1986-08-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 I I Council Meeting Minutes August 12, 1986 Council Business, continued Brandt believes it is poor policy to selectively not enforce our ordinance and, if we want to change the ordinance, we could direct staff to revise the city code section, at which time such an organization could come into the city and run its gambling operation. LeFevere stated the organization will get a license from the state unless we object and clarified that the ordinances of the city do not prohibit an organization from conducting gambling in the city. LeFevere continued that the city might decide to object to the issuance of a license by the State Charitable Gambling Board; but, although it seems like it is in violation of city code, it really isn't because there has been a substantial preemption of the city's authority to regulate charitable gambling. Benke stated we can tell the state either we do or do not have an objection; LeFevere clarified and stated that the city has veto power. In response to Benke's question, LeFevere stated the city code does not say it is unlawful for an organization who has not been here three years to conduct gambling; rather, it says in order to conduct gambling you have to have a New Brighton permit but now the city can no longer require a permit. Schmidt feels this is a case where changes in the law affecting the jurisdiction over a certain subject matter for which a city is no longer responsible; recalled discussing not adopting an ordinance that would have authorized gambling, but found there was so much of this activity taking place in non-profit organiza- tion areas that the state itself then wanted to license the activity and hire the inspectors to monitor the activites, so a new law was written. Schmidt further stated that because we have the law on our books, we could use that law to object to someone getting a license; we really need to overhaul the ordinance to bring it into line with the state law and to deal with the issue of whether or not we have a technical violation of the current ordinance given the subtle distinction between who has the right to give the license. Schmidt stated a decision needs to be made regarding the techni- cality versus the practicality, and noted staff recommendation is for practicality rather than an actual violation. LeFevere stated if gambling were conducted in the City of New Brighton, it would not be in violation of the law and there is no ordinance that governs the conduct of the city in this case, and it comes down to a question of policy. Page Seventeen Gambling License Application: Spring Lake Park Youth Hockey Report 86-179