It's Official--Timber sues county

[fireweed]

I can see the net is not a place for discussion..... as what I was trying to simply say was (my feeling right or wrong) is that they are no longer using their lands for strictly growing trees. They have stepped into a "for profit" land use situation and this should be considered a seperate use for the land in which they should be taxed for HOW THE LAND IS USED. The minute they started taking money for access the tax on that property should be changed, they could lock it down, that's fine. 

So here is something I have been pondering.  In response to the above.  A Golf Course pays a Property Tax with DOR Code 94 Open Space Land in accordance with RCW 84.34...   So where is it captured that they are profiting from revenue generated charging members (or public depending on the golf course).  They are not strictly using the property for Open Space.  What I am wondering is how is it that timber should get taxed more on property taxes because they have access fees, but their is no outcry for golf-courses to pay more for having all their fees.  Am I wrong in thinking these are similar situations, is it fair to only go after timber properties?   

Golf courses and other properties that could qualify as "open space-open space" are treated very differently than timber or agricultural lands.  I looked into getting a forested campground into this category, so I've done some research.  The open space-open space is set up for things like Nature Conservancy land, parks, swamps, or for land that someone likes to look at but says they aren't going to ever log.  In Cowlitz Co. there are only a handfull of properties, and yes one is a golf course. 

Heres the big difference: to enroll in this (open space-open space) category you must show, on paper, that you provide specific PUBLIC BENEFITS and each single benefit gets you so many "points" and as these points lower the taxable value as they add up.  Public Access is specifically identified as one of the eligible benefits.  You can CHOOSE to let the public on the property, and this is worth an extra 10% or so off the value of the property.  Its called a weighted benefit system.  This is a huge difference from timberland, where every landowner gets the same full tax break regardless of that particular land's public benefits.  This weighted benefit system could be the model for re-vamping the tax on timberland--a base rate, then if non-motorized public access is allowed the value is further reduced, if motorized access, it could be again reduced.

PS the big problem with enrolling in open space-open space is the fee that counties have tacked onto the process so only rich golf courses can afford it. 

[fireweed]

I believe 5000 Acres was used as a guideline by the Gray's Harbor County commissioners. Not sure.
No one said that WEYCO is breaking the law and no one said that open public land use was in the tax code. They aren't and it isn't. However, when that code was written, the assumption was made that WEYCO would continue to cooperate with the state and its residents in allowing use of their inactive parcels for recreation. A lot has changed, specifically large timber companies changing to a pay-to-play system. So, many think that the structure of the tax code should change as well. I get it that you're not one of them. 

In the Department of Natural Resources forest practice rules, landowners with 5,000 acres or more are defined as "industrial timberland". The DNR has different rules for them as opposed to small forestland owners and medium sized.  This category is already estabilshed in state law, and they already must follow different rules so a precedent is set to use 5,000 acres as a cut-off.  Grays Harbor used the 2-million board feet of harvest (which is also used in places by the DNR etc) to separate small from industrial landowners.  I have proposed we use this 5,000 acre existing category in revisions to the tax laws.  That's the logic behind it.

[pianoman9701]

Great information Fireweed. So not only do the open space-open space properties pay a lump sum tax up front, they only get breaks depending on which services they offer the public. I agree it would be a good idea to look at for any changes that would affect how timber companies are tax in the future,

[headshot5]

Heres the big difference: to enroll in this (open space-open space) category you must show, on paper, that you provide specific PUBLIC BENEFITS and each single benefit gets you so many "points" and as these points lower the taxable value as they add up.  Public Access is specifically identified as one of the eligible benefits.  You can CHOOSE to let the public on the property, and this is worth an extra 10% or so off the value of the property.  Its called a weighted benefit system.  This is a huge difference from timberland, where every landowner gets the same full tax break regardless of that particular land's public benefits.  This weighted benefit system could be the model for re-vamping the tax on timberland--a base rate, then if non-motorized public access is allowed the value is further reduced, if motorized access, it could be again reduced.

Is there a specific WAC or RCW that covers this point system?  Or is it something set up by the County?  I appreciate the information.   

[Antlershed]

One could argue that they are still allowing public access to their property, it's just not a free-for-all like it once was.

Plus, the fees they charge would be included in taxable income subject to ~40% tax 

Also, aren't Rayonier and Hancock taxed the same way as Weyco? How come nobody had cared all the years they have been doing the same thing? 

[fireweed]

Great information Fireweed. So not only do the open space-open space properties pay a lump sum tax up front, they only get breaks depending on which services they offer the public. I agree it would be a good idea to look at for any changes that would affect how timber companies are tax in the future,

Here's my county's web page on it and links to Dept of Revenue general forms.  I have the actual "checklist" of points somewhere, but didn't find it.  http://wa-cowlitzcounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=1134

[headshot5]

Ahhh!  I found it...  Look at WAC 458-30-330  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-30-330.  It gives the counties authority to set up an Open Space, Public Benefit Rating system.  It appears Cowlitz County indeed does this, though the other counties I have worked with have not implemented the PBR system.  I guess a Golf-Course in Cowlitz County is not in my future.

The Golf Courses that own property in the Counties I am familiar with do not use this system as the Counties have opted to not implement them.     

[1bugman]

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 becomes 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.

 
I agree. it would put the property into a different use.

[Humptulips]

Back in 71 there were very few gates. It was considered "normal" to take the 4x4 for a drive in the woods. Set up a tent, may do some fishing or hunting on "private" timberland.

We have been told that gates are necessary to prevent theft, vandolism & dumping garbage. We were told that gates did not impare our ability to enjoy the land just changed it.

We are now told that a permitt is neccesary to pay for the enforcement on the land reducing the Theft, vandalism and dumping.

IF good timberland sells for $500-1000 an acre but is only taxed at $130 ish that means the public is supposed to get something out of the deal. When the mistical "value" of my home goes up My taxes do as well.

So far, all I have heard is it was assumed public access would be free.  Not all assumptions are true.  Nothing in the law reflects this access, and I don't think it should, at least not in property taxes. 

I agree maybe the DOR needs to adjust their calculator.  I don't think it should reflect public access though.  Public access doesn't make trees grow faster or more straight, or change the physical attributes of the property (besides the garbage).  So why should it be tied to a property tax?  Make a seperate access tax structure.

We get clearly that you don't think the property tax structure should be changed. But, this should be tied to the property tax because the rate for the unlogged land was set when the companies were letting the citizens use their land for free. It was tied to property tax then and should be now that it's gone. It doesn't matter that it was an assumption it would stay that way. It didn't. It changed. Because public access was the reasons they get that rate, and there's no longer free public access, take that rate away and replace it with one that more adequately taxes their land that is of little benefit to the citizens of WA.. No separate structure. No new taxes. Just change what they pay. They can make their millions charging hunters to perform a service for them and the state can make millions charging them a fair value for their land. Maybe I could pay a little less with the largest land owners in the state kicking in a more fair tax based on value.

"Companies were letting the citizens use their land for free"  or were the citizens simply using the land for free without the companies consent. Legally the company can not be held responsible for the liberties taken by the citizens without express consent.  Crying foul now is akin to pleading ignorance of the law.  If someone can produce a legit piece of legislation or WA Code that  states the tax rate is linked to unfettered access then this arguement wouldn't matter.  The state or local government to my knowledge never connected the dots between tax rates and citizen access.  Without that there is no legal basis for changing the tax rate.

It seems pretty obvious they were letting their land be used  with consent. There used to be signs at WEYCO gates that said "Welcome hunters". My how times have changed but even now the gates are mostly all posted with the red dot system signs if they are open to the public. They specifically say they are open to entry with some restrictions on type of travel. That surely is consent.

[pianoman9701]

Back in 71 there were very few gates. It was considered "normal" to take the 4x4 for a drive in the woods. Set up a tent, may do some fishing or hunting on "private" timberland.

We have been told that gates are necessary to prevent theft, vandolism & dumping garbage. We were told that gates did not impare our ability to enjoy the land just changed it.

We are now told that a permitt is neccesary to pay for the enforcement on the land reducing the Theft, vandalism and dumping.

IF good timberland sells for $500-1000 an acre but is only taxed at $130 ish that means the public is supposed to get something out of the deal. When the mistical "value" of my home goes up My taxes do as well.

So far, all I have heard is it was assumed public access would be free.  Not all assumptions are true.  Nothing in the law reflects this access, and I don't think it should, at least not in property taxes. 

I agree maybe the DOR needs to adjust their calculator.  I don't think it should reflect public access though.  Public access doesn't make trees grow faster or more straight, or change the physical attributes of the property (besides the garbage).  So why should it be tied to a property tax?  Make a seperate access tax structure.

We get clearly that you don't think the property tax structure should be changed. But, this should be tied to the property tax because the rate for the unlogged land was set when the companies were letting the citizens use their land for free. It was tied to property tax then and should be now that it's gone. It doesn't matter that it was an assumption it would stay that way. It didn't. It changed. Because public access was the reasons they get that rate, and there's no longer free public access, take that rate away and replace it with one that more adequately taxes their land that is of little benefit to the citizens of WA.. No separate structure. No new taxes. Just change what they pay. They can make their millions charging hunters to perform a service for them and the state can make millions charging them a fair value for their land. Maybe I could pay a little less with the largest land owners in the state kicking in a more fair tax based on value.

"Companies were letting the citizens use their land for free"  or were the citizens simply using the land for free without the companies consent. Legally the company can not be held responsible for the liberties taken by the citizens without express consent.  Crying foul now is akin to pleading ignorance of the law.  If someone can produce a legit piece of legislation or WA Code that  states the tax rate is linked to unfettered access then this arguement wouldn't matter.  The state or local government to my knowledge never connected the dots between tax rates and citizen access.  Without that there is no legal basis for changing the tax rate.

Since they announced that they're now charging and previously, those roads were open to the public AND were patrolled by WDFW LE who checked licenses, it's actually very clear that their land was open to the public except when they closed it for fire danger. You're stretching way too much on this.

[pd]

Pianoman, you guys are getting into way too much detail for the rest of us to follow.  Isn't it the case that some of the public (correctly or not) feel betrayed?  That is, many assume the lower tax rates for forest land were set in olden days, to ensure public access, and now this system has changed.

A citizen's referendum (or initiative---I always forget which is which) would do wonders to solve this problem.  Like him or hate him, Tim Eyeman plays this game very well, and a lot could be learned from his success.

[pianoman9701]

Agreed and agreed. I don't know who Eyeman is.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Agreed and agreed. I don't know who Eyeman is.

The $30.00 car tab guy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Eyman

[Mike450r]

There was a time when there were no gates.  Then some gates but most were open.  Then a lot of gates and most were closed.  Then almost all closed.  It has been a progression and it took a long time to get here.  Now we are looking at fee access and I am on the side that thinks it will be determined that it complies with any public access agreements that were in place.  It's still privately owned property and a privilege to access, not a right. 

For a site with what seemed to be a majority of members favoring less legislation, litigation, and regulation the hypocrisy shown on this particular issue amuses me. 

[pianoman9701]

There was a time when there were no gates.  Then some gates but most were open.  Then a lot of gates and most were closed.  Then almost all closed.  It has been a progression and it took a long time to get here.  Now we are looking at fee access and I am on the side that thinks it will be determined that it complies with any public access agreements that were in place.  It's still privately owned property and a privilege to access, not a right. 

For a site with what seemed to be a majority of members favoring less legislation, litigation, and regulation the hypocrisy shown on this particular issue amuses me.

Apparently you haven't read through the thread then. No one's talking about more legislation. No one's saying a private landowner shouldn't be able to do with their land as they wish, as long as their practices don't negatively affect the wildlife or the ecology. We're talking about an adjustment in the existing tax code for their rate established in 1971. Be amused all you want. There are a lot of locals all around the west side who aren't amused, who've supported the timber industry in their communities when many didn't, and who've helped them with their animal-related damage through cooperation. Many people can barely afford the licenses and tags, let alone an extra access fee to go hunting out of the back of their own land. I'm luckily in a position where I could afford the fee were I inclined to want to hunt for limping elk. I'm not inclined.