Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Council discussed enforcing a $100 permit fee for the gaming devices.
By ERIC GROSSO
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
NEWTON FALLS — The statewide debate concerning electronic gaming devices has made its way here.
Monday, city council debated a nearly 40-year-old ordinance and its relevance to newer gaming devices, such as so-called games of skill.
In the end, no action was taken, but Law Director Richard Schwartz wants council to improve on its current ordinance.
Schwartz says it’s hard for the city to take a permanent stance on the issue because of the current legal battle in Ohio defining what is a game of skill versus what is a game of chance. Current gaming manufacturers are appealing a decision in Franklin County courts after Attorney General Marc Dann ruled the machines as a game of chance, prohibiting them for use in Ohio.
“Our ordinance was designed for slot machines 40 years ago,” said Schwartz.
Further investigation needed
He said the city shouldn’t enforce its ordinance until further investigating the gaming issue, and re-working the ordinance to better define a gaming machine. Schwartz wants to find out just how many are located throughout the city, and where, before council makes a decision.
The current ordinance prohibits “mechanical amusement devices” that result in a monetary reward or payoff.
Tony Peters, who hopes to bring more electronic gaming machines to the city, contends the devices do not fall under the ordinance.
Peters said that the wording of the ordinance makes any game with a reward illegal. He said numerous games in the city, like pinball machines and claw games, would fall under the same ordinance but are allowed in the city. Because they are allowed, Peters said his machines should be allowed as well.
“If my little girl plays the claw game and gets a prize, we’d be lawbreakers under the current ordinance,” said Peters.
No action taken yet
Before the meeting, council discussed enforcing a $100 permit fee for the gaming devices and whether the ordinance actually banned the devices. Schwartz, however, said it would be unfair to ask for the fee or removal of the devices with the broad definition contained in the ordinance.
“Before we start enforcing our ordinance, we’ve got to have a clearer definition,” said Schwartz.
Council member Ralph Gillespie said he is supportive of Peters’ bringing business into the city, but wanted more time to clarify the situation.
“I wouldn’t want him to spend money opening up a business that might be legal right now, just for us to shut in down in a few months because we’ve changed our ordinance,” said Gillespie. He said as long as it’s legal, he’ll “do everything I can” to help Peters.
Peters said he hopes council will clarify the ordinance in the near future. He urged council to appeal the current ordinance, but council left the ordinance as-is.
“I’m a businessman, so every day’s a gamble,” said Peters.