Citation
Capitol complex master plan

Material Information

Title:
Capitol complex master plan
Creator:
RNL Design
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
State of Colorado
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Master plans
Colorado State Capitol (Denver, Colo.)
Spatial Coverage:
Denver -- Capitol complex

Record Information

Source Institution:
Auraria Library
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CAPITOL COMPLEX
MASTER PLAN
DENVER,
COLORADO
NOVEMBER 2




CAPITOL COMPLEX
MASTERPLAN
DENVER,
COLORADO


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments...
Foreword..........
Executive Summary.
.iii
.iv
v
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview of the Master Plan 1-1
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX
2.1 General Overview of Campus and Agency Locations...........................2-1
2.2 Detailed Campus Overviews.................................................2-3
Downtown Campus....................................................2-3
Kipling Campus.....................................................2-6
Pierce Campus......................................................2-6
North Campus.......................................................2-7
Executive Residence................................................2-7
Camp George West...................................................2-8
Grand Junction 2-8
3.0 AGENCIES
3.1 Methodology..............................................................3-1
3.2 Agency Needs.............................................................3-3
3.3 Summary of Existing Space Utilization....................................3-9
3.4 Space Standards Benchmarking............................................3-12
3.5 Personnel and Space Projections.........................................3-14
3.6 Key Recommendations.....................................................3-16
4.0 FACILITY ASSESSMENTS
4.1 Methodology.............................................................4-1
4.2 Facility Assessment and Priorities Summary..............................4-1
4.3 Facility Overviews .....................................................4-3
4.4 Sustainability Goals...................................................4-12
4.5 Security...............................................................4-22
4.6 Key Recommendations....................................................4-24


5.0 URBAN DESIGN
5.1 Methodology..............................................................5-1
5.2 Context..................................................................5-1
5.3 Urban Design Opportunities...............................................5-6
5.4 Signage and Wayfinding..................................................5-11
5.5 Access and Circulation..................................................5-15
5.6 Parking.................................................................5-20
5.7 Architecture............................................................5-22
5.8 Public Realm............................................................5-23
5.9 West Lawn...............................................................5-25
5.10 Key Recommendations.....................................................5-26
6.0 BENCHMARKING
6.1 Methodology............................................................6-1
6.2 History of Facilities Planning and Maintenance in Colorado.............6-2
6.3 Facilities Oversight by the Department of Personnel and Administration.6-3
6.4 Offices and Committees with Facilities Oversight.......................6-4
6.5 Capital Projects Existing Decision Making Framework....................6-5
6.6 Peer States............................................................6-9
6.7 Best Practices States.................................................6-18
6.8 State Capitols Case Studies...........................................6-27
6.9 Potential Organizational Alternatives for Colorado....................6-33
6.10 Key Recommendations...................................................6-35
7.0 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Introduction...........................................................7-1
7.2 Build/Buy/Lease Analysis...............................................7-2
7.3 Overall Recommendations................................................7-9
7.4 Priority Recommendations..............................................7-11
7.5 Recommended System Remodels...........................................7-13
7.6 Opportunities.........................................................7-14
7.7 Cost and Time Line....................................................7-15
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION / FINANCING OPTIONS
8.1 Implementation / Financing Strategies.
8-1
Executive Summary
APPENDICES (included as separate documents)
Appendix 1 Agencies
a) Updated Surveys
b) Baseline Data Table
Appendix 2 Urban Design
a) Intersection Analysis
b) Multimodal Transportation Assessment
c) West Lawn Report
Appendix 3 Benchmarking
a) Detailed State Abstracts
b) Comparative State Analysis
Appendix 4 Facility Assessments
a) Comprehensive Facility Assessments


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
Acknowledgements
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor, State of Colorado
KATHY NESBITT, Executive Director, Department of Personnel & Administration
CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE
SENATOR PAT STEADMAN, Senate District #31
REPRESENTATIVE CHERI GEROU, House District #25
KEVIN PATTERSON, Deputy Chief of Staff, Governors Office
HENRY SOBANET, Director, Governors Office of State Planning and Budgeting
ERICK SCHEMINSKE, Deputy Director, Governors Office of State Planning and Budgeting
KARA VEITCH, Deputy Director, Department of Personnel & Administration
MATT AZER, Director of Statewide Programs, Department of Personnel & Administration
MIKE KING, Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources
MICHAEL CHEROUTES, Director, High-Performance Transportation Enterprise, Department of Transportation
STEVE TURNER, Vice President of Preservation Programs, History Colorado
BRAD BUCHANAN, Executive Director, Department of Community Planning and Development, City and County of Denver
JOSE CORNEJO, Manager, Department of Public Works, City and County of Denver
MOLLY URBINA, Chief Recovery Officer, State of Colorado (formerly Deputy Manager, Department of Community Planning and Development, City and County of Denver)
LARRY FRIEDBERG, State Architect, Department of Personnel & Administration
CAROL LEWIS, Manager of State Building Programs, Department of Personnel & Administration
RNL DESIGN/WALLACE ROBERTS AND TODD /CGL


Executive Summary
Foreword
This Capitol Complex Master Plan (CCMP) was
authorized by Senate Bill 13 263 (C.R.S. 24-82-
101(3)). The scope of the master plan includes the
eleven buildings and grounds in the Capitol Buildings
Group at the Capitol Complex as well as additional
buildings and sites owned by the Department of
Administration & Personnel (DPA) and managed
by Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF) in the Denver
metropolitan area and one DPA/CCF building located
in Grand Junction. The Colorado History Museum and
the Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center are not included in
the CCMP because these were recently planned and
occupied facilities. Furthermore, no institutions of higher
education are included as well as the five executive
branch departments that are not housed in DPA owned/
CCF managed buildings or adjacent downtown Denver
lease space: Department of Agriculture, Department of
Corrections, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs,
Department of Public Health and Environment and
Department of Transportation.
This Capitol Complex Master Plan evaluates agency
needs, building conditions, Capitol Complex urban
design issues and organizational structure relative to
decision-making and funding and facilities planning
and maintenance. This master planning effort seeks
to address the recommendation of the Performance
Evaluation of State Capital Asset Management and
Lease Administration Practices audit dated November
2012 that states: The State generally lacks a
comprehensive mechanism for long-term planning
(such as a master plan) for its real estate assets. Such
a mechanism could assist the State in its efforts to
maximize the value of its real estate assets, reduce
facility costs and support funding decisions.


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
Executive Summary
From the State Capitol to the Legislative Services
Building, the state of Colorado has a rich inventory of
buildings located in the heart of downtown Denver that
enable thousands of workers to deliver services to the
citizens of Colorado. It has been more than 25 years
since a Facilities Master Plan has been completed and
this undertaking therefore has tremendous potential to
positively impact the efficiency with which these services
are being delivered.
The State Capitol and adjacent grounds are a treasure
visited by numerous citizens and tourists and, while the
building has received a significant investment in recent
years to maintain and restore its grandeur, there remains
much to be done. Adjacent state buildings have received
much less attention over the past decades. Strategic
investment in those facilities is required to address code
deficiencies, and will result in a substantial reduction of
operating costs. Upgrades and reorganization would
increase the efficiency of the buildings, reduce energy
use and also improve the effectiveness of the state
workforce.
The year-long study analyzed the optimum organization of
agency personnel within the Capitol Complex in order to
provide the most cost-effective facilities possible. Staffing
projections reflect modest adjustments over the coming
years to respond to projected service needs, and space
standards have been proposed that are comparable to
those found in highly efficient public and private entities.
A central question of the Facilities Master Plan and a
strategic question that all states confront is: what is the
right mix of leased vs owned facilities to accommodate
state functions? The State currently leases approximately
700,000 SF of space in the downtown core which
represents 39% of total occupied space. This is a
significant amount of space and has a large impact on the
States annual budget. While a short term analysis would
lead one to extend leases due to relatively low rental rates
for Class B office space, a deeper analysis suggests an
alternate strategy.
The planning team carefully evaluated the purchase of
all viable existing office buildings in, and adjacent to, the
Capitol Complex. These were compared to the extension
of existing leases and also to the construction of a new
office building at Lincoln and Colfax. The recommended
strategy is to build a new State office building to house up
to 500,000 SF of state agencies currently in leased space.
This approach offers the following benefits:
Agencies can be co-located in higher efficiency
space, reducing travel time between multiple
facilities
The options are cost neutral over a 30 year horizon
from a cash perspective and the State would realize
cost savings thereafter rather than being obligated
to make lease payments in perpetuity
The state would not be impacted by large
fluctuations in the lease rate market and would
ultimately own the asset
This development provides a unique opportunity to
transform two key blocks of the Capitol Complex
through the integration of street-grade retail
(restaurant, cafe, convenience shops) that would
improve the pedestrian experience in the region.
Transforming the character of the area is also one of
the primary objectives of this master planning effort.
The Capitol Complex is primarily a single-use district,
populated mostly by state agencies and as such,
has limited activity beyond the normal workweek. It
possesses very little of the civic identity that such
a prominent district should exhibit. Given the high
number of employees in the region, the natural amenities
including the State Capitol, civic lawns, proximity to
the Civic Center, views, adjacency to the arts district
and Civic Center Station, and proximity to the Central
Business District, there is tremendous potential for the
area to become a vibrant neighborhood with a civic jewel
at its core.
The keys to transforming the district include the following:
Increased residential development that adds 24/7
activity
A cohesive signage and streetscape program
that improves wayfinding, civic identity and the
pedestrian experience
A new building at Lincoln and Colfax that adds
worker activity and improves the street edge
Development of a Capitol Mall along Sherman
Street that stimulates pedestrian and bicycle
activity through the zone and dramatically changes
the character of the neighborhood.
Improvement of Civic Center Station as currently
planned by RTD to enliven Colfax between Lincoln
and Broadway and improve the view of the State
Capitol from the 16th Street Mall
Improvements to the west lawn of the Capitol to
improve public access and civic presence
Renovation of 1375 Sherman and 1313 Sherman
Development of the State Land Board site for
residential and retail uses with a possible future
office component
Several of these improvements can be implemented by
the State while others will require participation of the
private sector as well as other agencies such as the City
and County of Denver and RTD. There is interest and
motivation from these other entities to help transform this
area and we strongly recommend that the State takes a
lead role in establishing a task force that can move this
agenda forward. It will require a cohesive effort and will
have significant benefit for all parties.
In order to drive greater value into the master planning
process, the team conducted an extensive analysis
of best practices from other states. Ten states were
surveyed to understand how they manage and operate
their facilities portfolio, as well as how they prioritize
capital construction, building renewal and controlled
maintenance needs. Additionally, approach to long
range planning, facilities management structure and
funding strategies were benchmarked and insights that
best apply to Colorado have been detailed in the report.
One of the key observations is that much of the
deteriorated condition of state office buildings can be
attributed in large part to the lack of an annual allocation
to address deferred maintenance and regular building
upgrades. It is recommended that an amount equal to
1.5 to 2% of the replacement value of existing assets be
budgeted for such purposes in the future. This report
also recommends several organizational changes,
detailed in section 6, that we believe will result in a more
streamlined and effective decision making process.


Executive Summary
In summary, it is the intent of this master plan that State
facilities in the Capitol Complex are upgraded, agency
personnel relocated, and leases consolidated in such
a manner that State services will be provided in a more
efficient and cost effective manner. The master plan also
lays out a visionary and achievable strategy to transform
the Capitol Complex District into a vibrant, mixed-use
neighborhood that has a cohesive civic identity and offers
a memorable pedestrian experience.
These goals can be achieved through implementation of
the strategies outlined in Section 7.0. The states ability
to complete the recommendations depends on its annual
funding capacity. Results can be accelerated through
the use of public private partnerships, an increasingly
common strategy for civic entities to deliver projects.
Through the use of Certificates of Participation (COPs),
or a 6320 non-profit entity, capital and expertise can be
accessed to generate the desired results.
The district surrounding the State Capitol represents one
of the most under-appreciated assets in Colorado. It has
the potential to be a great place to live and work, as well
as a remarkable destination for visitors. With appropriate
levels of investment, State buildings can increase
employee efficiencies and improve public access, while
significantly reducing operating costs. Ultimately this
master plan needs to be flexible to respond to changing
legislative and executive branch priorities as well as
evolving economic conditions.
The enclosed road map should be updated on a regular
basis, and as many of the top priorities implemented as
there are resources to accomplish. The planning team
stands ready to assist, provide further clarification as
needed and modify as necessary to enable the State to
achieve as many of its stated goals as possible.




CAPITOL COMPLEX
AAASTERPLAN COLORADO


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
1.1 Overview of the Master Plan
1.1.1 OVERVIEW OF MASTER PLAN SCOPE
C.R.S. 24-82-101(3) directs the Department of Personnel
& Administration to develop a Master Plan for the Capitol
Complex. The master plan is subject to final approval
from the Office of State Planning and Budgeting and the
Capital Development Committee and must be completed
no later than December 1,2014. Its scope is outlined as
follows:
Determine space utilization needs for state agencies
located in and near the capitol complex;
Prioritize the location of various state agencies based
on their service functions;
Consider the symbolic importance of certain capitol
complex buildings and grounds;
Identify opportunities for co-locating state agencies;
Identify the most appropriate use of state owned and
leased space for state agencies;
Identify opportunities for energy cost savings and
improved sustainability within state-owned facilities;
Assess and improve security for state-owned
facilities, especially for those state agencies
performing sensitive government functions;
Establish guidelines regarding the appropriate
use and maintenance of grounds within the capitol
complex;
Assess existing parking capacity and identify the
current and future need for capitol complex tenants,
including the location of parking facilities;
Establish guidelines for future development within the
capitol complex, including a multi-year plan for:
New and renovated capital construction
projects;
Controlled maintenance projects; and
Real estate acquisition or disposition
transactions as applicable;
Review the pedestrian circulation around the capitol
complex;
Suggest financing options for future improvements
and development;
Make recommendations on buying, selling,
constructing, financing, or leasing properties in the
capitol complex based on factors such as land use
and centralization versus decentralization of state
functions; and
Address any other issues that the office of the state
architect deems important in relation to the goals of
the master plan.


1.1.2 PREVIOUS MASTER PLANNING
EFFORTS
Beginning in the late 1960s, several master planning
efforts, ranging in scope and purpose, have been
undertaken to guide the future of the Capitol Complex.
Two recent plans were appropriated and initiated and
subsequently de-appropriated because of budget issues
prior to completion of any analysis.
Master Site Plan, Colorado State Capitol, Volume
4 of The Capitol Complex Master Plan, Prepared
For The State of Colorado, By, S.U.A. Incorporated,
John Carl Warnecke and Associates, September
1967.
Space Master Plan for the State of Colorado Capitol
Complex, by Pouw & Associates, Inc., Geisler
Smith Associates, and Joseph Farber & Co., April,
1989
Capitol Complex Master Plan, De-appropriated,
2002
Capitol Complex Master Plan, De-appropriated,
2009
1.1.3 METHODOLOGY
Initial Master Plan Assessment
The first 60 days of the master planning process were
focused on addressing three high priority issues: A Build/
Buy/Lease analysis, the West Lawn, and a condition
assessment for 1313 and 1375 Sherman Street. Based
on a high level estimate of space needs, the RNL/JLL
team identified all viable buildings in and around the
Capitol Complex for purchase and evaluated those,
both on a short term and long term basis, to building a
new state office building at Lincoln and Colfax and also
toward the strategy of continuing to maintain existing
leased space. The extension of the West Lawn of the
Capitol over Lincoln Street was further developed in order
to understand projected costs and the pros and cons
associated with the project. The two state office buildings
most in need of upgrades (1313 and 1375 Sherman
Street) were evaluated in detail to determine renovation
costs and appropriate agency occupants.
Agency Assessments
Interviews were conducted with all agency executive
and deputy directors, elected official staff, and General
Assembly service agency staff to understand missions,
organizational structures, which agency functions need
to be in proximity to other agencies or the Capitol and
which functions could be located elsewhere, current
and projected staffing levels, unique space needs, and
ideal space configuration to deliver efficient services.
Staff projections were based on historic departmental
appropriations as well as input from the agency directors
regarding conditions unique to the individual agencies at
this time.
Space standards were developed for all functions based
on functional need and were benchmarked against best
practices of other states and the private sector. Total
space needs by group were then tabulated and are
summarized in Chapter 3.0 Agencies.
1.0 Introduction
Consolidation of Agencies and Renovation of
Facilities
Departmental relocations have been recommended in
order to consolidate agency functions currently dispersed
in multiple buildings and allow for phased renovation
of state owned buildings that will create effective and
efficient workspace and lower operating and deferred
maintenance costs.
Detailed Facility Assessments
Detailed condition assessments were completed for
all state owned buildings in the Complex in order to
determine the level of work required to bring each
building up to acceptable standards. In part due to the
lack of a guaranteed funding mechanism for building
maintenance and upgrades, several of the buildings
in the Capitol Complex have fallen into disrepair and
require significant improvements. For each building, the
assessment addressed mechanical, electrical, structural,
architectural, code, security, and technology needs, and
then associated cost estimates were developed for each.
These assessments can be found in Chapter 4.0 Facility
Assessments.
Urban Design
The downtown Capitol Complex study area was defined
as a sixteen square block area, defined by Broadway,
Logan, 12th Avenue and 16th Avenue. A comprehensive
urban design analysis of this area examined all factors
affecting the experience of legislators, employees, the
business community, and general public either working in
or visiting the Complex. Multiple concepts were analyzed
in order to increase the level of activity and vibrancy,
improve the pedestrian experience, encourage private
sector investment and enhance the overall character
of the area around the State Capitol. Analysis and
recommendations can be found in Chapter 5.0 Urban
Design.
Outreach
Meetings were conducted with the City and County of
Denver, Regional Transportation District (RTD), the Civic
Center Conservancy, the Downtown Denver Partnership,
representatives from the local business community and
private developers in order to solicit ideas that would
facilitate achieving the urban design goals.
Benchmarking
The master plan team conducted a benchmarking
analysis which included studies of space allocation,
facility management, and funding strategies of other
states with similarities to Colorado. Data was gathered on
ten state capitols and detailed interviews were conducted
with Minnesota, Utah and Washington, the three that
had notable similarities and offered the best learning
opportunities. Several best practices were identified
through this process that provide valuable insights
and have informed the recommendations. Analysis
and recommendations can be found in Chapter 6.0 -
Benchmarking.
Recommendations and Next Steps
The master plan makes several recommendations
for the relocation of agencies from leased space into
State owned space; the space needs have been
accommodated by a combination of new construction,
renovation and efficient right sizing of space. The
master plan also proposes the Capitol Mall concept as
an over arching element to define a Capitol campus and
activate the downtown Capitol Complex. To achieve
these goals it is suggested that a task force be formed
composed of key decision makers from the State and that
it include influential members of the surrounding districts,
neighborhoods, governmental and private agencies.
This task force would help to coordinate the efforts of
the surrounding community to benefit the State and the
citizens in making the recommended enhancements to
the Capitol Complex.
1-2




CAPITOL COMPLEX
AAASTERPLAN COLORADO


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
2.1 - General Overview of Campus and Agency Locations
2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF CAPITOL COMPLEX
CAMPUSES INCLUDED IN THE MASTER
PLAN
Downtown Capitol Complex Campus
The downtown campus consists of ten, tenant-occupied
buildings with a total of 1,300,998 square feet, clustered
on 15 city blocks on the southeast corner of Denvers
Central Business District. These blocks are bound by
Broadway to the west, 16th Avenue to the north, Logan
Street to the east, and 12th Avenue to the south. The
campus contains three large open spaces (Lincoln Park
and the Capitols east and west lawns). Additionally,
the campus contains five surface parking lots and one
parking structure with a total of 905 parking spaces (this
count does not include the Capitol Circle or Motor Pool
lots as they are not part of the general inventory of State-
owned spaces). The 15 block campus includes several
privately owned parcels and buildings, but the presence
of the State-owned facilities provides the area with a
unique identity.
Portions of the campus most notably the Capitol
Building, its grounds, Lincoln Park and the buildings
along Sherman Street are an integral part of the larger,
historic Denver Civic Center that includes a number of
City of Denver buildings (including the City and County
Building), cultural institutions (the Central Library and
the Denver Art Museum), and an extended open space
system that acts as the binding element among the
various uses. Further detail on the Downtown Campus
can be found in section 2.2.1.
Kipling Campus
The Kipling campus is comprised of two office buildings
- with a total of 128,000 SF located at the northeast
corner of Kipling Street and the 6th Avenue freeway (US
Highway 6) in Lakewood, Colorado, a western suburb
of Denver. The State-owned facilities are located just
east of the 6th Avenue Frontage Road as it approaches
Kipling Street. A third, privately-owned building built
contemporaneously and as part of a three building set
with the State-owned buildings is located just east
of Kipling Street and north of the junction with the 6th
Avenue Frontage Road. Further detail on the Kipling
Campus can be found in section 2.2.2.
Pierce Street Site
The Pierce Street site consists of a single structure on
a large parcel of land in Lakewood, Colorado. The site
is bound by 20th Avenue to the north, Pierce Street to
the east, 17th Avenue to the south, and Reed Street to
the west. The site is comprised of a large, single story
building (119,502 SF) on a 24 acre site, approximately six
acres of which are surface parking. Further detail on the
Pierce Street Site can be found in section 2.2.3.
North Campus
The North Campus consists of three single-story buildings
located at the northwest corner of 62nd Avenue and
Downing Street approximately three-quarters of a mile
north of the Denver City and County border in Adams
County. The three buildings sit on 6.27 acres of paved
land and have a combined total of approximately 98,000
square feet. Further detail on the North Campus can be
found in section 2.2.4.
Executive Residence and Carriage House
The Executive Residence is the residential compound
offered to the Governor of Colorado. It is located on
the southeast corner of Logan Street and 8th Avenue in
Denver Colorado, four blocks south of the southern-most
portion of the Downtown Campus. The site consists of
a 26,430 square foot residence and a 4,837 square foot
carriage house. The two buildings sit on 2.18 acres which
are largely made up of formal gardens and terraces, as
well as a parking lot across Logan Street. Further detail
on the Executive Residence site can be found in section
2.2.5.
Camp George West Campus
The Camp George West campus is 290 acres of land
located on Golden Road just north of the Colfax Avenue
and Interstate 70 junction in Golden, Colorado. The site
contains 64 buildings, though they are not managed by
Capitol Complex Facilities. Further detail on the Camp
George West site can be found in section 2.2.6.
Grand Junction Site
The Grand Junction site is comprised of a single 51,194
square foot office building on the northeast corner of
Ute Avenue and 6th Street in downtown Grand Junction,
Colorado. The building sits on 0.83 acres and is
surrounded by surface parking. Further detail on the
Grand Junction site can be found in section 2.2.7.
Diagram Showing State-Owned, CCF-Managed Building Locations Across the State of Colorado
Cheyenne
|)Fort Collins
'S^S§>Greeley
Boulder,
!!
^Camp GeorgeBWesU^North CamPus
yT\Denver
Pierce Street Si'te / Downtown
Kipiing Campus' ^
Residence
Colorado Springs
.Pueblo

2-1


2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex
Diagram Showing State-Owned, CCF-Managed Building Locations Across the Denver Region
2.1.2 OVERVIEW OF AGENCIES IN THE
CAPITOL COMPLEX
General Overview of the Agencies Located In or
Near the Downtown Campus
The following State departments occupy space in or near
the Capitol Complex in either DPA-owned/Capitol Complex
Facilities managed, agency-owned, or commercially leased
facilities and are included in the scope of the master plan.
Executive /Elected Officials
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Secretary of State
Department of Treasury
Executive/Branch Agencies
Department of Education (DOE)
Department of Health Care Policy & Financing (HCPF)
Department of Higher Education (DHE)
Department of Human Services (DHS)
Department of Labor & Employment (DOLE)
Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Legislative
General Assembly (GA)
Joint Budget Committee (JBC)
Legislative Council
Legislative Legal Services
State Auditor
Agencies or locations excluded from this study include Department
of Agriculture, Department of Corrections, Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs, Department of Public Health and Environment, and
Department of Transportation.


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
2.2 Detailed Campus Overviews
Diagram 3.4 Showing State-Owned, CCF-Managed Building Locations in Capitol Complex
2.2.1 DOWNTOWN CAMPUS
V

%

&
p
17th Ave
16th Ave
Colfax Ave
14th Ave
13th Ave
12th Ave
Capitol Complex Buildings and Facilities in the
Downtown Campus:
The downtown campus contains a majority of Capitol
Complex Facilities-managed buildings. There are ten
buildings within the campus and comprise a total gross
floor area of 1,523,920 square feet. The downtown
campus buildings are as follows:
1. Fluman Services Building, 1575 Sherman Street
Constructed in 1952, acquired by the State of
Colorado in 1964, renovated in 1987.
GFA: 145,370 square feet
Tenants: DFIS (548 total staff)
2. 1570 Grant Street
Constructed 1956, acquired by State of
Colorado in 2001.
GFA: 49,751 square feet
Tenants: FICPF (226 total staff)
3. State Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street
Constructed in 1960, renovated in 1992,
updated in 2014.
GFA: 165,930 square feet
Occupants: General Assembly, Auditor, DPA
(320 total staff)
4. State Office Building, 201 East Colfax Avenue
Constructed in 1921, added to National FHistoric
Register in 1974, renovated in 1985.
GFA: 78,115 square feet
Tenants: DOE (272 total staff)
CO 0) go o GO GO c
b ex' o 0 £ c 0 GO CO
£ o O O o o c E I | Capitol Complex Buildings
1. Fluman Services Building
2. 1570 Grant Building
3. State Services Building
4. State Office Building
5. State Capitol Building
6. Capitol Annex
7. Power Plant
8. Legislative Services Building
9. Centennial Building
10. DOLE Building
11 .Merrick Parking Structure
5. State Capitol Building, 200 East Colfax Avenue
Constructed in 1886 to 1903, added to National
FHistoric Register in 1974.
GFA: 323,375 square feet
Occupants: Office of the Governor, Office of
Lieutenant Governor, Department of Treasury,
General Assembly, Legislative Council, Legislative
Legal Services, DPS State Patrol, DPA (286 total
staff)
6. Capitol Annex, 1375 Sherman Street
Constructed in 1937, added to National FHistoric
Register in 1991.
GFA: 114,720 square feet.
Tenants: DOR (548 total staff)
7. Power Plant, 1341 Sherman Street
Constructed in 1939, added to National FHistoric
Register in 1991.
GFA: 25,690 square feet
Tenants: DPS State Patrol (59 total staff)
8. Legislative Services Building, 200 East 14th Avenue
Constructed in 1915, added to National FHistoric
Register in 1974, renovated in 1986.
GFA: 59,301 square feet
Occupants: General Assembly, Joint Budget
Committee, and Legislative Council (47 total staff)
9. Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street
Constructed 1976.
GFA: 201,746 square feet
Tenants: DNR, DOLA, DPA (473 total staff)
10. Department of Labor and Employment, 251 East 12th
Avenue (DOLE owns and manages this building)
Constructed in 1957.
GFA: 137,000 square feet
Tenants: DOLE (320 total staff)
11. Merrick Parking Structure
Constructed in 2006.
(See Parking Section)


Parking
Off-Street Parking
The downtown campus includes seven State-owned
surface parking lots that comprise a total of 3.65 acres
and 242 parking spaces, as well as one 5-level parking
structure that contains 663 spaces, totalling 905 off-street
parking spaces:
1. Tan Parking Lot, 1520 Lincoln Street
Area: 0.9 Acres
Number of Spaces: 115
2. Green Parking Lot, 1520 Lincoln Street
Area: 0.1 Acres
Number of Spaces: 15
3. Yellow Parking Lot, 1530 Sherman Street
Area: 0.4 Acres
Number of Spaces: 46
4. Blue Parking Lot, 1570 Grant Street
Area: 0.2 Acres
Number of Spaces: 19
5. Merrick Parking Garage, 1350 Lincoln Street
Area: 5 parking stories (200,000 Square feet)
Number of Spaces: 663
6. Black Parking Lot, 1325 Sherman Street
Area: 0.4 Acres
Number of Spaces: 47
Additionally, the Motor Pool Lot and the Capitol Circle are
State-owned facilities but are not available as part of the
general inventory of State spaces:
7. Motor Pool Lot, 1550 Lincoln Street
Area: 0.4 Acres
Number of Spaces: 45
8. Capitol Circle, 200 East Colfax Avenue
Area: 1.25 Acres
Number of Spaces: 162
On-Street Parking
There are approximately 467 on-street parking spaces
within the Downtown Campus. Almost 87% of the on-
street parking spaces in the study are controlled through
the use of single-space parking meters. The time limit
on those meters include: 1 hour limits, 2 hour limits, and
some with 5 hour limits. The remaining 13% of the on-
street spaces are not metered but are restricted with a 2
hour time limit.
The on-street spaces in the study area are controlled and
managed by the City of Denver. During the legislative
sessions the metered spaces along Sherman and Grant
Streets are bagged and are under the control of the State
Senate Sergeant of Arms.
Parking Operations
The State controlled Capitol Complex parking is allocated
by the General Assembly and administered by the
Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA). Parking
in the Capitol Circle is not managed by the Capitol
Complex Facilities parking office. The Capitol Circle is
largely reserved for the legislative branch and the Office
of the Governor. Some spaces in the Capitol Circle
are for use by other elected officials, employees with
physical challenges that work in the Capitol, loading,
facilities maintenance, etc. Outside of the Capitol Circle,
approximately 66% of parking spaces are allocated to
individual employees and 34% are allocated to agencies.
Each parking space is assigned to a specific agency or
employee and there is no oversell of available parking.
The State of Colorado does not provide visitor parking.
Visitors are expected to utilize on-street spaces or
privately owned off-street facilities.
Approximately 400 employees are on the current waiting
list for parking permits. Approximately 14% of the people
on the waiting list have been waiting for one year or more.
Note: While not included in the scope of the master plan the Judicial
Center and History Colorado Museum have separate parking
resources. Judicial has 299 spaces in the parking garage located on
the 1200 block of Lincoln. History Colorado has 25 spaces located in
the same structure. Judicial also has an additional 72 parking spaces
located under the Judicial Center as parking for supreme court
justices and appellate court judges.
2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex
Diagram Showing State Parking Facilities
17th Ave



16th Ave
Colfax Ave
14th Ave
13th Ave
12th Ave
CO CO
0 <1>
b o
2
o 0
Q O
CO
O
O
c
c
o
CD
> CO
PO o co c
o % O CO CO
E o o T> O O O O t E 0 c O C o O) CO c c
< L .C CO O o 0 Q_
1. Tan Parking Lot 5. Merrick Parking Structure
2. Green Parking Lot 6. Black Parking Lot
3. Yellow Parking Lot 7. Motor Pool Lot
4. Blue Parking Lot 8. Capitol Circle
| | Capitol Complex
I---1 Parking Facilities


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
The downtown campus includes three primary open
spaces that comprise a total of 6.6 acres. These open
spaces make up a part of the larger Civic Center Park
open space framework that extends to the west. The
State-owned open space facilities are:
1. Lincoln Park
Bound by the Lincoln Street, Colfax Avenue,
Broadway, and 14th Avenue
Area: 3.0 Acres
2. The Capitol Grounds West Lawn
Bound by the Capitol Building, Colfax Avenue,
Lincoln Street, and 14th Avenue
Area: 2.0 Acres
3. The Capitol Grounds East Lawn
Bound by the Capitol Building, Colfax Avenue,
Grant Street, and 14th Avenue
Area: 1.6 Acres
Diagram Showing State-Owned Open Spaces in Capitol Complex
1. Lincoln Park
2. West Lawn
3. East Lawn
2-5
Transit
The data obtained from the agency interviews indicate
that as many as 50% of State employees utilize RTD
ecopasses to ride public transportation. Civic Center
Station is located one block northwest of the Capitol
Building and functions as a major transportation hub
served by multiple bus routes as well as the 16th Street
Free Mall Ride and the Downtown Circulator both of which
connect to Denver Union Station.
Many employees take advantage of alternative forms of
transportation. Although exact figures are not currently
available, it appears that many employees bike to work.
There is currently a waiting list for the bicycle lockers
located north of 1525 Sherman Street.
In addition, employees can take advantage of the States
carpool/vanpool parking program. Approved participants
are eligible to receive a discount on their parking fees
based on the number of people in their carpool.
Visitation
The Colorado State Capitol is a major tourist destination
in the downtown area, attracting between 250,000 and
300,000 thousand visits per year. In addition the Capitol
building is a working building currently housing offices
for the General Assembly and staff, the Governor and
Lieutenant Governor and accompanying staff, and the
State Treasurer and staff.
Public access to the Capitol is provided at the first floor
on the north entry and accessible access is provided
at the basement/ground level at the south entry. Both
public access points require visitors to pass through
magnetometer devices which are administered by the
State Patrol.
The east and west entries to the Capitol are controlled
entrances for State employees and members of the
General Assembly.
Even with state agencies providing more opportunities
to conduct business on-line, a number of agencies -
including DOR, DOLE, and DNR still have significant
walk-in traffic. While some of these visitors may use
public transportation, the lack of adjacent visitor parking
presents challenges.
Security
The following primary security systems are currently in
place throughout the Capital Complex: access control
(ACS), video surveillance, wireless duress and central
monitoring by CSP.
The access control system deployment is campus wide
and currently exists throughout other Capitol Complex
Facilities-managed buildings within the system with the
exception of a DOR-exclusive card reader system within
the Capitol Annex Building and 1881 Pierce Street. The
ACS serves as the primary security management system
for monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing
wireless duress alarm system infrastructure is in place
and operational. The existing security systems are
controlled and monitored centrally from Colorado State
Patrols Central Command Center (CCC) in Denver CO.
Within the downtown campus, the CCC is staffed by the
Executive Protection Unit of the Colorado State Patrol
based out of the Power Plant Building.


2.2.2 KIPLING CAMPUS
Capitol Complex Buildings
1. 700 Kipling Building, 700 Kipling Street, Lakewood
Constructed in 1985, acquired by the State of
Colorado in 1992
GFA: 36,380 square feet
Tenants: DPS (212 total staff)
2. Dale Tooley Building, 690 Kipling Street, Lakewood
Constructed in 1985, acquired by the State of
Colorado in 1986
GFA: 42,008 square feet
Tenants: OIT, DPS (151 total staff)
Parking
1. Dale Tooley Building
Total spaces = 159
Visitor only parking = 18
Employee only parking (CBI-GGCC) = 141
2. 700 Kipling Building
Total spaces = 212
Visitor only parking = 9
Employee only parking = 203
Security
The following primary security systems are currently in
place throughout the Capitol Complex: access control
(ACS), video surveillance, wireless duress and central
monitoring by CSP.
The access control system deployment is campus
wide and currently exists throughout other state Capitol
Complex Facilities managed buildings within the system.
The ACS serves as the primary security management
system for monitoring intrusion alarms. The states
existing wireless duress alarm system infrastructure is in
place and operational.
Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building
Oblique View of the Kipling Campus
1. 700 Kipling Building
2. Dale Tooley Building

2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex
2.2.3 PIERCE CAMPUS
Capitol Complex Buildings
1. 1881 Pierce Building, 1881 Pierce Street
Constructed in 1972, acquired by the State of
Colorado in 1983
GFA: 90,261 square feet
Tenants: DOR (362 total staff)
Parking
1. 1881 Pierce Building
Total parking spaces = 418
Visitor-only parking = 111
Visitation
The Pierce Campus experiences a high level of visitation
due to a Department of Motor Vehicles office being
located at this facility.
Security
The following primary security systems are currently in
place on the Pierce Campus: access control (ACS), video
surveillance, and wireless duress. Emergency response
is provided by Lakewood Police.
The access control system deployment is campus wide
and currently exists throughout other Capitol Complex
Facilities managed buildings within the system. The ACS
serves as the primary security management system for
monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing wireless
duress alarm system infrastructure is in place and
operational.
Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building
Oblique View of the Pierce Campus

1. 1881 Pierce Building


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
2.2.4 NORTH CAMPUS
Capitol Complex Buildings
1. North Campus North Building, 6321 N. Downing St,
Constructed in 1968, acquired by State of
Colorado in 1976
GFA: 21,175 Square Feet
Tenants: Storage
2. North Campus East Building, 6221 N. Downing St,
Constructed in 1968, acquired by State of
Colorado in 1976
GFA: 38,916 Square Feet
Tenants: Storage
3. North Campus West Building, 1001 E. 62nd Ave,
Constructed in 1968, acquired by State of
Colorado in 1976.
GFA: 37,711 Square Feet
Tenants: DPA Central Services, DOLE, DOR (90
total staff)
Parking
71 employee parking spaces including 2 disabled and 2
reserved spaces
Visitation
The North Campus due to its function has minimal visitors
outside of the State employees assigned to this location.
Security
The following primary security systems are currently
in place throughout: access control (ACS), video
surveillance, and wireless duress. Emergency response
is provided by Adams County Police.
The access control system deployment is campus wide
and currently exists throughout other Capitol Complex
Facilities managed buildings within the system. The ACS
serves as the primary security management system for
monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing wireless
duress alarm system infrastructure is in place and
operational.
Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building
Oblique View of the North Campus
1. North Campus West Building
2. North Campus East Building
3. North Campus North Building
2.2.5 EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE
Capitol Complex Buildings
1. Executive Residence, 400 East 8th Avenue
Constructed in 1908, donated to the State of
Colorado in 1959, added to National FHistoric
Register in 1969
GFA: 26,430 Square Feet
Tenants: Residence of the incumbent Governor
of Colorado
2. Carriage Blouse, 400 East 8th Avenue
Constructed in 1908, donated to the State of
Colorado in 1959, added to National FHi storic
Register in 1969, remodeled in 2006
GFA: 4,837 Square Feet
Tenants: Auxiliary structure to Executive
Residence
Parking
Executive Residence parking lot is located directly to
the west of the Residence at the southwest corner of 8th
Avenue and Logan Street. The Executive Residence lot
serves two purposes:
Governors Residence Parking from 5:00pm -
6:00am
Leased for other uses from 6:00am to 5:00pm
Total spaces = 83
Visitation
Executive Residence hosts numerous functions with
visitors.
Security
The Colorado State Patrol is responsible for security
of the Executive Residence and Carriage Blouse. The
Residence has a security office with monitors and alarms
that are manned by the Colorado State Patrol. The
Executive Residence and Carriage Blouse are staffed by
the Executive Protection unit of the Colorado State Patrol.
Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building
Oblique View of the Executive Residence and Carriage House
1. Executive Residence
2. Carriage Blouse


2.2.6 CAMP GEORGE WEST
Capitol Complex Buildings
There are 64 individual buildings on the Camp George
West campus and they are owned and managed by
the departments that occupy them. The site and its
infrastructure is owned and managed by the DPA and
the Capitol Complex Facilities respectively. The site and
its infrastructure is subject to this master plan but the
buildings are not.
Established in 1903 as the State Rifle Range,
designated Camp George West in 1934, placed
on Historic Register in 1993
Site area: 289.78 acres
Tenants: Department of Corrections and
Correctional Industries, Department of Military
and Veterans Affairs, Department of Public
Safety, Department of Transportation
Aerial View of the Camp George West Campus
Golden Rd
2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex
2.2.7 GRAND JUNCTION STATE SERVICES BLDG
Capitol Complex Buildings
1. Grand Junction State Services Building, 222 S. 6th
Street, Grand Junction, Co
Constructed in 1983
GFA: 52,000 square feet
Tenants: DPA, DPHE, DOLE, DOLA, DOR, DOT,
DORA, DNR
Parking
Grand Junction State Services Building, 222 S. 6th
Street, Grand Junction, Co
Spaces in State-owned lot = 42 metered
Spaces in adjacent, privately owned lots = 41
Accessible Spaces = 3
Visitation
The Grand Junction State Services Building experiences
a moderate level of visitation.
Security
The primary security system that is currently in place at
the Grand Junction State Services Building is access
control. The Grand Junction police respond to this
building.
Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building
Oblique View of the Grand Junction State Services Building
i
1. Grand Junction State Service Building




CAPITOL COMPLEX
AAASTERPLAN COLORADO


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
3.1 Methodology
The current master plan builds upon space needs
programming data from the majority of State agencies
collected by the previous master planning consultant
in 2008. The data and information collected at that
time was verified in 2013 through the redistribution of
the 2008 documentations to each department, and a
series of interviews with management leaders in those
organizations. The newly compiled and updated
information was then reviewed through interviews
conducted with the executive director, or a representative
from the directors office, for each department to
confirm information and directions received through the
verification process.
Space Planning Interviews
The space planning interviews were conducted with the
deputy director or assigned representatives from the
executive and legislative functions between September
and November of 2013. Follow up interviews with the
executive directors office from each department were
conducted in January and February of 2014. The
purpose of the interviews was to update data previously
compiled, as noted above, and discuss operating and
space conditions listed below:
Mission/function.
Organizational structure.
Staff levels since 2008, any available historical staff
data, and primary workload indicators.
Frequent interaction with other departments
necessitating a close physical adjacency.
Adjacency requirements to be within the Capitol
Complex.
Impact of technology on current and projected
department operations and/or staffing.
Deficiencies with the current space at each
location.
Any unique space types required.
Any parking, security or service concerns at any
location.
The interview information provided the departments
qualitative perspective of its needs, as well as the basic
quantitative data necessary for the consultant team
to begin the planning process. The updated surveys
provide an analytical description of characteristics
necessary to project future personnel and space needs,
determine location requirements, and identify other
factors critical to the department satisfying its mission.
Updated surveys for each department are provided in
supporting documents (see Appendix 1 (a) Updated
Surveys).
General comments from the department interviews related
to space use are highlighted below.
Staff growth is primarily dictated by legislative
changes, and is therefore somewhat difficult to
project out more than one year.
Requests for additional space are typically only
appropriated with an increase of 20 or more
positions, resulting in makeshift solutions within
existing space to accommodate growth.
Current office space in many locations, particularly
in the older and owned State buildings, is dated,
with less than ideal working conditions.
Office workspace conditions are somewhat dictated
by outdated furniture solutions and issues (this
applies less to more recently leased locations)
including:
Open office furniture (e.g. workstations) utilize
obsolete and/or declining components that are
beyond their serviceable life;
This frequently contributes to decreased
efficiencies in space use, decreased flexibility
for reconfiguration and change, lower levels of
light, and a less professional appearance;
In general where workstation panels are used,
they are very tall, with freestanding furniture
within. This typically results in larger individual
workspace footprints than are necessary, and
limits access to natural light by blocking light
from reaching the interior spaces; and
Storage tends to be scattered, decentralized
and inefficient.
3-1
Technology improvements have been made
since 2008 in a number of locations, particularly
with respect to conference room AV and
communications devices. There are still technology
challenges related primarily to infrastructure in
many locations.
Parking availability for clients and public visitors
is an issue for most downtown Denver locations,
and is a particular challenge both for visitors and
staff during legislative sessions (see Section 5.6 in
Chapter 5.0 Urban Design).
Security is an on-going concern in some locations
(specific issues are addressed in the Section 4.5 in
Chapter 4.0 Facility Assessments).
A number of agencies have a desire to be
more consolidated including the Department of
Education, Department of Revenue, FHealth Care
Policy and Financing and Department of Natural
Resources. These preferences were addressed in
the development of alternatives.
Virtually all agencies want to have at least some
presence in the Capitol Complex whether that be
their full operations or, at a minimum, an executive
office.
Lease vs. Own Strategies
The map to the right shows the Capitol Complex and
surrounding downtown area and indicates which
buildings the State occupies that are owned versus
leased, and which departments occupy space in these
locations. As the State considers the alternatives
and recommendations outlined in this document it is
important to consider the issues related to owning versus
leasing space. Leased space has provided the State
with overflow space as agencies have outgrown their
owned facilities. It has also provided some flexibility for
agencies that have had significant fluctuations in staff
based on federal or state funding and programs from
year to year. Flowever, a long term strategy and goal of
the State is to own more than lease, and only lease space
for those agencies that have historically experienced
significant change.
It is significant to note that entire agencies such as the
Department of Regulatory Agencies and the Department
of FHigher Education and half of the Department of Labor
and Employment are located in leased space. The
Secretary of State and the Unclaimed Property Office
of the Department of Treasury are in leased rather than
owned space. And finally, several of the organizational
units of the Governors Office, which have been in
existence for over a quarter of a century, including the
Office of Economic Development and International Trade
and the Energy Office as well as more recently created
Office of Information Technology, are in leased space as
well. All of these entities perform on-going functions of
State government. These agencies were recommended
to be consolidated in State-owned space while agencies
having expanding needs are recommended to be
consolidated in leased space.


Delaware St
Diagram Showing Agency Locations in Owned and Leased Space
19th Ave
n

18th Ave
17 th Ave

y
W2
14th Ave
13th Ave

<1>
g
£L
o
CO
-ic
O
E
o
o
<
>
o
*
T5
O
g
ao
co
c
a
.c
cO
co
c
p
O
12th Ave
o
o>
o
| | Capitol Complex buildings
| | Privately Owned Buildings with State Tenants
Penn St
3.0 Agencies
Capitol Complex Buildings
1. Human Services Building, 1575 Sherman Street
Tenants: DHS
2. 1570 Grant Street
Tenants: HCPF
3. State Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street
Tenants: DPA, State Auditor, GA
4. State Office Building, 201 East Colfax Avenue
Tenants: DOE
5. State Capitol Building, 200 East Colfax Avenue
Tenants: Office of the Governor, Office of
Lieutenant Governor, Department of Treasury,
GA, Legislative Council, Legislative Legal
Services, DPS-State Patrol, DPA-CCF
6. Capitol Annex, 1375 Sherman Street
Tenants: DOR
7. Power Plant, 1341 Sherman Street
Tenants: DPS-State Patrol
8. Legislative Services Building, 200 East 14th Avenue
Tenants: GA, Joint Budget Committee,
Legislative Council
9. Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street
Tenants: DNR, DOLA, DPA-Archives
10. Department of Labor and Employment, 251 East
12th Avenue
Tenants: DOLE
11. Merrick Parking Structure
Tenants: N/A
Privately Owned Buildings with State Tenants
a. 633 and 621 17th Street
Tenants: DOLE
b. 601 E 18th Avenue
Tenants: OIT
c. 1700 Broadway
Tenants: Secretary of State
d. 303 E. 17th Avenue
Tenants: HCPF
e. 1625 Broadway
Tenants: OEDIT
f. 225 E. 16th Avenue
Tenants: HCPF
g. 1560 Broadway
Tenants: DORA, DHE, DOE
h. 1580 Logan Street
Tenants: GEO, DOE, TREASURY
i. 1120 Lincoln Street
Tenants: DNR, DHS
Locations not shown include 1881 Pierce Street, the
Kipling Campus, and leases outside of the downtown
area
3-2


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
3.2 Agency Needs
The data collection process resulted in an understanding
of not only each agencys space needs but also
operational and locational requirements, which have
been briefly summarized in the following tables. This
information provided a critical part of the framework for
the development of alternatives discussed in Chapter 7.
GOVERNORS OFFICE
GOVERNOR: John Hickenlooper
TOTAL FTE: 54
AGENCY NEEDS:
The Governor's Office is located in the Capitol Building.
There are several functions that fall under the Governor
that are located elsewhere including the Office Of
Economic Development and International Trade, the
Governor's Energy Office and the Office of Information
of Technology. These are described separately.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF Exec. Offices, State Planning & Budgeting,
Boards &
200 E. Colfax Ave. 19,284 Commissions, Policy & Initiatives, Legal, Press Office, Legislative


Relations
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
None
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT & INTL TRADE (OEDIT)
DIRECTOR: Ken Lund
TOTAL FTE: 40
AGENCY NEEDS:
This office is located in leased space which has been
appropriate for its functions; however there is little
room for growth. This office could be considered as a
candidate for a new State office building.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
None
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
1625 Broadway 14,337 Entire Office $31.45
GOVERNORS ENERGY OFFICE
(GEO)
DIRECTOR: Jeffery Ackerman
TOTAL FTE: 30
AGENCY NEEDS:
This office is in leased space with a near term
lease expiration. There is a significant amount of
underutilized space. If relocated, this office will need to
remain in close proximity to the Capitol, Public Utilities
Commission, OEDIT and DNR. In addition, any new
location would require parking for six pool trucks and
materials storage.
OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS
None
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
1580 Logan St. 10,031 Entire Office $17.65


GOVERNORS OFFICE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (OIT)
DIRECTOR: Kristin Russell (currently Suma Nallapati)
TOTAL FTE: 286 (at main office)
AGENCY NEEDS:
Recent organizational changes have centralized the
OIT reporting structure but left many OIT personnel still
physically located with the agencies they serve. The
main office occupies leased space only. This space
has no expansion capability which has caused issues
with projected department growth. Currently nineteen
data centers are located within the Capitol Complex so
one goal for the department is to consolidate these into
two primary data centers one located at the Kipling
complex, and the second at the E-FORT Disaster
Recovery Center on Arapahoe Road (not included).
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
690 Kipling St 4,104 Data Center
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
601 E. 18th St. 2,279 Main office $17.13
(2 leases) 59,220 $16.65
OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Joe Garcia
TOTAL FTE: 15
AGENCY NEEDS:
The Lt. Governors office oversees the Offices of Indian
Affairs, Health & Wellness, Community Services and
Early Childhood Education. These functions are split
between the Capitol Building and one leased space.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF Exec Off,
200 E. Colfax Ave 1,997 Indian Affairs, Health &
Wellness
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
225 E. 16th Ave. 1,245 Commun. $19.00
Svcs, Early
Childhood
Education
3.0 Agencies
SECRETARY OF STATE
SECRETARY OF STATE: Scott Gessler
TOTAL FTE: 135
AGENCY NEEDS:
All divisions of this office are located in a single leased
location. There would be some benefit to moving closer
to the Capitol for the executive team; however, the
current location works well and relocating the existing
data center would be difficult. Any newly leased
space or retrofitted owned space would need to meet
technology and security criteria that are in place in the
current space.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
None
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
1700 Broadway 36,557 Entire Office $18.79
DEPARTMENT OFTREASURY
TREASURER: Walker Stapleton
TOTAL FTE: 32
AGENCY NEEDS:
This office is located primarily in the State Capitol
building with the unclaimed property function in a
leased location. Ideally the two functions would be
consolidated in owned space. However, the current
location has the benefit of available public parking.
OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS
200 E. Colfax Ave 4,379 Main office
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
1580 Logan St. 3,466 Unclaimed Property $17.85
3-4


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(DOE)
COMMISSIONER: Robert Hammond
TOTAL FTE: 466 (all locations)
AGENCY NEEDS:
This department is housed in extremely crowded
conditions at 201 E. Colfax and in multiple leased
spaces. Ideally most of this Department would be
co-located. Two options to consider for consolidation
are to construct an addition to 201 E. Colfax or vacate
the leased space and consolidate those displaced
functions into the new State Office building.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
201 E. Colfax 42,988 Admin. & OIT
Ave.
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
1535 Grant St. 1,731 Content $17.17
Specialist Div
1560 Broadway 24,351 Fed. $28.12
Programs
Admin
1580 Logan St. 4,863 Charter $18.50
(5 Leases) School
3,207 Educator $19.88
Effect.
1,147 IT $17.81
2,785 CDE $19.17
2,851 Cap. Const. $19.21
6000 E. Evans St. 3,320 Prof. Svcs & $12.53
Licensing
HEALTH CARE POLICY & FINANCING
(HCPF)
DIRECTOR: Sue Birch
TOTAL FTE: 628 (all 3 locations)
AGENCY NEEDS:
This department has grown significantly with the
addition of approximately 100 FTE since 2013, driving
the need for additional leased space. Ideally this
agency would be in a single location. HCPF recently
leased additional space at 303 17th Street, leaving the
department in three locations for the next five to seven
years. The longer term assumption is that HCPF will
vacate 1570 Grant Street and consolidate at two leased
locations. This will allow the Grant Street building to be
remodeled for future use potentially by the Department
of Local Affairs.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS 1570 Grant Street SF 41,453 Admin. & Ops
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
225 E. 16th Street 21,403 Admin & Ops $21.00
(3 leases) 18,497 Admin & Ops $18.96
2,791 Admin & Ops $18.00
303 E. 17th Street 25,935 Admin & Ops $24.86
847 Office Storage $24.86
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(DHE)
DIRECTOR: Joe Garcia
TOTAL FTE: 94
AGENCY NEEDS:
This agency includes the Collegelnvest office, which is
funded separately from the general department and is
located in a separate space within the same building.
Ideally Collegelnvest will remain co-located with the
rest of the department if relocation occurs upon lease
expiration. DHE is a candidate for a new State office
building if occupants of 1560 Broadway are considered
OWNED LOCATIONS None CURRENT SF DIVISIONS
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
1560 Broadway 21,304 DHE Department $29.43
18,320 Collegelnvest $29.43
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
(DHS)
DIRECTOR: Reggie Bicha
TOTAL FTE: 548 (at 1575 Sherman St)
AGENCY NEEDS:
This agency plans to evaluate its administrative and
operational space needs in more detail. The feasibility
of co-locating all of their administrative functions at
the Fort Logan campus will be considered. If 1575
Sherman is vacated, the building could be backfilled by
Department of Revenue functions from 1881 Pierce and
DOR leased space.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
1575 Sherman 99,087 All Divisions
Street
(Fort Logan is excluded from the study)
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
None


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
(DOLE)
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS
(DO LA)
DIRECTOR: Ellen Golombeck
TOTAL FTE: 1,081
AGENCY NEEDS:
This departments primary locations are 251 E. 12th and
633 17th Street, a leased facility. The State building is
81 % federally funded and 19% DOLE owned. While
consolidation would be ideal, the amount of space this
department requires makes that difficult. One option to
consider for greater consolidation is relocation to a new
State owned building.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
251 E. 12th Ave. 137,000 Unemploy. Insur. & OIT
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
633 17th St. 172,240 Exec Off, Unemp.lns., Labor, Oil & Pub. Safety, Workers $21.64
Comp
621 17th St 13,624 Worker's $18.50
Comp
DIRECTOR: Reeves Brown
TOTAL FTE: 170
AGENCY NEEDS:
DOLA occupies only owned space; they are located
on three floors of the 1313 Sherman Building. The
departments interaction with a number of other
agencies requires that it be centrally located in the
Capitol Complex. This agency is a candidate to backfill
1570 Grant Street if that building is vacated by RICPF
and remodeled.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
1313 Sherman St. 33,822 Entire agency
1,480 Storage
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
None
3.0 Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(DNR)
DIRECTOR: Mike King
TOTAL FTE: 388 (not Including 6060 Broadway)
AGENCY NEEDS:
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
ADMINISTRATION (DPA)
DIRECTOR: Kathy Nesbitt
TOTAL FTE: 294
AGENCY NEEDS:
The majority of this department is located at 1313
Sherman and 6060 Broadway. The department has
expressed a desire to co-locate all of its administrative
divisions and potentially sell 6060 Broadway. This can
be accomplished by relocating DOLA to 1570 Grant
Street as proposed. DNR would backfill the space at
1313 Sherman with most of the outlying DNR functions,
with the exception of the service center, warehouse, and
training facilities that ideally would be relocated from
6060 Broadway closer to the I-70 Corridor.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
1313 Sherman St. 71,879 All Divisions
- office except Parks
1313 Sherman St. 852 and Wildlife
- Storage (at 6060)
1127 Sherman St. 12,000 State Brd
of Land
Commiss
(6060 Broadway and other outlying locations are
excluded from this study)
This agency is located in recently remodeled space at
1525 Sherman Street with Central Services functions
and storage located outside of the Capitol Complex
at the North Campus facility. Some Central Service
functions (e.g. mail services) could be considered for
relocation if the North Campus is repurposed for other
uses in the future.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF All Exec/ Admin
1525 Sherman St. 78,580 functions including Admin. Courts
5,908 Storage Archives
1313 Sherman St. 5,292
34,581 Mgmt Office Archives
Storage
200 E. Colfax
Ave. 8,734 Storage
LEASED CURRENT
LOCATIONS SF
1120 Lincoln St. 19,991
DIVISIONS
Oil & Gas
Conserv
Commiss
&OIT
LEASE
COST/SF
$20.66
1001 E. 62nd Ave 30,860
(North Campus) 12,000
LEASED CURRENT
LOCATIONS SF
Central Svcs.
Office
Archives
Storage
DIVISIONS LEASE
COST/SF
None


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
(DPS)
DIRECTOR: James Davis (currently Stan Hilkey)
TOTAL FTE: 603
AGENCY NEEDS:
The recent departure of the Department of Agriculture
and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation lab from the
Kipling campus has opened up space that DPS could
occupy, potentially vacating most of their lease at 710
Kipling. They have requested funding for this. (This
department has additional owned facilities outside of
the Kipling campus, i.e. at Camp George West and
9195 E. Mineral, that are not included here.)
OWNED LOCATIONS 1341 Sherman St. (State Patrol) CURRENT SF 2,494 DIVISIONS State Patrol Exec. Off.,
690 Kipling St. 32,429 5,475 Fire Prev/ Control, Homeland Sec/lnfo. Analysis Center (CIAC) Exec Off., ICJIS, OIT,
700 Kipling St. 36,380 Criminal Justice, State Patrol
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
710 Kipling St 3,038 Bureau of Invest. $19.44
(4 leases) 8,748 Bureau of Invest. $18.00
4,426 Criminal Justice $17.44
1,401 State Patrol $17.50
DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCIES
(DORA)
DIRECTOR: Barbara Kelley
TOTAL FTE: 614
AGENCY NEEDS:
This department is required by statute to be located in
the Capitol Complex. It was housed in 1525 Sherman
until that building was remodeled in 1991. DORA
moved to leased space at that time and never returned
to the Capitol Complex. DORA is a candidate for
occupying a new State Office building.
OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS
None
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
1560 Broadway - 154,615 All Divisions $17.90
Office
(2 leases) 5,710 & Conference Center $31.61
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(DOR)
DIRECTOR: Barbara Brohl
TOTAL FTE: 1,032 (all locations)
AGENCY NEEDS:
1375 Sherman Street is in the poorest condition of the State
owned buildings in the Capitol Complex; this has created a
very poor working environment, and space shortages have
driven the need for multiple leased spaces. These dispersed
locations have caused a number of operational difficulties.
The downtown location is one of the most publicly visited State
agency buildings and has parking and access challenges.
The other primary location is 1881 Pierce which also is in poor
condition, and faces similar public access issues due to a lack
of public transportation. Proposed solutions include selling the
1881 Pierce location to move all but the DMV functions closer
to, or within, the Capitol Complex. If feasible, some functions
currently in leased space would consolidate with the customer
facing functions from 1881 Pierce.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF Exec.Off,
1375 Sherman St. 63,636 Taxation, Central Ops, Security,
OIT
10,944 Storage
Tax Business
Group,
1881 Pierce St. 90,261 Enforcement, Motor Vehicle
Dept
1001 E. 62nd Ave 2,640 Tax Processing Ops, Storage
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
455 Sherman St 7,500 Tax $21.88
(2 leases) 14,853 Marijuana $20.26
17301 W. Colfax 16,260 Gaming $19.20
Ave.
700 W. Mississippi 11,229 State Lottery $7.82
Ave. Storage
720 S. Colorado 11,962 Lottery & Field $19.41
Blvd. Audit
(2 leases) 16,339 Tax Field Audit $22.16
GENERAL ASSEMBLY: STATE SENATE,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SECRETARY OF SENATE: Cindi Markwell
CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Marilyn Eddins
TOTAL HEADCOUNT SENATE: 35 Senators/~175
Total incl. Staff, Aides, Interns
TOTAL HEADCOUNT HOUSE: 65 Represenatives/
~90 Total w/Staff, Aides, Interns
AGENCY NEEDS:
Of the 100 members of the House and Senate, 44
will have offices in 1525 Sherman Street (30 House
members/14 Senate members). Committee rooms for
the House and Senate will be split between the Capitol
and the Legislative Services Building as renovations are
completed in both buildings.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF General
200 E. Colfax Ave. 86,089 Assembly Space For
Both House &
Senate
General
4,689 Assembly Storage
200 E. 14th Ave. 21,203 General Assembly
1525 Sherman St. 15,200 General Assembly
500 Storage
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
None
LEASE
COST/SF


JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
STAFF DIRECTOR: John Zeigler
TOTAL FTE: 16
AGENCY NEEDS:
This office is located in the Legislative Services
Building. It requires a dedicated hearing room that can
accommodate committee members, testimony seating
and 50-60 spectators. Close proximity to the Capitol is
required for legislators who sit on the committee.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
>0 E. 14th Ave. 5,620 Office space
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
None
DIRECTOR: Mike Mauer
TOTAL FTE: 69
AGENCY NEEDS:
The Legislative Council offices and support spaces
occupy space at the Capitol and the Legislative
Services Building. One office division recently moved
out of leased space to backfill vacated State Auditor's
space at 200 E. 14th where the server room and print
shop were already located.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
200 E. Colfax 13,942 Legislative
Ave. Council
200 E. 14th Ave. 10,149 Legislative Council
1,567 Server Room
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
None
3.0 Agencies
LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
DIRECTOR: Dan Cartin
TOTAL FTE: 49
AGENCY NEEDS:
This office is located in the State Capitol. Some storage
is shared with General Assembly storage (included in
Senate/General Assembly SF). Close proximity to the
Capitol is required.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
200 E. Colfax Ave. 13,706 Office space
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
None
STATE AUDITOR
AUDITOR: Dianne Ray
TOTAL FTE: 68
AGENCY NEEDS:
The State Auditor's Office recently moved from the
Legislative Services Building and leased space into
1525 Sherman Street, including storage. This new
location provides adequate meeting rooms. The
Legislative Audit Committee will hold hearings in the
Capitol Building or the Legislative Services Building.
OWNED CURRENT DIVISIONS
LOCATIONS SF
1525 Sherman St. 13,600 Office space
500 Storage
LEASED CURRENT DIVISIONS LEASE
LOCATIONS SF COST/SF
None
3-8


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
- Summary of Existing Space Utilization
3.3
Using data compiled for the updated department survey
profiles, the consultant team prepared a database
inventory of the existing allocation of department
assigned space in both owned and commercially leased
space (Office Useable Area or Rentable Area). The
methods for calculating current occupancies is described
in this section.
Space Planning Standards
Space standards and professional practice guidelines
provide an objective basis to identify uniform
measurements of space expressed in square feet per
person or use area. Space standards are required to:
Make the most efficient use of state owned and
leased space;
Establish uniformity and consistency among
personnel in all departments and agencies;
Establish uniformity and consistency in the
allocation of space for equipment;
Provide a uniform basis for projecting space needs
for personnel and equipment to logically plan for
the acquisition of future owned and leased space;
and
Determine the probable cost of needed space.
This section explains the basis for estimating total space
need based on the progression from functional net use
spaces or areas to complete departments that comprise a
total projected building space need.
Net Space
Estimating the amount of useable area or floor space
needed to provide an appropriate environment capable
of supporting a function involves the application of
space allocations or space standards to the operational
requirements of the functional component (e.g. office,
restroom, conference room etc.). These standards,
guidelines and specific space allocations are expressed
as net useable square feet or NSF.
Department Gross Space
In a master space plan, the size of individual offices/
workstations is not as important as the total allocation of
space for each staff position. For example, an office may
be 100 square feet, but the total space to support that
office requires corridors, conference rooms, reception
areas, printer stations etc. The total department gross
square feet (DGSF) is the sum of the various personnel,
support spaces and circulation space within the confines
of that department including interior walls.
For typical office environments, the average DGSF per
staff is driven by the function of the department and a) the
mix of private offices versus open workstations; and b)
types and sizes of support spaces. Using data provided
by the State, the consultant team calculated the amount
of existing space currently occupied by each department
as DGSF for both owned and commercially leased space.
Existing department space was provided at one or both of
the following levels:
Office Useable Area (OUA) area where a tenant
houses personnel and/or furniture, including
circulation internal to that department space, also
referred to as Useable Square Feet (USF)
Rentable Area (RA) office area of a tenant plus
the tenants share of the floor common area and
common building area, also referred to as Rentable
Square Feet (RSF).
NOTE: For State owned buildings, USF as reported in the 2004 State Buildings
Report, was determined to be the closest eguivalent to RSF occupancy in
commercially leased spaces. The 2008 Master Plan data, used as the starting
point for determining space needs for this plan, also utilized USF for State
owned buildings.
Building Gross Space
Building gross square feet (BGSF) is the sum of all the
assignable (DGSF) spaces and non-assignable spaces
to include exterior wall thickness, common public
circulation, public restrooms, stairwells and mechanical
shafts. A BGSF factor is applied after the addition of
all the DGSF components to yield a final estimate of the
full spatial impact of each component of the building.
Building grossing factors can range from 20%-60%+
depending upon the buildings purpose.


Current Conditions
Table 1: Summary of Existing Space Occupied Owned vs. Leased
There is currently little standardization of workspace in the
Capitol Complex as a whole. This is the result both of the
existing conditions, particularly in owned buildings, and
of the decentralized system currently in place by which
agencies procure, budget for, plan and design space.
There is more consistency in some of the commercially
leased spaces the State occupies as these spaces
have less restrictive existing conditions, have generally
more flexible and efficient floor plans and opportunities
to implement some of the best practices in workplace
design through independent use of space planning
services provided by the States tenant broker contract.
A good example of space where standards are more
consistent with current benchmarks and trends is the
newly remodeled HCPF space at 303 17th Avenue.
Table 1 summarizes the existing inventory of owned and
commercially leased space included in this study. Of the
current inventory 39% is commercially leased space and
61% is owned space.
Of the owned space, 15% is legislative space, 82% is
space occupied by executive branch agencies and 3%
is occupied by elected official functions. Of the leased
space, 83% is occupied by executive branch agencies,
and 17% is occupied by elected official functions.
SPACE TYPE/ DEPARTMENT EXISTING SPACE/ DGSF
OWNED Executive Elected Officials
Office of the Governor, Executive 19,284
Office of the Governor, Information Technology 4,104
Office of the Governor, Storage 1,873
Office of Lieutenant Governor 1,997
Department of Treasury 4,379
Executive Elected Officials Total 31,637
Executive Branch Agencies
Department of Education 42,988
Department of Health Care Policy & Financing 41,453
Department of Human Services 99,087
Department of Labor & Employment 147,364
Department of Local Affairs 35,302
Department of Natural Resources 226,169
Department of Personnel & Administration 175,955
Department of Public Safety 77,353
Department of Revenue 167,481
Executive Branch Agencies Total 1,013,152
Legislative
General Assembly 127,681
Joint Budget Committee 5,620
Legislative Council 25,658
Legislative Legal Services 13,706
State Auditor 14,100
Legislative Total 186,765
Owned Total 1,231,554
LEASED
3.0 Agencies
SPACE TYPE/ DEPARTMENT EXISTING SPACE/ DGSF
Executive Elected Officials
Office of the Governor, Economic Dev & International Trade 14,337
Office of the Governor, Energy 10,031
Office of the Governor, Information Technology 73,666
Office of Lieutenant Governor 1,245
Secretary of State 36,557
Department of Treasury 3,466
Executive Elected Officials Total 139,302
Executive Branch Agencies
Department of Education 44,165
Department of Health Care Policy & Financing 69,553
Department of Higher Education 39,624
Department of Labor & Employment 185,864
Department of Natural Resources 27,751
Department of Public Safety 51,321
Department of Regulatory Agencies 160,497
Department of Revenue 78,143
Executive Branch Agencies Total 656,918
Leased Total 796,220
GRAND TOTAL 2,027,774
Source: Updated survey data, compiled by CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August
2014.
3-10


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
Table 2 shows both current staff and existing square
feet by department and branch. An inventory of existing
square footage by building has been provided in the
appendix (Appendix 1 (b) Baseline Data Table).
NOTE: Staff totals for some agencies including the
Departments of Education, Eluman Services, Labor and
Employment, Local Affairs, Natural Resources, Public
Safety, Regulatory Affairs, and Revenue include Office of
the Governor/Office of Information Technology staff, since
these positions are assigned to be co-located with the
agency served.
3-11
Table 2: Summary of Space Inventory By Branch/Department
BRANCH/DEPARTMENT EXISTING STAFF EXISTING SPACE/ DGSF
EXECUTIVE
Elected Officials
Office of the Governor, Executive 54 19,284
Office of the Governor, Economic Dev & International Trade 40 14,337
Office of the Governor, Energy 30 10,031
Office of the Governor, Information Technology 288 77,770
Office of the Governor, Storage 1,873
Office of Lieutenant Governor 15 3,242
Secretary of State 135 36,557
Department of Treasury 32 7,845
Elected Officials Total 593 170,939
Branch Agencies
Department of Education 466 87,153
Department of Health Care Policy & Financing 628 111,006
Department of Higher Education 94 39,624
Department of Human Services 548 99,087
Department of Labor & Employment 1,081 333,228
Department of Local Affairs 170 35,302
Department of Natural Resources 520 253,920
Department of Personnel & Administration 294 175,955
Department of Public Safety 603 128,674
Department of Regulatory Agencies 614 160,497
Department of Revenue 1,032 245,624
Branch Agencies Total 6,050 1,670,070
Executive Total 6,643 1,841,009
LEGISLATIVE |
Legislative
General Assembly 265 127,681
Joint Budget Committee 16 5,620
Legislative Council 44 25,658
Legislative Legal Services 49 13,706
State Auditor 68 14,100
Legislative Total 467 186,765
GRAND TOTAL 7,110 2,027,774
Source: Updated survey data, compiled by CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August 2014.


3.0 Agencies
3.4 - Space Standards
Benchmarks provide a means to compare Colorados
space use with peer institutions and form a baseline from
which to develop space standards. A commonly used
benchmark is square foot per person. There are a variety
of sources for benchmark comparisons of square feet
per person across states. Benchmarking is not an exact
science as there are often inconsistencies in how space
measurement is defined and calculated. However, for
the purposes of providing a comparison of Colorados
DGSF/person range, several sources were reviewed. The
average DGSF/staff in Colorado state agencies ranges
from 138-422 per person, with an overall average of
240. Figures 1 and 2 show the average broken down by
Owned vs. Leased agency space. For owned (or OUA)
space, Colorado ranges from 138 to 406, with an average
of 224. For leased (or RA) space, the benchmarks range
from a low of 156 to a high of 422, with an average of 263.
Space planning benchmarks were examined from the
federal government, public organizations, private sector,
other state governments, and industry research and
compared to the existing Colorado standards, as shown
in Figures 3 and 4. In summary, the SF/person averages
for Colorado are higher than many of the benchmarks
considered. However, recent projects such as the newly
completed HCPF space in a leased facility, are coming
closer to the norm. The HCPF space has 185 SF/person,
which is on par with the most recent General Services
Administration target of 190 for federal facilities, and is
under the goal of 204 SF/person that Colorado and its real
estate consultant, JLL, have established for leased space.
Benchmarking
Figure 1: Owned Office Space per Staff by Department
Figure 2: Leased Office Space per Staff by Department
3-12


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
3-13
Figure 3: Owned/Office Usable Area (OUA) Standard Comparison
260
240 250
oon 224 Existir g Coloradt 3 Average
200 (0 55 180- jj> 160 Q. ^ 140 O 120 100 80 60 _ 190 200 210 204 220
185 HCPF Project 190 198
175 170
A


eP\<^
i rv-
A

9?A
<&?







&


Entity






<$
A*




Figure 4: Owned/Office Usable Area (OUA) Standard Comparison
300
£ 250
re
*-
tn
0)
Q.
<
=>
o
200
150
100
263 Existinq Colorado Averaqe 291

234 218 204 JLL Colorado Stal 230 e Goal


A
e>
S'

r2S
C>V
r cc>'y
*0 5?


A*


Entity
<*o a
G0^
V A
^V>
233





3.5 - Personnel and Space Projections
Personnel Projections
Typically the largest space driver for an office function
is personnel and the spaces needed to support their
respective function. Future personnel projections provide
an objective basis for estimating the probable magnitude
of building space needs in future years. These estimates
in turn provide a planning basis for examining alternative
development strategies and building concepts and thus
determining preliminary estimates of construction and
project costs.
Historic data, often used as a basis for generating
alternate projection models, was used to arrive
at personnel projections for this project because
personnel data at a department level by location was
not readily available. The consultant team reviewed
annual department appropriations over the past ten
years published by the State of Colorado Joint Budget
Committee to arrive at a percent growth factor to apply
to future years. State population was also looked at,
but population growth is not as closely correlated
with headcount growth as looking at the historical
appropriations data. To project future personnel, the
average annual appropriations rate of 0.62% was
applied to the 2013 staffing levels except for where the
department identified specific projections at a higher
rate of growth as listed below. Table 3 summarizes the
projected personnel growth by Department.
Department of Labor and Employment -
Unemployment insurance.
Department of Public Safety Criminal Justice.
Department of Regulatory Agencies Securities,
Insurance, Real Estate and Public Utilities
Commission.
Department of Revenue Tax and Marijuana
Enforcement.
Legislative Council.
Legislative Legal Services.
3.0 Agencies
Table 3: Projected Personnel By Department
BRANCH/DEPARTMENT EXISTING STAFF 2018 STAFF 2023 STAFF
EXECUTIVE
Elected Officials
Office of the Governor, Executive 54 55 57
Office of the Governor, Economic Dev & International Trade 40 41 43
Office of the Governor, Energy 30 31 32
Office of the Governor, Information Technology 288 297 306
Office of the Governor, Storage
Office of Lieutenant Governor 15 15 16
Secretary of State 135 139 144
Department of Treasury 32 33 33
Elected Officials Total 593 611 631
Branch Agencies
Department of Education 466 480 496
Department of Health Care Policy & Financing 628 648 667
Department of Higher Education 94 97 100
Department of Human Services 548 565 583
Department of Labor & Employment 1,081 1,080 1,089
Department of Local Affairs 170 175 181
Department of Natural Resources 520 537 552
Department of Personnel & Administration 294 304 313
Department of Public Safety 603 625 646
Department of Regulatory Agencies 614 661 686
Department of Revenue 1,032 1,109 1,147
Branch Agencies Total 6,050 6,281 6,460
Executive Total 6,643 6,892 7,091
LEGISLATIVE
Legislative
General Assembly 265 200 205
Joint Budget Committee 16 17 17
Legislative Council 69 76 82
Legislative Legal Services 49 53 57
State Auditor 68 70 72
Legislative Total 467 416 433
GRAND TOTAL 7,110 7,308 7,524
Percent Change from Existing 2.8% 5.8%
Source: CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August 2014.
3-14


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
Recommended Office Space Standard
To project space at a master planning level, a Department
Gross Square Foot per person standard is applied to
current and projected headcount to define future needs.
This provides a macro level space planning number that
can be used to test a variety of development options prior
to developing a detailed architectural space program.
The estimated requirements in this master plan are
based upon assigning an aggregate amount of space
per person and are not based upon the development of a
room-by-room identification of spaces.
Using the existing inventory data, the consultant team
reviewed the existing office DGSF for each department
and division. Current DGSF and headcount were used
to calculate existing SF/person, as discussed previously.
The planning target was then established by department
and division which for most functions is 220 SF/person
with a few exceptions. As shown previously, there is wide
variation in the existing SF/person metric from 138 to 422.
This is not uncommon as any facility portfolio has a mix of
historic buildings, functions housed in purpose built and
non-purpose built spaces for their mission, updated or
outdated facilities etc.
For projecting office space needs, three space standards
are recommended:
350 SF/person for executive offices located in the
Capitol Building;
275 SF/person for executive offices not located in
the Capitol Building; and
220 SF/person for the remaining office spaces.
For non-office spaces, the existing square footage was
used as an estimate of future needs (e.g. storage).
Space Projections
Table 4 shows the existing and projected space needs
through 2023 based on the recommended standards,
and projected headcount as defined above. Overall,
space need is projected to increase from an existing total
of 2.03 million square feet to 2.14 million square feet by
2023, a 110,710 SF increase, or 5.5% over the ten year
period. These projected requirements provide the basis
for considering alternative solutions to meet space needs
over time.
3-15
Table 4: Summary of Projected Space Need By Department
BRANCH/DEPARTMENT EXISTING SPACE 2018 SPACE 2023 SPACE
EXECUTIVE
Elected Officials
Office of the Governor, Executive 19,284 19,825 20,546
Office of the Governor, Economic Dev& International Trade 14,337 14,695 15,412
Office of the Governor, Energy 10,031 10,365 10,700
Office of the Governor, Information Technology 77,770 79,705 81,641
Office of the Governor, Storage 1,873 1,873 1,873
Office of Lieutenant Governor 3,242 3,242 3,398
Secretary of State 36,557 37,640 38,994
Department of Treasury 7,845 8,230 8,230
Elected Officials Total 170,939 175,576 180,793
Branch Agencies
Department of Education 87,153 89,681 92,775
Department of Health Care Policy & Financing 111,006 114,518 117,851
Department of Higher Education 39,624 40,841 42,176
Department of Human Services 99,087 102,161 105,416
Department of Labor & Employment 333,228 333,678 336,924
Department of Local Affairs 35,302 36,297 37,490
Department of Natural Resources 253,920 257,656 261,046
Department of Personnel & Administration 175,955 179,673 183,097
Department of Public Safety 128,674 133,400 137,457
Department of Regulatory Agencies 160,497 171,731 178,001
Department of Revenue 245,624 271,408 280,322
Branch Agencies Total 1,670,070 1,731,043 1,772,555
Executive Total 1,841,009 1,906,620 1,953,349
LEGISLATIVE
Legislative
General Assembly 127,681 118,008 118,008
Joint Budget Committee 5,620 5,971 5,971
Legislative Council 25,658 28,143 30,312
Legislative Legal Services 13,706 14,825 15,944
State Auditor 14,100 14,500 14,900
Legislative Total 186,765 181,448 185,135
GRAND TOTAL 2,027,774 2,088,067 2,138,484
Percent Change from Existing 3.0% 5.5%
Source: CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August 2014.


3.6 - Key Recommendations
CHAPTER 3.0 AGENCY SPACE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE LONG TERM STRATEGY FOR THE CAPITOL COMPLEX FACILITIES IS THE
REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OCCUPIED IN COMMERCIALLY
LEASED SPACE AND THE INCREASE OF STATE OWNED SPACE. CURRENTLY 39% OF
THE INVENTORY IS IN COMMERCIALLY LEASED SPACE.
A 5.5% GROWTH IN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IS PROJECTED OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS, DRIVING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE OVER AND ABOVE THE CURRENT
INVENTORY.
OF THE OWNED BUILDINGS, SEVERAL NEED SIGNIFICANT RENOVATION IN ORDER
TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR ON-GOING, LONG-TERM USE, MOST NOTABLY THE 1313
SHERMAN STREET, 1375 SHERMAN STREET AND 1570 GRANT STREET BUILDINGS.
IN RENOVATING ANY OF THE STATES OWNED INVENTORY, THERE IS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GREATLY IMPROVE THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR STATE
EMPLOYEES. THROUGH COST EFFECTIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS, EFFICIENT SPACE
PLANNING AND A REDUCTION IN WORKSTATION SIZES, THE STATE CAN ACHIEVE A
HIGHER DENSITY IN ITS BUILDINGS AND HELP CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL
HELP ATTRACT AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES.
REMODELING OF THESE FACILITIES, REPLACING LEASED SPACE WITH OWNED, AND
INCREASING THE OVERALL INVENTORY AVAILABLE PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES TO
RELOCATE AND CONSOLIDATE SOME FUNCTIONS TO IMPROVE AGENCY OPERATIONS
AS WELL AS TO CREATE MORE CONSISTENCY AND EFFICIENCY IN SPACE UTILIZATION
AND SPACE STANDARDS BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND AGENCIES.
3.0 Agencies
3-16




CAPITOL COMPLEX
MASTERPLAN


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.1 Methodology
The facility assessments provide Findings &
Recommendations (F&R) for the Capitol Complex
Buildings and Camp George West site. The reports
include a description and evaluation of the existing
conditions, recommendations, and cost estimates for
the recommended work from the following focus areas:
architecture, structural, civil, mechanical/electrical/
plumbing, voice and data/security and historical. The
project team reviewed existing building documentation,
drawings, and audit reports provided by the State,
and conducted site visits to identify and document the
observable existing conditions of the buildings and Camp
George West site and the code and life safety issues.
The buildings were in fair to poor condition. The following
table identifies the buildings with the greatest deficiencies
as well as the top five major deficiencies within each
building managed by Capitol Complex Facilities. The
FCI (Facilities Condition Index), as audited by the state,
is also shown for reference. The FCI is a numerical
representation of the condition of a facility on a scale of
1 to 100, with 1 being the lowest. The date of the most
recent FCI audit is indicated.
This chapter includes abridged facility assessments.
Complete assessments are included as Appendix 4 -
Comprehensive Facility Assessments.
Definitions
1. Life Safety (LS)
2. Loss of Use/Reliability (LOU)
3. Finishes (F)
4. Fair usable but in serious need of repair
5. Poor urgent need of repair, or life safety and/
or loss of use/reliability issues could result
4-1
4.2 - Facility Assessment & Priorities Summary
CAPITOL GENERAL FACILITIES
COMPLEX BUILDING CONDITION
PRIORITY LOCATION CONDITION INDEX (FCI) BUILDING PRIORITY ITEMS
Capitol Annex Building (1375 Sherman, Denver) Poor 36.35 (10/2009) 1. Total gut and renovation back to core shell (LS, LOU, F) 2. Asbestos abatement (LS, LOU) 3. Replace all electrical (LS, LOU) 4. Convert steam heat to hot water (LOU) 5. Replace all plumbing piping (LS, LOU)
Centennial Building (1313 Sherman, Denver) Poor 53.14 (2/2011) 1. Total gut and renovation back to core shell (LS, LOU, F) 2. Replace fire alarm (LS) 3. Replace all HVAC, add stair pressurization (LS, 4. Replace roof (LOU) 5. Replace all plumbing piping (LS, LOU)
1570 Grant Building (1570 Grant, Denver) Fair 60.07 (9/2010) 1. Modernize elevators (LS) 2. Replace windows (LOU) 3. Modify fire sprinkler system (LS) 4. Replace HVAC (LOU) 5. Replace AHU system in basement (LOU)
North Campus West Bldg. (1001 E. 62nd, Denver) Poor 39.78 (8/2012) 1. Demolish the building structure and rebuild to suit. OR. if the buildina cannot be demolished: 1. Fix/correct fuel testing room code issues (LS) 2. Fix/correct printer room code issues (LS) 3. Replace fire alarm/install fire sprinkler system (LS) 4. Replace roof and add fall protection (LS, LOU) 5. Replace HVAC (LOU)
1881 Pierce Building (1881 Pierce, Lakewood) Fair 61.51 (12/2010) 1. Modify fire sprinkler system to floor 1 (LS) 2. ADA upgrades (LS) 3. Repair/replace site paving (LS, LOU) 4. Asbestos assessment and abatement (LOU) 5. Replace HVAC system (LOU)


State Office Building (201 E. Colfax, Denver) Fair 69.02 (9/2007)
Legislative Services Building (200 E. 14th, Denver) Fair 54.12 (5/2012)
Human Services Building (1575 Sherman, Denver) Fair 60.27 (1/2013)
State Services Building (1525 Sherman, Denver) Fair 69.77 (10/2012)
Power Plant Building (1341 Sherman, Denver) Fair 60.98 (4/2012)
Dale Tooley Fair 64.71
Building (3/2010)
(690 Kipling, Lakewood)
700 Kipling Fair 69.92
Building (6/2010)
(700 Kipling, Lakewood)
. Replace fire sprinkler piping (LS)
. Provide fall protection at roof (LS)
. Replace north chiller (LOU)
. Replace windows (LOU)
. Replace/repair exterior sealant & grout (LOU)
. Add panic devices on alley gates to allow exit to
public way (LS)
. Upgrade fire alarm (LS)
. FL 3 Hearing Rm: need fire rated wall & change door
swing (LS)
. Replace windows & exterior doors (LOU)
. Replace electric panel boards, past useful life (LOU)
. Replace engine generator (LS)
. Replace electrical panels & receptacles (LS, LOU)
. Accessibility upgrades (LS)
. Replace roof (LOU)
. Light fixture & control upgrade (LOU)
. Replace fire alarm (LS)
. Replace engine generator (LS)
. Insulate exterior walls (LOU)
. Replace roof (LOU)
. Repair/replace exterior sealant (LOU)
. Install a full fire alarm & detection system through
out (LS)
. Install fall protection (LS)
. Replace all panel boards & receptacles over 25
years old (LS, LOU)
. Repair exterior walls & window leaks (LOU)
. Replace lighting (LOU)
. Replace fire alarm (LS)
. Modernize elevator (LS)
. Total redo of data center UPS (LOU)
. Add electrical capacity (LOU)
. Replace windows (LOU)
. Upgrade fire alarm (LS)
. Elevator modernization (LS)
. Replace roof (LOU)
. HVAC upgrade (LOU)
. Repair exterior wall & window leaks (LOU)
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
1
2,
3,
4,
5,
4.0 Facility Assessments
State Capitol Fair 44.47
(200 E. Colfax, Denver) (10/2009)
North Poor 48.74
Campus North Bldg. (8/2012)
(6321 N. Downing, Denver)
North Poor 53.57
Campus East Bldg. (8/2012)
(6221 N. Downing, Denver)
Executive Fair 51.65
Residence (12/2011)
(400 E. 8th, Denver) Fair 69.13
(Carriage House 3/2012)
G. J. State Services Fair 57.32
Building (4/2011)
(222 S. 6th, Grand Junction)
Camp George Poor None
West Site
(15000 S.
Golden, Pleasant
View)
1. Replace roof (LOU)
2. Repair short tunnel roof/structural (LS)
3. Windows & fagade restoration/repair (LOU)
4. Plumbing system repair/replacement (LOU)
5. Site repair: sidewalk, paving & drainage (LS, LOU)
1. Demolish the original building structure and rebuild
to suit.
OR. if the building cannot be demolished:
1. Add fire sprinkler system (LS)
2. Replace fire alarm (LS)
3. Replace roof and add fall protection (LS, LOU)
4. Upgrade lights (LOU)
5. Replace original building skin, doors, and windows
(LOU)
1. Demolish the building structure and rebuild to suit.
OR. if the building cannot be demolished:
1. Replace roof and add fall protection (LS, LOU)
2. Replace windows (LOU)
3. Add lighting controls (LOU)
4. Repair/replace sealant (LOU)
5. Repair/replace asphalt (LS, LOU)
1. Replace electric panel boards & wiring past useful
life (LS, LOU)
2. Rebuild brick wall adjacent to visitor center (LS)
3. Repair drainage problems (LOU)
4. Re-tuck point stone and brick (F)
5. Replace roof (LOU)
1. Repair/replace parking lots/sidewalks (LS, LOU)
2. Replace roof (LS, LOU)
3. Replace condensing unit (LOU)
4. Upgrade lighting/add more controls (LOU)
5. Replace waterproof membrane at berm/building
(LOU)
1. Assessment of underground utilities (LOU)
2. Add additional site lighting (LS)
3. Repair/replace broken & cracked concrete on site
(LS, LOU)
4. Drainage improvements (LOU)
5. Repair/replace site asphalt (LS, LOU)


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.3 - Facility Overviews
4.3.1 CAPITOL ANNEX BUILDING
1375 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 1 14,228 GSF
Constructed: 1937
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
Department of Revenue
FCI: 36.35/100.00, 10/2009
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $22,321,671
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $22,688,430.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Total gut and renovation of the building back to the
core shell, with the exception of the historically-
protected areas outlined in the facility assessment,
including, but not limited to, the replacement of
all windows and converting steam heat to hot
water. This would provide an effective approach
for abating all asbestos, replacing all of the aged
electrical systems, replacing all of the old plumbing
piping, and providing a more efficient layout. These
recommendations encompass life safety, loss of
use/reliability, finishes, and overall energy efficiency
issues. Cost Estimate: $22,321,671.
2. Asbestos abatement. This recommendation
encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability
issues. Cost estimate: $710,767.
3. Replace all electrical. This recommendation
encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability
issues and is due to electrical code issues
including an inadequate service load capacity. Cost
estimate: $3,202,081
4. Convert steam heat to hot water. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability and overall energy efficiency issues
and is due to the inability to maintain a consistent
comfortable working temperature within the
building. Cost estimate: $5,434,187.
5. Replace all plumbing piping. This recommendation
encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability
issues and is due to plumbing code issues as well
as ongoing maintenance efforts. Cost estimate:
$2,899,510.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4-3
4.3.2 CENTENNIAL BUILDING
1313 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 207,091 GSF
Constructed: 1976
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
Department of Local Affairs
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Personnel & Administration
(Archives)
FCI: 53.14/100.00, 2/201 1
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top 5 priorities, the cost estimate is: $34,212,015.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $34,482,015.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Total gut and renovation back to core shell,
including, but not limited to, replacing the roof,
replacing the windows, replacing the aged fire
alarm system and HVAC systems, adding stair
pressurization for life safety, installing energy
saving lighting, adding insulation to the exterior
walls, and providing a more efficient layout. These
recommendations encompass life safety, loss of
use/reliability, finishes, and overall energy efficiency
issues. Cost estimate: $34,212,015.
2. Replace fire alarm. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to fire
protection code issues and the age of the system.
Cost estimate: $291,541.
3. Replace all HVAC, add stair pressurization. This
recommendation encompasses life safety issues
and overall energy efficiency issues and is due to
the age of the HVAC systems and to fire protection
code issues. Cost estimate: $9,839,947.
4. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age of
the roof. Cost estimate: $301,539.
5. Replace all plumbing piping. This recommendation
encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability
issues. Cost estimate: $2,722,582.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


4.3.3 1570 GRANT BUILDING
1570 GRANT STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 47,749 GSF
Constructed: 1956
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: 2001
Agency Tenants:
Department of Health Care Policy & Financing
FCI: 60.07/100.00, 9/2010
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $5,573,428.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $5,643,711.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Modernize elevators. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to
the age of the elevator systems. Cost estimate:
$71,420.
2. Replace windows. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to the
age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate:
$1,133,406.
3. Modify fire sprinkler system. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to
egress issues from the building and fire protection
code issues. Cost estimate: $545,534.
4. Replace HVAC. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to
the age of the HVAC systems. Cost estimate:
$1,900,098.
5. Replace AHU system in basement. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability issues and overall energy efficiency
issues and is due to the age of the system. Cost
estimate: $294,642.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4.0 Facility Assessments
4.3.4 NORTH CAMPUS WEST BUILDING
1001 EAST 62ND AVENUE (DENVER)
Building Area: 37,763 GSF
Constructed: 1968
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: 1976
Agency tenants:
Department of Personnel & Administration (Division
of Central Services)
FCI: 39.78/100.00, 8/2012
Costs to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $4,939,494.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $5,469,429.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Correct fuel testing room code issues. This
recommendation encompasses life safety issues
and is related to the hazardous materials stored
and tested in the room and fire protection code
and National Electrical Code issues. Cost estimate:
$189,661.
2. Correct print shop code issues. This
recommendation encompasses life safety issues
and is due to the levels of paper dust accumulation
throughout and fire protection code and National
Electrical Code issues. Cost estimate: $202,396.
3. Replace fire alarm/install fire sprinkler system. This
recommendation encompasses life safety issues
and is due to the age of the fire alarm system and
fire protection code issues related to the fuel testing
room and print shop code issues. Cost estimate:
$289,938.
4. Replace roof and add fall protection. This
recommendation encompasses life safety and
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age
and condition of the roof and the fact that no fall
protection is provided. Cost estimate: $565,523.
5. Replace HVAC. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to
the age and condition of the HVAC system and
the inability to maintain a consistent comfortable
working temperature within the building. Also
provide air distribution, as part of the overall
project, in the main entrance and lobby spaces
which currently use portable heaters to provide
heat. Cost estimate: $687,552.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4-4


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.3.5 1881 PIERCE BUILDING
1881 PIERCE STREET (LAKEWOOD)
Building Area: 122,542 GSF
Constructed: 1972
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: 1983
Agency Tenants:
Department of Revenue
FCI: 61.51/100.00, 12/2010
Costs to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $9,583,603.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $9,724,003.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Install fire sprinkler system throughout the first floor.
This recommendation encompasses life safety
issues and is due to egress and fire protection code
issues. Cost estimate: $949,488.
2. Accessibility upgrades. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to a
number of non-accessible drinking fountains and
other non-accessible features found throughout
the restrooms and break rooms. Cost estimate:
$328,957.
3. Repair/replace site paving. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and loss of
use/reliability issues and is due to the overall
deterioration of the site pavement which is
creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate:
$2,830,816.
4. Asbestos assessment and abatement. This
recommendation encompasses life safety issues.
Cost estimate: $634,199.
5. Replace HVAC system. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to
the age and condition of the HVAC system and
the inability to maintain a consistent comfortable
working temperature within the building. Cost
estimate: $542,650.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4.3.6 STATE OFFICE BUILDING
201 EAST COLFAX AVENUE (DENVER)
Building Area: 78,115 GSF
Constructed: 1921
Remodeled: 1985
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
Department of Education
FCI: 69.02/100.00, 9/2007
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $5,476,204.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $5,724,206.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Replace fire sprinkler piping. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to the
age of the fire sprinkler piping and fire protection
code issues. Cost estimate: $782,031.
2. Provide fall protection at roof. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to code
issues and the fact that inadequate fall protection is
provided at the roof. Cost estimate: $26,857.
3. Replace north chiller. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability and overall
energy efficiency issues and is due to the current
systems inability to meet the building load. Cost
estimate: $613,487.
4. Replace windows. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to the
age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate:
$1,076,998.
5. Replace/repair exterior sealant and grout.
This recommendation encompasses loss of
use/reliability issues and is due to the overall
deterioration of the sealant and grout which
is creating access points by which water can
penetrate the building envelope. Cost estimate:
$80,342.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


4.3.7 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES BUILDING
200 EAST 14TH AVENUE (DENVER)
Building Area: 59,301 GSF
Constructed: 1915
Remodeled: 1986
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
General Assembly
Joint Budget Committee
Legislative Council
FCI: 54.12/100.00, 5/2012
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $4,528,638.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $4,609,638.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Add panic devices on alley gates to allow exit to
public way. This recommendation encompasses life
safety issues and is due to egress issues from the
building. Cost estimate: $51,056.
2. Upgrade fire alarm. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to the
age of the system and fire protection code issues.
Cost estimate: $33,881.
3. Floor 3, Hearing Room: need fire rated wall
and change door swing. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to
fire protection code issues related to assembly
occupancies. Cost estimate: $98,727.
4. Replace windows and exterior doors. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability issues and overall energy efficiency
issues and is due to the age and condition of
the windows and exterior doors. Cost estimate:
$332,038.
5. Replace electric panel boards. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability issues and overall energy efficiency
issues and is due to the age of the panel boards.
Cost estimate: $602,620.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4.0 Facility Assessments
4.3.8 HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING
1575 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 145,370 GSF
Constructed: 1952
Remodeled: 1987
Acquired: 1964
Agency Tenants:
Department of Human Services
FCI: 60.27/100.00, 1/2013
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $15,146,974.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $16,503,123.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Replace engine generator. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues due to the age of
the generator which is used for emergency power.
Cost estimate: $438,599.
2. Replace electrical panels and receptacles. This
recommendation encompasses life safety, loss
of use/reliability, and overall energy efficiency
issues and is due to the age of the panels and
receptacles. Cost estimate: $3,848,536.
3. Accessibility upgrades. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to non-
accessible features found throughout the restrooms
and break rooms. Cost estimate: $136,051.
4. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age
and condition of the roof. Cost estimate: $609,958.
5. Light fixture and controls upgrade. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability
issues and overall energy efficiency issues and is
due to the age of the T8 fluorescent fixtures and
controls. Cost estimate: $1,012,390.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.3.9 STATE SERVICES BUILDING
1525 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 165,930 GSF
Constructed: 1960
Remodeled: 1992 and 2013
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
Department of Personnel & Administration
General Assembly
State Auditor
FCI: 69.77/100.00, 10/2012
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $10,168,019.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $10,438,019.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Replace fire alarm. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to fire
protection code issues and the age of the system.
Cost estimate: $643,728.
2. Replace engine generator. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues. Cost estimate:
$161,301.
3. Insulate exterior walls. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability and energy.
Cost estimate: $1,188,172.
4. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age
and condition of the roof. Cost estimate: $638,206.
5. Repair/replace exterior sealant. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability
issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the
sealant which is creating access points by which
water can penetrate the building envelope. Cost
estimate: $569,715.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4-7
4.3.10 POWER PLANT BUILDING
1341 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 25,690 GSF
Constructed: 1939
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
Department of Public Safety CSP
FCI: 60.98/100.00, 4/2012
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in this report are
implemented as a single project, including the top
five priorities, the cost estimate is: $4,598,921.
If all recommendations in this report are
implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $4,970,686.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Install a full fire alarm and detection system
throughout. This recommendation encompasses
life safety issues and is due to the lack of a full
detection fire alarm system. Cost estimate: $32,101.
2. Provide fall protection at roof. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to code
issues and the fact that inadequate fall protection is
provided at the roof. Cost estimate: $20,269.
3. Replace all electrical panels and receptacles that
are past their useful life. This recommendation
encompasses life safety, loss of use/reliability, and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to the
age of the panels and receptacles. Cost estimate:
$898,703.
4. Repair exterior walls and window leaks. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability issues and is due to the age and
condition of the windows and the cladding on the
building and the overall deterioration of the mortar
and sealant. Cost estimate: $665,694.
5. Replace lighting. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is
due to the age and condition of the fixtures. Cost
estimate: $187,710.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


4.3.11 DALE TOOLEY BUILDING
690 KIPLING STREET (LAKEWOOD)
Building Area: 67,035 GSF
Constructed: 1985
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: 1985
Agency Tenants:
Department of Public Safety
Office of Information Technology
FCI: 64.71/100.00, 3/2010
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $8,857,325.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $8,949,125.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Replace fire alarm. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to fire
protection code issues and the age of the system.
Cost estimate: $239,328.
2. Modernize elevators. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to
the age of the elevator systems. Cost estimate:
$204,275.
3. Upgrade the data center UPS. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability issues and is due to the need for a
UPS system that will provide adequate capacity,
reliability, and redundancy. Cost estimate:
$224,328.
4. Add electrical capacity. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
is due to the need for increased capacity. Cost
estimate: $1,018,827.
5. Replace windows. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is
due to the age and condition of the windows. Cost
estimate: $856,823.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4.0 Facility Assessments
4.3.12 700 KIPLING BUILDING
700 KIPLING STREET (LAKEWOOD)
Building Area: 60,964 GSF
Constructed: 1985
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: 1992
Agency Tenants:
Department of Public Safety
FCI: 69.92/100.00, 6/2010
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $9,113,674.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $9,329,674.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Upgrade fire alarm. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to fire
protection code issues and the age of the system.
Cost estimate: $111,882.
2. Modernize elevators. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to the
age and condition of the elevator systems. Cost
estimate: $87,035.
3. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age
and condition of the roof. Cost estimate: $275,345.
4. HVAC upgrade. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to the
age and condition of the HVAC system, including
VAV boxes, and the inability to maintain a consistent
comfortable working temperature within the
building. Cost estimate: $2,864,999.
5. Repair exterior walls and window leaks. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability and overall energy efficiency issues and
is due to the overall deterioration of the mortar and
sealant, which is creating access points by which
water can penetrate the building envelope, and the
age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate:
$1,862,908.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.3.13 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
200 EAST COLFAX AVENUE (DENVER)
Building Area: 323,813 GSF
Constructed: 1895-1903
Remodeled: Life safety upgrade 2009, dome
restoration 2014
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
General Assembly
Legislative Council
Legislative Legal Services
Office of the Governor
Office of Lieutenant Governor
Department of Treasury
Department of Public Safety CSP
Department of Personnel and Administration CCF
FCI: 44.47/100.00, 10/2009
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment are
implemented as a single project, including the top
five priorities, the cost estimate is: $60,328,458.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $61,845,759.
Five Major Deficiencies
1. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the
age and condition of the roof. Cost estimate:
$2,873,728.
2. Repair short tunnel roof/structural. This
recommendation encompasses life safety issues
and is due to the age and general deterioration
of the tunnel over the past 115+ years, ongoing
maintenance efforts, and the potential hazard
to motorists passing overhead. Cost estimate:
$11,764,925.
3. Windows and facade restoration/repair. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability
and overall energy efficiency issues and is due to
the age and condition of the windows and facade.
Cost estimate: $10,467,816.
4. Plumbing system repair/replacement. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability
issues and is due to the age and condition of the
plumbing as well as ongoing maintenance efforts.
Cost estimate: $6,190,182.
5. Site repair: sidewalk, paving, and drainage. This
recommendation encompasses life safety and
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the
overall deterioration of the site pavement which is
creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate:
$1,267,662.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4-9
4.3.14 NORTH CAMPUS NORTH BUILDING
^3
6321 NORTH DOWNING STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 23,630 GSF
Constructed: 1968
Remodeled: A west addition, approximately 10 years
ago
Acquired: 1976
Agency Tenants:
Department of Personnel & Administration (Division
of Central Services Primarily Storage)
FCI: 48.74/100.00, 8/2012
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $2,788,886.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $3,036,190.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Add fire sprinkler system. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to
egress and fire protection code issues. Cost
estimate: $150,686.
2. Replace fire alarm. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to fire
protection code issues and the age of the system.
Cost estimate: $60,888.
3. Replace roof and add fall protection. This
recommendation encompasses life safety and
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age
and condition of the roof and the fact that no fall
protection is provided. Cost estimate: $378,738.
4. Upgrade lights. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is
due to the age and condition of the T8 fluorescent
fixtures. Cost estimate: $185,071.
5. Replace original building skin, doors, and windows.
This recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability issues and is due to the age and overall
deterioration of the original building skin, doors,
and windows. Cost estimate: $341,604.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


4.3.15 NORTH CAMPUS EAST BUILDING
6221 NORTH DOWNING STREET (DENVER)
Building Area: 39,195 GSF
Constructed: 1968
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: 1976
Agency Tenants:
Department of Personnel & Administration (Storage)
FCI: 53.57/100.00, 8/2012
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $2,126,672.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $2,373,976.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Replace roof and add fall protection. This
recommendation encompasses life safety and
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age
and condition of the roof and the fact that no fall
protection is provided. Cost estimate: $551,571.
2. Replace windows. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is
due to the age and condition of the windows. Cost
estimate: $37,954.
3. Add lighting controls. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability and overall
energy efficiency issues and is due to the need
for automatic occupancy controls. Cost estimate:
$51,644.
4. Repair/replace sealant. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
is due to the overall deterioration of the sealant
which is creating access points by which water can
penetrate the building envelope. Cost estimate:
$64,028.
5. Repair/replace site paving. This recommendation
encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability
issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the
site pavement which is creating a potential tripping
hazard. Cost estimate: $467,733.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4.0 Facility Assessments
4.3.16 EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE
Five Major Deficiencies:
400 EAST 8TH AVENUE (DENVER)
Building Area: 26,431 GSF
Constructed: 1908
Remodeled: Residence N/A, Carriage Flouse 2006
Acquired: 1959
Agency Tenants:
Governors Residence
FCI: 51.65/100.00, 12/201 1, Residence
69.13/100.00, 3/2012, Carriage House
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $7,266,211.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $8,540,834.
1. Replace electric panel boards and wiring that
are past their useful life. This recommendation
encompasses life safety, loss of use/reliability,
and overall energy efficiency issues and is due to
the age of the panels and wiring. Cost estimate:
$502,341.
2. Rebuild brick wall adjacent to visitor center.
This recommendation encompasses life safety
issues and is due to the fact that the wall is failing
structurally along the eastern and southern portions
of the terraced grounds, near the Tebo Visitors
Center. Cost estimate: $198,017.
3. Repair drainage problems. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is
due to damage that has occurred to the building
and site retaining walls from standing water
and other drainage problems. Cost estimate:
$1,197,887.
4. Tuck point the stone and brick. This
recommendation encompasses issues with the
buildings exterior finishes and is due to the
deterioration of the mortar which is creating access
points by which water can penetrate the building
envelope. Cost estimate: $777,000.
5. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age
of the roof and problems with water leaks. Cost
estimate: $518,845.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.3.17 GRAND JUNCTION STATE SERVICES
BUILDING
222 SOUTH 6TH STREET (GRAND JUNCTION)
Building Area: 52,000 GSF
Constructed: 1983
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: N/A
Agency Tenants:
Department of Personnel & Administration
Department of Public Health & Environment
Department of Labor & Employment
Department of Local Affairs
Department of Revenue
Department of Transportation
Department of Regulatory Agencies
Department of Natural Resources
FCI: 57.32/100.00, 4/2011
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment are
implemented as a single project, including the top
five priorities, the cost estimate is: $6,419,618.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $7,064,335.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Repair/replace parking lots/sidewalks. This
recommendation encompasses life safety and
loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the
overall deterioration of the site pavement which is
creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate:
$157,527.
2. Replace roof and provide fall protection. This
recommendation encompasses life safety and loss
of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and
condition of the roof and the fact that inadequate
fall protection is provided. Cost estimate: $220,378.
3. Replace condensing unit. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
overall energy efficiency issues and is due to
the age of the condensing unit. Cost estimate:
$101,273.
4. Upgrade lighting/add more controls. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability
issues and overall energy efficiency issues and is
due to the age and condition of the T8 fluorescent
fixtures and the buildings current lighting control
system which turns all lighting on at 5:30 a.m. and
off at 9:30 p.m. Cost estimate: $996,129.
5. Replace waterproof membrane along the
foundation on the south side of the building. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability
issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the
waterproof membrane. Cost estimate: $82,630.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.
4-11
4.3.18 CAMP GEORGE WEST
15000 SOUTH GOLDEN ROAD (PLEASANT VIEW)
Site Area: 290 acres
Constructed: 1903
Remodeled: N/A
Acquired: 1999 (DPA)
Agency Tenants:
Department of Corrections
Department of Public Safety
Department of Transportation
FCI: None
Cost to Remodel:
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented as a single project, including the
top five priorities, the cost estimate is: $13,847,708.
If all recommendations in the facility assessment
are implemented system by system as multiple
projects, including the top five priorities (systems),
the cost estimate is: $14,697,457.
Five Major Deficiencies:
1. Assessment of underground utilities. This
recommendation encompasses loss of use/
reliability issues. Cost estimate: $332,779.
2. Add additional site lighting. This recommendation
encompasses life safety issues and is due to areas
of the site without any lighting and inadequate site
lighting along roadways, parking lots, and storage
areas. Cost estimate: $633,895.
3. Repair/replace broken and cracked concrete on
site. This recommendation encompasses life safety
and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the
overall deterioration of the site pavement which is
creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate:
$2,125,156.
4. Drainage improvements. This recommendation
encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and
is due to problems with local flooding occurring
on-site and the flooding of numerous existing
structures during minor storm events. Cost
estimate: $3,533,749.
5. Repair/replace site asphalt. This recommendation
encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability
issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the
site pavement which is creating a potential tripping
hazard. Cost estimate: $5,406,945.
NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars
and should be escalated to the year construction
will occur.


4.4 - Sustainability Goals
4.4.1 OVERVIEW
The long range planning of the State Capitol Complex
is an excellent opportunity to integrate sustainability
goals and approaches that can be implemented with the
master plan. The goals are incremental with improved
performance each year, to the year 2030. Achieving the
sustainability goals are not only an important way for the
State to demonstrate leadership around stewardship of
the states resources; it is also a good business case for
increased efficiency of operation. The goals outlined in
this report are focused on energy, water and waste as
key drivers of performance. To achieve these goals it is
critical that a Sustainability Manager position is created
with the responsibility for the position recognized at all
management levels within the department. However,
while pursuing these goals it is important to also keep a
focus on the pursuit of holistic sustainability, including
the health and wellbeing of state employees, customers,
and other visitors of state facilities. Social sustainability
often goes hand-in-hand with energy efficiency goals as
they can increase thermal comfort, improve air quality
and enhance daylighting. In addition, there is a great
opportunity to leverage the inherent sustainability in
renovating existing buildings, particularly the historic state
buildings in downtown Denver, which are an important
part of the citys fabric.
An important component of the sustainability plan is the
tracking of utility usage and cost. For DPA, one of the
largest challenges has been its ability to track and report
on utility information. DPA, through support from the
Colorado Energy Office, has taken action toward tracking
utility information with the implementation of EnergyCAP,
a web-based energy accounting software that tracks and
helps analyze energy and water utility bills. The entering
of utility data into EnergyCAP has only recently been
completed. A critical step is the verification of tracked
utility data against the invoices from the respective
utility vendors. The 2013 Capital Complex Energy Use
table created from EnergyCAP data indicates a total
energy cost that was lower than actual utility budget
figures. It is critical that EnergyCAP data be verified
against utility vendor invoices. A comprehensive tracking
and management plan will result in better information
and communication about progress and spur further
performance improvements over time.
Policy and guidance for sustainability and energy
efficiency within the States own building portfolio is driven
from state statutes, executive orders and department
initiatives. Greening of State Government Executive
Orders D011 07 and D012 07 were signed by Governor
Bill Ritter, Jr. in 2007. The Greening Government executive
orders called for a variety of goals to be achieved by June
20, 2012.
The state has had some success and some challenges
in meeting these goals. The State of Colorado has been
a long time leader in the use of energy performance
contracting (EPC) to fund energy efficiency projects for
State-owned buildings. For example, in 2010 there were
19 State entity projects that utilized EPCs for a total of
$72 million. These projects save 16.1 million kWh of
electricity, 77,881 MMBtu of fuel and $2.8 million in energy
costs annually. One very notable EPC is the geothermal
heating and cooling system project for the State Capitol
completed in 2013. The project is a first of its kind for any
state capitol and is projected to save the state $100,000
in heating and cooling energy costs in the first year.
The state introduced an environmentally preferable
purchasing policy (EPP) in 2009. The policy is
designed to reduce consumption, waste, and possible
environmental impacts by following a set of green
purchasing guidelines. Further efforts to reduce paper
use and increase recycling have been introduced at
agencies across the state government.
4.0 Facility Assessments
Greening Government Goals
1. Reduce energy use by 20%
2. Reduce paper use by 20%
3. Reduce water consumption by 10%
4. Reduce state vehicle petroleum consumption by
25% (volumetric reduction)
5. To track and report greening government
performance, each state department and campus
will create a sustainability management system.
The overarching goal is for a 2%
reduction each year in energy, water and
waste based on the aggregate tracking of
all facilities within the capitol complex.
4-12


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.4.2 ENERGY, WATER AND WASTE
REDUCTION GOALS
The buildings in the State Capitol Complex should
achieve specific energy, water and waste reduction
goals compared to a baseline of current consumption
metrics. The State uses a program called EnergyCAP to
track energy and water use at many of the facilities in the
Capitol Complex. The data derived from EnergyCAP was
used to help set energy and water use reduction goals for
the Capitol Complex in this master plan. Currently waste
and waste diversion/recycling activities are not tracked.
In concert with energy, water and waste reduction goals
it is recommended that the Capitol Complex consider
certifying buildings within the complex under LEED for
Buildings Operations and Maintenance. Each building
should be reviewed for the feasibility of LEED O+M
certification. It is important for the State to utilize industry
tools and benchmarks to improve and assess building
operation over time and LEED O+M provides a valuable
framework for meeting the energy, water and waste
reduction goals in this master plan.
One of the most successful programs implemented by
the state is the High Performance Certification Program
(HPCP). The EIPCP requires all new facilities, additions
and renovation projects greater than 5,000 sf to conform
to the policy adopted by the Office of the State Architect.
For most qualifying projects the goal is LEED Gold.
Further the State Architect has established sustainability
priorities within the LEED rating system that include
minimum energy performance, enhanced commissioning
(over 20,000 sf), measurement and verification (over
50,000 sf), potable water reduction goals, indoor
environmental quality goals and construction waste
and materials goals. As a result of the state leading by
example, Colorado was ranked 8th in the nation for LEED
buildings per capita in 2013.
Energy Reduction Goals
The potential energy use reduction presented is based
upon benchmarking buildings against industry standards.
The EPA ENERGY STAR program and the Architecture
2030 Challenge are two industry recognized benchmarks
relevant to DPA. The ENERGY STAR program was
designed to compare similar buildings to indicate how
they perform. The table below shows ENERGY STAR
benchmark data applicable to the Capitol Complex
using the average facility size for the Capitol Complex,
an office building type, and a zip code of 80203. The
2030 Challenge has established goals to seek, once the
buildings are benchmarked. The EnergyCAP program is
the tool that provides the benchmark numbers. As stated,
the information in EnergyCAP needs to be validated.
The value of projecting savings is important to indicate
potential savings; once the EnergyCAP data is validated,
it is assumed that the final tracked savings will be greater.
The baseline energy use is derived from EnergyCAP
using annual data for each building. It is useful to review
the energy benchmarks by location and not for the
Capitol Complex portfolio of buildings. The facility at 690
Kipling has a high energy use index (EUI) of 353.1 kBtu/
sf/year because it houses a data center and therefore,
is not representational of the remainder of the Capitol
Complex. A useful subgroup of buildings to track is the
buildings in downtown Denver connected to Xcels central
steam plant. This subgroup of buildings has a 2013 EUI
of 54.1 kBtu/sf/year, and an ECI of $1.13/sf/year. The
energy baseline includes energy use only associated
with buildings in the scope of this master plan. The IDS
building in Pueblo is not included in the scope of this plan
and is not included in the EnergyCAP database. As a
clarifying note the conversion of pounds of steam to BTUs
is based on the ENERGY STAR conversion rate of 1,200
kBTU per MLB (1,000 LB of steam). Refer to the following
table for details on the 2013 Capitol Complex energy use.
4-13
2013 Capital Complex Energy Use
Address Bldg Name Const Gross Area Electric Steam 2013 Natural Gas Total Energy Per SF
1 1575 Sherman Human Services Bldg 1952 145,370 1,391,959 kWh 877 MLB
4,749,364 kBtu 1,052,400 kBtu 5,801,764 kBtu 39.9 kBtu/SF
115,690 $ 20,193 $ 135,883 $ 0.93 $/SF
2 1525 Sherman State Services Bldg 1960 165,930 2,551,925 kWh 565 MLB 4,793 DKTHM
8,707,168 kBtu 678,000 kBtu 4,793,000 kBtu 14,178,168 kBtu 85.4 kBtu/SF
212,099 $ 15,976 $ 28,600 $ 256,675 $ 1.55 $/SF
3 1570 Grant 1956 47,749 401,523 kWh 1,762 DKTHM
1,369,996 kBtu 1,762,000 kBtu 3,131,996 kBtu 65.6 kBtu/SF
46,791 $ 10,041 $ 56,832 $ 1.19 $/SF
4 201 E Colfax State Office Bldg 1921 78,115 1,160,046 kWh 239 MLB
3,958,077 kBtu 286,800 kBtu 4,244,877 kBtu 54.3 kBtu/SF
96,832 $ 9,147 $ 105,979 $ 1.36 $/SF
5 200 E Colfax State Capitol 1903 323,813 2,087,938 kWh 5,915 MLB
7,124,044 kBtu 7,098,000 kBtu 14,222,044 kBtu 43.9 kBtu/SF
173,536 $ 101,640 $ 275,176 $ 0.85 $/SF
6 1313 Sherman Centennial Bldg 1976 207,091 1,739,949 kWh 1,643 MLB
5,936,706 kBtu 1,971,600 kBtu 7,908,306 kBtu 38.2 kBtu/SF
144,613 $ 41,094 $ 239 $ 185,946 $ 0.90 $/SF
7 1375 Sherman Capitol Annex Bldg 1937 114,228 928,012 kWh 3,502 MLB
3,166,377 kBtu 4,202,400 kBtu 7,368,777 kBtu 64.5 kBtu/SF
77,319 $ 83,178 $ 160,497 $ 1.41 $/SF
8 200 E 14th Legislative Services Bldg 1915 59,301 927,973 kWh 33 MLB 1,076 DKTHM
3,166,244 kBtu 39,600 kBtu 1,076,000 kBtu 4,281,844 kBtu 72.2 kBtu/SF
77,127 $ 3,911 $ 6,661 $ 87,699 $ 1.48 $/SF
9 1341 Sherman Power Plant 1939 25,690 579,983 kWh 483 MLB
1,978,902 kBtu 579,600 kBtu 2,558,502 kBtu 99.6 kBtu/SF
48,204 $ 12,947 $ 61,151 $ 2.38 $/SF
10 400 East 8th Ave Exec Residence 1908 31,268 297,381 kWh 877 DKTHM
& Carriage House 1,014,664 kBtu 877,000 kBtu 1,891,664 kBtu 60.5 kBtu/SF
30,562 $ 5,361 $ 35,923 $ 1.15 $/SF
11 690 Kipling Dale Tooley Bldg 1985 67,035 6,348,216 kWh 2,012 DKTHM
21,660,113 kBtu 2,012,000 kBtu 23,672,113 kBtu 353.1 kBtu/SF
489,141 $ 11,249 $ 500,390 $ 7.46 $/SF
12 700 Kipling 1985 60,964 774,065 kWh
2,641,110 kBtu 2,641,110 kBtu 43.3 kBtu/SF
101,743 $ 101,743 $ 1.67 $/SF
13 1881 Pierce 1972 122,542 1,535,981 kWh 3,051 DKTHM
5,240,767 kBtu 3,051,000 kBtu 8,291,767 kBtu 67.7 kBtu/SF
130,144 $ 16,654 $ 146,798 $ 1.20 $/SF
14 6321 North Downing North Campus North Bldg 1968 23,630 No data in EnergyCAP
15 6221 North Downing North Campus East Bldg 1968 39,195 105,920 kWh 11 THERMS
(2011 Data as building was vacant in 2012 and 2013) 361,399 kBtu 1,100 kBtu 362,499 kBtu 9.2 kBtu/SF
(Meter address in EnergyCAP as 6215 Downing) 8,873 $ 257 $ 9,130 $ 0.23 $/SF
16 1001 East 62nd Ave North Campus West Bldg 1968 37,763 672,362 kWh 16,847 THERMS
2,294,099 kBtu 1,684,700 kBtu 3,978,799 kBtu 105.4 kBtu/SF
62,580 $ 9,345 $ 71,925 $ 1.90 $/SF
17 222 South 6th Grand Junction 1983 52,000 705,760 kWh 19,416 THERMS
2,408,053 kBtu 1,941,600 kBtu 4,349,653 kBtu 83.6 kBtu/SF
62,985 $ 11,420 $ 74,405 $ 1.43 $/SF
18 15000 S. Golden Rd Camp George West, Site 0 No data in EnergyCAP, not a building
Totals
Buildings with Energy Data
108,883,884 kBtu I
2,266,152 S I
69.0 kBtu/SF
1.44 S/SF
Buildings with Energy Data
(excluding 690 Kipling)
85,211,771 kBtu I
1,765,762 S I
56.4 kBtu/SF
1.17 S/SF
Buildings on Steam
60,564,282 kBtu I
1,269,006 S I
54.1 kBtu/SF
1.13 S/SF


The 2030 Challenge stipulates that existing buildings
should reduce energy use by 50% by 2030 from an
ENERGY STAR score of 50 as a baseline. The challenge
includes incremental goals between now and the year
2030 to build to the 50% overall reduction. In this scenario
the baseline ENERGY STAR score of 50 has a EUI of 96.7
kBtu/sf/year and would need to be reduced to 48.4 kBtu/
sf/year by the year 2030 to meet the industry challenge.
The Energy Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 table outlines
the impact of the Capitol Complexs energy reduction goal
of a 2% reduction per year. It assumes a 2% reduction on
the previous years energy use for each year up to 2030.
Note that the last year (2030) calls for a 3% reduction to
bring the overall accumulative reduction to approximately
30% in 2030 compared with the 2013 baseline. This
table uses the 2013 data from EnergyCAP for all Capitol
Complex buildings as its baseline, and is therefore
more aggressive than the 2030 Challenge. The annual
and accumulative energy cost savings do not include
escalation of energy cost, nor do they include a discount
rate to account for the time value of money. Considering
that the utility budget is just over $4 million in FY12-13
and the EnergyCAP data indicates the utility cost is just
under $2.4 million, the projected accumulated saving
could be over $10 million and not the $6,347,969 as
indicated. Note that energy escalation typically outpaces
inflation over time so these savings are conservative.
It is critical that the Sustainability Manager update the
departments sustainable master plan to reflect industry
energy benchmarks, energy related state statutes,
executive orders, energy costs and an implementation
plan outlining what can be achieved. The continuously
updated plan can highlight successes and indicate
additional steps necessary to maintain the overall goals.
A key part of the master plan is the utilization of the
State of Colorado Facility Audit Program. Energy audits
for each building in the Capitol Complex will guide the
identification of energy efficiency projects to implement.
ENERGY STAR
Scores and
Energy Use Intensity
ENERGY STAR Score EUI (kBtu/sf/yr)
50 96.7
60 86.6
70 76.6
75 71.5
80 66.1
90 53.6
93* 48.4
100 28.8
* 50% reduction from score of 50
4.0 Facility Assessments
Energy Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030
EUI kBtu/sf ECI Accumulative $/sf % Savings Annual Savings Accum. Savings
69.0 $1.44
67.6 $1.41 2.0% $46,128
66.3 $1.38 4.0% $91,334 $137,463
64.9 $1.36 5.9% $135,636 $273,099
63.6 $1.33 7.8% $179,052 $452,151
62.4 $1.30 9.6% $221,599 $673,751
61.1 $1.28 11.4% $263,296 $937,047
59.9 $1.25 13.2% $304,159 $1,241,205
58.7 $1.23 14.9% $344,204 $1,585,409
57.5 $1.20 16.6% $383,448 $1,968,857
56.4 $1.18 18.3% $421,908 $2,390,765
55.3 $1.15 19.9% $459,598 $2,850,363
54.1 $1.13 21.5% $496,535 $3,346,898
53.1 $1.11 23.1% $532,733 $3,879,631
52.0 $1.09 24.6% $568,206 $4,447,837
51.0 $1.06 26.1% $602,971 $5,050,808
49.9 $1.04 27.6% $637,040 $5,687,848
48.4 $1.01 29.8% $687,121 $6,374,969
Common energy efficiency upgrades and
retrofits include:
Lighting and lighting controls upgrades
Plug load management
HVAC controls upgrades
HVAC equipment and efficiency upgrades (when
equipment is scheduled to be replaced)
Building envelope upgrades to reduce loads and
strategically reduce the size and cost of HVAC
equipment upgrades.
Advanced metering by building / sub-metering
2% savings from each previous year and a 3% savings in the final year (2030)


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
Water Reduction Goals
Baseline water use is derived from EnergyCAP using
annual data for each building. The Capitol Complex
portfolio has an overall 2013 water use intensity (WUI) of
16.4 gallons/sf/year and an overall water cost intensity
(WCI) of $0.09/sf/year. Refer to table to the right for
details on the 2013 Capitol Complex water use. Note that
water use can vary significantly on a building by building
basis, depending on water uses such as building fixtures,
irrigation, and HVAC and process water.
The water data in the table was derived using data from
the States EnergyCAP account. It is highly recommended
that the Capitol Complex Sustainability Manager (or
similar role) verify the data in EnergyCAP and recalibrate
the final 2013 baseline and water results. Some water
data was missing or appeared irregular in EnergyCAP.
Numerous additional water meters are included in
EnergyCAP but not associated with a physical building.
Note that the water baseline includes water use only
associated with buildings in the scope of this master plan.
Also note that the IDS building in Pueblo is not included
in the scope of this plan and is not included in the
EnergyCAP database.
The Water Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 table outlines
the impact of the Capitol Complexs water reduction goal
of a 2% reduction per year. It assumes a 2% reduction on
the previous years water use for each year up to 2030.
Note that the last year (2030) calls for a 3% reduction to
bring the overall reduction to 30% in 2030 compared with
the 2013 baseline. This table uses the 2013 data from
EnergyCAP as its baseline. The annual and accumulative
water cost savings do not include escalation of water
cost, nor do they include a discount rate to account for
the time value of money.
It is critical that the Sustainability Manager update the
departments sustainable master plan to reflect industry
water benchmarks, water related state statutes, executive
orders, water costs and an implementation plan outlining
what can be achieved. The continuously updated plan
can highlight successes and indicate additional steps
necessary to maintain the overall goals. A key part of
the master plan is the utilization of the State of Colorado
Facility Audit Program. Water audits for each building in
the Capitol Complex will guide the identification of water
conservation projects to implement.
The EPA has a program focused on water efficiency
called WaterSense. There are many WaterSense labeled
products on the market. WaterSense labeled products
have been certified to be at least 20% more efficient than
standard fixtures without sacrificing performance. Further,
Denver Water offers rebates on many products that are
WaterSense labeled.
Water Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030
Year WUI gal/sf WCI Accumulative $/sf % Savings Annual Savings Accum. Savings
2013 17.2 $0.10
2014 16.9 $0.10 2.0% $3,203
2015 16.5 $0.10 4.0% $6,343 $9,546
2016 16.2 $0.09 5.9% $9,419 $18,965
2017 15.9 $0.09 7.8% $12,434 $31,399
2018 15.5 $0.09 9.6% $15,389 $46,788
2019 15.2 $0.09 11.4% $18,284 $65,073
2020 14.9 $0.09 13.2% $21,122 $86,195
2021 14.6 $0.09 14.9% $23,903 $110,098
2022 14.3 $0.08 16.6% $26,628 $136,726
2023 14.1 $0.08 18.3% $29,299 $166,025
2024 13.8 $0.08 19.9% $31,917 $197,942
2025 13.5 $0.08 21.5% $34,482 $232,423
2026 13.2 $0.08 23.1% $36,995 $269,419
2027 13.0 $0.08 24.6% $39,459 $308,878
2028 12.7 $0.07 26.1% $41,873 $350,751
2029 12.4 $0.07 27.6% $44,239 $394,989
2030 12.1 $0.07 29.8% $47,717 $442,706
Note: 2% savings from each previous year and a 3% savings in the final year (2030)
Common water conservation upgrades and
retrofits include:
Water leak detection and repair
Tenant water conservation education
Upgrade to EPA WaterSense fixtures
Upgrade irrigation system and controls
Upgrade or repair cooling towers to increase water
efficiency and increase cycles of concentration
Advanced metering / sub-metering
4-15
2013 Capital Complex Water Use
Address Bldg Name Const Gross Area Water 2013 Per SF
1 1575 Sherman Human Services Bldg 1952 145,370 1,112 Kgal 7.6 gal/SF
6,948 $ 0.05 $/SF
2 1525 Sherman State Services Bldg 1960 165,930 1,613 Kgal 9.7 gal/SF
10,310 $ 0.06 $/SF
3 1570 Grant 1956 47,749 932 Kgal 19.5 gal/SF
5,944 $ 0.12 $/SF
4 201 E Colfax State Office Bldg 1921 78,115 No data in EnergyCAP
5 200 E Colfax State Capitol 1903 323,813 No data in EnergyCAP
6 1313 Sherman Centennial Bldg 1976 207,091 1,126 Kgal 5.4 gal/SF
3,623 $ 0.02 $/SF
7 1375 Sherman Capitol Annex Bldg 1937 114,228 565 Kgal 4.9 gal/SF
4,648 $ 0.04 $/SF
8 200 E 14th Legislative Services Bldg 1915 59,301 No data in EnergyCAP
9 1341 Sherman Power Plant 1939 25,690 No data in EnergyCAP
10 400 East 8th Ave Exec Residence 1908 31,268 1,275 Kgal 40.8 gal/SF
& Carriage House 6,424 $ 0.21 $/SF
11 690 Kipling Dale Tooley Bldg 1985 67,035 1,827 Kgal 27.3 gal/SF
8,810 $ 0.13 $/SF
12 700 Kipling 1985 60,964 404 Kgal 6.6 gal/SF
2,973 $ 0.05 $/SF
13 1881 Pierce 1972 122,542 7,103 Kgal 58.0 gal/SF
36,835 $ 0.30 $/SF
14 6321 North Downing North Campus North Bldg 1968 23,630 No data in EnergyCAP
15 6221 North Downing North Campus East Bldg 1968 39,195 No data in EnergyCAP
16 1001 East 62nd Ave North Campus West Bldg 1968 37,763 1,530 Kgal 40.5 gal/SF
13,605 $ 0.36 $/SF
17 222 South 6th Grand Junction 1983 52,000 635 Kgal 12.2 gal/SF
3,677 $ 0.07 $/SF
18 15000 S. Golden Rd Camp George West, Site 0 53,792 Kgal N/A
(Not a building, included for reference only) 37,260 $ N/A
Totals
Buildings with Water Data 1,051,940 18,122 Kgal 17.2 gal/SF
103,797 $ 0.10 $/SF


Waste Reduction Goals
Quantities of waste and diverted waste, such as
recycling, have not been measured and tracked for
buildings in the Capitol Complex. The first step in meeting
a waste reduction goal of 2% per year is to conduct a
waste stream audit on facilities in the Capitol Complex.
This will establish the first year municipal waste and
diversion baseline.
The municipal waste reduction goal is based on a 2%
reduction of the prior years waste, measured by pound
per square foot. The table below shows the compounding
impact of this goal through the year 2030. Note that the
2014 waste baseline has not been determined and the
table uses 1.0 pounds/square foot/year as a place holder.
Note that some waste industry experts estimate that
offices generate between 2.5 to 4.0 pounds of waste per
square foot per year.
Municipal Waste Stream Audit
Put together an internal team to conduct the
waste audit, manage the tracking of waste and
implement strategies to meet waste reduction
goals. Check with the contracted waste hauler
to see if they can provide some of the audit and
tracking services.
Establish the time period for each buildings
waste audit (i.e. one days worth of trash) and the
frequency of audits per year.
Weigh and track waste in each stream leaving the
building (waste, recyclables, compost, etc.).
Conduct a building walk through and questionnaire
to determine types of waste being generated and
the types and frequency of diversion techniques
such as recycling.
Extrapolate waste audit records to estimate annual
waste and diversion volumes.
While the waste reduction goal is based on a measure of
waste generated, it is useful to also track annual diversion
rates to gauge the success of recycling programs.
Increasing participation in recycling and expanding
the types of recyclables collected are key strategies to
meeting the waste reduction goal. The other key strategy
is to reduce potential waste in the first place. This can
be accomplished by implementing programs that target
a reduction in use for the biggest waste generators by
type, which can be identified in the waste stream audits.
It is also important that hazardous waste and electronic
recycling programs be integrated into the overall waste
management program.
Construction waste associated with renovations and
construction activities in the Capitol Complex should
also be tracked against a reduction goal. Because these
activities are often one-time events rather than a uniform
waste stream, construction waste should be tracked
separately. In the Denver region current best practice is
to divert 75% of construction waste. For the construction
waste reduction goal for the Capitol Complex this 75%
diversion rate is considered the baseline and the goal is a
1% reduction per year starting in 2016 resulting in a 90%
diversion rate by 2030.
It is critical that the Sustainability Manager update
the departments sustainable master plan to reflect
industry waste benchmarks, waste related state
statutes, executive orders, waste related costs and an
implementation plan outlining what can be achieved.
The continuously updated plan can highlight successes
and indicate additional steps necessary to maintain
the overall goals. A key part of the master plan is the
utilization of the State of Colorado Facility Audit Program.
Waste audits, as described above, for each building in
the Capitol Complex will guide the identification of waste
reduction projects to implement.
4.0 Facility Assessments
Municipal Waste
Reduction Goal
Matrix to 2030
Year Waste Ib/sf % Savings
2014 1.00
2015 0.98 2.0%
2016 0.96 4.0%
2017 0.94 5.9%
2018 0.92 7.8%
2019 0.90 9.6%
2020 0.89 11.4%
2021 0.87 13.2%
2022 0.85 14.9%
2023 0.83 16.6%
2024 0.82 18.3%
2025 0.80 19.9%
2026 0.78 21.5%
2027 0.77 23.1%
2028 0.75 24.6%
2029 0.74 26.1%
2030 0.72 27.6%
Construction Waste
Reduction Goal
Matrix to 2030
Year Diversion Rate
2015 75.0%
2016 76.0%
2017 77.0%
2018 78.0%
2019 79.0%
2020 80.0%
2021 81.0%
2022 82.0%
2023 83.0%
2024 84.0%
2025 85.0%
2026 86.0%
2027 87.0%
2028 88.0%
2029 89.0%
2030 90.0%
Waste Management Best Practices
Provide all tenants with convenient recycling
bins and recycling collection facilities. Right size
recycling capacity vs. standard waste capacity.
Provide single stream recycling that includes
glass, plastics, paper, cardboard and metals.
Include clear signage for what items can or cant
be included in recycling collection.
Provide facility for collecting batteries, toner
cartridges, and electronic waste for recycling.
Provide a composting program with facilities to
collect food and organic waste.
Provide a program for the donation of reusable
durable goods such as office equipment and
furniture.
Require high levels of waste diversion in the
construction contract for all facility renovations and
alterations.
4-16


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.4.3 PROJECT SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES
There are several specific projects within the Capitol
Complex master plan that offer targeted opportunities
for deep energy, water and waste reductions as well as
meeting a variety of other high performance objectives.
These projects consist of three major renovations (1375
Sherman, 1313 Sherman and 1570 Grant) and a potential
new 567,000 SF State office building at Lincoln and
Colfax.
Colorados High Performance Certification Program
(HPCP) would apply to these renovations and
new construction project. As outlined in the State
Sustainability Implementation Process section of this
report, the PIPCP recommends a LEED Gold rating and
meeting several OSA Sustainable Priorities. Plowever,
because these projects are in the Capitol Complex, high
profile and relatively large in scale, this master plan
recommends that the performance goals in the PIPCP be
expanded to include higher levels of performance and
LEED certification.
1375 Sherman
The 1937 Capitol Annex Building is a 114,228 SF art
deco architectural gem from the New Deal era and is
listed on the Historic Register. The building has been
identified as needing an extensive PIVAC and lighting
renovation or replacement, as well as extensive envelope
improvements. Pleating is currently supplied with Xcel
steam and it is recommended to convert the building
to natural gas heating or ground source heat pumps.
Ground source heat pumps would also enable the
building to be removed from the existing central chiller
plant located in an adjacent building. This building is
a great opportunity for a historic preservation sensitive
deep green retrofit.
1313 Sherman
1313 Sherman is a 207,091 SF, ten story 1970s office
building known as the Centennial Building. The building
is in need of extensive renovation including exterior
envelope, PIVAC and lighting. One key advantage that the
Centennial Building has is good solar orientation along
with relatively narrow floor depth. Enhanced daylighting
and natural ventilation can be effectively explored in
a deep green retrofit. Another excellent opportunity to
explore in a deep green retrofit is in the integration of on-
site photovoltaic systems, which could be installed on the
building roof and over the adjacent, parking structure at
1350 Lincoln. If these two PV installations were optimized
it may be possible to provide approximately 836 kW of PV.
This system size would be able to generate approximately
42% of the existing energy use (38.2 kBtu/SF/year) of
the building. It would generate approximately 61 % of
the target energy use (26.7 kBtu/SF/year). The building
energy would need to be reduced to 16.4 kBtu/SF/year or
lower to achieve net zero energy.
4-17
1375 Sherman Recommended Deep Green Retrofit Performance Goals
Perform energy efficiency upgrades including lighting,
plug load management, HVAC & building envelope.
Integrate a demand response system.
Current water use intensity is 4.9 gal/SF/year, with a
water cost of $0.04/SF/year. Low flow plumbing fixtures
will further reduce water use.
Implement advanced metering for energy and water use.
Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater.
LEED-NC v4 Platinum
1313 Sherman Recommended Deep Green Retrofit Performance Goals
Perform energy efficiency upgrades including lighting,
plug load management, HVAC & building envelope.
Integrate a demand response system.
Current water use intensity is 5.4 gal/SF/year, with a
water cost of $0.02/SF/year. Low flow plumbing fixtures
will further reduce water use.
Implement advanced metering for energy and water use.
Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater.
LEED-NC v4 Platinum


1570 Grant Recommended Deep Green Retrofit Performance Goals
Perform energy efficiency upgrades including lighting,
plug load management, HVAC & building envelope.
Integrate a demand response system.
Current water use intensity is 19.5 gal/SF/year, with a
water cost of $0.12/SF/year. Low flow plumbing fixtures,
improved cooling tower or ground source heat pump
system will further reduce water use.
Implement advanced metering for energy and water use.
Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater.
LEED-NC v4 Platinum
New State Office Building Recommended Performance Goals
Energy use intensity target of 25.0 kBtu/SF/year or less
and explore opportunity for net zero energy.
Building water use reduction of 40% or greater com-
pared with LEED baseline.
Integrate a demand response system.
Implement advanced metering for energy and water use.
Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater.
Design project as model for occupant health and well-
being and explore certifying the building under the Well
Building Standard.
LEED-NC v4 Platinum
4.0 Facility Assessments
1570 Grant
The 1570 Grant building is a 47,749 SF office building
and a great example of mid-century modern commercial
architecture. The building has been identified as needing
an extensive FIVAC renovation or replacement. The FIVAC
replacement can be like-for-like with increased efficiency,
but the feasibility of ground source heat pumps should
also be explored. A ground source heat pump solution
would have the dual advantage of increased energy
efficiency while eliminating the water use for cooling. The
high water use of the facility can be mostly attributed to
the existing cooling tower. The exterior envelope is in
fair condition and a deep green retrofit would be a great
opportunity to enhance the performance of the envelope.
New State Office Building at Lincoln and Colfax
New construction projects are excellent opportunities
for advancing building performance. The new State
office building should be designed to be the highest
performing building in the Capitol Complex and a model
for sustainability. Investments in energy performance
will result in the lowest overall life cycle cost over the
life of the building. Further, investments in design and
operational features that promote health and wellness
are important investments in state employees, which
comprise the largest operating expense and most
important resource for the facility.
The size and height of the new building will make net
zero energy using on-site photovoltaics challenging,
but integration of on-site renewables is encouraged and
could be paired with a dedicated off-site source such as
a solar garden.


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
4.4.4 STATE SUSTAINABILITY
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Benchmarking State Energy Management Practices with
the ACEEE Scorecard
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(ACEEE) compiles an annual scorecard for state
energy efficiency measures. The scorecard tracks a
variety of state-level metrics including utility programs,
transportation policies, building energy codes, combined
heat and power policies, state government initiatives
and appliance efficiency standards. For 2013 Colorado
ranked 16th in the nation overall, with the top five states
(in order) being Massachusetts, California, New York,
Oregon and Connecticut.
For comparison in this master plan the state government
initiatives metric is most applicable because it measures
the states internal initiatives around state-owned
buildings. Rankings in this metric follow very closely
with the overall scorecard rankings. The following are
highlights of state-led initiatives by the top three states
in the ACEEE scorecard, Massachusetts, California and
New York.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Executive Order 484 highlights:
Establishes a Leading by Example program
and council which shall direct efforts across state
government to track and measure progress toward
clean energy and environmental goals, develop
long-term programs at state facilities and training
efforts necessary to carry out the provisions of the
executive order.
Reduction in overall energy consumption in state-
owned and leased buildings by 20% by 2012 and
35% by 2020 (2004 baseline).
Procure 15% of agency annual energy consumption
from renewable sources by 2012 and 30% by 2020.
State agencies with new construction or major
renovations over 20,000 square feet must meet the
MA LEED Plus green building standard and perform
20% better than the state energy code.
Reduce potable water use by 10% by 2012 and
15% by 2020 (2006 baseline)
The state launched an Accelerated Energy Program
in 2012 to accelerate the implementation of energy
and water projects across the Commonwealth and
help meet the goals of Executive Order 484.
Massachusetts Enterprise Energy Management System
(EEMS):
Awarded to EnerNOC in 2010
Measuring real-time energy use at 480 state-owned
buildings, comprising 25 million square feet of
buildings, through the installation of 1,200 state of
the art real-time energy meters.
4-19
California
California Executive Order B-18-12 highlights:
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least
10% by 2015 and by at least 20% by 2020 (2010
baseline).
All new state buildings and major renovations
beginning design after 2025 shall be constructed
as net zero energy facilities with an interim target of
50% of new facilities beginning design after 2020
to be net zero energy. State agencies should also
take measures toward achieving net zero energy for
50% of the square footage of existing state-owned
building area by 2025.
State agencies shall reduce grid-based energy
purchases for state-owned buildings by at least
20% by 2018 (2003 baseline).
State agencies shall participate in demand
response programs.
Any proposed new or major renovation of state
buildings larger than 10,000 square feet shall use
clean, on-site power generation and clean back-up
power supplies, if economically feasible.
New and major renovated state buildings and build-
to-suit leases larger than 10,000 square feet shall
obtain LEED Silver certification or higher.
New and existing buildings shall incorporate
building commissioning to facilitate improved and
efficient building operation.
All existing state buildings over 50,000 square feet
shall complete LEED-EB certification by the end of
2015 (include ENERGY STAR rating of 75) to the
maximum extent cost-effective.
The Department of General Services shall work
with other state agencies to develop by no later
than July 1, 2013, policies and guidelines for the
operation and maintenance of state buildings to
achieve operating efficiency improvements and
water and resource conservation, and to continually
update and incorporate these in the State
Administrative Manual.
State agencies shall implement relevant and
feasible voluntary measures from Divisions
A4.5 and A5.5 of the California Green Building
Standards Code to ensure healthy environments for
occupants.
State agencies shall reduce water use at the
facilities they operate by 10% by 2015 and by 20%
by 2020 (2010 baseline).
State agencies shall identify and pursue available
financing and project delivery mechanisms to
achieve these goals.
State agencies shall measure, monitor, report and
oversee progress on measures in this Order.
A Green Building Action Plan was developed for
implementation of Executive Order B-18-12.
New York
New York Executive Order 88 highlights:
20% improvement in energy efficiency in all state
facilities by 2020 (2010/2011 baseline)
Build Smart NY is the implementation plan
launched with the executive order. The guidelines
for meeting Executive Order 88 include provisions
for:
Reporting and benchmarking
Energy auditing plan
Capital project implementation
Retrocommissioning
Operations and maintenance
Submetering
Under the Build Smart NY initiative the New York
Power Authority (NYPA) will provide $450 million
in low-cost financing for energy efficiency projects
in the largest and least efficient state government
buildings.


Sustainability Goals
Improving energy and water efficiency and sustainability
starts with a comprehensive set of goals. As noted
earlier in this report, statewide goals have typically
been established through executive orders, as well as
state statutes and initiatives. However, the last set of
sustainability goals from executive orders in 2007 have
expired. It is appropriate that the Capitol Complex has
its own set of sustainability goals to guide long-term
improvement and efficiency. It is recommended that the
goals established in this master plan function as these
long-term goals.
The Capitol Complex sustainability goals in this master
plan are generally aligned well with the best practices of
other states and specifically the top states highlighted
in the ACEEE scorecard for state energy efficiency
measures. It is noteworthy that Massachusetts and
California both have state goals for renewable energy,
and California has an aggressive net zero energy goal.
Renewable energy and net zero, or near net zero, goals
are highlighted in the master plan as project specific
opportunities rather than Capitol Complex goals.
An important requirement of any plan is the continuous
review and updating of the plan. The review needs to
list achievements and failures as a learning tool, be
compared to other state plans, and reflect industry
benchmarks and changes. The energy, water and waste
goals need to be updated to reflect new priorities,
statutes, executive orders, and utility costs. The plan
needs to emphasize the importance of an individual or a
group assigned to implement the plan as their first task
and not as time permits.
Current Guiding Policies and Programs
The State has several guiding policies and programs
utilized to enhance building performance and
sustainability. These core policies guide existing building
operation, new construction performance standards and
a funding mechanism for energy efficiency upgrades
to existing facilities. The current state energy and
sustainability policies are useful tools in helping to meet
the sustainability goals in this master plan.
4.0 Facility Assessments
The Office of the State Architects Energy
Management of Existing Buildings Policy
Policy outlines guidelines for the efficient operation
and maintenance of existing buildings including
a facility audit program and energy management
program.
Facility Audit Program
Required to be established by all state
agencies.
A comprehensive operation and management
tool which identifies, quantifies and prioritizes
areas requiring necessary action as well as
costs to renovate, retrofit, restore, modernize
or maintain the building and equipment in a like
new condition.
Energy Management Program
Required to be established by all state
agencies to incorporate energy efficiency
into the decision making process during the
design and acquisition of buildings, the repair
and replacement of existing systems, and
should emphasize the use of renewable energy
sources.
High Performance Certification Program for
new buildings and substantial renovation of
existing buildings.
Utilize EPA ENERGY STAR program to
benchmark buildings energy profile.
Utilize LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations
& Maintenance program to benchmark and
verify success in building operation and
maintenance programs.
Energy Efficiency Projects Funding Options
Controlled Maintenance Funds: For corrective
repairs or replacement used for existing state-
owned, General-Funded buildings, when such
work is not funded in an agencys operating
budget. Controlled Maintenance projects arise
out of the deterioration of a facilitys physical
and functional condition.
Energy Performance Contracts (EPC): Utilize
the future energy savings of an energy
efficiency program to finance the project
through an energy service company (ESCO).
High Performance Certification Program
(HPCP)
Applies to new facilities, additions, or renovation
projects of 5,000 square feet or more, and with a
HVAC system. For renovation projects the cost of
renovation should not exceed 25% of the current
value of the building for the HPCP to apply.
Achieve a LEED certification with a goal of a Gold
rating.
Strongly encouraged to meet OSA Sustainable
Priorities in addition to prerequisites:
24% reduction in energy cost
Enhanced commissioning (greater than 20,000
square feet).
Measurement and verification of energy and
water systems (greater than 50,000 square
feet).
50% reduction in potable landscape water use.
30% reduction in potable indoor water use.
Low toxicity materials (achieve two of the
following: IEQc4.1,4.2, 4.3, 4.4)
Daylighting for 75% of regularly occupied
spaces.
50% diversion rate of construction waste.
Source as many materials as possible from
Colorado region.
Energy Performance Contracting (EPC)
Executive Order 0014 03 directs each state
agency to investigate the feasibility for an energy
performance contract to improve energy efficiency
of existing state facilities.
4-20


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
Organization and Implementation Process
The state has a decentralized model for implementing
energy management and sustainability initiatives. There
are a few entities that serve as central resources for state
agencies. These include the Office of the State Architect
(OSA), and the Greening Government Council and the
Governors Energy Office (GEO).
OSA develops the guidelines and policies for energy
management and sustainability including the HPCP, as
well as administrating controlled maintenance projects
and providing review and resources to capital projects.
GEO provides resources and technical guidance around
energy issues for the entire state including assistance
with energy performance contracting. The Greening
Government Council was established with Executive
Orders D011 07 and D012 07 to help implement the goals
in these executive orders. The council also provides
a central source for collaboration and communication
between State agencies as each agency has a seat on
the council.
State agencies and higher education institutions develop
their own programs in accordance with State goals
and have staff assigned to manage these energy and
sustainability programs and plans. Each State agency
manages a general operation and maintenance budget
that can be used for energy efficiency projects as part of
general operation and maintenance. State agencies work
with OSA on controlled maintenance and capital projects,
which also include energy efficiency improvements.
The Capitol Complex Facilities team serves as the
property manager for all Capitol Complex facilities
and includes an energy manager position on its staff.
In order to meet the goals in this master plan it is
recommended that this position be expanded into a
full-time sustainability manager role. The current energy
manager position description divides the position into
several duties including energy management (35%),
tenant project coordination (35%), manage building
audit and CM program (10%), insurance claims (10%),
and greening of state government (10%). In becoming
a full-time sustainability manager position the duties
should be reprioritized to remove non-sustainability
duties such as insurance claims so that time involved in
tenant coordination is in support of sustainability goals. In
addition to roles outlined in the existing energy manager
position description, the expanded sustainability manager
roles should include the following:
Additional Duties of Sustainability Manager
Develop and implement a comprehensive
sustainability plan for the Capitol Complex that
addresses goals and recommendations of this
master plan in addition to other state sustainability
goals and policies.
Conduct energy and water audits on Capitol
Complex facilities and develop energy and water
efficiency projects in support of the comprehensive
sustainability plan.
Develop and implement an energy and water
metering plan. The metering plan should include
the installation of State-owned and operated real
time meters and sub-meters (wherever practical).
Coordinate the capture of real time energy and
water data with database and analytical tools such
as EnergyCAP or other appropriate programs.
Track and report out energy and water use and
cost in relationship to goals.
Develop and implement a waste audit and waste
reduction plan. Track and report out waste streams
in relationship to goals.
Work with tenants in both typical building operation
and with renovation projects to provide resources,
guidance and education to further energy, water
and waste reductions.
Manage LEED O+M certification and
recertification for applicable buildings in the Capitol
Complex.
Specific Sustainability Goals
Create a sustainability program that is staffed
by an individual whose sole responsibility is this
program.
Validate EnergyCAP data against utility vendor
invoices.
Perform energy and water audits of all buildings -
most recent audit was in 2003 by EPC.
Institute a plug load management program.
Utilize EPAs ENERGY STAR and WATERSENSE
programs for benchmarking, education, and
potential upgrade ideas.
Review LEED existing building operations and
maintenance guidelines for certifying all DPA
buildings.


4.5 Security
Colorado State Patrol
Currently the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) Executive
Security Unit has 60 employees and their central
communications center is located in the 1341 Sherman
Street Power Plant Building. The Executive Security Unit is
responsible for security for the Capitol Complex and the
Executive Residence. When requested, the CSP provides
guidance to state agencies within the Capitol Complex on
security needs. They operate the security check points at
the Capitol and the Judicial Building and 1525 Sherman
Street. The CSP also provides year round escort service
for individuals to get to their cars when requested.
Space at 1341 Sherman Street is insufficient for CSP needs
since troopers share locker and office space. The secure
communications center is located downstairs and was
recently renovated. Typically there are three individuals
who monitor multiple security screens.
The CSP also has storage space throughout the Capitol
Complex including bike storage space under the stairs
of the Legislative Services Building at 200 E. 14th Street.
Preferably the bike storage would be located in a more
accessible location.
Due to the fact that the CSP is located in the Power Plant
Building and their space is less than ideal and not large
enough, it would be optimal for them to be relocated in a
new space preferably within a block of the Capitol.
Security Systems
The security systems design guidelines outline electronic
security systems infrastructure that would enhance security
operations and provide a safe and secure environment
for persons and assets within the Capitol Complex. The
approach to the security systems should be implemented
such that they can be easily and effectively monitored real
time from CSP centralized communication center(s).
Physical Security Strategies
Physical security can be simply defined as the physical
measures utilized in providing protection of assets against
threats. These strategies are a combination of industry
best practices and methods taken from such sources as
ASIS (American Society of Industrial Security) International,
various government agencies, commercial entities, and the
consultant teams professional experience. Additionally
the recommendations are supported by Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED is defined
as a multi-disciplinary approach to deterring criminal
behavior through environmental design. CPTED strategies
rely upon the ability to influence offender decisions that
precede criminal acts by affecting the built, social and
administrative environment.
Design Requirements
In general, there are multiple strategies that can be
implemented that will supplement and support the effective
security program. As the following explanations show,
these strategies shall overlap and complement each other.
Most importantly, they cannot stand alone as a singular
method of mitigating a security incident. From an asset
protection standpoint, complete protection is provided
when security implementations meet the following three
requirements:
Deter prevention of action through fear of penalty
Detect determination and communication that an
event has occurred
Delay and Deny the ability of physical or
psychological barriers to restrict or oppose the action
Combined, these three functions provide overall protection
of the asset(s). Failure to meet one of the requirements
opens the asset to attack and creates vulnerability.
In protecting an asset, the concept of Integrated Design
establishes effective security programs through the
integration of security technology with architectural
components and operational elements. The premise for
using this concept is that architecture, operations, and
electronics must complement one another to create a
strong security program. No one element of this group can
standalone or operate independently to provide adequate
protection.
4.0 Facility Assessments
Once established, the integrated design components
are most effective when applied in a concentric manner
beginning at the outlying edge of the site perimeter. As
one moves across the site perimeter and in towards
the building perimeter and interior secured spaces, the
security controls and boundaries become increasingly
more difficult to breach without detection and intervention.
Zones of intervention between each level provide the ability
for security operations to control, detect, evaluate, and
respond to unauthorized activities.
Site Planning and Area Development
The planning and layout of a building and site contributes
greatly in creating a physically secure structure and safe
area. Perimeter protection, lighting, locking hardware,
entrances and exits, flow and traffic patterns of building
occupants and other pedestrians, and the location of
service areas such as lobby reception, visitor services, and
loading docks all assist in providing a protective ring for
the building. In developing criteria to protect the facility
the following recommendations can be used as guidelines.
Locate high-risk areas in the interior of the installation.
There should be a clear division between secure and
unsecure spaces.
Clear lines of sight should be established at all
building entry points and site areas. Areas of
concealment should be minimized to eliminate hiding
spots. Landscaping and hardscaping should be laid
out in such a way as to enhance the ability to view the
entire area.
Consolidate high-risk areas to take advantage
of opportunities for security efficiency such as
minimized control points.
Maximize the distance (stand-off) between the
perimeter and secure area to provide as much open
space as possible. The maximization of stand-
off distance is imperative in any blast mitigation
measures.
The arrangement of areas, with strongly delineated
boundaries and buildings oriented to enhance
surveillance opportunities, results in the creation
of defensible space that can be protected more
efficiently than scattered buildings or areas.
Design entry roadways so that they do not provide
direct or straight-line vehicular access to high-risk
resources. All vehicular entries and exits should be
provided with crash-rated barriers to prevent vehicle
access.
Whenever possible commercial, service, and
delivery vehicles should have a designated entry
to the installation preferably distant from high-risk
resources. Where this is not feasible, all such
vehicles should be inspected and cleared prior to
admittance.
Entrances and Exits
All perimeter doors should be lockable, but always
available for emergency exiting. All entrances and
exits should be protected with security surveillance and
the number of entrances should be minimized so that
security surveillance and access control is manageable.
The number of exits should be based on the local fire
and building codes means of egress requirements and
building occupancy loads. Security should never impede
the means of egress and exit from a building.
Lobbies
A lobby desk should be positioned on the first floor so
that attendants or security personnel can screen visitors
and view building entrances and access to the elevator
banks. Turnstiles, optical portals, and other design control
points can be positioned to funnel and control access
to restricted space and upper floors. Public access
and employee access should be segregated to provide
efficient monitoring of pedestrian traffic. This lessens the
possibility of someone trying to conceal themselves within
a group of employees. All employee entrances should be
monitored and controlled via the Security Management
System.
Checkpoint facilities should be used to screen bags and
personnel depending on the threat level. All public entries
to the facility should be screened. Portable equipment
can be utilized for other entrances and for use at special
functions that do not require a permanent installation.
4-22


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
The Facilities
The following primary security systems are currently in
place throughout the Capital Complex: access control
(ACS), video surveillance, wireless duress and central
monitoring by CSP. Electronic security systems that should
be replaced and/or addressed include video surveillance,
access control, intrusion alarm, duress alarm and audio
intercom.
The access control system deployment is campus wide
and currently exists throughout other state Capitol Complex
buildings within the system. The ACS serves as the primary
security management system for monitoring intrusion
alarms. The states existing wireless duress alarm system
infrastructure is in place and operational. The existing
security systems are controlled and monitored centrally
from Colorado State Patrols Central Command Center
(CCC) in Denver. The single subsystem most in need of an
upgrade are the security cameras and video management
system.
By industry standards, the video surveillance system is
considered an antiquated analog video based system.
With that, poor video image quality is a direct result
from the optical sensors and the transport mechanism
currently in place. Analog video systems cannot be easily
integrated into other security management systems,
and the current user interface is not capable of meeting
industry standards for evidentiary purposes.
This report is not designed as a specification but rather
as an outline to provide information on required security
system upgrades and security criteria recommended for
implementation. The security systems must be planned
and designed to allow CSP and security personnel the
operational flexibility to provide proper security response
in the event of an incident. Best practice security design
methodology should be applied, including layered security,
security in depth, and an integrated systems design.
Applicable state of Colorado construction standards and
design guidelines should be followed as a baseline.
The access control system deployment should follow as an
expansion of the existing campus-wide system currently
installed throughout other State Capitol Complex buildings
and should utilize similar ACS door controllers and
peripheral equipment. New proximity-type card readers
shall operate with the existing proximity card credentials.
A common practice for door devices should be to wire
through a consolidation junction box above each door and
be routed to the nearest intermediate distribution frame
(IDF) room where door controllers and power supplies
are located. ACS door controllers should be installed in
telecommunications IDF rooms that will connect to the
buildings local area network (LAN) for communication with
the ACS server.
New security equipment to be located within IDF rooms
must be coordinated with the State IT technical staff.
Each access controlled door should be equipped with
a card reader, an electrified lock, a door position switch
and a request-to-exit motion device (or hardware integral
request-to-exit switch). All doors described as a card
reader controlled access door should be designed with
the standard equipment listed, unless specifically defined
elsewhere to vary from this configuration. For new
controlled doors, the use of magnetic locks and electronic
strikes is not recommended. Electrified lever sets and
panic hardware are to be equipped with request-to-exit
switch built into the exit hardware. At controlled door
locations, the specific electrified hardware requirements
must be compatible and coordinated with the ACS control
interface circuit.
The ACS shall also serve as the primary security
management system for monitoring intrusion alarms.
Intrusion alarms, such as door status and motion detection
alarms, are to be integrated with and monitored through
the access control security management system. Alarm
device additions and modifications should be coordinated
with the State during the design phase. Security personnel
should be able to monitor the security systems alarm
notification devices through network connected client
workstations, where authorized.
The current video surveillance system (VSS) is in need of
an upgrade from analog to digital, and the implementation
IP cameras integrated to new network video recorders
(NVRs) should be a high priority. New IP cameras should
have the capability to communicate with the VSS over an
IP infrastructure transport system (CAT6). Security camera
deployment should consider the use of fixed field of view
4-23
and pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) type cameras, with minimum
resolution requirements and clearly defined mega-pixel
rating as well as be Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) devices.
Camera network cabling should follow basic guidelines
supporting 10-Gigabit transmission to pull to the nearest
IDF room providing connectivity to the buildings LAN.
IP camera network cabling should terminate to building
PoE network switches. Security personnel shall be able
to monitor the security video surveillance system through
network connected client workstations, where authorized.
The States existing wireless duress alarm system
infrastructure should be expanded, where needed, to
support new locations of wireless duress buttons. Duress
alarms should be installed at all public interface and cash-
handling locations. CSP Central Command Center monitors
a wide network of wireless duress buttons at multiple State
Capitol Complex facilities in Denver. This is accomplished
using wireless mesh coverage by use of repeaters located
at State facilities. The duress system currently utilizes
wireless duress buttons, which transmit radio frequency
(RF) signals to an infrastructure of wireless RF receivers
and repeaters. System repeaters should be provided, if
necessary, to boost the wireless signal strength. Currently
deployed duress alarms in the buildings are monitored by
the existing CSP head-end system.
Consideration of an IP-based Intercom Communication
System (ICS) is highly recommended to enhance security
operations across the Capitol Complex facilities for security
personnel, staff and visitors. Intercom over IP (lolP)
systems provide superior audio quality utilizing the latest
digital technology and provide much greater flexibility for
locating both master and substations anywhere on the local
area network via IP communications. Security personnel
in CSP CCC should be provided with two-way audio
communications to any remote building, and this could be
accomplished via an IP intercom substation.
As part of any renovation work, all security head-end
equipment should be located or moved to IDF rooms,
where possible, and coordinated with State IT technical
staff. New security network video recorders (NVRs) to
support IP cameras should also be relocated/located
within the appropriate IDF rooms. It is highly suggested
that all head-end security control equipment be placed
on emergency power circuits or UPS units. State security
personnel and other authorized staff may remotely monitor
access control events, system alarms and security video
through network connected client workstations.
Any building renovation work with requirements for security
device additions/upgrades and specific security system
functionality should be coordinated with CSP and State
security personnel during design and construction phases.
Any security installation work, construction standards
and operational requirements should be reviewed and
approved by the appropriate staff and closely coordinated
with the State by the electronic security integrator. Security
cabling within IDF rooms shall be piped to wire gutters
and or security equipment panels. Within IDF rooms, a
4-foot-by-8-foot section of wall space must be reserved for
security equipment and supplied with fire treated plywood
backboard. Rack mounted security equipment may share
space in telecommunication equipment racks, where
appropriate and as coordinated with the appropriate state
IT personnel. One dedicated 120VAC 20A emergency
power circuit is required at each security wall board
location to support head-end equipment. All mission
critical electronic security equipment shall be provided
with back-up UPS. All UPS units shall be stand alone,
dedicated for security and sized accordingly based on
required run time.
As a practice, security system cabling should share cable
routes with that of the building structured network cabling
system wherever possible. The network cabling paths
and riser locations generally provide the most direct route
through a facility and typically contain sufficient space
for security cabling requirements. Data cabling required
for IP security cameras is to be provided and installed
by approved telecommunications contractor(s). As a
recommendation, this should be the approved construction
method for provisioning of the IP camera network cabling
to support the new VSS system. State IT construction
standards for network and security cabling types and
jacket color must be adhered to. Security cabling must
never be exposed and must be contained in protective
conduit wherever cable is accessible to vandalism or
accidental damage or where it traverses any unsecured
space. Security cabling shall be plenum-rated where
required by codes.


4.6 - Key Recommendations
CHAPTER 4.0 FACILITY ASSESSMENT KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
THE CAPITOL ANNEX BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1375 SHERMAN STREET IN DENVER,
NEEDS TO HAVE ALL SYSTEMS REPLACED AND BE TOTALLY RENOVATED.
THE CENTENNIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1313 SHERMAN STREET IN DENVER, NEEDS
TO HAVE ALL SYSTEMS REPLACED AND BE TOTALLY RENOVATED.
THE REMAINDER OF CAPITOL COMPLEX FACILITIES-MANAGED BUILDINGS (ASSESSED
AS PART OF THIS MASTER PLAN) NEED TO UNDERGO A SERIES OF SYSTEM
UPGRADES TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH LIFE SAFETY, LOSS OF USE/RELIABILITY, AND/
OR OVERALL ENERGY EFFICIENCY. THE COMPREHENSIVE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM
UPGRADES ARE OUTLINED IN THE INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
(F&R) NEEDS ASSESSMENTS PER BUILDING AND THE CAMP GEORGE WEST SITE.
IN ADDITION TO REPAIRING AND REPLACING FAILING SYSTEMS, THE STATE
COULD EMPLOY A CONSULTANT TO EVALUATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE RESTORATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CAPITOL INCLUDING
THE GOVERNORS OFFICE, COMMITTEE ROOMS, AND OTHER SPACES.
THE CREATION OF A FULL-TIME, SUPPORTED SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER POSITION
FOR THE CAPITOL COMPLEX IS PIVOTAL TO THE COST-EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE
OPERATION OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX. THE SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER WOULD
CONDUCT BUILDING ENERGY, WATER AND WASTE AUDITS AND DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT A SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE STATE PATROL TO MOVE OUT OF THE POWER
PLANT BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1341 SHERMAN STREET IN DENVER, AND INTO
ANOTHER BUILDING WITHIN THE CAPITOL COMPLEX WITH MORE SPACE FOR
PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
4.0 Facility Assessments




CAPITOL COMPLEX
MASTERPLAN


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.1 - Methodology
Outreach
As part of the urban design effort of the master planning
process, the team met with agencies within the Capitol
Complex as well as multiple neighboring organizations
and City departments. The provided input concerned the
Complexs use by State employees, citizens, surrounding
residents, downtown users, and tourists. The interviewed
groups included:
Capitol Tours
City of Denver Community Planning and
Development
City of Denver Public Works
City of Denver Parks and Recreation
The Downtown Denver Partnership (DDP)
The Civic Center Conservancy
The Colfax Business Improvement District
The Regional Transportation District (RTD)
Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods
Analysis
The urban design recommendations include input gained
from these organizations and is based upon an analysis
of the existing conditions. The following subjects were
analyzed for this master plan:
Traffic study looking at vehicular, public transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian movements
Pedestrian circulation including the study of key
intersections
Parking study of Capitol Complex, including on
street and private parking within and surrounding
the Complex
Existing signage and wayfinding analysis
Urban design analysis of the Capitol Complex
which studied the public realm needs of the
Complex and the surrounding urban context
Image Showing Capitol Building as Downtown Gateway
5.2 Context
5.2.1 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OFTHE
CAPITOL COMPLEX
The Capitol District and Civic Center area are arguably
the most important cultural places within the state of
Colorado. Not only are they historically significant, but
they are the ceremonial heart of the state, being both the
seat of state and local government and an arena where
democratic expression and cultural events play out.
The Capitol Building, completed in 1908, sits atop a
prominent bluff that slopes towards the Cherry Creek
to the west. The Capitol steps are situated at elevation
5,280 feet above sea level, giving Denver its official
elevation. The statehouse has prominent views of the
front range of the Rocky Mountains to the west. Lincoln
Park is strategically located at the base of the slope to
the west of the Capitol Building and was intended as a
foreground for the statehouse and to provide views of
the Capitol from the nearby downtown. The State Capitol
has a view corridor restriction projecting west from the
west facade of the building, as well as restrictions for the
blocks to the north, east, and south of the building, which
influences the heights of the surrounding buildings and
preserves the views to and from the Capitol building.
Image Showing Large Gathering in Lincoln Park and West
Lawn


5.2.2 URBAN FORM
The downtown Capitol Complex consists of eleven
buildings, their associated grounds, and adjacent surface
parking lots which are organized to the north and south
of the Capitol building along Sherman Street. The Capitol
building and grounds span Sherman Street in the block
located between the 14th Avenue and Colfax Avenue,
with Lincoln Park just to its west.
Context
The Capitol Building is located at the confluence of two
major street grids in the downtown. Denver streets are
based on an east-west/north-south grid, where roadways
are parallel to the cardinal directions. Downtown Denver
is based on a diagonal street grid, where roadways are
plotted to be parallel with Cherry Creek and the South
Platte River and almost exactly 45 degrees off of the
standard grid.
The Capitol Building and Lincoln Park also sit at the
intersection of two major arterials in the downtown.
Colfax Avenue/US Hwy 40 lies adjacent to the north edge
of the Capitol lawn and spans the entire metro area in an
east/west direction. Colfax Avenue is among the longest
continuous streets in the United States. The couplet
comprised of Lincoln Street and Broadway borders
Lincoln Park on two sides and extends from downtown
Denver to the south. Both of these corridors carry large
volumes of traffic contributing to the Capitols visibility and
prominence but also isolating it from downtown and the
Civic Center due to issues for pedestrians crossing the
streets.
A Divided Campus
The Capitol Complex is informally divided into a north
and south campus by Colfax Avenue which transitions
from four lanes to six lanes west of Grant Street on the
northwest corner of the Capitol lawn. The volume of
traffic, combined with the parking located in the Capitol
circle and the lack of pedestrian amenities make it
difficult for users and visitors to navigate the Capitol
Complex. This creates user proximity issues including
the separation of a majority of State parking within the
Complex which is located south of 14th Avenue and a
significant number of State employees working in offices
north of Colfax Avenue.
Diagram Showing Capitol Complex within Downtown Region
5.0 Urban Design
Downtown
Influence
Colfax Avenue
Golden Triangle
Influence
North Campus
V
ab
0
[Pf
South Campus
v>
c
(0
E
v>
Diagram Showing Differing Street Grids at Capitol Complex
Diagram Showing Influences and Divisions within the
Capitol Complex


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.2.3 SURROUNDING DISTRICTS
The Capitol Complex sits at the center of the City of
Denvers cultural core which is composed of civic
institutions and cultural attractions including the Denver
Art Museum, the Denver Public Library, the Colorado
Convention Center, the United States Mint and History
Colorado. The Capitol Building and Lincoln Park are
historically the point of beginning for Civic Center Park,
a central open space for the downtown area and home
to multiple programmed events, attractions as well as
demonstrations. Currently there is limited connectivity
and interaction between the Capitol Complex and the
surrounding cultural attractions in part due to lack
of wayfinding and also due to traffic volumes on the
neighboring arterials such as Colfax Avenue and the
Lincoln Street-Broadway couplet. The Capitol Complex
sits at the intersection of three primary neighborhoods, as
described below:
Central Business District
Denvers Central Business District is located northwest
of the Capitol Complex on the rotated grid of downtown
Denver. This district is the heart of Denvers commerce
and economic activity being comprised of large office
towers which are major employers and house a significant
portion of the downtown workforce including several
State agencies located in leased space. The density
and overall height of this area tapers towards its southern
boundary along Colfax Avenue as it transitions towards
the institutional uses of the Golden Triangle, in which the
Capitol Building and Lincoln Park are located. The 16th
Street pedestrian mall, a major tourist attraction and the
retail corridor of downtown Denver, is aligned upon the
west facade and dome of the Capitol Building.
Capitol Hill
The Capitol Hill neighborhood abuts the east edge of
the Capitol Complex with Grant Street and the Lincoln
Avenue-Broadway couplet serving as the transition point
between the Central Business District and the mixed
commercial residential neighborhoods to the east. Capitol
Hill has seen significant transformation over the years,
with the redevelopment of a number of sites transitioning
from inner-urban single family housing sites into
consolidated multi-family housing developments. Colfax
Avenue continues to function as the primary retail and
service core for this neighborhood and has undergone a
period of urban renewal in the past years; however, the
west edge of Capitol Hill and the corresponding section
of Colfax Avenue have poor urban character, narrow
sidewalks and are predominantly populated with surface
parking lots and lower rent establishments making for an
awkward and undesirable edge on the eastern boundary
of the Capitol Complex.
The Golden Triangle
The Golden Triangle abuts the south and west edges
of the Capitol Complex. This neighborhood has seen
significant change and re-development. The city of
Denver has recently finalized a master plan for this district
providing strategic direction and guidelines to shape
the transition of this neighborhood. New investment
is anticipated to be drawn to the Golden Triangle,
revitalizing and activating the area. Many of the Citys
cultural institutions such as the Denver Art Museum, the
City and County Building, and the United States Mint are
within this neighborhood, though they may be perceived
as a distinct district unto themselves.
5-3
Katamolh St
Diagram Showing Neighborhoods around Capitol Complex and Landmarks


5.0 Urban Design
CIVIC CENTER PARK
LINCOLN PARK
STATE OFFICE BUILDING
201 E COLFAX AVENUE
r~
(4)


"W
Capitol Complex Buildings
1. State Capitol Building, Built 1895-1903
2. Legislative Services Building, Built 1915
3. State Office Building, Built 1921
4. Capitol Annex, Built 1937
5. Power Plant, Built 1939
6. DOLE Building, Built 1957
7. State Services Building, Built 1960
8. Eluman Services Building, Built 1952, Acquired 1964
9. Centennial Building, Built 1976
10.1570 Grant Building, Built 1956, Acquired 2001
11 .Merrick Parking Structure, Built 2006
Diagram Locating Original Capitol Complex Buildings and Open Spaces
5.2.4 HISTORY OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX
The design of the Colorado State Capitol (designed by
Elijah E. Myers in 1885-86) and Lincoln Park (designed
by Reinhard Schuetze in 1895) became the starting point
for all subsequent plans for the Denver Civic Center and
Civic Center Park. The design for the Civic Center Park
was shaped by several renowned designers including
Charles Mumford Robinson, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.,
and finally Edward H. Bennett whose plan combined the
ideas of previous plans adding the Greek amphitheater,
the colonnade and proposed the realignment of Colfax
Avenue and 14th Avenue around the park. Civic Center
Park officially opened in 1919. The City and County of
Denver Building anchoring the west end of the park was
completed in 1932.
The Civic Center achieved National Historic Landmark
status from the National Park Service in 2013. The Capitol
Complex includes a number of important contributing
elements to the Landmark Designation of the Civic Center.
Important contributing elements include the Capitol
Building, the Colorado State Museum, the State Office
Building, as well as the Colorado Soldiers Monument and
Lincoln Park.
The west lawn of the Capitol and Lincoln Park not only
serve as landscape foregrounds to frame views of the
Capitol, these open spaces (in addition to the Lincoln
Street right of way) function as a civic stage with the
State Capitol as a backdrop providing space for public
gatherings, memorial services, and demonstrations. The
cultural gravity of the Capitol and the function of the Civic
Center as a confluence of State and local government
attract and lend magnitude to events held in this space.
5-4


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.2.5 VISITATION AND TOURISM
Capitol Visitation
The Capitol Building attracts as many as 300,000 visitors
each year. This number includes organized tours, school
children, tourists and visitors conducting business at
the Capitol. The Capitol also serves as offices for the
Governor, Lt. Governor, the General Assembly, the State
Treasurer and staff.
The Capitol Building is open to the public Monday
through Friday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm. The main visitor
access is located at the north entry on the 1st floor level.
All other entries to the Capitol are restricted to the general
public. The north and south entries have security in the
form of magnetometers which are staffed by security
personnel. There is no separate security line for lobbyists
or business persons entering the Capitol so they often
find themselves waiting in line with the larger tour groups
entering the building.
Volume of Visitors to the Capitol by Month
The Capitol also lacks a designated area for the staging
of large tour groups. Currently volunteers separate and
organize masses of school children or other visitors
into smaller tours in the Capitol atrium. Disabled users
are required to enter through the accessible entrance
located at the south basement level entry. Peak visitation
often occurs during the legislative session resulting in
high traffic levels within the Capitol Building during the
session.
Currently there is no designated parking or unloading
for tour buses. Numerous grade school and high school
tours visit the Capitol each year. Bus loads of children
are dropped off curb side on either Grant Street or Colfax
Avenue and assemble in either the east lawn or the
Capitol circle. There is no designated parking or queuing
for tour buses. Buses are forced to parallel park on
Lincoln Street, Grant Street, or Broadway depending upon
availability.
Other agencies located in the Capitol Complex or in
adjacent leased space have significant customer service
activity. These agencies include: Secretary of State,
Office of Economic Development, FICPF, DOR, DORA,
DOLE, and DNR. The location of the Civic Center RTD
transit station nearby allows users to arrive by public
transit. The Department of Labor and Employment which
experiences a high number of visitors dependent on
transit is located four blocks south of Civic Center Station
making it difficult for visitors to access this agency.
Public parking is accommodated through metered on-
street parking. Disabled parking is not provided for
visitors to State agencies or the Capitol Building.
Signage
Lack of clear uniform signage and wayfinding contributes
to confusion among citizens visiting the Capitol and
looking for specific buildings and agencies within the
Capitol Complex. The master plan recommends that
the visitor signage and wayfinding be upgraded. For a
detailed signage plan, see section 5.4.
5-5
Recommendations
Capitol Visitor Center
Currently tourists visiting the Capitol and state of
Colorado are not provided with a visitors center which
could provide information and services for Capitol tours
as well as visitor information for the rest of the state of
Colorado as well. The master plan recommends that
additional study be devoted to the potential for a visitors
center which could accommodate these requirements.
The master plan recommends accommodations for
additional visitor parking specifically accessible parking
Parking needs should be studied and parking should
be located adjacent to agencies which have the highest
levels of visitation.
Expanded hours for Capitol visitation potentially
including evenings and weekends could be studied so
as to allow for visitation outside of peak business hours.
This would be beneficial in activating the campus during
evenings and weekends.
CAPITOL BUILDING
BASEMENT ENTRY FROM SOUTH


5.0 Urban Design
5.3 Urban Design Opportunities
6.3.1 URBAN DESIGN ISSUES
Upon completion of the analysis, several issues became
apparent within the Capitol Complex. The primary
issues discovered relate to the pedestrian and visitor
experience. These issues included:
Single Use District
The Capitol Complex lacks a vitality and a diverse set
of activities as a result of its predominant office and
institutional uses. The Complex is active only during peak
commuting times and lunch during week days.
A Divided Campus
The Complex is divided into north and south sections by
the Colfax Avenue arterial. Furthermore, the campus is
severed from the downtown area by the busy couplet of
Broadway and Lincoln Street.
Connectivity
Safe and easy transportation and parking within the
Complex and to surrounding areas is paramount to an
active district. This includes vehicular, bicycle, transit,
and pedestrian movement being accommodated in the
Complex.
Wayfinding
For a visitor to the Complex, locating the desired
destination can be challenging due to the incomplete
and fragmented signage package. A comprehensive set
of signs identifying buildings and providing direction is
essential.
SOUTH SHERMAN
INFILL SITE
TWO ADDITIONAL
STORIES TO GARAGE
RTD INFILL SITE
COLFAX AS GRAND
BOULEVARD
NORTH SHERMAN
INFILL SITE
STATE LAND BOARD INFILL SITE
Figure Showing Potential Urban Design Projects
CAPITOL MALL
WEST LAWN
LINCOLN AND
COLFAX INFILL SITE
EAST CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT SITE
5-6


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.3.2 THE CAPITOL MALL
The master plan recommends the creation of a Capitol
Mall on Sherman Street between 12th and 16th Avenues.
While still including driving and parking lanes for vehicles
and space for parking meters, this Capitol Mall will
possess and expanded pedestrian character that will
differentiate it from the surrounding street network.
The Mall would be anchored on the north end by the
existing State office buildings facing onto Sherman Street.
In addition, a proposed mixed use office building could
be located on the parking lot on the corner of Lincoln
Street and Colfax Avenue with an additional mixed use
component of the building fronting onto Sherman mid-
block. The south end of the mall would be anchored
by the renovation of the Centennial Building at 1313
Sherman Street and the potential State Land Board mixed
use development site on the corner of 13th Avenue and
Sherman Street. Opportunity sites fronting onto Sherman
Street should encourage development of mixed-use infill
projects which have active frontages and ground floor
retail uses such as sidewalk cafes.
The Capitol Mall would include streetscape improvements
while introducing a mixture of uses in addition to the
State institutional uses to create a vibrant activated
defined campus. Streetscape improvements should
include signage and wayfinding, pedestrian lighting, xeric
landscaping and street trees, uniform site furnishings,
outdoor seating, bike parking, crosswalk enhancements
and defined bike lanes. The Mall would provide for
a comfortable and safe pedestrian experience while
allowing for continued automobile use.
Figure Showing Illustrative Site Plan for Capitol Mall
5-7
1

ACTIVE BUILDING FACADES
ON NEW BUILDINGS AND DISTINGUISHED
CAFE SEATING BIKE LANES
UNIFORM UNIFORM TREE
LIGHTING CANOPY
Figure Showing Proposed Capitol Mall Improvements to Sherman Street Looking North from 13th Avenue


5.0 Urban Design
5.3.3 MIXED USE OFFICE BUILDING AT
LINCOLN STREET AND COLFAX AVENUE
STATE OFFICE
COMPONENT
POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
COMPONENT On SHERMAN
STREET
The master plan recommends the infill of the Lincoln
Street and Colfax Avenue site located northwest of the
Capitol Building. The infill of this site either as a State
office building or through a public private partnership
that might redevelop the site as a mixed use office, retail,
and residential building would be a significant element
in creating and attracting activity within the Capitol
Complex. The infill of this site would stimulate the street
environment on Colfax Avenue by providing active, retail
uses at the street level which would increase pedestrian/
sidewalk activity and provide services to users and
employees of the Complex.
If the site were built out to capacity, it would
accommodate in excess of 500,000 gross square feet
(GFA) and provide structured parking to offset the loss of
surface spaces. A parking structure integrated into the
building would provide additional parking for the northern
part of the Complex, which is currently underserved.
PARKING
STRUCTURE
PLAZA OVER RETAIL SPACE
ON CORNER OF COLFAX AND
LINCOLN
Figure Showing Potential Mixed-Use Building on the
Lincoln and Colfax Site
5-8


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.3.4 INFILL OPPORTUNITIES
Colfax Ave
U1h Ave
I
n
)2lhAve
Opportunity Sites
The master plan recommends that the State move agencies currently
located in leased spaces downtown into State owned buildings located
within the Capitol Complex. The urban design analysis of the current
available sites within the Complex has identified under utilized parcels
which currently function as surface parking lots for State employees.
These sites could be infilled with mixed-use state office buildings. The
State would be able to realize the long term financial benefits of owning
these buildings as opposed to leasing office space, which would
prove more costly over time. Additionally, the construction of buildings
on these sites would, in effect, fill in the missing gaps in the Capitol
Complex and aid in activating the campus by including ground level
retail or commercial uses. These uses would draw users from outside the
Complex and serve more than 5,000 State employees who currently work
in the downtown.
North Sherman Infill Site 1530 Sherman Street
This site is currently a surface parking lot for State employees. Future
infill of this site either through a public-private partnership or as a mixed-
use expansion of the State Office Building would benefit the Complex
by creating a more active mix of uses for this area of the Complex.
Development on this site should incorporate a ground floor retail or
restaurant use. Residential development or an extended-stay hotel could
aid in activating the Complex by adding after-hours users to the campus.
Infill development on this site should respect the existing build-to lines
established by the State Office Building and be in accordance with the
architectural language established in the campus. Under existing zoning
and height restrictions, a building of approximately seven stories and
105,000 gross square feet is possible on this site.
In the short term, landscape improvements to the street frontage along
the current surface parking lot (Yellow lot) could be considered. These
improvements could include a low architectural wall or hedge to screen
the bumpers and headlights of the parked cars, pedestrian level lighting,
street trees, planted medians within the lot and signage to designate that
the lot is for State employees.

South Sherman Infill Site 1325 Sherman Street
This site currently serves as a surface parking lot for State employees.
This site has potential for future infill either as a expansion of the
Centennial building located at 1313 Sherman or as a public-private
partnership which could take the form of a mixed use development.
Development of the ground floor, as either retail or restaurant use, is
encouraged for this site to provide services for the users and employees
of the Complex. These uses would also further activate the Complex
and help extend its active hours beyond the work day. Infill development
on this site should respect the existing build-to lines established by the
Centennial Building and be in accordance with the architectural language
established in the campus. Under existing zoning and height restrictions,
a building of approximately seven stories and 82,800 gross square feet is
possible on this site.
Over the short term landscape and streetscape improvements are
recommended along the Sherman Street frontage. These improvements
could include a low architectural wall or hedge to screen the bumpers
and headlights of the parked cars, pedestrian level lighting, street trees,
planted medians within the lot and signage to designate that the lot is for
State employees.
5-9


5.0 Urban Design
5.3.5 STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES

East Grant Street Site
This site which is currently operated as a privately-owned surface
parking lot, located directly east of the State Capitol Building, is
an important site which exerts an influence upon the image of the
Statehouse. Redevelopment of this site either for State use or as
a private development would activate the portions of the Complex
and streets east of the Capitol and provide important opportunities
for connectivity between the Capitol Complex and the Capitol Hill
neighborhood for both users of the Complex and surrounding residents.
Opportunities for the redevelopment of this site should be studied as
part of the long term master plan for the Capitol Complex. The current
use as a surface parking lot directly reflects upon the image of the
Capitol building. While there is a need for visitor parking within the
Complex, this could be accommodated by structured parking within
the redevelopment of this site. It would be beneficial to the Complex
and the surrounding district for this site to be developed as a mixed-
use building, whether this development be State- or private-sector-led.
As a State use, this site would provide an optimal site as a Legislative
Office Building with underground parking and a sky-lit, underground
passageway for access to the Capitol.
RTD Infill Site Civic Center Station
The RTD Civic Center Station Site represents a value added to the
Capitol Complex. This transit hub provides a valuable amenity to users
and employees of the Capitol Complex by providing access to multiple
transit routes. Currently RTD is studying plans for the reconfiguration
of the station and possible re-development opportunities for the south
portion of the site facing onto Colfax Avenue and across from Lincoln
Park. Commercial/retail development on this site would help to activate
the Colfax frontage, provide greater connectivity between the Complex
and the station as well as providing services and amenities to users and
employees of the Complex.
State Land Board Infill Site
The State Land Board owns a site located between 12th Avenue and 13th
Avenue on the west side of Sherman Street. Mixed-use development
on this site would provide the opportunity for retail and residential
development that would further activate the Complex outside of normal
business hours and provide services and amenities to users and
employees of the Complex. Development on this site, as well as the
DOLE building on 12th Avenue, would anchor the proposed Capitol Mall
on its southern end.
5-10


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.4 Signage and Wayfinding
Existing Signage Analysis
Currently there is no comprehensive system of signage
for the Capitol Complex. A few buildings have names
and addresses listed upon the exterior facades but no
uniform system of signage or monumentation exists. A
comprehensive signage package would help differentiate
State buildings from other office or institutional uses within
the area. There also exists no pedestrian level wayfinding
signage or directories which provide locations of the
various buildings and their respective agencies within the
Capitol Complex.
Over time, signage has been added through the
Complex, with varying appearances and intents. The
existing signage is lacking in hierarchy, uniformity and
consistency of location and placement thereby making
the existing signage ineffective as wayfinding.
There are no consistent elements which unify the Capitol
Complex as a singular district. Visitors are unaware
of whether they are inside or outside of the Complex
boundaries. This prevents the Complex from being
seen as a singular destination and instead appears as a
disparate cluster of unrelated buildings.
Goals for Signage Program
The overall goal is to create a hierarchy of signs that
share a family resemblance that unifies the Capitol
Complex, providing a consistent element that visitors
recognize among a variety of conditions and architecture.
This signage package should clearly and distinctively
provide:
Identification (building/facility name, address and
departments within)
Interpretation (describe the purpose and history of
the buildings/facilities)
Direction (to destinations throughout Capitol
Complex)
Regulation (public access, contact info, etc)
A well-designed signage program will provide several
benefits to the Capitol Complex and its users. The
program should aim to:
Help visitors get oriented and find their way to key
destinations within the Capitol Complex.
Create a repeatable system of signs, documented
in a signage manual that can be expanded in the
future and implemented in phases.
Implement signage that helps to create a positive
impression of the Capitol Complex. Sign design,
materials, locations and messages shall contribute
to:
Making all visitors (citizens and other visitors
and employees) feel welcome when visiting the
Capitol Complex.
Helping visitors find the services they seek.
Portraying efficiency and effectiveness.
Establish an appropriate character for the
Complex.
Emphasize key building and significant
monuments.
Utilize symbols, logos, color-coding and iconic
graphics to maximize the effectiveness and beauty
of the signage.
Identify consistent, logical locations for signs
relative to established circulation routes, so that
visitors can anticipate where to find them. Locate
signs at decision points where users find that they
need information.
Coordinate signage design and placement with
outdoor lighting to ensure legibility after dark
without the need for dedicated sign lighting.
Recommend maintenance of the signage
system, including timely replacement of obsolete
information, eliminating unnecessary, confusing, or
inappropriate signs.
Minimize the number and variety of signs to clarify
communication and reduce clutter.
5-11
Welcome to the Colorado
State Capitol
Public Entrance First Floor
Handicap Entrance on South Side
(7:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F)
*
Images Showing Existing Building and Directional Signage in the Capitol Complex


5.0 Urban Design
Building/Facility Signage
Wayfinding Signage
Commemorative Plaque

1 - THIS PLAQUE MARKSTHE SITE OF
I rite FIRST BLOCKjOF LAND SOLD IN THE
§ PlRSt'.CROWN LAND SALES IN ST. KILDA
t: V- 7TH DECEMBER 1842
ThC BUYER WAS liEUT, JAMES ROSS LAWRENCE. R.N.,'
CAPTAIN OF "HE SCHOONER 'LADY OF ST. KILDA'
HE NAMED ACLANOBTReErAFTER SIR THOMAS DYKE ACLAND
OWNER OF .THE 'LADY OF ST. KILOA
THIS PLAQUE WAS UNVEILED BY .
.COMMANDER R. S. VEALE R.A.N. (RETD), C.M.G. I
s' FOR i1
'ST. KILDA CITY COUNCIL ,
24TH MARCH, 1985.
5-12
Images Showing Typical Signage for Various Uses


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
16th Avenue
Colfax Avenue
' t-
J
14th Avenue
13th Avenue
I
I
1 r'~
V i
I
(
{
>
0
$
~o
0
O
co
0
co
0
0
c/)
c
0
E
0
_C
C/)
Q
0
0
CO
0
o
@----------------ESI
1 fr=
12th Avenue
Diagram Showing a Proposed Distribution of Signage in the Capitol Complex
Capitol Complex Buildings
District identification signage is designed to be located
along the major arterials where they enter the Capitol
Complex. These elements should be of the size and
scale so as to be readable from a variety of angles and
modes of transportation. These element will also need to
be sensitive to the pedestrian scale of their surroundings.
Building identification signage identifies buildings as
State facilities belonging to the Capitol Complex and
provides visitors and users with the name and addresses
of the building. Uniform signage elements add to the
campus identity and wayfinding within the campus. The
signage should be designed with the intention of being
long term, elegant, and effective in communicating basic
information. It is recommended that these signs be
monument type signs that are uniform and proportional
in size and scale throughout the campus with text that
can read from vehicles but the overall signage should
be scaled to pedestrians. Building signage should also
identify the agencies located within a given building.



Wayfinding Sign
Wayfinding or directory signage is intended to be located
at entries to and key intersections within the Capitol
Complex. The signage is intended to orient visitors and
users to the Complex and help them find their way to a
specific destination within the Complex. The directory
should contain a map of the Complex with building names
and the universal You are here symbol. A directory of
agencies and their locations within the Capitol Complex
should be included. These elements have the potential
to be interactive using new technologies and have
information on current events, updates and bulletins
that would be beneficial to visitors and employees as
well. The design of these signage elements should be
accessible to all users and scaled for pedestrians.
Interpretive Sign
Interpretive signage is intended to be placed at locations
of historic significance to inform and educate visitors
to the Capitol Complex about the history of specific
buildings or elements located in the Complex. The
design of these elements has the potential to utilize
technology to link users to multimedia devices and
incorporate links or updates. The signage should
incorporate graphics and visuals to tell the story. The
design of these signage elements should be accessible
to all users and scaled for pedestrians.
5.0 Urban Design
0
I
Morris & Sheila Cregger
Harding University wishes in honor the Cregger Family
In appreciation of your deep support of the
Bison Track & Cross Country Team
and mission of the University.
Landmark Directional Sign
Directional signage is intended to be located at
intermediate points along streets or walking paths within
the Capitol Complex to indicate to a pedestrian that they
are traveling towards a specific landmark. This element
works together with building signage and wayfinding to
reinforce directions to visitors unfamiliar with the Complex
These signs should share a simplified, but identifiable
language with the remainder of the signage package.
Commemorative Plaque
Commemorative plaques are intended to impart
information that is important to the heritage of a building
or the Complex. These plaques may indicate historical
status, years built, architect, or other information that
relates to the building on which it is affixed. These
elements should be located at a common location on
Capitol Complex buildings, such as adjacent to the front
entrance.
5-14


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.5 - Access and Circulation
5.5.1 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
A Divided Campus
Due to the heavy traffic volumes Colfax Avenue separates
the Complex into a north and south campus. The Lincoln
Street and Broadway couplet separates the Capitol
Complex from the greater Civic Center and many of the
cultural destinations which are tourist attractions located
only a short distance from the Capitol Building.
Key Intersections
The signalized intersections at Colfax Avenue and
Sherman provide connectivity between the north and
south portions of the campus. Colfax Avenue and Lincoln
Street provides connectivity from the Complex to RTDs
Civic Center station and to the downtown Denver Central
Business District where many agencies are located within
leased space. The intersection of Colfax Avenue and
Grant Street provides an eastern gateway from the Colfax
business district to the Capitol Complex.
Lincoln and Broadway Mid Block Crossings
The mid block crossing located on Lincoln Street midway
between Colfax Avenue and 14th Avenue is also used by
pedestrians and school groups to cross from Lincoln Park
and the Civic Center Park. Currently, this crossing does
not have a crossing signal, creating a safety concern for
pedestrians. This crossing, as well as the corresponding
mid-block crossing on Broadway between Colfax Avenue
and 14th Avenue, could have crosswalks and signalized
crossings to provide a safe connection between the
Capitol and Civic Center Park along its formal and historic
axis.
Sherman Street and Colfax Avenue
The Colfax Avenue and Sherman Street intersection is
important to connecting the north and south halves of the
Complex. Beginning with the 2015 legislative session,
44 members of the General Assembly will have their
offices located at the State Services Building at 1525
Sherman Street. This will potentially increase pedestrian
traffic crossing Colfax Avenue at Sherman Street. This
intersection currently receives below average pedestrian
rating in the traffic study conducted for this report.
(See Appendix 2 (a) Intersection Analysis) The study
recommends specific refinements to the pedestrian
crossing including:
Pedestrian detection systems
Pedestrian countdowns and animated eyes
Pedestrian priority signals
No right turn on red signals from either street
In addition to the refinements to the pedestrian signal the
master plan recommends a raised planted median to be
located in the turn lane on Colfax Avenue in the blocks
between Grant and Sherman and Sherman and Lincoln
be studied. The median would provide a pedestrian
refuge in the middle of Colfax Avenue so pedestrians
attempting to cross the seven lanes of traffic would have
a refuge midway in case they were unable to complete
the crossing. The median would potentially require the
removal of the left turn movement at Sherman Street and
Colfax Avenue. The median and the associated planting
would also have a calming effect on traffic in these blocks
and create the effect of a Grand Boulevard in the blocks
adjacent to the Capitol Building.
5-15


Diagram Showing Improvements to Colfax Avenue Crossing
Special paving at
Colfax Crossings
5.0 Urban Design
Diagram Showing Key Intersections and Destinations in and around Capitol Complex
Denver
Pavilions *
/ \

K

o

United
States
Mint
$
&

&
3
"ol
Civic
Center
Park
Denver
Art
Museum
History^
Colorado'
17th Ave
16th A\e
Colfax Ave
14th Ave
13th Ave'
12th Ave

to
a)
b
S
o
a>
a
oo 0 oo LA
0 o o 0 E
l\ o \ c c o CD 0 u <
> +- oo
o oo c
c 0
T> O o o u E 0
c .C
1/0
00 oo
c oo
c O c
O , O) C
o j b 5 0 Q_
1. Broadway and Colfax Avenue Intersection
2. Sherman Street and Colfax Avenue Intersection
3. Grant Street and Colfax Avenue Intersection
4. Broadway Mid-Block Crossing
5. Lincoln Street Mid-Block Crossing
6. Sherman Street and 14th Avenue
Intersection
Capitol Complex Buildings
Key Intersections


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.5.3 BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Bicycle Routes
Many of the streets surrounding the Capitol Complex are
designated to facilitate bicycle traffic. Sherman Street,
which intersects the driveway surrounding the Capitol,
features shared bike lane markings in both directions.
East-west bike traffic is facilitated by a bike lane on 16th
Avenue and bike routes on 12th Avenue. Connections
into the Central Business District are provided by the
bike lane on 16th Avenue and cycle track on Bannock
Street, in front of the City and County of Denver building.
Meetings with the City of Denver Public Works indicated
that the Sherman Street bike lane may be supplemented
by additional bike lanes on Grant Street in the future.
Recommendations
The master plan recommends as part of the Capitol Mall
that striped bicycle routes be added to Sherman Street
as part of the Capitol Mall concept to endorse bicycle
usage. To further encourage cycling to and from the
Capitol, the provision of additional bike parking facilities
should be considered. Currently, employees working
in the Capitol Complex are allowed to register for bike
lockers. Additional bike storage should be considered
and it should provide controlled access, weather
protection, and security. These facilities may include bike
lockers, indoor cages, or a bicycle room. Additionally,
short-term bicycle parking should be added within 50 of
the entrances of the Capitol Complex buildings, as it not
only facilitates easier and faster bicycle access to the
buildings and reduces demand for visitor parking but also
serves as an endorsement of multi-modal travel.
For a detailed assessment of the bicycle circulation and
recommendations refer to Appendix 2 (b) Multimodal
Transportation Assessment.
Shared Lanes
B-Cycle Station
5-17


5.0 Urban Design
5.5.4 TRANSIT
Civic Center Station
With a centralized site in downtown Denver located
one block away from Civic Center Station, the Capitol
Complex is located adjacent to several bus routes. This
location proximate to transit is a benefit to the users and
employees of the Capitol Complex. Citizens are able
to utilize transit to conduct affairs with agencies located
within the Complex. State employees are able to obtain
RTD EcoPasses at discounted rates and agency interview
data indicates that as many as fifty percent of State
employees utilize transit to commute to and from work
each day.
RTD is in the process of developing a master plan for
Civic Center Station that will study future configurations
for the station and the RTD site. The master plan
recommends ongoing coordination with RTD so that the
Civic Center Station plan can take into account the needs
of Capitol Complex users.
The Downtown MetroRide Circulator
The MetroRide circulator is a free bus service (opened in
2014) connecting Denver Union Station to Civic Center
Station via 18th and 19th Streets. There are future plans
for extending the circulator south to 12th Avenue and
Lincoln Street, but these plans have stalled due to lack
of operating funds. The extension of the circulator south
would benefit the Capitol Complex by providing a transit
connection closer to DOLE which is located at 12th
Avenue and Sherman Street. This agency has a higher
than average visitation by users who are dependent upon
transit.
The Colfax Corridor
Currently studies are underway for alternative transit
modes to increase efficiency within the Colfax Avenue
corridor. The Colfax Corridor Connections is a long-term
study intended to identify multi-modal transportation
improvements. The study preliminarily identified bus
rapid transit (BRT) as a preferred option for improved
transit along the corridor. A short term study the Transit
Priority Study is intended to reduce travel times and
increase security and ridership for bus routes. Potential
improvements being studied include stop amenities,
bus bulbs, bypass lanes/queue jumps, and transit signal
priority.
..... RTD Express Bus
..... RTD Local Bus
Light Rail Line
o Light Rail Stop
5-18


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.5.5 VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
Traffic Volumes
The Capitol Complex lies at the intersection of two major
downtown arterials which exposes the Complex to high
volumes of traffic. Regional access to the Complex is
provided from Colfax Avenue/US Highway 40 which has
north and southbound exits from Interstate 25. Numerous
surface streets and arterials provide access to the
Complex.
The master plan has no specific recommendations to
improve traffic conditions as these right-of-ways fall
outside of the Complex. However, the master plan does
identify a number of pedestrian circulation issues due
to the high volumes of traffic surrounding the Complex
and additionally recommends refinements to pedestrian
crossings, signage and wayfinding to improve the visitor
and user experience in accessing the Complex. Currently
there is limited signage directing vehicular users to
specific destinations within the Complex or to visitor
parking.
The City of Denver is studying the feasibility of converting
Lincoln Street and Broadway from one-way streets to two-
way streets. This has the potential of slowing vehicular
traffic and providing a safer pedestrian experience at
crossings. Though vehicular circulation may be slowed,
access would be improved by the creation of new north-
south options along these streets.
Diagram Showing Location of Major Roads
Connecting to the Capitol Complex
5-19
CO _
O a
<1 o
- o
1 CM
CM ^
50,583
(2011)
CO _
CO CM
10 o
- o
o
CO ^
r
CO _
h- o
-o
l CM
CO ^
r-- --
30,958
(2010)
r>
u.
14,733
(2002)
14th Avenue
t
i
L.
Diagram Showing Vehicular Average Daily Trips (ADT) on Key Streets within the Capitol Complex


5.6 Parking
Diagram Showing State-Owned Parking Facilities
5.6.1 EXISTING PARKING
Capitol Complex Operated Parking
The Capitol Complex downtown operates a total of
905 employee parking spaces 242 spaces located
in surface lots and an additional 663 spaces located
in the Merrick Parking Structure. Permits to use the
available Capitol Complex parking supply are issued on
an individual basis. Each parking space is assigned to a
specific employee or agency and there is no oversell of
available parking. Currently there are approximately 400
employees on the waiting list for a parking space.
Many employees take advantage of alternative forms
of transportation, thereby reducing overall parking
demands. While exact figures are not currently available,
it appears that many employees bike to work or use mass
transit. There is currently a waiting list for the bicycle
lockers located north of 1525 Sherman Street.
Visitor Parking
Visitor parking within the Capitol Complex is provided
by metered on-street parking. The parking analysis
conducted for the master plan showed that the metered
spaces located in and around the Capitol Complex were
typically utilized at 74% on average which is nearing the
industry standard of 85% for when parking inventory is
perceived to be effectively full. During the legislative
session, a number of the parking spaces along Sherman
Street and Grant Street are bagged which further
contributes to the deficit of visitor parking.
Visitor parking demand is largely met through private
parking lots located near the Complex. No accessible
visitor parking is supplied within the Capitol Complex.
1
*
3

>
D
5
T>
O
2
co
co
c
O
o
c
to
c
o to
£ c
iD o
sz OO o
1. Tan Parking Lot 5
2. Green Parking Lot 6
3. Yellow Parking Lot 7
4. Blue Parking Lot 8
Merrick Parking Structu
Black Parking Lot
Motor Pool Lot
Capitol Circle
Logan St
5.0 Urban Design
Diagram Showing Privately-Owned and On-Street Parking Facilities
17th Ave
16th Ave
Colfax Ave
14th Ave
13th Ave
12th Ave
| | Capitol Complex
I---1 Parking Facilities

17th Ave
16th Ave
Colfax Ave
>
o
5
TD
O
2
CO
I I
to
i:
!'
CO
14th Ave
___ 13th Ave

c
o
"O
CO
c
O
a>
o
12th Ave
Private Parking Facilities
5 Flour Metered Parking
2 Flour Metered Parking
2 Flour Time limit
1 Flour Metered Parking


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.6.2 PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
Parking in the Capitol Circle
Colorado is one of the few state capitols that allow
for parking directly adjoining to and surrounding the
Capitol Building. The accommodation of parking within
the Capitol circle creates a number of issues including
congestion, conflicts between pedestrians accessing the
building and vehicles parking, and security concerns of
allowing vehicular access directly adjacent to the Capitol
Building.
The master plan recommends that the approximately 162
spaces currently located in the Capitol circle be relocated
to another location. Options to accommodate the parking
may include it in the design of the proposed building at
Lincoln Street and Colfax Avenue or by adding additional
levels to the Merrick Parking Structure which would
provide an additional 282 spaces.
Employee Parking
The parking analysis conducted as part of the master plan
concluded that the parking demand could be mitigated
by better utilizing the existing parking supply. The State
should reconsider the current policy of assigning each
parking space to specific individuals. This system could
be maximized by overselling the number of parking
permits by approximately ten percent as other states do;
permit holders would be assigned to a specific lot but not
a specific space.
Bus Parking
The State Capitol receives roughly 300,000 visitors each
year. A large portion of these visitors are school children
and tour groups arriving by bus. Currently there is no
allowance for bus drop off or parking within the Complex.
This creates instances in which school aged children and
groups are being unloaded curb side on highly trafficked
arterial streets; buses are then parking street side while
tours are being conducted.
Visitor and Disabled Parking
The master plan recommends that directional signage
be provided to direct users to the available parking and
then provide them with a pedestrian wayfinding system to
direct them to their destinations within the Complex. The
Capitol Complex Facilities website and specific agency
websites could include directions for visitors guiding them
to parking options nearby the Complex. The State should
investigate the provision of accessible visitor parking
located adjacent to the agencies where the need is the
greatest. Capitol Complex Facilities could further monitor
visitor parking demand to understand which agencies
require additional user parking and where it may best be
located.
Further study should be conducted to find solutions for
the arrival and drop off of large tour groups, allocation
of loading areas for buses and designated parking for
buses for the time period required for tours. These
parking studies should be conducted in tandem with the
assessment of the pedestrian accessibility of the Capitol
Complex.
5-21
Image Showing Two Added Stories to Merrick Parking Garage and Its Proximity to the Capitol Building


5.7 - Architecture
5.7.1 ARCHITECTURAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
The architectural language of the State buildings is one
of the defining elements of the Capitol Complex. The
earlier buildings dating from the turn of the century exhibit
cultural richness and architectural flourishes while the
later buildings share a common use of materials such
as granite and other stones but have more efficient
forms. The buildings reflect their institutional heritage
often having defined points of entry through formal and
processional portals, monolithic facades with minimal
glazing and small windows and a stately street presence
as the massings are arrayed along a common build-to
line.
Share Common Elements
To continue the language of the State architecture, future
buildings should share a commonality with the existing
buildings. Future buildings should employ a similar
use of materials that have a timeless quality such as
stone accents and cladding while allowing for modern
technologies and material to be interposed. The scale
and stateliness of the existing building inventory should
carry over to future construction. The massing of future
buildings should match the current build-to line as
established by the existing buildings.
Use Quality Materials
To ensure that future buildings achieve the same longevity
and express a similar quality of construction as the
existing Complex buildings, premium materials and
construction techniques should be used. The design
and execution of all future Capitol Complex buildings
should be geared towards creating a product that will
be sustainable and elegant. In designing for quality
structures, the future buildings will integrate into a
campus that exhibits the permanence and consistency of
the state of Colorado.
Creating a Mixed Use Campus
In keeping with the goal of creating a more pedestrian
friendly and open-campus environment, future buildings
should display a more open and inviting street presence.
The ground levels should incorporate a mixture of uses
which include service retail uses, restaurants and cafes.
The facades should be open and incorporate higher
percentages of glazing and storefront treatments with
multiple entries and open lobbies.
5.0 Urban Design


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.8 Public Realm
Value of the Public Realm
The State Capitol building and the surrounding Capitol
Complex are enduring and symbolic institutions that are
representative of the state of Colorado. It is important that
improvements to the campus and the overall image of the
Capitol be seen as long term investments in Colorados
cultural heritage. All of the components of the Capitol
Complex contribute to this image whether they be the
architecture of the buildings, parking, signage, circulation
or the trees and landscape. The public realm consists of
all of these elements as they are experienced by visitors
and users of the Complex outside of the buildings. Public
realm improvements aim to enhance the user experience
and provide a sense of place for the Complex.
Image Showing Lincoln Park and its Paving Features
Streetscape Improvements
Pedestrian circulation and creating a pedestrian friendly
environment is a important goal of the proposed Capitol
Mall. In addition to improvements to traffic signals,
streetscape improvements are recommended to improve
pedestrian functionality as well as defining the center of
the Capitol Complex. While the streets fall outside of the
jurisdiction of the State, cooperation with the City and
other entities to implement streetscape improvements
would be beneficial to the Complex.
Grand Boulevards are referenced in several plans
for the downtown area but not specifically defined.
The master plan recommends enhancements
to the two blocks of Colfax Avenue/US Highway
40 between Grant and Lincoln Streets which are
directly adjacent to the Capitol Building. These
improvements to the streetscape and landscape
would create the effect of a Grand Boulevard
transitioning the character of the street to a
planted boulevard, slowing traffic and serving to
unite the north and south halves of the Capitol
Complex.
Gateway Elements created through the use of
signage and the transitioning of Colfax into a Grand
Boulevard would have the effect of creating a
gateway to the Capitol Complex. These elements
combined with the architectural grandeur of the
Statehouse would add to the definition of place at
the center of the Capitol Complex.
Image Showing the Character of a Grand Boulevard
5-23
Bulbouts extend the sidewalk and curb edge out
into the street to the edge of the parallel parking
lane improving the visibility of pedestrians waiting
to cross the intersection and shortening the overall
crossing. These elements reduce the street width
at intersections, thereby slowing or calming traffic.
Clearly delineated crosswalks are important
to signal to drivers of the pedestrian realm.
Crosswalks can be painted special colors or
higher quality materials may be used to create
a more prominent pedestrian crossing area. On
crossings such as the one at Colfax Avenue and
Sherman Street, the crosswalk could cross through
a proposed center median on Colfax Avenue,
providing a respite and safe-haven for pedestrians
crossing the street.
The intent of introducing special paving, such
as modular or unit pavers, on key streets or key
intersections is to slow traffic and to emphasize
the multi-modal nature of these streets by adding
texture and visual appeal. Unit pavers should also
be utilized in the sidewalks and crosswalks where
applicable to accentuate entries and to enhance
the pedestrian appeal of the streetscape.
Image Showing a Curb Bulbout with Planted Edges
Image Showing a Crosswalk with a Median Safe-Haven


Site Furnishings
Uniform site furnishings used throughout the Capitol
Complex would contribute to the perception of a unified
campus. The location and types of furnishings should
be decided as part of a overall design study that looks
at the needs of users, visitors and employees within the
Complex and the functionality of the furnishings should
complement the needs of these users. The palette of
elements may include:
Bollards
Trash receptacles
Bike racks
Planters
Benches and other seating
Image Showing an Urban Seating Option
Image Showing a High-Quality Bicycle Rack
Lighting
Lighting is an important element of the public realm.
Light fixtures can be used as ornamental street furnishing
elements during the day mounting banner arms and
accessories. At night, lighting can help to activate the
public realm, create a perception of safety and can be
used as a defining element.
Currently the Capitol Complex uses a City of Denver
standard pedestrian level light fixture located in the tree
lawns in front of Capitol Complex facilities and in the
Capitol lawn. These lights are supplemented by street-
level overhead lights. The master plan recommends
that the pedestrian level lighting be studied as part of
an overall public realm master plan and that signature
pedestrian lighting fixtures be utilized in the Sherman
Street Capitol Mall streetscape to create a campus
identity and to activate the public realm after hours.
Image Showing Historically Appropriate Bollards
Image Showing a Well-Lit Capitol District (Madison, Wl)
5.0 Urban Design
Landscape and Plantings
The Capitol lawn and many of the streets within the
Capitol Complex are planted with mature trees. To further
enhance the Complex and create the feeling of a defined
campus it is important that the Complex have a uniform
and defined landscape.
Mature street trees and established plantings can have
a profound impact upon the outdoor environment by
slowing traffic, providing shade, seasonal color, mitigating
noise and creating a human scaled organic environment.
The value of a mature maintained landscape is significant
for the aesthetic and cultural effect that it can impart
upon the surrounding environment. The landscape and
especially the street tree plantings need to be viewed as
legacy elements that need to be nurtured and maintained.
In the Colorado climate, trees can take decades to mature
but they also have an appreciable impact upon the
character of the environment.
The master plan recommends the creation of an overall
landscape master plan for the Capitol Complex which
would identify priority areas, user needs and outline
a maintenance strategy and budget for the upkeep of
the Complex landscape. The use of native and xeric
plantings and groundcovers in low traffic areas and where
applicable should be emphasized. Blue grass plantings
in tree lawns may be replaced by curbed landscape
planters populated with xeric species with intermittent
pedestrian access to accommodate parallel parking.
The master plan recommends that the landscape plan
for the Capitol Mall and the Capitol Complex overall
explore methods for sustaining healthy plantings in the
streetscape. These may include larger tree cutouts
to provide aeration, raised curbs around tree lawns to
prevent snow melt chemicals from damaging trees, drip
irrigation and the use of native species.
Landscape Maintenance
The planting and ongoing maintenance of street trees in
the blocks surrounding the Capitol Complex needs to be
prioritized to capitalize upon this investment.
Image Showing a Consistent and Stately Tree Canopy
Image Showing Urban Planters with Seating Elements
Image Showing Xeriscapic Street Planting
5-24


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
5.9 West Lawn
I i
Figure Showing the Existing West Lawn with Lincoln Street at Grade and Potential Figure Showing the Proposed West Lawn with Lincoln Street Tunneled
Mid-Block Crossings
Figure Showing the Proposed West Lawn Viewed From Lincoln Street and 14th Avenue Looking North
Intent
The West Lawn proposal connects the western portion
of the Capitol grounds to Lincoln Park directly west
across Lincoln Street. The design expands the West
Lawn over Lincoln Street and connects it to Lincoln
Park by creating a cut and cover tunnel structure. The
design would remove permanent parking from the
Capitol Circle and provide plazas for small functions,
public art and seating opportunities on the western
side of the Capitol Building. The expanded West Lawn
would accommodate terraced lawn gardens providing
large, level spaces for gatherings and functions.
The plan also presents the opportunity for a two level
underground parking structure located beneath the
West Lawn adjacent to the Capitol building. The
structure would provide 195 parking spaces for
occupants of the Capitol Building. The garage would
involve a connection into the basement level of the
Capitol building.
The estimated cost of the West Lawn project is $69
million including escalation. It is recommended an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Study
be undertaken to analyze the feasibility of this project.
Pros and Cons
The West Lawn proposal has several advantages
and disadvantages related to visibility, security,
accessibility and traffic issues. These pros and cons
are outlined in the table on the opposite page. For
a more detailed analysis of the West Lawn project,
please see the full report included in the appendix
(See Appendix 2 (c) West Lawn Report).
5-25


PROS
CONS
Visibility and Appearance
The project creates a continuous landscape bridging
Lincoln Street and connecting Lincoln Park with the
West Lawn.
The proposed design introduces additional space
for programmed and unprogrammed activities and
provides a forum for large gatherings and events.
There are aesthetic advantages to removing parking
from the Capitol circle; this would remove a non-
original design element and convert the circle back to
its original use and structure.
The creation of the Lincoln Street tunnel and the
resulting loss of public realm/right-of-way adjacent
to Lincoln Street removes this area as a venue for
non-scheduled public demonstrations with the State
Capitol as a backdrop.
There will be a loss of a number of mature trees within
the West Lawn. While the design replaces these
trees, it will be a number of years before they will
retain the prominence of the existing landscape.
Security
There are security advantages to removing the
parking from the Capitol circle and providing secure
parking underground with access for the Governor
and members of the General Assembly to the Capitol
basement.
There are safety advantages by providing a
connection between the West Lawn and Lincoln Park
and separating pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic
mid-block at Lincoln Street.
Elevating the West Lawn above the adjacent streets
removes its relationship to Lincoln Street, 14th Avenue
and Colfax Avenue creating the perception of an
unmonitored and potentially unsafe environment and
requiring additional security patrols in the parking
garage, Lincoln Street tunnel, and the West Lawn.
Elevating the West Lawn provides pedestrian access
directly over Lincoln Street which may provide
opportunity for individuals to drop objects onto
passing vehicles.
Accessibility
The proposed design creates a designated Elevating the West Lawn over Lincoln Street
accessible pathway for disabled users to cross over necessitates the introduction of multiple accessible
and through the West Lawn separated from vehicular ramps required to traverse the elevation gain,
traffic on Lincoln Street.
Traffic Issues
Removal of traffic from the Capitol circle reduces Traffic entering and exiting the parking garage will
conflicts between cars and pedestrians, providing a have effects upon the traffic flow on Lincoln Street
pedestrian refuge on the Capitol grounds. - Queuing past 14th Avenue in the a.m. peak and
potentially crossing three lanes of traffic to turn left on
Colfax Avenue during the p.m. peak.
Historic Designation
The proposed design may impact the historical fabric
of what was there and what was foundational to the
National Historic Landmark designation of the site,
including the view of the Capitol from Lincoln Street
and the layout of the west lawn.
5.0 Urban Design
5.10 Key Recommendations
CHAPTER 5.0 URBAN DESIGN KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
A NEWLY-CONSTRUCTED, MIXED-USE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE STATE-OWNED
PARCEL ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET AND COLFAX AVENUE
COULD ACCOMMODATE STATE AGENCY SPACE NEEDS AND PROVIDE AN ACTIVATING
ELEMENT FOR THE CAMPUS. THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL ADD USERS TO THE
COMPLEX AND ACT AS A GATEWAY BETWEEN THE COMPLEX AND DOWNTOWN.
SIGNAGE, WAYFINDING, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE EMBODIED
IN THE CAPITOL MALL CONCEPT REPRESENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE THE
CAPITOL COMPLEX CAMPUS AND MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY.
CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY, BUILDING UPON THE WAYFINDING
IMPROVEMENTS, SHOULD BE MADE TO KEY INTERSECTIONS TO FACILITATE BETTER
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY. CONNECTIONS ACROSS COLFAX
AVENUE BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH CAMPUS, AS WELL AS CONNECTIONS
BETWEEN THE CAMPUS AND THE DOWNTOWN, ARE THE MOST CRITICAL.
THE CAPITOL COMPLEX SHOULD LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO INTRODUCE RETAIL
AND RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INTO THE CAMPUS TO HELP ACTIVATE THE CAMPUS
AND ATTRACT USERS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE CAMPUS AND ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES
TO THE USERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE.
5-26




CAPITOL COMPLEX
AAASTER PLAN COLORADO


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
6.1 - Methodology
Overview
This chapter provides an overview of Colorados planning
and facilities management practices and provides a
summary of the benchmarking study that was conducted
in the context of the master plan goals. The intent of
the Colorado Capitol Master Plan is to provide a context
for understanding Colorados funding levels, facilities
management, and planning practices relative to programs
in similar states. The benchmarking of other states was
undertaken as part of the master plan to find the scope
of standard practices that many states follow that are
similar to Colorado in population, annual budget, square
footage of Capitol Complex buildings, acreage of Capitol
Complex, facilities management organization, and/or
geographic adjacency.
Methodology
The consultant team conducted the benchmarking study
in distinct phases. The initial data gathering and initial
research phase identified up to 10 states and state
capitols that provide similarities and differences with the
facilities management organization of Colorado. The case
studies were identified for research focusing on statewide
and capitol complex facilities management organizational
structure, long range planning, and legislative provisions,
prioritization of building renewal, capital construction and
controlled maintenance projects, and funding sources.
The following 10 states and state capitols were identified
for the benchmarking study based on preliminary
research and analysis. They include:
Arizona
Iowa
Kansas
The benchmarking analysis was based on available
documents and information regarding state-wide and
capitol complex facilities management organizational
structure, planning, funding, capital projects and
controlled maintenance projects prioritization processes,
etc.
Summary abstracts (see Appendix 3 (a) Detailed State
Abstracts) of key benchmarking information of each state
were prepared in the second phase based on review of
and analysis of documents for each state in the context
of state of Colorado. A compiled analysis of each state
(see Appendix 3 (b) Comparative State Analysis)
was compiled including a detailed bibliography of
benchmarking related documents.
Three states were recommended (Minnesota, Utah, and
Washington) that are most relevant for the goals of the
CCMP and are considered to illustrate governmental
best practices. Additional details were obtained in the
last phase of the benchmarking study through interviews
with key officials. The consultant team along with the
DPA / OSA conducted telephone interviews with key
facility management representatives from the three
states to confirm the findings of the initial benchmarking
summaries.
To understand the State of Colorados facility management
practices particularly within the capitol complex
and to highlight related key differentiators with other
benchmarked states, the consultant team also referred to
the following documents prepared by the State:
The Performance Evaluation of State Capital Asset
Management and Lease Administration Practices
Audit conducted by the Office of the State Auditor
and released in November 2012.
Minnesota The State of Colorado Strategic Real Estate Plan
prepared by the States tenant broker in June 2013
Oregon
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Colorado Capitol, Denver


6.0 Benchmarking
6.2 - History of Facilities
In the late 1960s the task force Colorado Committee
on Government Efficiency and Economy recommended
the establishment of executive branch agencies
moving those functions out of the Governors Office.
The report recommended: Organize the Department of
Administration in order to provide a sound structure as a
basis for rendering effective service to all departments....
The proposed organization should be designed to place
department activities in their proper place with relation to
each other and similarity of functions....
One of the divisions of this new Department of
Administration was the Division of Public Works which
included the following sub-units: Architecture and
Engineering, Contract Administration, Construction and
Maintenance Inspection, Administrative Services, and
the Capitol Buildings Group. The report included this
appraisal of current operations: The basic function of the
division is technical in character, yet only a small portion
of the personnel possess a formal technical education.
These individuals appear to be concentrated in the
Architectural and Engineering Section. It also states:
The state has no comprehensive master plan in public
works. In the planning process, there is little uniformity
in effort or approach between departments.... Because
of independence of scope and approach to planning
by various agencies there is no effective coordination or
standardization.
Implementing the recommendations, in 1973 the
Governors Budget identified the goal of the Division of
Public Works within the Department of Administration
as providing efficient and effective centralized support
services for construction, maintenance, and space
utilization of facilities housing the three principal
branches of government. This division functions as a
service agency on building facilities for the various state
agencies, institutions, and departments. In addition to its
25 assigned FTE, the budget requested an additional FTE
for a professional planner to provide comprehensive
critical review of master plans and program plans.
The Division of Public Works also had supervisory
responsibility for the operation, maintenance, and
management of the Capitol Buildings Group Section and
the 143 FTE providing these services on the buildings
and grounds.
Planning and Maintenance in Colorado
This 1973 budget also shows Central Services Program
located within the Office of the Executive Director of the
Department of Administration. Central Services Program
had 25 FTE and included the functions of graphic arts,
offset printing, Xerox quick copy, Central Stores for office
supplies, U.S. and interdepartmental mail distribution,
motor pool, and a proposed aircraft pool.
Subsequent to this, the Division of Public Works in the
Department of Administration was abolished and the
functions moved to the Office of State Planning and
Budgeting where they remained from 1975 until 1979.
During this period of time the Capitol Buildings Section
remained within the Department of Administration.
In 1979 the functions were transferred back to the
Department of Administration into what was then
called State Buildings Division. The Division actively
managed the States planning, design, and construction
programs and was the direct recipient of statewide
controlled maintenance appropriations. In 1984, the
name of the Capitol Buildings Section was changed
to the Division of Capitol Complex Facilities so the two
divisions responsible for facilities planning and facilities
maintenance existed within the department.
At this time State Buildings Division and its 23 FTE
were responsible for planning, design and construction
management of facilities statewide. A former director
of State Buildings describes the transition from a
centralized approach to these functions to a new model:
During the mid 1980s a trend toward decentralization
of the responsibilities to the agency level developed. In
1987, during a low point in construction appropriation
levels, the Division was down-sized to a manager and
one administrative position. Over the next few years as
construction appropriations increased, it again became
apparent that centralized functions in the planning,
design, construction and controlled maintenance process
were sorely needed. While the centralized planning
function was assumed by OSPB, there remained a need
to provide administrative and technical staff capable of
managing these processes. In order to meet the demand
for services, State Buildings Programs continued to
provide technical assistance through the development
of policies, procedures and contracts, statewide
implementation of codes and standards, and
the administration of the controlled maintenance, real
estate and energy programs while delegating its authority
to manage design and construction projects to state
agencies and institutions of higher education.
In 1988 State Buildings staff increased to three in addition
to an FTE assigned to coordinate and review leases.
Then in 1993 State Buildings was moved into the Division
of Purchasing where it remained until 2000. That year
Capitol Complex Facilities was no longer designated
an independent division, the division director position
was abolished, and the facilities/property management
function was moved into the Division of Central Services.
State Buildings, now designated as State Buildings and
Real Estate Services, was also moved into the Division of
Central Services. These two functions were designated
Facilities Maintenance and Planning in the budget.
This continued until 2002 when State Buildings, now
designated as Real Estate Services Program, was
moved to the newly created Division of Finance and
Procurement where it remained until 2008. In 2009 it was
renamed the Office of the State Architect and moved
to the executive office of DPA and then to the Office of
Statewide Programs in 2012. Capitol Complex Facilities
has remained in the Division of Central Services along
with Integrated Document Solutions (printing, mail, etc.)
and Fleet/Motor Pool. The Office of the State Architect
currently has 6 FTE, Capitol Complex Facilities has 55
FTE and the Division of Central Services has an additional
138 FTE.
6-2


Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado
6.3 - Facilities Oversight by Department of Personnel and Administration
The State of Colorados Department of Personnel &
Administration (DPA) provides centralized human
resources, information, tools, resources and materials
needed for the state of Colorado government to function.
The adjoining chart provides the organizational structure
of the DPA that includes the Office of the State Architect
(OSA) and Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF).
Office of State Architect (OSA)
The Office of the State Architect (OSA) within the Division
of Statewide Programs has statewide responsibility for
administering capital construction, prioritizing controlled
maintenance requests, ensuring code compliance,
tracking facilities condition, approving emergency
maintenance funds, managing energy conservation,
and overseeing and approving leasing and real estate
transactions for executive branch agencies, including
higher education. Responsibilities of OSA include:
Overseeing controlled maintenance of buildings
constructed or acquired with capital construction or
general funds.
Coordinating the initiation of budget requests
and prioritizing and recommending funding for
controlled maintenance projects to the Capital
Development Committee (CDC).
Negotiating and executing leases on behalf of the
State government for land, buildings, and office or
other space. [Section 24-30-1303, C.R.S.]
Responsible for other real estate activities such as
the purchase of real estate for the State and sale or
lease of State-owned real estate.
Tracking statistics on State owned buildings.
Reporting annually to the Capital Development
Committee on acquisitions, dispositions, lease
summaries, and other real estate management
issues including ongoing controlled maintenance
and capital construction expenditures and
controlled maintenance needs.
Establishing office space goals for private leased
space.
Responsible for capital construction administration
for executive branch projects (including most
institutions of higher education) inclusive of:
solicitation and procurement of professional
design and construction services; development
of standard contract language; establishment of
project management guidelines including cost
management; and adoption and implementation of
building codes and compliance requirements.
The Office of the State Architect does not oversee
three areas including:
Acquisitions by the Department of
Transportation;
Acquisitions or disposition of State land by the
State Land Board
Management of certain easements, rights of
way, and vacant land leases and acquisitions by
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a division within the
Department of Natural Resources.
Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF)
Capitol Complex Facilities is part of Division of Central
Services (DCS) which is one of multiple divisions located
under the umbrella of the Department of Personnel &
Administration. Capitol Complex Facilities supports tenant
state agencies with property management services,
and provides the public with special event permits
and information resources. Services include building
maintenance, state employee parking, project space
requests, ceremonial flag requests, and state employee
ID badges. Capitol Complex Facilities maintains the
State Capitol, the Governors Mansion, and DPA owned
buildings with routine maintenance, plumbing, FIVAC,
electrical, custodial, and grounds maintenance. Capitol
Complex Facilities building management services include
assistance with electrical, elevator, plumbing, lighting,
FIVAC, grounds maintenance, and general maintenance/
repair issues.
Facility Management System / Software
Total Maintenance Authority (TMA) preventative
maintenance software is currently used by the Capitol
Complex Facilities for tracking and managing facilities
related work orders, parts inventory control, etc.
Discussion with the CCF indicate that an update push /
upgrade or change would be required to bring the TMA
up to speed on recent FIVAC replacement projects, and
other current building data.
An updated computerized maintenance management
system would be helpful to track, collect and report
the costs associated with maintenance, grounds and
housekeeping activities. The system would track routine
work orders, preventative maintenance, corrective
maintenance and occasionally projects outside of
facilities maintenance and operations. Tracking all
material and labor, the system can report on productivity
including number of work orders completed, response
times based on criticality, etc.
Lease Rates Benchmarking
The internal rate CCF charges to tenant agencies
could be benchmarked with rates that are changed in
the private sector within the geographic region or with
national benchmarks published by BOMA. A similar such
process is currently used by the State of Utah.
6-3


Full Text

PAGE 1

NOVEMBER 2014CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN DENVER, COLORADO

PAGE 3

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO

PAGE 4

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado ITABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments iii Foreword iv Executive Summary v 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview of the Master Plan 1-1 2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX 2.1 General Overview of Campus and Agency Locations 2-1 2.2 Detailed Campus Overviews 2-3 Downtown Campus 2-3 Kipling Campus 2-6 Pierce Campus 2-6 North Campus 2-7 Executive Residence 2-7 Camp George West 2-8 Grand Junction 2-83.0 AGENCIES 3.1 Methodology 3-1 3.2 Agency Needs 3-3 3.3 Summary of Existing Space Utilization 3-9 3.4 Space Standards Benchmarking 3-12 3.5 Personnel and Space Projections 3-14 3.6 Key Recommendations 3-164.0 FACILITY ASSESSMENTS 4.1 Methodology 4-1 4.2 Facility Assessment and Priorities Summary 4-1 4.3 Facility Overviews 4-3 4.4 Sustainability Goals 4-12 4.5 Security 4-22 4.6 Key Recommendations 4-24

PAGE 5

btnfr II 5.0 URBAN DESIGN 5.1 Methodology 5-1 5.2 Context 5-1 5.3 Urban Design Opportunities 5-6 5.4 Signage and Wayfinding 5-11 5.5 Access and Circulation 5-15 5.6 Parking 5-20 5.7 Architecture 5-22 5.8 Public Realm 5-23 5.9 West Lawn 5-25 5.10 Key Recommendations 5-266.0 BENCHMARKING 6.1 Methodology 6-1 6.2 History of Facilities Planning and Maintenance in Colorado 6-2 6.3 Facilities Oversight by the Department of Personnel and Administration 6-3 6.4 Offices and Committees with Facilities Oversight 6-4 6.5 Capital Projects Existing Decision Making Framework 6-5 6.6 Peer States 6-9 6.7 Best Practices States 6-18 6.8 State Capitols Case Studies 6-27 6.9 Potential Organizational Alternatives for Colorado 6-33 6.10 Key Recommendations 6-35 7.0 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Build/Buy/Lease Analysis 7-2 7.3 Overall Recommendations 7-9 7.4 Priority Recommendations 7-11 7.5 Recommended System Remodels 7-13 7.6 Opportunities 7-14 7.7 Cost and Time Line 7-15 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION / FINANCING OPTIONS 8.1 Implementation / Financing Strategies 8-1APPENDICES (included as separate documents)Appendix 1 Agencies a) Updated Surveys b) Baseline Data Table Appendix 2 Urban Design a) Intersection Analysis b) Multimodal Transportation Assessment c) West Lawn Report Appendix 3 Benchmarking a) Detailed State Abstracts b) Comparative State Analysis Appendix 4 Facility Assessments a) Comprehensive Facility Assessments

PAGE 6

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado IIIACKNOWLEDGEMENTSJOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor, State of ColoradoKATHY NESBITT, Executive Director, Department of Personnel & AdministrationCAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEESENATOR PAT STEADMAN, Senate District #31 REPRESENTATIVE CHERI GEROU, House District #25 KEVIN PATTERSON, Deputy Chief of Staff, Governors Ofce HENRY SOBANET, Director, Governors Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting ERICK SCHEMINSKE, Deputy Director, Governors Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting KARA VEITCH, Deputy Director, Department of Personnel & Administration MATT AZER, Director of Statewide Programs, Department of Personnel & Administration MIKE KING, Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources MICHAEL CHEROUTES, Director, High-Performance Transportation Enterprise, Department of Transportation STEVE TURNER, Vice President of Preservation Programs, History Colorado BRAD BUCHANAN, Executive Director, Department of Community Planning and Development, City and County of Denver JOSE CORNEJO, Manager, Department of Public Works, City and County of Denver MOLLY URBINA, Chief Recovery Ofcer, State of Colorado (formerly Deputy Manager, Department of Community Planning and Development, City and County of Denver) LARRY FRIEDBERG, State Architect, Department of Personnel & Administration CAROL LEWIS, Manager of State Building Programs, Department of Personnel & AdministrationRNL DESIGN / WALLACE ROBERTS AND TODD / CGL

PAGE 7

btnfr IVFOREWORDThis Capitol Complex Master Plan (CCMP) was authorized by Senate Bill 13 263 (C.R.S. 24-82101(3)). The scope of the master plan includes the eleven buildings and grounds in the Capitol Buildings Group at the Capitol Complex as well as additional buildings and sites owned by the Department of Administration & Personnel (DPA) and managed by Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF) in the Denver metropolitan area and one DPA/CCF building located in Grand Junction. The Colorado History Museum and the Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center are not included in the CCMP because these were recently planned and occupied facilities. Furthermore, no institutions of higher btnfbnrrrb branch departments that are not housed in DPA owned/ CCF managed buildings or adjacent downtown Denver lease space: Department of Agriculture, Department of Corrections, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Department of Public Health and Environment and Department of Transportation. This Capitol Complex Master Plan evaluates agency needs, building conditions, Capitol Complex urban design issues and organizational structure relative to decision-making and funding and facilities planning and maintenance. This master planning effort seeks to address the recommendation of the Performance Evaluation of State Capital Asset Management and Lease Administration Practices audit dated November 2012 that states: The State generally lacks a comprehensive mechanism for long-term planning (such as a master plan) for its real estate assets. Such a mechanism could assist the State in its efforts to maximize the value of its real estate assets, reduce facility costs and support funding decisions.

PAGE 8

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado VEXECUTIVE SUMMARYFrom the State Capitol to the Legislative Services Building, the state of Colorado has a rich inventory of buildings located in the heart of downtown Denver that enable thousands of workers to deliver services to the citizens of Colorado. It has been more than 25 years since a Facilities Master Plan has been completed and this undertaking therefore has tremendous potential to positively impact the efciency with which these services are being delivered. The State Capitol and adjacent grounds are a treasure visited by numerous citizens and tourists and, while the building has received a signicant investment in recent years to maintain and restore its grandeur, there remains much to be done. Adjacent state buildings have received much less attention over the past decades. Strategic investment in those facilities is required to address code deciencies, and will result in a substantial reduction of operating costs. Upgrades and reorganization would increase the efciency of the buildings, reduce energy use and also improve the effectiveness of the state workforce. The year-long study analyzed the optimum organization of agency personnel within the Capitol Complex in order to provide the most cost-effective facilities possible. Stafng projections reect modest adjustments over the coming years to respond to projected service needs, and space standards have been proposed that are comparable to those found in highly efcient public and private entities. A central question of the Facilities Master Plan and a strategic question that all states confront is: what is the right mix of leased vs owned facilities to accommodate state functions? The State currently leases approximately 700,000 SF of space in the downtown core which represents 39% of total occupied space. This is a signicant amount of space and has a large impact on the States annual budget. While a short term analysis would lead one to extend leases due to relatively low rental rates for Class B ofce space, a deeper analysis suggests an alternate strategy. The planning team carefully evaluated the purchase of all viable existing ofce buildings in, and adjacent to, the Capitol Complex. These were compared to the extension of existing leases and also to the construction of a new ofce building at Lincoln and Colfax. The recommended strategy is to build a new State ofce building to house up to 500,000 SF of state agencies currently in leased space. This approach offers the following benets: Agencies can be co-located in higher efciency space, reducing travel time between multiple facilities The options are cost neutral over a 30 year horizon from a cash perspective and the State would realize cost savings thereafter rather than being obligated to make lease payments in perpetuity The state would not be impacted by large uctuations in the lease rate market and would ultimately own the asset This development provides a unique opportunity to transform two key blocks of the Capitol Complex through the integration of street-grade retail (restaurant, caf, convenience shops) that would improve the pedestrian experience in the region. Transforming the character of the area is also one of the primary objectives of this master planning effort. The Capitol Complex is primarily a single-use district, populated mostly by state agencies and as such, has limited activity beyond the normal workweek. It possesses very little of the civic identity that such a prominent district should exhibit. Given the high number of employees in the region, the natural amenities including the State Capitol, civic lawns, proximity to the Civic Center, views, adjacency to the arts district and Civic Center Station, and proximity to the Central Business District, there is tremendous potential for the area to become a vibrant neighborhood with a civic jewel at its core. The keys to transforming the district include the following: Increased residential development that adds 24/7 activity A cohesive signage and streetscape program that improves waynding, civic identity and the pedestrian experience A new building at Lincoln and Colfax that adds worker activity and improves the street edge Development of a Capitol Mall along Sherman Street that stimulates pedestrian and bicycle activity through the zone and dramatically changes the character of the neighborhood. Improvement of Civic Center Station as currently planned by RTD to enliven Colfax between Lincoln and Broadway and improve the view of the State Capitol from the 16th Street Mall Improvements to the west lawn of the Capitol to improve public access and civic presence Renovation of 1375 Sherman and 1313 Sherman Development of the State Land Board site for residential and retail uses with a possible future ofce component Several of these improvements can be implemented by the State while others will require participation of the private sector as well as other agencies such as the City and County of Denver and RTD. There is interest and motivation from these other entities to help transform this area and we strongly recommend that the State takes a lead role in establishing a task force that can move this agenda forward. It will require a cohesive effort and will have signicant benet for all parties. In order to drive greater value into the master planning process, the team conducted an extensive analysis of best practices from other states. Ten states were surveyed to understand how they manage and operate their facilities portfolio, as well as how they prioritize capital construction, building renewal and controlled maintenance needs. Additionally, approach to long range planning, facilities management structure and funding strategies were benchmarked and insights that best apply to Colorado have been detailed in the report. One of the key observations is that much of the deteriorated condition of state ofce buildings can be attributed in large part to the lack of an annual allocation to address deferred maintenance and regular building upgrades. It is recommended that an amount equal to 1.5 to 2% of the replacement value of existing assets be budgeted for such purposes in the future. This report also recommends several organizational changes, detailed in section 6, that we believe will result in a more streamlined and effective decision making process.

PAGE 9

btnfr VIIn summary, it is the intent of this master plan that State facilities in the Capitol Complex are upgraded, agency personnel relocated, and leases consolidated in such a manner that State services will be provided in a more efcient and cost effective manner. The master plan also lays out a visionary and achievable strategy to transform the Capitol Complex District into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood that has a cohesive civic identity and offers a memorable pedestrian experience. These goals can be achieved through implementation of the strategies outlined in Section 7.0. The states ability to complete the recommendations depends on its annual funding capacity. Results can be accelerated through the use of public private partnerships, an increasingly common strategy for civic entities to deliver projects. Through the use of Certicates of Participation (COPs), or a 6320 non-prot entity, capital and expertise can be accessed to generate the desired results. The district surrounding the State Capitol represents one of the most under-appreciated assets in Colorado. It has the potential to be a great place to live and work, as well as a remarkable destination for visitors. With appropriate levels of investment, State buildings can increase employee efciencies and improve public access, while signicantly reducing operating costs. Ultimately this master plan needs to be exible to respond to changing legislative and executive branch priorities as well as evolving economic conditions. The enclosed road map should be updated on a regular basis, and as many of the top priorities implemented as there are resources to accomplish. The planning team stands ready to assist, provide further clarication as needed and modify as necessary to enable the State to achieve as many of its stated goals as possible.

PAGE 11

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO INTRODUCTION01

PAGE 12

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 1-11.1.1 OVERVIEW OF MASTER PLAN SCOPEC.R.S. 24-82-101(3) directs the Department of Personnel & Administration to develop a Master Plan for the Capitol Complex. The master plan is subject to nal approval from the Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting and the Capital Development Committee and must be completed no later than December 1, 2014. Its scope is outlined as follows: Determine space utilization needs for state agencies located in and near the capitol complex; Prioritize the location of various state agencies based on their service functions; Consider the symbolic importance of certain capitol complex buildings and grounds; Identify opportunities for co-locating state agencies; Identify the most appropriate use of state owned and leased space for state agencies; Identify opportunities for energy cost savings and improved sustainability within state-owned facilities; Assess and improve security for state-owned facilities, especially for those state agencies performing sensitive government functions; Establish guidelines regarding the appropriate use and maintenance of grounds within the capitol complex; Assess existing parking capacity and identify the current and future need for capitol complex tenants, including the location of parking facilities; Establish guidelines for future development within the capitol complex, including a multi-year plan for: New and renovated capital construction projects; Controlled maintenance projects; and Real estate acquisition or disposition transactions as applicable; Review the pedestrian circulation around the capitol complex; Suggest nancing options for future improvements and development; Make recommendations on buying, selling, constructing, nancing, or leasing properties in the capitol complex based on factors such as land use and centralization versus decentralization of state functions; and Address any other issues that the ofce of the state architect deems important in relation to the goals of the master plan.1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE MASTER PLAN

PAGE 13

ttr 1-21.1.2 PREVIOUS MASTER PLANNING EFFORTSBeginning in the late 1960s, several master planning efforts, ranging in scope and purpose, have been undertaken to guide the future of the Capitol Complex. Two recent plans were appropriated and initiated and subsequently de-appropriated because of budget issues prior to completion of any analysis. Master Site Plan, Colorado State Capitol, Volume 4 of The Capitol Complex Master Plan, Prepared For The State of Colorado, By, S.U.A. Incorporated, John Carl Warnecke and Associates, September 1967. Space Master Plan for the State of Colorado Capitol Complex, by Pouw & Associates, Inc., Geisler Smith Associates, and Joseph Farber & Co., April, 1989 Capitol Complex Master Plan, De-appropriated, 2002 Capitol Complex Master Plan, De-appropriated, 2009 1.1.3 METHODOLOGYInitial Master Plan Assessment The rst 60 days of the master planning process were focused on addressing three high priority issues: A Build/ Buy/Lease analysis, the West Lawn, and a condition assessment for 1313 and 1375 Sherman Street. Based on a high level estimate of space needs, the RNL/JLL team identied all viable buildings in and around the Capitol Complex for purchase and evaluated those, both on a short term and long term basis, to building a new state ofce building at Lincoln and Colfax and also toward the strategy of continuing to maintain existing leased space. The extension of the West Lawn of the Capitol over Lincoln Street was further developed in order to understand projected costs and the pros and cons associated with the project. The two state ofce buildings most in need of upgrades (1313 and 1375 Sherman Street) were evaluated in detail to determine renovation costs and appropriate agency occupants. Agency Assessments Interviews were conducted with all agency executive and deputy directors, elected ofcial staff, and General Assembly service agency staff to understand missions, organizational structures, which agency functions need to be in proximity to other agencies or the Capitol and which functions could be located elsewhere, current and projected stafng levels, unique space needs, and ideal space conguration to deliver efcient services. Staff projections were based on historic departmental appropriations as well as input from the agency directors regarding conditions unique to the individual agencies at this time. Space standards were developed for all functions based on functional need and were benchmarked against best practices of other states and the private sector. Total space needs by group were then tabulated and are summarized in Chapter 3.0 Agencies. Outreach Meetings were conducted with the City and County of Denver, Regional Transportation District (RTD), the Civic Center Conservancy, the Downtown Denver Partnership, representatives from the local business community and private developers in order to solicit ideas that would facilitate achieving the urban design goals. Benchmarking The master plan team conducted a benchmarking analysis which included studies of space allocation, facility management, and funding strategies of other states with similarities to Colorado. Data was gathered on ten state capitols and detailed interviews were conducted with Minnesota, Utah and Washington, the three that had notable similarities and offered the best learning opportunities. Several best practices were identied through this process that provide valuable insights and have informed the recommendations. Analysis and recommendations can be found in Chapter 6.0 Benchmarking. Recommendations and Next Steps The master plan makes several recommendations for the relocation of agencies from leased space into State owned space; the space needs have been accommodated by a combination of new construction, renovation and efcient right sizing of space. The master plan also proposes the Capitol Mall concept as an over arching element to dene a Capitol campus and activate the downtown Capitol Complex. To achieve these goals it is suggested that a task force be formed composed of key decision makers from the State and that it include inuential members of the surrounding districts, neighborhoods, governmental and private agencies. This task force would help to coordinate the efforts of the surrounding community to benet the State and the citizens in making the recommended enhancements to the Capitol Complex. Consolidation of Agencies and Renovation of Facilities Departmental relocations have been recommended in order to consolidate agency functions currently dispersed in multiple buildings and allow for phased renovation of state owned buildings that will create effective and efcient workspace and lower operating and deferred maintenance costs. Detailed Facility Assessments Detailed condition assessments were completed for all state owned buildings in the Complex in order to determine the level of work required to bring each building up to acceptable standards. In part due to the lack of a guaranteed funding mechanism for building maintenance and upgrades, several of the buildings in the Capitol Complex have fallen into disrepair and require signicant improvements. For each building, the assessment addressed mechanical, electrical, structural, architectural, code, security, and technology needs, and then associated cost estimates were developed for each. These assessments can be found in Chapter 4.0 Facility Assessments. Urban Design The downtown Capitol Complex study area was dened as a sixteen square block area, dened by Broadway, Logan, 12th Avenue and 16th Avenue. A comprehensive urban design analysis of this area examined all factors affecting the experience of legislators, employees, the business community, and general public either working in or visiting the Complex. Multiple concepts were analyzed in order to increase the level of activity and vibrancy, improve the pedestrian experience, encourage private sector investment and enhance the overall character of the area around the State Capitol. Analysis and recommendations can be found in Chapter 5.0 Urban Design.

PAGE 15

02CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO OVERVIEW OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX

PAGE 16

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 2-1 2.1 GENERAL OVERVIEWOF CAMPUSANDAGENCYLOCATIONS2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF CAPITOL COMPLEX CAMPUSES INCLUDED IN THE MASTER PLANDowntown Capitol Complex Campus The downtown campus consists of ten, tenant-occupied buildings with a total of 1,300,998 square feet, clustered on 15 city blocks on the southeast corner of Denvers Central Business District. These blocks are bound by Broadway to the west, 16th Avenue to the north, Logan Street to the east, and 12th Avenue to the south. The campus contains three large open spaces (Lincoln Park and the Capitols east and west lawns). Additionally, the campus contains ve surface parking lots and one parking structure with a total of 905 parking spaces (this count does not include the Capitol Circle or Motor Pool lots as they are not part of the general inventory of Stateowned spaces). The 15 block campus includes several privately owned parcels and buildings, but the presence of the State-owned facilities provides the area with a unique identity. Portions of the campus most notably the Capitol Building, its grounds, Lincoln Park and the buildings along Sherman Street are an integral part of the larger, historic Denver Civic Center that includes a number of City of Denver buildings (including the City and County Building), cultural institutions (the Central Library and the Denver Art Museum), and an extended open space system that acts as the binding element among the various uses. Further detail on the Downtown Campus can be found in section 2.2.1. Kipling Campus The Kipling campus is comprised of two ofce buildings with a total of 128,000 SF located at the northeast corner of Kipling Street and the 6th Avenue freeway (US Highway 6) in Lakewood, Colorado, a western suburb of Denver. The State-owned facilities are located just east of the 6th Avenue Frontage Road as it approaches Kipling Street. A third, privately-owned building built contemporaneously and as part of a three building set with the State-owned buildings is located just east of Kipling Street and north of the junction with the 6th Avenue Frontage Road. Further detail on the Kipling Campus can be found in section 2.2.2. Pierce Street Site The Pierce Street site consists of a single structure on a large parcel of land in Lakewood, Colorado. The site is bound by 20th Avenue to the north, Pierce Street to the east, 17th Avenue to the south, and Reed Street to the west. The site is comprised of a large, single story building (119,502 SF) on a 24 acre site, approximately six acres of which are surface parking. Further detail on the Pierce Street Site can be found in section 2.2.3. North Campus The North Campus consists of three single-story buildings located at the northwest corner of 62nd Avenue and Downing Street approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the Denver City and County border in Adams County. The three buildings sit on 6.27 acres of paved land and have a combined total of approximately 98,000 square feet. Further detail on the North Campus can be found in section 2.2.4. Executive Residence and Carriage House The Executive Residence is the residential compound offered to the Governor of Colorado. It is located on the southeast corner of Logan Street and 8th Avenue in Denver Colorado, four blocks south of the southern-most portion of the Downtown Campus. The site consists of a 26,430 square foot residence and a 4,837 square foot carriage house. The two buildings sit on 2.18 acres which are largely made up of formal gardens and terraces, as well as a parking lot across Logan Street. Further detail on the Executive Residence site can be found in section 2.2.5. Camp George West Campus The Camp George West campus is 290 acres of land located on Golden Road just north of the Colfax Avenue and Interstate 70 junction in Golden, Colorado. The site contains 64 buildings, though they are not managed by Capitol Complex Facilities. Further detail on the Camp George West site can be found in section 2.2.6. Grand Junction Site The Grand Junction site is comprised of a single 51,194 square foot ofce building on the northeast corner of Ute Avenue and 6th Street in downtown Grand Junction, Colorado. The building sits on 0.83 acres and is surrounded by surface parking. Further detail on the Grand Junction site can be found in section 2.2.7. Grand Junction Site Downtown Campus and Executive Residence North Campus Camp George West Kipling Campus Pierce Street SiteGrand Junction Pueblo Colorado Springs Greeley Fort Collins Cheyenne Boulder Broomeld Denver Diagram Showing State-Owned, CCF-Managed Building Locations Across the State of Colorado

PAGE 17

2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex 2-2 Capitol Complex 1881 Pierce Street Kipling Campus Camp George West North Campus Executive Residence Downtown Denver Lakewood, COColfax AveKipling Street Wadsworth Boulevard Sheridan Boulevard Federal BoulevardSpeer Boulevard6th Avenue 38th AvenueArvada, CO 2.1.2 OVERVIEW OF AGENCIES IN THE CAPITOL COMPLEXGeneral Overview of the Agencies Located In or Near the Downtown Campus The following State departments occupy space in or near the Capitol Complex in either DPA-owned/Capitol Complex Facilities managed, agency-owned, or commercially leased facilities and are included in the scope of the master plan. Executive /Elected Officials Ofce of the Governor Ofce of the Lieutenant Governor Secretary of State Department of Treasury Executive/Branch Agencies Department of Education (DOE) Department of Health Care Policy & Financing (HCPF) Department of Higher Education (DHE) Department of Human Services (DHS) Department of Labor & Employment (DOLE) Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA) Department of Public Safety (DPS) Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) Department of Revenue (DOR) Legislative General Assembly (GA) Joint Budget Committee (JBC) Legislative Council Legislative Legal Services State Auditor*Agencies or locations excluded from this study include Department of Agriculture, Department of Corrections, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Department of Public Health and Environment, and Department of Transportation.Diagram Showing State-Owned, CCF-Managed Building Locations Across the Denver Region

PAGE 18

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 2-32.2.1 DOWNTOWN CAMPUSCapitol Complex Buildings and Facilities in the Downtown Campus: The downtown campus contains a majority of Capitol Complex Facilities-managed buildings. There are ten buildings within the campus and comprise a total gross oor area of 1,523,920 square feet. The downtown campus buildings are as follows: 1. Human Services Building, 1575 Sherman Street Constructed in 1952, acquired by the State of Colorado in 1964, renovated in 1987. GFA: 145,370 square feet Tenants: DHS (548 total staff) 2. 1570 Grant Street Constructed 1956, acquired by State of Colorado in 2001. GFA: 49,751 square feet Tenants: HCPF (226 total staff) 3. State Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street Constructed in 1960, renovated in 1992, updated in 2014. GFA: 165,930 square feet Occupants: General Assembly, Auditor, DPA (320 total staff) 4. State Ofce Building, 201 East Colfax Avenue Constructed in 1921, added to National Historic Register in 1974, renovated in 1985. GFA: 78,115 square feet Tenants: DOE (272 total staff) 5. State Capitol Building, 200 East Colfax Avenue Constructed in 1886 to 1903, added to National Historic Register in 1974. GFA: 323,375 square feet Occupants: Ofce of the Governor, Ofce of Lieutenant Governor, Department of Treasury, General Assembly, Legislative Council, Legislative Legal Services, DPS State Patrol, DPA (286 total staff) 6. Capitol Annex, 1375 Sherman Street Constructed in 1937, added to National Historic Register in 1991. GFA: 114,720 square feet. Tenants: DOR (548 total staff) 7. Power Plant, 1341 Sherman Street Constructed in 1939, added to National Historic Register in 1991. GFA: 25,690 square feet Tenants: DPS State Patrol (59 total staff) 8. Legislative Services Building, 200 East 14th Avenue Constructed in 1915, added to National Historic Register in 1974, renovated in 1986. GFA: 59,301 square feet Occupants: General Assembly, Joint Budget Committee, and Legislative Council (47 total staff) 9. Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Constructed 1976. GFA: 201,746 square feet Tenants: DNR, DOLA, DPA (473 total staff) 10. Department of Labor and Employment, 251 East 12th Avenue (DOLE owns and manages this building) Constructed in 1957. GFA: 137,000 square feet Tenants: DOLE (320 total staff) 11. Merrick Parking Structure Constructed in 2006. (See Parking Section)2.2 DETAILED CAMPUS OVERVIEWSDiagram 3.4 Showing State-Owned, CCF-Managed Building Locations in Capitol Complex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111. Human Services Building 2. 1570 Grant Building 3. State Services Building 4. State Ofce Building 5. State Capitol Building 6. Capitol Annex 7. Power Plant 8. Legislative Services Building 9. Centennial Building 10. DOLE Building 11. Merrick Parking Structure Capitol Complex Buildings

PAGE 19

2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex 2-4Parking Off-Street Parking The downtown campus includes seven State-owned surface parking lots that comprise a total of 3.65 acres and 242 parking spaces, as well as one 5-level parking structure that contains 663 spaces, totalling 905 off-street parking spaces: 1. Tan Parking Lot, 1520 Lincoln Street Area: 0.9 Acres Number of Spaces: 115 2. Green Parking Lot, 1520 Lincoln Street Area: 0.1 Acres Number of Spaces: 15 3. Yellow Parking Lot, 1530 Sherman Street Area: 0.4 Acres Number of Spaces: 46 4. Blue Parking Lot, 1570 Grant Street Area: 0.2 Acres Number of Spaces: 19 5. Merrick Parking Garage, 1350 Lincoln Street Area: 5 parking stories (200,000 Square feet) Number of Spaces: 663 6. Black Parking Lot, 1325 Sherman Street Area: 0.4 Acres Number of Spaces: 47 Additionally, the Motor Pool Lot and the Capitol Circle are State-owned facilities but are not available as part of the general inventory of State spaces: 7. Motor Pool Lot, 1550 Lincoln Street Area: 0.4 Acres Number of Spaces: 45 8. Capitol Circle, 200 East Colfax Avenue Area: 1.25 Acres Number of Spaces: 162 On-Street Parking There are approximately 467 on-street parking spaces within the Downtown Campus. Almost 87% of the onstreet parking spaces in the study are controlled through the use of single-space parking meters. The time limit on those meters include: 1 hour limits, 2 hour limits, and some with 5 hour limits. The remaining 13% of the onstreet spaces are not metered but are restricted with a 2 hour time limit. The on-street spaces in the study area are controlled and managed by the City of Denver. During the legislative sessions the metered spaces along Sherman and Grant Streets are bagged and are under the control of the State Senate Sergeant of Arms. Parking Operations The State controlled Capitol Complex parking is allocated by the General Assembly and administered by the Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA). Parking in the Capitol Circle is not managed by the Capitol Complex Facilities parking ofce. The Capitol Circle is largely reserved for the legislative branch and the Ofce of the Governor. Some spaces in the Capitol Circle are for use by other elected ofcials, employees with physical challenges that work in the Capitol, loading, facilities maintenance, etc. Outside of the Capitol Circle, approximately 66% of parking spaces are allocated to individual employees and 34% are allocated to agencies. Each parking space is assigned to a specic agency or employee and there is no oversell of available parking. The State of Colorado does not provide visitor parking. Visitors are expected to utilize on-street spaces or privately owned off-street facilities. Approximately 400 employees are on the current waiting list for parking permits. Approximately 14% of the people on the waiting list have been waiting for one year or more. Note: While not included in the scope of the master plan the Judicial Center and History Colorado Museum have separate parking resources. Judicial has 299 spaces in the parking garage located on the 1200 block of Lincoln. History Colorado has 25 spaces located in the same structure. Judicial also has an additional 72 parking spaces located under the Judicial Center as parking for supreme court justices and appellate court judges.Diagram Showing State Parking Facilities1. Tan Parking Lot 2. Green Parking Lot 3. Yellow Parking Lot 4. Blue Parking Lot 5. Merrick Parking Structure 6. Black Parking Lot 7. Motor Pool Lot 8. Capitol Circle Capitol Complex Parking Facilities 1 3 6 7 8 5 4 2

PAGE 20

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 2-5Transit The data obtained from the agency interviews indicate that as many as 50% of State employees utilize RTD ecopasses to ride public transportation. Civic Center Station is located one block northwest of the Capitol Building and functions as a major transportation hub served by multiple bus routes as well as the 16th Street Free Mall Ride and the Downtown Circulator both of which connect to Denver Union Station. Many employees take advantage of alternative forms of transportation. Although exact gures are not currently available, it appears that many employees bike to work. There is currently a waiting list for the bicycle lockers located north of 1525 Sherman Street. In addition, employees can take advantage of the States carpool/vanpool parking program. Approved participants are eligible to receive a discount on their parking fees based on the number of people in their carpool. Visitation The Colorado State Capitol is a major tourist destination in the downtown area, attracting between 250,000 and 300,000 thousand visits per year. In addition the Capitol building is a working building currently housing ofces for the General Assembly and staff, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor and accompanying staff, and the State Treasurer and staff. Public access to the Capitol is provided at the rst oor on the north entry and accessible access is provided at the basement/ground level at the south entry. Both public access points require visitors to pass through magnetometer devices which are administered by the State Patrol. The east and west entries to the Capitol are controlled entrances for State employees and members of the General Assembly. Even with state agencies providing more opportunities to conduct business on-line, a number of agencies including DOR, DOLE, and DNR still have signicant walk-in trafc. While some of these visitors may use public transportation, the lack of adjacent visitor parking presents challenges. Security The following primary security systems are currently in place throughout the Capital Complex: access control (ACS), video surveillance, wireless duress and central monitoring by CSP. The access control system deployment is campus wide and currently exists throughout other Capitol Complex Facilities-managed buildings within the system with the exception of a DOR-exclusive card reader system within the Capitol Annex Building and 1881 Pierce Street. The ACS serves as the primary security management system for monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing wireless duress alarm system infrastructure is in place and operational. The existing security systems are controlled and monitored centrally from Colorado State Patrols Central Command Center (CCC) in Denver CO. Within the downtown campus, the CCC is staffed by the Executive Protection Unit of the Colorado State Patrol based out of the Power Plant Building. The downtown campus includes three primary open spaces that comprise a total of 6.6 acres. These open spaces make up a part of the larger Civic Center Park open space framework that extends to the west. The State-owned open space facilities are: 1. Lincoln Park Bound by the Lincoln Street, Colfax Avenue, Broadway, and 14th Avenue Area: 3.0 Acres 2. The Capitol Grounds West Lawn Bound by the Capitol Building, Colfax Avenue, Lincoln Street, and 14th Avenue Area: 2.0 Acres 3. The Capitol Grounds East Lawn Bound by the Capitol Building, Colfax Avenue, Grant Street, and 14th Avenue Area: 1.6 Acres 1 2 3 1. Lincoln Park 2. West Lawn 3. East LawnDiagram Showing State-Owned Open Spaces in Capitol Complex

PAGE 21

2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex 2-6 6.5 miles 4.7 milesOblique View of the Kipling Campus Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building2.2.2 KIPLING CAMPUSCapitol Complex Buildings 1. 700 Kipling Building, 700 Kipling Street, Lakewood Constructed in 1985, acquired by the State of Colorado in 1992 GFA: 36,380 square feet Tenants: DPS (212 total staff) 2. Dale Tooley Building, 690 Kipling Street, Lakewood Constructed in 1985, acquired by the State of Colorado in 1986 GFA: 42,008 square feet Tenants: OIT, DPS (151 total staff) Parking 1. Dale Tooley Building Total spaces = 159 Visitor only parking = 18 Employee only parking (CBI-GGCC) = 141 2. 700 Kipling Building Total spaces = 212 Visitor only parking = 9 Employee only parking = 203 Security The following primary security systems are currently in place throughout the Capitol Complex: access control (ACS), video surveillance, wireless duress and central monitoring by CSP. The access control system deployment is campus wide and currently exists throughout other state Capitol Complex Facilities managed buildings within the system. The ACS serves as the primary security management system for monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing wireless duress alarm system infrastructure is in place and operational. 1. 700 Kipling Building 2. Dale Tooley Building2.2.3 PIERCE CAMPUSCapitol Complex Buildings 1. 1881 Pierce Building, 1881 Pierce Street Constructed in 1972, acquired by the State of Colorado in 1983 GFA: 90,261 square feet Tenants: DOR (362 total staff) Parking 1. 1881 Pierce Building Total parking spaces = 418 Visitor-only parking = 111 Visitation The Pierce Campus experiences a high level of visitation due to a Department of Motor Vehicles ofce being located at this facility. Security The following primary security systems are currently in place on the Pierce Campus: access control (ACS), video surveillance, and wireless duress. Emergency response is provided by Lakewood Police. The access control system deployment is campus wide and currently exists throughout other Capitol Complex Facilities managed buildings within the system. The ACS serves as the primary security management system for monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing wireless duress alarm system infrastructure is in place and operational. Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building Oblique View of the Pierce Campus1. 1881 Pierce Building 1 26th AvenueKipling St 117th Ave20th AvePierce StReed St

PAGE 22

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 2-7Oblique View of the Executive Residence and Carriage House Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building2.2.5 EXECUTIVE RESIDENCECapitol Complex Buildings 1. Executive Residence, 400 East 8th Avenue Constructed in 1908, donated to the State of Colorado in 1959, added to National Historic Register in 1969 GFA: 26,430 Square Feet Tenants: Residence of the incumbent Governor of Colorado 2. Carriage House, 400 East 8th Avenue Constructed in 1908, donated to the State of Colorado in 1959, added to National Historic Register in 1969, remodeled in 2006 GFA: 4,837 Square Feet Tenants: Auxiliary structure to Executive Residence Parking Executive Residence parking lot is located directly to the west of the Residence at the southwest corner of 8th Avenue and Logan Street. The Executive Residence lot serves two purposes: Governors Residence Parking from 5:00pm 6:00am Leased for other uses from 6:00am to 5:00pm Total spaces = 83 Visitation Executive Residence hosts numerous functions with visitors. Security The Colorado State Patrol is responsible for security of the Executive Residence and Carriage House. The Residence has a security ofce with monitors and alarms that are manned by the Colorado State Patrol. The Executive Residence and Carriage House are staffed by the Executive Protection unit of the Colorado State Patrol.Oblique View of the North Campus Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building2.2.4 NORTH CAMPUSCapitol Complex Buildings 1. North Campus North Building, 6321 N. Downing St, Constructed in 1968, acquired by State of Colorado in 1976 GFA: 21,175 Square Feet Tenants: Storage 2. North Campus East Building, 6221 N. Downing St, Constructed in 1968, acquired by State of Colorado in 1976 GFA: 38,916 Square Feet Tenants: Storage 3. North Campus West Building, 1001 E. 62nd Ave, Constructed in 1968, acquired by State of Colorado in 1976. GFA: 37,711 Square Feet Tenants: DPA Central Services, DOLE, DOR (90 total staff) Parking 71 employee parking spaces including 2 disabled and 2 reserved spaces Visitation The North Campus due to its function has minimal visitors outside of the State employees assigned to this location. Security The following primary security systems are currently in place throughout: access control (ACS), video surveillance, and wireless duress. Emergency response is provided by Adams County Police. The access control system deployment is campus wide and currently exists throughout other Capitol Complex Facilities managed buildings within the system. The ACS serves as the primary security management system for monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing wireless duress alarm system infrastructure is in place and operational. 1.North Campus West Building 2.North Campus East Building 3.North Campus North Building 1.Executive Residence 2.Carriage House 1 2 3Downing St.62nd Avenue 1 28th AvenueLogan Street 4.9 miles 0.7 miles

PAGE 23

2.0 Overview of the Capitol Complex 2-8Aerial View of the Camp George West Campus Location Map Relative to the State Capitol Building2.2.7 GRAND JUNCTION STATE SERVICES BLDGCapitol Complex Buildings 1. Grand Junction State Services Building, 222 S. 6th Street, Grand Junction, Co Constructed in 1983 GFA: 52,000 square feet Tenants: DPA, DPHE, DOLE, DOLA, DOR, DOT, DORA, DNR Parking Grand Junction State Services Building, 222 S. 6th Street, Grand Junction, Co Spaces in State-owned lot = 42 metered Spaces in adjacent, privately owned lots = 41 Accessible Spaces = 3 Visitation The Grand Junction State Services Building experiences a moderate level of visitation. Security The primary security system that is currently in place at the Grand Junction State Services Building is access control. The Grand Junction police respond to this building.2.2.6 CAMP GEORGE WESTCapitol Complex Buildings There are 64 individual buildings on the Camp George West campus and they are owned and managed by the departments that occupy them. The site and its infrastructure is owned and managed by the DPA and the Capitol Complex Facilities respectively. The site and its infrastructure is subject to this master plan but the buildings are not. Established in 1903 as the State Rie Range, designated Camp George West in 1934, placed on Historic Register in 1993 Site area: 289.78 acres Tenants: Department of Corrections and Correctional Industries, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Department of Public Safety, Department of TransportationLocation Map Relative to the State Capitol Building Oblique View of the Grand Junction State Services Building 1.Grand Junction State Service Building Golden RdInterestate 70Colfax Avenue6th StreetUte Avenue 1 9.8 miles Grand JunctionDenver 197 miles

PAGE 25

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO AGENCIES03

PAGE 26

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-1The current master plan builds upon space needs programming data from the majority of State agencies collected by the previous master planning consultant in 2008. The data and information collected at that time was veried in 2013 through the redistribution of the 2008 documentations to each department, and a series of interviews with management leaders in those organizations. The newly compiled and updated information was then reviewed through interviews conducted with the executive director, or a representative from the directors ofce, for each department to conrm information and directions received through the verication process. Space Planning Interviews The space planning interviews were conducted with the deputy director or assigned representatives from the executive and legislative functions between September and November of 2013. Follow up interviews with the executive directors ofce from each department were conducted in January and February of 2014. The purpose of the interviews was to update data previously compiled, as noted above, and discuss operating and space conditions listed below: Mission/function. Organizational structure. Staff levels since 2008, any available historical staff data, and primary workload indicators. Frequent interaction with other departments necessitating a close physical adjacency. Adjacency requirements to be within the Capitol Complex. Impact of technology on current and projected department operations and/or stafng. Deciencies with the current space at each location. Any unique space types required. Any parking, security or service concerns at any location. The interview information provided the departments qualitative perspective of its needs, as well as the basic quantitative data necessary for the consultant team to begin the planning process. The updated surveys provide an analytical description of characteristics necessary to project future personnel and space needs, determine location requirements, and identify other factors critical to the department satisfying its mission. Updated surveys for each department are provided in supporting documents (see Appendix 1 (a) Updated Surveys). General comments from the department interviews related to space use are highlighted below. Staff growth is primarily dictated by legislative changes, and is therefore somewhat difcult to project out more than one year. Requests for additional space are typically only appropriated with an increase of 20 or more positions, resulting in makeshift solutions within existing space to accommodate growth. Current ofce space in many locations, particularly in the older and owned State buildings, is dated, with less than ideal working conditions. Ofce workspace conditions are somewhat dictated by outdated furniture solutions and issues (this applies less to more recently leased locations) including: Open ofce furniture (e.g. workstations) utilize obsolete and/or declining components that are beyond their serviceable life; This frequently contributes to decreased efciencies in space use, decreased exibility for reconguration and change, lower levels of light, and a less professional appearance; In general where workstation panels are used, they are very tall, with freestanding furniture within. This typically results in larger individual workspace footprints than are necessary, and limits access to natural light by blocking light from reaching the interior spaces; and Storage tends to be scattered, decentralized and inefcient. Technology improvements have been made since 2008 in a number of locations, particularly with respect to conference room AV and communications devices. There are still technology challenges related primarily to infrastructure in many locations. Parking availability for clients and public visitors is an issue for most downtown Denver locations, and is a particular challenge both for visitors and staff during legislative sessions (see Section 5.6 in Chapter 5.0 Urban Design). Security is an on-going concern in some locations (specic issues are addressed in the Section 4.5 in Chapter 4.0 Facility Assessments). A number of agencies have a desire to be more consolidated including the Department of Education, Department of Revenue, Health Care Policy and Financing and Department of Natural Resources. These preferences were addressed in the development of alternatives. Virtually all agencies want to have at least some presence in the Capitol Complex whether that be their full operations or, at a minimum, an executive ofce. 3.1 METHODOLOGYLease vs. Own Strategies The map to the right shows the Capitol Complex and surrounding downtown area and indicates which buildings the State occupies that are owned versus leased, and which departments occupy space in these locations. As the State considers the alternatives and recommendations outlined in this document it is important to consider the issues related to owning versus leasing space. Leased space has provided the State with overow space as agencies have outgrown their owned facilities. It has also provided some exibility for agencies that have had signicant uctuations in staff based on federal or state funding and programs from year to year. However, a long term strategy and goal of the State is to own more than lease, and only lease space for those agencies that have historically experienced signicant change. It is signicant to note that entire agencies such as the Department of Regulatory Agencies and the Department of Higher Education and half of the Department of Labor and Employment are located in leased space. The Secretary of State and the Unclaimed Property Ofce of the Department of Treasury are in leased rather than owned space. And nally, several of the organizational units of the Governors Ofce, which have been in existence for over a quarter of a century, including the Ofce of Economic Development and International Trade and the Energy Ofce as well as more recently created Ofce of Information Technology, are in leased space as well. All of these entities perform on-going functions of State government. These agencies were recommended to be consolidated in State-owned space while agencies having expanding needs are recommended to be consolidated in leased space.

PAGE 27

3.0 Agencies 3-2Capitol Complex Buildings 1. Human Services Building, 1575 Sherman Street Tenants: DHS 2. 1570 Grant Street Tenants: HCPF 3. State Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street Tenants: DPA, State Auditor, GA 4. State Ofce Building, 201 East Colfax Avenue Tenants: DOE 5. State Capitol Building, 200 East Colfax Avenue Tenants: Ofce of the Governor, Ofce of Lieutenant Governor, Department of Treasury, GA, Legislative Council, Legislative Legal Services, DPS-State Patrol, DPA-CCF 6. Capitol Annex, 1375 Sherman Street Tenants: DOR 7. Power Plant, 1341 Sherman Street Tenants: DPS-State Patrol 8. Legislative Services Building, 200 East 14th Avenue Tenants: GA, Joint Budget Committee, Legislative Council 9. Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Tenants: DNR, DOLA, DPA-Archives 10. Department of Labor and Employment, 251 East 12th Avenue Tenants: DOLE 11. Merrick Parking Structure Tenants: N/A Privately Owned Buildings with State Tenants a. 633 and 621 17th Street Tenants: DOLE b. 601 E 18th Avenue Tenants: OIT c. 1700 Broadway Tenants: Secretary of State d. 303 E. 17th Avenue Tenants: HCPF e. 1625 Broadway Tenants: OEDIT f. 225 E. 16th Avenue Tenants: HCPF g. 1560 Broadway Tenants: DORA, DHE, DOE h. 1580 Logan Street Tenants: GEO, DOE, TREASURY i. 1120 Lincoln Street Tenants: DNR, DHS 1 a b c d e f g h i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Capitol Complex buildings Privately Owned Buildings with State TenantsDiagram Showing Agency Locations in Owned and Leased SpaceLocations not shown include 1881 Pierce Street, the Kipling Campus, and leases outside of the downtown area

PAGE 28

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-3The data collection process resulted in an understanding of not only each agencys space needs but also operational and locational requirements, which have been briey summarized in the following tables. This information provided a critical part of the framework for the development of alternatives discussed in Chapter 7. 3.2 AGENCY NEEDS GOVERNORS OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & INTL TRADE (OEDIT)DIRECTOR: Ken Lund TOTAL FTE: 40 AGENCY NEEDS: This ofce is located in leased space which has been appropriate for its functions; however there is little room for growth. This ofce could be considered as a candidate for a new State ofce building.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONSNoneLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1625 Broadway14,337Entire Ofce$31.45 GOVERNORS OFFICEGOVERNOR: John Hickenlooper TOTAL FTE: 54 AGENCY NEEDS: The Governor's Ofce is located in the Capitol Building. There are several functions that fall under the Governor that are located elsewhere including the Ofce Of Economic Development and International Trade, the Governor's Energy Ofce and the Ofce of Information of Technology. These are described separately.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS200 E. Colfax Ave. 19,284 Exec. Ofces, State Planning & Budgeting, Boards & Commissions, Policy & Initiatives, Legal, Press Ofce, Legislative RelationsLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone GOVERNORS ENERGY OFFICE (GEO)DIRECTOR: Jeffery Ackerman TOTAL FTE: 30 AGENCY NEEDS: This ofce is in leased space with a near term lease expiration. There is a signicant amount of underutilized space. If relocated, this ofce will need to remain in close proximity to the Capitol, Public Utilities Commission, OEDIT and DNR. In addition, any new location would require parking for six pool trucks and materials storage.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONSNoneLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1580 Logan St.10,031Entire Ofce$17.65

PAGE 29

3.0 Agencies 3-4 OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNORLIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Joe Garcia TOTAL FTE: 15 AGENCY NEEDS: The Lt. Governors ofce oversees the Ofces of Indian Affairs, Health & Wellness, Community Services and Early Childhood Education. These functions are split between the Capitol Building and one leased space. OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS200 E. Colfax Ave1,997 Exec Off, Indian Affairs, Health & WellnessLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF225 E. 16th Ave.1,245Commun. Svcs, Early Childhood Education $19.00 SECRETARY OF STATESECRETARY OF STATE: Scott Gessler TOTAL FTE: 135 AGENCY NEEDS: All divisions of this ofce are located in a single leased location. There would be some benet to moving closer to the Capitol for the executive team; however, the current location works well and relocating the existing data center would be difcult. Any newly leased space or retrotted owned space would need to meet technology and security criteria that are in place in the current space.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONSNoneLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1700 Broadway36,557Entire Ofce$18.79 GOVERNORS OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (OIT)DIRECTOR: Kristin Russell (currently Suma Nallapati) TOTAL FTE: 286 (at main ofce) AGENCY NEEDS: Recent organizational changes have centralized the OIT reporting structure but left many OIT personnel still physically located with the agencies they serve. The main ofce occupies leased space only. This space has no expansion capability which has caused issues with projected department growth. Currently nineteen data centers are located within the Capitol Complex so one goal for the department is to consolidate these into two primary data centers one located at the Kipling complex, and the second at the E-FORT Disaster Recovery Center on Arapahoe Road (not included).OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS690 Kipling St4,104Data CenterLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF601 E. 18th St.2,279Main ofce$17.13 (2 leases)59,220 $16.65 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURYTREASURER: Walker Stapleton TOTAL FTE: 32 AGENCY NEEDS: This ofce is located primarily in the State Capitol building with the unclaimed property function in a leased location. Ideally the two functions would be consolidated in owned space. However, the current location has the benet of available public parking.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS200 E. Colfax Ave4,379Main ofceLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1580 Logan St.3,466Unclaimed Property $17.85

PAGE 30

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-5 HEALTH CARE POLICY & FINANCING (HCPF)DIRECTOR: Sue Birch TOTAL FTE: 628 (all 3 locations) AGENCY NEEDS: This department has grown signicantly with the addition of approximately 100 FTE since 2013, driving the need for additional leased space. Ideally this agency would be in a single location. HCPF recently leased additional space at 303 17th Street, leaving the department in three locations for the next ve to seven years. The longer term assumption is that HCPF will vacate 1570 Grant Street and consolidate at two leased locations. This will allow the Grant Street building to be remodeled for future use potentially by the Department of Local Affairs.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1570 Grant Street41,453 Admin. & OpsLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF225 E. 16th Street21,403Admin & Ops$21.00 (3 leases)18,497Admin & Ops$18.96 2,791Admin & Ops$18.00 303 E. 17th Street25,935Admin & Ops Ofce $24.86 847Storage$24.86 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (DHE)DIRECTOR: Joe Garcia TOTAL FTE: 94 AGENCY NEEDS: This agency includes the CollegeInvest ofce, which is funded separately from the general department and is located in a separate space within the same building. Ideally CollegeInvest will remain co-located with the rest of the department if relocation occurs upon lease expiration. DHE is a candidate for a new State ofce building if occupants of 1560 Broadway are considered.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONSNoneLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1560 Broadway21,304DHE Department $29.43 18,320CollegeInvest $29.43 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE)COMMISSIONER: Robert Hammond TOTAL FTE: 466 (all locations) AGENCY NEEDS: This department is housed in extremely crowded conditions at 201 E. Colfax and in multiple leased spaces. Ideally most of this Department would be co-located. Two options to consider for consolidation are to construct an addition to 201 E. Colfax or vacate the leased space and consolidate those displaced functions into the new State Ofce building.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS201 E. Colfax Ave. 42,988Admin. & OITLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1535 Grant St.1,731Content Specialist Div $17.17 1560 Broadway 24,351Fed. Programs Admin $28.12 1580 Logan St. (5 Leases) 4,863Charter School $18.50 3,207Educator Effect. $19.88 1,147IT$17.81 2,785CDE$19.17 2,851Cap. Const.$19.21 6000 E. Evans St.3,320Prof. Svcs & Licensing $12.53 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (DHS)DIRECTOR: Reggie Bicha TOTAL FTE: 548 (at 1575 Sherman St) AGENCY NEEDS: This agency plans to evaluate its administrative and operational space needs in more detail. The feasibility of co-locating all of their administrative functions at the Fort Logan campus will be considered. If 1575 Sherman is vacated, the building could be backlled by Department of Revenue functions from 1881 Pierce and DOR leased space.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1575 Sherman Street 99,087 All Divisions (Fort Logan is excluded from the study)LEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone

PAGE 31

3.0 Agencies 3-6 DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS (DOLA)DIRECTOR: Reeves Brown TOTAL FTE: 170 AGENCY NEEDS: DOLA occupies only owned space; they are located on three oors of the 1313 Sherman Building. The departments interaction with a number of other agencies requires that it be centrally located in the Capitol Complex. This agency is a candidate to backll 1570 Grant Street if that building is vacated by HCPF and remodeled.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1313 Sherman St.33,822Entire agency 1,480StorageLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR)DIRECTOR: Mike King TOTAL FTE: 388 (not Including 6060 Broadway) AGENCY NEEDS: The majority of this department is located at 1313 Sherman and 6060 Broadway. The department has expressed a desire to co-locate all of its administrative divisions and potentially sell 6060 Broadway. This can be accomplished by relocating DOLA to 1570 Grant Street as proposed. DNR would backll the space at 1313 Sherman with most of the outlying DNR functions, with the exception of the service center, warehouse, and training facilities that ideally would be relocated from 6060 Broadway closer to the I-70 Corridor.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1313 Sherman St. ofce 71,879 All Divisions except Parks and Wildlife (at 6060) 1313 Sherman St. Storage 852 1127 Sherman St.12,000State Brd of Land Commiss (6060 Broadway and other outlying locations are excluded from this study)LEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1120 Lincoln St.19,991Oil & Gas Conserv Commiss &OIT $20.66 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE)DIRECTOR: Ellen Golombeck TOTAL FTE: 1,081 AGENCY NEEDS: This departments primary locations are 251 E. 12th and 633 17th Street, a leased facility. The State building is 81% federally funded and 19% DOLE owned. While consolidation would be ideal, the amount of space this department requires makes that difcult. One option to consider for greater consolidation is relocation to a new State owned building.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS251 E. 12th Ave.137,000 Unemploy. Insur. & OITLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF633 17th St.172,240Exec Off, Unemp.Ins., Labor, Oil & Pub. Safety, Workers Comp $21.64 621 17th St13,624Worker's Comp $18.50 DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATION (DPA)DIRECTOR: Kathy Nesbitt TOTAL FTE: 294 AGENCY NEEDS: This agency is located in recently remodeled space at 1525 Sherman Street with Central Services functions and storage located outside of the Capitol Complex at the North Campus facility. Some Central Service functions (e.g. mail services) could be considered for relocation if the North Campus is repurposed for other uses in the future.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1525 Sherman St.78,580 All Exec/ Admin functions including Admin. Courts 5,908Storage 1313 Sherman St.5,292 Archives Mgmt Ofce 34,581 Archives Storage 200 E. Colfax Ave. 8,734Storage 1001 E. 62nd Ave30,860 Central Svcs. Ofce (North Campus)12,000 Archives StorageLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone

PAGE 32

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-7 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DOR)DIRECTOR: Barbara Brohl TOTAL FTE: 1,032 (all locations) AGENCY NEEDS:1375 Sherman Street is in the poorest condition of the State owned buildings in the Capitol Complex; this has created a very poor working environment, and space shortages have driven the need for multiple leased spaces. These dispersed locations have caused a number of operational difculties. The downtown location is one of the most publicly visited State agency buildings and has parking and access challenges. The other primary location is 1881 Pierce which also is in poor condition, and faces similar public access issues due to a lack of public transportation. Proposed solutions include selling the 1881 Pierce location to move all but the DMV functions closer to, or within, the Capitol Complex. If feasible, some functions currently in leased space would consolidate with the customer facing functions from 1881 Pierce.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1375 Sherman St.63,636 Exec.Off, Taxation, Central Ops, Security, OIT 10,944Storage 1881 Pierce St.90,261 Tax Business Group, Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Dept 1001 E. 62nd Ave2,640 Tax Processing Ops, StorageLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF455 Sherman St7,500Tax$21.88 (2 leases)14,853Marijuana$20.2617301 W. Colfax Ave. 16,260Gaming$19.20 700 W. Mississippi Ave. 11,229State Lottery Storage $7.82 720 S. Colorado Blvd. 11,962Lottery & Field Audit $19.41 (2 leases)16,339Tax Field Audit$22.16 DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCIES (DORA)DIRECTOR: Barbara Kelley TOTAL FTE: 614 AGENCY NEEDS: This department is required by statute to be located in the Capitol Complex. It was housed in 1525 Sherman until that building was remodeled in 1991. DORA moved to leased space at that time and never returned to the Capitol Complex. DORA is a candidate for occupying a new State Ofce building.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONSNoneLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF1560 Broadway Ofce 154,615All Divisions$17.90 (2 leases) 5,710& Conference Center $31.61 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (DPS)DIRECTOR: James Davis (currently Stan Hilkey) TOTAL FTE: 603 AGENCY NEEDS: The recent departure of the Department of Agriculture and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation lab from the Kipling campus has opened up space that DPS could occupy, potentially vacating most of their lease at 710 Kipling. They have requested funding for this. (This department has additional owned facilities outside of the Kipling campus, i.e. at Camp George West and 9195 E. Mineral, that are not included here.)OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1341 Sherman St. (State Patrol) 2,494State Patrol 690 Kipling St.32,429 Exec. Off., Fire Prev/ Control, 5,475 Homeland Sec/Info. Analysis Center (CIAC) 700 Kipling St.36,380 Exec Off., ICJIS, OIT, Criminal Justice, State PatrolLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SF710 Kipling St3,038Bureau of Invest. $19.44 (4 leases)8,748Bureau of Invest. $18.00 4,426Criminal Justice $17.44 1,401State Patrol$17.50 GENERAL ASSEMBLY: STATE SENATE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSECRETARY OF SENATE: Cindi Markwell CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Marilyn Eddins TOTAL HEADCOUNT SENATE: 35 Senators/~175 Total incl. Staff, Aides, Interns TOTAL HEADCOUNT HOUSE: 65 Represenatives/ ~90 Total w/Staff, Aides, Interns AGENCY NEEDS: Of the 100 members of the House and Senate, 44 will have ofces in 1525 Sherman Street (30 House members/14 Senate members). Committee rooms for the House and Senate will be split between the Capitol and the Legislative Services Building as renovations are completed in both buildings.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS200 E. Colfax Ave. 86,089 General Assembly Space For Both House & Senate 4,689 General Assembly Storage 200 E. 14th Ave.21,203 General Assembly 1525 Sherman St.15,200 General Assembly 500StorageLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone

PAGE 33

3.0 Agencies 3-8 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL DIRECTOR: Mike Mauer TOTAL FTE: 69 AGENCY NEEDS: The Legislative Council ofces and support spaces occupy space at the Capitol and the Legislative Services Building. One ofce division recently moved out of leased space to backll vacated State Auditor's space at 200 E. 14th where the server room and print shop were already located. OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS200 E. Colfax Ave. 13,942 Legislative Council 200 E. 14th Ave.10,149 Legislative Council 1,567Server RoomLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICESDIRECTOR: Dan Cartin TOTAL FTE: 49 AGENCY NEEDS: This ofce is located in the State Capitol. Some storage is shared with General Assembly storage (included in Senate/General Assembly SF). Close proximity to the Capitol is required.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS200 E. Colfax Ave. 13,706Ofce spaceLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEESTAFF DIRECTOR: John Zeigler TOTAL FTE: 16 AGENCY NEEDS: This ofce is located in the Legislative Services Building. It requires a dedicated hearing room that can accommodate committee members, testimony seating and 50-60 spectators. Close proximity to the Capitol is required for legislators who sit on the committee.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS200 E. 14th Ave.5,620Ofce spaceLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone STATE AUDITORAUDITOR: Dianne Ray TOTAL FTE: 68 AGENCY NEEDS: The State Auditor's Ofce recently moved from the Legislative Services Building and leased space into 1525 Sherman Street, including storage. This new location provides adequate meeting rooms. The Legislative Audit Committee will hold hearings in the Capitol Building or the Legislative Services Building.OWNED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS1525 Sherman St.13,600Ofce space 500StorageLEASED LOCATIONS CURRENT SF DIVISIONS LEASE COST/SFNone

PAGE 34

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-9Using data compiled for the updated department survey proles, the consultant team prepared a database inventory of the existing allocation of department assigned space in both owned and commercially leased space (Ofce Useable Area or Rentable Area). The methods for calculating current occupancies is described in this section. Space Planning Standards Space standards and professional practice guidelines provide an objective basis to identify uniform measurements of space expressed in square feet per person or use area. Space standards are required to: Make the most efcient use of state owned and leased space; Establish uniformity and consistency among personnel in all departments and agencies; Establish uniformity and consistency in the allocation of space for equipment; Provide a uniform basis for projecting space needs for personnel and equipment to logically plan for the acquisition of future owned and leased space; and Determine the probable cost of needed space. This section explains the basis for estimating total space need based on the progression from functional net use spaces or areas to complete departments that comprise a total projected building space need. 3.3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING SPACE UTILIZATIONNet Space Estimating the amount of useable area or oor space needed to provide an appropriate environment capable of supporting a function involves the application of space allocations or space standards to the operational requirements of the functional component (e.g. ofce, restroom, conference room etc.). These standards, guidelines and specic space allocations are expressed as net useable square feet or NSF. Department Gross Space In a master space plan, the size of individual ofces/ workstations is not as important as the total allocation of space for each staff position. For example, an ofce may be 100 square feet, but the total space to support that ofce requires corridors, conference rooms, reception areas, printer stations etc. The total department gross square feet (DGSF) is the sum of the various personnel, support spaces and circulation space within the connes of that department including interior walls. For typical ofce environments, the average DGSF per staff is driven by the function of the department and a) the mix of private ofces versus open workstations; and b) types and sizes of support spaces. Using data provided by the State, the consultant team calculated the amount of existing space currently occupied by each department as DGSF for both owned and commercially leased space. Existing department space was provided at one or both of the following levels: Ofce Useable Area (OUA) area where a tenant houses personnel and/or furniture, including circulation internal to that department space, also referred to as Useable Square Feet (USF) Rentable Area (RA) ofce area of a tenant plus the tenants share of the oor common area and common building area, also referred to as Rentable Square Feet (RSF).NOTE: For State owned buildings, USF as reported in the 2004 State Buildings Report, was determined to be the closest equivalent to RSF occupancy in commercially leased spaces. The 2008 Master Plan data, used as the starting point for determining space needs for this plan, also utilized USF for State owned buildings.Building Gross Space Building gross square feet (BGSF) is the sum of all the assignable (DGSF) spaces and non-assignable spaces to include exterior wall thickness, common public circulation, public restrooms, stairwells and mechanical shafts. A BGSF factor is applied after the addition of all the DGSF components to yield a nal estimate of the full spatial impact of each component of the building. Building grossing factors can range from 20%-60%+ depending upon the buildings purpose.

PAGE 35

3.0 Agencies 3-10Current Conditions There is currently little standardization of workspace in the Capitol Complex as a whole. This is the result both of the existing conditions, particularly in owned buildings, and of the decentralized system currently in place by which agencies procure, budget for, plan and design space. There is more consistency in some of the commercially leased spaces the State occupies as these spaces have less restrictive existing conditions, have generally more exible and efcient oor plans and opportunities to implement some of the best practices in workplace design through independent use of space planning services provided by the States tenant broker contract. A good example of space where standards are more consistent with current benchmarks and trends is the newly remodeled HCPF space at 303 17th Avenue. Table 1 summarizes the existing inventory of owned and commercially leased space included in this study. Of the current inventory 39% is commercially leased space and 61% is owned space. Of the owned space, 15% is legislative space, 82% is space occupied by executive branch agencies and 3% is occupied by elected ofcial functions. Of the leased space, 83% is occupied by executive branch agencies, and 17% is occupied by elected ofcial functions. SPACE TYPE/ DEPARTMENT EXISTING SPACE/ DGSFOWNED Executive Elected Officials Ofce of the Governor, Executive 19,284 Ofce of the Governor, Information Technology4,104 Ofce of the Governor, Storage1,873 Ofce of Lieutenant Governor1,997 Department of Treasury4,379 Executive Elected Ofcials Total31,637 Executive Branch Agencies Department of Education42,988 Department of Health Care Policy & Financing41,453 Department of Human Services99,087 Department of Labor & Employment147,364 Department of Local Affairs35,302 Department of Natural Resources226,169 Department of Personnel & Administration175,955 Department of Public Safety77,353 Department of Revenue167,481 Executive Branch Agencies Total1,013,152 Legislative General Assembly127,681 Joint Budget Committee5,620 Legislative Council25,658 Legislative Legal Services13,706 State Auditor14,100 Legislative Total186,765 OWNED TOTAL1,231,554 LEASEDTable 1: Summary of Existing Space Occupied Owned vs. Leased Executive Elected Officials Ofce of the Governor, Economic Dev & International Trade14,337 Ofce of the Governor, Energy 10,031 Ofce of the Governor, Information Technology73,666 Ofce of Lieutenant Governor1,245 Secretary of State36,557 Department of Treasury3,466 Executive Elected Ofcials Total139,302 Executive Branch Agencies Department of Education44,165 Department of Health Care Policy & Financing69,553 Department of Higher Education39,624 Department of Labor & Employment185,864 Department of Natural Resources27,751 Department of Public Safety51,321 Department of Regulatory Agencies160,497 Department of Revenue78,143 Executive Branch Agencies Total656,918 LEASED TOTAL796,220GRAND TOTAL 2,027,774Source: Updated survey data, compiled by CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August 2014. SPACE TYPE/ DEPARTMENT EXISTING SPACE/ DGSF

PAGE 36

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-11Table 2: Summary of Space Inventory By Branch/Department BRANCH/DEPARTMENT EXISTING STAFF EXISTING SPACE/ DGSFEXECUTIVE Elected Officials Ofce of the Governor, Executive 5419,284 Ofce of the Governor, Economic Dev & International Trade4014,337 Ofce of the Governor, Energy 3010,031 Ofce of the Governor, Information Technology28877,770 Ofce of the Governor, Storage1,873 Ofce of Lieutenant Governor153,242 Secretary of State13536,557 Department of Treasury327,845 Elected Officials Total593170,939 Branch Agencies Department of Education46687,153 Department of Health Care Policy & Financing628111,006 Department of Higher Education9439,624 Department of Human Services54899,087 Department of Labor & Employment1,081333,228 Department of Local Affairs17035,302 Department of Natural Resources520253,920 Department of Personnel & Administration294175,955 Department of Public Safety603128,674 Department of Regulatory Agencies614160,497 Department of Revenue1,032245,624 Branch Agencies Total6,0501,670,070 EXECUTIVE TOTAL6,643 1,841,009 LEGISLATIVE Legislative General Assembly 265 127,681 Joint Budget Committee 16 5,620 Legislative Council 44 25,658 Legislative Legal Services 49 13,706 State Auditor 68 14,100 LEGISLATIVE TOTAL467 186,765GRAND TOTAL 7,1102,027,774Source: Updated survey data, compiled by CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August 2014.Table 2 shows both current staff and existing square feet by department and branch. An inventory of existing square footage by building has been provided in the appendix (Appendix 1 (b) Baseline Data Table). NOTE: Staff totals for some agencies including the Departments of Education, Human Services, Labor and Employment, Local Affairs, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Regulatory Affairs, and Revenue include Ofce of the Governor/Ofce of Information Technology staff, since these positions are assigned to be co-located with the agency served.

PAGE 37

3.0 Agencies 3-12Benchmarks provide a means to compare Colorados space use with peer institutions and form a baseline from which to develop space standards. A commonly used benchmark is square foot per person. There are a variety of sources for benchmark comparisons of square feet per person across states. Benchmarking is not an exact science as there are often inconsistencies in how space measurement is dened and calculated. However, for the purposes of providing a comparison of Colorados DGSF/person range, several sources were reviewed. The average DGSF/staff in Colorado state agencies ranges from 138-422 per person, with an overall average of 240. Figures 1 and 2 show the average broken down by Owned vs. Leased agency space. For owned (or OUA) space, Colorado ranges from 138 to 406, with an average of 224. For leased (or RA) space, the benchmarks range from a low of 156 to a high of 422, with an average of 263. Space planning benchmarks were examined from the federal government, public organizations, private sector, other state governments, and industry research and compared to the existing Colorado standards, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. In summary, the SF/person averages for Colorado are higher than many of the benchmarks considered. However, recent projects such as the newly completed HCPF space in a leased facility, are coming closer to the norm. The HCPF space has 185 SF/person, which is on par with the most recent General Services Administration target of 190 for federal facilities, and is under the goal of 204 SF/person that Colorado and its real estate consultant, JLL, have established for leased space.3.4 SPACE STANDARDS BENCHMARKINGDepartment of Treasury Ofce of Lieutenant Governor Ofce of Governor, Executive DOE HCPF DHS DOLE DOLA DNR DPA DPS DOR GA JBC Legislative Council Legislative Legal Services State Auditor btnfrn 50 0 100 200 250 300 400 350 150 224 Average274 285 360 158 185181 280 199 286 373 176 188 351 138 326 280 200Existing Office DGSF/StaffDepartment422 50 0 100 200 250 300 400 350 150 263 Average224 156 360 334 215 271 228 170 316 289 353 264 247Existing Office DGSF/StaffDepartment of Treasury Ofce of Lieutenant Governor Ofce of Governor, Econ Dev & International Trade Secretary of State DOE HCPF DHE DOLE DNR DPS DORA DORDepartmentOfce of Governor, Energy Ofce of Governor, Information TechnologyFigure 1: Owned Office Space per Staff by Department Figure 2: Leased Office Space per Staff by Department

PAGE 38

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-13 !"#$%&'()*+ 120 100 80 60 140 180 200 220 260 240 160 224 Existing Colorado Average 185 HCPF Project190 250 200 210 175 170 190 204 220 198 215OUA Per StaffGSA Federal Government Target NREL GSA Private Sector Average Research Western Union Kaiser Permanente JLL State Research Average Virginia Iowa WashingtonEntityXCEL Energy CSG International ,-./ 250 200 150 100 300 263 Existing Colorado Average 204 JLL Colorado State Goal234 218 230 291 233OUA Per StaffGSA Federal Government Target IFMA GSA Private Sector Average Research JLL State Research JLL Colorado Private Sector Lease AverageEntityFigure 3: Owned/Office Usable Area (OUA) Standard Comparison Figure 4: Owned/Office Usable Area (OUA) Standard Comparison

PAGE 39

3.0 Agencies 3-14Personnel Projections Typically the largest space driver for an ofce function is personnel and the spaces needed to support their respective function. Future personnel projections provide an objective basis for estimating the probable magnitude of building space needs in future years. These estimates in turn provide a planning basis for examining alternative development strategies and building concepts and thus determining preliminary estimates of construction and project costs. Historic data, often used as a basis for generating alternate projection models, was used to arrive at personnel projections for this project because personnel data at a department level by location was not readily available. The consultant team reviewed annual department appropriations over the past ten years published by the State of Colorado Joint Budget Committee to arrive at a percent growth factor to apply to future years. State population was also looked at, but population growth is not as closely correlated with headcount growth as looking at the historical appropriations data. To project future personnel, the average annual appropriations rate of 0.62% was applied to the 2013 stafng levels except for where the department identied specic projections at a higher rate of growth as listed below. Table 3 summarizes the projected personnel growth by Department. Department of Labor and Employment Unemployment insurance. Department of Public Safety Criminal Justice. Department of Regulatory Agencies Securities, Insurance, Real Estate and Public Utilities Commission. Department of Revenue Tax and Marijuana Enforcement. Legislative Council. Legislative Legal Services.3.5 PERSONNEL AND SPACE PROJECTIONS BRANCH/DEPARTMENT EXISTING STAFF 2018 STAFF 2023 STAFFEXECUTIVE Elected Officials Ofce of the Governor, Executive 54 5557 Ofce of the Governor, Economic Dev & International Trade 40 4143 Ofce of the Governor, Energy 30 3132 Ofce of the Governor, Information Technology 288297306 Ofce of the Governor, Storage Ofce of Lieutenant Governor 15 1516 Secretary of State 135139144 Department of Treasury 32 3333 Elected Officials Total 593611631 Branch Agencies Department of Education 466480496 Department of Health Care Policy & Financing 628648667 Department of Higher Education 94 97100 Department of Human Services 548565583 Department of Labor & Employment 1,0811,0801,089 Department of Local Affairs 170175181 Department of Natural Resources 520537552 Department of Personnel & Administration 294304313 Department of Public Safety 603625646 Department of Regulatory Agencies 614661686 Department of Revenue 1,0321,1091,147 Branch Agencies Total 6,0506,2816,460 EXECUTIVE TOTAL6,6436,8927,091 LEGISLATIVE Legislative General Assembly 265200205 Joint Budget Committee 16 1717 Legislative Council 69 7682 Legislative Legal Services 49 5357 State Auditor 68 7072 LEGISLATIVE TOTAL467416433GRAND TOTAL 7,1107,3087,524Percent Change from Existing 2.8%5.8%Source: CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August 2014.Table 3: Projected Personnel By Department

PAGE 40

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 3-15Table 4: Summary of Projected Space Need By Department BRANCH/DEPARTMENT EXISTING SPACE 2018 SPACE 2023 SPACEEXECUTIVE Elected Officials Ofce of the Governor, Executive 19,28419,82520,546 Ofce of the Governor, Economic Dev & International Trade 14,33714,69515,412 Ofce of the Governor, Energy 10,03110,36510,700 Ofce of the Governor, Information Technology 77,77079,70581,641 Ofce of the Governor, Storage 1,8731,8731,873 Ofce of Lieutenant Governor 3,2423,2423,398 Secretary of State 36,55737,64038,994 Department of Treasury 7,8458,2308,230 Elected Officials Total 170,939175,576180,793 Branch Agencies Department of Education 87,15389,68192,775 Department of Health Care Policy & Financing 111,006114,518117,851 Department of Higher Education 39,62440,84142,176 Department of Human Services 99,087102,161105,416 Department of Labor & Employment 333,228333,678336,924 Department of Local Affairs 35,30236,29737,490 Department of Natural Resources 253,920257,656261,046 Department of Personnel & Administration 175,955179,673183,097 Department of Public Safety 128,674133,400137,457 Department of Regulatory Agencies 160,497171,731178,001 Department of Revenue 245,624271,408280,322 Branch Agencies Total 1,670,0701,731,0431,772,555 EXECUTIVE TOTAL1,841,0091,906,6201,953,349 LEGISLATIVE Legislative General Assembly 127,681118,008118,008 Joint Budget Committee 5,6205,9715,971 Legislative Council 25,65828,14330,312 Legislative Legal Services 13,70614,82515,944 State Auditor 14,10014,50014,900 LEGISLATIVE TOTAL186,765181,448185,135GRAND TOTAL 2,027,7742,088,0672,138,484Percent Change from Existing 3.0%5.5%Source: CGL; November 2013, updated March 2014 and August 2014.Recommended Office Space Standard To project space at a master planning level, a Department Gross Square Foot per person standard is applied to current and projected headcount to dene future needs. This provides a macro level space planning number that can be used to test a variety of development options prior to developing a detailed architectural space program. The estimated requirements in this master plan are based upon assigning an aggregate amount of space per person and are not based upon the development of a room-by-room identication of spaces. Using the existing inventory data, the consultant team reviewed the existing ofce DGSF for each department and division. Current DGSF and headcount were used to calculate existing SF/person, as discussed previously. The planning target was then established by department and division which for most functions is 220 SF/person with a few exceptions. As shown previously, there is wide variation in the existing SF/person metric from 138 to 422. This is not uncommon as any facility portfolio has a mix of historic buildings, functions housed in purpose built and non-purpose built spaces for their mission, updated or outdated facilities etc. For projecting ofce space needs, three space standards are recommended: 350 SF/person for executive ofces located in the Capitol Building; 275 SF/person for executive ofces not located in the Capitol Building; and 220 SF/person for the remaining ofce spaces. For non-ofce spaces, the existing square footage was used as an estimate of future needs (e.g. storage). Space Projections Table 4 shows the existing and projected space needs through 2023 based on the recommended standards, and projected headcount as dened above. Overall, space need is projected to increase from an existing total of 2.03 million square feet to 2.14 million square feet by 2023, a 110,710 SF increase, or 5.5% over the ten year period. These projected requirements provide the basis for considering alternative solutions to meet space needs over time.

PAGE 41

3.0 Agencies CHAPTER 3.0 AGENCY SPACE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS THE LONG TERM STRATEGY FOR THE CAPITOL COMPLEX FACILITIES IS THE REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OCCUPIED IN COMMERCIALLY LEASED SPACE AND THE INCREASE OF STATE OWNED SPACE. CURRENTLY 39% OF THE INVENTORY IS IN COMMERCIALLY LEASED SPACE. A 5.5% GROWTH IN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IS PROJECTED OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, DRIVING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE OVER AND ABOVE THE CURRENT INVENTORY. OF THE OWNED BUILDINGS, SEVERAL NEED SIGNIFICANT RENOVATION IN ORDER TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR ON-GOING, LONG-TERM USE, MOST NOTABLY THE 1313 SHERMAN STREET, 1375 SHERMAN STREET AND 1570 GRANT STREET BUILDINGS. IN RENOVATING ANY OF THE STATES OWNED INVENTORY, THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GREATLY IMPROVE THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR STATE EMPLOYEES. THROUGH COST EFFECTIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS, EFFICIENT SPACE PLANNING AND A REDUCTION IN WORKSTATION SIZES, THE STATE CAN ACHIEVE A HIGHER DENSITY IN ITS BUILDINGS AND HELP CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL HELP ATTRACT AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES. REMODELING OF THESE FACILITIES, REPLACING LEASED SPACE WITH OWNED, AND INCREASING THE OVERALL INVENTORY AVAILABLE PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES TO RELOCATE AND CONSOLIDATE SOME FUNCTIONS TO IMPROVE AGENCY OPERATIONS AS WELL AS TO CREATE MORE CONSISTENCY AND EFFICIENCY IN SPACE UTILIZATION AND SPACE STANDARDS BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND AGENCIES. 3-16 3.6 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

PAGE 43

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO Facility Assessments04

PAGE 44

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-1 4.1 METHODOLOGY4.2 FACILITY ASSESSMENT & PRIORITIES SUMMARYThe facility assessments provide Findings & Recommendations (F&R) for the Capitol Complex Buildings and Camp George West site. The reports include a description and evaluation of the existing conditions, recommendations, and cost estimates for the recommended work from the following focus areas: architecture, structural, civil, mechanical/electrical/ plumbing, voice and data/security and historical. The project team reviewed existing building documentation, drawings, and audit reports provided by the State, and conducted site visits to identify and document the observable existing conditions of the buildings and Camp George West site and the code and life safety issues. The buildings were in fair to poor condition. The following table identies the buildings with the greatest deciencies as well as the top ve major deciencies within each building managed by Capitol Complex Facilities. The FCI (Facilities Condition Index), as audited by the state, is also shown for reference. The FCI is a numerical representation of the condition of a facility on a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being the lowest. The date of the most recent FCI audit is indicated. This chapter includes abridged facility assessments. Complete assessments are included as Appendix 4 Comprehensive Facility Assessments. CAPITOL COMPLEX PRIORITYLOCATION GENERAL BUILDING CONDITION FACILITIES CONDITION INDEX (FCI)BUILDING PRIORITY ITEMS1Capitol Annex Building(1375 Sherman, Denver)Poor 36.35 (10/2009) 1. Total gut and renovation back to core shell (LS, LOU, F) 2. Asbestos abatement (LS, LOU) 3. Replace all electrical (LS, LOU) 4. Convert steam heat to hot water (LOU) 5. Replace all plumbing piping (LS, LOU) 2Centennial Building(1313 Sherman, Denver)Poor 53.14 (2/2011) 1 Total gut and renovation back to core shell (LS, LOU, F) 2. Replace re alarm (LS) 3. Replace all HVAC, add stair pressurization (LS, LOU) 4. Replace roof (LOU) 5. Replace all plumbing piping (LS, LOU) 31570 Grant Building(1570 Grant, Denver)Fair 60.07 (9/2010) 1. Modernize elevators (LS) 2. Replace windows (LOU) 3. Modify re sprinkler system (LS) 4. Replace HVAC (LOU) 5. Replace AHU system in basement (LOU) 4North Campus West Bldg.(1001 E. 62nd, Denver)Poor 39.78 (8/2012) 1. Demolish the building structure and rebuild to suit. OR, if the building cannot be demolished: 1. Fix/correct fuel testing room code issues (LS) 2. Fix/correct printer room code issues (LS) 3. Replace re alarm/install re sprinkler system (LS) 4. Replace roof and add fall protection (LS, LOU) 5. Replace HVAC (LOU) 51881 Pierce Building(1881 Pierce, Lakewood)Fair 61.51 (12/2010) 1. Modify re sprinkler system to oor 1 (LS) 2. ADA upgrades (LS) 3. Repair/replace site paving (LS, LOU) 4. Asbestos assessment and abatement (LOU) 5. Replace HVAC system (LOU) Denitions 1. Life Safety (LS) 2. Loss of Use/Reliability (LOU) 3. Finishes (F) 4. Fair usable but in serious need of repair 5. Poor urgent need of repair, or life safety and/ or loss of use/reliability issues could result

PAGE 45

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-2 State Ofce Building(201 E. Colfax, Denver)Fair 69.02 (9/2007) 1. Replace re sprinkler piping (LS) 2. Provide fall protection at roof (LS) 3. Replace north chiller (LOU) 4. Replace windows (LOU) 5. Replace/repair exterior sealant & grout (LOU) Legislative Services Building(200 E. 14th, Denver)Fair 54.12 (5/2012) 1. Add panic devices on alley gates to allow exit to public way (LS) 2. Upgrade re alarm (LS) 3. FL 3 Hearing Rm: need re rated wall & change door swing (LS) 4. Replace windows & exterior doors (LOU) 5. Replace electric panel boards, past useful life (LOU) Human Services Building(1575 Sherman, Denver)Fair 60.27 (1/2013) 1. Replace engine generator (LS) 2. Replace electrical panels & receptacles (LS, LOU) 3. Accessibility upgrades (LS) 4. Replace roof (LOU) 5. Light xture & control upgrade (LOU) State Services Building(1525 Sherman, Denver)Fair 69.77 (10/2012) 1. Replace re alarm (LS) 2. Replace engine generator (LS) 3. Insulate exterior walls (LOU) 4. Replace roof (LOU) 5. Repair/replace exterior sealant (LOU) Power Plant Building(1341 Sherman, Denver)Fair 60.98 (4/2012) 1. Install a full re alarm & detection system through out (LS) 2. Install fall protection (LS) 3. Replace all panel boards & receptacles over 25 years old (LS, LOU) 4. Repair exterior walls & window leaks (LOU) 5. Replace lighting (LOU) Dale Tooley Building(690 Kipling, Lakewood)Fair 64.71 (3/2010) 1. Replace re alarm (LS) 2. Modernize elevator (LS) 3. Total redo of data center UPS (LOU) 4. Add electrical capacity (LOU) 5. Replace windows (LOU) 700 Kipling Building(700 Kipling, Lakewood)Fair 69.92 (6/2010) 1. Upgrade re alarm (LS) 2. Elevator modernization (LS) 3. Replace roof (LOU) 4. HVAC upgrade (LOU) 5. Repair exterior wall & window leaks (LOU) State Capitol(200 E. Colfax, Denver)Fair 44.47 (10/2009) 1. Replace roof (LOU) 2. Repair short tunnel roof/structural (LS) 3. Windows & faade restoration/repair (LOU) 4. Plumbing system repair/replacement (LOU) 5. Site repair: sidewalk, paving & drainage (LS, LOU) North Campus North Bldg.(6321 N. Downing, Denver)Poor 48.74 (8/2012) 1. Demolish the original building structure and rebuild to suit. OR, if the building cannot be demolished: 1. Add re sprinkler system (LS) 2. Replace re alarm (LS) 3. Replace roof and add fall protection (LS, LOU) 4. Upgrade lights (LOU) 5. Replace original building skin, doors, and windows (LOU) North Campus East Bldg.(6221 N. Downing, Denver)Poor 53.57 (8/2012) 1. Demolish the building structure and rebuild to suit. OR, if the building cannot be demolished: 1. Replace roof and add fall protection (LS, LOU) 2. Replace windows (LOU) 3. Add lighting controls (LOU) 4. Repair/replace sealant (LOU) 5. Repair/replace asphalt (LS, LOU) Executive Residence(400 E. 8th, Denver)Fair Fair 51.65 (12/2011) 69.13 (Carriage House 3/2012) 1. Replace electric panel boards & wiring past useful life (LS, LOU) 2. Rebuild brick wall adjacent to visitor center (LS) 3. Repair drainage problems (LOU) 4. Re-tuck point stone and brick (F) 5. Replace roof (LOU) G. J. State Services Building(222 S. 6th, Grand Junction)Fair 57.32 (4/2011) 1. Repair/replace parking lots/sidewalks (LS, LOU) 2. Replace roof (LS, LOU) 3. Replace condensing unit (LOU) 4. Upgrade lighting/add more controls (LOU) 5. Replace waterproof membrane at berm/building (LOU) Camp George West Site(15000 S. Golden, Pleasant View)Poor None1. Assessment of underground utilities (LOU) 2. Add additional site lighting (LS) 3. Repair/replace broken & cracked concrete on site (LS, LOU) 4. Drainage improvements (LOU) 5. Repair/replace site asphalt (LS, LOU)

PAGE 46

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-3 1375 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 114,228 GSF Constructed: 1937 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: Department of Revenue FCI: 36.35/100.00, 10/2009 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $22,321,671. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $22,688,430. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Total gut and renovation of the building back to the core shell, with the exception of the historicallyprotected areas outlined in the facility assessment, including, but not limited to, the replacement of all windows and converting steam heat to hot water. This would provide an effective approach for abating all asbestos, replacing all of the aged electrical systems, replacing all of the old plumbing piping, and providing a more efcient layout. These recommendations encompass life safety, loss of use/reliability, nishes, and overall energy efciency issues. Cost Estimate: $22,321,671. 2. Asbestos abatement. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues. Cost estimate: $710,767. 3. Replace all electrical. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to electrical code issues including an inadequate service load capacity. Cost estimate: $3,202,081 4. Convert steam heat to hot water. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the inability to maintain a consistent comfortable working temperature within the building. Cost estimate: $5,434,187. 5. Replace all plumbing piping. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to plumbing code issues as well as ongoing maintenance efforts. Cost estimate: $2,899,510.4.3.1 CAPITOL ANNEX BUILDING 4.3.2 CENTENNIAL BUILDING 1313 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 207,091 GSF Constructed: 1976 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: Department of Local Affairs Department of Natural Resources Department of Personnel & Administration (Archives) FCI: 53.14/100.00, 2/2011 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top 5 priorities, the cost estimate is: $34,212,015. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $34,482,015. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Total gut and renovation back to core shell, including, but not limited to, replacing the roof, replacing the windows, replacing the aged re alarm system and HVAC systems, adding stair pressurization for life safety, installing energy saving lighting, adding insulation to the exterior walls, and providing a more efcient layout. These recommendations encompass life safety, loss of use/reliability, nishes, and overall energy efciency issues. Cost estimate: $34,212,015. 2. Replace re alarm. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to re protection code issues and the age of the system. Cost estimate: $291,541. 3. Replace all HVAC, add stair pressurization. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the HVAC systems and to re protection code issues. Cost estimate: $9,839,947. 4. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age of the roof. Cost estimate: $301,539. 5. Replace all plumbing piping. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues. Cost estimate: $2,722,582.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3 FACILITY OVERVIEWS

PAGE 47

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-44.3.3 1570 GRANT BUILDING 4.3.4 NORTH CAMPUS WEST BUILDING1570 GRANT STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 47,749 GSF Constructed: 1956 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: 2001 Agency Tenants: Department of Health Care Policy & Financing FCI: 60.07/100.00, 9/2010 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $5,573,428. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $5,643,711. 1001 EAST 62ND AVENUE (DENVER) Building Area: 37,763 GSF Constructed: 1968 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: 1976 Agency tenants: Department of Personnel & Administration (Division of Central Services) FCI: 39.78/100.00, 8/2012 Costs to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $4,939,494. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $5,469,429. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Modernize elevators. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the age of the elevator systems. Cost estimate: $71,420. 2. Replace windows. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate: $1,133,406. 3. Modify re sprinkler system. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to egress issues from the building and re protection code issues. Cost estimate: $545,534. 4. Replace HVAC. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the HVAC systems. Cost estimate: $1,900,098. 5. Replace AHU system in basement. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the system. Cost estimate: $294,642. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Correct fuel testing room code issues. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is related to the hazardous materials stored and tested in the room and re protection code and National Electrical Code issues. Cost estimate: $189,661. 2. Correct print shop code issues. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the levels of paper dust accumulation throughout and re protection code and National Electrical Code issues. Cost estimate: $202,396. 3. Replace re alarm/install re sprinkler system. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the age of the re alarm system and re protection code issues related to the fuel testing room and print shop code issues. Cost estimate: $289,938. 4. Replace roof and add fall protection. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof and the fact that no fall protection is provided. Cost estimate: $565,523. 5. Replace HVAC. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the HVAC system and the inability to maintain a consistent comfortable working temperature within the building. Also provide air distribution, as part of the overall project, in the main entrance and lobby spaces which currently use portable heaters to provide heat. Cost estimate: $687,552. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 48

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-5 4.3.5 1881 PIERCE BUILDING1881 PIERCE STREET (LAKEWOOD) Building Area: 122,542 GSF Constructed: 1972 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: 1983 Agency Tenants: Department of Revenue FCI: 61.51/100.00, 12/2010 Costs to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $9,583,603. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $9,724,003. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Install re sprinkler system throughout the rst oor. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to egress and re protection code issues. Cost estimate: $949,488. 2. Accessibility upgrades. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to a number of non-accessible drinking fountains and other non-accessible features found throughout the restrooms and break rooms. Cost estimate: $328,957. 3. Repair/replace site paving. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the site pavement which is creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate: $2,830,816. 4. Asbestos assessment and abatement. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues. Cost estimate: $634,199. 5. Replace HVAC system. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the HVAC system and the inability to maintain a consistent comfortable working temperature within the building. Cost estimate: $542,650.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3.6 STATE OFFICE BUILDING 201 EAST COLFAX AVENUE (DENVER) Building Area: 78,115 GSF Constructed: 1921 Remodeled: 1985 Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: Department of Education FCI: 69.02/100.00, 9/2007 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $5,476,204. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $5,724,206. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Replace re sprinkler piping. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the age of the re sprinkler piping and re protection code issues. Cost estimate: $782,031. 2. Provide fall protection at roof. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to code issues and the fact that inadequate fall protection is provided at the roof. Cost estimate: $26,857. 3. Replace north chiller. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the current systems inability to meet the building load. Cost estimate: $613,487. 4. Replace windows. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate: $1,076,998. 5. Replace/repair exterior sealant and grout. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the sealant and grout which is creating access points by which water can penetrate the building envelope. Cost estimate: $80,342.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 49

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-64.3.7 LEGISLATIVE SERVICES BUILDING200 EAST 14TH AVENUE (DENVER) Building Area: 59,301 GSF Constructed: 1915 Remodeled: 1986 Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: General Assembly Joint Budget Committee Legislative Council FCI: 54.12/100.00, 5/2012 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $4,528,638. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $4,609,638. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Add panic devices on alley gates to allow exit to public way. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to egress issues from the building. Cost estimate: $51,056. 2. Upgrade re alarm. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the age of the system and re protection code issues. Cost estimate: $33,881. 3. Floor 3, Hearing Room: need re rated wall and change door swing. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to re protection code issues related to assembly occupancies. Cost estimate: $98,727. 4. Replace windows and exterior doors. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the windows and exterior doors. Cost estimate: $332,038. 5. Replace electric panel boards. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the panel boards. Cost estimate: $602,620. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3.8 HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING1575 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 145,370 GSF Constructed: 1952 Remodeled: 1987 Acquired: 1964 Agency Tenants: Department of Human Services FCI: 60.27/100.00, 1/2013 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $15,146,974. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $16,503,123. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Replace engine generator. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues due to the age of the generator which is used for emergency power. Cost estimate: $438,599. 2. Replace electrical panels and receptacles. This recommendation encompasses life safety, loss of use/reliability, and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the panels and receptacles. Cost estimate: $3,848,536. 3. Accessibility upgrades. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to nonaccessible features found throughout the restrooms and break rooms. Cost estimate: $136,051. 4. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof. Cost estimate: $609,958. 5. Light xture and controls upgrade. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the T8 uorescent xtures and controls. Cost estimate: $1,012,390. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 50

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-7 4.3.9 STATE SERVICES BUILDING1525 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 165,930 GSF Constructed: 1960 Remodeled: 1992 and 2013 Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: Department of Personnel & Administration General Assembly State Auditor FCI: 69.77/100.00, 10/2012 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $10,168,019. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $10,438,019. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Replace re alarm. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to re protection code issues and the age of the system. Cost estimate: $643,728. 2. Replace engine generator. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues. Cost estimate: $161,301. 3. Insulate exterior walls. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability and energy. Cost estimate: $1,188,172. 4. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof. Cost estimate: $638,206. 5. Repair/replace exterior sealant. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the sealant which is creating access points by which water can penetrate the building envelope. Cost estimate: $569,715.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3.10 POWER PLANT BUILDING 1341 SHERMAN STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 25,690 GSF Constructed: 1939 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: Department of Public Safety CSP FCI: 60.98/100.00, 4/2012 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in this report are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $4,598,921. If all recommendations in this report are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $4,970,686. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Install a full re alarm and detection system throughout. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the lack of a full detection re alarm system. Cost estimate: $32,101. 2. Provide fall protection at roof. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to code issues and the fact that inadequate fall protection is provided at the roof. Cost estimate: $20,269. 3. Replace all electrical panels and receptacles that are past their useful life. This recommendation encompasses life safety, loss of use/reliability, and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the panels and receptacles. Cost estimate: $898,703. 4. Repair exterior walls and window leaks. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the windows and the cladding on the building and the overall deterioration of the mortar and sealant. Cost estimate: $665,694. 5. Replace lighting. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the xtures. Cost estimate: $187,710.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 51

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-84.3.11 DALE TOOLEY BUILDING690 KIPLING STREET (LAKEWOOD) Building Area: 67,035 GSF Constructed: 1985 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: 1985 Agency Tenants: Department of Public Safety Ofce of Information Technology FCI: 64.71/100.00, 3/2010 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $8,857,325. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $8,949,125. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Replace re alarm. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to re protection code issues and the age of the system. Cost estimate: $239,328. 2. Modernize elevators. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the age of the elevator systems. Cost estimate: $204,275. 3. Upgrade the data center UPS. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability issues and is due to the need for a UPS system that will provide adequate capacity, reliability, and redundancy. Cost estimate: $224,328. 4. Add electrical capacity. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the need for increased capacity. Cost estimate: $1,018,827. 5. Replace windows. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate: $856,823. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3.12 700 KIPLING BUILDING700 KIPLING STREET (LAKEWOOD) Building Area: 60,964 GSF Constructed: 1985 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: 1992 Agency Tenants: Department of Public Safety FCI: 69.92/100.00, 6/2010 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $9,113,674. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $9,329,674. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Upgrade re alarm. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to re protection code issues and the age of the system. Cost estimate: $111,882. 2. Modernize elevators. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the age and condition of the elevator systems. Cost estimate: $87,035. 3. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof. Cost estimate: $275,345. 4. HVAC upgrade. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the HVAC system, including VAV boxes, and the inability to maintain a consistent comfortable working temperature within the building. Cost estimate: $2,864,999. 5. Repair exterior walls and window leaks. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the mortar and sealant, which is creating access points by which water can penetrate the building envelope, and the age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate: $1,862,908. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 52

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-9 4.3.13 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING200 EAST COLFAX AVENUE (DENVER) Building Area: 323,813 GSF Constructed: 1895-1903 Remodeled: Life safety upgrade 2009, dome restoration 2014 Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: General Assembly Legislative Council Legislative Legal Services Ofce of the Governor Ofce of Lieutenant Governor Department of Treasury Department of Public Safety CSP Department of Personnel and Administration CCF FCI: 44.47/100.00, 10/2009 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $60,328,458. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $61,845,759. Five Major Deficiencies 1. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof. Cost estimate: $2,873,728. 2. Repair short tunnel roof/structural. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the age and general deterioration of the tunnel over the past 115+ years, ongoing maintenance efforts, and the potential hazard to motorists passing overhead. Cost estimate: $11,764,925. 3. Windows and facade restoration/repair. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the windows and facade. Cost estimate: $10,467,816. 4. Plumbing system repair/replacement. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the plumbing as well as ongoing maintenance efforts. Cost estimate: $6,190,182. 5. Site repair: sidewalk, paving, and drainage. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the site pavement which is creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate: $1,267,662.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3.14 NORTH CAMPUS NORTH BUILDING 6321 NORTH DOWNING STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 23,630 GSF Constructed: 1968 Remodeled: A west addition, approximately 10 years ago Acquired: 1976 Agency Tenants: Department of Personnel & Administration (Division of Central Services Primarily Storage) FCI: 48.74/100.00, 8/2012 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $2,788,886. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $3,036,190. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Add re sprinkler system. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to egress and re protection code issues. Cost estimate: $150,686. 2. Replace re alarm. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to re protection code issues and the age of the system. Cost estimate: $60,888. 3. Replace roof and add fall protection. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof and the fact that no fall protection is provided. Cost estimate: $378,738. 4. Upgrade lights. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the T8 uorescent xtures. Cost estimate: $185,071. 5. Replace original building skin, doors, and windows. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability issues and is due to the age and overall deterioration of the original building skin, doors, and windows. Cost estimate: $341,604.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 53

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-104.3.15 NORTH CAMPUS EAST BUILDING6221 NORTH DOWNING STREET (DENVER) Building Area: 39,195 GSF Constructed: 1968 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: 1976 Agency Tenants: Department of Personnel & Administration (Storage) FCI: 53.57/100.00, 8/2012 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $2,126,672. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $2,373,976. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Replace roof and add fall protection. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof and the fact that no fall protection is provided. Cost estimate: $551,571. 2. Replace windows. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the windows. Cost estimate: $37,954. 3. Add lighting controls. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the need for automatic occupancy controls. Cost estimate: $51,644. 4. Repair/replace sealant. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the sealant which is creating access points by which water can penetrate the building envelope. Cost estimate: $64,028. 5. Repair/replace site paving. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the site pavement which is creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate: $467,733. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3.16 EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE400 EAST 8TH AVENUE (DENVER) Building Area: 26,431 GSF Constructed: 1908 Remodeled: Residence N/A, Carriage House 2006 Acquired: 1959 Agency Tenants: Governors Residence FCI: 51.65/100.00, 12/2011, Residence 69.13/100.00, 3/2012, Carriage House Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $7,266,211. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $8,540,834. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Replace electric panel boards and wiring that are past their useful life. This recommendation encompasses life safety, loss of use/reliability, and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the panels and wiring. Cost estimate: $502,341. 2. Rebuild brick wall adjacent to visitor center. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to the fact that the wall is failing structurally along the eastern and southern portions of the terraced grounds, near the Tebo Visitors Center. Cost estimate: $198,017. 3. Repair drainage problems. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to damage that has occurred to the building and site retaining walls from standing water and other drainage problems. Cost estimate: $1,197,887. 4. Tuck point the stone and brick. This recommendation encompasses issues with the buildings exterior nishes and is due to the deterioration of the mortar which is creating access points by which water can penetrate the building envelope. Cost estimate: $777,000. 5. Replace roof. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age of the roof and problems with water leaks. Cost estimate: $518,845. NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 54

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-11 4.3.17 GRAND JUNCTION STATE SERVICES BUILDING222 SOUTH 6TH STREET (GRAND JUNCTION) Building Area: 52,000 GSF Constructed: 1983 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: N/A Agency Tenants: Department of Personnel & Administration Department of Public Health & Environment Department of Labor & Employment Department of Local Affairs Department of Revenue Department of Transportation Department of Regulatory Agencies Department of Natural Resources FCI: 57.32/100.00, 4/2011 Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $6,419,618. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $7,064,335. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Repair/replace parking lots/sidewalks. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the site pavement which is creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate: $157,527. 2. Replace roof and provide fall protection. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the age and condition of the roof and the fact that inadequate fall protection is provided. Cost estimate: $220,378. 3. Replace condensing unit. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age of the condensing unit. Cost estimate: $101,273. 4. Upgrade lighting/add more controls. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and overall energy efciency issues and is due to the age and condition of the T8 uorescent xtures and the buildings current lighting control system which turns all lighting on at 5:30 a.m. and off at 9:30 p.m. Cost estimate: $996,129. 5. Replace waterproof membrane along the foundation on the south side of the building. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the waterproof membrane. Cost estimate: $82,630.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. 4.3.18 CAMP GEORGE WEST 15000 SOUTH GOLDEN ROAD (PLEASANT VIEW) Site Area: 290 acres Constructed: 1903 Remodeled: N/A Acquired: 1999 (DPA) Agency Tenants: Department of Corrections Department of Public Safety Department of Transportation FCI: None Cost to Remodel: If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented as a single project, including the top ve priorities, the cost estimate is: $13,847,708. If all recommendations in the facility assessment are implemented system by system as multiple projects, including the top ve priorities (systems), the cost estimate is: $14,697,457. Five Major Deficiencies: 1. Assessment of underground utilities. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/ reliability issues. Cost estimate: $332,779. 2. Add additional site lighting. This recommendation encompasses life safety issues and is due to areas of the site without any lighting and inadequate site lighting along roadways, parking lots, and storage areas. Cost estimate: $633,895. 3. Repair/replace broken and cracked concrete on site. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the site pavement which is creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate: $2,125,156. 4. Drainage improvements. This recommendation encompasses loss of use/reliability issues and is due to problems with local ooding occurring on-site and the ooding of numerous existing structures during minor storm events. Cost estimate: $3,533,749. 5. Repair/replace site asphalt. This recommendation encompasses life safety and loss of use/reliability issues and is due to the overall deterioration of the site pavement which is creating a potential tripping hazard. Cost estimate: $5,406,945.NOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur.

PAGE 55

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-12 4.4 SUSTAINABILITY GOALS4.4.1 OVERVIEWThe long range planning of the State Capitol Complex is an excellent opportunity to integrate sustainability goals and approaches that can be implemented with the master plan. The goals are incremental with improved performance each year, to the year 2030. Achieving the sustainability goals are not only an important way for the State to demonstrate leadership around stewardship of the states resources; it is also a good business case for increased efciency of operation. The goals outlined in this report are focused on energy, water and waste as key drivers of performance. To achieve these goals it is critical that a Sustainability Manager position is created with the responsibility for the position recognized at all management levels within the department. However, while pursuing these goals it is important to also keep a focus on the pursuit of holistic sustainability, including the health and wellbeing of state employees, customers, and other visitors of state facilities. Social sustainability often goes hand-in-hand with energy efciency goals as they can increase thermal comfort, improve air quality and enhance daylighting. In addition, there is a great opportunity to leverage the inherent sustainability in renovating existing buildings, particularly the historic state buildings in downtown Denver, which are an important part of the citys fabric. An important component of the sustainability plan is the tracking of utility usage and cost. For DPA, one of the largest challenges has been its ability to track and report on utility information. DPA, through support from the Colorado Energy Ofce, has taken action toward tracking utility information with the implementation of EnergyCAP, a web-based energy accounting software that tracks and helps analyze energy and water utility bills. The entering of utility data into EnergyCAP has only recently been completed. A critical step is the verication of tracked utility data against the invoices from the respective utility vendors. The 2013 Capital Complex Energy Use table created from EnergyCAP data indicates a total energy cost that was lower than actual utility budget gures. It is critical that EnergyCAP data be veried against utility vendor invoices. A comprehensive tracking and management plan will result in better information and communication about progress and spur further performance improvements over time. Policy and guidance for sustainability and energy efciency within the States own building portfolio is driven from state statutes, executive orders and department initiatives. Greening of State Government Executive Orders D011 07 and D012 07 were signed by Governor Bill Ritter, Jr. in 2007. The Greening Government executive orders called for a variety of goals to be achieved by June 20, 2012. The state has had some success and some challenges in meeting these goals. The State of Colorado has been a long time leader in the use of energy performance contracting (EPC) to fund energy efciency projects for State-owned buildings. For example, in 2010 there were 19 State entity projects that utilized EPCs for a total of $72 million. These projects save 16.1 million kWh of electricity, 77,881 MMBtu of fuel and $2.8 million in energy costs annually. One very notable EPC is the geothermal heating and cooling system project for the State Capitol completed in 2013. The project is a rst of its kind for any state capitol and is projected to save the state $100,000 in heating and cooling energy costs in the rst year. The state introduced an environmentally preferable purchasing policy (EPP) in 2009. The policy is designed to reduce consumption, waste, and possible environmental impacts by following a set of green purchasing guidelines. Further efforts to reduce paper use and increase recycling have been introduced at agencies across the state government. Greening Government Goals1. Reduce energy use by 20% 2. Reduce paper use by 20% 3. Reduce water consumption by 10% 4. Reduce state vehicle petroleum consumption by 25% (volumetric reduction) 5. To track and report greening government performance, each state department and campus will create a sustainability management system. The overarching goal is for a 2% reduction each year in energy, water and waste based on the aggregate tracking of all facilities within the capitol complex.

PAGE 56

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-13Energy Reduction Goals The potential energy use reduction presented is based upon benchmarking buildings against industry standards. The EPA ENERGY STAR program and the Architecture 2030 Challenge are two industry recognized benchmarks relevant to DPA. The ENERGY STAR program was designed to compare similar buildings to indicate how they perform. The table below shows ENERGY STAR benchmark data applicable to the Capitol Complex using the average facility size for the Capitol Complex, an ofce building type, and a zip code of 80203. The 2030 Challenge has established goals to seek, once the buildings are benchmarked. The EnergyCAP program is the tool that provides the benchmark numbers. As stated, the information in EnergyCAP needs to be validated. The value of projecting savings is important to indicate potential savings; once the EnergyCAP data is validated, it is assumed that the nal tracked savings will be greater. The baseline energy use is derived from EnergyCAP using annual data for each building. It is useful to review the energy benchmarks by location and not for the Capitol Complex portfolio of buildings. The facility at 690 Kipling has a high energy use index (EUI) of 353.1 kBtu/ sf/year because it houses a data center and therefore, is not representational of the remainder of the Capitol Complex. A useful subgroup of buildings to track is the buildings in downtown Denver connected to Xcels central steam plant. This subgroup of buildings has a 2013 EUI of 54.1 kBtu/sf/year, and an ECI of $1.13/sf/year. The energy baseline includes energy use only associated with buildings in the scope of this master plan. The IDS building in Pueblo is not included in the scope of this plan and is not included in the EnergyCAP database. As a clarifying note the conversion of pounds of steam to BTUs is based on the ENERGY STAR conversion rate of 1,200 kBTU per MLB (1,000 LB of steam). Refer to the following table for details on the 2013 Capitol Complex energy use. Address Bldg Name ConstGross AreaElectricSteam Natural GasTotal EnergyPer SF 11575 ShermanHuman Services Bldg1952145,3701,391,959kWh877MLB 4,749,364kBtu1,052,400kBtu 5,801,764kBtu39.9kBtu/SF 115,690$20,193$ 135,883$0.93$/SF 21525 ShermanState Services Bldg1960165,9302,551,925kWh565MLB4,793DKTHM 8,707,168kBtu678,000kBtu4,793,000kBtu14,178,168kBtu85.4kBtu/SF 212,099$15,976$28,600$ 256,675$1.55$/SF 31570 Grant 195647,749401,523kWh 1,762DKTHM 1,369,996kBtu 1,762,000kBtu3,131,996kBtu65.6kBtu/SF 46,791$ 10,041$ 56,832$1.19$/SF 4201 E ColfaxState Office Bldg 192178,1151,160,046kWh239MLB 3,958,077kBtu286,800kBtu 4,244,877kBtu54.3kBtu/SF 96,832$9,147$ 105,979$1.36$/SF 5200 E ColfaxState Capitol 1903323,8132,087,938kWh5,915MLB 7,124,044kBtu7,098,000kBtu 14,222,044kBtu43.9kBtu/SF 173,536$101,640$ 275,176$0.85$/SF 61313 ShermanCentennial Bldg 1976207,0911,739,949kWh1,643MLB 5,936,706kBtu1,971,600kBtu 7,908,306kBtu38.2kBtu/SF 144,613$41,094$239$ 185,946$0.90$/SF 71375 ShermanCapitol Annex Bldg1937114,228928,012kWh3,502MLB 3,166,377kBtu4,202,400kBtu 7,368,777kBtu64.5kBtu/SF 77,319$83,178$ 160,497$1.41$/SF 8200 E 14thLegislative Services Bldg191559,301927,973kWh33MLB1,076DKTHM 3,166,244kBtu39,600kBtu1,076,000kBtu4,281,844kBtu72.2kBtu/SF 77,127$3,911$6,661$ 87,699$1.48$/SF 91341 ShermanPower Plant 193925,690579,983kWh483MLB 1,978,902kBtu579,600kBtu 2,558,502kBtu99.6kBtu/SF 48,204$12,947$ 61,151$2.38$/SF 10400 East 8th AveExec Residence 190831,268297,381kWh 877DKTHM & Carriage House 1,014,664kBtu 877,000kBtu1,891,664kBtu60.5kBtu/SF 30,562$ 5,361$ 35,923$1.15$/SF 11690 KiplingDale Tooley Bldg 198567,0356,348,216kWh 2,012DKTHM 21,660,113kBtu 2,012,000kBtu23,672,113kBtu353.1kBtu/SF 489,141$ 11,249$ 500,390$7.46$/SF 12700 Kipling 198560,964774,065kWh 2,641,110kBtu 2,641,110kBtu43.3kBtu/SF 101,743$ 101,743$1.67$/SF 131881 Pierce 1972122,5421,535,981kWh 3,051DKTHM 5,240,767kBtu 3,051,000kBtu8,291,767kBtu67.7kBtu/SF 130,144$ 16,654$ 146,798$1.20$/SF 146321 North DowningNorth Campus North Bldg196823,630No data in EnergyCAP 156221 North DowningNorth Campus East Bldg196839,195105,920kWh 11THERMS (2011 Data as building was vacant in 2012 and 2013) 361,399kBtu 1,100kBtu362,499kBtu9.2kBtu/SF (Meter address in EnergyCAP as 6215 Downing) 8,873$ 257$ 9,130$0.23$/SF 161001 East 62nd AveNorth Campus West Bldg196837,763672,362kWh 16,847THERMS 2,294,099kBtu 1,684,700kBtu3,978,799kBtu105.4kBtu/SF 62,580$ 9,345$ 71,925$1.90$/SF 17222 South 6thGrand Junction 198352,000705,760kWh 19,416THERMS 2,408,053kBtu 1,941,600kBtu4,349,653kBtu83.6kBtu/SF 62,985$ 11,420$ 74,405$1.43$/SF 18 15000 S. Golden Rd Camp George West, Site 0No data in EnergyCAP, not a building Totals Buildings with Energy Data 1,578,054 108,883,884kBtu 69.0kBtu/SF 2,266,152$ 1.44$/SF Buildings with Energy Data 1,511,019 85,211,771kBtu 56.4kBtu/SF (excluding 690 Kipling) 1,765,762$ 1.17$/SF Buildings on Steam 1,119,538 60,564,282kBtu 54.1kBtu/SF 1,269,006$ 1.13$/SF 2013 2013 Capital Complex Energy Use4.4.2 ENERGY, WATER AND WASTE REDUCTION GOALSThe buildings in the State Capitol Complex should achieve specic energy, water and waste reduction goals compared to a baseline of current consumption metrics. The State uses a program called EnergyCAP to track energy and water use at many of the facilities in the Capitol Complex. The data derived from EnergyCAP was used to help set energy and water use reduction goals for the Capitol Complex in this master plan. Currently waste and waste diversion/recycling activities are not tracked. In concert with energy, water and waste reduction goals it is recommended that the Capitol Complex consider certifying buildings within the complex under LEED for Buildings Operations and Maintenance. Each building should be reviewed for the feasibility of LEED O+M certication. It is important for the State to utilize industry tools and benchmarks to improve and assess building operation over time and LEED O+M provides a valuable framework for meeting the energy, water and waste reduction goals in this master plan. One of the most successful programs implemented by the state is the High Performance Certication Program (HPCP). The HPCP requires all new facilities, additions and renovation projects greater than 5,000 sf to conform to the policy adopted by the Ofce of the State Architect. For most qualifying projects the goal is LEED Gold. Further the State Architect has established sustainability priorities within the LEED rating system that include minimum energy performance, enhanced commissioning (over 20,000 sf), measurement and verication (over 50,000 sf), potable water reduction goals, indoor environmental quality goals and construction waste and materials goals. As a result of the state leading by example, Colorado was ranked 8th in the nation for LEED buildings per capita in 2013.

PAGE 57

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-14The 2030 Challenge stipulates that existing buildings should reduce energy use by 50% by 2030 from an ENERGY STAR score of 50 as a baseline. The challenge includes incremental goals between now and the year 2030 to build to the 50% overall reduction. In this scenario the baseline ENERGY STAR score of 50 has a EUI of 96.7 kBtu/sf/year and would need to be reduced to 48.4 kBtu/ sf/year by the year 2030 to meet the industry challenge. The Energy Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 table outlines the impact of the Capitol Complexs energy reduction goal of a 2% reduction per year. It assumes a 2% reduction on the previous years energy use for each year up to 2030. Note that the last year (2030) calls for a 3% reduction to bring the overall accumulative reduction to approximately 30% in 2030 compared with the 2013 baseline. This table uses the 2013 data from EnergyCAP for all Capitol Complex buildings as its baseline, and is therefore more aggressive than the 2030 Challenge. The annual and accumulative energy cost savings do not include escalation of energy cost, nor do they include a discount rate to account for the time value of money. Considering that the utility budget is just over $4 million in FY12-13 and the EnergyCAP data indicates the utility cost is just under $2.4 million, the projected accumulated saving could be over $10 million and not the $6,347,969 as indicated. Note that energy escalation typically outpaces ination over time so these savings are conservative. It is critical that the Sustainability Manager update the departments sustainable master plan to reect industry energy benchmarks, energy related state statutes, executive orders, energy costs and an implementation plan outlining what can be achieved. The continuously updated plan can highlight successes and indicate additional steps necessary to maintain the overall goals. A key part of the master plan is the utilization of the State of Colorado Facility Audit Program. Energy audits for each building in the Capitol Complex will guide the identication of energy efciency projects to implement. ENERGY STAR Scores and Energy Use Intensity ENERGY STAREUI Score(kBtu/sf/yr) 5096.7 6086.6 7076.6 7571.5 8066.1 9053.6 93*48.4 10028.8 50% reduction from score of 50Energy Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 EUIECIAccumulativeAnnual Accum. YearkBtu/sf$/sf% SavingsSavings Savings 201369.0$1.44 201467.6$1.412.0% $46,128 201566.3$1.384.0% $91,334 $137,463 201664.9$1.365.9%$135,636 $273,099 201763.6$1.337.8%$179,052 $452,151 201862.4$1.309.6%$221,599 $673,751 201961.1$1.2811.4%$263,296 $937,047 202059.9$1.2513.2%$304,159$1,241,205 202158.7$1.2314.9%$344,204$1,585,409 202257.5$1.2016.6%$383,448$1,968,857 202356.4$1.1818.3%$421,908$2,390,765 202455.3$1.1519.9%$459,598$2,850,363 202554.1$1.1321.5%$496,535$3,346,898 202653.1$1.1123.1%$532,733$3,879,631 202752.0$1.0924.6%$568,206$4,447,837 202851.0$1.0626.1%$602,971$5,050,808 202949.9$1.0427.6%$637,040$5,687,848 203048.4$1.0129.8%$687,121$6,374,969 Note: 2% savings from each previous year and a 3% savings in the final year (2030) Common energy efciency upgrades and retrots include: Lighting and lighting controls upgrades Plug load management HVAC controls upgrades HVAC equipment and efciency upgrades (when equipment is scheduled to be replaced) Building envelope upgrades to reduce loads and strategically reduce the size and cost of HVAC equipment upgrades. Advanced metering by building / sub-metering

PAGE 58

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-15the master plan is the utilization of the State of Colorado Facility Audit Program. Water audits for each building in the Capitol Complex will guide the identication of water conservation projects to implement. The EPA has a program focused on water efciency called WaterSense. There are many WaterSense labeled products on the market. WaterSense labeled products have been certied to be at least 20% more efcient than standard xtures without sacricing performance. Further, Denver Water offers rebates on many products that are WaterSense labeled. Address Bldg Name ConstGross AreaWater Per SF 11575 ShermanHuman Services Bldg1952145,3701,112Kgal7.6gal/SF 6,948$0.05$/SF 21525 ShermanState Services Bldg1960165,9301,613Kgal9.7gal/SF 10,310$0.06$/SF 31570 Grant 195647,749932Kgal19.5gal/SF 5,944$0.12$/SF 4201 E ColfaxState Office Bldg 192178,115No data in EnergyCAP 5200 E ColfaxState Capitol 1903323,813No data in EnergyCAP 61313 ShermanCentennial Bldg 1976207,0911,126Kgal5.4gal/SF 3,623$0.02$/SF 71375 ShermanCapitol Annex Bldg1937114,228565Kgal4.9gal/SF 4,648$0.04$/SF 8200 E 14thLegislative Services Bldg191559,301No data in EnergyCAP 91341 ShermanPower Plant 193925,690No data in EnergyCAP 10400 East 8th AveExec Residence 190831,2681,275Kgal40.8gal/SF & Carriage House 6,424$0.21$/SF 11690 KiplingDale Tooley Bldg 198567,0351,827Kgal27.3gal/SF 8,810$0.13$/SF 12700 Kipling 198560,964404Kgal6.6gal/SF 2,973$0.05$/SF 131881 Pierce 1972122,5427,103Kgal58.0gal/SF 36,835$0.30$/SF 146321 North DowningNorth Campus North Bldg196823,630No data in EnergyCAP 156221 North DowningNorth Campus East Bldg196839,195No data in EnergyCAP 161001 East 62nd AveNorth Campus West Bldg196837,7631,530Kgal40.5gal/SF 13,605$0.36$/SF 17222 South 6thGrand Junction 198352,000635Kgal12.2gal/SF 3,677$0.07$/SF 18 15000 S. Golden Rd Camp George West, Site 053,792KgalN/A (Not a building, included for reference only) 37,260$N/A Totals Buildings with Water Data 1,051,94018,122Kgal 17.2gal/SF 103,797$ 0.10$/SF 2013 2013 Capital Complex Water Use WUIWCIAccumulativeAnnual Accum. Yeargal/sf$/sf% SavingsSavings Savings 201317.2$0.10 201416.9$0.102.0% $3,203 201516.5$0.104.0% $6,343 $9,546 201616.2$0.095.9% $9,419 $18,965 201715.9$0.097.8% $12,434 $31,399 201815.5$0.099.6% $15,389 $46,788 201915.2$0.0911.4%$18,284 $65,073 202014.9$0.0913.2%$21,122 $86,195 202114.6$0.0914.9%$23,903 $110,098 202214.3$0.0816.6%$26,628 $136,726 202314.1$0.0818.3%$29,299 $166,025 202413.8$0.0819.9%$31,917 $197,942 202513.5$0.0821.5%$34,482 $232,423 202613.2$0.0823.1%$36,995 $269,419 202713.0$0.0824.6%$39,459 $308,878 202812.7$0.0726.1%$41,873 $350,751 202912.4$0.0727.6%$44,239 $394,989 203012.1$0.0729.8%$47,717 $442,706 Note: 2% savings from each previous year and a 3% savings in the final year (2030)Water Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 Common water conservation upgrades and retrots include: Water leak detection and repair Tenant water conservation education Upgrade to EPA WaterSense xtures Upgrade irrigation system and controls Upgrade or repair cooling towers to increase water efciency and increase cycles of concentration Advanced metering / sub-meteringWater Reduction Goals Baseline water use is derived from EnergyCAP using annual data for each building. The Capitol Complex portfolio has an overall 2013 water use intensity (WUI) of 16.4 gallons/sf/year and an overall water cost intensity (WCI) of $0.09/sf/year. Refer to table to the right for details on the 2013 Capitol Complex water use. Note that water use can vary signicantly on a building by building basis, depending on water uses such as building xtures, irrigation, and HVAC and process water. The water data in the table was derived using data from the States EnergyCAP account. It is highly recommended that the Capitol Complex Sustainability Manager (or similar role) verify the data in EnergyCAP and recalibrate the nal 2013 baseline and water results. Some water data was missing or appeared irregular in EnergyCAP. Numerous additional water meters are included in EnergyCAP but not associated with a physical building. Note that the water baseline includes water use only associated with buildings in the scope of this master plan. Also note that the IDS building in Pueblo is not included in the scope of this plan and is not included in the EnergyCAP database. The Water Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 table outlines the impact of the Capitol Complexs water reduction goal of a 2% reduction per year. It assumes a 2% reduction on the previous years water use for each year up to 2030. Note that the last year (2030) calls for a 3% reduction to bring the overall reduction to 30% in 2030 compared with the 2013 baseline. This table uses the 2013 data from EnergyCAP as its baseline. The annual and accumulative water cost savings do not include escalation of water cost, nor do they include a discount rate to account for the time value of money. It is critical that the Sustainability Manager update the departments sustainable master plan to reect industry water benchmarks, water related state statutes, executive orders, water costs and an implementation plan outlining what can be achieved. The continuously updated plan can highlight successes and indicate additional steps necessary to maintain the overall goals. A key part of

PAGE 59

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-16Waste Reduction Goals Quantities of waste and diverted waste, such as recycling, have not been measured and tracked for buildings in the Capitol Complex. The rst step in meeting a waste reduction goal of 2% per year is to conduct a waste stream audit on facilities in the Capitol Complex. This will establish the rst year municipal waste and diversion baseline. The municipal waste reduction goal is based on a 2% reduction of the prior years waste, measured by pound per square foot. The table below shows the compounding impact of this goal through the year 2030. Note that the 2014 waste baseline has not been determined and the table uses 1.0 pounds/square foot/year as a place holder. Note that some waste industry experts estimate that ofces generate between 2.5 to 4.0 pounds of waste per square foot per year. While the waste reduction goal is based on a measure of waste generated, it is useful to also track annual diversion rates to gauge the success of recycling programs. Increasing participation in recycling and expanding the types of recyclables collected are key strategies to meeting the waste reduction goal. The other key strategy is to reduce potential waste in the rst place. This can be accomplished by implementing programs that target a reduction in use for the biggest waste generators by type, which can be identied in the waste stream audits. It is also important that hazardous waste and electronic recycling programs be integrated into the overall waste management program. Construction waste associated with renovations and construction activities in the Capitol Complex should also be tracked against a reduction goal. Because these activities are often one-time events rather than a uniform waste stream, construction waste should be tracked separately. In the Denver region current best practice is to divert 75% of construction waste. For the construction waste reduction goal for the Capitol Complex this 75% diversion rate is considered the baseline and the goal is a 1% reduction per year starting in 2016 resulting in a 90% diversion rate by 2030. It is critical that the Sustainability Manager update the departments sustainable master plan to reect industry waste benchmarks, waste related state statutes, executive orders, waste related costs and an implementation plan outlining what can be achieved. The continuously updated plan can highlight successes and indicate additional steps necessary to maintain the overall goals. A key part of the master plan is the utilization of the State of Colorado Facility Audit Program. Waste audits, as described above, for each building in the Capitol Complex will guide the identication of waste reduction projects to implement. Municipal Waste Stream Audit Put together an internal team to conduct the waste audit, manage the tracking of waste and implement strategies to meet waste reduction goals. Check with the contracted waste hauler to see if they can provide some of the audit and tracking services. Establish the time period for each buildings waste audit (i.e. one days worth of trash) and the frequency of audits per year. Weigh and track waste in each stream leaving the building (waste, recyclables, compost, etc.). Conduct a building walk through and questionnaire to determine types of waste being generated and the types and frequency of diversion techniques such as recycling. Extrapolate waste audit records to estimate annual waste and diversion volumes.Municipal Waste Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 Waste% Yearlb/sfSavings 20141.00 20150.982.0% 20160.964.0% 20170.945.9% 20180.927.8% 20190.909.6% 20200.8911.4% 20210.8713.2% 20220.8514.9% 20230.8316.6% 20240.8218.3% 20250.8019.9% 20260.7821.5% 20270.7723.1% 20280.7524.6% 20290.7426.1% 20300.7227.6% Diversion YearRate 201575.0% 201676.0% 201777.0% 201878.0% 201979.0% 202080.0% 202181.0% 202282.0% 202383.0% 202484.0% 202585.0% 202686.0% 202787.0% 202888.0% 202989.0% 203090.0%Construction Waste Reduction Goal Matrix to 2030 Waste Management Best Practices Provide all tenants with convenient recycling bins and recycling collection facilities. Right size recycling capacity vs. standard waste capacity. Provide single stream recycling that includes glass, plastics, paper, cardboard and metals. Include clear signage for what items can or cant be included in recycling collection. Provide facility for collecting batteries, toner cartridges, and electronic waste for recycling. Provide a composting program with facilities to collect food and organic waste. Provide a program for the donation of reusable durable goods such as ofce equipment and furniture. Require high levels of waste diversion in the construction contract for all facility renovations and alterations.

PAGE 60

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-174.4.3 PROJECT SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIESThere are several specic projects within the Capitol Complex master plan that offer targeted opportunities for deep energy, water and waste reductions as well as meeting a variety of other high performance objectives. These projects consist of three major renovations (1375 Sherman, 1313 Sherman and 1570 Grant) and a potential new 567,000 SF State ofce building at Lincoln and Colfax. Colorados High Performance Certication Program (HPCP) would apply to these renovations and new construction project. As outlined in the State Sustainability Implementation Process section of this report, the HPCP recommends a LEED Gold rating and meeting several OSA Sustainable Priorities. However, because these projects are in the Capitol Complex, high prole and relatively large in scale, this master plan recommends that the performance goals in the HPCP be expanded to include higher levels of performance and LEED certication. 1375 Sherman The 1937 Capitol Annex Building is a 114,228 SF art deco architectural gem from the New Deal era and is listed on the Historic Register. The building has been identied as needing an extensive HVAC and lighting renovation or replacement, as well as extensive envelope improvements. Heating is currently supplied with Xcel steam and it is recommended to convert the building to natural gas heating or ground source heat pumps. Ground source heat pumps would also enable the building to be removed from the existing central chiller plant located in an adjacent building. This building is a great opportunity for a historic preservation sensitive deep green retrot. Perform energy efciency upgrades including lighting, plug load management, HVAC & building envelope. Integrate a demand response system. Current water use intensity is 4.9 gal/SF/year, with a water cost of $0.04/SF/year. Low ow plumbing xtures will further reduce water use. Implement advanced metering for energy and water use. Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater. LEED-NC v4 Platinum 1375 Sherman Recommended Deep Green Retrot Performance Goals 1313 Sherman 1313 Sherman is a 207,091 SF, ten story 1970s ofce building known as the Centennial Building. The building is in need of extensive renovation including exterior envelope, HVAC and lighting. One key advantage that the Centennial Building has is good solar orientation along with relatively narrow oor depth. Enhanced daylighting and natural ventilation can be effectively explored in a deep green retrot. Another excellent opportunity to explore in a deep green retrot is in the integration of onsite photovoltaic systems, which could be installed on the building roof and over the adjacent, parking structure at 1350 Lincoln. If these two PV installations were optimized it may be possible to provide approximately 836 kW of PV. This system size would be able to generate approximately 42% of the existing energy use (38.2 kBtu/SF/year) of the building. It would generate approximately 61% of the target energy use (26.7 kBtu/SF/year). The building energy would need to be reduced to 16.4 kBtu/SF/year or lower to achieve net zero energy. Perform energy efciency upgrades including lighting, plug load management, HVAC & building envelope. Integrate a demand response system. Current water use intensity is 5.4 gal/SF/year, with a water cost of $0.02/SF/year. Low ow plumbing xtures will further reduce water use. Implement advanced metering for energy and water use. Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater. LEED-NC v4 Platinum1313 Sherman Recommended Deep Green Retrot Performance Goals

PAGE 61

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-18 1570 Grant The 1570 Grant building is a 47,749 SF ofce building and a great example of mid-century modern commercial architecture. The building has been identied as needing an extensive HVAC renovation or replacement. The HVAC replacement can be like-for-like with increased efciency, but the feasibility of ground source heat pumps should also be explored. A ground source heat pump solution would have the dual advantage of increased energy efciency while eliminating the water use for cooling. The high water use of the facility can be mostly attributed to the existing cooling tower. The exterior envelope is in fair condition and a deep green retrot would be a great opportunity to enhance the performance of the envelope. Perform energy efciency upgrades including lighting, plug load management, HVAC & building envelope. Integrate a demand response system. Current water use intensity is 19.5 gal/SF/year, with a water cost of $0.12/SF/year. Low ow plumbing xtures, improved cooling tower or ground source heat pump system will further reduce water use. Implement advanced metering for energy and water use. Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater. LEED-NC v4 Platinum1570 Grant Recommended Deep Green Retrot Performance Goals Energy use intensity target of 25.0 kBtu/SF/year or less and explore opportunity for net zero energy. Building water use reduction of 40% or greater compared with LEED baseline. Integrate a demand response system. Implement advanced metering for energy and water use. Construction waste diversion of 75% or greater. Design project as model for occupant health and wellbeing and explore certifying the building under the Well Building Standard. LEED-NC v4 PlatinumNew State Ofce Building Recommended Performance Goals New State Ofce Building at Lincoln and Colfax New construction projects are excellent opportunities for advancing building performance. The new State ofce building should be designed to be the highest performing building in the Capitol Complex and a model for sustainability. Investments in energy performance will result in the lowest overall life cycle cost over the life of the building. Further, investments in design and operational features that promote health and wellness are important investments in state employees, which comprise the largest operating expense and most important resource for the facility. The size and height of the new building will make net zero energy using on-site photovoltaics challenging, but integration of on-site renewables is encouraged and could be paired with a dedicated off-site source such as a solar garden.

PAGE 62

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-19 4.4.4 STATE SUSTAINABILITY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSBenchmarking State Energy Management Practices with the ACEEE Scorecard The American Council for an Energy-Efcient Economy (ACEEE) compiles an annual scorecard for state energy efciency measures. The scorecard tracks a variety of state-level metrics including utility programs, transportation policies, building energy codes, combined heat and power policies, state government initiatives and appliance efciency standards. For 2013 Colorado ranked 16th in the nation overall, with the top ve states (in order) being Massachusetts, California, New York, Oregon and Connecticut. For comparison in this master plan the state government initiatives metric is most applicable because it measures the states internal initiatives around state-owned buildings. Rankings in this metric follow very closely with the overall scorecard rankings. The following are highlights of state-led initiatives by the top three states in the ACEEE scorecard, Massachusetts, California and New York. Massachusetts Massachusetts Executive Order 484 highlights: Establishes a Leading by Example program and council which shall direct efforts across state government to track and measure progress toward clean energy and environmental goals, develop long-term programs at state facilities and training efforts necessary to carry out the provisions of the executive order. Reduction in overall energy consumption in stateowned and leased buildings by 20% by 2012 and 35% by 2020 (2004 baseline). Procure 15% of agency annual energy consumption from renewable sources by 2012 and 30% by 2020. State agencies with new construction or major renovations over 20,000 square feet must meet the MA LEED Plus green building standard and perform 20% better than the state energy code. Reduce potable water use by 10% by 2012 and 15% by 2020 (2006 baseline) The state launched an Accelerated Energy Program in 2012 to accelerate the implementation of energy and water projects across the Commonwealth and help meet the goals of Executive Order 484. Massachusetts Enterprise Energy Management System (EEMS): Awarded to EnerNOC in 2010 Measuring real-time energy use at 480 state-owned buildings, comprising 25 million square feet of buildings, through the installation of 1,200 state of the art real-time energy meters. California California Executive Order B-18-12 highlights: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 10% by 2015 and by at least 20% by 2020 (2010 baseline). All new state buildings and major renovations beginning design after 2025 shall be constructed as net zero energy facilities with an interim target of 50% of new facilities beginning design after 2020 to be net zero energy. State agencies should also take measures toward achieving net zero energy for 50% of the square footage of existing state-owned building area by 2025. State agencies shall reduce grid-based energy purchases for state-owned buildings by at least 20% by 2018 (2003 baseline). State agencies shall participate in demand response programs. Any proposed new or major renovation of state buildings larger than 10,000 square feet shall use clean, on-site power generation and clean back-up power supplies, if economically feasible. New and major renovated state buildings and buildto-suit leases larger than 10,000 square feet shall obtain LEED Silver certication or higher. New and existing buildings shall incorporate building commissioning to facilitate improved and efcient building operation. All existing state buildings over 50,000 square feet shall complete LEED-EB certication by the end of 2015 (include ENERGY STAR rating of 75) to the maximum extent cost-effective. The Department of General Services shall work with other state agencies to develop by no later than July 1, 2013, policies and guidelines for the operation and maintenance of state buildings to achieve operating efciency improvements and water and resource conservation, and to continually update and incorporate these in the State Administrative Manual. State agencies shall implement relevant and feasible voluntary measures from Divisions A4.5 and A5.5 of the California Green Building Standards Code to ensure healthy environments for occupants. State agencies shall reduce water use at the facilities they operate by 10% by 2015 and by 20% by 2020 (2010 baseline). State agencies shall identify and pursue available nancing and project delivery mechanisms to achieve these goals. State agencies shall measure, monitor, report and oversee progress on measures in this Order. A Green Building Action Plan was developed for implementation of Executive Order B-18-12. New York New York Executive Order 88 highlights: 20% improvement in energy efciency in all state facilities by 2020 (2010/2011 baseline) Build Smart NY is the implementation plan launched with the executive order. The guidelines for meeting Executive Order 88 include provisions for: Reporting and benchmarking Energy auditing plan Capital project implementation Retrocommissioning Operations and maintenance Submetering Under the Build Smart NY initiative the New York Power Authority (NYPA) will provide $450 million in low-cost nancing for energy efciency projects in the largest and least efcient state government buildings.

PAGE 63

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-20Sustainability Goals Improving energy and water efciency and sustainability starts with a comprehensive set of goals. As noted earlier in this report, statewide goals have typically been established through executive orders, as well as state statutes and initiatives. However, the last set of sustainability goals from executive orders in 2007 have expired. It is appropriate that the Capitol Complex has its own set of sustainability goals to guide long-term improvement and efciency. It is recommended that the goals established in this master plan function as these long-term goals. The Capitol Complex sustainability goals in this master plan are generally aligned well with the best practices of other states and specically the top states highlighted in the ACEEE scorecard for state energy efciency measures. It is noteworthy that Massachusetts and California both have state goals for renewable energy, and California has an aggressive net zero energy goal. Renewable energy and net zero, or near net zero, goals are highlighted in the master plan as project specic opportunities rather than Capitol Complex goals. An important requirement of any plan is the continuous review and updating of the plan. The review needs to list achievements and failures as a learning tool, be compared to other state plans, and reect industry benchmarks and changes. The energy, water and waste goals need to be updated to reect new priorities, statutes, executive orders, and utility costs. The plan needs to emphasize the importance of an individual or a group assigned to implement the plan as their rst task and not as time permits. The Ofce of the State Architects Energy Management of Existing Buildings Policy Policy outlines guidelines for the efcient operation and maintenance of existing buildings including a facility audit program and energy management program. Facility Audit Program Required to be established by all state agencies. A comprehensive operation and management tool which identies, quanties and prioritizes areas requiring necessary action as well as costs to renovate, retrot, restore, modernize or maintain the building and equipment in a like new condition. Energy Management Program Required to be established by all state agencies to incorporate energy efciency into the decision making process during the design and acquisition of buildings, the repair and replacement of existing systems, and should emphasize the use of renewable energy sources. High Performance Certication Program for new buildings and substantial renovation of existing buildings. Utilize EPA ENERGY STAR program to benchmark buildings energy prole. Utilize LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance program to benchmark and verify success in building operation and maintenance programs. Energy Efciency Projects Funding Options Controlled Maintenance Funds: For corrective repairs or replacement used for existing stateowned, General-Funded buildings, when such work is not funded in an agencys operating budget. Controlled Maintenance projects arise out of the deterioration of a facilitys physical and functional condition. Energy Performance Contracts (EPC): Utilize the future energy savings of an energy efciency program to nance the project through an energy service company (ESCO). High Performance Certication Program (HPCP) Applies to new facilities, additions, or renovation projects of 5,000 square feet or more, and with a HVAC system. For renovation projects the cost of renovation should not exceed 25% of the current value of the building for the HPCP to apply. Achieve a LEED certication with a goal of a Gold rating. Strongly encouraged to meet OSA Sustainable Priorities in addition to prerequisites: 24% reduction in energy cost Enhanced commissioning (greater than 20,000 square feet). Measurement and verication of energy and water systems (greater than 50,000 square feet). 50% reduction in potable landscape water use. 30% reduction in potable indoor water use. Low toxicity materials (achieve two of the following: IEQc4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4) Daylighting for 75% of regularly occupied spaces. 50% diversion rate of construction waste. Source as many materials as possible from Colorado region. Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) Executive Order D014 03 directs each state agency to investigate the feasibility for an energy performance contract to improve energy efciency of existing state facilities.Current Guiding Policies and Programs The State has several guiding policies and programs utilized to enhance building performance and sustainability. These core policies guide existing building operation, new construction performance standards and a funding mechanism for energy efciency upgrades to existing facilities. The current state energy and sustainability policies are useful tools in helping to meet the sustainability goals in this master plan.

PAGE 64

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-21Organization and Implementation Process The state has a decentralized model for implementing energy management and sustainability initiatives. There are a few entities that serve as central resources for state agencies. These include the Ofce of the State Architect (OSA), and the Greening Government Council and the Governors Energy Ofce (GEO). OSA develops the guidelines and policies for energy management and sustainability including the HPCP, as well as administrating controlled maintenance projects and providing review and resources to capital projects. GEO provides resources and technical guidance around energy issues for the entire state including assistance with energy performance contracting. The Greening Government Council was established with Executive Orders D011 07 and D012 07 to help implement the goals in these executive orders. The council also provides a central source for collaboration and communication between State agencies as each agency has a seat on the council. State agencies and higher education institutions develop their own programs in accordance with State goals and have staff assigned to manage these energy and sustainability programs and plans. Each State agency manages a general operation and maintenance budget that can be used for energy efciency projects as part of general operation and maintenance. State agencies work with OSA on controlled maintenance and capital projects, which also include energy efciency improvements. The Capitol Complex Facilities team serves as the property manager for all Capitol Complex facilities and includes an energy manager position on its staff. In order to meet the goals in this master plan it is recommended that this position be expanded into a full-time sustainability manager role. The current energy manager position description divides the position into several duties including energy management (35%), tenant project coordination (35%), manage building audit and CM program (10%), insurance claims (10%), and greening of state government (10%). In becoming a full-time sustainability manager position the duties should be reprioritized to remove non-sustainability duties such as insurance claims so that time involved in tenant coordination is in support of sustainability goals. In addition to roles outlined in the existing energy manager position description, the expanded sustainability manager roles should include the following: Additional Duties of Sustainability Manager Develop and implement a comprehensive sustainability plan for the Capitol Complex that addresses goals and recommendations of this master plan in addition to other state sustainability goals and policies. Conduct energy and water audits on Capitol Complex facilities and develop energy and water efciency projects in support of the comprehensive sustainability plan. Develop and implement an energy and water metering plan. The metering plan should include the installation of State-owned and operated real time meters and sub-meters (wherever practical). Coordinate the capture of real time energy and water data with database and analytical tools such as EnergyCAP or other appropriate programs. Track and report out energy and water use and cost in relationship to goals. Develop and implement a waste audit and waste reduction plan. Track and report out waste streams in relationship to goals. Work with tenants in both typical building operation and with renovation projects to provide resources, guidance and education to further energy, water and waste reductions. Manage LEED O+M certication and recertication for applicable buildings in the Capitol Complex. Specic Sustainability Goals Create a sustainability program that is staffed by an individual whose sole responsibility is this program. Validate EnergyCAP data against utility vendor invoices. Perform energy and water audits of all buildings most recent audit was in 2003 by EPC. Institute a plug load management program. Utilize EPAs ENERGY STAR and WATERSENSE programs for benchmarking, education, and potential upgrade ideas. Review LEED existing building operations and maintenance guidelines for certifying all DPA buildings.

PAGE 65

4.0 Facility Assessments 4-22Colorado State Patrol Currently the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) Executive Security Unit has 60 employees and their central communications center is located in the 1341 Sherman Street Power Plant Building. The Executive Security Unit is responsible for security for the Capitol Complex and the Executive Residence. When requested, the CSP provides guidance to state agencies within the Capitol Complex on security needs. They operate the security check points at the Capitol and the Judicial Building and 1525 Sherman Street. The CSP also provides year round escort service for individuals to get to their cars when requested. Space at 1341 Sherman Street is insufcient for CSP needs since troopers share locker and ofce space. The secure communications center is located downstairs and was recently renovated. Typically there are three individuals who monitor multiple security screens. The CSP also has storage space throughout the Capitol Complex including bike storage space under the stairs of the Legislative Services Building at 200 E. 14th Street. Preferably the bike storage would be located in a more accessible location. Due to the fact that the CSP is located in the Power Plant Building and their space is less than ideal and not large enough, it would be optimal for them to be relocated in a new space preferably within a block of the Capitol. Security Systems The security systems design guidelines outline electronic security systems infrastructure that would enhance security operations and provide a safe and secure environment for persons and assets within the Capitol Complex. The approach to the security systems should be implemented such that they can be easily and effectively monitored real time from CSP centralized communication center(s). Physical Security Strategies Physical security can be simply dened as the physical measures utilized in providing protection of assets against threats. These strategies are a combination of industry best practices and methods taken from such sources as ASIS (American Society of Industrial Security) International, various government agencies, commercial entities, and the consultant teams professional experience. Additionally the recommendations are supported by Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED is dened as a multi-disciplinary approach to deterring criminal behavior through environmental design. CPTED strategies rely upon the ability to inuence offender decisions that precede criminal acts by affecting the built, social and administrative environment. Design Requirements In general, there are multiple strategies that can be implemented that will supplement and support the effective security program. As the following explanations show, these strategies shall overlap and complement each other. Most importantly, they cannot stand alone as a singular method of mitigating a security incident. From an asset protection standpoint, complete protection is provided when security implementations meet the following three requirements: Deter prevention of action through fear of penalty Detect determination and communication that an event has occurred Delay and Deny the ability of physical or psychological barriers to restrict or oppose the action Combined, these three functions provide overall protection of the asset(s). Failure to meet one of the requirements opens the asset to attack and creates vulnerability. In protecting an asset, the concept of Integrated Design establishes effective security programs through the integration of security technology with architectural components and operational elements. The premise for using this concept is that architecture, operations, and electronics must complement one another to create a strong security program. No one element of this group can standalone or operate independently to provide adequate protection. Once established, the integrated design components are most effective when applied in a concentric manner beginning at the outlying edge of the site perimeter. As one moves across the site perimeter and in towards the building perimeter and interior secured spaces, the security controls and boundaries become increasingly more difcult to breach without detection and intervention. Zones of intervention between each level provide the ability for security operations to control, detect, evaluate, and respond to unauthorized activities. Site Planning and Area Development The planning and layout of a building and site contributes greatly in creating a physically secure structure and safe area. Perimeter protection, lighting, locking hardware, entrances and exits, ow and trafc patterns of building occupants and other pedestrians, and the location of service areas such as lobby reception, visitor services, and loading docks all assist in providing a protective ring for the building. In developing criteria to protect the facility the following recommendations can be used as guidelines. Locate high-risk areas in the interior of the installation. There should be a clear division between secure and unsecure spaces. Clear lines of sight should be established at all building entry points and site areas. Areas of concealment should be minimized to eliminate hiding spots. Landscaping and hardscaping should be laid out in such a way as to enhance the ability to view the entire area. Consolidate high-risk areas to take advantage of opportunities for security efciency such as minimized control points. Maximize the distance (stand-off) between the perimeter and secure area to provide as much open space as possible. The maximization of standoff distance is imperative in any blast mitigation measures. The arrangement of areas, with strongly delineated boundaries and buildings oriented to enhance surveillance opportunities, results in the creation of defensible space that can be protected more efciently than scattered buildings or areas.4.5 SECURITY Design entry roadways so that they do not provide direct or straight-line vehicular access to high-risk resources. All vehicular entries and exits should be provided with crash-rated barriers to prevent vehicle access. Whenever possible commercial, service, and delivery vehicles should have a designated entry to the installation preferably distant from high-risk resources. Where this is not feasible, all such vehicles should be inspected and cleared prior to admittance. Entrances and Exits All perimeter doors should be lockable, but always available for emergency exiting. All entrances and exits should be protected with security surveillance and the number of entrances should be minimized so that security surveillance and access control is manageable. The number of exits should be based on the local re and building codes means of egress requirements and building occupancy loads. Security should never impede the means of egress and exit from a building. Lobbies A lobby desk should be positioned on the rst oor so that attendants or security personnel can screen visitors and view building entrances and access to the elevator banks. Turnstiles, optical portals, and other design control points can be positioned to funnel and control access to restricted space and upper oors. Public access and employee access should be segregated to provide efcient monitoring of pedestrian trafc. This lessens the possibility of someone trying to conceal themselves within a group of employees. All employee entrances should be monitored and controlled via the Security Management System. Checkpoint facilities should be used to screen bags and personnel depending on the threat level. All public entries to the facility should be screened. Portable equipment can be utilized for other entrances and for use at special functions that do not require a permanent installation.

PAGE 66

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 4-23The Facilities The following primary security systems are currently in place throughout the Capital Complex: access control (ACS), video surveillance, wireless duress and central monitoring by CSP. Electronic security systems that should be replaced and/or addressed include video surveillance, access control, intrusion alarm, duress alarm and audio intercom. The access control system deployment is campus wide and currently exists throughout other state Capitol Complex buildings within the system. The ACS serves as the primary security management system for monitoring intrusion alarms. The states existing wireless duress alarm system infrastructure is in place and operational. The existing security systems are controlled and monitored centrally from Colorado State Patrols Central Command Center (CCC) in Denver. The single subsystem most in need of an upgrade are the security cameras and video management system. By industry standards, the video surveillance system is considered an antiquated analog video based system. With that, poor video image quality is a direct result from the optical sensors and the transport mechanism currently in place. Analog video systems cannot be easily integrated into other security management systems, and the current user interface is not capable of meeting industry standards for evidentiary purposes. This report is not designed as a specication but rather as an outline to provide information on required security system upgrades and security criteria recommended for implementation. The security systems must be planned and designed to allow CSP and security personnel the operational exibility to provide proper security response in the event of an incident. Best practice security design methodology should be applied, including layered security, security in depth, and an integrated systems design. Applicable state of Colorado construction standards and design guidelines should be followed as a baseline. The access control system deployment should follow as an expansion of the existing campus-wide system currently installed throughout other State Capitol Complex buildings and should utilize similar ACS door controllers and peripheral equipment. New proximity-type card readers shall operate with the existing proximity card credentials. A common practice for door devices should be to wire through a consolidation junction box above each door and be routed to the nearest intermediate distribution frame (IDF) room where door controllers and power supplies are located. ACS door controllers should be installed in telecommunications IDF rooms that will connect to the buildings local area network (LAN) for communication with the ACS server. New security equipment to be located within IDF rooms must be coordinated with the State IT technical staff. Each access controlled door should be equipped with a card reader, an electried lock, a door position switch and a request-to-exit motion device (or hardware integral request-to-exit switch). All doors described as a card reader controlled access door should be designed with the standard equipment listed, unless specically dened elsewhere to vary from this conguration. For new controlled doors, the use of magnetic locks and electronic strikes is not recommended. Electried lever sets and panic hardware are to be equipped with request-to-exit switch built into the exit hardware. At controlled door locations, the specic electried hardware requirements must be compatible and coordinated with the ACS control interface circuit. The ACS shall also serve as the primary security management system for monitoring intrusion alarms. Intrusion alarms, such as door status and motion detection alarms, are to be integrated with and monitored through the access control security management system. Alarm device additions and modications should be coordinated with the State during the design phase. Security personnel should be able to monitor the security systems alarm notication devices through network connected client workstations, where authorized. The current video surveillance system (VSS) is in need of an upgrade from analog to digital, and the implementation IP cameras integrated to new network video recorders (NVRs) should be a high priority. New IP cameras should have the capability to communicate with the VSS over an IP infrastructure transport system (CAT6). Security camera deployment should consider the use of xed eld of view and pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) type cameras, with minimum resolution requirements and clearly dened mega-pixel rating as well as be Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) devices. Camera network cabling should follow basic guidelines supporting 10-Gigabit transmission to pull to the nearest IDF room providing connectivity to the building s LAN. IP camera network cabling should terminate to building PoE network switches. Security personnel shall be able to monitor the security video surveillance system through network connected client workstations, where authorized. The States existing wireless duress alarm system infrastructure should be expanded, where needed, to support new locations of wireless duress buttons. Duress alarms should be installed at all public interface and cashhandling locations. CSP Central Command Center monitors a wide network of wireless duress buttons at multiple State Capitol Complex facilities in Denver. This is accomplished using wireless mesh coverage by use of repeaters located at State facilities. The duress system currently utilizes wireless duress buttons, which transmit radio frequency (RF) signals to an infrastructure of wireless RF receivers and repeaters. System repeaters should be provided, if necessary, to boost the wireless signal strength. Currently deployed duress alarms in the buildings are monitored by the existing CSP head-end system. Consideration of an IP-based Intercom Communication System (ICS) is highly recommended to enhance security operations across the Capitol Complex facilities for security personnel, staff and visitors. Intercom over IP (IoIP) systems provide superior audio quality utilizing the latest digital technology and provide much greater exibility for locating both master and substations anywhere on the local area network via IP communications. Security personnel in CSP CCC should be provided with two-way audio communications to any remote building, and this could be accomplished via an IP intercom substation. As part of any renovation work, all security head-end equipment should be located or moved to IDF rooms, where possible, and coordinated with State IT technical staff. New security network video recorders (NVRs) to support IP cameras should also be relocated/located within the appropriate IDF rooms. It is highly suggested that all head-end security control equipment be placed on emergency power circuits or UPS units. State security personnel and other authorized staff may remotely monitor access control events, system alarms and security video through network connected client workstations. Any building renovation work with requirements for security device additions/upgrades and specic security system functionality should be coordinated with CSP and State security personnel during design and construction phases. Any security installation work, construction standards and operational requirements should be reviewed and approved by the appropriate staff and closely coordinated with the State by the electronic security integrator. Security cabling within IDF rooms shall be piped to wire gutters and or security equipment panels. Within IDF rooms, a 4-foot-by-8-foot section of wall space must be reserved for security equipment and supplied with re treated plywood backboard. Rack mounted security equipment may share space in telecommunication equipment racks, where appropriate and as coordinated with the appropriate state IT personnel. One dedicated 120VAC 20A emergency power circuit is required at each security wall board location to support head-end equipment. All mission critical electronic security equipment shall be provided with back-up UPS. All UPS units shall be stand alone, dedicated for security and sized accordingly based on required run time. As a practice, security system cabling should share cable routes with that of the building structured network cabling system wherever possible. The network cabling paths and riser locations generally provide the most direct route through a facility and typically contain sufcient space for security cabling requirements. Data cabling required for IP security cameras is to be provided and installed by approved telecommunications contractor(s). As a recommendation, this should be the approved construction method for provisioning of the IP camera network cabling to support the new VSS system. State IT construction standards for network and security cabling types and jacket color must be adhered to. Security cabling must never be exposed and must be contained in protective conduit wherever cable is accessible to vandalism or accidental damage or where it traverses any unsecured space. Security cabling shall be plenum-rated where required by codes.

PAGE 67

4.0 Facility Assessments CHAPTER 4.0 FACILITY ASSESSMENT KEY RECOMMENDATIONS THE CAPITOL ANNEX BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1375 SHERMAN STREET IN DENVER, NEEDS TO HAVE ALL SYSTEMS REPLACED AND BE TOTALLY RENOVATED. THE CENTENNIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1313 SHERMAN STREET IN DENVER, NEEDS TO HAVE ALL SYSTEMS REPLACED AND BE TOTALLY RENOVATED. THE REMAINDER OF CAPITOL COMPLEX FACILITIES-MANAGED BUILDINGS (ASSESSED AS PART OF THIS MASTER PLAN) NEED TO UNDERGO A SERIES OF SYSTEM UPGRADES TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH LIFE SAFETY, LOSS OF USE/RELIABILITY, AND/ OR OVERALL ENERGY EFFICIENCY. THE COMPREHENSIVE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM UPGRADES ARE OUTLINED IN THE INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS (F&R) NEEDS ASSESSMENTS PER BUILDING AND THE CAMP GEORGE WEST SITE. IN ADDITION TO REPAIRING AND REPLACING FAILING SYSTEMS, THE STATE COULD EMPLOY A CONSULTANT TO EVALUATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE RESTORATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CAPITOL INCLUDING THE GOVERNORS OFFICE, COMMITTEE ROOMS, AND OTHER SPACES. THE CREATION OF A FULL-TIME, SUPPORTED SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER POSITION FOR THE CAPITOL COMPLEX IS PIVOTAL TO THE COST-EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE OPERATION OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX. THE SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER WOULD CONDUCT BUILDING ENERGY, WATER AND WASTE AUDITS AND DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A SUSTAINABILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN. IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE STATE PATROL TO MOVE OUT OF THE POWER PLANT BUILDING, LOCATED AT 1341 SHERMAN STREET IN DENVER, AND INTO ANOTHER BUILDING WITHIN THE CAPITOL COMPLEX WITH MORE SPACE FOR PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS. 4-24 4.6 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

PAGE 69

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO URBAN DESIGN05

PAGE 70

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-15.2.1 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEXThe Capitol District and Civic Center area are arguably the most important cultural places within the state of Colorado. Not only are they historically signicant, but they are the ceremonial heart of the state, being both the seat of state and local government and an arena where democratic expression and cultural events play out. The Capitol Building, completed in 1908, sits atop a prominent bluff that slopes towards the Cherry Creek to the west. The Capitol steps are situated at elevation 5,280 feet above sea level, giving Denver its ofcial elevation. The statehouse has prominent views of the front range of the Rocky Mountains to the west. Lincoln Park is strategically located at the base of the slope to the west of the Capitol Building and was intended as a foreground for the statehouse and to provide views of the Capitol from the nearby downtown. The State Capitol has a view corridor restriction projecting west from the west facade of the building, as well as restrictions for the blocks to the north, east, and south of the building, which inuences the heights of the surrounding buildings and preserves the views to and from the Capitol building.5.2 CONTEXT5.1 METHODOLOGY Image Showing Capitol Building as Downtown Gateway Image Showing Large Gathering in Lincoln Park and West LawnOutreach As part of the urban design effort of the master planning process, the team met with agencies within the Capitol Complex as well as multiple neighboring organizations and City departments. The provided input concerned the Complexs use by State employees, citizens, surrounding residents, downtown users, and tourists. The interviewed groups included: Capitol Tours City of Denver Community Planning and Development City of Denver Public Works City of Denver Parks and Recreation The Downtown Denver Partnership (DDP) The Civic Center Conservancy The Colfax Business Improvement District The Regional Transportation District (RTD) Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods Analysis The urban design recommendations include input gained from these organizations and is based upon an analysis of the existing conditions. The following subjects were analyzed for this master plan: Trafc study looking at vehicular, public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements Pedestrian circulation including the study of key intersections Parking study of Capitol Complex, including on street and private parking within and surrounding the Complex Existing signage and waynding analysis Urban design analysis of the Capitol Complex which studied the public realm needs of the Complex and the surrounding urban context

PAGE 71

5.0 Urban Design 5-25.2.2 URBAN FORMThe downtown Capitol Complex consists of eleven buildings, their associated grounds, and adjacent surface parking lots which are organized to the north and south of the Capitol building along Sherman Street. The Capitol building and grounds span Sherman Street in the block located between the 14th Avenue and Colfax Avenue, with Lincoln Park just to its west. Context The Capitol Building is located at the conuence of two major street grids in the downtown. Denver streets are based on an east-west/north-south grid, where roadways are parallel to the cardinal directions. Downtown Denver is based on a diagonal street grid, where roadways are plotted to be parallel with Cherry Creek and the South Platte River and almost exactly 45 degrees off of the standard grid. The Capitol Building and Lincoln Park also sit at the intersection of two major arterials in the downtown. Colfax Avenue/US Hwy 40 lies adjacent to the north edge of the Capitol lawn and spans the entire metro area in an east/west direction. Colfax Avenue is among the longest continuous streets in the United States. The couplet comprised of Lincoln Street and Broadway borders Lincoln Park on two sides and extends from downtown Denver to the south. Both of these corridors carry large volumes of trafc contributing to the Capitols visibility and prominence but also isolating it from downtown and the Civic Center due to issues for pedestrians crossing the streets. A Divided Campus The Capitol Complex is informally divided into a north and south campus by Colfax Avenue which transitions from four lanes to six lanes west of Grant Street on the northwest corner of the Capitol lawn. The volume of trafc, combined with the parking located in the Capitol circle and the lack of pedestrian amenities make it difcult for users and visitors to navigate the Capitol Complex. This creates user proximity issues including the separation of a majority of State parking within the Complex which is located south of 14th Avenue and a signicant number of State employees working in ofces north of Colfax Avenue. Downtown Denver Grid Standard Grid Capitol Complex South Campus North Campus Gol Gol Gol G Gol l o den den den den d Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr T Tr Tr T ian ian ian ian i i i gle gle gle gle e e In In In n In n In I uen uen uen uen u u ce c Colfax AvenueBroadway Sherman St Dow Dow ow Dow Do w nto nto nto nto nto nto o wn wn wn wn wn wn wn w w n n n n n w n In n n In I I I I I I I ue ue ue uen e ce ce ce ce ce e ce e Capitol Complex Downtown Denver Diagram Showing Capitol Complex within Downtown RegionDiagram Showing Differing Street Grids at Capitol ComplexDiagram Showing Inuences and Divisions within the Capitol Complex

PAGE 72

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-35.2.3 SURROUNDING DISTRICTSThe Capitol Complex sits at the center of the City of Denvers cultural core which is composed of civic institutions and cultural attractions including the Denver Art Museum, the Denver Public Library, the Colorado Convention Center, the United States Mint and History Colorado. The Capitol Building and Lincoln Park are historically the point of beginning for Civic Center Park, a central open space for the downtown area and home to multiple programmed events, attractions as well as demonstrations. Currently there is limited connectivity and interaction between the Capitol Complex and the surrounding cultural attractions in part due to lack of waynding and also due to trafc volumes on the neighboring arterials such as Colfax Avenue and the Lincoln Street-Broadway couplet. The Capitol Complex sits at the intersection of three primary neighborhoods, as described below: Central Business District Denvers Central Business District is located northwest of the Capitol Complex on the rotated grid of downtown Denver. This district is the heart of Denvers commerce and economic activity being comprised of large ofce towers which are major employers and house a signicant portion of the downtown workforce including several State agencies located in leased space. The density and overall height of this area tapers towards its southern boundary along Colfax Avenue as it transitions towards the institutional uses of the Golden Triangle, in which the Capitol Building and Lincoln Park are located. The 16th Street pedestrian mall, a major tourist attraction and the retail corridor of downtown Denver, is aligned upon the west facade and dome of the Capitol Building. Capitol Hill The Capitol Hill neighborhood abuts the east edge of the Capitol Complex with Grant Street and the Lincoln Avenue-Broadway couplet serving as the transition point between the Central Business District and the mixed commercial residential neighborhoods to the east. Capitol Hill has seen signicant transformation over the years, with the redevelopment of a number of sites transitioning from inner-urban single family housing sites into consolidated multi-family housing developments. Colfax Avenue continues to function as the primary retail and service core for this neighborhood and has undergone a period of urban renewal in the past years; however, the west edge of Capitol Hill and the corresponding section of Colfax Avenue have poor urban character, narrow sidewalks and are predominantly populated with surface parking lots and lower rent establishments making for an awkward and undesirable edge on the eastern boundary of the Capitol Complex. The Golden Triangle The Golden Triangle abuts the south and west edges of the Capitol Complex. This neighborhood has seen signicant change and re-development. The city of Denver has recently nalized a master plan for this district providing strategic direction and guidelines to shape the transition of this neighborhood. New investment is anticipated to be drawn to the Golden Triangle, revitalizing and activating the area. Many of the Citys cultural institutions such as the Denver Art Museum, the City and County Building, and the United States Mint are within this neighborhood, though they may be perceived as a distinct district unto themselves. Colorado Convention Center Civic Center Station Denver Pavilions16th Street MallCivic Center Park Colorado State Capitol1/4 Mile: 5 Minute Walk1/2 Mile: 10 Minute WalkUnited States Mint Denver Art Museum History Colorado Capitol Hill Golden Triangle Central Business District Diagram Showing Neighborhoods around Capitol Complex and Landmarks

PAGE 73

5.0 Urban Design 5-4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 115.2.4 HISTORY OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEXThe design of the Colorado State Capitol (designed by Elijah E. Myers in 1885-86) and Lincoln Park (designed by Reinhard Schuetze in 1895) became the starting point for all subsequent plans for the Denver Civic Center and Civic Center Park. The design for the Civic Center Park was shaped by several renowned designers including Charles Mumford Robinson, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., and nally Edward H. Bennett whose plan combined the ideas of previous plans adding the Greek amphitheater, the colonnade and proposed the realignment of Colfax Avenue and 14th Avenue around the park. Civic Center Park ofcially opened in 1919. The City and County of Denver Building anchoring the west end of the park was completed in 1932. The Civic Center achieved National Historic Landmark status from the National Park Service in 2013. The Capitol Complex includes a number of important contributing elements to the Landmark Designation of the Civic Center. Important contributing elements include the Capitol Building, the Colorado State Museum, the State Ofce Building, as well as the Colorado Soldiers Monument and Lincoln Park. The west lawn of the Capitol and Lincoln Park not only serve as landscape foregrounds to frame views of the Capitol, these open spaces (in addition to the Lincoln Street right of way) function as a civic stage with the State Capitol as a backdrop providing space for public gatherings, memorial services, and demonstrations. The cultural gravity of the Capitol and the function of the Civic Center as a conuence of State and local government attract and lend magnitude to events held in this space. STATE OFFICE BUILDING 201 E COLFAX AVENUE LINCOLN PARK COLORADO STATE CAPITOL BUILDING 200 EAST COLFAX AVENUE LEGISLATIVE SERVICES BUILDING 200 EAST 14TH AVENUE CIVIC CENTER PARKCapitol Complex Buildings1. State Capitol Building, Built 1895-1903 2. Legislative Services Building, Built 1915 3. State Ofce Building, Built 1921 4. Capitol Annex, Built 1937 5. Power Plant, Built 1939 6. DOLE Building, Built 1957 7. State Services Building, Built 1960 8. Human Services Building, Built 1952, Acquired 1964 9. Centennial Building, Built 1976 10. 1570 Grant Building, Built 1956, Acquired 2001 11. Merrick Parking Structure, Built 2006Diagram Locating Original Capitol Complex Buildings and Open Spaces

PAGE 74

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-55.2.5 VISITATION AND TOURISMCapitol Visitation The Capitol Building attracts as many as 300,000 visitors each year. This number includes organized tours, school children, tourists and visitors conducting business at the Capitol. The Capitol also serves as ofces for the Governor, Lt. Governor, the General Assembly, the State Treasurer and staff. The Capitol Building is open to the public Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm. The main visitor access is located at the north entry on the 1st oor level. All other entries to the Capitol are restricted to the general public. The north and south entries have security in the form of magnetometers which are staffed by security personnel. There is no separate security line for lobbyists or business persons entering the Capitol so they often nd themselves waiting in line with the larger tour groups entering the building. The Capitol also lacks a designated area for the staging of large tour groups. Currently volunteers separate and organize masses of school children or other visitors into smaller tours in the Capitol atrium. Disabled users are required to enter through the accessible entrance located at the south basement level entry. Peak visitation often occurs during the legislative session resulting in high trafc levels within the Capitol Building during the session. Currently there is no designated parking or unloading for tour buses. Numerous grade school and high school tours visit the Capitol each year. Bus loads of children are dropped off curb side on either Grant Street or Colfax Avenue and assemble in either the east lawn or the Capitol circle. There is no designated parking or queuing for tour buses. Buses are forced to parallel park on Lincoln Street, Grant Street, or Broadway depending upon availability. Other agencies located in the Capitol Complex or in adjacent leased space have signicant customer service activity. These agencies include: Secretary of State, Ofce of Economic Development, HCPF, DOR, DORA, DOLE, and DNR. The location of the Civic Center RTD transit station nearby allows users to arrive by public transit. The Department of Labor and Employment which experiences a high number of visitors dependent on transit is located four blocks south of Civic Center Station making it difcult for visitors to access this agency. Public parking is accommodated through metered onstreet parking. Disabled parking is not provided for visitors to State agencies or the Capitol Building. Signage Lack of clear uniform signage and waynding contributes to confusion among citizens visiting the Capitol and looking for specic buildings and agencies within the Capitol Complex. The master plan recommends that the visitor signage and waynding be upgraded. For a detailed signage plan, see section 5.4.Volume of Visitors to the Capitol by Month Diagram Showing Existing Visitor Access to the CapitolCapitol Visitor Center Currently tourists visiting the Capitol and state of Colorado are not provided with a visitors center which could provide information and services for Capitol tours as well as visitor information for the rest of the state of Colorado as well. The master plan recommends that additional study be devoted to the potential for a visitors center which could accommodate these requirements. Recommendations The master plan recommends accommodations for additional visitor parking specically accessible parking. Parking needs should be studied and parking should be located adjacent to agencies which have the highest levels of visitation. Expanded hours for Capitol visitation potentially including evenings and weekends could be studied so as to allow for visitation outside of peak business hours. This would be benecial in activating the campus during evenings and weekends. BUS UNLOADING 1ST FLOOR ENTRY FROM NORTH BASEMENT ENTRY FROM SOUTH BUS UNLOADING CAPITOL BUILDINGLincoln StreetGrant StreetBroadwayColfax Avenue14th Avenuebtn January February March April May June July August September October November December Legislature in Session 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000

PAGE 75

5.0 Urban Design 5-6Figure Showing Potential Urban Design Projects6.3.1 URBAN DESIGN ISSUESUpon completion of the analysis, several issues became apparent within the Capitol Complex. The primary issues discovered relate to the pedestrian and visitor experience. These issues included: Single Use District The Capitol Complex lacks a vitality and a diverse set of activities as a result of its predominant ofce and institutional uses. The Complex is active only during peak commuting times and lunch during week days. A Divided Campus The Complex is divided into north and south sections by the Colfax Avenue arterial. Furthermore, the campus is severed from the downtown area by the busy couplet of Broadway and Lincoln Street. Connectivity Safe and easy transportation and parking within the Complex and to surrounding areas is paramount to an active district. This includes vehicular, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian movement being accommodated in the Complex. Wayfinding For a visitor to the Complex, locating the desired destination can be challenging due to the incomplete and fragmented signage package. A comprehensive set of signs identifying buildings and providing direction is essential.5.3 URBAN DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES EAST CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT SITE WEST LAWN COLFAX AS GRAND BOULEVARD NORTH SHERMAN INFILL SITE SOUTH SHERMAN INFILL SITE TWO ADDITIONAL STORIES TO GARAGE CAPITOL MALL STATE LAND BOARD INFILL SITE LINCOLN AND COLFAX INFILL SITE RTD INFILL SITE

PAGE 76

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-75.3.2 THE CAPITOL MALLThe master plan recommends the creation of a Capitol Mall on Sherman Street between 12th and 16th Avenues. While still including driving and parking lanes for vehicles and space for parking meters, this Capitol Mall will possess and expanded pedestrian character that will differentiate it from the surrounding street network. The Mall would be anchored on the north end by the existing State ofce buildings facing onto Sherman Street. In addition, a proposed mixed use ofce building could be located on the parking lot on the corner of Lincoln Street and Colfax Avenue with an additional mixed use component of the building fronting onto Sherman midblock. The south end of the mall would be anchored by the renovation of the Centennial Building at 1313 Sherman Street and the potential State Land Board mixed use development site on the corner of 13th Avenue and Sherman Street. Opportunity sites fronting onto Sherman Street should encourage development of mixed-use inll projects which have active frontages and ground oor retail uses such as sidewalk cafes. The Capitol Mall would include streetscape improvements while introducing a mixture of uses in addition to the State institutional uses to create a vibrant activated dened campus. Streetscape improvements should include signage and waynding, pedestrian lighting, xeric landscaping and street trees, uniform site furnishings, outdoor seating, bike parking, crosswalk enhancements and dened bike lanes. The Mall would provide for a comfortable and safe pedestrian experience while allowing for continued automobile use. Figure Showing Illustrative Site Plan for Capitol Mall Figure Showing Proposed Capitol Mall Improvements to Sherman Street Looking North from 13th Avenue ACTIVE BUILDING FACADES ON NEW BUILDINGS AND CAFE SEATING DISTINGUISHED BIKE LANES UNIFORM LIGHTING UNIFORM TREE CANOPY PEDESTRIAN BULB OUTS DISTINCT PAVING MATERIALS XERISCAPIC PLANTING BUILDING SIGNAGE SEATING AREAS WAYFINDING SIGNAGE

PAGE 77

5.0 Urban Design 5-85.3.3 MIXED USE OFFICE BUILDING AT LINCOLN STREET AND COLFAX AVENUEThe master plan recommends the inll of the Lincoln Street and Colfax Avenue site located northwest of the Capitol Building. The inll of this site either as a State ofce building or through a public private partnership that might redevelop the site as a mixed use ofce, retail, and residential building would be a signicant element in creating and attracting activity within the Capitol Complex. The inll of this site would stimulate the street environment on Colfax Avenue by providing active, retail uses at the street level which would increase pedestrian/ sidewalk activity and provide services to users and employees of the Complex. If the site were built out to capacity, it would accommodate in excess of 500,000 gross square feet (GFA) and provide structured parking to offset the loss of surface spaces. A parking structure integrated into the building would provide additional parking for the northern part of the Complex, which is currently underserved. PLAZA OVER RETAIL SPACE ON CORNER OF COLFAX AND LINCOLN POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT On SHERMAN STREETFigure Showing Potential Mixed-Use Building on the Lincoln and Colfax SiteSTATE OFFICE COMPONENT PARKING STRUCTURE

PAGE 78

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-95.3.4 INFILL OPPORTUNITIES North Sherman Infill Site 1530 Sherman Street This site is currently a surface parking lot for State employees. Future inll of this site either through a public-private partnership or as a mixeduse expansion of the State Ofce Building would benet the Complex by creating a more active mix of uses for this area of the Complex. Development on this site should incorporate a ground oor retail or restaurant use. Residential development or an extended-stay hotel could aid in activating the Complex by adding after-hours users to the campus. Inll development on this site should respect the existing build-to lines established by the State Ofce Building and be in accordance with the architectural language established in the campus. Under existing zoning and height restrictions, a building of approximately seven stories and 105,000 gross square feet is possible on this site. In the short term, landscape improvements to the street frontage along the current surface parking lot (Yellow lot) could be considered. These improvements could include a low architectural wall or hedge to screen the bumpers and headlights of the parked cars, pedestrian level lighting, street trees, planted medians within the lot and signage to designate that the lot is for State employees. South Sherman Infill Site 1325 Sherman Street This site currently serves as a surface parking lot for State employees. This site has potential for future inll either as a expansion of the Centennial building located at 1313 Sherman or as a public-private partnership which could take the form of a mixed use development. Development of the ground oor, as either retail or restaurant use, is encouraged for this site to provide services for the users and employees of the Complex. These uses would also further activate the Complex and help extend its active hours beyond the work day. Inll development on this site should respect the existing build-to lines established by the Centennial Building and be in accordance with the architectural language established in the campus. Under existing zoning and height restrictions, a building of approximately seven stories and 82,800 gross square feet is possible on this site. Over the short term landscape and streetscape improvements are recommended along the Sherman Street frontage. These improvements could include a low architectural wall or hedge to screen the bumpers and headlights of the parked cars, pedestrian level lighting, street trees, planted medians within the lot and signage to designate that the lot is for State employees. Opportunity Sites The master plan recommends that the State move agencies currently located in leased spaces downtown into State owned buildings located within the Capitol Complex. The urban design analysis of the current available sites within the Complex has identied under utilized parcels which currently function as surface parking lots for State employees. These sites could be inlled with mixed-use state ofce buildings. The State would be able to realize the long term nancial benets of owning these buildings as opposed to leasing ofce space, which would prove more costly over time. Additionally, the construction of buildings on these sites would, in effect, ll in the missing gaps in the Capitol Complex and aid in activating the campus by including ground level retail or commercial uses. These uses would draw users from outside the Complex and serve more than 5,000 State employees who currently work in the downtown.

PAGE 79

5.0 Urban Design 5-10East Grant Street Site This site which is currently operated as a privately-owned surface parking lot, located directly east of the State Capitol Building, is an important site which exerts an inuence upon the image of the Statehouse. Redevelopment of this site either for State use or as a private development would activate the portions of the Complex and streets east of the Capitol and provide important opportunities for connectivity between the Capitol Complex and the Capitol Hill neighborhood for both users of the Complex and surrounding residents. Opportunities for the redevelopment of this site should be studied as part of the long term master plan for the Capitol Complex. The current use as a surface parking lot directly reects upon the image of the Capitol building. While there is a need for visitor parking within the Complex, this could be accommodated by structured parking within the redevelopment of this site. It would be benecial to the Complex and the surrounding district for this site to be developed as a mixeduse building, whether this development be Stateor private-sector-led. As a State use, this site would provide an optimal site as a Legislative Ofce Building with underground parking and a sky-lit, underground passageway for access to the Capitol. 5.3.5 STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITESState Land Board Infill Site The State Land Board owns a site located between 12th Avenue and 13th Avenue on the west side of Sherman Street. Mixed-use development on this site would provide the opportunity for retail and residential development that would further activate the Complex outside of normal business hours and provide services and amenities to users and employees of the Complex. Development on this site, as well as the DOLE building on 12th Avenue, would anchor the proposed Capitol Mall on its southern end. RTD Infill Site Civic Center Station The RTD Civic Center Station Site represents a value added to the Capitol Complex. This transit hub provides a valuable amenity to users and employees of the Capitol Complex by providing access to multiple transit routes. Currently RTD is studying plans for the reconguration of the station and possible re-development opportunities for the south portion of the site facing onto Colfax Avenue and across from Lincoln Park. Commercial/retail development on this site would help to activate the Colfax frontage, provide greater connectivity between the Complex and the station as well as providing services and amenities to users and employees of the Complex.

PAGE 80

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-11Existing Signage Analysis Currently there is no comprehensive system of signage for the Capitol Complex. A few buildings have names and addresses listed upon the exterior facades but no uniform system of signage or monumentation exists. A comprehensive signage package would help differentiate State buildings from other ofce or institutional uses within the area. There also exists no pedestrian level waynding signage or directories which provide locations of the various buildings and their respective agencies within the Capitol Complex. Over time, signage has been added through the Complex, with varying appearances and intents. The existing signage is lacking in hierarchy, uniformity and consistency of location and placement thereby making the existing signage ineffective as waynding. There are no consistent elements which unify the Capitol Complex as a singular district. Visitors are unaware of whether they are inside or outside of the Complex boundaries. This prevents the Complex from being seen as a singular destination and instead appears as a disparate cluster of unrelated buildings. Goals for Signage Program The overall goal is to create a hierarchy of signs that share a family resemblance that unies the Capitol Complex, providing a consistent element that visitors recognize among a variety of conditions and architecture. This signage package should clearly and distinctively provide: Identication (building/facility name, address and departments within) Interpretation (describe the purpose and history of the buildings/facilities) Direction (to destinations throughout Capitol Complex) Regulation (public access, contact info, etc) A well-designed signage program will provide several benets to the Capitol Complex and its users. The program should aim to: Help visitors get oriented and nd their way to key destinations within the Capitol Complex. Create a repeatable system of signs, documented in a signage manual that can be expanded in the future and implemented in phases. Implement signage that helps to create a positive impression of the Capitol Complex. Sign design, materials, locations and messages shall contribute to: Making all visitors (citizens and other visitors and employees) feel welcome when visiting the Capitol Complex. Helping visitors nd the services they seek. Portraying efciency and effectiveness. Establish an appropriate character for the Complex. Emphasize key building and signicant monuments. Utilize symbols, logos, color-coding and iconic graphics to maximize the effectiveness and beauty of the signage. Identify consistent, logical locations for signs relative to established circulation routes, so that visitors can anticipate where to nd them. Locate signs at decision points where users nd that they need information. Coordinate signage design and placement with outdoor lighting to ensure legibility after dark without the need for dedicated sign lighting. Recommend maintenance of the signage system, including timely replacement of obsolete information, eliminating unnecessary, confusing, or inappropriate signs. Minimize the number and variety of signs to clarify communication and reduce clutter. 5.4 SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDINGImages Showing Existing Building and Directional Signage in the Capitol Complex

PAGE 81

5.0 Urban Design 5-12Images Showing Typical Signage for Various Uses District Signage Interpretive Signage Building/Facility Signage Landmark Directional Signage Wayfinding Signage Commemorative Plaque

PAGE 82

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-13 COLORADO WELCOME 1313 SHERMAN STREET District Identification Building Identification District identication signage is designed to be located along the major arterials where they enter the Capitol Complex. These elements should be of the size and scale so as to be readable from a variety of angles and modes of transportation. These element will also need to be sensitive to the pedestrian scale of their surroundings. Building identication signage identies buildings as State facilities belonging to the Capitol Complex and provides visitors and users with the name and addresses of the building. Uniform signage elements add to the campus identity and waynding within the campus. The signage should be designed with the intention of being long term, elegant, and effective in communicating basic information. It is recommended that these signs be monument type signs that are uniform and proportional in size and scale throughout the campus with text that can read from vehicles but the overall signage should be scaled to pedestrians. Building signage should also identify the agencies located within a given building. CC M CC CC CC CC CC M M M M M M M M M M M M D D D D D DColfax Avenue 16th Avenue 14th Avenue 13th AvenueGrant Street Sherman Street Broadway Lincoln Street12th AvenueDiagram Showing a Proposed Distribution of Signage in the Capitol Complex Capitol Complex Buildings

PAGE 83

5.0 Urban Design 5-14 DIRECTORY Capitol Complex District Signage Vehicular/Ped Level Direction Signage for PitPkiVhil CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC D D D D D D D D D D M M M M M M M M M M M M P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4'-6" 6" Wayfinding Sign Waynding or directory signage is intended to be located at entries to and key intersections within the Capitol Complex. The signage is intended to orient visitors and users to the Complex and help them nd their way to a specic destination within the Complex. The directory should contain a map of the Complex with building names and the universal You are here symbol. A directory of agencies and their locations within the Capitol Complex should be included. These elements have the potential to be interactive using new technologies and have information on current events, updates and bulletins that would be benecial to visitors and employees as well. The design of these signage elements should be accessible to all users and scaled for pedestrians. The Colorado State Capitol Building, located at 200 East Colfax Avenue in Denver, Colorado, is the home of the Colorado General Assembly and the ofces of the Governor of Colorado and Lieutenant Governor of Colorado. The building is intentionally reminiscent of the United States Capitol. Designed by Elijah E. Myers, it was constructed in the 1890s from Colorado white granite, and opened for use in November 1894. The distinctive gold dome consists of real gold plate, rst added in 1908, commemorating the Colorado Gold Rush. The building is part of Denver's Civic Center area. Serving as the beginning of the Capitol Hill district, the historic building sits slightly higher than the rest of downtown Denver. The main entrance hall is open 180 feet (55 m) to the top of the dome, about the height of an 18-story building. Additionally, the ofcial elevation of Denver is measured outside the west entrance to the building, where the fteenth step is engraved with the words "One Mile Above Sea Level." From this step, at 5,280 feet (1,609 m), the sun can be seen setting behind the Rocky Mountains. A second mile high marker was set in the 18th step in 1969 when Colorado State University students resurveyed the elevation. In 2003, a more accurate measurement was made with modern means, and the 13th step was identied as being one mile (1.6 km) high, where a 3rd marker was installed.[2] Serving as the beginning of the Capitol Hill district, the historic building sits slightly higher than the rest of downtown Denver. The main entrance hall is open 180 feet (55 m) to the top of the dome, about the height of an 18-story building. Additionally, the ofcial elevation of Denver is measured outside the west entrance to the building, where4'-0" 3" COLORADO STATE CAPITOL Interpretive Sign Interpretive signage is intended to be placed at locations of historic signicance to inform and educate visitors to the Capitol Complex about the history of specic buildings or elements located in the Complex. The design of these elements has the potential to utilize technology to link users to multimedia devices and incorporate links or updates. The signage should incorporate graphics and visuals to tell the story. The design of these signage elements should be accessible to all users and scaled for pedestrians. Landmark Directional Sign Commemorative Plaque Directional signage is intended to be located at intermediate points along streets or walking paths within the Capitol Complex to indicate to a pedestrian that they are traveling towards a specic landmark. This element works together with building signage and waynding to reinforce directions to visitors unfamiliar with the Complex. These signs should share a simplied, but identiable language with the remainder of the signage package. Commemorative plaques are intended to impart information that is important to the heritage of a building or the Complex. These plaques may indicate historical status, years built, architect, or other information that relates to the building on which it is afxed. These elements should be located at a common location on Capitol Complex buildings, such as adjacent to the front entrance. D

PAGE 84

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-155.5.1 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONA Divided Campus Due to the heavy trafc volumes Colfax Avenue separates the Complex into a north and south campus. The Lincoln Street and Broadway couplet separates the Capitol Complex from the greater Civic Center and many of the cultural destinations which are tourist attractions located only a short distance from the Capitol Building. Key Intersections The signalized intersections at Colfax Avenue and Sherman provide connectivity between the north and south portions of the campus. Colfax Avenue and Lincoln Street provides connectivity from the Complex to RTDs Civic Center station and to the downtown Denver Central Business District where many agencies are located within leased space. The intersection of Colfax Avenue and Grant Street provides an eastern gateway from the Colfax business district to the Capitol Complex. Lincoln and Broadway Mid Block Crossings The mid block crossing located on Lincoln Street midway between Colfax Avenue and 14th Avenue is also used by pedestrians and school groups to cross from Lincoln Park and the Civic Center Park. Currently, this crossing does not have a crossing signal, creating a safety concern for pedestrians. This crossing, as well as the corresponding mid-block crossing on Broadway between Colfax Avenue and 14th Avenue, could have crosswalks and signalized crossings to provide a safe connection between the Capitol and Civic Center Park along its formal and historic axis. 5.5 ACCESS AND CIRCULATIONSherman Street and Colfax Avenue The Colfax Avenue and Sherman Street intersection is important to connecting the north and south halves of the Complex. Beginning with the 2015 legislative session, 44 members of the General Assembly will have their ofces located at the State Services Building at 1525 Sherman Street. This will potentially increase pedestrian trafc crossing Colfax Avenue at Sherman Street. This intersection currently receives below average pedestrian rating in the trafc study conducted for this report. (See Appendix 2 (a) Intersection Analysis) The study recommends specic renements to the pedestrian crossing including: Pedestrian detection systems Pedestrian countdowns and animated eyes Pedestrian priority signals No right turn on red signals from either street In addition to the renements to the pedestrian signal the master plan recommends a raised planted median to be located in the turn lane on Colfax Avenue in the blocks between Grant and Sherman and Sherman and Lincoln be studied. The median would provide a pedestrian refuge in the middle of Colfax Avenue so pedestrians attempting to cross the seven lanes of trafc would have a refuge midway in case they were unable to complete the crossing. The median would potentially require the removal of the left turn movement at Sherman Street and Colfax Avenue. The median and the associated planting would also have a calming effect on trafc in these blocks and create the effect of a Grand Boulevard in the blocks adjacent to the Capitol Building.

PAGE 85

5.0 Urban Design 5-161. Broadway and Colfax Avenue Intersection 2. Sherman Street and Colfax Avenue Intersection 3. Grant Street and Colfax Avenue Intersection 4. Broadway Mid-Block Crossing 5. Lincoln Street Mid-Block Crossing 6. Sherman Street and 14th Avenue Intersection Key Intersections Capitol Complex Buildings Pedestrian havens within median Special paving at Colfax Crossings Planted median to calm trafc 2 3 6 1Diagram Showing Key Intersections and Destinations in and around Capitol Complex Denver Pavilions16th Street MallCivic Center Park Colorado State Capitol United States Mint Denver Art Museum History Colorado1/4 Mile: 5 Minute Walk1/2 Mile: 10 Minute Walk 4 5Diagram Showing Improvements to Colfax Avenue CrossingPedestrian-prioitized signals

PAGE 86

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-175.5.3 BICYCLE CIRCULATIONBicycle Routes Many of the streets surrounding the Capitol Complex are designated to facilitate bicycle trafc. Sherman Street, which intersects the driveway surrounding the Capitol, features shared bike lane markings in both directions. East-west bike trafc is facilitated by a bike lane on 16th Avenue and bike routes on 12th Avenue. Connections into the Central Business District are provided by the bike lane on 16th Avenue and cycle track on Bannock Street, in front of the City and County of Denver building. Meetings with the City of Denver Public Works indicated that the Sherman Street bike lane may be supplemented by additional bike lanes on Grant Street in the future. Recommendations The master plan recommends as part of the Capitol Mall that striped bicycle routes be added to Sherman Street as part of the Capitol Mall concept to endorse bicycle usage. To further encourage cycling to and from the Capitol, the provision of additional bike parking facilities should be considered. Currently, employees working in the Capitol Complex are allowed to register for bike lockers. Additional bike storage should be considered and it should provide controlled access, weather protection, and security. These facilities may include bike lockers, indoor cages, or a bicycle room. Additionally, short-term bicycle parking should be added within 50 of the entrances of the Capitol Complex buildings, as it not only facilitates easier and faster bicycle access to the buildings and reduces demand for visitor parking but also serves as an endorsement of multi-modal travel. For a detailed assessment of the bicycle circulation and recommendations refer to Appendix 2 (b) Multimodal Transportation Assessment. Dedicated Bike Lane Shared Lanes B-Cycle Station Cycle Track BDiagram Showing Bicycle Facilities in and around the Capitol Complex

PAGE 87

5.0 Urban Design 5-185.5.4 TRANSITCivic Center Station With a centralized site in downtown Denver located one block away from Civic Center Station, the Capitol Complex is located adjacent to several bus routes. This location proximate to transit is a benet to the users and employees of the Capitol Complex. Citizens are able to utilize transit to conduct affairs with agencies located within the Complex. State employees are able to obtain RTD EcoPasses at discounted rates and agency interview data indicates that as many as fty percent of State employees utilize transit to commute to and from work each day. RTD is in the process of developing a master plan for Civic Center Station that will study future congurations for the station and the RTD site. The master plan recommends ongoing coordination with RTD so that the Civic Center Station plan can take into account the needs of Capitol Complex users. The Downtown MetroRide Circulator The MetroRide circulator is a free bus service (opened in 2014) connecting Denver Union Station to Civic Center Station via 18th and 19th Streets. There are future plans for extending the circulator south to 12th Avenue and Lincoln Street, but these plans have stalled due to lack of operating funds. The extension of the circulator south would benet the Capitol Complex by providing a transit connection closer to DOLE which is located at 12th Avenue and Sherman Street. This agency has a higher than average visitation by users who are dependent upon transit. The Colfax Corridor Currently studies are underway for alternative transit modes to increase efciency within the Colfax Avenue corridor. The Colfax Corridor Connections is a long-term study intended to identify multi-modal transportation improvements. The study preliminarily identied bus rapid transit (BRT) as a preferred option for improved transit along the corridor. A short term study the Transit Priority Study is intended to reduce travel times and increase security and ridership for bus routes. Potential improvements being studied include stop amenities, bus bulbs, bypass lanes/queue jumps, and transit signal priority. Free MetroRide RTD Local Bus RTD Express Bus Light Rail Line 16th Street Mall Ride Light Rail Stop Diagram Showing Transit in and around the Capitol Complex

PAGE 88

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-195.5.5 VEHICULAR CIRCULATIONTraffic Volumes The Capitol Complex lies at the intersection of two major downtown arterials which exposes the Complex to high volumes of trafc. Regional access to the Complex is provided from Colfax Avenue/US Highway 40 which has north and southbound exits from Interstate 25. Numerous surface streets and arterials provide access to the Complex. The master plan has no specic recommendations to improve trafc conditions as these right-of-ways fall outside of the Complex. However, the master plan does identify a number of pedestrian circulation issues due to the high volumes of trafc surrounding the Complex and additionally recommends renements to pedestrian crossings, signage and waynding to improve the visitor and user experience in accessing the Complex. Currently there is limited signage directing vehicular users to specic destinations within the Complex or to visitor parking. The City of Denver is studying the feasibility of converting Lincoln Street and Broadway from one-way streets to twoway streets. This has the potential of slowing vehicular trafc and providing a safer pedestrian experience at crossings. Though vehicular circulation may be slowed, access would be improved by the creation of new northsouth options along these streets. Capitol Complex Downtown Denver Colfax AvenueBroadwaySpeer Boulevard 50,583(2011)30,958(2010)14,733(2002)21,106(2009)30,688(2002)10,472(2011)28,643(2010) 31,976 (2010)14th Avenue Colfax AvenueGrant Street Sherman Street BroadwayDiagram Showing Vehicular Average Daily Trips (ADT) on Key Streets within the Capitol Complex Diagram Showing Location of Major Roads Connecting to the Capitol Complex

PAGE 89

5.0 Urban Design 5-205.6.1 EXISTING PARKINGCapitol Complex Operated Parking The Capitol Complex downtown operates a total of 905 employee parking spaces 242 spaces located in surface lots and an additional 663 spaces located in the Merrick Parking Structure. Permits to use the available Capitol Complex parking supply are issued on an individual basis. Each parking space is assigned to a specic employee or agency and there is no oversell of available parking. Currently there are approximately 400 employees on the waiting list for a parking space. Many employees take advantage of alternative forms of transportation, thereby reducing overall parking demands. While exact gures are not currently available, it appears that many employees bike to work or use mass transit. There is currently a waiting list for the bicycle lockers located north of 1525 Sherman Street. Visitor Parking Visitor parking within the Capitol Complex is provided by metered on-street parking. The parking analysis conducted for the master plan showed that the metered spaces located in and around the Capitol Complex were typically utilized at 74% on average which is nearing the industry standard of 85% for when parking inventory is perceived to be effectively full. During the legislative session, a number of the parking spaces along Sherman Street and Grant Street are bagged which further contributes to the decit of visitor parking. Visitor parking demand is largely met through private parking lots located near the Complex. No accessible visitor parking is supplied within the Capitol Complex. 5.6 PARKING Capitol Complex Parking Facilities Private Parking Facilities 2 Hour Metered Parking 5 Hour Metered Parking 2 Hour Time limit 1 Hour Metered Parking Diagram Showing State-Owned Parking Facilities Diagram Showing Privately-Owned and On-Street Parking Facilities 1 3 6 7 8 5 2 41. Tan Parking Lot 2. Green Parking Lot 3. Yellow Parking Lot 4. Blue Parking Lot 5. Merrick Parking Structure 6. Black Parking Lot 7. Motor Pool Lot 8. Capitol Circle

PAGE 90

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-215.6.2 PARKING RECOMMENDATIONSParking in the Capitol Circle Colorado is one of the few state capitols that allow for parking directly adjoining to and surrounding the Capitol Building. The accommodation of parking within the Capitol circle creates a number of issues including congestion, conicts between pedestrians accessing the building and vehicles parking, and security concerns of allowing vehicular access directly adjacent to the Capitol Building. The master plan recommends that the approximately 162 spaces currently located in the Capitol circle be relocated to another location. Options to accommodate the parking may include it in the design of the proposed building at Lincoln Street and Colfax Avenue or by adding additional levels to the Merrick Parking Structure which would provide an additional 282 spaces. Employee Parking The parking analysis conducted as part of the master plan concluded that the parking demand could be mitigated by better utilizing the existing parking supply. The State should reconsider the current policy of assigning each parking space to specic individuals. This system could be maximized by overselling the number of parking permits by approximately ten percent as other states do; permit holders would be assigned to a specic lot but not a specic space. Bus Parking The State Capitol receives roughly 300,000 visitors each year. A large portion of these visitors are school children and tour groups arriving by bus. Currently there is no allowance for bus drop off or parking within the Complex. This creates instances in which school aged children and groups are being unloaded curb side on highly trafcked arterial streets; buses are then parking street side while tours are being conducted. Visitor and Disabled Parking The master plan recommends that directional signage be provided to direct users to the available parking and then provide them with a pedestrian waynding system to direct them to their destinations within the Complex. The Capitol Complex Facilities website and specic agency websites could include directions for visitors guiding them to parking options nearby the Complex. The State should investigate the provision of accessible visitor parking located adjacent to the agencies where the need is the greatest. Capitol Complex Facilities could further monitor visitor parking demand to understand which agencies require additional user parking and where it may best be located. Further study should be conducted to nd solutions for the arrival and drop off of large tour groups, allocation of loading areas for buses and designated parking for buses for the time period required for tours. These parking studies should be conducted in tandem with the assessment of the pedestrian accessibility of the Capitol Complex. Image Showing Parking around Capitol Circle Image Showing Historic View without Parking Image Showing Two Added Stories to Merrick Parking Garage and Its Proximity to the Capitol Building

PAGE 91

5.0 Urban Design 5-22 5.7 ARCHITECTURE5.7.1 ARCHITECTURAL RECOMMENDATIONSThe architectural language of the State buildings is one of the dening elements of the Capitol Complex. The earlier buildings dating from the turn of the century exhibit cultural richness and architectural ourishes while the later buildings share a common use of materials such as granite and other stones but have more efcient forms. The buildings reect their institutional heritage often having dened points of entry through formal and processional portals, monolithic facades with minimal glazing and small windows and a stately street presence as the massings are arrayed along a common build-to line. Share Common Elements To continue the language of the State architecture, future buildings should share a commonality with the existing buildings. Future buildings should employ a similar use of materials that have a timeless quality such as stone accents and cladding while allowing for modern technologies and material to be interposed. The scale and stateliness of the existing building inventory should carry over to future construction. The massing of future buildings should match the current build-to line as established by the existing buildings. Use Quality Materials To ensure that future buildings achieve the same longevity and express a similar quality of construction as the existing Complex buildings, premium materials and construction techniques should be used. The design and execution of all future Capitol Complex buildings should be geared towards creating a product that will be sustainable and elegant. In designing for quality structures, the future buildings will integrate into a campus that exhibits the permanence and consistency of the state of Colorado. Creating a Mixed Use Campus In keeping with the goal of creating a more pedestrian friendly and open-campus environment, future buildings should display a more open and inviting street presence. The ground levels should incorporate a mixture of uses which include service retail uses, restaurants and cafes. The facades should be open and incorporate higher percentages of glazing and storefront treatments with multiple entries and open lobbies. Images Showing the Variety and Consistency of Architectural Styles in the Capitol Complex

PAGE 92

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-23 5.8 PUBLIC REALMValue of the Public Realm The State Capitol building and the surrounding Capitol Complex are enduring and symbolic institutions that are representative of the state of Colorado. It is important that improvements to the campus and the overall image of the Capitol be seen as long term investments in Colorados cultural heritage. All of the components of the Capitol Complex contribute to this image whether they be the architecture of the buildings, parking, signage, circulation or the trees and landscape. The public realm consists of all of these elements as they are experienced by visitors and users of the Complex outside of the buildings. Public realm improvements aim to enhance the user experience and provide a sense of place for the Complex. Streetscape Improvements Pedestrian circulation and creating a pedestrian friendly environment is a important goal of the proposed Capitol Mall. In addition to improvements to trafc signals, streetscape improvements are recommended to improve pedestrian functionality as well as dening the center of the Capitol Complex. While the streets fall outside of the jurisdiction of the State, cooperation with the City and other entities to implement streetscape improvements would be benecial to the Complex. Grand Boulevards are referenced in several plans for the downtown area but not specically dened. The master plan recommends enhancements to the two blocks of Colfax Avenue/US Highway 40 between Grant and Lincoln Streets which are directly adjacent to the Capitol Building. These improvements to the streetscape and landscape would create the effect of a Grand Boulevard transitioning the character of the street to a planted boulevard, slowing trafc and serving to unite the north and south halves of the Capitol Complex. Gateway Elements created through the use of signage and the transitioning of Colfax into a Grand Boulevard would have the effect of creating a gateway to the Capitol Complex. These elements combined with the architectural grandeur of the Statehouse would add to the denition of place at the center of the Capitol Complex. Bulbouts extend the sidewalk and curb edge out into the street to the edge of the parallel parking lane improving the visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross the intersection and shortening the overall crossing. These elements reduce the street width at intersections, thereby slowing or calming trafc. Clearly delineated crosswalks are important to signal to drivers of the pedestrian realm. Crosswalks can be painted special colors or higher quality materials may be used to create a more prominent pedestrian crossing area. On crossings such as the one at Colfax Avenue and Sherman Street, the crosswalk could cross through a proposed center median on Colfax Avenue, providing a respite and safe-haven for pedestrians crossing the street. The intent of introducing special paving, such as modular or unit pavers, on key streets or key intersections is to slow trafc and to emphasize the multi-modal nature of these streets by adding texture and visual appeal. Unit pavers should also be utilized in the sidewalks and crosswalks where applicable to accentuate entries and to enhance the pedestrian appeal of the streetscape. Image Showing Lincoln Park and its Paving Features Image Showing the Character of a Grand Boulevard Image Showing a Curb Bulbout with Planted Edges Image Showing a Crosswalk with a Median Safe-Haven

PAGE 93

5.0 Urban Design 5-24Lighting Lighting is an important element of the public realm. Light xtures can be used as ornamental street furnishing elements during the day mounting banner arms and accessories. At night, lighting can help to activate the public realm, create a perception of safety and can be used as a dening element. Currently the Capitol Complex uses a City of Denver standard pedestrian level light xture located in the tree lawns in front of Capitol Complex facilities and in the Capitol lawn. These lights are supplemented by streetlevel overhead lights. The master plan recommends that the pedestrian level lighting be studied as part of an overall public realm master plan and that signature pedestrian lighting xtures be utilized in the Sherman Street Capitol Mall streetscape to create a campus identity and to activate the public realm after hours. Landscape and Plantings The Capitol lawn and many of the streets within the Capitol Complex are planted with mature trees. To further enhance the Complex and create the feeling of a dened campus it is important that the Complex have a uniform and dened landscape. Mature street trees and established plantings can have a profound impact upon the outdoor environment by slowing trafc, providing shade, seasonal color, mitigating noise and creating a human scaled organic environment. The value of a mature maintained landscape is signicant for the aesthetic and cultural effect that it can impart upon the surrounding environment. The landscape and especially the street tree plantings need to be viewed as legacy elements that need to be nurtured and maintained. In the Colorado climate, trees can take decades to mature but they also have an appreciable impact upon the character of the environment. The master plan recommends the creation of an overall landscape master plan for the Capitol Complex which would identify priority areas, user needs and outline a maintenance strategy and budget for the upkeep of the Complex landscape. The use of native and xeric plantings and groundcovers in low trafc areas and where applicable should be emphasized. Blue grass plantings in tree lawns may be replaced by curbed landscape planters populated with xeric species with intermittent pedestrian access to accommodate parallel parking. The master plan recommends that the landscape plan for the Capitol Mall and the Capitol Complex overall explore methods for sustaining healthy plantings in the streetscape. These may include larger tree cutouts to provide aeration, raised curbs around tree lawns to prevent snow melt chemicals from damaging trees, drip irrigation and the use of native species. Landscape Maintenance The planting and ongoing maintenance of street trees in the blocks surrounding the Capitol Complex needs to be prioritized to capitalize upon this investment. Site Furnishings Uniform site furnishings used throughout the Capitol Complex would contribute to the perception of a unied campus. The location and types of furnishings should be decided as part of a overall design study that looks at the needs of users, visitors and employees within the Complex and the functionality of the furnishings should complement the needs of these users. The palette of elements may include: Bollards Trash receptacles Bike racks Planters Benches and other seating Image Showing a High-Quality Bicycle Rack Image Showing an Urban Seating OptionImage Showing Historically Appropriate Bollards Image Showing a Well-Lit Capitol District (Madison, WI) Image Showing a Consistent and Stately Tree Canopy Image Showing Urban Planters with Seating Elements Image Showing Xeriscapic Street Planting

PAGE 94

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 5-25 5.9 WEST LAWNIntent The West Lawn proposal connects the western portion of the Capitol grounds to Lincoln Park directly west across Lincoln Street. The design expands the West Lawn over Lincoln Street and connects it to Lincoln Park by creating a cut and cover tunnel structure. The design would remove permanent parking from the Capitol Circle and provide plazas for small functions, public art and seating opportunities on the western side of the Capitol Building. The expanded West Lawn would accommodate terraced lawn gardens providing large, level spaces for gatherings and functions. The plan also presents the opportunity for a two level underground parking structure located beneath the West Lawn adjacent to the Capitol building. The structure would provide 195 parking spaces for occupants of the Capitol Building. The garage would involve a connection into the basement level of the Capitol building. The estimated cost of the West Lawn project is $69 million including escalation. It is recommended an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Study be undertaken to analyze the feasibility of this project. Pros and ConsThe West Lawn proposal has several advantages and disadvantages related to visibility, security, accessibility and trafc issues. These pros and cons are outlined in the table on the opposite page. For a more detailed analysis of the West Lawn project, please see the full report included in the appendix (See Appendix 2 (c) West Lawn Report). Figure Showing the Proposed West Lawn Viewed From Lincoln Street and 14th Avenue Looking North Figure Showing the Existing West Lawn with Lincoln Street at Grade and Potential Mid-Block Crossings Figure Showing the Proposed West Lawn with Lincoln Street Tunneled

PAGE 95

5.0 Urban Design CHAPTER 5.0 URBAN DESIGN KEY RECOMMENDATIONS A NEWLY-CONSTRUCTED, MIXED-USE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE STATE-OWNED PARCEL ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LINCOLN STREET AND COLFAX AVENUE COULD ACCOMMODATE STATE AGENCY SPACE NEEDS AND PROVIDE AN ACTIVATING ELEMENT FOR THE CAMPUS. THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL ADD USERS TO THE COMPLEX AND ACT AS A GATEWAY BETWEEN THE COMPLEX AND DOWNTOWN. SIGNAGE, WAYFINDING, AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE EMBODIED IN THE CAPITOL MALL CONCEPT REPRESENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE THE CAPITOL COMPLEX CAMPUS AND MAKE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY. CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY, BUILDING UPON THE WAYFINDING IMPROVEMENTS, SHOULD BE MADE TO KEY INTERSECTIONS TO FACILITATE BETTER PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND CONNECTIVITY. CONNECTIONS ACROSS COLFAX AVENUE BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH CAMPUS, AS WELL AS CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE CAMPUS AND THE DOWNTOWN, ARE THE MOST CRITICAL. THE CAPITOL COMPLEX SHOULD LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO INTRODUCE RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INTO THE CAMPUS TO HELP ACTIVATE THE CAMPUS AND ATTRACT USERS FROM OUTSIDE OF THE CAMPUS AND ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE USERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE. 5-26 5.10 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS PROS CONSVisibility and Appearance The project creates a continuous landscape bridging Lincoln Street and connecting Lincoln Park with the West Lawn. The proposed design introduces additional space for programmed and unprogrammed activities and provides a forum for large gatherings and events. There are aesthetic advantages to removing parking from the Capitol circle; this would remove a nonoriginal design element and convert the circle back to its original use and structure. The creation of the Lincoln Street tunnel and the resulting loss of public realm/right-of-way adjacent to Lincoln Street removes this area as a venue for non-scheduled public demonstrations with the State Capitol as a backdrop. There will be a loss of a number of mature trees within the West Lawn. While the design replaces these trees, it will be a number of years before they will retain the prominence of the existing landscape. Security There are security advantages to removing the parking from the Capitol circle and providing secure parking underground with access for the Governor and members of the General Assembly to the Capitol basement. There are safety advantages by providing a connection between the West Lawn and Lincoln Park and separating pedestrian trafc from vehicular trafc mid-block at Lincoln Street. Elevating the West Lawn above the adjacent streets removes its relationship to Lincoln Street, 14th Avenue and Colfax Avenue creating the perception of an unmonitored and potentially unsafe environment and requiring additional security patrols in the parking garage, Lincoln Street tunnel, and the West Lawn. Elevating the West Lawn provides pedestrian access directly over Lincoln Street which may provide opportunity for individuals to drop objects onto passing vehicles. Accessibility The proposed design creates a designated accessible pathway for disabled users to cross over and through the West Lawn separated from vehicular trafc on Lincoln Street. Elevating the West Lawn over Lincoln Street necessitates the introduction of multiple accessible ramps required to traverse the elevation gain. Traffic Issues Removal of trafc from the Capitol circle reduces conicts between cars and pedestrians, providing a pedestrian refuge on the Capitol grounds. Trafc entering and exiting the parking garage will have effects upon the trafc ow on Lincoln Street Queuing past 14th Avenue in the a.m. peak and potentially crossing three lanes of trafc to turn left on Colfax Avenue during the p.m. peak. Historic Designation The proposed design may impact the historical fabric of what was there and what was foundational to the National Historic Landmark designation of the site, including the view of the Capitol from Lincoln Street and the layout of the west lawn.

PAGE 97

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLANDENVER, COLORADO BENCHMARKING06

PAGE 98

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado Salem Topeka btbn frb r fr St. Paul brb b^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Overview This chapter provides an overview of Colorados planning and facilities management practices and provides a summary of the benchmarking study that was conducted in the context of the master plan goals. The intent of the Colorado Capitol Master Plan is to provide a context for understanding Colorados funding levels, facilities management, and planning practices relative to programs in similar states. The benchmarking of other states was undertaken as part of the master plan to nd the scope of standard practices that many states follow that are similar to Colorado in population, annual budget, square footage of Capitol Complex buildings, acreage of Capitol Complex, facilities management organization, and/or geographic adjacency. Methodology The consultant team conducted the benchmarking study in distinct phases. The initial data gathering and initial research phase identied up to 10 states and state capitols that provide similarities and differences with the facilities management organization of Colorado. The case studies were identied for research focusing on statewide and capitol complex facilities management organizational structure, long range planning, and legislative provisions, prioritization of building renewal, capital construction and controlled maintenance projects, and funding sources. The following 10 states and state capitols were identied for the benchmarking study based on preliminary research and analysis. They include: Arizona Iowa Kansas Minnesota Oregon Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin The benchmarking analysis was based on available documents and information regarding state-wide and capitol complex facilities management organizational structure, planning, funding, capital projects and controlled maintenance projects prioritization processes, etc. Summary abstracts (see Appendix 3 (a) Detailed State Abstracts) of key benchmarking information of each state were prepared in the second phase based on review of and analysis of documents for each state in the context of state of Colorado. A compiled analysis of each state (see Appendix 3 (b) Comparative State Analysis) was compiled including a detailed bibliography of benchmarking related documents. Three states were recommended (Minnesota, Utah, and Washington) that are most relevant for the goals of the CCMP and are considered to illustrate governmental best practices. Additional details were obtained in the last phase of the benchmarking study through interviews with key ofcials. The consultant team along with the DPA / OSA conducted telephone interviews with key facility management representatives from the three states to conrm the ndings of the initial benchmarking summaries. To understand the State of Colorados facility management practices particularly within the capitol complex and to highlight related key differentiators with other benchmarked states, the consultant team also referred to the following documents prepared by the State: The Performance Evaluation of State Capital Asset Management and Lease Administration Practices Audit conducted by the Ofce of the State Auditor and released in November 2012. The State of Colorado Strategic Real Estate Plan prepared by the States tenant broker in June 2013. Benchmarked State Capitals Colorado Capitol, Denver6.1 METHODOLOGY 6-1

PAGE 99

6.0 Benchmarking In the late 1960s the task force Colorado Committee on Government Efciency and Economy recommended the establishment of executive branch agencies moving those functions out of the Governors Ofce. The report recommended: Organize the Department of Administration in order to provide a sound structure as a basis for rendering effective service to all departments. The proposed organization should be designed to place department activities in their proper place with relation to each other and similarity of functions. One of the divisions of this new Department of Administration was the Division of Public Works which included the following sub-units: Architecture and Engineering, Contract Administration, Construction and Maintenance Inspection, Administrative Services, and the Capitol Buildings Group. The report included this appraisal of current operations: The basic function of the division is technical in character, yet only a small portion of the personnel possess a formal technical education. These individuals appear to be concentrated in the Architectural and Engineering Section. It also states: The state has no comprehensive master plan in public works. In the planning process, there is little uniformity in effort or approach between departments. Because of independence of scope and approach to planning by various agencies there is no effective coordination or standardization. Implementing the recommendations, in 1973 the Governors Budget identied the goal of the Division of Public Works within the Department of Administration as providing efcient and effective centralized support services for construction, maintenance, and space utilization of facilities housing the three principal branches of government. This division functions as a service agency on building facilities for the various state agencies, institutions, and departments. In addition to its 25 assigned FTE, the budget requested an additional FTE for a professional planner to provide comprehensive critical review of master plans and program plans. The Division of Public Works also had supervisory responsibility for the operation, maintenance, and management of the Capitol Buildings Group Section and the 143 FTE providing these services on the buildings and grounds. This 1973 budget also shows Central Services Program located within the Ofce of the Executive Director of the Department of Administration. Central Services Program had 25 FTE and included the functions of graphic arts, offset printing, Xerox quick copy, Central Stores for ofce supplies, U.S. and interdepartmental mail distribution, motor pool, and a proposed aircraft pool. Subsequent to this, the Division of Public Works in the Department of Administration was abolished and the functions moved to the Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting where they remained from 1975 until 1979. During this period of time the Capitol Buildings Section remained within the Department of Administration. In 1979 the functions were transferred back to the Department of Administration into what was then called State Buildings Division. The Division actively managed the States planning, design, and construction programs and was the direct recipient of statewide controlled maintenance appropriations. In 1984, the name of the Capitol Buildings Section was changed to the Division of Capitol Complex Facilities so the two divisions responsible for facilities planning and facilities maintenance existed within the department. At this time State Buildings Division and its 23 FTE were responsible for planning, design and construction management of facilities statewide. A former director of State Buildings describes the transition from a centralized approach to these functions to a new model: During the mid 1980s a trend toward decentralization of the responsibilities to the agency level developed. In 1987, during a low point in construction appropriation levels, the Division was down-sized to a manager and one administrative position. Over the next few years as construction appropriations increased, it again became apparent that centralized functions in the planning, design, construction and controlled maintenance process were sorely needed. While the centralized planning function was assumed by OSPB, there remained a need to provide administrative and technical staff capable of managing these processes. In order to meet the demand for services, State Buildings Programs continued to provide technical assistance through the development of policies, procedures and contracts, statewide implementation of codes and standards, and the administration of the controlled maintenance, real estate and energy programs while delegating its authority to manage design and construction projects to state agencies and institutions of higher education. In 1988 State Buildings staff increased to three in addition to an FTE assigned to coordinate and review leases. Then in 1993 State Buildings was moved into the Division of Purchasing where it remained until 2000. That year Capitol Complex Facilities was no longer designated an independent division, the division director position was abolished, and the facilities/property management function was moved into the Division of Central Services. State Buildings, now designated as State Buildings and Real Estate Services, was also moved into the Division of Central Services. These two functions were designated Facilities Maintenance and Planning in the budget. This continued until 2002 when State Buildings, now designated as Real Estate Services Program, was moved to the newly created Division of Finance and Procurement where it remained until 2008. In 2009 it was renamed the Ofce of the State Architect and moved to the executive ofce of DPA and then to the Ofce of Statewide Programs in 2012. Capitol Complex Facilities has remained in the Division of Central Services along with Integrated Document Solutions (printing, mail, etc.) and Fleet/Motor Pool. The Ofce of the State Architect currently has 6 FTE, Capitol Complex Facilities has 55 FTE and the Division of Central Services has an additional 138 FTE. 6.2 HISTORY OF FACILITIES PLANNING AND MAINTENANCE IN COLORADO 6-2

PAGE 100

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado Fleet/ Motor Pool Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF) Design and CM (DPA) Integrated Document Factory Division of Statewide Programs Division of Central Services Leasing Energy Delegated Design & CM Statewide Colorado State Employee Assistance Program (C-SEAP) Administrative Courts (OAC) Archives OSA Division of Personnel and Administration (DPA)The State of Colorados Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA) provides centralized human resources, information, tools, resources and materials needed for the state of Colorado government to function. The adjoining chart provides the organizational structure of the DPA that includes the Ofce of the State Architect (OSA) and Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF). Office of State Architect (OSA) The Ofce of the State Architect (OSA) within the Division of Statewide Programs has statewide responsibility for administering capital construction, prioritizing controlled maintenance requests, ensuring code compliance, tracking facilities condition, approving emergency maintenance funds, managing energy conservation, and overseeing and approving leasing and real estate transactions for executive branch agencies, including higher education. Responsibilities of OSA include: Overseeing controlled maintenance of buildings constructed or acquired with capital construction or general funds. Coordinating the initiation of budget requests and prioritizing and recommending funding for controlled maintenance projects to the Capital Development Committee (CDC). Negotiating and executing leases on behalf of the State government for land, buildings, and ofce or other space. [Section 24-30-1303, C.R.S.] Responsible for other real estate activities such as the purchase of real estate for the State and sale or lease of State-owned real estate. Tracking statistics on State owned buildings. Reporting annually to the Capital Development Committee on acquisitions, dispositions, lease summaries, and other real estate management issues including ongoing controlled maintenance and capital construction expenditures and controlled maintenance needs. Establishing ofce space goals for private leased space.6.3 FACILITIES OVERSIGHT BY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION Responsible for capital construction administration for executive branch projects (including most institutions of higher education) inclusive of: solicitation and procurement of professional design and construction services; development of standard contract language; establishment of project management guidelines including cost management; and adoption and implementation of building codes and compliance requirements. The Ofce of the State Architect does not oversee three areas including: Acquisitions by the Department of Transportation; Acquisitions or disposition of State land by the State Land Board Management of certain easements, rights of way, and vacant land leases and acquisitions by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a division within the Department of Natural Resources. Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF) Capitol Complex Facilities is part of Division of Central Services (DCS) which is one of multiple divisions located under the umbrella of the Department of Personnel & Administration. Capitol Complex Facilities supports tenant state agencies with property management services, and provides the public with special event permits and information resources. Services include building maintenance, state employee parking, project space requests, ceremonial ag requests, and state employee ID badges. Capitol Complex Facilities maintains the State Capitol, the Governors Mansion, and DPA owned buildings with routine maintenance, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, custodial, and grounds maintenance. Capitol Complex Facilities building management services include assistance with electrical, elevator, plumbing, lighting, HVAC, grounds maintenance, and general maintenance/ repair issues. Facility Management System / Software Total Maintenance Authority (TMA) preventative maintenance software is currently used by the Capitol Complex Facilities for tracking and managing facilities related work orders, parts inventory control, etc. Discussion with the CCF indicate that an update push / upgrade or change would be required to bring the TMA up to speed on recent HVAC replacement projects, and other current building data. An updated computerized maintenance management system would be helpful to track, collect and report the costs associated with maintenance, grounds and housekeeping activities. The system would track routine work orders, preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance and occasionally projects outside of facilities maintenance and operations. Tracking all material and labor, the system can report on productivity including number of work orders completed, response times based on criticality, etc. Lease Rates Benchmarking The internal rate CCF charges to tenant agencies could be benchmarked with rates that are changed in the private sector within the geographic region or with national benchmarks published by BOMA. A similar such process is currently used by the State of Utah. 6-3

PAGE 101

6.0 Benchmarking 6.4.1 GOVERNORS OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING AND BUDGETING The primary role of the Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) is to provide the Governor with timely and complete information and recommendations for sound public policy and budget decisions. Developing reliable revenue estimates. Review, approval, and prioritization of executive branch capital project requests for funding consideration by the Capital Development Committee (CDC). Review of program plans for State departments in the executive branch. Developing a defensible budget within revenue constraints. Developing proposals for new legislation. Advocating for the Governors priorities. Monitoring budget implementation.6.4.2 GENERAL ASSEMBLYCapital Development Committee (CDC) The CDC is a joint committee, consisting of three members of the House of Representatives and three members of the Senate. Each house is represented by two members of the majority party and one member of the minority party. Members of the CDC are chosen according to the rules of each house. CDC responsibilties include general review and oversight of all capital projects statewide, including projects initiated by the executive, judicial, and legislative branches and institutions of higher education, and including purchase, construction, renewal, and controlled maintenance. It reviews and recommends funding for all capital construction projects, including lease purchase agreements, valued at more than $500,000. The CDC also reviews capital construction projects at institutions of higher education that do not require any general or capital contruction funds, but have been approved by the governing boards of the institutions and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. The CDC receives reports on the progress of all capital construction projects, regardless of the agency or branch of government, and typically tours completed capital construction and controlled maintenance projects in a different region of the State every other year. Responsibilities of the Capital Development Committee The CDC has the following statutory responsibilities: Considers funding requests for capital construction and controlled maintenance projects submitted by State departments and higher education institutions, including regular and emergency supplemental capital construction requests; Prioritizes recommendations for the funding of capital construction and controlled maintenance projects for submittal to the Joint Budget Committee (JBC); Forecasts the states requirements for capital construction, controlled maintenance, and the acquisition of capital assets for the next scal year and the following four scal years; Considers cash-funded capital construction projects submitted by higher education institutions to be commenced without prior legislative authorization in an appropriations bill, and make recommendations to the JBC regarding projects subject to the Higher Education Revenue Bond Intercept Program (pursuant to Senate Bill 09-290); Studies the capital construction request from the Transportation Commission for state highway reconstruction, repair, and maintenance, and determine the projects that may be funded from money available in the Capital Construction Fund; Consider requests for waivers of the six-month encumbrance deadline for capital construction appropriations; Reviews the annual capital construction and controlled maintenance requests from the Ofce of Information Technology regarding the Public Safety Trust Fund. Joint Budget Committee (JBC) And General Assembly The General Assemblys permanent scal and budget review agency, the Joint Budget Committee (JBC), writes the annual appropriations bill called the Long Bill for the operations of state government. The JBC has six members: the Chairman and one majority and one minority member of the House Appropriations Committee, and the Chairman and one majority and one minority member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Members serve two-year terms and are selected following the general election. Traditionally, the Senate elects its JBC members. In the House, the Speaker appoints the majority party members, and the Minority Leader appoints the minority party member. The chairmanship alternates between the Chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. The House and Senate calendars reect the Joint Budget Committees schedule during the legislative session. Responsibilities include: Analysis of the management, operations, programs and scal needs of State agencies and institutions. Recommendations to the General Assembly for funding of projects per Capital Development Committee guidance for inclusion in the Long Bill. Approval of capital projects initiated by legislation. Capitol Building Advisory Committee State law directs the advisory committee to review plans to restore, redecorate, or reconstruct space within the public and ceremonial areas of the state Capitol Building, the Legislative Services Building and its surrounding grounds, and the grounds surrounding the Capitol. The advisory committee is required to make recommendations to the Capital Development Committee (CDC), and in some cases the Governor, based on such plans. The advisory committee is also authorized to: Engage in long-range planning for modications and improvements to the Capitol and its grounds. Accept gifts, grants, or donations from private or public sources to develop publications and memorabilia. Expend moneys from the advisory committees special account to publish and develop memorabilia, to restore the Capitol, the Legislative Services Building, and the Capitol grounds, and for other related and necessary purposes. Call upon Legislative Council Staff and the Department of Personnel & Administration for necessary assistance.6.4.3 OTHER AGENCIESColorado Commission on Higher Education General review and oversight of capital projects undertaken by institutions of higher education on State owned or State controlled land, including purchase, construction, renewal, and controlled maintenance. Review and approval of institutions master and program plans. Prioritize institutions capital projects and submit to OSPB and the Capital Development Committee, when required by the type of funding source The adjoining diagram highlights key aspects of the facility management organization for the State of Colorado. While institutions of higher education have not been included in the scope of the Capitol Complex Master Plan, the oversight process of Colorado Commission on Higher Education requires signicant long-term planning. 6.4 OFFICES AND COMMITTEES WITH FACILITIES OVERSIGHT 6-4

PAGE 102

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado Table Showing Existing Decision Making Process in Colorado Type of Project Requesting Entity Approval Pr ocess Project Differentiation Review and Recommendation Approval and Funding Project AdministrationGovernors Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) Department of Higher Education (DHE) Construction, Renovation, Purchase, Demolition, and Divesting Capital Development Committee (CDC) Capital Development Committee (CDC) Executive Branch Departments and Higher Education Ofce of the State Architect (OSA) Joint Budget Committee (JBC)Capital Construction Projects Any Executive Branch department may make a Capital Construction request for their owned buildings. The department should be prepared with program plan documentation and cost analysis according to OSPB criteria. The JBC will make a recommendation for inclusion in the Long Bill for funding appropriation along with Controlled Maintenance level requests. If a Higher Ed project is funded with 100% cash funds funds derived from private donors, fees, or other non-State funds it does not require review from the OSPB or funding from the CDC/JBC. Once a project is approved and funded, the OSA is responsible for the administration and oversight of projects requested by all branches of government as well as Higher Education projects. The project is managed at the agency level. OSPB receives Capital Construction requests from Executive Branch Departments. The requests are reviewed for their compliances with OSPB budget instructions. DHE reviews Higher Ed projects and submits a prioritized list to OSPB and the CDC. OSPB develops a combined prioritized list of department and Higher Ed projects for submittal to the CDC. The CDC will receive a prioritized list of Capital Construction projects along with Controlled Maintenance requests. If a request requires more information or documentation, the CDC may request it. The CDC will develop a prioritized list of projects including Capital Construction, Capital Renewal, and one, two, or three levels of Controlled Maintenance that will be forwarded to the Joint Budget Committee. A Capital Construction project request can take several forms. A requesting entity may request: Legislative or Judicial Branch VariesLegislative or Judicial Capital Projects The Legislative or Judicial branches of the state government may request a capital project. The project is initiated by special legislation. Projects initiated by the Legislative or Judicial Branches do not require review by the OSA or the OSPB. The project may be initiated and funded through specic legislation and may or may not be included in the Long Bill. construction of a new facility, the renovation of an existing facility, the purchase or sale of real property, and the demolition of existing facilities. All Capital Construction projects are program-driven as opposed to maintenance-driven (CM projects).Controlled Maintenance Projects(Major Planned Maintenance) Controlled MaintenanceProjects less than $2m Only for Capital Renewal Projects more than $2mGovernors Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) Capital Development Committee (CDC) All Departments, Institutions of Higher Education, and Govt Branches Ofce of the State Architect (OSA) Ofce of the State Architect (OSA) Joint Budget Committee (JBC) All departments, institutions of higher education, and branches of government that own buildings (except the Division of Parks and Wildlife within the Department of Natural Resources) may request Controlled Maintenance (CM) funds based on an approved ve year plan for their owned buildings. The requesting entity should be prepared with project documentation and cost analysis according to OSA criteria. The JBC will make a recommendation for inclusion in the Long Bill for funding appropriation along with Capital Construction and Capital Renewal requests. Once a project is approved and funded, the OSA is responsible for the administration and oversight of the project. The project is managed at the agency level. The Ofce of the State Architect is the primary entity in charge of recommending all Controlled Maintenance projects. This ofce will review projects, categorize them according to criticality, prioritize them, and recommend them. The Department of Personnel & Administration/Capitol Complex team follows the guidelines set by OSA for all departments. The CDC will receive a prioritized list of Controlled Maintenance requests along with Capital Construction projects. If a request requires more information or documentation, the CDC may request it. The CDC will develop a prioritized list of projects including Capital Construction, Capital Renewal, and one, two, or three levels of Controlled Maintenance that will be forwarded to the Joint Budget Committee. Projects will be categorized into three levels according to their overall criticality. Projects valued under $2 million per phase known as Controlled Maintenance projects are reviewed by the OSA, submitted to OSPB, and are recommended directly to the CDC. Projects valued at more than $2 million per phase known as Capital Renewal projects require review by OSA as well as OSPB. Capital Renewal projects are prioritized against Capital Construction projects. The term capital collectively refers to three types of projects: (1) Capital construction; (2) Capital renewal; and (3) Controlled maintenance. The following provides overview for the approval / decision making and funding process of the capital projects within the State of Colorado. Capital Construction Approval Process According to statute, it is the policy of the General Assembly not to acquire sites or authorize or initiate any program or activity requiring capital construction or acquisition of a capital asset for any State department or subdivision thereof unless the program or activity is an element of the facilities program plan for the department. [Section 2-3-304.6, C.R.S.] Consequently, capital construction projects are program driven and an agency must justify a capital request based on how the project will allow it to improve or alter its ability to provide a certain program or services. Requests from Executive Branch Agencies Capital construction and acquisition projects are initiated by individual agencies. Agencies prepare program plans and justify their capital construction requests in accordance with criteria outlined by OSPB. Agencies then submit their requests to OSPB, which reviews the projects and prioritizes the agency requests based on priorities outlined by the Governor. The prioritized list of capital construction project requests is submitted to the Capital Development Committee, which reviews and holds hearings on the requests, requesting additional information, if needed. The Capital Development Committee then makes prioritized funding recommendations to the Joint Budget Committee for State-funding requests. The Capital Development Committee also makes recommendations for cash funded projects for State agencies and reviews higher education cash projects costing more than $2 million. The Joint Budget Committee then makes a recommendation for inclusion of certain Stateand cash-funded capital construction projects in the annual Long Bill, which delineates actual appropriations.6.5 CAPITAL PROJECTS EXISTING DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK 6-5

PAGE 103

6.0 Benchmarking Operating Lease Requests(Centralized Leasing Process) Governors Ofce of State Planning and Budget (OSPB)Lease/ Purchase Requests And Purchases for Cash(Capital Lease Requests) Capital Development Committee (CDC) All Departments and Institutions of Higher Education All Departments and Institutions of Higher Education The Requesting Agency Ofce of the State Architect (OSA) Ofce of the State Ar chitect (OSA) Joint Budget Committee (JBC) General Assembly Lease Agreements over $500k Any Executive Branch department or Institution of Higher Education may make a Capital Lease request. The requesting entity should be prepared with program plan documentation and cost analysis. Any Executive Branch department or Institution of Higher Education may make an Operating Lease request. The requesting entity must complete a space request form and a TA form, and evidence of funding under that agencys operating budget for submittal to the OSA. Operating Leases, which comprise a large majority of State agency leases, are subject to the Centralized Leasing Process. Once appropriations are secured, the agency that requested and received a lease is responsible for the maintenance of the lease. The agency is also responsible for holding the lease, not the OSA. All lease requests are received, reviewed, and tracked by the OSA under their Real Estate Programs department. This ofce is responsible for negotiating and executing lease agreements. The States contracted broker provides tenant/purchase representation services. All lease requests are received, reviewed, and tracked by the OSA under their Real Estate Programs department. OSA analyzes request for space needs and other lease criteria. This ofce is responsible for negotiating and executing lease agreements. If space is available within a currently owned or leased building, the OSA will follow the Capitol Complex process to prioritize the use of existing spaces. The CDC will review and approve the plan for recommendation to the JBC and the General Assembly. The JBC will make a nal review of a proposed Capital Lease request and approve funding. The General Assembly will then either approve or deny the request. Though approval of the lease agreement is made through separate legislation in the General Assembly, the lease itself is paid each year through the Long Bill appropriations process. Alternatively, Capital Lease projects may be funded exclusively or partially through Certicates of Participation in which a project is funded by outside investors who are in turn repaid by lease revenues paid by agency tenants. For Executive Agencies For nonExecutive Entities Leasing purchase requests in excess of $500,000 over the term of the agreement must be authorized by a separate bill enacted by the General Assembly other than the Long Bill.Broker Engagement, Needs Analysis, and, Market SurveyThe Centralized Leasing Process is similar to private sector real estate leasing procedures. Operating Leases can take several forms, including a Gross (Common) Lease, a Base Year Lease, or a Triple Net Lease. After OSA reviews the request, the States contracted broker is engaged. The broker will do an independent space needs assessment for the agency. The requesting agency is subject to space programming analysis and the request is compared against strategic planning/best practices lters. The requesting agency will hold and make payments on the executed lease over the life of the lease agreement. OSA does not hold any leases.Requesting AgencyCertain maintenance and construction projects are not required to follow the procedures described above based on their lower cost or value. These Tenant Finish projects are funded through a requesting agencys operating budget as previously approved by OSPB, submitted to JBC, and appropriated as part of the Long Bill. These projects include: Equipment, furniture, and other hard goods with a useful life of one year or more valued less than $50,000 Maintenance, alteration, or replacement of buildings valued less than $50,000 New structures or non-structural improvements to buildings and property valued less than $50,000 Capitol Complex Facilities administers Tenant Finish projects for DPA owned/Capitol Complex managed buildings. Projects are bid and managed by Capitol Complex. Tenant Finish Projects(Capital Outlay)Type of Project Requesting Entity Approval Pr ocess Project Differentiation Review and Recommendation Approval and Funding Project AdministrationRequests for Controlled Maintenance In accordance with statute [Section 24-30-1303 (1) (k.5), C.R.S.], controlled maintenance requests are reviewed and prioritized by the Ofce of the State Architect prior to submission to the Capital Development Committee and OSPB using the following criteria: Level 1: critical projects that predominantly involve life safety issues or loss of use. Level 2: projects that are predominantly causing operational disruptions, energy inefciencies, or environmental contamination. Level 3: projects that are predominantly containing differing levels of deterioration. Requests for Capital Renewal controlled maintenance projects valued at more than $2 million per phase. Capital renewal funding requests are reviewed and prioritized by the Ofce of the State Architect prior to submission to OSPB for legislative funding consideration. 6-6

PAGE 104

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch Projects Projects initiated by the judicial branch and the legislative branch, as well as certain projects initiated in the executive branch, may be initiated by specic legislation. These projects are reviewed by the Capital Development Committee, but are not reviewed by OSPB and are not subject to the specic criteria OSPB requires for project justications and analyses in support of capital construction requests. Higher Education Projects Capital construction and acquisition projects are initiated by each individual institution of higher education. Statute [Section 23-1-106 (3), C.R.S.] requires institutions of higher education to develop master plans, which must be approved by the institutions respective governing board and by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Institutions must prepare program plans to justify their capital construction requests and align their program plans with their master plans. Governing boards review and approve the institutions capital construction program plan and ensure the request aligns with the institutions master plan. The Department of Higher Education also reviews the institutions capital construction request to ensure alignment with the institutions master plan; if projects are not aligned, the Department will not approve the request. If the Department of Higher Education determines that the capital construction request aligns with the institutions master plan, the project is submitted to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. If the institutions capital construction request requires any amount of State funds, which are primarily general funds deposited in the Capital Construction Fund, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education submits a prioritized list of higher education projects to OSPB for review and inclusion in the statewide prioritized list, and the project is processed in the same manner as the executive branch capital construction requests described above. CAPITAL ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION FINANCING (PROCESS)Executive branch agencies receive funding for capital projects by submitting their requests to the OSPB, which prioritizes the projects for review by the CDC. The CDC makes recommendations for project prioritization and submits its recommendations for funding to the Joint Budget Committee for appropriation through the Long Bill. Statute requires all lease-purchase agreements for real property in excess of $500,000 over the term of the agreement, regardless of whether nanced by COPs or rent-to-own agreements, to be specically authorized by a separate bill enacted by the General Assembly other than by the Long Bill or a supplemental appropriations bill. [Section 24-82-801 (1) (a), C.R.S.] Prior to the State Treasurer executing any lease-purchase transaction, OSPB (for Executive Branch agencies) and the Capital Development Committee must rst review and approve the plans for the project. [Section 24-82802 (3) (d), C.R.S.] Subsequent lease payments are then annually appropriated in the operating or capital budget. The lease agreement itself is renewed each year through the Long Bill appropriations process.POLICIESCentralized Leasing Policy Ensure optimum use of State owned and leased space. The Centralized Leasing Policy, effective December 15, 2005, applies to all space acquisitions by executive departments and institutions of higher education whether by lease, sublease, lease/purchase, or license. It requires all executive branch agencies (with a few exceptions), including institutions of higher education, to work through the Ofce of the State Architect to acquire leased space. According to the Ofce of the State Architect, the Centralized Leasing Policy is triggered once an agencys Executive Director identies a need for leased space and the agency has received an appropriation for its lease costs. The Centralized Leasing Policy requires the Ofce of the State Architect to execute a contract with a real estate broker (thecontract broker) to assist with evaluating leased space options in the metropolitan area counties of Denver, Douglas, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomeld, Adams, and Jefferson as well as for El Paso and Pueblo Counties in southern Colorado. Note: Judicial and Legislative Branch agencies have authority to manage their own capital acquisition and construction projects without oversight by the Ofce of the State Architect or OSPB. Additionally, the Judicial and Legislative Branches are not subject to the Centralized Leasing Policy, but may use the services of the Ofce of the State Architect and its contract broker to assist with procuring leased space if desired. Executive Directors of individual State agencies have input on real estate decisions and capital project requests and have authority to make leasing decisions, if funds have been appropriated for that purpose. State agencies are also responsible for managing their own leases, once the agreement has been executed. State of Colorado Strategic Real Estate Plan recommends that the State develop comprehensive asset management strategies for the States real property portfolio with the goal of reducing overall real estate costs and improving the efciency and utilization of State leased and owned assets. Comprehensive Annual Report to the Capital Development Committee. The Ofce of the State Architect reports on acquisitions, dispositions, lease summaries, and other real estate management issues including ongoing capital construction and controlled maintenance expenditures and major maintenance needs. Operating Common Policy (Reappropriated Funds) Certain budget requests are common among government agencies and as a result require a common policy for requested level of funding. In Capitol Complex managed buildings, Operating Common Policy requests cover: Basic grounds maintenance, custodial services, property management services Capitol Complex security Basic building repairs All agencies within Capitol Complex leased space have specically appropriated line items in their operating budgets. The Department of Personnel & Administration(DPA) is responsible for developing and submitting the common policy allocations for all state agencies. The allocations, which are reviewed and approved by the OSPB, are submitted to the JBC for consideration and approval. Once the JBC provides its nal approval, which would include any of their adopted changes, the nal allocations are then appropriated in each agencys Long Bill section under the Capitol Complex Leased Space line item. DPA provides the requested services through the Capitol Complex Facilities management group. The agencies, in turn, pay the DPA for these services based on the total square footage the agency occupies within the Capitol Complex. The DPA has spending authority in its budget that appears as Reappropriated Funds. Departments outside of Capitol Complex facilities make direct requests for funding that are not coordinated or administered by the DPA. 6-7

PAGE 105

6.0 Benchmarking 6-8

PAGE 106

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 6.6 PEER STATESN 0 200 400 800 Oregon Wisconsin Virginia Texas Arizona Kansas Iowa Colorado A brief summary of Colorado and seven peer states highlighting the key aspects of state-wide and capitol complex organizational structure, legislative process, and funding is provided below. In addition, key aspects of each states facilities management structure including owned and leased space adjacent to the Capitol Complex, presence of statewide long-range planning, facility condition assessment, space standards, facility management entities, capital and controlled maintenance prioritization processes, and funding methods are highlighted in a diagrammatic form. 6-9

PAGE 107

6.0 Benchmarking For facilities planning and maintenance and the decision making framework specic to Colorado, refer to sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5. The following components were highlighted in the Performance Evaluation of State Capital Asset Management and Lease Administration Practices Audit (November 2012). Organizational / Governing Structure A variety of agencies oversees and manages the States real estate portfolio in a decentralized fashion. Capital Construction Process State practices for justifying capital construction requests are not consistent across branches of government. State mechanisms for tracking, monitoring, reporting on expenditures, project assumptions, and cost savings are inconsistent across agencies and projects. In some cases they do not align with recognized real estate practices. PRIORIZATION PROCESS Sustainability Requesting Agency Need Condition Assessment / FCI Life Cycle Cost AnalysisCriteria LEASE REQUESTSType of Projects CAPITAL PROJECTSReview / Recommendations Entity Over $500 K CONTROLLED MAINTENANCE Less than $2.0 M Exe. Branch Projects Legl. Branch Projects More than $2.0 M Capital Development Committee & Joint Budget Committee (JBC) Prioritizing Entity Governors Oce of State Planning and Budget (OSPB) OSPBAGENCIES LONG RANGE PLANNING FACILITY ENTITIES Agency Space (within Capitol Complex and Adjacent CBD) LEASED 705K SF OWNED 1.3 M SF Agency Planning Mission / Goals STRATEGIC PLANS FACILITIES PLANS Division of Personnel and Administration (DPA) LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT SPACE STANDARDSFUNDING Public Private Partnerships and COPs Dedicated Source for Controlled Maintenance General FundFacilities Management Organization Facilities Management Functions Statewide Planning Approval Body Sources of Funding Legislature Fleet Management State Wide Design and Construction Management OSA Capitol Complex Facilities Division of Central Services (DCS)Lease Administration (State Wide) Integrated Document Solutions State Wide Capitol Complex State Wide / Oce of State Architect (OSA) COLORADOState Population: 5.2M Capital City Population: Denver, 600,158 Facilities Management Organization: Decentralized Capitol Complex Master Plan: December, 2014 Funding for Controlled Maintenance The State lacks sufcient funding for controlled maintenance and, if not addressed, controlled maintenance needs will likely result in higher repair and replacement costs for taxpayers. DPA / OSA has proposed the concept of accumulating between 1.5% to 3.0% of building replacement costs as a reserve to the Legislature. This approach has been reviewed, but not been approved. Long Term Real Estate Planning There is no statutory requirement for the State to complete a real estate master plan at the State level. Further, there is no statutory requirement that capital construction projects align or comply with master planning documents. Individual State agencies are required to maintain facilities master plans and no capital construction may commence except in accordance with an approved facilities master plan. In addition to the above ndings, the following additional facility management related issues may require consideration within the context of this master plan. 6-10

PAGE 108

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado The Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) / General Services Division (GSD) is one of the three (Arizona Board of Regents and Arizona Department of Transportation being the other two) major state building systems within Arizona. The lease-purchase agreements passed in 2010 have changed the ADOA system drastically. These agreements have resulted in increased private sector involvement in the provision of government services, ownership and administrative responsibilities which is currently debated. About 22 facilities were included in the lease purchase agreements including the Executive Tower, the Legislative buildings, the Department of Public Safety Headquarters, various State prison facilities and other assets of the State. Under the terms of the lease purchase agreements, the lessee is responsible for the general upkeep and maintenance of the property. The lease purchase agreements did not include lease back of the Arizona Capitol Museum. Building and Planning Services division within GSD provides facilities management services for the statewide real estate portfolio. Legislative Governmental Mall Commission (LGMC) has the statutory authority to provide a comprehensive general plan for the development of State Population: 6.4M Capital City Population: Phoenix, 1.5M Facilities Management Organization: Modified Decentralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Legislative Governmental Mall Commission Capitol Complex Master Plan: Last prepared in 1989ARIZONAthe governmental mall. Last Governmental Mall Plan was prepared in 1989 by LGMC. Also, Arizona State Capitol Centennial 2012 Plan/2020 Vision was prepared by Arizona Chapter of American Institute of Architects and Arizona State University recently. The Ofce of Strategic Planning prioritizes agencies veyear Strategic Plans. GSD uses a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Building System Inventory (conducted every four years), and a building renewal funding formula to prioritize projects. The CIP prioritization process is used for both Controlled Maintenance (CM) and Capital projects. Recommendations are reviewed by the Joint Legislature Budget Committee (JLBC) and Joint Committee of Capital Review (JCCR). It is notable that CM projects have a dedicated source of funding in Arizona. Major capital projects (land acquisition and new construction) and building renewal projects are funded from the Capital Outlay Stabilization Fund (COSF). A.R.S 41-792.01 establishes the Capital Outlay Stabilization Fund (COSF) and allows ADOA to collect rents and tenant improvement charges from State agencies occupying State owned space. ADOA does not have a space standard policy. 6-11

PAGE 109

6.0 Benchmarking Iowa has made an organizational shift in facility management that embraces an entrepreneurial management model. General Services Enterprise (GSE) was established under the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). DAS claims to be the rst state government agency in the country to successfully implement entrepreneurial management as a business model. This model requires each state enterprise to operate as a business within state government focusing on customer satisfaction, streamlining operations, saving money, and resource use exibility. Central to running an efcient system, Iowas approach to space management is maximizing the facilities under the States control for state agencies with an explicitly stated goal of reducing their total leased space holdings to 15% of the States total space inventory. DAS / GSE do not prepare comprehensive long-range statewide facilities plans. All agencies submit ve-year IOWAState Population: 3.0M Capital City Population: Des Moines, 206,688 Facilities Management Organization: Centralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Capitol Planning Commission Capitol Complex Master Plan: Last prepared in 2010 facilities plan to DAS. However DAS prepares ve-year infrastructure plans that include capital construction and renovation funding requests for all state agencies with priorities and ranking of projects. The latest master plan for the Iowa State Capitol was completed in 2010 by the GSE and the Capitol Planning Commission (an update to 2000 Master Plan). Iowa has established the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund, a dedicated funding source for Controlled Maintenance, to address the backlog of deferred maintenance that faces the State. Building Renewal funds are allocated on a per agency square footage basis. DAS prioritizes and ranks projects and then recommends them to the Joint Committee on State Building Construction. One of the tools that DAS relies on to help identify project prioritization is the Facility Inventory and Database. In regards to space standard allocations, Iowa uses a tiered space standard policy with guidelines provided per category of position. 6-12

PAGE 110

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado State Population: 2.8M Capital City Population: Topeka, 127,473 Facilities Management Organization: Centralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Department of Administration and Capitol Preservation Committee Capitol Complex Master Plan: No document found, Master Plan currently under development KANSASThe Department of Administrations (DA) Ofce of Facilities and Property Management (OFPM) has statutory authority over the states real estate portfolio and responsibility for the long-term planning for all state-owned or leased buildings and storage spaces. The DA has authority to maintain the Capitol Complex plan in a current state. The DA is currently preparing a new comprehensive Capitol Complex Master Plan. The Kansas Capitol building has undergone recent renovations. Each agency prepares and submits separate ve-year facility plans. Since there is no single State agency appointed to manage, vet, and prioritize proposals, this lack of organization presents an unclear process to seek approval, or establish criteria to aid in determining which projects are eligible and how to prioritize projects to help streamline budgeting and approval processes. Building renewal budget is calculated based on actual need of agencies. Agencies submit budgets to the Joint Committee on State Building Construction for review as part of the ve-year facility plans. Capital projects are reviewed by the Division of the Budget for development of the Governors recommendations and by Joint Committee on State Building Construction. Ofce of Facilities and Property Management in the Department of Administration provides technical support to the State Building Advisory Commission. Kansas has stated that they grant priority to maintaining existing facilities and each project is approved based on actual need. Most projects are funded through direct appropriations in the State General Fund, building funds, and special revenue funds. Kansas uses a tiered space standard policy with guidelines provided per category of position. 6-13

PAGE 111

6.0 Benchmarking State Population: 3.8M Capital City Population: Salem, 154,637 Facilities Management Organization: Modifi ed Decentralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Legislative Administration Committee Capitol Complex Master Plan: Area Plan last prepared in 1992, Capitol Building Plan last prepared in 2009 OREGONThe Department of Administrative Services (DAS) was given a legislative mandate in 1997 to plan, nance, acquire, construct, manage, and maintain state government facilities and to establish a statewide facility management process. The Capital Projects Advisory Board (CPAB) was created at the same time to establish a public review process for the proposed major (above $1 million) capital projects, major deferred maintenance projects, and signicant leases (10,000 SF or more) of all state agencies. DAS established State Facilities Planning Process Manual in January 2012 that establishes guidelines and policy framework for the state facilities planning process. The manual provides creation of State Facilities Plan by each agency consisting of an agencys respective space needs, leasing, building maintenance needs, and construction plans to be submitted to CPAB. Due to relatively recent adoption of the Facilities Process Manual, the consultant was not able to access copy of the State Facility Plan to ascertain if the guidelines are in the process of implementation as mandated by legislature. The Capital Planning Commission (CPC), was re-established in 2009 to review and make a recommendation before a state agency to a proposal for the purchase, construction, or signicant change of use of a state building (more than $1 million), within the cities of Salem and Keizer. Additional duties of the CPC include adopting Area Plans and Capitol Mall Area Master Plan. CPC advises DAS on planning and location of state buildings in Salem and Keizer. Recent Capitol Master Plan was completed in 2009 by SRG Partnership, and was solely focused on the Capitol building. Capitol Mall Area Plan was completed by the Capitol Planning Commission in 1992 by the Capitol Planning Commission. 6-14

PAGE 112

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado State Population: 26.0M Capital City Population: Austin, 842,592 Facilities Management Organization: Modified Centralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Texas Facilities Commission and Preservation Board Capitol Complex Master Plan: Last prepared in 1989, currently a detailed Capitol Complex Master Plan document has been proposed TEXASThe Texas Facilities Commission (TFC) is a state-wide entity that oversees facilities planning, development, management, and operations. The goal of the TFC is to advance statewide planning by engaging state agencies for long-range planning and facilities condition assessment. The TFC prepares a biennial Statewide Facility Master Plan which assesses and directs long-term asset management and development strategies for statewide assets. The TFC relies on robust database and Facilities Condition Index (FCI) information to help prioritize projects for consideration that they submit to the Legislature for approval. State agencies have direct input in the Facilities MP process. TFC issues a Request for Information (RFI) to each agency to which they are required by law to respond. In 2006, TFC performed a comprehensive facility condition assessment that identied an extensive backlog of repairs and renovations for all state-owned ofce buildings maintained by the agency. A new building the Capitol Extension located on the north side of the Capitol, is a four-level underground structure (667,000 GSF) which was completed in 1993 by the State Preservation Board. It was built to provide the Capitol with much-needed additional space. It is connected to the Capitol by three pedestrian tunnels. General obligation bond funding is usually requested by TFC to fund backlog of deferred maintenance projects. TFC has been at the forefront of Public Private Partnership (P3) land monetization strategy to consolidate leases to the Capitol Complex and at other under-developed stateowned locations within Austin. The Public and Private Facilities and Infrastructure Act, was passed to encourage redevelopment of underdeveloped and underutilized state owned properties. In the States Sunset Advisory Commission (2013) Report, TFC has been criticized for lack of coordinated, transparent approach to planning future development of the Capitol Complex, and for its current approach to P3s for its need for additional safeguards to avoid exposing the state to signicant risks. TFC does not have space standards. 6-15

PAGE 113

6.0 Benchmarking VIRGINIAState Population: 8.0M Capital City Population: Richmond, 204,214 Facilities Management Organization: Centralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Department of General Services and Bureau of Facilities Management Capitol Complex Master Plan: Last prepared in 2005 The Commonwealth of Virginias Department of General Services (DGS) Division of Real Estate Management focuses on State-wide facilities management; this division was created in 2005 to supplement the DGSs Bureau of Facilities Management (BFM) work which is now solely focused on the Capitol Complex and greater Richmond metro area. DGS or DRES do not prepare statewide plans. Statewide real estate strategic planning was outsourced to CBRE in 2003. Initial statewide plan was prepared by CBRE that included review of agency missions and needs. DRES was formed in 2005 as result of CBRE recommendations. DRES works with agencies to prepare real estate strategic plans since 2008. DGS / BFM prepare comprehensive Capitol Complex Master Plans every ve years. DGS maintains a Facilities Inventory Conditions & Assessment System (FICAS). FICAS is a centralized database with building condition assessment information that provides agencies, the Governor, and General Assembly with an effective capital planning tool. A list of maintenance reserve projects is prepared for the six year plan by the DGS and submitted to the Department of Planning and Budget (DPB) for capital projects and maintenance reserve budgetary purposes. DGS and DPB use FICAS to manage and prioritize capital project and maintenance reserve requests in consultation with agencies. Controlled maintenance and capital projects must consider facilities condition assessment, life-cycle cost analysis, and requesting agencys need. DPB then submits prioritized list to the Legislature for their review and approval. Central Capital Outlay serves as a capital maintenance, construction, and renovation holding account to better manage state resources including general fund and non-general fund cash, tax-supported debt, and revenue bonds. Budgetary process requires agencies to provide a Master Plan and multi-year Capital Development Plan in a biennial budget capital outlay request to the General Assembly. Approval by the State Division of Engineering and Buildings is required before a project can proceed from one design stage to another. 6-16

PAGE 114

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado WISCONSINState Population: 5.7M Capital City Population: Madison, 233,209 Facilities Management Organization: Centralized Capitol Complex Master Plan: No document found Wisconsins Department of Administration (DOA), Division of State Facilities (DSF) is divided into two functional units: the Division of Facilities Development (DFD) and the Division of Facilities Management (DFM). DFD oversees all aspects of planning, facility management, and capital investment for the States real estate portfolio, but requires Wisconsin Building Commission approval for all projects greater than $185,000. DFM assists tenants, customers, and vendors in state facilities by providing building management, custodial services, craftwork, heating and power plant operations, energy conservation, LEED EB, sustainability, and emergency planning. DSFs purview includes both state-wide and Capitol Complex facilities. The State of Wisconsin Building Commission (WBC) oversees the planning, improvement, major maintenance, and renovation of state facilities. WBC is an eight-member body consisting of the governor, three state senators, three state representatives, one citizen member and three non-voting advisory members from the DOA. The Administrative Affairs Subcommittee of the WBC is responsible for reviewing building program requests of all non-higher education state agencies. The powers and responsibilities of the Commission were enlarged in 1969 to include the supervision of all matters relating to the contracting of public debt. The DOAs Division of State Facilities provides technical and administrative staff support to the WBC, while the WBC provides criteria for capital projects, building renewal, and controlled maintenance for agencies. WBC prioritizes capital projects and then submits them to the Legislature for their consideration and approval. The criteria for controlled maintenance and capital projects include: sustainability, facilities conditions assessment, life-cycle cost analysis, and requesting agencys need. DSF uses a tiered space standard where space per FTE employee is allocated by virtue of position. 6-17

PAGE 115

6.0 Benchmarking Washington MinnesotaUtah Based on the research and comparative analysis of the peer states, interviews with the respective state facility management ofcials of the three best practice states Minnesota, Utah and Washington were conducted following the preliminary benchmarking research. These interviews helped conrm the research ndings and provided an understanding of how these states manage and operate their respective facilities portfolio, particularly within the Capitol Complex, prioritize future capital construction, building renewal and controlled maintenance projects, and plan for future space needs.6.7 BEST PRACTICES STATES 0200400800N A brief summary of each best practice state highlighting its key aspects of state-wide and capitol complex organizational structure, legislative process, and funding is provided below. In addition, key aspects of each states facilities management structure including owned and leased space at the Capitol Complex, presence of statewide long-range planning facility condition assessment, space standards, facility management entities, capital and controlled maintenance prioritization processes, and funding methods are highlighted in a diagrammatic form. 6-18

PAGE 116

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado MINNESOTAState Population: 5.3M Capital City Population: St. Paul, 285,068 Facilities Management Organization: Modied Centralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Plant Management Division Capitol Complex Master Plan: Prepared in 2013, focused on capitol building State of Minnesota is comparable in population to the State of Colorado thus providing an interesting comparative analysis. The Minnesota Department of Administration (MDA) and the Plant Management and Real Estate and Construction Services (RECS) teams maintain, operate, and manage all State real estate assets and construction projects. Planning at the Capitol Complex is conducted by either the Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board (CAAPB) or Minnesota State Capitol Preservation Commission (CPC). The CAAPB is mandated to develop a comprehensive use plan for the Capitol Complex. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan for the Capitol Complex was updated in 2003 by the Planning Board. The CPC is mandated to develop a comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Capitol building. Capitol report was prepared by the CPC in 2013 that identies maintenance obligations and space requirements. Despite the lack of state-wide facilities planning, a onetime State Facility Audit was prepared. Minnesota links agency strategic plans with budget process and requires agencies to include controlled maintenance requests as part of their budget planning consideration. Agencies are expected to submit long-term plans for capital budget requests to the Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). Long term plans are then linked to capital budget process by MMB. A backlog of Controlled Maintenance is funded by a dedicated funding source utilizing primarily general obligation bond funding; by statute this is set at 1% of current replacement value. MDA provides criteria for approval in the form of a comprehensive checklist which includes project impacts as a criterion. MMB applies these criteria to state-wide efforts. MMB expects agencies to identify, for each capital request, the projects impact on the agencys operating budget over the next six-years. Minnesota has established innovative space standards that acknowledge and embrace the evolution of the workplace. These standards anticipate the shifts in workforce and work place which include designation of spaces for resident and mobile employees. The space standards assign space based on the specic need, promotes exibility and adaptability, while economizing space need by driving up space utilization rates. 6-19

PAGE 117

6.0 Benchmarking University Ave. Aurora Ave. A urora Ave. 12th St. I-94 STATE CAPITOL Veterans Affairs State Office Bldg Department of Transportation Finance Department Public Health Lab Division National Guard Training and Community Center Department of Agriculture Department of Revenue Department of Human Services Minnesota History Center Department of AdministrationRev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. BlvdAdditional details about Minnesotas facilities management organization were collected from the interviews with the Minnesota Department of Administration (MDA) and Real Estate and Construction Services (RECS) divisions. The Following aspects of Minnesotas facility management structure were identied as best practices relevant for the State of Colorado: Modied centralized organization structure of the Minnesota DAS. Linking of long range plans to the capital budget process by the MMB. Streamlined process set by the MMB for approving capital budget requests with a comprehensive checklist to be submitted by the requesting agency. Application of innovative space standards based on need and exibility. Use of Enterprise Real Property System (Archibus) A facility management system is being used by Minnesota that has helped standardize the Facility Conditions Assessment process throughout the state. All agencies are required to prepare FCA through Archibus System. Minnesota Capitol Complex Site Plan 6-20

PAGE 118

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado Utahs Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM), State Building Board, and Capitol Preservation Board work in concert to develop a plan and budget in a streamlined fashion. The Division of Facilities and Construction Management have statutory authority over the allocation of appropriations for the States real estate capital expenditures, asset portfolio, and responsibility for the annual maintenance of a ve-year capital development plan. Utah State Building Board is required to develop and maintain a ve-year plan that includes a priority list of capital development with additional detail for projects within the rst two years. State Capitol Preservation Board is required to prepare and submit long range master plan for the capitol hill complex, capitol hill facilities, and capitol grounds annually. Utah has developed a robust list of criteria for capital projects, building renewal, and controlled maintenance projects. They include: the requesting agencys need; facility condition assessment that is performed by a third party; and life cycle cost analysis. DFCM and the State Building Board apply the criteria to the projects under review to help prioritize projects that are recommended to the Legislature for their budgetary approval. Utah is also proactive in regards to controlled maintenance by allocating 1.1% (although some national studies indicate that higher levels of funding in the range of 2-4% are more realistic) of the replacement value of its existing building assets to address the building maintenance backlog and funding. State statute sets annual funding at 1.1 percent of the replacement value of state-owned buildings for the capital improvement program. This equates to approximately $95 million.UTAHState Population : 2.85M Capital City Population: Salt Lake City, 189,314 Facilities Management Organization: Centralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: State Capitol Preservation Board Capitol Complex Master Plan: No document found, however State Capitol Board is obligated to prepare a long-range plan of the complex annually 6-21

PAGE 119

6.0 Benchmarking annually; however, the legislature has not always appropriated the full amount needed to address all of the immediate repairs that are needed. DFCM does not have space standards. Additional details about Utahs facilities management organization were collected from the interviews with Utahs Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM). The following aspects of Utahs facility management structure were identied as best practices relevant for the State of Colorado: Centralized facility management structure with Utah State Building Board and DFCM working in tandem. The State Building Board provides guidance on facilities use, maintenance standards, and design standards and oversees Facility Condition Assessment process. Utah has a dedicated source of revenue to fund controlled maintenance projects (1.1% of the replacement value of existing buildings). Utah has succeeded in integration of Facility Condition Assessment process (FCA) with the ve year planning process and with the capital budget approval process for identifying project priorities and decision making process. FCA program is funded by the Utah legislature. Use of Facility Management System (AIM through Assetworks) to produce and monitor facility data and metrics. Utah is currently in the process of updating statewide space standards. Each agency prepares a facility master plan and capital budgets with assistance from DFCM. State Office Bldg STATE CAPITOL E 5th N E 300 N Senate Bldg House of RepresentativesUtah Capitol Complex Site Plan (additional state-owned ofce buildings in adjacent downtown Salt Lake City) 6-22

PAGE 120

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado The State of Washington has developed a series of concerted planning initiatives to manage the States portfolio of building assets. Agencies are required to submit a strategic plan and facilities plan every two years. In 2011, the State created the Department of Enterprise Services (DES) to manage the process of folding these plans into a long range state-wide facilities plan. For facilities that are part of the Capitol Complex, DES works in conjunction with State Capitol Committee (SCC) to determine its needs. DES centralizes and streamlines all facility related functions such as: facilities operation and maintenance, lease administration, construction management, and project prioritization. The Ofce of Financial Management Facilities Oversight Unit (OFM) prioritizes the list of projects that are submitted to the Legislature for their consideration and approval. The OFM then applies a set of criteria including but not limited to: sustainability, condition assessment, life-cycle cost analysis, and requesting agencys need. This set of criteria is often considered by peers and industry analysts to be an example of best practice. DES uses uniform space standard per FTE employee. The following aspects of Washingtons facility management structure were identied as best practices relevant for the State of Colorado: Capitol Complex Master Plans used to prioritize and help in the decision making process (2006 master plan is currently being updated). Centralized facility management structure with DES and Ofce of Financial Management Facilities Oversight Unit working in tandem. OFM oversight unit was created by the Legislature to strengthen OFMs oversight role. Washington is using an alternative nancing structure under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 63-20 rule. This alternative method of nancing government and nonprot construction projects uses tax exempt debt. Created under IRS ruling #20 from 1963, it was revised by a new IRS procedure (82-26) in 1982. It allows for a nonprot corporation to be set up for the sole purpose of issuing tax exempt bonds and to enter into a development agreement to construct a facility, for a tax exempt purpose, for the government.WASHINGTONState Population : 6.73M Capital City Population: Olympia, 46,478 Facilities Management Organization: Centralized Statutory Authority over Capitol Complex Planning: Department of Enterprise Services, with input from State Capitol Committee and Capital Campus Design Advisory Committee Capitol Complex Master Plan: Last prepared in 2006, ostensibly updated biennially 6-23

PAGE 121

6.0 Benchmarking Employment Security Department Department of Enterprise ServicesNatural Resources BldgDepartment of Transportation Highways Licenses State Archives Capitol Court Capitol Park General Administration Capitol Conservatory Temple of JusticeInsuranceCherberg OBrien G overnnors Mansion Pritchard IBM Visitor Center STATE CAPITOL9th Ave SE 10th Ave SE Union Ave SEUnion Ave SE11th Ave SE Water St. SW 14th Ave SE Maple Park Ave SE Columbia St SWCapitol Way S 15th Ave SW 16th Ave SE14th Ave SE13th Ave SE12th Ave SE11th Ave SEFranklin St. SE Washington St. SEAdams St. SE14th Ave SEChestnut St. SE Cherry St. SE15th Ave SW Sid Snyder Ave SWCapitol LakeCentennial Park Capitol Lake Park Capitol Gateway ParkNorth DiagonalSouth DiagonalEast Plaza Garage (below)Law Enforcement Memorial WWII Memorial Sunken Garden Vietnam Veteran Memorial Korean War Memorial Water GardenWashington Capitol Complex Site Plan 6-24

PAGE 122

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado Table Comparing Facility Management Organization and Other Relevant Facts of Minnesota, Washington and Utah CATEGORY MINNESOTA UTAH WASHINGTON LEASED AND OWNED FACILITIES (STATEWIDE)Leased Space 30% 10% 40% Owned Space 70% 90% 60%FACILITIES CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT PROCESSPurpose Asset preservation/ Condition rating Used as a baseline for the ve-year plan Strategic Improvements Facilities Conditions Assessment ContractedFacility Engineering Associates (FEA) ContractedFaithful and Gould In Progress (2013)FACILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMAll facility management functions and data is tracked To produce and monitor facility data and metrics N/A Facilities Management Software State of Minnesota Enterprise Real Property System (Archibus) AiM Capital Project Management (Assetworks) N/ASPACE STANDARDSInnovative space standards that embrace the evolution of workplaceUtah State Space Standards (1994) in the process of updating GAs Space Allocation Standards Policy Manual FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION STRUCTUREManagement of State Facilities Modied Centralized Centralized Centralized State Facilities Commission / or Board / Agency Minnesota Department of Administration (MDA) Real Estate and Construction Services Division Department of Administrative Services Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM) Construction Division Energy Ofce Land and Real Estate Facilities Management Department of Enterprise Services (DES) Capitol Campus Real Estate Services Maintenance & Operations Construction & Public Works Energy Services Washington State Building Code Council Entity Managing Facilities within Capitol Complex Plant Management Division Buildings and Grounds/ Parking State Capitol Preservation Board State Capitol Committee (SCC) Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC) Agency with Statutory Authority to Oversee Planning and Development of Capitol or Capitol Complex Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board (Capitol Complex) Minnesota State Capitol Preservation Commission (Capitol) State Capitol Preservation Board Utah State Building Board Department of Enterprise Services (DES) with advice from SCC and CCDACFACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCELease rate is different for each building because debt service is included Lease rate charged by DFCM varies building by building Average $8/SF Lease rate currently $12.16 (includes capital budget surcharge for major maintenance of $2.39 which funds building operations among other issues)PLANNINGCapitol Area Architectural and Planning Board (CAAPB) Each institution Department of Enterprise Services (DES) Statewide Plans N/A N/A 2013-19 Six-Year Facilities Plan (2013) Capitol Complex Plans The Minnesota State Capitol Building Comprehensive 20 Year Master Plan (2012) N/A Master plan for the Capitol of the State of Washington (2006) Currently being updated Plans or Reports from State Facilities Commission / or Board / Agency Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board Biennial Report 2014-2015 The Zoning and Design Rules (2010) 2013-2017 Five-Year Building Program For State Agencies and Institutions (2012) A Performance Audit of State Buildings and Land (2014) Facilities Inventory System Report(2013) Agency Master Plans are Linked to Strategic Plans Yes Capital Budget Process Yes for the Project Requests Yes The Strategic Business Process Map 6-25

PAGE 123

6.0 Benchmarking CATEGORY MINNESOTA UTAH WASHINGTONPROJECT PRIORITIZATION, FUNDING and FINANCINGFunding for Capital Development Projects General obligation bondsGeneral fund (Tax Revenues)General obligation bonds and other dedicated revenues Funding for Controlled Maintenance Minnesota utilizes general obligation bonds for Asset Preservation projects with the amount set annually at 1% of current replacement value. Capital Asset Preservation and Replacement Account (CAPRA) is used for emergency funding Utah has a dedicated source of revenue from the general fund to fund controlled maintenance projects set at 1.1% of the current replacement value General obligation bonds and other dedicated revenues Public Private Partnerships None None Yesusing certicates of participation (COP) and lease purchase or lease development etc. Washington is using an alternative nancing structure under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 63-20 rule Who Prioritizes (State Capital Budget Board or any other)Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB)Utah State Building BoardOfce of Financial Management (OFM) Board / Commission Composition Commissioner of Minnesota Management & Budget is appointed by the Governor. MMB has about 250 employees Composed of eight members, seven of which are private citizens appointed by the Governor, and the eighth being the ex-ofcio member from the Director of the Governors Ofce of Planning and Budget. Staff assistance to the Board is provided by the Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM) OFM director is appointed by the Governor. OFM assesses the performance of state agencies, provides tools and technical assistance to agencies to help improve performance, and manages the Priorities of Government (POG) budget process Who Initiates Capital Budget Requests (All Agencies or Single Agency) Agencies are expected to submit long-term plans for capital budget requests to MMB Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM) submits priority projects to Building Board All agencies submit request to OFM Criteria to Approve Capital Projects (Statewide and/or Within Capitol Complex) A comprehensive checklist (See State of Minnesota Capital Grants Manual, 2012 for the full list) Weighted Criteria (See Building Board Capital Development Request Evaluation Guide, 2004) Capital Plan Instructions Policies / Criteria to Monitor Approved Capital ProjectsYes Minn. Stat. Sec. 16A.695, subd. 5No YesCapital budget requests are required to include operating budget impacts. Once budgets are approved, OFM monitors Capital Budget Requests Provide Life Cycle Costs Minnesota Management & Budget expects agencies to identify, for each capital request, the projects impact on the agencys operating budget over the next six years Guiding Principle from the highest priority projects listed in DFCMs Condition Assessment reports No 6-26

PAGE 124

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado For this Capitol Complex Master Plan, the consultant team evaluated state capitol buildings in the eleven states to determine among other data the extent of renovation and/or restoration, examples of utilization of found space within the building, and whether or not the Capitol Complex had a legislative ofce building in addition to the Capitol. CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Denver, CO Area: 52 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1886-1898 Area: 220,000 SF Architect(s): Elijah E. Myers Renovated: 2006 2015 (ongoing) Renovation of Capitol includes following projects: The Life Safety Renovation project (complete re sprinkler and smoke detection system and exit stair extensions) was completed in 2006 for a total cost of $27 million. The Dome Restoration project was completed in 2014 for a total cost of $17 million. Currently the House and Senate chambers are being restored for a total of $6.2 million to be completed in 2015. A large committee hearing room is being constructed on the second oor for $1.6 million with completion in 2014. Starting in January 2015, 44 House and Senate members will ofce in 1525 Sherman Building an ofce building that they share with the Department of Personnel & Administration and the State Auditors Ofce. Six members of the Joint Budget Committee ofce in the Legislative Services Building and the other 50 members ofce in the Capitol. 0100200 400N COLORADO STATE CAPITOL6.8 STATE CAPITOLS CASE STUDIESCAPITOLS CASE STUDIES Oregon Wisconsin Virginia Texas Arizona Kansas Washington Iowa Minnesota Colorado Utah N 0200400800 6-27

PAGE 125

6.0 Benchmarking CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Des Moines, Iowa Area: 170 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1871-1886 Area: 330,000 SF Architect(s): John C. Cochrane / Alfred H. Piquenard Renovated: 1983-2001 Renov. Cost: $41 million CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Phoenix, AZ Area: 164 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1900 Area: 123,000 SF Architect(s): James Riely Gordon Renovated: 1990s Renov. Cost: $3 million ARIZONA STATE CAPITOL IOWA STATE CAPITOL Arizona Capitol Complex Aerial view of Capitol Museum and adjacent House of Representatives and Senate Buildings Iowa Capitol Complex The Capitol Building houses the Iowa Senate, House of Representatives, Ofce of the Governor, and Ofces of the Attorney General, Auditor, Treasurer, and Secretary of State. The building also includes a chamber for the Iowa Supreme Court. Three other ofce buildings are located within the Capitol Complex. In addition to the Capitol, the Old Babcock Miller Building and Lucas Building adjacent to the Capitol house legislative support ofces. Exterior restoration of the Capitol was completed in 2001 at an estimated cost of $41 million. Interior renovation of Capitol is planned. A new Judicial Building of 123,800 SF was completed in 2003 within the Capitol Complex at an estimated cost of $27 million. Four legislative buildings are located adjacent to the Capitol Museum. They include the State Capitol West Wing, Capitol Building (1918-38 addition), Senate Building and House of Representatives Building. The Senate Building and House of Representatives Building located close to the Capitol Museum house respective legislature ofces. Other legislative support ofces are located within the Capitol Mall in vicinity of the Capitol Museum. They include the Joint Legislative Budget Ofce Building at 1716 W. Adams Street and two State Ofce Buildings (1624 W. Adams and 1616 West Adams). The Capitol Museum (1700 West Washington Street) has been used primarily as a museum for more than thirty years. A conceptual plan for the Arizona state capitol restoration was submitted to the Legislative Council in 2012 that proposed re-introduction of the legislative functions within the Capitol Museum and connecting the Capitol Museum with other three adjacent modern buildings with an estimated cost of $40 million. 6-28

PAGE 126

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Topeka, KS Area: 74 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1866-1903 Area: 300,000 SF Architect(s): Edward Townsend Mix (Master) John G. Haskell (Wing) Renovated: 2001-2013 Renov. Cost: $285 million CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: St Paul, MN Area: 97 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1905 Area: 378,825 SF Architect(s): Cass Gilbert Renovated: Phase I 2006-11/ Phase II 2013-17 (ongoing) Renov. Cost: $241 million MINNESOTA STATE CAPITOL KANSAS STATE CAPITOL Kansas Capitol Complex Rendering of New Visitors Center and Oce Extension to the Capitol (Image credit: Treanor Architects) Artists rendering of proposed legislative oce building to be built just north of the Capitol (Image courtesy of the State of Minnesota) Minnesota Capitol Complex The legislature ofces are located within the Kansas Statehouse (Capitol) Building. A 13 year multi-phase plan to renovate the Kansas Statehouse was completed in 2013 at an estimated cost of $285 million. It included construction of an underground two-story parking structure with a visitors center and ground oor ofce space (118,000 SF). The new visitors center was constructed on top of the garage and provides a connection between visitor parking and the Statehouse north wing ground oor. The legislature ofces are located within the Capitol. Full renovation of the Capitol Building is planned at an estimated cost of $241 million to be completed by December 2017. Renovation of the Capitol Building will require the Senate to lose 23,000 SF of ofce space for bathrooms, elevators and other improvements to the Capitol building. A new Senate Legislative Ofce Building of approximately 160,000 GSF north of the Capitol is proposed to provide new ofce space for the Senate at an estimated cost of $76.8 million. It is proposed to house all 67 senator ofces as well as three hearing rooms and additional space for the Legislative Reference Library. The House of Representatives members are temporarily relocated to the State Ofce Building at 100 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The Senate members are temporarily relocated to the Centennial Ofce Building (378,825 SF) at 658 Cedar Street. The House of Representatives members will be relocated to Capitol after its renovation. 6-29

PAGE 127

6.0 Benchmarking CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Austin, TX Area: 50 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1882-1888 Area: 360,000 SF Architect(s): Elijah E. Myers Renovated: 1995-1997 Renov. Cost: $98 million SUPREMECOURT BUILDINGTUNNELJOHN H. REAGAN BUILDING TUNNEL TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION and ROBERT E. JOHNSON BUILDING TUNNELSAMHOUSTON BUILDINGTUNNEL Engrossing&EnrollinggCAFETERIAGIFTSHOP Public Welcome!Enter Press CorpsHouse Mail Senate MailLOADINGDOCK TO13THST.&COLORADOST. AUDITORIUMSEAL COURTW MCENTRALCOURTOpen-airRotunda 204406306208410402 310 504 302216418318 508220206E1.002E1.210215 217 214 213219003 006 E1.020 E1.024 E1.034 015 E1.012 E1.016 E1.028 E1.036 038 E1.010 E1.014 E1.026 E1.030 032 E1.018 E1.022 011E1.008 Office of the First Lady & Governor's Appointments102102A424 324512 606 702 802 904 704 804 712 812 716 710 810 610 320 420 312 412 304 404212414314 506218422 322510 608 708 808 714 814 706 806E1.908316 416 308 408 E1.004House Appropriations Senate FinanceLBBSenators: E1.600s through E1.800s State Representatives: E1.200s through E1.500sE1.200'sE1.900's E1.300's E1.800's E1.400's E1.700's E1.500's E1.600's Baby Changing Stations E E E E E E E E LIGHT COURT LIGHT COURTCENTRAL GALLERYLIGHT COURT LIGHT COURT LIGHT COURT LIGHT COURT ELEVATORS TO CAPITOL NORTH WING TEXAS STATE CAPITOL CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Salem, OR Area: 88 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1938 Area: 233,750 SF Architect(s): Trowbridge & Livingston Renovated: 2007-2008 Renov. Cost: $34 million OREGON STATE CAPITOLOregon Capitol Complex Texas Capitol Complex First Floor Plan of the Capitol Extension Section through capitol proposed concourse level and additional hearing rooms (Image Credit: Oregon State Capitol Master Plan 2009) The Capitol houses the State Legislature, and the ofces of the Governor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer in the original 1938 portion of the building. The Capitol Wings house legislative ofces, hearing rooms, support services, a rst oor Galleria and underground parking. The Capitol Master Plan completed in 2009 identied additional space needs of 19,200 SF to be provided by a single story inll at the existing courtyard within the Capitol (existing area 174,250 SF). The Capitol is currently undergoing seismic upgrade and renovation following the completion of the Master Plan in 2009. The Capitol Extension an underground addition to the main Capitol with 667,000 GSF was completed in 1993 at an estimated cost of $75 million. It is connected to the Capitol and four other state buildings by tunnels. It contains 16 committee hearing rooms, 8 conference rooms, a large auditorium, cafeteria, and a bookstore. The Capitol Extension also includes ofce spaces for Senate and House of Representatives members and two levels of parking for the Capitol staff. In 1995, a comprehensive interior and exterior restoration of the Capitol was completed at a cost of approximately $98 million. The Capitol includes Agricultural Museum, Treasurers Business Ofce, Secretary of States Private Ofce, Senate Chamber, Governors Public Reception Room, House of Representatives Chamber, Legislative Reference Library, Supreme Court Courtroom, and Court of Criminal Appeals Courtroom. 6-30

PAGE 128

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Salt Lake City, UT Area: 144 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1912-1916 Area: 320,000 SF Architect(s): Richard K.A. Kletting Renovated: 2000-2008 Renov. Cost: $260 million Seismic Upgrade and Restoration CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Richmond, VA Area: 48 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1785-88 / 1904 (East and West Wings) Area: 180,000 SF Architect(s): Thomas Jefferson / Charles-Louis Clrisseau Renovated: 2004-2007 Renov. Cost: $104.5 million Restoration and new Visitors Center UTAH STATE CAPITOL VIRGINIA STATE CAPITOL Aerial view of Utah Capitol Complex (Image courtesy of Utah Governors oce of Economic Development) Utah Capitol Complex Virginia Capitol Complex Photos of new Visitors Center / Capitol Extension (Image courtesy of Commonwealth of Virginia) Two identical 92,500 SF new ofce buildings House and Senate Buildings, were constructed under a design / build contract as the rst phase of a comprehensive capitol complex restoration and construction project completed in 2004. These new buildings provided temporary space for the legislature during renovation of the Capitol. The project also included a parking structure with 316 spaces and landscaped plaza over an existing parking garage. The new House and Senate Buildings have ofces of lower ranking House and Senate legislative members respectively. The two buildings also have ofces for legislative staff and executive staff ofces. Higher ranking members have ofces in the Capitol. Multiple committee rooms exist in both the buildings. A $260 million seismic retrot and restoration of the Capitol was completed in 2008. Capitol houses the Assembly and Senate Chambers, and the State Supreme Court. The Capitol Complex also includes State Ofce Building that was built in the 1950s. It was modernized recently. The building houses about 150 to 250 employees. The legislature ofces are located in the General Assembly Building within the Capitol Complex. As part of the 2007 Capitol Restoration and Renovation project, a 27,000 SF underground extension was added to the Capitol in 2006 at a cost of $104.5 million to provide a new visitors center, reception, meeting, media, and multipurpose conference space for the legislators. 6-31

PAGE 129

6.0 Benchmarking CAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Madison, WI Area: 48 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1906 Area: 448,297 SF Architect(s): George B. Post Renovated: 1988-2002 Renov. Cost: $155 million Restoration + Renovation WISCONSIN STATE CAPITOLCAPITOL COMPLEX Location: Olympia, WA Area: 80 Acres CAPITOL Built: 1922-28 Area: 230,400 SF Architect(s): Walter R. Wilder, Harry K. White Renovated: 2001-2004 Renov. Cost: $120 million WASHINGTON STATE CAPITOLWashington Capitol Complex Wisconsin Capitol Complex The Senate and House of Representatives majority and minority leadership ofces are located within the Legislative (Capitol) Building. The Legislative Building houses both chambers of the legislature and Ofce of the Governor. Senators ofces are located at Cherberg and Newhouse buildings located adjacent to the Legislative Building. House of Representatives ofces are located at John L. OBrien Building adjacent to the Legislative Building. A three-year rehabilitation and seismic repair of the Legislative Building was completed in 2004 at a cost of $120 million. The Wisconsin Capitol underwent a 14 year multiphase renovation / restoration starting in 1988 and was completed in 2002 at an estimated cost of $155 million. Each phase focused on one of the four wings or the central portion of the Capitol. The legislature ofces are located in the Capitol Building. The Capitol houses both chambers of the legislature along with the Supreme Court and Ofce of the Governor. 6-32

PAGE 130

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado Major capital construction, controlled maintenance and building renewal project prioritization based on approved agency master plan, state-wide facilities plan and capitol complex master plan: Improve the completeness and comprehensiveness of the information used to prepare capital project justications and support decision making; Revise capital budget instructions to include total life-cycle cost for the projects; Include adequate and complete supporting documentation; Create a repository for future use to capture major project assumptions; and Create a pool of specialists to oversee capital construction project justications and funding requests. Implement lease surcharge (for agencies) and funding mechanism for controlled maintenance as part of approved operating budgets: Requiring all new capital construction projects to include a funding mechanism for controlled maintenance as part of the approved operating budgets.HYBRID ALTERNATIVEThis scenario combines recommendations of the 2012 Audit with other best practices from other states. Linking of agency capital planning and strategic planning and regular plan updates; Comprehensive facilities assessment of States real estate portfolio including the Capitol Complex. The results of such assessment will result in a long range plan that encompasses owned and leased facilities; Facilities conditions evaluated by independent third party; Centralized ownership, planning, and management of state facilities with added staff and capacity; Centralized leasing and coordination (authority to acquire, use, maintain, and dispose); Major capital construction, controlled maintenance and building renewal project prioritization by an agency or commission for legislative approval; Develop and adopt prioritization criteria / uniform maintenance standards; Potential oversight by an review agency; and Identify a dedicated source of revenue for capital facilities renewal linked to facilities condition assessments. Within the context of this master plan, the following three potential organizational scenarios are suggested for the States consideration and further evaluation based on the ndings of the benchmarking study. Further review and discussion of the existing facilities organizational structure is recommended to narrow down suitable options. BASELINE SCENARIOThis scenario recommends implementation of the November 2012 Audit of State of Colorado Capital Asset Management and Lease Administration Practices. The scenario will include the following recommendations illustrated in the adjoining diagram: Enforce agencies to have an approved Facilities Plan or Master Plan; Establish a statutory requirement to prepare statewide long range Facilities Master Plan linking to all agency facilities plans: Potential legislation to require all real estate related capital requests to be evaluated against an existing approved master plan. No major change in the decentralized facilities management organization structure; Continue to implement 2012 Audit recommendations for capital construction and lease administration including: Establish formal policies for the construction and administration phase of capital construction projects to ensure State agencies prepare project monitoring reports and thorough project closeout evaluations, including a written assessment of lessons learned upon completion; and Legislation to outline criteria for monitoring capital construction projects, length of reporting term, and capital construction close outs and when independent third party consultants should be engaged.6.9 POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR COLORADOMODEL SCENARIOThis scenario recommends adoption of best practices in facility management with following salient features: Strategic Asset Management Program; Linking of agency capital planning and strategic planning and regular plan updates; Inventory and database, comprehensive assessment, long range plan that encompasses owned and leased facilities; Centralized ownership and management of state facilities with added staff and capacity; Centralized leasing and coordination (authority to acquire, use, maintain, and dispose); Major capital construction, controlled maintenance and building renewal project prioritization by an agency or commission for legislative approval; Adopt prioritization criteria / uniform maintenance standards; Independent recommendations / review agency; Identify a dedicated source of revenue for capital facilities renewal; and Adopt best practices for uniform or tiered space standards. 6-33

PAGE 131

6.0 Benchmarking BASELINE SCENARIO HYBRID SCENARIO MODEL SCENARIO 6-34

PAGE 132

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado CHAPTER 6.0 BENCHMARKING KEY RECOMMENDATIONS A MINIMUM OF ONE FULL-TIME FACILITIES PLANNING FTE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT (OSA) TO MAINTAIN AND COORDINATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN. A NEW STATUTORY REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO INCLUDE STATEWIDE PLANNING WITHIN THE RECOMMENDED SINGLE COORDINATED GROUP WITH CAPACITY AND STAFF TO PREPARE AND REGULARLY UPDATE THE STATEWIDE LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANS. THE REVIEW PROCESS COULD ALSO BE LINKED TO AGENCY STRATEGIC PLANS AND THE CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN. THESE AGENCY PLANS WOULD REQUIRE REGULAR UPDATES. DEDICATED ANNUAL SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR CONTROLLED MAINTENANCE TO 1.5% TO 2% OF THE REPLACEMENT VALUE OF EXISTING ASSETS. SUCH A PROPOSAL WAS CONSIDERED BY THE STATE BUT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED. REVIEW AND UPGRADE OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO HELP IMPROVE TRACKING AND MONITORING IN FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS AND HELP IN PLANNING FUTURE NEEDS. MANY STATES REVIEWED IN THE BENCHMARKING STUDY ARE INCREASINGLY RELYING ON SUCH SYSTEMS. IN ADDITION, THE STATE COULD SOLICIT INPUT FROM A CONSULTANT TO DOCUMENT OVERALL CCF NEEDS AND PRACTICES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AND/OR SOLICIT PEER REVIEW ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER STATE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE. BENCHMARKING OF THE EXISTING LEASE RATES FOR AGENCIES FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COULD BE CONSIDERED USING THE STANDARDS PUBLISHED BY BOMA. CONTINUED USE OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING STRUCTURES (ALSO USED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON) USING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) RULING #20 THAT ALLOWS FOR A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION TO BE SET UP FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ISSUING TAX EXEMPT BONDS AND TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT A FACILITY, FOR A TAX EXEMPT PURPOSE, FOR THE GOVERNMENT.A single coordinated group that combines the existing functions of the OSA and CCF (both design and construction management and property management) with or without an oversight agency can be considered by the Department of Personnel & Administration. This single group could address all facilities planning and management issues relative to DPA owned/CCF managed buildings. In addition, the planning function could provide support to the Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting relative to the development and review of planning documents and capital construction requests. Many states that were reviewed as part the benchmarking study provide similar alternative models that can be considered including the neighboring State of Utah (centralized) and State of Washington (where a recent such restructuring was conducted). In addition to the potential changes to the governing or organizational structure related to facilities management and the need for long range facilities planning, the following additional changes should be considered by the state: Recommended Facilities Management Organization within DPA Existing Facilities Organization within DPA Fleet/ Motor Pool Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF) Design and CM (DPA) Integrated Document Factory Division of Statewide Programs Division of Central Services Leasing Energy Delegated Design & CM Statewide Colorado State Employee Assistance Program (C-SEAP) Administrative Courts (OAC) Archives OSA Division of Personnel and Administration (DPA) Capitol Complex Facilities (CCF) Division of Personnel and Administration (DPA) Fleet/ Motor Pool Integrated Document Factory Division of Facilities Division of Central Services Leasing Energy Delegated Design & CM Statewid -Planning Design and CM (DPA) OSA 6.10 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 6-35

PAGE 133

6.0 Benchmarking 6-36

PAGE 135

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS07

PAGE 136

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-1 7.1 INTRODUCTION Overview As part of the overall master plan, the team conducted an assessment of existing agency locations and space utilization. One outcome of this study determined that approximately 700,000 square feet of State agencies are currently located in leased ofce space in the downtown area nearby the Capitol Complex. The master plan team undertook a build/buy/lease analysis to determine the costs and benets of different scenarios for placing the agencies in leased or State owned space. This study referenced interviews with the agency directors and deputy directors. It took into consideration the individual agencies space needs and growth requirements based upon their program needs as well as historical expansion and reduction of agencies size. It is signicant to note that entire agencies such as the Department of Regulatory Agencies and the Department of Higher Education and half of the Department of Labor and Employment are located in leased space. The Secretary of State and the Unclaimed Property Ofce of the Department of Treasury are in leased rather than owned space. And nally, several of the organizational units of the Governors Ofce, which have been in existence for over a quarter of a century, including the Ofce of the Governors Economic Development and International Trade and Energy Ofce as well as more recently created Ofce of Information Technology, are in leased space as well. All of these entities perform ongoing functions of State government. These agencies were recommended to be consolidated in State-owned space while agencies having expanding needs are recommended to be consolidated in leased space. Additional areas of the analysis included facility renovations, urban design recommendations, and benchmarking recommendations with a focus on organizational structure. The recommendations that resulted from this master planning process are listed in section 7.6 (page 7-15) along with estimated costs and project duration.

PAGE 137

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-2 7.2 BUILD/BUY/LEASE ANALYSISMethodology The Build/Buy/Lease analysis conducted for the master plan is a comparison of the options that the State has regarding how its ofce space requirements are structured based on real market alternatives: leased space (status quo), build to suit ofce space or purchase of existing ofce space. The analysis was conducted by the master plan team in the fall of 2013 and then updated in August 2014. It compares costs both on a short term and long term basis. It is important to note that the Denver commercial real estate ofce market is dynamic and uid and therefore inherently uctuating as are construction costs. The ndings of this analysis are a point in time comparison of the opportunities available at the time of the study. Assumptions These assumptions were applied to the three options: The analysis evaluated the approximately 700,000 rentable square feet (RSF) of ofce space that is leased in downtown Denver and the surrounding metropolitan area. Market based assumptions for lease rates were provided for the Lease scenario. Estimated purchase prices for available market properties (1560 Broadway and 101 W Colfax) were calculated for the Buy scenarios. (Note: Due to the changing market, these properties are no longer viable purchase scenarios. At the time of the analysis, these buildings had adequate available space for State agency needs. At the time of publication of the Master Plan, non-State entities had occupied much of the available space, making the properties less efcient and desirable for purchase). Parking income assumptions, operating expense assumptions based on privately held buildings in downtown Denver, third-party tenant rental revenue (based on landlord provided rent rolls) and renewal fund assumptions (for purchase scenarios with third-party private sector tenants) were evaluated. COP nancing assumptions for the Build scenario are based on input from the State Treasurers Ofce. Cost estimating was provided for all construction and t-up assumptions and annual capital renewal reserves. The alternatives were evaluated over short term and long term scenarios for costs and returns (3 and 30 years). The status quo (leasing scenario) contemplates that the various State tenants currently in leased space (approximately 700,000 RSF) continue to lease, and the market increases at 3% per year (based on full service gross rates, before the property tax reduction is deducted). The purchase scenario used 1560 Broadway and 101 W Colfax as potential options for purchase. 1560 Broadway is a building totaling approximately 598,000 RSF and is proximate to the Capitol Complex. 101 W Colfax is a building totaling 305,000 RSF and is located proximate to the Capitol Complex. COP nancing was assumed based on an estimated market purchase price and the income from the various existing private tenants was included. This scenario also assumes that a $8.6M parking garage is constructed to meet parking demand. The build scenario contemplates that the Colfax and Lincoln site is developed with a 493,000 RSF/ 567,000 GSF ofce building. Construction pricing was based on an evaluation by the cost estimating team. The analysis received ongoing input from the Ofce of the State Architect.

PAGE 138

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-3 Line StatustQuot Buildtatt Lincolnt&tColfaxt(8) 1560tBroadway 101tW.tColfax FinancingAssumptions: 1OwnedbuildingRSF: 0 493,000 598,592 305,667 COPamortizationschedule:20years 2Continuedrdpartyleasedspace (afterrdpartiesvacate): 704,221 211,221 105,629 398,554 COPinterestrate: 6.00% 3Totaltenantpool: 704,221 704,221 704,221 704,221 4 5 FinancedtCosts 6 Assumedclosing/startdate:(1) 7/1/20167/1/20167/1/20147/1/2014 7Purchase/buildprice/ RSF(w/parking):N/A$315.65$250.00$385.00 8Purchase/buildprice(w/parking):N/A$155,615,450$149,648,000$117,681,795 9 Spacefit"up/RSF: (2) N/A$55.00$45.00$25.00 10 Spacefit"up: (2) N/A$27,115,000 $26,936,640 $7,641,675 11Totalamountfinance d:N/A$182,730,450$176,584,640$125,323,470 12Annualdebtservice,COPorotherbondfinancing:N/A$15,709,652$15,181,286$10,774,275 13 14YR"debtservice:N/A$47,128,957$45,543,859$32,322,825 15YR"debtservice(debtisfu llyamortizedafterye ars):N/A$314,193,047$303,625,729$215,485,503 16 17 OperatingtExpenses: 18 YR"buildingopex:(3)t N/A$12,130,265$16,822,530$8,520,981 19 YR"buildingopex: (3)t N/A$173,152,261$213,953,657$110,690,343 20Annualcapitalrenewalreserve:N/A$1.75$3.00$2.75 21Totalannualcapitalrenewalreserve:N/A$862,750$1,795,776$840,584 22YR1"3capitalrenewalreserve:N/A$2,588,250$5,387,328$2,521,753 23YR1"30capitalrenewalreserve:N/A$25,882,500$53,873,280$25,217,528 24 25 ThirdtPartytTenanttIncome: 26 Durationofthirdpartyincome: (4)t N/AN/AThrough/30/20Through/30/23 27YR"estimatedthirdpartyincome:N/AN/A ($13,874,380)($4,156,211) 28YR"estimatedthirdpartyincome:N/AN/A ($27,247,882)($16,159,544) 29 30 Parking: 31GarageConstruction@Sherman(1560Broadwayscenarioonly): N/A N/A $8,600,000 N/A 32 YR1"3ParkingIncome: (5) N/A ($3,776,220)($517,260)($4,329,000) 33 YR1"30ParkingIncome: (5) N/A ($37,762,200)($14,483,280)($43,290,000) 34 35 UptFronttCashtFundedtItems: 36 3rdpartyleasecostreservefund: (6) N/A$0.00$13.53$7.44 37 Totalrdpartyleasecostreservefund: (6) N/A$0$8,101,450$2,275,000 38 39 Continuedt3rdtPartytLeasedtSpacetintDenvertCBD: 40Continuedrdpartyleasedspa ce(AVGover Years):704,221211,221146,363418,054 41 YR"blendedaverageleaserate: (7) $21.50$21.50$21.50$21.50 42 YR"blendedaverageleasecost:(7) $45,420,927$13,623,356$21,192,199$29,898,359 43 YR"blendedaverageleaserate: (7) $33.14$33.14$33.14$33.14 44 YR"blendedaverageleasecost: (7) $700,062,723$209,973,784$132,282,191$409,831,293 45 46 YRt1tt3toccupancytcost:$45,420,927$71,694,608$91,255,727$67,053,708 47 YRt1tt30toccupancytcost:$700,062,723$685,439,393$678,705,145$704,050,122 48 YRt1t30tNPVt(6.0%)toccupancytcost:$281,722,360$330,768,342$340,290,405$322,081,793 49 50 IftGeneraltFundtfundedt(notCOPtfinancing): 51 Initialtappropriationt(build/purchasetpricetplustfittup+1560tgarage):N/A$182,730,450$185,184,640$125,323,470 52 YRt1tt30toccupancytcosttift100%tcasht funded:$700,062,723$553,976, 796$551,664,055$613,888,089 =CostsapplicabletobothYR "andYR"scenarios 53 =CostamountsapplicabletoYR"scenario 54 ResidualtValuet(est.t75%toft purchasetpricet+tfittup):$0 ($137,047,838)($132,438,480)($93,992,603) =CostamountsapplicabletoYR"scenario $0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 StatusQuoBuildat Lincoln& Colfax(8) 1560 Broadway 101W. ColfaxYRt1t3toccupancytcost: YR"occupancycost: $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 $800,000,000 StatusQuoBuildat Lincoln& Colfax(8) 1560 Broadway 101W. ColfaxYRt1t30toccupancytcost: YR1"30occupancycost: $0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 $300,000,000 $350,000,000 Status Quo Buildat Lincoln& Colfax(8) 1560 Broadway 101W. ColfaxYRt130tNPVt(6.0%)toccupancytcost: YR1"30NPV(6.0%)occupancy cost: 7.2.1 FINANCIAL EVALUATION

PAGE 139

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-4Notes (1) Anticipates a new building at Colfax Avenue and Lincoln Street would be complete 7/1/16 and therefore the consultant team structured the status quo option beginning 7/1/16. Both existing buildings are assumed to close 7/1/14. (2) For all scenarios (except for Status Quo), includes architectural design, tenant improvements and information technology. Does not include furniture (new or used), move management, or escalation. Assumes comparatively less t up costs would be required at 101 W Colfax (estimate of $25.00 / RSF) as the building is relatively new and the furniture would potentially be available. (3) Assumes $8.00 / RSF net of taxes for all scenarios, 2.5% annual increases. For 1560 Broadway, assumes $3.22 / RSF current property taxes, State occupancy at 100% by 2020 (no property taxes paid after that date). For 101 W Colfax, assumes $5.12 / RSF current property taxes, State occupancy at 100% by 2024 (no property taxes paid after that date). (4) Date of last expiring third party leases. Assumes all existing leases expire at scheduled dates; renewal options in third party leases are not exercised. (5) For 101 W Colfax, assumes $185 per space per month, 650 spaces. For Colfax & Lincoln, assumes $185 per month, 567 spaces. For 1560 Broadway, assumes construction of a new garage for $8.6M (incurred in 2015). Assumes $185 per month, 233 spaces (assumes no income until 2016 to allow for construction time). (6) Reserve fund to cover transaction costs should third party tenants exercise their renewal options. Assumes worst case, i.e. all third-party tenants (231,470 RSF @ 1560 Broadway and 65,000 RSF @ 101 W Colfax) exercise their renewal options at an average of $35.00 / RSF in required transaction costs (conservative estimate). (7) Blended average lease rate projections for all 704,221 RSF of leased space starting 7/1/16. Includes existing rents through expirations as applicable, future projections, and annual gross rate increases (property tax reduction) of 3.0% through the analysis term. (8) Assumes Colfax and Lincoln new building would be 567,000 GSF, 493,000 RSF. NOTE: 1290 Broadway (Security Life / ING Building) was contemplated for this analysis. However, only 66,000 RSF of vacancy exists in the building and the seller is very unmotivated which would result in comparatively expensive economics.

PAGE 140

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-57.2.2 LEASE OFFICE SPACE PROS CONS Requires least amount of up-front cash investment; lease costs are included in agencies annual lease line budget appropriation Space exibility easier to expand or contract leased space vs. owned space Preserves the Colfax and Lincoln site as the last large State owned development site in the Capitol Complex for future development Less disruption to agencies operations Subject to market lease rate cycles signicant potential for lease rates to substantially increase in a short period of time Unpredictable long range budgeting for leasing terms beyond 10 years No residual value Agencies are not collocated with resulting inefciency Higher cost to the State after approximately 30 years based on stated assumptionsStatus Quo Leased Space Leasing in the Denver CBD market and surrounding areas is a viable alternative and is the Status Quo scenario in the analysis given the approximately 700,000 RSF of leased space contemplated in the analysis. Lease rates uctuate as the market phases through cycles. These cycles are driven by supply and demand and are impacted by national and local economies, vacancy rates, absorption rates and development activity. Currently these factors are producing upwards pressure on lease rates and Denver is in a rising market phase ofce market cycle which is driving up lease rates. Because the Denver ofce market is inherently cyclical, pricing reductions will almost certainly occur when the market enters a falling market phase at some time in the future. However, since the state of Colorados outlook is long term we have conservatively assumed a 3% annual increase based on 2016 pre-property tax reduction lease rates (contractual or forecasted) over the full 30 year analysis term. Required Steps 1. Negotiate lease renewals for agencies located at 1560 Broadway. 2. Maintain existing downtown leases and expand as needed into additional leased space when necessary.

PAGE 141

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-6 7.2.3 BUILD AT LINCOLN AND COLFAX PROS CONS High quality ofce building located within Capitol Complex Fixes long term occupancy costs (except for operating expenses) Avoids exposure to current and future lease rate market increase Tangible asset owned free and clear once the debt is exhausted Potential to accommodate most of the existing State downtown tenants currently in leased space Collocation efciencies New building can include structured parking to address parking shortage Comparatively high development costs; less of a concern given the States long term (30+ year) outlook Some upfront investment is requiredNew State Office Building The Build option proposes a new State ofce building located at the Lincoln and Colfax site. Preliminary studies estimate that an building located on this site could yield approximately 567,000 GSF/493,000 RSF with structured parking and ground level retail uses. The building would have long term nancial advantages over a 30 year period and allows the State to consolidate agencies which are currently located in multiple locations into a single location, which promotes operational efciency, proximate to the Capitol. Required Steps 1. Obtain short term lease renewals for functions ultimately moving into new construction. 2. Begin design and construction of new building at the Lincoln and Colfax site. Financing Options The Lease vs. Buy vs. Build analysis contemplates essentially 100% COP nancing and is based on assumptions provided by the State Treasurers Ofce. This form of nancing would likely be the more cost effective alternative when compared to traditional nancing. Alternative nancing exists primarily in the form of various public / private partnership (P3) structures.

PAGE 142

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-7 NOTE: Due to the change in available space within this building and changing market conditions this property is no longer a viable purchase option. 7.2.4 BUY 1560 BROADWAY PROS CONS Quality (Class B) ofce building is located adjacent to the Capitol Complex Building could be purchased for less than replacement cost State of Colorado already occupies approximately 257,000 SF (43%) of the building Approximately 60,000 SF (10%) is vacant Could provide swing space temporary space for State agencies to occupy if State owned space is being renovated Fixes long term occupancy costs (except for operating expenses) Avoids exposure to current and future lease rate market increases Tangible asset owned free and clear once the debt is exhausted Preserves the Colfax and Lincoln site as the last State owned development site in the Capitol Complex for future development One-time opportunity within the Capitol Complex willing seller Building large enough to house downtown State tenants currently in leased space Existing tenant renewal rights out to 2025 would phase in State tenancy subject to existing third party tenants vacating the building at lease expiration Some upfront investment is required No parking (although this scenario includes the construction of a parking garage at 1555 Sherman with 233 spaces)1560 Broadway The acquisition of 1560 Broadway, an existing location nearby the Capitol Complex and one that is currently home to several agencies occupying leased space, would solve many of the States needs for space. Multiple State agencies currently lease space within the building; however, complicating the purchase, several private sector tenants have long term leases in the building which would require the State to become a landlord until these leases expire. The building is over twenty-ve years old and may require ongoing maintenance in the future. Additionally, the building does not include parking. Parking for agencies at this location would have to be accommodated elsewhere. Required Steps 1. Get short term lease renewals for all functions ultimately going into 1560 Broadway. 2. Move agencies into 1560 Broadway as space becomes available through tenant vacancies. 3. 1555 Sherman Street Construct proposed parking garage to create 233 additional spaces to meet the need for additional parking in the downtown campus.1560 Broadway Identied as a Potential Buy/Lease Option

PAGE 143

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-8 NOTE: Due to the change in available space within this building and changing market conditions this property is no longer a viable purchase option. PROS CONS High quality (Class A) headquarters type ofce building located near the Capitol Complex If Denver Post vacates, approximately 200,000 SF available Could provide swing space temporary space for State agencies to occupy if State owned space is being renovated Fixes long term occupancy costs (except for operating expenses) Tangible asset owned free and clear once the debt is exhausted Preserves the Colfax and Lincoln site as the last State owned development site in the Capitol Complex for future development Includes 650 parking spaces Smaller building (305,000 SF) vs. Colfax & Lincoln or 1560 Broadway (approximately 598,000 SF) Open oor plans not compatible with typical State uses Relatively high estimated purchase price Acquisition complexity Denver Post would need to negotiate a buy-out with the current owner (American Properties) American Properties may be unrealistic about the market value of the property Some upfront investment is required101 W Colfax 101 W Colfax would present several of the same challenges as 1560 Broadway with further complications. The Denver Post master leases the facility through September 2029 (a buyout would need to be negotiated) and has two (2) long term subtenants in approximately 100,000 RSF. The building totals approximately 305,000 RSF. The State would be required to manage these leases until their expiration. Required Steps 1. Get short term lease renewals for all functions ultimately going into 1560 Broadway. 2. Move agencies into 101 W Colfax as space becomes available through tenant vacancies.7.2.5 BUY 101 W COLFAX101 W Colfax Ave Identied as a Potential Buy/Lease Option

PAGE 144

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-9Outcome of Build/Buy/Lease Analysis This analysis indicated that, in the short term, the leasing of ofce space has certain nancial advantages. However, the master plan took into consideration the history of agencies located in the downtown and found that many of the agencies located in leased space perform on-going (not short-term) functions of State government and have been located in leased space for long durations. It is the recommendation of the analysis that based upon the rising demand for leased space and the rising market costs that the State would realize long term savings if these agencies were to be relocated in owned space. The ndings of the analysis also concluded that it would be advantageous for the State to build space suited for its needs rather than to purchase ofce space which was not specic to the requirements of the State and which would entail the State having to manage multiple private sector leases. Formulation of the Recommendations The recommendations were built upon the examination of agencies space requirements, building assessments, urban design analysis of the downtown Capitol Complex, benchmarking of comparable states, and the outcomes of the build/buy/lease analysis. The hierarchy of the recommendations addresses the States needs as identied in the master planning effort and seeks to create greater levels of efciency and effectiveness within state agencies by organizing them in right sized facilities which are economical, reective of the agencys needs, and which better serve the public. Recommendations addressing the urban design seek to create an active and user friendly campus within the downtown Capitol Complex that has a distinct identity but which is also interwoven with the surrounding urban fabric.7.3 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

PAGE 145

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-10AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONSThrough the analysis of existing space usage and the projection of future space needs, several recommendations were formulated for the distribution and relocation of State agencies and their employees. Leased space was found to be advantageous for the few agencies experiencing changes in levels of employment and programming in order to better address the uctuations they experience. Conversely, entire departments and programs are recommended to be located in State-owned facilities. As a result of this analysis and the increased need for State-owned space located in the downtown Capitol Complex, a new building of approximately 567,000 gross square feet is recommended for consideration. This new facility would accommodate a large portion of the space needs of agencies currently located in leased space. In addition recommendations for the right-sizing of employee work spaces and space standards have been suggested based on employee position and need. FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONSDue to a history of deferred maintenance and a backlog of capital improvement needs, many of the Capitol Complex buildings are in need of upgrades and, in certain cases, comprehensive renovations. Though all buildings under the purview of Capitol Complex Facilities group have maintenance needs to return them to efcient operating condition, several buildings in particular require immediate, critical upgrades. The master plan recommendations list the buildings which require systems and facility maintenance; eight buildings require immediate attention. The issues facing these facilities have potential impact on the life safety of visitors and tenants, loss of use of the facility, and the functionality of the facility. In order to address the current and ongoing maintenance and renovation needs of the Capitol Complex the State should consider a dedicated source of funding. It is recommended that an amount equal to 1.5 to 2% of the replacement value of existing assets be allocated for maintenance purposes. URBAN DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONSThe Capitol Complex currently functions as a singleuse district. The cumulative effect of the State-owned buildings and the other public institutions in the area create a district that is active during weekday work hours and comparatively vacant during evenings and weekends. Several recommendations were formulated with the goal of activating the campus; these include the integration of retail and residential uses within the Complex. The ease and clarity of access and mobility around the district is another issue facing the downtown campus. The location of the Capitol adjacent to busy arterial streets and the lack of signage and waynding make pedestrian access among State-owned and surrounding districts difcult. To address these issues, recommendations for the creation of a pedestrian-oriented, multi-modal (vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian) mall along Sherman Street, the installation of a comprehensive waynding and signage package, and the improved crossings over Colfax Avenue are recommended for consideration by the State. BENCHMARKING RECOMMENDATIONSThrough research, interviews and benchmarking of facility management, best practices of other states were studied. This benchmarking exercise has been compiled into a series of recommendations intended to rene efciency and organization of the current structure. These suggestions include the integration of the Ofce of the State Architect with a dedicated planning function and the Capitol Complex Facilities group into a single division which would coordinate capital planning and maintenance. The planning function could also provide support to OSPB. Additional considerations would include a statutory requirement for the preparation and updating of a Statewide long range facilities plan, tracking and monitoring facilities operations and maintenance budgets to aid in planning for future needs, using BOMA (Building Owners and Managers) published standards for the benchmarking of lease rates and maintenance cost, and the use of alternative nancing structures allowing for tax-exempt bonds for development.

PAGE 146

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-11CAPITOL MALL NEW BUILDING AT COLFAX & LINCOLN CAPITOL ANNEX RENOVATION CENTENNIAL BUILDING RENOVATION The purpose of the Capitol Mall is the creation of a central unifying element that will act as a connective feature in tying the downtown Capitol Complex Facilitiesmanaged properties together and the creation of a more cohesive campus environment with enhanced pedestrian accessibility and an improved experience for visitors and daily users. The Sherman Street mall would be an identiable central element featuring landscape, lighting, hardscape, building signage and pedestrian waynding improvements as well as improved pedestrian crossings at key intersections on Colfax Avenue. State-owned, underused or vacant sites along Sherman Street provide future opportunities for mixed-use development, including a State-occupied building at Lincoln and Colfax with ground oor retail/restaurant use. The Capitol Annex, at 1375 Sherman Street, is in extremely poor condition. Maintenance has been deferred and the building is in urgent need of renovation. The main concerns are related to an almost nonfunctioning HVAC system, the presence of asbestos, a deteriorated roof, single glazed windows,and handicapped accessibility, building code compliance and energy efciency issues and the near failure of exterior and some interior nishes in this historic 1937 structure. The energy upgrades would generate signicant cost savings in future years. The new HVAC system along with space planning based on the recommended space standard would allow better utilization of the building. Due to the asbestos, the Department of Revenue (DOR), the buildings tenant, would need to vacate the building for the duration of the renovation. After the renovation is complete, DOR would return to the building to be the sole long term occupant. The spaces will be right-sized to accommodate the departments needs. Renovations for this building would cost approximately $31 million in 2014 dollars. Currently a number of entire State agencies and ofces are located in leased ofce space. Relocating these agencies into owned space would save the State money over the long term and remove agencies from the rising costs of the private lease market in downtown. The construction of a new facility on the State-owned site on the northeast corner of Lincoln Street and Colfax Avenue would provide an opportunity to consolidate entire State agencies and ofces from private leased space into efciently congured owned space. Additionally, this would provide an efcient and easily accessible location for agencies that require convenient access to the Capitol Building. As an urban design element, this proposed building would create a strong gateway between downtown Denver and the Capitol Complex and improve the pedestrian experience on Colfax Avenue. The proposed building would be approximately 567,000 gross square feet and cost approximately $189 million in 2014 dollars. Similar to the Capitol Annex, the Centennial Building, located at 1313 Sherman Street, has not experienced a complete renovation since its construction in 1976. The signicant issues include a poorly functioning HVAC system with limited controls, unsafe electrical distribution system, outdated re alarm system, lack of accessibility for the disabled, building code compliance and energy efciency issues and the deteriorated condition of the exterior and some interior nishes. Another major concern is the age and condition of the automatic sprinkler system throughout the building. The energy upgrades would generate signicant cost savings in future years. The new HVAC system and utilization of the new space standard of 220 square feet per FTE would allow additional employees to be housed in this building. Following the relocation of the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to the 1570 Grant Building, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would relocate to temporary space in order to complete a full renovation of the Centennial Building. Upon completion, DNR will backll the vacated spaces allowing for the consolidation of administrative groups of DNR coming from other locations. The renovation for this building would cost approximately $41 million in 2014 dollars. 7.4 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

PAGE 147

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-121570 GRANT BUILDING RENOVATION KIPLING CAMPUS RENOVATION The 1570 Grant Building is in poor to fair condition with issues related to building systems, code compliance, accessibility and asbestos. Two signicant issues are the age and condition of the windows and the absence of a fully automatic sprinkler system. Energy upgrades would generate signicant cost savings in future years. The Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) will vacate 1570 Grant and move into leased space. The building will then be renovated for use by the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). This renovation should occur prior to the renovation of the Centennial Building at 1313 Sherman. The cost of agency relocation and renovation is approximately $6.8 million in 2014 dollars. The Department of Revenue has indicated that it is very inefcient to have the department spread out among several buildings in several locations in two owned buildings and six leased locations. DOR would like to be co-located or, at least, have the functions that are currently housed in the 1881 Pierce building relocated to a facility closer to the downtown departmental location at 1375 Sherman Street. This co-location or relocation should also allow for easier transit access to meet the needs of its customers. It is estimated that the sale of 1881 Pierce would generate revenue of $7.9 million. If that does not occur and the building is renovated system-by-system, the following deciencies need to be addressed: addition of a re sprinkler system, limited asbestos abatement, HVAC system upgrades, handicap accessibility modications, and site and parking lot improvements in this high public-use facility. The two State buildings on the Kipling Campus, 690 and 700 Kipling Street, present issues related to re alarm systems, elevator modernization, repair and replacement of window systems, HVAC upgrades in 700 and electrical upgrades in 690. With the recent relocation of several departments, there is available space for backll and growth for the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to expand into the vacant space in a phased renovation. The Ofce of Information Technology (OIT) data center will remain at this location for the near future and may reduce in size. DPS has submitted a formal request to fund this project in 2015. The cost of renovation is approximately $21 million in 2014 dollars. The pur chase of the 2.5 acre par cel dir ectly to the east of the campus was considered for expanded eet parking and site access, but was deemed unecessary at this time. If additional parking is needed in the future, the State may consider purchasing this site. The North Campus has three metal buildings that house DPAs Division of Central Services operations printing, mail processing, design services and eet. Two of the buildings are currently unoccupied except for use as storage and the third building has signicant building code compliance issues. The Division of Central Services would like to move its mail operations closer to the U.S. Post Ofce general mail facility; this would save signicant dollars because pick up and delivery costs would not be charged. It would also be possible to evaluate the construction of a two story building within the west parking lot at the North Campus and subsequent demolition of the three buildings. If neither option is chosen, the renovation of the three buildings would cost almost $10 million in 2014 dollars. DIVESTMENT OF 1881 PIERCE NORTH CAMPUS

PAGE 148

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-13 SYSTEM REMODELSLegislative Services Building Executive Residence State Office Building Human Services Building State Services Building Power Plant Grand Junction State Services Building State Capitol Building Though all buildings within the Capitol Complex have certain system upgrade needs, several buildings stand out as having more immediate and pressing upgrade requirements. The needed upgrades vary from building to building, but each issue has an adverse impact on life safety, loss of use/reliability, nishes, or overall energy efciency. Issues include, but are not exclusive to, roof replacements, elevator replacements, re safety upgrades, electrical system renovations, handicapped accessibility and building code compliance. Unlike buildings that require comprehensive renovations, these buildings in need of systems upgrades will have phased renovations done with the existing occupants in place. The cost for these combined upgrades and renovations is $129 million in 2014 dollars. The State Capitol building accounts for nearly half of this total at $62 million. The buildings in need of systems upgrades are as follows:7.5 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REMODELS

PAGE 149

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-14 Addition to Merrick Parking Structure Addition to State Office Building Grant Street Office Building Addition to Centennial Building West Lawn Project Addition to 201 E Colfax The proposed West Lawn concept consists of a landscape cover that would extend the west lawn of the Capitol into Lincoln Park directly west across Lincoln Street from the Capitol Building. The project could benet the Capitol Complex and the larger Civic Center by providing additional space for activities and programming, and potentially relocating parking from the Capitol circle to a parking structure located beneath the elevated west lawn. The entire scope of the project would cost approximately $69 million in 2014 dollars. The purchase of a privately-owned parcel directly east of the Capitol Building across Grant Street represents an opportunity to secure a strategic and important site within the campus for future use. In the short term, the site may be utilized as surface parking for State employees and provide revenue to the State. In the longer term, the site is envisioned as a site for a Legislative Services Building with a secure, sky-lit underground link to the Capitol Building to provide legislators and their service agency staff ofce space within close proximity to the Capitol and secure underground parking. This additional parking would allow for the removal of surface parking around the Capitol building. The building could include amenities appropriate for user functions such as a dining facility and a work out space. This project of 150,000 square feet would cost approximately $44.6 million in 2014 dollars exclusive of land. As an interim parking lot, it would yield approximately 125 spaces and the land would cost approximately $11 million in 2014 dollars. The surface parking lot at 1325 Sherman Street directly north of the Centennial Building, provides an opportunity for future State-occupied ofce space within the Capitol Complex. In the short term, the site can be used in its current function as employee parking. In the long term, the site can be developed into an attached ofce structure to the Centennial Building to accomodate expanding State agencies or further consolidation of leased space. The structure could be approximately 82,800 gross square feet at a cost of approximately $19 million in 2014 dollars. The surface parking lot located at 1530 Sherman Street north of the State Ofce Building, provides another opportunity for future expansion ofce space for State agency uses by constructing an addition to the State Ofce Building. The additional ofce space could be used to accommodate the needs of growing agencies or the transition of agencies from leased to owned space. The structure could be approximately 105,000 gross square feet at a cost of approximately $29 million in 2014 dollars. The Merrick Parking Structure, built in 2006, is approximately 200,000 square feet and has 660 parking spaces. Despite the relatively large size of this facility, the need for increased State employee parking spaces persists. The structure of the garage was designed to expand in the future to accommodate the growing needs of the Capitol Complex. Two stories could be added to the structure, adding approximately 282 spaces, at the cost of approximately $8.5 million in 2014 dollars. In addition to the larger recommendations laid out in previous sections, several other development options could be considered as Capitol Complex improvements. Some offer growth opportunities for State agencies beyond the timeline of this study. Others provide dramatic changes to the circulation, parking and civic landscape and illustrate the future potential of the Capitol Complex. These opportunities could be implemented over time to provide for future departmental growth, parking needs, urban design improvements, and overall exibility. 7.6 OPPORTUNITIES

PAGE 150

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 7-15 CapitoltComplextMastertPlantEstimatedtCoststandtProjecttDurations ration s Priority Recommendations System Remodels Opportunities Complete Renovation Systems Renovation DORA Lease New Construction Purchase Property Relocation of Agency Urban Design/LandscapeNOTE: All of the above costs are in 2014 dollars and should be escalated to the year construction will occur. The recommendations outlined within this chapter, as well as others found in more detail throughout the master plan, have been given an assumed cost estimate (in 2014 dollars) to help dene the scale and priority of each item. Additionally, each item has an associated time frame that is an estimate of the completion time in months from their respective beginning dates. Due to the variability of project initiation, exact dates for project completion are not supplied. 7.7 COSTANDTIMELINE

PAGE 151

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 7-16 8th AvenueLogan Street Golden RdInterestate 70Colfax Avenue 6th StreetUte Avenue 11 17 12 17th Ave20th AvePierce StReed St 6th AvenueKipling St 7 Downing St.62nd Avenue 9 Capitol Complex Kipling CampusExecutive Residence Camp George West North Campus Pierce Campus Grand Junction State Services Bldg 8 2 3 4 5 6 10 14 15 13 16 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 2012th AvenueLogan Street Grant Street Sherman Street Lincoln Street Broadway13th Avenue 14th Avenue 16th Avenue Colfax Avenue 1 3Project numbers correspond to those on the Cost and Timeline summary on the previous page

PAGE 153

CAPITOL COMPLEX MASTERPLANDENVER, COLORADO IMPLEMENTATION / FINANCING OPTIONS08

PAGE 154

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 8-18.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION / FINANCING OPTIONSCapital Acquisition and Construction Financing In Colorado nancing for capital acquisition, construction, and controlled maintenance projects can be a complex process. It is signicant that there is no dedicated revenue stream for capital construction; it is funded only when excess funds are available. Typically capital projects are funded by: State Fundswhich are primarily general funds transferred to the Capital Construction Fund and allocated to specic projects. Cash fundswhich are funds derived from private donors and public sources, including fees collected for specic services performed by State or local agencies. Federal fundswhich are funds provided by the federal government for specic grants and programs. Executive Branch agencies receive funding for capital projects by submitting their requests to the OSPB (the Governors Ofce of State Planning and Budgeting) which prioritizes the projects for review by the CDC (Capital Development Committee). The CDC makes recommendations for project prioritization and submits its recommendations for funding to the JBC (Joint Budget Committee) for appropriation through the Long Bill. During the past ve years (Fiscal Years 2009 through 2013), the funds appropriated for capital projects have decreased signicantly due to the economic recession as well as State budget-balancing measures. State agencies also use a variety of methods to fund capital projects, including debt nancing, Certicates of Participation, lease-purchase agreements, and fees. Certificates of Participation Certicates of Participation (COPs) are a type of nancing vehicle which differs from a bond in that the participation certicates are secured by lease revenues where an investor purchases a portion of the lease revenues and the proceeds of the purchase are used by the government agency to pay for construction costs. In Colorado statute requires all lease-purchase agreements for real property in excess of $500,000 over the term of the agreement, regardless of whether nanced by COPs or rent-to-own agreements, to be specically authorized by a separate bill enacted by the General Assembly other than by the Long Bill or a supplemental appropriations bill. Subsequent lease payments are then annually appropriated in the operating or capital budget. The lease agreement itself is renewed each year through the Long Bill appropriations process. Over the years, Colorado has nanced a number of projects with COPs primarily at institutions of higher education, though DOT and DOC projects have also utilized COP nancing. 63-20 Process These are tax-exempt bonds issued by nonprot corporations on behalf of state and municipal entities by following the requirements outlined in Revenue Procedure 82-26 of the U.S. Treasury. These bonds are commonly referred to as 63-20 bonds in reference to IRS Ruling 6320. Public entities typically use 63-20 bonds to achieve capital projects while preserving the benets of taxexempt nancing and maintaining governmental control of the facility being nanced. 63-20 bonds do not offer advantages from the tax-exempt nancing perspective; however they deliver the benet of transferring the nancing, development and potentially operation of the facility to a private development team managed by the nonprot issuer. The state of Washington has utilized this process on several projects. Recent Related Projects Recently the Judicial Center/History Museum project was nanced through Build America Bonds using a private non-prot entity controlled by the State. Currently, the Colorado Department of Public Safety / Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Pueblo lab acquisition project has been nanced with COPs issued directly by the State Treasurers ofce. In 2006, another CBI lab project in Grand Junction was nanced with bonds issued by a public non-prot entity formed by Mesa County and then leased on a lease/ purchase option to the CBI for a period of approximately 28 years. If the CBI exercises its option at the end of the lease, it can receive fee title to the property. Carr Judicial Center History Colorado Center8.1 IMPLEMENTATION / FINANCING OPTIONS

PAGE 155

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 8-2University of California at Merced The University of California, Merced is utilizing a P3 structure to design, build, operate and maintain a $1.5 billion dollar campus expansion. The expansion includes infrastructure, site planning, and multiple building types including recreation facilities. The main driver for the project is to ensure the substantial completion of all development by the fall of 2020, which would not have been possible to achieve under the UC systems typical project delivery process. Other drivers include providing alternative sources of nancing and transferring the operations and maintenance risk for the facilities to the private sector. Long Beach Courthouse The Administrative Ofce of the Courts (AOC) for the State of California utilized a P3 structure to build a new courthouse in the City of Long Beach. This courthouse is the rst major civic building in the U.S. to be delivered by a public-private partnership, in which the developer makes a substantial equity investment, and the public sector makes availability payments, allowing for deductions if the infrastructure does not perform to set standards. The project, completed under budget and ahead of schedule, provides for the Superior Court of Los Angeles Countys high volume of criminal, trafc, civil, and family judicial proceedings. It houses 31 courtrooms, court administrative space, detention facilities, ofces of related county justice agencies, and compatible retail space. The drivers for this project included: the need for alternative nancing, the guarantee of a date certain for delivery, the risk transfer for building maintenance to the private sector and the ability to offset a portion of the costs by allowing for private sector revenue generation within the development8.1.2 ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY THOUGH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPSFor the past decade there has been a fundamental shift in public sector real estate and building projects from the traditional project in which the project solely utilizes public funds and the public sector bears all the risk to pubic private partnerships (P3s) that involve a sharing of the decision making, investment and risk. These P3 structures, which have become a standard form of project delivery in the UK, Australia and Canada, have recently gained momentum in the U.S. across a wide spectrum of product types including, roads, buildings, bridges and railways. P3s usually are intended to address one or more of the following needs of the public sector: Transfer some, or all, design, construction, operations, maintenance and schedule risk to the private sector Leverage private sector expertise and capital to unlock value in public assets Leverage private sector innovation through performance based design Provide resources and expertise that may be unavailable to the public sector under traditional project delivery methods Avoid policy encumbrances that add time and cost to public sector projects There are many forms of P3s and every procurement should be structured to reect the unique goals and requirements of a project. In most P3s the public entity owns the underlying real estate and looks to the private sector to provide the know-how and capital to bring the desired development to fruition. In addition, the private partner often helps determine the project scope, remains in the project for a long period of time and may share in some of the returns if the project is successful or compensate the public partner if the project does not perform as specied. In all cases where a P3 is considered, it should be compared against the public sectors typical way of delivering projects. A common practice is to build an initial business case that compares the merits of all structures contemplated against their ability to meet the projects overall goals on a risk adjusted basis. This process is referred to as Value for Money analysis, which considers each project structure on a life cycle cost basis that incorporates estimates of all project costs (design, construction, operations, maintenance, nancing, etc.). It also uses subject matter experts to value the various risks that are retained or transferred under each methodology. The goal is to objectively analyze the benets and costs for each project delivery structure over the life of the investment prior to making a decision to move forward. The examples of P3s below help to illustrate some of the various ways P3s are currently being deployed on public building development in the US. Although each project is technically a P3, none of the projects are structured in exactly the same manner. This is because each project had different goals and objectives and programmatic needs. However, each project did invest in extensive up front due diligence comparing the merits of the P3 structure contemplated against the pros and cons of traditional public sector development structures. In each case, development, nancial and legal advisors were engaged to help guide the public entity through the process.

PAGE 156

Capitol Complex Master Plan State of Colorado 8-3Public Private Partnerships are not a magic solution for all projects, but they can often provide distinct advantages over traditional public procurement in some cases. As such, they should be a consideration in any large project where there is the need for innovation, speed, risk transfer and alternative sources of capital. The state needs identied in this Master Plan which might be ideal candidates for some form of P3 delivery are the State Ofce Building at Lincoln and Colfax and a new, more easily accessible Department of Revenue Building for the public access portion of the agency. When the State determines the scope and schedule of implementing this Master Plans recommendations, it should conduct the Value for Money analysis as described above as a component of the decision making process. The Unified Port District of San Diego The Port has engaged in a P3 process to redevelop 830 plus acres of reclaimed industrial waterfront property on San Diego Bay. Its objective is to partner with large scale private sector developers to create a large resort and convention center, retail, entertainment, and housing on the site in order to stimulate long term economic development and activate this underutilized land to the benet of residences and visitors. The P3 structure involves the shared public/private partnership development of infrastructure and the convention center to support private development on public land under a long term lease structure. The main driver for this project is economic development by leveraging public land in partnership with private sector developers who have the capital and expertise to do the development Center for Urban Waters, Tacoma, WA This project is an example of a 63-20 model which involves the development of a project-specic non-prot entity. After several years of planning, the $38 million project was designed and built in a short 18 months. It was completed in March 2010, nanced in the leanest of economic times, and delivered on time and on budget. The Citys vision: a 51,000 square foot state-of-theart laboratory and research facility, to be constructed using environmentally sensitive building practices, housing the Citys Environmental Services Division, the University of Washington Tacomas research labs, and the Puget Sound Partnership. To get the project nanced, Tacoma Environmental Services (TES) Properties, a single-purpose, non-prot corporation, was created to sell tax-exempt 63-20 bonds. With nancing in hand, TES Properties partnered with private developer Lorig Associates to design and construct the facility using its streamlined private sector development timeline. The City not only preserved its scarce nancial resources but also saved staff time and reduced its risk of exposure through its partnership with TES Properties and Lorig. TES Properties owns and manages the facility, leasing the building to the City for the length of the nancing term. Upon retirement of the bonds, the Center reverts to the Citys ownership at no additional cost.

PAGE 157

ttfrtftnfrtftbff 8-4

PAGE 158

RNL Design, Master Planning R N L | www.rnldesign.com 1050 17th Street, Suite A200, Denver, CO 80265 T 303 295 1717 F 303 292 0845 Josh Gould, Prinicipal and CEO Bob Beblavi, Project Manager AnneMarie Dienstbach Andrew Irvine Tom Hootman Amy Tabor Tom Gardener Jordan Block Andrea Springer Mike Karbach Rod Vanderwall Lance Shepherd Randy Giseburt Rick Lee Venessa LeferMASTER PLAN TEAMScott Villalva Mike Garrett Mike Moore Robert Abeyta Scott Madsen Sheila Santistevan Wallace Roberts and Todd, Benchmarking Yogesh Saoji Alesa Rubendall Jones Lang Lasalle, Real Estate Patrick Bolick Eric Carlbom CGL, Program Management Chloe S. Jaco Aaron C, Baggarly CBRE, Cost Estimating Chris Squadra Kyle Hoiland Anderson Hallas, Heritage Preservation David Anderson Nanon A. Anderson Fehr & Peers, Transportation Planning Carl Walker, Parking Martin/Martin, Civil Engineering RMH, MEP Engineering Dunn + Kiley, Landscape Architects Tacito Design, Signage and WayndingCONULTANT TEAM ADDITIONAL DPA STAFF