An update on the Fences of Contention saga (Here are links for Part I and Part II):

Councilperson Agelasto spoke with the City Attorney about the 2nd Street Connector legal agreement and the $53,000 budget requirement for the fence. The original agreement has been completed and is now closed. The City has no further obligation to complete the fence. In order to fund the budget, this will require the City Council to approve a budget amendment.

Yesterday, the Planning Commission review was supposed to consider the authorization of the “location, character, and extent” of the fence, but due to other issues on their agenda, the meeting went on too long and the fence item was continued until the next meeting February 2nd. According to neighbors who did attend and spoke with officials after the meeting, the City administration is still trying to maintain that the fence was paid for through the authorizing ordinance (despite the City Attorney’s opinion.)

But looking back at the authorizing ordinance for the 2nd Street Connector (Brown’s Island Way), the plans were NOT included in the ordinance or the agreement attached to the ordinance.

If plans had been included, they would have been attached to the agreement as an exhibit. These are the only exhibits attached to the agreement:
Exhibit A. Description of the Property
Exhibit B. Project Area
Exhibit C. Description of City Property
Exhibit D. Project Standards
Exhibit E. [Payment Schedule]
Exhibit F. Lease Agreement
Exhibit G. Construction Plan Showing Curb Cut Overlaid on Exhibit B “Project Area”

Exhibit G is for item 2.d of the agreement:

(d) Grantor shall have the right to a curb cut within the area identified on Exhibit G as “Approximate Location of Future Curb Cut” with the precise location of the actual curb cut within that area coordinated through the City’S Department of Public Works’ Division of Transportation and Engineering to ensure that the location and construction of the curb cut complies with transportation safety standards. The curb cut shall be at the sole expense of the Grantor and Grantor shall restore the remaining curb to a condition deemed satisfactory to the City of Richmond in its reasonable discretion. Such right for the curb cut shall be evidenced by reservation by Grantor in the Grantor’s Deed.

Exhibit G has no other purpose in the agreement. The parties are not bound by anything in Exhibit G except what is described in 2.d of the agreement.

From the Times Dispatch (appearing after Fences of Contention, Part 1, and continuing disregard for citizen concerns):

Editor, Times-Dispatch:
I strongly disagree with portraying the costly Brown’s Island Way fences as a valid city commitment. Your news article, “$53K fence planned to keep homeless away from Richmond bridge,” had seven references to a commitment but apparently none of the insiders talked about the actual written agreement.
The agreement approved by City Council did not require the city to do construction. It required Gamble’s Hill to convey land to Dominion, Dominion then to construct a road, Dominion to then convey the completed road property to Venture Richmond, and Venture Richmond then to sell the property to the city. The city agreed to pay the purchase price.
The agreement did not require fences. It did not mention fences. It did say that it “…contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the matters set forth and may not be modified or amended except in a writing signed by the parties….” A prior understanding about fences was superseded by the final agreement.
The road is built. The city owns property. The deal is done. Why are fences being discussed now? Why are fences being discussed at all? Why is City Council letting this happen?
C. Wayne Taylor.
Richmond.