OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Peoria City Council Special Meeting - February 3, 2026: Settlement Agreement with Boyd Gaming Discussed and Rejected

City Council Meetings — Tuesday, February 3, 2026
BodyPeoria, Illinois
SessionCity Council Meetings
DateTuesday, February 3, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:38:36

Transcript — Verbatim
0:18

Hi Chief.

0:21

Fine, how are you doing?

0:59

Do I have roll calls?

1:01

They're on your under your staff.

1:03

Okay.

1:04

Thank you.

1:39

Good evening, everyone.

1:41

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

1:49

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

1:55

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

1:58

Mayor Ali here.

2:00

Councilmember Allen.

2:01

Present.

2:02

Councilmember Carmona.

2:03

Here.

2:04

Councilmember Sear.

2:05

Councilmember Gordon Young.

2:07

Present.

2:08

Councilmember Jackson.

2:09

Here.

2:10

Councilmember Kelly.

2:11

Here.

2:12

Councilmember Euler.

2:13

Here.

2:14

Councilmember Regenbach?

2:15

Here.

2:16

Councilmember Valpula?

2:17

President.

2:18

And Councilmember Vespa.

2:19

Here.

2:20

We have a quorum present, Madam Mayor.

2:22

Thank you.

2:32

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

3:16

Madam Clerk.

3:34

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

3:40

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

3:42

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.

5:00

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

5:12

The city would then support that redevelopment plan.

5:21

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

5:28

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

5:52

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.

6:03

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.

6:20

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.

6:46

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.

7:09

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.

7:42

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

7:54

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

8:00

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

8:08

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

8:13

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.

8:25

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

8:53

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

8:56

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.

9:10

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.

9:39

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.

9:51

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

10:00

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.

10:07

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

10:12

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.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Pending Litigation█████████████████████████████████████████████48%
Economic Development████████████████████████████████████████43%
Procedural████4%
Public Safety███3%
Budget Equity Analysis██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Peoria City Council Special Meeting - February 3, 2026

On February 3, 2026, the Peoria City Council held a special meeting at 6:03 PM to consider a settlement agreement with Boyd Gaming, the parent corporation of Paradise Gaming, regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Paradise Hotel Casino in East Peoria. The agreement would have resolved the city's objections to the redevelopment plan in exchange for an annual payment of 2.25% of adjusted gross gaming revenues, estimated at $1.35 million to $1.8 million per year. After extensive discussion, the council voted 5–5, with the motion failing due to five negative votes, meaning the settlement was not approved.

Discussion Items

Corporation Counsel Patrick Hayes presented the settlement agreement, explaining that it would withdraw the city's formal objections to Boyd's redevelopment plan, which the Illinois Gaming Board was set to consider on February 5, 2026. The agreement would provide Peoria with 2.25% of adjusted gross revenues (approximately $1.35 million at current casino revenues of $60 million/year, or $1.8 million at an estimated $80 million/year after expansion) in perpetuity. These payments were designed as compensation for indirect revenues the city would have received from a land-based casino in Peoria, such as property and hotel taxes. The agreement also required the city to provide a supportive statement at the Gaming Board meeting and waived all future legal challenges to the redevelopment plan. However, the agreement would terminate if the Gaming Board did not approve the plan, and it would not apply to any future redevelopment proposals.

Council members debated the merits of the settlement versus litigation. Key points included:

  • Councilmember Allen (seconded the motion) emphasized the guaranteed revenue stream without new taxes, which could address pension obligations, infrastructure, and social services. He acknowledged the civic pride in fighting for a land-based casino in Peoria but noted that Boyd Gaming has repeatedly stated it will not move to Peoria, and litigation could cost over $1 million with uncertain outcomes.
  • Councilmember Carmona argued that the settlement was inadequate and that the city should litigate, citing the strength of the 1991 intergovernmental agreement (IGA) and Illinois law. He called the settlement "peanuts" and urged negotiating for a better deal.
  • Councilmember Euler stated he would vote no, calling the redevelopment plan a "ridiculous" manipulation of the law (using a water tank to claim a land-based structure is a riverboat) and warning that accepting the settlement would set a bad precedent for contracts.
  • Councilmember Kelly supported litigation, arguing that the plain language of the IGA and state statute should prevail and that the city should fight for the long-term benefits of a casino in Peoria.
  • Councilmember Vespa favored the settlement, noting that even if the city won in court, Boyd could still avoid building a land-based casino in Peoria, and the guaranteed $1.8 million/year was more than the likely property tax revenue from a Peoria casino (estimated at $800,000/year). He also highlighted the avoidance of crime and litigation costs.
  • Councilmember Gordon Young supported the settlement, citing the need for additional revenue to fill gaps in the city budget, including social services and infrastructure.
  • Councilmember Valpula expressed frustration with corporate behavior and questioned the city's vulnerability, but ultimately voted against the motion.
  • Councilmember Ringbach emphasized the clarity of the IGA and state law, arguing that the city should not capitulate.

Corporation Counsel Hayes provided additional context: litigation would likely cost six to seven figures for trial and additional amounts for appeals, with a potential timeline of 2–3 years. Even if the city won, Boyd could choose to renovate the existing riverboat or build a permanently moored barge, which would not bring gaming to Peoria. The Gaming Board had indicated it would not force Boyd to relocate.

Key Outcomes

  • The motion to approve the settlement agreement with Boyd Gaming failed on a vote of 5–5. Councilmembers Carmona, Euler, Kelly, Ringbach, and Valpula voted against the motion. The remaining councilmembers (Allen, Gordon Young, Vespa, Jackson, and Sear) voted in favor.
  • The council then voted unanimously to adjourn the public meeting and convene in closed session to discuss pending litigation and closed session minutes.
  • The city will not present a supportive statement at the February 5 Gaming Board meeting, and the settlement agreement is void. The city may pursue litigation or other options to challenge the redevelopment plan.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com