Thank you everyone for attending the City Council Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee.

Madam Clerk, if you would take care of the chamber emergency evacuation, and then we'll move to the public hearing.

Upon activation and emergency alarm to ignore all persons should immediately exit the building.

Please use the exits to the left or right front of the council chamber or the east or west stairwell outside of the doors of the chamber.

Do not use elevators or escalators.

At the exit in the building, security will direct every down everyone down 9th Street to the assembly area located inside the former public safety building parking lot.

Able persons should assist visually in hearing impaired visitors with exiting the building.

Persons wishing to speak during the public comment period and or public hearings are generally allowed three minutes to speak.

Persons appearing before the committee are not allowed to campaign for public office, promote prior business ventures, use language or personal nature, which is also demeans any person, including comments directed at public officials or staff members that are not related to their official duties or just the question staff members directly.

All questions to be directed to the committee chair.

Failure to adhere to the guidelines, may result in speakers forfeiting any many time and further disciplinary action as necessary, which could include barring from attendance at future meetings of the committee for a period of six months.

Madam Chair, this concludes announcements.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We'll move to the public comment period.

Is there anyone that would like to speak about items not on today's agenda that would like to adjust the committee for items not on today's agenda?

Seeing none, the public comment period is now closed.

There's no one online, Madam Clerk.

No, ma'am.

No one signed up before the 10 a.m.

deadline.

Thank you very much.

We'll move to the approval of the minutes.

The minutes to be approved from the April 16th, 2026 finance and economic development standing committee meeting.

If there are no amendments or corrections, then those meeting minutes can approve as presented.

Those minutes have been approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay, we'll move to the uh papers that are before the committee, and we've gotten some special requests to make some changes to the agenda.

Um, which I would like to mention at this time, and attempt to get consensus on the revision to the agenda.

So agenda item number one, we will hear that and have a public hearing on that item.

Um agenda item number two and agenda item number seven.

Um have a request for continuance on both of those papers to get more fiscal analysis and review, and there's a request to continue both of those for 30 days.

Um Ms.

Gibson is the patron on agenda item number seven, agenda item number two.

Um, and I'll go through the others that have been asked to be continued as well, and then we can have a discussion on that in a vote on continuing.

Number agenda item number three, which deals with um the labor union.

There's been a request for fiscal analysis uh an opportunity to discuss with um the patrons as well as what kind of impact uh this legislation.

Very supportive of the legislation.

Let me make sure we're clear on that.

Um, the information I've got back is very supportive of it.

Just need asking for 30 days for review uh to get a better clearance on the impact.

So that paper has been asked to be continued for 30 days as well.

Agenda item number five and six.

We'll take as a block and agenda number eight.

Um we will hear that paper and agenda item number seven has been requested to be uh recommendation for an amendment and to be continued.

Uh so those are the items that uh on the docket at the present time, madam clerk.

That we would like to as to how we would like to take action on those.

Would you like me to proceed with reading item one?

I'm sorry.

Would you like me to proceed with reading item one?

Uh, or did you want to do we need a vote on the continuation of the papers that I've mentioned?

Okay.

So the first one would be item two, ordinance 2026 081.

And then there was another one, item seven, resolution 2026 R 19.

You wanted those continued after 30 days.

Number three, number three, 30 days, number two, 30 days, number seven, 30 days.

And amendment and to continue item number nine.

Okay, do we have any motion on the floor?

Um I move that we continue item number two for 30 days.

Item number seven, can we handle one at a time?

Yeah, we can do one at a time.

So I move that we continue item number two.

Do we have a second?

Second.

The committee is voting on the motion to continue item two ordinance 2026 081 to the June 17th, 2026 Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee by Chair Jones.

Aye.

I'd like to see.

That motion has been approved.

Did you want me to continue with number seven?

Hold on one second, madam clerk.

Okay.

There's patrons of some of the papers that we had recommended to continue that wants to weigh in as to whether or not they would prefer that those as to the action at the committee.

So I'm gonna give them an option.

Thank you.

Ms.

Gibson.

Yes, thank you, madam.

Um Robinson, I um I have a question regarding item number two.

I'm wondering, did the patron request that this item be continued?

Um the patron requested the item be continued.

I'm happy to discuss, but I was not aware.

I was prepared to present.

I was not aware that we were continuing and did not make that request.

Giffen, any any other so um, so I I just would like to understand the context for continuing that paper if the body wants to continue the paper.

Obviously, I'm not the patron of that paper.

You know, that is up to the determination of the body.

My um, there is uh a resident um here who was prepared to speak, and so um they did not speak during public comment period because those items were on the agenda, but if they are taken off the agenda, I do think that it would be um uh it should be processed to allow the residence.

I'm speaking to agenda item number two, two okay.

We've the administrations has said they don't want it to be continued.

That's fine.

We'll we'll hear the paper.

Is that you taking away the previous motion?

I'm sorry, madam clerk.

There was a vote, and there was a motion and a second, and it was a vote.

Yeah, we can vote on uh agenda item number two.

Well, we're gonna continue to hear the paper.

We don't need a vote on it, it'll stay on the agenda as it is.

Number three, um requests.

I'm requesting it to be continued.

Is there any opposition that I need to hear in regards to that paper?

Which item two or item three, item number three.

So we proceeding with reading item number three, okay.

Item three, ordinance 2026 090 to amend city code concerning the city's rights and authority and concerning labor management disputes and impasse resolution to modify collective bargaining procedures.

That paper before the committee, may I speak?

Yes, thank you.

Um, so for clarity, uh if is the is the item on the table to continue the paper.

If if that's the discussion, I would like to speak and um in hopes of not continuing the paper.

Okay.

Um, continued.

Um right, and so the up.

I'm requesting to be continued was item number seven.

Ms.

Gibson.

So um to be clear, um both item number three and item number seven.

I uh should not be continued.

I would like for those to proceed.

All right, okay.

All right, then with that, um the agenda unless the before the committee at the present time is agenda item number one, number two, continuing agenda item number no, no.

Yeah, all of them except for number nine.

Okay, we'll go in the order of the papers as they presented, Madam Clark, right?

Item one, ordinance 2025 282 to amend city code concerning a deferral program for certain real estate taxes pursuant to and in accordance with the code of Virginia.

That paper's before the committee.

Okay, Madam Clerk, we'll have a public hearing on on this paper, please.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item one?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item one?

This is for public hearing.

What's up?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support of item one?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

Okay.

Uh is there a motion?

So uh motion to forward the council for approval with the amendments that were um included in the last meeting.

Second, all the question, madam clerk.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item one, ordinance 2025 282 to council with the recommendation to approve with an amendment with an amendment.

Ms.

Lynch, Vice Chair Jones.

Hi.

Chair Robertson.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Agenda item number two.

Clark.

Item two, ordinance 2026 081 to amend city code concerning publication of the city's team and register for the purpose of promoting transparency and accountability and the expenditure of public funds by providing public access to information regarding payments made by the city while protecting confidential and personal information as required by law.

That payments for the committee.

Patron would like to make a presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Robinson.

Vice Chair Jones, I'm lost in with Jay Saria, Chief of Staff to Meravula.

My live on here.

Yes, okay.

Great.

All right.

Thank you so much for having me to discuss the payment register ordinance 2026 081.

And I believe that we all agree that both transparency and privacy are important.

The public deserves both.

Our public expects to know how their money is being spent, which vendors are getting paid.

Are they getting the value they want for what they are paying for?

And they need access to financial information in order to know these things.

Meravula is committed to giving them access to that information.

The public is also filled with individuals who expect for their privacy to be honored.

They do not want their private information shared inadvertently that could be used to harm them in any way.

So the goal.

So in deciding what we will proactively disclose, Meravula is proposing a solution that meets this goal, preserving public access to meaningful spending information that we know we can implement with the resources we currently have in place.

The current law on the books was well intentioned, but has not been functioning as designed.

And this was true for years before Maravula took office.

Another inherited issue that Meravula is now putting forward a solution to.

Look for it, find it, fix it.

We know you've heard that before.

Maravula has previously shared his intent to address this check registry requirement.

And in all honesty, we made a calculation about the urgency of this issue, classifying it as very important, but not quite as urgent as some other major finance and transparency initiatives and problems that needed addressing, such as PCARD reset, RVA pay relaunch, enhancements to the RBA business portal, implementing B-poll changes, affordable housing trust fund ordinance and implementation, passage of FOIA library legislation, and getting the basics right, like sending accurate real estate tax bills.

But now we're here and we're fixing it, bringing you a solution to consider.

Because the current code is so broad, it requires significant manual redaction to comply with privacy laws on top of the automated redactions where they are possible.

State code that governs privacy laws require contextual redactions of combinations of fields of information, so cannot be fully automated.

Further, the Avula administration believes that it's absolutely possible to strengthen transparency and accountability while also reducing the risk of releasing protected information, which is why we have introduced this ordinance.

We're seeking to preserve public access to meaningful spending information while ensuring the system is practical, accurate, and compliant with privacy laws.

We believe that this is a good path forward that will be consistent and standardized.

So here's some, we just included some redaction examples that were necessary with the current ordinance.

So this one being the state law governing social services privacy, and this one governing taxpayer information protections.

So our team did a few deep dives with leaders who were here when the check registry was being published.

We looked at other localities for benchmarks and best practices, and we're proposing a data set that we know we can implement.

The data that we will proactively disclose in the amended ordinance is designed to show trends and spending patterns and to give information to allow interested parties to ask follow-up questions and use other tools such as FOIA to get a different additional information.

Our ordinance will disclose the vendor being paid, the employee being reimbursed, the department issuing the payment, the amount paid, and the cost center so that the public can track with the budget, notice patterns, investigate vendors and employee reimbursements, et cetera.

These slides are there to provide the rationales essentially that I've just shared in multiple ways for those who are reading the presentation and who aren't here today.

So here these charts provide a look into our research into other localities and what financial information that they proactively disclose.

We did our homework and modeled our ordinance after the common themes we found from others.

We're providing a chart here so that folks can easily see what we plan to include alongside the other localities.

You can manipulate the data to aggregate in three different ways, and these are the types of things that we can consider in alignment with our proposed ordinance.

Here is Fairfax's example of representing another model of how the public accesses financial information where folks have to search by the vendor to look up payments that are made by the locality.

So again, in conclusion, it is very important to us to disclose as much information as we responsibly can.

And we look forward to a discussion on how we can all get that right together in collaboration with the subject matter experts.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you, Miss Lawson.

Adam Clark, we will have a public hearing at this time on this paper.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item two?

Opposition.

Please approach the polling or station A for the record.

Please approach the polling station A for the record.

Angela Warner, no relation.

Whoops, sorry.

I just got a warning from my watch that my heart rate is going off the charts.

I'm not used to doing this.

My question is, it looks like Chesterfield County has an approach to this.

I used to work and all this kind of stuff.

Please speak into the matter.

Um the uh count, you're not including the police directly.

Please address the committee.

Okay, you're not including the account that Chesterville County includes.

I would think that's a good thing to do.

Um, and also Chesterville County explicitly uh does not exclude all employees.

There's there, I don't know exactly, but on this chart it says there's employees that that are payments that they would have to disclose who the employees are.

And um, I guess my main question is where does this information go?

And can your internal auditors and public accounting firms look at it to see trends or practices that might be fraudulent, people taking money out of it?

So, you know, my thought was you need to run this by your auditors and accountants, and maybe you have.

I don't know.

And the other thing without trying to make rich uh Jeff Bezos any richer.

I would recommend that there's a movie has nothing to do with the title is very misleading.

All the Queen's horses.

And I would just recommend everybody look at that.

It's about a municipality that lost about 53 million dollars due to fraud and lack of transparency.

Thank you.

Is anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to item two?

Good afternoon.

My name is Christine Gibson.

I'm actually in Stephanie's district.

But I just thought you might want to take a look.

Yes, Ms.

Robinson.

Anyone else since you look at me like that, but you might want to take a look at Rocky Mountain, North Carolina.

They spent 80 million dollars, and they say where the money goes.

You know what they said?

It's just gone.

It's gone.

We don't know it, it's just gone.

So we might want to take a bigger look at like the lady here just said, include everyone, inclusive of all persons.

No one gets a bypass on that.

Hey, this person's not going to be seen in to be accountable for all people and to be able to see who, where, what it goes, so we know where all the money's at and who gets it and how it's actually spent, although it's allocated for one way.

A lot of times we kind of turn it around and flip it and spend it another way.

That's all I have.

Any questions?

Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone that would like to speak a support to item two?

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Leah Whitehurst Gibson.

I am um I live in district six.

Uh and this Robertson's district.

And I want to speak um from my experience around this around this ordinance.

So I hold many titles.

Some of you know me as a nonprofit leader, a community organizer, some of you might know me as someone who used to run the risk organization, which um uh that has all kinds of of feelings, but I'll elaborate on why I'm bringing that up in a second.

But my most important title is mom.

Um my and how I got to be a mom is through the foster care system and um in this community.

And so um my son is amazing and the best kid in the world, you can fight me on that later.

You might have kids that you think are better, but he's he's the best.

Um, and uh my husband and I have been foster parents um in this community since 2019, and so while our goal in that process is to focus on co-parenting with the parents that are um losing their kids in a in a really terrible situation, um, it's not always seen that way from their perspective.

And um, and the idea is that like we can still be protected in that moment.

We have a really good relationship with my my son's biological dad, but if for some reason that relationship soured and they could just look up and find our address and be able to see um where we live and all of those things, those things can happen in in in various situations.

So considering how to make sure that we're protecting people, because in my role as a public, you know, as a nonprofit leader, and as I said, used to run the risk organization.

I am very committed to government transparency.

I want to make sure that the government is letting us know everything.

However, you might feel about risk, you know that that organization is focused on government transparency, right?

And I still hold those values.

But if you could take anything from my from my conversation today, it's really about fixing the broken things, right?

Making sure that like if we're gonna do something different, then we need to be considerate about how we think about doing that different thing and consider all the people that it might affect.

And so, you know, with the current situation, although like I know that we're in a space where we're trying to figure out what to do, that we're trying to figure out what to do.

Um, the idea is that like we can fix this so that those um families like mine that are trying to support children in this community um that need help in a really terrible moment are protected in the midst of the way that we think about making sure that vendor um that everybody knows and is transparent about what is what is happening.

So, so let's fix the broken things and make it better, not just kind of go back to the thing because it was it was what we had, right?

And so that's that's what I have to say about that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak and support the item two?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed, bring it back to the committee.

Okay, is there a motion?

Agenda item number two.

Um, are we gonna hear um paper number seven first so that we can or how is that go?

Or I I just I move that we okay.

I I move that this paper is continued based on the information that we hear, and because I think there is still some more um untethering that needs to happen uh amongst this paper to ensure that it is um doing what is needed to be done.

So I while there is another paper on the table, I don't think it's the right thing to just move one and not move the other.

So I think that if we want the same thing, if there's even an opportunity for the two parties to come together with those two papers, and then let's figure out based off of what we're hearing from the community.

We always say we want to listen to the community, and so how do we take in account what we're hearing from both sides to ensure that this paper is doing exactly what we needed to do, making a change and then also um doing what we needed to do as council.

So I recommend a continuance in uh hearing paper number seven, and then see where we can get to um a happy medium with that.

Okay.

This is 30 days, may I?

Can I get second?

Only question, madam clerk.

The committee is voting on the motion to continue item two ordinance 2026 081 to the June 17th, 2026 finance economic development standing committee meeting.

Ms.

Lynch?

Aye.

Vice Chair Jones, aye.

Chair Robertson, aye.

That motion has been approved.

Oh, I think our colleague council member gibson wanted to say it.

Can I speak?

Thank you.

Um I did have a question for the administration um on the um their paper, but I did want to say as thank you.

Um I just did want to kind of talk about the timeline on how we got here.

So the payment register timeline or the payment register was codified in 2015 and was last uh and it went on and it was updated every single month through May 31st, 2019.

Um the archive was still there, but the but the updates were no longer happening.

Uh in March of 2024, there was uh an article in the Richmond Times dispatch that the registrar had been fired.

Um in May of 2024, uh they published another article speaking about uh the spending of the registrar and uh some P Card potential P card fraud.

And in July of 2024, there was another Richmond Times dispatch article about other spending violations.

And um, and in August 9, 2024, there was a Richmond Times Dispatch article that highlighted that the payment register had not been updated.

The archive of the payment register was then removed on August 10th, 2024.

Um subsequently in May of 2025, there was another article about uh spending in the fire department, and um, and then in June of 2025, the PCART audit was published.

So, this discussion is not unfortunately a uh proactive one, but a discussion to address an issue in our um not so distant past.

So, um the paper uh that the administration has proposed, I I do have a question as it relates to the paper, the resolution that I've introduced, um essentially the idea is to ensure that before we take action to uh to effectively water down the payment register, given the history of uh what is frankly fraudulent payments and some sense of corruption in the city, that we do our due diligence as a body of oversight and ensure that um that the reason for uh watering down the payment registry, um, that there are actual true barriers and that they aren't just excuses.

So, that's my statement.

If the body determines to uh to continue uh both papers, I you know, I support that interest.

I I personally think that this is timely.

Um, and I and I would encourage the committee to consider um what actions it can take to ensure that this proceeds.

Um the question that I have for the administration, um, is uh so the administration has recently published some documentation and there is um a good amount of redaction, and they expressed that there were social security numbers that they found when they looked at the archive of the data that had been uploaded between 2015 and 2019.

Um I am curious if there were any comments from the public.

One about hey, there's some private information of mine on there.

Um, and two, um, I want to know in terms of social security numbers, was it a four-digit number or the full social security number that was identified in the payment register?

And then I just have one other question.

Um, I'm interrupting you for a purpose.

The committee has voted to continue the paper, and I think the reason why from the beginning of the conversation is because there are several questions that have been raised as it relates to this paper as well as the paper number seven, that will not that we that I firmly believe more dialogue can be held to get many of those answers so that when we vote, we'll have those answers to those questions.

So, what I would ask you, because we have voted to continue the paper.

What questions that you have as relates to this, if you would pass those questions on to the committee or to uh council chiefs of staff, or you can deal with them on your own.

I'm not suggesting what you do with your own questions, but at the present time, we have continued this paper, so I don't want to continue asking questions as it relates to it.

We will deal with those questions between now and the time that the paper comes back.

I hear you.

It given that this is about transparency.

I would like to finish this question so that it is in the public record, if that's okay.

It is the privilege of the committee to allow you to ask those questions, Ms.

Gibson, and we are asking you to honor the committee's decision that we have made to continue it.

We are more than happy for you to have your questions answered, but because we are continuing this paper, there will be more than sufficient opportunity.

And I'm not trying to cut you off.

I'm just saying you're asking for questions to be answered, and we are not going to entertain that today in this committee, but we will be more than happy to accommodate your questions and other questions that have been raised as it relates to the paper.

Uh so I'm sorry, I thought we were also talking about item number seven, which has not been voted on yet.

We are talking of paper number two, Miss Gibson.

May I ask my question when we come to item number seven?

I will we will deal with that when we get to it in item number seven.

Understood.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Would the committee like to continue as is with item number three or move to item number seven?

And then will the wood what is the decision of the committee for item number seven?

Would that be continued?

No, let's read number, we decided we were not continuing, madam clerk.

Um, so we can move to agenda item number seven.

It's recommended that we entertain them together.

Uh, so you can read that into the records, and we will have a public hearing on that paper, and then we will have a discussion and a motion on on the paper.

Thank you.

Item number seven, resolution 2026 R019 to authorize the council's organizational development standing committee to investigate the city's failure to publish a monthly payment register as required by city code in application of exclusions allowed under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

That papers are for the committee.

Ms.

Gibson, as a lead patron, you may have five minutes to elaborate on your paper.

Thank you, Madam President.

So to be clear, the objective of this paper is to identify what the barriers were and ensuring that the city has been following the law.

This was a law that was adopted by the body um uh over a decade ago.

It was followed for some time and then it just stopped.

And so the objective of this paper is to allow the body the opportunity to review the uh the payment register as unredacted as allowable by law.

Um just as a bit of background, I did request this material from city administration prior to working on the budget, and and wanted to be able to simply understand um where payments were going to be more informed as I was working and we were working in our office on potential amendments.

Um I was told that I would not be able to get that uh information without significant disruption to city services until October of 2026.

Um subsequently uh uh the reporter from the Richmonder made a similar request and was given a cost of $5700 for this.

This these these are barriers um that I think should bring some level of concern.

Um the question that I have that I'll I'll use just in closure, is one that I think we could be able to figure out, which is um, you know, the question of social security numbers.

I don't typically receive checks with my social security number on it.

Um, I uh I don't believe that any the check register, there's no field that has the address of the person in it.

Um, so uh if we are sending checks with the social security number, I I would like to understand what the city is doing to address that.

That's concerning to me.

Um, but ultimately the goal of this paper is to to look under the hood ourselves and determine um, you know, how doable is it to not to go from being the city of darkness to a city of sunshine?

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gibson.

Um, Madam Clerk, we will have a public hearing on this paper, please.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item seven?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item seven?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed, bring it back to the committee.

Okay, we have a motion and then discussion committee.

Want to motion?

Motion and then discussion.

Okay.

I move that we continue to the June 17th meeting.

Do we have a second?

Other question matters is there any discussion of the committee?

Yeah, I just was gonna add thank you, Ms.

Gibson, for your intel, and I do believe that it is our due diligence to look at them both as a committee member.

We have had not as much time to even hear the questions that you just raised.

And I think if we are really moving towards the level of transparency that we continue to say we want, then we cannot just rub a stand.

And if the work is to be done in the committee, that is what our jobs are here to do, which is field your questions, fill questions from the administration, pull it back together and have a response.

We don't need to drag it out, but we need to have a response, and that response does not need to happen today.

So thank you for all that you brought.

Thank you to the administration, but I do believe that on both sides of these papers.

We owe it to the administration as well as the public, and uh, like you said, council's oversight to ensure that we're making the right decisions.

And a lot of times I just want to be clear.

I think we also have to do a better job when we are putting these papers before us, because if we're gonna put present it to a committee, it can't just be hearsay.

Like some of the stuff we're hearing for the first time.

So we want to make sure that as we're looking at it over, we can hear what you're saying and and so on.

But thank you.

Mr.

Lynch.

Um, yeah, no, I I really appreciate what um council member Gibson has brought before us.

I mean, we've all we've been on council for a number of years now, and we too have seen the um discrepancies, some of the the more salacious news articles, the things that have hit all of us in our pockets and in our hearts.

Because I mean everything that has come out has eroded the trust of the public.

And I think what the administration, this administration, I think we all, you know, voted on and said, hey, we're behind you, you know, new mayor, was to bring that level of transparency in into the city and into some of our operations and particularly into the um check registry.

So I think what council member Gibson has done is really noble.

You're pushing the conversation.

Um, you know, I think we we all love a happy uh piece in the valley, a happy win here.

And if we can come together and try to find a way to to meet the goals of your paper, um, and get you know, some compromise from from both sides to get one paper going forward.

I think that would be really uh truly ideal for all of us because I do think that the end of the day we want the same thing.

Just to weigh in a little bit, we are continuing.

We have a motion to continue as we did for agenda item number two.

Um so I think um one of the things that is necessary.

Uh, we do want uh between now and the next meeting in June, we do want to get some direction as it relates to the process uh from our staff as it relates to the investigation that we are being asked to do uh exactly what that process is and how it's to be managed, and we can get that information before the meeting so that everyone will be aware of that and we'll distribute that.

And likewise, we'll get information on the position as it relates to the administration and the cost impact as it relates to the reason why the alternative is being offered or any other information as well.

Ms.

Gibson, as well as any other council members, uh, Mr.

Warren, we would ask them to submit their questions to the council chiefs for staff so that we make sure that we get all of those answers done before the next meeting, okay.

Madam Clerk, would you call the question?

The committee is voting on the motion to continue item seven, resolution 2026 R019 to the June 17th, 2026 Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee meeting.

Ms.

Lynch, aye, Vice Chair Jones, Chair Robertson.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Okay, agenda item number three.

Item three, ordinance 2026 090 to amend city code concerning the city's rights and authority and concerning labor management dispute and impasse resolution to modify collective bargaining procedures that be able to for the committee.

Ms.

Tramless Ali Patron, would you like to make some comments before we move to the public hearing?

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I'm co-patronis paper because I think that um we need this so that um all of our employees that work for the city, not just police and fire, but all over, can feel like that when they are in the process of trying to move up that they will be treated fairly and not be overlooked because of um things that can get in the way with promoting somebody or to move up to another position.

And I think that it's long overdue.

That's why I was fighting all these years for collective bargaining for police and fire, then we end up with five um five collective bargainings, which I'm very grateful for.

That's very grateful that my colleagues helped support that um because you all you know were there for this.

Um I just think that this is the right time, and I think we should move forward with this paper.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, uh, we'll move to a public hearing on this paper.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item three?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item three?

Please approach the podium, Miss Station A for the record.

Good afternoon, members of council, madam chair, madam vice chair.

My name is Bill Pannley.

I'm here today representing the Richmond Coalition of Police Archive.

Madam Clerk, I have some papers to pass out.

Welcome, Mr.

Councilperson Bill Pantol.

Once always they say, you know.

Yeah, I'm used to it.

I respond to most anything.

Good seeing you as always.

Ladies and gentlemen, uh you know, this these days where we're talking about fixing things that need fixing.

This is one of them in 2022.

Many of you will remember that we went through a laborious process to get collective bargaining for the employees of the city of Richmond, resulting in five bargaining units.

You remember how hard those negotiations were.

They culminated in June of that year.

After a really long meeting, Ms.

Lynch was there, Ms.

Nye was there, President Nye was there.

Probably 30 40 people on the call to bang out the final provisions.

What was really at issue that day more than anything else was management rights and what the scope of them would be.

After that negotiation, the unions agreed to certain things that we would not oppose that the city was doing.

And the unions, every one of them is made good its word.

What in return the unions asked for was that there would be limited exceptions and management rights, specifically to allow each union to negotiate.

Let's talk about, try to get an agreement on promotions, transfers, vacancies, etc., just to have that opportunity.

When we went into negotiations a year later, the city said, city representative said that was not negotiable.

Stop, full stop.

They wouldn't let us talk about it.

That happened fairly late in that negotiating process.

So we had to hurry to the arbitrator to get a quick ruling.

We didn't have time for a reason, full built-out opinion.

So he made a fast decision.

He sort of well, he ruled against the unions saying that some specific things that we're in a proposal we had put forward were not negotiable, but he never said why.

30 seconds.

But it doesn't matter because that's where we've stopped.

Papers I've handed you show the language from the 2022 ordinance.

What we're asking for by this amendment is that through some slightly different language, but to put life back in this, is to fix it.

Let the unions have what they bargained for to be able to negotiate these items.

There's another matter to brigade or regarding arbitration.

My time is up, so I'm going to sit down.

If you'd like to have me back for a little explanation about that, but I'll tell you, that provision is something that every member of council asked us to include when we completed our first negotiation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Christine Gibson.

Good afternoon again.

I just think this is something and a matter that needs to be supported for the unions.

You agree to something, you agree to something, and then you decide to change.

You can't necessarily switch in the middle of the lane and think that it's going to make your employees happy.

Even back to some of the employees that was employed as doing the cleaning the stuff that needs to be done.

They have kind of stopped and now they're like, oh well, we won't pay them the same amount as others.

But it's a fair thing to say you've got the unions that are needed throughout, no matter where they are.

Hold up to what you agreed and don't backpedal.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brendan Levy.

I'm the president of our COP, the Richmond Coalition of Police, the exclusive bargaining unit for the police department.

This amendment change comes on the heels of the summer of 23 when we negotiated our number one priority besides uh for non-economic related issues is promotions and transfers for our police officers, sergeants, and lieutenants.

It's how we feel valued of how we how we move around in the police department being transferred, filling vacancies, and how we are promoted.

And during the summer of 23, we were told that we could not speak on most of the issues that were running a uh amok uh within the police department that they were management rights.

And since we had an adverse ruling from a labor relations administrator, we uh want to make able to fix the glitch that this uh ordinance has in it just to clarify what we originally intended for this ordinance to have.

It's no power grab, it doesn't give the union any unilateral authority to be in a room when someone's promoted.

I don't want to be in a room when someone's promoted.

That's not the union's uh job, uh, but we want to be able to discuss procedures and how they come to those types of decisions, which is very important because favoritism still runs uh very very fluid within the police department right now.

So if we just make these very small minute changes, is all it is doing is to clarify the original ordinance.

It's not giving anything extra, we're not asking for anything more.

All we're asking for is what we asked for when we were working back in 2022 and 2023, what we actually thought we were getting.

I don't know, and for the binding arbitration, like Mr.

Panley said, every council member back in the summer twenty-three, when they heard about that, they all wished that uh the binding arbitration within for non-economic um related articles.

So we'd be more than happy to meet with any council member and the administration going forward when it comes to these types of things.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, Keith Andes, President of Richmond Professional Firefighters Association Local 995.

We are in support of this amendment to ordinance 2026090.

We are also supportive of the patrons and supportive of our brothers and sisters of uh our cop.

Thank you much.

Thank you, sir.

Madam Clerk, the public hand is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

Uh is there motion and discussion?

Uh so let me ask this question.

Um, and Mr.

Pantley, I think this is probably the in paragraph.

Four, paragraph five.

Uh numbers, oh actually, number six.

Except for except that the impact of any changes on employees and performance evaluation procedures will be negotiable.

That's clear.

Um division and to bargain in good faith over any supplements, collective bargaining agreement.

Is there someone can elaborate on that?

This patron or Mr.

Grantley.

So you are not a patron, but uh we'll give you an opportunity to share with us your perspective on why that what that means.

Thank you.

And uh we would also ask the administration, there is some whether or not what type of uh administration would be required uh to carry out this paper, if it is adopted by council, and what other impacts that we need to know, that would be helpful to hear.

Ms.

Mr.

Pantley.

Thank you, madam chairman.

I think to respond to your question, I just wanted to make sure my handing you that extra piece of paper that I didn't know.

We'll be on all the items that you're asking to be negotiable.

I just want to make sure that B on page nine, which is under section six, I guess, that last comment in regards to the good faith efficacy agreement.

The um I just want to be really clear that the papers that I handed up, those are the existing ordinance.

So the highlighted areas is what we have right now.

It's already law.

Okay.

It's just that we are well, so to speak, we are unable to exercise our rights under those.

So what the amendment that is before you does, honestly, it's just a little tweaked words, just really to have different words, but to say the same thing, and uh, and then so then if this is adopted, what is what's the amendment?

If it's already so what what you've got is that I passed up was 2022, 221 on the first page.

This is what passed unanimously along with the mayor.

Right.

What's being amended?

What's the amendment that you the amendment covers the same paragraphs, but changes certain language in it with some strikes and ads.

So now it says things like systems and procedures, systems and processes to try to raise the point that city council, even today, in 2026, is saying yes, we mean that there is this limited exception within management rights so that unions can have that conversation.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Bam.

We're clear.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Donald.

Good afternoon, council.

Well, first, want to thank you for the opportunity to come and speak about this today.

And uh I was really excited and surprised about the care that you're giving to this conversation.

Not surprised because of the subject, but more so that you want, and I really appreciate council member Gibson, uh has always been a valiant supporter of having more conversation about things that matter and impact uh the city.

And I heard council member Trammell's always been a fighter for not only public safety, but our uh staff members kind of highlight that, you know, in her belief, you know, we're talking about the impact on uh police and RCOP, but she'd be open to fire and other units being impacted, which this legislation might uh might have that impact.

And so I think for that reason, as well as just my experience in Richmond, and I think I've learned that specifically from the council, trust me, verify.

We need a little bit of time to be able to look, and I know it says that there's no financial or no fiscal impact, but we do believe that there is some fiscal impact, but I also say on the record, uh we've had a fiscal impact by implementing collective bargain.

Levy's the first fine on a business in their history, provided the increases in minimum wage they're seeing today.

And as you see here, we've done the same types of activities in partnership with our council, just making sure we take care of our staff, and we want to do that here as well.

But I also think we want to do it responsibly, and I think you've made the first steps back in 2022.

I heard uh, you know, when you entered in this legislation initially, and I think I heard that it was rushed.

I think that's kind of what I heard there, and that we want to fix that.

So I would just encourage us to give us a little bit more time to evaluate what the fiscal impacts are.

And I I heard one of you, I don't know which one it was, but ask about the administrative impact.

There are some.

I heard today about management rights, and I think we have to look into that and understand how we should and could be supportive because we want to make sure that if you're going to improve on legislation, we capture everything.

And as I heard from our valiant uh council member from the eighth, that it may have impacts and could and potentially should have impacts for other areas as well.

So that's more of a reason for us to get it right.

And I think I would just ask that we have a little bit more time to look at those things and then bring you back the things that we find because listen, I just gotta be straightforward with you.

I want to support all things labor, especially for our employees.

And so we need to, we should, we can, but we also have to be responsible as well.

And so I can't in good conscience tell you today that we've had a chance to fully evaluate it and that we can agree that there's no fiscal impact and that we're prepared to implement administratively.

And so for that reason, I would respectfully and humbly ask for additional time to review uh this proposed legislation.

Mr.

Donald, what type of time are you asking for?

Yeah, so I know that y'all have been looking at 30 days.

We are at a point, I don't know if that's uh enough time.

I probably would feel more comfortable with 45, but I want to make sure that I lean to the committee to be able to deliver in the process that that works for you.

But I think around 45 days, we could look at it administratively, we can look at the fiscal impacts and maybe bring you a report of some sort so that you can dissect it, give us input, and tell us, you know, even if there are additional things you want to see.

So, Mr.

Donald, I've been advised by uh that negotiations will begin in mid-June.

I believe we're on target for July 1st.

I think we've already opened and received uh a request of bargain from everyone.

And so that's also something that's very important.

So, do you want to change your policy mid-stream?

I think that's a question that we should answer.

I don't know the answer to that because I think this legislation and the potential impacts will have impacts on anything that comes forward.

So, you know, I we have not had a chance to fully dissect and what I would hate to happen, especially on my watch.

I can't say what happened in 2022 or 2023, but I would hate to come back before you and tell you about a challenge that I'm just not prepared to do so at this time.

I think that would be irresponsible of me, and I would do that.

The reason I'm mentioning that is because we have been advised that negotiations uh pretty much already uh in the process of being beginning, which we all have agreed uh previously as it relates to that your timeline um exceeds that period of time.

So I have 45 days.

So I guess my question is if you are requesting a you're saying you need 45 days.

I believe that's what we need, but I'll tell you, I've been to the will of the council to deliver what you need, but I I do think responsibly that's about the time frame that we need.

Right.

And I appreciate that.

Um thank you.

And Madam Chair, if I may um just to weigh in here and get to the tangible dates.

So if the goal is, and I think it's you know a worthy goal that um, you know, we have the, because this is really about trans, bringing meritocracy and transparency to the permission.

And it's a it's a particularly applicable to public safety.

I don't I don't know how much it really truly impacts the rest of the departments, right?

So if the goal is to pass this by July 1, right?

Then allow us the time to negotiate and maybe see if we can get everybody to the table.

I I, along with other stakeholders, negotiated the entire ordinance in two weeks.

So I feel confident that we can probably get folks to the table to do to propose some amendments for the full body by the June 8th meeting.

Bring that back.

Yeah, we can do it.

Bring that back, send it to committee, deliberate and pass it out so that we meet the July 1st deadline.

Because if we don't do that, then we might as well just throw this ordinance in the trash.

I mean, it's just not going to be meaningful if we don't pass it before then or pass some version of it.

Yeah.

Provide a slight response.

Yeah, I won't disagree with you or push back wholly, but I think you mentioned we've done it quickly in the past.

I think what we're hearing today is that what we did in the past was really good and it is forward and leading in the commonwealth.

But it also seems to appear that there's a need or desire for some adjustments.

And so doing it fast does not may not necessarily equate to.

With all due respect, it's actually a pretty good ordinance.

The reason why it's not being the reason why they're coming back to an amendment is because of what happened during our arbitration and that there's clarity needed around that language.

It's really the way that the law was interpreted, not the way that the law was written in this instance.

Council member, if you don't mind, I'll just finish.

I'm I'm not gonna argue with you on that.

You're the legislator, you'll pass it.

And ultimately, what the body passes is what the party desires, and those things will be judged on, and you know, that's that is the role of elected officials.

You know that y'all have that.

I fully um concede that there's no pushback from me on that.

I think I'm providing just the end the time frame for which I would desire to be able to ensure that we give you the administrative information you need.

If you like that to be a condensed timeline, if it was even 30 days, listen, I'm yeah, I'm giving you a proposal.

We don't have an answer to that yet.

I just want to make sure we're clear that the administration is simply offering that it would take us around that time to be able to provide you those insights if we do it faster, if you want it faster, and you set different dates more than open to that.

I think that is the decision of the body.

We um is Gibson.

Do you have a question?

I would like to speak if that's okay.

Um I just wanted to provide a little bit of context.

Um I wanted to thank councilwoman Trammell for bringing the paper to the body and being such a proponent of labor in the city.

This is an important discussion to be having, and it is obviously bittersweet given that um we uh lost the opportunity to have uh statewide public bargaining for public workers.

Um, but I am proud to be uh serve here in Richmond, and we've made a commitment um first on the school board in 2021 and then on at the city in 2022 to support our workers and um and this is important work as we're talking about ensuring that the city functions, the city functions when workers have a seat at the table.

Um I first learned of this paper in the fall.

Um, and I appreciated the outreach from um uh the representative the representatives of the the unions at the RPD that um that talked about the paper and shared their contacts.

They reached out to our office multiple times.

Um the engagement was um was very helpful to provide context on the changes that they were making.

Um and I fully expected the paper to come to the body um in January.

And so the fact that we're now here kind of in this razor-thin timing between adopting this paper and negotiation starting brings me a significant level of concern.

Um, I think it is um it's it's notable that the things that we are talking about are not things that um bring significant cost to the city, talking about a process for transfers, a process for um promotions.

These are um these are are things that certainly should be discussed, particularly in a climate where people talk about the existence of favoritism.

Um and favoritism might benefit the worker um who's been promoted, but I don't know that it benefits the Richmond residents, and that's that's the reason why we're here.

Um so um I also want to emphasize the importance of an effective arbitration method.

Um, you know, when two bodies come to the table um and there's an impasse, it collective bargaining doesn't work without a mechanism to to settle those agreements in a fair way, and so um so these these changes are straightforward and um and I think uh are truly beneficial to to every resident in the city um and our city workers, and so I I implore the board the committee to um to move forward with this paper so that we can um continue to set um the uh best practice on on really what collective bargaining should look like um in as a state.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Ms.

Gibson.

Um we'll bring it back to the committee, madam chair.

I'm sorry, Ms.

Chairman.

I just had a question, and I'm sorry that Odie sat down.

Um I just wanted to ask him one question, Mr.

Donald.

Yes, or I can ask somebody.

I was trying to find out here.

We are at the 11th hour, you know.

You know, we're speaking about this paper.

Have they um has the mayor or the CAO reached out to um Mr.

Bill Pantley or Keith Andes or any of the others to speak about this before today?

Or have you all been having discussions?

Yes, ma'am.

I don't know, the mayor has met with our union partners, our labor partners about a variety of things here recently, and I believe this as well as just our overall labor activities.

I believe there have been meetings this week.

Okay, this this week.

The mayor has met with some of our partners, and as is customary for me, I plan to meet with all of our partners as well for this because we can't do it without them.

So yes, ma'am, we'll do that.

We have had some of those conversations, and we plan to have as many more as possible and whatever timeline the committee decides.

I think you just mean thank you, Ms.

Tramble, Mr.

Darnell.

Uh, is there a motion?

Ms.

Lynch.

I I would recommend that we take um some time between now and the June 8th meeting to come up with some amendments and see if we can get folks around the table.

Um, if we do that, we can introduce those amendments to full and then send it back to um committee and have it voted on before July, so that it would take effect for negotiations.

So is that is that 30 days?

What's the timeline?

Technically, the June 8th meeting.

Well, technically we want to forward.

Well, Madam Clerk, help me out.

If we forward this to um, if we forward with we don't have amendments, so I can't we can't I can't put a motion forward with amendments, but but we can say to be to be amended to be amended, and then um recommendation to recommendation to approve.

Yes, yes, with amendments with amendments, yes, and I say, which would be when June, whatever, second.

Um, and I just wanted to be so yes.

Okay.

Did you second and now you as I second and then I just wanted to add to it that um I do remember this paper as actually when I first was appointed, it's the first time I met Mr.

Pantley, and I remember this exact conversation.

I remember we sat in a Starbucks and they talked about this and talked about these uh amendments that they wanted to have in it, and it was pretty much a race against the clock.

So I do agree um that's the purpose of creating these to be able to come back to the table.

Um, and while this is something that was created prior to the new administration, I also want to be amenable to them to make sure you know that they are able to um do the right thing, and I don't think that you know they won't.

So with that motion, I second that motion that we move it to June 8th, which is that's how many how long is that?

So we with the amendments, almost 30 days, correct?

Almost by the time it gets to council, be almost 30 days, madam chair.

If I could intervene, the committee can forward this paper to um the June 8th council meeting with a recommendation to approve the amendment and then refer the amended version of this ordinance back to the committee on June 17th.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you.

That part.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item three ordinance 2026.

Uh one moment.

Uh Ms.

Trammer warned it.

Madam Chair, I have a question.

I should have asked this maybe a couple weeks ago.

How come this paper did not come to the public safety committee?

There was no money involved in this.

How come how did it end up in finance?

Who is making these decisions when something this is public safety?

To me, it should have came back to my public safety committee.

Sorry, but how did it?

I mean, we just sit there and heard uh Mr.

Pantley say there's the money, and how did it?

I just don't understand who made this decision for it to go to finance and not to the public safety committee.

Thank you.

Mr.

Warren, yes.

Uh RJ Warren, Council Chief of Staff.

Uh, when this uh ordinance was introduced uh on April 13th, it was originally scheduled to go to the governmental operations standing committee, which is the committee that has historically um reviewed uh collective bargaining legislation, reviewed the 2022 ordinance.

Um that committee in April for the government operations standing committee was canceled due to a budget work session, and then these ordinance was were then going to be this ordinance was gonna be referred to the OD meeting in May uh due to the time timing, and that meeting was canceled due to um scheduling, and so therefore then very first opportunity to get it before a committee was this one right now.

Okay, that answer your question, Miss Tramble.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so we have a motion to forward the paper recommend to be amended to the council meeting on June the 8th.

Motion and second, madam clerk call a question.

The committee is willing to motion to forward item three ordinance 2026 090 to council with the recommendation to approve with an amendment.

Ms.

Lynch, Vice Chair Jones, Chair Robinson.

Aye, and motion has been approved, let's move to agenda item number item four ordinance 2026, one ten to amend city code concerning fees for the temporary use of Main Street Station and to modify the fee schedule.

That papers for the committee.

Good afternoon.

Dirana Moore Clark here, Deputy Director for the Department of Transportation.

The CAO or the designee authorizes temporary license agreements for Main Street station in accordance with section 8.2 of the City of Richmond Code.

The fees associated with Main Street Station are revenues that support the main street station a federal asset.

The fee schedule was last updated in 2024 as a result of a market and cost analysis.

Since that time with the construction and opening of the Shaco Institute, Main Street has lost two-thirds of leasable space on the first floor shed.

Staff is proposing a reduction in rental rates in the fee schedule to match the current footprint of the space.

This space will provide opportunities for weekday corporate business, smaller nonprofit events, and this can be noted in exhibit A for the first floor shed.

Staff is also proposing a reduction in a standalone fee to rent the commercial kitchen due to the space being underutilized.

We are proposing a package fee that includes our kitchen and square.

This space would promote use for concepts like pop-up restaurants, cooking demonstration series, and etc.

It is noted in exhibit B.

Thirdly, staff is proposing the grouping of North Plaza and North Plaza parking in the fee schedule.

Adding the north parking lot area with our outdoor plaza as a rentable space increases the cost and therefore is anticipated to produce additional revenue.

Staff has seen an increased demand for outdoor spaces in the past year, maybe due to the music on Main Street concerts.

Please join us on Thursday for that event.

And this new package will now be available for outdoor festivals, concerts, as noted in exhibit C.

The square, staff is proposing a minor increase in the fee to rent the square, noted in exhibit D.

The T space, staff has identified a new opportunity to include a newly outlined rentable space, which includes the square, hallway, and roughly half of the front lobby.

This space also will provide opportunities for weekday business and businesses from smaller nonprofit events, noted in exhibit E.

Just with the new rentable space alongside the interdepartmental use fee.

We're projecting at least 90,000 in new annual revenue, and along with the eight hundred and fifty-five thousand plus the Shaco Institute rent, the charges we're hoping to bring in over one million dollars annually for Main Street Station.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item four?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item four?

Seeing none of public hearing is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

I have a motion.

All right, I move that we forward to council for approval.

However, I would like to request that the committee receives reports and updates on how the change is working and the amount of revenue increase that we see based off of this change.

The committee is going on the motion to forward item four ordinance 2026 one 10 to council with the recommendation to approve.

Vice Chair Jones.

Aye.

Chair Robinson.

That motion has been approved.

Item five, ordinance 2026 114 to approve the work plan and budget for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2027 for the provision of services in the downtown special service and assessment districts.

Item six ordinance 2026 115 to authorize the CAO to execute an eighth amendment to the agreement for the provision of services in the downtown Richmond Special Service and Assessment Districts between the city and venture Richmond Inc.

for the purpose of extended term of the agreement to June 30th of 2031.

That pays before the committee those papers are before the committee.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to items five and six?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to items five and six?

Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

Motion.

Motion to forward to council for approval for uh ordinance 2026 114 and ordinance 2026 115.

Second.

The committee is going on the motion to forward item five ordinance 2026 114 and item six ordinance 2026 115 to council with the recommendation to approve.

Vice Chair Jones.

Aye, and I'd like to be added to the paper.

So both.

Yes, ma'am.

Second.

Vice Chair, I mean, Chair Robertson.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Thank you.

I'll work with agenda item number eight.

Item eight, resolution 2026 R020 to authorize the CAO to submit four separate applications to the Virginia Department of Housing Community Development to amend the boundaries of Enterprise Zone 19 and Zone 28A and modify the local enterprise zone incentive package for the amended enterprise zones.

That papers before the committee.

Yes.

Um Madam Chair and fellow committee members.

My name is Jacqueline Timer with the Department of Economic Development.

This white paper seeks approval to amend boundaries and incentives associated with the local enterprise zone.

The purpose of this amendment is to modernize the program and better align it with current redevelopment patterns, economic development priorities, and city planning initiatives.

The Enterprise Zone is a state local partnership through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development.

It is designed to encourage investment and job creation through grants tied to redevelopment and employment growth.

Richmond businesses and projects have received approximately $3.1 million in state enterprise zones awards over the last three funding cycles.

State incentives include the job creation grant and the real property investment grant.

Richmond currently has two state-approved enterprise zones, including one joint zone within RICO.

The city is required to offer local incentives to businesses that are located in the enterprise zone, and these incentives are administered through a cooperation agreement between the EDA and the city.

In the last two fiscal years, the city has awarded more than 500,000 through local enterprise zone incentives, leveraging approximately 40 million in private investment.

Many of these awards support small businesses and expansion projects.

Meanwhile, the cost to run a business are increasing, and Richmond's economic landscape is expanding.

The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the program continues supporting redevelopment, business growth, corridor revitalization, and job creation.

Staff evaluated both the existing boundaries and the current incentive structure.

Boundary recommendations were developed using development trends, feedback from business owners, alignment with the Richmond 300, small area plans, and the code refresh.

Incentive recommendations focused on improving effectiveness, simplifying administration, and providing better support for new investment.

The evaluation process included data analysis and research, a review of our previous awards, comparative analysis with enterprise owned programs in other Virginia cities, coordination with our awesome planning and GIS team, feedback from the business and real estate community was crucial.

Overall, the process was intended to ensure the recommendations reflect both city priorities and the needs of the business community.

The proposed boundary changes remove parcels that are unlikely to benefit from enterprise zone incentives.

On the map, those parcels are highlighted in red.

Because the state caps our enterprise zones at 3,840 acres, removing those parcels gives us the ability to strategically add other targeted areas.

Larger institutional and publicly owned properties like VUU, VCU, Port of Richmond, and parts of Capital District were removed while making sure we retain parcels within with commercial activity or tied to future redevelopment.

Areas like Stony Point Fashion Park and portions of downtown were added because they align with priority growth nodes in the Richmond 300.

We also added areas that overlap with care program boundaries, including parts of Jackson Ward, Shaco, and Fulton.

It is important that our economic development tools work together to support existing businesses while encouraging new growth.

Lastly, we identified outlier commercial parcels that are adjacent to current boundaries but have been left out for years due to reasons that no longer apply, particularly in areas like Church Hill, Brooklyn Park, and along Chamberlain Avenue.

Shown on the map are Richmond's two proposed enterprise zones, Zone 28A and purple, and zone 19 and yellow.

With these proposed changes, both zones remain compliant with state requirements.

Zone 28A is proposed at approximately 3,801 acres and zone 19 at approximately 3,802 acres, both within state acreage limits.

Staff utilize a consultant to evaluate the performance of existing incentives.

Current incentive amounts have not kept up with inflation.

Some of our smaller rebate programs just weren't impactful, nor did they influence location decisions.

The machinery and equipment rebate consistently was our most utilized incentive.

Ultimately, the businesses that we talk to want simpler and more accessible programs that make sense for what they need today.

The proposed incentive changes focus on creating targeted tools that better support business investment expansion and recruitment.

Staff is recommending discontinuing three of our smaller incentives: the development fee rebate, loan fee rebate, and brownfield assessment rebate.

These incentives were among our most underutilized incentives, with each representing less than 10% of total awards.

Through our analysis and conversations with businesses and stakeholders, we found that the smaller reimbursement amounts often did not align with current project costs or market conditions, particularly for our smaller businesses.

Feedback we received was that in many cases, the process of applying simply outweighed the actual benefit of the award.

We are seeking to modernize and improve our remaining incentives.

Richmond's commercial real estate market has changed significantly in recent years with businesses looking for more modern facilities, class A office space, and environments that support long-term growth and employee recruitment.

We have also consistently heard from our biotech and life sciences community that Richmond lacks move in ready lab space or flexible buildings that can easily convert from office to research use.

Those specialized improvements can be costly and can be a barrier to expansion and location decisions.

The proposed business investment grant is intended to address that need for upgraded modern commercial spaces by helping offset costs associated with tenant improvements and interior upfit for businesses locating or expanding within the enterprise zone.

We are also proposing to expand our machinery and equipment rebate by adding a second tier up to $50,000.

This second tier will support larger strategic projects and targeted industries.

This additional tier could also serve as a more competitive tool in business recruitment and location decisions where specialized equipment investments are a major factor in determining where a company chooses to locate or expand.

Finally, the proposed updates to the employee assistance grant are intended to better support restaurant retail and personal services businesses that are not eligible for the state's job creation grant.

And the rebate will increase from $400 per job currently up to it would it will increase to $1,000 per new job.

Research on site selection consistently shows that incentives and strong local partnerships can influence business attraction and expansion decisions, particularly when companies are deciding between multiple locations.

While incentives alone rarely drive a project, they can help close financial gaps and offset startup costs.

They demonstrate that a locality is willing to partner with the business on a long-term investment.

So this is a review of what our amendment process looks like.

This is a timeline of the process.

The state requires us to advertise a public hearing and notify property owners that are being removed from the enterprise zone.

Public hearing has been advertised, and mailings went out on April 28th.

We will need Henry Coal approval for the joint zone, and then we will be able to submit the completed application to DHCD.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item eight?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item eight?

See none of public hearing is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

I move that we forward to council for approval.

Second.

The committee is voting on the motion to forward item eight resolution 2026 R020 to council with a recommendation to approve.

Vice Chair Jones.

Afternoon.

That papers before the committee.

Good afternoon, Chair Robertson.

Megan Fields Senior Policy Advisor to the Department of Housing and Community Development.

We want to thank the patron for her continued interest in improving.

Closer.

Thank you.

We want to thank the patron for her continued interest in how the city can more efficiently provide for affordable housing.

Our only ask is that we align this study with our update to one Richmond.

The mayor and council have asked HCD to take a comprehensive look at the city's strategic housing plan, and we have that update due December 16th.

We will really make a stronger assessment of this idea if we can do it in a comprehensive way along with all of the other cities' policies that would affect affordable housing.

So that's our ask it just to have this incorporated into the one Richmond update.

We have a public hearing on this paper.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to item nine?

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support to item nine?

Seeing none of public hearing is now closed.

Bring it back to the committee.

Madam I move that we forward with the amendment to include the December, did she say 18th?

19th.

To include the December 16th date for a comprehensive study and be presented with the full housing plan.

Second, the committee is voting on the motion to afford item nine resolution 2026 R021 to council with the recommendation to approve with an amendment.

Chair Robinson.

That motion has been approved.

Okay, thank you.

I think we have a couple of no vacancy and abort vacancies, but we do have two discussion items.

We'll move with the move forward with those number one, number one discussion items.

Good afternoon, Chair and Robertson.

I am here to speak to you today about the quarterly report or third quarter report for APA.

The overall status for this quarter would be that the city expended 7.1 million for the third quarter, which brings us roughly to 89% of the obligation of 154 million, which leaves approximately 17.6 million dollars remaining.

All of the projects that remain are on track to spend by the 31st of December, with the exception of the down payment program.

Currently, the remaining funds are in the down payment program, parks projects, employee, the health the healthy home program, healthy equity trust fund, and the affordable housing and highland growth.

There were two projects that were completed at 100% this quarter, which was Creighton Hot Courts redevelopment and went from 92% from the previous quarter to 100.

OCWB workforce development and community ambassadors went from 99% to 100%.

And the standout activity for this quarter would be our parks projects.

They spent 3.995 million for the quarter alone.

As I mentioned before, the one to look out for would be the uh down payment assistance program.

Um, as you may recall, we did make some adjustments to that this year, where we opened it up to the public school.

We have seen an uptick and interest and applications in that area.

Um, the last report out shows that year to date we have 11 applications, so it went up almost 50 percent in this past quarter, including April.

And when I spoke with the program person today, she said that there was a huge increase in May as well.

With that said, we do still need to monitor it.

We can't guarantee that it actually will be expensive the entire amount will be expensed by the end of the year.

The last thing I want to mention is that we engage DRS, their name is delivery results solutions.

We want to be proactive this year and make sure that we close out properly with all of our compliance and audit areas.

They came on board in February, working with our budget team as well as the departments to make sure that we are compliance ready whenever they decide to come in and audit us, or if our internal auditors decide to come in uh and audit this particular program.

They are on track as well, and we're gonna make sure that we get a report out from them in June so we can report back out the next quarter.

And we did speak to them about the down payment assistance program, and they have some ideas and how we can address fully expending our money, but I don't want to speak to that until I get confirmation on that if that is possible.

And that is it for the quarter three.

Appreciate the report.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate the report.

Thanks for the progress and we'll hope that we will be able to take care of the down payment assistance as well.

Yes.

Continue to work on it.

Okay, all right.

Do you want to talk about the other?

I can't read lips on that.

She's doing both presentations.

You're doing both presentation.

I am a star for today.

Right.

Well, you'll do presentation number two.

Okay, so uh this will be short and quick.

We sent over a memo along with a sample of the uh financial report.

Just know that that is just a sample.

We're still outlaying everything.

I don't know if everyone has a copy.

If not, we'll make sure that the electronic version is sent over to you again, and then I have hand I have heart copies as well.

I'm happy to go over some of the sections if there if you'd like, but in terms of what we've accomplished so far, just know that for the past 60 days we've met.

Um, and when I say we met, I mean my whole entire portfolio to speak about reporting as a whole.

It's a holistic approach for us, not just the financial reporting.

We've established a steering committee as well as a working uh working group for where the staff is actually on board to help us uh do assessments and analysis about what our reporting needs are.

As it relates to the quarterly report itself, we're looking at peer jurisdictions to see what type of report out they're doing, trying to mirror that and then also address some of the things that you guys have asked for as well.

We've also looked at specific reporting tools like Splash BI to determine whether or not that is a potential use because right now, as you heard from me as well as the CAO and others, it's very labor intensive intensive for us for reporting purposes.

I think that we've outlined our report, the sample that we've given to you to try to kind of mirror what the budget looks like.

So you're seeing the actual information in the same cadence and organizational structure in which the budget is.

It's budget to actual comparison.

We're looking at year over year just to see exactly where we are.

We're doing we're doing what you ask in terms of giving more analysis, which is the narrative part, which is the most difficult thing to do because we're gonna have to drill down, and that's a cultural change for what is happening in enrichment right now.

So we're gonna have to figure out how to get everyone acclimated to that specific narrative change and make sure we're pretty much telling the story of what's happening with our financial situation because it's always complicated.

We were having conversations today, and I was like, I really don't know how to express this to you on a financial level, but just trying to tell the story so that the normal resident and citizen can be able to understand it as well as our council.

So we recognize that there's a need.

We're actually looking forward to uh engaging you guys in the next 30 days to get feedback on what we are producing, but as well as provide uh as well as get some additional clarity on some of the things that you're asking for.

Some of it may be doable, some of it may not be doable right now, but we do need to get together in the next 30 days to speak to that.

Any questions, Maria, as it relates to that?

We had lots of discussions on this, and we've been appreciate the cooperative effort, and uh we're looking forward to getting to that place where we uh have agreed on uh financial reports and how they will be.

Thank you for the question.

Yeah, okay.

Um Madam Clerk, does that complete our agenda?

Yes, ma'am, other than the staff report.

Other than the staff report, Miss Maria.

Maria Garnett, council policy analyst.

Um, the only thing to note as a sort of staff report is um, you know, we had been expecting a written update on the P Card program overhaul last month in April.

Um, you know, per a discussion with the administration recently, we are hoping to receive that next month in June.

So I just want to note that um on the record that that is the most recent update we've gotten about that.

There's no other business before the committee, madam clerk.

Umbers.

This meeting is a group.