[4. Citizen Comments - According to Lubbock City Council Rules, any citizen wishing to appear in-person before a regular meeting of the City Council, regarding any matter posted on the City Council Agenda below, shall complete the sign-up form provided at the meeting, no later than 2:00 p.m. on December 2, 2025. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ]

AND WE'LL TAKE UP CITIZEN COMMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL RULES, ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON, BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY MATTER POSTED ON OUR AGENDA HAS TO COMPLETE A SIGN UP FORM PRIOR TO THE MEETING, AND WE'VE ASKED THAT YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND WE HAVE TWO COMMENTS TODAY.

WHEN I CALL YOU FORWARD, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT.

YOU'LL HEAR A BELL RING WHEN YOU'VE GOT 30 SECONDS LEFT, AND THEN A SECOND BELL WILL RING WHEN YOU NEED TO WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS.

THE FIRST PERSON I'M GOING TO ASK TO COME FORWARD IS LAURA HOPPER.

MISS HOPPER, IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD.

[00:20:05]

>> THANK YOU, CITY COUNCIL.

I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I WATCHED THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND BECAME AWARE OF THE LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES, NEEDING SOME TOOLS AND WANTING TO INCREASE THE LIABILITY INSURANCE TO $1 MILLION FROM $250.

OF COURSE, AS ONE OF THE NINE IN LUBBOCK, THAT HOW IS A DANGEROUS DOG.

THAT BECAME UNDERSTANDABLY UNSETTLING.

WHEN WE WERE TOLD TO GET LIABILITY INSURANCE LAST MAY, IT'S VERY FRESH ON MY MIND.

IT'S NOT EASY TO FIND LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR DANGEROUS DOGS.

YOU DON'T GO TO YOUR LOCAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND DO THAT.

I CALLED MY INSURANCE AGENT.

I WAS TOLD BY LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES TO BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU DO FIND LIABILITY INSURANCE AS THERE ARE SCAMMERS OUT THERE, AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY HAD SOMEONE BRING A CERTIFICATE IN FOR DANGEROUS DOGS, AND IT WAS NOT EVEN A REAL COMPANY.

I FINALLY FOUND SOMEONE OUT OF COLORADO.

MY DEDUCTIBLE COMES OUT OF FLORIDA.

I DID ASK THEM IN MAY.

I DID HEAR THAT OTHER PLACES IN TEXAS ARE ADOPTING $1 MILLION LIABILITY TO CAUSE A DANGEROUS DOG, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THAT WOULD BE A $2,000 A MONTH PREMIUM TO HOLD THAT INSURANCE.

I REMEMBER BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS MY HOUSE MORTGAGE, AND THAT WOULD BE VERY DEVASTATING.

AS I WANT TO TALK TO YOU AS ONE OF THE NINE, THAT SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AND OTHER PET OWNERS IN THE FUTURE THAT COME ACROSS THIS.

I WANT TO DISCOURAGE RAISING THAT LIABILITY BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN EASY LIABILITY INSURANCE TO FIND AND KEEP THERE ARE NO TOOLS RIGHT NOW OR ME.

THERE'S NO STUDIES INDICATING THAT DOING THIS WILL CAUSE ANY LESS DANGEROUS DOG EPISODES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES NEEDS TOOLS AND NEEDS SUPPORT.

I JUST ASK THAT IF YOU DO DECIDE TO DO THE MILLION DOLLAR AGENDA THAT YOU WILL THINK ABOUT A GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE, AND I JUST REALLY HOPE AND THINK THAT PUBLIC EDUCATION WOULD BE A BETTER TOOL.

I'VE LIVED IN LUBBOCK SIN IN 98, HAD A DOG FOR 20 YEARS AND NEVER HAD A DANGEROUS DOG.

AND NEVER BEEN AWARE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT CAN UPROOT YOUR LIFE LIKE ME AND MY DAUGHTER HAD THIS PAST MAY.

LAURA HOPPER, 3707106 STREET.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> CAN I ASK YOU ONE QUESTION, MISS HOPPER.

YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR DEDUCTIBLE? WHAT WAS YOUR DEDUCTIBLE?

>> A $1089.81 A YEAR.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THAT WAS YOUR DEDUCTIBLE WAS 1,000 YEARLY DEDUCTIBLE.

YOUR PREMIUMS YOU SAID WERE 2000 A MONTH?

>> IF IT WAS 1 MILLION.

>> IF IT WAS 1 MILLION, IF ANYBODY HAS A QUESTION FOR, BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS A QUESTION WE HAD QUITE A BIT ABOUT WHETHER YOU COULD FIND THAT INSURANCE OR NOT.

>> NOTHING IN LUBBOCK AND NOTHING IN TEXAS THAT I FOUND.

>> DID YOU CURRENTLY HAVE AN INSURANCE POLICY AT THE $250,000 LEVEL?

>> AT MY HOUSE, FOR IN GENERAL.

>> FOR YOUR DOG.

>> YES. I ACTUALLY HAVE A $300,000 POLICY BECAUSE THIS COMPANY OFFERS $200,000 OR $300,000 POLICY.

I HAD TO ROUND UP AND GET THE $300,000.

>> IF YOU DON'T MIND ANSWERING, WHAT WAS YOUR PREMIUM ON THE $300,000 POLICY?

>> THE 31 $89.81 A YEAR.

SO 400 DOWN, 100 A MONTH.

>> THAT'S YOUR PREMIUM. ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN YOUR DEDUCTIBLE.

DOES IT HAVE A DEDUCTIBLE?

>> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT. AND WAS THE PREMIUM MILLIONS? WERE YOU AS?

>> YES. THEY JUST TOLD ME THAT WOULD RUN ABOUT $2,000 A MONTH TO HOLD THAT $1 MILLION PREMIUM A YEAR.

>> AT A DIFFERENT SENT.

>> THE LUBBOCK TOLD ME.

YES. BECAUSE I HAD INQUIRED.

>> WAIT, NO. DIFFERENCE. $100 A YEARS $24,000 A YEAR. IS THE DIFFERENCE?

[00:25:03]

>> IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

YOU WOULDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE THAT BIG A DIFFERENCE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SINCE SHE ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THEN IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE, JUST TO CLARIFY.

THIS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT INSURANCE.

>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT, I HAVE MADELEINE HOPPER.

>> HELLO, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON THE SAME ISSUE.

I HAVE SOMETHING WRITTEN UP, I'D LIKE TO SAY.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M MADELEINE HOPPER.

I ALSO RESIDE AT 3707106 STREET WITH MY MOM AND OUR DOG.

OUR FAMILY IS ONE OF THE NINE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF BIT CURRENTLY PERMITTED TO OWN A DOG CLASSIFIED AS DANGEROUS.

I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU NOT TO INCREASE THE REQUIRED DANGEROUS DOG LIABILITY INSURANCE.

MY FAMILY HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH EVERY REQUIREMENT THE CITY HAS SET.

WE MAINTAINED THE CURRENT $250,000 POLICY, WHICH AGAIN, WE HAD TO GET AT THAT $300,000 POLICY.

WHICH IMPORTANTLY IS A STANDALONE POLICY COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM HOME OWNERS INSURANCE.

WHEN WE BEGAN THE COMPLIANCE PROCESS, WE ASKED LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES WHERE WE COULD OBTAIN THIS INSURANCE POLICY.

WE WERE GIVEN A SHRUG AND TOLD THEY HAD NO RELIABLE SOURCE OF WHERE WE COULD GET THIS INFORMATION FROM, BUT THAT THERE WAS LOTS OF SCAMMERS OUT THERE AND TO BE CAREFUL.

THEY ALSO TOLD US THAT PEOPLE HAD FOUND IT, SO IT WAS POSSIBLE, BUT AGAIN, THEY DID NOT GIVE US A RELIABLE PLACE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO.

WE EVENTUALLY FOUND COVERAGE ONLY BY TAKING A CHANCE ON AN UNFAMILIAR OUT OF STATE COMPANY BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF POLICY IS NOT AVAILABLE LOCALLY OR ANYWHERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS DUE TO OUR RESEARCH.

AGAIN, WE ONLY HAD 15 DAYS TO TRY TO COMPLY AND SHOP AROUND TO FIND THIS INSURANCE, BUT WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO GO.

SECURING THE COVERAGE AT THE CURRENT LEVEL WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.

RAISING IT TO 1 MILLION WOULD MAKE COMPLIANCE IMPOSSIBLE FOR MOST LUBBOCK FAMILIES.

ONLY NINE FAMILIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE THE INSURANCE, REFOC FICING, SIGNING AROUND OUR HOUSE, AND IMPORTANTLY THE BIG ENCLOSURES WE HAVE TO BUILD.

DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE HAD TO SURRENDER OR EUTHANIZE THEIR DOG DUE TO COSTS, BUT WE KNOW THAT ONLY EIGHT OTHER FAMILIES IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THESE COMPLIANCES.

IMPORTANTLY, RAISING THE DANGEROUS DOG INSURANCE DOES NOT IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY.

THE PREMIUMS WE PAY GO DIRECTLY TO OUT OF STATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

THEY DO NOT SUPPORT LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES, OUR CITY OR OUR COMMUNITY.

IF LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES NEEDS MORE RESOURCES, I'VE SEEN THEY ARE INCREASING THE ANNUAL FEE ALREADY, AND THAT ACTUALLY IS MONEY THAT FUNNELS BACK INTO OUR CITY THAT THEY CAN USE, BUT THEY CANNOT USE ANY OF THE INSURANCE MONEY.

REQUIREMENT ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTS MY MOTHER'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN OR CHANGE HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE POLICY, SHE HAS TO REPORT THAT SHE OWNS A DANGEROUS DOG, WHICH MEANS THAT SHE CANNOT SWITCH POLICY, MOVE HOMES, OR LOWER PREMIUMS FOR AS LONG AS MY DOG LIVES, LIKELY ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE CARRIES HIS CLASSIFICATION.

MY DOG IS A LOVED MEMBER OF OUR FAMILY, AND WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP HIM SAFE RESPONSIBLY.

IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO LOSE HIM BECAUSE THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENT SUDDENLY BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE JUSTIFICATION LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS THAT THEY HEARD OTHER CITIES WERE DOING IT.

JUST TO SAY, IT ALL OF OUR FINANCIAL THINGS WE'VE DONE, AGAIN, HAVE GONE INTO THESE PROHIBITIVE MEASURES, INCLUDING BUILDING THESE ENCLOSURES, REINFORCING OUR FENCING, PUTTING UP SIGNS AROUND OUR HOUSE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW.

BUT INCREASING THE INSURANCE POLICY JUST THROWS MONEY INTO THE AIR THAT DOESN'T EFFECTIVELY HELP US OR OUR COMMUNITY.

WE JUST DO NOT THINK IT'S FAIR.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADELINE. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I'LL TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 5.1.

[5. Minutes]

THE MINUTES FROM OUR NOVEMBER 4, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1? HAVE A MOTION.

I HAVE A SECOND. HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? ANY AMENDMENTS OR EDITS OR ALTERATIONS TO THE MINUTES? I SEE NONE. SO ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED SAY? HERE NONE.

SO THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

[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.]

WELL, NOW TAKE UP ITEM SIX, THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY REQUEST BY ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.

A IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA.

LET IT BE ON BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. AN POST SAY AYE.

A HEAR NONE. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL TAKE UP OUR REGULAR AGENDA NOW.

WE BEGIN WITH ITEM 7.1 TO CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON TO

[1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider the appointment of the Chairperson of the Central Business District Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors, for the 2026 calendar year, with the term ending on December 31, 2026.]

THE CENTRAL BUSINESS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

[00:30:01]

WOW, FOR THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR WITH A TERM ENDING DECEMBER 30, 2026.

I'M GOING TO CALL NOW ON OUR CITY SECRETARY COURTNEY PAZ TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I'M GOING TO GIVE A BROAD OVERVIEW, WHICH WE'LL GO FOR THE NEXT FOUR ITEMS. PER SECTION 311.009 OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ACT, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY THAT CREATED THE TIF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REINVESTMENT ZONE.

SHALL 0.1 MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO SERVE AS CHAIR FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR.

IT'S TYPICALLY ABOUT THIS TIME THAT YOU ALL DO THAT.

CURRENTLY, DAN WILLIAMS IS THE CURRENT CHAIRPERSON OF THIS TIF AND IS BEING RECOMMENDED TO SERVE FOR THE NEXT CALENDAR YEAR.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM BS?

>> I SEE NONE. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.1? HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION.

I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF BE NOB SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY, AYE? A HEAR NONE.

THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL TAKE UP 7.2.

[2. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider the appointment of the Chairperson of the Lubbock Business Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors, for the 2026 calendar year, with the term ending on December 31, 2026.]

CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE LUBBOCK BUSINESS PARK, TAX INCREMENT FINANCE THE DIRECTORS, AND I WILL CALL ON COURTNEY PAZ AGAIN TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CURRENTLY, SANDY HENRY SERVES AS CHAIR FOR THE LUBBOCK BUSINESS PARK TF AND IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR TO SERVE AS CHAIR AS WELL.

SHOULD SHE BE APPOINTED?

>> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.2? SECOND. HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ANY DISCUSSION.

I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY THEY? I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[3. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider the appointment of the Chairperson of the North Overton Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors, for the 2026 calendar year, with the term ending on December 31, 2026.]

WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 7.3, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NORTH OVERTON TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. MISS HOS.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. JEFF DANE CURRENTLY SERVES AS THE CHAIR FOR THE NORTH OVERTON TIF AND IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.3? WE HAVE A MOTION ON A SECOND? A DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY THEY? HEARING NONE, THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

WELL, I'LL TAKE UP ITEM 7.4, AND AT THIS ITEM,

[4. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider the appointment of the Chairperson of the North Park Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Board of Directors, for the 2026 calendar year, with the term ending on December 31, 2026.]

I'LL NOTE THAT COUNCILMAN, DAVID, HAS RECUSED HIMSELF FROM VOTING ON THIS MATTER.

>> WE WILL CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NORTH PARK TAX? IS THIS CORRECT? NORTH PARK TAX INCREMENT? I THINK IT'S ONLY PARK ONCE.

NORTH PARK TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

MR. GESHEN HAS RECUSED HIMSELF, SO I'LL CALL AGAIN ON MISS [INAUDIBLE] TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. KEVIN GHIN CURRENTLY SERVES AS CHAIR FOR THIS BOARD AND IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR AS WELL.

>> IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>>AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED SAY, NO. THERE IS NONE.

THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ITEMS 7.5, 7.8.

[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 2607-A, a request of Hart Heating and AC, for a zone change from High Density Residential District (HDR) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 702 76th Street, located east of Interstate 27 and north of 76th Street, Smithlawn Addition, Block 13, Lots 1-7 and 13-19 and Closed Street and Alley, and consider an ordinance.]

WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THESE ZONING CASES.

THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET, THE STAFF REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AS A REMINDER THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING TIME.

I'LL NOW CALL ON OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, KRISTEN SAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EACH OF THESE ZONING CASES SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ITEM 75 IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM HYDEN CITY RESIDENTIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL.

WE SEND OUT 24 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING NO RESPONSES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 76 STREET EAST OF I-27.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE ARE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH, VACANT LAND TO THE EAST, AND SOME ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST ACROSS I-27.

CURRENT ZONING IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST AND SOUTH WITH HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

FUTURE LAND USE MOUNT DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST.

THE PROPOSED ONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THE LOCATION IS ALONG I-27,

[00:35:02]

WHICH IS A FREEWAY, AND 76 STREET, WHICH IS A LOCAL STREET.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> FROM MY REMEMBRANCE OF WHERE THAT IS, AND I'LL SHOW YOUR PICTURES.

I GUESS THERE'S CURRENTLY AN UNOCCUPIED CHURCH BUILDING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MISS SAGER ON THIS? MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

[6. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3538, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC, for Treze Cooper Heights, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Medium Density Residential District (MDR), at 12415 and 12603 Upton Avenue, located west of Quaker Avenue and north of 130th Street, on 15.66 acres of unplatted land out of Block E2, Section 23, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 76 IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2 TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

WE SENT OUT 75 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR ONE IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF QUAKER AVENUE, NORTH OF LEAP 88.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH AND THEN A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH.

CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY SF-2.

IT IS SURROUNDED BY SF-2 WITH SOME HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USES, AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THESE ARE RENDERINGS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED ON THE PROPERTY.

THEN A PHOTO AS WELL FROM THE APPLICANT.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

THE REQUEST IS A MINOR DEVIATION BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW FOR MEDIAN DENSITY LAND USES, BUT IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION GIVING THE ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT IS LONG EPTON AVENUE, WHICH IS A COLLECTOR, AND THEN SALEM IN 127TH, WHICH ARE LOCAL STREETS.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.

AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I SEE NO QUESTIONS. MOVE ON, PLEASE.

[7. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3539, a request of Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. for Red Canyon Development, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), Office District (OF), and Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Office District (OF), generally located west of Indiana Avenue and south of 110th Street, on 5.0 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 18, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 77 IS A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE.

WE SENT OUT 34 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING SIX IN OPPOSITION, ONE THAT WAS NEUTRAL.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF INDIANA AVENUE SOUTH OF 110TH.

HERE IS THE MAP SHOWING THE SIX THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS A DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH AND THEN SOME COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.

CURRENT ZONING IS SF-2 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH WITH OFFICE TO THE EAST AND SF-2 TO THE NORTH AND WEST.

FUTURE AGES PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR OFFICE AND PARKS.

IT WAS A FORMER GOLF COURSE.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, JUST SHOWING THE OUTLINE OF THEIR PROPOSED SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE ZONING.

FUTURE LAND USE MAT DESIGNATION IS FOR PARK AND OFFICE.

IT IS PARTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE, BUT IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION GIVEN THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL ZONING OFFICE ZONING AND LAND USES.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

110TH IS A LOCAL STREET.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE.

I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I SEE NO QUESTIONS. WE'RE GOING TO THE NEXT ONE.

[8. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3536, a request of Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. for Thomas Payne, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Light Industrial District (LI), at 5603 122nd Street, located east of Frankford Avenue and south of 122nd Street, Frankford Farms Addition, Tract 15, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 78 IS A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM LOWDEN CITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2 TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

WE SENT OUT 28 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING NONE BACK.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 122ND STREET EAST OF FRANKFORT AVENUE.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH, ALONG WITH A SHOP OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE FACILITY THAT IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.

THEN THERE IS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES ALONG 122ND, AGAIN WITH SEVERAL PROPERTIES OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.

CURRENT ZONING IS LOWDEN CITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL SF-2 ZONING ALONG WITH LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND THEN SOME INDUSTRIAL PARK, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, AUTORBAN COMMERCIAL ALONG FRANKFORT AVENUE.

FUTURE LAND USE MAT DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

[00:40:01]

HERE IS SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THERE IS CURRENTLY A COMMERCIAL USE ON THE PROPERTY, POTENTIALLY INDUSTRIAL THAT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE PRIOR TO ANNEXATION.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

WHILE THIS REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION, GIVEN THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ADJACENT LAND USES, AND THE ADJACENT ZONING.

THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

122ND STREET IS A COLLECTOR.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> DOCTOR WILSON.

>> THANK YOU, MISS SAGER. THE PROPERTY BOTH EAST AND WEST OF THIS.

ARE THEY RESIDENTIAL OR ARE THERE COMMERCIAL RIGHT NEXT TO IT? OR IS IT GOING TO BE SANDWICHED RIGHT BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES?

>> IT MAY POTENTIALLY BE BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, BUT IF THE USE WERE TO CHANGE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PLACE BUFFER YARDS ADJACENT TO THOSE PROPERTIES.

>> MR. ROSE.

>> IF EVERYONE'S DONE WITH THIS ONE, I WANTED TO GO BACK AND ASK ON 7.7 WHAT PLAN DO THEY HAVE PLANS FOR THAT?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC PROPOSED.

>> THAT'S THAT'S ALL I WANT TO ASK.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 7.8? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE, DOCTOR WILSON?

>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION ALSO ON THIS CASE, MISS SAGER, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, REMIND ME IF THE PROPERTY WAS EVER BE SOLD, WHAT COULD THEN BE PUT IN BETWEEN THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES?

>> I MEAN, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AS THE NAME SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

BUT IT WOULD BE OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE USES, SOME LIGHT MANUFACTURING.

IT WOULD ALLOW SOME OUTDOOR STORAGE, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE SCREENING DEPENDING ON WHAT IT'S ADJACENT TO.

>> ACROSS YOUR NORTH VIEW THERE AND YOUR WEST VIEW ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT, THE METAL BUILDING, ARE THOSE INDUSTRIAL STORAGE UNITS? WHAT?

>> I THINK THEY ARE A MIX OF STORAGE AND SHOPS.

SINCE THEY'RE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, THEY ARE NOT LIMITED ON.

>> RIGHT. IT'S JUST LOOKING AT THE USES.

ADJACENT TO IT ANYWAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MISS SAVIOR? SEA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS 7.5-7.8.

>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TODAY WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS, 7.57 0.8.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS WILL STEVENS WITH AMD ENGINEERING AT 65 15 68TH STREET.

HERE IS THE APPLICANT ON AGENDA ITEM 7.6.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M TERRY HOMAN. I'M WITH HUGO READ AND ASSOCIATES.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ITEMS 7.7 AND 7.8.

I SPOKE TO BOTH OF THESE AT QUITE A LOT OF LENGTH AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

I'LL SPARE YOU ALL THE DETAIL TODAY, BUT I DID WANT TO ENCAPSULATE FOR YOU WHAT OUR OBJECTIVE IS ON BOTH OF THESE.

MAY I GO TO THE SLIDES? WE'LL START WITH 7.7. I CAN GET BACK HERE.

WE'RE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF RED CANYON DEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU PAID CLOSE ATTENTION, YOU'VE KNOWN RED CANYON DEVELOPMENT IS BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THOMAS PAYNE.

THAT ENTITY SOLD TO BLAKE AND DUSTY WOMBLE ABOUT A YEAR AGO, AND THEY TOOK OVER THIS PROJECT, AND THEY'VE BEEN GETTING IT TEED UP FOR DEVELOPMENT AS IT WERE.

WE'VE BEEN IMMERSED IN A PRETTY EXPANSIVE CUT AND FIEL PROJECT OUT THERE.

WE'RE WRAPPING UP ON THAT.

OUR OBJECTIVE NOW IS TO NOW FINALLY BEGIN TO GET IT IN A WAY ON ACTUALLY DEVELOPING SOME OF THE PROPERTY GOING VERTICAL AS IT WERE.

THIS IS SPECULATIVE ZONING.

WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC USER OR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN MIND QUITE YET.

I PUT TOGETHER A LARGE ENOUGH ENVELOPE TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM,

[00:45:01]

SO TO SPEAK, ON OFFICES THAT WE THINK MIGHT FIT HERE.

THE ODD ANGLE ON THE SORT OF THE LOWER EASTERN PART IS WHERE WE ARE ABUTTING THE ADELPHOS WINERY PROPERTY, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S SHAPED THAT WAY.

WE FELT LIKE OFFICE WOULD BE A GOOD BUFFER FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD BETWEEN THAT COMMERCIAL USE AND THE RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH.

THE CONCEPT PLANS THAT WE'VE THROWN TOGETHER SHOW OFFICES UPFRONT OR AN OFFICE UPFRONT WITH PARKING SORT OF TUCKED IN BEHIND AND CONNECTIVITY TO THE ADELPHO FACILITY BEHIND US.

THE LARGER PIECE ON THE WEST, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC IDEA OTHER THAN WE ENVISION MAYBE A SIMILAR STYLE, MAYBE ONE OR TWO OR FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS, MAYBE WITH PARKING TUCKED IN THE MIDDLE.

THE PROPERTY TODAY IS UP FOR A LOT OF ENGINEERING CHALLENGES.

WE HAVE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, BUT TODAY IT'S STILL IN THE FLOOD ZONE, AND IT'S STILL A STORMWATER AND POWAN EASEMENT.

THERE'S ALL THE ENGINEERING THINGS WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP FOR US ON THIS PROPERTY.

THERE WERE SIX LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT CAME IN INITIALLY.

THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT'S SIX LETTERS REPRESENTING TWO HOUSEHOLDS, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, ONE HOUSEHOLD SPANS FOUR TAX PARCELS AND ANOTHER HOUSEHOLD SPANS, TWO TAX PARCELS.

I HAD A REAL GOOD DIALOGUE WITH BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND I THINK THE UNDERLYING ISSUE THAT THEY ALL HAVE CONCERNS OUT THERE, THEY JUST WANT THEIR GOLF COURSE BACK.

WE JUST CAN'T WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO THAT.

WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS INTO SOMETHING NEW.

BUT THEY UNDERSTOOD, AND I THINK THEY JUST WANT TO PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE FEEL LIKE OFFICE OF ZONING IS IT DOESN'T ALLOW REALLY MUCH OF A RETAIL COMPONENT.

I NORMALLY SHUTS DOWN AT FIVE OR SIX CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON.

WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS ABOUT AS GOOD AS WE COULD DO.

ALSO, THERE ARE ALWAYS CONCERNS ABOUT DRAINAGE AND THE ROADWAY AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, AND I REASSURED THEM THAT WHEN TIME COMES FOR US TO ACTUALLY PLAT AND DEVELOP, YOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL REQUIRE US TO GET THAT ROAD UP TO CURRENT STANDARD AND MITIGATE ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT ARE AT LEAST AT OUR FRONT DOOR.

WITH THAT SAID, WE CERTAINLY WOULD APPRECIATE A POSITIVE VOTE.

THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP FOR US ON THIS.

BY THE WAY, AS MISS SAGER POINTED OUT, YES, IT IS DESIGNATED AS PARK ON THE COMP PLAN.

IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE COMP PLAN, ALL OF THE GOLF COURSES IN LUBBOCK WERE JUST IDENTIFIED AS PARK.

THAT'S AN ANOMALY THERE, I BELIEVE.

>> WE'RE GOING TO SKIP ON NOW TO 7.8.

THIS ONE I AM REPRESENTING THOMAS PAYNE INDIVIDUALLY.

THIS IS PROPERTY HE'S OWNED FOR QUITE A WHILE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY, IF I GET TO THE PHOTO, THE YELLOW BOX PROPERTY IS OURS.

HE'S USING IT TODAY AS HIS CONTRACTOR YARD.

HE, HE CAME INTO THE CITY LIMITS.

HE WAS ALREADY USING IT THAT WAY, SO HE'S LEGAL NON CONFORMING.

WE FELT LIKE IT WAS TIME FOR US TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE APPROPRIATE ZONING IN PLACE SO THAT HE EVER WANT TO GET A PERMIT OR IMPROVE HIS PROPERTY, THAT HE WOULD HAVE THE LEGAL ABILITY TO DO THAT.

WE DO NEED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO DO A CONTRACTOR YARD.

THIS IS WHERE HE KEEPS SOME OF HIS EQUIPMENT.

IT'S WHERE HE SOCK PILE, SOME OF HIS MATERIALS THAT HE'S GOT, BUT THAT'S THE OBJECTIVE.

THIS WHOLE QUARTER SECTION, HAS REALLY MADE US SCRATCH OUR HEADS OVER THE YEARS.

THERE'S A FEW POCKETS OF AREAS LIKE THIS IN TOWN THAT I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT, WHERE IT'S A LOT OF PROPERTY THAT WAS BUILT UP BEFORE IT WAS ANNEXED, AND THERE'S THIS WHOLE BLEND OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAND USES OUT THERE.

YES, THERE ARE SOME RESIDENCES HERE AND THERE.

THERE'S AN OLDER MOBILE HOME TO THE EAST OF US.

THEN WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN OLDER STRUCTURE AND SOME OTHER STUFF IN BACK TO THE WEST OF US.

KINCAID ROOFING IS RIGHT DOWN THE BLOCK FROM US.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THE SHOPS AND THE STORAGE THAT ARE JUST TO THE NORTH OF US.

THOSE RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH OF US ARE ALL DUPLEXES.

THANKFULLY FOR US, WE FELT IT WAS PRETTY CONVENIENT IN THAT OUR FRONTAGE DOESN'T FRONT FACE ANY DUPLEXES, WHICH ARE FACING 122ND STREET.

AT LEAST NOT RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.

YOU GO CATCORNA ACROSS THE STREET, AND THOSE DUPLEXES DO IN FACT FACE 122ND STREET.

THE GRAY BOX TO THE WEST OF US.

THAT IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

THAT WAS ZONED FAIRLY RECENTLY, IF I RECALL WITHIN THE LAST YEAR OR SO.

THAT'S OUR STORY, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET CONFORMANT WITH WHAT THE USE IS ALREADY EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY TODAY.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON EITHER ONE OF THOSE.

>> I KNOW YOU'RE NOT PREPARED REALLY TO TELL US WHAT

[00:50:04]

YOUR PLANS ARE FOR THE REST OF THE FORMER GOLF COURSE.

DO YOU HAVE SOME CONCEPTS IN MIND, THOUGH, ON HOW? I THINK ALL OF US ARE CONCERNED TO SEE IT DEVELOPED, AND WE KNOW THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN A REAL PROBLEM ON OUR STREETS.

THERE. I'M HAPPY AT LEAST TO KNOW THAT MAYBE SOMEBODY WITH THE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP IT.

HAS CONTROL OF IT NOW, AND MAYBE IT WILL GET DEVELOPED, BUT IT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE OF CONCERN FOR RESIDENTS ALONG THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME THE DRAINAGE.

>> SURE. YES, SIR. PARTICULARLY THE STREET TO THE NORTH OF US, AND PARTICULARLY THE NORTH SOUTH STREET THAT DEAD ENDS INTO OUR PROPERTY, THAT'S HISTORICALLY BEEN A REALLY PRETTY BAD PROBLEM.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN TIME COMES FOR US TO DEVELOP, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MITIGATE THAT OR ADDRESS THAT IN SOME FASHION, IF YOU SEE MY CURSOR HERE, I ENVISION A DRAINAGE, SOMETHING THAT WOULD CONVEY WATER DOWN BETWEEN THESE TWO HALVES OF THE PROPERTY AND GET DOWN TO THE GOLF COURSE.

TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION, WE DO ENVISION SORT OF TRADITIONAL RETAIL RUNNING ONTO INDIANA AVENUE.

IN FRONT OF ADELPHOSS LITTLE OUT PARCELS.

DOWN AT THE CORNER OF 114TH IN INDIANA, WE ENVISION TRADITIONAL, LARGER RETAIL, NOT BIG BOX STUFF, BUT SORT OF A TRUE STRIP CENTER DOWN THERE.

IT DOESN'T SHOW UP ON THIS PHOTO, BUT ON THE FAR WEST END OF THIS OLD GOLF COURSE NEXT TO MEMPHIS AVENUE IS THE GATES DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY HOMES CONSTRUCTED YET.

THOSE ARE REALLY ULTRA HIGH END LOTS, A LITTLE BIT LARGER LOTS, AND IT'S PLATTED.

IT'S CONSTRUCTED.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET IT TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN BEGIN TO REALLY SELL LOTS OUT THERE.

THEN, YES, THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, THE BULK OF THE PROPERTY IS PLY LAKE.

WE STILL HAVE TO KEEP THAT STORAGE CAPACITY AVAILABLE PUT TO US.

WE'RE DEVELOPING AS BEST AS WE CAN AROUND THE FRINGES.

THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN PLY LAKE. PRIVATELY OWNED.

>> THANK YOU. GIVEN THE PROBLEMS, I THINK A UNIFIED DEVELOPER PLAN IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE IT RATHER THAN PIECEMEAL.

SO I'M HAPPY AT LEAST SEE THAT.

>> YES, SIR.

>> ASPECT OF IT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? I SEE THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, STROM.

>> IS ANYONE ELSE HERE PRESENT, WANTING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THESE ITEMS? NOW I'LL ASK IF ANYONE HERE IS WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOUR OPPOSITION.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? I SEE, NO ONE.

I WILL CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:22.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 7.5-7.8?

>> SO MOVE.

>> I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> A MOTION A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR. LET ME NO SAYING AYE.

AYE. AN OPPOSED SAY, NO.

HEAR NONE. THE AGENDA ITEMS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

WHEN I TAKE UP ITEM 7.9,

[9. Ordinance 2nd Reading - City Council: Consider Ordinance No. 2025-O0135 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.]

CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE ANIMALS, FOUR ANIMALS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AS IT RELATES TO DANGEROUS DOGS.

SINCE THIS IS A SECOND READING, UNLESS A COUNCIL DESIRES TO HAVE A STAFF BRIEFING, I WILL FOREGO THE BRIEFING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING FURTHER STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM? MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW, IS THERE A WAY TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING SO WE CAN REVIEW JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE ISSUES THAT WE HEARD EARLIER FROM CITIZEN COMMENTS. IS THAT POSSIBLE?

>> JUST A MATTER OF MAKING A MOTION.

>> WELL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION, IF POSSIBLE, JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE JUST NEED TO LOOK INTO IT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY NINE CITIZENS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE NEXT WEEK, OR DO YOU WISH IT TO BE LONGER THAN THAT?

>> MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN THAT.

>> TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY.

>> WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

>> YOU CAN. YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY? FIRST REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING IN JANUARY.

>> THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

>> I WOULD BE JANUARY 13.

[00:55:02]

>> THE JANUARY 13TH?

>> YES. WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS? IS THAT THE PROPER POSTPONEED TIL THE JANUARY 13 THCITY COUNCIL MEETING? IS THERE A SECOND? MR. MR. CLICHY SAY YOU HAVE A COMMENT.

ARE YOU WISHING TO MAKE A SECOND OR DO YOU WISH TO COMMENT? IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT?

>> MR. MARIT, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

DID THE VERSION THAT PASSED AT THE FIRST READING, DID IT INCLUDE THE INSURANCE PROVISIONS?

>> YES. IF MY RECOLLECTION, AND I'LL DEFER TO THE CITY SECRETARY IN THE MINUTES, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST MOTION THAT WAS MADE HAD THE MILLION DOLLAR INSURANCE REQUIREMENT IN IT.

THERE WAS A MOTION TO CHANGE THAT TO 250.

THAT MOTION FAILED, AND SO THE MILLION DOLLAR STAYED IN THE MAIN MOTION THAT WAS EVENTUALLY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> WELL, I'LL SAY ON POSTPONING IT.

I THINK THAT WE'VE STUDIED THIS ISSUE ENOUGH.

I THINK WE'VE REACHED A CONSENSUS ON THIS CURRENT COMPROMISE, AND IF WE NEED TO COME BACK AND RE EVALUATE IT AT ANOTHER POINT WE CAN.

BUT, I AM SKEPTICAL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO GET A MEANINGFUL AMOUNT OF OR EFFECTIVE COVERAGE IN $1 MILLION FOR ANYONE.

THE COST OF THE COVERAGE IS NOT REALLY SO MUCH OF AN ISSUE, BECAUSE FRANKLY, IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING DANGEROUS, YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO PAY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES IF IT GOING WRONG.

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DANGEROUS DOG THAT COULD KILL OR PERMANENTLY INJURE SOMEONE, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MAKE THAT RIGHT.

THAT EVEN $1 MILLION OF COVERAGE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO COMPENSATE SOMEONE FOR A PERMANENTLY INJURED CHILD, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS A REALISTIC POSSIBILITY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A DANGEROUS DOG ATTACK.

I DON'T THINK THAT JUST ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF COVERAGE, WE SHOULD POSTPONE THIS ANY FURTHER.

>> MR. COLLINS.

>> I THINK, MAYOR, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED IN OUR MEETING LAST TIME WAS FOR STAFF TO COME BACK WITH SOME INFORMATION REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THIS $1 MILLION TYPE OF COVERAGE.

I WONDER IF MR. HOWERTON OR MR. GREEN HAS ANY INFORMATION.

>> YES.

NO. I'M GOING TO CHANGES, NO.

SORRY. YES. WE DID GET WITH OUR RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS CALL INSURANCE COMPANIES SELVES.

IT IS A STANDALONE POLICY THAT THEY DO HAVE TO COVER, LIKE MISS HOPPER SAID EARLIER.

WE GOT WITH THE POLICY RIDERS THAT RISK MANAGEMENT USES.

THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND THE INDUSTRY FOR THIS, TYPICALLY INSURANCE POLICIES FOR $1 MILLION OF LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR A DANGEROUS DOG RANGE $1500-3500 PER YEAR.

THESE PRICES MAY DEPEND ON THE SEVERITY OF THE BITE, OR THE ATTACK AND THE BREED OF ANIMAL, AS WELL AS WHERE YOU LIVE JUST LIKE THAT.

>> AT 15 TO $3,500 A YEAR, THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD EARLIER FROM OUR CITIZEN.

DID WE GET A LIST OF THOSE PROVIDERS?

>> NO, SIR. WE REFRAINED FROM PROVIDING A LIST OF PROVIDERS BECAUSE AS A CITY, WE DON'T WANT TO SEEM LIKE WE ARE ENDORSING AN INSURANCE COMPANY.

>> I CAN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I WONDER WHAT RESEARCH OUR CITIZENS COULD DO OR AT LEAST SOME GUIDANCE TO HELP THEM FIND IT BECAUSE I WOULD HATE FOR THESE FOLKS TO SPEND $24,000 FOR INSURANCE WHEN IT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR 3,500.

I THINK IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR DECISIONS GOING FORWARD.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED IF IT IS BEST LEFT AT 250,000.

WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.

>> THEN AND NOT TO ASK ANYONE ABOUT THEIR BREED, BUT TO GO BACK THE THE PREVIOUS DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS DOG?

>> YES, SIR.

>> ANY DOG THAT BITES SOMEBODY, ANY DOG THAT SCARES SOMEBODY.

>> IF IT IS DONE OUTSIDE OF THEIR ENCLOSURE, AND THEY WERE NOT REASONABLY RESTRAINED,

[01:00:03]

AND THE VICTIM COMES IN AND FILES THAT AFFIDAVIT, AND WE INVESTIGATE IT.

THEN YES, IT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS.

>> I THINK WE HAVE THIS MINDSET ABOUT CERTAIN BREEDS THAT ARE DANGEROUS AND THAT ARE ROUGH AND MEAN LOOKING.

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, MY COCKER SPANIEL COULD RUN OUT THE DOOR AND CHASE SOMEBODY DOWN THE STREET, AND IF THEY FILED A COMPLAINT, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, IT WOULD BE LABELED A DANGEROUS DOG, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. WE DON'T GO BASED OFF OF BREEDS.

HOWEVER, WHEN WE WERE SPEAKING WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, SOME WOULD SAY THEY DID NOT INSURE SPECIFIC BREEDS.

>> THERE ARE A HANDFUL THAT THEY WON'T TAKE. THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID,

>> FOR SOME INSURANCE COMPANIES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU OWN A ROTTWEILER, THEY WILL NOT INSURE YOU.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR DOG'S BEEN DECLARED DANGEROUS OR NOT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WELCOME.

>> MR. ROSE.

>> JUST TO REMEMBER HERE ON TO BE DESIGNATED A DANGEROUS DOG, WE DON'T JUST AUTOMATICALLY DESIGNATE A DANGEROUS DOG BASED ON THE BREED, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. WE DON'T DESIGNATE BASED ON THE BREED.

>> HAVE SOME AN INCIDENT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING SURE. THANK YOU.

THE DIFFERENCE IS QUITE A BIT FROM WHAT OUR CITIZEN FOUND VERSUS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE FINDING.

IS THERE WAS THERE ANY INSURANCE COMPANY THAT LOOKED LIKE THAT A PREMIUM WAS THE $2,000 A MONTH WAS SOMETHING THAT DID YOU FIND ANY INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT WERE LIKE THAT?

>> I DID SPEAK WITH ONE, BUT IT WAS NOT THE STANDARD.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN? NOT THE STANDARD?

>> AS IN, IT DIDN'T COMPARE TO MOST COMPANIES WE SPOKE WITH.

IT WAS MUCH HIGHER, SO WE GOT MULTIPLE QUOTES.

>> WE FOUND ONE THAT SAID, YES, IT COULD BE UP TO 20,000. A YEAR.

BUT STATISTIC OR ON AVERAGE, THAT WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT OTHER COMPANIES WERE QUOTING US.

>> HOW MANY COMPANIES DID YOU TALK TO?

>> I AM NOT SURE I WOULD HAVE TO GET WITH LANE WITH RISK MANAGEMENT BECAUSE SHE WENT THROUGH HER POLICY WRITERS.

>> DO WE KNOW AROUND ABOUT THREE, FOUR, FIVE?

>> SAY FIVE TO TWO.

>> THANK YOU. MR. COLLINS?

>> I GUESS A QUESTION FOR MR. WADE, IS THERE A IS THERE ANY TYPE OF ISSUE LEGAL ISSUE FOR LAS TO POST A LIST OF POSSIBLE PROVIDERS?

>> I THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN SIT THERE AND PROVIDE A LIST OF PROVIDERS THAT WE KNOW OF THAT THAT DO PROVIDE.

AS LONG AS WE ARE CAREFUL ON THE LIST, SAYING WE'RE NOT ENDORSING ANYBODY DOING IT, THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER PROVIDERS OUT THERE THAT WE DON'T GIVE QUOTES ON ACTUAL PREMIUMS, IT'S GOING TO BE DEPENDING ON THE FACTS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THE DANGEROUS DOG, ETC.

BUT I THINK WE CAN PAPER IT TO WHERE WE COULD PROBABLY PROVIDE A LIST.

>> MAYOR OF [INAUDIBLE].

>> TO FIND INSURANCE FOR AN EVENT, $1 MILLION INSURANCE? IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

YOU DON'T JUST GET ALL YOUR QUOTES IMMEDIATELY.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE NAVIGATE THROUGH THIS AND THAT WE DO EVERYTHING.

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WE'RE IMPACTING CITIZENS AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS.

SO I JUST WANT TO BE SURE NO DOUBT, WE HAVE A FEW DANGEROUS DOGS IN OUR CITY.

WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HANDLE THE PROCESS PROPERLY.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT'S FAIR THAT WE JUST LOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN OUR CITY.

>> I THINK THE RESEARCH WE'VE DONE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE.

>> IS THAT OKAY?

>> THAT'S MY THOUGHT THOUGH IN THAT HEARING TO YOU.

>> HEARING THE 24,000 VERSUS THE 3,500.

>> YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF THAT INSURER.

WERE THEY TRYING TO PRICE THEMSELVES OUT OF THE MARKET? THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT.

>> REMIND ME AGAIN, TELLER, BUT I BESIDES THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENT, WHAT ARE THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WHEN YOU HAVE A DANGEROUS DOG THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO FULFILL?

>> IT MUST BE STERILIZED.

IF THEY GO OUT IN PUBLIC AT ALL, THEY MUST BE PROPERLY RESTRAINED ON A LEASH BY SOMEONE THAT'S ABLE TO CONTROL THEM, SO NOT A CHILD.

[01:05:01]

THEY MUST WEAR A MUZZLE.

THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SECURE ENCLOSURE WITH FOUR SIDES AND A TOP AND SOME CEMENTED BOTTOM, SO THE DOG CANNOT DIG OUT OF IT.

THEY MUST HAVE TO HAVE A SECURE FENCE.

THEY MUST HAVE TO HAVE SIGNAGE ON THE FRONT GATE, THE BACK GATE, AND ON THE ENCLOSURE, STATING THAT IT IS A DANGEROUS DOG.

WITH SOME CARTOON ON IT SO THAT A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND, THE DOG IS ALSO DANGEROUS.

THEY HAVE TO PAY A $200 A YEAR DANGEROUS DOG PERMIT FEE, AND THEY HAVE TO CARRY THE LIABILITY INSURANCE, AS WELL AS KEEP THE RABIES VACCINES UP TO DATE.

>> WE'RE NOT JUST RELYING ON AFTER THE FACT, INSURANCE TO COVER SOMETHING.

THERE'S A LOT OF PREVENTATIVE STEPS THAT ANY OWNER OF A DANGEROUS DOG HAS TO TAKE THAT SEEM TO BE PRETTY HEAVY, AND I THINK REASONABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP OUR CITIZENS PROTECTED AND SAFE FROM DANGEROUS DOG.

BUT I THINK MR. LA-CHINS QUESTION, WHEN YOU'RE ASSESSING RISK AND WHO ASSUMES A RISK, IT STILL HAS TO FALL ON THE PERSON WHO IS THE ONE OR HAS THE ANIMAL THAT IS THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC.

IF THERE ARE POLICIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT $1 MILLION AT 1,500-3,500, WHICH SEEMS MORE REASONABLE, THEN I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO HAVE THAT WITHIN AN ORDINANCE.

BUT WE'RE NOT JUST RELYING ON THE INSURANCE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF STEPS THAT THE OWNERS HAVE TO TAKE.

>> YES, SIR.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT, MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> WE HEARD FROM ONE OF THE CITIZENS REQUESTING EVEN DOING THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD APPLY OR?

>> I THINK NO.

>> I THINK THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY, THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.

I MEAN, ANYBODY THAT'S ON THEIR CURRENT PERMIT, IT WON'T HAPPEN UNTIL THAT PERMIT EXPIRES AS FAR AS COMING UP WITH A NEW REQUIREMENTS.

NO.

THIS ISN'T A GRANDFATHER TYPE ISSUE.

I WOULD MAKE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

THERE'S NO MUZZLE REQUIREMENT.

THEY DO HAVE TO BE KEPT ON A LEASE, YOU HAVE TO BE IN A SECURE ENCLOSURE.

THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE ASSIGNED, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE INSURANCE, ALL OF THAT, BUT THERE'S NO MUZZLE REQUIREMENT ACTUALLY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

>> CAN WE AMEND IT TO REQUIRE THAT? EVEN WITH THIS READING? CAN WE AMEND IT TO REQUIRE THAT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> IT SEEMS ENTIRELY REASONABLE.

[OVERLAPPING] MORE LIKELY TO PREVENT THE ABIDING THAN ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE IN THERE.

>> THAT IS COMPLETE TO ALL, IF YOU ALL WANT TO ADD THAT.

NOW, REMEMBER WE ARE ON THE MOTION.

>> YES. WE'RE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE.

>> TO POSTPONE.

>> TO POSTPONE. I'M SORRY.

[OVERLAPPING] NOW WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT.

I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT OUT.

UNLESS YOU WISH TO WITHDRAW YOURS?

>> ACTUALLY WE WOULD WITHDRAW, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT OUR STAFF HAS DONE THE PROPER WORK.

I DIDN'T REALIZE I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT BUT WE'VE HAD A HOLIDAY.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM MIC.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. WHAT I SAID IS THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME TIME AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT EVERYTHING HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE.

I FEEL LIKE OUR STAFF HAS DONE THE WORK, AND I WOULD LIKE SOMEHOW FOR US TO WORK WITH OUR CITIZENS.

WE'RE NOT ENDORSING, BUT WE DO NEED TO OFFER SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO CONNECT WITH SOMETHING THAT IS AFFORDABLE TO THEM.

>> WITHDRAW?

>> WITHDRAW THAT MOTION.

>> WE WOULD NEED THE CONSENT OF COUNCILMAN HARRIS OR GIVE HIM [OVERLAPPING]

>> DO YOU CONSENT TO THAT?

>> WITHDRAW?

>> HE CONSENTS. THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM ANYBODY.

NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE MOTIONS THAT SITS BEFORE US.

>> THERE IS NO MOTION.

>> THERE'S NO MOTION. THAT'S RIGHT. WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.

DO WE NEED TO TAKE THE MOTION UP FIRST BEFORE WE AMEND IT?

>> THAT WOULD BE MY [OVERLAPPING].

>> YOUR PREFERENCE TO DO THAT. I WOULD THE MUZZLING REQUIREMENT FALL WITHIN THESE PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE [OVERLAPPING] 7.9?

>> WE WOULD ADD IT YES.

I WOULD END UP ADDING IT TO SECTION 4.0 6102 AS ANOTHER REQUIREMENT. YOU HAVE 12.

>> OKAY.

>> THERE'S SIX AND THERE JUST BE A SEVENTH.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE 7.9.

[01:10:02]

GOT A MOTION? YOUR MOTION.

>> I'M GOING TO MAKE MOTION. I'M JUST GOING TO ADMIT IT.

>> WE GOT A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> NO HOLD ON.

>> OKAY.

>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE, BUT I WANT TO ADD WHAT YOU JUST SAID AT 4.06 0.102 AS ITEM 7 TO INCLUDE THE MUZZLE REQUIRE.

>> AS PART OF YOUR MOTION.

>> AS PART OF IT ALL TOGETHER.

>> WE CERTAINLY CAN DO IT THAT WAY.

REMEMBER THIS IS A SECOND READING.

WHAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU IS THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT YOU WANT TO MOVE TO IT WITH THAT AMENDMENT.

>> WE WANT TO MOVE TO APPROVE AND A THE AMENDMENT JUST ADD THAT AS ITEM 7 TO THAT [OVERLAPPING]MUST BE THE MUZZLE.

>> AS LONG AS YOU SAY THAT'S OKAY, MR. WADE.

>> IT IS OKAY [OVERLAPPING].

>> SAFE A STEP.

>> ME AND COURTNEY AND JIMMY WILL STRAIGHT AND WE'LL GET IT ALL [OVERLAPPING].

>> SAFE A STEP. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION REAL QUICKLY.

>> LET'S GET THE SECOND FIRST AND [OVERLAPPING] AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND. NOW, DISCUSSION.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> WHAT TYPE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION DO WE DO?

>> OH, [LAUGHTER] WE DO A LOT.

WE GO, WE TALK AT SCHOOLS. WE RUN [OVERLAPPING].

>> SPECIFICALLY TO THE DANGEROUS DOG SITUATION, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS FROM OUR CITIZEN COMMENT WAS THAT SHE FELT THAT THAT WOULD BE MORE IMPACTFUL IF WE DID THAT.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO SUPPLEMENT IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S THE ONLY ANSWER.

WE HAVE TO ALSO TAKE ACTION.

>> I DO A LOT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

I'M ACTUALLY FILMING MORE THIS WEEK WITH ROBERT.

I CAN TOTALLY THROW THAT IN THERE AND START PUBLICIZING THAT MORE AS WELL.

WE TYPICALLY, I THINK, USUALLY DISCUSS DANGEROUS DOGS, WHEN WE'RE ON SCENE WITH THAT SPECIFIC CASE?

>> THAT'S A GREAT ANSWER, AND YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. LET ME JUST SAY THAT.

>> MR. HARRIS?

>> YES. WHEN WILL THIS GO IN EFFECT, AND WILL IT AFFECT THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED DANGEROUS DOG?

>> I BELIEVE MR. WADE TOLD ME IT WAS 10 DAYS AFTER TODAY IF Y'ALL APPROVE IT, SO DECEMBER 12.

>> BECAUSE IT HAS PENALTY PROVISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THERE HAS TO BE PUBLICATION NOTICE THAT GIVES OUT TO IT.

AFTER IT'S APPROVED TODAY, THEN IT'S NORMALLY NO EARLIER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER IT'S APPROVED TODAY AND WE PUBLISHED NOTICE OF THOSE PENALTY PROVISIONS, THEN IT WILL GO INTO EFFECT.

AS FAR AS THE CURRENT DANGEROUS DOGS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THEN IF YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME THAT ARE NO LONGER DEFINED AS DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT WAS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL UNDER A CURRENT ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU ALL AMEND IT.

BUT ANYONE ELSE, THEY'LL NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AS THEY RENEW THEIR ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF THE DANGEROUS DOG, THEY'LL NEED TO COME IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANYTHING DIFFERENT AND IT PROBABLY WON'T BE MUCH, ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WHAT CURRENTLY THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNSEL HARRIS?

>> YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

>> MR. COLLINS. [NOISE].

>> TO THAT POINT, MR. WADE, I'M WONDERING, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO, ENSURE THAT WE GIVE THESE NINE ANIMAL OWNERS A PROPER AMOUNT OF TIME TO DO THEIR RESEARCH.

IF WE'RE GOING TO PUBLISH A LIST OF POTENTIAL PROVIDERS, AND COULD WE THEN SAY THAT THIS GOES INTO EFFECT NO SOONER THAN JUNE 1, YOU CAN CHANGE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE TO SOMETHING WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT YES, YOU CAN CHANGE THE EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> TEN DAYS ISN'T REASONABLE.

IF YOU ASKED ME, I UNDERSTAND, WHAT THE LAW SAYS, BUT I THINK 10 DAYS IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT IF WE GAVE 90 DAYS.

>> NORMALLY, YOUR STAFF AND YOUR CITY MANAGER ARE VERY MUCH, JUST FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, AND AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, DO GIVE GRACE PERIODS FOR PEOPLE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH IT? THAT CERTAINLY IS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE OF YOUR ENFORCEMENT ARM OF THE CITY.

IT'S JUST THAT'S THE MINIMUM LEGAL REQUIREMENT BEFORE THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY GOES INTO EFFECT.

>> WELL, AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND RECOGNIZE WHAT A GREAT JOB STAFF DOES.

BUT SHOULD WE ENUMERATE THAT TO JUST SAY, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE 90 DAYS GRACE FOR FOLKS TO GET THAT FIGURED OUT.

>> YOUR CITY SECRETARY MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION AS TO EXACTLY HOW LONG IT TAKES TO PUBLISH IT, ETC?

>> YES. JUST TO OFFER A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT.

WE WILL PUBLISH IT THIS FRIDAY AND NEXT FRIDAY,

[01:15:03]

AND THEN 10 DAYS FROM NEXT FRIDAY, WOULD IT THEN GO INTO EFFECT.

ABOUT 20 DAYS UNTIL IT'S ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE, JUST SO YOU ALL ARE AWARE.

>> WE CAN MAKE IT LONGER?

>> YES. IF IT WERE APPROVED TODAY, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE.

>> MR. ATKINSON, YES.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCILMAN COLLINS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GIVING THAT LONGER LEAD TIME SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE THAT CURRENTLY HAVE THE INSURANCE, NOT FOR THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT MERELY FOR THAT.

MAYOR, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO MOVE? IT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT NOW.

THAT THOSE PERMITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY VALID AT THE 250,000 ARE VALID THROUGH THE LIFE OF THAT PERMIT.

>> YEAH, THEY WOULD BE THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE PERMIT.

I THINK THAT THE PERMIT MIGHT EXPIRE ON THE SAME DATE ANNUALLY.

THAT'S ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND.

ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN A DOG IS DETERMINED DANGEROUS IN AND OF ITSELF, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE RIGHT THEN AND THERE.

EVEN IF THEIR PERMIT DID COME UP, IT WOULDN'T COME INTO EFFECT UNTIL 10 DAYS AFTER THE SECOND PUBLICATION, SO THAT'S 20 DAYS.

THEN YOU HAVE 30 DAYS ON TOP OF THAT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW THAT LIGHTNING SPEED.

IF WE WANTED TO ENFORCEMENT, IT WOULD STILL BE 50 DAYS DOWN THE ROAD BEFORE THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION BECAUSE OF THE INSURANCE PART OF IT.

THAT'S 50 DAYS THAT THEY HOPEFULLY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO FIND SOMETHING.

MY OFFICE DOES PROSECUTE ANY VIOLATIONS OF THIS TICKET, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE FROM A PROSECUTOR'S STANDPOINT, WE HAVE A DUTY TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE, NOT JUST TO PROSECUTE, AND THOSE ARE CERTAINLY SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE PROSECUTE CASES, ARE THINGS LIKE THAT.

DID THEY ALREADY HAVE SOME INSURANCE? ARE THEY JUST TRYING TO GET COME INTO COMPLIANCE RIGHT NOW, ETC?

>> YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD, MR. COLLINS, YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? [LAUGHTER]

>> NODDING DOWN OR THIS WAY.

>> WHAT WE HAVE IS A SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE THAT'S BEEN AMENDED.

WE STILL HAVE A MILLION DOLLAR REQUIREMENT IN IT AND THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS OFFERED BY DR WILSON TO ADD THE MUZZLE REQUIREMENT [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AS WELL. REQUIREMENT FOR MUZZLE WHEN THE DOG IS OUTSIDE, I GUESS, WHEN THE DOG IS OFF THE PROPERTY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND SO WE CAN TAKE THE VOTE NOW, RIGHT? ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE 7.9 AS AMENDED, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING. AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY?

>> NAY.

>> I HEARD TWO NAYS FROM THIS SIDE.

WERE THERE ANY OTHERS NAYS ON THIS SIDE? THREE NAYS. FOUR AYES.

SO THAT MOTION AS AMENDED PASSES.

WELL, NOW TAKE UP ITEM 7.10.

[10. Ordinance 2nd Reading - City Council: Consider Ordinance No. 2025-O0136, amending Chapter 4 "Animals" of the Code of Ordinances by modifying §4.01.001 “Definitions”, § 4.01.003, removing required inspections for multi-pet permit; amending §4.02.005, “Impoundment and redemption"; and amending §4.04.002 “Inhumane treatment of animals”.]

AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 ANIMALS OR THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AS IT RELATES TO MULTI-PET PERMITS, BREEDERS PERMITS, EMPOWERMENT, AND THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS.

AGAIN, SINCE THIS IS THE SECOND READING UNLESS THE COUNCIL DESIRES A STAFF BRIEFING, WE'LL FOREGO THAT BRIEFING, AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION, IS THERE ANYONE WHO REQUIRES A STAFF BRIEFING? I SEE.

>> READ EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS FROM LAST TIME JUST THE POINTS, SO WE KNOW.

>> WE HAVE A REQUEST TO READ.

COULD WE POST IT? THAT PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY FOR EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT IT.

>> I CAN EXPLAIN [OVERLAPPING] SOME CHANGES.

PART OF IT IS THESE ARE CHANGES NECESSARY BECAUSE YOU'RE REMOVING DANGEROUS DOG FROM WHAT CURRENTLY IS NOW UNDER DANGEROUS ANIMALS. THAT'S BEING REMOVED.

WE CLARIFIED SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS, AND THEY'RE MAKING IT CONSISTENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.

WE HAD DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE DEAL.

WE REMOVED BASED ON THE FIRST MOTION ON WHAT WAS PASSED THIS LAST TIME, WE NOW HAVE REMOVED COMPLETELY ANY INSPECTION REQUIREMENT FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS A MULTI-PET PERMIT.

THAT SECTION HAS BEEN ELIMINATED IN ITS ENTIRETY, THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS, ON YOUR CURRENT CODE OF ORDINANCES.

IF YOU WANT A MULTI-PET PERMIT THAT'S BEEN REMOVED, AND IT IS NO LONGER IN THERE.