My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 11241987
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1987
>
CC MINUTES 11241987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:46:43 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:46:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
SP Name
CC MINUTES 11241987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
• 1 *however, that veto power would have to be supported by very <br /> 2 good reasons for denying a license to only that applicant; <br /> 3 *the City could conceivably establish regulations and restric- <br /> 4 tions to limit the locations, and even restrict the operations <br /> 5 to local organizations, but the basis for those distinctions <br /> 6 would have to be specifically defined, not arbitrary. <br /> 7 Councilmembers acting as "devil' s advocates" proposed various worst <br /> 8 case scenarios related to what could happen if the pull tab sales were <br /> 9 restricted to municipal on-sale liquor stores. <br /> 10 Ranallo: wondered if the two bowling alleys where the City permits <br /> 11 the sale of 3 . 2 beer would question the City' s allowing <br /> 12 pull tabs to be sold only in their own on-sale establish- <br /> 13 ments. <br /> 14 Childs: indicated he had given some thought to that happening and <br /> 15 had concluded 3 . 2 beer did not meet the qualifications for <br /> 16 alcoholic beverages which the City desires to control by <br /> 17 restricting sales to only municipally operated facilities; <br /> 18 said the same argument could probably be made related to the <br /> 19 Council' s desire to control gambling activities by limiting <br /> 20 such operations only to locations which the City controls. <br /> W1 Soth: agreed that the City might be able to legitimately argue <br /> 22 that it would only be in municipally run locations that the <br /> 23 City could oversee gambling operations; but <br /> 24 another interpretation might be made that St. Anthony was <br /> 25 limiting the operation to its own .facilities for its own <br /> 26 gain. <br /> 27 Sundland: suggested the response to that interpretation would probably <br /> 28 be that state law already established that rents which the <br /> 29 City may charge may not exceed those which would be reason- <br /> 30 ably charged for the square footage the pull tab operation <br /> 31 used and not based on a percentage of the profits. <br /> 32 Soth: said he didn' t think the issue was quite that simple because <br /> 33 someone might then make the argument that by restricting the <br /> 34 operation to only municipally run facilities, St. Anthony <br /> 35 might be trying to circumvent the law which says the City <br /> 36 can' t issue a license for the sale of pull tabs. <br /> 37 Childs: said he understood New Brighton had restricted the pull tab <br /> 38 operations to only on-sale and not 3 . 2 facilities in their <br /> 39 city, which include charitable organization restaurants and <br /> 40 <br /> 41 bars as well as private establishments which are licensed to <br /> •42 sell liquor. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.