Category Archives: editorial

New Year’s Resolution: Use RPL’s Online Resources

Posted on by
Reply

If you are still looking for a New Year’s resolution, this one has a lot of potential. While many Oregon Hill residents enjoy walking downtown to our nearby Richmond Public Library Main Street location, all Richmond residents can take advantage of RPL’s FREE online resources.

Here is a list of them:
America’s News (Search largest collection of full-text U.S. newspapers)
Auto Repair Reference Center (Find the cost of repair to your car or truck)
Biography in Context (Biographical information on more than 500,000 people)
Find It Virginia (one-stop source for newspaper and periodical articles on a wide range of topics, resources for middle and high school students with research assignments)
Global Issues in Context (variety of sources focusing on broad issues such as war, genocide, terrorism, human rights, poverty, climate change. What no Kardashian or Duck Dynasty?) Literati Public (Literati is a great place to stat research on any topic, plus online homework help)
Mango Languages (Study over 77 different languages through everyday conversation. Includes over 15 courses for people learning English as a second language)
Mergent (Full financial information offered on international and U.S. companies)
NoveList Plus (Literature database spotlights biographies, book titles, subject headings, and read-a-likes for current as well as past authors)
Opposing Viewpoints in Context (This database allows users to explore both sides of hotly debated topics)
Reference USA (Find residential, business, and medical listings across the country by name, address, telephone number, or business code)
TumbleBook Library (Animated, talking picture books that teach kids the joy of reading)
Zinio (Full digital copies of popular magazines)

Then in my true, made-for-TV infomercial voice, But that’s not all!-

In addition to the many, many e-books that can be downloaded for your iPad or e-tablet reading pleasure, there is also the Learning Express Library, which offers online courses and practice tests for Civil Service, ASVAB, GED, SAT, and even vocations like nursing. Again, you can register and access these FREE online resources using your Richmond PUBLIC library card number as your username.

The thing is, I don’t think many Richmond teachers, let alone students, fully recognize just how much is available online from RPL. So, even if you are already using RPL online, make a point to tell your neighbors about it and have a Happy New Year!

header copy

Canal Water Levels And Venture Richmond

Posted on by
6

There is important new documentation on the water level in the James River and Kanawha Canal provided by the research of canal enthusiast C. Wayne Taylor. He has made the discovery that there is still a water gauge in the canal at the city Park Hydro near Cherry Street, some 1000 feet from Venture Richmond’s proposed amphitheater. The water level in the canal is clearly shown by a line on the wall at 83 feet next to this water gauge. Water has eroded all paint from the gauge under the 83 foot mark on the gauge.

James River and Kanawha Canal gauge at Park Hydro, Cherry Street, showing water line at 83 feet elevation

Remarkably, Wayne Taylor has also discovered a 1990s photograph from the City Planning Department in the VCU Library showing water in the canal at the location of the Park Hydro, and this photograph shows the water gauge in the canal.

Water in canal at 83 feet elevation at Cherry Street, Park Hydro, 1990s (Source - VCU Libraries)

The 83 foot water elevation of the water in the canal shown in this gauge and photograph correspond with the many Tredegar and C&O Railroad surveys of the historical water level in the canal at this same location.

James River and Kanawha Canal detail showing 83 foot gauge at Park Hydro

It would be folly to reduce the elevation of the tow path of the James River and Kanawha Canal to 83 feet as proposed by Venture Richmond, when a preponderance of evidence shows that the historical water level in the canal near the amphitheater is documented at 83 feet elevation.

When will Venture Richmond acknowledge its plan is based on flawed history? When will Venture Richmond give in to sensible compromise and stop trying to dishonorably label neighborhood concerns as unreasonable?

Richmond Water Rate Reformers Respond to Utility Report

Posted on by
Reply

So, this press release went out on Monday:

***

Richmond Water Rate Reformers Respond to Utility Report

Richmond water rate reformers had been eagerly anticipating the Sept. 17th City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities Report to Council (pursuant to City ordinances 2013-58-77 and 2013-61-79, study performed by DPU with consultant Ratfelis Financial Consultants). A copy of the study was finally earlier this month and is attached to this press release. Disturbingly, the report has not been worth the wait. It lacks substance and appears to be written to support the existing rate structure. At this point, City Council has asked it’s staff to review and make some comments and recommendations for next steps, which suggests that it will consider the issue further in the next budget cycle.
Citizens are urged to contact the press and their City Council representative and ask why the base charges cannot be further reduced and why the PILOT for federal tax is still part of their bills.

Report lacks substance:
Pages Topics
00-01 Table of contents
02-03 Executive summary
04-05 Purpose
06-09 Concepts
10-12 Reconciliation
13-13 Expenses
14-15 PILOT cost
16-20 Affordability measures
21-26 Low Income assistance

The only things new are some subsidy ideas, which are arguably not the purpose of DPU. There is no consideration for the relatively high base charges of $26.11 (which Mayor Jones only partially addressed last year) or the unlawfulness or appropriateness of the federal PILOT (payment in lieu of federal taxes, which, again, no private business pays to the City). In the report chart (page 3) showing how rates would change if this PILOT payment in lieu of federal income tax was eliminated, instead of showing a reduction in the base service charge, the report shows only a reduction in the volumetric charge. It does not justify the allocation of the charges to the base service charge vs. the volumetric charge.

Here is why this is important: since we know the number of residential and commercial customers, we can compute that the base water/sewer service charge for each customer can be reduced $7.62/month just by removing the (probably illegal) payment in lieu of Federal income tax.
Here are the figures: According the water rate study, in 2014 PILOT payment in lieu of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES for the water and wastewater will be $5,442,575.
There are 51,825 residential and 7683 commercial water customers, or 59,508 total water customers. $5,442,575 divided by 59,508 customers equals $91.45 per customer. $91.45 divided by 12 months equals $7.62 each month that each customer’s base water/sewer bill could be reduced just by removing the PILOT payment in lieu of FEDERAL income tax.

We note the American Water Works Assoc. Policy on Financing, Accounting and Rules, which state among other rules, ” Reasonable taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, and/or payments for services rendered to the water utility by local government or other divisions of the owning entity may be included in water utility’s revenue requirements after taking into account the contribution for fire protection and other services furnished by the utility to the local government or to other divisions of the owning entity.” Federal taxes do not meet the reasonable critera.
Does the City subtract the services provided by the utility from the charges to the utility? What about fire hydrants service, street light services. Also, do public buildings pay for water and sewer?

In the report’s discussion of affordability it does not address the fundamental idea of lowering the base rate further to provide an incentive for conservation, as well as a means to lower the residential bill. Where is the Anti-Poverty Commission on this matter? In the big picture, conserving water reduces the need for more infrastructure, chemicals, etc.

This report also ignores the effect of the potential savings to water and waste water operations from the creation of the storm water utility and the offloading of part of the common service functions costs to the storm water utility budget. Upon examining the DPU’s organizational charts for all three utilities, it is not clear what if any accounting procedure is used to allocate time and charges for each utility. Most of the storm water employees were DPU employees prior to the creation of the storm water utility in 2009.

Water rate reformers are reserving their comments for now on the reformatted water bills being sent to customers. We hope to collect more feedback. But we also note that there have been recent complaints about erroneous billing due to faulty water meters, that have been reported on by WTVR television news.

Background information:

http://www.change.org/petitions/reform-richmond-s-water-rates/

http://bg-us.org/2013/05/01/informational-video-examines-city-of-richmond-utility-charges-and-rates/#more-126

Tredegar Takes In Museum of Confederacy To Form New Civil War Museum

Posted on by
Reply

It was alluded to earlier, but now it has been announced. From NBC12:

Now the Museum of the Confederacy and the American Civil War Center are joining forces to build a $30 million museum in Richmond with the goal of creating the top Civil War museum in the nation 150 years after the deadliest conflict fought on U.S. soil.

The marriage of museums, announced to The Associated Press, will meld the collection of Confederate battle flags, uniforms, weapons and other historic relics with a narrative-based museum that uses bold, interactive exhibits and living history events to relate its 360-degree telling of the war.

…

In a joint announcement, the museums said the new historic attraction in the former capital of the Confederacy has yet to be named, but $20 million has been committed to its construction. Ground will be broken in 2014, with an expected opening the following year.

The new museum will be located along the James River, at the Tredegar Ironworks, where much of the South’s cannons were forged during the war. It’s also the home of the Civil War Center. The museums said bringing together both institutions will “further establish Richmond as the foremost Civil War destination in the United States.”

While other news sites are just reporting the announcement, many are still digesting what this means. A more nuanced reflection from an unnamed Oregon Hill neighbor:

Hmmm … no comment on the fate of the authentic White House of the Confederacy, coveted by VCU. And the $20 million pledged for this new museum would have gone a long way toward building a slavery museum in the authentic location in Shockoe Bottom. I wonder what proportion of that $20 million is being pledged by VCU foundations and their donors.

Between turning the canal location into an amphitheater, turning the slave market location into a ball park, and ceding the White House of the Confederacy to VCU, we are really at risk of losing the city’s authentic history.

Questioning Venture Richmond

Posted on by
Reply

From citizen “watchdog” C.Wayne Taylor:

Councilor Agelasto requested that Venture Richmond provide financial and other data to the Council’s Finance and Economic Development Committee. Jack Berry presented the information at the committee’s October 24th meeting.

I support Mr. Agelasto’s inquiry into the breadth and depth of the city’s involvement with and funding of Venture Richmond. While Venture Richmond is good at promotional work, it seems to have become a monopoly with excessive influence over the decisions made at city hall.

Mr. Berry is a very experienced promoter. He presents Venture Richmond’s view very effectively. As with most matters, there may be more to the story. He seems to be off on some of the facts included in his presentation. Regarding the amphitheater:

–Mr. Berry said that the planning commission proved the amphitheater project. The planning commission approved a concept plan. The final plan must still get commission approval.

–Mr. Berry refers to the canal’s configuration in the early 1800s. In past presentations he cites the 1850 to 1860 period.

–Mr. Berry repeats the claim that the amphitheater plan is necessary to continue the festival. He has not explained why.

It is noteworthy that councilors Graziano, Robertson and Samuels had no questions.

Also noteworthy is that some of the materials available on-line are very poor quality and some seem to be completely missing.

Presentation: (ed. note: click here to download large .pdf file from the City website)

Venture Richmond self-promotion on pages 9 through 101.
Venture Richmond financial data on pages 103 through 109.
[stop at page 109]

The two pages of financial data are hard to read and in some places illegible. Not all the figures Mr. Berry recites can be verified in the data.

The materials are incomplete. Several financial reports mentioned at the meeting are not included in the on-line documents.

Audio:(ed. note: click here to download .wma audio file from City website)

0:00:27 Presentation
0:00:35 Venture Richmond – Jack Berry, Executive Director
0:06:18 amphitheater – Berry: It got unanimous approval from the planning commission last month.
0:06:54 canal – Berry: The canal will be restored to its configuration in the early 1800s during the heyday of canal boat traffic on the James River and Kanawha Canal.
0:07:04 crowd – Berry: This is the crowd of people that are now at the main stage on NewMarket property that will need to move to that amphitheater in order for us to continue to host this big festival.
0:11:03 answers to budget questions [handout]
0:18:36 questions
0:18:48 Agelasto – future of Venture Richmond
0:30:07 Agelasto – top priorities
0:33:09 Agelasto – base-line services
0:36:27 Agelasto – sidewalk cleaning
0:39:40 Robertson – compliments Venture Richmond
0:43:53 Samuels – no comments
0:43:53 Graziano – thanks Venture Richmond

Letter On Proposed Tax Abatement Ordinance

Posted on by
3

October 16, 2013

The Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA

Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 2013-219 – Tax Abatements

Dear Honorable Members of City Council,

The proposed tax abatement ordinance seems unlawful.

The Constitution of Virginia allows a tax abatement when a building has undergone rehabilitation because of age and use. (1)

The ordinance seems to allow a tax abatement for a building in excellent condition.

Shouldn’t a tax abatement be limited to a building needing rehabilitation?

Sincerely yours,

C. Wayne Taylor

(1) The General Assembly may by general law authorize the governing body of any county, city, town, or regional government to provide for a partial exemption from local real property taxation, within such restrictions and upon such conditions as may be prescribed, (i) of real estate whose improvements, by virtue of age and use, have undergone substantial renovation, rehabilitation or replacement or (ii) of real estate with new structures and improvements in conservation, redevelopment, or rehabilitation areas. Constitution of Virginia, ARTICLE X, Section 6 (h).

Copy:
Jean Capel, City Clerk
Lou Ali, Council Chief of Staff
Better Government Richmond
Press

Times Dispatch Editorial Offers Compromise in Theater Controversy

Posted on by
5

The ‘top opinion’ in today’s Times Dispatch contained this:

The alternative of confining the amphitheater to space below the canal has considerable appeal, and we endorse it. It is our choice.

Todd Woodson, a longtime officer of the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association, made this comment in response:

Thoughtful and equitable. If Venture Richmond made the concessions of restricting the amphitheater to BELOW the canal with use of the facility to only the Folk Festival and River Rocks, not disturbing the canal’s infrastructure and leaving the upper area as a considerate buffer to the war memorial and the residents of Oregon Hill, I believe progress could be made. The attitude that its “your plan or this here Folk Festival gets it!” has caused extensive loss of trust in VR amongst city community and fosters fears that the plan as you envision it establishes the facility as a cash cow- renting to all comers- not good. It’s the upper part that is not zoned for an amphitheater anyway. It’s in EVERYBODY’S best interest to be good neighbors and to do what’s right. The Tredegar wall gets rebuilt, the discussion can begin in earnest on restoring this wonderful canal. VR saves money by not butchering the canal infrastructure. There are some smart people in the city that can help make the grand canal renovation happen. Venture Richmond?

Theater Controversy On Channel 6

Posted on by
1

Click here for the story on Channel 6.

Well, this could have been a lot better, but it was certainly better than some previous coverage. It did not mention the historic Kanawha Canal (and how Venture Richmond’s canal history is WRONG), and still gave the mistaken impression it’s all about the Folk Festival (it’s not!), but at least it did acknowledge opposition. Thanks to our Overlook neighbor Nancy for appearing and making the case for reason.

Venture Richmond’s “Temporary Events” Should Concern All Richmond Neighborhoods

Posted on by
Reply

Is Venture Richmond planning to use the city ordinance that authorizes “temporary events” to circumvent zoning requirements?

Every neighborhood in Richmond should be watching this closely. Venture Richmond is proposing $500,000 in permanent alterations, which would damage the historic James River and Kanawha Canal, for its proposed “Tredegar Green” theater. But the theater is not a permitted use under current zoning. Remember, as reported in yesterday’s post, Jack Berry of Venture Richmond told the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association that “we would probably be open to the idea of renting it.” which is not the same story that was told to the Planning Commission.

In a bizarre twist, the City Planning Commission approved the “location” of the amphitheater although it is not permitted under the zoning, and no re-zoning application has been submitted. Apparently Venture Richmond may be relying on an ordinance, intended for yard sales and other temporary events, to try to force through the project without complying with zoning laws.

If you scroll to the very end of the ordinance below you will find the section on temporary events:

http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/clerkstracking/getPDF.asp?NO=2012-234-2013-2

It refers to the definition section of the ordinance, which defines a “temporary event” as four events annually.

At this time, aggrieved neighborhood residents cannot appeal because the zoning administrator will not rule on hypothetical situations, and Venture Richmond received approval for the “location” of the project before applying for a Special Use Permit, re-zoning, or for work permits. If Venture Richmond can receive City permission to implement $500,000 work for “temporary use” of a development not permitted under current zoning, wouldn’t that also allow someone to put in a motorcycle race track in a residential zoning so long as they said they would stage only four “temporary events” a year?

This would truly open Pandora’s Box if any developer could implement any development, not permitted by zoning, by saying they only intended to use it four days a year. (Later, after the damage was done, they probably would say that it was a hardship to only be allowed to use such a facility four days a year.)