Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Video Gaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodstock council advances ordinance to curb standalone video‑gaming businesses
Summary
Council debated and then approved, via the consent calendar, an ordinance (D1) imposing a 40% cap on video‑gaming revenue as a share of total revenues, with staged reductions and a potential probationary mechanism tied to municipal code 3.3.0.9; staff said the change targets gaming parlors and may affect a small number of local licensees.
The Woodstock City Council on April 7 reviewed an ordinance (item D1) aimed at limiting how much of a business’s revenue can come from video gaming and then approved it as part of the consent calendar.
Council members described the measure as designed to prevent the emergence of video‑gaming parlors that rely primarily on machines for revenue. Under the proposal discussed, a licensee whose gaming revenue exceeds 40% of total revenues would be required to cut the overage in half within one year (to 45% by renewal) and reach 40% by the end of a second year; council and staff discussed inserting formal probationary language drawn from the municipal code (section 3.3.0.9) to govern remediation and renewal paths.
Several council members said the measure is intended to protect traditional brick‑and‑mortar restaurants and taverns that rely on food and beverage sales rather than gaming. A council member told the chamber the ordinance targets “gaming parlors” and not long‑standing restaurants. Tim Chobani, owner of Sophie's Whiskey and Wine, asked clarifying questions about classifications and revenue calculations; staff explained how video‑gaming receipts would be measured against total revenues and that license renewals would trigger the review.
Council discussion also covered enforcement: the liquor license acts as the enforcement mechanism for gaming licenses, and staff noted there may be two to three local businesses that would fall into noncompliance under the new threshold based on available records. Several council members suggested integrating probationary procedures already in the municipal code so staff (or the liquor commissioner) can work a business into compliance without immediate revocation, while retaining council oversight.
Because D1 remained on the consent calendar and was not pulled for separate vote, the items on the consent calendar — including D1 as presented — passed unanimously. Staff said they would return with any drafting tweaks, including possible language referencing the municipal code’s probationary license provisions.
Next steps: D1 will be codified as amended in the consent action and staff will follow up with implementation details, enforcement process and affected‑business notices.
