Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gaming Machines Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belton City Council delays decision on slot‑style gaming machines to study regulation
Summary
After public testimony from an operator and a bar owner, the Belton City Council voted to postpone consideration of a monetary‑prizes ordinance to its first meeting in March so staff can explore regulation, moratorium and enforcement options; staff estimated about 45–50 devices in the city.
The Belton City Council voted to postpone action on an ordinance addressing monetary‑prize ("no‑chance") gaming machines so staff and council members can explore regulation and enforcement options.
Thomas Gartman, who identified himself as chief financial officer of Kansas Capital Group, told the council he operates a route of no‑chance machines and urged regulation rather than an outright ban. "We only have a few machines here in Belton," Gartman said, noting his route places three machines at one Belton location. He contrasted low‑count placements at convenience stores with the large "game room" operations that prompted Kansas City to act.
Theresa McGraw, owner of Paradise Bar and Grill in Belton, said machines account for roughly "15 to 20%" of her establishment's revenue and support sales of food and beverages and employees. "I'm all about regulations, doing whatever it takes to be able to keep the slot machines," McGraw told the council.
City staff reported a fact‑finding effort that identified 12 businesses with such devices in Belton and estimated a total of about 45–50 machines (staff counted 37 and noted three inaccessible locations and an expectation of additional machines at those sites). Staff and some council members described the devices as functionally similar to slot machines and said the city currently lacks a regulatory or enforcement structure for them.
During debate council members weighed options including an outright prohibition (followed by later regulatory reconsideration), a moratorium on new devices, or a regulatory licensing framework that would limit numbers per business. Speakers referenced a recent civil finding in litigation involving Springfield and cited Kansas City's prohibition and Jackson County regulation as regional examples. Council members also expressed concern that the Missouri Legislature and the Missouri Gaming Commission have not provided clear statewide guidance.
A council member moved to postpone further action until the first meeting in March to allow staff to explore regulatory models, moratorium timing and enforcement implications; the motion was seconded and passed on a council vote.
The council did not adopt any permanent regulation at the meeting. The ordinance adding section 15‑187 to the city code will return to the council on the first meeting in March for further consideration.
