Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates surplus accounting, recurring revenue and calls for audit of FY25 amendments
Summary
Councilmembers pressed administration on whether $12 million identified after FY25 budget adoption became recurring baseline revenue and whether $3.9M GAFT funds were properly reflected in the FY26 book; CAO Donald said the figures stem from assessment timing and urged written questions for detailed responses.
At a Richmond City Council budget work session, several members raised concerns about how the city recorded additional revenue identified after last year’s budget adoption and how that affects recurring versus one‑time allocations.
Councilmember Gibson said the council’s budget book did not reflect a previously adopted $3.9 million line item for local social services and asked the city auditor to review whether the budget aligned with the ordinance adopted in November 2024. "I would like us to revise this number to be the $3,900,000, which is that amount, and also task our auditor to do an audit of whether or not the city budget has aligned with the ordinance as it was adopted in November 2024," Gibson said.
CAO Donald told the council the late identification followed a land‑book/assessment finalization that occurred after the budget was adopted; he said the underlying revenue source was recurring assessment growth but that timing created one‑time uses in FY25. "The $12,000,000 is part of your assessments... that source continues forward," Donald said, and he offered to respond in writing and provide further documentation.
Gibson also asked for clearer documentation on roughly $750,000 in 'yellow' items labeled "addressed by administration," seeking the administration’s accounting of where those planned items would be funded. Several members agreed the council should receive a detailed breakdown of salary adjustment impacts and any yellow‑flagged items before finalizing amendments.
Council directed staff to work with administration to provide the requested breakdowns and deliver written responses; staff committed to producing the information and an updated budget supplement to increase transparency before adoption.
Separately, Councilmember Bridal proposed carving the $21 million Complete Streets bucket into subcategories such as paving, sidewalks, CIP support and planning to make spending priorities more visible; Transportation Director Andy Bano described how paving plans can include lane‑narrowing and speed‑table interventions as traffic calming measures.
Council did not take a formal vote during the work session. Council staff will collaborate with the city attorney and administration to draft amendment language for the formal meeting and to provide written clarifications requested by council members.
