You ready? I'll call the committee meeting to order. To make it easier for residents to voice their comments, there will be two public comment periods. There will be one at the beginning of the committee meeting designated for comments related to items on the agenda and one at the end of the meeting for general public comment. Public comment for designated public hearing items will be heard when the item is called. Speakers will be limited to three minutes to state their comments. This meeting is being video recorded and streamed live on the internet. Mr. Valdez, please confirm posting and roll call. Mayor, this meeting has been posted in accordance with the Nevada Open Meeting Law and with the exception of Council Member Seabach, who has excused. All members of the committee are present and you have a quorum. Thank you. Now is the time for our first public comment for the committee meeting. If you wish to make a public comment, please come to the podium, speak directly into the mic, state your name and zip code, and you will have three minutes to speak. Mayor, the first person in the public comment queue is Shea Stewart followed by Yvette Russell. Okay, you don't mind if I read, right? Nope. Okay, because if I memorized it, I'm getting a little old. Just state your name and zip code first. My name is Shea Stewart and my zip code is 89015. Okay, esteemed. Council members, I am a long-time resident of Henderson, zip code 89015. I am here today to express my strong opposition to the proposed 10 livestock per parcel limit, as well as code 19.9.3, point B, section D, sections B and C and D of 7.04.080. This ordinance This ordinance would unfairly impact responsible residents, many with multiple acre properties who have the resources and space to ethically and safely raise more than 10 animals' livestock. Henderson's current zoning laws, especially in RA, residential agricultural zones, allow one livestock animal per 10,000 square feet, up to 20 animals. That system has served the city well for decades, replacing it with a flat limit erases the logic of proportionality and punishes good stewards of the land. I respectfully urge the council to grandfather in existing livestock owners who have built their lives, homes, and family around this lifestyle. If changes must be made, let them be applied to new applicants only, not only those who have contributed to our community agriculture and rural heritage for years, even decades. Furthermore, I propose revisiting the definition of livestock in Henderson, code 7.01.330. It should be reworded to identify livestock specifically as cloven-hooved animals, such as cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep. Horses should be excluded, as they serve an entirely different role, from recreation and therapy to family activity and transportation, and should not count towards livestock's total. I recommend that poultry, chicken, ducks, and geese currently grouped together be broken out into separate species with independent limits. These birds serve different purposes, and many families rely on their eggs or meat. Treating them as a single category restricts essential backyard food production and undermines sustainable living. For my family, this is personal. I raise livestock not just for food and for health, but to pass on a way of life. My three-year-old grandson is growing up alongside animals, learning about responsibility, compassion, nature, and hard work. This is his classroom. It's hands-on education, biology, ecology, and respect for life. Please don't take that away from him or from the many other children in our community growing up with these same lessons. Livestocks bring healing, community, nutrition, and joy. They help combat depression, Anxiety encourage outdoor activity and provide vitamin D and keep us rooted in something real. They are not a nuisance, they are a gift. Please consider not just this policy, but the people. Protect our right to live in harmony with the land, respect our traditions, and preserve this vital way of life for our future generations. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next person is Yvette Russell, followed by Linda Wade. Hi, my name is Yvette Russell. I live at 89015. I've lived here for 40 years. I'm opposed to Title 19.93B, Item Section D, against livestock per parcel. And I'm also against Title 7.01.330. Livestock only includes horses, cattle, sheep, and goats. I would like to include the other domestic livestock, such as llamas and camels. Thank you. Next person is Linda Wade followed by Katie Madison. Hi, my name is Linda Wade. I've lived in my home over 25 years. I'm a neighbor to Nancy and I just don't think it's fair what you guys are doing is all the facts here and stuff for all the titles and this and that. She helps so many kids and people. It's It's not right to take it away from all the kids she's teaching. We have kids that come in there that are afraid of a chicken. How could you be afraid? You could step on it and kill it. There's no reason to be so afraid of animals. And she teaches them so much. That's all I can say. Best neighbor I ever had. And don't dismiss her. Next person is Katie Madison, followed by Nancy Rouse. My name is Katie Madison. So there's a lot of job security in manufacturing problems. And while this new verbiage of regulations to both Title VII and XIX are at no fiscal impact to the city, they do have a fiscal impact, often negative, to the livelihood of the farmers. Currently, I see several problems and could not begin to list them all in three minutes, but here are a few of those. The definition of livestock new verbiage says livestock means a domesticated animal, bread and cactus, captivity that are inclusive to the horse, cattle, goat, sheep, hen, duck, and quail. All other species are prohibited. Nancy's camels recently were cited as an exotic animal, but she made clear that they were not exotic animals. And so it's curious that the code can just be inserted to create the problem that wasn't there before, where the camel was fine, but now it's not livestock. And so It's neither. Yet a simple Google search reads, livestock are farm animals with the exception of poultry. So it's interesting that they lumped poultry in with livestock. And in Western countries, the category encompasses primarily but not limited to cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses, donkeys, mules, other animals such as buffalo, oxen, llamas, or camels may predominate in the agriculture of other areas and are still considered livestock. So it's interesting. So why are we under identifying the definition of livestock to be limited to an elementary understanding of what livestock animals are? Another change I noticed is a maximum of seven hens, ducks, and or quail. And then there was another section with a maximum of 20 pigeons and or birds. Have you ever seen a fantastic dove release with only 20 pigeons? Me either. The wind used to release at least 40 every night, and they would fly home to Nancy's to do it again the next day. In order to have 40 doves for events, you have to have more than 40 at home. So back to the hens. Why on a parcel being used in accordance with law for livestock and farming is the limit the same that a residential home has that has no other livestock animals or permissions? Did you know that having 20 hens is no more work than having seven? You already have to get approval from neighbors to have any hens, ducks, or quails. So if all that is in agreement, why seven? I know, job security, over-regulation, create a problem. Anyone who has seven chickens knows that that is about enough to feed one to two people. They don't lay every day. They don't lay year-round, especially in our heat. If you have farm animals and dogs to protect those animals, they eat eggs too. So what is the benefit to having this limit be seven if all those birds are being fed and cared for properly? I don't see the benefit. The maximum amount of horse, cattle, sheep, and goat are to be determined by Title 19 is what it says. So let's look at the Title 19 changes, and I'm going to skip some of that. The new verbiage to the code that you'll be voting on today is full of overregulation rules. bad policies, and a general misunderstanding of the community it would, I presume, intend to protect. So I ask that you do not pass any of it as written, because the Las Vegas Valley was recolonized by cattle ranchers in the late 1800s. Yeah, I'm almost done. And farming was its main industry for over 20 years. So let's not forget our rich farming history in this valley just because we're building out as a city and hiring vigilantes and forcers. Farmers have and always will be an important part of this community. Thank you. Next person is Nancy Rouse followed by Daylene Williams. My name is Nancy Rouse, zip code 89015. I run a mobile petting zoo pony rides business. Got my first business license in Henderson in 1997. I do countless birthday parties. community events, church events. I do own two camels. I've had camels in Henderson for 12 years. We do living nativity scenes at churches in December. Recently ran into a problem with code enforcement telling me that camels are not allowed in Henderson. And considering that they are a domesticated livestock, probably been domesticated for as long as the horse and maybe longer see Bible. I would like to have The verbiage in Title 7.01.330, which is defining livestock as only horses, cattle, goats, and sheep, quail, hen, duck, and saying that all other species are prohibited, would like to include camelids. I know that there's lots of people out there that have llamas too. Llamas are also in the camelid family, along with camels, and they are a domesticated species. Just would love to be able to keep my camels in Henderson. Would hate to have to leave and love to provide those wonderful animals to make some impact on people. A couple of other items here. The one that's 7.04.160, which is no new permit after revocation or denial. Currently that reapplication, if you've been denied, is at 12 months, you can reapply. This one states that you're not allowed to reapply for a permit until 36 months, which seems very excessive, three years. If it's somebody's business, they've been denied for whatever reason, let them get back in there and start working again after a year. Let them fix the problems, but three years seems very excessive on that. 7.04.080, maximum of seven hens. Certainly I'm against that. We need to have some food security people You know, I thought we learned our lesson in 2020. Let's let some people raise some of their own food. And seven chickens, if they have the land to support more than that, really should be more than that. Maximum amount of horse, cattle, sheep, and goats, title 19.9.3.b, limits 10 per parcel. And I'm thinking that that parcel could be... half an acre it could be 10 acres if they have the space let them have some more animals I can't imagine why it would be limited to that other than people trying to keep people from from having a living having some cattle for some milk having extra chickens for some eggs thank you very much next person is Dailene Williams followed by Charles Simpson Good afternoon, Council members. My name is Dailene Williams, zip code 89120. I have the privilege of living in Henderson, being a resident and a homeowner for over 18 years. I appreciate the opportunity to stand before each and every one of you to address our concerns. As I stand before you, I stand before you with a proposal. No surprise, I do not have a camel. However, I love her camel. I see her all the time down the street. So kind of just to get to it. So I currently am standing here representing both myself, my family, my fellow neighbors. The situation at hand is essentially the blanket rezoning change. The all inclusive zone ordinance is a bit restrictive. So I would like to find a medium and possibly a proposal to modify where you guys are trying to get. I don't think it's fair to completely come in and say, Absolutely not. I can't believe you guys are doing that. That's not what you guys are doing. That is not your job. And I apologize if you feel that in any way that is being said. With that said, I would like to address 7.01330. And again, the young lady I actually just gave my notes to kind of quoted what I stated, which I do back her up because I wrote that. We would like to exclude horses. And let me tell you why horses are pets. In regards to livestock, we are not legally able to consume horse meat in the United States. So we need to take livestock as something that's consumption based. So what I ask is that we remove horses and have the standard regulation for horses. Let me also try to just extend on that. And I'm not trying to pour out, but I oversee youth. I oversee one particular youth that is a special needs person. His father is with me today. He is one of my neighbors. He has problems connecting and communicating. He has problems explaining his feelings. I can only have certain animals that he can be around. And I only have certain horses. And I don't know how much you guys know about horses. I'm not trying to preach here. But only certain animals will respect that and accept it. But then I have my children that rodeo and I show horses. And yes, it all costs a lot of money, but it's worth it. It's not a cheap investment, but neither is raising children. It's not easy, and this is part of it. With that said, I think it is a little bit off topic to have say that you have 10 chickens and it's enough. You can't have any more. I do consume my eggs, no problem, especially with the prices and even not the prices. Let's be honest, I can make a paycheck. I can pay for eggs, but I do enjoy having them. Okay, and I do enjoy the health benefits of them. What I also would like to address as well, and I know I'm coming to the end is one section just really quick, not gonna preach to you, but in regards to Bill 3825 pretending the 19, may I continue, 19.93B section 2CD in regards to the accessory animals keeping section that we remove the requirement for CUP. We treat the livestock, the cattle, the head, however you want to word it, and you treat it as every other acceptable animal and not require a permit to have them. To be able to feed cattle, they are not able to forage here, right? There's no feed, we have to hand feed them, we all know that. So they should be treated as equal as horses, one per 10,000. Why do horses need 40,000? Because it's per head units for agricultural needs. I have a ranch in Canada, I understand how this works. It's a bit nicer there, it's cooler. But with that said, number 3B, modifying the proposal, I would like you guys to please consider that. Also this young man that I am currently taking, and he's not the only one, is rodeoing. Something that nobody ever thought he'd ever do. He couldn't connect to anything. He sits there on the animal quietly. This is a boy that can't even express when he cries. That's what an animal does for us. Number D, real quick and I'll shut up because I know there's other people. Amend the language in state and constitutional use permit to increase the number of livestock. If you guys would like to keep that and respectfully so, would you please at least take under consideration to insert it above the permitted use, meaning that the maximum livestock of 10 can be requested written in title 19 to equate to the amount of cattle allowed for horses up to a up to and including the additional 10. I appreciate your time appreciate what you do and I know that you guys have the best interest of us. Do you have that written down? Yes, ma'am. Would you you can have this document? Could you please just give it to staff so that when we are asking questions they can refer to Yes, ma'am. Thank you for your time everyone. Next person is Charles Simpson, followed by Mohammed Rouse. Hello, my name is Charles Simpson 89015. I would just like to say that I am against the title 7.01.330. I have a great many neighbors that have horses and they always take very good care of their animals. And some of them, they have large pieces of property, some of them two, three, four acres. And they have giant arenas where people are constantly coming over and doing rodeo practices and things like that. And as far as the adding camels and llamas into the same group should exclude horses and bring in the camels and llamas because saying that they're exotic animals is kind of silly. I mean, I'm fortunate enough to have grown up in generation where there was the Ringling Brothers Barn and Bailey Circus. I could go see giraffes and elephants and lions and tigers and bears. Right? Exactly. So nowadays kids don't really get to see that. So for kids being able to see these animals, especially on the Rojas' property is really amazing. So many kids go over there and they're just ecstatic by seeing the things that they see there. As far as the amount of animals on a property, there's probably some people that think that that's too many and you know that's the problem anymore with Henderson is it's starting to, it's growing faster and faster and I just don't want to see what happened here like what happened on the pig farm across town. People started encroaching, oh now you gotta leave because we don't like the sounds, we don't like the smell. those kind of things. That's not what Henderson is. Henderson is a place where people like to come and see these things. It's a rural environment, and that's what we want to see it kept as. So if you guys could at least stick with that and try to keep it that way, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Next person is Mohamed Rouse, followed by Adam Rouse. Good afternoon. Mohammed Roas, 89015. I've lived in Henderson for over 26 years now. And without taking too much time, and I am, of course, adamantly opposed to the Title 1719 changes that you are proposing right now. The lady before me spoke eloquently to find some kind of compromise, but in general, having animals part of our lives more and more like real quote-unquote scientific research is finding it's essential for our well-being as human beings. So this is not beyond just having eggs or fresh milk. Being around animals is something essential for us and people are losing that understanding and I'm just trying to say that limiting it with these regulations does not Improved quality of life is the other way around. So I am adamantly against the way it's set up right now. I'm sure there will be a compromise. But leaving this quality of life and having connection with animals available to our children, to us, to our grandparents, to our parents, is essential to having a good quality of life in this beautiful city. Thank you very much for your time. Next person is Adam Roas, followed by Christy Stevens. Good afternoon. I'm Adam Roas, 89015. And I've lived in Henderson for my entire life. And today I just wanted to speak on my opposition to Title 7.04.080, Section B, C, and D. And this change in law would impose a limit of 20 birds per parcel such as pigeons and parrots and seven hens. And this affects me personally as I do a lot of work with a flock of white homing pigeons for our business, Petting Zoo to You. We do releases at private and public events, including weddings, funerals, photo shoots, grand openings. And I've been doing this work for many years. And I really believe it does have a positive impact on our community. And this title would make this work impossible for me, as I currently care for a flock of over 50 white homing pigeons, as well as some parrots and, of course, hens that we use for personal use as well as for the business as well. the regulations regarding the care of these livestock and birds should be made on a case-to-case basis based on what each individual is able to care for rather than just making a blanket statement saying that everyone can only care for a certain amount of animals regardless of how much land they have or their ability to care for the animals. Thank you very much. Next person is Christy Stevens, followed by Colleen Lefkoe. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Christy Stevens. I'm executive director of Hearts Alive Village. I'm here today to speak in strong support of the proposed changes to Title VII, especially the ordinance related to adequate shelter and protections for animals in extreme weather. As someone who works alongside our forensics veterinarian who assists in the necropsies of animals who have died from abuse and neglect, I can tell you firsthand I could stand to never see another one of these horrific heat-related deaths again. When an animal dies of heat stroke, it's not peaceful, it's slow, it's excruciating. These animals suffer from a condition called disseminated intervascular coagulation. Their internal system shut down, they bleed out internally, and their organs fail one by one. There's no mercy in this kind of death. And what makes it even more heartbreaking is it's entirely preventable. The heat in southern Nevada is not just uncomfortable, it's lethal. And yet every year we see animals left outside without adequate shelter, without shade, without cooling, during the most extreme months of the year. This ordinance provides clear and enforceable standards, not to punish people, but to protect lives. It outlines what constitutes humane shelter. It defines what's required when temperatures exceed 105. And it gives your enforcement officers the tools they need to intervene before suffering and death occur. Clark County has already taken bold action with sweeping and progressive changes to their animal welfare code. They've raised the bar. I truly urged Henderson to do the same and follow their lead, backing up the reputation as an animal-loving city with policies of compassion, science, and common sense. Animals deserve better, our community deserves better, and we cannot claim to be humane if we look away while they die under the silence of our son. Let this be a moment that Henderson stood up and said, not here, not anymore. Thank you. Next person is Colleen Lefkoe, followed by Bryce Henderson. Good afternoon. I am extremely opposed to 10 animals per parcel. Sorry, I'm nervous. I'm against the proposed limitations, number of animals allowed to to be determined by the size of the lot. That's hearsay on that. It's just the size of the lot matters. If it's a two-person horse corral, then it doesn't require 10 horses. Understandable. Our heat is the same as Jerusalem. Been there, done that. And let me tell you what. They have animals, camels, livestock there too. It all depends on the person caring for the animal. And if they're caring for the animal, they should be well fed, well bred, and well taken care of. As Nancy's farm is an exceptional farm. You can step on it any day of the week and see that those animals, every single one of them, is a God-given gift to this city of Henderson because I'm born and raised here. My family moved here in 1952. I've been here 60 years, and I own my land and I own my house, and I've worked really hard to do it. And because of Nancy, she's kept me afloat. And I am very grateful to the Roaz family for doing that for me and my children, for the educational system, which she does all the time on her own dime. And as of late, she has allowed me to be graced into, I just lost my mom in December. I know where she moved, but she's no longer with me. And by the grace of God, she got to see those animals and it perked her sunshine was in her eyes. Every time she got to see a new baby goat, a new baby lamb, a llama, anything that came to my house was, it was a daily gift. Also recently I've, You know, I take baby bunnies to the rest homes, and these peoples, they light up. They come around. They talk. They hold. And it gives them something to just so exciting. It's so exciting. I've been a caregiver for 32 years. I am a physiotechnologist by trade. So in that being said, I know the difference between hospice, dementia, Alzheimer's. I know it. And when I see those people come right on back, The minute they see those animals, it's home, and they feel home, and they can give love to something that isn't there anymore, their children or otherwise. If they're not there, those animals give love, and if anybody gives love, that's the Roast Farm. So thank you. Last person in the queue is Bryce Henderson. Bryce Henderson. Okay, no one else in the queue, Mayor? Okay. I think we'll close the... Oh wait, is somebody coming? Hold on. Apparently we do. Hello. Sorry about that. I did not know I was supposed to write a card. So my name is Amina Belknap, 89015. So I am Nancy and Muhammad's daughter. I was... able to grow up on the ranch my whole life. My brother and I got to learn about and care for the animals that we've been talking about today. And that has seriously shaped who I am as a person. I can't even really quantify how much it's taught me. And I've been fortunate enough to make it a career for myself. And now I work at a couple of barns in town riding and training horses, as well as teaching people about their horses. We've talked a lot about the impact of animals on kids, but from my experience of getting to teach both kids and adults about their animals, I can tell you that absolutely adults need this just as much. Especially people that come from all different backgrounds, either they grew up with animals and they don't have them anymore and they want to find that connection again or they never had animals but they've always had this kind of drive towards them. It's really a very significant piece of a person's life, you know, and the learning and the journey that can put you through is incredible. On that, if we're going to look at the Title 19 changes where it talks about allowing 10 domesticated animals per parcel of land. I want to bring up that most of these livestock animals are herd animals in some way. That also is true for chickens. Chickens come in flocks. Pigeons come in flocks. Goats, sheep, cattle, horses all are meant to live in herds. You know, having one or two horses isn't very close to what they're... what their natural state would be, especially the same with goats and sheep and all of that. So I feel like 10 domesticated animals is a bit of an oversight. It's hardly a petting zoo and definitely not enough to fill meat in a freezer and sustain your own family and community, not to mention the effect it has on the animals themselves, which want to be in groups. Let's see. The new verbiage in this code that you'll be voting on today, I believe, has some over-regulation in it and was potentially written by people that didn't have a practical view of what it's like caring for these animals. So I really do believe that you guys have the best interests of the community at heart, as well as for the animals. And I'll finish with that. Thank you for your time. Good afternoon. For the record, Gina Grison, President Nevada Voters for Animals. I'm here today in support of many of the changes that we've needed for a long time. Some of them especially include Lily's Law, which has been passed in North Las Vegas, City of Las Vegas. The county just adopted it, and I'm so happy to see that this is a proposal. Last year, over 500 people died from the heat in Las Vegas, the record heat that we had. And even the National Weather Service person that I spoke to, it's like too late when you only provide additional cooling when the National Weather Service is issued. So drawing the line at 105, we appreciate. It's named after a dog that was tied out and baked to death in her backyard in North Las Vegas. There's a lot of changes. I hear a lot of opposition. I understand that, you know, the farm animals is an issue. I know that a lot of work, time, effort has gone into protecting animals, and this is what this is about. I don't know if there's a possibility of maybe grandfathering some of these owners in or something and, you know, creating new requirements or something, but I would hate to not pass a lot of the really positive changes that are in here. and this is a long time coming. And I would certainly ask the council based on that report that was written by, I forgot the consultant, that the city really takes a look at that. I keep seeing all these new big, huge subdivisions growing. It's nice because we need housing and all that, but we need the infrastructure to support it. You have the same shelter you've had for what, like 50 years. We need more space. We're in a crisis. We need to make sure that we're putting money behind the enforcement. Because you can write, well, these are just words on paper until they're enforced. So I urge you to support it, but I also urge you to enforce it. Thank you. Anybody else? No one else, Mayor. All right. We'll close the public comment portion. Ms. Garcia-Vaas, are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, Mayor Romero, there is one change. Items eight and nine will be opened together but voted on separately. Thank you, may I have a motion to accept the agenda as amended. Hold on, I'm having. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson and it carries. Mayor and Council, item number one is bill number ZCA-2018-00276-A19, a Zone Change Amendment for Inspirata Town Center on 2.6 acres. Recommendation is to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. Thank you. Any, oh, anything? Mayor and members of council, this item is the ordinance for the Zone Change to remove 2.6 acres from Inspirata Town Center for the project you approved at your last meeting. Thank you, and I believe we have an abstention. Okay, on items one, two, and three, bills for zone changes related to community ambulance. Items one, two, and three are bills that codify map and zone changes for property near Via Nobilia and Via Centro. That property will serve as a new headquarters for community ambulance. I need to disclose that my son-in-law and daughter work for community ambulance. Their employment with community ambulance is a conflict of interest. that could be perceived by a reasonable person to affect the independence of my judgment on these matters. Therefore, I will abstain from deliberation and voting on these items one, two, and three. Thank you. Now, may I have a motion? Please vote. I thought it was already clicked. With the exception of Councilwoman Cox, we abstain. All members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilman Stewart, and it carries. Item number two is bill number 3828, ZCA-2009-660018-A13, a zone change amendment. West Henderson Global Business District, 2.93 acres removed, and the recommendation is to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, And as a reminder, Councilwoman is abstaining on this, may have a motion. Please vote. They're stuck. May have a voice vote. All in favor, please say aye. Abstaining. Abstaining. Did we get unstuck? that with the exception of Councilwoman Cox who abstained. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson and it carries. Item number three is bill number 3829 ZCA-2024-015155 for community ambulance. The recommendation is to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. Okay as a reminder we still have an abstention on this one. All in favor please vote. the exception of Councilwoman Cox, who abstained. All members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilman Stewart, and it carries. Item number four is bill number 3830, ZCA-2024-016-067, Larson in Bermuda. The recommendation is to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. May I have a motion? So moved. Please vote. Council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Cox, and it carries. Item number five is bill number 3831, ZCA-2023, 012-292-A1, Mosaic West Henderson, and the recommendation is to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. May I have a motion? Please vote. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson, and it carries. Item number six is bill number 3832, DEV-2024015949, Mosaic Development Agreement. The recommendation is to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. Please vote. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilman Stewart, and it carries. Item number seven is bill number 3833, amend Henderson Municipal Code, Chapter 4.32, Gambling, Regulations and Licenses. And the recommendation is to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. And we have a brief presentation. Good afternoon, Madam Mayor, members of council. For the record, I'm Paul Beaton, representing the Department of Finance. Item number seven that you have before you today is a proposed update to Henderson Municipal Code. 4.32 gaming regulations and licenses. The changes in the proposed draft to HMC affect sections 4.32.020 and 4.32.040 to allow for consistency with regulations of the Nevada Gaming Commission, neighboring jurisdictions, and state laws set forth in Nevada by statute chapter 463. The proposed updates will reduce potential confusion when it comes to changes of ownership or in the case of a restricted gaming licensee, a change between a space lease to a participation agreement with the slot route operator. Currently, the aforementioned sections of HMC 432 require that anyone who participates or has the right to any portion of gaming revenue obtain a license for the city. In the example of a participation agreement with a slot route operator, this could potentially require two entities to receive a gaming license for the same location. This scenario is not allowed under NRS Chapter 463. If these proposed revisions are enacted, the city gaming license will only change if and when there is a change to the state gaming licensee. The entity licensed by the city will remain consistent with the entity licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission. As I stated previously, this will allow for consistency with gaming regulations and requirements and also other local Nevada jurisdictions. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Any questions or comments? We have a motion. All council members voted in favor of the motion made by Councilwoman Larson and it carries. As a reminder, I'm going to open items 8 and 9 to be heard together but voted on separately. Item 8 is Bill No. 3834, Title VII Amendment, to amend Chapter 7.01, 7.02, 7.06, 7.08, 7.30, and 7.60, and add 7.65 to Title VII Animals to the City of Henderson Municipal Code. And there's a recommendation to refer that to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. And item number nine, which is Bill number 3835, ZOA-2025-016214, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Development Code Update, Animal Related Uses and Standards, and that recommendation is also to refer to the regular meeting of April 15th, 2025. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Thank you, Ms. Garcia-Vos. I know that was a lot. And it is a lot. She is correct. Our city continues to grow and animals have become part of our family. This afternoon, I, your Animal Control Administrator, come before you to ask for approval to elevate the Animal Welfare Municipal Codes, approve the refinements we have made during our collaboration and teamwork with co-enforcement to better care for and regulate the animals in our city. Many of the definitions in Title VII have been redefined and updated, bringing clarity to our chapter. We have increased the number of sterilized dogs, cats, ferrets, and rabbits that a person can own with a fancier permit. since we still allow unsterilized dog, cats, rabbits in our city with a breeder permit. I have reviewed our requirements and along with our city veterinarian and with the information provided in the city assessment done on the animal shelter, I made updates to better regulate and ensure that breeders are being responsible and not breeding or selling unhealthy animals and if they are, they can be held more accountable. I have updated our sections on on shading, tethering, and shelter so that we can not only catch up to the changes that City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and North Las Vegas have made, but have enhanced some sections setting new welfare standards for animals left outside. By educating the public and having these changes take effect, we are confident that less animals will suffer in the elements of our summers and the coldness of our winters. I have added this section to our Title VII for the release of pets that are seized due to cruelty, neglect, illegal breeding, and or excessive animals on property. This will ensure that the owner of the animals have a timely manner to contact the courts and ask for release of the animals back into their care without having to wait through the entire court case, which can be months or even years in some cases, with the animals being held at the animal shelter. This section mimics the Nevada Revised Sec Nevada revised statute section for animal sees for felony cases under the same situations. Finally, there is a new section for mobile animal businesses. These include mobile groomers, transportation, mobile exercise services, and other animal related businesses that would cause the animals to be in a motor vehicle. This includes sections of the code requiring adequate heating, cooling, proper use of wastewater and sanitation procedures within these mobile units. I ask that these new and refined sections of Title VII be approved for the betterment of the animals in our community and to help ensure the safety and improve the living conditions and well-being of animals residing within our city. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Rochelle Liston. I'm with Community Development, 240 South Water Street. I'm here today to provide a brief overview of the high-level changes being proposed to the animal-related use sections in our development code. As Danielle had mentioned, this is a comprehensive update to the various animal-related sections within Title 19 and Title 7. These changes are aimed to ensure consistency and alignment between animal control and planning. The proposed updates reflect a thorough internal review and cross-departmental coordination to streamline the code, improve clarity, and provide consistency between the two departments. Our goal is to make these regulations easier to understand and navigate for both applicants and Henderson residents while continuing to uphold health, safety, and welfare standards throughout the city. Some of the proposed changes to Title 19 include removing various section standards from the development code and relocating them in Title 7 for animal control to regulate. adding standards for household birds, ducks, pigeons, and quail, updating the term from non-domesticated animals to livestock, separating animal grooming and animal sales into two separate categories, combining animal training and boarding into a singular category, and removing all language regarding animal breeding from Title 19 and relocating it to Title 7 for animal patrol to be able to regulate. In conclusion, these proposed changes are a result of a strong and collaborative effort between the two departments. Through open communication and shared goals, both departments have worked diligently to help assist with streamlining processes and providing clarity and consistency. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, and I'm here to address any of your questions. Thank you. Prepare yourself. I have a lot of questions and a lot of notes. I might kind of be all over the place for a second. So you clearly heard all the comments that were made, and they seem to, this code applies to far more than most of the things that were brought up. And I don't think there's a lot of issue with the vast majority of the proposed changes as they relate to mobile units and dogs and that kind of thing. somebody raise a hand if I'm not saying something correctly. It appears that most of the concerns from the people here today focus on the sections related to livestock, horses, and fowl. Captured pretty good? Okay. So my question is, I have several. The first one is, do we define what a parcel is? Is there a definition of parcel, and is it Is it by area? Is it by what's the definition? I'm sorry, Mayor, one moment. I'll pull it up if we have one. While she is looking, do you have a question for me? Yes, maybe. Is there, again, it seems like one property It has most of these animals. I'm sure others have fowl and things like that, but one property is more of a petting zoo, for lack of a better word, a petting zoo or a farm for one parcel. And that's not, everybody else has maybe some hens or things like that, but the one parcel, or even horses maybe, but the one parcel is the one that has So the property you're referring to does have an animal establishment permit, which is different than a regular residential other property within that. By having an animal establishment permit, it actually does allow her to have more animals than a standard property because it actually is considered a business. In Title VII, it actually specifically states a lot of the regulations that people were reading to you were people that had no other additional permits. These are just people who live in that area without any kind of business license or any additional permits submitted to the city. So that particular property, because they are an animal establishment and she has a business at her residence, is allowed to have more than what a normal person would have because of her permit. That is regulated more by the animal control officers to make sure that the number of animals that Not all animals, some are still restricted by the code regulations, but some of the other animals such as the birds, the doves in particular, are regulated more by animal control than specific in code. So the 20 birds that we are specific of and especially the hens that were brought up to you, those seven were already in code. what we did was just move that number over to animal control because when code would go out for more than seven birds they would wind up calling animal control because we're the ones that house the birds and make sure those animals are being cared for so that number never changed moving from code enforcement to animal control that may address one of your questions regarding that did you find the parcel? Mayor are you asking for the exact definition for a parcel or are you looking for It was brought up several times from members of the public that there is not, that the ordinance as proposed limits to 10 the number of animals that can be on a parcel. I want to know, is there a size associated with that parcel or is it? No, there's no minimum size requirement. So right, as of current code, there is a minimum lot size requirement for animals. horses, cows, and other animals. We've removed that requirement, and we're just allowing it in RS1 and RS2. And then they have to, if they want, there's a ratio, so they can have one horse per 10,000 square feet, one cow per per 40,000 square feet or one go to sheep per 10,000 square feet. Now we did allow more flexibility in the proposed code for smaller lots that if they want to increase the number up to 10, they can apply for a conditional use permit. As of today, we don't allow that flexibility. So there's actually more flexibility written into the proposed code. But it limits it to 10, no matter the size of the parcel. It limits it to 10 for a smaller lot. So if you have an 80,000 square foot lot, you can have up to eight horses, eight sheeps and goats, and then two cows. And with the one that has the special permit, currently they are allowed how many animals, and under the new code, how many animals? Would it affect them up or down? Well, regarding the larger animals, meaning the horses, the cows, the goats, and the sheep, those aren't regulated. So she has an approval for a conditional use permit for a stable at her location. So she's allowed up to the 12 horses, and then she can also have in previous code, the six non-domesticated animals. So in today's, if we exist in code, she can have the six goats. Proposed code, she would allow to have up to the six goats. Now, if there's any changes to the code, she may be able to a lot more, but right now it would be the exact same number from proposed code and current code. Mayor, if I can just add in there something that Rochelle mentioned was a stable riding academy. So I just want to kind of clarify for the record, our one horse per 10,000 square feet is just kind of a regular person having a property that wants to maintain some horses for themselves. Once they go in and want to do a commercial business, a stable or riding academy to provide riding lessons or housing horses, that goes to a different category and that ratio is actually one horse per 4,000 square feet. So they can actually get more and that's what this person did do. They came through for that use permit and increased the number of horses up to 15 versus the one to 10. So I wanted to just clarify that for the record. There is another avenue for somebody that's running a business to ask for more horses than the one to 10, 10,000. Okay. So I'm a little bit confused between, ma'am can you come up please? So under the current code, if I'm understanding this correctly, you can have 12 horses, six goats, and the birds, the fowl. I was granted a conditional use permit back in February by the Planning Commission. There is no allowance in Henderson for a petting zoo. The only thing that they told me that I could apply for is a stable. I don't want a stable. I don't want to board other people's horses. I don't want other people coming onto my property for their horses. I want to have my petting zoo, which is goats and sheep. Now, here's the thing. How can one 50-pound goat equal one 1,000-pound horse? They're not the same. They don't take up the same space. They don't poop the same amount. They don't kick up the same amount of dust. It's got to be somewhere where, because I don't want 15 horses. I want more than six goats. I only need like a dozen goats to run the business properly. I send petting zoos to different locations. I do some very large events. I can't do a big petting zoo with six goats. What size is your property? It's almost two acres. And do you have horses? I do have some horses. I ride pony rides and things like that and some personal horses too. But they allowed me to have more horses, which I don't want. I want cows, camels, goats, and sheep. So I don't know how we can maybe figure out what's the equivalent. Five goats equals one horse? One camel equals one horse? I'm not sure. But I don't want to have... I never thought I'd be discussing it my whole life. Right. And I do want to be able to keep my camels. And currently they're telling me I cannot. Your cow. Oh, your camels, not cows. Well, and they said I could have one cow. And unfortunately, one cow is an unhappy animal. I have my cows for milk, and I can't get milk unless that mama cow has a baby. And I can't have a baby cow unless I have a bull. That means three. I've got a bull and a cow and a baby every year. So one cow is going to be a miserable animal. One cow per 40,000 square feet doesn't make any sense. Dalene was saying, hey, one horse per 10,000 square feet, that makes sense. One cow per 10,000 square feet, that makes sense. I don't have a pastor. We don't have pastors here for one cow to be on 40,000 square feet. So I'm not sure how we can maybe change it, but that was my concern. I want more goats and sheep. I don't want my horses. And more horses kick up dirt and have lots of poop and lots of flies. Goats don't. Okay, so I have a question for you, Nick. Do we have the ability... May I sit or do you want me here? No, go ahead and sit down. Thank you. Do we have the ability, given the fact that I believe, and I'll allow the rest of the council to chime in, most of this is not being discussed right now. Do we have the ability to just, and you'll have to tell me what sections it is, to pull out these sections, hold them together, for further discussion and move the rest of the ordinance forward so that we don't hold up all the rest of the things that are needed to protect dogs and cats and things like that and then hold the sections for further discussion. Yes, Mayor, you certainly have the ability to do that. The question is whether staff can clearly articulate which sections of these proposed ordinances are okay to move forward and which still need further discussion based on the issues that have been brought forward. I would have to defer to staff on that because I don't have a lot of familiarity about these two ordinances. Mayor, if I can chime in a little bit and stop me if I'm going off a little bit, but I do want to share a couple things about the code update that we have heard from the neighbors, we have heard from the citizens that they do want a little more flexibility. So I just want to kind of point out a couple things. I understand the cow, it's 1 to 40,000 currently. It's a max of 2. So if you had 80,000, you can have a max of 2. We removed that max. So if you end up having 5 acres, you can actually have more cows now. So we removed the limitation on cows. We still kept it 1 per 40 I THINK WE'VE GOT TWO maybe three cows in Henderson in the past 20 years. So we did not change that ratio. So I just want to let you know about that. It was mentioned about the hens. The number today is seven, and it stayed seven. But what we did on that was we also added that they can now keep ducks and quail. So we did change the code because we heard quail eggs are very good and people wanted them, but current code did not allow it. So we did change the code to allow some flexibility on that part. The number of horses remained the same. We did clarify the goats and the sheep. And again, we already clarified that you could have more if you've got 80,000 square feet, like Rochelle said, you could have more. So we kind of made it a little bit more flexible. And we also made it flexible if you had a smaller lot to allow somebody to have a couple more horses or a couple more goats through a conditional use permit. We also add, you heard from Danielle on the On the Title VII side, we added wording in there about birds and pigeons. I mean, I can't tell you how many complaints we've had over the years about birds and pigeons. Parakeets, somebody had almost 50 or 60 parakeets in their backyard in a RS6, and it's two feet from the back wall. And the nuisance and the complaints that we received, it made it very difficult for staff to enforce because we did not have standards. So we're trying to add things into the code to, one, protect neighbors, but two, also allow something by code certain criteria and standards so we didn't do that as far as the goats i hear them loud and clearly about the ratio of one to ten thousand they are much smaller if you are interested and you want to direct staff to consider something smaller i can share a number with you that could allow a few more. It's not going to allow the number that is one person. But again, the development of this code is really to protect everybody in Henderson. I understand this is a unique property. And if that's something that council would like to direct staff to look into further, if it's another use category or something different, because if we open up the code too much just to address this one unique situation, I think it's going to cause a problem for other people in Henderson. They don't have a 20,000 square foot lot and now you've got 12 goats next door and you've got this and that. So I think it's almost another use category. I think it'd be very difficult for me to sit here right now and try to pick out what sections of code to not approve tonight because it's spread out throughout the two codes. So it's either, I would, and again, I'm happy, the team's happy to look into a different use and bring it back, and that could be something as quick as continuing part of this ordinance to bring it back. But I think what is in front of you is really something that's good and numbers work for the overall residents in Henderson, and it gives them more flexibility and more animals than they could do yesterday. Okay. That helps. I have two more questions, and then I'll let everybody else speak. Do we call out in this new proposal any... different criteria for rural preservation areas than the rest of the city? No, we didn't change any of the language for the rural preservation areas. Okay. I'm not making a motion, but my recommendation would be for us to look at because it's very different. The rural preservation area is very different from the vast majority of the rest of the city. It has different character. It has different quality standards for the residents living there want a different type of lifestyle than the rest of the residents. But also, I do think it might be a good idea to create a new use category if we could do it in a timely manner and just kind of allow it something to allow her to continue operating until we get that language in place that creates what we need for that situation for a petting zoo for I'm going to call it a petting zoo whatever we end up calling it so that that we can have that option maybe it's still a condition to use permit but we have specific categories for that specific purpose so that we don't mess this up for the whole rest of the ordinance going forward and then maybe Maybe both. Maybe look at rural preservation areas have a little bit different because they're typically much larger lots. They're typically just different character in general. And then having the different ordinance specifically for exactly what it is that we're trying to address here. And then with that, I'll open it up. Okay. I have a quick question for you, Danielle. Are you able to pull out ordinances that are affecting the rural preservation area with the with the comments that have been made tonight so that the rest of the ordinance can go for both of them can go forward so on the animal related side some of the only things that numerically we moved over were the number of hens and and again we added the quail and ducks to that as well. That was something that we pulled over because again, like I stated earlier, animal control does those regulations. regarding the number of goats and sheep and horses. Those are all already regulated by the code enforcement animal control. We made no changes regarding the way those animals have to be kept on property. Those have all basically remained the same. So really the only section for us specifically would be that one bird section regarding the number of birds and then welfare part for those animals was already in place regarding the conditions of the sanitary conditions of the coops and the housing and those kind of things okay so i know the mayor asked that and i know eddie said it would be really cumbersome i was just wondering because You've been all involved, but I wondered if you were able to. It sounds like no, that's not going to work. And I know the mayor asked that, but I wanted to know if there was somebody that could do that in the room. Councilman, if I can add to that, just for clarity on the livestock. I mean, it is... the code, it's RS1 and RS2, which is the majority of our rural neighborhood. So we've already kind of taken in consideration our larger parcels for the number of livestock. But it doesn't specifically say RN, because we do have a lot of RS1 and 2 that are not in the rural neighborhood, but that is kind of already addressed. And then if you're talking about backyard chickens, they're allowed in RS1 through RS6. So we've increased, so it's our larger lots, and we're also hearing clearly that we want them in our RS6 Because there's still about 6,000 square foot lots, so we did open that up also. Okay, thank you. So where I'm at on this is I heard a lot of different things. I heard about food security, which I frankly support. And I heard about homing pigeon releases that are done for the community. I heard about a, for lack, as the mayor said, for lack of a better word, a petting zoo, and I'm very familiar with the Rojas's and what they do. I think there is so many questions I have now based on the things that have been said, and so many I'm hearing are already doing this and have been doing it in the rurals where they've been depending on meat and eggs and milk, and it's supporting and helping their families. I heard what is really important that we do something about the animal welfare, and you have spent hours and months and your team, you know, you all have spent so much time on this. It's long time coming with what Gina said. What concerns me is I'm not comfortable on voting yes tonight because of it impacting a group of people that have come forward and asked us to really look at this differently. So I don't know if... you know, continuing this by two weeks gives enough time to be able to address the concerns of the residents while still in preserving our ability to get really important ordinances in place for the protection of animals. So it puts me in a really bad and possibly the rest of the Council in a really bad position to say okay, I need to vote on this tonight because you know I want protection for animals. I mean, you know I am all about it. We all want that. Yes, thank you. We all want that. None of us are saying we don't want that. Okay, and thank you. But I would like to look at camels being the same as horses. So I would like to look at camels are mothering in. I mean, I would like to look at the different options that have been mentioned tonight and to have time to do that. That's all I'm asking for. I don't mind revisiting this by any means. I will state we're not animal control officers and code enforcement officers are not running around to these properties impounding chickens and goats and sheep from people. That is not the case. We're not seizing animals because all of a sudden if this passes tonight in 30 days, we're going to be going out and doing all of that. There's plenty of time I feel that we can go back and reevaluate this one situation and see again, like you stated, if there's anything we can do to add or change or have a special use type permit to allow for those. Again, like I already stated, this one particular property already has a business license. So they already get more privileges on a residentially owned property than their neighbors who don't have any other kind of animal related business permits. With that being said, the number of hens and chickens, again, those can be changed. We just have to be able to work with that property owner. It's up to the animal control officer. If you only have a coop that's a small coop and you're trying to fit 30 chickens in there, we're gonna say no. If you, want to be breeding animals to resell them, that's a whole other situation that we have to get into. So I think the more you can dig into this hole in this particular property, the deeper you can go depending on what this particular person is asking for and what they want. What we're asking tonight is that these regulations be passed to protect Henderson and the city and the animals as a whole. We can always revisit it for this one particular property and see if there's other changes that we can do to address that. But this person has their business license. They're still operating. We haven't prevented them from making a living. I hear you, but it's not about one business and one person. Several people came forward and said, we depend on meat, we depend on eggs, we depend on milk for food security. This isn't about a business. And you know how much I support this. What I don't want to be is the position to vote against this because I want it right. It's easy to say we can pass it tonight and go back and do it, but once it's in code, it's in code. It's in ordinance. It is required for us to enforce, and we're asking people that have come and said, look, we're trying to follow the rules, we're worried about the rules because we're law-abiding citizens and we're telling them, oh, by the way, we're not gonna come count that, so it's okay. No, whatever's in that code, whatever's in that ordinance is what they're going to follow. I believe that. So I don't want it in code or ordinance yet. But the numbers of animals Mayor and Council, if we could stop, I think it sounds like this might be a good opportunity for us to continue this item and to really come back and clarify because there's a couple things at play. There's the ordinances, but then it sounds like there are some categories you want us to take a look at specifically that may be outside of this. So I think it behooves us to come back and share that with you. Sure. Councilman Larson has one question, but I'm or some comments, but I want to have one more question too. And I don't know if this is legal. Could we approve the ordinance but exempt rural preservation neighborhoods with the caveat that, I don't know if this is legal, with the caveat that we have to come back with an ordinance addressing petting zoos and larger lot rural parcels? I'm hesitant to say yes to that. I know that's setting a... Because, and I'm not super familiar with this, but I do just sort of looking through it and then hearing the concerns, agree with Mr. Dichter that it would be very difficult to separate out the sections that we think are acceptable right now, many of which are in here and probably make the majority of these two bills and two ordinances. But they are sort of an integrated package at this point, including sort of definitions that run throughout. So from my perspective, it's very difficult to sort of piecemeal this at this point. I do think that the better course here, given some of the concerns, is to take some time to work through these issues. I think there's some confusion about the general regulations and then particular concerns. use cases that are getting confused that staff probably needs to go back and provide you all some clarity so that you can all be comfortable voting on these items as a whole. That's my impression, but I don't want to speak for management either. Mayor and Council, I would concur, and I would also ask, I don't know the two weeks because it sounds like a new category, so I'd ask the Community Development Director, Eddie Dichter, to I want to say a number and I'm going to see what my staff says, but I'm going to recommend three months. Two months to three months. If you're asking for a new category, we're going to need to spend time researching, developing, doing a full analysis to see what the potential impact will be, and then draft the wording. But to do an agenda item is almost six weeks to get on to the next agenda, so minimum of two months. MS. Yeah, three months. MR. Three? MS. Yeah. MR. Okay, I'm seeing three months. May I ask what the time limit is or what's the minimum amount of time that I could reapply a lot of the other factors in Title VII that would be excluded that I think the mayor and the council people wanted to move forward with, that I could resubmit those? I don't know that I can help answer that question, to be honest with you, but I think what I'm hearing is that there Going more than 30 days is going to cause some notice issues in terms of the ordinances that would have to be renoticed, I believe. And I'm hearing from Mr. Dichter that it takes some time to address some of these issues. So the better course might be to withdraw these two items and then bring them back whenever we're ready, whether that's six weeks or whether that's three months, whenever staff feels like they've come to a better place in terms of resolving the issues. That's a good idea because then what we could do is we can look at the parts that doesn't sound like there are any issues and then we can try to bring those back and then do the integrate but we can figure out a better game plan. That's what I was just going to say if there are portions of the ordinance that don't pertain to anything we've been talking about tonight but are needed you can bring those back as as soon as you as you want to and then it'll allow time but they we still have to withdraw the whole thing but you can then immediately if you can figure out those those parcels that don't have any pertinence to what we've talked about tonight, bring those back, and then they'll still work on the other parts that were the concern. And then with that, I'm sorry. I know you've wanted to speak for a minute. Now I can talk. Actually, I just want to say I would feel comfortable also revisiting this because of the concerns. I think I would like to explore getting that new use category that the mayor brought up as well because I know this particular property is unique and so that would be important. I know she has a business license already but may be exploring a new category. I understand the need for the standards and the protection of animals. I am a staunch, avid animal lover so I get it. but we need a little bit more flexibility. As they stated, it provides their livelihoods, some livelihoods, as well as therapeutic benefit. Animals are extremely therapeutic, I know. I've worked with that, with equestrian therapy. But I think we do need to revisit it because of the impact and whatever length of time it takes for staff to be able to work, you all to work through it. I would be happy to support if we could just come to a compromise. Councilman, anything? Okay, with that, I don't think it's a recommendation we make. I think it's staff would need to withdraw, and then whatever portion you're ready to bring forward immediately, you can do so at the soonest possible council meeting that you feel prepared to do that. And then Title VII, was it Title VII? Those issues we can bring forward immediately. when they're ready and when we have had time. And I would also direct staff to please, as you are developing these standards for under-use category, to work with the neighbors who work with these animals on a daily basis to kind of get a better understanding of livestock and things that we don't normally deal with on a regular basis. So if that's the case, then the motion from staff will be to withdraw items 8 and 9 on the committee meeting. and at the same time withdraw items 34 and 35 from the regular meeting. Okay, thank you. Can I say one quick other thing? The one woman, she had those recommendations. Did you receive those? Okay. We've got them. Okay. And one final thing, I don't want you to feel discouraged. I know you have put hours and hours and hours and hours into this and We will get there. We will get the things that you need to protect the animals because I know we need them. But also I think we'll be able to address all the other concerns as well. So I appreciate the work that you've done. I don't want you to feel discouraged. I know you probably. We'll be back in front of you. Okay. We want the best for the city as well and the residents and of course the animals. Thank you. And thank you to everybody who felt so passionately about this and still kept it nice and positive. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Mayor, just for the record, we don't need a vote. Just not taking any action is enough and you've given us direction, so I think we're clear going forward. Okay. Sorry, now I gotta find where I was. Yeah. Okay. The next item is public comment, the second public comment. Now, if you wish to make a public comment, please come to the podium, speak directly into the mic, and this is still for the committee meeting, believe it or not. And state your name and zip code, and you will have three minutes to speak. Mayor, there is no one in the second public comment queue for the committee meeting. Okay. Then we will adjourn this committee meeting, and as soon as we can switch the meetings over, we'll start the regular council meeting.