Richmond City Council on Monday night approved $1.6 million in one-time funding for the Richmond Police Department, enough to add 40 recruits to the understaffed force by next summer.
Richmond Police Chief Alfred Durham
Council approved the budget transfers, proposed by Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ administration, at its last scheduled meeting of the term. The decision comes weeks after Chief Alfred Durham requested immediate action due to a shortage of 50 officers. The dearth has stretched the department’s coverage area thin and required more overtime hours for patrol officers. Making matters more urgent, Richmond has seen a spike in homicides this year. Through Dec. 11, 58 people had been killed in the city, 21 more than the same time last year. If the uptick continues, the city will register its deadliest year since 2006.
“People are dying in our streets, every day — just over the weekend, a young woman was killed,” said Selena Cuffee-Glenn, the city’s chief administrative officer. She added later, “This doesn’t get us where we need to be, but it’s a step in the right direction.”
Outgoing Councilman Charles Samuels said the number of officers on the street isn’t the only problem the city is facing.
“We’re not replacing the wisdom and experience that we’re losing. It’s great to have fresh blood … but we also need folks with experience, and we need to be able to draw them into our city to work.”
Master Police Officer Todd Gilbert, a 20-year-veteran of the Richmond force, said the short-term fix is necessary, but won’t stop the exodus of seasoned officers from the force. The phenomenon is not new. The surrounding counties pay officers more competitively than the city does, Gilbert said in an interview after the meeting.
“We’re losing people — two to three officers every month,” he told Council. “By the time you end up doing all of that, losing two to three officers every month, your net result for $1.6 million is going to be four to five officers on the street to take my back when I go to a hot radio call or a shooting.”
***
1 of 2
The proposed City Center development, street view (Rendering courtesy Price Studios)
2 of 2
The proposed City Center development, aerial view (Rendering courtesy Price Studios)
Also on Monday’s agenda was the proposed $3.95 million sale of a city-owned parcel downtown to a developer with an ambitious plan.
Last week, Robert Englander, the lead developer on the proposal, put down a $395,000 deposit on the property, which is bounded by North Sixth, East Franklin, North Seventh and East Grace streets. Currently, the site serves as a parking lot and houses a parking deck.
The proposed development would include 800 parking spaces, 600 of which would be available to the public, at least 28,000 square feet of space for retailers, as well as at least 372,000 square feet of commercial or residential space for condos and perhaps a hotel. Many of the details of the project are still in flux because the developers do not own the site and thus can’t line up tenants, Englander told Council.
Under the proposed terms of the sale, the new owners would be required to develop the property so its minimum real estate assessment is $86 million. If the assessment is below that figure, the developers would face a penalty from the city.
A provision in the contract would allow the buyers to challenge the city assessment. A couple of council members took issue with the provision, including Vice President Chris Hilbert, who said a previous developer the city dealt with “abused” a similar clause. Hilbert, who did not name the developer he was referring to, said they challenged the original assessment, the city lowered it in response, and shortly after, the developer flipped the property for twice the value of the original assessment. “I don’t want that situation to even be a possibility,” Hilbert said.
Lee Downey, the city’s deputy chief administrative officer, explained the provision existed to allow the developer to challenge the assessment only if it came in under $86 million and the city slapped them with a penalty.
Samuels suggested continuing the sale until January, when the incoming council members would be in place. “Because this is a development that will happen in their term, maybe they should have a say in it as opposed to us,” Samuels said.
Council voted to delay a vote on the matter. Afterward, Englander expressed frustration, but said the setback “doesn’t mean we’re going to walk away” from the project.
“We are disappointed that the nine councilmen [sic] that had heard about it and had been informed about the project decided that they didn’t have ample information. We would hope that we would do a better job on our side of giving them that information,” Englander said in an interview. “We’ll come back and fight this fight again. Although it’s not a fight; it’s an opportunity for the city.”
