City Council members continued a budget work session focused on personnel costs and operating reductions, advancing questions about a proposed 3.25% salary increase for certain non‑union staff and an administration proposal to reduce $1,068,971 from the operating budget, including the Richmond Resilience Initiative.

The discussion matters because personnel costs make up a large share of the city budget; council members said they want clearer data on salary changes, vacant positions that could be cut, and whether some contractor positions (janitorial and security) should be brought in‑house to control costs and improve wages.

Administration budget staff described a package of proposed operating reductions totaling $1,068,971 that would be available to help fund council amendments. "We have come up with a little less than $1,100,000. It's $1,068,971," said Ms. Brown, the budget director. The administration said the reductions are a mix of a program reduction and vacant positions: a recommendation to reduce funding for the Richmond Resilience Initiative (a guaranteed‑income program originally funded through ARPA), four currently vacant positions in the Office of Community Wealth Building, one position in the Department of Public Works and two long‑vacant positions in the General Registrar's Office.

Several council members pushed back on taking funding from the Office of Community Wealth Building, which they said focuses on anti‑poverty programs, eviction diversion and supportive services. "How do we justify that at the same time and making only one major recession risk concession of $1,000,000 and taking 50% of that from the Department that is here to address poverty?" Council Member Robertson asked.

Much of the session centered on a proposed 3.25% salary adjustment that would apply to non‑union staff in higher pay grades. Council Member Gibson said she wanted the body to prioritize lower‑paid, frontline employees: "We're trying to find a way to fund things for folks that are going to be taking a huge financial hit… we need to help custodians and security workers making a living wage." Several council members described a perception that increases for management and new hires have outpaced raises for front‑line staff.

Council Member Aberbacher cited documents the body received showing large increases in some positions and said the council must decide whether to accept a prepackaged budget or to question hiring and pay decisions. "If we are in a budget crunch and there's not money and we're fighting over scraps for our districts and for direct services… that's when I take issue with these 35, 40, 70, 75, 155 percent increases," she said, asking for clearer data.

Administration and staff urged caution about direct comparisons between fiscal years. "Those salary amounts were what was budgeted. That's not necessarily what somebody was making at the current time," Ms. Brown said, noting vacant positions are budgeted at minimums in one year and may be filled at midpoints the next year, which can look like large percentage changes in the data.

Department leaders and public‑safety officials described recruitment, retention and compression concerns if some staff received raises while supervisors did not. "Not giving this basic raise will have, particularly with four captains, direct… there are lieutenants that will make more than them," Richmond Police Chief Rick Edwards said, urging consistency to preserve leadership pay structure. Bobby Vincent, director of Public Works, also warned that compression and perceived unfairness harm team morale.

Council members asked the administration for follow‑up information before the council takes final action: a clearer reconciliation of FY25 adopted to FY26 proposed salaries and an explanation of which vacant positions are being suggested for elimination, plus a detailed comparison of the cost and tradeoffs of bringing janitorial and security staff in‑house versus continuing contract arrangements. Councilmembers also asked staff to include employee classifications, actual salaries (not only budgeted amounts), and general‑fund impacts for proposed changes.

The work session continued into procedural topics. No formal vote on the 3.25% adjustment or on the administration's proposed reductions was recorded during the session; council members scheduled further discussion later the same evening and asked the administration for the requested clarifications.

Details raised in the session included: the administration's prior estimate of $381,105 for added auditor staff capacity (with an option to charge some costs to the Department of Public Utilities), a submitted janitorial/security estimate of $1,710,800 versus an administration estimate near $3.5 million for related staffing/cost scenarios, and council staff references to a proposed $750,000 reduction figure with a general‑fund portion of $535,000. The administration characterized the $1,068,971 figure as a starting point to support council amendments.

Council members repeatedly framed the discussion around equity, transparency and fiscal priorities: whether the city should preserve funds for anti‑poverty programs, invest in frontline wages, or maintain raises intended to aid recruitment and retention for specialized or senior staff. The council recessed and planned to reconvene at 6 p.m. with the administration to supply the additional requested data.