CEDAR RAPIDS — Heading into a vote Thursday, state regulators remain undecided about granting a gambling license for a Cedar Rapids downtown casino.

“I’ve talked to a couple of them, and I would say there are not sufficient votes either way,” said Jeff Lamberti, an Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission member from Ankeny. “It’s not fun and not an easy decision.”

Commission Chairman Richard Arnold, of Russell, said he’s still deciding. “No, I haven’t made up my mind yet — still listening to people’s comments and studying the reports,” he said.

Forecasted new and cannibalized revenues for proposed C.R. casinos Source: White Sands Gaming data. Chart by John McGlothlen / The Gazette

The five-member, governor-appointed commission plans to decide the fate of the three Cedar Rapids applications when it meets at 8:30 a.m. Thursday at the Diamond Jo Casino in Dubuque. A decision may come about 9:30 a.m.

On the table are the $40 million Wild Rose Cedar Rapids proposed for next to the Skogman Building on First Avenue SE, and two choices from the Cedar Rapids Development Group-Peninsula Pacific: the $105 million Cedar Crossing Central attached to the DoubleTree Hotel on First Avenue NE and the $165 million Cedar Crossing on the River proposed for land at First Avenue and First Street SW.

Prairie Meadows, a horse track and casino in Altoona, has taken the position that a “boutique” casino “violates the regulations — it would be a $40 million project with no amenities and no debt service,” according to September meeting minutes from its board of directors. Chief executive Gary Palmer made the comments.

The Wild Rose proposal for a “boutique” casino intentionally excluded restaurants and entertainment to minimize pull from existing casinos and to avoid competing with other downtown businesses. Both Cedar Crossing options have restaurants and Cedar Crossing on the River has an entertainment venue.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The license criteria includes “the number of types of developments and amenities” in addition to the gambling floor. Commission administrator Brian Ohorilko said while that should be considered, it is not required and no laws or regulation define what constitutes a “boutique” casino.

The commission making the license decision consists of the same members who voted 4-1 in 2014 to reject an application identical to Cedar Crossing on the River. At the time, commissioners cited a heavy financial impact on the Riverside Casino & Golf Resort, 45 minutes or so south.

The projections are less now, but still could mean a 20 percent or more hit to Riverside’s annual revenue. Commissioners have said it would be unusual to grant a license if the revenue impact projections top the low teens.

While a key question for commissioners is the financial impact on existing casinos, other factors are at play — such as a potential new market in the state and community impact, Lamberti said.

“We have some duty to maximize revenue; we have a duty to look at what is best is for the state,” Lamberti said.

Commissioners have received dozens of letters over the last year attempting to sway them on the decision. Some urge commissioners to reject all applications because of negative impact on other casinos and communities. Others oppose a license for social and ethical reasons against gambling. Others support each of the different applications.

Only Commissioner Dolores Mertz of Algona has let her feelings be known. The retired state lawmaker, who was the lone supporter in 2014, said once again she will support a casino license but hasn’t made her mind up between the two smaller proposals.

Board members have said they remain insulated from outside political pressures. Gov. Kim Reynolds — who faces a GOP primary challenge in 2018 from outgoing Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett — has said she will not take a position.

Still, political influence has been a theme almost since the projects were unveiled.