UDC Approves Venture Richmond’s Plan Despite Public Concerns

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.

Thank you,

Scott Burger

Venture Richmond’s Amphitheater Proposal Before UDC On Thursday

According to an agenda I just saw, the City’s Urban Design Committee has Venture Richmond’s “Tredegar Green’ amphitheater proposal on their regular agenda for January 9th at 10 am, 5th Floor Conference Room of City Hall.

“12. Final Location, Character and Extent review of the portion of the Tredegar Green Amphitheater proposed for City Property, 344 Tredegar Street; UDC #14-07”

Stadium Meeting With Agelasto On Thursday

From email:

COUNCIL PUBLIC INFORMATION NEWS ADVISORY
IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO BE FORWARDED AND SHARED
Thursday, 6 December 2013

Councilman Parker C. Agelasto to hold a meeting in the Richmond Central 5th Voter District regarding the Mayor’s Economic Development Plan for Shockoe Bottom and the Boulevard

All Richmond Central 5th Voter District residents invited to attend

WHAT (Richmond, Virginia U.S.A.) — The Honorable Parker C. Agelasto, Councilman, Richmond City Council Central 5th Voter will hold a district-wide meeting in the Richmond Central 5th Voter District regarding the Mayor’s Proposed Economic Development Plan for Shockoe Bottom and the Boulevard. The meeting will include a presentation and discussion. This event is free and open to the public and all Richmond Central 5th Voter District residents are invited and encouraged to attend.

WHEN Thursday, January 9, 2014
6:30-8:00 p.m.

WHERE Richmond Public Schools George Wythe High School – Auditorium
4314 Crutchfield Street; Richmond, Virginia
Please park and enter through the Crutchfield Street Entrance.)

WHO The Honorable Parker C. Agelasto, Councilman
Richmond City Council, Central 5thVoter District

CONTACT For more information and/or to R.S.V.P., please contact Ms. Ida Jones, Liaison for The Honorable Parker C. Agelasto, Councilman, Richmond City Council Central 5th Voter District, at 804.646.5724 (tel); or ida.i.jones at richmondgov.com (email)

– E N D –

816 Riverside Park To Be Demolished

from email:

Notice of Pending Demolition of Imminent Hazard to Public Safety – 816 Riverside Park

In accordance with Section 36-105 of the Code of Virginia, as the Commissioner of Buildings for the City of Richmond I have signed the attached imminent hazard order. This building has deteriorated to the point that its immediate removal is necessary. As a result of this order, the building will be removed, as soon as possible, by either the City of Richmond or the property owner.

If you have questions about the unsafe conditions and the code enforcement status of this building, please contact Michelle Coward, Code Enforcement Program Manager (at MICHELLE.COWARD at RICHMONDGOV.COM or 646-6357).

Please keep in mind that the issuance of the imminent hazard order means that in accordance with City Code Section Sec. 114-930.6. (j), for those properties in City Old and Historic districts demolition can proceed without a certificate of appropriateness being issued by the Commission of Architectural Review (CAR). Also if the building is an area identified for Federal funding, in accordance with the terms of the Richmond Programmatic Agreement, the City will complete Section 106 review of the property on an emergency basis.

If you have questions regarding these historic preservation programs please contact T. Tyler Potterfield (at 804-646-6364 or Thomas.Potterfield at richmondgov.com). Mr. Potterfield can also add or remove individuals from the distribution list for future imminent notices.

Regards,

Douglas H. Murrow, AIA, CBO
Commissioner of Buildings

“NO SHOCKOE STADIUM!”

Over thirty people turned out yesterday evening at the William Byrd Community House for an organizational meeting of citizens opposed to the Shockoe Stadium proposal. In addition to a summary of the proposal, a listing of upcoming related dates, and much discussion, there was a preliminary presentation of alternatives to the City administration’s proposal for Shockoe Bottom development.

IMG_2715

This contrasts with the light attendance at the Mayor’s presentation in the 7th District last night, although there was a few people opposed to the ballpark proposal at that meeting too.

Meanwhile, 5th District Councilperson Parker Agelasto, who has come out against the Shockoe stadium plan so far, has announced a meeting on Jan. 9 at George Wythe high school to discuss Shockoe Bottom development. Other City Council members have announced meetings also.

Richmond Water Rate Reformers Respond to Utility Report

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

Another Riverfront Plan? This Wednesday At The Va. War Memorial…

From Church Hill People’s News:

The Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (VA ASLA) will hold a public input meeting for the James River Corridor Viewshed study within the City of Richmond.

The viewshed study is being conducted by the VA ASLA in association with the national organization of the American Society of Landscape Architects as a community service project which each state chapter is conducting or has conducted within the year 2013.

The meeting will take place on Wednesday November 20, 2013 at the Virginia War Memorial Building at 621 S. Belvidere Street, Richmond 23220. The meeting will be between 6-8PM in the Freedom Hall room.

Anyone with an interest in James River Corridor is welcome to participate.

Contact VA ASLA at (804) 523-2901 or marykidd@vaasla.org with any any questions.

Lots for Albemarle Houses At Planning Commission On Monday

The Planning Commission will meet on Monday November 4 at 1:30 pm in the 5th Floor Conference Room of City Hall. On the agenda is a tentative plan of subdivision for 341-343 S. Cherry Street in Oregon Hill. Essentially, the proposal would portion off two additional lots to create 810 Albemarle Street and 812 Albemarle Street where two historic dwellings already exist.

Click here to download .pdf file of agenda and materials for the meeting.