My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-13-91 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
11-13-91 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:11:44 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:54:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 13, 1991 <br />City and to generate monies for enforcement purposes. <br />xanson asked if enforcement monies can be used to cover <br />the administrative costs of drawing up the gambling <br />ordinance. <br />The City Attorney replied that it could. <br />Blesener noted that the ordinance provides for a <br />maximum of 3% of gross profits less prizes for <br />enforcement. However, the City may not be able to <br />justify the entire 3%. <br />Collova noted the comments regarding the requirement <br />that a CPA be responsible for the day-to-day accounting <br />and bookkeeping functions. <br />Council discussed this provision in detail, and it was <br />their consensus that a CPA would be required for all <br />reported accounting and tax preparation services, and <br />not day-to-day bookkeeping. Council also discussed the <br />requirement of submission of a CPA-prepared audit on a <br />yearly basis. Council noted that the ordinance's <br />intent is not to require a separate audit for City <br />purposes, but rather a copy of an audit that has been <br />done. <br />Hanson reported that it has been suggested to him that <br />the proposed ordinance be submitted to the State <br />Gambling Control Board and Attorney General's office <br />for review and comment. <br />The City Attorney replied that he did not believe the <br />Attorney General's office would review and comment on <br />the ordinance. <br />Scalze stated that she would assume that the ordinance <br />as submitted by the City Attorney is legally proper. <br />The City Attorney reported that ordinances regulating <br />charitable gambling are all fairly unique. These <br />ordinances have not been tried in court, and only when <br />they are, will cities know if they are enforceable. <br />LaValle reported that at a recent gambling seminar he <br />attended which was put on by the State Gambling Control <br />Board, he was informed that neither the Attorney <br />General's office nor the State will act on behalf of <br />charities against a city. <br />Hanson noted with regard to the enforcement tax, that <br />the maximum the City can impose is 3% of gross receipts <br />less prizes. Hanson suggested perhaps starting to <br />collect with lo or 20. <br />Page 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.