Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon, everyone.

The city council's budget work session will now come to order.

And Madam Clerk or Mr.

Clerk, if you would provide us with the emergency evacuation announcements.

Upon activation of the emergency alarm signal, all persons should immediately exit the building.

Please use the exits to the left or right front of the council chamber or the east or west stairwell outside the rear doors of the chamber.

Do not use elevators or escalators.

After exiting the building, security will direct everyone down 9th Street to the assembly area located inside the former public safety building parking lot.

Able persons should assist visually and hearing impaired visitors with exiting the building.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

Mr.

Warren, our council chief of staff will provide the protocol for this meeting.

And then prior to our going into our discussion, Councilmember Trammell wanted to provide comment.

So do you want to Madam President?

I want to um I've been getting calls this morning.

People upset they saw something in the Times dispatch.

And I've already spoken to Parker, and it was definitely some confusion the other day with this cola, and it's no no fault of Samuel Parker, no fault of you, RJ, or but I want to I want to have it cleared up because I think we kept saying it was supposed to be a cola, but then it got printed that it was a bonus.

It is not a bonus, it is a cola.

So if you can please, because people are listening and the retirees, some of them in my district are very upset because they said not really saying I didn't tell the truth, but they said when I called him, I told him this was not a bonus, this was a cola.

So what this is, RJ uh Maine Police Council, RJ Warren, Council Chief of Staff.

So what this is, there is a desire to find a long-term solution for establishing permanent colas that happen frequently, maybe even annually.

That needs to be addressed still with you know after this budget season.

So what we established the other day on Monday is instead of doing a forcing the issue of a cola to a permanent cola to happen that would require 10 years of payment on one cola, what we were doing is we were providing mem uh members of the Richmond Retirement System who are receiving benefits at this time, a one percent a one time payment, a bonus payment that is the equivalent of a one percent cola for this year.

So if we were to have approved an actual cola, it would have been for one percent and uh it would have been for forever, but we have to figure out how to finance that.

So right now, until we bridge that solution, what this is is a one-time payment in the amount of a one year one year's worth of a one percent cola.

So they are getting one percent more this year and their benefits than they did last year.

But we got to find a solution for next year.

Because we started out like a one point five, but then it went to one percent.

Yes, ma'am.

That's right.

But if we're gonna make it clear right now, this is not a bonus, this is a cola.

And we, as our the president of council said, we are going to bring that board here, and we're gonna have some discussion, and I mean some good discussion to find out how or to make have some solutions so we don't have to go through this every year, because like they said, it's been 16 years and it's not fair.

It's on top of my to it's on top of my to-do list.

This issue.

As of today, want everybody to hear this.

This is not a bonus.

This is a cola.

And we will go from here.

It is a one-time payment.

I have to clarify that.

We have to address it again.

But is that but next year it's not going to be a no bonus either.

We've got to go back and do back to the get the word bonus.

Forget that word bonus.

I don't want to hear that.

This is a cola.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Okay, so I I want to make sure we're absolutely clear.

This is a one time payment that is the equivalent.

One percent cola.

One time payment that is the equivalent.

We'll have to address it again next year.

That is correct.

Wait a minute, wouldn't you?

Okay.

So essentially, this is a it will be administered as a bonus equivalent to one percent.

What a one percent COLA would have been for each retiree, is what they'll receive.

Then we'll have a meeting that will allow us to then talk about how we continue to have bonuses every year.

COLAS.

Madam President, we're not using the word bonus.

We're not going to use the word bonus.

It's not a bonus, it's the COLA.

The bonus, isn't that right, RJ?

It is it is a one-time payment that can be described as a bonus payment, but it's for one year and it's the equivalent of what they would receive.

Well, y'all have not told me the truth.

It is the equivalent, it is the same amount as a 1% cola.

That's that's what each recipient is going to receive is the amount of a 1% cola.

It's just not guaranteed to happen again next year.

We have to find that solution for next year.

This year they're getting a 1% payment that is the equivalent, that's the same amount of a 1% cola.

So in if they look at their benefits over this year and the money they're receiving, they are receiving 1% more this year, which is the same as a 1% cola for this year.

And Ms.

Amold, the only thing is that the commitment, there's not that commitment until we get to the table to meet with the folks as you talked about, so we can talk about ongoing actual colas for retirees.

So we're not back at this place every single year talking about a colour for our retirees.

So how much is that?

How much is that going to be for this year?

That's what I just got to add.

Um it is the equivalent of 716, 716,000 to make that happen.

716,000 to make that happen this year.

And that's what we're doing.

That's what your colleagues have agreed to do this year.

Cola if one percent, right?

We're doing it at 1% level, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

But Ms.

It's not okay, but it's kind of like it is okay.

Because the people are thinking they're going to get a bonus and it and the cola was taken away from them after they came down here.

But it's it's the equivalent amount that they'll the amount they'll receive is equivalent to one percent.

It's to say a cola would say we're committing it ongoing.

Well, all this is saying is that it's still the one percent that we would like to have give that it's still the one percent that they would have received as a cola.

But it does not carry that commitment until we get to the table and figure out how we're gonna continue it beyond this year.

But the one percent is there.

Because we took away for the next 10 years or nine years, right?

Correct.

We we we have to find a solution next year.

That's right.

Okay.

All right.

I guess the the thing I want to absolutely be clear about is I am absolutely committed, and I think we all are to looking at making sure our retirees have a cola beyond this one percent this year.

That will require us to get back to the table or get to the table to figure out how we're going to do in advance of next fiscal year.

So we're not back in the same place, but we're committed to it.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, to give members a uh understanding where we are at this moment, this is this on the screen and being shared online is how we concluded our work session on Monday.

These are the things that council came to consensus on when it came to amending the budget and using the the FY25 surplus.

And at that time when we ended, we had a total of 22,600.

And that is now remaining in the general fund uh category for uh at council's disposal uh for allocations.

Since Monday, we have received updated information from city administration on some of the um figures for some of the items we have agreed on.

Um so Mr.

Lansdale, if you can go to the to the next calculator, the next slide.

We were originally informed that uh salary adjustments for uh employees who were scheduled to receive their adjustments in January, if we were to move them all up to July 1st.

The original number provided was 961,000.

That has since been updated to us, and we were informed that it is now 1,296,692 dollars.

And that's in the slide there, the section there says salary adjustments July January.

So what that means is if we were to put the remaining $22600,000 or $600 available to council towards that, that would leave us with a delta of $113,092 to find in order to fully fund all the things council identified and found consensus on Monday.

So that is the situation at this moment.

Thank you, Mr.

Warren.

Um councilwoman um Lynch is on route and she wanted to share um she wanted to share a recommendation with us.

I'd like to um she says she's almost here or will need to call in.

I don't believe I'll believe that she's she can call in at this time if you need to wait for her or what if you need okay.

So essentially um after getting to this place, and based on our commitment to having all employees receive at the same time 3.25 and uh having conversation about options about how to get there.

Ms.

Lynch offered that we would consider um bridging that gap or addressing that delta with okay.

I'll uh punt to her since this was something that as we talked about how we would bridge the gap.

Okay.

Um you can't hear me.

Yeah, if you can speak.

Sorry, needed to well.

I was saying as we talked about this um uh the delta that was needed to bridge the gap such that we would have the necessary funds to provide the 3.25 to all employees July 1 in conversation with Ms.

Lynch, she offered a suggestion, and I'd like to ask her to share what that is.

Yep.

Um, I mean, every budget year you have to make tough decisions.

Um, and sounds like the um in order for us to put forward a completely equitable package for the um uh uh employee raises, we would we have a gap of about what 113,000.

Um and so it sounds like you know it might make more sense since that is an urgent matter and that's gonna be implemented in January, or the goal is to have that implemented in January for that money to be reallocated so that we can do the whole package for the employees.

So it sounds like you know, if we take the Clark Springs funding off of the table, and just to reiterate that funding is to um really hire a consultant that could help us explore a collaboration with the school board, that would create um you know some potential recommendations and a feasibility study for that entire footprint.

Um I would love to continue with that work and work with the administration school board to see that you know still you know come to light.

Um, but you know, sounds like um you know, be that that funding and that effort is a long, long, long-term project, and the need for um you know the city employee raises in January, it's hitting us here.

So happy to re retool that amendment for you all.

Ms.

Lynch, I want to say thank you for that consideration and um for offering such that all of our employees July 1 would be able to receive the 3.25 percent because that fills that uh that space.

RJ, would you like to proceed from there based on yes?

So if that if if Clark Springs is removed, then what we would need to do is uh Mr.

Lansdale, if you can update the calculations up there.

But if you were to put that 125 towards the 113 delta that we were experiencing, then that would take care of that issue, make us whole and leave um eleven thousand nine hundred and eight dollars to be um left to be allocated to some item such as the family crisis fund or any other item that members felt like should receive additional funding.

Well, may I suggest Randolph Community Center for the additional replacement of equipment because 40,000 is probably not going to take us a very long way.

So the additional 11,000 would be super super helpful, and we would appreciate that so that we can continue to supply our youth with food and snacks after school because currently we're supplementing a lot of my district funds for that.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the recommendation.

It was to push the uh additional eleven thousand dollars into the existing line item that we funded for the Randolph Community Center.

Okay.

Okay.

Members.

I'd like to get some sense of your um willingness to have those eleven thousand nine hundred and eight dollars go towards an item we have already included in our proposed enhancements.

Uh the Randolph Center, Mr.

Ammill.

So she was lynch?

I'll tell you Madam President, because um what about the 200,000 that was left over from the we needed to use that to able us to have all of our employees effective July 1 have a 3.25% salary increase, and we needed that plus the additional 113,092 dollars that uh with the um Clark Springs item being pulled back allowed us to meet that anyone any member who would uh the proposal for the 11,908 consensus there, Ms.

Gibson?

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I wanted to talk about the $3.1 million dollars that's been identified as the revenue that we have to work with from the general fund.

I personally think that we should be looking at the number of $3.9 million dollars, and I'd and I'd like to explain.

So prior to my uh serving in this role, the start of my term, the previous body adopted a budget amendment to the fiscal year 2025 budget with the identified revenues that the city had identified of 12 million dollars.

Um this body adopted the budget in uh May as it normally does, and then in October, the city identified an additional 12 million dollars of revenue.

This was property tax revenue that was used to um fund a number of seemingly one-time projects, but it was recurring revenue.

One of those projects was the um Gap Git grant program, um, which was funded at $3.9 million.

So when this body and myself and the other new folks joined the body and began work on the fiscal year 26 budget, this work of adopting the budget is incremental.

So we were looking at the fiscal year 25 budget, and then talking about the incremental changes that we'd be making on it.

There was an incremental increase in revenue of about seven percent, and then we made incremental changes to our expenses uh to coordinate with that.

So the problem is is that when we did that, we were the the budget book did not reflect the amended budget.

The budget book included a line, a column for fiscal year 25, which was the same as it was prior to the amendments made in November.

I mean, made in yes, the amendments that were adopted in November.

So when I was looking in the budget for the GAAP grant, for instance, the $3.9 million, and looking at the ordinance for the amendment, which very clearly states that that line item was to be added and identified as local uh social services for $3.9 million.

Um that line doesn't exist in the fiscal year 26 budget.

It doesn't exist anywhere, and yet it was funded with recurring revenue that was identified by the city.

So it's my understanding that the 3.168 is what was left over because the city has not completed its spend of that money that was allocated in the fiscal year 25 budget.

However, and I think that should continue as planned, right?

I mean, however, they want to use those remaining funds.

It was defined in the ordinance that even if they didn't expend them in the entire year, they could keep it and continue to have that fund until it was expended.

But we essentially should have also had been talking about an additional 3.9 million when we were working on our February on our fiscal year 26 budget, and now we should be working with that number again.

It's kind of like monopoly.

Every year you pass go, you get 200.

In this case, it's 3.9 million dollars.

So my ask is that we revise this number to be the $3.9 million dollars, 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 of 2024.

Um, because I'm frankly I'm curious about many of those funds, um, the 12 million dollars that was part of that particular um change.

Given this, what does give me some concern is that um, and you know, it's not a huge amount, but but using one-time money for recurring expenses is is generally not what I like.

And I and it's and there's a reason for it.

It's just not um it's not structurally sound in the budget.

So I I'd prefer not to see the salary adjustment funded with one-time funding by using the surplus, um, and um, and I'm also eager to see the breakdown of the salary adjustments as was requested in our last meeting to see you know what that looked like.

My other my other ask in this discussion is so last Monday when we were going through this process, and um we have a spreadsheet, you know, with these yellow items on it.

I'm I'm assuming this is public facing, it should be if it's not, but you know, with all of our amendments and the ones in yellow basically say addressed by administration.

And um, in truth, I went through and felt a little bit of like, oh goody, some of mine are yellow, right?

Which meant that the administration was taking care of them, great.

But then I got to thinking like, how is administration taking care of these things?

What does that mean?

These yellow line items add up to about $750,000 in a rough calculation.

Um, and presumably they've identified money somewhere.

And um I think it is important for us to know where those what those are and and where it came from, so that then this body could be looking at all of the available funding and making determinations on how to divvy it up.

Sure, that might mean that something that I would like to see funded may not be, um, but I believe very strongly in the importance of democratic governance.

It just doesn't feel right that the administration can cherry pick which things that they want to do, um, and it's unclear which positions.

Where this, you know, I noticed it was when we were talking about um my recommendation for several cuts for the RPS budget for the Richmond Virtual Academy.

And what I heard was that if the body decided to move forward with those cuts, then that would mean they might not be able to do some of these other gives.

And so I'm not sure.

Is that are are those some of the cuts that the administration is proposing as well.

I just think that we should do right by this process, which is to be you know, to be very transparent.

I I think it's important to know if there's $750,000 on the table, and to approach that the same way we're approaching the rest of the budget, which is I believe with um great clarity now, seeing the spreadsheet.

I mean, I love it.

Um we can ensure that there is a fair, equitable process across the board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm going to uh unpack some of this.

Okay.

Um the items that are delineated and highlighted in yellow that you're asking for greater specificity from the administration.

That's going to be an item because there were some questions that came.

Yes.

Yeah, but yes, some of those items, and when it's yellow, it means that they've already had the plans in the budget to do it, not necessarily finding funds to do it.

Um they are able to make the positions happen that members had asked for for certain uh you know, FTEs to get taken care of.

And then our plan was when we have to amend the budget ordinance uh for it to be voted on.

We're gonna our plan is to work on a document that will be included at the bot at the end of the budget ordinance that details all these yellow items so that they could be referenced throughout the summer, future budget years.

Um, so council members can hold council of staff accountable for following up on these items and city administration as well.

So not every yellow item necessarily requires funding.

It's more of a clarification that they already have it in their plans to be addressed.

And that will be provided as indicated and in discussion with the administration.

So we know that will come forward.

So that's one component in terms of what you've raised the question about.

I want to go to the two other components.

Um, I want to go back to the 11,908 dollars first, and then I'd like to go to the broader issue you raised in terms of the budget book and what appeared, etc.

So I'd like to know the balance that we have available if people would be amenable to that being placed with Randolph.

Okay.

Thank you.

So that then closes out the funding here.

Now I'd like to point that you raised in terms of the 3.9 million.

I'm going to have to ask for assistance from the administration to address that.

Welcome, Mr.

Donald.

Council.

Nope, you're good.

We're great, sir.

All right.

I'm trying to take a couple of notes.

Uh I will tell you some of this.

I appreciate some of the great questions by council member Gibson and the continued process that you guys have had throughout this process, has made me go all the way back to 2024 to kind of get some historical knowledge on some of these questions and answers.

And I think some of these activities was actually taken care of by your 2024 council as well as in your FY25 budget when you look at some of the questions around that $3.9 million and other activities.

I think we've talked about this a few times, but it was because your land book uh was not final until after budget in your collective wisdom for those council members who were here and continue by those council, those new council members, you have realigned the assessment process so that that does not become an issue uh moving forward in assessment freeze and all of the other activities that you have taken on.

I would not call that $3.9 million one-time revenue is actually continuing revenue that you utilize for a one-time source.

Um in the fall of FY25, again, the land book wasn't uh done uh and when it was uh finalized, the budget was already complete, came in higher than projected again because you had to align your assessment process.

Think at that time from the record that I've had an opportunity to review the administration and council agreed to take, I think it was about 12 million dollars and appropriate it for things like the GAAP grant that I think the council member referenced.

Uh there were some affordable housing activities and other one-time uses that you agreed to.

Since the FY 2025 land book was finalized and it included those additional uh assessments and the increase of the 12 million, we've kind of used that as a starting basis for FY26 budget development, and then the work with the assessor went forward for those projected increases.

Again, you have the assessment freeze, which is gonna take care of some of those things moving forward.

There also, I wanted to correct.

Um I thought I heard a statement that there wasn't a line item, but there actually was a line item in FY25 for the grant the gap grant funds.

So I I know that I I saw that and wanted to make sure to bring that forward.

Uh, but also uh want to make sure because I also heard something about the uh the lack of information that was included in the book, but that's actually to make sure that we're correct on that.

We want to make sure that we're aligned with the code and the code actually, the code and GFOA both says that you have to have two years of actuals uh included and and as well as the projected or proposed budget.

So both of those are included.

So I think the key is aligning with the assessment that is taken care of in the future, and all of those funds that have uh been identified are included in our budget projections.

So those things are there.

We don't believe that you'll have those issues moving forward.

Uh I do know that these questions have kind of come rapid fire today.

So, along with the other 710 or 709, that's 710, with the other 709 that we've answered and responded to council own.

We will also respond to this one as well.

We just asked that we use that process that you send it to us in writing so we can make sure to get it exactly right.

But again, your uh assessment process, the adjustments that you've made to align uh the land book and all of these other tools and resources uh in your wisdom back in 2024 and the way you've confirmed it uh in 2025 and 2026 and now beyond, we'll resolve that problem.

So I hope that that answers your question, uh Madam Chair.

So thank you.

First of all, uh Mr.

Donald Ms.

Gibson.

For me, I mean, it's seems as if the 3.168 was the number so at 3.9, we shouldn't get excited that there's some possibility is what you're saying.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Ums Gibson, additional question.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, you know, my initial points still stand, but I'm I would like to understand from Mr.

Donald, if you could explain then how is this 3.168 recurring revenue.

So your assessments had increased, and your land book, so your assessments and your tax, your revenues are recurring.

What happened though is that you do your budget or previously, your budget and your assessment cycle are off.

But your taxes are recurring revenues that you continue.

Go ahead.

Seems like you have another question.

Yeah, I under I do understand that piece.

I'm I'm asking specifically about the 3.168 million dollars that we're talking about.

Which is the same.

Which is what's remaining from the one-time application, right?

I'm I'm struggling to understand.

I got you.

Yeah.

I got you.

The 12 million is the recurring.

You decided to use it for a one-time use.

The source is recurring.

The use is not.

You decided in 2024 through your ordinance that you would allocate this amount of this recurring revenue that you receive because again, the land book is finalized after the budget.

But that revenue again is recurring.

You took out 3.9, you took out a total of 12 million back in 2024.

Those funds continue to flow, and the reason why it was one time is because of the misalignment.

Now that you're aligning everything, it'll all be included in the pot on the front end.

You won't have to make those adjustments.

So the one time decision that you made comes from a recurring revenue source that was not aligned.

It is now aligned.

So you have no reason to continue to do one time revenue actions.

Since those funds were put into finance where we believe, and I think you saw the memo because I remember you commented on it and have had conversations with other members of council.

Because it was in an area for which they could not distribute those funds as quickly as necessary, we had to go ahead and align it, spin down as much as possible so that we get rid of the backlog, and now the balance that is left over is the 3.168 from that revenue source that you allocated during, I believe, FY25.

But again, that source continues forward.

I I appreciate the clarity, and I'm I'm I am sorry to say I it's still, in my opinion, 3.168 is how much is remaining from the from the one-time expense applied in fiscal year 25.

The one time allocation, yes, that's correct.

The revenue that we received was $3.9 million.

So what is unclear to me is why if we agree that $3.9 million was recurring revenue, part of the $12 million um uh amount that was identified in fiscal year 25.

Um we also agree that of this $3.9 million dollar gap grant program, the city did not spend the full amount in 2025, and $3.1 million is remaining, right?

But the $3.1 million is remaining, was remaining in a one-time spend, but the $3.9 is the amount that's recurring.

And so no, that is incorrect.

The $12 million is a part of your assessments.

Your assessments were misaligned.

That number could be $12 million, it could be three point, it's gonna be based on your assessments.

Number could be 20 million.

Aligning the assessments, and remember you froze them, so you don't have that jump this year.

So those numbers are now included.

If I provide you a paycheck and you receive a thousand dollars a year, I'm your round numbers a thousand dollars a year, you get a raise after we set the budget, and those new funds come in.

Those are new funds for good.

But that one time that you get it, if you decide to allocate it to your car note, a new pair of shoes, taking someone out on a date, those are one time.

But if you save those funds, because we didn't spend them all, that means you have those funds still in, and that's the 3.1 that you are now allocating in whatever way you decide, for which it seems like you have a pretty robust and intuitive plan.

That does not mean that that 1,000, that extra that you got on top of that goes away.

It is just now forever incorporated.

I wish that I agreed, but we can move on.

Thank you.

I appreciate you having me too.

Before you go, CA Donald, just in case Councilman Bretton was your well.

Actually, I wanted to support council member Gibson's line of inquiry on both on both of these fronts.

Oh, okay.

Um, if it's appropriate.

I mean, I think that like almost all of our revenue because it comes from real estate taxes has a recurring source, right?

Um but if you don't set it up to a recurring payment, if you put it to a one-time, then you haven't committed to it on a recurring fashion.

So if it ends up being left over from a one-time payment, then you don't have a recurring um stream of revenue, you know, from that gap.

You only have the one time.

So I would also agree that once you earmark something for a one-time payment, you know, it's it and and start to send and the next year you dedicate it to something else, you've only created a one-time payment you can dip into.

So they agree.

I would agree with that.

I mean, like, I don't know if it's a if it if it's an ordinance that prevents us from using one-time money from for um ongoing expenses, but it but I would I would treat this, I would think of this as one time myself.

Yeah, but I would also support the other line of inquiry about um questions around the the 12 million dollar increase of recurring revenue and how it, you know, there's no clear indication that that 12 million became the new baseline in the following years, unless it's hidden inside some type of like um, you know, the land book increase or something like that.

So when we see the 26 real estate amount, it's equal to the 25 adopted, not the 25 amended, right?

And so that suggests that that 12 million dollars, you know, that there is a recurring $12 million that might be not properly accounted for.

So it's it's a complicated question.

It would take some time to get to the bottom of it, but I want to support the line of inquiry because it really does seem like a legitimate question.

Yeah, we have to continue to provide insights in the budget development, because I know that that's something that the council takes great interest in, and we'll make sure to continue to provide that.

But again, I mean I think it's one piece is we're taking beans and taking one area and putting it in another.

You increase the CBA, you increase the cost of labor, you increase uh you know how you deliver your projects, all of those things as those costs come up, that 12 million dollars is a part of the fund that we use to reach that.

Again, had these questions today.

It seems like 10 to 12 within one.

You provide those in writing as we've done the other 709.

We'll make sure to provide um that feedback without any issue.

But again, I think the misalignment with the assessment process in your own wisdom, you took care of it and aligned the budget appropriately, and that is why you have the balance of these one-time fees, but you likely won't have continued um that process that you had before due to the misalignment will not continue again because of a great decision that you made long before uh I was here and before the Bula millist administration started.

So definitely want to give you uh props on that.

And uh again, great job.

So the question we'll answer them.

We will.

Thank you.

Mr.

Warren.

Uh yes.

Uh Madam President, uh, in regards to my tasks today, we've ex um expended or allocated all available money at this moment towards uh amendments or one-time items.

So I'll defer back to the chair.

Sure.

Thank you.

So I want to make sure that the item that councilwoman Gibson raised in terms of the items that are indicated include that we work with the administration to make sure those are highlighted.

I think Mr.

Breton had some questions as well about these items, and so there's more work to be done on that in that final document.

Correct.

I do think we have I believe we have one outstanding question for Mr.

Breton on one yellow item.

Uh oh, yes, okay.

I actually have uh a question about a remaining um budget items that are not budget neutral because there are further down the list, I do have a proposed cut to the car wash line and proposed uh addition to um CIP project to get lights for TJ High School.

So, you know, I think I would like an opportunity.

I want to make sure we don't forget to bring that up and see if there's a consensus to include that amendment in the budget as well.

If yeah, if there's the consensus of council on that one, um, when it comes to the proposed cut to the car wash, um I've received an understanding from City Mistration that there's no strong opposition to a cut to that item.

Um I believe it is it has 200,000 within its budget.

And if it's the consensus of council to cut that and put it towards something, um this is the um the opportunity to do so if it's the consensus of the body.

Members, what's your pleasure?

I would love to support that um effort.

Councilmember Breton would um encourage us to consider the cut to fund your lights.

And I think I would clarify I want to make sure it got consensus, I believe it do.

Um and then the proposed usage for that.

Yeah, so I can I clarify what the proposal is.

So um the proposed cut is to take a $200,000 car wash budget and reduce it to $100,000.

Um, what we've heard is there's no strong opposition from administration about this cut.

The proposed um amendment is to put that money into the CIP budget to support um football athletic training lights at TJ High School, which is uh one of the few schools without lights.

You know, the the students there are not able to practice in the fall when the lights get dark, you know, they've worked very hard.

Obviously, athletics and academics go hand in hand.

Academics are often a trail to um scholarships.

So I've been working very hard with my counterpart and school board to line up some matching grants and private donations as well.

And so this hundred thousand dollar commitment from the city would be an excellent way to show our commitment and achieve that goal.

Um just to jump in on uh Mr.

C.

O'Donnell informed me that uh for to facilitate that and to make that amendment happen, we actually have to send that money directly to schools, not CIP uh for them to get taken care of.

But it seems like you're coordinating and speaking with support on that.

Well, I would still be in support of doing it as and I and I I would trust the body to to you know follow the spirit of the donation.

I that so my proposal remains.

Mr.

Breton, the total amount is 250, is that correct?

I would be reducing it in this proposal to 100,000 dollars.

So it'd be a one uh yeah, a 100,000 dollar um contribution to that cause in order to support matching grants.

So you think it can be leveraged?

Yes.

Okay.

Super fast on this.

Oh, sorry.

Oh, thank you, Madam President.

I was just gonna say um Richmond Education Foundation could be another opportunity for where to send those funds so that they can be specifically earmarked for this project.

Thanks.

Okay.

So I think uh councilwoman Abblabacher and then council member Dremel.

I I just had a question.

This it's not about TJ, sorry.

Um I I wanted to keep our eye on um the inquiry that I know has been made a couple times now for a full listing um of all of the positions by department that were eligible for the July 1 salary increase and those who were eligible at the January 1 salary increase.

That's information that we've still been waiting to get.

Thank you.

Okay, and so RJ, you have that.

Yeah, I've made I made the request, and once I receive it.

Okay, so provided.

I'd like to go back to Mr.

Breton's um request.

Do we have consensus on that uh reduction and then that appropriation for that purpose?

Should I by what I did hear the suggestion that we could use the Richmond Ed Fund instead of RPS?

Um is that a more um and should we and should we clarify that right now to make sure that that's our method of that like are you are you I think that's something we can work through I think the the the bigger part was the commitment for that purpose and again in conversation can figure out where that lands if that's okay.

Okay.

Uh I any other items um Mr.

Breton.

Well, yeah, I have one last one, but I was waiting to no like once the conversation's in, I'll get one last nod of consensus of what council has agreed on so far that council staff will have to get to work on when it comes to amending the budget.

But if there's future there's continuous discussions right now, yeah, I'd like to do that, and then we have our superintendent who's joined us and like after we get that final um nod, as you say, uh be able to have him share some information with us as well.

Mr.

Brighton.

Um well, I would like to speak to the um complete streets carve outs on the top of page four if that's the appropriate time to do so.

Okay, well.

May I?

Okay, so um in speaking with the administration.

So the question here, yeah, we had a lot of questions early on about how we are spending our transportation safety money.

Um we got a lot of questions around division zero or the way that we're reading those goals.

Um I have a lot, you know, there are at least five co-patrons on this question of trying to clarify the way that we spend our transportation safety money.

Now, I would like to amend what this proposal is to narrow it and make it not quite so detailed in order to allow you know the level of discretion that DPW still needs to actually operate in a nimble fashion.

But so there is a 22 million dollar 21 million dollar line item called complete streets.

And as we heard from the department themselves, it's basically broken into four main categories paving, sidewalks, CIP support, and engineering um and planning.

So what I would recommend that we do is we just crystallize those four line items as separate as a budget neutral change.

So rather than a 21 million dollar giant fund, we have 15 million in paving, two million in sidewalks, two point five million of CIP support, one point five million of planning, and then even within that 15 million paving, I would also recommend that we just have the traditional paving be separated from the um uh the striping traditional paving and speed humps.

So budget neutral change, but just to give that transparency in the budget so that we can express our budget as a statement of our values and priorities, and you people can see there's the 15 million for paving, there's a two million for sidewalks, etc.

So 2021 million dollar budget neutral carb out in DOT for complete streets.

Thank you, Mr.

Breton.

Um conversation with the administration uh about that thus far regarding this item.

I don't believe there's really consensus between the two bodies on moving forward on this.

Um there would this would be something directed by you all for us to do for me to get done.

And I believe this this specif uh the the specific breakdown that Mr.

Breton has put forward would require uh an amendment to do so.

So it's a budget neutral technically amendment from my understanding, but it would require us to do an amendment.

So I would need no I understand it's budget neutral, but I I wasn't clear as to whether or not we'd had that kind of discussion about those broader categories versus this level of specificity already.

Um so if not we can certainly um do that in the interim.

Anybody?

Yes.

You were we coming forward for a comment.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council Andy Baino, uh Director of Transportation.

Um just a little bit of clarity on the um on the line um as council member uh Bretton said, we have in the specifically in that complete streets category.

Um we break it into into these following um subcategories.

There's paving, there's transportation engineering, there's um the CIP support, the complete streets corridors, um, those are when there's a potential for overrun on a project and we can move money around.

And then the final being the sidewalks.

The key that I I want to draw everyone's attention to in that first category of paving is that more than just traditional smooth surfaces, that's where we have the opportunity to every time we resurface a street, we can make sure that the lanes are as narrow as possible, which is a direct traffic calming benefit.

So for example, if the the old street was it's all choppy, it's due for repaving and the lanes were 11 feet or 12 feet wide, when we go repave, we can now make those 10 feet wide, uh which is much safer.

Or if it's transit route, bring it down from if it's a 12-foot lane down to 11 and so on.

And then in addition, we're able to through the scale of having these um paving contractors do all this work for us so often.

They're also they've also developed an expertise with our speed table program.

So with the speed tables, in addition to paving, it's so much more than just the traditional smooth streets kind of project.

Um everything that's in this category of complete streets, and then specifically in the paving subcategory is all towards making our streets safer for everyone.

Um again, whether that's through making the lanes narrow, creating bike lanes, adding speed tables, uh, and so on.

Thank you.

Councilman Bretton, did you have a further comment on that?

So, yes.

So I my proposal is basically to mirror as closely as possible the reality of the spending as it is, um, but to create that transparency to show those buckets, the paving the side of the sidewalks, the um engineering support and the CIP support.

I mean, potentially I can understand that because once you make it more crystallized, you can create a situation where you where you wish you could move your money around, but but it's stuck somewhere.

You know, so I might recommend that we um you know increase the discretionary line item on that a little bit just to uh make room for that.

But what this I mean, we're getting a lot of support and questions around the transparency of our spending.

So to so people here complete streets as a safety program, but it would be great to show more granularity of what it is, you know, the paving versus the sidewalk.

So basically to match what it is, but to show it in the budget.

Thank you.

So RJ will work with our administrative partner, of course, to that uh extent in terms of that level of specificity, but without creating a scenario that precludes or impacts the work getting done and movement of resources to accomplish it.

I think councilwoman Trammell.

I just got it clear, it's okay now.

Okay.

She's okay.

She's okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um RJ, then I'll just kind of summarize at this moment.

Um one second, I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able to do that.

I'm sorry.

I just have a point of clarification on Councilmember Breton's um amendment, which I do think you know fully support.

Are we are the numbers are we voting though on the numbers you're proposing to be the exact numbers for each bucket, or can we leave room for flexibility there?

Well, so important question.

So my um well, that amend those numbers there are are basically no longer on the table.

Um what I'm proposing now is to basically match the 21 million dollar complete streets budget to the four buckets that he described.

So it's a much less granular proposal than that.

Okay, because we're not we're not in com we're not saying that those need to be encumbered, a specific amount needs to be encumbered in the line item.

Well um we want that, but we're not telling them how much and for which bucket, correct?

Well, the buckets are very broad, right?

So it's a 21 million dollar large bucket.

Whatever whatever the delta is, but um, that's why I'm saying we need to we need to be just maybe a little bit flexible about which um about the the exact amount and which bucket.

I don't know that we up on this dias know that right now.

Well, um I mean that yeah, I I agree we have to work it out with the with the administration, but but if if there is still the consensus that people want to see this extra level transparency in this line item, then we can make sure that we get it done this week.

And done in a way that does not preclude or negatively impact the work needing to be done up uh CAO.

Could we simply provide an additional page in the budget book that highlights the breakdown and then provide an aster guard notation that states that you know, based on uh need, et cetera, there may be adjustments, but kind of break down that plan that you're asking for.

I think that way it still allows us to I'm just making the assumption there are two speed tables that are needed here, adjustment for bike lanes, there all of those things that happen, but at least we're transparent on the plan and we have a supplement to the budget page.

Would that resolve the issue and provide the level of transparency you're looking for?

Uh I'll let my colleagues, I guess, chime in because I have supporters here.

I want to make sure I don't want to speak for all of them.

Ms.

Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I've been spending a little bit of time looking at neighboring municipalities and their budgets.

Um the Chesterfield budget has um a nice breakdown of their uh public works general fund spending.

Um they have line items for administration, for road maintenance, for traffic engineering, for construction, design, mass transit, environmental standing water initiative, transportation and mobility, real property, and then a line item for construction engineering inspection.

So I do think that there is some precedent for providing the kind of breakdown that we've been discussing.

I would presume that these neighboring municipalities also have the same um revenue types and interest for flexibility, however, given that there is some precedent, I think um this type of uh breakdown, and I'm not um asserting that these specific categories are the ones that we should be looking at that uh that this type of breakdown is not out of the norm um to consider for our budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And at this point, CA O'Donnell, I think you hear the Yeah, it's not an issue.

I'm yeah, I'm gonna go proposed solution.

Yeah, yeah, we do could and we could have staff work with you know between RJs so that comes back.

I mean without being redundant.

So maybe in a way that does not negatively impact our ability to get the work done at Cars those bucket area, all of that.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Vice President Jordan, did you have okay?

Councilwoman Trump.

Do we know with um as Odie mentioned earlier with this tax relief freeze that we did before some of the council members got on board?

Do we know how much that has impacted the city or budget?

Um CAO Donald And then what I'd like to do because I know I had many, many questions about it, but it got passed.

Sure.

CAO Donald's gonna come and then RJ's going to ask that we get the consensus here, and then because I don't want to tie up our superintendent for extended if there is a question, if not, then fine.

All righty.

So it that kind of has to have a two-part answer to that question.

I think we saw real estate growth is what we'll call it of about $7 million down from about $50, $45 million from the year before.

I don't have those numbers in front of me.

But the assessor actually in his recent, I think he came before the body, and we don't have those answers yet, but I think he will be able to provide those in the very near future.

But I'll I want to defer to the assessor because he he does that assessment process, but the basis for our growth is uh minimal this year based on the freeze.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr.

Donald.

Councilman Lynch.

I didn't I didn't want to open this cam can of worms.

Um but I mean we did not, I just wanted to go on record that we did not get to have the discussion about uncertified revenues.

I began to broach that question um last week and held it for uh Monday's discussion, but we really have not gotten an explanation as to why we don't have a more material answer, um, and by that I mean more of a dollar amount on our uncertified revenues.

I've been sitting on this body since 2019, and every year we have uncertified revenues.

I recognize that there is a freeze, but the data points that are coming in in both the form of revenue collection and market trend data, which underpin our um the budget assumptions that our um whole operating budget is built on are should should give us a better sense as to whether or not we're going to have a delta between the current projections and what's what could come in.

In other words, we're either going to have a little bit of a surplus or there's some uncertified revenue sitting out there right now that somebody's probably got an idea about what that number is that we're not discussing.

We could certainly um ask the administration, but I can't tell you the number of times I've talked to the assessor around uh additional revenue possibilities.

And um, you know, he has provided what he thinks based on what he sees in our market to be the appropriate um percent and numbers.

So I don't know if uh Mr.

if our CAO has any further comment on that remote.

It's uncertified revenue term of art um between what a surf, I mean well, I don't want to man explain to you, but term of art, you know, when we have when we say uncertified revenue, um that is that is the m that is the revenue that we are projecting when we're in a current um when we're in our current operating budget year, the surplus as you know, um would precede that closely surplus.

So go on.

Yeah, so I think you mentioned that you asked the question, and so we'll make sure to respond to we responded to a great wealth.

I think they told me that we're up to about 90 percent of all questions that have been asked have been responded to.

If they've been within the last week or so, they're in process.

And I know we're working with the council chief of staff on that.

So again, I wasn't I don't remember the question that came in, but we'll make sure to provide answers to that and any other questions that are outliers.

I think we're gonna get a few from today's session as well.

So thank you, Mr.

Donald.

Um councilmember Gibson and then uh Chief of Staff Warren, I do want to get to the overview and general consensus in terms of this package, and then if we have uh as I said, we have our superintendent here.

So if there are any questions, we can get to that.

So councilwoman.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I I wanted to um you know thank Councilmember Lynch for for highlighting the point regarding uncertified revenues, um, and and also underscore the reality that last year we had a surplus, we thought it was going to be 22 million, then it was 12 million, but even the 12 million is just a piece, right?

That's just what was left after additional funding, also funded the downtown reserve fund and the capital maintenance reserve.

And whenever funds are going into those reserves, um, they're not being put to use in a way that directly benefits residents today.

And so I really think that having this discussion and getting clarity on the calculation behind last year of the 2025 surplus and the impact of you know the additional new construction that's coming up.

I mean, I would presume that when the land book values would change in during the budget process as we are right now, what was the difference was it was new construction.

And anyone that spends time in Richmond right now knows that there is a lot of building that's happening.

And so you know, perhaps the amount is negligible, but as we are talking about such a small percentage of our budget and these amendments that we'd like to fund, even a small amount could go a long way.

Um, you know, between Monday and today, the Richmond Virtual Academy has fallen from the list of potential amendments.

Um there was 200,000 that we had agreed on as a body to put towards that.

Um unfortunately the uh miscalculation from the administration is also about 200,000.

And so, and so that that line item is not here.

You know, being able to identify an additional million dollars would go a very long way, and being able to support these students.

And um, and I uh you know very interested to to look under every rock and ensure that we are spending dollars um and in a way that again provides uh direct benefit and um so that we are not uh prioritizing these rainy day funds over um over direct services.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Gibson.

And that question will be answered asked, and I'm sure answered like I said, I've certainly checked in with the assessor, uh, you know, because trying to get a sense of that, but we can certainly ask that question and we'll work with the administration, of course, uh, in that regard as well to see if that gives us any more uh flexibility.

Councilwoman Trammel.

Thank you, Madam President.

I have to leave here at 3 30 without the commitment.

Yeah, but I want to since my colleague brought that up.

I want that, I want that um, I don't want the money to be taken away from those children.

I mean, they they were the first ones to come here and beg and cry the parents but I mean I want to I want can we talk about that now?

So that's what I think we're trying to find the money.

We're trying to find the money, but I want to if we can just have like a little discussion.

Yeah, I'm trying to go there.

I am so I want to close out this part that we have, and then we have our superintendent here as well.

I was only trying to help you get there.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Hard to if you would speak we're talking about getting consensus here and then having a conversation um relative to uh RVA.

Yes.

Okay.

I'm just gonna summarize consensus here and then leave it to the body to discuss matters further.

But as you can see here, when it comes to kind of um moving of uh of money.

This is the consensus of items members have agreed on uh with a combination of available funding in the general fund and the FY25 surplus.

Uh we've kind of talked about these frequently, so I'm not gonna go blind by line, but that is the consensus on that item.

Uh the addition of today is the agreement to remove 100,000 from the fleet car wash budget and put it towards the Richmond Education Fund uh for the beginnings of uh trying to receive matching funds for Lysa TJ High School.

If the original education fund is not is not uh can't work, then we'll we'll look to put it towards RPS directly uh to address that issue.

Um then uh I'll just go over quickly the uh that's not up there is the the positions that um will be uh created uh that are not there now for this uh FY27 budget is um or that are being reallocated is the customer service rep will be taking place uh in the city assessor's office.

Um there will be a sustainability coordinator uh position created, um, an attorney, an assistant attorney in the city attorney's office to help with housing community development and economic development, and a proactive investigator in the uh investigative general's office, and then lastly a position within PDR to help with implementation of the our Richmond 300 master plan and and then summarizing the text amendments, which we talked about on day one uh agreed upon is we will have to do a text amendment uh kind of detailing how we are using the remaining GAP grant funds to direct them towards housing initiatives now to immediately help residents freeing up money within the proposed FY27 budget.

Um we are going to be fixing the affordable housing trust fund language.

We're gonna do that collaborating between city administration and council members uh ahead of any vote on amendments, and uh we're gonna strike the language that was added this year to the pay plan regarding severance packages, and um we will include the encumbrance of the remaining funds for the Ponticello Park improvements, and I believe that concludes the text amendments.

So the the conversation on budget amendments stops today or continues as your council staff will be working non-stop to get these ready for you all to vote on.

Thank you.

Um council Robertson text amendment in regards to the performance evaluation or performance standards.

Was that included?

Uh that won't be a text amendment.

That is going to be a priority, that's that gonna be a text amendment.

I've made that a priority for council staff to address this summer as I kind of as I could if we do the tax we're gonna get the task force back together of something that can be implemented implement implemented next year for that budget.

And why is it not a tax amendment?

Um I don't believe I can receive consensus on that matter, and I don't know if it can be implemented at this time to to find the information with the time available.

Tell me that reason again.

Ma'am.

What's that reason again why it cannot be a text amendment?

Because I'm trying to understand how we can get that information provided, and before this budget is adopted, I don't know if that can be done.

So that's why I make it a priority to make sure that it can be implemented in next year's budget.

All right, Jay, we have um young lady behind me.

To provide comments.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, thank you.

Yeah, President Newbill, Vice President Jerdon, members of council, my name is Shannon Paul, and I'm the city's transformation manager.

From my understanding, Ms.

Robertson, um, what your text amendment request is that we replace the items that have either an NA or TBD with actual data, and I believe it's by July 1st.

Um, and if if I'm wrong, let me know.

And so, what I want to explain emphatically is that for those, I think 17 or so measures.

Um, the reason they say NA, which will reflect FY24, FY25, is because they're new measures.

So we did this process with the mayoral action plan, the map, where we looked at what makes sense to measure, what's gonna move goals forward um into the future.

How will we really know what success looks like?

And so we replace some of the old measures that may not have reflected that to be more robust and indicative of what we're trying to accomplish, um, so that you, when you're making decisions, will be able to have good data.

So FY24, if it said not available, it's because it wasn't tracked before.

For FY26 and 27, we were going with the adage from Maya Angelou.

Um, you can't really know where you're going if you don't know where you've been.

So we were using FY26 this year, the year that the measures were created to develop a baseline, which you call a baselining year.

And so that's why it says TBD.

Being where we are now, we're almost three quarters into the year.

So if if you would like to see those measures before July 1st, we can do that.

We can look at 75% of the year and update the budget book once um it's adopted to show um what our targets are.

We will use the first three quarters of FY26 to identify the targets.

Our plan was to do this anyway with the full years of data, full years worth of data.

And so we would have had it available by September 1st, but we're willing to make it available by July 1st based off of 75% of the year.

Thank you.

And with that comment, um chair and Mr.

Warren, I would like to see that amendment, the text minute added to this list.

And I and I particularly want to see it because I appreciate what you're saying, and I appreciate the uh quality of work that you want to put in place to make sure that what we put in that budget book is based on uh that critical analysis, and I appreciate that.

And I think that you know the budget is uh adopted, and when changes happen, and if you analysis three months of new data comes in August, September, October, and you need to do a revision.

I think we always are willing to do revisions to the budget, but I think to adopt the budget with departments that we are willing to say we don't know, and it is to be determined, but we are willing to put the money in the budget for those departments.

I I just strongly feel that we should have both at the same time.

Even if the budget will have to be adjusted during the course of the year, which sometimes we have to do right, uh circumstances lead to that, but it's problematic for me to have as many departments in the budget without any uh uh determination as to those performances.

It's not valuable to the staff, in my opinion, um, as to what we expect of them.

Uh so I I I'm glad I I'm willing to accept uh the revision based on three quarters of the year instead of the full 12 months.

Um my amendment is that that information be provided to council by July 1st.

So even if it's not published in the book, it should be amended at some point in the book uh in the doc in the budget document.

But that was the request.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I just wanted known that the transformation office is committed to utilizing data.

We're happy about it, happy to share, happy to have a collaborative effort towards this because we are trying to move the city forward, and we all have that goal.

So thank you.

Ms.

Paul, thank you for that, and uh thank you for the willingness to look at the 70, you know, three quarters and provide that for the July.

So with that, I'd like to move on to get in closure in terms of these items that you've just gone through to get consensus and then come back for the questions because we still have an item on the table.

Yeah, the last thing I wanted to add was um that five inspectors are also going to be added to the planning development review to speed up um approvals of uh uh applications and review compliance and violations, and that will be played through application fees.

It's not gonna require um an amendment.

That's one that's an agreed upon thing that will be um addressed, referenced um, and documents attached to the budget ordinance.

Thank you.

We had consensus on all of those items as we proceeded, and I would like to make sure that is still the case.

Then I'd like to take that we have consensus.

Thank you.

And then I'd like to go to uh the item that certainly is still important for us uh that Ms.

Trammel referenced in terms of RVA and we have thank you, Mr.

Cameras is here.

So if you would join us just to give us some sense of that and how we will thank you, Ms.

Camers.

Good afternoon, President Newbill, Vice President Jordan, Council members, Jason Camera, superintendent of Richmond Public Schools.

What questions may I answer?

So as you know, we've been looking at um RBA and the trying to identify possible uh resources um even if it couldn't be in full in part.

Wanted to get some idea of in terms of your budget and what's moved forward.

Um do we have any opportunity, if not, how will we serve our children who are dis differently able and have a variety of needs from your perspective so we can have some sense of that.

Thank you, thank you, Madam President.

Absent additional funding, we do not have the capacity to maintain the Richmond Virtual Academy.

That said, we would of course meet the needs of every single child that currently attends the Richmond Virtual Academy.

We have many students with disabilities, including students who are medically fragile who attend school in all of our schools every single day.

And so we would certainly still serve every one of those young people.

I do also want to note that we have a separate homebound program that was unaffected by the reduction to Richmond Virtual Academy.

That will be maintained as well.

So while I understand it is the preference of some families, some students to attend virtually, I can assure this body that every single student who desires to attend in person will be served.

Mr.

Cameras, could you expand on the homebound program?

Yes, we have five full-time instructors who support young people who are homebound for medical reasons.

And they go to the children's homes to provide instruction.

There is also additional support that we provide.

That program will continue.

Thank you.

Members, are there questions otherwise for Mr.

Cameras at this point?

Councilwoman Olibaka.

Yes, thank you.

Superintendent Cameras, I understand that there is a homeboy already in operation.

If the 30% of RVA students that have an IEP or I mean, what what is the cost for those students to now be a part of the homebound program?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Abubacher.

Um I did want to note we did pull the data, it's um 24 and a half percent students with disabilities in RBA.

There would be no additional cost to reabsorb them into the traditional school setting.

Um they would not, again, unless there is a severe reason why they're unable to come to school, um, they wouldn't necessarily qualify for homebound.

Homebound is for students who are medically incapable of coming to school.

Um that is a very small number of students.

So we have many young people who come in person, they have feeding tubes, they have colostomy bags, they are wheelchair-bound.

Um, we have the services in person to provide whatever those young people need.

So, do we have the numbers for um how many an RVA would qualify for homebound services?

I don't have that offhand, but um I can assure the council that any young person who qualified for, we would figure out how to meet their needs.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jones.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh afternoon, superintendent cameras.

Quick question.

I remember when you all were uh kind of uh talking about this in during the budget session, there were a number of uh school board members that recommended a scaled back version of the virtual academy so that it didn't have to completely close.

Is that still an option on the table, give or take that that would cost less than what you would pay to run a full school?

Thank you, Councilmember Jones.

Um we have uh gone down the path of trying to identify what a scaled back would look like, but again, it would require funding.

Um so with no additional funding, there would not be any scaled back program.

I do want to note I'm not uh prepared to talk about the details of that today only because the school board has not yet had an opportunity to engage on those details.

We would, if there were funding um at our May meetings, and so um of course I would like them to weigh in before uh before discussing that any further.

Thanks.

Councilmember Robertson and then Councilwoman Tremmel.

Hi, thank you.

And thank you.

Um Mr.

Cameron Superintendent.

Um if I'm hearing you correctly, the students that are currently in the academy, if if the Academy does not continue, you are prepared to make sure that these children continue to get a quality of education, and no kid would be left behind.

That's what I hear you say it.

Yes, Councilmember Robertson.

We are morally and legally obligated to provide services for every single child in our school system, and we will continue to do that.

And you're not concerned that without the academy that you would be not only legally required, but you would not be comprising the quality of service that those that the children that are currently using the virtual academy.

Absolutely not.

We would not compromise the quality of the education provided.

All right.

So my other question is how many virtual instructors make what's the staffing of the academy?

And what would be the challenge as it relates to the staffing?

And you know, we've gotten a lot of different information as it relates to one second.

Councilmember Robertson.

Yes.

So could you just a little louder?

I can't.

Oh uh I can't hear you, Ms.

Dr.

Newburgh.

I know I'm going to work on it though.

Okay.

All right.

So the question is the staffing, and what would happen with that staffing?

Um, how many, what's your staff?

What's the cost for the staff?

And um what's going to happen with how many instructors or total staff that you have for that.

Yes.

The first of all, the the bulk of the 3.2 million is staff costs.

Um we have about 25 personnel, give or take.

Every single individual with a teaching license is guaranteed a job in RPS.

So almost all of the staff members are teachers.

There's a few additional folks who we are working to find positions for.

But again, I believe it's 22 individuals have teaching licenses, every single one of them.

If they want to come work in person, we have guaranteed uh that they will have a position.

In fact, we have held special hiring events for them, and we'll continue to support them in a very one-to-one basis to make sure that they find a landing spot within one of our schools.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Trammell.

Thank you, Madam President.

What I don't understand is like you, I guess you knew from the beginning that you were gonna um cut cut this program or cut um the Richmond Virtual Learning Center, you were gonna cut that.

Because if not, those those teachers and those parents and those students were here, not once, but many times.

And then with all the emails and all the phone calls that we got, and then the way they describe the students, and that many of them need the one-on-one special attention, it's kind of like I don't know if you had conversations with them.

I don't know how it got this far to us because you know that this council, all nine of us, we have our hearts are with the children, especially in the Richmond Public Schools, because we do so much, and you got two school board members that were on school board, now they're here with us.

And to me, I think it's a shame that they are listening, and they and they're hearing what you're saying that you basically want to do away with that program.

Um I appreciate my colleague over there who is asking, are they going to have a job?

Are you and how you're gonna take those children and what grades are they in and put them in, I guess, in the population with the other schools that we know that the teachers go through hells many, many days with students, the ones that you know have like trauma the night before, or they come to school and they're upset because this happened in their home, or this happened in their neighborhood, and the shootings that are going on and things like that.

And then you're gonna take these children that I'm hearing they have more special needs and put them in those classrooms that the teachers are already dealing with a lot every single day.

So you couldn't find any money.

I mean, we have been, I mean, we've been going around and around and around taking away this, taking away that, so that we could make up the other, what was it, Kenya, four million dollars, three three some million dollars?

But I mean, I don't, I don't know, because I'm not I'm not per se, I don't have that conversation with you as far as when it comes to how you can move or how you can I guess make cuts, whatever, and especially when I I'm hearing I just got a text earlier.

Ask them about the round building over there at Ruffin Road.

Ask them ahead, you know, why don't they surplus that to the city so that we can have that for more parking?

I went over there to TB Smith Community Center yesterday, and I'll and and last weekend.

And when I see those children in that playground or inside the school playing basketball, that really touches my heart because I'd rather have them there than have them out on the street and getting in trouble.

And when we got a community center or the or the football field or whatever, and you have these children there, it it's something that that we're proud of to know that we fought to have these community centers for these students.

But then when I look at the other children and I see that they can't play or they can't be with other children because of their disabilities or whatever, so I don't have an answer to the parents or to the teachers to say we're gonna just throw them out there and just you know, who's who's gonna be there?

Are they gonna be forgotten?

So, councilwoman Trammell, if I can answer that, I know it's a lot, but I just I know I've been getting a text this morning, the phone calls this morning since 8 a.m.

So maybe you can re-emphasize you mentioned the homebound program and some other things in respect.

Yes, uh thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilmember Trammel.

Um I might work from the end back.

Uh, first, just very quickly on Rough and Road, the school board has decided to retain that property given the exploding student population on the South side, and that there might be a need for another school or preschool in that area.

Uh, but we can get into that more at a later date.

Well, you have the money, because I don't know if you've been in there, but I I've heard of what you know how bad it is because it's been vacant since what 2012 when it was closed up in 2012.

So it is not.

If you got the funding for it, then go right ahead.

But go ahead.

I'm so problem.

It is not currently uh habitable, as you note, but uh a longer discussion.

As for the virtual academy students, I I want to be very clear because I do think there has been some confusion.

The overwhelming majority.

Nearly all students with disabilities in Richmond public schools of all kinds with extreme disabilities in some cases, are educated every single day in person in our schools.

Nearly all of them are.

Everything from students with an intellectual learning disability to students with profound physical disabilities.

I want to be absolutely clear about this.

They go to school in person every single day with their typically able peers, in large part because that is best practice.

And we are required by federal law to place students in what is called the least restrictive environment, meaning we don't want to segregate them.

And so the narrative that the only place that these young people can be educated is at the virtual academy is false.

In fact, the opposite is true.

Almost all of the young people with profound disabilities are educated in person every single day in our buildings because of our extraordinarily talented general education teachers, special education teachers, related service providers, and so many others who support them every single day.

I assure you, every single student at the virtual academy that wants to attend in person will attend in person, will be served, and will have all of their needs completely met.

So you can promise us that that's what you just said right now.

Yes, ma'am.

And the teachers will have a job too.

Yes, ma'am.

In the schools.

Yes, ma'am.

With those students.

I can't guarantee they'll be with those students, but they will be employed by RPS in our schools, and they will be serving students that they are qualified to serve.

Maybe some of those very same students, it may be other students.

Let's recall also that the majority of the teachers and the majority of the teacher students at RBA are not students with disabilities, and they are not exceptional education teachers.

They are general education students and general education teachers.

Three quarters of the students there are general education students.

Thank you.

But please don't know.

Yeah, because we have a couple more.

Council Woman James and then Councilwoman Gibson.

Oh, thank you, Madam President.

Thank you for being here.

That was an important change to make, especially today.

And so I I think our students are better for it.

As it relates to the virtual academy, I would encourage both the administration and the board as you continue to refine the budget prior to adoption to look for ways to at least keep the program in part, however that happens.

But parallel path with that, I also think that there are ways that funding could be repurposed in the school district.

And you know, when we're looking to outsource services, there's a company that's going to make money on that.

And so if there was money that is available to pay a premium for substitute teachers, I think that there should be money available to prioritize a really successful in-sourced program that exists in the school district today.

As I understand it, there are about 50 students with uh that have IEPs in the school.

Um that are doing very well thriving in a program that is um meets the criteria of being the least restrictive environment because it is a diverse program with a mix of students with a varying level of needs.

And to uh change something that's working for those students is uh is a real thing and will will impact those families in a very real way.

And um, and so I think it is important to do whatever we can do to minimize that.

Um the the question that I have in terms of the funding here is that um you know ultimately the money follows the students.

And so um whether the student is in a virtual school or an in-person school, there's got to be staff there.

Um and and the money goes where they are.

And so I've always understood it that the additional cost for this program is the um you know potential for additional administration that wouldn't exist if if those students were in a different school.

Um so I question the the the 3.2 million or whatever as really being the net increase cost, because at the end of the day, as we've been talking about, if the intention is that the teachers can stay, then um then I'm not sure that we would factor that in as the net cost of that program, if that makes sense.

Um the other piece, understanding um the administrative policy that the district has in terms of a RIF, a reduction in force.

If essentially what the district is faced with is having to reduce the staff at the school district because there's a net decrease in students, which I do believe that is the issue.

And so I'm I'm unsure why, and again, this is for the board to discuss, but you know, I I I do think it's worth mentioning why it is that the teachers who are in the virtual school are um in a position to have to find another position, as I understand it, many of them have considerable tenure in the school district.

That's part of the reason why I believe the program's been so successful.

Um, and why instead we the district is not um sending RIF notif notifications to staff that um are lesser tenured, which I believe would align with the district's policy.

Thank you, Councilmember Gibson.

Uh, first I can assure you every aspect of the RIF policy has been followed.

Um, as for your question with respect to how it is actually a savings, I appreciate you asking that because I think this is important to clarify.

The individuals at RBA who are currently teaching, they will go into vacancies that we currently budget for.

And so when they go into that vacancy, we're actually able to reduce an FTE off of our budget.

And that is how we realize the $3 million in savings.

Thank you.

So with that, because we are approaching the end of our work session time, and I think if we have more questions for Mr.

Cameras, we can certainly get those to him through our staff if that's okay, Mr.

Cameron.

Absolutely.

Really appreciate you and your staff taking time to be present with us today to answer the concerns.

You hear this is a body that's committed to our children as you absolutely are.

And I know am I loud enough, Ms.

Robertson?

Uh no, that's the case.

And if I may, Madam President, I don't think there is any question on the part of anybody at RPS about the council's commitment to RPS and to our students.

We're all faced with very difficult choices, and I want to thank uh the council and the administration for their continued investment in RPS.

Again, a record investment this year, which we are grateful for.

And we have also tightened our belts.

We have laid off or lay off uh 45 FTEs and have made other cuts.

And so we join you in these very difficult decisions.

Thank you, Mr.

Cameron.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Warren, if you would come forward so we can talk about next steps.

Can I ask uh one last question before the question of who, Ms.

Robertson?

To the superintendent, please.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um it's more of a uh statement than it is a question, but maybe both.

Um I first want to thank you and your team and your schools and the services that you provide for our children.

It's not an easy job.

Uh and kids come to school with everything that they bring with them from home, and then they take everything that you guys do with them during the day back home as well.

So it's a two-way street.

Um, but the tragedy that we had just yesterday, and the information that I have learned that as many as could be, not at fixed, because I'm not sure that my number is correct, but I have been told that is could easily be at least a hundred students more that we have lost in Richmond Public Schools since you've been here through acts of violence or death, which is huge.

Um it raises a lot of concerns for me that as a collective, the resources that we leverage from the city to provide services for families for after-school programming, and what you guys are doing and what we provide for funding for Richmond Public Schools.

That we are collectively sitting at the table and having that kind of meaningful conversation to make that happen.

We know it's nowhere near what is needed.

And my prayers are with you and with the uh your staff and your team and the families that bring these kind of crises to have workplace to our schools and then our community, and that we all share the burden together and get through it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilwoman Robertson.

Um that loss.

I mean there are no words.

Um but the words we do have been mentioned, and certainly we are thankful for you and your team, and we consider that we are part of that team and look forward to uh even greater working together period.

So thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilmember Robertson.

With that, Mr.

Warren, you are somewhere, I think, here to talk about next.

Yes, I've received direction from council, so council staff will be collaborating with the city attorney's office and city administration to get these uh amendments drafted and ready to vote on this Monday at the uh formal council meeting.

There will be no public hearing at that because it's just the procedural step of amending and then continuing the the budget legislation to the May 11th formal meeting where there will be uh one last public hearing and then the anticipated uh final vote of council on the budget Mr.

Warren, thank you.

And then members, any additional questions uh you can touch space with Mr.

Warren to make sure that he and I'm sure he and our staff have those and we'll get those items to the administration that were discussed.

With that, I want to say thank you to everyone for your incredible work and this and to our staff in terms of the process.

And I know there were suggestions made, and we will look at those for improving the next iteration, but really want to say thank you.

With that, this work session stands adjourned.