My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-24-1990 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
01-24-1990 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2013 2:32:45 PM
Creation date
7/10/2013 2:30:51 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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
Ms. Annette Freeman <br />November 22, 1989 <br />Page Two <br />Under this statutory authority, the City of Little Canada <br />could enact an ordinance defining its "trade area" and limiting <br />expenditures of net profits to lawful purposes conducted or <br />located within the City's trade area. The City Attorney for <br />North St. Paul has informed us that North St. Paul recently <br />passed an ordinance requiring sixty percent of net profits from <br />bingo and charitable gambling be spent for lawful purposes in <br />the "North St. Paul Trade Area." The trade area under that <br />ordinance includes the cities of Maplewood, North St. Paul and <br />Oakdale. In addition, the City of Cloquet recently passed an <br />ordinance, effective October 1, 1989, requiring that seventy <br />percent of net profits from charitable gambling be expended <br />within the corporate limits of the City of Cloquet. John <br />Williams of the House Research Department informs us that the <br />City Council of Cloquet defined its trade area as the city <br />itself despite objections raised that this definition was too <br />restrictive. <br />Through our discussions with Senate and House counsel, as <br />well as the author of the bill, Richard Kostohryz, we learned <br />that there was very little discussion in the legislative history <br />of this bill as to what constitutes a city's "trade area." It <br />does appear, however, that the intention of the legislators was <br />to give cities a large amount of discretion in determining their <br />trade area. As you will note, cities are allowed to define <br />their trade areas without specific direction from the statute. <br />We have confirmed that Section 44 of Chapter 334 was <br />proposed and inserted into the bill by Representative William <br />Schreiber. According to Schreiber, the intent of this section <br />was to allow cities the greatest possible flexibility in <br />determining their "trade-area." Apparently, in adopting the <br />measure, legislators anticipated that rural and suburban <br />communities would share certain services with other communities, <br />including fire departments, hospitals, park and recreation <br />boards, and school systems. Retail or commercial activity was <br />not considered relevant to this determination. Schreiber's <br />intention and the apparent intention of other legislators was to <br />allow cities to draft ordinances uniquely tailored to their <br />situation. <br />Since the meaning of this new provision is not immediately <br />apparent, it is subject to challenge. In our opinion, however, <br />the definition of trade area as the City of Little Canada and <br />all or a portion of neighboring communities would likely be <br />upheld. A definition of trade area as the corporate limits of <br />Page 88 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.