OCR Text |
Show Adjustments Redto Property Inequities u Assesment adjustments ordered by the State Tax Commission Com-mission last year have greatly reduced the assessment variations varia-tions that exist among the several sev-eral counties of the state. This was pointed out by Utah Foundation, the private tax research re-search organization, in their analysis of a recent Tax Commission Com-mission sales ratio study. LAST YEAR, the State Tax Commission ordered adjustments adjust-ments in local property assessments assess-ments that range from -1 percent per-cent to plus-200 percent. The 1981 Utah Legislature, however, howev-er, refused to go along with the large increases, and directed the Tax Commission to reduce the adjusted local assessments by 20 percent. In effect, this action finally resulted in adjustments ad-justments ranging from -21 percent to plus-140 percent. According to the Foundation Founda-tion report, in 1980 the county variations from the statewide average ranged from -66.5 percent per-cent to plus-50.6 percent and averaged about 41.4 percent among the 29 counties. Following Fol-lowing application of the adjustments, ad-justments, the 1981 variations from the statewide average ranged from -46.3 percent to plus-12.7 percent and averaged aver-aged only 10.1 percent. IT WAS noted that in 1980 Davis County had an average assessment ration of 9.59 percent, per-cent, which was 28.5 percent less than the state average. The latest study shows that Davis County had a 1981 average aver-age assessment ratio of 14.18 percent which was 2.3 percent less than the state average. Although it is clear that the Tax Commission and legisla tive action to require county assessors to adjust local valuations valua-tions did substantially reduce the assessment inequities that previously existed among counties, it did not completely eliminate them. In order to obtain approval of the factoring factor-ing adjustments, some compromises com-promises were made. The next major Tax Commission order to factor or adjust local valuations valua-tions will occur at the end of 1982 and will affect 1983 assessments. THE FOUNDATION report also notes that the Tax Commission Com-mission adjustments will do little lit-tle to correct assessment inequities ine-quities within counties. The 1981 legislation places most of the responsibility for providing provid-ing equitywithin comrtin-local comrtin-local assessors. While some of the larger counties are well staffed for the assessing dure, most of the small ties in the state do nothjj finances and facilities i-' tiue to reappraise inj-1 properties on a contit " basis. As a resit, equ1 of property within c0 could suffer intheyears; J Another problem ik?.; the Foundation report t when the Utah Legist-' duced adjusted local i tions by 20 percent ' effect, lowered the asst level of such property to 16 percent of market , State assessed proper' the other hand, continue J assessed at 20 percent of ! mined value. Thus, the ijl tive change introduced ,1 inequity between lo;l assessed real proper other property classes. ACCORDING to the, the overall assessment tl all locally-assessed prc Utah during 1981 was U cent. This is up son from the 13.41 perce: corded for 1980, but st low the theoretically ( percent provided forbyj all local property hai assessed at 16 perce: would have increase assessment base byr mated $398 million. |