It's Official--Timber sues county

[pianoman9701]

It depends headshot. Are the tax rates the same for golf courses and timber companies? Are the golf courses also paying sales taxes and profit taxes? I'm not sure it's a valid comparison at all.

[headshot5]

Open space (golf course) is captured in accordance with Chapter 84.34 RCW.  The same as open space timber or what used to be Open space timber (5-20 acres which changed recently per SB 6180) and Open space agriculture.

The Department of Revenue is not getting screwed by any means (they get their's), and as such all profits (access fees) from golf-courses are caught somewhere (taxed) and it is not on the property tax.  So it seems strange that everyone wants it to be captured as such for timber companies.  I'm not sure, it seems like a strange way to do it just for one business (timber growing).

Please note:  Open space listed above is generally for smaller chunks of property, so different somewhat from the giant timber properties...  Probably cause golf course around here are not that big.   

[pianoman9701]

Again, you didn't address other taxes that golf courses DO pay and collect. I'm sure there are many different kinds of business that get many different kinds of real estate rates under different conditions. We're talking here about timber companies who formerly allowed free use of their lands and now charge for those. Muddying up the issue with golf courses is a tactic. There's no comparison between the two types of business.

[headshot5]

Again, you didn't address other taxes that golf courses DO pay and collect.

Correct I did not.  Like mentioned before this is me pondering.  Maybe looking for someone who would know... You?  My point is... Why would access fees be tied to property tax in one instance (timber) and a sepertate for golf courses.  Seems like a silly system.  Wouldn't it be easier to capture income from access for timberlands the same as you would a golf course.  I'm sure they are taxed on income from green's fees annual membership etc.  I'm sure there is a system already in place to do this so why would we (public through legislation) want to re-invent the wheel? 

Please note:  Since golf courses are listed as open space...  they would need provide the same benefits to the public as a 5-20 acre timberground would prior to them being moved to designated forest land per the above listed SB. 
   

[Netminder01]

tag

[pianoman9701]

Again, you didn't address other taxes that golf courses DO pay and collect.

Correct I did not.  Like mentioned before this is me pondering.  Maybe looking for someone who would know... You?  My point is... Why would access fees be tied to property tax in one instance (timber) and a sepertate for golf courses.  Seems like a silly system.  Wouldn't it be easier to capture income from access for timberlands the same as you would a golf course.  I'm sure they are taxed on income from green's fees annual membership etc.  I'm sure there is a system already in place to do this so why would we (public through legislation) want to re-invent the wheel? 

Please note:  Since golf courses are listed as open space...  they would need provide the same benefits to the public as a 5-20 acre timberground would prior to them being moved to designated forest land per the above listed SB. 
 

Please also note that as has been mentioned, smaller land owners would be exempted - <5000 acres. I think that would cover most golf courses wouldn't it?  As far as reinventing the wheel is concerned, that's what the timber companies did when they decided to go pay-to-play. That was the first hat in this ring.

[headshot5]

Please also note that as has been mentioned, smaller land owners would be exempted - <5000 acres. I think that would cover most golf courses wouldn't it?   As far as reinventing the wheel is concerned, that's what the timber companies did when they decided to go pay-to-play. That was the first hat in this ring.

So far the 5000 acres is just a number thrown out there by someone.  There is nothing concrete about it at all, and it is possible that that # will change in either direction before it is pushed through as legislation (if it ever is), so I won't base my opinions off of what is proposed in someone else's mind somewhere.  Also, WEYCO is in my opinion still acting within the law, which the lawsuit in GH county will either prove or disprove.  If someone could please show me with links where forest land is broken into <5000 acres and >5000 acres in the WACs or RCWs.  How are they differentiated?   

I was not born back in '71 when the current timber tax structure was implemented, so I can't pretend to know what the overall plan was.  All I can base it off of is the law that is on the books.  I don't see anything about free access in the RCW's.  Thus these current talks of legislation to clarify/re-write the existing structure... 

Is it wrong that I think Designated Forest Land should be property taxed in accordance with the following (current system) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-40-540 which values are determined by the Department of Revenue and vary depending on the productivity of the soil and other factors. The values for each productivity class are updated annually by the Department of Revenue using a formula, which ties changes in land values to the long term trend in timber values. 

I guess I really don't see a place for Public Access being tied in with property taxes.  Is the land worth more or less to the landowner if the public can access it?  Should that be a determining factor in what land value is worth?  If the property is used primarily for growing and harvesting trees it is my feeling that it should be taxed as such.  Maybe a whole seperate tax should be made called an access tax and it can apply to everyone.  Let the public access your and my front yard/back field etc or have your private property be private but pay more.         


     

[pianoman9701]

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. 

[Special T]

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.

[BOWHUNTER45]

The have just proved to me that gates can be open  they opened a few in the area because they did not kill as many bear as they would have liked to in the spring ...One thing they did not do is open gates where there are elk ...go figure  what I am getting at is they have the ability to let bear hunters in for a month So why can not they let deer hunters in for a month ..what a crock of sheeeeeeeeeet !

[headshot5]

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.

[Curly]

I don't think the GH ordinance specified an acreage.  Wasn't it based on board feet logged?

The 5,000 acres was a value that was suggested I think.

[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.

[bowbuild]

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?   

Yes, I think that should be changed, and yes they (the golf course) should pay a higher tax if that is the case.  I just don't see why they (or anyone ) deserves special tax breaks....I get none.

So it is fair for a large land owner to pay less, why smaller land owners pay more?? How is this fair again? (I know this is not the way it is.) I feel you want a "open space" tax break, then it should be open to the public....period.... unless you pay full tax assessed at it's true value. Why should the public foot the bill for large landowners for their sole benefit?? You can have a choice, opt in/out. That's the way I would like it.

[fireweed]

Fireweed- the law you posted says the states policy ENCOURAGES timber companies to maintain all those benefits. Nowhere does it say it requires it for the tax break. It also doesn't say free recreational spaces.

This is a flaw in the law.  Every timber owner gets the same full tax break, with the law assuming that they all provide equal public benefits.  We have new forest practice rules that force landowners to keep mud out of creeks (clean water) prevent landslides, and some of the other public benefits listed, but there is no consideration for "scenic or recreational spaces".  By charging for those, the companies are essentially double-diiping.   The law doesn't say they must provide free wildlife habitat, either, but imagine the outrage if they  charged the state for each elk they feed, or cities for clean water.  They might try this next, since they want to make money off "ecosystem services".  In our state, they are already getting tax breaks for those things, so charging, too, is double-dipping.  Clearly the system needs an overhaul.