Oregon Hill resident Silver Persinger putting the heat on City Council’s Land Use Committee.
Click here and go the Land Use for audio link-
Jonathan Baliles
Land Use, Housing & Transportation Committee
Date: 01-22-2013
Silver On Watch Again
1
Category Archives: government
What’s That Number?
Soon the City’s Dept. of Utilities will most likely announce recommendations towards a reduction in the $49 minimum monthly charge to ratepayers for water and wastewater service. The big question is what will that number be?
The expectation is that the planned reduction will be a little less than 20% of the total monthly minimum charge and there will be a new charity rate created for poorer residents who have trouble for paying their utility bills.
It would be easy for the citizens who have petitioned for water rate reform to declare victory and enjoy the hope that bills might be slightly less in the future for all Richmond households.
But, when the history and big picture are considered, they would be wise to not do that and stand behind their stated request- that Mayor Jones and Richmond City Council take immediate steps to lower the minimum monthly charge for water and sewer service to $15 per month, while raising the cost per CCF of water in line with the neighboring counties. There needs to be a change in the volume rate structure change to reward conservation with the first 5 ccf of water/sewer service at a lower rate, and with a premium volume rate for water/sewer over 5 ccf of volume.
My best guess is that City officials will propose a token drop in the service charge along with a large increase in the volume charge that more than makes up for the token decrease in the service charge. They quietly claim that lowering charges too much will create “a hole in their budget”. The reality is that the City can receive the same total revenue from its water works by slashing the minimum monthly service charge to equal that of Henrico’s (which it sells water to!) and instead charging a premium for customers who use more. In other words, make it progressive instead of regressive.
Also, keep in mind that the city paid $200,000 to hire a consultant to examine Richmond’s outrageous water/sewer rates (although reformers said that was not necessary). Despite requests, the consultants have not met with reform activists. In addition, there has been difficulty with getting access to the information given to the utility rate study consultant. The DPU office recently told a citizen that the information will not be put on the city’s web server unless the city receives $287.17 from the citizen.
The utility rates and service charges affect almost all residents and businesses in the city. It is sure to be an important issue during the budget review process (which looks to be extra rushed this year). It would help the Mayor and City Council if the public feels confident that all important information is being freely shared. This speaks to many of the open government concerns raised by activists. In other words, if Richmond citizens want to be treated fairly by the government and utilities that they own, they need to keep the big picture in mind.
Pine St. Sidewalk Work
CAPS Meeting Still Happening Tonight
From email:
Good afternoon everyone,
There have been several questions regarding the status of tonight’s CAPS meeting at Linwood Holton. To clarify, the CAPS meeting will go forward as planned, regardless of weather, or the cancellation of after school programs, at 6 pm. If you feel you can’t make it, feel free to call me, or forward me your issues.
Hope to see you there,
Matthew Toner
4th Precinct MPACT Coordinator
City of Richmond
(804) 646-1062
matthew.toner at richmondgov.com
New Parking Meters On W. Cary and Main
From a neighbor:
Didn’t know if you’ve seen them yet, but there are now central pay to park kiosks on the 900 blocks, both sides, of main and Cary streets. They sure snuck those in over Christmas break. Students have never had to pay before. Will this drive vcu commuters deeper into Oregon Hill and shouldn’t the revenue benefit our neighborhood?
Of course, a more positive outlook might be that these new parking fees will finally drive VCU students out of their cars altogether, which is something that the City’s former director of the Department of Planning and Development Review, Rachel Flynn, often suggested as a goal in order to relieve overall congestion and pollution.
Let the commenting begin….
The Local Petition That Matters The Most
From The Richmond Open Government Project:
Not since Paul Goldman successfully led the effort to put the mayor at-large question up for citywide referendum has there been so much interest in local citizen petitioning. Of course, the ease, accessibility, and novelty of online petitioning have added to the attraction. In this past year we have seen local petitions, spread by social media, on Broad Street parking (833 signatures), urban chickens (226 signatures), water rates (1,400 signatures) and the environmental conditions at a public elementary school. That last one gained over 20,000 signatures from all over the world after ‘going viral’.
While there have been a few exceptions, the official response to these citizen petitions, unfortunately, has been tepid at best. Government officials might quickly promise to follow up on issues, but getting the press to follow up on the promises has not been that easy. Despite the fact that many of these local petitions implicitly asked for support and signatures from challengers and incumbents, the fall election rhetoric tended to be superficial and avoided the local petition issues. (One notable exception: Charles Diradour, running for 2nd District City Council, made a valiant attempt to make the City’s inordinately high minimum water rate a top campaign issue). Still, while one can argue about the overall effectiveness of recent petition efforts, they did undoubtedly raise the bar for public debate.
Yet there is one local, online petition whose cause should interest all reform-minded Richmond citizens and most certainly deserves attention from a new Richmond City Council–the one from the Richmond Open Government Project that calls for making Richmond City Hall an open government equal to the best in Virginia – www.thepetitionsite.com/684/909/771/
In a nutshell, this petition asks for commitment from citizens and public officials to raise the City of Richmond’s open government standards to, at the very least, match those of other large cities in the Commonwealth. (In addition, on a sharper edge, the petition clarifies some of the long-standing state code violations by the City regarding its public meeting documentation.) By asking for more open government, this petition puts democratic aspirations for accessibility and accountability front and center for all citizens and, by extension, calls attention to all petitions.
However, as with many of the petitions, though the response to the Open Government petition has been positive, the numbers are underwhelming. It still has a long way to go in gaining broad attention. Of recent candidates, only the aforementioned Diradour, and two City Council candidates in the Fifth District, Lee Shewmake and Parker Agelasto signed it. Of all the incumbent public officials, only 2nd district school board member Kimberly Gray signed on for open government.
At the same time, public statements in response have been very favorable and the picture painted in response to the petition is that open government issues have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed.
The reality is less than satisfactory- after the Open Government petition was launched, city hall announced that it would put videos of Council’s Formal meetings on the city’s website. Videos of the Informal meetings, where the blunt deliberations usually occur, are still not on the website. Three months ago the Council President said “[w]e’ll look at their petition and see if there are some suggestions that would make good sense to keep our citizens better informed.” As yet, the city has not announced that any of the 104 suggestions have been implemented.
So has this petition been a bust? Is that it? Not at all, says the Richmond Open Government Project. It may be an overused cliché, but organizers say their push for reform is more of a deliberate march than an open sprint. They always regarded the 2016 election as a more important barometer of success than the one this fall. The petition has served its purpose already in that it delivered the initial challenge.
So what now? With the New Year and a new city council, the Richmond Open Government Project has a new message: the time of notification is over. The petition is still open to more signatures, but it is time to also move forward with more members and not just signatures. To that end, look for a ‘larger umbrella’ meeting for a new organization with a new name and larger mission for better government.
Rick Tatnall
Scott Burger
C. Wayne Taylor
Silver Persinger
Victory Rug Special Use Permit Approved
With an 11th hour agreement between the Oregon Hill Neighborhood Association and developer paving the way, the latest Victory Rug special use permit (with 12 units) passed the Planning Commission yesterday.
Victory Rug SUP at Planning Commission on Monday
From email:
Please come and register your opposition to the Victory Rug Special Use Permit before the Planning Commission this Monday, Jan. 7 at 1:30 pm on the 5th Floor of City Hall. We thought that we had an agreement, but unfortunately the developer has been unwilling to confirm any agreement so we will need to be present in opposition to the SUP. As it stands now the developer is proposing a 24 bedroom development, in 12 apartments and one townhouse, with only 8 off-street parking spaces.
Street Cleaning Rescheduled for Next Week
Due to the heavy rain this past week, the City’s Public Works has rescheduled Oregon Hill’s street cleaning for next week, according to spokesperson and the signs going up around the neighborhood. Before this, there was some concern expressed in the neighborhood and elsewhere.
Be prepared to follow signs and move vehicles accordingly.
Utility Rates Meeting Tomorrow Night
In addition to the OHNA meeting, The City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities is hosting a community meeting on the Cost of Service study for the water, wastewater, natural gas and stormwater utilities.
Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012 at 6-7 p.m.
DPU Operations Center Atrium
400 Jefferson Davis Highway (at Maury Street intersection)All interested parties are invited.
Of course, the citizen’s petitioners who have protested the high minimum monthly service charge are watching this carefully. Here’s the an update from their perspective:
(One potential problem is if) The City trots out some sort of new lower tier or charity level for residents who are unable to pay the high minimum monthly service charge. While this may help the poorest of the poor, it sidesteps the rate reform that we have asked for. It would add additional complication and bureaucracy to OUR utility’s billing.
Another potential problem is if questions about water contracts with the counties are ignored. There is already a lot of concern about why the City is selling water to the surrounding counties so cheaply. There are also doubts about the City’s ability to collect payment for the existing contracts that were supposedly examined by the outgoing Councilperson Jewell.
While it’s good to attend meetings like this one tomorrow night, the utility officials may not reveal important information until they submit the budget. The public should be given all the information that has been given to the consultants. It is also important that a time line be established for the budget process. Otherwise, it’s possible that neither the Council or the public will get to comment until the time the Council get the Mayor’s budget, which I believe is in March sometime- Only then will Council and public meetings be held to discuss the entire budget and the rate structure will get short shift because the time left for the Council to approve it is limited. What are the various budget process dates? It would be good to bring this up at this meeting.
We must keep these matters in mind at the same time we stay on our message–the high minimum monthly service charge is ridiculous and unacceptable. We are asking for a revenue neutral approach that raises volume charges while lowering the service charges in a way that encourages conservation. Based on some of the data that we have received, our suspicion is that the high minimum residential rate is still being used to offset lower commercial rates, in effect subsidizing big businesses while gouging residents.