[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6576249,"mediaKeyId","3145680-626a516d2d085c1ff74617d67b9b4b48","parentId",3145680,"title","Richmond council hashes out FY2026 budget amendments: capital repurposing, program restorations and heated pay-raise debate","audioSeconds",2102,"startMs",2710000,"endMs",4812000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3145680-626a516d2d085c1ff74617d67b9b4b48&start=2710&end=4812","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3145680-626a516d2d085c1ff74617d67b9b4b48/thumbnail_2710000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6576249/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Richmond-council-hashes-out-FY2026-budget-amendments-capital-repurposing-program-restorations-and-heated-pay-raise-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6576249-576c36066026a7efd8b7ba5bb20a7b96/orig.mp4?Expires=1775827369&Signature=HQ3PmISHZMcPTafKVUjs4wqPbnqkMpdkDfixb65nBbRJTnmuPgiv2wQyagZVurRWU2~Oi2-Q2HrkeQ63Knz6T54CVNWe4OjepBFg9G3kn9~Z2Mv4Fo6dRCUZiupCjx5kwV5NTDqvc5Uuhjh~4~5avw0rpzU6sCBV6FBJSJ2m0BARgNUfQckpGF-Hi22yIEAULF2NXSmJoAyBoaEPSVHyyE7CxW-TfqOhTn-Em-vhh7XeOe3HbPAVNMVn6Lr~u9QAY3Na73tQ0oLSqRi8cwqt5HWHaeONyPG3IoFTLH0dwULW4WHcaTlTklWRB~EPP0G~A4UKJjy6Ex9h5IRvYVEgSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Richmond City","date","2025-04-29T00:00:00Z","article","Richmond City Council held a budget work session to finalize proposed FY2026 budget amendments, reviewing capital reductions and enhancements, operating reductions the administration proposed, and a slate of council-solicited program restorations. Council members and staff reached consensus on many items but did not reach agreement on a councilmember amendment to partially limit cost-of-living raises for employees paid above $175,000.

At the start of the session Council President Newbill asked staff to begin discussion of FY2026 budget amendments and called forward interim Chief of Staff Matthew Slatz and other staff. Daniel Wagner, interim deputy chief of staff, and other staff outlined capital changes that would be funded via cash or general-obligation bonds (GO Bonds). Council discussed repurposing roughly $959,617 remaining in an active Laburnum widening project to support Pine Camp facilities in the Third District and a set of cash-funded reductions that together total proposed capital savings and re‑allocations. Wagner emphasized that bond-funded projects must be long-lived assets (typically 20+ years) to match debt financing.

Fleet replacement: the council’s reduction package included a $2,214,617 total reduction across capital and operating, with $1,255,000 in cash-funded reductions that reduce the 25-vehicle replacement bucket but explicitly hold harmless emergency response vehicles (police, fire) and refuse trucks. Staff said the remaining $1,390,600 would remain in the fleet replacement program for administration prioritization; council members asked repeatedly for a detailed breakdown of which non-emergency vehicle types would be affected. Gail Johnson, director of general services, said funds planned for two animal-care vans and bulk‑pickup boom truck replacements could be affected if council removes the funding, and urged caution. The administration said it would work with departments to prioritize purchases from the remaining allocation.

Operating reductions and program funding: staff and the interim chief administrative officer, Sabrina Joy Hogg, presented a slate of operating reductions the administration had identified as achievable with minimal service disruption. Key items included timing-related reductions to the Richmond Resilience Initiative (an existing cohort of 40 families can be served with current FY25 funds and a proposed FY26 enhancement was removed for now), vacant personnel positions that administration said can be held vacant without disrupting core services (including several positions in the Office of Community Wealth Building), reductions to consultant services in Economic Development, a $100,000 reduction to resiliency grants (leaving $150,000), and a personnel reduction that would remove a vacant park-ranger position (parks officials urged restoring that role to maintain coverage of the James River Park system).

Council members pressed staff on which positions are genuinely vacant, how many roles are being covered by temporary contracts or vendors, and how cuts would affect frontline services. Bernadine Doggett of the Office of Community Wealth Building confirmed four positions cited for reduction are vacant; staff said the office still has the majority of direct-service staff retained. Several members asked the administration to provide a list of active temporary staffing contracts and the amounts being spent on those vendors.

Enhancements and restorations: council proposed restoring or increasing funding for several community programs, and the administration identified $1.894 million in enhancements that could be accommodated without additional reductions (or with the agreed reductions). Notable restorations/enhancements with consensus included: Right to Counsel legal representation for tenants (increase from $500,000 to $700,000); Family Crisis Fund increased from $520,000 to $1,000,000; Eviction Diversion restored to $1,000,000; a $164,000 adjustment for deputy clerks in circuit court; funding for Caritas to support year‑round shelter operations ($50,000 increase to $200,000 total); HOME program investigative capacity to address voucher discrimination ($250,000); OAR reentry services (restored to $100,000); and Positive Youth Development increased to $900,000 with a $50,000 earmark for New Life Tabernacle programming. Staff said some of these restorations can be handled through reappropriations or text amendments; administration will supply a reappropriation paper for funds carried from FY25 where needed.

Pay raises debate: Council Member Katherine Abubakar introduced a targeted amendment to limit the proposed 3.25% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) so that employees earning above $175,000 would receive a smaller, average-dollar raise (a compromise figure discussed later was a $250,000 overall reduction in executive raises). Abubakar framed the amendment as a fiscal‑discipline and equity measure intended to protect funds for frontline staff; she cited administration projections of growing deficits. The proposal prompted an extended debate. Supporters said it would better align raises with equity goals and fiscal prudence; opponents noted contractual obligations, collective bargaining implications and the political difficulties of selectively reducing raises. Council members requested an independent salary study to review top-level pay and to compare Richmond job descriptions and pay with neighboring jurisdictions. The council did not reach consensus on Abubakar’s amendment during the session.

Process notes and administrative directions: council voted to approve one formal procedural motion at the start of the meeting (authorizing Council Member Kenya Gibson to participate electronically for medical reasons). On budget items, staff and council reached verbal consensus on many reductions and restorations and asked administration to: (1) prepare necessary ordinance text amendments and any reappropriation papers so contracts and earmarks can be executed quickly after budget adoption; (2) provide a breakdown of the land-book number used by the assessor; (3) provide a list of active temporary staffing contracts and amounts; (4) examine insourcing or other strategies and a timeline to raise contracted janitorial/security workers to a $20/hour minimum and return a proposed timeline and cost estimate; and (5) provide a reappropriation paper for FY25 funds that will be used to complete cohort commitments and other carryforward items.

Votes at a glance:
- Motion to allow Council Member Kenya Gibson to participate electronically under council rules (motion moved and seconded; roll-call recorded; motion approved).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Richmond City - Council Budget Work Session - April 28, 2025-20250428 - Apr 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Richmond City Council held a budget work session to finalize proposed FY2026 budget amendments, reviewing capital reductions and enhancements, operating reductions the administration proposed, and a slate of council-solicited program restorations.","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},6576252,"Richmond city assessor forecasts 6% increase in taxable assessments for next reassessment",659,265000,924000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3145680-626a516d2d085c1ff74617d67b9b4b48&start=265&end=924","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3145680-626a516d2d085c1ff74617d67b9b4b48/thumbnail_265000.jpg","/articles/6576252/Richmond-City-Independent-City/Virginia/Richmond-city-assessor-forecasts-6-increase-in-taxable-assessments-for-next-reassessment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6576252-b40c0f4b600d20db94fed72110f0ed52/orig.mp4?Expires=1775827369&Signature=CRo2P7IboQxZgI8JnD6HRlexOkMZFD1q2Ux1vhLIdptfhXjP~-~MBoRtLJ~F2k8MvLWtIELiEgmD5a1Ju~SyNyxklofPQBp~UDmUhDpw-0dO2FT53~oONj47uKXfPfzwiZPXkM04n5Sbn-ty9cTyzCgHWysBvxNE5faoipB2O4WhvVYJLJFcQbjblRuH5g3ytoiMfbamx63uQ4OHnusKRUwLvo3-Hncd4EVzNclZLpOmDl22SSICfuxgBnUpU46K7JPbiWtrzJl3Zc9i0wSsZlWzb1-WxV3QEpiayN-pgwSgVe2s0Wi3DQn~ilSnhCUFTwQpw8ww4oY7L8vqJTnFgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Richard McKeith, Richmond’s city assessor, told the City Council at a budget work session that he is recommending a 6% increase in the city’s land-book taxable assessments for the next reassessment cycle, effective Jan. 1, 2026.

McKeith said the 6% forecast reflects recent local market history — including back-to-back double-digit increases earlier in the decade followed by smaller gains — current assessment-to-sale price ratios that leave less room for upward adjustments, and independent corroboration from an economist the assessor’s office recently retained. “I want to try to be as spot on as I can possibly be, but not be too aggressive because we really don't know yet exactly what is going to happen,” McKeith said during the meeting.

Why it matters: the assessor’s forecast helps set the taxable base that city staff use to prepare revenue estimates for the FY2026 budget. A higher or lower assessment roll changes projected property tax revenue and affects how the council and administration size services, programs and the tax rate.

What McKeith reported: he described the recent pattern in Richmond assessments — very large increases around tax year 2022–2023, followed by a 7.7% rise for tax year 2024 and a 6.77% rise for tax year 2025 — and said the 6% recommendation is informed by that recent trend plus current assessment/sale-price ratios in many neighborhoods in the high 80s and 90s. He said apartments had “caught up” in prior years and that their contribution to the roll has moderated. McKeith also said he and the office’s economist were within about a half-percentage point of one another on initial forecasts, which gave him added confidence in the 6% figure.

Council questions and follow-up: Council members asked for more specific supporting numbers. Council Member Kenya Gibson (participating virtually) asked for the underlying dollar amount the 6% is being applied to, including whether the assessor’s office accounts for delinquent tax collections; McKeith said his work uses the land-book number multiplied by the percent (he does not handle delinquent tax collections) and agreed to provide the land-book figure for 2025. Council Member Laura Lynch asked how Richmond’s timing compares with neighboring localities; McKeith said counties typically complete assessment work later in the season and that Richmond’s calendar has required earlier forecasting, which is why he and others have been pushing to change the city’s reassessment calendar.

What McKeith said he did not do: the assessor emphasized his office does not control revenue budgeting or tax-rate setting; he provides the assessment forecast used for revenue estimates. He also said he did not want to be “overly aggressive” given macroeconomic uncertainty, including interest-rate expectations from the Federal Reserve.

Next steps: McKeith said he would notify the council promptly if he sees evidence that should change the forecast. Council members requested the assessor’s land-book dollar total that underlies the 6% projection so the finance team and council can translate the percentage into revenue estimates.","City Assessor Richard McKeith told the Richmond City Council during a budget work session that he is recommending a 6% land-book-to-land-book increase for the upcoming reassessment effective Jan. 1, 2026, citing recent market trends, assessment-to-sale price ratios and collaboration with an economist.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Richmond council hashes out FY2026 budget amendments: capital repurposing, program restorations and heated pay-raise debate

Richmond city assessor forecasts 6% increase in taxable assessments for next reassessment