HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-06-002 - New Office & Furniture Standards ProposalReport To: Councillor B. Vrbanovic and Members of Finance and
Corporate Services Committee
Date of Meeting: January 23, 2006
Submitted By: G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services & City
Clerk
Prepared By: L. Proulx, Director of Facilities Management
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report: January 19, 2006
Report No.: CRPS-06-002
Subject: Request to Approve New Office & Furniture Standards
Proposal
RECOMMENDATION:
That the proposed revisions to office and furniture standards outlined in report CRPS-06-002 for
City Hall and other facilities be adopted; and,
That approval be given in principle to the increased use of modular furniture where appropriate,
subject to Council review of the related furniture tender; and further,
That consideration of the request for additional funding with respect to office
renovations/furnishings be referred to budget deliberations on January 30, 2006.
BACKGROUND:
City Council acting as the New City Hall Steering Committee in 1990 established an office
standard for the construction of the new City Hall. This report is prepared to give Council an
opportunity to consider proposed changes to the previous standard.
Staff retained Mayhew & Associates, an interior design firm to look at the existing typical floor
plate in the Berlin Tower and to design the space using modular furniture. This gave staff an
appreciation of the potential density, but more importantly, the design provided specific features
that would contribute to successful application of new office standards in keeping with what the
private sector is building in office towers today, and what the City is trying to achieve in terms of
work place culture.
...12
January 19, 2006
Page 2
REPORT:
Rationale for Chanae in Office Standards
The City Hall was designed to accommodate additional staff for 15 years beyond occupancy in
1993, predicated on an anticipated growth of 2% annually. In 1998, Facilities Management
proposed capital funding for an addition as planned for 2008.
Council indicated in no uncertain terms that they were not prepared to build an addition in 2008
and the line item in capital was removed. Since growth over time is inevitable and an addition to
the building has been rejected, there are only two ways we can respond to future growth: 1)
decentralize or, 2) adjust office sizes and work space standards in order to accommodate more
staff in the same space.
The change in workplace layout and furnishings also supports overall corporate change efforts
in terms of promoting employee interaction and collaboration through more team oriented
arrangements. More functional work and storage furnishings and equipment will also improve
overall office efficiency.
Nature of Change
In 2004, Facilities Management reported to CMT that we were at capacity on some floors of City
Hall. Since an addition was not an option we proposed the two solutions outlined above.
In effect there had been a migration toward these two solutions already. The concept of modular
furniture was applied in part when IT moved into City Hall in 1993 and then relocated to the
vacant portion of eighth floor. When we moved the By-Law Enforcement Division to offices at
the Duke and Ontario garage, we applied a modular office to a portion of the space in order to
accommodate the numbers of staff into the space available. Both changes have been
successful from a work productivity and employee interaction perspective.
Also, we applied the concept of decentralization in the preparation of the Consolidated
Maintenance Facility business case, by proposing to relocate almost thirty staff to this new
location. This would have provided short term relief, but would not have addressed the
underlying issues of longer term growth constraints.
The proposal before you today is to migrate to a new office and furniture standards particularly
in City Hall based on present need for expansion on several floors. In doing so, we
acknowledge that we will have two standards, the old and the new, on all floors for a long period
of time. We see no need to implement these changes on an entire floor in one step, but would
only implement as opportunities or circumstances warranted.
Attached is a copy of the proposed floor plan for the Building Division which illustrates how the
new standards would be implemented on that floor, recognizing this will vary from floor to floor
based on work requirements.
...13
January 19, 2006
Page 3
ImJ~=
In general terms, the Berlin Tower, from fourth floor to ninth was originally designed to an
average of 35 people per floor. With the introduction of modular furniture using the proposed
reduced office standard, it is conceivable that the same floor plate can accommodate an
average of 55 staff on the same floor plate. This is an increase of 57% over the original model.
The proposed new standard will accommodate growth for years to come.
In order to obtain input from staff several open houses were arranged to demonstrate what we
are contemplating. We proposed the new standards as shown below:
1990 Standard (S . Ft.) Pro osed 2006 Standard (S . Ft.)
GM 360 200 to 240
Director 180 150 to 180
Mana er/Su ervisor 150 110 to 120
Professional/Technical 120 80 to 120
Admin. Su ort 80 50 to 80
Rece tion 48 48
At this point the most pressing need in terms of office renovation is in the Building Division, this
due to the increased capacity required as a result of the seven new hire's and increased training
needs. In addition, IT (8t" floor} is spread over several floors and has been at capacity for
several years now. Given the absence of unused space any expansion in one area will affect
other areas and floors. As a result, staff envision the need to consolidate all of IT on the 8t"floor,
relocate Utilities to 5t"floor and Traffic and Parking to the 9t"floor, all in 2006. The 5t", 8t" and 9t"
floors are not presently capable of accommodating more than fifty staff per floor without
changing the standard.
Summary of Staff Comments
The open house held in December 2005 was well attended by staff who filled out 61 comment
sheets. Summarized, we had 13 favorable responses [21 %], 28 negative responses [46%] and
20 responses with more general comments. The main concern [28 responses] focused on noise
and ability to concentrate. Next was reference to lack of privacy and confidentiality [22
responses]. 16 referenced a drop in morale and suggested it would affect employee retention.
The positive comments referred to efficiency and better work atmosphere and promoting
employee interaction.
Many suggested a need for more meeting rooms and more storage spaces. Some suggested
we would need to develop standards or rules relating to tidiness, personal office adornments,
wall art, plants background music etc. Some referred to the need for "white noise" to mask
distracting office sounds and the need to bring natural light deeper into the building using low
screens or screens with glass on top. Some commented that this standard would apply well to
other locations beyond City Hall.
...14
January 19, 2006
Page 4
In all the comments received, there was no particular concern by staff as to the proposed new
office sizes.
We will work with staff to alleviate concerns where possible, and one of the things we are
proposing is to install a machine that produces what is termed as "white noise". It creates a
background hum that in effect helps to muffle sounds. It has proven to be effective in such
environments. Some staff who were in such environments in previous employment locations
comment that the equipment is very effective.
Response to staff comments
Positive and negative comments are helpful in assuring the impact of this type of change and in
addressing concerns where possible through the planning and design process. Design
suggestions made during the open houses will betaken into consideration in the event we move
in this direction.
As indicated above, we will look at installing "white noise" devices in open concept office areas.
We will also look at the number and location of smaller meeting rooms for privacy where privacy
is compromised as a result of removing walls or doors. It should be kept in mind though that the
new standard will be applied in consideration of the operational requirements of the work area.
The standard does not imply removing all walls and doors, only where it is appropriate, and the
relative degree of openness or enclosure is likely to vary.
The use of modular furniture is not a new concept to the City and has been in IT for some time.
When By-law Enforcement moved to the Duke/Ontario offices there were concerns and it is fair
to say that staff morale was initially affected. However, once on the work environment and after
having been involved in the design of the space, the positive features of this type of work
environment came to the forefront. Involving staff in the process of design will be key to
ensuring acceptance and in obtaining the best possible outcome.
Next Steps
A consultant will be retained to prepare a specification in order that we can tender for the
purchase of modular furniture. For continuity we propose to select a furniture supplier for a
duration of five years with an option to extend for another five years. The furniture will then be
tendered and presented to Council for approval.
At the same time, we will be revising the preliminary drawings to provide details required to
obtain a building permit acknowledging the additional requirements of Bill 124. The City now has
to retain a consultant in this regard as a result of the Bill.
The renovation would then be tendered. It is our intent to be performing this work in late spring
or early summer. We are under some pressure because the Building Division will be hiring
additional staff shortly.
...15
January 19, 2006
Page 5
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
A fund for City Hall renovations was established in 2004 and Council approved annual funding
in the amount of $25,000. We are proposing to increase the fund for renovations to $100,000
annually. Renovations proposed in 2006 are exceptional in that the Building Division requires
significant expansion in order to accommodate the increased staffing requirements and training
needs resulting from Bill 124. A copy of the revised plan for the Building Division is attached for
your information. The proposed budget for Building Division renovations has been separately
costed since this division operates as an enterprise. The construction budget, including
furnishings is estimated at $575,000.
L. Proulx, CET, CMM III
Director of Facilities Management