Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Gaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belton considers banning 'no‑chance' gaming machines; staff cites Kansas City and Springfield precedents
Summary
Council heard first‑reading discussion of a proposed ordinance to prohibit entertainment devices that deliver monetary prizes (often resembling slot machines); staff said the proposed text follows language upheld in nearby litigation, estimated about a dozen local businesses may host machines, and a tentative compliance date of Jan. 1, 2026 was mentioned.
City staff introduced a proposed code amendment (addition of section 15‑187) that would prohibit entertainment devices that provide monetary prizes — commonly called "no‑chance" gaming machines — saying the intent is to prohibit devices that function like slot machines without shutting down legitimate businesses.
"This is just one component of the larger business," the presenter said, explaining that the amendment targets devices that pay monetary prizes while leaving other entertainment options available. Staff noted Kansas City recently adopted similar language (Ordinance No. 250,832) and that Springfield’s ordinance had been upheld in litigation; the draft before council follows the language courts have validated.
Joe Warren, speaking for staff, said Belton does not want to become "a respite for this," adding, "if Kansas City is gonna ban these, we don't want, you know, folks to say, Okay, we can go to Belton to do that." Warren and other staff acknowledged they had not completed outreach to every business and that the precise number of machines in Belton is not known; staff estimated roughly a dozen businesses could be affected but described that as an estimate rather than a confirmed count.
Council members asked whether machines are typically owned by stores or leased from providers; staff explained the common business model is lease arrangements in which a merchant retains a share of proceeds and the provider keeps the rest, but council was told that detail has not been fully verified locally. Questions were also raised about any reported criminal activity tied to the devices; staff said they did not have a comprehensive list of incidents and that, while some news reports tied isolated thefts to these devices in other jurisdictions, Belton had not completed a local study.
Staff proposed a Jan. 1, 2026 compliance date to give known businesses time to plan for any change. Council did not take final action at the meeting; this item was introduced and discussed on first reading, and the second reading will be scheduled at a later meeting with an opportunity for public comment per council rules.
Because some factual elements (number of machines, local crime links, lease vs. ownership) were described as estimates or "not known for a fact," this report marks those details as not specified and attributes them to staff questioning and responses in council discussion.
