Before Mayor Avula asks Richmond residents to embrace sweeping zoning changes, perhaps his administration should explain how the City intends to pay for the infrastructure those changes may require.
Richmond residents have spent months dealing with delayed water bills, confusing account balances, payment-processing problems, and a utility billing system that has struggled to function properly.
Meanwhile, Mayor Danny Avula's administration is moving forward with Code Refresh, a sweeping rewrite of Richmond's zoning ordinance that could substantially increase development density throughout the city.
Does anyone else see a problem here?
If Richmond has struggled to manage the utility system it already has, why should residents simply trust that City Hall has adequately calculated the infrastructure costs of the development it wants to encourage?
That is not an argument against development. Richmond needs housing, investment, and economic growth.
But development costs money. Water lines, sewer systems, stormwater facilities, and other public infrastructure do not expand simply because City Hall changes the zoning map.
Someone has to pay.
And judging from Richmond's recent history, taxpayers have every reason to ask whether that someone will be them.
First, Let's Talk About Those Water Bills
Richmond's utility billing problems have been well documented.
In October 2025, equipment problems corrupted meter-reading data affecting nearly 5,000 Southside customers. Billing was delayed, and some residents subsequently received bills covering multiple billing periods.
In May 2026, the City introduced a new utility billing and customer-service system.
By June, the Department of Public Utilities was acknowledging payment-processing problems, delayed postings, confusing balances, and difficulties with automatic payments.
Additional billing and account-display problems surfaced during the summer.
The City subsequently reported that certain payment-processing problems had been corrected.
But the question remains: How did a system intended to improve customer service produce so many problems for the people paying the bills?
What did the conversion cost? Who was responsible for testing the system? What did the City pay its vendors? Were there contractual penalties for poor performance?
And perhaps most importantly, has anyone independently determined whether the problems have been fully resolved?
Richmond residents should not have to become accountants simply to figure out whether their water bills are correct.
Yet the same administration responsible for overseeing the utility system is asking residents to have confidence in the financial assumptions underlying Code Refresh.
That deserves scrutiny.
Then There's the Finance Department
Richmond's utility billing problems did not occur in a vacuum.
The City's financial management history has its own troubling chapters.
Inspector General Report IG-2202-06 examined the Finance Department's failure to reconcile the City's concentration account, a fundamental financial control.
A separate Finance Department review, reported in 2024, identified approximately 7,000 unanswered emails, six months of ignored voicemails, more than 1,000 unworked documents, and thousands of unresolved service requests.
Think about that.
Thousands of Richmond residents and businesses were attempting to communicate with their government, and their messages were going unanswered.
These findings predate some of the current administration's initiatives, and they do not establish that the deficiencies remain unresolved.
But where is the public accounting of what was corrected?
Were the recommendations implemented? Were the corrective actions independently verified? Has the City demonstrated that its financial controls now function as intended?
The public should not have to assume that serious problems identified by the City's own auditors have been fixed simply because City Hall has moved on to its next big project.
Now City Hall Wants to Rewrite the Development Rules
Code Refresh is being promoted as a way to encourage housing construction, increase density, and make Richmond more affordable.
Those are worthwhile objectives.
But what happens when additional development places demands on infrastructure that may already require substantial investment?
One concern surrounding Draft 3 involves expanded by-right development and its potential effect on the City's ability to obtain developer-funded infrastructure improvements through discretionary zoning approvals.
Virginia law limits the circumstances under which localities can require proffers, and by-right development operates differently from negotiated rezonings.
That does not mean developers would automatically be relieved of every infrastructure obligation.
But it does mean the administration needs to explain precisely what changes.
Will developers continue to pay for necessary off-site improvements?
Will additional water and sewer capacity be required?
How much will those improvements cost?
And if the developers do not pay, who will?
It is one thing to make Richmond easier to develop. It is quite another to make existing residents responsible for financing that development.
Where is the comprehensive financial analysis showing what Code Refresh could cost utility customers?
Where is the independent assessment of DPU's capacity to accommodate the additional density?
And why shouldn't those studies be available before Council makes decisions that could shape Richmond for decades?
Meanwhile, Richmond Faces Enormous Sewer Obligations
Richmond already faces substantial state-mandated improvements to its combined sewer system.
Community estimates have placed the potential cost between $1.3 billion and $1.6 billion, figures that should be reconciled with the City's latest official projections.
Whatever the precise number, Richmond's infrastructure obligations are substantial.
Residents are also dealing with increasing utility costs.
A recent community analysis cites a 6.6% utility increase and raises questions about commercial stormwater discounts. The specific rate impacts and discount eligibility require confirmation against the City's adopted schedules.
But the broader concern is legitimate.
Richmond is already confronting expensive infrastructure requirements while residents struggle with utility bills and property taxes.
Now the administration wants to encourage additional development without first providing a clear public accounting of the resulting infrastructure obligations.
How much capacity is available?
Where will improvements be necessary?
What portion of those costs will be paid by developers?
And what portion could be passed along to existing customers?
These are not minor details.
They are the financial questions that should be answered before Richmond approves the policies that create the demand.
The October 20 Meetings Should Be a Wake-Up Call
According to community accounts, the Land Use Committee continued consideration of ORD. 2026-190 on October 20, with the matter expected to return around November 9.
The ordinance would establish an Affordable Dwelling Unit Advisory Committee whose prospective members would be recommended by the Mayor.
The proposed membership includes individuals with development-related experience.
That expertise may be useful, but where is the corresponding assurance that utility ratepayers, neighborhood residents, and independent infrastructure experts will have meaningful representation?
Why should development interests have a prominent role in advising on policies that may affect their own projects without equally clear safeguards for the public?
The committee's actual authority and relationship to the Chapter 30 rewrite also deserve explanation.
With another Code Refresh milestone anticipated October 28, City Council has an opportunity to examine these questions before the process advances further.
Mayor Avula Needs to Explain the Numbers
Mayor Avula has made Code Refresh a priority.
That means he should also be prepared to explain its financial implications.
The administration cannot reasonably expect residents to focus exclusively on the promised benefits of increased development while leaving unanswered questions about infrastructure capacity and costs.
Where is the hydraulic capacity study?
Where is the analysis of future utility rate impacts?
Where is the accounting of infrastructure improvements developers will be required to finance?
And where is the evidence that Richmond's financial and utility management systems are sufficiently reliable to administer the resulting obligations?
If the studies exist, release them.
If they have not been completed, explain why.
Richmond does not need another administration asking residents to trust the process while the financial details remain unresolved.
The Diamond District should have taught City Hall something about the dangers of celebrating anticipated development benefits before important contractual and operational questions have been settled.
The same principle applies here.
A development vision is not a financial plan.
And an optimistic presentation is not a substitute for independent analysis.
City Council Has a Responsibility, Too
This is not simply Mayor Avula's problem.
City Council has an independent responsibility to protect the public interest.
Before advancing major Code Refresh changes, Council should require an independent assessment of DPU infrastructure capacity, a detailed explanation of developer funding obligations, and an analysis of potential costs to existing utility customers.
Council should also demand a full accounting of the recent utility billing problems, including vendor performance and corrective actions, along with the status of the Finance Department's outstanding audit recommendations.
These are reasonable requests.
In fact, given Richmond's financial history, they should be routine.
The administration should welcome that scrutiny if its projections are sound.
And Council should not be satisfied with another set of assurances unsupported by publicly available documentation.
Richmond Cannot Keep Developing First and Figuring Out the Costs Later
Richmond needs growth.
But growth without adequate financial planning can become an expensive burden rather than an economic benefit.
Residents have already experienced utility billing failures, rising costs, and a government whose own auditors have documented significant financial management problems.
Now they are being asked to embrace a zoning overhaul that could reshape the city for generations.
Before doing so, they deserve answers.
How much will Code Refresh cost?
How much will developers pay?
How much could existing residents be required to absorb?
And perhaps the most basic question of all:
If City Hall has struggled to get the water bills right, why should residents accept its assurances about the financial consequences of Code Refresh without independent verification?
Mayor Avula needs to show the numbers.
City Council needs to examine them.
And Richmond residents deserve to know who will be paying before the next bill arrives.
Because Richmond cannot afford another expensive promise whose true cost becomes apparent only after the decisions have been made.
Brian K. Telfair | The Richmond Chronicle | Independent Commentary and Analysis
No comments:
Post a Comment