2nd Samuels, C.
A Richmond City Council committee advanced a measure Thursday that could create a $10.1 million pool of loan funding to aid economic development, create affordable housing and alleviate blight, among other projects….The committee also continued a perennially delayed proposed ordinance that would give the council more authority over city contracts and change orders…. timesdispatch.com
Organizational Development Standing Committee Meeting
Monday, April 2, 2012
Agenda: Monday, April 2, 2012, at 5:00 p.m.
Minutes: President Kathy Graziano called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m.
Six city employees paid to wait.
Committee Members Present:
The Honorable Kathy Graziano, President
The Honorable Ellen Robertson, Vice President
The Honorable Doug Conner
The Honorable Marty Jewell
The Honorable Cynthia Newbille
The Honorable Charles Samuels
The Honorable Reva Trammell
The Honorable Chris Hilbert
The Honorable Bruce Tyler
Others Present:
Lou Ali, Council Chief of Staff/ Interim City Clerk
Haskell Brown, Deputy City Attorney
Robert C. Bob, President of the Robert Bobb Group
Suzette Denslow, Mayor’s Chief of Staff
James W. Dyke, Chair, Mayor’s Schools Accountability& Efficiency Review Task Force
Dr. Carolyn Graham, DCAO of Human Services
Kelly King Horne, Executive Director of Howard
Allen Jackson, City Attorney
Faye Smith, Senior Assistant City Clerk
….”We don’t have enough money.”….it will take 37 years to fix the sidewalks listed as needing repair…. styleweekly.com
Councilor Samuels thinks there are privately owned 500 acre parcels in the city of Richmond:
“It’s still legal to deer hunt, provided you have a 500 acre parcel of land on which to do it,” said council member Charles Samuels. “There is a state exception that is mandatory that requires that.” wric.com
..Samuels said the request to tighten the language came from Richmond police and the commonwealth’s attorney’s office… timesdispatch.com
A city administration spokesman told the Public Safety Committee that the ordinance was not needed:
cityhallreview.com at 1:08.
The Richmond City Council voted Monday night to establish a separate department for Animal Care and Control and create a director position with a salary of up to $143,263, ending a nearly two-year debate over how the office should be administered….The director position will have a salary range of $90,786 to $143,263. The office is currently managed by Chuck Marchant, who holds the title of operations manager. Marchant is now being paid $58,567 to run Animal Control….
…lapsed agreement between the city and the Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals….city officials made “no effort whatsoever” to respond to concerns the group had over a draft of the new agreement. The group took issue with a provision that suggested it supported making Animal Control its own department, when in fact the SPCA wanted it placed under the Police Department.
The email was written by the Art 180 executive director to an unknown group of recipients. It was forwarded to Richmond.com. Richmond.com has reached out to Art 180 for confirmation and has not yet heard back…. richmond.com
Also, fanofthefan.com
….Now two members of the council – Bruce Tyler and Charles Samuels – have introduced a measure that would require councilmanic approval of any construction or service contract worth more than $100,000. We agree with a third councilman, Chris Hilbert, who says that sets an awfully low threshold for a city whose budget exceeds three-quarters of a billion dollars… timesdispatch.com
As BB&T was considering moving its operations out of Richmond in 2009, the city offered the company a $500,000 grant to keep its brokerage and other operations downtown for at least five years….council action will come nearly three years after the money was offered and more than two years after the financial-holdings company signed a long-term lease….
1. Is it correct that “the city offered the company a $500,000 grant”? People in the administration and the company discussed the idea of a grant and prepared a proposed agreement. By the terms of the agreement, it is contingent on city council approval: “f. Effective Date of the Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which it has been fully executed by the parties following approval by City Council”. The administration submitted an unsigned agreement to council for consideration.
2. Are councilors Tyler and Samuels correct that council is left out of the process?
3. Is councilor Graziano correct that it as a matter of working out details in a new process?
2. Is the reporter’s discussion of procurement relevant? A grant is not a procurement.
Res. No. 2012-R14 (Patron: Mr. Samuels) – To declare a public necessity to amend City Code § 114-930.8(c) and to initiate an amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance to extend the period of time allotted to the Council to consider a modification or reversal of a decision of the Commission of Architectural Review when the occurrence of City holidays, the closure of the City government due to the declaration of a local emergency, or the cancellation of regular meetings of the City Council or its standing committees, result in a delay in the Council considering such a modification or reversal.
February 27, 2012
Dear Honorable City Council,
I think this ordinance should be stricken for four reasons:
First, it proposes to lengthen the time a property owner may have to wait for a decision. Any additional burdens on property owners requires good justification and appears to be lacking in this case.
Second, 75 days (2.5 months) is ample time for Council to act under any foreseeable circumstances. The only situation that possibly could require special attention is the month of August when Council goes on vacation. The burden should be on Council to get its work done before it takes a vacation. In anticipating the highly unlikely occasion that Council could not act in time, it should simply be willing to let the CAR decision stand.
Third, Mr. Samuels has incorrectly characterized the situation. He said “I put in the appropriate paper but before it could be heard, because of the Christmas holiday and the lack of a second meeting in December, the 75 days in which the paper needed to be heard lapsed.” He failed to mention that he was notified of the appeal to Council on October 13 2011 and waited 39 days to request that the city attorney prepare a resolution for introduction. He also failed to mention that he did not take the steps necessary to have the resolution considered on Nov 28, Dec 5 (special meeting, expedited consideration), or Dec 12. Instead, he allowed it to be scheduled for a date past the deadline.
Fourth, the proposed ordinance will not change the status of the North Allen Street property. City Council has already affirmed the CAR decision. And, the time for the property owner to appeal the Council’s decision has expired. The current ordinance states that “…failure of the city council to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the commission within 75 days from the date the petition is filed shall be deemed to constitute affirmation of the commission’s decision.” (The city clerk also notified the owners on October 13 2011 that the deadline for Council action was December 27.)
I would also like to note one curious fact. The request form attached to the proposed ordinance is the only example I could find that has a faulty date and is not stamped as received by the city attorney. It appears that the form may be a substitute.
I believe I have all the law, facts, dates, and deadlines correct. If not, I stand corrected.
Thank you,