Good morning.

We're going to go ahead and call the recommending committee for October thirteenth, two thousand twenty-five to order.

And our first question is if we're in compliance with the open meeting law.

Yes, we are.

Thank you very much.

Item number three is public comment.

Comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters of the on the agenda for action.

If you wish to be heard, come forward and give your name for the record.

The amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited.

Oh you can either go now or you can go during the item.

Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna close the public comment.

Item number four for possible action to approve the final minutes by reference of the September second, two thousand twenty-five recommending committee meeting.

2025-13 and 2025-14.

2025 13 dealt with requirements for canon enclosures, quarantine rooms, and warranty requirements.

This was generally a regulatory bill sponsored by then Councilwoman Seaman.

14 bill 2025-14 was sponsored by Councilwoman Bruni and Mayor Berkeley and dealt with a prohibition on the sale of dogs, cats, rabbits, and potbellied pigs by newly licensed shops.

So that would have been effective on new uh pet shops that opened in the city.

As I mentioned, in July of this year, both of those bills were struck because the uh three council members came together to create one bill from their two topics, which was 2025-35, and that is the bill number that we are dealing with today.

Uh put simply that 2025-35 put the regulations together with the prohibition on new sales, but it also made clear that the uh exemption for existing pet shops would end two years if after the bill was adopted.

In other words, new pet shops would not be able to sell, and the existing shops, while grandfathered in would lose that exemption two years from uh this bill's adoption.

That was the concept when we drafted 2025 35 the bill in front of you today.

Uh per Nevada revised statutes, the bill went out for its business impact solicitation.

We received a variety of uh feedback, both written and uh verbal uh through a fit through our animal protection services and also the bill sponsors.

Uh based on that feedback, the bill was formally introduced in September without the sunset provision.

What that meant was uh the bill as written would allow the grandfathered shops to consent continue to sell animals uh as long as they existed at their current location or only relocated to another location.

They could not expand, but they could move one for one and maintain uh their pet sales in perpetuity as long as they existed and were licensed.

The new shops would still be unable to sell uh the five categories of animals dogs, cats, rabbits, potbelly pigs, and guinea pigs.

That's the way the bill was introduced.

No sunset provision for the existing shops.

We've received additional feedback, and by we I mean the council sponsors uh and staff generally uh throughout September and early October.

And as a result of that, uh the city attorney's office drafted a proposed First Amendment, which has been distributed today, as I mentioned, which captures the request of the two bill sponsors who exist uh currently on this council, Mayor Berkeley and Councilwoman Bruni.

The new sunset provision added to the proposed first amendment would allow the grandfathered shops to sell the five categories of animals, but they can only do it for three more years from the date of adoption, which we've of the bill, which we've generally set now to be uh November 5th of 2028, would be when the sales would end at the existing pet shops, of which we've confirmed there are 13 in the city that sell any of these types of animals.

Uh this is some highlights of the regulations.

Again, these are generally taken from what was originally then councilwoman seaman's bill, but put into bill 2025-35.

Uh, they deal with enclosures, uh, keeping the animals separate from humans, so there's not non-stop touch of uh people visiting the shops or interested in buying the animals.

The disease plan would now need to be in writing.

Uh current code does not mandate it, mandate the disease control plan to be in writing.

It will now have to be in writing.

There's some warranty requirements with respect to dogs under 12 months of age uh in terms of a warranty on the purchase and to provide free pet insurance.

Uh, there's a display requirement with respect to the price of the animals and the kennel of origin for dogs and cats, a health certificate, and we've also this this portion, the last bullet there on the right, comes from what was originally the Berkeley Bruni bill, which was an explicit objective note in the code that if you have three uh adjudications or code issues that are found against you by our animal protection services, that automatically brings you in front of council for possible revocation.

It's not a subjective determination by staff about when to bring you.

If you have three, you're going in front of council.

Uh, with respect, so that's the regulation regulatory side of the bill.

The pet sales limitations.

I pretty much hit most of them already.

Uh, the ban on those five types of animals that we've discussed, an exemption for the existing.

Uh, we wrote this when we were aware of 12, but like I said, there are now 13 shops that we are aware of.

Uh, you can partner if you're a pet shop with shelters, nonprofit animal rescues to uh offer the animals up for adoption.

The pet shop cannot make money off of that situation, and then we also have a minimum fine of 250 and a maximum fine of 500 if you are illegally selling any of the animals described in the bill.

And finally, like I pointed out a couple of minutes ago, what the proposed First Amendment in front of this recommending body would do if they accept it, would it set the uh grandfather provision to sunset in three years again, officially November 6th, I think, of 2028 uh is what we put, or sorry, right there, November 5th, 2028, uh, would be when it's sunset.

So that is the concept of the proposed First Amendment.

And with that, uh, MPT, I'll turn it back to you for any questions from the committee or um the public as we do public comment.

Thank you.

Seeing no questions here, and for those in the audience, the intention for today is to move this bill uh out of recommending to the city council.

And so you're gonna hear the same presentation and have the same opportunity to speak.

Um, but I wanted to make sure it's done in front of the bill sponsors, which is the mayor and councilwoman Bernie.

So that meeting, uh, if we pass it out of today would happen on November 5th, 2025.

And so if you intend on speaking today, um, I would also encourage you to speak on November 5th, 2025 in front of the city council meeting.

Um, with that, I don't have any questions up here.

I will open it up to the public if you would like to make a comment.