Richmond — Richmond City Council spent much of a marathon budget work session debating proposed changes to the fiscal year 2026 capital plan, with the council pressing administration officials for documentation on the city’s revenue projections, declining to accept cuts to police, fire and refuse vehicle replacements, and directing staff to move funding for the Laburnum widening project into a citywide Complete Streets/sidewalks category.

The session also produced a lengthy exchange over Mayo Island, where Parks Department staff told council members the city faces a roughly $16 million cost to restore the site and could be liable for about $9 million if it fails to meet grant obligations. Council members asked for more detailed cost breakdowns and for the administration’s efforts to negotiate timing with state partners; staff said they will deliver additional documentation and follow-up meetings.

Why it matters: The council’s decisions will determine which capital projects are delayed, which neighborhood improvements move forward and how the city will close a roughly $2.8 million gap to fund the Richmond People’s Budget proposals. Council members repeatedly framed choices as trade-offs between neighborhood infrastructure, participatory-budget priorities and long-lived capital commitments such as parks and bridges.

Council members began the session by reviewing the capital amendments and proposed reductions staff had compiled. Interim Chief of Staff Matthew Slats and Interim Deputy Chief of Staff Daniel Wagner walked the group through options staff identified for creating funds — chiefly limited reductions in a cash-funded fleet replacement line and halting the Laburnum widening project in the Third District so that those dollars could be repurposed for citywide Complete Streets improvements.

On Laburnum and sidewalks
Council members agreed in the meeting that the $959,617 proposed for the Laburnum widening project could be removed from that specific project and reallocated to a citywide Complete Streets bucket that would be constrained to bond-eligible, long-lived work (projects with a useful life of at least 20 years). That reallocation was described by staff as an option that could fund sidewalks, paving and traffic-calming measures across districts.

Daniel Wagner, Interim Deputy Chief of Staff, said staff could instead place a text amendment that earmarked the $959,617 specifically for the sidewalk portion of Complete Streets if council preferred.

On fleet and upfitting
The council repeatedly declined to accept staff proposals that would reduce funding for police, fire or the refuse (solid waste) fleet. Administration staff and council members said those particular vehicles — and the radio-shop work that outfits them — are integral to operations.

Gail Johnson, director of General Services, described the fleet-replacement program as staggered by useful life and said many non-public-safety vehicles are older “and we have to put more money into” replacement. Staff flagged a roughly $2.6 million figure as the portion of proposed fleet reductions tied to Parks, Animal Care & Control, and other DPW vehicles (excluding refuse, police and fire), and noted that some smaller fleet reductions could be considered, but not the public-safety and refuse categories.

On the Richmond People’s Budget
Council and staff described a crosswalk conducted to match participatory-budget (People’s Budget) priorities to existing capital lines. Daniel Wagner said the ranked-choice crosswalk showed a funding need of about $2,780,000 to cover the top projects selected across districts. The administration was asked to return an itemized crosswalk showing where those projects could be funded from existing CIP lines or where the gap remained; staff said they would attempt to deliver that analysis to council by the end of day the next business day.

On Mayo Island
Parks Director Chris Frelke said staff have pursued the site for years and that the award the city accepted included flood-mitigation grant conditions. Frelke said the $16 million estimate reflects substantial soil remediation, including lowering the island and addressing contamination. He told the council “we have to get this done by October … we need to start the demolition.”

When asked about the consequences of not meeting grant deadlines, Frelke said the city could face substantial exposure: “We might also have to — some of the grant dollars that we received for this — we may also have to reimburse as part of that. So it’s additional dollars,” and he provided a staff estimate that the city’s net exposure would be about $9 million if it failed to proceed on schedule.

Public-works director Bobby Vincent said the state’s planned Mayo Bridge replacement does not, as currently scoped, include the demolition of all buildings on the island; the city and state are coordinating, but staff said the city still must meet federal and state grant requirements and timing. Maggie Anderson, director of Intergovernmental Affairs, told council she had not led advocacy to alter the contracted grant terms and said such approaches would have been most effective earlier in the award process.

Council members asked for a written breakdown of the cost estimate and documentation of state and VDOT coordination; staff said they would supply the detailed estimate and related communications.

On Browns Island and Venture Richmond
Staff and council members noted prior commitments to partner with Venture Richmond on Browns Island improvements. Administration staff said Venture Richmond has raised a portion of its match and that the city’s current proposed $6 million match is in the FY 2026 CIP; several council members said they opposed cutting the Browns Island commitment now because the nonprofit’s fundraising is already underway.

On DPU and gas main extensions
City utilities staff told the council the “gas new business” line continues to be necessary under enterprise-fund accounting. Scott Morris, director of the Department of Public Utilities, said main-extension work is tied to new development and enterprise accounting rules mean the city cannot simply move that line to the general fund; council members indicated they did not want to reduce that enterprise-funded line.

On revenue projections and follow up
Council Member Gibson pressed administration staff for a reconciliation between the fiscal 2024 actual property-tax receipts reported in the CAFR and the budget-year revenue estimates used for FY 2026 planning. Gibson asked staff to show the math behind the FY 2026 property-tax projection and to provide a year-to-year comparison (FY 2024 actuals to FY 2025 adopted to FY 2026 proposed). Budget staff agreed to provide a line-by-line reconciliation showing where growth and one-time collection changes were applied.

Votes and formal actions
The only recorded formal vote during the session was approval of a motion allowing Council Member Sarah Abubaker to participate electronically in the meeting under the council’s rules; the motion passed on unanimous voice/aye responses from council members present.

What’s next
Administration agreed to supply several items for council follow-up: a detailed cost estimate and grant-relationship documentation for Mayo Island, a crosswalk showing precisely how the People’s Budget projects could be funded (and the remaining gap if any), itemized lists and timelines for district capital requests, and a revenue-projection reconciliation that compares FY 2024 actuals to the adopted FY 2025 and proposed FY 2026 numbers. The council moved from the capital discussion into operating-budget questions at the end of the session.

(For evidence, the budget discussion begins when the clerk handed the floor to staff and the budget team at the start of the capital review and continues through the council’s request for a revenue reconciliation; the administration committed to returning written details on the items above.)