An Actionable Memo?; Omitting Key Facts; A Tale of Two Casino Cities; Shelter Starting Point; Underestimated & Over Budget.

RVA 5x5 - February 17, 2024

No algorithms. No content filters. No A.I. — Honest and insightful analysis from Richmond, VA.

This week check out our five stories on:

• City Council pledges more help to fix the meals tax mess in a memo, but will they step up and stand firm against the mayor’s inaction and unfulfilled promises if he does not deliver?

• A federal judge threw out a blanket assertion and overlooked some salient data in a ruling this week that could impact the ability to provide public safety in neighborhoods throughout the city

• A tale of two casino cities is not exactly a Dickens’ classic, but there is a difference between Petersburg’s plans to use potential casino money and the plan Richmond could have been specific about but chose not to be.

• A positive advance in providing shelter took place this week with a partnership with a reliable non-profit that will help expand capacity; but one important outstanding issue still has a few steps to go...

• A disappointing but not surprising story about how Richmond Public Schools paid four times the estimated cost for the third-party report about the tragic graduation shooting outside the Altria Theater — and forgot to inform the School Board the cost had risen and that the report was altered.

STORY #1 — An Actionable Memo?
The meals tax fiasco continued this week — and we could fill this entire issue about it — but instead we will only have one story today and put out a special issue early next week with some tales more from the continuing saga. But today’s story about the meals tax comes in the wake of Monday night’s City Council meeting. At that meeting, several speakers spoke from the heart and out of frustration and anger about the negative impact this ongoing and unresolved issue has had on their businesses and their families.

That led to several statements from some Council members (more on this next week) about how they would take action and communicate better, etc. They took the first step Monday by approving an ordinance that changes the City code and requires the city to apply meals tax payments to the month they are due and not to any delinquent balance. The city had been doing this for years (even though the ordinance they passed Monday could have been changed at any time) which led to huge bills fueled by penalties and interest because the Finance Department was redirecting payments to delinquent balances that the restaurants never knew about because no one ever notified them.

So Thursday City Council put out a statement that is a combination of taking responsibility, promising action, and casting blame where it is mostly deserved. The statement speaks collectively for Council, but it does not breakdown that while some Council members have tried to lead or affect change, others have simply followed the mayor and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), and others have done little other than talk about needed change.

Collectively, the memo said that Council listened to the speakers and the restaurants concerns and the negative effects the situation has caused and perpetuated over the last few years without a solution. Council agrees that “Richmond deserves an effective, efficient, and responsive finance system” and they pledge to change or implement any laws or policies needed to make that happen.

Nothing like a tsunami of bad media in an election year to spur action!

But Council says that for starters, “we need to lower the barriers for honest responsive dialogue and trust between affected businesses and the City of Richmond.” You can make the case here that City Hall has become its own redoubt and erected their own barriers of not being honest or responsive — the Navy Hill boondoggle and two failed, fraudulent casino referendums serve as ample proof.

The statement also says in the next line that the city needs “a culture change that establishes, engenders, and supports ongoing real and direct lines of communication to resolve real issues.”  Of course, real and direct lines of communication do not require a culture change, they just require honest and responsive dialogue — like the previous sentence declares.