Introduced
by
To revise the tax break repayment provisions on forestland removed from the commercial forest act program, which authorizes lower property taxes of $1.10 per acre on commercial forestland on which the owner gives the public access for recreation. The bill would replace a more complex tax repayment formula for withdrawn property with a simple requirement to repay the tax savings from the past 15 years. It would also require landowners who signed up for the tax break since 1995 to provide documentation that public access to the land for hunting and fishing is possible. This is part of a commercial forestry incentive package comprised of Senate Bills 912 to 919 and House Bills 5453 to 5468 and 5462.
Referred to the Committee on Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To require all landowners who get the tax break, not just those who signed up for it since 1995, to provide documentation that public access to the land for hunting and fishing is possible.
The amendment failed 49 to 56 (details)
Passed in the House 66 to 39 (details)
To revise the tax break repayment provisions on forestland removed from the commercial forest act program, which authorizes lower property taxes of $1.10 per acre on commercial forestland on which the owner gives the public access for recreation. The bill would replace a more complex tax repayment formula for withdrawn property with a simple requirement to repay the tax savings from the past 10 years. It would also require landowners who signed up for the tax break since 1995 to provide documentation that public access to the land for hunting and fishing is possible.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Tourism
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that increases the CFR alternative "specific tax." See Senate-passed bill for details. This version does not include the requirent for landowners who signed up for the tax break since 1995 to provide documentation that public access to the land for hunting and fishing is possible, because HB 5455 now has language addressing this).
The substitute passed by voice vote
Passed in the Senate 32 to 5 (details)
To increase the specific tax rate on commercial forestland from $1.10 per acre to $1.20 per acre in 2007, to $1.25 in 2012, and by an additional 5-cents every five years thereafter. Also, to increase the State's payment in lieu of taxes on commercial forestland (currently $1.20 per acre) by five cents in 2012, and by an additional 5-cents every five years thereafter. The bill also to revise the tax break repayment provisions on forestland removed from the commercial forest act program, which authorizes lower property taxes of $1.10 per acre on commercial forestland on which the owner gives the public access for recreation. The bill would replace a more complex tax repayment formula for withdrawn property with a simple requirement to repay the tax savings from the past seven years.
Failed in the House 7 to 95 (details)
To concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
Received
Passed in the House 105 to 0 (details)
To adopt a compromise version of the bill reported by a House-Senate conference committee. This increases the alternative property taxes on forestland in the commercial forest act program from $1.10 per acre to $1.20 per acre, and then an additional five-cents every five years. It does not require landowners who signed up for the tax break since 1995 to provide documentation that public access to the land for hunting and fishing is possible, but as under current law, prohibits them from denying access if it is possible to gain access to the land without trespassing on another parcel.
Passed in the Senate 32 to 5 (details)
