Staff and CBRE outline Jan. 27 presentations, public outreach for Boca Raton government campus master plan

City staff and consultant CBRE told the Boca Raton City Council at a Jan. 13 workshop that four timely proposals were received for the government campus master plan and that each proposer will be invited to present to the council on Jan. 27.

Staff (addressed in the meeting as Mr. Lukasik) said the council will receive objective comparative data well in advance of the presentations and that CBRE is preparing an apples-to-apples analysis to reconcile differences in how proposers report metrics such as acreage and square footage. One proposal that arrived after the deadline was rejected and the submitting firm was notified by phone and email, staff said.

CBRE described the Jan. 27 format as roughly one hour per proposer (about 30 minutes for a presentation and 30 minutes for Q&A). The stated presentation order is alphabetical: Boca Raton City Center (a joint venture of Terra and Frisbee), the Namdar group, Related Ross, and Roca Point. Staff said they are scheduling internal project-team meetings weekly to coordinate review and expect to post the comparative data on the project page before the presentations.

Staff also described other workstreams tied to the campus effort: assessing off-site office space for displaced departments, engaging an architectural firm to help plan space needs and initial designs for a police department headquarters, coordinating with the school district on master planning to relocate recreational facilities, and advancing historic‑building relocation planning with Public Works and Engineering.

To gather public input, staff said the Government Campus Master Plan site on the city website includes the four timely proposals, a Q&A/comment form that feeds to a staff inbox, links to presentation materials and a plan to publish frequently asked questions compiled from submissions. Council members asked CBRE to present a tabular, standardized comparison so council and the public can readily compare key metrics across proposers.

Residents at the workshop raised strong concerns. Brett Lawson said the project felt rushed, questioned whether a 400-room hotel and as many as 4,100 parking spaces were appropriate, and asked for clearer comparisons on green space. Daniel Vincent warned that the plan could generate "5,000 more cars" on local roads and asked where ball fields and tennis courts would be relocated. Jonathan Nungian asked the council to investigate whether city staff had possible conflicts tied to outside boards and private entities; he specifically raised the Economic Development Manager's ties to a local organization and said that appearance-of-conflict concerns merit review.

Mayor and council members repeatedly framed the current stage as exploratory: staff is collecting data and public input, proposals were unsolicited and no agreement has been reached, and the March 18 interim‑agreement date cited by staff is a target for a negotiation step rather than a final decision. Council members asked staff to expand the project page with a clearer timeline, public‑facing explanations of the interim‑agreement and P3 (public–private partnership) steps, and a more robust FAQ so residents understand the opportunities for input.

Next steps noted by staff: continuing weekly project‑team coordination with CBRE, posting CBRE's comparative analysis about a week before presentations, confirming the Jan. 27 start time (staff suggested moving the meeting into the morning to accommodate a lengthy day), and compiling public comments and Q&A into a published FAQ. The council is scheduled to rank proposers on Feb. 11 and staff has set March 18 as a working target to reach an interim agreement if negotiations proceed.