Finance committee backs $1.20 tax rate recommendation; forwards $1.16 option with no recommendation; advances multiple budget and grant items

The Richmond City Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee moved the mayor’s proposed property tax rate of $1.20 per $100 of assessed value to the full City Council with a recommendation to approve, and separately forwarded an ordinance proposing a $1.16 rate with no committee recommendation.

The vote followed a public hearing during which residents, community groups and labor representatives urged the committee to reject any tax cut that would reduce funds for wages, services and housing programs. Felicia Boney, representing the Virginia State Council of SEIU and local chapters including 32BJ, told the committee that “lowering Richmond’s property tax rate is bad policy for working families” and urged a transparent plan before any reduction in revenue. Several Eighth District residents said higher assessments and monthly utility bills make even small rate changes unaffordable for seniors on fixed incomes.

Why it matters: the administration told the committee that the budget adopted by the mayor and council was built on the $1.20 rate. An administration representative stated that one penny on the rate equals about $4.3 million in revenue; reducing the rate from $1.20 to $1.16 would remove roughly $17.3 million from the adopted budget plan and could require cuts to personnel, collective bargaining commitments and capital projects.

Actions taken at the meeting: the committee voted to forward eight items from the meeting agenda to the full council. Notable outcomes include: - Ordinance 2025-207 (set real-estate tax rate at $1.20 for tax year beginning 01/01/2026): forwarded to council with a committee recommendation to approve (recorded votes by committee members present: Miss Lynch — yes; Vice Chair Jones — aye; Chair Robertson — aye). - Ordinance 2025-208 (set real-estate tax rate at $1.16 for tax year beginning 01/01/2026): forwarded to council with no committee recommendation (recorded votes: Miss Lynch — aye; Vice Chair Jones — aye; Chair Robertson — no).

Other ordinances and resolutions the committee advanced to council included: - Ordinance 2025-100 (require side-by-side publication of mayor’s proposed budget and agency-level requests): forwarded to full council with no committee recommendation following discussion that a separate budget task force had recommended delaying action until the new budget process has been used for a cycle. - Ordinance 2025-187 (FY2026 work plan and budget for the Downtown Special Service and Assessment Districts): forwarded with recommendation to approve. - Ordinance 2025-204 (amendment and extension with the National Recreation and Park Association to continue the Mentoring Opportunities for Youth Initiative; supports the We Matter program): forwarded with recommendation to approve. Chris Perlke, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities, said federal funding delays had held up spending and the NRPA extended the project period so the city can use the grant through the next year. - Ordinance 2025-205 (accept $125,000 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and amend the FY25–FY26 special fund budget for the Help Me Help You program): forwarded with recommendation to approve. - Ordinance 2025-206 (establish a Disposable Plastic Bag Tax Special Fund and appropriate an estimated $200,000 in revenue for local cleanups, education and distribution of reusable bags to SNAP/WIC recipients): forwarded with recommendation to approve. Laura Thomas, Director of the Office of Sustainability, said the estimate is based on per-capita rates from other cities in the state and that initial revenue would be used to hire a staff member and run allowed programs under state law. - Resolution 2025-R40 (acceptance of the findings of the 2023 minority business enterprise disparity study and request that the Office of Minority Business Development implement the study recommendations and conduct a disparity study every five years beginning FY26–27): forwarded with recommendation to approve. Pat Foster, Director of Minority Business Development, said the study provided legal basis and a roadmap to close procurement disparities.

Public reaction and committee discussion: public commenters ranged from labor leaders to seniors and homeowners. Crystal Jordan, an Eighth District resident and school employee, urged a tax-rate reduction and asked the committee to consider relief for residents who both work and live in the city. Councilmember Reva Trammell (Eighth District), the lead patron of the $1.16 proposal, delivered a lengthy statement urging an immediate reduction of four cents, citing residents’ struggles in her district and urging more aggressive collection of delinquent taxes. The administration cautioned that the city has rising costs — including healthcare and debt service — and that federal and state funding streams are uncertain, which will reduce available resources.

Next steps: both competing ordinances will go to the full City Council. The administration and councilmembers agreed to provide additional, lay-language analyses showing how different rates would affect households and which services or projects might be impacted. The committee’s recommendation means the $1.20 proposal will appear on the council agenda with a favorable recommendation; the $1.16 ordinance will also go to council but without a committee position.

Votes at a glance (committee action) - Ordinance 2025-100 — forward to council, no recommendation — outcome: approved by committee vote. - Ordinance 2025-187 — forward to council with recommendation to approve — outcome: approved by committee vote. - Ordinance 2025-204 — forward to council with recommendation to approve — outcome: approved by committee vote. - Ordinance 2025-205 — forward to council with recommendation to approve — outcome: approved by committee vote. - Ordinance 2025-206 — forward to council with recommendation to approve — outcome: approved by committee vote. - Ordinance 2025-207 ($1.20) — forward to council with recommendation to approve — outcome: approved by committee vote. - Ordinance 2025-208 ($1.16) — forward to council with no recommendation — outcome: approved by committee vote (tie broken by recorded no vote from the chair). - Resolution 2025-R40 — forward to council with recommendation to approve — outcome: approved by committee vote.

What the committee did not decide: the committee did not adopt the $1.16 tax rate as its recommendation. Committee members and administration repeatedly emphasized that specific spending cuts or offsets to make up revenue shortfalls would be identified only after a council decision; the administration said it would be required to reconcile the adopted budget with any change in the revenue assumption and present options.

Looking ahead: the tax-rate ordinances and the budget-related measures will appear before the full City Council at the next council meeting. Committee members requested accessible, “side-by-side” comparisons for residents showing the household-level impact of each rate and clearer explanations of which services or projects would be cut if the lower rate is adopted.