Battle for boat fees renewed

The New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) has upped the ante in tis running battle over the proceeds from boat registrations. Since boats may be registered with either the state or a municipality, for some time each has sought to enlarge its share of the $3 million take at the expense of the other by encouraging boat owners to register with one and not the other. This week DOS mailed renewal notices to all boat owners, along with a self-addressed, postage paid envelope, to encourage them to register their vessels with the state, which would garner all the revenue without having to share it with the 40 municipalities authorized to collect the fee. Moreover, while the department has the decals required to complete the registration, because of what state officials describe as "problems with the manufacturer" the municipalities do not. Finally, for the first time the department has informed Lakes Region boat owners that they may process their registrations at the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office in the Belknap Mall. Denise Morrisette, the Town Clerk/Tax Clerk in Gilford, who aggressively pursues and protects the more than $80,000 the town collects from boat registrations, was taken by surprise. She could not remember when renewal notices had been mailed so early, explaining that they are usually posted in November or December. Likewise, she found the DMV's explanation for the shortage of decals suspect. And to add insult to injury, Morrissette suggested that the mailing of renewal notices was timed to coincide with a conference of town clerks and tax collectors at Dixville Notch. Although caught off guard, Morrissette rallied quickly. "I want people to know they can still register their boats at Town Hall and pay the town's portion of the fee then get their decal at the Belknap Mall," she said. Late Friday afternoon, she said that she had spoken with Virginia Beecher, Director of DMV, who told her she might take delivery of some decals early next week. Morrissette's principal antagonist, Dave Barrett, director of the Marine Patrol, whose budget relies in large measure on the proceeds from boat registrations, said that "it wasn't my idea, but it isn't a bad idea." Acknowledging that the renewal notices were mailed earlier than usual, he said that the timing depended on "logistics, scheduling and, above all, computer time. It's not my decision. Not at all." Barrett had no explanation for the shortage of decals beyond remarking that "these things happen." The decision to accept registrations at the Belknap Mall, he said, was part of an effort "to make registration as easy and painless for the boaters as we can." The tussle between the municipalities and the state for the boat fee revenue arises from the confused and contradictory statutes governing its collection and distribution. Two fees are collected. The registration fee, ranging from $17 to $51 according to the length of the vessel, and the boat fee, which varies from $10 to $1,761 with the type, length, engine and age of the vessel. Both fees may be collected either by the DOS or its agents, generally municipalities or marinas, but all the proceeds of the registration fee, apart from a processing charge, are sent to the DOS. Like the registration fee, the boat fee can be collected either by the DOS or its agents. But, unlike the registration fee, which is always deposited with the DOS, boat fees collected by agents, either municipalities or marinas, are deposited with the municipalities. Only when boats are registered directly with the DOS are the proceeds from boat fees kept by the state and deposited in the navigation safety fund, which was established in 1999 to promote safety on public waters and to administer and enforce the statutes regulating the registration and operation of boats. The law governing the distribution of the proceeds from the boat fee provides that "every clerk, tax collector, and authorized agent shall each week send all boat fees collected to his town or city treasurer" and that the funds "shall be for the general use of the town or city." At the same time, the law stipulates that boat fees collected by the DOS "shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund." Barrett insists that the Legislature's intent was that the proceeds from all boat fees, including those collected by agents, should be applied to the navigation safety fund, which he said is dedicated exclusively to funding the budget of his division. Equally strongly Morrissette insists that the law clearly prescribes that the proceeds from boat fees collected by municipalities and their agents belong to the cities and towns. Barrett estimates that municipalities keep more than $1-million in boat fees each year, or about a third of what is collected. Laconia takes in about $93,000, Gilford $85,000, Meredith $48,000 and Belmont $32,000 while Morrissette estimated Alton's share at more than $50,000. Last spring, Representative Richard Drisko (R-Hollis) introduced a bill that would have funneled all boat fees to the navigation safety fund administered by DOS. The Town Clerks Association managed to scuttle the bill in the House of Representatives only to see it reappear in the Senate, where under pressure from municipalities it was ultimately withdrawn. At the time Barrett accepted the setback, but did not give up the fight. "I'm not trying to get into their knickers," he said. "They're getting into mine. I don't know how it got that way, but I'm trying to correct it."