CC_Minutes_2007_1022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

eg ar ity ci eet ® ay, cto er 2 age Discussion included revisions of the bench handout draft and the draft in the Council packet; private business context of stricken language in Section 501.05 related to animals in hotels and motels; ability of local law to be more restrictive than federal and/or state law (i.e., Section 501.06 and language remaining for li- censing requirements at three months of age or older of the pet}; and language recommendations taken from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC} model ani- mal control ordinance. Ms. Kough opined that Section 501.10 Language needed to comply with state and federal language related to impound time for at least five (5} business days, in- cluding aSaturday, and not inclusive of the day the animal was acquired. Councilmember Pust clarified that this ordinance was not to be confused with provisions of a dangerous dog ordinance; but was only addressing license and permit fees related to animal control. Captain Rick Mathwig of the Police Department thanked Councilmembers Pust and Roe, and Councilmember and Mrs. Kough, for the work they'd put into this ordinance; and concurred with the proposed language from his initial overview of it. Councilmember Pust assured Councilmembers that the changes presented in the bench handout were organizational, not substantial, and spoke in support of the revised draft language. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of the ordinance language provided in the Council packet; however, expressed her discomfort in approving the revised lan- guage as presented in tonight's bench handout without time for further review and consideration; in addition to those concerns raised by Ms. Kough. Councilmem- ber Ihlan opined that when she'd brought minor amendments to the table at a meeting, she had been told that additional time was needed by Councilmembers to review those minor amendments; and she only sought the same consideration. Councilmember Roe opined that Councilmember Ihlan's comments were fair; however, noted that he had e-mailed essentially the same language to Council- members on Friday, immediately following delivery of the Council packets. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the information did not allow public review and comment. Councilmember Roe suggested that the item be held and considered as a consent agenda item at the next meeting, allowing Councilmembers and the public time to review proposed revisions.