# Services Committee - June 2, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 2, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/929 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/929?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-06-02 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 17,522 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Services Committee met on June 2, 2009, at 1:00 PM, with Chuck Ellinger presiding. During the meeting, the committee considered two agenda items, took four votes, and heard ten public comments. The committee approved an Animal Cruelty Ordinance proposed by Myers. The committee deferred action on an Underground Utilities matter presented by Feigel, postponing a decision on that item to a future meeting. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 2, 2009: * Ellinger * Myers * Lawless * Beard * Feigel * Crosbie * McChord * Martin * Henson * Lane * Blues * Stinnett * Curtis * Horn * Bowling No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Move Animal Cruelty Ordinance Draft to Full Council** [timestamp: 01:07:27] CM Myers moved to advance the advisory committee animal cruelty ordinance draft to the full council with an amendment to include adequate shade. CM Beard seconded the motion. The roll call vote resulted in 2 ayes and 2 nays. CM Myers and CM Beard voted in favor, while CM Henson and CM Lawless voted against. The motion passed. **Motion to Amend with Tethering Language** [timestamp: 01:16:12] CM Henson moved to amend the original motion to include language from the SOAR draft stating that dogs "can't tether if the owner or harborer isn't within auditory or visual range of the dog." CM Lawless seconded the motion. The roll call vote recorded 0 ayes and 0 nays with no abstentions. The motion failed. **Motion to Amend with Shade Definition** [timestamp: 01:21:15] CM Lawless moved to amend the original motion to include a specific definition of adequate shade: "one or more separate outside areas of shade, large enough to contain all dogs at one time and to protect them from the direct rays of the sun. A dog house shall not constitute adequate shade." CM Beard seconded the motion. The roll call vote resulted in 2 ayes and 2 nays. CM Lawless and CM Beard voted in favor, while CM Henson and CM Myers voted against. The motion passed. **Motion to Pass Advisory Committee Draft and Move to Full Council** [timestamp: 01:57:06] CM Myers moved to pass the advisory committee draft (dated 5-14-09) and move it to the full council for a vote. Ms. Henson seconded the motion. The roll call vote resulted in 2 ayes and 2 nays. CM Myers and Ms. Henson voted in favor, while CM Beard and CM Lawless voted against. The motion passed with the amendment on adequate shade as a condition. ## Public Comment Ten speakers addressed the committee on anti-tethering ordinance proposals during the public comment period. **Animal Welfare Organizations and Advocates** Marianne Fugate, speaking on behalf of Speak Out and Rescue, Inc., urged adoption of amendments to the animal ordinance including shade requirements, limits on unattended chaining, and minimum enclosure size standards [01:23:56]. Pam Rogers, representing the Humane Society of the United States, characterized chaining as one of the most cruel practices for dogs and noted that it increases aggression and public danger, citing statistics from cities with anti-tethering laws [01:27:44]. Matt Page read letters of support from the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee and Lexington Humane Society [01:40:58]. **Personal Experiences and Public Safety** Roberta Harding shared an account of a golden retriever puppy she attempted to help repeatedly, which eventually died from strangulation after months of chaining, highlighting enforcement failures [01:30:57]. Tracy Miller presented evidence of dog bites and injuries caused by chained dogs, including a severe bite sustained by a volunteer attempting to assist [01:37:08]. Marilyn Machara described personal experiences of fear and danger from tethered dogs, arguing that unattended chaining endangers pedestrians, children, and neighbors [01:47:55]. **Expert Testimony** Eric Blow, former Metro Animal Services Director from Louisville, reported that their anti-tethering ordinance reduced dog bites and aggression, and emphasized behavioral risks associated with chaining [01:34:11]. Mark Schumer presented survey data from cities with chaining laws showing high compliance rates and reduced dog bites, heatstroke deaths, and nuisance calls [01:51:11]. **Community Support** Kim Stewart presented a petition with over 1,000 signatures calling for an ordinance banning chaining dogs unless physically accompanied by their owner, citing inhumane treatment and public safety risks [01:42:03]. Tammy Kinman-Rupert, speaking for Mothers Against Dog Chaining, shared the story of Michaela Sinclair, a child killed by a chained dog, and urged passage of the anti-chaining law to protect children and animals [01:44:42]. ## Contested Items **Scope and Enforcement of the Animal Cruelty Ordinance** Council members divided on the breadth and application of the proposed animal cruelty ordinance. The central debate concerned whether the ordinance should extend protections to all animals, with particular attention to horses. Additionally, members raised concerns about whether the current draft would disproportionately affect low-income residents. Some council members expressed worry about over-enforcement of the ordinance and advocated for a transition period to allow residents and businesses time to comply with new requirements. This disagreement resulted in a split vote among council members. **Tethering and Anti-Tethering Provisions** The proposed anti-tethering measures generated heated discussion among multiple speakers and council members. Advocates pushed for stronger provisions, including specific time limits on how long animals could be tethered and requirements that animals be attended while tethered. Despite the intensity of these arguments, the committee did not adopt the proposed amendments to strengthen anti-tethering language. This outcome prompted frustration among animal welfare advocates who had urged the council to include more robust protections. ## Animal Cruelty Ordinance - Myers (1-9) [timestamp: 00:00:00] The committee reviewed a proposed revision to the animal cruelty ordinance during this meeting. The ordinance redefines key terms related to animal care standards, including adequate food, shelter, water, and veterinary care. The proposal also establishes specific standards for collars, harnesses, and enclosures. **Key Speakers and Participants** The discussion involved Rick Curtis, Keith Horn, Chief Bowling, Ms. Lawless, Mr. Lane, and Mr. Martin. **Amendments and Changes** During the committee's review, the draft ordinance was amended to include a requirement for adequate shade. This addition was incorporated into the proposal before final approval. **Outcome** The committee approved the revised animal cruelty ordinance and voted to refer it to the full council for further consideration. ## Underground Utilities - Feigel (10) This agenda item, presented by Ms. Feigl, was deferred to a later meeting due to time constraints. No discussion or vote was held on this matter during the meeting. **Outcome:** The item was postponed for consideration at a future meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (2-2): Motion to move the advisory committee animal cruelty ordinance draft to the full council with the amendment to include adequate shade, seconded by CM Beard - **Motion** — failed (0-0): Motion to amend the original motion to include the portion of SOAR draft that states 'can’t tether if the owner or harborer isn’t within auditory or visual range of the dog', seconded by CM Lawless - **Motion** — passed (2-2): Motion to amend the original motion to include adequate shade meaning one or more separate outside areas of shade, large enough to contain all dogs at one time and to protect them from the direct rays of the sun. A dog house shall not constitute adequate shade, seconded by CM Beard - **Motion** — passed (2-2): Motion to pass the advisory committee draft (Draft 5-14-09) and move it to the full council for a vote, seconded by Ms. Henson --- ## Full transcript Take that look off your face. Take that look off your face. We have a quorum. We will begin on the agenda today. The first item is the animal cruelty ordinance, and that was put in by Mr. Myers. And we asked the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee, who is chaired by Rick Kearse, to do an analysis and come to us. And I think you have a report that you wanted to give us. And I think also we have an attorney here that can help with an ordinance that was drafted too. Yes, I do. Thank you. Obviously, I'm here as the chair representing the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee to discuss our recommendations on behalf of your request to review the cruelty ordinance. That's what we were tasked to do, and that's exactly what we did, to see if it could be enhanced to allow for humane treatment of animals specifically, as well as a leeway for animal care and control to be able to enforce something other than the cruelty ordinance as it existed. The cruelty ordinance as it existed consisted of four lines, one paragraph, and basically relied on the state statute for cruelty, which is quite comprehensive, has criminal penalties that are attached with it, and as such we just did not, as a committee, feel that we should deal with that, let the ordinance stand on its own, on its own merit it has for years, and every time we are charged with the state ordinance, my understanding, Chief Bowling can attest to this, that every time we've charged cruelty using the statute, we have 100% conviction right. So with that in mind, there wasn't any sense in us dealing with trying to deal with the state statute. Basically, as you know, this was brought to our attention after there was an ordinance reference to Kethering, and we were asked specifically after that discussion to look at the cruelty, which we did. We had a subcommittee that I formed that involved the president of Election Humane Society, the chief animal care and control, Kristen Palmgreen, who's the policymaker for animal care and control, among other things, as well as I involve Keith from the law department because he is designated for the animal care and control as a legal advisor specifically. And we looked at this basically every way that we could as a subgroup or as a committee to try and enhance the cruelty ordinance itself so that specifically it could aid in the assistance of care and treatment of animals. I mean, obviously you all have looked at various and sundry things over the last few months, especially as have we from different groups that have brought forth to you, and we took all those testaments into account to try and take care of the animal population, in particular the dogs, in Fayette County specifically. What we did was we basically came up with the proposed change ordinance. Through the cruelty ordinance as it existed, our proposed changes are quite extensive, going from a four-line paragraph to almost four pages of changes, but we felt as a committee that it was entirely necessary. Relative to the changes themselves, then I'll come back up, but I would like to ask Keith to come up and explain to you why the changes themselves, as he wrote it. Welcome, Keith. I made an outline of the changes that were made. I only have one copy. And as Rick was saying, it was our understanding that Services Committee asked Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee to look at the existing cruelty ordinances and laws to see what could be done to help improve the situations of dogs that are tethered without addressing an anti-tethering ordinance, which is what that committee did. And the Humane Society did a great job of putting, looking at this stuff and getting a draft together, and then I looked at it. but a great deal of thanks goes to the Humane Society for going through all of these provisions. The proposal from the Advisory Committee basically makes these changes to the existing ordinances. They've added definitions for adequate food, adequate shelter, adequate water, and veterinary care. Presently, the state law requires people to provide those items, and if they don't, it's a Class A misdemeanor. What the ordinance does is define those things to give animal care and control a better enforcement mechanism. And as indicated there, the ordinance requires the owner or harborer, and that is one change, a harborer, to provide adequate food, water, shelter, and veterinary care. The changes also require a safe and sanitary housing area or enclosure for a dog. It establishes standards for collars and harnesses, harnesses. Even though it doesn't address anti-tethering, it was felt that there needed to be some standards adopted by Lexington to deal with collars and harnesses. They also decided they wanted to create a graduated sanction for the currently existing nuisance ordinance, which is Section 14-12.2, so that within a 12-month period, if there are multiple offenses, the minimum fine increases for that offense. It also amends ordinances related to standards for kennels to conform to the definitions of adequate food, adequate shelter, adequate water and veterinary care. And lastly, for a dog that's off of an owner or harbors property, the ordinance requires a properly fitting collar or harness that is physically attached to a leash or tether of appropriate material and weight. Part of that change came out of a request from the County Attorney's Office because they've had trouble enforcing the leash law for people using electronic leashes. Apparently the courts aren't willing to say that a leash means a physically attached leash, so that change is from a request to the County Attorney's Office. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the changes that were proposed by the Advisory Committee and Rick spoke to them, but they seem to be pleased with the changes that are proposed. I think each of you have a copy of the proposal and we're happy to try to answer any questions that you may have. Are there any Council Members who would like to ask either Mr. Kearse or Mr. Horn any questions? And also we have Chief Bolin here too, if he would like, would you like making Any comments before this at this point? Any council members? Okay. Mr. Lane? Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been working for about four or five years trying to improve the cruelty as it relates to horses, equine, and most of the effort that's come so far has been through Ned Sheehy, most recently with the state government in trying to get an ordinance passed by the state. And previously it was a recommendation of our legal department that it would be difficult for us to do an ordinance on our own, that we needed to get the state to approve it. That was the first question I've got. Do you feel like this ordinance conforms with state statute and we'd be okay to go with this? We're not changing the state statute or attempting to or changing the penalty at all that is associated with the state statute. That stays the same. All we're doing with the ordinance is providing definitions for those terms, adequate food, adequate shelter, adequate water, and veterinary care. And so it still parallels the state statute. We're just helping people understand what those terms mean. Now, with horses, there are more statutes dealing with horses than there are with other types of animals or pets. And so when you're talking about horses, you sometimes run into some other problems with state statutes. Do you feel it would be beneficial to have a more comprehensive animal cruddy ordinance that covers horses and dogs, all kinds of animals, and also go through the state legislature to get that approved? I think it would be very helpful if there were a comprehensive state statute that would cover horses as well as other animals, because the statutes with horses are frequently so different than the statutes that relate to other pets or animals, that it can be difficult ordinance-wise to try to get things reconciled. And so you'll see that this is primarily going to deal with pets, which I don't necessarily include horses in, and specifically some specific provisions for dogs. But if the state could clear up some of that distinction, I think that would be helpful. Well, I noticed in page 2, paragraph B1, you know, it mentions horses in here. Necessarily cruelty, torture, abuse, or otherwise mistreat any horse or other animal, whether his own or that of another. But when you go down to discussing the housing down here, it just says a dog's housing. And we couldn't be more encompassing and call it an animal's housing, you know, or make it broader than just for a... Well, you could, and the advisory committee actually discussed that very issue. And the focus has been for so long on the anti-tethering and on dogs. But apparently, and I'm not an animal expert, and you may want to get someone up who is, the housing or care area for other types of animals can be so different that it may be difficult to address those sufficiently. Well, now the other question is tethering was the big issue, and you feel that this ordinance covers that adequately, and we have a good way to enforce not to tether adults in an unsafe or unfriendly or unhumane way? Not necessarily to speak for the advisory committee, but the impression that we had was that services wanted the advisory committee to look at the existing cruelty and abuse and care of animal ordinances and not consider telling people that they cannot tether their animal. So what they looked at, what they tried to look at was the results of having an animal tethered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and tried to deal with the results of that by looking at these ordinances and making changes to them. That was their goal. I think that Humane Society and Animal Care and Control are very pleased with the changes that have been proposed to the ordinance. This basically gives the animal control people teeth. If they see a bad situation, they can address it. That's correct. All right. Did you all discuss this with Ned Sheehy in the mayor's office, who's been some of the legislative liaison with state government on this at all? I have not. Okay. You do not. All right. I can't, obviously. Okay. All right. Well, as I said, I've been in favor of improving our animal cruelty ordinances. I'm particularly concerned because with the World Games coming in next year, if an unhumane situation came up with horses, the current ordinance for horses is very weak and difficult to enforce. And then there's also a financial issue of when you take all of our horses, you've got legal fees, you've got veterinarian fees, and then you've got food and grooming and all that, too. So it becomes very expensive. All right, I think that covers most of my questions right now. I might want to come back in a minute with the following. Thank you very much. Thank you. Dr. Blues? Thank you, Chair. As you know, I'm not a member of this committee, so with the committee's indulgence, I just have a couple of questions. The first one has to do with how this proposed ordinance would be enforced. It's obviously very comprehensive. It's extremely detailed. It has provisions for what animals can be and should be fed, when they should be fed, what kinds of materials should be in particular kinds of shelters of particular sizes and so forth. One of our concerns as a legislative body is always whether an ordinance can be enforced and how it would be enforced. So I'd be interested in some discussion of that, maybe Rick, Captain. I think Chief Bolin might be the expert on this one. Good afternoon, counsel. To try to address that question is, the enforcement's done the same as any other law enforcement law that's passed, whether it be animal cruelty, the leash laws, the licensing program laws. We've been enforcing the animal cruelty issues for the state statute and the local ordinances for years. We've asked for this change many years ago because the state law was very vague in the wording and the definitions of what we was looking for. So basically the enforcement will come fairly easy for us. we won't change any patterns that we've been doing for the past my 22 years there. So as far as the convictions, this gives us a little bit more reins on issues that SOAR has showed you that we deal with on an everyday basis, such as the tethering issues. This will give an officer an opportunity to stop a dog from being chained with a 50-pound log chain, where none of the other ordinances do that. It will also give them an opportunity if their makeshift dog shelter that they're using, a barrel or something that the officer feels is insufficient to that, make that a subject of that violation. The law gives us the authority to either issue a citation to correct the problem or courtesy warning if it's a minor violation, the same as we always handle it, or issue a citation and impound the dog for its well-being and safety. So you think that this gives you a usable tool in your work? This is a very tangible law for us to enforce. We looked it over very closely, and as Rick had spoke earlier, that we've set together as a small committee to come up with the best ideals that would protect the animals here in Lexington. Thank you. I have one, not necessarily for you, Chief. This is a question I think that the committee may want to consider and others comment on. And that is, I think, what constitutes cruelty and to what extent would this ordinance, in effect, prevent some people from having dogs? Now, I don't think there's any inherent right to have a dog. I don't think that any person who can't take adequate care of a pet and can't be responsible for its care should have one. On the other hand, is this particular draft an ordinance that goes far beyond what we might consider to be cruel and abusive treatments of dogs and put up a kind of standard that a lot of reasonable pet owners, would-be pet owners, may not be able to meet? So that's a question that I think ultimately the committee and the council is going to have to be ready to answer. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Council Member Gallagher. I am also in favor of improving our animal cruelty ordinances. I agree with the comments of Council Member Lane. I do have some questions about this particular ordinance. I've written a number of statutes myself, and I've got some questions about how this is put together. Mr. Horn, I guess I'll direct my first question to you. What types of animals are allowed in, I guess, the urban services area? Would that be an appropriate boundary, or is there a different type of boundary where certain types of animals would be permitted? I'm not sure about the urban services boundary. There are certain types of animals not permitted in either Kentucky or in Lexington Fayette County, usually referred to as exotic animals of that nature. It's the only thing I'm aware of. Now, you're probably going to have some different regulations related to farms versus if I've got certain animals in my backyard. But, for example, I don't know, I haven't looked at whether someone can have a chicken coop in their backyard versus on their farm. So I haven't looked at those zoning ordinances. So could somebody in Gardenside have a horse in their backyard? It doesn't sound like you could. I don't think so. Well, the first thing I was trying to understand is what type of animals we're talking about, because obviously, as Mr. Lane pointed out, we're considering about a number of range of animals. This draft, and I'm looking at the SOAR's recommended amendments, which is, I guess, the ordinance that was passed out plus additional amendments highlighted in blue, it seems particularly designated toward dogs. Is that a historical thing with our ordinance? Well, I think that when the whole anti-tethering issue came up, the focus was naturally on dogs. What this ordinance tries to do for all animals as it relates to cruelty and abuse is to try to be able to enforce more of the idea of cruelty and abuse. Now, one of the recommendations from the advisory committee is that this ordinance name be changed to care and treatment of animals. Now, some of those provisions are going to apply across the board, but some of them, particularly as to shelters and particularly as to collars and harnesses, are designed specifically to deal with dogs and not other animals. For example, in, I guess, sub B2, it shall be unlawful for the owner or harborer of an animal to fail to provide the animal with adequate food, water, shelter, shade, or veterinary care. Each of these words have definitions which are in the definition section. For example, if you look over at Attablet Shelter, it talks about the provisions that would be appropriate for a dog, but not particularly for a horse or a cat or whatever other kind of animals, guinea pigs, rabbits. I'm assuming that under this ordinance it would be legal for someone to leave rabbits out in a cage in the middle of 100-degree weather in the summer. Well, that may be a chief bowling question because the current state law talks about adequate shelter, and so generally that's going to address per animal. Based on the nature of the animal, what type of shelter is appropriate for that animal. Can I interrupt just a second? I'm sorry. I think you're looking at this document. This is what was provided by SOAR, and in the blue areas, what their changes. Right. But if you look in the ordinance that's been passed out. You were looking at that. We'll make sure that the ordinance that we have is in here. The ordinance that we have has Section B2, which is for the owner or harbor of an animal to fail to provide animal with adequate food, water, shelter, or veterinary care. So you go back to our copy and you look at shelter. So not all of them. There's some additional things in the SOAR that carries on the same sort of problem. But even the adequate shelter, which is in our handout, is for dogs, really. Isn't that right? I think you are correct. There are provisions specifically in the definition of adequate shelter, obviously just for dogs. Right. In the definition of veterinary care, veterinary care is defined as an appropriate level of professional medical care and treatment by a licensed veterinarian to maintain the proper health and condition of an animal as determined by its species, breed, and age. Do you know who's going to determine what the proper health and condition of an animal is? Obviously, that seems to be going on but beyond mistreatment and conditions that are likely to result in harm. So we're talking about in addition to things that are mistreatment and things that are likely to result in harm, there are conditions which would not maintain the proper health and condition of an animal. It is my impression, and again, I'm not an animal expert. I'm trying to help you and the Maine Society of Animal Care and Control come to what you want in an ordinance. That presently, the animal control officers are determining what level of good health an animal is presently in. And so this doesn't change that. It will be the same sort of enforcement mechanism. I would assume, and Chief Bolling may ask you, I would assume that we're currently checking to see whether the dogs are being cruelly, they're being beaten or tortured or abused or otherwise mistreated. Isn't that what our current ordinance says? Yes. So are we currently determining what the proper health and condition of animals are? If the animal gives the appearance during an officer's visit that it needs medical attention, it's addressed at that time. We're not going to chastise somebody for their animal that looks healthy. We're not going to ask them about their medical records at that time, unless it gives the appearance at the time the officers visit. Then there's a lot of things that we go through. If it's a severe case of true neglect that we can prove that they just failed to provide medical attention for a long period of time, then the animal is either impounded or the person cited for that violation, or they could be ordered to get veterinarian care from a licensed practitioner at that time. The reason we use this or want this change in here is a lot of people do self-medicating. And we run into a big headache with the self-medications of, you know, even the state law allows for the self-rabies vaccinations and things like that. They give out a tag, which is a generic tag. We can't trace this and verify that for the health department on bite cases and things like this. This will sort of eliminate those issues of them saying, well, I went to Walmart and got a prescription for amoxicillin for the same thing that a veterinarian is going to give me for my dog, and we administered it. We want to have a licensed practitioner give us the documentation saying that this was verified. Let me continue. In sub three, I guess it shall be unlawful for a dog's housing area or enclosure to be excessively muddy or contain standing water. And again, I guess that goes along the same. So that would not apply to another type of animal that would be. So you could leave horses out in the sun but not dogs. Well, specifically to this provision, you're right. but the other general provisions will apply to other animals. Because remember, presently state law just says adequate food, water, shelter, and health care. It doesn't attempt to define those or explain what that may mean. And so a lot of it right now, unless I'm mistaken, is judgment call. When animal control officers go out, they make a judgment call about the condition of the animal, about the condition of the animal's surroundings, regardless of what type of animal that may be. And that's how the current ordinance in law is cited and enforced. Are there other jurisdictions like other states that, I guess, is it the general rule that other states make it illegal to have collars made of chains and things like that? Have you investigated other states? We've looked at a lot of laws from a lot of jurisdictions, and a lot of places do have these collar requirements or harness requirements related not only to material but also weight. Is it a universal? I can't tell you that. I can tell you a lot of jurisdictions address it, but I also believe a lot of jurisdictions do not address that. And it may be the rule that there are a lot more jurisdictions that don't address it than do address it. But there are a great many that do have this type of provision. Is there a difference between a tether and a leash? Are they the same thing for purposes of this ordinance? I think generally when they're talking about tethering, they're talking about to a stationary object. and a leash generally would apply to a handheld, but generally tether and leash can be interchangeable. But it's not defined, is it? No, it's not. Is tethering defined? So if I have, if I take, and I don't currently have a dog, but I grew up a German Shepherd, so if we took our dog for a walk and we have a six-foot leash and we're walking around the block, I'm in violation of this ordinance. Would that be right? That wouldn't be my impression, but if you've got that concern, then we need to look at the language you're concerned about and make sure that that's not, I don't think that was anyone's intent in this draft. And again, if I had a cat or a guinea pig or a pig or something like that, I could put barbed wire around their necks and I'd be okay under this. I'm going to say no because you still have the general cruelty and abuse type. But that's kind of my point is that the general cruelty and abuse provision is geared toward a broad range of animals. That's correct. And it seems like the additions in the amendments are really specific toward dogs. I think that they are primarily designed for dogs. But the adequate food, adequate water, veterinary care, the general, the change that was made to the, what I'll call the abuse ordinance, which used to be one paragraph, is that we've added or to subject an animal to any condition that is likely to result in harm to the animal. That is supposed to be global and universal, not just as to dogs, as to current. And that's in the current ordinance, as it exists, talks about unnecessarily or cruelly beat, torture, abuse, or otherwise mistreat any horse or other animal, et cetera, et cetera. And the one sentence that the advisory committee has added is, or to subject such an animal to any condition that is likely to result in harm to the animal. And I think that was at least partly an attempt to capture other types of conditions that may not have traditionally been covered by this ordinance. Is it considered a violation of state law to leave a dog outside chained to a tree or to a stake for extended periods of time? I will say a qualified no to that, because presently it's going to be based on the condition of that animal and the condition of the animal's surroundings. Simply leaving that animal chained is not going to probably reach the level that would be considered cruelty, neglect, or abuse. But it can become that depending on how the chain affects the neck. Is it biting in? What's the condition of the chain? What's the condition of the surroundings? Does the animal have adequate food, adequate shelter, adequate water, adequate health care? But simply standing alone as a tethered animal, no, there's nothing to prohibit that. I don't mean to grill you. I've got one more question. I appreciate your patience. Subsection 5, it would be improper or unlawful to restrain by chain or tether any dog, again dog, that is, excuse me, this is an amendment that was being circulated by SOAR. Does anybody object to me sort of asking about it? This was passed out. I think we're going to. So I'm going to refer to this draft. SOAR is proposing, in addition to this, that it would be unlawful to restrain a dog or tether that's not physically attended between the hours of 7 p.m. and 3 p.m. the next day. Is that something you're familiar with, or we just need to take that up when they present this? I have seen the changes that are proposed by SOAR. I don't know that anyone related with Animal Care and Control or the Humane Society have seen those. Okay. And whether or not it helps, I've tried to do a small outline like that that SOAR adds to what the Animal Control Advisory Committee is proposing. But I have looked at the changes. Thank you. When I draft a statute, I look for a lot of different things. One of the things I look for is I try to make it realistic so that you don't have what I refer to as innumerable technical defaults. You really don't want a very large segment of your population to be essentially in violation at all times, so that it's essentially up to law enforcement who gets spanked on it or who gets cited for it. If almost everybody is in violation of a statute, and then it's just simply up to government to go in and decide who they're going to penalize for violation of that statute, then you've got in some ways a constitutional problem, but you certainly have an enforcement problem, and I think it could be unfair. So one of my concerns about this ordinance is whether or not it would result in a large segment of our population to basically be in violation. Do they have the wrong size collar? Do they have the wrong size leash? Is a leash a tether? If they have a cat sitting out in the sun, are they in violation of it or things like that? I think that Lexington does need a better ordinance, and I don't disagree with Council Member Lane that we might try to pursue this at the state level so that we have a more comprehensive fix at the state level. But I think that this is still an early effort at preparing a good ordinance. I think there's still more work to be done, and I'm willing to work with these folks to try to do that. But I do think it would result in a lot of folks being in violation of the ordinance. And I think that it would particularly be difficult for folks in low-income and disadvantaged communities to either put up the necessary outdoor shelters or chain-link areas in order to comply with this. So I think with that, I've talked long enough. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. With or both. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. Keith, I guess you're the target of the day anyway. A couple of things. One involves the adequate shelter definition. and it mentions for a structure manufactured discerned primarily as an outdoor shelter for a dog. I'm sure everybody has seen these plastic igloo, gray plastic igloo devices that look a lot like an igloo or they could look a lot like a kiln or an oven in my opinion because there's no insulation whatsoever. and in no case would I ever want one of those, a dog that I was involved with, unless that was in some other form of shade or cover. And I think this is why SOR attempted to insert a mention of shade being also involved. You mentioned or someone mentioned a barrel. A barrel in and of itself isn't bad unless it has no other ventilation holes to let air through. So I think that part of it needs working a little bit. I couldn't possibly vote on something that would suggest that a manufactured something from PetSmart would be adequate in my eyes anyway. Anyway, the question of enforcement, I would guess that maybe 60 to 75 percent of the laws and statutes that we have on the books have enforcement problems at one time or another. Everything from running stop signs to parking on the wrong side of the street or running yellow lights and on and on and on. And obviously, they all aren't cited. We wouldn't, well, we couldn't handle the volume otherwise. And so the concern about enforcement has got to be obviously the extreme cases and not just individual, the collar's too tight or that type of thing. Nobody's going to find that out unless there's been something else happened to the dog that draws people's attention to it, and they may find that the collar being too tight was the cause. Council Member Martin, there is a definition of a tether that indicates that it's supposed to be at least 12 feet long, and I don't think you have many leashes that are that long, so that does define that. I don't specifically have problems with this. This is a first step. I don't think it does everything it needs to do, however, as far as dogs are concerned. My issue, I was chairman of the tethering ordinance, and it is a problem. As some of these pictures up here will attest, It's also just like is the case with animal control. There are probably, if you see that many pictures, there's probably 10x of those situations or occurrences that also exist that they haven't been able to find yet. But again, you've got to take a first step. I think this is a good first step with a little polishing here and a little polishing there. and I thank SOAR for trying to help us on some of these issues, also the suggestions. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Lawless? Well, I might have to say I'm thoroughly confused. We did the dog tethering task force and something was brought forth with that. And there was a suggestion at the last task force meeting, whenever that was, that seemed to make animal care and control, the Humane Society, and the people representing SOAR feel good about it. and that was take it out of, not make it a criminal offense, to have a civil fine that would be collected by the city rather than by the courts and have an administrative hearing officers. And then apparently it got taken up by the animal committee, whatever that is. And so then I started getting all these different versions of ordinances. I think especially since we're, I'm anxious to get something passed today because we're getting ready to be in the heat of this summer when these animals are going to suffer more. But I really think we need to relook at making the tethering part and some of these things that aren't in state law as criminal civil violations. We can collect the money. We can use the money to help fund animal control, to help fund humane society, to do education. And so, you know, we're not going to be in the same boat we are with building inspection, where everything has to go to criminal court, where they're dealing with all kinds of things. So that's my dilemma right now is I want to get something passed today because we're in the, you know, getting ready to see, you know, 80 and 90 degree weather. but I also want to make sure that we have another bite at the apple to take this out of a criminal situation anywhere we can and put it into a civil fund because we need funds to fund animal care and control officers. We need funds to do all kinds of things, and this doesn't give us that. So I don't know how this all got, you know, so I'm kind of miffed, and maybe it's just because I'm tired and old and naturally miffed. But, you know, I do have some problems with this, and I want to know what happens if we pass the draft we got from whoever we got. Is this the draft we're looking at? I mean, I've got a half dozen. The one that is in your packet is the draft that we're looking at. Okay, and then I have this one from ordinances that. There should be one that's in your packet. Okay, I've got one that's in my packet. And then the other one that should say SOAR's requested amendments would be another one that you would have. Okay, and I also have a draft of SOAR changes that's very similar to this one. Can you help me? Yeah. Okay. Council Member Lawless asked me to look at the proposals from SOAR and to incorporate them into the ordinance proposed by the advisory committee. Okay. The one from the committee should say draft 5-1409. The one that includes SOAR's proposed changes says draft SOAR changes. So if you have one that looks like this, that says SOAR changes, those include the changes proposed by SOAR. Now, let me say with SOAR's changes, I tried not... I'm not sure everybody has that one. I sent that to Council Member Lawless because she asked for it. Okay. I guess I didn't realize I was responsible for getting it to the entire council, so maybe I can... Right. Let me say that I tried not to change the language because I was not involved in those discussions. Now, having said that, I did slightly change the tethering language they proposed because it didn't make sense to me. And I tried to clean it up, and I hope it reflects what SOAR was proposing. And that's the only change I made other than alphabetizing adequate shade Instead of adding it at the bottom, I just alphabetized it. But otherwise, the highlights that you have reflect what SOAR requested. And is what is in this document? That is in that copy right there that Mrs. Lawless has, correct? That's correct. Okay. So is there somebody that can make copies? Mr. Schoeniger can take care of that. He can make some copies for us. I've got one. But do you have any other questions? It is a quarter till we need, if we want to get. Okay. Thank you. And we have a list of 25 people, and if there is anybody who would like to speak, there is a list in the back. But right now we have a list of 25. So if we want to get something done today, we're supposed to be done by three. We're going to probably be hard-pressed to get it done today. We'll probably have to look at it rescheduling immediately later in June. And if I can just address a little bit of what Council Member Lawless asked. Since the cruelty provisions are state law and are criminal, you cannot decriminalize those things. Now, the tethering thing is separate, and since it's not addressed by state law, you can decide to adopt an ordinance that would be an administrative hearing process, but obviously it would take some time to get that ordinance with the hearing process ready to go. But the first decision part of that is, do you want an ordinance that prohibits tethering? And then we can set up not only that ordinance, but the hearing process for it. Mr. Myers, you are next on the list. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Horne, and this is for Mr. Horne, Mr. Bowling, and Mr. Curtis, all three. Kind of in piggy-tailing off of what Council Member Lawless was asking, what in the proposed ordinance that Law Department came up with could be done possibly administratively. And maybe let me change that a little bit to what would make sense to try to get done administratively. I realize we have to go to the state to do that. But when you look at this proposed ordinance, and you have to implement it, and actualize it, and enforce it, are there things in there that if we went to the state and got some changes made in the state statute would make it easier to do your job and more effective at doing your job? Well, any time you change the state law, the state law is stronger than the local ordinance, carries more teeth even through the court system. So any change that's going to be done on the state law would be more effective. Let's focus on the change that we can make that would allow us to do some things administratively through the administrative hearings aspect of it. That's a good question. Because that would mean. The state could give you the authority to make all of this an administrative process if you so choose. We do not presently have the ability to do that where this conduct is criminalized. Right. So my question is, if we were going to go to the state and ask for that, what in here would we ask for them to decriminalize so that we could put it in administrative hearings? Some of it we may want to keep criminal. I don't know. Well, and you may not need, I need to think about it, but you may not need to ask them to decriminalize it versus passing a statute that says, much as they did with code enforcement and things like that, that the locality can decide to adopt an administrative hearing process to enforce these types of animal issues. Okay. Let me ask this question. If we were able to accomplish that, are there things in here that we could handle administratively that would probably, you know, the argument about the death penalty, one of the arguments is that people get 20 years of appeals, and so it kind of depletes the immediacy of the action. Are there things in here that if we could make an administrative so that you could exact a fine and get that immediately would change behavior quicker than going through the current criminal process? Does that make sense? I'm not sure exactly whether that would be effective or not, to be honest with you. Being in this, seeing the criminal laws and using the ideal of somebody going to jail for the violations. And keep in mind that we're talking about severe violations, not just the minor ones of somebody who's having proper tethering. Administrative taking, you know, we used the first time the civil courts on a equine case, the horse case, that we ever tried before. because the criminal statutes on equines, you recall the Darnoldton case of the horses. We lost many dollars to the horses because the money couldn't be adequated because horses wasn't considered a victim under that law. So we took a financial loss of over $10,000 at that time. So this new charge, we went the civil route. Believe me, the civil route's a lot longer than the criminal route was. And we had to hold hands with this case on a regular basis. We spent many, many, many more man hours. If we would have just charged him with a cruelty to animals, went through the court system, yes, we might have talked a loss. But through the civil courts, we had to monitor them for an extensive long period of time. I'm talking over a year. Okay. Let me get a specific here. When it speaks to adequate shade, that's something that we probably or maybe wouldn't want to make a criminal offense. But if we could fine them for not having adequate shade and then cause them to go out and get adequate shade, it seems like on the surface that that could be handled much quicker than trying to put them in jail for that. I think you're asking the right questions, and they need some consideration because the other part of an administrative process that, for example, is different for animals is you're not necessarily talking to the property owner who's violating the law. Right. And so if you get a fine and you're not going to pay it, you don't have property to put a lien against. Right. So you're asking the right questions when you're looking at are we going to do this administratively and how effective will it be and exactly which portions of ordinances and laws related to animals should be. administrative versus going through the criminal process. And I think that will take some consideration and thinking not only on my part, but particularly on Humane Society Animal Care and Control's part, so that we can work with them because they're the animal experts. The law department just tries to help everybody reach where they're trying to go. So I think you're asking the right questions. We may not have them today. But I think that those are the correct questions to be asking about an administrative process. Okay. And then we want to go administratively rather than civil court is where I'm talking about going. Yes. So if we had a next step, what would that be to help answer these questions? I think you guys are on the right track here. I think the next step, I think, is how we separate it out. Do some things administratively, whether decriminalized or not, I don't know. but give us the ability at the state level to handle administratively. So how do we get to the point where we have something that we can take to the state that makes sense for them to look at? That's a good question. I don't know if we would have time to discuss this with Humane Society, Animal Care and Control, Public Safety. One thing that can be done is we can examine the current ordinances to see which one would make sense, perhaps, or we would have the ability to handle through an administrative process. But once again, I don't have the knowledge or experience that the animal folk have to necessarily answer your question well today. Okay. Yeah, yeah, I wasn't looking for an answer today, but wanted to offer that as maybe the next step, what we look at. And that makes sense. Okay. The other question I would have is I know that you've done an iteration here that includes source changes. Could you speak quickly, so we still have time for people to speak, to your thoughts on their amendments and how they can be worked in and whether they're a good idea or not a good idea? I don't think you put them all in there, but would you put them all in there? Is that your druthers? Is it okay if I put this up? Sure. Again, I try to separate myself from advocating for or against any of this stuff. So I'll just tell you what the changes SOAR proposed were and my one take on the tethering issue. Let's go through that, and I'll try to be fast. They added a definition for adequate shade, I think, as Council Member Beard referred to. Now, remember, this is added to what the Animal Control and Advisory Committee proposed. These are additions. All right. Everything that we already talked about plus the adequate shade. So in addition to providing adequate food, water, veterinary care, shelter, it requires adequate shade. Okay. It prohibits the tethering or chaining of any dog when it's not physically attended by an owner or harborer between the hours of 7 p.m. and 3 p.m. the next day. Could you do me a favor? When you go through these, could you speak to, you're not advocating either way, but from a legal perspective, how they work, like the first one. Does it make sense to add the adequate shade in there in the way that they have it? Or does it create? Once again, you may need to ask your animal folk. Okay. Let me do this then. I won't ask you to go through this because I understand the situation I'm putting you in, and it's not a good one. let's bring the group together and discuss it in that way, instead of having you just give a legal perspective and then have animal care and control or the Humane Society say, that's a legal argument, but here's the reality. Exactly. And I think that it may have been, again, Council Member Beard, or maybe it was Council Member Blues that mentioned that you don't want to inadvertently, adversely impact a large part of the population. and it is, as far as adequate shade goes and the way it's defined, I don't know if potentially you do that. And I think that you're right. That's one thing that you want to look at when you're looking at any of these ordinances is the practical impact of those provisions. Okay. Thank you very much. At this time, I yield back to the Chair. Thank you. Is there any Council Members who haven't asked any questions you'd like to ask? because we have some council members who already have that would like to speak again. Seeing none, Mr. Lane. I just had a couple of follow-up questions. In the way this is structured, would it be possible to have the basic ordinance and then to have amendments to the ordinance, one that might be canine-related, one that might be equine-related, and then maybe if another animal category came up could be added as an addendum, the reason for my question I think it would be much easier to enforce it would be easy for the person reading the ordinance they could just read the section relating to equine or canine it would be very clear rather than commingling it all together whereas the basic ordinance would cover the general tenets of not being cruel to animals if we could do that I think that would be an enhancement to what we've got here And secondly, it would help us get something in place for the World Games because we have to work through the legislature to get a state statute changed, but this may be something we can use in the interim. There's no reason why you couldn't do that, but your animal experts would have to help us figure out what is going to apply to which animals and are there sufficient differences to break them out like that. But there's no reason why that can't be examined. Okay. Well, that would be my one suggestion. I think it would be helpful in enforcing it and promoting the ordinance in its own right with different types of animal owners. That's all I had. Thank you for your help today. Ms. Lawless? In no way am I suggesting that we need to go to the state to decriminalize cruelty to animals as defined by state statute. But many of the things in here aren't in state statute. Therefore, we can create an ordinance that is a civil fine and an administrative hearing without going to the state. So that being said, that's what I have to say. Thank you. Mr. Beard. That happened quickly. Thank you, Chair. I hadn't hardly made my notes yet. I guess my concern about the state is that, you know, there are metropolitan areas with maybe a slightly higher level of pet ownership and things of that sort, and then there are other areas of the state that have different ideas about how animals are handled, and I would hate to turn this loose with the legislature and be the mercy of some of those areas that don't have the same type of problems that we have. Similar to the situation we've all talked about in the past about a local option sales tax. and it seems like all the rural areas are against that and all the metropolitan areas are for it, and it never seems to happen, and I'm afraid that if we turned this whole thing over to the legislature, there's no telling what we'd end up with. It would be so broad to protect everybody and not protect the animals, I would fear. I think we got enough sense to be able to craft something of our own that is more tailored to the situation that we live in, and without having to turn to the state or turn to Lowell or somebody else to give us help on making our decisions. Thank you. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick. Thank you very much for taking a look at this and bringing this iteration that you brought to us. If I could ask you now the next step, could you, because I don't know what we have to go to the state for to get enabling legislation to allow us to do administratively. Can you take a look at the draft that you put together and work with animal experts and see what we can separate out that makes sense for us to try to do administratively? And then those things that require state action for us to be able to do, let us know those. those things that we can do on our own, let us know those, and then how to move forward to make both of those two different things happen. Does that make sense? It does. Okay. Now, I'm not telling you there's a lot in this current proposal from the advisory committee that you'll be able to put into an administrative process, but I can think of at least one thing that you could. Okay, well, let me define that in this way. There's some things that we can. We want to know those. but also if there are things that we can't without enabling legislation from the state but would make sense to do, let us know those also. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Ms. Henson? Thank you, Chair. Keith, I have a question. I want to make – I, like everybody else, want to make sure that these animals are taken care of. And if we do something, I want to make sure that it's done correctly. It's something that's enforceable. And if we can have an ordinance that has both civil and criminal penalties to it, is that correct? Like the state is criminal, correct? And if it's included, would it be a separate ordinance? or within the same ordinance, some of the penalties might be criminal? I see what you're saying. Okay. I think I understand what you're saying, and I would probably tell you that for cleanness and simplicity, you would split out of an ordinance anything that would be criminal and make a different ordinance for the civil stuff, just so you don't have to go to a paragraph that says, provision 1B and 1C and 2A are going to be in a civil court or an administrative process and everything else is cited to criminal court. Is that what you're asking? Right. I would say try to split them out and keep it clean. Like tethering, for instance, would be civil. Correct. And then cruelty or abuse would be criminal. And that's why, and I think we're thinking the same thing. If you pass an anti-tethering ordinance and you decide to have an administrative process, I would make that be a separate ordinance from the cruelty stuff. And there are parts of, I mean, we've got so many ordinances. I'm like Diane, which one's which? But there are parts of the SOAR ordinance that I like, And there are parts of the ordinance, the origin of the ordinance that the advisory committee came up with that I like. So can we email you and tell you, I mean, you're going to work with it, adjust it, and try to come up with something that's workable, correct? That's correct. But if you have suggestions or things you want to see, if you could, email either me or Rick Curtis so that we understand. Now, it may be that you end up with ten versions, because if all of you ask for a change, I'm probably going to give it to you. And so if there's not a vote of the committee about this is where we want to go, it's difficult to prepare one ordinance. ordinance but if there are common things that everyone is requesting then it seems easy enough to build those into the ordinance all right thank you miss crosby yes don't move just to clarify this ordinance we're looking at today is strictly dealing with cruelty correct it is although We've titled it Care and Treatment of Animals. Okay. And so some of the questions regarding the tethering, I guess the first question would be, they can, or I don't know, maybe animal control can answer this better, but they can enforce, based on the cruelty, as it's defined and outlined in here, that can be addressed within this ordinance, correct? But your recommendation is that we do a separate, because the one about tethering. If you as a body decide that you want an anti-tethering ordinance and you're thinking about making an administrative process, then I would say yes, consider a separate anti-tethering ordinance. I am not suggesting to you that you adopt or not adopt an anti-tethering ordinance. Clearly, so we can pass an anti-cruelty ordinance, and tethering can be enforced within the ordinance as it stands, and we can still continue to look at doing something with anti-tethering if we so choose. That is correct. Thank you. Are there any other questions for council members? Mr. Myers? Thank you. To follow up on that, do you or does the committee feel like this current iteration addresses tethering the way that it needs to be addressed? I can give you my impression of the committee, although I'm not on the committee. He's there every minute. And feel free. The ordinance does not prohibit tethering, period. What it tries to do is deal with the results of, I guess I would call it poor tethering, because this is not going to reach your typical tethering situation, but it will reach, and I think animal care and control feel that it will reach those bad cases where animals are in bad condition because of tethering. But it's not just limited to an animal in bad condition because of tethering. It's related to bad conditions no matter what the problem is. That was the goal. Right. And that was my goal in having you look at the ordinance. Thank you. Ms. Henson? I was just curious about, okay, we're going to work on this ordinance, but I think Council Member Lawless mentioned earlier, I think we have time restraints because we are getting ready to get in the heat of the summer. And to me, there will be dogs out there suffering because of the heat. And this is going to address those issues. So I was just curious as to when we can bring this back. Well, if somebody makes a motion, we can do it today. Could I add, the things that I asked him to look at, I wasn't, my point in doing that was not to say that we can't pass what we have here today. They won't slow this process down. Right, I don't want to slow this process down. We can vote on this today. We can vote this up and move forward. That's just something else to look at, how we can more effectively penalize those who are doing wrong. Right. But my intention was not to slow this down. I'm in favor of voting this up right now. In fact, I'll just make the motion. to take the iteration that was included in our packet called draft 514-09. That's the advisory committee draft. The advisory committee draft, and we pass that on to the full council for a vote. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Discussion, and I still have some people on here that will be talking this. So, Ms. Henson, you're through. an amendment to the ordinance or a suggested amendment in the SOAR ordinance that their proposal. Can we go ahead and come back to that then? Can we let the list of speakers, then we'll come back to your amendment if you don't mind. Ms. Lawless. Yes. Yeah, I want to make it clear, and I believe I'm correct here, that we don't have to separate it out now. We could pass whatever we want and separate it out later. And so if we adopt the SOAR draft, it does not mean that we can't, as the summer moves on, separate those parts that we can put in as a civil penalty. Well, it's not the SOAR draft. I understand the SOAR draft's not the motion. I just wanted to, so, okay. Mr. Beard? Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to remind everybody, as far as tethering is concerned, we've been focusing somewhat on the animal. And remember, as you might see from some of the pictures available, that because tethered dogs are attractive nuisances, children and other folks approaching those animals get attacked sometimes. And this doesn't address that type of thing at all. you can go by and everything could be just fine from the curb, and then three days later a child gets mauled because the creature has been tethered. And then the other question involves, of course, in my opinion, there needs to be this definition of shade added at some point anyway. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Council Member Allingart. I still have problems with the way this ordinance and the one in our packet is drafted. I don't think that they should be specifically limited to dogs and not other types of animals. I think that's just a – I realize that's what these folks here are concerned about, but I think we need a more comprehensive animal ordinance. I don't think that there is an adequate distinction between tethering and leashing. I think the ambiguity there is going to possibly allow a lot of people to be in violation of this. And I just think that we can do a better job. I realize that folks feel pressed because of the onset of summer. But to be honest, you really do need a period of time for folks to acclimate to this, some sort of a transition period, because if this goes effective the day you pass it, then suddenly half of Lexington are going to be in violation because they've got the wrong collar on their dogs or because they don't have time to go out and get shelters or things like that that satisfy. fine. The other thing is that there's no provision in here for any sort of funds to allow mitigation by folks who don't have the money to do this. I mean, there are parts of our town who won't be able to afford to go out and build a fence, and you can't build a fence like this in my neighborhood. So I think I still have some problems with this. Yeah, Mr. Sint. It doesn't say that, I think, is what Mr. Stenant said. Let's go back to Ms. Henson now. You wanted to bring up an amendment? Because I don't have any more speakers on the motion here. The only thing that I like, well, I shouldn't say the only thing. The one thing that I really like in the SOAR ordinance was to restrain by chain or tether any dog that is not physically attended by its owner or harborer. I like C, while the owner or harbor of the dog is not within auditory or visual range of the dog, which would mean if you're not home, you can't tether your dog. And that would not be hard to enforce. Do you think, Chief Bowling? Repeat the question. Their item says, while the owner or hover of the dog is not within auditory or visual range of the dog. So in order to tether, you would have to be able to be within visual range of the dog or be able to hear the dog. If I'm understanding it correctly, yes. And in order to do that, you would have to be at home. Correct. And I would like to add that into this ordinance. And that would prevent folks from going off for weekends or on vacation and leaving their dog. The only information I can provide you on that is the Dog Tethering Subcommittee looked at that very provision. And eventually the Dog Tethering Subcommittee said, we don't like that. So the one that was brought forward from the subcommittee was what the subcommittee voted out. If there's an enforcement problem from a legal standpoint, not a practical standpoint, with that, and I agree with you, it basically means somebody's home, because you're not going to be able to prove whether that person was actually watching the dog, listening for the dog. But if somebody's home, and that's the draft that was before the subcommittee, as long as somebody's home, then you may tether your animal. That's the way I would read that. The proposal from the advisory committee does not include any prohibition against tethering. It also does not include any fencing or anything like that. Although the SOAR proposal does require, if an animal is outside, that it have an enclosure. either a fence or some other type of enclosure. And it also requires 150 square feet of space per dog if you're going to have your animal outside. Those are the primary, those are the big parts of the SOAR. And it is not included in the ordinance that we're getting ready to vote on. That's correct. Well, did you want to make an amendment? Did you want to make that motion or not? because if you do, we need to then deal with that amendment or we can deal with the motion on the floor. Okay. Then we can vote just on the amendment, correct? We'll do that. If you make the motion, then that's what we'll deal with next. So I make a motion to amend the ordinance to include that to restrain, chain tether a dog, the individual, the owner, the harbler of the dog must be within auditory or visual range of the dog. So moved. We have a motion second. Any discussion on the amendment? And I've got a list, but I think that list is for the motion itself. So if you want to speak on the amendment, just raise your hand and I will recognize you. Mr. McCord. And Council Member Henson, that comes out of the new Section 5, which also has a couple of other things, so you are not wanting to include those. Okay. Okay. Any other questions on the amendment? Okay, we'll vote on that. All in favor of the amendment, and would you repeat the amendment so we all are very clear on that, Ms. Henson? It's just, while the owner or harborer of the dog is not within auditory or visual range of the dog. And that is 5C on page 2 of source. That's correct. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. No. That fails. Back to the original motion. And I have Mr. Martin. Thank you. and it just says dogs. And so I would encourage you to try to clean this up before you pass it. Thank you, Mr. Allinger. Mr. Horn, as the attorney writing this ordinance, would you have any comment on that? We can certainly do that. Do you agree with his statement then that it needs to be cleaned up? No offense, Mr. Horn. As I said, the advisory committee had a discussion about where the term dog appears and where the term animal appears and had definite thoughts on it. And this is what came forward. But it was considered. It was discussed. I guess just in closing, I guess I am not going to support this today, but I would encourage folks to come back with another draft that sort of fixes some of these problems and maybe addresses things on a broader scale. Mr. Lane has some excellent points about horses, and Lexington is the horse capital of the world, and for us not to have something that addresses horses in our animal cruelty statute, I think is sort of missing the boat, particularly as we head up toward the FEI games next year. So thank you. Mr. Kearse, I think you rose. The same specifically. I mean, I agree with Mr. Lane wholeheartedly a reference to the equine industry, especially in central Kentucky, but I do believe that that's a separate issue as far as animals go, and I know that we're saying animals here, and I would love to see a comprehensive ordinance specifically addressed at the equine industry because of how important it is to us in central Kentucky. And I agree with Mr. Martin specifically that because of the importance of the equine industry, we should have an ordinance relative to horses and horses alone. Ms. Lawless? Would this be a time to put forth another amendment? Mr. Myers, did you want to speak on the original motion? I'll come back to you with the amendment. I'll let Mr. Myers ask a question here, and then we'll come back to you on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to ask, I don't know, last time you asked me, I volunteered. and two months later still standing here. Mr. Curtis, could you speak to the discussions that the committee had in terms of where you have animal or dog or all animals? And would there be a problem, would it be problematic to just change dog to say, I notice in his manuscript here he's got all animals in a lot of those sections. Would that be problematic? I don't think specifically it would. The problem with it would be is the state statute refers to animals as opposed to just dogs, and we were trying to follow state statute purpose on the downline. And when I went to the county attorney and sat down with them and showed them this ordinance specifically, they mentioned that, but by the same token, the state statute covers cruelty to animals other than dogs. and they do not have a problem with the inclusion of dog as a separate. At best, I know that it looks choppy in dealing with laws and enforcing those laws for 30 years. I know at best it looks choppy. But when I sit down with two county attorneys that are going to do the prosecution and they say, we can prosecute this, this is a good ordinance, that's what I went with, their recommendation. Okay. Then I would go with that as it would be my vote. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Lawless, now back to you. you wanted to have amendment to the motion? Yes. I would like to add, I guess it's 4 to number 4, adequate shade. And could you? Adequate shade means one or more separate outside areas of shade large enough to contain all dogs at one time and protect them from the direct rays of the sun. A doghouse shall not constitute adequate shade. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the amendment? If you are, raise your hand because I've got a different list here. And let's say, Mr. Myers, did you want to? Okay, Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I ask either Mr. Horn, Mr. Curtis, or Chief if you have any heartburn with adding this? I'll speak first if it's okay. I mean, I wish we would have included shade in there. It's just there was an omission on our part. We just didn't think about it speaking for the committee itself. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lane, you're on the list. Did you want to talk on the amendment? No. Okay. Anybody else? All those in favor of the amendment that Ms. Long was presented on adequate shade, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. No. That passes, and that will be added. Now, Mr. Lane, I think you were on the list now. All right. I just wanted to go on the record to say that I do support new ordinance, you know, controlling tethering. However, I don't feel like this ordinance that's drafted today is adequate, and it doesn't also address some of the other issues for other animals. So I'm not going to vote for it today, but I just want the people to know that I am a general support, and when we get the openers a little bit enhanced, then I'll be supporting it. Thank you. At this time, I think we are done with all the council members. Ms. Feigl did want to bring up on issue number two the underground utilities, because it looks like at this hour that we probably won't be able to handle that one. So, Ms. Feigl? Yeah, we are. Thank you, sir. We're going to defer the Underground Utilities Ordinance for today, so if you're here to speak to that particular issue, thank you so much for coming, and we will let you know when that comes up again. Thank you. And at this time now, I would ask anybody who signed up that we will give you three minutes to speak, and Mr. Scheinger will be the timekeeper, and he'll be calling out the names. And if you could, keep your remarks to under three minutes and do not repeat yourselves. So if something has already been said, please try not to do that, especially for the time. And as I said earlier, if we do not get finished today, there is an opportunity where there is not a committee meeting scheduled on the 30th, that if we want to reconvene the services on this issue, we could do that on the 30th from 1 to 3. So we can just keep that in the background if we don't get done by 3 o'clock today. Chair, you may want to check, though, because I know some people have other commitments on that date. So I will not be available on the 30th. Okay, we can make that motion later if need be. At this time, Mr. Schoeniger. First speaker is Marianne Fugate. Second speaker is Pam Rogers. Could you please give your name and address? Hi, my name is Marianne Fugate. I live at 1773 Yorktown Road in Lexington. And I have a presentation here. I'll just go through it quickly. Speak Out and Rescue, Inc., a 501c3 nonprofit group, in conjunction with Concerned Lexington Residence, respectfully request that the Services Committee add the following requirements to the animal ordinance that is being considered today. Without SOAR's amendments, the proposed ordinance as it stands will allow lifetime 24-hour per day chaining of dogs, allow dogs to be kept permanently outdoors in tiny pens, allow dogs to be kept outdoors without access to shade. SOAR's amendments are a shade requirement for dogs kept outside, a limit on unattended chaining and a minimum enclosure requirement for dogs kept outside. Civil or criminal penalties. SOAR asks the council to enforce these laws either with a civil or criminal penalty as it sees fit. The civil penalty would allow the city to use money from fines for local programs. I think I'm going to skip the shade requirement because I think everybody understands why a dog needs shade. Why do we need a limit on unattended chaining? Chaining is dangerous for people. Chained dogs are three times as likely to bite as dogs who are not chained. It increases aggression. Dogs are pack animals, but permanently chaining a dog separates him from his pack. Chained dogs present a danger to owners and neighbors, including their children, service providers, postal carriers, utility providers, and delivery personnel, police and other public employees, and any person walking onto property where a chained dog lives. Chaining is dangerous for dogs. In the photo, you see a dog that has tongue itself. Chain dogs are easy prey for other animals and people with criminal and cruel intentions. They can be severely injured or even killed. Want a chaining law create more work for animal control? No, because chaining is already creating repetitive work for animal control right now. I want to emphasize this point. If you take nothing away from this presentation, please remember this one point. ACC currently receives hundreds of calls about chain dogs. They must visit the same locations over and over again to address the results of chaining, aggression, biting, constant barking, and neglect. The chaining limit would enable them to put an end to lifetime chaining and also decrease their calls for biting, barking, aggression, and neglect. Once we get rid of lifetime chaining, ACC's calls will decrease or remain at the same previous levels. And so here we have the legal language for the chaining amendment. In plain English, this means dogs can be chained or tethered unattended for no more than one hour from 3 to 7. Unattended chaining will be prohibited at all other times. And an owner must be at home while chaining a dog unattended during the permitted time period. Why do we need a minimum enclosure requirement? Dogs kept outdoors must have an enclosure big enough to allow them moderate exercise, allow them to eliminate waste away from where they eat and drink. So this is a 10 by 15 foot area. This does not apply to dogs who live at home in the house or in the apartment with their owner. This is for dogs who are kept constantly outside. So there's our enclosure amendment. It's 150 square feet per dog. And that's it. Does anybody have any questions? Thank you. Pam Rogers and Eric Blow. Good afternoon. It's been a long meeting. My name is Pam Rogers. I'm the Kentucky State Director for the Humane Society of the United States. I believe I had a PowerPoint for this committee not too long ago. I applaud the city of Lexington for trying to upgrade their cruelty statutes or ordinance because Kentucky ranks 50th now, 50th in the country. We have the worst cruelty statutes in the country. Our cruelty statutes do not have the word shelter in them. They have the word space. I've been trying to get shelter upgraded at the state level for several attempts now. I've not been successful. so I encourage you to strengthen the Lexington Ordinance as much as you can. But one of the most cruel things you can do to a dog is tether it 24 hours a day, period. That's one of the most cruel things you can do. Innocent yet sentenced to life in prison, no parole. That's what a tethered dog is. When you pass a strong anti-tethering segment to your law, you not only, as Sor mentioned, you protect the dogs, but you also protect the public. It is the number one cause of dangerous dogs. Many of the cities in the state are looking at dangerous dog issues, and anti-tethering, no tethering, no chaining of dogs is key on the top of the list. We have just got to stop at Louisville. Passed that ordinance many years ago. I brought Eric Blow with me to talk about that. He was the former Metro Animal Services Director for 27 years. It's a fallacy to think that anti-tethering is going to increase animal control costs. In fact, it is the converse. Let me just give you some quick statistics. Lawrence, Kansas, instituted a chaining ban. Preordinance, 800 cruelty complaints, 50 for dogfighting. Post-ordinance, 260 cruelty complaints, 25 for dogfighting. By the way, dogfighting is on the increase in Kentucky because all the states around us have increased the penalties for dogfighting. Chaining is one of the key ways the dogfighters keep their dogs. So I'm getting more and more calls about dogfighting. We're having more dogfighting bus, more dogfighting tips in the state of Kentucky. Carthage, Missouri chaining ban passed in 1993. This year after the ban passed, dog bites dropped 25%. North Carolina, Laurenburg, North Carolina, one-hour chaining limit. Pre-ordinance, 12 dog bites per year. Post-ordinance, three dog bites per year. Two years later, one dog bite per year. Dodge City, Kansas, three-hour chaining limit. Pre-ordinance, 173 loose animal calls per month. Two years later, 112. City of Battle Creek, Michigan, three-hour chaining limit. Three years after, no shelter surrenders because of the ordinance. Three years after, the animal control gets one tethering complaint per month, if that. So I encourage you to, as you're looking at some of your civil versus criminal penalties issues, to revisit the total anti-tethering issue because it is a key factor in having safe communities, keeping dogfighters and the other criminal elements that are associated with dogfighting out of your community, which is going to be key as people are moving from Louisiana, Alabama, et cetera, for dogfighting. Thank you. Eric Blow and then Whitney Barker Baker. I was actually first on the list. I don't know what happened. My name is Roberta Harding, and I speak with wearing many hats. I am a law professor at the University of Kentucky, and I teach a class on animal rights. I also am involved, very involved with animal rescue and have been for many years. I also have had, let's just say some historical, because of history, I'm especially, I think, sensitive to what it must be like to be a sentient living creature being chained. And I think we all know what I'm talking about. When you're considered you're non-human, animals are not human, obviously, but they're sentient and they're personal property. And we've already been down that road before. I want to relate a story that Chevy Chase, that's where I live, on Colony Boulevard, down the street from you. I think I saw you yesterday with your dog, or Sunday, I think, with your dog. Near me, I've got many pieces of property that attach mine, and there was a golden retriever puppy that was tethered. I would go out, and I would see the puppy tied up around a bush. I'd climb the chain link fence, and believe me, I'm no athlete, so it was very difficult. I would undo the dog. Frequently, it had knocked its water over because the bowl was not heavy enough. I'd give it water. I'd climb back over the fence. I did this many, many times. I called animal control many, many times. They would go over there. I would call and ask them. And they'd say, well, we went over and they were home and the animal is, you know, has water and it's in the house. I'm like, yeah, but when I climb the fence, you know, sometimes three times a day, that animal is tied up. Well, it's not right. A few weeks, I mean, this went on for quite a few months. It would be baking in the sun, a little puppy. A few weeks after, well, after a few months, actually, this went on. I hadn't seen the dog for a while. I saw my neighbors walking two golden retrievers. I recognized one as the elder dog. And the other one, I said, well, that doesn't look like butter. I went out and I asked them. I said, oh, is that butter? He's grown. No, that's not butter. Really? Where's butter? Butter died. I said, why? What happened? he got wrapped around the tree and he hung himself. That dog strangled to death a slow, torturous, agonizing death. And I feel horrible. But I couldn't keep climbing over the fence. Animal control could do nothing. If they'd gone over there once, if there'd been an anti-tethering law, they would have seen it and said, sorry, you cannot do that. I understand. I'm getting ready to close down. I'm sorry, Ms. Harding. Your time is up. I was just going to say thank you. Is that all right? Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Eric Blow and Whitney Baker. Good afternoon. My name is Eric Blow. I'm the past director of Louisville Metro Animal Services, retired a few years ago, served 27 years. I'm here to speak about the chaining provision, although there's a lot of other issues floating around, I can see. We were the first jurisdiction in the United States to pass an anti-tethering ordinance. Dr. John Wright, an animal behaviorist from Mercer University, had done a behavioral study concerning aggression and chaining, and this was published in the early 90s. And it showed that, among other things, it showed an owner was 3.4 times more likely to be bitten by their own dog if it was kept on a fixed-point chain, and that was what really spurred me to look at this. We passed two different versions, however, the last version was simply a dog or puppy may not be chained on fixed-point for more than one hour and 24. It worked very, very well. The issues that it addresses, of course, are those of cruel treatment, which many of these dogs suffer. We also had a weight requirement. No chain may weigh more than one-eighth of the dog's body weight. It has to be attached to a collar that is appropriate and fits. We wanted to address aggressive animals, those animals that were biting people. This does that. One of, at the time we passed it, we were a commission form of government. We're now city-county merged, just as you, we followed you guys. But one of the county commissioners, after I explained to him the various reasons why aggression is a learned behavior, said to me, you know, I agree with all that, but we ought to pass this just because it's an awful way to keep a dog, and that part is true as well. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, thank you for your time. Whitney Barker and Tracy Miller. Tracy Miller and then Matt Page. Hi, I'm Tracy Miller, President of Speak Out and Rescue. SOAR's list of chained dogs continue to grow. Here are more that are waiting for a law to pass so that they might be free from a life of misery. This is a bite that one of our volunteers received when we were in District 10, trying to lay down straw for a dog that we had permission from its owner to do so. And as she attempted to lay down some straw, the dog took a hold of her arm and bit her severely. And she had to go to the emergency room, and she also had to have surgery on that arm. She missed a week of work, and that's why she's not here today. She was unable to get off of work. From January 2007 to September 2008, there were 1,130 dog bites in Fayette County, which means 62 per month or two per day. Chained dogs are three times as likely to bite as dogs who do not live chained. This is Rock the puppy and his owner that were featured in the Herald Leader in 1999. and you can see Rock is just a baby then. And this is Rock nine years later. He has lived chained over on Prawl Street for the last nine years. And flagging is when Animal Care and Control marks or flags an address that they will not go to anymore. Even if they get calls about it, Rock's address was flagged. A lot of people called ACC about Rock's welfare because he was chained. There was nothing the officers could do about the chaining because lifetime chaining is currently legal in Fayette County. And this is Rock's new enclosure. We just built him a fence last week, and it is 160 square foot, so he's no longer chained to that tree. He is free to roam around in that enclosure. This is Lady. She's chained in District 2, not an 11. But she is 15 years old, and her owner will not receive help from SOAR. We've offered to build a fence for him. We've even offered to take this dog into our care, and he will not agree to such. This is Reaper. We just fenced him in as well last week. He had a two-foot chain that was very heavy and obviously very tight, and we fenced him in, and he now has 300 square feet. So we put up a big fence for him just last week. You have 10 seconds, ma'am. Oh, this is District 9, also a dog chained. District 11, there are two pit bulls at this house, and they are wearing bark collars, so not only are they chained. Thank you very much. Your time is up. Sorry. Thank you. Matt Page and Kim Stewart. Matt Page, 1434 Elizabeth Street. Here's what animal control advisors and humane treatment experts in Lexington think about chaining. Quote, we also are in agreement as a committee that animals should not be tethered constantly or for extended periods of time, which would only serve to cause harm to the animal's physical well-being or cause that animal to become violent towards others. And that's from a letter to council members from the Animal Care and Control Advisory. And then another quote here. Lexington Humane Society, LHS, does not believe any dog should live the majority of its life tethered outdoors, apart from its family and without proper socialization. LHS supports passage of the proposed tethering law, which works to protect animals from 24-7 unaccompanied tethered. And that's also a letter from Council members on April 6, 2009. Thanks. Kim Stewart and Tammy Kamen. Good afternoon. My name is Kim Stewart, and I live at 3581 King Arthur Drive here in Lexington, and I will also be doing a presentation from PowerPoint. Over 1,000 Fayette County residents of voting age have signed source petition. We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Lexington Fayette Urban County Council to pass an ordinance forbidding the chaining or tethering of dogs unless they are physically accompanied by their owner. I apologize. Far too many dog owners leave their pets chained for lengths of time that can only be considered abusive and neglectful. If someone can't spend the time or money to fencing their yards or otherwise care for their pet in a humane way, they have no business owning one. It is inhumane to keep a dog chained up day and night. Why in the world would anyone want a dog if they're going to keep it on a chain? Unable to run and play, chain dogs are aggressive dogs. While I understand that a person may chain a dog outside for a short period of time in order to perform outdoor chores, I feel that leaving a dog chained day and night is a terrible way to treat an animal. Dogs are social beings that need interaction, socialization, and exercise. Life on the end of a chain is a miserable existence. I believe there are more humane ways to restrain dogs, and those should be utilized, not chains. The practice of chaining dogs is both inhumane and a threat to the safety of the confined animals, other animals, and humans. Dogs are naturally social beings who thrive on interaction with human beings and other animals, and otherwise friendly and docile dogs, when kept continuously chained, becomes neurotic, unhappy, anxious, and often aggressive. Humans have spent many years socializing dogs to become part of our families, and as a result, dogs need to be part of a social setting. Not only are we putting their physical safety at risk by leaving them tethered, but we are hurting their social skills. This not only leads to unhappy dogs, but it can put the safety of humans at risk as well. Please pass the anti-chaining law for the good of everyone. I am a Lexington resident and have lived in Louisville where they do have a no-chaining law. I am embarrassed that Lexington still does not have one. It doesn't do much to make Lexington look progressive. Chain dogs are much more likely to bite, and the practice is outdated and cruel. We need to make our city more dog-friendly. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tammy Kinman-Rupert, and I'm an area rep for Kentucky for the group Dogs Deserve Better. I'm also here today on behalf of Mothers Against Dog Chaining. because I am one, a mother that is. So like good mothers do, I'm going to tell you a story today. Once upon a time, there was a great city in the state of Kentucky called Lexington. It's one of the largest cities in the state, and they have a very big problem that they needed help with. Their weakest, most vulnerable citizens, their children, were at great risk. It seems that lots of people throughout Lexington practice a very bad form of animal cruelty by chaining up their dogs. This barbaric form of neglect and abuse makes dogs three times more likely to attack, and 79% of these attacks are on children under the age of 12. Young children are the most vulnerable to being attacked by these dogs who have been deprived of their basic needs. Dogs are a social species that thrive in an environment with socialization, training, proper nutrition, adequate water, and regular health care in a loving home. Deprived of these and forced to live on a chain is like leaving a loaded weapon in your backyard. Sadly, children are often the voiceless, defenseless, and innocent victims when a chain dog attacks. The good news and the happy ending are within our grasp. A lady named Tracy Miller and her group name Soar are offering the city of Lexington a huge gift. Their anti-chaining initiative solves the problem of the public safety risk that puts our children in harm's way. Our society works to keep children safe from neglectful parents and fireworks, yet chained dogs killed 33% more children than did falls and firework accidents combined. It is time for Kentucky to say enough is enough and start passing laws to protect children and our dogs, both who are innocent, voiceless, defenseless victims of this tragedy. We have nowhere to go but up, Kentucky, because, as was mentioned before, a 2008 study by the Animal Legal Defense Fund gives Kentucky the distinction of 50 out of 50 states for our laws protecting animals. I don't think we want that in our marketing campaign with these world games coming up. We're dead last. We are beyond needing to do better for our citizens. I urge you today to accept the gift of SOAR's anti-chaining initiative. We know better, so let's do better. and use legislation and education to move Lexington and Kentucky forward. Let's create a happily ever after for our children and our dogs. I have for each of you a packet, and you get to take this home tonight. This is the little girl that created Mothers Against Dog Chaining. Michaela Sinclair was killed in 2003 by a chain dog. Her mother, along with Dogs Deserve Better, created Mothers Against Dog Chaining. Unfortunately, in here, there's a handout with 12 pages of other children and their pictures and their names who have been attacked, injured, or killed. Thank you very much. Dr. Craig Blair and Marilyn Macharta. My name is Marilyn Machara. I live at 1642 Metathorpe Avenue. I thank the Council members for considering the important issues of animal care and control, and I thank the ACC officers for doing a difficult job. I hope Council will vote to fund ACC as well as possible, because issues of animal care and control affect everyone in the community. Some people are afraid that an ordinance to help those dogs who spend their whole lives on a chain would pose an undue burden on dog owners who temporarily tether their dogs. I'd like to offer a different view. I had two dogs before I had a secure fence, and I know firsthand that it is not always an easy or convenient situation. Nevertheless, I have never left my dogs tied out unattended. As a frequent pedestrian, I have seen so many problems with dogs left tethered and unattended, even temporarily, that I never considered unattended tethering an option. I have had my heart in my throat more than once when a tethered dog suddenly lunged at me from behind a bush. I have seen dogs tied so that they can still reach the sidewalk or even run into the street. In one case, this was happening right near an elementary school. I've seen dogs tangled up on their tethers, and I've seen dogs pull up their stakes and drag them behind as they escape. Recently, when I was walking my two dogs, a tethered dog pulled up his stake and ran across the street toward us, dragging his tether and stake through the road. Fortunately, this dog was not unattended. His owners were there with him in the yard, and they were able to intervene immediately. That is the difference between attended and unattended tethering. Dogs can be a joy to own. They can also be a liability and a huge responsibility. I was horrified when my own cute, friendly little 12-pound dog snapped at a child who was hugging him. Fortunately, the child was scratched, not seriously bitten, but the thought of what could have happened absolutely haunts me. Cute, cuddly, approachable dogs can be a tempting hazard. I would never leave my dog sitting out unattended because a child might approach unsupervised. Some people who choose to have a dog believe that how they care for their dog is their own business. I ask the committee to consider all the parties who are affected through no choice of their own. The dog stuck in a strange and vulnerable situation has no choice. Neither do the service workers, pedestrians, and bicyclists that must pass by, or the children who don't know better than to approach, and neither do the neighbors who can't enjoy their homes and yards because they must live next to a miserable tethered dog. One summer, I had the unhappy experience of listening to a dog whine, cry, and bark all day and all night long while constantly tied out unattended. I assure you, miserable dogs make for miserable neighbors. I want to live in a safe, pedestrian-friendly, neighbor-friendly, humane community. I hope the committee votes today to protect both dogs and people by prohibiting or strictly limiting unattended tethering. Thank you. Lynn Carmichael, Mark Schumer. Campbell Welch, Laura Duckworth. Hello, my name is Mark Sharmer. I live at 384 Redding Road. There's been discussion about whether or not such an ordinance would be enforceable. But in 2006, the national organization Dogs Deserve Better, It is a survey of animal care and control departments in cities with chaining laws, and here is what they found. Let's see, where am I? Okay. From Lawton, Oklahoma, the animal control director said that we do not have any problems enforcing the ordinance, and most residents comply. She has seen a decrease in the number of dogs dying from heat strokes and from strangulation on chains, and states that chain dogs are bad for the community because they are much more likely to bark and also more likely to bite. From Wilmington, North Carolina, the animal control director states that the ordinance is enforced. Prior to 2002, dogs would, or they would just talk to residents and educate them about the effects of chaining and why it is bad for dogs in the community. When the talking didn't seem to work, they made it a civil penalty, and now it works. She said that the ordinance has been absolutely good for dogs in the community. From Carthage, Missouri, the animal control abatement officer states that the ordinance is enforced. She said that they receive less and less calls about chained dogs now. And since the ordinance was enacted, there are less dogs at large in the community and less dog bites reported. She said chained dogs are much more aggressive. From New Orleans, the chief humane officer, his law enforced, quote, yes, they have had a decrease in the number of nuisance calls. Most of the residents comply with the law. They often find other problems when citing residents for a chaining violation, such as no vaccination and no license. Most of the residents were very much in favor of the ordinance. She believes that the ordinance has been good and that it has helped with the pit bull fighting rings and with incidents of aggression. From Dodge City, Kansas, the animal shelter director says that, I'd say 95% have complied with tethering and space requirements. This law has eliminated many other complaints, such as vicious dogs or dogs without water. This law has worked out fantastically. It was easier than I thought it would be when I initiated it. From Topeka, Kansas, the animal control supervisor states that most people comply without a citation. Our ordinance has been in effect for almost two years. It continues to work just fine. From Tucson, Arizona, the animal control field supervisor says a ban for all animals except horses. They have this, they allow temporary tethering only for horses. They've had about 20 complaints a week and they estimate that about 90% of people comply. from Wichita, Kansas. The animal control supervisor states that they have about 60 complaints a month. In about 85 to 90 percent of cases, the people complied before being cited. Wichita's ordinance has been a very useful tool in our efforts to... You have about 10 seconds, sir. Thank you. The lives of dogs in our city, it's a welcome and enforceable tool for the animal control section. I highly recommend that other jurisdictions consider passing similar ordinances. They have issues with animal neglect, continuous criminal legal dog fighting. Thank you. Campbell Welch, Laura Duckworth. We are running up to a 3 o'clock work session. We've got just a few more minutes. If you would like to speak, why don't you line up and if you have something new to add, then give a few minutes of that. Otherwise we're going to have to, Mr. Lane. Mr. Chair, do we have to take a vote on this? And we still do have to take a vote. That's why I'd like to, if we could, get through this motion. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? We do have a list of about ten more people. And if you would, just come line up. And if you have anything new to add, otherwise we will go ahead and close any further discussion. But if you would like to speak, please come up now if you have anything new to add. Seeing none, we will go ahead and take a vote. Did Council have any further questions from the discussion? Ms. Crosby? Yes, I guess my question relates to, obviously, we have what some of us believe is a fairly decent ordinance in front of us that addresses a lot of issues, but I think what we've seen from today is that there's still a need to possibly address what failed last go-round, but that's not being currently met. There are two separate issues here that we're dealing with, and while I appreciate the testimony today, that's not necessarily what we have to take this vote on, but I do see the importance of us trying to revisit that in some capacity. And I guess just for a point of clarification, does that need to be brought back into committee at a later date? I think that could be brought up in work session. If you want to readdress that issue and bring it in work session today to put it back in the services committee, because I think that issue was voted on and it didn't pass. But if Council Member wants to bring it back in, we can always re-look at this issue. But like you said, this ordinance does not completely address the tethering issue. So that is a separate issue. So if you wanted to make that motion, I think it would probably be appropriate in work session today. Okay, thank you. Are there any other discussions? I have Mr. Lane on here. Is that from some other time? With that, oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Lawless? I want to explain my vote. I'm going to vote for this with the amendment on shade, and hopefully we can address the other important issues. But I want something to get passed today as we are looking at, this is better than nothing, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Anybody else? and with that let's vote for the motion with the amendment all those in favor vote aye and push your button and all those nay that passes any other issues before the committee we stand adjourned thank you