DAR File No. 28271
Tax Commission, Property Tax
R884-24P-53
2005 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-2-515
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE
DAR File No.: 28271
Filed: 09/30/2005, 01:42
Received by: NL
RULE ANALYSIS
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
This amendment annually updates the agricultural use-values to be applied by county assessors to land qualifying for valuation and assessment under the Farmland Assessment Act (FAA). The values are recommended to the Commission by the State Farmland Evaluation Advisory Committee, which meets under the authority of Section 59-2-514.
Summary of the rule or change:
Section 59-2-215 authorizes the State Tax Commission to promulgate rules regarding the Property Tax Act, Part 5, "Farmland Assessment Act." Section 59-2-514 authorizes the State Tax Commission to receive valuation recommendations from the State Farmland Advisory Committee for implementation as outlined in Section R884-24P-53.
State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
Section 59-2-215
Anticipated cost or savings to:
the state budget:
The amount of savings or cost to state government is undetermined. The state receives tax revenue for assessing and collecting and for the Uniform School Fund based on increased or decreased real and personal property valuation, including property assessed under the FAA (greenbelt). Property valuation (taxable value) changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, 96 class/county valuations will increase, 90 will decrease, and 149 will remain unchanged. No total cost or savings could be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class, a listing of property newly-qualified for FAA assessment during 2006, and a listing of property no longer qualifying that is removed from greenbelt during 2006. However, it is estimated that the overall change is minimal due to this amendment.
local governments:
The amount of savings or cost to local government is undetermined. Local governmental entities receive tax revenue based on increased or decreased property valuation, including property on greenbelt. Property valuation changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, 96 class/county valuations will increase, 90 will decrease, and 149 will remain unchanged. No total cost or savings could be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class, a listing of property newly-qualified for greenbelt during 2006, and a listing of property no longer qualifying that is removed from greenbelt during 2006. However, it is estimated that the overall change is minimal due to this amendment. County assessor offices statewide will be required to input the new value indicators into their computer systems to be applied against the acreage for individual properties. This input process is easily accomplished on an annual basis and represents no significant cost in time or money to the assessors' offices.
other persons:
Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under the FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 96 such value indicators will increase, 90 will decrease, and 149 will not change. The affect on the property owner will be valuation increase, decrease or no change depending on the mix of property types and situs. No aggregate compliance cost can be determined without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class, a listing of property newly-qualified for greenbelt during 2006, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2006. In addition, the compliance cost will further be altered by changes to local property tax rates. However, it is estimated that the overall change due to this amendment is minimal.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
Undetermined. Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under the FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 96 such value indicators will increase, 90 will decrease, and 149 will not change. The affect on the property owner will be valuation increase, decrease or no change depending on the mix of property types and situs.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
The fiscal impact to businesses will vary depending on the county and the property classification. The impact is estimated to be minimal. Pam Hendrickson, Commission Chair
The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:
Property Tax
210 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84134
Direct questions regarding this rule to:
Cheryl Lee at the above address, by phone at 801-297-3900, by FAX at 801-297-3919, or by Internet E-mail at clee@utah.gov
Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:
11/14/2005
This rule may become effective on:
11/15/2005
Authorized by:
Pam Hendrickson, Commission Chair
RULE TEXT
R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.
R884-24P. Property Tax.
R884-24P-53. [2005]2006 Valuation Guides
for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah
Code Ann. Section 59-2-515.
A. Each year the Property Tax Division shall update and publish schedules to determine the taxable value for land subject to the Farmland Assessment Act on a per acre basis.
1. The schedules shall be based on the productivity of the various types of agricultural land as determined through crop budgets and net rents.
2. Proposed schedules shall be transmitted by the Property Tax Division to county assessors for comment before adoption.
3. County assessors may not deviate from the schedules.
4. Not all types of agricultural land exist in every county. If no taxable value is shown for a particular county in one of the tables, that classification of agricultural land does not exist in that county.
B. All property defined as farmland pursuant to Section 59-2-501 shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:
1. Irrigated farmland shall be assessed under the following classifications.
a) Irrigated I. The following counties shall assess Irrigated I property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 1
Irrigated I
1) Box Elder [820]800
2) Cache [680]675
3) Carbon [550]535
4) Davis [815]810
5) Emery [530]515
6) Iron [800]795
7) Kane [460]455
8) Millard 790
9) Salt Lake [700]690
10) Utah [735]725
11) Washington [655]650
12) Weber 770
b) Irrigated II. The following counties shall assess Irrigated II property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 2
Irrigated II
1) Box Elder [720]700
2) Cache [580]575
3) Carbon [450]435
4) Davis [715]710
5) Duchesne [490]475
6) Emery [430]415
7) Grand [410]405
8) Iron [700]695
9) Juab [440]435
10) Kane [360]355
11) Millard 690
12) Salt Lake [600]590
13) Sanpete [550]540
14) Sevier [575]565
15) Summit 470
16) Tooele [445]440
17) Utah [635]625
18) Wasatch [510]500
19) Washington [555]550
20) Weber 670
c) Irrigated III. The following counties shall assess Irrigated III property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 3
Irrigated III
1) Beaver [565]540
2) Box Elder [570]550
3) Cache [430]425
4) Carbon [300]285
5) Davis [565]560
6) Duchesne [340]325
7) Emery [280]265
8) Garfield [205]200
9) Grand [260]255
10) Iron [550]545
11) Juab [290]285
12) Kane [210]205
13) Millard 540
14) Morgan 380
15) Piute [350]345
16) Rich 200
17) Salt Lake [450]440
18) San Juan [190]185
19) Sanpete [400]390
20) Sevier [425]415
21) Summit 320
22) Tooele [295]290
23) Uintah 370
24) Utah [485]475
25) Wasatch [360]350
26) Washington [405]400
27) Wayne [355]340
28) Weber 520
d) Irrigated IV. The following counties shall assess Irrigated IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 4
Irrigated IV
1) Beaver [465]440
2) Box Elder [470]450
3) Cache [330]325
4) Carbon [200]185
5) Daggett [220]215
6) Davis [465]460
7) Duchesne [240]225
8) Emery [180]165
9) Garfield [105]100
10) Grand [160]155
11) Iron [450]445
12) Juab [190]185
13) Kane [110]105
14) Millard 440
15) Morgan 280
16) Piute [250]245
17) Rich 100
18) Salt Lake [350]340
19) San Juan [90]85
20) Sanpete [300]290
21) Sevier [325]315
22) Summit 220
23) Tooele [195]190
24) Uintah 270
25) Utah [385]375
26) Wasatch [260]250
27) Washington [305]300
28) Wayne [255]240
29) Weber 420
2. Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards
1) Beaver [610]620
2) Box Elder 665
3) Cache [610]620
4) Carbon [610]620
5) Davis [655]665
6) Duchesne [610]620
7) Emery [610]620
8) Garfield [610]620
9) Grand [610]620
10) Iron [610]620
11) Juab [610]620
12) Kane [610]620
13) Millard [610]620
14) Morgan [610]620
15) Piute [610]620
16) Salt Lake [610]620
17) San Juan [610]620
18) Sanpete [610]620
19) Sevier [610]620
20) Summit [610]620
21) Tooele [610]620
22) Uintah [610]620
23) Utah [645]660
24) Wasatch [610]620
25) Washington [770]750
26) Wayne 610
27) Weber [655]665
3. Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 6
Meadow IV
1) Beaver 230
2) Box Elder 235
3) Cache 255
4) Carbon [130]125
5) Daggett 170
6) Davis 260
7) Duchesne [160]155
8) Emery 125
9) Garfield 95
10) Grand [125]120
11) Iron 225
12) Juab 145
13) Kane [95]100
14) Millard 190
15) Morgan 175
16) Piute 160
17) Rich 105
18) Salt Lake 225
19) Sanpete 190
20) Sevier 200
21) Summit 195
22) Tooele 175
23) Uintah 180
24) Utah 230
25) Wasatch 210
26) Washington 215
27) Wayne 160
28) Weber 285
4. Dry land shall be classified as one of the following two categories and shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:
a) Dry III. The following counties shall assess Dry III property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 7
Dry III
1) Beaver 40
2) Box Elder [60]50
3) Cache 55
4) Carbon 40
5) Davis [45]40
6) Duchesne 40
7) Garfield 40
8) Grand 40
9) Iron 40
10) Juab 40
11) Kane 40
12) Millard 40
13) Morgan [45]40
14) Rich 40
15) Salt Lake 40
16) San Juan 40
17) Sanpete 40
18) Summit 40
19) Tooele 40
20) Uintah 40
21) Utah 40
22) Washington 40
23) Weber 40
b) Dry IV. The following counties shall assess Dry IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 8
Dry IV
1) Beaver 5
2) Box Elder [25]15
3) Cache 20
4) Carbon 5
5) Davis [10]5
6) Duchesne 5
7) Garfield 5
8) Grand 5
9) Iron 5
10) Juab 5
11) Kane 5
12) Millard 5
13) Morgan [10]5
14) Rich 5
15) Salt Lake 5
16) San Juan 5
17) Sanpete 5
18) Summit 5
19) Tooele 5
20) Uintah 5
21) Utah 5
22) Washington 5
23) Weber 5
5. Grazing land shall be classified as one of the following four categories and shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:
a) Graze 1. The following counties shall assess Graze I property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 9
GR I
1) Beaver [58]68
2) Box Elder [55]60
3) Cache [59]65
4) Carbon [64]57
5) Daggett [58]68
6) Davis [57]63
7) Duchesne [68]67
8) Emery [59]65
9) Garfield [67]73
10) Grand [75]70
11) Iron [58]60
12) Juab [67]69
13) Kane [77]79
14) Millard [73]78
15) Morgan [52]54
16) Piute [66]72
17) Rich [64]65
18) Salt Lake [64]72
19) San Juan [66]70
20) Sanpete [68]69
21) Sevier [68]70
22) Summit [58]68
23) Tooele [68]73
24) Uintah 65
25) Utah [50]56
26) Wasatch 53
27) Washington [55]56
28) Wayne [74]79
29) Weber [60]63
b) Graze II. The following counties shall assess Graze II property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 10
GR II
1) Beaver [17]19
2) Box Elder [16]18
3) Cache [17]19
4) Carbon [18]17
5) Daggett [17]20
6) Davis [16]19
7) Duchesne 20
8) Emery [17]19
9) Garfield [19]22
10) Grand [22]21
11) Iron [17]18
12) Juab [19]20
13) Kane [22]24
14) Millard [21]23
15) Morgan [15]16
16) Piute [19]22
17) Rich [18]20
18) Salt Lake [18]21
19) San Juan [19]21
20) Sanpete [19]21
21) Sevier [19]21
22) Summit [17]19
23) Tooele [19]22
24) Uintah 19
25) Utah [14]17
26) Wasatch [15]16
27) Washington [16]17
28) Wayne [21]23
29) Weber [17]19
c) Graze III. The following counties shall assess Graze III property based upon the per acre values below:
TABLE 11
GR III
1) Beaver [11]13
2) Box Elder [10]12
3) Cache [11]13
4) Carbon [12]11
5) Daggett [11]13
6) Davis [11]12
7) Duchesne 13
8) Emery [11]13
9) Garfield [13]14
10) Grand 14
11) Iron [11]12
12) Juab 13
13) Kane 15
14) Millard [14]15
15) Morgan 10
16) Piute [13]14
17) Rich [12]13
18) Salt Lake [12]14
19) San Juan [13]14
20) Sanpete 13
21) Sevier [13]14
22) Summit [11]12
23) Tooele [13]14
24) Uintah [12]13
25) Utah [10]11
26) Wasatch 10
27) Washington [10]11
28) Wayne [14]15
29) Weber [11]12
d) Graze IV. The following counties shall assess Graze IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 12
GR IV
1) Beaver 5
2) Box Elder 5
3) Cache 5
4) Carbon 5
5) Daggett [5]6
6) Davis 5
7) Duchesne 5
8) Emery 5
9) Garfield 5
10) Grand [6]5
11) Iron 5
12) Juab 5
13) Kane 6
14) Millard 6
15) Morgan 5
16) Piute 5
17) Rich 5
18) Salt Lake 5
19) San Juan 5
20) Sanpete 5
21) Sevier 5
22) Summit 5
23) Tooele 5
24) Uintah 5
25) Utah 5
26) Wasatch 5
27) Washington 5
28) Wayne 6
29) Weber 5
6. Land classified as nonproductive shall be assessed as follows on a per acre basis:
TABLE 13
Nonproductive Land
a) Nonproductive Land
1) All Counties 5
KEY: taxation, personal property, property tax, appraisals
December 21, 2004
Notice of Continuation April 5, 2002
59-2-515
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PLEASE NOTE:
- Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets (e.g.,
[
example]). Text to be added is underlined (e.g., example). Some browsers may not depict some or any of these attributes on the screen or when the document is printed. - Please see the DISCLAIMER regarding information available from state web pages.
For questions regarding the content or application of this rule, please contact Cheryl Lee at the above address, by phone at 801-297-3900, by FAX at 801-297-3919, or by Internet E-mail at clee@utah.gov
For questions about the rulemaking process, please contact the Division of Administrative Rules (801-538-3764). Please Note: The Division of Administrative Rules is NOT able to answer questions about the content or application of these administrative rules.