No. 35332 (Amendment): Section R884-24P-53. 2011 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-2-515
(Amendment)
DAR File No.: 35332
Filed: 10/13/2011 10:45:18 AMRULE ANALYSIS
Purpose of the rule or reason for the 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.
Summary of the rule or 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.
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 Education Fund based on increased or decreased real and personal property valuation, including property assessed under the Farmland Assessment Act (FAA). Property valuation (taxable value) changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, 180 class/county valuations will increase, 113 will decrease, and 171 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 2012 and a listing of property no longer qualifying that is removed from FAA during 2011. 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 assessed under FAA. Property valuation changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, 180 class/county valuations will increase, 113 will decrease, and 171 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 during 2012 and a listing of property no longer qualifying that is removed from FAA during 2011. 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:
Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 180 such value indicators will increase, 113 will decrease, and 171 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 FAA during 2012 and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from FAA during 2011. 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, businesses, or local governmental entities:
Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 180 such value indicators will increase, 113 will decrease, and 171 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 FAA during 2012 and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from FAA during 2011. 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 FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 180 such value indicators will increase, 113 will decrease, and 171 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 FAA during 2012 and a listing of property no longer qualifying that is removed from FAA during 2011. 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:
These changes may effect property values which may result in a change of property tax amounts due.
Michael Cragun, 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:
- Christa Johnson at the above address, by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at 801-297-3907, or by Internet E-mail at cj@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:
12/01/2011
This rule may become effective on:
12/08/2011
Authorized by:
D'Arcy Dixon, Commissioner
RULE TEXT
R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.
R884-24P. Property Tax.
R884-24P-53. [
2011]2012 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-2-515.(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.
(a) The schedules shall be based on the productivity of the various types of agricultural land as determined through crop budgets and net rents.
(b) Proposed schedules shall be transmitted by the Property Tax Division to county assessors for comment before adoption.
(c) County assessors may not deviate from the schedules.
(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.
(2) All property qualifying for agricultural use assessment pursuant to Section 59-2-503 shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:
(a) Irrigated farmland shall be assessed under the following classifications.
(i) 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 [840]852
2) Cache [730]740
3) Carbon [545]552
4) Davis [880]893
5) Emery [525]530
6) Iron [840]848
7) Kane [440]444
8) Millard [830]840
9) Salt Lake [730]742
10) Utah [770]782
11) Washington [690]695
12) Weber [835]843(ii) 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 [738]748
2) Cache [623]632
3) Carbon [433]440
4) Davis [773]784
5) Duchesne [508]514
6) Emery [423]427
7) Grand [407]410
8) Iron [738]744
9) Juab [458]468
10) Kane [338]341
11) Millard [728]737
12) Salt Lake [628]638
13) Sanpete [563]569
14) Sevier [588]593
15) Summit [488]491
16) Tooele [472]480
17) Utah [668]677
18) Wasatch [513]518
19) Washington [588]592
20) Weber [733]739(iii) Irrigated III. The following counties shall assess Irrigated III property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 3
Irrigated III
1) Beaver [596]602
2) Box Elder [581]589
3) Cache [471]479
4) Carbon [287]291
5) Davis [622]631
6) Duchesne [357]361
7) Emery [267]269
8) Garfield [222]224
9) Grand [256]258
10) Iron [587]591
11) Juab [307]315
12) Kane [187]189
13) Millard [577]583
14) Morgan [406]411
15) Piute [351]354
16) Rich [187]188
17) Salt Lake [477]485
18) San Juan [182]189
19) Sanpete [412]416
20) Sevier [437]442
21) Summit [332]334
22) Tooele [316]322
23) Uintah [386]391
24) Utah [511]519
25) Wasatch [356]359
26) Washington [432]435
27) Wayne [347]350
28) Weber [582]588(iv) Irrigated IV. The following counties shall assess Irrigated IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 4
Irrigated IV
1) Beaver [490]495
2) Box Elder [480]486
3) Cache [365]372
4) Carbon [185]187
5) Daggett [205]206
6) Davis [520]527
7) Duchesne [250]253
8) Emery [165]166
9) Garfield [120]121
10) Grand [155]156
11) Iron [480]483
12) Juab [205]209
13) Kane [85]86
14) Millard [470]475
15) Morgan [300]304
16) Piute [245]247
17) Rich [87]88
18) Salt Lake [370]376
19) San Juan [82]86
20) Sanpete [310]313
21) Sevier [335]339
22) Summit [230]232
23) Tooele [215]219
24) Uintah [285]289
25) Utah [410]417
26) Wasatch [255]257
27) Washington [325]327
28) Wayne [245]247
29) Weber [475]479(b) Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards
1) Beaver [620]600
2) Box Elder [675]650
3) Cache [620]600
4) Carbon [620]600
5) Davis [678]655
6) Duchesne [620]600
7) Emery [620]600
8) Garfield [620]600
9) Grand [620]600
10) Iron [620]600
11) Juab [620]600
12) Kane [620]600
13) Millard [620]600
14) Morgan [620]600
15) Piute [620]600
16) Salt Lake [623]600
17) San Juan [620]600
18) Sanpete [620]600
19) Sevier [620]600
20) Summit [620]600
21) Tooele [620]600
22) Uintah [620]600
23) Utah [685]660
24) Wasatch [620]600
25) Washington [743]710
26) Wayne [620]600
27) Weber [673]655(c) Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 6
Meadow IV
1) Beaver [245]247
2) Box Elder [260]266
3) Cache [270]275
4) Carbon [130]132
5) Daggett [160]161
6) Davis [270]275
7) Duchesne [165]168
8) Emery [140]141
9) Garfield [105]106
10) Grand [135]136
11) Iron [262]265
12) Juab [150]154
13) Kane [110]111
14) Millard [195]198
15) Morgan [197]200
16) Piute [192]194
17) Rich [107]108
18) Salt Lake [225]231
19) Sanpete [195]197
20) Sevier [200]202
21) Summit [205]206
22) Tooele [187]190
23) Uintah [207]210
24) Utah [250]255
25) Wasatch [210]212
26) Washington [230]232
27) Wayne [175]176
28) Weber [305]308(d) Dry land shall be classified as one of the following two categories and shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:
(i) Dry III. The following counties shall assess Dry III property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 7
Dry III
1) Beaver [55]56
2) Box Elder [97]102
3) Cache [125]129
4) Carbon [52]53
5) Davis [53]55
6) Duchesne [57]58
7) Garfield 52
8) Grand [52]53
9) Iron [52]53
10) Juab [52]54
11) Kane [52]52
12) Millard [50]51
13) Morgan [68]69
14) Rich 52
15) Salt Lake [55]58
16) San Juan [55]59
17) Sanpete [57]58
18) Summit 52
19) Tooele [55]56
20) Uintah [57]58
21) Utah [52]54
22) Wasatch 52
23) Washington 52
24) Weber [82]83(ii) Dry IV. The following counties shall assess Dry IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 8
Dry IV
1) Beaver 17
2) Box Elder [61]64
3) Cache [87]90
4) Carbon 16
5) Davis [16]17
6) Duchesne 21
7) Garfield 16
8) Grand 16
9) Iron 16
10) Juab [16]17
11) Kane 16
12) Millard 15
13) Morgan 31
14) Rich 16
15) Salt Lake [16]17
16) San Juan [18]19
17) Sanpete 21
18) Summit 16
19) Tooele 16
20) Uintah 21
21) Utah [16]17
22) Wasatch 16
23) Washington 15
24) Weber [47]48(e) Grazing land shall be classified as one of the following four categories and shall be assessed on a per acre basis as follows:
(i) Graze 1. The following counties shall assess Graze I property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 9
GR I
1) Beaver [73]74
2) Box Elder [74]78
3) Cache [72]74
4) Carbon [52]53
5) Daggett 55
6) Davis [61]63
7) Duchesne [70]71
8) Emery [73]74
9) Garfield [78]79
10) Grand [79]80
11) Iron [75]76
12) Juab [65]67
13) Kane [76]77
14) Millard [78]79
15) Morgan [68]69
16) Piute [92]93
17) Rich [66]67
18) Salt Lake [67]71
19) San Juan [73]79
20) Sanpete [64]65
21) Sevier [65]66
22) Summit [73]74
23) Tooele [72]73
24) Uintah [82]83
25) Utah [65]68
26) Wasatch 54
27) Washington 67
28) Wayne [90]91
29) Weber [70]71(ii) Graze II. The following counties shall assess Graze II property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 10
GR II
1) Beaver 23
2) Box Elder [23]24
3) Cache [23]24
4) Carbon 16
5) Daggett 15
6) Davis [19]20
7) Duchesne 23
8) Emery 22
9) Garfield 24
10) Grand 23
11) Iron 23
12) Juab [19]20
13) Kane 25
14) Millard 25
15) Morgan 22
16) Piute [28]27
17) Rich 21
18) Salt Lake [21]22
19) San Juan [24]26
20) Sanpete [20]19
21) Sevier [20]19
22) Summit [22]21
23) Tooele [22]21
24) Uintah 29
25) Utah [23]24
26) Wasatch 18
27) Washington 22
28) Wayne 29
29) Weber 21(iii) Graze III. The following counties shall assess Graze III property based upon the per acre values below:
TABLE 11
GR III
1) Beaver 17
2) Box Elder [17]18
3) Cache 16
4) Carbon 13
5) Daggett 12
6) Davis 13
7) Duchesne 14
8) Emery 15
9) Garfield 17
10) Grand 16
11) Iron 16
12) Juab 14
13) Kane 16
14) Millard 17
15) Morgan 14
16) Piute 19
17) Rich 14
18) Salt Lake [14]15
19) San Juan [16]17
20) Sanpete 14
21) Sevier 14
22) Summit 15
23) Tooele 14
24) Uintah 20
25) Utah [13]14
26) Wasatch 13
27) Washington 14
28) Wayne 19
29) Weber 15(iv) Graze IV. The following counties shall assess Graze IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 12
GR IV
1) Beaver 6
2) Box Elder 5
3) Cache 5
4) Carbon 5
5) Daggett 5
6) Davis 5
7) Duchesne [7]5
8) Emery 6
9) Garfield 5
10) Grand 6
11) Iron 6
12) Juab 5
13) Kane 5
14) Millard 5
15) Morgan 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
24) Uintah 6
25) Utah 5
26) Wasatch 5
27) Washington 5
28) Wayne 5
29) Weber 6(f) Land classified as nonproductive shall be assessed as follows on a per acre basis:
TABLE 13
Nonproductive Land
Nonproductive Land
1) All Counties 5KEY: taxation, personal property, property tax, appraisals
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [
August 29,]2011Notice of Continuation: March 12, 2007
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: Art. XIII, Sec 2; 9-2-201; 11-13-302; 41-1a-202; 41-1a-301; 59-1-210; 59-2-102; 59-2-103; 59-2-103.5; 59-2-104; 59-2-201; 59-2-210; 59-2-211; 59-2-301; 59-2-301.3; 59-2-302; 59-2-303; 59-2-303.1; 59-2-305; 59-2-306; 59-2-401; 59-2-402; 59-2-404; 59-2-405; 59-2-405.1; 59-2-406; 59-2-508; 59-2-514; 59-2-515; 59-2-701; 59-2-702; 59-2-703; 59-2-704; 59-2-704.5; 59-2-705; 59-2-801; 59-2-918 through 59-2-924; 59-2-1002; 59-2-1004; 59-2-1005; 59-2-1006; 59-2-1101; 59-2-1102; 59-2-1104; 59-2-1106; 59-2-1107 through 59-2-1109; 59-2-1113; 59-2-1115; 59-2-1202; 59-2-1202(5); 59-2-1302; 59-2-1303; 59-2-1317; 59-2-1328; 59-2-1330; 59-2-1347; 59-2-1351; 59-2-1365
Document Information
- Effective Date:
- 12/8/2011
- Publication Date:
- 11/01/2011
- Type:
- Special Notices
- Filed Date:
- 10/13/2011
- Agencies:
- Tax Commission,Property Tax
- Rulemaking Authority:
Section 59-2-515
- Authorized By:
- D'Arcy Dixon, Commissioner
- DAR File No.:
- 35332
- 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.