Even as the Cedar Rapids City Council voted Dec. 17 to approve a development agreement for the proposed new casino in downtown Cedar Rapids, several council members shared their views on the notion of bringing a casino to the heart of the city – and not all were supportive of the plans.
The development agreement formalizes the relationship between the city of Cedar Rapids and the proposed casino’s developers, the Cedar Rapids Development Group (CRDG), a subsidiary of Peninsula Pacific Entertainment (P23). It follows the council’s July 2023 approval of an option to purchase agreement for the site of the proposed Cedar Crossing Casino, on land currently owned by the city between F and I avenues NW and First and Fifth streets NW. Most of that property was previously occupied by the Cooper’s Mill restaurant and Best Western Hotel before those facilities were demolished due to damages sustained in the 2008 flood, and that property was subsequently acquired by the city for future development.
The development agreement is contingent on a number of factors, including a vote by the state’s Racing and Gaming Commission to approve a gaming license for Linn County. The commission is slated to announce its decision on a Linn County license at its meeting Feb. 6, 2025 at Prairie Meadows Casino in Altoona.
According to the agreement, the property will be sold to the CRDG at its fair market value as determined by an appraisal, and flood mitigation measures will be incorporated in the project to satisfy deed restrictions.
The agreement will be executed only if a gaming license is issued, if the developer has conducted at least two open-house meetings for the public, and if the council has approved the design for the casino’s minimum improvements.
Under the agreement, the developer will also be required to conduct a traffic study for the casino site, and will pay any increased costs for flood system modifications.
The agreement calls for a 110,000-square-foot facility encompassing a 39,000-square-foot gaming floor, 17,000 square feet of restaurant space, 16,000 square feet of event space and a 5,000-square-foot cultural center. It would also provide 1,100 parking spaces and comprise a minimum investment of $150 million and a minimum assessment agreement of $50 million. The project would be completed within 24 months after construction begins.
The casino developer would also be required to make monthly Community Betterment Payments to the city, calculated as 2.25% of the casino’s adjusted net gaming win and beginning one year after the casino opens. These payments would be made in addition to the .5% of adjusted gross revenues in taxes the city would receive from the project.
The payments would also be in addition to Cedar Crossing’s commitment to allocate 8% of adjusted gross casino revenue, or approximately $6.3 million, to area nonprofits – more than double the state’s requirement.
Several councilmembers shared their views on the casino project during discussion of the development agreement.
Councilmember Ashley Vanorny, who noted she’s not a gambler, said she recognizes others enjoy gambling.
“I can’t tell you if this is going to be the thing that finally gives us a vibrant downtown,” she said.”I have my bets against it. But certainly there are plenty of people who like to do this, and it would be advantageous for Cedar Rapids to benefit from the revenue that is otherwise going (to) other places.”
Ms. Vanorny also said she’s disappointed with various aspects of the casino plan. “In my head, I’m disappointed that this doesn’t utilize or activate the river,” she said. “Matter of fact, it doesn’t really even face the river.”
The design of the casino is disappointing as well, Ms. Vanorny said. “What I’m really looking for is that destination,” she noted. “I don’t see it in this. This looks like a big box store to me. There’s nothing on the roof. Yes, (it) could bring some more activities, but maybe (it’ll) take away. I don’t know one way or the other. I’m not sold on this … I just don’t think that this location and this particular thing is something that I’m feeling like a kid on Christmas about, because it just seems like it’s missing something, or it’s just blase at best … It’s just not a project that is going to get my support at this time.”
Other council members, however, said they felt the casino plan represents a positive development for the city’s northwest side.
Councilmember Scott Olson, who also said he’s not an avid gambler, noted the casino would spur additional economic development on the west side of the Cedar River.
“I think gambling is changing,” he said. “The form of gambling is changing. It’s changing in Las Vegas. It’s changing everywhere. And what’s different about this concept is it’s become more restaurant-driven and other things than gaming. People are going to gamble, whether we like it or not. Should we gain from that? I think we should. Will this enable us to do other things? Yes, it will. Am I going to gamble there? Probably not, but I may go to some of the entertainment events and things.”
“We have a piece of ground that will take a long time to develop, and I think this is an opportunity that we may or may not see (again),” he added. “…they’ve done everything they’re supposed to. They’ve communicated with us. Let’s find out what happens on Feb. 6, win or lose, and we’ll go from there.”
Councilmember Dale Todd noted the developments that’ve been spurred by casino projects in other cities, including the Ice Harbor area in Dubuque.
“This is not going to be the economic savior that some people pretend it’s going to be,” he said. “But I look at it as an option for people. If they want to go, they can go … I look at it as simply an option in terms of urban planning and development, and I would suggest there is no compelling developer knocking down our door to develop this site, nor do we have the wherewithal to develop this site anywhere outside of a 10 year window. I simply don’t see anything happening at that site.”
Mr. Todd also said he was disappointed in the comments made in public meetings from representatives of casinos in other areas of Iowa.
“As I sat through that hearing, I got repulsed at my colleagues from other cities, whether it was Waterloo or Dubuque, Cedar Falls, who were all complaining that if we got a license here, that it was going to cut into their city budget,” he said. “(Dubuque’s city manager) said point blank that 2.5% of their property taxes are paid with Cedar Rapids or gaming revenues. And those are all a lot of those people are people from Cedar Rapids in Linn County.”
Councilmember Tyler Olson echoed many of Mr. Todd’s comments.
“You mentioned that this project is not going to be an economic savior,” Mr. Olson said. “I agree. And the great thing is, we don’t need an economic savior in Cedar Rapids. I think we all understand the strength of the economy in the community right now. And honestly, this the strength of downtown in the west side, you know, south of here and in particular, but also a lot of development along Ellis Boulevard and up towards Time Check, so (I’m) looking at it as a development project as it’s been presented.”
“Minus the gambling, we would all be very excited about this in the community,” he added. “Regardless of our personal feelings about gambling, the community has spoken on multiple occasions and wants this, so I’m excited that we have developers that are willing to put the extra mile into it. It would be easy to put up a gaming hall that you know didn’t have other amenities and wasn’t as nicely done as this one. So I think we’ve picked the right partners here and the right project.”
Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell, a longtime supporter of Cedar Rapids casino proposals, said she continues to favor the casino’s current planned location.
“I’m not actually sure how much I would support a casino in the middle of nowhere,”: she said. “I support this casino because of where it is. And my opinion isn’t my own alone. I certainly stand alongside a lot of other people who feel the same way that I do, as far as the design of the casino.”
She admonished council members who are suggesting the casino might be better located elsewhere in the city.
“I’m not sure, council members, if this is your first time seeing this or the location,” she said. “I didn’t think so. There’s been ample opportunity to give that kind of feedback. And I would encourage that conversation to continue, if we have ideas to make it even better and to serve more people.”
She also said she supported efforts to either make the casino smoke-free, but that “there are reasons why this developer wants to have that, and it is his development, so he gets to do that … I’m also in a lot of casinos across the state, and you actually can put a wall up. It’s really remarkable what they’ve done with filters inside these facilities now. So to those who don’t want to smell the smoke, I just suggest innovation has happened in that realm as well.”
