City Council: Support for chickens, beards
An unusual number of high profile ordinances–including “urban chickens”, pay for police/firefighters, changes to the water/sewer rates, and the appeal of a Commission of Architectural Review ruling–made for an interesting evening at City Council this week.
The agenda for Monday’s City Council meeting (PDF) was mostly mundane items like appointments to various commissions and committees, but an unusual number of high profile ordinances–including “urban chickens”, pay for police/firefighters, changes to the water/sewer rates, and the appeal of a Commission of Architectural Review ruling–promised an interesting evening.
Before we got into the agenda items, however, April was named as Richmond Child Abuse Prevention Month and also Richmond Facial Hair Appreciation Month. Seriously.
The John Marshall Boys Varsity Basketball Team was recognized for going 21-7 this year and making it to the Group AAA State Championship game.
— ∮∮∮ —
Budget (Water, Gas, Capital Improvement, etc)
The myriad budget-related items on the agenda were presented as a public hearing. The budget ordinances were all CONTINUED TO APRIL 22 and will not be voted upon until May.
There was an epic public comment period for the budget items. In general: a lot of people support the police and firefighters, and there are folks who have issues with the proposed water/sewer rates.
CONTINUED TO APRIL 22: Ordinance 2013-60 would approve a step-based pay system for police officers and fire fighters originally approved in 2006 but then put on hold. Passage does not give immediate raises, but it does implement a regular set of pay increases for a group of folk who have not had a pay increase since 2008.
CONTINUED TO APRIL 22: Perhaps the highest profile of the budget ordinances are 2013-51 and 2013-62, which together would change the way that water bills are calculated. Changes include lowering the monthly base rate for water and waste water (by about half) and related service charges, coupled with charging more for the volume of water used for each. There are also increased rates per volume of water used during Voluntary Conservation periods (usually during summer drought conditions). If passed, the new water & sewer base rate for the city would be $26.11, down from $49.40–which would be still above the current $17.10 in Henrico County 1 (though the county has proposed their own increase).
Also CONTINUED TO APRIL 22:
- 2013-53 would slightly raise natural gas charges (just over 1%).
- 2013-57 would raise the recycling fee for buildings with multiple dwelling units from $1.69 to $1.94.
- 2013-67 would provide $155,639,107 for financing the school budget.
- 2013-66 details a list of Capital Improvement Projects around the city (Libby Hill Park Slope Repairs, Reedy Creek Drainage, Monroe Park, Public Housing Transformation etc) for the next 4 years (at a cost of $785,475,219) and how they would be funded.
Bicycles & Parking
WITHDRAWN: 2012-232, which bascially says that the police can impound your bicycle, moped, or scooter if you lock it to a city-owned tree or sign for more than 72 hours or if it is a hazard. The focus of the ordinance was to be abandoned or “dead bikes“; no word on why it was withdrawn (for an update on this, check the comment below by Councilman Agelasto — Ed).
PASSED: 2013-12 makes it a violation to parallel park more than 18 inches from the curb. This is the most liberal allowance in the state: Norfolk is 6 inches. If you violate this law, you will be fined $20.
Urban Chickens
PASSED: 2013-47 makes it legal to keep up to four female chickens,2 with a few restrictions and a $60 annual permit. Fan District Association President Roger Whitfield was one of two who spoke against the ordinance, but there were at least 15 speakers in favor including a number of Fan residents. Stated at fact (AGAINST): there will be cock fights. Stated at fact (FOR): a dog poops more in one day than 10 chickens.
Review of the Commission of Architectural Review
CONTINUED TO APRIL 22: 2013-r47 would reverse the decision of the Commission of Architectural Review (CAR) which denied a certificate of appropriateness for vinyl replacement windows on a home located at 2916 Monument Avenue.
Because the house is located in the Monument Avenue Old and Historic District, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required when any proposed work alters the exterior appearance of the property (PDF) as it is viewed from a public street or alley. The certificates are supposed to be obtained before any work is done, and there is a review process. The vinyl windows were installed at this house without approval by CAR, which then refused to issue the certificate of appropriateness.
— ∮∮∮ —
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
John Murden
John Murden covers Church Hill, the Fan, Carytown/Museum District , Northside, and random Richmond stuff for RVA News.
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
With regards to Ord. No. 2012-232, this was withdrawn at the recommendation of the City Attorney’s office so that we could make the required changes. At the same time I wished to unbundle the proposal to separately address attachment and police impoundment of bicycles, mopeds, or scooters. Essentialy, we’ve added language to remove “inoperable” bikes from city-owned after 72 hours and “abandoned” bikes after 10 days. Any bicycle or moped will be immediately removed if it poses a safety hazard or is attached to a city-owned tree.
We have also introduced an ordinance that repeals the mandatory bike registration program with the City. It has not been administered for many years and goes unenforced. Instead, the City will seek a resolution to encourage residents to register bicycles with the National Bike Registry (www.nationalbikeregistry.com).
Please note that Henrico bills its customers once every two months. So on a monthly basis, Henrico’s minimum water/sewer bill is $17.10. Also Henrico offers a substantial discount in the volume charge for 3 ccf (2200 gallons) or less volume per month. Henrico’s rate schedule provides an affordable base rate for any customer willing to conserve this important resource.
Given that it is Richmond, I guess I should not be surprised that urban chickens (which I do support) are grabbing more headlines that things that truly impact all residents like police/fire and utilities.
In regards to the water utility and budget, There are a lot of facets to the water rates issue, but for me personally, I want a larger decrease in the monthly minimum service charge (while I understand it’s not easy to totally change things overnight, I am thinking it should be brought down to at least down to $15 to $20) to bring it more in line with surrounding counties. I am ok with increases in volumetric charges, to a point, in order to go over to a conservation rate where people and entities pay for what they use. But I resent jacking up to where its then more than what the overall costs were previously. Between that, and folding the annual storm water fee (which as an environmentalist I do support) into the monthly charges, its as if they are trying to give conservation a bad name! I am in favor of a volumetric discount instead of a special fund for low-income. Ultimately, citizens need to make sure the government, through the PILOT or fees and charges, is no longer using the utility as a cash cow, overcharging citizens on a basic necessity with a PUBLIC utility. In the bigger picture, there should be more open regional conversation about this and other natural resource use.
I do think Murden should correct his article to reflect Charles Pool’s point that he is not right in his comparison with Henrico rates. It seems like he has been a bit skeptical of the water reform movement all along, but the Sierra Club, NAACP, and the Alliance for Progressive Values have all noted that despite the Mayor’s proposal, rates are going to be going up. Citizens need to be aware.
We at the American Mustache Institute applaud this move to honor the bearded community.
Charles – Thanks for catching that.
Scott – Honestly, I haven’t been paying much attention to “the water reform movement”, I’ve got other things gong. I tried to come up to speed over the past week by digging into the ordinances, and then attempting to get y’all to explain why the proposed changes are unsatisfactory, but I’m honestly still left a little confused by the opposition.
I’ll go back to my original position: Can you explain to me, in 2 or 3 direct sentences, why these proposed changes are being protested?
Thanks, John. I will try to summarize the water rates issue in a couple of sentences: Richmond’s minimum monthly water/sewer service charge for basic service (before you use the first drop of water) is higher than most communities. It is preferable to have a nominal base rate that covers the cost of billing with most of the water/sewer charge derived from the cost of the actual water/sewer service used. This rate structure provides a very affordable water service for those willing to conserve water, and promotes conservation because the bill is in proportion to the amount of water used. Richmond’s unusually high service charge is unfair to those who use little water and those on a tight budget and does not promote conservation. By contrast, Richmond’s minimum gas service charge is low, only $11.05 per month, which the city keeps low so that the customers don’t switch to electric appliances.
Ok, I get that, folks have been talking about that for years. The new proposed rate is *way* lower than the current rate. This is a good thing, right?
The Mayor has proposed dropping the minimum monthly water/sewer service charge from $49.40 to $26.11. While this is a step in the right direction, it is still about 50% higher than the comparable bill in Henrico, and far higher than most cities. For example, the minimum water/sewer service charge in Norfolk is $1. One reason that Richmond’s service charge would still be excessive under the Mayor’s plan is that his plan includes a $12 million annual payment- in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) from the water/sewer utilities into the city’s general fund; $3 million of that PILOT payment is in lieu of Federal Income Taxes, which no business pays to the city.
People need to realize that while the Mayor’s proposal initially lowers the minimum service charge, over the next few years it will creep back up and with higher volumetric fees on top of it residents will be paying even more for water service and the City will still be using the water utility as a cash cow for its general fund. We need more and better reform.
Scott makes a good point: the projected 2014 utility budget already calls for an increase in the minimum water/sewer service charge. A big problem with the Mayor’s proposal is that it is not revenue neutral. The excessive doubling of the volumetric rate generates more revenue than is necessary to offset the reduction in the monthly base service charge.