Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond council advances ordinance to raise mayor and council salaries
Summary
The City Council voted unanimously to introduce an ordinance (first reading) that would increase the monthly pay for the mayor and city council members. Supporters said higher pay will help the council be more representative and responsive; opponents urged a more gradual approach and better outreach.
The Richmond City Council voted unanimously to introduce an ordinance (first reading) that would raise monthly salaries for the mayor and city council members, moving the proposal to a future hearing.
City staff said the proposed adjustments follow a chart based on Senate Bill 329 that applies a 5% annual adjustment compounded over 16 years, producing what the staff report described as an 80% increase. The staff report lists the mayor’s current monthly salary as $3,875, increasing under the proposal to $6,975; a city council member’s monthly pay is shown in the staff report as increasing from $1,402.50 to $2,524.50.
Supporters argued the job functions require full-time attention and that pay frozen for years has limited who can serve. "These jobs are actually 24/7 jobs," Mayor Eduardo Martinez said, describing the time demands and arguing higher compensation makes the role accessible to workers and parents who cannot otherwise afford to serve. Vice Mayor Claudia Jimenez and Councilmembers Gail McLaughlin, Robinson and others said higher pay would improve socioeconomic and racial diversity among candidates and allow members to focus on council duties without juggling multiple jobs.
Opponents and public speakers urged caution. Don Gosney, a longtime local union member and frequent meeting speaker, told the council he saw no justification for an 80% pay increase and urged better public contact and accountability by elected officials before a large raise. Online caller Terry Hint described the item’s placement and timing as lacking transparency and criticized the proposal’s timing after recent council vacations.
After extended council discussion and public comment, Councilmember Robinson moved to introduce the ordinance; the motion carried unanimously. The council did not specify an effective date or a second-reading timeline during the discussion. The motion record shows the consent and introduction vote passed unanimously; the staff report and chart explaining the 5%–per‑year approach remain part of the record.
The ordinance will return for later consideration under the city’s ordinance process, including a second reading where additional procedural details, effective dates and implementation steps must be provided.
