Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, March 13, 2017 <br />Page 5 <br />specific problems being experienced in Roseville and identified with only one <br />store versus completely banning the sale of puppies on a broader scale. <br />Steve Olson <br />Mr. Olson stated that he had been encouraged to attend tonight to share his per- <br />sonal anecdotal history in his family's purchase of a rescue dog from a Roseville <br />pet store that they were still trying to bring back to health after multiple trips to <br />the veterinarian. Mr. Olson further noted that his research of the breeder where <br />this particular dog had originated was originally located in Pennsylvania and after <br />being forced to shut down, had then relocated to Iowa and was operating the same <br />type of business model. Mr. Olson further reviewed apparent consideration by the <br />pet store owner to make restitution of veterinary bills, but after submissiori of <br />itemized bills from the veterinarian specifically related to direct costs from para- <br />sites, Mr. Olson reported that they had yet to receive restitution or any response <br />to-date. <br />City Council Deliberation <br />After hearing public testimony, Councilmember McGehee stated her agreement to <br />leave p�esent language including the findings as presented other than for striking <br />the end of the first sentence (line 28) as previously noted. <br />Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of an Ordinance (Attachment B) <br />entitled, "An Ordinance Creating and Administrative Offense for the Sale of Dogs <br />and Cats by a Retail Establishment;" amended as follows: <br />■ Straking the e�d of the sentence related to financial costs and taxpayer bu�°- <br />den (lines 39 and 40); <br />■ Replace "affect" with "aclve�sely impact" (line 48) <br />Councilmember Willmus stated his appreciation of the effort going into this ordi- <br />nance and thanked the dozens of Roseville residents providing testimony. Coun- <br />cilmember Willmus stated his continued support for the adoption ordinance model <br />as more humane and fitting for Roseville and ultimately for those animals in- <br />volved. Councilmember Willmus stated his support of it from the onset and ad- <br />vised that he continued to support it. <br />Councilmember Laliberte also stated her support from the beginning, opining that <br />this is a model fitting the values of Roseville that current conditions were not <br />achieving. Recognizing that the city was not in a position to take on the inspec- <br />tion aspect and in consideration of the limitations and concerns about other in- <br />spection processes in place (e.g. United States Department of Agriculture), Coun- <br />cilmember Laliberte stated that this was the best alternative for Roseville and its <br />residents. <br />Councilmember Etten asked his colleagues to consider discussion of lines 104- <br />106 of Attachment B, opining that he found it unreasonable to require that over- <br />night and on-site staffing be provided specific to cats, citing several area exam- <br />