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 Ginter Park Presbyterian Church.

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

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 the 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.

And in everyone in this great city of ours.

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 from Hopkins Road to Laburnum Park, from Church Hill to Willow Lawn, and all along the James River.

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 in the public comment period are generally allowed three minutes to speak.

Persons appearing before council 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.

There is.

The motion is coming.

Thank you, Madam President.

Councillor Stephanie Lynch has requested to participate in this meeting by 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 3D of council's rules and procedures at this time, first went to rule 3D, 4D, 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 move.

Second.

Council is now voting on the motion to approve Miss Lynch's request to participate in this meeting via electronic communication means.

Mr.

Breton, aye.

Miss Gibson.

Yes.

Ms.

Jones.

Aye.

Ms.

Robertson.

Aye.

Ms.

Trammell.

Aye.

Vice President Jordan.

Aye.

And President New Bill.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let's move on to the uh 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 Councillors Lynch, who has yet to join the team's meeting remotely, and Councilor Abu Bakr.

You do have a quorum.

If there are individuals other than the 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 uh 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.

Uh to the next quarter to make more time to consider um other applicants.

And that we consider all the rest as a slate tonight.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Council 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 Newville.

Aye.

That motion has been approved.

Now is there a motion to approve the remaining appointment recommendations as presented?

So moved.

Ms.

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.

Miss Gibson.

Yes.

Ms.

Jones.

Aye.

Ms.

Robertson.

Aye.

Ms.

Trammel.

Aye.

Miss Abubacher.

Miss Vice President Jordan, I'm sorry.

Aye.

And President New Bill.

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, the public comment period speakers.

The first speaker is Melvin Jones.

Welcome, Mr.

Jones.

Good afternoon.

Members of City Council.

My name is Melvin Jones.

I live in the third district.

Um my concerns this afternoon is about um before the mayor came here.

I knew mayor, we had um money that was given to people who weren't supposed to get it as far as bonuses.

Um, Mr.

Jones, I believe you were signed up to address the replacement of a retirement plaque and oversight of non-departmental funds.

No, ma'am.

Well, department funds.

Yeah, this is also an apartment 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 five million dollars that the feds got over there that the city of Richmond gave away that went out the front door, and I figured that um the inspector general's office and somebody else should have been on top of all this money that's going out here.

Like 300,000, $3,000 going to dead people that were retired.

I mean, come on, somebody need to be accountability on all this money.

Mr.

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 non-departmental funds.

We'd be happy to have you come back and speak to any of those other.

Ms.

Newbill, 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 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 you wanted to speak to.

Yes, ma'am.

So you telling me to come back up here and speak about it?

I'm seeing 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 we'll write it's been so low.

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 it's no oversight on what's going on with our money, okay.

You you raise 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 day on house payment to have a to have through her manager.

Two years out putting the application.

Don't nobody give a damn.

Don't know about it.

All you want to do is put us in these retirement homes, take our homes, and that's it.

Somebody gonna listen tonight, or even I'm going to jail because this is this is ridiculous.

So, Mr.

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.

Um, I've heard a couple.

It don't do no good, Ms.

Newbill.

Well, we're gonna give it a shot, sir.

Like I said, don't do no good.

I've been coming in many more years than you.

That's probably true.

So we are going to be able to do that.

I know.

As always, like Mr.

Had just said, a black person will have a day and hell in the city of Richmond.

Mr.

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

But I also want to 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 uh a wet of 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.

Uh my name is Chris Suarez.

I 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.

Uh, 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, co-workers, and neighbors, and in some cases our own family members.

Uh the ones of us who are organizing this event today uh 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.

Um, as you all know, we've had 13 fatalities last year, uh making it the deadliest year for pedestrian involved crashes in a decade, according to DMV data.

Um, clearly something that's not working.

Last two months I've been encouraged by the City of 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.

And I can see in the budget, 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 want to ask you that you all continue to keep working at 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 want to 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 Puppenbarger.

Madam President, that concludes the list of public comment period speakers for this evening.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh let's proceed to uh tonight's agenda and um review of any amendments.

The amendments to tonight's agenda are as follows.

Item two, ordinance 2026 093 will be continued to the Monday, June 8th council meeting.

Item eight, ordinance 2025 231 will be continued to the Tuesday, May 26th council meeting.

Item nine, ordinance 2026 059 will be continued to the Monday, June 8th council meeting, and this paper is to be referred to the May 28th Public Safety Standing Committee meeting.

Item 10, ordinance 2026 090 will be continued to the Tuesday, May 26th council meeting.

This paper is to be referred to the May 20th Finance and Economic Development Standing Committee meeting.

Item 11, ordinance 2026 092, and item 12, ordinance 2026 096 will both be continued to the Monday, June 8th council meeting, and these papers are to be referred to the June 1st organizational development standing committee meeting.

Those are all the amendments to tonight's agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Might we at this point.

Call for motion to accept the uh 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.

Miss Robertson.

Aye.

Ms.

Trammel?

Aye.

Vice President Jordan.

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.

So yes, please.

This evening's consent agenda consists of the following items.

Item one, ordinance 2026 074, item three, ordinance 2026094.

Item four, ordinance 2026 095.

Item 5, ordinance 2026 097, and item six, resolution 2026, R003.

Those are the items on tonight's consent agenda.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

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

Welcome.

Thank you.

Um good evening, council members.

Nice to see everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

My name is Maria Deucer, 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 2026 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 is 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.

And my current apartment, our building didn't have any heat for months last winter, 30 seconds.

We were given small space heaters to tight 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'm 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 and 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 Connects 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 2026 R003.

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 Lori 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 state funds.

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 I actually have a um 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, nonfor-profits as well as the rest of the citizens of Richmond.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes that concludes the public hearing on the consent agenda, bringing it back to council for discussion.

Seeing none, Madam Clark or Mr.

Clark, if you recall the question.

Council 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 Jordan.

Aye.

And President New Bill.

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 2026-063 through item 16, ordinance number 2026-066.

Item 17, ordinance number 2026-071.

Item 18, ordinance number 2026-064.

And items 19, ordinance number 2026-067 through 22, ordinance number 2026-091.

Those papers are before council.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

At this time, we will have a public hearing on those items.

And if you would come forward, please again.

Good evening.

I'd like to start by thanking all the members of City Council that have advocated and tried to get a cost of living adjustment of COLA for all city retirees without success.

You did what you could.

Cleaning the restrooms, working in the kitchens, public utilities, law enforcement, fire department, etc.

It's my understanding that the mayor did not include anything in the budget, but thanks to an amendment made by council, we will be getting that one percent one time payment.

I really would like to in closing.

Next year, we will be back.

Sorry, it wasn't Coke or Pepsi.

So thank you.

That's your time.

If everybody in this room thinks that people that have served the city that were promised to retirement, and now we have a broken promise because there's no money.

Hey, we can relate to that.

Look, this was a group effort.

Okay.

Um please take this opportunity and stand up to show your support of cost of living.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Okay.

Hello, my name is Michael Weish.

I live in District 5.

Don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to be fast.

Good afternoon, Citical Council.

I'm once again here to request all funding for flock safety cease, and I will for the remainder of my time be referring to them as their factual name, Flock 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 Glodper 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 30 days or as long as required and applicable by law and regulations.

So the children innocently playing by the pool in the gym were unknownly 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.

Well, the department that while the Richmond Police Department, they have already had a supervisor or sergeant who has violated flock privacy policy, which is a misdemeanor.

Our police chief Edwards has already told us at the February 24th safety briefing, he would personally see to any of his officers who would be held accountable.

Thank you, that's your time.

Thank you.

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 Mallman, 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 6th, a legal memorandum from the staff representing a West Coast municipality estimated flock litigation related costs of between 30 to 60 million dollars.

Since April 13, other legal actions have arisen in Costa Mesa and Riverdale County in California.

Within the last 48 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 fray 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 in Minneapolis.

Get rid of the cameras.

And if you don't, I will work my ass off to make sure you are not re-elected in this city.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name's Nicole Yakam.

I'm resident of the second district in Massage Day for the cancellation of, excuse me, cancellation of the city's flock 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 the plot 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 drop your children off at school, can find the coffee shop that you frequent.

And if these thoughts provoke anxiety, I wonder if you consider 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 rot 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 city budget that will benefit residents rather than causing active harm.

I will reiterate flock is dangerous.

It's dangerous for Richmond, it's dangerous for you.

Thank you for time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Omante Consello and I live in the 6th districts.

I'm here today to again 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 Flock 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 Flock 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 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 council.

My name is Cameron Concer, and tonight I'm here again to ask you to not continue funding Flock.

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, missing creep, and serious violations of privacy.

In Milwaukee, a police officer accessed flock data 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 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 uh 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 permanent surveillance infrastructure, and 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.

This means that we are under surveillance without warrants being issued or any suspicion of wrongdoing.

Additionally, there 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.

Um, 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 in Richmond 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 pleas.

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 palantier ties and not be subjected to their corporate lies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, council members.

My name is B.

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 struck 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.

Hi, my name is Annalie Volker, and I'm a resident of the third 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 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 Abula 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 flock 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 cancel the flock contracts.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Scott O'Boe, also a third district resident.

Also here to talk about Flock.

Warrantless surveillance is a violation of our privacy as citizens.

Flock records and logs 24-7, 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 ref 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.

Hi, my name is Patrick.

I'm from the first district.

I of course would like to talk to Flock about Flock as well.

I've sourced all the information today from the RVA.gov website, or most of it.

And my thing is because our 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 February 7th, 2025, there was a breach of our data.

The uh against department policy, one of the administrators was granted access to the ATF in early March 2025.

An ATF analyst had been granted access to Flock 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 of Administrator of the Flock program.

June 11th, a new administrator, let's unknowing to the police department, an ATF analyst inadvertently accessed our Flock system to uh query an Illinois vehicle with ice in the query, and that was a violation of Illinois law.

For that was only five minutes, but it don't 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 uh instance where it was taken and sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Maya Dora, and I'm part of the Fifth 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, and many areas or sidewalks are so heavily damaged that children or seniors have issues with walking across them, especially those who are in wheelchairs, children than 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 sent since 2017 for repairs of sidewalks, and that still have not been addressed.

And 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 we're bad knee.

I have a husband who's disabled and uses rollators just today on Carey Street.

I almost fell because of the way the sidewalks are uneven because of the overgrowth of um roots, and that is a major issue.

Also, where I live on Kool 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 Kool Lane going straight up to Armstrong High School.

They have to walk in in mud and and rain.

And I ask the kids, well, what do you do when it's raining?

They say, Well, they walk in the street.

Kool Lane is not the place to walk in the street.

That is that is a raceway.

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 um 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 11.7 million dollars in dedicated funding to the trust fund in this year's amended budget.

Thank you.

Tonight we also want to acknowledge Mayor Avula and Council Members 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 Third District.

Right now, there are 30,000 families living in the Richmond area, where over half of their income has to go to rent.

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 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 Salzburg, and I'm a member of RISC and a resident of the first district.

Many of you know me because I've been around since the very beginning of the implementation of the affordable housing trust fund.

Over 20 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 15 years ago, risk took affordable housing on as our new issue.

I can see it now.

RISC members holding signs saying implement the law as opposed to follow the law.

And lo and behold, with pressure from RISC, not only was the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board created, it started to actually meet.

And it 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 role was so critical that you, this council, decided that RISC would have a seat at that table.

So one of the board members is a risk member.

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 Vula 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 the city of this mayor and of the city council.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Marty Wrigbright, 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, a dedicated stream of 10 million dollars annually to begin addressing the city's affordable housing needs.

Funds started in fiscal years 17 through 21, but only $10 million dollars over those five years and not $10 million dollars each year.

In 2021, City Council enacted a dedicated stream, new tax revenue from expiring tax abatements, saying beginning July 1, 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 years 2020 through 2026, none of a projected $20.7 million went into the trust fund.

In February 2026, City Council enacted a new dedicated stream of 2.5% 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 $11.7 million 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 Health Homes and Steering Committee.

On March 11th, when the mayor's proposed budget came out, we were encouraged to see on the front page of the summary $11.7 million for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Imagine our shock when we dug into the budget itself and found that $11.7 million 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.

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 11.7 million dollars 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 South Side in the 6th District.

Tonight, you have before you a budget that includes an amendment that unequivocally designates 11.7 million dollars 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 of the known 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 a council will ensure that the law is followed by the current administration.

For more than 13 years, I have stood before you as a member of RISC advocating for 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 11.7 million dollars this year and look towards putting 12, 20 million dollars into the fund next year.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

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 a 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.

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 FLAC data with Trump's FBI in violation of state law with no consequences.

We know ICE and the ATF have used FLAC data to search for immigrants.

Not if, but when, more harms continue to be revealed, it's on you.

It's on Miravula.

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 lot of a lot of what 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 backdoor through Flock no matter what we do as a city.

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 30th.

Cities across America and in Virginia are ending their contracts with all automatic license plate readers, and Richmond should uh 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.

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 FLOC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Johanse 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 Abula said that one of the things that has been really consistent and clear in the in the 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 re 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 employ 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 neighbor 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.

Yes, we need.

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 a numerous numerous grants.

In one episode, I was in the sheriff.

Yes.

This is about this is about the issue of um flock.

I understand.

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

Yes, this is like 10 more seconds.

10 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.

Yeah, 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 definitely we'll definitely come back to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Eric Fento.

I have a house in the fourth 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 uh that our officials are planning on how they will flood 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 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 Renaia Kercy, and as a student, I believe Richmond Fresh 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.

RBA 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 and mental health.

Taking RVA away with her many students who finally found a learning environment where they belong.

Plans to prosper you and not to harm you.

Plans to give you hope and a 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 need 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.

And I just wanted to be clear.

I think the some of your faces are familiar, you're speaking to ordinance number 2026 063 in terms of the general fund ordinance, and including your your request is to have that be included in the budget aside.

Yes.

Please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Jasmine Jackson Kercy.

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 Ranaya, RVA is the only place where 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 health and their specific learning needs don't matter as much as the balance spreadsheet.

We know the needs of this community are growing, not shrinking.

And we know the resources exist, like the 3.2 million dollar and 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 counsel 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 RVA.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh 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 virtual 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 to settle 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 score.

RVA is not just a virtual opportunity.

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 Virtual 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'm so tired of hearing that they're going to close Richmond Virtual Academy, and my daughter was bullied.

Her siblings wanted to protect her.

Now they are moving on and they get into higher grades and not going to 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 want to have that happen for my daughter.

I'm gonna protect my daughter to the end, but I don't want to 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.

Every time you turn the news on, who do you see?

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 would not send my kid back to school.

And they say 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 the 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 D.

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 just been so much.

It's not even enough time for me 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 lying 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 Dr.

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?

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 about that.

He 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 rifting 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 Latasha Smare.

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, invest in virtual virtual academy.

I'm begging you, please, with all of my heart, please.

My daughter means so much to me.

I would give anything, and I would not send her back in person at all.

So I'm begging you, please re-evaluate this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Tamara Lofton Pickens.

I'm the instructional compliance coordinator with the Richmond Virtual Academy.

I um said I wasn't gonna 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 Dr.

Wilson said occurred.

I know y'all didn't not listen to what we were saying because y'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 RVA 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 I like she like Dr.

Wilson said, we need to work together to come to some type of solution to fund RVA.

RVA is on less than one percent of RPS's entire budget, less than one percent.

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.

Candace is my daughter's name.

I gotta come talk to another Candace 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, uh, Councilwoman Jones, and I got you.

God bless y'all.

And y'all know what I want to say.

Hoodoo!

And I don't care what these children said, really moved you on, and you all really take into consideration with these young children, had the courage to come up and say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, madam president.

Good evening, um, city council.

Uh, my name is Mariah White.

I'm a parent.

I am the chair of the Richmond Crusaders uh education committee.

I'm also the former school board for second 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 still understanding quite why.

I was on the board when that originated, and two of you city councils, you were on the board also.

So, why not have a virtue?

Chesterfield has one, over 16, 600 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 were in the uh school board.

It's not always for disability.

Everybody has almost the same, between 20 and 25%.

If you did your homework, you would know that the locality and disability is pretty much the same.

We also have administration placements there, and that's where the schools are placed in our children.

All children there have a reason to be there at the virtual academy.

And even if you have to put a cap on it, still funded.

We went we took a long time originating this school, and then we're 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.

Are they 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 RPS.

So I'm asking you to fund that school.

I'm also in support of ordinance 2026 064.

Thank you.

I already know that I um everything that deals children, I approve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir, you've had an opportunity to speak at this point.

I'm going to ask that there are other persons who have not spoken yet.

Have an opportunity to speak to the budget.

I 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, because we have not just the persons in this audience, but we have persons in an overflow of room waiting to come in.

So I am so.

So everyone will only be given two minutes then.

Excuse me.

Everyone will only be given two minutes.

That's correct.

Why is that though?

So 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.

I have all the other thank you.

Thank you.

Are there others who have not spoken desirous of speaking to any of the budget items?

That have been introduced.

Seeing none of the public hearing on the budget is closed, bring it back to council for discussion.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

It's hard to condense uh 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 two minutes each.

But I I want to assure you that the comments were heard and appreciated.

This is a day and age we cannot take democracy for granted.

And so I from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate the comments of everyone.

Um for a budget development process that allowed more of this messy democracy thing.

Um we uh provided more uh visibility to the uh amendments that were on the table.

We allowed more public comment, um, and I think that the budget is stronger for it.

Uh is it 100% the budget that I would like to see?

Well, of course it isn't.

Um, unfortunately, that is also how democracy works.

Um, but but there are some changes that I think are are good ones, and I want to thank my colleagues for the process and and for putting these ideas forward.

I think this budget reflects a body that 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 think that is important, and I'm thankful to see that.

So thank you all for for those and more.

I'm not naming all of them.

There are many amendments that I think I'm appreciative of seeing.

Honestly, it just didn't make sense.

So in 2024, there was uh the city identified 12 million dollars 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 gonna come every year.

Um, and so in 2025, the body determined to spend $3.2 million of it towards this GAP grant program, and so um, and the city didn't spend all of it.

So um, so rather than this body having access to either the 12 million dollars that was identified in additional revenue or the 3.9 million dollars or 3.2 million dollars, it just didn't make sense to be frank, like where we got to that number of the funding, and that matters in 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 um 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 um allocated to the virtual academy, and so I left that meeting feeling um optimistic that uh 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 one million dollars of funding.

And um, in a matter of days, we then learned that somehow there was some other miscalculation, and now that money was gone.

It was, it was odd.

Um so what I what I want to say is that um transparency really matters, and so um, 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.

You know, at the end of the day, I'm very thankful that there are folks who are doing the homework who um who can appreciate um when democracy is at risk, and I and I want to assure you that I see you and I hear you, and um, and I am eager to look for ways from a policy standpoint that we can address the issues that um that have been highlighted.

Um as for the folks from the Richmond Virtual Academy, please do not give up.

Um I want to thank you know Ms.

White in particular who um 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 um, and I am hopeful to see that there is a solution to ensure that that every student is served as it should be.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Gibson.

Any other comments at this time?

Councilwoman Travel.

Thank you, madam president.

Um, I know that this budget has been really, really tough for all nine council members, and I wanted to say that um 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 um challenges than some of the ones in the Richmond Virtual Academy.

And there was um 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, 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 y'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, wait a minute.

I said, So come down here, let us hear you all.

Bring the children, let the mayor hear you.

The mayor's here, mayor's here.

And you know what?

If we give them, if we were to find the money, I think there was said about one million dollars, maybe to get them through the rest of the year.

If we give them the money, is there a guarantee that they that that money's gonna 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 don't 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'm quite sure that my colleagues just want to fight, but you all got to 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 want to say that I don't know exactly what's going to happen.

I think all nine council members were served with this today.

Councilwoman Trammel.

Councilwoman Trammel.

Because the mayor has to get through the budget.

We will come back.

We 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 million dollars, all I'm saying is I understand.

Well, I'm worried about these children.

And I'm talking about the budget.

This is the budget.

I'm talking about the budget items.

Madam President, the budget items 14 through 22 that we just had public hearing on.

That's now back to council 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.

Okay.

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 pass 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 council while I'm on council, when I'm not going to be on council, 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 they 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.

Um I do think that we need to create a more inclusive process that intent that that reflects these same communities that we are advocating for, and oftentimes um 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 um identifying how we can work with, as someone stated, you all in advance.

Um not so much from uh who got the most money, who's spending money.

Um, I think it really needs to be um, like we have opportunity.

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 uh share your concerns with us and know that we are actually working hard to try to um 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 Jared.

Thank you so much.

Um yes, I want to thank everyone who came down and all the work and advocacy that you put into this year's budget.

Um, 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, support our schools.

Um, 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.

Um, I feel today, about 10 years later, that we have made a lot of progress.

That budget for RPS, I think was 150 million.

We're looking at almost 250 million now.

But every budget cycle, there's always that gap that we're not able to close, and it it tears us up too.

Um 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 I don't want you to feel like that time was wasted.

Um 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, Dr.

New Bill.

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.

Um of the things that I do hope that we will be able to do beyond a budget that never meets many of the needs.

Um of the needs are met to some degree, uh, but in most cases, none of the deeds 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 uh doing a better job and providing the services that are needed.

I'm glad and I'm pleased that you know, with the support of our staff, uh different departments here that have put their creative energies together to come up with the budget that we do have today.

Uh the increase in opportunities for affordable housing is something that you know I've been crying that song since I first day I've stepped on city council, and we're still not where we need to be.

Um, great progress have been made, uh, but there are still lots of challenges out there, and there are a lot of things that are going to be coming up during the fiscal year that are programs that we are implementing that we gonna 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're doing, and whether or not there's a better way to accomplish the objective that is at hand.

And where we haven't, I think we have an obligation, and I've already expressed this to the administration, that you know, the the cameras that the concerns that you have, there's something that we need to do in addition to that to ensure your privacy, our privacy is addressed and taken care of.

Um there's much work that needs to be done in a lot of the areas, you know, many of you 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.

Um, but I want you to uh at least know that we hear you, we feel the pain, we struggle to try to see how we can do a better job and providing the resources that are needed and making the right choices with the resources that we do have.

And um I just want to encourage you to still continue to come to these meetings, to continue to make your voice heard, uh, to recognize the accomplishments that are 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 um our staff.

I want to thank R.

J and his staff for the leadership that you all have provided us this year in putting this budget together.

Uh we always need to think as uh clerks and uh our staff on our side that are doing the critical analysis and so forth to help us make the right decision.

Mayor Vuole, 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.

Um I want to thank every one of the citizens and uh just the concern residents, whether you are city resident or not, that continue to help us to do a better job.

Um, thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Breton.

I think I can keep this short.

I wanted to speak to um a group that came to speak tonight that uh attended the marks for safer streets here to City Council.

I want to thank them for being here because um, you know, every pedestrian death is an unsequeled tragedy, and prioritizing that is important to me, and it was in this year's budget.

Um we were even able to um not only have dedicated funding for our department of transportation, um, 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 a broader theme that I want to thank um our team for achieving 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 council staff that um achieved the most transparent budget season I've ever been a part of.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Ms.

Jammel, did you have something additional relative to a budget item in this catch?

Yes, ma'am.

I do.

I just want to um say that we're supposed to vote on the budget tonight.

That's what do we how do we um because I want to make sure those children get what they have come down here to get.

Are we going to try to find the money to help them?

Well, we will I just got asked, so that's why I was asking 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 now, I think we're all mad.

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.

Yeah, Madam President, I know that your heart is in there.

It is because you and I have to.

And I don't want anyone to think that none of us nine are you know not, you know, or taking us lightly because we're not, and we've 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 the Madam President, she she listened, and we all my colleagues, all of us, because we hear you, and we want to 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 a somewhere else, and you know what I'm talking about, and it goes somewhere else, and we say what the hell happened.

Thank you, madam president.

So I just want to clear that up.

Thank you.

Um, and I want to say thank you to everyone who has come out this evening.

I know we still have folks in overflow room.

Um, 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've heard from you.

Did we get it all?

No.

Are we still going to work on it?

Yes, absolutely.

But we are um I think certainly much further ahead than um 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 uh 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've heard some of the categories that have been included.

Um yeah, so and we still have a lot more to go, so I'm just going to cut it there, and I'm gonna 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 um 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.

Council is now voting on items 14 through 22, ordinance numbers 2026-063, 065, 066, 071, 064, 067, 068, 069, and 070 as red.

Mr.

Breton, aye, Miss Gibson, yes, Ms.

Jones, Ms.

Robertson.

Aye, Ms.

Trammell, aye, Vice President Jordan, aye, and President New Bill.

Those papers have been adopted.

Thank you.

Let's proceed to the regular agenda, please.

The regular agenda item for this evening is item number seven, ordinance number 2025-five- two fifteen to authorize a special use of seventeen oh five Commonwealth Avenue for the purpose of a space for outdoor events upon certain terms and conditions.

We'll ask for you to observe all due decorum as you're departing the chambers.

That paper is before council.

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?

Good evening.

Kevin Javonk, 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 1, which does allow for a variety of business uses and entertainment.

However, there is a prohibition on outdoor entertainment and events.

Ultimately, in accordance with the special use criteria to uphold health safety welfare.

It went through staff recommended approval, went to the planning commission, planning commission eight to one recommended denial.

It came to you earlier this year, went through, was continued, amended, and here we are today.

Happy to answer any questions that you may have either now or later.

Thank you, Mr.

Vonk.

Sure.

Councilwoman Robertson, you have a question for Mr.

Vonk.

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 do we be in specifically as for in this SUP?

And what is currently allowed by right at this location.

Sure.

Section three, which talks about special terms and conditions.

Those are the ones that I'll say really stand out in terms of uh specific requirements for this parcel.

N 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 for year.

So perhaps uh the applicant could have up to four uh outdoor entertainment events per year without needing an initial special use.

Uh however, the applicant here is requesting uh beyond that, and so in three, um, once you get down to uh section D, uh, talks about the number of events.

Um, so 52 outdoor event days, five uh per month, uh hours of 9 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

No more than 120 attendees during those outdoor events, um, all amplified music ending before 9 p.m.

Um, those are the primary provisions in terms of the health, safety, welfare uh 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 SUP requests 52 outdoor, yes, five per month, hours nine to ten, up to a hundred and twenty participants.

Correct.

Uh, including when there's uh also in there no less than one staff member for every 50 attendees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Vonk.

At this point, we'll proceed with the public hearing on the paper.

And um we have and certainly would like to have opportunity to hear from so uh the folks are here, so we will certainly accord two minutes so we can hear from everyone who's present.

All of those present desire is speaking in opposition to the ordinance, if you would come forward.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Sydney 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 120 people, amplified music, in a backyard 25 feet away and abide by the noise ordinance.

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, create safety 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.

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 SUP.

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 and 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, 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 with within 100 feet of residences to preserve the peaceful enjoyment of their property.

I asked the city that uh simply uphold that amendment.

As written, 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 13 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 complaint with the city and expect to undo something like that.

Lastly, the SUP files the property.

Therefore, if this particular applicant man 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, and I'm a resident of FitzU Avenue.

I oppose Lavender Hill's special use permit request to allow large outdoor events.

Large outdoor events would bring excessive noise, increased traffic, and parking challenges that would negatively 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 9 a.m.

to 10 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 risks for children who walk, bike, and play in the neighborhood.

Large events will generate a significant number of vehicles, ride chair 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 Hinckley, 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 7 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 is one tired mom trying to protect her kid to please deny this permit.

Thank you.

Nicholas Feb, 4500 FitzU Avenue.

I'm diagonally across from Lavender Hill, and within the 100-foot barrier protection from the TOD1 rules.

Um, I ask that you uphold the protections that y'all set back in 2024 for neighborhoods and deny the SUP.

Uh the terms of the SUP are just way too excessive for the space and its relation to the neighborhood.

Um, when we were back here in January, y'all continued the vote to ask to negotiate and find a more reasonable solution.

We've tried.

Uh we've put together proposals.

Councilman Bretton put together a proposal that seemed like a step in the right direction and go into the negotiation and it's everything's red marks all over it and everything's bumped back up to the unreasonable amounts.

So unfortunately, as much as I think we wanted to find something that worked, we just couldn't.

And it'd be one thing if this SUP was asking us to deal with a little bit of uncomfortableness, uncomfortability.

That's a weird word.

Um, but it's not.

I mean, it's asking us to deal with just excessive amounts of events and noise.

It's just not reasonable for people in a neighborhood to deal with.

Um, and beyond that, I just want to say uh, 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 Sunny said.

You know, they can enjoy it when they want to, but we have to deal with that.

Uh, we'd have to deal with that on you know in our life.

So I asked that you deny the SUP.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Short.

Hi, I'm Amanda Murphy.

Um, 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 and good faith.

But unfortunately, we were never able to come up with numbers or conditions that balance 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 Fab.

I own 4500 FitzU across from 1705 Commonwealth.

I came to Richmond in 1984 and graduated from the Medical College Virginia 40 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 the 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 home to the vestiges of days gone by of a once thriving community.

The director at Baindridge Community Center 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 city.

Houses sold for very low prices because no one wanted to live in the city.

They all moved to the sodars.

Homes became run down 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 40 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 haven't 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 Edition 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 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.

1705 Commonwealth is not the right location for a venue seeking to hold many events, which create noise due to close residential.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, council members and number neighbors.

I'm Debbie Bragg and have lived at 4408 FitchU for 43 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 9 p.m.

that she's 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're 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 40 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 or less restrictive, 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 council 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 on that in that information that two of them were 120 people, or um, 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.

Um, there's no way to block the noise.

It's extremely loud within our homes, and we just want to live within peace with peace.

So I would ask again that city council uh deny the request for the special use permit being requested.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name's Ryan Oliver.

Like many of my other neighbors, uh, my wife Nancy and I live at 4402 FitzU Avenue behind Lavender Hill, and we're starting our family.

The room behind uh 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 SUP 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 in 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, protect the health, safety, and stability of our neighborhoods like ours, and I respect you to uh 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 upheld 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 Hoonan East, Elephant Tie, Karina'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 uh option other than to to deny the SUP.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Vince Lovejoy.

My wife and I live at 4401 FitzU 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 652 events per year with 120 persons and amplified sound, this principle will clearly be violated because it's impossible to put this many people together in a party environment without exceeding the city's own city five, sixty-five 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's no dedicated parking for Lavender Hill, and up to 120 persons attending events.

It'll be a pot, it'll 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 appropriate 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 Hits Hugh 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 Lavender Hill itself at all of the prior meetings that we've had about this.

120 people is not based in reality.

It is not based on what I think is feasible for the space.

120 people are speaking.

Imagine in this room, that alone would likely violate this city's uh 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 uh neighbors, uh, I again restate that I asked the council to deny this permit.

Uh, I anticipate you will hear about the uh 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.

Uh, 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 AV, 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, TOD1 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.

Uh let's see.

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's equally everyone equally.

Residents bordering this property have already experienced outdoor events with amplified music, DJs, bans, crowds, and late-night activity.

The city cannot claim to support neighborhood protections while simultaneously approving a permit that fundamentally conflicts with those protections.

This 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 about 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'm 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've 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 uh 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 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.

Guide this decision.

Respectfully, there is no just reason for council 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 first district, that's Agecroft Hall and Tuckahoe Women's Club, one in the second district, the branch house.

In the fifth district, we have HQ and 1000 Westover.

In the 7th district, there's the Overlook at Child Savers.

And these resident-organized concert series are regularly held in residential zones.

Porchella 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, Bellweather Garage in the 7th District.

Lavender Hill operates as an office and co-working 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 appliced sound.

I agreed to the amended ordinance in November 2025.

More recently, on March 18th, I suggested a reduction in event days from 52 to 24.

And on March 20th, Bretton stated the reduced offer was not substantial enough.

That's your time.

In continuance, on April 20th and 21st, Breton, his liaison, council president, and a consultant participated in five hours of conversation, they're believed to be in good faith negotiations.

Together, it was discussed a tier 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 deducting from the number of mid-sized events and unlimited events with indoor capacity allowed to gather outside.

May 1st, 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 a story.

Just one minute prior to receiving an email from Councilman Bretton 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 the significant tas delinquency on a property that prevents any reasonable expectation of entering into a secure covenant built on mutual trust.

Her actions throughout this process highlighted business owner navigating the city system that lacks clear roadmap, trustworthy guidance, and support from city staff and elected officials, not as citizens operating with blatant disregard for the law.

Any activity that occurred outside was conducted in direct reliance on the guidance of 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 TD1 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 would require payment, all real estate taxes were paid on May 4th.

She has not in five years turning a profit while operating this property.

Thank you.

That's your time.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate your service.

Good evening.

I'm Joelinda 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 May 15th, 2022, from 12 45 to around 4 30 p.m.

Online, it was characterized as keeping families up late into the evening, but as you all know, we got here around 4 30 or 5, which is when my reception was over.

So it feels as though often events are um 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 the 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 um 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 the Sour Gardens and a resident of the first district.

I'm here tonight to read a letter in support of Nadia Anderson and Lavender Hill's special use permit on behalf of the Knot Worldwide.

The Not Worldwide writes in strong support of Nadia Anderson's application for a special use permit for Lavender Hill, her intimate event venue located at 1705 Commonwealth Avenue.

The Not 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 20 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.

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 2,190 days 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 bans.

And in 2024 and 2025, there was one DJ led event per year.

With that being said, zero no uh zero noise violations and no police intervention from 2021 through now, and only one neighbor voiced a noise-related uh 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 Lavender Hill presents an ongoing or unreasonable disturbance uh to the surrounding neighborhood, including the noise, and there's responsible operation as a result.

One other thing to think about is this.

Uh, 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 um 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 could be um it could be race, it could be colorblind, it could be um anything that might lead to that.

So these situations, in my opinion, should be approached in a clear and a colorblind and 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 Wei.

I'm a resident of Scots Edition, second 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 per mat for uh Lavender Hill.

Uh Nadia and I started our businesses at the same time, and she's been a great uh source of support and advice, and she's done a lot for the community.

Uh my company has worked with her and hired her to um put on special events for our clients at Short Pump Town Center.

And I've also attended events at the space at Lavender Hill.

Um this is my second time um coming to one of these meetings to come speak on um her behalf, and it has been really disheartening to hear some of the arguments um against it.

And it's really hard to hear for Nadia.

All of the arguments um seem to me to be very subjective and fear-based.

Um, 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 um in the way of my business.

I business is in Chaco Bottom.

I cannot imagine my neighbors having a voice against me like this.

Um, I 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.

Um, 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, um, things that are necessary for a business to succeed.

Thank you.

Good evening, counsel.

My name is Michael Rabin, and I'm a first district resident.

I'm here tonight because of how the opposition to this 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 Damon 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 Labyrinth 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 are 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 Labyrinth or 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 September 5th, 2025, and again on March 20th, 2026, when he explained that a community sound would only apply to her property, not all the properties in South Garden community.

That and that trust was completely shattered by May 1st email where Bretton 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 Labrador Hill and sorry, Lavender Hill that do not all carry large gas and amplified sound.

When TOD1 was developed, it did not have a business such as Lavender Hill in mind.

Many local many localities use the 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.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Aubrey Fountain.

I am a 20-year adjunct professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and specialty and land use law.

I'm here just uh to provide some professional objective insight uh on this matter.

Um, it's my understanding that the TDO1 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 TDO1 zoning that was uh created and approved by the city of Richmond for purposes such as this.

Uh I believe that event spaces are included as a permitted use.

Uh 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've been recommended by planning staff and approved by the planning commission and 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 uh planners that work in your department that have addressed and take into account all residents' concerns and neighbors' concerns.

Uh, 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's 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's increasing the spaces.

Um, 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.

Thank you, that's your time.

Thank you.

Before the next speaker, could I just no come on forward?

Are there other persons present desirous of speaking in favor of the paper?

If you would um come forward as well.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Danine Harris, and I'm a friend of Lavender Hill.

Excuse my voice.

That's throat surgery.

My family has held events at Lavender Hill as well as attended several events at Lavender Hill.

It is always quiet, at least events we've had and events that we have attended.

Everything has been done on a very professional in a very professional manner.

One thing, the things that I would like to bring to your attention is it's very disappointing to hear the excuses that have been used as to why she should not have her business there, a small event center.

They have been cherry-picking the regulations, pulling out, I'm not gonna read them again because you've heard them enough, but look back over it.

They've been cherry picking certain things out of the regulations for council to hear.

Nadia submitted aerial views to the council for you to take a look at.

I urge you to go back and look at those uh aerial views again.

Fitzhugh Avenue was perpendicular to Colonial Avenue at a great distance.

Then go look at aerial views of Carrie Tale, Ginner Park, Church Hill.

All of these places have businesses that are directly, and I do mean directly backed up to homes.

And if each one of these businesses had to go through this, and hers doesn't even compare to those.

I mean they have festivals and everything else, then there would be no businesses if you deny Lavender Hill, then you show that Lavender Hill is being treated in a disparaging manner from all of the other businesses in the city of Richmond that back up to homes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Grace Carter.

I'm a friend of Lavender Hill.

I would like to note Nadia's attempts to lower her event count to meet neighborhood requests for less events in the space.

What is special about Lavender Hill is its grass and outdoor space?

It is to the best of my understanding that there is no other black owned space that has such that has as significant amount of outdoor space.

As a resident of Richmond, respect, I respectfully ask the council to approve Nadia's request for a special use permit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers at this time, the public hearing is closed.

Bring it back to council for discussion.

Councilwoman Jones.

Thank you, Madam President.

I before I make a comment, I'd just like to get one clarity on the amount of events that were agreed upon.

I thought I heard that there were an amount.

Is there is that possible we can get clarity from Ms.

Anderson?

Is Mr.

Bonk still here?

And I want to be clear.

Just one second, Mr.

Varner.

I want to be clear.

You're asking about the document what's on the table, this ordinance that's on the table at this moment.

Correct.

Okay.

Well, let me be clear because we have heard several times tonight that there was an agreement to an amendment, two amendments in regards to the number of events and sound.

So I want to just get clarity on that.

Sure.

So currently, the ordinance in section three allows a maximum of 52 out-door event days per calendar year, not to exceed five events per month.

So that is the maximum.

So it's still 52, but three per week.

That was changed to five per month, but a total of 52 events total.

So was there an amendment on those 52 events is what I'm asking.

During this process, was there an amendment on the 52 events?

So I was privy to some discussions in terms of the number of events, but in terms of an actual amendment, no amendment is before council this evening.

Okay, so I'm gonna come back.

Councilman Breton, and then I think you're referencing subsequent discussions and meetings that were had with Ms.

Anderson.

I know we had at least a couple three.

Yeah.

Um, there's a lot, I mean there's a lot of things to talk about in terms of the number of events.

So there was um, as we know, we are looking at an application right now for 52, which was the number that came out of planning um staff.

Um, that was the that is the number that planning commission was considering when they recommended denial.

Now, since that time, a number of conversations have occurred to try to find an opportunity to support this very important wonderful business, and you know, and do what we can to find an arrangement that could support more events or some events.

So probably the most significant was when the residents um got together and approved a proposal for, I believe it was 26 events without amplified music, right?

And uh and yeah, but no amplified music and lower guess counts of around 50 people.

And that I thought was a very um reasonable place to consider that there's you know, right now the zoning is for zero, that sound is a significant factor, especially the amplified music.

But this is an uh I thought it was a great um good faith effort to support the important community events that this business does, the business networking events that it does, all of the types of events that people were raving about the benefit of that the neighbors also wanted to um express their support for that and create room to do those things.

Now, the problem is that did not create room for, you know, the very profitable wedding business that is really at the heart of this application.

And so every time we would have another conversation, um, you know, I would consider what the residents offered to be a very reasonable baseline for what is a good use of that space considering that it is directly adjacent to residences, but um the need, you know, which which is understandable, but the need but the the need of the applicant to seek out um events with 100 plus people, amplified music, um, you know, at least 10 times, maybe 20 times uh, you know, per season would be you know beyond what we could do.

So we were never able to find um close that gap.

So there was an agreement for what I thought was a very good faith um recommendation, and I give them a lot of credit, I give the residents a lot of credit for um being constructive, being inclusive, like wanting to invite this business into the community, and with the reasonable restriction of not wanting amplified music, which I'll also say there are not cases of venues that play have amplified entertainment at this proximity to other um places.

There are cases, you know, where there are event halls and the music is kept indoors, right?

Because the amplified music is really a very significant issue.

So that has been the number one prevention of creating a full agreement that all parties could agree to because the desire to support um the community events with incompatible desire to have a profitable outdoor um amplified music venue.

Councilwoman Jones.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um not to be the data on this, but when you say wedding, if there so you're saying the 26 events were inclusive of weddings, or was this just 26 events without the amount of weddings?

Because you said the very you said the profitable business includes weddings.

So does all 20 or the 26 events weddings, or are the 26 events movie nights, uh bingo games, and potentially two weddings.

Can you just specify what that means?

So, um, well, all of the negotiations involved some like ratio of, oh, can I have perhaps 10 events with 100 people, you know, for example, and maybe and fill out the rest of my 24 events with fewer people.

So there were various discussions around those.

Um, in all those cases, the the number of these large events where you go up past 100 people was always at least 10 in the discussions.

Whereas, you know, residents, you know, even even a resident who's kind of you know in a band and plays the drums and wants to sort of was like, oh my gosh, I thought we were talking four, like 10.

Are you serious, right?

Like, um, so that was there were multiple iterations of these of these possible ranges of numbers, but all of them involved, you know, uh, you know, can I have I need 10 hundred person weddings in order to meet my business plan, and this was always in conflict with the the reasonable use of space that we wanted that the residents were looking forward to supporting of community events, business networking events, all those community engagement things that can that actually already coexist in the neighborhood.

It's these large celebrations that are great to go to and not great to live next to, right?

That they had to, you know, you know, uh recommend denial, commission to recommend denial, and I also had to recommend denial.

Thank you.

Um I just was asking for clarity because I just want to just um put forth that there was an effort and that there um have been multiple, as you stated, meetings relative to this.

Um I will say first and foremost that I will not be supporting this paper tonight, because there are a lot of attempts to get the uh event count or whatever, per se, down.

However, it seems like every time this paper comes forward, it's something else added.

Tonight, we we're seeing stuff about taxes, we're seeing stuff about violations, we're seeing things that were not brought forth when this paper first hit this dais.

And so throughout that process, it is very clear and apparent that in order to make sure that this paper did not pass, we continue to dig and dig and dig and dig, and no uh disregard to the work that you have done, because I have talked to you a lot about this, and I know that you know there were conversations.

Um I'm not here to tell anybody who where they live, what amount of noise is feasible for them.

What I'm here about is there are a number of facts, and so facts over feelings at times, and so there are a number of facts as long along with feelings that I cannot personally support, and I just um do not fully, you know, as it has been stated from the beginning, you know, there's a lot of misinformation, there's a lot of lack of guidance, a lack of um information that your typical person seeking an SUP, because we all deal with it, that this applicant did not have lawyers, people to be able to petition on their behalf, and so that also created, you know, somewhat of a backlog, and it also created a longer time where this could have potentially been worked out.

And we were in receipt of numerous responses that even though some of those events had been violated, there was never any police call, there was never any issues, and again to insinuate that this would cause that even though it had never happened, is very disturbing to me, and it is very disturbing to me.

Again, call it what we want, but at the end of the day, you know, these are the issues that are not just facing Lavender Hill.

These are issues that are facing restaurants in in in Mary Lou's, we can call them out if we really want to talk about it, right?

But that's not what we're here for today.

So, in good conscience for me, I cannot support it because yes, we are in favor of um supporting our neighbors and making sure, again, that's why I'm saying I'm not here to tell somebody what what noise is detainable because it might be two o'clock and I might be on my couch and feel the same way.

So I I can't say that, but I am saying that there are a number of things that I find very disturbing in this application.

I find it very disturbing in a way when we talk about the law, um, we uphold the law when it's feasible for us, and we just had a whole big thing in the previous uh comments earlier about the law, and we still voted on a budget, and so I'm just saying that we have, um, in my opinion, done a disservice because I believe that there are things that we could have worked worked through and we did not.

So for me, I will not be supporting it, and I do appreciate everybody that has come out, and I appreciate all that has been said, but I want to make it clear I'm not supporting it.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um twenty months is a long time uh to go through a process with the city to get an SUP.

And, you know, I've I've served I served on the planning commission at the time when it came to the planning commission, and um heard a lot of the concerns um as it relates to this use and the special use requests, and there have been considerable uh information exchange that has not been consistent.

If I'm correct, and maybe uh Mr.

Volt need to come back up so I can be corrected if I speak something incorrectly, which is possible to have happen after 20 months of review.

Um if I'm correct, I think when the initial request for the SUP was made, it did not ask for 52 events outside events.

Is that correct?

Are you?

And the applicant was advised to some degree based on the request that was made, and the administration you all feeling that you had the capacity to uh monitor this SUP as it was initially requested, that there were some recommendations for some of the changes that we see in the application currently.

Can you help me out with that?

Sure.

Um, the applicant uh originally applied for the special use permit.

Um, let me just step back for one second, I think put things into context, which I think is important.

Uh staff works to make a recommendation to the applicant based off of the six criteria in our zoning ordinance, right?

That talk about health safety and welfare.

And we say, and tell every SUP applicant you have to a further the future land use in Richmond 300, and two, you can't violate any of the six criteria.

And if you're gonna violate one of those six criteria or all six of them, we have to put some conditions in to eliminate that.

So we can say and make a recommendation that nope, it does not violate those criteria.

Now, we from a staff perspective, I'll say took a pretty narrow look at those criteria.

What we do, and that does not our recommendation goes to the planning commission, and that planning commission may have different ideas about how to interpret that six criteria.

That planning commission then makes a recommendation to you, and you may each have individual ideas about how you interpret that six criteria in terms of your tolerance for health safety, welfare and what those impacts are.

And so I I get it from an applicant standpoint.

That may seem confusing because staff told me this, but then planning commission wanted this, and then council wanted this.

So yeah, it part of that process evolves through this time.

When we worked on this initial application, and I think one of the reasons it was continued for a while, staff had initially recommended denial.

And the paper uh was introduced, and the way the paper the way the paper was introduced, our staff recommendation was for denial to the planning commission.

So in terms of we felt the conditions in there were a uh too far in terms of the health safety welfare, and also B not enforceable when talking with our zoning staff, and and so in in terms of the can you refresh my memory as to what the initial application was, how many events were being requested because it was far less than 52.

I think that was a decision that may have been recommended for safety or what other criteria is that the staff felt would be more amenable for the safety conditions.

So initial application when it was presented, asked for which you said you all were gonna deny.

Sure.

They initially proposed the same number.

They they proposed 52 days out of the year, and within that, they had talked about two different types of events, and if you look at the ordinance further in it as part of the original uh application materials, and so they talked about private events and community gatherings.

And one of the things that we talked through from a zoning perspective was trying to make this determination between what is a private event and what is a community gathering.

Um, and so without right going through and doing, I'll say a lot of investigation of like right, who is at this event and then what are the um iterations of that we did not feel that we would be able to effectively enforce that.

Um in terms of I think hours of operation, um, there were some uh questions that we had in terms of where that might ultimately go, and so those were reduced a little bit in terms of um what was amended, uh, but in terms of the number of events, it has been at 52 from the beginning, but not 52 at 150 or over 100 people.

It was a total of 52 events, whether they were a combination of different types of events, right?

So, with those 52 events, all of them could have been up to 150 people in the initial application.

The initial application.

Okay.

So the paper, we've continued this paper over and over again to look at ways to perhaps have a number of outdoor events that meets the business profile that is necessary, as well as other challenges that have been raised.

So I'm looking at uh literature here today uh that's probably clearer than what I've seen previously, that says 20 uh per year with up to 50 people and up to 10 events, up to 100, and unlimited events for indoor capacity allowed for inside gathering space.

There is no amendment to this paper to support that.

And the question I have for you is that if there was an amendment, does this put you back to where you were from the beginning of saying I'm not sure that it would satisfy my concerns with health and safety.

Sure.

Uh, so in terms of amendments, I believe those have been discussed by council member Breton.

Um, I'll say past the time that this paper was heard and continued at city council.

Um so those are not done prior to the planning commission or prior to when uh myself and our staff were working on it making our recommendation.

And I've said, like, look, we make the recommendation to planning commission.

Um, after that, we can provide some advisement in terms of you know feasibility or enforceability, but but really in terms of uh from a policy standpoint, that's up to planning commission, and ultimately it's up to city council what gets amended and what gets part of those conditions.

I think I've said in terms of the meeting that I was a part of early on in the process, um, I could probably push us and our staff a little further in terms of enforcement of uh I think one uh having some understanding of tiered level of events.

I think initially Arizoning staff was concerned about again, right, trying to count the numbers and what if it's one over or one less.

I think in terms of if you had some significant radiations between tiers, so you knew what a small event was and a large event was, that would be able to uh I would say be an enforceable condition within here.

Uh the other part was, and I think this came up in the discussion, is you know, gatherings that were inside um, you know, I'll just say stipulations that you know would prevent them from going outside.

That that to me would be just very tough to enforce in terms of right.

If you have people at the office space, well, you can be in here, but please like you can't go outside.

Um, and so I think just you know, understanding just the nature of a business that there would be um if people were inside, they probably were going to be outside at some point, and so just trying to not try and make any discernation uh between that.

Um, but I think in terms of uh enforceability, um I think there would be a little more flexibility of having tiered events, and then the second one would be in terms of just discussions about amplified music.

Um I think there would be some ways for us to, you know, right clearly see like is there amplified sound at this event or not?

Uh, and so I think those are some of the things that we could, I'll say be a little more flexible on than was initially discussed at Planning Commission.

Um, but you know, and again, our department is not going to introduce any more amendments, it'd be up to one of the council members if they wanted to amend this paper to introduce those, and I could provide feedback on that, but but in terms of um that's where we're at today.

And yes, I understand that um, Madam Chair.

I'm not um, and I, you know, 20 months is a long time, and two or three hours here at council is even longer tonight.

Um, you know, I know um uh my colleague from the first district has spent a lot of time trying to come to a place um that makes this work, um, as it relates to the number of events, and I recall distinctively as a planning commission member, one of the greatest concerns was the number of large events, and if all events were for the purpose of, you know, that number of persons and and that number of events was really the only real concern that the planning commission really emphasized as it relates to whether or not we supported or didn't support the uh moving this SUP forward with the recommendation and the investment of energy and time that you have spent along with others that have been willing to discuss this, and my colleague from the first district as well.

Um seems to be there was there are opportunities for an amendment, but an amendment like you said has not been introduced by council to this SUP, and that's as far as that you all can go from administrative perspective.

So I appreciate his answers.

Um Madam Chair, I don't I don't have any, I don't have any other specific questions for you.

Um, for Mr.

Bonk, is that correct?

Well, yes.

Okay, so just to did you have another comment?

Cause I want I have a comment as well.

And I think there's another, yeah.

Uh to your point, um, I s Mr.

Breton and I certainly were at least, and Ms.

Anderson references it in her notes, at least a couple of meetings that had some very different, and they're captured in this document, I think, for the most part.

We were trying to create a win-win, something that would address the neighbors' concerns and something that would address Ms.

Anderson's um uh need for business uh and uh and successful business in that space.

It got to be the 20 um events per year up to 50 with a portable tabletop speaker, and then up to uh 10 per year with up to a hundred people and amplified sound, um, with the larger events deducting from uh the number, just what you see here.

I'm being redundant.

That came in.

We had about five hours of meeting between the two five, some number of hours of meeting between two meetings to really try to hear and address both the concerns and then unlimited events with indoor capacity allowed to gather outside.

From there, my understanding uh Mr.

Breton took those back for you know, further discussion with community and um um Miss Um Anderson, and so those did not get favorable response.

And so there, so there was not no additional amendment brought forward to mean that's Mr.

Breton.

Am I kept I know I'm capturing the result of the meeting, and I believe what we came away with in terms of what we thought could be a win-win for the neighbors and for Ms.

Anderson.

After that, I'm gonna point to you for, because that's where I was not in the subsequent discussion.

That um that's right.

That was the line of inquiry that we were trying to go to.

And I'm this is relates to the general theme of this entire project is you know, from the beginning, I have really valued what the Lavender Hill business is doing, and even when initial impressions of residents in the neighborhood are like this sounds like a crazy proposal.

Like, what is this?

Why are you even considering it?

You know, you know, uh, I you know explained that this is a very important business that generates a lot of value for multiple communities, including our own.

So, you know, I want to do my best to make sure that we can figure out a solution that can help them achieve their goals, help them provide this value while still protecting the residential use.

So this is along those many many hours of finding solutions to figure out, you know, what is the concern, what you know, what might be the impact, what is based on experience, you know, um, and and what is it is going to be important to finding a solution.

So in fact, I think I've probably been um frustrating to both sides of this conversation because residents keep saying, you know, having you know a dozen weddings in on my backyard is is crazy.

Why are you still having this conversation?

On the other side?

They're saying, you know, hey, I'm trying to run a business here, why won't you let me run my business here, right?

So on both sides, I've been seeming to be unreasonable to both, I'm sure.

Um so I guess I want to thank everyone for their patience on that.

Um and so I but I do also want to thank everyone for the for being constructive.

I mean, everyone has come to this conversation with um, you know, the the hope of getting to an agreement.

You know, um, you know, Nadia has tried to offer changes to the proposal, you know, within the constraints of financial plan that she is thinking through.

The residents, um, I want to give a lot of credit to the residents who um you know have a hundred-foot protection for outdoor entertainment to begin with, and still came with constructive proposals, still came to meetings to talk through what their concerns were to talk through how they could find an arrangement.

Um, you know, they've all even had people you know on social media accusing them of you know being selfish or being biased.

And and I will say that you know the people that are on the block are speaking um very reasonable with the same concerns that anyone on any block would bring about any business.

How many people, how you know, how labs the music, how late are you gonna be there, how often is it gonna be, right?

Um and they can they and as well as not just conjecture, but they're coming with experience.

Like they actually have experience with this property, they have experienced the similar events, and so this is not a situation of um hyperbole and conjecture.

You know, this is a group that has worked with this property and is trying and was trying to find a way to coexist because they respect the value they're doing and want to protect you know their own residential use.

So um the question was related to um, you know, at the very end, you know, we we were we're trying to find these arrangements.

It came to the the situation where the city was not really able to enforce the um the noise restrictions that we were trying to put in place.

So, other than a 65 decibel limit of calling the police, you know, if it gets that bad, beyond that, you know, we were um there's no other standard that you can use to manage the sound at this close proximity, which is why we don't allow it at this close proximity, because there isn't really a good way to do it.

So, in those last bits of conversation, you know, when I was speaking to our legal department about what are the ways that we could, you know, possibly create a mechanism, perhaps with a trial, with a renewal, with a side agreement and an MOU, that was when, you know, we had that last hope of maybe there's a way to get a win-win, but not only was the number of large events still beyond what was reasonable, beyond that, there was also from legal no way to enforce sound restrictions as well.

So I mean, we we really tried to turn, you know, try everything to figure this out because of the value that we saw with this um with the business uh and the importance of protecting residential use.

So um I want to thank the residents for being patient and open-minded.

I want to thank the um, you know, Nadia, the applicant, for you know, doing her best to bring some proposals.

Um in the end, the you know, we weren't able to bridge the gap between residential use at this close proximity and a profitable outdoor um, you know, event venue.

Well, I'm saying profitable because like anything that we that we brought, I keep saying profitable because all the proposals that seem reasonable from you know being adjacent to residences would come with you know the reasonable response of you know I can't make enough money to you know fund a business if I don't do enough weddings, right?

And so I understand that, right?

But then that that became the the the major blocker between finding a solution.

So it's not that anyone was being unreasonable or intransigent or stubborn.

I mean, this is the reality of the difference between the needs of a financial business plan and the needs of the adjacent residential use just couldn't come together.

And so I don't fault anyone in this process for just the discrepancy of not of it not being the place for that kind of a business.

Councilwoman McGibson?

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, and I appreciate this discussion.

Um, you know, I I might be the odd man out.

I I have I happen to like the SCP process because it is it's it's democratic and it allows communities to really have a say in um in how their communities are shaped.

And you know I think that for me it's it's important that we prioritize those folks that are going to be impacted the most.

That would be pretty easy for me, right?

Because you know they're not super popular, they're noisy, there are concerns about them.

It does become more challenging when the proposal is something that you know it's lovely.

Someone having uh events I mean it's a it's a it's a lovely thing.

I can relate to my colleague council member Breton last year in my district there was a proposal for tennis courts.

And you know no one no myself included wanted to say like no there will not be tennis you know I mean it it was a popular thing and and our office received um many many emails and and calls from folks who wanted to see um the applicant uh proposal for the tennis courts be approved um but um you know so in that process we our office you know I mean I the the position was like yes of course it's lovely but we had to prioritize the people who would be both on the receiving end of the potential benefits and the potential downsides um and so through that process um you know I explained to the applicant look if we if if the most of the people that are in that immediate surrounding area um you know it doesn't have to be a hundred percent but if you can get most of the people on board through whatever the amendment process is and making amendments then yes this is something that um that I could support and and that's what happened.

You know in this um uh particular proposal um you know the last time we had the this on our agenda there was also some discussion about um items being grandfathered in I just want to highlight that um I took that um information to heart because I did think it's like if you know there was a rule that was in place um that it was our responsibility to make sure again it's our job to uphold the law and so I did reach out to our legal counsel to get advisement um on whether or not there were any grandfathered clauses that should be considered as we were considered um as we were uh considering this vote um and it was explained that that was not the case um because of the our the former RO2 zoning um you know it it did not have the allowability for recreation or entertainment uses um so um you know my my vote is in support of upholding the decision of the planning commission in this instance I I really appreciate that the community um came to the table with the with the um with the applicant I've spoken to her myself as well I mean I I don't have any question that um you know she is uh is is doing the work of a business owner who's trying to um to uh to bring a positive viable business to the community um and I and I wish that there was uh more agreements that you know that I wish it was able to come together.

It sounds like, you know, it just sadly didn't work out.

And so um and while that is disappointing, I do think that it is um my responsibility to to listen to the community and um and to support the decision of the planning commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Okay.

You know, I have um I really appreciate the quality of service that this business has provided for the city.

And I appreciate the those that have stood up in support of this business because of what this service and the type of business has been offered.

There has never been 52 events at this location with a hundred plus people.

Never.

From what I'm hearing, there may have been two or so in the time period between them.

Um one call from the community as it relates to the music being too loud.

Uh most of what I know of this business has been smaller gatherings that have been very, very beneficial to the type of clientele that has been served, and it's the type of business that we don't have enough of in the city of Richmond.

And that's that's the reason why each time that this has come up, I've said, can we continue this to get to a place of an amendment that would make sense?

And I know that you have worked very hard to try to get us there.

And I guess the question, Miss Madam Chair, that I have is that the information that I'm looking at in front of me that has never been introduced as an amendment, um, that it is my understanding, and I'm trying to get clarification on this, that Miss Anderson has agreed, um, which has been my primary concern and interest in making sure that any amendment to this SUP met with her support and recommendation for the amendment.

And so what I'm seeing in the information that's before me, and what I need to verify that Mrs.

Anderson has agreed to an amendment of such is that 20 per year, up to 50 people, and portable tabletop speakers.

I think that's to address the maximum level of the sound, uh, from what I'm understanding and this information that I have before me.

And no more than 10 events up to 100 people, and I'm also looking at events, spaces that are doing the same type of similar kind of outdoor activities that have um opportunities for 125 events per year, up to 150 people.

And so I think that is part of the reason why, you know, I understand the residents, I understand noise, I understand parking, trust me.

If my neighbor who has three joint properties, if she has a throat big party, I can't park nowhere near my house, and it's just her event and her family, pretty much.

So I understand that.

We have created this special zoning that does not require parking.

Uh we have other venues that are doing outside that we allow in 125 events, and we don't seem to have any problem being able to manage those, and I guess that's the reason why the planning staff recommended approval uh as it relates to safety, and so my question, madam chair, that I would like to answer to is if we had introduced an amendment to this paper, 20 events, outside events, noise control, no more than 50 people, 10, not more than 100, same amplified music control with specifications of what that is.

Do we know that the based on your conversation, your five-hour conversation, and the applicant that is here that can answer, and I would appreciate it if we would let her answer, is that an amendment that if I'm reading this correct, that she has agreed that she would support us introducing.

Okay, so I'm going to accommodate Mr.

Breton, you have, but I'm also going to ask Ms.

Anderson to come up with Mr.

Breton.

Would you well I was going to comment that I mean that those terms have not been agreed to by the residents as well because outdoor amplified music?

I understand that.

So Miss Anderson, I'm asking you a specific question.

20, not more than 50, 10, not more than 100, with noise control factors built in.

This is my understanding that you have offered this as an amendment that you would support.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Then with that, I recognize the fact that the community hasn't weighed in and given you approval on that.

We are approving a special use permit.

And every special use permit that comes before us, there is always significant opposition.

I don't know I've ever had one special use permit that there was an opposition to it.

I don't know that I've ever had one.

And I'm sure that there has been, but it probably was such a minor change that it wasn't, it was only necessary because of some setback or something that was just a few feet or something like that.

I don't know.

Um I've got a verifiable approval from the applicant, 20 events, less than 50 people, not more than 10 at less than 100, with the same provision of five, no more than five a month.

Correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

With that, you know, it is a special use permit.

If it was to be as is allowed, there would never be a special use.

There's no reason for a special use permit if it's allowed, right?

So we would not be entertaining a special use permit, um, if it everything was already allowed by zoning.

Um, so there is no parking requirement based on the zoning.

Um, from my understanding from what we were said told earlier, um by right, two events uh could happen, um, and the other events that usually are 20 less than 25 people uh or small events historically, historically, but the amendment that she has agreed to, based on where we started and where we are, it seems reasonable to consider.

So, Ms.

Robertson, our process and city attorney is there, we can't litigate an amendment on the floor.

The only way this could even begin to occur.

I'm I understand that.

I'm not suggesting that we need the paper.

I'm not suggesting that.

I am proposing that we come back with an amendment according to what the pay patron has uh agreed to.

I'm not suggesting that we can speak that amendment into place and then vote on it.

I'm not suggesting that at all.

A confirmation from the applicant as to exactly what and for the reduction that is significant being proposed.

Okay, so I'm gonna so what we this would be uh the action would have to be a continuance and amended, right?

But that could be the only path forward here, I mean, which then goes back for more discussion with the applicant with all like that.

So I'm just getting clear because I looked at Ms.

Jury and that was clarity for me.

So Mr.

Brett.

Oh, I would just say I I oppose any motion to continue, and I would and I I hope no one makes the motion.

If anyone doesn't make the motion, I would urge everyone to vote no because all of these conditions have been discussed with the residences with the adjacent residents, and even and by my own judgment as well, they are not appropriate.

Um if if we were to spend the time and and it would be a waste of time to try to to come back and do it, we would still oppose it.

It would still not be, it would not be fair, it would it would cause more expense and it would cause more damage to everyone's sanity, the the mental health of everyone involved.

So it is not constructive to suggest that we do that, and so um I would urge us to not even make that motion and instead to call the question, and actually, if I may, I'm not sure what the the because I would like to call the question of the proposal as it is currently written.

If I may okay, so let's I want to be absolutely clear.

What's on the table is a proposal that no one agreed to.

That was the original, if I had to stick correct.

Is that correct?

That's right.

I think it's time for us to vote on the 52 event proposal, madam chair.

The paper that's on the table at the moment is the one that Mr.

Bonk referenced, is the one that went to planning that was not that was denied.

That's what we're working with.

Yes, I'd like to call that question second, madam chair, uh councilwoman Robertson.

I'd like to offer a motion to continue this paper um to be amended, to be amended second.

So the first motion is the one that will need to be addressed, and I'll get direction of this jury.

The first motion that came onto the table.

I mean, you've got two motions that have been second, so I call the first one first and call a second one, and okay.

Council is now voting on Mr.

Breton's motion to call the question on ordinance number 2025-215 as read.

Mr.

Breton.

Can I clarify?

Am I voting on my motion to call the question or am I voting on the ordinance?

The motion to call the question.

To call the question on the ordinance that's on the that's being well then.

Yes, I uh I vote in support of calling the vote.

Ms.

Gibson?

Yes.

Ms.

Jones, no, Ms.

Robertson.

Should I be voting on?

I'm sorry, I need to be clear.

Miss Drury.

I absolutely need you to provide clarification, what Mr.

Breton is saying in terms of the vote.

Yeah, do we need to vote on this?

I mean, if I call the question, no one does voted on this one.

Yeah, I'm trying to I want to get clear so we're all clear.

So you asked Mr.

Breton to call the vote on this paper on the would you restate?

Yeah, call the question on the ordinance as I is on the agenda.

Okay, that's right.

Okay.

Please proceed uh madam clerk.

Ms.

Robertson wait but you're voting on the motion to call the question on the ordinance.

No.

Ms.

Trammell.

Hi.

Miss Abubacher?

Aye.

Vice President Jordan?

Aye.

And President New Bill.

Abstain.

That motion has been approved.

I will now call the roll on the vote on ordinance number 2025-215 as read.

Mr.

Breton?

No.

Ms.

Gibson.

No.

Ms.

Jones.

Wait a minute.

This is the actual ordinance that's on that came that went to planning that was not it's the actual ordinance.

So if I'm I'm not in support of that one, right?

Well I mean I'm so confused.

I voted no so if you want to you can wait because I'm like well he voted no for it.

Madam President the council is voting on whether to authorize the special use that's correct of this ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yes.

Ms.

Robertson no I'm not supporting the ordinance as the SUPS is on the docket.

I asked for an amendment to the ordinance.

Ms.

Robertson what is your vote?

The question that I have madam clerk is that I've asked for I've put a motion on the table to have this SUP amend it to continue it and and have it amended.

So I'm not supporting the SUP as it currently is I'm asking for a continuance with this question has not been called Madam President I do need to defer to the city attorney on whether or not we need to call the question on Ms.

Robertson's motion to continue this ordinance before we handle the question.

I think you need you need to go in the order and this is the motion that's on the floor the paper and the voting has started so is it my understanding that we need to continue the vote on this ordinance you can hear Mrs.

Robertson's motion after this vote is concluded.

Okay.

Ms.

Robertson I don't know what I'm doing.

Madam before can so essentially I just need to and maybe I can come over and you can discuss with me essentially the vote on the question.

There is nothing on to be yes after this vote if this vote is successful there would not be something on the to continue I can't hear that.

Right.

So new what do we have?

There was a motion of the first motion was made to call the question.

That received a second.

There was a second motion to continue the ordinance that also received the second.

The first motion must be addressed, which is to call the question.

That motion was approved.

So therefore, my understanding is that the subsequent action is that the question must be called.

If it is called and the ordinance is denied, you cannot continue an ordinance that has been denied.

If it's approved, you cannot continue an ordinance that has been approved.

So therefore, the motion to continue would therefore be moot.

The new SUP would have to be submitted depending on the outcome of that first vote.

I believe so.

Okay, so do we want Madam Clerk, Mr.

Clark, if we could get clear in terms of where we are in the vote that Mr.

Breton would miss Robertson, you did vote no on this ordinance.

Is that correct?

I did.

Ms.

Trammell.

No.

Ms.

Abubacher?

No.

Vice President Jordan?

No.

And President Newbill have stayed.

That paper has not been adopted.

Okay.

We have Miss Robertson is on the floor.

Madam President, the paper has not been adopted.

Therefore, Ms.

Robertson's motion to continue the ordinance is moot.

So then the next step in this would be to have the applicant bring forward either a new SUP or CUP.

Those are the only options.

And Mr.

Bonk may be over there.

Who can so options A would be abide within the confines of DOD one and whatever uses are permitted.

If the applicant wanted to do some type of outdoor entertainment, it would require a special use permit.

A conditional use permit or COP is not an option within the current code.

However, that is something we're looking at in the future code, which we're not going to go into tonight, because you can tie a C UP to an owner and occupant, or put a sunset on it, which we've been doing with nightclubs for that discussion.

So we'd like to expand that option.

However, it is not a policy tool available in this situation, so it would have to be a special use permit.

Thank you.

So at this point, the only next step, Ms.

Anderson, would be to proceed with discussions and initiation of an SUP.

I guess more consistent with some of the recommendations that have come out of subsequent meetings, and that would have to be vetted in the same way.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, everyone who came to speak and to provide comment.

Okay.

At this point, we have some additional items, and I'm going to press us here just a bit.

We have approval of minutes.

We need to address introduction of new legislation.

The minutes to be approved are from the Monday, April 27, 2026.

Informal informal and formal city council meetings at 4 p.m.

and 6 p.m.

If there are no corrections or amendments, then the minutes will be approved as presented.

Those minutes have been approved.

And council members, the list of legislation for introduction this evening consisting of items 1 through 11 has been provided to you, and the legislation on this list is hereby introduced as presented.

A copy of the list is currently available for public inspection at the rear of the council chamber and an electronic copy and copies of the listed legislation.

Will be available on the city's website on Tuesday, May the 12th.

Thank you.

Ms.

Anderson, you had a question.

A point of order on just Robert's rules.

Okay.

So let me just say this.

Let me have conversation and we'll come down and provide clarification in terms of what transpired.

So RJ, if you would Miss Anderson, it's obviously we're gonna have to get back with you.

Okay and uh provide any clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So with that, I'm going to um move forward with reports and announcements from counselors.

I want to start with you, Councilwoman Trammell.

You had an item that you wanted to.

No.

Yeah, just somebody just said something to me.

Say again.

Did you want me to bring it up or did you want to?

No, I'm no, I was had indicated earlier I would come back to you.

You said I could talk about it because, you know, I thought being the chairperson of public safety, and my colleagues on public safety with me.

I don't understand why this wasn't brought to us because I know during the budget we you too had asked if the courts you know were on the right path getting what they wanted.

So we thought it was, and then we get um we just got these we got it today.

We just got them today.

And I know that I did this was a this was a shock to me because I thought the mayor was having conversations with with them over there, the judge, who I expect who I respect very much, Chief Judge, Jacqueline McKey.

And now we're hearing that they need 300 million dollars because they want that courthouse.

And to me, they should get the courthouse instead of us building a hotel or um the diamond deal finishing that when we just had an incident that happened Friday over here at the John Marshall Courthouse where the inmate got away from the deputies and ended up in my district over there on 15th Street by Blackwell Elementary School in the pre-cray, and they had to shut the schools down and the neighborhood, and by the grace of God, the police and the deputies caught the person without any incident.

And so to me, this is very concerning, and I think that, and I know that you're you will be on top of this because um to me we were misled because we were not given any follows up about this, and I know that when Lincoln left, he was and Sabrina was keeping me and um other members that were on the public safety, we were being briefed on what was going on and why they definitely needed a new courthouse because of security reason, the glass plate windows and all of that, and then we didn't have any more follow-up with the mayor.

But that's what I want to say, and this is very, very, as I said, very disturbing and very um alarming, and especially with the incident that happened Friday.

And Ms.

Trammel, the follow-up at in as much as it's a legal matter, we'll have uh to have conversation with our city attorney and with the administration in terms of the path forward.

So there will be definitely be follow-up.

Councilwoman Trammel, did you have any announcements or any such?

Thank you.

Um, this Thursday night, we're gonna have our eighth district meeting on May the 14th at 6 p.m.

to 7 30 p.m.

at the satellite 4000 Richmond Highway.

Um, we are going to talk about tax relief.

So many, I swear it just broke my heart this Saturday.

I was out there talking to the people in the Blackwell and Oak Grove area, and one citizen was 92 years old, she never heard about tax relief, never heard, didn't even know, and here she is telling me how much she has to struggle in January to pay half of her taxes.

Now she's got to come up with the other half, and it's over two thousand dollars.

So I begged her to please come to the meeting on Thursday night.

She said she would if they could get a ride there.

So again, Jackie Hubbard's gonna be at our meeting, she's gonna um tell us about the tax relief because I just found out from one of my citizens in my district, there's a tax freeze, which I did not know about.

So we need to know more about this tax freeze, but I do know about the tax paper that you have to fill out every three years, and then every year you have to fill out the other form to get recertified.

And I want to thank the ones in um finance that had been giving the citizens back their money, they've been getting their money back that ended up paying in January, and by the grace of God, they fought hard to get their money back.

And Pastor Hodge, a lot of those members go to his church, and he got involved with us.

So I want to thank him for that.

Again, the meeting is this Thursday, 6 p.m., 7 30 p.m.

at the satellite.

Also, um, just want to say that um the mayor did not have any anything in his budget for cola, and I know that we didn't call it a bonus because a bonus is what you give your employees when they're still working for you, you get a reward by getting a bonus.

So we didn't call it uh a bonus this time, we call it a one-time payment.

And my colleague, the president of council, she promised the retirees and my colleagues too.

We're gonna have a discussion with Leo Griffin and with those other board members so that we can um get them what they deserve.

They deserve a cola every year because they gave their they gave up so much to serve the city, and to me, the ones that are here now are employees.

We gotta send a message to them that we care about them and that we want to make sure that they're taken care of once they do retire.

Also, um, I want to say if you haven't the um Richmond virtual academy, as I spoke earlier, that just broke my heart when I heard the parents on the phone, not just today, but all past two months, and they were the first ones to come here and beg for the money.

And then you find out that the school superintendent, I guess he took it out the budget, and then our mayor did not put it in a budget.

He gave well, we did give them $8 million, so they got more.

My colleagues, all of us gave them more money than what they got last year.

So, and so we have to sacrifice when we do that, and then you have then when you give them the money, you pray that they spend the money where they're supposed to go, but we can't make them because we're not school board members and we're not the school superintendent with council.

I want to say if you have any questions, you can call my house at 804 233 7382.

We can call my personal sale, 804 240 5050.

This right here is your smoke alarm.

Please, please have a working smoke alarm.

They will save your life, they'll save the pets in your house to save your neighbors.

But if you don't have a working smoke alarm, it's not gonna help you.

Just go to the nearest fire station, and because some people say they can't get through on this 6461526, oh, 804.

But just go to the nearest fire station because those firefighters will come out there to your house and they'll give you, they will won't give you, they will put up the smoke alarms for you for free.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilwoman Nobleba.

I'm gonna forego my announcements for the sake of time.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson.

Thank you, Dr.

Newbill.

Just a couple announcements.

Um this week, May 14th.

We have a ribbon cutting ceremony on Bells Island for a children's park in the middle of the James River.

I think this is fascinating.

Uh, it'll be on the 14th from 11:30 to 12:30.

I want every family that's got kids.

If you don't come to the ribbon cutting ceremony, please go down and check out this wonderful uh playground.

Playground for children.

On May the 23rd, uh we are having uh continuation of building community unity at the Ann Hardy Park.

We had a charrette a few weeks ago.

And we are moving to the second phase.

That will be from 10 to 12.

You check your emails and your social contact for additional information on that.

But we are looking forward to expanding more community ownership.

It's targeted start to reduce crime in the neighborhood or gunshots and gun violence.

But we're taking it beyond that by giving the community a lot more ownership of activities and so forth that goes on in the Ann Hardy Park.

On June 27th, we're having a celebration of family and children.

We're going to be recognizing all of our graduates from preschool through college.

At uh Hoshkiss Field is where we uh confirming up that location, 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock.

Lots of activities, lots of programs, a lot of opportunities to learn more about activities that are going on in the summer for children and for families.

On May the 16th, there will be a ribbon cutting ceremony again, this time by Habitat for homes.

It will be held at Get This Address.

And Holland Park uh Highland Grove.

So May 16th from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock.

That's the Saturday.

I want you guys to come out.

We're going to also have a special uh recognition for and registration for application for home ownership for in this new subdivision that we are building affordable housing opportunities for first-time home buyers.

And so I look forward to seeing you this Saturday from 2 to 3 and Holland Grove.

Thank you.

Contact information, Ellen Robertson, cell number 804-314-7658.

Office number 64 804 646 7964.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jones.

Thank you.

On May 15th from 11 a.m.

to 3 p.m., we will be hosting the Art of Memory at the South Side Community Center in partnership with OAPD.

The Art of Memory is an immersive intergenerational program designed to honor aging as a living-embodied art form.

This program centers elders as carriers of wisdom while inviting younger generations into practices that foster respectless listening and responsibility.

On May 21st at 6 p.m., we'll be hosting our monthly town hall at the South Side Community Center.

This month we'll be joined by Commonwealth Attorney Colette McKeachin and the YWCA to share more about the Family Justice Center.

On May 28th, from 2 to 4 p.m., the Greater Richmond Partnership to Address Homelessness is updating its regional plan to address homelessness.

This group brings together the City of Richmond, Chesterfield, Hanover, Him Raico, and the Greater Richmond Continuum of Care to gather input from our systems and communities to map a path forward.

The kickoff will be again on Thursday, the 28th from 2 to 4 at Southside Community Center, 6255 Old Warwick Road.

And to register, you can contact admin at NCON.solutions.

My office can be reached at Nicole.gov by phone 804-646-2779, or you can contact uh Taylor West Maliaison at uh Taya.west at RBA.gov.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um our next district meeting will be May 20th.

Uh we have a new location.

It will now be held at John Marshall High School at 6 p.m.

We'll be joined by Mayor Vula that evening.

Um we will be in the Media Center on the second floor, and refreshments will be provided.

The Ginter Park Residents Association will be having a summer block party May 16th from 3 to 6 p.m.

on the 1500 block of Wilmington.

This is a family friendly event that will include live music, refreshments, and activities for all ages.

On May 19th at 6 p.m., the Washington Park Civic Association is hosting Jazz in Washington Park.

This event will be held at Pine Camp Cultural Center, 4901 Old Brook Road.

This is a free event and open to all.

The North Central Civic Association will be having a community cleanup of Brooklyn Park Boulevard on May 16th at 10 a.m.

And their meeting at 2917 North Avenue.

And the Battery Park Civic Association will be hosting a community yard sale on Sunday, May 17th at the Triangular Park, which is at the 2600 block of the plaza from 9 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

And as always, please email our office.

You can reach me at Kenya.gibson at rva.gov and our liaison sarandon.elliot at rva.gov if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you.

Councilman Breton.

I'd like to thank the voters of tomorrow for having me at their literacy forum this weekend.

It was a great opportunity to meet some of Richmond's rising leaders, and for them to interact with me, the superintendent and Senator Mike Jones about issues of advocacy policy and literacy.

So I want to congratulate them on a fantastic event.

Also, want to call everyone's attention to Bike Month is here in May, and so check out BikeMontrva.com for a calendar of all kinds of fantastic ways to participate in the city, get to know your community, and advocate for safety here in the city.

Thank you.

President Jordan.

Thank you so much.

Just the most time-sensitive things I'll share this evening.

There is a code refresh community meeting.

Several second district area civic associations are collaborating on a code refresh community conversation this Wednesday, May 13th from 5 30 to 8 30 p.m.

at the VM FA.

This is on the heels of last week.

There was a panel with Thomas Fitzpatrick, Latoya Gray Sparks, and Michael Paul Williams at Visa Virginia Museum of History and Culture.

Co-hosted, I think, with Helmut Roller Neighbors.

I believe that panel will be online at some point.

But those are two opportunities to learn more.

Ask questions about could refresh.

If you have any issues, need help or assistance from our office, you can reach out 804 646 6532.

Again, thank you to everyone who came out this evening.

Thank you.

Just a few uh announcements.

Preschool applications, kindergarten enrollment.

If uh you need uh any assistance completing the applications for children, turning three to four, three or four by September 30th, or enrolling your five-year-old in kindergarten.

There are events that will occur throughout the city, and uh the event where you can get such assistance in the East End will be on Wednesday, May 13th from 11 until 6 p.m.

Sarah at the Sarah Garland Jones Center, 2600 Nine Mile Road again for preschool applications and kindergarten enrollment assistance.

May 14th, Better Housing Coalition Young Professionals will host a bike tour and happy hour in Church Hill.

Uh riders will get an inside look at BHC communities and learn how strong public and private partnerships are creating opportunity for residents.

Event will start at the TK Summonath building located at 1208 North 28th Street.

Tours free to attend, but registration is required for more information.

You would need to call the Better Housing Coalition at 804-6440546.

Rise Academy is hosting their second East End Block Party on Saturday, May sixteenth from 12 to 4 p.m.

at 2010 Carlisle Avenue.

The uh Church Hill Association will meet on Tuesday, May 19th at 7 p.m.

at St.

John's Community Church Center at Twenty Fourth and Broad Street.

Richmond's Natal Day event will be held in Powton Hill Park on Saturday, May twenty third at twelve noon.

This is the annual commemoration recognizing the importance of the May twenty third, sixteen oh seven meeting between uh English captains Christopher Newport and John Smith and the Power Tan Indians.

The next seventh District District meeting will be held on May twenty seventh at six thirty PM at the Luxfield Community Center located at nineteen oh five U Street For any further information please feel free to contact myself eight oh four five four three seven eight three seven or my layers on Sam Patterson eight oh four two four one seven five four four just wanted to thank everyone who came out this evening for public comment and to provide um just general public comment advocacy and feedback on the various items on the council agenda.

Thank you all the meeting of the City Council is now adjourned.