City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

Hello. Good. How are you doing? I'm good. desk must have. This looks like an old booth. Yeah, I remember them doing a while ago, I think. I think she came and spoke at a council meeting or something.

She comes to a meeting. She comes.

Do you do too? I'm not Bless you.

Thank you. building. All right, we will call committee of the whole to order. Um,

first I will move to approve the minutes of the February 9th committee of the whole without the necessity of reading. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I.

I. And that motion passes. Okay. So tonight um our main objectives uh for this evening we have all of the uh bonds notes legislation um that you know the finance department and our bond council has um asked that we uh whichever whatever we're adopting then we get it done by the next full council meeting which is uh our next meeting in March which means we need to get it out of committee of the whole uh tonight. So that's our main uh work tonight. So on the docket we have all of the bond legislation. Um and then we also uh we'll be getting a presentation um from planning obviously. Uh so what I want to make sure we do is save some time. Um uh Assistant Director Boss, how long do you think your presentation is?

Uh I'm going to try to keep it at like 10 15 minutes or less. Okay, that's great. Okay, so that that'll give us time um to liberate about the ordinances as well as um if anyone has questions about any of the other bonds uh ordinances besides the city hall stuff. Okay, so with that, I will turn it over, I'm assuming, to assistant director boss. Madam President, members of council, thank you again allowing me to come uh for you and walk you through what I've got and what you've got in front of you is really just um slides 13, 14, and 15. Um that if it's okay, I'm just going to jump to here. So if you remember from last time we left off at this slide, this slide 12, it's just kind of the basic analysis of alternatives and eliminating status quo, option one and option three with the community health center. Um so it really leaves us down to uh option two and option three. Sort of what I wanted to do um was hopefully just recap some things, provide some additional perspective um then stop talking and let answer questions and and and further deliberate um because again this is a broad high level scope kind of view at it and it's really it's a view to what's

the end what's the end state that we're shooting towards. There are lots of ways that you can get here and we can talk about all those different ways of getting here, but ultimately what is the end state that that we're working towards? Um, so slide 13 and I'll just go kind of top to bottom down here. Um, and I wanted to provide you the the hard copies there because I know they can be hard to see on the screen. Um so as we as we reviewed last week for priority one which is providing the police and courts the increase of renovated space to meet their needs. Both options work. Um I think one of the few uh the only change to the previous slides that I made was on the assumptions and I added another assumption just based on our discussion last time and and and further thought was that we talked about and I wanted to assume just in planning that the the council offices currently on the first floor in that lobby they they do need to move in order to create the space for that lobby. Now they can stay in this building. They could move to another building. That's all part of the plan, the planning process. But I I added that to an assumption. Um but for priority two, looking at that, you know, while achieving priority one, consolidating and improving the functionality of the administrative departments, I'll just walk down kind of through the criteria there from top to bottom. Um so we talked about departmental location and functional space. Um, and I know that there's concern about the additional space in the board of ed building under option three versus the kind of flex space under option two. Um, so that that additional space, that flexibility, I view that as an advantage of that option. Um there are and there will be regardless of the direction that you go,

you know, the Weber Murphy Fox uh space study, it was a snapshot in time. So any design effort once you actually get into the detailed architectural design effort of trying to determine space requirements and things you need that inherent flexibility and adaptability to go back through each department talk to the new people. Some departments have gotten bigger like ours some departments have stayed the same but it's going to be another rebaseline of functional space requirements. Now in the assumption I provided kind of that minimum for the administration of just to to allow us to kind of objectively look at each of these options. So but that may be that may flex up, it may flex down. I have a feeling it's going to flex up just when you start thinking about things. And and the other thing that was not included in that fit in any of those fit studies was storage space. There was no IT space in the new, you know, in either new building. Um and then there's the uh there's the decision that has to be made about where is council offices and the auditorium going to be. So in in my view looking at this flex space is an advantage and having more more space is an advantage. When you look at option two it it is more limited because obviously if you want to include more space you have to create a larger addition on the front of the building. How large that is, I can't tell you. I will show you a guesstimate here in a little bit of what just one kind of in terms of looking at cost uh a size that you know that might be within that range, but just staying within option two right now. You're locked into not a lot of adaptability with the administration all on the third floor. Um, and any changes that you make to that to try to accommodate any design

flexibility or things that come up in that design process is going to take away from police and further complicate that design effort of having the administration maybe not on the third floor. Maybe it's on the third and the second floor. How do people flow through it? Are people have to now flow through the police department to get somewhere? It just becomes more complex unless you make a larger and larger addition on the front of the building. And that obviously as it cascades down through these these other criteria adds complexity, it adds time, it adds cost, all of those things. In terms of points of service, we talked last time, option three uh is the one right now that consolidates the administration into one building. Uh option two retains the annex. It retains those two points of service. It's part of the staff surveys that went into that. I know there's lots of folks that work in finance and the water and the tax building that don't like being at the annex. They want to be consolidated. They want to be in that one location. Um, and again, the only way to rectify that, and that's what I put under here, I'm calling option 2A. 2A would be the larger addition on on the front of the building. So, the only way to accommodate that is through 2A. Um and that again you could design that you can design a larger building to in order to divest the annex. But as you start talking about the next one in terms of parking and we talked about the the complexity and the demands uh at both locations uh for parking. Option three does provide an advantage and objectively it it accommodates that same demand across two different sites. So it distributes the demand across two sites. Option two and option 2A would retain all that parking demand on this location. And if you went to 2A and you divested the annex, you're losing that parking lot. And and even though it's only a handful of spaces, it is a

handful of visitor spaces and some employee spaces that would then have to be accommodated on this site. And so you're trying to accommodate the same parking demand with fewer spaces. So objectively it's it's not as much of an advantage as option three. And then the last line of time complexity and then getting into co cost and sustainability. Both options will require some form of temporary relocation. It just has to happen through the the the construction process. You got to move folks out in order to start working on spaces. Um either way. Option three involves the renovation of two existing buildings. Option two involves the renovation of an existing building along with new construction and an addition on an existing building. Again 2 2A all depends on size. Um there are complexity, time and sustainability implications between you know adaptive reuse of existing buildings, new construction. There's unknowns with new construction. Um, in terms of, you know, when once you start breaking ground in front of this building, what's there? What's there that we don't know about? Um, and I I mentioned last time all the unknowns that we found just in about a 20 foot space on Lakewood Heights at Winterhurst in terms of when you start breaking ground, how many unknown things you find. Um, there are obvious differences in terms of cost per square foot between new construction and renovation. We're I'm going to talk a little bit about cost, but those are just some of the kind of again top level considerations as you kind of work your way down through the criteria that we've laid out for this private priority. The timeline at the bottom that is again that's Weber Murphy Fox's uh estimates um that I've just put on a timeline to show you. Um so that is eight months of design.

Is it going to take eight months of design? That's what they estimated. That's what I have right now in front of you. Um, again, the only consideration I put under uh you look at option two is that and we know from our own experience, anytime you add on to a building, you add on boards and commissions. Um, renovating the interior of a building does not necessarily require ABR to review that. Adding on to the exterior of a building requires ABR review, could require variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals anytime you change the footprint of a building. I'm just throwing that out there. It's additional things and additional consideration of when you go from renovating an existing building to adding on to a building could add on time and that's part of that complexity that I talked about. But you can see that just the inherent differences between new construction and the estimates for renovation. Um their current estimate for the renovations are shown there. Um and that accommodates a design renovation and then both of the green is a transition or that shifting from the temporary locations and getting everybody back into their new locations there. So if I jump to the next slide, we'll talk a little bit about cost. So what I have here is just it's just the Weber Murphy Fox uh and the PMC numbers that I believe you've all seen before um in those documents that came through I don't know how many months ago um when we looked at this. So what I've tried to do is I'm calling this a this is a scope of cost. This is a high level range of when you have anytime you got more than one person doing estimates, you start getting into a range of costs to trying to compare a range of costs between these two options and then take a stab as best I can to provide what would be the cost difference under an option 2A or a larger addition. What would be that

increase in terms of scope? Um, so looking at option two, as you start in that table on the bottom right, just working your way from top to bottom. Option two, we had estimates from both consultants, Weber Murvy Fox and PMC, they both did an estimate, same scope. It was that 5,400 square foot addition on the front of the building. You got a range from 255 to 30.9 million for that that option. Now, what would 2A look like? Now, what I did to get to 2A, I tried to keep it as simple as possible just to give a scope of, you know, we know it's going to cost more when you increase the size of an addition, but how much more and what is that in terms of this very high level scope of cost. Look at what I did was I took the that space at the annex that was in the Weber Murphy Fox. It's like it's 40 4700 some square feet. It's the uh second like group as you go down. Um they accounted for that space in the annex to be renovated at a rate of likeund 167 167 some dollars per square feet. So it was a cost of about $790,000. So what I did was I subtracted that because you're not going to do that anymore. We're going to divest the annex and we want to build a bigger addition. So I took that cost out uh from that uh I think it was the 255 um subtracted that and then took that space requirement for the annex and added it to the addition um to get a new footprint. Is that right? Is that too big? Is that too small? I can't tell you. But what it what I can tell you is that it adds the space requirement from the annex that we

were going to renovate into the new addition. So you could bring all those folks over and accommodate those needs with some design flexibility and some potential adaptation room in the future. Because it's a three-floor building that adds the size of that footprint to the first floor, the second floor, and the third floor. So, it does provide more space for police, which was something that we were looking for, but it gives you a new a new footprint of that addition of just over 10,000 square feet. So, it's roughly it would it would be roughly about twice the size of that addition that was proposed. So, again, is it too small? Is it too big? It's an estimate to provide you a scope that would show if you wanted to build an addition on the front that would most likely accommodate all of the needs so that you could divest the annex. You take that additional square footage and I use the new construction per square footage rate trying to keep this as simple as possible. you end up with a cost increase of about $7 million that you could add on to that cost. So that again, this is like fifth grade level scope. You end up with a range of a larger addition of about 32 to is that I'm sorry, I can't it's almost 38 or 37 million. So somewhere in there again high level scope of cost thrown it on the wall to see what a larger addition may add to that scope. Option three, we have the numbers from PMC. Um and then we have a number from Liberty. Um obviously there's a range there. Um so PMC looked at the renovating all of city

hall, a light renovation. So, you're assuming the administration is moving out $15.5 million to renovate all three floors for the court and the police. And then there was the uh estimated cost to renovate the board of ed building from both PMC and from Liberty. So, that provides us another range there, 32 to roughly $39 million. So when you kind of line those things up, if we're trying to do the same things that I talked about in the previous slide, that's pointing you towards an option 2A of a larger addition to accommodate the space that you need to divest the annex, consolidate the points of service all down, all by there's challenges with parking and everything else I talked about there from a high level from the range of or a scope of cost, you're roughly at 32 to 37 $39 million for either option. That's just from looking at the numbers that were presented. So, take it in at face value. So, I will wrap up and summarize here, but just there's been a lot of information. There's a lot of information in these slides. That's why this slide deck just kind of builds on itself. If I don't take slides out, they're all there um for your review. Um objectively, when you look at this from my standpoint, you look at the the criteria and advantages, the time frame, and that very high level scope of cost. I believe that option three still it provides you more advantages than either option two or 2A. That's that is looking at it objectively from a subjective standpoint. And I know you you've heard this from

other folks before. I also concur and I believe option three, it is a opportunity, whatever you want to call it, and I'm not into hyperbole, but how how many times in the history of the city has you had the opportunity to shift city hall to a new location? They've done it once. They've done it from Lakewood Park to here. arguably a generational opportunity to take city hall and move it consolidating all of its administrative functions in one location in the heart of the city, not someplace that's a mile from the center of the city that's further away from 2/3 or 3/4 of the residents of the city from everybody else. You have the opportunity to centrally locate this uh city hall. you have the opportunity to create a contemporary justice center reusing and adaptively reusing this building. Those are the subjective tugging at your heart reasons. Objectively though, going back through all these slides, I tried my best to kind of lay that stuff out, but and the numbers are there. Um, and again, it's a highle uh comparison. And so I I feel like this comparison would stand up to if you wanted to dive deeper into 2A. Nothing about the criteria that we reviewed is going to change unless you build that addition on top of a parking garage. You're not going to add spaces to this in terms of parking. Um there's there's lots of ways that you can skin that cat, but I believe that this comparison, this analysis would stand up to any kind of modifications of two or 2A. It is simply a locationational thing. There are physical limitations about this location and that's objectively why that I will recommend option three. So I will uh

stop there pending any questions. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Um, and we appreciate you putting all this together. This is the I think kind of databased analysis that we were initially looking for. So, um, it's helpful to have. Um, council members, questions? Council member Stre.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Boss, for the all this information. This is very good and very helpful. Um, and I did have a chance to look at the slides today and at at one point I saw something about the administrative um, square footage being lower than what they have here. And I'm I'm not sure where that was, but I just wanted to make sure that that was consistent with the surveys of the employees um, that were held that I don't think I don't know that I saw any of those surveys. we get those or when we when we talk to um department chairs and say, "All right,

Director Mahoney, what kind of space do you think you're going to need in the next 10 years?" And we see that in order to fit everybody into the new um board of education building that they're going to end up with less space. And I just wanted to make sure that that those numbers jived with what we're seeing with the surveys. That's my understanding uh council member is that so this this was the slide when I originally went back through the alternative versus priority one and what you can see in that the central line the administrative department line that's the function like the functional offices rooms meeting spaces that was called out that is in the Weber Murphy Fox space study that was based on the surveys that they did with the administrative heads and the members of each department. Yeah, actually this is the exact one I was looking at because it looks like we're losing

the 18 18,38 obviously not I think that's what I talked about last time is there's this this wide range of functional spaces between even the same consultant looking at the same requirements obviously when you when you squeeze it you know the administration onto one floor of this building you go from option one to option two so there's less space they're trying to do their best to fit it out there

the 18308 I think is closer to and there was interviews and a fit study done by Liberty as well as over Murphy Fox for the board of ed building again informed by the interviews with departments and folks and I think that was literally because they're looking at as that fit plan had there was anticipating a lot of kind of adaptation and flex into that space but they made the best efforts I think to apply it to the first and the second floors of that building not necess necessarily the basement of that building.

Um, some past I I know plans we've seen that they use some of that basement space, but this was the most recent one I think that you all saw. And so that's why through this process looking at that variance, I had to make that assumption of saying that given all this that I said I think it was 19,600 was kind of the minimum floor that we were looking for uh to get out of that. just knowing that when you get into the actual design process, people will ask for more space um than what a third party consultant may be like. Well, they can accept that um or we've gotten more employees in our department than when this was like a year and a half ago or whatever. And so that's why I use that floor minimum floor assumption and then put put value on the ability to flex if that makes sense. And then that 18308 that does that include moving the auditorium and the city council offices there.

It does not. That leaves them here and that because I because you can do it with either option two or three. I kind of left that out. Okay.

Of it. So that yeah that that new building that flex space I think that I talked about in the in this option like that 17,000 that's the majority of you know the basement and some other spaces in that board of ed building that if you wanted to move council offices which in one of the earlier editions they accommodated for council offices they had them in there they had them out like you it's it depends on you you have that option to make that decision either stay here or move to a new location. And moving to a new location, that's why I've highlighted option three, board of ed, is the one that has the flexibility to shift spaces around to accommodate that so that you could hopefully get a space that is that is similar to what you have now and you're not getting shoehorned into a smaller, you know, hearing room or something that you feel is not going to accommodate the number of people that you want.

Thank you. Thanks. Other council members questions. Council member Evans. Um just one question, a comment. Can you um can you go over again where the exactly the parking for the BOE building that you factored in is I know someone's on site. And then also just a comment that um it's been shown that there is an addition on the BOE building. So that would have to go through boards and commissions as well.

Yeah, you're right. Okay. the side. So, the parking I reviewed last time. Um, and again, this is an eye chart, but I tried to do the best to get down to some granularity. Um, so as you kind of work your way down through the center, the central column is option two. The far two columns on the right is option three with board of ed and community health center there. So, what I did was I did a uh from what I understand, the spaces on site. Um, now the ones that are in the numbers that are in red, hopefully you can see that on your screens, those are in red because they don't exist now. They haven't been built um or they haven't been designated. Um the spaces on site here are in black because they exist. Um and so and then the other thing that I accounted for in these was uh just like any any development, any business, you can under our parking code claim credit for because we'd like to be a walkable community. Um you can claim credit for municipal off- streetet spaces within 1,000 ft. Um, I know a lot of people don't like to walk a thousand feet, but I did want to accommodate 500 feet and 1,000 feet. So, I did a count on the municipal parking off streetet spaces that are available within 500 and within 1,000 ft. And so, this is where option 3 has an advantage. It's it's in the heart of downtown. There are multiple parking lots within 1,000 ft that the city does control and issue permits for. Um, and if you had to, we could issue permits to employees. We could issue permits to folks that are there. But that I wanted to accommodate those spaces because we allow others to do it. It's part of our code. And so that the first kind of dark

box a line a there gives you the total spaces and in the area that I will say within a thousand feet of the site. So yes, wall, board of ed, community health center very limited in terms of the spaces that are on site. Um currently and as proposed um they do accommodate the this third line down from the top is the visitor spaces. So currently we get we have 22 visitor spaces here marked at city hall. They could both accommodate 22 visitor spaces to be designated. Their their lots are big enough for that. So you could retain the same number of visitor spaces. Um that visitor spaces is viewed to be um right now uh sufficient for city hall based on the the number of daily visitors. I know um it's a crush here. Um and and that's I think due more to employees than to visitors. um with the few exceptions of those high demand elections and maybe council nights um when most of the employees are gone. But as you work your way down um from that total spaces line A, line B shows you the open spaces. Um the biggest challenge being located in this location with parking is that there are so many police and service vehicles that take up those spaces. Um and there's 80 like 85 spaces um is what I got from both police and from fleet in terms of the number of vehicles that they routinely have to park in the open spaces. So that reduces what I'm calling the estimated open spaces in line B down to 186 for option two. And because you don't have police or those service vehicles uh permanently stationed or you wouldn't under option three, it does not reduce the number available um there. And then you look at

the number of employees that routinely park on a daily basis here. Um and that gets you down to line C. Um and so you can see that the estimated number of employees, the administrative employees, that's 74. the number of public works folks, the number of police that are here on a shift, number of council office employees, and the court employees. Um, so that's about 200 people competing for 186 spaces. Um, that's why I have a hard time finding a parking space when I get here in the morning. Um, and so looking at option three, objectively fully understand that the on-site parking is is limited. Um, but the area parking is equivalent or better. Um, and the only reason when when we were talking about the community health center, which I then ruled out in a later uh consideration, is so high is because it's it is it was it will be adjacent to the brand new downtown development parking garage. um that those 300 or 269 spaces that that parking garage provides, those are the estimated number of open spaces that are not uh going to be directly allocated towards residential units in that parking garage. So, it's I consider that fair game. Um but really focusing on board of ed option three, it's the column option three column to the left. um 191 spaces. Those are the the lots uh immediately behind Starbucks and then the lots to the north of Detroit. Um behind uh Geigers all the way across there's two lots, a lot of spaces, a lot of permits that could be allocated towards employees or whoever to to offset that the the move of 74 69

employees to that area. that you would be taking that demand from here and moving it over to that location and then managing it. So hopefully that answers your question. Uh yes, thank you. I just the concern with me there is I mean we have you know our retail and commercial spots are a day doesn't go by when we don't hear about parking and if we are going to start allocating you know hundred some spots in our downtown retail lots to city hall employees. I think that's going to be a sticking point for a lot of folks. Um so I think we should keep that in mind. Thanks.

Thank you. Uh, Councilwoman Hamilton Steiner. Thank you. Um, so can we go back to the parking slide? Um, because I just want to um understand exactly just I guess what I'm looking for is a num the number of actual on-site that would be for um the daily visitors to city hall. And then of those that number that's estimated is that inclusive of um ADA parking spaces or is that exclusive of ADA parking spaces? Because then that number would essentially decrease the number that would be available for everyone else that is not needing um an ADA accessible spot.

So these these numbers are inclusive of ADA. ADA is always included in your Okay. Okay. Um, so I I count them just like any other space. Okay. Um, so how would we be able to figure out all others if that if if I'm making sense and how in my mind how I'm looking at that? So I am not a pro-AG expert by any means, but but having 22 say we have 22 designated visitor spaces out of the 38 at the board of ed building. Okay. So I I believe that anytime you have more than I think it's 25 parking spaces that this is where ADA comes in that it determines the number of those spaces that have to be ADA.

Correct. So given 38 total on site I think that's a requirement for two ADA spaces. One of them being van compliant.

Right. So, we would have a van compliant space, a regular ADA space, and then 20 additional visitor spots. Um, and so that would be roughly equivalent to what we have here at city hall. Um, we have ADA spaces in the back. um accounted those. But again, having 22 visitor spaces at the board of ed building versus having 22 visitor spaces here is 22 visitor spaces that are purely dedicated towards the administrative functions at at the board of ed building, not being competed with by people that are trying to go to see the police and pay a ticket, go to the court, all those other things. That's it kind of all goes into this calculus even though it's it's pretty high level and it I wouldn't necessarily do that but you could designate all 38 to be visitor spaces because it doesn't exist like but it this is strictly meant to be a rough area comparison of A, B, and C based on anticipated visitor demand, existing spaces that are available on site in the area versus staff and What? And so what's left over and how and how much staff do you have to manage? We would anticipate you have to manage 69 staff versus 33 daily visitors. So how do you do that? It's not 33 people all at once. So is 22 spaces too much? Is it too little? Um I think by the numbers here, there's there's a lot of ways that you can skin that cat and and still have sufficient parking for visitors coming to city hall. But as Councilman Evans point, like I understand parking complexity downtown, it's tough. Um, but there are more spaces there to manage than there would

be here. That's the objective point, I think. You other council members questions? Councilman Bullet.

Thanks, Madam uh, chair. Thanks uh members of the administration. Mr. Boss is always great analysis. Um one question and and a couple of observations. First, why does this analysis assume we're divesting the annex? That's to allow us to consolidate uh two points of service down to one, which is an efficiency thing. It's part of this. It's it's one of the guiding kind of principles of this effort, and it's what the employees want from those surveys. We've managed that. They don't folks don't like working at the annex. They want to be with their department and we can design that to be better.

Okay. What I'm driving at is there's space there close to existing city hall whether for an existing building for parking in that space or for making that space something else. We're talking throughout the analysis of alternatives about space constraints. um seems to me that putting that variable into play could be fruitful um rather than taking it as a given that we're going to devest that.

If you want to turn into a parking lot, again, that's an option that's available to you. You're not going to get very many spaces out of it, but I would I would consider what you would potentially get in terms of a sale of that property and development of that property from a pure sale point and tax production into the future versus creating another municipal lot sitting on Detroit.

Well, there there are a couple different options that could be considered. And it's I'm glad that there was an employee survey um about what you know the feedback of the employees, but if we're talking about financial and space constraints and complexity constraints, it's it's likely that not everything in the survey is going to come into play, right? So, um, it's it's great to have as a goal consolidation, but maybe we're not going to be able to afford that or maybe we don't afford it in in one full phase. And in fact, option three is not consolidation. It's it's a split. So, we seem to be of a couple different minds on on some of this. Um, so

I'm not following you, Councilman, on the split. So, we're not consolidating all operations in option three. We're splitting. We're consolidating all of the administrative functions with the exception of human services. It's already at Cove. Yeah, I understand. There's there's still two different locations, two different sites. Not following you, Councilman. Okay. You're going, you're propos option three proposes to have two different buildings with lots of city hall operations and lots of city hall employees. It proposes a justice center with the police and courts at this building and the administration consolidated at the border of that building.

I think we're semantics here. I mean, a justice center is part of city government. In fact, it's a crucially important part of city government. Public works garage is still going to remain on this site, etc. Right. So public-f facing administrative functions.

I understand that. Yeah. Um so but but we're we're having a conversation about you know on on the terms that you're defining. I mean, I guess I'm I'm inviting us to reconsider those terms and the parameters and and it doesn't sound like the administration is interested in moving off of how you're thinking about it. Um, so I just did my best, Councilman, to look at this objectively as anybody would. Okay. I appreciate that. Yeah, we're not I'm not trying to get argumentative. I I do think it's um it's unrealistic to think that the parking at option three, the downtown space, we're going to have employees presumably walk in all weather for a pretty long distance from the parking garage or public lots behind First Federal Lakewood or something is is equivalent. That's that's a pretty long hall. So I you know I think that objectively is not a fair comparison to be to be blunt and it also contemplates you know changing the footprint of the of the board of education building from front green lawn to a lot of hardscape and for the gain of some spaces which is good but it's not realistically robust enough to serve what we envision I So, okay. Well, again, I'm trying to I'm trying to engage in a dialogue here, not not in into a intentious debate, but I'm I'm sharing some of the the way I'm kind of thinking about the question. So, Madam Chair, Mr. Story,

yeah, your story.

Thank you, Madam President. A couple things in response to Councilman Bulock. I think one of the basic premises that we started with 14 months ago was we wanted to be in a central location in a hub. That was it. As it relates to the parking downtown, we've had discussions with other property owners nearby and I'm not fully confident, but I'm pretty confident that we'll be able to negotiate spaces within walking distance of our board of education site. The last part of this is also equally important to me. You know, Chris Ronain famously said at a speech two years ago praising Eric Wesser for the Sunduski move, saying that's why he hired him as his chief of staff was because he saw the city hall move in downtown Sunduski as a way to mobilize to get 150 people that were on the outskirts of town. Put them downtown, have them park, have them walk, have them go to the restaurants, have them go to the bars. It activates downtown. Ned Hill, all those people. That's like one of the core tenants you learn at Living College Urban Affairs. That's one of the primary things that we tried to drive here to you guys. Whether you agree with us or not, one of the drivers the mayor wanted was she wanted us to be not on the outskirts of town, downtown. That's what this was always about.

Uh, Vice President Baker,

thank you. And and uh to Chief Story's point, I mean, I I think um at least I see the vision um of the Justice Center and and activating downtown. um you know but we're weighing options and we have budgets and we have decisions to make right and so that's where that's certainly a compelling vision and I don't necessarily disagree with it um but as I go through this chart which by the way thank you assistant director boss a lot of information to get at 4 p.m. on a Monday as I'm trying to get my kids dinner and then come here. Um, you know, but going through some of the things uh and this is ultimately this is um still a lot of information and a lot of different cooks in the kitchen. You know, there's Weber Murphy Fox, there's PMC helped coales some data, assistant director BRS helped coales some data. Liberty has some data, some of which they shared. And I understand, you know, it's under this it's um retain flexibility for space. 17,000 square feet of space is is a lot of space. Um, you know, that's um, nine Lakewood houses. I don't know, eight Lakewood depending on the size of of of it. Um, and and I I'm trying to wrap my head around what from an administrative function um, the city could do or would it be beneficial for us to take on the additional costs associated with that extra space. So, I understand the concept of having room for flexibility. That's like an extra office here or there. How do you share? How do you be um as a department, right? Um and I live it every day at my current employer where we expanded and um you know an office space in certain locations is is more valued than in annex or off-site locations.

What are we what are we doing with 17,000 extra square feet? I think the predominant things that you know just that are that are missing from this storage it um the inherent design increases that are going to happen when you go back to every single administrative department and say oh yeah well we have a new employee we have two new employees we didn't account for them when we talked about this 14 months ago um and then there's this city council decision so that that 17,000 space there's square feet sounds like a lot, but it's not going to be a lot. When you go through an actual design effort of that building, people are going to spread out and they're going to find the space that they need. There are inherent limitations in that building to come up with the the the service delivery that you want in terms of tax and water on the right the right spaces and how you design that. um you know meeting rooms um and like like in a hearing room or an auditorium like I I I I don't feel like it's like it is a monu monumental amount of space.

It's almost the amount of space we have currently for administrative offices.

We have approximately 18,000 square feet. That's I I'm and I'm not trying to this is not intended to be argumentative to Council Bulock's point. It's just trying to understand Um and and that's just hard for me to wrap my head around. Um in a world in which most um particularly white collar style now I understand you know a consultant at KPMG or the Loy is not the same as someone who handles you know customer interaction public at the water you know or income tax department. Um but they're not super different. um in the sense of the the kind of standard amount of square foot you would want for them. I don't foresee us growing an admin staff particularly you know as you look into the future of kind of white collar work maybe maybe 10% up or down right I I don't I can't see into the future with AI and everything but I could see our on the road folks increasing right our our public works our police our folks that are out there in the city doing work and that's where I'm having uh a challenge with this 17,000 extra square feet Um some other things more high level Councilman Bulock talked about. I mean there is a way in which you you know I I I I think there's a benefit to phasing. Um and that's where but this is I'm I'm I'm trying to see through what is kind of a cloudy outlook with all the information we have. I'm trying my level best to manage all of these competing demands. Um but when you look at phasing, it's the same thing when you think about you talk to hospital systems about how they build. Um and so the idea is is you phase projects so that all of your stuff don't kind of like become

obsolete at the same time. So you're constantly on like a capital maintenance plan and addition plan. And so the that's where I see some benefit of studying this campus more to understand how we could phase and renovate in place and have swing space and and I think we've become and it's almost like we suggest something on this dis and then we're told why we can't do it but we're also not design professionals so we don't you know I can't say whether an addition on top of the municipal court would be good or feasible or not. Does that work with the current construction? I don't know. I don't know the steel bearing of of that building. Um, but I do know that there's a flat roof that you look out from public works. Um, the front, you know, maybe it's an option, maybe it's not. I I haven't seen someone run it to ground. I haven't seen it be explored beyond we don't think it's going to work. Um, so I do think that there is a benefit to phasing. Also, from a financial standpoint, right now, Lakewood's in income tax collections are are strong. property tax collections are strong. Also, looking out through the fuzzy world of of property taxes, we we could lose that in two years. Um I I certainly know the school district and my employer that is relies on property taxes for our funding is is very nervous about that. Um so the idea of phasing provides you some ability to not take a chunk all at once. Um the other thing, and this is where, you know, it's to Councilman Bulock's point, you know, we understand that the folks that are in in the annex would like to be in city hall, would like to be consolidated with their colleagues. And I think that's a noble goal for them to have, and I think that's a noble goal for us to aspire to.

I do think when you look at your cost estimate chart, you're basically saying $800,000 to renovate the space to give them nicer workspace, uh, renovated, modern, sleek workspace versus $7 million in in additional expenses to make the addition bigger out front. So to me, you want to aspire to give employees what they want, but when the cost benefit is times 10, you know, there's just budgets, right? Um, and so that's where, you know, you you you try your best and we're the fiscal agents of the city. uh and we try our best to see through the funding challenges and the cost estimates we're seeing to try to help and do what we can to get these employees better workspace and and it just but but to me if I looked at something and said we can either spend $800,000 to give you modern more updated workspace or we sent our budget up 78 million to build an bigger addition on site to me that's a no-brainer. you renovate their current space. But I'm absorbing a lot of this information right now. Um, but I I I still think that I'm having a hard time and this is where right we're going to do something with this bond anticipation notes legislation tonight. I think I'm have a hard time understanding what we do with 17,000 additional square feet of of space. And I'm I still don't feel like I have really good visibility in what we can do on this campus. And and Mr. Boss, I want you to know this is not an indictment of you or your work product because I think you're excellent and I think that you've done as good of a job as as someone who um is the assistant planning director and has other obligations beyond uh being an outside consultant with just this project. Um, so I want to say that

I I I very much appreciate your work on this. Um, but those the so one I don't know what we do with that extra square feet in a world in which square footage is shrinking for administrative employees because of work for home and because of you know you don't need to have giant you know a lot of our records retention schedules we can store things electronically rather than in paper. Uh, and then secondly, I I don't feel like I have enough information about whether or not expanding here is viable or not. So, that those are my comments, Mr.

Thanks. Um, and I just want to echo too, um, since, um, Assistant Director Boss did the presentation, we're sort of, um, targeting these questions towards you, but it's not necessarily, um, you know, we understand you've been, you're in a challenging situation here, and we appreciate the work that you've put in, so I just want to make that clear. Um, so we are running out of time in this meeting. Um, I'll just want to because the bonds are what we really need to get out of committee tonight. I want to make sure we uh look at that. One of the things that I'll say too is when I look at the sheet with the Weber Murphy Fox and PMC estimates um and this is something you know as we've been go sending in questions I've asked about too is um the level of renovation at this building. If we were to do option three, what level of renovation? And I know that was a conversation we had with um Weber Murphy Fox, David Th and and our PMC consultant of what are we and they estimated the numbers for the city hall renovations at the 15.5 million um with a very light touch to this building. So most of that money is taken up by we have almost $3 million in windows, a million dollars for the elevator. Um, so to the point about the extra square footage because that was something too, you know, as we went around looking at um on Friday went around and mayor took me around this building and the courts and stuff and um, you know, if most of the third floor moves out um, except the prosecutors, there's a lot of space here and how will that all be used? So, I'm thinking of this project not just, okay, if we did option three, we kind of have an idea of what

is happening. We have an idea of what Warren Road could look like, how it could function. We saw a fit plan. Um, not that that would necessarily be it. We don't know that yet. We don't know if we're doing um build to suit or design build. Um, we don't, you know, any of those things, but we have we can have a vision of what that looks like. What I'm interested in um before sort of jumping on that bandwagon is what happens here and what all that looks like and that design process. Um you know there's been ideas about with the justice center that we could have police training here. Um but that's not really flushed out either. And then um so that that's I'm thinking of it holistically in both of those elements and I have more questions about that. Um, the other thing I did want to talk about because it's the main thing we need to do tonight is the bonds. Um, is in terms of timeline, um, we have the 165 in the bonds for city hall right now to renovate and that would be for the Warren Road building, right? Is the 165. Um, is that accurate? Yes. Director Mahoney's nodding. Okay. So,

President Keville. Yes, Mayor George. Oh, I'm sorry. Or Director Frankton. I'm sorry. I didn't hear. Sorry. I was just going to say a portion of that would go towards um initial design for city hall here, existing city hall. Okay. Do you know uh how much? Um so I think it was going to be about one and a half.

Okay. And that's consistent with what um so Weber Murphy Fox and PMC showed about a million to two million for design. Um, you know, another option with that too is we have the one and a half in the land acquisition fund that could also be transferred out so that we don't necessarily have to um do bonds with that as well. So, some things to think about there. Um, but I did want to ask so that that is the question though is if we look at the 8-month design timeline, why do we need 165 taken out in 2026? Uh thanks uh councilwoman. So um as I had mentioned previously, if we were going to sign a design build contract for the board of ed building and um I have confirmed that with our bond council that we would need funding for the whole project before we could sign the contract for that. So that's where that number comes from.

So but we don't we don't yet know if we're going to do design build or build the suit. Is that correct? The recommendation was a design build, but was a recommendation. Okay. Um, so I guess the question before us right now is um for council members is are we is this the time? So the other thing is too is that we can go back out for bonds if this is not the time to take it out. Yes, vice president picker. So the recommendation is to acquire the building and then and then rely on our existing RFQ for design builder.

That's correct. And that's a pivot based upon conversations we had as well as um statements made by Liberty in front of you guys with respect to the fact that they would go, you know, whatever uh way is best to get to a yes is the way I looked at it. And in talking to Ernie, this is something that um I think would work out better. I think it would be more wellreceived by the seven of you and that would be something we'd be willing to do. And obviously developer is the key to the whole this whole thing. I was going to say with them with with them present. I don't want to say anything here about um price or anything of that nature, but I think that's a key variable in this because if if they decide that they're not going to stick around if they don't think there's anything coming, then I think we're just kind of wasting our time. But that I don't want to I don't want to speak for anybody. But the answer to your question is yes, a design build would be the preferred manner. We would go back to the same uh route we were looking at 6 to8 months ago and go that route. Yes.

Okay. That's I I was unaware of that. So, thank you. Um I I a couple weeks ago was um was development agreement, you know, with build the suit. So, um appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um any council members have questions on any of the other bonds before we go through this? If I if I may, just to make a point of whatever direction that council is going to go

and and and not to speak for council and so correct me if I'm wrong, I think we're all in agreement that something does need to happen to this building at some level. Um, and so we would need funds to move forward with any sort of renovation, whatever that's decided, of this building. And if we don't, that would mean that we're waiting another year to touch anything in this building. So, just providing that context.

Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I've said this repeatedly. I think most council members um I think what I've been hearing is every everyone on this day is committed to particularly solving the police issue problem. And then um as we've discussed, you know, I I firmly believe that our uh staff deserve to work in spaces uh that are comfortable uh that are efficient, you know. So this building definitely needs work regardless um and you know, not just the police with the other spaces as well. There's things that can be um better optimized, space that can be better used. So there's there is work to be done here. Um I do personally am not quite sure without having more of a plan. Um I'm not sure if now is the time to take out the 165. Um I do think we need to do design work here. So, um, but I'm not sure what that that cost would be if we want to. Um, we can take out the 165 from that bond legislation. I did send around to council members. There's a substitute where we could take that out of that part. Uh, we can also take out part of it if we wanted to commit to doing design work for this building this year. Vice President Baker.

Yes. is there and this is where I um also in capital planning I mean technically you can take out um bond anticipation notes for for design work um so it's allowable um but I think a prudent practice is to pay for it with cash I just don't know what our cash situation is um so I guess what I'm saying is as one of seven members like I I am willing to signal to the mayor um and the administration that design money in 2026 is really important. Um, how we get it, I think, and and if I I'm not going to speak for the finance director, but I I could expect what she'd say is give us authorization for it and then if we need it, we can go get it and if we don't, we could pay for it with cash.

Madam President, Councilman Bullet,

Sure. Thanks. It's a thoughtful conversation. Thank you. What's the it is the question I would pose to this discussion. So, if we're allocating $1 or $1.5 million for design, there's multiple concepts about what might be designed. This building, a new building, an annex, parking lot, a parking deck. So, to me, before you go to debt and incur guaranteed debt, financing costs for for providing money that way, you drill down, you get a little bit more consensus about what we're designing. I I'm inclined to think we could and should use time this year to make progress on that. But to me, it makes sense to to find it from a different source, not in bond financing. Or if it does make 100% to do it through bond financing, we come back as you suggest. Um just while while I'm kind of interrupted the the flow here, um it occurs to me, you know, operating costs of any new facility is an important variable. So, so we've been talking in the alternatives analysis about the pros and the cons. The total price tag is is kind of a ballpark, but the ongoing operating cost is important. I know the school board just made a decision, pretty painful decision to close an elementary school. They believe that that saves them significant amounts on an ongoing basis and they prefer doing that on facilities rather than staff and programs. So to a degree that that's true, that's another element that I I neglect I didn't mention before, but you know, once the ribbon's cut on a new facility, what's the carrying cost going forward? I mean, that that's got to be part of of our analysis as well. So, you know, to me, I I guess I mean, part of why we're discussing in these terms is city council's reacting to the proposal.

The proposal right now is to al is to finance the full option even though we're still in a provisional or conceptual stage and then say uh kind of in empower the administration to take the the concepts and the estimates to a detailed analysis in the future. I I prefer for such a high price tag to not do it that way because the opportunity cost is enormous for the community. I mean 6.5 million is a huge amount. We think we can afford it, but it could go to other things in the community. It it may be that this is a important use of funds, but if we commit those resources to this today, that means they're not available to other things today or tomorrow. So, so that's why to me it's a very um important and uh a decision that I that I'm want to be careful about and and uh get more clarity. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, chief. Sorry. Thank you, Madam President. To be clear, from our perspective, the police renovation and the phasing that work, there is nothing more important than that. That that is the alpha and the omega and has been for 14 months. That's the plan. We need money to be able to design it. That I I if if the 16.5 million is not palatable because the the idea is still in flux and may not happen, we still have to execute this. And that's what we're asking for here.

Thank you. I I think it's a little because the two things are joined in the same um ordinance of the design as well as the renovation of the Warren Road building. And we're sort of these these questions are getting conflated right now because there's two questions. answers. One is is is council willing to consider the Warren Road building at all ever or is it that we're not ready now and therefore not ready to allocate the 165 now? Um because that it is also is what is the design process then? Because if we're saying Warren Road is not an option that we want to consider at all ever, then we need to allocate design money to address the problems here. Um, if we're saying, uh, we still want to consider that, but we're not ready to allocate the 165 at this time and we could come back and go to bond later, um, that's also an option.

Vice President Baker.

Yeah. So, I think I'd want um So, I I I'm willing to appropriate funds and make it and give the administration the flexibility whether to pay for it with cash or bonds to do design work for this this site in the annex. Um and and I'd even be willing to have some alternatives analysis within that design. Now, I don't know how we I I could see a world in which if there was a a a verbal kind of agreement on the record that one or two members of council could be then involved with the meetings with that designer whenever they were selected. I just think that would be good. I think it would create a better guide glide path to success in the future. Uh and also provide for some input. Um, I think that would be a way in which maybe we could at least have a finger on the pulse of things and en encourage communication and collaboration. So, that's a suggestion.

If I if I may just and and councilman, I know you know this this world well, but um, you know, if we would just get the funds for design work, that would prohibit us from entering a design build contract. So, we would to be a construction manager at risk contract for this building. So this design will be separate from the construction. So this year would be spent on design and then when we go out to the bond market next year, that's when we would get the um ability to work with the construction team and have construction next year. So just clarifying that timeline. We would need the the full dollar amount for here if we want to do design build here. Um, I'm speaking from limited information because I don't know exactly what you guys have planned um or or or kind of what you're thinking, but uh what I'm talking about is hiring a criteria architect, which is a separate contract from a design build contract. Um, and then furthermore, when you hire the design builder, all you do is pay for uh pre-construction expenses, which is a very small amount. Um and then you don't commit the money until you enter into the GMP which would be when you start actual construction. So um you don't comm the whole idea of a design build contract is you enter into so you have a criteria architect that's different from the design builder. The criteria architect gets together schematic designs which are otherwise known as like 10 to 20% designs. Can't price it but you got an idea of what it is and that's a contract over here. And then the design builder comes and you have a qual, you know, qualifications and price based selection and you enter a contract with them. They have a designer and a constructor. But when you enter into contract with them, you just approve kind of like pricing for them to bring the contract documents all the way towards construction documents and you don't

commit the money until you enter to the GMP. So we wouldn't and and the whole idea is is that you can walk away and not but you own those plans, right? So the whole idea of a design builder is you can enter a contract with them and they develop the plans all the way construction documents and you can walk away and go hard bid um and just do so so I I unless you guys are doing it a different way um and I'm not sure u but I'm just saying how traditionally I've seen design build done in public construction. Thank you. Um, okay. So, we have these ordinances. Director Money, you look like you wanted to add something.

I I do. Yes. So, I mean, if if council, and I'm just going to put it out there, is is not considering the board of ed, then we need probably more than a million and a half to to start the the construction and design process to move quickly as we can to help, you know, alleviate the space in the police department. Um, that will also require moving, you know, and Councilman Bullock talks about two locations. Um, one of the the important things about the annex is the security over there. So, if we it's more than the employees wanting to be a part of the finance department, it's they don't feel secure over there. So, if we had to move administration out again, we'll be at two locations with no um thought of what are we going to do with these employees? um you know whether it's tax and finance or building and planning whoever we need to move out to start the construction on the women's locker facilities um you know that's still going to be two locations and then what happens where do we put those people there's no place to put them when it's when we're done because the police and court have taken over this building so again the the board of ed I believe is is a good option But if council is not considering that, um, uh, Director Bington had put together, um, just a a general estimate about $4 million to start the renovations and, um, the design of of the current city hall. Uh, that again would be moving um the administration to another building so that we can um, you know, start the construction here. So th those costs would be needed to be considered in all that as well. That's my two.

Thank you. So, Dr. Bington, the $4 million that would be for design of the eight-month I mean period that we have that they estimated or construction. Go ahead.

Thank you, President Kell. So it was a high level estimate um in regard to design work um for the entire building but then just implementing the first phase through a contract um which would include the garden level um renovation for expansion of the um the police department and then it would would include the um the locker room expansion for the women um and ultimately probably might be in the second phase would be the dispatch moving dispatch would have to move temporarily Um and then their final move would be up to public works based on the initial fit plan from Weber Murphy Fox. So it was it's just a high level um estimate on what we could do what we would hope to be able to enter into contract by the end of the year for with the design build company.

Councilman both I

I guess the the point of everything I've been trying to say is we don't know that that's what we're doing yet and that we're attempting to study. So, first of all, I don't know that I've heard city council for sure rule out Warren Road, although I'm I'm probably one of the higher skeptics. Um, I I appreciate everything that's been said and and and maybe I won't keep commenting, but I don't know that city council's ruled that out. What I'm hearing from my colleagues is um a lot more um analysis and study prior to feeling comfortable committing this enormous amount of money to this important purpose. But the idea is we want um to be sure that we've got the right option. And as these excellent slides show, there's many layers to that point. So the administration's been working on this. I respect how much time you put into this and and I I know you've got your thoughts, but I think um we still have a ways to go to get some consensus on what should the priorities and parameters be. So, for sure there's value to working in a timely manner to try to um get forward motion on police facility space, but I don't know if the 4 million is the right answer. Um, I mean, we should be talking some more about that, but but I don't want to assume a, okay, not a, therefore b for sure is what we're doing because $4 million is also a lot of money. So, so maybe that's a great price, but I don't know that tonight I'm I've I know for sure that that's um the way we should be committing resources. Um, so I think to me, Madam Chair, I think what we should be doing is continuing to be in close communication over the next 6 to 12 weeks to drill down and get further at this. So we we've we've at least this council person has more clarity and I'm

not putting that all on you. You guys have been communicating and given a lot. Okay. Um so that we do feel confidence about what is the amount and the timeline and the scope of what goes into design so that we can get more quickly out the other end of the design side and start putting shovels in the ground or hammers and nails into the wall. And Councilman, we need money to do that. Sure. It's a chicken and egg, but we need money to execute this plan. But 16.5 or 4.0 0 or 1.5 or a half mil is very different numbers.

But waiting 6 to 12 weeks will not get us any closer to the answer. The police are downstairs watching this very meeting. We know we have to do something. We're asking for if you're not going to do the 16 and a half, we need money to be able to at least get the ball rolling. That's what we're trying to say.

Yeah. And I I appreciate that. I think the challenge is that you know we we're we had seen on the previous slides about one to two million dollars for design no matter which option we did and then so had that number in mind. I wasn't clear that that was part of the 165. You know, we're learning all this tonight and then now it's four million. And so it's just it's a challenge to be prepared at this moment when we're also already over time in this meeting to figure out how, you know, if we're going to amend this legislation, what's the number we put in and what's it for? I I want to be crystal clear that you know and that's what I've been advocating too is part of this whole plan is you know doing the police as soon as possible like that's been the priority right so um not necessarily moving everybody out to war and then eventually getting to the police is that we need to be yes and walking into so um you know that's definitely a priority it's I think where I'm struggling now is just process-wise and legislatively of what motion am I about to make here, right? Um, so you know, we have we need to get the rest of the bonds out too. We got to pave roads, we got to do buns road, we got to do everything else. So we need to get through these. Um, and we need to know how much we're allocating and for what. Um, so uh, you know, we can, um, like we said, we can come back to do a bond separately. um if we wanted to have because we are in a chicken and egg of like which thing are we doing you know so we needed we need a direction um I guess one go ahead vice president Baker

yeah and I'm I so to to your point President Keell um explain explain the four million because I'm uh I want to to be clear um speaking for myself I want to appropriate money to help build a women's locker room and address those concerns. I I've heard one and a half million. I've heard 2 million. I've heard 4 million. What do we need to get that ball rolling and what would that money entail?

Three, President Keell. Um again, this is high level and until we have the actual design, you know, those numbers could change. Um so what we're estimating is uh looking at the the square footage of the garden level which is about 5600 square feet. Um renovation of the um locker room spaces in um in the place is just over 2600 square foot. Um and then eventually possibly within the first phase um moving dispatch from the temporary location um up to um second floor all in um about 3 million and that's at $288 a square foot is what we had estimated because that's what I had uh got from the um PMC um what I calculated off what they had um put in for the estimate based off the square footage. Um so then that brings you to three million. Uh that didn't include though all the design. Um so we we were saying four um is what we were asking for.

And and you think that this could be under construction in before the end of the year. So I don't know that it would be under construction. We we certainly want to do as much as we can as quickly um to get the ball rolling, but we would hope to be under contract at least by the end of the year. So we would need the money to enter into contract. But I do understand the criteria architect, you know, we'd have to hire them first and then there's a process we'd need to finish in regard to um procurement, but we still are want to try to be under contract by the end of the year.

Okay. Um you know, but assuming um we got this out of committee today, we wouldn't vote on it until full counsel next week. I'd like to sit with that a little bit. Um but cuz I you know that's tight. You guys are going to have to run sprint. Um you know and I that 266 a square foot or whatever it was at 288. it assumed kind of light renovation as opposed to you're talking locker room, you're talking plumbing, you know, you're talking

So again, I took it off of PMC's and I I think they used Weber Murphy Fox's um initial estimate which had various areas that they had light, moderate, and major. Um like the um the locker rooms were a major um and dispatch was a major. So it's it's a blend. I think it's an average of that and that's how they came to the 288. Um, so I I'd be comfortable, you know, doing that for what it's worth to my colleagues.

Yeah. Um, I think it's a good point that we do have whatever we pass out tonight is going back to full counsel. Um, so to the point too about process. So, if we're ready to commit funds so that we can um get the ball rolling with police, um then we can also work on the processes Vice President Baker talked about about having um a working group uh with a couple council members working with the administration on the long-term um project phase project. Um it is we we do have um I think it would be helpful to get a sense of whether council is at all considering Warren Road and wants to continue to consider that or whether we want to um you know in some ways clarity is kindness that we can at least know whether we are wanting to continue to to uh consider that option or whether we want to go all in on option two or option 2 a or or some other work with the administration on how we solve the full.

Yeah, madam president if I could just to be clear and I think I've articulated this before in my opinion um as the chief chief executive um I feel that there's too much risk and too many unknowns to build onto this building. So that is not something that I will be p pursuing on my end. So the the options in my opinion truly go down to the board of ed or make do with the space that we have here. M madam chair.

Sorry, madam chair. Um, so my my suggestion would be that we report out tonight a version of the ordinance without the 16.5 million and then invite from the administration an amendment on the floor next week with a $4 million included and understand in a little more clarity. I did hear the verbal summary here tonight, but what So that's a million for design, 3 million for construction if I'm following, but I guess I'd prefer to to a sleep on it and b kind of detail it a bit in writing. It's $3 million for $3 million proposed for construction renovation of existing city hall space with the emphasis on the police side of the building, I think.

Correct. It's not all of city hall.

Okay. and and that that could be something I could see myself supporting. It it begs some questions, although I think the um finance director alluded to this that okay, if you're doing that at the end of construction, then you're presuming that you're displacing some people using expanded space now and putting them somewhere else. So, so that's an example of what kind of what I meant before that, okay, how do we know that 1 plus 3 is the right number either? But I also hear the chief of staff's point that you want um to have some degree of resources to start working on the issue. So I I you know to me I'm receptive to that um discussion. That would be my own recommendation, Madam Chair, is is that the committee adopt a substitute. There are no motions on the floor, I know, but adopt a substitute before us, which would remove the 16 and a half, but then anticipate a potential amendment on the floor. And we've got we've gotten a good start tonight, I think. and then we could use the next seven days to be, you know, uh get a detailed little more detail.

I think that's a a good suggestion um that we can move this forward. Um and you know, and I'll just speak for myself too is that I am certainly, you know, I I I think our staff deserves quality working space. There's a lot of renovation that could happen to the point about the annex. Um, even if folks ended up staying at the annex, I think that space needs a nice big refresh. Um, and same thing here. Uh, so the I would be supportive of additional funding for the whole building to be um, renovated, but I would need to know what those numbers what those numbers are. So that's I, you know, would want to continue that dialogue. um and that there are other options like mentioned about building over the courts and um addition to the annex there there are other options but um let's go ahead and move things forward here. So um so let's work. So, I'm going to make a motion to substitute ordinance uh the substitute version of ordinance 072026 that was emailed to council members. Um that removes the 165. Um and we'll continue that conversation with the administration and get uh the numbers that we would we can amend it when we come back to full council. So, I'll move to substitute ordinance 072026. Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion. Uh hearing none. All those in favor? I. And then I'll move to refer the substitute ordinance 072026 uh back to full counsel. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. Okay. So then we have uh Ordinance 062026. Don't think we need any changes to that. So I'm going to move to refer favorably back to full counsel. Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. All right. Ordinance 08206. Move to refer favorably back to full counsel. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. Ordinance 09 2026. I'll move to refer favorably back to full counsel. Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. Uh, ordinance 10 2026. I'll move to refer favorably uh back to full counsel. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. Ordinance 11 2026. So move to refer favorably back to full counsel. Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. All right. Ordinance 122026. Move to refer favorably back to full counsel. Second. Motion's been made. Seconded. Councilman. Did you have Well, this says improving city hall on it too, but I don't know which.

Director Mahoney. Ordinance 12. It it does. It Oh, no. This is the refunding of last year. This is This has nothing to do with the new um Okay. The new Okay. So, this is the one where we're

Yeah. Okay. So, wait. We have a motion and a second to favorably back to full counsel. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I. Okay. And that motion passes. All right. And then we also have Oh, we do. We still Oh, we still have more. Wait, but wait, there's more. Ordinance 132026. Move to refer favorably back to full council.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. And ordinance 14206 moved through for favorably back to full counsel. Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes.

Yeah. 33 2025B is the um appropriations. So, first I'm going to move to amend the whereas clauses to match um to match the language of 33 2025A, which was the whereas clauses that Councilman Bola had introduced. Um so it would just add those additional warehouse clauses.

Second. Motion's been made and seconded just so it's consistent. Um includes those council priorities and the warehouses. Um any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes. And then we would need to Madam Chair. Yes. Councilman Bod is

we the committee could also just move to defer on this item. I I think I think the purpose of this was to propose the appropriation of additional funds for the purpose of the 16.5 million dollars um in the capital fund. I think we'd have to get out of committee though. Yeah. If we wanted it on full counsel to the motion that may be coming. Okay. So, so in which case then there's some numbers in here that Yeah, we would need to from the capital improvement fund line. Is that correct, Director Mahoney? That's correct. Okay.

That's the only change in Yeah. Okay. So, I'm gonna um move to subtract the 16.5 million from the capital improvement fund um in this ordinance. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion, madame chair, council bullet. So, it appears in exhibit A and exhibit B as well. So, does your motion include both of those just for the record?

It does. Thank you. And then of course um pending the continued discussion about the 4 million we would need to amend this in full counsel as well. Um any further discussion on the motion to amend hearing? None. All those in favor? I. And that motion passes and I will move to refer as amended favorably back to full counsel. Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor I. And that motion passes. And I think that is everything. Um I'm gonna Can I for the communications? Uh okay. Yeah, we'll leave them for now. We can always file them later. Okay. So with that, um I think there's no further business before committee of the whole. Without objection, we are adjourned.

Can you give us two minutes? Don't Don't be soft on them. Just call it right now. Uh quick uh recess here for folks who need it before anybody before we start um rules and ordinances committee.

I have an no obligation here. All right. I will I will call the uh February 23rd um meeting of the rules and ordinance committee to order. It is 7:36 p.m. All members are present as our chief assistant law director uh Swallow um as as well as uh um law director uh Vargo and uh finance director Mahoney as well. Um, I want to start by uh uh making a motion to approve the uh minutes from the last meeting of the rules and ordinance committee held November 3rd, 2025. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion hearing? None. That motion passes. Excuse me. All in favor?

I.

All right. Now, that motion passes. Uh the following three agenda items are related to an initiative in the law department to remove fees from several areas of the code and to instead organize them neatly into a new administrative document called the master fee schedule. It's my understanding this effort will benefit both city staff and residents by creating one go-to source for information on fees rather than the current practice of conducting research in the code to locate fees. essentially streamlining everything to make it more user friendly for all. Resolution 2025-71 creates the master fee schedule and ordinance 30-2025 amends the code by removing those same fees from the code. Uh at this time I will turn it over to the law department to say more about the proposed legislation.

Thank you. Um some of you are aware and others of you um will learn that last year um a resolution was adopted that took all of the fees from housing and building and created a master fee schedule. At that time we uh modified those ordinances to change those to be consistent with having a master fee schedule. Um, these two pieces of legislation are what I anticipate to be the second set of a total of three uh phases to this process. And um, resolution 202571, excuse me, takes all of the fees from the administrative code and the business code and move those into um, the master fee schedule. The accompanying ordinance 30-2025 then amends the relevant sections of the codified ordinances to modify those to be consistent with moving those fees into the fee schedule.

Thank you, Assistant Director Swallow. Um, should I actually read the communication from law director Vargo? Not necessary. Okay. Um, it's it's very well written. Just wanted to make sure where we stand on that. Thank you. It's already read into the full council record. Okay, Councilman. Thank you, though. Thank you. All right. In that case, I'm going to move to receive and file this communication from law director Vargo regarding the master fee schedule um that was received referred to the to the rules and ordinances committee on November 17th, 2025.

I it's been seconded. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor? I.

All right. And that has been received and filed. Move on to resolution 2025-71. a resolution to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least twothirds of the members of council or otherwise to take effect at the earliest period allowed by law to establish the master fee schedule by incorporating fees from part one title five administrative code and part seven business regulation code of the Lakewood codified ordinances and superseding all prior fees established that are included in this resolution that was referred to the rules and ordinances committee on November 17th of last year. Um any discussion regarding this resolution? Mr. Chair,

just one question for the uh law department. Um so you said this is two of three. So there'll be one more correct. Um so what are the uh what are the fees that aren't currently? So you said building housing and this is administrative and business. Public works, water, wastewater. Okay, great. Those fees have not yet and and do you have an idea of when that will be coming before us? It it should be pretty quickly. I've already met with public works and we've gone through the code and pulled out all of those fees. So, I have those organized. I just haven't drafted the legislation yet. All right. Great. I I'll have a question on one of those. So, thank you for that.

And I I also want to point out the only new the only fees that are being added to the master fee schedule begin on page seven of the resolution. The ones prior to that were established last year, but again, to keep it all in one place, they were restated in this ordinance. Resolution rather. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any any further discussion? Yes. Uh, Council Person Baker or C, excuse me, Council Vice President Baker.

Uh, here I'm just a non-committee member asking a question. Thank you, Chair. Um, so, so I I assume, but I wanted to get for the record. I didn't go through and double check all these, but the fees are staying the same um from the code or are we updating any of them?

Um, most of the fees are staying the same. If you go to page eight, there is a request to um increase the H2O camp fee. I believe the current fee is $75 and human res or human services has requested to increase that to $75 just to help keep up with the expenses of that program. There is a credit card processing fee that is proposed here that um would give the administration the ability to pass that on to a credit card user but not required. Uh when we were going through our conversation and reviewing these, we realized that we had been charging a property assessment search fee. So when a property title company calls the city and um double-checking to make sure that everything has been assessed to the tax duplicate, there's like a time lapse there. Um we've been charging $15 for that. We could not find where that had been um authorized in the past, so we wanted to add that in here. and sidewalk dining inspection is not currently being charged. There will be additional legislation forthcoming to set up a new process for approving a sidewalk dining. We have had multiple complaints over time where somebody goes through the process with planning commission and gets their approvals and then they don't follow through on the design. and um you know also making sure that it's ADA compliant and all of the things that we need to do. So that one would not be charged unless that other legislation were um were adopted. So those are the only changes here.

Uh thank you. Have another question. Absolutely. Is there any way to like um do we know generally what section of the code that sidewalk dining inspection fee is going to come from? I just probably in the um zoning code because I I just hate having a TBD in our code because technically this would go into the master fee schedule, right? Um so if we could even just indicate the section of the code that it would derive from that would be the I mean we we could amend that to just put 116103 but with the with the zoning refresh that might change forthcoming that may change as well. That's going to change everything though I think. Correct. Yeah. Uh absolutely.

Yeah. I just the the the weird law school journal note editor in me thinks that we should have a code section. But um thank you. That's all. Council person Steiner. Thank you. Uh thank you chair. Um so this question is uh directed um is is for director. Um going back on the credit card processing fees, can can you just clarify is that current are those fees currently being charged or they're not? They are not being charged. this will create the option to pass that along to the credit card user. So that because right now the city is absorbing those fees and it is a substantial amount of money.

Okay. And is that something that could potentially be waved for based on income? So it's not something that is um you know I mean it could be but the easiest way to do that would be to get a money order or write a check.

Yes. But I'm just thinking, you know, accessibility, ease of paying for services, things that you need, and just how much I know it's like 27. I just paid my electric bill line and it was an additional 275. What an additional 275 does break my bank, but for people paying that monthly, that that adds up. And so, um, I would just like to know that if if that's something that we are going to start doing, which I understand that those fees it it makes sense if we can recuperate some of that, but if we've been covering those costs, if we can continue to cover that for people of I don't know how we would do that again. That would open a can of worms. But would that option be available? Unfortunately, I I don't see us going in that direction. Um like uh like Jen said, we you know, we they have options. They could pay cash, they could pay with a check, and they would not be charged for those. Um in our new finance system that we're just starting to implement, uh we will be moving to that credit card processor and that will just be automatically paid. If someone uses their credit card, it will be part of the process. So there's there's no way for us to s, you know, separate that out.

Thank you, Council Person Steiner. Thank you, assistant director or excuse me, uh, director of finance Mahoney. Any further discussion? Mr. Chair, Council Person Bullet, also also drafting uh, in the wake of you guys on the committee. I just I think it's a good line of questioning that Councilwoman Siner brought up the anticipated credit card processor. Is there options to make other arrangements electronically like you link up your bank account to be able to pay without absolutely people can do that now. Um you know sign up for autopay that's free and and things like that.

So there are going to be some options. I think it's a valid point that wherever possible if we can be mindful of um our residents costs. Uh I also understand the other side of the coin which is that you know diligent essentially making sure the city's not subsidizing city banks credit card processing fees. So um but I I appreciate the progress and responsiveness of the finance department on that point. on help to others. Uh is that something that really should be in the law? Maybe uh youth camp should be less formally set. Uh um and and I guess that um gets to the point so that the the fee schedule is proposed to be in the law and therefore it's not changeable without further updates. So, but periodically the presumption would be we might do periodic updates of the fee schedule. Um, so you're you know the proposal is to to fix the the rate of that use that example help to others registration permanently at $100. There's no opportunity to vary that up or down without going to the ordinances.

Well, it it isn't. This is a resolution, so it's not going to be codified. Um, when I looked at that in the past, it's been done by resolution of council. Um, another option would be to, you know, change that $100 to as determined by the administration. Okay. Well, that I'm threatening to take up too much time in committee here, but you kind of see where I'm driving at. You know, I could see circumstances for sure with help to others where you might want to have some ability to to enroll some kids at a lesser expense. There's a process for that. There's camp scholarships that allow for that. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Person Bulock. Thank you, Assistant Director Swallow, and thank you, Finance Director Mahoney. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I move to recommend adoption of resolution 2025-71 to council. All in favor? I.

This motion passes. Uh, moving on to our final piece of legislation this evening, ordinance 30-225. This is an ordinance to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least twothirds of the members of council or otherwise to take effect and be enforced at the earliest period allowed by law amending various sections of part one administrative code and part seven business regulation code of the codified ordinances of the city of Lakewood to move all fees identified with within those provisions to the master fee schedule. We had a first read and referred to our um rules and ordinance committee on November 11th and a second reading on December 1st of last year. Um so um this has actually changed the the codified or ordinance. Um

correct. Any discussion hearing? None. I'll move to recommend um adoption of ordinance 30-225 to council. All in favor? I. That motion passes and without uh any further business before the committee uh this meeting is adjourned. Thank you and please drive safely. Thank you Rusty.