12/09/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to amend that portion of the motion dealing with fees and licenses only, referring it to a Council subcommittee for study and recommendations to be considered at the next formal Council meeting. , Councilwoman Beal felt the motion too long and complicated and, asked for a fresh (15.' start to clarify. whether social gambling was to be approved and then decide what to do about. fees. Councilman Williams noted that the decision 'had already been made on the question of.whether to authorize social gambling. His motion, he said, deleted fees from the ordinance allowing gambling because that question seemed "totally up in the air" and he hoped if a Council subcommittee was formed it could submit a reasonable schedule. The motion also was structured to provide that after some experience under the ordinance and some feel as to whether the fees were too "high or too low, the staff could come back for adjustments. The $2.00 limit was based on Mr. Langan's suggestion, he added, which to him seemed reasonable. Councilman Keller thought that to set a $2.00 limit for every game ~nd every hand was impractical, that the house management could better handle that aspect than writing it into the ordinance. Mr. Murray said he did not include in the amend- ment to the main motion the deletion of the limit for referral to a subcommittee because it was his.feeling by so doing would be straying from the concept of small scale gambling. He could see some difficulties in terms of enforcement and said he had no objections if the Council felt that portion deserved further study. He added that his amendment was an attempt to separate what appeared to be the "stickiest" issue of the general concept. . Councilman Wood was in favor of the amendment although he thought it best to delay (1567) second reading of the ordinance until a fee schedule was prepared, He suggested that initially fees might be based on the number of tables. Then after there was experience to draw on, a determination could be made of the cost of policing and some sort of charge made to the various taverns based on that experience. Manager suggested that kind of proposal would be difficult to work out because of having to determine which policing costs would be attributable to gambling activities and separating that from other kinds of behavior influenced by drinking, etc. He said that over a period of time there could be some evaluation of the total impact on police activities for comparisons. Councilwoman Campbell inquired about information the city would have to have that (1606) was not already available through theOLCC. Manager read qualifications and other requirements from the ordinance and acknowledged that they could be more re- strictive than GLCC requirements. Mrs ~ Campbell agreed with Councilman Keller's viewpoint that the $2.00 limit was unrealistic, especially if-there was no way of requiring private clubs to abide by that limit. She wondered if Councilman Murray would be willing to include in his amendment deletion of limit from the main motion and referral to a subcommittee. Councilman Williams stated that the main motion called for second reading of the crl) council bill and deletion of any reference to either fees or limits, suggesting that those be handled by resolution which would have to be considered separately. He was not suggesting adoption of a resolution at this time, he said, only second reading of the ordinance with dollar amounts deleted. Councilwoman Beal ac- knowledged clarification of the main motion, saying she would be in favor of adopting the ordinances with fees deleted and adoption of fees separately by resolution at a later time. Councilman Murray was agreeable to including referral of bet limit to a subcommittee in his amendment on.the basis that any revisions of fees or_limits would be awkward now in a public meeting. Mr. Keller was satisfied with that arrangement, saying he thought it would be of benefit to have further information on what fees were being used in other cities having ordinances allowi~g social gambling. J , Councilman Williams restated the main motion; Councilman Murray restated the amend- ment. Manager suggested deletion of the emergency clause to give 30 days before the ordinance went into effect. Mr. Williams with approval of the second (Mrs. Campbell ) included in the main motion the deletion of the emergency clause. . Vote was taken on the amendment. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Councilman McDonald abstaining. Vote was taken on second reading of the bill, amended to delete the emergency clause, reference to license fees and betting limits which were to be set out in resolution, and that a Council subcommittee be appointed by the Mayor to 411- 12/9/74 - 4 J