Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Video Gaming topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Villa Park trustees restrict future video gaming on St. Charles Road after heated debate

Village Board of Trustees, Village of Villa Park · April 27, 2026
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

After extended public comment focused on a local deli’s planned move, the Villa Park Board voted to waive the second reading and approve an ordinance that bars new video-gaming terminals at establishments with frontage or private access to St. Charles Road, while grandfathering terminals lawfully operating before May 1, 2026.

Villa Park — The Village of Villa Park Board of Trustees voted April 27 to waive the second reading and approve an ordinance that prohibits future video-gaming terminals at establishments on or with private access to St. Charles Road, a move trustees said is intended to limit further concentration of gaming in the corridor.

The ordinance, presented by village staff at the meeting as a first reading, bars establishments on St. Charles Road from obtaining, renewing or maintaining a village video-gaming sticker unless that property lawfully and continuously operated the same terminals before May 1, 2026. The text also prevents an establishment on St. Charles Road from expanding its existing terminal count beyond what was lawfully operating on that property as of May 1 and disallows transferring local video-gaming stickers to different premises or owners.

Why it matters: Public speakers framed the issue as more than zoning. Maryanne, owner of Mortadelli, said her business had worked with village staff to relocate within town and that the ordinance appeared the same day her application was submitted. “This feels targeted. It feels selective. And yes, it feels like discrimination against a woman-owned business that has followed every rule,” she said during public comment, asking the board to table the item and send it to the liquor control commission for review.

What trustees said: Attorney Ryan Morton told the board the ordinance concerns video gaming specifically and does not change the village’s process for liquor-license transfers. “You must have a liquor license to be able to get a video gaming license, but having a liquor license does not entitle you to a video gaming license inherently,” he said, noting the board may set standards for video gaming independent of liquor-license procedures.

Supporters of the ordinance, including trustees who cited saturation along St. Charles Road, said the corridor has an unusually high density of gaming locations and allowing more terminals there would further concentrate gambling activity. Trustee Constados argued that restricting new gaming in one corridor is a legitimate local planning choice and can protect existing businesses from oversaturation.

Opponents said the ordinance’s timing and corridor‑specific approach were unfair. Trustee Kumar voted against the waiver, saying the measure could deter desirable employers and make Villa Park seem unfriendly to businesses. Other speakers urged the board to route gaming‑related matters through the liquor control commission before enacting code changes.

The vote: Trustee Sabri moved to waive the second reading and approve the ordinance. The transcript records the roll‑call votes as Trustee Sabri (yes), Trustee Kumar (no), Trustee Cordova (no), Trustee Alano (yes), Trustee Constados (yes), Trustee Alfano (yes); the motion passed.

Context and next steps: Trustees discussed that a state gaming license and a village liquor license remain separate processes. Attorney Morton later noted a nearby business, More Brewing, had obtained a state video‑gaming license but had not filed for local approval; staff said they would follow up. The board also directed staff and the liquor control commission to review related code language and return recommendations for further action.

Budget and community impacts: Trustees and members of the public debated revenue implications. One board member cited roughly $700,000 a year from gaming to the village, while others emphasized the need for a mix of foot‑traffic businesses rather than a corridor dominated by gaming. The ordinance leaves existing lawful terminals in place (grandfathered) but limits new or expanded operations along the St. Charles corridor.

What happens now: With the board’s vote to waive the second reading, the ordinance will be acted on at this meeting as recorded. Staff said they will follow up with businesses about compliance and the liquor control commission will review any recommended refinements of the village code related to liquor and gaming.