Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />- <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />~ <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />~ <br />~ <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />March 28, 1994 <br /> <br />Mr. Adkins further noted that current issues being <br />proposed in the legislature could affect the model <br />ordinance they are drafting, and that their model <br />ordinance would have to conform to State law. <br /> <br />Mr. Adkins referred to the proposed ordinance, Section <br />5.36 Diseased or Vicious Dogs and asked whether distemper <br />would be considered a disease and the animal would have <br />to be destroyed? He commented that he would suggest that <br />this section of the ordinance be reworded for better <br />interpretation. <br /> <br />He noted that the age restriction on rabies <br />vaccinations can be tightened by a City, however, <br />restrictions cannot be loosened by State law. <br /> <br />Mr. Adkins addressed the hobby breeders, fanciers or <br />limited business interest. He commented that a <br />large dog could have a litter of ten to twelve <br />puppies, however a small dog may only have one or <br />two puppies. The person with a large dog could have <br />twenty-four puppies in a one year period. The <br />regulations governing for profit kennels should be <br />more stringent than those regulations for hobby <br />breeders. Mr. Adkins noted that Senate Bill 800 <br />would attempt to address this issue. <br /> <br />Hicks agreed that a request for flexibility on the <br />number of dogs was a fair request. He further <br />agreed that the number of permitted dogs for hobby <br />groups should be looked at more closely and allow <br />for more flexibility. <br /> <br />Aplikowski agreed with Hicks that the proposed <br />ordinance was too restrictive to the number of dogs <br />allowed for a kennel license. She further commented <br />that the problem is the owners and their <br />responsibilities to the animals. <br /> <br />Malone asked whether staff had an immediate need to <br />make a motion on the proposed changes. Animal <br />Control officer, Rick Ruzicka stated there is an <br />immediate need to address the feline issue as the <br />mobile home park had been experiencing a large <br />volume of cats running at large, and staff would <br />like to have a means to lawfully deal with this <br />issue. <br /> <br />Malone commended Ms. Johnson and Mr. Adkins for <br />their participation in the discussion of the <br />proposed changes to the ordinance. He further <br /> <br />~ <br />