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 Commission
Property 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.