Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond Sanitary District board approves three-year AFSCME contract with 3% wage package
Summary
The Richmond Sanitary District board approved a three-year AFSCME contract Dec. 4, 2025, that includes a 3% wage adjustment phased over three years and several language updates on on-call pay, probationary rules, drug-testing language and benefits administration.
Get email alerts on the Labor Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Richmond Sanitary District board voted Dec. 4 to approve a new three-year collective bargaining contract with AFSCME that includes a 3% wage adjustment spread across the term and multiple administrative updates.
The Director told the board the contract updates were largely language clarifications and operational adjustments. Key changes include revised on-call pay (increasing equivalency from 1.5 to 2 hours on regular days and from 2 to 3 hours on holidays), clarified probationary-employee absence language, updated drug and alcohol testing language to mirror the city policy manual, and simplified wording for military leave and family medical leave provisions. The contract also increases wages and compensation by 3% over three years and updates longevity-pay calculations and certain stipends. The Director said the contract term was extended to a new three-year duration.
Mister Bakshi moved to recommend approval of the AFSCME contract as presented; President Miller seconded. With no discussion, the board approved the motion by voice vote.
The board record does not include edits to the agreement text beyond the Director’s summary; the Director said he sent a tracked-changes version and a clean copy to board members prior to the meeting. The contract’s implementation steps, effective dates and whether any budget adjustments are required were not specified during the meeting.
Next steps: The contract takes effect under the new three-year term as described by staff; the board did not request additional review before signing. For readers seeking the contract text or implementation timeline, staff indicated those documents were distributed to board members but did not state a public posting schedule.

