Several commissioners told staff on June 26 that permitting, contracting and consultant follow‑up have slowed DCU Center capital work and threatened summer construction windows.

Commissioner Jonathan (speaker identified in the meeting as raising the concern) said, "We're losing that when we don't get these things done and when we delay them," urging staff to escalate the issue. Staff acknowledged multiple causes, including competing municipal permit workloads across departments, consultant availability and recent staff vacations.

Staff said some contract steps are delayed because of the need to process amendments and clarify procurement paths (for example, whether a civil engineer scope requires a separate purchase process). Staff also noted legal review timelines and the need to coordinate multiple departmental signoffs for permits. In one example discussed at the meeting, a geotechnical amendment for the revolving door work had not yet been fully executed and was causing a scheduling delay.

Commissioners recommended a range of fixes: more direct lines of communication between the DCU Center operations team and consultants (Populous was specifically named), earlier meetings to constrain scope and cost, and elevating the concern to the city manager. Staff committed to begin that escalation and to speak with the appropriate department heads; staff said they would start by bringing the topic to Jim Dyer (city official named in the meeting) and the city manager’s office.

Staff also emphasized constraints tied to the DCU Center’s management agreement and procurement rules. They said the center’s contractual relationship with the operator (ASM Global) and the city’s procurement rules sometimes produce different procurement paths than those used for tenant build‑outs or other leased spaces; staff said these distinctions can increase processing time for some capital improvements.

Commissioners characterized the DCU Center as a commercial asset that needs faster turnaround because delayed projects reduce revenue-generating capacity and can increase costs. One commissioner urged the commission to consider an advocacy letter or formal request if internal escalation does not produce faster results.

No formal change to procurement policy was made at the meeting; staff committed to escalate, to work with procurement and legal to prioritize time-sensitive items and to report back to the commission.