OCR Text |
Show July 1972 Utah Farm Bureau News highest county was in excess of 18 Utah's Farm Land Assessment Act by LeGrand Jarman The constitution of the State of Utah provides that all property not otherwise exempt shall be assessed for tax purposes on the basis of its value in money. That means the sale value in the market place. The exemptions are homesteads, irrigation in- stallations, indigent and disabled soldier abatements, etc. Farm leaders recognized some six years ago that due to the rapid increase of land values for development, farmers were soon to be caught with tax values based on commerical prices of land. Certain legal decisions which are mentioned in the accompanying article indicated that time was short. A project was begun to amend the constitution to avoid this hazard. Hie assignment was given to the Land Owners Association. A resolution was presented to the 1967 session of the Legislature which provided for farm land to be assessed as to its value for agricultural purpose and not of any other purpose. Both houses of the Legislature gave good support to the passage and the first and least difficult step was achieved. The next step was to get approval from the voting public. This took time, people and money. $40,000 was contributed by farmers to finance the campaign. Another victory was achieved with a 65 percent favorable vote in the 1968 general election. The third step was passage of law setting up the procedure to carry out the intent of the amendment. This step also succeeded but not without some compromise provisions. The main provisions of the act are (1) farm must be five acres or more, (2) must have been farmed for five years, and (3) give a return of $500 income per year. Some red-tap- e provisions were written into the act which we must repeal. This will be attempted in 1973 when a bill will be presented to do away with the annual filing, relieve the recorder of accounting for the lien and provide some relief for specialized farms under five acres. land is assessed for farming purposes. He can also get the assessed value of the same land to the according regular assessment roll. H,e then can decide whether to sign up in the green belt program. The other article discusses the regular assessment program with the relation it has to the five-yereappraisal law. The farmer, after reading both articles, will likely conclude that he will not sign up in green belt unless his county has been reappraised in 1972 or will be in 1973. He may however find that if his farm land is in a real fast development area there is an advantage in joining green belt even though there has been no recent reappraisal. Farm Bureau leaders have continued to say that farmers should not join green belt until assessment figures show that land values are being affected by development prices. Green belt values are now saving farmers up to $5 per acre where the inflated ar , land values are being applied. The Farm Land Assessment Act was provided to assist farmers to avoid the high tax rates brought on by sales prices of land sold for development. It is not automatic in any way. Each farmer must compare the values on his own land in order to make a good decision on advisability of signing up for the green belt. County .Farm Bureau Local Affairs Committee must be on the job and study the condition in the respective counties. This committee can render a great service, as it might find a given community that should all be in green belt, or one where it would be unadvisable for any farmer to join. This kind of committee action could save each farmer a lot of time. We are completely satisfied that without this Act, farmers would be taxed out of business. As development continues to cover the entire state, the time will come when no farm land will be out of the program. A fourth step was preparing a format for carrying out the law. To accomplish this a committee was REAPPRAISAL charged PROGRAM appointed with the of setting up the responsibility theory and procedures of valuing farm land on the basis of its ability to produce income in farming. The committee consisted of a representative from the Utah State Tax Commission as chairman, one from the State Agricultural Department, one from the Utah State University, one from the Land Owners Association and one county assessor. The committee came up with two main decisions: (1) all agricultural lands should be classified into standard soil classes by trained soil engineers, and (2) the producing ability as shown in actual historical data should be capitalized to a fair return. From this the actual average farm value wasL determined. In accordance with the approved procedure the tax assessment value was established at 20 percent of the agricultural value. The fifth step was the actual work of getting the job done. A staff of engineers was employed to classify all the farm land of the state. This is completed, although it took a year longer than originally planned. Thus the green belt provisions were not available until 1972 instead of 1971. The Utah State University staff covered the state gathering production data, income and cost figures and computing the' capitalization results and land values. The office staff at the Tax Commission brought the package together so as of now any farmer in the state can find out how much his This program is an entirely different one than the green belt, but because both have been in progress at the same time there is some confusion. The green belt is completed. The reappraisal is about complete in ten counties percent. 3. Courts in several states, including Arizona, had reviewed similar situations in those states and handed down ultimatums as to a time the state taxing authority would have to get constitution equalization. 4. Several large taxpayers filed tax cases in Utah Courts to clarify our problems. Should these cases have been continued through the State Supreme Court, our Tax Commission would have been ordered by the Court to bring property assessed value to 30 percent wihin a limited time. Our state officials appealed to the Courts and the plaintiffs to not proceed with the legal action but to allow the Tax Commission to work out the solution as rapidly as possible. The appeal was granted so that is where we are now. An understanding was arrived at to use the figure of 20 percent instead of the 30 percent which is in the law. This is very important to realize that if some dissatisfied taxpayer should take his case to the court the only satisfaction he would likely get is that all property in the state would have to go to 30 percent instead of 20 percent. 5. The Tax Commission reported to the 1971 Legislature that it did not have funds to do a reappraisal job in five years, so some additional funds were appropriated to get the job done. This was the same Legislature that wrote the green belt law so that helps to add to the confusion. The commission hired some additional trained help and begun to reappraise the property in the state on the basis of 20 percent of its value in money. The counties were put in a priority list starting with the counties with the lowest assessed value as compared to the real value of the property. The counties with the highest relative value will be completed last but should be done within the five-yeperiod. Thirteen counties have will increase at a greater percentage than others. Errors may be made and wrong information used as data. We have assurance that correction will be made where such conditions are evident. For this reason, Farm Bureau Local " by LeGrand Jarman The stakes are large in this years political struggle as far as agriculture is concerned. It has been several years since so many important issues were so clearly surfaced as there are this year. We have not yet even had a meeting of policy development and yet some matters have become so prominent that we could not avoid them. Some of these issues are going to Affairs Committees should be conversant with procedures and methods, and attend such hearings as they are called. An occasional visit to taxing authorities can be very helpful. Another law was passed in 1971 which provides that a taxing unit may only collect 106 percent of its previous years revenue. In case assessed values are increased a substantial amount, the taxing unit is required to role back the levy as require careful work by the provided by law. This provision does not apply to School District Maintenance and Operation Accounts, as this account is subsitized by state equalization funds. If the School District collects more because of increased value, it simply gets less from the state. There is a formula however, that makes some adjustment in this fund, but it is technical. Again, Farm Bureau committees should watch levies in connection with increased values. Finally let us say that tax values are going to increase, and so long as they show equity and no errors, there is nothing to do about it as the tax authority has only done what the courts would require and it could be 30 percent instead of 20 percent. We can only help keep the levies in line with normal increases, which should be about 6 percent per year. County Farm Bureau leaders who do not keep close to this operation, are certainly not ser- ving the members as they should. ON TAX agricultural burning privilege. This we must resist. 3. Green Belt Act. We will seek amendments to cut down red tape, do away with annual filing, fee eliminate recorder and requirements provide for special farms under five acres. 4. Land Use Planning. The Congress will likely complete legislation requiring states to pass acts within five years which will provide for land use planning. Such legislation Federal V . Jt y. is 1. Because of varying practices within counties, we can expect that property values in all counties will be increased with the results of the reappraisal, and some counties highly ng slow-movin- g regulations already special farm truck indentification together with other reciprocals as between states. Good grief, Hadley! What happened to your lunch pail?" Freedom of: be provide for use of fanny flags on vehicles traveling less than 25 m.p.h. It is almost certain such legislation will be in the 1973 session. 6. Farm Truck License. Maybe we should take another look at a PCT. INCREASE foresight are now being realized. Here are some of the matters which faced taxing authority and which farm leaders became aware could beneficial but it may also be so all inclusive and restrictive as to dictate the permanent use of all public and private lands. 5. Vehicles. Many vehicle laws already. Most authorities on safety look at this as a necessary piece of legislation. table gives PRIORITY ORDER FOR COUNTY ASSESSMENT REVALUATION the one he wants. 2. Agricultural Burning. Efforts will be made to repeal our states have such that is now in counties available by listing the the priority order. The table shows the year each county will probably be brought under the reappraisal schedule. It also shows the percentage increase of land values in the counties already reappraised. the information Political Education Committees. Candidates for legislative office will need to be interviewed as to their willingness to support farmers needs. Here is the list as we see it now; 1. Farm Labor Relations Act. This is the top priority. With Chavez and his crowd creating contention among farm laborers we must have legislation which gives the laborer a right by secret ballot to decide whether he wants to belong to a union and if so choose Slow-Movi- been started. Ten are about completed. The accompanying 7 POLITICS - ar oily. Farm leaders became aware of the dangers which would result from the application of the items discussed in the article and prepared the green belt dan to protect farmers from these dangers. The results of this wise The constitution said that property must be assessed according to its value in money as determined by the Legislature. 2. The law said that property shall be assessed at 30 percent of its true value. It also said that the tax commission should reappraise all property every five years to keep property valuation equalized throughout the state. ' The facts revealed that the tax commission was not doing any reappraisal that was even close to acceptable. Also that some property was assessed at as much as 28 percent while others was as low as 5 or 6 percent. Also that the average in the lowest county was 8 percent while the average in the Page not free . . . Shaping and preserving society necessarily involves personal commitment , costly risk , and constant effort; the cultivation of our civil liberty should be no more passive than is the cultivation of a farm. A man can inherit the land on which he lives, he can even inherit the first crop of produce after he takes over from those who came before him. But then if lie stops, everything stops, and begins to crumble. Nothing grows, nothing ripe and rewarding comes to him, unless he plows, plants, and tends the soil and unless he keeps it fertile year after year with the chemis-tr- y of effort and forethought. Edmond Calm. |