IMPORTANT NOTICE : DELEGATE JAY JACOBS IS SEEKING YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE. YOU MAY POST THEM BELOW OR EMAIL : delegatejacobs@gmail.com
Sent In By Rock Hall Wave Reader & Friday Night Race Member Christian Sunkler
Boating Fee Proposal
It soon may become much more expensive to put a boat in the water in Maryland.
The Department of Natural Resources is proposing new boat registration fees that would be phased in over the next several years.
By 2016, here’s what boat owners would pay every two years to register their boats:
- Small non-motorized boats (voluntary): $12.
- Less than 16 feet long: $50.
- 16 feet to 32 feet: $125.
- 32 feet to 45 feet: $250.
- 45 feet to 65 feet: $500.
- Longer than 65 feet: $700.
“We do not have sufficient funds to support the needs that we have for boating in Maryland,” said Bob Gaudette, who supervises boating programs for the DNR.
Right now, boaters pay $24 every two years to register their boats. Under the proposal, the registration fee would be multiplied many times over, depending on the size of the boat. The fees would be phased in. By 2016, owners of small boats less than 16 feet would pay $50 every two years. Other fees would be $125 for boats from 16 to 32 feet, $250 for boats from 32 feet to 45 feet, and $500 for boats from 45 feet to 65 feet. For the largest boats of all — more than 65 feet — the fee would be $700.
The fees would apply to boats that aren’t registered in Maryland, but are state-documented vessels because they are primarily used here. The proposal removes an exemption for sailboats that don’t also have motors. Under the proposal, all sailboats 16 feet or larger must register, whether they have a motor or not.
There also would be a new, voluntary registration for canoes, kayaks and paddleboats that would cost $12 every two years. About 57,000 small, nonmotorized boats would be eligible statewide. Anne Arundel County would be the state jurisdiction most heavily affected by the new rules. There are 36,348 registered boats there, more than in any other county.
If boat ownership stays steady at about 200,000 boats, the new fees would bring in $13.2 million per year. Right now, boating registration generates $2.1 million for the state annually.
But even the proposed increases wouldn’t be enough to plug the boating services budget holes at DNR. The DNR’s boating programs get most of their money from the 5 percent excise tax paid when boats are sold. As the economy has faltered, boat sales have plummeted. That means less excise tax money going to the state.
“I am completely at the whim of the marketplaces. If boat sales go up, I have money. If boat sales go down, I don’t have money,” Gaudette said.
But the state still has a long list of boating-related projects. That list could soon get longer, since the Army Corps of Engineers announced recently that it can no longer afford as many dredging projects.
The state has about $15 million available for boating projects each year, but an annual list of $41 million worth of work. Even if the registration fee increases are approved by lawmakers, the DNR still will be short.
“This gets us a little less than halfway there,” Gaudette said. “We’re not going for the moon here. We’re trying to cover the most critical of our projects.”
The projects include maintaining thousands of buoys, markers and signs; maintaining 265 public boating channels; keeping channels free of ice in the winter; having Natural Resources Police conduct boating safety checks; removing abandoned boats; and maintaining public boating facilities.
The proposal is being introduced to the General Assembly today.
DNR officials acknowledged that they may face opposition. Lawmakers have been wary of fee and tax increases, and many are already frustrated about Gov. Martin O’Malley’s proposal to apply the 6 percent sales tax to gasoline purchases. Olivia Campbell Andersen, the DNR’s lobbyist, said many boating fees haven’t been changed in decades. And the money would go to projects that will benefit those who pay the fees.
“People recognize the great need for services that these funds provide,” she said. “We want to keep boating thriving and safe in Maryland.”
A hearing has not yet been scheduled.
Question: Will the proposed fees apply to a federally documented (NY,NY) vessel sailing(43 ft) in Maryland
waters?
If this question is to be sent to Jay jacobs, do you have his email address? Thank you Robin for
keeping us up-to-date on this and other issues affecting boating.
As much as I hate to admit this, and as much as I hate fees – after being involved to a degree with the recent dredging issue – I think that if it comes down to a choice between paying higher fees or running aground, I’ll gladly pay a higher fee. Whatever the purpose, whether recreational or commercial, all boaters have way too much at stake to be at the mercy of the federal government and/or the State’s insufficient funds to accommodate our dredging needs. It is very easy for the feds to “not have the resources available”, when they are needed. Maybe a compromised higher fee based on a combination of draft as well as length could justify an incremental increase. After all, when you consider the annual costs of owning and maintaining any boat, if you can’t get it in or out of a harbor…, well, you might as well buy a car instead. I think, looking at the big picture, if you do the math – paying more into the DNR fund for reliable dredging and other essential needs is a small price to pay.
We own two businesses in Rock Hall. We are critically dependent on strong tourism traffic. In the case of Rock Hall, that traffic is primarily visitors coming here by water, then spending time and dollars in our town. Boaters and watermen have been hard hit by high gasoline prices and the proposed boat tax increase will deliver a punishing blow to the very people who provide the lifeblood for Maryland tourism. Is this yet another way to penalize the already struggling Eastern Shore?
All I have left is my old 8′ inflatable Avon dinghy with a 2 HP outboard. I haven’t used it in many years. $50 is way too much for a ” boat” like this. You need a category for dinghys. The other fees seem pretty reasonable, although I have my doubts about having to register small, non-motorized sailboats, especially the ones that sailing schools teach on.
This seems to be what we will be seeing more and more of in the future. If we need the service, then we can expect more fees. If we boat, drive a car, fly out of BWI on business, cross the Bay bridge, or use Light Rail, we can expect to see fee/toll/tax increases to support the maintenance and upgrades for the infrastructure that supports the service we use.
While the current rates are low, the proposed rates are punishing and it is stated that even the proposed rates won’t raise the amounts needed for basic services. Funding these services out of registration fees and boat sales is clearly a failed model when every business near the Bay benefits from the boater dollar. Lets come up with a way to fund these services that spreads the cost more widely.
“There also would be a new, voluntary registration for canoes, kayaks and paddleboats that would cost $12 every two years.” – Huh?….guessing there won’t be line at that DNR window
I’ve got a 15′ outboard sitting in my yard. My fee would go from $24/2 years to $50. That’s still only $25/year. I’m OK with this. If you can afford to buy and maintain 65′ boat, $350/year is a drop in the bucket.
Who loves Taxes? But this is a use fee. We sailors/boaters use it, we need to pay for it. Too many people want “other people” to pay for what we use. That said, $50 for a dingy plus your boat fee is a little over the top.
The proposed boating registration fees will certainly curtail new boaters and probably cause existing boaters to exit this activity. It will definitely be an economic blow to the businesses and tourist activities around the Cheseapeake Bay and other water bodies. It is felt that those participants in fishing, boating and other related water sport activitities will seriously think twice before buying and/or registering their watercraft. Government needs to live within its means and not keep asking the public to pay more in taxes when the public is already being hammered by more and more taxes and special assessments.
C’mon – Just yesterday, I paid $129.00 for a cheap plastic electrical connector – worth about $10..00 in the real world, but the best price I could find. Add that to many other normal operating expenses and you realize that boating isn’t a cheap hobby. I hate to spend the money too but it goes with the territory. I agree that the proposed increase is a bit extreme, but we can’t seriously think that it will cause a mas exodus from boating. I think that if our favorite harbors become no longer navigable – then you will see people sailing elsewhere – or not at all.
Mark,
Its all about affordability…truth of the matter is boat ownership has taken a huge hit as most have seen a reduction in spendable income….yes there is an exodus from boat ownership….huge? … depends on how you make your living. We can expect to continue to see more boaters leaving the sport then are coming in. This doesn’t bode well for the DNR’s main source of income….”excise tax” on boats changing hands. This sure won’t help….
Not so sure it won’t cause and exodus for some people. Last year, we had 2 friends who are long time Rock Hall boaters, who didn’t put their boats in the water at all because they couldn’t afford it. Their own businesses were hit by the economic down turn. And that was before an additional tax. So I gotta believe some people will bail on boating, or at least on boating in Maryland. The fabulous tax free state of Delaware is one border away, and many of them travel through there anyway.
This frankly seems like a high price, but I recognize that we boaters should help maintain the services we use. I think others who benefit from proximity to the water, e.g. businesses, homeowners and boating visitors should also be asked to shoulder at least some of the burden. It would make fees easier to swallow and multiply the positive impact on the waterways.
Recreational boaters would have to start adding these fees to their yearly boat budget. This could impact decisions on whether to move up to a slightly larger boat, or, in some cases, whether to keep a boat in Maryland at all.
Many of us who keep a recreational boat in Rock Hall live out of state, and so are not represented in decisions about taxation and fees. We can contact all the marine-related business owners and explain how these fees will affect us, and how they will affect the businesses.
I think it would be good to understand exactly how the new fees are going to be spent, how much money is being spent on those things now, exactly where the money for this things has come from in the past, how much this has changed during the economic downturn, and projections for future revenue, in order to understand why such a big change is being proposed.
Democratic governments exist as a way for people pool their resources and get things done. More information can only improve the process.
A quick search of boating registration fees for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Virginia shows that the new fees will leave Maryland with the highest fees, and New Jersey following close behind. These new fees could justify raising the fees in those neighboring States as they struggle to provide services with shrinking revenue, and use Maryland as an example of a State that has raised fees to make ends meet. It could arguably be said that Maryland has the most waterways to maintain at the standard we would want to provide safety and accessability, and is centrally located to provide boater enjoyability over a greater area.
Another quick search show that it is not hard to spend 2.5 MILLION dollars for a 65′ boat which consumes a miserly 30 gallons per hour ( $120.00 per hour at $4.00 per gallon ). How much $350.00 per year influences someone that can afford a boat of that scale is subject for debate.
” I am completely at the whim of the marketplaces. If boat sales go up, I have money. If boat sales go down, I don’t have money.” Gaudette of the DNR says. Gee that sounds like my business. Too bad I can’t go out and mandate a fee from all my customers so I can keep doing the things I’ve grown accustomed to. I have to CUT BACK. Don’t count on this bunch to reconsider any new fee. When they closed the psychiatric unit in Chestertown and turned
out over 40 sad souls to fend for themselves I knew this administration had turned its back on the Eastern Shore. Now it has its sights on boaters, knowing that the majority of them live elswhere and can’t vote. They are
n’t brave enough to increase fees and taxes on people who can vote. Oh that’s right they did raise taxes on “millionaires”. The result of that little move cost them millions in uncollected taxes as the “millionaires” moved to Virginia and elsewhere. There has to be a better way. By the way….with a 4.0 Trillion dollar federal budget (of which 1.3 trillion is borrowed….) where is all that money going ???? The largest federal budget in history and the Army Corps of Engineers doesn’t have money to dredge a harbor that they have dredged for decades ?? Wake up folks.
Higher fees mean fewer Maryland boats. Fewer boats mean less work to maintain them. Less work means higher unemployment. How is the job picture on the Eastern Shore?
A compromise needs to be found that won’t kill jobs in the marine industry and allows needed Bay maintenance.
One of the problems is the Governor of Maryland has more than once taken money from DNR to balance his state budget.
I have a few boating friends that feel there from outerstate and being shaken down . This will hurt more that you think Maryland might be a destination to pass thru to some where else.
The crux of the problem began when the legislature appropriated and ‘removed’ $42 million from the Waterways Improvement Fund and moved it into the general fund. That was where the 5% tax went when a boat was purchased. So it was only a matter of time before that fund needed to be replenished.
I don’t think reasonable people would disagree on the need for the DNR to be funded to perform it’s mandate, nor would most people balk at a modest fee – but to go from $24.00 to $250.00, (in my case) that’s over a 1000% increase. If the legislature would return a portion of that $42 million maybe the DNR could be funded with a more reasonable increase. The possibility of that seems remote, just as remote as politicians keeping their hands out of other peoples’ pockets.
I think this increase is ill advised. In this economy, many people have already left boating due to the ever increasing costs associated with boat ownership. Why enacted a law that would push more boaters out of boating?
The rationale seems to be, boaters can afford it, after all – they own a boat. Well, according to the DNR’s own statistics, there are 104,438 boats in the 16′ – 32′ range. This is mom ‘n pop and the kids type of boating, families fishing or water skiing for the weekend, spending money locally for gas, food and other incidentals.
By-the-way, there are 15,126 boats in the 32′ – 45′ range, 1,914 in the 45′ – 65′ range, and only 52 in the over 65′ range. This is in all of Maryland! So, in the light of day, by far, the type of people who boat in Maryland are not the ultra wealthy who can afford and will pay anything. They are people just like the rest of us, we go to work, get a paycheck, look forward to the weekend to relax on the boat.
If lack of boats creates a problem Kent county should relax their regulations on installing new docks or boat lifts on existing. this would allow reators to sell more property thus bring more boats. If there is a problem with cost to watermen include their regisration with their fishing licenses eliminating the increase to them.as for recreational increases if you can afford a boat you should be able to afford an increase just as other things have increased
The absolute last people that should be taxed are rich people such as boat owners. We might not like them, but they are the only source of employment.