Losing land tax revenue was a concern expressed by a state representative out of Las Animas county recently and why she was stumping against more fee title land held by the state of Colorado as I believe our largest state wildlife area here in the Centennial State, Bosque Del Oslo, significantly reduced the amount of tax that the county was receiving from the land that became a part of this 30,000 acre state parcel.
MT county commissioners opposing RMEF land acquisition
- Thread starter Marshian
- Start date
BigHornRam
Well-known member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Or the RMEF could just wait for a wildfire to go through, and pick it up for under $500 an acre. That's an option.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, a scenario much more likely than restoring "forest health" to your standards during our lifetime ... or that of our grandchildren.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Not true everywhere- I’m talking rural counties like Meagher county rural. Part of the PILT formula is tied to population- higher population equals higher PILT payment per acre. For counties with only one or two thousand residents, you’re often talking less than $.30 or $.40 per acre in PILT. Counties like Ravalli do indeed get closer to your $2.40 figure, but those are much more the exception than the rule in a lot of states. The payment amount also fluctuates, sometimes fairly dramatically from year to year depending on the games Congress plays, how much revenue sharing money was authorized, etc. Meagher county received $179k total in PILT in 2017. They brought in about $1.64 million in taxes on ag land. I realize these numbers don’t align perfectly because you’re dealing with two separate fiscal years that only have 6 months of overlap, but it gives the general idea. Maybe someone with access to better data than I can come up with the percent federal land in the county- eyeballing it I’d say upwards of 30%?
Those numbers came from here:
https://mtrevenue.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2016-Taxes-by-County.pdf
http://www.mtcounties.org/sites/default/files/forms-downloads/resources/fiscal-information-forms/federal/pilt/current-pilt-payments-and-historical-payments.xls
Irrelevant
Well-known member
https://www.nbc.gov/pilt/counties.c...ode=MT&fiscal_yr=2018&Search.x=33&Search.y=14
Meagher County was paid $306,475 for the 486,609 acres; $0.63/ac.
Meagher County was paid $306,475 for the 486,609 acres; $0.63/ac.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
When RMEF wants to use public dollars to purchase private property, they have to listen to my stupid opinions, as well as the residents of Meagher county, Montana, and the US. That's the scenario we are dealing with in this particular land acquisition project. If you want to use private dollars, that's a completely different story.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
of the $1.64 million for ag, it appears there are approximately 812,325 ac in farm https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistic...ulletin/2017/Montana_Annual_Bulletin_2017.pdf
so, yes, they're making approximately $2.02/ac on farming, but only $0.63/ac on PILT. All I can say is that they're taxing the heck out of there farmers!
so, yes, they're making approximately $2.02/ac on farming, but only $0.63/ac on PILT. All I can say is that they're taxing the heck out of there farmers!
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Habitat acquisition funding scenario versus forest health issue scenario is a dichotomy of two different unrelated concerns. The funding concern is paramount in this situation. The forest health concern has not been germane to the discussion or the decision by RMEF or the Meagher County Commission.
onpoint
Well-known member
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Thanks for the additional links neffa. Your Google-Fu must be better than mine!
Yep, there was a jump in PILT from Fed fiscal year 2017 to 2018. The President’s budget had called for a big cut to PILT and Repubs gave a big hell no. Like I said, vulnerable to the political whims. They did make a big cut to revenue sharing however, which also is part of the PILT formula and if I understand correctly, that helped bump up the PILT slightly as well? I’m not sure it was enough to completely offset the lost revenue sharing dollars in all cases.
Lowly Petroleum County....less than $0.27 per acre.
Anyway, for those asking why the counties oppose these types of transactions, that’s why.
Yep, there was a jump in PILT from Fed fiscal year 2017 to 2018. The President’s budget had called for a big cut to PILT and Repubs gave a big hell no. Like I said, vulnerable to the political whims. They did make a big cut to revenue sharing however, which also is part of the PILT formula and if I understand correctly, that helped bump up the PILT slightly as well? I’m not sure it was enough to completely offset the lost revenue sharing dollars in all cases.
Lowly Petroleum County....less than $0.27 per acre.
Anyway, for those asking why the counties oppose these types of transactions, that’s why.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I wouldn't pay top dollar to buy a house with a bad roof with my money or the public's. Apparently you would.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Bad roof ... elk get wet ... ugly house ... no buy.
Now you see the ugliness.
Now you see the ugliness.
Last edited:
I think you meant; dead trees...wildlife habitat is no good...elk have a tree fall on them?... I'm sorta confused how some dead trees means the property isn't good habitat and is overvalued
BigHornRam
Well-known member
For $7.5 million you can step up to the plate and pick up this great real estate deal, S A. Borrow money if you have to, it won't be on the market very long.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Its actually pretty damn prime elk habitat. You ever been there? I've walked the border of a couple of those sections.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Never been there but have no doubt it is prime habitat for elk. Do you know how long this property has been on the market with no interested buyers? Should we be fiscally prudent with our public dollars when buying properties like this?
I know of numerous checkerboard sections of prime elk habitat property in Missoula County that RMEF could purchase at a quarter to a third of the price per acre that this Meagher County property is listed at, and would get complete support by the county commissioners. Should they look into a purchase like this instead?
There's almost no checkerboard in Missoula County, other than the the old Plum Creek land around Placid that TNC now owns and is in the the process of making public. Are you thinking of land in a different county?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Although the news article reports of a need for LWCF funds to complete the purchase, the mix of those funds with RMEF funds is not stated. RMEF funds are not public dollars and it may be that the bulk of the funding is from privately donated RMEF funding. So your question regarding prudently spending public dollars may not be as critical to the issue.
Two glaring factoids: 1. No new land is being made and in western Montana, what exists is high-priced. 2. Someone will purchase this prime elk habitat.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Checkerboard I was thinking of is this
https://www.seeleylake.com/photos/big/4003/12
and it looks like it has LWCF funding in place pending appraisal to be purchased by the USFS.
Plenty more sections of non checkerboard land that is not spoken for however.
