City Council - Regular Meeting

Honey, hey. Happy new

La. Oh la. La. Oh, here we go. Oh, I know. La.

Daddy. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. N. praise the Lord everyone. Welcome to our May 12th city council meeting. Please stand for invitation from Dr. Ferrari.

Mr. Ferrari. All right. I followed by I have debt but not that much. Followed by the pledge of allegiance. If you'll take a brief moment of silence and then join me in a word of prayer. Lord, I thank you for this opportunity to serve to be a part of this city. Please bless this meeting and help us lead your people. Jesus name. Amen. 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. Amen.

Madame Clerk.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Uh always love starting these meetings out with recognitions and tonight we've got a great one. It's treatment court month proclamation. Um, Taylor Jones, program director, is intended to accept. I'll go ahead and read it. Whereas treatment courts are the most successful justice system intervention in our nation's history for reducing crime by addressing substance abuse and mental health disorders. And whereas treatment courts save taxpayers an average of 19,000 uh dollars for every individual in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And whereas treatment courts provide a range of economic benefits to a community, such as reduced costs in court and prison expendit expenditures, increase tax revenues, lowered foster care expenses, and decrease costs related to victimization. And whereas treatment courts combine accountability with evidence-based treatment, and whereas treatment courts annually refer more than 150,000 people to life-saving treatment and recovery support services. And whereas treatment courts significantly improve substance abuse and mental health disorder treatment outcomes. and prevent fatal overdoses. And whereas treatment courts facilitate communitywide partnerships bringing together public safety and public health. And whereas there are now more than 4,000 treatment courts nationwide. And whereas since its inception, the Lynchburg Adult Recovery Court has served over 100 individuals, having had 33 participants graduate from the program. And whereas treatment courts demonstrate that when one person rises, we all rise. Now therefore, he, Larry Taylor, mayor of the city of Lynburg, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as treatment cord month in Lynburg and ask all citizens to join him in supporting individuals on their journey to recovery. Um, I'd just like to say thank you, Mayor Taylor and city council for uh proclaiming May to be uh treatment court

month in the city of Lynchburg. Uh, the Lynchburg Adult Recovery Court is very grateful for supporting our program. So, thank you. Okay, 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. The 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 group speakers must say which group they represent. Each group gets one spokesperson. Each speaker must say their name and their locality of residents. After public comments, a public hearing will close and the matter will rest with council. Agenda item number two, consideration of adopting an ordinance changing the zoning of a certain area located at 205 Graves Mill Road. Miss Rachel Fresh Eyes and City Planner will provide a summary of the request.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of council. Uh, the purpose of this petition is to reszone a portion of 205 Graves Mill Road to allow the use of the building as an office facility that is not associated with an industrial use. Planning Commission recommended approval of this item at their public hearing on March 25th. Our future land use map recommends employment one use for the property. These are intended for small or large scale office research and development like manufacturing uses. Uh restaurant, light retail, business service uses like a coffee shop or computer sales can also support uh larger industrial and office users uh in these employment one areas. The existing I2 light industrial district uh was established in 1978. In this district office uses must be related to an industrial use taking place on the site. The owner would like to lease this portion of the property to a non-industrial tenant, which is why they have proposed this resoning. Uh 205 Graves Road is about 1.76 acres total. The portion of the property proposed for the resoning is about a third of an acre and is shown here on the slide in red. Um the property contains another uh a structure which was originally constructed as a residential home but was later converted to office use associated with the adjacent Belvac uh machinery facility. Uh the former home now office is approximately 1,800 square ft in size. The remainder of the property contains another structure which is about 4200 square ft and is currently used for industrial purposes by Belvac. This portion of the site which is shown in purple would remain I2 light industrial. If approved, the ex existing building would be uh proposed for use as a standalone office unrelated to the industrial use. There are no proposed exterior modifications at this time. Uh and the structure is served by its own entrance and parking area. Uh this would be permitted in the proposed B3 district and would agree with the future land use map designation should

have uh limited impact on the area. Thank you. Would the petitioner like to make presentation? Is the petitioner here?

You would? No. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this project? Are there any voicemails? There are none. Thank you. Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion? So move. Second, Mr. Fer approval.

We have a second. We have a second. Okay. Cuz he was first. Somebody jumped on it. Okay. I have a second. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Let's vote, please.

Initiating a vote now. The motion passes. It is 70. It's showing 70. Um, all in favor on my side. There it is. Okay. All right. Moving along to agenda item number three. Consideration of adopting a resolution approving a conditional use permit allowing Liberty University housing at 3839 Murray Place and 3436 Oddfellows Road. Again, Miss Rachel Freshen, city planner, provides a summary of the request.

Again, mayor, vice mayor, members of council. The purpose of this cup is to allow for two new units for resident director housing and the continued use of the former hotel structure as a dormatory in a B5 general business district. Planning commission recommended approval of this item after their public hearing on April 8th. Our future land use map recommends mixed use and conservation uses for the area. Uh the dormatory housing would be in the mixeduse area which is the hatched or striped portion of the map. These areas are intended to be developed with a balanced mix of residential, commercial, civic uses and open space. The subject properties were annexed into the city in 1978 uh sorry 1940. Um the property is split zoned. The existing zoning was established in 1978. The portion of the properties where the dwellings and the dormatory would be located is in the B5 district which is the brown portion. Uh in this district, schools, colleges, and dormitories are permitted on approval of a conditional use permit from council.

The subject properties are approximately 10.77 acres at 3839 Murray Place and 3436 Oddfillers Road. The facility was originally constructed as a hotel and it contains four existing buildings with a total of 260 units and 500 student beds. property has been used as student housing for quite some time now. Although city staff nor the petitioner could find actual documentation or approval of the facility as a dor dormatory. So the continued use of the facility as a dorm is included in this petition for the two additional units to formalize that approval. Uh the two new units would be for resident directors which are professional live-in staff who oversee the dormitories. Uh, in summary, the construction of the two new resident director housing units and the continued use of the former hotel as a dorm should have limited impact on the surrounding area.

Thank you. Thank you. Would a petitioner like to make a presentation?

Yes. My name is Dan Deer. I'm with Liberty University representing the petitioner. And I was going to make a presentation, but Rachel did a great job. I don't think she really left anything out. I think, you know, having the RDS at the facility um will help overall the the student life and the security and the the the pastoral, you know, access a lot easier and faster. And, you know, it's been on our to-do list for a couple years now, and we want to try to get it done this summer. So, um we're asking the city to allow us to do that and to kind of to to to back up the records on the existing building, get that totally, you know, certified. It was it was kind of like Rachel said, it was kind of discovered. We were trying to do the right thing and we realized there was kind of a gap in the paperwork. So, we just want to get the paperwork closed on the existing and then ask for the the variance on the or the conditional use permit on the new property. So, other than that, Rachel did a great job. So, happy to answer questions if anybody has any.

Thank you. Yep. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this? Anyone want to speak in opposition? Are there any voicemails? There are none. There's none. Okay. Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion? Mr. Fer second.

Second. Second. Any discussion? Get after it. Mr. Dean, uh, I'm very glad that this is happening. I think it's a good use of the building. I'm glad we're getting it all the paperwork straight. Uh, uh, Liberty University, uh, long before I was a freshman there in 1988. Uh, my next door neighbor and I used to sneak into the pool over there. So, I go back with that building and that pool for quite a long time. But, uh, I hope the students will enjoy it as much as I did. Anyone else? Okay.

Initiating the vote now for vote. Motion passes 70. Agenda item number four. One second. Okay. Consideration of introducing an ordinance appro approving the FY2026 third quarter adjustments. Miss Donna Wit, chief financial officer, will provide a summary of the request.

Thank you. And this item was brought to the finance committee um at the end of April. Um this is something that staff brings forward um every year as part of our financial policies to make adjustments to the budget um based on anything that's happened during the year. So um oh I do have a clicker. So we're um you have a detailed um description of every all the changes in attachment A of your agenda summary but um they're really um to appropriate additional dedicated revenues in the general fund. We true up grants and then we appropriate different um and additional revenues and resend other amounts. It's basically a cleanup. So your third quarter is really a cleanup. The one item to note is we are utilizing $628,50 of the reserve for contingency and those are to um help juvenile services. They've had some additional shift coverage they've had to do out of their overtime and need some additional funds. Um special events. This is cleanup in our grant fund for our special events. There's $500,000. This is to replenish the risk management fund. So, it's a transfer from the general fund to the riskmanagement fund. And then also in social services, um there's some additional revenue with a local match of $145. And then also um a use of $12,579 for um additional funds we had. That's also a local match. Mhm.

Happy to ask answer any questions after the public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? Miss Alicia, is there any voicemails? There are none. Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion? Did you Who did that? Salute. So move. Yes, ma'am. Miss Reed, do we have a second? Second. Is there any discussion? Cast your votes, please. Yeah, there's discussion.

You had your hand up. Yeah, hands up. Yes, sir. Mr. Dema. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I got just a real quick question. I know you're uh short time and almost gone, so this question uh may not impact you much, but the rest of us are going to be here after uh after we start missing you. And my question is this sort of transfer uh is this sustainable long term long term? Can we keep doing this? Which one? Uh just the whole way we pull out of the the reserve like this it seems to be a reg I'm I'm new here as I've been pointed out. Um, but is this can we keep doing this forever or are we we going to run out of money at some point? That's all it is.

Well, we replenish in the budget the reserve for contingency to $1.2 million. So, um, generally the third quarter we use that those funds to true up if we do need additional expenses that we need to pay for. So, the answer is yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. What's the missions? Thank you. I've got one more question for you, Donna. If uh so so looking at this a big portion of what I see here is is the from the general funds is obviously this transfer to the medical insurance fund. So that's looks like 3.2 million. Is that right?

That's correct. There's a um this is a reserve that currently sits on in the general fund. Um, and we have that so that if we have a bad claims year, we have some funds to go to. And we're just simply transferring that to our new medical um, fund that we're creating in the 27 budget. That's kind of what I was getting at because when you look at it, that would seem pretty substantial to have a $4.5 million transfer from the general fund. But I just wanted to point out that 3.2 2 million of that is really just moving a reserve to a new reserve in a new fund. Yeah, correct.

And and I think for for clarity purposes for for that to be understood that it's not just 4.5 million in general fund expenditures that are that are new. It's it's just a move so to speak, just transferring it to a different fund. So that's that's the reserve for the new medical insurance fund is what that's becoming. Is that correct? And then that's correct. It won't be spent. It's not projected to be spent or proposed to be spent out of that fund. It's but it's simply there um going into that fund for the same reason. Should we have a bad claims year need additional funds that would go back to council to be able to dip into that reserve.

Excellent. And then the reser and then the the revenue source for that will be from payroll deductions and employer and employee contributions and the employee. Got it. That's all I had. Thank you.

Anyone else? Let's vote, please. Initiating a vote now for approval. The motion passes. 52. Agenda item number five, consideration of introducing an ordinance authorizing the sale and disposable disposal of 805 Court Street. Miss Margett Upure, director of economic development tourism provides a summary of the request. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, members of council. The item before you tonight is a public hearing in consideration of an ordinance authorizing the sale of city-owned property located at 805 Court Street, the former Lynchburg Police Department headquarters. The property consists of 610 of an acre improved with a 21,868 square foot historic structure. Originally constructed in 1900 as First Presbyterian Church. The building served as the Lynchberg Police Department headquarters from 1997 until 2025. Council has previously been briefed on the status of this property and a potential redevelopment opportunity. In 2024, the Office of Economic Development commissioned a comprehensive facilities condition assessment to evaluate the structures condition and long-term viability. The assessment concluded that more than $9 million in capital investment would

likely be required to stabilize and rehabilitate the building for continued occupancy. Following the issuance of a request for proposals, the city received one qualified proposal from FY Properties LLC to redevelop the property into a class A office building utilizing state and federal historic tax credits. The proposed agreement provides for a $500,000 purchase price, including a $400,000 rehabilitation credit applied to at closing to address documented deferred maintenance and redevelopment challenges associated with adapting the historic structure for modern office use. The exciting fact here is that the purchaser anticipates developing more I mean investing more than 9.5 million in private capital for a potential existing company expansion that could add approximately 80 technology sector jobs. This project represents a strategic redevelopment and risk transfer opportunity for the city by transferring substantial rehabilitation responsibility to the private sector, preserving an important historic downtown asset and returning the property to productive tax generating use. The developer is present this evening and also available to answer any questions council may have regarding the redevelopment concept and investment plans. This item went to PDC today. Thank you.

Thank you. Will the development like make a presentation? Um explain everything very well. If you got any questions, I'm happy.

Anyone here to speak in favor of this project? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? No. Miss Alicia, are there any voicemails? There are none. Public hearing is now closed. May I have a motion? Second. Second. you want to speak?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As mentioned, this item came before PDC today, and while we did not take a vote because of the nature of the public hearing, I'm pretty confident it would have passed unanimously in our meeting. We're excited about the project, excited about the historical nature, um, and keeping that integrity with the building, and um, I'm excited to vote in favor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr.

Dma, thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is one of the most beautiful buildings in Lynchburg. No doubt. As a photographer, I love shooting inside and outside that building. If you haven't seen it, go see it. The fact that this developer is willing to put his own skin in the game to keep it beautiful and restore it for another generation to enjoy as a true uh benefit to our our beautiful city. So, thank you for that, Dr. Wilder.

Yes, sir. I'm glad to see this pro project being developed. It's a beautiful structure. I love old churches. um the the stained glass windows, the the interior of the church. I've been there for services many years ago with Higher Heights. Um it's an amazing facility. I'm just glad to see the developer investing in our community and making downtown even a better place to live, work, and play. So, thank you to the developers for doing that. Appreciate it, Miss Reed.

Likewise. I think it's going to be um so thankful for we're saving it and salvaging it to be reused, I think, in a really creative way. I'm very excited to see how it's going to become uh a corporate space. So that's really cool to to see it reimagined. So um it's wonderful to be able to take our historical um buildings and reuse them. So thank you. Anyone else? Let's vote, please.

Initiating the vote for approval now. motion passes 70. All right, the next section is public comment. Um, before I go through all of this, I do have um two um citizens who have requested to speak. That's Dante Woodbury and Mitch Richards. if you all would be open to adding them to the end of public comment. I am seeing consensus. Thank you.

All right. So, public comment speakers have three minutes to speak. If you're speaking for a group, you have five. City council listens to your comments and may ask the city manager to follow up. Citizens often express differing opinions to make sure everyone feels comfortable speaking. There's no applause, cheers, or jeers. Do not intimidate, insult, or disrupt others. Do not use profanity, promote businesses, or campaign for office. Agenda item number six, hear from a group representative regarding opening the gyms this summer and update on methane gas level in Darington precinct war two. Robert Flood rescues of the youth hoop city. Please restate your name. Group represented locality residents. hold my time. been down here in a while, but hopefully first of all, I'd like to thank uh Lynchburg City uh council giving me opportunity to speak again about a couple subjects I'd like to speak about. One is um I know I didn't spoke about it and everybody won't hear the time I spoke about it uh about ICE 287g. I think Marty and vice president would love to see ICE here, but this is not a big city. This a small town and we try to get along with each other. Black, white, wherever you from. And we know ICE go after people look like me and brown people, not people look like you, Marty. So, I just want to put that out there.

The other thing I want to speak about is opening the gyms for the kids. We don't need no task force to open up the gym for these kids during the summertime. We had a very successful about a couple years ago when we done midnight basketball. We started out with 60 kids and aboutund something people spectators and it went well. The next Friday we had about 70 or 75 Then the next Friday we had 120. Them the kids that weren't out in the street, they was in the gym having fun. The only thing that we missed, we didn't have tables sit up where we can talk to them about different things, counseling, mental health, drugs, whatever. They just played ball and had fun. This time around, I hope that we can have tables set up if we choose to do it again and to open the gyms during the summertime for these young people. We don't need no task force to open no gyms. I know enough people that were volunteered to open the gyms because people respect them. So, I hope we look into that. Third thing, I don't know if y'all talked about Miss Payne, Miss Mur Payne, honoring her, but I think that, you know, something we need to talk about because she definitely need to be honored. Fourth thing, I'm going a little fast here. the methon gas in Darlington. I think it's about time for y'all, city council and city manager to have another meeting over there. Last meeting y'all had I think was 2014 talking about the methon gas and them some people don't even know gas under there. So I hope you know y'all can do that. And the last thing Ward two I've been talking about this for two three years maybe. We need a precinct

in war two for them elder people when they come out during the summertime they can sit on the porch and they can relax. They ain't got to worry about a lot of crazy stuff. And I ain't had no kind of feedback. I think we talked about a little bit but we need a precinct in war two. We moved from N street a street way out there. what happened when elder people live in war. And by the way, Sterling, I ain't here you mention nothing about a precinct and I've been talking about two and a half years. That's your ward them your people that you supposed to be taking care of. It's time for you to do that as well. Other than that, I pray and hope y'all get it together. Thank you.

Thank you. Agenda item number seven. One second. Hear from a group representative regarding I'm done. Greg Barry, Lynchburg Guardians. Please restate your name. Group represented locality of residents.

Good evening, Mayor Taylor, Vice Mayor Demer, and council members. My name is Greg Barry. I live and mour three and I represent the Lynchberg guardians. To God and his son Jesus Christ be all praise, honor and glory. In Revelations 3 verse 19, Jesus said, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasen. Be zealous therefore and repent." Over the last 18 months, it has been my intention to encourage city council to work together and more importantly seek God's direction in handling the business of our great city. I have implored you all to put aside your differences and in the spirit of Christ love one another. I had great hopes that all of you would recognize that God has a mission for you to restore Lynchburg and to provide hope for our citizens. City council has failed. We have allowed personalities and egos to take center stage rather than the needs of our city. Mayor Taylor, I had high hopes for you in particular because I believe that you would invoke the spirit of the Lord and follow his direction and recognize that you were given this position to serve his purposes. But somewhere along the line, you have been distracted. What happened? I know that there are many who have come to you in the spirit of love to give you guidance and godly wisdom, but you have refused. This is indeed puzzling to me and many others who love you and hope to for better for you and our city. As a result of your stiff neck refusal to follow what I believe to be godly principles, I have sent you texts, emails, and even certified mail clearly expressing my intentions to resign as your campaign treasurer. But you have refused to respond and have returned to

certified mail. This was confusing to me that you would refuse to communicate with me until I realized that others such as Chris Faraldi are filling that position while leaving me with the title and therefore the liabilities associated with that position. This goes a long ways towards explaining why you have been bowing to his wishes and even permitting his aberrant childish behavior here at council meetings. It is therefore necessary for me to make this announcement publicly that I am no longer your campaign treasurer and I am returning to you all related materials which I've already given you. I also wanted to respectfully to urge you to oppose any changes to the city's recently adopted abortion clinic zoning ordinance. Please keep the ordinance as it is. I was grateful to see Lynchberg take a strong stand for pro protection of life earlier this year. That ordinance was carefully written with legal guidance to ensure it would be both effective and le legally defensible. The language excluding family planning services was intentionally designed to strengthen the ordinance against potential legal challenges. Removing that language now risk weakening an ordinance that many citizens supported after thoughtful debate and prayerful consideration. I believe the city should re pre preserve the ordinance as written, follow the guidance already provided to council and avoid ex exposing Lynchberg taxpayers to an unnecessary legal cost and litigation. For many of us, the issue is deeply moral and spiritual. We

believe that every human life is created by God with inherent dignity, value, and purpose. I hope Lynburg will continue to stand firmly and wisely for the protection of the unborn while ensuring that our policies remain strong, responsible, and legally sound. Mayor Taylor, you did the right thing once before. I pray that you do it once again and vote against this change. Thank you.

All right. All right. I am not on the agenda here from a citizen. I need to say something. That's not No, let's keep going. It's related to the comments and I'm going to make a point of order that his comments were out of order, slanderous, and false and should be scrubbed from the record. Mayor, his comments are out of order. Can we No, they're not. It's a point of order. You can't cut me off. All right. It's a falsehood and should be scrubbed from the record, and I believe them to be slanderous. You're not supposed to interact with people. Stop. I'm not interacting with anybody, Kirk. I'm talking to the mayor. Your attitude. Don't Don't citizens, Mr. Mayor. Yes. He's not supposed to be responding to them. And you're not supposed to be talking. You're supposed to be silent up here. That's the rule.

We need to follow. We'll talk about it later. Okay. Am Mr. Mayor, am I your am I acting in any capacity as your treasurer? Mr. Mayor? No, you're not. I said we'll talk about it later. This is inappropriate, Mr. Mayor. Okay, Mr. Alicia. All right. Uh, item not on the agenda, hear from a citizen regarding a matter, Dante Woodbury. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Dante Woodbury. Um, I'm a resident uh between uh I just moved out of Lynchburg. I own two properties here in Lynchburg City and I live in Appamatics County. Now, um, I recently had an interaction with one of the city council members. Um, I just want to remind the city council that 21.5% of your voting base are black residents. So when you take lightly our voices and mock them, how do you want that 21.5 Can you speak into the mic, please?

How do you want that 21.5% to feel? I am a black conservative Republican. Even as a black conservative Republican, my numbers will be diminished. And when you make fun of my voice, you make fun of the sacrifice that that voice came from. The sacrifices of my father, my grandfather, my aunts, my uncles, who all have served in the United States Army. So have I. I am a 90% disabled veteran. You mocked my intelligence. You mocked my service. And you thought I wanted to commit genocide against all these white people because I'm angry against evil. I don't like evil. I fight against evil. That's why I joined the military. And if you don't know who I am, I'm going to let you know. I'm a 46 year old black man who gave everything from the year 1999 to 2005 to the United States Army and walked away with one loan. I bled for this country. So when you mock my voice and my people's voice, you mock the sacrifices we also made and make daily for this country. I'm not a racist. I take care of a 48-year-old white man every day. I wash him. I feed him. I clothe him because he's disabled. That doesn't mean that I'm going to stand and watch evil and not say a word. I don't care what party you are a part of. I don't care if you're black or white. Evil is evil. And if no man stands up against it, then it will have its way with all of us. Thank you, council members.

Thank you. All right. Item not on the agenda here from a citizen regarding a matter. Mitch Richards. Please restate your name and locality of residence.

My name is Mitch. Richards. First off, I just want to thank you all because I'm not on the um I'm not on the agenda. Um also, I never probably since um high school um since I spoke at my graduation do I write anything. So, I'm just asking that y'all bear with me. All right. Good evening. Tonight I stand here not just as a black man, not just as an organizer, not just as a citizen of the city, but as someone who understands history and understands what happens when history is ignored. Because what we are witnessing right now is nothing new. This country has a pattern. After slavery ended, black Americans began building political power during reconstruction. Black men were elected office. Um, communities were organized, families begin to build, and then backlash, something we used to. District lines were manipulated, voting rights were attacked, black voices were suppressed through intimidation, violence, and laws specifically designed to weaken our political influence. Then came Plegacy versus Ferguson which legalized segregation. Then came pole taxes, literacy test, um red lining, housing discrimination, and generations of policies meant to keep black community communities politically and economically weak. And eventually through blood, sacrifice, organization, and resistance, the nation passed the Voting Act of 1965 because Americans finally acknowledged what black people had been saying for generations. Democracy means nothing if people can't manipulate the system to silence certain communities. And now here we are again.

Representation matters in our schools. Representation matters in housing. Representation matters in police and economic development in the future of our neighborhoods. And representation matters even more when prejudice still exist. In a in a federal appear appellent court opinion involving Councilman Marty, the court described connected to him as transparently bigoted. Not controversial, not misunderstood, but transparently bigoted. Those are the court's words, not mine. I didn't come up with this out of my pocket. The opinion referenced remarks involving black people, Asian-Americans, transgenders, LGBTQ community members, and at the end of the day, it does not represent who we are as a community. So, if we are going to sit here and be truthful about what's going on in Lynchburg, we need to listen to everybody's voice because we going to speak and we going to get louder.

Thank you, sir. Peace. All right. The next section is general business business. Includes new items for discussion. Agenda item number eight, consideration of adopting an ordinance ratifying the sale and disposal of 1505 and 1517 Jackson Street. This item was discussed during a PDC meeting earlier today. I defer to the chair of that committee, Miss Timber.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, yes. So, we voted on this. We voted unanimously for it. Then it came forward in a consent agenda. There was a split vote on the consent consent agenda. Legally, this needs to pass with a 3-4s majority, I believe. And so tonight it just gives us the opportunity to go ahead and ratify that and reaffirm that so that it meets legal muster. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Oh, and I I'll move for um approval. Second. Second. Any discussion? Let's vote, please. All right. Initiating the vote for approval now.

I'm not seeing it. I'm sorry. All right, the motion passes 70. Agenda item number nine, consideration of adopting a resolution endorsing the proposed VOTE smart scale applications for FY2028. This item again was discussed during PDC committee uh meeting earlier today. Moreover,

thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, this is essentially us applying for the state funds when it comes to smart scale. Two of those projects would go to the statewide pool for application. One of those projects would go to the regional pool for application. And um I'm very hopeful that we'll have high success, good work on this project. I move for approval. Can I vote, please? Second. Oh. Oh, yeah. It would pass PDC unanimously. Yes, sir. Excuse me.

All right. Initiating the vote for approval now. Motion passes 70. Right. Agenda item number 10. First reading of the adoption of the FY2027 budget. This is split up between um several different resolutions. The first is consideration of adopting an ordinance increasing the water and storm water rates. No presentation. Just looking for a motion.

Have a motion, please. one of us. So move second. Let us show.

All right. Initiating the mode for approval now. The motion fails. 34. Just record that really quick. All right. Moving along to subsection B. Consideration of introducing an ordinance appropriating the FY2027 general fund operating budget excluding discretionary external service providers and schools operating budget. Again, just looking for a motion.

Have a motion, please. Do we have a second? Oh, get a motion. That's your second. No, I'm trying to be acknowledged to make a motion, but Well, I saw Ferrari first, then I saw you. So you can either second it or I I don't second it. I have a proposed amendment consistent with the work session. I'm moving for approval. Second,

speak to your speak to your motion. I'll speak at the second reading. Thank you, Miss Reed. M. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I offer amendment to the resolution and that would be what I put forward in our single work session that had to do with this budget process that we move 1.2 million of one-time funding into the school budget to cover the requested items that have to do with special education, alternate education, and nutrition. Uh, I'm open to where that money is pulled from. I have various options, but I believe that we should go ahead and acknowledge that request from the schools and fund those items. Point of order.

Point of order is that was not properly presented at a work session for independent review and therefore is not properly before us. Like to second properly before us, Miss Tim. Well, you can rule on the point of order, but I'd be more than happy to address that. That is and you presented a point of order to Well, you have to rule on the point of order. Yes. Yes. I want clarity on his point of order. My point of order is that according to our rules of procedure, you have to request something be placed on a work session to be reviewed and then voted on. This was mentioned at a work session and not independently reviewed at a work session. So therefore, it is not properly before us.

Point clarification, Mr. Mayor. Yes, this is a motion to adopt a budget. This is the time where we would amend or those things. If we want to change something in the budget, this is this is the only time that we get an opportunity to change the budget. So, the clarification I'm seeking is are we actually debating and adopting a budget or are we rubber stamping whatever staff tells us to do? That's my question for you. I'm just seeking clarification on this. will not

then we should be able to debate and amend the budget just like we did last year because that's how we got public safety fully funded last year was by debating and amending the budget. There were four of us right here that fully funded public safety, the police department, the fire department, EMS because we debated and amended the budget and our police department, our fire department, and our dispatchers received the benefit of that. And if we're taking away the ability for us to debate and deliberate one of the most sacred things we do, which is spend the taxpayers money,

then then then we have surrendered all authority. So I've made my point. M. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor, you got a rule on this point of order before we continue delivering the debate. Mr. is correct. No, he's not. Appeal. Appeal. He didn't even state that this this was this did not come to work session. Mr. Mayor, the budget came to work session. There's been no opportunity to vote on any other element of the budget. We haven't had the opportunity to actually debate the budget to negotiate whether

they don't like where this went, but they can appeal and then we vote. We don't have to make it a a snob sesh. Just move to the next thing. We vote on it. We move on. Freriedman. Yes, sir. So, you ruled on the point of order, you know, and and certainly council members have the right to call for an appeal of that ruling. And really, I I think the matter goes straight to an appeal, you know, to allow uh members to vote if they agree with your ruling or if they uh disagree with your ruling. So, I think council could have the opportunity to vote yes, they agree with your their ruling or no, they don't agree with your ruling. Discuss. I don't think appeals permit discussion. So I think it goes straight to

I don't remember. I I think it goes straight to appeal. Mr. Mayor must approve of speaking. Yeah. I don't remember. Point of clarification.

Yes. So So I'm trying to understand if we're actually are we working for the citizens or are we working for the staff? Because if we're working for the citizens, we debate spending their money. If we're working for the staff, we just rubber stamp whatever staff tells us to rubber stamp. We've had one budget work session. We had a budget retreat in April instead of January. Um, this has all the all the earmarks of a of a budget process that is completely driven by staff, ignoring the will of the people through the people that they elect to represent them. If you are completely shutting down debate on a budget, Mr.

I'm I'm not shutting down. You are if you rule in the point of order that she that she can't make an amendment. We have a right to two amendments in the rules of procedure in in in in the process of a motion. We have a right to amend it. You can't take that away. We have a right to two amendments or a substitute motion. And that is what the rules of procedure say.

Now, I I understand that you often look to Mr. Faldi for guidance, which is a shame. And I I just really, you know, think that you need to consider that you work for the citizens here, Mr. Mayor, not staff. These are their dollars that we are appropriating and we we should be able to debate that and amend that like our rules of procedure say. So I hope you support the appeal, Mr. Freeman.

Well, yes, sir. So you have ruled on the point of order that's been made by Councilman Faldi. So at this point it is submitted to an appeal. Appeal's been requested. I don't see where it restricts debate, but from my past experience up here, it typically goes straight to a vote of an appeal of the of the ruling of the presiding officer. Miss Timmer, I think it would be fair to allow discussion since it's already started. Yes. Yes. Thank you, M. Mim.

Mr. Mishin spoke to um a lot of these key elements. I'll keep it brief, but I do want to reiterate. We have the right to amend. That's in our rules of procedure. We have the right to substitute. That's in our rules of procedure. This budget was brought to us in a single budget retreat. again that was presented in April. Uh that's a whole another thing and one work session. There was no opportunity for debate. I brought forward to council what I would like to see in the budget. What I would not like to see in the budget. What I would like to see is largely what's there, but I have a couple other priorities. It's a very simple amendment that was easily explained in the work session and somewhat discussed. This is normal procedure to bring forward an amendment. This is not a normal budget process. Uh Mr. Faldi is inaccurate. I am not bringing forward some alternate proposal that hasn't been discussed or or vetted. Uh this is simply looking to shift some one-time funding into the schools. So how this is suddenly extraordinary and um beyond what is done on the daytoday is pretty astounding. uh especially considered that considering the expedited nature of the budget process and the very little degree to which council has been able to be involved. So I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the rules of procedure on this matter and I'll leave it at that.

M I have a quick question. Um so as I recall our work session where we discussed the schools uh Miss Whit remind me does this include where we uh talked about giving the schools the choice of where they could put the money that was uh discovered that had been allocated for a school closure that was not used. That's correct. Okay. So, as I recall, a majority of us directed, I guess, or agreed that that was kind of the direction we were going to go while we didn't take a vote. Is that that's included in this option? That's correct.

And that was sent out in an email, correct? Didn't we get an email that kind of Yes. City schools responded to our request of of how they would spend the 1,64522,

right? Okay. So that's what I'm recalling and what a majority of of us went in that direction, which I'm assuming that's why staff did that and that's what's on here is not just one person wanted their way. There was a majority of people who gave a direction uh or an opinion on where the money was going and what it was doing. And that's what's included here. And so there was discussion and debate over this. So this is being misrepresented. We had an opportunity and four people at least did say that there was the money that it was discovered that we we did discuss is being allocated. It's just not the way that you wanted it, Miss Timmer. And I understand that's hard sometimes, but that's the way this went and now that's what we're voting on here. So, um, we have to move on. We've discussed it before now. That's what's on here. We've been emailed about it. And we getting angry about it isn't going to solve the problem. We did discuss it. You just don't like the answer. That's, you know, sometimes it goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. That's where this one's going this time.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, we don't know which way it went and why there was any debate or discussion even going on if we didn't make a motion and actually vote. That's the way this council makes decisions is we vote. Okay. And uh what's going on here is a simple substitute. He referenced the rule. I didn't hear any reference to the the the the amendment. I didn't hear any reference to any rule or any procedure that uh that would stop it. And I made a second to her motion and I'm glad we're at least discussing and I was able to second it so it's properly enforced and now we can actually take a vote

because everything that was referenced down there was well there was consensus we had some discussion we may have done this we all agreed to this and we didn't vote so that's the way we decide which direction we go we push a button Mr. Let us push the button thank you Mr. Mayor I believe um Dr. Wilder hasn't spoken to Mr. Commission's had his hand up first. Go ahead first. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I've I'm well aware that council doesn't always go my way. It doesn't go my way a lot. I'm I'm okay with that. But I do think we should vote on it. And it's totally appropriate in the context of our rules of procedure. And if we operate based on consensus in a work session, then you never know what you're going to get. And you all don't know what you're going to get. I would like to move the 1.2 2 million in onetime funding to one-time funding allocations within the school budget. That's what I would like to do. That's what I said in the work session. That's what I'm saying here. Simple amendment. Happy for it. I mean, I would not be happy for it to fail. That's what I would like to see happen. But if it fails, it fails. And I'll be totally fine with that. Uh so I think we should vote.

Submissions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two things. First thing I'm going to do is I'm going to read this. This is uh Lynburg City Council Rules of Procedure section 65 motions. Paragraph B sub paragraph 7 to amend. Any substantive motion properly on the floor may be amended. An amendment to a motion must be pertinent to the subject matter of the motion. An amendment is improper if adoption of the motion without amendment added would have the same effect as rejection of the original motion which it did not. It was the same motion plus a small amendment in the budget. A proposal to substitute completely different wording for a motion or an amendment shall be treated as a substitute motion. It was not. It was adopt the budget with a $1.2 million change in onetime funding.

Okay, let's vote on.

May be amended no more than twice. Once a motion has been offered to the council, it is up to the council to decide whether or not it should be changed by amendment. It is not necessary for the person making the original motion to approve of any proposed amendment to the motion. And what just we saw happen before us, Mr. Mayor, was Mr. Faldi did not approve of her amendment and then used a dilatory point of order to try to shut it down and didn't even cite the rules of procedure to do so in a way that actually is relevant. So understanding what council member Timmer was asking for was she was asking for a $1.2 million and I heard everything that Miss Reed said, but the reality is what we're looking at is a $1.2 $.2 million difference between what Lynchburg City Schools requested and what this operating budget includes. So, the request that was made was regarding that was to address it with one-time funds. And I'm sure she has a plan on where those one-time funds are coming from in another part of the budget. But the reality is right now there's $1.2 $2 million that they've asked for in our Lynchburg City Schools budget that isn't there and that's what she was trying to do. So, this isn't about what was presented in the work session or what wasn't or what we approve. We didn't approve anything. We didn't vote on anything. We had a budget retreat in April when they're usually in January before city council elections were moved to November. Budget retreats were in the fall. Once city council elections were moved to November, budget retreats got moved to January. We didn't have a budget retreat until April. It's an abject failure of planning to spend your money. That's what that is.

And then we only had one budget work session for a $600 million budget. One budget work session, Mr. Mayor. Yes. Point of order. Let's take care of Mrs. Timmer's amendment. So So are we voting on the appeal or are we voting on the amendment? Mr. Mayor, we're voting on her amendment. So are you withdrawing your ruling on her point of order? That's the question I have. Point of clarification. Are you withdrawing on your ruling or the point of order, Mr. Mayor? Hold on. Question. Because I need to understand what we're voting on. Mr. Mayor, you just said I just told you what we're voting on. But you have to withdraw your ruling on her point of order in order to do that because you've already ruled on. She didn't have a point of order. Yeah, I did.

Yes, you did, Mr. Mayor. You ruled against it and then we appealed and that's what we're debating right now. I'm withdrawing my point of Let's vote on the amendment. So, can we just get clarification on what exactly the amendment is, Mr. Timber? Wilder, she wants to clarify her motion. I mean, you're good. Uh my amendment is to adopt the budget with this single amendment which is moving 1.2 million from the one-time funding in the city operating budget into the one-time funding for schools so that they can appropriate it as they have requested for special needs for alternate education and for nutrition.

Good stuff. Look, Dr. Wild and my point was again we we talked about this during the work session. Um the comment was um I made the comment about I'm one of the only ones who have children in our school system and I was corrected. So I remember that comment that I was corrected. I know Marty does so I remember the comment. So I was corrected. I apologize for that. Again I'm one of the biggest I said I was one of the biggest supporters of school systems on a school board for nine years vice chair for several years. So again I support the school system and I have kids in the school system. I'm always important support of that. Now we we've provided additional funds to our school system to use as they see fit to give them that leeway. I supported that. What is happening is they want to take money from what was suggested was to take money from the pool project we already got going away, take money from the Miller Park, take money from the library, take money from other we already have agreed upon. So I did not approve of that. So that's why I did not approve I do not approve of the motion. Thank you,

Mr. Ferrari. more spin on this council than a washing machine on rinse. So the fundamental thing that we were on was my point of order which Miss Timber didn't like apparently not the vice may not the vice mayor and not Mr. Misch. If you are moving away from standing with that point of order

we're now voting yes or no on what she wants to do. I don't want to do that because it wasn't properly before us. So if you want to if you want to rule on whether it's properly before us or yes or no on her direction pick doesn't matter to me. Yeah. But my message to you mayor and to Miss Timmer is the same from two weeks ago. If you want to change the budget, Jacqueline, take the money out of Ward One and not Midtown. Mr. Mayor, you already and well, Modto, M.

So, I just want to clarify is the difference still $1.2 million. Yeah. Okay. the budget that is the ordinances that are in front of you uh are based on a prioritization that schools did of the one-time money that was in the capital improvement program uh for their benefit. They moved and I have it right.

Yeah, you got a slide up there. While Donna gets that ready, uh, they moved $661,354 out of the capital program into the operating budget. That includes $297,255 for uh purchase services for special ed. Uh $264,000 for uh trans purchase services for transportation for special ed and $100,000 for materials and supplies for building maintenance. So if there was originally a one-time total onetime ask of 1.22 22 million. Uh that has been roughly cut in half based on the ordinances that are in front of the council.

Okay. So with with the money that we were able to find from the school closure that didn't happen, their delta now is approximately $600,000. It of one-time request. But I think the other the other pending question that's out there for schools is ultimately when the state budget is adopted, uh there is a very good chance that there's going to be significantly more significantly less expenditures than they are budgeting for based on the uh retirement

costs for the uh Virginia retirement system. So I think uh um at this point there's there's no clear there's no clear answer of exactly where they're going to land with respect with respect to uh whatever the gap might be between what they've requested and and what is before city council for a vote. Okay. So just to clarify there the request even if with councilman woman Timmer's request wouldn't need to be 1.2 million anyway. It would be approximately half of that if there was going to be an amendment. Yeah. So it's a different

So it's the 1.2 less the 661,000 whatever that whatever that number is and I don't have time. Okay. Just just clarifying. And then we're still waiting for the state budget which could come in with extra funds and take care of this anyway. Be less expenses which would it would be less expensive extra funds. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Timmer.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, a couple notes. So, when we're looking at the school budget, it gets kind of tricky because there are a lot of different pots and there's a lot of back and forth. So, essentially, this is an amended list. What this list is is items that can be used with one-time funding rather than ongoing funding. The reason we ask for that is because that's where we have the most flexibility in our operating budget. And so that would allow us to offset needs within the school system so that their full operating budget can be funded. So the $1.2 million list offsets needs within the school system that are that gap in what they've originally requested and what the city manager proposed them receiving. So that $1.2 million number is still completely relevant because it's $1.2 million in expenses that can be used one-time funding can be used to cover those expenses. Additionally, with the VRS funding that was discussed as far as potential VRS savings, that number is a ballpark, it is a good ballpark, but what can often happen is the shell game. So, you get savings here, but then the Department of Education wants money here. And so, we don't know how to factor in those savings ultimately in the context of the school budget. So, my amendment is still as it stands to move the $1.2 million. To Mr. Faldi's point regarding Ward One. Unfortunately, Ward One doesn't have any one-time projects on the list as far as one-time funding. uh most of that is in Midtown, but I would ask you on this particular situation, would you rather have that money with the one and and I understand there's ongoing discussion with the library, but where I have proposed pulling the funds and where I would continue to propose pulling the funds are from the library, the Miller Park playground, downtown, and the property toolkit in order to cover the gap in the schools that covers special education, alternate education, and nutrition. So would you have I mean

let's just vote on it.

I got you need to do it. Come on. Um, so I am required to disclose that uh my wife is a teacher in Lynburg City Schools and therefore I am a member of a group of three or more persons of the members of which are affected by this transaction because we're voting in related to the school budget which is where her compensation comes from. And that group is spouses of teachers employed by Lynchburg City Schools. That's the group that I'm a part of and that I'm declaring that I can uh participate in this transaction impartially and I will continue. I've also emailed you the disclosure statement that's will be on file for however many years it has to be on file for. And one one thing though I want to ask for a point of clarification or or question on that. This slide that's presented is not what was given to us in the uh the budget amendment memo that Mr. Patrick sent out. That's what I'm looking at right now. If we could get that on the screen, I think that would be really helpful. It's page five, the last page of that. And if somebody somebody you got a calculator over there, Greg,

I can get to a calculator. Get to a calculator because I just want to do a little quick math here. I've got 2,865,664. That's the initial funding request and the last page of the budget amendments you sent us grand total and then 1,645 - 1,645,222. I love it when he does a manual. 1.2 million. That's that's 22642. So what's that total? 1,22642

1,ion226 that's 1.2 million. That's exactly what Miss Timmer said. So that's just what I wanted to because this doesn't provide all the information that was provided to us based on what the initial funding request which I think is the gap you're trying to close. Is that correct? Versus the prioritized critical funding plan that's been presented to us at the end of the week last week. That is across two funds. And what council is voting on now is the operating budget where the gap based on the ordinances are this 1.22 minus 661,000 to just just to be uh make sure everyone's on the same page.

So So I guess the question then would be in order for Council Member Timmer's proposal to if if it were to happen, what would we need to vote on a different ordinance perhaps? or why do we need amendments? We would need to amend the school budget as well. I just I'm just trying to make sure we understand clearly what she's trying to do. And so I believe it would be three changes to the ordinances in front of you. And Donna, correct me if I'm wrong. There'd be a there'd be an adjustment to the operating budget ordinance. There'd be an adjustment to the schools uh operating and there would be an adjustment to the capital ordinance. Okay. All right,

Miss Reed.

So, sorry. I'll be fast. Um, let me just make a clarification here. In the three years that we've done budgets, couple of the years we've given minus two plus million dollars to the schools I think several times if I recall and don't quote me exactly but I recall we've it's been significant and you know it it's been what we had and we haven't been happy about that because we support our schools and we've wanted to give them more and that's why we were so excited about last year's budget. we were able to give the $60 million in infrastructure money which we knew was so needed. And so it's wonderful to be able to be able to give the schools what we've been able to finally give. But I guarantee there's people within the school administration that while they would love the additional funding would also not agree with us taking money from the library, the Miller Park playground, and the property toolkit. Do you know why

they're not elected? because they understand that the library is for all of the children in this city. The ones who haven't started school yet and the ones that will hopefully graduate from the school who need that as a resource all the time who go over there from our schools after school to use the resources that the library supplies for those children. They don't want any funds taken from that library because it's a necessary resource. They would not want money us to take onetime funded funds away from that library. They also would not want us to take money away from the Miller Park playground or the pool because those same children rely on that resource. And they've been fighting for that pool to be redone for how many years? How many years? And the history of that pool speaks for itself. And I'm not even going to go there. And lastly, the property toolkit we've been fighting to fund for several years now, too, to fight against the derelict houses that are dangerous for the same exact children. There's a theme here. same exact children in the same areas who can be hurt by those houses that house drug deals, prostitution, they bring down property values. It's a danger to our city. And I guarantee you the teachers and the administrators of our school system would not want us to defund that program either because it's for the betterment of our city and safety for our children and their families. So, while I want to be able to give more money to our schools because I do support the schools and these are important things, not to the detriment of those three essential programs and not in the middle of a library build project, not in the middle of improving our pool project and not for an essential toolkit that we know we need money to support for the safety of the city, including our children. That's three things that would have to be unfunded to help support this. and the school can find the money to pick off this list and do the essentials as needed. So that's my thought. It is not against

the schools. I love the schools. I support the kids in our schools, but we've given a lot of money to them to do great things as best as we can, but I'm not going to support taking money away from these things. Sorry. What's Ferrari?

Um, to me, this smells of pass it and find out what's in it later because I don't know the changes. This is my whole point of the point of order was because all this should have been hashed out in a submission of a budget request, gone through the process, and reviewed so that we wouldn't have these question marks and be voting on something to the tunes of millions and millions of dollars without knowing the impact. And then I would also say this is inherently out of order because we just heard by council member Mission's own mouth a disclosure about the schools. This impacts the schools. I'm I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the agenda item reads consideration of the general operating fund excluding discretionary external service providers and the school's operating budget. We're convoluting all of this and it's creating this stuff all over the place. Here's the bottom line. This is entirely out of order. I hope I had hoped we would have voted on that and moved on. We should vote on this. Move to the next item to see what the next concoction is spun.

M. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, two quick items for 10 minutes. Yeah.

Well, that's at the rules of procedure meeting. Two quick items. There is no budget submission process. We haven't had one. There is no process. So that's a huge part of the problem. Uh the second is it doesn't ax those programs. Those programs have an excess beyond what I'm requesting moving to the schools. So it doesn't kill any of those programs. It just asks us to prioritize components. Uh additionally, the Miller Park pool is being rebuilt. 10.4 million. This is talking about an accessory playground which would be great. I think we should fall fund alternate education. So there there are these components where it has to do with priorities but the items that I've listed are in excess of the amount of money that I'm requesting that we move. Uh I put my amendment as forward. My amendment wasn't actually to those four programs. It was just generally from the one-time funds. So there are items or percentages that could be shaved off in other places. I just offer those four as examples in the work session. So, my amendment stands as far as moving $1.2 million from the one-time funding in the city operating budget over to the schools so they can offset costs in the areas of special education, alternate education, and nutrition and whatever three areas need to be amended

as necessary. Call to order. It's time to vote. So, this vote is on the amendment. Yes. All right. initiating that vote now.

And this is one time fun. Is that correct? One time. The motion fails. 34. There was a main motion on the floor to approve. I got to speak to that. M go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, so what we're talking about is the general fund operating budget and this is, you know, I hope that what I I thought last year's budget process was bad. This goes leaps and bounds beyond how awful last year's budget process was. Page X in the beginning with the little Roman numerals of our FY2026 adopted budget. There were six built-in budget work sessions. Six. There was also a budget retreat, too. I'll never forget that budget retreat. We did it up in the uh was it the aviary, I think, and it was tight. There was not a lot of room in there. Um not the aviary up there, Point Honor. That's where we did it. Yep. It was tight. There was not a lot of room in there. The FY27 budget calendar page little little Roman numerals XI of the FY27 budget. We had a budget retreat April 3rd. So, our our first budget work session last year was March 11th, and there were six built-in budget work sessions. Six built into the calendar. We didn't have our retreat until April 3rd, almost a month later. And then April 28th, almost May 1st, our first built-in budget work session and the only budget work session on the entire budget calendar. And what are they trying to do in that one budget work session? I'll tell you what they're trying to do.

They're taking 9 million more dollars from the taxpayers. nine million more than last year from 250 to 259 million and they're spending 7 million more in the operating budget. So this is this is not how you treat the taxpayers. We get elected to debate issues. We get elected to deliberate things. We get elected to make decisions for the citizens. That's why we're elected. And one of the most sacred responsibilities that we have is spending your money because how much we spend determines how much we have to take, right? And just like last year when I voted for equalization with these two right here, but it failed. Just like last year when I voted for an 83 cent real estate tax rate and a 25% reduction in the car tax, but it failed to try to do a revenue revenue neutral budget. These two voted with me to do it and it didn't happen because they can't control the spending. We can't afford to continue to do this. People are leaving Lynchberg because taxes are too high. It's happening, you know, and and what the other side of it too is it's what you get, right? It's not just that the taxes are an issue. It's that what we're seeing is taxes increase, spending increase, and then the quality of service decreases. I I chaperoned a field trip for Bedford Hills today, right? I was talking to parents and you know what?

There's people pulling out, good families pulling out of Lynchburg City Schools because things are deteriorating. We got to fix that. We got to have accountability for that. And Mr. Mayor, I'm I'm going to point it out. I am done hearing Christopher Aldi make underhanded comments about me being a father, my family, and my kids. And you you better get them in line. No, I'm still talking.

So, I will continue. I'm still talking. I got the floor. Mr. Mayor, this budget, the spending is ridiculous. The additional revenue, 9 million more in revenue just to turn around and spend it, right? When's it going to stop? When is it going to stop? I cannot support and rubber stamp the bureaucratic pipe dreams represented in this budget when we need to focus on what the priorities are. We need to focus on the priorities where your money needs to go. Not just come in, have one budget work session and then just rubber stamp whatever's put in front of us. I wish I would have brought my budget binder in here so I could show you. You've all seen it. It's a huge book. But but we're talking about a a almost $600 million

in this budget. One work session. The retreat didn't come until April when we had our first budget work session in March of last year. It's just a complete and total disrespect for you and the work you do to earn your money. That's what it is. It's a complete and total disrespect for the taxpayers the way this whole process went. I I don't know what to give it as a grade because last year I gave the budget process an F. And this is 10 times worse. One work session in a retreat in April to spend 600 million bucks. It's it's it's just it's wild to me. I mean, it's you need to take a look at what's going on. There's something seriously not normal about any of this budget process. And then and then the the point that my my colleague, Council Member Timber, made about how we don't get to vote on things, and I think the vice mayor made it also that, you know, they're trying to create this situation where they present stuff in work sessions. We never vote in a work session. So to say that we decided in a work session is fundamentally false. We don't decide things in work sessions because we don't vote in work sessions because the rules of procedure say that we can't vote in work sessions, right? So we're not making any decisions in work sessions. What's happening is we're going in, we're getting presented information by staff. Um I I can't honestly today it was actually quite pleasant to have the city manager interact with us about the bond issue because normally he doesn't even respond directly to questions in the in the uh in the work sessions. Normally how it happens is we get a memo that has no name on it who prepared it. I think it might come from communications maybe but we just get a

memo with a series of responses. We never usually get questions answered in the work sessions. And then you know like the questions from the last budget work session, the only budget work session we had, we got them at 8 o'clock last night when we have a work session in a meeting today. I mean, people that work in in in corporate America or work in any other level of government or probably any other government in general would understand that that just doesn't make sense. You should give people an opportunity to actually consume the information before you make decisions of this magnitude. We got it at 8:00 last night. 8:00. I mean, you can't you can't respect the citizens and the taxpayers and operate like this. You can't. But you know what happens? We say something about it and then somebody gets offended, somebody's being harassed, somebody's this, some No, no. I'm sick of hearing those complaints and those emotional responses constantly from people that want to shut down debate. from people that don't want us to discuss how your money is spent, from people that just want to rubber stamp whatever's going on and think they're not going to hear about it and hide behind not having a voting record. That's that's the goal here. I'm going to be totally transparent with you. The goal, the way everything has been set up, is to hide behind not having a voting record. serious people that aren't cowards aren't afraid to make decisions and have a voting record. And you know that that's why I've got to reject this budget. I would have supported the amendment

because that would have at least shown some prioritization to how we're spending your tax dollars that we actually put some thought into it other than just, oh, here's what's presented. Here's what it is. Here, here it is. Here's what it is. Take it or leave it. At least we prevented your water and storm water rates from going up. One good thing that just happened out of tonight. Um, that was kind of shocking. But, you know, th this this whole this whole budget process is just really just I mean it's it it is disrespectful to the taxpayers, disrespectful to the citizens and and I cannot support this budget. Thank you,

Dr. Wild. Thank you. Again, just to the staff's benefit, um the direction to the department has was to provide a a flat budget. So that was direction to the the staff members, the department chairs to provide a a flat budget. Only thing I think they increase, I'm not trying to get particular like maintain the pro pay progression for the for the first responders, things of that nature. So it's pretty much a flat budget. Um the challenges the staff are having, bless their hearts, they receive hund a voluminous amount of emails every day for so many other areas. We spend time on abortion. We spend time on um what's happening VMI. We spend time on so many other issues. They got to instigate. They got to investigate. They got to spend time on this. They respond to hundreds of emails. So I pray for our poor staff. They are so swamped. I I don't blame them. I would had a budget session myself cuz they're overworked. They're probably stressed. They probably like I'm going to get this over. One young lady, bless her heart, she retiring. She been 30 almost 30 something years. She has been amazing and I appreciate her. And anytime you want to attack her character and attack her, that's just not God. That's not right. She has given her life to the city. I work with her and I work with her husband for years, a former city employee as well. So I know the character that they have and I respect them. Thank you for your service. Again, it's not rubber stamping anything. They have given us the budget. We had time to review that. They probably would have spent more time in the budget session, but we didn't give them time to do that because they're so busy answering all the emails. Y'all would not believe the amount of emails they get. It is amazing. And I pray for them. I pray for them. So again, that's why I'm supporting the budget. I'm looking forward to passing this budget to get through this process. We can live another day. I just want to get through this. I pray I pray we can make it through this the next two sess how many readings we got to do. Let's do them.

Let's move forward and let's pray for a calmer day, a more blessed day in our city. And then when I go to and people say people leaving the city, I thought people were coming to the city. That's number one. That's not incorrect. People coming to the city. And the other thing is when I go to events, every time I go to an event, people come up to me, Republicans and Democrats, I say, "Thank you for what you're doing, but I'm praying for them. Why can't they get along?" They come to me and say it's embarrassed. Not because they leave because of high taxes. They leave because they're so embarrassed of this city council. Thank you. Mr. Deor, for five minutes we debated $600 million budget.

Anybody here think that's enough?

For five minutes, we we really had a had a pretty good debate. I enjoyed it. Um, you know, one side it was special education students and the other side was pools and libraries. On one side it was food and special education students and on the other side it was playgrounds. That was that that's a great debate, right? What are you for? You for the playgrounds and this or is it is food important? Are our special ed kids should they be a priority? For about five minutes you got to see what it was supposed to be like. But what we're about here is taking all the citizens we up here in this dis represent, taking all the power and authority that they loan to us temporarily and we're putting it all on that man right there because he just put the budget together and he got to do all of that and we talked about one little amendment for five minutes. This is this is winner Ben's budget and it looked like it's not going to change at all and ultimately the time we got to discuss kept getting and so when we finally discussed we got five minutes it fails so we're back to guess what winner bend his budget the man's not elected it's not here representing you but he he's ruling our $600 million budget like it's his own back pocket and most people up here are just fine that. So, it's easy. Go along, get along.

Ultimately, we've got a choice in the city of Lynchburg. Are we going to keep playing this game? Are we going to Are we going to turn everything all the authority that this we're supposed to represent over to somebody else who's not elected by you? Or are we going to take that power back and we're going to actually spend more than five minutes discussing the $600 million budget and then changing nothing? But it was a good debate. Food, special ed kids, pools,

libraries, uh I don't know. It's pretty easy. That's what government does. We decide what's important. It's a limited amount of money and we got a lot of needs and desires. Our job is supposed to be up here to make that tough decision. But but we're not making that decision. Somebody else is. And it's not somebody that represents y'all. You don't get to choose that person over there. You only get to choose us. So if you want to have any impact on what's going on, you need to pick some people that aren't rubber stamping city managers budget. You're not running for making making you need to make some some choices. Lunchberg,

it's important. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Quest. That was great. Um, thank you. Special ed and nutritional equipment. Is it that included in this ordinance or is that being covered in this one? I thought it was. Special ed purchase services. Special ed transportation purchase services and nutritional equipment are included in the ordinance that you were voting on and that's one in the one that is in front of you now for a vote once your debate is over. Okay. So special ed equipment that it's the nutritional equipment. Okay. Okay. Sorry.

It's the special ed purchase services and the special ed transportation purchase services. Those are the special ed items that were on the onetime list. And the nutritional equipment was actually already funded. It was just funded on the capital side. Uh schools had requested it twice. Okay. Got it. I was just clarifying because I remember that from our last time. Okay. Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I'm going to make a motion to amend. And the motion to amend is since we didn't we didn't uh get the the schools done. The motion to amend is going to be to take that 1.2 million of one-time funding to actually put that towards a one-time reduction in the car tax. So, I'll make that as a motion to to amend. So, underhanded. Make that as a motion to amend. Absolutely underhanded. Hearing none. Mayor, when you left, they decided to try to ram through another motion. I didn't ram him through. I just denied him because there was no second. I'm not talking to you. Okay.

I'm talking to the mayor. I don't know what's second. I don't know what's in your coffee tonight, but recess. Can we just chill? Recess. I'm tired of this unnecessary argument. I'm not arguing, mayor.

Recess. 5 minutes. Heat. Heat.

Happy morning. Happy. Heat. Heat.

Welcome back. There's a motion there. There was a motion on the floor and then no second. So it failed and no second. So it fell. Mr. Feraldi, just have questions. Thank you. Miss Donna, what is the total dollar figure of the general operating budget? Is it 600 million or something else? Um, hang on.

Um, all funds is 620,78,33. Just the general operating budget. Oh, just general fund. Yep. 300. This item 52 $259,241,513. Now, Donna, you've been doing this a very long time. Is $260ish million the same as 600 million? No, sir. No. That is what is before us, 250, not 600. Greg, how many budget questions did you receive via email for this budget? put an exact number on it, but very few.

Very few. Do you remember? How about this? For the next one, for the next second reading, I'm going to ask the same question and I'm going to want to know how many you had received and from who. Okay. Absolutely. And mayor, there's a lot that could be said. I'm saving it for the second reading. Thank you. Yes, sir. Miss Timber. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, Mr. Faldi's question actually goes right to the point that I want to make. Yes.

Uh, the distinction between 250 and 600 million. Quite honestly, it's reframing the entire point that Mr. missions was making in a question that decontextualizes the conversation and this is a consistent pattern on this day with the school board uh interviews. I asked uh a question that became somewhat controversial. People assumed a lot about the intent behind it. But I asked, "Do you believe in absolute truth?" And I asked that because I believe that having a baseline of common ground is essential for education. I also believe it's essential for governance when it comes to our rules of procedure when it comes to the processes in which we engage with deliberation because otherwise we are not transparent or accountable in the context of the decisions that we make. Votes are a huge part of that. When I was first elected, I met with a number of individuals across party lines who have been involved in the city process of government government and just asked questions about previous budget processes, various elements, totally recognizing that I was coming into something completely new. Um, and what I have experienced in my one and a half years on council is completely different than what was described to me. Not because of the interpersonal drama that exists, which is is real and um exhausting, but ultimately because of the shifting foundation of a lack of consistency with our own rules of

procedure, with our budget processes and information transparency. the first budget process that I experienced uh and and this is this is a much larger discussion but there was a simple question about Miller Park Pool that Mr. Missions brought forward because that was a $10.4 4 million CIP project that would also acrue debt service. And that question went to city staff as to whether that pool could be rehabilitated in some capacity. That question wasn't to be the determining factor of our decision. It was to gather information. The response in the city memo was that it would require, I believe it was $7.3 million minimum in order to do the fencing repair and the pool and that the pool was absolutely at the end of its serviceable life. I contacted the vendor that had serviced that pool for the past 20 years and received an email that predated the staff memo that came to us in writing explaining that the pool could be repaired for roughly $500,000. I had multiple conversations with pool experts in the field as well as the YMCA and others as far as the pool feasibility and life. And the information was directly contrary. And now we walk into a budget process where again we have had one budget retreat that was scheduled late which I was unable to attend due to prior travel and one work session. one work session and now we're it was on Good Friday. That's correct. The budget retreat was on Good Friday and well don't go there. And and then one budget work session and now we're being told that it's it's somehow wrong to bring forth amendments for

deliberation and discussion. I want my record to be on the vote when we run for office. It's a covenant of what we promise to do here. I I see someone in my neighborhood that we disagree on a lot of things, but I'm pretty sure she knows she can knock on my door and ask me questions and I make myself available in that way because I believe in the things that I vote for and I'm willing to explain why I vote for them. That's essential. And if you disagree with me, that's okay. It's all good. I will be fine. And I believe you will be, too. And I encourage you to vote regardless. But if we diminish our process, if we erode the integrity of our process, you will never be able to trust this council. And there will always be chaos because where you remove the rules of the game in a sport, it breaks out like crazy. But talk about removing the rules of the game and the consistency of transparency in government. That is a problem. That is the source of this chaos. I will not be voting for this budget. I am grieved at the process that we are creating and I'm grieved of the culture that it creates in our community. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Item number B was still on the floor. That's correct. And there is a motion to approve uh as is. Let us vote, please. All right. Initiating that vote now. Select e vote if you do not see it pop up.

Okay. Thank you. There we go. The motion passes 43. Record that quickly. All right. I'm moving along to um subsection C. Can we break those down by one? Yeah. Consideration of introducing an ordinance appropriating the FY2027 discretionary external external service providers budget. Is there a motion to Can we do one by one?

Which one? Excuse me. Mr. Fard move approval. Second. Just Mr. Mayor, I just asked you if we could do it one by one. One by one. Oh, the external service providers. That's that's what I just asked you, but you you didn't respond. I guess we got another rubber stamp out. So you you want to identify each and every external service. How many discretionary external service providers do we have? There's two exactly who who are they Alicia? Um if serves it's impact uh impact living services I believe and then um

CVC. Yes. And who else? Just those two. Just those two. There is a motion and a second to uh approve them both. The these people are beneficial to our community, right? Yes. Motion. I mean, you got your motion, your second. Go with it. Yeah. Let's vote. Right. Initiating the vote now. Motion passes 70.

All right. D is consideration of introducing an ordinance appropriating the FY2027 operating fund budgets for all other funds. Point of clarification on that, Mr. Mayor. Point of clar I know you're looking to Mr. Faldi every time an item comes up. That's pretty obvious. We all see that. No, no, I don't. That's actually the crowd sees it. Everybody sees it. But Mr. Mayor, what Mr. Mayor? Go ahead.

Well, I just want to know who the mayor is. But that's clearly Okay. So, anyways, the question, Mr. Mayor, is with this all other funds, since we didn't adopt the sewer or the excuse me, the storm water and water rate. Is the the what's in the all other funds budget accurate because we failed on the water and storm water rate? balance. It no longer balances. So, I move to table the all other funds until we can work that out because it is no longer in balance. So, I'll make a motion to table. Mr. Mayor, I'll second. You second.

And and for your information, Mr. Mr. Missions, I look to my left and I look to my right. That's that's part of my job. Okay. Understand, Mr. Mayor. first all night. And and you are and you are not the mayor. I didn't say I was. Okay. And you'll never be. Okay. Didn't say I'm going to be. All right. Mr. Ferrari, speaking. Uh I agree with the concept of tableabling it. We should we'll be able to fix this over the next two weeks. Um and mayor, I would only submit that the difference between me and Mr. Mischins in requesting the floor is that I request to speak. I don't just barge forward with a motion. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Can we vote? Is is this is a motion to table to a specific date or just table? It was to t uh my motion is to table. I made a motion. You don't speak to my motion. I speak to my motion. I made a motion to table. It's to table. Period. There's no period of time on it. Mayor, may I ask you a question? You may ask a question. I will support it as a second if the table tableabling. Is that proper? This is for the next meeting. That's that's all I was trying to say. It's it's I made a motion to table it. Then I'm withdrawing as my second. I'll second.

Okay. Thank you. I'll speak to my first, Mr. Mayor. Yes. I just we've got to work that out and figure out how to get the the budget for the water department and and storm water and water fund storm water. We got to figure out how to do it without raising those rates. So, whatever we need to do to not raise those rates on our citizens, let's get it done. Mr. Patrick, just a quick clarification. There are there are 10 funds that aren't the general fund. Um if if uh council would so choose, you could approve the eight in question.

I will amend my motion then to table the water fund and the storm water fund. Would you accept that as a friendly amendment? I don't understand it. So we're breaking out. So it's like not the airport fund, not the medical insurance fund, not the fleet services fund. It's just pulling out the water fund and the storm water fund and storm water not in balance. So we we accept that friendly amendment to the motion to table. Yes. Okay. So there you go. You got that accept the amendment. A motion to table the water. Correct. And we should vote on the rest of it.

But we got to vote on the motion to table first. But that would be correct. The motion to second. Speak to your second. Yeah, we just obviously got to balance this thing. So, this is a no-brainer. That's all I have to say. Miss Timmer, kind of a general open-ended question for Mr. Mischins. I'm somewhat of the same framework as Mr. Faldi as far as a time frame. What what are you thinking in the context of the budget requirements with the state or turn? Got to have two readings by the end of the fiscal year. So, whatever it takes for them to figure it out, then yeah,

that's I mean, I don't want to I don't want to put that on them in the next two weeks and then have to raise the water and storm water rates. I want them to do whatever they need to do to figure out how to get it done without raising the water and storm water rates and then we adopt it with two readings like we have to. It it should be no problem for staff to have a updated budgets prepared ahead of the 526 meeting that that meet the uh request of council. Any other Dr. Wellness as far as the the the the question was that first was that the water rate. Is that correct? That the item that we're questioning. What the So the first budget ordinance that was voted on denied the increase in the water rate and the storm water.

But aren't aren't those rates kind of more so rates that just kind of cover pretty much the cost? Is that correct? Pretty much. I I I don't want to. Yes. and and the the the cost of operations plus the cost of the capital investment that needs to happen in those um in those operations. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any more discussion? No, we vote on the amendment.

Yep. This is to table the water and storm water. Initiating the vote now. The motion passes 61. And now you just need a motion for the other funds. Other funds. First, second. Second. Your second. Uh, Miss Timber. No comment. No comment. Mr. Fer,

no comment. Let's vote.

None. Okay. Initiating the vote for approval now. Motion passes 52. All right. This is agenda item E. Consideration of introducing an ordinance appropriating the FY2027 schools operating budget by major classification.

May I have a motion, please? Mr. Fer approval. Is there a second? Second. You want to speak to your second? You want to speak to your motion, Mr. Fer? I'll do it in two weeks. Thank you, Mr. Mr. I'll use the opport Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I'll use the opportunity to point out that this is, you know, what the school board we appointed uh wants to do. And this isn't some hypothetical administration that in the ether zone somewhere that you can read their mind. This is what our school board wants and I want to support them in what they're doing because I think they're doing some good work over there.

Mish.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm not going to be first. I've got to make my disclosure statement for this agenda item that my wife is a teacher at Lynchburg City Schools. That I'm a member of a group of three or more purses which are called spouses of teachers at Lynchburg City Schools and I choose to participate in this transaction of business um impartially and uh unbiased and I I can do it. Uh, you know, I'm I'm I am not going to support this. And the reason I'm not going to support it is because we're 1.2 million short of onetime funding to to meet the needs that our superintendent said we're needs. We got a brand new superintendent that's doing some great things, right? She's putting a huge focus on academic success. We've got to move the needle in our schools. We've got to Normally I wouldn't be looking at it this way, but you know, when when we could do it in a way that's not structural with onetime funding. That's why I asked the question in the in the retreat where we could fulfill the budget request and it's not an ongoing increase in funds. It's a one-time increase in funds. I feel like that's pretty substantial, right? And she said these were needs. That's what she said. She's making some great decisions over there and and I support what she's trying to do to turn this thing around. Lynchburg City Schools, it's like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier. It doesn't happen overnight, right? But we got to give her a chance. We got to give the school board a chance. We got to give him a chance to get it right. And you know, I feel like when we're we're coming in and not prioritizing our funding appropriately. You know, that's what happens when you

spend over $10 million on a pool that we didn't need, over $10 million on reimagining a library that we didn't need, $9 million on an amphitheater when the the the price doubles, more than doubles. Voted against all those things. Why? We did not need them. There's $30 million right there in one time funds. Right now, some people say, "Well, the amphitheater could have been could have been uh you know, that was COVID funding." Guess what? Even back then, I brought it up. We could have used those funds in the schools instead of for an amphitheater. Now, you can't even take your chair. You got to rent a chair. and the the the prices for the tickets are ridiculous. Um, you know, it's it's it's a it's a complete and total Democrats controlled Lynchburg City Council for 20 years and they spent money aimlessly on these things that were nice that we didn't need, right? The schools fell apart. You know, we got a beautiful, brand new Heritage High School. Could we have fixed the old one that was over $und00 million, right? And the rest of the schools fell apart. We got to fix the schools. That's a need. That's why I'm glad that we got that done. We got those investments moving forward to fix the schools, all the schools, not just rebuild a new one, right? And you know, when you look at this, we can't even just prioritize a little bit of money to hopefully put things on the right track and give our new superintendent and the school board a chance to try to turn this thing around. You know, schools, we need to have great schools.

We do. We got to hold them accountable. We absolutely do. But we also got to prioritize how your tax dollars are spent. And when we're spending money on, you know, my mind is still blown by by $200,000 in in IT and cabling in the in the library. Um, so so let me let me read this this FFNA budget here for for the for the library. So we're we're looking at so this is this is surplus unassigned fund balance cash, right? That is one-time funds being used in the library we just spent over 10 million on last year in the CIP. It's um, excuse me, 11.1 million for construction, 1.4 4 million for furniture, fixtures, and equipment. And you're talking about 200,000 for information technology, including cabling, $200,000. Uh security access, $300,000. Audiovisisual equipment, a half a million dollar for AV equipment. A half the price of a of a of a nice home for audio visual equipment in a library. Furniture, fixtures, including seating, counters, etc. $300,000 in miscellaneous, including contingency design, $100,000. 1.4 million in surplus cash in the library for that stuff. That's not a need. It's a nicity. It's nice thing to have. It's not a need. We need to focus on necessities. We need to be great at what we're required to do as government. And that brings me back to my first budget process. 2023 January budget retreat. They send home these index cards, right? And on these index cards

are all the different programs and services that the city offers and they ask us to rank them between, you know, whether that was a priority or not a priority or whatever it was. You know, how important it is to us. Huge stack of them. I didn't participate. The reason I didn't participate is because I said I don't know out of all these programs and services what is necessary. What does the law federal state local ordinance mandate that we do? Because those are the things that are the highest priority. It has been over 3 years Mr. Winter Benda has never provided the answer to that question. We have never been provided the answer to the question of what is necessary for government to do.

M we need to be moving. We've never been require we've never been provided the answer for what we have been committed to doing either through regional agreements or cooperation things that we said we would do. We take a grant and we say we're going to perform something for this grant that's committed. We probably we probably have an obligation to do that. So, it's been over three years and I've asked for the list of what is it necessary for your city of Lynchburg government to do because that's where our priority should be because the reason is they don't want us to know what is it necessary because your money should be focused on your money should be focused

your money should be focused on what is necessary and you know what

giving our schools in this situation because the situation is dire. There are some really bad situations in the classrooms in our schools right now. I am just going to be I'm I don't mind saying it. And we need to focus on fixing those issues. We need to have good environments not just for kids to learn and that are safe, but for teachers. I got a friend of mine who is hooked up to a pump because she got kicked in the stomach at Perrymont Elementary School and she had to go get surgery, emergency surgery for that. But but this is this is what that's not a priority to make sure that we have

we have the schools funded and you know it you just got to look and see see what's happening. You can see it right here. That's right. You see it right here. That's right. They do not want to know. They do not want the public to know what's really going on. I know what's going on in city schools. They do not want the I don't I've never seen you in a city school, Mr. Mayor. I'm in there all the time. So, you know, it's it's astonishing to me.

It's astonishing to me how the money your tax dollars are not prioritized in the city government. That's all there is to it. And how I can ask that question in January of 2023. Here it is. Three years later. Three years later. And and he's talking about throwing me out with a police officer because I'm saying the city manager won't tell us what we're required to spend your tax money on. The city manager, I want you to hear that loud and clear. Lynchberg City Manager Winter Benda will not tell Lynchburg City Council what we are required as government, federal, state, or local mandate to do. That is a problem because we cannot prioritize your tax dollars if we don't get questions answered. It's been over three years. It'd be great to get an answer to that question. Thank you,

Mr. White. Mr. Mayor, um, this part of the library was proposed for funding last year over the course of two years. The FFN that is being discussed here was not requested last year because we only request the cash when we need it and requesting that ahead of time would have been irresponsible. But the whole project cost was was defined in last year's budget. the FFN is 13% which is very consistent with what what our uh design architect sees for the Mid-Atlantic region and what and that we have been assured that if this FFN isn't funded what you're going to have is a big warehouse open with no funding with no facilities for the public no technology that sort of thing because it is a complete project. Much like what we talk about with the pool, when we ask consultants to provide us with estimates, that's a completely reasonable thing. However, not having the context of the entire project taints what the estimate is supposed to be. So, when we ask for an estimate from a contractor, we're asking for one component of it versus an entire project. That is the case with the FFN and we just want to make sure council is aware that this project was submitted as a whole and certainly costs have not gone down during this time.

Miss Timoth briefly we got a vote on this.

I I will be voting in favor of the school budget. I think we have missed a real opportunity. Uh we have a new school superintendent. She's dealing with a lot of things where she's having to go backward go backwards to remedy things in order to move forwards. She's having to bring things up to code. She's having to meet state standards and this is our opportunity to help support her in doing that. U I appreciate Mr. White's remarks. I won't dive into the fullness of this now, but there is one point that I want to address with it and that is when the city goes about with the CIP projects and we had Mr. White and I had a larger discussion on this essentially it creates a dream list and then takes that to get to get a a quote or an estimate on it and that's what's brought forward. It's not assessing all of these different components and then bringing that information to council for deliberation. That's the larger issue. It's not saying that we don't need audiovisisual equipment. It's saying there isn't a discussion about the components of the project involved in a transparent manner and the the dates of those communications again verify that breakdown that I'm concerned about. But today when it comes to the schools, I will vote in favor. I want to support our schools as much as possible. But we've missed our opportunity, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Cash votes, please. Initiating the vote for approval. Motion passes. 61. Moving on to F. Consideration of introducing an ordinance adopting the FY2027 2020 2031 capital improvement program and appropriating the FY 2027 capital budget. May I have a motion, please?

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, I got a motion briefly. Marty, keep it short. I got a motion to approve the school's capital projects and the fire department. um station renovations from the CIP. I'll make that as a motion approval. Second point clarification. Is this excluding something?

So I'm making a motion just for that. The rest of it can be considered separate, but I'm making a motion just for that. Mayor, you have a motion and a second. We have a mot your your motion is denied. You You can't deny a motion. He's getting a point of clarification to make a second. Mr. Mayor, you recognize me. I made a motion. No, I didn't get a second. Yeah, you did. Yeah, Chris second. Speak to you. No, I was I was making a motion because there was an motion while he was making a motion. I was making a motion. So I was making a motion because it was my understanding there was lack of a second.

That was the chair didn't announce that. The chair would have to announce that the motion fails because of lack of a second. The vice mayor did you seeking information? Did Did you second? No, I had a point of clarification. That was not second. Okay. You had a point of clarif Okay. What you need? What are you asking? You want a You made a point of clarification. I got my clarification. He's already answering my question. Okay. So, it's just the motion was just to do the schools improvements and the fire station improvements. That's what the motion was. And then the rest of it could get considered. So, if somebody wanted to second that, that's all it would be. And then the rest can get considered and it wasn't second. I'll second it.

There you go. Seconded.

All right. I'll speak to my motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um th those those are the priorities when you talk about prioritizing funds. that that's that's how you do it, right? There's some other things in the CIP that I'm sure that I would support, but like our road projects and some other things, but you know, these two in particular, we've got to get our schools fixed. For 20 years, they let them completely deteriorate. The uh fire stations, I worked in them. I mean, I remember being able to stick my fingers through a crack in the front bedroom on Fire Station 8. You could see daylight through it, and it's just left like that. while they go buy amphitheaters and do all kinds of other things that

weren't needed to be done. Right. So, if I want to talk about what we need to prioritize other than streets and roads and bridges in our CIP, it's it's where our school children are. Those buildings need to be safe and then where our first responders are. Absolutely. I think those are important priorities. That's why I'm happy to support it. You want to speak to second? Let's vote. What's motion?

Well, I'd like to speak. I don't know if I want to speak to you want to speak to your motion. Yes, mayor. Uh, this is not the time to pick whichever projects out of the capital budget uh that you prefer. Don't you had plenty of time over the last month to a request another by the way another work session that was on the books as an optional one that the manager proposed to go over those items. Uh but that was not uh requested and we should be moving forward with the entirety of this budget for a number of reasons and I'll save those for two weeks from now. Thank you, M. Reed.

Agreed. I Well, there are certainly things that we can prioritize in the capital improvement plan and certain programs that we want to prioritize. We've gone over it. We had a chance to to discuss it in the work session or point things out or take things out or talk about taking things out. And again, we could have had another um work session. We didn't. So, I'm seconding the motion to approve it in in total. Thank you, Miss Timmer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh I I stand by my earlier statements regarding this budget. In the context of this particular motion, I have no issue voting twice. I will be voting in favor both times. So I don't see the issue with voting twice. I think most people at this day will end up voting both times. There's no harm.

Mr. Demer, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I think uh what we're seeing here just to clarify for for the citizens of Lynchburg is we keep hearing that we were supposed to have submitted emails through a gatekeeper that's not elected as if that's somehow the only way we can deal with these money issues. No, right now is the exact time we should be dealing with the money issues. And it shouldn't require us sending an email to a gatekeeper who's not elected. So anyway, I agree with with Jacqueline that this this is we know where this is going. Let's just do it. It's time to vote. Mr. Mayor, it's time to vote. Mr. Mayor, I didn't get an opportunity to speak substitute motion.

Go ahead, Marty.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I'm not going to be supporting the the substitute motion for the entire CIP. Uh there's there's things in here that simply, you know, I I just I can't get past the $500,000 for audiovisisual equipment in the library. You know what we're doing is we're when when we probably should be looking at a Chevrolet, we're trying to buy a Rolls-Royce, right? And that's the issue that we see. You know, one of the things that I remember, uh, I think it was 2023, the shockreet on 12th Street to stabilize the bank. Is that is that was that 23? Do we remember? I think it was. So, when they presented the Shock Creek project to us to stabilize the bank on 12th Street, they gave us two or three different options on how to do it. And they were tiered in how much they cost with the most expensive was the one that was the most aesthetically pleasing where we did the shockrete and then we painted it some kind of color and this that and the other. And you know what? We we didn't we didn't go for the most expensive one because it wasn't necessary. We were given options on how to spend your money. Well, that's went completely out the window. Completely out the window. And now it's take it or leave it, you know, and it's it's just it's absurd. It it is a complete lack of respect for you as taxpayers and I just can't I I just can't tolerate that. So for those reasons, the the the CIP, what's the total dollar amount of that capital improvement plan for this year? Do we have that, Miss Whit? The total dollar amount for the capital improvement plan.

Uh, we only appropriate the first year. What's but but as we can see, last year we appropriated the first year of the library, right? And that turned into 1.4 million in FFN this year. So keep in mind when you do these things, it's not just because you do the first year doesn't necessarily mean there aren't things that go beyond it. And that's why we need to be wise about these decisions that we make. And we shouldn't be spending your money aimlessly and just rubber stamping the pipe dreams of the bureaucrats that come before us. Do you have that dollar amount, Miss Whit?

Sorry. Total CIP over five years all funds is 559,965989. That's five years all. So it's so it's the first year plus saying we're going to spend this more money this money in the additional four years 560 million right and and what that doesn't include is it doesn't include you know one of the things that rarely ever gets talked about are the planned projects beyond the period right the planned projects beyond 2031 for another $45 million that is one almost $1 billion dollar they try to set in motion with this CIP, right? You know, some of these things that are on here, the Jefferson Ridge Parkway extension, $67.5 million. The James River Parkway, James River Parkway, $135 million. Is that necessary? Unless the Federal Department of Transportation is coming in here or the VOTE and 100% funding it, I don't think so. So, I'll be I'll be voting against this CI. You weren't recognized, Mr. Patrick.

I did, Mr. Patrick. Um, there would be absolutely no interest in funding those projects with city funds. Those are projects that we put in the uh in the looking forward of the CIP to help us with grant funding. good with VOTE uh with the federal government. Uh so to classify it as a plan um is is not accurate. Well, it says planned projects beyond 2031 is what it says. Classified as a plan where we would spend city capital dollars or issue city debt is not accurate. Well, then then we should strike it from the list. We we have two motions on the floor. Let's vote. We can only have one motion at time, Mr. Mayor. What? That's what the rules say. Sorry about that. This the substitute

as a substitute. I'll be voting against the CIP. The sub substitute motion to approve the CIP as is to change the motion. Yeah, it's to change the motion. That's right. Initiating the vote. Initiate the vote. The motion passes 43. So now comes the main motion.

The main motion. Let's vote. One second. All right. Initiating that vote now. The motion passes 52.

Moving along. Yes, we're now at G. Consideration of introducing an ordinance appropriating 50,000 of the FY2027 reserved for contingencies for use by the city manager. May have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. I'll speak to you. Yes, sir. I'll speak to you. Second, if I need to, I'm vote, please.

Initiating the vote for approval now. The motion passes 52. Agenda item H. Consideration of adopting an ordinance setting the personal property tax relief rate at 31.5% for January 1, 2026 through December December 31, 2026. This resolution shall apply retroactively as of January 1, 2026.

I got a question question for staff. What would happen if we increase that to 40%. So this is the calculation the commissioner revenue is responsible for. Um we get the same amount of state revenue um every year for PPT your um tax relief act. Um this is math based on the number of vehicles the value of vehicles um with that money and how it's spread among all vehicles. So we have no way to know what a dollar amount would look like if we were to adjust that. No. Okay, thank you.

Second. Let's vote, please. All right, initiating that vote now.

The motion passes 70. There's one scrier's error in here. I just noticed it's it says this resolution. Is there any objection to having that stricken to say this ordinance shall apply retroactively? I think we know. Okay. Okay. That's on the agenda. That's not the ordinance itself. It's the It's the ordinance itself. The last sentence. All right. Agenda item I may I have a motion please. Matt mayor I will speak to this briefly.

Uh so is there a motion? The item if I could just read it or say it out loud consideration of adopting an ordinance prohibiting charging certain trash collection fees in the city for FY 2027. So moved. Yes. Second u speaking to it. Mayor. Speaking to it.

I will speak to this one briefly. I am very thankful that uh we were able to work together. Uh I sent a few ideas in uh to staff about what it would take to avoid a uh $10 trash fee for the next year. This has been something we prevented for the last number of years. It's my hope going into next year we nix it entirely. $10 more a month right now is $120 a year. It's very straightforward. We were able to adjust some spending, adjust some pockets of money to cover that for another year. And so I'm very pleased as that is our process that I've been talking about. I share a few ideas, staff kicks them back, and believe it or not, I wish he were here. I know he had a slip out for a moment. Winter Benda proposed cutting spending to do it. How much is the $10 trash fee right now? And I know I'm catching you. You're about to get a the total amount over the year.

It was like two 2.2 mil, something like that. I got it. 2,480,000.

There you go. So, there's been a lot of things said about the manager and his staff. He proposed cutting spending in a different way to make sure your taxes didn't go up and that is worth commending. Thank you, mayor. Mr. um I was I was not in favor of it. Um but it was a compromise. Um I'm concerned about the city and the revenue that it needs to do what it needs to do with all the things going up, price of gas going up, so many things are going up, cost for everything is going up. So, I'm concerned about this putting the city in a bad position, but it was a compromise. So, I agree to this motion. Thank you,

Donna. Even with that reduction in spending from the proposed FY27 budget, are we still spending more than we spent last year? Um, we're replacing that revenue with one time money. Um, The question the question is are we are we do we have a do we have a reduction in spending from last year such an easy answer I don't understand

I don't have the adopted 20 oh yes I do the adopted 26 budget total operating expenditures was 23978 80,525 the manager's proposed is 247154344. So that's for the So so even reducing the 2 million and some change. We're not we're still spending more than last year. Is that correct? 8 million. This is Well, we're um we still have to pick up the trash. So we're still spending this money. Yeah. So there's been no we're just not charging the fee. So yeah. So there's just been no redu there's no been no reduction in spending. I just want to be clear about that.

Mr. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh Mr. Missions and I had the same point. I brought this up in a a lot the last budget cycle. When we call a reduction in the proposed increase a cut, that is not a cut. It's a decrease in the increase. It's not a reduction in the previous budget cycle. So that's that's a misnomer, but I will be supporting this today. I'm happy that we can move forward with it.

Let's cut right to it. Donna, we're taking a fund, a one-time fund, a rainy day fund for this for the capital budget that hasn't been used. Right. Correct. to the tune of a million something and we haven't used it for however many years it's been in there and instead of letting it sit there to collect dust, we're appropriating it to cover what would have been a $10 month trash increase or a portion of that. Correct.

That's what I'm saying. So, I would hope that when people look back at this, they see the context of what I'm saying. Sure, the the the the tax revenue for the city has gone up. because four members of council voted for a tax increase on real estate. But at the end of the day, when we're spending money and it's sitting in pots and not doing anything, we should put it to good use and reduce spending. It's a reduced spending on an item if you want me to be specific. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Tur.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I agree with moving the funding that has been sitting there into offsetting fees for our constituents. Uh, again, I stand by my earlier statements that the reduction in a proposed increase is not the same as cutting spending as has been represented in the context of our city manager. Thank you. Okay, Dr. Wilder. Okay, I want to ask everybody in the audience, has your bills gone up or has your bills gone down from last year? Everything has gone up. Only thing I saw drop was the price of eggs. Everything else has gone up. Thank you. Let's vote, please.

All right, initiating the vote now.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I uh want to say one thing. It's the spending, stupid. You know, that's really what it is. And uh you know, we're spending more. So,

let's vote. Motion passes 70. All right, we are on J, our last of the budget, consideration of adopting an ordinance prohibiting charging motor vehicle license fees in the city for FY 2027. May I have a motion, please? Motion to approve.

Second. want to speak to your motion. Um, just bought a car. Uh, didn't have to pay this one and I appreciate that. It's a spending stupid and ultimately we've got to uh sometimes we can't reduce the spending unless we lasso the bureaucrats and pull them in. And this is what we're doing right here. So, I'm happy to do this. uh if you can't reduce the spending at least you can stop them from taking more money out of the citizen's pocket and that's what we're doing. I speak to you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. It's an easy one. Um you know

I think that you probably should go ahead and maybe do a multi-year registration on your vehicles before the end of the fiscal year the the end of FY27 so you can get the benefit of this across you know three years. Um, it's uh, this one adds up too. You know, when you go to register your vehicle, you get hit with that bill and you look at it, it kind of shocks you sometimes what you got to pay for those stickers, right? So, that's what this is. We've got to do more than this. You know, this this is it's just so disappointing. This budget really just it it these two items, the trash and the and the DMV license fee. It's just a continuation of what we've been doing. So, it's not really doing anything more to reduce the burden on our citizens. It's just kind of keeping it the same. We've got to focus on reducing the burden on our citizens every chance that we get. The individuals, families, and business of this community pay the bills. And when I see taxes go up, spending go up, and the quality of service go down there. The one thing that's kind of stood out to me recently is the amount of smashed guardrails I'm seeing all over the city. They're everywhere. And and and and they're coiled up smashed guardrails. Wartsbury Road 501, you know, just left there and they've been like that for I don't know how long, but that stuff used to get taken care of and addressed promptly when it happened. And now it's just it just hangs out there. and and and you know when you're when the spending goes up and the quality of what you're getting in return goes down,

it's an accountability issue. It's not a funding issue. That's an accountability issue. But I'm happy to support this one.

Dr. Wild, I'm supporting the motion. I was not in favor of it. Again, I'm doing again as a compromise. Um again, you got to give and take. Um again I want to make sure we understand when you want certain services in your community you want certain quality of life in your community it's going to cost the amphitheater I went to amphitheater about a couple thousand people were there those p people that were saying I don't want this they were there because they enjoyed the quality of life they appreciate that that's why they spent money on the amphitheater bringing in revenue bringing in tax revenue have people come in buy go hotels and go to restaurants so that was increasing our tax revenue and then we spent money to build that but increased our tax revenue for our community and our citizens. Also the quality of life who wants to go to a dead city. So you want to come to a city with potholes and city with no quality of life who want then the city will be people will be moving out. But last time I elected the census I say I see it was increasing. So we got big liberty and expansion they're doing people are moving to the city not moving out of the city. So thank you for the information.

Let's vote please. initiating the vote now. Motion passes 70. All right, moving along to agenda item number 11. This comes from council member Feraldi. consideration of adopting a resolution directing the planning commission to review and recommend whether to remove the family planning services exemption from the definition of abortion clinic under the city zoning ordinance. I think you're a motion.

Yes. Approval.

Do we have a second? Speak to it. I have three questions. That's all. Tom, this may be for you.

Three questions. I got I'm sure I could get on. They will make them along. They will. Oh, man.

Yes, sir. Sorry, Levity. Um, okay. In the zoning ordinances across the board, do exemptions make it easier or harder for a developer or a business to start in that particular zone. in the ordinance across the board. Generally speaking,

generally speaking, does exemptions make it easier or harder for development? I think it depends on what we're talking about. Um so in this instance when excluding family planning services was added to the definition. The worry was that a family planning service ABC name one would be able to argue that well we're not an abortion clinic or a family planning service, right? Um, so we um ended up excluding them from the definition to make sure that um they they couldn't do that. There's a couple of ways you could have you could have done it. You could have defined family planning services. Um, and as I think council knows, uh, family planning services is not defined in the ordinance today. So, what the zoning ordinance says, if it's not defined, you go to Miriam Webster's dictionary 11th edition for the definition.

And what would that tell us? Well, it tells us what a fam family planning is. And the definition in Miriam Webster is planning intended to determine the number and spacing of one's children through birth control. That's what it means. So, we know that a family planning service according to the Mariam Webster's definition is not an abortion clinic because they're it doesn't say anything about abortions. So, um, so my second question, yes, sir, if I may.

If there's no abortions happening at the this location within the city, can a family planning service defined by Miriam Webster and the state and any other culmination of city code? setup shop as I have been articulating for a while which is no oversight of city council because they're exempt from this ordinance

as long as they don't perform ador abortions according to the definition which is by instrument or um believe administering of medication then yes because they're not actually doing abortions there If they did it across a county line and transported them to that location, would they be violating the I would say no because it's not it's not happening in the city. Thank you for your answers. That is my case as to why removing the exemption is important.

Thank you. Miss Reed M.

Um I I I seconded so I can hear the the questions and I I don't know if we had this discussion. Um but I am curious if so there are there are Planned Parenthood locations let's say for example that don't necessarily perform abortions on site but do their other services and I'm trying to find out if those locations can still prescribe the abortion pill and with our current resolution. Um, would that be permitted?

I'm just asking. So, the the definition it is about that. Thank you for interpreting. Definition of an abortion clinic is a facility other than a hospital where any person administers to

or causes to be taken by a woman any drug medicine or any other substance other than a contraceptive method that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. So they can't give it to them, prescribe it to them. That would be under the definition of an abortion clinic. So they they can't physically do it with instruments or administer any type of medicine that would cause that to happen by the definition adopted by council. So that's my question then is if a family planning facility was allowed but didn't do onsite abortions but it did prescribe um the pill then it's still violating what the definition of an abortion clinic is. So if they were to come before um planning commission for approval and let's say they said that they were a family planning clinic, would they be then asked what type of services they provide and if they prescribe said pill?

Well, we're getting into some very right. I know that this is this is a real this is a real this is a real situation. I mean, this would be how far are we going to ask without including this piece? That could be a real scenario. So, that's what I'm asking. I'm going to defer to the city attorney on the prescribing part um because they're not administering to to me. Go ahead. Yeah.

So, Mr. Mayor, members of council, the problem with this is is family planning services is not defined in the ordinance or in the abortion clinic ordinance. So what what council member Reid has asked, it really comes down to the crux of what fits a fanning family planning service or not. Because if things like uh oh gosh, what is it called? Um the morning after pill, right? So things along those lines, if those are offered and it's not in the context or doesn't meet necessarily the definition of an abortion, then it's excluded from abortion clinic. it would be otherwise regulated as outpatient care clinics or in some other fashion that uh would be regulated by state or or uh city code,

right? That's that's I guess that's my concern is like I know that we're talking we've talked about like case by case basis, right? But in this context is my familiarity with specifically someone like Planned Parenthood that if uh when you go on their website and they actually define themselves as a family planning service and we are if we're really wanting to get down to protection of the specific thing happening and I understand that actually the greatest way the the most common method of abortion nationwide is the abortion pill and we're really wanting to talk about protecting people from abortion, especially young people, then the pill is the avenue you do that. So, if we want to find it ways to protect our young women from that, the most the most efficient way to do that is to go through the prescription. And if we want the most clever way for them to get in our city would be to say, "We don't provide abortions. We're a family planning service center." and then they would write prescriptions. So, if we're going to try to be thorough, if we really want to tidy this up, I think that we consider doing it the right way because that's the way that they would do it. Um, or any other, not just them specifically, but that is a if that's an avenue and that's like I've said to y'all before, I mean, that is the biggest concern I have and it's not political. It is a fact. after working for the pregnancy center for three years on the board.

What's the mission?

So, so that's that's the kind of kind of where you get into the crux of the legal defensibility of this, right? There's there's the reality and then there's a pragmatic approach of what we can actually do or if we try to go too far, which is we received Mr. Josh Hatchler, general counsel for the family foundation, sent us an email all of city council that said one, they would represent us for free if we get sued over the ordinance as is, right? Which is fantastic. I'm sure the city attorney likes to hear that when we get pro boner legal support. That's fantastic. The taxpayer should love to hear that. And and two, that any material changes to the ordinance that we just adopted could affect its legal defensibility. Right. If we start talking about I think it was just mentioned like the morning after pill, right? And defining that as family planning services, then we can't approve another pharmacy or a grocery store or a Walmart or a Target from opening in Lynchberg. So there's the practical reality of what we can accomplish or if we take this thing so far that it's no longer legally defensible, it's not even like there's no point because does that make sense? You understand what I'm saying? Because we talked about this. We had a lot of phone conversations about this and I think we talked, didn't we talk about this very thing right here? What we like the the fact that we could if we went too far would wrap up Walgreens and CVS and all that in there.

It it could. And I I think part of the discussion that the city attorney and I had, I guess very complicated, is like if you go I'm going to show you my ignorance. I guess you can go to a pharmacy and buy the morning after pill, right? That's that that's that's what I've been told. But if you go the morning after, you don't necessarily know that you have, right? I think the difference is is if you go somewhere and you know, then that would fall under the abortion pregnancy before they got right before the abortion pill.

So we're talking about if they administer it, I I would say it falls under this ordinance. because it's I think because it's knowingly. Is that right? Because it's, you know,

it's the intent of terminating a pregnancy. You know, there's a pregnancy and the intent is to terminate it. You know, I mean, I I get the what's going on here, like the the approach. I understand it, but but the reality is I trust the attorney that helped put this together, that's done this in other localities. I trust the work that you and Matt did on this and you guys talked to him as well. And you know, I don't want to take the chance of just on a whim changing something to make it less legally defensible. And keep in mind, this vote tonight isn't to do anything, but to send it to the planning commission, too. I'm not going to be voting for it because I received email from Mr. Hler. We've received another dozen or so emails today of people begging us not to reopen this and and and address this because we have something that is very strong right now and it does what it's intended to do. You know, I think you can get that stuff mail order, can't you? With like a virtual visit, what you're talking about? you can, but it doesn't make the argument any uh weaker because we're if we're still trying to prevent this from being within the city limits and we're trying to limit access and there are sneaky ways to do it, we should want this to be as tightly um protected as possible for our for our young women. And I don't I think that we should make it written well. Um, I think, you know, while I respect the attorney that offers his services for free, he's not, you know, he's not our attorney. We have an attorney. We we the question is is that if by adding, uh, or removing the exemption, adding this phrase, uh, or

the the the current item is literally just to take it back to planning and ask them to reconsider. I mean, they denied they denied the original request anyway and and y'all passed it. So, no, it's not to reconsider the whole thing. No, it's it's to reconsider uh the exemption. Okay. Removing removing uh that says directing the planning commission to review and recommend whe whether to remove that phrase, the exemption from the definition of abortion clinic. Okay. So, that's they're just going back to to consider that that section. Um they denied it before and council still passed. So, uh the resolution. So, this is just going back and having them look at this. I I I just

I don't think it's um I don't think there's anything wrong with asking him to take a look at it again. I would like to ask though, Mr. Freriedman, um your thoughts on your I don't remember surrendering the floor thoughts about uh the defensibility of it. engage. Well, I suppose if I'm looking at it from the perspective of of trying to find a way to locate in the city as a family planning services to avoid the argument of that we're an abortion clinic, right? So certainly an attorney, I think, could try to make the argument, well, the language says you're excluding family planning services. What's that mean?

You know, and it it's not defined. And I think that is what the problem is is if there was a definition there that made it explicit as to what is being specifically excluded, you close that loophole. So I I don't in my opinion, I don't think it hurts to send it to planning commission to review and work with city staff on this issue. You know, it could be that they simply give a recommendation to leave it alone. Yeah, I'm not. M tumor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There are a number of points that I Well, first I'll address Mr. Freriedman's and then I'll backtrack to Mr. Faldi misread. So bear with me for just a moment cuz there are a lot of things that have been said in the context of this conversation and this conversation is greatly evolved because assumptions of the purpose and the function of the ordinance are changing as we're having the conversation and that's creating a lot of the confusion that's absolutely unnecessary. So first in the context of what Mr. Freriedman said, "We already discussed this the night of the vote, and that was that when it comes to zoning, zoning is based on what is done, not on what something calls itself." And I'd given multiple examples, one having to do with um a strip club that says prayer at the beginning to call itself a church. You you're zoned based on what you do, not based on what you call yourself. Uh additionally, with that, there's a lot of case law that supports this. And I I'll I'm happy to provide my comments again that walks through all of this because I have it written out. I have it available again tonight. Opening it up to define it doesn't close a loophole. It does reduce legal defensibility and it undermines the rational basis that we had in the first place. So going back to our work session on October 14th, our work session on January 13th, there's a point where Mr. Faldi and I agree and that is you cannot regulate a specific corporation. We don't have the legal authority to do that. We don't that's not within our zoning purview. What is within our zoning purview has to do with use which is what this ordinance clearly defines and what this ordinance clearly does. The rational basis for that has to do with community harmony. It has to do with the deregulatory nature of these clinics and accessibility potential to

schools. Um, it has to do with the potential for disruptions next to places of worship. And in the context of all of that, it gives a rational basis in which we can actually zone a particular industry because there is a reason for it. This conversation has shifted from a rational basis that has a community value that Mr. Faldi was against because he saw it as too stringent. Then he altered an alternate proposal in which he brought forth the the proposal first to regulate all outpatient clinics claiming it was stronger. Well, first he claimed that it wouldn't have bias. Then he claimed his proposal was stronger from a pro-life stance. That was on a Facebook post on February 10th. Then in a city council email, there was an alternate proposal brought forward with national leaders that had to do with declaring Lynchberg a complete sanctuary city. Now he's talking about striking the clause on the ordinance that allows for the legal defensibility that ties to the rational reason we passed it in the first place. So I am opposed to this. I believe it undermines the functionality of the ordinance altogether and it does not accomplish the goals it purports to accomplish. With that, I am vehemently opposed. I'm happy to provide any of those correspondence emails or time stamps. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Okay, listen. Either

either you care about really making this airtight or you don't. All this is doing is sending it back to to planning to just consider this adjustment. They can say no. Like I said, they said no the first time, but if we're actually trying to protect our young women from every risk, nobody should be arguing this this even them looking at this. Are you telling me that if a Planned Parenthood or someone like that pops up near our schools and they don't aren't doing active abortions in the clinic, but they're writing prescriptions left and right for that abortion pill that you're you all are going to be like, "Well, we're sure glad that we kept that exemption in there." And they're and they got in because we didn't put it in. And you're going to be like, "Well, it was a legal defensibility option." Really? because the girls could just walk across the street and get it. No, you're not. You're going to be devastated because of all those babies and because the sneakery of those places like Plan Parenthood that lie and you'll be part of the reason that it's possible for those things to happen. or we can let this be considered and we can actually fight for the way those things really do happen because they do and yes they're they're put in the mail and there's not a regulation. We we should be fighting for that too and that's a whole other story but we should be fighting for every way if we either for it or we're against it. You can't be lukewarm on this. But I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with us all saying like, "Let's go ahead and let them go look at it. If it's legally defensible, it'll be

legally defensible." But we can't then go, "Well, we're going to go regulate private businesses about vaping, and we're going to go regulate private business about this and regulate private business about this, but we're worried about this one when this is saving lives."

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, we had so many people participate in this process, a lot of legal minds, a lot of threading the needle to get to where we are. And that night was such a grand victory. Um, those of us were there remember it was an amazing evening because if you know what I know and been here as long as I have, you know that there's never been any attempt to uh to protect unborn children in Lynchburg ever. And that's what happened that night. And it was a good thing because this committee, the planning commission that they're trying to send this back to, we got across the the finish line. We wouldn't have We won the race and uh and the the most pro-life organization in the whole state helped us craft it and is offering their free legal services to get it done. And and it said it's they're not going to defend it if we go messing with it because every word in it is very carefully written and you go messing with it and they're not going to help us. So that's going to cost the taxpayers because we're going to have to go defend it. uh he's willing to defend it now as it is because he knows it's defensible. So it's not only do you want to accomplish the goal that we won that night, the victory that we had, but do you want to run backwards across the finish line and go and rehash this again? And it's worse than that. I hate to say it, but it's been nothing but chaos in this thing. And I think that's on purpose. I don't want to get into people's motivation of why they want to create this chaos around this, but it's not helping the unborn children. It's not helping the mothers that we're purporting to care about. It's it's sending it back to a committee that was

vehemently and voted strongly against the ordinance. So, don't tell me you're for it when you're sending it back to a committee that's already demonstrated they're against it. So there is no way in the world I am going to vote to send it back to them. You you you make it sound like it's just innocent and why would you vote? I know why I'm voting against sending it back to them. They've already said no to it. We worked so hard to get where we are and then we got chaos and now we're backing up across the finish line that we already won the race and we want to redefine it. Why? Why are we doing that? It's going to cost the taxpayers money because they're not going to defend it if we mess around with it. Uh it's going to it's going to reverse the victory. We already had the victory. Uh why in the world some people up here who say they're for saving the innocent unborn and protecting our young ladies are wanting to send it back to a committee that has demonstrated opposition and voted I think it was 52 against the ordinance and we're going to send it back to them. We won this race. What are we doing here, folks? Leave it alone.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, there's there's we've also got to remember how we got here, right? So, I'm going to read something that should just settle this. First, it's section 18.2-72 of the code of Virginia. When abortion lawful during the first trimester of pregnancy, notwithstanding any of the provisions of section 182.71, it shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the board of medicine to practice in medicine and surgery or any person jointly licensed by the boards of medicine and nursing as an advanced practice of nurse and acting within such person's scope of practice to terminate or attempt to terminate a human pregnancy or aid or assist in the termination of human pregnancy by performing an abortion or causing a miscarriage on any woman during the first trimester of pregnancy. So, in Virginia, right? It's lawful for any physician or nurse practitioner practicing with their scope of practice to to prescribe these drugs, right? What this ordinance does is it addresses what occurs on land in the city. We can't regulate the use of somebody else's land outside the city. If somebody comes in here and sets up and then they take somebody else outside of the city to to have a procedure, we can't do anything about that. There's nothing we can do about that. But you know what we can do? We can keep what we already have intact. That started before the legislature before the state legislature voted to send for the second time their abortion constitutional amendment to the voters on the referendum. That's one of the reasons why this is so critical because our legislative history on this

ordinance begins before that second reconvening of the legislature. And what are they trying to do? They're trying to make it a constitutional right to murder fullterm infants at the moment of birth. Some even say after they're born. That's what the Democrats in Richmond are trying to do. That's what the voters are going to decide in November. And what we did was we got proactive and we got ahead of that and said, "You know what? We're going to make it really, really hard for them to even think about doing it here." Right? So, we've got a constitutional amendment coming in November that's going to make it a constitutional right because pragmatically, unfortunately, and we need to fight against this as hard as we can. The reality is that that is probably going to pass. All you got to do is look at the recent yes no vote, right? That's probably going to pass. It's going to be enshrined in our Constitution. It's one of the most liberal um brutal, disgusting constitutional rights that will exist in America. It's barbaric. We got ahead of it and we said, you know what? We're gonna do something about that. One of the laws of the public policy process for Morton Blackwell is don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Right? Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Because what can happen is if we try to do this and then all of a sudden it does destroy the legal defensibility

by changing something. Now we're talking about something that happened after the second vote of the legislature, right? Who knows what else comes out of this? But right now, it is settled in Lynchber, Virginia, it is very difficult for an abortion clinic to ever show up and perform abortions in Lynchburg, Virginia. And if they get one of the parcels where they can do it, it's then got to come before us as a body to make that decision. That's how it works. That is what it is today. Right now, right now, today, that's what it is. When you vote to send this to the planning commission, what you set in motion is you undo all of that and open it back up. And you know what could happen when we debate? We wouldn't necessarily have to pass what we already even have if they said no recommendation. But what it does is it sets it in motion and puts it on the agenda. And then, you know, who knows? Maybe maybe four people decide they're going to change their minds and they just repeal the whole thing. That could happen by opening this back up, right? It could happen. And I'm not going to stand by and and and not fight for this in that way. And and and the other thing too is by taking that exemption out, right? What happens when a future council, maybe there's a

Democrat council in four years, 5 years, 6 years, 10 years, whatever it is, and this is still in place, right? And you take that family planning services exemption out of there. What happens when they define the Blige Pregnancy Center as family planning services? then there's no longer an exemption for them. What happens if they then try to apply that to a pro-life crisis pregnancy center because that exemption doesn't exist in there? What if that is their rationale? There's so many elements about what we passed to consider, who it protects, what it can do. But but the reality is is you know the way this works is it's a land use decision. That's what this is. We have defined how the land can be used.

Okay. And I am completely and totally opposed to this. There is no reason. I think the best thing that you said was why would we run backwards through the finish line that we've already crossed and and you know it's like one step forward, three steps backwards. That's what opening this back up does. I'll be voting against it. Miss Timmer, we got to move on. Brief.

Uh I I've used and my colleagues have as well. We've used the word legal defensibility. I've talked about the rational basis in which we can act. What I'm really talking about is what is our authority as council. And jurisdiction in government is defined by having both the power to enact something and the authority to do it, to see it through. That's significant. What this proposal does ultimately asks us to operate in our power but not under our authority and that is false. I cannot support it. I will not support it. I uh there are a lot of layers to this. There are a lot of personal layers. There are a lot of legal layers. It was done right. It did what it said it does and that's what we need to move forward with. It has the rational basis in regards to how zoning land use works and operates in our community in a responsible and integral way.

What was the phrase? Uh the perfect is the enemy of the good. I say the good is the enemy of the best and is the r rationalization of laziness. Uh I'll conclude by saying this. 1222 Rivermont Avenue is 342 ft from Gospel Community Church. Guess what can go in without oversight as said by city staff tonight. 5900 Fort Avenue, 678 ft from Quaker Memorial Church. Guess what can go in without council oversight? 1103 12th Street, 370 ft from Dumbar Middle School. Guess what can go in without council oversight? Two more. 2602 Lern Road, 650 ft from EC Glass High School. Guess what? City staff toilets can go in without our oversight. And finally, 670 6, sorry, 3750. Can't read my own thing. Canller's Mountain Road, 822 feet from Thomas Road Baptist Church. So if you want to not even just let this process go down reviewing this exemption, Planned Parenthood, any other organization that is listed at the state website can come into the city and issue transportation vouchers all they want to Ron Oak Charlottesville and they can do it within a thousand ft of Thomas Road Baptist Church if they bought the property. No oversight of this council. That's the reality. I make this commitment here and now. This goes through the process. The only thing I am

interested in, the only thing I will vote on is removing this exemption. Nothing else. Mark my words. Let's vote. Mayor, there's one blank in there that needs to be filled in as far as when this would come back to city council. Mr. Martin and I had spoken and the earliest we think it could come back is September 8th, 2026. Is there any objection to having that date added to the ordinance just to say to return to the council by September 8th, 2026?

No. What was the date? I'm I'm immenable to before the end of the year. I mean like because I don't I But we only meet once in July and once in August. That's why I'm trying to so maybe before the end of within a 100 days. I would just use the language of the code. Yeah. As Marty's saying, I would actually just use the language of the code to within a 100 days of the adoption date of the resolution is how it reads. Okay. You got a question. Uh long conversation. Question for Mr. Martin actually.

Yes, sir. Do we do we have the authority to use zoning to prevent people from giving someone rides outside of the city? I think that's question. Yes, we probably would. You don't think we'd be able to do that,

right? And not wanting to prolong this, but if you just remove the exclusion of family planning services from it, family planning services are still permitted by right in B1, B3, B4, B5, IN1, and in2. The way the or what the purpose of the ordinance was was to create a separation between what's family planning services and what is an abortion clinic. Perfect. Thank you so much. I'm not Nope. I'm trying to get in the middle of it. We took anybody off. I got it.

You just that Can you say that one more time? What you just said? loud and if if you just remove the exclusion for family planning services, the ordinance still permits them B1, B3, B4, B5, IN1, and in2. So, and that's the way it was before, right? Correct. So if if you wanted to do that and and your concern is these other things, it doesn't really fix it, right? So you would have to do some other stuff.

That's great. So I would change my motion to guess what we'll remove the exemption and ask them to come up with a definition. Point of order. That didn't come through a work session. That motion is out of order, Mr. Mayor. That's not what we discussed in the work session. He's got you there. Point order. We went through this earlier. Yes, we did. But we did not That's not a motion to amend. That That was not We're talking about a major revision of our zoning code that was not brought forward.

We're asking planning commission what they're going to do and if it we need to have the scope correct. The scope needs to be properly articulated. you know, but that's that's not what was brought forward in the work session. Let's uh just an effort to help things move along. I think council could still address this, but Mr. Faraldi could request today that the matter be brought at the next roll call, you know, to uh be spoken about as far as a definition for family planning services and simply begin that process. I would let's call Mr. Mayor on second that's on the floor. I'll do just that. You accept that? You accept that? What? We got a motion and second on the floor. What Matt just said?

Yeah, but I still want to vote on this tonight because the exemption needs to be gone. Okay, let's vote. Take the motion. To approve. To approve. All right. Initiating the vote now. Excuse me. Initiating the vote now. My machine went down. Hold on.

The motion fails. 25. Excuse me. I'll make a motion to prevent reintroduction for six months. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item has been settled not only once in our historic public hearing, but there's a unique uh provision in our rules of procedure that says the motion shall be in order immediately following the defeat of a substantive motion at no other time. The motion requires for adoption of vote of the majority of the entire members of the council. adopt the restriction imposed by the motion remains in effect for six months. So, we can't do it on a procedural motion. We can do it on a substantive motion, which is what this is. And we we've the the dead horse is beat, right? We've got a great strong pro-life ordinance here in Lynchburg. Let's leave it that way. Let's kill this for six months. Can't even be brought up. So, I may appreciate the second on that. And let's vote on it unless anybody else wants to speak. Let's vote.

Tom, please feel free to stay seated from what you just said. No, please stay seated. What you just said, you said so there's no definition of family planning services in there. Even if we remove it, these entities can still come in. Then it would result back to the definition in Miriam Webster's which is family planning. I have to get it but essentially it's deter planning for the number of uh size of the family using contraceptives. Is my point still valid which is

which is that these entities can come in and send folks out of town. I mean, anybody could send someone out of town. Thank you. I appreciate it. If we're going to if you're going to do this, you realize the only thing you're killing are babies when these people come into this city and do this without council oversight. That's on you. I called the vote. Let's vote. Six more months. Right. Initiating the vote to prevent reintroduction for six months.

The motion fails. 34.

Item number 12. Item number 12 to consideration of adopting a resolution waving the attorney client privilege and other protections from an email. Was that Did you vote no or did you vote yes on that? No. Okay. So, you want to have this debate again? Go ahead. Oh, let's go. He can change his mind. 12. 10 seconds.

Mayor, item number 12. Mayor, the reason I'm bringing this before this council is to shed light on the only legal opinion this council has received on this topic. What we received from Jos Hler did not address the question I have posed for these months and to this council tonight. What happens if an entity such as Planned Parenthood or otherwise comes into the city, does not do the abortions on site and sends them out of town. The city attorney's opinion is the only one that addresses that. Mr. Hler's opinion or letter, whatever you want to call it, only addressed that if council changed the the ordinance, he may or may not be able to defend it. So releasing a portion of this email is transparent, shows the public that council moved forward with this process understanding this opinion, the only legal opinion we've received. So I ask we release it so the public can be aware. Thank you.

So is this is this the whole email or what what what is the what is the motion? So it's a very small portion of an email that's identified in the resolution. The language begins under B and it only goes through that parentheses e.g.f federal state, etc. So it's a it's a portion of an email dated Tuesday, February 17, 2026. Time stamp 12:10 p.m. Subject subject line of re exemption and again beginning where I stated and only through where I had stated is a waiver with privilege.

I have a motion. I made You made a motion. You speak to it, Chris. I did. Was a second. Miss Reed, you want to speak to it? No. Mr. Mayor Marty,

I'll make a motion to amend. The motion to amend is going to be to release attorney client privilege on all of the emails between Christopher Aldi and Matt Friedman related to the abortion zoning ordinance. And one other thing, the other thing is going to be to release attorney client privilege on everything related to R24056 was a uh resolution adopted by the council. And the reason is is because this is heavily redacted right here, right? This is I don't know 50 60 pages that was received from a foyer request for uh I'll read it. All records related to the transaction of business taking place between outside council and the city of Lynburg related to the preparation of R23098 which was the first censure and then the second censure. So it would be related to the preparation of this resolution with outside council on R24056. same exact request, but for some reason on the first request, I got like 50ome pages, right? But the second request, which would be communications potentially with Mr. Faldi, Mr. Freriedman related to Mr. Freriedman potentially representing Chris Faraldi in the Faldi v. Alexander lawsuit, which was a private lawsuit, not in the not in the domain of municipal government. That's what this was about. Um, what I got was the city of Lynchburg has reviewed its files and has located records which would be responsive to your request. However, these responsive records fall under an exemption for mandatory disclosure pursuant to code section 22370512 code of Virginia as amended. The amount of responsive records which are being exempted from mandatory disclosure are 21 pages. So it was a complete and total denial. So the amendment is to release all the records related to Mr. Faldi's communications with Mr. Freriedman regarding the abortion zoning ordinance,

everything in the planning process before it came to us and then also to release all the records that were exempt from disclosure under this which was when uh apparently Mr. Freriedman was planning on representing or or soliciting from council members the idea of representing Mr. Faraldi in his uh Faldi v. Alexander lawsuit, a personal campaign lawsuit that should not have had a scent of taxpayer time or money spent on it. So that's the request is is to get all the communications regard between Mr. Faldi and uh Mr. Freriedman regarding Feraldi v Alexander and then also everything related to this second centure which is R24056. So that is the amended motion. Is there a second?

Well, I'd add a friendly amendment to your amendment and then I'd be willing to second. So, I would welcome the advice that's been given on hostile work environment. Um the the false legal advice has been given on hostile work environment. I'd also welcome um just the the emails regarding a number of rules interpretations. I wish we had the recordings for those. Um I I'm just going to add a hostile work environment for now. I will accept that as friendly amendment. All communications regarding hostile work environment as well that are covered under attorney client privilege. I'll second that.

Okay. I'll speak to your second.

Uh I man I'm happy to support uh releasing the the email that Mr. Fraudi wants to bring forward. I spoke to this earlier. The rules of the game constantly change. I've spoken to this before. A lot of things are put under attorney client privilege that really have no business being under attorney client privilege. Policy decisions are not attorney client privilege. There's no reason to have a closed session to discuss policy issues when there's no litigation threat. These things happen all the time. It's inappropriate. We should release it. I I say go for the gamut. So, I'm happy to release Mr. Faldi's email. I'm happy to release these other items as well. Have no issue with transparency.

Okay. Let's vote on the Can I speak against? Yeah. Yes. Yes. Um, what's the demo?

This is going to seem strange, but I absolutely think that the attorney client privileges abused uh significantly by our city attorney. I brought this up multiple times. Um, he certainly shouldn't have involved himself in a private campaign thing. And I I made a I wasn't on council then, but uh the secret meeting a phone conversation about whether council wanted to and get into that private lawsuit involved in Mr. Faraldi's political campaign. Couldn't have been more inappropriate. And it's just as inappropriate to slap a attorney client privilege on every single piece of paper that comes out of his office. I mean, it could be toilet paper and you're going to put an attorney client privilege on it because you just do it all the time and it's not appropriate. That is supposed to be in specific cases. The code of Virginia is clear of when it's supposed to be used and you abuse it. You put a cone of silence on things. Um, however, I am going to vote against this because, uh, ultimately, uh, I think we're wasting a lot of time on a lot of stupid stuff on this city council and I'm tired of doing that. So, there you go,

Mr. Freeman. Mayor to in all cander, I I don't even know if there's there's words for what I'm hearing. I'm I'm horrified what I'm hearing. The privilege exists for the benefit of the city and the entity and three members up here are trying to release materials that protect the city for personal benefit. And it's horrifying and it's disgusting.

I would submit highly recommend that this council not accept the motion to amend because it's done not for the benefit of the city but for their own benefit and gain. And that is not appropriate. Yes. Okay. My attorney in that instance for the Alexander versus Marty and Alexander um was Zach Wurl. And if you know anything about Zach WL, he is very opinionated. I'm not sure I am able to actually say what he thinks of you, Marty, because it's offensive. Thank you, Mr. Timmer. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Uh, first, we need to vote here. I understand. And Mr. Demer said he's voting against this. He gave his rational basis for it, and I support him in that. Uh, I said I am voting for this, and the reason that I am voting for this, because I speak for myself, is because attorney client privilege is abused frequently in the context of the office. I'm not per I I haven't read the others. I wasn't on council. I'm not familiar, but I do know of examples that demonstrate that and I am more than happy to release those. There's opportunity for transparency here. So, I'll be voting in favor. We can move on and then vote in favor of Mr. Faldi's.

It's time to vote. Marty, you've spoken enough. It's time to move on. I I I Mr. Mayor, I think I deserve an opportunity. Call the vote. Okay. All right. Let's stay ster. This is for the amendment to amend to essentially release everything.

Your comments were out of line, Mr. Friedman. Your comments were outline of Mr. Mayor. Motion fails. Two five. The main motion is on the floor. Main motion. Let's vote.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to amend or release all the emails between Mr. Faldi and Mr. Freriedman regarding the abortion. Uh not not just a couple sentences, but all of it regarding everything going back and forth. regarding the uh abortion zoning ordinance, not just the one sentence. So, I'm going to make that as a motion amendment. If we're going to release it, we should release all of it, not just a small snippet that paints a picture. That That's my motion to amend. Is there a second? Second. Speak to your second. Yeah. I don't I'd like to see because there's such collusion between these two. We've watched it for a year and a half now.

That's inappropriate. And uh it's clear if you pay any attention to council at all. I I think pulling a I need to be able to finish what I'm saying. You've got to be able to understand. We can't just say, "Okay, we're going to be transparent in this situation, but we're not going to be transparent in this situation." But that's the way the game is played. And it's it's situational ethics. Anybody know what situational e ethics are?

Yeah. You basically are uh well today I feel this way so this is right but tomorrow I may feel completely different and so now the opposite is right. That's situational ethics. You know uh when I read scripture God doesn't change. The truth doesn't change. What's right doesn't change. And situational ethics uh applies to all of our lives and everything that we do. And it applies up here on council too. And when you get rulings from your umpire that that's a strike today, but tomorrow I might call that a ball or I might just uh you know willy-nilly call it something completely different that's not even a real call. Um that's what's horrible that there's not truth. Objective truth is Miss Timmer said is still truth and truth needs to to apply to uh our rules of procedure. It needs to apply to our ordinances. It needs to apply to the code of Virginia and it needs to apply to federal law. We can't just be doing situational ethics. And when you got an umpire that can't figure out uh you know what a difference between a ball and a strike is and uh calls them different every time, sometimes in the same meeting, just basically disagrees with himself. You're going to have chaos. And what you've seen tonight is a lot of chaos.

And sometimes I think the author of chaos is in this room. and I don't want to be part of what he's doing because most of the chaos that I see uh it has a name. I'm not going to call it out, but I think we all if you're paying any attention at all, you know, we we we pass things and then we pull them back and then we still try to do some more things after you've lost and then you lose again and then you try something. I mean, we need to just move on and get this meeting over with. Mr. Mayor,

oh, mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. the the and see the the reason why it's so critical to release all the communication regarding this is cuz what you'll see what you'll find the the the thing that vice mayor said about collusion is absolutely right there was an attempt to undermine what I was working on what I've been working on with Josh Hler right from the very beginning and it's in the emails wrapped up under attorney client privilege and that's why it's critical that this whole thing is released there there's there's no benefit in just releasing the snippet that they want to release because it's just going to be used to try to paint a picture. It's all it is. It's just being used to try to create a narrative. I think um Council Member Reed said it best. I can't remember what the date was, but she said, "You tell people what you want them to believe." Those words came out of her mouth on this dis. You tell people what you want them to believe. So if you take a snippet and then you protect the rest of it, it's because you want to paint a picture to people of what you want them to believe. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not. So it's very simple. Supporting this amendment supports disclosure. It supports transparency and it supports honesty. If you don't support this amendment, all you're supporting is building a narrative.

Let's vote on the amendment. Initiating that vote now. Motion fails. 34. Imagine that. Moving forward. All right. Main motion is on the floor. Main motion

to approve. All right. Initiating that vote now. Council questions. Did you put your vote in?

Motion passes 61. Meeting adjourned. Next meeting May 26, 4:00, second floor training room.