New Waterfront Tax proposed HB 629-FN

[AC2717]

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

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

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

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

Tourism is the second largest industry in NH

[Descant]

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

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

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

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by AC2717

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

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

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

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

Tourism is the second largest industry in NH

They breach, you get more land.

[Susie Cougar]

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

[John Mercier]

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

It starts to undermine the current position on that issue.

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

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

[tummyman]

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



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

[hemlock]

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

[Woodsy]

Unpopular opinion,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woodsy