City Council - Regular Meeting

Hi Chief. Fine. How are you doing? Do I have roll calls?

Okay.

Yeah. Good evening everyone. It is 6:03 p.m. on Monday, February the 2nd, 2026. I'd like to welcome everyone to the special meeting of the Peoria City Council. Madame Clerk, please call the role. Mayor Ali,

here. Council member Allen, present. Council member Carmona, here. Council member Seir. Council member Gordon Young, present. Council member Jackson, here. Council member Kelly here. Council member Oiler here. Council member Rianbach here. Council member Velpula present. And council member Vespa here. We have a quorum present. Madame Mayor. Thank you.

Everyone please join me and stand for a moment of silent prayer or silent reflection followed by the pledge of allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nationy and justice for all. Madame clerk, we have one item. 26-40 is a communication from the city manager and corporation council with request to approve a settlement agreement with Paradise Gaming Corporation regarding the redevelopment plan pending before the Illinois Gaming Board. 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 Poria regarding um shared revenues for riverboat gaming in the Poria area. That agreement had a couple of terms that seemed simple on their face. That riverboat gaming would be conducted on a riverboat in docked in East Poria and that any land-based gaming in the future would be in the city of Poria. Um, Paradise Gaming Corporation uh presented a plan to the Illinois Gaming Board on December uh 11th, 2025 that included a plan to do what in the city's view at the time was a a facility that was not supported under the law, was not a riverboat, uh, and was in fact a land-based casino cited in East Pure. Boria. We articulated those concerns to the Illinois Gaming Board in subsequent um correspondence uh on December 20th, 2025, and the parties engaged in discussions about a potential settlement agreement, which is the agreement that's before you today. Should the city council approve this agreement, then the city would withdraw its formal objections to the December 11th Boyd redevelopment plan. Um the city would uh then support that redevelopment plan. Um the um uh settlement agreement 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. Um the um city would no longer contest if this agreement is approved the uh paradise uh position that the redevelopment plan satisfies the gaming act. 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. Um the agreement goes on to provide that uh 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. Um, 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, um, the corporation would pay directly to the city of Peoria, 2.25% or two and one quarter% of the adjusted gross revenues generated at the property and reported to the Illinois Gaming Board. Um, those settlement payments are carefully crafted to be consideration for the settlement of disputed and unadjuted claims that the city asserted it would otherwise be entitled to in the form of nondirect revenues uh that are not derived from gambling should a land-based casino have been located in Poria. Um they are not cons 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 Poria or otherwise. The reference to adjusted gross revenues solely a neutral measure measurement mechanism and such payments shall not be characterized as gaming related

revenues. Uh the city would acknowledge that uh upon execution of this agreement that all matters raised in the city's letter would be deemed moot. Um in addition to those uh requirements, the city's required to provide a supportive statement at the Illinois Gaming Board meeting on on um February the 5th. Um 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. Um, the council was provided a draft of this agreement. Other than filling in the names of all the parties, the only other change is 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. The city would further agree to not in the future obstruct, contest, or cont or challenged the redevelopment plan in any way for any reason, in any form or body under applicable law existing now or at any time in the future. Um, the agreement is specific to and applies only to this redevelopment plan. doesn't apply to any any other plan in the future. For instance, if 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. Um, 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 and effective immediately and

would be of no further effect. Um the agreement would be binding on all assignees, successors or transferresees of the Paradise and the city of Paradise Gaming Corporation and the city of Poria. Any transfer directly or indirectly 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 5th. Um the city would agree in this agreement to jurisdiction of any disputes under this agreement to be uh jurisdiction in the um the US 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. Um um I 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 of whether to approve this agreement or not and I'd be h 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 on the 5th. And that agenda includes an action item uh owners and organization gaming license items. Final consideration Paradise Gaming Corporation doing businesses 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 and so uh 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 and the special meeting here is related solely to those conditions of this agreement that uh Boyd has placed us on 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 um 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. So, 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 corporation council. Uh council 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 Poria over video gaming revenue? uh East Poria asserted that at different times during our discussions that uh they felt that our intergovernmental agreement implicates the video gaming revenues that the city of Poria 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 Poria 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 um at this time. Uh, 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 rede development 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, uh, 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 further agreed later in the organization or or in the um document um 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. Um, the city further waves any right to ch um 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 We've agreed um 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 waved 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 satisfactory economic benefit from the redevelopment plan and that we are therefore supportive of the redevelopment plan. We've also unconditionally released any and all claims, causes action, demands, damages, rights, liabilities, and objections, whether based on statutory law, Illinois

gaming or other regulations, the intergovernmental agreement, legislative intent, or any other legal basis or theory law that we may have have or now now or in the future against the corporation, its affiliates, representatives, or any other party related to the redevelopment plan. Um, we further agreed that the city of East Poria is deemed a third party beneficiary of this agreement solely with respect to any claims directly related to 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. And then there's some examples of that. Um Now we've agreed to that this is binding on the assigne successors or transferes of the city specific to your question. And 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.

Uh 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 fair 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, um I told uh the other party to expect that there would be opposition to this from our council and that 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 um demand we were making of Boyd and Paradise were the funding for that was to come directly from Boyd and not from our um partner entity East Poria. Mhm.

We were careful to never suggest that East Poria'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 Poria 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 Poria has received for 35 years from the Paradise's 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 uh compensation relate to those types of revenues that the city of Poria would have received if a landbased casino was located here. It's our position that those wouldn't be subject to that revenue split either, just like East Poria's 35 years of revenues of similar ilk are not subject to that agreement.

Right. Okay. Thank you, Ar. And and to take that further with the IG, the intergovernment agreement, it still remains that should the gaming board get a proposal for landbased gaming from Boyd or any other entity that's wants to set up in East Poria. That agreement says that it's still it 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 and our intergovernmental agreement that would be in Poria. If that would occur, that 50/50 split of gaming revenues would still apply. Okay. So East Poria would receive half the gaming revenues from a land-based casino in Poria.

Right? So the confusion comes in with regard to the definition of landbased gaming here. The gaming board has the position that the proposal that Boyd has put forth is not landbased 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 a landbased 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 landbased 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 and that's one of the compelling reasons why we're suggesting this settlement agreement.

Okay. And in regard to the settlement of 2 25% 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 um 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 and it's clearly more than just would be generated from the casino itself. Uh we've been clear with Boyd on that issue. Um and uh 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's been doing for the last few years. With an expanded gaming floor and a larger u 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 Poria and Poria through the existing uh tax mechanism and intergovernmental agreement and to the city of Poria 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 agreement's binding on assignees successors or transferes 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. Council member Vespa, I'll try and get your light on. There we go.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Excuse me. Uh, Council Hayes, um, so 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 um that um there's a significant risk that the board would approved'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 appellet courts in the state of Illinois would take that up.

Okay. And it would likely go to the Supreme Court from the appellet 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 Kurtiari 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 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 app of pallet work would be some significantly less because it's a a lesser uh degree of attorney time and talent. Uh but certainly um $100,000 or so for uh the appellet work to the um at the first appellet 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 appellet court was likely to take a year to 18 months and 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, so say this casino would have been built or would be built in Poria, um, uh, at a price tag of $160 million. 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% 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 if we were to play that out? No. I I think what you're going to see in East Poria if if the taxes that are paid Okay. So obviously comp rooms don't collect taxes. Correct. Okay. Um no further questions. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Welcome, Council Member Allen.

Uh thank you, Madame 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, Madame 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 I also want to acknowledge, I know that, rightfully so, the the public uh has expressed some some frustration just because 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 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 give put that in a dollar amount based off of the estimated values of what that additional revenue stream would be for us? Yeah, I'd mentioned in response to the mayor's question that if the the casino for the last few years has averaged about $60 million 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's 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 on an annual basis. So the 2.25% 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 an 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 Poria and for again for the listening public um in 2023 it was a little over $1.6 million and as most recent in 25 it was a little over $1.7 million. 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 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 in 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 certainly a a budget and policy decision for this council to make. And I think there's no secret there is no shortage of needs currently when we think about uh the challenges that we currently have and 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 landbased casino in the city of Peoria, we would look at some type of financial incentive u 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 landbased casino? Do you for foresee any foreseeable future?

I I don't think we'd have to to go that far towards looking at us, you know, frontloading any kind of of funds to do that. I mean, we are talking about a um a large corporation that should be able to 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 on a hund some 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 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 um involved with the gaming board now for a little over a year in this space. Um, for those who may have the question on um, if this casino stays in East Peoria, how come the city of Peoria can't just rec recruit a new casino to the city of Peoria and we can get our own landbased 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 the the local market would not support another casino on par with the existing facility. Um, so 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 Poria Casino at another casino in Poria 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 a 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, um there 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'd be support for um a similar facility um in in in the Pure area. The market just isn't robust enough for that. Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Madame Mayor. That's all for now.

You're welcome. Council member Carmona. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Just so everybody listening in and all of my colleagues understand that this is an unfortunate example of the judicial system um either working to uphold the law or to manipulate the law. And it's unfortunate because to say that putting a $1,000 uh or sorry thousandgalon 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 onland structure as a riverboat 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 um with these non-direct revenues uh since this passed, since our agreement was passed with East Poria, uh with property taxes, sales taxes, food and beverage, amusement tax, and all these other taxes. Um, now my own opinion about this, which is not generated through a motion, but through actual fact that's been explained to us in close 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, and

there certainly is risk um, 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 going to do whatever they have to do. not to bring the casino to Poria. Council Hayes, I do want to tell you thank you very much for all the work that you and your staff have done um 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. Um, because I do think that Boyd would be willing to work with us to have a better set settlement agreement. And for that reason, Madame Mayor, I'm not going to support this motion.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. You're welcome. Council member Gordon Young.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, I I think Council Member Allen has my notes because just about every question I had you you asked. So, I'm going to go in a different direction. In the event, and this is for corporation council, 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 what would you say would be the estimated cost of continuing litigation? Uh the trial level work plus all the appellet work previously indicated would be um six figures approaching seven figures for the trial level work.

Okay. I do I do recall saying that. And then some additional amount for appellet work at about you know roughly $100,000 per episode um to get through the appellet 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 Poria that the successful party's able to uh pro uh require the other party to satisfy their fees. So if we litigated and didn't prevail, we might have to pay East Poria's litigation costs. 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, 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? Seconded by Council Member Allen. Continued discussion. Council member Kelly.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, Mr. Corporation Council. I'd like to follow up with uh uh Councilman Oilers'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 write them up for us? Either one that I think that's very important. I I understand. We can kind of say what we want here, but uh u 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's 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 privilege 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 uh 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. Th

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Um uh I am in favor of uh uh fighting this uh fighting this out. I uh we for 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, you would come out with a a different idea of what's going on than what is actually going on. Um, okay. I and 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 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, uh, I would like to ask a question either Madame Mayor or Mr. uh, 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.

Um, 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? Well, that was already presented to the gaming board on December 20th. Okay. I I'm sorry I misunderstood mis

the mayor's statement uh if we don't engage in the in the settlement agreement then the mayor's statement issue is 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 okay it won't be that okay okay thank you

yeah thank you um it it seems to me that As uh Councilman Carmona said, we're in the right on this and long-term we stand to gain significantly uh uh from uh just following the uh English language uh on these two uh documents. Um, so while there's a risk, I'm I'm suggesting we take a risk. Um, and if we say no, um, 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. Void 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. Um, it's risky, 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. Um, so for for our citizens and for our long the long-term growth in our city. Uh, so thank you, Madame Mayor.

You're welcome.

I want to say something about fighting. Uh, 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 in 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 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. That's the closest that we're going to get to a win. 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 We have to capture some opportunity to help build up Peoria, and this is that

opportunity. It's not tomorrow, 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 2 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 that gives us control over a guaranteed revenue source. It doesn't come our way very often. 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 made their investment in East Poria. 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. So what does a win look like? Even if we go to court, spend millions of dollars, spend years, even if we win, what does that look like? It doesn't get us a 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. It just means we were right. That's not a win for me. I'm I'm a fighter, but I want to win. I want to win. And I We need the money. And I It's not cap 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 the state legislator state legislature that's gonna turn this around in this time that we need it which is right now.

Not yet because somebody else is we going to respond to everybody who has opinion or

you'll 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 Honey, this is that opportunity and it's it's not tomorrow. It's right now.

Council member Reagan.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Thank you, um, Corporation Council Hayes for your incredible work on this. um lot 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 um were able to successfully pass a state law that codified part of the intergovernmental agreement regarding land-based casinos um with this particular license. And it was something interesting but the what impact that would have and the significance of it I think was really um something that we didn't see for another five years. So as as Boyd began talking about their expansion, the intergovernmental agreement um came to the four once again and it clearly says in article five or paragraph five, all riverboat casino operations shall be docked in East Poria. followed by paragraph six which equally clearly says all landbased casino operations shall be in Poria. What's so difficult to understand? If you are buying a casino and boy does the second owner of the paradise, let's not forget that they they bought it after the intergovernmental agreement was put in place. If they didn't realize the covenants that are involved with

that, that's that's on them, not on us. So, so for them to feain 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 I just am flabbergasted that this is such a point of contention. You know, I I'm I'm old-fashioned perhaps, but I just wish we could go back to the day when the laws of the land this 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 riverboat actually floats on a river and that's undisputable. And and that's all I have, Madame Mayor.

Okay. Council member Oh, sorry. Council member Jackson, then council member Ola. 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 am I 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 um on any given year over the last few years there's been somewhere between$ 1.6 6 to2 million 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, Madame Mayor. You're welcome. Council member Oiler.

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 going to 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. The challenge is is that we're dealing with bad actors here on the other side in in terms of Boyd Gaming who come up with a completely ridiculous conclusion that putting something over a water tank makes it waterbased rather than landbased. And it really flies in the face of a 30 plus year contractual agreement that we have as a city and a 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 res, 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 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 100red years ago and every 5 years we have the right to re-evaluate 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 going to make my decision to not settle at this point. I I think that it sets the wrong precedents 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 waterbased just to get out of our agreement with them. So I'll be voting no. Thank you.

You're welcome. Council member Velpula.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Corporation council, I have I have one question which I wanted to ask you. All this time we were debating about how much it cost to litigate and all, but for a common man, I'm not li I I don't know law 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. That's um folks at Taft, Kimberly Cop, and and Caesar Freighic. In response to that question, they said, "Look, there's a very significant likelihood that the city of Poria could successfully challenge this proposal."

Can you repeat it one more time? There's a significant chance that the city of Poria could successfully char 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 Poria 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 riverboat, doing uh installation which with what are called permanently mored 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 Glambbased 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 that. 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, u this is why this recommendation's coming forward is that it's not as if we won in a challenge to this development agreement that there'd be a landbased casino in Pory. In fact, it's 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 the 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 Poria. 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 and make any kind of application to the gaming board about what they might not do next or perhaps do nothing. So, does that mean Boyd will still be operating on a riverboard casino?

Well, Boy, 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 de 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 mored barge barges either of which would in under our intergovernmental agreement be basically status quo or do a landbased casino. If they did a land-based casino, then uh other than the one that they've proposed anywhere else, it'd have to be in the city of Poria. 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 Puria because we are in a litigation or it is uh it's going to 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 Poria 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 Poria. I think there's a very small chance of that negative outcome. So, this was the intergovernmental agreement made in 1991, correct? Yes.

When Boyd when they make the choice did they first come to Poria or they went to Illinois giving board because it's a trust issue I'm just looking at that as well did they did did they reach us as as a trusted partner or they went to Illinois gaming board and from there the entire process came back to Poria

Boyd met with the city of Poria back in 2019 and met uh 2020 I'm sorry 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 and 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 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 a it's a gaming thing. what happens at that point of time for us.

So, I just want to indicate that Boyd has um 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 riverboat on the Illinois River or a landbased casino in Poria and a new gaming entity would have those options to pursue that as they chose. I'm going to 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 Puria 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, and 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 uh 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 riverboat for decades and they're taking advantage of that uncertainty in this episode. Now 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're going to make one more but the to the listening audience and the people of Puria do so we are it is proving that we are so vulnerable for anybody who is going to pressurize us to do what they want because it's a so then what is the point of so for the past 30 years Puria and East Puria I mean I'm not here 30 years before but I would I the moment I walked into the city they were telling that puria 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 agree with everybody on the council. Everybody wants to make the city of Puria in a you know they wanted to help the city of Puria. 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 is 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 my thought process is 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 Poria. It's not that I gamble. I don't gamble. But what I'm really looking at is the revenue, the kind of um de 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 is what are our repercussions if we take this fight? I mean it's 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 going to see this level of revenue coming to the city of Poria. Arguably, even if there was a land-based casino, as the mayor points out, in the city of Poria, 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 Poria. So that's sort of the worstc 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 Poria and no additional economic development in Poria and no revenue coming to Poria beyond what we're statutoily and through the intergovernmental agreement appreciating right now. So these are the matters that are compelling me to recommend the council seriously consider this settlement agreement as the best possible outcome. Thank you.

Thank you corporation council. Thank you madam mayor.

You're welcome councilman. I had that same question uh 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 suing Boy Gaming and probably East Poria. Who who would we be suing? Council Hayes, explain who we're suing.

Um those are the parties that 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. I just want to um remind everyone that this settlement agreement does not take the place of the the IGA, the intergovernment agreement. It still stands stands like it is. Um, it's this whole definition of what is a landbased gaming casino. Continued discussion. Council member Gordon Young. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, Council Member Jackson um 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 of course we would have have to have a policy session but the potential to fill some gaps more specifically pension obligations unhoused populations, our mental health um needs. 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, Council Member Vespa.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um so, I just want to be clearey 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. So 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 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. If we assume a $160 million development like what is proposed in East Poria, the equalized assessed value would be $53 million. 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 where we have some other uh some other incentives. Um so it's it's generous to think of 108 or um $800,000. Uh gaining the annual $1.8 $8 million 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'd 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, some have raised concerns about the loss 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 Poria. While we are not board members of these organizations, most of our residents do pay taxes of 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 a 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 Poria 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 Poria 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 um those tourists. The city might end up with less revenue than the annual $1.8 million after it's all up and running. $1.8 million 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, and is not consistent with our original intergovernmental agreement or the law or the intent behind the drafting of either. But I mean you you have to have a price for everything. We're going to accept some 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. um by nature. Um so 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 get 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. Council member Allen.

Uh, thank you, Madame Mayor. I just want to provide some additional comments based off 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. Um, and there's so many factors for me when it came to potentially us fighting the good fight and litigating. Uh, one is that civic pride that my colleagues spoke about. Uh, being a proud Peorian. Um, I want Peoria to to have the best of the best. I am was very excited about the possibility of the casino coming to the city of Peoria. Um, we were all excited. Um, those of us around this horseshoe, our constituents of of what that could mean. Um, I also thought of the nostalgia of it being able to um, you know, that previous council in the 90s, they made the 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 exciting to me. Um, and then also the the friendly rivalry that we have with our our partners over in East Poran. Um, kudos to them for the development that they've been able to cure 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 the decision to go over to East Pori. 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 Poria 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, 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 gamecher 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 an 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, um, we have a opportunity and challenge in front of us, uh, 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 all 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 pun 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. Boy 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 got to to Councilman Oiler's point, these peanuts you're offering us, it's got to be more. I don't want litigation for our city and I don't want it for Boyd and nobody wants it." The last thing that I want to say too about risk is I'm a fan of as you all know principles and consistency 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. I don't want this to be litigated like all of us. 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 hundred, excuse me, $1.8 million a year indefinitely for the life of this casino over 25 years. That's almost $50 million. That's not crumbs and that's not peanuts. I don't want to break our community's heart with the loss. I want to give our community this win. We don't have any more discussion. Uh we have a motion on the floor. We have a second on the floor. And this is to approve the uh proposed settlement agreement. So please cast your ballots. Motion fails with five yays and five nays. The names are Velpula, Kelly, Ringbach, Oiler, Carmona. I can't help but to say I'm

disappointed. It's a rare This was a rare opportunity for us.

Madame 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 adjurnn and to convene and close session immediately following adjournment of the city council meeting pursuant to the open meetings act 5c 122C 111 to discuss pending litigation or probable or imminent litigation and pursuant to the open meetings act 5c 122c21 for approval by the body of close session minutes. I get a motion moved uh by council member uh Gordon Young, seconded by council member Allen. Please cast your ballots. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for your service.