Arlington Park Racecourse v. Illinois Racing Board
980 N.E.2d 72
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Illinois created the Horse Racing Equity Trust Fund to offset riverboat gaming effects; casinos deposited 3% of adjusted gross receipts during May 26, 2006–May 26, 2008.
- The Fund is administered by the Illinois Racing Board, with 60% to purses and 40% to organization licensees for facility improvements and operations.
- Fairmount Park receives 11% of the 40% under 54.5(b)(2)(A); Arlington, Hawthorne, Balmoral, and Maywood are eligible under 54.5(b)(2)(B).
- NJC was initially eligible under 54.5(b)(2)(B) but became ineligible by the time of distribution in 2009.
- Board staff proposed including handle from ineligible licensees at tracks controlled by eligible licensees in calculating shares; Board adopted this approach in July 2009.
- Arlington challenged the Board’s calculation, arguing in part that only eligible-licensee handle should be used; circuit court upheld the Board, and the appellate court reviews the Board’s interpretation and calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 54.5(b)(2)(B) requires inclusion of ineligible licensee handle | Arlington: aggregate handle=only eligible licensees' live-race handle. | Board: total handle includes all Illinois live-race handle, including ineligible licenses where tied to eligible tracks. | Board interpretation reasonable; includes ineligible handle in proportion. |
| Whether the Board properly construed ‘aggregate proportion’ and ‘total handle’ | Aggregate proportion should derive from eligible licensees' handle only. | Aggregate proportion includes all Illinois live-race handle to reflect total wagering activity. | Statutory language ambiguous; Board’s inclusive approach reasonable under agency expertise. |
| Whether Fairmount’s prior 11% grant under (A) precludes (B) distribution | Fairmount should not share beyond its (A) allocation. | Fairmount cannot double-dip; (B) eligibility excludes Fairmount after (A) allocation. | Fairmount excluded from (B); no double-dip under statute. |
| Whether 2004–2005 state-fair handle should be included in total handle | State fairs generated handle; should be included proportionally. | State fairs’ handle de minimis; not central to allocations. | State fairs are entitled to distribution if eligible; Board must address them; include if due. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krocka v. Police Bd., 327 Ill. App. 3d 36 (2001) (administrative-review standards; deference to agency findings)
- Illinois Consolidated Tel. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 95 Ill.2d 142 (1983) (statutory interpretation and agency deference standards)
- North Ave. Properties, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 312 Ill. App. 3d 182 (2000) (de novo review of statutory interpretation in admin decisions)
- County of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd. Local Panel, 347 Ill. App. 3d 538 (2004) (abrogation/interpretation of ambiguous statutory provisions; deference to agency)