Laserfiche WebLink
<br />156 <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />JULY 26, 1983 <br /> <br />Administrator, the City Manager, the Attorney for the City, and the <br />Attorney for the County. <br /> <br />The two governing bodies also decided not to attempt to meet the <br />proposed Timetable of Events. <br /> <br />The four-man Committee drafted an Agreement in the Fall of 1982. <br />Two issues surfaced which the Committee could not resolve: <br /> <br />A. One issue had to do with the election to the consolidated <br />city's council. The County preferred that the nine- <br />member Council be elected by district or borough (similar <br />to present County system). The City preferred that the <br />council members represent districts but be elected at large. <br /> <br />B. The second issued had to do with the assumption of debt. <br />The County preferred that all debt be assumed by the <br />new city. The City preferred that each entity retain <br />and be responsible for its debt at the time of consolidation <br />and for a period of 20 years thereafter. <br /> <br />The fourth draft of the Consolidation Agreement was completed <br />March 25, 1983. <br /> <br />On Monday, April 25, 1983, the Board of Supervisors was briefed <br />on the work of the four-man Committee. On Tuesday, April 26, <br />1983, City Council was briefed on the same subject. As a result <br />of these two meetings, the Mayor of Martinsville and the Chairman <br />of the Board of Supervisors were added to the existing committee. <br /> <br />III. Merger Agreement <br /> <br />The writers have assembled the following thoughts in connection with <br />merger and the economic future of Martinsville and Henry County. <br />Since you are the original members of the Consolidation Agreement <br />Committee, we would appreciate your reaction to the course of action <br />recommended herewith: <br /> <br />A. The climate for total merger is non-existent. <br /> <br />1. Majority support on the Board of Supervisors <br />and the City Council is questionable. <br /> <br />2. Unanimous support by both bodies, which is <br />highly desirable, does not exist. <br /> <br />3. Some of the non-support is probably due to <br />long-standing prejudices in both the County <br />and the City. This includes communities and <br />people who will not subscribe to anything that <br />will lead to change. <br />