New Decal Required

[Breakwater]

For decades the NH DMV and boat registration agents across the state have been issuing registrations for one lump sum. This expense included the following fees set by statute:

Section 270-E:5 - Registration Fees
I. The registration fees for commercial, private, and pleasure vessels, including rentals and airboats shall be as follows:
(a) Up to and including 16 feet $24
(b) 16.1 feet to 21 feet $34
(c) 21.1 feet to 30 feet $52
(d) 30.1 feet to 45 feet $72
(e) 45.1 feet and over $92

II. In addition to the fees required by paragraph I there shall be the following registration fees:
(a) $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.
(b) $1 for each registration required by this section. The fees collected under this subparagraph shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established under RSA 206:42.
(c) $5 for each registration processed by an authorized agent of the department who is not an employee of the department. The fees collected under this subparagraph shall be collected and retained by the authorized agent as compensation for processing the registration.
(d) $5 for each registration specified in paragraph I. The surcharge collected under this subparagraph shall be paid into the statewide public boat access fund established under RSA 233-A:13.
(e) $2 for each registration for tidal or coastal waters. The surcharge collected under this subparagraph shall be paid into the harbor dredging and pier maintenance fund established under RSA 12-G:46.

In addition, "Boat Fees" found in RSA 72-A:3
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...2-A/72-A-3.htm are part of the registration expense.

A US Coast Guard's review of the state's recreational boating safety program which includes the issuance of boat registrations (certificate of number as the feds call it), found the state was violating federal law when it collected the fees in red above. These fees were revenues sent to the agencies identified in the statute...NOT Marine Patrol. By the way, NH was one numerous states engaged in such a practice across the country.

The fees in green were deemed allowable by the Coast Guard.

Failure to correct the illegal collection of these fees jeopardized the Marine Patrol's receipt of its portion of the Recreational Boating Safety Grant awarded annually to each US state.

The NH DMV and Marine Patrol worked with the legislature over the last several sessions for a solution that would achieve compliance with the federal law, while also insuring the collection of the critical fees (in red) for the F&G, DES, and NH Port Authority.

The first bill that passed formed a study committee charged with finding a solution that would accomplish two things...1. Comply with federal registration laws, and 2. Continue to capture the critical revenues for the F&G. DES. and NHPA programs.

The simple solution that satisfied the two was to separate the collection of the outside fees from the registration fees and require the purchase of the second decal which captures the revenues for the F&G, DES, and NHPA.

Thus the increase of $3 for each registered boat (cost of 2nd decal).

FYI- US Senator Jeanne Shaheen has submitted a bipartisan bill in Congress to remedy this problem for NH and numerous other states. Let's hope this passes and leads to the repeal of the second NH decal.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...nate-bill/4113

[8gv]

All the fees in red add up to much more than the $3 additional decal.

How does the math work?

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by 8gv

All the fees in red add up to much more than the $3 additional decal.

How does the math work?

Good information from Breakwater. I, like others I assume, was wondering what led to a requirement for more stickers on the bow of our boats. The way I read it, we will still pay the "fees in red" at registration, they will just be separated from the other fees through voodoo accounting, to make the Coast Guard happy. The voodoo accounting will be substantiated by the new round stickers, for which we will have the privilege of paying $3 per year.

[fatlazyless]

Supposedly, the three dollars is to pay for these two round stickers, and not for the different state government services.

You know, methinks they should charge one hundred dollars for these two round stickers, plus require you to swim the 200+ yards, back and forth across Smith Cove from the Marine Patrol to qualify for a N.H.boat registration.

[AC2717]

Great
They can separate and collect without needing a second sticker

[John Mercier]

It appears that each sticker will represent a certain schedule of fees.
So both stickers will symbolize that all fees have been paid.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It appears that each sticker will represent a certain schedule of fees.
So both stickers will symbolize that all fees have been paid.

Symbolism shouldn't cost $3. In the back of my mind I still think the USCG wants some jurisdiction over our inland waters.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It appears that each sticker will represent a certain schedule of fees.
So both stickers will symbolize that all fees have been paid.

i would agree, but why not just change the sticker design or not needed at all
not that hard to have a $75 boat fee and a schedule of where it needs to be split up to and use one sticker, this has zero bearing to the consumer or tax payer when it comes to certification they paid their fees, this is a behind the scenes bookkeeping issue that isnt solved at the end user no matter how many stickers you force on someones watercraft.

Makes me laugh, so hey we had a bookkeeping issue with how we split up the fees you paid, so we are going to make you buy and use a seperate sticker so we can prove on our gov books with the organizations that when they see the sticker on your watercraft they will know that we split up the fees we collected from you --- in a single payment that goes to the same place and the same people splitting it up, so by us giving you a second sticker and charing you for it and you putting it on your watercraft, the other government organizations will know that we split up the single payment you sent to us at the same location and same office, was split properly in the books, or just another way to scrape money from us

Honeslty who thinks of this crap, who then allows this crap to pass, and then who signs it into law, my god. And this is what they do with their time


Here's an idea, hey we were collecting this money and weren't splitting it correctly, we need to do this with the money - and we will audit our workers to make sure they are doing correclty because we do this anyway - Done!

[AC2717]

Haven’t sent the registration into concord via mail in a long time
Am i just sending in the check with one of the registrations (owners copy) or all four they send you?

[Descant]

For those who register early (why?), do you get both stickers in the same return envelope? Isn't that proof you paid? Having such proof, why not just send the second sticker back, directly to the Governor? I'd guess this is some sort of administrative screw up, since we (I) certainly didn't hear anything last year about related legislation.

[John Mercier]

Probably even confusing to them...
It seems to have quite the history...

https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1304/2024

[chachee52]

This was on WMUR last night. Not sure it will help but does go through why.

https://www.wmur.com/article/new-law...52025/63341149

[Descant]

Originally Posted by chachee52

This was on WMUR last night. Not sure it will help but does go through why.

https://www.wmur.com/article/new-law...52025/63341149

Thanks for the link, John . I remain disappointed in our legislature for just giving in to the USCG for their $$. Maine had the right approach--let the Coast Guard do the coast and keep inland waters for ourselves. To me, USCG has no business auditing anything in NH.

[John Mercier]

To be fair, we (the Legislature on our behalf) wanted the federal dollars.
Federal dollars always come with strings attached.

And it usually takes an audit before anyone notices that we are not in compliance.

We used to buy groomers and tractors using NRTP funds.
Then the first Trump Administration during an audit discovered that we were in violation of an existing requirement that those all be made with US source steel.

We could still buy tractors, but not groomers, so the whole system changed to support the groomers... looking at our winters, not exactly the smartest move.

Long run... this will probably be more of a hassle then it is worth.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Descant

Thanks for the link, John . I remain disappointed in our legislature for just giving in to the USCG for their $$. Maine had the right approach--let the Coast Guard do the coast and keep inland waters for ourselves. To me, USCG has no business auditing anything in NH.

Doesn’t Marine Patrol also patrol coastal “navigable” waters such as the Piscataqua River? Isn’t that why they bought the surplus CG surf boat a number of years ago? Not conforming to the new requirements (which I think are crazy) might require state to cede any authority in those areas to CG. However, this does seem to be an easy/lazy way to solve an accounting issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Descant]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

Doesn’t Marine Patrol also patrol coastal “navigable” waters such as the Piscataqua River? Isn’t that why they bought the surplus CG surf boat a number of years ago? Not conforming to the new requirements (which I think are crazy) might require state to cede any authority in those areas to CG. However, this does seem to be an easy/lazy way to solve an accounting issue.

The impression I got from Dave Barret at the time was that the commissioners eyes glazed over when Homeland Security offered big bucks for NH to patrol our small section of the coast. That was the incentive to absorb MP into state police. Maine seems to have no problem telling where inland and coastal are differentiated. I think it makes sense for USCG to patrol the area around the Portsmouth Naval Ship Yard. I expect they patrol the Kennebec River up to the Bath Iron Works where they build ships for the US Navy.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Descant

For those who register early (why?), do you get both stickers in the same return envelope? Isn't that proof you paid? Having such proof, why not just send the second sticker back, directly to the Governor? I'd guess this is some sort of administrative screw up, since we (I) certainly didn't hear anything last year about related legislation.

Why do some register early? Because many New Hampshire people also use their boats in other places with year round boating, like Florida. There are a lot of Winnipesaukee boats that go to Florida every year in the fall and back to NH in the spring. That is a good reason to have them registered on January 1.

[8gv]

I got my four stickers for my 14' Aluminum boat today at the Laconia City Hall.

This boat heads to Florida in February for a week of camping and fishing.

The rest of my fleet can wait for the usual US mail process to play out.