New Waterfront Tax proposed HB 629-FN

[hemlock]

So
Just got wind of a new tax plan to supposedly upgrade State owned dams.
Now they want to put a tax of 1.58 per shorefront foot per year on every lake front where there is a state owned dam. Also they want to add another 5 dollar fee on every boat registration!
Personally this certainly affects me as I own 1034 shorefront feet on Winni.
Sounds great right? The shore front consists of two unbuildable .05 acre small islands of rocks about 125 feet long each and 540 feet of muddy and weedy frontage where my seasonal camp is located. So I would need to annually spend $1633.00 to supposedly repair and maintain the hydroelectric generating dam at Lakeport. I would like to know what happened to the money already appropriated? Also is there a plan to tax Eagle Creek Renewable Energy the owner of these 4 hydroelectric facilities on the Winnipesaukee river?

Thoughts anybody?

[upthesaukee]

A hearing is scheduled for Feb 5 at 130pm.

Dave

[hemlock]

So it looks like 30 million has been specifically allocated for this purpose already?


https://www.des.nh.gov/news-and-medi...-andor-removal

[tis]

You know as I have said before where is the point of no return? Waterfront is already bad enough and they think people will just keep paying and paying? There are also a couple of proposed bills for state education tax that wil be $5 per thousand. We better start sending a message to these people that it needs to stop. Stop the spending.

[hemlock]

So there has already been a study committee for this and they have recommended this bill. Clearly they have looked at the waterfront owners as ripe for the plucking. NH owns many dams that truly need maintenance and repair. There is human hazard to consider here. The Legislature needs to step up and appropriate general funds or bonds for specific projects as DES dam safety engineers recommend. They can spend 30 million on a parking garage in Concord as a priority??? DES Dam bureau has a handle on what needs to be done.
Infrastructure projects like these that protect human life are too important to not be prioritized at the legislative level. Justification for the fee is that lakefront owners benefit from the increased value of their recreational waterfront. I would think that downstream landowners benefit more from reducing the possibility of catastrophic flooding and death. This needs to be rethought.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by hemlock

So
Just got wind of a new tax plan to supposedly upgrade State owned dams.
Now they want to put a tax of 1.58 per shorefront foot per year on every lake front where there is a state owned dam. Also they want to add another 5 dollar fee on every boat registration!
Personally this certainly affects me as I own 1034 shorefront feet on Winni.
Sounds great right? The shore front consists of two unbuildable .05 acre small islands of rocks about 125 feet long each and 540 feet of muddy and weedy frontage where my seasonal camp is located. So I would need to annually spend $1633.00 to supposedly repair and maintain the hydroelectric generating dam at Lakeport. I would like to know what happened to the money already appropriated? Also is there a plan to tax Eagle Creek Renewable Energy the owner of these 4 hydroelectric facilities on the Winnipesaukee river?

Thoughts anybody?

If Eagle Creek owns the dam, then it is not a State-owned dam; and the new tax revenue does not go to those dams.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by hemlock

..waterfront owners as ripe for the plucking.

that sums it up right there. And don't think for a second that they care if you sell out - someone will come in right after you to buy. There is always new money to buy. The shame is that folks just trying to hold onto a family place will get the bum's rush...

[tis]

Originally Posted by TomC

that sums it up right there. And don't think for a second that they care if you sell out - someone will come in right after you to buy. There is always new money to buy. The shame is that folks just trying to hold onto a family place will get the bum's rush...

But how far can they go before people say it just isn't worth it anymore-especially if you only use it a couple of months a year?? I do think if taxes get high enough there won't be buyers. I have a friend selling right now because she can't afford the taxes and she is heartbroken because she loves it and it has been in her family for a long time.

[hemlock]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If Eagle Creek owns the dam, then it is not a State-owned dam; and the new tax revenue does not go to those dams.

You are right John. The dams are owned by the state and leased to the hydroelectric operator who is responsible for maintenance of the dam. Discussions in committee on getting more revenue from them has been nixed because the State is afraid they will walk away from the leases and not continue to maintain the dams. Begs the question. Why tax Winnipesaukee waterfront for maintenance on the Lakeport dam when its already being maintained?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

But how far can they go before people say it just isn't worth it anymore-especially if you only use it a couple of months a year?? I do think if taxes get high enough there won't be buyers. I have a friend selling right now because she can't afford the taxes and she is heartbroken because she loves it and it has been in her family for a long time.

More and more properties will go to short term rentals. Properties will seek exceptions and subdivide. where there was one dock, there will be three. Those who can't subdivide can make themselves a condo.

The bill sponsors are: Leishman (D, Peterborough), Harrington, (R-Strafford) and Ouellett, (R-Colebrook).

[Descant]

In 2021 it was announced that we (NH) would get $35 MM for dam rebuilding and repairs to state dams. $5MM of that was to go towards municipally owned dams. I see that Northwood Meadows Dam, which failed in 2014 and again in 2018 is scheduled for repairs in 2025 and the lake level was lowered last fall for that purpose. That was planned to cost $600,000 in 2022. Don't know what it will cost now or where hat money will come from. Who owns that dam?
Nevertheless, the initial appearance to me is that HB629-FN will likely raise a lot of money every year, and the legislature will drain it off over the years for other purposes.

If I read the Fiscal Note to the bill correctly, it will generate $8MM annually in revenue and $300,000 a year will be spent on maintenance. Somebody needs to explain this to me as a good plan.

[garysanfran]

For over 60 years I have watched lakefront homes get sold because of the increasing property tax.

Do any town officials care?

Very much so. They'd love to see you go.

The home will be bought by someone with more money than the displaced owner/seller and they'll do higher-end shopping. Restaurants will benefit as will other retail establishments. The town will get increased revenue with fewer complaints from the new owners.

Of course that also has meant bigger and faster boats...Then a need to increase the size of the public docks.

[hemlock]

As I review this more closely this is being structured as a registration fee tacked on the law that allows boat registrations. So you are not paying a tax you are paying a fee to register your shore frontage but only on those lakes where there is a state owned dam.

So whats the difference?

Apparently the state constitution requires that taxes be proportional so all kinds of safeguards are put in place such as abatement rules, Superior Court appeals, The Bureau of Land and Tax appeals etc. This would avoid all those pesky details.

As a friend of mine noted this is the Live Fee or Die State.

[John Mercier]

Well, all that means is death is an option.
Funny how many don't choose that option.

The difference is that with a government owned dam... the option could be to breach the dam, as we did in Belmont, and you no longer have waterfront property.

That would in thesis prevent that option from happening.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

For over 60 years I have watched lakefront homes get sold because of the increasing property tax.

Do any town officials care?

Very much so. They'd love to see you go.

The home will be bought by someone with more money than the displaced owner/seller and they'll do higher-end shopping. Restaurants will benefit as will other retail establishments. The town will get increased revenue with fewer complaints from the new owners.

Of course that also has meant bigger and faster boats...Then a need to increase the size of the public docks.

And, the BOS likes the newbies because they can't/don't vote.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

In 2021 it was announced that we (NH) would get $35 MM for dam rebuilding and repairs to state dams. $5MM of that was to go towards municipally owned dams. I see that Northwood Meadows Dam, which failed in 2014 and again in 2018 is scheduled for repairs in 2025 and the lake level was lowered last fall for that purpose. That was planned to cost $600,000 in 2022. Don't know what it will cost now or where hat money will come from. Who owns that dam?
Nevertheless, the initial appearance to me is that HB629-FN will likely raise a lot of money every year, and the legislature will drain it off over the years for other purposes.

If I read the Fiscal Note to the bill correctly, it will generate $8MM annually in revenue and $300,000 a year will be spent on maintenance. Somebody needs to explain this to me as a good plan.

$300,000 per year will be spent on administration.
The remainder would flow into the dedicated fund.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

More and more properties will go to short term rentals. Properties will seek exceptions and subdivide. where there was one dock, there will be three. Those who can't subdivide can make themselves a condo.

The bill sponsors are: Leishman (D, Peterborough), Harrington, (R-Strafford) and Ouellett, (R-Colebrook).

Yes which is already exactly why so many ARE renting-they need it just to pay their taxes.

[WinnisquamZ]

How does one place a tax on just waterfront owners to maintain dams when everyone benefits from a well maintained dam? Using this logic can’t a city or town apply a tax to only those property owners that have children in school? It’s only fair


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[TomC]

if only our elected officials were as concerned with the 'outgo' side of the equation... they go to work to dream up new ways to separate us saps from our money to feed their insatiable appetite to spend, spend, spend.

[John Mercier]

A town (municipality) can not tax as it desires.
The State can, as long as it follows constitutional restrictions.

[LIforrelaxin]

While Maybe it is time for New Hampshire to change its slogan.... From:

Live Free or Die

to,

Live Free, Get Taxed like the rest of America, or Die........

Some day someone is going to realize that the state needs to figure out better revenue streams..... The days of NH being able to rely solely on Property Tax, are numbered..... As Property Tax goes up for lake property owners, it also continues to go up for those with out lake front property. When I feel I can no longer afford the lake property I will sell it.....No big deal... What about the people that live in NH full time.... What will they do? Where will the Grocery Store workers, landscapers etc go when housing is no longer affordable....

At the end of the day, it is time for NH to evolve......

[AC2717]

so let me get the straight to see if I can sum up what this bill is:

Bill is to raise boat fees another $5, and $1.58 per foot of waterfront on bodies of water that are dammed.
and this money generated will go to maintenance of the dams, but the dams are
1 - Leased out by the state to private companies because they make money off the electricity that is produced from the dams by selling it to users in the state.
2- the leases include that these private companies have with the state has in them that the company is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the dams
3 - waterfront property is being tasked to bear the cost of these dams but the dams benefit every single property in a flood zone of said dams that are not flooded because the dam is there and maybe of the waterfront property would no longer be water front if said dam was let go but others would be flooded out and become the water front. Also those that are not because of revenue generated by the bodies of water including commercial/retail property
4 - boaters are being asked to bear a cost as well whether on that body of water or not
5- there was already a $30 million allocation the state has set aside to do said repairs that the private companies as supposed to be paying for to begin with
6 - $300,000 of this annual tax will go to the administration of handing out this tax and moving the funds when there is already people in place to hand tax assessing and handing out the money (which with the other new boat fee was proven they couldn't do that correctly to begin with)


So my questions added to my understandings/questions above:
1 - explain to me where have taxes for how many years passed have been allocated for infrastructure like it is supposed to be already
2 - why are select tax payers having this taxed forced on them when every single property has interaction with said dams (commerce, value, irrigation, food, etc...)
3 - why is it not recommended by committee for the companies that are in a legal contract with the State being held to the contract they signed and agreed to as they are being and if not why are no suits being filed against them for breach of contract
4- would this not result in a class action lawsuit against the state for an unfair tax burden? causing more expense to the state and tax payers

I'm sure there are more questions to add to this, and this needs to be known to the public

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

While Maybe it is time for New Hampshire to change its slogan.... From:

Live Free or Die

to,

Live Free, Get Taxed like the rest of America, or Die........

Some day someone is going to realize that the state needs to figure out better revenue streams..... The days of NH being able to rely solely on Property Tax, are numbered..... As Property Tax goes up for lake property owners, it also continues to go up for those with out lake front property. When I feel I can no longer afford the lake property I will sell it.....No big deal... What about the people that live in NH full time.... What will they do? Where will the Grocery Store workers, landscapers etc go when housing is no longer affordable....

At the end of the day, it is time for NH to evolve......

NH is one of the least tax burdened states in the country…I believe we currently rank at #5. We must be doing something right! Moving to a state where property taxes are lower but other taxes more than makeup for our high property tax makes no sense at all as you are just spending more money!

I’ll take NH any day!

Dan

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by AC2717

so let me get the straight to see if I can sum up what this bill is:

Bill is to raise boat fees another $5, and $1.58 per foot of waterfront on bodies of water that are dammed.
and this money generated will go to maintenance of the dams, but the dams are
1 - Leased out by the state to private companies because they make money off the electricity that is produced from the dams by selling it to users in the state.
2- the leases include that these private companies have with the state has in them that the company is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the dams
3 - waterfront property is being tasked to bear the cost of these dams but the dams benefit every single property in a flood zone of said dams that are not flooded because the dam is there and maybe of the waterfront property would no longer be water front if said dam was let go but others would be flooded out and become the water front. Also those that are not because of revenue generated by the bodies of water including commercial/retail property
4 - boaters are being asked to bear a cost as well whether on that body of water or not
5- there was already a $30 million allocation the state has set aside to do said repairs that the private companies as supposed to be paying for to begin with
6 - $300,000 of this annual tax will go to the administration of handing out this tax and moving the funds when there is already people in place to hand tax assessing and handing out the money (which with the other new boat fee was proven they couldn't do that correctly to begin with)


So my questions added to my understandings/questions above:
1 - explain to me where have taxes for how many years passed have been allocated for infrastructure like it is supposed to be already
2 - why are select tax payers having this taxed forced on them when every single property has interaction with said dams (commerce, value, irrigation, food, etc...)
3 - why is it not recommended by committee for the companies that are in a legal contract with the State being held to the contract they signed and agreed to as they are being and if not why are no suits being filed against them for breach of contract
4- would this not result in a class action lawsuit against the state for an unfair tax burden? causing more expense to the state and tax payers

I'm sure there are more questions to add to this, and this needs to be known to the public

When we breach a dam, flooding does not occur.
Belmont breached the dam. It simply allowed the water to flow out in a controlled method until low enough to remove the dam.

If Lakeport was to have a situation that it became high risk, they would just keep the flood gates open as much as they could without swamping downstream... even when no new rain was predicted to lower the lake enough to do the maintenance or to breach and remove the dam.

Or course, if you lower Winnipesaukee by the depth of that dam, interesting navigational challenges and changes in shorefront happen.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

When we breach a dam, flooding does not occur.
Belmont breached the dam. It simply allowed the water to flow out in a controlled method until low enough to remove the dam.

If Lakeport was to have a situation that it became high risk, they would just keep the flood gates open as much as they could without swamping downstream... even when no new rain was predicted to lower the lake enough to do the maintenance or to breach and remove the dam.

Or course, if you lower Winnipesaukee by the depth of that dam, interesting navigational challenges and changes in shorefront happen.

Fully understand I was using flood to explain my stance with idenified flood zones off of dammed water ways and benefits of such dams across the state

[tummyman]

Not to late to file your comments to the committee before the hearing tomorrow. Use the form below...date of hearing is Feb5th. Committee is Recreation, Resources, etc. etc.

https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/r...y/default.aspx


Here is what I submitted.......short and to the point!!.
This bill is just another money grab against waterfront property owners. It is often said the waters of NH are PUBLIC PROPERTY. I DO NOT own the waters....the State of NH does. These are YOUR dams, NOT mine !! Therefore if you need the revenue, TAX THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, not just target the landowners. This bill totally discriminates against a narrow population while the dams impact the entire state. Please stop this NONSENSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Not to late to file your comments to the committee before the hearing tomorrow. Use the form below...date of hearing is Feb5th. Committee is Recreation, Resources, etc. etc.

https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/r...y/default.aspx


Here is what I submitted.......short and to the point!!.
This bill is just another money grab against waterfront property owners. It is often said the waters of NH are PUBLIC PROPERTY. I DO NOT own the waters....the State of NH does. These are YOUR dams, NOT mine !! Therefore if you need the revenue, TAX THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, not just target the landowners. This bill totally discriminates against a narrow population while the dams impact the entire state. Please stop this NONSENSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

done and done and shared
when selecting committee - select House Resources, Recreations & Development

Bill number is: HB629

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Not to late to file your comments to the committee before the hearing tomorrow. Use the form below...date of hearing is Feb5th. Committee is Recreation, Resources, etc. etc.

https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/r...y/default.aspx


Here is what I submitted.......short and to the point!!.
This bill is just another money grab against waterfront property owners. It is often said the waters of NH are PUBLIC PROPERTY. I DO NOT own the waters....the State of NH does. These are YOUR dams, NOT mine !! Therefore if you need the revenue, TAX THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, not just target the landowners. This bill totally discriminates against a narrow population while the dams impact the entire state. Please stop this NONSENSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason for the bill is that same as our arguments in Belmont.
Instead of spending taxpayer money, draw it down, breach it, and remove it.

[hemlock]

Sent comments
Whos next?

[Lakes Region Guy]

With all the talk recently about the lake level and now the proposed lakefront dam repair charge. I googled the Lakeport dam. It's anywhere from 9-11 ft high, 200+ ft wide. the original dam was constructed back in the 1800's.
My question is if the dam was removed how much would Winnipesaukee drop?I'm guessing about 7ft.

[John Mercier]

DES has it at about 14 in the middle,
But at 9-11 ft, it would depend on the refill rate to the depth.
So 7 ft wouldn't be an unreasonable guess.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by hemlock

So
...
Now they want to put a tax of 1.58 per shorefront foot per year on every lake front where there is a state owned dam.

According to an article in the LDS (per a quick search), Moultonborough alone has 66 miles of shorefront. Straight math: 66 * 5280 * $1.58 = $550 million, and every year ???

[John Mercier]

Are you sure you have the decimal point in the right spot?

[C-Bass]

$550k sounds more like it

[hemlock]

So DES came up with a complicated formula to measure shorefront because in their opinion too many people were measuring every rock angle spit and indent to come up with actual frontage to allow them more docks.
So in a recent shoreland protection application for a family island camp this is how it went.

Deed from 1965 says 100 feet frontage. Surveyor measured 102 actual along the shoreline. Pin to pin was 73 feet (lot included a point of land).

DES calculation was this. 73+102=175/2=87.5 feet of frontage.

So the fee proposal is to use tax card info from the towns for invoicing. Tax card says 100 feet. I assume thats what we get taxed. Now who to I go to for an abatement? DES? The Town? BTLA? Superior Court? Is there even a process to abate fees? Talk about a can of worms!

[DickR]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Are you sure you have the decimal point in the right spot?

Hoo Boy, is this embarrassing. What a mis-read from the calculator! Three orders of magnitude off, and this from an ex-engineer!

[fatlazyless]

Ya know ...... when you consider the long time N.H. interest and dividend tax ..... http://www.revenue.nh.gov/news-and-m...tax-now-effect ..... was eliminated, effective January 1, 2025 ..... this newly proposed HB-629-FN for repairing the state's aging dams should be totally welcome and appreciated by everyone. ......

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by hemlock

So DES came up with a complicated formula to measure shorefront because in their opinion too many people were measuring every rock angle spit and indent to come up with actual frontage to allow them more docks.
So in a recent shoreland protection application for a family island camp this is how it went.

Deed from 1965 says 100 feet frontage. Surveyor measured 102 actual along the shoreline. Pin to pin was 73 feet (lot included a point of land).

DES calculation was this. 73+102=175/2=87.5 feet of frontage.

So the fee proposal is to use tax card info from the towns for invoicing. Tax card says 100 feet. I assume thats what we get taxed. Now who to I go to for an abatement? DES? The Town? BTLA? Superior Court? Is there even a process to abate fees? Talk about a can of worms!

Town. The town controls the tax card.

[KPW]

https://gc.nh.gov/house/committees/r...y/default.aspx

Flood it! Pun intended.

[AC2717]

so even better, there is no land tax on condo/home associations, so how does their water frontage work??

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

so even better, there is no land tax on condo/home associations, so how does their water frontage work??

It is taxed, each owner in the association gets a portion on their bill.
I remember being in an association with a large waterfront lot on Winnisquam, in Sanbornton many years ago. The waterfront tax bill went to the association, but they eventually had it changed because the association had such a hard time collecting the money. So, it got divided up on each member's tax bill. I can't remember if it was listed separately on the bill, but the increase was there.

[VitaBene]

The rich people bought many old school family camps and built McMansions. Now the ultra rich are here and they will buy the rich people out.

[The Real BigGuy]

Comment submitted. Hope everyone submits!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

It is taxed, each owner in the association gets a portion on their bill.
I remember being in an association with a large waterfront lot on Winnisquam, in Sanbornton many years ago. The waterfront tax bill went to the association, but they eventually had it changed because the association had such a hard time collecting the money. So, it got divided up on each member's tax bill. I can't remember if it was listed separately on the bill, but the increase was there.

I know there is a formula in Laconia and its built into your building/unit tax, but it is based on area you cover so to speak.

[P-3 Guy]

The hearing is scheduled for 1:30 this afternoon.

If you are interested enough and have the time, hearings are livestreamed on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxq...oWRL_5vyaQDtvQ

You want House Resources, Recreation and Development.

[Descant]

The hearing just concluded about 2:30. If I heard the numbers correctly 27 people wrote in opposition and 4 in favor. Most of the public testimony came from those with an intertest in conservation land, the Timbertland Association, Forest Society, etc. To them, the bill is not clear about whether conservation land will be taxed and the cost may be prohibitive relative to the income from conservation land, if any. The NH Realtors Association was more definitive in opposition, noting the numbers of people with camps that are already burdened with high taxes. As a state tax, it is unclear if there is an abatement process as there is with a town property tax. It was noted that taxing only shorefront landowners when so many others benefit from impounded waters who do not own waterfront land, mostly recreational users. It was pointed out that dam maintenance in recent years has been funded through the capital budget (bonds). Nobody from what I would call the general public testified.

The Resources committee will vote on the bill next week, so not a lot of time to draft amendments. If passed, it will go to a second committee, (Ways and Means or Finance).

[John Mercier]

Wouldn't the recreational users be boaters?
I thought there was something in the bill that equates to them.

I am guessing that I would pay more into my property taxes for our town beach (not 100% certain of that).

[Descant]

$5 added to boat registration. To me recreational users are swimmers, kayaks, fishermen who don't use a powerboat, etc. They all benefit from the impounded waters but are not paying the way the shorefront owners would be.

[AC2717]

I was able to listen to the first 40 minutes of it before a meeting, and Descant's summation is great, thank you.

I am surprised that these questions didn't come up:
- Why were the updates and maintenance upgrades done during the leases that were supposed to be apart of the leases
- how did the state knowing and understanding these dams were from the 1800s and 1900s why has nothing been done prior the area was not developed overnight
- if previous maintenance was paid for under bonds, what was actually done
- why is it just the water front owners - the whole state benefits from these dams with tourism, commerce, you name it, without the dams there would be tourism so to speak except for skiing.
- the flood maps show flood plans with results from dams being breach with flood waters- everyone down stream due to development could be considered in this - how DES could say that people are not in flood planes if dam breached is odd to me
- $400,000 million needed but want to take 50 years - wont we be in the same position.
- did not like that they threatened if they don't do this they would just draw down lake ie example Winnipesaukee would drop by 10 feet - great is DES going to allow property owners to extend their docks out to use what they are being taxed on

- many more questions and rebuttals but those were just my top ones

I recognize that dams need to be worked on and managed and the Blame game doesn't solve anything, but I'm sorry I fail to see where everyone in the state does not benefit from the Dams - without the tourism that brings all the tax money, jobs, retail, commerce, everything which also by the way controls value of the property which generates the property tax with market values

Tourism is the second largest industry in NH

[Descant]

AC2717, Glad you saw this and that we heard pretty much the same thing. I missed just a bit of Rep. Leishman's opening, but it appears the committee that was studying the dam issue thought having everybody pay for dams (bonds) was giving more benefit to shorefront landowners and not so much to the rest of the state. Rep. Leishman (D-Peterborough) had a handout that we didn't see, and I imagine the RR & D committee may also have seen, at least, an executive summary of the report.

Some years ago, I would have expected this bill to be DOA as the House majority was firm on "No new taxes". With no significant majority, what happens in the House these days depends on who shows up. If 5-6 people aren't in their seats, the other side on any issue can prevail. The Senate majority is not that close, so I expect followers will see some crazy bills come out of the House and the Senate w4isill have to clean things up.

Some years ago I was told the ability to
sell bonds, at a level where we had cash to pay and not destroy our good credit rating, was about $85 million. At the same time, there were requests and plans in the works for about $400 Million in bond payments. Many nice projects get turned down every year, it appears. The Capital budget includes, I think, things like school building aid, and it may be somewhat unpredictable which towns will build new schools in any given year. Highway bonds are separate, I think, since they are funded by gas tax.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

$5 added to boat registration. To me recreational users are swimmers, kayaks, fishermen who don't use a powerboat, etc. They all benefit from the impounded waters but are not paying the way the shorefront owners would be.

Anglers don't really need impounded waters.
Swimmers I would presume would either be venturing out from a boat, private waterfront, or public waterfront like a beach (not sure if they were including those in the process).
Kayakers may see a problem... but hard to tell.

If we simply remove the dams, saving the cost of maintenance, I think we would still have swimmers, anglers, and kayakers, even private waterfront and boating.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I was able to listen to the first 40 minutes of it before a meeting, and Descant's summation is great, thank you.

I am surprised that these questions didn't come up:
- Why were the updates and maintenance upgrades done during the leases that were supposed to be apart of the leases
- how did the state knowing and understanding these dams were from the 1800s and 1900s why has nothing been done prior the area was not developed overnight
- if previous maintenance was paid for under bonds, what was actually done
- why is it just the water front owners - the whole state benefits from these dams with tourism, commerce, you name it, without the dams there would be tourism so to speak except for skiing.
- the flood maps show flood plans with results from dams being breach with flood waters- everyone down stream due to development could be considered in this - how DES could say that people are not in flood planes if dam breached is odd to me
- $400,000 million needed but want to take 50 years - wont we be in the same position.
- did not like that they threatened if they don't do this they would just draw down lake ie example Winnipesaukee would drop by 10 feet - great is DES going to allow property owners to extend their docks out to use what they are being taxed on

- many more questions and rebuttals but those were just my top ones

I recognize that dams need to be worked on and managed and the Blame game doesn't solve anything, but I'm sorry I fail to see where everyone in the state does not benefit from the Dams - without the tourism that brings all the tax money, jobs, retail, commerce, everything which also by the way controls value of the property which generates the property tax with market values

Tourism is the second largest industry in NH

They breach, you get more land.

[Susie Cougar]

Waterfront owners can easily figure out what they would be expected to pay. I’m just curious if anyone has figured out what everyone would pay if they also tax non-waterfront properties. It seems to me it would be a very small amount, so that it would not be a burden for anyone.

[John Mercier]

That becomes a political issue.
Then you have a statewide property tax that is not held by the municipality, but remitted to the State DRA for redistribution.

It starts to undermine the current position on that issue.

They also have a problem in the general funds, as the budget year runs from July 1st to June 30th, and the broader taxation numbers are tanking.
We have enough of a budget surplus to cover what we know from the first quarter (07/01 to 09/30), but not the numbers on the second quarter to see if that was a blip.

Legislation takes a while to get through, so from a budgeting standpoint, they are looking for new revenue without shifting the argument on the two court cases against them.

[tummyman]

Here are the email addresses of every member of the committee that will vote on HB629-FN. They will vote next week. So there is still time to drop a brief email to the entire group expressing your concerns. If you put the entire group of names in the bcc field, the email will look to them as coming to them personally even though you sent it to the group. We need to keep up the heat. PLEASE send an email ASAP.



Heather.Baldwin@gc.nh.gov, Nicholas.Bridle@gc.nh.gov, Tom.Buco@gc.nh.gov, Will.Darby@gc.nh.gov, Arnold.Davis@gc.nh.gov, Tanya.Donnelly@gc.nh.gov, Ron.Dunn@gc.nh.gov, Pierre.Dupont@gc.nh.gov, linda.gould@gc.nh.gov, Robert.Harb@gc.nh.gov, Allison.Knab@gc.nh.gov, Matthew.Lunney@gc.nh.gov, Linda.Ryan@gc.nh.gov, Gregory.Sargent@gc.nh.gov, Brian.Taylor@gc.nh.gov, Suzanne.Vail@gc.nh.gov

[hemlock]

I just sent an email to the committee with my concerns and some suggestion one of which was to send this to interim study. The committee is voting this coming this Wednesday in Executive session so timing is important.

[Woodsy]

Unpopular opinion,

I get what the legislature is trying to do, and it does seem necessary. NH has long been a 'Pay to Play" State with fees for just about everything so its not surprising to see the legislature take this approach. However, I think it can be mitigated somewhat...

Waterfront property owners see the most benefit from the dams, so IMHO its ok that they get hit with a fee/tax for dam maintenance. I don't think $1.60/ft is outrageous. That being said, it should apply to ALL waterfront (freshwater) properties, not just those on lakes with a dam. That should reduce the fee to approx $1/ft and raise more $$$.

Boaters absolutely benefit, I have no problem paying this fee/tax.

Fishermen also benefit, so again IMHO its ok to hit them with a $2 surcharge on their fishing license...

Kayakers benefit and have long skated under the radar... Kayaks should have to buy an annual sticker say $10, that goes to F&G, MP & dam fund.

Nobody wants to give the government any more money, but in this instance it may be warranted.

Woodsy

[The Real BigGuy]

How about the businesses (resturants, bars, gas stations, etc.) off of the lakes that benefit from their proximity to the lake or from the property owners, and travelers on the way to these lakes, or those properties that are just on the other side of the road from the lake but don’t own shorefront, or the local population that recreates in the lake but doesn’t own a boat, do they benefit? If so, why shouldn’t they bear some of the cost? Also, the cost per foot may not seem like much to you but when you start multiplying it by 100s or 1,000s of feet it becomes a significant number.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

If the bill taxes the public access shorefront, then they would.

For instance, if Weirs Beach is taxed, then the City of Laconia through its taxing mechanisms would pay for that shorefront access.

Is it higher value than private, maybe, but my guess is the private shorefront owner wants to own private shorefront and not live someplace else and travel to the beach with all the hassles that involves.

If you think about Opechee, lots of City of Laconia waterfront property relative to the shoreline.

[hemlock]

Yesterday after the committee caucused privately the committee voted to retain the bill in committee which means they will continue to work on it but not send it to the full house for passage at this time.

Stay tuned!

[Descant]

Retained bills get reported at the beginning of the second year. Then, the bill would go to the second committee (Finance or W & M). Usually, since the budget is done in the first year, "money bills" don't go anyplace in the second year. Some reps refer to this as "death with dignity".

[tis]

Did anybody get a reply? I did get one from all of that list above and he said nobody liked it.

[garysanfran]

Over time I have never seen a tax go away.

Over time I have always seen a small tax become larger and larger.

[tummyman]

I also got a reply. rep said they were a "NO".

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

Over time I have never seen a tax go away.

Over time I have always seen a small tax become larger and larger.

We just got rid of the Dividend & Interest tax.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

Over time I have never seen a tax go away.

Over time I have always seen a small tax become larger and larger.

How long a time? The Interest and Dividends tax is gone. In a couple of years, those who want to bring it back will be gone too. Yes, something else will come along; certainly there will be many proposals that will fail. Weed and full scale gambling will still be out there. Maybe 10-12 years ago we had a Democratic majority with Lynch as Governor. They passed all sorts of taxes and fee increases. Gambling winnings tax, doubled the car registration fee, etc. They lost the next election and everything got rolled back or eliminated. The gambling winnings tax was devastating for Belmont and lottery ticket sales.

[John Mercier]

Belmont didn't suffer from that.
The previous owners decided to money launder.
The owners after that got themselves tied up with Rock Maple Racing.

Currently, they operate charitable gaming, and the State's take is 10 percent.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Belmont didn't suffer from that.
The previous owners decided to money launder.
The owners after that got themselves tied up with Rock Maple Racing...

More complications. It appears that the Simulcast business took a dive when the gambling winnings tax was implemented, 2009-2010. A track spokesman said they lost 100 jobs. The House calendar in March of 2011 reporting out HB 229-FN-A also referred to the tax as the cause of lost business. That bill repealed the tax in the spring of 2011.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...bling-winnings

[John Mercier]

They tried to lay blame all around...
Newman had a lot of excuses and didn't think through much of anything that was told to him.
Even after the repeal, they never recovered from short-sighted decisions.

But it is operating fine now.
And the State's take is 10%