Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Forrest reserve property tax exemption

Had good conversations with the sponsor of this bill and a member of the subcommittee that recommended amendment and passage of the bill to the full Natural Resources and Environment Committee. Their intention is not to do away with the program but cut out the abuse of the program. One of the abuses is developers who buy a tract of wooded land near a city, enroll it in the program and then don't pay taxes on the land as they sell off large lots to build homes on. I'm not clear then if the benefits of the program continue on with the new owner who has built in the reserve or not.

They understand this is a daunting task and will be seeking input on how to solve these issues. Senator Sinclair has been trying to get some sort of reform on this for years and was tired of the issue going nowhere so she 'dropped a bomb" to get attention for this issue. I think it worked.
 
Fishbonker said:
Had good conversations with the sponsor of this bill and a member of the subcommittee that recommended amendment and passage of the bill to the full Natural Resources and Environment Committee. Their intention is not to do away with the program but cut out the abuse of the program. One of the abuses is developers who buy a tract of wooded land near a city, enroll it in the program and then don't pay taxes on the land as they sell off large lots to build homes on. I'm not clear then if the benefits of the program continue on with the new owner who has built in the reserve or not.

They understand this is a daunting task and will be seeking input on how to solve these issues. Senator Sinclair has been trying to get some sort of reform on this for years and was tired of the issue going nowhere so she 'dropped a bomb" to get attention for this issue. I think it worked.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that detail. Still can't believe Daver chooses to pay the most taxes he can but interesting nonetheless

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
arm said:
Thanks for posting that detail. Still can't believe Daver chooses to pay the most taxes he can but interesting nonetheless

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I feel like I am receiving local law enforcement, road maintenance and such that these taxes go for and as such, I feel it is my duty to pay for them. There is a cost for these services and I feel like everyone should pay an equitable share.
 
Daver said:
I feel like I am receiving local law enforcement, road maintenance and such that these taxes go for and as such, I feel it is my duty to pay for them. There is a cost for these services and I feel like everyone should pay an equitable share.
Click to expand...
It was a rhetorical comment from me, no worries :)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
I don't really know what is going on with the republicans in this state, thought they suppose to be for less taxes, also noticed this year some of my online purchases took a 7% increase because of our republican governor.
 
loneranger said:
Where do you write? Who will vote on it?
Click to expand...
Follow the link at the top of this thread. Looks like it passed the sub committee. Look at the declared lobbiests to see if there is an organization that aligns with your view and reach out to them if you have a connection to them. Contact your legislatures to let them know your view.
 
Its in the natural resources right now. Sponsor of the bill told me. Im writing. I already belong to the Iowa tree conservation groups. They do their best. But counties are looking for every tax they can get!
 
loneranger said:
But counties are looking for every tax they can get!
Click to expand...

That is very true.

We've had face to face meetings with Sen. Sinclair and Sen. Rozenboom at the capitol and we get the sense they are trying to stop the abuse of the system not do away with the program.

The counties that would gain the most from some sort of crackdown on abuse appear to be Johnson (Iowa City) and Polk (Des Moines). When you look at the value/acre of forest reserve land Johnson has a valuation of $3410.00/acre and Polk has a valuation of $4250/acre. Those acres aren't a "back 80" that a family wants to preserve. The acres in question are the 5 acre house lots (or what ever the minimum amount needed to enroll)that are getting a tax break for being enrolled in the program. There is zero percent chance those acres would ever be bulldozed flat to be used for agriculture purposes.

Remember, this is the valuation for tax purposes not sale price. Wooded recreational and home site land sells for at least twice the valuation here in the corridor.

The above figures are based on numbers given to us by Sen. Rozenboom and supplied to him by the Iowa State Association of Counties.

EDIT: I forgot to mention in discussion with others on this bill I keep hearing the term "South of Granders" I assume that is in reference to an area south of Grand Avenue in DSM where several tracts of land are enrolled for large houses.
 
Last edited:
If these politicians want to target developers or something - they need to be more surgical with their legislation. “Must be 20 acres or more” or.... “exclude Johnson & Polk county”. To put the rest of the state into this bill because of TWO counties is absolute insanity!!!!!!
“We want to increase taxes on builders & developers. To do that- we’ll raise taxes on every farmer & landowner in Iowa with Forest reserve. The same folks who just had a 25% property tax increase and are struggling in a very difficult farm market”. It’s crazy. Be tactical & surgical on your targets and leave the other 99% of folks alone!!!!!
 
Sligh1 said:
Be tactical & surgical on your targets and leave the other 99% of folks alone!!!!!
Click to expand...

I believe that is their goal. They are trying to figure out how to do it. They had to start somewhere and "somewhere" was making a big splash that got a lot of attention. I think that part of it worked well.
 
Seems like a minimum number of acres would easily take care of most of the large lots with one house . Probably harder to deal with the developer who bought a 40 or an 80 and us holding it for 10 years until the city grows out to it. But, when it gets carved up into 3 to 5 acre lots they would be out of the program. Doesn't seem that complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom