[00:00:02]
          UP IN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR NOVEMBER 11TH,
2025. 
          VETERAN´S DAY TODAY. WE HONOR ALL OUR VETERAN´S AT THIS TIME. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT
CODE 551.071 TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK THE ADVICE OF THE CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL. 
          [1. Executive Session]
551.072 TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY. 
          AND SECTION 551.074 TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECESSING AT 12:31. THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW GOING TO RECONVENE IN
OPEN 
          [1. Crosswalks - Texas Department of Transportation]
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 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 YOU ALL, TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. SO, DAVID, WHEN YOU'RE READY. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'M HERE TO DISCUSS CROSSWALKS,
BUT FIRST I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THE SITUATION. 
          SO I HAD A LITTLE INCIDENT FRIDAY NIGHT. I WANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          I WAS RIDING A SCOOTER WITH MY SON AND HIS FRIEND AFTER THE BASKETBALL GAME,
AND CAME TO AN ABRUPT STOP, AND WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, AS MY WIFE REMINDED ME,
SHE'S THE MOST SENSIBLE PERSON IN OUR HOUSEHOLD YET AGAIN. SO ANYWAY. SO, YOU KNOW. SORRY, Y'ALL HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS DURING THE
PRESENTATION. 
          BUT ANYWAY, BACK TO CROSSWALKS. SO IT'S NOT A TRUE TRAFFIC DISCUSSION WITHOUT SPEAKING
ABOUT THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 
          SO THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES,
WHICH AS WE CALL IT IN THE TRAFFIC WORLD, IS THE MUTCD. IT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE BIBLE ON TRAFFIC DEVICES. SO IT'S A 1200 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT STEERS US IN EVERYTHING WE DO AS FAR AS
INSTALLING TRAFFIC DEVICES. SO IT GIVES US A PLAY BY PLAY RULE BOOK,
IF YOU WILL AS FAR AS HOW TO INSTALL EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE ON ROADWAYS. IT HELPS LEAD US IN INCONSISTENCY AS FAR AS INSTALLING STOP SIGNS,
MARKINGS, ANYTHING YOU SEE ON A ROADWAY AS A DRIVER. SO IT SPELLS OUT EVERY COLOR THAT YOU SEE FOR A
SIGN DISTANCES. IT TELLS US THE SIZE OF SIGNS. IT TELLS US WHEN AND WHEN WE CANNOT
APPROPRIATELY INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS. ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON A ROADWAY. 
          THIS BOOK, WHEN PRINTED OUT, IS 3 TO 4 INCHES THICK. 
          AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S ABOUT 1200 PAGES LONG. TEXAS ADOPTS ITS OWN VERSION OF THE MUTCD
THAT IS CALLED THE TEXAS MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 
          WE DON'T DO THIS JUST TO BE TEXANS, RIGHT? WE DO THIS BECAUSE TEXAS IS ONE OF THE STATES
THAT'S A LEADER IN THE IN THE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY. BUT ALSO BECAUSE TEXAS HAS A LOT OF VERY BROAD NEEDS FOR
TRANSPORTATION. 
          WE ARE A HUGE STATE GEOGRAPHICALLY THAT REQUIRES VERY DIFFERENT NEEDS THAN SOME OF THE
SMALLER GEOGRAPHIC STATES. 
          WE HAVE LARGE EXPANSES, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN MANY OF THE STATES. 
          SO WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC NEEDS AS A STATE. WHY DO WE NEED THIS TRAFFIC BIBLE,
IF YOU WILL. 
          IT HELPS 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. 
          THE BEST WAY OF PUTTING IT IS SOMETIMES YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH A PARKING LOT AND YOU SEE
MAYBE A STOP SIGN, OR A YIELD SIGN, OR A DIFFERENT MARKING THAT MAY POP OUT BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT THAN YOU
MAY SEE ON A PUBLIC STREET. 
          THAT'S A WAY THAT YOU SEE A DIFFERENT TYPE DEVICE THAT WE DON'T WANT AS A PUBLIC ENTITY
FOR 
          [00:05:10]
DRIVERS TO SEE. WE WANT EVERYTHING TO BE VERY UNIFORM FOR DRIVERS FROM CITY TO CITY,
STATE TO STATE, ACROSS THE NATION. HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO CROSSWALKS? IN AROUND THE YEAR 2020, THE CITY WAS APPROACHED WITH THE IDEA OF INSTALLING THE FIRST SET
OF WHAT WE WOULD CALL DECORATIVE CROSSWALKS. AND THIS WAS THE BUDDY HOLLY GLASSES THAT WE SEE
DOWNTOWN. 
          AND THESE ARE INSTALLED. LET'S SEE, THESE ARE INSTALLED NEAR THE BUDDY HOLLY CENTER. 
          THEY WERE INSTALLED BY CIVIC LUBBOCK. AND SO ARE THESE ALLOWED BY THE MUTCD? AND YOU CAN SEE SECTION 3G.01. AND I HATE TO BE LEGALISTIC,
BUT I WANT YOU TO SEE THAT IN THE MUTCD, IT DOES ALLOW DIFFERENT COLORED ARTISTIC RENDERINGS THAT ARE NON-REFLECTIVE, DIFFERENT COLORS AS LONG AS THEY'RE LOCATED BETWEEN
THE LINES OF A CROSSWALK. 
          AND I'VE SHOWN WHAT THAT REFERS TO IN THE PICTURE BELOW. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS THERE ARE CROSSWALK LINES. AND ESSENTIALLY THIS MEANS THAT YOU CAN PUT
ARTISTIC TYPE SURFACES WHETHER IT BE BRICKS OR PATTERNED SURFACES. OTHER NON REGULATORY PAVEMENT MARKINGS IN BETWEEN THE CROSSWALK LINES. 
          AND IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A CROSSWALK BECAUSE THE ACTUAL CROSSWALK LINES ARE STILL MARKED
IN THERE. 
          THIS COMES FROM THE 2011 TMUTCD. AND THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE
VERSION THAT WE AS A CITY WORK UNDER RIGHT NOW. 
          THESE ARE SOME INSTALLATIONS. THESE ARE THE THREE INSTALLATIONS OF DECORATIVE CROSSWALKS
WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK CURRENTLY. 
          THESE ARE THE BUDDY HOLLY GLASSES ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. 
          THESE ARE YOU KNOW, I'M SURE EVERYBODY'S PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THOSE. 
          THOSE WERE INSTALLED IN 2020 AT 18TH STREET AND BUDDY HOLLY. 
          AT THE BUDDY HOLLY HALL, 1300 BLOCK OF MAC DAVIS LANE,
YOU CAN SEE THE POLKA DOTS WHICH WERE INSTALLED IN 2021. 
          AND THEN THE MESQUITE MILE, WHICH WAS INSTALLED IN 2023 AT 23RD STREET AND AVENUE V. 
          SO AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT EACH OF THESE INSTALLATIONS,
THEY DO COMPLY WITH THE TMUTCD BECAUSE THERE ARE CROSSWALK MARKINGS ON THE OUTSIDE OF EACH OF THESE INSTALLATIONS. 
          NOW AS WE PROGRESS 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 WE CALLED IT. SO WE DEVELOPED A POLICY THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS. 
          IT WOULD ALLOW GROUPS TO INSTALL CROSSWALKS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SO THAT WE WOULD ALLOW
MORE ARTISTIC CROSSWALKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THIS CROSSWALK POLICY WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITIZEN´S TRAFFIC
COMMISSION IN FEBRUARY OF 2025. SO JUST EARLIER THIS YEAR. 
          AND AS YOU CAN SEE OUTLINED SOME SAFETY CONCERNS WHICH ADDRESSED THE NEEDS. ADA RAMPS ON EACH SIDE OF THE CROSSWALK. 
          IT ALSO OUTLINED SOME LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESS SITUATIONS THAT WOULD KEEP US AS THE CITY FROM
HAVING TO BE IN A SITUATION THAT WOULD KEEP US FROM BEING BASICALLY CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ANY POLITICAL ISSUES. SO NO OFFENSIVE SYMBOLS,
NO MESSAGING THAT WOULD ADDRESS POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS SYMBOLOGY. 
          [00:10:03]
ESSENTIALLY WE WANTED CROSSWALKS THAT WERE OUT THERE THAT WERE JUST FOR ARTISTIC REASONS,
YOU KNOW. 
          MAYBE SCHOOLS COULD PUT THEM ADJACENT TO THEIR SCHOOLS FOR SCHOOL PRIDE OR FOR,
YOU KNOW, THE INSTALLATIONS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE,
THAT SORT OF SITUATION. 
          NOW, ON OCTOBER 8TH, THE CITY RECEIVED A LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT TO COUNTIES AND CITIES
FROM TXDOT. THIS LETTER, IT HAD SOME PRETTY HARSH WORDING. 
          OKAY. SO, AS YOU CAN SEE IT ADDRESSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS NOT ONLY ON CROSSWALKS,
BUT IT PROHIBITED ANY TRAVEL LANES, SHOULDERS, INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSWALKS THAT SERVED. 
          IT BASICALLY MADE IT SO THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY,
ANYTHING THAT WAS IN THE 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 LETTER STATED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WOULD RESULT IN THE WITHHOLDING OR DENIAL OF
STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING. 
          IT STATED THAT THE SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TEXAS AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS COULD
OCCUR IF WE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE WITH THE 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 TXDOT
AT THAT AT THAT POINT WITHIN 30 DAYS. NOW, THIS WAS NOT JUST FOR STATE HIGHWAYS,
BUT ALSO ANY CITY ROADWAYS. AT THE POINT THAT WE RECEIVED THIS LETTER WE SOUGHT CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE STATE, SO YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU RECEIVE THESE LETTERS,
YOU WONDER IF THEY'RE INTENDED JUST FOR YOUR CITY OR FOR ALL CITIES. YOU KNOW, ARE THEY FOR ALL JURISDICTIONS OR ARE THEY JUST FOR YOURS? 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. CLARIFICATION. I DID GET BACK FROM TXDOT,
STATED THAT THE BRICK PAVERS THAT WE HAD, THE DECORATIVE BRICKS THAT WE HAD INSTALLED AROUND TOWN,
THAT THOSE ARE ALRIGHT TO HAVE AS CROSSWALKS. 
          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 SEAN DUFFY'S SAFE ROAD
INITIATIVE. 
          SO TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY SEAN 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 THAT
ROADWAYS, INTERSECTIONS 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 NOTIFIED THE TEXTILE DISTRICT THAT THE DECORATIVE
CROSSWALKS WILL BE REMOVED. 
          THE REASON BEING, IT AVOIDS THE POSSIBILITY OF TEXTILE WITHHOLDING OR DENYING STATE OR
FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE CITY. 
          THAT'S A BIG THING THAT COULD AFFECT POSSIBLE MPO FUNDING IN THE FUTURE. 
          IT ALSO AVOIDS THE POTENTIAL OF LIABILITY ISSUES IN THE FUTURE. 
          [00:15:05]
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE STATE THAT YES, WE FEEL THAT THESE CROSSWALKS ARE SAFE AND THERE
IS AN ACCIDENT IN THE CROSSWALK. WELL, WE HAVE THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT
SAFE. 
          SO THAT CREATES A POSSIBLE LIABILITY ISSUE. AND THE REMOVAL WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE CONFINES
OF JUST NORMAL MAINTENANCE THROUGHOUT THE NEXT YEAR. SO WITH THAT,
DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OVER THIS? MR. HARRIS, LIKE YOU SAID ARTWORK. 
          SO, LIKE, IF YOU 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 [INAUDIBLE]
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 PUT [INAUDIBLE], THE SCHOOL EMBLEM ON THERE. 
          YES. NO. YES. WHICH ONE? I MEAN, IT'S THE NAME. 
          OKAY. PARKWAY IS THE 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. YEAH, THAT I'M REALLY NOT SURE ABOUT,
BUT WE DON'T TYPICALLY DO THAT ON OUR STREETS HERE. IF IT WAS A MASCOT,
IT DEFINITELY WOULD QUALIFY AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK SOMETHING KIND OF SIMILAR. 
          SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, HOLLY GLASSES, WHICH ARE ARTISTIC,
A SYMBOL OF OUR CITY, A COMMON SYMBOL. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. I'M SORRY. 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? DOCTOR WILSON. JUST FOR QUICK CLARIFICATION, AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU,
JARRETT, IT´S WHO WILL BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING THESE? AND IS IT THE CITY, IS IT THE TXDOT? IS IT DURING MAINTENANCE AND WHAT WILL THE FINANCIAL
COSTS BE TO COMPLY? THE COST WILL BE ON THE CITY. WE PUT THOSE THERE,
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. ACTUALLY TWO OF THEM ARE JUST ONE STRIP ACROSS BUDDY HOLLY,
THE GLASSES ARE FOUR. 
          AND IF I MIGHT ADD, JUST, YOU KNOW, COMMENT TO TACK ON TO WHAT DAVID'S TALKING ABOUT. 
          THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE INTERPRETATION OF IT RIGHT NOW IS VERY BROAD AND VERY
UNIVERSAL. 
          WE'RE ONLY AWARE OF ONE CITY THAT IS CHALLENGING BACK,
AND THEY ARE CHALLENGING 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 COUNCILMAN MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WHERE SCHOOLS PAINT THEIR MASCOT ON THE STREET AND 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 I DO THINK WE NEED TO COMPLY,
AND THEN WE'LL KEEP ON IT. 
          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 LOOK AT DOING THAT AND BRINGING IT BACK TO YOU. 
          YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A VERY BROAD LETTER. I DON'T THINK IT WAS INTENDED TO GO AFTER, SAY, THE BUDDY HOLLY GLASSES. UNFORTUNATELY IT DID. 
          [00:20:04]
AND AS FAR AS REMOVAL OF, SAY, THE MAC DAVIS CROSSWALK. THAT ONE WILL BE A VERY EASY REMOVAL. 
          IT WILL BE HANDLED WITH THE STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT NEXT YEAR THAT'S ALREADY PLANNED. 
          SO REALLY, THAT WILL BE VERY EASY TO. THAT COST WILL BE BASICALLY ZERO JUST BECAUSE IT'S
ALREADY GOING TO BE PLANNED WITHIN THAT PROJECT. SO IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT TO MR. HARRIS'S POSITION, THOUGH, IF THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO LIKE,
A DRIVE THROUGH 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? YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM. AND DAVID,
GO BACK TO 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, SO THE TXDOT LETTER REFERENCES TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY DUFFY'S MEMO, WHICH SPEAKS TO THE POLITICAL MESSAGES. 
          AND SO ESSENTIALLY TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY DUFFY'S MEMO,
IT WENT OUT ON JULY 1ST OF THIS YEAR AND IT SAID THE STATES MUST COMPLY WITH THIS WITHIN 60 DAYS. 
          NOW, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATE HERE,
OCTOBER 8TH, WHEN THE TEXTILE LETTER WENT OUT, IT WAS AFTER 60 DAYS. THE TEXTILE LETTER REFERENCED THAT AND SAID,
HEY, CITIES HAVE TO COMPLY WITH TRANSPORTATION DUFFY'S MEMO. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY. 
          THE TEXTILE LETTER DOES NOT DIRECTLY 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. JUST. I MEAN, THERE'S NO ACTION WE TAKE ON THIS,
OR WE'RE INTENDING TO COMPLY WITH IT, RIGHT? I MEAN. 
          THAT IS CORRECT, MAYOR. WE JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULD EXPLAIN IT AS WELL AS WE COULD
AND LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT THOSE OVER TIME ARE GOING TO COME OUT. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO BECAUSE 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 PREPARED. 
          YOU'VE NOTIFIED THEM. WE WILL COMPLY WITH IT. 
          THAT IS RIGHT. AND YOUR PLAN IS TO DO SO DURING REGULAR MAINTENANCE. 
          AND THAT'S SUFFICIENT TO MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. WHICH ALSO DOESN'T ELIMINATE OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC
ART OFF THE STREET, 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 OUR REGULAR SESSION. WE'LL TAKE UP OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS. AND I WILL REMIND EVERYBODY AS WE STAND, HEAR A PRAYER AND TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE, THAT TODAY IS VETERAN´S DAY. 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 SITTING? DAVID. COME ON. OUR COUNCILMAN. OUR OWN COUNCILMAN. 
          BUT THEY JUST SHOW YOU HOW FEW, YOU KNOW IN OUR NATION ACTUALLY SERVE AND HOW WE DEPEND ON
THEM. 
          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. IT WAS A WONDERFUL CEREMONY TODAY AT THE
SILENT WINGS MUSEUM, AND WE JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT WE HONOR ALL OUR VETERAN´S HERE IN LUBBOCK. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A BETTER HOME PLACE FOR VETERANS TO LIVE THAN RIGHT HERE IN
LUBBOCK, 
          [00:25:05]
TEXAS. AND I PRAY IT WILL ALWAYS BE THAT WAY. 
          SO STAND NOW. SENIOR PASTOR JOHNNY DAVIS WITH THE KINGDOM LIFE FELLOWSHIP,
IS GOING TO LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION, 
          [1. Invocation]
AFTER WHICH OUR MAYOR PRO TEM 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. 
          THANK YOU. MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TODAY TO BE HERE,
AND TO 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 IN
MAKING DECISIONS TO GROW THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. 
          WE CELEBRATE VETERAN´S 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
CITY'S CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK, 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 1:05,
ANY MAN WHO LACKS 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 RESPECTIVE POSITIONS. I PRAY TODAY FOR PROTECTION OVER THIS COUNCIL,
OVER THEIR FAMILIES, OVER THEIR CHILDREN. 
          I CANCEL IN THE NAME OF JESUS ANY ASSIGNMENTS OF THE ENEMY OF WITCHCRAFT MAY HAVE 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 LUBBOCK,
AND HELP THEM TO ADAPT TO THE RADICAL CHANGES THAT ARE BEGINNING TO SURFACE ON THE HORIZON AS WE WITNESS A TOTAL SHIFT IN THE SPIRITUAL SEASONS. 
          I ASK YOU, LORD, FOR PROTECTION OVER THE CITY OF LUBBOCK 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. 
          [2. Pledges of Allegiance]
REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER. 
          [ Call to Order]
AND 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 ON ANY ITEM APPEARING ON OUR AGENDA,
AND IF YOU WISH TO DO SO, PLEASE SIGN UP PRIOR TO THE TIME OF OUR MEETING,
USUALLY AT 2:00. 
          AND LET US KNOW THE ITEM THAT YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON,
AND YOU'D HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON. 
          BUT AS WE DON'T HAVE ANY TODAY, WE'LL PROCEED RIGHT ON WITH OUR MEETING. 
          [5. Minutes]
WE'LL TAKE UP AGENDA 5.1, THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28TH,
2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1? I HAVE A MOTION, DO I 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 AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THE MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          [00:30:02]
ALL RIGHT. WE NOW TAKE UP OUR CONSENT AGENDA. 
          [6. Consent Agenda - Items considered to be routine are enacted by one motion without separate discussion. If the City Council desires to discuss an item, the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.]
AND THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY REQUESTS TODAY TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM OUR CONSENT AGENDA. 
          SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED HERE TODAY. 
          IS THERE SUCH A MOTION? SO MOVED. I HAVE A MOTION,
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OR A MOTION A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA NOW,
AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 7.1 TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING 
          [1.  Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider appointments to the Planning & Zoning Commission.]
COMMISSION. 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 LORI THORN TO REPLACE HIM. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE THOSE THREE NAMES PUT FORWARD. 
          IS THERE A MOTION? DOCTOR WILSON. AT THIS TIME,
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE STACY ROGERS FROM DISTRICT 5 TO REPLACE BRANDON HARDAWAY ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON NAMING STACY ROGERS TO FILL THE POSITION
VACATED BY BRANDON HARDAWAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          YES, MAYOR. I WOULD LIKE TO 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 THE QUALIFICATIONS. 
          ALTHOUGH ALL OF THE NOMINEES OR THE NAMES BROUGHT FORWARD TO US ARE VERY QUALIFIED. 
          WE SHOULD GO WITH EXPERTISE AND MR. 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 LUBBOCK. 
          AND AS IN THE WORDS OF SOMEONE HOW LUBBOCK 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 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? I THINK WE HAVE A NOMINATION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR. 
          SO WE GO THROUGH THAT. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME THINGS,
I THINK, WHERE WE HAVE JUST A NOMINATION ON THE FLOOR. THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S BEEN SECONDED. 
          AND SO YOU GO THROUGH THAT. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A REGULAR
MOTION. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE NAMES THAT ARE PUT FORWARD? ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO SAY? MAYOR PRO TEM OR ANYONE ELSE TO THE NOMINATION OF STACY
ROGERS? YES. ONCE AGAIN, WHEN WE HAVE REVIEWED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND THE BALANCE OF THEIR
OCCUPATIONS, WHICH IT SHOULD BE A BOARD THAT REFLECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS,
UNFORTUNATELY, NOW WE WANT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS. 
          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
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. IT'S REALLY HARD. 
          OKAY. RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU APPROVE THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. THERE ARE FOUR MOTIONS TO APPROVE IT. THAT MOTION THEN PASSES. 
          ALL RIGHT, I GUESS IF YOU DIDN'T RAISE YOUR HAND,
YOU'RE OPPOSED, SO. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOTION CARRIES BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 3. 
          MISS ROGERS WILL JOIN THAT BOARD, AND WE WELCOME HER ABOARD. 
          [00:35:03]
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 7.2 TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE
VINTAGE TOWNSHIP PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION. 
          [2.  Resolution - City Secretary: Consider a resolution appointing three members to the Board of Directors of 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? MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE MIGHT ASK. SORRY? MR. MAYNARD. I SEE MR. MAYNARD'S NAME RIGHT HERE ON MY NOTES. 
          JIMMY, BACK TO YOU. BALL'S 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, BRIANNA 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 MOVED. 
          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 AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THERE BEING NONE. THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 7.3 TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST
READING, 
          [3.  Ordinance 1st Reading - City Council: Consider an ordinance amending Chapter 4, “Animals” of the Code of Ordinances by modifying §4.01.001 “Definitions”; Renaming Article 4.06 from “Dangerous Animals” to “Dangerous Animals and Dangerous Dogs”; placing §§ 4.06.001 to 4.06.003 in the “Division 1 Dangerous Animals” of Article 4.06; adding “Division 2 Dangerous Dogs” to Article 4.06.]
AMENDING CHAPTER 4 ¨ANIMALS¨ OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 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 ITEMS 7.3, 7.4. THIS IS THE SPLITTING OF THE LARGER ORDINANCE
THAT HAD BEEN POSTPONED DATE CERTAIN LANDING ON TODAY. TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION ON 7.3. 
          THE PORTION SPECIFIC TO THE DANGEROUS ANIMALS,
DANGEROUS DOGS. 
          GOING TO ASK MISS TAYLOR RUGGLES, OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES, TO COME UP. 
          SHE'LL GET THAT STARTED. AND THEN, OF COURSE,
WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE ON THE DAIS AS WELL THAT WILL PARTICIPAT IN THIS. 
          SO, TAYLOR. GOOD AFTERNOON.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 OF LUBBOCK ARE DECLARED DANGEROUS
UNDER A DANGEROUS ANIMAL, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY ALIGN WITH STATE LAW. SO. 
          WOULD YOU MOVE JUST A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE TO. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU, SO EVERYBODY CAN HEAR YOU. SORRY. 
          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. 
          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 PRO TEM. 
          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 MENTIONED STATE LAW. 
          AND THAT WAS UPDATED RECENTLY IN THIS LAST LEGISLATION,
OR? I DON'T BELIEVE THE STATE LAW WAS UPDATED, BUT 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 LUBBOCK ORDINANCE IS COMBINING THOSE TWO. 
          GOTCHA. MR. ROSE. THANK YOU. TAYLOR, CAN YOU REMIND US, 
          [00:40:01]
SO IF A DANGEROUS DOG. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DANGEROUS DOG HEARING TO DECLARE A DOG
DANGEROUS? YES. AND THIS WOULD. NO, YOU WOULD NO LONGER HAVE THE DANGEROUS DOGS HEARINGS. 
          SO HOW WOULD YOU DECLARE A DOG DANGEROUS? SO THEY HAVE TO MEET THE CRITERIA TO BE DECLARED
A DANGEROUS ANIMAL. 
          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, FOWL 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 A GREAT JOB YOU ALL HAVE BEEN DOING,
BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN A TREMENDOUS DECREASE IN STRAY DOGS. I'VE NOTICED, I'VE SEEN YOUR STAFF WORKING AFTER HOURS,
AND I AND DISTRICT 2 SURELY APPRECIATES THAT. BUT THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE PERTAINING TO THIS LIABILITY 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. 
          RIGHT NOW IT IS $200. AT THAT TIME, I GET AN UPDATED FORM OF THAT INSURANCE. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. DOCTOR WILSON. 
          THANK YOU, TAYLOR, FOR PRESENTING. JUST A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          WITH THE CHANGE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED KIND OF ALONG THE LINES OF COUNCIL MEMBER 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 BARKING AT SOMEBODY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT DOGS DO. 
          SO 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 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. 
          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 NOTARIZE IT. USUALLY IT IS STEVEN AND I THAT DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THESE DANGEROUS
DOG AFFIDAVITS ARE VALID, OR IF IT IS A DANGEROUS DOG. 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 DIRECTOR GREEN WOULD STILL BE INVESTIGATING, TALKING TO PARTIES AND THEN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION. 
          YES, SIR. 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, WAS THAT THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE DUE PROCESS.
IT'S JUST NOT IN A FORMAL HEARING SETTING. Y'ALL WILL 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. 
          [00:45:10]
OKAY. MR. COLLINS. THANK YOU. SO TO FOLLOW UP AND FOR MORE CLARITY'S SAKE. 
          PREVIOUS DANGEROUS DOG HEARINGS OCCURRED WITHIN THE OFFICES OF THE LUBBOCK ANIMAL
SERVICES. 
          YOU GUYS PROVIDED THAT HEARING. 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. 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 TEN DAYS TO MAKE THE DECLARATION OF
DANGEROUS OR NOT DANGEROUS. 
          FROM THE 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
DANGEROUS DOG HEARING TODAY IS STILL STEVEN? YES, SIR. AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. 
          NO CHANGE. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT A COMMITTEE. IT'S NOT A MUNICIPAL COURT. 
          IT'S 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. FROM THAT, YOU HAVE NINE DOGS WHO HAVE BEEN DECLARED DANGEROUS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          AND I'M ASSUMING THESE NINE DOGS AND THEIR OWNERS HAVE PROVIDED THIS $250,000 LIABILITY
POLICY TO YOU? YES, SIR. PER DOG. PER DOG. AND SO DO WE THINK. 
          AND I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, FROM AN INSURANCE PERSPECTIVE,
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 250 AND 1 MILLION. 
          IS THAT INSURANCE EVEN POSSIBLE? IS IT POSSIBLE? HAVE HAVE WE TALKED WITH ANY AGENTS IN TOWN OF WHO ARE RAISING THEIR HAND TO WRITE THAT
POLICY, OR IS IT PART OF THEIR HOMEOWNER'S? 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 PEOPLE. 
          FOR THE PEOPLE GETTING THEIR DOGS INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          AND WE GOT A MILLION FROM TALKING TO OTHER ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS AROUND THE STATE. 
          OKAY. AND THEN GO THROUGH ONE MORE TIME, WHAT THE STATE IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. 
          WHAT THE STATE 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. YES. KIND OF KEY WORD THERE. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, TAYLOR. AND WE'VE GOT SEVERAL OTHER COMMENTS,
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. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MR. GLASHEEN. 
          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 BECAUSE AGGRESSION TOWARDS OTHER. 
          UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION TOWARDS OTHER ANIMALS IS A PROBLEM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO PREVENT,
DETER AND PUNISH. 
          AND SECOND, I'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE WAY THAT THE DANGEROUS DOG
DETERMINATION IS GOING TO BE MADE, YOU DESCRIBE THAT PROCESS, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT. 
          [00:50:05]
AND IT'S CONCERNING TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING ONE DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE PROCESS
IS GOING TO WORK WHEN THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS DIFFERENT. 
          AND SO I'LL DIRECT YOU TO 4.06.101, 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 BE UNDER THE ORDINANCE LIMITED TO JUST YOU OR
DIRECTOR GREEN. 
          AND THE OTHER LANGUAGE THAT I THINK IS PROBLEMATIC IN THERE IS THAT IT SAYS THAT THE
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER MAY INVESTIGATE. 
          SO THERE'S NO OBLIGATION FOR AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THESE FACTS BEFORE
MAKING A DETERMINATION. 
          SO JUST ON A REPORT OF A CITIZEN COMPLAINT ALONE,
THEY COULD START THIS PROCESS GOING. 
          SO THAT GIVES ME GREAT CONCERN THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IT ONE WAY WHEN IT'S WRITTEN
ANOTHER. 
          AND ALSO THAT THERE'S LESS OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THIS. 
          IT CREATES. EVEN WITH THE APPEAL, I THINK THAT IT CREATES A DUE PROCESS ISSUE FOR OUR
CITIZENS. 
          AND 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. WE DO WORK WITH RISK MANAGEMENT AND WITH OUR LEGAL
DEPARTMENT ON ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT IT'S KIND OF OUT WHEELHOUSE. 
          I'LL TELL YOU THAT DANGEROUS DOG POLICIES ARE NOT STANDARDIZED IN THE SAME WAY THAT AN
AUTOMOBILE POLICY IS. 
          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 INCLUDE 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 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 WE'RE CREATING A POLICY THAT'S EITHER,
YOU KNOW, UNENFORCEABLE OR IS NOT GOING TO BE MAKE A MEANINGFUL CHANGE, ESPECIALLY IF WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF MILLION DOLLAR POLICIES ARE AVAILABLE OR WHAT
THE COST OF THOSE ARE. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT,
OR? 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 HOURS 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 ENTRANCE PART, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IF THE 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, 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 TEM. YES. DIRECTOR GREEN,
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? I'M SURE YOU DON'T KNOW IT BY VERBATIM, BUT I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO GET US THERE. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT SAYS THAT WOULD MAKE US THEN? NOW, VERY CLOSELY REFLECTS STATE LAW. THE PROCESS AS FAR AS HAVING AN ANIMAL CONTROL
OFFICER BASED OFF THE INITIAL CRITERIA, THAT YOU MET ALL THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF WHAT A DANGEROUS DOG IS,
WITH THE SWORN AFFIDAVIT, THAT COMES STRAIGHT OUT OF STATE LAW. THE 30 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH. 
          ONCE A DETERMINATION THAT A DOG IS DANGEROUS,
THAT IS STRAIGHT OUT OF STATE LAW. 
          THE ABILITY TO APPEAL TO MUNICIPAL COURT ONCE THEY GET NOTICED THAT THEIR DOG IS DANGEROUS
WITHIN 15 DAYS, THAT'S STRAIGHT OUT OF STATE LAW. THE $250,000 AS FAR AS THE INSURANCE,
THAT'S WHAT'S IN STATE LAW RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT THE STATE LAW DOES ALLOW MUNICIPALITIES ACTUALLY TO GET MORE STRICT WITH THEIR
PROVISIONS FOR THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE THAN 
          [00:55:08]
WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN NOTED ABOUT
ATTACKS ON OTHER ANIMALS. 
          I THINK THAT 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 ORDINANCE
THAT WE HAVE. 
          SO REALLY, THE BIGGEST CHANGE FROM THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS IT
TAKES DANGEROUS DOGS OUT AND SEPARATES IT INTO ITS OWN DIVISION. IT 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 SERVICES DEPARTMENT OR CALL THEM TO GET IT. COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN´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 CERTAINLY COULD CHANGE THAT VERBIAGE. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN CHANGE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CHANGE WITHIN IT,
AS LONG AS WE DON'T DON'T CONTRADICT STATE LAW WHERE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO. 
          AND THEN IT TAKES THAT FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING,
AND I'VE COME IN AND I'VE WATCHED IT. 
          THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS NOT INVOLVED, BUT IT BASICALLY IS,
IN THE FORM OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OR TRIBUNAL, WHICH REALLY IS. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK STEVEN WAS CORRECT. 
          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 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 TEM? ABSOLUTELY IT DOES. 
          IT ALSO REFLECTS THAT IT IS ACHIEVABLE, THAT WE CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT IS LISTED IN THIS
ORDINANCE. 
          SO I DO THINK WE DO NEED TO TWEAK IT WITH YOUR 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 COUNCIL,
AND IT DOES SHOW THAT WE HAVE HAD A VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. WE WENT FROM 3. WE'RE NOW AT 9. 3 IN I GUESS THE LAST TWO YEARS. 
          AND THEN IT WE'RE NOW AT 9. SO EVEN THOUGH 9 DOGS,
WE'VE QUESTIONED THAT BEFORE BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANT. 
          SO IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS. BUT ALSO CAN WE GRANDFATHER THE 9 THAT ARE ALREADY IN
OR WOULD WE HAVE TO MAKE THEM BECOME COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW AND THE MILLION DOLLAR INSURANCE? OH, IF THEY'RE ANIMALS BASED OFF OF WHAT THEY'RE HOW THEY'VE BEEN DECLARED AS A DANGEROUS
DOG, RIGHT? 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 IT CAME BACK UP, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE 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 THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DECLARED DANGEROUS. THANK YOU. MR. HARRIS. YES. 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 AND TAKE 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 DURING,
YOUR DOG HAS BEEN INJURED BY ANOTHER ONE. 
          AND THESE OTHER PEOPLE, YEAH, THEY LOVE THEIR DOG AND THEY DON'T WANT THEIR DOG CONSIDER
IT 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. 
          [01:00:04]
SO THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING. YES, SIR. 
          ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I THINK THE BENEFIT OF THIS IS,
IT'S FULLY COMPLIANT WITH 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 FACIE 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 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. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S. WE'LL HAVE A MOTION HERE IN A MINUTE. 
          AND IF THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THESE OR THE MAY LANGUAGE IF WE WANT TO MAKE IT SHALL. 
          WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THAT UP AT THAT TIME, BUT I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH. 
          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, AND 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 ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. COLLINS. MAYOR I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE IT DOES PREVENT 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 IT DID,
IN FACT, CATCH A SQUIRREL. 
          YOU KNOW, IF NEIGHBOR LOVES SQUIRRELS, THEN THEN WE'VE CREATED A PROBLEM AND IT HASN'T
REALLY NECESSARILY DONE ANYTHING THAT WOULD IT MIGHT BE DANGEROUS. IT MIGHT NOT. I'M NOT SAYING IT ISN'T,
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, CHASING A SQUIRREL THROUGH THE FRONT YARD IS YOU KNOW,
MY DOG WOULD BE LUCKY TO CATCH A SQUIRREL, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT MATTER ALTOGETHER. I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE. 
          IN MY OPINION, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST A CONTROL OFFICER. 
          WHAT'S THE AVERAGE SENIORITY OF YOUR ANIMAL CONTROL AGENTS? I'M GOING TO SAY PROBABLY THREE YEARS ON AVERAGE. 
          ON AVERAGE. IF I CAN, ON THE ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE IT STATES THAT THE ANIMAL HAS TO ATTACK
A DOMESTIC ANIMAL OR A DOMESTIC FOWL. 
          SO IN AN INSTANCE, A SQUIRREL DOESN'T FIT THAT. 
          WELL, SO EVEN A CHICKEN. SO THE CHICKEN´S LOOSE IN SOMEBODY'S YARD,
AND I HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH THAT. 
          I THINK THAT THE HEARING PROCESS CERTAINLY HAS SOME BENEFITS THAT MAKE SURE THAT,
YOU KNOW, DUE PROCESS IS ABOUT HAVING TWO PEOPLE COME TOGETHER 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 CREATE THEIR OWN AFFIDAVITS,
ONE IN DEFENSE, POSSIBLY COMING WITH THE ONE WHO'S ALLEGING AN OFFENSE MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IN THAT. 
          I JUST, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS A DUE PROCESS ISSUE IF WE DON'T HAVE SOME TYPE OF
HEARING, AND WE ALLOW THE AGENT IN THE FIELD TO MAKE A DETERMINATION. 
          CERTAINLY, AGAIN, WE'LL COMPLICATE THE ISSUE EVEN MORE. 
          MAYBE THEY CAN MAKE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION THAT COMES TO A FINAL CONCLUSION FROM THE
EXECUTIVES ON STAFF. 
          I DON'T KNOW. IT'S JUST. THAT COULD BE MADE IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT,
TOO, IF YOU WANTED A SECOND EYE ON THAT 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 I WERE TO MAKE A CLAIM AGAINST THE NEIGHBOR'S DOG,
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MEANTIME? DOES THE DOG STAY IN THE HOUSE? DOES THE DOG HAVE TO BE COLLECTED? 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. 
          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 IS BEING FILED,
IT HAS TO BE HOUSED AT A STATE APPROVED VET, 
          [01:05:02]
OR IT HAS TO BE HOUSED AT LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES FOR 240 HOURS FROM THAT TIME OF BITE TO
UNDERGO RABIES QUARANTINE. 
          AFTER THAT TEN DAYS, THOUGH, IT WILL BE RELEASED BACK TO THE OWNER. 
          AND IF YOU WERE GOING TO SERVE A WARRANT 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. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. WELCOME. MR. ROSE. THANK YOU. 
          BEFORE I VOTE ON THIS, I JUST WANT CLARITY BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT DUE PROCESS. 
          AND SOMEONE SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, DANGEROUS DOG. 
          THIS HAPPENED. THEY BARKED AT ME AND IT REALLY WASN'T AN ISSUE. 
          BUT YOU'RE MAKING THE DECISION ANYWAY, CORRECT,
STEVEN? 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 AN INCIDENT REPORTED TO US. 
          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 YOUR MAN HOURS OF 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. 
          AND THEN AT THAT POINT YOU CAN APPEAL AND THEN YOU CAN GO TO MUNICIPAL COURT WHERE. 
          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 COULD BE SOMETHING. 
          SHOULD THE COUNCIL CHOOSE, YOU CAN SUBSTITUTE IN THE PLACE OF 4.06.101A. 
          THAT'S WHERE THE MAY APPEARS, THAT COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN REFERENCED,
THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE SHALL. 
          AND THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE IS WHERE IT SAYS THE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 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 QUESTIONS? MR. GLASHEEN. 
          HOW MANY DANGEROUS DOG HEARINGS ARE YOU DOING EACH MONTH? IT DEPENDS. 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 IN THE AMOUNT OF
DANGEROUS DOG AFFIDAVITS BEING FILED RECENTLY, THOUGH. AND IF I MIGHT, THAT´S HEARINGS THAT WE HAVE HELD,
THAT'S NOT TOTAL AFFIDAVITS FILED. 
          SO SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT FILED AGAINST THEIR ANIMAL. 
          THEY MIGHT SURRENDER THAT ANIMAL FOR EUTHANASIA. 
          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 3 DECLARED NOT DANGEROUS. 
          THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 13 DECLARED DANGEROUS AND 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 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 THERE LRC IS ALLOWING YOU TO MOVE A DANGEROUS DOG INTO
THEIR JURISDICTION. 
          AND IF YOU DON'T CHOOSE ANY OF THOSE THREE, WE WILL HUMANELY EUTHANIZED IT. 
          [01:10:01]
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 TEM. I THINK I HEARD SOME CONCERN FROM THE DAIS ABOUT 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 DOGS. 
          BUT WHAT'S IN THIS ORDINANCE, THE MODIFICATION AND WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT 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? 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'S
DANGEROUS ANIMAL, THEY ARE GOING TO NOTIFY US PRETTY QUICKLY OF THAT. 
          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 ANIMAL IS OWNED,
NOT OWNED. 
          SO WE WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH THAT. BUT OUR OFFICERS DO 30 HOURS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
EVERY THREE YEARS, THEIR BASIC CERTIFIED. A FEW OF THEM HAVE GOTTEN THEIR ADVANCED,
BASIC OR ADVANCED TRAINING ANIMAL CONTROL TRAINING. 
          WE DO RABIES REVIEW. WE DO BITE CLASSES. SO THEY ARE VERSED IN WHAT 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 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. LET'S BEGIN. IS THERE A MOTION ON FIRST READING TO APPROVE ITEM
7.4? SO MOVED. 7.3? I'M SORRY, 7.3. WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? YES. WE NEED TO AMEND IT. 
          WE NEED A MOTION. YOU CAN DO IT. YOU CAN DO A SECOND DOWN HERE. 
          OKAY. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. I WAS GOING TO SAY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE
MOTION, IF THE PERSON MAKING THE MOTION WANTS TO AMEND. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE TO. YEAH. BUT IF THEY WANT TO,
THEY CERTAINLY. 
          AMENDMENTS. ONE OF THEM WAS VERBIAGE, AND WHAT WAS YOUR OTHER CONCERN,
DAVID? I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS. 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 I MAY. I'D RATHER WORK WITH MATT. 
          WE GOT TO BE SPECIFIC. YOU CAN'T MAKE A MOTION. 
          SO, MAYOR PRO TEM, YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU COULD. IT'S YOUR MOTION. 
          AND I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO IS,
THE TWO THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT I'VE HEARD NOT ONLY COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN KNOW, HE HAS OTHER CONCERNS, BUT THAT THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO BROUGHT UP,
IS IN 4.06.101A IS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE THAT WHERE IT SAYS 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 WERE THE TWO THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT FROM COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN 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. 
          BRAYDEN? ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. OR WAS IT. 
          [01:15:02]
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 MOTION NOW. IT'S JUST A MOTION NOW. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION? MR. GLASHEEN. I MADE THESE COMMENTS THE OTHER DAY,
BUT I'LL REPEAT THEM NOW BECAUSE I. 
          AND Y'ALL CAN FEEL FREE TO STAY SEATED. MY BIGGEST CRITICISM OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS 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. 
          THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS WE'RE 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 LUBBOCK, 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 TAKING YOUR DOG ON A WALK. 
          WE DON'T NEED NEW OR DIFFERENT LAWS. REALLY,
WHAT WE NEED IS MORE AGGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT FOCUS AT THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL, AS WELL AS MORE FIELD OPERATION AND MORE RESOURCES IN SUPPORT OF THE FIELD OPERATIONS. 
          I WOULD BE MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN REVISITING THIS ISSUE AFTER WE'VE MADE A MORE
DELIBERATE FOCUS ON FIELD OPERATIONS AND SEE IF WE REALLY NEED TO AMEND THE LAW. BUT TWEAKING THE LAWS AT THIS POINT IS NOT GOING TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY AND EVEN TO THE POINT OF THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE WE'VE LOOKED AT
THIS CLOSELY ENOUGH TO SEE. 
          IS IT FEASIBLE OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S EVEN GOING TO BE ADEQUATELY ENFORCED? ALL RIGHT. I GUESS MY $0.02 WORTH ON THIS IS MR. GLASHEEN, I SEE THESE AS TWO SOLELY,
TOTALLY DISCRETE ISSUES. 
          ONE IS THE DANGEROUS DOG, ONE IS THE LOOSE DOGS. 
          AND WE HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THEM. 
          I DON'T THINK WE PUT OFF ADDRESSING ONE IN FAVOR OF WAITING FOR A APPROACH THAT WOULD
ADDRESS THE OTHER ONE. I THINK THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT DANGEROUS DOGS. 
          MY CONCERN ALSO IS, OR WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THIS IS IT BRINGS US INTO CONFORMITY WITH STATE
LAW. 
          AND IT ALSO REDUCES THE BURDEN ON OUR CURRENT STAFF AND ALLOWS THEM TO DO THAT JOB AND
FOCUS ON WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN THERE IN TERMS OF GETTING THE LOOSE DOGS OFF OUR STREETS,
WHICH IS A PROBLEM AS WELL. 
          I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE PUTTING A REQUIREMENT ON INSURANCE THERE THAT MIGHT NOT BE
ACHIEVABLE AT ALL. 
          AND SO BUT NOBODY'S OFFERED AN AMENDMENT ON THAT. 
          BUT I THINK WE CAN DO TWO THINGS. WE CAN DEAL WITH THE LEGAL ISSUE,
THE LAW, AND WE CAN DEAL WITH THE 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. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, MR. COLLINS? IS THERE IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN,
YOU KNOW, THESE OWNERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TEST THE MARKET. THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE MAYOR'S POINT. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TEST THE MARKET. THE OWNER COMES BACK AND SAYS,
I WASN'T ABLE TO PURCHASE THIS, YOU KNOW, AND SO IT BECOMES SO PUNITIVE THAT,
YOU KNOW, THESE OWNERS MAY LOSE THEIR ANIMALS IS THAT IF THE DOG HAS BEEN DECLARED DANGEROUS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS GOING TO BRING US TO. 
          IS THAT NECESSARILY YOU KNOW, THE APPROPRIATE WAY FOR US TO HANDLE THIS? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'D BE VERY CURIOUS, YOU KNOW,
FOR US TO LEARN THIS MARKETPLACE TO SEE IF THAT INSURANCE IS EVEN AVAILABLE. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT ON THE MOTION? I'M OUT. WELL, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE NUMBER IF IT CAN BE PURCHASED. 
          IF IT CAN'T BE PURCHASED, THEN. BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT. 
          [01:20:02]
THAT WE LOOK INTO WHAT WE CAN AND WHAT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PURCHASE 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. 
          YES, SIR. IF WE COULD COUNT ON A REPORT BACK BEFORE THE SECOND READING FOR YOU. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. I'D FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THE $250,000 IN THE
STATE LAW? YES. 250 IN THE STATE LAW. IN THE STATE LAW ALREADY? IT IS, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS GO ABOVE STATE LAW. 
          MAYOR? 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 COME BACK TO THAT AND LOOK AT WHAT IS MARKET CAPABLE AND SEE WHAT WOULD BE MORE COMPARABLE FOR SOMEONE. 
          BUT I DO FEEL LIKE IN OUR ENFORCEMENT, WE NEED TO MAKE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS
SOMETHING SERIOUS AND WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS IT. SO ARE YOU. SO THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT. 
          A MOTION TO. 
          YEAH. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. 
          BUT THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS THE MOVER. BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS,
YOU CERTAINLY CAN 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 HAS NOT BECOME FINAL UNTIL AFTER THE SECOND READING,
RIGHT? AND SO I THINK WHAT MR. HOWERTON 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 TO CHANGE IT RIGHT NOW IF YOU WANTED TO,
BUT YOU CAN ALSO CHANGE IT AT SECOND READING, IS WHAT I'M SUGGESTING. SO SHE COULD AMEND IT NOW TO JUST HAVE THE $250,000. 
          YES, YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN IF YOU WANT TO. AND IT WOULD BE THAT,
SINCE IT'S THE MAYOR PRO TEM 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,
BECAUSE THAT. 
          YEAH, AND YES. AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR YOU,
MAYOR PRO TEM, IS WHAT IS YOUR MOTION? DO YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AT BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO STILL DO THE SECOND READING. 
          SO I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN ROSE WAS THE SECOND. DO YOU CONCUR WITH THAT,
KEEPING IT AT 250,000 FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          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. AREN'T WE YOUR BEST JOB? OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR WITH THE CHANGES AS NOTED THAT THE. 
          ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT? I SEE NONE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED, 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. YES. YES. 
          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, LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING AYE. 
          AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THAT MOTION PASSES 6 TO 1. 
          [01:25:05]
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 
          [4.  Ordinance 1st Reading - City Council: Consider an ordinance amending Chapter 4 "Animals" of the Code of Ordinances by modifying §4.01.001 “Definitions”, § 4.01.003, “Number of dogs and cats at residences; multi-pet permit”; adding § 4.01.006 “Permit for breeders of dogs or cats”; amending §4.02.005, “Impoundment and redemption”; and amending §4.04.002 “Inhumane treatment of animals”.]
MULTI-PET PERMITS, BREEDERS PERMITS, IMPOUNDMENT,
AND THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. 
          AGAIN, I WILL CALL ON STEVEN TO PRESENT THAT. 
          OR TAYLOR, WHICHEVER ONE OF YOU WANTS TO PRESENT THAT. 
          MAYOR, MR. GREEN WILL START THIS ONE OFF, AND WE'LL PROBABLY GET TO ENJOY BOTH OF THEIR
EXPERIENCE HERE IN A MOMENT. 
          WE CAN TAG TEAM IT. OKAY, SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO CREATE A BREEDERS PERMIT. 
          THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S RECOMMENDED BY MY ADVISORY BOARD. 
          THEY PUT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO THAT. THEY FEEL LIKE THAT'S A TOOL THAT COULD HELP
ON ROADSIDE SALES. 
          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. 
          CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY STATE APPROVED BREEDERS IN THE CITY LIMITS. 
          AND OF COURSE, IF WE GET THIS PASSED, ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE COMPLAINT DRIVEN. 
          WE HAVE A PROPOSAL TO BE ABLE TO WAIVE AN IMPOUND FEE IF AN OWNER HAS AN INTACT ANIMAL,
AND WE'LL GET THAT ANIMAL STERILIZED WITHIN 30 DAYS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF STERILIZATION. 
          CURRENTLY, WE DO HAVE ANIMALS IMPOUNDED TWICE IN A 12 MONTH ROLLING PERIOD. 
          IT'S A MANDATED SPAY NEUTER. AND SO DOING THIS,
I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD QUESTION, WHY WOULD SOMEBODY WAIVE $105 IMPOUND FEE FOR AN EXPENSIVE SPAY OR NEUTER? MY ARGUMENT TO THAT IS ANYBODY THAT'S NEEDING THAT FEE WAIVED IS
PROBABLY GOING TO NEED THEIR ANIMAL SPAYED. 
          MOST PEOPLE THAT HAVE THEIR ANIMALS FIXED ALREADY AREN'T GOING TO NEED A FREE COMPOUND,
AND THEIR ANIMALS PROBABLY AREN'T GETTING OUT. 
          SO WE DO HAVE A VETERINARIAN THAT DOES SURGERIES ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS. 
          SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SOME OF THESE IN HOUSE. 
          BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT 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 STERILIZATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? MR. GLASHEEN. 
          AGENDA ITEM 7.4 ALSO HAS THE MULTI PET PERMIT IN THERE AS WELL,
CORRECT? YEAH. STEVEN, WOULD YOU GO OVER THAT PART PLEASE. 
          YES. 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 MULTI PET 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. WE ALSO HAVE A CHANGE TO THE INHUMANE TREATMENT. 
          TAKEN OUT A LANGUAGE WHERE ANYBODY CAN DOC A PUPPY'S TAIL OR EARS AND MAKING THAT HAS TO
BE DONE BY A LICENSED VET. 
          SO IT'S CLEANING UP A LITTLE BIT OF LANGUAGE. 
          WHICH SECTION OF THE AMENDED ORDINANCE IS THAT IN? THE INHUMANE TREATMENT IS GOING TO BE 4.04.002. 
          INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS. IT'S ON PAGE FOUR OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION FIVE. YES. PAGE 358 IN YOUR BOOK. THANK YOU. 
          SO ON THE MULTI PET PERMITS, HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT IN THE CITY? AS FAR AS CURRENTLY? HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS DO YOU EXPECT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE CHANGE IN
THE MULTI PET PERMITTING? I DON'T THINK IF SOMEBODY HAS A MULTI PERMIT IT WOULD AFFECT THAT. 
          WE DON'T GET MANY REQUESTS FOR THOSE. I THINK WE HAVE SIX IF. 
          I DON'T HAVE IT ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I THINK WE HAVE SIX CURRENTLY THAT HAVE MULTI
PET PERMITS TO THAT. 
          [01:30:03]
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 BEFORE YOU'RE ABLE TO RECEIVE BREEDERS
PERMIT? YES, SIR. WE DO THE SAME LIKE WE WOULD FOR A PERMIT. 
          YOU WOULD GO OUT, MAKE SURE THE FACILITIES ARE WITHIN STANDARDS OF CITY ORDINANCE AND
DEPARTMENT POLICY. 
          AND THERE'S WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT I BELIEVE WOULD SAY WE CAN AND LOOK AT THE GO
INSPECT THE PROPERTY. 
          WHICH SECTION? SORRY. LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE,
WHICH SECTION INCLUDES INSPECTIONS? YEAH. 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 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 PERMIT. 
          AS STEPHEN SAID AT THE VERY BEGINNING, THIS IS GOING TO BE A COMPLAINT. 
          IT'S BEEN SHIFTED ENTIRELY TO A COMPLAINT DRIVEN TYPE ISSUE. 
          AND SO THERE IS NO PRE INSPECTION OR INSPECTION THAT'S CONDUCTED BEFORE A PERMIT IS ISSUED
ON THE PROPOSAL. 
          THAT'S BEFORE YOU. THAT'S IN THE BACKUP. THANK YOU MISTER. 
          WAIT 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 ORDINANCE IS, IS DIFFERENT THAN THE BRIEFING AND DIFFERENT THAN STAFF'S VISION FOR EXECUTING THE
ORDINANCE. 
          AND I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU JUST TO PICK ON YOU,
BUT IT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT IF YOU AS STAFF HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW YOU'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDINANCE, WE'RE BEING TOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT AS A 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 INSPECTIONS ARE NECESSARY AND SHOULD BE RE-ADDED INTO THE ORDINANCE? I PERSONALLY LIKE THE INSPECTIONS, BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS AN ISSUE LIKE BROUGHT
UP PREVIOUSLY, I BELIEVE IT SAID THEY SHALL BE. 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 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 ENFORCEMENT ACTION, OR WHAT'S WHAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS ON ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THAT. 
          IF THE IDEA BEHIND THAT 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 HAD THOSE LITTERS. 
          WE CURRENTLY HAVE LAWS RESTRICTING ROADSIDE SALES OF ANIMALS. 
          CORRECT. YES, SIR. SO HOW WOULD AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AT SAY,
LIKE THE MALL PARKING LOT KNOW THAT THOSE ANIMALS HAVE BEEN BRED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION TO ASK THE INDIVIDUALS SELLING THOSE ANIMALS. 
          I DON'T KNOW OF MANY CASES WHERE PEOPLE COME TO LUBBOCK TO SELL ANIMALS. 
          I'M SURE IT MAY HAPPEN, BUT I THINK THE MAJORITY OF ANIMALS BEING SOLD AT THE MALL CAME
FROM LUBBOCK. 
          MY OTHER THOUGHT IS IF THE ONLY PURPOSE IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ESCALATING 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. 
          COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN, IF I COULD IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
          THANK YOU MAYOR. SO I THINK PART OF THE MISCOMMUNICATION HERE,
AS FAR AS THE ENFORCEMENT IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN YOUR ORDINANCE AND WHAT IS PROPOSED. SO IN YOUR BACKUP, WHAT YOU HAVE 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 MULTI-PART 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 AND WHATEVER THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO WOULD REMOVE THAT INSPECTION
PROCESS ENTIRELY AS FAR AS THE 
          [01:35:05]
INSPECTIONS GO. SO THAT'S THE ONLY THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M INTERJECTING IS BECAUSE
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY AN INSPECTION PROCESS ON THE BOOKS WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. THANK YOU. MR. COLLINS, I'M SORRY. 
          OKAY, SO. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE NEW LANGUAGE IS THAT AN APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE
PERTINENT INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT HOW THE ANIMALS ARE GOING TO BE KEPT. 
          D 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? NOT AT THIS TIME. NO, SIR. AND WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, DO YOU HAVE ANY WAY OF VERIFYING THE INFORMATION THAT'S CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION? I WOULD HAVE TO I'M NOT SURE. HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT ONE? YEAH. I THINK USUALLY WHEN WE HAVE THE APPLICATION FILED NOW FOR AT LEAST A MULTI PET
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 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. 
          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 IDEAS. 
          BUT I'M CRITICIZING THE PROCESS BECAUSE I THINK THE RECURRING THEME OF MY CRITICISM IS
THAT WE HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. 
          AND SO I DON'T I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF INSPECTIONS. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE INSPECTIONS. 
          BUT IF WE'RE NOT DOING 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 DO YOU THINK THAT THE APPLICATION 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 WOULD JUST AN APPLICATION THAT WE DON'T DO ANY SORT OF
VERIFICATION OR HAVE ANY AUTHORITY EVEN TO REVIEW? WHY WOULD THAT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS? BECAUSE NOW IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BREEDER'S
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 AND LOOSE DOGS? I BELIEVE WE MODELED THIS AFTER FORT WORTH, CORRECT? YEAH. SO THERE. SO 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 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 YOU ALL ON IT. BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE CITIES THAT DO HAVE PERMANENT REQUIREMENTS BOTH FOR BREEDERS
AND MULTI PET, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE THE DATA TO BE ABLE TO DIRECTLY CORRELATE WHEN THOSE
ORDINANCES PASSED 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 DID YOU REVIEW ANY DATA THAT SHOWS WHAT POLICIES DO CORRELATE WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF STRAY ANIMALS? NO, SIR. SO I'LL CALL ON YOU IN JUST A SECOND,
MR. 
          [01:40:09]
COLLINS. BUT 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 THEY FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHETHER THEIR APPLICATION WAS ACCURATE. I MEAN, THAT'S THE POINT. THE INVESTIGATION,
SO TO SPEAK, WOULD TAKE PLACE. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? 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 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. LASHINA, YOU STILL HAVE I DON'T DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. 
          OKAY, MR. COLLINS. THANK YOU. MAYOR, IF WE LOOK AT SECTION TWO OF THE ORDINANCE. AS IT TALKS TO A MULTI-PART PERMIT THERE'S THERE'S VERBIAGE
HERE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT A FEE IS REQUIRED FOR A MULTI-PART 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 CAN SPEAK TO THAT JUST JUST A BIT. VERY FEW OF THE FEES THAT THE CITY CHARGES ARE
GOING TO BE FOUND IN THE ORDINANCE THAT AUTHORIZES THEM. RATHER, THE FEES ARE SET EACH AND EVERY YEAR THROUGH THE CITY
BUDGET. 
          SO IF YOU'LL RECALL, WE HAVE THOSE LARGE CHARTS WHICH WE USUALLY HIGHLIGHT THE CHANGES,
BUT THEY'RE ALL LISTED ON THERE. 
          SO THIS WILL NOT BE THE ONLY PLACE THAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 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. ASKED THE QUESTION. I DON'T RECALL THE ANSWER. 
          DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY MULTI PET PERMITS WE HAVE ISSUED TODAY. 
          I BELIEVE IT'S SIX. I THINK MAYOR PRO TEM SAID MAYBE EIGHT. 
          I DON'T HAVE THAT DATA IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT WOULD BE IN THAT RANGE 6 TO 8. 
          AND SO THE NUMBER OF PETS IN A PREMISES IS FOR FOR,
FOR ADULT DOGS OR FOR 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. EIGHT. 6 TO 8. 6 TO 8. 
          PERMITS OUT. ISSUED IN THE CITY. AND. OKAY. 
          AND SO TO MAKE THE POINT, I GUESS IS, IS THIS QUESTION,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE COLLECTING $250. 
          AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN INSPECTION PROCESS TO. 
          WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN INSPECTION PROCESS 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. DOCTOR 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
FINED FOR THINGS ON YOUR NORMAL VIOLATION FOR MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, ANYTHING HIGHER THAN $500 BECAUSE 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 VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. 
          SO CURRENTLY, IF WE CATCH SOMEBODY SELLING DOGS ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD,
WHAT IS THE FINE THAT WE ARE WRITING WHEN WE ISSUED WHATEVER CITATION, 
          [01:45:06]
WHAT IS THE FINE THAT'S GOING TO BE UP TO WHAT HAPPENS AT COURT? OKAY. 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 WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WHAT WE MIGHT MAY HAVE CONTROL OVER. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO OUR MULTI PET 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? KNOW YOUR FEES GENERALLY HAVE TO BE SOMEWHAT RATIONALLY RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WHATEVER IT TAKES TO SIT THERE AND COLLECT 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 FEES CAN'T IN AND OF THEMSELVES BE CONSIDERED PUNITIVE. 
          SO IT JUST HAS TO BE RELATED TO YOUR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. 
          SO THEN THAT'S MY QUESTION IS IF WE'RE REMOVING THE INSPECTION COMPONENT OF A MULTI-STEP
PERMIT, IS THAT STILL JUSTIFYING THE $40 FEE NOW BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION COMING WITH A
MULTI-STEP PERMIT IS NOW CHANGING THAT? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION THAT I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF ON INSPECTION SHOULD BE HIGHER. 
          YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN SO WHAT WERE WE PROPOSING IF IF THE BREEDER'S FEE WAS THERE? I'M LOOKING. WHAT WERE YOU PROPOSING? THAT A BREEDER'S FEE WOULD BE A BREEDER'S PERMIT
FEE. 
          THE BREEDER'S PERMIT FEE IS $100. IT'S GOING TO BE 100. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THAT ONE IS AN ORDINANCE. 
          THAT ONE OR PROPOSED? YES. SORRY. 
          MR. ROSE. OKAY. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE,
AND. 
          AND YOU BROUGHT 7.3. AND I THOUGHT THAT HAD SOME GOOD STUFF IN IT THAT HELP US IN TERMS OF
DANGEROUS DOGS, BUT 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. 
          I MEAN ROADSIDE SALES OF DOGS. I MEAN PEOPLE COME IN AND OUT OF TOWN. 
          I SEE THEM FROM EASTERN NEW MEXICO YOU KNOW,
OUT FROM THE COUNTY. 
          SO 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 I JUST DON'T SEE I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE HALF BAKED. 
          AND I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT. I'M IN SUPPORT OF SOME OF THIS,
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND REWRITE SOME OF THIS, FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. 
          AND I JUST DON'T THINK MORE LAWS ON BREEDING PERMITS AND MULTI PET PERMITS IS GOING TO,
IS GOING TO HELP US OUT ANY. 
          MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT YOU'VE WORKED WITH AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MADE UP OF
FOLKS THAT DEAL WITH A LOT OF ANIMAL ISSUES. DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN ROSE SAYS? THAT THIS ISN'T NECESSARY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE 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. 
          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 THE PERMIT FEE THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE,
IS IT NOT? SO HOW IS THAT FOR MULTIPLE PERMITS? YES, IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. 
          SO WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE YOU CAN HAVE EIGHT PETS. 
          YOU CAN HAVE FOUR. WE ONLY HAVE 6 TO 8 ACTIVE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ENFORCING IT. 
          WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THESE 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. YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING,
EVEN WE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF, YOU KNOW, 
          [01:50:03]
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 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 MEAN, 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 I CALL FOR THE QUESTION. WELL, DO WE NEED TO DO A MOTION 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. 
          OKAY. SO WE'RE STILL JUST IN DISCUSSION. STILL IN QUESTION. 
          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 ALL RIGHT MR. ROSE, I THINK, YES. WELL, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHERE IN THIS ORDINANCE
IT'S GOING TO ADDRESS ROADSIDE SALES. CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THAT THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC IN THE
ORDINANCE TALKING ABOUT ROADSIDE SALES? IT'S. THE IDEA IS THAT IF YOU WERE SELLING IT WITHOUT A
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, BUT ALSO STRIKE THE MULTI PERMIT REQUIREMENT AND THE BREEDER PERMIT REGULATIONS AND PERMIT
FEE REQUIREMENTS AS ARE STATED. 
          I LIKE THE IMPOUND FEE REFUND INCENTIVE. I THINK THAT COULD BE VERY EFFECTIVE. 
          STANDARDIZING LANGUAGE TERMINOLOGY DEFINITIONS OUR HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES. 
          AND SO I THINK WE START WITH THOSE THREE ITEMS AND WE CAN COME BACK TO THE REST AT SOME
POINT IN TIME. 
          I SECOND THAT. WOULD YOU PLEASE MENTION THE EXACT CODE NUMBERS OF YOUR THE ONES YOU WISH
TO STRIKE FROM IT, 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 YOU HAVE YOU HAVE YOU DON'T WANT TO APPROVE SECTION
TWO. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN PUT THE ORDINANCE UP ON THE SCREEN OR SECTION
THREE. 
          CAN YOU GET IT ON THE SCREEN? ALL RIGHT. SO WE ALL KNOW WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO. 
          I WANT TO STRIKE IN ITS ENTIRETY SECTION. MR. COLLINS, LET'S GET IT UP ON THE SCREEN IF WE CAN. OKAY. 
          IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE SECTION FOUR AND SECTION FIVE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU WANTED TO
APPROVE. 
          MAYOR. IF YOU DON'T MIND, CAN I GET YOU TO SWITCH THE INPUTS,
PLEASE? TO WHAT? TO EITHER GOING TO SAY EAST OR CITY MANAGER. 
          GOTCHA. THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO. OKAY. SECTION TWO BEGINS TOWARDS THE END OF THAT PAGE. 
          SO I'M MOVING THAT WE STRIKE ANY CHANGES TO THIS SECTION THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE
REVISION. 
          OKAY. AT 7.04. OKAY, I AM MOVING THAT WE STRIKE UP 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. 
          IN SECTION FOUR AND FIVE. YES. STANDARDIZATION OF TERMINOLOGY. 
          AND WE WOULD BE ADOPTING THE REFUND INCENTIVE FOR PET OWNERS WHO HAVE THEIR PETS SPAYED OR NEUTERED. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU ALSO WANT TO INCLUDE THE. 
          SECTION FIVE THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW WHERE IT AMENDS ON CROPPING WHAT TALKS ABOUT
THE CAUSE OF A PUPPY OVER 
          [01:55:10]
FIVE YEARS OF AGE, OR 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 UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. I'M NOT SURE. 
          ANYONE ELSE ON WHAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. 
          SO SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'RE STRIKING SECTION THREE AND IN ITS ENTIRETY,
RIGHT? YEAH. WE WOULD NOT TRY TO IMPLEMENT A BREEDERS PERMIT OR FEE OF ANY KIND AND THEN GO BACK
TO SECTION TWO. 
          AND HE JUST REVERTING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE INTO SO
STRIKING. 
          SECTION TWO AND STRIKING SECTION THREE OKAY. YEAH. 
          OKAY. THERE YOU GO. THAT WORKS, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. 
          YES, SIR. MR. GLASHEEN. CAN YOU TURN ON MY MIC? OH. OH, THERE YOU GO. AND SO TO CLARIFY, IN SECTION TWO OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE 4.01003, PARAGRAPH C IS THE INSPECTION REQUIREMENT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE INSPECTION REQUIREMENT AS THE LANGUAGE IS CURRENTLY IN THE
ORDINANCE. 
          I WOULD SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT IF YOU CHOOSE TO ELIMINATE THE INSPECTION REQUIREMENT
CURRENTLY. 
          OKAY. OKAY. I'LL MAKE THE INSPECTION. REMOVING SECTION 2, AS NOTED, WOULD LEAVE THE PART OF LETTER C THAT IS CURRENTLY STRUCK,
CORRECT LANGUAGE? YES. GRAMMATICALLY ILLITERATE ALL OF A SUDDEN. 
          WELL, THEN I'LL PROPOSE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 
          PROPOSE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE DELETIONS IN PARAGRAPH C OF SECTION 2 IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. YEAH, YEAH. SO YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE THE INSPECTION PORTION OF THAT? YOU WOULD. AND DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AS. OKAY. YEAH. 
          SO YOU'RE DELETING SECTION 2 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 THERE. IF YOU LEAVE SECTION C IN IT'S GOING TO KILL THE INSPECTIONS THAT
CURRENTLY EXIST. 
          AND THERE WILL BE NO REFERENCE AT THE END OF THAT. 
          THE ADDITION OF THE MULTI PET PERMIT. THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO HAVE THAT BECAUSE THERE
WILL BE NO BREEDERS PERMIT AT ALL. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE BY PASSAGE. THAT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY. 
          ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE CLEAR. OKAY. DOCTOR WILSON,
CLARIFICATION. 
          SO BY REMOVING BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER LANGUAGE THAT WAS CLEANED UP IN SECTION TWO UNDER A. 
          SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE CLEANED UP. WE WENT FROM ALLOWING FOR AND OR FOR DOGS AND,
OR FOR CATS TO I SAW OR IT WAS JUST STRIKED OUT. SO THAT WOULD BE FOR DOGS MAX PLUS FOR 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 ORDINANCE. 
          THE INTENT WAS BASED OFF OF DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WAS TO LEAVE THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS AND
LEAVE THE. 
          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. IS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE. IT IS JUST CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE. SO THE NUMBER THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          AND I'LL DEFER TO STEVEN AND TAYLOR WITH THE WAY THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT'S BEEN ENFORCED IS CURRENTLY YOU CAN HAVE FOUR DOGS AND OR FOUR
CATS, BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE FIVE DOGS AND THREE CATS. I WAS LIKE THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS. 
          WHEN IT READ AND OR IT MEANT YOU COULD HAVE EIGHT I RIGHT? AND SO I JUST SIMPLY PUT IT BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS FOR THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE BASED ON
COMMENTS. 
          Y'ALL CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED RIGHT NOW IS THE WAY THAT OUR
CURRENT ORDINANCE IS, 
          [02:00:05]
WHICH IS YOU CAN HAVE FOUR DOGS, YOU CAN HAVE FOUR CATS. 
          BOTH FOR DOGS AND FOR 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 IS THE OR BEFORE OR IS THAT. 
          THAT'S WHY I'M LIKE, SO WHAT ARE WE? WHAT IS THE NUMBER SINCE WE CHANGE THESE SECTIONS 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 SO. 
          SO YOU CAN HAVE EIGHT OF EITHER. NO THE AND OR. 
          SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THE AND OR LANGUAGE SAYS THE WAY 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. FORCING. JUST WHAT HE SAID. SO 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 PET. 
          NO, MA'AM. YOU COULD HAVE EIGHT TOTAL ANIMALS CURRENTLY. 
          YOU CAN HAVE FOUR DOGS. YOU CAN HAVE FOUR CATS. 
          ANYTHING ABOVE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MULTI PET PERMIT. 
          SO IN THEORY IF YOU HAD. YES. OKAY. SO YES. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. 
          BUT SINCE WE'RE PICKING AND CHOOSING AND CHANGING THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR. 
          YEAH. OKAY. 
          MAYOR PRO TEM, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE ARE KEEPING SECTION 2.A,
RIGHT. 
          NO. NO. SO IT WOULD JUST. THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE KEEPING. 
          EVERYTHING THAT IS IN CURRENT IN THE. ASSUMING THE MOTION PASSES. 
          THE ONLY CHANGE TO YOUR CURRENT ORDINANCE. OH GOTCHA. 
          SO IT. WOULD BE THE ELIMINATION OF THE INSPECTION. 
          YEAH. EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD REMAIN. GOTCHA. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER
BECAUSE THEN NOW ANYTHING ABOVE, NOW YOU GET THE MULTI PET. GOTCHA. THAT'S IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. YOU ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY MOTION. 
          SO WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT I SEE NONE HERE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. 
          NOW WE'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OUR ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA AND EXHAUSTED OURSELVES. 
          SO WE ARE NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR MIC.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.