Did anyone see this? I just stumbled upon it tonight...
https://www.thecentersquare.com/ohio...947975ecc.html
Printable View
Did anyone see this? I just stumbled upon it tonight...
https://www.thecentersquare.com/ohio...947975ecc.html
For your sake I hope it goes thru. In NYS we can get an agriculture assessment, which reduces the taxes to about 30% of what they would be otherwise, but we need to apply for it in a long application initially, after that we need tore-sign forms or we lose it. There are hoops to jump thru too, we must have sales of at least $10,000 average over the previous 2 years as filed on our fed. income tax form. There are other requirements too, but for smaller producers that is often the hard part.
Hey John
This was being discussed a couple years back, would be great if it went through, also it pairs up with cauv tax breaks. This would encourage more people to add on to their operation if possible to get more acres under the tax exemption. Hope it can go somewhere
Kevin
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnallin
State Rep John Patterson used to teach in the class right next to mine.
I hope there is better definition then this in the bill. It's pretty vague and not many would qualify under this in my area. Does this mean your whole timber acreage has to have 30 taps per acre and 15 trees? I only tap about half my woods, but have 118 taps total on about 10 acres. In my area 30 taps per acre would not catch many properties. Our woods are a mix of oak, Maple and other hardwoods. I know it's geared towards Northern Ohio, but us southern producers would like to get it too. We used to run several hundred taps when I was a kid on 45 acres and we wouldn't qualify by this wording. we'd have to have had over 1,300 taps on that 45 acres. That's a lot in this area. Our Maples just aren't that dense. Again someone pushing an agenda that benefits them and not everyone.Quote:
“HB 109 would offer an incentive of zero property taxes to those who make at least 30 taps per acre on a minimum of 15 trees,” Patterson added. “… Second, contingent upon this tax break, landowners would practice enhanced forestry practices by participating in Ohio’s forest management plan.
Very interesting. I wonder if it would apply to a residential property of 1 acre with 15 maple trees and 30 taps. In some areas, property taxes are several thousands of dollars.
For example, I live in the city, but have 0.86 acres and 9 huge maples. I'd gladly plant 6 trees if it means I'd qualify.
The way I understand it is what ever area is tapped with the minimum of 30 taps per acre. So if you have 50 acres total, and 10 acres are tapped with at least 300 taps only that 10 acres would qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeye gold
Kevin
I feel your pain Buckeye, but 30 taps on a minimum of 15 trees per acre is actually pretty lax. My take is it's designed to offer incentives to re-invest in Maple as a business and promote good forest husbandry at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeye gold
Without a defined minimum tap/tree count, you could write off taxes with one or two trees... that doesn't make any sense either. Pretty sure you need to show income from maple sales before you can get any relief.
Yeah, I understand Johnallin. It just seems kind of an odd way of qualifying to make it stem density related instead of minimum tap and business related. Someone within a city limits and 30 taps on an acre plot that sells a few gallons from home or farmers Mkt. might qualify while someone with 30 acres and 300 taps scattered across the whole acreage might not. I'm assuming the proposals actually have more definition in it. I have CAUV on my land and I have had to show agricultural use to maintain this. I give hay away to the neighbors, so I don't have farm income, but it's still farm use. I also have a timber management plan and sell timber on a planned harvest. Although, that has to be on hold for a while as I rebuild my base. A couple unplanned cuts from storm damage put me in under-stock and a growing mode for the next few years. I realize that a lot of sugar bushes have maple stem densities much higher than that, but our woods down here our oak/hickory dominate. some area have some pretty dense maple stands, but if you walk my woods you'll see 10 oaks for every maple, but there's still enough maple for a viable sugar set up. I appreciate the discussion and the fact someone is trying to build on Maple industry.
its still moving forward but very very slowly at this point. for the maple industry as a whole this will be very beneficial and they have to use a starting number. this was created initially for the timber folks that were clear cutting and ruining woods for several generations. there are laws more coming down the pike to address that from a land value and erosion stand point
It is almost like a maple farmer connected with an old High School history teacher....