CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Cedar Rapids developers are making a third attempt to secure a casino license in 2021, hoping to launch a project called Cedar Crossing that would bring hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in new revenue, and an 8% profit share for local nonprofits—twice the percentage required by state law.
City developers have tried and failed twice before in 2014 and 2017, when the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) denied applications, citing fears of market oversaturation.
This time, supporters believe momentum is on their side. Voters in Linn County have overwhelmingly approved a second gambling referendum, and developers project that Cedar Crossing could capture money increasingly flowing out to neighboring states such as Nebraska, Illinois and Wisconsin.
However, three major hurdles still carry the potential to stall or seal Cedar Rapids’ casino bid.
First, Riverside Casino has filed a legal petition contesting the legitimacy of Linn County’s 2021 referendum authorizing gaming in the county. Second, lawmakers in Des Moines have begun proposing a new moratorium on casino licenses, this time until 2029—longer than a 2022 freeze that had already delayed Cedar Rapids’ plans.
Finally, the IRGC has scheduled a Feb. 6 final vote to decide whether Cedar Rapids would receive a license.
The Riverside Petition
Riverside Casino, located about 40 miles south of Cedar Rapids, stands to lose up to $34 million by fiscal year 2029 if Cedar Crossing opens, according to market studies commissioned by the IRGC. Riverside and the Washington County Riverboat Foundation argue in their petition that Linn County’s 2021 referendum had flawed verbiage for it asked voters to “continue” gambling, even though no gambling had existed in the county.
Riverside claimed that state law required a ballot measure to give voters the choice to “approve or defeat” gambling, not continue it. The petition insisted that the IRGC could not award a license based on a flawed referendum and that Cedar Rapids might need another vote.
Linn County Gaming Association President Anne Parmley described the petition as an effort to derail the plan at the last minute. She said she believes the referendum followed the same process used in other Iowa counties.
“Riverside says that the Linn County vote was not accurate in what was in the ballot. It was completely accurate, and Linn County supported gaming in their vote in the second referendum,” Parmley said. “How they went about it is not how you challenge an election legally. So it’s nothing more than really an attempt to delay the process.”
The IRGC set Jan. 23 for oral arguments to address Riverside’s petition. If the Commission sides with Riverside, Cedar Rapids could need another public measure, potentially pushing back the city’s timeline by years.
Linn County’s legal team argued in a brief submitted to the Commission that the challenge had little merit, given that the Commission had accepted the referendum and that the local electorate had approved gambling twice. Riverside countered that the language on the ballot failed to meet the statutory requirements of Iowa Code 99F.7(11).
A legislative moratorium
Republican lawmakers are now proposing a renewed casino moratorium that would halt any new licenses until 2029. GOP House Rep Bobby Kaufmann told Iowa’s News Now he expects the bill to advance through committees as early as the second week of the 2025 legislative session. The proposal echoes a 2022 moratorium that imposed a shorter two-year freeze on licenses, effectively blocking Cedar Rapids from securing approval then.
Parmley said she believes the timing was no coincidence, calling it partisan interference.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers have accepted sizable campaign contributions from established gaming interests. Elite PAC, associated with Riverside, has donated more than $1.5 million to legislators over the previous decade, according to state records.
“We’re not surprised that the legislature would insert themselves again,” Parmley said. “I think that some legislators are coming to realize that this is just not how the legislature should be spending their time. If they focus on the incremental revenue, then they’ll step aside and let the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission do what it’s appointed to do.”
Both IRGC-commissioned studies—one by Marquette Advisors and the other by The Innovation Group—projected substantial revenue for Cedar Crossing, estimating up to $118 million in annual adjusted gaming revenue by 2029. A significant portion would be “cannibalized” from nearby casinos, but the net increase to Iowa’s total gaming revenue would still be around $55 million to $60 million.
Those market studies also show that the recently opened Hard Rock Casino in Rockford, Illinois, has begun drawing patrons from Dubuque and Clinton. Additionally, a casino under construction in Beloit, Wisconsin, and the rapid expansion of Nebraska’s gaming industry, with four new casinos, are intensifying competition in the Midwest.
Casinos in Council Bluffs, located near the Nebraska border, have already reported revenue declines as Nebraska operators capture more local customers.
House Minority Leader and Democrat Jennifer Konfrst said the proposed moratorium was “never a partisan issue” but rather a matter of local interests, adding that her caucus would likely be split.
Governor Kim Reynolds had not committed to a position but had signed a previous moratorium-related bill in 2022.
Opponents of the renewed freeze, including Parmley, argue that a Cedar Rapids casino would create jobs, keep more money in Iowa, and help nonprofits.
The IRGC’s Decision
Overshadowing both the lawsuit and the legislative debate is the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission’s schedule. After hearing arguments on Jan. 23, the Commission plans to vote on whether Cedar Rapids would receive a license on Feb. 6.
If approved, the project could begin construction soon after.
Parmley said she believes the city of Cedar Rapids had gone without a casino for too long, while smaller locales had benefited from gambling revenue for decades.
She admitted that cannibalization is to be expected but maintained that the state needs to keep gaming dollars in Iowa and that it is the Commission’s duty to prioritize the welfare of the industry statewide.
“Iowa is losing gaming revenue across its borders and as that declines, we need a source of revenue in the state to offset that,” she said. “And 60 million in new revenue to the state from Cedar Crossing is a great way to do it.”
Cedar Crossing also promises an 8% profit share for local charities—a total of about $6.3 million each year. By comparison, Iowa law typically required a 4% charitable allocation.
Parmley called the higher rate a key advantage, noting that many nonprofits in the Linn County area serve multiple neighboring counties too. Developers say the project would create hundreds of construction and permanent jobs, attracting conventions and tourism that might otherwise bypass eastern Iowa.
Despite optimism, Parmley said she remembers the IRGC’s previous rejections in 2014 and 2017. She said she remains confident.
“We’ve invested a lot of time and energy, and we really think it’s the right thing to do,” she said, referencing the project’s tagline. “The time is now.”
0
20
20
