Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 13, 1991 TAG: 9103130356
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: BEDFORD/FRANKLIN
SOURCE: MONICA DAVEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: BEDFORD LENGTH: Medium
Council voted 6-1 to allow the city attorney to file the pleading with the Richmond-based commission, which ultimately makes decisions about annexation requests.
In February, the owners of Otterburn Homes Inc., just west of Bedford City limits, asked that 3.9 acres of land be made part of the city.
The now-vacant land would be used for low-income housing for the elderly, co-owner Oscar Padgett has said.
Given a nearly 2-year-old city moratorium on water- and sewer-line extensions into the county, the only way Padgett can get utilities to his property is to become part of the city.
City Manager Jack Gross told council members that the development would bring a net gain in revenues if it were allowed to annex into the city.
An estimated $9,526 in real estate and personal property tax revenues would be generated if the 40-unit development was built on annexed land, Gross said.
The city would put out no more than $5,000 in services, he predicted.
The county will also have to file a pleading with the Commission on Local Government about the request. Though county officials have yet to file anything formally, they are certain to oppose the request.
It's the second such request since a city-county fight over water and sewer service began nearly two years ago.
In June 1989, Bedford City Council decided to stop adding water and sewer connections to homes just outside the city, in the county.
That moratorium came after county officials objected to the city's proposal for water rates that would have charged some county customers significantly more than city customers.
When the owners of Carriage Hill nursing home - also the owners of Otterburn - decided to build an expansion on their property and asked for water and sewer extensions from the city, they were turned down.
So, in January 1990, they asked for annexation of 23 acres into Bedford City so they could get their utilities.
When the city endorsed that request, the county filed suit.
That suit is still meandering through the court system and running up legal bills for both the county and city.
More legal action could come out of Tuesday's development, county officials have indicated.
Earlier this week, Board of Supervisors Chairman A.A. "Gus" Saarnijoki said he wouldn't be surprised if city officials took the action they did Tuesday.
Asked whether the county would add the latest annexation request to its lawsuit against the city and the developer, Saarnijoki said, "Probably.
"It's all part and parcel to the same idea," Saarnijoki said.
The county has alleged that the city made past agreements to extend utilities to the property in question and that the city induced the property owners into filing for annexation.
The only council member opposed to approving the annexation request, Ronnie Rice said he believed the action would just add "fuel to the fire" between the city and county.
"I'm going to have to oppose this now," Rice said. "We've spent too much money . . . too much of the taxpayers' money on the suit."
Gross estimated the city's legal expenses on the suit - mainly for outside legal counsel with expertise on annexation issues - at about $110,000 to date.
Mayor Mike Shelton agreed that expenses on the suit had been too high.
But Shelton said the suit was a "direct result of Bedford County's action" and that the city had no choice but to defend itself and its taxpayers who finance the water and sewer systems.
Councilman Larry Brookshier said all members of council were concerned about the costs of the suit and outside legal advice.
That, he stressed, was why Tuesday night's resolution specified that the city attorney would file the city's pleading with the Commission.
by CNB