Post by: pianoman9701 on April 30, 2013, 11:14:08 AM
Post by: whacker1 on April 30, 2013, 11:22:48 AM
Weyerhaeuser does get the agricultural property tax rate, which I don't believe would change.
They do have a reduced B & O tax rate, which is the same as Boeing's.
I don't believe either fo these are related to providing public or recreational use.
Post by: spotter26 on April 30, 2013, 11:40:41 AM
Is the WDFW going to start conforming their game management plans in those areas, requiring an access permit, to fit the number of land owner permits weyco/or any other timber decides to give out?
I can see this becoming more of the timber companies influencing the animal populations, within those areas, than the WDFW.
I believe that if they want to charge $200 to hunt their land, let the damn elk eat their trees. Its stupid that hunting is become a money game.
Post by: Goshawk on April 30, 2013, 12:32:01 PM
Present rates for timber companies allowing open access.
Higher rates for timber companies that have pay to hunt, based on what a golf course is taxed at.
Start calling your state reps or stand back and loose it!
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2013, 12:44:51 PM
TIMBER AND FOREST LANDS
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=84.33 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=84.33)
Post by: whacker1 on April 30, 2013, 12:49:01 PM
Chapter 84.33 RCW
TIMBER AND FOREST LANDS
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=84.33 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=84.33)
Special T - I didn't see anything in there for exemptions for recreational / public access or am I missing something?
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2013, 12:54:37 PM
RCW 84.34.010
Legislative declaration.
The legislature hereby declares that it is in the best interest of the state to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the production of food, fiber and forest crops, and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well-being of the state and its citizens. The legislature further declares that assessment practices must be so designed as to permit the continued availability of open space lands for these purposes, and it is the intent of this chapter so to provide. The legislature further declares its intent that farm and agricultural lands shall be valued on the basis of their value for use as authorized by section 11 of Article VII of the Constitution of the state of Washington.
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2013, 12:59:07 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 30, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
Open Space is simply a designation of use of the land. For example, designated wetlands and their buffers are Open Space.
Occasionally, master planned communities are required to provide a certain amount of Open Space as a trade off for plat approvals. Walking trails, for example, where ownership stays with a Homeowners Association as does maintenance of which is paid for by HOA dues.
Open Space lands are taxed at a lower mil rate.
Think undesirable land, set-aside land due to development densities and impervious surfaces for storm water run-off, not build-able or in a private timber companies position; not able to perform logging activities within a wetland buffer and you've got what are considered Open Space.
Those above ground storm detention ponds you see around town? Those are typically Open Space.
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 30, 2013, 01:43:57 PM
In 2010, Weyerhaeuser converted all of it's 6+ million acres of timberland holdings accross the country to a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT as it's known.
This provided them with a different tax structure along with providing them other opportunities for their land use.
I am not exactly sure how this ultimately affects the past tax situation, nor how it affects the present tax situation. But, it may very well have a whole lot to do with why they are closing their land off to the public and can charge a fee entry/lease land. :dunno:
Post by: jess on April 30, 2013, 02:57:31 PM
Post by: stihlpro on April 30, 2013, 03:19:18 PM
Also, and I seem to recall this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.....
In 2010, Weyerhaeuser converted all of it's 6+ million acres of timberland holdings accross the country to a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT as it's known.
This provided them with a different tax structure along with providing them other opportunities for their land use.
I am not exactly sure how this ultimately affects the past tax situation, nor how it affects the present tax situation. But, it may very well have a whole lot to do with why they are closing their land off to the public and can charge a fee entry/lease land. :dunno:
Part of being a REIT is a heavy push to find "other sources of income" from the land. If there is heavy pressure to do this is the easiest option to pursue.
Post by: 6x6in6 on April 30, 2013, 03:20:35 PM
2 totally different animals in the tax world.
Post by: Curly on April 30, 2013, 03:40:41 PM
another question i have about this is:
Is the WDFW going to start conforming their game management plans in those areas, requiring an access permit, to fit the number of land owner permits weyco/or any other timber decides to give out?
I can see this becoming more of the timber companies influencing the animal populations, within those areas, than the WDFW.
I believe that if they want to charge $200 to hunt their land, let the damn elk eat their trees. Its stupid that hunting is become a money game.
I agree. And WDFW better not give out any more depredation permits on Weyco land. Just let the bears peel the trees. :twocents:
Post by: fireweed on May 01, 2013, 11:43:30 AM
RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings.
As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:
(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.
Post by: sirmissalot on May 01, 2013, 11:54:05 AM
Post by: headshot5 on May 01, 2013, 12:00:04 PM
The best action would be the public to get with the timber owners and work out something... (Example forestland cleanup etc.)... Instead of coercing them to open there property using the legislative stick.
Post by: snowpack on May 01, 2013, 12:18:13 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2013, 12:34:23 PM
This is specific to timberland. The legislature is clearly justifying a low property tax rate because of the public benefits timber provides. One of those public benefits cited is "recreational spaces". If now they are charging for recreational spaces, their taxes should go up accordingly. May need to tweek the law, but no public benefit, no tax break makes sense to me. (Isn't it funny that they announce this as the legislature is recessing?? Too late this year)
RCW 84.33.010
Legislative findings.
As a result of the study and analysis of systems of taxation of standing timber and forest lands by the forest tax committee pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 of the 41st session of the legislature, and the recommendations of the committee based thereon, the legislature hereby finds that:
(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.
I've written to Sen Benton to look into this. I've done volunteer conservation projects on their land cleaning up dumping sites and garbage, and planting trees in erosion areas. I think that they're taking advantage of their tax break by charging people to use the resource. If they're having problems with people abusing it, report it and get Eyes in the Woods out there keeping watch. But, to ask me to pay AND lose the tax revenue from the exemption is a bit much.
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2013, 01:43:08 PM
This new access plan would be much more acceptable if the number of permits was unlimited, and if the price was more in line with say, the Discover Pass. How about $50? And no limit on the number of permits sold. Or at least a more reasonable number. How about 3,000 for Vail? That would be more money for Weyerhaeuser at that price and would provide a lot more recreational opportunities for the public.
Post by: Northway on May 01, 2013, 03:53:51 PM
With a status as an REIT, my guess is that there is an even greater focus on maximizing the profitability of their resources in the short-term. It was probably inevitable that there would be an attempt at some sort of monetization of hunting interest on their property.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 02, 2013, 06:35:50 AM
Weyerhauser converted to a real estate investment trust a while back, so I'm not sure how that conversion has effected the calculation of their tax liability.
With a status as an REIT, my guess is that there is an even greater focus on maximizing the profitability of their resources in the short-term. It was probably inevitable that there would be an attempt at some sort of monetization of hunting interest on their property.
That's fine. I have no problem with private landowners doing exactly what they want with their property. I do have a problem subsidizing it with a tax deduction, if that's what we're doing.
Post by: Humptulips on May 02, 2013, 10:43:12 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 03, 2013, 06:20:26 AM
The tax break is in the low assessed value. Pegged by law at a maximum of $234/acre and then on a sliding scale to a minimum of $1/acre. In Grays harbor most are near $150/acre.
That's not the exemption I'm talking about. I'm talking about the exemption they possibly receive to allow recreational use of their land.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 03, 2013, 06:27:41 AM
Post by: xd2005 on May 03, 2013, 06:40:06 AM
And yes, private property owners can do what they want with the land, the question is, how did they et this land? Was it granted to the, by us (gov't), or did they buy it (with funds not generated by selling land given to them by us)?
Type of entity means nothing, as that drives federal taxes more than anything.
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 07:21:00 AM
I'm confused what tax break we are talking about if not property taxes. What other taxes are their based on land use?
And yes, private property owners can do what they want with the land, the question is, how did they et this land? Was it granted to the, by us (gov't), or did they buy it (with funds not generated by selling land given to them by us)?
Type of entity means nothing, as that drives federal taxes more than anything.
Agreed, I have never heard of a tax exemption for recreational use on timber land, this is a far reach that I don't think will hold any water. Reading through the language posted I see nothing indicating WH has specifically violated any part of their Timber land tax designation. They are still providing recreational opportunity, nothing says they cannot charge a fee, even the state is charging a fee for land access on the land which is publicly owned. If anyone tries to argue it's unfair for WH to charge an access fee I would certainly imagine that WH will immediately point out the Discover Pass fee and fees charged by other timber companies.
These REIT's or whatever, they are a different animal than timber land classification, someone should be looking up the legal description of that classification. But, I would imagine that WH has made sure they are not in violation.
I think the first course of action should be to get a legislator or someone to contact WH and try to determine the goal of their access fee and the reason for limitation of permits. Perhaps WH is only trying to recover administration costs to gate and patrol their land and replace damaged equipment. Perhaps they are trying to create trophy class hunting where they can charge more in the future. These are only guesses at some possibilities, but if you understand their goals then you can work toward a solution that works for everyone.
Perhaps WDFW can negotiate with damage permits as leverage, but if wildlife is damaging property (trees) I am nearly certain that WH could take action (kill bear to protect property) if WDFW refuses to address the damage problem. WDFW has been charged with controlling wildlife populations, I doubt it's legal for them to totally refuse to address damage problems. At best they could negotiate with more aggressive bear control.
As mentioned in one of the other topics, I think that a Conservation/Recreational Easement should be considered. There are many ways to negotiate, possibly with a tax break so that no upfront money would have to exchange hands and the end result due to tax benefits gained by the economics of recreational use would possibly net the state and counties more money that what is given up with a tax break for an easement on WH lands. Then the state actually would have the legal standing for maintaining public recreational use on WH lands. Just trying to offer some potential ideas. :twocents:
Post by: xd2005 on May 03, 2013, 07:28:31 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 07:38:01 AM
Plenty of info on REITs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_investment_trust)
Quote
Under U.S. Federal income tax law, a real estate investment trust (REIT) (pron.: /ˈriːt/) is "any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages" under Internal Revenue Code section 856.
So REIT is simply a corporate classification under IRS laws and has nothing to do with state real estate tax classification. WH is most likely still classified as timber lands for WA state real estate tax purposes.
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2013, 07:41:30 AM
Quote
WH is most likely still classified as timber lands for WA state real estate tax purposes.
Yes, they are.
Post by: xd2005 on May 03, 2013, 07:45:29 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 07:52:06 AM
Exactly. It's irrelevant whether it's a sole prop, S-corp, C-Corp, LLC, etc. This is all about land use and state land taxation, not federal taxation.
Agreed!
Understanding their goal and then negotiating in the public interest seems like the best answer to me. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 08:06:22 AM
I do not believe they have violated any laws but if they thought laws could be in danger of being changed that would get their attention. They know the huggers are already opposed to them, if they know the recreational public may go against them, that could be bad politics, so letters to the editor and letters to legislators might be very effective. :twocents:
Post by: headshot5 on May 03, 2013, 08:10:26 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 08:29:39 AM
IMHO - If you attack property owners you will cause many small property owners to speak out in support of WH property rights exactly as I first reacted, so you need to make WH look like the big bad kid on the block for hurting the communities by taking away recreational opportunities and economic income derived from that recreational use. Mention how they used to benefit communities but now they are hurting communities by limiting recreational use and economic income from recreational users who spend money in local communities.
Focus on the terms "recreational use", "local economic income", "local economies", "public opportunity", and not just "hunting". :twocents:
Post by: Special T on May 03, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
Post by: Curly on May 03, 2013, 10:47:17 AM
So the question is this. The way tresspass laws currently work is the land has to be posted. Are they goint to post all thier land? Did the law pass that stated you could use orange paint on trees or posts to "post" the land?
I think I read where that orange paint law didn't go anywhere.
That is a good point. You could just go hunt adjacent timber land (State, Green Diamond, etc.) and as long as you don't know where you are, you can't be cited for trespassing if you happen to wander onto Weyco land (unless they inform you that you are on their land).
Post by: Special T on May 03, 2013, 12:03:38 PM
I would imagine you wouldn't be able to hunt very far in the property since it would be walk in only, but...
Post by: Humptulips on May 03, 2013, 12:35:03 PM
The way some of the arguments were first presented ruffled my feathers because I am a (very) small property owner myself. I would suggest keeping your messages to the point that Weyerhauser used to benefit the communities, now they are taking away recreational opportunity.
IMHO - If you attack property owners you will cause many small property owners to speak out in support of WH property rights exactly as I first reacted, so you need to make WH look like the big bad kid on the block for hurting the communities by taking away recreational opportunities and economic income derived from that recreational use. Mention how they used to benefit communities but now they are hurting communities by limiting recreational use and economic income from recreational users who spend money in local communities.
Focus on the terms "recreational use", "local economic income", "local economies", "public opportunity", and not just "hunting". :twocents:
Dale,
In other posts I proposed looking at tax valuations of land and the artificially low land valuations timberlands enjoy. Reading between the lines I gather you don't like that.
You now post to negotiate and compromise with them.
I think it is fair to say if you are going to negotiate you need something to negotiate with. If you go to them with hat in hand and public sentiment, you will get nowhere.
The only place that REITs have in the discussion is it emphasizes that the only thing that really matters is the bottom line.
The only thing we have to negotiate with is the threat of revisiting the law setting tax valuations for timberlands. Yes any change in the law would affect all timberland owners. I'm sure there are members opposed to this because they are enjoying the tax break but really that is all we have.
Those laws will be revisited at some point because there is no inflation adjuster in the law. Public sentiment will not like to hear about Hancock paying $3000/acre for WEYCO land and then it turning around and being valued for taxes at $150/acre. They know that and that gives us leverage to talk to them.
Without that you have nothing.
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 02:00:08 PM
The way some of the arguments were first presented ruffled my feathers because I am a (very) small property owner myself. I would suggest keeping your messages to the point that Weyerhauser used to benefit the communities, now they are taking away recreational opportunity.
IMHO - If you attack property owners you will cause many small property owners to speak out in support of WH property rights exactly as I first reacted, so you need to make WH look like the big bad kid on the block for hurting the communities by taking away recreational opportunities and economic income derived from that recreational use. Mention how they used to benefit communities but now they are hurting communities by limiting recreational use and economic income from recreational users who spend money in local communities.
Focus on the terms "recreational use", "local economic income", "local economies", "public opportunity", and not just "hunting". :twocents:
Dale,
In other posts I proposed looking at tax valuations of land and the artificially low land valuations timberlands enjoy. Reading between the lines I gather you don't like that.
You now post to negotiate and compromise with them.
I think it is fair to say if you are going to negotiate you need something to negotiate with. If you go to them with hat in hand and public sentiment, you will get nowhere.
The only place that REITs have in the discussion is it emphasizes that the only thing that really matters is the bottom line.
The only thing we have to negotiate with is the threat of revisiting the law setting tax valuations for timberlands. Yes any change in the law would affect all timberland owners. I'm sure there are members opposed to this because they are enjoying the tax break but really that is all we have.
Those laws will be revisited at some point because there is no inflation adjuster in the law. Public sentiment will not like to hear about Hancock paying $3000/acre for WEYCO land and then it turning around and being valued for taxes at $150/acre. They know that and that gives us leverage to talk to them.
Without that you have nothing.
It takes 30 years to grow a log verses 1 year for most other crops which couldn't be grown in most of the rugged country that is timberland anyway. Timberland is taxed heavy enough. Already in Eastern Washington we are taxed more because land is worth more in western WA. The last thing we need is more tax on timber lands.
If this is going to come down to asking for tax increases, in addition to myself, many of my family members, friends, and neighbors own small amounts of timberlands. I will very adamantly oppose increasing all our timber land taxes.
If you make raising timber land taxes the priority you are splitting your unity in half right off the get go, myself and I am sure many others will stand with WH against any timberland tax increase, please consider that.
I'm very sorry but I am already paying enough taxes, in essence you are asking me, my family, friends, and neighbors to pay more tax so you can pressure WH. While I understand and want to help the hunter's cause in western Washington, I'm not going to stand by and watch all of eastern Washington landowners pay the price. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 02:16:58 PM
I just checked my tax assessment sheet, the county I live in has my timberlands valued at $2500 to just under $3000 per acre and it's sitting there waiting for trees to grow 30 years to return an investment. I think you may be wrong about WH lands valued at $150 per acre. If you are not wrong then you need to go after the county to re-assess WH land.
Please do not ask the state to raise the rates on the rest of us!
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2013, 02:32:23 PM
That's what they're paying taxes on.
It also shows a "market land" value of $399,850.
So they're saying the land is worth $1,000 per acre but they're being taxed on a value of $133 per acre.
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 02:41:55 PM
I just looked up a parcel of Weyerhaeuser land in the Vail tree farm. It's 400 acres, and "taxable value" is shown as $53,490. That comes out to $133.72 per acre.
That's what they're paying taxes on.
It also shows a "market land" value of $399,850.
So they're saying the land is worth $1,000 per acre but they're being taxed on a value of $133 per acre.
Well then you have a problem in the county with the assessed valuations. Pressure the counties to reassess Weyerhauser land within their county. I just looked at my tax statement minutes ago, I am paying taxes on $2500 to almost $3000 per acre for my timber land. Land gets reassessed I think every 4 years here.
But please don't say you want rates increased because that rate increase will hit me at $2750 average valuation per acre while it only hits Weyerhauser at $133 valuation per acre.
I hope you can understand why private landowners will oppose a rate increase.
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2013, 02:41:55 PM
629.8 acres
"Taxable value" = $59,790
"Market" value = $629,800
So in this case for property tax purposes, the county has it valued at $94.93 per acre.
Even though the actual value is shown as $1,000 per acre.
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 02:47:01 PM
When I looked closer at my tax statement there are 11 different taxes I am being charge for, only one of those is state tax. :bash:
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2013, 02:48:03 PM
Quote
But please don't say you want rates increased because that rate increase will hit me at $2750 average valuation per acre while it only hits Weyerhauser at $133 valuation per acre.
I'm not sure I, or anyone else said they wanted the rates increased. I know Humptulips was talking about having them pay taxes on what the land is actually worth, instead of the bogus number the counties are apparently using.
Why don't you check and see what your county is charging the timber companies ovèr there. I bet they pay much less per acre than you do.
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 02:52:44 PM
QuoteBut please don't say you want rates increased because that rate increase will hit me at $2750 average valuation per acre while it only hits Weyerhauser at $133 valuation per acre.
I'm not sure I, or anyone else said they wanted the rates increased. I know Humptulips was talking about having them pay taxes on what the land is actually worth, instead of the bogus number the counties are apparently using.
Why don't you check and see what your county is charging the timber companies ovèr there. I bet they pay much less per acre than you do.
Assessment is a county thing, rates are a state thing. If you change tax rates that effects all land owners in the state, if the county reassesses that only affects whomever is being reassessed.
I'm not sure how to check timber company rates?
Can you look up timber companies taxes online?
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2013, 02:52:50 PM
How much tax did they pay on those parcels?
When I looked closer at my tax statement there are 11 different taxes I am being charge for, only one of those is state tax. :bash:
This is for a different parcel, but it's 640 acres, taxable value listed at $73,060, and the last tax payment was on April 26, 2013 and they paid $585.98.
That is for 6 months.
So the annual bill for a 640 acre section of land is just under $1,200.
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2013, 02:54:23 PM
Quote
I'm not sure how to check timber company rates?
Can you look up timber companies taxes online?
Most counties you can. But I don't know about Stevens.
Post by: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 02:58:27 PM
How much tax did they pay on those parcels?
When I looked closer at my tax statement there are 11 different taxes I am being charge for, only one of those is state tax. :bash:
This is for a different parcel, but it's 640 acres, taxable value listed at $73,060, and the last tax payment was on April 26, 2013 and they paid $585.98.
That is for 6 months.
So the annual bill for a 640 acre section of land is just under $1,200.
Good work, we are getting somewhere. Is that for all the taxes or just the state portion of the taxes?
I have one small acreage 22.410 acres (22 1/2 roughly). They have the taxable valuation at about $64,100. My taxes were $567 for the year, $233.50 per half year. But that includes all 11 taxes, the state tax portion was I think $167 per year.
Post by: Special T on May 03, 2013, 02:59:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2013, 03:02:39 PM
Quote
Good work, we are getting somewhere. Is that for all the taxes or just the state portion of the taxes?
I assume it's the entire tax bill. This is from the Thurston County Assessor.
The $585 is what Weyerhaeuser paid the county.
Post by: Humptulips on May 03, 2013, 06:39:19 PM
You need to look at this http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.130 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.130) and this http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140)
Property that has been deemed forestland under RCW.84.33.130 have their property value set at artificially low rates under RCW84.33.140.
It is State law that the maximum tax valuation of timberland is $234/acre. This is not a county problem. The assessors hands are tied by State law.
Most forestland in W WA is valued for tax purposes near$150/acre, not sure about E WA.
Obviously you are paying enough taxes. You are not taking advantage of this tax loophole. Your valuation is being based on actual value. That is not the case with WEYCO or any other tree farm. They get a huge break on taxes that the majority of property owners cannot take advantage of. I have been talking about working on that. It would not affect you. In fact if you have 20/acres you would be a fool not to look into this. Your taxes would go way down.
I've posted those links to the laws in question and nobody seems to be looking at them. Please take the time to look and see what I am talking about.
Post by: Alan K on May 03, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
If anyone owns timber lands just sitting there it should absolutely be designated as timber lands. You're paying much more than you should be. If you change down the road though, you're going to get hit hard.
Quote
Removal and Compensating Tax for Classified and Designated Timberland - Designated land is assessed every year as forest land until the assessor removes the classification or the landowner requests removal. Assessors may remove the property from forest land designation if they feel that the property is no longer being managed for forest uses. Designation will also be revoked if the property is sold to a buyer who does not want to use it for forestry. In all cases, the property owner has the right to appeal a removal to the county Board of Equalization.
If the designation is removed either by the assessor or by request of the landowner, the owner may be required to pay a compensating tax to the county. The compensating tax is the difference in taxes between forest land assessment and "highest and best use" assessment, multiplied by the number of years the property has been classified as forest land up to a maximum of ten years.
http://www.timbertax.org/statetaxes/states/proptax/washington/ (http://www.timbertax.org/statetaxes/states/proptax/washington/)
As the population expands, more and more land is hitting the tipping point where it is more valuable to developers than as forest land. Farming timber is far from the 'highest and best use' for thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of acres. Tax it as though it were, and you'll see much of it sold off. The forest land designation was brought about I'm sure as an effort to slow the development of timber lands.
Figure a 40 year rotation yields 30 MBF/acre at a stumpage of $300. That's a 40 year return of $9000/acre, or $225/acre/year on average. Hardly a lucrative investment. Not to mention logging costs and environmental restrictions continually on the rise. With the increasing size of buffers, dreaded 'occupied sites' being discovered etc., chances are you won't be able to harvest all of the acres you've invested in for four decades.
Sort of jumped around there, some more things to think about.
Post by: fireweed on May 06, 2013, 07:45:44 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2013, 08:47:03 AM
BP,
You need to look at this http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.130 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.130) and this http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140)
Property that has been deemed forestland under RCW.84.33.130 have their property value set at artificially low rates under RCW84.33.140.
It is State law that the maximum tax valuation of timberland is $234/acre. This is not a county problem. The assessors hands are tied by State law.
Most forestland in W WA is valued for tax purposes near$150/acre, not sure about E WA.
Obviously you are paying enough taxes. You are not taking advantage of this tax loophole. Your valuation is being based on actual value. That is not the case with WEYCO or any other tree farm. They get a huge break on taxes that the majority of property owners cannot take advantage of. I have been talking about working on that. It would not affect you. In fact if you have 20/acres you would be a fool not to look into this. Your taxes would go way down.
I've posted those links to the laws in question and nobody seems to be looking at them. Please take the time to look and see what I am talking about.
Thanks for the info, I have found that my land is classified as undeveloped land, not as forest land. Tax rates would be lower if it was classified as forest land. I did more checking on the Stevens County website and found that many family members, friends, and neighbors do have forest land as I thought. No doubt this will be a very controversial issue because it involves so many landowners.
Timber land is taxed lightly so long as it's designated timber lands, which is basically dead ground until the timber reaches a harvestable age. If the landowner designates it as anything else, they have to pay 'catch up' taxes on the increased taxable (market) value you guys are talking about for the previous 10 years. This works as an incentive for the landowner to keep their lands forested, and slams them with a wall of taxes if they back out for development or whatever else they choose to do with it.
If anyone owns timber lands just sitting there it should absolutely be designated as timber lands. You're paying much more than you should be. If you change down the road though, you're going to get hit hard.QuoteRemoval and Compensating Tax for Classified and Designated Timberland - Designated land is assessed every year as forest land until the assessor removes the classification or the landowner requests removal. Assessors may remove the property from forest land designation if they feel that the property is no longer being managed for forest uses. Designation will also be revoked if the property is sold to a buyer who does not want to use it for forestry. In all cases, the property owner has the right to appeal a removal to the county Board of Equalization.
If the designation is removed either by the assessor or by request of the landowner, the owner may be required to pay a compensating tax to the county. The compensating tax is the difference in taxes between forest land assessment and "highest and best use" assessment, multiplied by the number of years the property has been classified as forest land up to a maximum of ten years.
http://www.timbertax.org/statetaxes/states/proptax/washington/ (http://www.timbertax.org/statetaxes/states/proptax/washington/)
As the population expands, more and more land is hitting the tipping point where it is more valuable to developers than as forest land. Farming timber is far from the 'highest and best use' for thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of acres. Tax it as though it were, and you'll see much of it sold off. The forest land designation was brought about I'm sure as an effort to slow the development of timber lands.
Figure a 40 year rotation yields 30 MBF/acre at a stumpage of $300. That's a 40 year return of $9000/acre, or $225/acre/year on average. Hardly a lucrative investment. Not to mention logging costs and environmental restrictions continually on the rise. With the increasing size of buffers, dreaded 'occupied sites' being discovered etc., chances are you won't be able to harvest all of the acres you've invested in for four decades.
Sort of jumped around there, some more things to think about.
Alan K's comments about the timber land tax rate do seem to describe a purpose of the lower timber tax rates. There are a multitude of tree farms in my area, only a few of the largest allow public access, the smaller ones do not. No doubt the public would like to have free public access to all land classified as forest lands but it appears the law currently does not specify landowners with that classification are required to provide free public access. To try and make that change to force forest land owners to provide public access would no doubt create many adversaries.
Property Tax Classifications
There are many types of property use classifications for property tax rates. Perhaps a new classification should be created which is called Recreational Timber Land, to be classified under that classification for the lowest property tax rate you are agreeing to allow free public land access for all types of recreation. This would be the same difference as creating a conservation/recreation easement, I imagine it would take legislative action to create a new classification and that means a lot of lobbying will occur.
Post by: fireweed on May 06, 2013, 10:06:26 AM
Post by: Humptulips on May 06, 2013, 12:09:16 PM
I know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category. We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access. We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.
I would think you would have a legitimate argument for this. It seems the asumption was the land was not going to generate any income between harvests of trees. Now they will be going to revenue generated through out the harvest cycle.
Post by: bearpaw on May 06, 2013, 02:47:36 PM
I know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category. We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access. We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.
I would think you would have a legitimate argument for this. It seems the asumption was the land was not going to generate any income between harvests of trees. Now they will be going to revenue generated through out the harvest cycle.
Yes that does sound like a reasonable argument to tax the lease income.
One of the issues that bobcat pointed out was the huge reduction in public opportunity. How could a special tax on lease income improve that?
Post by: Humptulips on May 06, 2013, 07:16:06 PM
I know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category. We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access. We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.
I would think you would have a legitimate argument for this. It seems the asumption was the land was not going to generate any income between harvests of trees. Now they will be going to revenue generated through out the harvest cycle.
Yes that does sound like a reasonable argument to tax the lease income.
One of the issues that bobcat pointed out was the huge reduction in public opportunity. How could a special tax on lease income improve that?
You probably already know what I feel. Because the property is producing income every year and not just once during the harvest cycle the tax valuation should go up. If you don't lease it the valuation wouldn't go up. If you do it would go up. Provides an incentive in lower tax valuation to keep it open. I gather you don't like that.
Here's another thought I'll throw out there. What about extending the timber excise tax to other income the property produces. Might even try to get that tax money allocated to purchasing public easments to landlocked state land.
I see some difficulties wording that because the timber excise tax is not exclusive to forestland but it might be worth thinking about.
Post by: Goshawk on May 06, 2013, 10:09:24 PM
Crush it hard now, or sit back and watch it happen!
Post by: Humptulips on May 06, 2013, 10:31:22 PM
All this talk is USELESS UNLESS YOU CALL/WRITE YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES!
Crush it hard now, or sit back and watch it happen!
Don't think there aren't Legislators watching this. There are. Maybe hashing out a plan people can live with is important too.
Post by: Northway on May 07, 2013, 08:56:07 AM
The way some of the arguments were first presented ruffled my feathers because I am a (very) small property owner myself. I would suggest keeping your messages to the point that Weyerhauser used to benefit the communities, now they are taking away recreational opportunity.
IMHO - If you attack property owners you will cause many small property owners to speak out in support of WH property rights exactly as I first reacted, so you need to make WH look like the big bad kid on the block for hurting the communities by taking away recreational opportunities and economic income derived from that recreational use. Mention how they used to benefit communities but now they are hurting communities by limiting recreational use and economic income from recreational users who spend money in local communities.
Focus on the terms "recreational use", "local economic income", "local economies", "public opportunity", and not just "hunting". :twocents:
Dale,
In other posts I proposed looking at tax valuations of land and the artificially low land valuations timberlands enjoy. Reading between the lines I gather you don't like that.
You now post to negotiate and compromise with them.
I think it is fair to say if you are going to negotiate you need something to negotiate with. If you go to them with hat in hand and public sentiment, you will get nowhere.
The only place that REITs have in the discussion is it emphasizes that the only thing that really matters is the bottom line.
The only thing we have to negotiate with is the threat of revisiting the law setting tax valuations for timberlands. Yes any change in the law would affect all timberland owners. I'm sure there are members opposed to this because they are enjoying the tax break but really that is all we have.
Those laws will be revisited at some point because there is no inflation adjuster in the law. Public sentiment will not like to hear about Hancock paying $3000/acre for WEYCO land and then it turning around and being valued for taxes at $150/acre. They know that and that gives us leverage to talk to them.
Without that you have nothing.
An REIT classification could be a benefit in the sense that there is the potential for more internal pressure to get a deal done when it comes to conservation easements. 90% of their net income has to be distributed to shareholders and a large-scale deal could pad net income for an entire year by 10% or more.
I don't think adjusting for inflation will necessarily cause those laws to be revisited any sooner. There have been groups hammering the DOI for years about raising graze fees on public allotments. The rate was set at $1.35/AUM in 1978 and has never once been adjusted for inflation, even though the going rate on many of those allotments would now be 10 times that.
BP is right that putting the tax incentives on the table could bring too much opposition from rural legislators. I do not have any information on it, but I'm willing to bet that there are a number of rural legislators who themselves have parcels of land that could be affected by that discussion.
If some of these tax breaks were created with the intent to limit development of timberlands, it doesn't seem like a stretch to negotiate easements that involve some sort of expense to taxpayers since we are basically subsidizing conservation on those properties already.
Post by: Humptulips on May 07, 2013, 11:29:09 AM
At the present time at least in W WA I think the owners who lease their land for hunting are in the minority. Probably wouldn't get much opposition from landowners that weren't being affected.
I really think you could write this so there would be no effect on taxes if the landowners maintained the status quo. That's the carrot. Go to leases for hunting there would be a cost. Maybe not as much as received from the lease but take some of the profit out of it to where it is less attractive. That's the stick.
I also think WDFW could exert a little pressure through the damage control permits and the special permits for bodygripping traps they issue. If we could get them to look at that it all of a sudden maybe doesn't look like such a good deal to lock the public out. That is going to take political pressure too. Governors office if possible. Not sure if he would help though.
Post by: bearpaw on May 09, 2013, 09:41:02 AM
I know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category. We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access. We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.
I would think you would have a legitimate argument for this. It seems the asumption was the land was not going to generate any income between harvests of trees. Now they will be going to revenue generated through out the harvest cycle.
Yes that does sound like a reasonable argument to tax the lease income.
One of the issues that bobcat pointed out was the huge reduction in public opportunity. How could a special tax on lease income improve that?
You probably already know what I feel. Because the property is producing income every year and not just once during the harvest cycle the tax valuation should go up. If you don't lease it the valuation wouldn't go up. If you do it would go up. Provides an incentive in lower tax valuation to keep it open. I gather you don't like that.
Here's another thought I'll throw out there. What about extending the timber excise tax to other income the property produces. Might even try to get that tax money allocated to purchasing public easments to landlocked state land.
I see some difficulties wording that because the timber excise tax is not exclusive to forestland but it might be worth thinking about.
I wasn't very clear, I was agreeing that a different tax classification might be in order when a landowner is receiving additional annual income and the land is producing an income every year. There is another potential negative issue. Most timber land in my area is also leased for grazing. The ranchers need these grazing leases to make their operations profitable, I would hate to see additional taxation that makes it harder on ranchers to keep leases.
Bobcat had pointed out that there is a huge loss of opportunity with the limited number of access permits being issued. I like the idea of that extra taxation money being used to secure easements, not sure legislators will not want any extra funding for the general fund though. It certainly seems the end goal should be to secure access for hunters, not to create tax dollars for the state to waste.
Post by: fireweed on May 09, 2013, 10:00:55 AM
"I don't like Weyerhaeuser's new fees either and I empathize with you and others who enjoy access to Weyerhaeuser's lands. Unfortunately, there is not anything else that I can do except to commiserate."
This legislator is taking his job seriously!
Post by: Humptulips on May 10, 2013, 04:05:57 PM
Here's what Senator Brian Hatfield had to say (followed by a bunch of Weyco. Press releases citing the typical garbage dumping etc. as if making hunters pay will stop tweekers)
"I don't like Weyerhaeuser's new fees either and I empathize with you and others who enjoy access to Weyerhaeuser's lands. Unfortunately, there is not anything else that I can do except to commiserate."
This legislator is taking his job seriously!
I talked to someone in the know yesterday. One of the things we talked about applies to Brian and all other Legislators really. They are afraid to write any kind of bill that goes against the timber companies unless it is coming from grass roots. If something originates from their desk without some push from voters it probably won't go anywhere and big timber will be helping their opponent next election cycle.
Somehow we need to agree on an outline for a bill and then flood the legislators with messages.
I think any bill ideas should go through Hunters Heritage Council as they already have a lobbyist in place.
On the bill: I think there would be a lot of changes between idea stage and introduction. I would want to leave a lot of wiggle room for whoever introduces it so they could do some negotiating with WEYCO; Hancock; Et al.
Post by: fireweed on May 14, 2013, 08:44:42 AM
" ...some of the state’s best efforts to increase recreation opportunities may have backfired. For example, the state’s Open Space Taxation Act, enacted in 1970, allows for current use assessment, which values property at its current use rather than its highest and best use. This offers incentives to landowners whose properties qualify as one of the following classifications: open space land, farm and agricultural land, or timberland. One of the many qualifying factors for classification is enhancing recreation opportunities. In other words, among its many advantages, the Open Space Taxation Act encourages increases in recreation lands. However, as noted by some of the SCORP Town Hall contributors, there is a trend in private land ownership to limit public recreational access to no-entry or to a pay-to-enter model. This occurs despite the fact that similar taxation acts were enacted to encourage public recreation on these lands. As one contributor noted, “as timberlands are gated, public land often becomes landlocked and inaccessible by the actions of private companies [or landowners]. In effect, the loss of use of private timberlands, coupled with landlocked public lands has drastically reduced the ‘recreational’ spaces available to the public in the last 10-15 years.” It becomes important for the state to look at this and other similar programs designed to enhance public recreation opportunities to evaluate whether or not the goals of these efforts are being met."
Post by: fireweed on May 14, 2013, 08:46:01 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 17, 2013, 06:14:39 PM
Post by: 509 on May 26, 2013, 11:39:34 AM
One thing I remember due to timber and open space designation Plum Creek was paying TWENTY-NINE cents an acre per year in property taxes. They were paying an additional 29 cents to DNR for fire protection. Apple orchards pay a flat $100/ acre in taxes.....and so on.
Don't get me started on who pays taxes in Washington state.....but at least we have the "best government money can buy"!!
Post by: headshot5 on June 05, 2013, 09:13:19 AM
Thanks for the update cboom!
Edit included the below:
I have to say in my personal opinion there are more pressing issues, like wolves (both sides of the state), hoof-rot (low land west side elk), and public lands not being utilized correctly (game and timber management and tribe interaction with state/federal lands) that I would prefer to be resolved. One thing I would say is if they shutdown access to private property the wildlife will increase (not a terrible thing in a conservation sense), however the other above mentioned things work in the opposite direction (drastically reducing the amount of game animals).
If it were up to me I would be pushing to resolve the issues decimating our herds first as opposed to chasing private land owners whose property provides some of the best habitat. I know it sucks that Weyco and others are moving away from free access. I wish we (sportmen, outdoorsmen, and recreators) could work something out with private timber companies for at least walk-in access. I would not care if they charge for drive in access that is their right, and it would pay for upkeep of their roads.
I do not understand the entitlement I hear though, and also do not understand why we would want to pass legistation by offering up ideas to the Legislator and WDFW and then letting them hash it out. To me, that sounds like a recipe for disastor. Let the Legislator (probably non-hunting poloticians, and WDFW (Political Olympia)) decide what is best for sportsmen/recreators/public. We would probably get some good wolf legislation out of it :rolleyes:. Since, Washington is not a right-to-hunt state, we are pushing to trample our states private property rights to satisfy our State Authorized priveledge to hunt.
I would say we should be pushing to make hunting a right in Washington before worrying about who will or who won't let us hunt on their property.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2013, 09:51:38 AM
Post by: biggfish on June 05, 2013, 10:35:36 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 05, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
If they're going to be selling licensing to the public they should have to get a business license and a store front to do so; and with it will come all inherent taxes and fees. Granted if the access pass were in the $20-$30 range I wouldn't care but withe kind of profit margin they are looking at I see as a fully separate business.
They're a timber company. I guarantee they have a business license.
Post by: biggfish on June 05, 2013, 02:35:13 PM
If they're going to be selling licensing to the public they should have to get a business license and a store front to do so; and with it will come all inherent taxes and fees. Granted if the access pass were in the $20-$30 range I wouldn't care but withe kind of profit margin they are looking at I see as a fully separate business.
They're a timber company. I guarantee they have a business license.
I ran a business all licensing is specific to industry I doubt they have a retail license and I know they don't have a store front.
Post by: mpetersen on June 05, 2013, 05:01:21 PM
Post by: Alan K on June 05, 2013, 05:28:15 PM
I've said it before, I'm not in favor of Weyerhaeuser going the way of access permits, but am in favor of their rights to do so (without incurring any undue tax penalties). It really erk's me hearing all the people crying rivers over this. It's private property, we should all be thankful we were allowed access free of charge for as long as we were. Clearly some of us were spoiled by their generosity over the years.
Post by: fireweed on June 06, 2013, 09:00:43 AM
On Nov. 5, 1968 the voters changed the constitution by passing House Resolution 1, allowing property taxes on certain uses of land (timber, ag, open space) to be valued at their "current use" instead of highest (development) value. Makes sense as a carrot for keeping sprawl at bay. However, over the years once this tax break door was opened, the definition of "current use" has eroded from what timberland would sell for to some formula based on the price of logs that has no bearing on the going-price of timberland. Meanwhile, companies are now trading these tree farms like stock--most TIMO's and REITS aren't even in it to grow trees long term. They buy-hold-log-sell. The voters gave this tax break and they can un-give it.
Post by: fireweed on June 06, 2013, 09:13:00 AM
It really erk's me hearing all the people crying rivers over this. It's private property, we should all be thankful we were allowed access free of charge for as long as we were. Clearly some of us were spoiled by their generosity over the years.
NO! NO! NO! :'( The companies are the ones that are spoiled and entitled!!!! They forget who gave them the tax breaks in the first place--the people directly voted this in. They are biting the hand that has fed them since 1968, and you say we the people now need to be THANKFUL that they have allowed us access all these years????!!!!! Spoiled by their generosity??? It's not generosity, its called good public policy and it worked for them for years. Now, their tax breaks are in real jeopardy and their standing in the communities is mud. According to Weyerhaeuser own policy statements they operate with a license from the public. They need to remember that.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 06, 2013, 12:34:54 PM
As a person who strongly supports forestry, and who's entire extended family is deeply involved in all aspects of growing and harvesting trees--and has been for four generations--I can unequivocally say that timberland taxes are already too low--according to the intentof the laws, and the resulting impact on other taxpayers. I am also a homeowner and I am tired of subsidizing actions that hurt my community, and reduce our quality of life. It seems to be the USA system to fight like mad dogs to protect taxbreaks and "perks" through lobbyists and bought legislators, even if it hurts neighbors and communities, and isn't in the best interest of the budget and citizens.
On Nov. 5, 1968 the voters changed the constitution by passing House Resolution 1, allowing property taxes on certain uses of land (timber, ag, open space) to be valued at their "current use" instead of highest (development) value. Makes sense as a carrot for keeping sprawl at bay. However, over the years once this tax break door was opened, the definition of "current use" has eroded from what timberland would sell for to some formula based on the price of logs that has no bearing on the going-price of timberland. Meanwhile, companies are now trading these tree farms like stock--most TIMO's and REITS aren't even in it to grow trees long term. They buy-hold-log-sell. The voters gave this tax break and they can un-give it.
Current use isn't supposed to have anything to do with what the land would sell for. It is supposed to be based off average income made off that type of land. And this is not a tax break, it is the tax rate for land with that use. The voters can try to fight for higher taxes on timberland but I think there are enough people out there that understand the negative effects it would have. And you say your quality of life is effected? I think its sad somebody would make that comment because they aren't allowed on somebody's private property :dunno: The guy down the street from me has a pool in his back yard, by your reasoning my quality of life is reduced because he doesn't let us in to use it for free.
The guy down the street pays taxes on the full value of his developed land. He's already paying his fair share like the rest of us homeowners. CBoom, I gather you're connected to the timber industry in some way. You're never going to agree that timber companies don't pay enough taxes, so just leave it at that - we're not going to agree on this issue. I, on the other hand, would be all for changing the tax structure.
Post by: bobcat on June 06, 2013, 12:48:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 06, 2013, 01:14:14 PM
Hopefully someone else can explain it better than I can.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 06, 2013, 01:15:57 PM
When home values increase, the tax each individual homeowner pays does not increase. The tax for a particular home only goes up if its assessed value increases more than all the other houses in the county.
I'd have to agree, somewhat. Although my taxes increased slightly each year that my house's value increased, it also increased when the value started decreasing.
Post by: Special T on June 06, 2013, 01:27:24 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 06, 2013, 01:35:59 PM
Post by: Curly on June 06, 2013, 01:51:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 06, 2013, 01:56:40 PM
Use Google and do some research.
Post by: fireweed on June 06, 2013, 03:26:22 PM
"Current use isn't supposed to have anything to do with what the land would sell for. It is supposed to be based off average income made off that type of land. "
I have looked up articles on the 1968 amendment to the state constitution. The people voted on changing from highest use value taxation to "current use" value taxation. There was no talk of income, yield, stumpage values, timber excise etc. The intent was current use value based on sales of that type of land. Rather quickly after the current use language was adopted, the legislature started modifying the current use meaning. They separated out timber from land, and because then it was hard to find the price of bare land, they use a productivity formula for the land. But the original language that was voted on says nothing about basing values on income production.
If you support continued valuation based only on income potential, you must admit these Leases/fees are increasing the average income per acre above and beyond the income from timber. If today's values top out at $243 per acre, and now with leases/fees each acre is making say $20 more per year, the taxable values should go up accordingly.
Post by: xd2005 on June 06, 2013, 08:06:27 PM
First, counties can only increase their tax by 1%, overall. So say they brought in $1,000,000,000 in taxes last year, they can only increase that to $1,010,000,000 (think I did my math right there). The exception to this 1% rule is new development (new house, additions, etc). Any increases associated with the new development is separate from the 1% rule, although after the first year it must follow the 1% rule as well.
So it's assessment time. The county does their assessment for the year and come up with the aggregate property values, they then simply tax each property an equal amount (same amount per $1,000). If your property increased (as a percent) in value more than the rest of the county as a whole, your taxes go up more than 1%. If it does not grow as fast as the rest of the county, if goes up less than 1% (or goes down). If it grows at the same rate as the county, taxes go up 1%.
So the overall collection for the county can only increase 1%, but individual parcels are more than likely changing by more or less than 1%.
State website discusses this, probably better than me (and if something I say contradicts them, they are right, I am wrong) :)
http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationbysubject/taxtopics/propertytax/onepercentqna.aspx (http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationbysubject/taxtopics/propertytax/onepercentqna.aspx)
Post by: fireweed on June 07, 2013, 09:45:34 AM
"Current use isn't supposed to have anything to do with what the land would sell for. It is supposed to be based off average income made off that type of land. "
I have looked up articles on the 1968 amendment to the state constitution. The people voted on changing from highest use value taxation to "current use" value taxation. There was no talk of income, yield, stumpage values, timber excise etc. The intent was current use value based on sales of that type of land. Rather quickly after the current use language was adopted, the legislature started modifying the current use meaning. They separated out timber from land, and because then it was hard to find the price of bare land, they use a productivity formula for the land. But the original language that was voted on says nothing about basing values on income production.
If you support continued valuation based only on income potential, you must admit these Leases/fees are increasing the average income per acre above and beyond the income from timber. If today's values top out at $243 per acre, and now with leases/fees each acre is making say $20 more per year, the taxable values should go up accordingly.
That is a fair arguement. Maybe they should go up a bit. My issue is with the idea they should be taxed more because they don't allow public access. One shouldn't have a thing to do with the other IMO.
Good, Good, good! Now we are getting toward a solution. We can take the debate from access vs. no access, to chargers vs. non-chargers. I've seen other posts where instead of looking at property tax increases (which we've seen are very complex with multiple Eiman laws attached) to looking at the actual lease/fee revenue (perhaps rolling that into the timber excise program) and directing those funds to public access.
The devil's advocate would say, if you tax the lease/fee income, or have a slightly higher timberland value based on the lease/fee income, what's to stop companies from closing land altogether? For small landowners, that may be a real possibility--either free access or no access. But large landowners (like Hancock, Weyco. Rayonier, SPI etc) are all SFI certified and the SFI standard has a " provide public recreation" requirement, therefore to stay certified all the big companies must provide some sort of recreation. They simply cannot close down their land to all recreation and maintain certification. (SFI, as you probably know, is already being criticized and challenged as a industry rubber stamp by enviro groups and must show some backbone at some time)
Post by: headshot5 on June 07, 2013, 10:27:06 AM
Quote
For small landowners, that may be a real possibility--either free access or no access. But large landowners (like Hancock, Weyco. Rayonier, SPI etc) are all SFI certified and the SFI standard has a " provide public recreation" requirement, therefore to stay certified all the big companies must provide some sort of recreation. They simply cannot close down their land to all recreation and maintain certification. (SFI, as you probably know, is already being criticized and challenged as a industry rubber stamp by enviro groups and must show some backbone at some time)
Fireweed,
Can you tell me where in the SFI rules the public recreation thing is. Your last post sounds good. I don't know anything about the SFI program, and am planning on reading up on it.
Update.
Nevermind I found it on sheet 3/14 (page 11 of 123 of the document) at this link. http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/sfirequirements2010-2014pdf/ (http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/sfirequirements2010-2014pdf/) I think you are quite correct that we are now on the right track. Instead of trying to break up landowners by size of holdings, and classification in Industrial timberlands, the SFI classification should be questioned.
Here it is from the link above for SFI classification and public interaction.
Quote
5. Aesthetics and Recreation
To manage the visual impacts of forest operations, and to
provide recreational opportunities for the public.
Post by: Curly on June 07, 2013, 01:52:50 PM
It is also a tough argument about public access to private timberlands (without having to pay an access fee) when we have to buy a Discover Pass to access state lands. :(
Post by: fireweed on June 07, 2013, 05:01:24 PM
http://www.sfiprogram.org/sfi-standard/introduction-to-the-standard/standard-review-process/ (http://www.sfiprogram.org/sfi-standard/introduction-to-the-standard/standard-review-process/)
It may not help us, but a "tougher" statement on recreation that values historic recreation practices on the forest, and promotes wellness in adjacent communities might be an improvement.
The real killer with closing land/limiting access is that for a century, nearby communities utilized these lands for traditional recreation, making forest access part of our rural culture. (they would never get away with doing this in Brazil!) but to hurt rural American culture and economy seems somehow fine, even when these companies claim (like Weyco does) to "Promote the quality of life in communities where they operate"