My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1975_0519_CC_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1975
>
1975_0519_CC_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 11:56:42 AM
Creation date
3/1/2012 3:08:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
REQUEST FOR C4UNCtL ACTION <br />AGENQA SEC710lV: ORIGiNA71NG DEPT./DIV.: <br />Ordinance Adm <br />r��� NO.: ITEM DESCRIP710N: C1.axl.fiC8t10I2 of Adopted Dog Ordinance <br />. � � <br />DaTE: May 19, 1975 <br />DEPT.HEAD APPROVAL. <br />MGR. REVIEWED/ REC�MMENDS: <br />At the Councii Work Session on May 5, the Council discussr�d the proposed changes in <br />the City's dog ordinance. 'The dzscussion at that time i.nciuded consideration of <br />changes zn leash rec{uirements for dogs and cats. Consensus of the councilm�n was to <br />rec{uire a dog to be on a leas� while not ma3cing it a mandatory requirement for cats. <br />The ordinance adopted a� the May 12th council meeti.ng was intended to incl.ude such a <br />provision. Following the meeting the sta£f was asked to detcrmine if the adopted <br />ordinance does, in �act, include cats in the leash xec�uirement, and �.f not, suggest <br />ap�propriate changes in order to accvmpl.ish this. <br />Having discussed the pxoblem with the City Attorney, he has suggested a minor ch.�.nge which <br />he feels clarifies the leash requirement i.n regards ta cats. The change is an addition <br />af th e phrase: <br />"and in the case of a dog, by leash" <br />thus cZearZy stating tha� only dogs must be und.er control by a leash. Since the ordinance <br />adopted at �he May 12, meeting has not been published it has ye't to became an official <br />ordinance and cannot, technicail.y, be amended by councii action. For this reason, the <br />Cauncil is asked �o cons�der a motion recinding the previous motion of ivlay 12, adopting <br />the ordinance and pass a second motion approving the ordinance as a�nended. This is felt <br />ta he necessary �n order ta clarify the intent of the oxdinance. <br />Recommsnded Action• Motion recinding the mation adopted May �2, 1975 <br />� appxoving the dog ordinance and issuang a directive <br />,.- o the Manager not publich said ordinance. A second <br />otion adopting an ordinance prescribing regulations <br />� for con�in�nent,J.icensing and care of dogs and cats. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.