City Council - Regular Meeting

Hallelujah. [music] [music] [bell] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Oh, heat.

[music]

Hallelujah. [music] Oh, [music] [music] slow. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Still feeling. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

to [music] [music] my more and more. [music]

[music] Hey [singing] God.

[singing]

Hallelujah. Hallelujah.

[music] [music] [music]

Hallelujah. [music] [music]

[music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music]

[music]

Where are you? [music] [singing]

[music]

Hey. [music] [music] Hey. [music] [music]

Where are you? [music]

[music]

Praise the Lord everyone. Welcome to our February 10th, 2025 city council meeting. We will have invocation by Miss Reed. Please bow your heads.

Father, we just thank you for this evening. We thank you for all of our incredible citizens. We thank you for the city staff and for my fellow elected officials. God, tonight we just lift our prayers to the children of our city, to the families of our city. Lord, we just ask protection over them. We ask for provision over them and we ask for peace within our city. We ask for protection over our law enforcement community and for our public safety community. Lord, we just ask that this is a great meeting that you speak through us and to us. In your name we pray. Amen.

Now we will have the pledge. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Madame Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh tonight's uh agenda is divided into three sections. Consent agenda, public hearing, public comment, and general business. The first section is consent agenda. Includes routine items that can be approved with one vote. Uh just so council is aware, I've had a request to remove the minutes from the January 13th meeting to look at some revisions. Um this is made by now two council members. So looking for consensus from council to do that. Okay. Then now we just need a motion on the consent agenda which would be for um item number one, which is the second reading. Second

there. We have a motion and a second. Motion. You want to speak to you? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Let's vote.

Initiating the vote now. There we go. The motion passes 70. All right, moving along. The next section is public hearings. These are required by law or directed by council. Procedure. Staff will give a presentation. The public can give comments. Individuals have three minutes to speak. If you're speaking for a group, you have five. Group speakers must say which group they represent. Each group gets one spokesperson. Each speaker must say their name and their locality of residents. After public comments, the public hearing will close and the matter will rest with councel. Agenda item number three, consideration of adopting a resolution amending the future land use map and adopting an ordinance changing the zoning of a certain area located at 1516 Green View Drive and both 798 and 7094 Leville Road. M Miss Rachel Freshisen, city planner will provide a summary of the request.

Thank you. Uh, mayor, vice member, vice mayor, excuse me, members of council. Uh, the purpose of this petition is to reszone and amend their future land use map to allow for the construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps. Planning commission recommended approval of this item at their meeting on January 14th. This was also presented as a business item briefing at your most recent meeting on January 29th. Our future land use map currently recommends neighborhood commercial uses for these properties. Uh these areas are intended to consist primarily of office, retail, personal service, and restaurant type uses scaled to be compatible with and serve the immediate neighborhood. The petition proposes to amend the future land use map to community commercial. These areas also contain retail, personal service, entertainment, and restaurant uses and can contain clusters of businesses often at major intersections. 1516 Green View Drive has been zoned R1 lowdensity residential since 1978. 794 and 798 Leville were reszoned to B3C Community Business District Conditional in 1987 to allow for the expansion of the existing nursery business. Uh the structure at 798 Leesville was later reszoned from B3C to B1 Limited Business in 1999 to allow the use of the structure as an office. This is a photo of the property's current condition. You can see the existing nursery business and office as well as the property directly on the corner which according to aerial photography uh is back as far back as 1941 has never been developed. If the petition is approved uh the site would be developed into a convenience store including a fuel canopy and parking improvements. The existing nursery business is proposed to remain and the small office building would be demolished to accommodate for the convenience store. A traffic study was submitted with this petition. The city's engineering uh division has reviewed and agreed with the findings and the proposed entrance configurations uh as

well as the improvements to Green View Drive which are shown here on the concept plan. Thank you. Thank you. Will the petitioner like to make a presentation?

[clears throat]

Uh, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, members of city council. My name is Chris Burns with Westwood Professional Services. We're at 1208 Corporate Circle in Reno. Uh, I'm the agent working on behalf of the petitioner TPB Enterprises. Uh, with me here tonight, I have Garrett Zeman with TPB. Um, and also Mike Varga is here with LAWA as well. Um, so I'll give just a brief overview. Um, and then uh the three of us will be here to answer any questions that you all have. Um, so first of all, I just want to thank Rachel and staff um for their help in getting to this point. They've been um extremely helpful um kind of working through this process with us. Um we're very excited uh to share this with you all. U feel like this is a very good location for this. Uh I'd hope that you'll agree um [snorts] you know we're excited to share an additional location for Wawwa um and excited to present that for you. So um just brief summary of the request as Rachel mentioned there's three parcels here. Uh the one on the corner is owned residential. Um kind of a challenging location for residential zoning. Uh the middle parcel is split zone B1 and B3. And then the parcel on the right, 794 Leville, that's where Gary's Garden Center is, and that's that's already zoned B3. Um, so proposal is to reszone all three parcels to B3. Um, and there have been, uh, proper conditions offered as part of this. Um, as far as the project improvements, um, there's a few exhibits within your packet. Uh there's a site concept plan, a landscape concept plan, as well as building elevations uh included. Uh and so really what we're what we're doing here is uh the improvements have been pulled up close to the

intersection. A couple reasons for that. One, we want to maximize visibility to the building. Um and then also that allows us to provide u you know kind of maximize the separation from the neighboring properties. uh because we do have a couple of residential residential properties around us. Um do want to reiterate Gary's Garden Center will remain. I know there been some questions about that and so I wanted to make sure that that that was clear. Um as far as the plan itself, the building's about 6,000 square feet. Uh the fuel canopy will front along Green View Drive. Um six fuel islands, 12 positions. Um, and the building and the canopy will um, you know, be designed to the Waw Wa brand standards that, uh, that I think we're familiar with at this point. Um, so in addition to maximizing the separation from the neighbors, um, we've also we'll also be providing vegetated buffers. Um the strategy there is to try to maintain as much of the existing mature trees on the site particularly along the um plan east property line and the plan north property line and then supplement that uh as needed. And so we'll work with staff during the site plan review process to to do that. Uh and then of course uh you know in addition to that we'll have perimeter landscaping along the road frontages as well as internal landscaping within the site um in accordance with the zoning ordinance requirements. Um as far as access uh we've we've worked pretty extensively uh over the last 12 to 18 months with uh transportation staff um to uh to to to land on what we have here before you tonight. Um, so just wanted to kind of

go through a little few of the specifics on that. Um, there's an entrance proposed on Green View Drive. That'll be a right in, right out, left in entrance. So, no left turn movements out onto Green View. Um, the existing left turn lane at the light will be modified to create a dedicated left into the site. Uh on Leville, um that entrance will be a right in, right out, left out entrance. So no left turn movements in there. And um those configurations were determined after some pretty close um coordination with transportation staff as well as a traffic study to support those improvements. Um there will be some raised medians provided along Leville to ensure that those movements are are restricted that left end movement. Um and so those are reflected on the plan as well. Um just to go through a little bit of the traffic study process um because I know there's a lot of lot of conversation about traffic um and that's always very important with a project like this. Um, so I mentioned that we've we've had several meetings along the way. I think what we've landed on is is a pretty good um compromise between what's important to the uh to Wawwa as well as what the city can support. Um but the traffic study we provided um same traffic study that we would do for any site uh whether it's being reviewed by Lynchburg or VOTE or any other locality. So we're basing that on real traffic counts. We're using all the accepted methods for trip generation software things like that. Uh as Rachel mentioned, uh staff has concurred essentially with the results that

indicate um you know, negligible impacts to the existing roadways. Um and something that's interesting to note about this type of use is you do have a lot of traffic going in and out, but almost all of that traffic is taken from the traffic that's already on the streets. So we call that pass by traffic. Um, and so that's important to important to understand is that really not adding a lot of traffic to the existing streets. Um, we're pulling traffic that's already there. Um, and so that's that's really what I wanted to share with you today. I think that uh Mike with Waw Wa just wants to share a few thoughts and then be happy to answer any questions. All right. [clears throat] Uh, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and, uh, council members. Uh, my name is Mike Bar. I'm the real estate engineer for the state of Virginia, and and thank you for the opportunity to come up and discuss, you know, our project and and how we're operating throughout the state of Virginia with our um, expansion throughout the state. You know, I started at WAWA about three and a half years ago, but I grew up in media Pennsylvania and Delaware County where Wawwa originated from. So, I've got family and friends growing up with them, working in the stores, maintaining the sites, working behind the counters. So, I have a really close relationship with this company. Um, you know, we opened our first convenience store back in 1964 in uh Falsam, Pennsylvania, which was my aunt's uh uh store she used to go to pretty much every day to get her coffee. Um, and we utilize that family culture, that competitive fuel pricing, and community devotion to now grow to about 1,200 stores in 13 states. um since that 1964 first store, all while still maintaining our privately held status as a company. Um you know, we now have 50,000 associates, all of whom who benefit from s the success of our stores, which um we have a um employee stock ownership plan, which makes us very unique, too. And it helps with, you

know, our our associates wanting to work as hard as as they as they can because they benefit from the success of our company as well. Um, you know, and and every Wawa that we build, uh, creates 50 to 70 skilled construction jobs, 40 store jobs, and utilizes the local contractors and suppliers during our construction. Uh, and in Virginia alone, we have 129 stores with 5,000 associates. And, [clears throat] uh, you know, we're working to continue to expand into the Western Virginia, including the city of Lynchburg. Um, you know, we're excited to continue our expansion and um, we really want to be a great neighbor and we want to coordinate with you as much as possible, especially for projects like this where we come in and we present and um, you know, we want to be a a good neighbor and and uh, we want to provide to the to the community as well. So, thank you again for the for the opportunity. [clears throat] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project? [snorts]

I'm Tom Dwit and I'm not here for a commission. I'm not involved in the project or anything else like that. But what I'd like to say is 35 years ago, and I'm not sure how the planning people missed it, but we brought this same property, that corner up for a reasonzoning for a quickie convenience store and a dentist office with a dentist by the name of Joe Lavine. And they were just taking the 2.15 acres there on the corner. And we wanted to reszone that then for community business B3. And we got turned down. Of course, that wasn't y'all. That was a whole different council and stuff. But what I'd like to say is that things have consequences. Decisions have consequences. And most of the time developers, if something like this is turned down, it'll get put on the shelf for years and years. Just like in this case, 35 years ago is when that was proposed for a reasonzoning. It's almost laughable that uh a piece of property at an intersection like that is still zoned R1. Are you kidding me? A four-lane road on either side of it? It doesn't make any sense to me. And I so I would encourage you to approve this reszoning um because it it's a good thing for the city. And secondly, I'd like to encourage you. It's now been 50 years since annexation and we still have multiple properties around like this that are in commercial spots that should be zoned something other than R1. I would say most of the vacant property that we have bigger bigger tracks left are are zoned R1 and that's keeping them from being developed. Um I would say after 50 years most things should have been infilled by now if they have the utilities and the proper infrastructure there to happen. So, I would encourage

you to give the planning staff some some leeway maybe to make that happen and start taking a relook at some of the some of the undeveloped areas and undeveloped land around. But please approve the project. Thank

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project? Is there anyone who like to speak in opposition? Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and city council. My name is Thomas Sorrels. Um, I live on Wexview Road, which is just over the top of the hill on Leville from this development. Um, I spoke at the city planning commission meeting and I will reiterate some of the things that I brought up there. Uh, and as well as a couple of other things that I've discovered since then. Um, first and foremost, I have lived in that location for seven years. I travel through this intersection twice a day, usually on car, more recently on bicycle, often towing my son in a trailer as we travel to and from his daycare. So, I am intimately familiar with this intersection. I have been through it more times than I care to admit, and I will continue to use it. I am quite frankly looking forward to Waw Wa coming. I believe it will be a great asset to the community. I however question and doubt the current safety of the plan as proposed. Um I filed a Freedom of Information Act with the Lynchburg City Police Department on 14th January this year. Uh in 2023 there were six traffic accidents from the light at Green View to what is now Thompson Way or the Old Simon's Run. In 2024 there were eight accidents. In 2025 there were 13 accidents. I would also like to call into question their traffic study which was cons conducted on Tuesday May 20th of 2025. Um I stress that as highly important date because for those who are unaware in 2025 many of our local college commencements were two weeks prior and the traffic study was not conducted at what would be considered peak traffic conditions for the road. Additionally, the traffic study while accounting for the central development

that is currently undergoing on Thompson Way, it does not take into account the Maddox and Suns construction directly across from Thompson Way, which will be an 84 or 83 uh town home development. Uh, additionally, it does not take into account any of the other traffic or town home developments, of which there are four or five on the entire length of Leville Road. We have quite frankly seen increased development of Leville Road with little to no improvement for pedestrian access or any form of traffic safety measures such as speed limitation changes or traffic flow to slow the traffic. Um, additionally, my PL my primary concern here is with access a which is on your bottom right hand corner of the screen here. That moves up the current entrance way into the lot approximately 240 ft closer to the top of a blind hill. Um, I have no issues with the right end. Uh, as for the right out of that, it is the only way back to 460 from the traffic that is transiting through the area. You would have to make a right-hand turn, cross two lanes of traffic immediately, and then make a left-hand turn to get back to 460. Additionally, you would have to make a left-hand turn to get back on Leville at the top of a blind hill where cars often come across at 45 miles an hour. [snorts]

That's all.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Will the petitioner like to make a rebuttal? Uh yes. So, um I do want to do want to point out um the town home developments that were referred to um those were not included in the original study. We I was not aware of those. Um however after the planning commission meeting um and speaking with staff we were made aware of those developments. We prepared a a supplemental narrative to the traffic study. Um and uh essentially it didn't change any of the um any of the results of the study or the overall conclusions. Um the impacts are still negligible. That information was provided to staff reviewed by traffic and they concurred with that. Um, as far as the entrance location on Leville, um, you know, we've looked at we've looked at site distance there. Um, stopping sight distances are met, um, in both directions. Um, there is an existing concrete entrance uh, already in that location. So, it's obviously been planned for to be an entrance. Um, and I'm not aware of any other concerns that staff had. they were they were uh they were okay with that location and really wanted it there as kind of the best location located furthest from the signal which is kind of best practice thank you [clears throat]

public hearing is now closed in voicemails. No. Okay. Yes. Okay. May I have a motion on the future land use map? Yes, sir. Mr. Bro, some comments and and thoughts first. Uh Mike, go birds. Yeah. Um sir, please make an application to be on the planning commission.

That just goes for everybody. Uh that was one of the more wellthoughtout although the difference of opinion well thoughtout researched matter-of-fact presentations of an oppositional piece to land zoning and we need people to serve on boards and commissions. So if you're into that uh that was a very good example. Um I do have a question versus resoning. Why did you pursue this route as opposed to maybe limiting the zoning and then requesting conditional use permit for this project? Um, it's my understanding that, you know, if you kept the zone at a lower density and had the conditional use permit, it would prevent um higher density use down the line. God forbid you guys had to close up shop. Does that make sense? Sorry.

Uh, so the B3 zoning is needed to do a convenience store with fuel pumps. Um, and the existing B3C that's on part of the property uh is limiting to uh the the future use. Basically, the conditions that are in place don't allow for a convenience store. So, the C isn't an option in this case. Okay, thank you. Um, and then independent of this, I do want to site I think actually it was raised by Mr. Det, a really interesting thing at a future point, it'll probably be months outline because we're coming up on budget season. I would be interested in our options on uh reszoning property. I didn't I wouldn't want to do it without owner's permission, but if there's lots like this where the owner would like to have it reszoneed to something else without a plan and they're they concur with it, are there options for that? I don't know. Um maybe that might spur some development. What Mr. Dwit said, I'd like to look into it. That's all I'm trying to say. Uh and then finally, uh this is tough because I grew up in South Jersey. Um, I don't mention it often because it's used against me. I [clears throat] can't help it. It's where my dad had a job. Um, but I grew up going to high school and if you didn't have your Waw Wa coffee, you were made an example of at the same token, I personally think this is a good spot, a good development, a good thing to do. And yet, I've got folks who I represent who think otherwise. So, this is tough. and I'm looking forward to hearing what my colleagues say.

Um the access like the the right in right out left that stuff is I mean it's very it's definitely unique um the way this is being done. The concern that I have, and I think this is probably a a question for staff more than anything, is is we really need to revisit the Leville and Warts corridors. I don't know where we are on the time frame with that. I know that the WS, you know, re redoing the WS corridor study has been requested, I think, in the past in the last year or two. Um, I don't know who who would be I mean would Tom would that be would that be in [clears throat] your wheelhouse to speak to that as far as what's what's timeline looking like on that with getting those court right now I'm inclined to to approve this uh I have been waiting for this day since 1996 when I moved from Bucks County here and this is going to be the closest one to my house so there's that. But then on the other aspect of it, right, it's the fact that we got to look at the safety for for our citizens. And if I feel like I know that there's something coming down the pike for that with corridor studies, I think that's what I kind of mentioned in hearing from you on on how we would approach that or if that's something in the works or or looking at those. So sure, I remember us speaking about it uh several many months ago and what we discussed is if it was a transportation study, it would come through our public works and engineering division. Um obviously we would probably want to tag along and do some land use studies with that, but uh that's something I can speak with the director of public works with.

That would be great. I think it would really be beneficial for us to start looking at at you know Leville and Warts. There is a tremendous amount of traffic on those roads. One of the things that I've also noticed is that there's a tremendous amount of uh uninforced speeding on those roads. And that's something I see on a regular basis. You know, when I pull out on Warts Ferry, I know people aren't going 35. I know they're not going 40. Sometimes I don't think they're even going 45. They're usually going faster sometimes. So, and that's 35 mph zone. And it's it's there there's a lot of uninforced speeding that's going on in those areas and and that presents a safety concern. I'm looking at this. I also see where Mor Drive I think that is dumps out right there on Leville. Do we need to look at potentially having a light there down the you know is that something we need to look at? I've just got some concerns with that aspect of it. Uh but uh I'm curious to see what my my colleagues have to say, but right now I am inclined to to support this if we know we've got something coming down the pike with with some kind of study to look at how we can do something there with Leville and board.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, this is W three and uh uh if you paid any attention, I talk about Leville a lot. I think I've uh police chief's not here, but I've requested directed radar patrol on Leville at least three times and I haven't been here that long. So, uh it's an issue. Traffic is an issue. Um it is two four lanes, two major roads coming together, not three. Uh there's no schools nearby, but the new Sentra facility, which is pretty massive, is almost across the street. Uh not directly, but almost. And there's a straightaway on Leville Road that is regularly raced. Regularly raced. Friday, Saturday nights, you can hear them. And uh somebody's [snorts] gonna get killed. Hope that doesn't happen. Praying that doesn't happen. But eventually the odds are bad. I want to make sure um my citizens in W 3 are are safe. That's Green View is right on the line with Campbell. Um but I do know that uh and [clears throat] I heard it mentioned by the gentleman who was in opposition. I think I've seen a couple emails in opposition. Some of them didn't even live in Lynchburg. But uh but I did have one that lived nearby and he lives nearby. And I will agree with something you said twice. There is a blind rise that's out of the focus and out of the attention of all the maps I've seen. And it's just past More View, which is on the right side of of that map. And just past More View, there's a blind rise. And they're coming out of the race right there. And you cannot see the Green View intersection uh when you're coming toward [clears throat] it until pretty much the

last second. So, if you're coming out of that right-hand driveway to turn right and then do a crazy left to get back on 460 or just to turn right, you're turning in front of vehicles that probably couldn't see you. I don't know what the clearance is, how how how quickly they can see, but that's that's my concern. And I've also raised a concern about the number of uh developments on Leville that uh have happened since any study of traffic has been done. So again, traffic remains my concern. Uh I'm going to vote for this. I I uh I love the commitment Waw Wa is making to lunch break. [laughter] Mike, thank you. I was at the opening of the one out by the airport to ribbon cut there. And uh you know, I have personal connections from uh a New Jersey girlfriend connected to Wawwas. Good memories. Anyway, it uh [laughter] it it's I look forward to ordering my classic Italian Hogy and I want to support it, but I do want to I I want to request and I did this in work session today. I would like to lower the speed limit on Leville Road. It starts out at Heritage High School at 35, goes all the way to Big Horn, past Big Horn, 35, then all of a sudden right where the speed you know speedway is, it goes up to 45. and they're probably doing it goes up to 40. Uh it it it should be 35 straight through. There's there's just one section of it that's everybody speeds up, but they're going twice what's what's signed there. And uh and the attempts to try to bring in radar have not necessarily slowed it down as much as I would have hoped. So I would like to find out how to to slow the whole thing down to 35. Coming over that blind dead rise. uh you cannot see the Waw Wa entrance and you're going to probably want to put some extra signs in there to protect your customers and uh maybe to caution them on the way out. This is a

blind rise. Anybody who's driven it knows it. Um so I would uh I I'm not opposed to the development. I I would like to uh support the motion and uh ultimately I would like to get that speed limit slowed so staff could figure out how to help me with that. I'd appreciate it. So, is there any discussion? Nobody's prepared to make fully.

I know I've already spoken. I I do want to say that in my experience, every time we've talked about this, the key component to traffic mitigation is development. So, it's kind of like a a whammy, you know? Well, if you want the traffic mitigation, you need the reason to put it there. and and I agree in part with it, but all to say is I would hope that with the developments coming that is all the more reason to get the mitigations that we're we're talking about, which would only help a development like this down the line. That's all. That's great.

I agree. That's a good point. I I want to support the project. I think it'll be good for the city and the citizens. I obviously it's um a desirable asset. I think a lot of people are going to really be happy about it. It'll be good for us. Uh but obvious we want to be sensitive to the safety concern that was raised and we absolutely need to address that concern. So um we need to do our due diligence there and and u make sure that we look at that and um and consider it. So with all that said, you know, make a motion. Yes. Thank you. Oops. I know you do. [laughter]

Thank you for the information. As far as the planning committee, they did approve the project. And what were some of the did they have any major concerns? Was this traffic concern or what other concerns did they have? [laughter] Um there were three neighbors who spoke against and they were mainly concerned about traffic. Yes. Traffic. Um [clears throat] and you just say one no member from the plan commission against the project. Correct. Correct. Okay. Um you I just Thank you. I just can't see what else would you can't put residential right there. I can't see what else you could put there other than a commercial business. I do support the project. Thank you. Most submission. Other thing I want to point out is

appreciate the Gary's Garden Center staying there. That's something that we didn't mention up here, but that's uh it's a great local [clears throat] business and uh glad to see them continue. They've been there for some time. So, that's good to see that creativity. So, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the future land use map as the first one. Yes. Right. Um, and I'm also going to combine with that lowering the speed limit by June 1st to 35 on Leville Road. And that's the motion I'll make. We have a second. June 1st to June 1st. By June 1st.

May I make a a humble point of order? I want to support Councilman in that speed limit reduction. We're not supposed to vote on things without reviewing it in a work session. So, I want to support that. Um, I also think that should be considered se separate, but the point of order would be we didn't review it in a in a work session and we should not in the rules. It's not the rules. Yes, sir.

If I could, I would offer that. I don't know if it's applicable applicable here, but it is something city staff should look at is whether a traffic study is required before doing a lowering of a speed limit like that. So, if if it's if it's worthwhile maybe amending the emotion to direct staff to bring it back that I'm happy with that. Let's amend the motion to approve the future land use map and then direct staff to to initiate the process and bring it back to us. I'm good with that. Second. Okay, we got a second. Let's vote. Yes, sir.

Ma'am, [clears throat and cough] I'm I'm fine with you separating those. I do just want to point out that we don't have a motion to separate in our rules and it's limited to those procedural rules. So, if we want to be super clean on it, we have to go through the vote process. I'm fine with consensus and I would say we should add that to our rules in the future. I'm I'm I'm good with separating even though it's not in our rules procedure. Okay, just let's keep it separated. Let's vote. So, the first vote is the future land use map, right? Future land use. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [clears throat] Is the ordinance being put it on as well at the same time?

It sounds like just the future land use map ordinance being later. Okay. All right. Initiating the vote on the future land use map. The motion passes 61. Look at lowering the speed limit to 30. And then the next part is we just separated my motion. Yes. So that's directing staff to initiate the process to look at lowering that speed limit to 35. Okay.

Second. Second. Can we do that by consensus or do we have Yeah. Why don't we go down? The speed limit is looking at the speed. They have to initiate that process and bring it back to us or sorry. Just make sure I'm clear. They're just reviewing it. They're not seeing the change. They reviewing it. Is that correct? Bring back some suggestions. Make sure same page. Thank you. Yes,

that was a motion. Was there a second? [snorts] You ready for the vote? Mayor vote for the vote. Ready for the vote? Okay. All right. Initiing the vote to direct staff to bring back um looking at speed limit to 35 miles per hour. The motion passes 70. And then I'll make a motion for the reszoning. Make a motion. I'll second. Second. Is there any discussion? No.

I'll just say I appreciate what you guys are doing. I appreciate the investment you're making in our city, in our region, bringing jobs here, and it's fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. Any more discussion? I agree. Happy to have Thank you for doing it. How many more are coming? Got some in the hopper. [laughter] In the [snorts] hopper. In the hopper. All right. Initiating the vote now. Initiate on the reszoning. [clears throat] Motion passes 61. Thank you.

All right. The next section is public comment. Speakers have three minutes to speak. If you're speaking for a group, you have five. City council listens to your comments and may ask the city manager to follow up. Citizens often have different opinions to make sure everyone feels comfortable speaking. There's no applause, cheers, or jeers. Do not intimidate, insult, or disrupt others. Do not use profanity, promote businesses, or campaign for office. Agenda item number four, hear from a citizen regarding support to keep Peacem Peacemakers, Inc. in our community and opportunities for relocation. Alan Davis. Mr. Davis. There he is.

Name and locality of residents.

My name is Alan Davis. I reside at 1207 Fieldmore Street in Lynchburg, directly across from Robert Payton School. Um, I've g given some more thought to my approach to city council. I'd like to say, uh, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, and distinguished panel guest, um, uh, I appreciate the opportunity to express myself. Uh, I come before you with a a plea to salvage u an organization called community I mean um peacemakers. Um the the the organization is relevant because about maybe a little more than a month ago, there was a murder at the food uh uh store across the street from it that didn't have video. And as a result of the video that was at uh Peacemakers, the the the person who committed the murder was apprehended. And you know, if you read the paper, you're understanding that I had a personal incident myself where um there was someone dealing drugs next door and uh rather than go to the police, uh I went to u Mr. Hunter for for help and he addressed the people next door and they moved the drugstore from the front porch to inside the house. Uh I'm a retired school teacher from Philadelphia. uh you're not supposed to deal drugs directly across from the school. I was highly offended. I had several incidents with the customers coming back and forth and um as a result of uh the peacemakers uh speaking to that individual, there was a

a decline in in the activity. Not not a lot, not to my satisfaction. So I called the police and I informed them of it and the officer who arrived said, "Can you prove it?" Um, I had question about that. No, I can't approve it. You can put a mic on me and I can go over there and purchase some drugs. Maybe that'll be proof. But my plea to you is if you have any influence in preserving this organization. The original idea that I had uh as a result of research I thought the land across from Robert Espane belonged to the school. It didn't belongs to the city. So there a few more steps that I have to take and a few more um um presentations I'll probably have to make. But uh if city council has any influence uh on public safety and concern, this organization has proven to be uh a benefit and and I would hate for it to be dissolved because it lost its building where it is now. Um hope you can help us out. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. Agenda item number five. Hear from a group representative regarding responsibility of public figures and elected officials. Mitch Richards for the love of the city. [clears throat] Please restate your name, group representative, and local residents. Good evening. My name is Mitch Richards. Um I'm here representing my organization for the love of the city. Um thank you Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, everybody on the council. Um for me, this is this is a long time coming. Um, I honestly don't think I saw myself getting up before council um, and speaking on this, but you probably have more experience. Uh, life takes you to places sometimes and you end up learning lessons and sometime God directs you, right? And um for so long I would put my best foot forward and doing anything that I felt like was for the benefit of the community. Um but the one thing that I forgot uh was the responsibility that I had as far as my image and also as far as my community perceived me. Right. So four years ago, I made a I made a decision to uh change my circumstances, change my life as far as the people I was around and the circles that I decided to uh associate. Started [clears throat] spending a lot of time in general assembly. And um

as life kept going, I did not realize that when I decided to make a uh make a change that I still wasn't responsible for the things that I had done in the past. And as a result of that, I lost everything, right? Lost every single thing. It was almost like um there was a house fire and everything that had anything to do with Mitch Riches was in there except my children, right? Lost it all. Um, and it humbled me. And at first I was kind of upset. I kind of felt like I was being punished for something. And then I realized because of this great responsibility that was placed on my shoulders, there were some things that I need to cut tides with. There were some things that I need to let go, right? And some of those things were pride. And some of the other things were my perceptions of of others and not what we could do. For the last two years, I have heard from so many people in the community the state of our city council, right? But every single person that's on city council right now, I've had a one-on-one conversation with everyone. And about doing stuff in the community, every person, right? But the community has not been able to see this city council do it as one. But I believe I believe in y'all because y'all believed in me. Whether it was me selling hot dogs for kids and I wasn't actually selling them, giving them away or whether it was a basketball game and I thought for sure this person cared nothing about inner city youth and this person stopped me and asked me questions or it was a person that stopped me because of the shirt I was wearing and the impact that it had or me being in a grocery store with my daughter. You all had an impact on me because you saw something in me.

And I know this council is about to switch over, but I challenge this council to think about doing something together before you all do parts because I believe in y'all. I'm going to be towards the end of the summer, I'm going to be holding four school drives. I challenge y'all to show up together. Maybe not at all of them, but at one. And not because I want you to do it, but because I believe in you enough to show this city before this council is this man, sorry, that y'all can do something together. And I'm going to leave in the same way that I came in peace.

Thank you. Agenda item number six, here from a citizen regarding promoting a more accurate view of mental health in Lynchberg. Bonita Burgerer.

Good evening everyone. Good evening ma mayor and vice mayor. This is my first time having an opportunity to speak before the city council. So please bear with me if I make some mistakes. Just raise your hand and said no. Can't do that here today. So I'll make this very quick. The reason why I'm here today is mental ill illness has been a huge topic and I do have police officers in my family and children and we all always concerned about keeping everyone safe. Um in the last year I was at I lived in Abber Mallal and unfortunately I lived through um experiencing two UVA football players being killed and having to read in paper. It's very heartbreaking to know that when you are near that campus and you lost, they lost two football players. So today is to talk about mental health and what is healthy and unhealthy. What I challenge you today to do is form a task force. The task force will work with the city and with um Horizon. It is designed to educate the public. as a person with two degrees and I am a former alumni proud very proudly of Lynchber College now that you guys have turned it into Lynchber University while I live somewhere else. [laughter] Um I'm also a very proud alumni of Northfor State University. What I want to challenge you to do is a task force that says educate, educate, educate, educate. What is the difference between what is PT PTSD? What is bipolar? What is the characteristics? Let the public know what they're dealing with when they see people out. Also, I want to keep our police officers safe. So, the task force would look at ways to how can we utilize technology? We're into robotics now.

It's very big. Maybe we can have a robotic program for police officers or mental health division where they actually can get the reports of individuals who possibly do have a TDO. How do they handle that call? And going forward, one of the most important things, I got one minute, [clears throat] is that um notaries and going before the court. Um I experienced that myself and I had to go through the court many different times and I had to bring all my paperwork and you have to be very honest. But when you're doing that, consider notaries are very vital. So when they fill out a form, make sure that they are filling it out properly because they can make it improper. Also make sure that people who have medical conditions like myself, I have a liver condition in which unfortunately if the fluid builds up in uh my body and gets near my brain stem, it can cause confusion. Um and it can cause me to appear to be something that I'm not. uh it is hereditary unfortunately and I have been working very closely with the doctors in Alberal. So, it's really to educate people and to really say and go back to the notaries is to have them there to say, "Okay, you notorized it here at this city. I'm transporting you. We got another notary to verify it with identification." It is really to keep everyone safe. And the last thing I would change is what is mentally healthy versus mentally unhealthy. It's a lot of different behaviors and you have people in the city that have diabetes, heart conditions, depression, all these can mimic. And for our children who have autism, I'm going to speak very clearly and loudly for them. the ones that are on Spectrum 4 and they can't speak. Please consider filling a task force to teach people

what their behavior is like when they're in a dangerous situation if they are caught in a situation they shouldn't be caught in or they have put theirel in a situation they should not have been in. So I leave you with that today and I thank you for your time. Thank you

Mr. Mayor. I'm just realizing that my uh buzzer is not working. So uh there will be no audible sound. So please do watch the clocks on the wall for your time. [clears throat] Um agenda item number seven, hear from a group representative regarding what's next. Greg Barry, city elders. [clears throat] Please restate your name, group represented, and locality of residents.

Good evening, Mayor Taylor, Vice Mayor Demer, and council members. My name is Greg Barry. I live in Ward 3, and I represent the Lynchburg city elders. To God and his son, Jesus Christ be all the praise, honor, and glory. In 1 Chronicles 12:32, it says, "And the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times to know what is what Israel ought to do." Tonight, I want to address two different topics that are actually closely related. In the 1960s and 70s, people demonstrated against our military because of our involvement in Vietnam. Our military was called was called every despicable name possible and disparaged for fighting for our country. In the years following that, police officers across the nation were disparaged and demonized because they arrested violators. Never mind that these violators are actually committed crimes. Now, immigration and custom enforcement officers are being vilified because they are actually arresting illegal aliens. Insurrectionists are violently impeding and interfering with lawful enforcement efforts. What is the common denominator on these? Those who are here to protect us and enforce laws passed by our elected officials are vilified by those that would destroy our country. They want to remove all lawful order in order to create total anarchy. They want to sway public opinion to curtail law enforcement to the point of total ineptness. Why do they want anarchy? because the

lawlessness would lead to either revolution or total government control. I am not saying that law enforcement shouldn't have reasonable limitations. These limitations are already in place, but when someone brings a firearm to a fight with law enforcement, what do you think is going to happen? When someone tries to run over an officer with a vehicle, what did you think would be the outcome? As a retired law enforcement officer, I know what it is like to be shot at. To have someone try to run over you with a car. To have someone to try to gut you with a sharp instrument. To have someone try to bludgeon you with a club. And I have faced large, angry, violent crowds. These are just a few of the violent situations officers face. Unless you have been courageous enough to put yourself in those shoes, don't you dare to presume to tell officers how they should respond to life-threatening situations. So, the question now is whether local law enforcement should support federal law enforcement. This has got to be one of the dumbest questions ever. Of course, they should assist each other. They are in the fight together to keep our communities safe. To say otherwise is to say that you want disorder, chaos, violence, and unlawfulness. Proverbs 12:15 says, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes. But he, he that hearkenth unto counsel is wise." Now, Virginia is plagued by an administration, a radical governor, a Muslim lieutenant governor, and an attorney general who has advocated not

only for the death of his opponents, but their children as well. These three and a significant portion of our legislature have exhibited not just a willingness, but an intent to curtail our rights, thus leading to a dominance and total control of the people. It is obvious that legislation is being brought forward with the intent to limit the possession of firearms and keep and open the door of their confiscation. This will make ordinary law- abiding citizens into c criminals subject to fines, incarceration, and other penalties. Our council is now confronted with the opportunity to strengthen our second amendment resolution. The wording of this resolution must be in the strongest possible terms so there will be no confusion by bureaucrats that Lynburg citizens will not walk quietly into slavery. Council now has the opportunity to stand for our constitution and to stand with all law enforcement for peaceful community. Don't simply close your eyes and hide your head in the sand. This is a very real and imminent threat. Rather be like the men of sons of Issachar who recognize that threats right in front of them. Thank you, [clears throat]

Mr. Mayor. I did hear from um Mr. Gary Taylor who's agenda item number eight unable to be here today. So, we'll um he'll reach back out whenever he wants to reschedule that. Agenda item number nine, hear from a citizen regarding police and immigration cooperation. David Dubie, please restate your name and locality of residence.

Can you hear me? Okay. Uh, my name is David Dubie. I'm a Lynchburg resident. Did that suffice? Okay. All right. Council members, my name is David Dubbie. I've been a resident of Lynchburg for the past 15 years. Um, I work here. My children go to school here. My friends and family live here. And I believe that places an obligation on me to speak up as a private citizen. [snorts] I'm here to speak against the notion that local law enforcement should be involved with a 287g program. Uh local law enforcement should focus on local community needs. When we look at the statistics and the needs of our community, we can see that this should not be our focus. The [snorts] most recent focus uh sorry census in 2020 shows that our population at just under 80,000 citizens. Census estimates put us over that now with a population growth of 1.6%. Census data reveals that 5% of our population identified as Hispanic. In comparison to the most recent statistics from the Lynchburg Police Department in 2024 for this demographic show an arrest rate of 2%. To be blunt, the math does not math when saying immigrants or their community should be the focus of our council or our enforcement practices. Community support is needed for law for law enforcement to succeed. By targeting or even condoning the selective targeting of a specific community, you are saying this community does not need you, does not want you, does not care about you. For a city desperate for greatness and growth, it is the wrong message. Businesses and communities thrive when new ideas and people are welcome. The wrong message is being sent. A message not of how great the city is to live, work, and play, but a message that

prejudice, predisposition, and politicking is alive and well. Cooperating with the federal government can be effective, but only when there's accountability and respect to the community and to the rule of law. That has not been demonstrated across the nation, and I do not want my community to be subject to this practice. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Agenda item number 10, hear from a citizen regarding use local using local cops for immigration enforcement, Ryan Ball. Please restate your name and locality of residence. Hi, I'm Ryan Ball. I live in uh Bedford County and I work in the city. Uh I'm here today uh to speak to you as a private citizen and I do not speak on behalf of my employer. Um I'm asking that the city does not entertain enter entering into a 287g agreement with the federal government. As a local law enforcement officer for the past decade plus, I've always tried to support my community to the best of my ability. Whether that be showing up for community events, comforting victims of crime, arresting criminal offenders, and showing up for emergencies in the city, I've never once worried about the immigration status of anyone of I have encountered while working as our job is to enforce local and state criminal law. I've responded to calls for service in which I needed a translator to to communicate with Spanish-speaking residents. Luckily for me, my wife is also a cop. Uh, and she's also Hispanic and bilingual, which plays out well for me. Uh, I've been able to put her on the speaker phone. She can engage with the person I'm out with calmly, facilitate our conversation. oftentimes their body language goes from hesitant and fearful to open and engaging by the time I'm ready to leave the scene. If we as a city enter in an agreement with the federal government to help in immigration enforcement, any trust we've built over the years will be gone. They will be less likely to call 911 in an emergency for fear of detention or deportation. That's the reality of the situation. Regardless of how you feel about the federal immigration policy, if someone who commits a crime in Lynburg that warrants their arrest in the jail determines their status in the US to not be up to par, they can alert the federal authorities and it can be handled safely

that way. My wife and my two of my children are Hispanic. I've seen videos online in the past year showing many federal agencies and cities across America engaged in consensual stops with people in their front yards asking them for proof of citizenship because of their accent. and likely their parents. I don't want my wife or my children to be treated that way. I don't want anybody to be treated that way. I don't want to live in a country, state, or region that behaves in that manner or that has a local law enforcement agency enforcing federal immigration law. I'm in no way suggesting that we shouldn't be assisting federal agencies like the FBI, US Marshals, etc., and the apprehension of criminals with judicial warrants. That's something the city has always done, at least for the last 15 years, and within the normal expectations of a police officer's job. If we entertain federal deputizing, federally deputizing our local cops or even assisting with their enforcement efforts to a substantial degree, we'd run the risk of of uh losing trust with those that we serve. Trust can mean everything. I pray that you consider this when deliberating as your community's trust and its local police department depends on it. Not to mention any officers that may decide to find employment elsewhere as they feel morally obligated not to engage in such enforcement actions. Quite a few of us do not want to be political pawns and we will sadly see our we will sadly see ourselves out.

Thank you. All right. [clears throat] The next section is general business. It includes new items for discussion. Agenda item number 11, consideration of adopting a resolution approving the Central Virginia Safety Action Plan, Safe Streets for All. This item was discussed during physical development committee meeting earlier today.

I'll defer to Miss Tim for this item. Mh. The presentation was brought before PDC today. I Is she still here? She is typically. Okay. I was going to say I didn't know if she was going to present before I made the recommendation, but typically unless you call them call Kelly up, she she'd stay in her seat. If you would like her to make a presentation, she certainly can. Okay, Mr. Mayor, up to you. You come up for a brief presentation, please.

Uh, the recommendation passed PDC unanim unanimously today and I will go ahead and put a motion on the floor. Um, feel free to come forward. Miss Hitch Hitchcock, thank you for your presentation today. And good evening. Thank you for having me here. And again, I'm prepared to provide a presentation on the safety action plan if that is desired. Yes. A brief one. Okay.

Well, okay. Here we go. Sorry. Um, the safety action plan uh was [clears throat] developed in partnership with all the localities in our area by the Central Virginia Planning District Commission. We put in an application to the US DOT safe streets and roads for all program. The goal of that is to reduce serious and fatal accidents. And why did we apply? Because of the statist statistics you see there. 36 people uh and 28 uh die in our area every year and 280 are killed or sorry hurt in um accidents in our area within our region um in in Lynchburg. I'm so sorry.

You had to you had to race through this in PDC with our agenda today and racing through it now. Thanks and thank thank you for this presentation. You're doing great. Thank you. So, in Lynchburg, there were 32 fatalities and 417 serious injuries. Uh, within the area, 220 people died and 1,680 were seriously injured. The safety action plan is looking at just those accidents, those ones that affect those in serious and fatal accidents, not the total of the 21,000 some odd accidents that take place in the region. It's strictly those serious and fatal accidents. So this the safe streets and roads for all program from the US do the requirements in developing a safety action plan that are shown in the blue there on the left are the same no matter where you are in the country. And so the safety action plan that we did as a region is the safety action plan. It's 249 pages. It it provides a litany of of data to guide the goal of reducing those serious and fatal accidents and and developed cohesively throughout our region, the four counties in the city and the towns there in. Um I pointed out that that the funding for this came from US DOT. It came from the central Virginia planning district commission, the TPO, through the Department of Rail and Public Transit and VOTE. No direct dollars in developing the plan came from the city of Lynchburg. And we're here tonight to talk about the adoption of this plan. By adopting the plan, it allows the city of Lynchburg or any any locality that adopts the safety action plan and makes a commitment to be eligible to apply for the federal funds through this program. And again, the the data shows it's, as

we said, it's not all accidents. In our region, we have um 50% of those fatal and serious accidents happen on 8% of the total roadways in our area. In the city of Lynchburg, 70% of those accidents take place on 9% of the roadways. And so that summation of those areas where those serious and fatal accidents take place, it's your high injury network and it's shown on that map in that blue and that red. And what that means is you can target very quickly in those locations. Um and it provides a recommendation on certain areas within that high injury network. Um it also develops a series of goals uh policy goals to be developed collective uh collectively in the region and it was developed in partnership with Virginia State Police, Lynchburg State Police, emergency managers, our planners and engineers. Um and here we are at the safety action plan at the top is that commitment that goes along with adopting this plan and it's that goal to reduce the number of those fatal and serious accidents. So, back to that. Um, 42 [laughter] for Lynchberg. Sorry. Um, by 50% by 2045. Um, it's a goal. It doesn't mean if you don't make that commitment, you're not eligible for federal funding, but it is a goal and that's what we're here to ask tonight. So, I apologize for rambling on and fumbling there. [laughter]

Thank you. Thank you. So, Mr. Mr. Mayor, uh, again, it passed unanimously with PDC. Um, and I go ahead and make a motion that we adopt this as council. Is there a second? There's no second. Okay. Let's All right. Initiing the vote now. [clears throat] [cough and clears throat]

[clears throat]

Council

there. Thank you. The motion passes 70. All right. Agenda item number 12, consideration of introducing a resolution amending the FY2026 school capital projects fund budget and appropriating uh 1,350,000 to fund improvements to school buildings. This item was discussed during finance committee meeting January 29th of this year. Committee, Miss Reed. Uh yes. So, do we have uh Mr. Patrick, do you want to go ahead and brief on this or Miss Wit? Sorry. Just as a refresher. Thank you.

Okay. Um, in 2022, the general assembly created a new pot of money called the school construction assistance program. Um, schools has uh applied for a grant and received it in the amount of $1,350,000. And this money will be used for improvements to EC glass and RS pay. Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve it.

It passed unanimously on finance. So, um, we don't need a second. I motion to approve this. And unless there's any questions for anybody for Miss Whit, Great. Let's vote. Is it? Do you do you have any discussion? No,

I just think it's I think it's great. I think appreciate [clears throat] you guys doing this. And the question I have is this combined with the funds that they found that we appropriated back in 2023 that were never used that was discovered over the summer in the joint they they briefed us on that at the joint school board meeting because yeah, this is a separate grant, but um those grants are combined with some city funds to do both RS paying which was what council talked about before. So, this is an addition to that because it's been a couple years and so so no, I appreciate them. I appreciate them. I wish they were here to present this, but I appreciate them doing this and and I think that uh it's a good thing.

I agree. Again, it was unanimous decision on finance. I think it's uh a great thing that we can do for the school. So, uh you know, that's why we all agreed to it. So, thank you. Is there any more discussion? No. Let's vote, please.

All right. Initiating the vote now. [snorts] Motion passes 70. All right. Agenda item number 13. This is consideration of adopting a resolution reaffirming the city of Lynchburg's second amendment sanctuary status. Um we do have two resolutions for you on this item. There has been a request from Vice Mayor Demer who is the carrier of one of these resolutions. Um oh gosh um to do these separately. Uh he had mentioned doing them in order of which they came. So that would be uh council member Ferald's addressing that resolution and then moving on to vice mayor demers. Certainly up to council that

you go with that mustard. Um, I could have sworn I saw an email here from the vice mayor that said we wanted to consider this together, not separate. I said I vote for both. I'd like them to be separate,

which we just separated some earlier. [snorts] So I'll make a motion to uh approve uh council member for all these resolutions. Second discussion. No, I mean I think it's I think it's a good thing. I think that uh several several years ago we uh we had um the resolution come before us. I think it was was it January of 23? Is that is that right? January 2023

and you know it's a good thing that was that was the following this huge public hearing at East of Glass right huge public hearing where the community overwhelmingly came out and said hey you know what take a stand for our rights that they not be infringed and I'll never forget the meeting that led led up to that with the you know the pushing the wrong button thing and I'll tell you what that night I watched that meeting I was watching it live, the one that led to the public hearing. And I got to recognize Dr. Wer. I know that [clears throat] he didn't support it ultimately, but what he did was when they revoted after somebody else pushed the wrong button, he switched his vote to make sure the public hearing happened because he had the integrity to realize and understand that folks were in here expecting a public hearing. The vote happened, everybody left, and then somebody's like, "I pushed the wrong button. And it was because of Dr. Wilder that that public hearing happened. And I I appreciate him doing that. And anybody that's been paying attention for a long time understands that that that was that was on him. So, thank you, Dr. Wilder, for doing that when you did it. Uh historic public hearing. City citizens spoke overwhelmingly and and I think it's just a common sense that we that we reaffirm this because what they're doing in Richmond right now is there's no other way to frame it, but it's it's disgusting. They are coming after our rights. You have a right to defend yourself. You have a right to defend your family, your home, your business, and the restrictions that they're trying to put in place in Richmond right now. They're trying to disarm us. That's what they're trying to do. And if we comply with that, then what's going to happen is the only people that are going to have the stuff

that they ban are going to be criminals because criminals don't obey the law. [snorts] So why should we give criminals an advantage when we need to be able to defend ourselves? It just I just I hope Virginia wakes up from from this and realizes what's going on. Uh, I I pray that the governor vetos a bunch of this stuff because I think it's absolutely outrageous and I appreciate [clears throat] the efforts by both council member Faldi and the vice mayor in bringing this back forward. That's all I have to say.

Second, I appreciate the political trap my colleagues are setting and I'm not going to fall for it. So, the opportunity here is to make a decision about how we want to put the city's posture on the Second Amendment rights. And I'm not going to toy with your liberty to get a political edge on my opponents because that's what is being framed before you. The bottom line is this. What was passed a few years ago is the gold standard across the entire Commonwealth. Hundreds of localities adopted the Second Amendment sanctuary resolution in 2020. We were just a few years late. I would ask anyone to look at what Richmond is proposing and say with a straight face that it is any ounce of common sense. And it's not. For me, it's pretty straightforward. Richmond allowed localities to adopt gun control. Uh when I was at Liberty University, it was a little offcolored joke, but uh then President Fwell said, "If more people had in my back pocket, if more people had in my back pocket what I have, I think there'd be fewer problems." Essentially, is what he said. and and uh I think if more good people who are trained and know what they're doing were able to protect themselves, we'd have a safer community. And unfortunately, Richmond says that we want to allow localities to adopt gun control for this very room. And I guarantee right now with the friendly faces I see and the the calls for the Second Amendment, there are plenty of rounds in this room to protect myself and and others.

And I say that with a smile. Um because nearly six years ago uh right as I was getting ready to announce my candidacy for this very seat, I was the jokingly with my buddy uh who's become a very strong supporter, friend, groomsman in my wedding. And I was like, "Hey, what happens if I am the first person to speak? What do I do?" and and he said, "Uh, well, you're going to have to set the tone." And sure enough, then Mary Mayor Tweety said, and first up is Chris Faraldi. And I was like, oh boy. And only thing I could think was like, how can how can we send the message at the first first opportunity? And and all I could think was like, if you support this, stand up. And I just remember a thousand people in EC glass auditorium standing up. And I I just I look at what Rich Richmond is proposing and it it is just so counter to everything I know that is standing up for what this country is supposed to be all about and it's liberty. I say all of that starting out my comments because I I I do believe this is underh mayor. I believe this is underhanded. Um, it didn't have to be. And just like a lot of other issues, I believe the rights of Virginiaians are being used as a political ploy by members of this deis just as badly as the leftists in Richmond.

Because I'm not going to shut up because ultimately what my colleague wants I believe what my colleague wants is me to vote for this and then vote against his so that way they can say I don't support the second amendment. And I would love to see them have a straight face and say otherwise.

So I'll ask it this way and I'm going to put this to bed very quickly. I'll ask our attorney And I know our friends over here who don't like the attorney, it's because he's right and they don't like it. So, Mr. Attorney, what is the substantive difference between these two resolutions?

Um, there's some, I guess, language differences. Obviously, Mr. Demer's version includes some uh essentially right to assembly um related to civic organizations. that has that um you know some additional information that speaks to uh minor differences that are in there. The only the only concern I have with Mr. Deamemer's version here is is number three. Um and that's spec and and I'm happy to read it for the council.

Please please do because I remember citing point three in in good faith as I thought we were having a conversation Mr. mayor that we were having a good faith conversation about the only concern I had. So, please please read number three.

So, it's under the resolving clause. It says that the city council declares its intent that no city funds, resources, or personnel shall be knowingly used for the purpose of enforcing any law, regulation, or administrative action that is determined to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. So really powerful language, but from a legal perspective, um the council just needs to be very careful in that because only courts can determine something to be unconstitutional. And what I I wouldn't want to see for council is getting in the situation where they're voting something is unconstitutional and telling staff to do something in connection with that. So it's just something to keep in mind with the the resolution. So if I was to say this back to you to make sure I understand your position clearly, what I heard you said was it draws a very fine line where council could be the ones to interpret what is constitutional and not and therefore disregard the law. So is I mean is that

I don't know if I would say that but I I these resolutions are are position resolutions in nature, you know, but what what council doesn't want to do is put staff in a situation where they're making a vote that something is unconstitutional. Matt, you and I have gotten to know each other fairly well these last number of years. You know what I'm asking. Can you give me an answer? I would word it differently to avoid uh uh legal implications. And how would you word it?

I would just include additional language to say, you know, uh determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or a uh by uh a Virginia court with with appropriate authority that something's unconstitutional, something to that effect.

Okay. So, mayor, what I would submit is I shared again in in good faith that point number three in the vice mayor's resolution, I had issues with it. I wanted to tweak it and I wanted to wait and see how the next two weeks went. Um, I've received three or four emails related to this topic, uh, with different ideas shared and concepts. And mayor, never once was item number three changed on on what we're going to be considering next. So, I'll make a substitute motion that the vice mayor's resolution be adopted that point number three be amended to say or conclude as determined by the courts in Virginia or otherwise and my resolution would then be not considered. That's my motion. speak to second.

It's been sick. You want to speak to you? Second.

Um, I just think one of the things that's really important to consider because when we first voted for this back in 2023, there were so many people that in the city that did not understand what we were really doing. And um at that time when I was the mayor, every time there was a shooting or something, I would get an email or a call when people were like, "This is because you made this a 2-way city." And that is not the case. You know, this is about again protecting our rights as lawfully, you know, um carrying citizens, you know, who are following the law. And if you if you talk to our law enforcement community, the majority of criminals are not lawfully committing crime or not committing well, they're committing crimes with weapons that are not um they're not legally carrying. And and that's the problem. you know, the people that uh are 2A supporters are people that are, you know, response should be responsible weapon owners and they're really using it for the purpose in which uh our constitution defines. And it's for protection. It's for protection of their families, protection of their homes. And we want to emphasize too um especially within the city, please if you are a uh you know obviously a a gun owner, please lock them up. Be responsible with them. Train yourself in using them properly. Uh because unfortunately we do and the law enforcement community here will tell you have people that are legal gun owners who will leave them in their cars um leave them unlocked, you know, leave cars unlocked and they do get stolen and they get used in crime. And we do not want we do not want that to happen. And so it's so important that we protect this right that we have by our constitution, but also that we are being responsible as well. Um,

you need to stop for a minute. Oh, mayor. We need to be very careful what's going on because this is a public meeting and anything that is said on this day needs to be heard by the public and put in the minutes. It was the uh clarifying the technical question. That's fine. But we need to do all of that by the books and be transparent. That's all. It was the speaker that was going to speak to us through

that's fine. So, I just want to reference uh that Attorney General Mi back in January right before he left office did u make a um an opinion and I and I just want to sum it up at the very very end. His conclusion, you can look this up. It's from January 16, 2026. But the very last thing he said and I think it just sums it up really really well. Hold on a second. Let me scroll to the bottom. As experience has demonstrated, even the most draconian government regulations will not prevent individuals bent on destruction from obtaining and using firearms for nefarious purposes. And an unarmed, law-abiding populace is helpless if law enforcement is slow to respond. Fortunately for Virginiaians, the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia enshrine Virginia's rights to defend themselves, their families, and their fellow citizens. Is my opinion that in addition to putting Virginiaians in danger, a lensure agreement to purchase firearms and a ban on commonly used firearms, accessories, and components would violate the second amendment to the United States Constitution in article 1, section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. So the whole attempt that we're trying to enforce here is that we do have a right to protect ourselves and our families. We have to do it safely. Um but that's the whole goal here is that the state does not come in and and take our rights away from us. But we obviously have to make sure that we are following the law and that again the piece that the attorney referenced tonight is important that the courts are involved in that decision too. They should be upholding our constitutional right. that is very essential. So I think that is a a key uh component that should be um included and considered in the uh 2APS piece here. So that is why I'm going to support the substitute motion because we want to make sure it's it's tightly worded. So that's all.

Thank you, Miss Timmer. I do have comments, but I did want to defer to our speaker that we have did. Okay. All right. I'll defer to M missions and would like bring up the speaker.

Um I appreciate the substitute motion and and what I'll be doing is making an amendment to that motion that we use the resolving clause number three which is the same intent language from the January 10th 2023 resolution that we passed the same one that city council previously play passed because we haven't heard any language. So what I want to do is instead of using Mr. redeemer's language that he has presented to us in this for resolving clause number three that we just use the resolving clause language from number three from what we've previously passed which kind of has the same uh same intent to it. So that's that's my amended motion

motion to amend on a substitute. The substitute has to be adopted first. Yes. That's Can you state the rule? Can you state the rule? I don't I just did. You didn't state the rule. State the rule. You You guys don't ever Matt, please. Matt. Um, just give me one second. I'm looking at the rules for motion to amend and [clears throat] the substitution. Substitute motion. You guys had two weeks to work all this out.

Okay. So, the way I interpret this, and I'm [clears throat] happy to I'm happy to read it. I'm happy to read it. So, this is our our motion to amend. Any substantive motion properly on the floor may be amended. An amendment to a motion must be pertinent to the subject matter of the motion. An amendment is improper if adoption of the motion with that amendment added would have the same effect as rejection of the original motion. A proposal to substitute completely different wording for a motion or an amendment shall be treated as a substitute motion. A motion may be amended no more than twice. Once a motion has been offered to council, it is up to the council to decide whether or not should be changed, excuse me, should be changed by amendment. It is not necessary for the person making the original motion to approve to [clears throat] approve of any proposed amendment to the motion. And then this is a substitute motion language. A substitute motion shall be allowed to replace any motion properly on the floor. It shall have precedent over an existing motion and may be discussed prior to being voted on. If the substitute motion fails, the former motion can then be voted on. Then the substitute motion passes. The substitute motion replaces the main motion and the new main motion will be considered and acted upon by the council. No more than one substitute motion may be made. If a substitute motion passes and replaces the main motion, no further substitute motions may be made. So I think Councilman Faldi is correct in that the substitute motion cannot be amended because it's not a substantive motion. It's a procedural motion. Understood.

Now with that being said, draw my amendment. Okay. Okay. Oh, the video. Well, there's a gentleman that's live, I believe. And then comments. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Yes. I'm sorry. Um, I have been hearing from the audience that please speak into your mic whenever you do talk. Um, are you ready for the Yes.

Okay. So, um, Mr. Vice Mayor has asked for John Pierce of the law office of John Pierce Esquire to be on tonight. Um he is virtual. You have allowed him five minutes. Um a few housekeeping items since we're doing our first virtual here. Uh due to sound constraints both with our live mics here in the room and on the Zoom or on the teams rather. Um there needs to be one speaker at a time. If not, there will be loud feedback in the room and probably for him as well. Um mic management is a manual process. So there will be a slight delay. So, just keep that in mind. With that, Mr. Pierce, you have your five minutes whenever you're ready. When you're ready. Thank you very much. Are we getting echo?

I believe we are getting a little bit of echo. Okay. I I have had a chance to look at the various resolutions that are in front of the city council here today. Um I'm from outside of the city. Uh I am an attorney who uh handles primarily firearms and second amendment related issues. And because of that, uh this is an area that I'm heavily involved in. I'm also a board member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which is one of the lobbying groups here in Virginia. I want to make it clear though, I am not speaking on behalf of the organization. I am in fact uh speaking in my capacity as an attorney who practices in the firearms area. only the president of BCDL speaks for the organization, but we have been tracking uh all of these bills that have been proposed and I find it u very uh satisfying to hear um the words of of everyone here on the city council today who are supporting the rights of of the citizens there in Lynchburg. Um there appeared to be some some various uh uh opinions on how to uh address the these resolutions and I'll I'll give uh you know my opinion but again what's really wonderful to see is that for your great city that uh everyone regardless of which side of the resolution issue they're on seems to be in favor of supporting the rights of the citizens uh that they represent. and um uh keeping their city uh safe and I really appreciate that. Um, I I I know

that uh Council Member Feraldi uh had a motion to adopt basically readopt resolution and uh uh I I taken a little bit of time and looked at the previous resolution and I know I think that Lynchburg was a little bit behind some of the other jurisdictions. I believe we had about 120 localities that uh adopted these resolutions over a period of time back when we had the previous uh groups. Um I I have looked at Vice Mayor Demer's uh resolution and I there's a number of things I like about his resolution and I'll just talk about them briefly here. Uh first of all, I I like the fact that this resolution brings everything back to the forefront. You know, if we simply adopt a resolution that says we readopt everything from the previous resolution, um that's a strong statement. Uh but the you know there have been things that have happened since then that you know uh the resolution that Vice Mayor Demer has put forward it it brings forth the trifecta of of controlling cases. U it brings forward you know the fact that Heler McDonald and Breuan are the controlling case law. I know the the city attorney here mentioned the fact that courts of competent jurisdictions are what define what is constitutional. And this really brings out the test, the current test that the Supreme Court has stated is the test for evaluating whether or not anything passes constitutional muster. uh it it talks about you know we can't use means in testing to uh restrict the

rights of citizens just because it would be more convenient for government to have completely helpless citizens. It goes on and talks about that it has to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. And uh you know it also again gives u credit to all of the citizens who came out to that historic uh meeting that happened the last time. I think uh it mentioned that it may have been the largest public meeting that the city of Lynchburg had ever had. I I know the real issue between the resolutions is is point number three and it talks about city funds, resources or personnel shall not be knowingly used to enforce laws determined to be unconstitutional under the second amendment or article 1 section 13 of the Virginia constitution. And it doesn't speak directly to who uh is to make that determination. Um, and I think that was one of the primary concerns that was raised. I I think the the city attorney made a really good point there that was something I was going to make when he said that, you know, this re he called it a positional resolution, meaning that it's simply the city putting its position regarding the rights of their citizens and their wish to preserve them and protect them forefront. uh so a as a statement uh to Richmond and to lawmakers who are making these decisions even as we're talking and instead of positional I like to use the phrase aspirational you know this is an aspirational resolution right this is a resolution that says we as a city are dedicated to

protecting these rights and recognizing these rights within the framework work of a civilized society that has citizens, not subjects. But of course, those citizens are subject to laws. But those laws are second to the rights that are laid out in our foundational documents. And so, you know, when point number three says laws determined to be unconstitutional, I don't think anyone is expecting this council or any other legislative body to be the one making the determination of what is and is not constitutional. That's the whole issue of uh why we're having these resolutions across the Commonwealth because we're seeing the legislature in Richmond who are making decisions that we believe are unconstitutional. So, I I would ask the city council to pass the this resolution that Vice Mayor Demers has put forward uh with the understanding that it is in fact an aspirational goal for the uh for the city and not something that is going to impose any obligation on the city to make determinations. Uh and with that uh I will answer any questions and failing that I will yield my remaining time.

You got a question? I have a statement. You going to make a statement to him? Um no, he can go for all I care. Mr. Man Mr. Manager. Mr. Manager. All right.

Mr. Manager, I have a question for you. If we were to adopt a resolution that says city cloud directs declares its intent that no city funds, resources or personnel shall knowingly be used for the purpose of enforcing any law, regulation or so forth. If we were to pass that, is it your understanding that our police department should not enforce something that is determined to be unconstitutional by us? Does the statement need to say the courts?

I appeal to that. As far as the directional language,

I disagree with the assertion that this is a pie in the sky conversation. No, no. We are setting a policy. We're setting an expectation. We're setting what we want the city government to operate as. Just the other week, we had our Councilman Mission said, "We do not want to enforce unconstitutional laws." And then I raised the question. And I said, "Do we want to be enforcing do we want to be enforcing a law that a court turns around and says is okay?" I mean, that's that's what I raised two weeks ago. If a court says for some reason that a 10 round mag is See, this is what I love. They don't care what I have to say.

Go ahead, Chris. I don't care. A court says 10 round clip, 10 round mag is is an appropriate limitation. I think it's not. That's ridiculous. But if the court upholds it, are we asking by the definition of this resolution our police officers to enforce that? Regardless of what a court says, [clears throat] that's the problem I raised two weeks ago. That's why I made the substitute motion. We should vote on the substitute. Take it up. I'm making another attempt to operate in good faith even though I firmly believe half of this deis is not. Let's pass it be done so the public sees we've done it. We can say we've done it and then we've avoided any confrontation at all of you know well it's Chris's or it's Curts and No, we passed it. We stand by it. We move forward.

Point of clarification. He's gone. Point of clarification. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. De. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've got a an answer for the councilman. What will happen if we pass this? I can tell you because section three of the one we did pass that you voted for that you voted for says this that the council of city of Lynchburg Virginia hereby expresses its intent that public funds of the city not be used to restrict the second amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of Lynchburg Virginia or to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of such rights. So we passed the same language you're now trying to remove.

It's it's not the same. It's qualitatively the same. And you want to know what happened when we qualitatively. Can I can I speak without being interrupted? That's cute. Speak.

All right. I'll read the other one. That the city of council declares its intent that no city funds, resources, or personnel shall knowingly be used for the purpose of enforcing any law, regulation, or administrative action that is determined to be unconstitutional under the second amendment of the United States Constitution, article one, section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. So it's it's again it's stating our intent that no money is going to be spent. So you ask what would happen if we would do that? Well, what has happened since 2023? because I thought it was the intent that we passed something that mirrored what we did before that you voted for before and now you're trying to strike something from mine when I in good faith supported yours and was willing to vote for both of them and and I was accused of being underhanded which I think is is incorrect. There's nothing underhanded about me supporting yours and hopefully you supporting mine. I had several weeks where I sent out emails to my colleagues on council and asked them for their input on this and the the concern that is being raised by my colleague was never brought up by my colleague. Okay, that never happened. We had every opportunity to to work this out and to combine them and pass them. And now I'm saying let's pass them both. And that's underhanded. Um, you know, we we we made a statement when we did it and my colleagues is this and mine is this and the one we pass looks almost exactly like the one these folks voted for. And now we're trying to remove some language that you voted for. So, Mr. Mayor, you said you wanted to try to do the same thing that we did before. Okay, then let's not strike the language that we did before because

that's what is being proposed. Um I I think uh there's a reason why the Second Amendment sanctuary resolution was more than symbolic. I don't care who gets their name on this. This has nothing to do with me or Chris or who's introducing. I don't care. I want to make sure the citizens of Lynchburg can protect themselves. And I want to make sure that the single mothers who came before us at that EC glass historic meeting crying saying, "Please don't take away our ability to protect ourselves and my children. I live in downtown Lynchburg." And it wasn't Democrat. It wasn't Republican. It wasn't conservative. It wasn't liberal. It was our rights. [snorts] And my resolution is now apparently being picked apart. And I mean, if you want to separate and put what you passed last time in instead of what I put in this time, that would effectively change almost nothing. Um, that might be an amendment I would support. But what I don't want to uh have my treasury um impugned because I tried to work in good faith with my colleague and he [snorts and clears throat] said, "You had two weeks to get it right." He's right. We had two weeks, Mr. Faldi, to get it right. And now tonight, you're trying to pick mine apart and using the city attorney's policies. You know, the attorney on there, I wanted to thank him. He was a guest and he came, you know, to talk to us and and educate us and I appreciated that and I want to be respectful to him. You know, the question I had for him was, if the language that we passed before, we've had since 2023 was good and nothing bad happened to us for doing it then,

why would it have anything bad if we did it right now, exactly the same way we did it before? I don't care. I mean, I get so frustrated at this wrangling over nothing. I I wrote mine to match what we did because you indicated that was your your hope and your your desire. And so that's what I did. And this is not the same as as this. That that this is this is yours. I'm I'm all for it. Let's do it. This is mine. This is the one we passed. It's pretty clear. You know which one is what we did before.

And you strip that out. Then it's not what we did before. So, I don't know whether to support an amendment that I don't know or support a seconding that I don't understand. I just want to pass something simple. I think the people of Lynchburg thought this would be a pretty simple process and I I think they deserve to uh to to not be drawn off in all these directions. Let's let's pass something reasonable. Well, mayor, the uh the vice mayor said he would support it if it was if we just did a clean straight swap. I'm speaking if we did a clean straight swap

of what was said in 2023 and put it back in this one if that's what we can do. Friendly. Well, it doesn't matter if it's friendly or not. I made the motion. So, [snorts] it doesn't matter if it's friendly or not. I made the substitute. So, I'm just saying you can't make another substitute. Matt said you can't have ultimate substitutes. You got Thank you. I I know the comment was made about not interrupting each other and here we are. So I thought I heard the vice mayor say if we could swap three from last time to this time you would support it. Is that inaccurate?

I would I would really like to support your resolution. Chris, I would like an answer to my question. And you don't have to spoil mine if you don't want to. Thank you for not answering the question. Mayor, I yield back. Miss Timber.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I'm going to go two directions here. First, I believe the way that we treated our guest was very inappropriate and um I will be writing that guest, but um I I do request that you do as well, Mr. Mayor. Um, moving on from that, I would like to support both resolutions. Um, there [laughter] what Vice Mayor Demer has put forward the the concern that keeps coming to the table is this question of um judicial review. Well, judicial review happens in the context of litigation. That's that's how they decide whether something's constitutional or not. So, I understand the desire to uh keep ourselves away from any potential litigation, but in the context that this statement has already previously been made, already previously been adopted, and I am not aware of any municipality that is trying to overthrow the discretion of the Virginia Supreme Court. Uh I am supportive of the language in the resolution. I do not see it as high-risk language. I see it as fundamental to the um the authority and foundation upon which this resolution rests in the first place. So with that, I would like the opportunity to support the language that Mr. Demer has put forward. I am happy to also support the resolution that Mr. Faraldi has put forward, but I believe that the language that Mr. Demer has put forward should be voted on in good faith. I think having these as separate agenda items, they were both appropriately brought before council in the procedural application of our rules of procedure and they should be voted on

independently rather than one trying to truncate the other and go back and forth uh because they were both presented independently from independent council members according to our rules of procedure. Everyone can vote their conscience on what is presented in both cases. I believe they should be separated and we should vote as such. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Made [snorts]

Mitch is still here. This is a great example of what he asked us to do and we could do it right now. All that the substitute motion is doing. So, if no one cares whose name's on the on this resolution, all that's been asked is to modify one part.

One part just to make sure that we're in line saying that we're going to um that we're going to say, "Hey, the courts have a say in this." That's all that was recommended by our attorney. Literally, it that we just acknowledge that piece. He's he said it a few weeks ago. He made that recommendation. It's a small little change that can make a difference. So that's all that's been recommended is make that one modification and then we can move on. It's the the the concept as a whole is still there. It's a little tiny thing. We can work together. We can pass it. We don't have to pass two. There's no need for two.

We can collaborate. make that small change and move on. I I don't really understand the fighting. Um it shouldn't be fighting. It's what we're we're supporting the constitution. We're saying we're a 2A sanctuary city. We're making a modification to make it more legally sound. That's it. I just think we need to vote and move on. And and just it's silly, guys. It's really silly. That's what's the missions.

So, I just I just have a a point of clarification because the main motion, right, and and what I'm trying to figure out here also is is cuz the resolution that we were considering initially says this. Be it resolved by the council of the city of Lynchburg, Virginia, that the Lynchburg City Council reaffirms its adoption of R23-001 on January 10th, 2023 and hereby again declares the city of Lynchburg, Virginia a second amendment sanctuary on this and then today's date would be I believe the 10th day of February 2026. So, so this is this is with Alicia Finny, our honorable and wonderful clerk of council. Her signature on it. This is the official record. This is that that resolution. Okay. So the main motion was to was this was to adopt this reaffirming this right with no language. Now what I'm confused at now is is what is what we're actually considering because I didn't hear any language in the substitute motion. I don't know what the language was. So, I'm asking for clarification on that to know exactly what my colleague has presented as his um because his his substitute motion was then to take Mr. redeemer's resolution, which is basically this one that's just been updated slightly, and then to add some language to the third resolving clause

that never existed in the third resolving clause that his resolution reaffirmed. So that's what I'm trying to understand here because now we're at what what's what's happening is Mr. Faldi when we could have just simply reaffirmed what we did before has made a substitute motion which again I'm not clear and I'm asking point of clarification I've asked multiple times on what is it that we're voting on what is the language of resolving clause three going to say if we support the substitute motion Mr. Mayor, I asked that question and if we could get some clarification on that, then I can say whether or not I will support the substitute motion because I still don't even know what we're supporting.

What's Can you give clarification on your

five words as determined by the court? So, as determined by the court. So, thank you, Mr. As determined by Virginia courts. Okay. Thank you. Seven if you want to say and the United States, which I guess would be eight.

That'd be like 10. Um, so thank you, Mr. Mayor, for helping us resolve that. So then the question that I have is because this again was my main motion, right? and the language in resolving clause three that the council of the city of Lynchburg, Virginia hereby expresses his intent that public funds of the city not be used to restrict the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens of Lynchburg, Virginia or to aid federal or state agencies in the restriction of such rights doesn't say anything about the courts in there. So in my opinion our original this is our I read from our original resolution what we adopted previously what we adopted previously what we were reaffirming with Mr. for all these resolution in good faith, right? Which I think is a good thing. We all supported it. We passed it. And so I would say that now what's been positioned is additional language to this one that then waters down what we previously passed. So, Mr. Mayor, I'll be voting against the substitute motion because the substitute motion actually is a less stronger positional statement than what we originally passed here in 2023 with our clerk's signature on it. So, what I would like to do is then take up the main motion if the substitute motion fails and just go ahead and reaffirm what we already

did before and that's what I'm asking to do. So, I'll be voting against the substitute motion for for that for that reason.

Mr. Thank you. Um I do not support either of the motions. Um first of all, God is not the author of confusion and I've just heard a lot of confusion. Secondly, we want to offer apology to the guest attorney. Excuse me. We need to apologize to our current attorney. I mean, we go probably gonna bring in an attorney if we already have an attorney. That's who we need to apologize to is our current attorney. I think I think that was fair. Um, so I do not support the motion. Um, and also I'm not here to debate as far as what they're doing in Richmond or the the legality of it or or the total I'm not versed enough in say the total laws of Richmond, what they're proposing. But again, I don't to basic knowledge, they're not I don't want to get into a big debate, but I don't think they're saying take away all your guns, certain magazine levels. But again, if you want to have your guns, that's your prerogative. But I do not I I do not care for guns. I just bur a young man, 31 years old, got shot in the head two times last week here in Lynchburg. So, I don't support guns. But again, if you want to have a gun, okay, that's your business. But I do not support the motion. Thank you,

Mr. F. reiterate. So, number one, [snorts] it's it was to a buddy text me this. So, full disclosure, a buddy texted me this uh as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction is probably the proper. I'll change it. I'll make it exactly what we passed three years uh two two and a half years ago. You are you okay with that? Great. So, there you go. So, it's the same thing we passed a couple years ago and it puts it to bed. We adopt one. We come together. Hunky dory. Sterling respectfully votes no. We move on. Is it perman?

No, no, no. The number three is replaced exactly what we had from a few years ago and now we'll have our sidebar and we'll see what they come up with. But that is my submission before you, Miss M. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Fraud. Point of clarification. So it would be vice mayor demer's resolution is proposed with the replacement of clause number three with clause the complimentary clause from the previous resolution. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. That's what I was trying to do with my amendment. How many motions we got on?

It's the same motion. So they just kind of amended motion. Okay. It's been second. Let's vote on the resolution. Vote on the substitute motion and then it'll become the name. That's one second. Voting on the substitute motion. All right. Initiating that now. All [snorts] [clears throat]

right. The substitute match passes. Substitute motion passes. Sorry. Uh 61. So now it becomes the main motion. Main motion. one point I I do want to reiterate and I appreciate Dr. Wilder mentioning it and uh also council member Timmer I I do not appreciate the way that our guest was was treated and I think that that needs to be in the record uh that you know we we owe we owe him an apology for for that. Well, we'll apologize to it. Thank you. Thank you. the second. You want to speak to your second? Let's vote. Sorry. So, the first Yes.

It's already before you. I was just saying let's get [clears throat] Let's go. Initiate the main vote now. Got to watch curling back at home, you know.

[cough] [clears throat] Council council member just I thank you. The motion passes 61. Mr. Yes. I will make a motion that we have consideration of a close session to review and or evaluate the performance of the clerk of council, city manager, and city attorney pursuant to section 2.2-3711A1 of the code of Virginia 1950 as amended. I have a motion going to close.

Yes, sir. I have a motion and I would like the city attorney to read the language of the closed session in addition to what council member Missions just shared. Put a motion on the floor. It didn't get a second. Mayor, so the the language I had sent is consideration of a closed meeting pursuant to section 2.2-3711 2-3711A7 of the code of Virginia 1950 is amended to consult with legal counsel representing the city regarding specific legal action that may be taken by the city to oppose the Virginia Virginia Virginia general assembly's ongoing redistricting efforts.

Motion in addition to the close session item uh related to uh review or evaluate the performance of the clerk council city manager city attorney pursuant to section 2.2- 3711A1 of the code of Virginia committee as amended. I had a motion and second. Hold on y'all. There was a motion and a second on the floor. There was no second until there was no second. There was no There wasn't one. The motion was to go into session. The motion was to go into close session as what is on our agenda right now. Yes. item and that Yes. Yes,

I understand that. [clears throat] But the motion was It wasn't second. This right here. It wasn't seconded. M Mr. Mayor, you didn't you didn't even look. You just went right You looked at me after I made the motion. You just went right over to the other side. Mr. Mayor, so which motion are we considering? That's the question I have for you right now. What's on our agenda or whatever was just read? What was read? So council could consider both of them. Sure. You all do. Yes. Is to just by consensus if there's another one that needs to be added to do both. If there's a majority that these are closed section items. We have to dist

there's a there's a distinction between them, Mr. Mayor, and how they would apply as close session items. And so I feel it would be more appropriate um legally and I don't want to speak to all the specifics of this right now that they are addressed separately in separate closed sessions and that is my concern why I second redistr come back up on the 24th correct. Okay. Yes. So in the I believe it would be most appropriate in the next meeting since we have a very substantive close session item today and the legal implications of that close session item are different than the legal implications and structure around the other close session item. So they are best addressed separately the other close session item until the 24th

deal with the motion. Can we deal with the motion? Yes. Thank you. May I speak to my motion? Speak to your motion.

Thank you. Um, so we're supposed to go into close session to evaluate the performance of our council appointees. That's what this is. Uh, one thing that I want to make clear to my colleagues that is something that I've learned from our our our FOYA training that we recently had is that we cannot make any decisions on the employment terms of our employ appointees. that is compensation, terms of employment, severance package whatsoever in closed session. We used to do that. We're not supposed to. So, I am making a stand right now to say now that I've learned this from our Foye training, the Foye training our city attorney put together for us that it needs to be crystal clear that any changes to compensation or terms of employment or contracts must be come out and they must be debated in public and voted in public in front of the cameras in front of the people. That is what is required. We cannot make decisions in close session. It is illegal to do so. We can have discussions in close session. We can receive guidance in close session, but we cannot vote in close session. So, speaking to my motion, I wanted to make it crystal clear that discussions related to changes in terms of employment or anything whatsoever must be made in public. I want to affirm that that we follow the Freedom of Information Act. We we act as such and that's all I want to add to that. Thank you,

Mr. Speak to you. Second, D.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, in the interest of openness and transparency that we all pay lip service to, I I agree with Councilman uh Mgens regarding what's proper and what's not proper in the closed back room. And uh basically because it's not even what's announced is why we're going back there. So if somebody did try to do that back there, that's not what the reason or is that we're going back there. So, I would not certify anything in the back room that wasn't our reason for going back there in the first place. [snorts] Um, but I do look forward to the discussion back there. But, uh, any decisions we make, I hope would be in front of citizens of Lynchburg. So,

Ferrari,

I will not be voting to go into close session, and I don't think any of us should. We have two items that need to be considered. one is incredibly timesensitive and will only take less than 10 minutes to discuss. If this council does not want to consider legal advice and options as it relates to the redistricting sham in Richmond, be my guest and don't even take it up. The tape will be very clear about who did not want to consider what our options are. When I heard from this side of the deis, all I heard was, "Oh, this resolution's great. We're gonna we're gonna talk about suing someone." When all it was, all it was was uh actually no. Uh uh uh this is actually a terrible idea. Has no teeth. It's pathetic. And attack me on Twitter saying, you know, oh, it was actually my idea to include this specific language. Well, guess what? This is what the close session is about, Marty. But if you don't want to if you don't want to go after it, you don't want to get into a legal fight. I know you like them. Let the record reflect that the majority of this council doesn't want to go into close session about taking this up. I'm not going into closed because of this nonsense. They're hypocrites. They are hypocrites.

Mr. Mayor, let him go a long time. Point order, Mr. Mayor. M. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I would be happy to take up that agenda item at our next meeting. You can't. We don't have time. We don't have time. That's my point. And I mean to interrupt you from a humble place, Miss Tammer. We don't have time to wait. I I Do you have a rules? Mr. Mayor,

the proper way to handle this would have been to amend our agenda. So, um, that's that's I think the issue that we're we're facing here is, you know, in the email that we received earlier was that there was going to be an amendment to the agenda that never occurred. So, you know, I don't even have the language in front of me, but I am willing to, you know, just need to be separate.

We can we can do this. We can take this up in two separate votes, but we need to make it clear that we're going back there for one purpose and then we're going back there for another purpose. And there can be no co-mingling. There can be no uh attorney advice in there for any reason related to the, you know, the the uh close session portion that I just had a motion in second on. We just need to make sure they're crystal clear. and I'm willing to do that, but I think that the proper way to do it would be to amend our agenda and then and then enter close session.

Mr. Mayor, that would address my concerns and I would be happy to move forward with that. correctly. So, so if um if what I'm doing is I'm willing to I guess I'm willing to make a friendly amendment to my motion to amend the agenda to add the other language and then we can vote on that when we're done. But we have to amend the agenda before we vote on the other issue. We can't do it without it being on the we can't merge them. Okay. So, so what what you all are saying is that for the last 12, 14, 20 years, the evaluations has been done wrong. That wasn't that's not what I said and that's not the point. We're talking about

the evaluations has been done behind closed doors. It's [clears throat] not what I said, Mr. Mayor. and that may what whatever compensations that's being made to staff I know it would be public knowledge but what we do back there I'm not getting it

the decision well first the charter requires the city manager's compensation to be set by resolution or ordinance which hasn't been done and I don't know how long and the city manager gave himself a raise on July 1st of last year without a ordinance or resolution of the city council. No, I didn't vote for it. There was no vote of a resolution or ordinance for the city manager to have a raise last year. We're not This is not on the agenda item right now. This is a close session item.

Any decisions that affect compensation or terms of employment need to be made in the public eye. That's all I'm saying. We can go back there. We can talk about whatever we talk about as far as the evaluation performance and that's for close session. That's not the agenda issue that's before us. What we're talking about is a separate issue, I guess, to engage in in a legal uh matter related to the redistricting. That's for close session and to receive advice on that. But it's not on our agenda. That's the point. So, we need to amend the agenda. So, that's why I'm saying I'm willing to accept a friendly amendment to my original motion to do that and amend the agenda. So, what we'll be voting on is to do that and amend the agenda. And once we do that, then we got to turn around and vote on the second close session language. No, you're not doing that.

Now, I believe that this whole attempt, while I believe in transparency and obviously everything that's all compensations are public knowledge, I believe this is a complete attempt to embarrass and and and harass our our appointees. It's very obvious. We've all followed this very publicly. And I will not participate in this at all. No way. I will not go into [clears throat] closed.

Mr. I'm sorry for a while. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that. Uh there are a couple separate items that are getting conflated and so my primary concern I am happy to go into closed for Mr. Faraldi's agenda item, but it has to be separately listed on the agenda so that the legal counsel provided for one doesn't get merged into the other. Correct? They have to be separate and they have to be separate with the legal language. So putting them as separate agenda items solves that problem and we can all move forward and go into close. They will be separate agenda items

but it's not the way it is written and it creates the ambiguity and so let's just follow the rules of procedure add the agenda item vote for both and head to the back room. That's that's all I am asking in this situation. So, would you accept my friendly amendment to amend the agenda? So, we'll be adding agenda item number 15, which Matt, can you read that language out loud for the redistricting thing?

And consideration of a closed meeting pursuant to section 2.2-371A7 2-371A7 of the Code of Virginia 1950 is amended to consult with legal counsel representing the city regarding specific legal action that may be taken by the city to oppose the Virginia General Assembly's ongoing redistricting efforts.

So, so the friendly amendment that I'm making is that we will move our current 14 to 15 and the language that Mr. Freriedman just read becomes 14. So they're two separate things and then also to enter into closed for 15 and then we'll just have to revote on 14 which is the redistricting language. Are you tracking or do you need me to you got it or you want me to go? I know it's a lot. I'm not tracking. So that's why I'm asking. It's just a process so you can get both on the agenda.

Yes, you you're voting on two items. So, we're amending the agenda to add and I want to move this gentleman here, our guest to the front so that we can get his legal advice and let him leave and then go into the other part after that. So, I let me say this. So, I am here to assist with the legal advice on the redistricting. Okay. um my involvement I won't be involved in the evaluation process but I have asked Mr. Gwyn who's been kind enough to come if you all need assistance or advice to assist in the evaluation processes. So that's what he's here for.

So so there's nothing related to legal advice on the language to receiving legal advice for the close session. Uh so I do not believe [clears throat] that that would be appropriate because we didn't. He will be your city attorney. uh for all intents and purposes of that particular closed meeting. So what I'm saying is the motion that I made for close session does not involve legal advice. He'll be here to advise you all on the day or as you all need. Mayor, can I cut right to the middle of the heart of this? Yes. Look, will you vote to go into close session about the redistricting item and get legal advice on it? Yes or no?

Would you said it would? Yeah. saying we're doing I I want abundantly clear. You will. We said we're doing it. That's what we're going to do. Then stop making it so complicated. We're not making it complicated. Don't finangle. Oh, we have to get on the agenda and then just motion. Just get it done. That's what I did. No, you're you don't even know what you're talking about. You just said it. No, I actually usually I do know what I'm talking about. Okay. Any discussion? Any discussion? I've [snorts] discussed enough. Okay. I would like to call the voters. I believe so. Let's vote.

I'll have to call for the voice vote. Please just uh can you clarify which close session this is on? So, this is amending the agenda. Okay. With the redistricting legal advice, moving that to 14, and then going into close session for 15. Then we'll have to revote for the redistricting one just to make it clean. So it's separate things. So the council par. Yes. Council missions. Yes. Council Reed.

I'll go in. Council. Yes. Councelor Wilder. The agenda. Vice Mayor Demer. Yes. Mayor Taylor. Yes. All right. That motion passes. And now I'll make a motion using the language that Matt read. If Matt, if you could read that into the record one more time to make that agenda item or to to go into close session for agenda item now 14, which is the redistricting consideration of a closed meeting pursuant to section 2.2-3711 A7 of the Code of Virginia 1950 is amended to consult with legal counsel representing the city regarding specific legal action that may be taken by the city to oppose the Virginia General Assembly's ongoing redistricting efforts. Second speak to your second.

I have nothing to say. I'm looking forward to hearing what we get to hear. Okay, let's get on in there. Let's get Let's take a vote. Council, yes. Councelor Mchens, yes. Council Reed, yes. Council Timmer, yes. Councilor Wilder, no. Vice Mayor Demer, yes. Mayor Taylor, yes. The motion passes 61. You're now close session.