The development of a proposed $3 billion budget for Richmond’s 2026 fiscal year continued this week with disagreements between Richmond City Council and Mayor Danny Avula’s administration over amendments to the proposal.

A major point of discussion during a budget work session Monday afternoon that stretched on for hours was an amendment to remove non-union staffers who earn $150,000 or more from a proposed 3.25% raise for all City employees.

The amendment, along with several proposed personnel cuts for mostly vacant positions, was deemed “Not Recommended for Reduction” by mayoral officials. 

“Approach to financial compensation increases should be based in equitable practices and merit,” administration officials wrote in a response to the amendment.

“The proposal to prohibit raises for employees earning over $150,000 — regardless of their role, responsibilities or performance — creates significant equity, operational and fiscal concerns.”

For Sarah Abubaker, 4th District, and Kenya Gibson, 3rd District, raises for already high-paying jobs were an obvious issue given other concerns such as collective bargaining for employees, community needs and council priorities like the People’s Budget missing from the initial proposal.

The raises also conflicted, in Abubaker’s view, with warnings from Avula’s administration about the city’s economic prospects in 2026 and 2027, and the need for caution and care in amending the proposed budget. 

“The question I continue to raise with this administration is whether or not we are in a budget crisis or we are not,” Abubaker said. “Are we in a hiring freeze or are we not?” 

“It’s unconscionable to me that we continue as a city with a population of 240,000 people to say that we need this glut of upper management making these massive dollar amounts.”

Reva Trammell, 8th District, and Council President Cynthia Newbile,7th District, stressed the importance of attracting talent, retaining employees and ensuring quality city services for Richmond’s growing population through competitive salaries.

“We don’t want to lose these people,” Trammell said. “You get what you pay for.”

This argument and others made by mayoral officials would be echoed by leaders for several departments inside and outside City Hall during the work session and a public hearing on the budget and amendments that followed soon after.

“I know what you all are up against, but this is not the way for us to attempt to balance our budget to get more things done,” Department of Public Works Director Bobby Vincent Jr. said. “The best way for us to do that is to treat our current employees as a team, and we’re not a team if we’re divided.”

Another work session is being considered for Monday, April 28, with amendments to be introduced during the City Council meeting later that day, followed by the budget’s approval on May 12.