[00:15:34] PLEASE. [Call to Order] [00:16:12] GOOD AFTERNOON. THE TIME IS 4:02 P.M. THIS IS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF [00:16:17] THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. I'M YOUR CHAIR, DAN SYME. MY CO-CHAIR. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS [Roll Call] [00:16:25] HAS HAD A FAMILY EMERGENCY. WON'T BE HERE. WE HAVE AN EXCUSED ABSENCE FROM BARBARA SHANKLIN. IN COMMITTEE, WE HAVE COMMITTEE MEMBER SHAMIKA PARISH. RIGHT? KEN HERNDON, JONATHAN JOSEPH, ANTHONY. PIAGENTINI. JENNY MULVEY. WOOLRIDGE. BETSY. RUBY, AND ALSO IN IS COUNCILMAN OWEN. AND. COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. CLERK. WILL READ IN FULL. OKAY,E DO HAVE COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS IN VIDEO IF YOU WOULD SHARE IT, PLEASE. WE HAVE FOUR PIECES OF LEGISLATION ON THE AGENDA TODAY. PLEASE NOTE THAT ITEM NUMBER 2R-1 12 DASH 25 WILL BE HELD AT THE REQUEST OF THE SPONSOR [1. R-109-25     A RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT (“LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL”) URGING GOVERNOR ANDY BESHEAR AND THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TO EXPEDITE THE REOPENING OF THE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY. Action Required By: March 11, 2026 Sponsors: Kevin Bratcher (R-22), Jonathan ”JJ” Joseph (R-12), Tammy Hawkins (D-1)] CLERK. PLEASE READ ITEM NUMBER ONE INTO THE RECORD. ITEM ONE A RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL URGING GOVERNOR ANDY BESHEAR AND THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TO EXPEDITE THE REOPENING OF THE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY. READ IN FULL. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED. COUNCILMAN KEVIN BRATCHER IS A SPONSOR OF THIS RESOLUTION. IS KEVIN'S NOT HERE. WE HAVE JJ WILL BE SPEAKING ON THIS MEASURE. COUNCILMAN JOSEPH, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. YEAH. THIS RESOLUTION IS DESIGNED TO, OBVIOUSLY, AS THE TITLE SAYS, TO URGE GOVERNOR BESHEAR AND STATE GOVERNMENT TO MOVE AT A QUICKER PACE TO OPEN UP THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM HERE IN LOUISVILLE. WE KNOW THAT THE FUNDING HAS BEEN THERE THROUGH THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY, OVER $30 MILLION TO OPEN UP THE FACILITY. THIS HAS BEEN SPONSORED BY MYSELF. REPRESENT NOT REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILMAN BRATCHER AND COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS. AND SO WE HAVE FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE METRO COUNCIL POLITICAL AISLE. BUT WE JUST BELIEVE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN. IT NEEDS TO BE OPENED AT A FASTER PACE THAN WHERE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW. AND SO HAPPY TO TAKE ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS OR ANY THOUGHTS. AND Q IS ANTHONY PIAGENTINI, PLEASE? THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, JUST WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR BRINGING THIS UP BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, BECAUSE I WAS HERE WHEN WE HAD TO MAKE THE THE DECISION THAT ORIGINALLY TRIGGERED THIS, THIS WHOLE THING. AND THEN IT WAS MYSELF, DAVID JAMES. AND THEN AT THE TIME, FORMER COUNCILWOMAN AND NOW JUDGE JESSICA GREEN THAT WENT TO THE STATE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN A BIPARTISAN MANNER TO ADVOCATE FOR THEM TO REOPEN THIS AND TO OPERATE IT OUT OF THEIR BUDGET, AS THEY DO WITH THE OTHER JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITIES. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO SAY THAT THIS THIS EFFORT HAS ALWAYS HAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN AGREEMENT IN ORDER FOR US TO REALLY POSITIVELY AFFECT CHANGE IN OUR JUVENILE CRIME RATE. I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE'RE USUALLY NOT. I KNOW I PERSONALLY AM USUALLY NOT A HUGE FAN OF DOING RESOLUTIONS. YOU KNOW, A LETTER WOULD [00:20:06] SUFFICE, FRANKLY. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS DIRECTLY IMPACTING AN OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT JEFFERSON COUNTY GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS METRO GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS OUR CITIZENS. SO AGAIN, USUALLY I'M A LITTLE SKEPTICAL OF THE UTILITY OF RESOLUTIONS. IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S WELL DONE. AND FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO THANK REPRESENTATIVE JARED BOWMAN. HE HAS ALREADY, IN A HEARING, ASKED DIRECTLY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TO PRESENT OPTIONS TO SPEED UP AND WHAT THE BUDGET IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE TO SPEED UP THE CONSTRUCTION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTERS. SO THIS IS JUST HOPEFULLY VOCALIZING OUR UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THAT EFFORT AND TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I REALLY APPRECIATE NOW. I MEAN, OLD HABITS DIE HARD NOW. COUNCILMAN BRATCHER, AS WELL AS COUNCILMAN JOSEPH AND COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS IN SPONSORING THIS. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. NEXT IS COUNCILMAN KEN HERNDON, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS. I, COUNCILMAN BRATCHER, HAS MULTIPLE TIMES SPOKEN ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE FACT THAT OUR TROUBLED YOUTH DO NOT NEED TO BE SITTING IN ADAIR COUNTY, AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND SUPPOR SYSTEM. WE HELP THESE FOLKS NOT JUST BY ARREST AND INCARCERATION, BY OTHER MEANS, WHICH I SUPPORT AS WELL, BUT SOME. BUT THIS DOES HAVE TO BE PART OF IT, AND I SUPPORT THAT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR, PLEASE. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN, ANY MORE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE? COUNCILMAN JOSEPH, ONE MORE THING THAT I THINK WOULD BE WORTH JUST HAVING ON RECORD FOR THIS AS WELL, BECAUSE WITH OPTION WISE, WE'RE KIND OF IN A SPOT WHERE EITHER THE YOUTH IS RELEASED IN REGARDS TO THESE HIGH CRIMES, OR THEY'RE SENT TO ADAIR COUNTY A COUPLE HOURS AWAY. BUT WE AS A COUNCIL RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH TRANSITIONAL SERVICES THAT STATED THAT 204. THIS WAS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2025, 204 YOUTH WERE TRANSPORTED, 39,349 MILES IN A MATTER OF A THREE MONTH SPAN. AND THOSE NUMBERS ARE ALSO QUITE LARGE, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT WE'VE REALLY DISCUSSED OR THAT THAT'S BEEN PUT OUT THERE A LOT. BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING, TOO, THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL, I KNOW THAT MILEAGE ON A ROAD IS THE LEAST NECESSARILY CONCERNED, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING ALSO WORTH ADDING WHEN IT COMES TO NOTHING LOCALLY. HAVING FOUR OPTIONS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS IS IN THE QUEUE. COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. YES, SIR. I WANTED TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR AS WELL. THANK YOU. NO ONE ELSE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. COUNCILWOMAN PERRY'S RIGHT. PLEASE. OH, SORRY. I DIDN'T HAVE THE MIC ON. THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME. I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD JUST RECOGNIZING THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE, THE THE BURDEN THAT IT HAS BEEN ON ON OUR LOCAL DEPARTMENT. I DEFINITELY HAD CONCERNS WHEN IT WAS FIRST CLOSED DOWN. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCIL MADE THAT DECISION. SO I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS IS ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY. AS WE AGREE REHABILITATION AND TREATMENT. AS COUNCILMAN HERNDON REFERRED TO DETERRENCE OF FUTURE CRIME AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT THESE ARE SHORT TERM WAYS TO DEAL WITH LONG STANDING ISSUES AND ROOT CAUSES. SO I JUST WANTED TO BE ON RECORD SAYING THAT. BUT I'M NOT IN DISAGREEMENT THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN SOON. AND I APPRECIATE MY COUNCIL MEMBERS MOVING FOR THAT, BUT DON'T WANT TO FORGET THE RESTORATIVE PRACTICES AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAMS THAT ALSO NEED SUPPORT. BECAUSE SOME OF US WERE TROUBLED YOUTH. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT IT SHOULD BE REHABILITATIVE, YOU KNOW, RESTORATIVE FOR THOSE YOUTH AS WELL. SO I HOPE THAT WHATEVER COMES IN PLACE HAS THOSE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS FOR EDUCATION, CONNECTIONS TO VOCATIONAL TRAINING, DEALING WITH SUBSTANCE AND TRAUMA INFORMED CARE, BECAUSE YOU CAN BUILD IT, BUT IF IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THOSE THINGS, THEN WE WILL SEE A LOT MORE RECIDIVISM. RECIDIVISM. AND I KNOW A LOT OF US DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT WITH OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. ANYONE ELSE? I DON'T SEE ANY MORE IN [00:25:03] THE QUEUE. NO MORE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. HEARING NONE. THIS RESOLUTION REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. THIS RESOLUTION PASSES AND WILL BE PLACED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THE NEXT MEETING. CLERK, PLEASE [3. O-229-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 91 REQUIRING MICROCHIPPING OF DOGS AND CATS. Action Required By: March 11, 2026 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9), Donna L. Purvis (D-5)] READ NUMBER ITEM NUMBER THREE IN THE RECORDS. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 91 REQUIRING MICROCHIPPING OF DOGS AND CATS. READ IN FULL. THERE. I'VE BEEN PROPERLY MOVED BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS. COUNCILMAN OWEN IS THE SPONSOR OF THIS ORDINANCE. WE ALSO HAVE ANDY MCCLINTON AND ADAM HAMILTON FROM LOUISVILLE METRO ANIMAL SERVICES. COUNCILMAN OWEN, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR. SO I'M A CO-SPONSOR WITH COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. BUT I'LL START US OFF HERE. I THINK I WANTED TO I HOPE YOU GUYS RECEIVED THE EMAIL I SENT EARLIER TODAY, KIND OF PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, BUT I'LL PROVIDE MORE HERE IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING. THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO LET EVERYONE KNOW IS THAT THIS REALLY CAME UP OUT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WHERE WE UP HERE AT COUNCIL ARE DIRECTING, YOU KNOW, LAWS DOWN AT OUR CONSTITUENTS. IT BUBBLED UP OUT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE COMMUNITY. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR AT LEAST A YEAR, TRYING TO TRYING TO GET IT RIGHT. NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE WE'RE THERE. THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO. BUT WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE GENTLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE FROM LMAS, DIRECTOR MCCLINTON AND MISTER HAMILTON, JUST TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING SO MUCH BURDEN ON LMAS. WE'RE TRYING TO RELIEVE LMAS OF SOME OF THEIR CURRENT BURDEN AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER WAY AROUND. AND SO THEY'VE BEEN WITH US IN EVERY STEP OF WRITING THIS ORDINANCE. AND AND SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT COUNCIL SITTING ON HIGH TRYING TO DICTATE DOWN, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THINGS. COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. AND I SAID THIS IN MY EMAIL TODAY. I REALLY ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE AND REALLY EVERYONE TO READ ALL OF THE WHEREAS CLAUSES, BECAUSE I DO THINK THEY THE WHEREAS CLAUSES EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE REALLY WELL IN THIS CASE. AND TWO OF THEM, AND THESE ARE THE TWO THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN THE EMAIL I SENT EARLIER TODAY. BUT I'LL JUST READ THOSE, YOU KNOW, FOR FOR THE RECORD HERE, WHEREAS JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED MANDATORY MICROCHIPPING HAVE SEEN MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENTS IN RETURN TO OWNER RATES, REDUCTIONS IN SHELTER INTAKE AND DECREASED EUTHANASIA RATES. AND WHEREAS MANDATING MICROCHIPPING FOR DOGS WITHIN LOUISVILLE METRO WILL SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP, REDUCE THE BURDEN ON SHELTER RESOURCES, AND PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ANIMAL WELFARE. SO THOSE ARE TWO THAT I THINK SPEAK TO THE CORE OF THIS ISSUE. WE ARE OUR STAFF AT LMAS IS HAVING TO EUTHANIZE SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF PARTICULARLY DOGS, BUT DOGS AND CATS THAT ARE OTHERWISE HEALTHY AND ADOPTABLE, AND THAT FOR MANY OF US IS REALLY, REALLY HARD TO TO SWALLOW. BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO AN INCREDIBLE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL BURDEN ON THE STAFF AT LMAS. THAT USED NOT BE THE CASE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT THAT COVID BROKE A LOT OF THINGS. OUR ANIMAL POPULATION EXPLODED AFTER, DURING AND AFTER COVID. PEOPLE, RIGHTFULLY SO, STOPPED VISITING THEIR VETS, STOPPED GETTING THEIR PETS SPAYED AND NEUTERED. EVERYBODY GOT A COVID DOG OR CAT. AND SO WE'RE STILL BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL IN TERMS OF OUR ANIMAL POPULATION BECAUSE OF COVID AND ANY STEPS THAT WE CAN TAKE TO HELP RELIEVE SOME OF THAT BURDEN, SOME OF THAT OVERCROWDING, SOME OF THE BURDEN THAT'S ON OUR STAFF I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE. SO THEN I'LL JUST SAY ONE MORE THING, AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. WHEN PEOPLE HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME TO TO ASK ME ABOUT THIS, THE TWO OF THE PLACES THAT I'VE KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE FOR THIS ORDINANCE ONE, IF YOU'RE AN ANIMAL LOVER, IF YOU CARE ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE IN THIS COMMUNITY, YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE. ONE TWO IF YOU ARE IF IT CONCERNS YOU TO HAVE STRAY DOGS AND CATS RUNNING ALL OVER OUR COMMUNITY, CREATING, IN SOME CASES A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE FOR FOR PEOPLE, THEN YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE WILL WILL HELP ALLEVIATE BOTH BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES. AND THEN SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION, BUT INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS FOR HER THOUGHTS. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN OWEN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WORKED ON A FEW YEARS AGO AND JUST COULDN'T [00:30:03] SEEM TO MOTIVATE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT ME ON THIS. I WAS DRIVEN TO CREATE SUCH LEGISLATION BASED ON A GUY THAT HAD BEEN VICIOUSLY ATTACKED WHILE WALKING ONE MORNING IN THE PARK BY TWO PITBULLS THAT NO ONE COULD IDENTIFY THE OWNER. THE GUY SPENT ABOUT THREE WEEKS IN THE HOSPITAL. HE ALMOST LOST HIS LIFE. I FELT IT WAS AN IT WAS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THAT THIS HAPPENED TO HIM, AND FORTUNATELY THEY WERE ABLE TO CATCH CAPTURE THESE THESE ANIMALS AND I ASSUME THAT THEY WERE EVENTUALLY EUTHANIZED BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE OWNER CAME FORWARD. BUT IF THESE ANIMALS HAD BEEN CHIPPED WHEN ANIMAL SERVICES CAPTURED THEM, THEY COULD HAVE DID THE LITTLE THING TO SEE WHO THEY BELONG TO. MAYBE THOSE DOGS, EVEN THOUGH THEY COMMITTED A VICIOUS ACT, MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK TO THEIR OWNER AND PROBABLY BEEN PUT BACK, YOU KNOW, IN SAFETY WHERE THEY COULDN'T GET OUT AND ATTACK ANOTHER PERSON. AND I ALSO SPEAK FROM A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. MY DOG GOT LOOSE AND HE WAS NOT CHIPPED. AND I'M A PERSON THAT REALLY JUST CANNOT VISIT THE ANIMAL SHELTER WITHOUT BRINGING HOME ABOUT EIGHT OTHER DOGS. SO I DIDN'T GO. I SENT SOMEONE ELSE AND HE WAS THERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS. HIS NAME IS POTATO, AND HE WAS ONE DAY AWAY FROM BEING POTATO SOUP. SO THANK GOD WE GOT POTATO BACK. AND BUT IN ORDER FOR US TO GET HIM BACK, WE HAD TO GET HIM CHIPPED. AND I DIDN'T MIND BECAUSE I FELT LIKE IF POTATO GETS LOST AGAIN AND HE GETS PICKED UP, THEY COULD IDENTIFY HIM AND SEE THAT HE BELONGS TO ME. AND SO IT'S NOT ABOUT DICTATING TO PET OWNERS. IT'S MORE OR LESS LIKE SECURING THE LOVE FOR THE PETS AND KNOWING THAT THE DOGS GET OUT, THAT THEY CAN FIND THEIR DOGS. IT IS VERY STRESSFUL. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO BE ON THE SHIP THAT EUTHANIZE DOGS, AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'RE OVERCROWDED, AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT EVEN THE NO KILL SHELTERS ARE PROBABLY OVERCROWDED AS WELL. THEY PROBABLY TAKE ON ALL THAT THEY CAN, BUT IF WE HAD THIS MECHANISM IN PLACE, I REALLY THINK IT WOULD REDUCE THOSE NUMBERS OF STRAY DOGS AND THE DOGS THAT ARE BEING EUTHANIZED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. IN THE QUEUE IS COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI. PLEASE. DO WE WANT TO. SO I HAD I HAD THEM COME TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IF YOU GUYS HAVE, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. MAYBE IF YOU COULD JUST WAIT. JUST TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT SINCE YOU'VE BEEN SO, YOU KNOW, INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU GUYS COULD JUST GIVE A GIVE YOUR KIND OF PERSPECTIVE ON IT. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. YEAH. IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND GET YOUR YOUR NAME AND WHO YOU'RE WITH. DIRECTOR, METRO ANIMAL SERVICES I STARTED THIS OBVIOUSLY AT THE TAIL END BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE THAT LONG. A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE DID A WHOLE LOT OF WORK BEFORE I GOT HERE. SO I JUST WANT TO START WITH THAT. BUT I'M KIND OF A A NUMBERS GUY TO GUY. AND AND OBVIOUSLY I'M LEARNING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT NINE MONTHS AND THE AMOUNT OF PETS THAT COME IN THERE IT IS. IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE OVERWHELMING. I HAD HAD NO IDEA THE NUMBERS. SO WE'RE ON PACE THIS YEAR TO TAKE IN ABOUT 10,000, WHICH WILL BE WAY THE HIGHEST WOULD BE 8700. AND THAT WAS IN 2024. SO WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, SO OUR RETURN TO OWNER RATE AND THIS IS FOR DOGS. SO OUR RETURN TO OWNER RATE OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS HAS BEEN ABOUT 3,435%. SO WITH THE MICROCHIPS, IF WE CAN GET THAT NUMBER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. IF I CAN GET THAT 35 TO HALF, THEN MY INTAKE GOES DOWN AND WHEN MY INTAKE GOES DOWN, MY STAFF HAS MORE TIME TO GET THE DOGS. CATS, GET THEM OUT OF THEIR KENNELS TO GET THEM OUT, TO GET THEM NOURISHMENT, LET THEM OUT OF THERE. SO THE FACT THAT I CAN REDUCE OR INCREASE THAT RETURN TO OWNER RATE, IF I COULD GET IT UP LIKE LAST YEAR, IT WAS 27% AND THAT WAS THE LOWEST IN THE LAST SIX YEARS. AND LIKE I SAID, THIS YEAR WE'RE DOING GOOD. BUT SIX YEAR AVERAGE IS 35%. SO I THINK THE MICROCHIPPING CAN MAKE THAT PERCENTAGE GO WAY UP. AND THEN OUR INTAKE COULD GET BACK DOWN TO A MANAGEABLE. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, IN 2020, OUR INTAKE WAS 5524 2021 7000 2022, [00:35:02] 8100 2023, 8400. I'M SORRY, 2023 8400 20 2480 749. AND THEN IF YOU DO THE MATH, NOT SUPER GREAT AT MATH, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE OVER 10,000. SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DOG BEING IN THERE FOR 3 TO 4 OR FIVE HOURS, COMPARED TO A WEEK TO SEVEN DAYS, IS HUGE FOR US. EVERY DAY STAFF'S WORKING TO MAKE SURE WE FIND HOMES AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE OPEN KENNELS. SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER THAT'S ANOTHER TOOL WE'LL HAVE. YEAH, THERE'S SOME STUFF WE NEED TO WORK OUT FOR SURE, BUT THIS WOULD REALLY HELP US. I HAVE A FEW IN THE QUEUE. COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI DIRECTOR, IF YOU MIND HANGING OUT JUST FOR A SECOND. SURE. REALLY? ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. AND THEN MAYBE A REQUEST OR STATEMENT SLASH REQUEST HERE. HELP ME UNDERSTAND. AS I, I REVIEWED IT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. RIGHT. IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT AND THERE'S SORT OF AMENDMENTS THROUGHOUT IT. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE TOTALITY OF IT. BUT FROM YOUR OPERATIONAL POINT OF VIEW, RIGHT. LET'S JUST SAY WE ADOPTED THIS TODAY. RIGHT? OR WHENEVER IT GOES INTO EFFECT, IT GOES INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. HOW WILL THIS, FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, OPERATIONALLY CHANGE THINGS TO SEE THAT ULTIMATE REDUCTION? LIKE HOW MECHANICALLY DO YOU SEE THIS HELPING YOU REDUCE THOSE NUMBERS? THE BIGGEST THING WOULD BE THE INCENTIVE. AND I THINK THAT'S YOU HAVE TO BE A LITTLE MORE INCENTIVE BASED. PUNITIVE DOESN'T ALWAYS DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK. SO I LIKE THE THE INCENTIVES OF THIS. SO THAT WILL HELP ME IS WE COME IN, THEY REGISTER, THEY GET THEIR LICENSE, THEY GET THEIR RABIES. AND THEN I HOPE THAT THEY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LIFETIME LICENSE. FOR ME AS A RESPONSIBLE PET OWNER, THAT'S IDEAL BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT EVERY YEAR. NOW YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR RABIES. BUT I THINK THE $25 FOR A LIFETIME LICENSE, IF YOU SPAY AND NEUTER, IF YOU MICROCHIP, IF YOU GET THE RABIES, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT INCENTIVE. AND THEN THE WAY THAT ALSO HELPS IS I HAVE OBVIOUSLY STAFF THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE LICENSE, WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THAT. SO IF I CUT THAT NUMBER DOWN, THEN I CAN USE STAFF TO ACTUALLY THEY WOULD GO MORE INTO A ROLE OF LOOKING FOR THE OWNERS, BECAUSE IF WE HAVE ALL THIS MICROCHIP INFORMATION, I'M GONNA NEED PEOPLE TO FIND THEM. SO JUST AND THE OTHER PART ABOUT THIS, THAT IS YOU'LL STILL HAVE TO DO RABIES EVERY YEAR. THAT CHIP IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE INFORMATION ON IT. SO BY DOING THIS, WE'RE GOING TO ENSURE THAT EVERY YEAR WHEN THEY GET THE RABIES THAT THAT CHIP INFORMATION IS UPDATED BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE DOGS THAT COME IN, WE'LL SCAN THEM. INFORMATION IS NOT GOOD. IT WASN'T UPDATED. IT WAS TWO OWNERS AGO. SO THIS GIVES ACCOUNTABILITY AND IT WILL FREE UP STAFF. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF THE INFORMATION IS UP TO DATE, WE CAN CALL THEM AND SAY COME GET YOUR DOG. OKAY OKAY. AND THEN JUST MY GENERAL COMMENT AND I THINK. COUNCILMAN OWEN, WHO'S, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE SPONSORS HERE, HAS ALREADY SORT OF OUTLINED THIS, I THINK I LIKE WHERE THIS IS GOING. MY CONCERNS ARE TWOFOLD. NUMBER ONE, ADDING MANDATES TO THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALREADY MANDATES. RIGHT. AND BUT SO WITH THAT SAID I DO THINK WE'RE TRYING IT DOES SEEM LIKE AND THE OTHER ONE IS COST. THE TWO THINGS ARE MANDATES AND COST. IT DOES SEEM LIKE. RIGHT. AND I JUST WANT TO VET THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN MY HEAD AND LEARN MORE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE. I MEAN, I DON'T I SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRADE OFF FOR A LIFETIME LICENSE AS BEING ONE OF THOSE COMPROMISES WHERE IT'S LIKE, YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE INCREASING REQUIREMENT TO MICROCHIP OR WE'RE DECREASING REQUIREMENT TO DO, YOU KNOW, THREE YEAR OR ANNUAL LICENSING. RIGHT. AND THE COST SEEMS TO BE RELATIVELY NEUTRAL IF YOU GO ABOUT THAT PROCESS. SO I LIKE WHERE IT'S GOING. I JUST WILL PROBABLY NEED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION. WOULD PROBABLY JUST WANT TO HOLD THIS. BUT I KNOW THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TALK AND ASK QUESTIONS, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S EFFORT ON THIS. I DO THINK WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT FORWARD. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT COST. YOU SAID YOU HAD TO UPDATE THE CHIP WHEN THEY COME IN WITH THE AND GET. DOES THAT COST UPDATE THAT CHIP. NO SIR OKAY. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT FOSTER CARE. DO THE FOSTER PARENTS OF THESE PETS DO THEY PAY FOR ARE THEY MANDATED TO. THIS WOULD JUST BE FOR OWNERSHIP. WHOEVER'S OWNING THE PET, NOT THE FOSTER. NO. OKAY. WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE. A FEW MORE IN THE QUEUE. COUNCILWOMAN. RUBY, PLEASE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANT TO TELL A COUPLE STORIES ABOUT DOGS AND [00:40:04] MICROCHIPS. SO ONE OF THEM WAS RUTHERFORD ELEMENTARY. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE WERE DOING A TRASH PICKUP. A LITTLE DOG WANDERED UP, CAPTURED THE LITTLE DOG, GOT A LEASH ON, AND WALKED HER OVER TO THE VET. THE VET SCANNED THE LITTLE DOG. TURNED OUT SHE HAD COME FROM LMAS, FROM SOMEBODY WHO WAS LIKE A SERIAL ADOPTER AND SHE'D ALREADY GIVEN THE DOG AWAY. LONG STORY SHORT, THAT DOG HAD A FOREVER HOME. WITHIN LIKE SIX HOURS, WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY QUICKLY WHERE THE DOG BELONGED. THEN TWO WEEKS AGO, I WAS OVER AT THE AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHERN PARKWAY AND NEW CUT ROAD, LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WITH SOMEBODY FROM DOT. AND HERE COMES THIS PIT BULL, CUTE LITTLE PIT BULL, BROWN DOG. OH, LOOK AT YOU. OH, YOU DON'T HAVE A COLLAR. THAT WAS 60 POUNDS OF PIT BULL. CARRIED HER BACK TO MY CAR, GOT HER TO THE VET. HAD A CHIP IN THERE. GOT THAT DOG BACK TO HER OWNER WITHIN 15 MINUTES. IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THE CHIP IN THERE, WHO KNOWS WHAT WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT TO DO WITH THE DOG UNTIL WE FOUND HER OWNER. SO YEAH, THEY ARE VALUABLE BECAUSE YOU CAN GO TO ANY VET'S OFFICE. THEY GOT A CHIP READER, AND YOU CAN GET THE ANIMAL BACK TO THEIR FAMILY MUCH FASTER THAN HAVING TO DEPEND ON LMAS TO COME GET THEM, OR YOU HAVE TO HAUL THEM OVER THERE OR WHATEVER. SO THEY'RE EXTREMELY VALUABLE. AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILMAN OWEN. YEAH, JUST JUMPING BACK IN QUICKLY TO SAY A COUPLE THINGS WE RECOGNIZED ON THE FRONT END THAT THE MANDATE ISSUE THAT COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI AND I'VE SPOKEN TO HIM ABOUT, THAT IS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH. AND THE COST ISSUE IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH, ESPECIALLY THE COST BURDEN TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT AND REALLY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO TO CARE. SO THOSE ARE BOTH PLACES THAT I WOULD LOVE. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS WE'VE DONE, YOU KNOW ALL WE CAN THUS FAR. BUT ANYWHERE IN THIS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SUGGESTIONS ON, PARTICULARLY THOSE TWO TOPICS. BUT ANY OTHER TOPICS IN THE LEGISLATION? WE WERE OPEN TO THAT AND WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I SAID IN MY IN MY EMAIL THAT I SENT OUT EARLIER TODAY THAT I WAS HOPING TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION TODAY, AND THEN WE WOULD TABLE THE ORDINANCE AFTER WE HAD THE CONVERSATION, SO WE COULD HAVE TWO MORE WEEKS TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT IT, TALK ABOUT IT, COME TO, YOU KNOW, SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS POTENTIALLY. SO I'D LIKE TO GO THERE, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE, IN THE QUEUE THAT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. AND SO LET'S LET THEM SPEAK AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN SEE IF WE WANT TO TABLE IT AT THAT POINT. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL CARRY ON THE CONVERSATION WITH COUNCILMAN JOSEPH. YEAH. MY ONLY CONCERN REALLY IS EXACTLY WHAT COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI SAID WITH THE MANDATE. BUT MY I DO HAVE A TWO QUICK QUESTION. IF I DON'T KNOW IF WHICH DIRECTION TO GO TOWARDS ON THIS, FIRST OF ALL, HOW HOW WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THIS BE POLICED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IS THERE WHAT WHAT IS THE PUNISHMENT SLASH FINE WITH THIS BECAUSE I GUESS WHERE MY MIND GOES WITH THIS IS THE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS ARE GOING TO OBEY THIS. THERE'S GOING TO BE PLENTY OF THAT ARE STILL NOT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK I CAN ANSWER IT FOR THE MOST PART. SO THE ENFORCEMENT OF IT WILL BE KIND OF LIKE ANY OTHER. WHEN WE GO MAKE A RUN TO SOMEONE'S HOME OR WE GET CALLED SOMEWHERE, WE'LL CHECK AND SEE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE THEIR LICENSE, IF THEY HAVE THEIR RABIES, IF ALL THAT'S UP TO DATE, IF THEY'VE BEEN REGISTERED, IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN THEY WOULD BE ISSUED A VIOLATION AND THEY'LL GIVE AN X AMOUNT OF TIME TO FOLLOW WHATEVER THEY'RE FAILING TO DO IN THIS SITUATION. IT'S WRITTEN IN, IT WILL BE MAY BE FINED UP TO $500 PER OCCURRENCE. AND THAT GOES IN FRONT OF A THAT GOES IN FRONT OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. AND THEN ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHO WOULD DECIDE IF IT'S UP TO THE 500. BUT THE ENFORCEMENT WILL BE IF WE'RE CALLED THERE, THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THEIR DOG OR WE COME IN CONTACT WITH THEM, THEN WE'RE GOING TO CHECK AND SEE. AND IF WE SEE THAT THEY'RE NOT MICROCHIPPED, THEN THEY WOULD BE ISSUED A CITATION. DO YOU HAVE BY CHANCE A DATA POINT? I DON'T EXPECT THAT YOU DO. BUT DO YOU BY CHANCE HAVE A DATA POINT OF WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF DOGS THAT ARE NOT MICROCHIPPED THAT DO MAKE IT BACK HOME? I DO NOT HAVE THAT. THE ONLY THING I CAN GIVE YOU IS THAT ROUGHLY, WE RETURNED 35% OF THE ANIMALS THAT WE GET IN TO THE OWNER. I'LL CHECK AND SEE. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER, BUT I'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET IT. APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN HERNDON, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU SIR. COUPLE QUESTIONS. I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE COST AS WELL, PARTICULARLY WITH FOLKS OF LIMITED MEANS OR EVEN WITH THE MEANS TO PAY THE 25. BUT EVEN TO GET THERE IF THEY DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION TO GET THEM THERE. WHAT? WHAT WOULD THE FINANCIAL BURDEN BE ON YOUR OFFICE IF IT WAS OFFERED FOR FREE? THAT PART WE COULD THE THE MONEY PART WOULDN'T BE MY WOULDN'T BE MY CONCERN. I MEAN, IT'S A CONCERN, [00:45:07] BUT I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH FOLKS IN THE ROOM AND ENOUGH PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT PART HAPPEN. MY CONCERN IS CAPACITY FOR MY STAFF. AND THEN HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET FOLKS TO AND FROM? HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET SO THAT THAT WOULD BE THE MONEY PART? I THINK WE COULD MAKE HAPPEN. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD THINK WOULD INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BRING THEM IN. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP. BUT I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO OVERBURDEN YOU, OVERRUN YOU FINANCIALLY. BUT IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD. THE COST FOR US IS IT'S NOT CRAZY. IT'S JUST THE THE MANPOWER, THE STAFFING TO DO IT COST FOR THAT, OBVIOUSLY. I GUESS THAT'S MY LONG TERM. YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION NOW. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THAT WHAT YOU THINK THAT WOULD MEAN IF YOU COULD PREDICT THE THE INCREASE PARTICIPATION AND THEN THEREFORE THE STAFFING TO HANDLE THAT, WHAT WOULD THAT COST BE? AND WOULD THAT PUT YOU IN A BAD SPOT FINANCIALLY? YEAH. THE PART THAT WOULD PUT ME IN A BAD SPOT IS I WOULD HAVE STAFF, THEY WOULD BE TIED UP DOING THAT INSTEAD OF DOING SPAY AND NEUTER AND DOING TREATMENTS FOR THE ANIMALS. THAT WOULD BE MY BIGGEST COST. AND THEN THAT THAT AFFECTS A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT YOU IF WE COULD GET OTHER VETS IN TO HELP US. THAT WOULD BE A THAT WOULD BE A BIG THAT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST HELP FOR US IS TO HAVE THE VETS. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO IT. I MEAN, THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS YOU CAN DO IT, BUT I THINK WE COULD DISCUSS IT BUT COST THAT, WOULDN'T WE? WE CAN MAKE THE COST. WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT. IT'S JUST STAFFING, MANPOWER WHERE WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, WHO'S GOING TO DO IT. AND THEN BUT WE WE COULD WE COULD MAKE IT HAPPEN. WE WOULD JUST NEED HELP. JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. JUST ONE FOR SURE. THANKS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN, COUNCILWOMAN JENNY WOOLDRIDGE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. AND THANKS FOR BEING HERE. THANKS FOR PUTTING THOUGHT INTO THIS. COUNCILMAN AND COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILMAN HERNDON, I THINK YOU'RE ON YOU AND I WERE ALONG THE SAME LINES ON SOME OF THAT IS I WAS JUST THINKING IF THERE WAS A PROCESS IN PLACE, YOU KNOW, IF IF THIS WERE PASSED TODAY AND EVERYBODY LINED UP TOMORROW TO COME AND DO THESE MICROCHIPS, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME PLACES YOU CAN GO GET THEM, BUT IS THERE A PROCESS IN PLACE? IS IT GOING TO TIE UP ALL OF YOUR SOME OF YOUR OTHER TEAM MEMBERS THAT ARE ALREADY OVERBURDENED? DO YOU HAVE THE MICROCHIPS THERE NOW? DO YOU HAVE THE LICENSING IN PLACE? ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD BE THERE, AND I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS THOUGHT OUT BEFORE WE PUT THIS IN ORDER, BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO OVERBURDEN SOMEBODY THAT'S ALREADY OVERBURDENED. AND THEN I THINK THE QUESTION WAS ALREADY ASKED IF WE HAD THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT ALREADY NEED THIS, JUST TO GET THE IDEA OF HOW MANY MICROCHIPS WERE NEEDED, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH LMAS OR THROUGH THE VETS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THIS. AND THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF AN OWNER COMES IN AND SAYS, I DON'T WANT A MICROCHIP, MY ANIMAL? I MEAN, IS THAT AN AUTOMATIC FINE FOR THEM, OR IS THAT A TOO BAD WE'RE GOING TO ANYWAYS, OR HAS THAT BEEN THOUGHT OF? IT WOULD BE ISSUED A VIOLATION AND THEN THAT'LL BE DECIDED. IT'LL ULTIMATELY BE DECIDED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IF THAT. IF THEY'RE GOING TO FIND THEM, IF THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM PAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILWOMAN SHAMIKA PARISH. RIGHT, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I FIRST WANT TO SAY IN MY DISTRICT, THIS COMES UP A LOT, AND I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A GREAT, ACTUALLY A GREAT MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I DO STRUGGLE WITH MANDATES AS THEY MAY PRESENT A FINANCIAL BURDEN. BUT I DO TRUST THAT LMAS IS READY TO MEET THIS NEED. WE'VE PASSED SOME LEGISLATION BEFORE WITHOUT ALL THE THINGS LINED OUT, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET IN LINE, I THINK, FOR THE UNIFORMITY OF IT, FOR THE LONG STANDING WORK THAT COUNCILWOMAN CHAVEZ AND OTHERS HAVE PUT TOWARDS THIS, THIS IS A REAL GOOD STEP FORWARD, AND I THINK ANYTHING WOULD HAVE A LEARNING CURVE AND A ROLLOUT THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. SO YOU'RE NOT OVERBURDENED. AND I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO I CAME TO JUST DO AN INFOMERCIAL WITH YOU ALL AND LEFT WITH A CAT. SO I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEED IS THERE AND THAT CAT IS DOING VERY WELL. GOOD. BUT SO I THINK THIS IS GOOD. I THINK WE WE NEED TO TRUST THE PROCESS, LET YOU ALL FIGURE THIS OUT, AND THEN COME BACK TO US WITH UPDATES ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING. I, I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. FOLKS DON'T KNOW THE THE DEPTH OF THIS. RIGHT. WE KNOW FROM SOME OF OUR DISTRICT WORK, BUT THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. AND AS I'VE TRAVELED ACROSS THE COUNTY, THERE'S DIFFERENT ISSUES AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTY. SO I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A UNIFYING ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY, WHICH WILL HELP RESOLVE A LOT OF ISSUES IN COMMUNICATION. SO THANK YOU FOR THIS AND I PLAN TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI, PLEASE. YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, I HAVE SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, EVEN FROM WHAT COUNCILMAN MULVEY WOOLDRIDGE HAD ALREADY ASKED. BUT I THINK COUNCILMAN OWEN HAS SAID IT RIGHT. HE'S COMFORTABLE [00:50:06] WITH, YOU KNOW, LET'S WORK THROUGH THESE ISSUES. WHAT I WILL DO AND I'LL ASK EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO. LET'S GET OUR EMAILED QUESTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT, TO THE SPONSORS. LET'S GET THAT SORTED OUT OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. I WILL DO THAT AS SOON AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE, NEXT 24 TO 48 HOURS, SO WE CAN WORK THAT. BUT WITH THAT SAID, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMITTEE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AT THIS TIME. WE'VE HAD THE MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED. WE VOICE VOTE, A VOICE VOTE ON THE ON TABLING. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE, AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MEASURE IS TABLED. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. CLERK. PLEASE READ ITEM NUMBER FOUR INTO THE RECORD. AN ORDINANCE [4. O-230-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 100.01, 100.02, 100.11 and §42.31 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) REGARDING EXCEPTIONS TO PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS WHEN PEACEFULLY DEMONSTRATING. Action Required By: March 11, 2026 Sponsors: Anthony Piagentini (R-19) ] AMENDING SECTIONS 100.01, 100.02, 100.11 AND 42.31 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING EXCEPTIONS TO PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS WHEN PEACEFULLY DEMONSTRATING. WRITTEN. FULL. MOTION MOTION. SECOND, PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI IS THE SPONSOR ON THIS. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, I JUST TABLED THE LAST ONE SO WE CAN GET TO MY LEGISLATION. THAT WAS REALLY A SELFISH. NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. THAT'S NOT WHY. BUT THANKS VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY GIVING ME A MOMENT TO EXPLAIN THIS REAL QUICK. THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY A REAL REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE, BUT IT IS TWEAKING THE LAW RELATED TO TWO THINGS. ACTUALLY. ONE IS WHAT WE CALL PARADE PERMITS. AND THE OTHER THING, THE OTHER AREA IS RELATED TO PERMITTING OR REQUESTING TO USE PUBLIC PARKS. OKAY. AND IT'S ALL SURROUNDING THE IDEA OF USING THESE OF THESE LICENSES OR THESE PERMITS, EXCUSE ME, RELATED TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED ACTIVITY. RIGHT. SO THINGS THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PROTESTING A GOVERNMENT POLICY OR, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THINGS, THIS IS NOT CHANGING ANYTHING RELATED TO NEEDING A PARADE PERMIT OR HOW YOU USE THE PARKS FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR BIRTHDAY PARTY. RIGHT. THOSE POLICIES WILL STAY IN PLACE. SO WE'RE MAKING SOME MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO HOW WE ISSUE THESE FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED ACTIVITY. WHY? AS BACKGROUND NOW, THE LAST THE PRIOR MAYORAL ADMINISTRATION AND THIS MAYORAL ADMINISTRATION, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, HAVE NOT BEEN CONSISTENT WITH HOW THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED, HOW THEY HAVE ENFORCED OUR LAWS ON THE BOOKS RELATED TO THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WERE TO GIVE TWO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, IF YOU WERE TO PROTEST AND WANT TO MARCH DOWN THE STREET TO PROTEST TAX POLICY, RIGHT, OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO PROTEST, THERE'S A PROCESS OF WHICH YOU HAVE TO GET A PARADE PERMIT TO DO SO. OKAY. RECENTLY WE SAW SOME PROTESTS THAT ENDED UP GOING INTO THE STREET AND USING THE STREETS AS PART OF THEIR PROTEST. THAT IS TECHNICALLY CURRENTLY ILLEGAL. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE CITED IN VIOLATION OF OUR PARADE PERMIT LAW. TO BE CLEAR, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE WHAT'S ALREADY LEGAL IS IF IF A PROTEST IS IS STATIC, NOT DYNAMIC. SO THEY'RE STANDING THERE AND IT SPILLS INTO THE STREET A LITTLE BIT, THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S ACTUALLY ALREADY COVERED IN OUR LAW. BUT ONCE YOU START MARCHING DOWN THE STREET, YOU HAVE TO GET A PARADE PERMIT TO DO THAT, RIGHT? THERE WERE SOME PROTESTS THAT DIDN'T, AND NOBODY IN THAT PROTEST WAS CITED. THERE WAS AN ORGANIZATION RIGHT AFTERWARDS. THEY WERE IT WAS GOING TO IF I MESS UP THEIR NAME, I APOLOGIZE. BUT MOMS DEMAND ACTION AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ONE OF THOSE GROUPS THEN REQUESTED A PARADE PERMIT TO PROTEST AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE, AND THEY WERE DENIED BY THE CITY. NOW, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN DENIED FOR A VERY GOOD REASON. I MEAN, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A REASON THE CITY HAD SOME ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE OR NOT, FOR ISSUING OR NOT ISSUING IT. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY WERE DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO PROTEST, WHILE OTHER GROUPS WHO DID NOT ATTEMPT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WERE ABLE TO PROTEST AND AND ALL OF THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S AN INEQUITY SIMILARLY RELATED TO PARKS. PARKS HAS RULES THAT YOU HAVE TO GET CERTAIN PERMITS. IF A GROUP ABOVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT COMES TOGETHER, FOR EXAMPLE, TO PROTEST. AND WE'VE SEEN THIS NOT EVENLY APPLIED TO DIFFERENT GROUPS. FOR EXAMPLE, SOME GROUPS HAVE COME TOGETHER IN PARKS TO PROTEST AGAIN, WHATEVER IT IS, WHATEVER THEIR TOPIC IS THAT'S RELATED TO THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED RIGHTS, NOT GOTTEN A PERMIT FROM PARKS, AND THEY WERE NOT CITED FOR DOING WHAT THEY WERE DOING. MEANWHILE, I KNOW A WHILE AGO THERE WAS THE TEA PARTY. THAT GROUP WANTED TO GET TOGETHER IN A PARK. THEY [00:55:02] APPLIED TO THE CITY FOR THE PERMIT TO DO SO. THE CITY SAID, WELL, YOU NEED TO GET PORTA POTTIES, YOU NEED TO GET INSURANCE, YOU NEED TO GET ALL THESE THINGS. THEY STARTED LAYERING ON COSTS. AND THE ORGANIZATION WAS LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR THAT. AND THEY WERE DENIED THE ABILITY TO DO SO. AGAIN, I'M LOOKING FOR SOME GROUPS ARE DOING IT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE CURRENT RULES. RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT GETTING CITED. AND THEN OTHER GROUPS ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES, AND THEY'RE BEING DENIED THE SAME ABILITY TO PROTEST IN THESE SAME LOCATIONS. SO THE TWO CHANGES THAT I'VE MADE, ONE IS RELATED TO, AGAIN, THE PARADE PERMITTING PROCESS. WE'VE ADDED AN EXEMPTION. OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE DEFINED PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION, QUOTE, AN EVENT IN WHICH PEOPLE GATHER TOGETHER IN ORDER TO SUPPORT, SHOW SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO SOMETHING OR SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE, THREATS OF VIOLENCE, OR INCITEMENT TO IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION. SO, TO BE SUPER CLEAR, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT IF ANY PROTEST, NO MATTER HOW INITIALLY LAWFUL, STARTS TO ENGAGE IN ANY OF THOSE ACTIVITIES, THEY SHUT IT DOWN. AND THAT HAPPENED. IN ADDITION, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DID SHUT DOWN A GROUP THAT HAD GONE DOWN THE STREET NEAR THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE BECAUSE THEY WERE BLOCKING TRAFFIC, STARTING TO TOUCH CARS AND STARTING TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITY THAT'S NOT COVERED. RIGHT. SO WE DEFINE A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION HERE, AND WE ADD AN EXEMPTION IN THE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A PARADE PERMIT, FOR EXAMPLE. SOME OF THE EXEMPTIONS ARE FUNERAL PROCESSIONS, FUNERAL PROCESSIONS. WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO PERMIT. ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS WILL BE, QUOTE, PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS RELATED TO PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH THAT DOES NOT DISRUPT TRAFFIC IN A MANNER, IN A MANNER, AND DOES NOT DISRUPT THE FREE FLOW OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES. BY THE WAY, FOR THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE IN ANY MANNER? YES. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. SO FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE, CAN THAT BE A TECHNICAL THING? A ANY INSTEAD OF A YES. OKAY. SO IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS RELATED TO PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH THAT DOES NOT DISRUPT TRAFFIC IN ANY MANNER AND DOES NOT DISRUPT THE FREE FLOW OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES. I WANT A HAT TIP TO AARON, BY THE WAY. HE CALLED THAT OUT. SO ON THE RECORD, I WANTED AARON TO KNOW THAT HE WAS RIGHT. SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION. YOU DO NOT NEED A PERMIT, AND IF YOU FULFILL THESE CRITERIA, YOU CAN PROTEST ON THE STREET. THE OTHER EXEMPTION IS UNDER THE PARKS PERMITTING PROCESS WHERE IT SAYS, QUOTE, A PERMIT. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ADDING, RIGHT? A PERMIT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS RELATED TO PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH THAT DO NOT DISRUPT ACCESS BY EMERGENCY PERSONNEL AND DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY OTHER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PERMITTED USES OF THAT SAME PARK. BEFORE I GO ON TO BE CLEAR, IF SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY GOTTEN A PERMIT FOR A PARTICULAR AREA OF THE PARK, YOUR PROTEST DOES NOT TRUMP THAT, SO THEY HAVE ACCESS. YOU WOULD BE VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS. SO THAT'S STILL PROTECTED. IT GOES ON. QUOTE. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION IS DEFINED AS AN EVENT WHICH PEOPLE GATHER TOGETHER IN ORDER TO SHOW SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO SOMETHING OR SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE, THREATS OF VIOLENCE, OR INCITEMENT TO IMMINENT, IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION. I'VE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IS AWARE OF THESE CHANGES. I UNDERSTAND THAT SENIOR PEOPLE WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE REVIEWED IT. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION. I THINK THIS ALIGNS WITH HOW THEY ARE CURRENTLY ENFORCING THE LAW. SO MY INTENT HERE IS TO ALIGN THE LAW WITH HOW THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS CURRENTLY ENFORCING THE LAW. TO BE CLEAR, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I ACTUALLY, TO SOME DEGREE WISH THEY WERE ENFORCING THE CURRENT LAW. I THINK THIS ADDS A BIT OF UNCERTAINTY RELATED TO ROADS AND HOW PARKS ARE USED THAT I WISH WE WOULDN'T DO. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF I HAVE AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT IS ENFORCING IT IN THIS MANNER, I WANT THEM. I WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. IF THEY'RE IF THEY WANT TO. EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, WHERE USING THESE PUBLIC SPACES SO THAT THAT'S THE BACKGROUND. THAT'S WHY I'VE AMENDED IT THIS WAY. AND I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. COUNCILMAN. IN THE QUEUE, WE HAVE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA PURVIS, PLEASE. COME TYPEKIT. OKAY. SECOND ONE IN THE QUEUE IS SHAMIKA PARISH. RIGHT? PLEASE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I FIRST WANT TO SAY THAT YESTERDAY DURING PLANNING AND ZONING, I WATCHED COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI DO HIS PRESENTATION, THE LITTLE CURSOR AND EVERYTHING. AND I SAID, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU DO COME, YOU COME WITH, YOU KNOW, RECEIPTS AND READY TO DEAL WITH OUR ISSUES [01:00:02] FACE FORWARDING. AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU TRY TO PUT THAT RESEARCH INTO PLAY. I MY COMMENTS ARE FROM DIRECT EXPERIENCE, AND I WROTE SOME OF THEM OUT SO THAT I CAN STAY FOCUSED ON WHAT I SEE. SO I FOUND OUT ABOUT ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION, OF COURSE, THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING THROUGH EMAIL AND LOOKING THROUGH UPCOMING THINGS ON OUR AGENDA. BUT MAINLY PEOPLE STARTED TEXTING ME IMMEDIATELY AND SAYING THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MESS WITH PROTESTERS. AND I ALWAYS READ A BOOK FOR MYSELF. AND I SAID, WELL, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY LEGISLATORS, I MEAN, LEGISLATION AROUND IT BECAUSE I HADN'T AT THAT POINT. AND THEN WHEN I DID, I IT IMMEDIATELY MADE ME THINK OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AND, AND I THINK ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES WE'VE BROUGHT LEGISLATION BEFORE THIS BODY TO TALK ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WERE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, TREATED AGAINST CEASE FIRE, ALL OF THESE THINGS. AND PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY TOLD US, OH, WE DON'T WORK ON THOSE ISSUES. THAT'S THE FEDERAL OR WE DON'T WORK ON THESE. WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CROSSES OVER TO THE FIRST ANDMENT, WHH GUARANTEES OUR RIGHT, AS YOU SAID, TO ASSEMBLE, AND TT FREEDOM IS ESSENTIALLY TO THE HEALTH OOUR DEMRACYSO LOSVILLE MET GOVNMEN HAS APONSITY N EALAS ALL WHOSE VOICES ARE HEARD. SO ALL GATHERINGS BEGIN WITH A PEACEFUL INTENT. I HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR, YOU KNOW, 48 YEARS, BUT A LONG TIME OF OF SEEING PROTESTS AND GATHERINGS AND PARADES. I'VE ALSO GOTTEN PERMITS FOR OUR LOCAL PARKS. I'VE I'VE HELPED GROUPS GET PERMITS FOR PARADES, FOR PROTESTS, FOR ACTIONS, FOR ALL KINDS OF THINGS. SO I'VE BEEN ON ALL SIDES, AND I'VE AO BEEN A PART OF PROTESTS WHERE WE D REQUIRE A PERMIT, WHERE AND, AND PROTESTS THAT SPILLED INTO THE STREETS. BUT WE STAYED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. WE DIDN'T IMPEDE TRAFFIC OR THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. SO I'M COMING FROM THIS FROM A VERY EXPERIENCED LEVEL ON THAT. SO I ASK FOR YOUR GRACE IN THAT, AND I'M GOING TO FINISH UP. SO ALL GATHERINGS BEGIN WITH A PEACEFUL INTENT. THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE VOICING THEIR OPINION DOES NOT MAKE THEM VIOLENT. YOU KNOW, EVERY EVENT CARRIES A DEGREE OF RISK BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE UNPREDICTABLE, AS WE'VE SEEN, ESPECIALLY IN RECENT NEWS. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF OUTSIDE AGITATORS AND SOMETIMES EVEN AS LAW ENFORCEMENT CAUSE DISRUPTION, THE VIOLENCE OCCURRED AT THAT EVENT NOT BECAUSE THE EVENT WAS NOT PEACEFUL. BUT SOMETIMES WHEN WE'RE DOING THIS WORK, PROTEST IS ALWAYS SEEN AS VIOLENT OR DISRUPTIVE IN THAT WAY. BUT PROTESTERS IS A PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR COUNTRY. SO RESTRICTING THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE BY LAYERING, WHICH I THINK THIS IS DOING, LAYERING AN UNNECESSARY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, UNDERMINES BOTH THE CONSTITUTION AND COMMUNITY TRUST. SO OUR LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES ALREADY ADDRESSES THIS PROCESS IN THE SECTIONS YOU OUTLINED IN YOUR LEGISLATION. 100. ALL OF THOSE THESE SAFEGUARDS ARE IN PLACE AND THEY ARE SUFFICIENT BECAUSE EACH EVENT IS DIFFERENT. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE HAVE TO APPLY. YOU CAN'T BLANKET ALL OF THE EVENTS BECAUSE THEIR PARTICULARS AND NUANCES THAT PREVENT YOU FROM THAT. SO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE EXCEPTIONS FOR PERMITTING PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS ARE NOT ONLY NOT UNNECESSARY, THEY RISK THE CHILLING FREE SPEECH THAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THIS DISCOURAGING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND CREATING INEQUITIES IN WHO GETS TO GATHER AND BE HEARD. NOW, IT IS UNFORTUNATE. I WORKED WITH MOMS DEMAND ACTION. I HEARD YOUR YOUR TEA PARTY EXAMPLE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN THEY'RE TRYING. I THINK THEY ALL SHOULD BE EQUITABLE IN TRYING TO GET THEIR PERMITS. BUT PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE HONORS THE SPIRIT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND IT IS OUR DUTY TO UPHOLD THAT RIGHT FOR EVERY RESIDENT OF LOUISVILLE. SO I, I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO THOSE CHANGES, BUT I DO SEE THE NEED TO OFFER CLARITY. I SEE THE DEFINITIONS YOU PROVIDED. I THINK THAT'S GOOD, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND EVEN HOW TO GET A PERMIT. I'VE HAD PEOPLE FROM CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES CONTACT ME ABOUT GETTING A PERMIT FOR OUR LOCAL PARKS. SO THERE IS THAT GENERAL INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO GO OUT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE ALREADY OUTLINES THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE NEED BECAUSE EACH EVENT IS UNIQUE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? YEAH, IF YOU DON'T MIND. YEAH, MAYBE THERE'S A MISCOMMUNICATION HERE. THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU GAVE. I'M LOOSENING RESTRICTIONS. I'M NOT ADDING, I'M LOOSENING. SO FEEL FREE TO VOTE. I, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE. I DON'T EXPECT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY TO VOTE FOR EVERYTHING I'M DOING HERE. BUT WHOEVER TELLS YOU THAT I'M MESSING WITH PROTESTERS, I'M MAKING IT EASIER FOR THEM NOT TO GET CITED. YOU LEAVE THE LAW AS IT IS. YOU ADMITTED YOURSELF. YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED IN PROTESTS WHERE YOU AND OTHERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CITED. BECAUSE ACTUALLY, THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, ONCE YOU START GOING DOWN THE STREET, ONCE YOU START MOVING DOWN THE [01:05:04] STREET WITHOUT THE PERMIT, IT ACTUALLY ALLOWS EVERYBODY TO BE CITED. AND THIS WILL ACTUALLY ELIMINATE THAT AND SAY AND I AGREE WITH YOU, AS LONG AS THERE'S STILL SOME FREE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, EMERGENCY VEHICLES. RIGHT. AND THERE'S AND IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL TO DO VIOLENT ACTS. RIGHT. THAT'S I'M NOT CHANGING ANYTHING THERE THAT THOSE FOLKS CAN DO THAT IT WOULD MAKE THE SOME OF THE RECENT NO KINGS PROTESTS WHERE THEY RANDOMLY, WITHOUT PERMITS WALKED ON THE STREET TOTALLY LEGAL. THEY WERE NOT LEGAL. WHAT THEY DID WAS NOT LEGAL, BUT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW IT TO BE LEGAL. I'M GIVING PEOPLE AN EQUAL FOOTING. AS LONG AS THEY'RE MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS, I'M REDUCING THE BURDEN THAT THEY CAN SO THEY CAN EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE BECAUSE SOME GROUPS ARE AND I WANT TO BE CAREFUL. I DON'T WANT TO SAY DISCRIMINATING BECAUSE I'M NOT SAYING THAT ANY MAYOR IS, YOU KNOW, WAS PICKING AND CHOOSING BASED ON SOME DISCRIMINATORY MEASURE, BUT SOME GROUPS DID NOT GET THE ABILITY TO DO IT, WHILE SOME DID. AND I WANT TO LEVEL THAT PLAYING FIELD, I'M REDUCING THE BURDEN TO EXERCISE YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, NOT INCREASING THEM TO BE. I JUST WANT TO BE SUPER CLEAR ABOUT THAT AGAIN, STILL FREE. FREE TO VOTE AGAINST IT IF YOU WANT TO. BUT I'M REDUCING THE BURDEN, NOT INCREASING IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. NEXT IN QUEUE IS COUNCILMAN LINEGAR, PLEASE. YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION PERTAINS TO THE EXAMPLES GIVEN JUST NOW IN THE RESPONSE BY THE SPONSOR ABOUT THE NO KINGS PROTESTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY BECAUSE I AND AND COMMENTS MADE PREVIOUSLY ABOUT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE MAYOR'S ENFORCEMENT OF THESE ORDINANCES AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN. I DO RECALL THERE BEING SOME CONCERNS RAISED AT THE TIME THAT THE THAT THERE WAS NOT ENFORCEMENT THAT THAT YOU WERE NOT THAT MEMBERS OF THE THE BODY WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT. THEN TO HEAR IN THE RESPONSE THAT IT'S A QUESTION OF IMPEDING THE TRAFFIC AND THAT THOSE EVENTS DID NOT IMPEDE THE TRAFFIC, I GUESS. I, I DON'T KNOW, I KIND OF FELT LIKE THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE STREET WERE KIND OF IMPEDING TRAFFIC. IF YOU IF YOU ARE MARCHING DOWN SIXTH STREET FROM JEFFERSON TO BROADWAY, BY WHAT DEFINITION IS THAT NOT IMPEDING TRAFFIC? I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER THAT I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CAN OF WORMS, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY, BUT I GUESS I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR THE SPONSOR'S RESPONSE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO YEAH, A COUPLE OF THINGS. YEAH. AND AS I SAID EARLIER, I WAS I'M VERY FRUSTRATED BY THE MAYOR'S LACK OF FOLLOWING WHAT THE CURRENT LAW SAYS. HE'S NOT ENFORCING IT. WHAT AND WHAT THE CURRENT LAW SAYS. AND I HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION WITH LMPD, AND THEY WERE VERY CLEAR THAT THE ONLY THING THEY WERE GOING TO ENFORCE IS IF IT IF IT IF IF IT BREACHED INTO VIOLENCE OR THINGS LIKE THAT. RIGHT. OR THE INABILITY OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO MOVE RIGHT. AND THAT TYPE OF THING. THAT IS WAS THE GENESIS OF THIS. IF THAT IS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO ENFORCE IT, THEN I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SHOULD SAY, RIGHT? BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY IF WE DON'T DO IT THAT WAY, THEN THEY COULD BE RESTRICTING SOME PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO PROTEST. AND SO, YEAH, I'M NOT HAPPY WITH HOW THE MAYOR, HOW THE MAYOR'S WHAT I'LL CALL PICKING AND CHOOSING IN THIS CASE, HOW TO, HOW AND WHEN TO ENFORCE THE LAW. WE EITHER NEED TO HAVE A LAW THAT IS CONSISTENTLY ENFORCED OR WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. I'M TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW. SO IT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, WITH HOW THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING IT. AND FRANKLY, IT GIVES MORE. I THINK IT IT AGAIN, AS I SAID EARLIER, I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT MYSELF TOO MUCH REDUCES THAT BURDEN FOR CERTAIN GROUPS. AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO DO KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING. I, I DO THINK, I MEAN, SOME OF THOSE NO KINGS PROTESTS, THERE WAS NOTHING VIOLENT ABOUT IT. I 100% AGREE THE ONLY LAW THEY WERE THEY WERE VIOLATING WAS THE PERMITTING PROCESS. RIGHT. AND SO THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THAT FOR THEM AND THAT EVERYTHING THEY DID THAT DAY WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY LEGAL, EVEN THE PERMITTING. SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. DID I DANCE AROUND IT TOO MUCH? THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? YEAH, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, I GUESS THE THE PART THAT I AM STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CENTER ON THE IMPEDING OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE GROUPS WENT, YOU KNOW, HELD THIS, YOU KNOW, HELD THE STREET, YOU KNOW, WALKING DOWN THE CENTER OF THE STREET. SO, YEAH. SO CAN I ADDRESS THAT? YES, YES. SORRY. YES. LET ME [01:10:06] THAT. SO TO SOME DEGREE YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT IS CURRENTLY IN IN EVERY WAY AT THE DISCRETION IF YOU WILL, OF THE EXECUTIVE. RIGHT. SO IN THE MAYOR IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE DID NOT GET TOO SPECIFIC HERE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN'T GO DOWN THIS STREET THEN, YOU KNOW, LIKE I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO PRESCRIPTIVE. ACTUALLY, THE INTENT HERE WAS AS LONG AS TRAFFIC CAN, AS LONG AS YOU CAN STILL GET TO ANOTHER PLACE, EVEN IF IT'S THROUGH AN ALTERNATE ROUTE, THEN THAT PROTEST IS STILL LEGAL, RIGHT? SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN, LIKE I'M ON THIS STREET AND THEREFORE IT'S ILLEGAL. NO, ACTUALLY, IF YOU CAN GET AROUND IT, IT'S STILL FINE. THAT'S HOW THEY'RE ENFORCING IT CURRENTLY. AND THAT'S THE INTENT BEHIND THIS. I DID NOT WE ARE NOT SAYING HERE THAT IF YOU'RE ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET, YOU'RE ALREADY BLOCKING IT RIGHT NOW. IF YOU START CREATING, IF YOU'RE COVERING AND YOU GOT TO BE THERE, AND THERE'S NO MECHANICAL WAY TO GET THERE, NO WAY TO GET THERE ON THE STREET, THEN NOW YOU'RE STARTING TO BREACH, RIGHT? AND THEN EMERGENCY VEHICLES MUST BE ALLOWED TO PASS. BUT THAT'S BEEN A STANDING RULE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, SO THAT'S REALLY NOT A CHANGE. SO YEAH I DID NOT PRESCRIBE HERE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE ON THIS STREET THAT'S BLOCKING EVERYTHING. NO. YOU HAVE ALTERNATE ROUTES TO GET TO THAT LOCATION SAFELY AND PEOPLE CAN TAKE THOSE ROUTES. I HOPE THAT'S CLEAR, BUT BUT I WILL SAY I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO LIKE ANY LEGISLATION. I CAN'T LEGISLATE EVERYTHING. THERE IS DISCRETION, AS THERE CURRENTLY IS WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE ON WHEN THEY ENFORCE IT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. WE'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT. I'M GOING TO ALLOW KEN HERNDON, WHO HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO. HE'S IN THE QUEUE. SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE THE NO. KING'S MARCH, THE FIRST ONE WAS 5000 PEOPLE. I WAS ONE OF THEM. AND I SIT BEFORE YOU. GUILTY. I WAS IN THE STREET. WE 5000 PEOPLE BLOCK EVERY LANE. SO I GUESS, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE. THAT. THAT'S OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S. WELL. WELL, YOU DID IT, RIGHT. SO. YEAH. WERE YOU CITED? NO. SO THE SO THE MAYOR SAID IT'S OKAY. SO I'M LEGISLATING THAT. YES. AS LONG AS THERE WAS ALTERNATE ROUTES FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE. RIGHT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU WERE GETTING TO WHERE MULTIPLE BLOCKS WERE BLOCKED AND TRULY NOBODY COULD MOVE DOWNTOWN, RIGHT. OR SORT OF TRAPPING PEOPLE, THAT'S THE OTHER PROBLEM, RIGHT? WHERE THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO REROUTE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHERE PROBLEMS ARE CREATED. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS THEY'VE INDICATED RIGHT THERE, AS LONG AS THERE WERE AS THEY DIDN'T DEEM IN THAT CASE THAT HAPPENED. RIGHT. SO THEY DIDN'T INTERVENE. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE WRITING INTO THE LAW THAT THERE'S AN EXEMPTION. YOU, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU WEREN'T CITED. I AM MAKING IT IN THE LAW THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE CITED. RIGHT. THAT'S REALLY ALL WE'RE DOING. FAIR ENOUGH. YEAH. OKAY. ONE MORE QUICK. WELL, WE GOT TIME. THANK YOU. WE ARE. WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME. AND IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS, I WOULD ASK THAT CITY COUNCILWOMAN WRIGHT AND COUNCILMAN WENINGER. THEY'RE IN THE QUEUE. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CONTACT THE SPONSOR WITH QUESTIONS. I'M SURE HE'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE NEXT COMMITTEE. I WOULD NOT TO CUT YOU GUYS OFF, BUT THERE IS A IT IS. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE AND IT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL VOTE. SO IF THE CLERK WOULD OPEN UP THE ROLL CALL, WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THIS VOTE, PLEASE. VOTING IS OPEN. COUNCILMAN JOSEPH IS ON. CAN YOU I KNOW. IT'S NOT MOVING RIGHT NOW. CAN YOU CALL COUNCILMAN JOSEPH? YES. CHAIR SYME, YOU HAVE FOUR YES VOTES, TWO NO VOTES AND ONE PRESENT VOTE. THE ORDINANCE PASSES AND WILL BE SENT TO OLD BUSINESS. CORRECT? CLERK. YES. IT'LL BE SENT TO OLD BUSINESS. AND THERE'S NO OTHER FURTHER BUSINESS. WE'LL HOLD A SPECIAL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24TH AT 4 P.M. TO HONOR LAW ENFORCEMENT APPRECIATION MONTH. THANK YOU [Adjournment Note: Agendas are followed at the discretion of the Chair. While an item may be listed, it does not mean all items will be heard and/or acted upon by the Committee.] FOR YOUR FOR YOUR TIME. AND WE ARE NOW ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.