Agenda — Richmond City Council, June 9, 2026

PLEASE NOTE: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT

AGENDA(S):

- SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 3:30 p.m.

Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Members
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor at Large
Jamelia Brown, Councilmember District 1
Cesar Zepeda, Councilmember District 2
Doria Robinson, Vice Mayor, District 3
Soheila Bana, Councilmember District 4
Sue Wilson, Councilmember District 5
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6
NOTICE: MASKS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED!!

***REGISTER TO VOTE HERE!!***
https://registertovote.ca.gov/
The last day to register to vote for the November 3, 2026, General Election is October 19, 2026

Link to City Council Agendas/Packets
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4157/City-ofRichmond-Council-Meetings

HOW TO WATCH THE MEETING FROM HOME:

KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 991.

Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live2.

HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS:

In Person: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, must complete and file a pink speaker’s card with the City Clerk prior to the City Council’s consideration of the item. Once the City Clerk has announced the item, no person shall be permitted to speak on the item other than those persons who have submitted their names to the City Clerk.

Via Zoom: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, must raise their hand once public comment is open. The public speakers attending in person will be called first, followed by Zoom participants (when appropriate). Only those public speakers that have their hand raised at the appropriate time will be recognized.

Open Session and City Council: Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09

Passcode: ccmeeting

By iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# By Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592

Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643

International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aehrwCgISx

To comment by video conference: click on the Participants button at the bottom of your screen and select the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being asked for. When called upon, press the unmute button. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. **

To comment by phone: you will be prompted to “Raise Your Hand” by pressing “*9” to request to speak when Public Comment is asked for. When called upon, you will be asked to unmuted by pressing *6. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. Instructions of how to raise your hand by phone are available at:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362663 -Joining-a-meeting-by-phone. **

**The mayor will announce the agenda item number and open public comment when appropriate.

6-9-26 CC MTG.
2 Via mail: received prior to 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.

Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until the conclusion of public comments for the agenda item. Email your comment to [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.

Via email: to [email protected] prior to 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments

Properly labeled public comments will be considered a public record, put into the official meeting record, available after the meeting as supplemental materials, and will be posted as an attachment to the meeting minutes when the minutes are posted: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=31

The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.

CONDUCT AT MEETINGS: Richmond City Council meetings are limited public forums during which the City strives to provide an open, safe atmosphere and promote robust public debate. Members of the public, however, must comply with state law, as well as the City’s laws and procedures and may not actually disrupt the orderly conduct of these meetings. The public, for example, may not shout or use amplifying devices, must submit comment cards and speak during their allotted time, may not create a physical disturbance, may not speak on matters unrelated to issues within the jurisdiction of the City Council or the agenda item at hand, and may not cause immediate threats to public safety.

Click here for City Harassment Policy

Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities: Upon request, the City will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services and sign language interpreters, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings. Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 510-620-6513, ext. 9, or 510-620-6509.

Requests made by mail to City Clerk’s Office, City Council meeting, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 must be received at least two days before the meeting. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.

Unless otherwise noted in an agenda description, all actions taken by the Council include a determination that CEQA does not apply (i.e., the action is not a project and therefore exempt from CEQA).

Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office translates agendas to enhance public access. Translated agendas are provided as a courtesy and do not constitute legal notice of the meeting or items to be discussed. In case of discrepancy, the English agenda will prevail.

6-9-26 CC MTG.
3 Pages
A. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL 3:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
D. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
E. AGENDA REVIEW
F. BUDGET SESSION
F.1 Budget Study Session on Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
5 RECEIVE an overview of the balanced draft Fiscal Year 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan Budget; PROVIDE DIRECTION to staff prior to final budget adoption; and RECEIVE input on City Council key initiatives and demands for built environment improvements as well as opportunities to improve organizational efficiency – City Manager’s Office/Finance Department (Shasa Curl/Emily Combs/Mubeen Qader 510-412-2077).

G. ADJOURNMENT
6-9-26 CC MTG.
4

Page 1 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026

City Manager's Office
Finance Department

DATE: June 9, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Shasa Curl, City Manager
Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager, Internal Services
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, Community
Services
Emily Combs, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
Jerry Gurule, Accounting Manager

Subject:

Budget Study Session on Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27
Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2026 -31 Five -Year
Capital Improvement Plan
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to receiving this report.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

On May 5, 2026, the City Council received the first draft of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget
and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) and received initial departmental presentations.

On May 19, 2026, the City Council received additional
departmental presentations and updates on global market conditions. On May 26, 2026, the City Council received
further departmental presentations, the General Fund
Five-Year Forecast, and the full FY 2026-31 CIP.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City Council requested a special meeting focused on the draft Fiscal Year 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget
and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) to provide additional direction before final adoption on June 23, 2026.

AGENDA
REPORT
5

Page 2 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE an overview of the balanced draft Fiscal Year
2026-27 Annual Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-
31 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan Budget;
PROVIDE DIRECTION to staff prior to final budget
adoption; and RECEIVE input on City Council key
initiatives and demands for built environment
improvements as well as opportunities to improve
organizational efficiency – City Manager’s Office/Finance Department (Shasa Curl/Emily Combs/Mubeen Qader
510-412-2077).

DISCUSSION:

Strategic Budget Framework: Service Continuity, Organizational Excellence, and Fiscal Sustainability
As the City Council continues its review of the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating Budget and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Capital Improvement Plan, City staff recommends evaluating the budget through the lens of a sustainable baseline budget framework. A baseline budget reflects the resources necessary to maintain core services, fulfill operational and legal obligations, and ensure continuity of service to the community.

Within that framework, the proposed budget prioritizes service quality, organizational stability, and long-term sustainability while balancing community expectations with available resources. City staff remains focused on developing a healthy workplace culture that supports employee retention, accountability, innovation, and organizational excellence, recognizing that a high-performing workforce is essential to delivering high- quality public services. As the City operates in an increasingly complex environment marked by rising costs and evolving regulations, City staff are dedicated to improving standard operating procedures, leveraging innovation and technology to enhance efficiency, and aligning resources with adopted City Council priorities. These efforts are intended to support a high-performing organization, improve service delivery, preserve fiscal stability, and better meet the evolving needs of the Richmond community.

Proposed City-wide Priorities – FY 2026-27
The FY 2026–27 budget reflects a focused set of proposed City-wide priorities aimed at maintaining critical infrastructure, improving service delivery, and responding to community needs. The following priorities highlight key areas of investment and operational focus that will guide resource allocation and departmental efforts in the coming fiscal year.

Priority #1: Wastewater System Reliability & Veolia Contract Transition The current Veolia wastewater contract expires in May 2027. Following a City- commissioned review of long-term options, the City is moving forward with a competitive procurement process with an owner’s advisor. This effort aims to secure a qualified 6

Page 3 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
operator, address past performance concerns, and prepare for an anticipated increase in operating costs under the next contract.

Priority #2: Parks Renovation, Maintenance, and Community Access Improving Richmond’s parks and open spaces remains a core City-wide priority for FY 2026-27. The City is making significant progress advancing park-related capital and maintenance needs, renovations of play structures, restroom assessments, and upgrades to lighting, fencing, and recreation facilities. In addition, major improvements are underway at Boorman Park, Wendell Park, and Shields-Reid Park. It is essential that as the City renovates or builds new parks, adequate resources are available to properly maintain those assets at a high quality for the continued benefit of Richmond residents. These ongoing efforts demonstrate strong community demand for safe, modern, and accessible parks.

In FY 2026-27, the City will continue prioritizing park infrastructure upgrades, addressing deferred maintenance, advancing key capital projects, and enhancing the quality and usability of neighborhood parks across Richmond.

Priority #3: Innovation & City-wide Systems Modernization In FY 2026-27, the City will advance innovation through streamlined systems, improved processes, and data-informed, efficient service delivery.

Priority #4: Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Services & Fire Department Infrastructure
Improving emergency medical response and ensuring residents have timely access to life-saving care is a key City-wide priority for FY 2026-27. The City continues to advance implementation of Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Services, supporting the City Council’s goals of improving public safety, advancing health equity, and enhancing emergency preparedness.

Implementation of ALS services will require ongoing investments in staffing, equipment, training, and fire station infrastructure. Given the operational and capital costs associated with ALS deployment, the City must carefully evaluate funding strategies and prioritize available resources to support long-term sustainability.

In FY 2026-27, the City will continue advancing ALS implementation planning, evaluating funding options, and identifying sustainable approaches to support both operational and facility needs while maintaining essential City services.

Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget Development and Proposed Options Earlier in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 budget development process, City staff hosted three community budget meetings in April, including a presentation to the Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council (RNCC). The first draft of the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget and FY 2026-31 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) were presented to 7

Page 4 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
the City Council on May 5, 2026. This was followed by additional budget updates and departmental presentations on May 19 and May 26, 2026.

This Special Budget Study Session provides the City Council with an opportunity to review the remaining components of the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget and the FY 2026-31 CIP before final adoption. The City continues to operate in a dynamic environment that requires the organization to implement adopted plans, respond to local needs, state mandates, broader national conditions, and remain attentive to global conditions that influence service delivery and resource availability. Additional disruptors, including rising costs, increasing funded and unfunded regulatory requirements, and changing dynamics and expectations associated with the full transition to district-based representation, create opportunities to improve organizational efficiency and sustain programs within the existing baseline budget.

City staff continue to present a balanced budget for the City Council’s consideration, with General Fund revenues and expenditures totaling $274,670,119. As a reminder, this budget is balanced using a 12 percent vacancy rate and does not include over $29 million in department requests. While City staff understand there are important requests, community needs, etc., that are being considered, it is essential to note that any new requests will require a corresponding decrease in expenditure. To support clear decision-making, City staff are presenting two options for City Council consideration.

Option 1:

Adopt the Proposed Balanced Budget with No Changes and Maintain Service Levels
The City Council may elect to proceed with the proposed FY 2026-27 budget as presented. This option maintains existing service levels and continues all currently funded key initiatives. The FY 2026-27 General Fund budget presented on May 5, May 19, and May 26, 2026, is balanced under current assumptions, including a City-wide vacancy rate of 12 percent ($16.4 million). The budget maintains all existing operational, community, equity, and public safety investments and does not rely on the use of General Fund reserves to support ongoing operations, consistent with the City’s Reserve Policy, which limits the use of reserves to one-time emergencies. Maintaining a structurally balanced General Fund without drawing upon reserves supports fiscal stability.

Option 2:

Maintain a Balanced Budget While Reprioritizing City Council Initiatives The City Council may elect to maintain the proposed balanced budget while reprioritizing existing City Council priorities and initiatives. Under this option, the City Council may refine policy direction regarding existing initiatives and identify activities that may be deferred or discontinued to maintain a balanced budget.

For example, there is approximately $3.0 million in discretionary funding for City Council priorities that could be redirected towards the built environment or other high-priority needs if the City Council elects to reprioritize resources. Since the budget is dynamic and always changing, additional project budget shortfalls have recently emerged. These include the Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II Project, 8

Page 5 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
improvements at Shields-Reid and Wendell Parks, and the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Project. City Council may consider these identified shortfalls when evaluating potential modifications to approximately $3.0 million in discretionary funding for City Council priorities.

City Council Goals and Priorities

City Council's Goals and Priorities outline key initiatives and strategic objectives that guide the City's growth and improve the quality of life for all residents. The City Council's vision focuses on creating a thriving, inclusive community through transparency and targeted actions that address immediate and long-term needs. These priorities shape decision-making and provide a framework for aligning resources and work efforts across the City.

City Council-Directed Work Efforts

To assist the City Council in evaluating potential reprioritization opportunities, Table 1 summarizes 37 City Council-directed efforts and initiatives identified in open session from January 1, 2025, to the present. The list below does not include requests from Councilmembers that are developed via boards, commissions, ad hoc committees, task forces, email, or meetings with the City Manager and staff members.

Table 1: Summary of City Council-Directed Work Efforts (January 1, 2025 – Present) Blue = Complete # Council-Directed Work Effort Strategic Goal Area
1 Tiny Home Village Support Services (Hope Solutions) Goal 1 – Improve the Quantity and Quality of Housing
2 Wildfire Preparedness Ad Hoc Committee &
Assessment
Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety
3 Human Trafficking and Gender-Based Violence
Prevention Initiatives
Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety
9

Page 6 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
# Council-Directed Work Effort Strategic Goal Area
4 Healthy Retail (HOPS) Ordinance Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
5 Municipal ID Program Expansion Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
6 Immigrant Legal Services Funding & RFP Goal 1 – Improve the Quantity and Quality of Housing
7 Unfunded Pension & OPEB Liability Analysis Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure
8 Tree Wells in CIP Sidewalk Projects Goal 6 – Address Shoreline and Ecological Issues
9 Parchester Village–Giant Highway Infrastructure Master Plan
Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal
Infrastructure
10 Fireworks Enforcement and Ordinance Amendments Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 11 Ciclovia Program Design & Implementation Goal 6 – Address Shoreline and Ecological Issues
12 Community-Led Bus Stop Bench Program Goal 6 – Address Shoreline and Ecological Issues
13 Harbour 8 Park Expansion Funding & Oversight Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
14 Black Resiliency Project & Fund Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
15 Clean Richmond Community Maintenance Crew Pilot
Program
Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal
Infrastructure
16 Historic Buildings Preservation & Protection Program Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure
17 Unhoused Services RFP Process Reform Goal 1 – Improve the Quantity and Quality of Housing
18 Ban Corporate Land Grabs Initiative and Associated
Legal Analysis
Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal
Infrastructure
19 Hilltop Horizon Specific Plan Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure
20 Police Communication, Body Camera, and Counseling
Policy Review
Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety
21 Public Lands Policy Goal 2 – Increase Revenue and Improve Economic Development
22 Emergency Support for Families During School Labor
Disruption
Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal
Infrastructure
23 Arts & Culture Manager and Grant Process Reform Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
24 Council Liaison Appointment Cycle Change

Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal
Infrastructure
25 Polluters Pay Settlement / Limited-Term Revenue
Community Engagement and Strategic Advisory
Services
Goal 2 – Increase Revenue and Improve
Economic Development
26 ICE-Free Zone Ordinance and Civil Immigration
Enforcement Policy
Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal
Infrastructure
27 Safe Walk Zone Ordinance (23rd Street Corridor) Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 28 AAPI Community Celebration Co-Sponsorship Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
29 WCCUSD Latino/x Graduation Auditorium Support Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
30 Support for 2026 Mother's Day Event at the Richmond
Memorial Auditorium
Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and
Community Health
31 Blue Envelope Program Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 10

Page 7 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
# Council-Directed Work Effort Strategic Goal Area
32 Caste Equity Resolution & Ordinance Amendment Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure
33 Cheese Park (La Moine Park) Improvements Plan Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
34 Pullman Neighborhood Park & Land Acquisition
Feasibility
Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and
Community Health
35 Earthquake Preparedness Initiative Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 36 Richmond Promise Postsecondary Education Initiative Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health
37 Literacy Space at Richmond Public Library Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health

As part of the budget review, the City Council may evaluate the 104 boards, commissions, ad hoc committees, LLCs, and regional agencies, all of which require staff time for agenda preparation or briefing (prep documents), public noticing, meeting support, and follow-up. Upon completion of the ad hoc committee currently being established to review the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order, the City Council may want to consider the status of these bodies.

In addition, a workflow is required to improve and structure communication between the City’s boards, commissions, ad hoc committees, LLCs, regional agencies, etc., the City Council, the City Manager, and her designees to support efficient operations and aligned implementation of City Council goals and priorities in an agreed-upon sequence.

Existing Discretionary General Fund Commitments Available for Reallocation Under Option 2

As the City Council considers new priorities, initiatives, or service expansions, it faces difficult decisions and unavoidable trade-offs within a constrained General Fund budget.

To support City Council deliberation under Option 2, City staff have consolidated various programs, initiatives, subsidies, and operational commitments that are supported by the General Fund, as referenced in the May 5, May 19, and May 26, 2026, budget reports. The allocations listed in Tables 2 and 3 below represent approximately $6.4 million that may be reappropriated incrementally or redirected if the City Council determines that new priorities outweigh previous requests. For purposes of this discussion, initiatives listed as “discretionary” do not reflect the value of these programs.

Rather, discretionary funding is defined as funding that is not tied to existing City obligations, approved agreements, permanent full-time staff positions, or the resources necessary to support core City operations.

City staff thus far were unable to identify other significant General Fund resources that could be reallocated without affecting core municipal operations. However, all suggestions are welcome. As a result, the funding included in Tables 2 and 3 provides an overview of the discretionary and programmatic areas that may be considered for further refinement under Option 2.

Page 8 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
Key Initiatives Included in the FY 2026-27 Budget

Table 2 summarizes approximately $3.1 million in existing discretionary General Fund commitments that the City Council may consider for reprioritization. These allocations support a variety of programs, initiatives, and operational commitments that reflect prior policy direction.

Table 2: Key Initiatives Included in the Budget
Initiative Amount
($)
Consideration Program Status Reallocation
Consideration
Arts Corridor (Phase 2) 185,000 Phase 2 not started;
Phase 1 (Strategic
Plan and community
engagement)
nearing completion
Discretionary
Black Resiliency
Project
1,500,000 Consider Multi-
Year funding
strategy
RFP is being
finalized for release
in May 2026
Discretionary
Community
Engagement – Limited-
Term Revenue
300,000 Staff is negotiating
contract with
selected consultant
Discretionary
Gender-Based
Violence Programs
100,000 RFP in development Discretionary
Immigration Services 700,000 Consider Multi-
Year funding
strategy
Contracts with
multiple vendors are
executed and
community is
accessing services
Discretionary (Note:

Contracts are
executed for the full
amount)
Mental Health
Assessment
150,000 Staff is negotiating
contract with
selected consultant
Discretionary
Point Molate Annual
Maintenance
250,000 Required
maintenance of City
owned property is
ongoing.

Remediation of all
properties is
required.

Requirement under
the City’s existing
agreement -
Agreement for Short
Term Maintenance
and Security of
Property at Point
Molate, with
additional
remediation costs
anticipated. The City
Council may consider
directing staff to
pursue cost sharing
discussions with the
East Bay Regional
Park District.

Page 9 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
Initiative Amount
($)
Consideration Program Status Reallocation
Consideration
Total $3,481,675
Total Discretionary $3,081,675

Re-Imagining Public Safety Programs Supported by the General Fund

The City Council initially allocated $6.4 million for Re-imagining Public Safety initiatives in FY 2021-22 to expand or create the four community-based strategies listed in Table

3. The proposed FY 2026-27 budget includes approximately $8.9 million for these initiatives, a net increase of $2.5 million or 39 percent.

These programs provide important services to Richmond residents and reflect the City Council’s continued investment in community-based public safety strategies. As part of the budget review, a portion of this funding below are noted that are not tied to ongoing staff positions as discretionary resources that could be considered for reallocation if the City Council decides to fund built environment shortfalls or new priorities while maintaining a balanced budget.

Table 3: Re-Imagining Public Safety Initiatives
Initiative Discretionary
Amount ($)
Non-Discretionary
Amount ($) Program Status
YouthWORKS 1,980,000 Ongoing youth workforce and career development services
Unhoused
Intervention 1,320,000
Ongoing services supporting
individuals experiencing
homelessness
Office of
Neighborhood Safety
(ONS)
2,586,678
Ongoing violence-prevention
services, outreach, and
community safety partnerships
ROCK (Reach Out
with Compassion and
Kindness)
2,975,823 Crisis response and community
care operations
Sub-Totals $3,300,000 $5,562,501
Total Allocation $8,862,501

The discretionary funding identified in Table 3 (Re-Imagining Public Safety Initiatives), totaling approximately $3.3 million, is not included in the discretionary resources available to address project shortfalls, but it may be considered as part of a future, broader reprioritization discussion.

To support the City Council’s review of the discretionary $1.32 million in Unhoused Intervention funding, this allocation exists within a much larger landscape of City investments in unhoused services. Table 4 summarizes these broader investments to provide context for understanding the total scale of the City’s commitments in this area.

The funding for ONS and CCRP supports personnel and essential operating costs; therefore, is considered non-discretionary. Should the City Council wish to further 13

Page 10 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
expand CCRP services, it may consider pursuing grant opportunities or funding partnerships with Contra Costa County. As with all General Fund-supported programs, any future expansions would require corresponding trade-offs within available resources.

Table 4: Unhoused Intervention Funding
Sources Total
Funding FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Estimated
FY 2026-27
(Balance)
Emergency Housing
Assistance (GF & CD)
255,706 57,438 161,032 37,236
Housing First (GF & CD) 868,166 244,114 423,190 87,258 113,604 Project Homekey (City
Contribution)
10,300,000 10,300,000
Reimagining Public Safety
Annual Allocation $1.32M
- Unhoused Intervention
5,550,257 714,390 732,154 808,934 1,320,000 654,779 1,320,000 Reimagining Public Safety
Housing in-lieu $480K -
Unhoused Intervention
480,000 170,054 309,946
Unhoused Emergency
Services (GF)
50,000 50,000
Total City Funding 17,504,129 714,390 1,033,706 1,393,156 1,614,548 768,383 11,979,946 American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) Unhoused Flex
Funding
50,000 50,000
Environmental and
Community Investment
Agreement (ECIA)
106,000 49,500 23,500 25,000 8,000
Encampment Resolution
Fund Round 1- Grant
4,881,272 6,755 2,547,093 2,327,424
Encampment Resolution
Fund Round 2- Grant
8,602,587 2,006,596 2,475,791 1,254,324 2,865,876
Encampment Resolution
Fund Round 3- Grant
9,336,746 4,361,850 4,974,896
Kids First Initiative 1,525,000 70,000 155,000 300,000 500,000 500,000 Project Homekey Grant 14,512,660 6,252,500 8,260,160 Rapid Response (ARPA) 838,572 357,094 342,906 54,267 84,304 Tenant Protection and
Rental Assistance (ARPA)
1,984,233 420,877 925,135 411,528 226,693
Total Grant Funding 41,837,070 413,349 3,033,499 4,909,897 10,032,693 6,620,006 16,827,625

Grand Total $59,341,199 $1,127,739 $4,067,205 $6,303,053 $11,647,241 $7,388,389 $28,807,571

General Fund Subsidies and Support

General Fund subsidies and ongoing General Fund support for operational activities across departments are noted below. These subsidies reflect areas where the General Fund resources are used to sustain programs, district services, or departmental operations that are not fully supported by fees, assessments, or dedicated revenue sources. As part of ongoing fiscal sustainability efforts, City staff will continue evaluating cost recovery opportunities, with Engineering Services, Code Enforcement, etc.

Increasing cost recovery in these areas will help reduce pressure on the General Fund over time and improve long-term structural balance.

Table 5: General Fund (GF) Subsidies and Support
Category Program / Initiative / Fund Amount ($)
City Subsidies Climate Resiliency Contingency 75,000 Employment & Training – Cost Pool¹ 786,288
Employment & Training – Grant Writing¹ 75,000
Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Subsidy 1,260,073
Richmond Rent Program 529,197
Potential GF Subsidies KCRT Fund 350,468
14

Page 11 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
Category Program / Initiative / Fund Amount ($)
Employment & Training (Operational Subsidy)¹ 488,491 Hilltop Landscape Maintenance District 146,510
General Fund -Supported Gaps Engineering Services 1,935,941 Code Enforcement 2,768,746
¹ Total GF Support for Employment & Training is $1,349,779.

Proposed Funding Recommendations Under Option 2

Under Option 2, the City Council may choose to reprioritize a portion of the approximately $3.1 million in currently funded discretionary City Council priorities listed in Table 2 to support other high-priority needs. This approach would require identifying which existing initiatives or planned activities should be deferred or discontinued to maintain a balanced budget. As part of the continued development of the FY 2026-27 budget, several significant project shortfalls emerged that may warrant City Council consideration under Option 2. These shortfalls are summarized in Table 5 and include the Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II Project, the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Project, and improvements at Shields-Reid and Wendell Parks. These project shortfalls address key infrastructure needs and built environment improvements and align with City Council priorities.

Table 6: Project Shortfalls
Project Shortfall Amount ($)
Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II Project 1,045,000
San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Project 1,000,000 Shields-Reid Park (anticipated change orders) 196,000 Wendell Park (anticipated change orders) 435,000
Total $2,676,000

Advanced Life Support (ALS) Funding Considerations and Revenue Strategy

The January 27, 2026, update on Advanced Life Support (ALS) First Responder Services identified that the transition to ALS will create ongoing operational costs that will require a reliable and long-term funding strategy. As such, an evaluation of revenue options and polling results will be presented to the City Council in July 2026. If the polling indicates stronger voter support for a general obligation (GO) bond rather than a parcel tax, the City would need to recognize that GO bond revenues may only be used for capital projects such as fire station upgrades. As a result, the City would still need to identify a stable General Fund source to support the ongoing operational costs of ALS, including staffing, equipment, training, and oversight.

To prepare for these funding needs, and consistent with the reprioritization approach outlined under Option 2, the City may need to consider whether a portion of existing discretionary General Fund allocations that support Re-Imagining Public Safety initiatives may be redirected to sustain ALS operations. Several of these initiatives represent enhanced service levels beyond core municipal functions, and the associated 15

Page 12 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
discretionary resources could be reprogrammed if the City Council identifies ALS implementation as a higher priority due to its associated health and safety benefits for all Richmond residents.

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Overview and Funding Status

The proposed CIP budget for FY 2026-27 totals $142.6 million and is supported by several types of funding sources. City Council reviewed detailed CIP reports on May 26, 2026. City staff have compiled a list of fully funded capital projects and their associated funding sources, as well as projects facing funding shortfalls or remaining unfunded.

This compiled list is provided as Attachment 1.

Grant-funded projects, including those supported by Gas Tax, Measure J, and other dedicated revenue sources, have limited flexibility for reallocation due to statutory and grant-specific restrictions. Projects funded through General Capital or Equipment Services projects have greater flexibility and may be adjusted or redirected at the City Council's discretion. Of the proposed FY 2026-27 CIP budget, approximately $41.7 million is supported by grants, $44.0 million by General Capital (General Fund), and $56.9 million from other funding sources. Thus far, for FY 2026-27, CIP project shortfalls total $13.5 million, and $59.5 million projects remain unfunded.

Table 7: FY 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan by Funding Type Grant Dedicated
Funds
Equipment
Services
General
Capital
Proposed CIP
Budget FY
2026-27
FY 2026-27
Shortfall
FY 2026-27
Unfunded Total
41,703,913 49,892,408 7,055,000 43,972,517 142,623,838 13,491,000 59,488,500 215,603,338

Department Requests Not Included in the FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget

For additional context as the City Council considers potential modifications under Option 2, all departmental General Fund and non-General Fund requests submitted during the FY 2026-27 budget process that were not included in the draft budget are included below in Table 7. These requests total $29.3 million and reflect a mix of operational needs, program expansion, staffing, capital maintenance, technology investments, and City-wide infrastructure needs. City staff will continue evaluating these requests as part of long-term planning efforts, but they are not recommended for inclusion in the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget without corresponding reductions to maintain a balanced budget.

Table 8: Department Requests not included in FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget Department Request
Amount ($) Notable Requests
City Attorney 76,000 $20k – Individual law library licenses City Clerk 58,000 $58k – Part-time positions to support workload volume City Council 76,700 $15k – City Council Chamber Public Art City Manager 282,800
$50K – Community Survey, $27K – Health Career
Connections Intern, $100K – Public Outreach, $60K –
Leadership Training
16

Page 13 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
Department Request
Amount ($) Notable Requests
Community
Services/Library and
Cultural Services
399,559 $170K – Digitization for Richmond Historical Collection Community
Services/Recreation 2,340,959 $1.7M – Request for various Community Centers to accommodate full operation and extended hours
Economic Development 791,700 $350K – Downtown Richmond Economic Revitalization Strategy
Economic
Development/Housing
Authority
499,989 Operational Needs
Economic
Development/Port of
Richmond
2,779,500 $2M – Cost Escalation Wharf Repairs, $600k – Contractual Services
Fire 250,000 $250K – Deferred PPPE and Fire Equipment maintenance
Internal
Services/Information
Technology
350,000 $150K – Additional Microsoft 365 licenses
Police 117,000 $117K – Dispatcher Communication Enhancements Public Works/Public
Works 21,295,000
$20M – Programmatic Approach ($10M – Pavement,
$3M – Sidewalk, $2M – Street Lights, $1.5M – Roofing
and HVAC, $2M – Traffic Signal, $1.5M Stormwater),
$570K – Infrastructure & Park Maintenance, $650K –
Utility Charges
Total $29,317,207

Additional Budget Considerations for City Council Deliberation

As the City Council continues its review of the FY 2026-27 budget, City staff have identified several additional items that may inform current and future budget development, as well as the FY 2025-26 year-end close process. These items include replacing the City-wide Electric Bikeshare Program with the e-Bike Lending Library and the potential use of American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ARPA SLFRF) interest earnings to support key programs (pending consultant input).

Together, these topics present additional opportunities for City Council consideration to evaluate available resources, prioritize one-time and ongoing investments in the built environment to address project shortfalls and complete projects, and make decisions that balance community benefit with long-term fiscal sustainability.

City-wide Electric Bikeshare Program – City Staff Recommendation On May 19, 2026, City Council approved $390,000 in Environmental and Community Investment Agreement (ECIA) Transportation funds to cover past due invoices and continue operations for the City’s E-Bikeshare Program through June 2026.

As noted in that presentation and agenda report, the City has spent approximately $3 million from ECIA and other grants to-date for Charleston Mobility (dba Ride Today) to support this program, including maintenance and operations of 12 electric bikeshare hubs throughout the City. However, this program is not financially viable without outside 17

Page 14 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
grant funds and/or continued City support. Additionally, the ECIA Transportation funds that have historically funded the program are in their final year of availability.

As part of the May 19, 2026, presentation, City staff stated they would bring forth three options regarding the future of the e-bike program for City Council consideration as part of the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget discussion.
 Option 1: (City Staff Recommendation) Conclude the e-bike share program and remove associated infrastructure in early FY 2026-27. Fund construction of E-bike Lending Library to continue e-bike access (~$250,000 for 3-month ramp down; $2.2M for construction of e-bike lending library).  Option 2: Continue the program as-is with a limited fleet and 12 bike hubs (~$792,000 per year). Continuing the program would require redirecting discretionary General Fund resources, as no dedicated revenue source exists.
 Option 3: Expand the program to add 17 additional hubs and 250 new e-bikes City-wide (~$1,459,294 per year). Expanding the program would require redirecting discretionary General Fund resources, given the absence of alternative funding source(s).

Given the program’s ongoing financial needs, the limited availability of remaining ECIA Transportation funds, and low program utilization by City residents, City staff recommend conclusion of the e-bikeshare program with a three-month wind down through Q1 of FY 2026-27. To continue supporting sustainable and affordable transportation options for Richmond residents, City staff further recommend prioritizing available ECIA funding toward closing the E-Bike Lending Library’s $2.2 million construction funding gap. This approach would redirect limited transportation resources toward a program designed specifically to serve Richmond residents while leveraging significant external grant funding.

E-Bike Lending Library Construction Renderings

The E-Bike Lending Library would be located at Unity Park and serve as a centralized facility where Richmond residents can borrow e-bikes and participate in workshops focused on safe riding practices, maintenance, and bicycle education. Funding the remaining construction gap would unlock approximately $1.2 million in Transformative 18

Page 15 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
Climate Communities (TCC) grant funding for construction, while preserving access to approximately $1.3 million in TCC operations funding over the next two years.

Interest Earnings on Limited-Term Revenue Funds

In addition to the principal settlement payments, the City also earns interest on the unspent balance while those funds remain invested. Upon receipt of the first installment, on July 15, 2025, approximately $48.5 million has been held in the CalTRUST Short-Term Fund, generating $1.80 million in earnings through May 31, 2026. These investment earnings increase the total resources available for community benefit and will be incorporated into the City Council’s future discussions regarding one-time funding opportunities. Although these dollars generate ongoing earnings for as long as the limited-term revenue principal remains fully invested, interest income is inherently volatile and sensitive to market conditions, and therefore not considered a stable, long-term revenue source for ongoing operations. Consistent with public-finance best practices, City staff recommend treating interest earnings on limited-term revenue as one-time resources, appropriate for one-time investments that provide long-term community benefit.

Per City Council direction on April 28, 2026, the City will conduct a separate community engagement process, led by a qualified consultant, to gather input and develop recommendations on how these funds should be prioritized and used. This process is designed to ensure broad community participation, transparency, and alignment with long-term community priorities. Through this effort, residents and stakeholders will help identify one-time investments, spending principles, and priority areas for City Council consideration.

City staff will return to the City Council later this year with updated interest-earnings projections, refined investment assumptions, and the results of the community engagement process.

American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ARPA SLFRF) Interest Earnings

On May 26, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from Richmond Promise outlining the organization’s current scope of services, its role in supporting Richmond youth before, during, and after postsecondary education, and its ongoing resource needs. Since 2016, Richmond Promise has awarded scholarships to more than 4,600 Richmond Promise Scholars. Following the presentation, the City Council directed City staff to explore funding options to support scholarships for Richmond students.

Consistent with this direction, City staff are evaluating whether a portion of the interest earnings on remaining American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ARPA SLFRF) could be used to support direct Richmond Promise scholarships, pending confirmation of federal eligibility requirements. This analysis is being completed in coordination with the City’s ARPA consultants. Once eligibility is confirmed and the 19

Page 16 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
total amount of interest earnings is validated through the year-end close process, City staff will return to the City Council with a comprehensive recommendation.

Potential Criteria for Considering New Initiatives

The City Council routinely considers requests for new programs, policy initiatives, studies, service expansions, and City Council referrals. While many of these requests address important community needs, the City's ability to undertake additional work is constrained by staffing capacity, budget resources, core operational responsibilities, and existing Council-directed priorities.

To support informed decision-making, City staff proposes an “Initiative Evaluation Framework” that would provide a consistent and transparent process for evaluating future initiatives and communicating organizational impacts, resource requirements, and implementation considerations. The primary criterion recommended for evaluating and prioritizing funding requests is alignment with the City Council's Goals and Priorities and any prior Council direction.

Key Evaluation Considerations

Future initiatives may be evaluated using the following categories:

Category Purpose Evaluation Considerations
Strategic Alignment Evaluates consistency with
adopted strategic objectives,
policy direction, and previously
established Council priorities.

Alignment with Council Goals
and Priorities; Prior Council
Direction.

Fiscal and Work Plan Impacts Evaluates financial implications and potential tradeoffs
associated with implementation.

Fiscal Considerations;
Opportunity Costs.

Service Delivery and Resource
Stewardship
Evaluates how the proposed
initiative relates to existing City
services, investments, and
organizational responsibilities.

Impact on Core Services;
Existing City Investments;
Duplication and Appropriate
Governmental Role.

Organizational Capacity and
Implementation
Evaluates the City's ability to
undertake and successfully
implement additional work.

Staffing Capacity;
Interdepartmental and External
Coordination.

Community Benefit and Public
Impact
Assesses the anticipated
benefits and outcomes for
residents, businesses,
stakeholders, and the broader
community.

Community Benefit and Public
Impact.

Council-Initiated Requests and Referrals

The proposed framework is not intended to limit the City Council's authority to introduce new initiatives, referrals, policy proposals, studies, or service enhancements.

When new initiatives are proposed, City staff would conduct an evaluation using the proposed framework and provide City Council with information regarding strategic 20

Page 17 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
alignment, community benefit, implementation requirements, fiscal impacts, and potential effects on existing priorities and work plan commitments.

Where implementation may affect staffing capacity, budget resources, core services, or previously approved priorities, City staff will identify those impacts and any associated tradeoffs for City Council consideration.

Next Steps
City staff will continue refining the draft FY 2026-27 Operating Budget and the FY 2026- 31 CIP based on direction received during this Special Budget Study Session. As part of this work, City staff will update revenue and expenditure assumptions, incorporate City Council direction regarding discretionary programs, and prepare any necessary adjustments to maintain a balanced General Fund in alignment with the City Council’s adopted reserve policy.

In accordance with the adopted budget schedule, City staff will return to the City Council on June 16, 2026, to present the Budget Checklist, which will summarize outstanding questions, requested clarifications, and additional information identified during prior budget discussions for final adoption on June 23, 2026.

Requested Direction from City Council

City staff request direction on the following items to support preparation of the final FY 2026-27 Operating Budget and FY 2026-31 Capital Improvement Plan:

1. Should the City proceed with Option 1 (status quo budget) or Option 2 (reprioritization of existing discretionary funding)?

2. If Option 2 is preferred, which existing discretionary initiatives, programs, or commitments should be reduced, deferred, or discontinued to maintain a balanced budget?

3. Should discretionary funding be redirected to address identified project shortfalls, including the Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II Project, San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Project, and park improvement projects?

4. Are there additional City Council priorities or built environment investments that should be reflected in the final budget and CIP?

5. Approve replacing the e-bike program with the e-Bike Lending Library.

6. Does the City Council support further development of the proposed Initiative Evaluation Framework to assist with evaluating future Council initiatives, referrals, and service expansion requests? If not, how does the City Council want staff to prioritize the 37 key initiatives?

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Draft FY 2026-27 CIP Budget by Funding Type with Unfunded & Shortfalls, June 2026 Update
Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist
21

Page 18 of 18 ends

June 9, 2026
Attachment 3 – Draft Budget Presentation

22 Attachment 1 - FY 2026-27 CIP Budget by Funding Type with Unfunded and Shortfalls Color Legend: Superscript Legend: Assumptions:

Grant funded project (1) = Shortfall exists but in the out-years Program Shortfall are excluded from the FY 2026-27 shortfall totals Active projects (non-grant) (2) = Financial close-out pending Shortfalls reflect FY 2026‑27 needs only, not total ROM (rough order of magnitude) Unfunded projects (3) = Funding already allocated to other projects Projects are ranked by CIP score; legacy projects are listed alphabetically (4) = Unfunded projects in out-years Projects or programs adopted prior to the CIP scoring system are termed legacy

LINE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE CIP SCORE CURRENT PHASE GRANT

DEDICATED FUNDS - GAS

TAX, MEASURE J,

ENTERPRISE FUNDS,

IMPACT FEE, CDBG

EQUIPMENT

SERVICES

GENERAL

CAPITAL FUND
FY 2026-27

PROPOSED

CIP BUDGET
FY 2026-27

SHORTFALL
FY 2026-27

UNFUNDED TOTAL
A B C D E = A+B+C+D F G H = E+F+G
1 16G13 E-BIKE LENDING LIBRARY Legacy Design 1,249,467 - - - 1,249,467 2,200,000 3,449,467 2 16G12 RICHMOND WELLNESS TRAIL PHASE II Legacy Design 3,668,872 - - 200,000 3,868,872 1,150,000 5,018,872 3 23046 SOCCER FIELDS-RESTROOMS-PARKS(5) Legacy Executing 681,000 - - 569,000 1,250,000 631,000 1,881,000 4 01A14 SF BAY TRAIL - PT. MOLATE 55 Construction 2,000,000 - - 2,275,732 4,275,732 1,000,000 5,275,732 5 29120 13TH STREET COMPLETE STREET Legacy Bid & Award 2,820,000 246,132 - 1,344,966 4,411,098 4,411,098 6 16G17 ADA ACCESSIBLE GARDEN Legacy Construction 565,044 - - - 565,044 565,044 7 23042 BARRETT AVE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Legacy Design 3,080,769 - - 308,500 3,389,269 3,389,269 8 23040 BAYVIEW TO BART Legacy Design 1,824,800 51,825 - 12,297 1,888,922 1,888,922 9 23045 BOOKER T. ANDERSON CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE II(2) Legacy Closeout 2,149 - - - 2,149 2,149 10 AR247 BOOKER T. ANDERSON COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC RENOVATION AND REBUILD(2) Legacy Closeout 10,704 - - - 10,704 10,704 11 23006 BOORMAN PARK REVITALIZATION Legacy Construction - - - 2,355,841 2,355,841 2,355,841 12 23G02 BRIDGE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE Legacy Bid & Award 3,202,130 414,870 - 406,898 4,023,898 4,023,898 13 23057 CUTTING AND CARLSON BLVD SECTION 130 Legacy Design 189,687 - - - 189,687 189,687 14 23060 DOWNTOWN POINT RICHMOND CONNECTIVITY PROJECT Legacy Planning 1,319,000 139,667 - 191,235 1,649,902 1,649,902 15 16G20 E-BIKE SHARE Legacy Closeout 325,275 - - - 325,275 325,275 16 29125 GREENING THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD Legacy Closeout 350,297 - - - 350,297 350,297 17 23004 HARBOUR 8 PARK EXPANSION Legacy Construction 53,512 - - 3,300,000 3,353,512 3,353,512 18 23022 HARBOUR WAY & WRIGHT SECTION 130 Legacy Design 903,802 - - 334,565 1,238,367 1,238,367 19 29110 I-80 CENTRAL INTERCHANGE PHASE II Legacy Design 5,748,296 378,981 - - 6,127,277 6,127,277 20 23041 LINCOLN SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL(2) Legacy Closeout - - - 243,798 243,798 243,798 21 23043 MACDONALD AVE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Legacy Construction 53,273 - - 28,403 81,675 81,675 22 23039 MCBRYDE SAFE ROUTES TO PARKS Legacy Design 670,334 812,977 - - 1,483,311 1,483,311 23 16G11 NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETE STREETS Legacy Design 4,561,582 - - - 4,561,582 4,561,582 24 AR231 REVITALIZING THE HISTORIC RICHMOND MAIN LIBRARY Legacy Construction 67,091 - - 5,902,463 5,969,554 5,969,554 25 23031 RICHMOND ART AND LIGHTING Legacy Executing 3,514,474 - - 700,000 4,214,474 4,214,474 26 23030 RICHMOND COMMUNITIES CLEAN COLLABORATIVE Legacy Executing - - - 1,339,528 1,339,528 1,339,528 27 23028 SHIELDS-REID PARK REVITALIZATION Legacy Construction 504,326 - - - 504,326 504,326 28 23021 TERMINAL 4 WHARF REMOVAL Legacy Closeout 1,192,305 - - - 1,192,305 1,192,305 29 23084 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Legacy Executing 995,000 - - - 995,000 995,000 30 23032 YELLOW BRICK ROAD: CLEAN, GREEN AND BEAUTIFUL Legacy Closeout 37,315 - - 29,981 67,296 67,296 31 23078 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES PROGRAM(1) 80 Executing 466,775 - - 1,722,495 2,189,270 2,189,270 32 16G16 BOSQUE DEL BARRIO 71 Construction 657,537 - - - 657,537 657,537 33 23065 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR COMMUNITY CENTER(1) 68 Design 960,000 - - 400,189 1,360,189 1,360,189 34 23034 CORPORATION YARD BATHROOM REMODEL Legacy Design - - - 157,470 157,470 100,000 257,470 35 05G01 FIRE STATION 66 IMPROVEMENTS(1) 77 Planning - - - 745,576 745,576 3,830,000 4,575,576 36 23012 CORPORATION YARD FUEL SITES UPGRADES(1) 76 Design - - - 189,800 189,800 250,000 439,800 37 05C01 FIRE STATION 63 - FIRE DEPT IMPROVEMENTS/STATION 63(1) 72 Planning - - - 177,996 177,996 4,330,000 4,507,996 38 22103 CUTTING BLVD. & HARBOUR WAY S. SEWER LINE WET WEATHER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Legacy Construction - 1,126,349 - - 1,126,349 1,126,349 39 22110 DORNAN DRIVE TUNNEL REHABILITATION Legacy Closeout - 72,670 - - 72,670 72,670

Page 1 ends

Attachment 1 - FY 2026-27 CIP Budget by Funding Type with Unfunded and Shortfalls Color Legend: Superscript Legend: Assumptions:

LINE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE CIP SCORE CURRENT PHASE GRANT

DEDICATED FUNDS - GAS

TAX, MEASURE J,

ENTERPRISE FUNDS,

IMPACT FEE, CDBG

EQUIPMENT

SERVICES

GENERAL

CAPITAL FUND
FY 2026-27

PROPOSED

CIP BUDGET
FY 2026-27

SHORTFALL
FY 2026-27

UNFUNDED TOTAL
A B C D E = A+B+C+D F G H = E+F+G
40 22230 SANITARY SEWER REPAIRS Legacy Executing - 4,000,000 - - 4,000,000 4,000,000 41 22234 SANITARY SEWER PIPELINE REHAB Legacy Executing - 1,200,000 - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 42 22235 SANITARY SEWER BRICK MANHOLE REPAIRS Legacy Executing - 672,178 - - 672,178 672,178 43 22240 MULTI-SITE TRASH CAPTURE DEVICES Legacy Design - 9,700,626 - - 9,700,626 9,700,626 44 23011 AREA FM CAP Legacy Bid & Award - 364,580 - - 364,580 364,580 45 23033 CARLSON CROSSTOWN PROJECT PHASE II Legacy Design - 3,392,927 - 2,447,799 5,840,726 5,840,726 46 23035 TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM Legacy Executing - 788,275 - 681,570 1,469,846 1,469,846 47 23049 VIA VERDI MITIGATION Legacy Design - - - 2,964,001 2,964,001 2,964,001 48 23050 DORNAN TUNNEL LIGHTING Legacy Design - - - 483,026 483,026 483,026 49 23051 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA LANDSCAPING Legacy Executing - - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 50 23061 BOOKER T. ANDERSON CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE PHASE III Legacy Design - - - 2,984,366 2,984,366 2,984,366 51 23062 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Legacy Executing - 29,824 - - 29,824 29,824 52 23064 FACILITIES ROOF REPAIR - CITYWIDE Legacy Executing - - - 176,728 176,728 176,728 53 23067 BLUE CURB POLICY DEVELOPMENT Legacy Executing - 10,730 - - 10,730 10,730 54 23069 CANAL BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SAFETY Legacy Construction - - - 47,044 47,044 47,044 55 23076 PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & OUTREACH Legacy Planning - 167,760 - - 167,760 167,760 56 23079 POINT RICHMOND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS Legacy Design 29,099 - - - 29,099 29,099 57 23080 SHIELDS-REID COMMUNITY CENTER MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS Legacy Construction - - - 147,715 147,715 147,715 58 23085 2026 ARTERIAL BASE REPAIR & REHAB Legacy Design - 3,566,983 - - 3,566,983 3,566,983 59 23086 SANTA FE SLOPE STABLIZATION Legacy Design - - - 1,278,126 1,278,126 1,278,126 60 23087 COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM Legacy Executing - 500,000 - 6,270,944 6,770,944 6,770,944 61 26001 NETWORK REFRESH Legacy Executing - - - 203,213 203,213 203,213 62 26002 AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT Legacy Executing - - - 32,802 32,802 32,802 63 26003 IT FIRE EOC EQUIPMENT Legacy Executing - - - 35,624 35,624 35,624 64 36005 RIGGERS LOFT MAINTENANCE Legacy Closeout - 537,000 - - 537,000 537,000 65 36007 TERMINALS 7 & 8 ELECTRIFICATION Legacy Design - 2,602,750 - - 2,602,750 2,602,750 66 36009 POINT POTRERO MARINE TERMINAL (PPMT) ELECTRICAL AND WATERING METER Legacy Planning - 450,000 - - 450,000 450,000 67 36012 POINT POTRERO MARINE TERMINAL (PPMT) PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE Legacy Executing - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 68 36020 TERMINALS 7 & 8 DREDGING Legacy Executing - 100,000 - - 100,000 100,000 69 36021 MARINA BAY YACHT HARBOUR CHANNEL ENTRANCE Legacy Executing - 888,977 - - 888,977 888,977 70 36022 TERMINAL 2 DREDGING & BANK STABILIZATION Legacy Construction - 1,184,788 - - 1,184,788 1,184,788 71 36028 CAFETERIA BUILDING WINTERIZATION Legacy Executing - 152,079 - - 152,079 152,079 72 36029 HIGH MAST LED REPLACEMENT Legacy Planning - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 73 36035 PORT INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE Legacy Planning - 3,175,568 - - 3,175,568 3,175,568 74 36036 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS - PORT Legacy Planning - 500,000 - - 500,000 500,000 75 36037 PROCESSING BUILDING ASSESSMENT Legacy Closeout - 42,500 - - 42,500 42,500 76 36038 HISTORIC SHIP MOVE: SS RED OAK VICTORY Legacy Planning - 500,000 - - 500,000 500,000 77 36039 PORT ELECTRICAL MAINT. & REPAIRS Legacy Executing - 300,000 - - 300,000 300,000 78 01A15 PT. MOLATE TRAIL BEACH STABILIZATION Legacy Design - 167,841 - 1,990,000 2,157,841 2,157,841

Page 2 ends

Attachment 1 - FY 2026-27 CIP Budget by Funding Type with Unfunded and Shortfalls Color Legend: Superscript Legend: Assumptions:

LINE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE CIP SCORE CURRENT PHASE GRANT

DEDICATED FUNDS - GAS

TAX, MEASURE J,

ENTERPRISE FUNDS,

IMPACT FEE, CDBG

EQUIPMENT

SERVICES

GENERAL

CAPITAL FUND
FY 2026-27

PROPOSED

CIP BUDGET
FY 2026-27

SHORTFALL
FY 2026-27

UNFUNDED TOTAL
A B C D E = A+B+C+D F G H = E+F+G
79 01M10 WWTP SLUDGE THICKENER Legacy Closeout - 96,016 - - 96,016 96,016 80 01U10 FERRY POINT PUMP STATION Legacy Closeout - 45,000 - - 45,000 45,000 81 01X10 GRIT AND AERATION REPLACEMENT Legacy Closeout - 1,661,056 - - 1,661,056 1,661,056 82 03A04 FIRE VEHICLES Legacy Executing - - 3,165,000 - 3,165,000 3,165,000 83 03B04 POLICE VEHICLES Legacy Executing - - 1,545,000 - 1,545,000 1,545,000 84 03C04 OTHER CITY VEHICLES Legacy Executing - - 2,320,000 - 2,320,000 2,320,000 85 03D04 OTHER CITY EQUIPMENT Legacy Executing - - 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 86 03D06 ADA REHABILITATIONS/CDBG BOOKER T. ANDERSON CENTER Legacy Planning - 485,000 - - 485,000 485,000 87 03F06 ADA REHABILITATIONS/CDBG PARCHESTER Legacy Planning - 441,480 - - 441,480 441,480 88 22A02 FLOOD RISK REDUCTION - RHEEM CREEK Legacy Closeout - - - 165,000 165,000 165,000 89 AR232 NEVIN COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC(3) Legacy Queued - - - 64,750 64,750 64,750 90 AR233 RICHMOND RECREATION COMPLEX HVAC(3) Legacy Queued - - - 114,975 114,975 114,975 91 CCTV1 CCTV CAMERAS Legacy Executing - - - 236,620 236,620 236,620 92 CSA27 SHIELDS-REID COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC SYSTEM UPGRADE(3) Legacy Queued - - - 27,250 27,250 27,250 93 PM902 POINT MOLATE COTTAGE ROOF STABILIZATION Legacy Closeout - - - 63,512 63,512 63,512 94 23070 CITYWIDE CONCRETE PROGRAM(1) 88 Executing - 1,200,000 - 320,218 1,520,218 1,520,218 95 01A05 STREET PAVING(1) 82 Executing - 3,325,000 - - 3,325,000 3,325,000 96 23088 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY AND ACCESS PROGRAM 79 Executing - 400,000 - - 400,000 400,000 97 23063 PARCHESTER AREA INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT(1) 78 Executing - - - 100,500 100,500 100,500 98 STORM DRAINAGE AND WATERSHED PROGRAM(4) 79 Unfunded 1,500,000 1,500,000 99 BOYD ATCHISON(4) 79 Unfunded 55,000 55,000 100 RICHMOND GREENWAY GAP CLOSURE(4) 79 Unfunded 1,000,000 1,000,000 101 FIRE STATION 62 ALS UPGRADES(4) 77 Unfunded 66,000 66,000 102 FIRE TRAINING CENTER(4) 76 Unfunded - - 103 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROGRAM(4) 76 Unfunded 2,000,000 2,000,000 104 NICHOLL PARK RENOVATION(4) 76 Unfunded - - 105 FIRE STATION 68 ALS UPGRADES(4) 75 Unfunded 82,500 82,500 106 MARINA BAY LIGHTING RENOVATIONS 74 Unfunded 300,000 300,000 107 FIRE STATION ALERTING SYSTEM(4) 74 Unfunded - - 108 PORT PROCESSING BLDG 74 Unfunded 14,450,000 14,450,000 109 STREETLIGHT PROGRAM(4) 73 Unfunded 3,000,000 3,000,000 110 BUILDING & FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM(4) 72 Unfunded 1,200,000 1,200,000 111 NEVIN PARK(4) 70 Unfunded - - 112 23RD ST MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR(4) 70 Unfunded 100,000 100,000 113 MULTI-USE SPORTS FACILITY(4) 69 Unfunded - - 114 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. PARK REVITALIZATION(4) 68 Unfunded - 115 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM UPGRADES(4) 67 Unfunded 200,000 200,000 116 FIRE STATION 67 REBUILD(4) 67 Unfunded - - 117 URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM(4) 67 Unfunded - -

Page 3 ends

Attachment 1 - FY 2026-27 CIP Budget by Funding Type with Unfunded and Shortfalls Color Legend: Superscript Legend: Assumptions:

LINE PROJECT PROJECT TITLE CIP SCORE CURRENT PHASE GRANT

DEDICATED FUNDS - GAS

TAX, MEASURE J,

ENTERPRISE FUNDS,

IMPACT FEE, CDBG

EQUIPMENT

SERVICES

GENERAL

CAPITAL FUND
FY 2026-27

PROPOSED

CIP BUDGET
FY 2026-27

SHORTFALL
FY 2026-27

UNFUNDED TOTAL
A B C D E = A+B+C+D F G H = E+F+G
118 CIVIC CENTER AUDITORIUM IMPROVEMENTS(4) 67 Unfunded - - 119 STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM(4) 66 Unfunded 1,000,000 1,000,000 120 LA MOINE PARK(4) 66 Unfunded 400,000 400,000 121 ZEV AND INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSITION PROGRAM(4) 66 Unfunded - - 122 PORT TERMINAL 2 SLOPE 66 Unfunded 15,000,000 15,000,000 123 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT CITYWIDE(4) 63 Unfunded 500,000 500,000 124 CARLSON BLVD CROSSTOWN PHASE III(4) 62 Unfunded - - 125 CITY FIBER REPAIR AND UPGRADE(4) 61 Unfunded 400,000 400,000 126 DOG PARK ASSESSMENT FOR DISTRICT 4 60 Unfunded 35,000 35,000 127 PORT WAREHOUSE DEMO 60 Unfunded 1,000,000 1,000,000 128 HUMPHREY PLAYLOT RENOVATION(4) 58 Unfunded 200,000 200,000 129 PORT T4 SHORELINE(4) 58 Unfunded 2,000,000 2,000,000 130 SOLAR INSTALLATION ON CITY BUILDINGS 55 Unfunded 12,000,000 12,000,000 131 TILLER PARK(4) 49 Unfunded - - 132 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY(4) 49 Unfunded - - 133 JANICE PLAYLOT(4) 46 Unfunded - - 134 AS-NEEDED SPACE REMODELING(4) 40 Unfunded 1,000,000 1,000,000 135 LOCKER FACILITIES REPLACEMENT 34 Unfunded 2,000,000 2,000,000 41,703,913 49,892,408 7,055,000 43,972,517 142,623,838 13,491,000 59,488,500 215,603,338

Page 4 ends

DRAFT Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist DRAFT
Line City Council Meeting Date Co uncilmember Councilmember Question Response 1 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson How can Council members bring forward issues/projects requested, sometimes repeatedly, by residents without derailing work in progress in each affected department Councilmembers should continue to bring forward concerns and ideas raised by residents, as these requests provide valuable insight into community needs and service gaps. At the same time, every request and question requires staff time to research, evaluate, coordinate across departments, and determine feasibility, cost, and alignment with existing plans and priorities. For example with Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) Projects staff must inspect field conditions, review funding sources, assess safety and regulatory considerations, and determine whether the request is operational, maintenance-related, capital- related, or policy-related. When requests are submitted informally and outside a standardized process, they can disrupt ongoing work, create duplication, and make it difficult to track workload, response times, and tradeoffs.

In April 2026, the City Clerk’s Office surveyed City Clerks throughout Contra Costa County regarding how their agencies process Councilmember requests for future agenda items. The survey found that many jurisdictions use a standing agenda section to formally receive, discuss, and track Councilmember requests in a public setting. Based on this survey and discussions with departmental staff, the most effective approach is to establish a standing City Council agenda section entitled “Council Requests for Future Agenda Items.” This process would allow Councilmembers to raise constituent concerns in a public and transparent manner, ensure requests are formally captured and tracked, route them to the appropriate department, and prioritize them based on adopted Council goals, urgency, and available resources. This approach preserves the ability of Councilmembers to respond to residents while helping staff manage requests in a consistent, transparent, and sustainable way without unnecessarily disrupting active projects and day-to-day operations.

Formation of an ad hoc committee to review and recommend amendments to the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order is currenlty in progress. 2 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Could a limited amount of staff time be budgeted each year to address Council-generated requests, with approved requests placed in a prioritized queue based on available capacity? Yes, that concept is workable, but it needs clear rules. A defined amount of staff time, consultant support, or annual funding could be dedicated to Council-generated requests. That would allow staff to perform initial review, field verification, rough cost estimates, and prioritization without constantly interrupting active projects.

Staff supports exploring a defined Council-generated request queue, provided it includes clear intake rules, capacity limits, prioritization criteria, and reporting expectations. This would allow Councilmembers to elevate resident concerns while protecting active work from constant disruption. The queue would need to distinguish between urgent safety issues, routine maintenance, capital projects, policy requests, and items that require future budget consideration.
3 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Could technolo gy be used to implement a request-tracking system that would: 1) route requests to the proper party, 2) create an accountability trail 3) Andre stamp requests so we can track how long they’ve been in queue, 4) prioritize requests according to the existing matrix we are using for CIP, 5) have a way where these requests are visible to the public and all council members so we understand volume and wait times? Staff support exploring a technology-based request tracking system that would route requests, document accountability, track response times, prioritize work based on the adopted matrix, and provide transparency to the City Council and the public. Subject to available staff capacity, this effort could be evaluated beginning in FY 2026-27, potentially in the third quarter. 4 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Could the Ci ty recommend adding a fourth focus to our priorities—specifically, ALS and Fire Stat ion
improvements? This was a major commitment we made as a council, and prioritizing this long-term project would reflect our dedication to the community.

Yes. Adding ALS and Fire Station Improvements as a fourth priority area is appropriate and would reaffirm the City Council’s commitment to strengthening emergency medical response capabilities and modernizing critical public safety infrastructure for the long term 5 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson In developing these recommendati ons, did Dr. Mia meet with City Council Members to better understand the role of elected officials in the budget development process and their responsibility to respond to and address community concerns?
Dr. Mia Settles-Tidwell and City staff understand that City Councilmembers regularly receive inquiries and requests from constituents and community stakeholders, and that responding to those concerns is an important part of their role. At the same time, staff have experienced a significant increase in the volume and complexity of requests submitted directly by individual Councilmembers, including requests that involve work products or analyses intended for consideration by the full City Council. While staff are committed to supporting the City Council, the current volume of requests has created operational challenges and has affected staff capacity to advance adopted Council priorities and carry out day-to-day departmental responsibilities. Establishing a more structured process for submitting and prioritizing Council requests would help ensure that staff resources are aligned with the City Council’s collectively adopted goals and work plan. 6 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Are there any outdated or unused po sitions that could potentially be removed from position control to help streamline operations?
Yes. This will be completed once MOU negotiations are completed. 7 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Which City commissions could be considered for consolidation or elimination to improve efficiency and reduce duplication of effort, and what specific actions could the City Council take to support and facilitate a commission streamlining process?
The City Council may evaluate the City’s 104 boards, commissions, ad hoc committees, LLCs, and regional agencies, all of which require staff time for agenda preparation, public noticing, meeting support, and follow-up. As part of the review of City Council-directed work efforts to assist in evaluating potential reprioritization opportunities, and following completion of the ad hoc committee currently being established to review the City Council Rules of Procedure and Order, the City Council may want to consider the status of these bodies.

In addition, a plan is required to improve and structure communication flow between the City’s boards, commissions, ad hoc committees, LLCs, regional agencies, the City Council, the City Manager, and her designees to support efficient operations and aligned implementation of City Council goals and priorities.

Page 1 of 727 ends

DRAFT Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist Line City Council Meeting Date Co uncilmember Councilmember Question Response 8 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Would it be feasible to consolidate the Race and Equity-related commission functions with the Black Resiliency Fund governance structure, and how would such a consolidation impact the scope, accountability, and effectiveness of each body within the City’s broader equity framework? Yes, staff can evaluate the potential consolidation of the Race and Equity initiative with the Black Resiliency Fund for efficiency and alignment of resources. 9 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Can an overtime analysis be provid ed that identifies current overtime trends, primary cost drivers, and departments with the highest utilization, along with an assessment of potential cost savings associated with strategies to reduce overtime expenditures?
Yes, reducing overtime can generate cost savings; however, the ability to reduce overtime varies depending on operational requirements, staffing levels, and service demands.

A significant portion of the City’s overtime occurs in public safety departments, where minimum staffing requirements, emergency response, investigations, training, and backfilling for vacancies or leave require 24/7 staffing coverage. In these cases, some overtime is operationally necessary to maintain service levels and meet contractual, legal, and public safety obligations.

The proposed FY 2026-27 budget already includes efforts to reduce overtime costs where feasible, including an approximately 14 percent reduction in sworn overtime projections based on updated staffing assumptions and operational trends. The reduction is primarily based on the assumption that the Police Department will continue progressing toward full staffing in FY 2026–27. To the extent staffing levels are not achieved as projected, associated vacancy savings would help offset higher overtime costs.

Recent budget updates also reflect that sworn overtime has already been adjusted to align with actual demand for service, confirming that current overtime usage reflects operational necessity rather than discretionary spending. Year-to-date overtime actuals from July through March have also trended downward, from approximately $3.53 million in FY 2024–25 to approximately $3.04 million in FY 2025–26.

Overtime data is regularly provided to the City Council through monthly financial reporting, including the City’s Investment and Cash Balance Report, Monthly Overtime Reports, Documentary Transfer Tax Report, and OPEB and Pension Reports. Staff will continue monitoring overtime trends to identify opportunities to improve scheduling and reduce avoidable overtime where operationally feasible while maintaining essential City services.
10 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Can recommendations be provided for potential cost-saving opportunities across the organization, prioritized in approximate order of ease of implementation (from most immediately achievable to most complex or long- term), with an understanding that the sequencing may be preliminary or estimated? The proposed strategies represent policy-level guidance for adoption by the City Council; however, additional analysis would be required before specific cost savings can be quantified.

Many of these ideas may provide opportunities for long-term operational efficiencies or cost savings; however, pursuing and implementing these initiatives often requires significant staff time and effort beyond day-to-day operations and ongoing special projects.

Personnel costs make up the majority of the City’s operating expenditures and are directly tied to the delivery of core public services. As a result, meaningful long-term cost savings typically require balancing operational impacts, staffing needs, service levels, and organizational priorities. Non-personnel expenditures make up a smaller portion of the General Fund budget, but there may still be opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce costs over time.

Potential opportunities for cost savings and operational efficiencies include:
a.Evaluate Early ReƟrement IncenƟve Programs: Evaluate whether targeted early reƟrement incenƟve programs may create opportuniƟes for long-term salary and beneﬁt savings while balancing operaƟonal continuity, institutional knowledge, and service delivery impacts. b.UƟliƟes and TelecommunicaƟons Audit: Review uƟlity usage, telecommunicaƟons services, inacƟve lines, billing discrepancies, and departmental allocaƟons to idenƟfy potenƟal savings opportuniƟes. c.Technology and Process Improvements: ConƟnue improving internal workﬂows, automaƟon, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) soŌware funcƟonality, and digital processes to improve eﬃciency and reduce manual work.
d.Long-Term Financial Strategies: Evaluate opportuniƟes related to investment management, pension and OPEB funding strategies, liquidity management, and debt restructuring opportuniƟes where appropriate and financially beneficial. Examples may include integrating cash, investments, debt, and pension/OPEB management into a more unified treasury strategy; strengthening Section 115 Trust funding to improve long-term financial flexibility; enhancing investment strategies and liquidity monitoring to improve returns while maintaining adequate cash flow; and evaluating refinancing or restructuring opportunities, such as the Civic Center Bond, to support future capital needs and reduce long-term cost escalation. e.Fleet & Asset UƟlizaƟon OpƟmizaƟon: Implement data driven ﬂeet and asset management pracƟces to reduce ownership and operaƟng costs. Strategies may include assessing underuƟlized vehicles and equipment for potential reduction, consolidating specialized assets across departments, improving preventative maintenance scheduling, and adopting telematics to track usage and right size the fleet.

Optimizing lifecycle management, resale timing, and shared use models can generate meaningful long term savings while maintaining operational readiness. 11 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Can the current use of temporary holding facilities be described in greater detail, including how many positions are affected, in which departments this practice is occurring, the duration and frequency of these assignments, and the operational or budgetary impacts, in order to clarify the overall scope of the issue? Our temporary holding facility is a critical operational component that enables Richmond Police Department officers to efficiently process and book arrestees locally before transporting them to the Martinez Detention Facility. This process significantly reduces the amount of time patrol officers are out of service and unavailable to respond to calls within the city.

Currently, when an oﬃcer must personally transport and book an arrestee in MarƟnez, the average Ɵme that the oﬃcer is out of service is nearly two hours. By using our temporary holding facility and dedicated professional staff, officers can quickly return to patrol duties while holding staff conduct scheduled transport runs to Martinez. This model greatly improves patrol staffing availability and operational efficiency. At present, the temporary holding facility is staffed by six professional staff members. However, the unit is experiencing significant staffing challenges: One employee is currently out on injury leave; one employee is out on long-term sick leave; and one employee is still in training and is not yet able to work independently.

Additionally, I do not anticipate the employee on injury leave returning to the department, and the employee on long-term sick leave is currently applying to become a police officer. As a result, the unit is operating effectively with minimal staffing.

Without timely backfilling of these positions once they become vacant, there is a substantial risk that the temporary holding facility may be forced to reduce operations or close intermittently due to insufficient staffing. If that occurs, patrol officers would once again be required to leave the city for extended booking trips to Martinez, negatively impacting response times, patrol visibility, and overall service delivery to the community.

Page 2 of 728 ends

DRAFT Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist Line City Council Meeting Date Co uncilmember Councilmember Question Response 12 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson What reducti ons or reallocations within the City budget would be necessary to accommodate staffing levels recommended by the Grand Jury, given that approximately 35% of the budget is currently allocated to public safety, and what service impacts or tradeoffs would likely result from those adjustments? This is a policy question determined by City Council. City Council must balance the budget while taking into consideration Community Services, Public Works, Community Development, and Public Safety. 13 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Given that the City previously experienced its highest crime and homicide rates during a period with the largest number of sworn officers, how can the City design a public safety strategy that focuses on measurable crime reduction outcomes rather than simply increasing sworn staffing levels, and what planning approaches or performance metrics should be used to ensure staffing decisions are tied to actual reductions in crime and improved community safety?
While homicide rates are certainly an important metric when evaluating public safety trends, they represent only one component of a much broader picture. There are many additional indicators that shape residents' sense of safety in their community, including violent crime trends, property crime, response times, visible disorder (blight, graffiti, ECT), traffic safety, quality-of-life concerns, and the level of trust and engagement between the community and the police department.

Crime reduction should not be approached solely through increasing sworn officer staffing levels without a corresponding operational strategy. Instead, the objective should be to design a police department with the capacity, flexibility, and community partnerships necessary to effectively prevent crime, address underlying contributing conditions, and sustain long-term public trust.

A key component of that strategy is ensuring the department is staffed sufficiently to allow officers time to engage proactively, not just respond reactively from call to call. When staffing levels are critically low, officers spend nearly all their time responding to 911 calls and handling immediate crises, leaving little opportunity to build meaningful relationships with neighborhoods, businesses, schools, faith leaders, youth organizations, and community stakeholders. Those relationships are critically important because they ultimately lead to trust, cooperation, information sharing, and collaborative problem-solving.

In the broader picture, it is also my goal that officers have the time and operational capacity to work collaboratively with community-based organizations, social service providers, schools, and other City departments to address the root causes of crime and quality-of-life issues. This philosophy is codified in the Richmond Police Department’s mission statement and has long been part of Richmond’s community- oriented policing model.

Modern policing strategies are most effective when they combine targeted enforcement with prevention, intervention, relationship-building, and data-informed deployment strategies. That includes:
•Focusing resources on repeat violent offenders and high crime locations. •Investing in investigative capacity to improve clearance rates and accountability. •Using technology and data analysis to deploy resources strategically. •Partnering with community organizations and violence prevention programs. •Supporting youth intervention and diversion efforts. •Improving officer wellness and retention to maintain experienced personnel; and •Ensuring patrol officers have adequate time for proactive engagement and problem-solving.

Ultimately, the objective is not simply to grow the department's size, but to build a sustainable public safety model that balances enforcement, prevention, accountability, and community partnerships in a way that meaningfully reduces crime and improves residents’ quality of life. 14 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Ho w many officers would you need to have a functional investigations department? Could these be from the existing budgeted positions or would they need to be new positions and why? The department is currently budgeted for 147 sworn officer positions, and we currently have approximately 129 officers staffed. Before we can fully evaluate expanding specialty assignments or significantly growing our investigations division, we must first hire to our currently authorized staffing level and stabilize core operations.

It is also important to understand that police staffing is not an immediate process. When we hire a new officer, that individual must first complete the police academy, which takes approximately 6½ months.

After graduating from the academy, the officer must complete an extensive field training program that generally lasts an additional 5–8 months before they can work independently and provide solo police services to the community. As a result, the average timeline from hiring to full operational deployment is approximately 14 months. Additionally, staffing projections are impacted by several factors, including:

Injuries and extended leave.
•Oﬃcers who do not successfully complete probaƟon. •Recruits who do not pass the police academy; and •AƩriƟon due to reƟrements or resignaƟons.

With respect to investigations specifically, a functional investigations division requires sufficient staffing not only to investigate violent crime and complex cases, but also to maintain proactive follow-up, victim support, case management, intelligence-sharing, and partnership work with prosecutors and allied agencies. However, specialty assignments, such as investigations, are often the first areas affected when patrol staffing is critically low, because personnel must be reassigned to maintain minimum patrol operations and emergency response capabilities. To properly staff patrol, I need approximately 10 more working solo officers and approximately 8 more experienced officers who can be assigned to investigations.

For that reason, my current position is that we should first focus on hiring to the existing authorized strength of 147 officers, stabilize patrol operations and specialty assignments, and then reevaluate the long- term needs of the City and the Police Department at that time. Once we achieve staffing stability, we will be in a much better position to assess whether additional investigative positions are needed beyond the currently budgeted staffing levels and what deployment model would best support long-term crime reduction strategies. 15 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson How can the City establish the pr eviously approved $10 million allocation for paving as a baseline minimum in the ongoing budget process, and what mechanisms (e.g., policy adoption, multi-year budgeting framework, or maintenance funding strategy) would be needed to ensure this level of investment is sustained as the “new normal” for pavement maintenance?
Yes, approximately $10M was allocated to pavement in FY 2025-26. However, the ongoing baseline pavement funding is approximately $6.3M from Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) and Senate Bill 1. The remaining amount was funded from available fund balances in Gas Tax, Measure J, and General Capital as a one-time allocation for the Cape Seal project. To make $10M the new annual minimum for paving, the City would need to identify approximately $4M in additional ongoing funding each year, either from the General Fund or another sustainable source. It is also important to clarify what a $10M annual paving budget achieves. Based on the pavement model, even with an annual pavement budget of $10M, the City’s Pavement Condition Index, or Pavement Condition Index (PCI), is projected to drop from 59 to approximately 53 in 10 years. The current $6.3M baseline is projected to drop further, to 48, while an $18M annual paving program performs substantially better over the same period, increasing the PCI to 64.

In addition, Public Works is bringing the Complete Streets Improvement Elements Project Funding Allocation Plan to City Council on May 19. If Council approves the recommended allocation, pavement investment this fiscal year would increase by an additional $3.67M. This would come from the previously appropriated $6.27M Complete Streets Improvements project funds. The proposed pavement allocation includes $1.67M for citywide paving near Boorman, Wendell, and Shields-Reid Parks, and $2.0M for localized pavement and striping improvements along Richmond Parkway.

Staff support establishing a higher annual paving baseline, but that requires an ongoing funding policy decision. One-time allocations help accelerate work each year, but they do not create a sustainable annual paving program by themselves. Staff recommend that the City Council limit the number of new program requests in order to align expenditures with available financial and staffing resources. Prioritizing core services and critical operational needs will help ensure long-term fiscal sustainability and efficient allocation of City resou rces.

Page 3 of 729 ends

DRAFT Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist Line City Council Meeting Date Co uncilmember Councilmember Question Response 16 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson St aff has emphasized that no new projects should be initiated and that the focus should remain on completing work already on the table first. However, a Parks and Recreation Commission update indicated that a new Parks Master Planning process is proposed to begin this year. Given the significant staff and community capacity required for such an effort, and the number of existing assessments that are still in progress, what is the rationale for initiating a new master planning process at this time, and how does this align with the City’s current prioritization of completing existing work before launching new initiatives? Response is incorporated into the question below.
17 May 5, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Is a new park s master plan included in your budget request? If so how much? There is a distincti on between adding new capital projects and undertaking planning work that helps prioritize future investments. Staff’s recommendation was that the City should not continue adding new discretionary capital projects to the current delivery pipeline without considering sequencing, funding availability, and staff capacity. The Parks Master Plan supports the Programmatic Approach by helping staff and City Council organize existing park needs, evaluate service gaps, establish priorities, and create a more transparent framework for future parks investments.

At the Recreation and Parks Commission, staff presented the following sequence: complete current projects, plan for requested projects, update the Parks Master Plan, establish the Parks and Open Space Program, and update standards and guidelines. The same presentation also identified a future workplan concept that would limit the number of parks under renovation at one time to help maintain service levels. Staff’s intent is to sequence this carefully. Most current park projects are anticipated to be completed by fall 2026. Early work on the Parks Master Plan update for next fiscal year is anticipated to consist of project scoping, Request for Proposal (RFP) preparation, and possible consultant selection. Project kick-off and community engagement would occur likely in FY 2027-28. Staff is proposing doing engagement for the Park Master Plan in conjunction with the General Plan update which includes a Parks and Recreation Element, Community Health and Wellness Element, and Open Space and Natural Resources Element. Coupling these efforts will ensure the Parks Master Plan is integrated into the City’s long-range planning goals and implementing actions. The Project Scope and RFP issuance will be coordinated closely with Community Development.

Given the anticipated timing of the Parks Master Plan update, no funding is being requested in the FY 2026-27 budget. Depending on the final scope for the project, staff estimate the cost to be approximately $300,000 to $400,000. Finance confirmed that the existing parks funding was not originally allocated specifically for a Parks Master Plan; it was identified for Boyd Park, Rain Cloud Park, City-wide playground equipment upgrades, play structure replacement, and bathroom assessments. 18 May 5, 2026 Councilmember
Jimenez
In the context of the Macdonald Avenue Task Force, additional housing development, revenue enhancement, and downtown revitalization efforts, what is the current staffing level in the Housing Division, and is that staffing level sufficient to support the City’s existing and anticipated workload in these areas? There are currently three filled positions and one vacancy in the Housing Division. Staffing levels are sufficient for current programs and grant-funded projects; however, additional projects or program expansions would generate the need for more staff and require a revenue source or grant funds to cover the additional costs of hiring personnel. 19 May 5, 2026 Councilmember
Jimenez
Does Community Development have proper staffing levels to accomplish the goals that were shared tonight? Additional staff is nee ded in all divisions; however, current revenues are not sufficient to cover additional staffing levels. 20 May 5, 2026 Councilmember
Jimenez
$10 million was allocated in paving this year, is that correct? Yes. For FY 2025-26, a pproximately $10M was allocated for paving . The ongoing baseline pavement funding is approximately $6.3M from Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) and SB 1, and the remainder came from available balances in Gas Tax, Measure J, and General Capital as a one-time allocation. In addition, if City Council approves the Complete Streets Improvement Elements Project Funding Allocation Plan on May 19, 2026, pavement investment this fiscal year would increase by another $3.67M. That amount is part of the previously appropriated $6.27M Complete Streets Improvements project funding and would not create an additional General Fund impact. It is also important to clarify what a $10M annual paving budget achieves. Based on the pavement model, even with an annual pavement budget of $10M, the City’s Pavement Condition Index, or PCI, is projected to drop from 59 to approximately 53 in 10 years. The current $6.3M baseline is projected to drop further, to 48, while an $18M annual paving program performs substantially better over the same period, increasing the PCI to 64. 21 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Wilson CIP scores ar e provided for 57 projects; however, the funding status for each project is not clearly identified, and the phasing plan is not readily discernible. Specifically, it is unclear which projects are funded in Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and beyond, as well as what is proposed for funding in the upcoming fiscal year. Please clarify the funding status and multi-year implementation schedule for the identified projects? Staff agrees that the next step is to make the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) scoring easier to connect to funding status and timing. The scores are helpful, but City Council also needs to see whether a project is funded, partially funded, unfunded, in planning, in design, in construction, grant-dependent, or not yet ready for implementation.

The CIP and major Public Works capital priorities are scheduled for discussion on May 26, 2026. For that discussion, staff should work toward presenting the projects in a clearer format showing: project score, current phase, funding status, funding source, estimated cost, readiness, and proposed year of implementation.

Page 4 of 730 ends

DRAFT Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist Line City Council Meeting Date Co uncilmember Councilmember Question Response 22 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Wilson Councilmembers will bring ideas and I don’t expect for everything to be implemented, can staff come up with ideas on tracking, prioritizing, and establishing timelines, maybe that will help reduce pressure on staff? It would be helpful for the City Council to review all City Council requests from January 2025 to present to prioritize initiatives and potentially defer or remove items based on available staffing and financial resources. City staff are currently focused on several major operational and capital priorities, including the Coordinated Outreach Referral, Engagement (CORE) services, Veolia contract implementation and oversight, parks improvements, innovation initiatives, completion of the library renovation project, implementation of Advanced Life Support (ALS) services, and fire station upgrades. Establishing clear priorities will help ensure staff resources remain aligned with the City Council’s highest-priority goals and critical service needs.

Yes. Staff supports developing a structured process to track, prioritize, and establish timelines for Councilmember and resident-generated requests. This would help reduce pressure on staff because requests would not have to be handled informally or repeatedly through separate emails and follow-ups.

A good system should include intake, routing, status tracking, prioritization criteria, funding status, estimated timing, and public visibility where appropriate. For transportation and traffic safety, this is already the direction of the Neighborhood Safety and Access Program, which is evaluating more than 500 existing resident requests and moving toward a data-driven five-year program plan.

The broader goal is to move requests into a transparent prioritization online system so staff can be responsive without constantly reshuffling active work. 23 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana The unhoused community is a major ar ea of responsibility across multiple City departments. Can navigation centers be developed on vacant lots, including consideration of zoning, funding, and site feasibility? How can the City shift its approach to more effectively address homelessness through coordinated, cross-departmental strategies, and what changes in policy, operations, or resource allocation would be required? Addressing homelessness requires a coordinated regional approach and ongoing collaboration with Contra Costa County, which is the lead agency for many homelessness services, behavioral health programs, housing resources, and funding opportunities. The City can continue to partner with the County and community organizations to evaluate potential strategies, including navigation centers, temporary housing options, and supportive services on available sites where feasible and appropriate. Any long-term solution will require coordination of funding, services, site suitability, operational capacity, and community engagement.
24 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana How can the permitting process be streamlined to reduce delays and improve efficiency? The length of time required to issue a permit depends on the scope and complexity of the project. Smaller, routine permits are generally processed more quickly, while larger or multi-disciplinary projects require additional technical review across departments. In addition, staff continue to work closely with the City’s permitting system vendor, iMS, to resolve remaining system issues and implement efficiency upgrades. As reflected in the ongoing Phase II feature development and troubleshooting with the vendor, these improvements are designed to enhance automation, streamline workflows, reduce manual steps, and provide clearer communication for applicants.
25 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Can bar charts be used alongside ta bles to display and visualize data? Yes, staff can incorporate bar charts alongside tables, when feasible, to improve readability and visual comparison of data. 26 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Can values be added next to new pr ograms and projects, and can those items be prioritized based on dollar value (e.g., lower-cost items such as $5K implemented sooner and higher-cost items such as $5M deferred or scheduled later
)?
Yes, staff can include estimated project costs and use cost as one factor in prioritizing programs and projects. 27 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Why does the Ci ty allocate $529,000 to the Rent Program if the City does not have direct oversight or control over its administration and outcomes?
On June 17, 2025, the City council approved a Cooperative Cost Pool Agreement with Richmond Rent Board., and per the agreement the City agreed to credit the cost pool charges. City staff recommend that the City Council direct the Deputy City Manager to draft a formal communication to the Rent Program Board requesting the initiation of a workflow and key performance indicator (KPI) study. The purpose of the study would be to evaluate operational efficiency, staffing levels, and service delivery metrics to identify opportunities to streamline operations and reduce ongoing staffing costs.

The recommendation is intended to ensure that the Rent Program’s staffing structure and associated cost pool remain aligned with citywide operational standards and fiscal practices. Over time, the Rent Program’s staffing levels have increased by approximately 30 percent, resulting in corresponding increases to the program’s cost pool and the City’s staffing subsidy. Conducting an independent workflow and KPI assessment would provide data-driven analysis regarding workload demands, operational processes, productivity measures, and appropriate staffing levels. 28 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Can a centralized Grant Program Office be established or outsourced to manage grant research and application functions, allowing City staff to focus primarily on implementation and program delivery? Currently, departments apply for grants directly based on their expertise and programmatic needs, while the Finance Department provides oversight by tracking grant activity, monitoring compliance, and ensuring proper financial reporting and accountability. 29 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Can the Facilities Asset Inventory (assessment) results be shared? The Facilities Asset Inventory will be presented to City Council on May 26, 2026, or in one of the City Council meetings in July 2026. On May 5, 2026, Public Works staff shared with the City Council major facility repair investments needed at this time. The summary is that 41 general buildings in Richmond require an estimated investment of $28M in repairs and ADA upgrades, while 10 community centers require an estimated investment of $13M in repairs and ADA upgrades. The current total repairs and ADA upgrades for facilities in Richmond is approximately $41M, and does not include cost related to ongoing maintenance.
30 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Can clarification be provided regard ing the absence of the anticipated Fire Chief item from the May 5, 2026, City Council agenda, and confirmation as to whether this position and associated costs are included in the proposed budget?
The Wildfire Preparedness Ad Hoc Presentation will be presented at the May 19, 2026, City Council Meeting as part of New Business. If there is a request for funding, City Council can make the request after all the conclusion of departmental budget presentation.
31 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Has ROCK helped reduce the workload for the Police Department? The addition of Reach Out with Com passion and Kindness (ROCK) community crisis response program (CCRP) personnel has not yet resulted in a measurable reduction in calls for service related to the Police Department. However, ROCK personnel have assisted Richmond Police Department officers on numerous calls for service and have been extremely helpful and greatly appreciated. Their support has provided valuable assistance to officers in the field, even though RPD officers still respond to many of these incidents alongside them.

Page 5 of 731 ends

DRAFT Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist Line City Council Meeting Date Co uncilmember Councilmember Question Response 32 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Is there any cost estimate for a sub-station on Hilltop? Staff does not currently have a verified cost estimate for a Hilltop sub-station for a fire/ALS facility. Once the scope, site assumptions, operating model, staffing needs, and responsible department are defined, staff can develop a rough order-of-magnitude estimate. Just keep in mind that there is more than $41M in repairs and ADA upgrades needs between 41 general buildings and 10 community centers. This does not include any new facility.
33 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana Can public safety priorities such as signage and roadway markings (e.g., painting and striping) be prioritized within the City’s maintenance and capital programs.

Yes. Public safety improvements such as signage, striping, pavement markings, crosswalks, and speed management tools can and should be prioritized, especially where there is documented crash history, proximity to schools or parks, high pedestrian activity, or inclusion in a high-injury corridor. The key is to prioritize these improvements through the Local Road Safety Plan, the Neighborhood Safety and Access Program, and the CIP process so we focus limited resources where they will have the greatest safety impact. Some lower-cost improvements may be handled operationally, but larger improvements often require design, funding, procurement, construction timing, and sometimes grant compliance. Is the total pavement value is around $800M, a rough order-of-magnitude estimate for what you are proposing is $50M. Part of this amount was included in the $18M/yr for paving, but not all of it. 34 May 5, 2026 Councilmember Bana What does term streetscape mean? The term streetscape generally refers to the visible public realm along streets: landscaping, medians, sidewalks, street trees, lighting, benches, trash receptacles, signage, and other features that affect the appearance, safety, accessibility, and usability of a corridor. In the parks/open space context, streetscape includes landscaped areas, medians and public-facing outdoor assets that PW helps maintain outside traditional park boundaries.
35 May 5, 2026 Mayor Martinez With 684 full-time equivalents (FTEs) currently budgeted, what process is used to determine the allocation of the 13 new positions across departments, and how is alignment ensured with organizational priorities and workload demands?
Due to minimum staffing requirement the City Manager is required to hold the remaining positions for sworn police officers. 36 May 19, 2026 Vice Mayor Robinson Identify what is needed that is not included in the budget by each department. What does each department need? Slide 53, funded or unfunded, requests from each department Will cover all additional requests at a later meeting. Not the format at this juncture. 37 May 19, 2026 Councilmember Wilson So we are supposed to wait until June 16th? to see the departments needs. After the presenta tion. Can asks anytime 39 May 19, 2026 Councilmember
Jimenez
Do we have a line by line budget? Right now we have a baseline budget. Will present the line by line on June 16th 40 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Please Include $5,000 for East Bay Wildfire Coalition of Governments (EBWC) When considering ame ndments to the proposed budget allocations, it is important to recognize that any increase to one program area will require corresponding reductions, rescoping, or deferral of other initiatives in order to maintain a balanced General Fund budget. 41 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Could you allo cate $200,000 to the fire department's pilot project (Item N.8.c) for Zone 0 home hardening? Any amendment to the proposed budget must be accompan ied by identification of equivalent funding reductions, rescoping of initiatives, or other offsets in order to maintain a balanced budget. In evaluating amendment requests, staff will assess fiscal impacts, service delivery considerations, organizational capacity, alignment with Council priorities, and community benefit to ensure responsible and sustainable budget decisions.
42 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Can we consider a $200,000 budget for HOA home hardening when the HOA sits right at the first line of defense?
Any amendment to the proposed budget must be accompanied by identification of equivalent funding reductions, rescoping of initiatives, or other offsets in order to maintain a balanced budget. In evaluating amendment requests, staff will assess fiscal impacts, service delivery considerations, organizational capacity, alignment with Council priorities, and community benefit to ensure responsible and sustainable budget decisions.
43 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Would you include $50,000 for the A uditorium sound system? Any amendment to the proposed budget must be accompanied by identification of equivalent funding reductions, rescoping of initiatives, or other offsets in order to maintain a balanced budget. In evaluating amendment requests, staff will assess fiscal impacts, service delivery considerations, organizational capacity, alignment with Council priorities, and community benefit to ensure responsible and sustainable budget decisions.
44 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Could you elaborate on the plan for a tool library in the WUI area of District 4? When would it happen, and would it be at Fire Station 63?
The current plan is to bring the Mobile Tool Library (truck and trailer) to Fire Station 63. This would be once a week service for 4 hours. The day of week and time is TBD, but we are currently looking at Thursday afternoons, and at Aug/Sept start for a 6- to 12-month pilot. 45 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Why is Pride in Civic Center rece iving 5,000 while Pride in Cheese Park only gets $2,000? Would you make them equal shares?
The funding amounts for the Pride events at Civic Center and at Cheese Park reflect differences in the scale, expected attendance, logistical needs, and associated costs for each event. Civic Center typically requires a larger investment due to factors such as security, staging, equipment, and infrastructure needs. 46 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Is the Master Parks Plan going to happen in 2027–28? DRAF T RESPONSE: Yes, the current workplan schedule is for the Parks Master Plan to be underway in 2027-28. 47 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana I was impressed by the Humphrey Pa rk volunteers and their efforts. Would the city save money by allocating a matching budget for park improvements? For example, allocate up to three times the value of documented volunteer work toward planning or implementation. This would require a minimum of volunteer hours — say, 1,000 hours documented. Does that make sense?
DRAFT RESPONSE: Agree that the volunteers at Humphrey play lot are very impressive. Public Works understanding is that Fierce Advocates is organizing the volunteers. Fierce is working through RichPEP and the associated Hellman Grant. As part of their efforts, they are actively looking/applying for grant opportunities. Efforts are underway to jointly contribute to the project budget. Since the scope of work will likely include significant drainage and a new play structure – volunteer efforts would be best aligned with outreach and personalization of the park. A large contribution of hours would not be required. 48 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana What exactly is "business engagement"? Business Engagement is the ongoing outreach and relationship-building effort that helps businesses start, grow, invest, and remain successful in Richmond through activities such as business visits, problem- solving, permit navigation, resource referrals, workforce connections, and investment attraction. 49 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana What does "Hig h Capacity" in the right column mean? For example, for the Red Oak Victory move, what does that term refer to?
As noted in the presentation, the Capacity Colum in the presentation table showed "High" for items/projects that have high-capacity pressure points affecting core service delivery.

Page 6 of 732 ends

DRAFT Attachment 2 – Draft City Council Budget Checklist Line City Council Meeting Date Co uncilmember Councilmember Question Response 50 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Several well-know n artists have offered to donate their artworks to the City of Richmond simply because they love the city. The only requirement is installation in a public space. This could significantly expand Richmond's public art collection on a very small budget — just insta llation costs. Would you need an additional budget to proceed, or could this be covered under your existing budget? The City of Richmond welcomes artwork donations to its Public Art Inventory. All gifts are reviewed in accordance with Section 4 (Public Art Gifts and Loans) of the City's Public Art Policies and Procedures, which governs the review, acceptance, placement, and preservation of donated works. Submitted Public Art Gifts and Loans Form and supporting materials, go to the Richmond Arts and Culture Commission (RACC) for recommendation. The item then goes to the City Council for recommendation.

Budget items are considered when art is donated at the time of donation these are a few of the budget items considered: Acquisition & Legal - this is for documents that are reviewed for the City process, Installation of the art, Insurance, conservation & maintenance protection, and documentation & inventory - photography, placard, records management of the artwork. Budget for these items are currently within the Art's & Cultural Budget Division.
51 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana The city's permit website is not user-friendly, and residents and businesses report that the building permit process takes too long. Are you allocating any budget to streamline the process? The Business Division in Economic Development has taken proactive steps to support businesses by establishing a one on one 30-minute sessions platform for any inquiries on how to establish a business in Richmond. This platform is located on the City website, Business Division page. In these introductory meetings staff may touch on steps for permitting (Economic Development staff does not issue permits) and refer the business to information and/or a warm handoff to the appropriate department. This process is business friendly and educates businesses on the established City process it ensures businesses are connected to the right people from the start. This concierge-style approach reduces confusion and helps businesses move through the City process more efficiently.

The City recently transitioned to iMS, a new platform that supports permitting functions across multiple departments. The transition was led by IT and a variety of City staff team members. We recognize that any new system has a learning curve, the City is continuing to work through implementation to improve the user experience for both staff and applicants. It is worth noting that permit timelines can vary significantly depending on the type and complexity of the project to be permitted. Staff is committed to providing clear expectations to applicants upfront and to identifying opportunities to reduce lead times wherever possible.
52 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana I previously suggested a procurem ent fair where small businesses could meet with procurement representatives from large organizations like UC Berkeley, Amazon, and Chevron. Would you need an additional budget to continue holding such fairs annually? The City has successfully hosted City of Richmond Small Business Resources Expo and and Vendor Workshops during National Small Business Week both in 2025 and 2026. The event brought together small business resources and vendors to meet with current and potential businesses on the available programs in the City. The past events have been well-received and reflects our shared commitment to creating real economic opportunity for Richmond businesses. These events are a collaborative, multi-department effort, and a Procurement Fair would be similar.

If the proposed event is held at a City owned venue such as the Auditorium or the City Council Chambers, budget resources are sufficient, no additional budget allocation is needed at this time. We remain committed to growing the reach and impact of our entrepreneurs, and we welcome any suggestions from the City Council on ways to increase small business participation. 53 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana Could you explain the Y Plan at De Anza High School? Through UC Berkeley’s Y-PLAN program, stude nts in the De Anza High School IT Academy are partnering with the City of Richmond and RecycleMore to explore the question: “How can Richmond expand effective recycling citywide and promote responsible electronic waste (e-waste) stewardship in schools and communities?” Their work focuses on three key areas: Awareness and Education, Access and Experience, and Technology Stewardship and Reuse. Y-PLAN - Center for Cities + Schools (Youth — Plan, Learn, Act Now), develope d by UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools, empowers young people to engage directly in the City planning and address real-world challenges in their communities. The City of Richmond and RecycleMore provided a presentation to the students, brought them on a field trip of the West Contra Costa Recycling Facility and Richmond City Hall, and recently visited the class to receive their presentations. The field trip focused on the intersection of technology and zero waste with the goal of students gaining firsthand insight into how innovation and sustainability intersect at the local level. 54 May 20, 2026 Councilmember Bana You mentioned "a ccomplishments" with regard to nine state laws. What did you mean specifically? As noted in the Economic Development: Environmental & Health Initiatives' presentation on June 19, these are the laws and regulations that our division oversees or supports in various capacities. Our involvement ranges from enforcement and compliance activities to monthly meetings with representatives from across Contra Costa County. The 9 satate laws mentioned in the presentations are: AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, SB 1383, AB 827, SB 1046, SB 1053, SB 54, and SB 1221

Page 7 of 733 ends

Shasa Curl, City Manager
June 9, 2026
MOVING

RICHMOND

FORWARD
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 1MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
DRAFT
34 Fiscal resilience enables us to tract, retain, and support the workforce that delivers for Richmond.

Budget Study Session on
Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27
Operating Budget and Fiscal
Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan
June 9, 2026
Shasa Curl
Richmond City Manager
6/5/2026 2:36 PM
2 Fiscal resilience enables us to attract, retain, and support the workforce that delivers for Richmond while
strengthening public trust through reliable services, sound stewardship of resources, and long-term financial stability.

MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
35 Overview
• Budget Considerations:
o Option 1 (Status Quo)
o Option 2 (Reprioritization of City Council Initiatives) • City Council Goals, Priorities and Directed Work Efforts • General Fund Commitments Available for Reallocation
o Key Initiatives
o Re-Imagining Public Safety Initiatives
• Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Overview
• Department Requests Not Included in the FY 2026-27 Budget • Additional Budget Considerations:
o City-wide Electric Bikeshare Program
o Interest Earnings on Settlement Funds
o American Rescue Plan Act Interest Earnings
• Criteria for Considering New Initiatives
• Recommended Action
• Questions 6/5/2026 2:36 PM 3
MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD36
Overview
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 4

MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
37 Recommended Action
RECEIVE an overview of the balanced draft
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget
and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan Budget; PROVIDE DIRECTION
to staff prior to final budget adoption; and
RECEIVE input on City Council key initiatives
and demands for built environment
improvements as well as opportunities to
improve organizational efficiency
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 5
MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD38
Budget Considerations
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 6MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Option 1:

Adopt the Proposed Balanced Budget
with No changes and Maintain Service
Levels
Option 2:

Maintain a Balanced Budget While
Reprioritizing City Council Initiatives
• Proceeds with the FY 2026-27 budget as
presented
• Maintains all current services & initiatives
• $16.4M vacancy savings at 12% vacancy
rate
• Preserves operational, community, equity,
and safety investments
• No use of reserves; aligns with Reserve
Policy
• Supports long-term fiscal stability
• Keeps FY 2026-27 budget balanced, but
adjusts current Council-funded priorities
• Requires reductions or trade-offs to stay
balanced
• Without offsets, reserves fall below policy
level
• Staff identified additions and shortfalls:
• Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II
• Improvements at Shields-Reid and
Wendell Parks
• San Francisco Bay trail at Point Molate
39 Richmond Moving Forward
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 7MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
• The main library is under construction with grants &
cash
• Three (3) parks are being completely renovated
(Shields-Reid, Wendell, & Boorman)
• Solar Lighting is being installed
• Complete streets and paving is taking place
throughout the City
• Removed from State audit list and are financially
stable
• 92 net new hires since FY 2020-21
• Insert number of grants and total amount received
and new grants in the pipeline (confirm numbers
with Lina)
• All around the City is looking better
• Homicides continue to trend down
• $8.8M is budgeted for Kid's First in FY 26-27
40 6/5/2026 2:36 PM Moving Richmond Forward 8
City Council Goals and Priorities
41 6/5/2026 2:36 PM Moving Richmond Forward 9
City Council Requests (January 1, 2025 – present)
# Council-Directed Work Effort Strategic Goal Area
1 Tiny Home Village Support Services (Hope Solutions) Goal 1 – Improve the Quantity and Quality of Housing 2 Wildfire Preparedness Ad Hoc Committee & Assessment Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 3 Human Trafficking and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiatives Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety
4 Healthy Retail (HOPS) Ordinance Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 5 Municipal ID Program Expansion Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 6 Immigrant Legal Services Funding & RFP Goal 1 – Improve the Quantity and Quality of Housing 7 Unfunded Pension & OPEB Liability Analysis Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 8 Tree Wells in CIP Sidewalk Projects Goal 6 – Address Shoreline and Ecological Issues 9 Parchester Village–Giant Highway Infrastructure Master Plan Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 10 Fireworks Enforcement and Ordinance Amendments Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 11 Ciclovia Program Design & Implementation Goal 6 – Address Shoreline and Ecological Issues 12 Community-Led Bus Stop Bench Program Goal 6 – Address Shoreline and Ecological Issues 13 Harbour 8 Park Expansion Funding & Oversight Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 14 Black Resiliency Project & Fund Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 15 Clean Richmond Community Maintenance Crew Pilot
Program Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 16 Historic Buildings Preservation & Protection Program Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 17 Unhoused Services RFP Process Reform Goal 1 – Improve the Quantity and Quality of Housing 18 Ban Corporate Land Grabs Initiative and Associated Legal Analysis Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 19 Hilltop Horizon Specific Plan Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 20 Police Communication, Body Camera, and Counseling Policy Review Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety
42 6/5/2026 2:36 PM Moving Richmond Forward 10
City Council Requests (January 1, 2025 – present)
# Council-Directed Work Effort Strategic Goal Area
21 Public Lands Policy Goal 2 – Increase Revenue and Improve Economic Development
22 Emergency Support for Families During School Labor
Disruption Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 23 Arts & Culture Manager and Grant Process Reform Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 24 Council Liaison Appointment Cycle Change Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 25 Polluters Pay Settlement / Limited-Term Revenue
Community Engagement and Strategic Advisory Services
Goal 2 – Increase Revenue and Improve Economic
Development
26 ICE-Free Zone Ordinance and Civil Immigration Enforcement Policy Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 27 Safe Walk Zone Ordinance (23rd Street Corridor) Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 28 AAPI Community Celebration Co-Sponsorship Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 29 WCCUSD Latino/x Graduation Auditorium Support Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 30 Support for 2026 Mother's Day Event at the Richmond
Memorial Auditorium Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 31 Blue Envelope Program Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 32 Caste Equity Resolution & Ordinance Amendment Goal 5 – Strengthen the City's Internal Infrastructure 33 Cheese Park (La Moine Park) Improvements Plan Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 34 Pullman Neighborhood Park & Land Acquisition Feasibility Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 35 Earthquake Preparedness Initiative Goal 4 – Improve Public Safety 36 Richmond Promise Postsecondary Education Initiative Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 37 Literacy Space at Richmond Public Library Goal 3 – Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health 43 FY 2026-27 Recommended City-wide Key Priorities
6/5/2026 2:36 PM
Moving Richmond Forward 11
Veolia
Transition
Park
Renovations
&
Maintenance
Innovation –
Systems
Advance Life
Support
◦ Priority #1: Wastewater Reliability & Veolia Contract Transition (~$1 Billion) ◦ Prepare for May 2027 Veolia contract expiration through a competitive procurement process with an Owner’s Advisor to ensure a reliable operator and manage future costs
◦ Priority #2: Parks Renovation & Maintenance
◦ Continue major park improvements, including Boorman Park, Wendell Park, and Shields-Reid Park, and upgrades to play structures, lighting, safety, and accessibility
◦ Priority #3: Innovation & City-wide Systems Modernization ◦ Advancing innovation through streamlined systems, improved processes, and data-informed, efficient service delivery
◦ Priority #4: Advance Life Support (ALS)
◦ Advance implementation of ALS First Responder Services and related fire station improvements while evaluating sustainable funding strategies to support long-term operational and capital needs
→ Seeking City Council alignment on these City-wide priorities44 6/5/2026 2:36 PM Moving Richmond Forward
Existing Discretionary General Fund Commitments Available for Reallocation - Option 2
12Moving Richmond Forward
45 General Fund Commitments Available for
Reallocation – Key Initiatives
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 13MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Initiative Amount ($) Consideration Program Status Reallocation Consideration Arts Corridor (Phase 2) 185,000
Phase 2 not started; Phase 1
(Strategic Plan and community
engagement) nearing completion
Discretionary
Black Resiliency Project 1,500,000 Consider Multi-Year
funding strategy
RFP is being finalized for release in
May 2026 Discretionary
Community Engagement –
Limited-Term Revenue 300,000 Staff is negotiating contract with selected consultant Discretionary
Gender-Based Violence Programs 100,000 RFP in development Discretionary Immigration Services 700,000 Consider Multi-Year
funding strategy
Contracts with multiple vendors
are executed and community is
accessing services
Discretionary
Mental Health Assessment 150,000 Staff is negotiating contract with selected consultant Discretionary
Point Molate Annual Maintenance 250,000
Required maintenance of City
owned property is ongoing.

Remediation of all properties is
required.

Requirement under the City’s existing
agreement -Agreement for Short Term
Maintenance and Security of Property at
Point Molate with the East Bay Regional Park
District remains in effect, with additional
remediation costs anticipated. The City
Council may consider directing staff to
pursue cost sharing discussions with the East
Bay Regional Park District.

Reparations, Equity & Inclusion 146,675 In progress Discretionary Revenue Enhancement / ALS
Development 150,000 Revenue and program
components under development
Life and Safety; Not Recommended for
Reallocation – Additional updates later in
June
Total $3,481,675
Total Discretionary $3,081,675
46 General Fund Commitments Available for
Reallocation – Re-Imagining Public Safety
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 14MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Initiative Discretionary
Amount ($)
Non-Discretionary
Amount ($) Program Status
YouthWORKS 1,980,000 Ongoing youth workforce and
career development services
Unhoused Intervention 1,320,000
Ongoing services supporting
individuals experiencing
homelessness
Office of Neighborhood
Safety (ONS) 2,586,678
Ongoing violence-prevention
services, outreach, and community
safety partnerships
ROCK (Reach Out with
Compassion and
Kindness)
2,975,823 Crisis response and community
care operations
Sub-Totals $3,300,000 $5,562,501
Total Allocation $8,862,501
47 General Fund Subsidies and Support
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 15MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Category Program / Initiative / Fund Amount ($)
City Subsidies Climate Resiliency Contingency 75,000
Employment & Training – Cost Pool¹ 786,288
Employment & Training – Grant Writing¹ 75,000
Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Subsidy 1,260,073
Richmond Rent Program 529,197
Potential GF Subsidies KCRT Fund 350,468
Employment & Training (Operational Subsidy)¹ 488,491
Hilltop Landscape Maintenance District 146,510
General Fund -
Supported Gaps Engineering Services 1,935,941
Code Enforcement 2,768,746
Total $8,415,714
¹Total GF Support for Employment & Training is $1,349,779. 48 Funding Recommendations - Option 2
Project Shortfalls
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 16MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Project Shortfall Amount
($)
Richmond Wellness Trail Phase II Project 1,045,000
San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Project 1,000,000 Shields-Reid Park (anticipated change orders) 196,000
Wendell Park (anticipated change orders) 435,000
Total $2,676,000
49 Advanced Life Support (ALS) Funding
Considerations and Revenue Strategy
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 17MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
• Transition to ALS will create ongoing operational costs requiring a stable, long-term funding source
• Polling results (July 2026) will guide revenue strategy; stronger support for a General Obligation (GO) bond would limit revenues to capital uses only
• A GO bond is backed the credit of the issuing government. Repayment I secured by the City’s broad taxing authority.
• GO bond funding cannot support ongoing ALS operations (staffing, equipment, training, oversight), requiring a dependable General Fund source
• City may need to redirect discretionary General Fund allocations from Re-Imagining Public Safety - Unhoused initiatives due to City Funding of $10.3 million in Homekey project and $22.8 million in Encampment Resolution Fund round 1-3 grant funds providing wrap around services, if ALS is prioritized higher
• Funding strategy and polling results will inform the updated five-year forecast and future revenue enhancement recommendations 50 FY 2026-27 through FY 2030-31 Capital
Improvement Plan Overview ($215.6M)
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 18MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Grants, 41,703,913 ,
$0
Dedicated Funds,
49,892,408 , $0
Equipment Services
Fund, 7,055,000 , $0
General Capital
Fund, 43,972,517 ,
$0
Shortfall, 13,491,000 ,
$0
Unfunded,
59,488,500 , $0
51 Baseline Budget: Department Request Not Included
in the FY 2026-27 Budget
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 19MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Department Request Amount ($) Notable Requests
City Attorney 76,000 $20k – Individual law library licenses City Clerk 58,000 $58k – Part-time staff to support workload volume City Council 76,700 $15k – City Council Chamber Public Art City Manager 282,800 $50K – Community Survey, $27K – Health Career Connections Intern, $100K – Public Outreach, $60K – Leadership Training
Community Services/
Library and Cultural
Services
399,559 $170K – Digitization for Richmond Historical Collection Community Services/
Recreation
2,340,959 $1.7M – Request for various Community Centers to accommodate full operation and extended hours
Economic Development 791,700 $350K – Downtown Richmond Economic Revitalization Strategy Economic Development/
Housing Authority
499,989 Operational Needs
Economic Development/
Port of Richmond
2,779,500 $2M – Cost Escalation Wharf Repairs, $600k – Contractual Services Fire 250,000 $250K – Deferred PPPE and Fire Equipment maintenance Information Technology 350,000 $150K – Additional Microsoft 365 licenses Police 117,000 $117K – Dispatcher Communication Enhancements Public Works 21,295,000
$20M – Programmatic Approach ($10M – Pavement, $3M – Sidewalk, $2M – Street Lights, $1.5M – Roofing and HVAC, $2M – Traffic Signal, $1.5M Stormwater), $570K – Infrastructure & Park Maintenance, $650K – Utility Charges
Total $ 29,317,207
52 Balancing community priorities, available resources, and long-term fiscal sustainabilityAdditional Budget Considerations for City Council Deliberation
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 20MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Bikeshare Program
Limited-Term Revenue
Interest
ARPA Interest Earnings
10-Week Return on Investment
Recommend endowment
approach to provide financial
stability to Richmond
community and staff.

Support for existing programs
that have demonstrated high
impact and significant return on
investment, while continuing
what is working and delivering
results for the Richmond
community.

Discontinue City-wide e-
Bikeshare Program, seek
alternative funding, and replace
with e-Bike Lending Library to
open fall of 2027
City Council & Community-
driven investment priorities Pending eligibility determination 53 Replace City-wide Electric Bikeshare Program with E-Bike Lending Library
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 21MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
• City received Metropolitan Transportation Commission fund to operate a pilot electric bikeshare program
• Richmond’s E-Bikeshare Program started in August 2022; Ride Today began in Sept. 2023
• City has spent more than $3 million for Ride Today operations primarily through ECIA Transportation Funds & other grants • $390,000 approved to continue Bikeshare operations through June 2026
• Program is not financially sustainable without ongoing grant funding or City subsidy
• City Council may choose to conclude the program and focus funding on E-Bike Lending Library to expand e-bike use in the City
54 Data on Existing City-wide Electric Bikeshare Program E-Bike Lending Library
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 22MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
55 Replace Existing City-wide Electric Bikeshare Program with E-Bike Lending Library
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 23MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
56 Replace City-wide Electric Bikeshare Program with
E-Bike Lending Library
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 24MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Options for City Council determination of City E-bikeshare program:

Option 1: (City Staff Recommendation) Conclude the e-bike share program and remove associated infrastructure during Q1 of FY26-27. Fund construction of E-bike Lending Library to continue e-bike access (~$250,000 for 3-month ramp down; $2.2M for construction of e-bike lending library).

Option 2: Continue the program as-is with a limited fleet and 12 bike hubs (~$792,000 per year). Continuing the program would require redirecting discretionary General Fund resources, as no dedicated revenue source exists.

Option 3: Expand the program to add 17 additional hubs and 250 new e-bikes City-wide (~$1,459,294 per year). Expanding the program would require redirecting discretionary General Fund resources, given the absence of alternative funding source(s).
57 Basis of Staff Recommendation
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 25MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
City staff’s recommendation is based on the following:
• Low utilization may reflect low residential/commercial density and a limited number of bike share hubs; even in high density cities, bikeshare programs require significant subsidies • City bike lane infrastructure may still be lacking for most riders to feel safe
• E-bike lending library provides for community training and workshops for maintenance/repair and safe use
• May be better to explore multi-city programs such as MTC’s Bay Wheels, which funds regional bikeshare programs
• Funding the construction gap for the E-bike lending library unlocks $1.2M of construction funds and $1.3M operations funding • Continued maintenance of bike hubs and e-bikes drive up costs 58 Interest Earnings on Limited-Term Revenue
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 26MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
• City earns interest on unspent limited-term revenues
invested in CalTRUST Short-Term Fund.
• First installment $50.0M (July 15, 2025): $48.5M
invested; $1.80M interest earned through May 31, 2026.
• Consistent with public finance best practices, interest income should be treated as one-time funding for
one-time community benefit investments.
• City Council directed a consultant-led engagement
process to gather community input on funding
priorities.
• Staff will return later in 2026 with updated interest projections, refined assumptions, and results of
community engagement to inform one-time
investment decisions.
59 American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds (ARPA SLFRF) Interest Earnings
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 27MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
• May 26, 2026, The City Council received a presentation from Richmond Promise outlining current services and scholarship needs and directed City staff to explore funding options for Richmond students
• Evaluating whether ARPA SLFRF interest
earnings can support Richmond
Promise scholarships, pending federal
eligibility confirmation
• Will return to Council with a
recommendation once eligibility and
year-end interest earnings are
confirmed through financial close
• Large one-time unspent funds are not
currently anticipated for FY 2025-26
due to MOU increases and net new 92
FTEs since FY 2021-22
60 Draft Framework – City Council Input Required
Criteria for Considering New and Existing Initiatives
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 28MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
Category Purpose Evaluation Considerations
Strategic Alignment Evaluates consistency with adopted
strategic objectives, policy direction, and
previously established Council priorities.

Alignment with Council Goals and
Priorities; Prior Council Direction.

Fiscal and Work Plan Impacts Evaluates financial implications and potential tradeoffs associated with
implementation.

Fiscal Considerations; Opportunity
Costs.

Service Delivery and Resource
Stewardship
Evaluates how the proposed initiative relates
to existing City services, investments, and
organizational responsibilities.

Impact on Core Services; Existing City
Investments; Duplication and
Appropriate Governmental Role.

Organizational Capacity and
Implementation
Evaluates the City's ability to undertake and
successfully implement additional work.

Staffing Capacity; Interdepartmental
and External Coordination.

Community Benefit and Public Impact Assesses the anticipated benefits and outcomes for residents, businesses,
stakeholders, and the broader community.

Community Benefit and Public Impact.
61 Next Steps
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 29
Next Steps
• Finalize FY 2026–27 Operating Budget and FY 2026–31
CIP based on Study Session direction (~36 hours for
June 16, 2026 City Council meeting)
• Update revenue/expenditure assumptions and
incorporate Council guidance
• Make adjustments to maintain a balanced General
Fund – will increase vacancy rate if there are Council
requests without proposed reductions.

June 16, 2026
• Present updated draft Budget Checklist with
outstanding questions and needed clarifications
• Provide additional information from prior discussions • Support City Council in finalizing priorities and
adjustments before adoption

MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
62 Requested Direction
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 30MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD

1. Should the City proceed with Option 1 (status quo budget) or Option 2 (reprioritization of existing discretionary funding)?

2. If Option 2 is preferred, which existing discretionary initiatives, programs, or commitments should be reduced, deferred, or discontinued to maintain a balanced budget?

4. Are there additional City Council priorities or built environment investments that should be reflected in the final budget and CIP?

5. Should the City continue or conclude the e-bike program?

6. Does the City Council support further development of the proposed Initiative Evaluation Framework to assist with evaluating future Council initiatives, referrals, and service expansion requests? The status quo is challenging and adopting a clear framework would provide increased transparency for residents, councilmembers, and staff.

63 Recommended Action
RECEIVE an overview of the balanced draft
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget
and Fiscal Year 2026-31 Five-Year Capital
Improvement Plan Budget; PROVIDE
DIRECTION to staff prior to final budget
adoption; and RECEIVE input on City Council
key initiatives and demands for built
environment improvements as well as
opportunities to improve organizational
efficiency
6/5/2026 2:36 PM 31

MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD
64 32
THANK YOU!
MOVING RICHMOND FORWARD6/5/2026 2:36 PM
65

Richmond City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Richmond City Council
June 9, 2026