Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 9, 1990 TAG: 9005090546
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOEL TURNER MUNICIPAL WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
They say they are not ready to concede defeat in the campaign to persuade city and county voters to approve a merger plan that is expected to be on the ballot in the November election.
They concede that Cranwell's opposition might influence some county voters, but the outcome of the referendum, they say, will not hinge on positions taken by influential politicians or business leaders.
"I think that whenever someone who has his [Cranwell's] power and influence speaks, a lot of people will listen," Roanoke Vice Mayor Beverly Fitzpatrick Jr. said Tuesday. "But I think this is an issue that is going to be decided by voters on the basis of what they think is the best for them."
Fitzpatrick, who helped negotiate the plan for merging the city and county, said the voters are intelligent enough to decide what is best for the long-term economic health of the Roanoke Valley.
He said he thinks voters will decide on consolidation on the basis of such issues as whether there will be jobs in the valley for their children and grandchildren - not on whether state legislators favor or oppose it.
Meanwhile, Del. Clifton Woodrum III, D-Roanoke, said Tuesday that he supports consolidation because he thinks it will help spur economic development and create jobs.
"I sponsored the bill for the consolidated government [the charter bill that was approved by the General Assembly], and my support for it has never been in doubt," Woodrum said.
Woodrum said opponents "can pick holes in any plan that is devised, [but] we need to do something that will have a long-term benefit for the valley."
At a community meeting Monday night, Cranwell, D-Vinton, said he will vote against merger, but would not say why. Asked about the plan's chances of passing in the county, Cranwell said, "I suspect if you had a vote today, it would be close, but it would probably fail."
Consolidation advocates are expected to soon launch a campaign aimed at winning approval of the plan. The main battleground is expected to be in the county, because almost all polls in recent years have shown that city voters favor consolidation by a large margin.
The plan must be approved by voters in each locality before it can take effect.
Councilman Howard Musser said Tuesday that he was not surprised that Cranwell, a county resident, will vote against consolidation - just as he was not surprised by Supervisor Harry Nickens' recent announcement that he will work to defeat the plan.
"I figured he [Cranwell] was against it all along. I'm glad to see everybody come out of the woodwork and to say how they really feel," Musser said.
Nickens, one of the county's merger negotiators, said he is convinced the consolidation plan is not in the best interests of either the city or the county, "given the costs that will have to be borne by the typical city and county resident."
Musser, one of the city's negotiators, said Cranwell and Nickens are "entitled to their opinion, but others disagree, and I think we are going to hear from them."
Councilman David Bowers, a strong proponent of consolidation, would not comment Tuesday on Cranwell's disclosure. But he predicted that enough undecided county voters can be persuaded to win approval of the plan in a close vote.
Bowers said consolidation opponents "have had their say and made their views known" in recent months. "Now the promoters of consolidation are going to have their say," he said.
Fitzpatrick said he was disappointed Cranwell took a public position on merger, even though Cranwell said it was a local issue. "I would have hoped that because of his leadership position, he would have taken a long-range view on consolidation, just as he has on the Grayson Commission."
Cranwell is a key member of the commission, which has been studying ways to end annexations and streamline local governments in Virginia.
Like Musser, Fitzpatrick says he does not think consolidation proponents will be discouraged by Cranwell and Nickens.
Meanwhile, Fitzpatrick and Musser said Tuesday that the plan to provide the same level of police, fire and rescue services throughout the consolidated government would not require more employees to be hired or a higher tax rate than envisioned earlier in the merger plan.
"It would involve making use of the personnel that is available and dispatching them to where they are needed," Fitzpatrick said.
Under the current system, the county sometimes has only a small number of sheriff's deputies on patrol at night, he said. At times, the county has to dispatch officers from one side of the county to the other to respond to calls, he said.
In a consolidated government, Fitzpatrick said, police officers on patrol in the area that is within the city could be dispatched to respond faster to calls in nearby areas that are now within the county. In this way, he said, the same level of service could be provided without additional officers.
At a joint meeting of city and county officials Monday, attorneys said state law will require the consolidated government to provide police, fire and rescue services at the same level in both the former city and county areas.
There will be no difference between public-safety service levels in the "urban" and "suburban" service districts, Fitzpatrick said, even though the real estate tax rate in the suburban district will be 5 cents lower per $100 assessed value.
The boundaries between the urban and suburban districts would be the same as those between the current city and county.
by CNB