DAR File No. 43261
This rule was published in the November 1, 2018, issue (Vol. 2018, No. 21) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Tax Commission, Property Tax
Section R884-24P-53
2018 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.: 43261
Filed: 10/15/2018 10:45:06 AM
RULE ANALYSIS
Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:
These amendments annually update the agricultural productive values to be applied by county assessors to land qualifying for valuation and assessment under the Farmland Assessment Act. These 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 R884-24P-53. This rule sets the acreage value rates for 418 separate class-county combinations. This year it is proposed that one rate increase slightly, 356 rates decrease and 61 have no change.
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 it is proposed that one rate increase slightly, 356 rates decrease and 61 have no change. No total cost or savings can be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class and a listing of property newly qualifying or no longer qualifying for FAA in the coming year. However, it is estimated that the overall change is minimal due to these amendments.
local governments:
The amount of savings or cost to local governments 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 it is proposed that one rate increase slightly, 356 rates decrease and 61 have no change. No total cost or savings can be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class and a listing of property newly qualifying or no longer qualifying for FAA in the coming year. However, it is estimated that the overall change is minimal due to these amendments. County assessors' 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:
The amount of savings or cost to small businesses is undetermined. Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county. The effect on the property owner will depend on the mix of property types and situs. No total cost or savings can be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class and a listing of property newly qualifying or no longer qualifying for FAA in the coming year. In addition, the cost will be further altered by changes to local property tax rates. However, it is estimated that the overall change due to these amendments are minimal.
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:
The amount of savings or cost to other persons is undetermined. Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county. The effect on the property owner will depend on the mix of property types and situs. No total cost or savings can be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class and a listing of property newly qualifying or no longer qualifying for FAA in the coming year. In addition, the cost will be further altered by changes to local property tax rates. However, it is estimated that the overall change due to these amendments are minimal.
Compliance costs for affected persons:
Compliance cost for affected persons ("person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, government entity, public or private organization of any character other than an agency): Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county. The effect on the property owner will depend on the mix of property types and situs. No total cost or savings can be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class and a listing of property newly qualifying or no longer qualifying for FAA in the coming year. In addition, the cost will be further altered by changes to local property tax rates. However, it is estimated that the overall change due to these amendments are minimal.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
These changes may affect property values that may result in a change of property tax amounts due.
Rebecca Rockwell, Commissioner
The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Office of Administrative Rules, or at:
Tax CommissionProperty Tax
210 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84134
Direct questions regarding this rule to:
- Jennifer Franklin at the above address, by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at , 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:
12/03/2018
This rule may become effective on:
12/10/2018
Authorized by:
Rebecca Rockwell, Commissioner
RULE TEXT
Appendix 1: Regulatory Impact Summary Table*
|
Fiscal Costs |
FY 2019 |
FY 2020 |
FY 2021 |
|
State Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Local Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Non-Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Other Person |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Total Fiscal Costs: |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Benefits |
|
|
|
|
State Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Local Government |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Non-Small Businesses |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Other Persons |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
Total Fiscal Benefits: |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Fiscal Benefits: |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
*This table only includes fiscal impacts that could be measured. If there are inestimable fiscal impacts, they will not be included in this table. Inestimable impacts for State Government, Local Government, Small Businesses and Other Persons are described above. Inestimable impacts for Non-Small Businesses are described below.
Appendix 2: Regulatory Impact to Non-Small Businesses
The impacts of this rule change on non-small businesses are inestimable. In the aggregate, the amount of savings or cost to non-small business is undetermined. Each property owner with property eligible for assessment under FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county. The effect on an individual property owner will depend on the mix of property types and situs. No total cost or savings can be calculated without an exhaustive study of farmland acreage in each county by class and a listing of property newly qualifying or no longer qualifying for FAA in the coming year. In addition, the cost will be further altered by changes to local property tax rates. However, it is estimated that the overall change due to this amendment is minimal.
Commissioner of the Utah State Tax Commission, Rebecca L. Rockwell, has reviewed and approved this fiscal analysis.
R884. Tax Commission, Property Tax.
R884-24P. Property Tax.
R884-24P-53. [2018]2019
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 [758]677
2) Cache [654]582
3) Carbon [501]451
4) Davis [804]719
5) Emery [476]427
6) Iron [759]683
7) Kane [398]357
8) Millard [753]674
9) Salt Lake [680]616
10) Utah [715]641
11) Washington [620]557
12) Weber [769]694
(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 [666]595
2) Cache [558]497
3) Carbon [399]359
4) Davis [708]633
5) Duchesne [465]417
6) Emery [383]344
7) Grand [367]332
8) Iron [665]599
9) Juab [424]380
10) Kane [306]275
11) Millard [661]592
12) Salt Lake [584]529
13) Sanpete [511]460
14) Sevier [538]484
15) Summit [438]393
16) Tooele [426]381
17) Utah [618]554
18) Wasatch [463]416
19) Washington [528]475
20) Weber [674]608
(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 [532]514
2) Box Elder [524]468
3) Cache [423]376
4) Carbon [265]239
5) Davis [569]509
6) Duchesne [326]292
7) Emery [241]216
8) Garfield [201]181
9) Grand [232]210
10) Iron [528]475
11) Juab [285]256
12) Kane [169]152
13) Millard [523]468
14) Morgan [366]328
15) Piute [317]285
16) Rich [169]152
17) Salt Lake [445]403
18) San Juan [163]146
19) Sanpete [375]338
20) Sevier [400]360
21) Summit [299]269
22) Tooele [285]255
23) Uintah [353]316
24) Utah [474]425
25) Wasatch [322]289
26) Washington [388]349
27) Wayne [313]281
28) Weber [536]483
(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 [438]424
2) Box Elder [433]387
3) Cache [328]292
4) Carbon [170]153
5) Daggett [180]162
6) Davis [475]425
7) Duchesne [229]205
8) Emery [149]134
9) Garfield [108]97
10) Grand [140]127
11) Iron [432]389
12) Juab [189]170
13) Kane [76]68
14) Millard [425]380
15) Morgan [271]243
16) Piute [222]199
17) Rich [78]70
18) Salt Lake [344]312
19) San Juan [74]66
20) Sanpete [282]254
21) Sevier [307]276
22) Summit [206]185
23) Tooele [194]174
24) Uintah [261]234
25) Utah [381]341
26) Wasatch [229]206
27) Washington [292]263
28) Wayne [220]198
29) Weber [438]395
(b) Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards
1) Beaver [620]586
2) Box Elder [671]634
3) Cache [620]586
4) Carbon [620]586
5) Davis [676]639
6) Duchesne [620]586
7) Emery [620]586
8) Garfield [620]586
9) Grand [620]586
10) Iron [620]586
11) Juab [620]586
12) Kane [620]586
13) Millard [620]586
14) Morgan [620]586
15) Piute [620]586
16) Salt Lake [620]586
17) San Juan [620]586
18) Sanpete [620]586
19) Sevier [620]586
20) Summit [620]586
21) Tooele [620]586
22) Uintah [620]586
23) Utah [681]644
24) Wasatch [620]586
25) Washington [733]693
26) Wayne [620]586
27) Weber [676]639
(c) Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 6
Meadow IV
1) Beaver [225]218
2) Box Elder [242]216
3) Cache [251]223
4) Carbon [125]113
5) Daggett [149]134
6) Davis [253]226
7) Duchesne [159]143
8) Emery [132]118
9) Garfield [99]89
10) Grand [127]115
11) Iron [250]225
12) Juab [145]130
13) Kane [104]93
14) Millard [185]166
15) Morgan [187]168
16) Piute [181]163
17) Rich [100]90
18) Salt Lake [218]198
19) Sanpete [185]167
20) Sevier [191]172
21) Summit [193]173
22) Tooele [177]158
23) Uintah [198]177
24) Utah [239]214
25) Wasatch [199]179
26) Washington [217]195
27) Wayne [164]147
28) Weber [287]259
(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 [49]47
2) Box Elder [88]79
3) Cache [112]100
4) Carbon [47]42
5) Davis [49]44
6) Duchesne [52]47
7) Garfield [46]41
8) Grand [47]42
9) Iron [47]42
10) Juab [49]44
11) Kane [46]41
12) Millard [45]40
13) Morgan [61]55
14) Rich [46]41
15) Salt Lake [52]47
16) San Juan [50]45
17) Sanpete [52]47
18) Summit [46]41
19) Tooele [50]45
20) Uintah [52]47
21) Utah [48]43
22) Wasatch [46]41
23) Washington [46]41
24) Weber [75]68
(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 14
2) Box Elder [56]50
3) Cache [79]70
4) Carbon [14]13
5) Davis [15]13
6) Duchesne [18]16
7) Garfield [14]13
8) Grand [14]13
9) Iron [14]13
10) Juab [15]13
11) Kane [14]13
12) Millard [13]12
13) Morgan [26]23
14) Rich [14]13
15) Salt Lake 15
16) San Juan [16]17
17) Sanpete [18]16
18) Summit [14]13
19) Tooele [14]13
20) Uintah [18]16
21) Utah [15]13
22) Wasatch [14]13
23) Washington [13]12
24) Weber [42]38
(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 [67]65
2) Box Elder [71]63
3) Cache [67]60
4) Carbon [50]45
5) Daggett [50]45
6) Davis [58]52
7) Duchesne [66]59
8) Emery [68]61
9) Garfield [73]66
10) Grand [74]67
11) Iron [71]64
12) Juab [62]56
13) Kane [72]65
14) Millard [73]65
15) Morgan [64]57
16) Piute [86]77
17) Rich [62]56
18) Salt Lake [67]61
19) San Juan [71]63
20) Sanpete [60]54
21) Sevier [62]56
22) Summit [69]62
23) Tooele [68]61
24) Uintah [77]69
25) Utah [63]56
26) Wasatch [50]45
27) Washington [62]56
28) Wayne [84]75
29) Weber [67]60
(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 [21]20
2) Box Elder [22]20
3) Cache [21]19
4) Carbon [14]13
5) Daggett [13]12
6) Davis [18]16
7) Duchesne [18]16
8) Emery [20]18
9) Garfield [22]20
10) Grand [21]19
11) Iron [21]19
12) Juab [18]16
13) Kane [23]21
14) Millard [23]21
15) Morgan [20]18
16) Piute [25]22
17) Rich [19]17
18) Salt Lake [20]18
19) San Juan [23]21
20) Sanpete [17]15
21) Sevier [17]15
22) Summit [19]17
23) Tooele [19]17
24) Uintah [27]24
25) Utah [22]20
26) Wasatch [16]14
27) Washington [20]18
28) Wayne [27]24
29) Weber [19]17
(iii) Graze III. The following counties shall assess Graze III property based upon the per acre values below:
TABLE 11
GR III
1) Beaver 15
2) Box Elder [16]14
3) Cache [14]12
4) Carbon [12]11
5) Daggett [11]10
6) Davis [12]11
7) Duchesne [13]12
8) Emery [13]12
9) Garfield [15]13
10) Grand [14]13
11) Iron [14]13
12) Juab [13]12
13) Kane [14]13
14) Millard [15]13
15) Morgan [12]11
16) Piute [17]15
17) Rich [12]11
18) Salt Lake [14]13
19) San Juan [16]14
20) Sanpete [13]12
21) Sevier [13]12
22) Summit [13]12
23) Tooele [13]12
24) Uintah [18]16
25) Utah [13]12
26) Wasatch [12]11
27) Washington [12]11
28) Wayne [17]15
29) Weber [13]12
(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 5
2) Box Elder 5
3) Cache 5
4) Carbon 5
5) Daggett 5
6) Davis 5
7) Duchesne 5
8) Emery 5
9) Garfield 5
10) Grand 5
11) Iron 5
12) Juab 5
13) Kane 5
14) Millard 5
15) Morgan 5
16) Piute 5
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 5
29) Weber 5
(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: [November 30, 2017]2018
Notice of Continuation: November 10, 2016
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
More information about a Notice of Proposed Rule is available online.
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/2018/b20181101.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 ([example]). Text to be added is underlined (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 Jennifer Franklin at the above address, by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at , or by Internet E-mail at [email protected]. For questions about the rulemaking process, please contact the Office of Administrative Rules.