City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Welcome, everyone. Would you please stand for invocation by Dr. Wilder. Followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

Let's bow our heads. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for Lynchburg City Council, our staff, our city council members, our citizens of Lynchburg, all those first responders. We thank you for blessing us to be here and giving us the freedom to live in a society that is free, that we have the right of choice, Lord. We thank you for blessing us. Give us the love of Christ that you have. Give us the love that's shown to one another And let us show that love that you would show. Be kind, to be pleasant, to be beautiful in a loving and caring community and show the signs of you in every action that we do, in every speech that we give, in every conduct that we have. We love you. We appreciate you. We thank you for all the citizens. And let us do the work for you that you're pleasing in your sight. In your person's name we 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. With that said, we're coming up on the 25th anniversary of 9-11. And we just pray that we be unified as we were on that day. That day unified the nation. And we need to still be there. MR. Ms. Alicia?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tonight's city council agenda is divided into three sections, public hearing, public comment, and general business. The first section is public hearings. These are required by law or directed by council. Procedure. Staff will give a presentation. The public can give comments. Individuals have three minutes to speak. If you're speaking for a group, you have five. Group speakers must say which group they represent. Each group gets one spokesperson. Each speaker must say their name and the locality of residence. After public comments, the public hearing will close and the matter will rest with council. Agenda item number one, consideration of adopting ordinances changing the zoning of a certain area located at 5612 and 5616 Edgewood Avenue. Rachel Fresh Eyes and City Planner will provide a summary of the request.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council. For this item, earlier this evening, the petitioner notified staff that they would like to request a continuance. The petitioner is under the weather and is unable to be present here tonight. Continuance would allow this public hearing to be rescheduled. Because we received the request just before tonight's meeting, City Code Section 35.2-1010 provides that council may consider granting the continuance if the applicant can show good cause for the continuance. Again, he is sick and would like to be here for this discussion, so that is something for council to decide whether to proceed as scheduled or to grant that request. It's staff's recommendation that if it were amenable to council, we would place this on your October 13th meeting agenda.

Yes, yes, Mr. Mayor. To continue.

Second.

Second. Anything else? Let's vote, please.

We have one second. All right, initiating the vote now. Thank you. Motion passes five with two absent. All right, agenda item number two, consideration of adopting an ordinance approving the rezoning of a certain area located at 802 Court Street. Again, it's fresh eyes and it's here to provide a summary of the request.

Thank you again. Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council, the purpose of this rezoning petition is to allow for a condominium containing four residential units. Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition at their public hearing on August 12th. Our future land use map recommends a downtown use for the property. These areas contain a mix of retail, entertainment, restaurant, employment, residential, and other uses. The subject property was a part of the original city limits established in 1786. The existing B1 zoning was established in 1978. The subject property consists of 0.167 acres. and contains a three-story historic structure constructed in 1860. It currently contains two residential units and one commercial unit and is approximately 5,900 square feet in size. Property is surrounded on all sides by a mix of residential, commercial, and parking as is typical with the downtown area. If approved, the existing structure would be converted into four residential units. Interior modifications would be made, but no new buildings, additions, or parking areas are proposed for the site. The B4 district does not have a parking requirement, but the petitioner has indicated that off-street parking would be provided via permits in the Clay Street parking deck. On-street parking is also available on Court Street. In summary, the proposed multi household structure would be a by right use in the proposed before district and would agree with the future land use map designation. The rezoning would also facilitate the use of a historic structure without compromising its external character. Rezoning should have limited impact on the surrounding area. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll call you back if we have any questions. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this project?

Thank you and good evening. My name is Mark Bergen. I am with PLDR Law in the city of Lynchburg jurisdiction. I am here on behalf of Adama Ferro whose sole owner is Kirk Schultz who is a long time owner of the entity and has long time been an advocate for the historic preservation and renovations of commercial units in downtown Lynchburg. I just want to give a quick clarification. The only structural change that will happen is the installation of a single door inside the building. There won't be any exterior changes. There will be no implication to the historic nature of the building itself. All that will be installed is a single door that will be utilized to bifurcate the commercial unit into two separate residential units. If the panel has any questions, I'm happy to answer any of them.

We'll call you back. Thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition to this project? No? Are there any voicemails? Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion?

So moved.

Second. You want to speak to your motion?

No, I think it sounds like it. project and it doesn't seem to be violating any of our codes and I think it's a good idea.

Ditto.

That's all I got to say. No more discussion? Let's vote, please.

Okay. Is that a yes? Sorry, one moment. All right, initiating the vote for approval now. The motion passes, six with one absent. All right, agenda item number three, consideration of adopting an ordinance changing the zoning of a certain area located at 533 Leesville Road. Ms. Rachel Frischheisen, city planner, will provide a summary of the request.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, Mayor, members of council. The purpose of the proposed rezoning petition is to allow the development of this site as a rental office space with parking in front of the structure, which is not permitted by the current zoning. Planning Commission recommended denial of this item at their public hearing on July 8th. The subject property consists of approximately 1.1 acres at 533 Leesville Road. Our future land use map recommends medium density residential uses for the property. These are characterized by smaller lot, single family, detached housing, duplexes, and townhomes. The property is currently zoned to be one limited business district, which our zoning ordinance describes as a district that provides for office, retail, and restaurant service uses that are compatible with nearby residential areas because they are in scale with adjacent neighborhood development and have pedestrian oriented designs. The B1 district does not permit parking in front of the building in order to promote neighborhood scale development. If approved, the proposed layout is shown here. There are nearby properties in the area which are also zoned B1 and have parking in the front. The adjacent property, for example, was developed around 2008. When the zoning ordinance was updated in 2016, the B1 district was expanded to allow for more uses These areas are intended to be located near residential areas. Opening up the district to more uses meant that there could be additional impacts on residential neighborhoods. So the requirement for parking to be behind the front wall of the building was added to make sure these commercial areas were more compatible with neighborhoods. Locating parking behind the front building line protects nearby residential and allows for a transition between the two types of uses. Planning Commission shared concerns about rezoning property for the sole purpose of allowing the parking in front of the building when the B1 district is specifically intended to provide neighborhood-scale development near residences. The property is bound to the west by townhomes and a church. There are office uses adjoining the property to the north, to the south, and east. There are single and duplex residential uses adjoining the property. Thank you.

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

Good evening. Excuse me, members of council, Mr. Mayor. My name is Norm Walton. I'm Perkins & Orson. I'm the engineer of record and representing the developer on this project. Quite simply, this is for two reasons, basically. Dr. Anderson owns the existing building It's on the left side of this entrance. We're developing the right side. So for cohesiveness and appearance, we would like to keep those two businesses looking the same. We also feel, or he's going to market this toward medical uses. And with ease of access, we believe that parking on the front and the back would allow that. This property is pretty steep. It's going to be a two-floor unit, a basement unit, terrace unit, as well as an upper unit. And so instead of the expense of having an elevator or whatnot to have all the parking in the back to access the upper floor, we think this would provide easier access for customers and clientele coming to the business. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them at this time. Ms. Rhee?

Thank you. So do you, what was the big opposition from the Planning Commission? What was our biggest concern about this?

That we were circumventing the code. And in essence, to some degree, every rezoning is doing that, right? I mean, every rezoning we're asking to do something that's not allowed to be done in the base zoning that's there. And so we're asking for rezoning to allow us to do whatever, whether we go from commercial to apartments or whatnot. And so in this case, the B-1 does not allow parking in the front. It requires parking in the back. And so we've asked for the parking to be in the front with B-3, but we're proffering only uses for B-1. So in essence, the uses wouldn't change the character of the neighborhood, we don't believe.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Mr. Deming? The building next door that's the periodontist, they put in a driveway, I think, when they built that that was built to accommodate future expansion on this side. So he's already invested a little bit in that. Is that correct?

That's correct. It's built directly on the property line, and it was built to serve both parcels at the same time. It was designed for dual use. Yes, sir.

I met with the owner next door, and he's the one that's trying to do this. He's a good member of the community, and he also told me that they put in either sewer or – Or septic line, like 1,000 feet down in the woods or something?

It's a sewer line at the very back of the property. Yes, sir. That's exactly correct.

So he's paid for that, and it's capable of dealing with both of these?

Yes, sir. Okay. And there's also on the back of his existing property a detention pond, which will be used for both properties. We'll expand that detention pond. So, you know, it seems like a smart move for him, you know, to expand the business.

Thank you very much. Yes.

You got a driveway coming right off of Leesville Road into the other property?

Yes, sir. Yeah. No new entrances are proposed with this. We're going to use the existing entrance as a shared use entrance for both parcels.

And so it's impossible to tie into that paved area right there that's being used for parking in the other facility now?

I don't understand the question. I'm sorry.

You've got a paved area here. You're going to put a new building here.

Yes, sir.

Could you just tie into the side of this parking lot and let it come over the line?

And access the parking in the rear? Yes, sir. We absolutely could.

That's something to think about.

Yes, sir. Yeah. We've taken a look in case this is denied. We have an option for a one-story elevation. It'll be an L-shaped building. It'll require more field to come in. It's more expense. And then it won't match. I mean, that's one of the big things. You know, the existing building and existing entrance is – designed to come into an upper lot and a lower lot and so we think cohesivenessly it'll look better if we build it as we show here now thank you anyone uh what's the missions thank you mr mayor uh so so just to be make sure i'm clear on this what we're doing

essentially with this new rezoning is what's right next to it. Is that correct?

It'll be a mirror of what's right next to it. Yes, sir.

And I think that that is, you know, I mean, that makes sense. It seems like an extension of the same owner, same property.

That's the way we feel about it as well. It just seems like it would fit better, you know, just mirroring what's there.

Yeah, because, I mean, I drive through there all the time because I live over that way, and, you know, you look at it, and looking at the satellite view right now, you know, everything I'm seeing is essentially, you know, it's got the similar kind of layout. You've got commercial, And then you've got parking up front, parking in the rear, parking up front. That continues on down the road. Now, I do understand that it looks like that might be the last lot there where it is, but it still seems to be very uniform toward what's already there. I'm inclined to support this.

But thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this project?

Hello, council. My name is Jason Golden-Roney, and I just went to this facility today. I stood in front of the sidewalk, and I just see another piece of land that the ever-shrinking amount of porous surfaces that we have in this city, that I went to Heritage Park almost every day until it closed recently, and the blueberry bushes aren't blooming anymore. There's dying, and we're having more overpriced development of medical facilities instead of having... of forest. Thank you.

Anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project?

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Alessandra Chiriboa, and I am here tonight on behalf of my husband, Ryan Anderson, regarding the rezoning request for the property adjacent to Periodontal Health Associates on Leesville Road. Brian very much wanted to be here tonight and asked me to apologize for his absence. At this very moment, he is in a continuing education lecture with two of his colleagues and members of the local dental community. I think his absence actually says something about why this project matters to him and to us. Brian has always believed that being a healthcare provider means more than simply treating his own patients. It means contributing to his profession, creating opportunities for others, and investing in the community where we live. We have built our lives here in Lynchburg. We are raising our daughter here. And we want to set roots here. So we believe this project is another opportunity to invest in this community. It would turn a vacant commercial property into an attractive professional office building. provide space for additional professional services, create jobs, tax revenue, and also contribute to what we believe can become an important healthcare corridor along Leesville Road. The proposed design also works with the difficult topography of the property, provides appropriate access and parking for professional offices, and includes extensive landscaping to create an attractive transition to the surrounding neighborhood. We understand and respect the concerns raised during the planning process. but the alternative design that has been suggested would make the project economically unworkable for us. The realistic alternative to this proposal is therefore not a better building. It is likely no building at all. Ryan has spent considerable time communicating with members of council and explaining the project. And we are sincerely grateful to those of you who have taken the time to speak with him and visit the property. We believe this is a responsible development and a worthwhile investment in Lynchburg. And on behalf of Ryan and myself, I respectfully ask for your support tonight. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? No. Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion? Excuse me? Any voicemails?

The petitioner does have a five-minute opportunity for rebuttal, since there was somebody who spoke in the opposition.

No? OK. Yes, ma'am.

I'd like to make a motion for approval.

Do you want to speak to it?

I do. With all respect to the Planning Commission, because I usually want to make sure we consider the reason why they've voted against something, I think that the arguments for this make sense for the purposes of continuity, for the purposes of the intent of the building. It's just an expansion of one practice and making it larger in the same space. I mean, so I think... I don't think there's a reason to say no to it because of the parking in this case. And it's obviously needed service in the community. So I support it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, I seconded this because it really does match the building next door. It would actually look a little strange to not have the parking in front since every other building in the line there has parking in the front. And he has invested significant money of his own into the entrance and the sewer line that he put in. And he's a good member of our community. He's here for the duration. He will be here for many years. And I want to respect his desire to expand and use this piece of property in a way that I think matches the medical corridor that Leesville Road right there is becoming. And this will fit right in. So I will be supporting it.

Anyone else? Mr. Mitchings? JUST MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, I'M MISFRANCHISING.

THE ONLY REASON THE PLANNED COMMISSIONER DENIED IT IS BECAUSE OF THE PARKING IN FRONT? RIGHT, YES. AND THE OTHER PROPERTIES, I KNOW THAT WAS ZONED FOR THE AREA, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT OTHER PROPERTY NEAR THERE ALSO HAS PARKING IN FRONT?

it does and a lot of the area is zoned b1 and that is because it was developed on the under the previous zoning ordinance which did permit the parking in the front so yeah great thank you appreciate it another question i'm just going to be a little coy so it was i appreciate why planning commission has done what they've done they denied because of the parking in the front The, well, I should say the purpose of the rezoning is to have the parking in front.

So if they didn't have- So they denied according to the zoning ordinance as it currently stands because B1 at the time of writing does not allow parking in front. Right, yes. Heritage Elementary School is right down the street, isn't it?

I don't know what that's zoned.

This is on Leesville, yeah?

It is.

So like less than 200 feet is the elementary school. that has parking in front.

Right. And my guess is that's probably been there longer than the ordinance, too.

I'm not trying to put you in a funky spot. This is just me thinking out loud for the public, at least to see where I'm coming from.

OK.

Thank you. Thanks.

Now, public hearing is now closed. May we have a vote, please? Well, are there any emails?

No voicemail, sir. There are none.

Voicemail.

OK. Initiating the vote for approval now.

Yes.

Motion passes, six is one absent.

Thank you.

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 are no applause, cheers, or jeers. Do not intimidate, insult, or disrupt others. Do not use profanity, promote businesses, or campaign for office. Agenda item number four, hear from a group representative regarding August 25th opinion, Fable Forest, Central Virginia Young Democrats. Please restate your name, group represented, and locality of residence.

Fable, I'm actually speaking as just an individual, not as a group. I'm going to make sure I got the correct time on there. Fable Forest, Lynchburg resident. Good evening. I'm here again speaking about council members' behavior. I'm going to try to be really careful about this, as I have to follow rules about the language I use and that I can't insult anyone. It's a bit of a funny rule. I can't stand up here and tell sitting council members, I'm sorry, your IQ can't keep up. Can I, Marty? But you can hoot and holler and say that to Chris when he asks you to slow down so that we can know what you're saying, not just listen to you yell a little nonsensically. Another rule is to fit everything I say into three minutes. I can't derail and hold everyone in this room metaphorically hostage to soothe my ego. Another one I'm sure you'll recognize. But let me define metaphorical for you because I did notice you and Kurt seem to struggle with sarcasm. Metaphorical means figuratively. Sarcasm is the bit you two missed, which means exaggerating what you say to mean the opposite. Usually to point out annoyance, like anyone would be if somebody is once again derailing meetings over nonsense. But I'll give you a little credit. Don't let me get you down too much. You both started yelling to all in sundry because, quote, you will not be intimidated, end quote. I will not be part of a coverup. Oh, absolutely. Maybe I was wrong. I can see how easy it is for you to be intimidated here. You must be shaking in your shiny shoes up there at the idea that someone would offer you the advice he is required by his position to offer. Terrifying thought that someone would do the job they're up there to do. Jacqueline, not here today, but last time, she said, if we are going to have the opportunity to deal with the discussions of the issues at hand, how that impacts our citizens, then I don't know what we're doing here. Such a good point. Let's turn that on the council. That's what you think? Then why in the world can none of you ever bother attempting to work together? Half of you spout nonsense. about whatever just to derail everything and I guess make yourselves feel better, and the other half are incapable of stealing the conversation back to the world of common sense. Because as a citizen, the only thing you guys are doing for me is wasting my time and giving me a headache. How did what was supposed to be an open and shut, let's discuss performance reviews, turn into a shouting match, a discussion about the outdoor theater, and some kind of whacked out government coverup? I'll wait to hear why. I'm sure the meeting will go over again. So again, what is the point of you being up there? Even when you're doing something the citizens actually want, like getting rid of flock, you still can't work together. You'll waste everybody's time making a dog and pony show so that if the mayor uses sarcasm to try to encourage you to be quiet and says, oh, yes, I'm a king, you'll double down on it. You'll go straight to social media and call him a king. And Stephanie, who wasn't even involved, call her the queen. You're the one who said it. It's a waste of our time. And I hope people do better because the only bright future we have right now is the lights off your heads. Thank you.

Agenda item number five, hear from a citizen regarding corruption of Child Protective Services. Anthony Hout. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Dr. Anthony Hout, and I reside in Lynchburg City. Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. I'm here tonight to speak about the importance of accountability, transparency, and independent oversight within the child welfare system for every family in Lynchburg. I have 26 years of experience as a counselor, a next-gen pastor, and even foster care worker. I understand the importance of protecting children, supporting families, and making decisions based on the best interest of the child. My extended family's experience with CVS has raised serious concerns that I believe deserve examination. These include concerns about due process, communication accommodations, decisions regarding the children's placement, potential conflicts of interest, restrictions on family relationships, and allegations of retaliation. My extended family has documentation, including recordings, photographs, medical records, et cetera, that deserve independent review. What safeguards are in place to ensure that every family receives a fair and impartial treatment, regardless of who they are and who they know? Every parent deserves meaningful due process. Every child deserves to be safe. Every allegation deserves to be investigated, no matter who it is. Every CPS insured employee should have clear safeguards, accountability, and independent oversight. I'm asking this council to consider whether Lynchburg needs stronger mechanisms for independent review of serious complaints with CPS, including potential conflicts of interest, procedural concerns, placement decisions, accessibility issues, retaliation allegations, and how complaints are even handled. Families should not have to fight just to be heard. No family should feel like they're facing an impossible battle simply because they've raised legitimate concerns about how their case is being handled. If the system is working properly, then an independent oversight and investigation will confirm that. If problems exist, the independent oversight and investigation will identify those issues and help correct them. My extended family is only one example of why these safeguards matter. That is why I'm asking you today to help ensure it happens. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thanks.

Agenda item number six, here from a citizen regarding accountability and transparency, Alan Spalding. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Alan Spaulding. I live in Lynchburg. Dear mayor, vice mayor, members of the council, I'm here to speak about what I witnessed in this chamber on August the 25th. That night, our elected mayor said not once but twice that he was king. Later that evening, I watched him tell the council in missions And I quote, get on your knees, boy. Many citizens are offended. There is nothing sarcastic about those statements. They are inappropriate. They are disrespectful. and they are undemocratic. What troubled me most is not just the insult, it is what came with that crown. That same night the mayor moved to table the performance review of the city manager indefinitely when asked a simple question, what does indefinitely mean? The mayor's responded until the mayor brings it back. Let that seep in for a moment. Until the mayor decides this is not how a city works, this is how a kingdom works. This is the very thing we fought a revolution over, power with no accountability, decision with no voice for the people. It was taxation without representation then, it is rule without representation now. The city council must hold the offices of the city accountable, transparent, and answerable to the people who elected them. This is the job. This is your oath. We do not kneel, we do not bow, and in this country, we have no kings, but God, that's who we kneel and bow to. Why didn't the councilwoman read, condemn the mayor's remark? Is it because you're running mates in the upcoming election? So I will close this with another question that Dr. Wilder often asks. Where's the outrage? Respectfully, thank you.

Agenda item number seven, hear from citizen regarding accountability to voters, Laura Berardi. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Laura Berardi Lynchburg. Your Majesty, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I have three brief points tonight. As my colleague said, on August 25th, the mayor referred to himself as a king twice. Later, we were told it was sarcasm. Perhaps it was. But when a performance review was tabled indefinitely, and we were told that meant until the mayor decided to bring it back, I have to admit, the royal theme became a little harder to ignore. Indefinitely is not an acceptable answer. You have limited time in the public eye to conduct the people's business. That time should be taken seriously. We need clarity and we need a council that is willing to work together. Second, the flock service agreement is being terminated early. Unlike definitely, we need a definite date. When does the agreement officially end? When will the cameras and gunshot detection microphones be removed? Will there be? a refund for the unused portion of the agreement, will there be a charge to dismantle the equipment? I expect the city attorney will be able to provide some answers in plain English for those of us who don't have a law degree. Finally, during last Friday morning's interview on WLNI, supporters of councilman Mischens were referred to as mafia, not unlike Secretary Clinton's reference to Trump supporters as deplorables. Now, I have attended enough council meetings to know that people can have strong opinions, but I did not realize that supporting a council member might qualify someone for membership in an organized crime family. Seriously, though, labels like that do not bring people together. What concerns me even more is that citizens were unable to voice their opinions during last Thursday's special meeting. After all, Your Majesty, When we start talking about kings' limited public participation in making decisions before hearing from the people, the jokes about a kingdom begin to sound a little too close to reality. Lynchburg is not a kingdom. Its citizens are not subjects. Let the people speak, and let's work together to solve these issues. Thank you.

Thank you.

Agenda item number eight, if you're from a citizen regarding abuse of authority and coercion, Consuela Mosley. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Consuelo Mosley, and I apologize for some of the emails that I didn't put out. So I hope everyone, Consuelo Mosley and . Abuse of authority and coercion by scope, which is a special conservative officer of the peace. No accountability and failure to address. Code enforcement out here abusing his scope. Terror Badge 99-296352, Terrorizing Local Rentals and Tenants Wasting City County Legal Resource on Malicious Retaliatory Court Summons That Got Tossed Out by a Chief Judge of the General District Court. Under Virginia Code, 19.2-13, scope is not a standard police officer. They are private citizens or local government employees granted limited temporary law enforcement powers by a local circuit court judge. Also under oath, Oberlin admitted she didn't know how to do a building, which proves she lacked the basic legal competency regular of a scope. Two, I exercised my constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to deny entry into my home and closed door. The officer repeatedly threatened me with arrest criminal charges of obstruction of justice charged me towards entry. When I refused and waived my rights, she maliciously issued a criminal summons for obstruction of justice, Virginia Code 18.2-460. then later went to the court, filed with another malicious charge of resisting arrest while the tenant remained in the home with the door closed. Third, my FOIA requests seeking concerns in this matter. The records provided to me are incomplete, such as information, code violations against the prior landlord, only one picture moved, no flooding, no roofing station, and related property conditions. which in another FOIA request, which the building ward and other damages to the property, which is not included in the production of the records. I am requesting records that already exist that fall within the scope of my FOIA request. See document. It seems mighty suspicious to me. Either the city getting some money under the table or the courts are getting paid by these big out-of-state corporations or law firms. As Judge Judy states, when you tell one lie, you have to tell a thousand more because you forgot the first lie you told. As of today, I have not received a meaningful investigation of the abuse of authority and correction or accountability of scope badge 99-296352. Thank you.

Agenda item number nine, hear from a group representative regarding GLTC, Andrea Yassalis. Please restate your name, group representative and locality of residence.

My name is Andrea Yassalis, and I live in Lynchburg, and I'm representing Republicans for Liberty. Mayor Taylor, Vice Mayor Deemer, and members of council, I would like to bring attention to a serious issue affecting our public bus system. which is called the Greater Lynchburg Transit Company, also known as the GLTC. This issue is indicative of systemic problems in our city manager's department regarding fiscal transparency, respect, overreach, and abuse of power. The GLTC serves an average of 2,262 riders a day, with over 1,530 commuting to work. The GLTC is the main transportation method for service workers in our city. And it's important to emphasize that our bus company recently won an award for the highest ridership growth in their size category. They manage their resources well and actively obtain grant funding, which helps taxpayers. They were recently awarded a highly competitive trip grant, which will help save the city over 1.5 million over a five-year period. and the GLTC continues to meet or exceed benchmarks and has been praised by the state and on the federal level. Here is the issue of concern for citizens, which first became apparent in April during the budget process. The GLTC used to have an outside independent bank account, but some time ago, the city requested them to stop using an outside bank and adopt the current system in which all their surplus cash is given to the city manager to save as a reserve for the GLTC. Since 2020, the GLTC has set aside over a million dollars in its own reserve account. The GLTC's reserve is for its own emergencies. It is an emergency savings fund built from leftover operating money, not city money. The rules require at least 500,000 to remain in that account. It is only supposed to be used for a GLTC cash shortfall after GLTC asks, explains why, and sets a repayment date. The city manager instead Okay, the city manager instead pulled about 1.3 million without that request, without a GLTC-tied emergency, and without a repayment plan. About 800,000 of that went to operations which they did not request. The other 500,000 is now paying for a consultant-driven city multimodal planning study that is unnecessary. The GLTC is already involved in a multimodal state-funded study and has its own upcoming transit strategic plan. The reserve was then left with only $102,000, far below the required floor. After multiple urgent requests from the GLTC with documentation, the city finally made a partial repayment, calling this repayment a new contribution or contingency. It was not a gift. It was money taken from the GLTC's own account. The 500,000 for the consultant multimodal study still has not been made whole. So the city is claiming it increased its contribution to the GLTC rather than honestly clarifying that it gave back what it wrongfully took in the first place. This is not one accounting dispute. This is a pattern in our city manager's department Invent a crisis, cut what residents see, spend what residents don't vote on, change the record when the record is inconvenient, and treat another public body savings as a city slush fund. So in conclusion, there are also patterns here of disrespect for citizens, disregard for rules, secrecy over the budget, and giving the media and the public false information. This pattern must be corrected. Trust has been broken between this city manager's department and the citizens of Lynchburg. An action to restore trust must take place. Council hires the city manager. Council can require a full accounting of the GLTC transfers, restore the 500,000, put the reserve back above the required minimum, and decide whether this city manager is worthy of the public's trust. In fact, we suggest a forensic audit. As citizens, we request that council take a vote on that. Thank you.

Agenda item number 10, hear from a citizen regarding flock cameras, Rain McKimmy. No? Okay. Agenda item number 11, hear from a group representative regarding foundations, Greg Berry, Lynchburg Guardians. Okay. Moving on, agenda item number 12, hear from a citizen regarding praise for city services and council, Deborah Trefsker. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Yes. Hello. I hope I can make my voice heard this morning or this afternoon, this evening. I have the same condition that RFK has with my voice. So thank you for your patience. Hello. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, and Vice Mayor Deemer. So I just wanted to say kind of in commemoration of Constitution Day, which is coming up next week, that I appreciate that we the people are able to speak here and make our voices be known. And I just want to say a few things that I appreciate about City Council and about this beautiful city that we live in. So, number one, I appreciate that you all put in so much time and hard work basically volunteering your time. I'm sure, and I know many of you go way above and beyond the things that you would have to do. And I appreciate that many of you are accessible, that I can talk to many of you on a first-name basis, and I believe that I am being heard. And I also... And I appreciate that all the efforts that are being made to make the city budget more transparent and accountable. I also wanted to thank the police. I read that the safety trend in our city is getting better. And I have a little story. Before I ever moved to Lynchburg, I was visiting my grandson here. And he kicked a ball out into the street on Fifth Street. And a policeman happened to be going by at that moment, stopped his car, stopped all traffic, threw the ball back to my grandson, and waved to him and made him very happy that day. And I thought, wow, this would never happen in the place that I'm from, Northern Virginia. I also want to thank you for the Fort Avenue repaving that happened so quickly, and there's nice bike lanes there now. And also the other things that make the city so nice to live in, the bike trails and the downtown area is fun to go to. So thank you.

Agenda item number 13, hear from a citizen regarding conflicts of interest, Chris Quigg. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Yes, hello. I'm Chris Quigg, and I reside in Ward 3. Good evening, Council. Mrs. Reid, I'm directing my comments to you tonight. Last Friday morning on WLNI, when you were asked why did you call a special meeting, which was last Thursday night, these are some of the things you said. You called the special meeting to avoid the Marty Mischin show, to avoid the mafia group who would surely speak. to avoid yourself and the mayor being torn down and Marty lifted up. He went on to say that Marty Mischens was showing the citizens how not to lead. So tonight, let me remind you of some things. One of your first decisions on this council was to vote yourself in as mayor. You made an agreement with Chris Feraldi and the two Democrats to become mayor. even though you had no previous council experience. Good leaders know when to wait their turn. Jeff Helgeson should have become mayor. He had the experience and was well qualified. Marty Mischens and I believe Larry Taylor both voted for Jeff Helgeson. You, Mrs. Reed, should have waited your turn and learned under Mr. Helgeson's leadership. So why do you blame Marty Mischens for the chaos of the past three and a half years? You were the mayor for two years, and now Mr. Taylor is the mayor. Marty Mischens has not been the mayor. Good leaders don't blame others when things aren't going well. Second, you walked out of a tax-related meeting, perhaps to avoid the mafia group. speakers who would say what you didn't want to hear, but good leaders don't shut down free speech. It is necessary to keep government honest. Marty Mission stayed and listened to the citizens that night, along with Jacqueline Timmer and Kurt Zimmer, and that's what we expect of our elected representatives. Good leaders remain accountable, yet since you were elected as a Republican, I cannot remember you coming and speaking to our local Republican party even one time. Marty Mischens has come and spoken a number of times. Good leaders remain accountable to the people. And finally, good leaders will try to refrain from name-calling by calling certain people the mafia group. as was already mentioned once, but you reminded me of another person who called President Trump supporters deplorables. So before you talk about leadership again, please be careful to examine your own ways these past three and a half years. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

Agenda item number 14, here from a citizen regarding LYH, Karen Quigg. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Karen Quigg, Ward 3. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council. Speaking to you is important, so thank you for listening. After 19 years, I've come to like living in Lynchburg, all by the grace of God. Our family has thoroughly enjoyed going to Miller Park Pool. Right now, though, we have to wonder how long and how much it will fully cost us taxpayers to use again. Our family loves reading and going to the library, but right now we have to wonder how long and how much it will fully cost us taxpayers to use it again. And then we had a surprise meeting last week of an adopted resolution to end flock cameras, only to hear on WLNI that the main reason was to stop us taxpaying citizens from praising Marty and criticizing Stephanie and Larry to take the wind out of the sails of a circus. Well, that just reeks of middle school jargon and is stunning, but unfortunately not surprising anymore. Many of us in the mafia and beyond cannot fully trust the dais anymore. Ever since the betrayal of the Republican Party, there has been no peace, and a spirit of strife and division have camped out there. This has been very discouraging, but you have shown us your pattern of taking away the citizens representation. As it was noted last June, half of you walked out of the citizens real estate tax rate public hearing, leaving over a hundred emails and phone messages discarded. Work sessions have abruptly ended. Like what, who does this? You know, journalists be objective. Who is actually running the city? These concerns need to be addressed. So the legacy of luxurious spending and raises and emotional manipulation and a lack of accountability and transparency will go down as this is one of the worst seasons of leadership in Lynchburg history on the dais. And also, this idea of a rigged firehouse primary is not true. No one got caught. We just were set up. There's a big difference. The betrayal of the party has been sinister and runs deep and wide. The party has been damaged but not destroyed. Knowing our past American history helps me deal with the present reality of today. So listen, I end on a note of personal accountability for us all because ultimately I do care about the souls of our city. And accountability is not to one another, but it's to God Almighty. The American statesman Daniel Webster was once asked, what is the most sobering thought that has ever entered your mind? Quickly, he responded, my personal accountability to God. Amen and amen. Again, I enjoy living here. I will continue to pray, work hard, marching towards conservative frugal values. Liberty first, always. Thank you so much for your time.

Agenda item number 15, hear from a citizen regarding return of personal property taken or financial reimbursement. Allen Davis. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Allen Davis.

I'm a resident of 1207 Fillmore Street. It's a Gold Star home.

I had one uncle that received a Purple Heart. FOR, I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. 1207 FIELDMORE STREET IS A GOLD STAR PROPERTY. I HAD ONE UNCLE WHO RECEIVED A PURPLE HEART FOR HIS LIFE BEING GIVEN IN THE FIGHT AGAINST KOREA. AND ANOTHER UNCLE RECEIVED A BRONZE STAR AT THE BATTLE OF THE VULCH, A DECISIVE VICTORY BEFORE NORMADI. I know the city council is responsible for ordinances and the rules and regulations that follow ordinances. On August the 3rd, an officer from code enforcement arrived at my property at approximately 930 and said, if you don't get this stuff off of city property in the next hour and a half, I'll move it for you and I'll charge you for it. I was very offended and I told him, you better bring police with you. After talking all that crap, I came down to City Hall and I couldn't get any response that I needed. So I called the police station and policemen are very busy. They're tasked with a lot of things. They don't necessarily come out for stuff that could be handled by someone who has another capacity. The officer that I talked to said, well, if he shows up, I'll be there. Well, I had a previous appointment schedule at 10 o'clock. When I got back from that appointment, my stuff was being removed. I called the officer who I spoke to. He showed up and watched my property be removed. I was cited for A basketball goal on a tree, which I removed. A kite, which I was flying, that got caught in a tree. And a rope that I used for pull-ups. I was cited. I took pictures of that, and I removed it. Everything that was removed on the third, a tent, which I had on the property, a blower that's used for landscaping, and some other items. $600 were for things. I consulted a couple of attorneys. They want $1,000 to represent me. I'm not that great at math, but I'm not going to pay $1,000 to recoup $600. So my issue is, could counsel reimburse me for the items that were illegally taken? the citation for the basketball goal on the tree, I received this citation in my hand and I received a certified letter the next day, which I signed for. None of these procedures were followed when this officer showed up and removed my property and told me, I thought John Wayne was there. Thank you.

Agenda item number 16, hear from a citizen regarding silencing public comments, Angela Cash. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

Angela Cash, city of Lynchburg, Ward 4 resident. Good evening, council members. Speaking with dozens of friends and neighbors, both Democrat and Republican alike, everybody's in agreement that regardless of party affiliation, we are united in our outrage over recent comments made by Councilwoman Reed on WLNI's The Morning Line. On that broadcast, Councilwoman Reed degraded the citizens she referred to engaged voters as mafia and dismissed our First Amendment right to participate in local government as nothing more than a media circus, as a circus. Insulting your constituents on the public airwaves is unacceptable. Even worse is the condescending implication that we are incapable of independent thought that everyday citizens must be puppeted by other council members to create brouhaha. Let me be entirely clear. We speak for ourselves. We have our own views, our own opinions, and our own initiative. Our presence here tonight is not driven by political gamemanship or council dynamics. It is driven by our commitment to this community and our right to participate in its governance. Public comment is not a privilege handed down when convenient. It is a fundamental right. We do not need elected officials acting as monarchs, dictating when we are allowed to speak or dismissing our concerns simply because they are uncomfortable to hear. We demand that our voices be heard and respected. We're calling not only for a public apology for these insults, but for fundamental shift in attitude and action. This chamber is the people's house, and it is time this council treats the citizens of Lynchburg with dignity and respect that we deserve. Thank you. And Dr. Wilder, during your prayer tonight, I heard the word conduct. When we're praying, let's pray hard. for decent conduct from our council members. Thank you.

Agenda item number 17, hear from a citizen regarding mass surveillance, Anton Tavalev. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

I'm Anton Tavalev, resident of Lynchburg. I will not repeat how bad floor cameras are. Everyone here already knows that they are the evil with a capital E. Other localities across the country are removing them right now, from Arizona to the neighboring counties. Even in LA, they're removing them because of the flagrant privacy violations. But I was unfortunate to be here at the city council meeting the last Thursday, the meeting that, as Councilwoman Reed said in her interview, was urgently called only in order to avoid public comments. At that meeting, it was essentially said that without microphones recording regular conversations all over the city, people are not able to tell that a gunshot is a gunshot. And I heard Mr. Mayor insisting on voting on the resolution that he himself could not explain. I saw the resolution designed by Councilwoman Reid and Councilman Farall de Past, the resolution that can result in reactivation of all the floor cameras in April of the next year. And all the data collected by Flock, including our license plates, faces of the people in the car, their names, their phone numbers, MAC addresses, all the data, after 30 days becoming unavailable to the police, becomes a property of Flock. So that Flock can do with all the data, whatever they want, indefinitely. At the same time, if the license were revoked now, then Flock would have to reimburse the city for the unused part of the year. Yet, our honorable Matthew Friedman mentioned nothing about that. All he claimed was that the cameras will just be removed. So please, we need a resolution that would definitively and irrevocably remove floor cameras now. Thank you.

Agenda item number 18, hear from a group representative regarding LCS performance data and community solutions, James Watkins, understanding others. Please restate your name, group representative, and locality of residence.

This is James Watkins, Ward 3. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor Deamer, and the rest of the City Council. As I'm sure you're already aware, the Virginia Department of Education has released the SOL data for the 25-26 school year. I spent many hours of my free time analyzing the numbers and researching potential root causes. What emerged was overwhelming and I struggled to find words to truly describe the results and how badly Lynchburg City Schools is failing. But let me reverse. It's not Lynchburg City Schools, it's us, it's all of us. Everybody in this room, everybody I'm looking at, everyone watching, everybody in our city, all of us, we, capital W-E, are failing. And we're not just failing in Lynchburg City Schools, specifically, we are failing black students in Lynchburg. I'm not afraid to say it. I don't care what type of repercussions come as a result. It is simply the truth. We are failing black students in Lynchburg. I'm acutely aware that it's not just black students that are failing. But there's no way you can look at the data from the Virginia Department of Education and the S.O.O. pass rates and fail rates and not acknowledge the reality that we are failing black students in Lynchburg. There was a lot of things that I heard in the joint meeting earlier today, and I appreciated almost all of it. but I still left a little bit disappointed because we're still talking around the issue. When we're talking about these problems with Lynchburg City Schools, again, I'm not afraid to say it, we are talking about black students, generally speaking, and we are failing and we cannot find the proper and appropriate results, I mean, or the solutions to get the results that we need with generic or broad language. There's specific nuances and specific things that our black students are dealing with. And if we're not looking at it from that angle, then we're never gonna be able to find the right appropriate actions that need to be taken. I'm willing to take a bold stance to speak the truth. And none of this is coming from a place of anger. None of this is coming from a place of hatred or supporting a particular group or attacking a particular group. I support our teachers. I support our superintendent. I support our school board, our administration. And I support parents. I don't think we have to be divisive about who we support in order to support our students. We can support all of those groups and come together and find a solution. Ironically, it is failure in our Lynchburg City Schools business that has finally brought common ground amongst this group, right? We're finally unified in this because we have all failed. And I hope that in this failure, we will finally find a way to come up with some concrete solutions. And I'm not talking just generic, broad points of, OK, yeah, we're going to get a van to go pick up some kids from school. Guess what? A lot of kids show up to school and still don't go to class. It doesn't fix the problem. We need serious investment to solve this problem. I was shocked when I looked at not just Lynchburg, but Charlottesville has this problem as well. It is very severe, very severe. There was mention and talk about reading. Obviously, reading is an issue, but worse than reading is math. For whatever reason, in Lynchburg City Schools, we are not doing well in math. As a parent, I've sat down with my child, I don't know how many times I've graduated from Virginia Episcopal School. I then graduated from Virginia Military Institute. I know how to do math. I struggle to help my child do math. It's simple math homework. We're talking about middle school homework. And really, even at times when he was in elementary school, it's almost as if and I don't say this to mean it, but it's almost as if they're intentionally making math more complicated than it needs to be. And I've talked to so many people and they completely agree with me. I'm like, I don't understand why we've made an alternative route to reach the same answer that is somehow much more complicated and difficult. I encourage our media to please speak up on this issue and be bold about it. And any leader that wants to speak up and is willing to speak the truth about what the issue really is, I will back you up. I will stand next to you. Please be bold and have courage so we can solve this problem, this issue. Thank you.

Agenda number 19 was Ms. Joanne Martin, but she has let me know that she's not able to be here today. Agenda item number 20, hear from a citizen regarding council conduct, Andrea Hurt.

No.

All right, agenda item number 21, hear from a citizen regarding the flock issue, Carl Hutcherson. Please restate your name and locality of residence. Thanks.

I'm Carl Hutchison, citizen of Lynchburg, and I'm speaking on behalf of Nonprofit Running with a Purpose. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of council, it is always a good thing to be able to come and speak in a forum, in a venue such as this. But I'm coming tonight because we did not have an opportunity to really delve into what took place last week. I applaud the way council members Feraldi and Reid brought the meeting to the attention of council and you have made a decision. But I thought about it too. We have between 80 and 100,000 people who travel through the city every day. We have 186 sworn police officers to deal with all of the problems that they are confronted with on a regular basis. While we applaud citizen input and do all of the things that we can as citizens to help keep our city safe, We must do whatever we can to provide our police department with the necessary tools, the necessary items that they need. We can talk about Houston, Texas. We can talk about Minneapolis, Minnesota. We can talk about Roanoke, Virginia. We can talk about a lot of cities other than Lynchburg. But we don't live in those places. We live here. This is not a new thing. How many of you have a microwave in your home? I can remember when microwaves first started to be used, they would criticize heavily because they said everybody was going to blow up. That didn't happen. How many of you write with a pencil? I saw Council Member McEwen right there with his pen, right there. And that's what the pencil pen is used for. But do you know you can stab somebody with a pen? and possibly called bodily injury or bodily harm. I'm simply saying that when you do something for the right reason, which I believe our police department is trying to do, and believe me, I understand the police department is not perfect. I understand that they do make mistakes. I understand that there are a lot of concerns from a lot of people, but in the more high crime areas of our city, there are citizens who truly believe that we need to make sure that we can keep the kind of safety tools for our police department that they already have. The final thing that I want to say concerning that is the fact that as we go forth, I listened to our mayor at the beginning of the meeting, talk about the fact that on Friday, we will be not celebrating, but we will be remembering 9-11. I happened to be the mayor on that day when the planes flew into those two buildings and flew into the Pentagon and flew into that field in Ohio. I stayed down here with our city manager all day and half the night because citizens continued to call. We continued to take those calls. and we continue to do the work which needed to be done. I commend our city manager for the most recent award that he received on a more national level. everybody doesn't receive those kinds of awards. Sometimes it is important to not just criticize our leadership, our city manager, his staff, and other city employees. Sometimes we have to show the courage to stand up and to work with them so that our city can be the city or will be the city that it is to be. I thank you for the opportunity to speak and I I hope that all of you will continue to do the work that needs to be done. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move to reconsider the resolution that was adopted at the special meeting on September 3rd.

Second.

Sure, Mr. Mayor. So this, just to be clear, this is moving to reconsider the adoption of the resolution on September 3rd that would bring it back to the table. The reason for that is because I voted for that resolution because the public was told that it did something and it doesn't do what the public thinks it does. It doesn't end flock. There's a lot of loopholes that were left in what was adopted and there's no guarantee that the cameras come down or that the technology goes away. We need to tie up those loose ends. I obtained an independent legal opinion. I have it with me right here. It agrees with what this city attorney, Mr. Friedman, told this council. on October 24th, 2023, when the license was briefed. He said, quote, there's language in here that protects you all to be able to terminate it with notice in a fairly short period of time. It's a revocable license. He also said the license component allows council to terminate the agreement if this body concluded it had become kind of big brother. That advice was good then, and I believe that advice is good now, Mr. Friedman. I also have real concern that this council will adjourn this meeting before we get to the end of it. June 23rd of last year, we did that, and again on August 25th. August 25th, the unfinished business.

Mr. Ferroni. Oh, chat GPT, that's cool.

It's not chat GPT.

Perfect.

The unfinished business. Tell you what, I paid for this legal opinion. Mr. Feroldi wants it. I'll give you the first two pages. I'll give it to Mr. Friedman. You can have it. There you go, Mr. Friedman. There's the first two pages of the legal opinion if Mr. Feroldi wants to take a look at it. But that advice was good that you gave previously. It's good now. I've got a real concern that we're gonna adjourn this meeting before we get to the end. That's really what my concern comes down to, because you've done it before, and I think you'll do it again. I think, you know, I have a feeling you're gonna try to adjourn the meeting before we get to the resolution and discussion at the end. So that's why I make a motion to reconsider this. because I believe that discussion needs to be had. There's a significant amount of issues with the resolution that was adopted. It just does not do what it said it would do. There's nothing that prevents, without a council vote or council action, the technology that exists right now in the city of Lynchburg from being transferred to another provider without a council vote, and being used by another company without us even knowing about it. Those are the kind of loopholes that were left and what was adopted. I'm not comfortable with that. If the citizens believe that we actually terminated flock, let's get it done. Let's terminate flock.

Actually, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a substitute Motion for a substitute resolution?

I don't think that that, but we're reconsidering September 3rd right now. Great. Okay. Yeah, I don't think you can do that.

But then the, I'll speak to my second then if you don't mind. I think I missed the meeting Thursday night and I watched it and I was concerned because I think it left a lot of loopholes in what could happen and We're not supposed to campaign from the dais, but I think we've got some meeting that is very theatrical, but it just didn't really do what we told the citizens we were going to do. I want to make sure that if we vote up here, we understand what we're voting for. I saw a bunch of answers that completely contradicted each other from staff. I've said all along I want to learn, I want to listen, and I want to hear the facts and make decisions based on that. I think that's important. But most importantly, I want the citizens to be able to speak. And I really wish we'd have had a public hearing when this initially passed. There was no public hearing. I wasn't here at the time. The meeting Thursday apparently was orchestrated to make sure certain people didn't get a chance to speak. And that's a continuing trend to silence people. And I think that's unfortunate. I'm not going to point fingers or name names or anything, but I wasn't here, but I watched it. I think we left a lot of loopholes. I really hope we can address it. Mr. Mayor, I would also take this opportunity to say that when a member of this dais gets up and does what just happened, it's incumbent upon you to stop it. We have a certain decorum. We have rules. That was completely inappropriate, and he needs to return to his seat and continue to act in an adult manner that is appropriate for the decorum of this body. I am hesitant to talk directly about a person or name them, but it's not lost on me that things on this council have degraded. I very much want us to work together. I think that's really important. I think that's what the people want. I want to work together. I want to pass things because they're good policy. not political theater. I want to pass things that are well-examined, well-spoken out by the people. People have had an opportunity to talk. And then I want us as a council to do what we do most of the time, agree. People don't realize 7-0 votes are more common than anything on this council. It happens 80%, 90% of the time. But you wouldn't know it, you know, because of the reputation we've got. And it hurts all of us.

Let's get back to the resolution.

I wish we could change things. That's my heart. Okay. The resolution, I do second it. And the reconsideration of the resolution that took place the other night, I wasn't here to do it. And I would like to reconsider that particular resolution. Mr. Ferrari.

I have a request of my colleagues that we would take up item 6.22. It's the Vice Mayor's proposal regarding Early Brooks Senior Memorial Bridge. They have family here tonight. I would like us to at least get that taken care of so they can kindly go home and enjoy their evening, and then we can certainly debate this. But I would like it to be at the end of the agenda, so the rest of staff can go who don't need to be here, but if that's something that my colleagues would be willing to reconsider, I have every desire to debate this motion, if we could just at least consider item 6.22, the Vice Mayor's proposal, first.

Let's .

If we can get, Reassurance is that item 28, which is the resolution at the end of the agenda, is actually going to be heard tonight, and that the...

I said it would.

You've never told me that, Mr. Mayor. My experience with you is that you... You told me that. Okay. Well, if I can get reassurances from council that the meeting won't be adjourned prior to that, then I'll be more than, you know, I'm happy to withdraw the motion to reconsider. and to move forward. But I just want those reassurances that we're not going to adjourn before we get to the last item on the agenda. The last item on the agenda will be heard. And I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. And with that, I will withdraw my motion to reconsider.

SECTION IS GENERAL BUSINESS INCLUDES NEW ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22, CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD NAME THE BRIDGE ON ODD FELLOWS ROAD, THE EARL LEE BROOKS SENIOR MEMORIAL BRIDGE. THIS ITEM IS DISCUSSED DURING COUNCIL'S LAST WORK SESSION ON AUGUST 25th AND ALSO AT PDC ON JULY 14th.

I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE BRIDGE NAMING.

SECOND. I'll speak to you. Second, Ms. Reed. Why don't you take this first?

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Just to lighten the mood a little bit, this is a special occasion, and there are a large group of people here tonight in favor of this. There's been over 350 people sign the petition for this event. There's a lot of folks probably watching to see this happen, so I'm glad we're moving to it now. Earl Brooks was well-known in this community long before I ever arrived in 1973, but he was quite well-known and respected and a true community leader to all and represented our city and our state very well within the racing community. He had a garage underneath the bridge that is going to be named after him. And I want to mention as well something that's a little sad. Some of you have heard Irvin Brooks, his son, speaking on behalf of this resolution to name that bridge. Irvin lost his wife, Cindy, this last weekend, and it's a sad moment, but he's still here tonight because I think he wants to honor his father, and I respect that as well. I think that's a real tribute to you that you are here, and I would like to do this not just in honor of Mr. Brooks, your father, but also in honor of Cindy, who I knew you loved and you spent a lot of years with. And I know she's up there watching right now, and she's proud of you, sir. So thank you for bringing this to my attention. Thank you, Dave Falwell, for bringing it to my attention. Thank you to my colleagues who have shown a lot of love and support for it so far, and I hope they will continue to do so. I think this is an appropriate naming. We don't do this very often in Lynchburg, but if there was ever a reason to... to name that bridge after somebody. Mr. Brooks is absolutely perfect. Number 26 was his car number, and I think it's great that it's the year 2026 when we're going to respect his memory and name that bridge the Earl Brooks Senior Memorial Bridge.

Mr. E.

first, I'm so sorry for your loss. And we will keep you and the family in our prayers because this is a really hard time. It's a bittersweet moment because honoring your daddy is a very honorable thing to do. When you have a good daddy, that's such an important thing to praise. And that's wonderful that you have that and had that. and that we get to help honor him this way with your family, even though it's in the wake of your loss. So I'm very sorry. I'm very happy to support this. I didn't know him, but I've heard great things, and I'm always happy to support good people who have left a good legacy in our city and their family. So again, my condolences, but I'm happy to support this.

Mr. Wilder, thank you. I ALSO SUPPORT THE MOTION THAT DID COME TO PDC. I DIDN'T KNOW OF HIM PRIOR. I WAS SO IMPRESSED AND SO ENLIGHTENED TO HEAR ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HIM AND HIS WORK WITH WENDELL SCOTT AND ANY TIME DURING THAT TIME PERIOD OF DURING OUR COUNTRY WAS SO DIVIDED, FOR HIM TO BE BOLD AND DO THAT SPEAKS VOLUME OF HIS CHARACTER. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. JUST APPRECIATE THE HISTORY. I'M ALWAYS AMAZED AT THIS LYNCHBURY AND SO MUCH HISTORY THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT. I'M ALWAYS AMAZED AT THAT. SO I TOTALLY SUPPORT THIS MOTION. THANK YOU.

No, this is great. I really am very pleased that we're able to do this. And I think that it's something to be able to celebrate people and families in our community that have just been here so long and have been a huge part of this, right? I'm kind of a hybrid. I came here when I was 13, so I kind of claim Lynchburg, but I kind of don't claim Lynchburg at times. But I know from growing up here in high school how important bonds are and and the these original families that have just been here so long and i really think that perhaps it's probably time for us to you know maybe have the museum look at doing something a little more robust on Mr. Brooks and kind of highlighting his life and his legacy. I think that would be something to look into because it really is just a special story. But I appreciate you, appreciate your family. God bless you all. This is something easy for us to do, and it's well-deserved. Thank you. Let's vote.

All right, initiating the vote for approval now. Congratulations. The motion passes six with one absent. Agenda item number 23, consideration of adopting an ordinance authorizing the payment of monetary bonuses to full-time employees of the City of Lynchburg's Department of Social Services under Human Services. This item was discussed during a Finance Committee meeting on August 25th.

We did take this up in finance. Does anybody want to come speak to it? Mr. Sellers?

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Madam Chair, members of council. So I'm bringing it before today to state FY27 budget provides a one-time bonus for eligible full-time social services staff is equal to 2% of their base salary as of June the 1st, 2026. and this bonus requires that they have a code in order for the city to provide this bonus. The state provided their portion. The city usually has 15.5% match, but the Department of Social Services has that match, which is $24,000 that we can to cover the bonus. So there would be no funds coming from the city.

Thank you.

Thank you. And this passed unanimously in finance. So thank you so much.

In more discussion on bonuses for ANY MORE DISCUSSION?

NO MORE DISCUSSION?

LET'S VOTE, PLEASE. THESE BONUSES ARE COMING FROM THE

Because I think I remember last year, it was a performance-based bonus that we were... That is correct.

So last year, it was a performance incentive paid for a benefit program specialist. This bonus is a bonus. It is from the state. The state provided us all but the 15.5%, which social services has. So it was approved in the state's budget.

Got it. So it is another performance-based... I'm sorry. Is this another incentive or performance-based?

This is an incentive. This is just a general bonus. A one-time, one-time 2% bonus.

Okay, great. Well, just want to thank you for being able to cover the 15% portion of your budget. I appreciate that, that we don't have to move any additional money around, and that makes it easy. I thought the performance-based bonuses were great last year. I'm glad we were able to get this done this year. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's vote, please.

All right, initiating the vote for approval. Motion passes, six is one absent. Agenda item number 24. Consideration of reducing a resolution amending the FY2027 city federal state aid fund budget and appropriating $15,000 to purchase upgrades for the Templeton Senior Center Garden. This item was also discussed during finance committee meeting on August 25th.

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

Thank you so much. We did discuss this in finance. Mr. Woody, did you want to come up and speak to this?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Members of Council. As Ms. Alicia Finney-Andrews mentioned, this is for upgrading improvements to our garden centers at the Templeton Senior Center. This includes new concrete slabs, improved accessibilities around the beds, ergonomic tools, and additional raised beds, more seats for our seat bank, and also additional pool shed and garden hose. This is an AARP grant.

there's no monetary match needed we're able to utilize um any staff dedicated to planning and ongoing uh work for the center thank you this this did pass unanimously in finance um i'm starting to get aarp things myself now so but we appreciate them doing good things and i'll make a motion to approve is there any discussion no discussion let's vote

Initiating the vote for approval now. Motion passes, six with one absent. Agenda item number 25, consideration of introducing a resolution amending the FY 2027 city federal state aid fund budget and appropriating 15,000 to fund three potter workshops with a well-known ceramics artist at the Jackson Heights Art Studio. Again, this item was discussed during finance committee meeting on April, August 26th, 25th.

Thank you so much.

Yes, again, this is passed unanimously in finance. And Mr. Woody, go ahead and tell us a little bit about it.

Thank you, Yen. This is our National Endowment for the Arts grant for $15,000. We're able to offer additional pottery classes, as Ms. Finandri said, with well-known pottery folks that we may not have been able to bring in normally. Again, this is a $15,000 grant. We're able to use a 50-50 matchup against staff time and supplies that we already have, so no additional monetary need is asked for.

Thank you. I move to approve it, sir.

Great.

Is there any discussion? No discussion? Let's vote, please.

All right, initiating the vote for approval. Motion passes, six is one absent. Agenda item number 26, consideration of introducing a resolution amending the FY2027 city federal state aid fund budget and appropriating $53,367 to purchase two expedition battery-powered stair chairs and five stair pro manual chairs to the fire department. This item was discussed during the finance committee meeting on August 25th.

YES, THIS ALSO PASSED UNANIMOUSLY IN FINANCE, AND WE HAD A GREAT EXPLANATION AS TO HOW IMPORTANT THESE CHAIRS ARE, BUT, CHIEF, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU ABOUT IT.

SURE. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, MR. VICE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. AGAIN, THIS GRANT IS FROM THE VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMS. awarded to us, but is a 50-50 grant and the total of $53,367 with a matching amount of $26,684, which would come from our operational budget. And these are for two battery-powered stair chairs and five manual stair chairs. So these are collapsible chairs that allow us to remove patients up and down stairs without risking the injury to patients or our providers. I'd be glad to answer any questions if you have them.

Do you approve?

Any discussion? Mr. Deema.

Yeah, Chief Creasy, I saw these chairs in action with my father twice, and they are amazing what they can do and the way they help our first-line providers. So I have no problem. I'm looking forward to supporting this grant.

Thank you.

Dr. Wall.

Yes, good night.

Appreciate that. I'm so impressed with our city staff. We're always looking for resources outside of our city, different grants, whether it's parks and rec, whether it's police, whether it's fire. So we're always so resourceful in getting additional funds for our city to help support our citizens. So thank you to all the departments for finding additional resources so we can make our city better. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. Let's vote, please.

I'm just going to vote for approval now. Motion passes 6-1 absent.

Thank you for your continued support.

Agenda item number 27, consideration of introducing a resolution amending the FY2027 City Federal State Aid Fund budget and appropriating $35,202 to purchase computer replacements for the Lynchburg Sheriff's Office, Lynchburg Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney, and the Lynchburg Police Department. This item was discussed during Finance Committee meeting on August 25th.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here, Chief. This did pass unanimously in finance. If you want to speak to it, go ahead, please.

Sure. Good evening, Mayor, Mr. Mayor, and members of council. So the Lynchburg Police Department applied for the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY25 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. This is a grant we apply for each year for the LPD as well as the Lynchburg City Sheriff's Office and the Lynchburg Commonwealth Attorney's Office. The JAG grant allowed us to request $35,202 for the purchase of computer equipment. We were awarded this amount with no local match required for the Lynchburg Sheriff's Office, Lynchburg Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney, and Lynchburg Police Department. Again, no local matches are required to accept the awarded amount.

Move to approve, please.

Any more discussion?

Any more discussion? Let's vote, please.

Initiating the vote for approval now. Motion passes. Six is one absent.

Mr. Brugge, it would be proper to restart where the conversation was. Thank you, counsel, for obliging. And I wanted to apologize. I intended no offense. I know that looked silly. I own that. I just wanted to know for the record who the opinion was offered by. That's why I was trying to look at the documents. I realized that looked really dumb. So I do apologize for that. but if we could just have for the record who the opinion was provided by, I would appreciate it.

That information is attorney-client privileged. I paid for this myself. It is provided by an attorney that has been in practice for 40 years and is a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School.

Is it Ms. Oliver?

I'll leave it at that.

Well, you were just about to, if I may, Mayor. You were about to offer the first two pages. Does that include who the author is? I've answered the question. That's what I'm going to say. I would appreciate for the record. I think the citizens of Lynchburg would at least just the name of the attorney. It's attorney privilege.

It's it's Chris.

It's none of your business. I think it's this.

No, actually, Chris, I've asked the citizens. I've asked for the opinions that our city attorney. that this taxpayers pay $205,000 a year to you regarding your resolution be provided to me. And all I got were big black redacted blocks. And I think that maybe, The city attorney should be providing equal weight in how he represents the members of the city council and not just you as your personal attorney, which you've used him before as to try to work on your. Just point it out. So I'm not going to answer any more of the questions, Mr. Mayor, for Mr. Faraldi.

Mayor. Mayor. Yes, sir. Thank you. It's a simple question, Mayor, and one that I think needs answered. The fact of the matter is, what I did see is that folder has University of Virginia on it. What I do know is in the third row of this chamber right before us is Ms. Susan Oliver, who has been practicing legal counsel for a senior amount of time. I won't presume to guess how long. I do know she also went to University of Virginia for law. I also know she has represented Mr. Mischens and the Lynchburg Republican Party before. So how many dots do I need to connect? I would request for the record one more time, who is the legal counsel who had provided the opinion to Mr. Mischens so the public can be aware at least who- He's trying to intimidate a member of the public right now, Mr. Mayor.

Point of order. Point of order. Mr. Faraldi's actions where he aggressively, I thought he was actually going to physically harm me moments ago when he reached around behind me. I really did. And now he's intimidating a member of the public. I want to put both of those things on the record, point of order, as a violation of our rules of procedure, a gross violation, We either need to get it dealt with, Mr. Mayor, force him to be drug tested, make sure he gets his medications, whatever it is. But this behavior needs to stop. That's not a personal attack. I'm saying that these things need to be addressed. Council members should not be in fear of doing their job on the dais because he gets up and gets behind them. And the citizens of our city should not be in fear of coming in here and sitting here and watching the public do the city's business without getting intimidated. This is not the first time that Mr. Faraldi has intimidated people sitting in the crowd. It's got to end, Mr. Mayor. It's your job to put it to an end.

Mr. Faraldi, I apologize to you. He did not apologize to me. Yes, he did. Mr. Mayor, he did not apologize to me. In his opening statement, he apologized. And let's move on. Okay, Mr. Friedman, the point of order.

The point of order, my advice would be I'm not taking what Mr. Feraldi is saying is intimidating because the comments are directed to Mr. Mischus. So it sounds like what Mr. Feroldi wants to know is if an opinion is going to be publicly offered as part of these discussions, who offered the opinion.

And if I may clarify, Mr. Mayor. Yes. I would include if they're being privately referenced in that consideration. Here's the reality. If Mr. Missions is making a decision on this dais as an elected representative of the citizens of Lynchburg and is citing a legal opinion he privately funded and drawing conclusions based off of his approach to the issues before us. He has every right to do that. There's a question about whether or not that document is now public or not. I'm not approaching that. I just want to know, and I think the citizens of Lynchburg ought to know, who authored the opinion. When Mr. Mitchins did in the past, multiple times, we had names and organizations, firms, where that was happening. Family Foundation, there was a Second Amendment group, I think, that I think the Vice Mayor brought in. What is so concerning about just the name of the attorney who provided the opinion? I don't need the whole document. I just want the name of the attorney.

Mr. Freeman, do this become public record? I don't think with what's been presented, it would be public record. So the issue is now is whether or not Mr. Missions is going to offer the premise and the opinion. as part of the discussions. And if it is without giving, you know, the context of the opinion, the surrounding advice, whatever it may be, I do think it's a fair ask to at least say who it is that he's citing and giving a fair opinion. But that's up to Mr. Mischin since it's his private attorney.

Mr. Beamer.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I just find it ironic that that an opinion from our attorney who wraps everything in attorney-client privileges suddenly now wanting to breach his, a member of this council's, and I would offer to my colleague, Mr. Faraldi, if he wants to see it, he can pay for it just like Mr. Mizgen did. Otherwise, it's not your attorney.

Ms. Reid.

I'm just asking about the transparency. I mean, we hear transparency all the time. We hear about transparency, and then we don't hear transparency from the person who claims it's important all the time. And I agree, transparency is important. So I'm not sure why we're hiding the name of an attorney if we're supposed to trust the opinion. Why would we trust an opinion of it from an unknown source? I don't understand why it's a problem to disclose that information. Thank you.

Yes. I move adoption of revised option two in the agenda packet.

Seconded by the board.

Before us, Mr. Mischins and Mr. Mayor, I would cite it. You can check the minutes if need. And thank you for disclosing your hand ahead of time. The proposal was to reconsider the agenda item from last week, and that has not received a vote yet. That must be dealt with before we do anything else.

It was withdrawn. That motion was withdrawn. I just seconded his motion. He just seconded my motion.

You already had one on the floor. No, we didn't. No, we were good. It was withdrawn. When?

No, when? Stay up. Try to keep up, Chris.

It's good.

It's my recollection, Mayor, it was withdrawn. Absolutely. On the condition it not be adjourned. Right. I move adoption of the provide.

I second. You second? Okay. You want to speak to your motion?

Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. You know, I appreciate what we attempted to do on Thursday of last week. I can't say that, you know, what happened or who said what in the preparation of that resolution. I'm just not sure because I wasn't in the room. I didn't get to see the discussions. I didn't get to see the city attorney's legal analysis and correspondence with Mr. Feraldi and the police chief and members of the city manager's office. regarding the resolution that was adopted. I asked for it well in advance of the vote. And what I got back pretty late was emails that were entirely redacted. So if you want to talk about transparency, we can talk about transparency. Let's talk about making sure that the public records to guide this body in making decisions are accessible to all members of this body when we make decisions. That's transparency. That's not happening. The resolution that we adopted last Thursday, it's a complex thing, right? You've got two controlling documents here. You have a licensing agreement, And then you have what's titled a government agency agreement. I'll call that the services or servicing agreement. I may say it either way. I'm not sure. And the licensing agreement is what came before this body in November of 2023 when I voted against it. The licensing agreement is what gives FLOC permission to occupy the rights of way in the city of Lynchburg. That's what it does, because the rights of way are public property. It required a public hearing, it required a vote for us to authorize it. Now, interestingly enough, in both the licensing agreement and the services agreement, and I believe also in one of the amendments, and I repeated this multiple times already, there's a big, bold phrase that's underlined that says that in the event of a conflict between the documents, that the licensing agreement prevails. Licensing agreement is very clear that all you gotta do is give FLOC 30 days notice that you're gonna terminate the licenses agreement, the licensing agreement, which I believe is what Mr. Friedman referenced back in October of 2023, when he said that we could terminate this with relatively short notice because it's a revocable license agreement. And that upon revocation, of the Licensing Agreement with that 30 days notice that flock is then required to get their equipment out of our rights of way at their expense, not at ours. There's also been a false frame argument on a potential $34,500 fee that would be imposed if we did this any earlier. That same clause even though the licensing agreement is what prevails, I just wanna let you know how this was presented. And again, I'm not gonna speak to intent or who, it's just how it was presented. It's been presented as if that fee were gonna have to be paid if we terminated any soon than just letting the contract run out. There's one issue with that theory. The issue with that theory is the very next sentence in that same article says that we get prorated a refund on the services that we haven't received. And if you look at the documents, we paid $60,000 back in, I think it was May, for the FLOC services agreement. That was for the year. So it would be accurate to say we're not gonna pay FLOC another penny, but what would also be accurate is to say we need to get our money back from FLOC. because if we're not gonna be using it through April, then we certainly need to be getting our money back, and we can do that. And right now, today, if you were to terminate that, it's somewhere in the ballpark of $35,000 is what's left on the table. That would be due to the city today if it terminated today. So that was a falsely framed argument. But at the end of the day, the public believed that we were ending flock in Lynchburg with the action that was taken last week. But it leaves too many doors open. The doors that it leaves open is that an action by this body could say, you know what? We're gonna just pass another resolution and continue on. Undo what was just done. And as long as the infrastructure is there through April, That could be done at any point through April. That could be done in two weeks. It could be done in two months after election day. It could be done in January after a new council is seated. The other options that are on the table is the city manager would have the authority under the licensing agreement and under the contract to switch service providers. With that equipment, if FLOC and the city, via the city manager, based on the agreement that the city's entering into, if FLOC and the city manager were to agree to transfer the equipment to another service provider, they could transfer the equipment, take the bags off the cameras and keep on rolling. If we're gonna do this, we need to do it the right way. The right way is to revoke the license and the permission for FLOC to be in our rights of way and then they have to get the equipment at their own expense, and then we can pursue a refund for the services that weren't paid for by the city, that we didn't pay for. It's very simple. Like I said, I'm not gonna speak to the intent of what was passed on Thursday, but there's just too many options open for something different to be done. So that's why I move adoption of revoking the license, which is what my resolution initially intended to do. Mr. Dean.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to make a substitute motion with the following, if you can pass that down to everybody and give them a copy, of a resolution that actually gets the job done. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO POINT FINGERS EITHER AND I'M NOT TRYING TO LAY BLAME ANYWHERE AND I'M NOT TRYING TO GET CREDIT. I JUST WANT TO DO IT RIGHT. I'LL SECOND THAT. POLICY IS IMPORTANT AND SO THERE'S YOURS. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS FROM MY COLLEAGUES HUMBLY. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION. And it's been seconded. Can I speak to my motion? Yes. So I agree what my colleague, Mr. Missions, has said. I think there's too many loopholes in the current situation, all kinds of opportunities for bringing those cameras back to life. But the cameras aren't really the problem. They never have been. They're just hardware. It's a system. It's the power of government to intrude on our lives at an exponential level. I think that we all have a natural anathema to, really, we're Republicans or Democrats. Too many loopholes. I have consulted with Councilman Misions about this substitute. I agree that we should get a refund. As a former chief information officer for a security firm, I know these IT agreements can be very confusing. Licensing, contract. But the bottom line is they owe us some money, and we can get some money back as well. And I want to get that money back. If we're going to cancel this thing like we all say we're doing... I want to follow the city attorney's legal advice that he gave us in October of 2023, that canceling the license agreement was the way to go. This resolution actually gets that job done, holds flock responsible for moving it, and they got to pay the bill to remove it, which is great for the citizens and the taxpayers of Lynchburg as well. So I hope my colleagues will consider this. The resolution that we passed did not give a public firm date when the equipment will actually be removed. It did not clearly explain whether we terminated both the service agreement and the right-of-way license, both. And it certainly left uncertainty about whether all the flock technology, including the Raven acoustic sensors, are covered. We don't know. This covers that. So before we vote tonight, I want You know, some answers, I think, if we can get them. Has the required notice been sent? What's the exact termination date? I'm pretty sure there's not one. What's the exact date the flock devices will be removed? We don't know that. What is the city's net financial exposure if we continue to do nothing and don't pass this substitute? You know, the public should not have to interpret vague contract language. That's not y'all's job. That's kind of our job. That's the lawyer's job, the attorney that looked at this job. And I've looked at that opinion, and it's a very respected opinion. It's very well written. If counsel intends to remove Flock from Lynchburg, our resolution should say exactly what will happen, when it will happen, who is responsible for doing it, and when it will be completed. Because public safety matters, but so does privacy. Transparency and the public trust. So let's be straightforward. Let's do this the right way. Let's get it done correctly. Our citizens deserve a very clear decision tonight before the election of where we all stand.

So just a word of caution. on the resolution that was just proposed by the vice mayor. So this is the first time I'm seeing it here as a document. I don't know if other members have seen it. I don't know if members of the public have seen it. So remember what I had talked about in my legislative update. So the changes to, I think it's section 2.2-3707 about final action items being taken on an agenda. So because this wasn't published as part of the agenda, I think certainly it's up to council as a body. You either have to have this connected to a closed meeting or a majority of the body needs to consider it time sensitive or a rush in some fashion under here to be able to adopt it. So it's a wholly new resolution that's being proposed. Again, I think the intent under the Freedom of Information Act with stuff like this is to make sure that the public has a chance to see it once it's been proposed. So I would at least offer that for your consideration as part of the discussion. Thank you.

I'M HAPPY TO SECOND THIS. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE AGENDA SAYS COUNCILMEMBER MISSION'S FLOCK RESOLUTION, SO I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC WAS NOTICED THAT FLOCK RESOLUTIONS WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT AND ACTUALLY SOLD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC COMING IN TONIGHT THAT I SPOKE WITH WHO DIDN'T FIND COPIES OF THE AGENDA UPON COMING IN HERE TONIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE RAN OUT OF THEM OR WHATEVER, BUT THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT FLOCK RESOLUTIONS WERE ON THE TABLE. And the title of the resolution is this, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Lynchburg revoking the revocable license agreement with Flock Group Incorporated upon 30 days written notice under Article 2, directing that notice be mailed forthwith, refusing substitute occupancy, requiring removal of facilities at the provider's expense and certification of data deletion, giving notice of non-renewal of the government agency agreement, directing pursuit of prepaid refunds, and directing implementation. So I believe that, well, I appreciate that. I feel like that may have been kind of potentially dilatory advice, Mr. City Attorney. And to just be given this from the city attorney as the source for why we would have to be paying $34,500 for the first time. And I look and the authority, right? Who said we had to pay $34,500 is engage success with an email address of engage at flocksafety.com. Of course, they would say that we have to pay $34,500. And it also, the question that was asked is about the contract. The question that was posed from a member of our staff to Flock was about the contract, not about the licensing agreement. The licensing agreement is crystal clear. It says we have the right to terminate within 30 days and the equipment is removed at the expense of the provider, the provider being flock safety. The licensing agreement controls. All you have to do is read the documents and it's very, very easy to understand. That's what it says. So this resolution, simply takes the intent of my original resolution, which was the main motion. And I have actually had an opportunity to discuss this with my attorney. And this resolution meets all the concerns that I had in the legal opinion that was provided to me. And it really does give us just the roadmap. So the difference between this resolution what I offered is this actually marches out, it tells us, it directs staff to do the things that need to be done to cancel the agreement in order with the contract and the services agreement. Because if we do it right, if we do our homework and we do it right, if we do it actually like you told us we could do it back on October 24th of 2023, Mr. Freedman, I'll be happy to play the remarks if you'd like me to. Got them on my phone. Relatively short notice, we get out of it. So the question that I ask is why would we wanna draw this out until April? Why would we wanna draw this out until April? And why would we wanna leave the loopholes in there where right now what's been signed away in that licensing agreement is atrocious. That licensing agreement actually gave FLOC access, global worldwide access to your data. When you delete a file on your computer, where does it go? It goes to the trash bin, recycle bin. The licensing agreement from Flock was pretty clever. It actually talked about in the agreement that after 30 days, excuse me, this was in the services agreement, 30 days, right, was kind of their window to have to delete. Now, I know that's increased or lowered to 21, but their boilerplate language was 30 days. After 30 days, they delete the data, right? But then it actually speaks to them having the right to all the deleted data. So what was voted for before by this body that I am so glad that I voted against now that I've researched it so heavily, was a worldwide license, a global license to give Flock the authority over the data collected on Lynchburg citizens. I'm sorry, I don't want some big tech company to have access to that kind of data and to be able to use it globally. And as far as it being anonymized, you can buy other pieces of data to pair with it, it's no longer anonymized. We do not need a big tech private company having that kind of power over Lynchburg citizens. They've got control of the data regardless of what anything says. And leaving a door open, any door whatsoever open for them to continue to have that access for something to happen, maybe an election, and a different council to be seated, to come back, take the bags off, flip the switch, and turn it back on, I am not willing to take that risk. I voted against it in 2023, and I will vote to make sure We put an end to it tonight. But what we adopted last week does not create finality. And that's what the citizens deserve.

I have a few points in a number of different directions. So Mr. Mayor, I appreciate flexibility here. Ms. Finney, when you have a brief moment, if for the city attorney's reference if you could pull up the charter the city of Lynchburg and then scroll for his convenience down to chapter 6 section 37 I will read and if we have to do this difficult way we can do it the difficult way we can do it the easy way the council in any investigation held by it may order the attendance of any person as a witness and the production of any person or any proper books and papers any person refusing or failing to attend or testify or produce such books and papers may be summoned by the council before the judge of a municipal court or other officer having the powers of the justice of the peace of the city. And upon failure to give satisfactory excuse, may be fined him not exceeding that of $100 or imprisoned not exceeding 30 days. Such person to have the right of appeal as in a case of misdemeanor to the corporation court of said city. I'll ask one more time. Can we please have a name of this attorney who's being referenced for the decision that council member Mischens is making.

So it's ironic that the man that just assaulted me is threatening me with jail time to give him attorney client privileged documents.

Did you take your medication today, Chris?

Mayor, I have a substitute motion. It's already been a substitute, point of order. substitute only one substitute allowed for our rules of procedure so any substitute is out of order

However, I think this motion was for the brand new resolution that the attorney said violates our FOIA if we because it was not this specific resolution was not on our agenda and nobody had the public was not aware of it. So we can change the name of it if you want to or try to keep the name. But it is a brand new resolution and it violates. He did. Thank you. So. I think the substitute motion is moot now because we can't have a substitute motion on a resolution that doesn't even exist per the FOIA.

President, this is the point of order that I called. I wasn't finished.

Let him finish.

Substitute motion. Okay.

We can do this the easy way or the hard way. I read the charter. And I don't care if people are laughing at me. If we're gonna have decisions made on behalf of 80,000 people, the city and its residents deserve the right to know who is informing members of this council. Just a name, that's all you gotta disclose. If not, I fully intend to file paperwork to call a special meeting of this council to force the first two papers be produced as was offered earlier. Produce them.

I'll give you the first two pages.

Does it include the name of the attorney?

I'll give you the first two pages.

Does it include the name of the attorney?

I'm a citizen and I don't care. And we knew the meeting was for the law campus.

I don't care.

Okay. I want to know, on behalf of Ward 4, who is advising Mr. Mischins on his actions tonight? I will not yield. I'll come back to that. Mr. Missions referenced this e-mail that was just passed out. Further in the e-mail, if you do read it fully, it says Lynchburg PD's account originally had two separate contracts running on different schedules, your phase one agreement and phase two agreement, which was the one set to run through April 2026. Now we're in the phase two. Even they admit that we have multiple governing documents, multiple governing items related to this whole conversation. Okay. Let me pull up my file. Bear with me.

Mr. Tony, you did rule on it.

Now that it's moved on, you know, it's been waived and he's now speaking as the floor again Mayor my question is to councilman missions if he would be so kind to answer Mr.

Missions you have said that the cameras will not come down if they do not come down before November They're never coming down. Is that still your position? It's just a question. Yes or no? Is that your position? Mayor, since he's declining to answer, I have his email that is from yesterday where he says, if the license does not come taken care of before November, the cameras are not coming down. I'll submit this for the official record. He then says November specifically. So my question is, Mr. Mischens, why November? And then you mentioned tonight the concern of a new council coming and changing course from Thursday. Why is that your concern and why November?

My questions are not even being answered and I just want to know what is being hidden.

At least four of these members here today will be here four years from now. So what changes after November? And what about this makes you believe this cannot be accomplished down the road? Here's my question, Mr. Missions. The only obvious reason November changes the urgency here is the possibility that the election changes who is sitting in these seats, including yours. Are you saying that you're that concerned you won't be able to see this through because you're going to lose?

Yes or no? Mayor, Mr. Mayor. It's campaigning.

Mayor, I have intent of adding this language to whatever they want to concoct up for whichever AI they're using and for whichever attorney they're using. that in the event the effectuation of this resolution produces a notice of or would result in any additional appropriation of taxpayer dollars being contractually owed to FLOC, that this resolution be considered null, void, and non-binding. In this case, the city manager or resident dean shall immediately defer the previous direction of council given September 3rd, 2026. I would move that as an amendment to the resolution. So that's an amendment to this resolution?

Yes.

Yes, in addition. If you're so confident that FLOC is wrong, the police are wrong, I'm wrong, Stephanie's wrong, the public's wrong, the media's wrong, city attorney's wrong, city manager's wrong, everyone is wrong except Mr. Mischens, you should be able to add this to your resolution tonight. If you're so confident it won't cost the city one cent going to FLOC in tearing down this equipment at the appropriate time, add it to your resolution, why not?

Let him speak. Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. For the record, I never said the city attorney was wrong. I actually said he was right in October of 2023. And I confirmed that he was right with another attorney. And I also want to point out that I'd asked Mr. Friedman a series of questions last week. It was on Friday. And he told me that he didn't think he'd be able to get to it before tonight, which is what you would expect when you're spending time with your family on Labor Day, which I expect him to do. And with that being the case, I went and sought my own attorney. so that Mr. Friedman could not, you know, so I didn't feel like I needed to pressure Mr. Friedman to have these answers. So I got them myself and it confirmed that what Mr. Friedman said in October of 2023 was right, that we can get out of this agreement with relatively short notice by, using the licensing agreement. That's what we adopted. Now I'm fully aware that there's multiple controlling documents with this email that was just given to us reference the contracts, the amendments. There was an amendment that went to 11 cameras and there was an amendment that went to 15 cameras plus the Raven system. I'm fully aware of that. I've read them all. I've actually got them all right here. But I just want to point out something. in the services agreement that is just pretty interesting that I'm waiting to hear it.

The file document named is 2026-09-06, Timmer Draft Resolution to nfloc.pdf. I have it here in front of me. Given that that is the name of the document itself, it violates the Freedom of Information Act and cannot be considered tonight.

So that's not in our rules of procedure. That's not a point of order. Mr. Mayor, may I continue? May I continue? Go ahead. Thank you. When you look at the language in here, this $500 per flock hardware, thing that they keep, this is what they're fighting over, right, to keep the surveillance infrastructure up in the city, is this clause right here in termination for convenience, where it says, keep in mind, there's two types of termination in the services agreement, but this is not the document that controls, the licensing agreement is, it says, Termination for convenience by agency will result in a one-time removal fee of $500 per flock hardware. Termination for convenience by flock will not result in any removal fees. Upon termination for convenience, a refund will be provided by flock hardware prorated for any fees for the remaining term length set forth previously. So if we paid in May, and it's $60,000, we can all do the math, that's five grand a month. May, June, July, August, September. $25,000. There's $35,000. If we terminate for convenience today, if that's what they're so concerned about, if that's what they're so concerned about, well then, you know what? Let's terminate for convenience today. Let's just send Flock an email right now after we have this vote and terminate for convenience. They can charge us $34,500, but then they're going to have to pay us $35,000 back. That's a net $500 on the taxpayers. We win that battle. The math is in our favor. So if that's really what we're concerned about, the answer is right here. but they never read that on Thursday. That part was left out. And, you know, there's even a question about what the number of devices are if you actually read the language in the document and read what it says. Because we didn't purchase or lease or whatever it is, 54 acoustic sensors. We got one Raven system, and that is defined as a device in the definitions in article one of the services agreement. That means 16 devices. We pay a city attorney approximately $205,000 a year to fight these battles for us. I'm sure it's a pretty easy one he could win. But again, I go back to the document that matters the most, the document that required a council vote is the revocable license agreement. This is the one that matters because in the revocable license agreement, it says term termination This is the permission for flock to exist on our streets, public property and the rights of way. The term of this license shall commence at the time it is fully executed and shall continue month to month thereafter. But in no event will this license continue beyond a period of five years without a formal renewal by the parties. This license is revocable, non-exclusive, and may be revoked unilaterally by the city upon 30 days written notice to the provider in the city's sole and absolute discretion. And just above that, Article 1.8, abandoned and unusable facilities upon expiration or termination of this license, this license, right? B. the provider must remove its facilities from the public rights of way and city owned property at the provider that is flock's expense. Furthermore, if you move to Article 9.7, and these are all supposed to be public record documents in the agenda from the previous meeting, Nothing contained in this license shall be construed or deemed to make either the city, the provider, agent, partner, or joint venture of other, except as may otherwise be provided herein. Here it is. Last sentence. The only thing bolded and underlined in the entire document, in the event of a conflict between this license and Exhibit A, the services agreement, such conflict will be resolved in favor of, this license. The licensing agreement makes it clear. The pathway to get this done is not the pathway of what was adopted last week. The pathway to get this done is to give 30 days notice that their facilities are no longer permitted in city rights of way and terminate this license. When we do that, at their expense, they have to come and retrieve the equipment because it is no longer legally present in the city rights of way. at their expense. Once that's gone, then we terminate this and there's no devices left for them to pick up. Then we terminate this and then they give us a refund for whatever's left of the $60,000 we paid them. So I don't know about you guys, but I wanna get rid of the cameras and I wanna get a check back from Flock.

There's a lot to unpack in what Mr. Mischens has said. So what I would caution for council is what he's proposing obviously is arguments the city would make to avoid incurring additional fees on behalf of the city in the event of an early termination. So what he is describing is it is true the license agreement controls over the service agreement, but the fact of the matter is those two documents do different things. So the license agreement speaks to the facilities of FLOC being able to remain in the rights of way of the city. That's its whole purpose. It incorporates the service agreement as part of that document because it is. It's the whole of the document. Now, as it relates to the termination for convenience fees, The goal is not to litigate with flock when you deal with these issues. The goal is to try to find ways to resolve it to avoid these issues of penalties, avoid these issues of fees. What was proposed by three members of council and adopted last Thursday I think does that, at least with regards to the termination of convenience fees. So it blatantly, in my mind, and unequivocally directs the termination of the license agreement and the service contract with FLOC. And it does so in a way that speaks to notice being provided to avoid those fees that Falk very well could come and seek. So the idea, yes, the city would argue if we terminated it straight away that we weren't subject to it. We would have to avoid that, but it's not a guarantee. A court could construe those two documents as harmonious, not that the two of them conflict. So that's the risk. So what I would submit for you all to consider is that And I don't want to speak for Mr. Mischens, but what I think he is proposing is basically what the city would argue if there was an immediate termination, but it's not without risk. So I would be cautious with that. And I do think the last Thursday's resolution gets you on what you want with the lowest risk to the city. It's just a later date of removing the facilities of April 6th. Ms. Reid. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Friedman. So since my interview from WLNI has been referenced, I encourage everybody to go listen to the actual recording of the truth versus what's been spun today. I'm appreciative of everybody that got to come and speak because there was no restriction. I'm speaking. There was no reference to silencing anybody in the crowd or for public comment, which everybody was, which was, I'm getting there, Mr. Deamer, and you've had plenty of time to talk tonight. Bottom line is this whole night was predicted. What public comment was going to look like? Predicted, and I was 100% right. Thank you, Republicans, for liberty. Also, I predicted that it would be the show that it has become, and now we can't even get the name of an attorney. I hope it's not Ms. Oliver, because if you look up her past, it's not very reputable. Also, just a fact, just a fact. Lastly, lastly, Lastly, if we listen to what Mr. Friedman said, if we listen to what Mr. Friedman said, he answered that what we voted on last Thursday to be swift for the intention of listening to the public was done. I would like to know, because the Article 3 in the contract says that the term of the license shall commence at the time it is fully executed and shall... continue month to month thereafter but at no event will this license continue beyond a period of five years without a formal renewal by the parties so with that said it sounds like that we do face the penalties if we do not go to the full extent of the contract and the agreement is that yes or no We could. So we're taking a chance and also putting more taxpayer dollars on asking our attorney to defend us in a case where we shouldn't have to because we could follow through with what we voted on, give the date that it's supposed to terminate, which was given, And the terms of what that's going to happen, keep the cameras off. They are off. They're not coming back on. Nothing's coming back on. Despite what the gas lighting that's been given tonight, they're not. We voted. Our police department falls under the city manager. The city manager falls under us. If they're going to turn something back on, they would lose their jobs. So it is unacceptable to make accusations about our police department, our city manager, our attorney, those of us who voted to terminate this at the extent of the contract, because then we would all be going back on our word. We listened to the citizens. We've listened to you. We had an urgent meeting last Thursday for that very reason and voted for exactly what's happening, despite what's being turned around in the narrative that's been changed. Then we have on the floor a resolution that has Ms. Timmer's name on it. She's not even here tonight. We've been told it cannot be considered. the merit in which are the absolutely was told and so we cannot consider something that was not presented to us before tonight in the name of someone that's not even here by the way we can consider mr mission's flock resolution if we want to but we were just told what was passed fit the bill for what we needed to do. And the citizens can either trust our police department and that they're not going to turn something on that we have said they can't, and chief, I trust you. Or we can play some more games that was predicted by me on Friday. Thank you, sir.

I would like to hear from the chief. What do you need, sir?

Well, good evening again, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of council. I have some prepared remarks that I don't know if it'll help, but I would like to take a moment just to read these to you. Yes, sir. Regarding this. So at last Thursday's special meeting, city council voted to end the city's agreement with flock safety. We understand council's authority to make that decision, and the Lynchburg Police Department will comply fully with the direction provided. I also want to acknowledge and express my appreciation for Council's stated support of the Lynchburg Police Department and the men and women who serve this community every day. Although the decision regarding Flock has now been made, the mission of the Lynchburg Police Department has not changed. We will continue to partner with our community protect our citizens, investigate crime, hold offenders accountable, and do everything within our ability to keep Lynchburg safe. Our officers and professional staff will continue to rely on proven policing strategies, strong community partnerships, effective information sharing, sound investigative practices, and the lawful and responsible use of technology. I do want to make one thing very clear. Flock was never a replacement for good police work. It was a tool that complemented good police work. Our emergency communications personnel still answer 911 calls. Our officers and detectives still respond to calls, speak with victims and witnesses, conduct interviews, develop probable cause, make arrests, prepare search warrants, investigate complex cases, testify in court, and carry out the many other responsibilities required of public safety professionals every day. FLOC simply gave our personnel another way to perform some of that work more effectively, and it proved to be a valuable tool. It helped us prevent and deter crime, identify vehicles connected to criminal activity, locate wanted individuals and stolen vehicles, and develop investigative leads that otherwise might not have been available. It assisted our personnel in solving violent crimes and property crimes, and it also helped protect our officers. Knowing where a vehicle associated with a violent crime may have traveled can provide officers with critical information before an otherwise unknown encounter. It can help investigators locate a dangerous suspect more quickly and reduce the need to rely solely on traditional investigative methods. And that matters. At the same time, The success of the Lynchburg Police Department has never depended on a single technology. In 2025, violent crime in Lynchburg decreased by 11% from 2024 and was 14% below the five-year average. Those numbers are significant and they are a testament to the hard work of the men and women of this department and the tremendous support we receive from our community. There's another set of numbers that also deserves recognition. In 2025, LPD personnel cleared 66% of violent crimes compared to the national rate of approximately 37%. And I'd like to repeat that. We cleared 66% of violent crimes compared to the national rate of 37%. We cleared 32% of property crimes compared with a national rate of 12%. Those figures speak to the quality, dedication, and professionalism of the people who serve at the Lynchburg Police Department. They solve crimes, they hold offenders accountable, they support victims, and they do so because they care deeply about this community. FLOC was one of the many tools that leveraged to accomplish that mission. Its removal does not diminish their commitment But we must also be candid about the loss of a proven investigative tool and the operational consequences with that. There may be cases in which this technology could have provided an investigative lead that is no longer available. There may be a stolen vehicle we cannot locate as quickly, a robbery suspect whose vehicle is more difficult to identify, or a homicide investigation in which detectives lose a valuable piece of information. There may be an abducted child, a missing or endangered person, or a violent offender leaving a crime scene in a vehicle that officers need to locate quickly. This is not intended as a scare tactic. It's simply the reality of law enforcement. We cannot predict which case will occur tomorrow, next month, or next year. What we can do is work to ensure that our officers have access to the best lawful, responsible, and appropriately governed tools available when that case occurs. I also want to thank the citizens of Lynchburg who took the time to contact me and members of the department, expressed their support for our officers, and supported their responsible use of technology to fight crime. especially one to recognize the victims whose cases have been solved and whose offenders have been arrested and criminally charged in part because our officers and detectives had access to this technology. Those victims are an important part of this conversation. Behind every statistic is a person, Behind every cleared case is a victim who deserves answers and justice. Behind every investigative tool we use is an opportunity to make that process more effective and safer for our officers and our community. Moving forward, I hope the conclusion of the city's relationship with flock safety will not end the broader conversation about modern policing technology. I respectfully ask that council support the department's ability to evaluate other vendors and technologies that may provide similar public safety benefits while addressing concerns related to privacy, data retention, access, accountability, security, and oversight. This would allow us to thoughtfully consider automated license plate recognition and other modern public safety technologies on their merits under clearly established safeguards rather than closing the door on a valuable category of law enforcement tools because of concerns associated with one particular company. The Lynchburg Police Department will continue to partner with our community and protect our citizens while respecting the rights and dignity of every person. We will continue to do excellent police work. We will continue to investigate crime. We will continue to support victims and hold offenders accountable. And we will continue to identify lawful and responsible opportunities to make Lynchburg and the officers who serve it safer. Again, we respect council's decision, and we remain committed to working with council, with city leadership, and our community as we determine the best path forward.

Thank you. You know, and I appreciate your comments, Chief, and there's a lot of really great information you provided. One thing I got to kind of put out there, because I should have mentioned this earlier, but Council Member Timmer is pretty sick tonight. That's why she's not here with us. She'd love to be here. And I wish she was able to make it. She was not able to make it. But in the discussions that I had with her, for her to be able to put together this extraordinary document that actually meets all the bullet points, it even goes into as much as, explaining how the notice needs to be sent. I think it's by certified mail. It gives the address, Flock Group Incorporated Attention. Like it actually, it's a step-by-step. This is essentially a flow chart for city staff to just go through and execute. That's what this is. This is a document for them to execute and get it done for the citizens. Where the other one was, left it all open-ended. Now, one of the things that the chief just mentioned that I appreciate your comments, but it actually explains exactly why I have so much concern about not revoking this license now. And what we're getting into, what you're seeing up here is we're debating two things. They're talking about revoking the contract. I'm talking about, for the services agreement, I'm talking about revoking the license. As long as we get their license revoked, That's what matters, because if the license is revoked, it's very clear the services agreement says, again, entire agreement, section 10, article 10.4, last sentence. However, the above described license agreement between the parties will prevail over all other documents, agreements, et cetera, in the event a conflict exists. The license agreement says that in the event of termination, abandonment of unusable facilities, once we terminate the license agreement, we can terminate We can let them keep the $60,000 if that's what you want to do, because, you know, it looks like the council decided or what we decided on Thursday was to surrender and forfeit the refund due to us for the services we aren't getting, right? If we want to surrender and forfeit, we can surrender and forfeit that refund by all means, but we should not surrender and forfeit our public rights of way for this. And I know you don't like it chief, but mass surveillance infrastructure. And we just shouldn't surrender our, we don't have to surrender and forfeit the permission of the equipment to exist. We have the right to revoke the license. They cannot charge us a dime for doing so. We've already paid them $60,000 through April of next year. They can't stop us from revoking the license. They can't do it. And that's what this council must do if it cares about getting rid of this equipment in our city. And one of the things that you said that concerned me was when you mentioned exploring other vendors, because when you look at the other option for abandoned and unusable facilities is A, Upon expiration or termination of this license, the provider must provide information satisfactory to the city that the provider's obligations for its facilities in the public rights way or on city owned property under this license have been transferred to another provider acceptable to the city or signed in accordance with article three below. One of the other things that we did with this was we kind of just delegated all authority over this whole agreement when we adopted it in 2023. And again, I voted against it back then to the city manager. That means that the city manager could work with the police chief, not saying that this is going to be what happens, but it could, and I'm not comfortable leaving that door open. There's a 1% chance that that could happen. I'm not okay, because we can shut this door all the way and make sure that no chance exists by revoking the license. Transfer of ownership. It says in here, providers should not sell, transfer, lease, assign, sublet, or dispose of the whole or part, either force, volunteer, and sale, et cetera, et cetera, without the consent of the city. Well, in this case, since we've delegated authority, and that's where it stands right now, over this license agreement to the city manager, that is the way it is, right? And, you know, the issue with that is I just simply, I'm sorry, I don't trust that this is gonna be followed through. We have got to make sure the door is shut on Flock and Lynchburg, period. Anything else that comes after it must come the same way Flock tried to come originally, properly noticed with a public hearing so the public knows what's coming and they have an opportunity to come speak. That's all there is to it. revoking the license, voting to do it tonight is the only way to make sure that door is shut and the public is involved in the process moving forward. That is why I will not stop fighting to protect our citizens over this issue, because we've got to shut the door. The other one didn't do it, but we can do it tonight. And as far as, THE RESOLUTION GOES, AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE'RE STILL ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR THIS RESOLUTION.

NEW SPEAKER I'LL CONCEDE AND LAY DOWN MY PITCH

And I am happy to vote for this tonight. I realize the top of the document I just shared with you and the media and the public is Marty's initial resolution. However, if the second point in this resolution can be included as a final via resolve clause, I'll vote for it. I'll read it one more time. In the event the effectuation of this resolution produces notice of and or would result in any additional appropriation of taxpayer funds being contractually owed to FLOC. Referencing section six, term and termination of the government agency agreement.

Point of order. Resolution's on the table. This is the one we're supposed to be discussing.

This resolution shall be considered.

Whatever this is is not what's on the table. And it's not appropriate to be discussed at this time.

Thank you, Kurt. I'm asking if this language can be included. If this can be included.

He didn't get a second for his amendment.

I'm not offering an amendment. I'm asking kindly if you both would be willing to add this language, which I'm just trying to read, and y'all are so scared to let me finish. that this resolution shall be considered null and void non-binding. And in this case, the city manager or his designee shall immediately defer to the previous direction city council gave on September 3rd, 2026. All it is is a protection that if somehow Mr. Mischens is wrong, the city will just revert back to what we passed on Thursday. And this all expires early April, April, what was it? Sixth? Say it again.

April 6th, 2027.

April 6th, 2027. That's all I'm asking. So please continue to cut me off. Continue to say whatever you want. I'm asking respectfully if you can add this to the resolution, I'll vote for it.

Point of order is still being requested. What is your quote? My point of order is that this is the resolution we're dealing on. He's amending. He's substituting. I don't know what he's doing. I'm asking for courtesy. He doesn't. I don't know what a courtesy is. Is this a resolution? I'll tell you what it isn't. It isn't the resolution that's on the table. This is what we're supposed to be discussing. Jermaine isn't the issue, Mr. Mayor.

What is the issue is that he doesn't have a second for this, and we haven't had time.

Can I ask the chief a question? I really wanted to ask the chief a question.

The hour's getting late.

Mr. Chief, can you come back for a second, please?

Okay.

There's only one motion on the table. Nothing else should be being talked about. Thank you, Chief. I apologize. I tried to get you before you sat down. I do appreciate what you had to say, and I respect the men and women, and I respect the work they do, and I think they do superior work, and I want to give them the tools that they need to do the job as effectively as possible. My question is to you, what date are you going to take those cameras down?

I'll defer to the city attorney on the actual date.

That's fine, Mr. City Attorney. Based on what passed Thursday night, what date was in there that we're taking the system down and pulling it down?

April 6, 2027 would be the date that everything is terminated and effective. That's when it would all come down in my understanding.

Thank you, Chief. I will just submit this one last time. This is the motion that's on the table. This is the one we're supposed to be discussing, not this. Let me finish what I'm saying here, please. This has a date. This resolution that's on the table we're supposed to be discussing has a date of September 12th, no later than September 12th, the city manager or his designee shall replace the licensing agreement within 30 days of the notice. So you know what the 30 days is? Here's the date, folks. This is what we've been looking for that's been sorely missing from the meeting the other night. I'm going to give you the date, October 12th. 2026, as opposed to, what was the date you gave? April 6th. October 12th, 2026. That's the day it has to be down. They can do it earlier, but we've got a date. You know, if we're really against this, this isn't just a disingenuous way to delay and obfuscate and create chaos, which is sort of an MO for certain people. And let's do it. Let's get it done tonight. Let's do the job. Because slandering a member, a citizen of Lynchburg who's sitting in our audience isn't getting it done. Isn't getting it done. It's not getting us a refund. to delay and to stick with the old loophole current resolution. That doesn't get it done. It doesn't get us the loopholes closed. I'm going by the city attorney's original advice, no matter what he's saying now, that he said we could close this licensing agreement anytime we wanted to. And within 30 days, it's done. And the contract falls and falls flat immediately once we do this. This actually gets the job done. I'm a CIO. I know when an IT tech agreement ends. And if you say within 30 days a city manager shall do this after September 12th, we're giving you a date. a serious date, and it's a real date, and it happens, and we can get it done tonight. So I would hope my colleagues would vote on policy, not on personality, not on slanderous comments about our citizens, not on whether or not an attorney's name has been released. I hope they vote for it because it's good policy. It's got a date. It does good things. It closes the loopholes, and it gets us the refund. So here's your chance to do that. I hope they will LEGITIMATELY CONSIDER IT.

I JUST WANT TO GO ON AND MAKE SURE I'M ON RECORD. I WANT TO THANK THE CHIEF FOR HIS COMMENTS. I HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF FLOCK. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS THAT I STATED ON THURSDAY NIGHT. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHY I VOTED WITH THE COUNCIL TO DO THAT. HOWEVER, I DO HEAR THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN MY AREA I represent. It's just other people in general who, if you had a child shot or murdered or a child kidnapped or a child snatched or a child missing, they need every resource possible to find that child, to solve that crime, whatever the case may be, whatever resource they may have at their disposal. I am in support of that. So I'm going to make sure I'm on record for that. I do understand the concerns of citizens about security and about breach and all those kind of things. But again, If you've never had a child killed or a murder happen in your family, it's a difference in understanding that. So you have a different path. Like the young man, Kingston, I want to mention his name. I'm sorry, because I don't have French permission. But for the young child that was six years old that was killed in his home, you know, if we had more resources, maybe we could have found that murder. And here it is several years later. We still don't have the people that did that. Can you imagine if you're in that mother's shoes, how you would feel like if it takes this camera, that camera, I would want that at my disposal. So I do understand that. It seems like I'm going to say this. I'm closing. I'm going to get a tag. but it seemed like there's been a re usually we're the people that support our police and have trust in our police and things of that nature. But something has happened in our community and we got to ask ourselves what has flipped. After January the 6th, what has flipped in our country that we want to attack the police officers now. And we were the people that protect our police and love our police and protect the blue lives matter. And they're the ones we protect. But now, somehow, our community has flipped. And we got to look in the mirror and ask ourselves, what has caused us to flip? Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Wilder, for that. And I agree with the fact that we need to support our police officers doing the bravest and the hardest job running towards the danger when everybody else is running away. And so we've listened to our citizens and the concerns of that have risen the last six months. And obviously we have to pay attention and listen to those, but that is not with any disregard for the importance of your jobs and what you guys need to do and the hard job that you do to keep us safe. And we're so thankful. And I hope that y'all do not take this as a slight to you or chief, your ability or all the leaders within your departments. It's just a circumstance we have to address and listen to. And we appreciate all you do.

I would like clarification.

It's been said there's a substitute motion to adopt what has been proposed. If that passes, we will then vote on the merits of that resolution. Is that the case? Okay. I've said it twice before. I won't read it again. I'll vote for it if we add this language here. If not, Mayor, I won't speak to the resolution upright if it passes and becomes the main motion. Here's for the record, three main points. Number one, all we heard last week was that there was less than 25 hours to review the proposal to terminate FLOC. This was given less than 15 minutes. Outside legal counsel's being cited, and making decisions about how the city's gonna be governed. And when we're asking just who is that attorney, total anonymity, anonymity, not disclosed whatsoever. And we wanna talk about transparency? And then finally, finally, multiple requests to insert language. that just says if this somehow is wrong, we're gonna make sure the taxpayers aren't on the hook for another $35,000 of legal fees, of termination fees, of court battles. That won't be obliged, known as a courtesy. That's why I'll be voting no. And I would like to point out in conclusion that all this will transpire before October 25th. So when it's found out that Flock is coming with their billion dollar corporation for these fees, and you, the taxpayers have to fork that cash over, it's a week from election day. Keep it in mind.

I'm actually, So just to be clear, what you provided is not the resolution that's on the table right now. So this number two, and there was no second on that amendment, Mr. Feroldi. But I am agreeable to some kind of language if you want to insert some kind of language in there that would simply require a response from FLOCC if they will abide by the license agreement revocation, because we're not canceling the services contract. So there's no threat of the termination for convenience fee. That doesn't live in the licensing agreement. So there's no termination for convenience fee in the licensing agreement.

service agreement is exhibit A. Incorporated into the license agreement. So it is part of it.

And the license agreement says excuse me, the service agreement that's incorporated as exhibit A says, however, the above described license agreement between the parties will prevail over all other documents, agreements, et cetera, in the event a conflict exists. So that's what the services agreement says. So the services agreement concedes. So you're missing.

A court could find if it's argued that it is in fact harmonious. So they got, yes. That is the argument the city would make if we terminated it. But it's not as definitive as you're making it sound. That's the only point I want to make for council.

Terminating the license agreement. If we terminate the license agreement and don't touch the service agreement, does FLOC have permission to keep their facilities up after 30 or 60 days in the city of Lynchburg?

You can't do one versus the other. because the service agreement lives and only exists because council has permitted their facilities to remain in the right of way. So there is, if you cancel the license agreement, that is going to cause the cancellation of the service agreement as well.

I mean, only if you say so. If FLOC cancels the service agreement because we've canceled the license agreement, I mean, it doesn't automatically self-execute the cancellation.

It's... it would be an impossibility for them to offer their services. And they are going, I don't want to speak for Flock, but if I was Flock's attorney, okay, I would argue that we caused the cancellation of their servants agreement.

Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this since we're having this conversation here publicly, which is nice. Why don't we terminate for convenience right now today? And then they're going to owe us $35,000. That's what it says in the services agreement.

Because the city doesn't want to incur those fees. No.

The refund. Are we surrendering and forfeiting the prorated refund for services?

So I would probably defer to the police chief on whether or not there's a refund. I understand. And again, I mean.

I don't think we need to defer to engage at flocksafety.com on any advice about whether or not they're going to give us a refund. I think that we need to defer to the agreement that says, the Flock Group Incorporated Services Agreement, says it plain as day.

This has gone on long enough. Right here.

No, this is important, Mr. Mayor.

We will vote on the substitute motion. And it says it right here that... Termination for convenience.

Upon termination for convenience, a refund will be provided for flock hardware prorated for any fees remaining in the term link set forth previously. 6.2. It's right at the bottom.

Substitute motion to pass this resolution, which I do not have a copy of.

We gave one to the attorney right next to you.

I do need a copy from my record. Okay.

There you go. You just handed it to me.

The motion fails, two for with one absent.

So now my motion becomes the main motion. The original motion. The original motion. Let me take a look at this.

Let's vote on the main motion.

Well, we've got to debate the main motion. We debated it. No, actually we haven't.

The main motion now is off Councilman Misgen's option two. I'm just seeing that vote now.

No debate.

And this one is to, just to be clear, this is to cancel the license, to terminate the license agreement. Because it says, termination of the city's existing contractual relationship with FLOC in accordance with the requirements of the certain revocable license agreement. Okay, got it. That's been rolled. No, number one is still my clause. This fails. Block A never coming down.

Motion fails, two forward, one absent.

Meeting adjourned.

you