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 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:

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.