A section of a Watertown city zoning ordinance pertaining to gambling establishments could go by the wayside.

The Watertown City Council is set to conduct a first reading amending Title 21 of Ordinance 17-02 removing zoning restrictions on those entities on March 6. The potential revision would put the city in compliance with a 2011 South Dakota Supreme Court ruling that municipalities could not regulate gambling institutions, including casinos and video lottery establishments.

The proposed amended ordinance was put forth by City Attorney Justin Goetz, who has been busy in working with the Plan Commission and City Council in updating the ordinance book since assuming his position last summer.

Under the current ordinance, gambling establishments are confined to commercial zoning areas under a conditional use permit, similar to restaurants, motels, and other businesses.

However, in 2011, the Supreme Court sided with the South Dakota Department of Revenue over the City of Sioux Falls as the Department of Revenue argued that the City of Sioux Falls ordinance on gambling establishments was invalid because it infringed on the sovereign prerogative of the state.

While the proposed ordinance wouldnt be able to explicitly restrict gambling establishments in commercial districts, that doesnt mean that those establishments are going to be able to pop up anywhere in the city.

Goetz noted to the Plan Commission last week that in issuing the ruling, the Supreme Court said municipalities such as Watertown could effectively enact restrictions on the placement of gambling establishments.

There is still the ability of the city to determine locations of alcohol licensees. The gambling license is effectively attached to the alcohol license it is a certification attached to the alcohol license. That allows the city to be able to regulate placement, Goetz said.

According to Goetz, the proposed amended ordinance would allow Watertown to get out ahead of any potential legal challenge against the current ordinance brought forward by either the state or another party.

No lawsuits against the City of Watertown on the issue are pending or currently underway, which left Plan Commission member Dennis Arnold questioning the timing of the proposed ordinance.

(At any given time) there are a lot of court cases and things around the county where organizations are challenging something and it gets changed, Arnold said. I think the residents of Watertown have liked our (gambling locations) ordinance the way it is, or at least thats what I assume. Nobody has challenged it. Why do we have to change it if nobody has challenged it?

While Goetz said he empathized with Arnolds point of view, he also said that the proposed ordinance reflecting the court ruling is an extension of the state establishing its authority back in the 1980s when the original law cited by the court was written, thereby not leaving it up to different interpretations by municipalities.

In interpreting the courts ruling, Goetz said, If localities were allowed to determine where gambling establishments could be in South Dakota, there would be a lot of dry communities, if you will, for these kind of establishments These forebears at the state level saw that writing on the wall and saw that municipalities would have issues certain municipalities more than others. In order to ensure that this was provided statewide, municipalities couldnt butt in and occupy the field of state regulation that they had set for themselves.

After the first reading of the ordinance amendment occurs on March 6, a second reading, and possible approval, may occur at the following City Council meeting scheduled for March 20.

See the article here:

City Council to look at removing zoning restrictions on gambling entities - Watertown Public Opinion