City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Good evening, everyone. Good evening. Welcome. The formal meeting of the Richmond City Council will now come to order. We will have the invocation offered by pastor Carla Pratt Keys of the Gent Ginter Park Presbyterian Church.

Madam president, before we do that, I do need to read the announcement regarding Spanish interpretation services at this meeting. Yes.

Let's oh, yes, please. Thank you.

Spanish interpretation is available in the council chamber. Please see a representative at the rear of the room to receive the appropriate equipment. Spanish interpretation is also available through Microsoft Teams for virtual attendees in need of this service.

Thank you. We will now have the invocation by pastor Carla Pratt Keys, followed by the pledge of allegiance. Welcome pastor.

Thank you.

As we prepare to pray, I invite you and you to sit as comfortably as you can in your chair and close your eyes if you feel comfortable doing that. Take a deep breath in and let it out. And then rub your hands together for a moment. Just warm them up and put your warm hands over your beating heart. These bodies of ours.

Here is where God's story and our stories intersect. God comes to us right here and is present in our bodies, in the people who are near us in this room, and in everyone in this great city of ours. God is present in all of us, young and old, well healed and historically disenfranchised, fifth generation Richmonders and newly arrived immigrants. God will be with us wherever we lay our heads down tonight, on a favorite pillow or a park bench or a hospital bed or a prison cot. Notice your heartbeat and the rise and fall of your chest.

Breathe in God's mercies. Breathe out God's mercies to the city we love and serve. Breathe in God's mercies. Breathe out God's mercies to all who call Richmond home. Breathe in God's mercies.

Breathe out God's mercies from Hopkins Road to Lubernham Park, from Churchill to Willow Lawn, and all along the James River. Eternal God, may your mercies, your justice, your compassion, and your wisdom be reflected in the dialogue and decisions of this council tonight. In your holy name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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. If we could have the emergency evacuation plan and public speaker guidelines shared at this time.

Upon activation of the emergency alarm signal, all persons should immediately exit the building. Please use the exits to

the left or right front of

the council chamber or the east or west stairwell outside the rear doors of the chamber. Do not use elevators or escalators. After exiting the building, security will direct everyone down 9th Street to the assembly area located inside the former public Safety Building parking lot. Able persons should assist visually and hearing impaired visitors with exiting the building. Individuals speaking during public hearings and the public comment period are generally allowed three minutes to speak.

Persons appearing before counsel are not allowed to campaign for public office, promote private business ventures, use language of a personal nature which insults or demeans any person, including comments directed at public officials or staff members that are not related to their official duties, or address or question staff members directly. All questions are to be directed to the President of Council. Failure to adhere to the guidelines may result in speakers forfeiting any remaining time and further disciplinary action as necessary, which could include barring from attendance at future meetings of City Council for a period of six months.

Madam President, I believe there's a request for a member to participate remotely. There is. The motion is coming.

Thank you, madam president. Person to rule three d four b of counsel's rules of procedure, counselor Stephanie Lynch has requested to participate in this meeting via Microsoft Teams due to a work obligation requiring travel to Minnesota. She will participate from the Sheraton Bloomington Hotel located at 1501 West 78th Street in Edinburgh, Minnesota. The council members present must adopt a motion to approve Lynch's participation in this meeting by electronic communication means if it appears to the body that her request complies with Rule three d of Council's Rules Procedures. At this time, pursuant to Rule three d four d of Council's Rules, is there a motion from the members physically assembled approving Ms.

Lynch's participation in this meeting by electronic communication means. So moved. Second.

Council is now voting on the motion to approve Ms. Lynch's request to participate in this meeting electronic communication means. Mr. Breton? Aye. Ms. Gibson? Yes. Ms. Jones? Aye. Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Trammell? Aye. Vice President Jordan? Aye. And President Newbill? Aye. That motion has been approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's move on to the boards and commission appointments.

And, madam president, before I do that, I would like to state that all members of council are in attendance this evening except for counselors Lynch, who has yet to join the team's meeting remotely, and counselor Abu Bakr. You do have a quorum. If there are individuals other than authorized individuals standing in the rear of the chamber, they are asked to be seated where seats are available. Also, applause is not permitted during tonight's meeting. Thank you. Thank you

for the update. Let's proceed with the boards and commission appointments.

Members, for consideration this evening, you were provided with board appointment recommendations from some of your standing committees. Is there a motion to approve the appointment recommendations?

I have a motion to amend the recommendations. I'd like to move that for the Participatory Budgeting Steering Commission for the new appointment that we continue that one to the next quarter to make more time to consider other applicants and that we consider all the rest as a slate tonight.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Counsel is now voting on the motion to refer the initial appointment recommendation for the participatory steering Budgeting Steering Commission back to the Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee for reconsideration. Mr. Breton?

Aye.

Ms. Gibson? Yes. Ms. Jones? Aye. Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Trammell? Aye. Vice President Jordan? And President Newbill? Aye. That motion has been approved. Now is there a motion to approve the remaining appointment recommendations as presented?

So move.

Miss Robertson, will you second that motion?

Second, madam clerk.

Thank you. Council is now voting on the motion to approve the remaining appointment recommendations as presented. Mr. Breton? Aye. Ms. Gibson? Yes. Ms. Jones?

Aye.

Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Trammell? Aye. Ms. Abubaker? Ms. Vice President Jordan, I'm sorry. Aye. And President Newbill? Aye. That motion has been approved and all remaining appointment and reappointment recommendations have been approved as presented.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's proceed with the public

comment period. Speakers. The first speaker is Melvin Jones.

Welcome, mister Jones.

Good afternoon, members of city council. My name is Melvin Jones. I live in the 3rd District. My concerns this afternoon is about before the mayor came in here, a new mayor, we had money that was given to people who weren't supposed to get it as far as bonuses.

Mr. Jones, I believe you were signed up to address the replacement of a retirement plaque and oversight of nondepartmental funds?

No, ma'am. Well, the department funds, yeah, this is also on department funds. So I

believe the bonuses or any raises are part of the budget public hearing, so you can come back to speak to that.

But also I want to speak about this $5,000,000 that the Feds got over there that the city of Richmond gave away. They went out the front door, and I figured that the inspector general's office and somebody else should have been on top of all this money that's going out here. Like, 300 thou $33,000 going to dead people that were retired. I mean, come on. Somebody need to be accountability on all this money.

Mister Jones, we are happy to have your comments on any items. The things that are indicated here that you're speaking to is the replacement of a retirement plaque and oversight of nondepartmental funds. We'd be happy to have you come back and speak to any of those other items.

Miss new listen miss Newby, excuse me. All of this stuff is being spread right up under the rug, and all of this stuff needs to be out here for people to know.

We have no problem with you bringing comment on any issue. We were literally looking at what you called in and said that you wanted to speak to. We have no problem with you coming back to speak to any issue. But the issues on for this evening are those two that I've just indicated, that you gave us

Right.

You wanted to speak to.

Yes, ma'am. So you're telling me to come back up here and speak about it?

I'm are you going to speak to the items that you have on that you've indicated that you wanted to speak to? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

So who were they? It's been so long.

We have that you would like to speak regarding a replacement of a retirement plaque and oversight of non departmental funds.

Well, somebody needs to take care of that. Like, it's I mean, come on, y'all. Somebody needs there's no oversight on what's going on with our money. Okay? You you raising our water bills up for us to pay for all this stuff, but, I mean, there's no accountability. No accountability at all. It's like y'all don't care. I mean, y'all got second jobs. We out here scrambling trying to make it. I can't even get my dad going house payment through habitat, through humanity. Two years I put in

the

application. Don't nobody give a damn. Don't nobody all you wanna do is put us in these retirement homes, take our homes, and that's it. Somebody gonna listen tonight or either I'm going to jail because this is this is ridiculous.

So, mister Jones, I want to say, number one, we do care. And that's why we make room and space for residents of the city and others to come speak to us. If there are matters and I hear a couple that have not been addressed, I'm going to ask someone in the administration to follow-up with you. I've heard a couple. It don't do no good, miss Newbill. Well, we're gonna give it a shot, sir.

Like I said, it don't do no good. I I've been coming to hell many more years than you. That's probably true, but we are going to seeing you. As always mister Hodges said, a black person don't have a day and hell in the city of Richmond.

Mister Jones, I'll ask the administration to follow-up with you on the matters that you raised that you've not received any response response to. To.

But I also wanna say the city workers do a darn good job. I've seen them clean the streets where

They do.

Where my city council person told me they didn't have any money for my area. I've seen them clean a basin, which is a wetter water go down. And I think they ought to deserve a more of a raise instead of a 3.2. Give them a 6.2. The city got the money to do it. You're doing everything else. Thank you, sir.

The next speaker is Chris Suarez.

Good evening. My name is Chris Suarez, live in the 9th District, and I'm here today as part of an ad hoc group of city residents that want to see our streets become safer for everyone. We're all here tonight because we've experienced fear while walking or biking on our city streets. Some of us were intimately connected to people who have been killed by a driver. There are friends, coworkers, and neighbors, and in some cases, our own family members.

The ones of us who are organizing this event today met earlier this year participating in the bike walk RBA academy, and came up with this idea of having a march and coming to this council meeting to advocate for solutions that can eliminate the risk of serious injury or death for vulnerable road users. But we're also here to honor the people who have needlessly died. As you all know, we've had thirteen fatalities last year, making it the deadliest year for pedestrian involved crashes in a decade according to DMV data. Clearly something is not working. In last few months, I've been encouraged by to see the mayor's administration and our new department of transportation taking this issue very seriously.

I appreciate that we've lowered the speed limit near where I live on Westover Hills Boulevard to 25 miles per hour. I could see in the budget's capital improvement plan that there's millions for new bike lanes, walking trails, and traffic calming measures, including in badly needed corridors like Hull Street, Richmond Highway, and Brooklyn Park Boulevard. This is all great, but I wanna ask you that you all continue to keep working on making it safe to walk and bike in this community. I know that in a few months time, the city will be using the money being allocated tonight to implement some of these projects I just mentioned. But I wanna ask that you continue to prioritize the Vision Zero initiative by advocating for more safety measures, and to resist any urge of feeling cynical if you're ever challenged by transportation advocates, safety advocates, or by motorists who are opposed to bike lanes and speed bumps and other things that intended to slow them down and make our streets safer.

A walkable and bikeable city needs safe streets.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Suarez.

The next speaker is Jacob Pupenbarger. Madam President, that concludes the list of public comment period speakers for this evening.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's proceed to tonight's agenda and review of any amendments.

The amendments to tonight's agenda are as follows: Item two, Ordinance twenty twenty six-ninety three will be continued to the Monday, June 8 council meeting. Item eight, Ordinance twenty twenty five-two 31 will be continued to the Tuesday, May 26 council meeting. Item nine, Ordinance twenty twenty six-fifty nine will be continued to the Monday, June 8 council meeting, and this paper is to be referred to the May 28 Public Safety Standing Committee meeting. Item 10, Ordinance twenty twenty six-ninety will be continued to the Tuesday, May 26 council meeting. This paper is to be referred to the May 20 Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee meeting.

Item 11, Ordinance twenty twenty six-ninety two and Item 12, Ordinance twenty twenty six zero nine six, will both be continued to the Monday, June, and these papers are to be referred to the June 1 organizational development standing committee meeting. And item 13, resolution twenty twenty six, R019, will be continued to the Tuesday, May 26 council meeting, and this paper is to be referred to the May 20 Finance and Economic Development standing committee meeting. Madam President, those are all the amendments to tonight's agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Might we, at this point, call for a motion to accept the amendment?

So moved. Second.

Council is voting on this evening's agenda amendments as read. Mr. Breton? Aye. Ms. Gibson? Yes. Ms. Jones? Aye. Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Trammell? Aye. Vice President Jarden?

Aye.

And President Newbill? Aye. That motion has been approved and the amended agenda is now before you.

Mr. Clerk, prior to proceeding, I would just like because we have a large number of individuals who are desirous of speaking to items on the agendas, both the consent as well as when we get to reviewing the budget, we will allow two minutes to try to accommodate as many as are here. So let's proceed. We will now have a public hearing on the consent agenda items. All those persons desirous of speaking in opposition to any item on the consent agenda, if you would come forward.

Madam President, would you like for me to read the consent agenda items into the record first?

You can. I thought you had with the I'm looking at the ordinance numbers here. So yes, please.

This evening's consent agenda consists of the following items. Item one, ordinance twenty twenty six, zero seven four. Item three, ordinance twenty twenty six, zero nine four. Item four, ordinance twenty twenty six, zero nine five. Item five, ordinance twenty twenty six, 97 and item six, resolution twenty twenty six, R003. Those are the items on tonight's consent agenda.

Thank you. So again, for the consent agenda, the public hearing, the first speakers, would ask if there are any persons' desires of speaking in opposition to any of the items on the consent agenda, if you would come forward.

Okay.

Seeing none, are there persons present desires of speaking in favor of any of the items on the consent agenda, if you would come forward?

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, council members. Nice to see everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Maria Duester, and I work at the Community Climate Collaborative.

We are a local nonprofit fighting for climate action and environmental justice in Richmond. I am here to speak in support of Resolution twenty twenty six R003, which calls on the city to design and implement an energy efficiency program in our city. As many of you know, Richmond ranks among the top cities in The United States for energy burden, which is the percent of income spent on energy costs. And this in particular affects low income residents in our city. This resolution will give the city the green light to set up an infrastructure of support for residents that not only reaches across city departments, but addresses interconnected issues that residents are facing right now, high energy bills, subpar housing conditions, health and safety concerns, and a lack of educational and financial resources.

It will also provide vital support to renters who are currently being underserved, including myself. My first apartment in Richmond, which was on the Ground Floor of an older building, had terrible insulation. There was a massive crawl space underneath our living room that had no insulation at all. It would get so cold in the fall and winter that I actually developed sores on my feet from the cold and moisture. In my current apartment, our building didn't have any heat for months last winter

Yeah, thirty seconds.

Because of deferred maintenance on our very old heating system. We were given small space heaters to tide us over, which are infamously inefficient and very, very expensive. Thousands of residents across our city share similar stories to mine and stand to benefit from an energy efficiency program here in Richmond that lowers their monthly costs and makes their homes safer and more efficient. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Carolyn Pugh and I am also with the Community Climate Collaborative in support of the Energy Efficiency Resolution. I want to start by thanking Council for all of the work that's gone into this resolution over the last six months. As energy costs continue to rise in Virginia, local investment in energy efficiency and weatherization can have a really significant impact on folks' abilities to pay their bills every month. The new amendments in this resolution strengthen the program's ability to succeed, providing a timeline and a list of requirements that will make the program more holistic and far reaching.

Importantly, the resolution calls for a framework for interdepartmental coordination, ensuring that existing programs such as healthy homes and the rental inspection program, staff and funding can be leveraged effectively and not duplicate existing efforts. We were also glad to see that the resolution supports the localization of the Virginia Connect program, which acts as an online resource hub for those looking for financial support and tools. One of the main things we've heard from folks recently when talking about energy bills is that more information is needed. Why are energy bills getting so much higher? What resources are available?

And how to access them. The resolution as proposed tonight will commit the city to expanding capacity, improving coordination, investing in education and outreach, and ultimately offering weatherization and energy efficiency retrofits to a higher number of community members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Annika Shun. I'm a housing policy advocate with Housing Opportunities Made Equal. I'm here today to voice Home Strong support for Resolution Number twenty twenty six, R003. I want to thank City Council for all your hard work on this resolution, and I want to also thank Community Climate Collaborative for spearheading this effort.

Richmond is facing a mounting displacement crisis where as many as 67% of renters can't envision a long term future in Richmond because of rising housing costs. Energy burdens exacerbate housing cost burdens, and so this program presents an opportunity to meaningfully reduce that burden on Richmond residents, while also working to preserve existing housing, which is crucial. So I thank you for your time and I respectfully ask that City Council vote yes on the resolution.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Laurie Hunter, and I'm speaking to the resolution regarding energy issues. Recently, I moved into an apartment building that was funded by federal funds as well as state funds city funds state funds. But it's run by a nonprofit organization. And while they are able to keep our rent and we pay no electricity or water bills, they recently sent out a memo to us to try to lower our water usage and our heating bills and to turn off lights.

So this would help the organization to stay within their budgetary guidelines by helping to for example, the apartment that I live in has no insulation underneath it. Where I live, underneath it is just cold air. So there should have been some actually, the apartment I'm living in should never have been rented. It should have been the model. All the other apartments have another layer under them.

But in my apartment, we actually have a thermometer, and in the wintertime it gets to be 40 degrees. The floor is 40 degrees. So I I hope that you will pass this energy bill that will help not for profit, not for profits as well as the rest of the citizens of Richmond. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes the public hearing on the consent agenda. Bring it back to counsel for discussion. Seeing none, Madam Clark or Mr. Clark, if you recall the question.

Counsel is voting on the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Breton? Aye. Ms. Gibson? Yes. Ms. Jones?

Aye.

Ms. Robertson?

Aye.

Ms. Trammell?

Aye.

Vice President Turgeon?

Aye.

And President Newbill? Aye. Those papers have all been adopted.

Thank you, Mr. Clark. Let's proceed to the reading of the budget related items that are before us this evening.

The budget related ordinances are as follows. Items 14, ordinance number twenty twenty six six-sixty three through item 16, ordinance number twenty twenty six-sixty six item 17, ordinance number twenty twenty six-seventy one item 18, ordinance number twenty twenty six-sixty four, and items 19, ordinance number twenty twenty six-sixty seven through 22, ordinance number twenty twenty six-ninety one. Those papers are before counsel.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. At this time, we will have a public hearing on those items. And if you would come forward, please. Again, I do want to advise that we will have two minutes for comments to try to accommodate all who are present if it is desirous of speaking.

Good evening. I would like to start by thanking all the members of City Council that have advocated and tried to get a cost of living adjustment, a COLA, for all city retirees without success. You did what you could. I understand that, thanks to City Council, we will be getting a one time, 1% payment this time. I am here to tell you, I moved down here forty two years ago.

I got shot in the head when I was a police officer, ambush attacked by a wanted serial killer. I could have retired at age 24. I didn't. I loved my city. I still love my city.

I returned to work six months later after the doctors said I wouldn't survive. I am here to say tonight, we have money for street sweeping devices for bike lanes, for $300,000 and more new positions. We seem to have money for everything except the people that invested their whole life cleaning the restrooms, working in the kitchens, public utilities, law enforcement, fire department, etcetera. It is my understanding that the mayor did not include anything in the budget, but thanks to an amendment made by counsel, we will be getting that one percent one time payment. I really would like to in closing, we all pitched in and got a bottle of COLA, C O L A, for a cost of living adjustment.

And I want to present that to Mayor of Vula so he does not forget us next year. We will be back. It is all we could afford. Sorry it wasn't Coke or Pepsi.

Thank you. That is your If

everybody in this room thinks that people that have served the city that were promised a retirement and now we have a broken promise because there

is no money. Hey, we

can relate to that.

Look, this was a group effort.

Okay. Thank

you. Take this opportunity and stand up to show your support of Cost of Living in Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hello. My name is Michael Weish. I live in District 5. I don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to be fast. Good afternoon, City Council.

I'm once again here to request all funding for flock safety seats, and I will, for the remainder of my time, be referring to them as their factual name, FLAC Surveillance. On matters of the budget, we need more bike lanes, better lit pedestrian crossings, as well as upgraded crossing with loud clicks and lights for seeing impaired, such as have gone up in the government center area over there. On the topic of flock surveillance, I will pick up from my last talk. The Vice President of Flock Surveillance, Bob Carter, and associate Randy Glauper, found using Flock Network to use their cameras to view the Macon Jewish Community Center's camera in Georgia to view the children's pool, the preschool area, yoga room and gym. We now know that the Flock history, that Bob, he watched the camera for over three hours and saved 22 videos.

If you're curious how this is possible, I will detail it to you from their policy. This is a policy that's on Flock's website under the privacy policy, if you want to read more. Footage is collected on Flock's devices and transmitted from the devices to Amazon Web Services, using encryption to transmit and stored within an Amazon Simple Storage Service, S3, organized and according to customer life cycles needs for thirty days, or as long as required and applicable by law and regulations. So the children innocently playing by the pool and the gym were unknowingly being watched and recorded by these men. What is on the flock cameras do not belong solely to Richmond Police Department.

The data on the camera is never removed off the hard drive on that camera unless it is taken out. Think of it as deleting something on your computer. It goes into the trash bin, but if the trash bin is never emptied, it's always there, and it's worrying. Amazon's web service is a provider who has been hacked before, and has famously crashed before. While the department, the Richmond Police Department, have already had a supervisor, a sergeant who has violated flock privacy policy,

which is

a misdemeanor. Our Police Chief Edwards has already told us at the February 24 safety briefing, he would personally see to any of his officers who would be held accountable.

Thank you. That's your time. Thank you. I'll take Thank

you. Those persons' desires of speaking to any of the budget items, if you will begin as the line is decreasing to line up. So please come forward.

Good evening. My name's William Allman, and I'm a resident of the 5th District. To place my comments in context, last month I spoke about the litigation risks the city assumes if the flock relationship continues. Specifically, I suggested to you then that even one lawsuit would cost the city millions of dollars. I spoke to you on April 13.

Since that time, other municipalities have experienced the following. On April 17, there was a flock related federal lawsuit filed in Maine. On May 1, additional allegations were made in Georgia relating to existing flock related litigation. On May 6, a legal memorandum from the staff representing a West Coast municipality estimated flock litigation related costs of between $30,000,000 to $60,000,000 Since April 13, other legal actions have arisen in Costa Mesa and Riverdale County in California. Within the last forty eight hours, flock related litigation has commenced in North Titusville, Florida.

As I mentioned last month, I'm not an attorney. I'm just merely a retired accountant. However, regardless of the outcome of any litigation targeting Richmond, win, lose, or settle, that case will cost the city funds it needs for other city services. Even if the city prevails in a lawsuit, the efficient cash flow of this municipality during the course of litigation will be disrupted to the detriment of other services the city provides. Thank you so very much.

Thank you.

Hello, counsel. My name is Aurora Britt. Two days ago, Donald Trump tweeted that he is preparing an election integrity army with the Republican Party. This will be held under DHS. This man has already committed an insurrection once, and we are all aware that democracy in this country is hanging on by a thread. Do you think DHS, come November, if Trump tells them to use flock cameras to track down protesters, is going to ignore that order? I don't think so. Thanks, guys. There is no shot that they are going to allow fair and free elections in 2028. We are going to have to fight for it.

And the city is choosing to give them tools to track protesters, which they've already done in LA and Minneapolis. Get rid of the cameras, and if you don't, I will work my ass off to make sure you are not reelected in this city.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Nicole Yacum. I'm a resident of the 2nd District. I'm asking today for the cancellation the city's block contract and the reallocation of funds community needs. I wonder how many of you considered the risks posed to you as public officials by mass surveillance in the hands of not only corporations, but any individual with a computer and some spare time. I wonder how you justify your support given the threat that the flock network poses not just you, but your families. I wonder how familiar you are with flock's notorious lack of security. Flock cameras are essentially accessible to anybody who takes half an hour to learn how. It's not high level hacking, it's a skill that's only a YouTube video away. Anyone in the country can watch anyone in Richmond. Anyone can watch your spouses drive to work, can watch you drive your children off at school, can find the coffee shop that you frequent.

And if these thoughts provoke anxiety, I wonder if you've considered this is the stress that you're putting on your most vulnerable constituents. Mass surveillance is disproportionately being deployed in low income majority non white communities, neighborhoods that already face over policing. How can you expect Richmond residents to feel safer when they're constantly being watched and they don't even know by whom? With multiple instances of RPD violating the law and providing federal agencies with access to flock data, how do you expect to keep the trust of your constituents? There are far better uses of the city budget that will benefit residents rather than causing active harm. I will reiterate, FLOC is dangerous. It's dangerous for Richmond, and it's dangerous for you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Amonte Consello, and I live in the 6 Districts. I am here today to begin petition the City Council to not accept the increase for flock safety and to tell the mayor to cancel the contracts instead of increasing the budget for mass surveillance. We should be spending tax dollars on things more worthy for the residents of this city. Further funding for Richmond Public Schools, housing, investments in pedestrian and public transportation, increasing the tree canopy, or any number of other things that don't compromise the privacy and security of residents.

The more I get involved and talk to the residents of this city, the more I'm coming to realize FLAC is a microcosm of the issues we are facing as a country. When I speak to elected representatives, they voice their approval of this mass surveillance. But when I speak to the public, hello, have you heard about FLAC Safety? It's a mass surveillance company the city currently has a contract with. The responses are quite different. What? No way that's true. The city isn't doing that. That's where they're spending our taxes on? I'm not surprised.

There appears to be quite a big disconnect between the people I've spoken to face to face. Now I'm not claiming this is representative, of course. There are 220,000, give or take, people in the city, and I've only spoken to a 100. But give me time. I can't place all the blame on the elected politicians. The public doesn't get involved enough. Let's take myself as an example. I've definitely disagreed with quite a few things over the years, but it's only this year that I've actually voiced my disagreement to my elected representative. If anyone had asked me if I would speak in front of city council in Canada six months ago, I would have thought they were crazy. Me?

Buddy, I'm not a social person. And yet, in the five months since the beginning of the year, I've spoken in front of city council five times, this being the fifth. I've spoken to my elected council member, Helen Robertson, who was gracious enough to give me two hours of her time. As Benjamin Franklin said, we have a republic for as long as you can hold on to it. Looking at the contrast between elected public servants' opinions at the local, state, federal level, and the opinions I see from the people, it would appear that we are holding on by our fingertips.

Thank you. That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of counsel. My name is Cameron Kontzer. And tonight, I'm here again to ask you to not continue funding FLOC. While these cameras are promoted as a crime fighting tools, real world examples from across the country and right here at home show that these systems are vulnerable to abuse, mission creep, and serious violations of privacy. In Milwaukee, a police officer accessed FLOC data a 179 times to spy on his girlfriend and her ex lover.

In Mountain View, California, officials canceled their flock contract after discovering that federal agencies had accessed their data without the city's authorization. Right here in in Richmond, a police officer was found to have willingly shared flock data with a federal agent outside of approved procedure. These are documented cases of misuse by the very people that are entrusted with the access. There are also concerns about inaccurate data. Multiple reports show that flock cameras misreading license plates have led to dangerous police encounters like Brandon Upchurch who was attacked by a police canine after his license plate was misread and flagged as stolen by these cameras.

Once a surveillance network like this is installed, every resident becomes part of a searchable database regardless of whether or not they commit a crime. To this, you may say, if you have nothing to hide, there you have nothing to fear. But privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing. It's about protecting ordinary people from unchecked surveillance and abuse of power. Richmond should not spend taxpayer money building a system for a private company that tracks its residents. If public safety is truly the goal of this council, I urge you to prioritize investments that protect root causes of crime instead of predictive policing, anything but create a a permanent surveillance infrastructure. I respectfully ask this council to reject additional funding to flock cameras and instead invest in policies that actually protect public safety. Thank you.

Thank you.

Greetings members of the City Council. I'm concerned about the privacy implications of flock cameras and ALPR readers. I don't think flock cameras and the associated control software guarantees that it is used appropriately or legally. The automated license plate readers store vehicle data for all vehicles. This means that we are under surveillance without warrants being issued or any suspicion of wrongdoing.

Additionally, have been multiple instances of Virginia law enforcement agencies violating the law by sharing this information with federal agencies as it is documented in the Virginia State Crime Commission ALPR January 2026 report. As a citizen of Richmond District 5, I want to call on the City Council to remove flock related expenses from the budget in order to protect the privacy of my fellow citizens and I. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Sir, can you please state your name for the record?

Jack.

Thank you.

Hello. Hold on, I gotta get my phone up. My name is Mary Donahue. I'm in District 7. And I was here a month ago and you gave away the poet laureate awards. And so I thought poetry is a great way to express oneself. And so possibly, this could be an entry into next year's. Just thought I'd throw it out there. Across the country, flock contracts are ending. These cities have decided to stop overspending.

In Charlottesville, Stanton, the councils have voted to protect their citizens from their info uploaded. Then why enrichment are we subjected to having our identities constantly detected? Check your constituents. I beg of you, please. They don't want flock cameras.

Listen to their please. We do not feel safe in our public spaces. It's your job to protect us, not follow and trace us. As taxpayers, we ask for you to consider how spending our money may put us in danger. And also, be aware of the flock Palantir ties and not be subjected to their corporate lies. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening council members. My name is Bea Chambers and I'm a resident of the 6th District. And I'm standing here not just frustrated, but heartbroken by the continued decision to invest in flock cameras instead of investing in the people and communities of this city. Every dollar we spend expanding surveillance is a dollar we are not spending on the things that actually make communities stronger. Affordable housing, schools, parks, youth programs, mental health services, the kinds of investments that build trust, opportunity, and real safety.

Instead, what you are building is something else entirely. You're choosing to build a system that surveils and punishes. One that tracks, records, and stores the movements of everyday residents, people who have done nothing wrong. That doesn't feel like safety. That feels like suspicion. You're treating your constituents as a problem to monitor instead of a community to support. And the reality is that not everyone feels that weight equally. We know that surveillance doesn't fall evenly across the city. The data surrounding flock cameras and Hampton Roads shows flock cameras following lines that already divide us. Race, income, and historic redlining.

So while some communities are being lifted up, others are being watched more closely, policed more intensely, and left to carry the burden of that mistrust. That is not how you bring a city together. By choosing flock, you are choosing to deepen the divides that already we already struggle with. Richmond has worked hard to reckon with its past and to move forward to something more just, more unified, more hopeful, but continuing to expand systems like this is a step backward, a dangerous one. Do we want a city that invests in care, opportunity, or connection, or a city that invests in surveillance of its own people.

I believe Richmond can do better. I believe that we can safely, that we can build safety by strengthening communities, not by surveilling them.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Annalie Volker, and I'm a resident of the 3rd District. And you're never gonna guess what I'm about to talk to you guys about. I'm extremely concerned about the continued budget line for the flock cameras, contracts, and mass surveillance in the city of Richmond, which I believe are a violation of our constitutional rights to privacy. Flock devices are frequently and easily abused and used to surveil myself and fellow citizens. Despite the assurances from Mayor Avula and the Richmond Police Department that flock camera footage will not be shared out, in practice, this footage is being shared out improperly, as reported many times, including very recently by the Richmonder.

The flock camera contracts are such a deeply disappointing use of city funds because they do not prevent crimes. They do not prevent needless pedestrian deaths. Reallocating the funds from the FLOC contracts could be used to fund safer street initiatives that are proven to protect the lives and the dignity of pedestrians and cyclists. So please please hear the many citizens here tonight and and cancel the FLAC contracts.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Scott Labo, also a 3rd District resident, also here to talk about FLAC. Warrantless surveillance is a violation of our privacy of citizens. FLAC records and logs twenty four seven, building a database of all individuals passing with no oversight. This does not prevent crimes. It induces fear. Mass surveillance is not a tool of a responsible and respectful public servant. Mass surveillance is the tool of the lazy. It is the tool of the warden oppressing the inmates. We should not be willing to see our city become a prison.

Thank you.

Yeah. Hi. My name is Patrick. Patrick Hamlin. I'm from the 1st District. I of course like to talk about FLOC as well. I've sourced all the information today from the rva.gov website, or most of it. And my thing is because the police department cannot keep their promise to protect our data, The continued use of flock is a liability to the city and should be cut from the budget immediately. On 02/07/2025, there was a breach of our data. Against department policy, one of the administrators was granted access to the ATF.

In early March twenty twenty five, per an RP Richmond Police Department, an ATF analyst had been granted access to FLOC system and had made queries for immigration enforcement in violation of RPD's operational standards. 12 on your side reported it wasn't rescinded until June when RPD learned about the violation. These inquiries were in relation to four detainees who escaped from ICE detention facility in Farmville. There was 49 license plates, 400 results that got queried. The administrator had been let go of the department or separated from the department since then.

That was the Richmond Police Department administrator of the FLOC program. June 11, a new administrator let, well, unknowing to the police department, an ATF analyst inadvertently accessed our flock system to query an Illinois vehicle with ICE in the query, and that was a violation of Illinois law. That was only five minutes, but that's all it took for them to access and do that. More recently, on the first quarter of this year, we also had another instance where it was taken and, sorry. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Maya Dora, I'm part of the 5th District. I'm here as a student of VCU, and we've worked with the Chesapeake Climate Action Organization to work with and advocate for sidewalk budgeting and improvements. Currently, walking in Richmond is like going through many hardships already, and it's a struggle. In many areas, our sidewalks are so heavily damaged that children or seniors have issues with walking across them, especially those who are in wheelchairs, children in strollers, and those who need canes, and many more who have mobility issues as well.

Even more concerning are the sidewalks that don't even exist, and that force pedestrians to have to directly walk into traffic and put their lives in danger just to be able to walk in our city. It's not just an inconvenience, but it's a danger to the lives of those walking and those driving as well. We often talk about how Richmond is a walkable city, but for many of us, crossing the street or walking to a road feels unsafe, and we shouldn't need to risk our lives just to be able to navigate our own city. Me and the nearly 300 people that we've gotten signature from for our petition are asking the Council to do two things for us, which is just increase the budget for sidewalk repair and improvements, and to address high priority trip hazards immediately. We want a timeline fixed for when these things will be repaired and looked at.

There has been nearly a backlog of over 2,000 requests since 2017 for repairs of sidewalks, and that still have not been addressed. So we just ask City Council to look at those. Thank you.

Thank you.

It's me again. I'm Rory Hunter. In backing up what she just said in terms of sidewalks, I have a rollator that I use because of a bad knee. I have a husband who's disabled and uses rollators. Just today on Cary Street I think it's 2nd to Cary I almost fell because of the way the sidewalks are uneven because of the overgrowth of of roots.

And that is a major issue. Also, where I live on Cool Lane, I watch students trying to get to Armstrong High School. And if it's raining like it is today, there's no sidewalk from Cool Lane going straight up to Armstrong High School. They have to walk in in mud and and and rain. And and I asked the kids, well, what do you do when it's raining? They say, well, they walk in the street. Kool Aid is not the place to walk in the street. That is that is a a raceway. That that is like the 500. People speed down that street.

The same on the other side. And it's difficult because we're on the borderline between Hiraiko and Richmond, but hopefully they can get together and pave sidewalks on both sides of Cool Lane so that people like my husband and I can easily get from the 12 bus line to the five bus line without having to go into the street where we're gonna get hit. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. I'm the Reverend Derek Star Redwine, resident of the 4th District, co president of RISC and the pastor of discipleship at First Presbyterian Church, Richmond. We, as RISC, are here tonight to encourage and celebrate the passing of the amended budget that will provide the affordable housing trust fund with reliable, consistent funding it needs to serve the people of this city. We want to acknowledge the leadership of Council Members Gibson and Robertson, who worked with us to ensure $11,700,000 in dedicated funding to the Trust Fund in this year's amended budget. Thank you.

Tonight we also want to acknowledge Mayor Avula and Councilmembers Gibson and Breton for attending our recent Nehemiah action. It was a powerful gathering of over 2,000 people. For the council members who were not there, many of your constituents noticed your absence and hope to see you next year for the action, the largest gathering of its kind here in the city of Richmond. Thank you for your leadership, for your service, and for listening to your constituents.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is deacon Janice Lacey. I am a member of Ebenezer Baptist Church, and I live in the 3rd District. And I serve on risk affordable housing steering committee. Right now, there are 30,000 families living in the Richmond area where over half of their income has to go to rent.

They have to decide whether to buy groceries, whether to buy medication, whether to put gas in the tank so that they can get to work, and pay utility bills. That's 30,000 families who are living in a crisis, living on the brink from day to day, with those living also under the threat of eviction. That breaks my heart. It saddens my heart. I go to bed concerned about people who are living on the edge.

I wake up the same way. That breaks my heart. It makes me angry because it shouldn't be like this. That's why risk won't give up. We will not give up the fight.

We know change is possible, but it takes decisive action. The decisions that get made in the chambers directly impact the lives of people all across our city. Thank you. That's your time. I implore you tonight to cease the suffering of these 30,000 families.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Steve Salzberg and I am a member of RISC and a resident of the 1st District. Many of you know me because I have been around since the very beginning of the implementation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Over twenty years ago, you, the city council, passed an ordinance creating the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. But nothing happened.

No funding was provided. The board never even met. And then fifteen years ago, took affordable housing on as our new issue. I can see it now, RISS members holding signs saying implement the law as opposed to follow the law. And lo and behold, with pressure from RISS, not only was the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board created, it started to actually meet.

It had also got funding. As you know, not the funding the ordinance called for, but it was at least a beginning. We were told by several nonprofits that work in affordable housing that risk's role was critical in getting the law implemented. Risk's role was so critical that you, this counsel, decided that risk would have a seat at that table. So one of the board members is a risk member.

I was honored to be the original risk member of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board. So risk has had an inside look at the functioning of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, watching while the funding all but evaporated because the law to use retired tax abatement funds was not followed, which is why risk has persisted through pushbacks of three administrations of Mayor Jones, Mayor Stoney, and Mayor Hoover to finally, hopefully put an end to the conversation about adequately funding the trust fund and truly, finally see affordable housing as a full commitment of this city, of this mayor, and of the city council. Thank Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Marty Wigbright, a RISC member speaking to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund amendments. In 2004, City Council enacted the trust fund but failed to fund it. In 2010, RISC started campaigning for funding. National affording housing experts, the Center for Community Change, alerted RISC that Richmond needed a trust fund dedicated stream of $10,000,000 annually to begin addressing the city's affordable housing needs.

Funds started in fiscal years '17 through '21, but only $10,000,000 over those five years and not $10,000,000 each year. In 2021, City Council enacted a dedicated stream, new tax revenue from expiring tax abatements, saying, beginning 07/01/2021, the director of finance shall credit the difference between the full taxation amount and the partial exemption amount to a special reserve assigned to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. But the city administration ignored the straightforward law, and funding went from bad to worse. In fiscal year 2020 through twenty six twenty twenty six, none of a projected $20,700,000 went into the trust fund. In February 2026, City Council enacted a new dedicated stream of two and a half percent of the real estate tax revenue for the trust fund.

But that funding stream did not appear in the March budget. A budget amendment before you this evening unmistakably requires that $11,700,000 be put in the trust fund for fiscal year '27. Thank you to Councilmember Gibson who submitted the budget amendment the day after our Nehemiah action, swiftly following through on her commitment that night. We understand seven of you are co patrons. That is good. Tonight, seal the deal. Approve the budget amendment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Brenda Hawkins, and I live in the 8th District, and I am a member of Second Baptist Church Southside and a part of the risk risk affordable healthy homes and steering committee. On March 11, when the mayor's proposed budget came out, we were encouraged to see on the front page of the summary $11,700,000 for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Imagine our shock when we dug into the budget itself and found that $11,700,000 was misallocated to two other programs, not the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This is not simply a matter of semantics or accounting.

I want to take a moment to explain why the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is the best tool we have to meet this critical need for two reasons. First, citizen oversight board. And second, the legal requirement that at least 30% of funds serve the lowest income household most in need of housing. These safeguards are essential to prevent affordable housing dollars from being used as a political slush fund and to ensure that a meaningful portion of funding reaches families with the greatest need. We urge you tonight to pass this amended budget with the $11,700,000 in the right place, the affordable housing trust fund as required by law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, council members. My name is Dennis Holly, and I am a deacon at Sacred Heart Catholic Church Southside in the 6th District. Tonight, you have before you a budget that includes an amendment that unequivocally designates $11,700,000 for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. By law, 30% of these dollars must be used to build or preserve homes for those earning 30% of the area's median income and below. These are individuals earning $23,000 a year, or a family of four earning $34,000 a year.

Many parishioners of Sacred Heart are in this income group, working multiple, multiple low wage jobs just to try to make ends meet. Many find work in construction, building the luxury condos we see going up all around the city, where they themselves can barely afford a single room in an apartment with multiple families. Some of our parishioners work tirelessly to save up money to afford a place of their own, only to find out that they can afford a dilapidated manufactured home with a leaking roof, collapsing floors, and dangerous mold. These are the very risk members who have fought for years for healthy and affordable housing for all Richmonders. Project Homes has shown that they can effectively repair these homes and make them decent and safe.

But in June, the funding will run out for this life changing program. Most of these families are in the 30% AMI and below income group.

Thank you. That's your time.

Thank you, and have a good evening.

Thank you.

Good evening members of City Council, and also to my friends at risk. I'm pastor Ralph Hodge of the Second Baptist Church in South Richmond on Broadrock Boulevard, and I'm the current vice president of Richmond Is Involved to Strengthen Our Communities, otherwise known as RISC. I look forward to council approving a budget tonight that follows the recent Affordable Housing Trust Fund ordinance that requires the city to appropriate 2.5% of real estate tax revenue for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And after the budget is passed tonight, I am hopeful that the council will ensure that the law is followed by the current administration. For more than thirteen years, I have stood before you as a member of RISC advocating for a dedicated stream of revenue for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

We did not give up, and we did not quit because we believe at risk that housing for all is what makes our city great. And even this year, we had to fight and work with city council to create a new ordinance. We are glad that ordinance is passed and are excited that council made sure that the funds are in the budget tonight in spite of the fact that the mayor's proposed budget omitted those funds. The trust fund is a tremendous tool that spurs affordable housing to those who need it the most. The fund has a requirement that 30% of the fund go towards the creation and sustainability of housing for those who make 30% of the average median income or less.

These are the families that need housing the most. Housing nonprofit groups are able to tap into these funds and create safe and affordable housing. Continue to make investments in housing because better housing is a winning strategy. And go beyond the $11,700,000 this year and look towards putting $20,000,000 into the fund next year. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Emily Grimes and I live in the 7th District. Chief Edwards confirmed that ICE and the feds have access to Richmond flock surveillance data. Richmond shares its data with other Virginia localities who provide constant access to the federal government in other states. Everyone has known since the January Crime Commission report about this open door and no one has done anything about it. The city says it doesn't collaborate with ICE but how is this not a form of collaboration?

Whether it's intentional or unintentional does not matter. This is a predictable result of collecting mass surveillance data to begin with. No one can truly control who uses it or for what purpose. Maribula, Chief Edwards and all of you city council members in front of me have chosen to do nothing about ICE access to Richmond block surveillance data. Instead, you are choosing to fund an increase in the budget for flock mass surveillance. Any

kind

of guardrails or restrictions on mass surveillance data are useless. To keep our whereabouts safe, the comings and goings that reveal the intimate details of our lives, the data must not exist to begin with. We also just learned Richmond police shared flock data with Trump's FBI in violation of state law with no consequences. We know ICE and the ATF have used black data to search for immigrants. Not if but when more harms continue to be revealed, it's on you. It's on Maribula. I hope you all are prepared to answer to the families in Richmond that continue to be torn apart by ICE and everyone else harmed by mass surveillance.

Thank you.

Good evening, counselors. My name is Victoria, and I'm going to repeat a what lot was just spoken about again, because I'm going to be asking that we redirect funding as a city away from these cameras. When we do our research, what we're seeing is that there really is no data protection that we can get from this tool, and that state guardrails can never do enough even when localities do actually respect them. History shows us that there never is a rollback of mass surveillance once it rolls out. And like the person who just came up here to speak, that does mean that ICE will always have a back door through FLAC no matter what we do as a city.

We're getting told that this dragnet surveillance isn't a Fourth Amendment violation, but it keeps on going back to court. We get told that decisions that Richmond makes about surveillance balance the same risks for whole communities who aren't in the room when the decisions are made as individuals choosing to open cell phone lines or open bank accounts. It really sounds like this technology is too big for any locality to handle, let alone oversee. And when we had a data breach reported last week by RPD, that came up sometime in the first quarter, but we're only hearing about it on April 30. Cities across America and in Virginia are ending their contracts with all automatic license plate readers, and Richmond should Richmond should, too.

We've been speaking out as a community against predictive policing for years and the harm that it causes. Putting community relationships in the hands of tech corporations with warehouses in Texas and corporate headquarters in Georgia, that means that we can't sue them as a state in a Virginia court or as an individual to see the information that they're collecting on us is the opposite of safety. Why do we need to wait for abuse to happen before we cut this contract? And why are we funding flock instead of funding repaired sidewalks, which is a proven way to protect Richmond residents, or funding affordable housing? Please consider not funding flock. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Yohanse Whitaker, I'm an associate minister at Second Baptist West End, and an organizer with Southerners on New Ground, echoing the comments that were made by our comrades in Risk, and also echoing the comments that were made by the Block Flock campaign. In a mayoral debate, Mayor Aboula said that one of the things that has been really consistent and clear in six months I've been campaigning is that everybody wants to be a part of a safe and thriving community. As a public health practitioner, I start first with the lens of prevention, and want to really look at who is at highest risk of engaging in violence, making sure we're supporting them with wraparound services, mental health supports, pathways to employment, so that they can choose a different path. Richmonders, not tech corporations, deserve an opportunity to consider the evidence and all of our options to reduce harm. We should have the opportunity to choose a different path that makes us safer.

When I talk to neighbors about what makes us safer, I hear them talk about affordable, dignified housing, meaningful employment, mental health support, robust public schools and other wraparound services. As a city, we will continue to debate the role of law enforcement and the role of technology. Regardless of our current ideas and beliefs concerning this critical conversation, I hope we can agree that Richmonders, not tech billionaires, ought to be making the decisions, and we're already living in the disastrous consequences of putting profit over people. The reality is FLAC is in the business of profit, not safety. The company sells cloud connected license plate readers to government and private agencies.

Then it collects and stores data from the cameras on its own servers towards its goal of building the infrastructure of an AI driven system of mass surveillance that enables the government to track people nationwide. We're talking about two competing visions of the world and two competing visions for safety. The marriage between corporations and government is a defining characteristic of authoritarianism. The continued corporate takeover of our government and public institutions is one of the biggest threats to public safety.

Thank you. That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Here's me again. Hello. Again, my name is Lori Hunter. In a previous life, I worked for the Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. In that role, I was able to work with numerous numerous grants. In one episode, I was in in the sheriff's

Miss Hunter?

Yes.

This is about this is about the issue of flock I understand. Funds.

But what I'm trying to make sure of is that we get the opportunity, give the opportunity for we had This is like

ten more seconds. Ten more seconds, I promise you. So basically, what we heard is that fifth graders, in a meeting with sheriffs, they said that they determined their beds based on third grade literacy tests. So therefore, in order to keep from spending money on

Ms. Hunter, thank you. We have the folks behind you. Then we have folks in an overflow. And if we can get through those, we'll we'll definitely come back to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Eric Vento. I have a house in the 4th District. This

has

been spoken on at length, so I'll just keep this short. Freedom and liberty are incompatible with mass surveillance, full stop. It's not up for debate. It's not a conversation we should be having. These cameras should never have gone up.

And while I can forgive this body for allowing them in the first place, the evidence is clear. The people in this room, the mayor, the police chief, do not have the technical sophistication nor do they have the political will to hold flock safety accountable. Okay? And I know that because as we've sprays these concerns over and over again, we find out that in private we're being that our officials are are planning on how they will flood the the narrative with a positive telling of these cameras. Okay?

You have to take them down. You cannot embrace mass surveillance for profit, a company out of the state to build and develop a panopticon for the profit of tech billionaires. It's incompatible with liberty. They have to come down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Renira Kersey, and as a student, I believe Richmond Virtual Academy, or RVA, should stay in the budget because it means so much to students and families like mine. RVA is not just an online school. It is a safe place where students who may feel vulnerable, stressed, or overwhelmed can get a good education and feel supported. As students, we all learn differently.

Some students struggle in traditional schools because of bullying, anxiety, health problems, or personal situations at home. RVA gives students chance to learn in a calmer environment where they can focus and grow. For many families, RVA has helped their children feel happier, safer, and more confident. RVA also brings family closer to their child's education. Parents are able to be more involved and support their children every day.

That support can make a huge difference in student success in mental health. Taking Aubrey away will hurt many students who finally found a learning environment where they belong. The Bible says in Jeremiah 2nine 11, for I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, Plans to prosper you and not to harm you. Plans to give you hope and a future. I believe RBA gives students hope for their future. It gives students who may feel left behind another chance to succeed and reach their goals. Education is not the same for everyone, and that is okay. RVA helps students who needs a different path to still achieve greatness. That is why I strongly believe RVA should stay in the budget. If anyone here supports RBA, would you please stand?

Thank you. I just want to be clear. I think that some of your faces are familiar. You're speaking to ordinance number twenty twenty six-sixty three in terms of the general fund ordinance and including your your request is to have that be included in the budget. Is that yes. Yes. Please come.

Good evening. My name is Jasmine Jackson Kersey. I am a member of the 6th District and also a parent of children at Richmond Virtual Academy. I am here tonight because the families of Richmond Virtual Academy are being told that our children's education is a luxury we can no longer afford. But I'm not here to talk about line items or deficits. I'm here to talk about rights. Every child in this city has a right to safe, accessible, and high quality education. For my children, Elijah and Renaya, RVA is the only place where that is that right is being upheld. When you talk about closing RVA, you are talking about taking away the rights of students who do not fit into a one size fit all box. You are taking away the rights of a medically fragile student like my son to learn without risking his life.

You are taking away the right of a high achieving student like my daughter to thrive in an environment that actually meets her need. RVA isn't an alternative. It's a requirement for families who have been underserved by traditional buildings. By closing these doors, you are effectively telling our children that their help and their specific learning needs don't matter as much as a balanced spreadsheet. We know the needs of this community are growing, not shrinking, and we know the resources exist, like the $3,200,000 in unallocated gap grant funds to protect these rights.

If the money is there, then closing this school is a choice to ignore the needs of our most vulnerable students. It is a choice to prioritize bureaucracy over the constitutional rights to an education that works. I am asking you tonight to be the council that protects our children's rights, not the council that strips them away. Don't balance the budget on the backs of our kids. Save RBA. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, City Council. Good evening. I'm Kia, a sixth grader at Richmond Virtual Academy. I love Richmond Virtual Academy because I don't have to worry about distractions in the classroom. I can focus on my work and feel comfortable learning at home. I am doing better than ever in school before. Please keep Richmond Virtual Academy open. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Elijah Kersey, and I am a seventh grader at RVA Richmond Virtual Academy. I've had many surgeries and health complications in my life. In a traditional school building, I often had to worry about my health instead of my homework. It was hard to keep up when I was trying just trying to stay safe. RVA changed everything for me. For the first time, I don't have to choose between my health and my education. I am thriving. I am catching up, and I am finally excited about going to high school. I am here tonight to ask you, please do not close my school.

RBA is not just a virtual opportune virtual option for me. It is my lifeline. Please use the funds available to keep our doors open so I can keep learning. Please save RVA for me and my classmates. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Felicia Minor, and my child goes to Richmond Virtual Academy. And I've been speaking on it. Y'all heard my story. I've been speaking on it, the bullying and all this. I am so tired of hearing that they're gonna close Richmond Virtual Academy, and my daughter was bullied. Her siblings wanted to protect her. Now they are moving on, and they're getting to high grades and not gonna be able to protect her. I wish I would keep RVA Academy open because every time I turn on the news, I'm tired of seeing our kids graduate and their life is taken, or they are in school fighting, going home to a fight, and the police standing right out there can't protect them. That was my friend daughter that got shot.

Yes, she did get shot because somebody reached out to the bullying, they went to everybody and talked to everybody, and nobody did nothing about it. I don't wanna have that happen for my daughter. I'm gonna protect my daughter to the end, but I don't wanna be losing my life out here fighting for these kids that don't care and picking on these kids. These kids deserve to go to school and get an education. And it's sad that they're talking about closing Richmond and Virginia County. Every time you're trying to do this, who do you see? I'm sorry, the mayor, police chief. It's all I know they're tired of this. I know they're tired of it. What's gonna happen when our kids go back in school and they're still getting bullied?

Are we gonna have to deal with this? Can they protect us? Please keep Richmond Virtual Academy open, because I will not send my kid back to school. And it's sad if she cannot get an education. She got picked on really bad. And when these kids can't move around fast enough because they special needs, what are they gonna do? Be caught in a crossfire? I don't want nobody knocking on my door to tell me anything about my daughter. Police are standing right out there when that girl fired the gun, which shouldn't have happened. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Dee Winston. That's d e e. First of all, I would like to thank you all for supporting Richmond Virtual Academy. I know some of you guys really, really support us, and we appreciate that. However, as a parent, I am very, very discouraged by it's it's just been so much. It's not even enough time for me to to really say it during this setting. We need to keep Richmond Virtual Academy open. Richmond Virtual Academy is Richmond Public Schools. Richmond Public Schools is Richmond Virtual Academy.

My student was bullied in person as well. She has excelled. You know her story. I shared that the last time. So I'm just asking as a governing body for you all to work together with the other governing bodies to keep Richmond Virtual Academy open.

It's a lot of false narratives out here, but Richmond Virtual Academy is working no matter how small it is. So I'm just gonna close with this from Proverbs 26. A lion tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it, and a flattering mouth worketh ruin. Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein, and he or she that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him or her. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, council members. My name is doctor Jacqueline Wilson, and I am here to advocate for Richmond Virtual Academy. I tell you, if you hear those babies cry for their school and it doesn't move you, there's nothing I can say to move you. But I will say, what opposition have you heard against Richmond Virtual Academy? Was there any opposition?

Is there any opposition? No. To Richmond? None. The only opposition I have heard is the superintendent who answers to the school board.

The school board voted to have Richmond Virtual Academy in the budget. The superintendent came to this body and basically told you he did not need money for Richmond Virtual Academy. There is something wrong here. And I asked y'all to think He about answers to the school board and he came here and went against the school board. So, I have a disabled child who has come home, of course, we've been at Virtual Academy now for five, six years, in dirty diapers when he was in person.

I had a child sitting in a broken, lopsided, rift in chair. Am I supposed to send my child back to that? Absolutely not. Your concern should be for the children. And quite frankly, according to federal law, you are not to violate my child's least restrictive environment for budgetary concerns.

Thank you. That's your time.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Natasha Smavery. I have a child that goes to Richmond Virtual Academy. She's been there since COVID, and I'm asking, I'm begging.

Please do not take it away. Instead of these flock cameras, install invest in Richmond Virtual Academy. I'm begging you, please, with all of my heart, please. My daughter means so much to me, and I would give anything, and I would not send her back in person at all. So I'm begging you, please reevaluate this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Tamara Walton Pickens. I'm the instructional compliance coordinator with the Richmond Virtual Academy. I said I wasn't going to get up here and talk, because I've beat a dead horse on the Richmond Virtual Academy, but I want to thank you all for actually listening to us. I know that what Doctor.

Wilson said occurred, I know you all didn't not listen to what we were saying because you all had amendments on the table, and then what happened happened. So I just want to thank y'all for just listening to that part. But I also want to put in y'all's ear that, again, if we're all a part of a team, and the captain of the team or the coach of the team tells the team's players, hey, this is the game plan, you shouldn't have one person on the team come and destroy that entire game plan. It affects not only a small portion of RPS, but RBA is all of RPS. So in all actuality, it affects the entire RPS.

So I just I don't want to put any blame on anybody, but like Doctor. Wilson said, we need to work together to come to some type of solution to fund RVA. RVA is less than 1% of RPS' entire budget, less than 1%. Why are we always on the chopping block? My husband said, must be nice that I have to come to another city council meeting when I could be at home with my 13 year old and seven year old child and my husband. No, it's not nice. It's not nice that I have to come here, and I'm not begging, I have to come here and talk to y'all about Richmond Virtual Academy. Candice is my daughter's name. I gotta come talk to another Candice about keeping my job. And I love my job.

But y'all, we gotta work together. We gotta come up with some type of solution. And again, I'm not placing blame on any of y'all, because really, it's with RPS. So I heard what you said, Councilwoman Jones, and I got you. God bless y'all. And y'all know what I want to say,

Hooty hoop.

I

want Thank you. Check

what these children say it really moved you all, and you all really take into consideration with these young children. I had the courage to come up and say.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, madam president. Good good evening, city council. My name is Mariah White. I'm a parent. I am the chair of the Richmond Crusaders Education Committee. I am also the former school board for 2nd District. And when it comes to our budget, our children seems to be the first to suffer from our cuts. Here, I'm hearing that Richmond Virtue Academy may not be there, next year, and I'm under no understanding quite why. I was on the board when that originated, and two of you city councilors, you were on the board also. Also.

So why not have a virtue? Chesterfield has one, over sixteen six hundred students. Henrico has one, over 500 students. During the pandemic, we had 2,000 students there and we put a cap on it when we was in the school board. It is not always for disability.

Everybody has almost the same, between twenty and twenty five percent if you did your homework. You would know that the locality in disability is pretty much the same. We also have administration placements there. And that is where the schools are placing our children. All children there have a reason to be there at the Virtue Academy.

And even if you have to put a cap on it, still fund it. We went we took a long time originating this school and then we are just gonna shut it down just like that. That makes no sense to me. And then you have children here that could be ready to go to school tomorrow. They are up here begging for their school. Why is that? I wouldn't want to see my children begging for it to keep their school open. Who does that? Who wants that? I wouldn't want that for my children and they go to RBS. So I am asking you to fund that school. I am also in support of Ordinance twenty twenty six, 64.

Thank you. And

you probably all already know that everything I do with children, I approve. Thank you.

Thank you. Sir, you've had an opportunity to speak at this point. I am going to ask if there are other persons who have not spoken yet I have an opportunity to speak to the

was going to ask, at the beginning of the meeting, they said everybody would be given three minutes. I was curious why it was cut off at two.

Because we have not just the persons in this audience, but we have persons in an overflow room waiting to come in. So I am

trying to everyone out will one only be given two minutes then? Excuse me? Everyone will only be given two minutes

That's correct.

Why is that though?

I've just explained the why. And I appreciate your coming, but we're trying to make sure that voices are heard from citizens across residents as well as others. Thank

you.

No one is taking your voice away, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Are there others who have not spoken desires of speaking to any of the budget items that have been introed? Seeing none, the public hearing on the budget is closed. Bring it back to counsel for discussion. Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, madam president. It's hard to condense comments on the budget when we're talking about the operation of our entire city, but I wanted to thank the members of the public who came to speak Albert, for for two minutes each. But I I wanna assure you that the comments were heard and appreciated. Our city, I we this is a day and age we cannot take democracy for granted, and and so I from the bottom of my heart, I I appreciate the comments of everyone. I want to thank the body for a budget development process that allowed more of this, this messy democracy thing.

We provided more visibility to the amendments that were on the table. We allowed more public comment. And I think that the budget is stronger for it. Is it 100% the budget that I would like to see? Well, of course it isn't.

Unfortunately, that is also how democracy works. But but there are some changes that I think are are are good ones, and I wanna thank my colleagues for the process and and and for for putting these ideas forward. I think this budget reflects a body that is is doing its work as a body of oversight. We included in this budget ensuring that there was the language to fund the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as agreed by law, that was an important thing to do. I we included in this budget ensuring that, you know, we weren't allowing unfunded items like large severance payouts that that were originally proposed in the budget.

I think that there is more funding for ensuring that students are are having after school transportation to from after school programs, which was not included in the school budget, which is critical. I am appreciative that there is funding now for additional DSS workers, social workers that was not included in our original budget. I think that is is important, and I'm thankful to see that. This budget now also includes additional staff for the inspector general, which is another important bit of oversight that I appreciate seeing. So thank you all for those and and more, I'm not naming all of them.

There are many amendments that I think I I'm appreciative of seeing. We did a lot with a little bit of money. And I wanna highlight as it pertains to the Virtual Academy that there is a majority of council members who supported that. There are five of us, hopefully more, but I do know there are five. And so the money that we had to work with was essentially, honestly, it just didn't make sense.

So in 2024, there was the city identified $12,000,000 of revenue, and the body at that time used that money for one time things. But the revenue was property tax revenue, which meant it was going to come every year. And so in 2025, the body determined to spend $3,200,000 of it towards this gap grant program, and so and the city didn't spend all of it. So so rather than this body having access to either the $12,000,000 that was identified in additional revenue or the $3,900,000 or $3,200,000 it just didn't make sense, to be frank, like where we got to that number of the funding. And that matters particular for the Virtual Academy because the program is not funded not because there was not support by this body to fund this thing, which which it's not funded because because through some accidents, a couple of them, the money was not there.

At one point, for those who are watching, there was $200,000 allocated to the virtual academy. And so I left that meeting feeling optimistic that we would at least be providing $200,000 and that there would be some effort in finding an additional $800,000 to provide the program with $1,000,000 of funding. And in a matter of days, we then learned that somehow there was some other miscalculation and now that money was gone. It was was odd. So what I what I wanna say is that transparency really matters, and so, you know, I think that as we look at the budget next year, we should be we should continue to push for more transparency, more clarity.

And so I I appreciate that there are folks who are doing the homework to ensure that that will happen. I, you know, at the end of the day, I'm very thankful that there are folks who are doing the homework who who can appreciate when democracy is at risk. And I and I want to assure you that I see you and I hear you, and and I am eager to look for ways from a policy standpoint that we can address the issues that that have been highlighted. And as for the folks from the Richmond Virtual Academy, please do not give up. I wanna thank, you know, Ms.

White in particular who came and spoke. You know, when we served on the school board, we looked through the budget and and found the money to save that program. It can happen again, and and I am hopeful to see that there is a solution to ensure every that student is served as it should be. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Gibson. Any other comments at this time? Councilwoman Trammell.

Thank you, Madam President. I know that this budget has been really, really tough for all nine council members and I wanted to say that I appreciate my colleague what she just said about the Richmond Virtual Academy. I know that the school superintendent did come down here and he did say that those students need to go back in the classroom, that there are other students probably with more challenges than some of the ones in the Richmond Virtual Academy. There was I heard that the school board members had supported the academy, but they didn't come down here when he was here. And I did speak to another school board member last week and she said that the children needed to go back into the classroom.

That broke my heart because I have talked to many of the parents, the teachers. I have their emails all up in front of me. That's what I've been going through. And some of the things that they told me and when I heard one of the kids screaming and crying in the background, I asked her, she said, how can my child go into a classroom like this? Are you all gonna protect my child? It broke my heart today. And I told them to come down here because they were told they couldn't speak. A lot of people were told they could not have the opportunity to speak tonight. I said, yes, you can. Our president has already said that you all could

speak. Okay, ready to go.

I said, So come down here and let us hear you are. Bring the children. Let the mayor hear you. The mayor is here. The mayor

is here.

You know what, if we give them if we were to find the money, I think it was said that about $1,000,000 maybe to get them through the rest of the year. If we give them the money, is there a guarantee that that money is going to go? And I know that my colleague and I and Sarah, we all spoke about this earlier. Does that mean that that money stays there? Because once we give them the money, you all maybe don't know this, but they can spend the money any way they want. We can't stop them. We can give them the money, try to find it, the mayor hopefully or somehow us. But how do we guarantee that that academy stays open for those children? And as the mother stood up here and said earlier, she don't want her child to get beat. She don't want her child to get shot.

She don't want her child because of maybe some other challenges that he has that maybe that the other children in that classroom might not have and then to be bullied. How do we turn our back on them? I can't do that and I am quite sure that my colleagues is going to fight. But you all gotta talk to those school board members and to that school superintendent who stood right up here and said put them back in there. Put them they need to go in the classroom. That's where they belong. I wanna say that I don't know exactly what's going to happen. I think all non council members will serve with this today.

Councilwoman Trammell. And this is pretty clear. Councilwoman Trammell.

Because the mayor has

to provide $300. We need to get through the budget. Will come back to that item. But we are now in discussion of the budget items. Absolutely, we'll come back to you for that item.

$300,000,000. All I'm saying

is I understand.

Well, I'm worried about these children.

And I'm talking about the budget. To.

This is the budget.

I'm talking about the budget items.

Madam president,

this is items 14 through 22 that we just had public hearing on that's now back to counsel for comment so that we can make a determination about the budget. I understand what you have, and I will come back to you for that item. But we need to conclude this section of this agenda. I Councilwoman Jones?

Thank you, madam president. Thank you, madam president. And I want to also thank everyone that has come down this evening to express their concerns about the issues that we are facing within our communities. And I think that there are a number of issues on the table that just because we passed the budget is not going to go away, because many of them are a result of a broken system. And it is a system that has been broken for a very long time.

And so while the process was made a little more easier and we've been able to come to consensus around a plethora of budget items. I think that this just continues to indicate the work that needs to be done, and it needs to be done more collaboratively, more transparently, and a lot early on. I was saying to someone recently when they talked about surveys, and I'm like, the realization is these are the same issues that have been on the table before I've come to counsel, while I'm on counsel, when I'm not gonna be on counsel. And so when do we really look at how we're going to make some transformative changes? And I'm not negating what we've done and that it isn't transformative, but the fact that our education system is always under attack and our young people are always at the face of that attack is why I advocate all the time for young people because the reality of it is there are many more adults in here than there are young people, and we have to figure out a way to ensure that actually, that should be reversed.

It should be more young people in here letting us know how we need to spend money and what the money needs to actually go towards to help them become the future of Richmond. And so while I appreciate all of us that continue to come down, because we're actually advocating on our end, you know, and we're advocating for just about, you know, as many things that everyone else is, I do think that we need to create a more inclusive process that intent that that that reflects these same communities that we are advocating for, and oftentimes, that is not happening. So it is a challenge. It is a challenge. It is a challenge to get to the end.

And while we're here today to vote on a budget, please know that these issues are not issues that end today. They are issues that will continue to be lifted up. But we need your help. We need help, and we need help in terms of identifying how we can work with, as someone stated, you all in advance. Not so much from who got the most money, who's spending money.

I think it really needs to be like, we have we have an opportunity before us is what I is what I'm saying. Like, these, to me, always bring opportunities. And so we have opportunities to really do a deeper dive once this is done to really begin to look at what are the next steps that we need to take. I see you guys in the back. I see you.

And that is something that is definitely at top of mind and something that we do need to continue to address because it is affecting the community. So, again, I just wanted to share my sentiment that we do hear each and every one of you, and we are in tune with your issues. They are not well, not your our issues because we are also part of these communities, and we live in these very communities that these issues are being upheld about. We live there, so no one is necessarily overlooking them. And we need to continue to just work together Because there are a number of other issues that have not been highlighted through this budget process that we still need to discuss in terms of small business.

You know, there are a lot of different things that we really need to continue to work through. So, again, thank you so much for being here and for continuing to share your concerns with us, and know that we are actually working hard to try to prioritize and mitigate the things that we need to be done. And sometimes they take time, just like this revamping of this budget. It takes a little time. And so we we know time is not of the essence, but we are working to try to do better and be better. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilwoman Jones, Vice President, Gerdin.

Thank you so much. Yes, I want thank everyone who came down and all the work and advocacy that you put into this year's budget. Some of you have heard me say this before, but the very first time I ever came to City Hall was budget season. And I came with my kids. I was wearing a red shirt to support our schools.

And the room was filled with people coming down from across the city begging for the school's budget. There were teachers holding pieces of the ceiling, the tiles that had fallen on them during the classrooms. And it was so disheartening to leave and not feel like we had really made progress. I feel today, about ten years later, that we have made a lot of progress. With that budget for RPS I think was 150,000,000.

We're looking at almost $250,000,000 now. But every budget cycle there is always that gap that we're not able to close, and it tears us up too. We want to meet every need. And the reality is at the end of the budget cycle, we have to immediately start thinking about the next budget. How are we gonna meet the needs of the people who came down, who are here advocating for what was not in the mayor's budget, for what we couldn't get through in amendments? And I don't want you to feel like that time was wasted. We will continue to be here and partner with you and try and make these gains. And I'm encouraged to see a member of our Richmond delegation from the General Assembly here. We need help from the state. The city has been stepping forward.

The city has moved ahead on our funding for our students and other priorities. We need more help from our state. So as much as you spend time holding us accountable, please do that at the General Assembly at the federal level too. Again, thank you everyone who came out, and to all of the staff members on our side and administration as we work through this process, and to my colleagues.

Thank you. Councilwoman Robertson.

Thank you, Doctor. Newbill. And I, too, would like to thank everyone that have come down and spoke this evening and expressed the great need that we still have in the city of Richmond. And many of those needs are still nowhere near being met. One of the things that I do hope that we will be able to do beyond a budget that never meets many of the needs, Some of the needs are met to some degree, but in most cases, none of the Ds are met to the full need that exist.

And so we continue to work on innovative, creative ways to look at the budget and how we are doing a better job at providing the services that are needed. I am glad and I am pleased that with the support of our staff, different departments here that have put their creative energies together to come up with the budget that we do have today, The increase in opportunities for affordable housing is something that, you know, I have been crying that song since the first day I stepped on City Council. And we are still not where we need to be. Great progress has been made, but there are still lots of challenges out there. And there are a lot of things that are going be coming up during the fiscal year that are programs that we are implementing that we are going to be looking at the implementation process of how we get these things done.

And so you need to continue to come back. Every time that you come down and raise concerns, it gives us more information that we need to look at the way that we are doing, what we are doing and whether or not there is a better way to accomplish the objective that is at hand. And where we have not, I think we have an obligation and I have already expressed this to the administration that, you know, the cameras that the concerns that you have, there is something that we need to do in addition to that to ensure your privacy, our privacy is addressed and taken care of. There is much work that needs to be done in a lot of the areas. You know, many of you have mentioned sidewalks and we do have a major challenge with sidewalks and drainage and infrastructure in the city that we are looking at creative ways to address those as well.

And, you know, the list goes on. But I want you to at least know that we hear you, we feel the pain, we struggle to try to see how we can do a better job in providing the resources that are needed and making the right choices with the resources that we do have. And I just want to encourage you to still continue to come to these meetings, to continue to make your voice heard, to recognize the accomplishments that I made and also to acknowledge the things that we still need to make. Those things that have not been met priorities beginning as we start looking at the future budget for the next FY year. So with that, I want to thank our staff, I want to thank RJ and his staff for the leadership that you all have provided us this year in putting this budget together.

We always need to think as clerks and our staff on our side that are doing the critical analysis and so forth to help us make the right decision. Mayor Vouli, your staff and your administration and the work that you have done to work as cooperatively as possible with us and we are always looking for more. And I want to thank every one of the citizens and just the concerned residents, whether you are a city resident or not, that continue to help us to do a better job. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councilman Brighton.

I think I can keep this short. I wanted to speak to a group that came to speak tonight that attended the March for Safer Streets here to City Council. I want to thank them for being here because, you know, every pedestrian death is done to equal tragedy. And prioritizing that is important to me, and it was in this year's budget. We were even able to not only have dedicated funding for our Department of Transportation, but as well as achieving more transparency in the budget as well.

Sometimes even just getting more transparency is a win in government. And I think that that is actually a broader theme that I want to thank our team for achieving, and the administration for achieving, was the additional transparency we had in this whole process was great. So I want to thank the advocates who came out to speak, and I want to thank all the administration and counsel staff that achieved the most transparent budget season I've ever been a part of. Thanks.

Thank you. Ms. Trembl, did you have something additional relative to a budget item

in this CAC?

Yes, ma'am, I do. I just want to say that we are supposed to vote on the budget tonight.

That's correct.

How do we cause I wanna make sure those children get what they have come down here to get. Are we gonna try to find the money to help them?

Well, we will

I just got asked, so that's why I was asking you.

Sure. Thank you.

The items on the agenda at this moment for voting are items 14 through 22. Those are the items that are before us. If you're wanting to talk about I think we're all desires of being responsive. But what we have to attend to is the budget on the table. That does not preclude us from looking subsequently to this and any number of places for opportunities to address this.

And, Madam President, I know that your heart is in there

It is because you

have talked.

And I don't want anyone to think that none of us nine are, you know, not, you know, are taking this lightly because we are not. We have heard you all, like, were the first ones to come here before anybody else begging us and had those children, your children with you and the teachers and all that. And Madam President, she listened and we all my colleagues, all of us, because we hear you. And we wanna make sure that that if we find the money or can get the money, that it stays with you all and it doesn't go into somewhere else. And you know what I am talking about. It goes somewhere else and we say, what the hell happened? Thank you, Madam Thank you. So I just want to clear that up.

Yes. Thank you.

And I want to say thank you to everyone who has come out this evening. I know we still have folks in the overflow room. It is important that we hear from you all the time, whether it's in this chamber. I hear from you outside. We hear from you outside of here. But it is important for us to hear from you. This is about our city, and I mean for all of us. The priorities that we've been able to address, and I don't want to go through the list, are reflective of what we have heard from you. Did we get

it

all? No. Are we still going to work on it? Yes, absolutely. But we are, I think, certainly much further ahead than we have been in the past, certainly in terms of the opportunity for collaboration. And I'm glad to see the mayor and his staff here who collaborated with our staff, I mean, in advance, which allowed us to get to this place where many of our priorities have been addressed. But clearly, not all of them. I want to be clear, not all of them. But we will continue to work, and I want to say thank you to all of you. You have heard some of the categories that have been included.

Yeah. And we still have a lot more to go, so I am just going to cut it there. And I am going to say thank you to all of you who are here. Thank you to our staff. Thank you, administration, for the advanced collaborative work that allowed us to get to this place. Thank you to my colleagues because we had hard decisions to make about dollars and limited dollars and looking at priorities in districts but in the city as well, and we'll continue to do that. With that, madam clerk, I ask you to call the question.

Counsel is now voting on items 14 through 22, ordinance numbers twenty twenty six dash zero sixty three, zero sixty five, zero sixty six, zero, seventy one, zero, sixty four, zero, sixty seven, zero, sixty eight, zero, sixty nine, and zero, seventy as read. Mr. Breton?

Aye.

Ms. Gibson?

Yes.

Ms. Jones? Aye. Ms. Robertson? Aye. Ms. Trammell? Aye. Vice President Jordan? Aye. And President Newbill? Papers have Thank been you. Let's proceed to the regular agenda, please. The regular agenda item for this evening is item number seven, ordinance number twenty twenty five dash two fifteen, to authorize a special use of 1705 Commonwealth Avenue for the purpose of a space for outdoor events upon certain terms and conditions.

Okay. One second. We'll ask for you to serve all due decorum as you're departing the chambers. And I would add, as folks are departing, ask that those who are present in the overflow room, if you would begin to make your way to the chambers for the regular agenda item.

Usually on the 5th Floor. What did she say, Gibson? I thought she said she don't. Usually, it's on the 5th Floor, but I don't know that it's always there, but that's where they usually put it because it can camera it in as well. Oh, the plant machine. That's what they usually use.

Okay.

Don't know what what you wanna do.

Madam Clerk, if you would, you can proceed to read that ordinance. And by the time you've done so, hopefully,

all who are desirous of speaking to the paper will have arrived. The regular agenda item is item seven, Ordinance twenty twenty five-two 15, to authorize a special use of 1705 Commonwealth Avenue for the purpose of a space for outdoor events upon certain terms and conditions. That paper is before counsel.

Okay. Thank you for your patience with that. The paper before you has been read by the clerk. Would the patron of the paper like to provide any comment prior to public hearing?

Evening. Kevin J. Vonk, Director of Planning and Development Review. This is a paper that's patroned by request from the mayor. The applicant here is seeking a special use permit to do outdoor events at a property on 1705 Commonwealth Avenue.

The parcel is zoned TOD one, which does allow for a variety of business uses and entertainment. However, there is a prohibition on outdoor entertainment and events, thus the need for the SUP. This went through a lengthy process, vetting with staff in terms of coming up with a set of recommended conditions, ultimately in accordance with the special use criteria to uphold health, safety, welfare. It went through staff recommended approval. It went to the planning commission.

Planning Commission eight to one recommended denial. I came to you earlier this year. It went through, was continued, amended, and here we are today. I know there's a lot of people that would like to speak on this. Happy to answer any questions that you may have either now or later.

Thank you, Ms. Devont. Sure. Councilwoman Robinson, you have a question for Ms. Devont?

I do. I want to make sure that we are clear as to what is included in the SUP in the paper that is before us. What are we being specifically asked for in this SUP and what is currently allowed by right at this location?

Sure. I would refer you to in the ordinance section three, which talks about special terms and conditions. Those are the ones that I'll say really stand out in terms of specific requirements for this parcel. In TOD, by right, no outdoor entertainment activities are allowed. I would say there could be a way to have temporary use, and our zoning code defines temporary as four times per year, so perhaps the applicant could have up to four outdoor entertainment events per year without needing an initial special use.

However, the applicant here is requesting beyond that. And so in three, once you get down to section D, it talks about the number of events. So 52 outdoor event days, five per month, hours of nine a. M. To ten p. M, no more than 120 attendees during those outdoor events, all amplified music ending before nine p. M. Those are the primary provisions in terms of the health, safety, welfare that were included to condition that use. Yes, you can do outdoor events, but it has to abide by these things along with some other standard terms and conditions that we do for all our special use permits.

Just to make sure I heard you correctly, the SEP requests 52 outdoor events, five per month, hours nine to ten up to 120 participants.

Correct. Including when there is also in there no less than one staff member for every 50 attendees.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Savant. At this point, we'll proceed with the public hearing on the paper. And we have and certainly would like to have opportunity to hear from, the folks are here, so we will certainly accord two minutes so we can hear from everyone who is present. All of those present desires of speaking in opposition to the ordinance, if you would come forward.

Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Sidney Bragg. I'm across the alley from Lavender Hill. I want to say this issue is not about Nadia. It's not about her character or her talents. We have supported we support her current business and we support the other small businesses in the area. The issue is about noise, location, enforcement, long term consequences, and protections that you provided a couple of years ago for us. There are seven residences within 100 feet of Lavender Hill. The noise, parking issues and other issues associated with the events impact about two city blocks. It is within 25 feet of three residences.

It's impossible to have a 120 people, amplified music, in a backyard 25 feet away and abide by the noise ordinance. It's just not possible. You will create an enforcement nightmare. Past events with fewer people have been loud and disruptive. Event traffic, potential use of alcohol creates safety issues.

There's no place to park. Folks here that support the SUP, they get to enjoy the events that they want to go to. We have to deal with all of them. We get them all. We have made several offers to Nadia for lesser events, and she has dismissed them as not meeting her business plan. Her business plan is about large events. Make no mistake. The SUP runs with the land. In January 2024, you, city council, six of whom are on here, voted unanimously to give us the 100 foot buffer that's in the TOD one zoning. We ask that you maintain that.

If this SUP passes, then no residential area will be safe from this type of thing. The impact of this is tremendous when you think about not being able to be outside, really not even be able to be in your house and have peace and quiet. So please deny this SUV. Thank you.

Please state your name.

I'm sorry. Sydney Bragg.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Adam Young. I live on Fitzhugh Avenue. I ask that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the SUP. I would like to say that I support the business owner in whatever she can do by right at the property under the current zoning ordinance. However, this property is not situated for such an expanded use being requested. The property has always been either residence or office space. An outdoor event space is not permitted under the current zoning ordinance, nor has it ever been permitted under any prior iteration thereof. The city did pass an amendment to the TOD zoning in '24 prohibiting such activities from within 100 feet of residences to preserve the peaceful enjoyment of their property. I ask the city to simply uphold that amendment.

As written, the SUP allows for too many events with too many people for too many hours per day. While there are many concerns, our primary one is that of noise. Our concerns are not hypothetical. We have experienced them before. The noise from prior large events caused my son to have trouble falling asleep. We now have a three month old daughter at home, and we don't want to suffer a repeat of those issues with either child. It's not just at night either. These events could last up to thirteen hours per day, any day of the week, up to five days in a row per month, and up to 52 times per year. Additionally, there is no practical way for the city to enforce the SUP, namely the sound. Us neighbors would be left with trying to enforce that.

That would be our burden. However, once there is a noise disruption, the damage is already done. You can't call the police or file a complaint with the city and expect to undo something like that. Lastly, the SUP files the property. Therefore, if this particular applicant does manage smaller and more intimate gatherings, the next property owner could abuse the numbers and noise at the property with how broadly the SUP is currently drafted. Again, I do ask that you please deny the application for the SUP. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Victoria Young, I'm a resident of Fitzhugh Avenue. I oppose Lavender Hills Special Use Permit request to allow large outdoor events. Large outdoor events would bring excessive noise, increased traffic, and parking challenges that would negatively affect the quality of life and safety of families in our neighborhood, especially young children. My husband and I have a five year old and a three month old baby. During past, unpermitted events hosted by Lavender Hill, our older child experienced significant sleep disruptions due to excessive noise. If this permit is approved, those disruptions could occur several times a week. The proposed event hours of nine a. M. To ten p.

M. Would affect not only nighttime sleep, but also daytime naps for our infant. On a fundamental level, families have the right to the quiet residential streets protected by the city's current zoning regulations. In addition to the noise concerns, increased traffic and parking on streets not designed for event activity create serious safety risk for children who walk, bike and play in the neighborhood. Large events will generate a significant number of vehicles, rideshare drop offs and vendor traffic in alleys as neighbors have already experienced.

This increases congestion and reduces visibility, resulting in unsafe conditions on our neighborhood streets. We support Lavender Hill as it is currently allowed to operate, but we cannot support a special use permit that would allow large scale events at the expense of our children. The safety, well-being and quality of life of residents, especially young children, should take priority over expanding event operations. I respectfully ask the city to deny the SUP. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Story Hinkley, and I live on Fitzhugh Avenue, one block from Lavender Hill with my husband and my baby. And I wanted to actually bring my baby here because this decision affects him, but I couldn't because baby's bedtime is seven p. M, so he's been in bed for a while now. And that's hours before parties with amplified sound would end if this SUP is approved. The children who live in our neighborhood won't get the sleep they need to be happy and healthy, and by my rough count, at least a dozen children live within a two block radius of Lavender Hill.

And as a working mom, I don't get to spend as much time with my son as, of course, I would like to, so our time at home is so important. But if this passes, our family will be spending our valuable time together trying to help a cranky, overtired baby get to sleep. And instead of freely playing in our front yard with our neighbors as we do now, we'll have to make sure the kids aren't in danger from the increased foot traffic and cars that come with a 100 plus person block party at least five times a month. And I'll reiterate, as my neighbors have said, that our neighborhood has no problem with this business as it currently stands, but what is being asked for in this SUP is completely inappropriate and dangerous for a neighborhood full of small children. Partygoers can come and enjoy an event in our neighborhood, then go home to their quiet and well zoned neighborhood.

But we live here, and this will be our life. My husband and I worked really hard to afford our house, and we still work hard to pay our city taxes with the understanding that the city and the city council will protect us from an outdoor entertainment venue being allowed on our block. So I ask you, as one tired mom trying to protect her kid, to please deny this permit.

Thank you.

Nicholas Phabbe, 4500 Fitzsea Avenue. I'm diagonally across from Lavender Hill. And within the 100 foot barrier protection from the TOD1 rules. I ask that you uphold the protections that you all set back in 2024 for neighborhoods and deny the SUP. The terms of the SUP are just way too excessive for the space in its relation to the neighborhood. When we were back here in January, you all continued to vote to ask to negotiate and find a more reasonable solution. We've tried. We've put together proposals. Councilman Brinton put together a proposal that seemed like a step in the right direction and go into the negotiation. It's everything's red marks all over it, and everything's bumped back up to the unreasonable amount.

So unfortunately, as much as I think we wanted to find something that worked, we just couldn't. And it would be one thing if this SEP was asking us to deal with a little bit of uncomfortableness uncomfortability. That's a weird word. But it's not. I mean, it's asking us to deal with just excessive amounts of events and noise that's just not reasonable for people in a neighborhood to deal with. And beyond that, I just want to say, you know, if this passes, I know there's a lot of people in support of it, but none of them will actually have to deal with the events to what Cindy said. You know, they can enjoy it when they want to, but we have to deal with that. We have to deal with that on, you know, in our life. So I ask that you deny the SOP. Thank you.

Thank you.

Short. Hi, I'm Amanda Murphy. And at the last hearing, you asked us to work with Nadia to try to find terms that everyone could support, and we did. We met several times and had many conversations in good faith. But unfortunately, we were never able to come up with numbers or conditions that balanced Nadia's business ambitions with what neighboring residents felt comfortable allowing and what is essentially their backyard.

Over the course of this process and those meetings, I was able to get to know Nadia better, and I do believe what she is trying to create comes from a good place. I genuinely believe that spaces that encourage people to gather, connect, and build community are growing more critical in our society. But this location is simply not appropriate for what would or could effectively function as a large event and wedding venue under the numbers requested in the SUP. This building and its adjacent outdoor space sit way too close to the backyards and homes of neighboring residents. The level of activity requested, the traffic, parking overflow, amplified sound, and frequency of events, all issues raised by the Planning Commission that resulted in the request to deny, would directly impact people's ability to peacefully enjoy their homes.

At the end of the day, that is really what residents are advocating for. Our basic right to peace in our own homes without having to police it ourselves. So I ask you to please deny this SUP.

Thank you.

So my name is Rachel Fabb. I own 4500 Fitzsea across from 1705 Commonwealth. I came to Richmond in 1984 and graduated from the Medical College of Virginia forty years ago this Sunday. When I arrived as a new student, the area between VCU and MCV along Broad Street was an abyss with the exception of the financial district towards the river. There were a few businesses on Broad And Grace, but for the most part, it was vacant. Run down buildings, houses, trash and graffiti were everywhere. My community health nursing rotation was at Bainbridge Community Center in Blackwell, which most of you know

is

Manchester. I asked my professor about walking and safety in the neighborhood going to our visits. She said we would be fine in the neighborhood because we were nursing students and they knew who we are. Blackwell was run down homes, the vestiges of days gone by of a once thriving community. The director at Bainbridge Community Center some said, someday, they are going to rebuild. Manchester will thrive again. A banking complex, other businesses, and homes will be rebuilt. Many years I drove by, no changes. Finally, it was rebuilt, and look at all the people who have flocked to live there. Prior to my arrival, people moved out of the cities.

Houses sold for very low prices because no one wanted to live in the city. They all moved to the suburbs. Homes became rundown and vacant. The crime and murder rate were very high, and there was even a serial killer. Richmond has come a long way in these last forty years. The city has been revitalized. Residences have been refurbished. Restaurants and businesses have reopened in old spots. So many are moving back. Property values have have increased, generating more tax revenue. Why? It is because of the thoughtful and careful decisions of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Homes have been built where businesses once were. Scott's addition comes to mind. I can't think of any location where a business that could be detrimental to a neighborhood has been approved.

Events with a 120 people are joyous occasions. They should be celebrated without sound restrictions. They shouldn't have to worry about going over a decibel limit established by the city council in 2024. Seventeen o five Commonwealth is not the right location for a venue seeking to hold many events, which create noise due to close residential parking

Thank you.

That's your time. Thank you.

Good evening, council members and number neighbors. I'm Debbie Bragg and have lived at 4408 Fitzhugh for forty three years, right across the alley from Lavender Hill. I know a lot of you are here tonight to support Nadia's small business. We support it as well and have experienced no problem with her indoor events. We do not support the large outdoor events with amplified music until nine p.

M. That she is requesting in this SUP. Nadia has done several of those events which were loud and disruptive. Nadia purchased a property that does not fit her business plan for large events. The zoning for Lavender Hill never has never and does not allow any outdoor events, large or small.

The nearby neighbors have offered Nadia options for her to have small outdoor events, but she's rejected them all. We really are not bad people, just trying to keep the peace in our homes. Our home is our refuge. We enjoy our backyard listening to and watching the birds. This requested SUP will not allow us to do that or even hear each other speak in our own yard or house 52 times a year.

It's disappointing that Nadia's recent post suggests that we are trying to damage her or other small business that she supports. This is not the issue at all. The issue is large events with amplified music next to a residential area. It's extremely troubling that the planning staff helped Nadia craft and recommend the SUP that didn't consider the impact to nearby neighbors and was voted down eight to one by the planning commission. Please protect the peace and quiet and refuge of our homes.

Please uphold the protection that you unanimously voted for two years ago. Please deny this SUP. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Krista Mathis. I live at 4406 Fitzhugh Avenue with my son. The rear of our yard is about 60 feet from the rear of the Lavender Hill property. And the property itself, while 60 feet from my property, is really only separated by about a 13 foot alley between Lavender Hill and the closest residence on our street.

The issue with this is entirely based on the proposed use of the outdoor part of the property. I'm not aware of any issues that anyone has raised with the indoor use of the property. The property has been used as a business for about forty years. It was zoned for office use until a couple of years ago when it was adjusted or changed to a TOD1 zoning, which actually allowed for more uses, less restrictive uses. But it still doesn't allow for the use of the outdoor portion of the property as close to our residences as it is.

So I'm asking that counsel deny the SUP that's requested today because the property simply is not conducive to the use that's being requested. We don't object to the conducive use of the indoor portion of the property. It's about noise and numbers. Information that was provided by the applicant when I requested it was that she has held about 18 events since 2021 when she purchased the property. She only noted in that information that two of them were 120 people or even more than 50 people.

But we've had concerns about far more than two of the events. So 120 people, the number of events being requested is simply out of any sort of proportion for the area that we live in. There's

no

way to block the noise. It's extremely loud within our homes, and we just want to live with peace. So I would ask again that City Council deny the request for the special use permit being requested. Thank

you. Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Ryan Oliver. Like many of my other neighbors, my wife Nancy and I live at 4402 Fitzhugh Avenue behind Lavender Hill, and we're starting our family. The room behind the room will serve as our nursery, faces the alley behind the property, the same space where outdoor events and amplified sounds as outlined in the SEP would occur. Large outdoor events don't stay contained. The noise carries through into our surrounding homes, and that's not compatible with the residential block where families live, sleep, and raise children.

And what stands out about this process is it's not a close call. Chapter 11 of the city's noise ordinance is clear that excessive sound is recognized as a threat to public health, welfare, peace, and safety. And residents have a right to an environment free from it. The proposal conflicts with that policy that was unanimously supported and adopted by this council. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal and recommended denial based on those impacts to surrounding residents.

And my council member, Andrew Breton, who represents our district, has also been clear on this quoting, I do not support the special use permit as it's currently submitted. The proposed use is too loud, too close, and the affected residences, and I do not believe that the case warrants overruling their objection. This is about whether the protections that exist for residential areas, protections around noise, proximity, and compatibility are upheld when they matter most. Zoning exists to protect the health, safety, and stability of our neighborhoods like ours, and I respect you to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the position of my district representative, and deny this SUP. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Nancy Oliver. I live at 4402 Fitzhugh Avenue with my husband Ryan. We bought our home in 2021 with our life savings at Fitzhugh Avenue, and it was with the goal of starting a family. We consider the city of Richmond to be our home, and really I'm here today to advocate for my right to be able to have safety and welfare, which was agreed and also upheld by the Planning Commission in an eight to one decision.

This is not about trying to hamper a local business. My neighbors and I very much enjoy having businesses such as Hunan East, Elephant Thai, Carina's Hair Salon, and we also enjoy and welcome having Lavender Hill as it's currently zoned. My opposition to the SUP is due to an illogical proposal that would break codified sound limits with no reasonable limitations or means of enforcement. And this is not without a willingness for negotiation or attempts to offer a solution that works for both sides. Lots of work was put in by our council member, by the community to try to reach a tenable solution.

Unfortunately, that wasn't able to be achieved. And so really, there's no other option other than to deny the SEP. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Vince Lovejoy. My wife and I live at 4401 Fitzhugh Avenue. I'm here to express my strong opposition to the special use permit. I'll be brief since my objections echo those of others and my neighbors.

According to the first two city guidelines for the city's application form, special use must not be detrimental to the safety, health, morals, and general welfare of the community involved. Given the application's definition of up to 52 events per year with 120 persons and amplified sound, this principle will clearly be violated as it's impossible to put this many people together in a party environment without exceeding the city's own 65 decibel limit. This will definitely have a negative impact to the health and general welfare for my wife and I. The second guideline defines that the special use will not create congestion in the streets and roads. Given that there is no dedicated parking for Lavender Hill and up to 120 persons attending events, it be impossible to avoid creating the very congestion that is prohibited on a frequent basis.

Based on these two guidelines alone, it seems clear to me that this SUP does not meet the city's requirements for appropriate use for this property. Please make the only appropriate decision to deny this permit. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Lee Stanfield, and I'm here representing 4424 Fitzhugh on behalf of myself and my partner who's back there. We are in opposition to this clearly without restating what's already been said, what I've said previously to both the Planning Commission, to Labrador Hill itself, at all of the prior meetings that we've had about this, 01/2020 people is not based in reality. It is not based on what I think is feasible for the space. If 120 people are speaking, imagine in this room, that alone would likely violate this city's decibel limit on outdoor gatherings, just the speaking alone.

Here we're talking about adding additional amplified sound. For the reasons previously stated by my neighbors, I again restate that I ask the council to deny this permit. I anticipate you will hear about the inconvenience and uncertainty of this process to Lavender Hill from the other side. I would just like also to reiterate that uncertainty and convenience has also impacted the neighborhood. We've had to come to several of these meetings. We've been here every time, and we will be at any future meetings if this continues on. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Christine Smetna, and I respectively ask you tonight to deny the special use permit for 1705 Commonwealth Ave, known as Lavender Hill. This decision should not be based on emotions, popularity, or selective enforcement. It must be based on the law. Specifically, the city's own zoning ordinances, TOD one regulations and the noise protections council had unanimously adopted to protect Richmond residents.

And six of you are still part of this council today. The Planning Commission voted eight to one to recommend denial because this application failed to meet four of the six required standards. To be honest, it doesn't take more than one rejection or one failed standard for an SUP not to pass. That matters. The Commission exists to evaluate whether applications comply with the city's adopted plans, zoning framework and neighborhood protections.

Their recommendation was not arbitrary. It was based on the ordinances and policies already in place. TOD1 zoning was never intended to permit ongoing outdoor entertainment venues directly adjacent to residential property lines in established neighborhoods. The city created these zoning protections to balance development with neighborhood liability. If those standards are ignored here, then every TOD1 neighborhood in Richmond becomes vulnerable to the same precedent.

In July 2024, members of the council unanimously strengthened Richmond's noise ordinance specifically to protect residents from excessive and intrusive noise. Those protections apply to everyone equally. Residents bordering this property have already experienced outdoor events with amplified music, DJs, bands, crowds, late night activity. The city cannot claim to support neighborhood protections while simultaneously approving a permit that fundamentally conflicts with those protections. The issue tonight is larger than one property or one business.

The issue is whether Richmond will apply its laws consistently and fairly. As I want to say clearly tonight, if Planning Commission staff and City Council had simply followed the city's own zoning laws and policy ordinances, the very protections put in place to safeguard residents and neighborhoods, this SUP should never have advanced in the first place. When the law is applied consistently, there is no gray area.

Thank you. That's your time.

Thank you. At this time, we will have persons present desirous of speaking in favor of this ordinance, if you would come forward.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Raven Jarvis, and I am pleased to provide a letter of support for Lavender Hill to gain approval for the Special Use Permit to continue hosting outdoor events. I'm a Richmond resident, a small business owner, oh, sorry, small business owner and a member of the Jackson Ward Collective Foundation. I am also the founder of Doggy Adventures LLC, which is a dog care business focused on community and connection. Since opening nearly five years ago, Lavender Hill has been a valuable resource to Richmond to the Richmond community.

It provides a welcoming space where people can come together, share ideas, build relationships, and engage with the city's creative spirit. I volunteered with Lavender Hill. I've attended a wide range of events there, including networking events, creative gatherings, weddings, speaker events, and community nights. I'm speaking from direct experience, and I've seen how people show up and the kind of energy that's created in that space. People feel very at ease there.

They connect, they build relationships, and genuinely just enjoy being there. Through my involvement, I've made new connections, I've gained professional experience, and found the confidence to even begin planning some of my own events. Lavender Hill is a space that the broader Richmond community is already engaging with in a positive and meaningful way. It offers an environment where people can gather, collaborate, and build relationships outside of their daily routines. It's quite disappointing to see something that's been so beneficial to so many people be viewed in a way that just doesn't reflect that reality. Am I screaming? I'm sorry. I feel like I'm screaming. But it is very disappointing to see that it is being shown in a view that doesn't reflect that. We should be removing barriers to space like this and not creating more of them.

The request being made is not for unrestricted use before a regulated permit with clear conditions. Limits on frequency, hours, sound, and capacity are already in place. This process exists to manage impact, not to deny use based on assumptions rather than actual experience. And from what I've seen, the use of this space has been responsible. It doesn't reflect the level of concern being suggested. Decisions like this should be based on actual proposal and conditions, not assumptions or fears about what could happen.

Thank you. That's your tongue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My goal is not disruption. It is responsible, compliant use of property I own. I respectfully ask this council to apply the rules fairly and consistently, grounded in evidence and facts, so that compliance with the citywide noise ordinance and the state building code, not fear or conjecture, guide this decision. Respectfully, there is no just reason for counsel to deny the special use permit as originally submitted or in its current amended form. Lavender Hill is surrounded by commercial properties on three sides.

An alley divides the commercial strip on West Broad Street from seven houses. Therefore, my property should not be expected to meet purely residential standards. Councilman Breton continues to classify outdoor events at Lavender Hill as, quote, an unusual exception in the context of close residential quarters, end quote. Although six outdoor event spaces operate in residential zones without obstruction, Two are in the 1st District, that's Agecroft Hall and Tuckahoe Women's Club. One in the 2nd District, the Branch House.

In the 5th District, we have HQ and one thousand Westover. In the 7th District, there's the Overlook at Child Savers. And these resident organized concert series are regularly held in residential zones. Porcella in the 3rd District, Music in the Park in the 5th District with support from the 4th District, Tiny Porch Concert series in the 5th District, Bellwether Garage in the 7th District. Lavender Hill operates as an office and coworking space, a private event space, and a community gathering space.

Neighborhood concerns have been heard and addressed. Originally submitted in July 2024, the SUP application with 20 letters of support, including one from the Civic Association and 17 Sours Garden households included 125 event days per year. In an effort to reach middle ground with concerned neighbors, the management plan has been adjusted more than 10 times to reduce event frequency, capacity, and parameters for amplified sound. I agreed to the amended ordinance in November 2025. More recently, on March 18, I suggested a reduction in event days from 52 to 24. And on March 20, Breton stated the reduced offer was not substantial enough.

Thank you. That's your time.

Good evening. My name is Aaron Foster with Friends of Lavender Hill. In continuance, On April, Bretton, his liaison, council president, and a consultant participated in five hours of conversation that believed to be in good faith negotiations. Together, it was discussed a tiered plan that reduced event days to no more than 20 per year with up to 50 people and a portable tabletop speaker, and up to 10 per year with up to 100 people and amplified sound, with those larger events deducted from the number of mid sized events and unlimited events with indoor capacity allowed to gather outside. May 1, Nadia was surprised to receive an email from the Richmond Times Dispatch reporter asking about her plans to pay delinquent real estate taxes, violations of city code, and context to add to his story, just one minute prior to receiving an email from Councilman Bracken explaining that there is not a path to outdoor amplified music in your application because residents have recently discovered and shared a history of zoning violations and unpermitted activities, as well as a significant tax delinquency on a property that prevents any reasonable expectation of entering into a secure covenant built on mutual trust.

Her actions throughout this process highlight a business owner navigating a city system that lacks clear road map, trustworthy guidance, and support from city staff and elected officials, not a citizen operating with blatant disregard for the law. Any activity that occurred outside was conducted in direct reliance on the guidance received from city staff. It is inaccurate and unjust to characterize compliance with city staff direction as a pattern of disregard for the process. Although there is no off street parking requirement for TD 1 zone, Nadia spoke with businesses adjacent to her property and granted permission for use of 45 off street parking spaces. She spoke with a sound engineer and received a written suggestion for speaker purchase and placement to mitigate sound outside of the property line.

Knowing that recording of an approved SUP will require payment, all real estate taxes were paid on May 4. She is not in five years turning a profit by operating this property.

Thank you. That's your tie.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your service.

Evening. I'm Jolinda Anderson and a business associate of Nadia and Lavender Hill. I just want to mention that my wedding reception was held during the daylight hours of 05/15/2022, from 12:45 to around 04:30 p. M. Online it was characterized as keeping families up late into the evening, but as you all know, we got here around 04:30 or five, which is when my reception was over.

So it feels as though often events are amplified and the story becomes bigger than the reality. I also just want to mention that it feels like, as a close business associate of Nadia, seeing how she has to jump through hoops and work with the different things that are being asked of her by the city, it doesn't make it an easy opportunity to try to do the right thing. And often, she took direct guidance from city staff that was then interpreted as being dishonest or being shady, and a lot of the process was not clear to she nor the neighbors. So I feel like it's creating a situation where people are being pitted against each other. So I don't know what you all can do tonight in this situation, but please hear that how you're asking business owners to go about trying to operate a business, and then how that information is being communicated to their neighbors or the community is creating friction that doesn't necessarily have to exist if everyone understands how to do things properly.

It feels like Nadia has gone over and above to try to meet needs, and it seems like her efforts are not really appreciated or acknowledged. And again, when she is doing what the city is asking her to do, it's being interpreted as trying to go around or sideways or being disrespectful or dishonest. So I just want to share that information.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is James Henry Harris. I am the senior minister at Second Baptist Church in the near West End on Idlewood Avenue. I have been here before speaking regarding this issue. And I say again tonight, as has been said, Nadia has worked hard all of her life to make a difference in our society and in our world.

And it seems like roadblocks are placed in front of her at every single moment. Additionally, I have, for the past how many years, been fighting against injustice, racism, all kinds of things that continue to permeate our society. And while we make one argument on one hand, we make another on another hand. In this city alone, it had to be a struggle for equal housing and equal opportunity. I mean, that has been an issue across America over and over and over again.

Nadia, a very distinguished black woman trying to run a business in this city, is challenging and almost impossible because day after day, week after week, year after year, time after time, there is roadblock after roadblock placed in front of her. She's a person of high moral character and everything else that you can think of. A graduate of the Richmond Public Schools of the University of Virginia. You can't ask for a better person to be a business person in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And so I'm here to advocate on her behalf, asking that you would approve this special use permit as an effort to advance things like equity and justice and fairness for all.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Megan Rollins, a member of Sour Gardens and a resident of the 1st District. I'm here tonight to read a letter in support of Nadia Anderson and Lavender Hills Special Use Permit on behalf of The Knot Worldwide. The Knot Worldwide writes in strong support of Naughty Anderson's application for a special use permit for Lavender Hill, her intimate event venue located at 1705 Commonwealth Avenue. The Knot Worldwide operates one of the nation's leading wedding marketplaces, connecting engaged couples with thousands of small business vendors across the country.

Ms. Anderson and Lavender Hill are proudly part of our community. It is small, independently owned, like Lavender Hill, that are the backbone of local economies, creating jobs and serving families during some of the most meaningful moments of their lives. We understand that this application has been under review for nearly twenty months, and we appreciate the Council's careful consideration of the concerns raised by neighboring residents. At the same time, we respectfully urge the Council to weigh the significant economic and community costs of continued delay or denial.

We believe Ms. Anderson has demonstrated good faith and prudence throughout this process, including repeatedly adjusting her plans in response to feedback from zoning staff, planning commission, and neighbors, including eliminating live bans from the events. Small businesses like Lavender Hill are the backbone of the wedding industry. When they are unable to operate and grow, it is not only the couples who suffer, the businesses owners do too. They lose trusted local they lose a trusted local vendor, the employees who depend on that work, and the broader community that benefits from a thriving local economy.

We respectfully ask the council to approve Ms. Anderson's special use permit and give Lavender Hill the opportunity to serve Richmond's community for years to come. Sincerely, Angel Lowell Mankiss, Chief Customer Officer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Will Rollins, and I am a member of the neighborhood where Lavender Hill is. And tonight, I'm advocating in support of the special use permit. I wanted to provide some verifiable facts about what's happened in the last several years from 2021 through now. So 2021 to 2026, there are 190 in that six year period.

Between 2021 and 2025, Lavender Hill hosted a total of 17 outdoor events, zero this year. In 2024, there were only two events that included live bands. And in 2024 and 2025, there was one DJ led event per year. With that being said, zero noise violations and no police intervention from 2021 through now, and only one neighbor voiced a noise related concern in 2024. So that's well under 0.001% of all the days over that period.

So the data just doesn't support the claim that Labrador Hill presents an ongoing or unreasonable disturbance to the surrounding neighborhood, including the noise. And there's responsible operation as a result. One other thing to think about is this. All of the elected representatives and all of us have a responsibility to represent all residents in the area, weighing the evidence against overall impact and not singling out one person or one group over another. Because what that does is that creates a troubling perception that there's unequal consideration here, and there's some bias as well.

It race. Could It could be color blind. It could be anything that might lead to that. So these situations, in my opinion, should be approached in a clear, in a colorblind, in fairness driven manner, guided by facts rather than perception. In this case, the facts are supporting Lavender Hill's request. It's a very respectful request. And for these reasons, I respectfully urge approval of the SUP for Lavender Hill in the event space. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, friends. My name is Michael Way. I'm a resident of Scotts Editions, 2nd District, and a guest of Lavender Hill. My father spent his life teaching me ruthless fairness. Fairness builds trust.

Trust builds relationship. Relationships build dreams. We who wish to build and dream must be ruthless about being fair at all times. When we are anxious, agitated, angry, disadvantaged, ruthlessness, especially against ourselves, is the cost of fairness. Today feels like a time for ruthlessness.

Ruthless fairness is crucial when one's own concerns are genuinely legitimate. Noise and parking concerns are legitimate concerns. First impression concerns are legitimate concerns. All concerns stated tonight are legitimate concerns. So how do we weigh legitimate concerns against fairness concerns? I served briefly on Richmond's Board of Zoning Appeals. There's

a

term in zoning law, regulatory taking, where excessive restrictions effectively strip property rights from the property owner. One wonders, would any of us want to operate a space like Lavender Hill under the rules proposed, based on infeasible outlier incidents? Would we still feel like we own the property? Today feels like a time for ruthlessness. To ruthlessly refuse to effectively take property from an outnumbered small business owner, to support a special use permit for Lavender Hill because dreams like Lavender Hill are good for Richmond, because we support small businesses, because we would want the same support ourselves.

Thank you for hearing me, friends.

Thank you.

My name is Christina Dick and I am in here in support of the special use permit for Lavender Hill. Nadia and I started our businesses at the same time and she's been a great source of support and advice, and she's done a lot for the community. My company has worked with her and hired her to put on special events for our clients at Short Pump Town Center, And I've also attended events at the space at Lavender Hill. This is my second time coming to one of these meetings to come speak on her behalf. And it has been really disheartening to hear some of the arguments against it.

And it's really hard to to hear for Nadia. All of the arguments seem to me to be very subjective and fear based. Whereas you heard from Nadia just now that there's no just reason that she shouldn't get this permit. I cannot imagine having these obstacles in the way of my business. I my business is in Chaco Bottom.

I cannot imagine my neighbors having a voice against me like this. Again, I think that the arguments against us are subjective and fear based and I think Nadia's events are great. She's won awards in the community and I think that it's not right to deny this. I think it's great that we listen to other voices but I don't think that they should have a say in, you know, things that are necessary for a business to succeed.

Thank you.

Good evening counsel. My name is Michael Rabin and I'm a 1st District resident. I'm here tonight because of how the opposition to the special use permit has been conducted and something for counsel to sit with before voting. A flyer was circulated in the neighborhood opposing this application that I documented in a letter to Councilman Breton. It characterizes Lavender Hill as an outdoor music venue with 150 of your closest friends and outdoor toilets available.

It is obnoxious in its words and graphics, and this caricature of a black owned business as a source of social disruption is too reminiscent of Richmond's racist past. It is a method of opposition that this city should not normalize. I'm concerned that denial this evening will not conclude the matter. It is likely to elevate the case through litigation, civil rights examination, and media attention that travels well beyond this neighborhood at a moment when so much careful work in this city is invested in healing rather than repeating our history. If terms could be presented that meet the reasonable needs of both the business and surrounding residents and the city could fill the gaps of needed enforcement, I believe that would better resolve the matter from a fiscal, political, and humanist perspective than a denial this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Damond Davis, and I'm a local business owner. And I am here in support of the SUP and a continuation of the event Beats and Blockbusters in the Garden at Laverna Hill in Richmond, Virginia. The summer series provides a unique cultural experience that brings the community together through music, food, and classic black film from the 1990s. The event has become a positive gathering space that supports local artists, chefs, and small businesses while contributing to Richmond's vibrant culture and atmosphere.

Nadia has also made intentional efforts to be respectful of surrounding neighbors, which I witness. The music portion of the event is scheduled early in the evening while daylight remains specifically to minimize disruption to nearby residents and avoid late night noise concerns. The later the latter portion of the event consists primarily of film viewing, which is significantly quieter in nature. It is clear that Nadia is making a good faith effort to balance community involvement with neighborhood consideration. Events like this strengthen community engagement and provide safe, positive, and culturally enriching experience for Richmond residents.

I respectfully ask the city to support the continuation of Nadia's work in the event space and approve the SUP to allow the events to continue responsibly and successfully. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Tamara Jones, and I am here in support of the special use permit for Lavender Hill. Nadia has not in five years turned a profit while operating this property. The business model is built on low frequency, high cost outdoor event rentals to supplement the free access to community organizations and low cost membership for small business owners. Without this special use permit, she will be unable to operate Lavender Hill as she was divinely inspired and will be forced to relocate or completely change her operations model to an outside to an area outside of her expertise. Nadia's trust in the process was shaken when councilman Breton repeatedly required that she submit documentation to refute neighbors' claims that they were not required to support with evidence when he suggested that some neighborhood voices count more than others at a meeting on 09/05/2025, and again on 03/20/2026 when he when he explained that a community sound would only apply to her property, not all the properties in Sowards Garden community.

That and that trust was completely shattered by May 1 email where Breton stated, I can confidently tell you that your application will not be approved, which suggests that the decision has already been made and the efforts of today's hearing are futile. Lavender Hill has consistently followed the guidance laid out by the city staff and corrected any issues that have been presented to the business. This process was not allowed for nuance in the conversation. While the SUP establishes limits, it does not look into the various events held at Lavender Hill and I'm sorry, at Lavender Hill that do not all carry large gas and amplified sound. When TOD one was developed, it did not have a business such as Lavender Hill in mind.

Many many localities used a 100 foot distance as a way to mitigate discrepancies and noise complaints and lessen the taxing on the police department to investigate these kinds of complaints. Operating within noise ordinance shouldn't be viewed as too loud, and operating in a confined space shouldn't be labeled as too loud.

Thank you. That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Aubrey Fountain. I am a twenty year adjunct professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and specialty in land use law. I'm here just to provide some professional objective insight on this matter. It's my understanding that the TDO-one zoning is a form of transitional zoning.

It's not purely residential. I hear the concerns of the residents, and they are the concerns of a residential community. However, this is a TDO one zoning that was created and approved by the city of Richmond for purposes such as this. I I believe that event spaces are included as a permitted use. The idea that it has to go through a special use permit, obviously, is to have mitigating circumstances that will allow for it to have an outdoor space with the amendments.

I believe that the amendments that have been proposed are designed they have been recommended by planning staff and approved by the Planning Commission Land Use Committee for the purposes of mitigating the concerns of the resident. So I point to a case called City of Richmond versus City of Randall City of Richmond versus Randall, which was a Supreme Court case that held that NIMBYism within of itself is not justification for denying a special use permit. If it's based on that, then it can be considered arbitrary and capricious decisions. In this particular case, I believe that the recommendations of planning staff, which is why you have a group of hardworking planners that work in your department that have addressed and taken into account all residents' concerns and neighbors' concerns. These residents have moved into an area that is proximate to, on three sides, commercial properties, and so this is not looked at as purely residential.

She is having events like birthday parties or graduation celebrations which would occur which these residents themselves could have. Her backyard is not as big enough to support the type of spaces, so it's not like she is increasing the spaces. And in that regard, I just believe that you should follow the recommendations of your planning staff and land use committee, who has created amendments for the very purposes of mitigating some of the concerns that the residents have.