DAR File No. 38058

This rule was published in the November 1, 2013, issue (Vol. 2013, No. 21) of the Utah State Bulletin.


Tax Commission, Property Tax

Section R884-24P-53

2013 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.: 38058
Filed: 10/10/2013 11:47:33 AM

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 (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.

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. Irrigated farm land values decreased in all counties primarily due to declines in production and increases in costs; average decline across all counties was approximately 6%. Orchard land values declined in all counties due to cost increases more than offsetting production/ price increases. Only marginal decreases were made to meadow cropland values being impacted by the decreasing value of feeds/forages and increasing costs. Dry farm land values decreased across all counties due to amount of precipitation received and increased costs. Grazing land values were negatively impacted by forage prices, precipitation levels, livestock prices, and production costs. No change in value was recommended for non-productive land.

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 FAA. Property valuation (taxable value) changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, no class/county valuations will increase, 302 will decrease and 162 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 2014 and a listing of property no longer qualifying that is removed from FAA during 2013. 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 assessed under FAA. Property valuation changes have been recommended by class and by county. This year, no class/county valuations will increase, 302 will decrease and 162 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 2014 and a listing of property no longer qualifying that is removed from FAA during 2013. 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´┐Ż 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 no such value indicators will increase, 303 will decrease and 162 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 2014 and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from FAA during 2013. 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 no such value indicators will increase, 303 will decrease and 162 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 2014 and a listing of property no longer qualifying which is removed from FAA during 2013. 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 no such value indicators will increase, 303 will decrease and 162 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. 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 affect property values which may result in a change of property tax amounts due.

Robert Pero, 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 84134

Direct 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:

12/02/2013

This rule may become effective on:

12/09/2013

Authorized by:

Robert Pero, Commissioner

RULE TEXT

R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.

R884-24P. Property Tax.

R884-24P-53. [ 2013 ] 2014 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                [872]820
          2)   Cache                    [752]707
          3)   Carbon                   [560]525
          4)   Davis                    [914]870
          5)   Emery                    [537]504
          6)   Iron                     [851]801
          7)   Kane                     [449]422
          8)   Millard                  [853]804
          9)   Salt Lake                [763]710
         10)   Utah                     [801]755
         11)   Washington               [703]659
         12)   Weber                    [856]808

 

(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                [766]720
          2)   Cache                    [642]603
          3)   Carbon                   [446]418
          4)   Davis                    [803]764
          5)   Duchesne                 [523]490
          6)   Emery                    [432]406
          7)   Grand                    [414]389
          8)   Iron                     [746]701
          9)   Juab                     [477]450
         10)   Kane                     [345]324
         11)   Millard                  [748]705
         12)   Salt Lake                [656]610
         13)   Sanpete                  [576]542
         14)   Sevier                   [602]567
         15)   Summit                   [497]466
         16)   Tooele                   [487]456
         17)   Utah                     [693]653
         18)   Wasatch                  [524]492
         19)   Washington               [599]561
         20)   Weber                    [751]709

 

(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                   [610]574
          2)   Box Elder                [603]567
          3)   Cache                    [487]458
          4)   Carbon                   [295]277
          5)   Davis                    [646]615
          6)   Duchesne                 [367]344
          7)   Emery                    [272]255
          8)   Garfield                 [227]213
          9)   Grand                    [261]245
         10)   Iron                     [593]557
         11)   Juab                     [321]303
         12)   Kane                     [191]179
         13)   Millard                  [592]558
         14)   Morgan                   [416]391
         15)   Piute                    [358]336
         16)   Rich                     [191]179
         17)   Salt Lake                [499]464
         18)   San Juan                 [195]181
         19)   Sanpete                  [422]397
         20)   Sevier                   [448]422
         21)   Summit                   [338]317
         22)   Tooele                   [326]305
         23)   Uintah                   [397]375
         24)   Utah                     [531]501
         25)   Wasatch                  [364]342
         26)   Washington               [440]413
         27)   Wayne                    [354]332
         28)   Weber                    [597]564

 

(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                   [502]472
          2)   Box Elder                [498]468
          3)   Cache                    [378]355
          4)   Carbon                   [190]178
          5)   Daggett                  [208]195
          6)   Davis                    [540]514
          7)   Duchesne                 [257]241
          8)   Emery                    [169]158
          9)   Garfield                 [122]115
         10)   Grand                    [158]149
         11)   Iron                     [484]455
         12)   Juab                     [213]201
         13)   Kane                      [87]82
         14)   Millard                  [482]454
         15)   Morgan                   [308]289
         16)   Piute                    [250]235
         17)   Rich                      [89]83
         18)   Salt Lake                [387]360
         19)   San Juan                  [89]83
         20)   Sanpete                  [317]298
         21)   Sevier                   [343]324
         22)   Summit                   [234]220
         23)   Tooele                   [222]208
         24)   Uintah                   [293]277
         25)   Utah                     [427]403
         26)   Wasatch                  [260]244
         27)   Washington               [331]310
         28)   Wayne                    [250]234
         29)   Weber                    [487]461

 

(b) Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:

 

TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards


          1)   Beaver                   [588]574
          2)   Box Elder                [637]622
          3)   Cache                    [588]574
          4)   Carbon                   [588]574
          5)   Davis                    [642]627
          6)   Duchesne                 [588]574
          7)   Emery                    [588]574
          8)   Garfield                 [588]574
          9)   Grand                    [588]574
         10)   Iron                     [588]574
         11)   Juab                     [588]574
         12)   Kane                     [588]574
         13)   Millard                  [588]574
         14)   Morgan                   [588]574
         15)   Piute                    [588]574
         16)   Salt Lake                [588]574
         17)   San Juan                 [588]586
         18)   Sanpete                  [588]574
         19)   Sevier                   [588]574
         20)   Summit                   [588]574
         21)   Tooele                   [588]574
         22)   Uintah                   [588]574
         23)   Utah                     [647]631
         24)   Wasatch                  [588]574
         25)   Washington               [696]679
         26)   Wayne                    [588]574
         27)   Weber                    [642]627

 

(c) Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:

 

TABLE 6
Meadow IV


          1)   Beaver                   [247]243
          2)   Box Elder                [266]262
          3)   Cache                    [275]271
          4)   Carbon                   [133]131
          5)   Daggett                  [163]161
          6)   Davis                    [278]274
          7)   Duchesne                 [170]168
          8)   Emery                    [142]140
          9)   Garfield                 [107]105
         10)   Grand                    [137]135
         11)   Iron                     [268]264
         12)   Juab                     [156]154
         13)   Kane                     [112]110
         14)   Millard                  [200]197
         15)   Morgan                   [202]199
         16)   Piute                    [196]193
         17)   Rich                     [108]106
         18)   Salt Lake                [231]228
         19)   Sanpete                  [199]196
         20)   Sevier                   [204]201
         21)   Summit                   [207]204
         22)   Tooele                   [192]189
         23)   Uintah                   [212]209
         24)   Utah                     [257]253
         25)   Wasatch                  [214]211
         26)   Washington               [234]231
         27)   Wayne                    [177]174
         28)   Weber                    [311]303

 

(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                    [56]53
          2)   Box Elder                [102]96
          3)   Cache                    [129]121
          4)   Carbon                    [53]50
          5)   Davis                     [55]52
          6)   Duchesne                  [58]54
          7)   Garfield                  [52]49
          8)   Grand                     [53]50
          9)   Iron                      [53]50
         10)   Juab                      [54]51
         11)   Kane                      [52]49
         12)   Millard                   [51]48
         13)   Morgan                    [69]65
         14)   Rich                      [52]49
         15)   Salt Lake                 [58]54
         16)   San Juan                  [59]55
         17)   Sanpete                   [58]55
         18)   Summit                    [52]49
         19)   Tooele                    [56]52
         20)   Uintah                    [58]55
         21)   Utah                      [54]51
         22)   Wasatch                   [52]49
         23)   Washington                [52]49
         24)   Weber                     [83]78

 

(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]16
          2)   Box Elder                 [64]60
          3)   Cache                     [90]85
          4)   Carbon                    [16]15
          5)   Davis                     [17]16
          6)   Duchesne                  [21]20
          7)   Garfield                  [16]15
          8)   Grand                     [16]15
          9)   Iron                      [16]15
         10)   Juab                      [17]16
         11)   Kane                      [16]15
         12)   Millard                   [15]14
         13)   Morgan                    [31]29
         14)   Rich                      [16]15
         15)   Salt Lake                 [17]16
         16)   San Juan                  [19]18
         17)   Sanpete                   [21]20
         18)   Summit                    [16]15
         19)   Tooele                    [16]15
         20)   Uintah                    [21]20
         21)   Utah                      [17]16
         22)   Wasatch                   [16]15
         23)   Washington                [15]14
         24)   Weber                     [48]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]74
          2)   Box Elder                 [76]75
          3)   Cache                     [73]72
          4)   Carbon                    [53]52
          5)   Daggett                   [54]53
          6)   Davis                     [62]61
          7)   Duchesne                  [70]69
          8)   Emery                     [73]72
          9)   Garfield                  [80]79
         10)   Grand                     [81]80
         11)   Iron                      [77]76
         12)   Juab                      [66]65
         13)   Kane                      [75]74
         14)   Millard                   [79]78
         15)   Morgan                    [69]68
         16)   Piute                     [92]91
         17)   Rich                      [67]66
         18)   Salt Lake                 [70]69
         19)   San Juan                  [80]79
         20)   Sanpete                   [64]63
         21)   Sevier                    [65]64
         22)   Summit                    [74]73
         23)   Tooele                    [73]72
         24)   Uintah                    [84]83
         25)   Utah                      [67]66
         26)   Wasatch                   [53]52
         27)   Washington                [66]65
         28)   Wayne                     [91]90
         29)   Weber                     [72]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
          3)   Cache                     24
          4)   Carbon                    16
          5)   Daggett                   15
          6)   Davis                     20
          7)   Duchesne                  23
          8)   Emery                     22
          9)   Garfield                  24
         10)   Grand                     23
         11)   Iron                      23
         12)   Juab                      20
         13)   Kane                      24
         14)   Millard                   25
         15)   Morgan                    22
         16)   Piute                     27
         17)   Rich                      21
         18)   Salt Lake                 22
         19)   San Juan                  26
         20)   Sanpete                   19
         21)   Sevier                    19
         22)   Summit                    21
         23)   Tooele                    21
         24)   Uintah                    29
         25)   Utah                      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                 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                 15
         19)   San Juan                  17
         20)   Sanpete                   14
         21)   Sevier                    14
         22)   Summit                    15
         23)   Tooele                    14
         24)   Uintah                    20
         25)   Utah                      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                   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: [February 21, ]2013

Notice of Continuation: January 3, 2012

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; 59-2-1308.5; 59-2-1317; 59-2-1328; 59-2-1330; 59-2-1347; 59-2-1351; 59-2-1365; 59-2-1703

 


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/2013/b20131101.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 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.