From leaky roofs to outdoor portable bathrooms, Richmond’s firefighters have been working in deteriorating stations for years.
Now, the city is considering asking voters to help upgrade those facilities. The city council took its first step Tuesday toward a potential bond ballot measure — one that could also set the table to offer paramedic-level emergency services to a city that has gone for decades without.
Richmond is the only city in Contra Costa County whose fire department is not certified to provide paramedic services. The bond measure, which would go before voters in November, could fund long-overdue fire station repairs that would enable the fire department to pursue paramedic certification. But polling suggests support, while real, may not be enough to guarantee its super-majority passage.
In California, city officials can ask voters to approve bond measures to fund specific projects. Measures typically require a 55% approval or two-thirds majority, depending on the bond type. Bond measures authorize the government to borrow money by issuing bonds to investors.
Council members voted to direct staff to begin preparing ballot measure language for a general obligation bond after city staff and consultants presented results from a May poll of Richmond residents.
“The final language would be prepared by the consultant team and then reviewed by the city attorney’s office for the actual ballot measure,” City Manager Shasa Curl said. She said that staff will return with more information in July.
The deadline to file a ballot measure for the November election is Aug. 7, according to the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder’s website.
Placing a measure on the ballot would cost the city between $165,000 and $240,000, according to figures from the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Department.
Improving Richmond’s fire stations has been a conversation for decades, the result of years of deferred maintenance and tight budgets.
The issue resurfaced most recently in 2024, when District 2 council member Cesar Zepeda suggested a bond measure that would have also raised money to improve the main library and return the police headquarters to the Civic Center.
But the council was more focused on the Make Polluters Pay ballot measure — which ultimately resulted in a $550 million settlement from Chevron — and voted against polling residents about a bond.
Voters polled about bond measure vs. a parcel tax
The measure would also mark the city’s first concrete step toward upgrading its emergency medical capabilities.
Richmond is currently certified only for “basic-life support” by the Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services Agency, meaning city firefighters — even those who hold personal paramedic licenses — cannot administer paramedic-level care when responding to emergencies.
While EMTs can handle a range of emergency situations, paramedics can administer a wider variety of medications and perform more advanced interventions. That gap matters during the critical first minutes of a medical emergency.
Fire Chief Aaron Osorio has told the council that they can’t implement the advanced life support program without improving facilities. The annual cost of the program would be about $4.1 million annually.
Broad support, but little voter enthusiasm
About 800 Richmond voters were polled in May, according to Shakari Byerly of Evitarus, the polling company . Voters were asked about two funding mechanisms: a $120 million bond measure or a $67 annual parcel tax. Initial support for both hovered around two-thirds of respondents. But fewer than 3-in-10 said they were “definitely” voting yes, a level pollsters flagged as a vulnerability.
The real test came when voters heard arguments from both sides. The bond measure proved more resilient, finishing with 69% supporting it even after hearing negative messaging. The parcel tax slipped slightly, with opposition ticking up after voters were reminded that Richmond had a $550 million Chevron settlement. Some questioned why those funds couldn’t be used instead.
“They find it compelling,” Byerly said of voters who were told about the Chevron settlement. “It doesn’t resonate as highly as the affordability challenge (for voters), but 7-in-10 is a remarkable number who say that is a reason to vote ‘no’ — even if it may not indeed be permissible to use those Chevron dollars for emergency response services.”
‘It’s really going to come down to whether this is a priority’
The most pressing question from council members Tuesday: What happens if voters say no?
Several council members pointed to recent losses at the county level — voters rejected a new sales tax for healthcare and a bond for community college improvements — as reason for caution.
The conversation has also grown more complicated in recent weeks as city management has cautioned that, barring retirements, the budget can’t absorb more new positions. The conversation between the council and staff about the measure came right after the budget for the upcoming fiscal year was approved by the council with a 12% vacancy rate required to balance the spending plan.
“We just approved a budget which, according to the city manager, is not going to allow us to hire anybody so I just am wondering where the money is in the meantime?” District 6 council member Claudia Jimenez asked.
If the bond measure passes, the fire department would need to begin preparing to hire an additional 19 paramedic positions on top of the 10 licensed paramedics already on staff, according to a report Osorio presented to the council last year.
While expressing support for the additional positions, Jimenez has also pushed for additional positions for the city’s crisis response program ROCK (Reach Out with Compassion and Kindness) — something she has also said is a priority for the community.
“I think right now where we are at is laying the groundwork for the program,” Osorio said. “Ultimately, you as a council have shown support of me taking those steps. What I have yet to have clarity on is what type of budget you are expecting me to work with.”
Osorio compared the desire for the advanced life support program as “buying a home.”
“This is going to be the most significant investment you are going to make. You don’t do that without knowing how much you can afford,” Osorio said. “This is a serious investment, a long-term investment that I believe you up to now have said you wanted to make as a council, but the next step is figuring out what we can afford.”
When asked what happens if the measure fails, Osorio told the council the city would need to decide whether these improvements are truly a priority, adding that the entire polling process was designed to find ways to fund the program outside the general fund.
“This is why this (advance life support) program has failed to get off the ground four other times because the council did not agree that at the time, the time was right or the budget was there for whatever reasons that the city could move forward with it,” Osorio said. “So, I mean, it’s really going to come down to whether or not this program is going to take priority or not because there’s not enough money to do this program without these types of measures passing.”
