Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 8, 1995 TAG: 9506080049
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-6 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: B. LYNN WILLIAMS CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: PEARISBURG LENGTH: Medium
Citizens pleaded their cases so that supervisors and Virginia Department of Transportation Resident Engineer Dan Brugh would place their roads on the county's Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads. Brugh told the board and the audience that the county's plan must be updated at least every two years. From now on, he said, it will be updated annually.
In reviewing the proposed plan, which detailed 18 projects, Brugh said the new bridge at Pembroke was proceeding according to schedule. Bids will be accepted later this year to demolish the old truss it is replacing.
One area resident, Quentin Barrett told supervisors that he was "only asking for a few crumbs" from the $1.1 million projected for the county's secondary road budget during the next fiscal year. He talked about a blind curve at Virginia 666 and Virginia 42 in the Walker's Creek section of the county.
Brugh verified Barrett's claim that the intersection was "certainly not desirable." He told him that money to improve the site had been requested as part of "safety funding," but that the state denied the request. He said his department will discuss the road further.
Supervisors heard people ask that numerous roads be placed on the "priority list," which the board maintains to supplement the six-year plan. Two of the requests focused on old and unsafe bridges - the Virginia 724 bridge near Narrows, and the Virginia 713 bridge near White Gate.
The board adopted the six-year plan reviewed by Brugh.
In other business, William Freeman, a county resident and candidate for the Board of Supervisors, told the board that once again, despite his best efforts, he received a bill for solid waste because his farm, Doe Creek, is considered a small business. Arguing that he and other farmers should not be considered "small businesses," by the criteria being used to assess the waste fee, Freeman challenged the board to amend the ordinance to exempt farmers.
After asserting that "little old ladies who raise an extra bushel of beans" should be considered farmers subject to the small business fee, Freeman told county officials the fee is not being assessed fairly.
Some farmers are paying it, but many have not been identified, so they have escaped paying the solid-waste fee, Freeman said. Supervisor Bobby Compton agreed that farmers should not receive the bill, but the board took no action to amend the ordinance.
In other action the board:
Approved a PSA request for $29,279 to fund the entire budget for beginning solid-waste operations next year.
Approved a PSA request for an additional $4,500 for water operations next year.
Approved a Regional Jail Authority request for $3,000 in start-up money.
Went into executive session to discuss solid-waste, personnel and industrial development contracts. The board took no action.
by CNB