Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Animal Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Proposed breeder permits and higher ‘dangerous dog’ insurance fail on tie vote

2159710 · January 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council considered a second-reading ordinance to require permits for dog/cat breeders and raise the required liability policy for dogs judged dangerous from $250,000 to $1,000,000; staff recommended the changes but the ordinance failed on a tie vote during Jan. 28 meeting.

The City of Lubbock considered a second-reading ordinance on Jan. 28 that would have required breeders of dogs and cats to obtain permits and increased the liability-insurance requirement for dogs judged dangerous from $250,000 to $1,000,000. After a brief staff briefing and council questions, the measure failed on a tie vote.

City Manager (Mister Atkinson) and Director of Animal Services Mister Green outlined the two changes on the second read: a breeder permit requirement and raising the minimum liability policy for a dog designated as dangerous. Mister Green told council members he supported the changes and said the higher insurance amount would be “another tool” for the animal-services department; he added that he did not expect the measure to completely eliminate backyard breeding but described it as a helpful enforcement tool.

Mayor Pro Tem asked whether staff were comfortable with the new insurance amount and with using a permit to address backyard breeders; Mister Green replied that staff were comfortable and that the permit was a useful enforcement tool. Council then took a vote; the motion resulted in a tie and the ordinance did not pass.

The council did not record a detailed roll-call tally in the public transcript of the meeting; the chair announced that the motion was a tie and therefore did not carry. No amendment or referral to further study was recorded on the transcript.