Woodstock council moves to tighten rules to block gaming-only cafés, asks staff for objective metrics

The Woodstock City Council discussed proposed revisions to local video-gaming rules on Jan. 20 and gave staff clear direction to develop objective standards intended to prevent venues that function primarily as gaming parlors.

Roscoe, a city staff member, presented a comparative analysis of neighboring communities and recommended a measurable standard — such as gaming revenue as a percentage of total business revenue — to distinguish bona fide restaurants from gaming-first operations. "Our number one recommendation is to look at the percentage of video gaming as a percent of their revenues that they're generating and use that as the callus," Roscoe said.

Council members emphasized a shared goal: bar "gaming cafes" that rely on terminals as the main source of revenue while preserving restaurants that legitimately serve food and customers. Councilman Flynn and others said they favor an approach that is objective and administrable. "I absolutely don't want gaming cafes," Councilman Flynn said. Councilman Segers and others recommended options including terminal-to-seat ratios, minimum commercial-kitchen requirements and tiered licensing fees.

Several councilors urged caution about imposing an undue burden on new businesses. Mayor Turner said a strict one-year-in-business waiting period could unfairly penalize new restaurateurs, noting the typical licensing timeline. Council members also discussed whether to grandfather current license holders or require a phased compliance timeline.

Members of the public told the council they avoid dining at local restaurants that host gaming machines and urged stricter enforcement of where terminals are placed inside establishments. A resident asked whether gaming terminals visible from the dining area are subject to enforcement; staff said terminals are supposed to be in a cordoned-off area, not in the primary eating area.

Council asked staff to return with refined options and additional data — including population-to-terminal and population-to-establishment ratios for neighboring towns — and to propose an implementation approach that addresses grandfathering, timelines and legal risk.

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff will draft proposed code language and return for further consideration.

Next steps: staff will prepare ordinance options that use objective metrics, estimate the number of likely compliance issues, and analyze legal risks and timelines for implementation.