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 3 · column 1 of 8 · from the scan, no model involved
based on individuals reporting gross sales of $1,000 or more from an agricultural operation. “I think it’s more in the neighborhood of 60 for those who are making a living at farming,” Luke added.
Breaking the arithmetic down further, he told the supervisors that 10 percent of Rappahannock’s taxpayers compared to 86 percent of the county’s farmers are enrolled in land use. Eight percent of the total taxpayers are farmers and 16 percent of the separate land parcels in the county are now receiving land use, he reported.
“I wonder what is the total of taxes paid by farmers,” Wood interjected.
“I don’t have that figure,” Luke replied, continuing that “down the pike, the county has financial problems it’s got to face up to, one way or another.”
“What would you do to broaden the tax base?” asked Supervisor Hubert Gilkey.
Luke said he’d make changes in land use evaluation, raising the worth per acre in different soil categories, and “bring in another Aileen knitting plant...We all like the county the way it is. There’s no question about that. But times change...The financial where-with-all has to come from some place.”
“I agree we need to keep our eyes on the financial picture,” said Supervisor J. R. Latham, adding that he is particularly concerned with the burden local taxes place on low income families and the elderly. “But I’m also concerned about turning Rappahannock County into another Prince William," he said, noting the tremendous increases in taxes there as subdivisions and commercial development have replaced farms.
Luke acknowledged that the greater the population, the greater the demand for services.
“Land doesn’t cause the tax rate to escalate — people do, services do,” emphasized supervisor Charles Estes.
91.3%