New Bill---Fees for Anchored Seasonal Platforms on waters

[tummyman]

Looks like even local State Reps want to fleece waterfront property owners more.......Shame on them !!



26-2915
06/08

HOUSE BILL 1477-FN

AN ACT relative to the permitting and regulation of anchored seasonal floating platforms on public waters.

SPONSORS: Rep. J. MacDonald, Carr. 6; Rep. Crawford, Carr. 3; Rep. Damon, Sull. 8; Rep. Darby, Hills. 11; Rep. Ebel, Merr. 7; Rep. Hamblen, Carr. 3; Rep. Rung, Hills. 12; Rep. Walker, Straf. 19

COMMITTEE: Resources, Recreation and Development

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ANALYSIS

This bill restricts anchored seasonal platforms on public waters to adjacent shorefront property owners, requires permits with identification and a $50 fee, exempts certain government and conservation uses, and imposes fines for noncompliance.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
26-2915
06/08

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Six

AN ACT relative to the permitting and regulation of anchored seasonal floating platforms on public waters.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Anchored Seasonal Platform; Limitations. Amend RSA 270:72-c, I-III to read as follows:
I. As defined in RSA 270:72-b, I, no person shall erect, install, maintain, or exercise control over an anchored seasonal platform on the public waters of the state who is not the legal owner of the adjacent shorefront property except as authorized in paragraph III below.
II. Any person erecting, installing, maintaining, or exercising control over an anchored seasonal platform on any public body of water shall attach his or her name and contact information to any such seasonal platform as provided in this subdivision and in accordance with rules established under RSA 270:72-g shall obtain an anchored seasonal platform permit from the division of state police, marine patrol. The cost of the permit shall be $50 dollars, $25 shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a and $25 shall be deposited into the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund.
III. Seasonal platforms installed on public waters that support a local, state, or federal government agency, an agency's sub-contractors, or a conservation group engaged in the non-recreational activities may be installed provided the platform meets the minimum requirements established in RSA 270:72-d and shall be exempted from paragraph II.
IV. Any person failing to obtain an anchored seasonal platform permit shall be fined $100 plus a 20 percent penalty assessment.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.

LBA
26-2915
11/30/25

[tummyman]

By some of the same legislators...

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Six

AN ACT increasing certain mooring fees and directing such funds to the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Decal Issuance; Mooring Fee; Cyanobacteria Fund. Amend RSA 270:62, V to read as follows:
V. A fee of $125 shall be charged for each initial decal issued pursuant to this subdivision which shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a. An annual mooring fee of $50 for each mooring in a congregate mooring field and [$25] $50 for each mooring not in a congregate mooring field shall be charged for each decal renewed or replaced pursuant to this subdivision which shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a and $25 shall be deposited into the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund established under RSA 485-A:61.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2026.

[FlyingScot]

I understand the motivation to generate revenue, and I don't really blame them (too much). But $50 is BS. They will spend that on the admin

[tis]

I guess it never stops. They will never have enough money. Let's just hope all these bills die a quick death.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I understand the motivation to generate revenue, and I don't really blame them (too much). But $50 is BS. They will spend that on the admin

I can't remember correctly the court case, but I believe that a fee can only be used for the purposes stated in the statute, and must go toward value to those paying the fee.

Other than that the court holds it to be a tax.

The property things are about revenue.
As there are other bills introduced that reduce the property taxes at the State level, but increase the business taxes.

NH ranks 44th (1 being best) in corporate taxation.

So as it stands, it makes more sense to reside here and invest in production in other States - all other things being equal.

They do have a slight lowering of the BET that has passed the House; and two other bills in that would simply repeal the BET and BPT tax laws that are currently in committee.
It has taken ten years to move the BPT down from 8.5 to 7.5, and we really need to be at 6.0 or less to be even remotely competitive.

It takes that low a rate to make up for the additional energy and transportation costs, and now a cost of labor as manufacturers have to compete for top talent.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I can't remember correctly the court case, but I believe that a fee can only be used for the purposes stated in the statute, and must go toward value to those paying the fee.

Other than that the court holds it to be a tax.

The property things are about revenue.
As there are other bills introduced that reduce the property taxes at the State level, but increase the business taxes.

NH ranks 44th (1 being best) in corporate taxation.

So as it stands, it makes more sense to reside here and invest in production in other States - all other things being equal.

They do have a slight lowering of the BET that has passed the House; and two other bills in that would simply repeal the BET and BPT tax laws that are currently in committee.
It has taken ten years to move the BPT down from 8.5 to 7.5, and we really need to be at 6.0 or less to be even remotely competitive.

It takes that low a rate to make up for the additional energy and transportation costs, and now a cost of labor as manufacturers have to compete for top talent.

It's not the money I mind it's the inefficient use of money that irks me. They are using most of the $50 to collect the $50. I would rather they charge me (and everybody else) $500, and put >90% toward protecting the lake that my raft and dock are sitting on.

Also, when you say "it makes more sense to reside here...". If you live in Mass, like the plurality(?) of out of state owners, your reasons for living in Mass are likely a lot bigger than a few thousand dollars/year in tax savings. If it was easy to escape Mass income taxes with a few forms filled out, we'd all be doing it

[BillTex]

Is this a proposed bill or has it passed?

[John Mercier]

In the RRD committee, public hearing on January 14th at 2:30

Though it is an interesting concept that I have never thought of before.

I could anchor a swim platform in front of your lakefront home due to the fact that the lake it public waters.

I wonder who figured that out for this to be brought to a legislator's attention.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

It's not the money I mind it's the inefficient use of money that irks me. They are using most of the $50 to collect the $50. I would rather they charge me (and everybody else) $500, and put >90% toward protecting the lake that my raft and dock are sitting on.

Also, when you say "it makes more sense to reside here...". If you live in Mass, like the plurality(?) of out of state owners, your reasons for living in Mass are likely a lot bigger than a few thousand dollars/year in tax savings. If it was easy to escape Mass income taxes with a few forms filled out, we'd all be doing it

No for manufacturers.
It makes sense for me to reside here - no income tax - but makes more sense for me to open a manufacturing operation in another State - lower corporate taxes on the operation, and the money sent to me in dividends is tax free in NH. The NH/Mass thing is so over. It was old thinking.
When Samina purchased Hadco in southern NH (Ayotte's area), they closed NH and expanded NY. NY was less expensive to manufacture in than NH.

As for the fee; it is just to cover expenses, not create extra.
I think they may have looked at a loophole in who could anchor in front of a lake property.
It may be that one, or all, of the sponsors have lakefront property and this came up in a conversation.

[Descant]

Some of this appears to be modelled after the registration of moorings, but moorings are not regulated on all lakes, just big ones, I believe. Every so often on this forum we see postings for swim rafts that have broken loose and have no contact or othe ID info. It would be herlpful to have that required. We won't see platform fields the way we see mooring fields, so I'd guess the number of platforms really isn't enough to be a money maker.

[SAB1]

You used to have to file a form with the State to put a raft in. It was required to have owners name and contact info on the raft. They did away with that filing process several years ago. They still require a filing a swim line.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

Some of this appears to be modelled after the registration of moorings, but moorings are not regulated on all lakes, just big ones, I believe. Every so often on this forum we see postings for swim rafts that have broken loose and have no contact or othe ID info. It would be herlpful to have that required. We won't see platform fields the way we see mooring fields, so I'd guess the number of platforms really isn't enough to be a money maker.

Always the issue.
If they really were using this to raise revenue.
The limited number of payees would result in a tax rate that pretty much prevented everyone from having one.
A few very wealthy might, but just a few.

[AC2717]

so I am a little confused? Does this include swim rafts, as well as seasonal docks that are removed? Does it also include permanent docks?

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by AC2717

so I am a little confused? Does this include swim rafts, as well as seasonal docks that are removed? Does it also include permanent docks?

Below is the legal definition. I read it as swim rafts, but not as docks.

270:72-b Definitions. –
In this subdivision:
I. " Anchored seasonal platform " means a seasonal platform, inflatable platform, float, or device attached to such platform, inflatable platform, or float, that is attached by chains, cables, ropes, or related equipment to a fixed object or stationary point, or that is attached to an anchor or weight which is designed to rest on the bed or to be buried in the bed of a navigable body of water.

[Bear Guy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

...
Though it is an interesting concept that I have never thought of before.

I could anchor a swim platform in front of your lakefront home due to the fact that the lake it public waters.
....

Don't existing RSAs prohibit you from doing this? I see online content that says you must the adjacent landowner to put a swim raft on public waters, that you must do so without reasonably interfering other's use of the water, and do it environmentally responsibly (and that the requirement of putting your contact info on a swim raft exists too).


270:72-c Anchored Seasonal Platform; Limitations. –
I. No person shall erect, install, maintain, or exercise control over an anchored seasonal platform on the public waters of the state who is not the legal owner of the adjacent shorefront property except as authorized in paragraph III below.
II. Any person erecting, installing, maintaining, or exercising control over an anchored seasonal platform on any public body of water shall attach his or her name and contact information to any such seasonal platform

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Riviera

Below is the legal definition. I read it as swim rafts, but not as docks.

270:72-b Definitions. –
In this subdivision:
I. " Anchored seasonal platform " means a seasonal platform, inflatable platform, float, or device attached to such platform, inflatable platform, or float, that is attached by chains, cables, ropes, or related equipment to a fixed object or stationary point, or that is attached to an anchor or weight which is designed to rest on the bed or to be buried in the bed of a navigable body of water.

Thank you for posting this. To me it seems open ended as docks are built the way the seasonal platform is defined above "seasonal platform" - seasonal docks are done the same way and "related equipment to a fixed object or stationary point, or that is attached to an anchor or weight which is designed to rest on the bed or to be buried in the bed of a navigable body of water"

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by AC2717

To me it seems open ended as docks are built the way the seasonal platform is defined above "seasonal platform" - seasonal docks are done the same way

I agree it’s not well worded. That said, I think you are reading too much into it. I think the “related equipment” is intended to mean “related” to ropes, chains, and/or cables. (Such as swivels or hooks). If it was intended to capture seasonal docks, I suspect the word “dock” would appear in there.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Bear Guy

Don't existing RSAs prohibit you from doing this? I see online content that says you must the adjacent landowner to put a swim raft on public waters, that you must do so without reasonably interfering other's use of the water, and do it environmentally responsibly (and that the requirement of putting your contact info on a swim raft exists too).


270:72-c Anchored Seasonal Platform; Limitations. –
I. No person shall erect, install, maintain, or exercise control over an anchored seasonal platform on the public waters of the state who is not the legal owner of the adjacent shorefront property except as authorized in paragraph III below.
II. Any person erecting, installing, maintaining, or exercising control over an anchored seasonal platform on any public body of water shall attach his or her name and contact information to any such seasonal platform

Makes sense to point that out to the committee with a comment.

I have been in Concord in a committee hearing where anger was focused at me because I opposed a bill. I opposed it because it was already law - the sponsors just didn't know the law.

That section should take care of any problem, and a simple addition that the structure must have owner and contact information on it. No fee should be necessary.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Riviera

I agree it’s not well worded. That said, I think you are reading too much into it. I think the “related equipment” is intended to mean “related” to ropes, chains, and/or cables. (Such as swivels or hooks). If it was intended to capture seasonal docks, I suspect the word “dock” would appear in there.

I agree that I am reading too much into it, one thing with me when it comes to govenrment laws and legal forms, if its not specifically excluded it is included, regardless of intent of meaning. seasonal docks are "anchored" into the lake bottom with thier posts and sometimes cabled, year round docks such as the one I am on has driven pylons that are the anchors into the lake bed for stability and rigidity.

mostly because of my job as an insurance agent lol.

[retired]

And what problem does this legislation solve?

[John Mercier]

Doesn't seem to be anything.
Someone posted a statute already exists for some of it.

[BillTex]

Originally Posted by retired

And what problem does this legislation solve?

Revenue…thats about it.

[John Mercier]

Not much revenue.

[tummyman]

What problem does it solve????? Well, I think I read in to bill data that it probably adds two more people to the state employee rolls along with health insurance and other benefits that will be offset by the "new" dollars collected. Got to create a problem before you can solve it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by tummyman

What problem does it solve????? Well, I think I read in to bill data that it probably adds two more people to the state employee rolls along with health insurance and other benefits that will be offset by the "new" dollars collected. Got to create a problem before you can solve it.

Isn't it all just so ridiculous?! I wish they would all stay home and stop thinking up stupid new laws.

[John Mercier]

Not really working on new laws that much.

BPT/BET just being lowered to where they must go will lose the State over $400 million annually in revenue. That is more than the current Statewide Property Tax that does not get sent to the State for redistribution like the businesses taxes do.

So lots of trying to fill in funding holes that have been found that subsidize something that is considered necessary.

CB mitigation for the one time process on a small lake was $10 million, and only lasted one year.
They can't keep taking millions from revenue that they don't have; and everyone is looking at who should be supporting what.

We spent the last several decades entangling it together because the BPT/BET would just "cover it". Not an option going forward.

[tummyman]

This added fee will do NADA for any budget shortfall as the increase in any revenue will be offset by the costs to collect. And there will be little enforcement for those who don't comply. What do we want..the Marine Patrol to check out rafts? If revenue is such an issue, why not triple the road tolls???? Why not a toll booth on RT93 at the MA border...oh I get it, it would hurt all those NH residents down south. Ah....better to tax the waterfront again. The NH politicians are hell bent on destroying waterfront property owners.

[BillTex]

FWIW: other states do require docks, rafts etc to be registered (and display a sticker/plate on the structure).

The way i read this bill is it would include seasonal docks.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

This added fee will do NADA for any budget shortfall as the increase in any revenue will be offset by the costs to collect. And there will be little enforcement for those who don't comply. What do we want..the Marine Patrol to check out rafts? If revenue is such an issue, why not triple the road tolls???? Why not a toll booth on RT93 at the MA border...oh I get it, it would hurt all those NH residents down south. Ah....better to tax the waterfront again. The NH politicians are hell bent on destroying waterfront property owners.

Road Tolls would need to be outrageous to acquire the $400 million offset; and require a constitutional amendment to be placed in the general fund.

With about $400 million per annum, the SPT and the BPT/BET would raise about the same amount of revenue from each. ~ $800 million.
That change out is not focused on waterfront owners.
But the raw numbers suggest that the seacoast will be the largest factor in the SPT change, as it is now in the Meals & Room tax revenue.

All the various methods being proposed seek to raise the amount of the offset, while each allowing some carve out to specific classes.
The more carve outs, the more the rate of taxation.

Carve outs can also further weaken the business environment and push more closures. Reindustrialization takes a lot of work when we let it get too far out of hand.

This bill is not about revenue. It will not have significant sum associated with it towards anything.

The one that you posted as another version, seems to be raising money a bit for the navigation fund and CB loan/grant fund. So very specific to water bodies.

Tolls on the highway shouldn't be paying for those to items in a budget, and using general funds is an issue going forward. Lots of small subsidies to recreation are in the budgets adopted each year.

[BillTex]

If the funds are allocated to c/b and other water quality issues, that is a good thing.

Do we know where the funds are targeted for?

[John Mercier]

The OP bill had a $50 registration fee that basically went to new hires to monitor the registration process.

The one Tummyman found had $25 going to CB mitigation.

Which one if either passes - unknown.
And the actual dollars are - unknown.

[tummyman]

Went on-line today to get the form required for a raft/mooring. Incredible amount of data. Maps, plot plans, deeds, copies of current boat registrations, abutters list, water depth, data on docks, dock permits, all sorts of measurements, etc. etc. for a swim raft. 12 pages of information. We shall see if I pass....I doubt it. Only thing they didn't ask for was a water sample or test. Wanted to know how deep the water is. Well, didn't say whether it is at full pond or low tide so I had to guess. Nothing like drowning in paperwork but it is a way to justify more people.

[BillTex]

Jan 14 has passed. Did this get written into law or postponed?

[John Mercier]

The 14th was just a public hearing in the House Committee.
They haven't realized the Executive Hearing details as to the committee's recommendation.

So it is still in the very early stages.

[tummyman]

Well, I think I got mislead. In reading various posts, it appeared to me that I needed a permit for my swim raft. So I prepared all the paperwork for a mooring application from the Marine Patrol. Amounted to over 12 pages. I then drove it down to the Marine patrol Hdqtrs. They reviewed my application but said it was incomplete because I did not provide current registrations for my boat and jet ski. True. But I then tried to get my registration there but needed my expired registration or i could fill out a new form. I opted for the new form approach but halfway through learned I also needed my hull number. Obviously I don't carry that in my wallet, so I abandoned the effort. Upon returning home, I got the registration paperwork and headed to town hall and registered the watercraft. I figured i now was fully prepared for a repeat visit that I made this afternoon. As the agent reviewed my application, I indicated it seemed like a lot of work for a raft. He said...a raft????? Yes, a raft. He then said I didn't need any permit as swim rafts are not regulated!!!!!!!! The mooring permit is for a boat mooring with a ball on the top of the water. Damn !!! As I learned the hard way, all this legislation is about boat moorings to begin with and apparently NOT swim rafts. In relooking at the original postings and bill drafts, I now see that swim rafts are NOT specifically included. So make your own assumptions. UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[John Mercier]

The Bill in discussion is not law at the current time.
It hasn't even had one vote in a full chamber.

[tummyman]

From House Calendar. Feb 6, 2026...get ready to pay !!!!!
HB 1301-FN, increasing certain mooring fees and directing such funds to the cyanobacteria mitigation loan
and grant fund. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Will Darby for Resources, Recreation and Development. Over the last several years, cyanobacteria has
spread across an increasing number of New Hampshire’s lakes, closing beaches, threatening tourism, and
keeping people from enjoying the water during the short summer period. The cyanobacterial mitigation loan
and grant fund was established to help lake communities reduce the blooms causing these closures but, with
no sustained funding source, it has run out of money. This bill increases existing annual mooring fees, which
have not changed since the 1980s, by $25 with the increase targeting the cyanobacteria mitigation fund. While
no single funding source can fully address the need to reduce the threat of cyanobacteria blooms, this bill
follows the New Hampshire model where those who use a resource should contribute to it. The amendment
clarifies the increase applies to all mooring types - public, congregate, and private. Vote 16-0.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by tummyman

From House Calendar. Feb 6, 2026...get ready to pay !!!!!
HB 1301-FN, increasing certain mooring fees and directing such funds to the cyanobacteria mitigation loan
and grant fund. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Will Darby for Resources, Recreation and Development. Over the last several years, cyanobacteria has
spread across an increasing number of New Hampshire’s lakes, closing beaches, threatening tourism, and
keeping people from enjoying the water during the short summer period. The cyanobacterial mitigation loan
and grant fund was established to help lake communities reduce the blooms causing these closures but, with
no sustained funding source, it has run out of money. This bill increases existing annual mooring fees, which
have not changed since the 1980s, by $25 with the increase targeting the cyanobacteria mitigation fund. While
no single funding source can fully address the need to reduce the threat of cyanobacteria blooms, this bill
follows the New Hampshire model where those who use a resource should contribute to it. The amendment
clarifies the increase applies to all mooring types - public, congregate, and private. Vote 16-0.

So anyone can use the lake but moorings are going to pay for it
This state is getting unreal

[John Mercier]

You really think they are intending to make the millions of dollars necessary for CB mitigation off from moorings?

Ever registration/etc is going to have an add-on to cover those costs.

Even the dam maintenance fund... $5 per boat isn't going to raise the $8 million a year needed.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You really think they are intending to make the millions of dollars necessary for CB mitigation off from moorings?

Ever registration/etc is going to have an add-on to cover those costs.

Even the dam maintenance fund... $5 per boat isn't going to raise the $8 million a year needed.

no just a cloaking to charge more for individual item and when they come up short go to the next thing

[John Mercier]

They spent $10 million on CB mitigation on a single project.

We could do away with it, and dam maintenance.

Just lower all the lakes to the lowest level possible by leaving the dams open.

Basically the outcome would be whatever nature throws at them.

Several other subsidies that they have to deal with to get that budget under control... but an awful lots of wants - and don't want to pay for is in our own backyard.

[Billy Bob]

Going to nickel and dime everything with the most inefficient taxes and fees until they get the revenue they need.
Perhaps the impossible has to be looked at and do total tax reform to come up with a more equitable tax base

[AC2717]

I still revert back to come to me with the tax after the wants are taken out of the budget and there is only needs left. Every company and individual compares and decides wants vs needs when it comes to their budget and cash flow or they wont be around long enough to get either. The Government is the only one in the world that can just keep taking money without having to clean up their wants vs needs. It seems you get a government job and this common sense tactic leaves every fiber of your body.

[John Mercier]

Its a fee. And fees are to paid by the beneficiaries of the fee.

So without the fees, it would need to be a want on the general taxation.

So removed from general taxation as a want and placed on a fee.

If the fee isn't acceptable, and there could be several formats, then the other option is to forgo the "want".
The lake would be lowered to the lowest point possible - no need for the dam or maintenance on such - and the lake users would have to accept the lower level as enough.

Not sure what that level would be, but I am guessing lower than last summer.

[tis]

Have you ever noticed a lot of the ones who WANT so much aren't the ones paying the taxes. Then if you suggest user fees they are the first one that don't WANT anymore.

[John Mercier]

Always....

[BroadHopper]

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/bri...igation-funds/

Article on Raft fee in NH Bulletin

[John Mercier]

It is a start. But it isn't going to replace the millions annually that they need to find.

Sort of like the Derry Rail Trail - an extra $100 million due to delays.
NHDOT should ask the State Legislature to cover that cost overrun not with more gas taxes for any shortfall, but pull it directly from the NRTP.

[4 for Boating]

So according to the bill (correct me if I'm wrong as I always have a hard time reading these things) > they will need to add 2 new positions (clerks) to run the program and expect the expenses to be in the range of $178,000 for such in 2027. (Salary + benefits?) When I look at the expected revenue what's listed is "Indeterminable" aka no idea. Not exactly a great business case, at least if it was in the private sector.

So the break even for this bill is 3,560 rafts at $50. Not counting fines I suppose for non-compliance.

[4 for Boating]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

So according to the bill (correct me if I'm wrong as I always have a hard time reading these things) > they will need to add 2 new positions (clerks) to run the program and expect the expenses to be in the range of $178,000 for such in 2027. (Salary + benefits?) When I look at the expected revenue what's listed is "Indeterminable" aka no idea. Not exactly a great business case, at least if it was in the private sector.

So the break even for this bill is 3,560 rafts at $50. Not counting fines I suppose for non-compliance.

Any guesses on how many rafts in the state? I have no idea. I suppose if large enough it could have some real benefit to the causes it supports.

[tummyman]

Why would anyone in the House want to look into the facts or data as to cost or number of rafts? Don't confuse legislation with the facts...the first rule of politics. Don't I recall someone saying "we have to pass it to know what is in it" ??? Oh, and let me know what a seasonal swim raft permit for $50 has to do with treating cyanobacteria blooms or navigation safety. Let me guess...you have no idea ! Neither do they. Just sayin...

[John Mercier]

The NH House would need to pass this bill to discover what is in it.
Basic 2nd grade civics.

If the bill does not pass the House, then the Senate can not amend and no way to know what the final will be until the Senate has its chance to amend.

Pretty sure they will discover that no need exists to hire anyone new.
The personnel that register over 100K boats should be able to handle moorings/rafts rather easily without the additional help.

Departments spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get or stay on the general taxation trough.

[BillTex]

I am kind of torn on this. On one hand I detest any govt oversight/interference. On the other CB is a looming problem, with some areas already experiencing significant decline. If we lose our lakes….well….

[tummyman]

John, according to Dept of Safety...they need two people...it is at the end of the bill text. So guess they are not of the same opinion that it can be handled with the existing folks.

[TiltonBB]

Maybe there could be some room for more efficiency in government?

I recall that several years ago I mailed my gas tax refund form in a month early. Instead of just putting it aside and processing it when it was time, they wrote me a letter and mailed the form and all the receipts back to me. That is not how it would have been handled in private business.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tummyman

John, according to Dept of Safety...they need two people...it is at the end of the bill text. So guess they are not of the same opinion that it can be handled with the existing folks.

All the departments pad their budgets... especially when the risk of being moved off the general taxation dole exists.

If they had 5000 more boat registrations, would they need to hire two more people?

[I.C.Isles]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Maybe there could be some room for more efficiency in government?

I recall that several years ago I mailed my gas tax refund form in a month early. Instead of just putting it aside and processing it when it was time, they wrote me a letter and mailed the form and all the receipts back to me. That is not how it would have been handled in private business.

I attended a meeting with Deval Patrick a few years back. He explained to us that “industry is about efficiency, government is not, government is about employing people”.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

All the departments pad their budgets... especially when the risk of being moved off the general taxation dole exists.

If they had 5000 more boat registrations, would they need to hire two more people?

One of the concerns that department heads have is maintaining, or growing, the amount of funding allocated in their annual budget. I was a member of a call fire department for 30 years. At the end of every budget year there would be a lot of spending, much of it on things that I didn't think we needed. Extra air tanks, and extra hose were common purchases, just to make sure all the money was spent.

The view from the top was, if we don't spend it they will think we don't need that much money next year. My though at the time was, maybe we don't need it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

One of the concerns that department heads have is maintaining, or growing, the amount of funding allocated in their annual budget. I was a member of a call fire department for 30 years. At the end of every budget year there would be a lot of spending, much of it on things that I didn't think we needed. Extra air tanks, and extra hose were common purchases, just to make sure all the money was spent.

The view from the top was, if we don't spend it they will think we don't need that much money next year. My thought at the time was, maybe we don't need it.

You are exactly right. We had gov people come in to our business and told us they had to buy just to increase their budget to keep it looking high for the upcoming year.

[John Mercier]

Well, with all the money they are intending to raise.
Instead of the taxpayers putting out $18 million next year, they will only have to subsidize $17.5 million.

Of course, that doesn't include the extra $100 million projected for the Derry Rail Trail so that bicycles, foot traffic, and snowmobiles can go under the highway.