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

DATE: TUESDAY, December 7, 1993                   TAG: 9312070208
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: C3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JOEL TURNER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

COUNTY BALKING, WATER BILL CLIMBING

And the bill apparently will keep increasing until the courts resolve the disagreement.

Roanoke is trying to collect what it believes to be a legal debt owed by Roanoke County.

But the county refuses to pay what it considers to be an unreasonable - and possibly unconstitutional - charge.

For the past three years, the county has balked at paying a settlement bill at the end of the fiscal year for the purchase of water.

Because the county refuses to pay, Roanoke is seeking a hearing soon in Roanoke County Circuit Court on a lawsuit filed last year in Roanoke Circuit Court. The suit was moved to the County Circuit after judges ruled that was the proper venue.

But the case has not gone to trial.

City Attorney Wilburn Dibling said Monday he is seeking an early hearing. County Attorney Paul Mahoney said he concurs with Dibling's effort.

When the squabble began two years ago, the dispute was over $320,353, the amount the county refused to pay in the fall of 1991. In 1992, the county refused to pay $213,876; this year, $224,418.

The dispute has its roots in a contract the county signed in 1979 to purchase water from the city.

At the beginning of each fiscal year, Roanoke officials estimate the cost of producing and treating the water it will sell to the county during the next 12 months. Then, under the terms of the contract, the city imposes a 25 percent surcharge.

At the end of each fiscal year, the city determines the actual cost for the water it has supplied, adds the 25 percent surcharge and sends a bill to the county.

The city sells the county about 2.5 million gallons of water daily. The county resells the water to its residents.

The point of contention is whether the city's costs for upgrading and renovating its water filtration plants, replacing major waterlines and other improvements should be included in the calculations for determining the rate for the county.

The county contends that it should not be expected to pay for expansion of the city's water system and facilities that are constructed to benefit only certain areas of the city.

County officials said they would not participate in any major upgrade and expansion of the city's water system beyond what is necessary to comply with federal and state standards.

But city officials say the county agreed in the 1979 contract to share the cost of improvements to the city's water system.

Mahoney said the 1979 contract may have violated the state constitution, however, because it created long-term debt for the county without a referendum.

The improvements in question in the 1991 bill included replacement of water lines in the Edgewood subdivision, extending water lines to the new United Parcel Service distribution center and improvements to the Falling Creek water filtration center.

The long-range issue is whether the county will have to share the $28 million cost for expanding the Carvins Cove filtration plant and other improvements to the city system, while at the same time spending $70 million on its own Spring Hollow Reservoir.