Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 1, 1995 TAG: 9511010022
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Property tax
"We don't know how it will affect us as far as property tax. Will we, as farmers, be thrown to the dogs? [Will the consolidated city] say, oh, your land is worth what it would be if it was subdivided into 100-foot lots?"
- Judy Johnson, wheat farmer and trucking company owner, Chamblissburg
ABOUT HER CONCERN: "One of the primary policies in the county is to preserve farm land, and we're certainly not going to do anything to change that" under consolidation, said county Administrator Bill Rolfe. "Agriculture is a major part of our economy ... We want to encourage it."
The county's real-estate tax subsidy for farmers will stay the same under consolidation, Rolfe said.
For example, if a parcel of land is residential, it might be assessed at a value of $10,000 per acre. The county or consolidated city then would tax the landowner 44 cents per $100 of assessed value.
For farmers, the same parcel might be assessed at hundreds of dollars per acre, so the farmer isn't penalized for having land.
"Nobody can force you to subdivide your land," Rolfe said. "Anything that's farmland now can stay in agricultural use" if consolidation passes.
As proof, he points to the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, which have some of the largest farming operations in the state.
"Just because you're a city, it doesn't mean farms are gone," he said.
Supporters of the merger agree with Rolfe's assessment. But the opposition says that, under consolidation, farmers will have less voice and those in heavily populated suburban areas such as Forest will have more control of the county's destiny.
Development
"My concern with the consolidation issue is development ... keeping a rural way of life ... that concerns me greatly. Is this going to be a stronger zoning effect? Is there going to be an agricultural district here, an industrial district there, a development district here?"
- Mark McGlauflin, cabinetmaker, Sedalia
ABOUT HIS CONCERN: The opposition says merging into a city will cost Bedford County its rural identity; consolidation supporters say it won't threaten the lifestyle that draws people to the county.
But they also say it will help the county's industrial and residential growth.
"If we can lay the threat of annexation [by outside localities] to rest, it should be a more prosperous area," said Garland Page, the county's community development director. If Bedford and Bedford County merge, he said, it should encourage residential and commercial growth within the new city.
More long-term planning for new projects, such as schools and libraries, can be done without the fear of losing infrastructure to annexation, he said.
And growth will be orderly, said Bedford city councilwoman Joanne Grahame. For instance, if the shire extends water and sewer lines outside its limits, it can create controlled growth areas for industries and subdivisions.
"If we bring an industry in here, we'll share 50-50. I really look at it as an opportunity for us to grow as an entire area," she said.
Another thing that would help control what type of development takes place under consolidation is the merging of the Bedford and Bedford County planning departments, Page said.
Now, the localities prepare their comprehensive plans independent of each other and compete for business and industry. But because one of the wards of the new city will include the shire, it's likely the council member representing that ward would come from the shire and probably would appoint a planning commissioner from the shire. That means more voice in regional planning for shire residents.
Zoning wouldn't change. Like it or hate it, the county's Land Use Guidance System would still be in place for residents of what is now the county.
But the planning commission is scheduled to review LUGS over the next year and changes could be made by the county Board of Supervisors or, if the merger referendum passes, the consolidated city council.
Restrictions
"My concern is the taxes and restrictions. I live on Wheatland Road, which is at Mosley's Bridge [outside Bedford city]. If this consolidation goes through, [the shire could] take the Mosley's Bridge area. My taxes will go up from 44 cents per $100 to 71 cents per $100, as well as having city restrictions on target shooting ... "
- John Arnold, cabinetmaker and gun dealer, Thaxton
ABOUT HIS CONCERN: If you live in what is now the county and are annexed by the shire, your real estate taxes will go up, probably by about 26 cents per $100 of assessed value.
For residents of the county who now pay 44 cents per $100, that means about a 60 percent increase - and that has the opposition boiling mad. They say people live in the county because of the lower taxes.
"But along with additional taxes, there are extra services they get," County Administrator Bill Rolfe said, echoing some of the arguments of consolidation supporters.
The shire has two years after annexation to extend sewer and water to annexed homes and it must also provide other services such as garbage pickup and police protection. That means it can't gobble up lots of land indiscriminately, because it has to have the money to service what it annexes.
Those are guarantees that county residents wouldn't get if they were annexed by an outside locality such as Lynchburg, city councilwoman Joanne Grahame says.
As for target shooting, it's banned in the city of Bedford. And the present city's rules will carry over to the shire.
However, Rolfe points out, to be annexed by the shire, land must be urban in nature. It must have a population density of 2 people per acre, or 1 person per acre with 60 percent of the total acreage consisting of lots of 5 acres or less.
"And if it's urban in nature, is it really appropriate for a person to be target shooting on it?" he asked.
Higher taxes?
"I own property in the county and property in the city. I was concerned ... that taxes would increase greatly."
- Harry Wright, retired, Bedford
ABOUT HIS CONCERN: Real estate taxes would not rise because of consolidation except for county residents who are annexed by the shire.
As for personal property taxes, shire residents would pay them to both the shire and the consolidated city. But they won't have to pay more.
How is this? Now, the city of Bedford assesses vehicles at 100 percent of trade-in value and charges taxpayers $1.50 per $100 of assessed value.
Under consolidation, the shire will lower its personal property tax rate to about 20 cents per $100. But shire residents will have to pay the consolidated city about $1.30 per $100.
"The amount of taxes you pay aren't going to change," said Jay Scudder, Bedford's director of planning and community development. "It's just an exchange of services."
Faye Eubank, county commissioner of revenue, said: "I don't look for there to be any change at all in how personal property is figured or valued because of consolidation."
Outside of the shire, she said, residents of the consolidated city probably would continue to pay at the current county assessment rate; vehicles are assessed at 20 percent of retail value and taxpayers pay $6.50 per $100 of assessed value.
Hunting
"We bought 10 acres, we hunt on it, we have a stream, we have what we want there. We don't want restrictions."
- Thais Barnett, nurse, Peaks of Otter
ABOUT HER CONCERN: "We're constantly being asked about hunting," says County Administrator Bill Rolfe. "A good example is the city of Chesapeake. You can still shoot bear and deer there.
"Just because you're a city doesn't mean you have to put up your guns and can't do hunting anymore."
No rules governing hunting, fishing or outdoor sporting activities would change if Bedford County becomes a city, he said. Under a consolidated city, county residents would still be able to do anything they can now on their land, because the county's ordinances would carry over to the new city.
That is, of course, unless you live in the shire. Present Bedford city ordinances, which don't allow hunting within city limits, would take precedence there.
If the shire gets bigger, consolidation opponents say, that means less available land for hunting. But supporters point out that for the shire to annex land, it must be urban, so state law probably would have banned hunting there anyway.
by CNB