Council Hadn’t Voted. Secure Solar Had Already Ordered $500,000 in Panels.

Richmond's solar deal may be dead.

But one fact deserves much more attention:

Secure Solar Futures had already ordered approximately $500,000 worth of solar panels before City Council approved the project.

CEO Anthony Smith told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the panels had been ordered and were scheduled for delivery the following week.

That doesn't mean Richmond authorized the purchase. It doesn't mean taxpayers were responsible for the $500,000. And it doesn't prove the City had entered into a binding agreement.

But it raises an obvious question:

What gave Secure Solar enough confidence to order $500,000 worth of equipment before City Council said yes?

This Deal Was Already Far Down the Road

Council wasn't considering a vague solar concept.

By the time the proposal arrived, 39 City properties had been identified. Facility-specific pricing and long-term financial projections had been developed. Site leases and solar power purchase agreements had been prepared. City documents also referenced a Master Solar Power Purchase Agreement.

The Times-Dispatch reports that Secure Solar and Richmond were already engaged in contract negotiations.

Now add the $500,000 panel order.

The question isn't whether work on the deal occurred before Council approval.

Clearly it did.

The question is:

How far had the deal progressed before Council was asked to vote?

Why Order $500,000 in Panels?

Secure Solar may have ordered the equipment entirely at its own risk because of supply constraints, deadlines or federal tax considerations.

If so, say so.

But Richmond should answer its side.

Did City officials know the panels were being ordered?

Did anyone encourage the purchase?

Did anyone provide assurances about the likelihood of Council approval?

Were the panels specifically intended for Richmond?

And who carried the financial risk if Council rejected the project?

Because Council ultimately did exactly that.

The CEO's Explanation Adds Another Layer

Smith also addressed concerns involving a former Secure Solar employee who worked for Richmond while the City and company were negotiating.

Smith says the relationship did not affect the transaction.

That may be correct.

A former company employee working for Richmond does not establish misconduct.

But the overlap makes the timeline important.

What role did the employee have inside City government? Did that person participate in, advise on or have access to information concerning the solar negotiations?

And where does the $500,000 panel order fall on that timeline?

Those questions can be answered with records.

What Did Council Actually Have Left to Decide?

The City's ordinances indicate Council approval was required before the individual agreements could be executed.

There is currently no evidence that Richmond secretly executed all 39 agreements beforehand.

But that's a narrow question.

By the time Council received the proposal, the sites had been selected, pricing developed, agreements drafted and negotiations conducted. Secure Solar says it had already committed $500,000 to panels.

So what remained for Council to decide?

Was Council considering a proposal whose major terms remained negotiable?

Or was it essentially being handed a completed package and asked:

Yes or no?

Council Said No. The Administration Kept Going.

Council rejected the proposal September 28.

The administration nevertheless continued searching for a way to preserve it.

A September 30 memorandum presented alternatives, including proceeding with all 39 sites or reducing the project to 17. The administration warned that delaying beyond October 6 could make the project financially unviable.

Then everything changed.

On October 3, Mayor Danny Avula announced that he would no longer seek reconsideration after learning of a potential relationship involving a City department that he said could jeopardize the proposal's legitimacy.

Avula then directed Chief Administrative Officer Odie Donald II to investigate.

And that creates another accountability question.

Why Is the CAO Investigating?

The CAO oversees Richmond's administrative operations.

The solar proposal moved through that administrative structure. The administration developed and promoted the proposal and then attempted to preserve it after Council rejected it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Donald conducting an internal management review.

But an internal review is not the same thing as an independent investigation.

That's especially important because Richmond's Office of the Inspector General was already examining the solar matter.

So what exactly is the CAO investigating?

The procurement?

The negotiations?

The employment relationship?

Who knew what and when?

The $500,000 panel purchase?

Richmond should define the scope.

The two investigations can coexist, but their purposes should be different.

The CAO can determine what needs to change administratively.

The Inspector General should independently determine what happened.

Follow the $500,000

One date could illuminate much of this story:

When exactly did Secure Solar order the panels?

Put that date alongside the negotiating timeline.

When did negotiations begin?

When did the former Secure Solar employee begin working for Richmond?

When were major contract terms settled?

When did City officials learn about the panel purchase?

When did they learn about the employment relationship?

Then release the relevant emails, contract drafts, procurement documents and communications.

If Secure Solar ordered the panels entirely at its own risk, show it.

If Richmond knew about the order but made clear that everything remained contingent upon Council approval, show that too.

If the former employee played no role in the negotiations, document it.

And release the Master Solar Power Purchase Agreement so Richmonders can see exactly what, if anything, had already been agreed upon.

Richmond Needs More Than Assurances

None of this proves wrongdoing.

Secure Solar may have made a calculated business decision to order equipment early. Smith may be correct that the employment relationship had no effect on the transaction. City officials may have followed every required procedure.

But the evidence should establish those conclusions.

A 39-site deal was negotiated.

The company says it ordered $500,000 worth of panels before Council approval.

Council rejected the project.

The administration attempted to revive it.

Then a potential relationship surfaced serious enough for the mayor to stop the process and order an internal investigation, while the Inspector General was already examining the matter.

Richmond doesn't need speculation.

Follow the negotiations. Follow the $500,000. Follow the timeline.

Then let the independent investigation tell Richmond what actually happened.

Brian K. Telfair, The Richmond Chronicle