Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 21, 1995 TAG: 9501230058
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN CASEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The dispute, which dates to 1991, is expected to be formally settled when City Council and the county Board of Supervisors approve an addendum to their joint contract next week. Both sides on Friday called the settlement a ``win-win situation.''
``We're glad to have this matter behind us,'' said Roanoke Mayor David Bowers. The agreement "essentially means that our water needs are taken care of for another generation.''
Months in the making, the new agreement runs through 2015, six years longer than the original contract. It changes the way the county's bills are calculated and allows the county to gradually reduce its use of city water beginning in 1997.
``We are very happy that an agreement has been reached on the question of the water bill,'' said Fuzzy Minnix, county supervisors' chairman. ``Although it still means [county] citizens will pay more than city citizens for the same water, it lets us avoid a lengthy lawsuit.
``It also provides some necessary improvements to the old contract and significantly reduces the quantity of water that we must purchase during the life of the contract.''
The accord was hammered out by City Attorney Wilburn Dibling and County Attorney Paul Mahoney. City Council and the Board of Supervisors were briefed periodically in sessions that were closed to the public.
While the county still will have to pay for additions to the city water system through its rates - a key area of the dispute - the rates now are based on what city users pay, plus 25 percent. That 25 percent drops to 12.5 percent for the last six years of the contract.
Every year, the rates to the county were increased while city rates were not, Mahoney said, meaning the county was subsidizing city water users. Now, if the city wants to raise rates for the county, it will have to raise its own residents' rates as well, which may not be as politically palatable.
The dispute stemmed from the original 1979 contract under which the county agreed to buy 2.5 million gallons of water per day from the city through 2009.
A broadly worded provision called for the city to add to the county's bill overhead costs stemming from capital improvements. The city boosted the rate in 1990 after expansion of the city's water system.
The county had contended it shouldn't have to pay the higher rate because only the city benefited from the work. Since 1991, it has paid only the lower rate. The city's position was that the improvements benefited the whole system, of which the county was a part, so the county should have to pay like any other customer.
The city sued the county in 1992, and the overdue bills have piled up since then.
Circuit Judge Kenneth Trabue has written a decision on one motion by the county, but both sides asked him to hold off while they negotiated. Earnest negotiations began in the fall after the city, county and other jurisdictions signed an agreement to jointly pay for an expanded sewage treatment plant.
Settling the lawsuit rather than letting the judge rule offered advantages for both sides, Bowers said.
The city gets to keep its largest single customer for six years longer than the original agreement called for.
And although the county's $75 million Spring Hollow Reservoir will come on line late this year, the county still wants to buy 1 million gallons of water a day from Roanoke. Parts of Brambleton Avenue and areas around Plantation and Williamson roads will continue to get city water, which relieves the county of having to lay costly water lines in those areas. Under the settlement, the amount of water bought from the city will be gradually reduced from the 2.5 million gallons a day now to 1 million in 2015.
``Why duplicate lines?'' Mahoney asked. Laying water lines in the county to cover areas already served by the city would cost millions, he said.
``I think what we did is decided to be masters of our own destiny, rather than forfeiting that role and letting the court impose something on us,'' Dibling said.
Trabue will not issue his decision now, leaving the county to wonder about the path not taken.
Staff writer Jan Vertefeuille contributed to this story.
by CNB