Reply
or to participate
Thomas King9 months ago
Love the poem Dave. Legitimately a jump scare for me as a grad of Tampa's University of South Florida
Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago
Ybor City called it wants its tall boy back smh
Kathy G9 months ago
If I'm understanding the timeline right, the city only closed the 2900 block of E. Franklin St after NBC12 On Your Side featured the street and its residents on the news. The story focused on how neighbors rallied together to try and clear the road themselves, and they made their own sign warning people not to drive on it. I'm proud of Church Hill for banding together and protecting one another, but I'm so disappointed in the city for not taking action until after the news feature.
Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago
Ooh, great point. That... would track, I think. The date on this segment's article stub on WWBT's website is 1/28/26, and the date on the city's press release about it is 1/29/26:
https://www.12onyourside.com/2026/01/28/east-franklin-street-becomes-graveyard-cars-after-icy-conditions/ https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Street-Closure---2900-East-Franklin-Street.html?soid=1141729857239&aid=dzyn4FB1w7c
Which: lolololol
Kathy G9 months ago
Lol is right! I’m glad to see in your follow up piece that it’s now reopened. Now I’m waiting for the stretch E Marshall St along Jefferson Park to be passable…
Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago
Yeah the sidewalks adjacent to city property are categorically uncleared in the East End, from what I've observed. Hopefully the warm weather forecasted for later this week will finally do what DPW/DPR did not. What a joke!
Vee Wright9 months ago
Dave, I appreciate your following up on my question about what percentage of Richmond's budget goes toward salaries.
You wrote that it's around 11%. ($332M), according to the local newspaper. I suspect that percentage is low in the extreme and wonder about the source of the number.
I did a rough count of the numbers in the piechart, which came to approximately $1B. That seems a more likely number for salaries, representing about 36%. Throw in benefits and that percentage might rise to beyond 40%.
This is the norm for a municipal budget.
That written, I'm a writer rather than a mathematician or accountant. I am also looking at only one set of numbers and it is not clear precisely what these numbers represent..
Still, my gut and long-ago days of a reporter covering city government are telling me that the math ain't mathing.
If salaries are an anemic 11% of Richmond’s annual budget, city workers are woefully underpaid.
I'd be interested to know whether any numbers are missing.
Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago
Relevant passage from the RTD report here:
"The payroll records, obtained through a public records request, show the city’s personnel totals have shrunk slightly, decreasing from 4,279 workers in 2024 to 3,978 this year. Despite that, total employee wages increased from $307 million to $332 million."
Note that the pie chart above is not official salaries, it's proposed expenditures broken out by spending category. I just included it as a point of semi-related interest. Sorry if that was confusing!
Vee Wright9 months ago
Hello, Dave:
I appreciate the clarification on those pie chart numbers. To be sure, municipal budgets are layered.
The pie chart numbers (approximately $1B) represent the operating budget (general fund). The $332M salary figure is included in the general fund. Both are included in the full $2.9B all-funds number.
However, for figuring the salary-to-budget ratio, the $1B number (around 36%) is used instead of the $2.9B number (yielding a misleading 11%). Add benefits and you're north of 40%.
That is how municipal budgeting works. This is also worth verifying for future reference.
I urge you and The Lookout readers to use the operating budget as the denominator.
Now, if salaries actually are 11%, that suggests Richmond should significantly increase its workforce.
Importantly, for anyone who believes that the city delivers poor services, an understaffed workforce would largely explain why.
Dave InfanteAuthor9 months ago
Your original question, left on this edition https://www.chlookout.com/p/show-us-your-pet-show-us-your-pet read as follows (my emphasis added in bolding):
"I'd be interested to know what percentage of Richmond's multi-billion budget is dedicated to salaries. Anybody have any intel?"
You're now describing a different calculation: [total compensation] / [RVA general fund]. That number may also be illuminating! But it's not what I have, it's not what you have, and it's not what you originally asked for.
Vee Wright9 months ago
Dave, thanks for circling back.
My original question was sincere and guileless. I wanted to know the salary-to-budget ratio using the correct budget figure. This is the one that municipal finance people actually use when making that calculation.
When you shared the 11% number (salaries / $2.9B all-funds), I recognized it as irregular, which I noted. That's why I asked for clarification.
A quick primer: In city budgeting, the operating budget (approx. $1B general fund) is the standard for this kind of ratio. Using the all-funds number artificially deflates the percentage.
I started my career as a reporter (Dallas Times Herald) covering city government. I know that these numbers matter. Importantly, I am convinced that readers deserve to understand them clearly.
I appreciate the engagement and your tireless work.
Vee Wright9 months ago
Hello, Dave:
I appreciate the clarification on those pie chart numbers. To be sure, municipal budgets are layered.
The pie chart numbers (approximately $1B) represent the operating budget (general fund). The $332M salary figure is included in the general fund. Both are included in the full $2.9B all-funds number.
However, for figuring the salary-to-budget ratio, the $1B number (around 36%) is used instead of the $2.9B number (yielding a misleading 11%). Add benefits and you're north of 40%.
That is how municipal budgeting works. This is also worth verifying for future reference.
I urge you and The Lookout readers to use the operating budget as the denominator.
Now, if salaries actually are 11%, that suggests Richmond should significantly increase its workforce.
Importantly, for anyone who believes that the city delivers poor services, an understaffed workforce would largely explain why.
