April 2004 · Volume 86 · Number 3

Facilities Master Planning

Amy Tabor 
As a local government manager or facilities manager, you could be faced with a large inventory of obsolete, diverse, dispersed, and undersized buildings from which employees must dispense services to the public. Over the years, possibly you have tried to make do, first instituting open office plans and upgraded finishes, then setting smaller and smaller standards, then splitting functions, all while trying to get up to speed on new technologies that could help if they were not incompatible with your older buildings or existing infrastructure. What can a manager do?
While population growth is driving staff and service growth, the physical space is not available to support it all. Or, due to budget cuts, you are now underusing space or using it inefficiently. You may be losing employees to the private sector because of workplace conditions and the age-old “government image” problem. It’s possible that your government is leased to the hilt to make up for space shortages and that there are multiple leases all over town.
And while you may have recently completed a comprehensive plan with a clear strategy for how and where your locality will grow and develop, you may have no plan in place for the public-facility improvements, additions, and dispositions needed to support these changes and that growth.
A facilities master plan can assess these issues from the “micro” to the “macro” level. It can become a road map for decisions related to short- and long-term facilities, allowing your local government to improve its operational performance, service delivery, and space use while optimizing facility assets.
Public Versus Private
Pressure is mounting for local governments to operate more as private business does: to improve efficiencies, productivity, service, and, of course the bottom line. This means that government entities are facing many of the same facility demands that the private sector struggles with. These include cost-effectiveness, own-versus-lease decisions, the need to deal with faster change, upgrading and expanding technology tools and infrastructure, competing for good employees, and workplace needs like flexible work hours, better work environments, improved tools and work processes, ergonomics, and other factors.
Where master planning for public facilities differs from its private counterpart is in the additional factors that must be accounted for on the public side: the political process, citizen input, service delivery of essentials such as fire and police, city or county infrastructure, community planning, funding sources, and other unique elements.
What Is Facilities Master Planning?
This term means the process of defining current and projected facility-related requirements (programming) and developing strategic solutions to meet facility needs.
The first step in the process is to put together a multi-disciplined team to address the diverse factors affecting facility requirements and decisions. A team for a facilities planning project might comprise, among others, a facilities planner, architect, engineer, cost estimator, real estate consultant, representative end-users, elected officials, local government manager and assistant, and IT and MIS staff.
The planning process itself involves these three essential components:
DISCOVER
Observe
Identify
Inventory
Assess 
Understand

ANALYZE
Define
Qualify
Quantify
Solidify

STRATEGIZE
Synthesize
Explore
Prioritize
Discovery: Inventory and Insights
During this first phase of any facility planning process, key pieces of information must be collected, assessed, and understood. Often a public entity will have pieces of dispersed information about existing conditions, but that information has not been consolidated or shared within the organization as a whole. It is the planner’s job to root out information from various sources as well as fill in the gaps where information is missing.
A 10-year facilities master planning study for the city of Loveland, Colorado (population 56,000), for example, included the following sources of information: planning department for GIS maps and the current city’s comprehensive plan; facilities department for space plans and building drawings; MIS department for insights into technology use and directions; city manager for direction regarding overall city philosophy and political climate, as well as prioritization of operational/service issues; and individual department managers for operational/service delivery issues related to the current way of doing business, along with specific goals and objectives for improvements. The planning team collected these existing pieces of information and went on to identify where the gaps were.
For Loveland, some of the additional information that was needed included assessments regarding building and systems conditions, code compliance, and site conditions. The city also had no established set of space use standards and had not yet begun to track or calculate space occupancies. Additional background information regarding benchmarks and comparative standards and relevant trends were also needed. The planning team conducted additional data gathering and analyses to provide this information and complete the discovery phase of the project.
Analysis and Strategy
Once the fundamentals are understood, the next phase entails defining requirements and both quantifying and qualifying these to build a foundation for the development of alternative solutions. There are two key areas that need to be defined: 1) facilities requirements and objectives and 2) site requirements and criteria. 
The specific data and requirements that need to be defined for facilities include:
•	Functional and operational needs by employee and within and between different parts of an organization. What do individuals need to get their job done? What is the workflow? Where are there inefficiencies? Does the current space support operations or detract from them? What are the support space requirements? Which groups work most closely with each other? Does this relationship require physical proximity? 
•	Staffing numbers, both current and projected. These figures typically come from either the human resources department and/or from the organizational managers. Staffing projections should ideally be tied to the organization’s business or management plan. 
•	Current space deficiencies, inefficiencies, or excess. Prior to defining future needs, it is critical to identify gaps in meeting today’s requirements, or areas where space is being underused. This “rightsizing” exercise frequently represents the biggest difference in square footage, with more incremental changes over time. Your data should show current SF and staff, required SF and staff, and projected SF and staff. 
•	Technology use, both current and projected. In planning for today’s work environment, no picture is complete without understanding both technology infrastructure and hardware issues. These may contribute to space and facility decisions. 

For example, if a locality is instituting more e-government/ Web-based services, this may impact staffing numbers, or numbers of public visitors to their space. If certain functions need access to a fiber optic loop, then that may drive real estate location decisions. If the decision has been made that standard PC terminals will be phased out and replaced by thin screens, this may eliminate the corner work surface furniture standard. 
•	Building security, image to the public, and geographic location. Building security has taken on a new importance both to employees and to the public post 9-11. Many organizations have changed their real estate strategies in response to greater security concerns (lower profile buildings, more dispersed locations, and other tactics). Government entities are faced with creating more secure buildings while still appearing open, friendly, and accessible to the public. 

Geographic location of government buildings is a critical consideration relating to that accessibility, as well as to the maintenance and/or improvement of operational efficiencies. There is an aesthetic image to uphold as well that speaks to the symbolic "civic" role that government functions play in the community. 
The critical considerations for site requirements include:
•	Aesthetics and image are equally important from a site and land-scape perspective. The site can be an extension of the building in terms of projecting a positive image, providing amenities for both the public and employees, and adding value to the surrounding neighborhood or community. 
•	When assessing site criteria they must respond to and be integrated with the facility requirements. Things to consider include: will the site support building expansion? Will the site support the parking requirements? Where is the site geographically? Does it need to be centralized or is there a need for multiple dispersed sites? How does the site circulation work? Does the site need to be easily accessible via public transportation? What amenities does the site provide? 
Stratagems, Syntheses, and Prioritization
In the final stage of the facilities master-planning process, or the strategy phase, all of the discovery and analysis data and thoughts are synthesized into potential solutions. Multiple alternatives addressing short-, mid-, and long-term priorities should be explored.
There are multiple methods that can be used to explore alternatives; depending upon the issues you are addressing (building reuse/expansion, new building construction, site and/or building purchase or lease). This exploration may include developing affinity diagrams, stack and block plans, test-fit space plans, conceptual building designs, building footprint and site circulation plans, and cost/SF analyses.
Ideally, this brainstorming ought to occur not in a vacuum with the planning team alone but also with the end-users, managers, and decision makers involved. Brainstorming in this way arrives more efficiently at consensus on the ultimate recommendations. During this phase of a project, here are some of the key items that need to be addressed:
•	Parameters and priorities. 
•	Opportunities and constraints. 
•	Short-, mid- and long-term strategies or scenarios. 
•	Estimated costs, budgets and funding strategies. 
•	Implementation and contingency plans 
•	Phasing and scheduling. 
Keys to Success
Most public projects share a few elements. Here are just a few:
•	There will always be conflicting political or personal agendas, but in public projects, “political” doesn’t just mean internal politics. Public perception and approval of the plan, of a specific facility, of costs, and so on can be critical to the success of the master plan. 
•	Related to the factor of public perception is the dilemma of creating effective, efficient, and healthy workplaces while not appearing to the public to provide unnecessary luxury or to overspend for government functions. 
•	Frequently, public facilities master plans are called for only when space shortages and physical conditions have reached a critical point, making the end-solutions costlier than they might otherwise have been. For this reason, funding mechanisms and strategies must be considered in conjunction with proposed solutions. 
•	Prioritizing and phasing can be tricky when political personalities and agendas are at work. Social services, for example, may have the biggest need for a new facility but the least “sex appeal” and the least political pull. Likewise, there often is a divide of opinion between elected and appointed government officials and managers. Planners need to be objective facilitators. 
•	Beware the wish list. In all planning studies, some people ask for what they want rather than what they need. A consensus process, along with accurate assessments and an objective planning team, keeps this tendency in check. 
•	There also will be a faction of people resistant to change, particularly significant operational changes, changes in space standards and allocations and in technology. Involving as many end-users in the process of change and in problem solving is the most effective way to devise a successful plan, though this level of participation may not be typical of some public entities. 
•	A multi-disciplined approach and comprehensive study will produce a much more valuable master plan than separate planning efforts in each area, which can only be tied together after the fact. 
Case Study
Described below is an actual facilities master-plan project performed for the city of Aurora, Colorado. The approach also can be adapted for localities with smaller populations.
This rapidly growing local government with a population of more than 250,000 was facing significant (38 percent) growth over the next 20 years. The city owned more than 1 million square feet of space and had multiple leased facilities. Historically, growth had occurred in the central, northwestern, and southern parts of the city, but residential growth had begun booming in newly annexed areas to the southeast, with as many as 70,000 new homes projected within 10 years.
No public facilities yet existed in these new areas. A new highway was being built through the city that was driving retail, office, hotel, and housing development. The city was suffering from significant space shortages for both staff and support spaces in existing facilities and was projecting a 20 percent increase in staff in the next five years. City hall, which had once been central, now found itself on the outskirts of the city. Multiple departments had to be relocated into leased space because of a shortage in city hall itself.
The police department, with two districts, was proposing a third district to provide for the new residential growth. Likewise, the fire department was facing response-time increases because of the distances between established fire stations and new growth areas. Library resources and facilities were at least 50 percent below national standards, based on population figures.
Recreational facilities had not been expanded since their construction to meet the needs and new demands of a growing population. The city also was considering a new ball field complex and a new cultural arts center. And it was instituting more e-government services and steadily increasing the amount of technology used by employees.
The Planning Scope
Aurora decided to conduct facilities master planning that would encompass all city functions, including city hall, public works and utilities, fleet maintenance, courts, cultural arts, library services, fire, police, and parks and recreation.
Goals were to keep up with accelerated staff growth and greater demand for services, to improve service delivery and operational efficiencies throughout the city, to dispose of obsolete facilities, to reduce the amount of leased space, and to anticipate changes and trends in city services, amenities, and resources.
The consultant team consisted of two facilities planners, a database/computer-aided facilities management (CARM) coordinator, an architectural/ engineering assessment team, a landscape architect/planner, a GIS mapping coordinator, a real estate consultant, a technology consultant, a library planner, and a cost estimator.
The city’s planning team included the deputy city manager, the real estate director, the MIS director, and all department managers. Periodic reports were made to the city manager, mayor, and councilmembers, who gave final approval to the recommended master plan.
The first tasks at hand were to obtain all existing information pertinent to the project, including any drawings (electronic or otherwise) available for the more than 1 million square feet of space the city occupied. With the aid of the drawings and of extensive tours through the buildings, the consultant team made assessments of the existing sites and building conditions. These evaluations would provide information on the team’s recommended alternatives for code compliance, building system and equipment capacity and condition, structural concerns, interior finish conditions, lighting, and so forth.
A technology assessment was completed, addressing current and future technology infrastructure and the use of technology. An inventory of occupancy defined the current square footage occupied by each function. These elements were the starting point for a facilities database for the city.
The team interviewed employees in all functions to complete the discovery phase of the project. Interviews and corresponding written surveys supplied key information on current and projected staffing, operational issues, records management, technology use, current space deficiencies and inefficiencies, service delivery issues, and requirements for proximity among functions.
Using information collected, the team developed a facilities program for each individual function, quantifying and qualifying that function’s facilities requirements for the planning time frame. Specific space standards and space planning guidelines were written and approved for each function, in the form of a relational facilities planning database. Through the qualification of requirements, key criteria were defined for each function. Any alternative proposed would need to meet these criteria.
Recommendations for technology upgrades and implementation came next. In some cases, these technological issues affected some of the overall planning criteria, as when electronic transfer of information replaced the need for close proximity, or when personnel could be dispersed because they occupied buildings on the fiber-optic loop.
Several brainstorming sessions helped develop, explore, and refine alternative strategies and solutions. Multifaceted solutions addressed the complex and interrelated set of demands facing each function. Not only were square-footage requirements considered but also the existing conditions, cost to renovate, cost to replace, geographic location, land and buildings available on the market, site requirements, operational efficiencies, public perceptions, public input, service delivery, transportation concerns, civic presence, civic amenities, and many other factors.
The Outcome
The final master plan contained many elements and led to these approved solutions, among others:
•	Construction of a new city hall in a more central location, likely close to the existing justice center and main library so as to form a civic center. This action would also allow the city to vacate many small leased spaces and put the existing city hall on the market. (The new city hall was completed in 2003.) 
•	Construction of two new fire stations and a new police substation in the areas of new residential growth. 
•	Expansion and upgrades to several existing cultural facilities, rather than the pursuit of plans for a multimillion-dollar cultural arts center that would face competition from nearby localities. 
•	A new, consolidated, and enlarged northern regional library/community center, instead of the continuation of several small and undersized branch libraries; the development of a southern regional library; and the expansion of an existing central branch. 
•	New northern and southern regional recreation centers and the expansion/upgrade of an existing central facility, along with the sale or demolition of smaller, obsolete, and dispersed properties. 
•	A new southern operations service center for public works and fleet maintenance, plus an upgrade and expansion of the existing central and northern locations for these functions. 
Final Steps in the Process
End products of this effort have been:
1.	An updatable facilities planning database that contains not only the current facilities occupancy and inventory information but also the projected future requirements. 
2.	A master-plan document that incorporates descriptions of the alternative and recommended scenarios, preliminary phasing and cost estimates, as well as GIS maps indicating current and proposed future facilities, zones of service delivery, and transportation routes. 
After consensus had been reached on the overall recommended master plan, phasing and cost estimates were developed in greater detail and were finalized. When these were presented to the mayor and council in a public meeting, the city’s finance department was on hand to propose funding sources and strategies. The council approved a $16.4 million bond for public safety projects, a $34.1 million bond for recreation services projects, and a bond for $17.6 million toward library facilities.
Following the approval of the recommendations, more in-depth planning, conceptual design, and site master planning continued for longer-term projects, while design and construction began for near-term ones.

Amy Tabor is senior associate and facilities planner/programmer, RNL Design, Denver, Colorado (amy.tabor@rnldesign.com).