Open House 3 Board Series

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

123

1

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY? PURPOSE: TO ENGAGE YOU IN THE PROCESS

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

TO GET YOUR INPUT ON THE RECOMMENDED OPTIONS PROCESS:

EXAMINE THE INFORMATION ASK QUESTIONS PROVIDE INPUT

123

OPPORTUNITY

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

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

GENERATIONS

123

OPEN HOUSE #1

FEEDBACK SUMMARY Comments from Open House 1 were recorded and analyzed for common themes. Priorities established from public feedback were:

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

1)

Protect or relocate vital City services outside of the Cedar River flood plain.

2)

Create multiple options for Community Facilities as a component of a renewed downtown.

3)

Social sustainability, as defined by the principles of livable/walkable cities, should be a priority in future options considerations.

4)

Develop options with accessible and centralized services, and plentiful free parking.

5)

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

200 276 003

Attendees Individual Responses to Facilities & Events Questions Online Responses

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

123

OPEN HOUSE #2

FEEDBACK SUMMARY Comments from Open House 2 were recorded and analyzed for common themes. Priorities established from public feedback were:

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

1)

EXPLORE HYBRID OPTIONS / SCENARIOS

2)

BUILD BACK BETTER AND/OR RE-CONFIGURE AFFECTED FACILITIES TO SUIT TODAY’S NEEDS AS WELL AS FUTURE NEEDS

3)

OUTLINE A TIME LINE OF THE REBUILDING PROCESS THROUGH CONSTRUCTION

4)

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS - RESEARCH/PURSUE ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES

5)

AVOID FUTURE FLOODING

OPEN HOUSE #2 COMMUNITY ATTENDANCE STATISTICS:

598 850 035

123

Attendees Individual Responses to Facilities & Events Questions Online Responses

OPEN HOUSE #2

FEEDBACK SUMMARY OPEN HOUSE #2 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK SUMMARY: OVERALL EVENT FEEDBACK: • The majority of respondents offered general supportive comments. • Some respondents felt overwhelmed by the amount of information presented, but understood the complexity of issues.

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

CITY SERVICES/VETERAN’S MEMORIAL: • Option C** was the most popular option among respondents, although not a majority. • Option B* was the second most popular option among respondents, although concern about flooding is high. • People expressed conflict about keeping a landmark in a flood zone between future flood walls.

CITY OPERATIONS/PUBLIC WORKS: • Option B* was the most popular option among respondents, although not a majority, while Option C** was the second most popular option. • Several comments involved the possible utilization of the existing Fleck Building (currently used as a temporary space) as a possible location for other departments. • Current site/location was preferred regardless of choosing Option B or Option C.

FLEET MAINTENANCE: • Option C** was the most popular option among respondents, although not a majority. • Public comments centered on a possible need to co-locate with Public Works for efficiency as well as possible technological evolution and its effects on Fleet Maintenance.

ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL: • The overwhelming majority of respondents favored Option C.** • Respondents were in favor of Kirkwood involvement and expressed desires for a facility that is healthy for both employees and animals alike.

CENTRAL FIRE STATION: • Option C** was overwhelmingly favored and respondents deferred to the recommendations of the Fire Department. • Respondents noted that Central Fire is a vital service that should never be incapacitated during emergencies.

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY: • Option C** was overwhelmingly favored. • Respondents favored two possible sites for the new library: • True North Block, adjacent to Green Square Park • Former Emerald Knights Block, along 1st Avenue SE • Primary themes in the public feedback were: • Ample, free parking • Protection from flooding • True North Site: Connection to Green Square Park and relationship to Cedar Rapids Museum of Art • Emerald Knights Site: “Gateway” to Downtown from I-380 and beyond the 2008 Flood Extents

INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY: • Low response rate, however respondents would like to see expanded program at the former Pepsi location.

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER: • Low response rate, however respondents were generally supportive of the concept.

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS: • Low response rate, however respondents have high support for the topic as a lower priority.

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE: • The most popular response among the public participants, although not a majority, would like to see this facility used for City Services program overflow. • The other primary responses were to remove the building from taxpayer burden/sell to find private owners. *Option B: **Option C:

(Return to Pre-Flood Conditions with Flood Mitigation, Code Upgrades, and Extensive Mechanical/ Functional Updates With Program Growth) (New Building with Program Growth, Undetermined Site)

123

OUR PROCESS:

WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

RIVER CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN/ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STUDY

Nov. 2008

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS

May 2009

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Feb. 2009

OPEN HOUSE #1 - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

June 2009

COMPILE AND ANALYZE FEEDBACK

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

BENCHMARK DATA FOR COMPARISON

OPTIONS/PRELIMINARY DATA SAMPLE

OPEN HOUSE #2: OPTIONS COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

Aug. 2009

COMPILE AND ANALYZE FEEDBACK

*

OPEN HOUSE #3: OPTION REFINEMENT - COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

*

Nov. 2009

YOU ARE HERE

NEXT STEPS: 123

COMPILE AND ANALYZE FEEDBACK

CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF PREFERRED OPTIONS

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Community Facilities

123

2

EVALUATION CRITERIA SOCIAL

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

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/Practical? Does it Create a Successful Environment for Business?

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

economic

environment

123 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

COST ESTIMATE EXPLANATION THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE DATA IS USED TO EXPLAIN HOW COST INFORMATION IS CALCULATED AND DISPLAYED: 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 and, in absence of a formal pricing study, with the use of experience-based formulas or planning-factors. These estimates are employed in conceptual planning or in budgeting study only, and are not considered valid for entering into a commitment.

M

P

LE

D AT A

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION SOCIAL

ALL COST NUMBERS IN THIS STUDY ARE PRELIMINARY:

XA

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION

E

NON TAX PAYER FUNDING = INITIAL COST

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

FEMA FUNDING Final FEMA funding has yet to be determined and will have the potential to greatly impact initial and on-going 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.

E

XA

M

P

LE

D AT A

FUNDING SOURCES

ON-GOING COST

123

TOTAL NET PRESENT VALUE - NPV

E

XA

M

P LE

D AT A

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:

NPV =

T

S

Ct

t=1 (1 +r)

t

-Co

OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES OPEN HOUSE #3 will present information on 6 potential facility programs that addresses immediate civic needs.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

1)

City Services Center/Veteran’s Memorial Building

2)

City Operations Center/Public Works Facilities

3)

Fleet Maintenance

4)

Animal Care and Control

5)

Central Fire Station

6)

Main Public Library

There are 4 potential facilities concepts that are being presented for additinal public feedback. 1)

Intermodal Transportation Facility

2)

Community Safety Centers

3)

Neighborhood Centers

4)

Usage of Former United States Courthouse

123 OPTIONS SUMMARY

CLEAR PATH RECOVERY PROJECTS 3 PROJECTS emerged as facilities having a clear path to move forward with FLOOD RECOVERY. Animal Care and Control - Build New

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Central Fire Station - Build New Main Public Library - Build New

What makes these projects Clear Path Recovery Projects: 1) 2) 3) 4)

FEMA Determined Substantial Damage Prior Open House Evaluation & Feedback Barriers to Using Existing Facilities City Council Review

As these projects move down the CLEAR PATH, they will adhere to the triple bottom line evaluation criteria

123 CLEAR PATH

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY SERVICES CENTER TIMELINE OF EVENTS

A

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

B

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

C

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

D

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

Public Feedback from Open House #2

Summary of Feedback from Open House #2 - None of the options received a majority, however, Option C was preferred. - Concern about future flooding of this building remains - Respondents are torn between maintaining a city landmark versus risk of future flooding

123 CR OPEN HOUSE #2 REVIEW AND OUTCOME

Open House #3 Options

CITY COUNCIL REVIEW

Open House #2 Options

B

REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS

C

NEW ONE-STOP BUILDING

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY SERVICES CENTER B

REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS TOTAL PROGRAM SF: 117,000 SF *

C

NEW ONE STOP BUILDING TOTAL PROGRAM SF: 109,700 SF *

OPTION B.1: CITY SERVICES REUSES

SQUARE FEET

OPTION C.1: CITY SERVICES

SQUARE FEET



- VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

27,400 SF



109,700 SF



- FORMER U.S. COURTHOUSE

28,000 SF



- PUBLIC WORKS

28,600 SF



- SUBURBAN OFFICE BUILDING

30,000 SF



114,000 SF

OPTION B.2: CITY SERVICES REUSES

SQUARE FEET



- VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

27,400 SF

- FORMER U.S. COURTHOUSE

28,000 SF





- BUILD A NEW BUILDING (site to be determined)

TOTAL PROGRAM SF: 146,000 SF * OPTION C.2: CITY SERVICES + LINN COUNTY (CO-LOCATION)

SQUARE FEET

- BUILD A NEW BUILDING (SITE TO BE DETERMINED)

146,000 SF



- DOWNTOWN OFFICE BUILDING

60,000 SF

For all options using existing buildings, the average cost per square foot for renovation and re-occupation are as follows:



TOTAL

115,400 SF

SUBURBAN OFFICE BUILDING: 30,000 Square Feet with Parking $74 per square foot

OPTION B.3: CITY SERVICES REUSES

SQUARE FEET



- PUBLIC WORKS

28,600 SF



- DOWNTOWN OFFICE BUILDING

60,000 SF



- SUBURBAN OFFICE BUILDING

30,000 SF





123 OPTIONS SUMMARY

118,600 SF

URBAN OFFICE BUILDING: 60,000 Square Feet without Parking $50 per square foot

* Square foot difference due to efficiencies found in single location configuration or through co-location



CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICE/FAIR HOUSING

FINANCE (AUDITOR/TREASURER) CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

15,534 SF

80 25

CITY COUNCIL / MANAGER OFFICES

50

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

15



COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

95



HUMAN RESOURCES

10



PARKS/RECREATION ADMINISTRATION

20



CITY ASSESSOR

40

CODE ENFORCEMENT

100



ENGINEERING

50



UTILITY BILLING

30



TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

35



LINN COUNTY SERVICES (CO-LOCATION ONLY)

600 to 800

123

3,000

10



TOTAL CITY SERVICES: TOTAL CITY+COUNTY:

2,000

EST. VISITORS PER DAY

1,000

CITY SERVICES AND CITY + COUNTY CO-LOCATION

0

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION

560 1160 TO 1460

WHAT THIS GRAPH TELLS US: The dark blue bars tell us how much square footage is needed to meet current space needs. Some departments can be made more efficient, while others need to expand their square footage. The other colored bars tell us where these City Services were placed around the city at the time of the flood, as well as their existing square footages.

16,070 SF

47,117 SF 72,727 SF

EXISTING 4TH AVENUE PARKADE EXISTING PARKING EXISTING WATER DEPARTMENT EXISTING FIRE STATION EXISTING POLICE STATION EXISTING LINN COUNTY SERVICES EXISTING GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER EXISTING VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING EXISTING PARKS & RECREATION EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS NEEDED

REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS OPTION

CITY SERVICES EXISTING TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE NEEDED TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE

68,791 77,140

COUNTY SERVICES EXISTING TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE NEEDED TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE

47,117 72,727

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

OPTIONS ANALYSIS - OPTION B CITY SERVICES CENTER

DEPARTMENTS:

SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN:

Civil Rights/Fair Housing City Attorney City Clerk City Council / Manager Community Development Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Parks/Recreation Administration City Assessor Code Enforcement

SQUARE FOOTAGE

PERCENT OF BUILDING

City Attorney City Assessor City Clerk City Council / Manager Offices Civil Rights/Fair Housing Code Enforcement Community Development Engineering Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Parks/Recreation Administration Traffic Engineering Utility Billing

2,310 SF 5,400 SF 2,886 SF 2,767 SF 4,882 SF 2,495 SF 13,644 SF 5,745 SF 15,534 SF 2,958 SF 1,045 SF 8,439 SF 670 SF

2.24 % 5.23 % 2.80 % 2.68 % 4.73 % 2.42 % 13.22 % 5.57 % 15.05 % 2.86 % 1.01 % 8.18 % 0.65 %

NET TOTAL

62,042 SF

66.64%

Cafeteria/Lobby/Restroom/Locker Mechanical/Circulation/Support (50% grossing factor)

Engineering

SUB TOTAL

Traffic Engineering

Future Growth Factor

Utility Billing

GROSS TOTAL

8,500 SF 34,396 SF



8.24%

DEPARTMENTS REMOVED:

COSTS:

After a review of the City Services Program, the following portions of program can be removed and placed into other existing facilities.

Additional cost will need to be used for the location of these departments.

Existing City Services Gross SF =139,500 SF $ 433,000 Information Technology (I.T.) = 12,240 SF Moving to Parks and Rec. Building (3601 42nd St NE) City Council Chambers = Will use an existing facility

3,252 SF

Veteran’s Commission = 1,183 SF Remain at Veteran’s Memorial Building NET TOTAL =

16,675 SF

Meeting rooms, circulation, restrooms, grossing factor =

5,825 SF*

33.33%

103,187 SF

100%

13,813 SF

13%

117,000 SF

100%

123 REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS OPTION

TOTAL DIFFERENCE =

NEW GROSS TOTAL =

* Number based on efficiencies

-22,500 SF

117,000 SF

$0 $ 0 - cost covered by FEMA

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

ADVANTAGES/ DISADVANTAGES - OPTION B

CITY SERVICES CENTER

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

FORMER U.S. COURTHOUSE

PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING

Advantages:

Advantages:

Advantages:

• City Services would be centrally located in downtown Ceder Rapids. • The former United States Courthouse and Veteran’s Memorial Building are in close proximity for ease of customer use. • The building is currently vacant and no cost for relocation of existing tenants would be incurred. • The use of an iconic building can promote civic pride.

• City Services would be centrally located in downtown Ceder Rapids. • The former United States Courthouse and Veteran’s Memorial Building are in close proximity for ease of customer use. • The building is currently vacant and no expense for relocation costs for existing tenants would be incurred. • The building would be City owned.

• City Services Center Programs would not have to relocate and could stay in their existing/current locations. • On site parking is available for customer convenience.

Disadvantages:

Disadvantages:

• The basement level and first floor were affected by the Flood of 2008. • Leaking is a concern in the basement even during minor rises in river level. • Due to the historical nature of the building and site constraints, the structure is not readily expandable for current space requirement needs. • Existing parking for the public is an issue. • Not large enough to fit all of City Services. Will require additional space. Could result in public needing to travel to multiple locations for service.

• The basement and first floor were affected by the Flood of 2008. • Leaking is a concern in the basement even during minor rises in water level. • Currently mechanical systems are located in the basement. (Potential Cost) • Historic spaces cannot be altered, limiting space configurations. • Not large enough to fit all of City Services. Will require additional space. Could result in public needing to travel to multiple locations for service. • Existing parking for the public is an issue.

Disadvantages: • Building affected by the Flood of 2008. • Not large enough to fit all of City Services. Will require additional space. Could result in public needing to travel to multiple locations for service.

DOWNTOWN OFFICE BUILDING

SUBURBAN OFFICE BUILDING

Advantages:

Advantages:

• City Services would be centrally located in downtown Cedar Rapids • Location would be out of the 100-year flood plain

• City Services would be occupying a building that was not affected by the flood. • On site parking is available for customer convenience. • Vacant building would not require relocation expense.

Disadvantages: • Building could be located in the 500-year flood plain • On site parking is not required to be provided for buildings in the Central Business District. • The City would have to purchase new land/building in order to expand. • Not large enough to fit all of City Services. Will require additional space. Could result in public needing to travel to multiple locations for service. • Existing property removed from tax rolls.

123 REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS OPTION

Disadvantages: • City Services would not be centrally located for the community. • The City would have to purchase new land/building in order to expand. • Not large enough to fit all of City Services. Will require additional space. Could result in public needing to travel to multiple locations for service. • Existing property removed from tax rolls.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COST ANALYSIS - OPTION B.1 TOTAL SQUARE FEET CITY SERVICES

117,000 SF

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

27,400 SF

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

28,000 SF

PUBLIC WORKS

28,600 SF

SUBURBAN OFFICE BUILDING

30,000 SF

REFER TO CODE REQUIREMENT

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

ONGOING COST:

50 2ND AVENUE BRIDGE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

REFER TO BUILDING REVIEW

101 1ST STREET S.E., CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

1201 SIXTH STREET SW, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

AN EXISTING OFFICE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS. IT CAN BE LOCATED IN ANY NORTH, SOUTH, EAST OR WEST DIRECTION

TOTAL [ SHORTFALL

TOTAL PROJECT COST:

114,000 SF - 3,000 SF ]

123 REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS OPTION

$14,148,874

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COST ANALYSIS - OPTION B.2 TOTAL SQUARE FEET CITY SERVICES

117,000 SF

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING

27,400 SF

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

28,000 SF

DOWNTOWN OFFICE BUILDING

60,000 SF

REFER TO CODE REVIEW

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

ONGOING COST:

1309 8TH STREET, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

REFER TO BUILDING REVIEW

101 1ST STREET S.E., CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS

TOTAL [ SHORTFALL

115,400 SF

TOTAL PROJECT COST:

- 1,600 SF ]

123 REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS OPTION

$14,186,680

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COST ANALYSIS - OPTION B.3 TOTAL SQUARE FEET CITY SERVICES

117,000 SF

PUBLIC WORKS

28,600 SF

DOWNTOWN OFFICE BUILDING

60,000 SF

SUBURBAN OFFICE BUILDING

30,000 SF

1201 SIXTH STREET SW, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA

AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS

AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS. IT CAN BE LOCATED IN ANY NORTH, SOUTH, EAST OR WEST DIRECTION

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

TOTAL PROJECT COST:

TOTAL

118,600 SF

[OVER

+1,600 SF ]

123 REUSE MULTIPLE EXISTING BUILDINGS OPTION

ONGOING COST:

$11,920,602

2ND AVE ABOVE

RECOMMENDED USABLE S.F. = 27,400 EXISTING VERTICAL CIRCULATION

2ND AVE

2ND AVE

3RD FLOOR

1ST AVE

BASEMENT

1ST AVE

PROPOSED VERTICAL CIRCULATION CIRCULATION ASSEMBLY SPACE FIXED SEATING ASSEMBLY SPACE BUSINESS OCCUPANCY SPACE

BASEMENT MEZZANINE

4TH FLOOR

OPEN TO BELOW

EXISTING TOILETS

2ND AVE

OPEN TO BELOW

1ST AVE

OPEN TO BELOW

2ND AVE

1ST AVE

PROPOSED TOILETS PROPOSED MECHANICAL SPACE

OPEN TO BELOW

1ST FLOOR

5TH FLOOR

123 PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION

WHAT THESE DRAWINGS TELL US:

6TH FLOOR

2ND AVE

7TH FLOOR

2ND AVE

1ST AVE

2ND FLOOR

2ND AVE

1ST AVE

2ND AVE

1ST AVE

4TH FLOOR MEZZANINE

1ST AVE

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

VETERAN’S MEMORIAL CODE REQUIREMENTS

To re-occupy the Veteran’s Memorial Building, a second stair core would need to be added to the 2nd Avenue side offices to allow for two possible means to exit from the building in the event of fire. This required stair core addition reduces usable square footage on all floors. Also as a building code requirement for re-occupying spaces where large groups assemble, an increase in the number of toilets is required. This increase in needed rest room square footage also reduces the usable space for offices, meeting rooms, storage, etc.

SITE:

BUILDING:

N

= TOTAL AREA: 67,450 SF

100% 2n dS t

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

= HISTORIC AREA NON ALTERABLE: 16,746 SF

24.8%

= LEVEL -1 AND LEVEL +1 NON-CRITICAL FUNCTIONS: 36,400 SF

t

tS

1s

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

FORMER U.S. COURTHOUSE BUILDING REVIEW

53.9%

ve A t

1s

= USABLE AREA: 28,000 SF

ve A d

2n

SITE SUMMARY:

41.5%

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.

LEVEL+3 TOTAL USABLE AREA SQUARE FEET: 11,260

NOT TO SCALE

BUILDING: = FORMER UNTIED STATES COURTHOUSE SITE LEVEL+2 TOTAL USABLE AREA SQUARE FEET: 16,740

WHAT THESE DRAWINGS TELL US: 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.

RECOMMENDED USABLE S.F. = 28,000

123 PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION

LEVEL+1 TOTAL AREA SQUARE FEET: 18,258

LEVEL -1 TOTAL AREA SQUARE FEET: 18,142 Recommended non-critical functions for floors due to flooding

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE VETERAN’S MEMORIAL BUILDING?

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE?

• The building will be renovated and flood mitigated whether or not the City Services returns to the building.

• Request for Qualifications (RFQ) has been issued by the City of Cedar Rapids to determine the best use of the building.

• Veteran’s Memorial Commission will maintain the building.



• FEMA dollars will be used for flood mitigation and renovation of damaged spaces and code requirements on flood affected floors. • Remaining floor code requirements will be determined on use of space.

123 PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COST ANALYSIS - OPTION C.1 and C.2 NEW BUILDING + SITE

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:

NEW BUILDING - CITY SERVICES SQUARE FOOTAGE (CITY)

ONGOING COST:

109,700 SF

Advantages: • One-stop location for customer, saving time and money • Centrally located • Adequate parking directly adjacent to the building • Lower operational costs due to less square footage because all City Services and Departments located in one building • Can help build a civic/government/public relationship • Department adjacencies can promote employee efficiencies

Disadvantages: • High initial capital cost • Existing property removed from tax rolls. • Limited adequately sized property choices for centrally-located facility

TOTAL PROJECT COST:

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE CITY:

NEW BUILDING - CO-LOCATION SQUARE FOOTAGE (CITY + COUNTY)

$37,860,875

ONGOING COST (CITY):

146,000 SF

ONGOING COST (TOTAL):

Advantages: • One-stop location for customer, saving time and money. • Centrally located • Adequate parking directly adjacent to the building • Lower operational costs due to less square footage because all City Services and Departments located in one building • Lower operational costs • Can help builds a civic/government/public relationship • Department adjacencies serve the employees more sufficiently

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR ENTIRE PROJECT:

Disadvantages: • High initial capital cost • Existing property removed from tax rolls. • Limited adequately sized property choices for centrally-located facility

123 NEW ONE STOP BUILDING

TOTAL PROJECT COST (TO CITY):

$32,194,250

TOTAL PROJECT COST:

$48,875,000

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

OPTIONS ANALYSIS - OPTION C.1 CITY SERVICES CENTER DEPARTMENTS:

SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN:

Civil Rights/Fair Housing City Attorney City Clerk City Council/ Manager Offices Community Development Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Parks/Recreation Administration City Assessor Code Enforcement Engineering Traffic Engineering Utility Billing Shared Meeting Space Mechanical/Circulation/Support

SQUARE FOOTAGE

PERCENT OF BUILDING

City Attorney City Assessor City Clerk City Council / Manager Offices Civil Rights/Fair Housing Code Enforcement Community Development Engineering Finance (Auditor/Treasurer) Human Resources Parks/Recreation Administration Traffic Engineering Utility Billing

2,205 SF 2,326 SF 3,000 SF 2,200 SF 4,390 SF 3,953 SF 8,742 SF 16,070 SF 12,985 SF 2,020 SF 1,975 SF 2,829 SF 855 SF

2.01 % 2.12 % 2.74 % 2.01 % 4.00 % 3.60 % 7.97 % 14.65 % 11.84 % 1.84 % 1.80 % 2.58 % 0.78 %

NET TOTAL

63,550 SF

57.94%

Shared Meeting Space 25% grossing factor

14,350 SF

Mechanical/Circulation/Support

31,800 SF

28.98%

109,700 SF

100%

GROSS TOTAL

DEPARTMENTS REMOVED:

COSTS:

After a review of the City Services Program, the following portions of program can be removed and placed into existing facilities.

Additional cost will need to be used for the location of these departments.

Existing City Services GSF = 139,500 SF

13.08 %

Information Technology (I.T.) = 11,940 SF Moving to: Parks and Rec

$ 433,000

City Council Chambers= 3,992 SF Moving to: veteran’s Memorial Building

$0

Veteran’s Commission = 1,183 SF Moving to: Veteran’s Memorial Building

$0

NET TOTAL =

17,115 SF

Meeting rooms, circulation, restrooms, grossing factor =

12,685 SF

TOTAL DIFFERENCE =

-29,800 SF

NEW GROSS TOTAL =

HOW DO YOU SAVE SPACE THROUGH ADJACENCIES AND SHARED FUNCTIONAL SPACES?

SPACE ADJACENCIES FOR NEW CO-LOCATED FACILITY: PARKS AND RECREATION ADMIN.

13,470 SF Total representation of departments’ meeting rooms, breakrooms, workrooms, and storage within their own program spaces that can be shared.

4,680 SF Total representation of City departments’ meeting rooms, breakrooms, workrooms, and storage after consolidating those spaces that can be shared into fewer rooms.

8,790 SF Total representation of spaces that can now be removed from the building because they are shared, resulting in savings.

123 NEW ONE STOP BUILDING

109,700 SF

SHARED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

UTILITY BILLING

CITY CLERK

CITY MANAGER CITY ASSESSOR

SHARED

CODE ENFORCEMENT

ENGINEERING

SHARED

SHARED

SHARED

HUMAN RESOURCES

FINANCE

SHARED CITY ATTORNEY SHARED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CIVIL RIGHTS/ FAIR HOUSING

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

OPTIONS ANALYSIS - OPTION C.2

CITY SERVICES AND COUNTY SERVICES CENTER (CO-LOCATION) PROGRAM FUNCTIONS:

SPACE/FUNCTIONAL USES FOR NEW FACILITY:

City Services Center

SQUARE FOOTAGE

Linn County Services Center

CITY SERVICES PROGRAM

Meeting/ Conference Rooms

109,700 SF

60.14 %

72,700 SF

39.86 %

182,400 SF

100%

EFFICIENCY -36,400

20.00 %

146,000 SF

100%

LINN COUNTY SERVICES PROGRAM

Lobby Workrooms Breakrooms

PERCENT OF BUILDING

Mailroom Locker Rooms Storage Mechanical

HOW DO YOU SAVE SPACE THROUGH ADJACENCIES AND SHARED FUNCTIONAL SPACES?

SPACE ADJACENCIES REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENTS:

182,400 SF Total representation of Co-Location Departments square footage

BREAKROOM LOBBY

146,000 SF Total representation of program meeting rooms, breakrooms, workrooms, and storage after consolidating those spaces that can be shared into fewer rooms.

MEETING ROOMS

36,400 SF Total representation of spaces that can now be deleted from the building because they are shared.

123 NEW ONE STOP BUILDING

LOCKER ROOMS CITY SERVICES

MECHANICAL MAILROOM

STORAGE

WORKROOM

LINN COUNTY SERVICES

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

POTENTIAL RELOCATION SITE CITY SERVICES AND COUNTY SERVICES CENTER (CO-LOCATION)

MASSING DIAGRAMS

1st Ave.

6th Street

5th Street

Greene Square Park

Proposed Intermodal Transportation Facility and preferred City Services Zone

Approximate 100 Year Flood Plain N

123 NEW ONE STOP BUILDING

Approximate 500 Year Flood Plain

Approximate 2008 Flood Crest NOT TO SCALE

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

PARKING CONSIDERATIONS

CHOICE

= AUDITORIUM: 31,162 SF

$ 3.5 to $4 Million

THE RIPPLE EFFECT

Do we add levels to the Auditorium, turning it into usable space?

= USABLE SPACE: 36,884 SF

Estimated cost not covered by FEMA to meet code requirements

123

CHOICE

How should we use the flood affected levels of the Veteran’s Memorial Building?

• 86,300 SF of usable space

27,400 SF

• Use them and put City departments there.

• Remaining usable space

DECISION

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY SERVICES CENTER

YES

NO

How should we use floodaffected floors? DO NOT

• NON VIABLE OPTION

103,300 SF

27,400 SF

68,000 SF 14,200 SF

31,200 SF

$3 MILLION

86,300 SF

37,000 SF

$0

49,500 SF

$2 MILLION

• NEED MORE PARKING.

80,500 SF

0 SF

WHO AND WHERE?

ADD 17,000 SF

$ PRICE TAG

• Use only levels that were not in the flood affected area.

• NEED MORE PARKING.

OVERFLOW SPACE REQ’D

ADD 31,000 SF

$ PRICE TAG

• Use 2 levels of new usable space.

134,300 SF

90,100 SF

$2.2 MILLION

COST

BEGIN DESIGN

Stay with City Services or move to new location?

CHOICE

Should a City Council Chambers be provided?

CHOICE

Open House #2 Options

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 UPGRADES, & EXTENSIVE MECHANICAL/FUNCTIONAL UPGRADES WITH PROGRAM GROWTH

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)

123 OPTIONS ANALYSIS

Public Feedback from Open House #2

Summary of Feedback from Open House #2 Public Works / Fleet Maintenance / City Operations - None of the options received a majority, however, Option B and Option C were preferred - Land is centrally located

Open House #3 Options

CITY COUNCIL REVIEW

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER

B.1

INSTALLMENT FUNDING

B.2

ONE-TIME FUNDING

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER PROGRAM SUMMARY

The current program needs for Public Works and Fleet Maintenance are outlined below:

PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING - 1201 6TH STEET SW

CDM Report - (August 2008) Public Works 380,000 SF Fleet Maintenance 148,000 SF Recent Program Alterations - (Nov. 2009) Public Works 25,000 SF Fleet Maintenance (10,000 SF) Total Current Need 543,000 SF Total Currently Available at 6th Street 336,000 SF Shortfall 207,000 SF

WAYS TO SOLVE FOR SHORTFALL:

B.1 INSTALLMENT FUNDING Combine Public Works and Fleet Maintenance to be housed in a City Operations Center. Renovate and construct in phases providing opportunity to incrementally fund project.

B.2 ONE-TIME FUNDING Combine Public Works and Fleet Maintenance to be housed in a City Operations Center. Renovate and construct in single phase. Provide full square footage need up front.

123 OPTIONS ANALYSIS / SITE

= Public Works Site

CEDAR RAPIDS in 1980 POPULATION: CITY SERVICES AREA:

HISTORY OF PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING - 1201 6TH STREET SW • Constructed in 1920’s as a crane manufacturing plant • Building additions in each decade since 1940’s • Facility Purchased by City in late 1980’s • Modest Renovations in 1970’s and 1990’s • Filled to capacity in mid 1990’s when Solid Waste moved in

WHY ADDITIONAL NEED? DISPLACEMENT RESULTING FROM FLOOD • Fleet Maintenance - (Previously in 5 different locations, 4 of which were flood affected) • Forestry • Facilities Maintenance • Workforce Health & Operational Safety INADEQUACY OF PREVIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS • Insufficient for recent service growth • Miscellaneous storage at Quality Chef Building and other distributed sites. • Structural limitations of existing buildings • Inadequate Vehicle Storage

RECENT GROWTH

HISTORY

2

55MILES

• Service area grew from 55 square miles to 75 square miles since 1980 (over 25% increase) • Proportionate expansion of all services • Increased from 13 to over 35 trucks for solid waste recycling program, yard waste collection program, and leaf pick-up • Flood supply storage - 11,000 sandbags, 183 pallets of Hesco Barriers, 5 pallets of Tiger Dams • Additional equipment for cost effective service options - brine station, sand/salt mixing operations, etc.

123

25% INCREASE

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER 110,243 55 SQUARE MILES

2

7

55MILES

CEDAR RAPIDS in 2008 POPULATION: CITY SERVICES AREA:

128,056 75 SQUARE MILES

2

75MILES

Demolition: 68,000 SF New Construction: 92,000 SF New 1st Level 19,000 SF New Mezzanine

RENOVATION OPTION

Phase 04 543,000 SF Available Area

ZERO Shortfall

New Construction - Phase 01 Relocate Sand and Salt Storage - Location TBD Construct a new long span building with mezzanine New Construction : 90,000 SF 1st Floor 27,000 SF 2nd Floor

Phase 02 383,000 SF Available Area 160,000 SF Shortfall

FUTURE EXPANSION

123

Renovation - Phase 03 Demolish south part of Public Works Building Construct new long span building with mezzanine

PHASE 04

Phase 03 426,000 SF Available Area 117,000 SF Shortfall

Phase 01 346,000 SF Available Area 197,000 SF Shortfall

Renovation - Phase 01 Renovate Building 16 with additional mezzanine and possible small addition.

PHASE 02

PHASE 01

EXISTING SITE Existing Site 336,000 SF Available Area 207,000 SF Shortfall

PHASE 03

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER

INSTALLMENT FUNDING

Renovation - Phase 02 Renovate north part of Public Works Building Construct new partial 3rd floor -approximately 37,000 SF

Demolish Building 16 : 55,000 SF Construct new long span structure with mezzanine New Construction: 142,000 SF New 1st Level 42,000 SF New Mezzanine

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER TOTAL EXISTING SQUARE FEET CITY OPERATIONS =

336,000 SF

B.1 INSTALLMENT FUNDING

B.2 ONE-TIME FUNDING

FUNDING STRATEGIES:

COST ANALYSIS:

The City and FEMA will work together to optimize financial FEMA support and definition of scope for this project. Scope definition includes form, function, and capacity. Form is the construction, style, and type of building. Function is the activities occurring within the building. Capacity is the quantity and serviceability generated by the functions within.

PHASE 01

TOTAL COST: $5,295,000 FEMA: - $4,260,000 REMAINING COST: $1,035,000

PHASE 01

TOTAL COST: $ 47,542,975 Total Cost includes Salt & Sand Relocation, Land, New Construction, and Mezzanine FEMA: - $23,856,000 REMAINING COST: $23,686,975

PHASE 02

TOTAL COST: $ 19,023,000 FEMA: - $14,768,000 REMAINING COST: $4,255,000

I-Jobs

- $5,000,000

PHASE 03

Demolition: $625,600 New Construction & Mezzanine: $11,672,500 TOTAL COST: $ 12,298,100

PHASE 04

Land: $208,000 Sand & Salt Relocation: $1,226,475 New Construction & Mezzanine: $11,960,000 TOTAL COST: $ 13,394,475

The City is working with FEMA to properly align scope which would properly align recovery dollars with the preflood capacity needs. The City will work with FEMA, Public Works, and Fleet Maintenance, and a project team to determine the proper scope alignment. Some functional upgrades are needed to meet the directives and functional needs that were not being met prior to flood. This increase in scope will not be covered by FEMA dollars, but will require funding from other sources. Any funding gap occurring after grants, capital campaigns, etc will need to be covered by local tax dollars. The Public Works/Fleet Maintenance/ City Operations group has secured $5 million dollars in I-Jobs funding. Life cycle costs for either of these two scenarios is virtually identical at the completion of each. This is why it does not factor into the comparison between these options.

I-Jobs

- $5,000,000

City Council will have final approval of tax dollar spending, if any, to fund project recovery.

123 COST ANALYSIS

TOTAL

$23,922,500* *Until Phase 04 is complete, $390,000 per year is needed for temporary lease space.

TOTAL

$18,686,975** **Until Phase 01 is complete, $390,000 per year is needed for temporary lease space.

Flood damage repair funded by FEMA

PHASE 01

EXISTING SITE

Phase 01 543,000 SF Available Area

Existing Site 336,000 SF Available Area 207,000 SF Shortfall

ZERO Shortfall

Future Phase 02 Demolish Building 16 : 55,000 SF

FUTURE EXPANSION

FUTURE EXPANSION

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CITY OPERATIONS CENTER

ONE-TIME FUNDING

Flood damage repair funded by FEMA

New Construction - Phase 01 Relocate Sand and Salt Storage - Location TBD Construct a new long span building with mezzanine. Rebuild flood damage areas with FEMA funding New Construction 180,000 SF 1st Floor 27,000 SF 2nd Floor

New Construction - Future Phase 03 Demolish Public Works Building

Construct new long span structure with mezzanine

Construct new long-span building with mezzanine.

New Construction: 142,000 SF New 1st Level 42,000 SF New Mezzanine

Demolition: 68,000 SF

123 NEW CONSTRUCTION OPTION

New Construction: 82,000 SF New 1st Level 24,000 SF New Mezzanine

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL

The following informational criteria outlines why this community facility is a CLEAR PATH RECOVERY PROJECT: 1)

FEMA DETERMINATION: 3 of the 4 buildings on the former site are over 50% damaged. Cedar Rapids Animal Care and Control requested Permanent Relocation Status. Next Steps: FEMA expected to grant Permanent Relocation Status

2)

PRIOR OPEN HOUSE EVALUATION & FEEDBACK:

3)

BARRIERS TO USING EXISTING FACILITIES:

• An overwhelming majority of respondents favored building a new facility and co-locating with Kirkwood • Health and well-being of employees and animals at former facility were a concern. • Former site was subjected to repeated flooding • Former building was built as a waste water treatment plant, and was not conducive to house animals and employees

• Animal Care and Control requires specialized program needs for animal care and sanitation which can make existing buildings expensive to retrofit • Special location needs arise due to the safety and well-being of animals and surrounding property owners

123 CLEAR PATH

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

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

HEALTH AND WELL-BEING BEST PRACTICES

The City and FEMA will work together to optimize financial FEMA support and definition of scope for this project. Scope definition includes form, function, and capacity. Form is the construction, style, and type of building. Function is the activities occurring within the building. Capacity is the quantity and serviceability generated by the functions within.

• Well-designed heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system • Adequate drainage and waste disposal with drainage traps • Isolation areas for both cats and dogs • Intake holding areas & temperament testing area

Once you are required to build a new building, it must adhere to today’s legal building codes and standards. In the case of Animal Care and Control, the facility was undersized for the capacity needs according to today’s standards of practice. Today’s standards would require a larger space to perform the same functions and handle the same capacity.

• Quarantine/rabies confinement

The City is working with FEMA to properly align scope which would properly align recovery dollars with the preflood capacity needs.

• 2-Sided kennels w/ doors to promote adequate sanitation and cleaning/disinfection

The City will work with FEMA, Animal Care and Control, and a project team to determine the proper scope alignment.

• Acoustics/noise reduction

Since a replacement facility is mandated by the FEMA Letter of Permanent Relocation, a new facility will be built. Some functional upgrades are needed to meet the directives and functional needs that were not being met prior to flood. This increase in scope will not be covered by FEMA dollars, but will require funding from other sources. Any funding gap occurring after grants, capital campaigns, etc will need to be covered by local tax dollars. City Council will have final approval of tax dollar spending, if any, to fund clear path recovery.

123 SUMMARY BOARD

KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE

• Treatment/triage room • Cat and dog nurseries • Food prep and storage

• Isolated euthanasia room

• Appropriate functional lighting

POSSIBLE LOCATION AT KIRKWOOD NEAR VET TECH BUILDING

• Disease resistant floor and wall finishes • Ergonomic considerations • Appropriate staff/animal space ratio • Adequate number of animal cages to support community animal control needs • Surgical suite • Pet adoption Meet & Greet rooms & Adoption Counseling office • Education/Community room for dog training and special events

N

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL

HISTORY WITH KIRKWOOD: Cedar Rapids Animal Care and Control (CRACC) has cultivated a long standing relationship with the Kirkwood Community College Animal Health Technology programs. For many years Kirkwood has provided veterinary care and vet tech assistance on a case-bycase basis. Examples of vet tech assistance: • A pregnant American Bulldog that was near full term when she came to the shelter was taken in by Kirkwood to whelp her 12 puppies and provide vet care and socialization until they were able to come back to the shelter for adoption • An Italian Greyhound with a broken leg received surgical treatment and recuperative care at Kirkwood until it was ready to be re-homed Kirkwood also provided temporary housing for incoming animals on an annual basis when the shelter was not accessible due to flood waters. During the Flood of 2008, Kirkwood provided the facilities to house 1300 animals in an emergency animal shelter. Six weeks after the flood, the emergency shelter was closed, but Kirkwood continued to house CRACC until they relocated to another temporary facility in November 2008. Kirkwood and CRACC continue to collaborate to provide educational opportunities for students as well as animal health and veterinary advice for the shelter animals.

FUTURE WITH KIRKWOOD: The relationship between Cedar Rapids Animal Care & Control (CRACC) and Kirkwood Community College developed prior to the Flood of 2008 has continued to improve. The strengthened relationship continues to build in many areas. CRACC provides animals for Kirkwood to use in the Vet Tech and vet assistant programs, kennel management program, and pet grooming certification program. Kirkwood Vet Tech students come to the shelter for practical clinical experience which in turn increases the overall health of the animals in the shelter. Kirkwood staff along with CRACC staff plan to create future programs that will enhance both entities and also provide a high level of animal services and welfare for the stray, lost, and abused animals in the area.

123 BENEFITS OF KIRKWOOD CO-LOCATION

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL The following information outlines the NEXT STEPS for this CLEAR PATH RECOVERY PROJECT: • Kirkwood Community College has provided a letter of support for this project • Work with FEMA to establish replacement cost • Continue investigating other funding sources (Capital Campaign, Grants, etc.) • Issue Request for Qualifications for design services • Develop a defined program • After FEMA authorization of Obligated Funds and funding sources are established, design begins

PROJECTED PROJECT TIME LINE: COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PLAN

COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATION

BUILDING AND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

BID PROCESS 2 MONTHS

CONTRACTING PROCESS OPEN HOUSE PROCESS

1+ MONTH(S)

DESIGN PROCESS

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

123 NEXT STEPS

KIRKWOOD SITE NEGOTIATIONS

6 - 9 MONTHS

12 - 16 MONTHS

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CENTRAL FIRE STATION The following informational criteria outlines why this community facility is a CLEAR PATH RECOVERY PROJECT: 1)

FEMA DETERMINATION: The Central Fire Station on the former site is over 50% damaged. CRFD (Cedar Rapids Fire Department) requested Permanent Relocation Status. Next Steps: FEMA expected to grant Permanent Relocation Status

2)

PRIOR OPEN HOUSE EVALUATION & FEEDBACK:

3)

BARRIERS TO USING EXISTING FACILITIES:

• Respondents commented and expressed a desire to defer to the recommendations of the Cedar Rapids Fire Department and their best practices criteria • Respondents expressed the notion that any Central Fire Station should not be compromised during a flood event/emergency • An overwhelming majority of respondents favored the construction of a replacement facility

• A particular type of building is required to fit the special demands of a fire station • The service area need has great impact on appropriate building location

123 CLEAR PATH

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CENTRAL FIRE STATION NEW BUILDING - WITH PROGRAM GROWTH (CENTRAL LOCATION) FUNDING STRATEGIES: The City and FEMA will work together to optimize financial FEMA support and definition of scope for this project. Scope definition includes form, function, and capacity. Form is the construction, style, and type of building. Function is the activities occurring within the building. Capacity is the quantity and serviceability generated by the functions within. Once you are required to build a new building, it must adhere to today’s legal building codes and standards. In the case of the Central Fire Station, the facility was undersized for the capacity needs according to today’s standards of practice. Today’s standards would require a larger space to perform the same functions and handle the same capacity. The City is working with FEMA to properly align scope which would properly align recovery dollars with the preflood capacity needs. The City will work with FEMA, the Central Fire Station, and a project team to determine the proper scope alignment. Since a replacement facility is mandated by the FEMA Letter of Permanent Relocation, a new facility will be built. Some functional upgrades are needed to meet the directives and functional needs that were not being met prior to flood. This increase in scope will not be covered by FEMA dollars, but will require funding from other sources. Any funding gap occurring after grants, capital campaigns, etc will need to be covered by local tax dollars. City Council will have final approval of tax dollar spending, if any, to fund clear path recovery.

123 SUMMARY BOARD

PRIMARY SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Response Time (fire, medical, and hazardous materials) • Strive for 4 minute response time for 1st fire engine Comprehensive coverage Access Points (consideration of one-way traffic) Interstate and major through-way access Outside of the 100 year and 500 year flood plains Able to sustain an Emergency Operations Center ISO (Insurance Services Office) Rating Enables good distribution of adequately equipped first responding fire apparatuses SECONDARY SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification In-fill development Drive-through capability Adequate parking Environmental concerns (conservation, hazardous materials, historical/archeological importance, environmental assessment requirements) Transportation Considerations: Impact on transit routes, vehicular access to site, impact on traffic, proximity to Downtown (central/efficient location) Site Location Considerations: Visual presence, mixed use development potential, land use/zoning, site availability/ownership, site configuration, site size, topography

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CENTRAL FIRE STATION

123 MISSION STATEMENT AND BEST PRACTICES

The MISSION of the Cedar Rapids Fire Department is to mitigate threats to the health and property of our community through emergency response, quality education and prevention programs. Without the Central Fire Station, response time coverage dissipates in the downtown area as well as west of downtown. Any new fire station location must carefully balance the 4 Minute Response Time mandate while providing improved services. 4 Minute Response Time refers to length of time between departure from station to arriving at the emergency site.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

CENTRAL FIRE STATION The following information outlines the NEXT STEPS for this Clear Path Recovery Project: • Receive FEMA determination • Continue investigating other funding sources (Grants and Alternate Funding Sources) • AFTER the FEMA authorization of Obligated Funds - City Council to approve final site location • Work with FEMA to establish replacement cost • Issue Request for Qualifications for design services • Develop defined program • Start Design

PROJECTED PROJECT TIME LINE: COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PLAN

COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATION

BUILDING AND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

BID PROCESS 2 MONTHS

CONTRACTING PROCESS OPEN HOUSE PROCESS

1+ MONTH(S)

DESIGN PROCESS

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

123 NEXT STEPS

SITE SELECTION

6 - 9 MONTHS

12 -16 MONTHS

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY The following informational criteria outlines why this community facility is a CLEAR PATH RECOVERY PROJECT: 1) FEMA DETERMINATION: Existing building is over 50% damaged Permanent Relocation granted by FEMA.

Next Steps: Work with FEMA to determine site for replacement building Site study and investigation

2)

PRIOR OPEN HOUSE EVALUATION & FEEDBACK:

3)

BARRIERS TO USING EXISTING FACILITIES:

• Option C (NEW BUILDING AT A DOWNTOWN SITE WITH GROWTH NEEDS) was overwhelmingly favored • Respondents favored two possible sites for the new library: • True North Block, adjacent to Green Square Park • Former Emerald Knights Block, along 1st Avenue SE • Primary themes in the public feedback were: • Ample, free parking • Protection from flooding • True North Site: Connection to Green Square Park and relationship to Cedar Rapids Museum of Art • Emerald Knights Site: “Gateway” to Downtown from I-380 and beyond the 2008 Flood Extents

• Building codes require that libraries are designed to accommodate higher floor-load capacities because of the weight of books and stacks. • Best practices recommend higher than normal ceilings to accommodate effective lighting design.

123 CLEAR PATH

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY NEW BUILDING - WITH GROWTH NEEDS (NEW DOWNTOWN SITE) NEIGHBORING PUBLIC LIBRARIES

FUNDING STRATEGIES: The City and FEMA will work together to optimize financial FEMA support and definition of scope for this project. Scope definition includes form, function, and capacity. Form is the construction, style, and type of building. Function is the activities occurring within the building. Capacity is the quantity and serviceability generated by the functions within.

HIAWATHA

MARION



Hiawatha Public Library



Marion Public Library

The City is working with FEMA to properly align scope which would properly align recovery dollars with the preflood capacity needs.

CEDAR RAPIDS PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Temporary Downtown Branch

The City will work with FEMA, Main Public Library, and a project team to determine the proper scope alignment. Since a replacement facility is mandated by the FEMA Letter of Permanent Relocation, a new facility will be built. Some functional upgrades are needed to meet the directives and functional needs that were not being met prior to flood. This increase in scope will not be covered by FEMA dollars, but will require funding from other sources. The Library has already secured $10 million dollars in I-Jobs funding and has plans underway to close any remaining funding gap through grants, capital campaigns, etc.



West Side Bridge Facility

PREFERRED MAIN LIBRARY ZONE

CEDAR RAPIDS

City Council will have final approval of tax dollar spending, if any, to fund clear path recovery.

123 SUMMARY BOARD

N

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

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Q: Is parking being considered in the site selection process? A: Yes, all site options are being evaluated with the expectation that a minimum of 100 readily accessible free parking spaces will be available as well as access to a total of 300 parking spaces.

Q: What happens to the existing library building? A: A public process will determine the best use for the building and/or land. Q: Will there be a West Side library presence? A: Absolutely! The Library Board of Trustees vision for library services is

for a centrally located Main Library and a West-Side Branch Library, to support the Metro-Library System that includes Marion and Hiawatha.

Q: Will there be mitigation from future floods? A: Yes, all site options are being evaluated with the expectation that the lowest level of the library will be at least one foot above the 2008 flood level.

Q: When will a new library be open? A: It is expected that design and construction will take 24-30 months after a site is selected.

123 LIBRARY FAQ’S

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

MAIN PUBLIC LIBRARY The following information outlines the NEXT STEPS for this CLEAR PATH RECOVERY PROJECT: • AFTER the FEMA authorization of Obligated Funds - City Council to determine final site location • Work with FEMA to establish final replacement cost • Continue investigating other funding sources (Capital Campaign, Grants, Vision Iowa, etc.) • After site is selected, design concepts can begin

PROJECTED PROJECT TIME LINE: COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PLAN

COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATION

BUILDING AND FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

BID PROCESS 2 MONTHS

CONTRACTING PROCESS 1+ MONTH(S)

OPEN HOUSE PROCESS

DESIGN PROCESS

CONSTRUCTION

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

123

NEXT STEPS

SITE SELECTION

9 MONTHS

18 MONTHS

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY

THE INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY WILL REPLACE THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION 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

NORTHWEST AREA

WALK

DOWNTOWN CEDAR RAPIDS

*

*

*

SITE LOCATION

OAK HILL JACKSON

TAYLOR AREA

CITY COUNCIL’S SITE SELECTION MATRIX CATEGORIES:

BIKE

*

Topography Site Size Site Configuration Site Availability/Ownership Land Use/Zoning/Environmental 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 CR Transit

123

PROPOSED LOCATION OF NEW INTERMODAL FACILITY EXISTING GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER

RIDE

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

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

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 partnerships 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 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 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 Fire Science and Criminal Justice 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.

123 VISION STATEMENT

BEST PRACTICES

Regional Public Safety Training Center • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ample Storage, including Special Use Equipment Storage Multi-use/classrooms Administrative space for meetings and seminars Police training props Fire training props Use of energy management systems LEED certification – Green-building technology Access and response paths Site sustainability Water efficiency/collection of rain water for other uses Energy and indoor environmental control systems Material, resource planning and usage – use of local resources Room and building design in concert with building material sizes and dimensions Forecast future growth and be able to expand





18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

0



1,000

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER ADMINISTRATION/SUPPORT

Administrative Building to house classrooms, meeting rooms, police and fire training offices, computer lab, firearms training simulator room, defensive tactics room, gymnasium and locker rooms.

CONFERENCE/TRAINING ROOM JOINT COMMUNICATION

Joint Communications Center could be moved to the site.

WELLNESS 70,750 SF

SKILLS TRAINING

Police Training Props, including an emergency vehicle training course and indoor police shooting range. Fire training props, including a 5-6 story fire training tower, hazardous materials/rail car training, collapsed and confined space training, and a large roof and floor structure training simulator.

ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL

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

NEW

NEW TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE

FIRE TRAINING 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 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.

123 PROPOSED SPACE UTILIZATION

117,060

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

COMMUNITY SAFETY CENTER The following case studies were researched:

OMAHA, NE: • • • • • •

Division of Fire Prevention - 4 main functions: Fire investigations, fire inspections, fire 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, ordinances, etc. - Look for adequate and compliant fire safety systems, fire resistant building materials, and proper exiting Fire Inspections - All properties except private dwellings are inspected Present public education programs upon request Link to Firewise Communities: “The National Firewise Communities Program” is a multi-agency effort designed to reach beyond the fire service by involving homeowners, community leaders, planners, developers, and others in the effort to protect people, property, and natural resources from the risk of wildland fire before a fire starts. The Firewise Communities approach emphasizes community responsibility for planning in the design of a safe community as well as effective emergency response, and individual responsibility for safer home construction and design, landscaping, and maintenance. Monthly training

Source: http:// omaha-fire.org

RENO, NV:

• Services - Businesses - Emergency Procedure Plan presentation - educates them about evacuation plans, fire safety issues, etc. with a video and Q&A - Fire Station Tours - CPR Training and free blood pressure checks - Safety presentations to local neighborhoods - Free fire safety assessments for personal residences - Smoke detector installation • Public Education - Fire Corps: - Allows the community to volunteer at the local fire department - Fire safety outreach, youth programs, administrative support - School visits - Flash: a singing and dancing fire truck that teaches children about fire safety, including smoke detectors, exit drills, stop drop and roll - ABC’s of Fire Safety: for pre-school children

123 CASE STUDIES

Source: http://www.cityofreno.com

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE 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 to work for the betterment of the community.

123

HOW WOULD A NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCE CENTER BETTER SERVE BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY?

WHERE DID THIS IDEA BEGIN?

• Co-location of neighborhood services would make it easier for people to get information or assistance

• Many facilities sustained flood damage

• Several Neighborhood Associations met in existing facilities pre-flood

• Resources could include access to computers, technical assistance, and training

• The Neighborhood Resource Center concept began when community members began to see how participation in the City’s redevelopment plan could improve their neighborhoods

• Social networking will help define the neighborhood’s identity and foster community pride

• Discussions about the importance of strong neighborhoods lead to a series of public/private action items

• Neighborhood Resource Centers can generate a high level of activity, engage the community in public space, and be enhanced through partnerships with the Parks and Recreation Department • Each facility would provide different services and offer a varied set of participation options • Neighborhood Resource Centers are a safe place where everyone - from kids to seniors - can get to know each other better and work toward creating a sustainable, livable community • It is the nature of neighborhood resource centers to change and grow as the neighborhood around it changes - flexibility is the key to their success

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

FORMER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

FORMERLY HOUSED IN THIS FACILITY:

DESIGN STORY:

FEDERAL AGENCIES:

“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. The actual 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.

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

BUILDING STYLE:

BEAUX-ARTS

AREA:

BUILDING- 68,000 SQUARE FEET LAND- 1.3 ACRES

ZONING:

CENTRAL BUSINESS

ADJACENT ZONING:

CENTRAL BUSINESS PUBLIC

FLOOD ZONE:

500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN

123 BUILDING HISTORY

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



Source: Historic Building Preservation Plan, Baranes, 1995

constructed

1931

PROCESS SUMMARY

THIS PROCESS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU CAN HELP GUIDE THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY TODAY AND FOR FUTURE

3

GENERATIONS.

THANK YOU!