Community - Open House 2 Board Series

W H Y A R E W E H E R E T O D A Y ?

1 2

1

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY? PURPOSE:

TO ENGAGE

TO GET

YOU IN THE PROCESS PROCESS

YOUR INPUT ON THE OPTIONS

PROCESS:

EXAMINE THE INFORMATION ASK QUESTIONS PROVIDE

1 2

INPUT

OPPORTUNITY

SO YOU CAN HELP GUIDE THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY TODAY AND FOR

GENERATIONS

1 2

FUTURE

CITY BUILDINGS & FA FACILITIES OUTCOME GIVE

YOUR

CITY COUNCIL

GUIDANCE

IN DECIDING WHETHER TO: TO:

Return to existing buildings as they were at the time of the flood Return to existing buildings as they were at the time of the flood, with upgrades Consider new buildings, alternate locations, and the possibility of co-location Reoccupy another existing building (added as a result of participant feedback)

1 2

OPEN HOUSE #1 FEEDBACK SUMMARY Comments from Open House 1 were recorded and analyzed for common themes. Priorities established from public feedback were: Protect or relocate vital City services outside of the Cedar River flood plain. Create multiple options for Community Facilities as a component of a renewed downtown. Social sustainability, sustainability, as defined by the principles of livable/walkable cities, should be a priority in future options considerations. Develop options with accessible and centralized services, and plentiful free parking. Demonstrate fiscal responsibility by presenting increased financial data in future options’ considerations.

The comments you provide during this Open House will be used to guide decisions. OPEN HOUSE #1 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK SUMMARY

200 Attendees 276 Individual Responses to Facilities & Events Questions 003 Online Responses

24.38% Response Rate to CITY VISION 41.66% Response Rate to MAJOR BUILDINGS 17.91% Response Rate to PUBLIC PARTICIP PARTICIPATION ATION 08.96% Response Rate to EVALUATION CRITERIA

1 2

OUR PROCESS: RIVER CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN/ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STUDY

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES FACILITIES MASTER MA STER PLAN

OPEN HOUSE #1 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK 

COMPILE AND ANALYZE ANALYZE FEEDBACK

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

BENCHMARK DATA FOR COMPARISON

OPTIONS/PRELIMINARY DATA SAMPLE

OPEN HOUSE #2: OPTIONS -

*

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK 

* YOU ARE HERE

NEXT STEPS: COMPILE AND ANALYZE ANALYZE FEEDBACK

OPEN HOUSE #3: RECOMMENDED OPTIONS COMMUNITY FEEDBACK 

COMPILE AND ANALYZE ANALYZE FEEDBACK

CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF PREFERRED OPTIONS

1 2

C o m m u n i  t y F a c i  l i  t i  e s 2

2

OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS Based on the feedback received from the first Open House, this second Open House will present information on 10 potential facility programs that answer immediate civic needs. 6 of these will be presented with a range of options to consider for each: City Services Center/Veteran’s Memorial Building City Operations Center/Public Works Facilities Fleet Maintenance  Animal Care and Control Central Fire Station Main Public Library

There are 4 potential facilities concepts that will be presented for public feedback: Intermodal Transportation Facility Community Safety Centers Neighborhood Centers Former United States Courthouse Using triple bottom line evaluation criteria to compare functional needs, this Open House will present data that allows objective evaluation of the Social, Economic, and Environmental aspects of each option.

OPTIONS SUMMARY

THE FOLLOWING FACILITIES HAVE FOUR OPTIONS*

OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D IMAGE

BUILDINGS / PROGRAMS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL/ CITY SERVICES CENTER

PUBLIC WORKS/CITY  OPERATIONS CENTER

FLEET MAINTENANCE

 ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL CENTER

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Return to Veteran’s Memorial Building as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to Veteran’s Memorial Building with departmental growth needs addressed and sustainability upgrades. upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new ‘one-stop’ City Services facility on an undetermined, centrally-located site.

Remodel a portion of Westdale Mall to accommodate a new ‘one-stop’ City Services facility.

Return to Public Works as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to Public Works with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades.  Additionally,  Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new ‘one-stop’ City Operations facility on the current Public Works site.

Due to Public Works’ need for a large site with a centralized location and over-sized vehicle access, it not feasible to re-purpose an existing building.

Return to the (5) separate fleet maintenance facilities as they existed before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage for flood damaged buildings only.

Return to the (5) separate fleet maintenance facilities with departmental growth needs addressed through (5) separate building additions and sustainability upgrades.  Additionally,  Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Fleet Maintenance facility that combines all (5) separate pre-flood facilities into one facility on an undetermined site.

Construct a new Fleet Maintenance addition to house (4) of the (5) pre-flood Fleet Maintenance facilities facilities on the existing Public Works campus. The fifth Fleet Maintenance facility, located pre-flood at Public Works, would remain at this location and receive renovations to improve efficiencies.

Return to Animal Care and Control at 1401 Cedar Bend Lane as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to Animal Care and Control at 1401 Cedar Bend Lane with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Animal Care and Control Center at Kirkwood Community College.

Remain at current Animal Care and Control location (temporary site) with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades.

Return to the Central Fire Station as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to the Central Fire Station with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Central Fire Station on an undetermined, undetermined, centrally-located centrally-located site.

Due to Central Fire Station’s stringent response time requirements, site location needs and large vehicle access needs, it is not feasible to re-purpose an existing building.

Return to the Main Public Library as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to the Main Public Library with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Main Public Library on an undetermined, undetermined, centrally-located centrally-located site.

Remodel a portion of Westdale Mall to accommodate a new Main Public Library.

*CENTRAL FIRE AND PUBLIC WORKS HAVE 3 OPTIONS

OPTIONS SUMMARY

THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL FACILITY CONCEPTS ARE PRESENTED FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK:

THE FOLLOWING FACILITIES HAVE FOUR OPTIONS*

OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D IMAGE

BUILDINGS / PROGRAMS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL/ CITY SERVICES CENTER

PUBLIC WORKS/CITY  OPERATIONS CENTER

FLEET MAINTENANCE

 ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL CENTER

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Return to Veteran’s Memorial Building as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to Veteran’s Memorial Building with departmental growth needs addressed and sustainability upgrades. upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new ‘one-stop’ City Services facility on an undetermined, centrally-located site.

Remodel a portion of Westdale Mall to accommodate a new ‘one-stop’ City Services facility.

Return to Public Works as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to Public Works with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades.  Additionally,  Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new ‘one-stop’ City Operations facility on the current Public Works site.

Due to Public Works’ need for a large site with a centralized location and over-sized vehicle access, it not feasible to re-purpose an existing building.

Return to the (5) separate fleet maintenance facilities as they existed before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage for flood damaged buildings only.

Return to the (5) separate fleet maintenance facilities with departmental growth needs addressed through (5) separate building additions and sustainability upgrades.  Additionally,  Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Fleet Maintenance facility that combines all (5) separate pre-flood facilities into one facility on an undetermined site.

Construct a new Fleet Maintenance addition to house (4) of the (5) pre-flood Fleet Maintenance facilities facilities on the existing Public Works campus. The fifth Fleet Maintenance facility, located pre-flood at Public Works, would remain at this location and receive renovations to improve efficiencies.

Return to Animal Care and Control at 1401 Cedar Bend Lane as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to Animal Care and Control at 1401 Cedar Bend Lane with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Animal Care and Control Center at Kirkwood Community College.

Remain at current Animal Care and Control location (temporary site) with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades.

Return to the Central Fire Station as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to the Central Fire Station with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Central Fire Station on an undetermined, undetermined, centrally-located centrally-located site.

Due to Central Fire Station’s stringent response time requirements, site location needs and large vehicle access needs, it is not feasible to re-purpose an existing building.

Return to the Main Public Library as it was before the Flood of 2008, with building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage.

Return to the Main Public Library with departmental growth needs addressed through a building addition and sustainability upgrades. Additionally, Additionally, building upgrades to address existing building code deficiencies and preventative measures against potential future flood damage would be completed.

Construct a new Main Public Library on an undetermined, undetermined, centrally-located centrally-located site.

Remodel a portion of Westdale Mall to accommodate a new Main Public Library.

*CENTRAL FIRE AND PUBLIC WORKS HAVE 3 OPTIONS

OPTIONS SUMMARY

THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL FACILITY CONCEPTS ARE PRESENTED FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK: CONSIDERATIONS IMAGE

FACILITIESTOPICS

INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY 

 An Intermodal Transportation Facility is defined by: “a central reference point or a central transfer point where all modes of transportation converge together, and users transfer to another mode of transportation, or end their use of the mode of transportati on they are using.” As a natural point of convergence, it is essential to understand the flows of people and transportation to create a well-designed facility.

COMMUNITY SAFETY  CENTER

The Community Safety Center is dedicated to providing cutting edge facilities for police and fire training. The facility will build synergy through partnerships with the local community and the regional publ ic safety community. The Center will be a beacon for maintainin g competent and professional publi c safety service for our community.

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER

Neighborhood Resource Centers are public/private opportunities where neighbors can go to get information, find out about events and programs, and interact with each other for the betterment of the community.

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

The City and the United States General Services Administration (GSA) have entered into an agreement (MOA/Memorandum of Agreement) to swap the current United States Courthouse on First Street SE for the land between 7th Ave. SE and 8th Ave. SE to be used as the site for the new United States Courth ouse. Since the Former United States Cour thouse is listed on the National Register of Historical Places, several architectural architectural elements of the Former United States Courthouse are spelled out in the MOA as being historically significant. As such there are certain limitations placed on the physical changes that can be made to elements of the building, as outlined in the adjacent graphics, including the exterior façade, the third floor main courtroom and judge’s chambers, and the central hallway/stair tower on each of the floors.

OPTIONS SUMMARY

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SOCIAL

THE FOLLOWING POTENTIAL FACILITY CONCEPTS ARE PRESENTED FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK: CONSIDERATIONS IMAGE

FACILITIESTOPICS

INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY 

 An Intermodal Transportation Facility is defined by: “a central reference point or a central transfer point where all modes of transportation converge together, and users transfer to another mode of transportation, or end their use of the mode of transportati on they are using.” As a natural point of convergence, it is essential to understand the flows of people and transportation to create a well-designed facility.

COMMUNITY SAFETY  CENTER

The Community Safety Center is dedicated to providing cutting edge facilities for police and fire training. The facility will build synergy through partnerships with the local community and the regional publ ic safety community. The Center will be a beacon for maintainin g competent and professional publi c safety service for our community.

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER

Neighborhood Resource Centers are public/private opportunities where neighbors can go to get information, find out about events and programs, and interact with each other for the betterment of the community.

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

The City and the United States General Services Administration (GSA) have entered into an agreement (MOA/Memorandum of Agreement) to swap the current United States Courthouse on First Street SE for the land between 7th Ave. SE and 8th Ave. SE to be used as the site for the new United States Courth ouse. Since the Former United States Cour thouse is listed on the National Register of Historical Places, several architectural architectural elements of the Former United States Courthouse are spelled out in the MOA as being historically significant. As such there are certain limitations placed on the physical changes that can be made to elements of the building, as outlined in the adjacent graphics, including the exterior façade, the third floor main courtroom and judge’s chambers, and the central hallway/stair tower on each of the floors.

OPTIONS SUMMARY

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SOCIAL Increased Sense of Community Improved Quality of Life Increased Economic Vitality Increased Vibrancy of Downtown Improved Public Safety Reduced Traffic Improved Walk-ability Improved Access to Park/Cultural/Historic Venues Improved Infrastructure Improved Indoor Environmental Quality Health & Human Performance

ECONOMIC Capital Costs Life Cycle Costs Is it Affordable/Prac Affordable/Practical? tical?

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SOCIAL Increased Sense of Community Improved Quality of Life Increased Economic Vitality Increased Vibrancy of Downtown Improved Public Safety Reduced Traffic Improved Walk-ability Improved Access to Park/Cultural/Historic Venues Improved Infrastructure Improved Indoor Environmental Quality Health & Human Performance

ECONOMIC Capital Costs Life Cycle Costs Is it Affordable/Prac Affordable/Practical? tical? Does it Create a Successful Environment Environment for Business?

ENVIRONMENTAL Increased Use of ‘Green’ Building Materials Reduced Energy Use Minimized Carbon Footprint Minimized Resource Use Improved Storm Water Quality Reduced Water Use social

2

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

EVALUATION CRITERIA CEDAR RAPIDS IS A VIBRANT VIBRANT,, URBAN HOMETO HOMETOWN WN - A BEACON FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES BUS INESSES INVESTED IN BUILDING A GREATER COMMUNITY FOR THE NEXT GENERATION. -ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL_ JULY 2007

Sustainability is making decisions decisions now that will provide a better future for the next generation. It includes CONTROLLING THE COST OF GOVERNMENT , ensuring quality of life, and environmental stewardship of natural resources.

SOCIAL 1. User/Customer Access to Services

Does it help promote better community access to services provided?

1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent Does it strengthen the vibrancy of the community?

2. Civic Strength 1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent 3. Employee Environment

Does it provide an environment that all ows the employees to do their best work?

1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent

ECONOMIC What will the initial cost be to the community- rebuild, remodel, new?

1. Initial Cost 1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent

What will it cost to run the building for the next 50 years?

2. On-Going Cost 1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent 3. Economic Stimulus

What programs will be/could be used to help pay for the facility and what impact will the building have on the surrounding area?

1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent

ENVIRONMENTAL How much of the site is prepared for redevelopment/development?

1. Site Usage 1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent 2. Building/Structure Performance

How energy efficient is the facility?

1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent Does the location have multiple transportation options?

3. City Connection 1. Failing 2. Below Average 3. Average 4. Better than Average 5. Excellent

2

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

COST ESTIMATE EXPLANATION THE FOLLOWING F OLLOWING EXAMPLE EXA MPLE DAT DATA IS USED TO EXPLAIN EXPL AIN HOW COST COS T INFORMA INFOR MATION TION IS CALCULA CALC ULATED TED AND DISPLA DISPLAYED: YED:

SOCIAL TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION

ALL COST NUMBERS IN THIS STUDY ARE PRELIMINARY: The numbers used are rough approximations of cost within a reasonable range of  values, prepared for information purposes only. Cost estimates have been developed on the basis of available information information and, in absence of a formal pricing study, with the use of experience-based formulas or planning-factors. planning-factors. These estimates are employed in conceptual planning or in budgeting study only, and are not considered valid for entering into a commitment.

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION NON TAX PAYER FUNDING = INITIAL COST

FUNDING SOURCES

FEMA FUNDING

Final FEMA funding has yet to be determined and will have the potential to greatly impact initial and on-going cost. cost. The numbers used to represent FEMA funding in these preliminary cost estimates are the estimates provided to the city of Cedar Rapids by Howard R. Green Company and CDM.

ON-GOING COST TOTAL NET PRESENT VALUE - NPV

 WHAT IS NET PRESENT VALUE?

The difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows. NPV is used in capital budgeting to analyze the profitability of an investment or project. NPV analysis is sensitive to the reliability of future cash inflows that an investment or project will yield. Formula:

2

T Ct NPV = S t t=1 (1 +r)

-Co

CITY SER SERVICES VICES

A 1

MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPDATES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

The pre-ood facility lacks easy public parki ng and access; however, it is centrally located.

Functional upgrades would enhance customer service and update the pre-ood facility.

     L      A      I      C The pre-ood facility enhances civic strength as a central historical landmark.      O      S Both the pre-ood facility’s location and its previous use as a city hall are no longer the best environment for functions and adjacencies of city departments, and technology needs.

5

Facility improvements would increase employee efciency and productivity. This option would require a considerable investment to update the facility to meet today’s standards.

Least expensive option, but function, efciency, and future growth are compromised.      C      I      M      O Least expensive option, but does not account for current growth needs or growth needs      N over the next 50 years.      O      C      E Returning to pre-ood facility will have no impact on surrounding economy.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

Site is prone to ooding with basement and rst oor being unusable for critical  . department programs.      N      O      R The building needs signicant remodeling for energy efciency and upgrades.      I      V      N      E The site is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

Site is prone to ooding with basement and rst oor being unusable for critical  . department programs.      N      O Existing buildings are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. Major improvements      R      I      V would be focused on improving operating inefciencies and energy efciency..      N      E The site is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

10

15

20

25

30

Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding current energy code requirements are needed. Substantial improvements to the facility would do little to enhance the surrounding neighborhood economy.

Social Score

11

Social Score

13

Economic Score

11

Economic Score

10

Environmental Score

11

Environmental Score

0

     L      A      I With mechanical and functional upgrades, the pre-ood facility would continue to      C enhance civic strength.      O      S

35

40

9

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CITY SER SERVICES VICES

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WIT PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE - BUT CENTRALLY LOCATED)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL)

Customer access to services is maximized in a new City Services Center.

A new City Services Center at Westdale Mall would provide adequate access to services.

     L      A A new centrally-located City Services Center would be an excellent source of civic      I      C strength and add to the vibrancy of the City of Cedar Rapids.      O      S

     L      A Due to Westdale Mall’s non-central location, a new City Services Center would minimally      I      C contribute to the City’s vibrancy.      O      S With updates and modications, a City Services Center at Westdale Mall would allow employees to function efciently and provide better service to the public.

Employee environment and efciency would be maximized in a new City Services Center.

Potential FEMA funding stays with Veteran’s Memorial Building.      C      I      M      O This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and      N minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance.      O      C      E The construction of a new City Services facility has a greater potential for the enhancement of adjacent properties.

Potential FEMA funding stays with Veteran’s Memorial Building.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding energy code requirements.      N      O      C      E Re-purposing a building would positively impact the area.

The new City Services Center would be on a centrally-located site.  .      N      O      R      I The new facility would be energy efcient.      V      N      E The new City Services Center site is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

The Westdale Mall location is an existing building located in a dense commercial zone.  .      N      O The building, which was originally designed and built as a mall, would not be energy      R      I      V efcient even with building improvements and upgrades.      N      E The Westdale Mall location is easily accessible by car and located on major bus routes, but is not pedestrian-friendly.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

14

Social Score

6

Economic Score

6

Environmental Score

6

8

14

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CITY SER SERVICES VICES

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$1,740,000 $79,627,981

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$4,340,000 $94,537,513

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$53,170,250 $91,133,902

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$62,784,250 $115,133,791

CITY SER SERVICES VICES

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WIT PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE - BUT CENTRALLY LOCATED)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL)

Customer access to services is maximized in a new City Services Center.

A new City Services Center at Westdale Mall would provide adequate access to services.

     L      A      I A new centrally-located City Services Center would be an excellent source of civic      C strength and add to the vibrancy of the City of Cedar Rapids.      O      S

     L      A      I Due to Westdale Mall’s non-central location, a new City Services Center would minimally      C contribute to the City’s vibrancy.      O      S With updates and modications, a City Services Center at Westdale Mall would allow employees to function efciently and provide better service to the public.

Employee environment and efciency would be maximized in a new City Services Center.

Potential FEMA funding stays with Veteran’s Memorial Building.      C      I      M      O This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and      N minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance.      O      C      E The construction of a new City Services facility has a greater potential for the enhancement of adjacent properties.

Potential FEMA funding stays with Veteran’s Memorial Building.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding energy code requirements.      N      O      C      E Re-purposing a building would positively impact the area.

The new City Services Center would be on a centrally-located site.  .      N      O      R The new facility would be energy efcient.      I      V      N      E The new City Services Center site is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

The Westdale Mall location is an existing building located in a dense commercial zone.  .      N      O The building, which was originally designed and built as a mall, would not be energy      R      I      V efcient even with building improvements and upgrades.      N      E The Westdale Mall location is easily accessible by car and located on major bus routes, but is not pedestrian-friendly.

Social Score

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6

Economic Score

6

Environmental Score

6

8

Economic Score

Environmental Score

Social Score

14

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

45

40

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CITY SER SERVICES VICES

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$1,740,000 $79,627,981

TOTAL COST OF

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$4,340,000 $94,537,513

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$53,170,250 $91,133,902

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$62,784,250 $115,133,791

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$36,390,000

$38,990,000

$53,170,250

$62,784,250

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

        0         0         0   ,         2         1         2   ,         3         2          $

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING PRE-FLOOD SITE: N

BUILDING: VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

= SITE

        0         0         0   ,         2         1         2   ,         3         2          $

CITY SER SERVICES VICES

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

B

$1,740,000 $79,627,981

TOTAL COST OF

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

C

$4,340,000

INITIAL COST :

$94,537,513

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$53,170,250 $91,133,902

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$62,784,250 $115,133,791

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$36,390,000

$38,990,000

$53,170,250

$62,784,250

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

        0         0         0   ,         2         1         2   ,         3         2          $

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING PRE-FLOOD SITE:

BUILDING: VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

N

 v e  t A  1 s

= SITE

EXISTING UNDERGROUND PARKING

= USABLE SPACE: 90,718 SF

PARKING

= AUDITORIUM: 31,162 SF TOTAL : 121,880 SF

516 OF PARKING SPACES NEEDED - 127 OF ALLOWABLE SPACES 389 OF TOTAL PARKING DEFICIENCY  v e  d A   2 n

SITE SUMMARY:

Located on the municipal May’s Island, the Veteran’s Memorial Building of  Cedar Rapids is surrounded by water and necessary support infrastructure. Due to the historical nature of the building, and site constraints, the structure is not readily expandable for current space requirements/needs.

 v e  d A   3 r

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING / COMPLEX

NOT TO SCALE

BUILDING INFORMATION: The Veteran’s Memorial Building provi ded a central location for many city services prior to the Flood of 2008. The building, however, prevented expansion of many program and departmental spaces due to its site constraints and historic nature. At the heart of the building lies expansive public event spaces, which can affect the operation operation of internal service departments and necessary space adjacenci es. To encroach on the public event spaces with internal space needs would be a detriment to the historic nature of the structure.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING POST-FLOOD SITE: N

BUILDING: VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING (Damaged)

= SITE

        0         0         0   ,         2         1         2   ,         3         2          $

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING PRE-FLOOD SITE:

BUILDING: VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

N

 v e  t A  1 s

= SITE

EXISTING UNDERGROUND PARKING

= USABLE SPACE: 90,718 SF

PARKING

= AUDITORIUM: 31,162 SF TOTAL : 121,880 SF

516 OF PARKING SPACES NEEDED - 127 OF ALLOWABLE SPACES 389 OF TOTAL PARKING DEFICIENCY  v e  d A   2 n

SITE SUMMARY:

Located on the municipal May’s Island, the Veteran’s Memorial Building of  Cedar Rapids is surrounded by water and necessary support infrastructure. Due to the historical nature of the building, and site constraints, the structure is not readily expandable for current space requirements/needs.

 v e  d A   3 r

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING / COMPLEX

NOT TO SCALE

BUILDING INFORMATION: The Veteran’s Memorial Building provi ded a central location for many city services prior to the Flood of 2008. The building, however, prevented expansion of many program and departmental spaces due to its site constraints and historic nature. At the heart of the building lies expansive public event spaces, which can affect the operation operation of internal service departments and necessary space adjacenci es. To encroach on the public event spaces with internal space needs would be a detriment to the historic nature of the structure.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING POST-FLOOD SITE:

BUILDING: VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING (Damaged)

N

= SITE = USABLE SPACE: 36,884 SF

EXISTING UNDERGROUND PARKING

= AUDITORIUM: 31,162 SF

 v e  t A  1 s

PARKING

516 OF PARKING SPACES NEEDED -127 OF ALL OWABLE SPACES 389 OF TOTAL TOTAL PARKING DEFICIENCY *

 v e  d A   2 n

= USABLE SPACE: 53,834 SF (NON CRITICAL FUNCTION & FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS) TOTAL : 121,880 SF

PARKING SUMMARY:  v e  d A   3 r

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING / COMPLEX

The parking structure and green space on May’s Island suffered yet unconfirmed damage. Alternatives for parking facilities located on May’s Island may need to be implemented if  city services return to this structure. NOT TO SCALE

POST-FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS:

* Final parking deficiency total dependent on structural assessment

The below-grade and ground levels of the Veteran’s Memorial Building are at the greatest risk for damage due to future flood events. As May’s Island and the Veteran’s Memorial Memorial Building are not protected by flood mitigation technology technology along the Cedar River, the building carries an inherent risk for future occupants. The planned flood mitigation strategies designed to protect the greater Cedar Rapids Area may in fact increase flood event damage on May’s Island as water is channeled through and away from the urban core.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

FUNCTIONS: SPACE/PROGRAM USES PRE-FLOOD:

EXISTING PROGRAMS WILL NOT FIT BACK  INTO “NON-FLOODED” SPACE

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING POST-FLOOD SITE:

BUILDING: VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING (Damaged)

N

= SITE = USABLE SPACE: 36,884 SF

EXISTING UNDERGROUND PARKING

= AUDITORIUM: 31,162 SF

 v e  t A  1 s

PARKING

516 OF PARKING SPACES NEEDED -127 OF ALL OWABLE SPACES 389 OF TOTAL TOTAL PARKING DEFICIENCY *

 v e  d A   2 n

= USABLE SPACE: 53,834 SF (NON CRITICAL FUNCTION & FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS) TOTAL : 121,880 SF

PARKING SUMMARY:  v e  d A   3 r

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING / COMPLEX

The parking structure and green space on May’s Island suffered yet unconfirmed damage. Alternatives for parking facilities located on May’s Island may need to be implemented if  city services return to this structure. NOT TO SCALE

POST-FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS:

* Final parking deficiency total dependent on structural assessment

The below-grade and ground levels of the Veteran’s Memorial Building are at the greatest risk for damage due to future flood events. As May’s Island and the Veteran’s Memorial Memorial Building are not protected by flood mitigation technology technology along the Cedar River, the building carries an inherent risk for future occupants. The planned flood mitigation strategies designed to protect the greater Cedar Rapids Area may in fact increase flood event damage on May’s Island as water is channeled through and away from the urban core.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

FUNCTIONS: SPACE/PROGRAM USES PRE-FLOOD:

EXISTING PROGRAMS WILL NOT FIT BACK  INTO “NON-FLOODED” SPACE

USABLE SPACE

USABLE SPACE NON-CRITICAL FUNCTION

AUDITORIUM 100%

121,880 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH FUNCTIONS:

TOTAL

FUNDING SOURCES:

T  PRIMARY COST O T  COMPONENTS:A  L  

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

FUNCTIONS: SPACE/PROGRAM USES PRE-FLOOD:

EXISTING PROGRAMS WILL NOT FIT BACK  INTO “NON-FLOODED” SPACE

USABLE SPACE

USABLE SPACE NON-CRITICAL FUNCTION

AUDITORIUM 100%

121,880 SF

TOTAL

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

T  PRIMARY COST O T  COMPONENTS:A  L  

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH FUNCTIONS: 36,884 SF OF LEASABLE SPACE Here are two ways to use it:

TOTAL

121,880 SF

100 %

TOTAL

121,880 SF

100%

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY SERVICES CENTER CITY SERVICES CENTER “ONE-STOP” FACILITY Programs/Functions: Civil Rights/Fair Housing City Attorney

Former Location:

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH FUNCTIONS: 36,884 SF OF LEASABLE SPACE Here are two ways to use it:

TOTAL

121,880 SF

100 %

TOTAL

121,880 SF

100%

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

FUNDING SOURCES:

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY SERVICES CENTER CITY SERVICES CENTER “ONE-STOP” FACILITY Programs/Functions:

Former Location:

Civil Rights/Fair Housing

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

City Attorney City Clerk City Council City Manager Community Development Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Information Technology Veteran’s Memorial Commission

 WHY A “ONE-STOP” FACILITY? Comments from Department staff:  Advantageous to Share Common/Redundant Common/Redundant Spaces Benefits Public to Centralize Certain Uses Builds a Civic/Government/Public Civic/Government/Public Relationship Promotes Synergy Builds Efficiencies Saves the User Time Department Adjacencies Serve the Employees More Sufficiently Improves Customer Service

Parks/Recreation Administration City Assessor Code Enforcement Engineering Traffic Engineering Utility Billing Shared Meeting Space

TOTAL

How do you save space through adjacencies and shared spaces?

139,513 SF

Space Adjacencies Requested by Departments: CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL

UTILITY BILLING

35,410 SF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Total representation of Departments’ meeting rooms, breakrooms, workrooms, and storage within their own program spaces.

CITY MANAGER

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

21,940 SF

CITY ASSESSOR

13,470 SF ENGINEERING

Total representation of Departments’ meeting rooms, breakrooms, workrooms, and storage after consolidating those spaces that can be shared into fewer rooms.

Total representation of spaces that can now be deleted from the building because they are shared.

2

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY SERVICES CENTER NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE - BUT CENTERALLY LOCATED) Civil Rights/Fair Housing

CITY ATTORNEY

Former Location:

FINANCE

CIVIL RIGHTS/ FAIR HOUSING

CODE ENFORCEMENT

= PRIMARY PROGRAM SPACES

Programs/Functions:

HUMAN RESOURCES

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

PARKS AND RECREATION ADMIN.

= SHARED PROGRAM SPACES

100%

CITY SERVICES CENTER CITY SERVICES CENTER “ONE-STOP” FACILITY Programs/Functions:

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

Former Location:

Civil Rights/Fair Housing City Attorney City Clerk City Council City Manager Community Development Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Information Technology Veteran’s Memorial Commission

 WHY A “ONE-STOP” FACILITY? Comments from Department staff:  Advantageous to Share Common/Redundant Common/Redundant Spaces Benefits Public to Centralize Certain Uses Builds a Civic/Government/Public Civic/Government/Public Relationship Promotes Synergy Builds Efficiencies Saves the User Time Department Adjacencies Serve the Employees More Sufficiently Improves Customer Service

Parks/Recreation Administration City Assessor Code Enforcement Engineering Traffic Engineering Utility Billing Shared Meeting Space

TOTAL

How do you save space through adjacencies and shared spaces?

139,513 SF

100%

Space Adjacencies Requested by Departments: CITY CLERK

CITY COUNCIL

UTILITY BILLING

35,410 SF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Total representation of Departments’ meeting rooms, breakrooms, workrooms, and storage within their own program spaces. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

CITY ASSESSOR

13,470 SF

21,940 SF

ENGINEERING

Total representation of Departments’ meeting rooms, breakrooms, workrooms, and storage after consolidating those spaces that can be shared into fewer rooms.

Total representation of spaces that can now be deleted from the building because they are shared.

HUMAN RESOURCES

CITY MANAGER

CITY ATTORNEY

CIVIL RIGHTS/ FAIR HOUSING

CODE ENFORCEMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

2

FINANCE

= PRIMARY PROGRAM SPACES

PARKS AND RECREATION ADMIN.

= SHARED PROGRAM SPACES

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY SERVICES CENTER NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE - BUT CENTERALLY LOCATED) Programs/Functions: Civil Rights/Fair Housing

Former Location:

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

City Attorney City Clerk City Council City Manager Community Development Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Information Technology Veteran’s Memorial Commission Parks/Recreation Administration

CITY SERVICES CENTER 139,513 SF BUILDING

City Assessor Code Enforcement Engineering Traffic Engineering Utility Billing Shared Meeting Space

TOTAL

NEW BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS:

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

139,513 SF

100%

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS: T   O T  A  L  

 A new facility would allow for the site to accommodate all the departmental programs. A site will be chosen based on evaluation criteria which best suits its functions. By creating a “one-stop” facility, it can offer greater services and increase it’s presence in the community. All new state-of-the art technology and building practices can be incorporated to make this new building one of the most sustainable in the state.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY SERVICES CENTER RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL) MALL)  Westdale Mall

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

CITY SERVICES CENTER NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE - BUT CENTERALLY LOCATED) Programs/Functions:

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

Former Location:

Civil Rights/Fair Housing City Attorney City Clerk City Council City Manager Community Development Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Information Technology Veteran’s Memorial Commission Parks/Recreation Administration

CITY SERVICES CENTER 139,513 SF BUILDING

City Assessor Code Enforcement Engineering Traffic Engineering Utility Billing Shared Meeting Space

TOTAL

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

NEW BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS:

139,513 SF

100%

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

FUNDING SOURCES:

T   O T  A  L  

 A new facility would allow for the site to accommodate all the departmental programs. A site will be chosen based on evaluation criteria which best suits its functions. By creating a “one-stop” facility, it can offer greater services and increase it’s presence in the community. All new state-of-the art technology and building practices can be incorporated to make this new building one of the most sustainable in the state.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY SERVICES CENTER RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL) MALL)

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

 Westdale Mall

TOTAL

90 0,0 12 SF

TOTAL

100%

139,513 SF

100%

 Westdale Mall Aerial TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS: Westdale Mall would accommodate the entire new program for the City Services Center. It provides for easy access as well as parking for employees and visitors. The building exceeds the City Services Center requirements by 760,499 SF. Th e remaining space will need to be occupied through lease or other means. Westdale Mall would need to go through renovation and updates to create a heathy and state-of-the-art facility. The site is not centrally located within Cedar Rapids and loses the central city connection desired.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY OPERA OPERATIONS TIONS

A

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPDATES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

CITY SERVICES CENTER RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL) MALL)

Space/Functional Uses New Facility:

 Westdale Mall

TOTAL

90 0,0 12 SF

TOTAL

100%

139,513 SF

100%

 Westdale Mall Aerial TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

FUNDING SOURCES:

BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS: Westdale Mall would accommodate the entire new program for the City Services Center. It provides for easy access as well as parking for employees and visitors. The building exceeds the City Services Center requirements by 760,499 SF. Th e remaining space will need to be occupied through lease or other means. Westdale Mall would need to go through renovation and updates to create a heathy and state-of-the-art facility. The site is not centrally located within Cedar Rapids and loses the central city connection desired.

2

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

CITY OPERA OPERATIONS TIONS

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPDATES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

Generally centrally located in the city with good access to main roads.

Generally centrally located in the city with good access to main roads.

     L      A Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrall y      I      C located in the city with proximity to main roads .      O      S Operating inefcie ncies are cumbersome and time consuming. Environment is generally acceptable but could be greatly improved.

     L      A Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally      I      C located in the city with proximity to main roads .      O      S Realizing operating efciencies in the existing building would be very helpful. An addition would elevate the environment and improve operating efciency.

FEMA with I-jobs will cover 100% of build back and initial improvement.      C      I      M      O This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and minimiz      N ing on-going cost of operation and maintenance. maintenance.      O      C      E As an internal operations group, it will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes existing city owned properties. Wil l require ood recovery work. Will require      C up-front capital investment.      I      M      O The sustainable upgrades will offset needed growth.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, it will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes property that the City currently owns.  .      N      O Existing buildings are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. Existing structures      R      I      V are inadequate for many critical operations, and create many operational inefciencies.      N      E Public Works building is a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locate d in the city with proximity to main roads.

Utilizes property that the City currently owns. May require property acquisition.  .      N      O Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. E xisting structures      R      I are inadequate for many critical operations, and create many operational inefc iencies. A      V new addition could improve operating efciency      N      E 6th Street location is centrali zed and has proximity to main roads. An addition could improve image and civic awareness of operations activities.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

7

12

9

Social Score

9

Economic Score

8

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

11

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CITY OPERA OPERATIONS TIONS

C

NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE)

D

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON CURRENT SITE)

CITY OPERA OPERATIONS TIONS

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPDATES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

Generally centrally located in the city with good access to main roads.

Generally centrally located in the city with good access to main roads.

     L      A      I Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrall y      C located in the city with proximity to main roads .      O      S Operating inefcie ncies are cumbersome and time consuming. Environment is generally acceptable but could be greatly improved.

     L      A      I Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally      C located in the city with proximity to main roads .      O      S Realizing operating efciencies in the existing building would be very helpful. An addition would elevate the environment and improve operating efciency.

FEMA with I-jobs will cover 100% of build back and initial improvement.      C      I      M      O This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and minimiz      N ing on-going cost of operation and maintenance. maintenance.      O      C      E As an internal operations group, it will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes existing city owned properties. Wil l require ood recovery work. Will require      C up-front capital investment.      I      M      O The sustainable upgrades will offset needed growth.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, it will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes property that the City currently owns.  .      N      O Existing buildings are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. Existing structures      R      I      V are inadequate for many critical operations, and create many operational inefciencies.      N      E Public Works building is a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locate d in the city with proximity to main roads.

Utilizes property that the City currently owns. May require property acquisition.  .      N Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. E xisting structures      O      R are inadequate for many critical operations, and create many operational inefc iencies. A      I      V new addition could improve operating efciency      N      E 6th Street location is centrali zed and has proximity to main roads. An addition could improve image and civic awareness of operations activities.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Social Score

9

Economic Score

8

7

12

9

Environmental Score

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

11

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CITY OPERA OPERATIONS TIONS

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON CURRENT SITE)

Generally centrally located in the city with good access to main roads.      L      A      I      C A new building would be an excellent source of civic strength.      O      S A new building would elevate the environment and drastically improve operating efciency.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

     L      A      I      C      O      S

NOT NO T APPLICABLE APPLICABL E

Will require up-front capital investment.

     C      I DUE TO     M PUBLIC WORKS’ NEED FOR A LARGE SITE WITH A      O CENTRALIZED      N LOCATION AND OVER-SIZED VEHICLE ACCESS,      O THE CURRENT LAND IS USABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE.      C      E

A new building would be customized to optimize operating efciency and energy efciency. C o-location offers operating efcie ncies, but increased square footage must be accounted for. As an internal operations group, it will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes property that the City currently owns. May require property acquisition.  .      N      O A new building would be customized to optimize operating efciency and energy      R      I      V efciency. Co-locat ion offers operating efciencies      N      E 6th Street location is centraliz ed and has proximity to main roads. A new building could improve image and civic awareness of operations activities.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

13

Social Score

7

Economic Score

13

Environmental Score

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CITY OPERATIONS

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$0 $134,586,465

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$16,316,500 $191,700,504

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$24,377,978 $177,020,021

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

40

45

CITY OPERA OPERATIONS TIONS

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON CURRENT SITE)

Generally centrally located in the city with good access to main roads.      L      A      I      C A new building would be an excellent source of civic strength.      O      S A new building would elevate the environment and drastically improve operating efciency.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

     L      A      I      C      O      S

NOT NO T APPLICABLE APPLICABL E

Will require up-front capital investment.

     C      I DUE TO     M PUBLIC WORKS’ NEED FOR A LARGE SITE WITH A      O CENTRALIZED      N LOCATION AND OVER-SIZED VEHICLE ACCESS,      O THE CURRENT LAND IS USABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE.      C      E

A new building would be customized to optimize operating efciency and energy efciency. C o-location offers operating efcie ncies, but increased square footage must be accounted for. As an internal operations group, it will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes property that the City currently owns. May require property acquisition.  .      N      O A new building would be customized to optimize operating efciency and energy      R      I      V efciency. Co-locat ion offers operating efciencies      N      E 6th Street location is centraliz ed and has proximity to main roads. A new building could improve image and civic awareness of operations activities.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

13

Social Score

7

Economic Score

13

Environmental Score

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CITY OPERATIONS

A

$0

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$134,586,465

TOTAL COST OF

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$16,316,500 $191,700,504

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$24,377,978 $177,020,021

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

CONSTRUCTION:

NOT NO T Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$25,120,000

$41,436,500

$49,497,978

APPLICABLE DUE TO PUBLIC WORKS’ NEED FOR A LARGE SITE WITH A CENTRALIZED LOCATION AND

FUNDING

OVER-SIZED VEHICLE ACCESS.

SOURCES:

THE CURRENT LAND IS USABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE.

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y PRE-FLOOD SITE: N

PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION :

CITY OPERATIONS

A

B

$0

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST

$134,586,465

OVER 50 YEARS:

TOTAL COST OF

$16,316,500

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$191,700,504

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$24,377,978 $177,020,021

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

CONSTRUCTION:

NOT NO T Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$25,120,000

$41,436,500

$49,497,978

APPLICABLE DUE TO PUBLIC WORKS’ NEED FOR A LARGE SITE WITH A CENTRALIZED LOCATION AND

FUNDING

OVER-SIZED VEHICLE ACCESS.

SOURCES:

THE CURRENT LAND IS USABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE.

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y PRE-FLOOD SITE:

PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION :

N

12th Ave

SOLID WASTE, SEWER AND STREETS

PUBLIC WORKS & FLEET MAINTENANCE

14th Ave

STREETS  6   t  h   S   t   .

4   t  h   S   t   .

SALT & SAND STORAGE

  t   S   h   t   6

15th Ave

PUBLIC  WORKS FACILITY

    t     S      h     t     4

= PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY  = PRE-FLOOD TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS SQUARE FEET: 288,128 SF

From top to bottom: Existing main entrance into the 6th Street Public Works Location, secondary entrance on north face of building, view of  both Streets and Fleet Maintenance Departments from the south, southern entrance off of 14th Avenue towards the ConstructionInspection Departme Department. nt.

BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS: The Public Works Works building was or iginally contructed in the 1920’s for Crane Manufacturing. Additions were constructed in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s 60’s and 70’s. The City of Cedar Rapids purchased the building in 1985. Several smaller remodelings have occurred since that time.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y POST-FLOOD SITE: N

PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION :

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y PRE-FLOOD SITE:

PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION :

N

12th Ave

SOLID WASTE, SEWER AND STREETS

PUBLIC WORKS & FLEET MAINTENANCE

14th Ave

STREETS  6   t  h   S   t   .

4   t  h   S   t   .

SALT & SAND STORAGE

  t   S   h   t   6

15th Ave

PUBLIC  WORKS FACILITY

    t     S      h     t     4

= PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY  = PRE-FLOOD TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS SQUARE FEET: 288,128 SF

From top to bottom: Existing main entrance into the 6th Street Public Works Location, secondary entrance on north face of building, view of  both Streets and Fleet Maintenance Departments from the south, southern entrance off of 14th Avenue towards the ConstructionInspection Departme Department. nt.

BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS: The Public Works Works building was or iginally contructed in the 1920’s for Crane Manufacturing. Additions were constructed in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s 60’s and 70’s. The City of Cedar Rapids purchased the building in 1985. Several smaller remodelings have occurred since that time.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y POST-FLOOD SITE:

PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION :

N

12th Ave

SOLID WASTE, SEWER AND STREETS

PUBLIC WORKS & FLEET MAINTENANCE

14th Ave

STREETS  6   t  h   S   t   .

4   t  h   S   t   .

SALT & SAND STORAGE

  t   S   h   t   6

15th Ave

PUBLIC  WORKS FACILITY = PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY  = USABLE SPACE

    t     S      h     t     4

= USABLE SPACE-NON CRITICAL FUNCTIONS TOTAL = 288,128 SF

BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS: The Public Works Works building was or iginally contructed in the 1920’s for Crane Manufacturing. Additions were constructed in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s 60’s and 70’s. The City of Cedar Rapids purchased the building in 1985. Several smaller remodelings have occurred since that time.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM WITH NO GROWTH GROWTH PROPOSED CONFIGURATION:

From top to bottom: Existing main entrance into the 6th Street Public Works Location, secondary entrance on north face of building, view of  both Streets and Fleet Maintenance Departments from the south, southern entrance off of 14th Avenue towards the ConstructionInspection Departme Department. nt.

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y POST-FLOOD SITE:

PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION :

N

12th Ave

SOLID WASTE, SEWER AND STREETS

PUBLIC WORKS & FLEET MAINTENANCE

14th Ave

STREETS  6   t  h   S   t   .

4   t  h   S   t   .

SALT & SAND STORAGE

  t   S   h   t   6

15th Ave

PUBLIC  WORKS FACILITY

    t     S      h     t     4

= PUBLIC WORKS PROPERTY  = USABLE SPACE = USABLE SPACE-NON CRITICAL FUNCTIONS

From top to bottom: Existing main entrance into the 6th Street Public Works Location, secondary entrance on north face of building, view of  both Streets and Fleet Maintenance Departments from the south, southern entrance off of 14th Avenue towards the ConstructionInspection Departme Department. nt.

TOTAL = 288,128 SF

BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS: The Public Works Works building was or iginally contructed in the 1920’s for Crane Manufacturing. Additions were constructed in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s 60’s and 70’s. The City of Cedar Rapids purchased the building in 1985. Several smaller remodelings have occurred since that time.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM WITH NO GROWTH GROWTH PROPOSED CONFIGURATION: = Existing Operations/Administration 20,000 SF

Space/Functional Uses Pre-Flood:

= Existing Shops/Storage 268,128 SF

TOTAL

  t   S   h   t   6

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

    t     S      h     t     4

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH PROPOSED CONFIGURATION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

288,128 SF

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

100 %

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM WITH NO GROWTH GROWTH PROPOSED CONFIGURATION: = Existing Operations/Administration 20,000 SF

Space/Functional Uses Pre-Flood:

= Existing Shops/Storage 268,128 SF

TOTAL

  t   S   h   t   6

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

288,128 SF

100 %

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

    t     S      h     t     4

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH PROPOSED CONFIGURATION: = Existing Operations Operations/Administrat /Administraton on 20,000 SF

Space/Functional Uses Post-Flood:

= Existing Shops/Storage Remodel 268,128 SF = Addition 96,470 SF

TOTAL

384,598 SF

  t   S   h   t   6     t     S      h     t     4 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: NEW SHOPS/STORAGE 66,470 SF ADDITION NEW COVERED VEHICLE STORAGE 30,000 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE) NEW BUILDING:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

100 %

PUBLIC WORKS WORKS FACILITY CILIT Y RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES  WITH PROGRAM GROWTH PROPOSED CONFIGURATION: = Existing Operations Operations/Administrat /Administraton on 20,000 SF

Space/Functional Uses Post-Flood:

= Existing Shops/Storage Remodel 268,128 SF = Addition 96,470 SF

TOTAL

384,598 SF

100 %

  t   S   h   t   6     t     S      h     t     4 TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

NEW SHOPS/STORAGE 66,470 SF ADDITION NEW COVERED VEHICLE STORAGE 30,000 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE) NEW BUILDING: Space/Functional Uses Post-Flood:

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER 354,598 SF BUILDING TOTAL

NEW COVERED VEHICLE STORAGE 30,000 SF BUILDING

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

384,598 SF

100 %

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE

A

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

B

RETURN WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPDATES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FU MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL NCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE) NEW BUILDING: Space/Functional Uses Post-Flood:

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER 354,598 SF BUILDING TOTAL

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

NEW COVERED VEHICLE STORAGE 30,000 SF BUILDING

384,598 SF

FUNDING SOURCES:

100 %

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPDATES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FU MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL NCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

Generally close to the 5 different customer groups. Very little public intera ction occurs

Generally close to the 5 different customer groups. Very little public intera ction occurs

here.

here.

     L      A Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrall y      I      C located in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locati ons are not prominent.      O      S Fleet Maintenan ce staff were isolated from one another. There was little cohesion as a departmen t due to different locations. Some staff would like to return to the previous locations because they are familiar.

     L      A Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally      I      C located in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locati ons are not prominent.      O New additions may improve that.      S Fleet Maintenan ce staff were isolated from one another. There was little cohesion as a departme nt due to different locations. Some staff would like to return to the previous locations because they are familia r. Additions would improve the environment.

FEMA with I-jobs will cover 100% of build back and initial improvement.      C      I      M      O Does not account for future growth.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

Utilizes property that the City currently owns.  .      N      O Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. Existing structures      R      I      V are inadequate for many critical operations, and create many operational inefciencies.      N      E Public Works building is a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locate d in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locations are not prominent.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Investing in additions on ve separate facilities increases on-going cost with no efciencies realized. As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options. Utilizes property that the City currently owns. Will likely require acquisition of additional land. Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. Major improvements would be focused on improving operating inefcie ncies and energy efciency. New construction will be required. Public Works building is a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locat ed in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locations are not prominent.

Social Score

10

Social Score

Economic Score

11

Economic Score

7

Environmental Score

9

Environmental Score

0

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

Utilizes existing city owned properties. Will require ood recovery work. Distrib uted additions will be more expensive than a consolidated one.

35

40

45

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

11

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

FLEET MAINTENANCE

C

NEW BUILDING - CONTAINS CO-LOCATION WITH GROWTH NEEDS (ALL NEW BUILDING CAMPUS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE)

D

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE)

FLEET MAINTENANCE

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPDATES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FU MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL NCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

Generally close to the 5 different customer groups. Very little public intera ction occurs

Generally close to the 5 different customer groups. Very little public intera ction occurs

here.

here.

     L      A      I Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrall y      C located in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locati ons are not prominent.      O      S Fleet Maintenan ce staff were isolated from one another. There was little cohesion as a departmen t due to different locations. Some staff would like to return to the previous locations because they are familiar.

     L Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally      A      I      C located in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locati ons are not prominent.      O New additions may improve that.      S Fleet Maintenan ce staff were isolated from one another. There was little cohesion as a departme nt due to different locations. Some staff would like to return to the previous locations because they are familia r. Additions would improve the environment.

FEMA with I-jobs will cover 100% of build back and initial improvement.      C      I      M      O Does not account for future growth.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

Utilizes property that the City currently owns.  .      N      O Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. Existing structures      R      I      V are inadequate for many critical operations, and create many operational inefciencies.      N      E Public Works building is a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locate d in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locations are not prominent.

5

10

15

20

25

30

Investing in additions on ve separate facilities increases on-going cost with no efciencies realized. As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options. Utilizes property that the City currently owns. Will likely require acquisition of additional land. Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. Major improvements would be focused on improving operating inefcie ncies and energy efciency. New construction will be required. Public Works building is a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locat ed in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locations are not prominent.

Social Score

10

Social Score

Economic Score

11

Economic Score

7

Environmental Score

9

Environmental Score

0

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

Utilizes existing city owned properties. Will require ood recovery work. Distrib uted additions will be more expensive than a consolidated one.

35

40

8

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

11

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

FLEET MAINTENANCE

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - CONTAINS CO-LOCATION WITH GROWTH NEEDS (ALL NEW BUILDING CAMPUS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE)

6th Street location is centraliz ed and has proximity to main roads. Fleet trans port be tween central facility and remote customers will be more involved.      L      A      I      C A new facility could be more visible and enhance the City Operations image.      O      S Would enable creation of a better working environment and more customized, functional spaces.

6th Street location is centralized and has proximity to main roads. Flee t transport be tween central facility and remote customers will be more involved.      L      A Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locat      I      C ed in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locations are not prominen t. New      O additions may improve that      S Consolidat ion would improve departmen tal unity and identity. Additions could provide better quality space with more customized functional abilities.

Will require signicant up-front capital investment.      C      I      M      O Co-location offers operating efciencies, and accounts for 50 year growth needs.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes existi ng city owned properties. Will require ood recover y work. Will likely re      C quire acquisition of additional land.      I      M      O Co-location offers operating efciencies, and accounts for 50 year growth needs.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes some property that the City currently owns. Will likely requi re acquisition of ad  . ditional land. Wi ll abandon remote sites or leave them available for re-purpose.      N      O A new building would be customized to optimize operating efciency and energy      R      I      V efciency. Co-locat ion offers operating efciencies.      N      E 6th Street location is centraliz ed and has proximity to main roads. A new building could improve image and civic awareness of Fleet Maintenance activities.

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Utilizes some property that the City currently owns. Wil l likely require acquisition of  additiona l land. Will abandon remote sites or leave them available for re-purpose. Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. M ajor improvements would be focused on improving operating inefciencies and energy efciency. Co-locat ion offers operating efciencies. 6th Street location is centrali zed and has proximity to main roads. An addition could improve image and civic awareness of Fleet Maintenance activities.

11

Social Score

7

10

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

10

Economic Score

8

Environmental Score

9

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

FLEET MAINTENANCE

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$0 $37,081,629

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$13,612,661 $76,862,283

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$19,082,450 $65,501,650

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$12,420,500 $62,292,698

FLEET MAINTENANCE

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - CONTAINS CO-LOCATION WITH GROWTH NEEDS (ALL NEW BUILDING CAMPUS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE)

6th Street location is centraliz ed and has proximity to main roads. Fleet trans port be tween central facility and remote customers will be more involved.      L      A      I      C A new facility could be more visible and enhance the City Operations image.      O      S Would enable creation of a better working environment and more customized, functional spaces.

6th Street location is centralized and has proximity to main roads. Flee t transport be tween central facility and remote customers will be more involved.      L Public Works building has a notable presence on 6th Street. It is generally centrally locat      A      I      C ed in the city with proximity to main roads. Remote locations are not prominen t. New      O additions may improve that      S Consolidat ion would improve departmen tal unity and identity. Additions could provide better quality space with more customized functional abilities.

Will require signicant up-front capital investment.      C      I      M      O Co-location offers operating efciencies, and accounts for 50 year growth needs.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes existi ng city owned properties. Will require ood recover y work. Will likely re      C quire acquisition of additional land.      I      M      O Co-location offers operating efciencies, and accounts for 50 year growth needs.      N      O      C      E As an internal operations group, will have a fairly consistent economic impact across all location options.

Utilizes some property that the City currently owns. Will likely requi re acquisition of ad  . ditional land. Wi ll abandon remote sites or leave them available for re-purpose.      N      O A new building would be customized to optimize operating efciency and energy      R      I      V efciency. Co-locat ion offers operating efciencies.      N      E 6th Street location is centraliz ed and has proximity to main roads. A new building could improve image and civic awareness of Fleet Maintenance activities.

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Utilizes some property that the City currently owns. Wil l likely require acquisition of  additiona l land. Will abandon remote sites or leave them available for re-purpose. Existing building s are generally less than optimal in energy efciency. M ajor improvements would be focused on improving operating inefciencies and energy efciency. Co-locat ion offers operating efciencies. 6th Street location is centrali zed and has proximity to main roads. An addition could improve image and civic awareness of Fleet Maintenance activities.

11

Social Score

7

10

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

10

Economic Score

8

Environmental Score

9

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

FLEET MAINTENANCE

A

$0

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$37,081,629

TOTAL COST OF

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$13,612,661 $76,862,283

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$19,082,450 $65,501,650

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$12,420,500 $62,292,698

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$10,572,000

$24,184,661

$24,912,450

$18,250,500

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

FLEET MAINTENANCE PRE-FLOOD SITE: N

PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING

FLEET MAINTENANCE

A

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

B

$0

INITIAL COST :

$37,081,629

TOTAL COST OF

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$13,612,661 $76,862,283

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$19,082,450 $65,501,650

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$12,420,500 $62,292,698

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$10,572,000

$24,184,661

$24,912,450

$18,250,500

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

FLEET MAINTENANCE PRE-FLOOD SITE: PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW

N

CR TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW

11,250 SF

3,081 S F

4,852 SF

61,453 SF

FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY

SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Prior to the Flood of 2008, eet maintenance was distributed among ve separate locations. Facilities were generally located in close proximity to specic customer groups.

7,200 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE POST-FLOOD SITE: N

PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING

FLEET MAINTENANCE PRE-FLOOD SITE: PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW

N

CR TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW

11,250 SF

3,081 S F

4,852 SF

61,453 SF

FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY

SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Prior to the Flood of 2008, eet maintenance was distributed among ve separate locations. Facilities were generally located in close proximity to specic customer groups.

7,200 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE POST-FLOOD SITE: PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW (FLOOD AFFECTED)

N

CR TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW (FLOOD AFFECTED) FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW (FLOOD AFFECTED) 11,250 SF

3,081 SF

4,852 SF

61,453 SF

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW (FLOOD AFFECTED) POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW (NOT FLOOD AFFECTED)

FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY

=FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS

SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Prior to the Flood of 2008, eet maintenance was distributed among ve separate locations. Facilities were generally located in close proximity to specic customer groups.

7,200 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITION WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH PREVIOUS PREVIOU S VOLUMES:

FLEET MAINTENANCE POST-FLOOD SITE: PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW (FLOOD AFFECTED)

N

CR TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW (FLOOD AFFECTED) FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW (FLOOD AFFECTED) 11,250 SF

3,081 SF

4,852 SF

61,453 SF

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW (FLOOD AFFECTED) POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW (NOT FLOOD AFFECTED)

FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY

=FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS

SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Prior to the Flood of 2008, eet maintenance was distributed among ve separate locations. Facilities were generally located in close proximity to specic customer groups.

7,200 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITION WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH PREVIOUS PREVIOU S VOLUMES: Space/Functional Uses Pre-Flood:

FLEET MAINTENANCE LOCATION AT EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING

TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW

PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW

FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW

POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

CR TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH EXISTING WITH ADDITIONS:

FUNDING SOURCES:

87,836 SF

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

100 %

FLEET MAINTENANCE RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD C ONDITION WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH PREVIOUS PREVIOU S VOLUMES: Space/Functional Uses Pre-Flood:

FLEET MAINTENANCE LOCATION AT EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING

TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW

PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW

FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW

POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

87,836 SF

FUNDING SOURCES:

100 %

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

CR TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH EXISTING WITH ADDITIONS: FLEET MAINTENANCE LOCATION AT EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING

CoveredVehicleStorage 1,519 SF

CoveredVehicleStorage 14,447 SF

Ofces Parts Shops

500 SF 500 SF 1,000 SF

Parts

5,000 SF

TOTAL

3,519 SF

TOTAL

19,44 7 SF

Space/Functional Uses Post-Flood:

TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW

CoveredVehicleStorage 3,600 SF

CoveredVehicleStorage 3,988 SF Parts

1,000 SF

TOTAL

4,988 SF

POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW

FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW

Ofces Parts Shops Vehicle Storage

1,000 SF 2,500 SF 1,500 SF 3,600 SF

TOTAL

12,20 0 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

CoveredVehicleStorage 18,750 SF Parts

2,000 SF

TOTAL

20,75 0 SF

CEDAR RAPIDS TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE NEW BUILDING - CONTAINS CO-LOCATION WITH GROWTH NEEDS (ALL NEW BUILDING CAMPUS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE) NEW BUILDING:

148,740 SF

PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

100 %

FLEET MAINTENANCE RETURN PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH EXISTING WITH ADDITIONS: FLEET MAINTENANCE LOCATION AT EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING

CoveredVehicleStorage 1,519 SF

CoveredVehicleStorage 14,447 SF

Ofces Parts Shops

500 SF 500 SF 1,000 SF

Parts

5,000 SF

TOTAL

3,519 SF

TOTAL

19,44 7 SF

Space/Functional Uses Post-Flood:

TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 1201 6th STREET SW

148,740 SF

100 %

PARKS & RECREATION ELLIS HARBOR BUILDING 2550 ELLIS BOULEVARD NW CoveredVehicleStorage 3,600 SF

CoveredVehicleStorage 3,988 SF Parts

1,000 SF

TOTAL

4,988 SF

POLICE DEPARTMENT GARAGE 505 1st STREET SW

FIRE GARAGE 222 3rd STREET NW

Ofces Parts Shops Vehicle Storage

1,000 SF 2,500 SF 1,500 SF 3,600 SF

TOTAL

12,20 0 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

CoveredVehicleStorage 18,750 SF Parts

2,000 SF

TOTAL

20,75 0 SF

CEDAR RAPIDS TRANSIT FACILITY 427 8th STREET NW

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE NEW BUILDING - CONTAINS CO-LOCATION WITH GROWTH NEEDS (ALL NEW BUILDING CAMPUS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE) NEW BUILDING: Consolidated Space/ Functional Uses Post-Flood:

TOTAL

NEW CONSOLIDATED BUILDING 106,436 SF

COVERED VEHICLE STORAGE 42,304 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON PUBLIC WORKS WORKS SITE) ADDITIONS:

148,740 SF

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

100 %

FLEET MAINTENANCE NEW BUILDING - CONTAINS CO-LOCATION WITH GROWTH NEEDS (ALL NEW BUILDING CAMPUS ON PUBLIC WORKS SITE) NEW BUILDING: Consolidated Space/ Functional Uses Post-Flood:

TOTAL

NEW CONSOLIDATED BUILDING 106,436 SF

COVERED VEHICLE STORAGE 42,304 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

148,740 SF

100 %

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

FLEET MAINTENANCE RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON PUBLIC WORKS WORKS SITE) ADDITIONS: Consolidated Space/ Functional Uses Post-Flood:

TOTAL

148,740 SF

100 %

FLEET MAINTENANCE LOCATED IN EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 61,453 SF

FLEET MAINTENANCE ADDITION ON PUBLIC WORKS CAMPUS 44,983 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

COVEREDVEHICLE STORAGE 42,304 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL CONTROL CENTER

A

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPDATES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM GROWTH

FLEET MAINTENANCE RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (REMODEL EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ADD ADDITIONS ON PUBLIC WORKS WORKS SITE) ADDITIONS: Consolidated Space/ Functional Uses Post-Flood:

TOTAL

148,740 SF

100 %

FLEET MAINTENANCE LOCATED IN EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 61,453 SF

FLEET MAINTENANCE ADDITION ON PUBLIC WORKS CAMPUS 44,983 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

COVEREDVEHICLE STORAGE 42,304 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL CONTROL CENTER

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPDATES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM GROWTH

The pre-ood facility was remotely located and often ooded making it inconvenient to visit by the public.      L      A The pre-ood facility fails to enhance civic strength because it does not adequately serve      I      C the public or the animals it shelters/treats.      O      S Both the pre-ood facility’s location and it’s previous use as a sewage treatment plant create an environment not suitable for animal shelter and treatment.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

The pre-ood facility was remotely located and often ooded making it inconvenient to visit by the public.      L      A      I      C Service to public and animals could be minimally improved through functional updates.      O      S With upgrades and modications, the pre-ood facility could become more functional but the program is still hampered by the original design as a sewage treatment plant.

The facility was mitigated but not cleaned, and the two septic systems on site were compromised during the Flood of 2008.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

Least expensive option but does not account for current growth needs or growth needs over the next 50 years. Returning to pre-ood conditions fails to economically stimulate immediate surroundings due to remote location.

Site is prone to annual ooding.  .      N      O The building, which originally operated as a sewage treatment plant, does not operate      R      I      V efciently as an animal shelter.      N      E The location is remote and not on a bus route. Transportation by automobile impacte d by annual ood of the single access road to the facility.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

The facility was mitigated but not cleaned, and the two septic systems on site were compromised during the Flood of 2008. Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding current energy code requirements. Returning to pre-ood conditions fails to economically stimulate immediate surroundings due to remote location.

Site is prone to annual ooding.  .      N      O      R      I Modications would minimally increase energy efciencies.      V      N      E The location is remote and not on a bus route. Transportation by automobile impacte d by annual ood of the single access road to the facility.

3

Social Score

6

Economic Score

8

Environmental Score

4

10

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL CONTROL CENTER

C

NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE)

D

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (KEEP TEMPORARY LOCATION WITH UPGRADES)

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL CONTROL CENTER

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPDATES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM GROWTH

The pre-ood facility was remotely located and often ooded making it inconvenient to visit by the public.      L      A      I The pre-ood facility fails to enhance civic strength because it does not adequately serve      C the public or the animals it shelters/treats.      O      S Both the pre-ood facility’s location and it’s previous use as a sewage treatment plant create an environment not suitable for animal shelter and treatment.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

The pre-ood facility was remotely located and often ooded making it inconvenient to visit by the public.      L      A      I      C Service to public and animals could be minimally improved through functional updates.      O      S With upgrades and modications, the pre-ood facility could become more functional but the program is still hampered by the original design as a sewage treatment plant.

The facility was mitigated but not cleaned, and the two septic systems on site were compromised during the Flood of 2008.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

Least expensive option but does not account for current growth needs or growth needs over the next 50 years. Returning to pre-ood conditions fails to economically stimulate immediate surroundings due to remote location.

Site is prone to annual ooding.  .      N      O The building, which originally operated as a sewage treatment plant, does not operate      R      I      V efciently as an animal shelter.      N      E The location is remote and not on a bus route. Transportation by automobile impacte d by annual ood of the single access road to the facility.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

The facility was mitigated but not cleaned, and the two septic systems on site were compromised during the Flood of 2008. Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding current energy code requirements. Returning to pre-ood conditions fails to economically stimulate immediate surroundings due to remote location.

Site is prone to annual ooding.  .      N      O      R Modications would minimally increase energy efciencies.      I      V      N      E The location is remote and not on a bus route. Transportation by automobile impacte d by annual ood of the single access road to the facility.

3

Social Score

6

Economic Score

8

Environmental Score

4

10

3

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL CONTROL CENTER

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE)

Could offer improved services through new facility and relationship with Kirkwood’s Veterinary Technician and Veterinary Assistant curriculum.      L      A State-of-the-art State-of-the-art facility located at Kirkwood would increase animal adoptions and the level      I      C of animal care while also contributing towards the education of Cedar Rapids’ youth.      O      S A state-of-the-art animal care facility located at Kirkwood would allow employees to function efciently and provide better service to the public and animals.

Current location is less remote than pre-ood facility and therefore is more accessible to the public.      L      A      I      C Service to public and animals could be improved through functional updates.      O      S With upgrades and modications, the current facility would allow employees to function efciently and provide better service to the public and animals.

Kirkwood Community College donation of land.      C      I      M This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption on and      O      N minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance, while providing for larger square footage.      O      C      E Because of program upgrades and new location economic stimulus increases.

Considerable investment required to convert building into a state-of-the-art animal      C shelter facility.      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding current energy code      N requirements, however existing building may hamper optimized energy efciencies.      O      C      E Because of program upgrades and new location economic stimulus increases.

New site located on the Kirkwood Campus.  .      N      O      R      I The new facility would be energy efcient.      V      N      E While not centrally located, the Kirkwood Community College campus is well connected to bus routes and has ample parking and pedestrian access to and through campus.

Existing site located on the north side of Cedar Rapids in a commercial district.  .      N      O      R      I Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      V      N      E The current facility is located in a densely populated commercial zone with adequate parking.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (KEEP TEMPORARY LOCATION WITH UPGRADES)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

13

Social Score

9

Economic Score

11

Environmental Score

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

11

8

11

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL CENTER

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$230,975 $5,702,947

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$1,007,225 $9,675,966

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$3,265,250 $12,093160

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$2,115,250 $19,954,939

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL CONTROL CENTER

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE)

Could offer improved services through new facility and relationship with Kirkwood’s Veterinary Technician and Veterinary Assistant curriculum.      L      A State-of-the-art facility located at Kirkwood would increase animal adoptions and the level      I State-of-the-art      C of animal care while also contributing towards the education of Cedar Rapids’ youth.      O      S A state-of-the-art animal care facility located at Kirkwood would allow employees to function efciently and provide better service to the public and animals.

Current location is less remote than pre-ood facility and therefore is more accessible to the public.      L      A      I      C Service to public and animals could be improved through functional updates.      O      S With upgrades and modications, the current facility would allow employees to function efciently and provide better service to the public and animals.

Kirkwood Community College donation of land.      C      I      M This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption on and      O      N minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance, while providing for larger square footage.      O      C      E Because of program upgrades and new location economic stimulus increases.

Considerable investment required to convert building into a state-of-the-art animal      C shelter facility.      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding current energy code      N requirements, however existing building may hamper optimized energy efciencies.      O      C      E Because of program upgrades and new location economic stimulus increases.

New site located on the Kirkwood Campus.  .      N      O      R The new facility would be energy efcient.      I      V      N      E While not centrally located, the Kirkwood Community College campus is well connected to bus routes and has ample parking and pedestrian access to and through campus.

Existing site located on the north side of Cedar Rapids in a commercial district.  .      N      O      R Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      I      V      N      E The current facility is located in a densely populated commercial zone with adequate parking.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (KEEP TEMPORARY LOCATION WITH UPGRADES)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

13

Social Score

9

Economic Score

11

Environmental Score

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

11

8

11

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL CENTER

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$230,975 $5,702,947

TOTAL COST OF

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$1,007,225 $9,675,966

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$3,265,250 $12,093160

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$2,115,250 $19,954,939

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$927,475

$1,703,725

$3,961,750

$2,811,750

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL PRE-FLOOD SITE: N

SICKBAY

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL CENTER

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

B

$230,975 $5,702,947

TOTAL COST OF

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$1,007,225 $9,675,966

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$3,265,250 $12,093160

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$2,115,250 $19,954,939

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$927,475

$1,703,725

$3,961,750

$2,811,750

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL PRE-FLOOD SITE: SICKBAY

N

OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION/DOGS

CATS

OUTDOOR DOG RUNS (SUMMER USE ONLY)

Cedar Bend Lane

SINGLE ACCESS ROAD

ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL CENTER

BUILDING: =ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SITE =TOTAL BUILDING SF: 13,582 WITH 6,973 OF THAT CONSIDERED “USABLE” SITE SUMMARY:

The site is situated at a bend on the south bank of the Cedar River. Vegetation varies from riparian (refers to the organisms that live directly in or on a stream) trees along the river to cleared areas of grass. Prior to the Flood of 2008, the Animal Care and Control facility was housed within a former wastewater treatment plant. Large portions of the structure and sewage treatment vats were not used as they were not functionally conducive to the facility’s mission as an animal shelter.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL POST-FLOOD SITE: N

SICKBAY

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL PRE-FLOOD SITE: SICKBAY

N

OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION/DOGS

CATS

OUTDOOR DOG RUNS (SUMMER USE ONLY)

Cedar Bend Lane

SINGLE ACCESS ROAD

ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL CENTER

BUILDING: =ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SITE =TOTAL BUILDING SF: 13,582 WITH 6,973 OF THAT CONSIDERED “USABLE” SITE SUMMARY:

The site is situated at a bend on the south bank of the Cedar River. Vegetation varies from riparian (refers to the organisms that live directly in or on a stream) trees along the river to cleared areas of grass. Prior to the Flood of 2008, the Animal Care and Control facility was housed within a former wastewater treatment plant. Large portions of the structure and sewage treatment vats were not used as they were not functionally conducive to the facility’s mission as an animal shelter.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL POST-FLOOD SITE: SICKBAY

N

OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION/DOGS

CATS

OUTDOOR DOG RUNS (SUMMER USE ONLY)

Cedar Bend Lane

ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL COMPLEX

BUILDING: = FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS

FLOOD ZONE:

The site lies within the 100 Year Flood Plain on 31.1 Acres. With proposed flood mitigation strategies, access to the site may be impaired resulting in a decline in serviceability during a future flood event. To date, the buildin g has only been “mucked out” and not cleaned for bio-contaminents. nents.

POST-FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS:

Proximity to the Cedar River and the remote nature of this site remain issues for any future action regarding this facility/service. facility/service. As a former sewage treatment treatment facility it is difficult to renovate the building due to structural considerations of the former sewage treatment vats, segregated layout, and proximit y to the river. A lack of flood mitigation and protection will also be a consideration. A more public face of the organization on would facilitate an increase in adoptions.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL N

*

POST-FLOOD LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS:

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL POST-FLOOD SITE: SICKBAY

N

OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION/DOGS

CATS

OUTDOOR DOG RUNS (SUMMER USE ONLY)

Cedar Bend Lane

ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL COMPLEX

BUILDING: = FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS

FLOOD ZONE:

The site lies within the 100 Year Flood Plain on 31.1 Acres. With proposed flood mitigation strategies, access to the site may be impaired resulting in a decline in serviceability during a future flood event. To date, the buildin g has only been “mucked out” and not cleaned for bio-contaminents. nents.

POST-FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS:

Proximity to the Cedar River and the remote nature of this site remain issues for any future action regarding this facility/service. facility/service. As a former sewage treatment treatment facility it is difficult to renovate the building due to structural considerations of the former sewage treatment vats, segregated layout, and proximit y to the river. A lack of flood mitigation and protection will also be a consideration. A more public face of the organization on would facilitate an increase in adoptions.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL N

POST-FLOOD LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS:

*

The pre-flood facility is located beyond City limits at a bend in the Cedar River. The pre-flood site was accessible by back roads which are closed down several times a year for weather reasons. The lowest point of the road consistent ly floods every year. The pre-flood location created increased transportation costs and made accessibility for adoptive services difficult. The City would prefer to locate this facility in a more public location that is easier to travel to by a variety of transportati on means. A more public face of  the organization would facilitate an increase in adoptions. The current temporary location is more convenient than its pre-flood facility location, being readily accessibl e from I-380 and Center Point Road. Sinc e being in the temporary location adoption rates have increased.

DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS

OPTION D TEMPORARY SITE:

*

2109 North Towne Lane NE (Approximately 9 minutes from city center) OPTION A & B PRE FLOOD SITE:

1401 Cedar Bend Lane (Approximately 17 minutes from city center) OPTION C PROPOSED SITE:

Kirkwood Community College, 912 18th Ave SW (Approximately 11 minutes from city center)

* CEDAR RAPIDS METROPOLITAN AREA NOT TO SCALE

2

PREFERRED RELOCATION ZONE

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

ANIMAL CARE C ARE & CONTROL N

POST-FLOOD LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS:

*

The pre-flood facility is located beyond City limits at a bend in the Cedar River. The pre-flood site was accessible by back roads which are closed down several times a year for weather reasons. The lowest point of the road consistent ly floods every year. The pre-flood location created increased transportation costs and made accessibility for adoptive services difficult. The City would prefer to locate this facility in a more public location that is easier to travel to by a variety of transportati on means. A more public face of  the organization would facilitate an increase in adoptions. The current temporary location is more convenient than its pre-flood facility location, being readily accessibl e from I-380 and Center Point Road. Sinc e being in the temporary location adoption rates have increased.

DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS

OPTION D TEMPORARY SITE:

*

2109 North Towne Lane NE (Approximately 9 minutes from city center) OPTION A & B PRE FLOOD SITE:

1401 Cedar Bend Lane (Approximately 17 minutes from city center) OPTION C PROPOSED SITE:

Kirkwood Community College, 912 18th Ave SW (Approximately 11 minutes from city center)

* CEDAR RAPIDS METROPOLITAN AREA NOT TO SCALE

2

PREFERRED RELOCATION ZONE

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

T   O T  A  L  

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

T   O T  A  L  

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

T   O T  A  L  

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE) SITE: N

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

T   O T  A  L  

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE) SITE: N

POSSIBLE LOCATION AT KIRKWOOD

KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RE-PROPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (KEEP TEMPORARY LOCATION WITH UPGRADES) SITE: N

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE) SITE: N

POSSIBLE LOCATION AT KIRKWOOD

KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RE-PROPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (KEEP TEMPORARY LOCATION WITH UPGRADES) SITE: N

TEMPORARY FACILITY LOCATION

TEMPORARY FACILITY 

TEMPORARY FACILITY 

TEMPORARY FACILITY 

TEMPORARY LOCATION

Option D remains at current Animal Care and Control location (2109 North Towne Lane NE). Building would receive functional and mechanical upgrades.

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

A

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

B

RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL RE-PROPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (KEEP TEMPORARY LOCATION WITH UPGRADES) SITE: N

TEMPORARY FACILITY LOCATION

TEMPORARY FACILITY 

TEMPORARY FACILITY 

TEMPORARY FACILITY 

TEMPORARY LOCATION

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

Option D remains at current Animal Care and Control location (2109 North Towne Lane NE). Building would receive functional and mechanical upgrades.

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

Central Fire Station is centrally located and provides good response times to the City of  Cedar Rapids.      L      A While the Central Fire Station had served as a symbol of civic pride in the past, the Fire      I      C Department was quickly out-growing out-growing the facility and in need of a modern re station.      O      S The needs of the Fire Department had grown beyond the Central Fire Station facility, both in terms of physical physical size and operational technology needs.

Central Fire Station is centrally located and provides good response times to the City of  Cedar Rapids.      L      A Facility improvements would increase civic pride by providing the Fire Department with      I      C an up-to-date, modern facility.      O      S With updates and modications, the Central Fire Station facility would allow the Fire Department to function efciently and provide better service to the public.

Least expensive option, but function, efciency, and future growth are compromised and      C is located in the construction/study area, reserved for Flood Management System.      I      M      O Least expensive option, but does not account for current growth needs or growth needs      N over the next 50 years.      O      C      E Returning to pre-ood conditions will maintain current level of economic stimulus.

This option would require an investment to update the facility to meet today’s standards.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding current energy code      N requirements, however existing building may hamper optimized energy efciencies.      O      C      E Increase program growth will increase economic stimuli of surrounding neighborhood economy.

Site ooded during Flood of 2008 and is located in the construction/study construction/study area, reserved  . for Flood Management System.      N      O      R      I The Central Fire Station is minimally energy efcient.      V      N      E Central Fire Station is centrally located and well-connected to the City of Cedar Rapids.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Site ooded during Flood of 2008 and is located in the construction/study area, reserved  . for Flood Management System.      N      O      R      I Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      V      N      E Central Fire Station is centrally located and well-connected well-connected to the City of Cedar Rapids.

9

Social Score

11

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

11

Economic Score

9

Environmental Score

8

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

C

NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE)

D

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/ FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

Central Fire Station is centrally located and provides good response times to the City of  Cedar Rapids.      L      A      I While the Central Fire Station had served as a symbol of civic pride in the past, the Fire      C Department was quickly out-growing out-growing the facility and in need of a modern re station.      O      S The needs of the Fire Department had grown beyond the Central Fire Station facility, both in terms of physical physical size and operational technology needs.

Central Fire Station is centrally located and provides good response times to the City of  Cedar Rapids.      L      A      I Facility improvements would increase civic pride by providing the Fire Department with      C an up-to-date, modern facility.      O      S With updates and modications, the Central Fire Station facility would allow the Fire Department to function efciently and provide better service to the public.

Least expensive option, but function, efciency, and future growth are compromised and      C is located in the construction/study area, reserved for Flood Management System.      I      M      O Least expensive option, but does not account for current growth needs or growth needs      N over the next 50 years.      O      C      E Returning to pre-ood conditions will maintain current level of economic stimulus.

This option would require an investment to update the facility to meet today’s standards.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding current energy code      N requirements, however existing building may hamper optimized energy efciencies.      O      C      E Increase program growth will increase economic stimuli of surrounding neighborhood economy.

Site ooded during Flood of 2008 and is located in the construction/study construction/study area, reserved  . for Flood Management System.      N      O      R The Central Fire Station is minimally energy efcient.      I      V      N      E Central Fire Station is centrally located and well-connected to the City of Cedar Rapids.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Site ooded during Flood of 2008 and is located in the construction/study area, reserved  . for Flood Management System.      N      O      R Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      I      V      N      E Central Fire Station is centrally located and well-connected well-connected to the City of Cedar Rapids.

9

Social Score

11

7

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

11

Economic Score

9

Environmental Score

8

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH

A new Central Fire Station would be centrally located and would provide excellent response times to the City of Cedar Rapids.      L      A The new Central Fire Station would be a state-art-of-the-art facility and would serve as a      I      C symbol of civic pride for the City of Cedar Rapids.      O      S A new Central Fire Station facility would be designed to maximize employee efciency and productivity.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

     L      A      I      C      O      S

NOT NO T APPLICABLE APPLICABL E

Would likely require purchase and removal of existing private property.

     C      I      M DUE TO CENTRAL FIRE STATION’S STRINGENT RESPONSE TIME      O REQUIREMENTS, SITE LOCATION NEEDS AND LARGE VEHICLE      N      O ACCESS NEEDS, IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO RE-PURPOSE AN      C      E EXISTING BUILDING.

This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance, while providing for larger square footage. Increase program growth will increase economic stimuli of surrounding neighborhood economy.

The new Central Fire Station location is yet undetermined, but would require strict  . adherence to re response time requirements.      N      O      R      I The new facility would be energy efcient.      V      N      E The new Central Fire Station location would be centrally located and well-connected to City of Cedar Rapids.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

Social Score

15

Economic Score

9

15

Environmental Score

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$1,421,000 $26,197,071

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$4,685,500 $38,489,383

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$10,198,417 $32,790,366

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

40

45

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH

A new Central Fire Station would be centrally located and would provide excellent response times to the City of Cedar Rapids.      L      A      I The new Central Fire Station would be a state-art-of-the-art facility and would serve as a      C symbol of civic pride for the City of Cedar Rapids.      O      S A new Central Fire Station facility would be designed to maximize employee efciency and productivity.

     C      I      M      O      N      O      C      E

     L      A      I      C      O      S

NOT NO T APPLICABLE APPLICABL E

Would likely require purchase and removal of existing private property.

     C      I      M DUE TO CENTRAL FIRE STATION’S STRINGENT RESPONSE TIME      O REQUIREMENTS, SITE LOCATION NEEDS AND LARGE VEHICLE      N      O ACCESS NEEDS, IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO RE-PURPOSE AN      C      E EXISTING BUILDING.

This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance, while providing for larger square footage. Increase program growth will increase economic stimuli of surrounding neighborhood economy.

The new Central Fire Station location is yet undetermined, but would require strict  . adherence to re response time requirements.      N      O      R The new facility would be energy efcient.      I      V      N      E The new Central Fire Station location would be centrally located and well-connected to City of Cedar Rapids.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 .      N      O      R      I      V      N      E

Social Score

15

Economic Score

9

15

Environmental Score

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$1,421,000 $26,197,071

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$4,685,500 $38,489,383

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$10,198,417 $32,790,366

D

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$10,901,000

$14,165,500

$19,678,417

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

NOT NOT APPLICABLE DUE TO TO CENTRAL FIRE STATION’S STRINGENT RESPONSE TIME REQUIREMENTS, SITE LOCATION LOCATION NEEDS AND LARGE VEHICLE ACCESS NEEDS, IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING.

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

CENTRAL FIRE STATION PRE-FLOOD SITE: N

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

A

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

B

$1,421,000

INITIAL COST :

$26,197,071

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

$4,685,500

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$38,489,383

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$10,198,417 $32,790,366

D

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$10,901,000

$14,165,500

$19,678,417

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

NOT NOT APPLICABLE DUE TO TO CENTRAL FIRE STATION’S STRINGENT RESPONSE TIME REQUIREMENTS, SITE LOCATION LOCATION NEEDS AND LARGE VEHICLE ACCESS NEEDS, IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING.

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

CENTRAL FIRE STATION PRE-FLOOD SITE: N

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

MAINTENANCE BUILDING E Ave

FIRE TOWER  v e  B A

3      r     d       S      t    

4      t     h      S      t    

     0      8      3      I  -

 e  A v  1 s t

CENTRAL FIRE STATION / COMPLEX

BUILDING: = SITE = PRE-FLOOD TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 23,456 SITE SUMMARY:

ROOF

The site is located below the elevated portion of Interstate 380 and is surrounded by major thoroughfares. thoroughfares. This restricts the expansion capability on this site. Further, the site is bisected by 3rd Street NE as it connects to Interstate 380. The Central Fire Station does offer a variety of connections to the surface streets in the city.

LEVEL +1

VISION STATEMENT:

Fire stations are integral parts of the neighborhood, providing firefighters and equipment to mitigate threats to health and property through emergency response, quality education and prevention programs. The Cedar Rapids Fire Department desires to construct a Central Fire Station to provide administrative offices, while meeting their goal of providing fire and emergency medical services response within four minutes inside fire districts. Most importantly, the Fire Department wants to be a vivid example of the reconstruction and revitalization of the community.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION POST-FLOOD SITE: N

C

INITIAL

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

CENTRAL FIRE STATION PRE-FLOOD SITE: N

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

MAINTENANCE BUILDING E Ave

FIRE TOWER  v e  B A

3      r     d       S      t          0      8      3      I  -

4      t     h      S      t    

 v e  t A  1 s

CENTRAL FIRE STATION / COMPLEX

BUILDING: = SITE = PRE-FLOOD TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 23,456 SITE SUMMARY:

ROOF

The site is located below the elevated portion of Interstate 380 and is surrounded by major thoroughfares. thoroughfares. This restricts the expansion capability on this site. Further, the site is bisected by 3rd Street NE as it connects to Interstate 380. The Central Fire Station does offer a variety of connections to the surface streets in the city.

LEVEL +1

VISION STATEMENT:

Fire stations are integral parts of the neighborhood, providing firefighters and equipment to mitigate threats to health and property through emergency response, quality education and prevention programs. The Cedar Rapids Fire Department desires to construct a Central Fire Station to provide administrative offices, while meeting their goal of providing fire and emergency medical services response within four minutes inside fire districts. Most importantly, the Fire Department wants to be a vivid example of the reconstruction and revitalization of the community.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION POST-FLOOD SITE: N

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

MAINTENANCE BUILDING (SEE FLEET MAINTENANCE BOARDS) E Ave

FIRE TOWER  v e  B A 4      t     h      S      t    

3      r     d       S      t          0      8      3      I  -

 e  A v  1 s t

23,456 SF OF BUILDING IMPACTED BY FLOOD OF 2008

CENTRAL FIRE STATION / COMPLEX

BUILDING: = FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS

FLOOD ZONE:

The site lies within the proposed 100 Year Flood Plain and proposed construction/study area reserved for the Flood Management System, on 2.24 Acres. With proposed flood mitigati on strategies, access to the site may be impaired resulting in a decline in serviceability. serviceability.

POST-FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS:

 As the heart of the Cedar Rapids Fire Department, the Central Fire Station is a critical piece of infrastructure that must continue to function in the event of emergency situation s. The Flood of 2008 illustrated that the current location of the Central Fire Station is susceptible to floods that disconnect critical city services such as the fire department.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

CENTRAL FIRE STATION POST-FLOOD SITE: N

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

MAINTENANCE BUILDING (SEE FLEET MAINTENANCE BOARDS) E Ave

FIRE TOWER  v e  B A 4      t     h      S      t    

3      r     d       S      t          0      8      3      I  -

 e  A v  1 s t

23,456 SF OF BUILDING IMPACTED BY FLOOD OF 2008

CENTRAL FIRE STATION / COMPLEX

BUILDING: = FLOOD OF 2008 EXTENTS

FLOOD ZONE:

The site lies within the proposed 100 Year Flood Plain and proposed construction/study area reserved for the Flood Management System, on 2.24 Acres. With proposed flood mitigati on strategies, access to the site may be impaired resulting in a decline in serviceability. serviceability.

POST-FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS:

 As the heart of the Cedar Rapids Fire Department, the Central Fire Station is a critical piece of infrastructure that must continue to function in the event of emergency situation s. The Flood of 2008 illustrated that the current location of the Central Fire Station is susceptible to floods that disconnect critical city services such as the fire department.

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

PRE-FLOOD CENTRAL FIRE STATION FACILITY 23,456 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

T   O T  A  L  

CENTRAL FIRE STATION RETURN TO TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION MITIGATION & CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM NO GROWTH

PRE-FLOOD CENTRAL FIRE STATION FACILITY 23,456 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

EXISTING CENTRAL FIRE STATION BUILDING 23,456 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

CENTRAL FIRE STATION ADDITION 6,732 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE) NEW CENTRAL FIRE STATION FACILITY 32,524 SF

T   O T  A  L  

CENTRAL FIRE STATION RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION, CODE UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

EXISTING CENTRAL FIRE STATION BUILDING 23,456 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

CENTRAL FIRE STATION ADDITION 6,732 SF

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE) NEW CENTRAL FIRE STATION FACILITY 32,524 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

PROPOSED FUNCTIONS: (SEE PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION BOARD FOR POSSIBLE BUILDING FUNCTIONS)

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION         0

LIVING QUARTERS QUARTERS

        0         0         2

        0         0         4

        0         0         6

        0         0         8

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         2   ,         1

        0         0         4   ,         1

        0         0         6   ,         1

        0         0         8   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         2   ,         2

        0         0         4   ,         2

        0         0         6   ,         2

        0         0         8   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         2   ,         3

        0         0         4   ,         3

        0         0         6   ,         3

CENTRAL FIRE STATION NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (UNDETERMINED SITE) NEW CENTRAL FIRE STATION FACILITY 32,524 SF

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

FUNDING SOURCES:

PRIMARY COST COMPONENTS:

PROPOSED FUNCTIONS: (SEE PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION BOARD FOR POSSIBLE BUILDING FUNCTIONS)

2

OPTIONS ANAL ANALYSIS YSIS

CENTRAL FIRE STATION         0

        0         0         2

        0         0         4

        0         0         6

        0         0         8

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         2   ,         1

        0         0         4   ,         1

        0         0         6   ,         1

        0         0         8   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         2   ,         2

        0         0         4   ,         2

        0         0         6   ,         2

        0         0         8   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         2   ,         3

        0         0         4   ,         3

        0         0         6   ,         3

LIVING QUARTERS QUARTERS

OFFICES 8,300 SF

ADMINISTRATION STORAGE/CONFERENCE STORAGE/CONFERENCE

KITCHEN/DINING/BREAK ROOM

MULTIPURPOSE/EXERCISE

FIREFIGHTER QUARTERS STORAGE

LOCKER ROOMS

LIBRARY/STUDY/OFFICE 10,745 SF 12,000 SF

APPARATUS BAY

APPARATUS STORAGE

EXISTING NEW

EXISTING TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE NEW TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE

2

PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION

CENTRAL FIRE STATION CURRENT FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE MAP: Without Central Fire Station, response time coverage

23,456 32,524

CENTRAL FIRE STATION         0

        0         0         2

        0         0         4

        0         0         6

        0         0         8

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         2   ,         1

        0         0         4   ,         1

        0         0         6   ,         1

        0         0         8   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         2   ,         2

        0         0         4   ,         2

        0         0         6   ,         2

        0         0         8   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         2   ,         3

        0         0         4   ,         3

        0         0         6   ,         3

LIVING QUARTERS QUARTERS

OFFICES 8,300 SF

ADMINISTRATION STORAGE/CONFERENCE STORAGE/CONFERENCE

KITCHEN/DINING/BREAK ROOM

MULTIPURPOSE/EXERCISE

FIREFIGHTER QUARTERS STORAGE

LOCKER ROOMS

LIBRARY/STUDY/OFFICE 10,745 SF 12,000 SF

APPARATUS BAY

APPARATUS STORAGE

EXISTING NEW

EXISTING TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE NEW TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE

23,456 32,524

2

PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION

CENTRAL FIRE STATION CURRENT FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE MAP: Without Central Fire Station, response time coverage dissipates to the downtown area as well as west of  downtown. Any new fire station location location must carefully balance the 4 Minute Response Time mandate while providing improved services. 4 Minute Response Time refers to departure from station to arriving at the emergency site.

WITHOUT A CENTRAL FIRE STATION, AREAS ARE UNABLE TO BE SERVICED WITHIN A 4 MINUTE RESPONSE TIME, TIME, AS PER THE CEDAR RAPIDS FIRE DEPARTMENT BEST PRACTICE MISSION.

FIRE STATION 1 STATION CAN REACH  AREA IN 4 MINUTES 2 STATIONS CAN REACH  AREA IN 4 MINUTES 3 STATIONS CAN REACH  AREA IN 4 MINUTES

2

FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE MAP

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

A

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM WITH GROWTH

CENTRAL FIRE STATION CURRENT FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE MAP: Without Central Fire Station, response time coverage dissipates to the downtown area as well as west of  downtown. Any new fire station location location must carefully balance the 4 Minute Response Time mandate while providing improved services. 4 Minute Response Time refers to departure from station to arriving at the emergency site.

WITHOUT A CENTRAL FIRE STATION, AREAS ARE UNABLE TO BE SERVICED WITHIN A 4 MINUTE RESPONSE TIME, TIME, AS PER THE CEDAR RAPIDS FIRE DEPARTMENT BEST PRACTICE MISSION.

FIRE STATION 1 STATION CAN REACH  AREA IN 4 MINUTES 2 STATIONS CAN REACH  AREA IN 4 MINUTES 3 STATIONS CAN REACH  AREA IN 4 MINUTES

2

FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE MAP

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM WITH GROWTH

     L      A      I      C The pre-ood facility, while outdated, was well-used and highly regarded.      O      S Service to patrons in the existing facility was hampered by outdated technologies technologies and functional inefciencies.

Functional upgrades would enhance customer service and improve the pre-ood library facility.      L      A A completely renovated and expanded library, with mechanical and functional upgrades,      I      C would enhance civic strength.      O      S Facility improvements would increase employee efciency and productivity, as well as patron experience.

Considerable investment without improvements to function and technology.      C      I      M      O Mechanical and electrical systems are inefcient and poorly suited to a modern library.      N      O      C      E Returning to pre-ood conditions will have no impact on surrounding economy.

Considerable investment required to update the facility to today’s standards.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding energy code requirements.      N      O      C      E Greatly improved library would enhance the surrounding area.

Site heavily ooded during the Flood of 2008. Located in 100 year ood plain. Building  . and parking consume entire site.      N      O      R      I The pre-ood library facility is well-built, and attractive, but lacked energy efciency.      V      N      E The pre-ood library facility is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

Site heavily ooded during the Flood of 2008. Located in 100 year ood plain. Building  . and parking consume entire site.      N      O      R      I Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      V      N      E The pre-ood library facility is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

The pre-ood library facility is out-of-date and does not meet current library standards.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Social Score

7

Social Score

12

Economic Score

4

Economic Score

10

Environmental Score

8

Environmental Score

30

35

40

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

9

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

C

NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (NEW DOWNTOWN SITE)

D

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL/ECONO FOODS/ETC.)

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

A 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

B

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM  WITH NO GROWTH

RETURN TO PRE-FLOOD CONDITIONS WITH FLOOD MITIGATION + CODE UPGRADES AND EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL /FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES - SAME PROGRAM WITH GROWTH

     L      A      I      C The pre-ood facility, while outdated, was well-used and highly regarded.      O      S Service to patrons in the existing facility was hampered by outdated technologies technologies and functional inefciencies.

Functional upgrades would enhance customer service and improve the pre-ood library facility.      L      A      I A completely renovated and expanded library, with mechanical and functional upgrades,      C would enhance civic strength.      O      S Facility improvements would increase employee efciency and productivity, as well as patron experience.

Considerable investment without improvements to function and technology.      C      I      M      O Mechanical and electrical systems are inefcient and poorly suited to a modern library.      N      O      C      E Returning to pre-ood conditions will have no impact on surrounding economy.

Considerable investment required to update the facility to today’s standards.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding energy code requirements.      N      O      C      E Greatly improved library would enhance the surrounding area.

Site heavily ooded during the Flood of 2008. Located in 100 year ood plain. Building  . and parking consume entire site.      N      O      R The pre-ood library facility is well-built, and attractive, but lacked energy efciency.      I      V      N      E The pre-ood library facility is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

Site heavily ooded during the Flood of 2008. Located in 100 year ood plain. Building  . and parking consume entire site.      N      O      R Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      I      V      N      E The pre-ood library facility is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by pedestrians.

The pre-ood library facility is out-of-date and does not meet current library standards.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Social Score

7

Social Score

12

Economic Score

4

Economic Score

10

Environmental Score

8

Environmental Score

30

35

40

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

9

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (NEW DOWNTOWN SITE)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL/ECONO FOODS/ETC.)

Customer access to services would be maximized in a new library facility.

     L      A      I      C Civic strength is minimized due to a lack of central location.      O      S With upgrades and modications, a re-purposed building would allow employees to func tion efciently and provide better service to the public.

Requires purchase and removal of existing private property      C      I      M      O This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and      N minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance.      O      C      E This option could be a catalyst for future development and enhancement of adjacent properties.

Considerable investment required to convert the building into a modern library.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding energy code requirements.      N      O      C      E Re-purposing ng a building would positively impact impact the local area.

The new library would be on a centrally located site. Each site option presents both opportunities.  . challenges and opportunities.      N      O The new facility would be designed to maximize energy efciency and environmental      R      I      V friendliness.      N      E The new library site is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by both pedestrians and vehicles.

Re-purposing ng an existing building is a positive environmental environmental strategy (no demolition re  . quired). Unknown whether site amenities are available.      N      O      R      I Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      V      N      E Suggested re-purposed locations are not centrally located and preclude pedestrian access. Distribution of library service in community is compromised.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

Customer access in a re-purposed structure would be maximized.

     L      A A new state-of-the-art, centrally located library facility would be an excellent source of       I      C civic strength and add to the vibrancy of the City of Cedar Rapids.      O      S Without constraints of existing infrastructure, employee environment and efciency would be maximized in a new library facility.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

15

Social Score

Economic Score

9

Environmental Score

7

13

14

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

10

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$3,092,700 $57,979,207

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$10,371,243 $66,234,999

C

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$8,500,000 $44,778,690

D

INITIAL

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$7,859,163 $63,145,981

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

C 1

User/Customer Access to Services

2

Civic Strength

3

Employee Environment

4

Initial Cost

5

On-Going Cost

6

Economic Stimulus

7

Site Usage

8

Building/Structure Performance

9

City Connection

D

NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (NEW DOWNTOWN SITE)

RE-PURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING/SITE WITH CO-LOCATION CONCEPT INCLUDING GROWTH (WESTDALE MALL/ECONO FOODS/ETC.)

Customer access to services would be maximized in a new library facility.

     L      A      I      C Civic strength is minimized due to a lack of central location.      O      S With upgrades and modications, a re-purposed building would allow employees to func tion efciently and provide better service to the public.

Requires purchase and removal of existing private property      C      I      M      O This option affords the best opportunity for reducing energy consumption and      N minimizing on-going cost of operation and maintenance.      O      C      E This option could be a catalyst for future development and enhancement of adjacent properties.

Considerable investment required to convert the building into a modern library.      C      I      M      O Complete new systems capable of meeting and exceeding energy code requirements.      N      O      C      E Re-purposing ng a building would positively impact impact the local area.

The new library would be on a centrally located site. Each site option presents both opportunities.  . challenges and opportunities.      N      O The new facility would be designed to maximize energy efciency and environmental      R      I      V friendliness.      N      E The new library site is centrally located, on major bus routes and easily accessible by both pedestrians and vehicles.

Re-purposing ng an existing building is a positive environmental environmental strategy (no demolition re  . quired). Unknown whether site amenities are available.      N      O      R Facility improvements would increase energy efciency.      I      V      N      E Suggested re-purposed locations are not centrally located and preclude pedestrian access. Distribution of library service in community is compromised.

Social Score

Economic Score

Environmental Score

0

5

Customer access in a re-purposed structure would be maximized.

     L      A      I A new state-of-the-art, centrally located library facility would be an excellent source of       C civic strength and add to the vibrancy of the City of Cedar Rapids.      O      S Without constraints of existing infrastructure, employee environment and efciency would be maximized in a new library facility.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

15

Social Score

Economic Score

9

Environmental Score

7

13

14

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

10

30

35

40

45

PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

TOTAL COST OF

$3,092,700 $57,979,207

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$10,371,243 $66,234,999

C

INITIAL

$8,500,000

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$44,778,690

D

INITIAL

$7,859,163

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$63,145,981

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total Construction Cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$30,092,700

$37,371,243

$45,500,000

$34,859,163

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY NEIGHBORING PUBLIC LIBRARIES HIAWATHA

MARION

Hiawatha Public Library

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

A

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

TOTAL COST OF

$3,092,700 $57,979,207

B

INITIAL COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$10,371,243 $66,234,999

C

INITIAL

$8,500,000

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$44,778,690

D

INITIAL

$7,859,163

COST :

TOTAL COST OVER 50 YEARS:

$63,145,981

CONSTRUCTION:

Total Construction Cost Non Tax Payer Funding

= Initial Cost

Total Construction Cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

Total construction cost:

$30,092,700

$37,371,243

$45,500,000

$34,859,163

FUNDING SOURCES:

  :    T    S    O    C    G    N    I    O    G      N    O

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

IN NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV)

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY NEIGHBORING PUBLIC LIBRARIES HIAWATHA

Hiawatha Public Library

MARION

Marion Public Library

CEDAR RAPIDS PUBLIC LIBRARIES Temporary Downtown Branch West Side Bridge Facility

PREFERRED MAIN LIBRARY ZONE CEDAR RAPIDS

N

Approximate 100 Year Year Flood Plain Approximate 500 Year Year Flood Plain NOT TO SCALE

1 2 3

ZONES OF LIBRARY SERVICE

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY Potential Sites Study Area a

- CURRENT LIBRARY LIBRARY SITE

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY NEIGHBORING PUBLIC LIBRARIES HIAWATHA

Hiawatha Public Library

MARION

Marion Public Library

CEDAR RAPIDS PUBLIC LIBRARIES Temporary Downtown Branch West Side Bridge Facility

PREFERRED MAIN LIBRARY ZONE CEDAR RAPIDS

N

Approximate 100 Year Year Flood Plain Approximate 500 Year Year Flood Plain NOT TO SCALE

1 2 3

ZONES OF LIBRARY SERVICE

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY Potential Sites

1st Ave.

c

d

Study Area a

- CURRENT LIBRARY LIBRARY SITE

Study Area b

- TRUENORTH BLOCK 

Study Area c

- S KOGMAN / PALMER BLOCK 

Study Area d

- F ORMER EMERALD KNIGHTS BLOCK 

Other Potential Sites

Greene Square Park Proposed Intermodal Transportation Facility

b a

7   t   h   S   t   r   e  e  t  

 8   t   h   S   t   r   e  e  t  

 Approximate 100 Year Flood Plain  Approximate 500 Year Flood Plain

N  

 Approximate 2008 Flood Crest NOT TO SCALE

1 2 3

POTENTIAL PO TENTIAL RELOCA RELOC ATION SITES (OPTION C)

a

SITE STUDY

(CURRENT LIBRARY SITE)

FUTURE UNITED STATES STATES COURTHOUSE

LIBRARY FACILITY ELEVATED TO APPROXIMATELY 12 ‘ ABOVE GRADE, WITH 180 PARKING SPACES BELOW (EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED)

EMERGENCY STAIR AND DRIVE UP BOOK DROP

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY Potential Sites

1st Ave.

c

d

Study Area a

- CURRENT LIBRARY LIBRARY SITE

Study Area b

- TRUENORTH BLOCK 

Study Area c

- S KOGMAN / PALMER BLOCK 

Study Area d

- F ORMER EMERALD KNIGHTS BLOCK 

Other Potential Sites

Greene Square Park Proposed Intermodal Transportation Facility

b

7   t   h   S   t   r   e  e  t  

a

 8   t   h   S   t   r   e  e  t  

 Approximate 100 Year Flood Plain  Approximate 500 Year Flood Plain

N  

 Approximate 2008 Flood Crest NOT TO SCALE

1 2 3

POTENTIAL PO TENTIAL RELOCA RELOC ATION SITES (OPTION C)

a

FUTURE UNITED STATES STATES COURTHOUSE

LIBRARY FACILITY ELEVATED TO APPROXIMATELY 12 ‘ ABOVE GRADE, WITH 180 PARKING SPACES BELOW (EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED)

SITE STUDY

EMERGENCY STAIR AND DRIVE UP BOOK DROP

(CURRENT LIBRARY SITE)

VIEWS OF RIVER AND STREETSCAPE

PLAZA 425 BUILDING

5    t  h   A   v  e  

POSSIBLE SKYWALK CONNECTION

 t 1 s t S

GREAT AMERICA BUILDING

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM

ENTRY PLAZA = PUBLIC PARKING = LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to elevate the new library one-story above grade, with parking below. An entry lobby with elevator, stair, and patron drop-off, will provide access to the library. The existing facility would be demolished. demolished.

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

b

SITE STUDY (TRUENORTH BLOCK)

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM

a

FUTURE UNITED STATES STATES COURTHOUSE

LIBRARY FACILITY ELEVATED TO APPROXIMATELY 12 ‘ ABOVE GRADE, WITH 180 PARKING SPACES BELOW (EXISTING FACILITY REMOVED)

SITE STUDY

EMERGENCY STAIR AND DRIVE UP BOOK DROP

(CURRENT LIBRARY SITE)

VIEWS OF RIVER AND STREETSCAPE

PLAZA 425 BUILDING

5    t  h   A   v  e  

POSSIBLE SKYWALK CONNECTION

 t 1 s t S

GREAT AMERICA BUILDING

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM

ENTRY PLAZA = PUBLIC PARKING = LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to elevate the new library one-story above grade, with parking below. An entry lobby with elevator, stair, and patron drop-off, will provide access to the library. The existing facility would be demolished. demolished.

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

b

SITE STUDY

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM

(TRUENORTH BLOCK)

POSSIBLE SKYWALK CONNECTION

POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR NEW INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY

DRAMATIC VIEW OF PARK & MUSEUM CEDAR RAPIDS MUSEUM OF ART

F RONT  LAW N

  v e   A   h   t   5 DROP-OFF / PICK-UP & BOOK DROP CAPABILITIES ALONG 5TH AVE

GRE E  EN   E SQUAR

E P ARK

5t h St 

DEDICATED LIBRARY PARKING: 120 SPACES

POTENTIAL GEOTHERMAL FIELD BELOW GREENE SQUARE PARK

WAYPOINT

= PUBLIC PARKING

   e    v     A      h     t     4

  e   v    A    d   r    3

FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

= LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to elevate the main floor of the library 2 feet above the 2008 Flood level, or approximately 3 feet above current grade. The building is positioned on the southern half of the block, with a grand front lawn to leverage the relationship to green square park.

1 2 3

OPTIONS OPTIO NS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE b TRUENORTH COMPANIES

b

SITE STUDY

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM

(TRUENORTH BLOCK)

POSSIBLE SKYWALK CONNECTION

POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR NEW INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY

DRAMATIC VIEW OF PARK & MUSEUM CEDAR RAPIDS MUSEUM OF ART

F RONT  LAW N

  v e   A   h   t   5 DROP-OFF / PICK-UP & BOOK DROP CAPABILITIES ALONG 5TH AVE

GRE E  EN   E SQUAR E 

P ARK

5t h St 

DEDICATED LIBRARY PARKING: 120 SPACES

POTENTIAL GEOTHERMAL FIELD BELOW GREENE SQUARE PARK

WAYPOINT

   e    v     A      h     t     4

= PUBLIC PARKING

  e   v    A    d   r    3

FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

= LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to elevate the main floor of the library 2 feet above the 2008 Flood level, or approximately 3 feet above current grade. The building is positioned on the southern half of the block, with a grand front lawn to leverage the relationship to green square park.

1 2 3

OPTIONS OPTIO NS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE b TRUENORTH COMPANIES

  u e   n   v e  A   h   t  4

4th Ave + 730.2

5   t  h   S   t   r   e   e   t  

+ 730.0

APPROXIMATELY 1’ 2” SLOPE

  u  e   n   v  e   A    h    t    5

 5   t  h 

 S   t  + 728.8

+ 728.8

5th Ave

   N

SITE PLAN

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

c

SITE STUDY SITE

(SKOGMAN / PALMER BLOCK)

REMODELED IOWA THEATER BUILDING

CEDAR RAPIDS MUSEUM OF ART

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM US CELLULAR CENTER

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE b TRUENORTH COMPANIES

4th Ave + 730.2

5   t  h   S   t   r   e   e   t  

  u e   n   v e  A   h   t  4

+ 730.0

APPROXIMATELY 1’ 2” SLOPE

  u  e   n   v  e   A    h    t    5

 5   t  h 

 S   t  + 728.8

+ 728.8

5th Ave

   N

SITE PLAN

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

c

REMODELED IOWA THEATER BUILDING

CEDAR RAPIDS MUSEUM OF ART

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM

SITE STUDY SITE

US CELLULAR CENTER

(SKOGMAN / PALMER BLOCK)

INTERIOR VIEWS TO STREETSCAPE

DROP-OFF / PICK-UP CAPABILITIES ALONG SOUTH SIDE

POSSIBLE SKYWALK CONNECTION

5 t  th     S t  h t  EXISTING PALMER BUILDING

POSSIBLE ARCADE ALONG 1ST AVE

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

PRIVATE PARKING CEDAR RAPIDS BANK AND TRUST

  v  e   A   s  t    1

= PUBLIC PARKING = LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to position the library on First Avenue. The site slopes rather dramatically and an entry arcade may be required to permit grade transition from sidewalk to the library’s main level. This option requires the demolition of historic BCR & N Headquarters and Bever Building.

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE c  ACTION COACH (BEVER BUILDING)

SUB CITY   ALBERT AUTO SERVICE DOWNTOWN

1st Ave + 732.0

APPROXIMATELY 14’ SLOPE

+ 746.0

SKOGMAN BUILDING

PALMER BUILDING LC

c

REMODELED IOWA THEATER BUILDING

CEDAR RAPIDS MUSEUM OF ART

CONNECTION TO TRAIL SYSTEM

SITE STUDY SITE

US CELLULAR CENTER

(SKOGMAN / PALMER BLOCK)

INTERIOR VIEWS TO STREETSCAPE

DROP-OFF / PICK-UP CAPABILITIES ALONG SOUTH SIDE

POSSIBLE SKYWALK CONNECTION

5 t  th     S t  h t 

POSSIBLE ARCADE ALONG 1ST AVE

EXISTING PALMER BUILDING

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

PRIVATE PARKING CEDAR RAPIDS BANK AND TRUST

  v  e   A   s  t    1

= PUBLIC PARKING = LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to position the library on First Avenue. The site slopes rather dramatically and an entry arcade may be required to permit grade transition from sidewalk to the library’s main level. This option requires the demolition of historic BCR & N Headquarters and Bever Building.

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE c  ACTION COACH (BEVER BUILDING)

SUB CITY   ALBERT AUTO SERVICE DOWNTOWN

1st Ave APPROXIMATELY 14’ SLOPE

+ 732.0

+ 746.0

SKOGMAN BUILDING (BCR&N HEADQUARTERS)

PALMER BUILDING LC 5   t   h 

S   t   r  e  e t  

APPROXIMATELY 14’ SLOPE

 5   t  h 

 e  n u   v e   t A  1 s

 S   t  + 737.4

+ 731.3

  u e  e  n   A  v  d   2  n

2nd Ave

CENTER STAGE

GOODYEAR    N

SITE PLAN

1 2 3

OPTIONS OPTIO NS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

d

SITE STUDY

(FORMER EMERALD KNIGHTS

HISTORY CENTER

DEDICATED LIBRARY PARKING: 200 SPACES ( 2 - LEVEL RAMP)

TACO BELL

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE c  ACTION COACH (BEVER BUILDING)

SUB CITY   ALBERT AUTO SERVICE DOWNTOWN

1st Ave APPROXIMATELY 14’ SLOPE

+ 732.0

+ 746.0

SKOGMAN BUILDING (BCR&N HEADQUARTERS)

PALMER BUILDING LC 5   t   h 

S   t   r  e  e t  

APPROXIMATELY 14’ SLOPE

 e  n u   v e   t A  s  1

 5   t  h 

 S   t  + 737.4

+ 731.3

  u e  e  n   A  v  d   2  n

2nd Ave

CENTER STAGE

GOODYEAR    N

SITE PLAN

1 2 3

OPTIONS OPTIO NS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

d

HISTORY CENTER

DEDICATED LIBRARY PARKING: 200 SPACES ( 2 - LEVEL RAMP)

SITE STUDY

(FORMER EMERALD KNIGHTS BLOCK)

TACO BELL

POSSIBLE RETAIL ALONG 2ND AVE

( f  f r  ro   m I-380 )

7 t  t h St 

DRAMATIC VIEW OF MAIN ENTRY FROM 7TH STREET OFF-RAMP ENTRY PLAZA

EXISTING TREELINE

  v e  A  d   2 n

GRANT WOOD STUDIO

1ST AVE FACADE ALIGNED WITH FACE OF MASONIC L IBRARY

BANK OF THE WEST

( t  to     I -  o -3   8 0  0 )   

TURNER FUNERAL HOME

   v  e    A    t   s    1

= PUBLIC PARKING

MASONIC LIBRARY

= LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to place the library on the North side of the block, fronting First Avenue, with a front lawn in line with the Masonic Library. A Two-story Two-story parking structure will be located on the South half of the block. Sloping grade allows for the lowest level of parking to be located at “basement” level. level.

1 2 3

OPTIONS OPTIO NS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE d FROM I-380

TO I-380

1st Ave APPROXIMATELY

8 t  th   S t  t 

d

HISTORY CENTER

DEDICATED LIBRARY PARKING: 200 SPACES ( 2 - LEVEL RAMP)

SITE STUDY

(FORMER EMERALD KNIGHTS BLOCK)

TACO BELL

POSSIBLE RETAIL ALONG 2ND AVE

( f  f r  ro   m I-380 )

7 t  t h St 

DRAMATIC VIEW OF MAIN ENTRY FROM 7TH STREET OFF-RAMP ENTRY PLAZA

EXISTING TREELINE

  v e  A  d   2 n

GRANT WOOD STUDIO

1ST AVE FACADE ALIGNED WITH FACE OF MASONIC L IBRARY

BANK OF THE WEST

( t  to     I -  o -3   8 0  0 )   

TURNER FUNERAL HOME

8 t  th   S t  t 

   v  e    A    t   s    1

= PUBLIC PARKING

MASONIC LIBRARY

= LIBRARY FOOTPRINT

The design strategy for this site is to place the library on the North side of the block, fronting First Avenue, with a front lawn in line with the Masonic Library. A Two-story Two-story parking structure will be located on the South half of the block. Sloping grade allows for the lowest level of parking to be located at “basement” level. level.

1 2 3

OPTIONS OPTIO NS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE d FROM I-380

TO I-380

1st Ave APPROXIMATELY 1’6” SLOPE 771.5+

+ 769.9

  e   u   n   e   v   A   t   s   1

8   t   h 

S   t   r   e e  t  

APPROXIMATELY 14’ SLOPE

 7   t  h 

 8   t  h 

 S   t 

 S   t 

+ 760.6

7    t  h   S  t   r  e   e  t  

  e   n  u    v  e   A   d    2  n

761.7+

FORMER EMERALD KNIGHTS FACILITY 

2nd Ave

   N

SITE PLAN

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE S OCI AL

x

ECO NOMI C

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA

a

b

c

d

PRIMARY CRITERIA

C URREN T L IBRARY S ITE

TRUEN ORTH BLOCK

SKOGMAN / PAL MER BLOCK

FORM ER EMERALD KNIGHTS BLOCK

Centrally located (for equitable patron access)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

A. Outside 2008 flood area

100 year flood plain

0” to 18” of water in 2008 flood

2008 flood reached western edge

Meets criteria

B. Level of protection from future flooding

Requires elevating building one-story above grade

Requires raising the site 3’ above grade

Site outside of 2008 flood line

Site outside of 2008 flood line

ENVIRONMENTAL

x

Future flood protection:

x x

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: SITE d FROM I-380

TO I-380

1st Ave APPROXIMATELY 1’6” SLOPE 771.5+

+ 769.9

  e   u   n   e   v   t  A   s   1

8   t   h 

S   t   r   e e  t  

APPROXIMATELY 14’ SLOPE

 7   t  h 

 8   t  h 

 S   t 

 S   t 

+ 760.6

7    t  h   S  t   r  e   e  t  

  e   n  u    v  e   A   d    2  n

761.7+

FORMER EMERALD KNIGHTS FACILITY 

2nd Ave

   N

SITE PLAN

1 2 3

OPTIONSS ANALYSIS OPTION ANALYSIS

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE S OCI AL

ECO NOMI C

x

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA

a

b

c

d

PRIMARY CRITERIA

C URREN T L IBRARY S ITE

TRUEN ORTH BLOCK

SKOGMAN / PAL MER BLOCK

FORM ER EMERALD KNIGHTS BLOCK

Centrally located (for equitable patron access)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

A. Outside 2008 flood area

100 year flood plain

0” to 18” of water in 2008 flood

2008 flood reached western edge

Meets criteria

B. Level of protection from future flooding

Requires elevating building one-story above grade

Requires raising the site 3’ above grade

Site outside of 2008 flood line

Site outside of 2008 flood line

 Adequate size (1 to 1 1/2 blocks)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

 Adequate parking (300+ spaces near or on site)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

No public parking nearby

Potential to increase value of surrounding property

Neutral effect

Positive Effect

Neutral effect

Positive Effect

ENVIRONMENTAL

x

Future flood protection:

x x x x x

x x x

x x x

x

Impact to tax base

No impact

Negative impact ( $ )

Negative impact ( $ $ $ )

Negative impact ( $ )

 Accessible (pedestrian, handicap, vehicular, public transportation, bicycles, delivery/book drop)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Street level pedestrian entry/access

No library functions at grade

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Visually prominent/strong positive image

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Co-Location (Science Station)

Not possible (Science Station to be on grade)

Possible on neighboring block

Not possible

Possible, but displaces parking

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Conducive to alternative energy options

Solar, wind

Geothermal, solar, wind

Solar

Solar, wind

Favorable topography

Flat site

Flat site

Significant slope

Significant slope

 Acceptable zoning/Compatible use for surrounding area

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Site preparation required

Demolish existing library

Demolish one, single-story building

Demolish several, multi-story buildings

Demolish one, single-story building

One parcel, city-owned

Three parcels

Eight parcels

Five parcels

Known or expected environmental contamination

None suspected

None suspected

Potential (former depot & automobile uses)

Potential (former auto dealership)

Comparative estimated cost of the site

No cost

$$

$$$$

$$

SECONDARY CRITERIA

x

x x x x x

x x

 Adequate traffic flow

Expected ease of acquisition:

x

A. Number of parcels/owners parcels/owners

x

x 1 2 3

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA - MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY * LIBRARY LI BRARY SERVICE FOR TODAY TODAY & THE FUTURE

The Main Library Program was prepared by Staff, Library Board, and Patrons with guidance from George Lawson, Library Planning Consultant

MEETING ROOMS Main Meeting Room: Capacity of 200 people in rows/100 people at tables. Meeting Room 2: Capacity of 50 people in rows/24 people at tables. Meeting Room 3: Capacity of 50 people in rows/ 24 people at tables.

        0

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         0   ,         4

        0         0         0   ,         5

        0         0         0   ,         6

        0         0         0   ,         7

        0         0         0   ,         8

        0         0         0   ,         9

        0         0         0   ,         0         1

        0         0         0   ,         1         1

        0         0         0   ,         2         1

        0         0         0   ,         3         1

        0         0         0   ,         4 1

        0         0         0   ,         5         1

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA

a

b

c

d

PRIMARY CRITERIA

C URREN T L IBRARY S ITE

TRUEN ORTH BLOCK

SKOGMAN / PAL MER BLOCK

FORM ER EMERALD KNIGHTS BLOCK

Centrally located (for equitable patron access)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

A. Outside 2008 flood area

100 year flood plain

0” to 18” of water in 2008 flood

2008 flood reached western edge

Meets criteria

B. Level of protection from future flooding

Requires elevating building one-story above grade

Requires raising the site 3’ above grade

Site outside of 2008 flood line

Site outside of 2008 flood line

 Adequate size (1 to 1 1/2 blocks)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

 Adequate parking (300+ spaces near or on site)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

No public parking nearby

Potential to increase value of surrounding property

Neutral effect

Positive Effect

Neutral effect

Positive Effect

TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE S OCI AL

ECO NOMI C

x

ENVIRONMENTAL

x

Future flood protection:

x x x

x

x

x x

x x x x

Impact to tax base

No impact

Negative impact ( $ )

Negative impact ( $ $ $ )

Negative impact ( $ )

 Accessible (pedestrian, handicap, vehicular, public transportation, bicycles, delivery/book drop)

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Street level pedestrian entry/access

No library functions at grade

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Visually prominent/strong positive image

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Co-Location (Science Station)

Not possible (Science Station to be on grade)

Possible on neighboring block

Not possible

Possible, but displaces parking

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Conducive to alternative energy options

Solar, wind

Geothermal, solar, wind

Solar

Solar, wind

Favorable topography

Flat site

Flat site

Significant slope

Significant slope

 Acceptable zoning/Compatible use for surrounding area

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Meets criteria

Site preparation required

Demolish existing library

Demolish one, single-story building

Demolish several, multi-story buildings

Demolish one, single-story building

One parcel, city-owned

Three parcels

Eight parcels

Five parcels

Known or expected environmental contamination

None suspected

None suspected

Potential (former depot & automobile uses)

Potential (former auto dealership)

Comparative estimated cost of the site

No cost

$$

$$$$

$$

x

SECONDARY CRITERIA

x

x x x x x

x x

 Adequate traffic flow

Expected ease of acquisition:

x

A. Number of parcels/owners parcels/owners

x

x 1 2 3

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA - MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY * LIBRARY LI BRARY SERVICE FOR TODAY TODAY & THE FUTURE

The Main Library Program was prepared by Staff, Library Board, and Patrons with guidance from George Lawson, Library Planning Consultant

        0

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         0   ,         4

        0         0         0   ,         5

        0         0         0   ,         6

        0         0         0   ,         7

        0         0         0   ,         8

        0         0         0   ,         9

        0         0         0   ,         0         1

        0         0         0   ,         1         1

        0         0         0   ,         2         1

        0         0         0   ,         3         1

        0         0         0   ,         4 1

        0         0         0   ,         5         1

MEETING ROOMS Main Meeting Room: Capacity of 200 people in rows/100 people at tables. Meeting Room 2: Capacity of 50 people in rows/24 people at tables. Meeting Room 3: Capacity of 50 people in rows/ 24 people at tables. Conference Room: Capacity of 12 people.

CAFE Expanded food-proprietor capabilities. capabilities. Alternative hours with direct access off of main lobby.

MEDIA: CD’S, DVD’S, BLUE RAY Enhanced flexibility and more efficient shelving. Size reduction possible with conversion to DVD’s and CD’s

ADULT FICTI ON, GENRE, YOUNG YOUNG ADULT Increased shelving and seating capacity. Defined area for young adults.

ADULT NON-FICTION Increased shelving and seating capacity.

PERIODICALS More efficient shelving will accommodate material in less space.

REFERENCE/PUBLIC COMPUTERS/LAB Improved Genealogy Area. Dramatic increase in public computers. Technology Learning Center

IOWA SUBSTANCE ABUSE INFORMATION CENTER Independent access to this space. Accommodate future growth.

CHILDREN’S Increased shelving and seating capacity. Children’s Program Room with capacity for 50 people. “Tween” Zone!

EXISTING NEW

1 2 3

EXISTING TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE NEW TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE

85,000 105,000

PROPOSED SP SPACE ACE UTILIZA UTIL IZATION TION

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY WHAT WHAT WILL IT COST C OST ? 5%

$2,400,000

45%

$20,400,000

SITE PROCUREMENT & PREPARATION COST CONSTRUCTION COST

CONSTRUCTION COST

COLLECTION & FURNISHINGS COST

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY * LIBRARY LI BRARY SERVICE FOR TODAY TODAY & THE FUTURE

The Main Library Program was prepared by Staff, Library Board, and Patrons with guidance from George Lawson, Library Planning Consultant

        0

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         0   ,         4

        0         0         0   ,         5

        0         0         0   ,         6

        0         0         0   ,         7

        0         0         0   ,         8

        0         0         0   ,         9

        0         0         0   ,         0         1

        0         0         0   ,         1         1

        0         0         0   ,         2         1

        0         0         0   ,         3         1

        0         0         0   ,         4 1

        0         0         0   ,         5         1

MEETING ROOMS Main Meeting Room: Capacity of 200 people in rows/100 people at tables. Meeting Room 2: Capacity of 50 people in rows/24 people at tables. Meeting Room 3: Capacity of 50 people in rows/ 24 people at tables. Conference Room: Capacity of 12 people.

CAFE Expanded food-proprietor capabilities. capabilities. Alternative hours with direct access off of main lobby.

MEDIA: CD’S, DVD’S, BLUE RAY Enhanced flexibility and more efficient shelving. Size reduction possible with conversion to DVD’s and CD’s

ADULT FICTI ON, GENRE, YOUNG YOUNG ADULT Increased shelving and seating capacity. Defined area for young adults.

ADULT NON-FICTION Increased shelving and seating capacity.

PERIODICALS More efficient shelving will accommodate material in less space.

REFERENCE/PUBLIC COMPUTERS/LAB Improved Genealogy Area. Dramatic increase in public computers. Technology Learning Center

IOWA SUBSTANCE ABUSE INFORMATION CENTER Independent access to this space. Accommodate future growth.

CHILDREN’S Increased shelving and seating capacity. Children’s Program Room with capacity for 50 people. “Tween” Zone!

EXISTING NEW

1 2 3

EXISTING TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE NEW TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE

85,000 105,000

PROPOSED SP SPACE ACE UTILIZA UTIL IZATION TION

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY WHAT WHAT WILL IT COST C OST ?

CONSTRUCTION COST

COLLECTION & FURNISHINGS COST

SITE PROCUREMENT & PREPARATION COST

5%

$2,400,000

45%

$20,400,000

11%

$5,250,000

PARKING COST (RAMP- 312 SPACES)

26%

$11,800,000

COLLECTION & FURNISHINGS COST

6%

$2,750,000

ENDOWMENT

7%

$2,900,000

PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL FEES/REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES/MISC. COST

100%

$45,500,000

CONSTRUCTION COST

PROFESSIONALFEES/REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES/MISC. COST

PARKING COST ENDOWMENT

SITE PROCUREMENT & PREPARATION COST

HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT ?

FEMA

48%

$22,000,000

FEMA*

22%

$10,000,000

OTHER STATE & FEDERAL (I-JOBS COMPETITIVE, VISION IOWA, ETC.)

11%

$5,000,000

I-JOBS (NON-COMPETITIVE)

19%

$8,500,000

CAPITAL CAMPAIGN & GRANTS

100%

$45,500,000

*(Estimate) FEMA Reimburses Based on Actual Cost OTHER STATE & FEDERAL (I-JOBS COMPETITIVE, VISION IOWA,, ETC.)

CAPITAL CAMPAIGN & GRANTS

I-JOBS(NON-COMPETITIVE)

1 2 3

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

INTERM INT ERMODAL ODAL TRANSP TRA NSPOR ORT TATION TIO N FACILITY ACILIT Y THE INTERMODAL INTERMO DAL TRANSPORT TRANSPO RTA ATION FACILITY WILL REPLACE THE GROUND TRANSP ORTA ORTATION CENTER N

 WHAT IS AN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY WHAT WHAT WILL IT COST C OST ?

CONSTRUCTION COST

COLLECTION & FURNISHINGS COST

SITE PROCUREMENT & PREPARATION COST

5%

$2,400,000

45%

$20,400,000

11%

$5,250,000

PARKING COST (RAMP- 312 SPACES)

26%

$11,800,000

COLLECTION & FURNISHINGS COST

6%

$2,750,000

ENDOWMENT

7%

$2,900,000

PROFESSIONAL PROFESSIONAL FEES/REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES/MISC. COST

100%

$45,500,000

CONSTRUCTION COST

PROFESSIONALFEES/REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES/MISC. COST

PARKING COST ENDOWMENT

SITE PROCUREMENT & PREPARATION COST

HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT ?

FEMA

48%

$22,000,000

FEMA*

22%

$10,000,000

OTHER STATE & FEDERAL (I-JOBS COMPETITIVE, VISION IOWA, ETC.)

11%

$5,000,000

I-JOBS (NON-COMPETITIVE)

19%

$8,500,000

CAPITAL CAMPAIGN & GRANTS

100%

$45,500,000

CAPITAL CAMPAIGN & GRANTS

*(Estimate) FEMA Reimburses Based on Actual Cost OTHER STATE & FEDERAL (I-JOBS COMPETITIVE, VISION IOWA,, ETC.)

I-JOBS(NON-COMPETITIVE)

1 2 3

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

INTERM INT ERMODAL ODAL TRANSP TRA NSPOR ORT TATION TIO N FACILITY ACILIT Y THE INTERMODAL INTERMO DAL TRANSPORT TRANSPO RTA ATION FACILITY WILL REPLACE THE GROUND TRANSP ORTA ORTATION CENTER

 WHAT IS AN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY?

N

 An Intermodal Transportation Facility is defined by: “a central reference point or a central transfer point where all modes of transportation converge together and transfer to another mode of transportation or end their use of the mode of transportation they are using.”

 WELLINGTON HEIGHTS

NORTHWESTAREA

 WALK 

DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS *

*

*

SITE LOCATION

OAK HILL JACKSON

TAYLOR AR EA

CITY COUNCIL’S SITE SELECTION MATRIX MATRIX CATEGORIE CATEGORIES: S:

BIKE

*

Topography Site Size Site Configuration Site Availability/Ownership Availability/Ownership Land Use/Zoning/Environmental ronmental Considerations Downtown Vision Conformity Mixed Use Development Potential Visual Presence

TRANSPORTATION Proximity to Downtown Pedestrian Access to Site Impact on Existing Traffic Relationship to Parking Proximity to Trails Proximity to Railroad Vehicular Access to Site Impact on Existing Transit Routes

NOT TO SCALE

TEMPORARY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER FUNCTIONS PROPOSED LOCATION OF NEW CR Transit

INTERMODAL FACILITY EXISTING GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER

2

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER VISION STATEMENT

RIDE

ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Assessment Requirements Wetlands/Floodplain Wetlands/Floodplain Constraints Historical/Archeological Historical/Archeological Importance Hazardous Material Conservation Area/Land

INTERM INT ERMODAL ODAL TRANSP TRA NSPOR ORT TATION TIO N FACILITY ACILIT Y THE INTERMODAL INTERMO DAL TRANSPORT TRANSPO RTA ATION FACILITY WILL REPLACE THE GROUND TRANSP ORTA ORTATION CENTER

 WHAT IS AN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY?

N

 An Intermodal Transportation Facility is defined by: “a central reference point or a central transfer point where all modes of transportation converge together and transfer to another mode of transportation or end their use of the mode of transportation they are using.”

 WELLINGTON HEIGHTS

NORTHWESTAREA

 WALK 

DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS *

*

CITY COUNCIL’S SITE SELECTION MATRIX MATRIX CATEGORIE CATEGORIES: S:

*

SITE LOCATION Topography Site Size Site Configuration Site Availability/Ownership Availability/Ownership Land Use/Zoning/Environmental ronmental Considerations Downtown Vision Conformity Mixed Use Development Potential Visual Presence

OAK HILL JACKSON

TAYLOR AR EA

BIKE

*

TRANSPORTATION Proximity to Downtown Pedestrian Access to Site Impact on Existing Traffic Relationship to Parking Proximity to Trails Proximity to Railroad Vehicular Access to Site Impact on Existing Transit Routes

NOT TO SCALE

PROPOSED LOCATION OF NEW CR Transit

ENVIRONMENTAL

RIDE

TEMPORARY GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER FUNCTIONS

Environmental Assessment Requirements Wetlands/Floodplain Wetlands/Floodplain Constraints Historical/Archeological Historical/Archeological Importance Hazardous Material Conservation Area/Land

INTERMODAL FACILITY EXISTING GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER

2

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER VISION STATEMENT The Community Safety Center is dedicated to providing cutting edge facilities for police and fire training. The facility will build synergy through through partnerships with with the local community and the regional public safety community. The Center will be a beacon for maintaining competent and professional public safety service for our community.

STATE STATE OF FACILITIES With outdated facilities, limited space, and the losses suffered during the Flood of 2008, the Cedar Rapids Police Department and Cedar Rapids Fire Department can no longer provide the necessary training facilities for employees or the local/state/federal agencies that rely on these facilities.

FIRING RANGE The poor conditions of the training facilities make the Community Safety Center vital to the successful training of the Public Safety community in Eastern Iowa. The State Ombudsman is investigating the possibility of closing the police shooting range because of noise pollution and its proximity to houses and businesses in the area. Police currently use a parking lot for “Pursuit Driving.”

POTENTIAL PARTNER

BEST PRACTICES Regional Public Safety Training Center

There have been preliminary and ongoing discussions with Kirkwood Community College about their desire to have the Safety Center located on or adjacent to their campus. The parties involved believe there will be great synergy through this partnership. Kirkwood has a desire to enhance their their Fire Science and Criminal Justice programs. programs. The state-of-the-art facilities combined with police officers and fire fighters working as instructors for the college make this a very appealing concept. In turn Kirkwood has land, resources and access to possible private revenue streams that may help decrease the burden on the tax payers.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2

AmpleStorage, AmpleStorage,incl  includingSpeci u dingSpecialUse a lUseEquipmentS EquipmentStorage torage Multi-use t i-use/cl /classroom a ssroomss Administrativ Administrativespac espaceformeetin eformeetingsand gsandsemin seminars ars Policetr i cetrain aining ingpr props ops Firet Firetrain raining ingpr props ops Useofenergy Useofenergymanage managements mentsystems ystems LEEDcerti LEEDcertication cation–Gre –Green-bu en-buildin ildingtech gtechnology nology Access Accessan andr dresp espons onsep epath athss Sitesu Sitesustai stainabili n ability ty Waterefc Waterefciency iency/coll /collectionofrai e ctionofrainwaterfor n waterforotheru otheruses ses Energyandi Energyandindoorenvir n doorenvironmentalcon onmentalcontrols trolsystems ystems Material, a l,resourcep  resourceplanni lanningandusage n gandusage–us –useof eoflocal localresour resources Roomandbuildingdesigninconcertwithbuildingmaterialsizesanddimensions Forecastfu Forecastfutureg turegrowth rowthandb andbeable eabletoex toexpand pand

VISION STATEMENT

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER         0

ADMINISTRATION/SUPPORT

Administrative Building to house classrooms, meeting rooms, police and re training ofces, computer lab, rearms training simulator room, defensive tactics room, gymnasium and locker rooms.

CONFERENCE/TRAINING CONFERENCE/TRA INING ROOM

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         0   ,         4

        0         0         0   ,         5

        0         0         0   ,         6

        0         0         0   ,         7

        0         0         0   ,         8

        0         0         0   ,         9

        0         0         0   ,         0         1

        0         0         0   ,         1         1

        0         0         0   ,         2         1

        0         0         0   ,         3         1

        0         0         0   ,         4         1

        0         0         0   ,         5         1

        0         0         0   ,         6         1

        0         0         0   ,         7         1

        0         0         0   ,         8         1

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER VISION STATEMENT The Community Safety Center is dedicated to providing cutting edge facilities for police and fire training. The facility will build synergy through through partnerships with with the local community and the regional public safety community. The Center will be a beacon for maintaining competent and professional public safety service for our community.

STATE STATE OF FACILITIES With outdated facilities, limited space, and the losses suffered during the Flood of 2008, the Cedar Rapids Police Department and Cedar Rapids Fire Department can no longer provide the necessary training facilities for employees or the local/state/federal agencies that rely on these facilities.

FIRING RANGE The poor conditions of the training facilities make the Community Safety Center vital to the successful training of the Public Safety community in Eastern Iowa. The State Ombudsman is investigating the possibility of closing the police shooting range because of noise pollution and its proximity to houses and businesses in the area. Police currently use a parking lot for “Pursuit Driving.”

POTENTIAL PARTNER

BEST PRACTICES Regional Public Safety Training Center

There have been preliminary and ongoing discussions with Kirkwood Community College about their desire to have the Safety Center located on or adjacent to their campus. The parties involved believe there will be great synergy through this partnership. Kirkwood has a desire to enhance their their Fire Science and Criminal Justice programs. programs. The state-of-the-art facilities combined with police officers and fire fighters working as instructors for the college make this a very appealing concept. In turn Kirkwood has land, resources and access to possible private revenue streams that may help decrease the burden on the tax payers.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2

AmpleStorage, AmpleStorage,incl  includingSpeci u dingSpecialUse a lUseEquipmentS EquipmentStorage torage Multi-use t i-use/cl /classroom a ssroomss Administrativ Administrativespac espaceformeetin eformeetingsand gsandsemin seminars ars Policetr i cetrain aining ingpr props ops Firet Firetrain raining ingpr props ops Useofenergy Useofenergymanage managements mentsystems ystems LEEDcerti LEEDcertication cation–Gre –Green-bu en-buildin ildingtech gtechnology nology Access Accessan andr dresp espons onsep epath athss Sitesu Sitesustai stainabili n ability ty Waterefc Waterefciency iency/coll /collectionofrai e ctionofrainwaterfor n waterforotheru otheruses ses Energyandi Energyandindoorenvir n doorenvironmentalcon onmentalcontrols trolsystems ystems Material, a l,resourcep  resourceplanni lanningandusage n gandusage–us –useof eoflocal localresour resources Roomandbuildingdesigninconcertwithbuildingmaterialsizesanddimensions Forecastfu Forecastfutureg turegrowth rowthandb andbeable eabletoex toexpand pand

VISION STATEMENT

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER         0

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         0   ,         4

        0         0         0   ,         5

        0         0         0   ,         6

        0         0         0   ,         7

        0         0         0   ,         8

        0         0         0   ,         9

        0         0         0   ,         0         1

        0         0         0   ,         1         1

        0         0         0   ,         2         1

        0         0         0   ,         3         1

        0         0         0   ,         4         1

        0         0         0   ,         5         1

        0         0         0   ,         6         1

        0         0         0   ,         7         1

        0         0         0   ,         8         1

ADMINISTRATION/SUPPORT

Administrative Building to house classrooms, meeting rooms, police and re training ofces, computer lab, rearms training simulator room, defensive tactics room, gymnasium and locker rooms.

CONFERENCE/TRAINING CONFERENCE/TRA INING ROOM  JOINT COMMUNICATION  Joint Communications Center could be moved to the site.

 WELLNESS 70,750 SF

SKILLSTRAINING Police Training Props, including an emergency vehicle training course and indoor police shooting range. Fire training props, including a 5-6 story re training tower, hazardous materials/rail car training, collapsed and conned space training, and a large roof and oor structure training simulator.

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL Animal Care & Control Center to house animals in emergency situations.

NEW

NEW TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE

FIRE TRAINING TRAININ G TOWER TOWER The Fire Academy Building was lost to the Flood of 2008 and the Training Tower is located in the flood zone. The previous Training Tower Tower was in close proximity to Interstate 380, which restricted smoke and fire training. This new facility will provide the space required for state-of-the-art training props. It will allow the departments in the region the ability to train on more than just the basic required subjects. Creating better trained employees lowers the risk of injury or death and provides a better service for the citizens.

2

PROPOSED SP S PACE UTILIZA UT ILIZATION TION

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER Thefollowingcasestudieswereresearched:

OMAHA, NE: • Division of Fire Prevention -4mainfunctions:Fireinvestigations, -4mainfunctions:Fireinvestigations,reinspections,replanschecking,publiceducation reinspections,replanschecking,publiceducation • Fire Plans Checking Section:

117,060

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER         0

        0         0         0   ,         1

        0         0         0   ,         2

        0         0         0   ,         3

        0         0         0   ,         4

        0         0         0   ,         5

        0         0         0   ,         6

        0         0         0   ,         7

        0         0         0   ,         8

        0         0         0   ,         9

        0         0         0   ,         0         1

        0         0         0   ,         1         1

        0         0         0   ,         2         1

        0         0         0   ,         3         1

        0         0         0   ,         4         1

        0         0         0   ,         5         1

        0         0         0   ,         6         1

        0         0         0   ,         7         1

        0         0         0   ,         8         1

ADMINISTRATION/SUPPORT

Administrative Building to house classrooms, meeting rooms, police and re training ofces, computer lab, rearms training simulator room, defensive tactics room, gymnasium and locker rooms.

CONFERENCE/TRAINING CONFERENCE/TRA INING ROOM  JOINT COMMUNICATION  Joint Communications Center could be moved to the site.

 WELLNESS 70,750 SF

SKILLSTRAINING Police Training Props, including an emergency vehicle training course and indoor police shooting range. Fire training props, including a 5-6 story re training tower, hazardous materials/rail car training, collapsed and conned space training, and a large roof and oor structure training simulator.

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL Animal Care & Control Center to house animals in emergency situations.

NEW

NEW TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE

117,060

FIRE TRAINING TRAININ G TOWER TOWER The Fire Academy Building was lost to the Flood of 2008 and the Training Tower is located in the flood zone. The previous Training Tower Tower was in close proximity to Interstate 380, which restricted smoke and fire training. This new facility will provide the space required for state-of-the-art training props. It will allow the departments in the region the ability to train on more than just the basic required subjects. Creating better trained employees lowers the risk of injury or death and provides a better service for the citizens.

2

PROPOSED SP S PACE UTILIZA UT ILIZATION TION

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER Thefollowingcasestudieswereresearched:

OMAHA, NE: • Division of Fire Prevention -4mainfunctions:Fireinvestigations, -4mainfunctions:Fireinvestigations,reinspections,replanschecking,publiceducation reinspections,replanschecking,publiceducation • Fire Plans Checking Section: -ReviewsplanstodeterminecompliancewiththeInternationalFireandBuildingcodesaswellaslocalcodes, -ReviewsplanstodeterminecompliancewiththeInternationalFireandBuildingcodesasw ellaslocalcodes,ordinances,etc. ordinances,etc. -Lookforadequateandcompliantresafetysystems,reresistantbuildingmaterials, reresistantbuildingmaterials,andproperexiting andproperexiting • Fire Inspections -All -Allpropert propertiesex iesexceptpri ceptprivated vatedwell wellingsa ingsareins reinspected pected • Present public education programs upon request • Link to Firewise Communities: Communities: “TheNationalFirewiseCommunitiesProgram”isamulti-agencyeffortdesignedtoreach beyondthereservicebyinvolvinghomeowners,communityleaders, beyondthereservicebyinvolvinghomeowners, communityleaders,planners,d planners,developers, evelopers,andothersintheeffortto andothersintheeffortto protectpeople,property,and protectpeople,property ,andnaturalresourcesfromtheriskofwildlandrebefor naturalresourcesfromtheriskofwildlandrebeforearestarts. earestarts.TheFirewise TheFirewise Communitiesapproachemphasizescommunityresponsibilityforplanninginthedesignofasafecommunityaswellas Communitiesapproachemphasizescommunityresponsibilityforplanningi nthedesignofasafecommunityaswellas effectiveemergencyresponse,andindividualresponsibilityforsaferhomeconstructionanddesign, effectiveemergencyresponse,andindividualr esponsibilityforsaferhomeconstructionanddesign,landscaping, landscaping,andmaintenance. andmaintenance. • Monthlytrai Monthlytraining ning

Source:http://omaha-re.org

RENO, NV: Services -Bu -Busi sine ness sses es -EmergencyP -EmergencyProcedu rocedurePl rePlanpr anpresentat esentation- ion-educate educatesthem sthemabout aboutevacu evacuation ationplans, plans,resafety resafetyissues issues,,etc.withavid withavideoand eoandQ&A Q&A -Fi -Fire reS Sta tati tion onT Tours ours -CPR -CPRTrainin raininga gand ndfre freeb ebloo loodp dpres ressur surec echeck heckss -Safe -Safetyp typres resenta entatio tions nsto toloc local alnei neighbo ghborho rhoods ods -Free -Freer res esafe afety tyass assess essmen ments tsfor forpe perso rsonal nalre resid sidence encess -Sm -Smok oke ede detec tecto tor rin inst stal alla lati tion on Public Education -Fi -Fire reC Cor orps ps:: -Allow -Allowsthe sthecommun communityto itytovol volunteera unteeratthe tthelocal localre redepartme department nt -Firesaf -Firesafetyout etyoutreach, reach,youthprog youthprograms, rams,administr administrative ativesupport support -Sc -Schoo hool lvi visi sits ts -Flash:asinginganddancingretruckthatteacheschildrenaboutresafety -Flash:asinginganddancingretruckthatteacheschildrenaboutresafety, ,includingsmokedetectors, includingsmokedetectors,exitdrills, exitdrills,stopdropandroll stopdropandroll -ABC’ -ABC’sofFire sofFireSafety Safety::forpre-sc forpre-school hoolchildr children en

•

•

Source:http://www.cityofreno.com

2

CASESTUDIES

NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER: Neighborhood Resource Centers are public/private opportunities where neighbors can go to get information, nd out about events and programs, and interact with each other to work for the betterment of the community. community. HOW WOULD WOULD A NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER BETTER SERVE BOTH THE

 WHERE DID THIS IDEA BEGIN?

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER Thefollowingcasestudieswereresearched:

OMAHA, NE: • Division of Fire Prevention -4mainfunctions:Fireinvestigations, -4mainfunctions:Fireinvestigations,reinspections,replanschecking,publiceducation reinspections,replanschecking,publiceducation • Fire Plans Checking Section: -ReviewsplanstodeterminecompliancewiththeInternationalFireandBuildingcodesaswellaslocalcodes, -ReviewsplanstodeterminecompliancewiththeInternationalFireandBuildingcodesasw ellaslocalcodes,ordinances,etc. ordinances,etc. -Lookforadequateandcompliantresafetysystems,reresistantbuildingmaterials, reresistantbuildingmaterials,andproperexiting andproperexiting • Fire Inspections -All -Allpropert propertiesex iesexceptpri ceptprivated vatedwell wellingsa ingsareins reinspected pected • Present public education programs upon request • Link to Firewise Communities: Communities: “TheNationalFirewiseCommunitiesProgram”isamulti-agencyeffortdesignedtoreach beyondthereservicebyinvolvinghomeowners,communityleaders, beyondthereservicebyinvolvinghomeowners, communityleaders,planners,d planners,developers, evelopers,andothersintheeffortto andothersintheeffortto protectpeople,property,and protectpeople,property ,andnaturalresourcesfromtheriskofwildlandrebefor naturalresourcesfromtheriskofwildlandrebeforearestarts. earestarts.TheFirewise TheFirewise Communitiesapproachemphasizescommunityresponsibilityforplanninginthedesignofasafecommunityaswellas Communitiesapproachemphasizescommunityresponsibilityforplanningi nthedesignofasafecommunityaswellas effectiveemergencyresponse,andindividualresponsibilityforsaferhomeconstructionanddesign, effectiveemergencyresponse,andindividualr esponsibilityforsaferhomeconstructionanddesign,landscaping, landscaping,andmaintenance. andmaintenance. • Monthlytrai Monthlytraining ning

Source:http://omaha-re.org

RENO, NV: Services -Bu -Busi sine ness sses es -EmergencyP -EmergencyProcedu rocedurePl rePlanpr anpresentat esentation- ion-educate educatesthem sthemabout aboutevacu evacuation ationplans, plans,resafety resafetyissues issues,,etc.withavid withavideoand eoandQ&A Q&A -Fi -Fire reS Sta tati tion onT Tours ours -CPR -CPRTrainin raininga gand ndfre freeb ebloo loodp dpres ressur surec echeck heckss -Safe -Safetyp typres resenta entatio tions nsto toloc local alnei neighbo ghborho rhoods ods -Free -Freer res esafe afety tyass assess essmen ments tsfor forpe perso rsonal nalre resid sidence encess -Sm -Smok oke ede detec tecto tor rin inst stal alla lati tion on Public Education -Fi -Fire reC Cor orps ps:: -Allow -Allowsthe sthecommun communityto itytovol volunteera unteeratthe tthelocal localre redepartme department nt -Firesaf -Firesafetyout etyoutreach, reach,youthprog youthprograms, rams,administr administrative ativesupport support -Sc -Schoo hool lvi visi sits ts -Flash:asinginganddancingretruckthatteacheschildrenaboutresafety -Flash:asinginganddancingretruckthatteacheschildrenaboutresafety, ,includingsmokedetectors, includingsmokedetectors,exitdrills, exitdrills,stopdropandroll stopdropandroll -ABC’ -ABC’sofFire sofFireSafety Safety::forpre-sc forpre-school hoolchildr children en

•

•

Source:http://www.cityofreno.com

2

CASESTUDIES

NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER: Neighborhood Resource Centers are public/private opportunities where neighbors can go to get information, nd out about events and programs, and interact with each other to work for the betterment of the community. community. HOW WOULD WOULD A NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER BETTER SERVE BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY? •Co-locationofneighb •Co-locationofneighborhoodservicesw orhoodserviceswouldmakeite ouldmakeiteasierfor asierfor peopletogetinformationorassistance •Resourcescouldinclu •Resourcescouldincludeaccesstocom deaccesstocomputers,technicalassist puters,technicalassistance, ance, andtraining •Socialnetworkingwil •Socialnetworkingwillhelpdefinetheneighbo lhelpdefinetheneighborhood’sidentity rhood’sidentityand and fostercommunitypride

 WHERE DID THIS IDEA BEGIN? •SeveralNeighborh •SeveralNeighborhoodAssociationsm oodAssociationsmetinexistingfacilitiespre-fl etinexistingfacilitiespre-flood ood •Manyfacilitiessustainedfl •Manyfacilitiessustainedflooddamage ooddamage •TheNeighborhoodRe •TheNeighborhoodResourceCenterconcept sourceCenterconceptbeganwhen beganwhen communitymembersbeganto communitymembersbegantoseehowparticipation seehowparticipationintheCity’s intheCity’s redevelopmentplancouldimpro redevelopmentplancouldimprovetheirneighborhoo vetheirneighborhoods ds •Discussionsaboutthe •Discussionsabouttheimportanceofstro importanceofstrongneighborhoodsl ngneighborhoodsleadtoa eadtoa seriesofpublic/privateactionitems

•NeighborhoodReso •NeighborhoodResourceCenterscangenerate urceCenterscangenerateahighlevelo ahighlevelof f activity,engagethecom activity,engagethecommunityinpublicspa munityinpublicspace,andbeenhanced ce,andbeenhanced throughpartnershipswiththeParks throughpartnerships withtheParksandRecreationDepart andRecreationDepartment ment •Eachfacilitywould •Eachfacilitywouldprovidedifferentservices providedifferentservicesandofferavaried andofferavariedsetof setof participationoptions •NeighborhoodReso •NeighborhoodResourceCentersareasa urceCentersareasafeplacewhereevery feplacewhereeveryone one -fromkidstoseniors-cangett -fromkidstoseniors-cangettoknoweacho oknoweachotherbetterandwork therbetterandwork towardcreatingasustainable,livabl towardcreatingasustainable,livablecommunity ecommunity •Itisthenatureof •Itisthenatureofneighborhoodresource neighborhoodresourcecenterstochangea centerstochangeand nd growastheneighborhoodaround growastheneighborhoodarounditchanges-flexibility itchanges-flexibilityisthekeyto isthekeyto theirsuccess

2

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

FORMERLY HOUSED IN THIS FACILITY:

DESIGN STORY:

NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER: Neighborhood Resource Centers are public/private opportunities where neighbors can go to get information, nd out about events and programs, and interact with each other to work for the betterment of the community. community. HOW WOULD WOULD A NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER BETTER SERVE BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY? •Co-locationofneighb •Co-locationofneighborhoodservicesw orhoodserviceswouldmakeite ouldmakeiteasierfor asierfor peopletogetinformationorassistance •Resourcescouldinclu •Resourcescouldincludeaccesstocom deaccesstocomputers,technicalassist puters,technicalassistance, ance, andtraining •Socialnetworkingwil •Socialnetworkingwillhelpdefinetheneighbo lhelpdefinetheneighborhood’sidentity rhood’sidentityand and fostercommunitypride

 WHERE DID THIS IDEA BEGIN? •SeveralNeighborh •SeveralNeighborhoodAssociationsm oodAssociationsmetinexistingfacilitiespre-fl etinexistingfacilitiespre-flood ood •Manyfacilitiessustainedfl •Manyfacilitiessustainedflooddamage ooddamage •TheNeighborhoodRe •TheNeighborhoodResourceCenterconcept sourceCenterconceptbeganwhen beganwhen communitymembersbeganto communitymembersbegantoseehowparticipation seehowparticipationintheCity’s intheCity’s redevelopmentplancouldimpro redevelopmentplancouldimprovetheirneighborhoo vetheirneighborhoods ds •Discussionsaboutthe •Discussionsabouttheimportanceofstro importanceofstrongneighborhoodsl ngneighborhoodsleadtoa eadtoa seriesofpublic/privateactionitems

•NeighborhoodReso •NeighborhoodResourceCenterscangenerate urceCenterscangenerateahighlevelo ahighlevelof f activity,engagethecom activity,engagethecommunityinpublicspa munityinpublicspace,andbeenhanced ce,andbeenhanced throughpartnershipswiththeParks throughpartnerships withtheParksandRecreationDepart andRecreationDepartment ment •Eachfacilitywould •Eachfacilitywouldprovidedifferentservices providedifferentservicesandofferavaried andofferavariedsetof setof participationoptions •NeighborhoodReso •NeighborhoodResourceCentersareasa urceCentersareasafeplacewhereevery feplacewhereeveryone one -fromkidstoseniors-cangett -fromkidstoseniors-cangettoknoweacho oknoweachotherbetterandwork therbetterandwork towardcreatingasustainable,livabl towardcreatingasustainable,livablecommunity ecommunity •Itisthenatureof •Itisthenatureofneighborhoodresource neighborhoodresourcecenterstochangea centerstochangeand nd growastheneighborhoodaround growastheneighborhoodarounditchanges-flexibility itchanges-flexibilityisthekeyto isthekeyto theirsuccess

2

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

FORMERLY HOUSED

DESIGN STORY:

IN THIS FACILITY:

FEDERAL AGENCIES:

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

United States District Court United States Marshal Service United States Attorney’s Office United States Probation Federal Public Defender General Services Administration Congressional Congressional Offices SERVICES:

BUILDING STYLE:  

AREA:

BEAUX-ARTS BUILDING- 68,000 SQUARE FEET LAND1.3 ACRES

ZONING:

CENTRAL BUSINESS

  ADJACENT ZONING:

CENTRAL BUSINESS PUBLIC

FLOOD ZONE:

500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN

District Courtrooms Clerk of Court Probation Services Pre-trial Services Grand Jury

“Located within the boundaries of the May’s Island Historic District in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the United States Courthouse (formerly Post office and Courthouse) was executed under the guidance of James A. Wetmore, Acting Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department Procurement Division. Division. The actual designer designer of this monumental, Beaux-Arts-Style Federal Building, was Louis A. Simon, an architect within the Public Works Branch of the Procurement Division. The building’s cornerstone was laid in 1931, and the project was brought to completion in 1933 as a product of the Depression Era. Source: Historic Building Preservation Plan, Baranes, 1995

2

BUILDING HISTORY

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE There are certain standards that have been put forth by the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Federal Government and the City of Cedar Rapids, setting limit ations to any future expansions or major changes to the buildi ng. The agreement came as a response to the historic natu re of the former Federal Couthouse.

SITE:

BUILDING:

N

= TOTAL AREA: 67,450 SF

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

FORMERLY HOUSED

DESIGN STORY:

IN THIS FACILITY:

FEDERAL AGENCIES:

United States District Court United States Marshal Service United States Attorney’s Office United States Probation Federal Public Defender General Services Administration Congressional Congressional Offices

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

SERVICES: BUILDING STYLE:  

BEAUX-ARTS

AREA:

District Courtrooms Clerk of Court Probation Services Pre-trial Services Grand Jury

BUILDING- 68,000 SQUARE FEET LAND1.3 ACRES

ZONING:

CENTRAL BUSINESS

  ADJACENT ZONING:

CENTRAL BUSINESS PUBLIC

FLOOD ZONE:

500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN

“Located within the boundaries of the May’s Island Historic District in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the United States Courthouse (formerly Post office and Courthouse) was executed under the guidance of James A. Wetmore, Acting Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department Procurement Division. Division. The actual designer designer of this monumental, Beaux-Arts-Style Federal Building, was Louis A. Simon, an architect within the Public Works Branch of the Procurement Division. The building’s cornerstone was laid in 1931, and the project was brought to completion in 1933 as a product of the Depression Era. Source: Historic Building Preservation Plan, Baranes, 1995

2

BUILDING HISTORY

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE There are certain standards that have been put forth by the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Federal Government and the City of Cedar Rapids, setting limit ations to any future expansions or major changes to the buildi ng. The agreement came as a response to the historic natu re of the former Federal Couthouse.

SITE:

BUILDING:

N

= TOTAL AREA: 67,450 SF

100% 2    n   d     S     t   

= HISTORIC AREA: 16,746 SF FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

24.8% = REMAINING AREA: 50,704 SF

1    s  t    S     t   

75.2%

  v e  t A  1 s

SITE SUMMARY:

The site lies within the Central Business District of Cedar Rapids, and is bounded by the Cedar River to the southwest.   As there are standards for exterior and interior changes to the building, expansion and alteration capabilities are limited. The site area is limited to the facilities property only.

  v e  d A   2 n

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE NOT TO SCALE

BUILDING: = FORMER UNTIED STATES COURTHOUSE SITE The City and the United States General Services Administration (GSA) have entered into an agreement (MOA/Memorandum of Agreement) to swap the current United States Courthouse on First Street SE for the land between 7th Ave. SE and 8th Ave. SE to be used as the site for the new United States Courthouse. Since the Former United States Courthouse is listed on the National Regist er of Historical Places, several architectur al elements of the Former United States Courthouse are spelled out in the MOA as being historicall y significant . As such there are certain limitations placed placed on the physical changes that can be made to elements of the building, as outlined in the adjacent graphics, including the exterior façade, the third floor main courtroom and judge’s chambers, and the central hallway/stair tower on each of the floors. With the start of the construction on the new Federal Courthouse, the City will take possession of the property in late 2012 when the new Federal Courthouse is completed.

2

SPACE UTILIZATION

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE There are certain standards that have been put forth by the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Federal Government and the City of Cedar Rapids, setting limit ations to any future expansions or major changes to the buildi ng. The agreement came as a response to the historic natu re of the former Federal Couthouse.

SITE:

BUILDING:

N

= TOTAL AREA: 67,450 SF

100% 2    n   d     S     t   

= HISTORIC AREA: 16,746 SF FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

75.2%

  v e  t A  1 s

SITE SUMMARY:

The site lies within the Central Business District of Cedar Rapids, and is bounded by the Cedar River to the southwest.   As there are standards for exterior and interior changes to the building, expansion and alteration capabilities are limited. The site area is limited to the facilities property only.

  v e  d A   2 n

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE NOT TO SCALE

BUILDING: = FORMER UNTIED STATES COURTHOUSE SITE The City and the United States General Services Administration (GSA) have entered into an agreement (MOA/Memorandum of Agreement) to swap the current United States Courthouse on First Street SE for the land between 7th Ave. SE and 8th Ave. SE to be used as the site for the new United States Courthouse. Since the Former United States Courthouse is listed on the National Regist er of Historical Places, several architectur al elements of the Former United States Courthouse are spelled out in the MOA as being historicall y significant . As such there are certain limitations placed placed on the physical changes that can be made to elements of the building, as outlined in the adjacent graphics, including the exterior façade, the third floor main courtroom and judge’s chambers, and the central hallway/stair tower on each of the floors. With the start of the construction on the new Federal Courthouse, the City will take possession of the property in late 2012 when the new Federal Courthouse is completed.

2

SPACE UTILIZATION

N E X T T

24.8% = REMAINING AREA: 50,704 SF

1    s  t    S     t   

N E X T T I  M E

3

WHY IS THIS PROCESS PROCESS IMPORTANT?

SO YOU CAN HELP GUIDE THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY

TODAY AND FOR FUTURE

GENERATIONS

2 3

WHAT WHA T COMES CO MES AFTER PUBLIC PUBLI C INPUT? IN PUT? PLANNING

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

PHASE COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PLAN

(MARCH 2009) BUILDING AND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATION

(OCTOBER 2009) COUNCIL APPROVAL

OPEN HOUSE PROCESS

NOVEMBER 2008

DESIGN PROCESS

BID PROCESS 2 MONTHS

FEBRUARY 2009

RECOMMENDATION

     G      N      I      T     S      S      C     E      A     C      R     O      T     R      N     P      O      C

CONSTRUCTION

TO COUNCIL

DESIGN PROCESS

BID PROCESS 2 MONTHS

     S      T      C      E      J      O      R      P

DESIGN PROCESS

     G      N      I      T     S      S      C     E      A     C      R     O      T     R      P      N      O      C

CONSTRUCTION

BID PROCESS 2 MONTHS

     G      N      I      T     S      S      C     E      A     C      R     O      T     R      N     P      O      C

CONSTRUCTION

CONTINUE

CONTINUE

2 3

UPCOMING OPEN HOUSE DATES

OPEN HOUSE #3 The final open house on Tuesday, October 6 will provide information on preferred options.

UPCOMING OPEN HOUSE DATES

OPEN HOUSE #3 The final open house on Tuesday, October 6 will provide information on preferred options.

COME BA BACK  CK  NEXT TIME

YOUR

INPUT MAKES A

DIFFERENCE.

THANK THANK YOU! YOU! 2 3