On the agenda: Danvilleva City Council Work Session — data center (Sep 15)

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
4TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
September 15, 2026
8:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. MEETING MINUTES
1.

Consideration of Approval of Minutes from Regular Work Session held on May 19, 2026
and Work Session held on July 21, 2026.

C. WORK SESSION ITEMS
1.

Consideration of the Vandola Crescent Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Agreement.

D. PROGRAM UPDATE
E. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
F. COMMUNICATIONS
A. City Manager
B. Deputy City Manager
C. Assistant City Manager Adkins
D. Assistant City Manager Evans
E. City Attorney
F. City Clerk

Page 1 of 25

G. Roll Call
G. CLOSED MEETING
As Permitted by Subsection (A)(3) of Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended for discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property or of the
disposition of publicly held real property; and
As Permitted by Subsection (A)(5) of Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry related to economic
development.
A. Motion to Convene in Closed Meeting
B. Motion to Reconvene in Open Meeting
C. Motion to Certify Closed Meeting
H. ADJOURN

Page 2 of 25

Council Letter
City of Danville, Virginia

CL - 2975

MEETING MINUTES

1.

City Council Work Session
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
Subject:

Approval of Meeting Minutes

From:

Susan DeMasi, City Clerk

COUNCIL ACTION
Consideration of Approval of Minutes from Regular Work Session held on May 19, 2026 and Work
Session held on July 21, 2026.
Attachments
1.
2.

Meeting Minutes 05-19-26
Meeting Minutes 07-21-26

Page 3 of 25

May 19, 2026
A Regular Work Session of the Danville City Council convened on May 19, 2026, at 8:43 p.m. in
the City Council Conference Room located on the Fourth Floor of the Municipal Building, 427
Patton Street, Danville, Virginia. The following Council Members were present: Vice Mayor
James B. Buckner, L.G. “Larry” Campbell Jr., Bryant Hood, Mayor Alonzo L. Jones, Daniel W.
Marshall, Barry Mayo, Dr. Gary P. Miller, Sherman M. Saunders, and J. Lee Vogler, Jr. (9).
Staff Members present were: City Manager Ken F. Larking, Deputy City Manager Earl B.
Reynolds Jr., Assistant City Manager/CFO Michael L. Adkins, Assistant City Manager Briana
Evans, City Attorney W. Clarke Whitfield, Jr., and City Clerk Susan M. DeMasi.
Mayor Jones presided
WORK SESSION ITEMS
Meeting Minutes
Upon Motion by Council Member Campbell and second by Council Member Mayo, Minutes of
the Regular Work Session held on April 21, 2026, were approved as presented. Draft copies
were distributed to Council Members prior to the Meeting.
WORK SESSION ITEMS
Consideration of Changes to the Personnel System
Council had no questions on this item and agreed to put this on an upcoming agenda.
Appointments
Vice Mayor Buckner noted the Committee on Appointments met earlier that evening and made
the following recommendations:
Airport Commission:

Reappoint:
Appoint:

Robert Jiranek
William Robinson

Architectural Review Board:

Appoint:

Miguel Castillo

Dan River ASAP

Reappoint:

Michael Sheetz

Danville CPMT

Appoint:
Reappoint:

April Jones
Tammy Warren

Danville Pittsylvania Community Services Board

Reappoint:

Geary Davis and
Pamela Saunders

Appoint:

Mike Mondul and
Shelby Irving

Danville Utility Commission:

Appoint:

Sheila Williamson-Branch

Public Arts Commission:

Appoint:

Charles Crumpler
Tina Leone

Page 4 of 25

May 19, 2026
West Piedmont Rural Transportation Advisory

Reappoint:

Kenny Gillie and
Chris Franks

Transportation Advisory Board

Reappoint:
Appoint:

Chris Franks
Kitteria Mayo

Discussion of the Fiscal Year 2027 Budget
City Manager Ken Larking noted he wanted to call Council’s attention to the first reading on the
real estate tax rate. People pay a combination of the rate times the value of the home or property.
Every two years, there was a reassessment; they have seen in the past two reassessments some
increase to the overall real estate value. During the budget planning meetings staff mentioned
the possibility of a six or seven percent increase in the total real estate value; the budget included
revenue of about $1.5M that would have anticipated that increase in value. As required by state
law, they advertised what was called an effective rate increase. With the reassessment of 6.4%
based on 99% of properties completed, staff does anticipate that there will be an effective tax
increase. Not every value increased by the same amount; it was unique to each property. To
have a neutral tax rate would be about seventy-eight cents, but doing that would create an
imbalance in the budget as currently presented, of about $1.48M. Mr. Larking stated he
recommended, because they do have a low tax, to keep the rate as it was, keep the budget
balanced as it was, but understanding that there may be some differences of thought on that. He
will present some options for providing tax relief should the Council desire to do so. One
suggestion was perhaps looking at the combination of some relief on vehicle taxes or vehicle
rates. Also, doing some adjustments for revenues that would increase the revenues to make up
for some of the gap; there were a number of options available to Council.
Vice Mayor Buckner asked Assistant City Manager Michael Adkins to provide information on what
it would look like to eliminate the car tax in Danville all together, and what the impact would be on
the budget. Council Member Campbell noted the city uses the casino money for projects, and
has plans on what it wants to do, but he knows a lot of people were going through a lot instead of
getting an increase on their check and he has not come to a decision yet.
Council Member Marshall noted one of the things they should look at was security in this building;
they should ask the Chief of Police to develop a plan to make sure that not only was Council safe,
but anytime staff was in this building they should make visitors go through a metal detector. Mr.
Marshall stated they heard all of the good sides of the data centers, but once the data center was
hot, and that money started flowing in here, there was something in K-12 called the composite
index which says the richer the community was, the less the state pays; the poorer the community,
the more the state pays. Mr. Marshall stated that the city was going to end up having to pay more
money into K-12 than they were now. Mr. Marshall suggested for the personal property tax, they
look at stair steps with maybe $5,000 off the value or $10,000 off the value but only for private
vehicles, to take care of the citizens first. Mr. Marshall questioned if the city should develop a
plan on how to use the funds they will be receiving from the data center, similar to the plan they
have for the casino funds.
Mayor Jones noted his agreement and that they put together a committee with citizens from the
community like they did with the casino plan. Mayor Jones stated he also had the same concerns
with the safety of the building. Dr. Miller stated the security bothered him as well, and the escape
plan needed to be reviewed. Dr. Miller noted they need to set up a community action plan, how
do they spend the money, just like the casino; ask the public and have a committee. As far as
the car tax, the real estate tax only benefits people that own property, it doesn’t help renters; they

Page 5 of 25

May 19, 2026
need to help the car owners, maybe eliminating the car tax for one vehicle on private
transportation, but only one car, not all the cars the citizen owns.
Council Member Vogler noted he could not justify voting for a tax increase, but liked the
elimination of the $25 decal fee, and the suggestion to lower the car tax which will reach more
people. Mr. Vogler asked the City Manager to provide information on what it would look like if
they eliminated the $25 fee on cars, reduce the car tax by ten cents on the rate, took a penny off
the real estate tax rate and raised the income eligibility cap on the senior citizens and permanently
disabled, if they go up to $45,000. That way, they were providing tax relief for everyone who has
a car and making tax relief available for more senior citizens and disabled; those were wide
reaching things that would provide the most tax relief to the most people in the city.
Mayor Jones questioned what these changes would do to the balanced budget and Mr. Larking
noted it was hard to tell how much the adjusting for seniors would be because it had to be applied
for; staff doesn’t think it would impact it too much. A penny decrease in real estate tax would be
$350,000; the city would have to find $350,000 additional cuts, or new revenues. Mr. Larking
stated he recommended an alternative to have a revenue neutral situation with a combination of
elimination of the $25 fee, plus lowering the personal property tax rates by ten cents, and then
some additional revenue they anticipate because of interest rates and other things; that actually
creates a balanced budget. Mayor Jones noted in July, their strategic goals change and what Mr.
Vogler suggested fits into those strategic goals; they added a new goal with regard to poverty.
Mr. Hood noted he was glad that there were options available to look out for the citizens.
Mr. Larking noted he needed a consensus from Council on what to do next; there was a process
that had to occur to lower a rate that includes a public notice for a public hearing; it was a timing
issue deciding what to do and making sure the budget was balanced. If those recommendations
were something Council wanted to go forward with, staff can get this ready to be voted on. Mr.
Larking noted in response to Rev Campbell’s request to make sure there was a balance, that
because everyone’s valuation was unique to their specific property, it was impossible to come
with something that makes it exactly equal. The attempt here was listening to what was talked
about at the council retreat, a focus on trying to help residents as much as possible, and if it was
the Council’s wish to provide tax relief, that reducing the burden of the vehicle tax and the $25
fee helped the most people. As far as real estate tax, Mr. Larking stated he recommended that
they leave things the way they were, leaving the tax rates. Mayor Jones questioned how many
Council Members would vote for it if they left the rates as is, at the next meeting, and five Council
Members noted they would vote for it as is.
Mr. Vogler noted the City Manager balanced the budget lowering the car tax and removing the
fee and Mr. Larking noted it was, but they would have to increase some revenue estimates in
order to do that, one of which being interest earnings. It was hard to predict where they would
be; in future years they could be lower, and the interest earnings revenues would be lower. They
would have to compensate for that.
Mayor Jones stated what was important right now for the citizens were the items that need priority
on giving the citizens a break. Mr. Larking noted whatever impacts the homeowners, property
owners, or residents actually also impacts the city in its budget. When gas prices go up, the city
also paid those gas prices, and the cost of delivering services go up. Mr. Larking stated he would
be more concerned about the rates and the burden on the taxpayers if they had high taxes, high
rates and high property values. The City generally has low tax rates, one of the lowest real estate
rates in the state; their property values were lower than most cities, and the burden on citizens
was not that high generally for the amount of services that people get. The same argument goes

Page 6 of 25

May 19, 2026
for the utility rates; when compared to those around Danville, Danville’s rates were lower than
surrounding communities. If they want to do the projects that they all want to do, they cannot be
done without resources.
Mr. Vogler noted to forget about the one cent reduction in real estate, take that out of it. The ten
cents lowering the car tax and removing that $25 fee, the City Manager has a balanced budget
with that, and Mayor Jones questioned how many would support those. Mr. Marshall questioned
reducing the car tax, was that for corporate and personal vehicles and Mr. Larking stated it was
his understanding that was for personal property tax which affects everyone; Mr. Adkins confirmed
it affects business and personal property. Mr. Marshall noted his suggestion was they look at just
reducing the car tax on personal vehicles and Mr. Larking stated they were not sure they could
do that; the state dictates which classes of property they can tax and did not know if they could
carve out just personal vehicles.
Mayor Jones took a straw poll to eliminate the $25 decal fee and a majority of
Council indicated support for this. Mayor Jones took a straw poll to lower the rate on the car tax
ten cents for all vehicles and a majority of Council indicated support for this item. Mr. Vogler
noted the other item was raising the eligibility cap for seniors and disabled by $5,000 for real
estate tax relief for senior citizens and permanently disabled.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATES
Interim Director of Economic Development and Tourism Mike Legg noted for the former Galileo
School site, DPS has left the site, and the issue was what to do with the property. There were
three options, they could renovate the building and try to sell it, they could demolish it and then
pursue economic development on it, which they believe would probably be multifamily, or they
could use it for parking. They did not think it would be used permanently for parking because of
the property values, but could be temporarily. Staff recommended demolishing it and pursuing
economic development. Mr. Marshall asked if there was any conversation using this space for
social services and Mr. Larking explained in the past they did a study on where social services
could be located and this was one of the sites under consideration. Based on that study, it was
determined it was not an ideal location. The building was not worth saving, the roof was in poor
condition, and Dr. Miller stated when they looked before to replace the roof it would be over
$400,000; Mr. Larking stated it would now be over $1M to replace the roof. After discussion,
Mayor Jones noted the recommendation was to tear it down; there were no objections from
Council.
Mr. Legg noted the Masonic Temple was moving forward, getting the final construction drawings,
and the IDA approved a loan to get that process down.
CLOSED MEETING
At 9:30 p.m., Vice Mayor Buckner moved that this meeting of the City Council of the City of
Danville, Virginia be recessed and that Council immediately reconvene in a Closed Meeting for
the following purposes: Discussion, consideration or interview of prospective candidates for
employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, salaries, disciplining of specific
public employees or appointees as permitted by Subsection (A) (1) of Section 2.2-3711 of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended and more specifically to consider the performance reviews
of the City Manager, the City Attorney and City Clerk and the discussion or consideration of the
acquisition or disposition of real property for a public purpose where discussion in an open
meeting would adversely impact the bargaining position of the City as permitted by Subsection

Page 7 of 25

May 19, 2026
(A)(3) of Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended and more specifically to
consider discussion regarding the sale and/or potential purchase of a specific parcel of property
for use by the City of Danville and/or specific parcels of property for prospective recreational,
industrial, commercial, and mixed use projects looking to locate to the City and parking facilities,
and an Economic Development discussion and update concerning prospective businesses or
industries where no previous announcement has been made and/or the expansion of an existing
business or industry where no previous announcement has been made as permitted by
Subsection (A)(5) of Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended and more
specifically to consider an update on multiple prospective commercial, mixed use, hospitality, and
industrial projects considering locating within the City and/or locating within the region in
cooperation with the City’s regional partners, and Consultation with legal counsel and briefings
by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, where such
consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture
of the public body as permitted by Subsection (A) (7) of Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia,
1950 as amended.
The Motion was seconded by Council Member Mayo and carried by the following vote:
VOTE:
AYE:
NAY:

9-0
Buckner, Campbell, Hood, Jones, Marshall
Mayo, Miller, Saunders and Vogler (9)
None (0)

Upon unanimous vote at 9:47 p.m., Council reconvened in open session and Vice Mayor Buckner
moved for adoption of the following Resolution:
CERTIFICATE OF CLOSED MEETING
WHEREAS, the Council convened in Closed Meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative
recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires a Certification
by the Council that such Closed Meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each
Member’s knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements of Virginia Law under Section 2.2-3711 were heard, discussed or considered, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Closed Meeting
was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Committee.
The Motion was seconded by Council Member Mayo and carried by the following vote:
VOTE:
AYE:
NAY:

9-0
Buckner, Campbell, Hood, Jones, Marshall
Mayo, Miller, Saunders and Vogler (9)
None (0)

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:49 P.M.

Page 8 of 25

May 19, 2026
APPROVED:
________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY CLERK

Page 9 of 25

July 21, 2026
A Regular Work Session of the Danville City Council convened on July 21, 2026, at 8:14 p.m. in
the City Council Conference Room located on the Fourth Floor of the Municipal Building, 427
Patton Street, Danville, Virginia. The following Council Members were present: Vice Mayor
James B. Buckner, Bryant Hood, Mayor Alonzo L. Jones, Daniel W. Marshall, Barry Mayo, Dr.
Gary P. Miller, Sherman M. Saunders, and J. Lee Vogler, Jr. (8). L.G. “Larry” Campbell Jr., was
absent (1).
Staff Members present were: City Manager Ken F. Larking, Deputy City Manager Earl B.
Reynolds Jr., Assistant City Manager/CFO Michael L. Adkins, Assistant City Manager Briana
Evans, Deputy City Attorney Alan Spencer and City Clerk Susan M. DeMasi. City Attorney W.
Clarke Whitfield, Jr., was absent.
Mayor Jones presided
WORK SESSION ITEMS
Meeting Minutes
Upon Motion by Vice Mayor Buckner and second by Council Member Mayo, Minutes of the
Special Retreat Work Session held on March 13, 2026, were approved as presented. Draft copies
were distributed to Council Members prior to the Meeting.
WORK SESSION ITEMS
Recommendation of Appointments to Boards and Commissions
Vice Mayor Buckner noted the Committee on Appointments met earlier that evening and made
the following recommendations:
Social Services Advisory Board:

Appoint:

Jasmine Lipscomb

Danville Utility Commission:

Appoint:

Kalil Khan

Council had no objections to the recommendations.
Discussion on Summer Research on Small Businesses
The Department of Economic Development and Tourism summer interns introduced themselves:
Genesis Hollingsworth, Ellie Harvey, Cori Brown, and Temilade Agboola (Lade).
Ms. Hollingsworth explained there were two different projects in the Economic Development office
and Ms. Agboola and her worked on the Private Black Business Impact; they were there to present
their report. Their project was a continuation of a project, Hispanic Horizons, from last summer;
their team worked on black businesses in the city. The primary task was to discover what were
the needs, gaps and challenges that the black-owned businesses were facing, how could the city
be more present to bridge those gaps and be of more help to city residents who own local
businesses. They were at the Juneteenth event last month as well as in different places such as
Links or Barber Shops, meeting with those people and bridging those gaps. They also wanted to
take the unbiased feedback approach by making sure the survey they launched was able to get
the full scope of whatever it was they wanted to see from Economic Development as well the City,
that they may not have felt as comfortable expressing in the one-to-one interviews. The survey

Page 10 of 25

July 21, 2026
was very successful, and they were able to get a total of fifty different responses that expressed
over sixteen different business sectors and industries across the region. This Saturday they will
conclude their program by having their community connectivity portion where they look for the
residents to express what they want alongside what they have heard from business owners.
After their initial meetings with the local business owners they determined that communication,
as well as clear feedback from the City, was their primary concern. Ms. Agboola noted they used
two main tactics to reach the businesses, face to face interviews and surveys, and reviewed some
of the feedback from businesses across the city. Top challenges for businesses were access to
capital and marketing; the outlook from businesses were largely optimistic but only a small
percentage felt their voice was fully heard. Some of the community proposed solutions included
a business directory and increased social media promotion, expand the small business network
events, increase awareness of and access to grants and funding, create a centralized resource
hub and dedicated space, and encourage partnerships and collaboration.
Ms. Hollingsworth noted despite their many successes there were a few challenges they ran into
repeatedly such as businesses were posted as active but when they went to do their site visit,
they were closed. Even though there were a lot of different businesses and business owners,
there can be a lack of accountability and a lack of consistency with their presence in the city at
their own site. It was also voiced that there was limited access to the City’s communications,
which was mainly digital. In the newsletter, including the different resources from the ED office
would be a good step to emphasize the city was willing to offer a method of connecting with them
and also getting them what they need and not leaving them out. Ms. Hollingsworth stated one
part of their project was to make a black business directory; it would be up to date to show
businesses that were active so that when people were looking, they were not led to the locations
that were closed. In response to Mr. Saunders, Samantha Bagbey from the Economic
Development office noted currently, there was not a directory of all the businesses in Danville,
but along with Ms. Evans their office was working on that.
Ms. Hollingsworth noted they visited over fifty local black businesses for their one-on-one
interviews, received a total of fifty responses from the city wide survey including Danville and
Pittsylvania County region and they proposed two different program concepts for future use for
continued outreach efforts. Ms. Agboola reviewed the steps moving forward including
strengthening business visibility, making sure the entrepreneur networks established this summer
continue, improve access to capital or making sure citizens or business owners know there was
capital or resources they can use, centralize business resources, encourage collaboration and
strengthen city community relationships, letting entrepreneurs know the City was there for them.
Entrepreneur Enterprise Engine Building Danville’s Small Business Network
Ellie Harvey and Corrie Brown presented to Council on Danville’s entrepreneurial eco-system; the
small business network was part of that, connecting small business owners with each other as
well as with the resources the City offers. The Small Business Network was to advocate for those
voices in the community, particularly working with SWaM businesses. There will be a board of
voting members specifically focusing on entrepreneurs, and what flows through it was funding
resources, a resource directory, workshops and peer connections. They created bylaws, an
application process, onboarding and member packets. Ms. Harvey reviewed the deliverables of
the survey, discussing next steps, how do they make sure they were being proactive, how do they
continue to have that safe space for continued conversations to keep the good things going.

Page 11 of 25

July 21, 2026
Ms. Brown explained what they got back from the community survey was that the number one
challenge was access to capital; they proposed a tracker/website. Another challenge was
businesses, in two to three years, having outgrown microloans but are yet bankable, the tracker
can help with that as well. Ms. Harvey explained another suggestion was a directory that shows
who the stakeholders involved were, what organizations provide marketing tools, and social
media tools. The directory starts with a navigation quiz to help streamline the process of knowing
who to call. Ms. Brown noted they visited Richmond to see how their ecosystem operated, and
visited Start Up Virginia and Blackstreet, to see what tools they used, how they organized
resources, how Richmond organizations refer entrepreneurs to each other. The network will
launch on July 25, the tools will be in place to start advocating for the small business network with
applications coming soon, to seat board members and start programming.
DISCUSSION OF PLAN MECHANICSVILLE
Dylan McKnight, Director of Urban Design with Benchmark, noted he has been working with the
City on Plan Mechanicsville for the last several months. This plan was an extension of the original
River District Plan, to cover that piece of the River District known Mechanicsville; there were a lot
of vacant properties and underutilized land. Mr. McKnight noted they did a lot of different types
of engagement with mailers, marketing communications, and workshops which yielded priorities
of Economic Development, streets and public space improvements, preserving history and
culture, and the character and place, and leverage the area’s history and culture.
They established three goals which drive the recommendations of the project moving forward:
celebrate Mechanicsville’s history and culture by making Mechanicsville history more visible,
highlight important places and landmarks, including creation of an interactive history trail and
establish a cultural and performing arts district. There were old buildings such as the old Ritz
Theatre, which was a gathering place and entertainment venue for a lot of African Americans in
the district, which could be revitalized. The second goal was to create a safe and memorable
River District Neighborhood which ties to streets and public places, by creating more walkable
streets, reinvest in North Union Street and develop spaces where neighbors can gather. Mr.
McKnight discussed Ridge Street and Poplar Streets which have more lanes than necessary, and
excessive lane width with narrow sidewalks, no bicycle facilities and limited pedestrian crossings.
The solutions included widening sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and landscaping; these were the
things people asked for, probably more than anything else. Mr. McKnight noted other residential
streets could be improved incrementally by adding on street parking and tree islands. The third
goal was following a tailored approach on how they grow. In the North Union Street area, now
that the park and White Mill were completed, may be the first thing people see when they come
visit and park at the parking deck; that area needs a lot of attention. They feel the blocks facing
the Mill, and on the other side of Floyd Street have the opportunity for mixed use, but the historic
district and the blocks between Floyd and Ridge were really more sensitive to adaptive reuse,
infill development and historic context sensitive redevelopment. Mr. McKnight reviewed a visual
of the conceptual master plan for that area, and stated they should encourage adaptive reuse;
there were a lot of buildings that could be actively reused for coffee shops, distilleries or breweries,
with the apartments and offices across the street in the mill. The Morotock Lofts redevelopment
was in progress; when that opens there will be new residents out walking, and new activity on the
streets. One suggestion was to create a Mechanicsville neighborhood group; they spoke to a lot
of people who moved out of the area, but were born there or worked in the area, or family had
worked there. Also, encouraging new business and adaptive reuse in some of these buildings
that were under utilized, place making and public space improvements. Mr. McKnight noted he
was impressed with what the City was doing, looking at the potential of the Mechanicville area,
with a river across the street, and the park. The potential for the area was huge.

Page 12 of 25

July 21, 2026
Mr. Marshall questioned if they have a timeline and budget and Mr. McKnight explained in the
back of the plan there was an implementation table and the recommendation timeline.
Mr. Vogler noted when they started on the River District they focused on some anchor projects to
get started and it has continued to grow from there. Was there a particular area they would start
with and Mr. McKnight stated from the City’s perspective, public works could work on the streets
and those highly visible, public grown elements together with Parks & Rec, that would be a low
cost, high visual impact way for people to start seeing change. There was already private
development interest in the area, and the City could let them take care of the larger development
things. There were incentive zones in the area so the City will be a key partner to help those
developments to start. What the city controls was the roads and sidewalks; people can see impact
quickly in the public spaces like that; that was what the City could do quickly.
Ms. Bagbey explained they were intentional as well with their stakeholder groups; anybody that
does development within the River District, was invited to the listening sessions for this. There
were two or three right now that were anxious for this to be completed. As soon as staff checks
this and can make it public, they will see immediate responses. Mr. Marshall questioned if there
were Federal dollars to help move this forward and Ms. Bagbey noted in certain sectors they could
get VDOT funds and if parts of it were in an Enterprise Zone.
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Vogler questioned the status of the street repaving on North Main Street and Mayor Jones
noted it would be between August and September.
Mayor Jones noted the Gratitude Tour was Thursday.
Dr. Miller questioned the status of the white-water facility and Mr. Larking explained they have
had to do some value engineering; it went out to bid, the bids came in extremely high and they
were looking at funding opportunities to bridge the gap.
CLOSED MEETING
At 9:00 p.m., Vice Mayor Buckner moved that this meeting of the City Council of the City of
Danville, Virginia be recessed and that Council immediately reconvene in a Closed Meeting for
the following purposes: the discussion or consideration of the acquisition or disposition of real
property for a public purpose where discussion in an open meeting would adversely impact the
bargaining position of the City as permitted by Subsection (A)(3) of Section 2.2-3711 of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended and more specifically to consider discussion regarding the sale
and/or potential purchase of a specific parcel of property for use by the City of Danville and/or
specific parcels of property for prospective recreational, industrial, commercial, and mixed use
projects looking to locate to the City, and parking facilities, and an Economic Development
discussion and update concerning prospective businesses or industries where no previous
announcement has been made and/or the expansion of an existing business or industry where
no previous announcement has been made as permitted by Subsection (A)(5) of Section 2.23711 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended and more specifically to consider an update on
multiple prospective commercial, mixed use, hospitality, and industrial projects considering
locating within the City and/or locating within the region in cooperation with the City’s regional
partners, and consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members, law enforcement or
emergency officers regarding reports or plans related to the security of government facilities or

Page 13 of 25

July 21, 2026
buildings or structures and the safety of persons using such facilities, building or structures as
permitted by Subsection (A) (19) of Section 2.2-3711 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended.
The Motion was seconded by Council Member Mayo and carried by the following vote:
VOTE:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSENT:

8-0-1
Buckner, Hood, Jones, Marshall
Mayo, Miller, Saunders and Vogler (8)
None (0)
Campbell (1)

Upon unanimous vote at 10:14 p.m., Council reconvened in open session and Vice Mayor
Buckner moved for adoption of the following Resolution:
CERTIFICATE OF CLOSED MEETING
WHEREAS, the Council convened in Closed Meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative
recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires a Certification
by the Council that such Closed Meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council hereby certifies that, to the best of each
Member’s knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements of Virginia Law under Section 2.2-3711 were heard, discussed or considered, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Closed Meeting
was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Committee.
The Motion was seconded by Council Member Mayo and carried by the following vote:
VOTE:
AYE:
NAY:
ABSENT:

8-0-1
Buckner, Hood, Jones, Marshall
Mayo, Miller, Saunders and Vogler (8)
None (0)
Campbell (1)

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M.
APPROVED:
_______________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
CITY CLERK

Page 14 of 25

Council Letter
City of Danville, Virginia

CL - 2945

WORK SESSION ITEMS

1.

City Council Work Session
Meeting Date: September 15, 2026
Subject:

Vandola Crescent Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Agreement

From:

Brian Dunevant, Assistant Director of Public Works | City Engineer

COUNCIL ACTION
A Resolution of the Council of the City of Danville, Virginia Approving a Sanitary Sewer Main Extension
Reimbursement Agreement Pursuant to Section 9-193 of the Code of the City of Danville, Virginia.
SUMMARY
This item is to consider approving a Sanitary Sewer Main Extension Reimbursement Agreement
between the City of Danville and Blackstone Building Group, LLC for the extension of public sanitary
sewer service to approximately thirty-one (31) lots in the Vandola Crescent subdivision on Vandola
Road, with a maximum reimbursement amount not to exceed three hundred thirteen thousand six
hundred twelve dollars and eighty-one cents ($313,612.81).
BACKGROUND
The Developer is proposing to construct approximately eight hundred (800) linear feet of sanitary
sewer main to extend the City’s public sanitary sewer system and provide service to approximately
thirty-one (31) lots located in the new Vandola Crescent subdivision on Vandola Road. Plans for the
proposed sanitary sewer extension have been prepared by Watershed Consulting and approved by the
City Engineer.
Section 9-193 of the Code of the City of Danville provides for reimbursement of eligible costs
associated with extensions of the City’s sanitary sewer system. The proposed Resolution would
approve the Sanitary Sewer Main Extension Reimbursement Agreement and authorize the City
Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the Sanitary Sewer Main
Extension Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Danville and Blackstone Building Group,
LLC.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.

Resolution
Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Agreement
Plan
Vandola Crescent Phase I

Page 15 of 25

PRESENTED:

________

ADOPTED:
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___ . ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA
APPROVING A SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXTENSION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 9-193 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA.
WHEREAS, Section 9-193 of the Code of the City of Danville, Virginia, provides
for the extension of sanitary sewer mains and establishes conditions under which the City may
reimburse the costs incurred in connection with such extensions; and
WHEREAS, Blackstone Building Group, LLC (the “Developer”) has requested
that the City of Danville enter into a reimbursement agreement for the extension of a sanitary
sewer main to serve approximately thirty-one (31) lots located in the Vandola Crescent
subdivision on Vandola Road; and
WHEREAS, the proposed sanitary sewer extension consists of approximately
eight hundred (800) linear feet of sanitary sewer main, as generally shown on plans prepared
by Watershed Consulting, dated April 24, 2025, and approved by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9-193 of the City Code, the Developer
proposes, with the approval of the City Engineer, to contract directly with a qualified utility
contractor for construction of the sanitary sewer main extension in accordance with plans and
specifications approved by the City Engineer, with the work to be inspected and approved by
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated the eligible cost of construction of
the sanitary sewer main extension to be three hundred thirteen thousand six hundred twelve
and eighty-one/100 dollars ($313,612.81); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9-193, reimbursement to the Developer shall
be based upon the actual eligible cost of construction, not to exceed the amount estimated by
the City Engineer, and shall otherwise be subject to the conditions, limitations, availability of

Page 16 of 25

appropriated funds, and reimbursement provisions established by Section 9-193 and the
reimbursement agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Danville,
Virginia, that the Sanitary Sewer Main Extension Reimbursement Agreement between the City
of Danville, Virginia, and Blackstone Building Group, LLC, substantially in the form presented
to City Council, is hereby approved pursuant to Section 9-193 of the Code of the City of
Danville, Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the maximum amount eligible for
reimbursement under the Agreement shall be the actual eligible cost of construction of the
sanitary sewer main extension, not to exceed three hundred thirteen thousand six hundred
twelve and eighty-one/100 dollars ($313,612.81), being the estimated cost of construction as
determined by the City Engineer; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reimbursement shall be made only in
accordance with Section 9-193 of the City Code and the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, including the requirements applicable to qualifying active revenue-producing taps
and the availability and appropriation of funds; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Danville and to execute such other documents
and take such administrative actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the
purposes of this Resolution and the Agreement, provided that such actions do not increase the
maximum reimbursement amount authorized herein.
Approved:
____________________________________
Mayor

Page 17 of 25

Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk

Approved as to
Form and Legal Sufficiency:
___________________________________
City Attorney

Page 18 of 25

SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXTENSION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, made this _____ day of, 2026, by and between the CITY OF
DANVILLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called the “City,” party of the first part, and
Blackstone Building Group, LLC, hereinafter called the “Developer,” party of the second
part.

WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to construct approximately 800 linear feet of
sanitary sewer main to provide public sanitary sewer service to approximately thirty-one
(31) lots in the Vandola Crescent subdivision, as shown on plans prepared by
Watershed Consulting, dated April 24, 2025, and approved by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City for a reimbursement
agreement pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, entitled “Extension of Water, Gas,
and Sewer Mains; When Made and Conditions Upon Which Reimbursement of Costs
Will Be Made by the City,” of Chapter 9 of the Code of the City of Danville, Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has estimated the cost of the sanitary sewer main
extension eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement to be $313,612.81; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to contract directly with a qualified utility contractor
to construct the sanitary sewer main extension in accordance with City-approved plans
and specifications, as permitted by Section 9-193 of the Code of the City of Danville,
Virginia;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and obligations assumed herein
by the parties, the City and Developer agree as follows:
(a) Construction by Developer
The Developer, with the approval of the City Engineer, shall contract directly with
a qualified utility contractor for construction of the sanitary sewer main extension.
The sanitary sewer main extension shall be constructed in accordance with plans
and specifications approved by the City Engineer and shall be subject to all
applicable City requirements for permits, construction, inspection, testing,
acceptance, and record drawings.
The work shall be inspected and approved by the City Engineer or the City
Engineer’s authorized representative. If the sanitary sewer main extension is not

Page 19 of 25

installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the
Developer shall not be entitled to reimbursement for such work.
(b) Maximum Reimbursement
The amount eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement shall be the actual
cost of construction of the sanitary sewer main extension, not to exceed
$313,612.81, which amount represents the estimated cost of the sanitary sewer
main construction as determined by the City Engineer.
Only actual construction costs eligible under Section 9-193 and this Agreement
shall be subject to reimbursement. In no event shall the City’s total
reimbursement obligation exceed the lesser of:
1. The actual eligible cost of constructing the sanitary sewer main
extension; or
2. $313,612.81, being the maximum amount estimated by the City
Engineer and approved under this Agreement.
Costs exceeding the maximum reimbursement amount shall be the sole
responsibility of the Developer unless otherwise approved by the City Council
through an amendment to this Agreement.
(c) Qualification and Calculation of Reimbursement
Within the ten (10) years following completion of construction of the sanitary
sewer main extension, the Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement for each
active revenue-producing tap made on the sanitary sewer main extension,
whether such tap is made on property of the Developer or on the property of
others along the extension.
For each qualifying active revenue-producing tap, the Developer shall be eligible
for reimbursement in an amount equivalent to the cost of one hundred (100) feet
of the sanitary sewer main extension, subject at all times to the maximum
reimbursement established in paragraph (b).
The total reimbursement made to the Developer shall not exceed the actual
eligible construction cost of the sanitary sewer main extension or the maximum
reimbursement established by this Agreement, whichever is less.
No reimbursement shall be made for taps made more than ten (10) years after
completion of construction of the sanitary sewer main extension.
(d) Timing and Availability of Reimbursement

Page 20 of 25

Reimbursement shall be calculated at the beginning of each calendar year for
qualifying active revenue-producing taps made during the preceding calendar
year.
Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, payment of the amount so
determined shall be made to the Developer. The City shall be obligated to make
reimbursement under this Agreement only to the extent that funds have been
appropriated therefor and are thereafter available in any fiscal year to make such
reimbursement.
If sufficient funds have not been appropriated and are not available at the time
reimbursement would otherwise be payable, the unpaid eligible reimbursement
shall remain subject to payment when funds are subsequently appropriated and
available, subject to the terms and maximum reimbursement amount of this
Agreement.
If the number of qualifying active revenue-producing taps made during a calendar
year is sufficient to generate the entire remaining eligible reimbursement amount,
the Developer shall be eligible for the entire remaining reimbursement amount,
subject to the maximum reimbursement established by this Agreement and the
availability and appropriation of funds as provided above.
(e) Tapping and Connection Fees
Regular tapping, connection, or other applicable fees associated with
connections to the sanitary sewer main shall be charged in accordance with
applicable City requirements. Such fees shall not be subject to reimbursement
under this Agreement.
(f) Documentation Required for Reimbursement
Before receiving reimbursement, the Developer shall provide documentation
satisfactory to the City Engineer demonstrating the actual eligible construction
cost of the sanitary sewer main extension.
At a minimum, the Developer shall provide:
1. Proof that all bills associated with the reimbursable sanitary sewer
construction have been paid;
2. Paid invoices or other documentation sufficient to establish actual
construction costs;
3. An affidavit or other acceptable release of liens from the utility
contractor;

Page 21 of 25

4. Required testing and inspection documentation; and
5. Final record or as-built drawings acceptable to the City Engineer.
(g) Acceptance of Improvements
Completion of construction shall not, by itself, constitute acceptance of the
sanitary sewer main extension by the City.
The sanitary sewer main extension shall be subject to final inspection and
approval by the City Engineer. The Developer shall correct any deficiencies
identified by the City before final acceptance and before reimbursement is
authorized.
Upon satisfactory completion, inspection, testing, submission of required
documentation, and correction of identified deficiencies, the sanitary sewer main
extension may be accepted by the City in accordance with applicable City
procedures.
(h) City Oversizing
If the City determines that the sanitary sewer main should be oversized to
provide capacity greater than that required to serve the Developer’s project, the
City may require such additional capacity. Any excess material costs resulting
from oversizing larger than an eight-inch (8”) sanitary sewer main shall be borne
by the City in accordance with Section 9-193 of the City Code.
(i) Assignment
This Agreement shall not be assigned by the Developer without the prior written
consent of the City; provided, however, that the City’s consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
City consent shall not be required for an assignment of this Agreement to a
lending institution as security or additional security for financing associated with
the improvements contemplated by this Agreement.
(j) Governing Authority
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Section 9-193 of the Code of the City
of Danville, Virginia, as amended.
In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and applicable provisions of the
City Code, the applicable provisions of the City Code shall control.
(k) Entire Agreement and Amendments

Page 22 of 25

This Agreement constitutes the understanding between the City and Developer
concerning reimbursement for the sanitary sewer main extension described
herein.
Any amendment affecting the City’s maximum reimbursement obligation shall be
made in writing and approved in accordance with applicable City requirements.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA

By: ______________________________________
Name/Title: Ken Larking, City Manager

ATTEST:

DEVELOPER: Blackstone Building Group, LLC

By: ______________________________________

Name/Title: _______________________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney

Page 23 of 25

Page 24 of 25

ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
8/18/2026

SUBDIVISION BOND ESTIMATE - VANDOLA CRESCENT - PHASE 1 (SEWER ONLY)
LINE

ITEM

SPEC

ITEM

CODE

REF.

ITEM DESCRIPTION

SCHED
QTY

UNIT

UNIT

TOTAL

PRICE

PRICE

NO.

01

513SD20-0001

513

MOBILIZATION

0.25

LS

$

64,689.00

$

16,172.25

02

512SP20-0002

ATTD

NS MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC

0.20

LS

$

10,000.00

$

2,000.00

03

105SX20-0001

ATTD

NS CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING (CONSTRUCTION)

0.10

LS

$

15,000.00

$

1,500.00

04

301SD20-0002

301

CLEARING AND GRUBBING

0.00

ACRE $

20,000.00

$

-

05

302SD20-0001

ATTD

BEDDING MATL.AGGR.NO. 25 OR 26

130.00

TON

$

60.00

$

7,800.00

06

302SD20-0002

ATTD

BEDDING MATL. AGGR. NO. 57

30.00

TON

$

65.00

$

1,950.00

07

302SD20-0025

302

15" CONC. PIPE

0.00

LF

$

170.00

$

-

08

302SD20-0237

302

DROP INLET DI-1

0.00

EA

$

7,500.00

$

-

09

302SD20-0312

302

DROP INLET DI-3B,L=6'

0.00

EA

$

7,000.00

$

-

10

302SD20-0313

302

DROP INLET DI-3B,L=8'

0.00

EA

$

9,000.00

$

-

11

302SD20-0314

302

DROP INLET DI-3B,L=10'

0.00

EA

$

8,500.00

$

-

12

302SD20-0330

302

DROP INLET DI-3C,L=8'

0.00

EA

$

7,500.00

$

-

13

302SD20-0661

302

MANHOLE MH-2

0.00

LF

$

800.00

$

-

14

302SD20-0681

302

TEMP. SEDIMENT RISER PIPE 36"

0.00

LF

$

750.00

$

-

15

302SX20-0025

ATTD

NS END SECTION EW-1PC

0.00

EA

$

2,500.00

$

-

16

302SX20-0028

ATTD

NS FRAME & COVER US FOUNDRY USF 700 FRAME & KL COVER ("SANITARY")

4.00

EA

$

650.00

$

2,600.00

17

302SX20-0028

ATTD

NS FRAME & COVER US FOUNDRY USF 700 FRAME & KL COVER ("STORM")

0.00

EA

$

650.00

$

-

18

303SD20-0001

303

REGULAR EXCAVATION

0.00

CY

$

25.00

$

-

19

303SD20-0020

303

EROSION CONTROL MULCH

0.00

ACRE $

7,500.00

$

-

20

303SD20-0022

303

CHECK DAM ROCK TY. I

0.00

$

750.00

$

-

EA

21

303SD20-0028

303

DEWATERING BASIN EC-8

0.00

EA

$

1,200.00

$

-

22

303SD20-0029

303

SILTATION CONTROL EXCAVATION

0.00

CY

$

25.00

$

-

23

303SD20-0030

303

INLET PROTECTION TYPE A

0.00

EA

$

450.00

$

-

24

303SD20-0031

303

INLET PROTECTION TYPE B

0.00

EA

$

550.00

$

-

25

303SD20-0033

303

TEMP. SILT FENCE TYPE B

0.00

LF

$

9.00

$

-

26

303SD20-0034

303

TEMP. SILT FENCE TYPE A

0.00

LF

$

6.00

$

-

27

303SD20-0035

303

TEMP. SEDIMENT BASIN EXCAVATION

0.00

CY

$

25.00

$

-

28

303SX20-0003

25.00

CY

$

150.00

$

3,750.00

29

303SX20-0005

ATTD

ROCK EXCAVATION

4.00

CY

$

250.00

$

1,000.00

30

303SX20-0009

ATTD

NS GRADING FINE GRADING

0.00

LS

$

7,500.00

$

-

31

303SX20-0010

ATTD

NS ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

0.00

LS

$

3,500.00

$

-

32

303SX20-0012

ATTD

UTILITY TEST PIT UNPAVED

2.00

EA

$

550.00

$

1,100.00

33

303SX20-0013

ATTD

UTILITY TEST PIT ASPHALT CONCRETE

3.00

EA

$

850.00

$

2,550.00

34

309SD20-0009

309

AGGR. BASE MATL. TY. I NO. 21A

6.00

TON

$

60.00

$

360.00

35

315SD20-0007

315

ASPHALT CONCRETE TY. SM-9.5A CONST

2.00

TON

$

160.00

$

320.00

36

315SD20-0010

315

ASPHALT CONCRETE TY. BM-25.0A CONST

6.00

TON

$

130.00

$

780.00

37

315SX20-0011

315

NS SAW-CUT ASPH CONC FULL DEPTH

30.00

LF

$

12.00

$

360.00

38

316SD20-0030

316

CONCRETE ENTRANCE PAVE. 7"

0.00

SY

$

190.00

$

-

39

414SD20-0005

414

EROSION CTRL. STONE CL. II, EC-1

0.00

TON

$

120.00

$

-

40

502SD20-0022

502

COMB. CURB & GUTTER, STD. CG-6

10.00

LF

$

65.00

$

650.00

41

502SX20-0003

ATTD

NS COMB. CURB & GUTTER ROLL-TOP CURB & GUTTER

0.00

LF

$

78.00

$

-

42

504SD20-0003

504

HYDR. CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 4"

0.00

SY

$

105.00

$

-

43

510SX20-0002

ATTD

REMOVE COMB. CURB AND GUTTER

10.00

LF

$

15.00

$

150.00

44

515SD20-0004

515

FLEXIBLE PAVE.PLANING 0"-2"

0.00

SY

$

37.50

$

45

520SD20-0272

520

SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE

35.84

LF

$

950.00

$

34,048.00

303, ATTD NS EXCAVATION UNDERCUT REM. & DISPOSE UNSUITABLE

-

46

520SX20-0004

520

NS SEWER CLEANOUT

31.00

EA

$

600.00

$

18,600.00

47

520SX20-0011

ATTD

NS SANITARY SEWER BYPASS PUMPING

1.00

LS

$

2,500.00

$

2,500.00

48

520SX20-0011

ATTD

NS SANITARY SEWER CONNECT 8" PVC TO EXIST. MH

1.00

LS

$

1,000.00

$

1,000.00

49

520SX20-0012

ATTD

NS UTILITIES TRACER WIRE 12-AWG SOLID COPPER-CLAD STEEL (HDPE COATED)

900.00

LF

$

0.75

$

675.00

50

520SX20-0013

ATTD

NS UTILITIES TRACER WIRE ACCESS BOX

3.00

EA

$

300.00

$

900.00

51

520SX20-0176

520

NS SANITARY SEWER PIPE 8" PVC, SDR-26 (ASTM D3034)

780.00

LF

$

125.00

$

97,500.00

52

520SX20-0176

520

NS SANITARY SEWER PIPE 4" PVC SDR-35 LATERAL CONNECTION

775.00

LF

$

65.00

$

50,375.00

53

603SD20-0002

603

TEMPORARY SEED

150.00

LB

$

15.00

$

2,250.00

54

603SD20-0003

603

REGULAR SEED

0.00

LB

$

15.00

$

-

55

603SD20-0004

603

OVERSEEDING

0.00

LB

$

12.00

$

-

56

603SD20-0014

603

FERTILIZER NITROGEN - N

0.00

LB

$

10.00

$

-

57

603SD20-0015

603

FERTILIZER PHOSPHOROUS - P

0.00

LB

$

10.00

$

-

58

603SD20-0016

603

FERTILIZER POTASSIUM - K

0.00

LB

$

10.00

$

-

59

603SD20-0017

603

LIME

0.00

TON

$

650.00

$

-

60

606SD20-0001

606

ROLLED EROSION CTRL PRODUCT EC-2 TYPE 1

0.00

SY

$

7.50

$

-

61

700SD20-0034

700

SIGN POST STP-1, 2", 14 GAUGE

0.00

LF

$

27.00

$

-

62

700SD20-0041

700

CONC. FOUND. STP-1, TY. D

0.00

EA

$

500.00

$

-

63

701SD20-0001

701

SIGN PANEL

0.00

SF

$

75.00

$

-

64

704SD20-0007

704

TYPE B CLASS I PVMT LINE MRKG 6"

0.00

LF

$

3.00

$

-

65

704SD20-0015

704

TYPE B CLASS II PVMT LINE MRKG 24"

0.00

LF

$

28.00

$

-

66

704SD20-0093

704

MRKG INT'L ACCESSIBILITY SYMB TY B CL II

0.00

EA

$

450.00

$

Estimate dated 8/18/2026. Prepared by the City of Danville, Virginia, Office of the City Engineer.

TOTAL BID ITEMS (SEWER ONLY) $
25% Contingency $
TOTAL BOND ESTIMATE (SEWER ONLY) $

-

250,890.25
62,722.56
313,612.81

Page 25 of 25