City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Thank you.

so so

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

¶¶

Oh, oh, oh.

so so Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. so so

so so do do Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Praise the Lord, everyone. Welcome to our July 14th City Council meeting. Please stand for invocation by Vice Mayor Deema, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's pray.

Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us together today to serve the people of Lynchburg. Grant us wisdom in our decisions, humility in our discussions, and unity for the common good. guide our words and actions so that we may honor you and bless our community. In Jesus' name I pray, amen.

I pledge allegiance 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. Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of really great recognitions tonight as we start off the night. The first is a proclamation for pretrial probation and parole supervision week. I'll go ahead and read that. Sherry Brown, Director of Community Corrections and Pretrial Services is in attendance to accept. Whereas community corrections and pretrial services are an essential part of the justice system, and whereas community corrections and pretrial services, officers maintain a system for individuals to be supervised in their communities while on pretrial release, probation, parole, or other forms of community supervision. and whereas community corrections and pre-child services officers are trained professionals who apply data informed and evidence-based practices designed to support court appearance reduce recidivism and enhance public safety and whereas community corrections and pre-trial services officers work to facilitate positive change by connecting individuals under supervision with assistance resources and support that promote accountability stability, and successful reintegration into the community. Now, therefore, be it resolved that he, Larry Taylor, Mayor of the City of Lynchburg, does hereby proclaim July 19th through the 25th as Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week and encourage all citizens to honor community corrections and pretrial services officers and recognize their important roles in the criminal justice system and their contributions towards safer communities.

So on behalf of the Community Corrections and Pretrial Services crew, who I just have a few sworn officers here with us today, we want to thank you for the recognition and the appreciation for what we do. I often tell them we're like the hidden gem in the city of Lynchburg in that we provide pretrial and probation supervision. We're trying to help the city save money by providing alternatives to incarceration, while at the same time, while we have the clients out, trying to help them so that they don't reoffend. So we're the bridge, I call it, from incarceration to we're trying to cut out recidivism. So this crew back here is just a sample. They're hardworking. They work from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. We're in the jails. We're meeting with police officers. We're meeting with support services. We're meeting with the Commonwealth Attorney. We're in the courts. So we're the extension of the eyes and ears of the court and do what the court tells us to do. So we appreciate you recognizing us tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next is recognizing retired fire chief Jonathan Wright's years of service.

I'd like to read this for you. Tonight we honor interim chief, fire chief Jonathan Wright's recent retirement from Lynchburg, city of Lynchburg. Chief Wright has served our city for more than three decades. During that time, he has helped protect lives, homes, business of our citizens. He has served with courage, skill, and care. Most recently, Chief Wright stepped up to lead the fire department as interim fire chief. He took on this role during a time of change. His experience helped him provide steady leadership for the department. He supported firefighters, emergency medical staff, and other employees who served our community each day. Chief Wright has also trained, guided, and guided other firefighters. His leadership will continue to have an impact for many years. Brother Wright, praise God. Chief Wright, thank you for your service to our city. Thank you for answering the call when our community needed you. On behalf of Lynchburg City Council and the people of Lynchburg, we congratulate you on your retirement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of council. Thank you for this recognition and perhaps most of all, the opportunity to say some public thank yous. I promise that I will certainly be brief. I know your time is limited, but let me quickly begin by saying congratulations and best wishes also to Ms. Donna Witt. She has been an incredible member of the City of Lynchburg leadership team, and I know she will be missed each and every day. And in my belief, if the city had a Hall of Fame for special employees, she would no doubt be a first ballot inductee.

So I want to say congratulations.

I want to thank my family, my wife of 26 years, Tiffany, who's with me here tonight. and our daughters, Macy and Colby. The better part of the last 12 months, and more specifically, as pointed out earlier, the past seven months has brought about some particular challenges and has been taxing on them as it has been me at times. But their patience, strength, and unwavering love and support, sometimes restraint, has been far more than I deserve. And I cannot adequately say how much I love them and how proud I am of them. Additionally, I want to thank my parents, David and Linda Wright. I know I am very fortunate to have them still along with me on life's journey, as well as my brother Chris and mother-in-law Charlotte and Smith in my corner. Each of them, along with the rest of my family and friends, have been a tremendous support for me during my life and my career. And I just wanted to say thank you and I love you. It is a tremendous honor and privilege for me to have been able to serve the citizens and visitors of Lynchburg and of this wonderful community, and it's something I don't take for granted. And it's been really rewarding to share that experience with so many talented and selfless firefighters, paramedics, and professional staff, both past and present. So many great coworkers, and I hesitate to single any out, but I do want to acknowledge what a joy it was to work alongside Lynchburg's 10th Fire Chief Greg Wormser, a great friend and leader. I know Greg always did what he thought was best for the organization. So thank you to the co-workers past and present for everything you've meant to me over the years. And finally, and most importantly, I want to thank the good Lord above for his blessings and grace and ask that he continue to bless the workforce of LFD and the city. As I close, let me say thank you to the city manager and his team for placing the trust and faith in me. And I just want to say congratulations also for what I feel was an excellent hire for Lynchburg's 11th fire chief in Brad Creasy. I know Chief Creasy will be amazing and I wish him all the best. Thanks again from the bottom of my heart for this recognition and the opportunity to serve. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, up next is recognizing a retired chief financial officer, Donna Witts, years of service.

Ms. Donna, I got to know you over the past three and a half years. And as I said before, I hate to say goodbyes. And that's to the chief too. I just don't like to say goodbyes to good people. Your work you've done here is far above. And we thank you. And I will read this also. Tonight, we honor Chief Financial Officer Donna Witt as she retires after 27 years of service to the city of Lynchburg. For nearly three decades, Donna has helped manage the finances of our city She has worked on budgets, financial report, major projects, and many difficult decisions. Her work has required great care, honesty, and good judgment. Donna understood that the city budget is more than just numbers on a page. Those numbers support our schools, public safety, roads, parks, and many other services. Donna has helped city council, city management, department leaders, and employees better understand city finances. She has shared her knowledge and patience and professionalism. Much of her work took place behind the scenes but the results of her work can be seen throughout our city. Donna, your knowledge, steady leadership will be greatly missed. On behalf of Lynchburg City Council and the people of Lynchburg, thank you for 27 years of dedicated service. We congratulate you on your retirement. We wish you happiness, rest, and many blessings in the next chapter.

Thank you.

And I would like to present you with this book.

I can't tell you what a privilege and an honor it is to have served this city and its citizens. I believe it's the highest calling and have been blessed to be here for just shy of 27 years. And I really, I mean that. And the staff of the city that I've been privileged to work with are the best. It really is the cream of the crop. And I've just been so blessed with so many people. And I just really appreciate the honor. And just to be able to work with Kent and Greg and Winter these last four years. Well, Kent, many, many years. it's just an honor for where we can learn from each other and how to serve our citizens better. And I just think we made a great team and I appreciate each and every one of you. And also for my family, because I couldn't be here tonight if my family was not here to support me. And, um, so they always, Dan was always behind me and make sure that, uh, he had a hard job too, and that we could be public servants together and serve our communities. And, uh, And also the fact that God just really blessed each step of my career and could not be here without him and all of his blessings on us and our family and how he just continued to bless me and my positions and the people that he brought to me to work in finance and in the city. And it's just, I wouldn't be here without all the prayer warriors that were behind me. So thank you so much. It really is a privilege.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Tonight's city council agenda is divided into four sections, consent agenda, public hearing, public comment, and general business. Just some quick notes about the agenda. Agenda item number 14, 1508 Florida Avenue condemnation. An administrator in sole heir has been identified, so staff will be working with that person on this item. So it's being pulled from tonight's agenda. Yes. Secondly, on the consent agenda, the minutes, so that's numbers five through 10, there's a request to pull those until the August meeting, and I believe there was consensus from council earlier to do that.

Yes.

So with this first section, which is the consent agenda, includes routine items that could be approved with one vote. This would just be for agenda item number four, which is the second reading of the Stormwater Capital Projects Fund.

Yes.

Just looking for a motion.

Second.

Second. And I'm sorry, I'm walking now. Okay. One second. All right. Initiating the vote now. The motion passes six with one absent. All right. Moving on to public hearings. These are required by law or directed by council. The procedure. Staff will give a presentation. The public can give comments. Individuals have three minutes to speak. If 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 locality of residence. After public comments, the public hearing will close and the matter will rest with council.

Agenda item number 11.

Consideration of adopting an ordinance changing the zoning of a certain area located at 1612 Concord Turnpike. Ms. Rachel Fresheisen, City Planner, will provide a summary of the request.

Okay, could whoever was cutting onions in here please stop? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council. The purpose of this petition is to allow for the adaptive reuse of the existing historic structures located at 1621 Concord Turnpike. Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition at their meeting on June 10th. This was also presented as a business item briefing at your last work session on June 23rd. Our future land use map recommends downtown uses for the property. Downtown is our central commercial core and contains a mix of residential, retail, entertainment, office, and other uses. Demolition of historic buildings is considered inappropriate in these areas. The subject property was annexed into the city in 1870. The existing I-3 heavy industrial district zoning was established in 1978. The subject property at 1612 Concord Turnpike consists of about 3.3 acres and contains a 59,000 square foot two-story brick warehouse constructed in 1899, along with two smaller outbuildings and several deteriorated concrete foundations where previous warehouse structures once stood. The property is located within the Lower Basin Historic District. Therefore, it is eligible for historic tax credits. Using tax credits for the rehabilitation would ensure preservation of historic features on the building. The property is located in the flood zone and a large portion of it is also currently in the floodway of the James River. FEMA is currently in the process of updating our flood maps in this area. The initial draft maps actually show the floodway being revised, which would remove the property from the floodway. Whether the area is ultimately revised or not, the petitioner would tailor their building and site plans to meet whatever regulations are in effect at the time of permitting. If the petition is approved, the existing warehouse structures will be renovated to include a mix of hotel rooms and or apartments on the upper level with commercial spaces on the ground floor. The commercial spaces would include a restaurant and event spaces as well as potential other spaces for tenants. The rezoning would facilitate the adaptive reuse of an existing industrial building while preserving its historic character and improving a gateway to downtown. Approval would allow the building, which has been vacant for several years, to return to an active use. Thank you.

Will the petitioner like to make a presentation?

Good evening, Council. My name is Casey Service. I'm the architect for the project. I'm here on behalf of the team at AccuPoint and Tony West, who's the owner of the property. As always, Ms. Frischheisen did a wonderful job saying exactly what I would come up here and say. Just to add a couple things. We're asking for a rezoning before, which doesn't have a parking requirement, but this site has plenty of those old concrete slabs from the entire site at one point was all building. So we have a large area for close to 200 parking spots. So we have that side covered. And the with the flood zone requirements because of the historic status we have some ability to meet some alternate requirements so instead of having like permanent flood gates and shutters on doors and windows we have we'll be able to do removable panels that will be stored on site and then in the case of a flood would be installed to protect the building so Thank you.

Thank you. We'll call you back if we have any questions. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this project? Are there any voicemails, Ms. Alicia?

There are none.

Okay. Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion, please?

So moved. Second.

Any discussion?

Yes. Thank you.

I love it. What a cool spot. I haven't been down to this site yet, but I've seen it from afar and wondered what would be done with it. I think it's a great location. I think it's a great idea. Mr. West, I want to thank you for your investment in our downtown area. Everything that is coming along that you are doing looks great, and we appreciate your investment into the city. I'm glad you're taking another building that's just sitting around and imagining it in something new, but also protecting its integrity historically. I think that's what we love to see. And other investors are doing the same thing where we get to appreciate the historical integrity of the building, but see it reimagined. so I'm happy to support this because I think it's going to be a really cool project. And, again, we're at a really good location. Obviously well built from the 1800s in the floodplain, and it didn't float away. So well done to the original designers. But, Casey, and you do amazing work, too, so I know partnering, you all have done other things together, and I'm excited to see what you do with this. So thank you.

Thank you. Second. Again, thank you.

I'm excited about the project. I love seeing dilapidated projects, buildings are renovated. I mean, you've done an amazing job on so many of them, but I'm from Vermont. So to see those buildings and those old houses renovated has been amazing. A lot of the work downtown and that property on the Concord Turnpike has been vacant. for quite some time. So I'm glad to see some life come back to the area, especially in the area with the amphitheater and some of the other things going on downtown and other renovations. It's good to see more life bring back down to that part of the area as well. It gives a good location with the amphitheater being right there. So I'm glad to see you do that. And thank you for the investment you're making in our community and making Littsburg better, especially when you come into our city that way. It makes our city so much better. Instead of seeing those abandoned old properties, it makes it really dresses up. So thank you for that. Mr. Marotti?

It all goes to the city staff. The city staff, they always help me because they know I don't like to come out very much. They're always willing to answer my call and make things happen. And I'm very grateful for that. To hear everybody retire, the staff that of them i've known over the years now reflect the fact i understand we have a great city staff that they don't even make enough money for what they do and have to put up with but we're very fortunate to have new service all of us listen i was just going to say it's really refreshing to know that you can make a building knowing that it's in the flood zone and it can be defended against that's just such a good refresher thank you

What's the name?

Thank you. I may be the guy that spent the most time down at those buildings. I'm a photographer, and I use that as a backdrop for a lot of bands locally. They love having their picture taken in front of that building. But I'm very excited about the chance of redoing it and making it useful again to whatever purposes you find for it. So thank you for your willingness to invest in that. Ms. Timlick?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am happily in favor of this project, and I'm eager to vote for it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. West, for all you do. Yes, sir. And I'm encouraged by you because you are building in Ward 2. See, a lot of people don't like Ward 2, but you are building in Ward 2, and we say thank you. Yes. Let's vote, please.

All right. Initiating the vote for approval now. The motion passes six to the one absent. Agenda item number 12, consideration of adopting an ordinance amending and reenacting the Lynchburg City Code under its zoning ordinance to regulate data centers in the city. Again, this is Rachel Fresheisen, city planner. She'll provide a summary of the request.

Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council. This was presented at your business item briefing on June 23rd. Data centers, as we all know, are a focus of attention for many localities in the region and the state right now as communities are learning about these facilities and their potential impacts. We just want to be prepared for any future potential proposals for one of these facilities. So that is kind of the purpose driving the draft ordinance update. Our code ordinance, sorry, our code update would start with the definition of data center since our current code doesn't address it at all really. This would be the definition essentially just describes the use and clarifies that any ancillary equipment associated with the data center is considered part of that. So any setbacks or screening would apply to those generators or substations or what have you. To understand kind of how we got here, you know, Planning Commission initiated this last fall, I think just due to the conversations that were happening and understanding the effects that these facilities can have on a locality. We kind of developed an ordinance update with three guiding principles, I'll call them, to limit the impact to surrounding land uses, to preserve our business districts for commercial uses, and to allow the city to evaluate data center proposals on a case-by-case basis. So again, Planning Commission initiated this in September. A work session was held in April where we discussed potential updates and a public hearing was held on May 27th where Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance. In our current ordinance, data centers fall under this definition with a number of other uses like web hosting, that sort of thing, which is fairly different than data center. These are allowed by right in all of our business districts, all industrial districts and the institutional two district, meaning that proposals for data centers could be approved administratively rather than through city council action. There are also no specific land use standards for data centers like extra buffering or setbacks. In our draft ordinance, data centers would be removed as a by right use and changed to a use allowed by conditional use permit in the industrial and IN2 districts. So this map shows that change. You can see the business districts being removed in the proposed ordinance. Again, if it's by right, council doesn't have the say, but if you change it to conditional use permit, you get to approve or deny them on a case by case basis. Planning Commission also recommended a 1,000 foot buffer from resource conservation and residential zoning districts. This map shows those buffers in green. In addition to changing the districts where and how they are permitted, the proposed code update would also set land use specific standards for data centers. This would include information that's needed as part of a conditional use permit application as well, including information like a sound profile to determine any impacts on residential units. the details of any new or existing substations that are needed to serve the data center, anticipated routes or transmission lines, details of anticipated daily water usage, the type of cooling the facility would use, for example, air cooling, closed loop, open loop. We would also need to know whether the facility is using potable or reclaimed water, how much wastewater they intend to create and how they will purify that wastewater. The code would also set screening requirements for the facility to kind of limit impact from the street or residential districts, as well as set timeframes for generator testing, noise limits and noise monitoring standards and a maximum height. This summarizes the proposed changes. Again, not meant to prevent a data center from coming to Lynchburg, but it would give council the ability to determine where these facilities are appropriate and under what conditions through the CUP process. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this project?

Hi, I'm Kim Sinha. I live on Pawtucket Drive. That's in Ward 4. Good evening, Mayor, members of council. While I would urge you not to put a data center in City of Lynchburg, if, however, you choose to consider one, In the future, I strongly support this ordinance requiring conditional use permits. Artificial intelligence and cloud computing are fueling an explosion in data center construction. And while these facilities power our digital lives, they also impose significant costs on the communities that host them. A single mid-sized data center can consume as much electricity as 25,000 households. The latest census data for Lynchburg says that we have 28,700 households. So one data center could potentially require nearly as much energy as all the households in the city. That would place tremendous strain on the electrical grid and perhaps contribute to higher energy costs for residents and small businesses. Data centers also consume enormous qualities of water for cooling, rely on diesel backup generators that can contribute to air pollution, generate continuous industrial noise and nighttime lighting, and replace forests and open space with massive warehouse-like buildings and pavement. These facilities create relatively few permanent jobs compared with the land, energy, and infrastructure they consume. That is simply not a good trade-off for Lynchburg. Economic development should improve our quality of life, not diminish it. We should attract industries that create substantial employment while making reasonable demands on our natural resources and public infrastructure. If the council nevertheless decides to consider data centers, they should never be permitted by right. A conditional use permit allows the council and the public to evaluate each proposal, consider its impacts, and impose conditions necessary to protect our neighborhoods, environment, and quality of life. I respectfully ask you to first consider, to first reject locating a data center in Lynchburg, but at the very least, I'm pleased to see you taking this step to change the ordinance to conditional use. Thank you for your time.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Is there anyone who wants to speak in opposition of this program? Are there any voicemails?

There are none.

There's none? Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion, Mr. Ferrari?

Move approval. Second.

Second. I want to speak to you.

First, I want to commend the Planning Commission for taking the initiative. I think they nailed this quite well. And the changes that are outlined on the screen speak for themselves. I think oftentimes conservatives have a bad reputation and track record when it comes to conserving the most basic thing, which is the environment. Believe it or not, that's my biggest reason for supporting this. The amount of water that is used, the amount of energy, the amount of impact that it has for these facilities, we need to have as much oversight on that as possible and through us, the public as well. And I'm looking forward to the day when the modular reactor conversation applies to the data center, but I don't think we're there anytime soon. And until that point, I pray I'm not at council when that happens to revise this, but I'm pleased to see that staff, the planning commission got together, put this forward. I think it's, addresses the issues, tackles what needs to be tackled and is what we need for this time in our lives. So I will be happily supporting it and look forward to defending it if and when it ever needs to be used.

Ms. Timmer.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll just reiterate some of the comments that have already been made, but a special thank you to the Planning Commission and staff that worked on this and brought this to us. Greatly appreciate it and the foresight that was involved. Just to reiterate a couple points, this is not the approval of a data center. And I know you acknowledge that, but I just... I want to reiterate it again. This is not the approval of a data center. Essentially what it does is it brings it under council's purview rather than allowing a by-right situation in which a data center could come into the city without city oversight and then create certain parameters around that. So very grateful for what's being brought forward to us today, and I will be voting in favor.

Dr. Walden?

Thank you for the presentation. I'm going to commend the planning committee for being ahead of any possibility of a company coming here. I know because we kind of landlocked our area, so we'll see what happens. But again, at least we have a policy in place if that does happen, so we appreciate that. And I want to thank the Littler Business Alliance for doing a workshop a couple of months ago on, like, dinosaur, just kind of because there's so many – SO MUCH INFORMATION IS OUT THERE AND BRINGING IT TO LIGHT AND TALKING ABOUT IT AND GETTING RID OF THE FEARS ABOUT IT. ONE THING THEY MENTIONED IS LIKE A SODA PLANT, COCA-COLA, THEY USE MORE WATER THAN A DATA CENTER WOULD USE. SO JUST TALK ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR OUR CITIZENS AND OUR COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADERS SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE DATA CENTERS BETTER. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE PRESENTATION. I DO SUPPORT THE MOTION. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I want to thank the Planning Commission as well. We've got an excellent Planning Commission in Lynchburg and the staff that helped prepare this ordinance. I like the fact that it was preemptive. We didn't have to deal with it after the fact. They're looking out for the citizens ahead of time. And it was fact-based, and that's important because a lot of times things are done in fear or out of fear, and usually those decisions aren't great decisions. This was done out of facts. I know a lot of the data centers have figured out a way to recycle their water and just use it over and over again. And they admitted to that, that that is a way that they are dealing with some of the criticisms. But Lynchburg needs to protect its premier environment and the culture and the beautiful city and big, large data centers that really don't provide jobs and use a lot of our infrastructure efficiently. and probably would drive our already high electrical costs up is one that we at least as a council, and I appreciate this council too for doing this, we would need to at least look at it and make that decision on what's best for the citizens of Lynchburg. And this ordinance will let us do that. So I'm very thankful for the wisdom that came from doing this. And let's do the right thing now and vote for it. Mr. Reid?

We followed all the right guidelines, and I think just having us having the purview to make sure we're looking through anything that comes into the city is the way to do it. So I think it was a good job, and I'm happy to support it. With submissions.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I'm appreciative of the Planning Commission on putting this together, and one thing that I want to highlight on this is that Virginia's seen some of the larger increases in utility bills when it comes to electricity across the nation than just about any other state. Our region of the United States has seen some of these huge increases. A lot of it is attributed to these data centers. I want to make it clear that this doesn't say there will never be a data center in Lynchburg. That's not, it doesn't go there, but what it does is it gives us the authority to say yes or no on any specific proposal. And something to think about with that, and I will be supporting this motion because I think that that is critical for this to come before us. But just a piece of the conversation to have about this is how those utility bill rates actually go up. It's regional. So if the counties bring in data centers, or any of the counties bring in the data centers, and the demand requires the rates to go up, Lynchburg taxpayers are going to feel that in their utility bills. So something to consider about this is that fact that we probably need to be, if we've got county residents that are paying attention, if this is something that's important to you, you need to be talking to the county boards of supervisors and saying, hey, you know what? We want you guys to take the same position. And it's just something to think about. So at the end of the day, we've got to look at all aspects of this. And I think this is a very intentional carve out in our zoning ordinance that gives us the control over this decision that we need to have. But we also don't want to end up being the locality that has all of our taxpayers getting a rate hike and no revenue benefit either. That's just something to think about on that aspect. So this is something to consider with all that, but I appreciate this and I'll be supporting the motion. No more discussion. Let's vote.

Initiating the vote for approval now. The motion passes 7-0. Agenda item number 13, consideration of adopting an ordinance amending and reenacting Lynchburg City Code section 16.1-18 for erosion and stormwater management fees. Mr. Tom Martin, director of community development, will provide a summary of the request.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, members of council. Thank you for letting me address you this evening. The city of Lynchburg owns and operates a separate stormwater sewer system that discharges into surface water, such as Blackwater Creek and the James River. As an operator of this type of system, the city is regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and as an MS4 permit holder, the city staff actually review, approve, and collect fees for the state-mandated permits for land disturbance activities. As a result, since we are doing that work, the city is able to retain a portion of those fees and remits the remainder of the fees to the Department of Environmental Quality. On July 1st of this year, those fees were increased by the Department of Environmental Quality and also required that the amount remitted to the state increase from 28 percent to 30 percent. So since our code includes those fees is the reason we're here before you this evening is to update the fees in our code to reflect those that are mandated by the state. So at the June 23rd work session, Councilman Mischens, you asked us to look at ways to possibly offset these fee increases. Unfortunately, I did not come up with a good way, but we did look at it. Staff looked at the S&P fees collected over the past six years, and they varied based on the size of projects. But it's important to note that once these fees are collected, they're actually collected by my office, but they then go into the stormwater fund over in water resources. And interestingly, they are the only development fees that go into that fund. All other development review fees, such as site plan reviews, subdivisions, rezoning, CUP fees, they all go into the general fund, which is totally separate from stormwater. And also the state code requires that these fees that are collected only be used for stormwater management activities. So since there was no other development fee in that stormwater fund, We really didn't come up with a way to offset those fees. Water resources staff has also indicated the stormwater fund in the coming fiscal years are going to see a lot of challenges based on flooding, problematic flooding, sinkhole issues, and other stormwater needs. What our clerk of counsel passed out to you Unfortunately, when I was reviewing this again to come before you, if you look at page two, of the ordinance, and I've highlighted it for you, the column headings that just describe what the fee types are were inadvertently left off, but I wanted to put that before you transparent to make sure you knew what you were adopting. So with that, this is a public hearing. I'll step back and see if anyone wants to speak with you, and then I'll answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this project? Anyone to speak in opposition? Are there any voicemails?

There are none.

There's none? OK. Mr. Ferrari? I have a question.

I should have thought of this two weeks ago. I'm sorry. Will this impact any of the sewer extension into, for example, we had a program set up to make it more cost effective for folks looking to plug in to new sewer connections that we adopted recently. Would this impact them?

I don't want to speak for Mr. Mitchell, but this is storm water related, so it would be storm sewer, not sanitary sewer.

No, I understand, but that project, Does that, or any other, we put that together. Ken's shaking his head. I think you understand where I'm coming. Is it connected? You're saying no.

It would have no impact whatsoever.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Tom. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion, please?

Motion to approve.

Seconded.

discussion.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. I've said this before, so it won't be new to some of you, but when a Republican votes for a tax or a fee increase, it should get your attention. I think this one actually is probably the easiest one I've encountered. because it's a separate fund for the sewer, okay? As he just said, it doesn't go out to the general fund. It can't raise money that can then go for this little project over here or that increase over there. This is to deal with our aging infrastructure. In an older city, it's a real issue. It's a real problem. And to emphasize that problem, the Lord saw fit to break a water main in Ward 3, where Kurt Deamer represents, right in the middle of this. So, you know, that's what we're talking about. That was water, not sewer, I think, if I'm correct. But still, it emphasizes, again, the issue of water and sewer and how we can't go one day. Really? Really. without making sure that both of those things work right. I'm glad they're separate and contained. And the fee increases impact the people building or creating new businesses and tying into our systems and utilizing them. So that's appropriate. And I've heard the saying that some taxes and fees are more evil than others. This is one of the lesser evils of a fee increase. That's all I have to say. Ms. Timmer.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Deamer. I'll also echo that unfortunately we have to impose these fees in some capacity because they are required by the state now. And so Mr. Martin and his team saw fit to expedite the process in a way that makes it more efficient for our developers and builders and landowners and to retain as much of that locally as possible. And so thank you so much for your work on that. And I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

Mr. Attorney. and the new language or I should say the omitted language that needs to be part of the ordinance. It's in table number one directly below that. There will be three additional cells that are above that table but under the text of table one. On the left it will say fee type. In the second cell, it'll say total fee to be paid by applicant in parentheses. It'll say includes both VSMP authority and department portions were applicable. And in the last cell on the right, it'll say department portion of quote, total fee to be paid by applicant unquote, and in parentheses, based on 28% of total fee paid star on parentheses, but 28% will be stricken and 30% will be added and underlined.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Dr. Wild?

Again, thank you for the presentation. I thank you for your work in trying to find some reduced cost measures for the project. So we appreciate that. Again, one thing I appreciate about Lynchburg, we make investments. Since we have an old infrastructure, old water systems, so we do make the investments, the necessary investments. And the state of Virginia has certain mandates that we must follow. to protect our environment, to protect our citizens, to protect us so we know what we're doing as far as drinking water and things like that. So I appreciate this. And certain things are required. I mean, I don't mind paying a fee so I can have comfort level in a clean water system. I don't want to live in certain cities that don't have a system like we do in Lynchburg. And we continue to make it better. So I appreciate that. I do support the motion. Thank you.

Anyone else? Mr. Mitch? Thank you, Mr. Mike.

Motion passes 5-2. All right, agenda item number 14 is the one that has been pulled, so we'll move to 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 express differing 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 15. Hear from a group representative regarding tenant concerns. Consuela Mosley, tenants. Please restate your name, group represented, and locality of residence.

Before I get started, I apologize. I don't have all seven papers, but I'm going to ask if some other council members can share and just make sure the mayor has them.

You can just drop them right there. I got you.

My name is Consuela Moser and I ask that I withhold my address at this time for important reasons. I'm here to address tenant advocates concern. Too many tenants feel they have nowhere to turn when they are living in unsafe housing conditions. Examples, tenants being without air and ensuring high temperatures. Apartments flooding where they had to put cardboard down on the floor just to walk in the apartment. Ceilings collapsing, mold, roach coming through the ceilings and the vents. Many tenants have contacted the code enforcement for help, but felt their complaints were not addressed promptly. Second issue. which I have a concern. On May 29th, 25, code enforcement came out as a HUD inspector. We heard concerns about the inspection itself, but we don't know whether the house conditions were documented. Tenants are having difficulty obtaining code enforcement violation reports, even when violations have been issued against the landlord. Access to public records should be clear process, straightforward, resolving disputes. When records are being withheld or delayed, such as in one case I experienced November the 4th, 2025, being charged with obstruction of justice and resistance arrest related to an inspection and code enforcement. These charges are unwarranted and malicious. My experience raised serious concerns for me about other tenants as well, treated when they advocate for safe housing and living conditions. This experience has me questioning about adequate safeguards, ensuring tenants are being treated fairly and without fear of retaliation when they report these issues to code enforcement practices. I ask the city to review process, especially of partners that is through big corporations, out of state, strengthening oversight and ensure accountability. Ensure tenants having a meaningful access to records. I'm sorry for the repeat. Major concern, tenant's evidence is not fully considered another major issue. Tenant's evidence is not fully considered in court. Individuals with limited income face barriers not being able to appeal in accurate judgments. Access to justice should never depend upon a person's financial circumstances. Five, how are the city housing counselors and housing advocates being evaluated and getting paid? Tenants don't even know we have them here. Tenants are unable to get meaningful assistance when faced with unsafe housing conditions. We need to examine these people sitting in these positions and programs that are not fully their responsibility effectively for tenants. In conclusion, I urge the city to strengthen justice, transparency, and accountability for all city officials to assure they serve the public with integrity and responsibility. No tenant should have to be silent from fear, retaliation for reporting unsafe conditions in a home where they pay rent or receive HUD assistance. Thank you.

Agenda item number 16, hear from a group representative regarding automatic license plate readers. Nathan Hendricks, Blue Ridge Chapter of the VA PBA. Please restate your name, group representative and locality of residence.

My name is Nathan Hendricks, and I represent the Blue Ridge Chapter of the Virginia PBA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. MY NAME IS NATHAN HENDRIX AND I'M HERE TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS. At its core, this discussion is about balancing two important values, public safety and public trust. Both of them matter and both of them deserve serious consideration. First, from a public safety perspective, ALPR technology has become an invaluable tool for law enforcement. These systems have assisted investigators in solving violent crimes, including homicides and shootings. They've helped recover stolen vehicles, identify suspects, locate fugitives, and develop investigative leads that otherwise may have not existed. There's no argument that ALPR data has provided critical information to help move investigations forward when they would otherwise go unsolved. Importantly, ALPRs do not replace police work. They do not make arrests. They do not determine guilt. They simply provide objective information that can help investigators follow leads and solve crimes more effectively. Second, I want to address the concerns that have been raised regarding privacy and accountability. The Lynchburg Police Department has policies, auditing measures, and accountability systems in place that ensure that ALPR data is accessed only for legitimate criminal justice purposes. Access is restricted, usage is documented, and queries can be audited. Officers understand that misuse of these systems is not only a violation of policy and law, but it's a violation of the public trust. As for privacy concerns, it is important to recognize that license plates are displayed in plain view on vehicles traveling on public roadways. ALPR technology does not reveal private information that is otherwise hidden. It allows law enforcement to capture and access publicly visible information more effectively in support of legitimate public safety responsibilities. The question is not whether we value privacy. We do. The question is whether we should continue using a proven investigative tool with appropriate safeguards and oversight that helps protect our community and bring justice for victims. On behalf of the members of the Blue Ridge chapter of the PBA, I respectfully urge council to support the continued use of ALPR technology in Lynchburg. It is a tool that has demonstrated its value, helps solve serious crimes and makes our community safer while operating within established accountability measures. I thank you for your time and your consideration.

Agenda item number 17, hear from a group representative regarding situational awareness, Mitch Richards for the Love of the City. Please restate your name, group representative and locality of residence.

Like always, I come in peace. My name is Mitch Richards. First and foremost, thank you all. Mayor, Vice Mayor, distinguished others on the board, everybody here too. Special thanks to Consuela because she definitely did not have to come up here with me. Tonight, I want to address situational awareness. Everybody knows I'm really huge on prevention. So situational awareness is pretty much just that. If we put ourselves in a position to address issues or notice that issues could potentially happen and put safeguards um in effect to keep things from happening in the last couple of weeks we didn't have youth robberies more shootings in the last couple weeks than we had last summer fist fights that are all online i mean multiple a week Even young people getting caught with weapons, with what we call switches, which allow people to let off a lot of artillery in a very, very short time span. First off, first time I have a shot of firearm, I was 13 years old. 13. Some of these people that got caught with guns, they were underage. Situational awareness. How are these kids getting firearms? We want to ask the question, oh, well, we're cleaning up. Law enforcement is cleaning the streets up. You know, we're getting these thugs off the streets. Are you really? Because you're not addressing the people who are placing these guns, which you have to be of age to get. in these kids' hands. So are we really addressing the problem or we just sitting back saying, well, look, we're going to wait for them to get them when it's easy to catch a kid. Me, myself, personally, I expect, especially when it comes to a young person, I expect an idle mind to be the devil's playground. I expect kids to do exactly what they're doing when they have absolutely nothing to do. See, when you go on Rivermont and Boonesboro, there's four. They got country clubs, they got swimming pools. Miller Park being shut down really don't affect them. But you go to Greenfield, they got a swimming pool that's full of dirt. And it's been like that for three years. So what are we doing to prevent it? You got Robert Flood and the Boys and Girls Club doing basketball every Saturday. And he getting tired of it, but he going to keep doing it. He's not going to stop. Why? Because it's important to have some type of safeguard when there's nothing else to do. Same with Jubilee. But these are two places and two men. When do we as a city say, hey, we have to, for instance, right, we just approved the budget for $620 million. So what is it to take some of this money and say, look, there's five weeks left in the summer. We didn't have way too many shootings, way too many robberies, and way too many fights. What can we do in the next five weeks to lower that, to make sure that to ensure the safety of everybody, not just the adults or the kids in certain areas, but all the kids and all the adults across Lynchburg. I'm tired of getting calls from mothers in these low-income neighborhoods wanting me to go somewhere to address something. I can't do it by myself. I'm going to keep doing it, and I'm going to wear myself ragged because it's important. I know and understand what happens when people ignore what's going on in certain parts of the city. We're going to find something to do. And as soon as we find something to do, it usually leaves us in the handcuffs. And there's nothing we can do about it. We don't have nothing to do. So when do we say as a city, hey, you know what? These people right. Mitch is right. We need to get active. We need to get out there. We need to get out there now. We can't wait. We can't sit back and keep planning in these school board meetings or even in work sessions at city council. We can't keep doing it behind closed doors. The kids are outside for the next five weeks. So where are we going to find ourselves? And that's just a question to everybody, not just the council, but to everybody. Where are we going to find ourselves? Hopefully we'll be outside. I'll be out there waiting. Peace.

The next section is general business and includes new items of discussion. Agenda item number 18, consideration of adopting an ordinance authorizing amendments to the Hill City Howlers franchise agreement. This item is discussed during the finance committee meeting on June 23rd. And Greg Patrick, deputy city manager, will provide a summary of the request.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council. Today before you, we have an amendment to the franchise agreement between the City of Lynchburg and the Hill City Howlers. Minor adjustments to the franchise agreement at the request of the team. Two adjustments total. The first change is the due date of the rent. In the original franchise agreement, all the rent was due on April 1st at the beginning of the season. This change would make half the rent due on April 1st and the other half due on September 1st after the end of the season and the team has a little bit more cash flow. The other change is the requirement for a surety or other bond for the benefit of the city. That's pretty standard language. What we found in practice was There aren't a lot of insurance companies out there who do performance bonds for minor league baseball teams. So finding somebody who would do this at a relatively affordable rate just wasn't realistic. This was never meant to be a punitive measure for the team, but we were looking at, you know, 25 to $30,000 a year for a bond like this. So work with city attorney to come up with some language that would suit the purpose, but not be financially punitive. So it changed the language from surety bond or other bond for the benefit of the city to guarantee bond letter of credit or other security for the benefit of the city. Again, we presented this to the finance committee at the last meeting, and I believe finance committee supported these changes. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

I defer to the chair of that committee, Ms. Reed.

It passed when we voted at finance. I mean, I'll make the motion here, and I have nothing further to say, but obviously you can allow for discussion, sir.

Mr. Mission. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One thing, and I'm glad that this came back up. We gave them the right to name the stadium. Is that correct? Is that part of what we've done in the franchise agreement?

Yes, franchise agreements allows for the Howlers to seek naming rights. It gives us a financial stake in that, but they are the ones that seek the naming rights.

So one thing that I've noticed at one of the last games that I went to there is that it no longer says Calvin Falwell Field anywhere. and the field is separate than the stadium. And I wanna make sure that we don't change that because I've got the resolution that was adopted right in front of me that Alicia so painstakingly probably had to go find the paper copy of it from June 22nd, 2004, where it was adopted unanimously by everybody present to name the field at that stadium after Mr. Calvin Falwell, somebody that I knew personally. I've actually had family members reach out to me and ask me why his name is no longer on the field anywhere, what happened. He's pretty much the father or the grandfather of Lynchburg Minor League Baseball in this town. And I know you guys coming from Norfolk haven't been here that long. You wouldn't know that, but removing the name of Calvin Falwell from the field shouldn't have happened. And I don't know if that is something that we could amend this agreement with to make sure that it's crystal clear that the field is to continue to have his name on it. but I want to make sure that we don't tarnish the memory of Mr. Calvin Falwell, because we wouldn't have minor league baseball in Lynchburg, I don't believe, if it wasn't for him.

Mr. Miskins, I'm very familiar with the ordinance that you, or resolution that you quoted there. I'm not certain if there's, I was unaware that it was no longer there. I think we do have... No, we still have signs on the field.

Where is it now?

Matt Ramsey, the general manager.

Because I think it used to be back on the Like on the center field where you could see it pretty prominently?

Yeah, for Major League Baseball, we couldn't have it there anymore. But it's up on first and third baseline. We have signage, the same signage, just in a different location.

So you do have a backup?

We've never taken it down.

Okay, good to know. I was looking for it when I was there, and I couldn't find it, and I got some phone calls from family members that they haven't seen it, and I just want to make sure that we don't.

Yeah, we'll never change that.

Perfect. Thank you. That's all I need. Yeah.

Is there any more discussion? Cast your votes, please.

Initiating the vote for approval now. Motion passes 7-0. Agenda item number 19, consideration of adopting a resolution approving the City Council's regular meetings for calendar year 2027. This item was discussed during your business item briefing earlier this afternoon.

I have a motion, please.

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? Discussion? No discussion. Cast your votes, please.

I'm initiating the vote for approval now. Motion passes 7-0. Agenda item number 20. This is a second reading. Consideration of adopting an ordinance 026-070 amending the FY2027 general fund budget and appropriating $310,800 to fund a detailed staffing assessment, a full-time civilian human resources leadership position, and a full-time sworn position to coordinate department-wide training in the fire department. Greg Patrick, deputy city manager, will provide a summary of the request.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, members of council. I think the clerk's summary of the resolution summed it up pretty effectively. Again, this is a budget amendment that would begin the process of enacting some of the key recommendations that were developed in the RAFTELIS climate culture assessment of the fire department. The first and second are positions, a dedicated executive HR position and an incumbent training position. The third is a an EMS staffing and shift study that would look at mitigating some of the burnout we see amongst our EMS staffing. We have a fire chief here if you have any specific questions. And again, this is the second reading. Thanks.

I'd like to move for approval. Second.

I'll speak to it.

spoke about this our last meeting and there was some discussion for maybe some making adjustments but I know our new chief sent us an email with his recommendation which I appreciate and your explanation for that I also have spoken to some other prior prior to you being sworn in and your note to us I've spoken to some other firefighters within the department and they agreed with your assessment and response as well, that how it's been stated and recommended as is, is how we should probably leave it. And also just wanted to make this statement that these prior to even the Rob Tellis assessment, many of these requests had been made, you know, in prior years, you know, these are things that are not brand new just to the assessment. These are things that our former chief and, and, leaders within the department had made requestments for, had made known, and just were not things that we were able to do for budgetary reasons. So I'm glad that we are choosing to do this and are able to do this because it's something that has been made known. And it's not because people have ignored the needs or desires of our fire department and have ignored how important these things are. But as you know, it takes money to do it. And so I'm glad that we're now in the position at least to start getting us in the right direction. So I'm happy to support it.

Nothing to add.

Chief.

Good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor and members of Council. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. But again, as I said today, I just really think that there's a lot of validity in the RAPTELIS report, and we want to remain to be focused on their recommendations. I just really don't want to distract from that. And so before I made my decision, I did talk to our senior leaders. I talked to our president of the union just to get their input as well. So I think that the recommendation that I've given you is the right recommendation.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Ferrari? I just want to thank the chief and the manager for taking that initiative to consider that and engage with them.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. May I have a motion, please? I already got it. You already got it? Oh, let's vote.

I initially vote for approval now. Motion passes 7-0. Agenda item number 21 is a closed session. Consideration of a closed session to review and or evaluate performance of the city's clerk of council, city attorney, and city manager pursuant to section 2.2-3711A1 of the Code of Virginia 1950 as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things that we need to address before we consider this is we received emails indicating that Mr. Jim Gwynn is to be used as outside counsel for the city council in connection with these performance evaluations. However, city council has never taken a formal vote or given approval to retain Mr. Gwynn. for any specific purpose as outside counsel for this. This appointment and retention of counsel is significant formal action. It involves public funds, independent legal advice, and especially important here because the city attorney is one of three individuals whose performance is under review, and he coordinated this. He coordinated Mr. Gwynn to be here, even though we're to be reviewing his performance and apparently negotiating his contract and city council had no say in the attorney who was gonna be here for this. It potentially could create some conflicts of interest. We've got to make a decision by a public vote in open session as to whether or not we're going to essentially use Mr. Gwynn as special counsel or outside counsel for this. We need to deal with that because we can't just have outside council without actually voting to approve that.

Okay. Thank you. And I asked Mr. Quinn to be here because I didn't want to get into a whole bunch of unnecessary debate.

I understand, Mr. Mayor, but you are one member of the council and the body has to decide. It's not your decision.

And we will vote on it.

Well, then we need to have that properly noticed because as we just received in the work session, without that being noticed on an agenda, it is improper and a violation of the Freedom of Information Act with the new laws that went into effect July 1st. So we could certainly entertain having Mr. Gwynn as outside counsel, but we would have to push that back to the August meeting and put it on a noticed agenda.

What the clerk read, consideration of closed session accepted.

So I just want to be clear that Mr. Gwynne cannot come back into the closed session without us approving of it. Cannot come back into the closed session without the body approving of it and appointing him.

Speak to your motion.

Looking forward to engaging on this very important topic. And that's one council member's opinion. Thank you.

Anyone else? Can somebody please read the closed session language that we're apparently adopting?

Consideration of a closed session to review and or evaluate the performance of the city's clerk of council, city attorney, and city manager pursuant

section 2.2-3711a1 of the code of virginia 1950 as amended that's pretty narrow i don't think that includes appointing special outside counsel mr mayor yes sir thank you my question would be if there's going to be this strong objection to going to closed session would council have any permission to limit who would be able to go in the back because quite frankly if If this is going to be the brouhaha put forward over this issue, I don't think it's appropriate to then permit the council member who's raising the issue to come back there in the first place. I'm just asking the question. If that's not permissible, that's fine. Tell me, and I'm just asking the question. Mr. Missions, would you mind repeating that? I want to hear Mr. Missions. So he did mean it as an insult? Is that what it was? Okay.

I have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Faraldi, you're conflating two issues on that, and I think you're very aware of that. The concerns that Mr. Mischens brings forward are according to our rules of procedure and then legal concerns, not what you just convoluted that to.

Well, that's why I asked the question.

I'm clear. Ah, yes. Okay. They're legitimate questions. I think we need to address them. I have, I'm totally happy to have this conversation at the dais, if that is the preferred means to have this conversation, because there has been a total lack of transparency in this process, and it has been moved to the very last day before summer break. This is a much larger conversation and now it's being pushed into a back room with an attorney that has not been approved by council. And there are a lot of questions involved as to the nature of the relationship between the attorney that has been acquired and his relationship with the city attorney who's being reviewed. So we have to vote as council. Do we vote on that tonight? That could possibly violate FOIA. So that's a question for our city attorney per the work session that we had today. So I would love actually our city attorney's opinion as to whether that would be a violation of FOIA if we voted on the retention of this council tonight.

So as I understand it, four members of this council are agreeable. to miss hang on i'm going to answer your question consensus it's mine we decide i vote i should probably leave it to you all i i think three members don't don't necessarily hear what i want to say you all have a motion on the floor and i'll submit it to you all mayor i have a question yes sir

Mayor, I would ask you, and this may be rhetorical, you don't have to answer, but I would pose the point as a question. I don't recall being asked for my input about whether or not Josh Hetzler should represent the city of Lynchburg on an abortion clinic. I don't remember being consulted on some outside random attorney about the Second Amendment sanctuary status. And I don't remember any other instance when the folks on the other side of the day has brought forward attorneys seemingly last minute and out of the blue to purportedly represent council. And now there's all of a sudden a problem. Mayor, I would humbly submit, I do ask the question because I am sincere of how can we have a legitimate conversation about what we're trying to engage on if half of the council is raising an issue of bringing outside council in to engage it? And I've yet to receive a legitimate issue. In fact, I've only received personal insult, which I'm just going to not even entertain. It's a genuine question. If you want to dismiss it as not caring, be my guest. But I genuinely don't know. And I'm not an attorney. So I'm asking for clarity. I'm comfortable going back and engaging on this topic. If folks want to vote no, please vote no. It doesn't have to be anything more than that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

In response to Mr. Feroldi's raising questions about the two attorneys that did come and present expert witnesses, they were not employed or chosen by counsel to represent counsel. And that's the difference. And it's a very important difference. They were not paid. They were volunteer. We're talking about an attorney who, regardless of what the mayor is saying that he chose, Mr. Friedman's choice. Let's be honest. Let's be honest. You're here to help him get a big raise and protections against being removed from office. I'm speaking, Mr. Attorney, and I'm not asking questions. I'm speaking the truth, and the people of Lynchburg deserve to hear the truth about what's going on. So the legitimate questions about how this person was picked and whether it's a violation of the new FOIA law is a very legitimate question. It's not on the agenda to appoint you to lobby for him to get more money, to lobby for him to be protected from any consequences to him not being a great attorney. Those are great things to have him pick you to do. However, is it appropriate? And I would argue it's not, especially since several members up here didn't get any opportunity in making this selection. And counsel is the one who is given the authority by the Constitution, Virginia to make decisions like this, like hiring you. That's where that authority comes from. And nobody up here has voted yet. So any inference that we have or that there are four votes for this and that, until we vote, there's nothing. There's been no vote to pick you. You are the choice of the person who's trying to get an increase in their salary. You are the choice of the person who is trying to protect himself from any criticism or consequences to him being incompetent in his job. Those things are the prerogative of counsel. And if he is not doing his job or if he is getting too much salary, that's counsel's job. That's us up here. That's what we're supposed to do. Okay? Not go in a back room and put in place things that are protection for bureaucrats. I don't want to be part of that. I'm not excited about it at all. And I got no opportunity to vote on it. And I resent that. And the inference that the two attorneys that we had as expert witnesses who came in and volunteered their time are somehow comparable to the situation is erroneous on every level. And what's happening right now is illegitimate and incorrect. And the citizens of Lynchburg need to understand the game that's afoot, that we're moving into a back room to make a decision that should be made out here in front of them. And the authority for Mr. Misjins to be back there is the citizens who elected him. That's where the authority comes from. and questioning whether or not he should be back there is illegitimate. He has the authority of the voters of the citizens of Lynchburg, and that is all authority he needs. So I'm absolutely opposed to this.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Vice Mayor Deemer stated this, but the comparison between the two attorneys and the situation with those attorneys is Astounding. Again, those attorneys and that outside counsel did not represent this board or this body. They represented a position on an issue that was brought for this body to deliberate. That's entirely different than representing the board or the body. ADDITIONALLY, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH HAVING OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THAT WAS REPRESENTED BY MR. FERALDI. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH HAVING OUTSIDE COUNSEL. WHAT I DO HAVE ISSUE WITH IS HAVING OUTSIDE COUNSEL APPOINTED AND BROUGHT IN BY THE PERSON WHO IS BEING REVIEWED WITHOUT THIS BODY DETERMINING IN A DELIBERATIVE VOTE WHETHER THAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT CONVERSATION. I have other names that I would like to put forward. And so I'm totally amenable to that discussion. The representation of this discussion is entirely false. So if this body would like to vote on the outside counsel that is present in the consideration of the performance evaluation, again, I'm amenable to that discussion. There is the question of whether that is a violation or not. General consensus is not the same as a vote. as it has consistently been represented in our meetings, that is false. So I am not favorable to the idea of general consensus where there is no official record. This council seems to dislike records. I like them a lot. I have no issue with my votes or accountability around the decisions I make because they are consistently what I say I will do. So if we want to take that vote, again, I am amenable to it. General consensus, I do not see as valuable in the nature of this discussion. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Dr. Wilde. Thank you.

Well, I am in favor of, and again, the point, what i'm hearing having additional counsel is just if we need some legal advice or we have legal questions since the evaluations have referenced our personal attorney so he won't be compromised but he brought in outside counsel to give us questions not to not to have an input on his salary or things of that nature or not to vote for him is if we have legal questions in reference position or legal questions about him that we might need some outside counsel now the legal team is always hiring ATTORNEYS TO WORK FOR US OR TO GIVE INPUT FOR OUR CITY. SO HIS JOB TO REMOVE HIMSELF IS TO BRING SOMEONE IN IF WE HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS IN REFERENCE TO THIS PROCESS. IT'S NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM OR SAY GIVE HIM THIS RAISE OR WHATEVER. IT'S TO GET IF WE HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS IN REFERENCE TO HIM, BRING IN AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY WHO IS IMPARTIAL TO BRING HIM IN TO PUT THAT PERSON IN TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE LEGAL PROCESS. THE FACT THAT THEY'RE MAKING THE PEOPLE ARE MAKING STATEMENTS THAT IS So my problem I have, let me stop. Because I want to say things that, let me just stop. But again, you can read into it. You can read into why they're saying, let me stop. Let me stop. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm just looking at, I've got the whole email thread from today with the city attorney. where I asked some questions and I asked, who's the client record for Mr. Gwynn's involvement? And he said, the city and city council. I said, the specific scope of his role in connection with the appointee evaluations and your proposed contract amendments. He said, as city council directs. City council directs by publicly recorded vote. We don't direct any other way. So in order for us to direct Mr. Gwynn to represent us, we have to take a publicly recorded vote. That's all there is to it. Anything else, and I tell all of you this that are watching, is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act that would probably be very simple for you, the viewer, to go take to the general district court and get a writ for mandamus to come after the city. Right? You could do it. It's a reasonable argument because the code section that is discussed right here, so in the closed session language, what was represented, section .22-3711A1 of the Code of Virginia, It says discussion, so this is the code section that was referenced for the agenda item that we are discussing. Discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body. An evaluation of performance of departments or schools of public institutions of higher education where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals. Any teacher shall be permitted to be present during a closed meeting in which there is a discussion or consideration of a disciplinary matter that involves the teacher and some student and the student involved in the matter is present, provided that the teacher makes a written request to be present to the presiding officer of the appropriate board. Nothing in this subdivision, however, shall be construed to authorize a closed meeting by a local governing body or an elected school board to discuss compensation matters affect the membership of such body or board collectively. So that's the code section that was used for us to enter into closed session. It doesn't say anything about legal advice. It doesn't say anything about appointing a special counsel. It doesn't say any of those things. The closed session item that we are voting to go into closed session for right now does not say anything about getting legal advice. So it is a violation What's that? I got something to read. Okay.

Sorry, I didn't hear anything. My point of order. Okay, what's your point of order, Mr. Mayor? My point of order is that our rules and procedure, 5.8, Section F, the council may permit non-members to attend close meetings if their presence would reasonably aid the council in consideration of an issue. That's our rules and procedure. Individuals attending closed meetings should respect the council's decision that the subject matter is too sensitive for public discussion and should treat the closed session, closed meeting discussion as confidential. That's what it says. Can I talk to your point of order?

Mr. Quinn.

No, you can't. The councilman. What? The councilman. And we can take that vote. We don't have kings here, Mr. Mayor. We can vote whether we want Mr. Quinn to attend our meeting or not.

But then we would be in violation with the, we can do that in August.

This is our rules and procedures.

State law supersedes that, Mr. Mayor.

Can I? Point of orders are not to be made.

Not debatable. Point of order is not debatable.

You've got a rule on your own point of order, I guess, then. But the rule you read has nothing to do with whether he can attend or not.

It's about whether we have to appoint him. He's not representing a client.

He has to.

He has to.

Attorney can't not have a client.

Attorney's got to have a client to be an attorney. You're not an attorney if you don't have a client.

He's representing the council.

He's representing the council. Only if the council votes to decide it.

appoints him, yes. I don't mind him coming back there. What I need to know is, is he our attorney or not? Because the only way he can be that is if this council votes to do it. So your point of order is irrelevant because he can come back there. I don't care if he comes back here. So your point of order reading that says he can come back. Great. Come on back. We don't mind. But is he our attorney? That's the question. So your point of order isn't in order.

Mayor, I would submit that the conversation that is being had is not permitted. You cannot debate a point of order. The opportunity was missed to appeal it. And then second to that, I think it's disingenuous to offer that it's okay for Mr. Gwinn to come back there when you just said we're going to go behind a closed meeting and that's downright rotten. Clearly I appealed his rule of law.

Clearly. Everybody knows that. except you, apparently.

Mayor, I do have a tendency to be a little dense sometimes, and I didn't hear that. And so until I hear otherwise, I would submit that I do have- You hear what you want to hear, I guess. No, I hear what's said, Mayor. Thank you.

I'm definitely appealing your point of order, if you care to take a vote on that. I like to vote. We're avoiding votes tonight, I guess.

Let's vote on my point of order.

We're voting on the appeal, right?

The appeal.

Okay, this is, I'm initiating the vote to appeal the point of order.

All I would ask is clarity what a yes is and what a no is. That's out of order. No, it's not.

A yes would be approving the appeal. Thank you. Initiating the vote now. Okay.

I'm still curious about what the point of order was for. It was just a reading of a rule. Yes, it was. All right.

Still waiting for two more votes. Yours, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Vice Mayor.

Well, that's not working. Mine's not come up either. All right. Let me reset that then. All right. Please recast your vote.

The appeal fails 3-4.

Mr. Mayor? Yes. I do have one question for the city attorney, actually. You know, I sent you a couple emails today. You were responding to them quite a bit. And one email I sent you was actually a copy of your current contract. You never confirmed whether or not that was your current contract. Was that your current contract that I emailed you?

Councilman Mischens, I need to stay out of these discussions. So, Mr. We can't.

So, there's a current contract that has a base salary of $140,000, which is what I have previously received via FOIA from the city of Lynchburg. This is public record. And we're getting an amendment that's a base salary increase to $218,000 on the new contract. I think it's pretty relevant to know if that contract is your current contract. We can't amend a contract. We can't see. So, I'm very curious.

Defer your questions to the mayor. The mayor is the one who directs the appeal.

I'm not answering your questions.

It's not an appeal. This is not an appeal.

The issues are for your peers to decide. The issue that's here is whether you want to go in closed session and have Mr. Gwynn with you.

I'm asking you, Mr. Friedman, your contract is a public record required to be disclosed by the Freedom of Information Act. And I'm asking you, is the copy that I emailed you, is that your contract? Because I have another email from the Director of Human Resources in January that says the only appointee with a contract is the city manager. So there's conflicting information. I need to know what we're negotiating.

Mr. Missions, we are going into closed session.

Well, we haven't voted on that yet, Mr. Mayor. You're not the king.

To do his evaluation, to do evaluations.

Mr. Mayor, we need to understand the contract is a public record. The city attorney should be able to validate whether or not the contract that I emailed him is his contract. When I received an email earlier this year, when we tried to do this process earlier this year from the director of human resources that said that the city attorney didn't have a contract. So I'm very curious, why would our director of human resources say that the city attorney didn't have a contract? I was able to find a contract from a previous FOIA that I did several years ago, but it won't be answered to me whether or not that's his actual contract. You know, that's a public record. So it was actually for the fact that the director of human resources wasn't able to provide that contract. That's a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. because that's a required item to be disclosed. Any contract with any employee of a public body is a public record. Why are we hiding contracts of city employees, Mr. Mayor? That's what I want to know. So the question is, well, the question I asked for the city attorney is, was that your contract, yes or no, that I emailed you?

May I please state my point of order?

So we're going to go in closed session with no confirmation of the contract we're renegotiating with a golden parachute. Wow.

My point of order is I'm not going into closed session to discuss a contract. I'm discussing a review of performance. And so, therefore, the commentary we've just heard is out of order. It's not germane to the topic at hand. If we want to, as Mr. Missions has pointed out time and time again, if we're to adopt changes to a contract that includes financial compensation, that must be done in public. And I agree with him. but we're not going in on a contract. We're discussing performance.

Mr. Mayor, so I'm going to read this right here. This is from the city attorney on Saturday, July 11th. As previously discussed, I understand that a closed meeting has been scheduled for this coming Tuesday to conduct my performance evaluation. And then in it is the list of the requests for his contract changes. So I'm very confused here. No, we just heard something from Mr. Faraldi saying we're not discussing a contract. We've got emails from... The city attorney going to you saying we are discussing a contract. Clearly, you've had conversations, Mr. Mayor, with the city attorney about his contract. That's what it appears to be. And now we're saying we're not even going to discuss it. The city attorney is proposing contract changes that we're supposed to be discussing in closed session. And we're now hearing that we're not going to discuss contract changes. So which one is it? We need to be very clear about what we're going into closed session to discuss because we're doing this on behalf of the taxpayer.

We're going into closed session to discuss evaluations. Will we be discussing contract changes? We will be evaluating our staff.

Are we going to be doing any contract changes or compensation changes? Discussion. Are we going to be making any decisions or having any discussion about contract changes or compensation changes?

We will be discussing everything.

So, Mr. Ferroni should say we're not discussing that.

Let's just take care of the business.

No, I want to know why this is being hidden. Why won't this conversation happen publicly? It's either closed session.

Marty, no one's stopping you from having it.

Publicly, clearly. No, I'm... You're saying we're not having discussions about contracts or compensation. That's what you just said. He's saying we are.

He's saying we are.

Mayor. So I'm trying to get clarity on what we're doing. I have a recommendation for you. Yes, sir.

Number one, rule on my point of order that states we're not discussing an adoption of a contract. We're discussing an adoption. That's not what you said. All right, fine. What did I say, Marty? Please enlighten me.

You said we're not discussing contracts or compensation changes.

All right, fine. That's fine. I'm discussing a performance review.

I'm not going in that back room if we're talking about his contract. The guy that just left the building and evacuated.

And we still haven't voted whether or not we're going to be using Mr. Gwynn as an independent outside counsel. And I contend that that would need to be properly noticed on an agenda, like we were told in the work session. But it wasn't. It was not.

I want to vote on whether we appointed this man or not.

Motion to adjourn would be fantastic at the moment, but there's a motion pending on the table, so we can't use it to... Now, if Mr. Mayor, if you want to, you know, if we want to figure out how to dispose of the motion and

I mean, we're not getting anywhere. I'll make a substitute motion.

Keep circling the wagon, doing nothing, and raising your voice. That's all we're doing.

We're protecting the citizens, Mr. Mayor.

That's what we're doing. You're not protecting anybody. Yes, we are. Don't you raise your voice at me. I told you.

We're setting salaries, and we're hiring attorneys. I told you about raising your voice. Nobody's voted. So you can get mad at me all you want, but I'm protecting the citizens of Lynchburg from this mess. that's gone on for a way too long with this person. And he's asking for the world. He doesn't deserve it.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, I'll make a substitute motion to table this until August. And then after we deal with that, we can adjourn. But the substitute motion will be to table this until August. Then we can have Mr. Gwynn on the agenda and so we can just deal with it all. We can put it on the agenda.

So he can be back there? If we put it on the agenda. Would you vote in favor of bringing him back there? Because if we're just going to keep this around for eight weeks for you just to turn around and vote to vote no, then why are we having the discussion?

We can vote to have whatever independent council we need to have back there.

We can delay all day long. That's not agenda item.

But my motion, my substitute motion, is to table this, make sure everything's properly noticed on the agendas in August, and we can deal with it in August.

And I second it. You second? Yeah, I'd like to move for an adjournment.

Let's vote on tabling this until August. I just want to share publicly that I'll be voting no.

Thank you.

Dr. Wald.

This is exactly the reason why it will take us long for a budget. This is exactly the reason why they have gone almost two years without an evaluation. Now you see why we can't evaluate them. This is why. We can't even give them a, everybody deserves an annual evaluation. We can't even do that. It shows the dysfunction of this unit.

Just briefly.

We have tried to do evaluations, but the evaluations were canceled in an earlier meeting. I agree with the tabling them as of tonight in light of the needing counsel to vote on our legal counsel. Thank you. But I think we need to have evaluations. That's very important. They just need to be done with votes.

Make sure we get proper conflict waivers with the independent counsel.

But yeah, I'm in favor of tabling and adjourning and having public votes on our legal representation. Thank you.

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to legal counsel. I'm just opposed to that counsel being picked by the person that we're evaluating. That's a conflict if I've ever heard one. And I want more time to evaluate that. And I want to hear your firm's stand on conflict and especially since you've represented against some people up here on this dais, and I don't think that's come up or your firm has. I want an independent council. I'm happy to have a council. It's not against having that advice. We certainly need good legal advice because we don't get a lot of it around here.

It's taken 18 months to evaluate three staff people. Because of y'all. Because.

I turned mine in.

Because you cannot make impartial decisions. You turn everything into a conflict. So be truthful, not impartial. No, be truthful. But everything that happens with the three key people, the city attorney, the city manager, and the clerk of council, y'all turn into conflict. And it's shameful.

And y'all rubber stamp.

And it's shameful. Y'all ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

I think we should both release the performance evaluations.

Now, let's vote.

I'd be second in that. It's hidden those for a long time from the press.

The public would have a very different opinion on what your statement is if they actually saw the performance evaluation.

We've got to protect the citizens, Larry. Let's vote. Transparency.

Release. For the substitute motion to table it till August. I'm just seeing the vote now. Motion passes 4-3.

Motion to adjourn.

We got a vote on the motion to table now.

That's not the main motion. So I'll make that. I mean, I'll call the vote on the May motion.

Yes, ma'am. I mean, yes, sir. I was looking at Alicia talking to you. I'm sorry.

It's all good. So we delay this for eight weeks. Is this a point of order? No, I get an opportunity to speak to the motion now. Yes, yes. Okay. So we delay this for eight weeks. Stuff gets presumably leaked, because that has happened before. Things get speculated. Your integrity now gets pulled into question. And for what? I think it's because it'll be almost 45 days out from an election, but that's just me. So I'll be voting no. Thank you.

I'll be voting no as well. We pushed this off long enough and you've stated your reasons, Mayor, so I support what you said and I will be voting no.

Dr. Weld. Lord have mercy. I'm just praying for peace with City Council. I'm praying for unity on City Council. I am praying that the people that show love to one another, This is unreal. This is unreal. This is unreal. Four years of this has been unreal. The people of Lynchburg deserve so much better. I'm voting no. Yes, Lord. This is sad, very sad.

Mr. Mayor, there's been such an effort to get these reviews done.

So tonight is actually very ironic.

You know, we had a closed session item that was brought forward by Mr. Feraldi that then circumvented the effort. This was previously, this was meetings ago that we opposed because we thought it would change the agenda. And lo and behold, it changed the agenda. And then we didn't get to do the reviews and the reviews were changed. The, There's been an effort to do the reviews. The concern is having legal representation that, again, is not approved by the body of counsel in a formal vote. No issue with legal representation. I do have an issue with it when somebody's representing me and I haven't had the opportunity to vote on it. So the way this is getting turned around, there has been an effort, and I have asked you, and you know this, there has been an effort to do these reviews. So to say that this is just being pushed off and pushed off by the three on this side of the dais is absolutely false. So it has been strongly implied. Again, I'm very happy to have this vote. I'm happy to table it, happy to adjourn tonight, and then I think that we should vote on our legal representation in the back room. Thank you.

What's the world? I don't know.

I can't say anything else. Jesus is watching me. I got to watch what I say. I'm not saying nothing else. The reason, let me, I'm going to stop. See, sometimes people are going to push you to say something not proper. I don't need to debate people that's my equal. So I'm not going there to that level where they are so cruel to people. We're going to hide behind religion, but treat people like trash. The way they treat people is disrespectful and horrible and call them out of their name. The poor city, the CFO gave her life 27 plus years to this city. They treated her horrible. I was here. I was in tears because I knew her heart of what she gave to the city. I can't talk no more because I got to watch what I say. God loves me. I got to be careful. What's the mission?

If I recall back in May of 2025, I think I sent you an email and said, let's get these evaluations done or maybe even asked to put it on the agenda because the city manager's contract says that his evaluations are to be done in May or June of every year. That's correct. That email is out there. It is an agenda request and it was shot down as actually Council Member Reed interjected herself into it and said that I couldn't ask for that. and then it was shot down. So that was the first time that it was pushed off. And then the second time through this whole process, we were then told that we were only allowed to handwrite evaluations. In 2026, your city of Lynchburg government was told that we could only handwrite them. It was all to be done by paper, all paper, one page, right, for each appointee. And we're talking, weren't allowed to email it. It had to be submitted back in the same sealed envelope we received it in. And you know what? I've been involved in government since 2000. And anytime instructions like that are given, it's to make things disappear. If you're trying to keep things from having to be tracked electronically and archived electronically, you're hiding something. That is not a transparent government. That is not an accountable government. And that is how the process was dictated to us earlier this year. Now, fortunately, I was able to talk to the mayor and he allowed me to type it and I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. And then I was able to take it to the clerk and I appreciate it, Ms. Finney, that she actually put a stamp on there for me that she received it so I have a return receipt that my evaluations were submitted. But there was a lot of discussion up here tonight that tried to make it look like we're trying to push this off. No, we're just trying to do things the right way. The code is clear. There's a new code that came into effect. Review our work session, take a look. You've got to have something noticed on an agenda before you can vote on it. Effective July 1, as part of the Freedom of Information Act amendment. There's nothing in here. There's no provision in here to appoint a outside council. That is the council's decision to make. The only way we do that is by vote. So I think the appropriate thing to do, whoever the outside council shall be, is to have that properly noticed to appoint the outside council for the purpose of this discussion. And then we can go in and have that outside council in this discussion. Because I have a lot of concerns about an outside council being you know, dictated to us by one of the subjects who was asking to have his contract renegotiated and base salary changed and all kinds of other amendments that, you know, we should, we need to make sure this is independent of partial above board and that there's no divided loyalty here because my loyalty is to the citizens. That's where it is. It's not to anybody's paycheck or benefits package or contract or anything like that. And that's why we are here to represent you in City Hall is to be your voice. And we just need to make sure all this is above board. So I call the vote.

All right, this is for now the main motion to table until August. Initiating that vote now. The motion passes 4-3.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. There's actually a question.

I know it's not a debatable motion, but with the new law, if there's nothing else listed on the agenda, aren't we forced by default to adjourn?

Oh yeah, I think that is right.

You know what I mean? We already adjourned.

That's an interesting point. You're all too smart.