| OCR Text |
Show gram and seeKing ways curtail abuses of the program pro-gram by speculators who are not legitimate farmers. One proposal would relate the income provision for eligibility eli-gibility to participate in the program to both the size and the potential agricultural productivity of the land. If should produce $1,000 in agricultural income, then a 100-acre tract of comparable compar-able land should produce $20,000 a year. High quality qual-ity farmland should produce more than marginal land. Many believe that a realistic realis-tic income requirement would & "iterations "it-erations easily distinguishable distinguish-able from hobby farming which serves as a cov. er for land speculation. Tax officials say such a program would not be difficult diffi-cult to administer, asallag. ricuKural land in Utah isai. ready being classified r 1 jr . - ' ' S : v ' - v - " ' ' r -'.-''jii . ' - ' ' " rv'; - K- - -" - v: . . '. :-. s v- - -V.-v.- r , -r-j- "V-. V" , , t "- t ; , r- . it . -: , f x 5-V 5 .. . .' - - " i-- jT''"r'-Jk- ' v - J- 'i t - - . v v.' KX- , , :v- 4 V : -.J . -J- 2 . ' i ' I . Jc,','t , ' - - . - j i- - - ..'-C' ' " -T t.- i ,f r v i- " 1 - ment units because of it. However, records kept in Salt Lake, and Utah and Weber Counties indicate that in 1977 property tax from land in the program was more than $3 million below what it would have been if the land were assessed on the basis of market value. In 1977, Salt Lake County , land had not been revalued i and it appears certain that ' the difference would be sub- i stantially greater today. ' The Utah law does have a "roll back" provision which recovers some of the lost j tax revenue when land under the farmland assessment j program is turned to a use other than agriculture. At I that time a "roll back" tax must be paid, representing ' the difference between the tax collected under the program pro-gram and the taxes that would have been due under full market value assessment, up to a limit of five years. However, any differential beyond five years is permanently per-manently lost to local taxing units. Even when the roll back is paid for the full time the land was in the program the taxpayer gains and the government unit loses in times of inflation, as the roll back tax is paid in current cur-rent dollars, worth less (because (be-cause of Inflation) than the same number of dollars in earlier years when the tax would normally have been paid. Also, the interest increment in-crement on the money would accrue to the landowner rather than the taxing unit. ( The Governor's Tax Revision Re-vision Study Committee is currently examining the farmland assessment pro- ' Perfection of a seasoned craftsman, young Bill Morris created these works of thread and pins. Farm land tones got critical scrutiny The goat didn't have a chance er who also owned city building build-ing lots. The farmer brought cows to graze on the city lots for a few days and claimed claim-ed these lots were eligible for assessment as farmland because they were devoted to agricultural use in conjunc- ton with other eligible acreage." acre-age." There are currently no statewide figures to show how much land is in the farm -land assessment program and how much tax revenue is being lost by local govern - Utah's farmland assessment assess-ment program, which provides pro-vides for the assessment of agricultural land at as little lit-tle as one -thirtieth of its market value for other uses, is being closely scrutinized in the light of the nationwide nation-wide concern over property , tax levels, according to Utah Foundation, the private, nonprofit non-profit research organization. organiza-tion. There appears to be relatively rela-tively little criticism of offering of-fering tax protections to gen - ! uine farmland, but there is strong and growing resent - ' ment against abuses of the program by land speculators, specu-lators, the Foundation noted in a report released, this week. It is pointed out that ' many of the abuses of the farmland assessment program pro-gram by land developers may be legal as the law is now written. Utah's Constitution re- ! quires that all tangible prop - erty in the state shall be taxed in accordance with its value with a uniform and equal rate of assessment, but a constitutional amendment amend-ment ratified in 1968 provides pro-vides that "Land used for agricultural ag-ricultural purposes may . . . be assessed according to its value for agricultural use without regard for the value it may have for other purposes." pur-poses." A Farmland Assessment As-sessment Act was passed in 1969 and implemented in 1972 to carry out the purposes pur-poses of this amendment. It is generally recognized that legitimate farmland must have some protection against rapidly -rising land values, particularly in areas close to urban development. If agriculture is to remain economically feasible, the Foundation points out, adding: add-ing: On the other hand, it is an economic fact of life that when any part of the tax base if given favored treatment, treat-ment, a heavier burden falls on the portion of the tax base noto favored. As the tax burden on real property is rapidly rising, particularly particular-ly in Salt Lake County, owners of non -agricultural property are casting a critical cri-tical eye at the farmland assessment program." Problems with the program pro-gram appear to center largely large-ly in provisions of Utah's law which make any tract of land of five acres more eligible eli-gible for assessment at its value for agriculture rather than its market value for other oth-er purposes, if the land is producing agricultural crops worth $1,000 or more a year the law also provides that smaller tracts of land may be included in the program if they are used in conjunction with other land in the same ownership in an integrated agricultural operation. It is pointed out that a land developer could place a large tract of land say 50 or 100 acres or more under the program by farm -ing one corner of the tract and raising crops worth $1,-000 $1,-000 a year. The rest of the land would be held, and assessed on the basis of its agricultural value rather than on the basis of market value which may be 30 times as high, for later sub -division into building lots worth several thousand dollars a-piece. a-piece. Another reported abuse relates to a legitimate farm - |
