• Dear User,

    We had issues in getting your old password work with the new version of the software, henceforth kindly Reset Your Password here

    You won't be able to login with your old password

    If you do not receive the Password reset request within a few minutes, please check your Junk / Spam E-mail folder just in case the email got delivered there instead of your inbox. If so, select Not Junk, which will allow future messages to get through.

    If you still need assistance, email [email protected]

    We appreciate your patience and understanding on this matter.

SSB1253 Another kick at the forest reserve program can

Fishbonker

Life Member
This bill is part of a huge Ways and Means bill that covers lots of tax stuff. The bill itself is 35 pages long and the explanation section adds 16 more pages.

Link to the bill: SSB 1253

The section in question starts of page 31.

To my understanding, to qualify for the exemption the owner needs to be actively engaged in the operation or management of the forest reservation. The bill calls for the DNR to establish what "actively engaged" actually means. The explanation section of the bill addresses judicial review of the rules the DNR makes and what sections are reviewable by the judiciary.

This bill is similar to the previous one in that the fruit tree reserves would be inspected by either the county assessor or the county conservation board yearly for compliance and the forest reserves would be inspected yearly by the DNR for compliance.

There are several other parts of the forest reserve section of the bill but those above are the biggest changes. I encourage you to read the bill as this is my interpretation, yours may vary and maybe better than mine.

I had a feeling this would resurface as part of a Ways and Means bill. That seems to be the modus operandi of legislators to move unpopular bills into Ways and Means bills as a way to get them passed. The kill em all deer bill went this way this year as well.

The subcommittee assigned meets Wednesday, March 24th at 0830.

Members of the subcommittee are:

Senator Dan Dawson email: SENATOR DAWSON EMAIL

Senator Joe Bolkcom email: SENATOR BOLKCOM EMAIL

Senator Tim Goodwin email: SENATOR GOODWIN EMAIL

Senators Bolkcom and Dawson were on the subcommittee that recommended indefinite postponement of the stand alone forest reserve bill. Hopefully they will recommend cutting this section out of this bill.

The Farm Bureau is registered in favor.
 

Sligh1

Administrator
Staff member
The Farm Bureau is registered in favor.
& there u go. All I need to know. Let’s understand FB..... they HATE deer, trees, CRP, WRP, etc. Anything that is not a corn or bean plant or takes its plant- against it. Anything that would reduce the yield a fraction of a % - against it.

Forest Reserve is an incentive for farmers to leave the little remaining timber on the most transformed state in the country. 6% timber with some of the worlds most fertile soils. Immensely impacting water quality, wildlife, etc.

Even with FR - look what happens when grain prices spike- the dozing starts!!! Look what happens when GOVERNMENT raises property taxes 30%+ a couple years ago & grain prices are attractive... DOZERS!

They just raised property taxes by an obscene amount & now they want to hike them again...
our farmers, wildlife, hunters, water quality & ecosystem suffers so Government can get a few more dollars. Let’s be clear folks: the FR program is a “big nothing” for “lost revenue” in the budget- Insanely low fraction of a %. This is Gov greed & short sighted thinking - squabbling about the penny on the ground... all at the cost of the farmers & landowners who have a tiny incentive to save the little remaining timber of our state. & just took on a huge tax hike just 2-3 years ago!!! Shameful.

*”inspected yearly by assessor or conservation board”.... add to their loaded up workload!! & u think these folks work for free?!?!?!? There’s a cost right there!!!! If u added that cost up alone it will be a substantial figure for the labor, salaries, travel & paperwork of our Gov bureaucrats.

TAX HIKE & a few of the R’s are behind it. Absolute embarrassment & shameful!!!!
 

Fishbonker

Life Member
New bill number and new committee.

The bill is now SF 587 link to the bill: SF 587

The bill is now in the Appropriations Committee.

Link to a news article on this section of the bill: NEWS ARTICLE

It looks to me like they have put language in the bill that defines what "actively manage" means. It also looks like they make the applicant set goals for their timber reserve and how they plan to manage the reserve to meet those goals.
 

Sligh1

Administrator
Staff member
Subcommittee recommended passage today and it was moved to "unfinished business".
In basic iowa political terms - what is “unfinished business”?.... Why does it go there or how is that generally resolved? Is this a tactic to get it passed later?
 

Fishbonker

Life Member
In basic iowa political terms - what is “unfinished business”?.... Why does it go there or how is that generally resolved? Is this a tactic to get it passed later?

Yup. It will (might) be brought back up in the dead of night and passed when no one is looking.
 

Sligh1

Administrator
Staff member
Yup. It will (might) be brought back up in the dead of night and passed when no one is looking.
Unreal. I suspected that’s what it meant. Politicians!!! :mad::oops::rolleyes:o_O:confused:

Probably no mystery I’m a right wing conservative conservationist... as are probably a majority on here if I had to guess. With that said- maybe close HALF of the iowa republicans need to go. Sell outs, no principles, not doing a good job, etc. *in all fairness, many folks with D’s next to their names have done a great job on outdoors, farm, conservation & regulation issues.

I spent some time last week talking to a “good one” & that person agreed many colleagues were out of line. Higher taxes, bigger government, more regulations, owned by special interests, etc. it’s frustrating & that frustration is GROWING. Time for some changes.
 

IowaBowHunter1983

Super Moderator
Staff member
Horrible idea on so many levels. There is so little timber in this state to begin with. "Hey if I'm going to pay taxes on that ground I might as well try to make something on it.... Hey Dozer Joe... when can you get over here and get rid of these pesky trees!!!!"

Classic case of not being able to see the forest thru the trees.... pun intended!
 

chadw

Member
Had the DNR forester for our county out for a tour today. This bill came up as a topic. In her words, “It will change a lot of things.”

As I’m sharing with my representatives, if you care about quality of life in Iowa for those who enjoy the great outdoors, please vote against this bill.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Fishbonker

Life Member
It is currently still in the House Ways and Means committee, it has not had a subcommittee assigned yet.

There was a fiscal note published by the LSA on the 14th. Link to the publication: LSA FISCAL NOTE

The part of the report concerning the section of the bill on the charitable conservation contribution tax credit starts on page 7 and the forest reserve section follows that.

The report is pretty interesting in that it gives estimates of how much the State will gain in revenue if the bill passes. I encourage you to read the report, I don't want to put what I think are the numbers and have them be wrong.

Another thing that struck me was some of the ground in the FRP isn't zoned agricultural and the non-ag gets better tax breaks based on valuation, so my question is why not just tax the non-ag FRP land? Probably too simple.
 

Thinkin Rut

PMA Member
What does actively engaged in your forest reserve mean anyway? I would guess they could get their 7% reduction enforcing the rules on the books right now...typical government.
 
Top Bottom