Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Charitable Gambling topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Blaine council denies charitable-gambling permit for out-of-city nonprofit

5617429 · May 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Blaine City Council voted to deny a charitable-gambling permit for Community Charities of Minnesota, citing preference for locally based nonprofits and questions about the applicant's filings.

The Blaine City Council voted Monday to deny a charitable-gambling permit application from Community Charities of Minnesota, a nonprofit based in Mankato.

Council member Masolia moved to deny the permit, and Council member Robertson seconded the motion. The motion carried after a voice vote; the council president called for those in favor and recorded the motion as prevailing.

At issue was whether Community Charities of Minnesota meets Blaine’s code requirement that preferentially favors organizations based in the city. Council member Masolia said the staff report showed the nonprofit “doesn't meet city code definition of an eligible organization for operational requirements because it's not based in Blaine” and that she preferred to “keep our charitable gambling organizations local to the city of Blaine.” Council member Newland and others said they shared concerns and suggested the city consider ways to broaden local participation by local nonprofits, including possibly increasing the number of licenses available to local groups.

Council member Ford argued that a nonprofit’s headquarters outside Blaine does not necessarily prevent it from directing funds to Blaine organizations, citing intercity giving patterns.

The staff report referenced in council discussion noted that Community Charities’s public materials and recent IRS Form 990 information did not align on several numbers, which contributed to members’ concerns. The council removed item 7.5 from the consent agenda for separate consideration before voting.

The denial applies to the permit request heard at the May 19 meeting; the record does not specify subsequent steps available to the applicant.

Votes and formal motions from the meeting were recorded by the clerk in the meeting minutes.