Councilors press for publication of budget amendments, ask for extra public hearing before adoption

Council members at a Richmond City Council budget work session asked the administration to publish unfiltered council amendments and to schedule an additional public hearing so residents can review proposed changes before the council adopts the fiscal year budget.

Councilmember Phoebe Gibson (identified in the transcript as Councilmember Gibson) said she had submitted an amendment to fund the city’s participatory “People’s Budget” and expressed concern that the public would not be able to see amendments before a scheduled public hearing. “I did put in an amendment to fund it,” she said, and asked that unfiltered submissions be uploaded immediately so constituents can review them.

Matthew Slatz, interim chief of staff, told council the administration had compiled council priorities submitted late last year into amendments and that a batch of amendments submitted last week was received by administration and would be shared with council. Slatz said the internal “pencils down” deadline to get amendments to the city attorney’s office is the 20th/21st (staff phrasing in session), to allow time for drafting before the scheduled May adoption and to meet school and local government charter timelines cited in the presentation (May 15 for schools and May 31 for local government adoption deadlines, as noted by staff).

Why it matters: council members and staff said public review of possible changes is essential for meaningful public comment. Several councilors said the current calendar and a compressed amendment timeline limit public participation, particularly because many members are new to the process and community members need time to evaluate proposals.

What council asked for: Gibson and other members asked that the city post the raw amendment submissions (the “unfiltered documents”) immediately, and that administration schedule another public hearing before final adoption so the public can comment on the amendments once they are visible. Slatz and interim staff said they will publish the materials and that staff will return with more refined crosswalks and administration responses; Sabrina Joy Hogg noted the administration received the compiled amendments today at 12:30 p.m. and that staff will need time to prioritize responses.

Other points raised: Council members expressed frustration with the internal April 9 deadline for amendments, saying it was hard to meet given the short notice and changes since December (including water system issues and other emergent priorities). Council member Bridal clarified that the April 9 deadline was an internal organizational deadline and asked staff to clarify legal deadlines and the final calendar for drafting and adoption. Slatz reiterated the administration’s timeline for drafting and the need to submit materials to the city attorney to produce final amendment wording in time for adoption.

Next steps: staff said they will publish the council amendment submissions, provide administration crosswalks and responses, and work with council leadership to identify an additional public hearing opportunity before the May adoption dates cited. Council members signaled they will continue to press for clearer timelines and more public transparency during the remainder of the budget review process.

Ending: the work session continued with other budget items and staff agreed to follow up with more specific answers and documents for council and the public.