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: 1,353
Thanks: 406
Thanked 377 Times in 235 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: 829
Thanks: 285
Thanked 426 Times in 166 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 14 Users Say Thank You to Seaplane Pilot For This Useful Post:
ApS (01-19-2019), BoatHouse (01-22-2019), Chat Noir (01-22-2019), CTYankee (01-18-2019), 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: 1,523
Thanks: 282
Thanked 353 Times in 232 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 3 Users Say Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post:
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: 5,935
Thanks: 187
Thanked 441 Times in 325 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: 4,350
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 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 7 Users Say Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
camp guy (01-19-2019), Chat Noir (01-22-2019), CTYankee (01-18-2019), DougNH (01-21-2019), GodSmile (01-19-2019), 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: 30
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: 1,523
Thanks: 282
Thanked 353 Times in 232 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: 1,477
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: 1,523
Thanks: 282
Thanked 353 Times in 232 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: 410
Thanks: 151
Thanked 97 Times in 68 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 offline   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: 1,523
Thanks: 282
Thanked 353 Times in 232 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 6 Users Say Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post:
CTYankee (01-19-2019), 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: 213
Thanks: 21
Thanked 53 Times in 36 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: 1,523
Thanks: 282
Thanked 353 Times in 232 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: 253
Thanks: 96
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, 07:58 AM   #15
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 402
Thanks: 160
Thanked 84 Times in 57 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, 08:01 AM   #16
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,217
Thanks: 786
Thanked 392 Times in 280 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, 09:29 AM   #17
Grandpa Redneck
Senior Member
 
Grandpa Redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: White Mountain Area NH
Posts: 145
Thanks: 256
Thanked 105 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 3 Users Say Thank You to Grandpa Redneck For This Useful Post:
CaptT820 (01-21-2019), 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: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 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: 979
Thanks: 18
Thanked 289 Times in 170 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: 2,475
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: 1,523
Thanks: 282
Thanked 353 Times in 232 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: 1,353
Thanks: 406
Thanked 377 Times in 235 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: 2,078
Thanks: 546
Thanked 243 Times in 175 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: 75
Thanks: 36
Thanked 19 Times in 12 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: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 Posts
Default

Seasonal docks are taxed too.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 04:13 PM   #26
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 580
Thanks: 62
Thanked 131 Times in 90 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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 04:37 PM   #27
Woody38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 317
Thanks: 34
Thanked 49 Times in 33 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
Old 01-21-2019, 05:37 PM   #28
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 406
Thanked 377 Times in 235 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   #29
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 386
Thanks: 48
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   #30
CaptT820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 75
Thanks: 36
Thanked 19 Times in 12 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   #31
Garcia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 93
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   #32
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,475
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   #33
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   #34
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 386
Thanks: 48
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 01-22-2019, 04:21 PM   #35
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,127
Thanks: 753
Thanked 592 Times in 314 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 01-22-2019, 04:21 PM   #36
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tummyman View Post
Most property assessments are on the actual property as of April 1st. So if you have a seasonal dock and it is not in the water on April 1st, I would question their assessing something that does not exist as of April 1st. Would be an interesting point to challenge them on for seasonal docks. My seasonal dock does not touch the legal boundary of my property.....it is about 2 inches off the property line. Wonder how they could assess me for that. Whole subject is a PITA.
think that is a loosing battle. Kinda like my old dock sections thrown on the ground are now considered and taxed as a "deck"
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 09:20 AM   #37
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 402
Thanks: 160
Thanked 84 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tummyman View Post
Most property assessments are on the actual property as of April 1st. So if you have a seasonal dock and it is not in the water on April 1st, I would question their assessing something that does not exist as of April 1st. Would be an interesting point to challenge them on for seasonal docks. My seasonal dock does not touch the legal boundary of my property.....it is about 2 inches off the property line. Wonder how they could assess me for that. Whole subject is a PITA.
Great question. Really they are taxing you on your use of riparian rights (rights that you have to the public water based on your ownership of the adjacent private land). Since you own the 2" or 100' or whatever of land along the lake, you are allowed to put a dock in. Yeah, it's a PITA to think about tax on 2", but the good news is that you are the only person who can put a dock in front of your house. If these riparian rights did not exist in their current form, you could not put in a dock, or, even worse, your neighbor could put in a dock in front of your house.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 01:37 PM   #38
CaptT820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 75
Thanks: 36
Thanked 19 Times in 12 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 01-23-2019, 01:51 PM   #39
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 402
Thanks: 160
Thanked 84 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptT820 View Post
If you have a new dock and its assessed at full value it could be assessed for $20,000 which would still only be ~$280 a year in Alton. Now add the ~$35 electric bill for the bubbler from Nov-March at a minimum and you are at $175. Maintenance is probably $50 a year or less, so your inherent cost per year is ~$500. Live there for 40 years and your bill is now $20K. That is a heck of a lot for a 7 month a year dock.
Please don't remind us of the cost of the house attached to the dock.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 04:28 PM   #40
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 406
Thanked 377 Times in 235 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptT820 View Post
No oversight here. I've had a seasonal dock for 4 years and have no tax on it and never have.
As noted earlier some towns tax TSD's others do not. I have a friend in Gilford whose tax card says he gets assessed $13000 for his temporary seasonal dock. I agree with those who suggest if it isn't there on April 1, it shouldn't be part of the assessment. Since a lot of towns hire outside contractors to do the assessments, I think their motivation is to be accurate. If they start shuffling your assessment around just to raise your taxes, there will be more appeals to the BLTA (Bureau of Land Tax Appeals, right?) and their reputation and business suffers.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 09:38 PM   #41
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,268
Thanks: 186
Thanked 671 Times in 268 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
If they start shuffling your assessment around just to raise your taxes, there will be more appeals to the BLTA (Bureau of Land Tax Appeals, right?) and their reputation and business suffers.
I am not sure who the Bureau of Land Tax Appeals is. I have never heard that term. When I appealed my tax assessment I went to the Gilford Board of Assessors. I brought in several examples of neighboring properties and they agreed to lower my assessment. It was relatively easy.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 09:44 PM   #42
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 406
Thanked 377 Times in 235 Posts
Default Btla

My error. Board of Land Tax Appeals for when you don't get local satisfaction.
https://www.nh.gov/btla/
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 06:02 AM   #43
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,350
Thanks: 412
Thanked 719 Times in 499 Posts
Default

Tilton, if you don't get satisfaction from the town you can appeal to the Board of Land Appeals.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 09:16 AM   #44
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,517
Thanks: 41
Thanked 628 Times in 258 Posts
Default

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

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

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 09:27 AM   #45
loonguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 78
Thanks: 23
Thanked 22 Times in 14 Posts
Default

I agree that a dock, seasonal or permanent, enhances the value of the property and, consequently, should be reflected in the assessed value of lake front property. I recently replaced a permanent dock with a seasonal dock that gets cranked up and IMHO the seasonal dock is the better option; I no longer need to run a water circulator through the winter or be concerned about wind-blown ice damaging the dock. If I had a boathouse, I probably would have a different view, but that is not an option if your property does not have a boathouse that is grandfathered under prior law.
loonguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 09:32 AM   #46
WJT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Foxborough MA
Posts: 99
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 19 Posts
Default Double Tax

You are already paying a property tax. The dock is attached to your property.
ENOUGH on NEW TAXES.
WJT2 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WJT2 For This Useful Post:
Descant (01-24-2019), SAB1 (01-24-2019)
Old 01-24-2019, 09:33 AM   #47
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,935
Thanks: 187
Thanked 441 Times in 325 Posts
Default

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

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

Is this pure genius or what! ........
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 09:57 AM   #48
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,517
Thanks: 41
Thanked 628 Times in 258 Posts
Default

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

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

It is pretty simple...

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 10:32 AM   #49
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,706
Thanks: 2,223
Thanked 818 Times in 569 Posts
Default Food for thought

Normally 'permanent structures' are taxed by the state and or towns. Consider a dock that is removed during the winter months a 'temporary structure', maybe we can have docks reclassified?
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 10:32 AM   #50
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,912
Thanks: 176
Thanked 1,236 Times in 470 Posts
Default

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

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

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

What would make more sense is impose a $234 fee on all welfare recipient benefits, they don't pay income taxes anyways so might as well have them pay their "fair share" of other peoples money.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
ApS (01-25-2019), garysanfran (01-24-2019)
Old 01-24-2019, 12:21 PM   #51
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 386
Thanks: 48
Thanked 289 Times in 92 Posts
Default

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

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

Disclaimer....I am no lawyer and what I wrote above is just my best interpretation of what I read in HB682. Remember, these "bills" are written so folks have no idea what the legislature is doing. I certainly think others need to chime in to validate or refute the data I presented.
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tummyman For This Useful Post:
Descant (01-24-2019)
Old 01-24-2019, 03:12 PM   #52
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,353
Thanks: 406
Thanked 377 Times in 235 Posts
Default Disclaimer

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to figure out DES wants more money. Maybe a Finance Manager, LOL?
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2019, 05:44 PM   #53
lagoon
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 44
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Typical, it is a money grab disguised as protecting lakes. Those of us who have been here for many years work hard to ensure we are responsible to care for these beautiful lakes. This is a further example of driving out the middle class and have only the million dollar club left.
lagoon is offline   Reply With Quote
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 10:44 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.61708 seconds