Richmond City Council agonizes over best way to pay Marvin Grimm the $5.8 million it owes him
VENN
RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) -- As Richmond tries to figure out how to pay a man who was wrongfully incarcerated for decades the $5.8 million it owes him, it's discovering apparent issues with legislation it passed years ago.
On Tuesday, Sept. 3, the Richmond City Council's Organizational Development Committee discussed an ordinance meant to allocate the funds necessary to pay the wrongfully incarcerated Marvin Grimm.
Though councilmembers ultimately voted 6-3 to recommend the ordinance for formal approval by the city council, they did not do so without significant debate.
Who is Marvin Grimm?
Grimm was convicted of the abduction, rape and first-degree murder of 3-year-old Christopher Harper of Richmond, who was found dead in the James River on Nov. 26, 1975. He was sentenced to life in prison after he pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty in 1976.
After serving more than four decades of that sentence, he was released on parole in 2019. Then, in mid-2024, modern forensics -- as well as a deep review of the facts of the case -- exonerated him.
Marvin Grimm (middle) with his two sisters. (Photo courtesy of Grimm's legal team.)
The case was found to have significant holes, including a distinct lack of physical evidence connecting Grimm to the crime. He was only identified as a possible suspect based on what appeared to be tension between the Harper family and himself.
Additionally, his confession -- which did not even match the facts of the case, as it described events that are proven not to have happened -- is believed to have been made under duress after nine hours of interrogation.
Moreover, at the time of Grimm's trial, the death penalty was not permitted for this type of offense -- meaning Grimm was threatened with a consequence he could not have received in the first place.
It was ultimately determined that "no rational fact finder" should have found Grimm guilty.
Why is Grimm owed so much money?
Those close to the case called Grimm's writ of innocence a “bittersweet" win, as he had already spent an estimated 96% of his expected adult life in prison by that point.
Per Virginia law, a wrongfully-incarcerated person is entitled to financial compensation, which is calculated based on the length of their imprisonment, among other factors.
As Grimm's wrongful incarceration is not only the longest Virginia has ever seen, but the second-longest nationwide, the amount the state ultimately voted to award him exceeded $11 million -- with half to be paid by the state and half to be paid by Richmond.
As Grimm's case was determined to involve bad government actors, under Virginia law, the state was able to require Richmond to pay this half. However, even though Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed the bill granting this award in March, Grimm has still not received the $5.8 million owed to him by Richmond.
In a July 25 letter obtained by 8News, Youngkin ordered Mayor Danny Avula to fulfill this obligation and accused the city of having “ignored” its responsibility. If the city chose not to comply, Youngkin said he would withhold its state funding.
Youngkin has the authority to do this under a newer Virginia law. The University of Virginia's School of Law explained that said new law, passed around the same time as the bill awarding Grimm his restitution, allows the Commonwealth to put pressure on localities that do not pay up when legally obligated to.
Richmond officials then announced that it was "moving forward with next steps" to get Grimm the money he is legally entitled to. A city ordinance was drafted that, if approved, would transfer $5.8 million from the "'Delinquent Tax Sales' special fund" to pay Grimm.
“I’m pleased that this step was taken today and that the ordinance to provide a restitution payment to Mr. Grimm has now been introduced,” Avula said in a statement on Aug. 25. “While nothing can restore the decades of life he lost, we are committed to taking action and moving swiftly to see this through. We look forward to Council’s consideration of the ordinance when they convene next month.”
Tax dollars were meant to be put in affordable housing fund, but were not
Before most ordinances can be formally heard and potentially approved by the Richmond City Council, they must be voted on by a city council committee. In this case, the ordinance regarding Grimm's restitution was first heard by the Richmond City Council's Organizational Development Committee during a standing meeting on Tuesday.
Odie Donald, II, the city's chief administrative officer, said the special fund was selected for this ordinance because the city is focused on making decisions that, when at all possible, are not "on the backs of [Richmond] taxpayers."
The "'Delinquent Tax Sales' special fund" is money generated, at least in part, through the sale of vacant properties with unpaid real estate taxes, which can be sold at auction. Any money paid out over the assessed value of the property is made available to the original owner -- but if they do not claim that surplus within a certain period, the city can seize it. Those dollars are also put into this special fund.
Donald added that, even then, this special fund is not the preferred place to pull money from, as he would rather it be used to fund affordable housing.
In fact, it seems Richmond City Council thought the same thing in 2019, when it decided transfers of "up to $1 million" were to be made annually from this special fund to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. However, those transfers were never made, allowing the special fund to grow from just a few million dollars to about $9.1 million over time.
A member of the public shared comments to that effect. He said he was upset that the city appeared to "suddenly" have money sitting in a fund to pay Grimm, but it didn't have spare money when affordable housing projects were being discussed.
"The city has been breaking the law for a long time," he claimed.
Councilmembers sympathize with Grimm, but upset about special fund
The committee's lengthy debate heavily touched on this concern.
"We talk about being short on funds, but when there’s $9 million sitting in a cushion somewhere, something’s not right," councilwoman Kenya Gibson said.
Though councilmembers said they believed Grimm was deeply wronged by the justice system, they expressed frustration that these funds must go to him rather than be spent on affordable housing.
"The reality is, the funding that is supposed to be going to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund from [delinquent tax sales] and the issuance of bonds [and COVID-19 relief funding] ... none of them have been appropriated accurately to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund," said councilwoman Ellen Robertson.
Roberston said that Richmond's affordable housing crisis, which has been going on for years now, is only getting worse. She said she feels other things are consistently prioritized over the city's affordable housing needs..
"I'm gonna vote against this paper," Roberston said. "I'm gonna vote against any one penny that is moved from where it is appropriated for affordable housing -- and I can be the only voter [to do so.] I can be the only one to write the email[s] ... I'm gonna continue to do it."
City says it's more complex, that council spent funds on other things
Donald explained that the matter is more complicated than just taking money away from affordable housing, stressing that the city council did not break its own law.
He said that the legislation passed by city council in 2019 allowed for "up to $1 million" to be appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund yearly, but that -- based on his review of previous budgets -- the city legally chose not to appropriate that money.
Donald added that it was important to speak on this in context. Given the time period this occurred in, the city was dealing with a pandemic and had to spend money on a variety of vital, unexpected needs.
Donald admired how the city council used funding from various sources to meet those needs while still making significant investments in affordable housing, saying they were able to "do it all" with limited resources.
"I don't think I would call that a 'crisis' or a 'robbery,' or anything of that nature," he said. "I think you made a choice in the midst of crisis, during the COVID pandemic."
Donald said that, all in all, he was grateful for the opportunity these funds gave to settle a debt that the city did not expect to pay.
Councilwoman Sarah Abubaker disagreed with Donald's explanation, saying she felt Donald's statement that the city "did not appropriate" these funds inappropriately placed blame on councilmembers. She said, in her experience, it's city administration that does most of the appropriating.
Donald responded by saying that he was referring to a choice made by the city as a whole, not just the city council. He said he envisions Richmond as a united city government that both failed and succeeded together.
However, he emphasized his statement was not meant to be negative. Donald said he felt the choices Richmond made during that period were the best that could be made under the circumstances.
Councilman Andrew Breton said that he believed this discussion was uncovering issues with both governmental transparency and Richmond's budget process. He added that he felt the council needed to further look into how legislation it passes is enforced.
"We need to make sure that we are not passing and leaving legislation on the books that we have no intention of following," Breton said.
Council president Cynthia Newbille said she definitely would like to revisit the 2019 legislation and tighten the language.
Council disagrees with the method, but ultimately knows hands are tied
Abubaker addressed the new Virginia law requiring localities to pay up or face financial consequences, echoing some of her fellow councilmembers' concerns about how much money they were asked to come up with in a short period.
"I don't think that any of us are speaking about the merits of restitution for Mr. Grimm ... [but] the legislation has unintended consequences that we are now suffering," Abubaker said.
She added that she hoped the city's government relations team could work with state leaders to suggest adjustments to the law, so that Richmond's experience would not be the "precedent," but instead a "very expensive learning opportunity."
Councilwoman Stephanie Lynch agreed, saying she hoped the city could submit "friendly amendments" to make the law "more palatable for all municipalities." Her suggestions included a "state risk pool" that could help at-risk localities pay up when required.
Regardless, as other councilmembers said earlier in the meeting, this payment needs to be made.
The committee ultimately voted 6 to 3 in favor of advancing this ordinance, with Gibson, Robertston and councilwoman Nicole Jones against the motion.
The Richmond City Council will formally discuss this ordinance during its next meeting at 6 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 8.
