No. 29129 (Amendment): R884-24P-53.2006 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section59-2-515
DAR File No.: 29129
Filed: 10/16/2006, 01:44
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 (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.
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 FAA (greenbelt). Property valuation (taxable value) changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, 257 class/county valuations will increase, 6 will decrease and 74 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 2007, and a listing of property no longer qualifying and removed from greenbelt during 2006. 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, 257 class/county valuations will increase, 6 will decrease and 74 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 and 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 257 such value indicators will increase, 6 will decrease and 74 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 2006, and a listing of property no longer qualifying and 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:
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 257 such value indicators will increase, 6 will decrease and 74 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.
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 property classification. 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:
12/01/2006
This rule may become effective on:
12/08/2006
Authorized by:
D'Arcy Dixon, Commissioner
RULE TEXT
R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.
R884-24P. Property Tax.
R884-24P-53. [
2006]2007 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 [800]820
2) Cache [675]690
3) Carbon [535]540
4) Davis [810]850
5) Emery [515]520
6) Iron [795]815
7) Kane [455]460
8) Millard [790]810
9) Salt Lake [690]700
10) Utah [725]745
11) Washington 650
12) Weber [770]800b) 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 [700]720
2) Cache [575]590
3) Carbon [435]440
4) Davis [710]750
5) Duchesne [475]490
6) Emery [415]420
7) Grand [405]410
8) Iron [695]715
9) Juab [435]450
10) Kane [355]360
11) Millard [690]710
12) Salt Lake [590]600
13) Sanpete [540]550
14) Sevier [565]580
15) Summit 470
16) Tooele [440]460
17) Utah [625]645
18) Wasatch 500
19) Washington 550
20) Weber [670]700c) Irrigated III. The following counties shall assess Irrigated III property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 3
Irrigated III
1) Beaver [540]560
2) Box Elder [550]570
3) Cache [425]440
4) Carbon [285]290
5) Davis [560]600
6) Duchesne [325]340
7) Emery [265]270
8) Garfield [200]210
9) Grand [255]260
10) Iron [545]565
11) Juab [285]300
12) Kane [205]210
13) Millard [540]560
14) Morgan [380]390
15) Piute [345]350
16) Rich 200
17) Salt Lake [440]450
18) San Juan [185]180
19) Sanpete [390]400
20) Sevier [415]430
21) Summit 320
22) Tooele [290]310
23) Uintah [370]375
24) Utah [475]495
25) Wasatch 350
26) Washington 400
27) Wayne 340
28) Weber [520]550d) Irrigated IV. The following counties shall assess Irrigated IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 4
Irrigated IV
1) Beaver [440]460
2) Box Elder [450]470
3) Cache [325]340
4) Carbon [185]190
5) Daggett [215]210
6) Davis [460]500
7) Duchesne [225]240
8) Emery [165]170
9) Garfield [100]110
10) Grand [155]160
11) Iron [445]465
12) Juab [185]200
13) Kane [105]110
14) Millard [440]460
15) Morgan [280]290
16) Piute [245]250
17) Rich 100
18) Salt Lake [340]350
19) San Juan [85]80
20) Sanpete [290]300
21) Sevier [315]330
22) Summit 220
23) Tooele [190]210
24) Uintah [270]275
25) Utah [375]395
26) Wasatch 250
27) Washington 300
28) Wayne 240
29) Weber [420]4502. Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards
1) Beaver [620]630
2) Box Elder [665]685
3) Cache [620]630
4) Carbon [620]630
5) Davis [665]685
6) Duchesne [620]630
7) Emery [620]630
8) Garfield [620]630
9) Grand [620]630
10) Iron [620]630
11) Juab [620]630
12) Kane [620]630
13) Millard [620]630
14) Morgan [620]630
15) Piute [620]630
16) Salt Lake [620]630
17) San Juan [620]630
18) Sanpete [620]630
19) Sevier [620]630
20) Summit [620]630
21) Tooele [620]630
22) Uintah [620]630
23) Utah [660]690
24) Wasatch [620]630
25) Washington 750
26) Wayne [610]630
27) Weber [665]6853. Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 6
Meadow IV
1) Beaver [230]250
2) Box Elder [235]250
3) Cache [255]265
4) Carbon [125]130
5) Daggett [170]165
6) Davis [260]270
7) Duchesne [155]165
8) Emery [125]130
9) Garfield [95]100
10) Grand [120]125
11) Iron [225]250
12) Juab [145]150
13) Kane [100]115
14) Millard [190]200
15) Morgan [175]180
16) Piute [160]175
17) Rich 105
18) Salt Lake 225
19) Sanpete [190]195
20) Sevier [200]205
21) Summit [195]200
22) Tooele [175]185
23) Uintah [180]190
24) Utah [230]240
25) Wasatch 210
26) Washington [215]220
27) Wayne [160]170
28) Weber [285]3004. 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]45
2) Box Elder [50]65
3) Cache [55]70
4) Carbon [40]45
5) Davis [40]45
6) Duchesne [40]45
7) Garfield [40]45
8) Grand [40]45
9) Iron [40]50
10) Juab [40]45
11) Kane [40]45
12) Millard [40]45
13) Morgan [40]45
14) Rich [40]45
15) Salt Lake [40]50
16) San Juan [40]45
17) Sanpete [40]45
18) Summit [40]45
19) Tooele [40]45
20) Uintah [40]45
21) Utah [40]45
22) Wasatch 45
[22)]23) Washington [40]45
[23)]24) Weber [40]55b) 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]10
2) Box Elder [15]30
3) Cache [20]35
4) Carbon [5]10
5) Davis [5]10
6) Duchesne [5]10
7) Garfield [5]10
8) Grand [5]10
9) Iron [5]15
10) Juab [5]10
11) Kane [5]10
12) Millard [5]10
13) Morgan [5]10
14) Rich [5]10
15) Salt Lake [5]15
16) San Juan [5]10
17) Sanpete [5]10
18) Summit [5]10
19) Tooele [5]10
20) Uintah [5]10
21) Utah [5]10
22) Wasatch 10
[22)]23) Washington [5]10
[23)]24) Weber [5]205. 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 [68]80
2) Box Elder [60]67
3) Cache [65]72
4) Carbon [57]59
5) Daggett [68]63
6) Davis [63]64
7) Duchesne [67]69
8) Emery [65]73
9) Garfield [73]81
10) Grand [70]78
11) Iron [60]71
12) Juab [69]70
13) Kane [79]90
14) Millard [78]85
15) Morgan [54]56
16) Piute [72]83
17) Rich [65]68
18) Salt Lake [72]73
19) San Juan [70]75
20) Sanpete [69]70
21) Sevier [70]73
22) Summit [68]74
23) Tooele [73]75
24) Uintah [65]72
25) Utah [56]58
26) Wasatch [53]54
27) Washington [56]63
28) Wayne [79]92
29) Weber [63]70b) Graze II. The following counties shall assess Graze II property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 10
GR II
1) Beaver [19]23
2) Box Elder [18]20
3) Cache [19]22
4) Carbon [17]18
5) Daggett [20]19
6) Davis [19]20
7) Duchesne [20]21
8) Emery [19]22
9) Garfield [22]25
10) Grand [21]23
11) Iron [18]21
12) Juab [20]21
13) Kane [24]28
14) Millard [23]26
15) Morgan [16]17
16) Piute [22]26
17) Rich [20]22
18) Salt Lake [21]22
19) San Juan [21]23
20) Sanpete [21]21
21) Sevier [21]22
22) Summit [19]21
23) Tooele [22]23
24) Uintah [19]22
25) Utah [17]19
26) Wasatch [16]17
27) Washington [17]21
28) Wayne [23]28
29) Weber [19]21c) Graze III. The following counties shall assess Graze III property based upon the per acre values below:
TABLE 11
GR III
1) Beaver [13]16
2) Box Elder [12]13
3) Cache [13]14
4) Carbon [11]12
5) Daggett [13]12
6) Davis [12]13
7) Duchesne [13]14
8) Emery [13]14
9) Garfield [14]16
10) Grand [14]15
11) Iron [12]14
12) Juab [13]14
13) Kane [15]18
14) Millard [15]17
15) Morgan [10]11
16) Piute [14]17
17) Rich [13]14
18) Salt Lake 14
19) San Juan [14]15
20) Sanpete [13]14
21) Sevier 14
22) Summit [12]14
23) Tooele [14]15
24) Uintah [13]14
25) Utah [11]12
26) Wasatch [10]11
27) Washington [11]13
28) Wayne [15]18
29) Weber [12]14d) 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]6
2) Box Elder 5
3) Cache 5
4) Carbon 5
5) Daggett 6
6) Davis 5
7) Duchesne 5
8) Emery 5
9) Garfield [5]6
10) Grand 5
11) Iron [5]6
12) Juab 5
13) Kane 6
14) Millard 6
15) Morgan 5
16) Piute [5]6
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 56. 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: [
September 21], 2006Notice of Continuation: April 5, 2002
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 59-2-515
Document Information
- Effective Date:
- 12/8/2006
- Publication Date:
- 11/01/2006
- Filed Date:
- 10/16/2006
- Agencies:
- Tax Commission,Property Tax
- Rulemaking Authority:
Section 59-2-515
- Authorized By:
- D'Arcy Dixon, Commissioner
- DAR File No.:
- 29129
- 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.