1 BALLOT TITLE
Richmond Public Safety Funding and Minimum Police Staffing Charter Amendment
SUMMARY
The proposed initiative measure would amend the Richmond City Charter by adding two new articles.
Article 1 — Public Safety Fund. The measure would establish a special “Public Safety Fund” within the City treasury. The Fund would be supported by mandatory allocations of “Locally Generated Unrestricted Revenues” from the General Fund, phased in as follows: at least 25% in the first fiscal year following adoption, 40% in the second fiscal year, and 50% in the third fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter. Funds would be used exclusively for public safety purposes, including police services, emergency medical response, emergency preparedness, violence prevention programs, and community safety programs. The City Council would retain authority to determine the specific programs and expenditure amounts within those categories. Unspent funds would remain in the Fund and could accumulate from year to year.
Required allocations would be made only after payment of legally required expenditures, including debt service, pension obligations, collective bargaining obligations, and other legally mandated costs. The City Council could temporarily reduce or suspend the required allocation upon a two-thirds vote declaring a fiscal emergency. Any suspension would expire after one fiscal year unless renewed. The measure would require preparation and public release of an annual Public Safety Fund Report. The measure would also increase the City’s appropriations limit under Article XIII B of the California Constitution to the extent necessary to allow expenditures under this Article.
Article 2 — Minimum Police Staffing. Beginning July 1 of the second fiscal year following voter approval, the City would be required to budget for and use best efforts to maintain no fewer than 187 full-time equivalent sworn police officer positions in the Richmond Police Department.
The measure states that this requirement establishes a general legislative policy and does not direct day-to-day operations or deployment decisions, limit the Police Chief’s operational discretion, or require layoffs of non-police employees. Failure to maintain 187 filled positions due to retirements, resignations, hiring shortages, or other circumstances outside the City’s reasonable control would not constitute a violation if the City is making good-faith best efforts to comply. The City Council could temporarily suspend compliance upon a four-fifths vote finding a severe fiscal emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The City Manager would be required to prepare an annual public report regarding staffing levels, vacancies, recruitment efforts, and fiscal impacts.
Other Provisions. If this measure conflicts with another measure on the same ballot concerning police staffing or public safety funding, the measure receiving the greater number of affirmative votes would control to the extent of the conflict. If the measure is approved and later challenged 2 in court, the measure states the City would be required to defend it and, that, if the City does not, the measure’s proponent(s) would be authorized to defend it, and the City would be required to reimburse their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the extent permitted by law.