All right. I'll now open the regular city council meeting for the LC city council for November 11th, 2025, Veterans Day. Today we honor all our veterans at this time. The city council will recess into executive session in accordance with Texas Government Code 551.071 071 to consult with and seek advice of the city's legal council. 551.072 to discuss the purchase exchange of value of real property and section 551.074 to discuss personnel matters. The city council is now recessing at 12:31. >> Okay. City Council is now going to reconvene an open session and take up a work session for a presentation and discussion of the Texas Department of Transportation's regulation relating to pavement marking standards in public roads. Believe it or not, I will call on the city manager to lead this discussion. >> Thank you, Mayor, City Council. We're going to ask our interim director of public works, Mr. David Bragg, to come up and enlighten us upon a change that everybody will soon see. But we first want to present and show it to y'all. take any questions you may have. So, David, when you're ready. >> Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Um, I'm here to discuss crosswalks, but but first, I want to uh go ahead and address the situation. So, I had a little incident uh Friday night. Uh I want to uh answer any questions. >> David, be careful how you tee that up. >> That's please. >> I was not in Raiderville. Um, I was riding some a scooter with my son and his friend uh after the basketball game and uh came to an abrupt stop and uh >> well that's right and you know as my wife reminded me she she she's the most sensible person in our household yet again. So anyway, um so uh you know >> sorry y'all y'all have to look at this dur during the uh presentation but anyway back back to crosswalks. So uh it's not a uh true traffic discussion without speaking about the uh manual uh on uniform traffic control devices. So the manual on uniform traffic control devices which uh as we call it in the traffic world is the MUTCD. It's essentially uh what we refer to as the uh Bible on uh traffic devices. So it's a 1,200 page document that steers us uh in everything we do as far as installing traffic devices. So, it gives us uh a playby-play uh rule book, if you will, as far as how to install everything that you see on roadways. Um, it helps lead us in consistency as far as installing stop signs, markings, any anything you see on a roadway as a driver. Um, so it spells out every color that you see for a sign. um distances. It It tells us uh the size of signs. It tells us when and when we cannot uh appropriately install traffic signals. Uh essentially everything you see on a roadway. This uh book when printed out is 3 to 4 in thick and like I said, it's about 1,200 pages uh long. Um, Texas adopts its own version of the MUTCD that is called the Texas manual on uniform traffic control devices. Um, we don't do this just to be Texans, right? We we do this because Texas is uh one of the states that's a leaders that's a leader in the in the transportation community. Um, but also because Texas has a lot of uh very broad needs for transportation. Um we we are a huge state geographically um that that requires very different needs than some of the smaller geographic states. Um we have large expanses which is which is uh uh different than many of the states. So we have very specific needs as a state. Um why do we need this uh this traffic bible if you will? It helps uh communities and states stay consistent when you travel as a driver. So, in other words, we don't want drivers to see different things as they travel from community to community and state to state. Um, the best way of putting it is sometimes you're driving through a parking lot and you see a a maybe a stop sign or or a yield sign or a different marking that may pop out because it's different than you may see on a public street. Um, that's that's a a way that you see a different type device that that we don't want as a public entity um for drivers to see. We want everything to be very uniform for our drivers from city to city, state to state, across the nation. Um, how does this relate to crosswalks? Um, in around the year 2020, uh, the city was approached with the idea of installing, uh, the first set of what we would call decorative crosswalks. And this was this was the uh the Buddy Holly glasses that that we see downtown. And these are installed uh let's see the these are installed uh near the Buddy Holly Center. Uh they were installed by Civic Labic. Um and so are these are these allowed by the uh MUTCD and and you can see uh section 3G.01. Um, and I I hate to be legalistic, but I want I want you to see that in the TMU TCD, um, it does allow different colored uh, artistic renderings that are non-reflective, um, different colors as long as they're located between the lines of a crosswalk. And I've shown what what that refers to in the picture below. So in other words, uh there are crosswalk lines and essentially this means that you can put artistic type surfaces um whether it be bricks or pattern surfaces um other non regulatory uh pavement markings in between the crosswalk lines. and it's still considered a crosswalk because the actual crosswalk lines are still marked in there. Um, this comes from the 2011 TMUTCD. And the reason I bring that up is because that is the uh version that that we as a as a city work under right now. These are some installations. These are the these are the three installations of decorative crosswalks we have in the city of love currently. Um these are the Buddy Holly glasses on the left hand side. These are uh you know I'm sure everybody's pretty familiar with those. Those were installed in 2020 at 18th Street in Buddy Holly. Um at the Buddy Holly Hall 1300 block of Mac Davis Lane. Um you can see the polka dots which were installed 2021. Um and then the Mosquite Mile which was installed in 2023 at 23rd Street in Avenue V. So again, if you look at each of these installations, they do comply with the TMU TCD because there are crosswalk markings on the outside of each of these uh installations. Now, uh, as we progressed through time, we as the traffic management department saw a need for a policy to be set into place that would allow the community to install more creative crosswalks as as we called it. So, we developed a policy that would allow this. It would allow groups to install uh crosswalks within the community um so that that we uh would allow more artistic uh crosswalks throughout the city. Uh this this crosswalk policy was in was uh adopted by the citizens traffic commission in February of 2025. So just earlier this year and as you can see uh outlined some safety uh concerns which which uh addressed uh that that it needs ADA ramps on each side of the of the crosswalk. Uh, it also outlines some language that that address situations that would keep us as the city from from having to having to be in a situation that would keep us from being uh uh basically caught in the middle of of any political issues. So, no offensive symbols, no messaging that that would address political or religious symbology. Um, essentially we wanted crosswalks that were out there that were just for artistic reasons. You know, maybe uh schools could put them adjacent to their schools for school pride um or for for uh you know, the installations that had already been done, that sort of situation. Now, on October 8th, the city received a letter um that was sent out to counties and cities from Texto. Uh this letter, it had some pretty harsh wording. Okay. So, as you can see, uh it addressed pavement markings not only on crosswalks, but uh it prohibited any travel lane, shoulders, intersections, and crosswalks that served. Uh it basically it basically made it so that anything that was in the rideway, anything that was in the uh roadway had to serve only a traffic purpose. So the wording of this letter prohibited any artistic symbology on the roadway. So the wording here prohibited any artwork in crosswalks or any other portion of the roadway. The the letter stated that failure to comply would result in the withholding or denial of state or federal funding. It stated that uh the suspension of agreements between textile and local jurisdictions could occur if we did not comply with the with the uh with their mandate. and it required that the removal of the markings needed to occur within 30 days of the letter being sent out or a plan to remove the markings needed to be sent to text at that at that point um within 30 days. Now this was not just for state highways but also any city roadways. At the point that we received this letter uh we uh sought clarifications from from the state. So you know it sometimes when you receive these letters uh you wonder if they're intended just for your city or for all cities. you know, are are they for all jurisdictions or are they just for yours? Um, it was a situation where it was sent to address all jurisdictions, all cities. So, we were put in a situation where we had to either remove these crosswalks or send them a plan for removal within 30 days. Um clarification I did get back from text stated that the brick pavers that we had, the decorative bricks that we had installed around town that those are all right to have as crosswalks. Um, in order to request exemption to this mandate, we have to submit a signed and sealed document from a traffic engineer stating that the installation abides by transportation secretary Shawn Duffy's safe road initiative. So, transportation secretary Shawn Duffy's initiative, it states, I apologize, it states that roads are for safety, not for political messages or artworks. It says that every state needs to ensure the roadways, intersection, and crosswalks are kept free of distractions. So, it basically states that we cannot have any artwork on our roadways. So, the state and federal mandates are saying that we cannot have any any artwork on the roadways. So on November 5th of this year, we uh notify the textile district that the decorative crosswalks will be removed. Um the reason being it avoids the possibility of textile withholding or denying state or federal funding to the city. Um that's a big thing that that could affect possible NO funding in the future. Um it also avoids the potential of liability issues uh in the future. So in other words, if we state that uh that yes, we feel that these crosswalks are safe and there is there is an accident in the crosswalk, well we have the state and the and the federal government saying that they're not safe. So that creates a a possible liability issue. Um and the the removal will occur um within the confines of just normal uh maintenance uh throughout the the next year or so. So uh with that, do you all have any questions over this? >> Uh Mr. Harris, >> like you said, uh artworks. So like if you I go to some of these smaller towns and you know they have like the school name and things like that or paw prints and stuff leading you to the schools. So if I was to request like say parkway on the sign and they put like a escotta pointing in this direction is that considered artwork? >> Anything on the roadway would have to be eliminated. I mean, Parkway is just the name of the street. I'm saying if they was to put Estacotta the school emblem on there. >> Yes. No. >> Which one? I mean, is the name Okay. Parkway is the Esakata school mascot or whatever being put on that. Is that art? I mean, which is which? Can you have one or the other? So, you're saying the name of the street on the >> Yeah. on the street >> that um directional. >> Yeah, that that I'm really not sure about, but we don't typically do that on our streets here. Um if if it was if it was a mascot, it definitely would qualify as something that would need to be removed. >> That's right. >> Okay. Thank you. Mayor Pat, >> I was just asking which artist. >> That is correct. >> Sorry about that. I was just asking if because it's a symbol to us and it is considered art because it's in the art district that would have to be removed and you said yes and like the others which is so unfortunate because it's such a tasteful cross-section and people like it but what do you do >> Dr. Wilson, >> just for a quick clarification, and this may be a question for you, Jared, is who will be financially responsible for removing these? And is it the city? Is it to text? Is it during maintenance? And what will the financial cost be to comply? >> The the cost will be on the city. We we put those there or allowed them to be put there. So, we'll have to take them off. It will be part of scheduled maintenance. I don't know the per crosswalk cost that it will take. One of them is really well actually two of them are just one strip across. Buddy Holly the glasses are for and if if I might add just you know a comment to tack on to what David's talking about. The way this is written and the interpretation of it right now is very broad and very universal. Um, we're only aware of one city that has that is challenging back and they are challenging um really relevant probably to what this directive was designed to go after. It's a political expression. I presume after this settles down, we'll probably get better guidance in the future. I don't think it will be very quick, but I think we will because uh councilman mentioned, you know, where schools paint their mascot on the on the street in several things and I don't presume that's what this was designed to reach out and grab, but with the current guidance we have, uh I do think we need to comply and then we'll keep on it. uh and if there's an opportunity to get enough clarity to allow us to come back and do some of these things, we'll certainly um look at doing that and bringing it back to you. >> It, you know, this was a very broad uh letter. I I don't think it was intended to uh go after say the Buddy Holly glasses. It unfortunately it did. Um, and as far as far as removal of say the the the you know as far as say the the Mac Davis uh crosswalk, that one will be a very easy removal. It will be handled with the street maintenance project next year that's already planned. Um so so really that will be that will be very easy to to that that cost will be basically zero just because it's already gonna be planned within that project. Um >> uh so you're understanding that to Mr. Harris's uh position though if Estacado this doesn't apply to like a drive-thru on a school property or something if they want to paint their mascot or paw prints within their own property on their own driveway. It's not a public street or anything. They can still paint that, right? As far as this is only streets, public streets, right? >> Okay. All right. Uh Okay. >> May pro Tim >> and David, go back to the the slide before this one. You said that there was some language that I don't see that language, but what I'm assuming that you're saying because I looked into this a little bit more and when you say political messages, you basically are discussing LGBTQ or stuff like Black Lives Matter, that's the kind of political messages that you're discussing, right? Well, and so the text letter references uh transportation secretary Duffy's memo which speaks to the political messages. And so, uh, essentially, Transportation Secretary Duffy's memo, it went out in on July 1st of this year and it said the states must comply with this within 60 days. Um, now obviously if you look at the date here, October 8th, when when the textile letter went out, it was after 60 days. Um the text dot letter referenced that and said hey cities have to comply with transportation Duffy's memo and so you know it it doesn't directly the the the text letter does not directly um speak to the political messages but it does reference something that does if that makes sense. >> But Mr. Duffy's does. >> That's correct. Yeah. which >> uh just I mean there's no action we take on this or we're intending to comply with it, right? I mean >> that that that is correct, mayor. We just wanted to see if we could explain it as well as we could um and let y'all know that those over time are going to come out. >> All right. So I because I probably everybody here got some communication from people wanting that not to be the case, but I don't really feel like we have the wherewithal to do anything about that without trying to litigate it. And I don't think there's any appetite here anyway. But that's not for our discussion today. At this point, you're preparing you you've notified them. We will comply with it. That is right. >> And and your uh plan is to do so during regular maintenance and that's sufficient to meet their requirements. >> That's correct. All right. Yeah. Which also doesn't eliminate other ways that we can have public art off the street. So, uh, so, all right. Thank you very much. Any other questions? >> I don't see any. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Now, we'll continue in our regular session. We'll take up our ceremonial items. And I will uh remind everybody as we stand uh to hear a prayer and to say the pledge of allegiance that today is Veterans Day. Uh are there any veterans in our audience today? If you're a veteran, would you mind standing so we can recognize you? There are none here today. And that just goes to show you how few people Well, David, why are you st sitting? David, >> our councilman, our own councilman. So, uh, but it does show you how few, you know, in our nation actually serve and how we depend on them. Um, and so it's totally fitting that we honor those that small percentage who take up the burden, take up the cause, and protect our freedom. Um, uh, it was a wonderful ceremony today at the Silent Wings Museum, and we just want to know that we honor all our veterans here in Lukak. I don't think there's probably a better home uh place for our veterans to live uh than right here in love, Texas. And I pray it'll always be that way. So, let's stand now. Uh senior pastor Johnny Davis with the Kingdom Life Fellowship is going to lead us in our invocation after which our mayor pro Tim will lead us in our pledges. mayor, if you will allow only 1%, by the way, of our citizens actually participate in military. And on that note, I'd like to ask David to do the pledge when it is time. >> Mayor, thank you for the invitation today to be here at council. Can we pray? Our gracious heavenly father, we honor you today and thank you for the privilege of being able to call on your name in prayer in this great city. We invite your presence in this room and ask you for divine counsel and understanding and making decisions to grow the city of 11. We celebrate Veterans Day in this great nation and you have given us and ask you to embrace each and every veteran today. Bless them and their families with your peace that passes all understanding. Your word says in Psalms 33, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord and the people whom you choose for his own inheritance." Jesus said in John 15:13, "Greater love has no man than this than he that would lay his life down for his friends." Thank you for all the veterans that have exemplified this over the battles that they have fought for our freedom in the United States. Today I thank you for our city council and all the supporting staff that represents the cities citizens of love, Texas. Romans 13:1 says, "The powers that be are ordained of you. You choose them. You appoint them. You raise them up for such a time as this. I pray Lord for wisdom." According to James 1 and5, "Any man lack wisdom, let him ask God, and he'll give it freely." I thank you Lord for the gifts that they carry, for the integrity that they display in their in their respected positions. I pray today for protection over this council, over their families, over their children. I cancel in the name of Jesus any assignments that the enemy of witchcraft may have spoken or positioned against them. Your word tells us in Ephesians that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against rulers of darkness of this world and against spiritual wickedness in high places. We realize that the decisions that they will soon be faced with will test them to their very core as leaders in this great city. We ask you to bless Texas Tech and all the business culture of love and help them to adapt to the radical changes that are being beginning to surface on the horizon as we witness a total shift in the spiritual seasons. Ask you Lord for protection over the city of love in the weeks and months ahead from any agenda that our enemies may have. Protect our people. Protect our children and our schools. protect our policemen, our first responders, as well as all our medical facilities. And finally, Lord, we ask you to please release in this season a supernatural blessing over this group of leaders, over our wonderful city in the mighty name of Jesus Christ. Amen. >> Amen. I alian to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state and indivisible. All right, I'll now call our meeting to order and we'll we would normally take up citizen comments at this time, but we have no citizen comments today. Again, to remind everyone, you may make citizen comments. We invite you to make citizen comments uh on any item appearing on our agenda. And if you wish to do so, please uh sign up prior to the time of our meeting, usually on two o' at two o'clock um and let us know the item that you wish to speak on. And you'd have three minutes to speak on. But uh as we don't have any today, we'll proceed right on with our uh uh meeting. We'll take up agenda 5.1, the minutes for October 28, 2025 regular city council meeting. Is there a motion to approve item 5.1? >> So move. >> Have a motion. We have a second. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion, amendments, or edits to those minutes? I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. The motion to approve uh passes unanimously. All right. We now take up our uh consent agenda. Um there's not been any request today to pull any items from our consent agenda. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as uh presented here today. Is there such a motion? >> Our motion to or second. >> Second. >> Or a motion a second. Is there any discussion? >> I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. The motion to approve carries unanimously. All right. We'll move on to our regular agenda now. Uh and we're going to take up item 7.1 to consider appointments to the planning and zoning commission. And I'm going to call on Jimmy Maynard, our deputy city secretary, to provide the briefing on this matter. Jimmy, >> thank you. Mayor Brandon Hardaway has resigned from the planning and zoning commission. The recommendation of appointments advisory board is either Michael Hill, Stacy Rogers, or Lorie Thorne to replace him. >> All right, we have uh those three names put forward. Uh is there uh a motion? >> Dr. Wilson? >> Yeah. At this time, um, I would like to move to approve Stacy Rogers from district 5 to replace Brandon Hardway on Planning and Zoning Commission. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second uh on uh naming Stacy Rogers to fulfill the position vacated by uh Brandon Hardaway. Is there any discussion? Mayor Pro Tim. >> Yes, Mayor. I would like to um point out that Mr. Michael Hill, an engineer with more experience and also the understanding of what it takes to contribute to public safety infrastructure and has been on the data base much longer. Has more of the qualifications. Although all of the nominees or the names brought forward to us are very qualified, we should go with expertise and Mr. Um, Hill, pardon me, not only brings the expertise, but he also brings the knowledge of the infrastructure of the city and is much more qualified when it comes to understanding civil engineering and the needs of the city of Lach. And as in the words of um someone how lach is being built, I think it's important to understand not only what's happening on the top but underground. And with that, I would like to um make an amend and ask for Mr. Hill to be the nominee. >> Let me just ask a quick question. In a motion such as this, is that appropriate? Now, I think we have a nomination that's on the floor. So, we go through that nomination. >> This is a little bit different than some things I think where we have just a nomination on the floor. >> That's right. That's been seconded. And so, you go through that. >> Okay. I think that's a little bit different than a regular motion. >> All right. Uh, so we have a u a motion. Uh, we have a second. Any further discussion on uh the names though that are put forward? Anything else you wish to say, Mayor Proim, or anyone else uh to the nomination of Stacy Rogers? Yes. Um once again when we have reviewed the number of people and the balance of their occupations which it should be a board of uh that reflects our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, now we want subject matter experts. And um but in looking at that, we had about four people that are in real estate and development or something related to that that could be considered a conflict of interest. And therefore, I would recommend to avoid public perception of such that we consider um withdrawing that name. All right. Any further discussion on this matter? Okay. If not, I will call for a vote. And I hope to be able to see. You know, I don't have eyes on both sides of my head, so it's kind of a little bit hard to see. All in favor of the motion, would you please let it be known by raising your hand? Let's do a raising of the hand so I can see. I It's really hard. Okay. raise your hand if you approve the motion. Okay, there are four motions to approve it. Uh that motion then uh passes. All right, I guess if you didn't raise your hand, you're opposed. So uh >> All right, so that motion uh carries by a vote of four to three. Uh Miss Rogers will join uh that board and we welcome her aboard. All right, we'll now take up regular agenda item 7.2 two to consider appointments to the Vintage Township Public Facilities Corporation. Call on our city manager for that. I guess he's got people he wants to call on, right? >> U mayor, if you don't mind, we might ask Mr. Mayor. >> I see Mr. Maynard's name right here on my notes. Jimmy, it's back to you. Balls in your court again. >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. The Vintage Township Public Facilities Corporation was created in 2007 and it's managed by a three-person board of directors. The bylaws state that a majority of the board must be members of the Vintage Township Homeowners Association board. All three positions are currently vacant. The recommended appointments are Jim Bob Connor, Bana Cooper, and John Russell. All three of these individuals are members of the Vintage Township Homeowners Association Board and if appointed will serve six-year terms. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Maynard. Is there a motion? >> So move. >> Second. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion on these appointments? I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. >> Hear none. A motion to approve uh carries unanimously. All right. Now, we're going to move on to agenda item 7.3 to consider an ordinance on first reading amending chapter 4 animals of the code of ordinances uh for our city as it relates to dangerous dogs. I'm going to call on our city manager to provide a briefing on this item or to call for the people who will provide that briefing. >> Thank you, mayor, council. Um items 7.3, 7.4, for this is the splitting of the larger ordinance that had been postponed date certain um landing on today uh to begin the discussion on 7.3 the portion specific to the dangerous animals dangerous dogs going to ask Miss Taylor Rugles our assistant director public animal services to come up she'll get that started then of course we have uh some people on the dis as well that participated in this so Taylor >> good afternoon. Or can I just All righty. So, we are looking at Sorry. Okay. Yeah, we are looking at updating the requirements for a dangerous dog and adding a stronger distinction between a dangerous animal and a dangerous dog. As of right now, all dogs declared dangerous in city love are declared dangerous under a dangerous animal and it doesn't really align with state law. Um, so >> would you move just a little closer to the microphone to Yeah. Thank so everybody can hear you. >> Sorry. Um, so this would change things from hearings would no longer be required in order for us to determine a dog dangerous. They would have 30 days to get into compliance instead of the 15 days. Now, insurance for the liability insurance on that dog would be increased from 250,000 to 1 million. Um, if a dog that has been declared dangerous does get out and make another offense, they can get a fine of no more than $500 and it can also become a state felony at that point. There are currently nine dogs that have been declared dangerous through a dangerous dog hearing that are in compliance with being owned in city limits. All right. Are there questions, Mayor Portim? >> Yes. Did that number go up since the last time we covered this topic? >> It did. We recently had a dog get declared dangerous and returned to owners in the past week. So, it increased from 8 to 9. And you also also mentioned state law and that was updated recently in this last legislation or >> I don't believe the state law was updated but we most cities have a dangerous dog ordinance and then a dangerous animal ordinance and a dangerous dog in those ordinances cannot be a dangerous animal. Right now city of love ordinance is combining those two. Gotcha. >> Mr. Rose. >> Uh, thank you, Taylor. Um, can you remind us um so if if a dangerous dog you have to have a dangerous dog hearing to declare a dog dangerous? Yes. And this would >> um no long you would no longer have the dangerous dogs dog hearings. So how would you declare a dog dangerous after that? >> So they have to meet the criteria to be declared a dangerous dog. Can you remind us of the criteria? >> Yes, sir. As of right now, a dangerous animal or a dangerous dog is any dog that is outside of its enclosure, off of its property, commits an unprovoked attack that causes bodily injury towards another domestic animal, foul, or a human. So, if a dog kills a cat, it can be declared dangerous. Under state law, it is any dog that commits bodily injury unprovoked off of its property outside of its enclosure or if it commits an act that causes a person to have reasonable belief that it will attack. >> Who determines what is unprovoked? As of right now at our dangerous dog hearings, Director Green does. Okay, >> Mr. Harris. >> Yes. First of all, I want to commend you all on what great job you all been doing because I have seen a tremendous decrease in straight dogs. I've noticed I've seen your staff working after hours and I in district 2 surely appreciates that. But the one question I have pertaining to this liability in insurance, do they have to show proof of insurance before that dog is released back to them? >> Yes, sir. They do. You also have to purchase a dangerous dog permit every year. it. Right now it is $200. At that time I get an updated form of that insurance. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you Taylor for presenting. Just a question for clarification with the change that's being presented kind of along the lines of Councilman Rose, you know, without having to have dangerous dog hearings. Could you walk me through because I just want to be 100% clear if we have a complaint that there has not been an attack, somebody wasn't bit, but the dog was off the property, unleashed and was aggressive, came up, you know, scared them, barked at them, chased their dog. Like, how are we going to declare them a dangerous animal, dangerous dog? Which one? I want to know the exact process because what is the due process of the owner that's going to say, "Well, my dog was just barking at somebody." Because that's what dogs do. I'm just trying to figure out where is that line of who's going to determine okay was that reasonable enough to be considered that that was going to be a potential unprovoked attack or that's what I'm trying to figure out. I just want to make sure we're very clear. >> Yeah. >> Yes, ma'am. So, we will have officers talk to the person who believes an attack was possible on this dangerous dog. They will have to come into the shelter and file what we call a dangerous dog affidavit. We notoriize it. Usually it is Stephen and I that determine whether or not these dangerous dog affidavit are valid or if it is a dangerous dog. Um, from there we are still going through what exactly that policy is going to look like, but we would write the letter and inform the owner whether or not their dog is dangerous based off of the information in that affidavit. They will then have 30 days to either get into compliance with owning a dangerous dog or they have 15 days to file an appeal at municipal court. So it essentially it would eliminate the public hearing portion, but yourself and and Director Green, y'all would still be investigating, talking to parties, and then making that determination. >> Yes, sir. Or Yes, ma'am. >> I'm so sorry. Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. We will be taking witness statements into account, the person that's writing the affidavit and filing the formal complaint into account. We're not just going to go off of this dog barked at me, so it will be immediately dangerous. >> I think that's what I wanted to clarify. So, there's still going to be due process. It's just not in a formal hearing setting. You'll still be doing due diligence to making sure you're, you know, it's not just one neighbor complaining against the other because their dog barks through the fence and things like that. >> Yes, ma'am. And if the owner of the dog that is declared dangerous disagrees with that declaration, they can still file an appeal at municipal court to dispute that decision. >> Mr. Collins, >> thank you. So to follow up and and for more clarity sake, previous dangerous dog hearings occurred within the offices of the luck animal services. You you guys provided that hearing um and now we're just going to say we're not going to have to have a hearing. We're going to make that decision ourselves as we always have or was it at the m was the dangerous dog hearing prior held at municipal court. So what we do now is if a dangerous dog affidavit is filed, I set up an administrative hearing, we actually hold it here in council chambers and then we have 15 days or Steven is usually the hearing officer. He has 10 days to make the declaration of dangerous or not dangerous. From the t date of his declaration, the owners have 15 days to get into compliance or to file an appeal. The appeal would go to municipal court. >> So, and so my question is the judiciary of a dangerous dong hearing today is is still Steven? >> Yes, sir. >> And that's not going to change. >> No, we will check. >> Okay. So, it's not a committee. It's not municipal court. It's it's LA officials. >> We're just trying to align our city ordinance with what state law says. >> Okay. State law says you can't do what we've always done or you can do what we're doing now. >> You can do what we've always done, but it's not necessary. We're putting in a lot more work than what state law requires. >> Okay. Um, from that you have nine dogs who have been declared dangerous throughout the city and and I'm assuming these nine dogs and their and their owners have provided this $250,000 liability policy to you. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, >> per dog. >> Per dog. And so do we think and I and I'm just asking the question, you know, from a from an insurance perspective, the difference between 250 and a million um is that insurance even possible? Uh is it possible? Have have we talked with any agents in town who are raising their hand to write that policy or uh is it part of their homeowners? How are they obtaining this insurance coverage? Do you know? I am not fully sure if a million is possible. A lot of not a lot, but we have seen that 250,000 has been pretty accessible and achievable for a lot of pe for the people getting their dogs into compliance. Um, we got a million from talking to other animal control officers around the state. >> Okay. Um, and then go through one more time what the state uh, if you would please, what the state uh would would call a dangerous dog. You said they had to be outside and off property. >> They have to be off property, unrestrained, so no leash, unprovoked, and cause bodily injury or cause a person to reasonably believe that they will cause bodily injury. But unrestrained, I guess, is kind of key word to there. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Taylor. >> And and we've got several other want to comment, but let me just So, the difference between a dangerous animal and a dangerous dog now, as we will be treating a dangerous dog is the dangerous dog determination only has to be those two first requirements and to cause imminent fear of bodily injury or cause bodily injury to a person. Is that right? Yes, sir. So now if a dog gets out and kills a cat or kills a chicken, it's not going to be declared dangerous anymore. >> Okay. All right. Because it has to be directed to a person now. Yes. Right. Okay. >> All right. >> Uh Mr. machine. >> Uh, starting on that point first, I think it's a mistake to exclude those sorts of aggressive actions from the definition of a dangerous dog. Uh, because aggression towards other unprovoked aggression towards other animals is uh a problem for public safety and that's one of the things that we want to prevent, deter, and and punish. Um, and second, I'll also point out that your description of the way that the dangerous dog determination is going to be made. You you described that process. The way it's written in the ordinance is actually a little bit different. Um, and it's it's concerning to me that, you know, we're getting one description of how the process is going to work when the when the way that the ordinance is written is different. And so I'll direct you to uh 4.06.101, 101 which talks about the process and in there it talks about how any animal control officer can make this determination. So it's not something that's going to to be under the ordinance limited to just uh you or or Director Green. And um the other language that that I think is problematic in there is that it says that that the the animal control officer may investigate. So there's no obligation for an animal control officer to investigate these facts um before making a determination. So just on just on a report of of a citizen complaint alone, they could start this process going. So that gives me great concern that you're you're describing it one way when it's written another and also that there's there's less oversight and accountability for this. Um It creates even with the appeal I think that it creates a due process issue for our citizens. Um I I have a question for you on the insurance coverage as well. Do you have anyone in the department or is there anyone helping you look at the insurance policies and determine whether or not they will provide coverage for dangerous dogs? >> If you will, I'll answer that. Um, we do work with risk management and with our legal department on any questions that we have that it's kind of out of our wheelhouse. >> I'll tell you that dangerous dog policies are not standardized in the same way that an automobile policy is. You know, if you buy an automobile policy in the state of Texas, there are very specific laws and regulations about what type of coverage it has to to include um and standardized terms. Dangerous dog policies do not. And very often they provide what's called illusory coverage where they will say, "Oh, we provide coverage for a dangerous dog as long as it's not one of these breeds and as long as it's in a kennel and as long as it's been subject to this and such sort of preemptive requirement." And so I'm afraid that that we're we're creating a policy that's either, you know, uninforceable or is not going to be uh make a meaningful change, especially if if we don't even know if million-dollar policies are are available or what the cost of those are. Does that make sense? >> Yes, sir. >> Do you have any comment on that? Um, I to me the biggest change in this is going to be me not having to sit in front of somebody and have a hearing and declare a dog dangerous. I pretty much know if it fits these statutes, it's going to be declared dangerous. So, that's going to take a lot of man-hour off of Taylor and I. It's going to take a lot of stress off of our department being kind of judge, jury, and executioner on the whole dog case and putting the legal aspect back on municipal court. As far as on the insurance part, that is something that if council and mayor chooses to keep at the current rate, I'm fine with that. That was something that we looked at other municipalities and they have that rate. And so we, like you say, we're not the insurance expert, so I have not researched to see how easy that would be to attain. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Mayor Pro. >> Yes. Uh, Director Green. >> Yes. Can you tell me or either one of you if you could tell me exactly what does the state law say that we are trying to coincide what we say and what they say. Do you I'm sure you don't know it by verbatim but I know you're trying to get us there. Do you have an ideal of what it says that would make us then >> Matt or you could defer it to Matt if you want. >> Yeah. Sure. Sure. So, um the way the way that your the proposed change in the ordinance is right now very much very closely reflects state law. The uh the process as far as having an animal control officer based off the initial criteria that you met all the primacy evidence of what a dangerous dog is um with the sworn affidavit that comes straight out of state law. the 30 days to comply um with once a determination that that a dog is dangerous, that is straight out of state law. The ability to appeal to municipal court um once they get notice that their dog is dangerous within 15 days, that's straight out of state law. Um the $250,000 as far as the insurance, that's what's in state law right now. But state law does allow municipalities actually to get more strict with their provisions for the dangerous dog um ordinance than what we currently have. The you know, one of the things that Councilman Glashin noted about attacks on other animals. I think that an attack on an unprovoked attack on another animal could be still used as a determination as to whether that dog is dangerous if a reasonable person would believe that same type of action by the dog could be used on a human as well. So I think it would still fall within the criteria that doesn't mean that you exclude attacks on animals. It's just that it's not now if there is just an attack on an animal then under our current ordinance that's a dangerous dog right there is not really any leeway in our current in our current ordinance that we have. So really the biggest change from the proposed ordinance through our current ordinance is it takes dangerous dogs out and separates it into its own division. It very much very closely tracks state law. It takes away the initial administrative hearing and it follows state law that allows based off of sworn testimony an animal control officer. And since they have their own form that you would have to fill out, then you'd end up having to go down to the animal service department or call them to get it. Councilman Sheen's right. It is permissive as far as the investigation goes. Certainly, if y'all wanted to change that so that they shall investigate, that absolutely is within the purview of the council. You s certainly could change that verbiage. You obviously you can change whatever you want to change within it so long as we don't um don't contradict um state law where we're not allowed to do so. So, and then it takes that that first administrative hearing where and I've I've come in and I've watched it. The city attorney's office is not involved, but it basically is a in the form of a administrative hearing or tribunal which really is and you could you know I think Stephen was correct. it that's not his comfort zone, right? And having a hearing like this. Now, there is an absolute appeals process as far as due process is concerned again that that the state legislature came up with where you can appeal it straight to municipal court and that would involve the city attorney's office and obviously it would involve a judge who does deal with due process on a regular basis. So, those are the changes that you have in the current proposal from what you have in your current ordinance right now. Does that answer your question, Mayor Pro Tim? >> Absolutely it does. It also um reflects that it is achievable that we can do everything that is listed in this ordinance. So with I do think we do need need to tweak it with your um recommendation and change that verbiage as mentioned by David. But the other thing, one more question that I have, could we possibly and as I mentioned, I looked at the report that was sent to to council and it does show that we have had a very significant increase. We went from three, we're now at nine, three in I guess the last two years and then it we're now at nine. So even though nine dogs, we've questioned that before, but it is significant. So it might be something to discuss, but also can we grandfather the nine that are already in or would we have to make them become u compliant with state law and the milliondoll insurance? >> Oh, if if if their animals based off of what they're how they've been declared as a dangerous dog, right? If if they still would if those dogs would still fit the definition of a dangerous dog, then yes, if you so chose to, you could. Right now, as it's written, when it came back up, they would have to if if it came back up, then they would have to come into compliance with the new with the new insurance amount. But you could sit there and in the form of your own ordinance grandfather anyone that is currently being housed by that's already been declared dangerous. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Harris. >> Yes. Um, I just wanted to comment that, excuse me, I'm in agreement with as far as you determining if it's a dangerous dog because that hearing stuff does not work out well. I had my neighbor dogs get released and come attack my dog. And when we was having that hearing, me and my neighbor almost got into an altercation. So, but he didn't comply. He loved his dogs. He wind up moving. But I'm just saying when you get two parties there and your dog has been injured by another one and these other people, yeah, they love their dog and they don't want to their dog considered as a dangerous dog, that becomes a problem. So, I'm in agreement with the way you're doing it and not having the two parties come together because that's a problem. So, thank you for what you're doing. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Any further questions? Okay. Yeah, I think the benefit of this is a it's fully compliant with uh state law. It takes the burden off of our animal control officers. It's not their job. It puts it in the court where it really belongs. It's a private facy case, which is, you know, how you bring a lot of issues to court. It's on a sworn affidavit. So, people have to swear that they're telling the truth. They don't just get to say something. they have to swear to it under u an affidavit. So I think there's a lot of protections in there and putting it in front of the right person to make that decision. Um I don't know whether there's uh we'll have a motion here in a minute and if there are some amendments to the amount of the insurance or the u the may language if we want to make it shall um uh we we can certainly take that up at that time but I I feel comfortable with uh it it doesn't allow for just your neighbor if they don't like you and your dog and they see your dog kill a squirrel in the backyard to make a claim, you know, just say, "Well, it's dangerous dog and that's it." They have to swear, you know, to some way that they felt endangered by that themselves. And so, it kind of prevents some of those petty things that people might do when you aren't a good neighbor to someone else. You don't want the law to be used in that fashion. So, uh, any further discussion, Mr. Collins? Mayor, I'm not exactly sure it does prevent uh those types of actions that might be taken between neighbors. And you mentioned killing a squirrel and dog ran out and it was unrestrained. It's off leash. It's out of its backyard and and it did in fact catch a squirrel. um you know, if if neighbor loves squirrels, then then we've created a problem and and it hasn't really necessarily done anything that would um it might be dangerous, it might not. I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't know that um you know, chasing a squirrel through the front yard is um you know, my dog would be lucky to catch a squirrel, but that's a different um matter altogether. I do think there needs to be, in my opinion, there needs to be something more than just a control officer. Um, what's the average um seniority of your animal control agents? >> Um, I'm going to say probably three years on average. >> On average, >> if I can, um, on the ordinance, I believe it states that the animal has to attack a domestic animal or a domestic foul. So, in the instance, a squirrel doesn't fit that >> description. Well, so even a even a chicken uh so the chicken's loose in somebody's yard and and uh I I I I have a little issue with with that. I I think that the hearing process is has has certainly has some benefits that make sure that you know I I we we due process is about having two people come together and and be able to both state their sides. They don't have to be together when they do that. But that process of having two people um create their own affidavit, one in one in u in defense possibly coming with uh the one who's alleging an offense uh might be appropriate in that. I just you know I I think that I think there is a due process you a due process issue if we don't have uh some type of hearing and we allow the agent in the field to make a determination. Uh certainly again will complicate the issue even more. Maybe they can make an initial determination that comes to a final conclusion from uh from the executives on staff. I I don't know. It's just >> and that could be made in the form of an amendment too if you wanted a second eye on that uh decision. But I think the due process is moved to the court. I mean there is the due process. It's just moved out of a hearing and into the court. So it's not like it's without due process. It's like a lot of due process. >> So, what happens if if if I were to make a claim against the neighbor's dog? What happens in the meantime? Uh, does the dog stay in the house? Does it is the dog uh have have to be uh collected? What what do we do during that process? >> It depends on the act that the affidavit's being filed against. If it's just on the propensity for that animal to bite, that animal will stay in the custody of its owners for that 30 days. A on that 31st day, they either have to deliver it to me or I have to get a warrant and go pick it up. Now, if that animal bites somebody and that's the reason the affidavit's being filed, it has to be housed at a state approved vet or it has to be housed at Leic animal services for 240 hours from that time of bite to undergo rabies quarantine. After that 10 days though, it will be released back to the owner. And if you were going to serve a warrant um on a particular home to pick up a dog, do your animal control officers do that or does that involve LPD? >> So we usually well we always serve them and then we call LPD for backup to be there with us. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Rose. Thank you. I before I vote on this, I just want clarity cuz we're we're we're all concerned about due process and someone saying that, you know, dangerous dog. Uh this happened, they barked at me and um it really wasn't a wasn't an issue. But you're you're making the decision anyway. Correct, Stephen? There's no jury here. You're just coming here with both sides and you're determining regardless. >> Yes. And that's after we had um an incident reported to us. um somebody come in and file an affidavit. Taylor goes into that, looks into the case. If she thinks it's valid, she sets that hearing. None of that process is going to change other than the hearing, >> right? You just don't have to do the hearing, which I think we need to cut down on on your manh hours coming up here and everything like that. So, you're already judge and jury anyway. So, just getting rid of the hearing doesn't change that. No sir. >> And then at that point you can you can appeal and then you can go to municipal court where >> Yeah. Yes, sir. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Well, but just to be clear at the moment, as I understand it, just any animal control officer, not you, can make that determination or do you have to sign off on it? >> I think the way the ordinance is written, it says any officer, but I'm going to be Taylor. I would be the one making that final declaration, writing that letter to the owner. >> All right. All right. And Mr. Mayor, if I might, that that could be something should the council choose. You can substitute >> in the place uh 4.06.101A. That's where the may appears. that councilin referenced that could possibly be shall um and then the next sentence is where it says the animal control officer um at your wishes that could easily say the director in that case. >> Okay. So, anybody thinking of making amendments just keep those in mind. All right. Any further question? Oh, Mr. machine. >> How many dangerous dog hearings are you um doing each month? >> It depends. Um some months I have none. Other months I have a lot. I brought my metrics to double check. Last year we heard 12. Last month I heard or we heard eight. So it really comes and goes. I would say we've had a significant uptick and the amount of dangerous dog affidavit being filed recently though. And if I might, um, that's hearings that we have held. That's not total affidavit filed. So, somebody might have an affidavit filed against their animal, they might surrender that animal for euthanasia, um, move it out of the county or what have you. So, those are just ones that we have, I myself have heard. >> So, last year you had 12 hearings. >> Yes. And how many dangerous dog determinations did you make last year? >> There were 13 declared dangerous and three declared not dangerous. And the difference between the 13 declared dangerous and the the nine that we have currently in the city, is that from euthanasia or moving out of the county? Some combination of those? >> Yes, sir. A combination of those. >> Are there are there any other ways that dogs are are not counting towards that nine number? Now, >> those would be your you have the option if your dog's declared dangerous to get into compliance to appeal it, move it to a jurisdiction where their LRCA is allowing you to move a dangerous dog into their jurisdiction. And if you don't choose any of those three, we will humanely euthanize it. >> How uh how many appeals were there last year? I do not have that number. It's not typically a high amount. We did go to two last week though. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Mayor Pro Timern >> I think I heard some concern from the dis about um the field officer making the judgment. Obviously that field officer is the first to deal with animals and so their experience therefore is very important in determining whether they are dangerous dog. But what you're what's in this ordinance, the modification and what's in the current um ordinance probably needs to be addressed so that we can give our field officers the ability to do what they need to before it comes to you. I mean, it has to be right. >> Uh yes, ma'am. And to follow up on that, if our officers are working a case that's severe enough for them to feel this animal is a dangerous animal, they are going to notify us pretty quickly of that. Um, we go over I go over every single bite that happens in the city. I keep a bite spreadsheet that shows the severity, whether the animals own, not owned. So, we would be involved with that. But our officers do 30 hours of uh continuing education every three years. They're basic certified. A few of them have gotten their advanced basic or advanced training, animal control training. Uh we do rabies review. We do bike classes. So they are versed in in what a a dangerous dog would be. >> How many field officers do we have right now? >> I believe 11 with the two recent additions. And we still need to fill how many spots? >> We have one that's vacant right now. We actually filled the two new positions that um y'all approved this budget. >> And I personally got to go and visit the animal shelter. And man, it is there's a lot of energy happening. There's a lot of moving parts. I, you know, truly applaud you guys for what you do because it is not easy work. And that's why there is turnover because it is not an easy department. So unless you understand and have been there, it's really hard to comprehend. But I appreciate everything that y'all do. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Without any further discussion, thank you very much both of y'all. All right. Is let's begin. Say, is there a motion uh on first reading to approve uh item 7.4? 7.3 >> 7 I'm sorry 7.3. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Do you want to amend the Yes, we need to amend it. >> Well, we need a a >> You You can do it. You can do it. >> Do I have a second down here? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. >> I was going to say if the person making the motion, if the person making the motion wants to amend >> at the very beginning, >> All right. >> they don't have to. >> Yeah. But if they want to, they certainly can't just make >> I just motion. But do you wish to make your amendment? Who? >> You made the motion, right? Okay. >> I think we had a couple of amendments that David pointed out. One of them was verbiage. And sorry about that. >> We had a couple of amendments. One of them was verbiage. And what was your other concern, David? >> I have a lot of concern. >> I know you do, but we don't have time for that. Well, do you want to defer to David to make the >> No, I don't want all of the >> if if I may. I'd rather work with um Matt. >> Well, we got to be specific. You can't make a motion. that. So, Mayor Pro Tim, you obviously you could it's your motion and I'm sorry to interrupt you, but if if if you what you can do is the two that we've talked about that I've heard not only Councilman Lasheen, I know he has other concerns, but that the other council members also brought up is in 4.06.101A 101A is in the first sentence that where it says the animal control officer may investigate. Change the may to shall and then after receiving the sworn statements of any witnesses, it would be the director of animal control determines that the dog is dangerous. Those those were the two that I think have been consistent from council and the rest of the council members. If you would like that to be part of your motion, >> that would be a ditto. >> Okay. And then I don't know who seconded the motion, but >> Braden, >> is is that are you comfortable with that? >> Or was it? >> Okay. So, you now have a motion and a second with those two changes >> to the proposal before you as the main motion that's on the floor. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second to the motion as amended or it's a it's a motion now. It's just a motion. Uh, now is there any further discussion of that motion? Mr. Gosin, I made these comments the other day, but I'll repeat them now because I and and y'all can feel free to stay seated. Um my my biggest criticism is of this whole process is that is that we have an enforcement issue much more than we have a law issue. We need more field enforcement. We need more field operations. The problem that we have is not because we have insufficient laws. It's the problem that we have today is is we do we are not enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. So, we're talking about nine dangerous dogs that we have across the entire city that have been officially designated as dangerous dogs. But it doesn't matter if you walk down Avenue Q or try to walk, you know, around a neighborhood in Southwest Leach, there is a good chance that there's going to be a stray or loose dog on the street that prevents you from enjoying outdoor spaces, prevents you from playing with your kids in the park or or taking your dog on a walk. We don't need new or different laws. Really, what we need is is a more aggressive leadership and management focus at the department level, as well as more field operation and and more resources in support of the field operations. I I would be much more interested in revisiting this issue after we've we've made a more deliberate focus on field operations and see if we really need to amend the law. But um tweaking the laws at this point is is not going to improve public safety. And um even even to the point of the insurance requirements, I I don't think that we've we've looked at this closely enough to see it is it feasible or is this something that's even going to be adequately enforced? All right. And I guess my two cents worth on this is uh Mr. Christine, I see these as two solely totally discreet issues. One is the dangerous dog, one is the loose dogs. And we have to find ways to address both of them. Um I don't think we put off addressing one uh in favor of waiting for a uh approach that would address uh the other one. I think there are concerns about David uh dangerous dogs. My concern also is or what I like about this is it brings us into conformity with state law uh and it also reduces the burden on our current uh staff and allows them to do that job uh and focus on what really needs to happen there in terms of getting the loose dogs off our streets which is is a problem. uh as well. I do have a concern about the um putting a requirement on insurance there that might not be achievable at all. Um and so um but nobody's offered an amendment on that. Uh but I I think we can u uh do two things. Uh we can deal with the legal issue, the law, and we can deal with the um containment issue as well separately. So, I think this is an attempt to do that and I'm in favor of it at this point. Um, any other discussion? Mr. Collins, is >> there a is there a way that we can you know these these owners are going to have to test the market? That's that's what you know to the mayor's point, they're going to have to test the market. Um owner comes back and says, "I wasn't able to purchase this." um you know and and so it becomes so punitive that that you know these owners may lose their animals. Is that if if the dog's been declared dangerous, is that you know kind of the kind of what the circumstance is going to to bring us to? Is that necessarily uh you know the the appropriate way for us to to handle this? I don't know. But I I'd be very curious, you know, for us to um learn this marketplace to see if that insurance is even available. >> Would you like to make an amendment on the emotion amount? >> Well, I don't I don't I'm not opposed to the number if if it can be purchased. If it can't be purchased, then but we don't know that. Uh is >> can I make this suggestion, >> please? that we spend the next couple of weeks trying to verify that market that we look into what we can and what is not possible to be purchased on the open market. We've got two weeks to figure that out and we'll get actually a little more than two weeks. So, we'll have >> we do have some time before the second reading. So, >> yes, sir. >> If if we could count on a report back >> do that for you. >> Okay. Thank you. I' I'd feel better about it. I guess my question is the $250,000 in the state law? >> Yes, 250 is in the state law. >> Is in the state law already. >> It is, but you can always go above state law. >> Um, >> yes, >> I'd like to recommend that we review that part a little bit more. I know we have 250,000 but in the next couple of weeks if we can bring come back to that and um look at what is market um capable >> and see what would be more comparable for someone. But I do do feel like in our enforcement we need to make people understand that it is something serious and we do need to address it. >> Sorry. >> So that would be an amendment. >> A motion to >> I think >> Mr. Mr. W. >> Can we amend that? >> Hang on a second. Mr. Wade. >> No. >> Okay. >> Second. We have a motion on the floor. >> Yeah, we do. We do have a motion and a second on the floor, but the mayor prom is the mover, but from what I understand is you certainly can if if the only thing that we're talking about is the insurance on second read, you can move to amend if we need to move to amend on second read. This does not become final until after the second reading. Right. >> And so I think what Mr. Mr. Howard was suggesting and what Councilman Collins was suggesting is that they find out whether or not you can actually find out this information. What are the exclusions that are within that type of insurance policy? And then after they present that to you at the next council meeting, then this council can determine >> but you certainly could go ahead and amend your I mean move change it right now if you wanted to. But you can also change it at second reading is what I'm suggesting. So she we could amend it now to just have the 250,000. >> You you Yes, you absolutely can if you want to. And it would be >> that since it's the mayor put 10 that's asking the question, if she wants to keep it at 250,000, then she can say that she wants to change her motion to include that. And then if the person who seconded it agrees to second that, then that will become the main motion because it would obviously be a friendly amendment. And that's why I asked about grandfathering to understand whether we keep it the way it is now and explore for the future is that >> Yeah. And and and Yes. And so I guess my question for you, Mayor Pro Tim, is do you what is your motion? >> We >> do you want to keep it at 250,000,000 now, but I would like for us >> to still do the research. >> Second reading we could. So, I believe Councilman Rose was the second. Do you concur with that? Uh, keeping it at 250,000 for right now. >> He he doesn't concur. So, with that, so it would now be in the form of a motion to amend the main motion, and I'll need a second for that. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. So, then we'll need to have a discussion and a vote just on that one amendment, >> the 250,000. >> Thank you, Mr. Wade for directing us through that. All right. >> I'm not sure I've done it, but I'm going to go with you. You've done your best job. Confusing, aren't we? >> Done your best job. All right. Any further discussion? >> I see none. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor with the uh changes as noted that the >> just just the 250,000. >> Just the 250,000. That's right. >> That's the only thing that's on the floor right now. >> All right. Any discussion of that? I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose, say nay. >> Nay. >> Nay. >> So that motion fails. All right. So now we go back to >> That's correct. Your main motion. >> All right. The main motion at the million dollars. >> All right. Okay. >> With with Yes. >> The may. >> Yes. The may and the director. >> There were two two changes. May to shall animal control officer to director. Yes, >> that's included in this one motion you're considering. >> All right. Any further discussion on that? >> I see none. Okay. All in favor? Uh let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. >> That motion passes 6 to one. All right. Let's move on to item 7.4. Consider an ordinance on first reading amending chapter 4 animals of the code of ordinances as it relates to multi-et permits, breeders permits, empoundment, and the inhumane treatment of animals. Again, I will call on Stephen to present that or Taylor, whichever one of you wants to present that. >> Mayor, Mr. Green will start this one off, but we'll probably get to enjoy both of them experience here in a moment. we can tag team it. >> Okay. So, uh we are proposing to create a breeders permit. Um this has uh been something that's recommended by my advisory board. They put a lot of um time and effort into that. They feel like that's a tool that could help on roadside sales. Um and so under the proposed ordinance, we'd have a breeders permit that would be required for any dog or cat that's kept intact for the purpose of breeding. that application fee would be $100. Permit would be valid for two years. Um currently we do not have any state approved breeders um in the city limits. And of course um if we get this passed um enforcement would be complaint driven. Um, we have a proposal to be able to wave an impound fee if an owner has a um, intact animal and we'll get that animal sterilized within 30 days. Um, they would have to provide ster app proof of that sterilization. Um, currently we do have animal is impounded twice in a 12-month rolling period. It's a mandated spayneuter. Um, and so doing this, I know a lot of people would question why would somebody wave a $105 impound fee for an expensive spay or neuter. My argument to that is anybody that's needing that fee waved is probably going to need their animals spayed. Most people that have their animals fixed already aren't going to need a a free impound and their animals probably aren't getting out. So, um, we do have a veterinarian that does surgeries on Tuesdays and Thursdays. she would be able to do do some of these in-house. Um, but it is something that we uh we would be able to help a little bit with on the cost, but it's something if you're talking about overpopulation, animals loose on the street, the one way to stop that is through a sterilization. All right, any questions? Mr. machine. >> Agenda item 7.4 also has the multifam uh multi pet permit in there as well. Correct. >> Yeah. Ste Steven, would you go over that part, please? >> Yes. Um, we are looking at just changing some language to create a more uniform policy between it and the proposed breeders permit. We do not have a change in the number of animals kept in a house, >> but there are changes to the to the multipet portion of the ordinance that are on the agenda for today. >> Yes, sir. It's changing some language up as far as the application fee instead of a permit fee, things like that. Um, we also have a change to the um inhumane treatment, taking out a a language where anybody can dock a a puppy's tail or ears and making that it has to be done by licensed vet. So, it's cleaning up a little bit of language. Which which section of the uh amended ordinance is that in >> the inhumane treatment is going to be >> go ahead >> 4.04.002 inhumane treatment of animals. >> It's on page four. the proposed ordinance under section five. >> Yeah, it's page page 358 in your book. >> Thank you. >> So, on the the multi-et permits, how many households is that going to affect in the city >> as far as currently? >> How many how many households do you expect will be impacted by the change in the multipet permitting? Um, I don't think if somebody has a multi-pit permit, it would affect that. Uh, we don't get many requests for those. I think we have six if I I don't have it on the top of my head, but I think we have six currently that have multipet permits. >> The number of animals, >> how many people are currently breeding animals in the city? I could not even get an estimate on that. >> We don't have any estimate of how many people will be affected by the breeders permit. >> I don't know how many people are breeding their animals in the city. No, sir. >> Is there any sort of inspection requirement for uh before you're able to receive the breeders permit? >> Uh yes, sir. We do the same like we would for a multipet permit. you would go out make sure the facilities are uh within standards of city ordinance and uh department policy. Um and there's written language in there that I believe would say we can and uh look at the uh go inspect the property. >> Which section uh sorry looking at the the proposed ordinance, which section includes inspections? >> Yeah, I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt, Councilman, but based off the comments and based off of working with staff before just because of the number of individuals that would be required for a mandatory inspection that the draft that is proposed before you has removed the inspections as part of the requirement for getting a permit for either a breeders permit or multipet permit. Um, as as Stephen said at the very beginning, this is going to be a complaint. it's been shifted entirely to a complaint driven um type issue and so there is no pre-inspection or inspection that's conducted before a permit is actually issued on the proposal that's before you that's in the backup and thank you Mr. I'm looking at the crossed out section and that's that's one of my concerns is this it's a repeated trend that what we're being told about the proposed ordinances is different than the briefing and different than staff's vision for executing the ordinance. And I'm I'm not picking on you just to pick on you, but it's a serious issue that if if you as staff have an idea of how you're going to implement the ordinance, we're being told something different as the council than what's actually contained in the ordinance that there's going to be a mismatch of expectations and outcomes when we vote on this ordinance. >> And so if if you're still envisioning an inspection process, do you think that in inspections are necessary and should be readded into the ordinance? Um, I personally like the inspections, but if that's something that is a a issue, like brought up previously, I believe it said they shall be. Um, I have no problem having officers go out and do that. I also have no problem if council says that's not needed. >> I'm I'm thinking about again enforcement because I don't think we have a law issue. I think we have an enforcement issue. And so if we're going to rely on complaints to be the only source of of enforcement initiation, we need to ask ourselves the question of how do citizens know whether or not a person who has a couple of puppies at their house has a breeders permit. It's not going to be displayed on their house. You know, people may not even know that a permit is required. So, are we are we just going to have people reporting their neighbors for having puppies and then starting an an enforcement action or what's what's the thought process on on how we're going to enforce that? >> If the idea behind the the advisory board proposal to me was if we have somebody that's doing roadside sales, this would be something else we could issue a citation for if they didn't have a permit to have bred and and had those litters. We we currently have laws restricting roadside sales of of animals. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> So, how would an enforcement officer at say like the mall parking lot know that those animals had been bred within the city limits? >> That would be a question to ask the individuals selling those animals. Um I don't know of many cases where people come to love to sell animals. I'm sure it may happen, but I think the majority of animals being sold at the mall came from LIC. >> My other thought is if the only purpose is that we're going to be escalating the the penalties for roadside sales, why not do that directly and just increase the penalties for for roadside sales. >> The council can do that if they choose. I'm going to follow whatever ordinances y'all put before me. C Councilman Lasheen if I if I could if you don't mind. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I think part of the miscommunication here as far as the enforcement is what's currently in your ordinance and what um is proposed. So, in your backup, what you have in in our current ordinance that we have right now, if y'all don't take any action whatsoever, then you currently have on the books requirement for an inspection to do a multipet permit. And so, that's what Stephen and them have been operating underneath. So, that's why he's sitting there talking. Yeah, we do inspections because that is our current ordinance right now. the proposal before you where whatever the council wants to do would remove that inspection process entirely as far as the inspections go. So that's the only that's the only reason why I'm interjecting is because I want you do know that there is currently an inspection process on the books with the city of love. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Collins, >> I'm not so I have one more follow. >> One of the requirements in the in the new language is that an applicant must provide pertinent information to the department about how the animals are going to be kept. Do you The language in the ordinance is very broad. Do you have an example of the application or the type of information you're going to collect? Uh >> not at this time, no sir. With the proposed ordinance, do you have any way of of verifying the information that's contained in the application? >> I would have to um not sure how do you want to you want to handle that one. Uh yeah, I think usually when we have the application filed now for at least a multipet permit, we confirm all of that information when we go out and do the inspection, >> right? But now we're we're repealing the inspection under the proposed ordinance, but we're still collecting information on the application. So what what verification or or enforcement is there of the application information? I mean, we can work on instating policies to try to make sure that all information given is proper. We could insert microchips into animals to make sure we're able to track them. Um, they can bring the animal up to the shelter so we can confirm it's the gender they're telling us it is. It's the breed they're telling us it is. I mean, those are those are ideas, but I'm I'm criticizing the process because I think the recurring theme of my criticism is that we have an enforcement issue. And so, you're I don't I don't like the idea of inspections. I don't think that we should have the inspections. But if we're not doing the inspections, it makes us we should question then why are we even doing the application? Because if you're collecting information, you have no way to verify if it's true or not. You have no legal basis to make people bring their animals up to the animal shelter so that you can chip them or visually inspect them. That's just an inspection in reverse. Why Why do you Why do you think that the application is is still necessary? >> This was something brought to us by our advisory board. As Director Green stated previously, they think that roadside sales are a big issue and they want the public to see that we are trying to crack down on the overpopulation of animals, especially roaming unwanted animals and they think this could be a way to achieve that. But that's my question is why why would just an application that we don't do any sort of verification or or have any authority even to review why would that reduce the number of of animals? >> Because now if you have to have a breeders permit it might kind of discourage people who do want to breed to not do it because they have to register with us. Is there is there any other benefit like are there other cities that we can look to that have developed an application without an inspection program and have seen a reduction in the number of stray loose dogs? >> I believe we modeled this after Fort Worth. Correct. >> Yeah. So there so in in helping draft some of these things there's numerous I don't I don't have a specific answer. I don't have a specific answer because I'm not sure that research has been done that directly correlates between when an ordinance was passed as to whether or not they've seen a dramatic decrease in it. I think this is another one of those to where you have another violation of an ordinance that it's a deterrent, right? That if you get caught, you can get not only this ticket, but you also can get this ticket. So instead of it just being $250, then it's now going to be $500 assuming that you get a violation. Whether or not that deterrent is sufficient to accomplish the goals from the policy standpoint of the council is completely up to y'all on it. But there are multiple cities that do have permit requirements both for breeders and multi-et. But I'm not sure that we have the data to be able to directly correlate when those ordinances pass as to whether or not there's been a decrease in the number of animals. So I'm not sure that we would be able to answer that question. Do you all have any data or or did you review any data that shows what policies do correlate with a reduction in the number of stray and loose animals? >> No, sir. >> So, I'll call on you in just a second, Mr. Collins. So my understanding though if it's a complaint driven process you have the application you have a complaint at that point you would investigate whether the application actually uh they fulfilled the requirements and whether their application was accurate. I mean that's the point the the investigation so to speak would take place. Is that right? >> Uh yes sir. >> Okay. So it's not a pre pre-investigation. They make the application, but if someone raises the complaint, then you go to investigate the situation. Maybe they've complied with everything. They're fine. But I figure you're going to get the complaint when someone sees a situation that looks like a problem, like a a breeding farm or something like that, and calls it to someone's attention. So, it's kind of a Yeah, you can't you can't solve every problem, but it doesn't mean you don't try to solve the ones that come to your attention. So, Mr. Collins or Mr. or you still have I don't didn't mean to cut you off. Okay, Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mayor. If we look at um section two of the ordinance as it talks to a multipet permit, um there's there's verbiage here that would indicate that a fee is required for a multipet permit. Yes, sir. >> Is it enumerated in section two? Because I don't see it. >> We charge $40. I don't think it is stated in ordinance, though. >> So, and I I can speak to that just just a bit. Very few of the fees that the city charges are going to be found in the particular ordinance that authorizes them. rather the fees are set each and every year through the city budget. So if you you'll recall we have those large charts um especi we usually highlight the changes but they're all listed on there. So this will not be the only place that the code of ordinance says a fee is required for X Y or Z. The fee is not stated. The fee is through each and every budget. >> And so I think Mr. Glashene asked the question. I don't recall the answer. Do you know how many multipet permits we have uh issued today? >> I I believe it's six. Um it I think Mayor Pro Tim said maybe eight. I don't have that data in front of me, but it would be in that range, six to eight. >> And so the the number of pets in in a premises is four uh four do four adult dogs or four adult cats per the original ordinance. And that's what we're trying to remain at four. >> Yes, sir. >> Anything over four, you get a permit. And we have 8 to 10 permits outstanding in the city. >> Yes, sir. >> Eight total. >> Eight. >> Six to eight. >> Six to eight permits out uh issued in the city. >> And okay. And so to to make the point, I guess, is is this question, you know, we're collecting $250. Um, and and now we're going to have an inspection process to we currently have an inspection process. >> Yeah. As drafted, if this ordinance or some version of it is approved, the inspections that are currently in the ordinance go away. Okay. >> All right. Thanks. Dr. Wilson. >> So, I'm beginning to learn that everything is regulated by state law. We don't have a lot of say. So, so about our fines and fees. So, fines for like roadside sales, is that regulated by state law or is that a fee or a fine that we set? So for fines, as a general rule, for fines, it is set by state law because we normally cannot find for things on your normal violation for municipal ordinances anything higher than $500 cuz they're class C misdemeanors and so we're capped at $500. There are some special exceptions for health and safety matters. I don't think this would fall within that. But on health and safety, like some of your health inspection, your food inspections, those fines can go up to $2,000. Then there's an illegal dumping. And obviously, this isn't that. And that is $4,000. But yes, state law does cap what our fines can be for violation of municipal ordinances. So currently if we catch somebody selling um dogs on the side of the road, what is the fine that we are writing when we issued whatever citation? What is the fine? >> That that's going to be up to what happens at court. >> Okay. >> Um as to how as far as how much of a fine that's going to be upon a conviction. >> Okay. So we don't have any control over that. >> No. >> Right. So I think that what we're looking at is what we may may have control over. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And so our multi-et permit you said currently is 40. Is there an unlimited amount you can set for that? Is that set by state or is that completely up to us? >> No, your fees generally have to be somewhat rationally related to the administrative cost associated with whatever it takes to sit there and collect the the the information to ensure that the information is correct. Whatever you have to do administratively, there has to be some type of rational basis associated between those. your fees can't in and of themselves be considered punitive. So, it just has to be related to your cost associated with that. >> So, then that's my question is if we're removing the inspection component of a multi-EP permit, is that still justifying the $40 fee now because the administrative action coming with a multi-EP permit is now changing. >> That that would be a question that I have to defer to staff on. >> Inspection should be >> Yeah. Um Okay. And then so what were we proposing if if the breeders fee was there? I'm looking what were we proposing that a breeders fee would be? A breeders permit fee? >> The breeders permit fee is $100. >> It's going to be 100. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> And that one is an ordinance. >> Proposed. Yes. >> Sorry, >> Mr. Rose. >> Okay. Um, I appreciate what you're trying to do here and and you brought 7.3. Um, and I thought that had some good stuff in it that that that can help us in terms of dangerous dogs, but um, multi-permits and breeding permits and all that is very different than than dangerous dogs. I don't think any of this will help from roadside bre I mean roadside sales of dogs. I mean, people come in out of out of town. I see them from Eastern New Mexico. um you know out from the county. So um you know if we want to crack down on that, we can crack down on you know the actual sale of the dogs on the side of the road. But um I just don't see I think this is a little halfbaked um and I'm not in support um of it. I'm I'm in support of of some of this, but I think we need to um kind of go back to the drawing board and rewrite some of this, figure out what we want to do. And um I just don't think more laws on um breeding permits and multi- petet permits is going to is going to help us out any. >> Mayor Roim, >> thank you. I know that you've worked with an advisory committee made up of folks that deal with a lot of animal issues. Um, do you agree with what Councilman Ro says that this isn't necessary? Because I feel like um, a lot of the discussion from the committee, the advisory committee, from the staff, I'm not sure what it is that doesn't need to be addressed. Um, we have a roadside issue. We see lots of animals being sold. That addresses one of those things. We've got we're trying to help individuals that can't afford when their dogs are loose and picked up and also addressing our pet population. That seems to be one of the items. I mean, there is a lot of uh the permit fee that's already in place, is it not? So, how is that >> for multipet permits? Yes, >> it's already in in place. So, we're just No, we you can have eight pets. You can have four. >> Because we're not enforcing it. Well, that's what we're trying to do with these um this ordinance is we're trying to address that so that we can acknowledge the situation that is out there and that we have not been able to put more efforts towards and I just feel like we have a committee an advisory committee they've spent countless hours we have followed the process of the law. We have tried to make sure that we are complying with state law and so I can't see why um you know we've done everything even we addressed the issue of you know we were at eight dogs we said four then we went to five and then we said just leave it as it is. So there are a lot of efforts to address the pet population, the um humanity of animals because we do have a problem. And I think even the breeders that are professional, those are probably the only ones we've heard them come and speak before and they believe that you've got a lot of illegal breeding happening. I mean, do you all remember that? I might there's no such thing as illegal breeding. Okay. Well, either way, I think that we need to definitely address this issue because we are not fixing the problem. So, and um I call for the question. >> Well, do we need to do a motion? I'd like to make a motion to I see a couple other people wishing to comment. Can I ignore the call to the question? >> Well, we don't we don't actually this was still in the we don't have a motion even on the floor right now. So, >> okay. So, we're still just in discussion. We're still in question. We're still questions of staff. >> We have no I don't want to cut off the questioning because this is a a lot of different opinions on this and so I want to be clear what we are going to be voting on when we're voting on it. So, um, all right. Uh, m Mr. Rose, I think. Yes. >> Well, I just wanted to know where in this ordinance >> it's going to address roadside sales. >> Could someone tell me that? >> But there there's nothing specific in the ordinance talking about roadside sales. It's the idea is that if you were selling it >> and without a breeders permit, then you might get a ticket for that. >> That's kind of my that's kind of my point. There's there's nothing addressing that. And Mr. Collins, mayor, I would move that we adopt item 7.04, uh, but also strike the multi-et permit requirement and the breeder permit regulations and permit fee requirements as are stated. I like the impound fee refund incentive. I think that's could be very effective. Um, standardizing language, terminology, definitions, um, our housekeeping issues and and so I think we start with those three items and we can come back to the rest at some point in time. >> Second that. >> Okay. Would you please mention the exact code numbers of your the ones you wish to strike from >> or if it's if it's specific section numbers within the ordinance the proposed ordinance for example for example >> yeah if you can give us a specific >> yeah you have you have you don't want to approve section two my understanding um >> is there we can put the ordinance up on the screen >> or section three >> um I Can you >> I get it on the screen. >> All right. So, we all know what he's referring to. >> I want to strike uh in its entirety. >> Just a second, Mr. Collins. Let's get it up on the screen if we can. >> It almost sounds like section four and section five were the ones that you wanted to approve. >> Mayor, if you don't mind, could I get you to switch the inputs, please? to what? >> Uh, it's either going to say east or city manager. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. SE section two begins towards the end of that page. >> So, I am moving that we strike any changes to this section that were included in the revision. >> Okay. >> 7.04. >> Okay. I am moving that we strike um everything about section three. >> Okay. >> About a permit for breeders for dogs and cats. >> Okay. >> That would be so we are essentially voting to adopt revisions in language as detailed um in in section four and five. >> Yes. standardization of terminology. And we would be adopting the in refund incentive for pet owners who have their uh pet spayed or neutered. And and and just to be clear, you also want to include the uh section five that's on your screen right now where it amends on cropping what talks about due clause of a puppy were five years of age or um crops and animals ears of any age. So >> in other words, you have to have a licensed veterinarian to do that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I I I understand the motion. I'm not sure anyone else on >> Well, it would be helpful if we understand what we're voting on. So, uh so my understanding is you you're striking section three in its entirety, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, we we would not try to implement a breeders permit or fee of any kind >> and then go back to section two. >> And he's just reverting back to the original ordinance. >> The original language in two. >> So stracting section two and tracking section three. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. There you go. >> That works, >> Mr. Mayor. >> All right. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Gosin, >> can you uh me turn my mic? >> Oh, there you go. Um and so to clarify in section two of the proposed ordinance uh 4.010003 paragraph C is the inspection requirement. >> We're going to keep the inspection requirement as um the language is currently in the multipet ordinance. >> I would support an amendment if if you choose to eliminate the inspection requirement. >> Okay. Okay. >> Removing section two as noted would leave the part of letter C that is currently strike struck correct language I'm grammatically illiterate all of a sudden. Well, then um I'll make >> propose a friendly amendment. >> Propose a friendly amendment to uh include the um the deletions in paragraph C of section two in the proposed ordinance. >> Yeah. So you want to eliminate the inspection portion of that. Okay. And do you accept that as Okay. >> Yeah. So, you're deleting section two with the exception of letter C. Leaving letter C in will take out the current inspection part. Mayor, if you don't mind, I think we can put that on the screen also. >> So, yeah, right right there. If you leave section C in, it's going to kill the inspections that currently exist. and and there will be no reference at the end of that the addition of the multipet permit there will be no need to have that because there will be no breeders permit at all. So that would be by by passage it would be unnecessary. All right is everyone clear? Nope. Okay. Dr. Wilson clarification. So by removing because there's other language that was cleaned up in section two under A. >> Mhm. >> So it looks like we cleaned up we went from allowing four and or four dogs and or four cats to I saw or was just strikeed out. So that would be four dogs max plus four cats max. Correct. So if we repeal that then they're back to eight of either. >> No. So the way and I'll have to pull up the original orders. The intent was based off of the discussion that we had was to leave the language as it is and to leave if and that's what was I did draft some language that does from my perspective clean that up. But really section A is not a um is not a substantive change. It is just clarification language. So the number the way it is right now and I'll defer to Stephen and Taylor, but the way that it is right now, my understanding of how it's been enforced is currently you can have four dogs andor four cats, but you can have five dogs >> and three cats. >> I was like, the last time we talked about this, it when it read and or it meant you could have eight. >> I Right. and and so I just simply put it back to the way it was for the original ordinance based on comments. Now, y'all can do whatever you want, but the way it's drafted right now is the way that our current ordinance is, which is you can have four dogs, you can have four cats, both four dogs and four cats, but you can't have five cats and you can't have five dogs. >> Well, so that's why I'm asking because in this language it's cleaned up. You marked out the word or. So was the or before or is that that's why I'm like so what is what are we what is the number since they changed the section >> the original language said and or >> right and so if we just struck section two we're going back to the original back to and or have correct that's correct >> of either >> no it the and or so that's the that's the problem the andor language says the way that it would that I believe it would be interpreted is you can have four dogs and four cats or you can have four dogs or four cats but you can't have five dogs and you can't have five cats. >> What are we currently enforcing >> just what he said? >> So we they nobody can have more than four dogs and no more than four cats but a total of eight animals before they were required to do multi-et. No, ma'am. You could have eight total animals. Currently, um you can have four dogs, you can have four cats. Anything above that, you have to have a multiet permit. >> Is that what it is? >> So, in in in theory, if you had Yes. Okay. So, yes. >> I just wanted to make sure. But what we're since we're picking and choosing and changing that we're all clear. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Mayor Pro. >> So just for clarification, we are keeping section section 2A, >> right? >> No. So >> no, no. So it would >> it would just the only thing that we're keeping everything that is in current in the assuming the motion passes. >> Mhm. The only change to your current ordinance >> Oh, gotcha. So, >> would be the elimination of the inspection? >> Yeah. >> Everything else would remain. >> Gotcha. That I think that might be a little bit easier because then now anything above now you get the multipet. Gotcha. >> That's it. >> All right. So, we have a motion. >> You accepted the friend. You accepted the friendly motion. So, we have a second. Any further discussion? All right. I I see none here. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any opposed say nay. Passes unanimously. All right. Now, we've exhausted all our items on our agenda and exhausted ourselves. So, uh uh we are now adjourned. Thank you. Please turn off your mic.