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.

Now's the time to do that.

We'll set the timer at two minutes.

Is it oh, it's on perfect.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Rebecca Goff.

I'm the Nevada State Director for Humane World for Animals, formerly known as the Humane Society of the United States.

I want to thank the council and the city for all the work that they've done for this ordinance.

Um, it is a big step in the right direction, specifically by adding that amendment that sunsets out the existing stores.

With 13 stores, the city of Las Vegas has more stores than 37 states.

It's time that we join the city of North Las Vegas, Clark County, Mesquite, Reno, the 500 other municipalities and cities, and the eight other states that ban the sale of dogs, cats, and other live animals.

Thank you so much for your kind attention to this issue, and I urge your support to move this out of committee and to support it at the main council as well.

Thank you.

Good morning, Anula Wildridge.

I wanted to thank the council and the committee for um for putting together this ordinance.

And uh, I was going to comment about uh the existing pet stores, but I see with the amendment that that has been addressed.

So I wanted to thank you for that.

It's important that when we pass ordinances that we uh we remain consistent among contiguous jurisdictions in order for them to be effective.

One concern that even opponents have raised is that large-scale breeding uh operations resort to direct-to-consumer sales, and some of us are working at the federal level to close those loopholes uh in the animal welfare act so that these practices are no longer permitted.

Thank you, and I encourage you to to vote for this.

Thank you.

There's a second seat up here, just stand in line.

Yep.

Hi, Alyssa Miller Harley with the Pet Advocacy Network.

Thank you so much for taking the time.

And I did just want to address the ordinance as well as the uh proposed amendment.

While we understand and we're all here for the same reason, and that we want to make sure that animals are protected and their welfare is preserved.

These kinds of ordinances do not achieve what they set out to do.

We have seen in places like California where entire bans that ban the sale of cats and dogs end up having an unintended effect of creating a black market for puppies.

In California, in fact, there was an LA Times expose that detailed the cruelty that these animals were undergoing through illegal backyard breeding through transports that weren't regulated by the USDA through breeders that weren't regulated by the USDA.

The desire and the want of folks to get the animal that they choose isn't going to go away simply because there are no pet stores.

We should not be in the business of making it harder for someone to access an animal from a reputable breeder and someone we know is caring for them.

What we have seen in California and other places is that families don't know what to look for when they are going to breeders.

Just because a breeder is a small breeder doesn't necessarily mean that they are a good one, and it doesn't mean that they are a regulated one.

Both states have thresholds that breeders have to hit in order to be regulated by that state.

And so rather than working to push people into the darkness and pushing people to internet sales, we should be working to strengthen regulations and make sure that the pet stores here are only working with top of the line breeders.

At the Pet Advocacy Network, we would be more than happy to work with the city in increasing regulation and working to find ways that we can strengthen enforcement.

This past year, five different states rejected five uh all-out pet sale bans in favor of strengthening regulations.

And we have already been in touch with many members of the city council and would be happy to work with folks as we continue to try and strengthen animal welfare here in Vegas.

And my last point is that for over a decade, the Humane Society and now Humane World Alliance has been pushing these bans.

And as the representative stated, there are more than 500 municipalities.

That number of quote unquote puppy mills hasn't decreased, which means by their own measurements, this kind of legislation does not work.

In fact, it only makes things worse for animals.

So we would rather get everyone together and find a way we can increase regulation and preserve businesses here while also expanding animal welfare.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair.

Members of the recommended committee, Warren Hardy representing humane world for animals.

I appreciate you taking uh the time to review this ordinance.

This has been a difficult issue for me personally.

Uh as you as a representative of HSUS.

I believe if you've followed my career at all, which I don't know why any of you would have, but the window of responsibility for government to get involved in business is very narrow, very narrow.

And I have tried for many years to figure out how to do this short of a ban.

I cannot find a way to address this.

I respectfully disagree with all everything that the previous speaker said.

We can provide documentation.

But I would say this this is not about reducing any of the things they talk about.

This is about two things.

This is about an inhumane situation where animals are being pumped out for public consumption for lack of a better word, and consumer protection.

So I would encourage you not to get too involved in all the other peripheral issues that are being brought up.

This is simply about two things stopping an inhumane practice and consumer protection.

So thank you for your consideration.

We really appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council members.

Um, Hillary Gray with the Animal Foundation, 655 North Mojave.

Um, first, I'd like to thank you for revisiting the issue of puppy mill pet stores within the city of Las Vegas.

As you know, the city had previously been a leader on this issue, having banned these shops years back, although a previous council took it off the books.

We're very glad to see it revisited.

It is needed.

Thank you for taking it seriously, and also for supporting the proposed statewide ban during the legislature.

Um thank you for taking a look at the greater regulation at health and safety concerns and to move to stop additional stores from proliferating in the valley.

Unfortunately, that alone doesn't stop the problem.

We especially appreciate you reconsidering this ordinance with a sunset for the existing stores.

It's understandable to want to provide notice to these shops and the opportunity to change their business model.

Pet supplies and services are a growing and thriving business sector.

So you know that businesses who care about animals and their people can adapt successfully.

These businesses have many potential adoption partners in the valley's shelters and rescues for adoptions.

I don't have to tell you, we've been talking about it for a long time together, that shelters and rescues are stressed and stretched to the max.

There are nearly 800 animals on our campus today at the Animal Foundation.

With so many animals of every breed size and age, including puppies and kittens of every breed available for adoption.

There's just no reason for the puppy mill pipeline and sales to continue.

People can find the animal of their choice.

Every breed of dog and cat comes through the shelter, and there are many breed-specific rescues.

I've worked with some of them myself.

And there are also legitimate breeders who will have you meet the puppy's parents and know the puppy's health history.

Legitimate breeders don't sell to pet stores and they don't breed at factory farm scale.

The city of Las Vegas has been a leader on this issue by adopting mandatory microchipping and more.

As your partner, we ask that you lead again by recommending this ordinance with a census for the existing stores.

We are happy to partner with businesses serious about animal welfare to transition successfully.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Lindsay Amar.

I am a resident, voter, and small business owner here in Las Vegas who sells pet-related products.

I'm here today as someone who deeply cares about animal welfare and wants to see Las Vegas move toward more humane policies, starting with a full ban on the sale of puppies and kit kittens in pet stores.

If you've seen the local news or been on social media, you know that our animal shelters are overwhelmed.

They're struggling with overcrowding and a constant influx of animals needing homes.

The last thing we need to be doing is bringing in thousands of animals from out of state, inhumane breeding operations where they are poorly cared for, often resulting in a very sick puppy.

We already have so many wonderful cats and dogs of all breeds, sizes, and ages waiting for homes right here in local shelters and rescues.

And for those who want a specific breed, there are responsible ethical breeders out there doing the right thing.

This proposed ordinance is not anti-business.

It's pro-animal, pro-community, and pro-responsibility.

It's time for Las Vegas to join the growing number of cities taking a stand against cruelty and putting compassion first.

Please vote to pass a ban of the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores.

It's the right thing to do for the animals for our shelters and for our city.

Will you stand with puppy mills and the cruelty they represent?

Or will you stand with the people of Las Vegas and say enough is enough?

I urge you to please vote to pass a full ban on the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores.

I appreciate your time.

Hello, my name's Bridget Murphy, and I'm here to read a statement on behalf of the Las Vegas Valley Humane Society.

While we appreciate the intent behind Bill 2025-35, this ordinance falls short because it carves out broad exemptions for existing pet shops, allowing the pipeline of animals from puppy mills to continue in our city for the next three years.

If Las Vegas truly wants to be a leader in animal welfare, we should not grandfather in businesses that profit from the suffering of animals.

Rather, we should impose a complete ban on the retail sale of animals and direct our support instead towards reputable shelters and rescues.

Anything less only prolongs the problem and puts profit over humane treatment.

It is time for Las Vegas to stand with more than 500 communities across this nation that have already banned the sale of dogs and pet shops and demonstrate that our city chooses compassion and progress over outdated practices.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Rachel Bergren.

I'm the executive director for Heaven Can Way Animal Society.

So we are a high-volume, high-quality spay neuter clinic on the east side.

I want to urge you to pass this ordinance which strengthens protections for animals, and I'm really glad to hear about the amendment to the ordinance as well.

Certainly looking for that no later than November of 2028, which seems like a long time away, but we know it'll be here soon.

So that's great.

November of 2020.

Okay.

Every day in our spay and neuter clinic, um, I see the reality of animal overpopulation.

Our local shelters, as we've heard, are full, and our clinic has a never-ending waiting list for spay and neuter vaccination and microchipping services, and we just can't meet the need.

We simply do not have the resources in this city or in this region to meet the basic needs of animals that are already in our community.

So bringing in more isn't is only going to exacerbate the problem.

Sadly, these animals are often sold before they're old enough to be uh vaccinated, spayed, or neutered, or certainly microchipped.

And uh it's just gonna put more pressure on clinics like ours and our local shelters.

Um, as Hillary and many others have said, uh, there are families can have their choice of animals, size, breed, species already in our community.

So I really want to thank you for your support and for your consideration of this ordinance.

Um, and we stand ready to partner uh continue to partner with the city of Las Vegas to improve animal welfare for animals in our community.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else for public comment?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public comment period.

Um, as I indicated earlier, this will be heard by the full city council with the proposed amendment on November 5th 2025, uh, where the mayor and councilman Bernie can be a part of the conversation as well.

Um, with that, I'm gonna make a motion for no recommendation moving forward with the amendment.

What do you say?

Okay, imposed.

Okay, so this bill without a recommendation will move to the city council on November 5th, 2025.

And with that, that brings us to item number six, which is citizen participation.

Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the recommending committee.

No subject may be acted upon by the recommending committee unless that subject is on the agenda and is scheduled for action.

If you wish to speak, please step forward now.

Hearing and seeing no one, we will adjourn today's meeting.

Thanks everyone for coming down.