Full Document
1 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 23, 2026 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Present: Evans, Kepple, Baker, Bullock, Strebig, Hamilton Steiner, Bixenstine Also present: Mayor George, Planning Director Byington, Finance Director Mahoney, Law Director Vargo, Assistant Planning Director Bass, Chief of Staff Storey, members of the public and Council staff. Call to order: 6:00 pm Approval of the minutes of the February 9, 2026 Committee of the Whole. Motion by Councilmember Kepple, seconded by Councilmember Baker to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2026 Committee of the Whole without the necessity of a reading. All members voted in favor. Minutes approved. Communication from President Kepple regarding City Hall Space Due Diligence Update ( referred to COW 10/20/25) Communication from President Kepple regarding City Hall Space Considerations Amended Schedule ( referred to COW 01/05/26) Communication from Mayor George regarding presenting the Administration’ s case for relocating to downtown Lakewood: 1470 Warren Road. (referred to COW 1/5/26) President Kepple reviewed the agenda, stating that the main objective is to get the bond legislation out of Committee tonight so it can be considered for adoption at the next Regular Council Meeting on March 2nd. She said the Committee would begin by hearing the follow-up presentation prepared by Assistant Planning Director Baas regarding the City Hall facilities discussion, then reserve time at the second half of the meeting to discuss the bond legislation. Assistant Director Baas provided a recap of the analysis that was presented on February 9th, reviewing the priorities and options. He reiterated that it was determined that there were two viable options, referred to as Option 2 (Stay in current City Hall with a large front addition, retain Annex) and Option 3 (Relocate Administrative offices to former Board of Education building, divest Annex). He stressed that the Weber Murphy Fox study was a snapshot in time, and that any design effort will need space flexibility to determine the current and anticipated future needs of each department. He said in the assumption he provided the minimum space the administrative offices will need but that may flex up or down as part of the design process. He also shared that things like storage space and IT space were not included in the fit plans and that a decision has not been made on where the Council offices and Council Chambers would be located. He suggested that having more space is an advantage, and that Option 2 is limited in that regard. Docusign Envelope ID: 292958E1- 8EF2-824E-812A-5B559640B63F 2 Assistant Director Baas continued to compare and contrast the two options touching on the points of public access, parking, cost, and the timeline and complexity of construction. He said that both options will require temporary relocation for some departments and there are unique factors to consider for each. Ultimately, he reaffirmed his stance that Option 3 met more of the criteria he considered than Option 2 and offered his subjective belief that Option 3 presents a unique opportunity to shift to the best choice for the City. In response to a question from Councilmember Strebig regarding the administrative square footage, Assistant Director Baas explained that some of the discrepancies in the calculation of administrative square footage is due to the use of different consultants as well as the fact that it has yet to be decided if Council Chambers will be relocated. In response to questions from Councilmembers, there was a discussion around the topic of parking and accessibility. Councilmembers expressed concerns with relying on offsite parking at the proposed downtown location. Assistant Director Baas said that while downtown presents unique challenges with parking, there are ultimately more municipal spots within a walking radius than at the current campus. Councilmember Bullock raised questions about the need to divest the Annex and whether the goal of consolidating public facing services was realistically achieved with Option 3 or even justified given the higher investment. Assistant Planning Director Baas responded that he did his best to provide an objective analysis. Chief of Staff Storey added that one of the central premises of this proposal has always been to transform downtown into a central hub of activity and he said they are confident they can negotiate sufficient parking spaces. Vice President Baker said that he sees the vision of activating downtown, but we are still weighing options and determining budgetary capacity. He said he is struggling to justify the need for an extra 17,000 square feet of office space in today’ s work environment, to which Assistant Director Baas asserted that the extra square footage would likely not be that high if the City were to go through a formal design process. Vice President Baker also said he doesn’ t feel like he has information to determine if expanding the current campus is a viable option. President Kepple said that she is thinking about this topic holistically and she still has outstanding questions about how the renovation would proceed at the current campus if the City was to move forward with Option 3. Communication from Finance Director Mahoney regarding 2026 Capital Improvement and Bond Legislation. ( referred to COW 1/20/26) ORDINANCE 33-2025B, ORDINANCE 06-2026, ORDINANCE 07-2026, ORDINANCE 08-2026, ORDINANCE 09-2026, ORDINANCE 10-2026, ORDINANCE 11-2026, ORDINANCE 12-2026, ORDINANCE 13-2026, ORDINANCE 14-2026, President Kepple moved the discussion to the topic of the bond legislation. She established that the proposed bond legislation calls for $16.5 million for City Hall facilities. Planning Director Byington added that roughly $ 1.5 million of that would go towards design work of the current Docusign Envelope ID: 292958E1- 8EF2-824E-812A-5B559640B63F 3 City Hall Building. President Kepple suggested they could also transfer $ 1.5 million from the land acquisition fund instead of using bonds to fund the design phase. In response to a question from President Kepple, Finance Director Mahoney and Planning Director Byington replied that the recommendation is to sign a design- build contract for the Warren Rd building and the bound counsel said they would need funding for the whole project before they could sign the contract. In response to a question from Vice President Baker, Chief of Staff Storey confirmed that the intention is to acquire the building and then rely on the existing RFQ for a design- build contract. Mayor George suggested that Council agrees with the administration that some degree of renovation needs to happen at the current City Hall campus and if the proposed bonds are not approved, they will have to wait until next year to take action. President Kepple reiterated her commitment to optimize the current campus for the Police Department and all employees. However, she said she is not sure now is the correct time to take out the proposed $ 16.5 million and suggested maybe they could take out just enough to cover design work for the current campus. There was further discussion amongst Councilmembers and the administration about financing the design of the current campus and whether that should be done through bond financing. President Kepple suggested the conversation is getting conflated since there is one ordinance, but Council is wrestling with two decision points. She said if Council is not willing to consider the purchase of the Warren Rd building at all then they only need to allocate design money to address the problems at the current City Hall building. She said if the issue is that Council still wants to consider the Warren Rd building but is not ready to allocate the $16.5 million at this time, then they could come back to bond at a later time. Vice President Baker asserted that he is willing to allocate money to the administration for design work for the current campus. There was a discussion between him and Mayor George about whether the City would still be able to enter into a design- build contract if the full funding request was not allocated. Director Mahoney said that if Council is not considering the purchase of the Warren Rd building then the administration will need more than $1.5 million to begin to address the issues with the Police Department and the Annex building. She also spoke about the logistical challenges that will arise if they begin construction on the Police Department without the purchase of the Warren Rd building. She said that Planning Director Byington put together a general estimate of $4 million to start the renovations and the design of the Police Department, without moving forward on the Warren Rd building. In response to a question from President Kepple, Planning Director Byington provided more details on what the $4 million design budget would include. There was further discussion between Council and the administration on how to proceed, recognizing that Council is not ready to eliminate the Warren Rd option but also not ready to move forward with that option. Docusign Envelope ID: 292958E1- 8EF2-824E-812A-5B559640B63F 4 In response to a question from Vice President Baker, Planning Director Byington went over the timeline and estimate of what it would entail to address the concerns of the women’ s locker room at the Police Department, explaining that, all in, for both construction and design they are estimating a budget of $4 million. Vice President Baker said that whatever is recommended tonight still needs to be approved at the next full Council meeting so that would give them more time to think through everything. He said with that in mind, he is comfortable with appropriating the $4 million to address the women’ s locker rooms. President Kepple said it would be helpful to get a sense as to whether or not Council is considering the Warren Rd building at all, or if they want to go all in on another option. Mayor George stated for the record she believes there is too much risk and too many unknowns to build an addition on to the current City Hall and that is not an option that she will pursue. She said from her perspective the options are to purchase the Warren Rd building or make do with the current City Hall. Councilmember Bullock suggested that the Committee report out tonight a version of the ordinance without the $16.5 million and invite the administration to make an amendment on the floor next week with the $4 million included. He said that would give Council time to review the details before the next regular meeting. President Kepple said that she believes that City staff deserve a quality workspace and she would support additional renovations to the building depending on the budget. President Kepple made a motion to substitute Ordinance 07-2026 with the version that removes the $16.5 million, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Substitute Ordinance 07-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 06-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 08-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 09-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 10-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 11-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. Docusign Envelope ID: 292958E1- 8EF2-824E-812A-5B559640B63F 5 President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 12-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. Discussion: In response to a question from Vice President Baker, Finance Director Mahoney confirmed that this ordinance has to do with refunding from last year and nothing to do with future city hall facility updates. On the motion: All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 13-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to recommend Ordinance 14-2026 favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. President Kepple made a motion to amend the “ whereas” clauses of Ordinance 33-2025B to match the language of 33-2025A, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. Discussion: Council discussed how they would need to further amend the ordinance to align with Substitute Ordinance 07-2026. President Kepple made a motion to subtract $ 16.5 million from the Capital Improvement Fund in Ordinance 33-2025B, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. Discussion: President Kepple confirmed her amendment was to include Exhibit A and Exhibit B. She added that this Ordinance might need to be amended on the floor pending the continued discussion of Ordinance 07-2025. President Kepple made a motion to refer Ordinance 33-2025B as amended favorably back to full Council, seconded by Vice President Baker. All members voted in favor. Motion passed. Committee of the Whole adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Approved: 3/16/26 Sarah Kepple, Chair Committee of the Whole Maureen M. Bach, Clerk of Council Docusign Envelope ID: 292958E1- 8EF2-824E-812A-5B559640B63F City of Lakewood City Hall Analysis of Alternatives Department of Planning and Development David Baas Assistant Director Updated ( 23 Feb 26) Agenda Review) Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Review) Limitations and Assumptions Review) Alternatives Analysis of Alternatives ( vs. Priorities) Note: This is intended to be a summary/ high- level analysis. Estimates contained within are derived from the space study, existing fit plans/ proposals, and other references ( when cited). Space requirements are for functional space” – which does not include hallways or restrooms. Review) Priorities and Evaluation Criteria Priority 1: Provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Women’s Locker Room Relocate/ improve Dispatch space Increase/improve Training, Office/Public Reporting space(s) Increase capacity of Men’s Locker Room Expanded Lobby and additional Magistrate/Hearing Room space (Court) Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative space. Departmental location( s) and functional space available ( now/ future). Points of (and accessibility, design for) public service access. Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost (estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Limitations ( Constraints/ Restraints) C) Provide sufficient space for Police and Court. C) Renovate current City Hall building and any new location. R) Interrupt ( even temporary) public service delivery. R) Exceed available funding. Key Assumptions Police, Court, and IT (main) remain in current location. Council Offices and Auditorium are in the same building. Council Offices must move ( current building or to new building) to allow for Court/ lobby expansion. Public Works Service Elements – ( Streets, Public Property, Fleet, etc.) remain in same building. Minimum ( Functional) Space Requirements ( NEXT SLIDE): Police: 30, 000ft2 Court: 6,650ft2 (DOES NOT INCLUDE LOBBY SPACE) Administration: 19, 600ft2 (DOES NOT INCLUDE COUNCIL OFFICE/ AUDITORIUM) Review) Limitations and Assumptions Updated ( 20 Feb 26) Assumption - Minimum ( Functional) Space Requirements: Police Department. International Association of Chiefs of Police ( IACP) guidelines and CALEA ( Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies) standards focus on functional requirements, safety, and operational efficiency. Standard industry planning, often used to meet CALEA' s requirement for adequate, safe facilities, generally suggest: General Administration: 150– 250 square feet per person. Officers: 300–500+ square feet per sworn officer. LPD (~ 126 total personnel) – within main building: 20 General Administration ( @150ft2) = 3,000 ft2 106 Sworn Officers ( @300ft2) = 31, 800 ft2 Based on space study…for planning purposes – establish a minimum goal of 30,000ft2 Court Space study informs options to increase laydown from ~ 6,300 ( current) to a minimum goal of ~ 6,650 ft2 Expand lobby/ seating area ( not included in space goal) requires relocation of Council office. Administration Space study provides options that shift laydown from ~ 20,100 ft2 ( current) to between ~ 18,300 and 21,100 ft2 For planning purposes – establish a minimum goal of 19,600ft2 Review) Limitations and Assumptions Alternatives: Status Quo Option 1 ( Stay in Place w/Small Side Addition (~ 1,000ft2 footprint), retain Annex) Option 2 (Stay in Place w/Large Front Addition (~5,400ft2 footprint), retain Annex) Option 3 (Relocate Admin, divest Annex) Warren Road ( BOE Building) Belle Ave (CHC) Not Developed Option 2a (Stay in Place w/Larger Front Addition, divest Annex) Review) Alternatives Priority 1: Provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Police: Minimum goal of 30,000 ft2 Court: Minimum goal of 6,650 ft2 Expand lobby/ seating area ( not included in space goal) requires relocation of Council office. Analysis ( Priority 1): Status Quo and Option 1 do not provide sufficient space for Police/ Court Alternatives vs. Priority 1 St. Quo Option 1 Option 2 CH ( BSE + 3D) ANNEX CH ( BSE + 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + WR CH ( 2D) + CHC Police CH 15, 742 18, 172 31, 860 CH 30, 625 30, 625 Courts CH 6, 364 6, 437 6, 664 CH 6, 664 6, 664 Administrative Departments 20, 173 21, 158 19, 487 18, 308 18, 308 CH 16,626 17,611 15,940 1,836 1,836 ANNEX 3,547 3,547 3,547 NEW BUILDING 16,472 16,472 TOTAL 42,279 45,767 58,011 55,597 55,597 Footprint ( Estimate) SAME Building NEW Building Option 3 20 173 21 158 St. Quo Option 1 CH ( BSE + 3D) ANNEX CH ( BSE + 2D) + ANNEX 15, 742 18, 172 6, 364 6, 437 Option 2 CH ( 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + WR CH ( 2D) + CHC 31, 860 CH 30, 625 30, 625 6, 664 CH 6, 664 6, 664 19 487 18 308 18 308 gNEWBuildingNEW Building Option 3 Alternatives vs. Priority 2 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative space. Departmental location(s) and functional space available (now/future). Points of (and accessibility, design for) public service access. Parking (Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost (estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision St. Quo Option 2 CH ( BSE + 3D) ANNEX CH ( 2D) + ANNEX CH ( 2D) + WR CH ( 2D) + CHC Police 15, 742 CH 31, 860 CH 30, 625 30, 625 Courts 6, 364 CH 6, 664 CH 6, 664 6, 664 Administrative Departments 20, 173 19, 487 18, 308 18, 308 CH 16, 626 15, 940 1, 836 1, 836 ANNEX 3, 547 3, 547 NEW BUILDING 16, 472 16, 472 TOTAL 42, 279 58, 011 55, 597 55, 597 Points of Public Service 2 211 Dept. Meeting Spaces 5 47UNK Common Meeting Spaces 1 22UNK Restrooms ( M- F- GN) 3-3- 1 2- 2-1 2- 2-2 2- 2-0 NEW BUILDING SPACE 3, 547 0 33, 647 17, 202 FLEX/ FUTURE GROWTH 0 0 17, 175 730 Footprint ( Estimate) SAME Building NEW Building Option 3 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available now/ future). Points of (and accessibility, design for) public service access. Option 2 Administrative space just under goal (19,600ft2) with low potential for growth/adaptation without taking away from Police. Retains annex ( 2 points of service). Continued access through shared lobby with Court. Less Dept. meeting spaces; Restrooms split between CH & Annex. Council Office/ Auditorium (co-located; 2d Floor). Option 3 Current fit plan falls under goal but can be adjusted to meet goal and allow for growth & future adaptation at one location (BOE). Allows divestment of annex; consolidates to a single point of service. Accessible through new lobby w/ focused reception. More common/ meeting spaces. Multiple restrooms in same building. Council Office/ Auditorium could stay in place or relocate to new building Only BOE, not CHC). Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Alternatives vs. Priority 2 Spaces On- Site 271 38 23 Employee Spaces ( Marked) 67 TBD TBD Visitor Spaces ( Marked) 22 22 22 Police Spaces ( Marked) 49 00 Open Spaces 133 16 1 Municipal ( w/ in 500') 050269 Municipal ( w/ in 1000') 0 103 97 Total Spaces ( Area) 271 191 389 Police Vehicles 60 0 0 Public Works Vehicles 25 0 0 Open Spaces ( Estimated) 186 191 389 Administrative Employees ~ 74 69 69 PW/ Service ( Shift)~ 35 0 0 Police ( Admin + Shift)~ 55 0 0 Council ~ 2 TBD TBD Court ~ 34 0 0 Total Daily Employees ~ 200 69 69 Avg. Daily Visitors ( Admin) 33 33 33 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available now/ future). Points of (and design for) public service access. Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Option 2 Marked visitor spots split (CH and Annex), shared with Court. Significant on- site parking – but also experiences high demand across all organizations. Option 3 Can provide same number of marked visitor spaces (not shared). Relocates 69 employees away from high demand CH site to central location with multiple municipal/ shared parking options. TBD: If Council Office/Auditorium relocates to new building. Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Alternatives vs. Priority 2 B C A Estimated Delivery Time 24 Months Design 8 Months Same Same Build 16 Months Less Less Option 2 Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available now/ future). Points of (and design for) public service access. Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Option 2 24-month delivery time for significant addition. Complexity: Higher potential for variables ( new construction). Complexity: priorities may require temporary location shift (Admin) Sustainability/ Vision: New construction ( addition) Option 3 Concurrent renovation to existing building( s) – estimated less time. Complexity: priorities may require temporary location shift ( Admin) Sustainability/ Vision: Adaptive Reuse of historic structure, centralize location of administrative services. Alternatives vs. Priority 2 ( Summary) Analysis of Alternatives Priority/ Option Status Status Quo Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3 BOE) Option 3 Option 3 CHC) Priority 1: Provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Police: Minimum goal of 30, 000 ft2 XX~ 31, 860 ft2 ~ 30,625 to 35, 116 ft2*~ 30, 625 ft2 Court: Minimum goal of 6, 650 ft2 + Expanded Lobby XX ~ 6, 664 ft2 + Expanded Lobby Priority 2: ( While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available ( now/ future). No space for growth/ flex Space for growth/ flex X Points of ( and accessibility, design for) public service access. Retains Annex Consolidation Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Demand vs. Capacity Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Complexity with achieving priorities via location shifts, renovation effort( s) Sustainability, Community Vision New Construction Adaptive Reuse, Central location if Council/ Auditorium relocates to new building Analysis of Alternatives: Option 2 vs. Option 3 (BOE) Priority/ Option Option 2 Option 3 Option 3 BOE) Priority 1: Provide Police & Court an increase of renovated space to meet contemporary needs. Police: Minimum goal of 30, 000 ft2 ~ 31,860 ft2 ~ 30,625 to 35, 116 ft2* if Council/ Auditorium relocates to new building Court: Minimum goal of 6, 650 ft2 + Expanded Lobby ~ 6, 664 ft2 + Expanded Lobby Priority 2: ( While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative Departments. Departmental location( s) and functional space available ( now/ future). No space for growth/ flex Space for growth/ flex Option 3 allows more design flexibility with future adaptation; Option 2 allows design flexibility/ adaptation only via larger addition (“ 2a”) Points of ( and accessibility, design for) public service access. Retains Annex Consolidation Option 3 consolidates administrative functions in one building; Option 2 does only via “2a” at increased cost/ time and loss of parking (annex). Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Demand vs. Capacity Option 3 accommodates parking demand across two locations; Option 2 does not, could make worse if Annex is divested (“ 2a”) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Complexity with achieving priorities via location shifts, renovation effort( s) Both require temporary location to ensure continuity of service( s) Option 3 likely require less time; Option 2 more complex/ additional time. Sustainability, Community Vision New Construction, retains location Adaptive Reuse, central location Option 3 renovation (~$ 150- 167/ ft2), locate @ equal distance to all residents; Option 2 new construction (~$ 495/ ft2), same location (~ 1+ mile from center) Updated ( 23 Feb 26) Option/ Timeframe ( Months) 2026 2027 2028 MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND Option 2 City Hall 12345678* 12345678910111213141516 Temp. Location Option 3 BOE) City Hall 12345678 123456789 Tem. Location BOE Building WMF timeframe estimate does not account for Board/Commission review of exterior addition ( Option 2 only) Design Construction Temporary Location TransitionTIMELINE LEGEND: Scope of Cost: Option 2/2a vs. Option 3 (BOE) Option/ Estimate Est. Cost Range Option 2/ 2a City Hall ( Option 2/WMF) – 5,400ft 2 ~$ 25. 5M 25.5 – 30.9M City Hall (Option 2/PMC) – 5,400ft 2 ~$ 30.9M City Hall ( Option 2a) – ~ 10, 120ft 2**+ ~$ 7M^^~$ 31. 7 – 37. 1M Option 3 BOE) City Hall (PMC)~$ 15.5M 39.7M BOE Building ( PMC)~$ 24. 1M BOE Building ( Liberty)~$ 16.5M ~$ 32M Option 2a estimate based on loss of annex renovation cost ($ 790K) and shifting space (~ 4, 720ft2) to CH/ third floor Option 2a results in an increase of 14, 160ft2 @ ~$ 495 per ft2Updated ( 20 Feb 26) Priority 2: (While achieving Priority 1) Consolidate/ improve functionality of Administrative space. Departmental location( s) and functional space available ( now/ future). Points of (and accessibility, design for) public service access. Parking ( Employees, Visitors) Delivery timeframe, complexity, and cost ( estimated) Sustainability, Community Vision Option 3 provides more criteria advantages, can be executed in a shorter timeframe, at roughly the same scope of cost than Option 2 or 2a. Analysis of Alternatives: Option 2 vs. Option 3 (BOE) Updated ( 20 Feb 26) City of Lakewood City Hall Analysis of Alternatives Department of Planning and Development David Baas Assistant Director Updated ( 20 Feb 26)