No. 33128 (Amendment): Section R884-24P-53. 2009 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.: 33128
Filed: 11/02/2009 04:04:08 PMRULE 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 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, 133 class/county valuations will increase, 58 will decrease and 146 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 2010, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2009. 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, 133 class/county valuations will increase, 58 will decrease and 146 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 2010, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2009. 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 the Farmland Assessment Act may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 133 such value indicators will increase, 58 will decrease and 146 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 2010, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2009. 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 the Farmland Assessment Act may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county as 133 such value indicators will increase, 58 will decrease and 146 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 2010, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2009. 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 133 such value indicators will increase, 58 will decrease and 146 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 2010, and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from greenbelt during 2009. 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:
The effect on businesses as a property owner will be a valuation increase, decrease or no change. No aggregate fiscal impact can be determined without an exhaustive study; however, it is estimated that the overall change due to this amendment is minimal.
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:
- Pam Hendrickson at the above address, by phone at 801-297-3907, by FAX at 801-297-3901, or by Internet E-mail at pamh@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:
12/15/2009
This rule may become effective on:
12/22/2009
Authorized by:
Pam Hendrickson, Commission Chair
RULE TEXT
R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.
R884-24P. Property Tax.
R884-24P-53. [
2009]2010 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 defined as farmland pursuant to Section 59-2-501 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 I1) Box Elder [820]835 2) Cache [710]725 3) Carbon [530]540 4) Davis [860]875 5) Emery [510]520 6) Iron [820]835 7) Kane [430]435 8) Millard [810]825 9) Salt Lake [715]725 10) Utah [750]765 11) Washington [670]685 12) Weber [815]830(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]735 2) Cache [610]620 3) Carbon 430 4) Davis [760]770 5) Duchesne [495]505 6) Emery [410]420 7) Grand [400]405 8) Iron [720]735 9) Juab [450]455 10) Kane [330]335 11) Millard [710]725 12) Salt Lake [615]625 13) Sanpete [550]560 14) Sevier [575]585 15) Summit [475]485 16) Tooele [460]470 17) Utah [650]665 18) Wasatch [500]510 19) Washington [570]585 20) Weber [715]730(iii) Irrigated III. The following counties shall assess Irrigated III property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 3
Irrigated III1) Beaver [580]595 2) Box Elder [570]580 3) Cache [460]470 4) Carbon [280]285 5) Davis [610]620 6) Duchesne [345]355 7) Emery [260]265 8) Garfield [215]220 9) Grand [250]255 10) Iron [570]585 11) Juab [300]305 12) Kane [180]185 13) Millard [560]575 14) Morgan [395]405 15) Piute [340]350 16) Rich [180]185 17) Salt Lake [465]475 18) San Juan [175]180 19) Sanpete [400]410 20) Sevier [425]435 21) Summit [325]330 22) Tooele [310]315 23) Uintah [375]385 24) Utah [500]510 25) Wasatch [350]355 26) Washington [420]430 27) Wayne [340]345 28) Weber [565]580(iv) Irrigated IV. The following counties shall assess Irrigated IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 4
Irrigated IV1) Beaver [480]490 2) Box Elder [470]480 3) Cache [360]365 4) Carbon [180]185 5) Daggett [200]205 6) Davis [510]520 7) Duchesne [245]250 8) Emery [160]165 9) Garfield [115]120 10) Grand [150]155 11) Iron [470]480 12) Juab [200]205 13) Kane [80]85 14) Millard [460]470 15) Morgan [295]300 16) Piute [240]245 17) Rich [80]85 18) Salt Lake [365]370 19) San Juan [75]80 20) Sanpete [300]310 21) Sevier [325]335 22) Summit [225]230 23) Tooele [210]215 24) Uintah [275]285 25) Utah [400]410 26) Wasatch [250]255 27) Washington [320]325 28) Wayne [240]245 29) Weber [465]475(b) Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards1) Beaver 620 2) Box Elder [675]670 3) Cache 620 4) Carbon 620 5) Davis 675 6) Duchesne 620 7) Emery 620 8) Garfield 620 9) Grand 620 10) Iron 620 11) Juab 620 12) Kane 620 13) Millard 620 14) Morgan 620 15) Piute 620 16) Salt Lake 620 17) San Juan 620 18) Sanpete 620 19) Sevier 620 20) Summit 620 21) Tooele 620 22) Uintah 620 23) Utah [690]680 24) Wasatch 620 25) Washington 740 26) Wayne 620 27) Weber [675]670(c) Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 6
Meadow IV1) Beaver 245 2) Box Elder 260 3) Cache 270 4) Carbon 130 5) Daggett 160 6) Davis 270 7) Duchesne 165 8) Emery 140 9) Garfield 105 10) Grand 135 11) Iron [260]262 12) Juab 150 13) Kane 110 14) Millard 195 15) Morgan [195]197 16) Piute [190]192 17) Rich [105]107 18) Salt Lake 225 19) Sanpete 195 20) Sevier 200 21) Summit 205 22) Tooele [185]187 23) Uintah [205]207 24) Utah 250 25) Wasatch 210 26) Washington 230 27) Wayne 175 28) Weber 305
(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 III1) Beaver [50]52 2) Box Elder [95]96 3) Cache [120]122 4) Carbon [50]52 5) Davis 50 6) Duchesne [55]57 7) Garfield [50]52 8) Grand [50]52 9) Iron [50]52 10) Juab [50]52 11) Kane [50]52 12) Millard 50 13) Morgan [65]67 14) Rich [50]52 15) Salt Lake [50]52 16) San Juan [50]53 17) Sanpete [55]57 18) Summit [50]52 19) Tooele [50]52 20) Uintah [55]57 21) Utah [50]52 22) Wasatch [50]52 23) Washington 50 24) Weber 80(ii) Dry IV. The following counties shall assess Dry IV property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 8
Dry IV1) Beaver [15]16 2) Box Elder 60 3) Cache [85]86 4) Carbon [15]16 5) Davis 15 6) Duchesne [20]21 7) Garfield [15]16 8) Grand [15]16 9) Iron [15]16 10) Juab [15]16 11) Kane [15]16 12) Millard 15 13) Morgan [30]31 14) Rich [15]16 15) Salt Lake [15]16 16) San Juan [15]17 17) Sanpete [20]21 18) Summit [15]16 19) Tooele [15]16 20) Uintah [20]21 21) Utah [15]16 22) Wasatch [15]16 23) Washington 15 24) Weber 45(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 I1) Beaver 75 2) Box Elder [80]76 3) Cache [76]72 4) Carbon [56]52 5) Daggett [60]56 6) Davis [66]62 7) Duchesne 71 8) Emery [78]74 9) Garfield [83]79 10) Grand [84]80 11) Iron 75 12) Juab [70]66 13) Kane [81]77 14) Millard [83]79 15) Morgan 68 16) Piute [97]93 17) Rich [71]67 18) Salt Lake [72]68 19) San Juan 73 20) Sanpete [69]65 21) Sevier [70]66 22) Summit [78]74 23) Tooele [77]73 24) Uintah [84]80 25) Utah 65 26) Wasatch [58]54 27) Washington [72]68 28) Wayne [95]91 29) Weber [74]70(ii) Graze II. The following counties shall assess Graze II property based upon the per acre values listed below:
TABLE 10
GR II1) Beaver 25 2) Box Elder [27]25 3) Cache [25]23 4) Carbon [18]16 5) Daggett [18]16 6) Davis [22]20 7) Duchesne 24 8) Emery [25]23 9) Garfield [27]25 10) Grand [26]24 11) Iron 24 12) Juab [22]20 13) Kane [28]26 14) Millard [28]26 15) Morgan 22 16) Piute [31]29 17) Rich [24]22 18) Salt Lake [24]22 19) San Juan 24 20) Sanpete [23]21 21) Sevier [23]21 22) Summit [25]23 23) Tooele [25]23 24) Uintah [28]26 25) Utah 23 26) Wasatch [20]18 27) Washington [25]23 28) Wayne [32]30 29) Weber [23]21(iii) Graze III. The following counties shall assess Graze III property based upon the per acre values below:
TABLE 11
GR III1) Beaver 17 2) Box Elder 18 3) Cache 16 4) Carbon 13 5) Daggett 13 6) Davis 14 7) Duchesne 15 8) Emery 16 9) Garfield 18 10) Grand 17 11) Iron 17 12) Juab 15 13) Kane 17 14) Millard 18 15) Morgan 14 16) Piute 20 17) Rich 15 18) Salt Lake 15 19) San Juan 16 20) Sanpete 15 21) Sevier 15 22) Summit 16 23) Tooele 15 24) Uintah 18 25) Utah 14 26) Wasatch 13 27) Washington 15 28) Wayne 20 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 IV1) Beaver 6 2) Box Elder 5 3) Cache 5 4) Carbon 5 5) Daggett 5 6) Davis 5 7) Duchesne 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 LandNonproductive Land 1) All Counties 5KEY: taxation, personal property, property tax, appraisals
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [
March 3], 2009Notice of Continuation: March 12, 2007
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 59-2-515
Document Information
- Effective Date:
- 12/22/2009
- Publication Date:
- 11/15/2009
- Filed Date:
- 11/02/2009
- Agencies:
- Tax Commission,Property Tax
- Rulemaking Authority:
Section 59-2-515
- Authorized By:
- Pam Hendrickson, Commission Chair
- DAR File No.:
- 33128
- 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.