CC_Minutes_2016_1205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, December 5, 2016 Page 11 Councilmember Willmus stated that he might agree with Councilmember McGe- hee; but his main intent in seconding the motion was to consider a more thorough review of the ordinance to provide additional updates, revisions or areas currently omitted; in other words making it time to review the entire document. Mayor Roe noted that earlier this year, the city had also made a significant change to Section 304.04 of the Lawful Gambling Ordinance related to changing the name of the organization to which the 10% funds are applied, along with other minor revisions. Mayor Roe further noted that the current ordinance language limited the number of premise permit holders to eight; with that number having been as high as ten in the past. Councilmember Willmus reiterated that his interest was different than that of Councilmember McGehee in seeking staff, the City Attorney, and the City Coun- cil to take a broader look at the entire ordinance. Councilmember Willmus opined that he wasn't sure this was the time to approve or deny the proposed ordinance; and instead suggested tabling action or leaving the locations at two for now. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney Gaughan advised that he was not aware of any portion of city code that would prevent the RAYHA from applying again after the first of the year if the City Council denied this re- quest, and allowing a thorough review of the ardinance and other potential amendments. � Mayor Roe opined that if the City Council denied this ordinance change now and then reconsidered it at a later date, it would be in violation of its own Rules and Procedures. City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would need to review that document fur- ther before advising the City Council specific to that. City Manager Trudgeon advised that the City Council couldn't reconsider the re- quest after denial, but would need to start over. Councilmember Willmus stated his inclination to table action for a full review and then having the request brought back for reconsideration. Councilmember Laliberte asked for language stating a preference or deference to ensure monies stayed within Roseville; with City Attorney Gaughan advising that was not a legal possibility. Mayor Roe noted this addressed confusing language in City Code (Chapter 301.01?) related to an organization maintaining an address within the city. Mayar Roe opined that if the purpose wasn't to require that an entity be a Roseville char- ity, why include that requirement; since a premise permit in Roseville would be