Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 30, 1994 TAG: 9411300091
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C4 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: RICHARD FOSTER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
"I don't understand what a rambling, disjointed dissertation on North Carolina's annexation laws, where different laws apply, has to do with Bedford," said John Boardman, spokesman for a group that opposes the merger.
Anita Garner, a Forest resident who drafted a petition with her husband that started the consolidation talks, said, "This was supposed to be a discussion of the shire concept. I find this [discussion] very distressing."
Boardman and Garner were talking about a presentation given before a joint meeting of the Bedford County Board of Supervisors and Bedford City Council on Tuesday by W.J. Wicker, a professor of public law and government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
About 40 citizens attended the public session to hear Wicker, who was a member of the legislative committee that drafted North Carolina's annexation-by-ordinance law in 1959. Bedford County and Bedford announced last month that they had reached an agreement on consolidation to present to voters in a referendum next year.
Under the plan, the city would become a shire, retaining independent government representation and services with no increase in taxes. It also would be able to annex land by ordinance. Bedford County would become a city, the largest in Virginia.
Virginia Code allows for cities and counties to draft their own annexation agreements, with the approval of the General Assembly. Bedford and Bedford County have said they want to model their agreement on the annexation laws in North Carolina.
Wicker said that in North Carolina, for a city or shire to annex land from a larger city or county, that land must meet certain standards of urbanization. First, it must not be in another city. Second, a certain percentage of land, usually 8 percent, must border the larger municipality. This prevents "tax grabs," Wicker said, in which cities try to annex specific industry sites or rows of houses because they will bring revenue.
Because their property taxes are likely to go up, citizens who are annexed also need to be assured by law that they will receive the same services as the rest of the city's residents, the professor said. In North Carolina, the city has two years to provide a comparable level of services to annexed areas.
Though annexation there has promoted regionalism and more joint services between governments, annexation by ordinance has caused some opposition, primarily on two issues. Citizens who don't want new services oppose tax increases, and they object to not having a vote in the annexation.
Boardman's views reflect that.
"People in the affected areas don't have a say when you annex by ordinance," he said. "I'm a citizen of the city and our tax rates are 71 cents. In the county, the tax rate is 55 cents. Are the citizens of the county going to be told to go along with a tax increase with no questions asked?"
Memo: ***CORRECTION***