Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 6.16.085 and by adding Section 6.16.062 all relating to animal regulation, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
Councilwoman Mango. Motion carries eight zero 24. Item 24 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine and the City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code related to animal regulation read and adopted as read citywide. Thank you. There's been a motion and the second vice mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask Mr. Stephens a question. We've had some further conversations with stakeholders, and there's a clarification I'd like to ask regarding the exemption for breeders. Under that exemption, we've we've been made aware of a particular contractual agreement between breeders and, say, someone who purchases a purebred animal. And under that contractual agreement, I believe it's referred to as a breeder line or breed line perhaps. And we can have Councilmember Richardson expand on that deal. My understanding of what's been described to me and my knowledge of the ordinance before us, our exemption would cover that. And so if I could have staff. Discuss that. And elaborate on it. I would appreciate that. And perhaps, Mr. Mayor, if Councilmember Richardson can articulate better. What I was trying to articulate. Just also, just for the public, there will be public comment. So as soon as this is completed, just after. I thank you. Thanks, Vice Mayor. I think so. I've done some diligence since last week too. This week to better understand how this impacts purebred dogs and purebred animals. That may not be a show dog, but might potentially be a show dog or be a part of a line, a specific line of purebreds that breeds show dogs or whatever the purposes. And a lot of times the breeders my understanding is the licensed breeders, a lot of them like have a contractual or contractual agreement with those folks that they sell their dog to, that those dogs should not be spayed or neutered because they are part of a certain line. Now, I would imagine this is a very narrow group of group of professional trade. So I wanted to I wanted to just sort of have a better understanding on that. And thank you, Vice Mayor, for for helping to walk me through that. And I would hope that they are included in the exemption for under the definition of the exemption for breeder. Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, would you mind if staff addressed the issue? As I read it, it would be would be exempt. The owners would be on the breeder to provide that documentation to us. Mayor and members of city. Council, in my understanding and. Ted can can weigh in on this as well as when you purchase a purebred dog, you do get the AKC papers and with those AKC papers that you are part of the exemption. If you want to breed that dog, you you should have the AKC papers, too, to show the lineage of that dog. Right. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Did you want to add to that? Yeah. Yeah, I believe that. And my conversations. With the local Kennel Club is that there is a lot of paperwork involved and a lot of time and effort that goes into making sure dogs are purebred in the lineage. And so. It would be my understanding that. Those offspring would have the paperwork that would make them eligible. For the exemption. Okay. And if I can ask staff to make sure that we have that as a issue that may come up and consider that and and acknowledge I'm acknowledging that that is part of the exemption. And so I'd like you to be sure that you have that as part of your process going forward in setting up. The requirements are not the requirements, but the process to fulfill the requirements. Vice Mayor I guess. We could probably work with the city attorney to make sure that's in the language. Okay. Thank you. And that's it for me, Mr. Mayor. I've made the motion. And the councilman. I'll withdraw my comment. It was only if there was a just a misunderstanding with what we thought the original intent was. But I wasn't the second or so. I wasn't sure if I could. Join of the friendly council Boston. Oh. With work drama comments in a la public comment person. Okay, great. So I'm going to move on to the public comment. If you have a public comment, please come forward to the mic. Please come all the way forward to line up behind Mr. Good Hill. Very good to clear. See you. Just as I mentioned the first time this subject came up, I strongly believe that we should not restrict this to our four legged friends. If we're going to spay and neuter. Extend it to all. The two legged, which are more problematic, quite frankly, than most of the four legged. And I think it will benefit the city tremendously. Thank you. Thank you. If we're going to have if we're going to speak, please come forward, ladies. Come all the way forward and just line up. Okay. Thank you. Please. And make sure everyone just introduce yourself for the record. Okay. Good evening. My name is Geneva Coates. I'm the secretary for the California Federation of Dog Clubs. We represent thousands of dog owners throughout the state. And the dog owners of the state of California have some grave concerns regarding your proposals tonight. For many decades, the city of Long Beach had a total ban on breeding before it implemented a limited permit system to allow breeding. The process is so convoluted and expensive that obtaining a breeding permit here remains an impossible dream. If a law that prohibits breeding was effective, then after decades of such a law, the City of Long Beach should be a poster child for shelter success. Now your city is considering another failed policy. A mandatory spay and neuter law. Our group is opposed to mandatory sterilization of pets, regardless of exemptions. And I think it's worth noting that while our group does represent purebred dog breeders and dog clubs that are consisting of purebred dogs, we also recognize that not just purebred dogs have a need to maintain all their body parts. We also recognize that there are dogs that hunt, dogs that guard property, guards that serve the blind. Those are very often crossbred dogs, dogs that serve in companion events. But we are opposed to the mandated sterilization of pets, regardless of exemptions. We're opposed to high fees and excessive restrictions. And some of the reasons include the most important reason. Because spay neuter mandates. Do not solve any problems. Such laws create more problems. Every place they've been tried. The ASPCA has done extensive studies on all the areas that have implemented spay neuter laws and their position paper. They state that the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of spay neuter law . Another point that I wanted to bring up. I know you all received a letter from AKC from Sheila Garvey. Sheila Garvey informed you all that the AKC would not want to consider bringing back the Eukanuba shows to Long Beach in the event of a spay neuter law this past year. And I know that you're also aware that in the past years, when these shows have been held here, the revenues per show have been in the area of around $21 million. So that would be a big loss to your city. We also recognize that mandatory sterilization laws are very costly. For the city to enforce requires more manpower. There are many existing laws that. Do cover dogs that are roaming. And causing problems in the community. Thank you, ma'am. I miss all of. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Diane Amendola. I sent you an email about a month and a half ago regarding this. I was asked not to come and talk to you earlier because an acquaintance of mine said that her husband was going to talk to you and everything would be settled. Well, they know very well that I oppose mandatory spay neuter laws. I support education of your populace so that they understand how to keep the dogs from having litters that are unplanned. My family's always had purebred dogs and we have not spayed or neutered them, but we have not had litters. We understand what fences are about. We understand what reproduction is about. I'm astounded that you've going to hit that you're proceeding to pass this ordinance of mandatory spay neuter, which will see Eukanuba Dog Show go elsewhere, I guess. Long Beach $21 million is nothing to you to earn in a week. I thought it was a lot of money. It's just not accurate. If you're talking about economic impact versus revenue, those are just not the same. But well. I got this information from your tourism bureau, and I thought that they knew what they were talking about. You know, more than they do. Please give the second part of your ordinance that would force pets shops. To offer unregulated rescue pets for sale instead of pets from license inspected sources with health guarantees. I oppose this. This is a poor idea, which is. Encourages the importation of dogs from outside the United States for the rescue retail trade. And if you haven't noticed, rescues do sell the animals. And I've been involved in rescue. Yes. We do have to get a little bit of money for the dogs to cover the expenses that they incur. However, no one regulates them. And many of the important many rescues are importing dogs from other regions of the country, as well as from as far away as Mexican, the Caribbean, Taiwan, Europe and Asia. This is a completely unregulated cottage industry, and you're not addressing that at all. The dogs and puppies obtained from such ventures, often from unscrupulous foreign puppy mills or dogs, are kept in bad conditions. These dogs are often sick and have been known to suffer from rabies and bring rabies here. Just check with your health department if you don't. Do not believe me. These. The pet shop trade has proven by the insurance companies that take care of those dogs that those are the most regulated. Far more regulated than rescues. And they they suffer from far fewer illnesses, as the insurance companies will attest to. I'm sorry you're considering this. I don't know what more I could say to ask you not to. So thank you for listening and. I think I sent you some information about the universities are all telling us it's unhealthy to spay and neuter our dogs before maturity. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Ann Taft Miller. I live in the third district. I have lived there for almost 30 years and I am hoping that you will consider other options and other viewpoints than what has been, you know, seems to be the flow that is going on here. My training in graduate school, as well as my profession, required me to analyze data here regardless of my own opinions. It made me look at. Specific information, that is, and even soft data. And when? So as since this is ingrained in me, I did get on the Internet. I did look to see if there has been any appreciable or any statistically. Or any. Even a direction that was showing that mandatory spay neuter has been beneficial to communities. And I have not found that. And I did find what somebody else said, which was the ASPCA does not support this. Even though data from our American Veterinary Medical Association has been presented as to the positives about this. What was omitted was that the American Veterinary Medicine Association does not support mandatory spay and neuter. I don't know why we're going this direction. The the recommendation is that this will be funded on the backs of the 33% of the dogs in this community that are actually licensed. You are quite you. In order for you to have a neutral impact on our city budget. I do not understand this. I do appreciate the fact that you have looked at trying to bring two sides together and to look at it passing such an ordinance. My dogs would be covered. However. A personal note is that my dog has been diagnosed with Ms.. So cancer, which veterinary oncologist have specifically stated is related to early spay and neuter? My girlfriend's dog died of bladder cancer. Which was associated with early spay and neuter. My dog was spayed at five months. Her dog was neutered at 11 months. Why are you practicing veterinary medicine? I am very passionate and I am sorry. It's frustrating to me that you are moving in this direction when in fact we should be going. You know, every argument that has been given, you know, for this ordinance has been covered by licensing fields and breeders permits. I don't understand it. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. Can you hear me? Ahead. We can. Okay. My name is Vicki Rhodes, and I am appalled that this. Council is even considering. This measure. It has been a failure everywhere. It has been tried. If you look at cities that have taken a much more progressive and much more. Open minded approaches such as the County of Ventura. You will see that they did and chose to go with an educational program. They approached their populace for education. They approached them with affordable means of getting their animals spayed or neutered. A lot of people simply can't afford it, but they want to have pets and they want to be good pet owners. You also have the kind. That are just completely irresponsible and let them run loose. The mandatory spay and neuter is not going to address any portion of those problem areas. You have 70% of your. Population of pet. Owners already not complying with your laws. So the 33% are going to shoulder the burden. The other thing that I would like to. Remind you of is something that Thomas. Jefferson said. And he said not to consider laws and civil mandates just for. The good that you think they will. Do. You need to consider. Them for the harm that they can do. This is something that you are. Considering that can do. Tremendous harm. You are deciding. Without any medical background or any veterinary knowledge. That this is what you are going to force. Upon the populace. Now I consider myself a good pet owner and a good citizen. And I to do what's right. For my dog. And my dog will be covered under one of those little slippery things that you. Call an exception. But the truth is, everybody deserves the right to discuss with their veterinarian. Or to be knowledge knowledgeable within that. Discussion about what is best for their pet. This is not in the best interest of your pet. This is not in the best interest of me and my family who love those little animals and they get attached to them. I invest time and money and it gets spent in this city. I am willing to. Support whatever program. Because I want to comply and I want everyone to be able. To comply. It needs to be fair. This is neither fair. It is not healthy. And I don't see why you feel that you have the right to do this. Additionally, if you want to contact some counties like Ventura that did go with the educational route, you will see that within a year their. Admissions into their. Shelters and clinics dropped by 40%. Thank you very much. Time's up. Make speaker, please. Happy Saint Patty's Day, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Connie Koehler. I am the legislative liaison to the AKC for the soft coated Wheaten Terrier Club of America, my national breed club and a great Irish breed, and also the immediate past president of the soft coated Wheaten Terrier Club of Southern California. And I would like to talk to the economic impact of the loss of AKC Eukanuba National Championship to the City of Long Beach and Councilwoman Mongo. I do understand the difference between economic impact and revenue. Professionally. Previous speakers have stated that according to Long Beach Area Visitors and Convention Bureau, that 28,000 visitors from all 50 states and multiple foreign countries with an economic impact of 21 million, was the result of. The 2010. Single year agency show season that was at the height of the Great Recession. May I remind everyone that the contract that AKC makes with the city is for five years? So that is potentially a loss of 105 million or more over that five year period. To Long Beach. Business. This includes hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, car rentals, Long Beach Airport, etc., etc. and many employ hourly, lower income workers who spend their own income in the community, affecting yet more businesses in Long Beach indirectly. Now then there is the issue of local AKC shows. And by the way, AKC has gone on record online on their website. Saying, and I quote. From today's release of cases Taking Command, their government relations newsletter quote, AKC has informed city officials that we will no longer consider Long Beach as a site for the AKC Eukanuba National Championship, which had previously been held there from 26 to 2010, unquote. According to AKC event operations, last year's entries for local AKC shows at Queen Mary Park were 6509 dogs. They are principally from two weekends in June. Great Western Terrier Association, which includes national and local breed clubs, specialty show shows, including My Own. And the following weekend, the Kennel Club of Beverly Hills and Long Beach Kennel Club. Similar events. The economic impact if those clubs decide to withdraw as a result of the passage of your ordinance exceed. Could exceed. $1,000,000 and could be upwards of 3 to $4 million annually if the clubs decide to go elsewhere. It will not be this year, but in subsequent years. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Kimberly Buchanan, and I again urge you to vote no on this proposed ordinance. As I stated last week, I'm a business owner and homeowner. I currently live in District five. I've lived in Long Beach since 1988, have volunteered much time at Long Beach Animal Control and currently assist with several rescue organizations. Last week we heard. A lot of. Really sad stories about dogs on streets, dogs being euthanized in our shelter. Our group received the Animal Control Statistics statistics through December 5th of 2014. And I agree that it is shocking, shocking that the numbers have dropped so dramatically just a few years. That's all it takes. This is in large part due to the dedication and hard work of so many supporting groups and individuals who work tirelessly for the animals. The euthanasia stats that we got were approximately 4400 dogs that were impounded. We don't know if that actually includes the four other contracted cities. It may not sure. But as I look at the statistics, I have to wonder how animal control can improve any healthy, adoptable animals should be able to find a loving and permanent home out of 968 dogs that were euthanized in that time, 477 of them had serious health or behavior issues, so they were essentially non adoptable. 307 had minor health and behavior issues. What minor is, we don't know. Not sure what that is. Don't know if these dogs were made available to the public, if they were treated, if they had any training, for some reason they were euthanized. But we don't know why. Finally, out of 968 dogs, only 126 were euthanized due to time and space. Amazing. 126. Too many, of course. But what was it about those 126 dogs that they didn't get adopted? One more statistic we see is that there are 696 dogs relinquished to the shelter by their owners. Does animal control counsel these people when they try and release their dogs and try and find ways for them to keep them rather than releasing them? Those are the questions I would be asking, not what the reproductive status is. By approving this ordinance, you are taking a broad brush approach to an issue that has many facets that deserve more careful consideration. Since a councilman supporters seem to feel that this is the next step in reducing euthanasia. I would beg you to put the information online so everybody can see what the results are, just like other major municipalities do. So we can see exactly what the effect is once this does pass. If it does pass. We have an estimated 110,000 dogs in the city. 90% are already altered. We only have a 30% licensed compliance, so difficulty in enforcing existing laws. I do not believe this broad, sweeping ordinance will achieve the desired effect. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Go ahead, cut off. We have our last public speaker. I'm going to cut off the speaker's list, the lady in the back there, so she'll be the last speaker. I'm going to be very quick because I spoke to you at length last week. My name is Judith McMann. I'm a lifelong resident of Long Beach. I've lived in the fifth District on my own home for the last 40 plus years. And I have three dogs, two of whom are spayed. One of whom is intact and will remain intact. I fall under one of your exemptions. Regardless, he will remain intact. He's never been out of my yard. I have a lock on my yard. He's not going anywhere and he's not going to touch any other target unless I say he's going to. I just had a couple of questions about this ordinance itself. I happen to be an attorney as well, and I do read the law. I have a couple of questions which I'm hoping this council can answer for me. As I read this, it says Unaltered dogs and cats are prohibited. That means prohibited in the city of Long Beach, I presume does not say residents, dogs and cats who live in Long Beach are prohibited. It says dogs and cats, period, are prohibited. I know a lot of people that come here for dog shows. They're not going to take the chance of bringing an altered, unaltered animal in this city, period. End of subject. They're not going to do it. The other question I had, unless I'm totally mistaken, this city currently requires licensing of animals at the age of four months. This law says that at six months they must be spayed or neutered. I'm wondering what happens in the meantime if I license a puppy, an altered puppy at four months, and then I have to spay and neuter it by six months? Do I get a refund on what I've paid for the difference in license fees? That makes no sense to me. Absolutely no sense to me. Basically, that's all I have to say. Thank you very. Much. Thank you very much. And I had closer speakers list. We have one more. Is that okay? Okay. I'm going to close the speakers list after you came in. Thank you. Go ahead. Hi. My name is John Zapp. I'm a resident of the fifth District. I lived there for 30 years. I'm I'm also the owner of two dogs, two of whom compete in agility and are the top two of the top dogs in the country in agility and our breed. I've been the past president of my dog club. I've been past president of my agility club, and I'm the current vice president of my obedience club. So I know a few things about dogs and about caring for dogs and raising dogs. I'm opposed to the mandatory spay neuter law, not because it's going to affect me directly, because my dogs are going to be exempt under the way the ordinance is currently written. But I'm opposed to that. For all the other reasons that you have. Heard tonight that you heard at our last meeting last week. But I'm not here to express my opposition. To that so much anymore, because I suspect that, as we were told when a group of us were meeting with members of you, with the Senate and your staffs, as we were told that it was a done deal two months ago, I suspect. It's going to be a done. Deal again tonight. But I am here to express my personal disappointment in not being a participant in the discussions that led to the creation of this particular ordinance, the people who were most involved in dogs on a daily basis, who compete with dogs, who know dogs, who have bred dogs, who have held these contracts, written these contracts , who have like me, walked through shelters, pulled dogs. And in my case, I have fostered seven dogs, all of whom I can say have been placed in really wonderful homes. We didn't provide any input into this. We weren't part of the group that helped craft this ordinance. We were not in we're stakeholders, but we weren't at the table as as. As Councilman Andrew. Said earlier this evening to the young lady and the group from the Wrigley District, telling them perhaps over the next period of time, you can work together to try to come together. We didn't get that opportunity. We didn't get that chance. And now there's going to be an ordinance that's going to be in place. I'm going to comply with it. I'm exempt from it. One of my dogs is currently neutered. The next the next one, the other one will be spayed as soon as we come back from Nationals. However, for the 70,000 dogs in this community that aren't neutered, aren't spayed, I'm not sure how that group is going to come together with and and comply with this ordinance. They're not complying with the licensing ordinance now. It's it's a been a divisive experience and I'm sorry for that. I just wish that the council would, going forward, pull together the stakeholders and see if we can't create some sort of better thinking. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Orrick. I'm the national manager of Puppy Mill Initiatives for Best Friends Animal Society. And I'm just here on behalf. Of Best Friends and our 300,000 members to. Thank you for considering the retail pet sales ordinance and for really taking a. Positive, proactive approach to. Making the City of Long Beach more humane for people and animals. And I just want to briefly remark on something that a previous speaker said about how the existing pet stores. Are supplied by breeders who are. Licensed and regulated. So the USDA is the one who regulates commercial breeders. And the the minimal standards of animal. Care allow for a breeder to have. No limits to the number of dogs they have. Some of these facilities have over a thousand. Dogs with very few, very few people to care for them. There's no limits to how often the dogs can be bred or how young or old the dogs. Can be when they're bred. There's no requirements. For veterinary. Care, daily exercise, human contact. And the most shocking thing is that these dogs are allowed to be confined to cages that are have wire bottoms, which are very uncomfortable, tiny, cramped cages stacked one on top of the other. And they only have to be six inches larger than the dogs. And those dogs are allowed to be kept in those cages. 24 hours a day, seven days a. Week for their entire lives, without ever being taken out for one single moment to stand on solid ground, feel the sun on their backs, get out of dark barns, get, get out of the elements. This is the life of the breeding. Dogs who are supplying puppies for local pet stores, and that's unacceptable. So the status quo, which is what you're trying to address, needs to change. That's why. 75 other communities throughout North America. Cities, counties now the state of Maine are all passing these ordinances because they realize that this is not appropriate. So we applaud. You for taking this. Approach, for making Long Beach a more humane city. And I want to thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker. Thank you. Thank you for affording me the time. I have a little thing going on here, but I did want to address you. I would like to address some of my concerns that came out of last week's meeting. First of all, I would like to comment on Councilwoman Mongo statement during her remarks at the last council meeting where she quoted I quote her I am a proponent of strong compliance policies. Councilwoman Mongo, I would like to know how you plan to mandate such strong compliance with this ordinance. The City of Long Beach is already looking at budget difficulties. This budget recommends a minimum allocation for compliance, which includes enforcement and public education. How will that be possible? With only a projected increase in licensing fees expected to balance the cost? How will it affect the budget if the compliance and licensing is not what you expect? Statistics speak for themselves from cities all over California and across the United States, that when an ordinance such as this is implemented, compliance goes down and costs go up. It is it is realistic to base. Is it realistic to base your budget on 100% compliance with only part time inspectors? With these questions in mind, I would like to request that the Director of Animal Care Services include program transparency with up to date shelters, data statistics posted on a website just as Los Angeles City Animal Service does, posting their animal control statistics monthly. Secondly, when our group began meeting with each of your office, I found it interesting and one of our very first meetings almost four weeks ago with Mr. Brock Howard. Vice Mayor Lowenthal is chief of staff who expressed his indifference in our meeting with him regarding this ordinance and remarked, and I quote, This is set in stone. Now, that was four weeks ago before any of the testimony at these council meetings took place. But after November 18th Council meeting, I ask you, how can that be? Am I to understand that you're all going through the motions here and we have just been wasting our time offering you facts, statistics, position letters from all the major organizations that should have been included in some type of stakeholders meeting for input before this important issue was voted on. May I suggest that you delay the vote on this second reading in order to build a comprehensive study, which can include all the stakeholders from both sides giving their opinions on the pros and cons of this issue. This was an idea mentioned to us when we met with both Austin and councilmen Austin and Durango, and I suggest I support this idea. I would like to thank you, Councilman Austin. Your remarks last week showed you really you really had a grasp of the problems with this ordinance. Lastly, I would like to mention thank Dr. Larry Cosman for representing the Southern California Medical Association at last week's council meeting. Although Dr. Cosman was only here present as an observer for his organization, the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association has expressed no position on mandatory spay and neuter. But I am aware that there are many interested members of the Southern California Veterinary Medical Association who are presently involved in this discussion and who are concerned with the outcome here tonight. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'm to go back to Councilwoman Mongo. First, I want to say that I always appreciate those who come and meet with our office. I take emails personally, I take meetings regularly. I'm out in the community at sometimes a dozen events a week where people approached me on any item before the council. Ted, do you want to give a little bit of input on the stakeholder group that weighed in on the writing of the ordinance that this council asked you to ensure that it was written and or any individuals that contacted your office where they all heard. Mr. Stevens? Yeah. I'm sorry. Still getting over a cold? Yeah. In addition to. All the groups. That were actually that were in support of the mandatory spay neuter, I did reach out to or spoke to the Long Beach Kennel Club representatives that came to the meeting in November. And I did speak with them and I did share them. What we were proposing and made. Sure I swayed it all of their. Concerns as they were the group that contacted me and reached out to me and and. Spoke to me at the last meeting. So I did speak to them. I did speak to several other agencies on their laws and what worked and what didn't work. And so that's that was the basis of it. So if any member of this group that felt that they were not included had reached out to you and and as our motion had said, that was in public and posted many times, had voiced interest in being a part of the process. They were included. Yes. I didn't have any other people reach out to me. Okay. Additionally, I want to set a few facts straight. Nothing is a done deal and nothing is set in stone until five members of this body have passed it. And I think that that's evidenced by the dialog that Councilmember Austin and I had last week, and that earlier this evening I was leaning towards voting no. And the comments of my colleagues and members of the public had changed my mind. I have a very heated item going on in my district right now that I inherited from a prior council, and I'm looking at it very diligently to ensure that we are we are getting all sides to the point that unaltered dog licenses cost more than spend neutering. Let me also say that. As a council member, we receive if you saw the stack of paper I had here earlier tonight, those were all public comments on a particular item in my district. And I read them all, all of them. And I write notes on things that we want to write back. And obviously with the hundreds that we receive, we can't write back to every single person individually. And most specifically, I try to take my time to write back to the people who are most informed, because a lot of the complaints we get. Are just based on things that are not factually correct. And so it's it's hard as a councilmember to try to correct the record all the time and remind people of what the facts are. So let's go through a couple of books. One, the cost of unaltered dog licenses cost more than spay and neuter and your pet. So if you an unaltered dog license at $95 for four years, you're in for approximately $400. The cost of spay and neuter and is less than that. Most dogs live beyond four years of age. Additionally, there are spay and neuter vouchers, etc., etc., etc.. And so in addition to that, Councilmember Austin and I have talked about the mobile spay and neuter clinic and other opportunities to ensure that certain parts of the community don't have access to the shelter where you buy licenses and you become compliant. And so we're working on making sure that the north side of town and the west side of town have events in their community where they can buy licenses and or have access to those vouchers. Second. The spay and neuter ordinance as written is budget neutral. Since we are allowing individuals who currently have an unaltered license to maintain their current unaltered status, there is no revenue decrease expected. And so from their. There have been complaints in the community that we are increasing the dog licensing fee by 40%. Let's talk about that, shall we? A dog license fee in Long Beach is a mere $20. We are increasing the fee to $24. That is less than a venti cup of coffee at McDonald's. I think they're 425. And so if the organizations and individuals who want the privilege of having a dog aren't willing to pay for the cost of that organization, we have bigger issues. Right now, Animal Control Services is a budget deficit annually. I know you sent over the numbers, Mr. Stevens, but what is the subvention rate of animal control services? So subvention rate is if it costs $100,000 to run the department and we only bring in $40,000 in revenue, it's only supplemented 40%. And departments like this should be prevented 100%. We don't want to lose the service, and we absolutely cannot increase redemption fees because the cost of redemption fees are deterrent for individuals picking up their animals. They just abandoned them when they see what they have to pay. And Mr. Stevens has done an excellent job of, in some cases, waiving those redemption fees to ensure those pets get back to their owners. But if you could tell me what the current subvention rate is or what the revenue the costs are from the email that you sent me. I can pull it up if I have to. Thank you, Councilmember Mongo Councilmember Austin. I don't I don't have the exact percentage on me, but it's. Little it's under 50%. Okay. 40, 45%. So less than 50%. That means that our contract services are license fees and our redemption fees don't even cover 50% of the cost to run our organization. And so this small amount of revenue spike in the short term will make that difference. For compliance. And I am I am one of the council members that stands most firmly against increasing taxes. I also am one who believes, and you'll see this in the coming months, as we're discussing right now, our parks. I'm also one who believes that those who use those services are the ones who should pay for the most, because our general fund dollars, the tax dollars brought in from sales tax revenue and property tax really need to go to streets, sidewalks, trees, the things in the community that are used by everyone. And so even some have brought to my attention that park usage is equal for taxpayers of Long Beach and people who come from other communities whose taxes pay for other parks. We're looking into that. We're looking at those options because in the next two years, we are facing a budget deficit. Additionally. I am open to discussing options of what we can do on rating systems or requirements for our rescues. I do know there is a huge difference in the quality of rescues in our community. Having worked for Animal Control, L.A. County. I've worked with dozens and dozens and there's a huge variance. So please reach out to my office and get on the calendar and we can discuss some options. Same with puppy mills. Ted, do you want to address for me quickly that licenses are at four months and the Spain and neutering is at six months and how we came up with a way around that so we wouldn't have to do a refund. Do you want to share that? I believe we would probably propose. We would be proposing a temporary fee similar to what Orange County uses. They allow puppy licenses at the same rate as an unaltered license. And then so we could propose that in the fee schedule when this takes effect in October. Because I'm definitely not in favor of refunds. It's it's a process that takes a lot of staff time that should be spent on animals. Additionally. We do not base the budget on 100% compliance. We base the budget on revenue trends. And so that's not a part of it. And then and finally, I want to say something about an issue that I've spent hours of my life on in the last week. There are too many individuals that speak for the AKC because there are people who come before us today that say they're not going to come back. And there are people who call me and say that they are. There are people in the organization who say that they were never going to come back anyway. They outgrew us and they moved to Miami for five years. And when they were considering coming back to the West Coast, we were not even in their consideration. There are others who said that and I quote, Because you have written in the breed ordinance and the exceptions as you have, you are still in consideration. And so it's really difficult for us as a city to have so many different people speaking for an organization. If the president of this organization would like to give me a call, my chief of staff will give them my personal cell phone number. In the same way that I've spoken with the president of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. And their staff has reached out numerous times over the last week to get the record straight and to have AKC provide in writing what they had specifically said. I see that you said that some things on the website. I'd be more than happy to have my chief of staff. She's right here in the front row. Find out more. But we've spent hours on the phone. I mean, just trying to weed through the individuals who call and say they are affiliated with your organization. So for the sanctity of your organization and ensuring that you have the right people speaking on your behalf, we need to work through that process. So thank you for everyone's comments and feedback. I really appreciate it. No, thank you. Public comment is complete for this item right now. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Mongo. Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And, yes, we we debated this this issue pretty profusely last week, and I was reminded in public comment regarding a little earlier about my vote. And this evening, I won't be voting in support of this because I did make a lot of arguments. To the contrary last week. I do think the exemptions are fair and they they they do so some show some sensitivity to many of our responsible pet owners. But I think the smartest, most fiscally responsible approach would be to focus on education and registration, since 90% of our registered dogs here in Long Beach are spayed or neutered . It shows that our system is actually working. I would much rather commit resources to create seasonal job opportunities for college students to canvass and assist our city in increasing our registration numbers. I think the mandatory spay neuter ordinances draconian is a draconian leap for the city of Long Beach, and I'm not convinced that our existing ordinance is really broken. The data, in fact, I think shows significant improvement. And I think this council and the many activists here on both sides of this issue should be complimented for your involvement over the years on this issue. Accessibility to animal care services is still a major issue for majority of the residents in the city of Long Beach . This ordinance does nothing to address that district's one district's two District six District seven District. Eight District nine residents are not don't have access to animal care services. And I think if we were to. To address that in a comprehensive way. We could do a lot to to minimize our numbers in terms of euthanasia and in having, you know, our dogs and cats actually picked up from animal care services. One of the speakers addressed the transparency issue and council members, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I would I would really love to see in this this ordinance or something come forward from this council. If not today, I'm sure something will come forward very soon, some greater transparency. You know, how many how many dogs are in cats we rescuing, how many are surrendered, how many strays are picked up, you know, and what are we doing in terms of euthanasia? And I think that transparency is merited in this regard. I mean, and more importantly, I would love to see a monthly report from Animal Care Services to to measure the real efficacy of what I presume will be this this this new ordinance, if passed. You know, I want to be able to measure, you know, where we are today and where are we going to be six months from now, where we are a year from now, should this pass? And so I'm going to tell you right now, I'm very much interested in greater transparency in that regard. I'm great. I'm very much interested in making animal care services more accessible to the rest of the city. But what I just said, like six council districts are geographically, um, I guess handicapped from, from, from, from such services and so to, to make this leap to it, to a mandatory spay neuter in law. I mean, it makes people feel good. It makes a certain segment of activists feel good, but I don't think it is a smart policy. And so with that, I will be voting no. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. I appreciate your comments and your position on this. You've been consistent and I do appreciate that. I do want to reiterate to anyone that's interested and certainly watching at home, as colleagues like to say, this isn't a panacea. It's certainly one of the many tools that we would like to implement here in our city to support our education and outreach efforts. If this were a panacea and certainly viewed as such, I would have brought it forward five years ago when I brought my animal care reform package forward. And so this is one of the last tools that we had identified as a possibility for our city after having implemented all of the others. And to your great suggestion, Councilmember Austin, I do all of that information is available. I don't know that we as a council have ever asked our animal care team for a monthly or a annually or even every six months type of report. But as someone who's been very interested in this issue, I've received those numbers because I've asked for them so that I can track the issue we've been able to. State what our percentages are in terms of the reduction in euthanasia, in terms of the reduction of the number of animals that are collected year over year. Because it's something that I personally been interested in. And so I've received that information because I asked if this council is interested in that. Certainly, I think would not only be amenable, but be happy to provide that by way of an annual report. I do think it's part of an annual report of types that I have seen, but it may not be in the format that you're looking for. I have seen those numbers and I think they're publicly available. And so I do believe we are transparent in that because we're proud of the work this animal care department has done. We have come a long way from when we used to be called animal control, and I could not be more proud of the city for that department's work. Mr. Keisler is not here today, but he was a big part of bringing forward the reform and the change with our city manager and every member of this team. And now Mr. Stevens, along with Mr. Chapman's leadership, is part they are part of that. And so. Watching the evolution of this department. It does. It makes me very proud. We have a long way to go. And that's why we have to be relentless in looking for tools to ensure that we take the most humane approach possible. And with that, I think my second Councilmember Urunga on on this item. And I think we're ready for a vote. I spent a lot of. Motion carries seven one. We took item 25, correct? Yes. And so we are on to new business. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. May I call on Councilmember your.