Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 30, 1990 TAG: 9005300561
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A/1 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: MARK LAYMAN and JOEL TURNER STAFF WRITERS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
"We are not going there to sell them anything. We want to give them the facts and try to give them answers," Taliaferro said Tuesday night.
Council has decided to hold two public meetings in the Catawba district and one in Salem to get residents' views on the proposal before it votes.
"The sole purpose would be to gather, provide and share information and thoughts" on the proposed financial settlement, he said.
Taliaferro said he does not think Catawba residents should be required "to pay a ransom" for the right to vote on becoming part of Salem. But Salem will delay a decision on the proposed deal until after the public meetings, he said.
The Catawba meetings will be June 19 at Mason's Cove Elementary School and June 21 at Glenvar Elementary School. The Salem meeting will be in the Council Chamber on June 25. All will begin at 7:30.
"We are dealing with large amounts of money and we think we should get the views of the people who would be affected by it," Taliaferro said.
Council voted to spend up to $900 to use advertisements and postcards to notify all registered voters in the Catawba District of the meetings.
Even if the price were right, Taliaferro said council is not likely to agree on one of the conditions by city and county consolidation negotiators: a 25-year moratorium on voluntary petitions for annexation by residents in the Catawba District to become part of Salem.
"I am positive that Salem City Council will never agree to that, nor would any sane person. I don't think this will come to pass," Taliaferro said.
"I would never put such a burden on the next generation," said Councilman Carl Tarpley.
Bob Butterworth, a past president of the Mason Cove Civic Club, also urged Salem not to agree to the moratorium.
"That is out of the question. We don't want that," said Butterworth, noting that 80 percent of voters in Mason Cove signed petitions last year seeking annexation to Salem.
Charles Landis, a former Roanoke city councilman who now lives in the Glenvar area and opposes consolidation, helped Salem officials arrange the meetings.
"I think this is the only logical move [by Salem] at this time," said Landis, who attended the council meeting.
Based on the financial settlement that is used in annexation cases, Salem would have to pay $32 million for the Catawba area. But the consolidation negotiators agreed to cut it in half. The money, which would be paid to the consolidated government, would cover part of the county's bonded debt, the value of public facilities and loss of tax revenue in the area.
But as a condition of the deal, they said, Salem would have to agree not to accept any annexation petitions for 25 years if consolidation is rejected by city or county voters.
Meanwhile, Roanoke Councilman Howard Musser said he thinks city and county officials should send the plans for election districts in the consolidated government to the U.S. Justice Department for approval without waiting on Salem's decision. The financial settlement with Salem is not part of the consolidation agreement.
The city and county need to get the Justice Department's approval as soon as possible so they can be assured the referendum will be held in November, Musser said. The federal agency will have 60 days to review the districts for the election of members of the governing body for the consolidated government. It will determine whether the plan protects black voting rights.
"I'm sorry," Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Chairman Dick Robers said when told of Salem's action. "I think we made a very good offer. I don't think they'll be able to get that territory for that price at any time in the future."
Noting that Salem chose last year not to take part in the consolidation talks, Robers said, "We shouldn't have negotiated with them. . . . But we did, and I was just following up on it."
Until he talks with Taliaferro, "I have no idea how to react," he said. "We just have to move forward."
Supervisor Steve McGraw, who represents Catawba, said, "I have done everything I can to involve Salem in the consolidation process. I thought we made them a remarkably good deal, one that brought about the ire of [Supervisors] Harry Nickens and Bob Johnson, too.
"I don't know what else we can do. . . . Now it's up to the voters."
Robers supports the consolidation plan. McGraw likes the idea of consolidation, but had made it clear that he wouldn't support this plan unless Catawba was given the chance to become part of Salem.
Without that chance, "You'll find 90 percent opposition to consolidation in Catawba," he said. "They feel like they have a great deal to lose. . . . I won't try to change their minds."
Without a financial settlement, a second vote that would allow Catawba District residents to vote on joining Salem would be meaningless.
Taliaferro had said Friday that $9.8 million was a fair price, using a formula based on 15 percent of the county's debt.
But Tuesday night, he said a "fairer price" would be $3.6 million, the amount of the bonded debt on the public facilities in the Catawba District, not the entire county. The consolidated government will have to assume the bonded debt of both the county and Roanoke.
Taliaferro said it is time for all discussions on the issue to be in open session so city and county residents know what is happening.
Musser said he was not surprised that Salem is upset about the moratorium on annexation. But he said the proposed financial settlement is "a fair one, though I am afraid that in the emotions of the moment, it won't be considered on a factual basis."
Earlier Tuesday, the deal with Salem, and other changes in the consolidation plan, sparked more than two hours of heated debate among the county supervisors.
Robers, McGraw and Lee Eddy lined up in favor of the deal. Johnson and Nickens, who represented the county in the original consolidation negotiations, opposed it. Nickens has said he will work to defeat the consolidation plan. Johnson hasn't taken a public stand.
Johnson didn't mince words, though, in his dissent over the efforts by the other supervisors to seek changes.
First he complained that he hadn't seen a written copy of the deal until a few minutes before the board meeting. Then he took on Robers and McGraw, who represented the county in last week's bargaining session with Taliaferro.
A majority of the supervisors, including Robers and McGraw, had said over and over that they wouldn't settle for less than $32 million, Johnson said. Why did they change their minds last week?
Robers said consolidation negotiators were willing to settle for less money in exchange for Salem's moratorium on annexation. He said that might motivate Salem officials to work for approval of the referendum.
"That's worth $16 million?" Johnson said.
"Yes, that is worth some money," Robers said.
Later, Johnson criticized Robers and McGraw for not pinning down Salem on how Catawba property owned by the consolidated government - such as the Spring Hollow Reservoir and the new regional landfill - would be taxed. Typically, the consolidated government would pay Salem a service fee for police and fire protection in lieu of real estate taxes on that property.
"They're not going to negotiate a price with you," Johnson said. "If you ain't got this nailed down . . . they'll hand you your hat."
Johnson said the way the deal with Salem was handled plays right into the hands of consolidation opponents. "I can't imagine anything that would do any more damage to the consolidation effort. . . . Citizens are completely confused. They don't understand why the county is being given away."
On a related matter, the supervisors unanimously rejected a proposed change to the plan that would prohibit the transfer of teachers from schools in the former county to schools in the former city.
by CNB