Lakewood Committee of the Whole – City Hall Space Project Delivery Primer (January 16, 2026)

The Lakewood Committee of the Whole met on January 16, 2026, ahead of the full Council meeting, for an informational session on City Hall space considerations. Council unanimously approved the January 12, 2026 Committee of the Whole minutes, then heard a roughly 20-minute presentation from Carter Edmund of Cogence Alliance on public sector project delivery methods, followed by about 20 minutes of Council questions. No vote was taken on City Hall space options or on a delivery method. Note: the agenda public notice listed the meeting as Tuesday, January 20, 2026, but the provided meeting metadata identifies the date as January 16, 2026.

Consent Calendar

• Council approved the minutes of the January 12, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting without a reading, on a motion and second, by voice vote with no discussion.

Discussion Items

• City Hall space decision context: President Kepple said the amended schedule, referred from the January 5, 2026 COW, would guide upcoming in-depth discussions about the Administration’s proposed City Hall plan. Agenda background communications noted that Bond Counsel’s presentation was moved to January 26, 2026, with February 2, 2026 reserved for additional dialogue, and that the Finance Department requested the 2026 Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) legislation be adopted by February 17, 2026 because the City plans to go out for a bond rating this year.
• Background cost estimates: Agenda materials referenced high-level conceptual cost estimates previously presented by Weber Murphy Fox and Project Management Consultants: $21,425,071 for Option 1 (City Hall renovation with small addition and Annex renovation), $30,984,985 for Option 2 (City Hall renovation with large addition and Annex renovation), and $39,720,945 for Option 3 (Warren Road renovation and City Hall renovation). The materials also referenced the Administration’s expressed desire to use $1.5 million from the Land Acquisition Fund to purchase the Warren Road building and include $16.5 million in the 2026 BANS for its renovation, with additional amounts of $5 million in 2027 and $3 million in 2028 reflected in the budget book. These figures were not the focus of Mr. Edmund’s delivery-method primer.
• Project delivery presentation by Carter Edmund: Mr. Edmund, president of Cogence Alliance, a Lakewood resident, vice president of AIA Cleveland, and Cleveland’s city architect from 2017 to 2023, presented a general primer on structuring construction contracts. He emphasized that there is no single best delivery method; owners must weigh risk tolerance, owner capacity, scope, schedule, control, transparency, and project-specific constraints.
• Project team and risk: He defined the owner (O), contractor (C), trade contractors (TC), construction manager (CM), architect/design team (A), and landlord (LL), and described risk as unavoidable but manageable through communication, transparency, and contractual structure. He cited an FMI study that 48% of construction-related lawsuits stem from a lack of communication.
• Delivery methods covered:
  • Build-to-suit: A landlord or property holder hires the design/construction team; the end-user has no direct contract with the builder, limiting control. Suitable for tenants, leased space, or standardized projects.
  • Design-bid-build: The traditional public method; the owner hires an architect, completes the design, and bids the work, usually to the lowest qualified bidder. It offers one shot at a price and is best for straightforward new construction.
  • Construction Manager at Risk (CMR): A CM selected on qualifications joins early, holds trade contracts, and later provides a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). It enables design assist and collaboration and is appropriate for large, complex, or renovation-heavy projects.
  • Design-build: A single entity performs design and construction. Traditional design-build is fast but less transparent; bridging design-build uses a criteria architect to define scope and support the owner; progressive design-build uses a two-stage contract, starting with design services and later adding a GMP or lump-sum construction price; integrated design-build includes architects in-house.
  • Other roles/tools: He also discussed the owner’s representative/construction manager advisor role, design assist, criteria architect versus architect of record, and GMP versus lump-sum contracts.
• Council questions and examples: Councilmember Hamilton Steiner requested real-world examples. Mr. Edmund cited Cleveland Clinic work as CMR, and Sean McDermott of Cleveland Metro Parks said Metro Parks uses CMR for vertical projects and design-build for grant-funded projects where a fixed budget is the primary driver. Councilmember Bullock asked about measuring risk, landlord relationships, and how construction/design contracts relate to development agreements; the discussion covered contingency, liquidated damages, and contract privity.

Key Outcomes

• The January 12, 2026 COW minutes were unanimously approved.
• The session was informational only; no action was taken on City Hall space options or on selecting a project delivery method.
• Council will continue City Hall space discussions in the coming weeks, with follow-up questions to be collected for Mr. Edmund through the clerks. The amended schedule called for Administration and Bond Counsel presentations on January 26, additional discussion on February 2 and February 9, and BANS legislation readings on January 20, February 2, and February 17.