Flood Recovery, Government
Cedar Rapids begins talking about city hall repairs
Posted on Nov 09, 2009 by Admin.
There’s still no commitment to return any Cedar Rapids city offices to the flood-damaged Veterans Memorial Building downtown. But the city is apparently ready to finally talk about the repair process.
The Veterans Memorial Commission discussed some of the details at a commission meeting Monday afternoon. Members of the Cedar Rapids City Council should hear similar details at the council meeting on Tuesday. And the city’s flood recovery director expects to see actual construction starting sometime in the spring.
The Veterans Memorial Commission oversees operation of the building better known as city hall. And commissioners say it’s possible to start some of the repair and renovation work even without knowing the eventual re-use of the building.
The first repair work would probably start with things that could flood proof the building for the future. That includes relocating electrical switching equipment, boilers and other utilities from the basement area that flooded to an upper floor.
The commission would probably limit repairs to lower levels to support activities that could easily move in case of high water again.
Many of the details will come much later, but for commission chairman Peter Welch, just talking about doing something is a real thrill.
“It’s the first step the city has taken as a re-commitment to the building and that is making the Veterans Commission very happy,” Welch said.
The first step, presented to the commission Monday afternoon, is to go over the recently completed FEMA agreement to explain what repairs the disaster agency will cover inside the Veterans Memorial Building.
The commission also heard how the city plans to find an architect and project manager to handle the work. Greg Eyerly, Cedar Rapids Flood Recovery Director, said now is a great time to get some of the preliminary repair plans in place every before deciding the eventual fate of city hall.
“They have to go through some design work. I think winter’s a great time to do that–go ahead and do that design work and you’ll see actual physical work in the spring,” Eyerly said.
Veterans Memorial Commission members may not yet know what the future holds for the building itself. But members say they’re ready to get started and what was discussed Monday is at least a small step forward.
Dave Franzman, KCRG-TV
John_Chase
09. Nov, 2009
What the hell does the city mean they don't know wether they will be returning to Vets? Perhaps the lame duckies did not listen to the Corbett vision (it was broadcast all day everyday on any given tv channel). That vision did NOT include moving city hall and 62% is a mandate the lame duck council had better listen to. Looks like we still have some work to do to take our city back. I am however very pleased to see the building itself get the much needed repairs. The building is a gem and the veterans commission deserves to have their "Memorial" building repaired with all possible speed.
FlyingMonkeys
10. Nov, 2009
But when the lower levels flood, even if the damage done isn't totally disastrous, you still face interruption of services because you can't keep working above an area that is flooded. I don't know why this never happened before, but after the way the floodplains have looked any number of times this year, how can you doubt it will happen again? It didn't make sense to have Animal Control in a building that was cut off by floodwaters and workers had to be boated in, and it doesn't make any more sense to do that with city services.
thumbsupracing
10. Nov, 2009
Just like it doesn't make sense to burden taxpayers with a $50million dollar price tag on an unpopular to anyone but the 'lame ducks' alternative…
BradyDorman
10. Nov, 2009
Considering long term operation costs, a new city hall facility or reusing of a different building near downtown for a new city hall location would not be that different, and potentially save money.
See CR Open House data:
http://www.corridorrecovery.org/cropenhouse/commu...
BradyDorman
10. Nov, 2009
Considering long term operation costs it could very well be less expensive to build a new building or reuse an existing building in downtown.
See data from CR Open House: http://www.corridorrecovery.org/cropenhouse/commu...
The Veterans Memorial Building will always be at risk of flooding, so not the best location to have our vital city services in another event. Also functionally it has not been the best for years, but now we have the opportunity for a new, efficient location that can serve the city well for the next 50-75 years, like the Veterans Memorial Building has.
UstaBe
10. Nov, 2009
Lets get something straight. The Veteran's Commission is talking about getting back into the Veteran's Memorial Building. City Hall offices use (or used) some space in that building. It is a beautiful building and a unique part of our city's history. Of course it should be repaired and made adaptable to any future flood waters. City Hall usage of building space was a point of contention long before the flood of 2008. I go along with those who say its a veteran's building in which the city used space, and not those who feel it was City Hall which shared space with the veterans. Lets get on with repairing and reopening the structure … and let the fight over where City Hall needs to locate be decided by the Council, wherever they may meet.
thumbsupracing
10. Nov, 2009
Interesting how all the news snippets I've heard all night, particularly from Dave Franzman, from KCRG make a point of calling in City Hall, rather than Vets Memorial…
UstaBe
10. Nov, 2009
The story is written by Dave Franzman and correctly says "Veteran's Memorial Building." The Veteran's Memorial Building was home to City Hall (and may well be again), but the building itself was never City Hall. I believe it was constructed in the 1920's as a memorial to veterans, and its upper level was designed to resemble a tomb … as in the unknown soldier. Over the years, it was the site of the Chamber of Commerce and, I think, city courts. I recall quite a bit of controversy years back over it being referred to as City Hall and whether or not the City Council should pay the Veteran's Commission rent for using space in it. Some bitterness came back to light when the new baseball stadium was built concerning naming rights there … but the veterans prevailed.
Maximumcr
09. Nov, 2009
Interesting that no one is asking how many millions of dollars in flood insurance we will have to pay ANNUALLY if they go back to this building. It’ll probably only be about 15 years before they’ve had to pay $50 mil in flood insurance. Get some facts!