CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS

COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNING

CR OPENHOUSE #2
ONLINE FEEDBACK
AUGUST 31, 2009

16 Online Respondents

PARKS AND RECREATION

Comments/questions/concerns about strategies to lower maintenance

costs and increase funding to the Parks System?

_ Lower costs by clustering major services, then linking them with low-cost trails and low-
maintenance greenways that require less mowing / daily upkeep.

_ Get rid of the pocket parks.

_ no opinion

_ Switching to more natural areas is a good way to reduce costs, plus I like the way it looks.
Volunteers or Friends groups should be developed to help with maintenance of the parks,
etc.

_ Worthless to me. While trails always score high, does the use versus cost really justify the
expense?

_ Should be done by all taxpayers. It should not be done by the people that use a certain
entity just for that certain entity (i.e. golfers funding golf courses etc.) because it causes the
price to go up because there are not enough people using that specific entity ... like the golf
courses!

Option 1-The Decentralized Option

1i. What do you like and dislike about this option?

_ Like: It is neighborhood friendly. Kids have places to go within walking / biking distance.
Dislike: It is very expensive, we end up duplicating resources.

_ This option appears to use the current system by being spread out among the different
communities which creates less change and is probably most comfortable for most
residents. However, it really does not address the need to bring residents that have left a
reason to come back or stay and really does not take the community in a forward direction.

_ I like that it benefits the whole community and not just downtown.

_ no opinion
_ This is traditional Cedar Rapids Plan. It is very hard to administer all of the little parks. Very
inefficient.

_ It isn't as cost efficient!

1ii. What additional advantages and disadvantages do you see to this

option?

_There is a crystal clear reason - identified by the preparers of the material displayed - why
the decentralized option is not the right choice. To paraphrase..."the decentralized option
does not keep Cedar Rapids competitive with other communities in employee recruitment,
quality of life, and national trends." The flood event gives us the opportunity to reinvent our
community in a fashion that once again positions Cedar Rapids as an attractive place for
new companies and families to flourish. Anything that does not keep us competitive is a
huge mistake. Even token consideration of the decentralized option is a waste of time and
opportunity

_We have many options, but all end up feeling about the same. Each park is a "minor
league" option, with similar mix of mid-size playground, aquatic center, walking trail, etc.
There ends up being less variety overall for the whole city.

_It appears to be the most cost affective plan. But it really is not much of an overall
improvement over the current system that we now have. I do not believe that it will attract
new residents and businesses much less keep the old residents whom are wavering over
what they should do and where should they go.

_no opinion

_It isn't as cost efficient!

1iii. What programs in the option are important to you?

_Access to each neighborhood.

_I love the idea of a dog park at squaw creek. I think it would provide more room for dogs
and draw more people who live outside of CR - the benefit to that is they pay the same
permit fee.

_no opinion

_Please include racquetball courts and facilities in this option.

_Indoor recreation especially Swimming pools

_smaller parks for people who can't get to the bigger ones.

Option 2-The Centralized Option

2i. What do you like and dislike about this option?

_I like this option. CR needs a signature draw to not only those that live here but possible
revenue from visitors. An amphitheater would be a great start for this. Also Cr needs
something downtown now that can help with the rebuilding of this community. It's an
embarrassment that I have had to travel to Des Moines, Burlington, or Dubuque to find
entertainment options for my family that could or should be available here in CR.

_I like most everything about the centralized option, but rising above all the particulars is
that it would give Cedar Rapids a focal point and a unique differentiation from other
secondary market communities. It appeals to the younger generation, the Richard Florida
creative class, recreational and environmental advocates; just about every cross section of
citizenry imaginable. it is bold, it is visionary, and it will define Cedar Rapids for decades to
come.

_Like: Give the city a major destination. Easy to market. Clearly the best for economic
development around the parks as it clusters traffic, making it possible to have retail / office /
condos nearby. Pulls growth of city back to the core. Dislike: Expensive to build.

_I like how everything can be located in one area.

_Seems to only benefit downtown. I rarely go there and I don't think this will make it
anymore likely, too hard to park and get in and out of.

_no opinion

_I wouldn't want to get rid of our parks and trails that are big and are used a lot by
neighborhoods.

_As the name implies, too much focus on the central riverfront.

_I really like this option for the emphasis it places on new greenway and public park
amenities that would be created downtown along the river. I also think increasing the trail
system is another important element and think the idea of linking the main green space
along the river to all of the core neighborhoods would encourage a more bicycle friendly
community. I love the idea of having a new amphitheatre along the river. And I do feel that
this community needs a new recreation center.

_It seems to be located where most of the parks may be located if the flood areas are turned
into parks. It would be great to have a tremendous park with many recreational possibilities
running right through the middle of Cedar Rapids!

2ii. What additional advantages and disadvantages do you see to this

option?

_Love the Mays Island concepts, and I am particularly enthused about the amphitheater
concept; though it ought to be designed to allow for a 'programmable' space such that it
could accomodate up to 15,000 patrons for a large outdoor event (think popular music
concert). Outdoor concerts are growing in popularity across the country, and the well-
designed amphitheaters are exrtremely successful. With the functional capacity of the US
Cellular Center at less than 6,000 people for a concert event, it forces the most popular acts
to the other competitive markets.

_Gives a canvas that the city can build on for the next 50 years as we develop a world-class
riverfront that will be the hallmark of this city's future. I can imagine 50 years from now the
rest of the world will talk about how current leadership took a flood and recreated its city
into something spectacular.

_The advantages of creating a downtown that is full of activities and brings to life an area
that was struggling until it was completely wiped out by the flood will definitely help to bring
residents and businesses in, old and new and create an environment fit for families and put
Cedar Rapids as a quality destination not just to visit but to live.

_no opinion

_Bad-Seems to focus indoor recreation on ONE "Multi-generational Community Life Facility"

De-emphasizes many of our wonderful current parks. Lets them deteriorate.

_It might exclude people who can't afford to get to those areas

2iii. What programs in the option are important to you?

_Amphitheater. Bike trails, cafes, restaurants, all in one area.

_Trails connecting all parts of the city to the centralized park. Multiple ped bridges across the
river to avoid having to use busy / noisy trafficked streets.

_Outdoor Racquetball/Handball courts. This is an activity that can be enjoyed by both

children and adults. It would be outdoors so it would be free! Programs could be created to
involve local schools, lessons, tournaments and would also be beneficial in terms of the
health benefits. 600-800 calories can be burned up in an hour and it is more fun than being
on a treadmill for same amount of time. It is an inexpensive activity to get started in and
does not require a great deal of skill to enjoy! The courts are made of concrete which makes
the upkeep minimal and if it does flood again you can powerwash it and your good to go! It
would attract people from outside of the Cedar Rapids metro area and even some from
Waterloo and Ames. The amount of space needed is not tremendous and it would last for
years and years. I would also like to see indoor Racquetball in the new community center. In
2008 participation in racquetball increased by more than 18%. It is one of only 4 sports that
has shown a continual increase in participation since 2000 (soccer, tennis and basketball
were the other three). It is a family oreinted sport where all members of the family can play
and learn and be physically active and fit together! There are tournaments with 6 and under
age divisions and 60+ age divisions. There is a substantial racquetball community in Cedar
Rapids that is steadily growing and would like to expand. There are 2 facilities now in the
city that between them will be holding 4 tournaments annually and are holding camps,
womens events, junior events and activities in racquetball. To eliminate racquetball from the
plans with no thought would be a disservice and a loss to the community.

_I thinl leaving out a dog park is a mistake, more and more people are living in condos and
apartments need a place to take pets.

_no opinion

_Please include racketball courts and facilities in this option.

_All recreational programs are important to my family

Option 3-The Hybrid Option

3i. What do you like and dislike about this option?

_Like: It retains what are emerging as the 4 major city parks outside the core (Bever,
Noelridge, Jones, Cherry Hill) and still gives us a core. Dislike: Half-way solution will slow
economic development of the core, and could compromise, long-term, downtown's
redevelopment by affirming and adding to facilities in the fringes.

_This is better than the centralized option but not as good as the decentralized.

_no opinion

_I like this option best. I think we should have a centralized facility for programs that are
currently offered at Ambroz Centre.

_I like the balance between a strong riverfront and the continuation of our great distributed
park system. I don't think we really need an inflatable dam and a "new recreational pool"
near downtown. I think three or four 100,000 sq. ft. facilities across the city would be better
than one huge facility on the far NE side. All should have indoor pools.

_I also like this option, just not as well as the centralized option.

_Seems to be more all inclusive

3ii. What additional advantages and disadvantages do you see to this

option?

_The major parks provide natural destinations for a loop trail system.

_no opinion

_More people will be included

3iii. What programs in the option are important to you?

_Urban trails, especially trails that do not travel right along trafficked roads, connecting
parks.

_Same as in the centralized option.

_no opinion

_Please include racketball courts and facilities in this option.

_All programs are important to me and my family

Any comments/questions on communications or public participation?

_Please overweight comments from people who actually use the current system most. These
are your "repeat customers" who will make the next plans successful...or not

_It was rather surprising to see all of the work and detail that has been put into this planning
process and to hear from all of my co-workers and freinds who live in Cedar Rapids that they
had not even heard of any of these proposals and options. They had no clue as to what was
going on at all. There needs to be some better communication between the City Council and
the community residents in terms of keeping them informed. The gazette has not given this
a fair shake in terms of what has been accomplished. Granted there will always be a certain
amount of the general public who will sit back and accept whatever is chosen for them but
to have such a low response to the survey and open houses really does not help the council
get a fair view of what the city really wants. I understand the attempt was made to inform
the residents of these open houses and I don't blame anyone for this but maybe a little more
time could be allowed for these events instead of just 2 2-3 hour intervals for people to
juggle their already hectic schedules so that more informed suggestions and ideas could be
submitted. Thank you for your time and putting all of this together. It has been very
informative.

_no opinion

_Somehow, we need to get more participation and get people out of the house. We need
linking trails that go all the way to the far west end of Cedar Hills and the Stoney Point Area
NW because these people feel discriminated against because all the trails seem to be on the
East Side of Cedar Rapids. These trails should be blacktop and not gravel and dirt.

Any other comments?

_The softball diamonds at Tait Cummins are a disgrace to the city as well. They are a
complete dump. Someone should take a look at the Burlington Rec Plex to get an idea of
how to run and develop something the community can be proud of. I've had to travel to
Burlington for the past 6 years to play in the Men's E state softball tourney. That community
is making at least $500 from me alone on that weekend. There were probably approximately
300 players alone there that one weekend. There is money to be made on a well kept, family
oriented, and well run concession stand at these ball parks.

_Seminole Valley Park an underutilized park. Please put a ped bridge linking the Ellis Park /
boating area to access to Seminole Valley Park. It will link two incredible park resources, and
turn SVP from an out-of-the-way, little used area into the big, open northern terminus of the
Riverfront Greenway

_I think Cedar Rapids is MORE than just the river and downtown. I live in Marion but I work in
CR and I have family in CR. If you want more income form out of downers the decentralized
option is better.

_The city needs to get out of the entertainment business. We need to sell off the golf courses
to privatize them. At the very least we need to get rid of the Jones Park golf course. Every
year we have to spend thousands of dollars to fix it up due to flooding of Prairie Creek. The
city does not need a recreation building that houses all kinds of sports. Let private parties do
this. That way we get the money from the taxes on the property. We have more than enough
oversize sidewalks, aka trails.
_I love mountain biking & it is one of the most healthy, exciting, rewarding experiences I
have experienced. I travel to other local communities around Iowa and other states to ride
their trail systems and I bring my business to those areas. Support for more mountain biking
trails in this area would be great. I know many riders who feel the same way. Please consider
supporting the local mountain biking community!

_I like the centralized and hybrid options the best. We have a lot of little parks that should be
turned over to "Friends" groups or other volunteers or maybe even the people in that
neighborhood where they are found. Some of these "parks" are tiny, little pieces of grass
with a sign indicating the name. I've never seen anyone in these areas-they are usually
between or surrounded by streets. Get rid or those.

_Dear Sirs: I would like to share input for recreational needs in the city. I feel that the future
green space could be utilized for a variety of ways. The city could make it area for roller
bladers/ bicylces/ wheel chair accessible. (the only indoor place to skate is Super Skate on
the NE side) this would also promote fitness in CR. Maybe space could be used for fund
raising events/ camping/ farmers market and other summer activies. Benefits for flooded
victims could raise money to helpout. Just thought I would share some of these thoughts
since I grew up in this NW side of town.

_Open Space by river front: Dear Sirs: I would like to share input for recreational needs in the
city. I feel that the future green space could be utilized for a variety of ways. The city could
make it area for roller bladers/ bicylces/ wheel chair accessible. (the only indoor place to
skate is Super Skate on the NE side) this would also promote fitness in CR. Maybe space
could be used for fund raising events/ camping/ farmers market and other summer activies.
Benefits for flooded victims could raise money to helpout. Just thought I would share some of
these thoughts since I grew up in this NW side of town. Thanks for your time,

_I prepared comments at the Open House, but I want to voice my opinion about the re-
purposing of Tuma Sports Complex, with possible expanded soccer/field sport focus at
Seminole Valley Park. It is a HUGE mistake in vision to not expand the recreational focus at
Tuma. The space is available and multiple sports (baseball/softball/soccer) can leverage off
each other, partcularly if supplemented with baseball/softball tournament complexes. Tie-ins
with the trail system and playgrounds can further enhance the recreational and competitive
sports experience. The public also carries a strong negative opinion about the quality of
programming offered to participants. I have lived above Seminole Valley Park for 24 years,
witnessing multiple floods covering what once was outdoor campgrounds, primitive
campgrounds, football/rugby fields, and soccer fields. While the expansion of some
soccer/critchett fields and the establishment of more trails would be welcomed, the shift
from Tuma Sports Complex to Seminole would be wasteful in dollars, focus and vision. If the
proposed field sports complex would also be extensively lighted, then you would be faced
with intense neighborhood opposition against excessive light pollution. Another negative
would be the poor quality of Seminole Valley Road that provides poor access to the Seminole
site.

_If an area is of "little-to-no recreational value", it should be sold and not kept as low-mow or
prairie planting. Some "natural" prairie land would be fine (maybe one natural prairie park),
but not the massive acres that you are suggesting. More areas could be changed from 10
day mowing to 15 day mowing.