It's Official--Timber sues county

[fireweed]

http://thedailyworld.com/news/local/timber-industry-challenges-county-s-fee-access-ordinance

[returnofsid]

Interestingly, every time someone brings up removing the Timber Company's tax break, several HuntWa members reply, saying how stupid the other member is, claiming that the Timber industry does NOT get a tax break, or that it has nothing to do with allowing access...

This should be an interesting lawsuit.  I wonder how much it'll cost tax payers?

[BOWHUNTER45]

Well , it is obvious they do ..and I am glad it is out in the open  For the amount of money the timber companies generate I think they can afford to let hunters and others on their land even if it is walk -in or horses or bicycles 

[fireweed]

“Our association and industry enjoys a strong working relationship in timber communities, such as Grays Harbor County and as such, I am disappointed that the recently passed ordinance now requires us to bring legal action against the county,” Mark Doumit, executive director of the Washington Forest Protection Association, said in a press release. “… As a longtime supporter of county government, it is unfortunate that it has come to this point, but we have no choice except to protect private landowners’ rights by taking legal action.” -

It's not about protecting private landowners taxbreaks, but protecting their "rights"...Ya, right.

[Magnum_Willys]

Comment from article:   "I can see where this is heading. The taxpayers will spend more on lawyers than hunters will spend on access fees."

 

[Knocker of rocks]

Interestingly, every time someone brings up removing the Timber Company's tax break, several HuntWa members reply, saying how stupid the other member is, claiming that the Timber industry does NOT get a tax break, or that it has nothing to do with allowing access...

This should be an interesting lawsuit.  I wonder how much it'll cost tax payers?

The tax rate paid by timber is set by land use.  To say that they get a tax break would be like saying a SFR gets a tax break because they pay a different rate than does a twenty story condo on almost the same lot size.

It will cost the Tax payer of Grayss Harbor Co,   but not the State of WA.

[pianoman9701]

I love the name of the timber industry association - The WA Forest Protection Association. I'd be interested to hear their idea of what protecting the forests is. Even if they prevail in the lawsuit, they're not going to benefit from it. The citizens of the state, especially those who live in these areas, are starting to take a whole different view of big timber companies.

[Knocker of rocks]

I love the name of the timber industry association - The WA Forest Protection Association. I'd be interested to hear their idea of what protecting the forests is. Even if they prevail in the lawsuit, they're not going to benefit from it. The citizens of the state, especially those who live in these areas, are starting to take a whole different view of big timber companies.

You are now on Timberfallers hippy list

[Antlershed]

Interestingly, every time someone brings up removing the Timber Company's tax break, several HuntWa members reply, saying how stupid the other member is, claiming that the Timber industry does NOT get a tax break, or that it has nothing to do with allowing access...

This should be an interesting lawsuit.  I wonder how much it'll cost tax payers?

The tax rate paid by timber is set by land use.  To say that they get a tax break would be like saying a SFR gets a tax break because they pay a different rate than does a twenty story condo on almost the same lot size.

It will cost the Tax payer of Grayss Harbor Co,   but not the State of WA.

The tax break is NOT for allowing public access. It is because they pay the tax when they harvest the timber. Grays Harbor County is essentially making the tax break all about access. The timber companies should shut down all access and not lose their classification as "open space". 

[headshot5]

I am not really surprised about that the timber companies are pushing back.  It wasn't a really well thought plan by the county.  It will be interesting to see exactly what precedence is set by this lawsuit.       

[Special T]

I remeber reading about a similar lawsuit on the east coast. It was actually between a high end duck club and a state about  taxable land use.  There was also some kind of tax break for "open space" but the state made the case that if you charge $ to access it, it bcomes recreational property and lies under a different tax catagory. I want to say the article was in Outdoor Life or Feild and stream a couple years back.

[huntnphool]

Interestingly, every time someone brings up removing the Timber Company's tax break, several HuntWa members reply, saying how stupid the other member is, claiming that the Timber industry does NOT get a tax break, or that it has nothing to do with allowing access...

This should be an interesting lawsuit.  I wonder how much it'll cost tax payers?

The tax rate paid by timber is set by land use.  To say that they get a tax break would be like saying a SFR gets a tax break because they pay a different rate than does a twenty story condo on almost the same lot size.

It will cost the Tax payer of Grayss Harbor Co,   but not the State of WA.

The tax break is NOT for allowing public access. It is because they pay the tax when they harvest the timber. Grays Harbor County is essentially making the tax break all about access. The timber companies should shut down all access and not lose their classification as "open space". 

 +1

[fireweed]

To review so we all have our facts straight.

Reason for the tax break is laid out by the legislature in the findings of the LAW 84:33:010:
 (1) The public welfare requires that this state's system for taxation of timber and forest lands be modernized to assure the citizens of this state and its future generations the advantages to be derived from the continuous production of timber and forest products from the significant area of privately owned forests in this state. It is this state's policy to encourage forestry and restocking and reforesting of such forests so that present and future generations will enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide in enhancing water supply, in minimizing soil erosion, storm and flood damage to persons or property, in providing a habitat for wild game, in providing scenic and recreational spaces, in maintaining land areas whose forests contribute to the natural ecological equilibrium, and in providing employment and profits to its citizens and raw materials for products needed by everyone. 

To recap the tax structure was set out for the PUBLIC WELFARE and so that "present and future generations enjoy the benefits which forest areas provide" and then those benefits are listed.  One of the benefits listed is recreional spaces, so it logically follows that a portion (not all) of the tax break is to compensate for recreation.  Yes, it should be more specific, but clearly the legislative intent was to set up a system that rewards ALL forest benefits including recreation.

AND the excise tax at harvest does NOT replace the property tax on the land, just the tax in the value of standing timber:

(a) the ad valorem system for taxing timber be modified and discontinued in stages over a three year period during which such system will be replaced by one under which timber will be taxed on the basis of stumpage value at the time of harvest, and

     (b) forest land remain under the ad valorem taxation system but be taxed only as provided in this chapter and RCW 28A.150.250.

The belief that the excise tax on harvested timber is supposed to replace or compensate for the property (land) tax is not supported by the law.

Additionally "open space" has it's own rules and classifications.  We are primarily discussing DFL (designated forest land).  It is a bit confusing to call it Open Space, since the "open space" wording sends you to a different set of laws,

[headshot5]

AND the excise tax at harvest does NOT replace the property tax on the land, just the tax in the value of standing timber:

Correct, that is why there is both a property tax and an excise tax...,  it is also why timber ground is taxed cheaper (property tax), because it is taxed without taking into account the value of the standing timber on it.   

Additionally "open space" has it's own rules and classifications.  We are primarily discussing DFL (designated forest land).  It is a bit confusing to call it Open Space, since the "open space" wording sends you to a different set of laws,

FYI (so you can have your facts straight...  )
Fireweed, the above is no longer technically correct...

Check out "HOUSE BILL REPORT SB 6180"  see link http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/6180%20HBR%20APH%2014.pdf

Counties are now incorporating Open Space and Designated Forest Land into one tax code DOR Code 88 (Designated Forest Land).  So as of now most counties are transitioning all Open Space timber to Designated forest land.  Thus Designated forest land is availble for properties 5 acres and larger.


Edit to add.   Directly from link above. 

County legislative authorities are authorized to merge a county's open space timber land
program into its designated forest land program. In order for a county to merge programs,
the county must enact an ordinance that terminates its open space timber land program and
declares that land that had been in the timber land program to be as designated forest land.
The date that property was classified as open space timber before the ordinance is considered
to be the date of designation under the forest land program.

         

[fireweed]

Even without the value of the timber, the underlying land is taxed at a much lower value than bare timberland sells for on the open market.  This "current use" value of the land is based on the quality of the ground for growing trees and the selling value of logs and is calculated by the dept of revenue.  Good Westside bare timberland would sell for between $500 and 1000 per acre on the open market in areas with no development value, but those same acres on average have a "current use value" of about $130 per acre.  The standard property tax rate is calculated on this value.