Unions and HR warn high vacancy rate is straining city services; union leaders urge clearer hiring benchmarks

Human Resources and bargaining units presented competing perspectives on how vacancy levels are affecting city operations and public safety.

Sharon Taylor, the city's human resources director, reported the AB 2561-mandated vacancy hearing data for calendar year 2025: the city processed more than 6,000 applications, conducted 68 recruitments and hired 91 people while recording an average vacancy rate of about 18% during the year. Taylor said retirement and resignations were the largest contributors to separations and described steps to shorten hiring timelines, expand training and create promotional pathways.

At the AB 2561 hearing SEIU President Kevin Tisdale said the practical effect of high vacancy-holdings is fewer frontline staff and delayed services. He and SEIU field staff asked council for a clear hiring and staffing benchmark so departments can meet public-service expectations.

"Nineteen percent is not sustainable," Kevin Tisdale said, urging council to provide direction on hiring and staffing benchmarks. SEIU's presentation also included an estimate of vacancy-related budget savings (positions held vacant reduce payroll outlay) and argued those savings constrain hiring capacity.

The Richmond Police Officers Association (RPOA) likewise emphasized public-safety consequences. RPOA President Ben Theriault told council the department's authorized sworn strength and the number of officers on the street were both well below national and peer benchmarks; the union referenced consulting reports that recommend a substantially higher sworn headcount than is currently authorized and staffed. The RPOA called for pay and benefit changes and other retention measures tied to bargaining priorities to reduce forced overtime and burnout.

Councilors questioned which positions were actively posted versus being kept unfilled for budget reasons, and staff acknowledged both hiring capacity limits (onboarding/training and HR processing) and uncertainty while ongoing labor MOUs are finalized. Several council members asked for a clearer mapping of position-control counts versus filled positions, a multi-year comparative position listing that shows actual filled numbers, and a fiscal estimate of how different vacancy-rate assumptions translate to personnel-dollar differences.

Next steps: HR will return with requested clarifications (counts vs percentages, multi-year position actuals and a clearer mapping from vacancy rate to budgeted dollars). Union leaders urged immediate council direction to prioritize hiring in critical frontline areas.