Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, January 27, 1995 TAG: 9501270052
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: TODD JACKSON STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
That was the fear that crossed the mind of Del. Allen Dudley, who represents adjacent Franklin County, when he saw the legislative proposal to merge Bedford County and city.
So Dudley this week called for an amendment to the General Assembly bill that would pave the way for a voter referendum on the Bedford consolidation plan as early as November.
Dudley's amendment would prohibit the new city from initiating any annexation attempts. It would not block proceedings with Bedford started by other localities.
``I'm not against Bedford consolidating,'' said the Rocky Mount Republican. ``I think the amendment addresses my concerns without slowing down the process.''
Dudley plans to introduce the amendment next Thursday at a subcommittee meeting of Cities, Counties and Towns - a House committee on which he serves.
First, though, Dudley said he will take the amendment to the bill's sponsor, Del. Lacey Putney, I-Bedford, for review
Putney said Wednesday that Dudley's concern is valid and should be addressed before the bill goes to a vote on the House floor.
Del. Vance Wilkins, R-Amherst, whose district also borders Bedford County, said he, too, would like to see assurances that no future annexation attempts will emerge.
``I'm glad Allen caught that,'' Wilkins said of Dudley. ``It's good thinking.''
Other counties that border Bedford include Roanoke, Pittsylvania and Campbell.
Dudley represents the portion of Pittsylvania that adjoins Bedford, and he also has one Bedford County precinct - the Moneta area near Smith Mountain Lake - in his district.
Dudley decided to seek the amendment after attorneys for Bedford's consolidation committee failed to alleviate his concerns. Dudley suggested that the committee adopt self-limiting clauses in its plan.
Bedford County's attorney, Johnny Overstreet, and Bedford city's attorney, William Berry, drafted a letter last week that Dudley received Thursday.
While not ensuring that no future annexation will take place, the letter states: ``The new city of Bedford will be an immense geographic area, and the government would have no need to take on more responsibility. As a practical matter, the proposed legislation poses no threat to Franklin County.''
But Overstreet and Berry added that adjoining jurisdictions, including Franklin County, ``might want'' to enter into a boundary adjustment agreement with Bedford because of legislative changes or a minor problem.
``We suggest that this question should be addressed by the state legislature when a larger state-wide [annexation] solution is found and that we not inadvertently draft a special provision that might cause problems in the future ...,'' the letter says. There is a statewide moratorium on annexation until 1997.
After reading the letter and then talking with Overstreet on the phone Thursday afternoon, Dudley said his concerns remained.
Said Overstreet, ``I'm not sure the committee would give annexation rights up for perpetuity.''
If the General Assembly passes the legislation and voters approve the consolidation, Bedford County will become a city - the state's largest in land mass. The existing city will become a shire, a semi-independent government similar to a town.
by CNB