A Review of the State's Leased Space and the Leasing Process, General Services Enterprise of the Department of Administrative Services, July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2003

Other Audit Reports - State Leasing

Space Utilization and Building Study for the Department of General Services, October 9, 2000

Purposes of this Report: • Recommend the most logical and economical options to address state governmental space needs in the Polk County metropolitan area to the year 2010. • Include building size, location, phasing, financing, method of project delivery and estimated cost. • Develop a software tool to compare costs of leasing vs. ownership of space. Methodology: Identify: 1. Current amount and location of owned and leased space, by agency; 2. Types of space and whether best located on or off of the Capitol Complex; 3. Utilization of space, noting over-crowding and under-utilization; 4. Current number of workstations for full and part time employees, Personnel Employment Organization (PEO) workers, contractors, interns, etc.; and, 5. History of staff levels to assist in the prediction of staff growth. Scope: This report focuses on 10 state-owned buildings located on the Capitol Complex and 48 leased spaces in the Polk County metropolitan area. (See Figures 1 and 2.) • Due to a separate space study under way by the Legislature, implications of area and staff for the State Capitol building are included only for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Auditor and the Department of Management. • Because it is largely a museum building that does not have office space available for other agencies, the area and staff of the Historical Building are not fully addressed. • Only the parking implications of the new Judicial Building are included in this study because the building space is under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch and not available for other agencies. Several state-owned buildings are not included in the scope of this report, generally because they have highly focused purposes, and their space is not available for assignment to other agencies. Several leased locations are not included for similar reasons, including leases that do not fall within the authority of the Department of General Services.

State of Iowa Space Utilization and Building Study, October 9, 2000

Executive Summary Purposes of this Report: • Recommend the most logical and economical options to address state governmental space needs in the Polk County metropolitan area to the year 2010. • Include building size, location, phasing, financing, method of project delivery and estimated cost. • Develop a software tool to compare costs of leasing vs. ownership of space. Methodology: Identify: 1. Current amount and location of owned and leased space, by agency; 2. Types of space and whether best located on or off of the Capitol Complex; 3. Utilization of space, noting over-crowding and under-utilization; 4. Current number of workstations for full and part time employees, Personnel Employment Organization (PEO) workers, contractors, interns, etc.; and, 5. History of staff levels to assist in the prediction of staff growth. Scope: This report focuses on 10 state-owned buildings located on the Capitol Complex and 48 leased spaces in the Polk County metropolitan area. (See Figures 1 and 2.) • Due to a separate space study under way by the Legislature, implications of area and staff for the State Capitol building are included only for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Auditor and the Department of Management. • Because it is largely a museum building that does not have office space available for other agencies, the area and staff of the Historical Building are not fully addressed. • Only the parking implications of the new Judicial Building are included in this study because the building space is under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch and not available for other agencies. Several state-owned buildings are not included in the scope of this report, generally because they have highly focused purposes, and their space is not available for assignment to other agencies. Several leased locations are not included for similar reasons, including leases that do not fall within the authority of the Department of General Services.

Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1984

This research consisted of five laboratory experiments designed to address the following two objectives in an integrated analysis: (1) To discriminate between the symbol Stop Ahead warning sign and a small set of other signs (which included the word-legend Stop Ahead sign); and (2) To analyze sign detection, recognizability, and processing characteristics by drivers. A set of 16 signs was used in each of three experiments. A tachistoscope was used to display each sign image to a respondent for a brief interval in a controlled viewing experiment. The first experiment was designed to test detection of a sign in the driver's visual field; the second experiment was designed to test the driver's ability to recognize a given sign in the visual field; and the third experiment was designed to test the speed and accuracy of a driver's response to each sign as a command to perform a driving action. A fourth experiment tested the meanings drivers associated with an eight-sign subset of the 16 signs used in the first three experiments. A fifth experiment required all persons to select which (if any) signs they considered to be appropriate for use on two scale model county road intersections. The conclusions are that word-legend Stop Ahead signs are more effective driver communication devices than symbol stop-ahead signs; that it is helpful to drivers to have a word plate supplementing the symbol sign if a symbol sign is used; and that the guidance in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices on the placement of advance warning signs should not supplant engineering judgment in providing proper sign communication at an intersection.

Addendum to Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1985

This contract extension was granted to analyze data obtained in the original contract period at a level of detail not called for in the original contract nor permitted by the time constraints of the original contract schedule. These further analyses focused on two primary questions: I. What sources of variation can be isolated within the overall pattern of driver recognition errors reported previously for the 16 signs tested in Project HR-256? 2. Were there systematic relations among data on the placement of signs in a simulated signing exercise and data on the respondents' ability to detect the presence of a sign in a visual field or their ability to recognize quickly and correctly a sign shown them or the speed with which these same persons can respond to a sign for a driver decision?