Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > Boating
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-18-2019, 04:39 PM   #1
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,402
Thanks: 424
Thanked 389 Times in 244 Posts
Default 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
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Descant For This Useful Post:
Seaplane Pilot (01-18-2019)
Old 01-18-2019, 04:54 PM   #2
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 834
Thanks: 287
Thanked 454 Times in 170 Posts
Default Say it ain't so!

I am SHOCKED to see that this rep is a Democrat!
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Seaplane Pilot For This Useful Post:
ACME on the Broads (03-04-2019), ApS (01-19-2019), BoatHouse (01-22-2019), Chat Noir (01-22-2019), CTYankee (01-18-2019), Doobs41378 (03-15-2019), DougNH (01-21-2019), GodSmile (01-19-2019), gravy boat (01-18-2019), Major (01-21-2019), MAXUM (01-18-2019), pault842 (01-19-2019), ronc4424 (01-24-2019), Sue Doe-Nym (01-20-2019), tis (01-18-2019), WinnisquamZ (01-18-2019)
Old 01-18-2019, 04:55 PM   #3
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,566
Thanks: 290
Thanked 372 Times in 244 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
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.
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post:
ACME on the Broads (03-04-2019), CTYankee (01-18-2019), gravy boat (01-18-2019), Seaplane Pilot (01-18-2019)
Old 01-18-2019, 05:56 PM   #4
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,993
Thanks: 188
Thanked 450 Times in 330 Posts
Thumbs up ..... 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! ........


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! .....
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 01-20-2019 at 05:56 AM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2019, 06:37 PM   #5
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,405
Thanks: 420
Thanked 733 Times in 506 Posts
Default

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.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
ACME on the Broads (03-04-2019), bayviewguy (03-17-2019), camp guy (01-19-2019), Chat Noir (01-22-2019), CTYankee (01-18-2019), Doobs41378 (03-15-2019), DougNH (01-21-2019), GodSmile (01-19-2019), Reilly (02-26-2019), ronc4424 (01-24-2019), Seaplane Pilot (01-19-2019)
Sponsored Links
Old 01-18-2019, 06:39 PM   #6
Prestige Worldwide
Member
 
Prestige Worldwide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: M-Vegas & Lake Winni
Posts: 32
Thanks: 9
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
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
Prestige Worldwide is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Prestige Worldwide For This Useful Post:
CTYankee (01-18-2019)
Old 01-18-2019, 08:17 PM   #7
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,566
Thanks: 290
Thanked 372 Times in 244 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestige Worldwide View Post
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.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2019, 08:42 PM   #8
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,478
Thanks: 278
Thanked 457 Times in 201 Posts
Default 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.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2019, 09:57 PM   #9
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,566
Thanks: 290
Thanked 372 Times in 244 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
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
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2019, 09:59 PM   #10
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 418
Thanks: 151
Thanked 103 Times in 72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
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?
__________________
"In and around the lake...
Mountains come out of the sky and they stand there
One mile over we'll be there and we'll see you
Ten true summers we'll be there and laughing too"
kawishiwi is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kawishiwi For This Useful Post:
Cobalt 25 (01-22-2019)
Old 01-18-2019, 10:11 PM   #11
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,566
Thanks: 290
Thanked 372 Times in 244 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawishiwi View Post
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
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post:
ACME on the Broads (03-04-2019), CTYankee (01-19-2019), Doobs41378 (03-15-2019), DougNH (01-21-2019), Major (01-21-2019), ronc4424 (01-24-2019), Seaplane Pilot (01-19-2019), Top-Water (01-19-2019)
Old 01-19-2019, 05:35 AM   #12
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 227
Thanks: 22
Thanked 54 Times in 37 Posts
Default

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.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 06:26 AM   #13
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,566
Thanks: 290
Thanked 372 Times in 244 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
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
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 06:37 AM   #14
Dad sold the C * C
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 254
Thanks: 97
Thanked 53 Times in 35 Posts
Default

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 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!
Dad sold the C * C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 08:01 AM   #15
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,231
Thanks: 794
Thanked 396 Times in 284 Posts
Question Destined for the General Fund?

Why am I reminded of Maryland's "Rain Tax"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad sold the C * C View Post
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 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!


>
__________________
.SailingóGood for you and good for the world...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 07:58 AM   #16
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 405
Thanks: 169
Thanked 86 Times in 58 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
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.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
Cobalt 25 (01-22-2019)
Old 01-19-2019, 09:29 AM   #17
Grandpa Redneck
Senior Member
 
Grandpa Redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: White Mountain Area NH
Posts: 145
Thanks: 258
Thanked 106 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
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.
__________________
Freedom Lovin' gun crazy Redneck
Grandpa Redneck is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Grandpa Redneck For This Useful Post:
CaptT820 (01-21-2019), Doobs41378 (03-15-2019), garysanfran (01-19-2019), ronc4424 (01-24-2019)
Old 01-19-2019, 12:47 PM   #18
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,939
Thanks: 177
Thanked 1,255 Times in 481 Posts
Default

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?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
CaptT820 (01-21-2019), garysanfran (01-19-2019), ronc4424 (01-24-2019), SAB1 (01-21-2019)
Old 01-19-2019, 01:04 PM   #19
8gv
Senior Member
 
8gv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 991
Thanks: 19
Thanked 294 Times in 174 Posts
Default

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?
8gv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 01:19 PM   #20
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,482
Thanks: 91
Thanked 361 Times in 228 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
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?
codeman671 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
Cal Coon (01-21-2019)
Old 01-19-2019, 02:24 PM   #21
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 1,566
Thanks: 290
Thanked 372 Times in 244 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
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
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post:
Prestige Worldwide (01-19-2019)
Old 01-19-2019, 05:26 PM   #22
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,402
Thanks: 424
Thanked 389 Times in 244 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
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.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 10:14 AM   #23
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,081
Thanks: 551
Thanked 244 Times in 176 Posts
Default

isn't this what our registration boat and watercraft fees and permit fees and every other fee associated to the lake already go to?
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AC2717 For This Useful Post:
CTYankee (01-21-2019)
Old 01-21-2019, 11:23 AM   #24
CaptT820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78
Thanks: 39
Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts
Default 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.
CaptT820 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 03:26 PM   #25
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,939
Thanks: 177
Thanked 1,255 Times in 481 Posts
Default

Seasonal docks are taxed too.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 04:37 PM   #26
Woody38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 322
Thanks: 34
Thanked 50 Times in 34 Posts
Default 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
Woody38 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Woody38 For This Useful Post:
MBNeckguy (03-04-2019)
Old 01-21-2019, 05:37 PM   #27
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,402
Thanks: 424
Thanked 389 Times in 244 Posts
Default Tax seasonal docks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
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.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 06:29 PM   #28
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 389
Thanks: 49
Thanked 289 Times in 92 Posts
Default

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.
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 12:09 PM   #29
CaptT820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78
Thanks: 39
Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts
Default 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.
CaptT820 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 12:22 PM   #30
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 97
Thanks: 17
Thanked 40 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptT820 View Post
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.
Garcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 01:41 PM   #31
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,482
Thanks: 91
Thanked 361 Times in 228 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptT820 View Post
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.
codeman671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 02:12 PM   #32
lakershaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rattlesnake Isl. - Simsbury, CT
Posts: 230
Thanks: 51
Thanked 35 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptT820 View Post
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!
lakershaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2019, 03:35 PM   #33
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 389
Thanks: 49
Thanked 289 Times in 92 Posts
Default

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.
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 01:37 PM   #34
CaptT820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78
Thanks: 39
Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts
Default Seasonal Docks

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakershaker View Post
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.
CaptT820 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 04:13 PM   #35
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 587
Thanks: 65
Thanked 135 Times in 94 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptT820 View Post
... 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.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Outdoorsman For This Useful Post:
MBNeckguy (03-04-2019)
Old 01-22-2019, 04:21 PM   #36
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,131
Thanks: 758
Thanked 594 Times in 315 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
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...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

Last edited by LIforrelaxin; 01-23-2019 at 01:21 PM.
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Cobalt (01-23-2019), SAB1 (01-23-2019)
Old 03-04-2019, 04:19 PM   #37
ACME on the Broads
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
Thanks: 26
Thanked 10 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawishiwi View Post
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?
ACME on the Broads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2019, 10:54 PM   #38
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,402
Thanks: 424
Thanked 389 Times in 244 Posts
Default 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.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2019, 01:47 AM   #39
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 418
Thanks: 151
Thanked 103 Times in 72 Posts
Default Not as far as I know...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACME on the Broads View Post
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.
__________________
"In and around the lake...
Mountains come out of the sky and they stand there
One mile over we'll be there and we'll see you
Ten true summers we'll be there and laughing too"
kawishiwi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2019, 09:20 AM   #40
Major
Senior Member
 
Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Laconia
Posts: 424
Thanks: 150
Thanked 214 Times in 108 Posts
Default It's not a one-way street

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawishiwi View Post
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!
Major is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Major For This Useful Post:
ACME on the Broads (03-05-2019), CTYankee (03-05-2019)
Old 03-05-2019, 01:01 PM   #41
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 405
Thanks: 169
Thanked 86 Times in 58 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major View Post
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.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
Outdoorsman (03-06-2019), TheRoBoat (03-05-2019)
Old 03-05-2019, 02:18 PM   #42
Major
Senior Member
 
Major's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Laconia
Posts: 424
Thanks: 150
Thanked 214 Times in 108 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
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.
Major is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Major For This Useful Post:
ACME on the Broads (03-05-2019), ApS (03-05-2019), CTYankee (03-05-2019), Grandpa Redneck (03-05-2019), ishoot308 (03-05-2019), Orion (03-10-2019), pault842 (03-05-2019), TiltonBB (03-06-2019), tis (03-06-2019)
Old 03-06-2019, 12:24 AM   #43
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 418
Thanks: 151
Thanked 103 Times in 72 Posts
Default Wow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Major View Post
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.
__________________
"In and around the lake...
Mountains come out of the sky and they stand there
One mile over we'll be there and we'll see you
Ten true summers we'll be there and laughing too"
kawishiwi is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kawishiwi For This Useful Post:
Biggd (03-11-2019)
Old 03-06-2019, 09:02 AM   #44
Puck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Thanks: 0
Thanked 33 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawishiwi View Post
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.

Last edited by Puck; 03-06-2019 at 01:29 PM. Reason: grammatical error correction
Puck is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Puck For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (03-06-2019), ApS (03-08-2019), Biggd (03-11-2019), CaptT820 (03-07-2019), Descant (03-06-2019), Major (03-06-2019), Orion (03-10-2019), Sue Doe-Nym (03-06-2019)
Old 03-06-2019, 09:21 AM   #45
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,294
Thanks: 193
Thanked 688 Times in 277 Posts
Default 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.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
ApS (03-06-2019), Descant (03-06-2019), Major (03-06-2019), Orion (03-10-2019), pault842 (03-06-2019), Sue Doe-Nym (03-06-2019)
Old 03-07-2019, 10:26 AM   #46
radar4401
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 33
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default 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.
radar4401 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to radar4401 For This Useful Post:
Descant (03-07-2019), Orion (03-10-2019)
Old 03-07-2019, 04:24 PM   #47
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 405
Thanks: 169
Thanked 86 Times in 58 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radar4401 View Post
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.

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.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2019, 04:35 PM   #48
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,939
Thanks: 177
Thanked 1,255 Times in 481 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
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.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2019, 08:48 AM   #49
CaptT820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78
Thanks: 39
Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts
Default 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.
CaptT820 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptT820 For This Useful Post:
goutes23 (Today)
Old 03-11-2019, 08:00 AM   #50
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,478
Thanks: 278
Thanked 457 Times in 201 Posts
Default 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.
__________________
-lg

Last edited by Lakegeezer; 03-11-2019 at 09:11 PM. Reason: bring post back on topic
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2019, 08:10 AM   #51
Biggd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waltham Ma./Meredith NH
Posts: 1,435
Thanks: 321
Thanked 218 Times in 158 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
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!
Biggd is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Biggd For This Useful Post:
stingray (03-18-2019)
Old 03-11-2019, 09:51 AM   #52
webmaster
Moderator
 
webmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,062
Thanks: 279
Thanked 2,520 Times in 592 Posts
Default

Would it do any good to remind everyone that the topic of this thread is "New/proposed dock fees"?
webmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to webmaster For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (03-12-2019), KPW (03-16-2019), Loub52 (03-12-2019), pault842 (03-11-2019), Skip (03-11-2019)
Old 03-11-2019, 11:01 AM   #53
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,402
Thanks: 424
Thanked 389 Times in 244 Posts
Default 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?

Last edited by Descant; 03-11-2019 at 11:02 AM. Reason: Added report request
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 10:18 AM   #54
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,402
Thanks: 424
Thanked 389 Times in 244 Posts
Default 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.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Descant For This Useful Post:
RTTOOL (02-26-2019), secondcurve (02-27-2019)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.25875 seconds