risks, and resilient. No one of these traits guarantees success. However, anyone, and I mean anyone, who employs these traits stands a good chance of achieving some level of success. Wealth inequality, especially in the United States, has more to do with the person in the mirror than institutional forces working against success.

Regarding white privilege, this is just silly, especially over the past 50 years. As mentioned above, affirmative action and federal programs designed to help people of color are actually examples of reverse discrimination and should be unconstitutional. Notwithstanding, what is the result of all of these programs? Things are worse than ever. Not because of ones skin color, but because of the degradation of our institutional structure, such as family, church and community. In the Army, where the playing field is as level as anywhere, I can assure you there was no such thing as white privilege. I certainly never witnessed it. Each person was evaluated and promoted on his or her own merit.

kawishiwi 03-06-2019 12:24 AM

Wow
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Major (Post 307982)
I am happy to provide amusement whenever possible!

Regarding climate change, our records go back 150 or so years. Based on this limited sample size, how can anyone determine that manmade climate change exists? We know where we live was once a tropical paradise and once covered by a glacier, so we know climate change does exist. My point is that with the such small sample size how does anyone know that it can be caused by man. Remember, in the 1970s, all we heard about was the danger of global cooling. So things change. (That said, I am not an advocate of pollution, and would support efforts to reduce/eliminate pollution.)

Regarding wealth inequality, during my lifetime the playing field has been slanted to help the disadvantaged. I could name countless federal and state programs designed to help people improve their lot in life. What has that achieved? Nothing. The successful people I know are hard working, somewhat intelligent, willing to take risks, and resilient. No one of these traits guarantees success. However, anyone, and I mean anyone, who employs these traits stands a good chance of achieving some level of success. Wealth inequality, especially in the United States, has more to do with the person in the mirror than institutional forces working against success.

Regarding white privilege, this is just silly, especially over the past 50 years. As mentioned above, affirmative action and federal programs designed to help people of color are actually examples of reverse discrimination and should be unconstitutional. Notwithstanding, what is the result of all of these programs? Things are worse than ever. Not because of ones skin color, but because of the degradation of our institutional structure, such as family, church and community. In the Army, where the playing field is as level as anywhere, I can assure you there was no such thing as white privilege. I certainly never witnessed it. Each person was evaluated and promoted on his or her own merit.

You sound like a Fox News Hallucination digest.

Puck 03-06-2019 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kawishiwi (Post 308000)
You sound like a Fox News Hallucination digest.

I probably don't agree with much of what Major says, but I don't have enough of a problem with him saying it to take the time to argue about it. This comment is another matter. Our problem isn't that we have people who don't believe in man-made climate change or that we have people who think socialism might not be so bad after all. Our problem is that too many people are too thin-skinned and self-righteous to accept that a person with a different opinion than their own might have some legitimate points, and they're too lazy or dim-witted to craft a persuasive agreement in favor of their own position so they just resort to throwing insults. If insults are all you have, please don't bother. It doesn't help. It simply makes it look like you and, by association, your stated position are weak and indefensible.

TiltonBB 03-06-2019 09:21 AM

Global Warming
 
"Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."

"Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable."

I apologize.

I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 97 years ago.

These events might have been caused by Ford Model T emissions or possibly from horse gas releases.

radar4401 03-07-2019 10:26 AM

proposed dock fees
 
I don't think that anyone has an issue with climate change. The problem that people have is man made climate change and what we can do to help the situation. If the US makes draconian changes in our use of fossil fuels, does that solve the problem. I don't think so. It will only make a couple of tenths of a degree change. The real problem is with China and India who are increasing their output. Killing our economy without their cooperation in this situation does nothing but ruin our economy without doing much good. I don't hear anyone talking about getting their cooperation. My 2 cents worth.:liplick:

FlyingScot 03-07-2019 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radar4401 (Post 308047)
I don't think that anyone has an issue with climate change. The problem that people have is man made climate change and what we can do to help the situation. If the US makes draconian changes in our use of fossil fuels, does that solve the problem. I don't think so. It will only make a couple of tenths of a degree change. The real problem is with China and India who are increasing their output. Killing our economy without their cooperation in this situation does nothing but ruin our economy without doing much good. I don't hear anyone talking about getting their cooperation. My 2 cents worth.:liplick:


I agree completely that we need cooperation from India and China, that is the goal of the Paris Agreement which was signed by all 3 countries, and dozens of others. But with Trump saying the US will withdraw, we have given away our authority and leverage here.

MAXUM 03-07-2019 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingScot (Post 308065)
I agree completely that we need cooperation from India and China, that is the goal of the Paris Agreement which was signed by all 3 countries, and dozens of others. But with Trump saying the US will withdraw, we have given away our authority and leverage here.

When every one else in the world understands that neither country gives a damn about climate change. That's reality. Some feel good phony agreement isn't going to incentivize them to change what they are doing. What gets their attention is putting financial pressure on them. That gives us real leverage. It'd be a heck of a lot more effective if others did the same thing.

CaptT820 03-08-2019 08:48 AM

Change
 
Agreed. The US needs to do our part regardless of what India and China do, but we do need to put pressure on them (by whatever means) to get them to change. 40% of the world population lives in two nations who do not really have any limiting factors to industrial growth. We may have a shot getting India to change, but China is a whole different story. When dealing with a communist country who likes capitalism, the solution will need to be multi-faceted and well thought out.

Lakegeezer 03-11-2019 08:00 AM

Climate change is local change
 
The hike in fees is one way to get more funds and DES needs more funds to help protect the state's natural resources. Locally, we can't do much about global climate change but DES can help us act locally. Many people have already noticed the impact of what human development is doing to our lakes. Silt and nutrients from increased storm water run-off are aging the lakes, much faster than if we weren't here. Clean sandy bottoms are turning to muck. Water clarity is down and color is up. Fish populations are down and invasive species are up. The thousands of home and driveway cuts into the lake and the matrix of poorly maintained private roads contribute to the problem. Add to that the impact of global climate change, including shorter winters (this one excluded) and more frequent heavy rain storms, and we can clearly see the local impact. Better education about best practices, along with requirements to use best practices and better enforcement in wetlands are what we can do locally. What we do today will make a difference in 2100 - and only with a well funded DES will this happen.

Biggd 03-11-2019 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingScot (Post 308065)
I agree completely that we need cooperation from India and China, that is the goal of the Paris Agreement which was signed by all 3 countries, and dozens of others. But with Trump saying the US will withdraw, we have given away our authority and leverage here.

When I was little my mother would yell at me to clean up my room. My response was, my sister does't clean her room so why do I have to clean mine. The easiest thing to do is to do nothing!

webmaster 03-11-2019 09:51 AM

Would it do any good to remind everyone that the topic of this thread is "New/proposed dock fees"?

Descant 03-11-2019 11:01 AM

Today in Legislature
 
COMMISSION TO STUDY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENT STATUTES RELATED TO
MANAGEMENT OF NON-TIDAL PUBLIC WATERWAYS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OR PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES WITHIN THEM (RSA 482-A:35), Room 305, LOB
1:00 p.m. Regular meeting

Maybe Shore Things is attending and will let us know what went on?

shore things 03-15-2019 01:14 PM

What was scheduled to be a 1 hour talk explaining how and why the state became involved in dock permitting, what requires permitting now, and the underlying principles governing how decisions on applications are made turned into a little over 2 hours. It went so long because there was a fair amount of questions and discussion among those in attendance. The powerpoint presentation should be posted on the Commission's website soon if has not been already.

Descant 03-15-2019 03:57 PM

Link?
 
Do you have a link to the Commission website? TIA

shore things 03-16-2019 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Descant (Post 308295)
Do you have a link to the Commission website? TIA

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/stat...mmittees/1400/

Descant 03-16-2019 10:01 PM

Thank you. Hope you get overtime for working on Saturday.

Dad sold the C * C 03-17-2019 06:11 AM

Thank you, interesting reading.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.