COOPERATION IS STILL THE WAY TO GO

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, January 12, 1993                   TAG: 9301120404
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: LEE B. EDDY
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium
COOPERATION IS STILL THE WAY TO GO
YOUR NEWS account of Roanoke Mayor David Bowers' address to the Williamson Road Action Forum on Jan. 7 prompts a response from Roanoke County's perspective.
First, the loss of local Norfolk Southern and Dominon Bank jobs had absolutely no connection with county citizens' 1990 rejection of consolidation with the city. Those job losses were the result of business decisions completely unaffected by the outcome of the consolidation referendum.
Furthermore, I do not perceive any change in attitude by county citizens, and believe they would continue to reject consolidation under the type of plan put forward in 1990.
However, we could do significantly better in our efforts to attract new business and industry to the area. At one of Mayor Bowers' economic summits, I recommended merging the economic-development activities of Roanoke, Salem and the county into one organization such as the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership. By combining these efforts and developing an equitable revenue sharing plan, the negatives of local competition would be reduced, our advertising would be more effective, and the entire region would benefit without having to undergo the divisive factors associated with a consolidation referendum.
According to your article, Mayor Bowers said there was very little cooperation on major issues such as the Hotel Roanoke project, the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, and construction of industrial shell buildings. I would like to address these issues, one at a time:

Most valley residents support the Hotel Roanoke renovation and conference-center project. The city of Roanoke and Virginia Tech are to be commended for committing many millions of dollars to make the project go. However, the city government has estimated a direct tax return of $1.4 million per year from its investment. In suggesting contributions from other local governments, there has been no offer to share those tax revenues. Under these conditions, I suggest that county residents and other citizens who wish to support the project do so by making individual contributions to the "Renew Roanoke" campaign.

Last year the city substantially increased its contribution to the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, and generated the needed additional revenue by increasing the tax rate on hotel and motel rooms. Under its charter, the city adjusted the tax by simple council action. Roanoke County recognizes the potential economic benefit from tourism, but cannot increase its current 2 percent tax on hotel and motel rooms without special permission from the General Assembly. We have asked our state legislators to work to increase the county's allowable rooms tax from 2 percent to 5 percent, with half the increased revenue to be earmarked for tourism.

Roanoke County agrees with the need for industrial shell buildings. However, our development of industrial parks is well behind that of the city, and only now are we gearing up to develop Valley TechPark on the old Allied-Signal land west of Salem. The recently approved county bond issue includes $750,000 for work on that site. Once the infrastructure is in place, a shell building is likely to be one of the first projects planned.
Admittedly, Roanoke County does not have the financial flexibility or history of industrial development enjoyed by the city, but it is incorrect to say we are not interested in cooperating on those regional projects that will benefit us all.

Lee B. Eddy is vice chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors.

by Bhavesh Jinadra by CNB