Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 10 · column 8 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
that the county is not bound by the $100 an acre figure. “If the county feels it’s suffering too much (by assessing property in land use) at $100 an acre, it can set a minimum figure of $200 for example.” she explained.
Currently, the county has one Agriculture and Forestal District. Since it was approved prior to June 30, it’s single landowner, C. E. Johnson, Jr., is eligible for use value taxation—without countywide ordinance—in 1981. Another AFD application is currently pending.
While not opposing ag districts. Wood maintained that a countywide use value taxation ordinance "will give the little person more flexibility.” He noted that many small farmers are not able to join a district and therefore, need'an alternative. As an example, he told of a man in his 70’s with 30 acres in his district who’s farmed all his life. “He deserves land use more than anyone else," Wood maintained.
Returning the discussion to the subject of assessment values. Luke asked for a motion to delay implementation of the fair market value figures until 1982. The motion passed. 3I. with Gilkey opposed.
In response to a request from Circuit Court Judge Shore Robertson for recommendations on appointments to the equalization board, the following persons were nominated by the supervisors: Eileen Day Dwyer. Piedmont District; Raymond Johnson. StonewallHawthorne District; Thomas Williams. Jackson District; Phyllis Irwin, Wakefield District; Edward Bailey. Hampton District.
90.0%