EMMETSBURG — Casinos in Iowa increasingly are local attractions and not destinations, bolstering the potential of how much new money a downtown Cedar Rapids casino could generate for the state, a market consultant told state gambling regulators meeting here Thursday.

Brent Wittenberg, vice president for Minneapolis-based Marquette Advisors, told the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission that participation rates have peaked with the exception of local markets where new casino development or expansion has occurred.

“The drawing power of Iowa casinos is increasingly local,” he said.

“We anticipate this to be a much more localized customer base even compared to where we were three years ago. This is really the trend in Iowa today. We expect far fewer customers from 45 minutes and beyond.” - Brent Wittenberg Marquette Advisors vice president On studying the market impact of a proposed Cedar Rapids casino

The five-member commission is tasked with deciding whether Cedar Rapids gets a casino license and — if so — which of three proposals it accepts. That decision is expected Nov. 15.

Thursday, the regulators heard from Marquette and WhiteSand Gaming of Atlantic City, which both studied the potential market impact of the three options:

l The $40 million Wild Rose Cedar Rapids next to the Skogman Building on First Avenue SE with 15 to 20 table games and 600 to 700 slot machines;

l The $105 million Cedar Crossing Central attached to the DoubleTree Hotel on First Avenue NE with 15 table games and 550 slot machines;

l The $165 million Cedar Crossing on the River on vacant land at First Avenue and First Street SW with 30 table games and 840 slot machines.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The commission in 2014 rejected an application virtually identical to Cedar Crossing on the River by a 4-1 vote, citing market study predictions of taking away too much share from other casinos, notably the Riverside Casino & Golf Resort.

Commissioners probed why Marquette’s projections changed so much since 2014, when it also studied the market impact for Cedar Crossing and Wild Rose Jefferson, which was ultimately approved.

In 2014, Marquette concluded a Cedar Crossing would generate $81 million in adjusted gross revenue by 2017, including $59 million or 73 percent from cannibalizing business from others.

By comparison, the new report predicts Cedar Crossing on the River would generate $47 million in new gambling revenue by 2022, while the other 45 percent of its revenue would come from existing casinos.

The two smaller proposals — Cedar Crossing Central and Wild Rose Cedar Rapids — would generate $25 and $23 million, respectively, and cannibalize 56 percent each from other casinos.

Wittenberg explained the difference by saying contemporary data analysis helps show they underestimated the rate of local participation.

Linn County residents visit casinos 3.5 times per person per year, while residents in communities already with casinos — including Dubuque (12 times a year), Waterloo (7.5 times per year), Davenport/Bettendorf (7.5 times per year) and Council Bluffs/Omaha (5.9 times per year) — gamble more frequently.

Marquette upped its prediction to a “reasonable” six times per year per Linn County resident, and reduced the effect of cannibalization, which changed the outlook, Wittenberg said.

“We anticipate this to be a much more localized customer base even compared to where we were three years ago,” he said. “This is really the trend in Iowa today. We expect far fewer customers from 45 minutes and beyond.”

WhiteSand, on the other hand, had a dour outlook for the potential for drawing new customers. Its report found the three proposals overstated annual revenue projections by 13 to 42 percent; none would generate more than $6.8 million in new gambling revenue for the state, it found, and each would cannibalize at least 89 percent from surrounding casinos.

Jim Nickerson, WhiteSand vice president, pointed to recent case studies of new casinos built in Kansas and upstate New York where revenue predictions were overstated in some cases by twice as much as what has come to fruition.

The greater discretionary income in urban areas is offset by more entertainment options, and people are less likely to fight traffic to attend the casino, he said.

Meanwhile, the casino proposals don’t include a hotel, which would help keep people in town longer, he said.

Iowa has 19 casinos, which covers much of the state. The novelty has worn off, he said.

“People say they will come more times and spend more money, but there’s a fixed budget people are going to spend on entertainment,” he said. “We don’t see that expanding.”

The would-be casino developers were critical of the WhiteSand study.

“Somebody tell me where that has happened anywhere,” said Tom Timmons, chief operating officer and president of Wild Rose Entertainment. “You could build a casino across the street (from another casino) and you wouldn’t have 90 percent cannibalization.”

Timmons pointed to the impact of other recent casinos, including Rhythm City in Davenport and its impact on nearby Wild Rose Clinton being less than predicted. Wild Rose Jefferson similarly has had less impact than expected on other casinos, including Prairie Meadows in Altoona.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

A new casino can cause a dip for surrounding casinos, but the data shows those numbers bounce back, he said.

Jonathan Swain, an official with the Cedar Crossing proposals, noted the gap between the two studies, and credited Marquette as having experience in the Iowa market while WhiteSand does not. The tone of questions from commissioners were pretty positive, he said.

“We’ve been talking about this as an opportunity rather than a threat,” he said. “Cedar Rapids has one of the lowest participation rates of anywhere in the state and it’s the second largest market.”

Jeff Lamberti, a commissioner from Ankeny, posed the most questions during the meeting. He considered the WhiteSand study “wildly different” from previous studies and “significantly pessimistic.”

“We’ve never seen this in Iowa, so the question will be whether this is new evidence,” he said.

Richard Arnold, commission chairman from Russell, said the Marquette study is “more in the ballpark” of how he sees the market, but said he doesn’t know how he will vote in November.

Dolores Mertz, a commissioner from Algona, told the consultants she believe the agricultural economy plays a big factor in the ups and downs of casinos, and questioned whether that was considered.

“When farmers have money, they spend money,” she said. “When they don’t, they don’t.”

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The market studies are not particularly an important factor as she considers a license, she said. She was the lone vote in favor of a Cedar Rapids casino in 2014, and appears to be in favor again.

“The second largest city in the state deserves something,” Mertz said, adding she thinks it will come down to the two smaller casino plans.