Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Video Gaming Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora committee approves ordinance to allow one more video-gaming terminal per location, raises city'wide cap
Summary
Rules committee voted 4-0 to amend city code to allow up to six video gaming terminals per licensed location and increase the citywide cap from 200 to 240 machines. Staff projected roughly $56,000 in additional permit-fee revenue and additional gaming-tax revenue; council asked staff to further analyze potential impacts on casino revenue.
Chairperson Edward J. Bugg presided as Shannon Cameron, chief of staff, presented an ordinance (25-0750) to amend section 8-131 of the city code to align local video-gaming regulations with recent state changes and to increase the permitted number of video gaming terminals.
Cameron said the ordinance would raise the per-location maximum from five to six terminals and increase the citywide cap from 200 to 240 terminals. The city currently has 38 licensed establishments operating the terminals; most operate the current maximum of five terminals except one location that is limited to four by building configuration. Cameron said the change would "bring Aurora into alignment with new state regulations" and that local businesses had requested the extra terminal.
Staff showed projected revenue effects and told the committee the permit fee increase associated with the extra machine could generate about $56,000 in new annual permit revenue. Chief of staff Shannon Cameron explained the $56,000 figure reflected permit fees; the presentation also included a projected increase in gaming-tax revenue (a larger figure shown on the slide, discussed as roughly $155,000), and committee discussion summed the two numbers as potential additional revenue of about $200,000 if all assumptions materialize.
Members asked whether existing operators would be given preference to add a sixth terminal and whether the casino had concerns about increased terminals in social clubs. Cameron and staff said allocations would be first-come, first-served and that the casino reported "no opposition" and did not expect competitive impacts. Several members asked staff to coordinate with finance to assess whether extra terminal availability could reduce casino revenue; staff agreed to examine that possibility further.
The committee moved the ordinance and voted 4-0 to approve it and send it on to the next stage. No immediate changes to enforcement or the state licensing requirements were made by the city beyond the code amendment; staff noted establishments still require state approval and must comply with state gaming-board rules.
