My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2024_0108
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2024
>
CC_Minutes_2024_0108
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2024 1:18:47 PM
Creation date
1/30/2024 1:18:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/8/2024
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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,January 8,2024 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Councilmember Strahan indicated she preferred the first--simply limiting the <br /> number of premises per organization to 4 --just because she thought it is good to <br /> keep a closer handle on it. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted that as it stands right now, there can only be three <br /> premises permits until the organization gets the next one formally. The City only <br /> has seven premise permits out there and so that will bring the City to eight before <br /> the organization can have another one, the City would have to have two other <br /> gambling premises added before the Organization can add a fifth location. <br /> Etten moved, Schroeder seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1652 entitled, "An <br /> Ordinance Amending Section 304 of Title 3 Entitled Lawful Gambling to Regulate <br /> the Number of Premises Permits that May be Held by One Organization." <br /> Council Discussion <br /> Councilmember Etten asked the City Attorney about contributions, where it lists <br /> that"disbursements for Police,Fire,and other emergency or public related services, <br /> shall be directed from the fund by the actions of the City Council". He thought that <br /> needed to be worked out because he did not understand it. Another one he did not <br /> understand is Section 349 in the State Statute that seemed to make sense but he did <br /> not see anything that talked about disbursement for emergency services. He <br /> wondered where that language came from or if he missed it in Section 349. <br /> City Attorney Tierney explained with the language that she added and the language <br /> that is in the ordinance, the changes are all cross references to State law to bring <br /> this language up to date with current State law. <br /> Councilmember Etten explained he did not know what the City's requirements are <br /> regarding that and wondered if there was a certain percentage that has to be made <br /> to emergency services from that fund or what are the rules. <br /> City Attorney Tierney explained there is a reference again to the same public safety <br /> related services in paragraph c, which is on the next page. So, excluding amounts <br /> that are contributed to the City for those purposes, ninety percent of the remaining <br /> profits have to be in the City's area. She thought there was more of a floor on that <br /> than a cap. <br /> Councilmember Etten did not think there was necessarily a requirement that had to <br /> go there. <br /> Mayor Roe indicated there was not. Currently,he did not think the City had, in his <br /> time on the Council, actually allocated any of those funds to public safety. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.