City Hall Knew The Risks. Why Did The Solar Deal Keep Moving?

 

Richmond officials identified significant concerns about a proposed 25-year solar arrangement before it reached City Council. Now the City Inspector General is investigating allegations connected to the proposal. What happened inside City Hall?

Richmond's solar controversy isn't really about solar anymore.

It's about what happened after City Hall knew there were risks.

And now there is another reason to ask.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported September 30 that City investigators have opened an investigation involving the proposed solar contracts.

An Inspector General investigation is not a finding of wrongdoing. It doesn't establish that Mayor Danny Avula, Chief Administrative Officer Odie Donald II, the Office of Sustainability, Secure Solar Futures or anyone else acted improperly.

But its existence adds another layer of scrutiny to a proposal that was already generating concerns inside City government and on City Council.

The administration was seeking approval for solar installations on dozens of City properties through agreements extending roughly 25 years. The City projected significant renewable-energy generation and long-term electricity savings.

Those potential benefits deserve consideration.

But so does this:

City Hall knew there were risks before Council was asked to vote.

“There Is a Lot of Risk”

The most important sentence in this controversy may have been written before most Richmond residents knew there was a controversy.

According to The Richmonder, Donald wrote in August:

“Simply put, there is a lot of risk.”

Those concerns reportedly reached Mayor Avula.

That's important.

These weren't merely objections from political opponents or skeptical residents. They were concerns emerging from inside the administration responsible for evaluating the deal.

That doesn't mean the proposal should have been abandoned.

Contracts change. Lawyers negotiate. Risks can be reduced.

But when Richmond's top administrator identifies substantial risk in a proposed 25-year arrangement, taxpayers should eventually be able to see how those risks were addressed.

Then: “Extremely Comfortable”

By September 23, Donald's assessment sounded dramatically different.

Appearing before Council's Governmental Operations Committee, he said he was “extremely comfortable” with the agreement and believed the risks had been mitigated to an acceptable level. (richmonder.org)

Maybe they had.

Then show Richmond what changed.

August: “There is a lot of risk.”

September: “Extremely comfortable.”

The space between those two statements is where this story lives.

What were the original risks?

What contract provisions changed?

Who evaluated those changes?

What advice reached Mayor Avula?

And who ultimately determined the proposal was ready for Council?

Those answers could demonstrate that Richmond's internal review process worked.

Or they could reveal weaknesses in it.

Either way, taxpayers deserve the answer.

Except Council Was Still Asking Questions

That's what makes the timeline difficult to understand.

Even as Donald expressed confidence, councilmembers were still raising significant questions.

Councilor Kenya Gibson described aspects of the arrangement as “alarming.” Councilor Sarah Abubaker invoked “trust but verify.” Councilor Stephanie Lynch questioned whether Richmond might eventually face additional expenses preparing City buildings for solar installations. (richmonder.org)

The Richmonder also reported that Richmond's insurance broker had characterized aspects of the contract as “extremely one-sided” and recommended revisions. The City Attorney's Office had raised concerns as well. (richmonder.org)

So the question becomes sharper:

If the major risks had been resolved, why were major questions still being raised immediately before the vote?

Five Days

Timing matters.

According to The Richmonder, September 23 was the first public Council meeting where the precise terms received detailed examination.

The scheduled vote was September 28.

Five days.

Council was confronting agreements potentially lasting 25 years involving numerous public properties, financial projections, building-condition questions, insurance provisions and previously identified risks.

And the Governmental Operations Committee didn't recommend approval. The legislation moved to full Council without a recommendation. (richmonder.org)

Yet the clock kept ticking.

Get It in Writing. Then Vote.

One exchange captured the problem.

Councilmembers questioned what would happen if some City roofs proved unsuitable for solar installations.

Project representatives indicated unsuitable sites could be removed without financial harm to Richmond.

Councilmembers wanted that protection in writing.

According to The Richmonder, the company's CEO expressed willingness to make “friendly” amendments but asked that they wait until after Council voted. (richmonder.org)

That sequence is backwards.

Council identifies a risk.

Council asks for protection.

The written protection comes after the vote?

Get it in writing. Then vote.

That's what oversight is for.

Was the Deadline Driving the Deal?

Federal solar incentives were important to the project's economics, creating urgency around the timetable.

Richmond also relied on cooperative procurement rather than conducting its own traditional solicitation, using an existing Prince William County Public Schools contract with Secure Solar Futures.

Neither fact establishes anything improper.

But together they raise a legitimate question:

Did the deadline begin driving the decision?

A deadline can make a good deal urgent.

It cannot make an unresolved deal good.

Now the Inspector General Is Looking

And this is where the story changes.

The Inspector General investigation means an independent City office is now examining allegations connected to a proposal that had already generated internal concerns.

Again, an investigation proves nothing by itself.

That's precisely why speculation should give way to documents.

Richmond's Office of Inspector General exists to investigate allegations involving City government and publicly posts completed investigative reports. (rva.gov)

Let the investigation follow the evidence.

If the allegations are unsupported, Richmond should know that.

If investigators identify procedural failures or other problems, Richmond should know that too.

But the investigation makes preservation and eventual disclosure of the documentary trail even more important.

Emails.

Draft contracts.

Risk assessments.

Insurance reviews.

Legal comments.

Financial analyses.

Communications between the Mayor's Office, CAO and Office of Sustainability.

Those records could answer the central question without speculation.

Follow the Decision Up the Chain

The proposal didn't parachute into Council chambers.

It traveled through City government.

So follow it backward.

Who tested the projected savings?

Who evaluated the buildings?

Who reviewed the insurance exposure?

Who identified the risks?

Who determined they had been resolved?

Who decided the legislation was ready?

And who decided Council had enough information and enough time?

Those aren't accusations.

They're basic accountability questions.

And Mayor Avula's role belongs in that examination because Donald's concerns reportedly reached him.

What was the mayor told?

When?

What questions did he ask?

And what convinced his administration to continue moving the proposal toward Council?

A mayor doesn't personally negotiate every clause in a City contract.

But executive accountability eventually reaches the executive.

This Is Bigger Than Solar

That's why Richmond shouldn't simply move on from this episode.

There will be another developer.

Another financing structure.

Another deadline.

Another promise of long-term savings.

And another request for Council to move quickly.

Transparency and accountability matter most in precisely those moments.

They matter when administrators, lawyers and outside advisers identify risk.

They matter when elected officials are still asking questions.

And they matter when the City's own Inspector General begins investigating.

The investigation doesn't prove wrongdoing.

But it reinforces the need for answers.

City Hall knew there were risks.

Council still had questions.

The deadline was approaching.

The proposal kept moving.

And now the Inspector General is investigating.

Richmond deserves to know:

What changed?

Who decided the risks had been resolved?

What is the Inspector General examining?

And above all:

Why did the deal keep moving?

Brian K. Telfair
The Richmond Chronicle