Boyd Gaming shifted its plans for redevelopment of the Par-A-Dice casino site in East Peoria, moving the casino floor to a permanently moored barge on the Illinois River.
The Nevada-based company revealed the modification to its original proposal for a $160 million “riverboat modernization” during the state board’s meeting Thursday in Chicago.
“We no longer have to debate. We no longer have to ask you to be creative. We no longer have to ask you that this is the current industry standard,” said Uri Clinton, Boyd’s executive vice president and general counsel.
“We think this will be a best in class, permanently moored barge on which is consistent with statutory requirements to conduct gaming and maximizes the opportunity for us to make the investment that we need to make in order to modernize our offering here in the State of Illinois.”
After a 45-minute closed session, the state board announced it would table a vote on the Par-A-Dice redevelopment. Administer Marcus Fruchter said the board would schedule a special meeting within the next three weeks to make its final decision.
“From our perspective, we’re glad that the gaming board didn't make a decision today. But we're going to ask Boyd for more information about what the new plan entails,” said Peoria City Manager Patrick Urich.
“Then we'll discuss that with the city council and our legal staff as we get into closed session on Tuesday night and decide how we go forward with regards to the litigation that we've got pending. But the key for that is really getting a good understanding about what Boyd is proposing here.”
Mayor Rita Ali issued a public statement echoing Urich’s comments.
“Stating that they have additional questions, the board indicated they will convene a special meeting in about three weeks to take up the matter,” Ali said in her statement.
“During this time, the city will request more detailed information from Boyd Gaming regarding the modified development plan and determine if the new plan is compliant with state law and intent.”
Boyd made the change in an effort to comply with the amended Illinois Gaming Act and the existing intergovernmental agreement between Peoria and East Peoria, both requiring any land-based casino in the area to be located in Peoria.
“For some time, actually, all of the interested parties understood that [an] option for the redevelopment of the riverboat was a permanently moored barge,” said Clinton.
Boyd has made clear its intent to remain at its East Peoria location. The original redevelopment proposal would have built the casino above a basin with water pumped in from the river.
“East Peoria has been home to the Par-A-Dice Hotel Casino since 1993, and I’m thankful to say that we are one of two municipalities that have received shared revenue of over $200 million since that time,” Mayor John Kahl told the gaming board.
“I view this as very consistent, other than the location of the casino floor, which, as they laid out, is over water. So I think it meets all the requirements [and] should be of no surprise.”
The Peoria City Council voted down a settlement agreement that would’ve allowed the original redevelopment plans to proceed, with the city receiving a percentage of profits estimated at $1.8 million annually.
Peoria then filed a lawsuit in Cook County seeking to block the redevelopment plan as originally presented. At Thursday’s meeting, Boyd representatives said the modified plan renders Peoria’s legal challenge moot.
“To say the least, we’re quite surprised. It may well resolve the issue, but we’d like to determine whether it does,” said attorney Cid Froelich, outside counsel working on Peoria’s behalf.
“We may be dismissing the litigation, but we’ve got to take a look – and not in five minutes.”
During Monday’s special Peoria City Council meeting, Ali speculated that the rejection of the proposed settlement could leave the city “empty-handed.”
Urich previously said the parties had agreed to stay any decision by the gaming board until a judge considered the city’s request for a temporary restraining order scheduled for Feb. 13.
“I think that's probably moot because we got a different plan now. Our pleading was all pertaining to their original presentation that they gave, which is now completely different,” he said. “So I imagine that we'll talk that through with council and what our options are, and we'll figure it out from there.
“But I think that it is a materially different plan that they're presenting now.”
