[6. An ordinance amending ordinance 2140 regarding the adoption of new policies and procedures for the Department of Humane Animal Services, and for other purposes (READ 1X at Feb. meeting as amended) (Council Members Townsend, Treat and McCullough) ]

AND I'M GOING TO BE TURNING IT OVER TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY FOR WE NEED TO DO SOME CLARIFICATION AFTER THE FEBRUARY MEETING.

OKAY. DURING THE FEBRUARY MEETING. CAN'T HEAR YOU, STEVE.

GREEN LIGHTS ON. OKAY. DURING THE FEBRUARY MEETING WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE, THERE WAS A MOTION MADE WITH RESPECT TO CHANGING THE LANGUAGE REGARDING MICROCHIPPING THAT IT BE ENCOURAGED RATHER THAN REQUIRED.

BUT THE MICROCHIPPING APPEARS IN THE DOCUMENT IN ABOUT FIVE OTHER DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN CHARLOTTE, AND I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE COUNCIL AS TO WHAT THE INTENT WAS RELATIVE TO THOSE OTHER MENTIONS, AND I CAN POINT THEM OUT TO YOU ON PAGE FIVE OF 31.

THAT'S THE ONE I THINK YOU INTENDED TO SAY ENCOURAGED.

OKAY. BUT THEN IF YOU'LL GO TO PAGE NINE, ITEM TWO.

OKAY, FIVE AND TWO. PAGE FIVE. NUMBER NINE, PAGE NINE, IT SAYS CATS ARE REQUIRED TO MICROCHIP A CAT. THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THERE.

WOULD YOU WANT THAT TO BE ENCOURAGED AS WELL OR THAT LANGUAGE TAKEN OUT WHICH SECTION NUMBER.

SEE THIS IS SECTION 42B.

NO. I'M SORRY. THAT'S INCORRECT. IT WOULD BE SECTION SIX TO B, PAGE NINE.

[00:05:12]

I DON'T SEE A I DON'T SEE IT TO BE. I SEE IT.

SO IF YOU LOOK UNDER UNDER NUMBER TWO UP AT THE TOP THEN YOU'VE GOT B.

OKAY. IT SAYS CATS. CATS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO WEAR A COLLAR BUT OWNER GUARDIAN IS REQUIRED TO MICROCHIP. DO YOU WANT THAT TO SAY ENCOURAGED TO MICROCHIP.

THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT. OKAY.

OKAY THEN LET'S GO BACK TO PAGE. OKAY. FIVE. OKAY.

THEN WE GO TO PAGE TEN. THIS ONE TALKS ABOUT THE IMPOUNDING OF ANIMALS.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT UNDER IMPOUND ONE IT SAYS STRAY ANIMALS ARE MICROCHIPPED.

NOW I READ THAT TO MEAN THAT WE'RE DOING THAT.

THE CITY'S DOING THAT. SO I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT CONFLICTS WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.

IS THAT CORRECT? HOW DOES COUNCIL FEEL ABOUT IT? Y'ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LET US KNOW. WELL, IS THAT THE.

THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENING. YES, SIR. THAT'S WHAT'S PROPOSED.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT. OKAY. ARE YOU ASKING IF THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DONE NOW? YEAH, I THOUGHT STEVE SAID HE THOUGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. NO NO NO NO NO. I MEAN, IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE BEING PROPOSED NOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POLICY IS. ANY OF THE ANIMALS THAT COME THROUGH OUR SHELTER UP FOR ADOPTION? UNLESS I'M WRONG. ANYONE HERE FROM ANIMAL. THAT IS TRUE.

THEY GET THAT IS PART OF THE PROCEDURE. THEY GET MICROCHIPPED.

YES. AND THAT HELPS US IN CASE, THEY TURN UP SOMEWHERE TO FIND THEIR OWNERS.

OKAY. GO TO PAGE 19, PLEASE. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, NUMBER FOUR TALKS ABOUT REQUIREMENTS ON A AGGRESSIVE DOG. A SAYS AN AGGRESSIVE DOG SHALL BE MICROCHIPPED.

THAT'S A SPECIAL DESIGNATION OF AN ANIMAL. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT THERE WE WILL.

BECAUSE WE'VE DEFINED WE FIND AN AGGRESSIVE DOG IN THERE.

IT HAS BEEN DEFINED. THAT'S CORRECT. EVERYBODY SPEAKS INTO YOUR MIC.

OKAY. IT'S ON, BUT YOU HAVE TO PULL IT CLOSER.

I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THAT. SO YOU WANT TO LEAVE FOUR AS IS? YES. IS THAT THE CONSENSUS? CAN WE EXPLAIN TO THE AUDIENCE HOW THAT'S DEFINED? I BELIEVE THAT'S BASED UPON BEHAVIOR. YEAH, IT'S THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DOG.

ITS DESIGNATION IS RIGHT THERE ON PAGES 18. YEAH.

IF THE SUPERVISOR OR ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICER HAS CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE DOG IS AGGRESSIVE, THE SUPERVISOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE MAY FIND AND DECLARE SUCH DOG AGGRESSIVE AND IMPOUND THE DOG. SO IT'S BASED UPON THEIR BEHAVIOR, NOT THEIR BREED.

CORRECT. NOT THE BREED. NO, IT'S NOT BREED SPECIFIC.

OKAY, THAT WAS PAGE 19. NOW PLEASE GO TO PAGE 23.

TALKING ABOUT RECLAIMING VICIOUS DOGS IN SECTION FOUR OF PAGE 23, B THE VICIOUS DOG HAS BEEN MICROCHIPPED BY A LICENSED VETERINARIAN. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT TO RECLAIM A VICIOUS DOG.

DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN AS WRITTEN? I WOULD SAY YOU'RE ON 44 B ON PAGE 23. YEAH, IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE.

SO ON THIS ONE, STEVE, WE'RE SAYING THIS IS AFTER WE MICROCHIPPED THE DOG OR THE OWNER HAVE TO THIS IS SAYING IF THEY WANT TO RECLAIM IT, IT'S GOT TO BE MICROCHIPPED. THEY'LL HAVE TO OKAY BY AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT'S BEEN MICROCHIPPED OKAY.

IS THAT LANGUAGE SATISFACTORY? I NEED OPINIONS, YOU GUYS.

WE KNOW WHAT TO DO. I THINK IT IS. I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

OKAY. OKAY. LET'S SEE. OKAY. ON THAT ONE AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP OKAY.

NOW PAGE 24. NOW WE'RE TALKING SPECIFIC BREED UNDER PITBULLS SECTION 22 DOWN AT NUMBER FOUR.

ALL PITBULLS MAINTAINED WITHIN THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SHERWOOD MUST BE MICROCHIPPED.

IS THE PRESENT LANGUAGE. WHAT? WHAT WAS THAT? STEVE? NUMBER FOUR MICROCHIPPING ALL PITBULLS MAINTAINED WITHIN THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SHERWOOD MUST BE MICROCHIPPED.

THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE DOCUMENT. THE PROPOSED DOCUMENT AT PRESENT.

IS THAT THE CURRENT? NO. THEY'RE NOT. NO. WELL, I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED, BUT.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE SEVERAL THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED IF YOU PASS THIS ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO PIT BULLS. AND THAT'S JUST ONE OF SEVERAL. SO WE CAN LEAVE THAT.

[00:10:09]

SO I WOULD LIKE THAT IN THERE IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW PIT BULLS.

YES. WE'LL LEAVE THAT ONE. OKAY. THEN THE LAST ONE IS JUST ON PAGE 31.

IT'S JUST THE FEES THAT ARE CHARGED. I DIDN'T THINK YOU'D REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

THERE'S JUST A CHARGE FOR A MICROCHIP. IT'S TEN BUCKS.

AND WE JUST GOT THAT LISTED ON ON THE ON THE FEES.

SO UNLESS YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO LEAVE THAT FEE AT THAT NUMBER. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. NOW THAT BEING SAID, LET ME WHERE WE ARE PROCEDURALLY, I BELIEVE IN CHARLOTTE.

HELP ME MAKE SURE I DO NOT MISSPEAK. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS TODAY.

THE VERSION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE AGENDA IS WHAT I'M CALLING THE CHARLIE VERSION, AND THE CHARLIE VERSION HAS HAD ONE AMENDMENT MADE TO IT, AND THAT AMENDMENT WAS MADE LAST MONTH AND THAT WAS THE MICROCHIPPING AMENDMENT.

OKAY, SO WE'RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE IT WILL BE TIME TO READ THE SECOND TIME READING, AS AMENDED.

AND THEN WE'RE BACK TO MEREDITH'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WERE EXPLAINED LAST MONTH.

THAT'S WHERE WE WILL BE PROCEDURALLY AT THAT JUNCTURE.

IS THAT CORRECT, CHARLOTTE? IS THAT HOW WE UNDERSTOOD IT? YES. OKAY.

SO I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE SECOND READING. OKAY.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2140 REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF NEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANE ANIMAL SERVICES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AS AMENDED. SECOND READING. OKAY. MEREDITH. SINCE THIS IS.

YOUR ORDINANCE, NOW YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. AFTER OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING Y'ALL ASKED ME TO GET SOME INFORMATION AND BRING IT BACK. SO BEFORE I START THAT, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW MORE POINTS FROM OUR LAST MEETING.

COUNCIL MEMBER BRODERICK, YOU SAID DURING DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU DIDN'T FEEL THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DICTATE HOW MANY PETS WE CAN HAVE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REGULATE THE TYPES OF BREEDS THAT WE CAN OWN? IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS, YOU HAD INQUIRED ABOUT A POTENTIAL COMPROMISE INVOLVING DNA TESTING, SUGGESTING THAT DOGS WITH. I WROTE DOWN 48% ONE TIME, 51% A SECOND TIME.

SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT PERCENTAGE YOU WERE.

IF THEY HAVE 48% OR LESS, 40% OR 8% OR LESS. 48% OR LESS.

OKAY. AND COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL. COULD YOU DROP YOUR MIC DOWN? THERE YOU GO. OKAY. AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER WADE, YOU HAD JUST REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION ON DNA TESTING.

TESTING. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAD ECHOED COUNCIL MEMBER BRODERICK'S POINT ABOUT GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT CONCERNING PET CHIPPING, MICROCHIPPING, AND THEN THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS ALLOWED. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE COVERED THOSE BEFORE I GET INTO ALL OF THIS.

ALSO, LAST YEAR I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS.

LAST YEAR, WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU, YOU RECEIVED COPIES OF PETITIONS THAT WERE SIGNED BY 303 RESIDENTS WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING BREED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE ANIMAL ORDINANCE.

OF THOSE 303, THREE WERE VETERINARIANS, CENTENARIANS.

57 OF THEM WERE FROM WARD ONE. 34 WERE FROM WARD TWO.

43 WERE FROM WARD THREE. AND 67 WERE FROM WARD FOUR.

ADDITIONALLY, OUT OF THOSE, 62 SIGNATURES CAME FROM THOSE LIVING 0.25 MILES OR LESS OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY LIMITS, AND THEN 40 OF THOSE WERE FROM RESIDENTS FROM OTHER MAJOR CITIES, INCLUDING LITTLE ROCK, CABOT, AND JACKSONVILLE. ALSO DURING THE MONTHS OF JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST, YOU RECEIVED NUMEROUS EMAILS REGARDING THIS ISSUE.

OF THOSE, 52 OF THEM WERE IN FAVOR OF OVERTURNING THE ORDINANCE.

21 WERE SUPPORTED IN KEEPING IT. SINCE I HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE, I HAVE RECEIVED ONLY ONE EMAIL FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL.

THAT IS AGAINST IT. SEVEN EMAILS IN FAVOR. ADDITIONALLY, I RECEIVED 15 TEXT MESSAGES IN FAVOR AND ZERO AGAINST AND SEVEN PHONE CALLS IN FAVOR, WITH NONE OPPOSING. I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD LAST MONTH IN REGARDS TO DOG BITE REPORTS IN 2023. WE HAD A TOTAL OF 22 REPORTS THAT WERE MADE.

OUT OF THOSE, ONLY EIGHT WERE PIT MIXES. AND THEN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BIT WERE SIX ADULTS, ONE ANIMAL ONE CAT, SIX CHILDREN AND EIGHT DOGS. IN 2024, THERE WERE 25.

[00:15:04]

FIVE OF THOSE WERE PIT MIXES. AND I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU THE TOP OF THESE.

FOUR OF THEM WERE HUSKIES. TWO OF THEM WERE GERMAN SHEPHERDS.

AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A BOSTON TERRIER THAT WAS CALLED IN AS A PIT BULL, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A BOSTON TERRIER.

OF THOSE THAT THEY BIT WERE, NINE OF THEM WERE DOG BITES.

FIVE OF THEM WERE CHILDREN, SIX WERE ADULTS, ONE WAS A CAT.

THERE WERE SEVERAL CHICKENS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN AN INCIDENT. TWO OFFICERS AND THEN ONE VET.

I ALSO WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME LIFETIME ODDS OF DEATH, AND I THINK THIS IS THE REASON WHY I'M GIVING YOU THIS IS I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT US PUTTING OUR CITIZENS AT RISK. THESE NUMBERS ARE COMING FROM THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, WHICH ARE COMPILED BY THE NATIONAL CENTER OF HEALTH STATISTICS AND BASED ON THE INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES.

AND I'M ONLY GOING TO HIT ON A COUPLE OF THESE.

YOU HAVE A 1 IN 471 CHANCE OF BEING HIT AND KILLED BY A CAR.

YOU HAVE A 1 IN 95 CHANCE OF BEING KILLED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

YOU HAVE A 1 IN 44,499 CHANCE OF GETTING HIT AND KILLED BY A DOG.

AS FAR AS DNA TESTING GOES, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS HAS STATED THAT THERE MIGHT BE A COMPROMISE UTILIZING DNA TESTING.

AND I WILL ADMIT, I PROBABLY DID A LITTLE TOO MUCH RESEARCH ON THIS.

I DID FIND TWO NEWS REPORTS FROM CBS BOSTON AND THE CANADIAN BROADCAST CORPORATION.

BOTH OF THESE NEWS OUTLETS DID A STORY IN THEIR OWN RESEARCH ON DOG DNA TESTING, AND THE RESULTS WERE RATHER INTERESTING.

I'M GOING TO START REFERRING TO THESE TESTS AS VANITY DNA DOG TESTS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET THESE TESTS, THEY ASK FOR A LOT OF INFORMATION FROM YOUR AGE THE WEIGHT, THE HEIGHT, THE TEMPERAMENT OF THE DOG, AND THEY EVEN ASK YOU TO SUBMIT A PHOTO. THE RESULTS THAT THEY TOOK CAME FROM FOUR WISDOM PANEL, EMBARK, DNA, MY DOG, AND ACCU METRICS. ONE OF THE DOGS THEY USED AS A.

I WANT TO SAY THAT THE AS FAR AS A PURE BREED CHAMPION.

OKAY. THEY USED A GREAT DANE. THIS IS QUINN. THEY HAVE THE LINEAGE OF QUINN GOING BACK EIGHT BLOODLINES.

OKAY. THEY KNOW THIS DOG IS A GREAT DANE. THE DNA MY DOG TEST CAME BACK SHOWING THAT THIS DOG WAS 60% GREAT DANE AND 25% STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER. OKAY.

ACCU METRICS, WHICH THEY ASKED FOR A PHOTO. AND SO THEY TO DO THEIR RESEARCH, THEY WANTED TO SEE IF THEY THIS COMPANY WAS REALLY ON THEIR GAME.

THEY SUBMITTED A PICTURE OF A CHIHUAHUA. ACCU METRICS DNA DOG TEST ON QUINN CAME BACK 100% CHIHUAHUA.

OKAY. THEY ALSO INTERVIEWED DOCTOR ELEANOR CARSON, WHO IS A GENETICIST AT UMASS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE WHO IS CURRENTLY DOING DNA RESEARCH ON DOGS TO SEE IF BREED CAN BE DETERMINED BY A DNA TEST.

I ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO HER WHEN I SPOKE TO HER.

I ASKED HER HOW SHE FELT ABOUT AT HOME KITS. SHE SAID THAT THE GENERAL CONSUMER NEEDS TO BE REMINDED THAT THESE TESTS ARE TESTS IN WHICH THESE COMPANIES HAVE CREATED THEMSELVES, THAT THEY ARE SELLING THEMSELVES AND THAT THERE IS ZERO EXTERNAL VALIDATION TO THOSE TESTS.

THE DATA IN WHICH THEY ARE USING AND BASED ON IS ON THEIR OWN FINDINGS.

THE AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB ALSO ONLY RECOGNIZES PUREBRED DOGS.

THEY DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER AS A BREED.

PIT BULLS AS A WHOLE IS COMMONLY USED TO REFER TO MIXED BREED DOGS WITH CERTAIN PHYSICAL TRAITS, SUCH AS A MUSCULAR BODY OR A BROAD HEAD. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO FEDERAL AGENCY THAT OVERSEES THESE TYPES OF TESTS, NOR ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC GENOTYPING PARAMETERS.

THIS IS WHERE THIS GETS WAY ABOVE MY HEAD. SO I'M GOING TO ASK, COINCIDENTALLY MY HUSBAND, BUT FOR THIS PURPOSE, YOU CAN CALL HIM DOCTOR TOWNSEND TO COME UP, AND I WILL LET HIM TELL YOU WHAT HIS CREDENTIALS ARE.

AND I'VE ASKED HIM TO COME AND TALK ABOUT GENOTYPING AND WHAT THESE TESTS USE, BECAUSE IF WE DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO DNA TESTING, I FEEL THAT IT IS VERY CRITICAL THAT THIS BODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THESE TESTS ARE LOOKING FOR.

HEY, MY NAME IS JAMES TOWNSEND AND MY CREDENTIALS ARE MY BACKGROUND IS IN MOLECULAR AND CELL BIOLOGY, AND I'VE SPENT OVER 20 YEARS IN THE RESEARCH FIELD AND MOST OF IT IN ANIMAL RESEARCH.

SO I'M A LITTLE VERSED ON THIS ONE. SO LIKE SHE SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO MATCH.

AND ALL THE DIFFERENT COMPANIES HAVE THEIR OWN BACKGROUND, GENOMIC DNA THAT THEY TEST FROM.

[00:20:01]

AND WHAT THEY DO IS THEY LOOK FOR WHAT'S CALLED SNPS OR SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS, WHICH JUST MEANS THIS NUCLEOTIDE IS DIFFERENT AND ME AND IT'S DIFFERENT IN YOU.

AND SO DEPENDING ON WHERE THOSE SNPS ARE LOCATED IT COULD ALTER A GENE THAT'S ACTUALLY NEEDED.

OR IT COULD ALTER ONE THAT'S JUST YOUR HAIR COLOR.

SO IT DEPENDS. THEY USE A LOT OF THIS. AND JUST TO SEE IF DOGS CAN DEVELOP DIABETES OR IF THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, HEALTH TEST AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND SO IN SAYING THIS, SOME COMPANIES USE SAY LIKE 200,000 DIFFERENT SNPS AS A BACKBONE, SOME USE 600,000, SOME USE ONLY THEIR BREEDS, LIKE THEY HAD THEIR OWN BACKGROUND BREEDS, AND THEY ONLY USED THAT GENOMIC DNA TO TRY TO MATCH ALL THIS.

AND SOME USE 100 BREEDS. IT'S JUST THEY'RE ALL OVER THE MAP WITH THIS.

AND THEY'RE ALSO NOT REGULATED. SO IF YOU DO HUMAN GENOME TESTING YOU TRY TO DO ANY OF THIS IN HUMAN GENOME. IT'S REGULATED. AND IF YOU'RE NOT LICENSED BY CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS OR YOU'RE ACCREDITED, THEN IT'S NOT SEEN AS AS BEING TRUE. BUT THERE IS NO SUCH ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS TYPE OF TESTING.

SO ONE COULD COME UP AS A CHIHUAHUA AND A CHIHUAHUA.

IS THIS TALL? SO, YOU KNOW. THE GENETIC MAKEUP IS NOT ALWAYS GOING TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH ON THAT.

SO YOU COULD HAVE 20%. IF YOU'RE DOING A DNA TESTING, YOU HAVE 20% FOR ONE COMPANY.

YOU COULD HAVE 60% ON ANOTHER COMPANY. SO THE VARIATION IS VERY HIGH.

SO LIKE I TOLD MARY WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS MYSELF, BASED ON ON WHAT WAS SAID IN THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO A DNA TEST AND REQUIRE ONE, TRY TO RESEARCH IT HEAVILY AND USE ONE.

DON'T ALLOW MULTIPLE USE ONE. OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE SAYING, WELL, THIS ONE SAID IT'S ONLY 60. WELL, BUT YOURS ONLY SAID 20.

WHICH ONE ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE? SO THANKS FOR ANSWERING.

NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU. I WAS RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION.

HOW YOU KNOW, LAST TIME. WHAT WOULD IT DO? SO I KNOW WE HAVE SOME BIG DECISIONS ON OUR HANDS AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP MUCH MORE OF COUNCILMAN TIME. ONE OTHER BIG THING THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING IS THAT YOU WON'T SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE OF THE PICTURES IN WHICH THEY HAVE SEEN.

OKAY. AND I TRULY UNDERSTAND THAT. SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS WITH THIS PICTURE.

I CAN HOLD THIS UP, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS SWEET SEVEN YEAR OLD WAS MAULED BY A PIT BULL.

AND YOU'D PROBABLY BELIEVE ME. THIS IS ACTUALLY ANNA.

ANNA IS A FRIEND OF MINE'S DAUGHTER. THIS WAS TAKEN TWO YEARS AGO AT THE HOSPITAL WHEN SHE AND HER MOTHER, AFTER SHE AND HER MOTHER WERE HIT BY A DRUNK DRIVER AND SHE WAS THROWN FROM HER VEHICLE.

ANNA HAS COMPLETELY RECOVERED AND IS STILL CHEERING.

BUT MY POINT IS, IS WHEN YOU SEE PHOTOS LIKE THIS AND SOMEONE TELLS YOU THAT THIS CHILD HAS BEEN MAULED BY A DOG, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THEIR BACKUP.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW. MAYOR. MAYOR.

HANG ON JUST A SECOND. AUDIENCE. I KNOW THAT THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL AND A AND A PASSIONATE FOR MANY OF YOU ON BOTH SIDES ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT EVERYONE PLEASE HOLD APPLAUSE, CHEERS, COMMENTS AND SO FORTH. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY. I WAS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LET COUNCIL MEMBER TREAT SINCE SHE WAS THE OTHER.

NO THAT'S FINE. GO AHEAD. OKAY. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD MEREDITH ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT SHE'S INVESTED INTO THIS. SO, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL IS NOT OUR FULL TIME JOBS.

[00:25:01]

AND SHE HAS SHE'S DEVOTED MANY, MANY LATE NIGHTS, WEEKENDS TO THIS RESEARCH.

SO I THANK YOU FOR THE TIME THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS CAUSE DURING THE MEETING LAST MONTH, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS MENTIONED THE FEAR FACTOR OF OVERTURNING THE BSL.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL REMEMBER THESE, BUT IN THE LATE 90S, WE ALL ROCKED THOSE NO FEAR T SHIRTS AND HARD AT SYLVAN HILLS JUNIOR HIGH.

LIKE YOU WEREN'T COOL IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE LATEST NO FEAR T SHIRT.

AND WHAT I REMEMBER ABOUT THOSE IS FEAR WAS FALSE EVIDENCE APPEARING REAL.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE COULD BE ANYTHING MORE APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION HERE.

I FEEL LIKE THE FEAR FACTOR OF OVERTURNING THE BSL IT IT LACKS THE FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT'S BEING GIVEN HERE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER DOGS IN OUR CITY THAT BITE.

WHAT'S NEXT? DO WE START BANNING HUSKIES? DO WE START BANNING ALL THESE OTHER DOGS THAT DO ALSO HAVE A PROPENSITY TO TO BITE? AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT IT'S UNFAIR TO LOOK AT A DOG AND SAY, HEY, YOU'RE AN AGGRESSIVE DOG JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT YOU LOOK.

WE TREAT OUR WE TEACH RATHER OUR CHILDREN DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.

RIGHT? AND I'VE GOT A FRIEND COVERED IN TATTOOS.

AND GROWING UP, SHE WAS, YOU KNOW, COVERED IN TATTOOS.

SHE HAD LOTS OF PIERCINGS. AND SHE WAS KIND OF.

WE WERE IN THAT ERA WHERE THAT WAS JUST KIND OF STARTING TO COME AROUND. PEOPLE WOULD KIND OF LOOK AT HER AND BE LIKE, OH, SHE IS ONE OF THE KINDEST SOULS ON THIS EARTH.

AND SHE EPITOMIZES TO ME AS A HUMAN, DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.

AND SO MY PLEA TONIGHT IS THAT WE GIVE THESE ANIMALS A CHANCE, THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT THEM IN THE WAY THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT OUR CHILDREN TO LOOK AT SOMEBODY AND JUDGE THEM. RIGHT.

IN SHERWOOD, WE HAVE WELL EDUCATED RESIDENTS.

WE HAVE A HIGH INCOME EARNING RESIDENTS, AND WE HAVE RESPONSIBLE RESIDENTS.

I FEEL LIKE THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I SHOULD GIVE THE RIGHTS BACK TO THE RESIDENTS.

I SHOULD LET THEM PROVE TO US THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLY OWNING A PIT BULL.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, AND THIS IS QUIETLY, PLEASE, FOR ALL OF YOU THAT ARE HERE IN FAVOR OF OVERTURNING THE BSL, PLEASE QUIETLY STAND. THANK YOU.

THE RESIDENTS THAT JUST STOOD SEE THIS AS AN INFRINGEMENT ON PERSONAL RIGHTS, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE WHO RESPONSIBLY OWN AND COULD CARE FOR A PIT BULL. THIS BAN IS VIEWED AS DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF DOGS AND THEIR RESPONSIBLE OWNERS.

SO I THINK THAT WE GIVE THE RESIDENTS OF SHERWOOD A CHANCE.

I THINK THAT WE GIVE THESE DOGS THAT ARE IN THE SHELTERS THAT DON'T HAVE A CHANCE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW US THAT WE DON'T NEED TO JUDGE THEIR BOOK BY ITS COVER. WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST. CITY ATTORNEY COBB WILL GO OVER THE RULES AND THE PARAMETERS.

ONCE THAT IS DONE, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP DISCUSSION TO THE COUNCIL.

OKAY. I'LL READ OFF THE LIST HERE IN A MOMENT, BUT PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS.

LIMIT THEM TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS IF YOU CAN.

AND IF SOMEONE HAS ALREADY SAID WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU DON'T BECOME REDUNDANT IN YOUR COMMENTS AND KEEP THEM FAIR TO THE AGENDA ITEM. THE FIRST PERSON I HAVE IS LAURA WILSON, I BELIEVE LAURA WILSON.

YES. IS THERE A TIME LIMIT FOR THE WHOLE THING? OKAY. YEAH. BEFORE YOU START, THE COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT IT.

DO YOU WANT TO PLACE A LIMIT? I THOUGHT WE HAD ONE.

THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. I THOUGHT IT WAS 15, 20 MINUTES OR SOMETHING. I THOUGHT THE RULE SAYS THAT YOU.

WELL, LET ME PULL IT UP REAL QUICK. LIKE, ARE Y'ALL SAYING A TOTAL LIMIT? YEAH. I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO. I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON.

COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS. PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE COUNCIL AT ITS DISCRETION, AS DIRECTED BY THE MAYOR OR MEETING CHAIR. PUBLIC COMMENT IS ALLOWED ON FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS AND MAY BE MADE FROM THE PUBLIC AND MUST BE MADE FROM THE PUBLIC PODIUM

[00:30:04]

PROVIDED FOR THAT PURPOSE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK MUST IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IN ADVANCE OF SPEAKING.

COMMENTS MUST BE GERMANE TO THE TOPIC AND LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES IN LENGTH.

REPETITIVE COMMENT IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED AND MAY BE CURTAILED.

THE CITY COUNCIL MAY FURTHER RESTRICT SUCH PUBLIC COMMENT AND ACTION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPEAKERS, THE TOTAL TIME ALLOTTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THE CESSATION THEREOF.

SO YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.

YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT THE TIME THAT DISCUSSION GOES ON.

I WILL TELL YOU, THERE ARE 11 SPEAKERS, THREE MINUTES EACH.

30 MINUTES. I THINK THAT IT JUST GETS IT GETS REPETITIVE THAT, YOU KNOW, I JUST ASK THAT EVERYBODY BE RESPECTFUL BECAUSE AS COUNCIL MEMBER TREAT SAID, WE'RE UP HERE. WE VOLUNTEER OUR TIME AS WELL AND JUST BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYBODY'S TIME TOO.

JUST DON'T BE REPETITIVE. SO I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK THEIR MIND THAT MIND SIGNED UP.

THEY CAME HERE, THEY SIGNED UP. YOU'RE GIVING UP YOUR TIME.

SO IF YOU GAVE UP YOUR TIME TO COME HERE, YOU SHOULD HAVE TIME.

AS LONG AS YOU'RE THREE MINUTES. YOU KNOW, JUST DON'T BE REPETITIVE, OKAY? MISS WILSON, YOUR THREE MINUTES HAVE COMMENCED.

OKAY. I AM HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE ANIMAL ORDINANCES.

CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS? I HAVE TO GIVE YOU MY WHOLE ADDRESS.

I LIVE ON CLAREMONT ON THE DEAD END. THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ADDRESS AGGRESSIVE DOGS BECAUSE ANY DOG CAN BE AGGRESSIVE.

IN 2018, I WENT TO ADOPT A DOG HERE IN OUR ANIMAL SHELTER.

THERE WAS NOTHING BUT PITBULLS ON ONE SIDE. HAD PITBULL PUPPIES MULTIPLE TIMES I WENT THERE.

THERE'S NOTHING BUT PITBULLS IN THERE TO ADOPT.

SO WHY HAVE THEM IN THERE IF WE CAN'T ADOPT THEM? THAT THAT MAKES NO SENSE. SO SOMETHING HAS TO BE CHANGED.

AND THEN I GOT A DOG FROM THE SHERWOOD ANIMAL SHELTER THAT IS AGGRESSIVE.

AND SO HOW CAN YOU GUYS OR THE ANIMAL CONTROL DECIDE WHO'S AN AGGRESSIVE DOG WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU ADOPT THEM OUT? SO IF, IF AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER CAME TO MY HOUSE, MY DOG'S NAME IS BARACK OBAMA.

AND HE WOULD ABSOLUTELY HE WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE HAPPY WITH A MAN WHO WAS SENT BACK TWICE TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER.

IT SAID UNTRAINABLE ON HIS BLUE PAPER. I TOOK HIM HOME.

NO PROBLEMS. HE LOVES ME. I TAKE HIM TO WORK.

IF SOME MAN WALKS BEHIND ME, HE GRABS THEIR PANTS.

OKAY. HE DOESN'T BITE THEM. BUT IF SOMEBODY DID SOMETHING TO ME OR IF YOU CAME UP TO MY HOUSE, THAT ANIMAL CONTROL GUY IS GOING TO SAY, THAT'S AN AGGRESSIVE DOG.

HE'S A LITTLE BITTY THING, BUT Y'ALL GET Y'ALL ADOPTED HIM OUT.

SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SAY WHO IS WHAT? AND THEN I WAS GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, BUT THE, THE DNA TESTING LIKE EMBARK, WE THINK MAY BE OKAY, BUT IF THERE IS A FLAW IN ANY OF THAT THAT SHOULDN'T BE PART OF THE DEAL.

WE SHOULD GIVE EVERY DOG THE SAME CHANCE. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL GAVE ME AN AGGRESSIVE DOG TO DEAL WITH.

HE DOESN'T GET OUT, THANKFULLY, SO I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.

BUT I HAD TO WORK WITH HIM TO GET HIM TO BE ABLE TO GO TO WORK WITH ME BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE MEN.

SO THERE NEEDS TO BE THE PERSON THAT DOES 30S REMAINING.

MA'AM, THE PERSON THAT DESIGNATES THE DOG AGGRESSIVE NEEDS TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF TRAINING CREDENTIALS.

IT CAN'T JUST BE THE PERSON COMING UP TO YOUR HOUSE TO SAY YOUR DOG IS AGGRESSIVE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SYDNEY MATTHEWS.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SYDNEY MATTHEWS, AND I'M THE NEWEST VETERINARIAN AT NORTH HILLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL.

AND I SPOKE IN FEBRUARY ABOUT THIS MATTER, AND I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT IT.

I THINK THE BSL IS OUTDATED AND IT'S RESTRICTIVE.

AS A VETERINARIAN, I TOOK AN OATH THAT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THOSE ANIMALS WHO CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BREED OR THEIR SPECIES. IT'S FOR ALL ANIMALS, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY HAVE BIG SQUARE HEADS AND MUSCULAR BODIES, THEY ARE AN ANIMAL AND THAT IS MY JOB TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THEM.

I BELIEVE, LIKE I SAID, THAT THE BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION IS RESTRICTIVE AND OUTDATED.

IT KEEPS THOSE GREAT DOGS FROM FINDING GREAT HOMES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SHERWOOD.

ANY BREED OF DOG CAN BE DEEMED AS VICIOUS OR DANGEROUS.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE DOG HAS A SQUARE HEAD, A MUSCULAR BODY, AND POWERFUL JAWS.

[00:35:06]

SOME OF THE WORST BITES THAT I'VE RECEIVED AS A TECHNICIAN AND NOW AS A VETERINARIAN, HAVE BEEN FROM SMALL DOGS THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO BE AFRAID OF BECAUSE YOU CAN JUST PUSH THEM TO THE SIDE. REGARDLESS OF THE BREED. ANY ANIMAL OR ANY DOG IN THIS CASE WILL BITE IF THEY FEEL THREATENED OR FRIGHTENED OR BACKED INTO A CORNER. THAT'S THEIR NATURE AND THEIR DEFENSE MECHANISM.

BULLY BREEDS, AS DEFINED AS THE BSL, ARE NOT THE ONLY ANIMALS THAT WILL BITE.

IF IT HAS TEETH, IT'S GOING TO TRY TO BITE YOU.

THERE'S THIS STIGMA THAT BEHIND THERE IS THIS STIGMA BEHIND WHAT A PIT BULL OR ANY OTHER BULLY BREED IS CAPABLE OF.

THEY WERE FIGHTING DOGS AND JUNKYARD DOGS BECAUSE OF BAD PEOPLE, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE BAD DOGS.

THEY WERE DEEMED DANGEROUS, ALL BECAUSE THEY WERE BAD PEOPLE TRAINING THEIR DOGS TO DO BAD THINGS.

BUT ONE THING TO NOTE IS THERE WILL ALWAYS BE BAD PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HAS. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE HAS TO BE BAD DOGS BEFORE GIVEN A CHANCE TO BE PROVEN HOW GOOD THEY CAN BE.

NO ONE WANTS VICIOUS DOGS IN THE AREA, BUT A VICIOUS DOG CAN BE A 5 POUND DOG AND IT CAN BE 130 POUND DOG.

IT CAN BE A LAB, A GOLDEN RETRIEVER, A SCHNAUZER, A BOSTON TERRIER, AND IT CAN BE A CHIHUAHUA.

IT'S NOT THE SIZE OF THE DOG OR THE BREED OF THE DOG THAT MAKES IT VICIOUS.

IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO TRAIN THE DOGS TO DO BAD THINGS.

ONE THING THAT PEOPLE FAIL TO MENTION IS THAT PITBULLS AND OTHER BULLY BREEDS ARE FAMILY DOGS.

THEY'RE SERVICE ANIMALS AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS, WHICH FOR MOST PLACES LIKE AIRLINES AND APARTMENT COMPLEXES, ARE JUST PETS WITH EXTRA PAPERWORK. THESE DOGS ARE LOVED AND THEY LOVE UNCONDITIONALLY AS WELL.

YOU HAVE 30S. THEY ARE BRINGING JOY TO THOSE AROUND THEM, WILLING TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE.

SO I, AS A VETERINARIAN, I ENCOURAGE YOU, AS THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS FOR THESE DOG OWNERS WHO ARE TRYING TO OWN PITBULLS IN SHERWOOD. I ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO THINK ABOUT THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY AND THINK ABOUT THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE SECOND CHANCE THAT YOU CAN GIVE THESE DOGS.

THANK YOU. SCOTT CAMPBELL.

HI, I'M SCOTT CAMPBELL, I'M THE SENIOR VETERINARIAN AT NORTH HILLS, AND I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF.

I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF YOU. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT BOTH OF YOU SAID.

AND SO, IN THE SPIRIT OF NOT BEING REPETITIVE, I JUST WANTED TO SAY IN OVER 30 YEARS OF PRACTICE, WHICH MEANS I'M OLD, I'VE SEEN LOTS OF AGGRESSIVE DOGS AND, YOU KNOW, THEY COME IN LIKE EVERYONE SAID, THEY COME IN ALL DIFFERENT BREEDS. AND SO. KEEPING A SPECIFIC BREED OUT TO ME IS AKIN TO PROFILING.

AND YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LEGISLATION KEEPING VICIOUS DOGS OUT OF THE CITY, BUT MAKING IT BREED SPECIFIC DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE WE SEE THESE DOGS THAT ARE JUST WONDERFUL PET DOGS, WONDERFUL PETS. SO LIKE I SAID, I'LL TRY NOT TO BE REPETITIVE AND SAY ALL THE SAME THINGS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF DOGS.

PENNY. RAY.

MY NAME IS PENNY RAY AND I LIVE ON BOBOLINK. AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE BSL AND ALL THE DOGS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SHELTERS.

OUR SHELTER IS WONDERFUL, AND WE CAN'T SEEM TO GET ANY OF THE DOGS ADOPTED BECAUSE MOST OF THE DOGS THAT ARE IN THERE ARE PITBULLS.

AND THE REASON WE CAN'T GET THEM ADOPTED IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS ARCHAIC RULE THAT WE CAN'T HAVE PITBULLS IN OUR CITY.

AND YET ON MY STREET THERE ARE TWO PITBULLS. ALL AROUND THE CITY ARE PITBULLS.

I HAVE PICTURES OF PITBULLS, OF PLACES. I'VE WALKED AROUND THE CITY AND TAKEN PICTURES TO SHOW THAT THESE PITBULLS ARE ALL OVER OUR CITY ALREADY, BUT YET WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THEM.

THEY'RE ALREADY HERE, SO LET'S JUST MAKE IT LEGAL.

I LIVE IN SHERWOOD AND I HAVE A PITBULL. MY DOG IS A PITBULL.

AM I BREAKING THE LAW? THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS SAID EARLIER.

SO I WANT TO GO BACK BEFORE YOU. BEFORE YOU JUDGE ME.

A PICTURE SAYS A LOT OF THINGS. I TALK TO A COUNCIL MEMBER EARLIER TODAY WHO PROMISED, GAVE ME HER WORD THAT SHE WAS FOR CHANGING THE RULES.

[00:40:01]

BUT WHEN I TEXTED HER OR EMAILED HER EARLIER, SHE'S CHANGED HER MIND OR IS ON THE FENCE BECAUSE OF A PICTURE THAT SHE SAW.

SO I JUST GOT DONE TELLING YOU THAT I HAVE A PIT BULL.

THIS IS MY PIT BULL. SHE'S MEANER THAN ANY PIT BULL THAT YOU KNOW.

SO THAT'S MY PIT BULL. A 4 POUND YORKIE. SO PICTURES ARE VERY DECEIVING.

SO MISS BROOKS, YOU'RE THE ONE THAT I DID EMAIL EARLIER, AND YOU TOLD ME WHEN I RAN INTO YOU AT GADWALLS THAT, YES, YOU WERE READY FOR THE CHANGE, AND YOU'RE ALL FOR IT.

YOU ALSO SENT YOUR HUSBAND TO MY TO MY HOUSE, KNOCKED ON MY DOOR, AND ASKED ME IF I WOULD PUT A SIGN FOR HER ELECTION IN MY YARD.

MY QUESTION WAS, ARE YOU FOR CHANGING THE RULES? THE ANSWER FROM HER HUSBAND WAS YES, SHE'S FOR IT AND WE'RE ALL FOR IT.

WE'RE READY FOR THE CHANGE. A SIGN WENT IN MY YARD.

WELL, AS OF TODAY, I WAS TOLD BY YOU BECAUSE OF A PICTURE YOU SAW IN JUNE THAT YOU'VE CHANGED YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS.

WELL, WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS IN JUNE, THE PICTURE YOU SAW, IF I'M IF I'M CORRECT IN MY MATH OR MY MONTHS, HOW THEY GO. JUNE WAS BEFORE THE ELECTION AND THE ELECTION WAS IN SEPTEMBER.

AND THAT'S WHEN I WAS TOLD THAT YOU WERE ALL FOR IT.

SO I'M NOT SURE HOW A PICTURE THAT YOU SAW IN JUNE COULD CHANGE YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS.

YOU HAVE 30S, MA'AM, OF WHAT YOU TOLD ME IN SEPTEMBER.

SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT YOU STAND BY YOUR WORD, BY YOUR PROMISE, WHAT YOU PROMISED AND WHY I VOTED FOR YOU.

I VOTED BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE FOR CHANGING THE LAWS.

SO I WANTED TO LEAVE YOU THE LAST TIME PICTURES WERE SENT AROUND.

YOU JUST PASSED HIM RIGHT ON DOWN TO CHARLIE.

DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT HIM. SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU SOME PICTURES PERSONALLY FOR YOU TO LOOK AT WHY EVERYBODY ELSE IS SPEAKING.

SO MAYBE THAT PICTURE WILL CHANGE YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS ABOUT CHANGING THIS RULE.

AND YOU'LL SEE, MA'AM, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. YOU'LL STAND BY YOUR YOUR WORD.

THANK YOU. MELISSA. PRETTY. JUST. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. ALYSSA. PRETTY FROM 9880 WILLOWBROOK IN SHERWOOD.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MENTION SO I HAVE NOTES HERE THAT I'VE WRITTEN DOWN, BUT I KNOW THAT ROBBIE, THE YOUNG MAN THAT WAS KILLED BY DOGS, WHOSE MOTHER NOW LIVES IN SHERWOOD AND IS A SHERWOOD RESIDENT I'M SURE THAT WILL BE SPOKEN ABOUT AT SOME POINT TONIGHT. AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE LEGISLATION BEING DISCUSSED, I HAVE ACTUALLY BECOME FRIENDS WITH LINDSEY, HIS MOM, AND SHE SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME THAT THE OWNER OF THOSE PITBULLS WAS INTO DRUGS, HAD BEEN TO JAIL, HAD ABUSED HIS SIGNIFICANT OTHER ENOUGH TO THE POINT WHERE SHE HAD MISCARRIED THEIR CHILD.

AND SO IF HE WILL ABUSE HUMANS TO THAT POINT, YOU CAN GUARANTEE THOSE DOGS WERE PROBABLY STARVED AND ABUSED AS WELL.

THEY WERE ALSO NOT IN AN AREA THAT HAD ANIMAL CONTROL.

AND I WANT THOSE THINGS TO BE THOUGHT OF WHEN THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE BROUGHT UP AS WELL.

BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT TALK ABOUT THE DOGS, THE BREEDS, THE REASONS WHY AND WHY NOT.

AND SO I WANT TO TALK TO YOU. MONICA TOUCHED ON IT AS WELL ABOUT THE RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE AS CITIZENS.

SO I WANT YOU ALL TO THINK BACK. EVERYBODY HERE HAS A MOTHER.

AND FROM WHAT I KNOW, EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL MEMBER, BASED ON YOUR BIOS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT I CAN FIND OUT ABOUT YOU IS MY AGE OR OLDER, EVEN IF JUST A SMIDGE. HAPPY BIRTHDAY. MONICA.

AND SO THAT MEANS YOUR MOTHERS WERE ALIVE IN 1974.

SOME OF YOU, I DON'T KNOW, MAY HAVE BEEN ALIVE IN LIVE IN 1974, BUT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME A WOMAN COULD NOT HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT.

A WOMAN WAS NOT DEEMED RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT, BECAUSE THERE WAS A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T CAPABLE OF THAT, THAT THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

SO I WANT YOU TO THINK RIGHT NOW ABOUT YOURSELF, YOUR MOTHER, YOUR SISTER, SOMEONE THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING THEM IN THE FACE AND TELLING THEM, I THINK I KNOW BETTER AND I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A BANK ACCOUNT.

HOW WOULD THAT GO OVER? SO FOR THE WOMEN ON THE COUNCIL, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE TOLD THAT THAT AS A CITIZEN, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR YOURSELF? YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT IN WHAT BREED OF DOG YOU OWN.

YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION. WHAT IF SOMEONE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOSTERING OR ADOPTING A CHILD, AND SOMEONE HAD THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT YOU AND SAY, THAT DOESN'T FIT INTO OUR CITY? BECAUSE STATISTICALLY, STATISTICALLY, THERE'S A HIGHER CRIME RATE AMONG THAT PERSON AND THEIR SPECIFIED CLASS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THOSE RIGHTS BE DICTATED TO YOU? SO THE SAME THING GOES FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF SHERWOOD.

WE DO NOT HAVE A HIGH CRIME RATE. WE DO NOT HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS TO FIGHT DOGS.

AND IF THAT HAPPENS, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS VERY CAPABLE OF TAKING CARE OF IT.

BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN JUST BECAUSE THEY OWN A CERTAIN BREED OF DOG.

[00:45:03]

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. GRACIE.

MY NAME IS GRACIE. I LIVE AT 9880 WILLOWBROOK DRIVE.

I HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION RELATING TO THE CITY OF SHERWOOD AND BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION.

I HAVE BEEN A SHERWOOD CITIZEN MY ENTIRE LIFE, 20 YEARS.

I ATTENDED VICTORY BAPTIST ABUNDANT LIFE AND GRADUATED FROM SYLVAN HILLS.

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID WHEN I BECAME AN ADULT WAS TO ADOPT A DOG MY PARENTS HAD BEEN FOSTERING FROM SHERWOOD SHELTER.

SHE WAS A WORMY, CROOKED LEGGED, TINY PUPPY AND THE SWEETEST BABY I HAD EVER MET.

SHE WAS LISTED AS A TERRIER MIX AND COMPLETELY LEGAL IN SHERWOOD.

FAST FORWARD TO NOW AND SHE IS STILL THE SWEETEST BABY YOU HAVE EVER SEEN.

THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD ASSUME SHE IS A PIT BULL.

SO WITH THE RULES AS THEY ARE, HOW WOULD THE CITY HANDLE THAT? WOULD YOU TELL ME, A LIFELONG CITIZEN, THAT I HAD TO MOVE FROM OUR CITY? IF A DNA TEST IS REQUIRED AND SHE COMES BACK WITH A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF PIT BULL.

ANY DOG CAN BE DANGEROUS IN THE WRONG HUMAN HANDS.

PLEASE REMOVE THE BREED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. THANK YOU.

MISS CARNEY.

GOOD EVENING. I'M JULIE ANN CARNEY. CORNY. I WAS A VOLUNTEER AT THE ANIMAL SHELTER FOR 17 YEARS.

PART OF MY MAKEUP AS A HUMAN BEING IS THAT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN DRAWN TO THE UNDERDOG.

AND OF COURSE, WITH A 37 YEAR BREED MAN, I FELL IN LOVE WITH HUNDREDS OF THEM AT THE SHELTER.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO IMPLORE YOU TO KEEP YOUR MINDS OPEN, AND I PRAY THAT WE WILL JOIN OTHER COMMUNITIES LIKE ATKINS, CABOT, LONOKE, MAUMELLE AND RUSSELLVILLE IN REVERSING THEIR BREED BANS.

FEWER AND FEWER CITIES ARE DOING THESE BREED BANS BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY FOR LITIGATION THAT WOULDN'T BE SUCCESSFUL.

EACH DOG, LIKE PEOPLE, SHOULD BE JUDGED ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER AND THEIR ADAPTABILITY, NOT THEIR BREED. ANY ANIMAL IS CAPABLE OF HARM.

REASONABLE BENCHMARKS SHOULD BE OFFERED SO THAT REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE OWNERS MAY HAVE THE ANIMAL THAT THEY WISH FOR.

I REALIZE THAT THIS CHANGE HAS SOME OF YOU GRAPPLING WITH HOW YOU'LL VOTE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS WE HAVE A GREAT COMMUNITY OF ANIMAL LOVERS.

WE HAVE WONDERFUL COMMUNITY WITH VERY LOW INCIDENCE OF HARM OR DOG BITES.

WE ARE NOT PLAGUED BY DOG FIGHTING, NOR DO WE HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH HIGH INCIDENCE OF ABUSE CASES.

IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO BECOME COMFORTABLE WITH GRANTING PRIVILEGES TO THESE RESPONSIBLE ADULTS.

REASONABLE BENCHMARKS ARE ENCOURAGED. THIS BREED BAN HAS COST TAXPAYERS MORE DOLLARS TO HOUSE AND CARE FOR THOSE ANIMALS, WHILE ALSO SUBJECTING THAT ANIMAL TO UNDUE STRESS DUE TO A SHELTER ENVIRONMENT LANGUISHING FOR DAYS, MONTHS, IF NOT OVER YEARS. IN FACT, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR A VOLUNTEER, A BLACK AND WHITE PIT BULL WHO WAS THERE FOR OVER 700 DAYS NAMED HASHBROWN, WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED WHEN THERE WERE NUMEROUS FAMILIES HERE READY, WILLING AND PREPARED TO ADOPT HIM. SO WE SHOULDN'T CONTINUE TO PAY THESE HIGH COSTS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS WHEN WE HAVE RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY, HAVE FREEDOM FROM FEAR AND FAITH IN THE FUTURE.

ENACT CHANGES WITH BENCHMARKS TO CORRECT THIS.

YOU'VE BEEN IMPLORED, EVEN BY ALDERMEN THAT VOTED ON THE CHANGE 37 YEARS AGO TO CHANGE IT.

I'VE WORKED WITH HUNDREDS OF THESE ANIMALS. THEY'RE SO INCREDIBLY MISUNDERSTOOD.

EVEN THE ONES THAT CAME IN ABUSED AND MALNOURISHED IMPROVED UNDER OUR CARE.

AND I'M MOST PROUD THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THIS ARCHAIC BAN, IT'S NOT AN INSTANT DEATH SENTENCE.

AND THAT'S ALL DOWN TO THE STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS AT THE SHELTER.

PLEASE. AFTER 37 YEARS, LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE AND LISTEN TO YOUR COMMUNITY.

CANDACE BRILES DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY? BOYLES.

I'M SORRY. SORRY FOR HOW I'M DRESSED. IT IS SPRING BREAK.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU GUYS. AND WE DO HAVE NEW MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL THAT I HAVE EMAILED THE PREVIOUS ONES BEFORE, SO I WILL BE GLAD TO FORWARD MY EMAILS TO YOU GUYS, THE NEW PEOPLE.

I'M A PEDIATRIC RN LOCALLY, AND I AM AGAINST CHANGING THE AGGRESSIVE DOG BAND TO NOT INCLUDING CERTAIN BREEDS BECAUSE I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN THE AFTERMATH THAT THEY HAVE ON CHILDREN, SPECIFICALLY IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND WANTED TO MAKE MY THOUGHTS KNOWN TO MY REPRESENTATIVES.

[00:50:03]

WHILE THERE MAY BE OTHER DOG BREEDS THAT MAKE BITES THAT BITE MORE OFTEN, THERE ARE USUALLY THEY ARE USUALLY LESS LIKELY TO CAUSE DETRIMENTAL DAMAGE OR DEATH.

THE PIT BREED. PITBULL BREED, INCLUDING MIXES, ARE MORE LIKELY THAN OTHER BREEDS TO LOCK THEIR JAWS AND SHAKE THEIR VICTIMS. THE PROPOSED AGGRESSIVE CLAUSE STATES THAT DOGS THAT A DOG ISN'T DESIGNATED AS AGGRESSIVE UNTIL IT ATTACKS OR BITES OR CAUSES PHYSICAL INJURY TO A PERSON OR ANOTHER DOMESTICATED ANIMAL.

ALSO, THIS INCLUDES WORDING THAT WHILE NOT ON A LEASH AND UNDER THE CONTROL OF ITS OWNER.

IF THIS PROPOSED CLAUSE IS CHANGED, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SPECIFIC RULES IN PLACE WHICH SOME OF YOU HAVE ADDRESSED ABOUT MICROCHIPPING.

BEFORE THE CHANGES TAKE PLACE, EXAMPLES INCLUDE A PRIVACY FENCE, A SIX FOOT PRIVACY PRIVACY FENCE.

I HAVE A NEIGHBOR WHO HAD A PITBULL ILLEGALLY AND I CALLED.

I SENT MARY JO MESSAGES. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SENT.

YOU KNOW THE POLICE MESSAGES. IT NEVER GOT TAKEN CARE OF.

MY MY NEIGHBOR FINALLY TOOK IT TO HER SON IN LITTLE ROCK, BUT IT'S IT'S HARD TO TAKE CARE OF A PROBLEM ONCE IT'S THERE.

SO YOU TALKED ABOUT LICENSING AND REGISTRATION.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES WOULD NEED TO HAVE BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS AND TEMPERAMENT TESTING.

LEASH AND MUZZLE LAWS WOULD STRICTLY NEED TO BE ENFORCED.

SPAYING AND NEUTERING WOULD NEED TO BE MANDATED.

ARE WE GOING TO HAVE INSURANCE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LIABILITY COVERAGE ON THESE DOGS? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CONTROL LAWS? SO I WROTE DOWN A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM THAT THAT WERE SAID TONIGHT.

I OBVIOUSLY CAN'T BRING PICTURES BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BREAKING HIPAA.

BUT JUST FROM TELLING YOU THE THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN, I'VE SEEN THE LITTLE BLOND HEADED LITTLE GIRL THAT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR OR YOUR GRANDDAUGHTER OR WHOEVER IN YOUR FAMILY THAT THEIR FACE WAS MAULED AND THEY HAVE BLOOD ALL IN THEIR LITTLE BLOND HAIR.

I'VE SEEN THAT PERSONALLY. I DON'T NEED TO SHOW YOU A PICTURE.

I'VE ALSO SEEN THE LITTLE BOY WHO I WORKED. NOT ONLY I WORK IN THE ER.

YOU HAVE 30S, MA'AM, OR I HAVE SEEN THE LITTLE BOY WHO HAD DEBRIDEMENT OF HIS FACE.

WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT HOLD ON. WHY DO WE PUT THE SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS AND CHILDREN BELOW THE SAFETY OF AN ANIMAL EVERY TIME? WAS THIS DID Y'ALL HEAR ABOUT THE ANIMAL THAT ON CLUB ROAD THIS PAST WEEKEND, A PIT BULL ATTACKED ANOTHER DOG.

SO WE ALREADY DON'T ALLOW PIT BULLS, BUT WE HAD AN ATTACK THIS PAST WEEKEND.

WAS THIS PIT BULL MICROCHIPPED? WAS THE SHERWOOD ANIMAL? MA'AM, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. THIS PIT BULL WERE THEY FIND WERE THE.

WAS THE DOG SEIZED OF THE PEOPLE WHO. MA'AM, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT EVEN SHERWOOD CITIZENS.

I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THAT EMAIL. KRISTEN MORRIS.

MEMBERS. CAN YOU PASS THOSE OUT? HI, KRISTEN MORRIS, I LIVE ON TRAIL CREEK ROAD.

I WANT TO SHARE SOME STORIES. SO I'M PASSING THEM DOWN.

SO YOU HAVE COPIES BECAUSE I LIKE TO BRING RECEIPTS.

THERE WAS A PIT BULL MIX NAMED BLUE THAT DURING A HOUSE FIRE, ALERTED FIREFIGHTERS TO A 14 MONTH OLD WHO WAS STILL IN THE HOUSE.

THE DOG RAN OUTSIDE AND RAN BACK INSIDE. CIRCLING THE PLAYPEN AND BARKING TO ALERT THE FIREFIGHTERS WHERE THE BABY WAS.

A HERO PIT BULL. TWO PIT BULLS ACTUALLY NAMED PACO AND SLAYER SAVED TWO KIDS, FOUR AND ONE FROM A COPPERHEAD IN FLORIDA IN 2017.

RESCUED PIT BULL NAMED PONCHO, FOUGHT OFF AN INTRUDER WHO BROKE INTO A FAMILY'S HOME IN NEW MEXICO.

THIS DOG FOUGHT RELENTLESSLY AGAINST THE ATTACKER.

THE ATTACKER KICKED HIM MULTIPLE TIMES, DISPLACING HIS DISK AND SPINE, AND ALSO STABBED HIM SEVERELY IN HIS JUGULAR VEIN.

THIS DOG DID NOT LET GO OF HIM UNTIL HIS FAMILY WAS SAFE.

HE STOPPED BREATHING AND HAD TO GET LIFE SAVING COMPRESSIONS.

BUT HE DID LIVE. A STRAY PIT BULL SAVES A WOMAN AND A CHILD FROM AN ATTACKER IN FLORIDA.

THE MAN CHASED THE DOG, WHO THE LADY HAD NEVER MET.

CHASED OFF A MAN WHO CAME AT HER AND HER SON WITH A KNIFE AFTER LEAVING A PLAYGROUND.

THE FAMILY PIT BULL NAMED PENNY, STAYED WITH AN AUTISTIC CHILD WHO WAS MISSING FOR 36 HOURS IN THE WOODS IN KENTUCKY.

THE DOG NEVER LEFT HER SIDE. A STRAY PIT BULL WHO NOBODY KNEW PROTECTED A TODDLER WHO WAS WALKING DOWN THE STREETS IN SAINT LOUIS ALONE IN HIS PAJAMAS UNTIL HIS PARENTS WERE FOUND.

A TWO YEAR OLD FAMILY PIT BULL NAMED ACE ALERTED A 13 YEAR OLD DEAF CHILD TO A HOUSE FIRE BECAUSE THE CHILD'S COCHLEAR IMPLANT WAS OUT IN INDIANAPOLIS.

FAMILY PIT BULL BROKE OUT OF A HOME AND ROAMED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BARKING LOUDLY WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED.

HE RAN HOME, AND WHEN THE POLICE FOLLOWED HER, THERE WAS A SMELL OF GAS.

SHE SAVED THE FAMILY THAT WAS THERE AT THE TIME. THE PIT BULL HAD NEVER RUN AWAY IN THE 11 YEARS THAT HE LIVED WITH THE FAMILY.

THE POLICE DISCOVERED BLOODY CLAW MARKS ON THE DOOR LEADING OUTSIDE.

[00:55:02]

THE DOG HAD DUG OUT AND OUTSIDE THE FENCE, HURTING ITSELF TO SAVE ITS OWNERS.

DERBY. THE PIT BULL SAVED HIS OWNER FROM A SHARK ATTACK.

THE MAN WAS FISHING AND CAUGHT A SHARK ON HIS HOOK.

WENT TO LET IT GO, AND THE SHARK FELL ON THE GROUND AND BIT INTO HIS ANKLE AND DID NOT LET GO.

HE PUNCTURED HIS ARTERY. HE YELLED TO THE LOCAL FISHERMEN WHO CAME TO HELP, BUT DARBY SAVED HIM FIRST.

HE RAN FROM THE CAR AND BIT THE SHARK IN THE TAIL UNTIL THE SHARK LET GO OF THE MAN.

A PIT BULL NAMED LILLY SAVED HER OWNER, WHO WAS DRUNK, WALKING HOME AND FELL UNCONSCIOUS ON A TRAIN TRACK.

THE DOG PULLED THE 30S OFF THE TRAIN TRACK. THE DOG WAS HIT BY THE TRAIN.

ZEUS, A PIT BULL, SAVED TWO CHILDREN FROM A CORAL SNAKE IN FLORIDA AND DIED.

AND ALSO, ALTHOUGH THIS ONE IS NOT IN THE US.

JENNY, A FAMILY PIT BULL IN INDIA, SAVED HER FAMILY FROM A KING COBRA.

SHE ALSO DIED, BUT THAT WAS THE EIGHTH SNAKE ATTACK THAT JENNY HAD SAVED HER FAMILY FROM DURING HER LIFE.

THANK YOU. BASIL AND HILLARY. AND I'M SORRY I CAN'T MAKE OUT THE LAST NAME.

YES. WE'LL JUST SEND ONE OF US UP. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT VERY MUCH.

I WILL SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE BREED SPECIFIC.

THEY DO GIVE US A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. YOU KNOW, THERE THERE ARE OTHER AGGRESSIVE DOGS.

IT'S GOOD IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL ENFORCE THAT SORT OF THING.

I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME INSURANCE. I DID WANT TO MENTION ONE THING ON THE DNA TEST JUST SO THAT WE CAN ALL GET A PICTURE OF WHAT THAT IS LIKE. I ASKED THE GOOGLE AND THE AI TELLS ME THAT CHIMPANZEES AND HUMANS SHARE 98.8% OF THEIR SAME DNA. SO THAT'S 1.2% FOR HUMANS TO CHIMPANZEES.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOGS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT CHANGES JUST A FEW CHARACTERISTICS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO REALLY NAIL THAT DOWN INTO A PERCENTAGE OR EVEN HAVE ANY ACCURACY, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S NO REGULATIONS ON THAT.

THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WILL ADD IS THAT VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE REMOVAL OF THE BREED SPECIFIC.

BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THE COUNCIL LATER ON EXOTICS AND OTHER THINGS.

BECAUSE OVERALL WE HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS, AND THERE REALLY ARE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH ANYBODY COMPLAINING OR ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF THEIR ANIMALS BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR ANIMALS TO BE SAFE AND WELL TAKEN CARE OF.

THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE NOW OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR TO THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROOKS, YOU HAD EXPRESSED, DID YOU STILL WANT TO SPEAK? SURE. FIRST OFF, I WAS NOT HERE LAST MONTH, SO I DID MISS US COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM LAST MONTH.

SO I DID REACH OUT TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER TODAY, AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF, A LOT OF MY EMAILS HAVE BEEN, WELL, THERE'S SO MANY ANIMALS IN ANIMAL SHELTER THAT GO AND ADOPT IT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THEM ARE PIT BULLS OR PIT BULL MIXES, AND THEY CAN'T BE ADOPTED. SO I DID REACH OUT TODAY, AND THIS WAS AT 1022 THIS MORNING.

AND IN THE IN THE SHELTER THIS MORNING, THERE WERE 21 DOGS.

17 OF THOSE WERE ADULTS AND FIVE ARE PUPPIES.

AND OF THOSE DOGS, ONLY FIVE OF THOSE WERE PIT BULLS OR PIT BULL MIXES.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S I GET ABOUT THE BSL, BUT I HATE WHEN EVERYBODY'S SAYING, WELL, OUR ANIMALS ARE NOT ADOPTABLE. WE DO HAVE ADOPTABLE ANIMALS IN THE SHELTER.

SO THAT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON WHY SOME OF OUR ANIMALS ARE NOT ADOPTABLE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S A MISNOMER. ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS THAT HAS SPOKEN EARLIER HAD EMAILED ME AND WAS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE $500,000 IN LIABILITY INSURANCE.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE ADDRESSED THAT LAST MONTH.

OKAY. THE 500, IT WAS THE ORIGINAL THAT MR. HARMON HAD PROPOSED.

IN SPEAKING WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, NO ONE CAN AFFORD THAT TO DO A $500,000 RIDER.

THAT'S REALLY UNHEARD OF. MOST THAT ARE REQUIRED IS ABOUT 100,000.

CABOT CURRENTLY HAS THEIRS AT 300,000. IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL RIDER ON YOUR HOMEOWNER POLICY.

BUT THE QUESTION ALSO TURNS INTO WHAT ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE RENTERS?

[01:00:05]

BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT UNLESS THEY HAVE RENTAL INSURANCE, THEY'D HAVE TO DO AN ADDITIONAL RIDER ON TOP OF THAT.

OKAY. AND I DO APPRECIATE BOTH OF YOU LADIES FOR YOUR YOUR HARD WORK.

I KNOW MEREDITH. YOU'VE DONE A LION'S SHARE OF IT, AND I APPRECIATE IT.

SO I HAVE BEEN READING THROUGH ALL THIS. I DID HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON HERE ON.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PIT BULL. YOU KNOW, AS MR. HICKS JUST STATED, THERE'S A LOT OF WE'RE WE SEEM TO BE FOCUSED SO MUCH ON THE PIT BULL, THE BSL THERE.

THIS DOCUMENT IS LONG. THERE'S 31 PAGES IN HERE AND ALL WE SEE.

YEAH THERE WE SEEM TO BE FOCUSED ON ONE THING THE BSL.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS ON HERE. LIKE MANDATORY REGISTRATIONS OF DOGS AND CATS AND LICENSES FEES ON PAGE FIVE. SERVICE ANIMALS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY A PET FEE. WHY? THAT'S A QUESTION. I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHY? WHY SHOULD SERVICE ANIMALS NOT PAY A PET FEE WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE DOES? I MEAN, THERE'S JUST DIFFERENT QUESTIONS I HAVE.

I MEAN, BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.

I KNOW, THAT'S WHY ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT STOOD UP HERE TONIGHT, THAT'S NOT WHY YOU'RE HERE.

YOU'RE NOT HERE ABOUT ALL THAT STUFF. YOU'RE HERE ABOUT THE BSL, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT ANYWAY LIKE I SAID, THIS IS 31 PAGES LONG AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT TO IT, SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY QUESTIONS I'D JUST WRITTEN PINNED IN HERE TODAY.

JUST LOOKING THROUGH HERE. BUT ANYWAY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CAPTAIN, CAN YOU PLEASE COME UP? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST. AND THEN SHE COULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. SO ONE QUESTION IS HOW MANY ANIMALS? HOW MANY DOGS DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE AT THE SHELTER? BECAUSE CAPTAIN OR CHRIS CLARK WASN'T THERE TODAY.

EXCUSE ME. CORRECT. WHEN I CHECKED PRIOR TO THE MEETING, I BELIEVE WE HAD A TOTAL OF 25, 25 DOGS.

OKAY. CAN YOU SHE HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SERVICE ANIMALS AND WHY THE FEE? HOW MANY DOGS CAN WE HOLD AT THE SHELTER? THAT RANGES.

AND I SAY IT RANGES BECAUSE IF WE HAVE PUPPIES OR IF WE HAVE ANIMALS THAT COME IN TOGETHER AND IT'S SAFE TO HOUSE THEM, THEY WILL HOLD ONE KENNEL SPACE. SO THAT INCREASES OUR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO HOUSE ADDITIONAL ANIMALS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

24 TO 27 IS WHAT I WOULD SAY SAFELY. SO WE'RE AT OUR BASICALLY WE'RE RIGHT NOW AT OUR CAPACITY.

YES. OKAY. WITH SEVERAL OF THOSE BEING PUPPIES TO GO BACK TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT SERVICE DOGS.

SO GENERALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS FEES ARE WAIVED AND THAT GOES INTO A LOT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION.

SO IF THAT PERSON IS TRYING TO GET HOUSING, THE PET DEPOSIT IS WAIVED.

AND SO IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE GRANTED ANY ADDITIONAL OR SPECIAL ATTENTION OR CLEARANCE AS FAR AS THAT GOES.

BUT IT'S, IT'S AGAIN, IN LOOKING WHAT THAT ANIMAL IS, IS MEANT TO BE FOR THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST A PET, THEY'RE THERE FOR THE SERVICE OF THAT PERSON.

OKAY. YES. THERE'S THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS. BUT LIKE I SAID, I KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT HERE FOR ALL THAT.

SO WE'RE HERE FOR THE BSL. SO THANK YOU, LADIES FOR YOUR WORK.

AND I'M SURE THAT THERE'S FOUR OTHER INDIVIDUALS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM THAT HAVE QUESTIONS.

AND I APPRECIATE THE AUDIENCE MEMBERS WHO SPOKE THIS EVENING.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. IF IF. CHIEF HAGER, DO YOU MIND THAT? I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I AM, BUT I AM.

THAT'S TRUE. IS IS IT FAIR TO SAY CURRENTLY THE WAY THE THE BREED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS THAT THAT WAS ADOPTED? YOU KNOW, X NUMBER OF YEARS AGO? WAS IT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IT'S IT'S HARD TO ENFORCE? YES. SO I'M GLAD YOU ASKED ME THAT QUESTION. AND LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING, BECAUSE I STUCK MY FOOT IN MY MOUTH A FEW MONTHS AGO AND I, I WAS INFORMED OF THAT WHEN I, I USED THE TERM UNENFORCEABLE.

SO LET ME LET ME KIND OF CLARIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, A PET, AN ANIMAL IS PROPERTY.

IT'S NOT A PERSON, IT'S PROPERTY. SO PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ON SEIZURE.

[01:05:03]

WE CAN'T JUST WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT THAT DOG IS.

AND SO IT'S A TRICKY SITUATION FOR US. YOU SAY PITBULL, SHE SAYS TERRIER.

SO IT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO GO AND JUST SEIZE A DOG.

WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE HAVE TO HAVE PROOF THAT IT IS TO TAKE IT.

SO. AND THAT THAT REQUIRES A JUDGE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

A JUDGE IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT RULING.

SO IT'S A WHEN I SAY I USE THE WORD UNENFORCEABLE, IT'S NOT UNENFORCEABLE.

IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE PROOF TO DO THAT.

SO I LIKE IT A LITTLE BIT TO THE FIREWORKS, THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED AS FAR AS WHO HAS THEM.

CORRECT. YES, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND QUESTION.

IF THIS BRIEF SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. LANGUAGE WAS TAKEN AWAY.

DONE AWAY WITH AS WHAT'S PROPOSED. YOU'RE STILL IN THE SAME BOAT OF IT BEING VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE.

CORRECT? IF YOU IF YOU TALK ABOUT BY BREED, YES, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT.

THAT WAS THE REASON WHY OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MOVE TO SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE.

ACTION ORIENTED. IF IF A IF AN ANIMAL HAD SHOWN AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ACT UPON THAT IT WOULD GIVE US THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. BUT JUST TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS DOG IS PITBULL, THIS DOG IS TERRIER, THIS DOG IS ROTTWEILER, THIS DOG IS DOBERMAN.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M NOT A I'M NOT A DOG EXPERT.

I CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING AT IT WHAT IT IS. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS.

WE HAVE PEOPLE TELL US ALL THE TIME THAT IT WAS A PITBULL.

SOMETIMES IT WAS, SOMETIMES IT WASN'T. SO IT JUST IT JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT.

AND SO GOING BACK TO THE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, IT BEING PROPERTY, THE SAME THING WOULD ENTAIL IF SOMEONE'S WALKING DOWN THE STREET OR YOU SAW SOMEONE WITH OR AN OFFICER SAW SOMEONE WITH, WITH A DOG THAT MAY PRESUMABLY LOOK TO BE A SPECIFIC BREED, UNLESS THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE, THERE'S NO REASON YOU CAN'T ASK FOR REGISTRATION AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS. CORRECT? CORRECT.

THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. YEP. CAN I I'M SORRY.

LET ME JUST ASK ONE QUESTION ON ON THAT BECAUSE I MEANT TO ASK JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION ON SECTION 22.

NUMBER TWO. WHAT PAGE? I'M SORRY. IT'S PAGE 24.

BECAUSE UNDER THERE IT SAYS DEFINITION OF A PIT BULL.

AND THAT WAS ONE QUESTION. OTHER QUESTION I WANT TO ASK. AND SINCE YOU'RE UP THERE, CHIEF, CHIEF, COULD YOU PLEASE COME BACK OR WHAT? OR YOU OR CAPTAIN HARTMAN.

ONE OF YOU. IT IT SAYS DEFINITION OF A PITBULL.

AND IT DOES SAY IT ALSO INCLUDES I UNDERLINED THIS ANY DOG WITH A GENERAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF ANY OF THESE BREEDS, YOU KNOW. AND SO THAT KIND OF GOES TO THAT SAME QUESTION, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ANY THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS, BECAUSE IT GOES TO HIS DEFINITION OF PITBULL.

THE TERM PITBULL INCLUDES AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER, AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER, AMERICAN BULLY, STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER, STANDARD AMERICAN BULLY, AND AMERICAN BULLY XL.

IT ALSO INCLUDES ANY DOG WITH THE GENERAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY OF THESE BREEDS, WHICH AGAIN, I GUESS TO PIGGYBACK OFF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WADE WAS SAYING, IS THAT IF ONE OF YOUR OFFICERS SEES SOMEONE, SOMEONE WALKING A DOG DOWN THE STREET, SO THEY CAN'T.

IF THEY SEE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A PIT BULL BECAUSE IT HAS THAT GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC, THEN WHAT WOULD THEY DO? THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, I DON'T THE IT'S A THAT'S THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE THAT IS THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, TO ME THAT WOULD BE PARAMOUNT TO IF, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING I MEAN, WE COULD INQUIRE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO INQUIRE IF THEY TELL US THAT IT'S A PIT BULL.

WHAT IF THEY DON'T LIVE HERE, YOU KNOW, SO THE THAT IT WOULD JUST REQUIRE SOME INVESTIGATION, BUT TO JUST TAKE THE TO IF YOUR QUESTION IS CAN WE JUST SEIZE THE ANIMAL.

THE ANSWER IS NO, WE CANNOT. I APOLOGIZE, COUNCIL MEMBER BRODERICK.

BUT THAT JUST CAME TO ME, RIGHT? AND I FORGOT TO ASK THAT QUESTION.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. YES, MA'AM. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD ALLOW IF THIS PASSED US TO ENFORCE THE STEPS THAT ARE IN

[01:10:06]

HERE? I MEAN, IF IF YOU SAID THAT LOOKS LIKE A PIT BULL AND I SAID IT'S NOT.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT AN OFFICER COULD DO TO ENFORCE THAT? IT WAS MICROCHIP THAT THEY DID HAVE THE LIABILITY INSURANCE.

ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE OR IT'S JUST WE'RE RIGHT BACK TO IT'S IT'S, YOU KNOW, HONESTY. TO ME, THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH WITH BREED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.

AND, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THAT, IT'S JUST DIFFICULT FOR US TO SAY IT IS A PIT BULL.

NOW, IF YOU TELL ME IT IS, YEAH, THEN WE CAN.

BUT IF IF I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, I WOULD HAVE TO.

I CAN'T GO IN AND SEIZE THE ANIMAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE TELLING ME I CAN SEIZE THE ANIMAL.

CAN YOU ASK ME TO SHOW? I MEAN, SO YOU CAN'T ASK ME TO SHOW YOU THE REGISTRATION OR THE MICROCHIPPING OR THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENT? I CAN, IF I CAN PROVE WHAT IT IS. BUT AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO WHAT I SAID A WHILE AGO.

IT'S PROPERTY. AND AND THIS IS CRAZY AS THIS MAY SOUND, THIS IS JUST THE WAY THE LAW WORKS.

IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO PROVE IT'S NOT.

IT'S MY JOB TO PROVE IT IS. IF I WANT TO SEIZE THAT ANIMAL.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO RUN THROUGH AN INVESTIGATION.

AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD GET A JUDGE IF WE HAD.

IF WE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE, WE COULD GET A JUDGE TO ORDER DNA TESTING, WHICH WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.

I DON'T I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON DNA TESTING ON DOGS, BUT THE BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF LEGAL RECOURSE TO DO THAT.

IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST GOING UP AND SAYING.

YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, MY MY PARTICULAR OPINION IS THAT IF IT'S.

SOMETHING THAT'S ACTION BASED IF, IF, IF A DOG ATTACKS A PERSON, ANOTHER DOG AND IT'S DEEMED TO BE VICIOUS, IT'S DEEMED TO BE DANGEROUS, THEN WE CAN ENFORCE THOSE RULES ON THAT DOG.

DOES THAT DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO YOU'RE SAYING VERY SPECIFIC.

THAT'S OUT OF THE PICTURE. THEN IT'S BASICALLY WOULD JUST BE THE CHARACTERISTICS, WHETHER IT'S A SCHNAUZER TO A PITBULL OR WHATEVER IT IS.

IT'S ALL BASED ON THE VIOLENT ACTION OR, OR VICIOUS VICIOUSNESS OF NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF DOG IT IS.

CORRECT? CORRECT, CORRECT. AND THAT'S DOES THAT STILL HAVE TO BE SOMETHING AN OFFICER SEES, LIKE IN OTHER SITUATIONS? NOT NECESSARILY. WE JUST HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THAT IT HAPPENED.

AND THEN WE CAN WE CAN TAKE THE INVESTIGATION FURTHER.

AND THEN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IF THERE WAS IF WE HAVE IF WE HAVE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES SAYING THAT IF, IF A, IF A DOG ATTACKS ANOTHER DOG, IF A DOG ATTACKS A PERSON, THAT WE CAN THEN PUT THESE MEASURES IN PLACE ON THAT DOG IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE DOG IN THE CITY. BUT TO SAY THAT I JUST THINK IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BREED SPECIFIC BECAUSE IT'S TOO HARD TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I SEE DOGS, YOU KNOW, ALL THE TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU I'M NOT A I'M NOT A DOG EXPERT BY ANY MEANS. SO TO ME, YOU KNOW, ANY DOG THAT IS THAT HAS THE APPEARANCE OF BEING A PIT BULL COULD BE A PIT BULL. I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT MAY NOT BE EITHER.

SO IT'S JUST A DIFFICULTY. IT BECOMES A JUDGMENT CALL ON OUR PEOPLE THAT THAT'S REALLY WITHOUT PROOF.

AND IT'S GOING TO BECOME MY WORD AGAINST YOURS.

AND THEN. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE JUDGE MAKES THAT DECISION, NOT US.

SO. SO I'LL TELL YOU, THE ONE THING I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS I'M SITTING HERE LISTENING TO ALL THIS.

WE ALL WE'VE HEARD THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ENFORCING WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE FIREWORK BAN AND ALL THAT.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KIND OF CONCERNS ME IS IF WE DO PUT THIS IN PLACE, YOU AND THE OFFICERS HAVING BEING ABLE TO ENFORCE WHAT WE DO HAVE, BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, WHAT YOU SAID, IF NOBODY IF Y'ALL DON'T WITNESS THE DOG BEING AGGRESSIVE, IF IT'S IF SOMEBODY CALLS AND SAYS, MY NEIGHBOR'S DOG WAS AGGRESSIVE AND Y'ALL DON'T WITNESS IT, CAN Y'ALL TAKE ACTION ON THAT? IF IT DIDN'T BITE ANYBODY? IT'S JUST I SAY MY NEIGHBOR'S DOG CAME AT ME IN MY YARD.

CAN I CALL THAT IN? AND Y'ALL COME AND DO AN INVESTIGATION, OR DO Y'ALL HAVE TO WITNESS IT? WELL, IT'S SIMILAR TO IF IF IF YOU SAY YOUR NEIGHBOR WAS AGGRESSIVE TO YOU, IF I DIDN'T WITNESS IT, THEN I CAN TAKE A REPORT AND I CAN INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE JUDGE MAKES THE DECISION, YOU KNOW, ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT THAT PERSON.

[01:15:05]

IT WOULD BE THE SAME. WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE. WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO TAKE THE INFORMATION AND WE WOULD HAVE TO INVESTIGATE IT.

BUT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, TO JUST I GUESS THE QUICK ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS WE WOULD WE WOULD INITIATE A REPORT AND WE WOULD INVESTIGATE IT IF THERE WAS, IF THERE WAS ENOUGH INFORMATION TO GO OFF OF, BUT TO TAKE THE TO TAKE THE ANT TO SEIZE THE ANIMAL.

NO. SO YOU JUST. SO THIS IS WHERE I'M STRUGGLING.

WHAT YOU JUST SAID. ME TOO. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEONE.

DOG GOT INTO THEIR YARD. PITBULL GOT INTO THEIR YARD.

THEY THE THE NEIGHBOR CAME BACK AND GOT THE DOG A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER.

YOU KNOW, THE DOG CAME IN BARKING AT HIM OR WHATEVER.

A COUPLE DAYS LATER, THE DOG GOT BACK INTO THE YARD AND KILLED HER DOG.

SO HERE THE DOG CAME AGGRESSIVELY AT THE OWNER.

THEY IT WENT BACK TO ITS WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.

THEN A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, IT CAME AND ACTUALLY KILLED THE DOG.

SO THAT'S. YOU SEE WHERE I'M STRUGGLING. WHAT? WHAT IF THAT'S A KID THERE? IT CAME THE ONE DAY AND DID NOTHING, BUT THEN CAME BACK A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER AND GOT A KID.

THAT'S WHERE I'M STRUGGLING. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS A IF IF WE IDENTIFY WHAT IS AGGRESSIVE. YEAH. THAT'S TO ME THAT'S THE KEY.

BECAUSE WHAT WHAT IF IT'S A WHAT IF IT'S A LABRADOR THAT DOES THAT.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT'S THE SAME SITUATION. YOU KNOW, AND IT'S JUST THAT'S WHY I SAY FOR US, IT WOULD BE EASIER IF IT WAS AN ACTION BASED, YOU KNOW, LAW.

IT'S JUST TOO HARD TO IT'S IT'S IT'S TOO HARD TO DETERMINE BASED SOLELY ON IF YOU SAY, WELL, BECAUSE THIS DOG GOT IN MY YARD AND IT WAS IT WAS A PIT BULL.

THE DOG SHOULD BE REMOVED. IF THE DOG WAS A LABRADOR, WOULD WE REMOVE IT? YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THIS, THIS LANGUAGE WOULD LET WOULD LET YOU DO IT IF IT WAS A LABRADOR? THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YES. AND THAT THE SECOND TIME, THOUGH, NOT THE FIRST TIME.

IS THAT RIGHT? IF THE DOG, NO MATTER WHAT BREED, THE DOG, WOULD HAVE TO DO DAMAGE.

DO I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT? LET ME. I'M GOING TO DEFER TO HER.

SHE'S THE. SHE'S MORE THE ANIMAL EXPERT ON THE ANIMAL CONTROL SIDE THAN ME.

SO LET ME CLARIFY. WHAT WHAT I THINK THAT YOU'RE ASKING.

WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS THERE HAS TO BE AN ACTION.

A WRONGFUL ACTION BY AN ANIMAL BEFORE WE LOOK TO TAKE ACTION.

IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, LIKE IN IN THIS EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A WRONGFUL ACTION AGAINST WHOEVER THIS THAT GOT THAT CALLED SHELBY.

SO THERE WAS A FIRST WRONGFUL ACTION. YES. BUT NOTHING NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT SOMETHING WAS DONE.

SO WE DID RESPOND TO THAT. I KNOW, I KNOW SPECIFICALLY THE INCIDENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT IT IT HAPPENED RECENTLY. YES. SO THERE'S CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THAT, RIGHT. BUT WE RESPONDED, WHEN WE RESPOND TO SOMETHING, LET'S SAY IT'S AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL.

AN ANIMAL THAT MAY BE APPROACHING SOMEONE IN AN AGGRESSIVE MANNER, BARKING, LUNGING.

BUT THERE'S NO PUNITIVE ACTION. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MAKE PHYSICAL CONTACT OR BITE ANYONE.

RIGHT? WE CAN STILL TAKE ACTION. WE DO AN INVESTIGATION, WE GO OUT AND MAKE CONTACT.

WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING, WE GET STATEMENTS, AND THEN THERE MAY BE A CITATION ISSUED THAT IS THE ACTION ON OUR PART.

AND THEN WHAT THE CHIEF IS SAYING IS THAT HAS TO GO TO COURT.

EVERYBODY COMES, THEY TESTIFY THEIR PART, AND THEN THE JUDGE MAKES THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE CONSENSUS IS OR WHAT WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT ANIMAL.

IS IT DEEMED VICIOUS? IS THAT IT? IF IT IS. DOES IT HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CITY? DO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO HAPPEN WITH THAT ANIMAL? SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THINGS SIT NOW, IS THAT IT GOES THROUGH THE COURT PROCESS WITH THIS AMENDMENT.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THAT WE MOVE THAT OUT OF THE COURT, AND THEN WE HAVE A DIFFERENT PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOW TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A HEARING SO THAT WE CAN GET IT THROUGH WITHOUT TAKING MONTHS OF TIME, SOMETIMES BECAUSE OF STAYS OR DELAYS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE. GO AHEAD. YEAH. THANK YOU ALL FOR STAYING UP HERE.

I HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION WITH WITH MR. CLARK LAST WEEK AND TALKED TO HIM IN GREAT DETAIL ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS.

AND FIRST OFF, I THINK SOME OF THE NEW PIECES ARE VERY GOOD BECAUSE LANGUAGE WE DON'T HAVE IN EXISTING.

I THINK SOME OF THAT'S GOOD. BUT WE SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A LITTLE BIT WHAT YOU TWO HAVE JUST MENTIONED, AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN EACH OTHER TO TALK ABOUT. BUT IN LOOKING AT THE NEW PROPOSAL.

YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW OUR LANGUAGE IS BSL. IT'S A BSL LANGUAGE.

AND WITH THE NEW ONE, WE HAVE TEN NEW THINGS THAT HAVE TO OCCUR BY THE TIME YOU DO INSURANCE, REGISTRATION, THE PHOTO, THE MUZZLE, THE IMPOUND IF A WARRANT IS NEEDED, THE MICROCHIPPING KENNEL, A SIGN OF THE YARD AND INSPECTED EVERY YEAR. I THINK IT'S NINE OR SO OF THEM.

AND MY QUESTION TO CHRIS, I SAID WE HAVE ONE ORDINANCE NOW.

[01:20:04]

IT SAYS NOT ALLOWED AND WE'RE NOT HAVING THAT ALL HAPPEN.

AND NOW YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE INSURANCE, THE REGISTRATION, THE PHOTOS, THE MUZZLES.

I SAID, NOW YOU'VE GOT NINE MORE AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER TO DO THIS.

AND SO YOU'VE MULTIPLIED IT. HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW OUR RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE SAFER IF, WITH THIS SITUATION, IF ALL OF THESE THINGS AREN'T BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAY, IF THAT'S THE LAW, THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE BEEN DONE. YOU'RE GOING TO BE CHECKING OFF THIS LIST AND AND MAKING SURE IT HAPPENS, BUT IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT'S HARD TO SAY I'M NOT DOING THIS ONE, BUT I CAN'T DO I'M GOING TO, BUT I CAN DO NINE. THAT'S THE PART THAT'S HARD TO SWALLOW.

YES, MA'AM. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO CURRENTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH A LOT OF THAT LANGUAGE.

SO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ANIMAL THAT'S DEEMED VICIOUS IN OUR UNDER OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, MOST OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE WITH THE KENNEL, WITH IT BEING BURIED 12IN BENEATH THE GROUND.

IT HAS TO BE A FULLY ENCLOSED KENNEL. THEN ALSO WITH THE FENCE, IF IT'S OUT OF THE OUT OF THE KENNEL BEING WALKED, IT HAS TO BE MUZZLED THE LEASH. WE STILL HAVE TO COME AND CHECK ALL OF THAT.

AND THEN WHILE THAT'S GOING ON, THE CASE STAYS OPEN WITH THE COURTS FOR REVIEW.

OKAY. IF THERE'S A VIOLATION, WE GO BACK TO COURT.

THAT AGAIN MAY TAKE WEEKS AND OR MONTHS. IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE PROCESS.

SO WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE FACTORS IN PLACE. THOSE ARE BEING DONE.

ALL OF THAT IS BEING PAID ATTENTION TO NOW, AS FAR AS UNDERSTAFFING, I MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WE DON'T HAVE THE STAFF TO ENFORCE THAT? I MEAN, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SOME PEOPLE IN TRAINING. YOU DON'T HAVE ALL OF YOUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS READY TO GO. YES. SO WE WE CURRENTLY HAVE WE HAVE TWO VACANCIES.

WE HAVE ONE THAT'S FULL TIME, ONE THAT'S PART TIME. BUT WE HAVE THE PERSONNEL ON STAFF TO BE ABLE TO GO AND DO THOSE CHECKS AND, AND THOSE HAPPEN. SO AND THAT'S IF THE ANIMAL STAYS HERE IN SHERWOOD, WE DON'T HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN DEEMED VICIOUS THAT ACTUALLY STILL REMAIN IN THE CITY LIMITS OF SHERWOOD. USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY ARE DISPLACED AND YOU HAVE 15 DAYS OR TEN DAYS TO REHOME.

OR THE JUDGE MAY SAY YOU HAVE TO REHOME THAT ANIMAL TODAY BY 4 P.M..

SO OKAY. AND THE OTHER QUESTION I ASKED HIM, WHICH I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER, AND I KNOW HE'S OUT SICK TODAY BECAUSE BECAUSE HE WAS LOOKING AT I ASKED HIM HOW MANY BECAUSE SINCE WE, HE JUST STARTED JANUARY 24TH.

HOW MANY PIT BULLS HAVE WE HAVE I BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY AND HE SAID 38.

SINCE UNDER SECTION 19. SINCE JANUARY 24TH. AND HE SHARED WITH ME THAT THERE WERE THREE.

HOPE I SAY THESE RIGHT. SO YOU HELP ME HERE. THAT THERE WERE THREE CONSEQUENCES.

ONE IS THAT THE OWNER COULD MOVE OUT OF THE CITY AND TAKE THE DOG WITH THEM. CORRECT.

SECOND IS THAT THE THEY COULD REHOUSE THE DOG OUTSIDE THE CITY? YES. OR THEY COULD RELINQUISH THE ANIMAL. THOSE WERE THE THREE.

SO MY QUESTION WAS, OF THOSE 38 THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST 14 MONTHS, WHAT WERE THE WHAT HAPPENED? OF THOSE THREE CHOICES. AND HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT ANSWER.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF MAYBE YOU MIGHT KNOW WHAT THAT ANSWER WAS. SO I DON'T HAVE STATISTICS FOR ALL 38 CIRCUMSTANCES.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF CASES THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH PERSONALLY.

SO FOR 38 DOGS, DO YOU MEAN THAT'S 38 INSTANCES WHERE WE'VE TAKEN ACTION AND WE'VE CITED BECAUSE OF A COMPLAINT? HE SAID THERE HAVE BEEN 38 CITATIONS UNDER SECTION 19 SEEN SINCE JANUARY 24TH, I WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE DATA, RIGHT? BECAUSE DO WE HAVE ONE PERSON THAT HAS MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS? DO THEY HAVE MULTIPLE DOGS? SO IS IT TWO FOR ONE PERSON? IS IT 38 PEOPLE 38 OWNERS.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO NARROW DOWN.

BUT SO NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENED IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

RIGHT. SO IF WE HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL JUST TO GIVE YOU FOR INSTANCE THIS IS NOT A CATCH ALL OR WE DO THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME.

AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL IDENTIFY AS A PIT BULL THAT RIGHT NOW UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT PERSON HAS THE OPTION.

IF THEY RECEIVE A CITATION FOR VIOLATION OF 19, THEN THEY CAN TAKE THAT.

THEY HAVE A FORM, TAKE IT TO TWO DIFFERENT VETS.

INDEPENDENT VETS HAVE IT IDENTIFIED AS ANOTHER BREED OKAY.

OR A MIX THAT IS NOT MAINLY PIT. THAT ANIMAL STAYS THAT SIZE FOR CLASSIFICATION STAYS.

SO IF THEY'RE NOT HAVE TO AGREE ON THAT. TWO INDEPENDENT BETS.

YES MA'AM. YEAH. AND SO IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT THEN THAT'S WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

AGAIN. THAT DEPENDS. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT INJURY. INJURY TO ANOTHER ANIMAL. INJURY TO A PERSON? ABSOLUTELY. BUT SO WE LOOK AT THAT AND WE SAY OKAY, SO YOU AGREE IT IS A PIT BULL OR IT IS AN AMERICAN BULLDOG OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

IT'S NOT AN ALLOWABLE BREED IN OUR CITY. HERE'S YOUR OPTIONS.

YOU MOVE WITH THE ANIMAL. THAT'S EXPENSIVE RIGHT? AND NOT A VERY FAST REMEDY. YOU RELOCATE THAT DOG.

THAT'S GENERALLY THE CHOICE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE TEND TO CHOOSE.

AND THEN WE FOLLOW UP. WE RELEASE THAT ANIMAL TO THE PERSON THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE COMING AND TAKING OWNERSHIP.

WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE UP TO DATE ON VACCINATIONS AND STERILIZATIONS, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO BEEN DEEMED NECESSARY. SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON EACH

[01:25:04]

INSTANCE OR CIRCUMSTANCE THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SITUATION.

OKAY. AND THE OTHER THING I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, AND I DON'T THINK I GOT IT ANSWERED WHEN I ASKED IT THE OTHER DAY UNDER THIS VICIOUS DOG, UNDER SECTION 21 ON PAGE 22. YOU HAVE TO ATTACK.

IT HAS TO ATTACK A PERSON TWICE. BUT IF YOU ATTACK ANOTHER ANIMAL, YOU ONLY HAVE TO ATTACK ANOTHER ANIMAL ONE TIME.

THE AMENDMENT CHANGES THAT. OKAY. THAT'S NOT IT'S NOT CHANGED IN OUR VERSION TODAY.

KEN, JUST FOR A SECOND, JUST PROCEDURALLY, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE.

YOU'VE GOT CHARLIE'S AMENDMENT. I'M SORRY. CHARLIE'S PROPOSED ORDINANCE, WHICH YOU HAVE AMENDED WITH RESPECT TO THE MICROCHIPPING.

IT'S BEEN READ A SECOND TIME. YOU ALSO HAVE ON THE TABLE MEREDITH'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.

THERE WILL NEED TO BE A MOTION TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT TO ADOPT MEREDITH'S AMENDMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED LAST MONTH, AND THEN THAT WILL BECOME THE ORDINANCE THAT'S ON THE TABLE FOR CONSIDERATION ABOUT.

WE'LL HAVE TO READ IT AGAIN. WE'LL HAVE TO START OVER. BUT YOU CAN WAIVE THE ONE THAT GOT PUT IN THE PACKET TODAY.

BUT IT'S WRONG. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK WE GOT THAT.

DID YOU. IS IT LAST MONTH. AND I EMAILED IT OUT.

OKAY. REAL QUICK I MEAN I HAVE A COPY. YOU NEED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT.

NO, IT'S NOT SO. YES. OKAY. YES. IT'S NOT I GOT I MEAN, I HAVE YOURS HERE.

YES. SO ON THE HIGHLIGHTED ON PAGE 22 THAT WAS CHANGED TO ONE BUT DIDN'T GET CHANGED IN THE ONE THAT CAME BACK OUT TODAY.

WELL THAT'S BECAUSE YOU GUYS DIDN'T YOU DIDN'T GET VOTED ON. I ADOPTED IT, RIGHT.

YEAH. CAPTAIN, I HAVE A, WELL COMMENT AND A QUESTION.

I GUESS THE COMMENT WOULD BE, FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT.

NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL BY LOOKS. AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY DOES THIS, BUT IT'S A VERY FAULTY PROCESS.

AND MAYBE YOU LOOK AT IT AS A VERY EASY PROCESS TO GET TWO VETS TO SAY, THIS IS NOT A FULL PIT AND BE ABLE TO KEEP IT IN THE CITY.

I MEAN, YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THAT THE INSTANCES, BUT I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THAT HAPPENED.

AND THEN THE THE THE ANIMAL ENDED UP STAYING ANYWAY.

SO I WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE, THOSE 38 VIOLATIONS BEFORE I CAN SAY, OH SURE, I KNOW OF SEVERAL WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY DONE IT.

THEY'VE DONE THE CHALLENGE, THEY'VE GONE AND GOTTEN THE DOCUMENTATION. WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION IN PLACE. SO IT'S NOT DEEMED A PIT BULL, RIGHT? YOU SAID YOU HAD A QUESTION. THE QUESTION WAS MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU EARLIER.

YOU WERE MAKING A COMMENT ABOUT IF THIS PROPOSED GETS PASSES, IT WOULD CHANGE THE PROCESS, A QUICKER PROCESS THAN GOING THROUGH COURT OR DID I? CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. CORRECT. SO IT WOULD MOVE.

IT WOULD MOVE THE CLASSIFICATION OF AN ANIMAL BEING DEEMED VICIOUS, AGGRESSIVE, DANGEROUS, WHATEVER VERBIAGE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT GIVEN SITUATION.

IT DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COURT PROCESS.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NOT CHARGES PUT AGAINST THAT PERSON AND OR ANIMAL.

RIGHT. OR EXCUSE ME, ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS. SO THAT STILL STANDS.

HOWEVER, THEM BEING CLASSIFIED AS AGGRESSIVE DANGEROUS, VICIOUS.

THAT TAKES A DIFFERENT ROUTE. THERE IS A HEARING SEPARATE FROM THAT.

SO THINK THINK OF IF SOMEONE GETS CHARGED WITH DWI THEY STILL HAVE COURT FOR THAT CHARGE.

THEY ALSO HAVE A HEARING THROUGH DRIVING CONTROL FOR THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE.

SAME. DIFFERENT. DOES THAT MAKE IT MAKES SENSE.

BUT. BUT IN THAT INSTANCE, UNTIL THE ACTUAL COURT HAS DECIDED THEIR KEEP, THEY KEEP POSSESSION OF THE DOG.

NO, NO NOT NECESSARILY. NO. BECAUSE IT CAN BE DEEMED AGGRESSIVE OR VICIOUS OR DANGEROUS.

IF IT'S DEEMED, IT CAN BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY OR IN THEORY.

WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN PUT THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE AND THEN WE PRESENT OPTIONS.

SO YOU EITHER MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS OR THESE ARE GOING TO BE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOU CHOOSING NOT TO.

SO THE BIGGEST THING WE JUST WANT TO GET PEOPLE ON BOARD WITH THE ORDINANCE AND TO GET THEM IN COMPLIANCE WITH IT, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, WHETHER IT'S CITY LICENSURE, WHETHER IT'S THE RABIES VACCINATION.

AND THAT'S ALL THIS IS GEARED TOWARDS. MY THOUGHT PROCESS GOING BACK TO, I THINK THAT THE THE EXAMPLE THAT COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS SHARED, IF THERE WAS AN INSTANCE WHERE SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT IT COULD BE MOVED QUICKLY BEFORE AN AGGRESSIVE OR MAYBE IN THAT INSTANCE, IN THAT INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, THE DOG GOT WHAT, IN SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD. THE NEXT INSTANCE WAS IT KILLED THE DOG.

YOU KNOW, HAD THAT BEEN A CHILD OR HAD THAT BEEN SOMETHING FOR THAT TO BE A FASTER PROCESS? THE FIRST TIME IT WAS CALLED IN, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD BE, TO AN EXTENT, SOMEWHAT FASTER? YES, SIR.

I HAVE SOME THAT I WANT TO. I'M SORRY. CAN WE GO OVER THE THE CHANGES REAL QUICK.

AND THAT MIGHT CLEAR UP SOME OF THESE OTHER QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND AS I GO THROUGH THESE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT AS WE HAVE ALREADY STATED,

[01:30:03]

THIS IS A VERY LONG ORDINANCE AND THERE IS STILL OUTSIDE OF THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION, THERE IS STILL MUCH THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

OKAY. IT'S JUST IT'S OUTDATED. IT'S. BUT RIGHT NOW, MY FOCUS IS JUST THIS.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO ABOUT PAGE NUMBER. I WILL GO BY PAGE NUMBERS.

YES AND YES. ON PAGE 11, UNDERNEATH RELINQUISHMENT.

BY THE HARNESS. NO. BACK UP, I APOLOGIZE. THREE.

FOUR. FIVE. YES. UNDER SECTION TWO, NUMBER FIVE ON PAGE FIVE.

I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS HARNESS HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY LISTED AS A HALTER.

HALTER IS WHAT YOU USE ON HORSES. HARNESSES IS WHAT YOU USE ON DOGS.

SO I CHANGED ALL OF THOSE TO HARNESSES. OKAY.

THEN MOVING OVER TO PAGE 11. THIS IS UNDER RELINQUISHMENT.

MEANT ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS TALK SO THEY KNOW KIND OF WHICH ANIMALS ARE IN AND OUT OF EACH SHELTER.

SO WE ADDED IN A FRAUDULENT RELINQUISHING OF AN ANIMAL IN THERE.

SO IF SOMEONE KNOWINGLY PUTS UP FALSE INFORMATION ON THE RELINQUISHING FORM, THEY COULD BE IMPOSED A $500 FINE.

AND THEN. OVER TO PAGE 15. UNDER THIS IS ONE OF THOSE LONG SECTIONS. ANIMAL CARE AND CRUELTY. NUMBERS 13 AND 14 WERE STRICT. AND THAT WAS. AT MR. COBB'S REQUEST. THE THE LANGUAGE BEFORE THAT IS FOLLOWS THE STATUTE IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN IN WITH CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

THE 13 AND 14 WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD ADDED FROM SOME OTHER ORDINANCE SOMEPLACE ELSE, AND IT IS NOT PART OF THE STATUTE.

SO I FELT IT PRUDENT TO TAKE THAT OUT. SO JUST STRIKE THAT ON YOUR NOTES.

LET ME JUST LET ME VERIFY ONE OTHER THING. AND I CAN GO AHEAD AND MENTION THIS.

THIS WAS NOT IN YOUR HIGHLIGHTED PACKET. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT UNDERNEATH EXOTIC ANIMALS THAT THERE'S $100,000 INSURANCE POLICY ATTACHED TO THAT. THAT THAT WHOLE POLICY FOR EXOTIC ANIMALS NEEDS TO REALLY BE LOOKED AT.

BUT THAT'S NOT A FOCUS FOR RIGHT NOW. OKAY. ON PAGE 18 SECTION 14, 1919. UNDERNEATH THERE. THE AGGRESSIVE DOGS SECTION WAS KEPT. IT WAS UPDATED.

I PERSONALLY DO NOT LIKE BREED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AT ALL.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS IS A FIRST ATTEMPT AT THIS, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN REGARDS TO AGGRESSIVE DOGS, VICIOUS DOGS, AND THEY'RE STILL BREED SPECIFIC BUT ALLOWABLE.

OKAY. OVER ON PAGE 20, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE WANTING THEM TO DO WITH THAT SECTION? YOU WERE JUST NO, THIS IS JUST GOING INTO WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT.

GOTCHA. UNDERNEATH THE AGGRESSIVE DOG SECTION, SECTION 20, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. WHEN MR. HERMAN WROTE THIS, HE ORIGINALLY WROTE IT AT A $500,000 INSURANCE REQUIREMENT.

IN TALKING WITH THREE DIFFERENT INSURANCE COMPANIES, THEY STATED THAT $100,000 WAS PRETTY STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD FOR UMBRELLA POLICIES THAT WERE NEEDED. CABOT HAS THEIRS LISTED AT 300,000.

THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

OKAY. ON PAGE 22, UNDER THE VICIOUS DOG CATEGORIES, WE CLEAN THAT LANGUAGE UP WHERE IT IS A ONE SHOT DEAL. SO IF AN ANIMAL HAS ALREADY BEEN DEEMED VICIOUS AND THERE SOMETHING HAPPENED, THAT'S IT. THERE IS NO SECOND CHANCES. THERE'S NOT TWO OR MORE. IT IS A ONE SITUATION.

THERE WAS ALSO WE CLEANED UP THE LANGUAGE WHERE AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT MISS WILLIAMS HAD BROUGHT UP TO COUNCIL MEETINGS BEFORE THAT IT WAS A LITTLE CONTRADICTORY. SO WE JUST MADE IT THE SAME. AND IT WAS WHETHER IT WAS TWO OR MORE, ONE OR MORE, IF IT WAS PERSON OR AND

[01:35:09]

THEN THE SECTION 12, WHICH ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS ABOUT THE PIT BULL UMBRELLA.

AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT PIT BULL IS NOT A BREED.

IT IS AN UMBRELLA OF BREEDS. PAGE 24.

THIS SECTION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY OUR ANIMAL CONTROL STAFF, OUR POLICE CHIEF, CAPTAIN HARTMAN.

IN THERE AS WELL, UNDER NUMBER TEN ON PAGE 25.

THAT IS WHERE THAT INSURANCE REQUIREMENT WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED AT 500.

I REQUESTED 100,000. CABOT HAS IT AT 300. AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS.

NO SPECIFIC FEES WERE CHANGED. AFTER TALKING WITH MR. CLARK AT THE ANIMAL SHELTER. I ASKED HIM IF WE NEEDED TO ADJUST ANY OF THOSE.

HE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT NEEDED TO BE THAT THE FINES AND ALL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO WE CAN ACCEPT A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THIS REVISED ORDINANCE FOR THE ONE THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY.

AND THAT WAY, ALL THESE DIFFERENT THAT AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES THAT SHE WENT OVER WOULD, WOULD BE INCLUDED IN IT.

AND THE I WOULD ADD THE LANGUAGE THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE AT THE LAST MEETING WOULD CARRY FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE AS WELL.

IT WOULD BE IN IT MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.

IS THAT HOW I SAY IT? YES. WELL, TO ACCEPT THIS REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE WITH THIS REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE AND AMENDMENTS.

THANK YOU ALL. IT'S MY THIRD CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER TREAT TO ACCEPT THIS ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED WITH ALL OF ITS CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL ONE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER TOWNSEND. NOW SOME QUESTIONS HERE.

THANK YOU. THE VOTE BEFORE THE VOTE, I MEAN, I GUESS SO.

WE'RE WELL. DO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE SINCE WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND.

GO AHEAD. YEAH, LET'S LET'S VOTE ON IT. AND THEN WE KNOW WHICH WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.

ALL RIGHT, ROLL CALL, PLEASE. AND WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THE AMENDMENTS.

THE SUBSTITUTE, THE SUBSTITUTION, EVERYTHING YOU JUST WENT OVER.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE VOTING ON. YES. OKAY. THOMAS A MCCULLOUGH A TREAT.

YES. BRODERICK I TOWNSEND I. WILLIAMS. WADE. I.

BROOKS. I. SO THAT TAKES IT BACK TO FIRST READING AS AMENDED.

AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT BACK UP FOR DISCUSSION.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2140 REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF NEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANE ANIMAL SERVICES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AS AMENDED. FIRST READING. FLOOR'S OPEN.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW TO SAY IT YET. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER BRODERICK, YOU HAD EXPRESSED SOMETHING EARLIER.

YES. OKAY. THIS THIS IS A LOT OF MY HANG UP. I'D LIKE TO READ THIS.

THIS HAPPENED LAST FRIDAY. THIS WAS MY YOUTH MINISTER WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL.

NOW THEY LIVE IN CABOT, WHICH CABOT HAS LIFTED THE BANNED.

A LOT OF OUR STUFF IS IS BEING MIMICKED FROM THEM.

SO THIS IS WHY HE SAYS, I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL OF IT, BUT PIECES OF IT. THIS WAS LAST WEEK.

ON FRIDAY NIGHT, AFTER GOING OUT TO DINNER, MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER AND ONE OF OUR DOODLES, LIBBY, DECIDED TO GO FOR A WALK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOT 15 MINUTES AFTER WE LEFT, I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM AMY'S PHONE AND ANSWERED TO A STRANGE MAN'S VOICE AND MY DAUGHTER CRYING HYSTERICALLY TO COME TO THEM QUICKLY. I ARRIVED TO FIND THEM WITH BLOOD ALL OVER THEM, AND A STREET FULL OF PEOPLE AS THEY WALKED BY A HOUSE IN THE BACK OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. A HOUSE THAT WE HAVE WALKED, RAN, BIKED PAST A MILLION TIMES.

A PIT BULL CHARGED OUT OF THE YARD AND ATTACKED OUR DOG.

MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER BEGAN TRYING TO DRAG OUR DOG AWAY AND AND FIGHT THE DOG OFF.

THE PIT BULL OFF AS THEY DID MY DAUGHTER, WHO HAD LIBBY.

THAT'S THE DOG'S NAME. LIBBY'S LEASH HAD THE DOG TURN ON HER.

[01:40:05]

MY WIFE SAID THAT SHE WAS KICKING THE DOG TO TRY AND GET IT OFF, AND IT WASN'T FAZED BY HER.

THEIR SCREAMS FOR HELP ATTRACTED THE ATTENTION OF A LADY AND HER DAUGHTER A MAN WHO LIVES NEARBY, A COUPLE OF TEENAGE BOYS, AND A PIZZA DELIVERY MAN THAT HAPPENED TO BE MAKING DELIVERIES.

THE THE GROUP OF THEM WERE ABLE TO GET THE PIT BULL AWAY.

MY DAUGHTER WAS BITTEN TWICE ON HER HAND. AMY, MY DAUGHTER, MY WIFE WAS WAS TANGLED UP AND DRAGGED TO THE GROUND WHILE SHE WAS TRYING TO FIGHT THE DOG OFF. AND THEN HE HE FINISHES BY SAYING WHEN WHEN I STEPPED OUT OF MY TRUCK, IT WAS A NIGHTMARE SCENE.

IT TURNS OUT THAT THE DOG IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OUTSIDE AT ALL, BUT THE DOOR TO THE GARAGE WAS APPARENTLY LEFT AJAR AND THE GARAGE DOOR OPENED WHEN THE FAMILY MEMBER LEFT. NO ONE WAS HOME WHEN THE ATTACK HAPPENED, WHICH ALLOWED THE DOG OUT THE FRONT DOOR TO THE TO THE FRONT YARD.

THE POLICE WERE CALLED AND AN AMBULANCE ARRIVED.

WE WENT TO THE CABOT ER. SO HE JUST HE KIND OF CLOSES BY SAYING THAT IT WAS A VERY LIKE HE'S. HE SAYS THEY WERE FLOODED WITH ADRENALINE AS THEY ENDURED WHAT THEY BOTH AGREE WAS THE SCARIEST AND MOST TRAUMATIC MOMENT OF THEIR LIVES. SO THIS IS THIS IS WHAT I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH.

THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THAT THIS FAMILY COULD HAVE DONE ANY DIFFERENTLY.

THEIR DOG WAS ON A LEASH. THEY WERE WALKING IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY WEREN'T ON SOMEONE'S PERSONAL PROPERTY, YOU KNOW.

THEY WERE JUST ENJOYING THE OUTDOORS. AND THIS SITUATION HAPPENED TO THEM.

AND I WROTE DOWN SOME THINGS. I MEAN, I WOULD CONSIDER CABOT RESIDENTS TO BE WELL EDUCATED, HIGH INCOME, RESPONSIBLE, YOU KNOW. AND THIS WAS THE PIT BULL WAS A PET, AN INSIDE PET.

AND THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE DOG WAS ABUSED OR HAD BAD, YOU KNOW, A BAD EXPERIENCE, BAD OWNERS. IT WAS JUST AN INSTINCTIVE THING THAT HAPPENED.

AND SO I DID APPRECIATE ONE PERSON'S COMMENT.

AND I HAVE THOUGHT THE SAME THING. THEY SAID, WHY ARE WE PUTTING THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE BELOW THE SAFETY OF DOGS? AND SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT. AND I DO AGREE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME VERY GOOD DOGS THAT WOULD NOT BE ADOPTABLE.

AND THAT IS HEARTBREAKING. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I JUST CAN'T I JUST CAN'T RECONCILE, YOU KNOW? AND THIS JUST HAPPENED LAST WEEK IN A NEARBY CITY.

IN ADDITION TO THIS, MY DAUGHTER HAS A BEST FRIEND.

THIS HAPPENED IN LITTLE ROCK IN MAY. SAME EXACT STORY.

THE MOM WAS WALKING THE TEACUP YORKIE ON THE SIDEWALK IN WEST LITTLE ROCK IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD ON A LEASH.

THERE WAS A PITBULL A COUPLE DOORS DOWN. A FAMILY PET.

WIFE OPENS THE DOOR TO GO CHECK THE MAIL. THE DOG, YOU KNOW, JETS OUT, UNEXPECTEDLY ATTACKED THE YORKIE, RIPPED THE YORKIE'S LEG OFF. AND THIS IS ALL WHILE THE DOG IS ON A LEASH.

AND AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE A HARD TIME LIFTING THE BAN WHEN I HEAR STORIES LIKE THAT.

THE OTHER THING THAT CAUSES ME TO PAUSE IS THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING IN THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT SAFER, TO MAKE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE. I THINK THE CHIEF WOULD AGREE IF I SAID, IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE VERY HARD, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO ENFORCE. SO IT WOULD REALLY BE THE HONOR SYSTEM.

AND I COULD SEE REAL QUICKLY PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO REGISTER THEIR DOG AND GO TO THE EXPENSE IF THEY KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THAT TOO. AND THEN I'LL SAY THIS AND THIS.

THIS THOUGHT HAD NOT OCCURRED TO ME, BUT SOMEONE HAD SENT ME AN EMAIL OR A MESSAGE AND SAID, WHY NOT PUT THIS ISSUE ON THE BALLOT? AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THIS IS A VERY PASSIONATE TOPIC FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM. BUT I THINK WE ALL RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM SOMEBODY AND THEY HAD SOME VERY VALID COMMENTS.

AND I THINK IT WAS MAYBE MARINA WHO ASKED, COULD YOU PLEASE SHARE YOUR YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THE PUBLIC RIDICULE.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN BE HARSH WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR OPINIONS. SO I APPLAUD THE ONE PERSON WHO CAME AND SAID HER PIECE THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN EVERYBODY ELSE.

[01:45:08]

BUT I THINK THIS ISSUE IS, IS IS A PASSIONATE ISSUE FOR A SELECT GROUP OF PEOPLE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, AND MAYBE I'M WRONG, AND THAT MIGHT BE WHY IT WOULD BE GOOD TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT EVERY RESIDENT OR EVERY CONSTITUENT FEELS THAT WAY.

AND SO THAT'S FOR ME. IT'S IT'S I, I CAN'T RECONCILE THAT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THANK YOU I RESPECT THAT.

AND HEARING ANY STORY ABOUT SOMEBODY GETTING ATTACKED IS HORRIFIC.

SO I MEAN MY HEART GOES OUT TO THEM I CAN'T IMAGINE.

SO NATURALLY, THAT BREAKS MY HEART TO HEAR ABOUT JUST WALKING YOUR DOG AND GETTING ATTACKED.

I MEAN, THAT'S EVERYBODY'S WORST NIGHTMARE. I THINK I THINK THAT IN THESE SITUATIONS, I THINK THERE'S A HYPER RESPONSE TO, LIKE, REALLY LISTEN TO IT WHEN IT'S A PITBULL.

BECAUSE THEN I FEEL LIKE IT'S IMMEDIATELY SUPPORTING THE NARRATIVE.

THERE'S LOTS OF DOGS OUT THERE THAT HAVE A PROPENSITY TO ATTACK, JUST LIKE THE VET SAID.

MY GOSH, THEY MIGHT BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE STRESSED.

THEY FEEL THREATENED. ANY DOG CAN BITE, ANY DOG CAN ATTACK.

AND SO I GUESS I'M PERPLEXED AS TO WHY WE WANT TO HAVE THE BREED OR THIS, THIS LAW.

THE BREED SPECIFIC BAN ON ON THIS ONE TYPE OF DOG.

WHY DO WE NOT IF THIS IS OUR HEART'S DESIRE TO MAKE OUR CITY SAFE? AND WE'VE HAD HOW MANY OTHER INSTANCES OF BITES IN THE CITY? IF THAT'S THE LOGIC, THEN I THINK THE LOGIC SHOULD BE, OKAY, WELL, LET'S THROW THE HUSKIES IN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. WHO ELSE WAS IN THERE? THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DOGS THAT WE'RE BANNING.

IF OUR TRUE GOAL IS TO PROTECT THE CITY. HERPES LABS, BORDER COLLIES, TERRIERS, GERMAN SHEPHERDS, A HUSKY CHOW MIX. I THINK OWNERS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

IF SOMEBODY GOT INTO MY BACKYARD AND KILLED ONE OF MY DOGS, THEY BETTER BE READY FOR THE FIGHT OF THEIR LIFE.

WE DON'T HAVE KIDS. THEY ARE OUR. THEY ARE OUR CHILDREN.

SO I WOULD CASH IN MY 401 K TO CLEAN THEIR HOUSE.

SO I'M TELLING YOU THAT THAT I THINK OWNERS SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DOG'S ACTIONS.

AND I COULD NOT STAND BEHIND THAT ANY ANYMORE.

I GUESS WHOLEHEARTEDLY. SO LET'S LET OWNERS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DOG GETTING OUT.

LET'S LET OWNERS LET'S TAKE THEM, THOSE FOLKS TO COURT.

LET'S LET'S GET THAT $100,000 LIFE INSURANCE POLICY OUT ON THE TABLE AND TAKE IT TO COURT.

LET'S SUE THEM PERSONALLY. YOU KNOW, ALL THIS MAKES ME WANT TO DO IS A ON OUR BACKYARD.

WE HAVE LOCKS ON OUR GATES. SO, YOU KNOW WHAT? IF YOU OWN A DOG THAT YOU FEEL LIKE COULD EVER BE IN THAT POSITION, YOU KNOW WHAT MY GOAL IS? IT'S NOT ONLY TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT, BUT IT'S TO ENSURE WE'RE NEVER IN THAT SPOT.

WE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO PROTECT OUR DOGS AND TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM EVER BEING IN A POSITION LIKE THIS.

AND I THINK THERE'S LOTS OF RESIDENTS THAT WOULD DO THE SAME THING.

SO TO ME, IF IT'S REALLY ABOUT SAFETY, THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS OTHER LIST OF ALL THESE OTHER BREEDS THAT HAVE BITTEN PEOPLE OR BITTEN OTHER DOGS, AND I GUESS WE NEED TO ADD THEM TO THE LIST TOO.

SO I'LL SAY THIS IN CLOSING, BECAUSE Y'ALL KNOW WHERE I STAND ON THIS.

THANK YOU, CAPTAIN HARTMAN AND THE CHIEF. THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT Y'ALL GIVE TO THIS.

I KNOW IT GETS TAXING ON Y'ALL. YOU KNOW, THERE'S PASSIONATE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES, AND I THINK Y'ALL ARE I CAN IMAGINE THIS WOULD BE TOUGH.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU ALL BRING TO THE TABLE HERE.

THANKS FOR ALL THE TIME YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS.

I THANK GOD THAT Y'ALL CAN'T GO AROUND TOWN ASKING PEOPLE WHAT KIND OF BREED OF DOG IS THAT? OR, YOU KNOW, SHOW ME THAT DOG'S REGISTRATION.

THANK GOD YOU CAN'T ROLL AROUND TOWN GRABBING PEOPLE'S DOGS AND THROWING THEM IN THE PADDY WAGON. MY GOD. MY POINT TO THIS IS WE NEED TO STICK WITH IT BEING A VICIOUS SITUATION.

IF A DOG ATTACKS A PERSON OR ATTACKS ANOTHER DOG, I DON'T CARE WHAT BREED IT IS, IT NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE OWNER AND GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS. OUTSIDE OF THAT, LIKE WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO LOOK AT A DOG AND SAY YOU LOOK LIKE A PIT BULL? SHOW ME YOUR REGISTRATION. SO IF THERE'S A VICIOUS SITUATION, IT NEEDS TO BE UPHELD BY THESE RULES.

BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THIS IS JUST AN UNNECESSARY BUREAUCRACY IN MY PERSONAL OPINION.

AND I'LL SECOND THAT. I'M NOT WANTING TO LET A TON OF VICIOUS DOGS JUST WREAK HAVOC ON OUR CITIZENS AND OUR CHILDREN AND ON OUR PEOPLE.

I WANT THOSE THAT HAVE VICIOUS ANIMALS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HAVING THOSE ANIMALS, JUST LIKE MONICA HAD SAID.

AS A PET OWNER, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT PROPERTY.

IT IS TO ME, IT IS NOT. AND I'M GOING TO SAY THIS LIGHTLY.

[01:50:02]

GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE, OKAY? VEHICLES DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE DRIVING THE VEHICLE KILL PEOPLE.

SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO BAN THESE DOGS, ARE WE GOING TO BAN GUNS? ARE WE GOING TO BAN CARS IN THE CITY? YOU HAVE A I MEAN, I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE STATISTICS.

YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING HIT AND KILLED BY A BY A VEHICLE THAN YOU DO GETTING BIT BY A DOG AND DYING.

SO I MEAN, AND BANNING CARS IS JUST SILLY TO ME.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD THIS EVENING.

OKAY. IT'S BEEN READ ONE TIME WITH THE AMENDMENT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADVANCE TO THE SECOND READING? MOTION TO ADVANCE TO A SECOND READING. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER TREAT TO ADVANCE IT TO THE SECOND READING.

AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TOWNSEND.

AND THAT IS TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PLACE IT ON THE SECOND READING.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR ON THAT. TOM THOMAS.

NO. MCCULLOUGH. I TREAT. YES. BRODERICK. YES.

TOWNSEND. YES. WILLIAMS. YES. WADE. NO. BROOKS.

YES. I THINK BEFORE WE MAKE. HOLD ON JUST JUST A SECOND.

THIS IS JUST ADVANCING TO THE NEXT READING. CORRECT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, THOUGH. OKAY. BUT I WAS LIKE, YEAH, OKAY. GO AHEAD.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THEN THE RULES WERE SUSPENDED.

YEAH. I JUST THINK WE OWE IT TO OURSELVES, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, NOT TO ADVANCE IT TO THE THIRD I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A TON OF STUFF.

AND I WAS GOING TO ASK COUNCIL MEMBER TOWNSEND, YOU MAY HAVE THIS ALREADY, AND IF I'VE MISSED IT, IF YOU'VE SEEN IT, BUT THOSE AMENDMENTS, I MEAN, YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT, RIGHT? I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT BEFORE I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

SO IF YOU. I WAS GOING TO SAY IF YOU HAVE THOSE SEPARATE EMAIL US.

YEAH. NO. BECAUSE WHAT I DID IS I WENT IN AND I BECAUSE I HAD TO RETYPE ALL OF THIS BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET AN ELECTRONIC COPY.

AND SO WHAT I DID IS I WENT THROUGH AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT YOU RECEIVED LAST TIME IS I HIGHLIGHTED, STRUCK THROUGH DID ALL OF THAT SPECIFICALLY TO THE CHANGES THAT WERE THE ORIGINAL THAT MR. HARMON PRESENTED TO YOU IN DECEMBER? SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE A DRAFT.

WELL, I MEAN, I HAVE ONE THAT'S CALLED THE. IT WAS IN THE BACK OF OUR PACKET LAST MONTH.

YEAH. CALLED PROPOSED. AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN YOUR EMAIL LAST TUESDAY AS WELL.

BUT WE'VE ADDED IT SINCE THEN. THE ONLY THE ONLY CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MADE WAS THE MICROCHIPPING VOTE THAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

CORRECT. AND THAT WE CLARIFIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING WHICH SECTIONS THAT THAT WAS.

BEFORE WE COME BACK. WE WILL MAKE THAT MATCH.

YES. AND I JUST I AGREE, I AGREE. THERE'S SOME THERE'S SOME PRETTY MINIMAL THINGS THAT I THINK THAT EVERYBODY AGREED UPON IN TERMS OF THE NEW ORDINANCE. THIS IS I KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE GROWN PRETTY WEARY.

THIS STARTED IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. THIS IS BEEN GOING ON SOME TIME.

SO I DON'T KNOW. IN ALL HONESTY, COUNCIL MEMBER WADE TO BE RESPECTFUL IF THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE ANYBODY'S OPINION AT THIS POINT. ARE YOU SAYING IT MIGHT CHANGE MINE? OKAY. I'M WILLING TO SAY THAT. OKAY. HERE'S THE THING THAT THAT.

I NEED TO SAY AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT WITHOUT.

I AM I'M STILL I MEAN, KIND OF FOR THE BSL OR JUST TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

SO I WANT TO PREFACE IT THIS WAY. THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE ORDINANCE FORGETTING THAT THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BSL SPECIFIC OR NOT, NEED TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE.

AM I MAKING SENSE WHAT I'M SAYING? NO. NO. OKAY.

NOT AT ALL. ALL RIGHT. IF PIT BULLS ARE STILL BANNED, WE STILL NEED THE VICIOUS LANGUAGE IN THERE FOR THE OTHER BREEDS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. FOR ANY BREED, ANY BREED, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. SOME SOME OF THESE EDITS ARE GOOD EDITS, REGARDLESS OF HOW IT COMES OUT WITH PIT BULLS.

[01:55:04]

IF THAT IF THAT WAS, AM I MAKING SENSE? IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THAT SECTION COULD BE STRICKEN.

SECTION 22. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS IN PLACE.

WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO. WE WOULD HAVE TO. THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

WE WOULD HAVE TO INSERT, WE WOULD HAVE TO INSERT THE PREVIOUS.

I MEAN, SO COUNCIL MEMBER WADE WOULD IT BE LIKE HELPFUL? I GUESS NEXT TIME I WOULD LOVE POWER. I'M VERY VISUAL.

SO WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR US? AND OBVIOUSLY IN THE MEANTIME FOR YOU TO HAVE TIME TO RESEARCH IT, BUT WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE ALL OF THIS LIKE DOCUMENTED ON LIKE A POWERPOINT THAT CHANGES SPECIFICALLY SO WE CAN TALK THROUGH THEM? SO YOU'RE JUST WANTING MORE TIME TO LOOK THIS OVER IN MORE DETAIL? I WANT TO VOTE PERSONALLY ON A COMPLETE BILL IN FRONT OF ME RATHER THAN I KNOW THERE'S SOME PEOPLE SAY INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES MADE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I JUST I'VE LEARNED SOME NEW INFORMATION TONIGHT. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT. AND I THINK THE INFORMATION THAT MISS TOWNSEND PRESENTED, YOUR STATISTICS AND STUFF THAT MIGHT BE PERTINENT IF YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SEND IT TO STEVE AND HE CAN DISTRIBUTE TO ALL OF US ALSO AND OR TO OR TO CHARLOTTE AND LET HER SEND IT OUT.

OKAY. SO WE'LL GO TO NEXT MONTH FOR THE THIRD READING.

OKAY. MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2024 GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

[7. A resolution amending the 2024 General Fund Budget Resolution 68-2023, the Street Fund Budget Resolution 69-2023, and the 2024 Wastewater Utility Fund Budget Resolution 70-2023 (Mayor Heye-Townsell) ]

RESOLUTION 68 DASH 2023, THE STREET FUND BUDGET, RESOLUTION 69, DASH 2023, AND THE 2024 WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND BUDGET RESOLUTION 70 DASH 2023. OKAY.

NO. THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE.

IS THIS A BASICALLY A CLEANUP? YES. WE DO THIS EVERY YEAR AFTER WE CLOSE OUT THE BOOKS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. MOVE FOR ADOPTION.

SECOND, WE HAVE, I THINK, SOMEONE ACROSS THE AISLE THERE HAS A QUESTION.

I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT THIS REALLY POINTED OUT TO ME BY HAVING THE OVERTIME HIGHLIGHT IN HERE.

IT SHOWS HOW WE'RE USING THAT. AND WE DO HAVE ONE AREA I KNOW THAT'S GOT A LOT OF OVERTIME IN IT, BUT I UNDERSTAND. SO I JUST IF Y'ALL HAVEN'T NOTICED THAT, JUST GO I'M FOR THIS.

BUT OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROOKS AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. THOMAS MCCULLOUGH. HI, TREAT.

YES, BRODERICK TOWNSEND I. WILLIAMS. I. WADE.

I. BROOKS. I. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

[8. A resolution by the Sherwood Arkansas City Council declaring Welcome Home Warriors/Veterans Day (Council Member Williams) ]

A RESOLUTION BY THE SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS CITY COUNCIL DECLARING WELCOME HOME WARRIORS, VETERANS DAY.