All right, I'll now open the regular city council meeting for love city council for December 2nd. already December in this year 2025. City council will recess into executive session now in accordance with Texas Government Code 551.071 to consult with and seek the advice of our city's legal council. 551.072 to discuss the purchase, exchange or value of real property and 551.087 to discuss economic development matters. The city council is recessing now at 12:46 p.m. and we will be back here uh for a work session as soon as we come out of executive session. >> All right, it's now 2:30 and I'm reconvening an open session. We'll take up a work session at this time for an update on our sales tax revenue and related reports. and I will call on our city manager, Mr. Atinson, to lead this discussion. >> Thank you, mayor, city council. If we could uh get you to switch the inputs, please, sir. Okay. Think think we've got that. All right. council um wanted to use just a few minutes today to kind of close out the sales tax saga from fiscal year 2025. So I'm going to quickly just go back to June so that when we got our June report that came in and this is where we thought we stood at the worst of the year. Short version of that we predicted a 5.4 million shortfall. 5.4. Remember, we took several actions as a city. Um, we jumped in and we ended up not quite as bad as it had been predicted, but pretty close. 5.2. 5.2. I do want to though call out a few items. They're circled on the page. For some reason, this is not switching on the page. Robert needs to come off of this input over here. See what that does. I need to There we go. Thank you. Okay, now that everybody can see that. So, this was through June of 2025. And again, this was as bad as it got for the year. And at that point, we were predicting a 5.47. four. >> We're having a hard day. >> I think it's going to pop back up. >> Okay, before this disappears, please draw your eyes to the bottom right hand corner of the screen. This was as bad as it got. At this point, we looked like we were running on a 5.46 or a 5.47 million predicted shortfall. Shortfall versus budget. Shortfall versus budget. Okay, this now is the final sales tax report that closed out fiscal year 2025. So these were the dollars spent in September, but again the reporting lag. We actually get those numbers in November. We did not end up at 5.47 million below budget. we ended up at 5.187 or 5.19. So I think the work that Joe uh and Cheryl Brock and that crew were doing, they the models came in pretty good. They they really did when you realize just how big these numbers are. I don't want to leave on the note that fiscal year 2025 was as bad as it appeared versus budget. So on the left you see a series of numbers circled in red and on the right those same set of numbers are circled. >> Mr. Atinson, you can just let me know when to switch. I'll switch it for you. >> And here I am thinking I'm in control. Guess I'll learn that lesson. >> Robert, on my screen the circles are in the right spot. >> Just move them up a little bit. Okay, I'll call those numbers out because it'll put them back in the correct boxes. Um, they moved quite a bit. Okay, the two columns that have circled numbers, those are actual numbers to actual numbers that no budget just what we really got in fiscal 24, what we really got in fiscal 25. So the July report so or the July spending the report we got in September in 2024 we collected 8.1 million that's what's not quite in that circle and in 2025 you collected a little over 8.4. So on an actual to an actual basis July was better by $270,000. Same thing in August. Um actual in 24 7.8 actual coming up into 2025 8.2 for actual money to actual money you were up 462,000. Still below budget but actual to actual we were up 462,000. final month of the fiscal year, September. In 2024, you were at 9 million, and you're at 9.7 million. In 2025, or a delta of positive 629,000. That's the only time last year that you had three consecutive months where the actual numbers beat the actual numbers. So up by 269, up by 462, and up by 629,000. Didn't fix the budget, but if you're looking to see what's going on in real dollars spent in the community, those last three months are the best that we've seen in terms of what happened in fiscal year 2025. Total year basis, fiscal year 24, the collection was 99.1 million and we were 100.4 4 million for fiscal year 2025 or a positive variance there of 1.33 million. So we did not meet budget. I'm going to give some examples of what we did to accommodate that or to account for it. But as many times as all of us stared at this over the last 12 months, I do think the thing that I'm taking away from it is your last three years, three months of the year on an actual basis are starting to show some recovery. So, we will get the next report. Unfortunately, it will be after the December 9th council meeting, but we'll get the next report. That'll represent the first month in 2026. Robert, if you'd switch. Okay. So, April of this year is when we came in and started to do the freeze on open general fund positions other than public safety. We pulled back on some cash funded projects. By July, we had pulled back on any non-essential training and travel money and repeated asks that I made of our staff. Hey, you know, it's tight. They see the same things that we do here on the dis. Do what you can do to help us out. So, the next bullet point, and I'm going to read it from the end first. Please note, these are unudited numbers. You will have your actual audit come forward in February, but on an unawited basis, we came in about 6.2 million under the budget. And the general fund, the shortfall we were covering was basically 5.2. So general fund is going to come in balanced, and I think it's going to come in balanced to the positive side. You're still going to end up good. Where those come from? um 900,000 out of the comp and benefits, 1.7 out of health insurance. We were able to back off on some supplies. Um about 800,000 there, 400 on maintenance. Um brought in right at a million dollar savings on the training and travel um and the professional services cost. scheduled charges. This was not one that we were pulling back because there's not really a way to do that, but your scheduled charges were 363,000 under budget because electricity came in 336,000 under budget. So, did not hit budget for the year. We saw that coming. We knew it. We put into place several changes to accommodate that so that we did not end up with deficit spending. And on an unaudited basis, mayor and council, you did not end up in a deficit basis in your general fund for the year. With that, I'll take any questions you may have. Uh Mr. Atinson, on health insurance savings totaling at $1.7 million, how were those uh savings accomplished? Um, was it through, you know, fewer employees or was it uh higher, you know, premiums or uh contributions from our employees or I mean, how do we accomplish $1.7 million? >> Good, good question. Um, the biggest part of that is from unfilled positions. So with unfilled positions, you don't pay anything because all of our health insurance is basically per employee per month is how the premiums are calculated out. That was the biggest part of it. Um generally we did not have the larger um what we call a shock claim that comes into the system. You set aside dollars every year to handle that. We didn't see that. uh don't have the actual detailed list in front of me, but based on that number, I'm going to guess we also had some pharmaceutical savings. >> Okay. We didn't renegotiate anything or any of our >> We we we did >> we did >> we we did not take one extra penny from any of our employees. >> Okay. >> Those are locked. >> All right. >> We did and we do this annually. We did renegotiate all of our health plan, >> which we I knew we were already doing that. >> We've got a good savings for that, but that doesn't trigger until January 1st. >> Okay. So the the thing that gets crazy when we look at health plan budgets is those are calendar years whereas your city budget is fiscal year. >> Okay. Uh Mr. I wanted to commend you and everybody on the staff who helped us achieve um these reductions in spending and just really excellent job monitoring the revenue and adjusting the spending accordingly. So, I appreciate you and and everybody else on the team who's uh who's made these adjustments. I think we've ended up in a a very uh responsible position with reduction in spending to to match where the sales tax has fallen short. >> Thank you, sir. Appreciate that, >> Mayor Potam. >> Ditto to that, but I also want to thank our all of our employees because no doubt they made some sacrifices to get to this. And so I appreciate that that y'all are willing to do the sacrifice. I know it is not easy and hopefully we'll recover and be at our very best and back up to par. >> Mr. Collins, I would also reiterate uh my thanks and and this goes to every staff member of the city. everybody played a role in in helping us uh ensure that we did not have deficit spending this year and thank you to the leadership team for doing that as well. Got a couple quick questions though. Uh for 2425 we projected a 7% increase in sales tax over the year prior. What did we do for remind me what we did 25 26 >> um we ended up with a plus two and a half >> we project million and the percentages are really close cuz >> because we're about 100 >> you're right at you know 100 million but yeah >> okay so and then you know historically if we go back 24 budget year and prior was there any kind of historical reference that would tell us that this 7% was achievable had been done over and over again or or or not. >> There there was we were coming through a 5-year period where the average sales tax increase was very nearly to seven. I think the biggest year inside that 5-year run was just a little over plus 10 maybe. >> Okay. >> And the lowest was in the high fours. >> Okay. Well, so we had good information. We had historical data that allowed us to put this number in place. And then you know the economy's changed essentially is what's happened. So >> it it did good good point and council you you've heard us say this before. We do live and die by sales tax in love's budget. It's a greater revenue source than the operation and maintenance portion of the property tax. The beauty of sales tax is when your economy is moving forward quickly so does your sales tax. The danger to it the economy goes the other direction. your sales tax does that very quickly as well as well. >> Well, again, thanks to all of you for your uh support in in helping us make this budget work. >> And again, so we ended up the year at 1.3 million more in sales tax income than the previous year. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And for this coming year, we're projecting $2.5 million. I I believe that's the number 102 and a half >> and most of that 1.3 million came at the end of the year. Is that correct >> on the actual basis? Yes. >> Okay. So, I mean with that in mind, I think we've been fairly conservative in our estimate of getting $2.5 million more this year. And so hopefully, you know, if the economy stays pretty strong, we will hit that number. Maybe we'll be fortunate and get back closer to our norm. But we've not we've not gone back to our norm. We have kept things back at a very conservative >> and uh >> we're going to maintain the freeze on the open general fund positions until I see some trends that start matching budget. Um but again >> for a couple of months, right, >> for a couple of months. Um but again, as y'all have noted, the the entirety of the staff participated in doing this and it's something I talk with them about at least once a month uh as well. So, we're going to kind of keep our foot on the brakes where we can um with the expectation that we'll get back on the right track and turn it all loose. >> All right. Any other comments? >> All right. Well, again, we we appreciate everybody for their uh part in this and working hard on it. Uh you know, nobody likes to have to tighten their belt. Um it's a painful exercise lots of times. Uh, and sometimes some departments get hit harder than other departments when that happens. Um, but again, we're uh fiduciaries for our public's money. And uh I I think you've done a good job of making sure that we uh do what we're supposed to do and and meet our obligations here. So, thank you very much. All right. Anything else, Mr. Atinson? No, sir. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Let's continue now into our regular session and uh we're going to um uh take up our ceremony items. I'm going to call on Lynn Smith, who's the chaplain for the uh Love Fire Rescue and also for the spiritual care department at Covenant Medical to lead us in our invocation. And after that, please remain standing for our pledges of allegiance to our United States and Texas flags. It's an honor to be here to open up this council meeting today with prayer. Let us pray. Dear gracious God, we come before you this day with hearts of gratitude and thankfulness for your presence in this place. We thank you for all the blessings you've bestowed upon each of us in this city this past year. And we thank you ahead of time for all you will provide as we journey through this holiday season and this upcoming year. I pray for your special touch to be on all those in our community. I pray that you will provide the healing and a peace where it's needed. Show forth your grace and your mercies and comfort where it is so desperately needed in our community. I pray that you will provide them knowledge and wisdom today for our city leaders to conduct the necessary business of this city and to make the decisions that will provide for prosperity, growth, and wellness. I pray God that our city leaders will have the energy, that they'll have the strength necessary as the caretakers of our community to stand boldly and humbly each day and all that they face. Guide their path of all the unknown that each day brings. Even at times where no idea of where they will go or what they will do, let them know that they are called to be here. Reassure them, hold them, provide whatever is needed. so they may reflect your presence. We stand here humbly before you today. Father, hold each of us, guide us, and carry us as we enter this day with you. Amen. >> Thank you for that beautiful prayer. At this time, let us join to honor our country and state flags. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. As we've all been through the Thanksgiving season, I think we're all uh reminded again of how lucky we are to live in love, how fortunate we are, how blessed we are. Uh uh I'm and I know all of us up here are extremely thankful uh that we live in this city and thankful for all of our city employees who work hard and who love this city and serve this city and its citizens. Uh so we do we do thank you. Uh want you to know that uh we appreciate you. You know anytime you go down to any floor, you find people hard at work, you know, doing their best. Um and people who visit this city sense something special about it. and you guys are a large part of why they're able to sense that. So, thank you all very much. Um, we'll now call this meeting to order and we'll take up citizen comments. According to the love city council rules, any citizen wishing to appear in person before a regular meeting of the city council regarding any matter posted on our agenda has to complete a sign up form prior to the meeting. And uh we've asked that you give us your name and your address. And we have two comments today. Uh so when I call you for it, you'll have three minutes to make your comment. You'll hear a a bell ring when you got 30 seconds left and then a second bell will ring when you need to wrap up uh your comments. And uh the first person I'm going to ask to come forward is Laura Hopper. Um Miss Hopper, if you'll come forward. >> Thank you, city council. Um, I want to let you know that I watched the last city council meeting and um became aware of the Lebec Animal Services um needing some tools in wanting to increase the liability insurance to $1 million from $250,000. Um, of course, as one of the nine in Levik that house, a dangerous dog, that became understandably unsettling. Oh, sorry. And so, when we were told to get liability insurance last May, it's very fresh on my mind. It's not easy to find liability insurance for dangerous dogs. You don't go to your local insurance company and do that. I called my insurance agent. I was told by public animal services to be careful when you do find liability insurance as there are scammers out there and they've actually had someone bring a certificate in for dangerous dogs and it was not even a real company. So, I finally found someone out of Colorado. my deductible comes out of Florida. And um I did ask them in May, I did hear that other places in Texas are adopting a million dollar liability to house a dangerous dog. And they told me that that would be a $2,000 a month premium to hold that insurance. And I remember because it's very the same as as as my house mortgage and that would be very devastating. And so as I want to talk to you as one of the nine that should be concerned about this and other pet owners in the future that come across this, I want to discourage um raising that liability um because it is not an easy liability insurance to find and and keep. There are no tools right now or or excuse me, there's no studies indicating that doing this will cause any less dangerous dog episodes. And I understand that Love Animal Services needs tools and needs support. Um, I just ask that if you do decide to do the million-dollar agenda that you will think about a grandfathering clause. And I just really hope and and and think that public education would be a better tool. I've lived in Libby since 98. Held had a dog for 20 years and never had a dangerous dog and never been aware of the implications of something that happens in a short period of time that can uproot your life like me and my daughter had this past May. Um, Laura Hopper, 3707 106 Street. And thank you for your time. >> Can I ask you one question, Miss Hopper? You you said uh something about your deductible. What was your deductible? >> $1,089 81 cents a year. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> That was the your deductible was a thousand >> yearly deductible. >> Yearly deductible. And your premiums you said were 2,000 a month. >> Well, if it was a million. >> If it was a million. Uh if anybody has a question for because I think this was a question we had quite a bit about whether you could find that insurance or not and uh >> and nothing in love and nothing in Texas that I found. >> Um did you currently have an insurance policy at the $250,000 level >> at my house >> or in general >> for your dog? For your damage >> for my dog? Yes. And I actually have a $300,000 policy because this company offers $200,000 or $300,000 policy. So, I had to round up and get the $300,000. >> And if you don't mind uh answering, what was your premium on the $300,000 policy? >> The the three It's $1,089.81 a year. So, 400 down, 100 a month. >> Okay. That's your premium. All right. And that's different than your deductible. Does it have a deductible? >> No. >> Okay. All right. All right. And so what was the premium for the million dollar cost? Were you quoted a cost? >> Yes, they just told me that would run about $2,000 a month to hold that $1 million premium a year. >> Okay. >> About a difference in verbally told me. Yes, because I had inquired. >> Wait, no difference. $1,000 a year versus $24,000 a year is the difference. >> It's a big difference. And you wouldn't think it would be that big a difference. >> Okay. Any other questions since she actually knows something about this. All right. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. And then it's it's separate from the homeowner's insurance. Just to clarify, this is a whole different insurance. >> All right. Next, I have Matteline Hopper. Hello, council members. I'm going to be speaking on the same issue. I have something written up I'd like to say. So, first of all, I'm Maline Hopper. I also reside at 3707 106th Street with my mom and our dog. And our family is one of the um nine households in the entire city of currently permitted to own a dog classified as dangerous. I'm here to respectfully urge you not to increase the required dangerous dog liability insurance. My family has fully complied with every requirement the city has set. We maintain the current $250,000 policy, which again we had to get at that $300,000 policy. Um, which um, importantly is a standalone policy completely separate from home owners insurance. When we began the compliance process, we asked Leic animal services where we could obtain this insurance policy. We were given a shrug and told they had no reliable source of where we could get this information from, but that there was lots of scammers out there and to be careful. They also told us that people had found it, so it was possible. But again, they did not give us a reliable place to be able to go to. Um, we eventually found coverage only by taking a chance on an unfamiliar outofstate company because this type of policy is not available locally or anywhere in the state of Texas due to our research. And again, we only had 15 days to try to comply and shop around to find this insurance. But we really didn't know where to go. Um, securing the coverage at the current level was extremely difficult. raising it to 1 million would make compliance impossible for most love families. Only nine families have been able to meet the existing requirements which include the insurance, reforce fencing, signing around our house, and um importantly the big enclosures we have to build. We do not know how many others have had to surrender or euthanize their dog due to costs, but we know that only eight other families in the city of Levik have been able to make these compliances. Importantly, raising the dangerous dog insurance not only does not improve public safety. The premiums we play go directly to outofstate insurance companies. They do not support Leic animal services, our city or our community. If Levik Animal Services needs more resources, I've seen they are increasing the annual fee already. And that actually is money that funnels back into our city that they can use, but they cannot use any of the insurance money. This requirement also significantly restricts my mother's ability to maintain or change home homeowner's insurance policy as she has to report that she owns a dangerous dog, which means that she cannot switch policy, move homes, or lower premiums for as long as my dog lives, likely another seven years simply because he carries this classification. My dog is a loved member of our family and we have done everything we can to keep him safe responsibly. it would be devastating to lose him because the insurance requirement suddenly becomes impossible to meet especially when the justification last city council meeting was that they heard other cities were doing it. Um, just to say it, all of our financial things we've done again have gone into these prohibitive measures, including building these enclosures, reence, um, reinforcing our fencing, putting up signs around our house to let people know. But increasing the insurance policy just throws money into the air that doesn't effectively help us or our community. So, we just do not think it's fair. >> Thank you very much, Meline. All right. Well, I'll take up agenda item 5.1, the minutes from our November 4th, 2025 regular city council meeting. Is there a motion to approve item 5.1? >> Have a motion. Do I have a second? Have a motion and a second. Any discussion, any amendments or edits or alterations to the minutes? I see none. So, all in favor uh say I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. So the motion is approved unanimously. We'll now take up um item six, the consent agenda. There's not been any requests by anyone on the council to pull any items from the consent agenda. So I'll entertain a motion at this time to approve the consent agenda as presented. Is there a motion? >> So move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All right. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor of approving the consent agenda. Uh let it be known by saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. The motion to approve the consent agenda uh passes unanimously. All right. We'll take up our regular agenda now. Uh and we'll take up uh begin with item 7.1 to consider the appointment of the chairperson to the central business tax increment increment financing reinvestment zone board of directors. Wow. Um for the 2026 calendar year with a term ending December 31st, 2026. I'm going to call now on our city secretary, Courtney P, to provide a briefing on this matter. >> Thank you, mayor. And I'm going to give a broad overview, which will kind of go for the next four items. Um, per section 311.09 of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the governing body of the municipality that created the TIFF, Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone, shall appoint one member of the board to serve as chair for the calendar year. So, it's typically about this time that you all do that. Um, currently Dan Williams is the current chairperson of this TIFF and is being recommended to serve um for the next calendar year. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions for P? >> I see none. Um, so is there a motion to approve item 7.1? Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. The motion is approved unanimously. So we'll take up 7.2. Consider the appointment of the chairperson of the love business park tax increment financing reinvestment zone board of directors. And I will call on Courtney Paw again to provide a briefing on this matter. >> Thank you, mayor. Currently, Sandy Henry serves as chair for the LEC business park tiff and is being recommended for the 2026 calendar year um to serve as chair as well should she be um appointed. All right. Is there a motion to approve item 7.2? >> Second. >> Have a motion, a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Say nay. I hear none. That motion passes unanimously. We'll take up item 7.3, the appointment of the chairperson of the North Overton Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors. Miss P. >> Thank you, Mayor. Jeff Dayne currently serves as the chair for the North Overton TIFF and is being recommended for the 2026 calendar year to serve in that capacity. >> All right. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve item 7.3? >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor say I. I. >> Any oppose say nay. I hear none. The motion passes unanimously. We'll now take up item 7.4. Uh and at this item I'll note that Councilman M. uh David Gasheen has recused himself from voting on this matter. We will consider the appointment of the chairperson of the North Park Tax. Is this correct? North Park Park Tax Increment. I think it's only park once. North Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors. Uh and Mr. Christine has recused himself. So, I'll call again on Miss P to provide a briefing on this matter. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, Kevin Glene currently serves as chair for this board and is being recommended for the 2026 calendar year as well. >> All right. Is there a motion to approve? >> Have a motion, a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose say nay. There is none, the motion uh passes unanimously. All right, we're going to take up items uh 7.5 to 7.8. Without objection, the council will conduct a consolidated public hearing for these zoning cases. The council's already received in their packet the staff reports from the planning department and the recommendations from the planning and zoning commission. As a reminder, the purpose of the public hearing is to hear from the applicant and members of the public. The council may ask questions of the applicant or staff during the public hearing, but no discussion on the merits will be conducted by the council during the public hearing time. So, I'll now call on our director of planning, Kristen Sager, to provide a brief summary of each of these zoning cases subject to the public hearing today. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. Item 75 is a request for a zone change from Heiden City Residential to Heavy Commercial. We sent out 24 notifications, receiving no responses. This property is located north of 76th Street, east of I27. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There are residences to the south, vacant land to the east, and some additional residential and commercial to the west across I27. Current zoning is highdensity residential. There's additional highdensity residential to the east and south with heavy commercial to the west. Future lang use plan designates this property for commercial lane uses. And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. The future land use map designation is for commercial land uses which is consistent with the request. The proposed zone change is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area. The location is along I27 which is a freeway and 76th Street which is a local street. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with the unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> All right. uh from my remembrance of where that is and I'll show you your pictures. I guess there's currently an occupied church building on that property. Is that right? >> Yes. >> All right. >> Um All right. Are there any questions for Miss Sager on this? >> All right. Uh move on to the next one. >> Item 76 is a request for a zone change from lowdensity single family SF2 to medium density residential. We sent out 75 notifications receiving two in favor, one in opposition. This property is located west of Quaker Avenue north of Loop 88. Here's the response map showing the two in favor and one in opposition. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There is an existing neighborhood to the north and then a mix of commercial and residential to the south. Current zoning is low density single family SF2. It is surrounded by SO2 with some heavy commercial to the south. Future land use plan designates this property for residential lowdensity land uses. And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. These are renderings provided by the applicant showing an example of what could be developed on the property. and then a photo as well from the applicant. The future land use map designation is for low density residential land uses. The request is a minor deviation because it would allow for medium density land uses, but it is appropriate in this location giving the uh adjacent zoning and land uses. The proposed zone change is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area. It is along Upton Avenue, which is the collector, and then Salem and 127th, which are local streets. Staff has no objection to the request, and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> I see no questions. Move on, please. >> Item 77 is a zone change request from low density single family SF2, neighborhood, commercial, and office to office. We sent out 34 notifications receiving six in opposition, one that was neutral. This property is located west of Indiana Avenue south of 110th. Here is the map showing the six that are in opposition. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There is a developed neighborhood to the north and then some commercial uses to the south and east. Current zoning is SF2, neighborhood commercial and office. There is additional neighborhood commercial to the south with office to the east and SF2 to the north and west. Future Langie's plan designates this property for office and parks. It was a former golf course. And so here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. This is a graphic provided by the applicant just showing the outline of their proposed subject property um along with the zoning future land use map designation is for park and office. So it is partially in conformance but it is appropriate in this location given the adjacent commercial zoning office zoning um and land uses. The proposed zone change is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area. 110th is a local street. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with the unanimous vote. And I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> All right, I see no questions. We go to the next one. >> Item 78 is a zone change request from low density single family SF2 to light industrial. We sent out 28 notifications receiving none back. This property is located south of 122nd Street east of Frankfurt Avenue. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There is residential to the north along with um a shop, office, warehouse type facility that is outside city limits. And then there is a mix of residential and commercial uses along 122nd again with several properties outside city limits. Current zoning is low density single family SF2. There's additional SF2 zoning along with light industrial and then some industrial park, heavy commercial, auto urban commercial along Frankfurt Avenue. Future land use map designates this property for lowdensity residential land uses. And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. There is currently a commercial use on the property, potentially industrial, that has been there since prior to annexation. The future land use map designation is for residential land uses. So, while this request is not consistent with that designation, it is appropriate in this location giving the current use of the property, the adjacent land uses, and the adjacent zoning. The zone changes in conformance with the zoning ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area. 122nd Street is a collector. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with the unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you, Miss Sager. Um, the properties to the both east and west of this, are they residential or they're commercial right next to it or is it going to be sandwiched right between two residential properties? It may potentially be between two residential properties, but if the use were to change, then they would have to come into conformance with the unified development code and they would be required to place buffer yards adjacent to those properties. >> Okay, >> Mr. Rose, >> if everyone's done with this one, I I wanted to go back and ask on 7.7 what the plan do they have plans for that? >> I I'm not aware of any spec any specific proposed use. >> That's all that's all I wanted to ask. >> Any other questions on 7.8? >> All right. Thank you, S. Thank you. Do we have Oh, Dr. Wilson. Just a quick question also on this case. I'm miss light industrial. Remind me if the property was ever be sold, what could then be put in between the two residential properties? >> Um, so I mean light industrial as the name speaks for itself, but it would be um office warehouse type uses, some light manufacturing. It would allow some outdoor storage, but it would require screening depending on what it's adjacent to. Okay. >> And uh across in your north view there >> and your west view across the street from it, the metal building, are those industrial storage units? >> So I I believe they're a mix of storage and shops. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> All right. >> And and since they're outside city limits, they are not limited on what they can do. It's just looking at the uses, you know, adjacent to it. Anyway, >> all right. Any other questions, Miss Savior? >> All right. See none. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'll now open the public hearing for items 7.5 to 7.8. Is there anyone here today wishing to speak in favor of any of these agenda items? 7.5 7.8. State your name and um address, please. >> Good afternoon, council. My name is Will Stevens with AMD Engineering at 651568 Street. I'm here as the applicant on agenda item 7.6. Just wanted to make myself available for any questions that you may have. >> Are there any questions? >> I see none. Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Anyone else? Afternoon, mayor and council. I'm Terry Hullman. I'm with Hugo Reed and Associates. I'm speaking on behalf of items 7.7 and 7.8. I spoke to both of these at quite a lot of length at the planning and zoning commission. So, I'll spare you all the detail today, but I did want to sort of encapsulate for you what what our objective is on both of these. And may I go to the slides? We'll start with 7.7. I can get back here. So, this is um this is uh we're speaking on behalf of Red Canyon Development. If you paid close attention, um you've known Red Canyon Development as being associated with Thomas Payne. that entity sold to uh Blake and Dusty Womble about a year ago and they took over this project and they've been sort of getting it uh teed up for development as it were. We've been immersed in a pretty expansive cut and fill project out there. We're kind of wrapping up on that and so our objective now is to now finally begin to get away on actually developing some of the property um going vertical as it were. So this is speculative zoning. We don't have a specific user or a specific project in mind quite yet. I' I'd put together a large enough envelope to give us a little bit of wiggle room, so to speak, on on offices that we think might fit here. Uh the the odd angle on the sort sort of the lower eastern part is where we are abuing the Adelfos uh winery property and so that's why it's shaped that way. We felt like office would be a good sort of buffer, for lack of a better word, between that commercial use and the residences to the north, right? Um the concept plans that we've thrown together show sort of offices up front or an office up front with parking sort of tucked in behind and connectivity to the Advos facility behind us. the larger piece on the west. We don't really have any specific idea other than we we envision maybe a similar style. Maybe one or two or four office buildings maybe with parking sort of tucked in the middle. Um the the property today is uh up for a lot of engineering challenges. We have capacity to develop the property but is today it's still in the flood zone and it's still a storm water empowerment easement. So there's all the engineering things we still have to go through. This is just the first step for us on this property. Um, there were six letters of opposition that came in initially. The interesting thing is that's six letters representing two households because the the property to the north, one household spans four tax parcels and another household spans two tax parcels. I had a real good dialogue with both of those property owners and I think you know the the the underlying sort of issue that they all have concerns out there is they just want their golf course back and we we we just can't we can't we're not in a position to do that. Um we're trying to develop this um into something new but they understood and I think they just want to protect their neighborhood and so we feel like office zoning is it doesn't allow really much of a retail component. it that normally shuts down at five or six o'clock in the afternoon. So, we felt like that was about as good as we could do. Also, there are always concerns about drainage and the roadway and those types of things. And I reassured them that when time comes for us to actually plat and develop, um your engineering department will require us to to get that road up to current standard and mitigate any drainage issues that that are leased at our front door. Um so, with that said, uh we certainly would appreciate a positive vote. um is this is just the first step for us on this. And by the way, as Miss Seager pointed out, yes, it is designated as park on the comp plan. Uh if you'll look at the comp plan, all of the golf courses in Lach were just identified as park. So that sort of an anomaly there, I believe. Um we're going to skip on now to 7.8. This one I am representing Thomas Payne individually. Um this is property he's owned for quite a while. Um, this is actually, if I get to the photo, the the yellow box property is is ours. He's he's using it today as as his contractor yard. Um, he's, you know, he came into the city limits. He was already using it that way. So, he's legal non-conforming, and we felt like it was kind of time for us to go ahead and get the appropriate zoning in place so that should he ever want to get a permit or improve his property, um, that he would have the legal ability to do that. Um, we do need light industrial zoning uh to do a contractor yard. Uh, this is where he keeps some of his equipment. Uh, it's where he's uh stockpile some of his materials that he's got, but that that that's the objective. This whole quarter section has really made us scratch our heads uh over the years. And there's a few pockets of areas like this in town that I've always wondered about where it's a lot of property that was built up before it was annexed. And there's this whole blend of different types of land uses out there. Yes, there are some residences uh here and there. Uh there there's an older uh mobile home to the east of us and then uh what looks like a an older structure and some other stuff in back to the west of us. You know, Kincaid Roofing is right down the block from us. Uh there's obviously the the shops and the stores that are just to the north of us. Those residences to the north of us are all duplexes. And thankfully for us, uh, we felt it was pretty convenient in that the our frontage doesn't front face any duplexes which are facing 122nd Street, at least not right in front of us. You go catacorn across the street and those duplexes do in fact face 122nd Street. Um, the gray box to the west of us, um, that is Light Industrial. uh that was zoned fairly recently if I recall within the last year or so. So that's our story. We're just trying to get uh uh conformant with what the use is already existing on the property today. And I'd be happy to answer any questions on either one of those. >> I know you're not prepared really to tell us what your plans are for the rest of the former golf course. Um, do you have some concept concepts in mind though on how I think all of us are concerned to see it developed and and we know the drainage problems have been a real problem on our streets >> right >> there and so I'm happy at least to >> know that maybe somebody with the capacity to develop it has control of it now and and maybe will get developed but uh it has been an issue of concern for residents along there uh for quite some time the drainage. Oh, sure. Yes, sir. And um particularly the the street to the north of us and particularly um the north south street that sort of dead ends into our property, that's historically been a a really pretty bad problem. And so we understand that when time comes for us to develop, we understand that we're going to have to mitigate that or address that in some fashion. I envision um yeah, if you see my cursor here, I envision sort of a drainage something uh that would convey water down between these two halves of the property and get down to the golf course. To answer your first question, um we do envision sort of traditional retail fronting onto Indiana Avenue in front of Adelfos as little out parcels. Um I down at the corner of 114th in Indiana, we envision sort of traditional larger retail, not big box stuff, but you a sort of a true strip center down there. And it doesn't show up on this photo, but on the far west end of this old golf course next to Memphis Avenue is the Gates development. Um there's there's not been any homes constructed yet. Those are really ultra high-end lots, a little bit larger lots. Um and uh there it's platted, it's it's constructed. Um we're just trying to get it uh to the point to where we can begin to really sell lots out there. So, and then yes, the remainder of the property, the bulk of the property, it's Ply Lake and so we still have to keep that storage capacity available to us. So, we're we're we're sort of developing as best as we can around the fringes. The interior of the property will remain Ply Lake >> privately owned. >> All right. Thank you. Yeah. Given the problems, I think a unified developer plan is probably the best way to handle it rather than peace meal. So, I'm happy to at least see that. >> Yes, sir. >> aspect of it. Anybody else have questions? >> I see none. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. >> All right. Is anyone else here uh present wanting to speak in favor of any of these items? Uh now I'll ask if anyone here is uh wishing to speak in opposition to any of these items. If you would please come forward, state your name and address and your opposition. Anyone in opposition? All right, I see no one. I will close our public hearing at 3:22. So is there a motion to approve items uh 7.5 to 7.8? >> So move. >> Do you have a second? Second. >> Have a motion, a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor? Let be know by saying I. I. Any post say nay. I hear none. Those uh agenda items pass unanimously. All right. When I take up item 7.9, consider an ordinance on second reading amending chapter 4 of the animals uh chapter 4 animals of the code of ordinances as it relates to dangerous dogs. Uh since this is a second reading, unless a council desires to have a staff briefing, uh I will forgo forego the briefing and entertain a motion. Uh is there anyone wishing further staff briefing on this item? Mayor Pro Tim, >> what I'd like to know is is there a way to um table this item for another council meeting so we can review just a little bit more on the issues of that we heard earlier from citizen comments. Is that possible? >> Just a matter of making a motion. >> Well, I'd like to make that motion if possible just because I feel like we just need to look into it just a little bit more because if you know, it even though it's only nine citizens, it is something that we need to understand a little bit better. And I I'd like to make that motion. >> So, we have a motion to postpone this to the next uh council meeting, which would be next week, or do you wish it to be longer than that? >> Maybe a little bit longer than that. to the first meeting in January >> just so we can understand it a little bit more. >> You can do it. >> So So you want to make a motion to the first meeting in January? First regular council meeting January. >> I think that would be good. >> It be January 13th. >> Okay. >> To January 13th. >> Yes. >> All right. So we have a motion to table this. Is that the proper postpone it till the January 13th city council meeting? Is there a second? Mr. Gin Mr. Gin, I see you have a comment. Are you wishing to make a second or do you wish to comment? >> Oh, we can >> wait. Okay. Is there a second on that motion? >> We have a motion and a second. All right. Any discussion on that? >> All right. >> Mr. Mayor, I do have a question. >> Did the uh the version that passed at the first reading, did it include the insurance provisions? >> So, yes. So, if my recollection, and I'll defer to the city secretary in the minutes, but I do believe that the first motion that was made um had the million-doll um insurance requirement in it. There was a motion to change that to 250. That motion failed and so the million dollars stayed in the in the main motion that was eventually passed by the city council. Well, I'll say on on postponing it, I think that we've we've studied this issue enough. I think we've reached a consensus on on this current compromise, and if we need to come back and re-evaluate it at another point, we can. Uh but you know I I'm I am skeptical that it's going to be possible to get a meaningful amount of or or effective coverage in a million dollars uh for anyone. And the the cost of the coverage is not really so much of an issue because frankly if if you want to do something dangerous, you have to be prepared to pay for the consequences of it going wrong. If you want to have a dangerous dog that could kill or permanently injure someone, you need to be able to have the resources to make that right. Um, and that even a million dollars of coverage would not be enough to compensate someone for a permanently injured child, for example, which is a realistic possibility when you're dealing with a dangerous dog attack. So, um, I don't think that just on the basis of the cost of coverage, we should postpone this uh any further. >> Mr. Collins. >> I think uh mayor, one of the questions that we asked uh in our in our meeting last time was for staff to come back with some information regarding the accessibility of this $1 million type of coverage. And I wonder if Mr. Howardon or Mr. Green has any information. Um, >> yes. >> No, I'm okay. >> I'll let you know if it changes though. Sorry. Yes. Um, we did get with our risk management department as well as call insurance companies ourselves. It is a standalone policy that they do have to cover. Like Miss Hopper said earlier, um we got with the policy writers that risk management uses. They were able to find the industry for this. Typically, insurance policies for a million dollars of liability insurance for a dangerous dog range from $1,500 to $3,500 per year. These prices may depend on the severity of the bite or the attack and the breed of animal as well as where you live and stuff like that. So, at 15 to $3,500 a year, that's substantially different than what we the testimony we heard earlier from our citizen. Um, did did we get a list of those providers? >> No, sir. We refrain from providing a list of providers because as a city we don't want to seem like we are endorsing an insurance company. >> Okay. Um and so I I can't disagree with that. I wonder what kind of research our our citizens could do there or or at least some guidance to help them find it because I would hate for these folks to spend $24,000 for insurance when it might be available for 3500. I think it would make a difference in their decisions uh you know going forward. >> Yeah. And we have discussed if it is best left at 250,000 we totally understand that as well. >> Okay. So if then and not to ask anyone about their breed but uh to go back to you know the previous definition of a dangerous dog. >> Yes sir. Any dog that bites somebody, any dog that scares somebody, >> if it is done outside of their enclosure and they were not reasonably restrained and the victim comes in and files that affidavit and we investigate it, then yes, it would still be considered dangerous. >> Okay. So, I think we, you know, we we have this mindset about certain breeds that are dangerous and, you know, that are rough and mean-l lookinging and, uh, the fact of the matter is my cocker spaniel could run out the door and and chase somebody down the street and if they filed a complaint, uh, in all likelihood it would be labeled a dangerous dog. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. We don't go based off of breeds. However, when we were speaking with insurance companies, some would say they did not insure specific breeds. So there are a handful that they won't take. That's what you just said. Yeah. >> For some insurance companies, for example, if you own a Rottweiler, they will not insure you. It doesn't matter if your dog's been declared dangerous or not. >> Okay. All right. That's Thank you. >> You're welcome, Mr. Mr. Rose. Um, just to remember here on to be designated a dangerous dog, we don't just automatically designate a dangerous dog based on the breed. Correct. >> Yes, sir. We don't designate based on the breed. They have to have >> they have to have some sort of an incident. >> Yes, sir. >> Right. Okay. That's what I'm making sure. Thank you. and the the difference is quite a bit from what our citizen found versus what you guys are are finding. Um, is there any is there was there any insurance company that looked like that kind of a premium was um the $2,000 a month was something that Did you find any insurance companies that were like that? I did speak with one, but it was not the standard. >> What do you mean not the standard? >> As in it didn't compare to most companies we spoke with. It was much higher. So, we got multiple quotes. >> Uhhuh. And >> and so we found one that said yes, it could be up to 20,000. >> Okay. >> A year. But stat or um on average that was much higher than what other companies were quoting us. >> How many companies did you talk to? >> I am not sure. I would have to get with Laney with risk management because she went through her policy writers. >> Do we know around about three, four, five? I would >> say five to 10. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Collins. Yeah. So, I guess a question for Mr. Wade. Is there a is there any type of of issue legal issue for LA to post a list of possible providers? I I think that there's there is a way that we could sit there and provide a list of providers that we know of that do that do provide as long as we are careful in the list saying we're not endorsing anybody doing it that there may be other providers out there that we don't give quotes on actual premiums it's going to be depending on the facts of the circumstances related to the dangerous dog etc. But I think we could paper it to where we could probably provide a list >> to find insurance for an event, a million-doll insurance. It takes a little bit of time. It's not You don't just get all your quotes immediately. I feel like it's so important that we navigate through this and that we do everything because ultimately we're impacting citizens and their livelihoods. So, I just want to be sure it's, you know, no doubt we have a few dangerous dogs in our city. We just have to make sure that we handle the process properly. So would you say that that's fair that we just look a little bit more just to make sure that we uh don't create problems for the people that live in our city. I think the research we've done has been adequate. >> Is that okay? >> That's my thought going forward. But that's really up to you guys. >> The 24,000 versus the 3500. >> You've got to understand the thought process of that insure. >> Were they trying to price themselves out of the market? >> That would be my thought. >> All right. Um, so remind me again, Tyler. U besides the insurance requirement, what are the other requirements when you have a dangerous dog that people have to fulfill? >> Yeah. So, it must be sterilized. If they go out in public at all, they must be properly restrained on a leash by someone that's able to control them. So, not a child. They must wear a muzzle. They have to have a secure enclosure with four sides and a top and some kind of cemented bottom so the dog cannot dig out of it. They must have to have a secure fence. They must have to have signage on the front gate, the back gate, and on the enclosure stating that it is a dangerous dog with some kind of cartoon on it so that a child can understand the dog is also dangerous. They have to pay a $200 a year dangerous dog permit fee and they have to carry the liability insurance as well as keep the rabies vaccines up to date. >> All right. So, it's I mean we're not just relying on after the uh fact, you know, insurance to cover something. There's a lot of preventative steps that any owner of a dog, dangerous dog, has to take that seem to be pretty uh uh heavy, you know, and and I think reasonable uh to make sure that we keep our citizens protected and safe um from a dangerous dog. So, um but I think to Mr. Sheen's question, you know, the risk, you know, when you're assessing risk and who assumes a risk, it still has to fall on the person who, you know, is the one or has the animal that um is the risk to the public. Uh and if there are policies that are available at a million dollars at 1,500 to 3500, which seems more reasonable, then I think that's u perfectly reasonable to have that within an ordinance. But we're not just relying on the insurance. Uh there are a lot of steps that the owners have to take. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I just want to be clear about that. Mayor Pro Tim, >> we heard from one of the citizens requesting even doing the grandfather clause. What is is that something that we could apply or? >> Um I think no. I think that administratively that'd be very difficult. So, I mean, anybody that's on their current permit, it won't happen till that permit expires as far as coming up with the new requirements. So, um, so no, it's there's really not a this isn't a grandfather grandfathering type issue. I I would make one point of clarification and while there may be a muzzle requirement in our current ordinance, there's no muzzle requirement in they do have to be kept on a lease, you have to be in a secure enclosure, they do have to have a sign, they do have to have the insurance, all that, but there's no muzzle requirement actually in in the ordinance that's before you. So, just a point of clarification. >> So, can we amend it to require that even with this reading? Can we amend it to require that? >> Absolutely. >> Seems like a entirely reasonable. >> That's that's >> more likely to prevent the biting than almost anything else you have in there. >> That is that is completely up to y'all if y'all want to add that. >> Now, now remember, we are on the motion. >> We're on a motion to table >> to postpone to >> to postpone it. I'm sorry. And we have a motion and a second on that. >> I think we've kind of discussed that out. So unless you wish to withdraw yours, >> I actually would withdraw just simply because I believe that our staff has done the proper work if you know I didn't realize I know we talked about it but you know we've had a holiday >> mayor prom your mic. >> Sorry about that. I what I said is that we have had some time and I didn't realize that everything had already been done. So, you know, I feel like our staff has done the work and I would like somehow for us to work with our citizens so that they we're not endorsing, but we do need to offer some opportunities for them to connect with something that is affordable to them. >> So, I withdraw >> withdraw that motion and >> All right. We would need the consent of Councilman Harris or give him the >> You consent to that >> withdraw. >> He consents. All right. There's no objection from anybody. All right. All right. So, now we're back to the motion as it sits before us. Is Is this >> There There is no motion. >> There's no motion. That's right. We haven't done that yet. Um do we need to take the motion up first before we amend it? >> That would be my preference. >> Preference to do that. I would if >> and would the muzzling requirement fall within these uh uh parts of the ordinance under 7.9. >> We would we would add it. Yes, I would end up adding it to section 4.06.102 as another requirement. You have one two. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Through six and there just be a seventh. >> Okay. So, I will entertain a motion to approve 7.9. Got a motion or you hear the motion? >> I'm going to make a motion, but I want to I'm just going to amend it. >> Okay. We got a motion. Do we have a second? >> No, hold on. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, I want to I'm just going >> You want to go skip back to the amendment? >> I'm going to move to approve, but I want to add what you just said at 4.06.102 102 as item seven to include the muzzle requirement >> as as part of your motion >> as part of the just it all together. >> So okay, >> we can do it that we certainly can do it that way. Remember this is second reading. So you already have so what's presented to you is the second reading of the ordinance but you want to move to it with that amendment already. >> Want to move to approve and add the amendment. Just add that as item seven to that. That there must be the muzzle. >> You can do that. >> All right. As long as you say that's okay, Mr. Wade. All right. >> It is a step. Me and Courtney and Jimmy will straight and we'll get it off. Save a step. All right. Do we have a second to that? >> I have a question real quickly. >> Let's get the second first and then we'll ask questions about it. Do I have a second? We have a second. All right. Now, discussion. Mayor Pro Tim. >> What type of public education do we do? >> Oh, uh, we do a lot. We go, we talk at schools, we run >> specifically to the dangerous dog situation because I know that was one of the concerns from our citizen comment was they that she felt that that would be more impactful if we did that and I don't think that it should I mean you know we have to supplement it but I don't think it's the only answer. We have to also take action. So >> yeah, I do a lot of public service announcements. I'm actually filming more this week with Robert. I can totally throw that in there and start publicizing that more as well. We typically, I think, usually discuss dangerous dogs when we're on scene with that specific case. >> That's a great answer and you've done a great job. Let me just say that, >> Mr. Harris. Yes. When will this go in effect? And will it affect the ones that are already been considered dangerous dogs? >> I believe Mr. Wade told me it was 10 days after today if y'all approve it. So, December 12th. >> Yeah. So, so we because it has penalty provisions associated with it, there has to be publication notice that gives out to it. So, after it's approved today, then it's normally no earlier than 10 days after it's approved today. and we publish notice of those penalty provisions, then it will go into effect. And as far as the current dangerous dogs that are out there, then if you might have some that are no longer defined as dangerous because it was a a dangerous animal under a current ordinance before y'all amend it. Um, but anyone else, they'll need to come into compliance as their as their reg as their annual they they renew their annual registration of the dangerous dog. willing to come in compliance with anything different and it probably won't be much anything different than what they what currently they are complying with. >> Does that answer your question, Councilman Harris? >> Yes, sir. Thank you, >> Mr. Collins. >> So, to that point, Mr. I'm I'm wondering is there a way for us to, you know, ensure that we give these nine um animal owners a proper amount of time to do their research if we're going to publish a list of potential providers? And could we then say they have um that this goes into effect no sooner than June 1st. So they get >> you you you can change the effective date of the ordinance to to to something within a reasonable period of time, but yes, you can change the effective date of the I don't find, you know, 10 days isn't reasonable. If you ask me to I mean I I I understand you know what the law says but I think 10 days is going to be extremely difficult if we gave 90 days >> and and and normally your staff and your city manager are very much you know um just from a practical standpoint and enforcement standpoint do give grace periods for people to come into compliance with it. Um and that that certainly is the standard operating procedure of your of your enforcement arm of the city. Um, it's just that's the minimum legal requirement before the ordinance actually quote goes into effect. Right. >> Well, and I appreciate that and and recognize what a great job staffs does. Um, but should we enumerate that to just say we're going to give 90 days grace for folks to get that figured out? >> Your city secretary might have some more information as exactly how long it takes to publish it, etc. >> Yes. Just to offer a little bit more context, we will publish it this Friday and next Friday and then 10 days from next Friday would it then go into effect. So about 20 days until it's actually effective. Just so you all are aware. >> Yes, that would be if it were approved today. That's what it would be. >> Uh Mr. Atinson. Yes. >> Thank Thank you, sir. Councilman Collins, are we talking about giving that longer lead time specifically for those that currently have the insurance? Not not for the rest of the ordinance, but merely for that. Matt, would it be possible for the council to move it? It would be an amendment now that those permits that are currently valid at the 250,000 are valid through the life of that permit. And then >> yeah, that they would be through the life of the permit. I think that the permit might expire on an annual on the same date annually. And so, um, that's one thing to keep in mind. Also, keep in mind that when a dog is determined dangerous in and of itself, you have 30 days to come into compliance right then and there, right? So, um, even if their permit did come up, it wouldn't come into effect until 10 days after the second publication. So, that's 20 days. So, then you have 30 days on top of that. So we're looking at right now that lightning speed if we went to enforcement it would still be 50 days down the road before they would be in violation because of the insurance part of it. So that that's 50 days that that they hopefully would have an opportunity to try to find something. But again, I would and and of course, my office does prosecute um any violations of this ticket. And I can assure you that is one of the things that we're from a prosecutor standpoint, we have a duty to see that justice has done, not just to prosecute. And those are certainly the some of the items that we take into account when we prosecute cases are things like that. Did they already have some insurance? Are they just trying to get come into compliance right now? etc. >> You're nodding your head, Mr. Collins. Are you have another question? >> Either up and down or this way. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right. So, what we have on is a second reading of of an ordinance that's been amended. We still have the million-doll requirement in it and the amendment that was offered uh by Dr. Wilson to add the muzzle requirement. >> That's correct. >> As well requirement for muzzle when the dog is outside, >> I guess, when the dog is >> off the property. >> That's correct. >> All right. Any other questions? All right. So, we have a a motion, amend, and we have a second. So, we can take the vote now, right? Any further questions? I see none. All right. All in favor of the 7.9 as amended, please let me know by saying I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed say nay. >> Okay. I heard two nays from this side. Were there any other nays on this side? >> Three. Three nays. Four eyes. Okay. So that motion as amended passes. All right. We'll now take up item 7.10. 10 uh an ordinance on first reading amending chapter 4 animals with the code of ordinances as it relates to multipet permits, breeders permits, empoundment and the you inhumane treatment of animals. Uh again, since this is the second reading unless the council desires a staff briefing, we'll forego that briefing and entertain a motion. Is there uh anyone who requires a staff briefing? I see. >> Read exactly what it was from last time. Just the points just so we know. >> Okay. Uh we have a request to re could Could we post it the um is that probably the easiest way for everybody to look at it? >> So I I can explain that. Yeah. So so part of it is these are changes necessary because you're you're removing dangerous dog from what currently is now under dangerous animals. So that's being removed. We clarify some of the definitions in there making it consistent that we're talking about an animal control officer. We had different terminology throughout the deal. We we removed um based on the first motion on the on what was passed this last time. We now have removed completely any inspection requirement for anybody who wants a multipet permit. So that section's been eliminated in its entirety that's currently on the books on your current code of ordinances. So, if you want a multipet permit, that's been removed and it is no longer in there. Um, we uh so there is an incentive that when you're for an impound fee, you give your director of animal services um the ability that if they're willing to get their when you do impound an animal, if they're willing to get their animal spayed or neutered, that then there can be a waiver of some fees that are associated with that. There's also a clarification regarding who can and how old the animal has to or before how old the animal has to be if you're going to crop their tail or their ears. Um that it has to be basically done by a veterinarian that has to be doing that. Bill Taylor, what did I forget? >> I think you covered it. >> Okay. All right. That answer your questions? Do you wish to see it put up on the screen? Okay. All right. >> I just wanted to clarify that the Yes. >> pulled out. >> Okay. >> There's there's no breeding permit that's in there. >> Yes. >> And there's no inspection for multipet permits. >> Right. >> All right. Uh is there a motion? >> Have a motion, a second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. That passes unanimously. >> So having exhausted all items on our agenda, this meeting is adjourned. Please turn off your microphones. Heat.