2015 WDFW Proposed Legislation: Increase Funding to Counties Holding WDFW Lands

[bigtex]

It's the end of summer/beginning of fall and that means one thing in the legislature/state agencies, it's the time when agencies are compiling their "agency requested legislation." This is essentially the legislation that agencies not only approve of, but are requesting. At the upcoming WDFW Commission conference call the commission will formally approve the 2015 agency requested legislation. I will be highlighting the 2015 WDFW requested legislation, and here is one of the proposed bills:

A common misconception is that counties in WA don't get funding for lands owned by WDFW or the federal land management agencies, actually they DO get funding. These payments are known as Payments In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT.) Basically the feds and WDFW sends $ to counties since the counties can't tax the state/feds for the lands. The PILT law for WDFW is archaic and the bill WDFW is requesting would modernize it.

Under current law counties either retain WDFW fine money OR receive PILT. If the county takes the PILT then the fine money goes to the state General Fund. Counties that elect to take PILT elect one of three methods for determining the payment 1-the rate paid for private land in open-space classification 2-70 cents per acre 3-the amount of PILT paid on the parcel in 1984.

Now for 2011-15 due to the state budget the legislature actually set the PILT payment for 13 eastern WA counties and set that rate at the 2009 rate. In addition to the 2011-15 freezing of payments, the legislature also mandated that only those 13 counties receive PILT payments, the other 26 did not. In addition, all counties got to retain the WDFW fine money. So you basically had 13 counties getting PILT & fine money, and 26 just getting fine money.

The proposed law would remove the payment freeze at the 2009 rate, remove the option to receive the amount of PILT paid in 1984, remove the option to receive 70 cents per acre, and would remove the option that counties either get PILT or fine money. Per this bill, ALL counties would receive PILT funding.

So now you are probably asking where would the fine money go? It would essentially go back to the state standard for fines which means 32% will go to the state General Fund, the remainder would stay in the county.

This proposed bill was drafted in coordination with the State Association of Counties

[bigtex]

I can't believe nobody has said something, so maybe I will stir the pot here.

Under the current law (for 2011-15) ALL counties get to keep 100% of fish and wildlife fine money. Under the proposed law, they could keep 68% of the fine money. Counties are the courts/prosecutors where fish and wildlife offenses are prosecuted for.

So you essentially have people paying their F&W fines to the county, who in return reluctantly prosecute fish and wildlife offenses. Hmm...

Now in a perfect world (or maybe bigtex's world) those fines from F&W offenses could be used by the county to prosecute fish and wildlife offenses, rather then into the county's black hole of money.

[Elkaholic daWg]

 I imagine those counties are quite pissed about that  "bail forfeiture" ruling eh? 

[bigtex]

I imagine those counties are quite pissed about that  "bail forfeiture" ruling eh?

If you read the post I just made a few minutes ago it lists the comments received for the bail forfeiture rule decision. Several of the commentors were previous prosecutors, everybody was opposed to it. They said the new rule wastes money by requiring court dates that wouldn't be needed, hurts the offenders who many times are "good people" etc.

Now to your point, there is certainly less money going to counties now because of the bail forfeiture rule change. Simply because a lot of people simply used to pay the criminal ticket and be done with it. Now, depending on the county and their courts they may never even get a court date.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I can't believe nobody has said something, so maybe I will stir the pot here.

Under the current law (for 2011-15) ALL counties get to keep 100% of fish and wildlife fine money. Under the proposed law, they could keep 68% of the fine money. Counties are the courts/prosecutors where fish and wildlife offenses are prosecuted for.

So you essentially have people paying their F&W fines to the county, who in return reluctantly prosecute fish and wildlife offenses. Hmm...

Now in a perfect world (or maybe bigtex's world) those fines from F&W offenses could be used by the county to prosecute fish and wildlife offenses, rather then into the county's black hole of money.

Seems every level of government has these black holes though....

[bigtex]

I can't believe nobody has said something, so maybe I will stir the pot here.

Under the current law (for 2011-15) ALL counties get to keep 100% of fish and wildlife fine money. Under the proposed law, they could keep 68% of the fine money. Counties are the courts/prosecutors where fish and wildlife offenses are prosecuted for.

So you essentially have people paying their F&W fines to the county, who in return reluctantly prosecute fish and wildlife offenses. Hmm...

Now in a perfect world (or maybe bigtex's world) those fines from F&W offenses could be used by the county to prosecute fish and wildlife offenses, rather then into the county's black hole of money.

Seems every level of government has these black holes though....

I guess I would rather have fish and wildlife fines used to prosecute fish and wildlife offenders, and not fund the county pool or weed department.

[Todd_ID]

I may be naive about this, but I see this as a good thing for our county (Asotin County).  WDFW is the largest landowner in the county, and an increase in PILT of any amount will be far and above the amount received from the 32% of fines the county would give up to the state.  I think it'll be a win for our county to get a better valuation on the land/PILT per acre.

[sakoshooter]

I see it as a good thing also as long as it's policed. "Policed"!!! That's an obsolete program in anything government anymore.

[bearpaw]

IMO

Property taxes are needed by the counties to run local government, when the WDFW buys ground they should pay PILT equivalent to lost property taxes. If taxpayers feel too much is being paid to counties by WDFW then taxpayers should demand that WDFW quit buying land. Currently the trend seems to be support for government (WDFW) buying more land, therefore taxpayers should understand it's going to continue to cost more to keep funding these purchases and to compensate counties for lost tax revenues.

Additionally, if counties must bear the cost of prosecuting wildlife crimes then they need to be compensated fairly for doing that too. 

[bigtex]

Additionally, if counties must bear the cost of prosecuting wildlife crimes then they need to be compensated fairly for doing that too. 

Then why not have a law that says the fish and wildlife fine money received by the county must be used to prosecute fish and wildlife crimes. Because the system we have right now of counties receiving the fine money, then saying "we don't have the time, money, resources to prosecute" is kind of a slap in the face. As of right now the fine money goes into the county general fund.

[bigtex]

I may be naive about this, but I see this as a good thing for our county (Asotin County).  WDFW is the largest landowner in the county, and an increase in PILT of any amount will be far and above the amount received from the 32% of fines the county would give up to the state.  I think it'll be a win for our county to get a better valuation on the land/PILT per acre.

Not naive at all. The bill was written to benefit the counties, and was in part written by the counties.