In cases of need, council must act

News Virginian
Published: November 7, 2007

The voters have spoken. Now City Council must respond. In a referendum Tuesday, Waynesboro voters backed stormwater management improvements, a new fire station and a library addition. Ballfield and sidewalk and crosswalk improvements were rejected.
The vote was non-binding. Council still gets the final say, and because these are capital projects, the city charter requires that they be approved by a super-majority, or four of five council members. With council split 3-2 and the minority staunchly opposed to most spending initiatives, the upcoming weeks should prove interesting.
Here's our take on how it should all play out:
On three of the five questions on the ballot, putting the decision in voters' hands seems to us to have been an acceptable course. We supported an addition at the city library because we consider good libraries foundational to democracy as well as strong communities. We opposed ballfield improvements on the grounds that they represented a luxury for a city faced with other expensive and more pressing needs and sidewalk and crosswalk improvements because the city failed to provide sufficient specifics.
None of those items qualifies as essential. Letting voters have sway on these points makes sense. It allows the people of our town to have a direct role in shaping what happens here. So, regardless of our own recommendations, we consider council justified in following voters' wishes on these items.
Stormwater management improvements and the west-end fire station project fall into a different category. These two items are about infrastructure and public safety. Ensuring that our stormwater system functions properly when the rains fall and the river rises is a fundamental task of our city government. So too is taking steps to improve fire response in the city's fastest developing area.
Resistance from council's minority faction to these capital projects has revolved around money. Spending on these items would total almost $9 million, or roughly twice the value of the remaining three projects. Fire station foes are quick to cite what they call the hidden costs — namely, $800,000 annually to operate the facility and pay for an extra dozen firefighters.
Counting the cost is an important exercise in which more government officials should engage. But on these items, the need is clear. A look at the water swirling around some city drains during a downpour shows as much. Spending $6.2 million on stormwater fixes in eight flood-prone neighborhoods is only a start in repairing a massive city problem. Building a fire station in the west end, where development has shown no signs of ebbing, represents a response to reality.
Council needs to act on these two items not based on their popularity at the polls (more than two-thirds of voters backed stormwater improvements) but on whether the need is real. Members of both factions should demand that city staffers provide crystal-clear clarity regarding what these projects will accomplish and precisely how the highest levels of efficiency will be maintained as the work gets done. Neither side should shrink from their duty to ensure that city government fulfills its most essential functions.
That, we believe, should translate to yes votes on these projects.