Hi Chief.

Fine, how are you doing?

Do I have roll calls?

They're on your under your staff.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

It is six oh three PM on Monday, February the second, twenty twenty six.

I'd like to uh welcome everyone to the special meeting of the Peoria City Council.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Ali here.

Councilmember Allen.

Present.

Councilmember Carmona.

Here.

Councilmember Sear.

Councilmember Gordon Young.

Present.

Councilmember Jackson.

Here.

Councilmember Kelly.

Here.

Councilmember Euler.

Here.

Councilmember Regenbach?

Here.

Councilmember Valpula?

President.

And Councilmember Vespa.

Here.

We have a quorum present, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Everyone, please join me and stand for a moment of silent prayer, silent reflection, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Madam Clerk.

I've got both your microphones on, so I wasn't sure who was going to start.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

As the council's well aware, in 1991, we executed an intergovernmental agreement with the City of East Peoria regarding um shared revenues for river boat gaming in the Peoria area.

Should the city's council approve this agreement, then the city would withdraw its formal objections to the December 11th Boyd redevelopment plan.

The city would then support that redevelopment plan.

At some length talks about the obligations of the parties with regard to support of that plan.

But the settlement is to avoid the risk and expense of costly litigation now or in the future over that plan.

And we would not pursue or assert letters raised in our letter or any other issues or arguments in opposition to the corporation's redevelopment plan in any forum.

The agreement goes on to provide that it applies only to that redevelopment plan that was presented to the gaming board and not to any other property facility or location or other redevelopment plans that might be put forth in the future.

If the gaming board would approve the corporation's redevelopment plan beginning with the first full quarter after completion of the corporation's redevelopment plan, the corporation would pay directly to the city of Peoria 2.25% or 2 and 1 quarter percent of the adjusted gross revenues generated at the property and reported to the Illinois Gaming Board.

Those settlement payments are carefully crafted to be consideration for the settlement of disputed and unadjudiced claims that the city asserted it would otherwise be entitled to in the form of non-direct revenues that are not derived from gambling should uh land-based casino have been located in Peoria.

They are not to be considered an additional tax of any kind, nor amounts due or paid pursuant to law, the intergovernmental agreement that we have with East Peoria or otherwise, the reference to adjusted gross revenues, solely a neutral measure measurement mechanism, and such payments should not be characterized as gaming related revenues.

In addition to those requirements, the city is required to provide a supportive statement at the Illinois Gaming Board meeting on February the 5th.

That statement has been provided and approved by Boyd, but it is the mayor's statement.

It's very short, but it is essentially described in the agreement and does not go beyond the terms of the agreement.

The council was provided a draft of this agreement, other than filling in the names of all the parties.

The only other changes in paragraph six that modifies the word corporation there with affiliates and representatives and is more a form or and not a substantive change to the agreement.

But otherwise, this is identical in every other respect to the previously provided draft.

Doesn't apply to any other plan in the future.

For instance, if the parent corporation of paradise decided to develop riverboat gaming on a barge, our intergovernmental agreement would hold us to the terms of that agreement, then this agreement would be null and void.

If this redevelopment plan, as present as designed and described in the presentation on December 11th, is not approved for any reason by the Illinois Gaming Board, then this agreement would terminate effective immediately and would be of no further effect.

Any transfer directly or introjectly of the owner's license first has to be approved by the Illinois Gaming Board as required by law, including assumption of this agreement as it relates to the redevelopment plan.

And the city would make those points clear to the gaming board on the fifth.

The city would agree in this agreement to jurisdiction of any disputes under this agreement to be uh jurisdiction in the uh the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, or alternatively in Cook County.

That relates somewhat to the idea that gaming board matters have to be brought either in Cook County or in Sangman County under Illinois law.

I don't have any other ideas or elements of this plan to describe to the City Council, other than this is obviously a matter that's up to the council's discretion on whether to approve this agreement or not.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Can you speak to the urgency?

I mean, why a special meeting today, what's going to happen on Thursday?

Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

Um, the Illinois Gaming Board has already published its agenda for the meeting on the um the fifth, and that agenda includes an action item, uh owners and organization gaming license items, final consideration, Paradise Gaming Corporation doing business as Paradise Hotel Casino, uh casino redevelopment plan.

So on its agenda, the board has indicated its intention to take up this matter for final determination.

Um Boyd uh gaming, the parent corporation of Paradise insisted that if these terms were going to be binding on Boyd, that we would resolve them in time so that that agenda item could be heard uh at the February board meeting.

Uh so the urgency in the special meeting here is related to solely to those conditions of this agreement that uh Boyd has placed us under due to the gaming board's scheduled meeting.

Okay.

Is it possible that the gaming board could approve the proposal from Boyd at that meeting this Thursday?

Yes, under the open meetings act, that outcome is possible.

The board has the ability to render a final determination at its meeting pursuant to Illinois law and its own rules.

Okay.

There's questions, certainly, uh, Council Hayes.

Uh, but you know, even before we get to those, I want to thank you for all of your efforts in this matter.

I know since January of last year, there's been a lot of communication back and forth between Peoria, Boyd, Peoria, East Peoria, uh, Peoria, and the uh gaming board administrator.

There's been just a lot of work.

Uh, I'm sure sleepless nights and long long days and nights.

I I want to thank you for all your efforts, uh, no matter which way it goes tonight.

I want to thank you.

Thank you, Your Honor.

It's my great pleasure to serve the council in these matters.

You've represented us well.

Uh questions for a corporation counsel, uh councilman, councilman Oiler.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Two initial questions before we get too deep in.

Where do we stand on this proposed lawsuit against us by East Peoria over video gaming revenue?

Uh East Peoria asserted that at different times during our discussions that they felt that our intergovernmental agreement implicates the video gaming revenues that the City of Peoria has received since 2012.

They have not uh articulated that in any way other than verbally to us during those conversations.

Um that claim was part of a draft agreement that we provided that I provided to East Peoria last week, and they refused to respond or discuss it further with me.

So I don't know whether they intend to advance that claim or any other claim related to these agreements at this time.

And then can you also read the specific language that is currently in the draft related to support of this project?

I don't have it in front of me, and I'm really wanting to be certain regardless of how this goes, what that looks like.

The first time that that comes up is in one of the whereas clauses, whereas the party's desire to have the redevelopment plan approved and implemented to increase gaming revenue and tourism, and such that the redevelopment plan be implemented as soon as possible.

And then further that the city doesn't contest the corporation's position that the redevelopment plan satisfies the Illinois Gaming Act, and that it will not pursue or assert the issues raised in its letter, the city's letter, or any other issues or arguments in opposition to the corporation's redevelopment plan, and that all such issues and arguments are deemed resolved by this agreement.

We have further agreed later in the organization or in the document that the parties agree to fully completely and finally resolve any differences they may have regarding the legality of the redevelopment plan with this agreement.

The city further waives any right to challenge I'm sorry, that's related to the um the city acknowledges that this agreement resolves and renders moot all challenges raised in the city's letter.

We've agreed that the city, through either the mayor or the city manager, would report to the Illinois Gaming Board that the city has reached an agreement with the corporation, has waived all rights to object to the redevelopment plan now or at a later date, that there are no issues between the parties and the city would receive satisfaction factory economic benefit from the redevelopment plan, and that we are therefore supportive of the redevelopment plan.

And we would not in the future obstruct, contest, challenge the redevelopment plan in any way or for any reason in any form or body under any applicable law existing now or at the future.

Then there's some examples of that.

Specific to your question, that's all the information in the agreement.

And so it's repetitive and redundant, but that's at the insistence of the other party to the agreement.

So nothing in there related to the idea of us verbally giving public feedback on our opinions of this project one way or the other.

No, and I've indicated that our elected officials that are opposed to this are likely to speak about their opposition to this.

And your comments here, other than we've agreed with Boyd that the discussions we had in settlement are confidential, so those remain confidential.

But the agreement now and the terms of the agreement are fairer for comment, criticism, opposition, whatever comment the elected officials feel it appropriate to make at this time.

And I'd suggest that those be on the council floor because your your comments here are privileged.

So I told uh the other party to expect that there would be opposition to this from our council, and that that would be voiced.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Council, can you speak also to the language in the agreement about the intergovernment agreement?

The existing intergovernment agreement.

Yes, Your Honor.

So we wanted to make certain that this would not affect the intergovernmental agreement.

We were clear that this demand we were making of Boyd and Paradise were the funding for that was to come directly from Boyd and not from our partner entity East Peoria.

We were careful to never suggest that East Peoria's rights related to the intergovernmental agreement would not be diminished or impacted in any way by this agreement.

And so those ideas are in the agreement.

In addition, that intergovernmental agreement exempts from its treatment of the 50-50 split we have certain revenues.

East Peoria has benefited by those terms for many years.

These indirect revenue streams, such as the property taxes from a gaming facility, the hotel and restaurant taxes that East Peoria has received for 35 years from the Paradises location, the hotel taxes from the overnight stays from the people that stay in Paradise owned hotel or other hotels in the area, all those revenue streams are exempt from our revenue sharing and have been for 35 years.

So this agreement clarifies that what the city had asserted as claims for compensation relate to those types of revenues that the city of Peoria would have received if a land-based casino was located here.

It's our position that those wouldn't be subject to that revenue split either, just like East Peoria's 35 years of revenues of similar ilk are not subject to that agreement.

Right.

Thank you, Yarn.

And to take that further, with the IGA, the intergovernment agreement, it still remains that should the gaming board get a proposal for land-based gaming from Boyd or any other entity that wants to sit up in East Peoria, that agreement says that it still has to be in Peoria.

The only place where gaming can exist is at this proposed redevelopment facility, but otherwise, any land-based operation would be, in our view, subject to Illinois law and our intergovernmental agreement that would be in Peoria.

If that would occur, that 50-50 split of gaming revenues would still apply.

East Peoria would receive half of the gaming revenues from a land-based casino in Peoria.

Right.

So the confusion comes in with regard to the definition of land-based gaming here.

The gaming board has the position that the proposal that Boyd has put forth is not land-based gaming.

If it was to be considered land-based gaming, they would have to submit an application to the state, pay the application fee, I think it's $250,000, and apply for land-based gaming permit.

Is that accurate?

Yes, one of the motivating factors for the suggesting the settlement agreement is that we're no longer confident that the gaming board would declare the proposed facility a land-based gaming facility, and that it appears that the gaming board is at least favorably inclined to Boyd's position in this matter at this time, then that's one of the compelling reasons why we're suggesting this settlement agreement.

Okay.

And in regard to the settlement of 2.25 percent perpetually, um, my understanding is that's about or perhaps more than the city would receive in property taxes, other revenues if there were a land-based casino right here in Peoria.

Is that true?

In fact, in discussions, Boyd uh is of that same opinion.

Uh so we tried to have a position that fully compensated the city for all the revenues the city would receive, both directly and indirectly uh for the economic development that would occur at the casino site and in sites around the casino.

Um it's clearly more than just would be generated from the the casino itself.

We've been clear with Boyd on that issue.

Um that amount uh just for just to put a scope on it.

If the casino does $60 million a year gaming revenue, um, that would be 1.35 million.

We provide that to the council because that's basically what the casino has been doing for the last few years.

We provide that to the council because that's basically what the casino's been doing for the last few years with an expanded gaming floor and a larger uh enterprise.

Uh everybody assumes Boyd will earn more uh gaming revenue at $80 million a year, it would be $1.8 million a year in revenue.

We have of course going to be tied to Boyd's success in that endeavor.

So uh the more successful the paradise is the more revenues will come to both East Peoria and Peoria through the existing uh tax mechanism and intergovernmental agreement and to the city of Peoria through this agreement.

Does the agreement protect us in the event that Boyd would sell to another company, a successor?

Yes.

Uh section 10 of the draft agreement provides that the agreements binding on assignees, successors, or transferees of the parties.

And we anticipate that any direct transfer of the gaming license to another entity would be respected by the Illinois Gaming Board under statutory provisions that we've cited in this agreement.

Okay.

Thank you, Council.

Councilmember Vespa, I'm trying to get your light on.

There we go.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Excuse me.

Uh Council Hayes.

Um, do you have an opinion as to how the gaming board will rule on Thursday?

I don't want to denigrate the board or its abilities, but it was clear to us in speaking on many occasions with the administrator of the board that uh there is a significant risk that the board would approve Boyd's proposal.

Okay.

And in the event that uh they approve Boyd's proposal, uh we would then appeal the decision.

Um where would we appeal it to?

So the appellate courts in the state of Illinois would take that up.

Okay.

And it would likely go to the Supreme Court from the appellate court, correct?

Certainly in a matter of this level of uh monetary interests, those types of requests would be made of the Supreme Court.

It's not clear to me whether the Supreme Court would grant that opportunity, because there's a process where the Supreme Court can deny your ability to perfect an appeal, but I'm certain uh that either party being disappointed in the outcome are likely to seek leave of the Supreme Court to appeal.

I agree that the losing party would uh petition for Curtiari uh with the Supreme Court.

Um if we were to go to the Supreme Court, how long would it take and how much money would we spend in attorney's fees?

Um attorney's fees litigating this matter in the trial court level would be a significant six-figure amount, approaching seven figures over the course of that litigation, the appellate work would be some significantly less because it's a uh lesser uh degree of attorney time and talent.

Uh but certainly um a hundred thousand dollars or so for uh the appellate work to the um at the first appellate level and then uh probably a similar amount for the Supreme Court uh appeal for outside counsel.

Okay, and how long would that take?

So the first level appellate court was likely to take a year to eighteen months in the Supreme Court process a similar period of time.

Okay.

And that's after the trial work would conclude, which is you know, highly unpredictable, but at a minimum a year and probably longer.

Um I have a question for uh the city manager next.

Um say this casino would have been built or would be built in Peoria um uh at a price tag of 160 million dollars, and let's just assume uh for the purposes of this hypothetical that that's you know what it's assessed at.

The uh equalized assessed value would then be a third of that, right?

It would be $53 million, correct?

It it would, that's correct.

And our rate of property tax collection is about $1.5 percent of that, correct?

Roughly, yes.

Okay.

So that comes out to about $800,000, let's say.

Now do you think we would collect the whole $800,000?

Uh we were to play that out.

No, I I think what you're gonna see in East Peoria if if they have taxes that are paid.

Okay.

So obviously captive rooms don't collect taxes.

Correct.

Okay.

Um further questions.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Welcome.

Councilmember Allen.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh before I ask my questions, I also want to acknowledge the the work that uh everyone has put into this from corporation, council Hayes, Mr.

Manager, Madam Mayor, this body, uh, our external uh legal teams that we've brought in.

I mean, we've been at this um for some time now.

And and also want to acknowledge, I know that rightfully so, the the public uh has expressed some some frustration just because uh a deal of this magnitude and the sensitivities of it, we haven't been able to um share a lot of things because of these ongoing negotiations.

And so I do want to acknowledge that.

Um, but there has been so much work put into this to try to make sure that the constituents of Peoria are are well represented here.

But uh a few questions that I have uh beginning with you, um Corporation Council Hayes.

I know that the current settlement references uh 2.25% for the listening uh public, can you get put that in a dollar amount based off of the estimated values of what that additional revenue stream would be for us?

Yeah, I mentioned in response to the mayor's question that if the casino for the last few years has averaged about sixty million dollars a year in adjusted gross revenues.

Um if we applied this 2.25% to that, that would be 1.35 million.

Uh if the expansion is successful, which we think it would uh estimate of $80 million adjusted gross revenue, I think was the fair estimate of how they would do, and that would generate 1.8 million dollars on an annual basis.

So the 2.25% slightly less than what the city receives through the intergovernmental agreement, but um a similar amount over time and with growth, it would be larger than the amount that we're receiving today.

This agreement would leave that agreement in place.

So this would be in addition to those intergovernmental agreement amounts.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And I know Mr.

Manager provided the last three years of what our split was with East Peoria and for again for the listening public.

Um in 2023, it was a little over 1.6 million dollars, and as most recent in 25, it was a little over 1.7 million dollars.

Uh a question for you, Mr.

Manager.

When we receive this revenue split from the Paradise, uh, where do those revenues go?

Can you talk about a particular fund or or where do we put those revenues in our overall budget, sir?

Thanks, Councilman.

Uh yes, over the life of this agreement, both communities have used those dollars for capital projects.

So um we've used it for vehicles, for sidewalks, for computers, um street lights, all of those things that we have on our capital budget, that's one of those revenue streams that helps to fund that.

Thank you.

And if we were able to obtain uh this additional revenue stream, um, would those funds be unrestricted to the point where the council can have a policy session about a particular designation or an intent for those new funds?

Uh yes, I believe that that that's certainly a policy decision for this council to make.

If if the settlement agreement is passed, it's how do you want to spend those dollars?

That's a sure certainly a budget and policy decision for this council to make.

And I think it's no secret there is no shortage of needs currently when we think about uh the challenges that we currently have in those that are forecasted uh for the for the city of Peoria.

And lastly, Mr.

Manager, and I know you talked about um if we were able to uh obtain the land-based casino in the city of Peoria, we would look at some type of financial incentive uh to support the the needs.

Do you foresee something even in addition to a TIFF district in order to make the project work?

Would we have to issue maybe a potential debt service in order to support the infrastructure needs or or any of the to support the cost of the the land-based casino?

Do you foresee any foreseeable future?

Uh I don't think we'd have to to go that far towards looking at us, you know, front loading any kind of uh funds to do that.

I mean, we are talking about a um uh a large corporation that should be able to do that and has probably done that in other communities where they've built their casinos.

So I think that it would just simply be looking at it as a mechanism um as you're building that out similar to what other communities have done.

What are those those incentives that we have by right?

You know, it could be within an enterprise zone, which would provide the sales tax exemption for building materials purchased in Illinois.

Um odd million dollar construction, there's going to be a lot of a lot of things that are going to be built or at least hopefully purchased in Illinois that would go towards that construction site.

So those kind of things would be what we would normally look at at establishing.

Thank you, Mr.

Manager.

And my last question for you, Corporation Council Hayes, and by no means do I expect you to be an expert, but you've been uh involved with the gaming board now for a little over a year in this space.

Um for those who may have the question on if this casino stays in East Peoria, how come the City of Peoria can't just re recruit a new casino?

So the City of Peoria, and we can get our own land-based casino.

Can you maybe speak to the nuances of how gaming licenses are issued and there's a little bit more nuances than just putting a RFQ or RFP out there to get a new casino on the side of the river.

Well, it's clear that uh the local market would not support another casino on par with the existing facility.

Um it's unlikely that the gaming board would damage an existing license with another casino.

And it would be difficult for the gaming industry to make the level of investment that is being made at the or proposed for the East Peoria casino at another casino in Peoria, because the market simply wouldn't provide the revenues required to make that a profitable investment.

Uh so when you look at where gaming interests are in Illinois, there are a lot of considerations given to the competitive elements and the market that would drive that demand.

So I think if if there was sufficient market demand, that might be uh uh uh a possibility.

It's my view that our market, while it's strong and is deserving of more investment than we presently have, it wouldn't, for instance, support double that investment.

So there is a there's not a likelihood that the gaming board would find that to be healthy for the state's interest in gaming revenues to provide another license here.

The the legislature would also have to be convinced that that made sense.

And I think that they would get legitimate income from the gaming board who they would turn to for advice along the lines of what I've discussed.

So I don't think there would be support for a similar facility in the Peoria area.

The market just isn't robust enough for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

That's all for now.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Carmelna.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Just so everybody listening in and all of my colleagues understand that.

This is an unfortunate example of the judicial system either working to uphold the law or to manipulate the law.

And it's unfortunate because to say that putting a thousand dollar uh or sorry, thousand-gallon water basin in the basement, which is roughly the size of a residential propane tank that you see outside of a home in a rural area.

To say that that qualifies your on-land structure as a river boat modernization, as they like to call it is a manipulation of the law.

Now, we've been getting the short end of this stick, which we've already explained with these non-direct revenues uh since this passed, since our agreement was passed with East Peoria with property taxes, sales taxes, food and beverage, amusement tax, and all these other taxes.

Um, my own opinion about this, which is not generated through a motion, but through actual fact that's been explained to us in closed session meetings is that Boyd Gaming has made it very clear that there is no set of circumstances that will bring them back to Peoria.

I think that that's very unfortunate.

Um there certainly is risk from us as a city fighting this out in court.

But it's a calculated risk because we're the ones that are right.

Um I want to fight for a better settlement agreement than what we have now, because it is my own opinion that they're gonna do whatever they have to do not to bring the casino to Peoria.

Council Hayes, I do want to tell you thank you very much for all the work that you and your staff have done to move this along.

And to the general public, I kind of just want to echo Councilman Allen's uh words about transparency and why we couldn't explain everything in detail to all of our constituents.

Um but I do want us to fight for what we know is right because I do think that Boyd would be willing to work with us to have a better settlement settlement agreement.

And for that reason, Madam Mayor, I'm not gonna support this motion.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Gordon Young.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh I I think Councilmember Allen has my notes because just about every question I had you you asked.

So I'm gonna go in a different direction.

In the event, this is for corporation counsel.

Um, in the event that we proceed with litigation, and you may have touched on this because I've been writing and listening at the same time.

What do what would you say would be the estimated cost of continuing litigation?

Uh the trial level work plus all the appellate work previously indicated would be um six figures approaching seven figures for the trial level work.

Okay, I did I do recall saying that.

And then some additional amount for appellate work at about you know, roughly a hundred thousand dollars per episode to get through the appellate evolutions.

It's difficult to accurately estimate, but we should be prepared for that level of expense.

But also point out if we do litigate, there's a fee shifting provision in our intergovernmental agreement for with East Peoria that the successful parties able to uh uh require the other party to satisfy their fees, so if we litigated and didn't prevail, we might have to pay East Peoria's litigation cost.

Thank you.

Thank you for repeating.

I I do recall you saying that, and I found that in my notes as well.

Uh I am um I I guess I am leaning on the potential uh revenue um of the 1.8 million and also just the um potential policy session of where we could um fill some gaps in this community and also uh perhaps shorten some of those uh areas of of deficit that we've been talking about for some time.

Uh I think every question that I have specifically uh you know what are the chances and and I'm I'm all about taking chances that you know, no pun intended, but I'm not a gambler when it comes to um the citizens of this community.

And again, because they didn't have all the information, what we do know is that Boyd is not coming.

Um and they've been very clear about that.

Uh but what can we do in the meantime?

It doesn't mean that we cannot have uh you know a gaming facility here, but um this one isn't going to work in the manner in which we would prefer.

Uh and so for those reasons and many of those that have been stated prior to me speaking, um, I will be supporting moving forward.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Is there a second second by council member Allen continued discussion?

Councilmember Kelly.

Uh thank you, madam mayor.

Uh Mr.

Corporation Council, I'd like to follow up with uh uh Councilman Oiler's question concerning what we may be able to say when we are not in a public meeting.

Um what can you can you either give us some guidelines on that or perhaps uh write them up for us, either one.

I think that's very important.

I under I understand we can kind of say what we want here, but uh it would be helpful, I think.

Um to be able to have guidelines out in the in the you know when we're in the public councilman, we had agreed with Boyd during our settlement discussions to hold the settlement discussions confidential.

That still applies.

Council is free to make comments about this agreement and your opinions on matters outside of those disclosures related to the settlement discussions.

Um I also indicate that there's a legislative privilege that protects you when you speak during a formal meeting of the city council.

Those privileges don't protect you when you're speaking outside of that venue.

Right.

Uh there is still some protection for you, but it's much uh less predictable.

So I've encouraged council members in this evolution to speak with respect to the confidentiality we agreed to, but also to speak freely as it relates to any other concerns outside of that here on the council floor, uh, because your comments here are privileged, as long as they are not knowingly false and not stated with malice.

Thank you.

I I nevertheless would appreciate some guidance.

Um I'm good at running off my mouth, so uh it may be particularly important for me.

Uh but I I think it I think it's a good thing to give us some guidelines on that.

And if perhaps not right now, not tonight.

Thank you.

Yes.

I'd be happy to prepare that and present that to council at a future date.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um I am in favor of uh fighting this fighting this out.

I uh we uh for instance, we've got a uh a settlement agreement.

It's very detailed, put together by an excellent attorney, agreed upon by attorneys on the other side.

I believe the same is true of our intergovernmental agreement, which has no value.

It's also true, I think, of the statute in Illinois that pertains to this, which apparently doesn't count.

Okay.

What counts is um I'm not going to go there.

Um anyway, these are all written in English.

I think if you showed them to any reasonable person, he would come out with a different idea of what's going on than what is actually going on.

Um I do have faith that ultimately, probably beyond the gaming board, the courts will look at the plain language of the intergovernmental agreement and of the Illinois statute and say no, this cannot go forward the way it's been proposed.

I may be wrong.

And we're and what I'm talking about, I realize is around a million dollars worth of litigation all told.

Um I would like to ask the question, either Madam Mayor or Mr.

Mr.

Corporation Council, the letter that has been written by the mayor to the gaming board.

If this motion goes down, is that letter still going to be presented?

That same letter.

The December 20th letter referenced in the settlement agreement has already been forwarded to the gaming board.

Yes.

If this agreement is voted down, the council would have options about approaching the gaming board on the 5th and thereafter with our position and advancing it if we're not in this settlement agreement.

What about the letter that's already been written that is going to be forwarded with a positive vote anyway to the gaming board signed by the mayor that was referred to.

That was already presented to the gaming board on December 20th.

Okay.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

The mayor's statement.

If we don't engage in the in the settlement agreement, then the mayor's statement issue is moot.

And will not be presented.

Well, I'm sure the mayor make a statement, but I don't know what it would be.

It won't be that.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

It seems to me that as Councilman Carmona said, we're in the right on this.

And long term, we stand to gain significantly from just following the English language on these two documents.

So while there's a risk, I'm suggesting we take a risk.

And if we say no, we may go right to the gaming board.

We may go right into the courts, we may, or we may not.

Either party can stop it, can stop that process at any time.

Boyd Gaming can stop the process and start talking with us.

Or we can stop the process and say, you know, it doesn't look good.

Let's let's talk again about getting out of this.

But I certainly am willing to take that risk on the part of our citizens.

I think our citizens expect us to fight for this and not to capitulate.

So for for our citizens and for our long the long-term growth in our city.

So thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

I want to say something about fighting because I'm a fighter too.

I've been fighting all of my life.

And since January of last year, I have been fighting, we have been fighting, we have been fighting against this decision for boy gaming to create a quasi land-based gaming casino in East Peoria.

We've been fighting.

We've been fighting with our verbal communications and meetings with our written communications with letters and emails going back and forth.

We've been fighting, and we've been fighting for Peoria for the citizens of Peoria, because we want to win for them.

We want to win for the City of Peoria.

And what I want to say is that this is that win for Peoria.

This is that guaranteed win for Peoria.

It's the closest that we're going to get to it.

1.8 million dollars at least or approximately per year for as long as this casino lives.

That's guaranteed revenues.

In fact, it's more revenue than we would have if the casino was based right here in Peoria.

More funds.

And unfortunately, I mean, I I'm all for the fight, but I'm not fighting just for the fight.

We got to deliver something out of this.

We have to capture some opportunity to help build up Peoria, and this is that opportunity.

It's now.

It's today.

They're going to make a decision on Thursday.

Regardless of how we vote tonight, they're going to likely, very likely, make a decision to move forward.

And if we don't take this opportunity, we can be left empty-handed for Peoria.

As Council Hayes indicated, this litigation could go on for years.

We could be looking at four or five years of litigation, not one million, but at least probably two million, especially if we fail, if we do not prevail.

And we could end up with nothing.

I mean, literally nothing but heartache.

Today is the opportunity that we can secure additional funding that we can decide what we want to do with that funding.

We can decide.

One reality that I've learned from this process, and that's from sitting in meetings in Chicago, in Peoria, sitting across from Boyd, East Peoria, lots of an attorneys in between, is that Boyd is not coming to Peoria.

You said it right, Councilman Carmona.

Boyd is not coming to Peoria.

They've made that decision.

They've made their investment in East Peoria.

That decision was made long before us as leaders on this council.

They made their decision based on that's where their investment is, that's where their property is.

They don't want to pick up and move.

They've done their analysis.

They don't want to pick up and move to Peoria, and they are not going to.

Even if we win, what does that look like?

It doesn't get us a riverboat.

It doesn't get us a land-based casino in Peoria.

It still doesn't get us that casino.

It doesn't guarantee us that.

And I it's not capitulating to me.

It's not that, councilman.

It's this is the opportunity.

Now is the opportunity.

There's nothing that's going to happen in the state legislature state legislature that's going to turn this around in this time that we need it, which is right now.

Not yet, because somebody else is.

We're going to respond to everybody.

I'll come back to you.

Okay.

I'll come back to you.

But I just want to say that the reality is that this is our win.

This is our win.

It's the closest that we're going to get.

There will be people that will be disappointed that we didn't fight it to the end through court.

But there will also be people that will be happy that we made a good business decision.

And we took that bird in the hand for the citizens of Peoria, that we use that money to help build up Peoria in whatever way we decide to use that money.

This is that opportunity.

And it's not tomorrow, it's right now.

Councilmember Rickenbach.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Lots of time and energy, and I know the mayor, you made multiple trips to Chicago on our behalf, so thank you for those efforts as well.

I think this really came to my attention probably in 2019 when our state representatives, um, Leader Booth and Ryan Spain were able to successfully pass a state law that codified part of the intergovernmental agreement regarding land-based casinos with this particular license.

But the what impact that would have and the significance of it, I think was really something that we didn't see for another five years.

So as Boyd began talking about their expansion, the intergovernmental agreement came to the fore once again.

And it clearly says in Article 5 or paragraph five, all riverboat casino operations shall be docked in East Peoria, followed by paragraph six, which equally clearly says all land-based casino operations shall be in Peoria.

What's so difficult to understand?

If you are buying a casino and Boyd is the second owner of the paradise, let's not forget that.

If they didn't realize the covenants that are involved with that, that's that's on them, not on us.

So for them to feign surprise that, oh my, now we have to pack up and move across the river.

Yes.

The IGA clearly states that and the 19 2019, excuse me, um, law in the state of Illinois states that I just am flabbergasted that this is such a point of contention.

You know, uh I'm I'm old-fashioned perhaps, but I just wish we could go back to the day when the laws of the land that are dully passed by our representatives, intergovernmental agreements that are signed by responsible parties were followed, that they were respected, that they were actually adhered to.

But probably even more than that, I wish we could get to the point where we all agreed that a river boat actually floats on a river, and that's undisputable.

And and that's all I have, Madam Mayor.

Councilmember, oh, sorry, Councilmember Jackson, then Councilmember Euler.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just uh had one question.

Um listening to everybody.

I was just kind of concerned about whether or not the city could actually afford this given our pension obligations uh before us.

Um are we in a position to be in litigation for my talking out of context?

Oh so the city council provides a generous outside council budget for the legal department to operate every year.

It's no doubt that this would put pressure on that budget for this year and next year.

We have other major litigation matters that are pending.

One of the episodes that might come forward is that if we're to continue in litigation on this matter, and other litigation actually occurs this year, as we had previously budgeted for, then uh we might need a budget amendment to have to serve these expenses.

So on any given year over the last few years, there's been somewhere between 1.6 to 2 million dollars budgeted because we have significant federal litigation pending on a number of different cases.

A few of them have been resolved, but there's still a couple of major ones pending, and this one would be another major litigation item that's pending.

Those funds are um are planned to be utilized just for attorney's fees and not judgment costs, and so um significant costs are coming to bear on the city over this matter already, and more would be spent if we engaged in litigation out of that fund.

And if that fund started running short, we'd be in front of council asking for a budget amendment.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Euler.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

I've agonized over this decision for months, probably close to a year, and discussions with the city manager last summer.

I it was pretty clear that the fix was in for us with the gaming board.

And I started to see the writing on the wall that potentially a settlement was better outcome than what we were going to have fighting this.

But also the settlement is peanuts compared to the money that they're gonna make off of the deal.

Um I really appreciate the corporation council and the mayor for working on this all of these months and trying to come up with an alternative solution for us.

I really appreciate the corporation council and the mayor for working on this all of these months and trying to come up with an alternative solution for us.

The challenge is that we're dealing with bad actors here on the other side in terms of Boyd Gaming, who come up with a completely ridiculous conclusion that putting something over a water tank makes it water-based rather than land-based.

And it really flies in the face of a 30-plus year contractual agreement that we have, as a city and uh you know, citizens in our community have waited on the sidelines due to a bad decision that was made almost four decades ago to someday potentially have that turned around.

And so this is really difficult when you talk about the fact that we're in a bad situation here against the parties that we're dealing with and their intentions for us and money that could go on the table to you know inject into our community.

But at the same time, what does it say about our contracts if we're willing to sell it out and go do something else?

So it looks bad no matter what, it's really not a good outcome no matter what happens here.

But one of the things I look back to is the situation with the water company.

The city essentially sold those rights a hundred years ago, and every five years we have the right to reevaluate that, and I have supported exercising that because I think they've made a mistake um selling those rights, and I have those same concerns here is that that's what we would be doing is selling a right that we have, and then we will continue to look at whether that was worth the decision.

So at the end of the day, we're put in the chair to make a decision whether you know it's the best decision.

I think for all of us will uh be watching over the coming years to see how this plays out.

I know we've been looking at the fact that the decision 30 plus years ago was the wrong one when the boat was let to go over to the other side of the river.

And at the end of the day, I'm gonna make my decision to not settle at this point.

I I think that it sets the wrong precedence for what our word means and what our contract means, and um what being the government in the city of Peoria means if somebody can come up with such a ridiculous idea of putting a building on a tank of water and it's water-based just to get out of our agreement with them.

So I'll be voting no.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Valpula.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Carpation Council, I have I have one question which I wanted to ask you.

All this time we were debating about how much it costs to litigate and all.

But for a common man, I'm not lying, I I don't know love that much.

But I want to ask you one question.

What is our chance of winning if we go for litigation?

So we've had a number of discussions with our litigation council.

It's uh folks at Taft, Kimberly Cop and Caesar Frelick.

In response to that question, they said, look, there's the very significant likelihood that the city of Peoria could successfully challenge this proposal.

Can you repeat it one more time?

There's a significant chance that the city of Peoria could successfully charge challenge this proposal.

However, that outcome wouldn't create any requirement on Boyd or the Paradise to redevelop their property in any way.

One of the reasons that Councilman Carmona mentioned this, there's no set of circumstances under which Boyd would locate in Peoria is that they've made that position very clear.

So a gaming organization has a number of options when they have to do a facilities plan, and those options for Boyd would include redeveloping uh the existing river boat, purchasing a larger river boat, doing uh installation which with what are called permanently moored barges.

Um and so one of the things that's compelling for the city in recommending uh myself and our and our litigation council is that litigation doesn't necessarily create an outcome of uh land-based casino in Peoria, and in fact, it's highly unlikely to do so.

The gaming board has told us flat out that they won't require that outcome.

If Boyd chooses to pursue it, the gaming board would be supportive of that, but they're not going to force Boyd to do so.

And that would be the gaming board administrator who communicated this.

Yes.

Okay.

And so this is why we are exploring settlement the way that we have, because this is not a binary issue.

Boyd has a number of options available to it if we are successful in this first phase of litigation that would still frustrate our purposes and outcomes and not provide us any additional revenue.

And so uh this is why this recommendation is coming forward is that it's not as if we won in a challenge to this development agreement that there'd be a land-based casino in Peoria.

In fact, it's uh highly unlikely that that will occur at any time given Boyd's position uh and the options that they have available to them.

Thank you so much for that answer.

One more follow-up question I have is uh what will so there are two components that you said one winning the case or winning the litigation might not warrant us to bring the casino back to Peoria.

What would happen to Boyd if let's say if we win if we win the litigation, what will happen?

What is Boyd's position there?

Well, we would have a gaming board that would be a party to that same litigation that would have received an outcome from the courts that disappointed both Boyd and the gaming board, and Boyd could make a determination to make any kind of application to the gaming board about what they might do next, or perhaps do nothing.

So does that mean Boyd will still be operating on a riverboard casino?

Well, boyd, there's nothing that I can foresee that would disrupt Boyd's ability to continue to operate under its license, and currently they're operating a riverboat casino.

It may be that the board asked Boyd to submit an alternate uh development plan to reinvest in their facility.

And the board has been clear with us that it's Boyd's choice, but they have an option of doing a riverboat, doing permanently moored barge barges, either of which would under our intergovernmental agreement be basically status quo, or do a land-based casino.

If they did a land-based casino, then uh other than the one that they have proposed anywhere else, it'd have to be in the city of Peoria.

But as I mentioned, Boyd has indicated that they're not likely to pursue that, and the gaming board has indicated they're not going to require that.

What happens?

Let's say we go for the litigation and whatever whatever the outcome is, what happens to the revenue that comes to us?

Will the will the revenue stop coming to Peoria because we are in a litigation, or it is uh it's gonna be the same process as before.

Well, if we're unsuccessful in litigation, we have to pay the other parties fees.

If we'd be successful in litigation, we wouldn't seek an outcome to disrupt that agreement.

It's possible if the agreement was litigated, East Peoria might seek the outcome to terminate the agreement.

But I don't think that's a likely outcome if we contested this plan.

Um there's a lot of outcomes that aren't necessarily positive for the city of Peoria.

I think there's a very small chance of that negative outcome.

So this was the intergovernmental agreement made in 1991, correct?

Yes.

So when Boyd, when they make the choice, did they first come to Peoria or they went to Illinois Gaming Board?

Because it's a trust issue.

I'm just looking at that as well.

Did they cut did they reach us as a trusted partner or they went to Illinois Gaming Board and from there the entire process came back to Peoria?

Boyd met with the city of Peoria back in 2019 and met uh 2020, I'm sorry, uh, where this issue was described and then met with us in 2004 or 2024 on these issues at our request.

Um so they've had a conversation with us about this project that commenced shortly after the March 2022 gaming board meeting where the gaming board required Boyd to come back in, I'm sorry, March 2023 or uh 2024, I'm sorry, where the gaming board told Boyd to come back in two years with a facilities plan.

So at that point we engage Boyd in communication about that issue.

I don't know if this question is appropriate, but I'll ask you anyway, if it is inappropriate, just correct me.

What happens if Boyd relinquish its license?

Because it's it's a commercial license, and anybody, everybody wants to be in that space because it's uh it's a gaming thing.

What happens at that point of time for us?

So I just want to indicate that Boyd has vigorously indicated to us that they will defend their license and intend to maintain it.

If Boyd would relinquish the license, it would be up to the gaming board to place that license in the new operator, and that operator would likely have the same options that Boyd does today.

Under the law of the state of Illinois, that's a river boat on the Illinois River, or uh land based casino in Peoria.

And uh new gaming entity would have those options to pursue that as they chose.

I'm gonna make a statement.

Will you I wanted you to defend me on that?

Can I say that the larger corporations watching say that, oh, in Peoria, we can disagree any intergovernment agreement.

Work through the loopholes and then buy the forgiveness later.

Is that exactly what it is happening right now?

It's clear that the corporate entity that we've been dealing with does not feel bound by the terms of the intergovernmental agreement that they're not a party of.

Um I think that they their offer here indicates that they're taking seriously our our potential cause of action, but they're disputing our position that it would control particularly the redevelopment plan that they presented.

So are they exploiting a loophole?

I think that they have seen the gaming board be very generous about what the definition is of a river boat for decades, and they're taking advantage of that uncertainty in this episode.

No, the reason I'm asking you is that we are on the verge of a historical decision.

Some one decision was made 30 years back, and today we are going to make one more.

But the to the listening audience and the people of Peoria, do so we are it is proving that we are so vulnerable for anybody who is gonna pressurize us to do what they want because it's an so then what is the point of so for the past 30 years?

Peoria and East Peoria, I mean, I'm not here 30 years before, but I would I the moment I walked in to the city, they were telling that Peoria will have a casino the moment it comes out of the water.

There's a civic pride in fighting for this one, but I understand there is a and and I I I just I agree with everybody on the council.

Everybody wants to make the city of Peoria in a uh, you know, they wanted to help the city of Peoria.

One fighting for a bigger prize like Spartans, second one would be more like a passive revenue where we take it.

It's it's a story, analogy of a cow.

So we have a cow and there's milk.

Somebody will sell the milk and give you percentage.

What we are trying to fight is for the cow and the milk in this city.

So that's where I my thought processes, and uh I really am frustrated with uh uh the corporates not honoring the the pride, the thought process and uh the will and wish of the people of Peoria.

It's not that I gamble, I don't gamble, but what I'm really looking at is the revenue, the kind of um yeah, economic development engine it brings in.

If we if we are trying to fight for it, what would be our uh uh other than the cost, what are our repercussions if we take this fight?

I mean it's it it it has to be very wise doing that.

So I just wanted to know from the learned council.

If we engage in litigation rather than approve this settlement agreement, we're putting at risk the revenues that are being offered.

And a lot of the outcomes are not gonna see this level of revenue coming to the city of Peoria.

Arguably, even if there was a land based casino, as the mayor points out in the city of Peoria, uh, and with costs related to that development by way of incentives, we're not likely to see this level of revenue.

Uh, and so if we litigate, we lose the opportunity for the revenue, we may not get any additional revenue, and we may be paying the litigation costs for East Peoria.

So that's sort of the worst case scenario outcome.

Is that we spend a lot of money and time on this, and there's still some sort of gaming facility in East Peoria and no additional economic development in Peoria and no revenue coming to Peoria beyond what we're statutorily and through the intergovernmental agreement appreciating right now.

So these are the matters that are compelling me to recommend that council seriously consider the settlement agreement as the best possible outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Congression Consul.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome, Councilman Valpola.

I had that same question that I posed to Council Hayes.

Can we win this?

And uh ask our external expert attorneys who have been working in the casino industry for many many years.

And that was the same answer that I got.

Maybe maybe not.

Basically, that's what it boils down to.

Who are we suing?

We would be suing the Illinois Gaming Board.

We'd be so in Boyd Gaming and probably East Peoria.

Who who would we be suing?

Council Hayes.

Explain who we're suing.

Um those are the parties uh we'd be proceeding as and the Paradise Corporation.

Okay.

And so keep in mind that the state of Illinois is one of those litigants.

And that can be a challenging litigant to have.

Continued discussion.

Councilmember Gordon Young.

Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um Councilmember Jackson mentioned the pension obligations.

And and I have to say that one of the things that I many of the things that come to mind fall under that category in terms of you know this rare opportunity for this additional revenue.

And uh of course, we have to have to have a policy session, but the potential to fill some gaps, more specifically, pension obligations, unhouse populations, our mental health um needs, uh just something to think about business development, infrastructure.

Uh this is uh revenue that we definitely need and don't have, and um are constantly trying to figure out how we can um you know move things around from one pot to the next, but this would be additional piece of revenue, which is why um I know we're all fighting, but that's what one thing that comes to mind for me in terms of this additional money.

We definitely need it.

Huge gaps, especially in social services.

Just wanted to remind you all of that.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Vespa.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, so I just want to be clear right about what rejecting the settlement offer today means.

I agree with uh council Hayes that I expect the gaming board to approve Boyd's proposal on Thursday because they have approved similar proposals in the past.

We would appeal, but fighting this all the way to the Supreme Court will cost us sounds like over a million dollars in attorney's fees over the course of years.

I'm optimistic about our chances.

Uh, but I have my doubts because courts must show some deference to the gaming board, and they have.

So I'm not sure about that.

But let's assume we win in the Illinois Supreme Court after years and over a million dollars in attorney's fees.

Boyd can still decide to build the casino on a barge or renovate the current boat or get another boat, or they could sit on the license.

Um, I think I think it's unlikely they'll do that.

Um, but you see the ifs start to pile up.

If upon if that's why they say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

We could take the annual estimated 1.8 million dollars today, or we could roll the dice, no pun intended.

So, how much would the casino actually generate?

So we can compare it to the 1.8 million dollars.

If we assume a hundred sixty million dollar development, like what is proposed in East Peoria, the equalized assessed value would be $53 million, and our share of property taxes about 1.5 percent comes out to about $800,000 annually.

And our share of property taxes about 1.5% comes out to about $800,000 annually.

And as the manager indicated, we'd probably get much less than that.

Um especially if it's in a in a TIFF district, um, or we have some other uh some other incentives.

Um it's it's generous to think of 108 or um 800,000.

Uh getting the annual 1.8 million dollars, therefore would reflect uh more than a million dollars in compensation for those lost sales taxes.

Hotel, restaurant, tourism dollars, which is probably more than we be getting with an actual casino.

I'm mindful there are second-order economic benefits too, um, which wouldn't be direct revenue to the city, but of indirect help to the local economy.

Um raised concerns about the lost benefit to District 150, the county, the park district.

Although they would not be parties to this agreement or the original 1991 intergovernmental agreement and have never received gaming revenue, it's true that they would lose anticipated property tax revenue by keeping the casino in East Peoria.

While we are not board members of these organizations, most of our residents do pay taxes, those bodies, and our fates are kind of intertwined.

Um so I think it is a factor to be mindful of.

Uh another factor is something we wouldn't get with this casino is the increased crime that comes with the casino.

People go into casino, lose their life savings, and I don't want them stumbling straight into our bars and restaurants.

Um by accepting the settlement, we'd be getting the financial windfall, the financial benefits from having a casino here while letting East Peoria police deal with those calls.

I know we're all tired of the gambling metaphors, but this is a gamble, and the financial benefit to the city of Peoria is not clear.

A casino is not a panacea.

Uh the people staying in the hotels often get comped, as the manager confirmed.

So there's no revenue to collect for those tourists.

The city might end up with less revenue than the annual 1.8 million dollars after it's all up and running.

1.8 million dollars is a lot of potholes.

But I recognize you cannot put a price tag on civic pride, and a deal is a deal.

I understand that argument, and it's a powerful one.

Pride pride counts for something.

Um, this proposal of pumping water underneath a building is very much ridiculous.

Um is not consistent with our original intergovernmental agreement or the law or the intent behind the drafting of either.

But I mean, you have to have a price for everything.

We're gonna accept something.

I mean, we are going to if we get this casino, we are going to get X amount of dollars per year.

And if we can get more than that X amount of dollars, I think we take it.

If we're if we're going to make more money doing this and not having the negative impacts of a casino, I'm inclined to take it.

If we're going to avoid spending all those attorneys' fees and waiting years to even begin building a casino, whether here or there, I'm more inclined to take it.

Um, I'm kind of risk-averse, as most attorneys are by nature.

Um I do lean toward the bird in the hand instead of chasing the two in the bush, which could leave us empty-handed.

Um, and even if we get the two in the bush, it's not clear that we'll have more money that we'll give more revenue.

In fact, it seems quite the opposite.

So ultimately, at the end of the day, I'm inclined to vote yes.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Councilmember Allen.

Uh, thank you, madam mayor.

I just want to provide some additional comments based off of me seconding this motion.

Um I have wrestled with this and been thinking about 46 different scenarios of what happens if we take the settlement versus if we don't, and we attempt to litigate.

And there's so many factors for me when it came to potentially us fighting the good fight and litigating.

One is that civic pride that my colleagues spoke about being a proud Peorian.

I want Peoria to have the best of the best.

I am very excited about the possibility of the casino coming to the city of Peoria.

We were all excited.

Those of us around this horseshoe, our constituents, of what that could mean.

I also thought of the nostalgia of it being able to, you know, that previous council in the 90s, they made a decision to let it go across the river, and somehow we had a chance to uh undo history, if you will.

Um, and that was very uh exciting to me.

Um then also the the friendly rivalry that we have with our our partners over in East Peoria, and um kudos to them for the development that they've been able to occur over the last decade, decade and a half.

Um, but also too, there's a rivalry there.

Um, and I understand that, and you all understand it as well, too.

Uh I felt it last year when Best Buy made a decision to go over to East Peoria, and although certain people hadn't been to Best Buy since they bought their iPod shuffle, they were very upset that Best Buy went across the river to East Peoria because perception is reality, and it was an illustration that man, we lost something else in the city of Peoria, and it went to East Peoria.

And and that was and that was the reality of the situation, and I accept that and I understand why our constituents want us to fight for this.

They want us to get the win.

But then when it came back to the benefits of the settlement, us having a guaranteed revenue stream without raising any new taxes, any new fees, the same concerns that we have forecasted, uh, unfunded pension mandates, us looking at infrastructure challenges, us creating a revenue stream to support additional economic development opportunities, the challenges that we have within our social service net currently, what we can do to support so many different initiatives with a new guaranteed revenue stream, which we know in this period of uncertainty with state and federal funds will be a game changer for our local municipality.

And I don't see this as us being you know undecisive or not wanting to fight the good fight, but I see us being in exercising a fiduciary responsibility to our constituents.

The cost of litigation and to come up empty-handed is something that I struggle with.

And although I want us to come out on top and I want us to fight the good fight, I would rather us have something to show for it.

And I believe there are a lot of constituents that would want us to do the same.

So we have a opportunity and challenge in front of us to do something to show our constituents that we are going to get a win for them.

And I believe that this is the win.

Um we have been privileged to previous offers and where we started and where we are right now, um, is a game changer, honestly.

And I and that's to the kudos of all the the parties involved.

So I'll conclude my remarks, but ultimately I will again I second the motion, so I will be supporting it tonight.

But again, I understand the different nuances that we all talked about, and this is not an easy discussion and a decision before us tonight.

Um, and so we'll see how the chips fall tonight.

No point intended with another gambling analogy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

Member Carmona.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you to all my colleagues.

I respect your opinion.

Uh it's all very logical, and I absolutely understand why.

But um, I'd like to just make a few remarks about the way we're thinking.

And we're thinking in worst case scenarios, which don't happen very often.

Boyd does not want this to go to the Supreme Court.

The way we don't want this to go to the Supreme Court.

What I propose is that with all of us understanding that this is not coming here, that we go back to Boyd and say, hey, we're willing to wheel and deal with you.

But you gotta Councilman Oiler's point, these peanuts you're offering us, it's gotta be more.

To risk taxpayer taxpayer dollars to, for example, buy property in the downtown area and spend over a million dollars to do that.

And we're over here thinking about worst case scenarios about spending around a million dollars to get this litigated to prove that we are right.

But I think it's important for us to stand up and to get more out of this deal than what we're getting now.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome.

I do have to say that these are not crumbs and these are not peanuts.

We're talking about a hundred, excuse me, one point eight million dollars a year indefinitely for the life of this casino.

Over 25 years, that's almost 50 million dollars.

That's not crumbs, and that's not peanuts.

With the loss.

The nays are Valpula, Kelly, Ringbach, Euler, Carmona.

Okay.

I'm disappointed.

It's a rare, this was a rare opportunity for us.

Madam Clerk.

We are at citizens opportunity to address the city council.

We have not received any cards, so then we would be at executive session.

Okay.

I would like to invite a motion to adjourn and to convene and close session immediately following adjournment of the city council meeting pursuant to the open meetings act five ILCS 122C11 to discuss pending litigation or probable or imminent litigation and pursuant to the open meetings act five ILCS 120 2C 21 for approval by the body of closed session minutes.

I get a motion moved uh by council member uh Gordon Young, seconded by council member Allen.

Please cash your ballots.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you for your service.