View Single Post
Old 01-22-2014, 08:57 AM   #7
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,679
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 354
Thanked 639 Times in 290 Posts
Default Amendment HB 292-FN-A

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 Here is an amendment to the bill, that apparently is unpublished.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

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

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

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

Last edited by Lakegeezer; 01-22-2014 at 10:10 AM. Reason: added text of amendment
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote