A variety of government programs and policies have been developed by several states to promote the preservation of agricultural land. These are primarily in the form of monetary incentives to enable farmland owners to resist economic pressure to sell out for development or to prevent the conversion of their land to other non-agricultural uses. One of the more popular policies currently in use is the provision of property tax relief. Because land values have tended to rise more rapidly than farm incomes, the assessment and taxation of farmland based on residential, business or industrial land values can result in tax burdens that decrease the economic feasibility of farming and put pressure on farmland owner to convert the land to other uses.
The most widely adopted property tax relief technique
used to preserve farmland is differential or use value assessment.
It allows agricultural lands to be appraised at their use values rather
than at their market values. This results in lower assessment levels
and, consequently, lower tax bills for farmers. Use value assessment
for farmland was authorized in West Virginia by the Shifflet Amendment
of 1977 and was given a constitutional basis by the Tax Limitation and
Homestead Exemption Amendment of 1982. Although the State Tax Department
has developed guidelines and procedures for implementing use value assessments
in West Virginia, they are generally not being used to assess farmland
values here. Farmers have not complained about this situation because
it is believed that current assessment practices have resulted in assessment
values for farmland that are lower than those that would exist if the use
value assessment procedures were implemented.
This monograph chapter reviews the concepts of use value assessment
and real estate taxation in West Virginia. It also examines the implications
of legislation adopted in 1990 that mandates that West Virginia's farmland
be reappraised at its use value and that all other property, except for
managed timberland, be reappraised at its fair market value. Since use
value guidelines and procedures have not been implemented, a simulation
model is presented which estimates the impacts of these changes in West
Virginia's system of property taxation.
Property or Real Estate Taxes
Property taxes in the United States originated, and have continued
to be used primarily, as a local tax although they were used by the Federal
government in a few instances (Musgrave and Musgrave, 1984). The
property tax is an annual levy imposed by a governmental taxing authority
on real and/or personal property. Most are ad valorem taxes, that
is they are based on the monetary value of the property. They are
used primarily for financing county and city governments, schools, and
other local government entities.
Important concepts related to property taxes are market, appraised
and assessed values. Market value is the amount that a property would
sell for in an open market, i.e., in a voluntary sale between an informed
and unrelated buyer and seller. The appraised value is the price
placed on the property by the taxing authority and is supposed to represent
the property's fair market value. The assessed value is an administratively
determined value which is used to compute the taxes levied by multiplying
it by the appropriate tax rate. In West Virginia, the assessed value
is determined by the state legislature as a percentage of the appraised
value, currently 60 percent.
The property tax is of particular concern to farmers because they tend
to have large investments in the land, buildings and equipment necessary
for farming. In an environment of continually developing technologies,
farmers frequently are compelled to invest in additional land and equipment
to remain competitive. This generally means that they must pay higher
property taxes than other businesses and individuals. A small change
in tax rates or assessments can bring about relatively large changes in
a farm operator's costs and net income.
Use Value Assessment
In farming areas, especially those on the rural-urban fringe, there
are large differentials between the value of land as an input for the production
of agricultural commodities and it's value as an input for development
(Keene et al., 1976). These differentials have caused most states
to adopt legislation providing for the differential assessment of agricultural
land as a mechanism to enhance the economic viability of farming.
There are three general types of differential assessment laws: pure
preferential assessment, preferential assessment with deferred taxation,
and preferential assessment with restrictive contracts and agreements (Hady,
1970). West Virginia's law authorizes the use of pure preferential
assessments for farmland.
Pure preferential assessment approaches assess farmland on the basis
of its value as farmland rather than on its actual market value.
Typically, these assessments are determined by utilizing either a market
value approach or a capitalization approach. The market value approach
uses sales of comparable farmland properties where non-farm influences
are absent to determine the land's assessed value. However, since
few, if any, land sales of this type are typically identifiable, most states
use the capitalization of net income approach to determine use values for
farmland. In this approach, the use value is calculated by determining
the land's net income per acre and dividing it by a predetermined interest
rate. For example, if the net return per acre is $30 and the interest
rate is 10 percent, the per acre use value would be $300 (30/.1 = 300).
In West Virginia, farmland rental values are utilized to determine the
per acre returns for farmland.
One potential drawback of using the pure preferential assessment approach
is that land speculators can avoid property taxes by purchasing farmland
for purely speculative reasons, engage in very minimal farming operations
to give an appearance of using the land for agricultural purposes, and
then enroll in the use value assessment program to reduce their tax burden
while they wait for the land to appreciate in value. This drawback
is addressed by the preferential assessment with deferred taxation, or
roll back taxation, approach. It makes it possible for the government
to recapture some or all of the property taxes which program participants
were excused from paying under the use value assessment program by requiring
defaulters, those who sell their land for development, liable for back
taxes when their land is converted to the non-eligible uses (Keene, et
al., 1976).
The third type of differential assessment program includes restrictive
agreements, where land owners agree not to develop their land for a specified
period of time in exchange for lower property taxes. This approach
has considerable potential for maintaining land in agricultural use, at
least over the term of the contract. However, it may be less effective
for awarding tax benefits to farmers because the prospect of being locked
in and unable to develop their land when it is in their interest to do
so may deter some farmers from participating in the program.
Farm Property Taxes in West Virginia
Taxes on farm real estate in West Virginia are very low in comparison
to those for most other states. In 1988, West Virginia ranked 46th
of 49 states (excluding Alaska) in average property taxes per acre and
was tied at the bottom in terms of property taxes per $100 of farmland
value (Hexem et al., 1990). As indicated in Table 1, although all
of West Virginia's neighboring states use some form of use value assessment
to reduce the assessed value of farmland in their state below market values,
West Virginia's property tax rates on farmland, both in terms of property
taxes per acre and per $100 of value, are the lowest in the region.
Changes in West Virginia's average property tax rates both in terms
of property taxes per acre and per $100 of value since 1950 are shown in
Figure 1. Property taxes paid per acre of farmland have been increasing
due to somewhat higher property tax rates and to higher assessed values
per acre. However, assessments did not keep pace with rising farmland
values after the mid-1960s. Consequently, property taxes paid per
$100 value of farmland declined continuously for nearly twenty years until
leveling off in the mid-1980s.
Taxation of Farm Real Estate
As Table 2 indicates, the number of farms and the land area in farms
in West Virginia have declined steadily for the last five decades, except
for a short period between 1978 and 1983. This has been the general
trend throughout the country, but the
rate of decline is substantially higher in West Virginia than the average
for the nation. In West Virginia, the land area in farms
Table 1
Farm Real Estate Taxes in West Virginia
and Surrounding States, 1988
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
State Tax Rate Per Acre Tax Rate Per $100
Value
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Kentucky 2.36 0.26
Maryland 9.37 0.41
Ohio 9.95 0.83
Pennsylvania 14.57 0.92
Virginia 5.83 0.49
West Virginia 1.01 0.15
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
49 State Average 4.92 0.77
Source: Roger Hexem, et al. 1990. Agricultural Resources:
Agricultural Land Values and Markets. Washington, DC: Economic Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AR-18.
Figure 1 here
Table 2
Selected Farm Real Estate Statistics for West Virginia, 1950-87
?Value of Land and Buildings? Taxes
?????????????????????????????????????????
Number Land ?
? ?
? Per
of
in ? Per ? Per ? State
? $100 Per
Year Farms Farms ? Acre ? Farm
? Total ? Value Acr
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(Thous- Million -- Dollars --
Million --Dollars---
ands) Acres
Dollars
1950 87.5 8.6
59 5,800 507
0.38 0.22
1951 81.0 8.4
65 6,800 548
0.34 0.22
1952 75.8 8.3
69 7,600 573
0.31 0.21
1953 70.0 8.2
68 7,900 556
0.31 0.21
1954 65.0 8.0
67 8,300 539
0.32 0.21
1955 62.0 7.7
68 8,400 524
0.32 0.22
1956 59.0 7.4
69 8,700 513
0.32 0.22
1957 56.0 7.2
71 9,100 508
0.33 0.23
1958 53.0 7.0
73 9,700 511
0.33 0.24
1959 50.0 6.8
76 10,300 516
0.39 0.30
1960 47.0 6.7
75 10,700 504
0.41 0.31
1961 44.0 6.6
76 11,400 502
0.44 0.33
1962 42.0 6.5
80 12,400 522
0.45 0.36
1963 40.0 6.4
82 13,100 525
0.47 0.39
1964 38.0 6.2
87 14,200 538
0.46 0.40
1965 37.0 6.1
91 14,900 552
0.47 0.43
1966 35.0 5.7
97 15,800 553
0.48 0.47
1967 33.0 5.5
103 17,200 568
0.48 0.49
1968 31.0 5.3
114 19,600 607
0.45 0.51
1969 30.0 5.2
127 21,900 658
0.42 0.53
1970 29.0 5.1
136 23,900 694
0.41 0.56
1971 28.0 5.0
151 27,000 755
0.37 0.56
1972 27.0 4.9
173 31,400 848
0.33 0.57
1973 26.5 4.9
204 37,300 989
0.28 0.57
1974 26.5 4.9
262 48,000 1,271
0.23 0.60
1975 22.0 4.3
300 58,600 1,290
0.21 0.63
1976 21.0 4.2
393 78,600 1,650
0.18 0.71
1977 20.0 4.1
430 88,100 1,762
0.17 0.73
1978 19.6 4.0
459 93,700 1,837
0.16 0.73
1979 20.2 4.1
592 123,200 2,427
0.13 0.77
1980 22.0 4.2
669 127,700 2,810
0.11 0.74
1981 22.2 4.5
681 138,000 3,064
0.12 0.82
1982 22.3 4.3
723 139,400 3,109
0.11 0.80
1983 22.8 4.0
688 120,700 2,752
0.13 0.92
1984 22.0 3.8
698 120,702 2,654
0.14 0.92
1985 22.0 3.8
607 120,667 2,186
0.17 0.92
1986 20.6 3.6
616 104,096 2,281
0.17 0.94
1987 21.0 3.7
633 108,599 2,243
0.16 0.99
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Sources: Farm Real Estate - Historical Series Data 1950-1985.
1988. Washington, DC: ERS/USDA, Stat. Bul. No. 730; Agricultural Resources,
Agricultural Land Values and Markets. 1990. Washington, DC: ERS/USDA, AR-18.
has declined by more than 50 percent, from 8.6 million acres in 1950
to 3.7 million acres in 1987, while the decline for the nation as a whole
was only about 15 percent.
As Table 2 indicates, although the amount of land used for agricultural
purposes has declined significantly in West Virginia, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture reports that the estimated market value of farmland and
buildings in West Virginia continued to increase at a steady pace from
1950 to 1982, where it peaked at $732 per acre and $139,400 per farm.
Although there was a slight decline in per acre as well as per farm values
in the mid-1980s, average farmland values have reportedly begun to rise
again in 1988.
There are several reasons why West Virginia's farm property tax rates
are low compared to national averages. First, the regular levy rates
on Class 2 property, which include farm real estate, are limited by the
1932 Tax Limitation Amendment to one dollar per $100 of assessed value.
Second, actual tax rates per $100 of market value have been relatively
low because the appraised values of farmlands did not keep pace with the
increase in the real market values for farms. As a result, West Virginia
has had a de facto preferential assessment for farmland in most counties.
As Table 2 indicates, although West Virginia's nominal property tax
rate (regular levy plus bond levies, etc.) has remained around $1.30 per
$100 value for farm real estate, the effective tax rate per $100 of market
value has always been much lower than $1.30 and has declined significantly
since the mid-1970s.
At the same time that property taxes per $100 of value declined, property
taxes per acre increased, primarily because farmland values increased.
Nonetheless, West Virginia's property taxes per acre are still very low
when compared to other states. Also, property taxes per $100 of net
farm income in West Virginia also are relatively low when compared to other
states. Estimates based on 1987 Census of Agriculture data indicate that
property taxes on West Virginia's farmland were $88.89 per $100 of net
farm income compared to $175.90 for the nation.
The Property Reappraisal Program
The Tax Limitation and Homestead Exemption Amendment of 1982 required
that the Tax Commissioner reappraise all property for assessment purposes
and relate this appraisal to a specified base year. The base year
for the first Statewide reappraisal was to be 1983. It also required
the Tax Commissioner to conduct periodic reviews of property and a statewide
reappraisal of all property at ten year intervals after the first statewide
reappraisal was completed in 1985.
To mitigate the anticipated increase in taxes that would occur due
to reappraisal, the assessed value was defined as 60 percent of the property's
appraised value. Also, the increased tax due to the reappraisal values
was to be phased in, with equal annual increments, over a period of ten
years. The state contracted with private firms to carry out the reappraisal.
Although the reappraisal was conducted, it was not implemented. Consequently,
a Tax Study Commission was appointed by the 1989 state legislature and
it made a report to the 1990 legislature. The 1990 legislature then
adopted legislation (H. B. 4127 and S. B. 8) that requires the 55 county
assessors to revalue all real estate to reflect its market value over a
three year period. The assessed value is then to be set at 60 percent
of the market value.
Farm Use Valuation
The 1982 Amendment made a special provision to further mitigate expected
large tax increases that would have been experienced by farmland owners
consequent to reappraisal. Farm property was to be appraised at "...its
fair and reasonable value for farming regardless of what the value would
be if it would be used for some other purpose." Implementing legislation
decreed that assessments be based on the income the property would earn
if rented (W. Va. Code 11-1A-10a).
To qualify for use valuation, farmland owners must submit an application
to the county assessor each year. The assessor has the authority
to grant use valuation for applicants who qualify. If a land
owner does not agree with the assessor's decision, they can appeal to the
assessor for a change. If the assessor refuses to make the change,
they can then appeal to the State Tax Commissioner and, ultimately, to
the Circuit Court in the county where the land is located (W. Va. Code
11-3-24a).
The eligibility criteria for qualifying for use value assessment are
defined in 110-1a-10.6c of the valuation regulations issued by the State
Tax Commissioner. The requirements are that the property must be
classified as a farm and be agricultural land used for farm purposes at
least seasonally during the year immediately preceding the current tax
year. A farm is defined to include:
...land currently being used primarily for farming purposes, whether
by the owner or by a tenant and which has been so used, at least seasonally
during the year immediately preceding the then current tax year but shall
not include land used primarily in commercial forestry or the growing of
timber for commercial purposes" (Farmland Valuation Regulations, 110-1a-10.5f).
To be classified as a farm the property was to meet one of the two following
criteria:
1. The parcel should be 5 acres or more and used for the production
of farm products with an annual value of $1,000 or more.
2. For parcels less than 5 acres the land must used for the production of farm products for sale with annual proceeds that must be $500 or more.
Farm purposes is defined in the regulations as the "utilization of land
to produce for sale, consumption or use of any agricultural products including
farm wood lots and the parts of a farm which are lands lying fallow or
in timber or in wasteland."
Exemptions from the requirement of utilization of land in the preceding
year can be given for farms that were temporarily out of production and/or
temporarily operated at less than full value due to a change in management
or due to natural disaster. In the case of farms which produce biennial
harvests, the production of a harvest having the minimum stipulated value
in the year of the harvest is sufficient to qualify that farm for use valuation
in both years. Farms that are still in the development stage also
would be eligible for farm use valuation if they could reach the minimum
required production value within ten years from the first year for which
farm use valuation is applied for.
Participation in the use value assessment program is voluntary.
The relative leniency of eligibility requirements for participation, coupled
with the fact that there is no obligation on the part of land owners to
commit the land for agricultural use for a specific time period beyond
one year, and the absence of deferred taxation provisions potentially makes
the program attractive enough to expect a high participation rate of farmland
owners.
Analysis of Use Valuation Impacts
This section uses a simulation model to determine the likely impacts
of implementing use valuation of farmland in West Virginia as mandated
by the state legislature. The model is used to estimate the tax impacts
on farmland owners, revenue of local authorities and tax burden shifts
among different property classes.
The data used for the simulation are estimates of actual 1987 assessed
values for farm real estate; assessed values that would have resulted for
1987 after the statewide reappraisal using a market valuation approach;
and assessed values that would have resulted for 1987 after the statewide
reappraisal using the income capitalization approach. The model estimates
impacts at both the state and county levels.
It must be noted at the outset that the simulation model does not account
for two factors that affect the amount of property taxes paid by farmers:
the value of homesites on farms and homestead exemptions. A 1986
amendment to Senate Bill 10 of 1983 provided that the definition of farmland
"shall not include one acre surrounding the principal residence situated
on a farm which shall be valued as a homesite in the same manner as surrounding
homes and properties not situated on a farmland" (W.Va. Code 11-1A-3f).
The value of homesites on farmland could not be incorporated in the simulation
model due to the difficulty of estimating the number of homesites involved
and their valuations. Since 1990 legislation requires that farmland
is to be valued according to its use and farmland homesites are to be valued
according to their fair market value, the likely effect of this provision
is to increase the tax burden of farmland owners who also own residences
on their farms. This increased tax burden will vary among individual
farmers depending on the value of their homesites and whether they qualify
for the homestead exemption, currently set at $20,000 for those 65 years
of age and over. The simulation model makes no allowance for homestead
exemptions due to the difficulty of determining the number of farmers who
qualify for a homestead exemption.
1987 Assessed Values
The State Tax Commissioner's published reports do not distinguish between
assessed values of owner occupied residences and farm real estate because
both are categorized as Class 2 properties. Since the two values
are not shown separately, the assessed values of farm real estate were
estimated by using data on the number of acres in farming, 1982 assessment/sales
ratios for class 2 properties (Bowman 1983) and the average market value
per acre of farm real estate reported in the 1987 Census of Agriculture.
The values obtained by this process were then adjusted using the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's reported per acre tax rate for farmland in the state.
The results of these estimation procedures are shown in Appendix A.
As Appendix A indicates, the simulation model estimates that the actual
assessed value of West Virginia's farmland in 1987 was $238 million.
However, this figure may be somewhat inaccurate for two reasons.
First, the assessment/sales ratios used are for 1982, not 1987. Thus,
it can be argued that the resultant figure may be inaccurate if the ratios
had changed significantly over the 1982-1987 period. However, there is
no evidence to suggest that the ratios have changed significantly.
Second, it is generally recognized that assessment/sales ratios for residential
properties are higher than assessment/sales ratios for farmland.
Since the assessment/sales ratio data used in the simulation model reflect
the average ratio for all class 2 properties, the resultant figure may
overestimate the actual assessed value of farmland in West Virginia.
However, using the U.S. Department of Agriculture's tax rate should have
removed most of this upward bias.
Assessed Values Using the Market Valuation Approach
Consequent to Senate Bill Number 10 (1982), the assessed value of a
property was defined as 60 percent of the appraised value for each property
(W.Va Code 11-1A-3a). Further, it was specified that the "increased
valuation of property be allocated over a period of 10 years in equal amounts
annually" (W. Va. Code 11-1A-22). As a result, to estimate the assessed
value of West Virginia's farmland in 1987 using the market valuation approach
is a two step process. The first step is to take 60 percent of the
average market values for farmland as reported in the 1987 Census of Agriculture.
Then, two tenths of the difference between the property's current assessed
value and its value using the market value approach is added to the current
assessment value. This is done on the assumption that reappraisal
values were to be used from the year 1986 as envisaged in the Tax Limitation
and Homestead Amendment of 1982.
The simulation results using the market valuation approach are presented
in Appendix A. For step 1, the model suggests that West Virginia's
farmland would have been assessed at $1.3 billion in 1987 (60% of total
farm market value). Then, using step 2 which phases in the increase
in valuation over a ten year period, the actual assessment figure that
would have been used in 1987 using the market valuation approach was $662
million.
Assessed Values Using the Income Capitalization Approach
The Tax Commissioner currently determines the per acre use values of
farmland for all 55 counties in West Virginia by using the income capitalization
method and bases net farm income on farm rental values (W. Va. Code, 11-1A-10).
These use values are estimated on a per acre basis for three categories
of farmland (tillable cropland, pasture and woodland) and for five sub-divisions
(on the basis of soil quality and topography) in each category except for
woodland. Since land use data on such a detailed breakdown are not
available, the simulation model used the average values of all 5 sub-divisions
in the two categories of tillable cropland and pasture to represent the
value of an acre in each category. The use value of farm woodland
was determined by the State Tax Department to be $10 per acre across all
counties. County farmland data by land use from the 1987 Census of
Agriculture were regrouped to correspond to the three categories of farmland
for which use values were available from the Tax Department.
The total use value of land for each category of farmland in each of
West Virginia's county is indicated in Appendix B. The use values
were computed by multiplying the area of land in each category by the corresponding
per acre use values. The total value of all three categories was
used to estimate the total appraised use value of farmland in each county.
Because the state legislature requires that use values be "considered its
market value for appraisal purposes," 60 percent of the use value is used
to represent the assessed value for tax calculations (W. Va. Code 11-1A-10a).
As Appendix A indicates, the total assessed value using the use value
approach for all of West Virginia's farms would have been $340 million
($118.2 million for tillable cropland, $121.7 million for pasture land
and $100.2 million for woodland).
Tax Revenue
The average tax rate on West Virginia's Class 2 property in 1987 was
$1.36 per $100 of assessed value. This figure was used to estimate
the total amount of taxes that would have been paid by farmland owners
in each county under current assessment practices, using the market value
approach and using the
use value income capitalization approach. In addition, property
taxes per acre of farmland were estimated by dividing the total amount
of property taxes paid by the number of farmland acres.
As indicated in Appendix C, the simulation model suggests that under
the current assessment approach, West Virginia collected approximately
$3.24 million in property taxes on farmland in 1987. It also suggests
that West Virginia would have collected approximately $2 million in 1987
if it had used the use value income capitalization approach and $9 million
if it had used the market value approach.
Appendix C also lists county by county 1987 property tax revenue estimates
under current assessment procedures, the use value income capitalization
approach and the market value approach. The magnitude of the impacts vary
among the counties depending on the county's total tax base and the proportion
of the total tax base eligible for use valuation.
The simulation model estimated that under current assessment
practices the typical farmer in West Virginia paid property taxes at the
rate of $0.99 an acre in 1987. If West Virginia had used the use value
income capitalization assessment approach, farmers in West Virginia would
have paid only 60 cents an acre, or 40% less. If the market value
assessment approach had been used, the typical farmer would have paid $2.67
per acre, or 169% more.
Redistribution of the Tax Burden
Because the implementation of use valuation for West Virginia's farm
real estate will cause farm property taxes to fall, other classes of property
will have to have higher assessed values to make up the revenue difference.
Thus, use valuation for farmland will redistribute the property tax burden
away from farmland owners and toward the owners of other property.
Given the complicated nature of West Virginia's property tax structure
(four classes of properties, each with its own tax rates) and the statewide
reappraisal of all properties, it is difficult to assess the degree to
which tax burdens will be changed due to the implementation of use valuation
for farmland without using simplifying assumptions. If it is assumed that
the use valuation of farmland had been implemented in 1987 without a simultaneous
reappraisal of other classes of property and that a uniform tax rate of
$1.36 per $100 was applicable to all property classes, then to maintain
its property tax revenue West Virginia would have had to increase its average
property tax levy rate from $1.36 to $1.37 per $100 of assessed value,
an increase of only 0.7 percent. The shift in the property tax burden
toward other classes of property varies by county according to the amount
of farm real estate in each county relative to its total tax base, ranging
from 0.015 percent in Mingo County to 6.83 percent in Hardy County.
A Case Study of Monongalia County
A more detailed and precise analysis of the operation and impacts of
use value assessment was made through a case study of Monongalia County
where actual farmland use value assessment data was available from the
County Assessor's Office.
Although West Virginia has not implemented the farmland use valuation
program, county assessors are required to receive applications annually
for farm use valuation and to maintain appraised values for farmland at
use valuation. Data on farmland use valuation for 1988 were extracted
from the records maintained by the assessor in Monongalia County and are
shown in Table 3. They include the following data for revenue districts:
1. the number of acres qualified for farm use valuation in each
category of farmland,
2. the appraised value of qualified farmland (land value and building value) at use valuation,
3. the number of homesites (one acre per homesite) in farmland
area, and
Table 3
APPRAISAL VALUES OF FARMLAND, MONONGALIA COUNTY, 1988
Area and Appraisal Values of Farmland
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Revenue Till Past- Wood Waste Total
Land Building Total
District Soil ure land land Acres
Value Value Value
----------- Acres
----------- ------- Dollars -------
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
BATTELLE 358 2959 3840 157
7314 219480 42700 262180
CASS 589 2016 1583
60 4248 219600 45500
265100
CLAY 938 4392 4221
152 9703 387650 9100
396750
CLINTON 1039 3655 2340 152
7186 456000 125800 581800
GRANT 1082 2861 1678
78 5699 377700 45600
423300
MORGAN 257 1185 443
46 1931 125000 9600
134600
UNION 158 901 456
45 1560 84900
600 85500
Total 4421 17969 14561 690
37641 1870330 278900 2149230
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Source: Monongalia County Assessor's Office.
4. the value of land and buildings in homesites appraised at market value.
There are a number of features in the farm real estate data which can
have a bearing on the impact of use value assessments. First, the
total area of farmland for which applications for use value appraisal had
been made was only about 38,000 acres. According to the 1987 Agricultural
Census, there were 52,964 acres of land in farms in Monongalia County.
Thus, owners of only about 70 percent of the total farmland area applied
for use value appraisal. When the leniency of farm use value eligibility
criteria and the absence of punitive conditions for converting the land
to other uses is taken into consideration, one would expect a much higher
participation of farmland owners in the program.
As indicated in Table 3, the relatively more valuable tillable soil
land use category in Monongalia County represents only about 11 percent
of the total farmland enrolled in the use valuation program there.
Pasture and woodland account for approximately 85 percent of the total
farmland enrolled in the program.
As indicated in Table 4, farmland homesites, which are appraised at
market values, account for almost 85 percent of the total value of farmland
in Monongalia County.
Assessed Values
The actual assessed values of farmland parcels which qualified for
use valuation in 1988 were extracted from the land books maintained by
the county assessor. Estimates of the assessed values
Table 4
Appraisal Values of Homesites and Farmland,
Monongalia County, 1988
Appraisal Values of Homesites
?????????????????????????????????????????????
Revenue
No. Home Land Buildings Total
Average
District
Sites -----Value in Dollars----- Per Site
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
BATTELLE
54 253020 1429500 1682520
31158
CASS
38 279000 924300 1203300
31666
CLAY
93 425150 1912400 2337550
25135
CLINTON
77 548500 2090900 2639400
34278
GRANT
63 364500 1449700 1814200
28797
MORGAN
34 318300 997500 1315800
38700
UNION
31 296000 1015600 1311600
42309
Total
390 2484470 9819900 12304370
31550
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Appraisal Values of
Homesites and Farmland
-----------------------------------
Total Total Total
Combined
Revenue
Area Land Buildings
Total
District
Acres -----Value in Dollars-----
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
BATTELLE
7368 472500 1472200 1944700
CASS
4286 498600 969800 1468400
CLAY
9796 812800 1921500 2734300
CLINTON
7263 1004500 2216700 3221200
GRANT
5762 742200 1495300 2237500
MORGAN
1965 443300 1007100 1450400
UNION
1591 380900 1016200 1397100
Total
38031 4354800 10098800 14453600
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Source: Monongalia County Assessor's Office.
that would have resulted after reappraisal were made using the
use value income capitalization approach and the market approach.
The market values of farmland were estimated by multiplying the number
of farmland acres by the average per acre market value of land and buildings
in Monongalia County. The Census of Agriculture set this figure at
$914 for 1987. Sixty percent of this market value was then taken
as the estimated assessed value. To meet the requirement of phasing in
the increased assessed value over a period of ten years and assuming the
program was to be started in 1985, the taxable assessment at market valuation
was calculated by adding 3/10 of the increased assessed value to the actual
current assessment (Table 5).
In computing the assessed value using the use value income capitalization
approach, homesite values were taken separately since they were appraised
using the market valuation approach.
The assessed values of farmland and homesites were then estimated by
taking sixty percent of appraised values of farmland and homesites, respectively.
The total assessed values of both farmland and homesites are shown separately
in Table 5. Since the total assessed value of the farmland and homesite
exceeds the current assessed value, the taxable assessed value was computed
by phasing in the increase over a ten year period from 1985.
Taxes
The levy rate on Class 2 property in Monongalia County for 1988 was
$1.24 per $100 of value. As indicated on Table 6, this figure was
multiplied by the assessed values to determine the amount of property taxes
paid per $100 of assessed value. The amount of property taxes
TABLE 5
FARMLAND ASSESSED VALUES AND TAXES,
MONONGALIA COUNTY, 1988
After Reappraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
Esti- All Farm All Farm Farm
Homesite Total Taxable
Actual
mated Assd at Taxable Assd
Assd at Ass Val Ass Val
Revenue Current Market Market at
Mrkt at Use Market Farm +
Farm +
District Ass Val Value Value
Value Value Value
Homesite Homesite
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
------------------------------
(Dollars) ------------------------------
BATTELLE 825276 6734352 4040611 1789877
157308 1009512 1166820 927739
CASS 550679 3917404 2350442
1090608 159060 721980 881040
649787
CLAY 665873 8953544 5372126
2077749 238050 1402530 1640580
958285
CLINTON 1035448 6638382 3983029 1919722
349080 1583640 1932720 1304630
GRANT 555971 5266468 3159881
1337144 253980 1088520 1342500
791930
MORGAN 488062 1796010 1077606
664925 80760 789480 870240
602715
UNION 344190 1454174 872504
502684 51300 786960 838260
492411
COUNTY 4465499 34760334 20856200 9382709
1289538 7382622 8672160 5727497
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Source: Author's Computations.
Table 6
Taxes Per $100 of Assessed Value and Per Acre,
Monongalia County, 1988
---------- Taxes at $1.24 per $100 ----------
------------------------------------------------
At Current Assessed Farm Homesite Farm
&
Revenue
Assessed At Market at Use At Market Homesite
District
Value Value
Value Value Combined
----------------------(Dollars)----- ----------
BATTELLE
10233 22194 1951
12518 11504
CASS
6828 13524 1972
8953 8057
CLAY
8257 25764 2952
17391 11883
CLINTON
12840 23805 4329
19637 16177
GRANT
6894 16581 3149
13498 9820
MORGAN
6052 8245 1001
9790 7474
UNION
4268 6233 636
9758 6106
COUNTY
55372 116346 15990
91545 71021
Tax Per Acre
--------------------------------------
--After Reappraisal----
Current At Farm only
Farm +
Revenue
Actual Mrkt at Use
Home
District
Tax Value Value
Site
------------(Dollars)------------
BATTELLE
1.39 3.01 0.27
1.56
CASS
1.59 3.16 0.46
1.88
CLAY
0.84 2.63 0.30
1.21
CLINTON
1.77 3.28 0.60
2.23
GRANT
1.20 2.88 0.55
1.70
MORGAN
3.08 4.20 0.52
3.80
UNION
2.68 3.92 0.41
3.84
COUNTY
1.46 3.06 0.42
1.87
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Source: Author's Computations.
paid on a per acre basis is also indicated on Table 6 under four
different sets of assumptions:
1. Actual per acre tax rate paid by farmland owners in the year, which
included farmland as well as homesites,
2. The per acre tax rate farmland owners would have paid on both farmland and homesite had the reappraisal been done at market valuation,
3. The per acre tax rate farmers would pay on farmland alone, (not including homesite) had the reappraisal been done at use valuation, and
4. The per acre tax rate farmland owners would pay on both farmland and homesite had the reappraisal been done with farmland appraised at use valuation and homesite appraised at market valuation.
Effect on Farmland Owners
According to the records of the Monongalia County Assessor, the 38,000
acres of farmland which qualified for farm use valuation included 390 homesites.
The total assessed value of farmland that qualified for use valuation in
the year was around $4.46 million and the tax on that land was about $55,300,
or
approximately $1.46 per acre (Table 6). The average varied among
revenue districts, ranging from $0.84 per acre in the Clay District to
$3.08 per acre in the Morgan District.
If Monongalia County's farmland had been appraised at use valuation
in 1988, the total assessed value would have been approximately $1.28 million
and the average per acre tax would have been $0.42. However, this
figure can not be compared with the actual per acre tax since it does not
include the value of farmland homesites. The average per acre tax
rate among revenue districts ranged from $0.29 in Battelle District to
$0.60 in the Clinton District.
A realistic assessment of the impact of use value assessment of farmland
on farmland owners can be made only by comparing the current per acre tax
with the per acre tax that would be paid on the total land area (both farmland
and homesite) after use valuation. After reappraisal, the average
property tax rate on farm real estate (when both farmland and homesite
are taken together) for Monongalia County is estimated to be around $1.87
per acre. This is about 28 percent higher than the per acre tax actually
paid on farmland, which was $1.46. The rates varied among the revenue
districts, ranging from $1.21 in the Clay District to $3.84 per acre in
the Union District.
Had the reappraisal been implemented without use valuation of farmland,
the typical farmer in Monongalia County would have had to pay $3.06 per
acre compared to the $1.46 that actually was paid. This represents
more than a 100 percent increase in the per acre tax. On the other
hand, as a result of use valuation of farmland, a farmer's per acre tax
(exclusive of the homesite) would have been reduced to $0.42, a reduction
of about 70 percent from the current per acre tax.
Revenue Implications
According to published State Tax Department data, in 1988 Monongalia
County levied $13.9 million in taxes on a total assessed value of $696.1
million. Of this, the gross assessed valuation on Class 2 property
was $276 million. This was comprised of an assessed value of $270
million of real estate and $6 million of personal property. In the
published statistics by the State Tax Department, the two components of
the assessed value of real estate, i.e. farmland and owner occupied residences
are not shown separately. It was found that the total current assessed
value of about 70 percent of all the farmland (including homesites) for
which use value appraisal has been applied for was $4.46 million.
The total tax on this farmland at the levy rate of $1.24 per $100 would
have been about $55,300.
If the reappraisal had been implemented without use valuation the tax
revenue from the total farmland would have been over $116,000, an increase
of nearly 104 percent over the actual tax revenue of about $55,300.
The implementation of the use valuation program for farm real estate would
have reduced the increase in revenue due to reappraisal and would have
yielded a tax revenue amounting to about $71,000, an increase of about
28 percent over the actual revenue in 1988.
Conclusions
The farm use valuation method as proposed for West Virginia does not
contain any of the restrictive measures thought to make use value assessment
more effective in preserving farmland. Thus, the effect of the 1990
legislation is to subsidize farmland owners without assuring a greater
level of farmland preservation in the long run. Penalties for converting
farmland that had received preferential tax treatment could be more effective
in preserving farming operations.
Both the simulation for West Virginia and the case study of Monongalia
County indicate that the implementation of use valuation could result in
substantial decreases in taxes for farmland owners depending upon the situation
and certain assumptions. The average reduction is more than two-thirds
over current tax levels in both the state as well as in Monongalia County.
But the case study also has shown that the requirement of appraising homesites
situated on farmland at market values could result in tax increases over
present levels and have different impacts between farmland owners who own
residences on their farms and those who do not.
The simulation model also suggests that local government revenue would
decrease under the use value income capitalization assessment approach.
Although property tax revenue collected from farmers would be reduced by
as much as 70 percent, this amounts to a reduction in total property tax
revenue of only about 1 percent. Moreover, the assessment of homesites
on farms at market values could more than compensate for the reductions
in taxes due to use value assessment of farmland.
The various impacts of implementing use valuation assessments (tax
burdens held by farmland owners, shifts in tax burdens among property classes,
and local government revenue collections) will vary among the counties
depending on the value of the farmlands in each county relative to its
tax base. Implementation of use value assessment in West Virginia
will achieve the goal of reducing the tax burdens of farmland owners, if
assessed values for real estate are based on 60 percent of fair market
values as they are required to be under the legislation passed in 1990
(H.B. 4127 and S.B. 8). The benefits to farmers would be accompanied
by a reduction of revenue to local authorities and a shift of relative
tax burdens to other property owners. However, because the 1990 legislation
requires the reappraisal of all real estate total property tax collections
will rise, although the total amount of the increase that can occur each
year is limited to one percent unless public hearings are held to justify
larger increases.
References
Aiken, J. David. 1989. State Farmland: Preferential Assessment Statutes. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics, RB 310.
Armentrout, W. W. and Tyler F. Haygood. 1953. Property Tax Assessment in West Virginia. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bul. 358.
Bowman, John H. 1983. Property Tax Equity and Efficiency; Draft Report to the West Virginia Tax Study Commission on Research Issue No.4. Charleston, WV.
Colyer, Dale. 1983. Tax Structure in West Virginia with Emphasis on Property Taxes. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, Division of Resource Management.
__________. 1977. Taxation: A Land Use Issue in West Virginia. Summary Report. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Resource Management Series. RM No. 65.
Colyer, Dale, and Mary Templeton. 1977. Land Transfers, Values and Assessment for West Virginia 1968-69. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 651.
Hexem, Roger, et al. 1990. Agricultural Resources: Agricultural Land Values and Markets. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, AR-18.
Ferrise, Anthony, and Dale Colyer. 1984. Real Property: Farmland Rental Values in West Virginia and Property Tax Implications. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, Cooperative Extension Service, RD Publication No. 721.
__________. 1983. Real Property: Summary of Senate Bill No. 10,
The Property Tax Reappraisal Program in West Virginia. Morgantown,
WV: West Virginia University, Cooperative Extension Service, RD Publication
No. 720.
Hady, Thomas. 1970. "Differential Assessment of Farmland on the Rural Urban Fringe." American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol 52, pp. 25-32.
Keene, John C., et.al. 1976. Untaxing Open Space: An Evaluation
of the Effectiveness of Differential Assessment of Farms and Open
Space. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute.
Levy, Alan J. and Dale Colyer. 1975. An Analysis of the Ratios of Assessment to Sales Values for Real Estate in West Virginia. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bul. 640.
Musgrave, Richard A., and Peggy B. Musgrave. 1984. Public Finance in Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.
State Tax Department. 1985. Legislative Rules: Approved Farmland and Structures Situated thereon Valuation Regulations. Charleston, WV: State Tax Department, Title 110 Series 1a.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1989. 1987
Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Appendix A
Farm Assessment and Market Values, West Virginia, 1987
Asst/ Per Acre Total Current
Est Use Est Assd Taxable
Sales Farm Mkt Farm Mkt Assd Val Value of
at Mkt Ass at
Ratios Value Value
Farmland Farmland Value Mkt Val
County 1982
1987 1987
1987 1987 1987
1987
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(%) ------------------------ (Dollars)
-------------------
BARBOUR 21.3
538 44747612 4831431 3113123
26848567 12994707
BERKELEY 25.3
1498 120221990 15401879 6648403 72133194
38759570
BOONE 15.8
1265 3333275 267375
111750 1999965 821319
BRAXTON 14.3
407 28424066 2054059 2250950
17054440 6662601
BROOKE 12.7
704 9051328 586128
452317 5430797 2005774
CABELL 11.9
877 33241808 2006682 1600052
19945085 7153637
CALHOUN 26.6
446 15480660 2092809 1164432
9288396 5151964
CLAY 17.7
470 7524230 670965
435810 4514538 1968339
DODDRIDGE 16.3
548 31671660 2592276 1686832
19002996 7930584
FAYETTE 21.5
551 11675139 1277572 880196
7005083 3409141
GILMER 22.7
423 24423174 2801991 1748701
14653904 7366029
GRANT 19.4
617 73302685 7250599 5904271
43981611 20172899
GREENBRIER 25.2
711 136174275 17462574 9466105 81704565
43793647
HAMPSHIRE 16.2
780 107277300 8798195 6854522
64366380 26776414
HANCOCK 15.5
1065 8926830 702609
302209 5356098 2178147
HARDY 21.0
764 112801544 11941956 7295335 67680926
32486845
HARRISON 24.1
665 59495555 7236301 3321820
35697333 18610210
JACKSON 25.3
555 57667830 7410943 4287478
34600698 18592108
JEFFERSON 26.7
1684 139905036 18937125 7780750 83943022
46672320
KANAWHA 17.3
879 18783351 1649813 884155
11270011 4853618
LEWIS 24.1
496 37415264 4603693 2648322
22449158 11703495
LINCOLN 22.4
779 24728576 2800941 1042540
14837146 7398790
LOGAN 9.9
1053 4949100 248241
167052 2969460 985861
McDOWELL 41.6
1131 1035996 218224
38498 621598 469099
MARION 19.1
651 27047748 2627300 1298561
16228649 7378626
MARSHALL 13.4
577 40891990 2761846 3615499
24535194 9290660
MASON 17.7
749 92595874 8272034 5706019
55557524 24223081
MERCER 17.4
714 35238042 3120851 1853100
21142825 9133700
MINERAL 26.3
655 50004665 6680012 3640502
30002799 16521541
MINGO 12.8
1077 908988 58956
30244 545393 202159
MONONGALIA 17.9
914 48409096 4400685 2043391
29045458 12741274
MONROE 16.9
578 83094436 7082392 12115994
49856662 21205700
MORGAN 21.5
1271 27698903 3028586 877141
16619342 8088080
NICHOLAS 24.1
768 25969152 3182494 1408817
15581491 8123151
OHIO 16.4
966 21527310 1786077 826285
12916386 5407660
PENDLETON 15.0
545 100456035 7589771 8668962
60273621 24109448
PLEASANTS 16.6
627 9853932 832024
535637 5912359 2491074
POCAHONTAS 25.9
606 71835240 9413471 4339385
43101144 23504491
PRESTON 25.0
614 82981486 10533672 4861162
49788892 26554076
PUTNAM 19.4
741 41225535 4049901 2429428
24735321 11345267
RALEIGH 32.7
716 20813404 3441257 1169612
12488042 7942395
RANDOLPH 17.0
535 59789460 5176912 3715699
35873676 15306102
RITCHIE 22.7
456 34887648 4050424 2482964
20932589 10522115
ROANE 22.8
448 40139456 4611610 2860008
24083674 12138171
SUMMERS 32.6
568 34193032 5665788 2040616
20515819 13020707
TAYLOR 28.4
586 24510036 3536757 1550822
14706022 8509884
TUCKER 16.9
706 22678838 1936828 1070446
13607303 5787639
TYLER 17.1
421 20532170 1793015 1844834
12319302 5272661
UPSHUR 18.0
567 34080102 3093691 2104625
20448061 8997147
WAYNE 18.4
870 23253360 2181476 1114504
13952016 6213298
WEBSTER 33.2
849 9951978 1672109 308256
5971187 3837483
WETZEL 29.3
385 13943545 2077151 928244
8366127 4941592
WIRT 17.1
486 17800722 1535102 1298874
10680433 4571225
WOOD 17.5
797 56452307 4999835 2963077
33871384 14677600
WYOMING 11.3
928 5272896 304990
226105 3163738 1109417
STATE
682 2290295670 238250634 150014438 1374177402 662084539
APPENDIX B
FARM LAND USES AND USE VALUES, WEST VIRGINIA 1987
Acre Per Use Values
Lands Land Use 1987
Farm Use of Farmland
in Farms
----------------------- ------------ ---------------------------
County 1987 Tillable
Pasture Woodland Til Pas Wood Tillable Pasture Woodland
---------- (Acres) ------------- ----------- (Dollars) ------------------
BARBOUR 83174
15275 48888 19011 148 56
10 2260700 2737728 190110
BERKELEY 80255 38229
26507 15519 222 92 10 8486838
2438644 155190
BOONE 2635
417 1324 894 222
64 10 92574 84736
8940
BRAXTON 69838
9998 36380 23460 148 56
10 1479704 2037280 234600
BROOKE 12857
4146 5060 3651 112
50 10 464352 253000
36510
CABELL 37904
6431 17832 13641 216 64
10 1389096 1141248 136410
CALHOUN 34710
7510 13931 13269 148 50
10 1111480 696550 132690
CLAY 16009
1840 6790 7379 148
56 10 272320 380240
73790
DODDRIDGE 57795 7702
29264 20829 148 50 10 1139896
1463200 208290
FAYETTE 21189
4828 10368 5993 154 64
10 743512 663552
59930
GILMER 57738
6737 30596 20405 148 56
10 997076 1713376 204050
GRANT 118805
14671 70092 34042 208 92
10 3051568 6448464 340420
GREENBRIER 191525 29706 115160
46659 182 86 10 5406492 9903760
466590
HAMPSHIRE 137535 27470
56217 53848 208 92 10 5713760
5171964 538480
HANCOCK 8382
3081 2640 2661 112
50 10 345072 132000
26610
HARDY 147646
23176 74312 50158 208 92
10 4820608 6836704 501580
HARRISON 89467 17792
54660 17015 148 50 10 2633216
2733000 170150
JACKSON 103906 20559
58097 25250 194 50 10 3988446
2904850 252500
JEFFERSON 83079 47018
26455 9606 222 92 10 10437996
2433860 96060
KANAWHA 21369
3125 11063 7181 222 64
10 693750 708032
71810
LEWIS 75434
11114 46213 18107 148 56
10 1644872 2587928 181070
LINCOLN 31744
3181 16520 12043 176 64
10 559856 1057280 120430
LOGAN 4700
399 3059 1242 176
64 10 70224 195776
12420
McDOWELL* 916
318 278 320
148 50 10 47064
13900 3200
MARION 41548
8554 21907 11087 112 50
10 958048 1095350 110870
MARSHALL 70870 14039
33990 22841 258 64 10 3622062
2175360 228410
MASON 123626
36537 55786 31303 154 64
10 5626698 3570304 313030
MERCER 49353
8442 25543 15368 154 64
10 1300068 1634752 153680
MINERAL 76343
13737 31514 31092 208 92
10 2857296 2899288 310920
MINGO* 844
137 356 351
176 64 10 24112
22784 3510
MONONGALIA 52964 12634
28313 12017 148 50 10 1869832
1415650 120170
MONROE 143762
28588 80616 34558 260 154 10
7432880 12414864 345580
MORGAN 21793
6468 5815 9510 134
86 10 866712 500090
95100
NICHOLAS 33814
7496 13344 12974 182 64
10 1364272 854016 129740
OHIO 22285
7466 9819 5000 112
50 10 836192 490950
50000
PENDLETON 184323 20131
105111 59081 208 92 10 4187248
9670212 590810
PLEASANTS 15716 2497
6903 6316 194 50 10
484418 345150 63160
POCAHONTAS 118540 15378
62998 40164 182 64 10 2798796
4031872 401640
PRESTON 135149 32607
56267 46275 148 50 10 4825836
2813350 462750
PUTNAM 55635
8913 27377 19345 236 64
10 2103468 1752128 193450
RALEIGH 29069
5805 15236 8028 154 64
10 893970 975104
80280
RANDOLPH 111756 15960
62452 33344 148 56 10 2362080
3497312 333440
RITCHIE 76508
12653 40677 23178 148 50
10 1872644 2033850 231780
ROANE 89597
12375 54074 23148 148 50
10 1831500 2703700 231480
SUMMERS 60199
8799 28370 23030 154 64
10 1355046 1815680 230300
TAYLOR 41826
8498 24843 8485 148 50
10 1257704 1242150 84850
TUCKER 32123
5271 15988 10864 148 56
10 780108 895328 108640
TYLER 48770
8487 23938 16345 202 50
10 1714374 1196900 163450
UPSHUR 60106
10020 33128 16958 148 56
10 1482960 1855168 169580
WAYNE 26728
3593 15742 7393 216 64
10 776088 1007488 73930
WEBSTER 11722
1433 3522 6767 154
64 10 220682 225408
67670
WETZEL 36217
4592 17913 13712 112 50
10 514304 895650 137120
WIRT 36627
6920 21089 8618 148 50
10 1024160 1054450 86180
WOOD 70831
14886 34301 21644 202 50
10 3006972 1715050 216440
WYOMING 5682
752 3921 1009 154
64 10 115808 250944
10090
STATE 3372938 648391
1722559 1001988
118216810 121787374 10019880
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES UNDER DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT APPROACHES
WEST VIRGINIA, 1987
Taxes at $1.36/per $100
Tax Per Acre
????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????
Current Assd wth Assd at Current Assd wth Assd
at
County Assessed Use Val Mkt Val
Assessed Use Val Mkt Val
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-------------------- (Dollars) ------------------
BARBOUR 65707
42338 176728 0.79
0.51 2.12
BERKELEY 209466 90418
527130 2.61 1.13
6.57
BOONE 3636
1520 11170 1.38
0.58 4.24
BRAXTON 27935
30613 90611 0.40
0.44 1.30
BROOKE 7971
6152 27279 0.62
0.48 2.12
CABELL 27291
21761 97289 0.72
0.57 2.57
CALHOUN 28462
15836 70067 0.82
0.46 2.02
CLAY 9125
5927 26769 0.57
0.37 1.67
DODDRIDGE 35255 22941
107856 0.61 0.40
1.87
FAYETTE 17375
11971 46364 0.82
0.56 2.19
GILMER 38107
23782 100178 0.66
0.41 1.74
GRANT 98608
80298 274351 0.83
0.68 2.31
GREENBRIER 237491 128739 595594
1.24 0.67 3.11
HAMPSHIRE 119655 93222
364159 0.87 0.68
2.65
HANCOCK 9555
4110 29623 1.14
0.49 3.53
HARDY 162411
99217 441821 1.10
0.67 2.99
HARRISON 98414 45177
253099 1.10 0.50
2.83
JACKSON 100789 58310
252853 0.97 0.56
2.43
JEFFERSON 257545 105818 634744
3.10 1.27 7.64
KANAWHA 22437
12025 66009 1.05
0.56 3.09
LEWIS 62610
36017 159168 0.83
0.48 2.11
LINCOLN 38093
14179 100624 1.20
0.45 3.17
LOGAN 3384
2272 13408 0.72
0.48 2.85
McDOWELL 2968
524 6380 3.24
0.57 6.96
MARION 35731
17660 100349 0.86
0.43 2.42
MARSHALL 37561 49171
126353 0.53 0.69
1.78
MASON 112500
77602 329434 0.91
0.63 2.66
MERCER 42444
25202 124218 0.86
0.51 2.52
MINERAL 90848
49511 224693 1.19
0.65 2.94
MINGO 802
411 2749 0.95
0.49 3.26
MONONGALIA 59849 27790
173281 1.13 0.52
3.27
MONROE 96324
164778 288398 0.67
1.15 2.01
MORGAN 41189
11929 109998 1.89
0.55 5.05
NICHOLAS 43282 19160
110475 1.28 0.57
3.27
OHIO 24291
11237 73544 1.09
0.50 3.30
PENDLETON 103221 117898 327888
0.56 0.64 1.78
PLEASANTS 11316 7285
33879 0.72 0.46
2.16
POCAHONTAS 128023 59016 319661
1.08 0.50 2.70
PRESTON 143258 66112
361135 1.06 0.49
2.67
PUTNAM 55079
33040 154296 0.99
0.59 2.77
RALEIGH 46801
15907 108017 1.61
0.55 3.72
RANDOLPH 70406 50534
208163 0.63 0.45
1.86
RITCHIE 55086
33768 143101 0.72
0.44 1.87
ROANE 62718
38896 165079 0.70
0.43 1.84
SUMMERS 77055
27752 177082 1.28
0.46 2.94
TAYLOR 48100
21091 115734 1.15
0.50 2.77
TUCKER 26341
14558 78712 0.82
0.45 2.45
TYLER 24385
25090 71708 0.50
0.51 1.47
UPSHUR 42074
28623 122361 0.70
0.48 2.04
WAYNE 29668
15157 84501 1.11
0.57 3.16
WEBSTER 22740
4192 52190 1.94
0.36 4.45
WETZEL 28249
12624 67206 0.78
0.35 1.86
WIRT 20877
17665 62169 0.57
0.48 1.70
WOOD 67998
40298 199615 0.96
0.57 2.82
WYOMING 4148
3075 15088 0.73
0.54 2.66
STATE 3240209 2040196
9004350 0.99 0.60
2.67