DAR File No. 44106
This rule was published in the October 15, 2019, issue (Vol. 2019, No. 20) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Tax Commission, Property Tax
Section R884-24P-53
2019 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.: 44106
Filed: 09/27/2019 10:36:04 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. 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. This section sets the acreage value rates for 418 separate class-county combinations.
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 18 rates increase slightly, 261 rates decrease, and 139 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 this amendment.
local governments:
The amount of saving 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 18 rates increase slightly, 261 rates decrease, and 139 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 this amendment. 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:
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 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. 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 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. 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 this amendment is minimal.
Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:
Businesses with property eligible for assessment under the FAA may see a change in value, depending on property class and situs county. The effect on a business 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 will be minimal.
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:
11/14/2019
This rule may become effective on:
11/21/2019
Authorized by:
Rebecca Rockwell, Commissioner
RULE TEXT
Appendix 1: Regulatory Impact Summary Table*
|
Fiscal Costs |
FY 2020 |
FY 2021 |
FY 2022 |
|
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 these changes 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. [2019]2020
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 [677]682
2) Cache [582]576
3) Carbon [451]439
4) Davis [719]715
5) Emery [427]416
6) Iron [683]668
7) Kane [357]347
8) Millard [674]663
9) Salt Lake [616]623
10) Utah [641]639
11) Washington [557]542
12) Weber [694]684
(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 [595]599
2) Cache [497]492
3) Carbon [359]349
4) Davis [633]629
5) Duchesne [417]407
6) Emery [344]335
7) Grand [332]323
8) Iron [599]586
9) Juab [380]376
10) Kane [275]268
11) Millard [592]583
12) Salt Lake [529]535
13) Sanpete [460]450
14) Sevier [484]476
15) Summit [393]382
16) Tooele [381]372
17) Utah [554]552
18) Wasatch [416]405
19) Washington [475]462
20) Weber [608]599
(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 [514]512
2) Box Elder [468]471
3) Cache [376]372
4) Carbon [239]233
5) Davis [509]506
6) Duchesne [292]285
7) Emery [216]210
8) Garfield [181]176
9) Grand [210]205
10) Iron [475]465
11) Juab [256]253
12) Kane [152]148
13) Millard [468]461
14) Morgan [328]320
15) Piute [285]278
16) Rich [152]148
17) Salt Lake [403]408
18) San Juan [146]151
19) Sanpete [338]331
20) Sevier [360]354
21) Summit [269]262
22) Tooele [255]249
23) Uintah [316]308
24) Utah [425]424
25) Wasatch [289]281
26) Washington [349]340
27) Wayne [281]273
28) Weber [483]476
(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 [424]423
2) Box Elder [387]390
3) Cache [292]289
4) Carbon [153]149
5) Daggett [162]158
6) Davis [425]422
7) Duchesne [205]200
8) Emery [134]131
9) Garfield [97]94
10) Grand [127]124
11) Iron [389]380
12) Juab [170]168
13) Kane [68]66
14) Millard [380]374
15) Morgan [243]237
16) Piute [199]194
17) Rich [70]68
18) Salt Lake [312]316
19) San Juan [66]68
20) Sanpete [254]248
21) Sevier [276]271
22) Summit [185]180
23) Tooele [174]170
24) Uintah [234]228
25) Utah [341]340
26) Wasatch [206]200
27) Washington [263]256
28) Wayne [198]193
29) Weber [395]389
(b) Fruit orchards shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 5
Fruit Orchards
1) Beaver [586]493
2) Box Elder [634]534
3) Cache [586]493
4) Carbon [586]493
5) Davis [639]538
6) Duchesne [586]493
7) Emery [586]493
8) Garfield [586]493
9) Grand [586]493
10) Iron [586]493
11) Juab [586]493
12) Kane [586]493
13) Millard [586]493
14) Morgan [586]493
15) Piute [586]493
16) Salt Lake [586]493
17) San Juan [586]493
18) Sanpete [586]493
19) Sevier [586]493
20) Summit [586]493
21) Tooele [586]493
22) Uintah [586]493
23) Utah [644]542
24) Wasatch [586]493
25) Washington [693]583
26) Wayne [586]493
27) Weber [639]538
(c) Meadow IV property shall be assessed per acre based upon the following schedule:
TABLE 6
Meadow IV
1) Beaver [218]217
2) Box Elder [216]218
3) Cache [223]221
4) Carbon [113]110
5) Daggett [134]130
6) Davis [226]225
7) Duchesne [143]140
8) Emery [118]115
9) Garfield [89]87
10) Grand [115]112
11) Iron [225]220
12) Juab [130]129
13) Kane [93]90
14) Millard [166]163
15) Morgan [168]164
16) Piute [163]159
17) Rich [90]88
18) Salt Lake [198]200
19) Sanpete [167]163
20) Sevier [172]169
21) Summit [173]168
22) Tooele [158]154
23) Uintah [177]173
24) Utah [214]213
25) Wasatch [179]174
26) Washington [195]190
27) Wayne [147]143
28) Weber [259]255
(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 47
2) Box Elder [79]80
3) Cache [100]99
4) Carbon [42]41
5) Davis 44
6) Duchesne [47]46
7) Garfield [41]40
8) Grand [42]41
9) Iron [42]41
10) Juab 44
11) Kane [41]40
12) Millard [40]39
13) Morgan [55]54
14) Rich [41]40
15) Salt Lake [47]48
16) San Juan [45]46
17) Sanpete [47]46
18) Summit [41]40
19) Tooele [45]44
20) Uintah [47]46
21) Utah 43
22) Wasatch [41]40
23) Washington [41]40
24) Weber [68]67
(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 50
3) Cache [70]69
4) Carbon 13
5) Davis 13
6) Duchesne 16
7) Garfield 13
8) Grand 13
9) Iron 13
10) Juab 13
11) Kane 13
12) Millard 12
13) Morgan [23]22
14) Rich 13
15) Salt Lake 15
16) San Juan 17
17) Sanpete 16
18) Summit 13
19) Tooele 13
20) Uintah 16
21) Utah 13
22) Wasatch 13
23) Washington 12
24) Weber [38]37
(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 65
2) Box Elder 63
3) Cache [60]59
4) Carbon [45]44
5) Daggett [45]44
6) Davis 52
7) Duchesne [59]58
8) Emery [61]59
9) Garfield [66]64
10) Grand [67]65
11) Iron [64]63
12) Juab [56]55
13) Kane [65]63
14) Millard [65]64
15) Morgan [57]56
16) Piute [77]75
17) Rich [56]54
18) Salt Lake [61]62
19) San Juan [63]65
20) Sanpete [54]53
21) Sevier [56]55
22) Summit [62]60
23) Tooele [61]60
24) Uintah [69]67
25) Utah 56
26) Wasatch [45]44
27) Washington [56]54
28) Wayne [75]73
29) Weber [60]59
(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 20
2) Box Elder 20
3) Cache 19
4) Carbon 13
5) Daggett 12
6) Davis 16
7) Duchesne 16
8) Emery 18
9) Garfield [20]19
10) Grand 19
11) Iron 19
12) Juab 16
13) Kane [21]20
14) Millard 21
15) Morgan 18
16) Piute [22]21
17) Rich 17
18) Salt Lake 18
19) San Juan [21]22
20) Sanpete 15
21) Sevier 15
22) Summit 17
23) Tooele 17
24) Uintah [24]23
25) Utah 20
26) Wasatch 14
27) Washington 18
28) Wayne [24]23
29) Weber 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 14
3) Cache 12
4) Carbon 11
5) Daggett 10
6) Davis 11
7) Duchesne 12
8) Emery 12
9) Garfield 13
10) Grand 13
11) Iron 13
12) Juab 12
13) Kane 13
14) Millard 13
15) Morgan 11
16) Piute 15
17) Rich 11
18) Salt Lake 13
19) San Juan 14
20) Sanpete 12
21) Sevier 12
22) Summit 12
23) Tooele 12
24) Uintah 16
25) Utah 12
26) Wasatch 11
27) Washington 11
28) Wayne 15
29) Weber 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: [
May 17,
]2019
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/2019/b20191015.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.