Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTF,S <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 8, 2009 <br />cost-savings measures have also been implemented, thanks to LCRA's <br />Gambling Manager. Zarembinski pointed noted that profits from LCRA's <br />gambling operation benefit the commwiity and noted its recent donation of <br />the skateboard park. <br />The City Administrator reported that there is a difference between staying <br />in compliance with expense limitations imposed by the State and <br />profitability. I~Ie indicated that the State limits the percentage of revenue <br />that can be used for expenses. While the bingo hall is profitable, those <br />limitations can make it difficult to stay in compliance. The Administrator <br />noted that LCRA is asking that the City waive its 10% tax on the monies <br />transferred from its general fund to its gambling fund given these monies <br />were raised through non-gambling activities. The Administrator indicated <br />that this City has honored similar requests in the past. <br />Zarembinski also pointed out that the State's compliance rules are <br />changing on July 1, but LCRA needs to be in compliance with the rules in <br />effect on June 30°i. <br />Montour indicated that he would abstain from voting on this issue as he is <br />a member of the Little Canada Recreation Association. <br />Keis stated that he supported waiving the 10% tax, and noted that LCKA <br />has been along-time partner with the City. <br />Mr. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2009-7--152 -WAIVING THE CITY'S IO% TAX <br />ON FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM THE LITTLE CANADA <br />RECREATIONASSOCIATION GENERAL FUND TO ITS <br />GAMBLING FUND NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE <br />WITH STATE GAMBLING EXPENSE LIMITATIONS AS <br />REQUESTED BYLCRA <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. <br />Ayes (4). <br />Nays (0). <br />Abstains (1) Montour. Resolution declared adopted. <br />AMENDMENT Mayor Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider an amendment to <br />TO HIA Housing Improvement Area #2, Canabury Condominiums, which would <br />AREA #2 - allow for the prepayment of HIA fees. <br />CANABURY <br />CONDOMINIUMS The City Administrator reported that initial establishment of HIA #2 <br />AND HIA did not provide for the payment of HIA fee balances after the initial <br />AREA #3 - 30-day window. The reason for this was that it was anticipated that <br />4 <br />