Richmond Common Council debates using police/fire pension levy for budget shortfalls, advances 12 ordinances on first reading

The Richmond Common Council on Monday, Sept. 29, discussed reallocating portions of property-tax levies tied to older police and fire pension plans to help cover city budget shortfalls and approved a motion to suspend the rules and read ordinances 38–49 by title on first reading.

The discussion began during the mayor’s financial update, when he said a recent county calculation estimated roughly $680,000 “and change” would flow to Richmond in 2026 from a Wayne County levy that will be deposited into two new funds intended to support streets and matching grants. The mayor also told the council the Board of Works approved a 2026 Wayne Township fire protection contract for $894,254 — about $79,000 more than 2025 — and a Spring Grove fire protection contract for $78,005.89.

Why it matters: council members pressed city officials for clarity about whether and how money from multiple levies — including longstanding pension levies created in 1925 and 1937 — might be redirected to cover shortfalls in the 2025 and 2026 budgets and to fund parks services. Several members said they need firmer, auditable numbers before voting on a balanced 2026 budget.

Sherry Hemingway, identified as benefits administration staff, described how the city budgets and uses three pension-related funds. Hemingway said the 1925 police and 1937 fire funds (“the old plans”) currently pay monthly pensions to retirees and surviving spouses and that the funds will naturally shrink over time as beneficiaries age. She told the council both funds entered 2025 with “very healthy cash balances,” and the city decided to reduce its planned levy contributions because the balances remained adequate. She said the police fund was projected to have a 57.1% cash balance and the fire fund a 24% cash balance after 2025 expenses.

Hemingway said the city will continue to contribute more than $500,000 to the 1977 police and fire fund (the “’77 fund”), which pays retired members through the state once those workers retire.

Council members debated whether those pension-levy dollars are temporary or sustainable revenue. Council member Purcell said he would not support an “unbalanced budget.” Purcell noted the city recently borrowed $2.4 million in a bond issue and said paying down debt could be a higher priority than using one-time or temporary savings to cover recurring expenses: “I will not vote for an unbalanced budget,” Purcell said.

Other council members asked whether union representatives had been consulted about using pension-related levies for other purposes; Hemingway and the mayor indicated the change is an internal budget allocation choice rather than a change in the certified levy amount itself. The mayor repeatedly emphasized that the certified levy amount does not change — only how the levy is allocated among multiple funds.

Council members also raised concerns about transparency and timing: several said the numbers presented to the Committee of the Whole differed from figures shown at the special meeting, and one member asked how the council was expected to vote on a moving target. Finance committee work was scheduled to continue, with the council president saying the finance committee would meet Monday to review details.

Votes and ordinances: Council member Turner moved to suspend the rules and take ordinances 38–49 on first reading by title only; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. The ordinances read by title included:

- Ordinance 38-2025: Appropriation ordinance amending the 2025 budget (transfer within general fund). Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 39-2025: Appropriation ordinance to be known as the 2026 budget (first reading). Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 40-2025: Appropriation ordinance fixing annual compensation of elected city officers for 2026. Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 41-2025: 2026 salary ordinance. Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 42-2025: Ordinance authorizing annual compensation and benefits for Richmond police officers. Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 43-2025: Sanitary district 2026 salary ordinance. Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 44-2025: Ordinance authorizing annual compensation and benefits for Richmond firefighters. Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 46-2025: Appropriation ordinance amending the 2025 budget for Roseview (description as read). Committee assignment: not specified on the record beyond the reading.
- Ordinance 47-2025: Appropriation ordinance amending the 2025 budget — Opioid fund. Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 48-2025: Appropriation ordinance amending the 2025 budget for first responders/EMS. Assigned to finance.
- Ordinance 49-2025: Appropriation ordinance amending the 2025 general fund budget. Assigned to finance.

(Ordinance numbering in the council record ran 38 through 49; the meeting transcript records the title read for each. Committee assignments were stated on the record as “to finance” for most items; where the record did not specify beyond the title read, the committee assignment is listed as not specified.)

Council members also noted that the ordinances, if passed at second reading, would allow the city to take approximately $1.2 million from reserves to supplement the 2025 budget, a point one councilor raised as evidence that those changes undermine claims the city is saving money.

What was not decided: The meeting recorded no formal vote on diverting pension-levy dollars to parks or other ongoing operating expenses. Council members directed that finance committee review the figures and produce more detailed, auditable budget information before final votes. The council scheduled second readings at its regular meeting on Monday, Oct. 6.

Meeting context and participation: The discussion followed an invocation and brief ceremonial remarks. Several council members participated in an extended debate about budget assumptions, pension fund balances, and the difference between a “balanced” and a “funded” budget. Staff identified potential one-time and recurring savings and noted estimated new revenue sources that could affect the 2026 budget, but multiple councilors said more precise, reconciled numbers are needed before final approval.