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 6 · from the scan, no model involved
ByCOL.E.P. LUKE
Rappahannock New* Contributing Writer
In August 1990 the Rappahannock Board of Supervisors decided , that county real estate had to be re' assessed in 1991. This was critical ; because property sales values in the . county were escalating, and the as’ sessment/sales ratio was decreasing. ; The assessment/sales ratio con; sists of two parts, i.e., the assessed value of the property and the sales ; or fair market value of the property. ! Virginia law requires the county average assessed value of property ; to be at least 70 percent of the average fair market value and should be as close as possible to 100 percent. , The Department of Taxation keeps track of these data and when their audit of county records indicates the assessment/sales ratio falls below their minimum requirement of 70 percent they withhold a percentage of the county’s share of ABC profits. They also use the assessment/sales ratio in determining the amount of Public Service Corporation tax revenue that comes to the county.
A new re-assessment is required to remedy this situation and revenue is withheld until the state requirement is met. It is advantageous for the county to comply, because if ignored, the county continues to lose money each year. The ABC and Public Service Corporation payments to the county listed here provide a clearer picture of the situation (see table of penalties).
From 1988 to 1991 county revenue decreased by $36,183 because the aasessment/sales ratio was too low.
Before the professional assessors working for the Staunton-based Blue Ridge Appraisal Company ' started making new assessments in the county they made a county wide survey of previous sales between 1989 and February 1991.
Using the data from these sales*,
90.3%