My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0112
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:26:56 AM
Creation date
7/13/2005 9:00:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/12/2004
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Study Session Minutes- 01/12/04 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />time, due to the numerous fees involved, and staff time required <br />for research and background information to the Council; and <br />implementation of revised fees by resolution, no matter when <br />reviewed, on an annual basis, preferably January 1 of each year. <br /> <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street N <br />Related to a previous Council discussion regarding identification <br />of children in the community, Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that the <br />Roseville Police Department provided fingerprinting kits to <br />parents, free of charge. Mr. Kysylyczyn further noted that the <br />City previously had lifetime pet licenses, but his research <br />indicated that the practice had been discontinued in an effort for <br />the City to verify shots. <br /> <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that fees were a form of taxation and <br />questioned whether an increase in user fees would prompt a <br />reduction in taxes, the amount of reduction and what form that <br />reduction would take. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing reviewed staff's direction and Council <br />consensus in a policy of fees all in one place for annual review <br />by resolution; rationale and justification for revising fees; and <br />general agreement and willingness to consider the proposed fire <br />inspection fees, but requesting supporting data a comparison <br />summary from staff prior to action. <br /> <br />A brief discussion ensued regarding enclosed mall actiVIties, <br />their labor-intensive nature for staff oversight, permit and/or fee <br />application by organizations, and the support of mall personnel <br />in the department's enforcement of code-related issues (i.e., fire <br />aisles and access requirements). <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />Water and Sewer Rate Discussion <br />Finance Director Chris Miller noted that staff had been analyzing <br />the various city-enterprise operations to determine whether rate <br />adjustments were necessary. Mr. Miller noted the four (4) <br />enterprises: 1) water; b) sanitary sewer; c) storm water drainage; <br />and 4) recycling. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller noted that, for each enterprise, staff had reviewed <br />fixed costs (i.e., personnel, supplies, maintenance and <br /> <br />Water and Sewer <br />Rate Discussion <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.