Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews FY25‑26 budget forecast; residents and council members press to fill vacancies and restore services
Summary
City finance staff presented a multi‑year general fund forecast and spending options for FY25‑26. Community speakers and several city council members urged prioritizing direct‑service staffing — parks, code enforcement, libraries and youth programs — and requested clearer position‑control and budget trade‑off scenarios.
City Finance Director Andrea Miller and the City Manager presented Richmond’s proposed FY2025‑26 general fund budget and a five‑year forecast Tuesday evening, highlighting uncertain revenues and rising personnel costs.
Miller described updated revenue projections (the presentation included a $2.3 million upward revision to sales and use tax projections), an overall proposed general‑fund revenue total near $308.55 million and proposed expenditures near $260.05 million. Miller said the draft budget did not include cost‑of‑living increases because many bargaining units remain in negotiation; the proposal instead included step increases for employees not at the top of their range.
Staff presented three fiscal scenarios — pessimistic, middle‑of‑the‑road and optimistic — and warned of continuing economic uncertainty, unfunded actuarial liability pressures from CalPERS, and inflationary pressures on operating costs. The presentation also laid out capital projects in the near‑term CIP that the city has funded or planned, including parks and streets projects across multiple districts.
Public commenters and multiple council members focused on service delivery and staffing. Speakers from the Commission on Aging and community groups urged more senior services and Commission funding; residents asked the council to restore library staffing, community center programming and to prioritize filling public‑works vacancies. Several council members asked staff for a prioritized “position list” — a short list of positions the city intends to post and fill first — to make the city’s hiring intentions transparent.
Councilmembers asked staff to prepare a version of the budget that shows the tradeoffs of allocating $3 million to Harbor 8 Park (a motion the council approved later in the meeting) and to clarify how vacancy‑savings assumptions translate into actual posted positions. Multiple councilmembers said they want monthly updates on vacancy rates and more transparency about which positions will be filled.
The council did not adopt the final budget at the meeting; staff said they will incorporate council direction and return with a balanced budget for adoption before the charter deadline (the staff memo referred to adoption on June 24). The city manager also told council that staff had issued two RFPs for immigrant legal services (see separate article) and that, while the first RFP was unsuccessful, an item will appear at the July 1 meeting to authorize a contract while the council is on recess.
Councilmembers and community speakers emphasized that implementing planned capital projects would require sufficient maintenance and staffing; several speakers warned that capital investments without ongoing operating capacity would underdeliver to residents. Staff said they would provide the additional detail requested — position‑priority lists, CIP funding sources and budget tradeoff scenarios — to inform the council’s upcoming final budget adoption vote.
