Hancock 2019-2020 NEW rules

[Alan K]

It becomes undevelopable at the designated forest land tax rates. Yes, the option to develop is there, but you pay the back taxes as though it never had the designation. That is what the whole point of it is. So you really don't believe the public is 'getting something' by keeping forest lands as forest just because the landowner doesn't allow free and uncontrolled access to their lands?

And you're exactly right that pieces are being developed still despite the designation. That's how valuable land gets as population expands. Now imagine the rate of development when the tax burden of growing a forest is increased several times over? It would be that much worse.  The forestland designation is not an absolute end to development, but it certainly serves as an anchor to slow things down. The $3000/acre value includes the timber value, not just the bare land. You're saying the timber itself should be taxed year after year and then get a hefty lump sum tax bill at harvest too?

I also think you're kidding yourself if you believe our taxes will ever go down! As always, the government would just find something else to waste it on while development pushes into the hills...

[Buckhunter24]

You are right about that, a bit of a loophole too. If you have 640 acres of designated timber, you can divide it into 64 ten acre parcels. Then each of those ten acre parcels can have 1 acre removed for a homesite while the remaining 9 remain in designated forest.

As far as the 234/acre unless its specific to your county I think its outdated. I just clicked on the first designated forest section I came acres and it was valued at over 100k/640 acres. Many of the landowners I have encountered have been around that 2k/acre rate.

[fireweed]

Next door to me (westside) Weyerhaeuser found the perfect loophole in their loophole.  They get to develop AND not pay back taxes!!  How?  Their development of timberland is in 6 acre lots.  In our county, 5-acres can be timberland if a "management plan" is approved.  Big W market their development as "forest reserve homesites", and sell it with a cookie cutter management plan.  The new owners paid about $80K for the six acres, then then they are responsible to pay the back taxes if they didn't submit their management plans .  They also could take out the one acres for a house, pay back taxes on only one acre, and keep the other 5 as "timberland".  Imagine this,  inside a Gated community with paved roads: logging, jake brakes, helicopter spraying, slash burning, and cutting at 4 am in a few years.  Never gonna happen.

Just like the tax break doesn't require public access,  it doesn't require that the land to ever be logged, either.  The only real requirement is that the land has trees. 

[Humptulips]

It becomes undevelopable at the designated forest land tax rates. Yes, the option to develop is there, but you pay the back taxes as though it never had the designation. That is what the whole point of it is. So you really don't believe the public is 'getting something' by keeping forest lands as forest just because the landowner doesn't allow free and uncontrolled access to their lands?

And you're exactly right that pieces are being developed still despite the designation. That's how valuable land gets as population expands. Now imagine the rate of development when the tax burden of growing a forest is increased several times over? It would be that much worse.  The forestland designation is not an absolute end to development, but it certainly serves as an anchor to slow things down. The $3000/acre value includes the timber value, not just the bare land. You're saying the timber itself should be taxed year after year and then get a hefty lump sum tax bill at harvest too?

I also think you're kidding yourself if you believe our taxes will ever go down! As always, the government would just find something else to waste it on while development pushes into the hills...

I am unclear what you think the public benefits from subsidizing a timber company when all you can do is drive by and look at no trespassing signs.

[Skyvalhunter]

Its not only happening by you up north here Weyco is doing the same selling off chunks of their land some of in some undesirable areas where access is limited on the winter. One piece was purchase by Fortura then signed over to the Tulalip tribe woth the understanding it would be used for salmon restoration. I saw they recently put up the cheap farm style gates.

[fireweed]

The problem with Washington, is that the benefit to the public for access was assumed at the time, and rolled into our tax code as part of the overall "public benefit package" of timberland.  We lumped everything together--so all timberland gets the same break whether they allow public access or not; (or ever cut a tree or provide a single job or not).   We can change that.

Other states have separated out that portion of the tax break/shift that is covered by public access.  You can earn a larger break if you provide free public access.

States: Maine: 25% off taxable value for public access on all open space land

New Hampshire:  20% reduction in the current use assessment of the acres opened to public recreational use

Wisconsin: landowners choose "Open" or "Closed" with highest tax break for "open" where they must allow free public access for hunting, fishing, hiking, sight-seeing and cross country skiing

Michigan:  Industrial timberland enrolled in the Commercial Forest Program (CFP) must allow free foot access for hunting/fishing. This is the only state I have found with a requirement.

Washington: Open Space-Open Space: landowers earn an extra 10% off taxable value for public access. 

Keep in mind, all of these programs only require non-motorized access.  I have much less of a beef with charging for motorized access, but non-motorized should be free to get the full tax break.  Afterall, most of the arguments of industrial timberland about why they "must" charge is limited to vehicle access: road damage, garbage dumping, stealing forest products etc. 

We could have a pretty good system if industrial timberland had to allow non-motorized access to get the highest tax break, and we opened motorized on roads that have state/federal easements on them to public land.

Timber companies could still charge for a vehicles on their roads that do not have public easements. 
Problem solved.

[idaho guy]

ANYONE with 5 acres or more can have a timber exemption. I have timber exemptions on a few properties one that I live on is only 19 acres and yes I logged it and paid the  tax on the logs. A minimum of 5 acres is very generous to give a timber exemption. Any smaller and people would be applying for it in a subdivision because they have some ponderosa pine trees! What about farmers and ranchers who have the ag exemption? Many of them do not allow any public access and charge thousands to hunters. Do we need to go after them too? If you develop the property they capture some of the back taxes? I don't see the problem other than large timber cos are often corporations and that means they must be greedy sobs? Not only would we lose a lot of open space and habitat if we take away the exemption what about the supply and cost of lumber? The national forest never gets logged anymore without private landowners where would we even get logs?  I can guarantee you almost no one would hold timberland for a 45 year pay off paying full boat in taxes. Lumber prices would skyrocket since we would lose supply and I don't think demand for houses is going down. Its private property and I will also mention I hate that they charge for what was always free. I almost never buy a timber permit but used to hunt there all the time when it was free. I don't allow free public access to my little piece of property either I guess I must be a greedy fat cat too! If you have a timber exemption of 5 acres would you allow unlimited free access since you were being "subsidized" by the public?

[MAVsled]

this is all a good read...

but simply miss those days 51 years ago, when Weyerhauser would open Spur 10 gate...for FREE access.
My father & I would drive in the old Intl Scout 6 banger to hunt up by lake Hancock and couple other areas in the high country. More often than not, we'd get our bucks and some dandies at that.

times...and attitudes, approaches sure have changed!

[Alan K]

I am unclear what you think the public benefits from subsidizing a timber company when all you can do is drive by and look at no trespassing signs.

. . . .

I've stated the benefits numerous times in this thread, the WAC itself clearly spells the benefits out in the legislative findings as well.  I can't help you if you don't see the public benefits in keeping picture #1 from becoming picture #2. I'd imagine out in Humptulips there isn't much urban sprawl going on, so you likely don't see the impacts yourself, but I can assure you it is a very real problem along the I-5 corridor.  Around any population center really.  If public access is your only issue, you should be bellyaching about the small designated forestland owners.  The overwhelming majority of 40 acre and under folks allow zero public access, not even for a fee. And again, there is no requirement for it anyways.

Fireweed may be on to something with additional lowered taxes in exchange for public access.  I'm skeptical that it would do much for the majority of landowners, but you never know.  That would be up to each landowner to decide.  Going the other way though, and raising taxes on what is already a VERY long investment horizon will just accelerate sprawl.  How quickly do you suppose the landowner with the 160 acres in the center of picture #2 would chop up and develop his property if it were going to be taxed at a development value similar to the parcels surrounding him?  It's all about the economics and incentivizing timberlands to stay timberlands. The way it is right now the economics for development are so strong that lands continue to be developed even with the favorable designated forestland tax rates, albeit at a much slower rate than it would be without the designation.

And I do think there should be a minimum parcel size in order to qualify that would provide meaningful habitat/water benefits. I don't know what that size would be, it would probably have to be site specific.  When you get down to chopped up 40's with a web of driveways and evenly distributed houses you lose a lot of the benefits for our game species.  I'm sure that the insects, birds, small game, etc. still benefit, but deer, elk, other large species not so much.  When 20 acre and under parcels owned by small landowners are harvested their riparian protections are greatly reduced as well in comparison to large landowners.  It's a catch 22 really. The rules that small landowners must abide by are less restrictive and less protecting of water/habitat, but at the same time those parcels are generally the ones on the front lines of further sprawl and most likely to be developed if tax burdens are increased. 

[cem3434]

If you look at the history of how Weyco acquired all of its land then everyone should be mad.  Weyco was a manager of the timberlands for the  government and was offered the land dirt cheap, with all of the tax breaks provided the public access remained. As a shareholder, I like the fact that they are maximizing the value of my stock. As a taxpayer and outdoorsman, I think they are getting away with murder.

[fireweed]

The property tax system, which was supposed to maintain open space and prevent sprawl through a tax break, did not work to prevent sprawl.  At Weyco, their policy was that every acre with a road or power would be developed, with no regard to tax rate.  The tax break probably does keep families and small forest landowners from selling, but it sure doesn't keep the big W's of the world from selling! 

Thus, other rules, like zoning and Growth Management were passed. 
 Those rules now have more teeth to keep timberland as timberland than the property tax break incentive. 

And, much timberland simply cannot be developed because it is just too far out--no paved roads, no fire department service, no power, high in the mountains.

We now have a carrot (tax break) and stick (zoning) way to deal with sprawl. 

[fireweed]

I have my timberland property taxes in front of me.
In two different counties, the average value I am charged taxes on is $140/acre at a rate of about 1% = taxes of $1.40 per acre.  (This doesn't include the DNR forest fire protection flat fee).  A 10-20% increase is would be about 15-25 cents per acre more in taxes.

I suggest a flat fee in that range per acre if industrial timberland does not allow free non-motorized access.  This isn't going to break the bank.  They still make money if they charge. The same amount/rate could be deducted from those that do allow free access, balancing things out.   Small landowner parcels that do not provide meaningful opportunities for recreation would be exempt, such as other states do.  Such a small change may not be much, but it makes a point and is in line with what other states do.  Even for Weyco this is less than a million dollars more in taxes for all their property in Washington.  Chump change.

[Humptulips]

You are right about that, a bit of a loophole too. If you have 640 acres of designated timber, you can divide it into 64 ten acre parcels. Then each of those ten acre parcels can have 1 acre removed for a homesite while the remaining 9 remain in designated forest.

As far as the 234/acre unless its specific to your county I think its outdated. I just clicked on the first designated forest section I came acres and it was valued at over 100k/640 acres. Many of the landowners I have encountered have been around that 2k/acre rate.

Just thought I would point out that the example you sited works out to $156/acre.

[Stein]

To stir the pot a bit, for those proposing increasing taxes on forest land that doesn't provide public access, would that only apply to forest land or would it also include ag and ranch properties that also get very similar tax breaks?

[JimmyHoffa]

To stir the pot a bit, for those proposing increasing taxes on forest land that doesn't provide public access, would that only apply to forest land or would it also include ag and ranch properties that also get very similar tax breaks?

How's the hunting on that ag and ranch land?