[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6709702,"mediaKeyId","5066805-f5b266ec8332de14c1fab0c4d099b3af","parentId",5066805,"title","Lynchburg council reopens public comment after dispute over June 23 adjournment","audioSeconds",2432,"startMs",523000,"endMs",2955000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5066805-f5b266ec8332de14c1fab0c4d099b3af&start=523&end=2955","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5066805-f5b266ec8332de14c1fab0c4d099b3af/thumbnail_523000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6709702/Lynchburg/Campbell-County/Virginia/Lynchburg-council-reopens-public-comment-after-dispute-over-June-23-adjournment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709702-177a74f012ecbd39b8863ad0fbed9628/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206260&Signature=cpMzaBxRB1RVlOAAkURK-dJu7J8GOsIg~eVS-vvqd723UlTi5NDKXCF6g4Rt67mjtfgMWemGGlm9DJ~WcpF6VFrO7pW9EAx61KLlKkgUJorRGpKj6V9R8rYRqsyAPvWkt38q6kC6w6TGmuDwr0NFUp5G2ep6-QHAbJ6N0ZDTeYM0hHEdwSCP4v1dj2XRhPQ9PIrS766OjJxM451rB-zTIRmuWjaHuKZH8o9UixUS0iPTG6A3vKa2VPQ3hZ6CFiM-F-y6O7vnwdv8A36SdvrgNeG5FtxSICqgZhMukY~vXkkqvrE1~xGTB6u5UNC5PaaXBMNxQz78wIzYEMutX5osHg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lynchburg","date","2025-06-25T04:23:47Z","article","Lynchburg City Council voted 4-3 to amend its agenda and allow citizens who said they were denied an opportunity to speak at a June 23 public hearing to speak at the June 24 meeting.

Council members and members of the public spent more than an hour debating whether the special meeting on June 23 had been properly adjourned and whether three council members met informally afterward in a way that violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Councilmember Timmer, reading from a lengthy prepared statement, argued the council's rules require recorded votes and said the actions taken June 23 \"violated this rule, as there was not a casting of votes.\" Councilmember Feraldi said the adjournment had been intended to spare residents a long wait: \"We were trying to save y'all 7 or 8 hours of your night,\" he said.

The disagreement spilled into public comment at the June 24 meeting. Dozens of residents came to speak about the budget and property taxes; several said they had made the effort to attend the June 23 hearing and were frustrated they could not speak then. Sam Howe of Ward 1, who said he attended June 23, criticized recent tax proposals and urged the council to lower the personal property (car) tax instead of shifting property tax burdens onto homeowners: \"That's not tax relief. That is a tax shift,\" he said.

Council members pressing for reopening the comment period said many residents had taken time off work or arranged childcare to attend the June 23 hearing and deserved the chance to be heard. Others on the dais said the council had met procedural obligations and that staff had advised that the earlier meeting had been adjourned. Virginia FOIA and the council's rules were invoked repeatedly: Councilmember Timmer cited specific sections requiring recorded votes and public notice, while others described the June 23 sequence as an attempt to end a meeting that had no prospect of passage.

After the 4-3 vote to amend the agenda, council agreed to permit five people who said they were prevented from speaking at the June 23 hearing to speak at the end of the public comment portion of the June 24 meeting. Several speakers used the reopened time to discuss the proposed tax changes and the budget process.

Council members also made several other procedural rulings at the meeting as they moved on to the rest of the agenda; multiple speakers and residents commented that the public should be able to expect consistent application of the council's rules.

The council's exchange Thursday underlined ongoing tension between members over meeting procedure, the application of attorney-client privilege, and how to balance efficient meeting management with public participation. Several council members said they want clearer, consistently applied rules so that similar disputes do not recur.

Ending: The council's decision to allow additional public comment resolved the immediate dispute over speakers from June 23, but it did not resolve the larger disagreement among council members about meeting procedure and the proper use of closed sessions and adjournments. Several council members said they intend to press for clearer rules and better communications with staff to prevent similar breakdowns in the future.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lynchburg City Council Meeting 6-24-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Lynchburg City Council voted 4-3 to amend its agenda and allow citizens who said they were denied an opportunity to speak at a June 23 public hearing to address the council at the June 24 meeting.","taxTitle","Lynchburg, Campbell County, Virginia","taxId",3745,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6709696,"Lynchburg council deadlocked over budget: car tax cut passes, equalization fails",1309,9636000,10945000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5066805-f5b266ec8332de14c1fab0c4d099b3af&start=9636&end=10945","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5066805-f5b266ec8332de14c1fab0c4d099b3af/thumbnail_9636000.jpg","/articles/6709696/Lynchburg/Campbell-County/Virginia/Lynchburg-council-deadlocked-over-budget-car-tax-cut-passes-equalization-fails","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709696-4239424637048e565849b6921779645e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206260&Signature=eg7T~fyObQSCQCW5eMWFEvdYyfpZJkgcka4q0CgUVyGa~EZubc6pMIYEXazFVW1mMdu~zBeWptz6YA~WaUuwXcv0G8T7TZa2Rva0cW47KgFIigyRdknNwTlabZyL6U-~lcrH7-tYE1nDfqN2JUlWzijIx5VtxZrlHQZyThD0vfvo713xEfLA-9EMFpXlJJDSFnOpJBR88nB4Khw5tRk-TOO4R~ZBbT4EfOihuvIofoQ8NnF4lVMgbMIGnFNChfsPlqGrJaOAkbrxdPYt~baoFGj2twswip6Uri7unUCc9QmJNu3ZtR8m9bmPRGKZTSlyv5MLObOxQ51u~JH1hY-Egg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lynchburg City Council members engaged in a prolonged debate over competing proposals to ease residents' tax bills while funding city priorities, ultimately approving a motion to reduce the personal property (car) tax and rejecting a motion to set the real estate tax to the equalization rate.

In a roll-call vote late in the meeting, the council adopted a motion to reduce the car tax to $3.00 (motion passed 6-1). Later the chamber took up a separate motion to set the real estate tax at the equalization rate (the lower, revenue-neutral rate proposed by some council members). That motion failed 3-4.

Budget staff and council members walked through multiple options during the meeting. City budget staff reported that each penny on the real estate tax is worth an estimated $907,000; staff also explained that reducing the car tax to $3.00 would require adjustments elsewhere to preserve the city's proposed spending levels. Finance staff listed program restorations made earlier in the meeting, including partial restorations for public safety items and some equipment and program lines.

Councilmembers highlighted the trade-offs. Councilmember Reid warned that deeper cuts to reach equalization would require job reductions and service eliminations, listing specific program areas and saying, \"We will be losing 32 positions, 16 which are currently filled within the city department,\" if the budget were reduced to the lowest proposed rates. Other members argued that a reduced car tax better targeted relief to households that feel the burden of annual vehicle taxes.

Public comment during the meeting reflected the divide. Some residents urged a shift from property tax relief to reduced vehicle taxes; others said proposed changes would underfund city services they rely upon. The council repeatedly debated whether to prioritize immediate taxpayer relief or to preserve funding for schools, public safety and other services.

The council also agreed to convene a special meeting to consider the second reading of any tax ordinance changes, with staff asked to prepare detailed ordinance language for that session.

Ending: The votes set the immediate course for the budget: a cut to the car tax was adopted and will proceed to a second reading, while equalization of the real estate tax did not gain approval; councilmembers left the meeting with clear disagreements about fiscal priorities and the scale of service reductions they were willing to accept.","A heated multi-hour budget debate left the council split. Members approved a motion to reduce the personal property (car) tax to $3 and scheduled a special meeting for a second reading; however a motion to set the real estate tax at the equalization rate failed 3-4. Councilmembers warned of cuts and staff outlined restored and removed items.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6709691,"Council appoints new school board members after contentious interviews",5399,3305000,8704000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5066805-f5b266ec8332de14c1fab0c4d099b3af&start=3305&end=8704","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5066805-f5b266ec8332de14c1fab0c4d099b3af/thumbnail_3305000.jpg","/articles/6709691/Lynchburg/Campbell-County/Virginia/Council-appoints-new-school-board-members-after-contentious-interviews","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6709691-e0be7c01078c90b450e8b869f64597e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206260&Signature=aue~9jeRYIInlkv528tSngLOtD9mPHWYlB3nWg~Vy0aAPc6fLL-geuXyYVFa306dwEr5jqHXlP0VXOJ~S9nKDBg65RMM3kh7xz-SltXf5H5Pm~GPt1pDdW5w6S71ertsyMXaIIDTb0S4lglQPkZv9viXcsCgRkOUQTbHd4M9wsNqdD~GBNT4DXa0-N-IR4ibPRjI27rS4lGYd7e3iA0D2q6iEhRpSXWLelMoXh5RFqIsaDewkPpipPo79ZbGDtEMhmzn3R2yRmTQrwIHDepY3ZwClVcumUSzsu45~SwvcL9ST0IKFYfL5aTsSiUYUmIRtz90ScgZpeojugoEoAjh-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lynchburg City Council filled multiple vacancies on the Lynchburg City School Board after protracted discussion and competing substitute motions focused on candidates' backgrounds and experience.

Among the appointments taken during the June 24 meeting, the council approved Nigel Aileen for one seat by a 5-2 vote and Dr. Brenda Farmer for another seat by a 5-2 vote. Council debate over candidates repeatedly returned to whether appointees had direct public school experience, had children currently enrolled in Lynchburg schools, and how they responded to questions about curriculum and values.

Several council members and community speakers argued for candidates with hands-on experience in the local public schools, saying parental involvement matters to decisions about discipline and enrollment. Others urged a mix of perspectives: administrators, former superintendents and outside educators who could add policy and operational expertise to a school board during a period of leadership change. The council heard from candidates and discussed a number of substitute motions before the final votes.

Council deliberations included references to specific programs raised at interviews, including a candidate's description of leading an after-school discussion program called \"Hot Topics,\" which some members said raised concerns about content boundaries in schools. Vice Mayor Deemer and others said experience with the school division and children currently in the system were important considerations; proponents of Dr. Harvey Clam (a candidate not appointed in the final votes) cited his superintendent experience and oversight of student-teacher internships as relevant.

Ending: The council voted to appoint new members to the local school board amid close votes and substitute motions. Council members said they hope the mix of appointed members will combine operational knowledge, community experience and parent perspectives as the school division implements upcoming priorities.","After several rounds of interviews and substitute motions, Lynchburg City Council appointed at least two members to the school board, citing a mixture of candidates with public and private school experience. Debate centered on applicants' public‑school experience, parental representation and positions on 'absolute truth' in curriculum discussion.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lynchburg council reopens public comment after dispute over June 23 adjournment

Lynchburg council deadlocked over budget: car tax cut passes, equalization fails

Council appoints new school board members after contentious interviews