Councilmembers reviewed two animal‑control measures during the meeting: Ordinance 1‑2026 to increase fines for improperly secured dogs (section 40‑3‑3 of the city code) and Ordinance 02‑2026 to add a new chapter on nuisance behavior by animals. The measures are intended to reduce loose animals, dog waste, and other behaviors council members said harm public safety and neighborhood quality of life.

Why it matters: The ordinances affect everyday interactions between residents, pet owners and city enforcement. Council members debated how high fines should be, whether private‑property incidents are covered, who is authorized to enforce the rules, and potential privacy or harassment claims arising from citizen photo‑reporting.

Councilman Herring (the ordinance sponsor) said he had raised the leash fine at the prior session and proposed an increase from $25 to $200 for a first violation and $250 for subsequent violations, arguing $25 “is not really a deterrent.” Some council members pushed for lower first‑offense amounts: “If you wanna make it $100, so be it. I’m just looking for a deterrent,” Herring said. Councilman Williams said he would support a first fine of $100 or $150, then $250 for subsequent violations.

Several members raised enforcement and scope questions. Mr. Green, the city’s code enforcement representative, told the council that county law requires owners to keep dogs under control whether on private property or public rights‑of‑way, and that enforcement typically begins with a complaint and a conversation with the owner; photo or video evidence (for example, from door‑cam footage) helps for court cases. Mr. Green said enforcement officers visit reporting households, speak with owners and provide literature, and follow up if incidents continue.

Councilwoman Cross asked for language to address animal‑caused injuries separately, noting that bites can trigger county procedures and civil claims; the sponsor and code enforcement agreed that serious bite incidents would be handled under county animal‑control rules. Councilwoman Cross and Councilman Herring also asked staff to clarify which employees are “certified enforcers” so citizen reporting does not encourage disorderly or harassing behavior.

That privacy concern was contested. Councilwoman Cross urged legal review before encouraging photo reporting, citing Maryland stalking and reasonable‑expectation‑of‑privacy statutes. Councilman Herring and other members cited the U.S. Supreme Court principle that individuals in public places can be recorded and argued citizens may lawfully record dogs on public sidewalks and submit footage to code enforcement. Council members asked the city attorney to review the interplay between citizen reporting, harassment statutes, and the evidence needed to issue fines.

Council members also discussed a separate nuisance measure focused on dog waste, off‑property defecation and feral cats. Mr. Green said stray cats often require neighbors to trap animals before county animal control will collect them. Council members requested an explicit legal review and clearer enforcement language in the ordinances, and some said they would cosponsor clarifying amendments.