No. 30512 (Amendment): R884-24P-53. 2007 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section59-2-515
DAR File No.: 30512
Filed: 10/01/2007, 03:14
Received by: NLRULE ANALYSIS
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
Section 59-2-515 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.
Summary of the rule or change:
This amendment annually updates the agricultural productive values to be applied by county assessors to land qualifying for valuation and assessment under the Farmland Assessment Act. The values are recommended to the commission by the State Farmland Evaluation Advisory Committee, which meets under the authority of Section 59-2-514.
State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:
Section 59-2-515
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 Farmland Assessment Act (greenbelt). Property valuation (taxable value) changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, 153 class/county valuations will increase, 50 will decrease and 134 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 2008, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2007. However, it is estimated that the overall change is minimal due to this amendment.
local governments:
The amount of saving 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, 153 class/county valuations will increase, 50 will decrease and 134 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 2007, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2007. 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.
small businesses and persons other than businesses:
Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under the Farmland Assessment Act may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 153 such value indicators will increase, 50 will decrease and 134 will not change. The effect 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 2007, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2007. 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. PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under the Farmland Assessment Act may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 153 such value indicators will increase, 50 will decrease and 134 will not change. The effect 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 2007, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2007. 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:
Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under the Farmland Assessment Act may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 153 such value indicators will increase, 50 will decrease and 134 will not change. The effect 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 2008, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2007. 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.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
There will be minimal increase or decrease to property value depending on classification of property. D'Arcy Dixon, Commissioner
The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:
Tax Commission
Property Tax
210 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84134Direct 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:
11/14/2007
This rule may become effective on:
11/21/2007
Authorized by:
D'Arcy Dixon, Commissioner
RULE TEXT
R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.
R884-24P. Property Tax.
R884-24P-53. [
2007]2008 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-2-515.[
A.](1) 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.](a) The schedules shall be based on the productivity of the various types of agricultural land as determined through crop budgets and net rents.[
2.](b) Proposed schedules shall be transmitted by the Property Tax Division to county assessors for comment before adoption.[
3.](c) County assessors may not deviate from the schedules.[
4.](d) 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.](2) All property defined as farmland pursuant to Section 59-2-501 shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:[
1.](a) Irrigated farmland shall be assessed under the following classifications.[
a)](i) Irrigated I. The following counties shall assess Irrigated I property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 1
Irrigated I1) Box Elder 820
2) Cache 690
3) Carbon 540
4) Davis [850]840
5) Emery [520]525
6) Iron 815
7) Kane [460]450
8) Millard [810]800
9) Salt Lake [700]705
10) Utah [745]735
11) Washington [650]655
12) Weber 800[
b)](ii) Irrigated II. The following counties shall assess Irrigated II property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 2
Irrigated II1) Box Elder 720
2) Cache 590
3) Carbon 440
4) Davis [750]740
5) Duchesne [490]495
6) Emery [420]425
7) Grand 410
8) Iron 715
9) Juab [450]460
10) Kane [360]350
11) Millard [710]700
12) Salt Lake [600]605
13) Sanpete 550
14) Sevier [580]570
15) Summit [470]475
16) Tooele 460
17) Utah [645]635
18) Wasatch 500
19) Washington [550]555
20) Weber 700[
c)](iii) Irrigated III. The following counties shall assess Irrigated III property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 3
Irrigated III1) Beaver [560]565
2) Box Elder 570
3) Cache 440
4) Carbon 290
5) Davis [600]590
6) Duchesne [340]345
7) Emery [270]275
8) Garfield [210]220
9) Grand 260
10) Iron 565
11) Juab [300]310
12) Kane [210]200
13) Millard [560]550
14) Morgan [390]395
15) Piute [350]355
16) Rich [200]190
17) Salt Lake [450]455
18) San Juan 180
19) Sanpete 400
20) Sevier [430]420
21) Summit [320]325
22) Tooele 310
23) Uintah [375]385
24) Utah [495]485
25) Wasatch 350
26) Washington [400]405
27) Wayne [340]335
28) Weber 550[
d)](iv) Irrigated IV. The following counties shall assess Irrigated IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 4
Irrigated IV1) Beaver [
460]465
2) Box Elder 470
3) Cache 340
4) Carbon 190
5) Daggett [210]220
6) Davis [500]490
7) Duchesne [240]245
8) Emery [170]175
9) Garfield [110]120
10) Grand 160
11) Iron 465
12) Juab [200]210
13) Kane [110]100
14) Millard [460]450
15) Morgan [290]295
16) Piute [250]255
17) Rich [100]90
18) Salt Lake [350]355
19) San Juan 80
20) Sanpete 300
21) Sevier [330]320
22) Summit [220]225
23) Tooele 210
24) Uintah [275]285
25) Utah [395]385
26) Wasatch 250
27) Washington [300]305
28) Wayne [240]235
29) Weber 450[
2.](b) Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards1) Beaver [
630]640
2) Box Elder [685]695
3) Cache [630]640
4) Carbon [630]640
5) Davis [685]695
6) Duchesne [630]640
7) Emery [630]640
8) Garfield [630]640
9) Grand [630]640
10) Iron [630]640
11) Juab [630]640
12) Kane [630]640
13) Millard [630]640
14) Morgan [630]640
15) Piute [630]640
16) Salt Lake [630]640
17) San Juan [630]640
18) Sanpete [630]640
19) Sevier [630]640
20) Summit [630]640
21) Tooele [630]640
22) Uintah [630]640
23) Utah [690]710
24) Wasatch [630]640
25) Washington [750]760
26) Wayne [630]640
27) Weber [685]695[
3.](c) Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:TABLE 6
Meadow IV
1) Beaver [250]255
2) Box Elder 250
3) Cache 265
4) Carbon 130
5) Daggett [165]160
6) Davis 270
7) Duchesne 165
8) Emery 130
9) Garfield 100
10) Grand 125
11) Iron 250
12) Juab 150
13) Kane [115]110
14) Millard [200]195
15) Morgan [180]185
16) Piute 175
17) Rich 105
18) Salt Lake 225
19) Sanpete 195
20) Sevier [205]200
21) Summit [200]205
22) Tooele 185
23) Uintah [190]195
24) Utah 240
25) Wasatch 210
26) Washington 220
27) Wayne 170
28) Weber [300]305[
4.](d) Dry land shall be classified as one of the following two categories and shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:[
a)](i) Dry III. The following counties shall assess Dry III property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 7
Dry III1) Beaver [
45]50
2) Box Elder [65]85
3) Cache [70]100
4) Carbon [45]50
5) Davis [45]50
6) Duchesne [45]65
7) Garfield [45]50
8) Grand [45]50
9) Iron [50]55
10) Juab [45]50
11) Kane [45]50
12) Millard [45]50
13) Morgan [45]65
14) Rich [45]50
15) Salt Lake [50]55
16) San Juan [45]50
17) Sanpete [45]60
18) Summit [45]50
19) Tooele [45]50
20) Uintah [45]60
21) Utah [45]50
22) Wasatch [45]50
23) Washington [45]50
24) Weber [55]80[
b)](ii) Dry IV. The following counties shall assess Dry IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 8
Dry IV1) Beaver 10
2) Box Elder [30]50
3) Cache [35]65
4) Carbon [10]15
5) Davis [10]15
6) Duchesne [10]30
7) Garfield [10]15
8) Grand [10]15
9) Iron [15]20
10) Juab [10]15
11) Kane [10]15
12) Millard [10]15
13) Morgan [10]30
14) Rich [10]15
15) Salt Lake [15]20
16) San Juan [10]15
17) Sanpete [10]25
18) Summit [10]15
19) Tooele [10]15
20) Uintah [10]25
21) Utah [10]15
22) Wasatch [10]15
23) Washington [10]15
24) Weber [20]45[
5.](e) Grazing land shall be classified as one of the following four categories and shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:[
a)](i) Graze 1. The following counties shall assess Graze I property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 9
GRI1) Beaver [
80]88
2) Box Elder [67]72
3) Cache [72]75
4) Carbon [59]56
5) Daggett [63]60
6) Davis [64]66
7) Duchesne [69]70
8) Emery [73]70
9) Garfield [81]80
10) Grand [78]76
11) Iron [71]68
12) Juab 70
13) Kane [90]85
14) Millard [85]84
15) Morgan [56]60
16) Piute [83]87
17) Rich [68]70
18) Salt Lake [73]72
19) San Juan [75]72
20) Sanpete [70]69
21) Sevier [73]70
22) Summit [74]78
23) Tooele [75]77
24) Uintah [72]74
25) Utah [58]60
26) Wasatch [54]57
27) Washington [63]65
28) Wayne 92
29) Weber [70]74[
b)](ii) Graze II. The following counties shall assess Graze II property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 10
GR II1) Beaver [
23]28
2) Box Elder [20]23
3) Cache [22]24
4) Carbon [18]16
5) Daggett [19]17
6) Davis [20]21
7) Duchesne [21]22
8) Emery [22]21
9) Garfield 25
10) Grand [23]22
11) Iron [21]20
12) Juab 21
13) Kane [28]26
14) Millard 26
15) Morgan [17]19
16) Piute [26]27
17) Rich [22]23
18) Salt Lake 22
19) San Juan [23]22
20) Sanpete 21
21) Sevier [22]21
22) Summit [21]23
23) Tooele [23]24
24) Uintah [22]23
25) Utah [19]20
26) Wasatch [17]18
27) Washington 21
28) Wayne 28
29) Weber [21]23[
c)](iii) Graze III. The following counties shall assess Graze III property based upon the per acre values below:TABLE 11
GR III1) Beaver [
16]18
2) Box Elder [13]15
3) Cache [14]15
4) Carbon 12
5) Daggett 12
6) Davis 13
7) Duchesne 14
8) Emery 14
9) Garfield 16
10) Grand 15
11) Iron 14
12) Juab 14
13) Kane [18]17
14) Millard 17
15) Morgan [11]12
16) Piute 17
17) Rich 14
18) Salt Lake 14
19) San Juan 15
20) Sanpete 14
21) Sevier 14
22) Summit [14]15
23) Tooele 15
24) Uintah 14
25) Utah 12
26) Wasatch [11]12
27) Washington 13
28) Wayne 18
29) Weber [14]15[
d)](iv) Graze IV. The following counties shall assess Graze IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:TABLE 12
GR IV1) Beaver [
6]7
2) Box Elder [5]6
3) Cache 5
4) Carbon 5
5) Daggett [6]5
6) Davis 5
7) Duchesne 5
8) Emery 5
9) Garfield 6
10) Grand 5
11) Iron 6
12) Juab 5
13) Kane [6]5
14) Millard 6
15) Morgan [5]6
16) Piute 6
17) Rich 5
18) Salt Lake 5
19) San Juan 5
20) Sanpete 5
21) Sevier 5
22) Summit 5
23) Tooele [5]6
24) Uintah [5]6
25) Utah 5
26) Wasatch 5
27) Washington 5
28) Wayne 6
29) Weber [5]6[
6.](f) Land classified as nonproductive shall be assessed as follows on a per acre basis:TABLE 13
Nonproductive Land[
a)] Nonproductive Land
1) All Counties 5KEY: taxation, personal property, property tax, appraisals
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [
July 16], 2007Notice of Continuation: March 12, 2007
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 59-2-515
Document Information
- Effective Date:
- 11/21/2007
- Publication Date:
- 10/15/2007
- Filed Date:
- 10/01/2007
- Agencies:
- Tax Commission,Property Tax
- Rulemaking Authority:
Section 59-2-515
- Authorized By:
- D'Arcy Dixon, Commissioner
- DAR File No.:
- 30512
- Related Chapter/Rule NO.: (1)
- R884-24P-53. 2004 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-2-515.