What should the city do next?
Friday, Feb. 22 at 4:15 p.m.
In addition to John Moeser, council members also heard Friday from Kelly Harris Braxton, executive director for Virginia First Cities, and Ron Jordan, a managing partner at Advantus Strategies and their legislative liaison.

All three gave council their take based on their experiences on what the city could and should be doing to better itself and the region as a whole.

After they spoke, council members had a chance to tell the panelists their opinion and ask what the city should do next.

One of Moeser's ideas was that the city talk with the counties about a growth sharing partnership. For example, if a business decided to locate in Hanover County, there would be an agreement that a certain percent of the taxes generated be put into a pool with the majority of the money going to Hanover County, but the rest being used to address certain problem or inequities in other places. Charlottesville and Albemarle County already have an agreement and do something similar.

Council will next have an hour break and a tour of the library before getting back to work and focusing on the budget amendment process, major cooperative initiatives, and operations review and recommendations.

______________________________  

The need to work together
Friday, Feb. 22 at 3:20 p.m.
John Moeser, a visiting fellow with the University of Richmond who's well versed in the history and politics of the region, gave council members a perspective of how the city used to be the dominant power and why it changed as the surrounding counties grew. But because of similar and related problems, the area needs to work together to better the community as a whole, he said.

"There was a time throughout this city's history where the city was absolutely the most dominant jurisdiction in whole region, the center of power, the center of commerce with the largest population," he said.

"Often the city acted like a bully and was viewed as imperialist."

The city got this image because of its ability to annex land in a single unilateral decision, angering many people who had no say but were affected nonetheless. But that began to change from the mid-1980s to the present, Moeser said, after that authority was changed. Now, the city's in a completely different era all together, he said.

"If I had to describe the area now, it's a collection of nation states. Each locality functions almost like a nation. Each location has its own flag," Moeser said. "In many respects, Richmond is kind of like Lichtenstein. We're 62 square miles. We're just not in the same league and it has serious implications relative to economic development."

Now, each locality behaves as if it's autonomous, Moeser said. And two major recent events have contributed to what Moeser thinks is the growing erosion of healthy, positive relationships between the city and counties.

The first is that the city has not paid its dues to the Greater Richmond Partnership.

"The signal that sends out to the region is just awful. We need to work through goodwill and say we're all in this together," he said. "Hopefully, the dues will come through. It's not the right signal the city wants to send to the neighbors. They need to pay it before 5 o'clock this afternoon."

The second incident, Moeser said, was the bill approved by the House of Delegates this year that changes the number of votes the city has on the Richmond Metropolitan Authority board, which controls the Downtown Expressway. Currently, the city has six votes compared to Chesterfield and Henrico counties' two votes each. The approved bill gives each locality three votes each and mentions bringing Hanover County into the organization.

"The rationale is that it is the suburban residents who pay the tolls, and Chesterfield particularly feels the pinch," he said. "But this is where history is important.

"When the RMA came together, the city had to acquire the money to build and plan the Downtown Expressway. The city also donated the land, which is why it had more representation. It's all been repaid, but the RMA Web site says: Chesterfield and Henrico counties have never provided any financial assistance or subsidies."

The financial, social and political effects of the project affected Richmond more so than any other locality, Moeser said.

"What's ironic is that the city really funded its own decline with the RMA because people began to leave the city," he said. "I say that only because when you consider all the costs -- financial, political, social -- Richmond bore it all.

"So it's only fair for the city that's really borne the cost-- and I'm not talking about the tolls -- to have a bit more representation than the others. Hanover doesn't really have anything to do with it. This legislation was a slap in the face."

There are many issues facing the city and the counties, such as housing, which has now migrated into the counties, that are only going to be solved when the localities work together, Moeser said.

Another challenge to that cooperation, Moeser said, are the battles between Richmond's government the past three years.

"The disunity in Richmond government has just killed this city in terms of its representation through the commonwealth, and not just in city," he said. "It's hardened the attitudes of citizens both in the city and out in the counties.

"They see City Hall as riddled with conflict. The people in the counties just want to stay as far away as possible. It's important for the executive and legislative branches to work together. If not, it spills out into our relationships with the county, and we need those most critically."

______________________________ 

On a retreat
Friday, Feb. 22, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

Richmond City Council members started their retreat at the downtown library Friday with a joke. There will be no team building, but everyone will have a chance to go around the room and tell their favorite Ellen Robertson story, Bill Pantele said.

Council members then heard an analysis from their fiscal analyst Ralph Harris about how their actions reflected their goals from the previous years. Of the 580 papers council dealt with in 2007, 85 percent were adopted, 13 percent were struck and 2 percent were continued.

The seven major issues council identified in 2006 were:
w public safety and crime reduction;
w education and improvement public schools;
w economic development, particularly having a business-friendly City Hall;
w taxes, including the tax rate and assessments;
w drainage and infrastructure;
w neighborhood development; and
w parks and recreation.

Of all the papers council approved or continued, 45 percent directly related to members' goals for the year. The issue with the largest number of related papers neighborhood development with 228 papers, Harris said.

The remaining 274 papers dealt mostly with awards and commendations, contract approvals, council district funds, general appropriations and organizational development

Of those papers, general appropriations made up the majority, including 137 appointment papers. Put another way, more than 25 percent of the legislation council took up last year were appointments to boards and committees.

Based on that analysis, Harris recommended that council consider:
w monitoring and communicating council's actions to residents via email or its Web site;
w examining the high workload of some council committees;
w looking at the papers that were struck down to see trends or what could be learned;
w reducing the number of boards and committees; and
w grouping appointments to a single paper.

"This is really helpful and meaningful to look back. It's marvelous and a great tool for us to continue to build upon and maybe even do it halfway through the year," said Robertson (6th).