Home Page
                      
                      Richmond to lose...


                             History of Rafting
                      
                      Economic Contributions

                     Civil & Environmental
                      
                     Community & Park
                         
                     Tourism

                           Challenges w/ City

                           Letters of Recommendation
                                                   
                      

Unprofessional, questionable and illegal actions by the City of Richmond

When Mayor Douglas Wilder of Richmond and former governor of Virginia was running for the office of mayor he referred to the state of the City's government as a "cesspool of corruption and inefficiency" ( The Washington Times, Style Weekly, CNN ).  Richmond Raft Company (RRC) has battled with and suffered from the effects of that environment each year it has operated as a concessionaire for the City.  Difficulties include being pressured to put a City employee on its payroll to "smooth out" the contract negotiation process, pressure by the City of Richmond Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities to operate illegal and unsafe programs, and more.  

A recent court case that addressed years of illegal actions by the City in violating the terms of its contract with RRC is outlined below.

• In 1999, Richmond Raft Company responded to a Request For Proposal (RFP)
• The City was seeking operators to offer commercial rafting trips using City-owned access sites along the James River. 
• The nationally promoted RFP was open to the possibility of multiple vendors.
• Only one proposal was submitted, that of Richmond Raft Company.
• A committee reviewed and evaluated RRC’s proposal and offered comments to the City of Richmond Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities (DPRCF) personnel who then were to negotiate and to write a formal contract for a concessionaire for the City. 
• Negotiations for the contract took over eighteen months.
  
  
• In 2001, the City awarded the five-year contract to RRC after careful consideration of RRC’s years of experience, expertise, safety record, safety standards and other factors.
• The contract specifically stated that it was non-exclusive and that the City had the authority to add commercial vendors at will.
• The director of DPRCF stated the James River Park was at its commercial capacity (over 15 commercial vendors at that time) and the rafting lease would have to account for that.
• Before additional commercial users were to be allowed, however, certain improvements were to be made in James River Park.  The improvements would reduce the impact of commercial use on the landscape, on park visitors, on park maintenance personnel and resources, and provide for access by emergency vehicles and police patrols. Those improvements to James River Park’s infrastructure included widening of access roads and paths and providing staging areas. Wider roads would allow commercial and emergency vehicles to pass and not block roadways. Staging areas near boat launches would provide space for commercial vendors to load and unload customers and equipment without blocking private user access.
• Improvements would better accommodate the growing number of special events held in the park.  They were included in the contract by the City to reduce conflicts caused by having special events, commercial use, and private use taking place in the same limited area. Ultimately, these provisions protected James River Park by controlling impact of additional commercial use.  Again, the contract did not control or regulate private use in any way. 
• The City’s administrator of the contract acknowledged the City was not qualified to operate waterborne activities using inflatable craft.
• Later during a deposition given by a City employee for the 2005 court case, it was learned though the City was operating waterborne activities, the City’s employee's qualifications to offer waterborne activities (including tubing trips) was approx. 15 years out of date to meet minimal industry standards.
  
  
• Soon after the contract was finalized it became obvious that DPRCF was failing to adhere to the contract.
• As early as 2002, RRC sent letters and contacted the DPRCF regularly asking that they comply with the contract the City had required of RRC.
• The DPRCF not only continued violating the contract, but also began entering in to contracts with other vendors that were in violation.
  
  
• On 4/5/2003 a fatality occurred on a rafting trip conducted by one of the commercial organizations the City allowed to operate illegally.
• A husband and father of four young children lost his life on a rafting trip offered by one of the unregulated organizations operating illegally, Virginia Commonwealth University.
• A Boating Investigative Report by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries provided written documentation that a participant had paid a fee to go on a commercial rafting trip that was launched from the James River Park.
• A fatality report was a terrible way to deliver evidence that the city was violating its contract.     
  
  
• In September 2004, RRC initiated a meeting with several employees of the DPRCF and included RRC’s attorney.
• At this meeting, the City’s contract administrator acknowledged the department was in violation of the contract.
• Solutions were discussed that would bring DPRCF into compliance with the contract and would not interrupt access for the other organizations. 
• The timeline of four months was agreed upon for the City to put solutions into place.
  
  
• In January 2005, after the four months, no action had been taken by the DPRCF.
• A Sr. Assistant City Attorney defends the City’s noncompliance stating the City owned the James River Park and was not bound by any contracts the City may have entered in to concerning its use.
  
  
• In 2005, RRC filed a lawsuit, not for monetary damages, but simply to force the DPRCF to finally address the issues and to comply with its contract. 
• Having to take that step has been unpleasant and costly. 
• A Sr. Assistant City Attorney warns RRC to anticipate "difficulty" negotiating a new contract because of bring suit against the City.
  
  
• In May 2006, the court heard the case, found that the City was in violation of its contract on all counts and ruled that the City comply with the contract.
• There were no winners in the court ruling.
• It is crucial to the financial stability of Richmond Raft Company that the City complies with its legal obligations.

Though the court ruled completely in favor of Richmond Raft Company, the City never complied with the judges ruling. The "cesspool of corruption and inefficiency" continued.  Virginia Commonwealth University was still allowed to operate by the City in violation of the contract, and did so.  Clearly the City, despite court order, could not be held to a contract.  

If it is the intention of the City to open up the park to more commercial operations, many opportunities exist for programs on mountain biking, climbing, fishing, photography, and bird watching.  All are popular and diverse activities.  If offered as the rafting has been in the past, through a concessionaire, the City would control commercial impacts on City property, the quality of programs, and generate additional revenue.

Richmond Raft Co.
Richmond, VA
ph: (804) 222-7238
e-mail: raft@richmondraft.com

This page is Copyright & copy; 1999 - 2007, Richmond Raft Co.