Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fwpproperty Tax Status topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would align statute with practice on tax status of Fish, Wildlife and Parks properties
Summary
House Bill 87 would amend law to align tax treatment of certain Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks properties with current practice, keeping eligible properties on the tax rolls to simplify billing and collection; department officials said about $1.22 million was paid on such properties in a recent year.
Get email alerts on the Fwpproperty Tax Status topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Espin introduced House Bill 87 on behalf of the Department of Revenue, saying the measure would clarify tax status and assessment procedures for certain properties owned by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP). “This bill amends portions of current law to clarify the tax status and assessment procedure for certain properties owned by the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks,” Espin said.
Department witnesses said the bill stems from a legislative performance audit of the Property Assessment Division. Bill Schenk, land and water unit manager for FWP, and department staff described the bill as a cleanup that aligns statute with current practice: rather than using an alternate “tax-equivalent” billing process set out in statute, the department would leave taxable FWP properties on the regular tax rolls so counties can bill and collect in the normal manner.
Committee members asked about the total payments by these properties; FWP staff said the amount paid in a recent year was $1,224,614. Department witnesses explained the statutory distinctions reflect historical treatment of state parks and hatcheries and concern that when large tracts of once‑private land enter public ownership counties could lose tax revenue without clear statutory direction.
Proponents testified that the bill would simplify administration for FWP, county treasurers and the Department of Revenue. No opponents were recorded in testimony and the committee did not record a vote at the hearing’s close.
