PETERSBURG, Va. — City officials in Petersburg have voiced strong opposition to a recently introduced piece of legislation that could significantly impact the city’s anticipated casino revenue. The proposal, House Bill 2232, introduced by Delegate Mike Cherry (R-Colonial Heights), seeks to create a “Tri-Cities Improvement Commission” that would manage gaming revenue across the Tri-Cities region, which includes Petersburg, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Dinwiddie County, and Prince George County.
Under the proposed bill, representatives from these localities would be appointed to distribute the gaming funds equally, with a priority on improving education, transportation, and public safety. However, city leaders argue that this measure would undermine Petersburg’s economic development efforts by redirecting critical revenue from its newly approved $1.4 billion casino project.
In a statement issued on January 13, the city described the bill as “unjust,” “harmful,” and “immoral,” claiming it would deprive the city of vital resources needed to support its ongoing revitalization efforts. The casino, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in the 2024 General Election, is seen as a key component of Petersburg’s economic recovery, and officials argue that the revenue generated from it should remain within the city.
“The proposal disregards the will of Petersburg voters and threatens to undermine the city’s ability to invest in its future,” said a spokesperson for the city. The statement continued, calling the bill a “damaging revenue-sharing mandate” that was neither discussed nor agreed upon at the local or state level.
Petersburg officials also expressed frustration that the bill was introduced without prior consultation with the city council or local leaders. According to the city, both Delegate Cherry and Delegate Kim Taylor, who represents Petersburg, failed to engage in discussions with the city about the legislation before it was introduced. Petersburg leaders emphasized that multiple opportunities existed to discuss the bill, but no efforts were made by either delegate to involve the city in the process.
The proposed bill is reportedly based on a similar revenue-sharing arrangement established for the Hard Rock Casino in Bristol. However, Petersburg officials contend that the situation in Bristol was different, as the revenue-sharing agreement was negotiated prior to the casino referendum, whereas the current bill attempts to impose such an arrangement without any prior consensus.
Petersburg officials have called on both Cherry and Taylor to withdraw the bill, arguing that it represents a political move aimed at gaining favor in an election year at the expense of the city’s well-being. “This bill insults the residents of Petersburg and prioritizes political self-interest over the economic development and local needs of the city,” the statement concluded.
As the legislative process continues, it remains to be seen whether the proposed bill will gain traction or if Petersburg’s vocal opposition will lead to changes in the measure.
