Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , \ <br /> . Charitable Gambling Ordinances <br /> Page '!:Wo <br /> ISSUES : <br /> 1. It appears that the level of corrpliance with the City's =ent <br /> charitable Gambling Ordinance is quite low with respect to <br /> calculating "net profit" for 10 percent contribution and 50 trade <br /> area spending requirements. <br /> 2. As various charitable gambling organizations go through the <br /> premises pennit renewal process, is it possible to give the <br /> organization a "clean bill of health" and approve the application <br /> without first resolving issue No. I? <br /> 3. It appears that the City could devote more resources toward <br /> monitoring, reviewing, and auditing charitable gambling activities <br /> than it has in the past. <br /> 4. How does the city comparatively value the 10 percent net profit <br /> cOntribution and trade area spending requirements. Equally? One <br /> more important than the other? <br /> 5. It has recently been suggested that the City use future gambling <br /> contribution pr=eeds to establish an endowment to permanently <br /> . subsidize a level of future park and recreation programs. The <br /> 1992 Budget called for transferring out 36 percent to the General <br /> FUnd, 52 percent to the Program FUnd, and 12 percent to the <br /> Municipal Land and Buildings FUnd. Is there some philosophical <br /> direction from Council on the planned use of 1993 and later <br /> charitable gambling contribution payments to be received by the <br /> City? <br /> REm1MENDATIONS: <br /> 1. Depending upon what Council intent is with respect to an operating <br /> definition of "net profit", either: <br /> a. Amend the Ordinance to reflect this new definition; or <br /> b. Consider adopting any or all of the staff <br /> reconunendations presented at the June 29 Council <br /> meeting . <br /> 2. strive for consistency and fairness in dealing with all of the <br /> charitable gambling organizations. <br /> TP/ts <br /> . <br />