1. home and garden

Richmond Redevelopment & Housing Authority
Five-Year Strategic Plan
2 0 0 5 - 2 010
901 Chamberlayne Parkway • Richmond, VA 23220
(804) 780-4200 • www.rrha.org • [email protected]
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1
Authorization Page.............................................................................................................. 2
Mission................................................................................................................................ 8
Vision.................................................................................................................................. 8
Values ................................................................................................................................. 9
Products and Services ....................................................................................................... 10
Customers ......................................................................................................................... 11
Goals ................................................................................................................................. 12
Goal 1 – Revitalized residential and commercial communities.................................... 12
Goal 2 – Economic opportunities ................................................................................. 12
Goal 3 – Efficiency and fiscal responsibility................................................................ 12
Goal 4 – Quality Customer Service .............................................................................. 12
Objectives, Initiatives, and Performance Measures.......................................................... 13
Objective 1.1. Create and improve quality affordable housing .................................... 13
Objective 1.2 Develop mixed use / mixed income planned communities................... 13
Objective 1.3 Deconcentrate poverty........................................................................... 14
Objective 2.1 Support city wide economic development ............................................ 14
Objective 2.2 Develop opportunities for client capacity building ............................... 15
Objective 3.1 Meet all program requirements – outcomes and financial targets......... 15
Objective 3.2 Effective data management ................................................................... 15
Objective 3.3 Manage/improve processes ................................................................... 16
Objective 3.4 Manage Human Resources.................................................................... 16
Objective 3.5 Develop new sources of revenue........................................................... 16
Objective 4.1 Foster a learning culture ........................................................................ 17
Objective 4.2 Service orientation................................................................................. 17
Appendix........................................................................................................................... 18
Strategic Planning Model.............................................................................................. 19
Description of the Strategic Planning Process .............................................................. 20
Physical Needs Assessment .......................................................................................... 24
Market Study................................................................................................................. 26
Stakeholder Meetings.................................................................................................... 30
1 Year Operational Plan................................................................................................ 33
Communication Plan..................................................................................................... 38
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan ................................................................................... 44
Preliminary Financial Plan............................................................................................ 49
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ 51
Board of Commissioners…..………………………………………………………… 43
Project Sponsor and Project Manager…………..…………………………………… 44
Direction Setting Team Members……………………………………………………..45
Performance Measurement Team Members ................................................................. 55
Facilitator's Assistants…………………………………………………………………47
Steering Committee Members………………………………………………………...48
Consultants…………………………………………………………………………….49
Community Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 59
Executive Summary
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the Authority) was created in 1940 by
the City of Richmond, Virginia pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law (Title 36 of the Code of
Virginia). A seven member Board of Commissioners appointed by the City Council governs the
Authority. The Authority serves more than 10,000 residents in approximately 4,100 public
housing units and more than 2,900 individuals residing in other forms of subsidized housing.
The Authority is also the redevelopment arm of the City of Richmond. In this capacity, it works
with the City and other partners to redevelop blighted neighborhoods and commercial districts.
After sixty-five years of operation, the Authority is at a point in its history where it is facing
major challenges. Some of these challenges include reduced funding from the federal
government, operational reforms from HUD, deteriorating capital, and increased demand for
affordable housing. To successfully address these issues, the Authority’s Board of
Commissioners and staff decided that the development of a long-range strategic plan was
essential. As a result, the Authority initiated a strategic planning process in November 2004. At
that time, the Authority’s Executive Director Sheila Hill-Christian stated “We want to chart a
successful course for this agency that will positively impact our residents, the organization and
consequently our contributions to the future of this City.”
The strategic planning model used required the Authority to answer three fundamental questions
as they developed their Five Year Strategic Plan: “Where are we now?”, “Where do we want to
go?”, and “How will we get there?” By answering these three questions, the Authority was able
to determine the state of affairs at the present time, identify how the Authority should position
itself for future product and service delivery, and, most importantly, what actions the Authority
must take to meet its mission.
The strategic planning process began with an analysis of the current internal and external
environment of the Authority. This environmental analysis included a Market Study to
determine the current housing demand and needs in the City of Richmond, a Physical Needs
Assessment to determine the physical condition and costs for improvements of the Authority’s
residential properties, and meetings with a variety of stakeholders to obtain their input and
recommendations regarding the future of the Authority’s operations.
The information gained from the environmental analysis was then used by the Authority’s
Direction Setting Team, composed of the Authority’s Board of Commissioners and staff, to set
the future direction of the organization. Specifically, the Direction Setting Team formulated a
new mission, vision, values and goals for the Authority. All of this information was then
presented to community stakeholders for feedback before being finalized. The Direction Setting
Team also identified specific objectives and initiatives to effectively fulfill its new mission and
move in the direction of its new vision and goals. To ensure effective implementation of the
Strategic Plan, the Direction Setting Team also created performance measures that will be used
to assess the organization’s progress in meeting its stated goals and objectives.
In addition, the Authority has created a Steering Committee composed of Authority staff that
will be responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Plan. The Steering Committee will be
1
responsible for ensuring that the Plan is effectively communicated to all the appropriate parties
and monitored, evaluated, and changed as needed over the course of the next 5 years.
Given this responsibility, the first thing the Steering Committee did was to prioritize the
initiatives in the Five Year Plan and identify those that the Authority would pursue in the coming
year. Based on this prioritization, a 1 Year Operational Plan was developed, including who is
responsible for the various initiatives and timelines for completion. Secondly, the Steering
Committee created a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and a Communication Plan to ensure that
progress on the plan is monitored and evaluated and effectively communicated to all of the
Authority’s stakeholders.
In the following pages, you will find the mission, vision, values, goals, objectives, initiatives,
and performance measures that the Board of Commissioners has approved for the next five fiscal
years, 2006 – 2010.
In the Appendix, you will find a visual of the strategic planning model used by the Authority in
its strategic planning process. Also included in the Appendix is a more detailed description of
the strategic planning process, the Physical Needs Assessments, the Market Study, and the
results of the Community Stakeholder meetings. Lastly, in the Appendix you will find the
Authority’s 1 Year Operational Plan, which details the major initiatives to be accomplished in
the coming year, and the complementary plans required for successful implementation of the
Authority’s Five Year Strategic Plan (i.e. Communication Plan, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan,
and Preliminary Financial Plan).
This document could not have been developed without the time and commitment of many
talented Board and staff members. In particular, significant contributions were made by all
members of the Direction Setting Team and the Performance Measurement Team. Please see the
Acknowledgement section for a list of all team members and a list of those who will participate
on the Steering Committee responsible for keeping our Five Year Strategic Plan moving forward.
2
Authorization Page
On June 15th, the Authority’s Five Year Strategic Plan was formally approved by the Board of
Commissioners. Below are the (relevant sections of the) Board meeting minutes unanimously
approving the Five Year Strategic Plan.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSIONERS
OF RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
HELD IN THE OFFICES OF RRHA
901 CHAMBERLAYNE PARKWAY, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
ON WEDNESDAY, June 15, 2005
The Commissioners of Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (“RRHA”) met
in regular session in the offices of RRHA, 901 Chamberlayne Parkway, Richmond, Virginia, on
June 15, 2005, at 5:30 p.m.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. with General Counsel, Gerald
Carter, Esq., Harrell & Chambliss LLP, present and upon roll call, the following were present:
Leonard A. Venter, Chairman
J. Russell Parker, III
Elliott M. Harrigan
George E. Smith
Brian K. Jackson, Esquire
Marilyn B. Olds
And the following were absent:
Charles T. Peters, Jr., Vice Chairman
Also present:
Ms. Sheila Hill-Christian, Executive Director
3
Mrs. Doris Jackson-Crocker, Assistant to Executive Director
Ms. Terri D. Garrett, Executive Administrative Assistant
Ms. Cassandra Scarborough, Acting Director of Finance & Administration
Ms. Denise Dickerson, Director of Housing Operations
Ms. Valena Dixon, Director of Communications
Mr. Garland Curtis, Acting Director of Planning and Community Development
Mr. Kenneth Francis, Director of Information Technology
Mr. Frank Denny, Purchasing Manager
Mr. Peter Monse, Controller
Mr. Steve Benham, RRHA
Ms. Carol Jackson, RRHA
Ms. Darlene Giles, RRHA
Mr. Dan Hutchinson, RRHA
Ms. Angela Greene, RRHA
Ms. Grace Lewis, RRHA
Ms. Jacquelyn Hicks, RRHA
Ms. Jacquetta Johnson, RRHA
Ms. Roxanne Brinson, RRHA
George K. Martin, Esq., McGuireWoods LLP
Jesse Bausch, Esq., McGuireWoods LLP
Adam N. Harrell, Esq., Harrell & Chambliss
Mr. Mike Hawkins, VAHCDO
Ms. Gwen Corley-Creighton, OD, LLC
Mr. Dave Ross, Richmond Times-Dispatch
4
Resolutions
Commissioner Venter recognized Executive Director Sheila Hill-Christian for the reading
of the following Resolution:
Agenda Item No. 1 – Resolution of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Authorizing the Approval of the Draft Strategic Plan including the Mission, Vision, Values,
Goals, Objectives, Initiatives and Performance Measures, which was read in full and considered:
TITLE:
Resolution of the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority Authorizing
the Approval of the Draft Strategic Plan including the Mission, Vision, Values,
Goals, Objectives, Initiatives and Performance Measures.
RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority
("RRHA ") received Board approval in April 2004 to carry-out a strategic plan
and feasibility study project; and
WHEREAS, RRHA procured the services of EMG Corporation
(and sub-contractors Organizational Destinations and Housing-Solutions) in
November 2004 to assist with the execution of this project; and
WHEREAS, EMG Corporation and its subcontractors have completed the
requested contract deliverables, including physical needs assessments for twentyone residential properties, a market study of the Richmond region, forty-one
meetings with residents and numerous workshops, focus groups, and
presentations with other community stakeholders and staff, and a financial plan
identifying strategies for retooling RRHA's residential properties; and
WHEREAS, RRHA's Direction-Setting Team completed a draft strategic
plan in April 2004, incorporating new mission and vision statements identifying
its future purpose, new organizational values, new goals and objectives to guide
future management decisions, new initiatives to meet our goals, and new
performance measures to track our progress; and
WHEREAS, RRHA has received positive feedback from residents, staff,
and community stakeholders during follow-up meetings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners of
RRHA to adopt the Strategic Plan as policy of Richmond Redevelopment and
Housing Authority,
5
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commissioners of RRHA that the
Executive Director be and hereby is authorized and directed to take the necessary
steps to implement the Strategic Plan.
EXPLANATION: This resolution authorizes the Executive Director to
implement the Strategic Plan, more specifically, the Mission, Vision, Values,
Goals, Objectives, Initiatives and Performance Measures.
Recommended by Cassandra P. Scarborough
Project Manager
Date June 15, 2005
Approved by
Date June 15, 2005
Sheila Hill-Christian_______
Executive Director
Discussion
Ms. Hill-Christian pointed out that there was one error in the Strategic Plan document where it
states “relationships with the Mayor.” It should read “relationships with the Mayor and Elected
Officials.” This will be changed.
Ms. Hill-Christian also took the opportunity to give special thanks to the staff that worked so
hard on the Strategic Plan process and asked those that were present to stand for recognition:
Steve Benham, Kimberly Brehon, Roxanne Brinson, Darlene Giles, Angela Greene, Tammy
Grubb, Michael Hampton, Lee Householder, Carol Jackson, Jacquelyn Salaam-Hicks, Joan
Seldon, Denise Vice and the Executive Team as a whole.
Commissioner Harrigan commended the staff for their hard work.
Commissioner Jackson
voiced his appreciation of the passion, commitment and leadership of Ms. Hill-Christian and Ms.
Scarborough, in addition to Ms. Gwen Corley-Creighton and other consultants that have helped
with the process. Commissioner Venter echoed Commissioner Jackson’s comments on the
dedication of the staff, in particular the Executive Director and Ms. Scarborough. Commissioner
Parker concurred with Commissioner Jackson’s comment on the passion and excitement of the
planning process. He added that implementation of the plan would be the hardest part of the
6
process, but that he felt it would be done well with the excitement generated. Commissioner
Smith added that he felt the process was interesting and challenging and that he looks forward to
helping take what has been created and put it to work.
7
Mission
“Statement of purpose; fundamental reason for an organization’s existence”
Stakeholders collectively agreed that the purpose of the Authority is…
To be the catalyst for quality affordable housing and community
revitalization
Vision
“A word picture of the future that the organization intends ultimately to become or
influence”
In the future, the Authority intends to become…
An innovative leader creating dynamic partnerships that build vibrant
communities
Both the mission and vision were shared with staff and community
stakeholders for input. The response was overwhelmingly favorable. In
general, the mission was translated to “the spark that “sets-off” efforts to
restore/revitalize people and buildings”. The vision was translated to “a
good listener that can motivate people to work together to create
communities that are alive, healthy, and safe”.
8
Values
“Principles that govern our behavior and the way in which we do business”
In the future, the Authority will demonstrate the following values both
internally and externally:
Customer Focused:
ƒ Factual, timely, confidential communication
ƒ Treat each other and our customers with respect
Integrity:
ƒ Ethical
ƒ Trustworthy
ƒ Honest
Initiative:
ƒ Takes risks
ƒ Solves problems
ƒ Resourceful
Teamwork:
ƒ Internal / external collaboration
ƒ Builds strategic partnerships and relationships
ƒ Shares resources
ƒ Eliminates duplication
Creativity:
ƒ Visionary
ƒ Continuous improvement
ƒ Best practices / cutting edge
ƒ Innovative
Accountable:
ƒ Takes ownership
ƒ Mission focused
ƒ Does the job
ƒ Follows rules, regulations, guidelines
The Authority’s desire is that its new values will have a positive, lasting
effect on its partnerships, thus producing high quality products.
9
Products and Services
“Deliverables that the customer receives”
The key products and services provided by the Authority are:
ƒ Affordable Housing – We provide rental and homeownership for
low to moderate income customers
ƒ Community Development – We plan and implement strategies to
ensure long term community viability
10
Customers
“Any person, group or organization receiving your product(s) and/or service(s)”
The key customers served by the Authority are:
ƒ Low & Moderate Income Citizens of Metro Richmond area
ƒ Developers
ƒ Landlords
ƒ Non-metro applicants
ƒ Businesses
ƒ Other Governments (federal, state, local)
ƒ Community Groups
ƒ Other Public Housing Authorities
ƒ Homebuyers
11
Goals
“Broad statements of measurable outcomes to be achieved on behalf of customers”
Goal 1 – Revitalized residential and commercial communities
•
Definition: Create healthy and stable communities
•
Outcome Measures:
By community:
- Percent of vacant structures
- Property value (market and assessed)
- Percent of residents who own vs. rent
- Number of code violations
Goal 2 – Economic opportunities
•
Definition: Foster and create business and investment
opportunities
•
Outcome Measure:
-
Total growth in average income of Authority clients
Goal 3 – Efficiency and fiscal responsibility
•
Definition: A responsible steward of financial and
programmatic operations
•
Outcome Measures:
-
Section 8 Management Assessment Program Score
Public Housing Assessment System Score
Real Estate Assessment Center Score
Percent completion of Standard Operating Procedure manual for all
processes
Return on Investment (ROI)
Organizational Climate Survey
Total growth in revenue
Goal 4 – Quality Customer Service
•
Definition: To respond in a courteous, competent, and timely
manner
•
Outcome Measures:
-
External Satisfaction Rating
Internal Satisfaction Rating
12
Objectives, Initiatives, and Performance Measures
Objectives - “Statements of what you must do well to achieve a specific goal”
Initiatives - “Specific programs and activities that will help you meet your
performance targets”
Performance Measures – “Meaningful indicators that assess progress toward the
accomplishment of your goals and objectives”
Goal 1 – Revitalized residential and commercial communities
Objective 1.1. Create and improve quality affordable housing
•
Initiatives:
1.1.1 Formalize a collaborative effort between the Authority’s Board of
Commissioners, Richmond City Council, and the Mayor
1.1.2 Develop and implement a comprehensive asset management strategy for all of the
Authority’s property holdings to facilitate residential and commercial
development/rehabilitation.
1.1.3 Create a marketing plan that aligns the Authority’s strategic services with other
regional affordable housing efforts (brand/re-brand, name change, brochures, etc.)
1.1.4 Establish and implement agency-wide property maintenance standards for newly
acquired and current properties.
1.1.5 Establish guidelines for new construction focusing on safety, affordability, quality and
enforcement.
•
Intermediate Measures:
% of available affordable housing compared to need (Through regularly scheduled
market study done by external consultant)
- Police calls for service per capita per community - RRHA properties vs. non-RRHA
- EMS calls for service per capita per community - RRHA properties vs. non-RRHA
- Fire calls for service per capita per community - RRHA properties vs. non-RRHA
- % of properties that meet inspection standards (includes HQS & UPCS)
- Building permit values
-
Objective 1.2 Develop mixed use / mixed income planned communities
•
Initiatives:
13
1.2.1 Form a non-profit to serve as the Authority’s community development arm to pursue
alternate funding, implement creative financing, etc.
•
Intermediate Measures:
-
Number of houses redeveloped/built
% of family income for rent/mortgage
% of residents in various income levels by community
# of different types of organizations per community
Participation level/numbers in neighborhood associations / organizations
Business licenses per community
Objective 1.3 Deconcentrate poverty
•
Initiatives:
1.3.1 Expand HCVP for home ownership, project based vouchers and deconcentration of
poverty
•
Intermediate Measures:
-
Density of very low income persons by community, city, region
- Density of HCVP by community, city, region
Goal 2 – Economic Opportunities
Objective 2.1 Support city wide economic development
•
Initiatives:
2.1.1 Establish strategic partnerships to transition residents into economic independence
2.1.2 Develop strategic partnerships for elderly and youth activities/ programs
2.1.3 Identify and advocate for change in regulations that are impediments to transitioning
families out of public housing
•
Intermediate Measures:
- # of economic development initiatives in the City due to RRHA efforts
14
Objective 2.2 Develop opportunities for client capacity building
•
Initiatives:
2.2.1 Establish a collaborative effort with the Mayor and other elected officials to create
economic development opportunities for metro-Richmond
2..2.2 Use the Authority’s asset portfolio to create business partnerships that generate
revenue (to re-invest in current/new communities)
2.2.3 Develop a structure and process for economic project development (project
identification, alignment of implementation with resources, tracking system, political
awareness and support)
•
Intermediate Measures:
-
% of residents employed
Average length of stay
# of persons completing the FSS Program
Goal 3 – Efficiency and fiscal responsibility
Objective 3.1 Meet all program requirements – outcomes and financial targets
•
Initiatives:
3.1.1
•
Build and implement an infrastructure for quality assurance (on-going monitoring of
programs/policies/procedures/budgets)
Intermediate Measures:
-
% of successful audits, reviews, verifications (includes subrecipient monitoring,
independent audits, internal audits & system integrity audits)
Administrative costs as percent of total budget
Cost of operations
Comparison to industry best practices (i.e. Unit cost of services per program)
Objective 3.2 Effective data management
•
Initiatives:
3.2.1
Develop an IT strategy to support core business functions (assessment of user
groups, security, access, IT maintenance, disaster recovery, centralized data
repository, document management)
15
•
Intermediate Measures:
-
# of technology solutions implemented
System downtime
PIC error rates
Customer Satisfaction index reference data mgmt
Objective 3.3 Manage/improve processes
•
Initiatives:
3.3.1
Identify a standardized methodology for process documentation & process
improvement (flowchart/ narrative/collect data/ id change; we do this via test,
measure, implement)
•
Intermediate Measures:
-
# and % of documented processes
Cost, time savings and improved service delivery resulting from process improvements
Objective 3.4 Manage Human Resources
•
Initiatives:
3.4.1.
Develop human capital plan that aligns with the Strategic Plan (job descriptions,
compensation, organizational structure, performance management, staff locations)
3.4.2.
Develop contingency (emergency) plans to minimize risks to people, facilities, etc.
3.4.3.
Clarify roles and responsibilities between the Authority’s Board of Commissioners
and its staff.
•
Intermediate Measures:
-
% of job descriptions aligned w/ strategic plan
# of staff evaluations completed on time
Distribution of staff evaluations (high, med low)
Cycle time from managers’ notification to HR to fill to hire
Employee turnover rate by performance level
# of people rewarded
$ expended for rewards
Objective 3.5 Develop new sources of revenue
•
Initiatives:
3.5.1 Establish alternative funding options that would result in mixed use/mixed income
housing
•
Intermediate Measures:
Profits generated from new (internal) business prospects
- Revenue source diversification (public and private funding)
-
16
Goal 4 – Quality Customer Service
Objective 4.1 Foster a learning culture
•
•
Initiatives:
4.1.1
Develop a more comprehensive New Employee orientation
4.1.2
Develop a continuing education program for Authority staff
Intermediate Measures:
-
% of employees completing developmental plans
Training/Education $$$ as a percentage of total budget
Average # of learning events and dollars spent per FTE
# of community training events (educating stakeholders)
Objective 4.2 Service orientation
•
•
Initiatives:
4.2.1
Establish a method of assessing external customer satisfaction
4.2.2
Establish a method of assessing internal customer satisfaction
4.2.3
Provide positive customer relations
4.2.4
Establish standards for agency wide customer service and implement them through
recruitment, training, performance management/evaluation, and reward/recognition
practices
Intermediate Measures:
On the spot surveys to measure timeliness, courtesy and competence
# of meetings between RRHA & stakeholders and # of participants
Service call tracking
- % repeat service calls for same problem/reason
-
17
Appendix
18
Strategic Planning Model
Overview
strat-e-g-mapping™
WHERE YOU ARE
YOUR DESTINATION
ROAD TO GET THERE
Identify
Products &
Services
Write a
Mission
Statement
Set
Objectives
Determine
Key
Customers
Develop a
Vision
Identify
Performance
Measures
Establish
Organizational
Core Values
Set Targets
Set Goals
Develop
Initiatives
Analyze
Internal
Strengths &
Weaknesses
AND External
Opportunities
& Threats
CHECK-IN Evaluate the Plan
19
Description of the Strategic Planning Process
The Authority’s strategic planning process began in late November 2004 at a kickoff meeting
with the Authority’s Board of Commissioners and executive staff and representatives from
EMG, Organizational Destinations, and Housing-Solutions. At this meeting, the consultants
gave an overview of the approach that would be taken to create the Authority’s 5 year Strategic
Plan, including a proposed timeline. The role of the Board, the staff, and the community in the
strategic planning process was also described and discussed.
Once the process and the proposed timeline were agreed upon, the Authority’s Board and staff
and the consultants began to focus on answering the three questions fundamental to the strategic
planning model being used: “Where are we now?”, “Where do we want to go?”, and “How will
we get there?”. To answer the question, “Where are we now?”, the Authority needed to assess
the internal and external environments in which the Authority was currently operating. Prior to
issuing its RFP for strategic planning, the Authority had decided that the environmental analysis
should include a Market Study, a Physical Needs Assessment, and meetings with a variety of
stakeholders.
In early December, within a week of the kickoff meeting, both the Market Study and the Physical
Needs Assessment were initiated by the consultants. The Market Study was done by Value
Research under the leadership of Housing-Solutions and was used to determine the current
availability of and demand for low income housing in Richmond. The Physical Needs
Assessment was done by EMG to determine the physical condition and costs for maintaining the
Authority’s residential properties. At the same time, Organizational Destinations and Authority
staff began to design the meetings with stakeholders to obtain their input and recommendations
regarding the future of the Authority’s operations. This included an initial meeting with the
Richmond Tenant Organization leaders to inform them of the Authority’s strategic planning
project and get their input on how best to schedule and conduct the meetings with the residents
of the Authority’s public housing communities. A significant amount of time was also spent on
selecting Facilitator Assistants in December. The Facilitator Assistant’s role was to help the
Authority and Organizational Destinations’ staff conduct the meetings with residents. All of the
Facilitator Assistants chosen lived in one of the Authority’s public housing communities.
In January, the Market Study and Physical Needs Assessment were completed. Also, the
development of the database for the physical needs assessment data was started and the first set
of resident and stakeholder meetings were held. A total of ten (10) meetings were held with
RRHA residents in their communities. In the meetings with residents, the strategic planning
process was explained and residents were asked to do a SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis
required the residents to identify the internal strengths (S) and weaknesses (W) and external
opportunities (O) and threats (T) of the public housing community in which they lived.
Residents were also asked to draw a picture that portrayed their vision for the future of their
community. The importance of their input was emphasized and they were assured that their
input would be used as the foundation for the creation of the Authority’s 5 Year Strategic Plan.
In addition, in January, presentations were given on the project and meetings were held with
community stakeholders and Authority staff. Specifically, presentations were given to
Leadership Metro Richmond and the Homeless Consortium and community meetings were held
with the Richmond Community Development Alliance, the Chairs of the Neighborhood Teams,
20
and several of the Neighborhood Teams. Participants in both the community meetings and the
meetings with staff were given an overview of the Authority’s strategic planning project and then
asked for input on the Authority’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The
Authority staff was then asked to describe their vision for the Authority. Community
stakeholders were asked to describe their vision for affordable housing in the Richmond
community and to give input on what they thought the Authority would need to do well if it was
to achieve their vision.
The community stakeholder meetings and presentations continued in February. A presentation
was done for the Homeless Action Council and meetings were held with the City of Richmond
Community Development and Economic Development staff, JASIP representatives, and with a
group of stakeholders that the Authority called the “Pioneers”. The “Pioneers” were a group of
individuals who had worked with the Authority on a number of initiatives over the years and,
consequently, had a lot of insight into the Authority’s operations. They were asked to identify
what they saw as the Authority’s past successes, lessons learned, and missed opportunities.
Also in February, a reception was held for elected officials to inform them of the Authority’s
Strategic Plan initiative and new directions in affordable and public housing.
At this point, 23 Authority residential properties had been evaluated, 24 community meetings
had been held, and over 550 residents and community stakeholders had provided input into the
process.
In early February, the Direction Setting Team (DST), a group of Board and staff representatives
responsible for the creation of the Authority’s Strategic Plan, also began to meet. At the initial
meeting of the Direction Setting Team, the strategic planning model was reviewed, key dates for
Team meetings were established, and the roles of the Direction Setting and Plan Development
Teams (PDT), a subgroup of the Direction Setting Team, were clarified. An initial list of
products/services and a list of Authority customers were also created with the understanding that
the PDT would review and finalize this list prior to the DST’s two day retreat in late February.
Also, in preparation for the retreat, a full day session was held with the Authority’s Direction
Setting Team at which the results of the Market Study, Physical Needs Assessments, and
Stakeholder meetings were presented and discussed. The PDT then met in a separate session to
draft a summary SWOT for the Authority to be presented to the DST at the two day retreat.
On February 24th and 25th, a two day retreat was held with the Direction Setting Team and the
Products/Services, Customers, and SWOT developed by the PDT were reviewed and finalized.
At this point, the Authority had finished answering the question “Where are we now?” and was
ready to move to answering the question “Where do we want to go?”. This discussion began
with a presentation by Housing-Solutions on the changing environment for public housing
authorities and innovative practices that the Authority might want to consider. Based on all of
this information, the DST then developed a new mission, vision, and goals for the Authority.
The next step was to share the new mission, vision and goals with the Authority’s stakeholders.
Beginning in early March, a second set of 10 meetings were held with the residents of the
Authority’s public housing communities to give them an update on the strategic plan project,
explain how the information they gave in January was used by the DST, and get their input on
the Authority’s newly created mission, vision, and goals.
21
At the same time, the Plan Development Team met for two days to write definitions for the draft
goals and to develop draft objectives. The objectives developed by the PDT were evaluated to
ensure that all four areas critical to organizational success (customers, finances, human
resources, and internal business processes) had been covered and that a balanced approach was
being taken. This time was also used by the PDT to develop a list of draft values for the
organization.
Once the draft objectives were developed, they were communicated to the Direction Setting
Team for reaction. The DST had now begun to answer the question “How will we get there?”.
A Measurement Team was then formed, consisting of 5 employees from key areas of the
organization, to develop performance measures based on the identified goals and objectives. The
Measurement Team held its first meeting in mid-March. They met initially for a half day to
define team responsibilities, expected deliverables, and to review performance measurement
concepts. This was followed by three sessions where the performance measures were created
and a draft was finalized.
During the month of March, another set of meetings were held with Authority staff to update
them on the progress of the Strategic Planning project and to solicit their input on the Authority’s
new mission, vision, values and goals. This was followed in early April with another day long
meeting of the DST. At this meeting the input received from the resident and staff stakeholder
meetings was discussed and used to finalize the mission, vision, values and goals for the
Authority. The DST also discussed, modified, and ultimately approved the objectives and
performance measures.
In early April, a two day planning session was held with the PDT to develop initiatives based on
the Authority’s objectives and performance measures. This included a presentation by HousingSolutions on strategy and financing options that the Authority might want to pursue in terms of
its residential properties to achieve its new mission and address the issues raised in the Market
Study, the Physical Needs Assessment, and the stakeholder meetings. Housing-Solutions
assisted the PDT in the prioritization of the various options for their residential properties based
on the method required, timing needed, and difficulty of the project.
In mid April, the DST met again to discuss and finalize the initiatives proposed by the PDT.
This was the last step in the process of creating the Authority’s 5 Year Strategic Plan and the last
meeting of the DST. It was agreed at this meeting that a Steering Committee consisting of the
Executive Director, Division Directors, and Goal Champions would be created to oversee the
implementation of the Authority’s 5 Year Strategic Plan.
The initial meeting of the Steering Committee was held in mid-May. At this meeting, the role of
the Steering Committee was reviewed. The Committee then prioritized the initiatives in the
Authority’s Strategic Plan and identified the ones that would be pursued in the upcoming year.
In late May and early June, meetings were held with the Goal Champions to begin to develop a
One Year Operational Plan for the Authority’s Strategic Plan. Draft project plans for the
initiatives the Authority planned to pursue in the coming year were developed as well as
Communication and Monitoring and Evaluation Plans.
22
On June 15th, the Authority’s Five Year Strategic Plan was formally approved by the Board of
Commissioners. Two days later, June 17th, the plan was presented to staff during an agencywide meeting.
Finally, on June 22nd, the Authority officially presented their 5 Year Strategic Plan to the public
and requested their support in its implementation.
23
Physical Needs Assessment
A Physical Needs Assessment to determine the physical condition and costs for improvements of
the Authority’s residential properties was conducted by EMG.
The total 20 year estimated need is $113.5 million, with about $64 million needed in Years 1 – 5.
This is an average of over $28,000 per unit, with a range from nearly $44,000 per unit to as low
as about $13,000 per unit.
The following table has a summary of the findings of the physical needs assessment. The costs
for physical needs are presented by property, annually.
24
$419,887
$69,000
$263,108
$271,563
$262,630
$308,663
$66,206
$79,150
$1,740,207
15.4%
Senior Properties
Fay Towers
1200 Decatur
700 S. Lombardy
1611 Fourth
Fox Manor
1920 Stonewall
3900 Old Brook
2700 Idlewood
Sub-Total
% of 20 years
$19,800,171
TOTAL $2,817,780
2.5%
17.4%
% of 20 years
Capital Funds $3,645,787
$3,645,787
Repl Housing Funds $1,011,712
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$4,657,499
TOTAL
Surplus/(Shortfall) $1,839,719 ($15,142,672)
$1,260,000
$0
$0
$77,650
$20,000
$72,060
$0
$179,400
$1,609,110
14.2%
$21,933,578
21.4%
$3,620,430
$2,723,900
$1,154,400
$0
$3,135,600
$3,486,600
$3,486,600
$2,672,900
$141,800
$348,000
$160,148
$320,000
$499,200
$0
$184,000
Year
4
$10,000
$254,050
$119,000
$44,500
$0
$172,250
$35,000
$86,870
$721,670
6.4%
$10,263,680
10.0%
$666,450
$354,900
$167,900
$4,205,310
$86,300
$2,597,000
$513,300
$796,680
$98,100
$51,000
$15,640
$276,600
$92,800
$304,200
$37,500
Year
5
$6,866,053
$23,542,688 $10,985,350
6.0%
20.7%
9.7%
$3,645,787
$3,645,787
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$1,011,712
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$4,657,499
$4,657,499
($2,208,554) ($18,885,189) ($6,327,851)
$74,820
$0
$62,500
$71,660
$21,800
$37,200
$80,780
$2,550
$351,310
3.1%
$6,514,743
6.4%
$18,059,964
17.7%
$0
$0
$3,500
$2,080
$1,000
$0
$2,000
$0
$8,580
0.1%
$34,100
$578,800
$2,577,000
$2,528,635
$22,500
$18,858
$572,205
$34,500
$45,300
$7,200
$60,000
$6,320
$3,325
$26,000
$0
Year
3
$3,604,600
$2,283,810
$18,300
$290,500
$2,162,500
$2,856,330
$2,545,375
$2,388,750
$175,420
$444,200
$18,024
$226,750
$408,625
$198,230
$438,550
Year
2
General Occupancy Properties
Gilpin Court, 7-1
$0
Gilpin Court, 7-2
$0
Gilpin Court, 7-9-3
$0
Creighton Court
$6,000
Hillside Court
$2,488,000
Fairfield Court
$0
Whitcomb Court
$264,600
Mosby Court
$0
Bainbridge
$0
Dove Court
$0
Overlook & Mimosa
$0
Afton
$0
Fulton
$0
Randolph Family
$23,000
Stovall Place
$27,600
Small House
Used House
Sub-Total $2,809,200
2.7%
% of 20 years
Year
1
$459,078
0.4%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$4,198,421
$0
$13,400
$21,500
$2,080
$1,000
$32,550
$0
$0
$70,530
0.6%
$388,548
0.4%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$134,100
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$142,848
$11,600
$0
Year
6
$3,626,035
3.2%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$1,031,464
$41,553
$14,250
$504,538
$266,163
$86,700
$30,938
$44,048
$62,400
$1,050,590
9.3%
$2,575,445
2.5%
$25,000
$856,375
$0
$25,000
$559,000
$301,725
$301,725
$313,470
$16,500
$40,500
$0
$21,750
$77,725
$15,750
$20,925
Year
7
RRHA Owned & Operated Section 9 Portfolio
$6,421,671
5.7%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
($1,764,172)
$15,131
$21,750
$59,100
$288,750
$442,500
$397,200
$37,132
$0
$1,261,563
11.2%
$5,160,108
5.0%
$2,309,500
$0
$953,750
$317,105
$1,326,000
$18,858
$89,400
$5,400
$0
$0
$0
$5,970
$134,125
$0
$0
$162,000
$64,100
$68,830
$135,713
$28,512
$193,618
$177,250
$160,775
$990,798
8.8%
$10,643,113
10.4%
$1,336,500
$1,812,300
$666,000
$431,288
$130,500
$1,488,400
$1,452,750
$2,693,600
$15,750
$10,500
$18,000
$70,000
$405,025
$0
$112,500
$1,637,364
$11,633,911
1.4%
10.2%
$3,645,787
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$4,657,499
$3,020,135 ($6,976,412)
$16,584
$0
$25,920
$315,000
$24,500
$1,260
$68,058
$0
$451,322
4.0%
$1,186,042
1.2%
$200,475
$0
$0
$604,800
$8,100
$6,789
$0
$0
$1,400
$32,400
$8,678
$0
$0
$323,400
$0
$1,438,355
1.3%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$3,219,144
$0
$2,625
$12,250
$12,480
$1,000
$6,300
$0
$0
$34,655
0.3%
$1,403,700
1.4%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,000
$0
$0
$1,350,000
$4,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$21,200
$21,600
$3,284,772
2.9%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$1,372,727
$193,510
$15,000
$30,938
$270,563
$123,700
$30,938
$44,048
$45,150
$753,847
6.7%
$2,530,925
2.5%
$33,400
$240,825
$10,800
$40,500
$277,500
$301,725
$1,128,675
$327,750
$17,500
$41,700
$0
$21,750
$52,125
$15,750
$20,925
Projection of Capital Costs and estimate of Surplus/(Shortfall), by Year
Table 2
Year
Year
Year
Year
Year
8
9
10
11
12
$6,782,575
6.0%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
($2,125,076)
$8,820
$0
$129,100
$225,960
$0
$29,700
$36,132
$10,000
$439,712
3.9%
$6,342,863
6.2%
$0
$217,000
$193,500
$364,105
$22,500
$4,518,858
$1,000,105
$15,000
$0
$0
$7,500
$970
$3,325
$0
$0
Year
13
$1,063,147
0.9%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$3,594,352
$16,584
$0
$0
$49,750
$20,000
$1,260
$0
$0
$87,594
0.8%
$975,553
1.0%
$200,475
$0
$34,500
$0
$0
$0
$670,500
$0
$1,400
$0
$68,678
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year
14
$3,968,466
3.5%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$689,033
$98,000
$58,950
$15,000
$39,000
$25,000
$34,500
$0
$0
$270,450
2.4%
$3,698,016
3.6%
$323,350
$289,500
$0
$319,460
$197,800
$1,085,750
$41,920
$494,750
$87,300
$330,000
$20,000
$65,886
$133,800
$91,000
$217,500
Year
15
$1,321,858
1.2%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$3,335,641
$0
$0
$29,420
$19,180
$5,500
$0
$22,158
$0
$76,258
0.7%
$1,245,600
1.2%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,206,000
$0
$0
$0
$22,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,600
$6,000
Year
16
$3,876,648
3.4%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$780,851
$36,953
$9,000
$87,188
$216,563
$96,400
$30,938
$44,048
$47,150
$568,240
5.0%
$3,308,408
3.2%
$360,855
$886,548
$0
$44,200
$277,500
$844,830
$301,725
$309,150
$16,500
$94,500
$0
$21,750
$77,725
$15,750
$57,375
Year
17
$1,672,719
1.5%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$2,984,780
$15,131
$3,400
$62,500
$0
$0
$89,700
$53,780
$2,550
$227,061
2.0%
$1,445,658
1.4%
$8,500
$119,000
$231,000
$980,105
$22,500
$18,858
$0
$0
$5,400
$0
$30,000
$970
$3,325
$26,000
$0
Year
18
$900,287
0.8%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$3,757,212
$16,584
$5,250
$0
$0
$219,200
$8,760
$0
$0
$249,794
2.2%
$650,493
0.6%
$200,475
$0
$0
$420,000
$0
$0
$0
$4,320
$1,400
$0
$24,298
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year
19
$1,479,050
1.3%
$3,645,787
$1,011,712
$4,657,499
$3,178,449
$162,000
$156,550
$3,000
$7,000
$0
$0
$0
$8,370
$336,920
3.0%
$1,142,130
1.1%
$74,250
$122,300
$37,000
$102,600
$33,500
$500
$44,000
$542,180
$0
$0
$5,000
$60,000
$120,800
$0
$0
Year
20
$72,915,740
$20,234,240
$93,149,980
($20,427,998)
$113,577,978
$2,547,557
$687,325
$1,497,392
$2,315,655
$1,379,442
$1,477,835
$710,640
$684,365
$11,300,211
$12,998,360
$10,485,258
$6,044,150
$10,679,608
$11,961,800
$17,545,081
$12,546,980
$11,948,450
$650,670
$1,400,000
$435,966
$1,198,716
$2,154,773
$1,083,480
$1,144,475
$0
$0
$102,277,767
TOTAL
$28,239
$12,738
$28,639
$19,965
$22,054
$27,589
$21,112
$28,426
$29,755
$19,756
$43,766
$31,021
$40,839
$21,190
$29,756
$39,251
$28,069
$26,088
$36,148
$23,333
$43,597
$29,968
$33,668
$20,836
$38,149
$0
$0
$29,646
$/DU
2.2%
0.6%
1.3%
2.0%
1.2%
1.3%
0.6%
0.6%
9.9%
11.4%
9.2%
0.0%
9.4%
10.5%
15.4%
11.0%
10.5%
0.6%
1.2%
0.4%
1.1%
1.9%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.1%
% of Total
22.54%
6.08%
13.25%
20.49%
12.21%
13.08%
6.29%
6.06%
12.7%
10.3%
0.0%
10.4%
11.7%
17.2%
12.3%
11.7%
0.6%
1.4%
0.4%
1.2%
2.1%
1.1%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
% of Grp
Market Study
The Market Study was conducted by Housing-Solutions to determine current housing demand
and housing availability in the City of Richmond. Following is an executive summary of the
findings from the Market Study:
Executive Summary
We have conducted a detailed site visit, an analysis of local economic and demographic data and
considered the market position of the real estate and housing assets of the Richmond
Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Richmond is in the midst of a major "repositioning" and
is a very attractive, mid-sized city that is reshaping its future.
Richmond has experienced many of the challenges of older cities around the nation - population
loss to outlying areas as development spreads into and beyond adjacent counties. Remaining
residents typically comprise lower-income and/or minority households. In response, there have
been numerous revitalization initiatives with ongoing redevelopment occurring in several areas
that are significantly changing the city. Many opportunities remain. For example, the number of
new residential building permits issued in Richmond during the past five years is far fewer than
in most of the surrounding counties. This indicates a challenge for residential redevelopment in
the city because of competition issues, alternative site availability and related development
problems.
On the positive side, the population in the overall Richmond area is growing rapidly.
The job market is robust with increasing employment in both the City of Richmond and
surrounding areas. The perception is that Richmond is improving. This bodes well for new
housing in the region. Key institutions within the city, including universities, governmental
agencies, professional employers and financial institutions are strong and expanding. As
development continues around the periphery of the region, it is likely that traffic congestion will
become more of a problem, commutes into an improving downtown Richmond will lengthen and
the demand for good quality housing within the city will increase.
Summary of Findings
We have summarized below the key findings of each section of this report. The full analyses are
located in the body of the report with supporting data located in the Addenda.
Section 1 - Local and Regional Economic Conditions
o The Richmond area is highly ranked in the nation by various media for its business
climate and livability.
o Income levels in Richmond City are the lowest among major counties in the region.
o Employment in the Richmond-Petersburg MSA is generally growing rapidly, having
regained an upward path after a modest dip in 2003. Unemployment in the MSA has
typically remained below national levels. Employment in Richmond City has
fluctuated during recent years with a moderate increase in 2004. Unemployment in
26
the city has been at levels similar to the national economy. Employment in the MSA
is projected to continue to grow.
o More than 90,000 workers commute into Richmond City from surrounding counties 13.5% of the total population of those counties.
o Nearly 30,000 people moved into surrounding counties from Richmond
City between 1995 and 2000 while just 17,000 moved into the city from - those
counties.
o Schools in Richmond City show lower scores on standardized tests than surrounding
counties.
Section 2 - Local and Regional Residential Market
o The number of housing units fell by -2% in Richmond City between 1990and 2000,
while there were significant increases (+19% to +53%) in surrounding counties.
Building permit data shows 1,928 new units in Richmond City in 2000 to 2004;
surrounding counties saw between 1,301 and14,069 new units in the period with a
total of 33,770 new units.
o The housing stock in Richmond City is aging with 28% built before 1940 and 61 %
built between 1940 and 1980.
o Richmond City has the lowest homeownership rate in the region at 46%.
o Renter households in Richmond City move more frequently than owners at an
average of over 32% per year versus 7.5% per year. Households aged below 35 years
move far more frequently than the average.
o Vacancy rates at apartment complexes in the Richmond region are above historical
norms but fell from an average of 8.8% to 8.5% between mid 2003 and mid 2004.
Average rents increased from $683 to $707 during the period.
o For-sale prices for existing homes in Richmond City typically range from the
$50,000s to over $300,000. New construction is found mostly beyond the city limits
with prices starting at $200,000 and ranging to well over; $400,000. A few
redevelopments in the city offer prices below $200,000.
Section 3 - Demographic and Household Income Analysis
o The population in the Richmond-Petersburg MSA is growing - up 13.7% between
1992 and 2002; the population in Richmond City is falling – down by 2.5% in the
same period. Continued population loss is projected over the next five years, although
senior households are projected to increase.
o Richmond City has the highest minority population in the region.
27
o 35% of all renter households fall below 30% Area Median Income (AMI) for their
household size in Richmond City; 19% of all renters earn between 30% and 50% and
23% earn between 50% and 80% AMI.
Section 4 - Supply Demand Analysis
We have estimated the number of low-income renter households that are not served by the
inventory of affordable housing units in Richmond City.
Renter households at <30% AMI
Less: RRHA housing units
Less: Section 8 properties identified
Total Potential Unmet Demand:
15,701
4,056
5,367
6,278
Renter households at 30% to 50% AMI
Less: LIHTC housing units
8,629
5,572
Total Potential Unmet Demand:
3,057
Note: Households living within Richmond City and using Housing Choice Vouchers could not
be quantified. However, there are 7,000 names on the waiting list.
Section 5 - Unit Mix Analysis
A comparison of the overall unit mix of the RRHA properties with the household sizes of lowincome households shows a divergence between bedroom counts needed and those available.
Based on our analysis, a total of 62% of eligible households have the potential to need studio or
one-bedroom units. Just 28% of the RRHA inventory is this unit type. Excluding one-person
households aged under 62 years (giving preference to the elderly and households more likely to
have children) reduces this need to 44%.
Section 6 - RRHA Public Housing Inventory
Based on our analysis of the demographics, the demand for affordable and subsidized housing in
Richmond will remain strong for the foreseeable future. Although the overall numbers of
population and renter households are projected to decrease, the rates of loss are small enough
that significant, appropriately targeted residential redevelopment projects could turn the trend
around and produce a stable population, if not an increase in population.
We have made specific recommendations regarding the inventory of RRHA units. Most are
serviceable as public housing on an on-going basis. Certain other properties have: market
potential and could be rehabilitated and repositioned. Other projects, specifically, Gilpin, require
a detailed redevelopment, including selective demolition, and rehabilitation as a mixed use and
mixed income development.
To compete in the broader Richmond housing market, the properties must consider competitive
factors. The following conditions must be taken into account:
28
o New construction or gut rehabilitation with generous square footage and modern floor
plans and amenities. Several of the older and larger projects, such as Creighton,
Fairfield or Hillside may over the long term fall into this category.
o A prime location close to employment, city attractions, desirable shopping/restaurant
areas and/or stable neighborhoods. The Gilpin development has an excellent location
and redevelopment potential into a mixed use, mixed income neighborhood.
o Prices and rents that compare well to those found in suburban neighborhoods. In
areas where there are significant socio-economic challenges, the cost of housing
needs to be far enough below the costs in outlying areas to attract "pioneering
households". General prices/rents for market-rate housing at the subject properties,
should they be considered for re-positioning, should fall at the lower end of the new
housing in the region as an inducement to move into a redeveloping area.
29
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
RRHA was committed to an inclusive strategic planning process. Therefore, as part of
answering the question “where are we now?” RRHA stakeholders were identified and meetings
providing opportunities for input were held. The fact sheet below provides a high level summary
of participation levels at the meetings and meeting results.
SECTION 1: Participation levels at meetings
TYPE OF MEETING
NUMBER HELD
NUMBER OF
PARTICIPANTS
Resident focus groups*
22
554
Non-resident focus groups
6
53
Staff meetings
6
260
Presentations
12
300
TOTAL
46
1167
* Note: Section 3 participation included six residents from 4 of RRHA’s housing communities
who served as Facilitator Assistants.
SECTION 2: Meeting results
Resident meetings – In order to get a clear sense of RRHA residents’ perceptions of the
current state of their communities, residents were asked to look at their communities and identify
its current strengths and weaknesses. They were also asked to look outside of their communities
and identify emerging trends and/ or events that could present opportunities and threats. Listed
below are the key themes identified by residents in each of these categories.
Internal Environment
External Environment
Strengths
Weaknesses
Positive Police
Interactions
Variety of programs
and services
Some great
community
recreation centers
Some caring,
involved residents
Unsafe neighborhoods
Safety as City priority
Building maintenance
issues
Unwanted “guests”
Revitalization efforts
Disruptive and
destructive neighbors
Better schools and
school board
Effective Tenant
Councils
Neighborhoods: trash,
no mail boxes or
phone, broken
equipment, etc
Some management
offices and processes
More affordable
housing choices
Corruption and
perception of City
leadership
Employment and job
training
Coming together as a
community
Dwindling
community resources
Some effective
management offices
Opportunities
New Mayor and
Council
Threats
Crime and outside
influences
Affordable housing
choices
Funding cuts
30
Staff meetings – RRHA staff members were invited to provide feedback on RRHA’s internal
strengths and weakness and to identify external factors and situations that could present
opportunities and threats for RRHA as an organization. Listed below are the key themes
identified by staff in each of these categories.
Internal Environment
Strengths
Caring, skilled staff
Good compensation
and benefits
Culture of
involvement and
improvement
Good leadership,
new hope
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Low morale and not
enough staff
Low pay, recognition
and opportunity for
advancement
Lack of accountability
and staff input
Increased, alternative
funding
Better neighborhoods
Loss of funding
Creative
redevelopment
Need depth of
leadership
RRHA can be a model
for others
Generational,
permanent
occupancy
More accountability
expected from
residents
Turnover at HUDdecreased knowledge
of RRHA
Increased crime
Available, reliable
resources
Decreased funding
Focus on customers
Silos, lack of
process/procedure, too
many layers
Insufficient
communication
Getting better at
documenting and
understanding across
lines
External Environment
Political
environment
Competing with
private developers
NIMBY
31
Non-resident meetings - The purpose of non-resident meetings was to gather information
from individuals and organizations that have a vested interest in a vibrant, healthy Richmond
community. Based on who the stakeholders were, different questions were asked. Listed below
are the key themes identified by the non-resident stakeholders.
Strengths or Past
Successes
Vocal residents &
communities
Partnerships between
Civic Associations &
CDCs
Commitment of
communities to
provide services to
public housing
residents
Mixed use housing
RRHA acquisition of
property
Options for residents
to move from public
housing to
homeownership
Weaknesses or
Lessons
Learned
Antiquated property
laws & transfer
process
Lock in certain
percentage of
development for low
income
Economic
disincentives to
provide QUALITY
housing
&homeownership
opportunities
Constant
communication using
variety of methods
necessary
More involvement of
RRHA and City CD
staff in community
meetings needed
Need public/private
partnerships
Opportunities or
Efforts Critical
for Success
Threats or
Missed
Opportunities
Deconcentration of
poverty
Crime
Combining of Civic
Associations – “One
Voice”
Lack of support
services – esp. job
skills training
Explore and
implement best
practices for
development and
safety i.e. CPTED –
Crime Prevention
Through
Environmental Design
Eliminate duplication
of effort
Lack of
Communication
Continue to take
advantage of
Community
Reinvestment Act –
high degree of success
with this
Strong regional
voucher program
Lack of
accountabilityRRHA, stakeholders
and residents
Reduced funding
Lack of strategy for
relocation early in
process
32
1 Year Operational Plan
In the process of creating the Strategic Plan for the Authority, the Direction Setting Team
identified twenty-six initiatives that should be pursued by the Authority over the next five years.
Listed below are the 13 initiatives that will be pursued by the Authority in Fiscal Year 2006.
33
INITIATIVE
TIMELINE
1.1.2 Develop and implement comprehensive asset
management strategy
• Create a RRHA Asset Management Team
• Review Financial Plan and existing inventory and
make recommendations
• Develop Disposition Policy and Deal Making
Template
• Establish “mobility opportunities” to establish
standard project model
• Evaluate and recommend the resource requirements
for conducting real estate transactions
• Formulate long-term priorities and continual
oversight
7/1/05 – 1/1/06
1.1.3 Create a marketing plan that aligns the
Authority’s strategic services with other
regional affordable housing efforts
• Develop Request for Qualifications to secure outside
creative and technical assistance
• Determine RRHA resources available for the
Marketing Plan in the FY06 Budget
• Award the Contract
• Develop Marketing Plan
• Implement Marketing Plan
6/1/05 – 12/1/06
1.1.4 Establish and implement agency-wide
maintenance standards
• Form Committee to review existing standards
• Develop standards for RRHA owned properties
(including stabilization checklist, creative/unique
identification, site maintenance, security, etc.) and
present recommended standards to Executive Team
7/1/05 – 10/1/05
1.2.1 Form a non-profit to serve at the Authority’s
community development arm
• Review existing structure
• Formalize structure of non-profit (including business
plan, mission, vision, goals, governance, legal
issues, etc.)
10/1/05 – 1/1/06
34
2.2.1 Establish strategic partnerships to transition
residents into economic independence
• Establish an economic independence planning and
implementation committee
• Define economic independence. Develop an
economic independence policy for clients.
• Review and evaluate all current economic
independence programs available
• Develop/coordinate the infrastructure necessary to
provide the skills needed in the labor force to meet
available economic opportunities (soft and technical
skills, as needed)
7/1/05 – 3/1/06
3.1.1 Build and implement an infrastructure for
quality assurance
7/1/05 – 3/1/07
3.3.1 Identify a standardized methodology for
process documentation and improvement
• Identify department representatives (business
experts) to work as a “long-term committee” to
develop and administer the Authority’s process
improvement model
• Develop a charter to focus the efforts of the
committee
• Use the process improvement model to develop a
customized model specific to the Authority’s needs
and new organizational structure
• Develop a phased plan for implementing
components of the Authority’s Quality Assurance
throughout the agency
• Roll out the Authority’s new Quality Assurance
program
• Evaluate progress of first two quarters
3.1.2 & 3.2.1 Develop an IT strategy to support core
business functions
• Document existing information systems environment
• Perform an agency needs assessment
• Research industry best practices
• Perform gap analysis
• Develop goals, strategies, tactics and execution plans
• Develop the IT Strategic Plan
7/1/05 – 1/31/06
35
3.4.1 Develop human capital plan that aligns with the 7/1/05 – 7/1/06
Strategic Plan (job descriptions, compensation,
organizational structure, performance
management, staff locations)
• Develop a committee to outline the steps for developing
a human capital plan
• Based on committee findings, identify additional related/
required tasks outside of the human capital plan (reorg,
work environment plan, performance mgmt) that need to
be addressed. Consider the need for procuring a
consultant.
• Develop a project schedule for implementing each
component identified (including the following)
• Reorganize the Authority’s workforce (ensure that it
aligns with strategic plan and addresses the specific
concepts found in HUD’s new project-based
management mandate)
• Develop and document new (or enhance current) job
descriptions
• Identify required core competencies (values and
technical skills)
• Identify staffing gaps and recommendations for
resolving these gaps (i.e. comprehensive training
program found in Goal#4, recruiting, downsizing, staff
relocation, etc.)
• Present findings and recommendations to the Executive
Team
• Implement approved plan
• Evaluate the Authority’s performance management
system (including evaluations, expectations, training,
reward, correction action). Ensure it is comprehensive
and aligns with the objectives of the strategic plan
• Present findings and recommendations to the Executive
Team
• Implement and evaluate the approved performance
management system
• Perform a cost/benefit analysis for improving current
facilities vs. centralizing administrative staff in a new
facility.
• Present findings to the Executive Team with
recommendations
• Develop project schedule for implementing approved
plan
36
4.1.1 Develop a comprehensive Employee
orientation, and
7/1/05 – 7/1/06
4.2.4 Establish standards for agency-wide customer
service and implement them through
recruitment, training, performance
management/evaluation, and
reward/recognition practices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create a broad, three-year employee orientation plan
(multi-phased)
Develop the draft orientation plan and present for
approval
Develop measurement model that links to Strategic Plan
Conduct a needs assessment
Create a communication strategy and roll out plan for
delivery to staff
Deliver new employee orientation to workforce
Communicate feedback from delivery of orientation
sessions
Re-assess and re-align orientation plan if needed
37
Communication Plan
After completion of the Five Year Strategic Plan, the Authority communicated the plan to both
its external and internal stakeholders and requested their assistance and support in its
implementation. Specifically, the plan was presented to:
•
•
•
the Richmond Tenant Organization at its May meeting in Fulton Court
Authority staff during an agency-wide meeting on June 17th at the Calhoun Center in
Gilpin Court
the general public and elected officials on June 22nd at both a morning and an evening
session at the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School
In addition, the Authority’s website has been updated to communicate the final plan.
The next several pages illustrate the media coverage throughout the strategic plan development.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
To ensure the successful implementation of the Authority’s Strategic Plan, a plan for monitoring
and evaluating the progress made on the plan has been developed. Listed below are the steps the
Authority plans to take over the course of the next year (between 7/1/05 – 7/1/06) to assure the
plan is properly monitored and evaluated:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify availability of data and collection methods
Develop plan to acquire unavailable data
Develop measurement baselines, targets, and data collection frequency
Develop initial measurement tracking database (short-term solution)
Develop project management methodology (tracking/reporting function)
Develop initial electronic collaborative environment plan for organizing strategic plan
documents (short-term)
Develop long-term electronic collaborative environment plan (Strategic Management
System [SMS])
Execute SMS development project
Implement SMS
48
Preliminary Financial Plan
The Preliminary Financial Plan presents an analysis of financial options for RRHA relative to its
current portfolio of “owned and operated” public housing. Properties were evaluated relative to
financial and strategic options, with location, marketability, and property attributes key factors in
the evaluation.
The following table is a draft of the recommendations presented by Housing Solutions related to
the Preliminary Financial Plan. Over the next six months, the Authority will further evaluate
these recommendations in order to create an overall plan for retooling its properties.
49
Available Upon Requests
Acknowledgement
51
Board of Commissioners
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Leonard Venter, Chairman of the RRHA Board of Commissioners
Charles Peters, Vice Chairman of the RRHA Board of Commissioners
Elliott Harrigan, RRHA Commissioner
Brian Jackson, RRHA Commissioner
Marilyn Olds, RRHA Commissioner
J. Russell Parker, RRHA Commissioner
George E. Smith, RRHA Commissioner
52
Project Sponsor
•
Sheila Hill–Christian, RRHA Executive Director
Project Manager
•
Cassandra Scarborough, RRHA Internal Audit Manager
53
Direction Setting Team Members
Role:
- React to and use the information gathered in the “Where are you now?” phase of the
strategic planning process
- Answer the questions “Where do we want to go?” and “How will we get there?”
Team members:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sheila Hill – Christian, RRHA Executive Director, Project Sponsor
Leonard Venter, Chairman of the RRHA Board of Commissioners
Charles Peters, Vice Chairman of the RRHA Board of Commissioners
Elliott Harrigan, RRHA Commissioner
Brian Jackson, RRHA Commissioner
Marilyn Olds, RRHA Commissioner
J. Russell Parker, RRHA Commissioner
George E. Smith, RRHA Commissioner
Selena Cuffee-Glenn, RRHA Department Director
Denise Dickerson, RRHA Department Director
Valena Dixon, RRHA Department Director
Kenneth Francis, RRHA Department Director
Linda Jackson-Shaw, RRHA Department Director
Louis Zammett, RRHA Department Director
Roxanne Brinson, RRHA Staff, Housing Operations Elderly Services
Kim Brehon, RRHA Staff, Human Resources
Darlene Giles, RRHA Staff, Finance and Administration
Tammy Grubb, RRHA Staff, Housing Operations Admin
Michael Hampton, RRHA Staff, Safety and Security Division
Lee Householder, RRHA Staff, Community Development
Carol Jackson, RRHA Staff, Assisted Housing
Jackie Salaam-Hicks, RRHA Staff, Information Technology
Joan Seldon, RRHA Staff, Resident Services
Denise Vice, RRHA Staff, Real Estate Office
Angela Greene, RRHA Staff, Maintenance Division
Steve Benham, RRHA Staff, Housing Management
54
Performance Measurement Team Members
Role:
- Develop outcome and intermediate performance measures based on goals and
objectives identified by Direction Setting Team
Team members:
•
•
•
•
•
Karen Feagin, Management Analyst, Methods and Procedures
Kenneth Francis, Information Technology Director
Lee Householder, Community Development Project Manager
Joseph McGreal, Housing Operations, Program Manager
Cassandra Scarborough, Internal Audit Manager
55
Facilitator’s Assistants
Role:
- In compliance with Section 3, residents were solicited to assist Organizational
Destinations staff in setting up and facilitating twenty resident meetings in public
housing communities
Facilitator’s Assistants:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shamina Aniba, Resident of Gilpin community
Dakeesha Goode, Resident of Gilpin community
Marguerite Mayfield, Resident of Fairfield community
Violetta Thomas, Resident of Fairfield community
Lisa Wiggins, Resident of Creighton community
Angela Williams, Resident of Whitcomb community
56
Steering Committee Members – June 2005
Role:
- Improve outcomes for residents, customers and partners
- Institutionalize, promote and champion the strategic planning process.
- Move RRHA to a performance managed organization.
- Promote collaboration among partners.
- Guide RRHA decision making based on data.
- Build a cohesive system with our partners through the use of the strategic planning
process.
- Ensure continuous organizational education and learning in related subjects.
Committee Members:
Plan Owner
Sheila Hill-Christian, Executive Director
Executive Leadership Team
Denise P. Dickerson, Director of Housing
Operations
Valena A. Dixon, Director of Communications
Kenneth B. Francis, Director of Information
Technology
Plan Administration
Cassandra P. Scarborough, Internal Auditor
George Martin, Legal Council, McGuire Woods
Goal Champions
Lee D. Householder, Project Manager, Community
Development
Steven A. Benham. Assistant Director for Housing
Management
Cassandra P. Scarborough, Internal Auditor
Grace A. Lewis, Employment and Training
Coordinator
Monitoring and Evaluation
Kenneth B. Francis, Director of Information
Technology
Marketing/Communication
Valena A. Dixon, Director of Communications
57
Consultants:
EMG, Inc.
- Matthew S. Munter, EMG Project Executive
- Bill Champion, EMG Program Manager
- Michael Collins, Technical Director, Public Sector
Deliverables:
• Overall management of project
• Physical Needs Assessment
• Database
Organizational Destinations
- Dale Johnson-Raney, OD Strategic Planning Project Manager
- Gwen Corley Creighton, OD Strategic Planning Facilitator
- Joyce Major, OD Strategic Planning Facilitator
- Lou O’Boyle, OD Strategic Planning Facilitator
Deliverables:
• Stakeholders Meetings
• Strategic Plan
Housing-Solutions
- Tom Nutt-Powell, H-S Financial Analyst/Market Study Principal
Deliverables:
• Market Study
• Financial Plan
• Relocation Plan
58
Community Stakeholders
The Authority would like to thank its community stakeholders for their time, energetic
participation, and interest in our strategic planning process. Your involvement resulted in a plan
that is comprehensive and balanced. It does not just meet the needs of the Authority but also the
needs of its clientele and the needs of Richmond. Thank you for believing in us. We look
forward to working with you to transition the plan into reality.
59