[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6579626,"mediaKeyId","3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852","parentId",3074678,"title","Council approves remote participation for Councilor Aberbacher","audioSeconds",96,"startMs",2570000,"endMs",2666000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852&start=2570&end=2666","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852/thumbnail_2570000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6579626/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Council-approves-remote-participation-for-Councilor-Aberbacher","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579626-4efc89cc9300fef67371a0262288ca47/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143631&Signature=b8g3psaCDrl~n8rxPRp7CaJlrhJ4WlkrYNkmPVQzVCknWrz8DqMTjLBa7f3auIvEr3fS0Op5Pu2wxA8g03SbOuaqLU1~kWfWsMONS2fKSF6S3l4uSBfzs1IVLkI3uEPNKaio9YKLeiMJ~Yw9dAZ05V9x0Uzfgsmyp~UC3ShrapxlIfJnHaaLvQ7phDQ6XnCFYT-2CvOBjL3LBMRRS3Qi9VIlehUy-Petxc3C2Frl8nkhzRrtj3rHCuAHvFL69nV1iFtSnRRY2aGBHQIYLGGIZLH2e70ATJH6eUKxIbTAT5TgyONBCphljvEw9F68LMXYyEeyixBUxznnbP5f2077~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Richmond City","date","2025-04-21T00:00:00Z","article","Richmond City Council members approved a motion to allow Councilor Sarah Aberbacher to take part in the meeting electronically due to a medical condition.

The motion was moved and seconded, then called for a vote. Council members in the chamber cast aye votes; the roll included Mr. Breton (Aye), Miss Gibson (Yes), Miss Jones (Aye), Miss Robertson (Aye), Miss Trammell (Aye), Vice President Jurden (Aye) and President Newbill (Aye). The presiding officer announced the motion was approved and noted that all council members were in attendance except Councilor Lynch.

Ending: The council proceeded with the scheduled budget work session with Councilor Aberbacher participating remotely.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Richmond City - City Council on 2025-04-21 1:00 PM - Budget Work Session To access the meeting via Microsoft Teams, please use the following link: https://bit.ly/4laJIlN or dial *67-804-316-9457 and enter ID: 937 780 472# - Apr 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council voted to allow Councilor Sarah Aberbacher to participate in the meeting by Microsoft Teams under Rule 3.d of council rules of procedure; the motion passed unanimously by voice vote.","taxTitle","Richmond City (Independent City), Virginia","taxId",5755,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579631,"Council weighs operating reductions and a proposed 3.25% raise as staff propose cutting guaranteed‑income program and vacant positions",741,16217000,16958000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852&start=16217&end=16958","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852/thumbnail_16217000.jpg","/articles/6579631/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Council-weighs-operating-reductions-and-a-proposed-325-raise-as-staff-propose-cutting-guaranteedincome-program-and-vacant-positions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579631-c1523f39a7431db0aad0641c540142f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143631&Signature=BC5iicvFjWRPcX92mfg7wdqPbgSzXD3qgb9x4mAT4oS-P5QNZhJADUl2Cy0T9xzsdm9lHLEB3o9-Pu0aW1lUu6u~Fg5zEj2hnEAwRLOKieyVVrUk9ymF-gHwJ2eCMSGrMAnNWjF16IIe-wJ~Ewvuaa90GfMFF-~4N1Du~Th3j7sSVnQ-MqgnX9VCeDksb6n5f4jPp803tX7QfGeD2N8FWK7lsWbGDQzBVJI8amNBrRzMXhoFk6Iqt26f4AD28hufUfVpLHUK7c17ayr2XYi-3RQ6rCmo0L5nMzi0DqMt34DB7jwemmaUOk8KW-uMZr8ir8qUWrupIIn-ySN8CFixRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Administration presented a set of operating reductions designed to free roughly $1.07 million to help pay for council amendments, and councilors used the conversation to press for greater transparency about salary changes and the distribution of FY26 raises.

What administration proposed: The administration identified $1,068,971 in possible operating reductions, a package that included a recommended reduction to the Richmond Resilience Initiative (the guaranteed‑income pilot funded earlier), elimination of four currently vacant positions in the Office of Community Wealth Building, a vacant position reduction in Public Works and two positions in the General Registrar’s Office. Staff said the reductions were offered to help council fund member‑proposed enhancements.

Council debate: Several council members said they would prefer to prioritize raises and supports for lower‑paid workers and direct‑service staff (janitors, security contractors, eviction‑prevention and mobile‑home repair programs) rather than cuts to anti‑poverty programs or services that assist vulnerable residents. Council member Gibson and others asked administration to show whether raising low‑paid contracted staff to $20 per hour—or hiring some roles in‑house—would be more cost‑effective than continuing contractor agreements. Administration said it would model the cost of bringing janitorial and security in‑house and return with figures.

Raises and compression: A proposed general 3.25% raise for nonunion employees (and related adjustments) drew scrutiny from council members who pointed to large percentage increases in some individual high‑pay grade positions. Council member Abubakar argued the city must examine top‑tier salary growth and asked that council scrutinize large increases for management‑level positions while frontline employees face modest gains. Human Resources Director Tyrone Alexander and department directors warned that withholding broadly applied compensation increases could harm recruitment and retention for difficult-to‑fill operational roles, and that compression (supervisors paid less than subordinates) is a concurrent concern.

Administration next steps: Staff agreed to provide detailed staff‑level comparisons (FY25 adopted vs FY26 proposed) and to provide clearer documentation about which positions were newly filled or repriced (vacancies budgeted at minimum vs hires at midpoint), plus a modeling exercise on contracting vs hiring janitorial/security staff. Staff also agreed to provide the specifics of the positions in the $1.07M reduction package.

Quote: \"We need to ask people if we're asking a refuse worker to live within their means, then we have to ask the city to live within their means,\" Council member Abubakar said, summarizing concerns about high percentile increases at senior pay grades.

Ending: Administration will return with a written breakdown of the proposed operating reductions, the list of vacant positions recommended for elimination, an apples‑to‑apples salary comparison across FY25 and FY26, and an analysis of contracting versus hiring for janitorial and security.","Administration proposed roughly $1.07 million of operating reductions — including pausing the Richmond Resilience Initiative (a guaranteed‑income program) and eliminating seven vacant positions — as councilors debated equity, compression, and whether raises for high‑paid positions should be limited to preserve funds for frontline services.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579636,"Council presses administration for details on Mayo Island cost, grant deadlines and possible reimbursement",548,4163000,4711000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852&start=4163&end=4711","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852/thumbnail_4163000.jpg","/articles/6579636/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Council-presses-administration-for-details-on-Mayo-Island-cost-grant-deadlines-and-possible-reimbursement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579636-3400e4832571f9ade12a1ed7241146bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143631&Signature=XaUbUaP7kbrqAtwpgJhJWPqRJdSQ67Zf4f~TAcNtsuAcvpvS5Kg98LB2L-HH-FTUVNVRSlyfAOzB8XLPpX4UpjCMxuGLzGfECU45GhnpH-OzHRJbCuLKC7H0jv5nXGRX0H-oKkz5h6jq8XVAn8VE9580rK5g-nbqUIohqRa-ikMKE97ST~gTJ65H3uYsSFRhGYYz-JiMuZFEL7y5vYa2hhtMoP0y6MqOUH5GMvLqcJsw-eMLhIW6oWFrdciki7T2IgSb8gLbwFltMpjaIK2q~LCUuNDLQFzWpg~oyetYgZz4kOCLrrXWcmK64hGfjuXJBpvu3qmCC318vtAa6XIiSA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilors pressed city staff for details about the scope and cost basis behind a roughly $16 million estimate to purchase and restore Mayo Island, and they asked whether components of demolition and impervious-surface removal would be covered by state or federal bridge funding.

Why it matters: Council members said the island acquisition is a high‑profile, long‑term open‑space investment but sought more detailed cost breakdowns and clarity on what the city is contractually required to complete under the state grant and by what deadline.

Council member Lynch asked for documentation describing the grant terms and what parts of the work the city has committed to. Parks Director Chris Frailty said the state award carried flood‑mitigation conditions tied to the purchase and that a portion of the work — particularly soil remediation and lowering built‑up sections to restore island grade — accounts for the largest share of the estimate. Frailty said that meeting the grant terms requires moving forward to begin demolition and remediation work with an October deadline the city is trying to meet.

Frailty and staff described ongoing coordination with VDOT and federal bridge planning; staff said some demolition of impervious surfaces and buildings overlaps with the future bridge footprint but that other remediation work across the larger island area would remain a city responsibility. Frailty said a cost‑estimator had been engaged and that the city had sought but not received an extension from the state on the grant schedule.

The risk of noncompliance and reimbursement: When asked whether the city would face a financial penalty or be required to repay grant dollars if the work is not completed on the grant schedule, Frailty said the best current estimate was that failing to proceed could expose the city to about a $9 million liability in reimbursements.

Council members repeatedly asked for the underlying cost estimates, grant contract language and the state communications that led to the current deadline. Frailty said staff would provide the cost breakdowns and will continue to coordinate with VDOT and the state; administration said it had been meeting regularly with state and transit partners but that cost and schedule risk remained high.

Quote: \"We have to get this done by October,\" Chris Frailty, director of parks, recreation and community facilities, said, adding that the bulk of the cost is soil remediation: \"The soil remediation that we're looking at is, I believe, 60 over 60% of the cost.\"

Ending: Councilors asked administration to supply the grant agreement, the detailed cost estimate that produced the $16 million figure, and records of state communications about an extension request; staff agreed to deliver the information and to keep council updated on VDOT coordination and the grant deadline.","Councilors pressed Parks and other staff for documentation and clarity about the roughly $16 million Mayo Island purchase and remediation price tag, the state flood‑mitigation grant, and whether demolition costs will be borne by the city or by pending VDOT bridge work.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6579641,"Council debates trade-offs to fund Richmond People’s Budget; Laburnum widening and fleet cuts proposed",6838,2684000,9522000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852&start=2684&end=9522","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3074678-ed59fa73585a785d7053d8f264b26852/thumbnail_2684000.jpg","/articles/6579641/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Council-debates-trade-offs-to-fund-Richmond-Peoples-Budget-Laburnum-widening-and-fleet-cuts-proposed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579641-e63965602d265834306866aa4b225475/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143631&Signature=OjT7hiCWXWXL59HeaqJh8yKTJ8Ek~GGJ3hQhErdmcWZ9usppQ8pGj7O4kUQsOsWEUvFD8s4tYmxqvLCXbYjhtpoN5ZMigOxcEtmag8HTXpTdb6vUCkNmZ-CcPo7AM0y1haJ1u411HpLWIEtDaQ0Glrf-rJAFNqWnDfc4UzTwd0aZ-zQFa9myDTJbFA8w3dy0NS5BvNJcxYwaXuheLtqY985zHG3vnLpHYMdfYtd-~euJMYhk81lA0Om2wVk4VgCQPZ5sClyci29W4nDyMpNK1lPcC~k-yKkbY4jxgrUW9Zd6hAfurFe8Yse4txnmbeAOLnG1iIofOXnq2Z5NxR9~AQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richmond City Council members and city staff spent several hours weighing which capital projects to reduce or reallocate to fund the Richmond People’s Budget and other council priorities as they finalize amendments for the FY26 budget.

Matthew Slats, interim chief of staff, told the council the goal of the session was to find “consensus on both reductions and enhancements of both capital and operating” so changes could be drafted and returned to council. Staff said council had submitted roughly $35 million in enhancement requests and had identified a little more than $4 million in potential capital reductions so far.

Why it matters: Council members who back the People’s Budget said it is a near-term priority but that the funds must come from other parts of the CIP, because the city’s overall resources and bonding capacity are limited.

Staff and councilors discussed two primary options to free capital dollars: pausing the Laburnum Avenue widening project, and taking some reductions from the city’s cash-funded vehicle fleet budget (excluding police, fire and refuse). Daniel Wagner, interim deputy chief of staff, said a staff proposal would remove Laburnum as an active widening project and instead reinvest the roughly $959,617 into citywide complete-streets work — paving, sidewalks and traffic-calming measures — or, if council prefers, specifically earmark funds for sidewalks.

Council members asked for clarity on how the money would be subdivided. Council member Britton said residents want sidewalks across the city and recommended earmarking more funding specifically for sidewalks rather than for a broader “complete streets” paving bucket that is dominated by paving costs. Wagner and staff replied that the complete-streets budget includes paving (about $16 million) plus sidewalks and speed tables, and that earmarking could be done by text amendment.

Fleet reductions were presented as another potential source of funding. Staff said roughly $2.78 million of proposed fleet reductions could be identified from nonpublic-safety vehicles (animal control, parks and nonrefuse DPW vehicles) but that amounts would need to be adjusted if the council wants to hold public-safety and refuse replacement harmless. Administration later provided a slightly revised fleet figure of roughly $2.6456 million for some nonresponse fleet categories. Council members broadly signaled they were not willing to accept cuts to police, fire or refuse truck replacements.

The People’s Budget crosswalk: Staff said a crosswalk of participatory-budget projects across districts produced a total funding need of about $2.78 million to implement the top-ranked projects from each district. Wagner asked administration to cross-check those items with existing CIP commitments to identify what could already be covered and what would be new funding. Administration agreed to return that crosswalk and line-item responses to council as soon as possible.

Quotes: \"We are getting — we’re excited that we’re taking these important steps,\" Matthew Slats, interim chief of staff, said at the start of the meeting. Council members repeatedly pressed staff for a clearer crosswalk so they could see which projects were already funded and which would require new dollars.

Ending: Staff committed to provide a detailed crosswalk showing where People’s Budget items intersect with the proposed CIP and to return with cost and funding options. Council members instructed staff to preserve public-safety and refuse vehicle replacements while staff continues to identify potential fleet and capital reductions that could fund the People’s Budget or other priorities.","Richmond City Council members discussed funding the Richmond People’s Budget during an extended FY26 budget work session, considering reductions to a Laburnum widening capital project and portions of the city vehicle fleet while seeking to protect police, fire and refuse replacements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves remote participation for Councilor Aberbacher

Council weighs operating reductions and a proposed 3.25% raise as staff propose cutting guaranteed‑income program and vacant positions

Council presses administration for details on Mayo Island cost, grant deadlines and possible reimbursement

Council debates trade-offs to fund Richmond People’s Budget; Laburnum widening and fleet cuts proposed