| OCR Text |
Show Valuation of Summit commercial property is too low, state says ing this information public," he said. But Mark Buchi, chairman of the Tax Commission, said that he is required by law to "pull information" from the marketplace comparing what property actually sells for and "what the county thinks it will sell for." If the Summit County sales are a good indication of the true overall property value in the county, Buchi said, then commercial property taxes are "less than half of what they should be." He added, however, that when making an evaluation on a small number of sales "it is a little difficult to make absolute statements." If the Summit County market, particularly Park City, remains the same or increases in value in the next year, then the State Tax Commission will order the County Assessor to increase property valuations, Buchi said. "Right now," Buchi added, add-ed, "there is nothing we would do to force the assessor's hand." Buchi explained that until two years ago the state was cnargea with the appraisal of all property statewide. He said that "expert sales appraisal" was accomplished every five years for each individual piece of property. However, in 1981 the Utah State Legislature, in a cost cutting move, replaced the property appraisal statute. The current law allows the state to order property reappraisals every two years from county governments, he said. Those appraisals are now made by the sales ratio studies. County property and tax levies are overseen by the state in part, Buchi said, because each county must contribute its fair share to the state Uniform School Fund. Frazier, however, discounts dis-counts the effect the study will have on the county's duty to the state education requirements. Further, he said, that he is "demanding" a sales ratio study of Summit County that will separate the Park City School District from the rest of the county. He said that separation would more accurately assess each district's contribution to the state school fund. Although property taxes in Park City jumped as much as 3d percent last autumn, a study recently released by the Utah State Tax Commission Commis-sion suggests that taxes in Summit County are still much too low. The sales ratio study conducted by the state and recently released shows commercial com-mercial properties being taxed at a rate that is less than half of what they should be. Residential properties are closer to the legal standard but still below average. The Tax Commission's study compares market values val-ues of properties actually sold during 1983 with the values assessed to them by Summit County Assessor Leo Frazier. Those comparisons reveal that commercial properties prop-erties were taxed at a rate of 84 percent of market value when, according to Utah statute, they should be taxed at 20 percent. When that formula is applied to residential properties proper-ties in the county, homeowners home-owners paid property taxes at a rate of 13.8 percent when they should have been paying 15 percent. The State Tax Commission conducts sales ratio studies annually on a county-by-county basis to determine if property valuations and taxes are in line with state statute. The study listed the overall state average for commercial valuation as 19.28 percent, more than double that of Summit County. But Frazier claimed the Utah State Tax Commission's sales ratio study "is not worth the paper it is written on." Frazier said that in light of the "factoring up" of property values last year the state's figures seem inaccurate. inaccur-ate. He said he is "demanding "demand-ing that the state tax commission disclose the property sales upon which the analysis was made. Frazier said that according to the information he has received thus far from the state, the tabulation was based on 120 property sales, 92 of which occurred in Park City and surrounding area. He added that the analysis based on these sales is "inadequate." "I just can't imagine the State Tax Commission mak- |
