Council can fix city bond mess

The city has itself in a fine mess. The solution, however, is far simpler than the quandary over what precisely happened on Election Day and in the weeks leading up to it.

This much we know: Voters expressed strong backing for $10 million in bonds for stormwater system improvements, a west-end fire station and a library expansion. Determining whether that vote was binding or non-binding has been like categorizing grains of sand in the Sahara.

City officials and council members told us before the election and after it that the referendum was non-binding and that a so-called supermajority, or four of five council members, still would be needed to approve the bonds.

But when officials announced that a legal notice regarding the referendum had not been published in The News Virginian, as required by court order, they also told us something different about the status of the vote. City Attorney Robert C. Lunger said the referendum was binding. By definition, that would require the city to abide by the voters' decision. That, of course, was not the final answer.

Richmond-based Hunton & Williams has told the city that a simple majority, or three of five votes, would be required to approve bonds, provided the Circuit Court validates the referendum vote.

Lunger's attempt in a written statement to add clarity on the issue only deepened the muddle: "[T]he election process does not take away the legislative discretion that any local governing body still retains on when and how to issue bonds. This legislative discretion is reflected in the need still to have at least a 3/5ths affirmative vote. To the extent 'non-binding' reflects this legislative discretion, it is an accurate description."

If you are more confused now than before, welcome to the party. The short answer appears to be this: City officials botched this one badly.

Let's cut to the solution: To get the referendum election validated, the city would be required to take the case to court. That would cost time and money, and there is reason to doubt whether a court would approve the vote. Without court backing, the bonds only could be approved by a supermajority, which is precisely what the city had said all along would be needed, regardless of the referendum outcome.

All five council members told us on the day after the election that they would abide by the referendum vote. That required some compromise on every member's part. The council's majority faction - Mayor Tom Reynolds, Vice Mayor Nancy Dowdy and Councilwoman Lorie Smith - initially supported all five bonds. That included two, covering ballfield and sidewalk improvements, that voters rejected. The minority faction of Tim Williams and Frank Lucente had opposed borrowing for the projects.

The council should stand by its commitment to voters and follow their lead on all five ballot questions. That would spare us further confusion about the referendum and eliminate needless expense to take the case to court or to exercise another option, to hold a second bond election.

The voters of our town have told us what they want. Council members said they would vote accordingly. That would produce a unanimous vote, never mind super and simple majorities and binding and non-binding referendums. It also would show all five council members to be leaders who stand by their word. Problem solved.