Editorial On Venture Richmond’s Tax Exemption

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Scott

On Monday, February 10th, the Richmond City Council will vote on giving Venture Richmond a tax exemption for its real estate on the site of its proposed amphitheater below Oregon Hill. City Council should not approve this tax exemption for Venture Richmond for the following reasons:

The City Council has a moratorium on granting tax exemptions by designation. Venture Richmond submitted this application in 2012, and Venture Richmond failed to meet the deadline of April 8, 2013, as established by City Ordinance 2013-19, for introducing an ordinance exempting property from taxation by designation.

State code requires that City Council consider whether the executive salary of the organization is reasonable when considering an organization’s application for tax exemption. Venture Richmond Director Jack Berry receives a salary of over $240,000 annually. If Venture Richmond can afford to pay its Director $240,000 are we to believe that it cannot afford to pay $43,836 in real estate tax?

State code also requires that City Council consider whether the non-profit applying for tax exemption engages in substantial lobbying for legislation. According to Venture Richmond, it has spent at least $32,000 lobbying for the Mayor’s Shockoe Stadium proposal. The Mayor is President of Venture Richmond, and Venture Richmond has been engaged in substantial lobbying for the Mayor’s legislation.

Richmond’s Tax Exemption by Designation Committee recommended AGAINST a real estate tax exemption for Venture Richmond, and the committee sessions generally focused on the amount of executive salaries, revenue sources and any duplication of city services being performed by each applicant. The other organizations that applied but did not receive exemptions were VMFA parking lots, Science Museum of Virginia properties, Family Lifeline properties, CHAT Property, Hands Up Ministries properties and Richmond Urban Senior Housing property.

On its application for real estate tax exemption for its amphitheater property, Venture Richmond stated that the property was in compliance with zoning codes. Yet the amphitheater above the canal is not zoned for an amphitheater. Venture Richmond also stated that it does not compete with other organizations in the marketplace, a contention that is disputed by private promoters. Venture Richmond also stated that it does not provide or deny services based on ability to pay, a contention that would be disputed by those not affording a ticket to Venture Richmond paid events.

According to a video-taped presentation given by Venture Richmond Director Jack Berry to the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association, the intention of Venture Richmond is to rent out the amphitheater with no limitation on the number of events annually, and to serve alcoholic beverages on the property. Rental property generating income for the non-profit is generally not considered a charitable purpose for tax exemption.

I will be very interested to see how other local media covers this issue. Joined corporate and political power in Venture Richmond’s board that runs roughshod over citizen concerns is a real problem, whether the issue is the Tredegar Green amphitheater plan or the Shockoe stadium proposal.

Another one down…

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Scott

City workers removing dead sidewalk tree on 600 block of S. Laurel-

There have been a lot of City workers in the neighborhood recently-

Goodbye 816 Riverside Park– I will be curious as to how quickly the lot is auctioned and what it goes for.

Also, workers dealing with water main leak on China Street

“City Council may rule on fate of park foliage”

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Scott

On March 8, 1991, an article appeared in the Times-Dispatch.

The article was about how VCU was trying to get control of the maintenance of Monroe Park and had a plan to cut down 37 of the mature trees. VCU said that the trees were “improperly placed, damaged, dangerous and add nothing to the function or aesthetics of the park,” and stated that removal of the trees would, “make the park safer.”

Fortunately this maintenance agreement was not approved in 1991 because of neighborhood objections, but if the newly proposed lease is approved, VCU would be in charge of the maintenance of the trees and would be given carte blanche to remove as many trees as it wanted without any recourse. Most of the trees that were slated to be removed in 1991 are still in the park, and there is no reason to think that VCU would not again want them removed, “to make the park safer.”

As a result of VCU’s attempt to remove 20% of the mature trees in Monroe Park in 1991, the Monroe Park Advisory Council was established with neighborhood representation from Oregon Hill, the Fan, and Carver. The proposed Monroe Park Conservancy has NO neighborhood representation, but includes four VCU administrators, and four city administrators.

Tax Exempt Status For Venture Richmond?

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Scott

Former neighbor and citizen activist Silver Persinger documented a very interesting part of a recent informal City Council meeting. Click here for the video.

From Docket Review portion of the meeting. Discussion of Ordinances 2014-2, 2014-3, and 2014-4.
Comments from City Assessor James Hester on Tax Exemptions [4:45].
Parker Agelasto asked if the administration had contemplated having Venture Richmond donate the land to the city to achieve the same result of exempting the land from property taxes. Jeannie Welliver from the City’s Department of Economic and Community Development seemed to be on the verge of melting down and looked physically ill [11:25]. Jack Berry then argued why Venture Richmond should be granted the exemption and was adamant that Venture Richmond was not interested in donating the land to the City [13:44].

The Possibility Of Parking Permits

Posted on January 29, 2014 by Scott

Special thanks to Mr. Bergin for answering questions about parking decal regulations at last night’s Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association meeting.

He sent this message this morning:

Hello all,

Attached as a PDF is the city code, Criteria for establishment of a
residential restricted parking district. I want to make a few points on
what we discussed:

1. You should have a minimum of 10 contiguous block faces, and as I
stated legal explained to me that if not contiguous, the separation of
blocks should be reasonable. Also, remember it is not blocks but block
faces.
2. Fewer than 60% of the properties within the proposed district are
owner-occupied. The calculation is based on the proposed district, not
an individual block face, and it is the property not the number of
households at a property.
3. There is nothing to prevent you from having different hourly and
time-restricted regulations in your district.

Please read section 102-301 which thoroughly discusses the process of
establishing the district.

Let me know when or if I can be of assistance.

Good luck and thanks,

Steven D. Bergin
Department of Public Works
Parking Division

Residentail Restricted Parking District

Monroe Park Lease Proposal

Posted on January 28, 2014 by Scott

Click here to download a Monroe Park Ordinance and Lease.
This will most likely not get voted on by City Council anytime soon. But it could provide an interesting discussion point at the ‘Community Conversation on Monroe Park’ next Tuesday at the Nile Restaurant.

As one neighbor remarked,

This lease is a pretty outrageous document! I am just flabbergasted that the City Council would consider such an arrangement:

The Mayor is given the authority to appoint one-third of the board, and the administration is given the authority to approve any changes to the planned improvements.

The Tenant (Monroe Park Conservancy) pays only $1 annual rent, and pays no real estate taxes.
The Tenant shall establish polices of the use of the park, subject to approval of Richmond’s Chief Administrative Officer.

The Landlord (the City) pays for any damages to the park.
The Landlord, with VCU, pays for all police and security.
The Landlord at no charge supplies all gas, water, electricity, sewer, and storm water expenses.
The Landlord is responsible for repairing and replacing all structural elements.

Will Mayor Jones Destroy History?

Posted on January 27, 2014 by Scott

From C. Wayne Taylor’s website, City Hall Review:

January 27, 2014
VIA EMAIL TO:
Ms. Lou Brown Ali, Chief of Staff, lou.ali@richmondgov.com
The Honorable Mr. Baliles and Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
900 E. Broad St., Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23219 USA
Re: George Washington’s Canal at Tredegar Green
Dear Mr. Baliles and Members of Council,
Mr. Dwight Jones, Mayor of Richmond and President of Venture Richmond, wants to drastically reshape George Washington’s canal at Tredegar Green. Only a portion of the channel bottom would remain authentic.
Mr. Jones claims the canal berm interferes with visibility from the northern portion of Tredegar Green to the southern portion. Mr. Jones knows that raising the ground level of the northern portion of Tredegar Green would increase visibility to the southern portion.
Why is Mr. Jones proposing to lower the ground level of the northern portion of Tredegar Green?
Sincerely yours,
C. Wayne Taylor, Publisher
City Hall Review LLC
CityHallReview.com
Copy: City Clerk, Better Government Richmond, News media, Interested parties

City Planning Commission Postpones Vote On Amphitheater

Posted on January 22, 2014 by Scott

Excerpts From the Times Dispatch article:

The Richmond Planning Commission voted Tuesday to postpone a vote on Venture Richmond’s amphitheater proposal for Tredegar Green after hearing concerns about the possible impact on future plans to re-water the James River and Kanawha Canal.
…
But commissioners continued a vote on a final plan review until early March to allow the City Council to take up an amendment to Venture Richmond’s lease that would require the organization to raise the height of the canal towpath to about 85 feet if, at some point in the future, the planned 83 feet proves insufficient to allow boats to navigate the canal west to Maymont.
The vote was unanimous with the exception of Commissioner Melvin Law, who abstained. The lease amendment was raised as a solution after the Planning Commission was advised that it did not have the legal authority to attach a future obligation to the property that’s not directly tied to Venture Richmond’s plans.
…
“I don’t want to put it at 85 feet just because somebody from Oregon Hill wants it that way,” Berry said.

City Schedules Three Land Use Meetings on Same Day (TOMORROW!)

Posted on January 20, 2014 by Scott

With a nod to the City Hall Review:

City of Richmond
January 21, 2014
1:30pm – Planning Commission Meeting
3:00pm – Land Use Standing Committee Meeting
7:00pm – Richmond Riverfront Plan Projects Public Forum

Also, from Fans of Monroe Park Facebook Page:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014, Alice Massie, president of the Monroe Park Conservancy, will make a presentation to Richmond’s Land Use Committee at 3PM. This is the first step in turning the park over to this private entity. There is a public comment period. This will take place at city Hall, 2nd floor council chambers.

Click here for previous post on Monroe Park privatization.

Also note how the Riverfront Plan Public Forum will happen AFTER Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater plan goes to the Planning Commission.

UDC Approves Venture Richmond’s Plan Despite Public Concerns

Posted on January 10, 2014 by Scott

Richmond.com has a report on how the “Tredegar Green, Brown’s Island Proposals Pass UDC”.

By the way, the Richmond Free Press has an interesting story this week on the “Marsh commission bypasses law in drive for freedom monument” on Brown’s Island, which may delineate some of the fissures in Richmond’s political establishment.

Some of my own correspondence (editorial):

Despite our Councilperson’s request for a continuance, the UDC went ahead and approved Venture Richmond’s plan at today’s meeting.

Thank you, Parker, for responding and speaking up for Richmond citizens. Certainly, we are looking forward to new information in regard to the project. I hope the City can be sensitive to potential archeologically important material on this site.

Personally, I believe the vote reflects very poorly on the UDC and Venture RIchmond.

Thank you,

Scott Burger

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Agelasto, Parker C. – Council Member”
Subject: Re: please do not approve the Venture Richmond amphitheater proposal
Date: January 9, 2014 7:46:35 AM EST
To: Scott Burger
Cc: aalmond@3north.com, ariasllc@comcast.net, dcole@cite-design.com, garlandvw@gmail.com, Bryan Green , Giles Harnsberger , Andrea Levine , jnolt@3north.com, claire@GradientEnvironment.com, smithrd3@gmail.com, “Jeff R. – PDR Eastman” , “Mark A. – PDR Olinger” , Jack Berry

Dear Scott,

Thank you for writing to the Urban Design Committee. I too believe the timing of final review for the Tredegar Green project is premature at this stage. In discussions with Mark Olinger, the City is planning to restore the historic wall that was demolished. This will likely change the character of the site and should be reflected in the plan. Likewise, the Section 106 and Army Crops of Engineer reviews have not been completed. According to Mr. Olinger, the City’s review can proceed but no work permits can be issued until these are complete. If DHR and COE return with material changes to the plan, it will have to begin from the beginning of the process again. That being the case, continuing the UDC review should not put any hardship on Venture Richmond to wait for final approval until after these important, independent, reviews are complete.

Finally, Venture Richmond has not applied for a rezoning of the parcel where the amphitheater would be located. Thus, the use of the site as such is only permitted four days of the year. It would seem inadvisable for the City to issue site approval for a permanent change to the landscape that only can be used temporarily for it’s intended use. Likewise, discussions are underway that would provide significant landfill for grading of the Tredegar Green site such that the canal embankments would not be disturbed. This dirt would be coming from an area on the Virginia War Memorial site and would be a win-win for them, Venture Richmond, and canal preservationists. This grading would benefit from roughly 1,600 truckloads of additional, locally-sourced, dirt and could be considered a material change to the grading plan as proposed.

I hope that the items listed about are reasons enough for the UDC to request a continuance of the final review of the Tredegar Green proposal. Unfortunately, I am unavailable to attend today’s hearing and request that this issues be brought to the attention of all UDC members.

Sincerely,
Parker C. Agelasto
Richmond City Council, 5th District

On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:54 PM, “Scott Burger” wrote:

Dear members of the Richmond Urban Design Committee,

As a citizen who lives near the site of this proposed project I plead with you to NOT approve Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal.

I am greatly concerned that Venture RIchmond’s proposal will negatively impact the historic integrity of the Kanawha Canal. I note that Venture Richmond was leasing the property when a historically significant wall was illegally demolished. I note that the Virginia Department of Historic Resources has not completed its Section 106 review of the proposal. This is a canal that was designed and presided over by no one less than George Washington!

I am also concerned that Venture Richmond’s proposal will negatively impact the structural integrity of the Kanawha Canal. This is very important because Venture RIchmond’s proposal could block public plans that have been in place for decades to renovate and re-water the historic Kanawha Canal. My City Councilperson has requested funds for this very purpose. Please do not allow Venture Richmond to alter or diminish this ‘blueway’ which is so important to the City’s past and future.

As an Oregon Hill neighbor, I am very concerned that Venture Richmond’s proposal will have a negative impact on my community’s quality of life in terms of congestion, litter, and noise. Venture Richmond has not adequately responded to or addressed community concerns in this regard. The City’s Downtown Master Plan states that historic neighborhoods such as Oregon Hill need to be protected from unsuitable development.

I do not believe Venture Richmond can be trusted to act as a good neighbor. I note that the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association has offered a compromise proposal on the location of the proposed amphitheater that Venture RIchmond has ignored. I am disturbed that City staff have not adequately responded to questions from Richmond citizens, who were told that they would have to wait for the Army Corp of Engineers review.

Lastly, I will also say that I am very angry that tomorrow’s meeting was not given proper public notice. Due to this lack of proper notice, I will not be able to exercise my rights as a citizen to speak in person at this meeting.

Again, I plead with you to please NOT approve Venture Richmond’s Tredegar Green amphitheater proposal. At the very least, continue this matter until necessary reviews are completed and staff has fully answered questions.