Anti-casino voices speak to Libby City Council

More than 75 people showed up to voice concern over the possibility of another gambling establishment moving into the old Ben Franklin building located at 419 W. 9 St. in Libby.

Three people addressed the Libby City Council at their meeting last Monday night, Lloyd Miller, representing Libby's faith community, was one.

Miller said the number of casinos in Libby is excessive and that gambling is affecting the community, noting a 25 percent high school dropout rate.

"This establishment is unacceptable to us," said Miller. "There is an outcry that enough is enough. We don't know where the city draws the line, but sin is sin."

Another speaker, Phillip Erquiaga, noted the location of the casino in a shopping center where children are, as well as its proximity to Asa Wood Elementary School, which is across the street.

City Councilor Charlene Leckrone, officiating in Mayor Tony Berget's absence, responded they would look into the legality of preventing the casino from replacing the Ben Franklin store with the help of Libby City Attorney Charles Evans.

The comment was made that since gambling licenses are a state controlled operation, the city had little authority to prevent a casino from moving into the property.

Although an application was recently submitted to the city and paid for by Mitch Fahland on behalf of the Libby Moose Lodge, the City of Libby Building Inspector, Ron Higgins, said he is waiting to hear from the city attorney before granting the business license.

"As far as the construction goes, I don't see anything in the size or way it's constructed that would hinder the operation - it's well within the operation code," he said.

Nevertheless, Higgins said he is waiting on Evans' word.

"When we get a ruling from the city attorney, then we'll go ahead and issue the permits and license - or not."

Evans said he is researching a state statute that may give the city the authority to permit or deny the installation of the casino.

According to Evans, although the city does not have the authority to regulate gambling, he is still researching its proximity to the school, as there is a statute that prevents selling liquor 600 feet from a church or school.

"I can't say for sure just what I'm going to come up with at this time," he said. "That is one issue that has to be addressed," he said. "The other is whether the City has the perogative to deny business licenses at their discretion, to an establishment which they feel would not be in the best interest of the city."

For a casino to operate, it must receive licenses from both the Montana Dept. of Justice, for a gambling license, and the Dept. of Revenue, for a liquor license.

So far, no records for the Moose Lodge applications have appeared in either offices.

"They could be testing the water to see if they have problems with the city," Gene Huntington, Administrator of Gambling Control Division in the Department of Justice, conjectured.

Although Huntington said, like Evans, the State regulates the gambling-end of casinos, he did note statutes exist that give cities the right to create special zoning ordinances, guiding exactly where the casinos can be.

It's those statutes that Evans is investigating.

Jason Wood, Bureau Chief for Liquor Liscensing with the MT Dept. of Revenue, said MT communities such as Whitefish and Stevensville have restricted gambling within city limits.

"The City of Whitefish has some very strict zoning on where casinos can be," said Wood. "It's next to impossible to get a casino built in Whitefish because of what is called a "conditional use permit," he added, noting the new lodge on the way to Big Mountain wasn't able to procure a gambling license due to an prohibitive ordinance passed by the Whitefish City Council.

Woods also noted Stevensville, which expanded the 600 foot rule in their community in any direction of a church or a school.

"It's their zoning option, so they can do that," he said. "There is a provision in the law that allows cities to pass resolutions to make it more restrictive or less restrictive," he said.

Wood noted that Statute 16-3-306, which contains the 600 foot rule has a three-part test, for example, the school and establishment selling liquor must be located on the same street and share the same street address (ie. 101 Main and 104 Main).

However, Wood also noted a more recent Administrative Rule that came out of a MT State Supreme Court decision in the early 1990s.

"The Administrative Rule 42.12.129 clarifies the three part test, because the statute didn't make it clear," said Wood. "After the Supreme Court ruling, we had to ammend the rule."

All statutes and rules can be located on www.mt.gov.

Evans said he hopes to reach a conclusion sometime this week.