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

DATE: SUNDAY, January 16, 1994                   TAG: 9401160158
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B-3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JOEL TURNER STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ROANOKE TRIES AGAIN TO COLLECT WATER BILL FROM ROANOKE COUNTY

But it appears the dispute won't be resolved for several months - or longer.

City Attorney Wilburn Dibling sent another letter to the county Board of Supervisors this week, filing a new $224,417 claim against the county for an unpaid water bill.

It is the city's third claim against the county since the dispute began in 1991. The county refused to pay the two earlier claims, totaling $534,229.

If the county does not respond by Feb. 15, Dibling said, the city will pursue action in court to collect the debt.

The city doesn't expect the county to pay the latest bill but sent the new claim so it could lay the The county contends it should not have to pay for expansion of the city's water system and facilities. legal framework for collecting the debt, Dibling said.

Supervisor Fuzzy Minnix said city officials don't seem to be interested in negotiations.

"We had hoped there could be a settlement, but it looks like that it will have to be settled by the court," Minnix said.

"We are just trying to represent the interests of our citizens."

Roanoke filed a lawsuit more than a year ago to collect part of the money, but the case has not been heard. If the county refuses to pay the latest bill, the suit will be amended to cover the full amount.

A hearing is scheduled April 14 on state constitutional issues the county has raised.

County officials contend the city-county contract for the water sale may have been unconstitutional. The city sells the county about 2.5 million gallons of water daily.

County Attorney Paul Mahoney said the 1979 contract may violate the state constitution because it created long-term debt for the county without approval of the voters.

"If the court determines that it is unconstitutional, we don't have to go through the interpretation of the [contract], discovery and other proceedings," Mahoney said.

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

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

County officials said they should not participate in any expansion beyond what is necessary to comply with federal and state standards.