Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
The Government Operations Committee of the Richmond City Council met on October 28, 2026, at 20:45 UTC. All committee members were present and a quorum was confirmed. Items included an HR presentation on performance management and residency requirements, Ordinance 2026-281 on sewer discharge permits, Resolution 2026-R043 on the Dominion Energy/NextEra Energy merger, board vacancy appointments, and scheduling updates.
Okay, everyone, we'll begin shortly. Are folks here, I believe. Um, clerks, there are anyone else for waiting on. Okay, let's get started. Thanks. Upon activation of the emergency alarm signal, all person should immediately exit the building. Please use the exits to the left or right front of the council chamber or the north or south stairwares outside the rear doors of the chamber. Do not use elevators or escalators. After exiting the building, security will direct everyone down 9th Street to the fence area located between Clay and Lee Streets. Able persons should assist visually in hearing impair visitors with exiting the building. Individuals wishing to speak during public hearings in the public comment period are generally allowed three minutes to speak. Persons appearing before the committee are not allowed to campaign for public office, promote private business ventures, use language of a personal nature, which insults or demeans any person, including comments directed at public officials or staff members that are not related to their official duties or address the question staff members directly. All questions are to be directed to the committee chair. It may result in speakers forfeiting any remaining time and further disciplinary action is necessary, which could include barn from attendance at future meetings of the committee for a period of six months. And madam chair, all members of the committee are in attendance today, and you do have a quorum. Thank you so much, madam clerk. Let's move to public comment. Public comment is now open. Is there anyone present who wishes to address this committee regarding items not on today's agenda? Madam Chair, seeing none, the public period, the public comment period is now closed and back to the committee. All right, thank you. I believe we have a presentation from our director of human resources. Welcome. Thank you so much for having me. The director of human resources, and here to do this presentation on performance management and residency requirements as requested by this body. Just a brief overview of what we'll cover today. We'll talk about these are all elements of the items that this body has requested in terms of framework of the presentation. So that's what we will cover today. So the little bit of conversation around the performance management and why it matters. Performance management, as you all know, is just an ongoing process by which all organizations define expectations for employees, track all of those progress towards goals, and provide feedback and ongoing coaching to help employees succeed rather than having just one annual single area event. It all ties into the map goal of a thriving city hall. It's built around accountability, growth of employees, alignment with individual expectations and departmental goals and needs, and also according to what the body elects as some priorities. So you all wanted to have some background information on the original pilot program and scope and goals. So there were five departments that were included in the original pilot, which kind of predates me. So the knowledge I have around that pilot is going to be a little bit limited because it was done by prior administration. But there were over 290 participating managers and 405 employees included in that initial pilot that was set up in the system. So what did the data that we have in the system tell us about that pilot program that was originally launched? The number of journal entries into the program was so minuscule that it almost didn't register a percentage or a number, which just tells us that the number of folks that actually entered journal entries were so small that it was insignificant to really try to report out on that. There were 23% of those pilot participants actually had an opportunity to complete the ratings. Understanding that that pilot program was a condensed pilot, so it was not even a full cycle year of data. Some of that early engagement metrics told us, gave us kind of a preliminary distribution of what was entered into the system. I mean, as you can see, there were about 10% of those participants that fell below expectations, but the majority of the folks either met or exceeded expectations in the pilot. Upon evaluation of that pilot program and the tools that we were currently using, we were able to identify there were some structural gaps in that particular pilot program. One no formal job description. So the city today operates off of job classes, which is all this that's a starting point of a compensation job class and position structure, but not the entire full structure that you would want to have in place. So that pilot was designed to feed off of those specs, which are too general, that doesn't apply specifically to certain jobs, like a management analyst that may be different in each department. So that was an identifiable gap, which will be closed. That gap should get closed with the class and comp study, which will help us build out formalized job descriptions for the city, which is needed.