All right. I am calling the Wednesday, March 29th, 2023 code review task force meeting ordered at 5:30 p.m. The clerk will note that all members are present. Uh it's also worth noting that member Tim Holt recently resigned on the task force. Thank you, Tim, for your service. Members of the public may attend in person or participate online at zoom. us/join. Meeting ID 87582804586. Once you log into the meeting, please use the chat feature to tell the moderator if you wish to speak to an item. More information is available in the agenda packet and on the city's website. Now, on to the agenda. Uh the first item is the adoption of the agenda. City clerk to staff have any changes to the agenda? Do any task force members have changes? May I have a motion to adopt? All right. And a second. I didn't hear anything. Moved by Don and seconded by Shelley to adopt the agenda. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. All right. Motion carries. Item two is approval of the minutes of the January 25th and March 1st meetings. Do staff have any changes to the minutes? Nothing from staff. Do any task force members have changes? May I have a motion to approve the minutes? I move. Moved by Gooden, a second by Donna. All those in favor say I. I. Motion carries. Item three is the final review and approval of Title 3, Chapter 28, rental licensing. Uh, do city attorneys or staff have any comments? Okay. Do any task force members have further comments, Nancy? Uh, unfortunately I do. I am looking at page 31 and 32 of 132 and I believe um the highlight the yellow highlights mean it's been tweaked or adjusted. Um, I'm still a little unclear about exactly how this list relates to conduct constituting disorderly use. If I understand disorderly, you you know, you do these things on site and it's a disorderly use. But then this list contains things that would be occurring elsewhere. such as driving under the influence. So, I'm uh not exactly sure what what the connection is. Does that mean you can be kicked out of your apartment because you have DWIS? Um I don't believe so because of And I asked Joel to comment on that. Yeah. Because I think I think it clarifies that it has to happen on the properties. So if you get pulled over for drunk driving on your rental in your parking lot. All right. So that is clear to everybody else that that is only if you do these I mean is the arson or the forgery also just on site? Everything is on site. All right. Um then item X contributing to the need for a chips. Uh does that mean you are the uh parent or guardian of the child protection or services? Item X 32 when I see protect I see chips uh child in need of protection or services because that child needed contributing to the need for protection. I mean, I am certainly not pro abuse of neglect of children. I'm just not sure if that means you automatically lose or could lose your apartment because you've neglected your child. Is that what is that harboring? Is that what that's referring to more so? I don't know. Joel, if you want to comment. If the parent is if the custodial parent or whoever's in charge of the unit is caring for a child and is abusing the child in those premises, that would be a crime on those premises. That would be a strike. One of the three I was going to say it's also would be one of the three strikes. It wouldn't just be because this would be determined by police court. Yes. Yes. Well, I mean I mean we would strike, but if if for whatever reason the person was exonerated, we would eliminate that strike. Generally could but wouldn't have to. Right. Okay. Is section one here new or this is just a edit of prior policy? This is a replacement of all the things that were crossed out because they were kind of the list was repeated multiple times and exhausted. Yeah. All right. I I would not construct the list this way, but that is not the point. So, I've had my questions answered. Okay. Can I ask one other question? 3281 C3 penalties. What page are you on? Oh boy. 328 [Applause] C. It's that table of penalties for like violation of it's like page 30 and 132. Yeah. you know, after the third time we go from 300 to 600 to 800. My only comment is maybe on the third violation within a 12-month period, I would suggest we raise that to 2,000 because, you know, even if you have a plumber come to your house, you know, and fix the drain or do this or do that, it's a few hundred. I don't want the penalty so low that they it's cheaper to leave it alone than it is to fix it. This is the third time I'm talking about, not the first. But I understand the suspension of the license when you got it means they can't collect rent on those vacant units or any that come vacant issues. This is the final. I understand. Yeah. So you have it on top of it. One comment on that too is this is per unit. It says or common building or common building. So, if you have, you know, four buildings, a 100 unitit building, and you had 20 of them that are non-compliant, which can happen. 800 times 20. Yeah, do the math. And we got we're in the $12,000 figure, which if they have a unit that big does not seem an unreasonable fine for the egregiousness of the non-compliance. Yeah. I I personally want these buildings get fixed. Mhm. Do you do you want to go to the next fire? Do you want to go to the next call? Fine isn't going to Well, these are these are people that own properties from probably outside of the state, right? Not all of them, huh? Not all of them. Not all of them, but the ones that we have problems with. So, anyways, my input is after the third time it's not high enough. are fines. It's not super common that we see fines in the code. It says refer to policy. So, is this just one of our exceptions or is this an oversight and should this be here? Generally, it's I consider this an exception. Okay. We got other remedies that are there in place too. Okay. Historically, that hasn't been the the amount of the penalty hasn't been the issue we've had. Um, we've had a problem with getting courts to impose penalties or sustain penalties. We've had difficulties with legislators authorizing higher penalties for locates the government but it hasn't been an issue where um the current penalty I mean we have alter as as indicated we do have alternatives to some of those issues. Does uh does anyone think that raising the fine for a third strike would be more beneficial for the value of the of the city? No, I don't disagree with it. I don't think it's a bad idea. Donna, you said no. Would you clear would you mind sharing your opinion? If you're getting into that kind of violation and you're already talking in addition to with the suspensions, you take 1,400 times you have 10 vacants. Take that times how many? 90-day suspension. 1,400 times 10 times 90, you know, three. You're already talking a huge amount of money. And yes, I understand they need to fix it. I understand they need to do that. But I think at this point I haven't seen where that's going to be the incentive for getting it. I think it's before that. The teeth need to be before that. But this also does a lot of teeth. Plus, if you're renting without the license, it's $1,000 per unit. So if they're still continuing to get go, there is more to it. So is it after the third strike, the third violation, then you lose your license? Is that is that how that works? Potentially. Yes. Not automatically, but potentially. Okay. We'd have to go through a revocation proceeding. Yeah. And is that uh just an administrative hearing or potentially? Yes. Okay. At the very minimum would be administrative hearing of some sort. Either an ALJ, administrative law judge, or if they waved that and had a different hearing officer by consent, we could do it that way. Um or we bring a legal action revoking. Does anyone I don't think we've done any, Mr. I don't think we've done any research on what other cities have adopted for their streets three strikes recently and if the task force is interested in doing that um we obviously could bring it be bring that back for just at least for a report and maybe to inform the council as well when this goes to the council. Does anyone know how commented common it is that we get two three strikes period? Mr. Cher say it's very rare. I think you know Captain Stinger talked about it back in November. So when we talked about it and it was very rare that based on a law enforcement perspective they got to three strikes. I can tell you from a fire perspective, we we inspect the common areas of every apartment building and it's less than annually we get to three strikes. I mean, we're talking small numbers. And if you only inspect annually, then it's probably hard to get three strikes within 12 months. Uh, well, it would be a strike every time we go back. So, you know, in our current problem, we had 11 inspections in the past year there and no changes, right? So they would hit three strikes pretty quick when the the reinspect would would be another strike against them. So it might be fair to say that at least in the current problem case that they got strikes 4 through 11 and penalty or persuasion didn't appear to change their course of action. maybe doubling the fine or, you know, throwing them all in jail, you know, would have done it, but probably not. Yeah. I would just say there's from my perspective, from a community risk reduction, you know, economic incentives or disincentives are one piece of the puzzle, right? The enforcement piece with the um civil action or license action is another piece of that, right? And and the changes here are about being able to have tools and toolbox based on your situation. Uh to Donna's point, they're not all owned by national companies and you know um sometimes you just need a different tool based on on what you're dealing with and how severe the the issues are and I think you know we've learned a lot in the past year and would probably approach that case a little differently in the future too. Does the violation happen? Let's say you come and do your annual fire inspection and you find an issue. Is that automatically a violation or is it if they don't correct it after you give them a I think it depends on how egregious the action is. Um and that's where these some of these penalties came in was if you have a non-working fire alarm system in the common area for example I'm not talking about a small piece of sheetrock missing right then we would look to strike. But we did add fire code violations as strikes uh because they weren't necessarily listed before but those would be the ones that we'd be looking to strike them on because those are pretty egregious things. you know, fire doors that don't open or non-existent, right? Like are are there any other tools that the city feels like would be necessary for the toolbox to help this issue? We just talked about the economic one. Is there something else that this body should consider? Uh, Mr. Chair, I think by adding the licensing of the the manager, that's a tool. I can't tell you in a year I wouldn't come back and say I'd learned something else that we might not recommend. Um I think this is one we'll probably revisit a little more often just because the nature of what we are now experiencing and the turnover we're experiencing and the um kind of ownership and and management we are now experiencing is is different than it was 10 or 12 years ago when we first did this rental licensing and we have some more experience under our belt. So I can't think any I don't know if Mr. Forzone's gotten anything else, but I I feel like we're well suited with this change to to do that. I I'm not going to speak to the dollar amounts. That's that's your folks's recommendation to the council. Like I said, that's that's one piece and we appreciate the support and we definitely don't want the fire to be there and that's why we want to be proactive on these things. So, yeah, I'll second that. Uh, I think the tools that we're asking for here, I think are going to be more tools in the toolbox that we can uh use more effectively and accomplish public safety needs as well as meeting the needs of tenants and making the community better. Mr. Chair, members, I'm not aware of any other city that has a rental licensing program that has a a different penalty system that has, you know, something we would like to add to our toolbox. And frankly, the suspension and revocation is where the real money is on the penalties for not being able to rent a unit for a month. Then you're talking whatever the going rent is for that potential unit, whether it's a small operation, one or two um units in a in a small home or whatever as accessory units or part of a larger apartment complex. That's where the real economic incentive lies. Steve, maybe my final point, and I understand what Donna said, is I still go back to, you know, when you call somebody out your house to get something Let's say you had a fire door that had to be replaced. I bet it's 2,000, right? I just don't want the penalty to be such that you don't try hard to get that contractor out there to get that thing fixed and then we end up with fire or then we end up with something and uh probably people that can't afford to be displaced are the ones that are in there. We built an apartment building that happened Well, there's been a few. Sorry, that's not Yes, contractors are expensive. It's hard to get people out there. The third time you have to go back on some issues. That's my point. Does anyone uh I mean you haven't formed a motion, but I haven't been sensing that anyone's strongly in favor of it. Um does anyone like to voice support for that note discussion? Okay, take that as a note. All right. Anything else on title 3, chapter 28? The one that just keeps on giving. All right. Can I have a final motion to approve? I move to approve. Can I get a second? Second. All right. Moved by Sarah, seconded by Shelley. All those in favor to approve Title 3 Chapter 28 as presented tonight, please say I and raise your hand. I. Motion carries. Item four is the final review and approval of titles four and five. They are included in the meeting packet tonight. Do city attorneys or staff have any comments? Okay. Do task task force members have any comments? [Applause] I was trying to recall if there was actually anything um that we had debated or discussed at length and I wasn't recalling anything big that we had asked the city to uh look into with either four or five. I hope it's going to paves through briefly. [Applause] I'm not seeing anything. If uh no one else has anything, could I get a motion to approve both titles four and five as presented tonight? Moved by Steve. I have a second. Second by Sarah. All those in favor, please say I and raise your hand. I motion carries. That takes us to item five, which is also included in your packet tonight, and that is questions and comments from the task force. Uh, do city attorneys or staff have anything to add to the uh memorandum? Mr. Chair, do task force members have anything to add? [Applause] I was I was curious discussing we're discussing page 75 of 132. It's the questions. Um uh for uh perhaps officer Singer can can help me understand this. Um, I was curious how do how can the police order my guests to leave? If I have a party and people are getting loud, how how does I mean, forgive my complete ignorance. I would assume if I give them the legal right to be there that they have the legal right to be there. Uh, Mr. Mr. Chair, I mean, it'd be one of those again in order to try to end the violation, assuming that's what's causing the problem is that there is a a major party going on and and we've, you know, whether we've cited the owner for the party and in order to not keep it going until 4:00 in the morning, uh we can uh ask them to leave in order to put an end to it so that we don't have neighbors who are up all night and calling us and complaining and saying I they're just continuing. So if they didn't leave, what would they be in violation of? Disorderly conduct for the owner. Probably noisy party. Several violations come to mind. Okay. So in other words, better. So if the if the behavior was to I I and it's a a very fine point, but if the behavior was to end and there wasn't a ruckus party anymore, you'd say, "Well, why would the policeman leave?" And you'd say, "Well, they probably wouldn't." But then there wouldn't be reason for them to, you know. Correct. I mean, you you basically tell the owner their choice is to disperse the guests to the point of if they don't leave trespassing them. Mhm. Or close up shop, stop doing what you're doing that causes the problem or you will get a citation. That's the essence of officer discretion in response to an incident. Generally speaking, you wouldn't want to arrest or escalate the situation if someone is willing to deescalate and remove the offense for the neighborhood or the complaining parties. Sometimes you go right to the removal by arrest, but other times you try to approach it slightly more diplomatically. Mr. Chair, I think in 99% of the cases it would be the first stop would be out there and tell them, "Hey, we've got a complaint. you need to keep it down. Probably walk away. Then we come back. Okay. You know, you're going to be issued a citation. This needs to end. And now maybe we get another call and this is the third time. And at that point might be where we say, "Hey, we're going to tell you your guests all need to leave. You know, we've been out here multiple times and the neighbors are are continuing to complain." So, thanks for clarifying that. Uh if if you'll indulge me, I want to ask a nerdy question. if they have a route all loud party but the doors are locked and what do you do? I mean can you break down the door and tell them to quiet down? That would be one of those again where um issuing citations after the fact. That would be again where our strike policy comes into play where they would be getting a notice that oh we we were there, we heard the loud party, we knew people were in there, they were refusing to answer the door. So you're going to get a citation and you know potentially a strike on that. Gota. Thank you. That's where when you get into multif family it gets a little stronger teeth because with that report that they verified the noise complaint but they didn't answer it gives us the teeth to go back in addition to that citation to a lease violation. Uh well let's just proceed into title six and it's been our practice we'll just kind of go page by page as this is our first real pass through it. Um, so this would be starting on page 82 of 132. Um, and I think I think the most precent one is is on page 83 and big red box it says uh basically we're not defining noise. So say that that you can't be noisy um but we're not really defining that. And um I I would personally like to know, you know, I know that um cell phones, you know, you can get apps for free that can measure noise pretty reliably actually. And uh I mean that would be an empirical measure rather than just saying, well, it seems loud. Um, I'm curious if law enforcement or code enforcement has an opinion on I won't ask you to talk about the reliability of those devices, but do you think that a an objective measurable standard is appropriate? I will and again, Mr. Chair, talking about those devices again, there's a whole lot of other issues that come there. They may be devices out there that work on a phone. Typically, you're going to have issues with calibration and is it, you know, our city attorney can probably comment on on the admissibility of something along those lines, but on the same token, you're in a again a multif family dwelling in these in these cases uh many times and what may be loud to you at, you know, 65. I I'm old. I can't hear worth a darn anymore. And that I could sleep right through that. But a neighbor who's got very good hearing, that's keeping them up at night. And again, when we get there, then there is typically body camera footage and there's conversations and and you know, we're we're listening and we're hearing the noise. That's if it's disturbing someone, then we believe it's too loud because someone is calling to complain. We don't just show up and walk down the hallways. It's because we're responding to a call there. So, does that mean that if a complaint has been made and you show up that that means you would always side and say it's too loud or No. I mean, we may get there and it's quiet and we can't hear a thing from the hallway and we're like, well, no, we're not going to issue either strike or a citation because we can't hear this. experientially. We've had many situations where the complainant is dissatisfied with the response because either they're very sensitive to it or there's a history or some other issue that's going on. So, we've had many situations where the calls continue because to them there's been problems and you explain that when the officers are out there, the nuisance was not in existence and they said, "Well, they turned it up as soon as you left." And all those types of things. So, I mean, it it's it's not an easy job to enforce. And with regarding the noise meters, I'm unaware of any easily uh usable admissible app right now that's out there where we could equip when the pollution control agency used to have noise meters that that calibration and foundational work that was necessary to get them emitted into evidence was problematic. I don't know of anything that would allow us to use a uh cell phone or other easily portable app to set a very objective standard. It is somewhat objective, but frankly with with uh the potential for witnesses and the firsthand experience testimony of the officers, uh that hasn't been a major burden of proving the case in court. uh particularly with the number of calls that we're usually able to document, the number of visits that have occurred, the opportunity to avoid the citation and those types of things. It hasn't been a major furl to prosecution in those those cases. Mhm. I used to do some measurements and it's a science. There's a lot of different things that can influence environmentally uh density, air, the sound, vibration, oscillation, all these different things. Uh it's an art to measure it. Um the officers in the field just like I have to make calls sometimes. You got to call it exactly for what the definition is. Is it annoying people? And it's subjective. How often do we run into, you know, I'm I'm interested in it philosophically, but is it practically a highly enforced item because people are noisy all the time? No. No. Okay. Uh Mr. Mr. Chair, we we we obviously take a number of complaints probably on a daily basis for noise and typically they're abated with a warning or a discussion and that um you know I I did post some numbers over the last three years between noisy parties and if I were to leave a noisy party something like that it's probably an average of about 12 per year that we actually end up issuing citations at the most. So it doesn't happen that often where people and quite frankly a number of those citations are for the same people uh that we've had continual problems with. So I've been in burn for quite a while. So you know when I saw the the note here I went out to Google and checked what's like 70 dB. What's 80? What's 55? So 55 dB is a quiet street just so you know. 80 dB is a noisy street more like a downtown environment. Um, a Harley-Davidson runs at 80 dB. Um, washing machine 70 dB. So, I I in the proposal and I read the box and the I like the the quiet time between X hour and X hour. That made a ton of sense, a ton of sense to me, but otherwise I think we leave it up to the police to determine based on the situation. Um because there's a whole bunch of sound in that general range that you might think is annoying, but to somebody else there hardly sounds great. So what are you going to do? Uh and um also it goes down six dB every time the distance doubles. So it drops off fairly quick. So how do you calibrate all that? I was just looking at what does the sign say? Thank you, Steve. Nancy, I think you're good. I just want to make sure that we are talking about um noise in single family homes also. We're not talking just multifamily. Well, 50 ft just seems like a I understand wanting to have something, you know, very numeric. I don't think it would work in practicality and 50 feet seems like our houses are closer than that. Way closer. I don't know about that. It's probably close to 50 ft near the door. I I've got, you know, we're on the edges of our properties. We're, you know, right there. So, for you, your neighbors. In the time I've been in Barnesville, the police have been really good and they've got a good establishment for dealing with noise complaints, whether it's single family or multifamily on that. And um you know, that's why I tell my people multif family, you got the added benefit of the management being able to say, "Hey, we've had problems in the past." So they're aware of it in advance. So for the 20 years I've been doing that in there, Burnsville has a really good track record of that and following through and and documenting it. So I think they've got good things in place to work with that and if people complain about the subjectivity, they're good. Is it I would assume the enforcement is contextual if you're in the like the R1A space of the city where the the lot wises the lot sizes are like an acre versus you're in a you know an apartment with a 100 units that it's not just well it it I mean I would think that the apartments you know you'd be much more sensitive uh but the office would be much more sensitive to you know my neighbor is 6 inches away from me rather than you know 600 feet from me. Is that Yeah. I mean that could be Mr. Chair. I think it's um you know it it that's all part of what you would consider but unfortunately whether you're in a 1acre lot or not if it's knowing the neighbors we have to go investigate and we have to you know hopefully have that and again 95% of these probably more it's a discussion with the owner and say hey you're annoying your neighbors can you turn it down and that's the end of it. Yeah. Uh, do we have posted? So, I I saw a comment here. I think it was from Jared about uh quiet times. Is that defined? I wasn't seeing that in in the code that we'd say like the quiet time is between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. We have some provisions for yard work, um garbage collection activities, uh power tool operations, some of those other types of things in various spots of the code. It's entitled Savage. Short answer is yes. Okay. Um any other questions or discussion on the the noise ordinance specifically? Just clarify one instance is is immediately a misdemeanor. It seems high to me. I mean again that speeding is also one of those situations where one instance generates potentially a misdemeanor but depending on the situation again as Captain Stinger indicated often times you don't issue the citation immediately unless it's egregious. Yeah. Okay. Well, let's progress. Uh, I guess we can look at page 85 of 132. It looks like, at least at the bottom, I'll jump ahead and say it looks like there's been some redefinitions there and how and Jared pointing out how it conflicts with state statute. Uh Joel, could could you explain uh 613 to me because I I kind of got lost through the language of rebuttable presumption which may be rebutted by a propoundonderance of the evidence. See if I can catch up here and find where you're looking at. Can minors drink in their own home? Is that what I'm What if their guardian is present? Their parent or guardian is present. Maybe not if their parents aren't there. There you go. That's more like it. Y I'm trying to find where you are. I am on page 85 of 132 and it's also known as It was known as 617. Now it's known as 613. You said 613 the bottom of page 85. Yes. Yeah. Could you explain that section? Stay. Negative. I'm having trouble con countering up a good hypothetical fact situation. Um, if you have an item in your possession, it's not opened. You're traveling and you're saying you're bringing it back to your parent from the grocery store. You picked it up and therefore you've perhaps persuaded or met the burden that uh of rebutting the presumption that you had it to consume and consequently or that you didn't know you had it and so you didn't intend to possess it. And if the fact situation is persuasive enough, you've met your burden of rebutting the presumption that mere possession of the item in your on your person is a crime. It's the best I can come up with. Okay. So, kind of like if a kid borrows their dad's vehicle and the maybe the alcohol's in the trunk, they don't know it. They're just borrowing the car to go to their aunt's house and get pulled over and suddenly they've got something in the back and they don't know it. Correct. Something like that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. See, do we need something that specifies there could be alcohol in the house? But it doesn't say and consume. But it doesn't say anything about the pres in the presence of their parent or guardian. Is that is that So the distinction is that you could drink with or without your parents as a if your parents are gone and you're home. What's the intent here? And is that maybe that's okay? That's how I read it. Parents are gone. you can consume if it's in your own house. Still gonna get grounded, but it's just not what one thing I was thinking about it. I I mean, I think that you have to be careful so that if it's just in the house, whether even when they're not consuming it, you wouldn't want the parents to have to remove it to leave the kid at home by themselves every time they walked out the door. Right. True. three years. I've never seen that case. [Laughter] I'm okay. I just But that's how it reads. You I I saw that, too. Take your liquor cabinet with you. You've got a babysitter and all. She or he's a minor and you've got kids in the house, clear out your My friends call those wine sellers the door. Oh, I started drinking for me. It's basically a cabinet. Look what they have. Okay. So, we can leave it alone, but that's the right. Okay. So, let's flip the page. Uh, offenses in liquor establishments. So the following acts or conduct on premises on type hold premises holding any type of on sale liquor license um are deemed contrary to public welfare or morals and uh item G to permit the showing of a film still pictures electronic reproduction or other visual reproduction or other visual depicting I think it just disappeared at me. Oh. Oh, sorry. Acts of intercourse um or fondling or scenes where the genitals are on display, which is basically the movies today. So, uh would you agree, Joel, that basically CMX in town that has an on-sale liquor license and shows R-rated movies uh is violating the law as it is currently written? The only issue though, Mr. Chair, is it's in 614 for offenses in the liquor establishment. So if you were showing that on the big screen televisions in your sports bar, there would be a potential violation of that rather than the movie theater that has a liquor license. I would assume the whole premises are licensed. Yeah. For consumption. Steve, is this section typical with what we'd see in other cities? They are remarkably standardized because that they're all based on nationwide first amendment cases. And so there is a striking uniformity of the language employed in all of our adult use ordinances with this breathless amount of detail and specificity. Yes. So they can for for the novice law clerk or uh researcher, it's a blush inducing incident to start reading some of those ordinances. I'm an old lady though, so uh will I Mr. Chair, you're correct. There is a little bit of vagueness and potential uh problems with if you ever tried to site practical difficulty of actually citing someone for these violations would be um substantial. I I was under the impression and we discussed this a couple of months ago about umoriented businesses that basically this was a way that we could say well you can have those but they can't serve alcohol. Um so that was sort of a defense against um you know basically strip clubs that have a bar. um which is certainly not the theater in town or the local, you know, Applebees that has a movie playing in the corner. Um Steve, are we just missing then just putting the rating in there? So R, I don't know that you'd go into the theater and arrest everybody for an R-rated movie, but you go to a bar and they're playing Triple X. Okay, that's a different game, right? Is that what we're missing here? I I wonder that or if we I mean if we could characterize the business and say I mean certainly movie theaters don't only show R-rated. So if it was like a trip X theater then maybe that wouldn't be a place where you could have an on sale liquor license but that'd be so different. Could it not be as simple as just clarifying that this is not intended to apply to movie theaters that happen to be licensed to serve alcohol and show films rating from G to R and that that's not um applicable to those establishments and that they're spec just write in an exclusion to allow theaters to show our rated movies. But you know, maybe we draw the line at X. What about unrated movies? Got nothing. Send the officers and have them do it. Have the officers. Your home video is not mine. Maybe we require them to only show rated movies in that type of establishment if they're if they're on your liquor license. Are um sexual movie theaters illegal in Burnsville or they could be lawful? how they could be lawful, but the current marketplace and economics and internet have pretty much handled that issue for more practical purposes. Yeah. Gee, isn't that too bad? Well, Joel, do you have a do you have a good idea for how to solve the conundrum of C? I do. Well, he could sign it to Jared to take care of. All right. No, I mean, I think we've discussed before the difficulty with drafting defensible and logic and rational adult use ordinances or any of our ordinances with morality clauses. Again, it's one of those situations where if the conduct becomes so egregious that you can effectively prosecute it, not many people are arguing about the definitions. And for those cases that are, you know, the simulated sexual acts or or um R-rated movies that you would see in a theater are um so difficult to prosecute, nobody prosecutes them. So you don't h it's it's roughly akin to a situation where you don't see a lot of 38 mph uh traffic tickets in a 35 mph zone. You can effectively prosecute if someone's doing 80 in a 35, but if you try to prosecute at 37 or 38, you just don't get much traction. similar in these situations. Um, if you if you go into a liquor establishment and someone is watching, you know, cable television on the big screen, you're probably not going to be able to cite them for a violation of this. If, on the other hand, you have live dancers touching people and you've got 15 screens with hard X-rated things on there, it would be easier to prove that case. And that's one of the difficulties with all code ordinance enforcement. The cases that are gray that are on the margins um are difficult to prosecute. And it's also difficult for people drafting the ordinance, including the task force, to come with up with language that says, yes, we would like to be very objective in our enforcement, but we have to be acknowledge that inherently there's going to be some subjectivity for things that are on that gray area. Um, that's just that's just part of life. It's messy and imprecise and difficult and you have to have some good faith administration in interpreting and enforcing to make it work because if you do start writing tickets for 36 and 37 and a 35, you will lose credibility. You will not have support of the public. But on the other hand, if you're not writing tickets for 80 and a 35, you've got a problem on the other side. So, uh, should we ask Joel next month? Jared, ask I, uh, chair, it just occurred to me as we were reading through this that this would also apply to if a burlesque theater wanted to come and Yes. Yes. And I mean certainly those issues are are being discussed in in current literature and news issues and the rest. But you know there's the quote from the United States Supreme Court on pornography. Everybody's familiar with it. You know you know it when you see it. That's kind of the situation in these things. I mean you've got very educated people that have struggled years in their careers. And you've got a lot of people arguing the extremes and saying it's very easy and it generally is pretty easy on the extremes. But when you get in that messy middle, it takes some restraint, discretion, good old-fashioned common sense in order to make this work. And thankfully, you know, we you look at our citations and our experience, we haven't had many of those on the line issues. Okay. Excuse me. All right. I just wanted to clarify. I know that Shelley um offered to indicate in here that somewhere that this section does not apply to cinema showing rated R films. Uh do did did we have any consensus on that or not? I I think that that seems like it might work, but I also get Joel's point. Uh I I'd say it makes sense. Philosophically, I don't really care for ordinances that we can't enforce, but that's neither here nor there. Um uh but I I think maybe the notion of calling out it explicitly non adult movie theaters because that is defined other you know we do have adult theater defined. Shall shall I propose that we make Jared craft some of that language? Yes. I think that's a great idea. I I hereby make that motion. Yeah. All right. He'll be thrilled. So, I don't have the minors anymore, but then the theaters they used to be I mean one time I had to go in pajama pants to the Mall of America and walk through the entire mall in Christmas pajama pants to get my daughter in theater because the adult had to go she was 16 at the time. She didn't tell me until but you know is that still the the case with that for they're supposed to be for the those you know kind of thing that's the thing in plan or is that I if you're asking like do we would I don't ever call that we would check somebody's age for that is that the intent though for that for the theaters for that do they do or not I I don't know the answer to that we talking Rated yeah they they check ID Okay. So, you already got a builtin a few times. Yeah. You've already got a built-in then for the theaters on that part for if people are concerned about it. If you say, "Hey, they're not." You've already got a built-in policy in place for them. So, I don't know the answer to your question, but I'm pretty sure that there's no problem with the pajama pants part of it. It is when they Yeah, let's just not go there. when your kids pick them out for the dad. And I happened to do and they didn't tell me. Oh, it was not pretty. All right. Anything on the rest of 87? Nope. Page 88. Couple of questions. One from how does this apply to service or companion animals in the city? uh in rentals animals outside the pets allowed fall under a different category than a household pet such as a service or paying animal. Does this wording of household pets sufficiently covered comp service animals? In general, aren't um companion animals not considered pets? I think they are they're excluded by definition. Well, I think that the the intent of this definition is um it's the last four words of that sentence that is the crux of it. It's the intent is for those animals that are customarily considered a pet is what they're trying to get at in the in this language historically. So that distinguishing from those individuals who think tigers and poisonous snakes are just fine as pets, but they just generally have not been deemed as pets. And it has changed over the years. I mean, when I first started, ferrets were not commonly considered household pets. dogs and cats and the rest, but you did not generally have the stinky malicious ferret that that uh the ferret lady in Brutin set the stage for that with 30ome ferrets in her house. But I mean that's the int that's the intent of that language. And I do think service and companion animals since they generally are more traditionally in the household pet. But as you know, peacocks and other types of animals have been argued to be service and or companion or therapy pets. So that area has been continually in flux particularly the last five or six years. Yeah, the the companion and therapy ones is definitely in flux. the service is not yet. That's correct. That one's very strongly into the dog category on that. Chris, Mr. Chair, I'll also add that a lot of this is because there needs to be an effective rabies vaccine as well. And back to Joel's comment, I've been around a while, too. uh when they developed the rabies vaccine for uh uh ferrets, for example, you started seeing them as more accepted as a as a pet. Okay. So, it sounds like probably a distinction is not needed because they would be addressed elsewhere protected. Uh Shelley had a question about the differentiation between the the numbers of different types of animals that could be kept saying it seemed arbitrary. Um Joel, would you like to defend uh no more than 10 ferrets? Oh, as as Judge Davies said in a case regarding dogs, when you're engaged in the legislative process, setting the line is based on the sound reason and discretion of the legislative body and can be always be attacked as arbitrary, but needs to be defended as being rational and based on opinion and thought and reason and debate. And so where you put that speed limit, where you put that line between kennel and house, where you put that line on so many things is a legislative decision. And as long as you can explain it in the rationale, you usually get over that low standard of review of arbitrary and capriccious. But as the judge said in the case, you got to draw the line somewhere. Totally get the logic in that. But I don't see any rationale. I mean, any house with nine cats is going to stink worse than four dogs. Um, it it's if that's the, you know, you mentioned the stink. But realistically, if it's in an individual owner's home and it's not a multi-unit, why does the city care? I I just was I'm like, okay, you've got kennel licenses that we get into later and defining this seems to be something that would be more applicable in a multi-unit um dwelling situation. Then who cares if poor old cat lady has 15 cats that she's taking care of and they're happy and healthy and I mean if they're not animal control is going to be called and declared there's a problem. Is that in a different part? Cuz right now we're just defining kennels. Yeah. As having such and so number of animals. Yes. There's nothing on this page. You're right. So if I'm not running a kennel as a hobby or commercially then I could I think it's addressed later in the that's later uh how many of certain things you can have. Yeah. So it's the logic that I question even having these numbers here and and the differentiation. What's the rationale for dogs and nine cats? Was it three dogs is okay but nine cats. Mhm. I was just going to comment having been in many homes with excess of numbers upwards of 60 cats in various stages um I don't you know the rationale here is one thing it's it's about how they're being cared for and then yes the public does care and there are laws that protect these animals right so there is that so even in a private dwelling we're going to get concerned not only for the health of the occupant but also for the animals as And these are intended to be gradients for when you can just have them with a license, when you have it as a residential hobby low-level canal level, and then when you have a high level commercial to try to measure the oversight or regulation with the number of animals that you can you can put the numbers or the categories, but it's basically a small, medium, and large kind of analysis. Mhm. And then trying to fit the regulation or the oversight to the small, medium, and large situations. Yeah. And I think my issue is partly with the definition here because we have commercial kennels defined and there's really not much difference. One or two animals puts you up over into that commercial license. So what is the whole point of defining this and later when we get to it having a bunch of ordinance around it that I don't know how often is enforced. So maybe we can come back to that after we get to that section. Was there another section that said how many animals? Well, the kennel requirements um refer to having refer back to this definition. But for people who aren't running a was there any definition? Yeah, I thought there was there was a number of chickens I remember which seemed like not very many chickens that you could have chicken for four chicken roasters. I had chickens and I'm quite sure they had more than four chickens. I'm not telling you where I live, but you know it's from [Laughter] 104 500 barretts. Y'all can y'all can laugh when they did the chicken thing. I drove my park and there they were in my yard of a home which I had to go back and address. I will tell you right now, not excited about chickens, let me tell you. But right, with the high cost of eggs that people have been dealing with, chickens are a hot item right now. Uhhuh. So, I'm okay with moving on and addressing this when we look at the the kennel requirements because I I just think some of that is really where my issue is, not necessarily just in the definition. Okay, Steve. Maybe Joel, is the the quantities and all that consistent with other cities and state guidelines? Is that kind of how this whole thing is framed? Maybe that question long as they're consistent. I mean, generally speaking, a lot mo many of these ordinances are are put together based on elms league of Minnesota City's model or sample ordinances with and particularly in Burnsville. The city historically has looked at what the market cities or neighboring or joining cities have done. So there is a a rough consistency in Dakota County or south metro cities and north metro cities. But you also see situations where like say on on the chicken situation when that became an issue. There were early adopters, you know, let's test the water and see what someone else is doing out on the bleeding edge first and then we'll evaluate and adopt. And then you still have some cities that don't allow them and are resistant to it, but they may change with the next election or as things evolve or egg prices continue to skyrocket or those types of things. So there's some consistency geographically, there's some consistency in in um uh size of population, cities and those types of things. Thanks. Okay. So, uh, if we look at, uh, potentially dangerous dog, looks like, uh, comment from Sarah about, uh, some some of the overlap and it being confusing. I I thought it was kind of confusing, too. It seems like the major difference is that a potentially dangerous dog has bit someone, but it hasn't been substantial bodily harm. Um, is the major difference, it appears. Uh what would substantial I I assume that's a real term not just up to someone's interpretation again breaking the skin uh substantial bruising uh muscle damage bone fractures and the like. It's it's um and you're right, the statute, our ordinance parallels the state statute and there's a lot of ambiguity on potentially dangerous and actually dangerous dogs. And um it's again one of those situations where you're trying to draft the legislation to deal with a large number of gradient differentials between multiple situations and it's imprecise. Um and and generally speaking, you know, the the legislaturators and others dis discussing, you know, potentially dangerous. A nip that doesn't break the skin is probably going to get you still on the potentially dangerous. But if you've got uh puncture marks, emergency room, sutures, uh substantial bruising, and the rest, as I indicated, you probably go right to the area where you do not get a second bite chance. Chairman, if I can, uh sir, our services manager, Lynn Leky, was not able to make it tonight, uh in person for family emergency, but she did give me some notes on some of these. She generally oversees all of our animal control issues that we deal with. and one of the she was commenting on a lot of this and she says this potentially dangerous dog is a definition that comes straight from state statute. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So it isn't a blanket thing to get rid of pit bulls. No. No. I mean we're we're basically trying to parallel or adopt the state statute. Um the origin of that was when the stat state statute was originally adopted. Um there the the statute was interpreted in the court case called Enry Mali to not allow cities to prosecute directly under the state statute. You had to adopt it into your local ordinance. Then after the case and some other situations, it became apparent to a lot of people that that didn't make any sense. Mhm. And so, uh, the statute was, um, modified or amended so that you didn't have to have the local ordinance. So, we've kept it just because we had some additional features. Um, but technically, most of these are basically prosecuted for uniformly throughout all cities on on the uh definitions and the administration of the of the situation. Okay, that'll take us to uh page 90 poultry. Question about uh what is chicken foul? [Applause] Seems like duplicate. Can you just say chicken or duck? Again, I'm I'm gonna speak on both the we we've adopted definitions so that um chickens and ducks qualify geese don't or swans wouldn't or you know those types of things. So there is there's definitional provisions in there. both the land use and um Lynn and others were when the ordinance was adopted that that was looked at and was based on what other cities were allowing it. It's f it just grammatically it seems to say both chicken and fowl right next to each other is you know that's what I was looking at too in in Lynn's words it was poultry is limited to chickens and tamed ducks. Yeah. So, I don't know if chicken foul is an appropriate use or not. I agree. It sounds kind of funny, but and of these particular genus and species. I don't know if Joel can when it was done, I did not do it myself, but the people that were working on it were very careful on putting the right categories in. Okay. in comparison to what other cities were doing to try to make it consistent. As far as I know, they are consistent, but it has been quite a few years since I looked at that. If someone's keeping a non-domemesticated duck, is that a DNR issue or is that a local police issue? Can it can be both, but again, those are the ones where I don't know of any any case that we've had on it that I know of. Um, yes. You know, it's always time. It's only time. Okay. Got to have something for Jared to look forward to. Go chase that. All right. Um, have a random question. I have a friend who has a pig in that in Burnsville, but it's like an Elco new market. We don't have any mention of like domesticated pigs or anything like that. Is there any other would there if I recall the ordinance structure prop appropriately, certain farm animals would be allowed in south southwest Burnsville. Okay. But would not be allowed in other zones. We have the hobby farm. Okay. And we do not burn as far as I know does not allow potbelly pegs as a domestic cat but that's ve very common or the Vietnamese or Asian pig uh strain is authorized in several cities that I know of but Burnsville has not opened that door yet. Okay. Um, so page 91, the I would say the big controversy here is what does controlling of an animal mean? And it says by a leash, so when it strikes out or other physical control, well, physical control wouldn't be a voice command. Um, um, see specific questions. Does the city intend for physical restraint here as an only leash? Are there any other types of uh physical restraint that are possible or accepted? Are we talking invisible fencing then the dog the collars where you have that electronic? The city's intent in my view historically has been for an actual visible physical restraint. No electronic device, no proof that this dog is very well trained because part of the intent here is to provide comfort for the other person that's coming next to the dog to know that that dog is on a leash and be able to see approximately. You know, I know the retractables are a problem, but the concept, I believe historically was you can evaluate how close you're willing to get to that dog if it's not muzzled, that it is under physical virtual restraint, both so that there's more certainty for everybody involved as well as a clearer line of what you could site or prosecute someone for running at large. So, we're not talking people's backyards here. We're talking when you're off your property with the ex with the exception of the potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs where you do have to have the restraint on that property. You're correct. Otherwise, you're correct. If you just have a poodle, you're allowed to have the electric. Has it been anyone? That's the Has it been anyone? Question. Broken skin. Family poodle. I grew up with Bit and True Blood and Yes, that's true. Yours is a poodle. Mine was a Chihuahua. Okay. Uh on on 92, I'm curious uh why potentially dangerous dogs aren't in confinement as well. Chair again the statute that's the way the statute is structured as far as what's required regarding insurance restrictions confinements etc. Um you mean city statute or state? No it's both actually both. I mean it's one of those that that is what what the what the difference is for what the requirements are for an owner to our our ordinance basically is consistent with state statute. Okay. But you asked a very good question. Uh would we be would we be allowed to say that potentially dangerous dogs must be confined as well or under under restraint? Uh in my opinion I think so. I we haven't as far as I know seen a case where city's authority to do it has been challenged and I don't know of any city that has gone beyond statute and tried to do it. There the major issue with most cities has been the breed specific um ordinances and those have been for the most part in disfavor the last couple years. Mr. chair, according to um service manager, she said she believes that it also should include potentially dangerous dogs. Okay, that was her that was her request, but it's up to the I think I think that that makes sense to me given that the definition isn't breed specific. It's a dog has bit someone, they just haven't bit them hard enough yet to cause substantial bodily harm. I would like to see that included. I would as well. I agree. Does anyone uh disagree with that inclusion? So, the little family poodle that does bite Yeah. has to be in some I I would just think you might have citizens unhappy about that. Well, if you're two years old and a little poodle bites you, it really doesn't matter. You're two years old. I know. And that's a potentially dangerous dog. which roamed around our home freely. That's a confinement. Sorry. Well, um would we could we could make that as a motion, but is there I'll just do that. I would move to require the confinement of both dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs in 626. Second. All right. Second. Any further discussion? I'm I guess I'm struggling with it a little bit. Um when it goes to the potentially dangerous are those situations where that was maybe just a very fluke incident with that animal or something like that. And I I have a friend who had this happen in Apple Valley. Um and she it was a FedEx worker had come up onto her driveway. Um um her husband was there in the driveway and the FedEx worker did not show any like he just came straight at the dog. The dog was barking which he does. He's a big dog. He's great pynees. So there was no like no restraint from the Fredex worker to actually like just stop and just drop it at the end of the driveway. He just came barreling in and and the the dog just kind of lunged and was thought, "Well, it's time to play, you know." And it was it was very innocent. It's actually on the ring like recording and stuff. You can see exactly what the FedEx worker did and it like you can tell he should not have done that. he admitted it and then the city still said you're a dangerous dog and it went that route. But when it's something that you could see actually happen, I feel like there should be a little bit of leeway with that too and not just go immediately to like it has to be completely constrained. But how do you define that? So, it's a good question. I'm struggling a little bit with that one. I don't know. I think what stands out to me is that the back to the definition is that it all all and I believe this is yeah it's ors. So it's a b or c. Um although technically that's really not clear because there's only one or and that's only between b and c but I'll assume that's what it means. Um but it's that it's unprovoked. Um, so maybe maybe the person, you know, taking an aggressive step toward the dog is a provocation. That may be, right? Uh, but I think the nature of an unprovoked either a bite or unprovoked chase um down a public property um on a on an apparent attitude of attack or, you know, the propensity or disposition to attack unprovoked. So I I think that it's that it's that violence with the fact that it's unprovoked. That's that's why I would support it. Um, but that's a good question on I think that goes back to the gray area of how do we uh adjudicate an animal as I mean if they bite someone that's clear but if it's just like they are running at them you know maybe that's uh less clear. Yeah. I don't know. In this case it was a torn shorts and there was just a small like nick but there was no real true bite per se. So, it's it's one of those things where how do you how far do you go? Other discussion, Mr. Chair, to clarify, you're talking about modifying 626 on page 94. That is correct. which would mean that if the dog is muzzled uh and in control of a competent person or is confined at home or is in a fenced in yard then those would all be uh restraints uh that so it's not saying that a potentially dangerous dog needs to be gotten rid of or or euthanized. It's saying that they can't be left in a spot where they can have unfettered access unrestrained access to the public. So, you think a fence is a secure enclosure? I I do. I mean, that it says that the dog can't I mean, it's I was reading in the definition that I forget where, but it's saying that um that the fence needs to be sufficient that the dog can't overcome it. So, if it's a 1 foot fence and a 4ft dog, then that's not sufficient. But your motion is to add potentially dangerous to the line one of 636. Yes, that is correct. Should we hold? Yeah. So all in favor again the motion is the inclusion the addition of potentially dangerous dog along with dangerous dog for the requirement of uh being securely muzzled or in the control of a person 626. Has there been a second? Yes. Shall we? Second. I second it. All those in favor please say I and raise your hand. I if the clerk will count the hands. Yeah. Keep them raised, please. Okay. God, did you vote? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, that's fine. All those opposed, sorry, did you get that? Let's get the opposed. Yep. All those opposed say nay and raise your hand. That is Sarah. They're uh this animated this evening. Uh the motion carries. 5 to three. Okay. Uh I think we're now on to uh page 93. Obligation. Another interesting one. obligation to prevent nuisance. Um Sarah and I both ask, everyone asks, how much barking is too much barking and too loud? Uh Don, could you perhaps tell us noise? Mr. Chair, we could talk a lot about what we talked about earlier on loud noises and it's I don't think it's practical. The barks per minute was was would be pretty difficult. Um, again, these things are are what we talked about with the loud noise complaints, too. If we get a complaint, of course, we're not going out looking for these things. We get a complaint, we'll go out, typically the first time, it's contact the owner. Your dog is bothering the neighbors typically the second time. I mean, we get another call, your dog is still bothering neighbors. It's more than likely a warning that time and doesn't get to the point of a citation until there's probably been two warnings unless it's some egregious deal. So, again, it's what's reasonable. Again, you have body cameras in most of these cases. We're not saying somebody's guilty. You know, it's one of those that goes before a judge and they make a decision based on the evidence in the case. We just have the ability to issue the citation at that point. Um, could I ask a couple of for instances and maybe you could give me your personal opinion as to what you would consider excessive or not. Uh, first scenario, a dog's outside normal day and the dog is barking like 10 times a minute for the entire hour. um at seemingly anything. Would you consider that excessive? Well, for one, is it annoying somebody else? Yes, it's annoying me. That would be enough for us to make contact with the owner and say, "Your neighbors have complained about your dog." Okay. Scenario two. Uh a dog gets let out in the morning, 6:00 a.m. First thing it does when it goes out, it barks 20 times and then it shuts up. But it barks 20 times enough to wake me up, wake my wife up. I find it annoying. Uh, would that be sufficient? Again, if it's if there's a complaint, it would certainly be something we would talk to the owner about. Your neighbors are upset because your dog barks about 20 times every time you let them out. Again, if this is something we're going to seven days a week at some point and they're not changing anything uh to to prevent that, then it certainly could fall within line with getting a citation. But again, there would be multiple warnings, I imagine, and some remedy to try to fix this first before it would ever get to the point of a citation. What type of remedy could they take? A pep talk with the dog or treats or I It could be a muzzle. It could be, you know, whatever. There are, you know, certain certain things they can do. Um, you know, electronic collars, who knows what? There are things out there that they can tell their neighbors to go to heck. If it's bothering you, yeah, they don't warning beep. You know, they get trained to to recognize that. Okay. Well, a lot of gray area tonight. This is interesting. I was on a task force years and years ago that I think the city tried to do the barks per minute, per hour, whatever. Did that ever come to fruition? And then I've seen I've seen cities that try to establish what constitutes. Yeah. It was that and it's very difficult because it is highly situational as the chairman indicated that you know it's hour it occurs how frequent if it's seven days a week if there's a if there's a you know impulse that's just there or if there's you know if he's got his pet squirrel out at the same time then whose fault is it? Yeah. You know, I guess and I'm looking at the noise ordinances and it sounds kind of like silly conversation here, but we've got turkeys, we've got coyotes, all these things are annoying and make noise. I mean, the deer are pretty quiet, but it it's kind of our community standard here to a point is a certain level of noise. And I think when we're looking at what annoys somebody, I my neighbor's kids annoy me more than their dog. I don't think there's ordinance for muzzling. Exactly. We don't muzzle. I don't know why not. I think you raise a valid point. Screaming at 6:30. Yeah. Every summer morning. Yeah. They don't want to go to school. Yeah. I mean, they wake me up. Pickle ball courts. Does really boil down to noise though, doesn't it? I mean, kind of goes back to that one, too. Does that kind of cross when you deal with it on a situational basis? Are you kind of looking at both things or is it just all of it all together like the barking? Like say it's two dogs between two yards and you're talking to each other and having a great old time and everybody's annoyed by it. I mean, this becomes the first thing, but does the noise part overlap or ever? I I'm not familiar with particular cases like that. Again, it would be it's always try to go out and deescalate the same. If it's two dogs, slow down. Hey, okay, you let your dog out at 1:00 and you let your dog out at 2 in the afternoon. Let's not do it at the same time so we don't try to figure out a way to avoid ending up in court on it. So, we actually had this go on in my neighborhood where we had a house that had a dog door and they were gone between the couple about 12, 14 hours a day and the whole neighborhood listened to these dogs bark continually and they were big dogs and it was reported multiple times by multiple people and I still hear them every summer. So, it it really is kind of an ineffectual thing. Steve and I found the solution for you. Okay. On Google it says first of all is not natural for healthy behavior for a dog to park for prolonged periods of time. It suggests taking it out for a walk. I'll take my neighbor's dog for a walk next with the muzzle. I'm sure you'll like that. Where are you going to walk? Okay. Uh, the last comment I'll address on 94 is Nancy says, "Are these noises specifically outside or is it understood that the noises are heard by people other than the owners?" And I think it'd be the latter. The barking dog inside the house with the windows open uh is seems as loud as the dog outside. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Especially like in town home situations too and stuff like that if you've got, you know, or I mean anywhere, but really like you got close quarters. Yep. Uh let's proceed to page 95. Um uh comment from Donna about who can issue warnings and citations regarding nuisance issues. Um Mr. Chairman, addressed in the code as far as who has authorization is issue citations. It's basically our sworn police officers and code enforcement officials, but the city council has the authority to authorize others to issue citations with the one caveat being there are some things that are reserved under state statute only to sworn peace officers. Okay? And at this time generally animal control can investigate these but ultimately if there's going to be a need for a citation they would contact an officer and officer would come right the citation and just say that's a comment I make to my residents because it's it's too subjective on my part being the manager. So typically I refer them to animal control or to police after hours to do that verification to get the documentation for that situation. So, I can issue the lease violation. It's not me doing the citation. It's a documentation from what we've given them authority to that gives you the teeth because it's a neutral party, so to speak. It's not cuz you hate my dog. Yes, it is. Okay. Uh uh very minor nitpick key point on page 97 E. I I think we could amend the language to say that least to the owner as I I I assume we don't actually mean just like the least like set free out the front door. Yeah. Okay. Uh, page 98. Um, question from Nancy about proof of vaccination. Do we require certain types of vaccination? Is it just rabies co what? Page 98. Yeah. My understanding from service manager lumpkkey is that we require proof of vaccination for rabies. Okay. Maybe we could just say that in partic we could say that in particular so people aren't left wondering what vaccinations they need. I think that's a good amendment. I think you're right. Okay. I think we have a consensus on that to add the the clarifier. Uh another question. Let's see. Uh Nancy had a question about licensed institutions and the statutory reference. The reference is outdated. Um Nancy, do you still have a question on that section? It looks like there's an editing error there still. Yeah. Take away the any. Is that what you're saying, too? Any needs to be crossed out? Mhm. So, all animals which remain unredeemed by the owner becomes the property of the city. Mhm. Okay. Um, again, a minor point on on the bottom of 98. Do we generally ask for email addresses for things? I that it just seemed weird. I don't recall seeing that explicitly enumerated previously. I I'm not aware of that, Mr. Chair. I did uh service manager Olympia, you just commented um that it may be the only way we can get a hold of them, but you may be correct that I don't You could say contact information as well. I Okay. All right. Um 99. I was curious. So on a it says, "No person shall permit a potentially dangerous dog to go outside his kennel or pen unless such dog is securely leashed with a leash no longer than 4 feet in length with an adult in physical control of the leash." And I was curious on on what that meant is and how that's uh is that always just um adjudicated based off the fact the dog gets away or are there cases where you'd say that dog is way bigger than you. There's no way that you're actually in control of that dog. Well, it could potentially be both. Okay. You know, it's not uncommon for a seven or eight year old kid to be walking the 70 foot 70 lb terrier. That would be the argument that no no other person in the area thinks that that is an effective control. That's the one I've seen the most is when it's been a minor taking the dog big dog out for a walk and I'm like yeah no was walking like yes. Now in this case it does say an adult. Um which makes it a little easier I think. Okay. Um, and again, those are ones where if the individual is not an adult, but is 16 or 17 and they're walking the family poodle that happened to nip somebody, you're probably not going to see a citation for that that situation. It's going to be something that's unique or unusual that draws the attention of the public to issue a complaint for an officer or animal control officer to investigate. And and I I missed I missed this. Uh I failed to figure it out. Um when a dog has So if you have a potentially dangerous dog, you have to put a sign on a prominent place and you have to register with the city that you have a dangerous dog, including giving them your contact information. That's what we we require. Is that correct? That sounds right. This section implies to me that you can't just have your dog running around your fenced yard, your potentially dangerous dog. Yeah, that's the confinement part, which that's partly why I was not so keen on adding potentially dangerous to other things. Yeah. Um, this designation is the signage would have to reflect that designation and it has to be on the on the premises and then if it's on if you have a fence, it should be on the fence as well as on the at the house. But I'm not seeing in B 1B on page 99 implies to me that you must have a specific structure or chain or muzzle. That unmuzzled free rain with a fence around your yard doesn't cut it. Meet the strict definitions of confinement. Yep. Which, you know, no better way to make a potentially dangerous dog dangerous than Yeah. But what does it say there or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel? It doesn't allow for a fenced yard for a potentially dangerous dog, I think, is the issue that we're struggling with here. But but wouldn't a securely enclosed locked pen? Now, the only thing you as I read that you would need to have a lock on your gate, but it could it's securely enclosed. It's just someone can't come and open it and let the dog out. Yeah, but it says securely. A pen to me is different than a dog. But but but you as an enforcing peace officer would interpret a yard with a locked gate as a pen. That's what I would call it. I leave it to Joel to find that, but I I would call that a locked pen, but maybe not. Well, then maybe that's something we need to clarify. I think maybe maybe we could take a stab at defining confined. Mhm. I'd be curious what other and maybe that's here, but I think this is the leash law, but I'd be curious what other cities have. Um because I certainly could see where a where a fence I mean a proper fence could be sufficient. Mhm. And I mean, I happen to have a six-foot wooden fence that I don't think a dog could get out of, but there's really no way to lock the gate. It's not lockable in the manner that I assume they think some big chain link pin would have a lock. So, when you say lock, do you mean padlock or you mean like it just doesn't close like a latch? like in a dog. Well, it could, you know, gates that click shut, but certainly you can, you know, flip the thing and they usually have a hole to put a padlock through those latches. Pens do, but your families No, even those even those gates do. Go look at your gate and see if you have a little hole at the bottom that a padlock can go through. But is that what we mean? Is that what that actually means by locked? I I'm I would I would be under under the assumption that we don't mean a master lock on a could mean that, but I would I would assume that if it's closed and it can't just be opened, right? Even if it's some little flip thing on a Right. But it's in other words, it's secure. It means there's an extra step. You can't just go over there and can't open it. Kid can't walk in. Yeah, that's kind of I mean like pools are required to be locked, right? back to our previous section, but they're not required to be padlocked closed. They have to have a have have to have an access control. Just a sentence down, it does start to define real um explicit of what a lock is. And that's with a key and a combination lock. And I I think that this there may need to be a whole different category, maybe section D that would be talking about a fenced yard that would necessarily need to be locked, but it just enclosed. And there's a plethora of different types of enclosures and gates, gate hardeners that are out there from chain link to PVC, wood fence that there's no way a dog without poseable digits could unlock or nose up and get out. And um it definitely would have to be thought through, but I think that this could really put most everybody into a bind should be a minimum fence height then. Yeah. And hardware height, but then that gets into safety issues with little kids and fires and access. And so, um to your point, even though I did motion because I I've been mowled by a dog as a kid. I had a one of my own kids get bit by a family dog. Um, so I've got I've uh I've got some history on and and I have two dogs. Love love animals. It's just a matter of it's it's a gray area. Um, now I'm starting to to see your point with a you know potentially dangerous dog. Um, really starts to broaden the waters here and then we get into how we can find them. I start to worry about my dogs who've never had an issue yet. So perhaps maybe the city could come back with some language clarifying confinement. I think from the conversation I'm hearing that we think that a fenced in yard that's appropriately fenced in and I mean it's not like open would be sufficient and that we like to see a proposed language change to say that it doesn't have to be padlocked shut or be enclosed on the top as well but that an adequate fence was sufficient. At the beginning of the chapter, Mr. Sure. There is the definition of restraint that includes um language that's intended to make sure that the dog can't unlock it or dig out from underneath it and the rest. And that might be some language that will transfer over to the other sections. Yep. And that's 91. So maybe if confinement was just replaced with adequately restrained, which is already defined, that would handle it. Sarah, does it seem like I know we you we had voted to in 626 to add the potentially dangerous dog right there, but isn't that really just a repeat of what we're talking about now on page 99 here? Should we get rid of the 626 alto together? And then it talks about dangerous dogs in general here at 6214 as it goes forward. Is there I feel like there's repetition now now that we're getting into it a little bit more. I think you're right. I But I was actually going to propose that we actually create a definition of confinement in the definition section and replace that throughout the chapter and do some editing around that after discussion. I think that's I think that's reasonable. I I would tweak that slightly and say that confinement is a subset of restraint and I think restraint is the is the core topic we're u concerned with. So Michelle, if that's something the city can put together, do you feel like that's clear enough for you? Trying to make sure I'm following. Are we looking at moving 626 to Well, to Sarah's point, 626 might no longer be necessary if we update the length because we're saying 1B on page 99 says that all potentially dangerous dogs shall be securely confined. So, I would say should be restrained. And if that's the case, then 626, which I've lost on my sheets here, says that they have to be confined as superolous cuz 1B says they have to be confined. Well, one B is only talking about potentially danger dangerous dogs in the B section, but then C goes on just to say the provisions of Minnesota statutes and which is a different ordinance I think that it's referencing, but maybe it's the same maybe it's going over the same thing, but that's the dangerous dog section, whereas maybe that should just be moved over to the dangerous dog section if the statute doesn't cover that. I don't know what the statute says fully. So, But if we're if we're categorizing out potentially dangerous dog and dealing with those and then going to dangerous dog, then it seems like 626 should go to C and all be combined in there. Right. Whatever we need from 626, we'll put into C. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Because I think the agreement is both dogs, dangerous and potentially dangerous, need to be confined. We want the confinement refined to be more clear to say that a fenced in yard is acceptable. And I'm I guess I'm assuming that that's different between the two of them since we're separating them out. Is that the case, I guess, is my question there, too. Or are we just going to combine the whole thing and talk about potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs all in one section? I feel like it's important to keep them separated just like because it relieves that ambiguity then and then we can start to define what those differences are and all of us with all these pets that have never done anything yet, right? We can feel a little bit more out of ease. Yeah. And hopefully the potentially dangerous is a little bit lesser steep than the dangerous and well and I would think a potentially dangerous dog appropriately confined in a fenced area on the owner's property is fine. And I don't think they need a muzzle. Sure. Bring it back to what it's probably intended to be in the first place. Yeah. I think I'd be comfortable with that only if the we put a requirement for the fence down or there is a definition in state statute. So it can't be one of these four foot fence. There's a tiny fence that'll jump six feet high easy. Yeah. What at the end of the day, what I don't want is more kids getting bit. Well, and there are dogs that can dig under fences. So, I think something that says fencing adequate to contain the animal intended. That's kind of the intent of the definition of restraint. Okay. I think that is hopefully clear enough. Uh, let's jump to page 102. There was some stuff that was deleted, but I don't think we need to talk about it. Uh, and this is where Shelley, I think, wanted to talk about the residential hobby licensing and the requirements that we've put on them. Um, Shelley, would you like to? Yes. Um, I I guess when I look at the fact that we have the commercial license, I I really think that it behooves us just to have a kennel license requirement. I don't think differentiating between a residential hobby license and a commercial kennel license necessarily has any real value. Um, and specifically I think of the old cat lady or you know, God bless her, she can have as many cats as she wants up until the point of needing a license. I think if quantity is the issue, we should define, okay, this is the number of animals we really need to regulate as a community and have oversight of regardless of what they're doing with them. So, I think that's interesting. And if we combine that, would you be comfortable with basically inheriting the zoning restriction that commercial kennels have to because uh as you look at five, which is at the bottom, it says that it's only permitted in B4, highway, commercial, B3 general business, industrial park, general industrial, and uh the gateway zoning. Um why do we limit it there? I don't know that I would feel that that's appropriate necessarily at this point in time. I think the same reason why we say that Walmart can't be in a residential zone. It's an enterprise sufficiently large. Yes. But there are there are plenty of they call themselves like think of uh people who do like Persian cats or um small hobby breeders. They might have six dogs and have one litter a year and handle that from their house. Somebody who lives on an acre of property, I don't see any reason to prevent them from doing that. So, a commercial enterprise is somebody who is selling animals. Anybody who has a litter uh technically of anything that they're selling would be required, I think, to have a commercial license. And so by our by our by some statute or I assume what you're talking about maybe your dog has one or two litters I know a year and you do sell them but you're not right like American boarding kennels on Highway 13. But if if you have let's say you have a litter and it's a huge litter, the the clarification is that it can't be over like four or five months, which that you're not you're not doing that when you're when you're you know breeding. You're you're you're selling them early in their life generally. But I mean if if you look at breeders sometimes have an animal that they can't sell before it's four months old. If you happen to have a large litter and they're an expensive breed of dog, it's conceivable that you could be in violation of this. Um, and maybe it's off base. I just don't understand the reason for this residential hobby license. Um, it it seems like we said, okay, well, if you're breeding, great commercial here, but also if you're a homeowner, we're going to set some different standards for you. Why not? If you want both licenses then have the same standards for both licenses. It's see it's not sorry it's not just right but even in my personal because this went up to four. I used to have to get the residential hobby because I do I adopt rescue dogs and I ended up somehow with three dogs for God knows how many years. So I fell under till they changed it that category to get that residential kennel because they're saying hey you got more than this many dogs you have to do that which means that I'm required to show my proof of vaccination form and pay the fee for it. Well, that part of it kind of done, but you know, I get where they're going with that part because you could potentially have somebody not doing commercial, but that loves heck out of next thing you know, you got three, four, five, you know. So, it it's where do you draw the line on how you do that particular and it's not even just breeding. And I was going to say, isn't there a residential? There's one along like south of 42 along County Road 5. I think that is a I think it's a residential kennel, but it's like, you know, you're going to go on vacation and your dog goes there and there's a limit to how many dogs are there. And I don't think they actually breed or anything like that. I think they're just, you know, that resource for people who are, you know, like kind of like that. Yeah. Yep. Just a a nice residential area where they get to run and they have a little pen and it's kind of like an out building on the house. And um and I I think they shouldn't be subject to commercial kennel like rules necessarily. I I guess when I look at it, I think I have a friend who fosters animals and and I look at the requirement and she might have four this week and two next week. And she's helping the community out. She's taking in damaged animals um that need medical care potentially and caring for them. and then giving them back and putting them out to new homes. I don't think that she should be required to have a residential hobby license for that. These are not her animals. They're transient, so to speak. But she might have four, she might have 10 at any given time. Um, and they're not a nuisance to the community. So why should the city require her to be in charge of of getting a license and overseeing her hobby in that case? I just think it's a little excessive oversight. I mean, how many of these licenses does the city issue? I I don't know the answer to that. Uh, service manager LMY did say that they do apply, that we do have people that have residential licenses, but I have no idea how many of those we have. Are there police calls for nuisances where people have sufficient volumes of animals that they should have a license that have been a problem in the community? I that couldn't answer. It's not common that I'm aware of. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I don't know. Mr. My recollection is that the city historically did have two categories and added the third middle one because large and small was not satisfactory and it did arise out of experience. But I can't recall when that occurred or what the the memo to council was, but I don't think these classifications were put into the city code by accident. That doesn't mean they can't be changed, but there was a there was a basis or a rationale for the categories that were set and the numbers that were selected. My recollection, it was based on dogs. And I think council member Gustoson uh was is familiar with some of that history much more than I am. I guess I'd like to hear some of that history um or get some of the validation of what that exists for because I think if there's such a low incidence of it and it was put into code to address a maybe a specific problem, you know, maybe address something where in multi-unit dwellings or something. I just don't think we should be restricting homeowners, single unit homeowners that aren't causing a nuisance. Is there any zoning restriction on residential kennels? On what kennel? Residential kennels. I don't know. Thought there might be a conditional use or accessory use of home occupation listing. There may be some issues if they're in HOA as well. Uh, is any of this defined by the state as far as Not that I know. Kels, I missed what you said. I I asked if any of it was defined by the state. If there was I thought your he was not that I know of. Oh, okay. Yeah. Um, I I'd like to know more as well. Um, I'm I would say that I'm predisposed to saying I think the different classifications are reasonable, but I'd like to know more about why uh if there is that information, do some research and and I think my my biggest concern would be do you force the residential kennel owners to adopt the commercial standards or do you say the the commercial owners take the residential standards? uh because the commercial ones I I mean I think this is it is it is pretty detailed about the amount of floor space and ventilation and temperature and and I I think that that is reasonable certainly in the commercial enterprise. Um so if we eliminate it would that group of people just become just pet owners frankly um like because they wouldn't be you know we'd say you don't need a kennel license. So, I I would I'd be interested in seeing more of that discussion, but I think probably I would need personally to have that information before I'd be willing to dive into that myself more. I I need to understand it. I just looked at it and on the surface it seemed really silly to me that the city was in the business of regulating that for people. Um, Steve made a comment under standards uh that no kennel can be within 3/4 of a mile of any liquor store. Oh, I mean other kennel. Trying to be vindictive. Did you I didn't remember the liquor decision. We'll do that tomorrow. Uh, so can you tell me about that? Um, I don't think I actually will. That might be a mistake. Oh, okay. Well, I'll blame Jared has solidied your good name and uh is is anyone is anyone that? All right, then I think we can strike that comment and move forward to page 104. Uh, animals within city limits. Um, okay. So, a question from Nancy. Is there a mechanism for residents petition neighbors for additional pets? Um, where are you? I page 104. I just happen to know in the city of Minneapolis if I don't remember what the number is, but if you want more than that, you need to get signatures of everyone around you and like get it cleared just like dogs. And I think they had like six in their house and it wasn't a problem and their neighbors said, "Sure, fine." Minneapolis has a unique statute that's provided for the city of Minneapolis that grants them a little bit more authority and what's concept of neighbor veto or neighbor authorization. Okay, that does not exist for other cities such as Burnsville. So generally our advice out of our office has been fairly consistent based on a Minnesota Supreme Court case which unfortunately is titled Luger versus Burnsville. So it's one of those that we have firsthand experience with in the community of not having the neighbors have the authority to say yes that you can have more you think cities and police officers and city attorneys can be subjective. You can imagine what the neighbors are. Yeah. It just seems like um the limits here are are quite low for dogs, cats, ferrets, and and I think some of that was experience in particularly with the chicken situation as other ways. Start with a few, see how it's going with the coups and then later if if as informed by experience things could move up. And I do think that kind of explains some of the situation on the kennels's stat ordinance for experience that the council had over time with adding it. And I would guess same thing with the hand chickens is that if people get to use them, have them more frequently and the numbers might go up or it might go the other way. The three dogs is really not that many either. No, that and it was two and it got changed to three. Yeah. Um, we have dog haters on the council or something. Well, um, it actually was the council wasn't even um, one of our council members wasn't even aware that they were violating that for having the third dog. So, um, it it did happen um, over the years and they were like, yeah, three shouldn't be a problem. But there are places in the city where that's allowed because if you're in that southwest Burnsville, if you're in that rural agricultural area, you can have those hobby farms with multiple chickens and other types of animals there. So, I think that they're thinking about uh limiting the the reason the numbers were put into place was to to limit any nuisance to your neighbors. I uh you know I I agree that they're arbitrary limits, but they seem pretty close. I don't know how I mean I I don't think that someone should have 30 dogs personally. I don't think that's appropriate in a residential setting because that's what we're talking about. Um generally um uh I don't know how we would evaluate raising it or changing well and that was this is tied to the hobby kennel limits right because if you get the hobby k the residential hobby kennel license let me say that 10 times fast then you would be allowed to have four or five dogs or you could have six to nine cats and I think if that's really the intent this is kind of sill silly. Just pick a number. I don't care if it's seven cats, seven dogs, seven ferrets, but realistically the type of animal. I don't think really I I would think up to seven chickens if that's the number without a license. I think that potentially a difference is that maybe you keep ferrets in a chicken coop, but most people don't. They keep them are outside. Yeah, the ferrets are outside, not inside. Uh ferrets are out. Frets are inside. chicken outside. I got that right. Uh Sarah, well, I'm And this may or may not be a good idea, but is I know I've seen where we've done like city surveys before. Is this something that it could be posed like just broadcast and saying, "Hey, we're looking for input, you know, how many animals would you like in your neighborhood near you?" You know, kind of thing. And kind of list out like a little easy questionnaire. Um, I don't know what kind of responses we've got the city has gotten from those types of surveys before, but maybe it's worth putting out there and just saying, "Hey, you know, like I I know you're you can get a wild thing, but at the same time, like maybe it's Yeah, go ahead. So, uh, and and I don't think that we have specifically asked that question to our residents before. Not that I'm aware of anyway since I've been here. But I do know that you get those people who say, "I don't think anybody should have a dog because I my neighbor has a dog." And then you're gonna have people who say, "You can have as many dogs as you want." So I I don't think that we would get the clarity that you would want out of that. I mean, you might be able to find a happy medium in there somewhere, but once you ask the question, if you don't pick their answer, they're going to be upset with you. Sure. Right. And that makes sense. That's why I was like, I don't know even know if you pose that. I I think that since this is enforcement driven, I mean, I'm sure the police are not going door to door checking on the numbers of animals unless they have a reason to, which would be complaint, right? So, I I would be prone to say this seems like it's working in this case. And I'm not saying that people can have more animals than they can, but effectively they can because unless someone comes to check and has a reason because there's an issue, you know, and you could have an issue with one dog as we've already established. So, let me get this straight. If you don't get caught, it's okay. Hasn't that been the entire summary tonight? If you don't get caught, it's okay. The movie theaters, the noise, that's I mean, I don't want to set that precedence. I'm in compliance and ethics, right? Of course, you know. Yeah, that's what rules are set for. I like the I like the way it's written now. I have friends with two dogs, not three. Four chickens, not five. And they can't eat all the eggs. Four chickens, it's one a day. They lay one a day when there's enough daylight. So, in the winter, they don't lay, but that's that's fine. And their cage is a significant part of their yard. So, I think it probably relates to how many square feet per animal is my guess on how they figured out how many of different types of animals you can have and how much space typically people have. So yeah, I I like it the way it is. Okay. Would anyone are we is there any further discussion on what's on 104? Okay. I just think that it needs to be tied to wherever we go with the residential hobby pen licenses, which I I really um am opposed to that whole concept at this point because I think it's an undue burden. Well, you think residential areas should be able to have whatever it is, 10 dogs or something, whatever. No, whatever the number decided is if it's if it's for the commercial or the residential kennel should apply to just plain residential. Yes. Whatever your opinion. Mhm. Okay. Rather than further restrictions for non residential kennel. So, I want to do a time check. We're at 7:35. Uh we could either end right now or we could work through the next three pages which would take us to the end of the animal section. Uh and then we would have all that conversation concluded. Um do people have preferences? Are people want to stay a few more minutes or uh if not then we can rapidly progress to Okay. Do people need to leave? I'll say are other people willing to stay around for another 10 minutes to finish this section out. Okay, sure. We have a quorum. Um, so let's jump forward to 105. Uh, I'm wondering if the comment about fighting and dog fighting if we should just say that animal fighting is prohibited and they can't be raised or kept for fighting. People, animals or otherwise. of racing people. Yes. All right. I'll assume no no uh conflicts with prohibiting all animal fighting. Yeah. Um Donna asked on uh 15 uh does that mean that non-poisonous stakes, pythons and boa constrictors, anacondas would be allowed? Yes. Next page. Okay. Um, and then, uh, Shelley asks, "Why do we prohibit monkeys?" All monkeys, excuse me, while they are less common, they aren't, aren't there some monkeys specifically sold as pets? I wanted an heap. Okay. Uh, do you think that people should I don't think the city should prohibit all monkeys by default when there are commercial pet monkeys being sold and some people might be allergic to cat dander and dog hair and monkey hair might work for him. I don't know. I I knew a a girl who had a pet monkey growing up. It was kind of fun. Kept in cage, not So, would you recommend certain breeds? I mean because I don't think you'd be proposing gorillas. No, no orangutans either. Just for the record. Yeah, but not even Yeah. Not even Sarah. Well, I guess this kind of leads into a whole bunch of things. You're talking about the pot belly pig and they got the monkeys and all these things. Is it something where like if say I I've never lived in Burnsville before and I moved to Burnsville and I realized like, oh my gosh, the city code says I can't have a monkey because I have a monkey and I just moved in. Can I come to the city and say, "Hey, I have a monkey." Is there any way for me to propose to the city council that we allow monkeys? And can they then just go with it at that point? Is that something that, you know, like maybe it's an application and you go through the motions of it and then you suddenly the city then looks at it at that time? Like right now, I don't think we have anybody asking. avenues. You can talk to an individual council member and ask if they would champion that change or see if that change. You can come to citizen comments. You could write a letter asking for it. That's pretty much how the domestic chicken issue was, which would be a a legislative process versus an administrative process where I have a hearing and say, can I get my monkey approved? Chris, I would suspect that this is regulated by the feds as primates and already need to be licensed already. Okay. Okay. Yeah, there's they've really cracked down on a lot of that with uh endangered animals being imported or brought legally or illegally in the United States. Sure, that makes sense. Well, then even if we went back to the pot belly pig, it would just be the city and you just talk about it then and just say, "Okay, we'll consider it and you go through the motions." And I think sometimes we have to think about also that um when we say it's allowed in the city, you know, you might have some real difficulty keeping a potbelly pig if you live in an apartment building. Well, yeah, for sure. There's going to have to be a lot of rules that go along with that. And then, you know, if we just magically say it here without, you know, until and unless somebody asks the question, it just hasn't been addressed. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Unless it's explicitly prohibited, it's generally allowed. And I guess like do we need to regulate the ordinance does specifically allow service monkeys. So, the irony there is my guess that's also not in there by accident. So, somebody might have had a monkey that was trained to assist with household chores for someone who was mobility impaired or sure somebody with no arms or something, right? So, that this the ordinance has prohibitions, but then exceptions to the prohibitions that obviously probably came from someone. Be your companion, right? Service emotional support pig. Right. Exactly. That's what I call bacon. Actually, thanks. I'll be here all night. Okay. Oh my goodness. Uh, let's move to 106. Uh, there's a lot of discussion on the exceptions and any type of animal. And Jared says, I think Chris says this needs to be cleaned up. Needs to be clear. It's been a problem in the past. U, how do you know that someone harbors animals other than pets? Um, and Jared says, "Well, we can't really amend it until we figure out what we want." Um, so Chris, would could you comment at all about what you think where you think this needs to head? I I just think it needs to be clarified a little bit more. Okay. Um, we got a lot of loose ends there that we uh run across on occasion. So would you have some practical things that you'd like to see in the language to clarify that from from your perspective? Um gosh, I had all this list in my head and I forgot about that question. Not off the top of my head. I just think it needs to be worded differently. I think that the intent is is good. It just needs to be worded so it's a little more clear. So what's a Can you give me a concrete example of a problem that we've had? Um, not clearly. I think it's more from I I think it's more from the interpretation. Okay. Well, maybe maybe I'd suggest that since there's this extensive sidebar between Chris and Jared that maybe they could continue that dialogue and propose some language for us to review next time. Yeah, I've talked to him about a little bit and I don't think we ever connected back to where we're trying to go to. Okay. Uh Sarah says that at the end uh this seems to repeat 67. Should this be com should this be combined at all? Um about the conditions of keeping. Yeah. Yeah. Possibly. I'll let I'll let the city staff reconcile that. Uh 107 Shelley says, "This scene is very broad. Cats often roam outside. Children leave doors open, lie almost to escape. Um no person sh suffer, allow, or permit an animal owned by them or in their care to be at large within the city." Um uh well uh what kind of color on that? What's that? Some color. Okay. Um, the reason that I noted that is I remember when my kids were young and the cat got out. We we had kittens of course multiple times until till we figured out how to get our cats fixed. But the real issue is you don't always have control of a cat getting outside. That's their nature. Same with a dog. Dogs like to escape if they're tagged and you have a microchip or some identification and somebody shouldn't be in violation of the city statute because their animal accidentally escapes was really my point with that. We've got a couple of nuisance cats in our neighborhood that everybody's complaining about. Nobody can do anything about it. Animal control would have to catch them. Nobody knows who they belong to. So, how do you tie that to somebody and issue a citation? Mr. Chair, if I this is falls back to what we've dealt with a lot and there's discretion here. Again, if if there's a dog, there has to be the ability if it is a cat that's constantly running around and is a problem, there has to be, you know, the potential to issue a citation. But if we go there and find out the seven-year-old accidentally opened the door and let the dog out, we're not issuing a citation. Okay? But there there has to be some ability to do that. If it gets to a point where it's a continued problem and we're continuing, you can rest assured if a citation is issued, the person who received it is going to say it was an isolated instant incident. It's never occurred before. And then the prosecution is going to have to say, "Well, this is the seventh time it's happened within the last two months." Or it happens the dog is barking every morning at 6:00, seven days in a row, and Andrew's willing to testify. And then we got Dang Street. I'm just telling I I'm good with that. I just thought it seemed very broad without any it seems harsh that but it's not administered and could not effectively be enforced. No, it has to be extensive because feral cats in the city are a huge problem. I I will add with specificity that it has not been just common animals. We've had goats at large. We've had uh peacocks, everything at large. So, this is not an unusual event. Were they owned or were they owned? Okay. Do we allow keeping peacocks within the city? I didn't see this anywhere. Again, back to my prior statement. This has been a problem in the past. That's an example. Yeah. Okay. Um, Donna asks, "What about service animals for the beach areas? Do signs post?" That's an automatic then or is there a sign up saying that or according to service manager Limy, she said that uh they are governed under the ADA. So they don't that does not apply. Does that make sense? Yeah. But so people understand that. Okay. Um flipping the 108. Thank you guys. We're almost there. Um question about uh poultry and do we want them to raise quail? I mean, it just says poultry, so it doesn't I I don't see something that says not quail. I don't have a problem with it. I mean, as long as they're within their four or less poultry, I guess. Do we just go back to talking about that poultry definition that was there before that we were talking about clarification on? Are those two things related? And maybe I don't know. Is there such a thing as a domesticated quail or a domesticated feeasant outside of a farm? Yes. Okay. And they're also raised for their eggs. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Um, Nancy had a question about 50 ft from any other structure residentially seems unrealistic for keeping poultry in backyards. Um, I'll I'll give you I'll Okay, so my neighbor has a chicken coupe in the backyard and she was pregnant and we had to get rid of the chickens because it's unsafe. She There was something there. So, now that the baby's born, they got the chickens back. So there's something there that might relate to what that topic is. I think that a distance is I mean I think we'd all agree that people in apartment buildings should not be keeping chickens. So there's a specific coupe requirement and if you don't have any property for the coupe then then we're good there. Yep. I think it's reasonable. I think it's a reasonable restriction. I couldn't I couldn't put a coupe in my backyard and I don't think my neighbors would like it. You mean you not like when I worked in another city and the chickens got out and got my boiler room and then when they investigated they found that they were raising chickens and pigs and sheep in there and you actually butchering in the boiler room. Huh? No, in the community behind me. I just had to chase a chicken down a hall with a box. Don't even go there. All right, I think that concludes but we'll we will end at right before 64. Did we come to a consensus on quail? Is anyone opposed to quail? The one direction from large uh service manager lumpky was is that a city council decision? Well, the all the task force would recommend. Yes. All right. Yep. Okay, that takes us to miscellaneous items. Thank you everyone. Uh, the next meeting will be April 26 at 5:30 p.m. here in the council chambers. Meetings typically held on the last Wednesday night of each month. Our homework is to review title 7 health and sanitation. Redline version is included uh in tonight's packet. I'm not sure that's actually true. Uh, but it is available uh and comments due in the 12th. Michelle, yeah, sorry. the um I also want to speak to this group about um when you signed up for this task force. We specifically mentioned around 18 to 24 months. As of June 30th, we will hit that 24 month mark. And um I wanted to check in with you. I'm letting you know that we're going to be sending you out an email giving you a couple of days to think about it, but we would like to know if you would like to remain on the task force after June 30th or if you would like to say my term is up and then we would look to replace some members to get to a uh a full uh compliment. Okay. So, how big are we hoping to get back to you? What's that? How we're going to be sending it out tomorrow and we're hoping you can get back to us by Monday. How many people are is the city council hoping that we maintain? And they have not set a number. Okay. Um I know that when they originally set this group, they made it a large number because they knew that there would be some attrition through it all. Yep. Um however, based on the um u amount that we have left to go through, we may not need as many as as large a number as we started out with. So, that's something that um we're going to be considering when we do our recruitment. Would you be able to include kind of where we're at and how much? I mean, do we think it's another 12 months or do you think it's another 18 months? And and you know, sometimes we go through an entire title and one night, no problem. Or two, right? We've done two even. Sometimes it takes three months to get through one title. So, uh there's really no way for me to say with any certainty. Um but I mean rough guess 6 to 12 months. Okay. Thank you. Could you ask a second question which would be perhaps maybe it's it's the amount of time. So you know if we go to eight one question would be if we got through the remaining chapters in the next six months by going to nine you know would you still be on the committee or not? Okay, we can add that. I mean, that would be the sure something opened. How I'd like to know make sure we get stuff done and maybe it takes more time to do that, but let's let's knock it off instead of, you know, just keep pushing everything forward. All right, any final discussion? Thank you everyone for staying late. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.