Boca Raton staff and CBRE set Jan. 27 proposer presentations for government campus master plan; residents raise traffic, open‑space and process concerns

Boca Raton city staff and CBRE told the City Council at a Jan. 13 workshop that four timely proposals were received for the city’s government campus master plan and that the four proposers will make formal presentations to the council on Jan. 27.

The presentations will be one hour per proposer — about 30 minutes for a presentation and 30 minutes for questions — and comparative data and staff analyses will be provided to council in advance, staff said. City staff and CBRE said a single late submittal was rejected.

Why it matters: the government campus site is central to downtown planning discussions and could change the location or footprint of City Hall, police facilities, recreational fields and other public uses. Council will consider an interim agreement with a selected proposer in March, a step staff described as a goal date but not a final approval.

Staff update, schedule and materials

City staff member Michael Lukasik (city staff, project lead) said the city received four timely proposals and rejected one late submittal. “We received 4 submittals in response to the offering memorandum by the deadline,” Lukasik said. “We did have 1 submittal that came in after the deadline. That submittal has been rejected.” He said council would receive objective comparative data from CBRE and staff around Jan. 20–21 and that proposers will be notified and scheduled to present on Jan. 27.

Lukasik and City Manager Michael Brown (city manager) described steps staff is taking: regular Tuesday project-team meetings with CBRE and roughly 10 staff members; work on off-site lease options for displaced staff; a separate space-needs and initial design contract for a police headquarters to appear on the council agenda the following day; planning for relocation of historic buildings; and hiring a consultant to draft or revise regulatory code provisions to guide development on the campus and potentially in downtown.

Staff also said a project website is live and includes the four timely proposals, proposer documents, a question-and-answer form and a timeline listing major milestones. Lukasik said staff will compile questions submitted through the site and publish a frequently asked questions page.

Public comments and resident concerns

Several residents used the public‑comment period to press the council for more detail and to urge caution. Resident Brett Lisonbee said he opposed the scale and pace of the project and raised traffic and open‑space concerns. “I’m totally against this,” Lisonbee said. “Traffic is bad enough as it is.”

Resident Daniel Vincent asked about the fate of ball fields and recreation space and questioned the need for additional hotel and residential units. Several speakers told the council they had learned about the proposals only recently and asked for clearer ways to submit feedback; staff said the website form routes comments to a dedicated inbox.

Conflict and process concerns

Resident Jonathan Nungian raised procedural concerns unrelated to the campus proposals but linked to city permitting and enforcement practices, and he urged transparency around who is presented at special‑magistrate hearings (see separate item). Nungian also urged the council to examine staff and consultant relationships, saying a city economic development manager’s membership on a separate development organization’s board created an appearance issue; the council did not take action on that request during the meeting.

Council members asked staff for clearer, tabular comparisons of key metrics in the proposals — for example, square footage and acreage standardized in a single table — and for CBRE to flag any proposal assumptions that looked out of market or inconsistent across submittals. Council members also urged staff to publish more explanatory material on the website that would define terms such as “interim agreement” and describe the next steps after the March target date.

Next steps and timeline

Staff said the comparative data from CBRE and staff will be available roughly Jan. 20–21; proposers will present to council Jan. 27; council will rank proposers Feb. 11; and staff is targeting March 18 for an interim agreement with a selected proposer. Staff emphasized the interim agreement is an early, negotiable step, not final project approval.

Staff also said they are reviewing relocation options for on‑site recreational facilities, coordinating with the school district on master planning, and working with public‑works consultants on historic‑building relocations and code changes. Lukasik said staff expects to begin regular coordination meetings and continue public outreach, including an open‑house phase the proposers will conduct if selected.

What council said

Mayor (unnamed) summarized council’s position in response to public concerns: “Just because someone has submitted something doesn’t mean we’ve even agreed to it or we’re going to consider it,” the mayor said, adding that the proposals were unsolicited responses to an earlier city request for ideas and that the process will allow months of review and public input.

Ending

Council and staff reiterated that the project remains in an early stage, that presentations and data will be forthcoming in late January, and that public input will be gathered through the project website and at public meetings. Council members encouraged residents to use the site’s feedback form and to attend upcoming meetings and open houses.