My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_1105
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_1105
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2018 11:02:59 AM
Creation date
12/6/2018 11:02:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/5/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 5, 2018 <br /> Page 9 <br /> public purpose of requiring licenses is still valid. He indicated he did not have an <br /> answer as to what percentage of pet owners are actually getting a license and <br /> thought it was fairly small. <br /> Councilmember Willmus thought it would be interesting if staff could glean a lit- <br /> tle of that background for the Council but not something the Council should act <br /> on. He thought it was an interesting read. <br /> Mr. Miller stated he would talk to the Roseville Police Department about this be- <br /> cause one of the purposes of having the pet license is to return pets that are lost. <br /> He stated staff would gather some information and bring it back to a future Coun- <br /> cil Work session. <br /> Mayor Roe stated one of the things the City did was to create a lifetime license for <br /> pets that are both sterilized and micro-chipped to incentivize people to do both the <br /> spaying and neutering as well as the use of the micro-chips and the fee is minimal. <br /> He was not sure how many of those types of licenses Roseville has compared to <br /> the two-year licenses. He thought it would be interesting to find out those statis- <br /> tics because it might be worthwhile to keep the lifetime license. <br /> Councilmember Willmus indicated he would also like this item (the Fee Sched- <br /> ule) brought back to the Council at the December meeting when the budget and <br /> levy is considered. <br /> Councilmember McGehee thought the utility disconnect fee was fairly high. <br /> Mr. Culver stated this fee is high in recognition of the amount of work that goes <br /> into the disconnect. He stated the service is actually being disconnected from the <br /> main. The reason the City is doing this is because the City does not want the <br /> street to be ripped up at any given time. The City would rather take the $5,000 in <br /> and do the disconnect when the City is working on the street later so there are not <br /> a lot of patches in the streets. This would not be done for every home either. The <br /> only time the fee will be charged is when the City is absolutely sure the service <br /> should be permanently disconnected from the main at some point. <br /> Consensus of the Council was to approve this item at the December 3, 2018 meet- <br /> ing along with the budget and levy. <br /> d. Review the Suggested Edits to the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Based on <br /> the Completion of the Updated Housing Needs Analysis and the Comments <br /> Received To-Date from the Six-Month Affected Jurisdiction Review Process <br /> Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the RCA <br /> and related attachments dated November 5, 2018. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.