HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_1330 (2)Dobson said the preservation board desired to write up a plan, and there would be a
qualifying process.
Johnson asked how much labor would be needed from the county staff.
Dobson said assistance from the planning supervisor and the staff members who were
already assisting the preservation board would be sufficient.
Commissioner Williams asked if the land would need to be included in the preservation
program to qualify for a PDR.
Dobson said no, however, points might be given to the properties already included in the
preservation program.
Planning Supervisor Smith said Rowan County had implemented a PDR program, and
he had heard many favorable comments. He said it was his understanding that over $100,000 had
been appropriated.
Madison said he recalled a past Board of Equalization and Review case involving a
housing authority that was allowed to sell off tax credits to make it profitable. He said the authority
appealed to the county by saying the property wasn't worth as much as what and as on he ttaxo he
Madison said he had concerns this might also happen in a PDR program,requested
preservation board to be aware of this type of situation.
OTIO by Commissioner Madison to allow the county staff and the Farm Land
Preservation Board to proceed in the planning process for the Purchase of Development Rights.
VOTING: Ayes — 4; Nays — 0.
(Note: commissioner Norman had momentarily excused himself from the meeting prior to ti:e
vote on the PDR.).
County Manager's Comments on the Farm Use Task Force's Findings of Fact
Regarding the Tax Administrator's Department: County Manager Mashburn said that as
directed by the board on February 3, 2004, he had reviewed the task force's findings, met with
en read the
tseveral ask force's findings are is, and n regular prtten up int, and the manageomments. He rs comentsf areo inng report. bold italics.) The
Manager's Report to Board of Commissioners
Regarding Farm Use Task Force Findings
2113104
Findings of Fact:
A. General Statute 105-277.2 through 105.277.4 and General Statute 105.2960) as
session of the General Assembly appear to allow for
adopted by the 2002
reasonable latitude in interpretation and implementation of the present use value
tax system. The Iredeli County Tax Assessor appears to not follow the state
statutes.
After reviewing the report and interviewing stafjin the assessor's office, I concur with
the finding that the Iredell County Tax Assessor's office has not always followed the
statutes. I am of the opinion, however, that failure to do so was more the responsible
of (o)
having failed to properly and adequately train the person(s) pof
administering the farm use program, and (2) using.forms that were outdated and were
not checked to see if they were in compliance with state statutes. I do not, however,
concur that the statutes allow as much latitude in implementing and enforcing the
statutes, as the task force would imply.
B. h appears that there is a need for more appropriate supervision of, and within, the
tax
interpretation and implementation of the
ive
statutes. a(See natta attachments
a
1, 2, 3, and 4)There appears to be disregard forithe
14