Cedar Rapids Casino Verdict Forthcoming as Riverside Fights Development

Posted on: February 19, 2025, 10:54h. 

Last updated on: February 19, 2025, 11:02h.

  • A casino in Iowa’s Cedar Rapids was approved earlier this month
  • A competitor casino elsewhere in Iowa is fighting the Cedar Rapids development
  • State officials believe the Cedar Rapids casino was lawfully approved

The Cedar Rapids casino project greenlit by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (IRGC) earlier this month continues to face a legal challenge from a would-be competitor.

Cedar Rapids casino Iowa Riverside
Deborah G. poses for a photo at Riverside Casino & Golf Resort after winning a Gold Jackpots win. Riverside attorneys are fighting the decision by Iowa gaming regulators to allow a casino in nearby Cedar Rapids. (Image: Riverside Casino & Golf Resort)

Attorneys with Iowa-based Elite Casino Resorts and the company’s Riverside Casino & Golf Resort contend that the state gaming regulator erred in approving a $275 million casino application for Cedar Rapids called Cedar Crossing. A petition for judicial review filed in Washington County District Court alleges that the IRGC shouldn’t have endorsed the project.

Elite attorneys argue that a 2021 local referendum in Linn County did not authorize casino gambling but only extended conditions of a 2013 referendum outcome. They additionally claim that state gaming regulators didn’t adequately consider the detrimental effects a casino in Cedar Rapids will have on current gaming properties, specifically Riverside.

The complaint says the IRGC is supposed to consider “all the factors it normally does, including but not limited to community support, financing, gaming integrity, and possible detriment to other facilities.”

Court Date Set

The IRGC previously dismissed a similar motion for relief. IRGC Chair Daryl Olsen said the agency’s review, which was done in conjunction with the state attorney general’s staff, concluded that issuing the Cedar Crossing development team a gaming concession was appropriate.

The IRGC wrote in its motion to strike the Elite/Riverside petition that Attorney General Breanna Bird’s office found much of the plaintiffs’ claims to be “factually incorrect.” The agency’s response said the state AG determined that the 2021 Linn County referendum did indeed authorize slot machines, table games, and sports betting, and that the IRGC fairly considered all factors before granting the license.

In another motion to strike, attorneys with the Cedar Rapids Development Group, the development team behind the Cedar Crossing Casino, and its charitable arm, the Linn County Gaming Association, argued that Elite and Riverside are simply fighting competition.

This Affidavit, part of the one-sided record submitted by Riverside, is from an individual with a direct, financial interest in ensuring there are no competing casinos affecting Riverside,” the filing alleged.

This Friday, February 21, both sides of the matter are set to present their arguments before the Washington County District Court.

Riverside Drought? 

An independent study commissioned by the IRGC carried out by Marquette Advisors found that a casino in Cedar Rapids would result in a loss of approximately $34 million in Riverside gambling revenue for the fiscal year 2029.

Elite Casino Resort CFO Karlyn Ollendick said that would represent a 26% loss in gross gaming revenue (GGR) for the casino compared to its projected FY2029 revenue of roughly $130.8 million. Riverside in the 2024 fiscal year generated gross gaming revenue of approximately $129.2 million. In the year prior, Riverside GGR totaled $130 million.

The Cedar Crossing Casino & Entertainment Center blueprint includes a casino with 700 slots, 22 table games, and a sportsbook. Three restaurants highlighted by Iowa native Zach Johnson’s Clubhouse are additionally planned.

A 1,500-seat concert hall, an arts and cultural center, and a STEM Lab with a dedicated entrance are among what the developers say will benefit the community. The casino will also direct 8% of its gaming proceeds to charity, 5% more than the state-mandated 3%.