Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 27, 1993 <br />Scalze stated that the reason Little Canada has <br />qambling is because it is legal in the State. The City <br />drafted a gambling ordinance because of questions and <br />concerns, and felt that it was time the City took more <br />control. Scalze stated that at the time she felt the <br />City should have gone a step further and restricted <br />salaries. However, the votes were not there at the <br />time to do so. Scalze also stated that she felt that a <br />person from outside the City should be hired to look at <br />the books of the various charities. However, the <br />Council decided against this. The purpose of the <br />ordinance was to ensure that proper reporting was done. <br />The Council did not know what salaries were at the <br />time, but now they do. <br />Scalze stated that she would like input on what the <br />City should do with its charitable gambling ordinance. <br />5calze stated that she has some definite ideas, and she <br />would like additional input from both the charities and <br />private citizens. Scalze stated that she saw nothing <br />wrong with getting as much input as possible. <br />LaValle stated that he had no problem with appointing a <br />committee; however, he did not really believe one was <br />needed. LaValle suggested that if there is anyone from <br />the public with questions, they should submit them to <br />the City. LaValle suggested that this workshop be <br />continued so that the charities could have time to <br />review and respond to the charts submitted by Clasen. <br />Scalze agreed, but stated that she was not in favor of <br />making the next workshop a prolonged forum for debate. <br />LaValle recommended that the workshop be continued to <br />February 10, 1993 at 6:30 P.M. <br />Motion seconded by Scalze. <br />Motion carried 5 - 0. <br />Fahey asked if the majority of the Council was in favor <br />of a committee. <br />Hanson reported that the City advertised for a <br />committee, but should the Council determine there is no <br />need for a committee, the idea could be abandoned. <br />LaValle felt that a committee could answer questions <br />that residents might have and could take a look at the <br />bigger picture. However, LaValle did not believe that <br />another enforcement level was needed. <br />Fahey again stated that he saw no need for a committee. <br />Page 9 <br />