File No. 33128
This rule was published in the November 15, 2009, issue (Vol. 2009, No. 22) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Tax Commission, Property Tax
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
Notice of Proposed Rule
(Amendment)
DAR File No.: 33128
Filed: 11/02/2009 04:04:08 PM
RULE 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 CommissionProperty Tax
210 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84134
Direct 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 [email protected]
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 I
1) 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 II
1) 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 III
1) 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 IV
1) 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 Orchards
1) 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 IV
1) 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 III
1) 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 IV
1) 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 I
1) 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 II
1) 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 III
1) 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 IV
1) 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 Land
Nonproductive Land
1) All Counties 5
KEY: taxation, personal property, property tax, appraisals
Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [March 3], 2009
Notice of Continuation: March 12, 2007
Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 59-2-515
Additional Information
The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this issue is available at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull-pdf/2009/b20091115.pdf. The HTML edition of the Bulletin is a convenience copy. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and HTML version is resolved in favor of the PDF version.
Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets (e.g., [example]). Text to be added is underlined (e.g., example). Older browsers may not depict some or any of these attributes on the screen or when the document is printed.
For questions regarding the content or application of this rule, please contact Pam Hendrickson at the above address, by phone at 801-297-3907, by FAX at 801-297-3901, or by Internet E-mail at [email protected].