SLEAC Approved 9/2/208 Table. Comparision of TY209 Values to TY208 Values TY208 Use Values TY209 Use Values Type III Land w/out Risk Type III Land w/out Risk Counties: Accomack 2,590 2,840 250 0 Albemarle 30 30 0 0 Alleghany 0 30 20 200 Amelia 820 830 0 Amherst 30 40 0 33 Appomattox 30 70 40 3 Augusta 620 650 30 5 Bath 40 50 0 25 Bedford 90 80-0 - Bland 390 420 30 8 Botetourt 60 60 0 0 Campbell 60 70 0 6 Caroline,820,950 30 7 Carroll 270 340 70 26 Chesterfield <Amelia 750 760 0 Clarke 90 20 20 Culpeper 70 70 0 0 Cumberland 290 300 0 3 Dinwiddie, Coastal <Sussex,20,330 20 9 Dinwiddie, Piedmont <Brunswick,340,350 0 Essex 2,60 2,280 20 6 Fairfax <Loudoun 340 350 0 3 Fauquier 530 540 0 2 Floyd 240 260 20 8 Fluvanna 250 250 0 0 Franklin 500 470-30 -6 Frederick 30 50 20 5 Giles 280 30 30 Gloucester,990 2,060 70 4 Goochland 800 720-80 -0 Greene 0 0 0 0 Greensville,30,680 370 28 Halifax 270 340 70 26 Hanover, Coastal <King William,60,70 00 6 Hanover, Piedmont <Louisa,470,470 0 0 Henrico, Coastal <King William 2,70 2,20-50 -2 Henrico, Piedmont <Louisa,970,800-70 -9 Henry 0 0 0 0 Isle Of Wight,970 2,440 470 24 James City <New Kent 770,050 280 36 King George 660 720 60 9 King William 2,330 2,220-0 -5 Lancaster 2,050 2,270 220 Loudoun 340 340 0 0 Louisa 370 390 20 5 Madison 750 760 0 Middlesex 2,040 2,90 50 7 Montgomery 80 90 0 6 Nelson 00 30 30 30 New Kent,430,650 220 5 Northampton 2,440 2,850 40 7 Northumberland 2,440 2,620 80 7 Nottoway 540 540 0 0 Orange 630 650 20 3
SLEAC Approved 9/2/208 Table. Comparision of TY208 Values to TY207 Values TY208 Use Values TY209 Use Values cont. Type III Land w/out Risk Type III Land w/out Risk Page 320 290-30 -9 Pittsylvania 500 540 40 8 Powhatan 480 450-30 -6 Prince Edward 20 30 0 8 Prince George,370,660 290 2 Prince William 380 440 60 6 Pulaski 70 90 20 2 Rappahannock 0 0-0 -00 Richmond 2,60 2,280 20 6 Roanoke 0 20 0 00 Rockbridge 230 270 40 7 Rockingham,220,240 20 2 Russell 0 30 20 8 Shenandoah 600 630 30 5 Smyth 380 450 70 8 Southampton,900 2,30 40 22 Spotsylvania 580 60 30 5 Stafford 440 490 50 Tazewell 270 320 50 9 Warren 40 40 0 0 Washington 430 450 20 5 Westmoreland 2,070 2,500 430 2 Wise 60 60 0 0 Wythe 280 320 40 4 York <New Kent 770,060 290 38 Cities: Buena Vista <Rockbridge 20 250 40 9 Chesapeake 2,670 2,600-70 -3 Danville <Pittsylvania 490 530 40 8 Franklin City <Isle of Wight,900 2,340 440 23 Fredericksburg <Spotsylvania 580 620 40 7 Hampton <New Kent 730 990 260 36 Harrisonburg <Rockingham,20,220 0 Lynchburg <Bedford 80 70-0 -3 Newport News <New Kent 730 990 260 36 Petersburg <Prince George,270,50 240 9 Radford <Pulaski 60 80 20 3 Roanoke City <Roanoke 0 20 0 00 Staunton <Augusta 580 600 20 3 Suffolk,350,740 390 29 Virginia Beach 2,360 2,390 30 Waynesboro <Augusta 600 630 30 5 Winchester <Frederick 20 40 20 7 AVERAGES 799 873 74 For TY205 James City uses New Kent as a transfer-in county because of 202 Ag Census non-disclosure requirements. Also, York, Hampton City, and Newport News City now use New Kent as their transfer-in county. <: Transfer-in county; for explanation see end of document. 2
SLEAC Approved 9/2/208 TY209 Data Comparison Summary Increase (Top Ones) Increase (Top Ones) Alleghany 200 Isle Of Wight 470 2 Roanoke 00 Franklin City <Isle of Wight 440 3 Roanoke City <Roanoke 00 Westmoreland 430 4 York <New Kent 38 Northampton 40 5 James City <New Kent 36 Southampton 40 6 Hampton <New Kent 36 Suffolk 390 7 Newport News <New Kent 36 Greensville 370 8 Amherst 33 Prince George 290 9 Appomattox 3 York <New Kent 290 0 Nelson 30 James City <New Kent 280 Hampton <New Kent 260 2 Newport News <New Kent 260 3 Accomack 250 4 Petersburg <Prince George 240 5 Lancaster 220 6 New Kent 220 7 Dinwiddie, Coastal <Sussex 20 Decrease Decrease Rappahannock -00 Henrico, Piedmont <Louisa -70 2 Lynchburg <Bedford -3 King William -0 3 Bedford - Goochland -80 4 Goochland -0 Chesapeake -70 5 Page -9 Henrico, Coastal <King William -50 6 Henrico, Piedmont <Louisa -9 Page -30 7 Powhatan -6 Powhatan -30 8 Franklin -6 Franklin -30 9 King William -5 Rappahannock -0 0 Chesapeake -3 Lynchburg <Bedford -0 Henrico, Coastal <King Willia -2 Bedford -0 Overall Average change was 74 increase per acre 70 of localities had changes of 50 or less per acre 24 of localities had changes of 00 or more per acre of localities had no change Albemarle Botetourt Culpeper Fluvanna Greene Hanover, Piedmont <Louisa Henry Loudoun Nottoway Warren Wise Wise 3
Table 2. Overview: TY209 Use-Value Assessment Program Values Type III w/out risk Land Estimate Number of counties/cities that increased or decreased Average Decrease -55 Average Increase 04 74 No change 0 Average overall change in value from 208 to 209 74 SLEAC Approved 9/2/208 General Comments High grain prices over the last 5-6 years have continued to influence counties that have enough crop acreage of corn, wheat, barley, and/or soybeans in their composite farm. For tax year 20, the format of the Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program (DCP) payments received from USDA-FSA changed. In that year, DCP payments were only jurisdiction-specific. In previous years and for tax years 202 through 206, DCP payments were crop specific. For the last 2-years more federal payments were made to counties without specific crop tags. When this occurs, payments are dispersed across a counties composite farm acre weighting. Selected Counties/Cities: Explanatory Notes (Increases and Decreases): Increases (Type III w/out risk): Generally, increases were due to increased profits in grains. All Counties with Increases of 00 or more (Type III w/out risk) Increase Crops listed are in order of contribution Accomack 0 250 Increased profits in potatoes. Caroline 7 30 Dinwiddie, Coastal <Sussex 9 20 Increased profits in soybeans, tobacco, & peanuts. Essex 6 20 Franklin City <Isle of Wight 23 440 Increased profits in peanuts, soybeans, cotton, & corn. Greensville 28 370 Increased profits in peanuts, soybeans, tobacco & cotton. Hampton <New Kent 36 260 Increased profits in soybeans & corn and fed pay for both. Hanover, Coastal <King William 6 00 Isle Of Wight 24 470 Increased profits in peanuts, soybeans, cotton, & corn. James City <New Kent 36 280 Increased profits in soybeans & corn and fed pay for both. Lancaster 220 Increased profits in soybeans & wheat and fed pay for both Middlesex 7 50 New Kent 5 220 Increased profits in soybeans & corn and fed pay for both. Newport News <New Kent 36 260 Increased profits in soybeans & corn and fed pay for both. Northampton 7 40 Increased profits in potatoes & soybeans. Northumberland 7 80 Petersburg <Prince George 9 240 Increased profits in soybeans & wheat Prince George 2 290 Increased profits in soybeans & wheat Richmond 6 20 Southampton 22 40 Increased profits in peanuts, soybeans, corn & cotton. Suffolk 29 390 Increased profits in soybeans, peanuts, cotton, corn & wheat. Westmoreland 2 430 Increased profits in soybeans, tomatoes, corn & wheat. York <New Kent 38 290 Increased profits in soybeans & corn and fed pay for both. Decreases in capitalization rates increase use-value estimates. For example, assuming a county s net returns remained at 50 for the new year; and, its capitalization rates decreased from 0.06 to 0.05. Its estimates would increase from 50/0.06 = 833 to 50/0.05 =,000. 4
Decreases (Type III w/out risk): Generally, decreases in estimates were due to decreases in profits from grains (i.e., corn and soybeans). All Counties with Decreases (Type III w/out risk) Decrease SLEAC Approved 9/2/208 Crops listed are in order of contribution Chesapeake -3-70 Decreased profits in soybeans & corn. Goochland -0-80 Decreased profits in corn & soybeans. Henrico, Coastal <King -2-50 Decreased profits in soybeans & corn. William Henrico, Piedmont <Louisa -9-70 Decreased profits in soybeans & corn. King William -5-0 Decreased profits in corn & soybeans. Transfers (<): The data used for estimating the use value of agricultural land are not published for all towns and for only a few of Virginia s independent cities. When data does not exist for a town or city participating in the use value taxation program, the estimated use values from an adjacent or surrounding county are used. This process is referred to as transferring-in. Transferring-in is also used for jurisdictions with large areas of land lying in more than one physiographic region, for example coastal plain and piedmont. When a transfer-in jurisdiction has been used, it appears after an arrow (<). 5